The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0005363_App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016_20160201Corrective Action Plan Part 2 February 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant APPENDIX E RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT SynTerra P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan \ 20.EG_CAP \ CAP Part 2\ Weatherspoon CAP Part 2 February 2016.docx tip syn,T(erra BASELINE HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT For W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant 491 Power Plant Road Lumberton, North Carolina 28358 NPDES Permit #NC0005363 N 34.590664 / W -78.970187 JANUARY 2016 PREPARED FOR Duke Energy Progress, Inc. 410 S. Wilmington Street/NC14 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 DUKE ENERGY ROGAESS G —o 4 M.'Fruddleston III, PhD Heather Smith Senior Scientist Environmental Scientist / / Taylor, NC PG 1089 7ior Project Manager Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Regulatory Context...................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Report Organization.................................................................................................1-2 2.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODELS.................................................................................2-1 2.1 Site Description......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Current and Future Land Uses............................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Human Heath Conceptual Site Model................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1 Receiving Media....................................................................................................2-3 2.3.2 Exposure Setting and Receptors......................................................................... 2-4 2.3.3 Exposure Routes.................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.4 Potential Exposure Pathways..............................................................................2-6 2.3.4.1 Outdoor Air...................................................................................................2-6 2.3.4.2 Groundwater.................................................................................................2-6 2.3.4.3 Sediment, Surface Water, and Fish Tissue................................................2-7 2.3.4.4 Seeps and Seep Soil...................................................................................... 2-9 2.3.4.5 Post -Excavation Soil..................................................................................... 2-9 2.4 Ecological Conceptual Site Model........................................................................ 2-10 2.4.1 Sources and Release Mechanisms..................................................................... 2-10 2.4.2 Potential Exposure Pathways via Receiving Media ....................................... 2-11 2.4.3 Potential Receptors............................................................................................. 2-12 2.4.4 Potential Exposure Routes.................................................................................2-14 2.4.5 Potential Exposure Pathways............................................................................2-14 2.4.5.1 Surface Water, Sediment, and Fish.......................................................... 2-16 2.4.5.2 Seeps............................................................................................................. 2-17 2.4.5.3 Post -Excavation Soil................................................................................... 2-17 3.0 DATA EVALUATION................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Data Sources.............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Sample Collection Methods..................................................................................... 3-4 3.3 Site Data Used in Risk Assessments....................................................................... 3-5 Page i P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 3.3.1 On -Site Sediment...................................................................................................3-5 3.3.2 On -Site Surface Water.......................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.3 On -Site Seep Water............................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.4 On -Site Seep Soil................................................................................................... 3-6 3.3.5 On -Site Groundwater........................................................................................... 3-6 3.3.6 On -Site Soil (Post Excavation)............................................................................. 3-6 3.3.7 Off -Site Sediment.................................................................................................. 3-6 3.3.8 Off -Site Surface Water..........................................................................................3-6 3.4 Background Data Used In Risk Assessments....................................................... 3-6 3.4.1 Data Sets................................................................................................................. 3-6 3.4.2 Background Threshold Values............................................................................3-7 3.5 Data Summarization.................................................................................................3-7 4.0 RISK-BASED SCREENING........................................................................................4-1 4.1 Purpose and Methodology...................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Human Health Screening Levels............................................................................ 4-1 4.2.1 Groundwater......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Surface Water and Seep Water............................................................................4-2 4.2.3 Sediment and Seep Soils...................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.4 Post -Excavation Soil............................................................................................. 4-4 4.2.5 Fish Tissue.............................................................................................................. 4-5 4.3 Ecological Screening Levels.....................................................................................4-5 4.3.1 Surface/Seep Water...............................................................................................4-6 4.3.2 Sediment.................................................................................................................4-6 4.3.3 Seep Soil.................................................................................................................. 4-7 4.4 Results of Screening for Constituents of Potential Concern ............................... 4-7 4.4.1 Human Health Screening Results.......................................................................4-9 4.4.1.1 Surficial Aquifer............................................................................................4-9 4.4.1.2 Pee Dee Aquifer............................................................................................ 4-9 4.4.1.3 Lower Yorktown Aquifer............................................................................ 4-9 4.4.1.4 Surface Water................................................................................................ 4-9 Page ii P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 4.4.1.5 Seep Water...................................................................................................4-10 Current/Future On -Site Trespasser.................................................................... 5-3 4.4.1.6 Seep Soil.......................................................................................................4-10 Current/Future On -Site Commercial/Industrial Worker ................................ 4.4.1.7 Sediment...................................................................................................... 4-10 4.4.2 Ecological Screening........................................................................................... 4-10 4.4.2.1 Surface Water.............................................................................................. 4-10 4.4.2.2 Seep Water...................................................................................................4-10 5.2.5 4.4.2.3 Sediment...................................................................................................... 4-11 4.4.2.4 Seep Soil.......................................................................................................4-11 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Wader....................................................5-5 5.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONS (RBCS)......................5-1 5.2.7 5.1 Identification of Exposure Scenarios......................................................................5-1 5-6 5.2 Exposure Scenarios................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.1 Current/Future On -Site Trespasser.................................................................... 5-3 5.2.2 Current/Future On -Site Commercial/Industrial Worker ................................ 5-3 5.2.3 Current/Future On -Site Construction Worker..................................................5-4 5.2.4 Current/Future Off -Site Resident....................................................................... 5-5 5.2.5 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Swimmer ............................................... 5-5 5.2.6 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Wader....................................................5-5 5.2.7 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Boater .................................................... 5-6 5.2.8 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational and Subsistence Fisher ........................ 5-6 5.3 Exposure Point Concentrations............................................................................... 5-8 5.4 Risk Calculation Approach...................................................................................... 5-9 5.5 Risk Calculations Using RBCs............................................................................... 5-10 5.6 Human Health Risk Assessment Results............................................................ 5-11 5.6.1 Current/Future On -Site Trespasser.................................................................. 5-11 5.6.2 Current/Future On -Site Commercial/Industrial Worker .............................. 5-12 5.6.3 Current/Future On -Site Construction Worker ................................................ 5-13 5.6.4 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Swimmer ............................................. 5-14 5.6.5 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Wader..................................................5-15 5.6.6 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Boater .................................................. 5-15 5.6.7 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational and Subsistence Fisher ...................... 5-16 Page iii P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 5.7 Uncertainty Evaluation.......................................................................................... 5-19 6.0 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (BERA)................................... 6-1 6.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Problem Formulation............................................................................................... 6-1 6.2.1 Refinement of Constituents of Potential Concern ............................................ 6-2 6.2.2 Assessment and Measurement Endpoints........................................................ 6-4 6.2.3 Selection of Ecological Receptors of Interest ..................................................... 6-5 6.3 Analysis Phase........................................................................................................... 6-7 6.3.1 Estimation of Exposure........................................................................................ 6-7 6.3.2 Effects Assessment.............................................................................................. 6-12 6.4 Risk Characterization............................................................................................. 6-13 6.5 BERA Results........................................................................................................... 6-14 6.6 Uncertainty Analysis.............................................................................................. 6-16 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment............................................................................ 7-1 7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment..................................................................................... 7-3 8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 8-5 Page iv P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Site Location Map Figure 2-2 Human Health Risk Assessment Conceptual Site Model Figure 2-3 Exposure Areas - Human Health Risk Assessment Figure 2-4 Ecological Risk Assessment Conceptual Site Model Figure 2-5 Exposure Areas - Ecological Risk Assessment LIST OF TABLES Table 4-1 Human Health Screening - Surficial Aquifer Table 4-2 Human Health Screening - Pee Dee Aquifer Table 4-3 Human Health Screening - Lower Yorktown Aquifer Table 4-4 Human Health Screening - Surface Water - Jacob Creek Table 4-5 Human Health Screening - Surface Water - Lumber River Table 4-6 Human Health Screening - Seep Water - Ash Basin Table 4-7 Human Health Screening - Seep Soil - Ash Basin Table 4-8 Human Health Screening - Sediment - Jacob Creek Table 4-9 Ecological Screening - Surface Water - Jacob Creek Table 4-10 Ecological Screening - Seep Water - Ash Basin Table 4-11 Ecological Screening - Seep Water - Railroad Ditch Table 4-12 Ecological Screening - Sediment - Jacob Creek Table 4-13 Ecological Screening - Seep Soil - Ash Basin Table 4-14 Ecological Screening - Seep Soil - Railroad Ditch Table 5-1 Summary of Seep Soil EPC/RSC Comparison - On -Site Trespasser - Adolescent (Age 6-<16) Table 5-2 Summary of Sediment EPC/RBC Comparison - On -Site Trespasser - Adolescent (Age 6-<16) Table 5-3 Summary of Surface Water And Seep Water EPC/RBC Comparison - On - Site Trespasser - Adolescent (Age 6-<16) Table 5-4 Summary of Seep Soil EPC/RBC Comparison - Commercial/Industrial - Commercial Worker (Adult) Table 5-5 Summary of Sediment EPC/RBC Comparison - Commercial/Industrial - Commercial Worker (Adult) Table 5-6 Summary of Surface Water And Seep Water EPC/RBC Comparison - Commercial/Industrial - Commercial Worker (Adult) Page v P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra LIST OF TABLES Table 5-7 Summary of Seep Soil EPC/RBC Comparison - Construction - Construction Worker (Adult) Table 5-8 Summary of Groundwater EPC/RBC Comparison - Construction - Construction Worker (Adult) Table 5-9 Summary of Surface Water EPC/RBC Comparison - Off -Site Recreational Swimmer - Child, Adolescent, And Adult Table 5-10 Summary of Surface Water EPC/RBC Comparison - Off -Site Recreational Wader - Child, Adolescent, And Adult Table 5-11 Summary of Surface Water EPC/RBC Comparison - Off -Site Recreational Boater - Recreational Boater (Adult) Table 5-12 Summary of Surface Water EPC/RBC Comparison - Off -Site Recreational Fisher - Recreational Fisher (Adult) Table 5-13 Summary of Fish Tissue EPC/RBC Comparison - Off -Site Fisher - Recreational Table 5-14 Summary of Fish Tissue EPC/RBC Comparison - Off -Site Fisher - Subsistence Table 6-1 TRVs For Terrestrial Receptors Table 6-2 TRVs For Aquatic Receptors Table 6-3 Hazard Quotients For COPCs In Ash Basin Soil And Seeps Table 6-4 Hazard Quotients For COPCs In Jacob Creek Table 6-5 Hazard Quotients For COPCs In Railroad Ditch LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Risk Assessment Data Sets Attachment B Background Threshold Values Attachment C Human Health and Ecological Constituent Screening Criteria Attachment D Human Health RBC Derivation Attachment E Exposure Point Concentration Calculations Attachment F Ecological Risk Assessment Calculations Page vi P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra LIST OF ACRONYMS ACS American Cancer Society ADD average daily dose ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry AUF area use factor AWQC USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria BCF bioconcentration factor BERA baseline ecological risk assessment CALEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CAMA North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act CAP Corrective Action Plan CAS Chemical Abstract Service COPC constituent of potential concern CSA Comprehensive Site Assessment CSF cancer slope factor CSM conceptual site model CT Central tendency Duke Energy Duke Energy Progress, LLC Eco-SSLs USEPA Ecological Soil Screening Levels EDD electronic data deliverable ELCR excess lifetime cancer risk EPC exposure point concentration ESV ecological screening values FGD flue gas desulfurization HH human health HHRA human health risk assessment HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient IMAC interim maximum allowable concentration IRIS USEPA Integrated Risk Information System IUR inhalation unit risk Kp dermal permeability constant LOAEL lowest observed adverse effects level MCL maximum contaminant level MRL minimum risk level MSL mean sea level NCDHHS North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Page vii P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra LIST OF ACRONYMS NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment NOAEL no observed adverse effects level NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory PPRTV provisional peer reviewed toxicity values PSRG preliminary soil remediation goal RBC risk based concentration RBC risk based concentration (for a carcinogenic constituent) RBC risk based concentration (for a noncarcinogenic constituent) RfC inhalation reference concentration RfD dermal reference dose RME reasonable maximum exposure ROI receptor of interest RSL risk-based screening level TRV toxicity reference value SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level SUF seasonal use factor SW swamp waters UCL upper confidence level OF uptake factor USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey WS Water Supply Page viii P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this human health and ecological risk assessment is to characterize potential risks to human and ecological receptors associated with exposure to coal ash - derived constituents that may be present in groundwater, surface water, sediments, soil, and air due to release(s) from the coal ash basin at the Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy) W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant, Lumberton, North Carolina. The results of the risk assessment, and the information provided on background conditions and groundwater flow (including fate and transport model results) provided in the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) reports will aid in focusing remedial actions, which, when implemented, will aid in achieving future conditions that are protective of human health and the environment, as required by the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA). The Comprehensive Site Assessment Report [CSA] (SynTerra, 2015a) and CAP Part 1 Report (SynTerra, 2015b) provide background and supporting information for the site including a site description, a discussion of historical site use, sampling and analysis, and data collection activities. This risk assessment is a component of the CAP Part 2 Report, which provides analysis of additional site information and alternative corrective action measures. 1.1 Regulatory Context The CAMA requires owners of surface impoundments used for the management of coal combustion residuals to conduct groundwater monitoring and assessment activities and report the findings in a series of specific reports to the State. As required by the CAMA, Duke Energy has performed a Groundwater Assessment (documented in a CSA report), and is in the process of preparing a proposed Groundwater CAP for each facility in the project. On October 9, 2015, Duke Energy requested a 90 -day extension for CAPS per CAMA Section 130A -309.209(b)(1). Pursuant to this request, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) (formerly NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources [NCDENR]) approved the extension and authorized dividing the CAP submittal into two parts, with the first part (CAP Part 1) submitted on the original due date (i.e., within 90 days of CSA report submittal) and the second part (CAP Part 2) submitted 90 days later (i.e., within 180 days of CSA report submittal). The CAP Part 1 report includes a site description, CSA findings, site geology and hydrogeology, a previously completed receptor survey; a detailed description of constituents present in environmental media at concentrations above regulatory criteria; proposed site-specific Page 1-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra background concentrations of constituents in soil and groundwater; site conceptual model findings; and results of groundwater flow and fate and transport modeling. This risk assessment was prepared as a component of the CAP Part 2 report. The CAP Part 2 report presents alternatives for achieving restoration, conceptual plans for recommended corrective actions, an implementation schedule, and a plan for future monitoring and reporting. The framework for the risk assessment follows a step -wise process: 41, Step 1: Develop the conceptual site model (CSM), including the type of affected media, exposure routes and pathways, and human and ecological receptors that may be specific to the site; y Step 2: Screen analytical data for the applicable site media by comparison to applicable screening values to identify constituents of potential concern (COPCs); y Step 3: Develop site-specific human health risk-based concentrations (RBCS) for the COPCs, derive exposure point concentrations (EPCs), and compare EPCs to the RBCs to draw conclusions about the possibility of potential human health risks at the site; and y Step 4: Develop a site-specific ecological risk assessment for the COPCs, to draw conclusions about the possibility of potential ecological risks at the site. This report has been prepared consistent with risk assessment guidance available from NCDEQ and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). References to specific guidance documents are provided in the text of the report. 1.2 Report Organization This Report is organized into the following sections: 41, Conceptual Site Models: Section 2.0 presents the human health and ecological conceptual site models, describing source(s), potentially impacted media, migration pathways, and applicable exposure routes. E1P Data Evaluation: Section 3.0 describes the site data used in the risk assessments, briefly describes the investigation programs under which the data were collected, analytical methods used, and data quality. Page 1-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 161P Risk -Based Screening: Section 4.0 of this report presents a discussion of how data collected from environmental media at the site were compared to human health and ecological screening levels, and a description of the process used for the selection of COPCs. ,67 Human Health Risk Assessment: Section 5.0 of this Report presents the human health risk assessment. The risk assessment was conducted by calculation of site-specific RBCS, which are used as the basis for calculating potential human health risks. This section presents potential exposure scenarios, chemical -specific variables, and equations used to develop the RBCS. This section also summarizes the comparison of RBCs to EPCs for each environmental medium, and their use to derive site-specific risk estimates for human health. 01 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment: Section 6.0 presents the ecological risk characterization, including the ecological food web modeling results. 161, Summary and Conclusions: Section 7.0 presents the risk assessment conclusions. y References: Section 8.0 presents the references used in this Report. Page 1-3 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 2.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODELS Human health and ecological CSMs were developed to guide identification of exposure pathways, exposure routes, and potential receptors for evaluation in the risk assessment. The CSM describes the sources and potential migration pathways through which soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater beneath the ash basin may have transported coal ash -derived constituents to other environmental media (receiving media) and, in turn, to potential human and ecological receptors. The linkage between a source, the receiving medium and a point of potential exposure is called an exposure pathway. For an exposure pathway to be complete, the following conditions must exist, as defined by USEPA (USEPA, 1989): 1. A source and mechanism of chemical release to the environment; 2. An environmental transport medium (e.g., air, water, soil); 3. A point of potential contact with the receiving medium by a receptor; and 4. A receptor exposure route at the point of contact (e.g., inhalation, ingestion, dermal contact). The CSM is meant to be a "living" model that can be updated and modified as additional data become available. The CSA Report prepared for Weatherspoon (SynTerra, 2015a) presented a preliminary CSM for both human and ecological receptors. 2.1 Site Description The Weatherspoon Plant is a former coal-fired electrical power generation facility located on 1,015 acres near the city of Lumberton in Robeson County (Figure 2-1). Duke Energy Progress, LLC owns the site. Coal ash was managed at the site in an on-site ash basin that is approximately 55 acres in size. The Weatherspoon coal-fired steam units were retired in 2011 and were demolished in 2013. Consequently, coal ash is no longer generated at the Site. Due to studies that identified that soil under the basin embankments could be susceptible to movement and settling during a large earthquake, Duke Energy is in the process of developing a detailed closure plan for the ash basin that may include excavation and off-site disposal of the coal ash and basin soils (SynTerra, 2015b, Section 2.4). Page 2-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Four oil and natural gas fueled combustion turbines were added at the site in the 1970s, and these continue to operate intermittently. The Weatherspoon Plant utilizes an approximately 225 -acre cooling pond located adjacent (east) of the Lumber River. The cooling pond remains in service as a component of the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater treatment system. From 1949 to 1955, coal ash was reportedly sluiced to a low area that was eventually encompassed by the existing ash basin. Examination of historic United States Geological Survey (USGS) aerial photographs shows that a small diked impoundment had been constructed by 1958. The basin was enlarged in stages to its current size by early 1981. No other areas of coal ash management (other than possible de minimis quantities) are known to exist at the site. The Weatherspoon ash basin is surrounded by perimeter ditches that were engineered to drain the toe of the dam. Topography at the site ranges from approximately 140 feet above mean sea level (MSL) north of the site to approximately 110 feet MSL at the cooling pond to the east and south and the Lumber River to the west. The plant, cooling pond, and ash basin are located on the east side of the Lumber River. Jacob Creek flows south toward the Lumber River along the east and south of the cooling pond. Groundwater flow from the site discharges to the cooling pond, Jacob Creek, and the Lumber River. A more detailed description of the site is included in the CSA Report (SynTerra, 2015a). 2.2 Current and Future Land Uses The Weatherspoon Plant lies in a rural area southeast of Lumberton, NC. Commercial and industrial facilities are located along Highway 72 west of the plant. Pockets of residential properties occur along Old Whiteville Road to the north. Agriculture dominates the type of land use east of the property, and an undeveloped floodplain lies south and west of the Lumber River. The Lumber River borders the plant to the west and southwest. The Lumber River was designated as a "Natural and Scenic River" by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1989. On September 28, 1998, 81 miles of the Lumber River were added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system (National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 2015). The uppermost section of the Lumber River, between State Route 1412 and Back Swamp, is classified as scenic; the section between Back Swamp and Jacob Creek is classified as recreational, and the section between Jacob Creek and the South Carolina border is classified as natural. Jacob Creek, a tributary to the Lumber River, borders the ash basin to the east and the cooling pond to the east and south. Page 2-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Duke Energy plans to maintain electricity production at the site, with natural gas-fired generating units. 2.3 Human Heath Conceptual Site Model The human health risk assessment (HHRA) CSM for Weatherspoon was developed by: 1. Identifying receiving media where coal ash -derived COPCs may be present; 2. Identifying the exposure setting and current and future land uses, which allowed for identification of receptor populations; and 3. Identifying the exposure routes applicable to each of the receptor populations and receiving media. The ultimate product of the CSM is identification of potentially complete exposure pathways for specific land use populations. This information was used to guide the selection of screening values (Section 4) and the derivation of site-specific RBCs (Section 5). 2.3.1 Receiving Media As shown in Figure 2-2, coal ash -derived COPCs could potentially migrate from the coal ash basin to underlying soil and groundwater. COPCs in groundwater underlying the coal ash basin could potentially migrate to soils underlying the basin, seeps, seep soil, surface water, sediment, and air. Principal migration pathways could include: 1) the infiltration and percolation of rainwater through the coal ash basin, resulting in leaching of coal ash -derived COPCs into soil beneath the basin and subsequently to groundwater; 2) migration of COPCs in groundwater and subsequent discharge of groundwater as seeps along the ash basin dikes; 3) migration of COPCs in groundwater and subsequent discharge of groundwater to surface water through sediment; and, 4) surface run-off and erosion into surface water bodies. Coal ash -derived COPCs in surface water and soil can also potentially be taken up into biota. Finally, coal ash -derived COPCs in unsaturated media (i.e., exposed ash, or post -excavation soil) may be entrained as dust into outdoor air. The coal ash in the basin is not considered as direct exposure medium as the remedies required under the CAMA are either excavation, or cap in place. Under either scenario, direct contact with the ash will be an incomplete exposure pathway. Page 2-3 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Based on the findings of the investigation, receiving media at this site include: 01 Air (i.e., post -excavation soil and seep soil entrained as dust); y Groundwater; 41, On-site seep water and seep soil - primarily located immediately surrounding the ash basin; 41, On-site surface water, and sediment in Jacob Creek and a wetland area that feed into Jacob Creek; 07 On-site soil underlying the coal ash basin; and 07 Off-site sediment, surface water, fish tissue (e.g., in the Lumber River and upstream Jacob Creek). 2.3.2 Exposure Setting and Receptors Human exposure areas at the Weatherspoon Plant are presented on Figure 2-3. The Weatherspoon Plant is located on property owned by Duke Energy. The land will be retained by Duke Energy for use or re -development as open space or commercial/industrial purposes. Based on this information, potential receptors on Duke Energy -controlled property (i.e., on-site) could include: 41, Trespassers (current and future use) y Commercial or industrial workers (current or future use) 0 Construction workers (future use) Potential receptors on property not controlled by Duke Energy (i.e., off-site) could potentially include: y Residents y Recreational users, including people who swim, wade, boat, or fish in Jacob Creek or the Lumber River. As presented on Figure 2-3, human exposure areas at the Weatherspoon Plant include: the Lumber River off-site background area, Jacob Creek off-site background area, the ash basin and railroad ditch area, the Jacob Creek on-site background area, and Jacob Creek. Page 2-4 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 2.3.3 Exposure Routes There are three exposure routes by which humans can be potentially exposed to COPCs in environmental media: ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation. More than one exposure route may be applicable to scenarios evaluated in the HHRA. Ingestion: Ingestion exposures occur when substances are swallowed. When an environmental medium such as soil or surface water containing COPCs is swallowed, the chemicals can be absorbed into the blood stream from the gastrointestinal tract and directly interact with tissues within the gastrointestinal tract. Most ingestion exposures to environmental media are incidental in nature, meaning that they are not intentional. For example, soil can be incidentally ingested if it is touched and adheres to the hand and the hand (fingers) is then placed into the mouth. Surface water can be incidentally ingested if it is accidentally swallowed during swimming or wading in water. An example of ingestion exposure to an environmental medium that is not incidental (but is intentional) would be groundwater that is used as a source of drinking water or eating of fish caught from a receiving water body. Dermal Contact: Dermal exposures occur when a substance is absorbed by the skin following direct contact with the substance in an environmental medium. For soil (or unsubmerged sediment), this process requires adherence of the soil (sediment) onto the skin, desorption of a constituent from the soil (sediment) and subsequent absorption of the constituent by the skin. For water, this process involves direct absorption of a constituent dissolved in the water by the skin. 01 Inhalation: Inhalation exposures can occur when an airborne constituent is within an individual's breathing zone. Once inhaled, the constituent can be either exhaled or retained in the pulmonary system. Retained substances can diffuse through respiratory -tract surfaces into the blood stream, interact directly with lung cells, or become entrained in airway mucous, translocate up to the pharynx, and be swallowed into the gastrointestinal tract. Exposure by inhalation can occur when soil is disturbed by wind, or human activity (i.e., vehicle traffic, soil excavation) and airborne dust is generated that migrates into a receptor's breathing zone. Generally, only the particulate fraction in air that is 10 Page 2-5 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra micrometers or smaller, termed the PM10 fraction, is available for inhalation. An important concept in evaluating potential exposures to metals is the degree of bioavailability. Bioavailability refers to the portion of total metal that is absorbed into the blood stream typically following ingestion exposures. The bioavailability of metals is controlled by the solubility of the metal, the form (i.e., chemical species, compound, matrix, and particle size), the physiological status of the receptor (e.g., age, sex, nutritional state), and interactions with other metals that may be present in the environmental exposure medium. Thus, the type of bioavailability of interest for risk assessment is "relative bioavailability" or the bioavailability of a constituent in site media (e.g., soil) relative to the bioavailability of the form of constituent in the exposure media (typically soluble forms in water) in the relevant animal or human study that forms the basis of the constituent's toxicity value. The complexities of these variables as they relate to the quantification of exposure and toxicity are discussed in USEPA's "Framework for Metals Risk Assessment" (USEPA, 2007). Site-specific evaluations which could be conducted to evaluate the bioavailability of metals are beyond the scope of this project. Therefore, bioavailability factors used for each of the exposure routes were based on whether the USEPA has published a default relative bioavailability factor for specific media. Because toxicity values based on oral ingestion of chemicals are used to assess dermal exposure, dermal absorption factors are applied to adjust for the differences in bioavailability by the oral versus dermal routes of exposure. 2.3.4 Potential Exposure Pathways Potential human receptor exposure pathways for each of the receiving media are described below. 2.3.4.1 Outdoor Air Particulates (i.e., dust) that are released from seep soil via wind erosion or human activity can migrate downwind with air dispersion. On-site receptors (trespassers, commercial workers, construction workers) could potentially inhale constituents entrained in the dust. Therefore, this is a potentially complete exposure pathway. 2.3.4.2 Groundwater Off-site residents that rely on groundwater as their source of potable water may potentially be exposed to COPCs that have leached into groundwater. Page 2-6 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Exposure of off-site receptors to COPCs in groundwater will only occur if there is a complete exposure pathway (i.e., groundwater containing coal ash COPCs migrates to an off-site receptor's production well). The off-site receptor groundwater exposure pathway assumes that residents use extracted groundwater as their source of potable water. The routes of exposure are ingestion when the groundwater is used for cooking and drinking, and dermal contact when the groundwater is used for cleaning and bathing. The inhalation exposure route is not complete for non-volatile substances (e.g., metals) in groundwater. Duke Energy will maintain control over the Weatherspoon property and use it for industrial purposes. The Weatherspoon site property will not be used for residential development and site groundwater will not be used as a source of drinking water. In addition, there are no private residences located hydraulically downgradient of on-site groundwater. Consequently, there is no complete exposure pathway for groundwater used for potable purposes. On-site construction workers could potentially be exposed to COPCs in groundwater via incidental ingestion and dermal contact if shallow groundwater is encountered during excavation activities. Therefore, this is a potentially complete exposure pathway. 2.3.4.3 Sediment, Surface Water, and Fish Tissue Potential exposures to COPCs that have migrated into surface water and sediment could occur through ingestion and dermal contact. However, the specific nature of potential exposures is dependent on the type of water body. Specifically: 01 Incidental ingestion and dermal contact with shallow surface water (e.g., less than three feet in depth) can occur via wading. Wading exposures could potentially occur on-site for trespassers in Jacob Creek and ash basin perimeter ditches and off-site for recreational visitors in the Lumber River. Therefore, this is a potentially complete exposure pathway. 161, Incidental ingestion and dermal contact with deeper surface water (e.g., three feet or greater in depth) could occur via swimming. Swimming is not permitted at any of the on-site areas at Page 2-7 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Weatherspoon (i.e., cooling pond). Consequently, this exposure pathway is not considered complete for on-site surface water bodies. However, this exposure pathway is considered for recreational users (i.e., swimmers) of off-site surface water bodies such as the Lumber River. Therefore, this is a potentially complete exposure pathway. y Dermal contact with surface water could occur during off-site recreational activities (wading, boating, and fishing). Incidental ingestion of surface water would be insignificant for these activities since these types of activities do not involve immersion of the face. Boating and fishing in on-site surface water bodies are not permitted. However, boating and recreational fishing occurs in the Lumber River. Therefore, this is a potentially complete exposure pathway. USEPA Region 4 (USEPA, 2014b) provides the following guidance pertaining to potential exposure to sediments: "Sediments in an intermittent stream should be considered as surface soil for the portion of the year the stream is without water. In most cases it is unnecessary to evaluate human exposures to sediments that are always covered by surface water." In accordance with this guidance, incidental ingestion and dermal contact with sediment could occur for on-site trespassers or off-site recreational visitors if the sediment is not submerged beneath surface water. In areas where sediment is submerged, this exposure pathway is incomplete. However, this is a potentially complete exposure pathway in areas were sediment is exposed and dry. 41, Ingestion of coal ash -derived COPCs could occur if people catch and eat fish which may bioaccumulate such substances in their edible tissues. In order for this pathway to be complete, recreational fish species that are large enough for consumption would need to be present in the Lumber River. The cooling pond may have a sufficient population of fish to support fishing, but this Page 2-8 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra pathway is incomplete because this area is restricted and fishing is not permitted on-site. It should also be recognized that a portion of the metal body burden in fish tissues (e.g., mercury, selenium) may be contributed by naturally occurring background levels in sediment and surface water. Direct ingestion of fish (tissue) caught from the Lumber River is a potentially complete exposure pathway. E1P No surface water bodies, on- or off-site, are classified as sources for drinking water so this exposure pathway is incomplete. 2.3.4.4 Seeps and Seep Soil Exposure to seeps tends to be limited due to their discrete size and isolated location. The applicable potential exposure pathway to seep water would be limited to incidental ingestion and dermal contact because exposure to seep soil (i.e., the soil over which seep water is present) could also potentially occur through incidental ingestion and dermal contact. On-site receptors (trespasser, commercial/industrial worker) might be exposed to coal ash -derived COPCs in seep water and seep soil adjacent to the ash basin. 2.3.4.5 Post -Excavation Soil In locations where excavation of the coal ash in the ash basin is the selected remedial action (e.g., Weatherspoon), soil beneath the coal ash basin will remain after removal of the ash. This soil is termed "Post -Excavation Soil" for the purposes of the project risk assessments. It is possible, at some locations, that these soils will be covered with clean fill to bring the former basin up to grade. Post -excavation soil can be evaluated in the future using the RBCS developed in this risk assessment. To evaluate the potential for post -excavation soils as a source of coal ash -derived constituents potentially affecting groundwater, NCDEQ and USEPA screening levels for protection of groundwater can be used during post -excavation confirmation soil sampling to verify that remaining soils do not pose unacceptable risk to human health, the environment, or underlying groundwater. Alternatively, site-specific leaching testing could be used to address this potential pathway. A comparison of constituent concentrations in post -excavation soils to site-specific background concentrations for soil will also be an important component of this future evaluation. Page 2-9 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra While there are data available for upland soils (i.e., soils on-site, but not on or in the ash basin), there is no discernable potentially complete exposure pathway between the groundwater beneath the ash basin and upland soils (surface or subsurface) at the site. Thus, this medium is not included as a receiving medium in the CSM for Weatherspoon. 2.4 Ecological Conceptual Site Model The ecological CSM was developed in a similar manner as the human health CSM (i.e., identification of sources and media where coal ash -derived COPCs might be present, determining the exposure pathways, identifying the types of receptors, and identification of the exposure routes applicable to each of the receptor populations [principally direct or indirect ingestion of COPCs]). Figure 2-4 presents the Ecological CSM. For surface water and seep water, the distribution of these constituents between the dissolved and particulate phases is relevant in characterizing exposures. Chemical and physical transformations may occur that lead to a variety of chemical species, particularly for metals/metalloids. These occurrences may have important implications for assessing the bioavailability of chemicals to ecological receptors and subsequent potential for adverse effects. Information developed for the CSM was used to determine the selection of screening values (Section 4) and assist in the development of the Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA, Section 6). 2.4.1 Sources and Release Mechanisms For the purpose of this risk assessment, the potential and known source of COPCs (principally metals) is associated with the coal ash basin (Figure 2-4). The Weatherspoon site has a NPDES permitted discharge (NC0005363); however, there has been no active discharge at the facility since 1999 (Personal communication- Kent Tyndall -Duke Energy Progress, Inc). Primary release mechanisms refer to how COPCs may be transported from the original sources, while secondary sources are environmental media that receive direct or indirect chemical inputs from the primary source via chemical transport and fate mechanisms. Fate and transport mechanisms include infiltration into soils, leaching into groundwater, and lateral leaching of interstitial water held within coal ash as "seeps." Secondary sources include exposed soil following excavation of ash basin, groundwater, and seeps. Secondary release mechanisms include migration of COPCs from soil or groundwater to surface water and sediment. Page 2-10 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 2.4.2 Potential Exposure Pathways via Receiving Media As shown in Figure 2-4, coal ash -derived COPCs could potentially migrate from the coal ash basin to soil (beneath the coal ash basin), groundwater, surface water, sediment, and/or air. Principal migration pathways could include: 1) the infiltration and percolation of rainwater through the coal ash basin, resulting in leaching of coal -ash COPCs into soil beneath the basin and subsequently to groundwater; 2) migration of COPCs in groundwater and subsequent discharge of groundwater to surface water (or seeps); and 3) run-off of surface water and/or erosion into surface water bodies. Eroded particles in surface water can settle and be incorporated into sediment, COPCs in groundwater discharge can adsorb to sediment particles, and COPCs in groundwater seeps can adsorb to soil over which the seep flows. Coal -ash -derived COPCs in soil and surface water can also be taken up by biota. Finally, coal ash -derived COPCs in unsaturated media may be entrained as dusts in outdoor air. As shown in Figure 2-4, receiving media include: 01 On-site seep water, seep soil, surface water and sediment (e.g., in tributaries at the coal ash basin); 43 On-site groundwater; 01 On-site soil beneath the coal ash basin (post -excavation soils); 47 Off-site sediment, surface water and/or fish tissue from Lumber River and upstream Jacob Creek; y Off-site groundwater; and y Air (i.e., dust - on-site and off-site). Groundwater and air are not traditionally evaluated in ecological risk assessments as the exposure pathway is either incomplete (groundwater) or insignificant (air). Although consumption (drinking) of surface water will be evaluated in the BERA, exposure via this pathway does not typically make a significant contribution to exposure and subsequent effects from COPCs for ecological receptors. Page 2-11 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 2.4.3 Potential Receptors Although ecological receptors (e.g., invertebrates, fish, birds and mammals) do not differentiate between site and non -site areas, some exposure areas may need to be categorized as such in order to show the degree of relative risk between, for example, upstream (or background) areas versus habitat affected by the site. Although many types of animals may potentially be exposed to site -related COPCs, the USEPA has categorized only a limited number of receptors in terms of life history and allometric parameters (e.g., body weight, ingestion rate, migration patterns, etc.). Therefore, ecological receptors are typically limited to "indicator" or "surrogate" organisms that will represent other animals within their generic class, order, or family. Receptors chosen in the CSM to represent potentially exposed fauna include the following: 101 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities: A diverse array of these organisms will reside in and on the sediments of the adjacent water bodies. They are an integral part of aquatic food web because they consume zooplankton, plants (e.g., phytoplankton, algae, and macrophytes) and detritus. In turn, they constitute prey for other macroinvertebrates, fish, and wildlife. Benthic invertebrates at each site are primarily exposed to chemicals via the sediments and associated pore water, the overlying water column, and through consumption of food items and sediments. 01 Fish: These organisms are important recreationally and some species may be important economically. They also form an integral component of the aquatic food web as they process energy from aquatic plants, zooplankton, and benthic macroinvertebrate species and are important components of the diet for both humans and piscivorous (i.e., fish - eating) wildlife. Fish communities include varying trophic groups (forage fish, omnivores, carnivores) that occupy different habitats: the water column (pelagic) or near the bottom (demersal). Examples of pelagic species may include trout, bass, and pickerel while examples of demersal fish may include suckers, catfish, and sturgeon. Fish may be exposed to constituents within the water column through gill uptake/absorption, consumption of food items (e.g., plankton, macrophytes, benthic invertebrates, and other fish), and incidental ingestion of sediments during feeding. Page 2-12 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Birds: Avian species near each site can be divided into aquatic/wetland- dependent and terrestrial species. Aquatic species may include raptors (e.g., eagles, ospreys), shorebirds (e.g., herons, plovers, sandpipers), and waterfowl (e.g., ducks). Terrestrial species may include raptors (e.g., red- tailed hawk) and passerines (e.g., perching birds such as robins and sparrows). Aquatic -dependent species may consume macrophytes, invertebrates, fish, and amphibians. Terrestrial species primarily consume plants, invertebrates, reptiles, and small mammals. The primary avian trophic groups include piscivores, omnivores, herbivores, and carnivores. Avian receptors are exposed to constituents largely through ingestion of food and surface water, as well as incidental ingestion of sediment and soil. Mammals: Mammals near each site may include aquatic or wetland - dependent species (e.g., river otter, muskrat), terrestrial species (e.g., vole, fox), and species that might use both habitats (e.g., raccoon, mink). Those species with a diet consisting mainly of aquatic organisms often are termed wetland -dependent. Depending on the trophic level, mammals also may consume aquatic or terrestrial plants and invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or other mammals. They can, in turn, be preyed upon by reptiles, birds, or other mammals. The primary mammalian trophic groups include piscivores, omnivores, herbivores, and carnivores. Mammals are exposed to constituents largely through ingestion of food and surface water, as well as incidental ingestion of sediment and soil. As presented in Figure 2-4, birds and mammals can be classified as either aquatic or terrestrial. Aquatic species would represent organisms that forage or nest in streams, rivers, or lakes, that for the Duke facilities can include both onsite and off-site areas. Terrestrial organisms would represent organisms that forage or nest in upland areas, which for the Duke facilities are generally on-site areas. This assumption may change based on professional judgment. For example, on- site property may contain (or be in immediate contact with) aquatic habitat. Seep soil/water may also contain transitional aquatic habitat, or be adjacent to off-site aquatic environs. The indicator species listed in Figure 2-4 are used to represent the terrestrial and aquatic receptors at the site. Home range/foraging area sizes were considered when evaluating potential exposures for these receptor species. Ecological Page 2-13 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra exposure areas for the Weatherspoon site are: the Lumber River, the railroad ditch, the ash basin, Jacob Creek, on-site background, and off-site background (Figure 2-5). Potentially affected areas on-site are classified as terrestrial and/or aquatic, and evaluated for exposure to site COPCs. Weatherspoon Ecological Exposure Areas and Corresponding Receptor Exposure Scenarios Lumber River (upriver) Not evaluated for receptor exposures* Off-site background (Jacob Creek upstream) Not evaluated for receptor exposures* On-site background (Jacob Creek wetland area) Not evaluated for receptor exposures* Ash basin Terrestrial receptor exposure scenario Railroad ditch Terrestrial receptor exposure scenario Jacob Creek Aquatic receptor exposure scenario * These locations were not evaluated for receptor exposures since they are upgradient background locations indicative of "natural levels" in this area. 2.4.4 Potential Exposure Routes Although there are three exposure routes by which ecological receptors can be potentially exposed (ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation), ingestion is considered to be the primary route contributing to exposure for most receptors, with the exception of fish and other species (e.g., macroinvertebrates) with gills. While surface (drinking) water is addressed, this pathway is typically a minor contributor to risk as many animals either obtain adequate hydration through ingestion of their prey or the volume of drinking water consumed is low compared to their overall body weight. Dermal exposure is not a significant pathway as the presence of fur, feathers, or a thick integument prevents any substantial exposure to soils (preening also results in the inadvertent ingestion of soils/sediment). 2.4.5 Potential Exposure Pathways Although many types of birds and mammals may be potentially exposed to background and site -related COPCs, receptors chosen in this risk assessment are included as indicator receptors that are expected to be ubiquitous in terms of regional habitat. These receptors are presented in Figure 2-4 and the respective exposure media and exposure routes are as follows: Page 2-14 P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 17 Benthic invertebrates: Surface water and sediment are the principle exposure pathways for benthic invertebrates as these organisms are in intimate contact with these media. 17 Fish: Surface water is a critical exposure pathway for fish as their gill membrane is continuously exposed to this medium; metal toxicity to aquatic organisms is typically mediated at the surface water/gill interface. 107 Aquatic Birds: — Mallard (omnivore) - Plants and benthic invertebrates are the primary exposure media via ingestion for dabbling ducks; sediment is inadvertently ingested when feeding on invertebrates at the bottom of the water body. — Great blue heron (piscivore) - Ingestion of fish is the primary component of the diet. 47 Aquatic Mammals: — Muskrat (herbivore) - Ingestion of wetland plants is the primary component of the diet and sediment is inadvertently ingested during feeding. — River otter (piscivore) - Ingestion of fish is the primary component of the diet (no incidental ingestion of sediment). 17 Terrestrial Birds: — Robin (omnivore) - Ingestion of invertebrates (e.g., earthworms) and plants/berries are the primary component of the diet, and soil, mainly present in the gut of soil invertebrates, is inadvertently ingested when feeding. — Red-tailed hawk (carnivore) - Ingestion of small mammals is the primary component of the diet (no incidental ingestion of soil). Page 2-15 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 0 Terrestrial Mammals: — Meadow vole (herbivore) - Ingestion of plants and inadvertent ingestion of soil are the primary pathways of exposure. — Red fox (carnivore) - Ingestion of small mammals ('minor ingestion of plants/soil will be assumed). As discussed, groundwater and air are not viable exposure pathways for ecological receptors. The drinking water pathway from surface water will be included for terrestrial mammals and birds, although this exposure route is typically not significant in terms of contributing to overall exposure and subsequent risk. 2.4.5.1 Surface Water, Sediment, and Fish Surface water and sediment are the primary exposure pathways for benthic invertebrates as these organisms are in intimate contact with these media. Surface water is a critical exposure pathway for fish as their gill membrane is continuously exposed to this medium; metal toxicity to aquatic organisms is typically mediated at the surface water/gill interface. Benthic invertebrates and plants can uptake metals from pore water or surface water and potentially accumulate them in tissue (i.e., bioconcentration). Some fish feed on invertebrates or plants and can, in turn, be exposed to the metals via ingestion that have been taken up by lower trophic level organisms. For fish, however, direct uptake from surface water is the predominant exposure pathway for metals. Piscivorous birds (e.g., herons) and mammals (e.g., river otter) consume fish as the main component of their diet. Omnivorous birds such as mallards also consume aquatic plants and benthic invertebrates. Exposure to site -related COPCs is, therefore, indirect (i.e., accumulated from surface water and sediment into fish or aquatic plants which are then subsequently consumed). The incidental ingestion of sediment is also an important exposure pathway for some avian and mammalian receptors. Birds that feed off the bottom of a waterbody (e.g., dabbling ducks) and birds that glean insects or worms in the sediment or soil (e.g., stilts, sandpipers, robins) can inadvertently ingest significant amounts of sediment in their diet. Similarly, mammals can inadvertently ingest soil or sediment when ingesting their prey. Page 2-16 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 2.4.5.2 Seeps On-site receptors, either mammals or birds, have the potential to be exposed to seep soils or water located adjacent to the ash basin. Seeps are evaluated separately from the surface water bodies as the potential for exposure may be limited due to the discrete size of each seep and isolated location(s). Potential exposure may occur to seep soils via incidental ingestion of the soil or dietary ingestion of plants or invertebrates that have been exposed to metals from seep soil. 2.4.5.3 Post -Excavation Soil Soil presently beneath the coal ash basin will remain if removal is selected as the remedial option. This soil is termed "Post -Excavation Soil." In some cases, this soil may be covered and graded, thus eliminating any potential exposure to ash -related constituents below the surface. However, if these areas are left "as -is" after ash excavation, they may become revegetated and thus serve as foraging or nesting habitat for birds and/or mammals. Terrestrial birds or mammals could be exposed to metals in the soil via direct incidental ingestion of the soil, as well as indirect dietary consumption of plants or invertebrates/earthworms that have accumulated metals from soil in their tissues. Small mammals, in turn, may be consumed by carnivorous birds and mammals. Where removal is selected as a remedial action, remaining soils will be sampled, and those data will be evaluated consistent with the methods provided in this risk assessment. Page 2-17 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 3.0 DATA EVALUATION 3.1 Data Sources Data utilized for the risk assessment are from samples of groundwater, surface water, sediments, seeps, and seep soil. The groundwater sampling period ranged from March 3, 2015 through October 14, 2015. Surface water and sediment was sampled April 22, 2015; an additional surface water round was performed on September 30, 2015. Seep water was sampled April 23, August 19 and September 30, 2015. Seep soil was collected April 23 and 24, 2015. Analytical methods for groundwater, surface water, and seep samples are presented as follows: PARAMETER RL UNITS METHOD FIELD PARAMETERS pH NA SU Field Water Quality Meter Specific Conductance NA PS/cm Field Water Quality Meter Temperature NA 0C Field Water Quality Meter Dissolved Oxygen NA mg/L Field Water Quality Meter Oxidation Reduction Potential NA my Field Water Quality Meter Turbidity NA NTU Field Water Quality Meter Ferrous Iron NA mg/L Field Test Kit INORGANICS Aluminum 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Antimony 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Arsenic 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Barium 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Beryllium 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Boron 0.05 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Cadmium 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Chromium 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Cobalt 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Copper 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Iron 0.01 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Lead 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Manganese 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Mercury (low level) 0.000012 mg/L EPA 245.7 or 1631 Page 3-1 P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra PARAMETER RL UNITS METHOD Molybdenum 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Nickel 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Selenium 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Strontium 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C Thallium (low level) 0.0002 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Vanadium (low level) 0.0003 mg/L EPA 200.8 or 6020A Zinc 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 or 6010C RADIONUCLIDES Total Combined Radium 5 pCi/L EPA 903.0 ANIONS/CATIONS Alkalinity (as CaCOA 20 mg/L SM 2320B Bicarbonate 20 mg/L SM 2320 Calcium 0.01 mg/L EPA 200.7 Carbonate 20 mg/L SM 2320 Chloride 0.1 mg/L EPA 300.0 or 9056A Magnesium 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.7 Methane 0.1 mg/L RSK 175 Nitrate as Nitrogen 0.023 mg-N/L EPA 300.0 or 9056A Potassium 0.1 mg/L EPA 200.7 Sodium 0.05 mg/L EPA 200.7 Sulfate 0.1 mg/L EPA 300.0 or 9056A Sulfide 0.05 mg/L SM450OS-D Total Dissolved Solids 25 mg/L SM 2540C Total Organic Carbon 0.1 mg/L SM 5310 Total Suspended Solids 2 mg/L SM 2450D ADDITIONAL GROUNDWATER CONSTITUENTS Arsenic Speciation Vendor Specific mg/L IC -ICP -CRC -MS Chromium Speciation Vendor Specific mg/L IC -ICP -CRC -MS Iron Speciation Vendor Specific mg/L IC -ICP -CRC -MS Manganese Speciation Vendor Specific mg/L IC -ICP -CRC -MS Notes: RL = reporting limit; NA = not applicable. Page 3-2 P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra INORGANIC COMPOUNDS UNITS METHOD Aluminum mg/kg EPA 6010C Antimony mg/kg EPA 6020A Arsenic mg/kg EPA 6020A Barium mg/kg EPA 6010C Beryllium mg/kg EPA 6020A Boron mg/kg EPA 6010C Cadmium mg/kg EPA 6020A Calcium mg/kg EPA 6010C Chloride mg/kg EPA 9056A Chromium mg/kg EPA 6010C Cobalt mg/kg EPA 6020A Copper mg/kg EPA 6010C Iron mg/kg EPA 6010C Lead mg/kg EPA 6020A Magnesium mg/kg EPA 6010C Manganese mg/kg EPA 6010C Mercury mg/kg EPA Method 7470A/7471B Molybdenum mg/kg EPA 6010C Nickel mg/kg EPA 6010C Nitrate as Nitrogen mg/kg EPA 9056A pH Su EPA 9045D Potassium mg/kg EPA 6010C Selenium mg/kg EPA 6020A Sodium mg/kg EPA 6010C Strontium mg/kg EPA 6010C Sulfate mg/kg EPA 9056A Thallium (low level) (SPLP Extract only) mg/kg EPA 6020A Vanadium mg/kg EPA 6020A Zinc mg/kg EPA 6010C Page 3-3 P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra INORGANIC COMPOUNDS UNITS METHOD Sediment Specific Samples Cation exchange capacity meg/1008 EPA 9081 Particle size distribution percent - Percent solids Percent - Percent organic matter percent EPA/600/R-02/069 The NCDEQ-approved Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan, December 2014 (SynTerra, 2014) thoroughly documents standard operating procedures for field measurements and quality assurance/quality control during sampling of media, including field log books and data records, sample identification, field equipment calibration requirements, and sample custody. Environmental samples were analyzed and reported under the quality assurance/quality control program of the Duke Energy Analytical Laboratory (Huntersville, NC). The Duke Energy Analytical Laboratory provided results in the form of laboratory reports and electronic data deliverables (EDDs). When received, SynTerra imported EDDs into the internal data management software and cross referenced all data between the laboratory report, EDD, and data management software. The software was then used to generate summary statistics and report tables. 3.2 Sample Collection Methods Analytical data for surface water, sediment, seep water, seep soil, and groundwater are provided in Attachment A. Unpreserved surface water samples were collected directly into pre -cleaned, laboratory -provided containers beneath the water surface while orienting the opening of the sample container upstream. Sample bottles containing preservative were filled with water using a clean container in the same manner as unpreserved samples. To prevent cross -contamination between stations, samples were collected in a downstream to upstream direction while avoiding excessive suspension of substrate. A new pair of nitrile gloves was worn by sample collectors at each sampling location. Samples for dissolved metals analysis were filtered in the field using sterile 0.45 µm cellulose acetate membrane filters and manual vacuum filtering apparatus. Water samples for low-level mercury analysis were collected by "clean hands" techniques using USEPA Method 1669 (USEPA, 1996). During sample collection, in situ field parameters (e.g., temperature, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and oxidation-reduction potential) were measured utilizing a YSI Pro Page 3-4 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Plus or similar multi -function meter. Turbidity was measured in the field using a Hach 2100P turbidimeter. Sediment samples were collected at co -located surface water locations and typically consisted of the top 3-5 cm of sediment using clean plastic trowels and scoops. Water was decanted from the clean glass jar sample or homogenization container prior to sealing or transfer, taking care to retain fine sediment fraction during this procedure. At locations with sufficient depth to preclude collection by hand, a clam -shell dredge was employed. Seep water was collected in the same manner as surface water samples when possible; many seep locations, however, exhibited very low flow, which rendered collection difficult with regard to minimizing particulates. Seep soil was collected in the same manner as sediment samples. Groundwater samples were collected as documented in the CSA (SynTerra, 2015a). 3.3 Site Data Used in Risk Assessments The following data were used in the risk assessments. Sample locations are shown on Figures 2-3 and 2-5. 3.3.1 On -Site Sediment Two locations were sampled for on-site sediment, SW -01 and SW -02, which were located in Jacob Creek (downstream) and a wetland area outfall, respectively. This wetland area outfall is intermittent in nature, and was dry during one visit to the site. 3.3.2 On -Site Surface Water On-site surface water was collected at the same locations as the sediment (SW -01 and SW -02). As mentioned above, this location (SW -02) was not flowing during one sample collection attempt. 3.3.3 On -Site Seep Water Seep locations around the site were sampled for the purpose of risk assessment; most locations are immediately adjacent to the ash basin, while a few are in stormwater management ditch and/or drainage culvert outfall area. Many of the seeps immediately adjacent to the ash basin were sampled in the perimeter ditch where they are assumed to enter the ditch via subsurface flow. Page 3-5 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 3.3.4 On -Site Seep Soil Soil from each seep location was collected as "seep soil" and was made up of the substrate beneath the seep water at each sample location, primarily soil with solid precipitates at many locations. 3.3.5 On -Site Groundwater Groundwater was sampled from monitoring wells located throughout the site, from the surficial, Pee Dee, and lower Yorktown aquifers. 3.3.6 On -Site Soil (Post Excavation) On-site soil was sampled at each well location (during well installation) from the top two feet below the surface. However, for the purpose of this risk assessment, these data are not considered as there is not a complete migration pathway for constituents in the coal ash basin to the soils in these locations. Soil remaining "post -excavation" is a potential exposure medium upon completion of an excavation action. However, data for this medium are unavailable. Such data when available will be evaluated using the same methods provided in this risk assessment, as noted in Section 2.3.4.5, above. 3.3.7 Off -Site Sediment Off-site sediment was collected at one location (S-20) in Jacob Creek. This is considered a background location, as it is upgradient from the site. 3.3.8 Off -Site Surface Water Off-site surface water was collected from two locations: the Lumber River (S-17) and Jacob Creek (S-20). Both of these locations are considered upgradient background locations. 3.4 Background Data Used In Risk Assessments 3.4.1 Data Sets Site-specific background locations were selected for each medium (soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater) using topographic maps, groundwater elevation maps, the CSM (Section 3 of CAP Part 1), historical analytical results, results of the fate and transport model (Section 4 of CAP Part 1), and input from NCDEQ (SynTerra, 2015b). Provisional background concentrations were developed for those parameters with reported concentrations in excess of standards or criteria in locations downgradient of a Page 3-6 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra source area (i.e., background concentrations were not derived for all constituents). As stated in the CAP Part 1, background concentrations are provisional and will be updated as more data become available with input from NCDEQ. Once a valid background value is determined, Duke Energy will petition NCDEQ for a site-specific change to comparison standards and/or criteria as applicable. 3.4.2 Background Threshold Values Due to the currently limited dataset, statistical analysis of background data could not be performed. The greatest observed background value for each parameter in each medium was used as the provisional background value (Attachment B). 3.5 Data Summarization Laboratory results were analyzed and summarized using proprietary data management software (EnviroData Solutions, Inc.). From these data, screening tables were developed for the purposes of comparing site media data to human health and ecological screening values to identify COPCs, which then were analyzed using ProUCL software to calculate exposure point concentrations of each COPC for each exposure area at the Weatherspoon site. Summarized data included analyte Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number, number of samples, frequency of detection, minimum and maximum detected concentrations, sample location of maximum detection, and the range of detection limits (Section 4 Tables). Page 3-7 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 4.0 RISK-BASED SCREENING Laboratory results from sample analyses were compiled and summarized for purposes of comparing field -collected data to established USEPA and NCDEQ human health and ecological screening values. Summarized data included number of samples, frequency of detection, minimum and maximum concentrations, location of maximum value for each constituent, range of detection limits, concentration used for screening (i.e., maximum result), established screening values, screening value used, COPC identification, and COPC selection rationale. 4.1 Purpose and Methodology Groundwater, surface water, sediment, and soil data are initially evaluated using screening levels. Screening levels are designed to provide a conservative estimate of the concentration to which a receptor (person or biota) can be exposed without experiencing adverse health effects. Due to the conservative methods used to derive screening levels, it can be assumed with reasonable certainty that concentrations below screening levels will not result in adverse health effects, and that no further evaluation is necessary. Concentrations above conservative risk-based screening levels do not necessarily indicate that a potential risk exists, but rather that further evaluation may be warranted. Attachment C, Table C-1 presents human health and ecological screening levels considered for this project. Their sources and bases are discussed in the following sections. 4.2 Human Health Screening Levels Attachment C presents constituent screening levels protective of human health used in this evaluation, and the medium -specific screening levels are discussed below. For each medium, screening will be conducted by comparing maximum detected concentrations of COPCs to one or more screening values that are applicable to the potentially complete exposure pathways for the medium. This method of evaluation follows USEPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Part B (USEPA, 1991a). COPCs detected at concentrations greater than screening levels are retained for further evaluation in the human health risk assessment (Section 5). 4.2.1 Groundwater For each groundwater data set, the maximum detected concentration of COPCs is compared to the groundwater screening levels listed below. Human health screening levels for groundwater are generally derived to be protective of the use Page 4-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra of groundwater as a drinking water source. The human health screening levels for groundwater used in this analysis are from federal and state sources and address the drinking water exposure pathway. These sources, in the order in which they are to be used, are: y North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L.0202 Groundwater Standards & Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations (IMACs; NCDENR, 2013b) 167 North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Screening Levels for Water Supply Well Sampling Near Coal Ash Facilities. (NCDHHS, 2015) 01 USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories, Spring 2012. (USEPA, 2012a) 47 USEPA Risk -Based Screening Levels (RSLs), June 2015, values for tapwater. (USEPA, 2015a) The screening levels obtained from these sources are primary drinking water standards or maximum contaminant levels (MCLS) and secondary drinking water standards or secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs). RSLs from USEPA for tap water (drinking water) are purely risk-based values and have also been included here. 4.2.2 Surface Water and Seep Water For each surface water data set, the maximum detected concentration of COPCs is compared to the surface water screening levels identified below. Human health screening levels for surface water are generally derived to be protective of the use of surface water as a drinking water source and the consumption of fish from a surface water body. The drinking water screening levels are also protective of recreational uses of a surface water body (such as swimming or boating) because drinking water exposure is of a higher magnitude and frequency. The human health screening levels for surface water used in this analysis are from federal and state sources and address the drinking water exposure pathway and the fish consumption pathway (where such values are available from the state). Where the surface water body is a source of public drinking water, these sources, in the order in which they are have been used, are: Page 4-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 1. The lesser of the following: 161P North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L.0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. (NCDENR, 2013b) y North Carolina 15A NCAC 213 Human Health Surface Water Standards. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina - values for WS - Water Supply. (NCDENR, 2013a) 2. If values from the above sources are not published for a given constituent, then the following screening values should be used, selected preferentially in the order in which they are listed: 161, USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for Human Health Consumption of Water and Organism. (USEPA, 2015b) 0 USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories, Spring 2012. (USEPA, 2012a) '61' USEPA RSLs, June 2015, values for tapwater. (USEPA, 2015a) Where a surface water body is not a source of public drinking water (e.g., Weatherspoon), these sources, in the order in which they are to be used, are: 41, North Carolina 15A NCAC 2B Human Health Surface Water Standards. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina - values for HH - Human Health. (NCDENR, 2013a) 41, USEPA AWQC for Human Health Consumption of Organism Only. (USEPA, 2015b) If values from the above sources are not published for a given constituent, then tapwater RSLs (subsection 3.1.1) should be used for screening. 4.2.3 Sediment and Seep Soils For sediment and soils, including soils associated with seeps, screening levels for soil are conservatively used in the absence of available sediment screening levels. The maximum detected concentration of COPCs in sediment and seep soils is Page 4-3 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra compared to the following screening levels, in the order in which they are to be used: 0 North Carolina Preliminary Residential and Industrial Health Based Soil Remediation Goal (PSRG; NCDEQ, 2015a). ,61P USEPA RSLs for residential and industrial soil (USEPA, 2015a). The NC PSRGs are risk-based screening levels that are based on the USEPA RSLs for residential and industrial soil (USEPA, 2015a). The RSLs are protective for incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and dust inhalation exposure pathways. The residential RSLs are based on an exposure frequency of 350 days and exposure duration of 26 years, and the industrial soil RSLs are based on an exposure frequency of 250 days per year and an exposure duration of 25 years for an adult worker. The RSLs are based on a target excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) of 1x10-6 and a non -cancer hazard quotient (HQ) of 1. The PSRGs were developed by NCDEQ by adjusting the non -cancer -based RSLs to a target hazard index (HI; which is being used interchangeably with the term HQ) of 0.2 to account for multiple COPCs potentially acting on the same target organ (NCDEQ, 2015a). To be consistent, the RSLs in Attachment C have also been adjusted to a target HI of 0.2 for non -carcinogens. The residential screening levels are used to evaluate non -worker exposures to soil (trespasser exposures), and the industrial screening levels are used to evaluate worker exposure to soil. These screening levels would also apply to post -excavation soils. 4.2.4 Post -Excavation Soil Post -excavation soil is a medium for evaluation after remedial activities if removal is selected as the remedial action for the coal ash basin. It is included here as a receiving medium so that the risk-based methods for evaluating this medium in the future are in place. For example, risk based remedial goals for soils derived as a consequence of this risk assessment and PSRGs for the protection of groundwater can be applied during remedial excavation soil confirmation sampling. Potential risk of coal ash COPCs in soil will be reduced to acceptable levels as long as soil confirmation sampling verifies that the concentration of coal ash COPCs are below their respective risk based goals for the protection of human health, the environment, and groundwater. Page 4-4 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 4.2.5 Fish Tissue The modeled concentration of CDCs in fish tissue is compared to North Carolina screening levels for fish tissue. USEPA no longer provides fish tissue RSLs and a default fish tissue ingestion rate is no longer provided (USEPA, 2015a). Human health screening levels for surface water are generally derived to be protective of the use of surface water as a drinking water source and the consumption of fish from a surface water body. The human health screening levels for surface water used in this analysis are from federal and state sources and address the drinking water exposure pathway and the fish consumption pathway (where such values are available from the state). Where a surface water body is not a source of public drinking water (e.g., Weatherspoon), the modeled concentration of COPCs in fish tissue will be compared, in the order in which they are to be used, to the following screening levels (Attachment C): 167 North Carolina 15A NCAC 2B Human Health Surface Water Standards. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina — values for HH — Human Health. (NCDENR, 2013a) y USEPA AWQC for Human Health Consumption of Organism Only. (USEPA, 2015b) If values from the above sources are not published for a given constituent, then tapwater RSLs (subsection 3.1.1) should be used for screening. To put these ingestion rates in context, a 170 g fish meal is approximately equal to 6 ounces or approximately 5 fish sticks per meal (see http://gortons.com/product/original-batter-tenders ); it is assumed that the subsistence fisher catches this amount of fish in the local water body and has such a fish meal once per day, every day for years. In risk assessments, fish ingestion rates are calculated on a per day basis, so if fish is not consumed daily by the subsistence fisher, then the fish meals when consumed would be larger than this. The recreational fish ingestion rate averaged on a daily basis is roughly equivalent to ingestion of one-half standard fish stick per day. 4.3 Ecological Screening Levels Surface water, sediment, and soil data were compared to screening levels (Attachment C) that are designed to provide a conservative estimate of the concentration to which an ecological receptor can be exposed without experiencing adverse health effects. Due to Page 4-5 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra the conservative methods used to derive screening levels, it can be assumed with reasonable certainty that concentrations below screening levels will not result in any adverse effects to receptor survival, growth and/or reproduction, and therefore no further evaluation is necessary. Concentrations above conservative risk-based screening levels, however, do not necessarily indicate that a potential ecological risk exists, but rather that further evaluation may be warranted. Attachment C presents the ecological screening levels that are used for the initial evaluation of COPCs, and the hierarchy for the media -specific screening levels is discussed below. For each medium, the initial screening is conducted by comparing maximum detected concentrations of COPCs to one or more screening values that are applicable to the potentially complete exposure pathways for the medium. This method of evaluation follows USEPA guidance for conducting screening level ecological risk assessments (USEPA, 2015c). Metals with concentrations that are greater than screening levels are retained as COPCs for further evaluation in the BERA (Section 6). 4.3.1 Surface/Seep Water Surface water quality criteria are calculated from controlled laboratory tests on freshwater or marine organisms that are protective of the most sensitive organism (often zooplankton, such as daphnids) for the most sensitive life stage (typically reproduction). The following criteria are used to evaluate the levels of metals in off-site surface water, in the order in which they are to be used: 43 North Carolina 15A NCDENR 2B Surface Water Standards. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina. Freshwater Aquatic Life Chronic and Acute (NCDENR, 2013a). 41, USEPA Region 4 Freshwater Chronic Screening Values (USEPA, 2015d). 161' USEPA AWQC Freshwater Chronic (USEPA,2015c). 4.3.2 Sediment Sediment screening values, often called sediment quality values, are frequently based on a number of databases or consensus -based studies that determine a concentration below which there is a low probability for adverse effects on benthic macroinvertebrates. Many of these values were developed from environmental samples that were "mixtures" of metals so that the actual response due to a single element or metal may be conservatively biased by a co - Page 4-6 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra contaminant. The following USEPA Region 4 screening values are used to evaluate levels of metals in both on-site and off-site sediments: 10 USEPA Region 4 Ecological Screening Values for Sediment (USEPA, 2015e). These ecological screening values (ESVs) generally represent the lowest value that will be protective of the most sensitive species and/or life stage for sediment dwelling organisms. 4.3.3 Seep Soil ESVs for soil are fairly well established benchmarks that are protective of both lower and higher trophic level organisms (e.g., plants, invertebrates, birds and mammals). These values are fairly conservative as they are, for each individual element, developed for both no -observed -adverse -effect -levels and lowest- observed- adverse -effect -levels from hundreds of peer-reviewed articles. Sources of these values include: 41, USEPA Region 4 Ecological Screening Values for Soil (USEPA, 2015d). c� USEPA Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs; USEPA, 2015e). Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Department of Energy Laboratories soil screening benchmarks for invertebrates and plants (Efroymson et al., 1997a,b). The preferred hierarchy is to compare to USEPA Region 4 values first, Eco-SSLs second, and if a value is not available from those data sets, then the ORNL values are selected as the screening benchmarks. 4.4 Results of Screening for Constituents of Potential Concern The result of this screening is a list of constituents that warrant further investigation (i.e., COPCs) to be evaluated quantitatively in the risk assessment. The risk assessment results are then used to evaluate the potential risk to humans and ecological receptors that may exist at the site above regulatory risk targets, and if so, which medium may present an increased risk. Screening levels for both human health and ecological receptors (Attachment C) are employed, using the hierarchy for screening level selection for each medium as identified in the sections above to identify the appropriate screening level for each analyte. COPCs are identified as those constituents having a maximum detected concentration above the selected screening level. Page 4-7 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Additional context is provided for the screening results in each screening table according to the following selection criteria: (1) the constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration is above the screening level; (2) the constituent is not identified as a COPC because all detected concentrations are below the applicable screening level; (3) the constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit; and the quantitation limit is below the screening level; (4) the constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit; however, the quantitation limit(s) is above the screening level; (5) the constituent was detected, but there is no current screening value available (for example, screening values are not available for essential nutrients such as Ca, K, Mg, or Na) and the constituent is therefore not identified as a COPC; or (6) the constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and there is no current screening level available. Designation as Category 1 retains a constituent as a COPC and advances it into further refinement and investigation in Section 5 or 6 for human health and ecological risk assessments, respectively. Note that this screening process results in a list of COPCs that are then quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessments. While the CSM was developed to address potential source -migration pathway -receptor linkages for coal ash -derived COPCs, the COPCs identified from the screening process are not necessarily coal -ash derived. Background concentrations of some naturally occurring inorganics can be above conservative risk- based screening levels. Background will be considered in the discussion of the results of the risk assessment here, but the provisional nature of the background concentration estimates (due to, for this site, a lack of data) means that they have not been used to further refine the COPC list to include just coal ash -derived constituents. Page 4-8 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 4.4.1 Human Health Screening Results Sample data from the site are screened using the criteria for sites that do not have an adjacent body of water that serves as a public drinking water supply. These criteria are listed in Section 4.2, and they serve to discern which constituents warrant further investigation (Tables 4-1 to 4-7) in a subsequent refined human health risk assessment (Section 5). 4.4.1.1 Surficial Aquifer As a result of the initial screening process for the surficial aquifer, the following 13 constituents were retained as COPCs and advanced into additional assessment in Section 5: Al, As, Be, B, Cd, Cr, Co, Fe, Pb, Mn, Ni, Tl, and V (Table 4-1). Background sampling locations caused antimony to be retained as a COPC. After further investigation, antimony was not detected in the analytical areas and was removed from exposure point concentration summary tables due to its location. 4.4.1.2 Pee Dee Aquifer As a result of the initial screening process for the Pee Dee aquifer, iron and vanadium were retained as COPCs and advanced into additional assessment in Section 5(Table 4-2). Background sampling locations caused chromium to be retained as a COPC. After further investigation, chromium was not detected in the analytical areas and was removed from exposure point concentration summary tables due to its location 4.4.1.3 Lower Yorktown Aquifer As a result of the initial screening process for the Lower Yorktown aquifer, the following 11 constituents were retained as COPCs and advanced into additional assessment in Section 5: Al, Sb, B, Cr, Co, Fe, Mn, Mo, Tl, V, and Zn (Table 4-3). 4.4.1.4 Surface Water As a result of the initial screening process for the surface water in the Jacob Creek area, iron and manganese were retained as COPCs and advanced into further investigation in Section 5 (Table 4-4). In the Lumber River downgradient, antimony was retained as a COPC and advanced into additional assessment in Section 5 (Table 4-5). Page 4-9 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 4.4.1.5 Seep Water As a result of the initial screening process for the seep water in the ash basin and railroad ditch areas, arsenic, manganese, and thallium were retained as COPCs and advanced into additional assessment in Section 5 (Table 4-6). 4.4.1.6 Seep Soil As a result of the initial screening process for the seep soil in the ash basin and railroad ditch areas, the following six constituents were retained as COPCs and advanced into additional assessment in Section 5: Al, As, Co, Fe, Se, and V (Table 4-7). Background sampling locations caused antimony, cadmium, and thallium to be retained as COPCs. After further investigation, antimony, cadmium, and thallium were not detected in the analytical areas and therefore removed from exposure point concentration summary tables due to their locations. 4.4.1.7 Sediment As a result of the initial screening process for the sediment in Jacobs Creek, the Fe was the only COPC retained for additional assessment in Section 5 (Table 4-7). 4.4.2 Ecological Screening Sample data from the site are screened using the criteria listed in Section 4.3 to identify which constituents warrant further investigation (Tables 4-8 to 4-14) in the subsequent refined ecological risk assessment (Section 6). 4.4.2.1 Surface Water As a result of the initial screening process for the surface water in the Jacob Creek area, the following four constituents were retained as COPCs and advanced into additional assessment in Section 6: Al, Mn, Fe, and Zn (Table 4-8). 4.4.2.2 Seep Water As a result of the initial screening process for the seep water in the ash basin area, the following 14 constituents were retained as COPCs and advanced into further investigation in Section 6: Al, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mn, Ni, Sr, V, and Zn (Table 4-9). In the railroad ditch area, the following four constituents were retained as COPCs and advanced into additional assessment in Section 6: Al, Cu, Fe, and Zn (Table 4-10). Page 4-10 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 4.4.2.3 Sediment As a result of the initial screening process for the sediment in the Jacob Creek area, barium was retained as a COPC and advanced into additional assessment in Section 6 (Table 4-11). 4.4.2.4 Seep Soil As a result of the initial screening process for the surface water in the ash basin area, the following 14 constituents were retained as COPCs and advanced into further investigation in Section 6: Al, As, B, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mn, Hg, Mo, Se, Sr, V, and Zn (Table 4-12). In the railroad ditch area, aluminum, iron, and lead were retained as COPCs and advanced into additional assessment in Section 6 (Table 4-13). Page 4-11 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 5.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONS (RBCS) This human health risk assessment has been conducted by identifying receptor/exposure medium/exposure pathway combinations and, for each, developing a site-specific risk-based concentration, or RBC, using appropriate exposure factors and assumptions. The RBCs are essentially refined screening levels to account for the receptor population characteristics and exposure pathways applicable to each of the receiving media identified in the CSM. As such, human health RBCs are more realistic (less conservative) than screening levels and are a better measure of potential risk. For example, sediment is screened in Section 4 using soil screening values which assume that people are contacting the sediment daily as though it was soil in a residential yard; however, swimmers who use a recreational water body for swimming will incidentally contact relatively small amounts of sediment only a few days per year. Consequently, site-specific RBCs for sediment will reflect incidental ingestion and dermal contact at an exposure rate and magnitude commensurate with swimming activities. This section describes the exposure scenarios that are used to develop the RBCs. 5.1 Identification of Exposure Scenarios Exposure scenarios are used to quantitatively describe the COPC exposures that could theoretically occur for each land use and exposure pathway evaluated. The exposure scenarios are used in conjunction with EPCs to derive quantitative estimates of COPC exposure. The ultimate goal of developing exposure scenarios, as defined in USEPA guidance, is to identify the combination of exposure parameters that results in the most intense level of exposure that may "reasonably" be expected to occur under the current and future site conditions (USEPA, 1989). As such, a single exposure scenario is often selected to provide a conservative evaluation for the range of possible receptors and populations that could be exposed under a given land use. Exposure scenarios use numerical parameters that include ingestion rates, dermal contact areas, body weights, exposure times, exposure frequencies, and exposure durations. The specific numerical values for each of these parameters were selected taking in consideration the activities and ages of exposure scenario receptors, and are generally selected as the upper -end (generally 95th percentile) values for each quantitative parameter. This conservative approach will generate risk-based estimates for reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenarios, as applicable. Page 5-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 5.2 Exposure Scenarios Based on the CSM and results of the COPC selection, exposure pathways may be potentially complete for the following media; these media are therefore evaluated using site-specific exposure scenarios: 101 On-site seep water via incidental ingestion and dermal contact during trespassing and dermal contact during on-site commercial/industrial activities; E1 On-site seep soil via incidental ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation during trespassing and on-site commercial/industrial activities or construction activities. Seep soil is soil that is intermittently or continuously wetted by ash basin seepage. Inhalation of airborne seep soil would only occur when the seep soil is dry; 41, On-site surface water from the Jacob Creek via incidental ingestion and dermal contact during trespassing and via dermal contact during on-site commercial/industrial activities; 41, On-site sediment from the Jacob Creek via incidental ingestion and dermal contact during trespassing and on-site commercial/industrial activities as well as inhalation during on-site commercial/industrial activities. Inhalation of airborne sediment would only occur when the sediment is dry; y Off-site surface water in the Lumber River via incidental ingestion and dermal contact during swimming and wading as well as dermal contact during boating and fishing. Surface water can be a potential source of potable water used for residential drinking, cooking, and bathing at some sites. However, the Lumber River is designated a "Wild and Scenic River' by the United States Department of the Interior. Furthermore, the Lumber River adjacent to the Weatherspoon power plant is classified by the NCDEQ to be waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture (Class C) and swamp waters (Sw). The Lumber River adjacent to the Weatherspoon power plant is not classified to be a drinking water source (WS) by the NCDEQ (NCDEQ, 2015). The potential for off-site surface water to be used as potable water was evaluated and the exposure pathway to an off-site private residence is incomplete. Due to its small size, Jacob Creek has not been classified by NCDEQ and is therefore not considered to be a source of potable water. Page 5-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 161, Groundwater via incidental ingestion and dermal contact by construction workers during future excavation activities. Construction workers could contact groundwater in an excavation if the excavation is below the water table. There are no residences within the Weatherspoon property boundary and there are no residences hydraulically downgradient of the coal ash basin. Furthermore, the Weatherspoon Power Plant facility will be used for industrial purposes going forward. The potential for groundwater underlying the coal ash basin to be used as potable water by an off-site residence was evaluated and the exposure pathway to an off-site private residence is incomplete. �� Fish tissue from fish caught by the off-site fisher from the Lumber River via ingestion. 5.2.1 Current/Future On -Site Trespasser This scenario assumes an adolescent trespasser (ages 6 to 16) trespasses on-site for 45 days per year (USEPA, 2014b) at a rate of two hours per day. The trespasser is assumed to be exposed to COPCs in on-site surface waters (Jacob Creek), seep water, sediment, and seep soil as a consequence of wading. Exposure routes for each of these media include incidental ingestion and dermal contact. In addition, the trespasser could potentially be exposed to airborne seep soil particulates via inhalation. This would occur under conditions when seep soils are not wetted by seep water. The receptor age, the on-site media they are exposed to, and the routes of exposure assumed under this hypothetical exposure scenario are summarized below: On -Site Trespasser Exposure Route potential AdultAdolescent Child Exposure Incidental Dermal Particulate 6 - 16 yrs. <6 yrs. Media Ingestion Contact Inhalation Seep Soil X X X Sediment X X X Jacob Cr. & X X Seep Water 5.2.2 Current/Future On -Site Commercial/Industrial Worker This scenario assumes that an on-site commercial/industrial worker would work on-site 250 days per year while doing maintenance and/or landscaping activities at the site. It is also assumed that the worker would only contact site media for half of the day (four hours). The adult commercial/industrial worker is assumed to be exposed to COPCs in surface water, sediment, seep water and seep soil. Page 5-3 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Routes of exposure include incidental ingestion of sediment and seep soil and dermal contact with surface water, sediment and seep water. In addition, the commercial/industrial worker could potentially be exposed to airborne seep soil particulates via inhalation. This would occur under conditions when seep soils are not wetted by seep water. USEPA default exposure factors are used for the commercial/industrial worker; however, the potential exposure to sediment and surface water under this scenario was assumed to be one day per month for twelve months of the year and contact with the surface water and sediment was limited to the hands and forearms only. The receptor age, the on-site media they are exposed to, and the routes of exposure assumed under this hypothetical exposure scenario are summarized below: On -Site Commercial or Industrial Worker Exposure Route Potential Adult Adolescent Child Exposure Incidental Dermal Particulate 6 - 16 yrs. <6 yrs. Media Ingestion Contact Inhalation Seep Soil X X X Sediment X X X Jacob Cr. & Seep Water X S.2.3 Current/Future On -Site Construction Worker This scenario assumes that an adult construction worker conducts on-site soil excavation activities that results in significant contact with soils and groundwater over a 12 week period. The media encountered includes seep soil and groundwater that contains COPCs. Routes of exposure include incidental ingestion of seep soil and groundwater as well as dermal contact with seep soil and groundwater. In addition, the construction worker could potentially be exposed to airborne seep soil particulates via inhalation. USEPA national standardized parameters were used for the on-site construction worker scenario. An exposure frequency of 60 days per year was used. Contact with groundwater was assumed to occur 1.6 hours per day each of the 60 total days worked on the construction project. Page 5-4 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra The receptor age, the on-site media they are exposed to, and the routes of exposure assumed under this hypothetical exposure scenario are summarized below: On -Site Construction Worker Potential Exposure Route Adult Adolescent Child Incidental Dermal Particulate 6 - 16 yrs. <6 yrs. Adult Adolescent 6 - 16 yrs. Child <6 yrs. Exposure Media Incidental Dermal Ingestion Contact Particulate Inhalation Seep Soil X X X X Groundwater X X 5.2.4 Current/Future Off -Site Resident The drinking water pathway was considered for on-site groundwater and off-site surface water as potential sources of potable water for current and future off-site residents. The exposure pathway to COPCs in groundwater and surface water under this scenario is incomplete (Section 5.2). 5.2.5 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Swimmer This scenario assumes that a child (ages 1 to 6), adolescent (ages 6 to 16) and adult would swim in the Lumber River adjacent to the Weatherspoon site for 45 days per year (USEPA, 2014b) at a rate of two hours per day. These receptors are assumed to be exposed to COPCs in surface water contacted while swimming. Routes of exposure include incidental ingestion of surface water as well as dermal contact with surface water. The receptor ages, the off-site media they are exposed to, and the routes of exposure assumed under this hypothetical exposure scenario are summarized below: Off -Site Recreational Swimmer Potential Exposure Exposure Route Adult Adolescent Child Incidental Dermal Particulate 6 - 16 yrs. <6 yrs. Media Ingestion Contact Inhalation X I X I X I Surface Water X X 5.2.6 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Wader This scenario assumes that a child (ages 1 to 6), adolescent (ages 6 to 16), and adult wade in the Lumber River adjacent to the Weatherspoon site for 45 days per year (USEPA, 2014b) at a rate of two hours per day. These receptors are assumed to be exposed to COPCs in surface water contacted while swimming. Page 5-5 P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Routes of exposure include incidental ingestion of surface water and dermal contact with surface water. The principal differences between the wading and swimming scenarios are that more body surface area is assumed to contact surface water and a greater incidental ingestion rate of surface water is assumed to occur during swimming activities. The receptor ages, the off-site media they are exposed to, and the routes of exposure assumed under this hypothetical exposure scenario are summarized below: Off -Site Recreational Wader Potential Exposure Exposure Route Adult Adolescent Child Incidental Dermal Particulate 6 - 16 yrs. <6 yrs. Media Ingestion Contact Inhalation X X X Surface Water X X 5.2.7 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Boater This scenario assumes that an adult partakes in boating on the Lumber River adjacent to the Weatherspoon site for 45 days per year (USEPA, 2014b) at a rate of two hours per day. The boaters are assumed to be exposed to COPCs in surface water contacted while boating. The route of exposure is dermal contact with surface water. The receptor age, the off-site media they are exposed to, and the routes of exposure assumed under this hypothetical exposure scenario are summarized below: Off -Site Recreational Boater Potential Exposure Exposure Route Adult Adolescent Child Incidental Dermal Particulate 6 - 16 yrs. <6 yrs. Media Ingestion Contact Inhalation X Surface Water X 5.2.8 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational and Subsistence Fisher This scenario assumes that an adult fishes and wades in the Lumber River adjacent to the Weatherspoon site for 45 days per year (USEPA, 2014b) at a rate of two hours per day. Children were not assumed to accompany adults in angling activities. However, children were considered in the selection of fish Page 5-6 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra ingestion rates under the assumption that family members consume fish that is caught by adults. Consequently, adult and adolescent fish ingestion rates are used to evaluate the range of potential exposures for the recreational fishing scenario. Based on the information provided in USEPA guidance, a recreational fish ingestion rate of 17.5 g/day (14.1 lbs/yr) is used to represent the general recreational adult fisher population (USEPA, 2000). Recreational fish ingestion rate data on children and adolescents is limited. However, USEPA guidance cites average rates for consuming recreational anglers of 7.9 g/day for children ages 6 to 10 and 7.3 g/day for children ages 11 to 20 (USEPA, 2011). The average of these values (7.6 g/day; 6.11bs/yr.) was used as the fish ingestion rate for children ages 6 to 16 (adolescent). In addition, a subsistence angling scenario was also evaluated using North Carolina Division of Public Health Fish Tissue Screening Levels (NCDWR, 2014). These fish tissue screening levels were developed based on a fish ingestion rate of 170 g/day (136.8 lbs/yr), which represents the 95th percentile value for Native American subsistence fishers (USEPA, 2000). The same study derived a 95th percentile fish ingestion rate for children ages birth to 5 years of age of 98 g/day (78.9 lbs/yr). Site-specific data and information for the Lumber River that supports the presence or absence of subsistence fisherman was not available; however, this scenario is included to represent the most sensitive receptor population. The adult recreational and subsistence fisherman is assumed to be exposed to COPCs in surface water contacted while wading. Routes of exposure include dermal contact with surface water. The receptors ages, the off-site media they are exposed to, and the routes of exposure assumed under this hypothetical exposure scenario are summarized below: Page 5-7 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Off -Site Recreational Fisher Potential Exposure Route Adult Adolescent Child Exposure Incidental Dermal Particulate 6 - 16 yrs. <6 yrs. Media Ingestion Contact Inhalation X Surface Water X Potential Consumption of Fish Caught Exposure Fish Dermal Particulate Recreationally Media Ingestion Contact Inhalation X X Fish X Consumption of Fish Caught For Potential Fish Dermal Particulate Subsistence Exposure Ingestion Contact Inhalation Media X X I Fish X 5.3 Exposure Point Concentrations Exposure point concentrations, or EPCs, were calculated for each COPC in each medium. Attachment E provides the derivation of the EPCs. The USEPA defines the EPC as the representative chemical concentration a receptor may contact in an exposure area over the exposure period (USEPA, 1989). Separate EPCs are calculated for each exposure pathway for each scenario and each exposure area. The typical concept of human exposure within a defined exposure area is that an individual contacts the associated environmental medium on a periodic and random basis. Because of the repeated nature of such contact, the human exposure does not really occur at a fixed point but rather at a variety of points with equal likelihood that any given point within the exposure area will be the contact location on any given day. Thus, USEPA states that the EPCs should be the arithmetic averages of the chemical concentrations within the exposure area (USEPA, 2002b). However, to account for uncertainty in estimating the arithmetic mean concentration that may occur due to matrix heterogeneity, spatial variability, and/or temporal variability, the USEPA recommends that an upper confidence limit (UCL) be used to represent the EPC (USEPA, 2002b). In accordance with USEPA guidance, RME EPCs are based on the lesser of the 95 percent UCL on the arithmetic mean concentration (95 percent UCL value) or the maximum detected concentration in the data set (USEPA, 2002b). The 95 percent UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0.00; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being Page 5-8 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernible), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95 percent UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95 percent UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical nature of the data set. 5.4 Risk Calculation Approach To streamline the human health risk assessment calculations for all of the sites being evaluated by Duke Energy under the CAMA, a risk-based concentration, or RBC, approach was taken. In this approach, RBCs are developed for each receptor/medium/exposure pathway/COPC combination. The RBCs are then used in a cumulative risk screening to calculate potential site-specific risks by receptor. Both potentially carcinogenic and non -carcinogenic effects of COPCs are included in the RBC development. The RBCs based on non -cancer effects of COPCs were calculated based upon a target hazard index, or HI of unity (HI =1) which corresponds to levels of exposure that people (including sensitive individuals such as children) could experience without expected adverse effects. The RBCs based on potentially carcinogenic effects were calculated based upon a target risk level of 1x10-4 (one in ten thousand excess lifetime cancer risk or ELCR). The target risk level is within the target risk range of one in one million to one in ten thousand (USEPA, 1991b) and is consistent with the target risk level used for the derivation of the North Carolina fish tissue screening levels (NCDWR, 2014). Only one COPC, arsenic, is identified by USEPA as a carcinogen by the oral route of exposure. Hexavalent chromium has been proposed by USEPA to be classified as an oral carcinogen but that review process is not yet completed. Nonetheless, USEPA does use an oral cancer toxicity value derived by the State of New Jersey in its risk-based screening level tables (USEPA, 2015a) and therefore both inhalation and oral/dermal cancer -based RBCs have been calculated for hexavalent chromium. Toxicity values used in the RBC calculations were selected from USEPA-approved sources following USEPA guidance regarding the hierarchy of sources of human health dose -response values in risk assessment (USEPA, 2003a), as updated (USEPA, 2013b), as documented in Attachment D. Oral and dermal absorption factors are USEPA chemical -specific default values and are also documented in Attachment D. Page 5-9 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 5.5 Risk Calculations Using RBCs COPC EPCs were compared to their respective scenario -specific and media -specific RBCs for non -carcinogens (RBC(nc)) and carcinogens (RBC(c)), as applicable. The comparison is made through calculation of non -carcinogenic risk ratios (EPC nc/RBCnc) and carcinogenic risk ratios (EPCc/RBCc). The total non -carcinogenic risk ratios for all COPCs that may produce non -carcinogenic health effects were then summed for each medium for each exposure scenario. Likewise, the total potentially carcinogenic risk ratios for all COPCs that produce carcinogenic health effects were then summed for each medium for each exposure scenario. A risk ratio equal to or less than 1 for a COPC indicates that the COPC EPC is below the scenario -specific and medium -specific RBC. Conversely, a risk ratio greater than 1 for a COPC indicates that the COPC EPC is above the RBC for the scenario and medium being evaluated. The true utility of deriving risk ratios, however, is to evaluate the cumulative receptor risk associated with each exposure scenario. Cumulative receptor risk was calculated by summing the COPC risk ratios attributed to specific environmental media (media -specific risk ratio) and then the scenario -specific exposure area risk ratio is calculated by summing the media -specific risk ratios for all potential exposure media evaluated under a given scenario. The calculation is performed separately for cancer and non -cancer based risk ratios. Cancer Risk Ratio = ( EPC1 ) + ( EPC2 ) + ( EPC3 RBCc1 RBCc2 RBCc3 Non -Cancer Risk Ratio = ( EPC1 ) + ( EPC2 ) + ( EPC3 RBCnc1 RBCnc2 RBCnc3 Parameter Definition (units) EPC Exposure Point Concentration RBC, Risk Based Concentration based on carcinogenic effects RBCr,c Risk Based Concentration based on noncarcinogenic effects To calculate the potential risk associated with each summed ratio, the ratio is multiplied by the target risk used in the development of the RBCs. For non -carcinogenic health effects, the target HI used in the RBC calculations is 1. For potentially carcinogenic health effects, this is an excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) target risk level used in the RBC calculations of 1x10-4. Page 5-10 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra The ELCR is the probability of contracting cancer over and above the background cancer rate. The American Cancer Society (ACS) estimates that the lifetime probability of contracting cancer in the U.S. is 1 in 2 (5 x 10-1) for men and 1 in 3 (3 x 10-1) for women (ACS, 2016). Therefore, an ELCR of 1 x 10-4 among a hypothetical population of 10,000 generic men would result in one additional case of cancer above the background probability of cancer over their lifetime. In accordance with USEPA risk assessment guidance, the cumulative cancer risk (i.e., carcinogen additivity), is evaluated against the USEPA target ELCR of 1x10-6 to 1x10-4 for potentially carcinogenic constituents. Likewise, the cumulative non -cancer risk (i.e., non -carcinogen additivity), is evaluated against the USEPA target HI of 1 for non - carcinogenic constituents (that act on the same target organ by the same mechanism of action), as defined in USEPA guidance (USEPA, 1991b). Further evaluation is warranted for exposure areas where the cumulative HI is greater than 1 to evaluate whether the cumulative HI is comprised of chemical constituents that act on a common target organ or on different target organs. Comparison of EPCs to scenario -specific and media -specific RBCs calculated for the hypothetical exposure scenarios and the resulting risk estimates are presented in Tables 5-1 through 5-14. 5.6 Human Health Risk Assessment Results Human health risk assessment results for each hypothetical receptor scenario developed in Section 5.3 are presented in the Sections 5.6.1 through 5.6.7. Site -wide results are summarized in Section 7.0. 5.6.1 Current/Future On -Site Trespasser The trespasser is assumed to be exposed to COPCs in on-site surface waters and sediments (Jacob Creek), and ash basin seep water and seep soil as a consequence of wading or transiting the site. Media -specific exposure point concentrations, RBCs, risk ratios, and cumulative risks for COPCs for this scenario are presented in Table 5-1 (ash basin seep soil), Table 5-2 (Jacob Creek sediment), and Table 5- 3 (Jacob Creek surface water and ash basin seep water). The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from on-site trespasser exposure to COPCs under this scenario (Section 5.2.1) are presented below: Page 5-11 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Current/Future On -Site Trespasser Location Exposure Medium Constituents HI ELCR Table Ash Basin Soil All 0.4 2 x 10-5 5-1 Seeps Water All (except lead) 0.2 2 x 10-5 5-3 Jacob Creek Sediment All 0.0005 NC 5-2 Water All 0.0009 NC 5-3 Cumulative 0.6 4 x 10-5 NA Lead in Seep Water 0.7 NC 5-3 The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from exposure to COPCs in seep soil, seep water, Jacob Creek sediment and Jacob Creek surface water under this scenario is less than unity (1) and 1 x 10-4, respectively. In addition, the HI and ELCR resulting from exposure to lead in seep water is also less than unity (1) and 1 x 10-4, respectively. Consequently, exposure to seep soil, seep water, Jacob Creek sediment, and Jacob Creek surface water poses no unacceptable health risk under this scenario. 5.6.2 Current/Future On -Site Commercial/Industrial Worker The adult commercial/industrial worker is assumed to be exposed to COPCs in surface water, sediment, seep water and seep soil. Media -specific exposure point concentrations, RBCs, risk ratios, and cumulative risks for COPCs for this scenario are presented in Table 5-4 (ash basin seep soil), Table 5-5 (Jacob Creek sediment), and Table 5-6 (Jacob Creek surface water and ash basin seep water). The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from on-site commercial/industrial worker exposure to COPCs under this scenario (Section 5.2.2) are presented below: Page 5-12 P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Current/Future On -Site Commercial/Industrial Worker Location Exposure Medium Constituents HI ELCR Table Ash Basin Seeps Soil Arsenic 1.01 1.6 x 10-4 5-4 Other 0.2 NC Water All (except lead) 0.004 4 x 10-7 5-6 Sediment All 0.00003 NC 5-5 Jacob Creek Water All 0.00003 NC 5-6 Cumulative 1.2 1.6 x 10-4 NA Lead in Seep Water 0.67 NC 5-6 The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from exposure to COPCs in seep soil, seep water, Jacob Creek sediment and Jacob Creek surface water under this scenario are greater than unity (1) and 1 x 10-4, respectively. Potentially unacceptable non -carcinogenic and carcinogenic health effects under this scenario are attributed to the presence and concentration of arsenic in seep soil. Lead results in a HI less than unity (1) when exposed to ash basin seep water under this scenario. Eliminating exposure to seep soil and seep water would reduce potentially unacceptable health effects to acceptable levels under this scenario. Consequently, remedial actions that eliminate the exposure pathway to seep soil and seep water (e.g., capping) is one method to eliminate potentially unacceptable human health risk associated with seep soils under this scenario. 5.6.3 Current/Future On -Site Construction Worker This scenario assumes that an adult construction worker conducts on-site soil excavation activities that results in significant contact with seep soils and groundwater over a 12 week period. Media -specific exposure point concentrations, RBCs, risk ratios, and cumulative risks for COPCs for this scenario are presented in Table 5-7 (ash basin seep soil) and Table 5-8 (groundwater). The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from on-site construction worker exposure to COPCs under this scenario (Section 5.2.3) are presented below: Page 5-13 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Current/Future On -Site Construction Worker Location Exposure Medium HI ELCR Table Ash Basin Seeps Soil 0.9 5 x 10-6 5-7 Surficial Aquifer 0.002 3 x 10-9 Groundwater Yorktown Aquifer 0.0005 NC 5-8 Pee Dee Aquifer 0.00004 NC Cumulative 0.9 5 x 10-6 NA The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from on-site construction worker exposure to COPCs under this scenario are less than unity (1) and 1X 10-4, respectively. Consequently, on-site seep soil and groundwater pose no unacceptable human health risk under this scenario. 5.6.4 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Swimmer This scenario assumes that a child, adolescent, and adult would swim in the Lumber River as it passes adjacent to the Weatherspoon site. The swimmer would be exposed to the Lumber River surface water and sediment under this scenario; however, the risk to the recreational swimmer is evaluated against exposure to Lumber River surface water only. Available data is based upon one downgradient Lumber River surface water sample. No Lumber River sediment samples have been collected to date. Media -specific exposure point concentrations, RBCs, risk ratios, and cumulative risks for COPCs for this scenario are presented in Table 5-9 (Lumber River surface water). The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from off-site recreational swimmer exposure to COPCs under this scenario (Section 5.2.5) are presented below: - Current/Future Off -Site Swimmer Location Exposure Medium HI ELCR Table Lumber River Surface Water 0.009 NC 5-9 The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from off-site recreational swimmer exposure to COPCs in Lumber River surface water under this scenario (Section 5.2.5) are less than unity (1) and 1 x 10-4, respectively. This evaluation is based upon analysis of a single surface water sample (S-19 collected on August 19, 2014) collected from the Lumber River downstream from the Weatherspoon site. Based upon this data and subsequent risk analysis, off-site surface water in the Page 5-14 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Lumber River immediately downstream of the Weatherspoon site poses no unacceptable risk under this scenario. 5.6.5 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Wader This scenario assumes that a child, adolescent, and adult would wade in the Lumber River as it passes adjacent to the Weatherspoon site. The wader would be exposed to the Lumber River surface water and sediment under this scenario; however, the risk to the recreational wader is evaluated against exposure to Lumber River surface water only. Available data is based upon one downgradient Lumber River surface water sample. No Lumber River sediment samples have been collected to date. Media -specific exposure point concentrations, RBCs, risk ratios, and cumulative risks for COPCs for this scenario are presented in Table 5-10 (Lumber River surface water). The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from off-site recreational swimmer exposure to COPCs under this scenario (Section 5.2.6) are presented below: Current/Future Off -Site Wader Location Exposure Medium HI ELCR Table Lumber River Surface Water 0.006 NC 5-10 The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from off-site recreational wader exposure to COPCs in Lumber River surface water under this scenario are less than unity (1) and 1 x 10-4, respectively. This evaluation is based upon analysis of a single surface water sample (S-19 collected on August 19, 2014) collected from the Lumber River downstream from the Weatherspoon site. Based upon this data and subsequent risk analysis, off-site surface water in the Lumber River poses no unacceptable risk under this scenario. 5.6.6 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Boater This scenario assumes that an adult would wade in the Lumber River as it passes adjacent to the Weatherspoon site. Media -specific exposure point concentrations, RBCs, risk ratios, and cumulative risks for COPCs for this scenario are presented in Table 5-11 (Lumber River surface water). The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from off-site recreational swimmer exposure to COPCs under this scenario (Section 5.2.7) are presented below: Page 5-15 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Current/Future Off -Site Boater Location Exposure Medium HI ELCR Table Lumber River Surface Water 0.0007 NC 5-11 The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from off-site recreational boater exposure to COPCs under this scenario are less than unity (1) and 1 x 10-4, respectively. This evaluation is based upon analysis of a single surface water sample (S-19 collected on August 19, 2014) collected from the Lumber River downstream from the Weatherspoon site. The boater would be exposed to the Lumber River surface water and sediment under this scenario; however, the risk to the recreational boater is evaluated against exposure to Lumber River surface water only. Available data is based upon one downgradient Lumber River surface water sample. No Lumber River sediment samples have been collected to date. Based upon this data and subsequent risk analysis, off-site surface water in the Lumber River poses no unacceptable risk under this scenario. 5.6.7 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational and Subsistence Fisher This scenario assumes that an adult fisherman wades into the Lumber River as it passes adjacent to the Weatherspoon site to catch fish (Section 5.2.8). The fisherman would be exposed to the Lumber River surface water and sediment under this scenario; however, the risk to the fisherman is evaluated against exposure to Lumber River surface water only. Available data is based upon single Lumber River surface water samples collected upstream and downstream relative to the Weatherspoon site. These surface water samples were collected on August 19, 2014. No Lumber River sediment samples have been collected to date. Media -specific exposure point concentrations, RBCs, risk ratios, and cumulative risks for COPCs for this scenario are presented in Table 5-12 (surface water). The only COPC for surface water is antimony. The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from off-site fisher exposure to antimony in downstream surface water under this scenario is presented below: Page 5-16 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Fisher Location Exposure HI ELCR Table Medium/Constituent Lumber River Surface Water/Antimony 0.0007 NC 5-12 Direct exposure (incidental ingestion and/or dermal contact) to off-site downstream Lumber River surface water results in a hazard index less than unity (1) and an ELCR less than 1 x 10-4 under this scenario (Section 5.2.8). Consequently, direct exposure to off-site surface water (Table 5-12) pose no unacceptable health risk to the adult recreational fisherman while fishing under this scenario. This scenario also assumes that the adult recreational fisherman and an adolescent eat the fish caught by the recreational fisher from the Lumber River (Section 5.2.8). COPCs in fish tissue were selected based upon the COPCs in surface water and North Carolina Division of Public Health Fish tissue screening levels. The only COPC for fish tissue is antimony (Table 5-12). The concentration of antimony in fish tissue is derived using USEPA modeling and constituent bioconcentration factors. The exposure point concentrations, RBCs, risk ratios, and risks attributed to antimony in fish tissue for this scenario were calculated for the upstream and downstream Lumber River surface water samples and is presented in Table 5-13. The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from consumption of fish caught recreationally under this scenario are presented below: Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Fisher - Adult/Adolescent Fish Consumption Location Exposure HI ELCR Table Medium/Constituent Lumber River Fish Tissue/Antimony 0.05 NC (Upstream) 5-13 Lumber River Fish Tissue/Antimony 0.04 F NC (Downstream) The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from the consumption of fish caught recreationally from Lumber River locations upstream and downstream of the Weatherspoon site under this scenario are less than unity (1) and 1 x 10-4, Page 5-17 P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra respectively. Consequently, consumption of fish under this scenario (Table 5- 13) poses no unacceptable health risk. The most conservative off-site fisher scenario assumes that an adult subsistence fisherman and a child eat the fish caught from the Lumber River (Section 5.2.8). Under this scenario, it is assumed that an adult will consume fish at a rate of 170 g/day (136.8 lbs/yr) and that children ages birth to 5 years of age of will consume fish at a rate of 98 g/day (78.9 lbs/yr). This consumption rate represents the 95th percentile value for Native American subsistence fishers (USEPA, 2000). There is currently no data/information publically available to support that the subsistence fisherman scenario exists in practice; however, the subsistence fisherman scenario is included to represent the most sensitive receptor population. The exposure point concentrations, RBCs, risk ratios, and risks attributed to antimony in fish tissue for this scenario was calculated for the upstream and downstream Lumber River surface water samples and is presented in Table 5- 14. The cumulative HI and ELCR resulting from consumption of fish under this scenario are presented below: Current/Future Off -Site Subsistence Fisher - Adult/Child Fish Consumption Location Exposure Medium/ Constituent HI ELCR Table Lumber River Fish Tissue/Antimony 1.5 NC (Upstream) 5-14 Lumber River Fish Tissue/Antimony 1.3 NC (Downstream) As summarized in Table 5-14, antimony has a fish tissue RBC of 0.06 mg/kg, which converts into an estimated surface water RBC of 0.0015 mg/L. This RBC for surface water is based on the fish tissue RBC and a BCF of 40 (0.06 mg/kg/40=0.0015 mg/L). The concentrations of antimony in surface water samples collected from the Lumber River upstream and downstream of the Weatherspoon site is 0.00225 mg/L and 0.00202 mg/L, respectively. The cumulative ELCR resulting from the consumption of fish caught for subsistence from the Lumber River under this scenario is less than 1X 10-4; however, the HI attributed the consumption of fish caught from the Lumber River upstream and downstream of the Weatherspoon site for subsistence is 1.5 and 1.3, respectively (Table 5-14). Based upon available data, it is concluded that: Page 5-18 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra Antimony concentrations in Lumber River surface water downstream of the Weatherspoon site are attributed to natural or anthropogenic sources upstream of the Weatherspoon site; 411 The antimony in Weatherspoon site groundwater discharging into the Lumber River has no material impact on the concentration of antimony in Lumber River surface water; and Potential health risk posed by antimony in Lumber River surface water and in fish tissue is not attributable to Weatherspoon site groundwater. 5.7 Uncertainty Evaluation The risk assessment process involves assumptions that must be made due to a lack of absolute scientific knowledge. Some of the assumptions are supported by considerable scientific evidence, while others have less support. Every assumption introduces some degree of uncertainty into the risk assessment process Regulatory risk assessment methodology requires that in the absence of site-specific information conservative assumptions be included throughout the risk assessment to achieve protection of public health.. Therefore, when all of the assumptions are combined, it is much more likely that risks are overestimated rather than underestimated. This must be caveated by the fact that for some media, very few samples are available for use in the risk assessment. These results may be representative of site conditions, or may over- or under -estimate site concentrations. All COPCs have been included in the risk assessment without consideration of whether the concentrations are consistent with site-specific background concentrations. Again, a statistical definition of background is not possible for some media where only a few background sample results are available. Page 5-19 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 6.0 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (BERA) 6.1 Introduction The role of a BERA is to: (1) determine whether unacceptable risks are posed to ecological receptors from chemical stressors, and (2) provide the information necessary to make a risk management decision concerning the practical need and extent of remedial action. The BERA will proceed according to the traditional ecological risk assessment paradigm: Problem Formulation, Analysis (Exposure and Effects Characterization), and Risk Characterization. Because of the many permutations of conservative parameters, an Uncertainty Evaluation section will also be included. The BERA will generally adhere to the "Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments" (USEPA, 1997) as well the "Supplemental Guidance to ERAGS: Region 4, Ecological Risk Assessment" (USEPA, 2015d), and North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources "Guidelines for Performing Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessments" (NCDENR, 2003). 6.2 Problem Formulation The Problem Formulation step defines the objectives and scope of the BERA. This step identifies, evaluates, and/or quantifies the following: Identifying/Prioritizing COPCs: Constituents of potential concern are chosen based on the type of source(s), concentration, background levels, frequency of detection, persistence, bioaccumulation potential, toxicity/potency, fate & transport (e.g., mobility to groundwater), and potential biological effects. See Section 4.3 for a discussion of the first step of this process which is screening that is conducted to identify COPCs. Initial screening consists of comparing the maximum concentration of each constituent in the applicable media to conservative environmental screening levels. Section 4.4.2 discusses selection of COPCs (post -screening). y Identification of Receptors: Individual organisms, populations, or communities that may be exposed to site -related constituents in environmental media are identified based on site location, setting, and available habitat at the site. Receptors are discussed in Section 2.4 (Ecological Conceptual Site Model). Page 6-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 41P Selection of Endpoints: Assessment and measurement endpoints are used to evaluate the ecological health of a site. Assessment endpoints describe the characteristics of an ecosystem that have an intrinsic environmental value that is to be protected (i.e., protection of warm -water fish community; no potential risk to endangered species). Typically, assessment endpoints and receptors are selected for their potential exposure, ecological significance, economic importance, and/or societal relevance. Because assessment endpoints often cannot be measured directly, a set of surrogate endpoints (measures of effect, or measurement endpoints) are generally selected for ecological risk assessment that relate to the assessment endpoints and have measurable attributes (e.g., comparison of media concentrations to screening benchmarks, results of food web models) (USEPA, 1997; USEPA, 1998). These measures of effect provide a quantitative metric for evaluating potential effects of constituents on the ecosystem components potentially at risk. These endpoints are discussed in Section 6.2.2. The problem formulation culminates in a refined CSM, which identifies the primary and secondary source(s), receptors, and exposure pathways that are applicable to the site. The ecological CSM described in Section 2.4 will be refined based on the site- specific information analyzed in the problem formulation. The CSM is an integral piece in the specification of the objectives and scope of the BERA, and is amenable to adjustment as more information is gathered over time. 6.2.1 Refinement of Constituents of Potential Concern Per Step 3 of the Region 4 ecological risk assessment guidance, COPCs that have been retained using the risk-based screening described in Section 4.3 will be evaluated using a multiple lines -of -evidence approach in the BERA. These lines - of -evidence include: 41' Com-parison to Background Concentrations: if sufficient data are available, two -sample "t tests" will be used to statistically determine if site -related concentrations are different from background (i.e., upstream or reference) concentrations. These tests are particularly applicable to soil and/or sediment where concentrations are less variable than surface water. y Nutrients: constituents that are required minerals, electrolytes or cofactors in the diet include calcium, chloride, chromium, cobalt, copper, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, potassium, selenium, sodium, Page 6-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra and zinc. Some of these may be readily eliminated from the COPC list, particularly if the levels in applicable media comparable to levels that naturally occur in the environment for a particular county or region (USGS, 1984; USGS, 2001). However, many of these constituents can be coal ash -related and may exhibit varying degrees of toxicity to human and/or ecological receptors. Therefore, for the purposes of this screening, only calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium will be identified as essential, and will not be included for quantitative evaluation in the BERA. y Frequency, Magnitude, & Pattern of Detection: generally speaking, COPCs with less than a 5 percent frequency of detection can be removed from consideration. Professional judgement can be exercised on metals that may have a higher frequency of detection but relatively low concentrations (e.g., compared to naturally occurring levels). Spatial patterns are also important to evaluate. y Mode of Toxicity and/or Potential for Trophic Transfer: some constituents will not be transported into the food web; therefore, consideration of the persistence and/or toxicity may be an important line -of -evidence that should be discussed in COPC refinement. For example, boron may be taken up in plankton but it may not present a risk to upper level organisms; chromium may not be a concern in wetland sediments (reduced to insoluble Cr(III)); mercury and selenium may not be a concern in dry soils as there is low potential to be methylated to a more bioavailable (and more toxic) organic form. 01 Exposure Considerations: bioavailability and chemical form play integral parts in the actual exposure of ecological receptors to metals, particularly for solid phase metals that are not as easily absorbed as dissolved phase metals and/or organic compounds and for constituents such as arsenic, which are typically found in less toxic organic forms in the food chain. Yet most risk assessments conservatively assume that the bioavailability of substances in environmental media (e.g., sediment, food sources) is the same form used to establish dose -response information in toxicological testing. Often, the form used in toxicological testing has much greater relative bioavailability than forms naturally found in environmental media. In this risk assessment, where bioavailability factors can be documented, they will be incorporated as a Page 6-3 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra separate "bioavailability factor" (i.e., if known, rather than modeled, metal uptake from soils to plants, soil to invertebrates, water to fish, etc.). Additionally, some animals may have fairly large home ranges/foraging areas, thus decreasing their overall exposure in the environs of a discrete site; seasonal migrations may also reduce site exposure time. This is addressed by the use of a Seasonal Use Factor (SUF) in the risk calculations, as described below. 6.2.2 Assessment and Measurement Endpoints According to USEPA guidance, assessment endpoints are explicit expressions of the actual environmental values (i.e., ecological resources) that are to be protected (USEPA, 1997). Assessment endpoints can be either measured directly or are evaluated through indirect measures. Measurement endpoints represent quantifiable ecological characteristics that can be measured, interpreted, and related to the valued ecological component(s) chosen as the assessment endpoints. Assessment endpoints, and the associated measurement endpoints, provide information to evaluate the risk framework generated in the conceptual site model. The following assessment and measurement endpoints will be used to interpret data concerning ecological risks within the site and areas that may be affected by the site: An Assessment Endpoint is defined as any adverse effect on bird and mammal populations resulting from exposures to constituents in applicable media and/or prey that could result in impairment of the growth, reproduction, or survival of the ecological community (USEPA, 1997). Preventing these types of adverse effects aids in continued growth, reproduction, and survival of the ecological community. 101 A Measurement Endpoint is defined as a comparison of the estimated concentrations, or receptor average daily doses (ADD) of constituents (from environmental media), to conservative values known to be "safe" when administered to birds and mammals (USEPA, 1997). Measurement endpoints are as follows: — For fish and invertebrates that dwell in the water column, AWQC will be used to represent "safe" conservative Page 6-4 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra benchmarks in surface water (Attachment C). Surface water EPCs are compared directly to AWQCs; EPCs that are less than these benchmarks represent levels that are not associated with ecological risks of concern. Concentrations greater than these levels indicate that additional evaluation is needed. — For benthic invertebrates, sediment EPCs will be compared to USEPA Region 4 Sediment Screening Values (Attachment Q. — For terrestrial and aquatic mammals and birds, the ADD is calculated for each COPC, for each bird and mammal receptor of interest, and then compared to a Toxicity Reference Value (TRV). The ADD represents the "dose' received by a receptor, in milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day. This dose will be compared to an estimated "safe" dose, the TRV. The TRV is typically derived from a laboratory toxicity study on a bird or mammal that utilizes a soluble (and therefore more bioavailable) form of the metal. Since these forms do not typically exist under environmental conditions, TRVs are conservative and tend to significantly overestimate risk. 6.2.3 Selection of Ecological Receptors of Interest A wildlife species that would be expected to be intimately associated with habitat at each site is considered a receptor of interest (ROI). ROIs are identified, if applicable, for each trophic level within the ecosystem. The choice of ROIs is often dependent upon the types of "indicator" or "surrogate" species (i.e., wildlife that is ubiquitous and anticipated to inhabit the site) that will also have extensively documented life histories and a documented set of allometric parameters allowing empirical modeling (USEPA, 1993). As such, a specific ROI may be used to represent one or more receptors of the same trophic level that are potentially present at a site. The selection of the ROIs is presented in Table 6-1. This table presents, for each individual ROI, the animal's body weight, normalized food and water ingestion rate (kg/kg body weight/day), composition of the diet, home range, area use factors (site area/home range) and seasonal use factors (months spent on site/12 months). The rationale for the selection of the ROIs is as follows: 10 Benthic Invertebrates: Benthic invertebrates serve as prey for higher trophic level species (e.g., fish and aquatic birds discussed below). Page 6-5 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra They are ubiquitous in aquatic waterbodies; therefore, the standard used to protect them includes established Surface Water Quality Criteria and Sediment Screening Levels discussed above (Section 4.3). 10 Fish: Like invertebrates, fish are also ubiquitous in most open water environs with suitable environmental conditions, and the benchmark used for their protection of long-term exposure to chemical constituents would also be ambient Surface Water Quality Criteria. 01 Aquatic mammals: The muskrat (herbivore) and the river otter (piscivore) were selected as they are common species and fairly ubiquitous in the southeast. 101 Aquatic birds: The mallard duck (omnivore) and the great blue heron (piscivore), also fairly common species, are chosen as ROIs. The mallard duck is chosen as the avian species to represent an inhabitant of the aquatic habitat. COPCs in aquatic plants, invertebrates and sediment would be consumed by the mallard duck. Mallards consume both plants and benthic invertebrates and will inadvertently ingest sediment during feeding, and thus would represent a more conservative ROI. The great blue heron is chosen as a higher trophic level species that primarily consumes fish. 4,11 Terrestrial mammals: For terrestrial mammals, the meadow vole (herbivore) and the red fox (carnivore) are chosen, as these ROIs are also ubiquitous to the southeast. �7 Terrestrial birds: For birds, the American robin (omnivore) and the red-tailed hawk (carnivore) are chosen, as these ROIs would be the most probable birds that might inhabit open terrestrial areas at the site. The CSM assumes that COPCs in surface soil would be ingested and accumulated into soil invertebrates which are subsequently consumed by the robin (e.g., soil to earthworm to robin); therefore, inadvertent ingestion of soil is also a complete pathway for this species. The relatively small home range of the meadow vole, the muskrat, and the American robin would most likely assume they could be exposed to the site for Page 6-6 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra an entire lifetime. Meadow voles are endemic to the southeast when adequate grass cover/leaf litter is available; muskrats and robins are also ubiquitous along the east coast. The principal route of exposure to COPCs would be uptake of metals by plants (e.g., grasses, sedges) from soils or sediments. The animals that feed on meadow voles (e.g., red-tailed hawk or red fox) would receive a dose of COPCs that are anticipated to bioaccumulate and, thus, the exposure pathway to predatory animals would be complete. 6.3 Analysis Phase The analysis phase of the ecological risk assessment consists of the technical evaluation of data addressing existing and potential exposures to COPCs and ecological effects thereof. The analysis is primarily based on empirical data collected in the field, but also includes additional assumptions to assist in the interpretation of the data. The analysis of exposure and effects is performed interactively, with the analysis of one informing the analysis of the other. The estimation of EPCs was performed in accordance with USEPA ecological risk assessment guidance (USEPA, 1997; USEPA, 1998). For initial screening (Section 4), the maximum concentration within each exposure medium was used as the EPC; and for the refined analysis (as described below), the 95 percent upper confidence level (UCL) of the mean concentration, or the maximum concentration in the case of insufficient sample size, is used as the EPC. BERA calculations are presented in Attachment F. 6.3.1 Estimation of Exposure Exposures of aquatic and terrestrial receptors at the site are calculated using site - and species-specific exposure models for two separate pathways: 1) indirect exposure to COPCs in food (consumption of forage, soil invertebrates or prey), and 2) incidental ingestion of COPCs in surface soils or sediments. Although ingestion of surface water by mammals and birds does occur, the pathway is insignificant compared to other pathways and is generally not included quantitatively in a BERA; however, to be conservative, this pathway is included here. In the case of mammals and birds, the dose of COPCs is known to be negligible for the dermal and inhalation pathways and is, therefore, not quantitatively evaluated (USEPA, 2003b). The total average daily dose of COPCs for mammals and birds, therefore, is entirely based on consumption of food containing COPCs and, either directly or indirectly, soil and/or sediment. The dose received from consumption of prey items is derived by calculating the COPC uptake into prey from surface water, sediment, and/or soil. Parameters used to describe ingestion rates, body weights, Page 6-7 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra dietary composition, and home ranges of mammalian and avian ROIs used to calculate ADD values are provided in Attachment F, Table F-1. These allometric parameters were developed by USEPA and were obtained from the "Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook" (USEPA, 1993). The ADD for each ROI is the sum of the ingestion of plant matter, the ingestion of animal matter, the ingestion of water, and the intentional or inadvertent ingestion of soil. The ADD is also typically adjusted for the how the animal's behavior may affect exposure (i.e., the area use factor (AUF) accounts for the fraction of home range and the SUF accounts for the time spent away due to migration if applicable). AUFs for selected ecological receptors for each exposure area on-site are presented in Attachment F, Table F-2. The general ADD equation is: Exposure = Total Average Daily Dose = [ADDP + ADDA + ADDs + ADDw] x AUF x SUF where: ADDP = average daily dose by ingestion of plant matter ADDA = average daily dose by ingestion of animal matter ADDS = average daily dose by ingestion of soil ADDw = average daily dose by ingestion of water AUF = area use factor (area of site habitat/area of receptor home range) SUF = seasonal use factor (months inhabiting site/12 months per year) The ADD from ingestion of plants (ADDP) is estimated as follows: where: ADDP = EPC x NIR, x OF EPC = exposure point concentration in soil (mg COPC/kg soil) NIRP = normalized ingestion rate of plant material (mg/kg body weight/day) OF = plant uptake factor for COPCs (kg plant/kg soil) Page 6-8 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra and: NIRP = NIRf x PF NIRf = normalized ingestion rate of food (kg/kg body weight/day) PF = fraction of diet that is plant matter (unitless) The ADD from ingestion of prey/animals (ADDA) is estimated as follows: where: .I ADDA = EPC x NIRA x BAFi EPC = exposure point concentration in soil (mg COPC/kg soil) NIRA = normalized ingestion rate of animal material (kg/kg body weight/day) BAFi = soil -to -soil dwelling biota uptake factor for COPCs (kg tissue/kg soil) NIRA = NIRf x AF NIRf = normalized ingestion rate of food (kg/kg body weight/day) AF = fraction of diet that is animal matter (unitless) The ADD contributed by the ingestion of soil (ADDS) considers the mass of soil (dry weight) as a fraction of the total dietary (dry weight) mass (i.e., plant + animal): where: and: ADDS = EPC x NIRS EPC = exposure point concentration in soil (mg COPC/kg soil) NIRs = normalized ingestion rate of soil (kg/kg body weight/day) Rtt OOt «41 NIRf = normalized ingestion rate of food (kg/kg body weight/day) SF = fraction of diet that is soil (unitless) Page 6-9 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra For piscivorous receptors, the diet is assumed to consist of 100% fish. Fish tissue concentrations will be measured directly when possible, or modeled using bioconcentration/bioaccumulation factors when tissue concentration data are not available. The ADD equation below is for estimating the average daily dose to the avian piscivorous receptors. When applied to a mammalian receptor, the dose of the sediment/soil is incorporated by adding the ADDs term. The following ADDA equation will be used for estimating the ADD of fish tissue when fish tissue data are not available: Where: ADDA = EPC x NIRA x BAF (or BCF or BSAF) EPC = Exposure point concentration in surface water (mg/L) or sediment (mg/kg) NIRA = NIRf x AF NIRf = Normalized ingestion rate of food (kg/kg body weight/day) BAF = Bioaccumulation factor, either a surface water to fish bioconcentration factor (BCF, L/kg), or sediment to fish biota - sediment accumulation factor (BSAF, L/kg fish tissue) AF = Fraction of diet that is animal (fish) matter (unitless) If the recommended fish tissue data are available, then the EPC and the BAF variables are replaced with the fish tissue wet weight COPC concentration data (i.e., ADDA = EPC x NIRA). Each set of equations (plant, animal, soil) provides an estimate of the expected environmental intake of COPCs as an ADD for the specific exposure pathway. The ADDs for all exposure pathways (plants, invertebrates, prey and soils) will then be summed to calculate a total ADD for each receptor for each COPC. Page 6-10 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra For the exposure of COPCs in drinking water, the ADDw term is: Where: ADDw = EPC x NIRw EPC = Exposure point concentration in surface water (mg/L) NIRw = Normalized ingestion rate of surface water (liters/kg body weight/day) EPCs for soil, sediment, fish, and surface water will be based on the 95 percent UCLs of each COPC, calculated as described Section 6.3. EPCs of COPCs in plants and/or earthworms are calculated using media EPCs with an uptake factor (UF) or from soil -to -plant or soil -to -earthworm regression equations developed by Baes et al. (1984) and Sample et al. (1997,1998). Data from previously published bioaccumulation models are used to estimate concentrations of COPCs in plants (Efroymson et al., 1997b). These data also represent the primary bioaccumulation data for inorganics integrated into the USEPA Eco-SSLs (USEPA, 2015e). EPCs of COPCs in fish will use, in decreasing order of importance: a) measured site-specific concentrations of COPCs in fish tissue, b) residuals measured in tissue as part of a regional fish advisory study, if available (e.g., conducted by NCDEQ), c) concentrations in fish using bioconcentration factors estimated from studies conducted in the southeast, and d) concentrations in fish using bioconcentration factors estimated from laboratory studies or obtained from the scientific literature (e.g., regional studies that may have been performed by US Fish & Wildlife or USEPA as part of different investigations). Once the ADDs are calculated using conservative dietary ingestion parameters (above), the exposure will be adjusted by taking into account the AUT (i.e., the acreage of the site divided by the area of receptor home range) and the SUF (i.e., adjusting the ADD based on period of time spent away from the site). For the ROIs with relatively small home ranges (e.g., meadow vole, muskrat and robin), the area of the site is anticipated to be greater than their home range, so the AUF is anticipated to be 1.0. For wildlife with larger home ranges, the AUF is anticipated to be less than 1.0. With regard to time, as the site is located in the southeast, all ROIs are expected to inhabit the site all year round. Page 6-11 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra The exposure concentrations may also be adjusted for relative bioavailability (i.e., bioavailability of substance in exposure medium as compared to bioavailability of substance in bioassay used to establish the TRV) if regional studies/values are available, of which none were available. Some metals (e.g., barium and chromium) may be relatively insoluble in soils and sediments due to the nature of their physical and chemical properties at natural levels of pH and oxidation- reduction potential. 6.3.2 Effects Assessment The ecological effects assessment consists of an evaluation of available toxicity or other effects information that can be used to interpret the significance of the exposures to COPCs relative to potential adverse effects to ecological receptors. Data that can be used include literature -derived chemical toxicity data, and if available, site-specific data (e.g. ambient media toxicity tests, and site-specific field surveys are used if applicable [Suter et al., 1994]). Toxicity reference values, which represent a daily exposure or dose that is considered to be "safe" for the ROI over the animal's lifetime, are used to evaluate if the site -related exposure concentration may present a hazard to wildlife. TRVs for the ecological receptors are presented in Table 6-1(terrestrial) and Table 6-2 (aquatic). The TRVs represent the "safe" doses anticipated for mammals and birds following chronic exposure to COPCs. They were obtained from the published literature summarizing the "bounded" no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) and lowest observed adverse effects levels (LOAELs) associated with continuous chronic chemical exposures of mammals and birds to the COPCs selected for evaluation (USEPA, 2015e). The TRVs presented in Tables 6-1 and 6-2 are conservative benchmarks because they represent some of the most sensitive effects published in literature, being culled from thousands of peer-reviewed articles and intended for use as screening criteria. Although the values are "bounded," and therefore, have some degree of certainty from the perspective of dose/response, it is important to note that many TRVs often do not use a weight -of -evidence approach, are developed using highly soluble forms of COPCs that would never be observed in a natural environment, and typically are based on species that have little resemblance to the "indicator" ROI. For example, the NOAEL for lead is based on a single study examining the effect of lead acetate (a highly bioavailable form of lead) on the reproductive capacity (e.g., egg production) of domestic chickens. It is also instructive to note that the Eco -SSL for lead, which was derived by USEPA to be protective of birds, is 11 Page 6-12 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra mg/kg in soil. That soil benchmark is in the lowest 2 percent of values cited for lead in naturally occurring soil concentrations in the eastern United States. Both NOAEL- and LOAEL-based TRVs are identified for wildlife (birds and mammals). The TRVs for birds and mammals were obtained from various sources, and focus was given to the most recent sources and/or those derived or endorsed by USEPA (e.g., Eco-SSLs). The toxicity studies used were initially selected from the Eco-SSLs (USEPA, 2015e). Other available literature may be used to refine TRVs depending on the ROI selected for each site (e.g., Sample et al., 1996; USACHPPM, 2004). A preliminary data set of TRVs is presented in Table 6-1 for terrestrial ROIs and Table 6-2 for aquatic receptors. 6.4 Risk Characterization Risk characterization essentially involves a quantitative estimation of risk followed by a description and/or interpretation of its meaning. The purpose of the risk characterization is to estimate the potential hazards associated with exposure to COPCs and their relative degree of significance. During risk estimation, the exposure assessment and effects assessment are integrated to evaluate the likelihood of adverse effects to the terrestrial wildlife ROIs (birds and mammals). The risk estimate is calculated by dividing the dose estimate (ADD) from the exposure assessment by the applicable TRV (derived from the available literature) to obtain a HQ: ADD HQ = TRV As mentioned above, the TRVs were developed in the USEPA ecological soil screening documents, and if a TRV was not available from USEPA, then another source was selected from the scientific literature and vetted for precision and accuracy (Tables 6-1 and 6-2). As discussed, to be conservative, the HQs are based on ADDS (Attachment F, Tables F-5 to F-8, F-11 to F-14, and F-17 to F-20) estimated using an EPC defined as 95 percent UCL of the mean, which is typically higher than the 'average' values. Per USEPA risk assessment guidance (USEPA, 1997), if a HQ is <_1.0, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no significant risk. Alternatively, if a HQ is >1.0, it does not necessarily mean that a significant ecological risk from exposure to COPCs exists, but that further evaluation is warranted. Page 6-13 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra The HQs based on the ADD and TRV assume that the receptor obtains most of its food from each site. A table is generated for each class of ROIs (e.g., avian, mammalian) and each table presents HQs estimated for: a) conservative TRVs that use NOAELs (or "TRV — Low'), and b) more realistic TRVs that use LOAELs (or "TRV — High"). The use of the estimation of the HQ using the NOAEL is typically applied to individuals and/or special status species that need to be protected (e.g., rare, threatened or endangered), whereas the estimation of HQs using the LOAEL is typically interpreted as protective of site -wide populations and/or communities of concern. In Robeson County, NC, threatened and/or endangered species present, sporadically or otherwise, include various plants, American alligator (aquatic carnivore), bald eagle (aquatic carnivore), red -cockaded woodpecker (terrestrial omnivore), wood stork (aquatic piscivore), broadtail madtom (aquatic omnivore), and eastern tiger salamander (aquatic invertivore). The interpretation of the risk analysis typically employs both a multiple lines -of - evidence approach and an opinion based on the professional judgment of the ecological risk assessor. Both interpretations err on the side of conservatism, but for HQs that are greater than 1.0, additional details, often addressed in the Uncertainty Evaluation (Section 6.6), may be needed to identify if the hazard is "real" or an artifact of compounding the various permutations of "worst case" exposure parameters. Additionally, some of the TRVs that were developed by USEPA in concert with the Eco- SSLs may need to be reexamined as these values, as discussed above, may not be representative of the true exposure and/or life history of the ROI. For example, most TRVs are based on highly bioavailable forms, but a review of the literature for selected metals may show that actual absorption following ingestion of environmental media at the sites may be substantially lower than the form used to derive the TRV. 6.5 BERA Results The HQs for the site, as with exposure areas, are separated into three sets: one set for the ash basin area, one set for the Jacob Creek area, and one set for the railroad ditch area. The sets of HQs for the ash basin and railroad ditch areas display results for terrestrial receptors; aquatic receptor exposure to these areas was considered and it was concluded that the appropriate type of habitat was not present. The set of HQs for the Jacob Creek area displays results for aquatic receptors; terrestrial receptor exposure to these areas was considered and it was concluded that the appropriate type of habitat was not present. Each HQ table contains results calculated using both the NOAEL and LOAEL to facilitate side-by-side comparison. Page 6-14 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra For the ash basin area, the terrestrial receptors' HQs are displayed in Table 6-3; there are three HQs > 1 for aluminum, molybdenum, and selenium exposure to the meadow vole, and two HQs > 1 for American robin and red fox exposure to molybdenum and selenium, both of which are NOAEL-based. The LOAEL-based HQs are < 1 for meadow vole exposure to aluminum and molybdenum and for American robin and red fox exposure to molybdenum; therefore, there are no significant risks to these receptor groups in this area for these two metals. The LOAEL-based HQs remain > 1 for American robin, meadow vole, and red fox exposure to selenium. This means that additional consideration should be given to the exposure and toxicity assumptions for these receptor groups for these constituents. Alternatively, remedial action in the ash basin area where elevated levels of selenium are present could be conducted to mitigate the potential risk to these ecological receptor groups. For the Jacob Creek area, the aquatic receptors' HQs are displayed in Table 6-4; there are no HQs > 1, NOAEL- or LOAEL-based. Therefore, the potential for ecological risks to this aquatic receptor group in this area is unlikely. For the railroad ditch area, the terrestrial receptors' HQs are displayed in Table 6-5; there is one HQ > 1 for aluminum exposure to the meadow vole, which is NOAEL- based. The corresponding LOAEL-based HQ is < 1, meaning that the potential for ecological risks to terrestrial receptor groups in this area is unlikely. Threatened or endangered species are listed for Robeson County. If preferred habitat is present, documentation of observed species or other evidence that threatened and endangered species could potentially inhabit the ash basin area, NOAEL-based HQs should be utilized in determining risk to protected receptors. In doing this, there are NOAEL-based HQs > 1 for terrestrial omnivores, carnivores, and herbivores (represented by the American robin, red fox, and meadow vole, respectively). Of the threatened and endangered species listed above in Section 6.4, there may be risk associated with molybdenum and selenium exposure to terrestrial omnivores (e.g., red - cockaded woodpecker). This species, however, has not been observed on the site and habitat requirements (old growth long -leaf pine stands generally ranging from 30 to greater than 80 years old.) may preclude the occurrence of this species. Regardless of the estimated risks, the future plan is remediation and closure of the ash basin area. When this occurs, potential ecological risks will likely be mitigated. Page 6-15 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 6.6 Uncertainty Analysis The degree of uncertainty in a risk assessment depends on the amount and quality of data available, information addressing site conditions, accuracy of assumptions, and how closely the ROI represents the particular life history of the birds and mammals that are "actually" inhabiting the site. A qualitative evaluation of the major uncertainties associated with the assessment should include an evaluation of the following: 41P The soil -to -tissue regression models for uptake of metals into both plants and earthworms - the UFs used for the uptake of metals by vegetation and invertebrates most likely overestimate the risk; y The Eco-SSLs, which were used for selecting COPCs, are very conservative soil benchmarks that are derived to be so low as to be protective for a broad range of ecological receptor classes (mammal, bird, invertebrate, plant) over their lifespan; therefore, selection of some COPCs may overestimate risk; 41, Elements/metals (including required nutrients) that are present (or deficient) in soil which may interact with COPCs to produce effects that may be either greater or less than COPCs alone; for example, zinc is known to be a strong antagonist to cadmium in the diet (i.e., zinc decreases the toxicity of cadmium when both are ingested together); y The dietary endpoints used to derive the TRVs are often biased toward a single study involving the exposure of birds or mammals to highly soluble forms of the metal (e.g., copper chloride, lead acetate), whereas the bioavailability of metals in the environment, especially in solid media, can be much lower; 41, Food ingestion data specific for birds or mammals at each site is unknown and can be overestimated by the default ingestion assumptions used; 41, It is assumed that part or all of the home range of the ROIs fall completely within the boundaries of each site; in reality, individuals and breeding pairs move around depending on a number of variables, including territoriality, food availability, and human disturbance, and this movement would result in lower exposure than was assumed in the risk assessment; and Page 6-16 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 41, It is assumed that the types of mammals and birds in this assessment are receptive to the type of habitat at each site; the ROIs were selected to be representative of what may be present in the vicinity of the site, however; the ash basin area specifically may not be attractive to these species. Nonetheless, the risk assessment assumed use of the ash basin area as habitat for the ROI. Page 6-17 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This risk assessment has been prepared for the Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy) Weatherspoon Power Plant, Lumberton, North Carolina. Risks to both human health and ecological receptors have been evaluated using analytical data from groundwater, seep water, seep soil, surface water, and sediment samples. Both risk assessments have employed North Carolina and USEPA guidance available for development of site-specific risk assessments. The exposure scenarios and exposure and toxicity parameters employed have been conservative such that the risk results are more likely to overestimate rather than underestimate the risks. Thus, the results can be used to inform decision making for the Weatherspoon facility. 7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment The following current and future scenarios were evaluated to assess potential human health risk associated with potentially complete exposure pathways: 101 Adolescent Trespasser; o Ash Basin (seep soil and seep water); o Jacob Creek (sediment and surface water). 41P Adult Commercial/Industrial Worker; o Ash Basin (seep soil and seep water); o Jacob Creek (sediment and surface water). E1P Adult Construction Worker; o Ash Basin (seep soil); and o Groundwater (surficial aquifer, Yorktown aquifer and Pee Dee aquifer). 410 Adult, Adolescent, and Child Swimmer; o Lumber River (surface water). Adult, Adolescent, and Child Wader; o Lumber River (surface water). 41, Adult Boater; o Lumber River (surface water). 0 Adult Fisherman; Adult, Adolescent, and Child Fish Consumption o Lumber River (surface water, and fish tissue). Page 7-1 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra The only on-site scenario where COPCs potentially posed risk to human health above risk targets was the adult commercial/industrial worker exposed to seep soil and seep water. Arsenic in seep soil (HI =1.01, ELCR =1.6 x 10-4) is the risk driver for the adult commercial/industrial worker scenario. The cumulative HI for seep soil and seep water of 1.3 indicates the potential for unacceptable non -carcinogenic human health risks. Similarly, the cumulative ELCR of 1.6 x 10-4 indicates the potential for unacceptable carcinogenic human health risks under the adult commercial/industrial worker scenario. Exposure to on-site Jacob Creek surface water and sediment under the on-site adult commercial/industrial worker did not pose potential unacceptable non - carcinogenic or carcinogenic risk (Section 5.6.2). Remedial efforts to eliminate on-site worker exposure pathways to seep soil (e.g., capping) appears warranted based upon this human health risk assessment. The only off-site scenario where COPCs potentially posed a risk to human health above risk targets involved adult and child consumption of fish caught from the Lumber River under the subsistence fisher scenario (Section 5.6.7). The cumulative ELCR (< 1 x 104) is below the risk target under this scenario. However, antimony in fish tissue derived from fish uptake and bioconcentration modeling resulted in a HI greater than unity (1) under this scenario. This evaluation is based upon single Lumber River surface water samples collected upstream and downstream relative to the Weatherspoon site. No Lumber River sediment samples have been collected to date. Lumber River surface water data was screened against surface water criteria and modeled fish tissue concentrations were screened against the North Carolina Division of Public Health fish tissue screening levels. Antimony was determined to be the only fish tissue COPC. Antimony concentrations in the upstream and downstream Lumber River surface water samples were 0.00225 mg/L and 0.00202 mg/L, respectively. When compared to the modeled fish tissue RBC calculated for antimony (0.0015 mg/L), the upstream HI (1.5) is greater than the downstream HI (1.3). Based upon available data and the risk analysis herein, it appears that antimony in Weatherspoon site groundwater makes no significant contribution to antimony concentrations in Lumber River surface water and the potential health risk attributed to antimony detected in Lumber River surface water is not attributable to Weatherspoon site groundwater. Hexavalent chromium is one of the constituents tested in private wells in the vicinity of Duke Energy ash basins under CAMA. Three private wells were tested in the vicinity of the Weatherspoon plant, and there were no detected concentrations above any of the Page 7-2 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra screening levels. However, because hexavalent chromium is of interest under CAMA, the results for the Weatherspoon monitoring wells are discussed here. Hexavalent chromium was not identified as a COPC based on the USEPA tapwater screening level of 0.035 ug/L (which is more restrictive than the NCDHHS health -based screening level of 0.07 ug/L; NCDHHS, 2015); however, hexavalent chromium was detected at trace concentrations (<0.00044 mg/L) in 18 of the thirty-six groundwater samples, collected from 27 groundwater monitoring wells. The maximum concentration of hexavalent chromium detected was 0.00044 mg/L from background groundwater monitoring well BW -02I (SynTerra 2015a, SynTerra 2015b). Hexavalent chromium concentrations exceeded the EPA screening level for hexavalent chromium in tapwater (0.000035 mg/L) in 8 groundwater samples collected from 7 groundwater monitoring wells; however, the potential for on-site groundwater to be a source of potable water used by an on-site or off-site residence was evaluated and the exposure pathway was determined to be incomplete (Section 2.3.4.2). The RBCs for hexavalent chromium in groundwater under the on-site construction worker scenario were calculated to be 28 mg/L for non - carcinogenic health effects and 76 mg/L for potential carcinogenic health effects (Table 5-8). Consequently, hexavalent chromium in site groundwater does not pose risk above risk targets to human health for on-site and off-site human receptors. 7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Based on LOAEL-derived hazard quotients, the baseline ecological risk assessment resulted in potential risks to: terrestrial herbivores from aluminum, molybdenum and selenium and terrestrial omnivores and carnivores to molybdenum and selenium in seeps and seep soils immediately surrounding the ash basin. NOAEL-based hazard quotients resulted in HQs > 1 for terrestrial herbivore and terrestrial omnivore exposure to molybdenum and selenium in the same area. No other areas on or off site indicated potential risks to wildlife. With the planned removal of seeps and soils associated with the ash basin area, these ecological exposure pathways will be rendered incomplete. Thus, no additional ecological risks are identified on or off the Weatherspoon site property. Of the threatened and endangered species listed in Robeson County, NC (Section 6.4), there may be risk associated with exposure to molybdenum and selenium to terrestrial omnivores (e.g., red -cockaded woodpecker). This species has not been observed on the site, and the habitat requirements may preclude the occurrence of this species. Regardless, additional investigation into the occurrence of these species in the ash basin area may be considered, as well as review of the default exposure and toxicity assumptions used in the risk assessment for these receptor groups for molybdenum and Page 7-3 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra selenium. The potential risk to these ecological receptor groups from molybdenum or selenium will be taken into consideration in the development of the ash basin closure design plans. Page 7-4 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 8.0 REFERENCES 1. ACS. 2016. Cancer Facts & Figures 2016. American Cancer Society. Atlanta: American Cancer Society. Available at: http://www. cancer. org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2016/ 2. ATSDR, 2014; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Minimal Risk Levels, updated October 2015. Available at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/mrllist.asp 3. Baes III, C.F., R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984. A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides Through Agriculture. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Health and Safety Research Division. ORNL-5786. September, 1984. DE85 000287. httl2://homer.ornl.gov/baes/documents/ornl5786.html 4. CALEPA, 2011; California Environmental Protection Agency, Cancer Slope Factors, December 2011. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/chemicaldb/index.asj2 5. CALEPA,2014; California Environmental Protection Agency, Reference Exposure Levels, June 2014. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/chemicaldb/index.asp 6. Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. Available at httl2://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r21.12df 7. Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. Available at: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/12rograms/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.12df 8. Haley and Aldrich, 2015; Report on Risk Assessment Work Plan for CAMA Sites, Duke Energy. Page 8-5 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 9. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 2015; National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Website: http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/lumber.12hl2 accessed December 2015. 10. NCDENR, 2003; Division of Waste Management - Guidelines for Performing Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessments within North Carolina. Available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/guidelines-for- performing-screening-level- ecological-risk-assessments erforming-screenin -lg evel- ecological-risk-assessments 11. NCDENR, 2013a; 15A NCAC 2B.0200s. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina. Available at: httj2://12ortal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/swstandards 12. NCDENR, 2013b; 15A NCAC 02L. Groundwater Rules. Groundwater Standards. Available at: httj2://12ortal.ncdenr.org/web/wgZps/csu/gwstandards 13. NCDEQ, 2015a; Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch. Available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sf/ihs/ihsguide 14. NCDEQ, 2015b; NCDEQ Division of Water Resources Map of Surface Water Classifications; website accessed December 2015 http://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webalpviewer/index.html?id=6el25ad7628f49 4694e259c80dd64265. 15. NCDHHS, 2015; Parameters for Water Supply Well Sampling Near Coal Ash Facilities. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. Available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?p 1 id=1169848&folderld=248 14087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf 16. NCDWR, 2014; North Carolina Division of Water Resources Baseline Assessment of Fish Tissue Metal in the Dan River Following the Eden Coal Ash Spill. Available at: httj2://12ortal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=7f2740ed- 5495-4933-aa8b-5127bf813c8d& roupld=38364 17. Sample, BE, DM Opresko, and GW Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 227 pp, Page 8-6 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra ES/ER/TM-86/R3 Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Available at: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm86r3.12df 18. Sample, BE, Aplin, MS, Efroymson, RA, Suter, GW and Welsh, CJE. 1997. Methods and Tools for Estimation of the Exposure of Terrestrial Wildlife to Contaminants. Environmental Sciences Division Publication No 4650, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Defense, Office of Policy and Assistance, Air, Water and Radiation Division. ORNL/TM-13391. October, 1997 19. Sample, BE, Beauchamp, JJ, Efroymson, RA, Suter, GW, and Ashwood, TL. 1998. Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. USDOE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Lockheed Martin, Environmental Restoration Program, ES/ER/TM-220. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/12rograms/ecorisk/documents/tm220.12df 20. Suter, GW, Sample, BE, Jones, DS and Ashwood, TL. 1994. Approach and Strategy for Performing Ecological Risk Assessments for the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Reservation: 1994 Revision. Prepared by Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. August 1994. ES/ER/TM-33/R1 21. SynTerra, 2014; W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan; Prepared for Duke Energy Progress, LLC by SynTerra Corporation, Greenville, SC 29601. 22. SynTerra, 2015a; W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Comprehensive Site Assessment Report; Prepared for Duke Energy Progress, LLC by SynTerra Corporation, Greenville, SC 29601. 23. SynTerra, 2015b; W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Corrective Action Plan -Part I; Prepared for Duke Energy Progress, LLC by SynTerra Corporation, Greenville, SC 29601. 24. USACHPPM, 2004; Development of Terrestrial Exposure and Bioaccumulation Information for the Army Risk Assessment Modeling System (ARAMS). U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM). Contract Number DAAD050-00-P-8365, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 2004. Available at: httl2:Hel.erdc.usace.army.mil/arams/2dfs/usachppm.]2df Page 8-7 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 25. USEPA, 1989; Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. EPA/540/1-89/002. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. December. 26. USEPA, 1991a; Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual: (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals). Interim, OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. December, 1991. 27. USEPA, 1991b; Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions. OSWER Directive #9355.0-30. April. 28. USEPA, 1993; Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. United States Environmental Protection Agency, ORD, Washington, D.C. Volumes I and II. EPA/600/R-93- 187a,b. 29. USEPA, 1996; Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels; Office of Water Engineering and Analysis Division, Washington, D.C. 20460. 30. USEPA, 1997; Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. US Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste And Emergency Response, OSWER 9285.7-25. P1397-963211. EPA 540-R-97-006. June, 1997. http://www.el2a.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ecorisk/ecorisk.htm 31. USEPA, 1998; Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Washington, D.C. EPA/630/R- 95/002F. April 1998. 32. USEPA, 2000; Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume 1, Fish Sampling and Analysis, Third Edition. EPA 823-B-00- 007. USEPA Office of Water. 2000. 33. USEPA, 2002a; Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. OWSWER 9355.4-24 34. USEPA, 2003a; Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. OSWER Directive 9285.7-53. December 5, 2003. Page 8-8 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 35. USEPA, 2003b; Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER Directive 9285.7-55. Issued November 2003, revised February 2005, and revised April 2007. Available at: http://rais.ornl.gov/documents/ecossl.pdf 36. USEPA, 2004; United States Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment, Interim), Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA/540/R/99/005. 37. USEPA. 2007. Framework for metals risk assessment; EPA 120/R-07/001; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Science Advisor, Risk Assessment Forum, 2007; http://www.epa.gov/raf/metalsframework/pdfs/metals-risk- assessment-final.pdf. 38. USEPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. EPA/600/R-09/052F. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. September. 39. USEPA. 2012a. USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories, Spring 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: httl2://water.el2a. gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstandards2012.pdf 40. USEPA, 2013a; Statistical Software ProUCL 5.0.00 for Environmental Applications for Data Sets with and without Nondetect Observations. Software: http://www2.epa.gov/land-research/2roucl-software, and User's Guide: httl2://www2. epa. gov/sites/production/files/2015- 03/documents/proucl v5.0 user.pdf 41. USEPA, 2013b; United States Environmental Protection Agency, Tier 3 Toxicity Value White Paper, OSWER 9285.7-86. 42. USEPA, 2014a; Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER 9200.1-120. February 6, 2011. 43. USEPA, 2014b; Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance. January 2014. Draft Final. 44. USEPA, 2014c; Provisional Peer Reviewed Reference Toxicity Values (PPRTVs). November 2014. http://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/ Page 8-9 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra 45. USEPA, 2015a; USEPA Risk -Based Screening Levels. June 2015. Available at: http://www2. epa. gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables 46. USEPA, 2015b; Final 2015 Updated National Recommended Human Health Water Quality Criteria. http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/hhfinal. cfm 47. USEPA, 2015c; National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria. http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index. cfm 48. USEPA, 2015d; Supplemental Guidance to ERAGS: Region 4, Ecological Risk Assessment. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015- 09/documents/r4 era guidance document draft final 8-25-2015.12df 49. USEPA, 2015e; Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.el2a.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level- documents 50. USEPA, 2015f; Integrated Risk Information System. http://www2.epa.gov/iris 51. USGS, 1984; Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials in conterminous United States. Hansford T. Shacklette and Josephine C. Boerngen, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 52. USGS, 2001; Geochemical Landscapes of the Conterminous United States—New Map Presentations for 22 Elements. N. Gustaysson, B. Bolviken, D.B. Smith, and R.C. Severson. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1648. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. November, 2001. Page 8-10 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Figures SynTerra P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx >}47i.?i �.- ., _ • { J2 y. YBi lR _ {:>em rk � ; �' ;;; I . � � `,� � � � �` f '`� � f r' �-'� tial "�-��` � 1 • / ' - � Eltypn3&Jf ; .ti ' �/� � �FS�� c ,� >!I' � F•r4 $. �~�,'�._� 1 ^�� _` � } L jw 11 I- - I tc"fifE17.a _VI { PROPERTY BOUNDARY` � 1 td 50 OMPLIANCE BOUNDARY WASTE BOUNDARY 1. Public Bim: �' dry ., sra Ramp Tvwrelr" I J F ti 4 j 4 Ah Ce ow r '',, � r • • •!Gem � (--� ;•--. i c _ -77 ' T 1 - I `\ � - I +3� !S S -'� ,, '' rY„"`` ��s Vit'\ •„�) i' f -`, L -vim si- f ` �..� t - t"'-� • ,.L, _ Qi --r f4 SOURCE: fl • - f 1 J = USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OBTAINED FROM THE NRCS GEOSPATIAL DATA ± F`)•�• _ _ -�+► f g GATEWAYAT http://datagateway.nres.usda.gov/ FIGURE 2-1 SITE LOCATION MAP •GREENSBORO WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT VIPe •RALEIGH GREENVILLE 491 POWER PLANT RD • WE Terra ATHERSPOON LUMBERTON, NORTH CAROLINA POWER PLANT L OBESON ,: SOUTH EAST LUMBERTON, NC QUADRANGLE C COUNTY - 148 RIVER STREET, SUITE 220 WILMINGTON - GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA DRAWN BY: C. NEWELL DATE:6/30/2015 GRAPHIC SCALE PHONE 864-421-9999 PROJECT MANAGERKATHY WEBB CONTOUR INTERVAL: 10 FEET 1000 0 1000 2000 www.synterracorp.com LAYOUT:FIG 2-1 (SITE MAP) MAP DATE: 1993 1 IN FEET Primary Primary Secondary Sources Release Sources Mechanisms Inactive Coal Ash Basin (a) Inactive NPDES Discharge (b) Infiltration/ Post Excavation Leaching Soil Secondary Release Mechanisms Dust (c) Figure 2-2 Human Health Risk Assessment Conceptual Site Model W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Duke Progress Energy Progress, LLC, Lumberton, North Carolina Potential Exposure Media LOutdoor Air Soil Remaining Post -Excavation (d) Potential Human Health Receptors Incidental O O O 0 O O Current/ 0 Potential Current/ Current/ Current/ Current/ Current/ Current/ Future On-site Current/ Exposure Future Off -Site Future On -Site Future Off -Site Future Off -Site Future Off -Site Future Off -Site Commercial/ Future On -Site Route Resident Trespasser Recreational Recreational Recreational Fisher Industrial Construction Adult/Child Swimmer Wader Boater Infiltration/ Migration to Worker Worker Inhalation O • O O O O • • Incidental O O O 0 O O O 0 Ingestion D 4 C? Surface Water (Offsite) (e) Incidental Ingestion O 0 • Dermal Contact O O 0 4 0 O O 0 Runoff/Flooding Seep Water Seeps (e) O Drinking WaterUse O O O 4 t? D 4 C? Surface Water (Offsite) (e) Incidental Ingestion O 0 • • 0 0 0 0 0 (e Lumber River and Jacobs Creek 0 (f Jacobs Creek Sediment (g Under current conditions, seeps can be an expression of coal ash basin leachate, groundwater, or (Onsite) both. (f) Dermal ContactO O ! 0 a Infiltration/ Migration to Leaching Surface Water - - and Sediment O O O O O 0 Sediment Incidental Ingestion O (Offsite) (e) Dermal Contact O O O 0 O 0 O �Fish Tissue Groundwater (e �► Ingestion O O O O O' Q Drinking Water Use O O O O 0 O 0 O Groundwater 0 Incidental Ingestion O O O 07 Dermal Contact O O O O O 0 O 1 � Seep Water Seeps (e) O 1VOTESSeep Soil • Pathway potentially complete if constituents of potential concern (COPCs) are identified in relevent 0 media. Ingestion O Pathway evaluated and found incomplete/insignificant. 0 (a Basin is no longer receiving coal ash. 0 (b Basin is no longer receiving sluice water; basin discharge to NPDES outfall is deminimus. Surface Water (c Seep Soil Dust (Onsite) Dermal Contact (f) (d Post -excavation soils are the materials remaining beneath the ash basins after excavation. There is 0' no potentially complete pathway from coal ash in basins to upland soils. 0 (e Lumber River and Jacobs Creek 0 (f Jacobs Creek Sediment (g Under current conditions, seeps can be an expression of coal ash basin leachate, groundwater, or (Onsite) both. (f) Incidental O • O O O 0 0 O Ingestion O 0 • 0 0 Dermal Contact 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 Incidental Ingestion Dermal Contact 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 • 0 0 Incidental Ingestion 0 Dermal Contact I O • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 Incidental 0 • O O 0 O • O Ingestion Dermal Contact 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 Primary Primary Sources Release Mechanisms Inactive Infiltration/ Coal Ash Basin —► Leaching (b) Runoff/Flooding Infiltration/ Leaching Inactive NPDES Discharge (c) Secondary Sources Post Excavation Soil Groundwater Seeps (d) NOTES • Pathway potentially complete if constituents of potential concern (COPCs) are identified in relevent media. O Pathway evaluated and found incomplete/insignificant. (a) Exposure to site -related COPCs is indirect, as this receptor is a carnivore that consumes the Meadow Vole as a surrogate prey species. (b) Ash basin no longer receiving coal ash (c) NPDES discharge is minimal, and no longer contains ash sluice water (d) Pathway incomplete as long as ash remains in place; re-evaluation upon excavation (if conducted) may be warranted (e) Lumber River, Jacob Creek (f) Jacob Creek Figure 2-4 Ecological Risk Assessment Conceptual Site Model W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Duke Progress Energy, LLC, Lumberton, North Carolina Secondary Release Potential Mechanisms Exposure Media Dust -- 0 Outdoor Air Migration to Surface Water and Sediment Soil Remaining Post -Excavation (e) i Surface Water (Offsite) (f) Sediment (Offsite) (f) Fish Tissue (f 9) AQUATIC TERRESTRIAL Avian Mammal Avian Mammal Potential - Exposure Fish Benthia Invertebrates Great Blue Red -Tailed tes Mallard Muskrat River Otter Robin Meadow Vole Red Fox (a) Route Heron Hawk (a) (Omnivore) (piscivore) (Herbivore) (Piscivore) (Omnivore) (Carnivore) (Herbivore) (Carnivore) Inhalation O O O O O O O O O O Plant/ Incidental O Ingestion Direct Contact O Ingestion O Direct Contact 1 • Plant/ Incidental O Ingestion Direct Contact O Ingestion O O O • O •11 O O O O Seep Water S�Soill Surface Water (Onsite) (g) Sediment (Onsite) (g) Ingestion O O O O O O • • • • Plant/ O 0 O O O 0 O O O o O O O O O 0 Q O • • Ingestion O • • • • O O O O • O O O O O o a a O • O • O O O O O • O O O O O O O O Ingestion O O O • O •11 O O O O Seep Water S�Soill Surface Water (Onsite) (g) Sediment (Onsite) (g) Ingestion O O O O O O • • • • Plant/ Incidental O • O O O 0 • • • • Ingestion Ingestion O O • • • • O O O O Direct Contact • • O O O O O O O O Plant/ Incidental O O • O • O O O O O Ingestion Direct Contact O • O O O O O O O O Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Tables SynTerra P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx TABLE 4-1 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING - SURFICIAL AQUIFER W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analyte CAS Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Range of Detection Min. Q Max. Q Location of Maximum Concentration Range of Detection Limits Concentration Used for Screening (ug/L) 15A NCAC 02L.0202 Standard (e) (ug/L) 15A NCAC 02L.0202 IMAC (e) (ug/L) DHHS Screening Level (d) (ug/L) Federal MCL/ SMCL (c) (ug/L) Tap Water RSL HI = 0.2 2015 (a) (ug/L) Screening Value Used (ug/L) COPC? Constituent Category Aluminum 7429-90-5 31 31 10 57400 BW -02S NA 57400 NA NA 3,500 50 to 200 (i) 4,000 3,500 y 1 Antimony 7440-36-0 58 2 1 < 2 MW -01 1 2 1 NA 1 6 1.56 (m) 1 y 1 Arsenic 7440-38-2 78 22 1 < 74.4 MW-44SA 1-5 74.4 10 NA 10 10 0.052 (h) 10 y 1 Barium 7440-39-3 75 65 5 < 196 MW-44SA 5-20 196 700 NA 700 2,000 760 700 N 2 Beryllium 7440-41-7 39 4 0.051 < 14.2 AW -02S 0.051-1 14.2 NA 4 4 4 5 4 y 1 Boron 7440-42-8 57 27 8 1620 MW-44SA 50 1620 700 NA 700 NA 800 700 y 1 Cadmium 7440-43-9 78 17 0.024 5.2 BW -01 0.1-2 5.2 2 NA 2 5 1.84 2 y 1 Calcium 7440-70-2 31 31 1.1 175 MW-44SA NA 175 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 57 19 0.2 25.9 BW -02S 1-5 25.9 10 NA 10 100 (j) 4,400 (n) 10 y 1 Chromium, Hexavalent 18540-29-9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.07 NA 0.035 0.07 NA NA Chromium, Trivalent 16065-83-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4,400 4,400 NA NA Cobalt 7440-48-4 31 7 1 < 109 AW -02S 1 109 NA 1 1 NA 1.2 1 y 1 Copper 7440-50-8 57 11 0.8 119 AW -02S 1-5 119 1,000 NA 1,000 1,300 (k) 160 1,000 N 2 Iron 7439-89-6 78 73 12 18000 MW -01 50 18000 300 NA 2,500 300 (1) 2,800 300 y 1 Lead 7439-92-1 78 23 0.2 42.1 BW -02S 1-5 42.1 15 NA 15 15 (1) 15 15 y 1 Magnesium 7439-95-4 31 31 0.5 11.3 AW -02S NA 11.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Manganese 7439-96-5 57 50 4 1270 AW -02S 5 1270 50 NA 200 50 (i) 86 50 y 1 Mercury 7439-97-6 57 4 0.05 < 0.78 BW -02S 0.05-0.2 0.78 1 NA 1 2 1.14 (o) 1 N 2 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 31 7 1 < 7.5 MW-44SA 1 7.5 NA NA 18 NA 20 18 N 2 Nickel 7440-02-0 58 13 0.4 216 AW -02S 1-5 216 100 NA 100 NA 78 (p) 100 y 1 Potassium 7440-09-7 31 31 0.2 18 BW -01 NA 18 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Selenium 7782-49-2 78 16 0.2 5.5 BW -02S 1-10 5.5 20 NA 20 50 20 20 N 2 Sodium 7440-23-5 31 31 1.1 38.9 MW -05 NA 38.9 NA NA 20,000 NA NA 20,000 N 2 Strontium 7440-24-6 31 26 7 2050 MW-44SA 1000 2050 NA NA 2,100 NA 2,400 2,100 N 2 Thallium 7440-28-0 58 9 0.1 0.66 BW -01 0.2-1 0.66 0.2 NA 0.2 2 0.04 (q) 0.2 y 1 Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 31 25 0.3 < 47.3 BW -02S 0.3 47.3 NA NA 0.3 NA 17.2 0.3 y 1 Zinc 7440-66-6 58 22 1 < 635 AW -02S 1-10 635 1000 NA 1 5,000 (1) 1,200 1,000 N 2 Alkalinity ALK 27 16 5 < 220 MW-44SA 5-10 220 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB 27 16 5 < 220 MW-44SA 5-10 220 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB 27 0 5 < 10 < NA 5-10 10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Chloride 7647-14-5 54 51 1.8 60 CW -03 5 60 250,000 NA 0.25 250,000 (i) NA 250,000 N 2 Methane 74-82-8 21 17 10 < 820 MW -03 10 820 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Nitrate 14797-55-8 37 24 0.012 9.6 BW -01 0.02-0.2 9.6 NA NA NA 10,000 6,400 10,000 N 2 pH PH 78 78 3.5 7.5 MW -01 NA NA 6.5 - 8.5 NA NA 6.5 - 8.5 NA NA (ii) NA 5 Sulfate 7757-82-6 71 68 1.1 710 AW -02S 5-10 710 250,000 NA 250,000 (w) 250,000 (i) NA 250,000 N 2 Sulfide 18496-25-8 21 4 0.2 < 1.1 AW -03S 0.1-0.5 1.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Dissolved Solids TDS 72 68 9 690 MW-44SA 25 690 500,000 NA NA 500,000 (i) NA 500,000 N 2 Total Organic Carbon TOC 29 29 0.2 50 AW -03S NA 50 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Suspended Solids TSS 1 15 1 4 10.005, < 1 1.6 1 1 MW -01 1 0.005-0.03 1 1.6 1 NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA 1 5 Notes: AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S72gv7.pdf CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service CCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration COPC - Constituent of Potential Concern < - Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services ESV - Ecological Screening Value HH - Human Health HI - Hazard Index IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram NA - Not Available NC - North Carolina NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal Q - Qualifier RSL - Regional Screening Level RSV - Refinement Screening Value SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SSL - Soil Screening Level su - Standard units ug/L - micrograms/liter USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency WS - Water Supply Prepared by: MCD Checked by: MBJ P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-1 Surficial Aquifer HH Screening.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4-1 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING - SURFICIAL AQUIFER W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Categories 1 - The constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration is above the screening level 2 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because all detected concentrations are below the applicable screening level 3 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is below the screening level 4 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitiation limit; however, the quantitation limit(s) is above the screening level 5 - The constituent was detected, but there is no current screening value available (for example, screening values are not available for essential nutrients such as Ca, K, Mg, or Na) and the constituent is therefore not identified as a COPC 6 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and there is no current screening level available (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (June 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstandards20l2. pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=1aa3fa13-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fbld25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http ://reports. oa h. state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a %20-%20envi ron menta I %20q ua I ity/chapter%2002%20-%20envi ron menta I %20ma nagement/subchapter%20 b/subchapter%20b%20ru les. pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water. Human Health Standards are based on the consumption offish only unless dermal contact studies are available. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/fi les/2015-09/documents/r4_era_guidance_document_draft_final_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (i) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (1) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMC1) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMC1 and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.lanl.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Lindskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gIiclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (gg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (h h) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get file?uuid=Of60lffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 (ii) - As part of the water quality evaluation conducted under the CSA, pH was measured and is reported as a metric data set. The pH comparison criteria are included as ranges as opposed to single screening values. pH is not typically included as part of a risk assessment based on potential toxic effects, therefore; pH was not investigated further as a category 1 COPC. Water quality relative to pH will be addressed as a component of water quality monitoring programs for the site. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-1 Surficial Aquifer HH Screening.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 4-2 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING - PEE DEE AQUIFER W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analyte CAS Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Range of Detection Min. Q Max. jj Q Location of Maximum Concentration Range of Detection Limits Concentration Used for Screening (ug/L) 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Standard (e) (ug/L) 15A NCAC 02L .0202 IMAC (e) (ug/L) DHHS Screening Level (d) (ug/L) Federal MCL/ SMCL (c) (ug/L) Tap Water RSL HI = 0.2 2015 (a) (ug/L) Screening Value Used (ug/L) COPC? Constituent Category Aluminum 7429-90-5 13 13 13 1810 BW -02D NA 1810 NA NA 3,500 50 to 200 (i) 4,000 3,500 N 2 Antimony 7440-36-0 13 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 1 NA 1 6 1.56 (m) 1 N 4 Arsenic 7440-38-2 13 1 1 < 1.01 BW -02D 1 1.01 10 NA 10 10 0.052 (h) 10 N 2 Barium 7440-39-3 13 13 20 121 BW -02D NA 121 700 NA 700 2,000 760 700 N 2 Beryllium 7440-41-7 13 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA 4 4 4 5 4 N 3 Boron 7440-42-8 13 0 50 < 50 < NA 1 50 700 NA 700 NA 800 700 N 3 Cadmium 7440-43-9 13 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 2 NA 2 5 1.84 2 N 3 Calcium 7440-70-2 13 13 26 352 BW -02D NA 352 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 13 2 1 < 24.5 BW -02D 1 24.5 10 NA 10 100 (j) 4,400 (n) 10 Y 1 Chromium, Hexavalent 18540-29-9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.07 NA 0.035 0.07 NA NA Chromium, Trivalent 16065-83-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4,400 4,400 NA NA Cobalt 7440-48-4 13 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA 1 1 NA 1.2 1 N 3 Copper 7440-50-8 13 1 1 < 1.27 BW -02D 1 1.27 1,000 NA 1,000 1,300 (k) 160 1,000 N 2 Iron 7439-89-6 13 12 10 < 1090 BW -03D 10 1090 300 NA 2,500 300 (i) 2,800 300 Y 1 Lead 7439-92-1 13 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 15 NA 15 15 (1) 15 15 N 3 Magnesium 7439-95-4 13 13 0.007 1.18 MW -54D NA 1.18 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Manganese 7439-96-5 13 10 5 < 88 AW -03D 5 88 50 NA 200 50 (i) 86 50 Y 1 Mercury 7439-97-6 13 0 0.05 < 0.05 < NA 0.05 0.05 1 NA 1 2 1.14 (o) 1 N 3 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 13 7 1 < 6.01 AW -01D 1 6.01 NA NA 18 NA 20 18 N 2 Nickel 7440-02-0 13 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 100 NA 100 NA 78 (p) 100 N 3 Potassium 7440-09-7 13 13 1.3 12.7 BW -02D NA 12.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Selenium 7782-49-2 13 1 1 < 1.4 BW -02D 1 1.4 20 NA 20 50 20 20 N 2 Sodium 7440-23-5 13 13 2.7 8.56 BW -02D NA 8.56 NA NA 20,000 NA NA 20,000 N 2 Strontium 7440-24-6 13 13 142 1100 BW -02D NA 1100 NA NA 2,100 NA 2,400 2,100 N 2 Thallium 7440-28-0 13 0 0.2 < 0.2 < NA 0.2 0.2 0.2 NA 0.2 2 0.04 (q) 0.2 N 4 Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 13 6 0.3 < 19.3 BW -02D 0.3 19.3 NA NA 0.3 NA 17.2 0.3 Y 1 Zinc 7440-66-6 13 3 5 < 73 BW -02D 5 73 1000 NA 1 5,000 (i) 1,200 1,000 N 2 Alkalinity ALK 13 13 56 530 BW -02D NA 530 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB 13 12 10 < 120 AW -03D, MW53D 10 120 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB 13 2 10 < 380 BW -02D 10 380 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Chloride 7647-14-5 13 13 2.2 4.7 MW -53D NA 4.7 250,000 NA 0.25 250,000 (i) NA 250,000 N 2 Methane 74-82-8 13 12 10 < 420 AW -02D 10 420 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Nitrate 14797-55-8 13 3 0.01 < 0.03 MW -55D 0.01 0.03 NA NA NA 10,000 6,400 10,000 N 2 pH PH 13 13 6.9 12.5 BW -02D NA NA 6.5 - 8.5 NA NA 6.5 - 8.5 NA NA (ii) NA 5 Sulfate 7757-82-6 13 12 0.1 < 1 61 AW -02D 0.1 61 250,000 NA 250,000 (w) 250,000 (i) NA 250,000 N 2 Sulfide 18496-25-8 13 1 0.1 < 0.162 AW -01D 0.1-0.5 0.162 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Dissolved Solids TDS 13 13 96 740 BW -02D NA 740 500,000 NA NA 500,000 (i) NA 500,000 N 2 Total Organic Carbon TOC 13 13 0.5 32 BW -02D NA 32 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Suspended Solids TSS 13 9 5 < 71 MW -54D 5 71 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Notes: AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/BiIIs/Senate/PDF/S729v7.pdf CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service CCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration COPC - Constituent of Potential Concern DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services ESV - Ecological Screening Value HH - Human Health HI - Hazard Index IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram NA - Not Available NC - North Carolina NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal Q - Qualifier RSL - Regional Screening Level RSV - Refinement Screening Value su - Standard units ug/L - micrograms/liter SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SSL - Soil Screening Level USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency WS - Water Supply < - Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit Prepared by: MCD Checked by: MB] P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-2 PeeDee Aquifer HH Screening.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4-2 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING - PEE DEE AQUIFER W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Categories 1 - The constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration is above the screening level 2 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because all detected concentrations are below the applicable screening level 3 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is below the screening level 4 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitiation limit; however, the quantitation limit(s) is above the screening level 5 - The constituent was detected, but there is no current screening value available (for example, screening values are not available for essential nutrients such as Ca, K, Mg, or Na) and the constituent is therefore not identified as a COPC 6 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and there is no current screening level available (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (June 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstandards2012. pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_Iibrary/get_file?uuid=1aa3fa13-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fbId25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http : //reports. oa h. state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a %20-%20envi ron menta I%20q ual ity/chapter%2002%20-%20envi ron menta 1%20 ma nageme nt/subchapter%20 b/subchapter%20b%20 ru les. pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water. Human Health Standards are based on the consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies are available. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/r4_era_guidance_document_draft_final_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (i) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (1) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(f1/CMCl) + (f2/CMC2)] where f1 and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMC1 and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.lanl.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Lindskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (gg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (hh) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=Of60lffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 (ii) - As part of the water quality evaluation conducted under the CSA, pH was measured and is reported as a metric data set. The pH comparison criteria are included as ranges as opposed to single screening values. pH is not typically included as part of a risk assessment based on potential toxic effects, therefore; pH was not investigated further as a category 1 COPC. Water quality relative to pH will be addressed as a component of water quality monitoring programs for the site. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-2 PeeDee Aquifer HH Screening.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 4-3 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING - LOWER YORKTOWN AQUIFER W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analyte CAS Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Range of Detection Min. I Q I Max. Location of Maximum Concentration Range of Detection Limits Concentration Used for Screening 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Standard (e) (ug/L) 15A NCAC 02L.0202 IMAC (e) (ug/L) DHHS Screening Level (d) (ug/L) Federal MCL/ SMCL (c) (ug/L) Tap Water RSL HI = 0.2 2015 (a) (ug/L) Screening Value Used COPC? Constituent Category Aluminum 7429-90-5 23 23 9 18300 BW -02I NA 18300 NA NA 3,500 50 to 200 (i) 4,000 3,500 Y 1 Antimony 7440-36-0 23 1 1 < 3.95 MW -08I NA 3.95 1 NA 1 6 1.56 (m) 1 Y 1 Arsenic 7440-38-2 23 7 1 < 9.8 MW -08I NA 9.8 10 NA 10 10 0.052 (h) 10 N 2 Barium 7440-39-3 23 23 17 86 MW -04 NA 86 700 NA 700 2,000 760 700 N 2 Beryllium 7440-41-7 23 1 1 < 1.19 BW -02I NA 1.19 NA 4 4 4 5 4 N 2 Boron 7440-42-8 23 6 50 < 3400 MW -49I NA 3400 700 NA 700 NA 800 700 Y 1 Cadmium 7440-43-9 23 0 1 < 1 < NA NA 1 2 NA 2 5 1.84 2 N 3 Calcium 7440-70-2 23 23 7.67 198 MW -33I NA 198 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 23 7 1.16 30.8 BW -02I NA 30.8 10 NA 10 100 (j) 4,400 (n) 10 Y 1 Chromium, Hexavalent 18540-29-9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.07 NA 0.035 0.07 NA NA Chromium, Trivalent 16065-83-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4,400 4,400 NA NA Cobalt 7440-48-4 23 5 1.13 6.77 MW -04 NA 6.77 NA 1 1 NA 1.2 1 Y 1 Copper 7440-50-8 23 3 1.26 12.7 MW -08I NA 12.7 1,000 NA 1,000 1,300 (k) 160 1,000 N 2 Iron 7439-89-6 23 23 70 8400 AW -01I NA 8400 300 NA 2,500 300 (i) 2,800 300 Y 1 Lead 7439-92-1 23 3 1 < 8.99 BW -02I NA 8.99 15 NA 15 15 (1) 15 15 N 2 Magnesium 7439-95-4 23 23 0.341 9.15 MW -08I NA 9.15 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Manganese 7439-96-5 23 23 21 632 AW -03I NA 632 50 NA 200 50 (i) 86 50 Y 1 Mercury 7439-97-6 23 2 0.05 < 0.28 MW -04 NA 0.28 1 NA 1 2 1.14 (o) 1 N 2 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 23 14 1 < 27.7 MW -08I NA 27.7 NA NA 18 NA 20 18 Y 1 Nickel 7440-02-0 23 7 1 < 3.46 MW -08I NA 3.46 100 NA 100 NA 78 (p) 100 N 2 Potassium 7440-09-7 23 23 0.226 15.5 MW -08I NA 15.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Selenium 7782-49-2 23 3 1 < 3.16 BW -02I NA 3.16 20 NA 20 50 20 20 N 2 Sodium 7440-23-5 23 23 1.19 64.6 MW -49I NA 64.6 NA NA 20,000 NA NA 20,000 N 2 Strontium 7440-24-6 23 23 41 1 1220 MW -08I NA 1220 NA NA 2,100 NA 2,400 2,100 N 2 Thallium 7440-28-0 23 4 0.02 < 0.509 MW -04 NA 0.509 0.2 NA 0.2 2 0.04 (q) 0.2 Y 1 Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 23 17 0.03 < 36.6 BW -02I NA 36.6 NA NA 0.3 NA 17.2 0.3 Y 1 Zinc 7440-66-6 23 9 5 < 31 MW -08I NA 31 1 NA 1 5,000 (i) 1,200 1 Y 1 Alkalinity ALK 23 19 22 300 MW -49I NA 300 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB 23 19 22 1 300 MW -49I NA 300 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB 23 0 10 < 10 < NA NA 10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Chloride 7647-14-5 23 19 3.6 71 MW -49I NA 71 250,000 NA 0.25 250,000 (i) NA 250,000 N 2 Methane 74-82-8 19 17 10 < 2300 MW -49I NA 2300 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Nitrate 14797-55-8 19 9 0.01 < 0.431 MW -07 NA 0.431 NA NA NA 10,000 6,400 10,000 N 2 pH PH 23 23 5.3 7.7 BW -02I NA NA 6.5 - 8.5 NA NA 6.5 - 8.5 NA NA (ii) NA 5 Sulfate 7757-82-6 19 19 0.12 1 250 MW -08I NA 250 250,000 NA 250,000 (w) 250,000 (i) NA 250,000 N 2 Sulfide 18496-25-8 1 19 1 2 1 < 1 0.636 MW -08I NA 0.636 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Dissolved Solids TDS 19 19 30 620 MW -33I NA 620 500,000 NA NA 500,000 (i) NA 500,000 N 2 Total Organic Carbon TOC 19 19 0.53 8.4 BW -02I NA 8.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Suspended Solids TSS 19 14 5 < 200 BW -02I NA 200 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Notes: AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S729v7.pdf CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service CCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration COPC - Constituent of Potential Concern DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services ESV - Ecological Screening Value HH - Human Health HI - Hazard Index IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram NA - Not Available NC - North Carolina NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal Q - Qualifier RSL - Regional Screening Level RSV - Refinement Screening Value SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SSL - Soil Screening Level su - Standard units ug/L - micrograms/liter USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency WS - Water Supply < - Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit vrepareo oy riw t-necKeo Dy: rirsj P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-3 Lower Yorktown Aquifer HH Screening.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4-3 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING - LOWER YORKTOWN AQUIFER W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Categories 1 - The constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration is above the screening level 2 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because all detected concentrations are below the applicable screening level 3 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is below the screening level 4 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitiation limit; however, the quantitation limit(s) is above the screening level 5 - The constituent was detected, but there is no current screening value available (for example, screening values are not available for essential nutrients such as Ca, K, Mg, or Na) and the constituent is therefore not identified as a COPC 6 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and there is no current screening level available (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (June 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstandards2012. pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_Iibrary/get_file?uuid=laa3fa13-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fb1d25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http ://reports. oa h. state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20envi ron mental %20qual ity/chapter%2002%20-%20envi ron menta 1%20 ma nagement/subchapter%20 b/subchapter%20b%20 ru les. pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water. Human Health Standards are based on the consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies are available. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/r4_era_guidance_document_draft_final_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (i) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (1) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMCJ) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMC1 and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.lanl.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Lindskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (gg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (hh) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=Of60lffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 (ii) - As part of the water quality evaluation conducted under the CSA, pH was measured and is reported as a metric data set. The pH comparison criteria are included as ranges as opposed to single screening values. pH is not typically included as part of a risk assessment based on potential toxic effects, therefore; pH was not investigated further as a category 1 COPC. Water quality relative to pH will be addressed as a component of water quality monitoring programs for the site. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-3 Lower Yorktown Aquifer HH Screening.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 4-4 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING - SURFACE WATER - JACOB CREEK W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analyte CAS Number of Samples Frequency of q y Detection Range of Detection Min. Q F Max. -TQ Location of Maximum Concentration Range of Detection Limits Concentration Used for Screening (u9/L) 15A NCAC 02B Human Health (HH) (f) (u9/L) USEPA AWQC Consumption of Organism Only (b) (u9/L) Tap Water RSL HI = 0.2 2015 (a) (u9/L) Screening Value Used (ug/L) COPC? Constituent Category Aluminum 7429-90-5 6 6 128 598 SW -02 NA 598 NA NA 4,000 4,000 N 2 Antimony 7440-36-0 6 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA 0.64 1.56 (m) 1 N 4 Arsenic 7440-38-2 6 2 1 < 1.9 SW -01 1-5 1.9 10 0.14 (h) 0.052 (h) 10 N 2 Barium 7440-39-3 6 6 42 64 S-20 NA 64 NA NA 760 760 N 2 Beryllium 7440-41-7 5 0 1 < 5 < NA 1- 5 5 NA NA 5 5 N 6 Boron 7440-42-8 6 1 50 < 60 SW -01 50 60 NA NA 800 800 N 5 Cadmium 7440-43-9 6 0 1 < 5 < NA 1- 5 5 NA NA 1.84 2 N 4 Calcium 7440-70-2 6 6 10.6 15.9 S-20 NA 15.9 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 6 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 NA NA 4,400 (n) 4,400 N 6 Chromium, Hexavalent 18540-29-9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.035 0 NA NA Chromium, Trivalent 16065-83-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4,400 4,400 NA NA Cobalt 7440-48-4 5 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 NA NA 1.2 1 N 4 Copper 7440-50-8 6 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 NA NA 160 160 N 3 Iron 7439-89-6 6 6 1050 3350 SW -01 NA 3350 NA NA 2,800 2,800 y 1 Lead 7439-92-1 6 1 1 < 1.36 SW -02 1- 5 1.36 NA NA 15 15 N 2 Magnesium 7439-95-4 6 6 1.78 4.89 S-20 NA 4.89 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Manganese 7439-96-5 6 6 59 129 SW -01 NA 129 NA 100 86 100 y 1 Mercury 7439-97-6 6 4 0.000944 0.00575 1 SW -02 0.0005 - 1 0.00575 NA NA 1.14 (0) 1 N 2 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 6 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 NA NA 20 20 N 3 Nickel 7440-02-0 6 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 NA 4,600 78 (p) 4,600 N 3 Potassium 7440-09-7 5 5 1.23 8.04 S-20 NA 8.04 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Selenium 7782-49-2 6 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 NA 4,200 20 4,200 N 3 Sodium 7440-23-5 5 5 5.4 7.33 SW -01 NA 7.33 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Strontium 7440-24-6 5 5 49 1 107 SW -01 NA 107 NA NA 2,400 2,400 N 2 Thallium 7440-28-0 6 0 0.2 < 1 < NA 0.2-1 1 NA 0.47 0.04 (q) 0 N 4 Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 5 4 0.505 1.43 SW -02 1.5 1.43 NA NA 17.2 17 N 3 Zinc 7440-66-6 6 2 5 < 8 SW -02 5-8 8 NA 26,000 1,200 26,000 N 2 Alkalinity ALK 1 5 5 25 46 S-20 25-46 46 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB 5 5 21 1 45 S-20 NA 45 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB 5 0 10 < 10 < NA 10 10 NA NA NA NA NA 6 Chloride 7647-14-5 6 6 12 23 SW -01 NA 23 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Methane 74-82-8 5 5 19 1000 S-20 NA 1000 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Nitrate 14797-55-8 5 4 0.01 < 0.026 S-20 0.01 0.026 NA NA 6,400 6,400 N 2 pH PH 6 6 5.1 6.5 SW -01 NA NA NA NA NA NA (ii) NA 5 Sulfate 7757-82-6 6 6 1.4 1 7.1 SW -02 NA 7.1 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Sulfide 18496-25-8 5 1 0 0.1 < 0.2 < NA 0.1-0.2 0.2 NA NA NA NA NA 6 Total Dissolved Solids TDS 6 6 100 320 S-20 NA 320 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Organic Carbon TOC 5 5 19 24 SW -01 NA 24 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Suspended Solids TSS 6 5 L 6 26 SW -01 NA 26 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Notes: AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S729v7.pdf CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service CCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration COPC - Constituent of Potential Concern DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services ESV - Ecological Screening Value HH - Human Health HI - Hazard Index IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram NA - Not Available NC - North Carolina NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal Q - Qualifier RSL - Regional Screening Level RSV - Refinement Screening Value rrepdreu uy: nur/ri� u -1e-K u Uy: MW su - Standard units ug/L - micrograms/liter USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency WS - Water Supply < - Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-4 Surface Water HH Screening Jacob Creek.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4-4 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING - SURFACE WATER - JACOB CREEK W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Categories 1 - The constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration is above the screening level 2 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because all detected concentrations are below the applicable screening level 3 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is below the screening level 4 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitiation limit; however, the quantitation limit(s) is above the screening level 5 - The constituent was detected, but there is no current screening value available (for example, screening values are not available for essential nutrients such as Ca, K, Mg, or Na) and the constituent is therefore not identified as a COPC 6 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and there is no current screening level available (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (June 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstandards2012.pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=laa3fal3-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fbld25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http ://reports. oa h. state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20envi ron menta I %20q ua lity/chapter%2002%20-%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/subchapter%20b%20 rules. pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water Human Health Standards are based on the consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies are available. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/r4_era_guidance_document_draft_final_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (i) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (1) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMCJ) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMC1 and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.Ian1.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Lindskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (gg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (hh) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get file?uuid=Of60lffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 (ii) - As part of the water quality evaluation conducted under the CSA, pH was measured and is reported as a metric data set. The pH comparison criteria are included as ranges as opposed to single screening values. pH is not typically included as part of a risk assessment based on potential toxic effects, therefore; pH was not investigated further as a category 1 COPC. Water quality relative to pH will be addressed as a component of water quality monitoring programs for the site. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\ReportTables\Section 4\Table 4-4 Surface Water HH Screening Jacob Creek.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 4-5 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING - SURFACE WATER - LUMBER RIVER W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analyte CAS Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Range of Detection Min. Q Max. Q Location of Maximum Concentration Range of Detection Limits Concentration Used for Screening 15A NCAC 02B Human Health (HH) (u9/L) USEPA AWQC Consumption of Organism Only (b) (u9/L) Tap Water RSL HI = 0.2 2015 (a) (u9/L) Screening Value Used COPC? Constituent Category Aluminum 7429-90-5 1 1 443 S-19 NA 443 NA NA 4,000 4,000 N 2 Antimony 7440-36-0 1 1 2.02 S-19 NA 2.02 NA 0.64 1.56 (m) 0.6 Y 1 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1 0 1 < NA 1 1 10 0.14 (h) 0.052 (h) 10 N 3 Barium 7440-39-3 1 1 30 S-19 NA 30 NA NA 760 760 N 2 Beryllium 7440-41-7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 5 NA NA Boron 7440-42-8 1 0 50 < NA 50 50 NA NA 800 800 N 3 Cadmium 7440-43-9 1 0 1 < NA 1 1 NA NA 1.84 2 N 3 Calcium 7440-70-2 1 1 3.3 b S-19 NA 3.3 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 1 0 1 < NA 1 1 NA NA 4,400 (n) 4,400 N 3 Chromium, Hexavalent 18540-29-9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.035 0 NA NA Chromium, Trivalent 16065-83-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4,400 4,400 NA NA Cobalt 7440-48-4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.2 1 NA NA Copper 7440-50-8 1 1 1 1 1 1.86 1 S-19 NA 1.86 NA NA 160 160 N 2 Iron 7439-89-6 1 1 782 S-19 NA 782 NA NA 2,800 2,800 N 2 Lead 7439-92-1 1 0 1 < NA 1 1 NA NA 15 15 N 3 Magnesium 7439-95-4 1 1 1.26 b S-19 NA 1.26 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Manganese 7439-96-5 1 1 56 S-19 NA 56 NA 100 86 100 N 2 Mercury 7439-97-6 1 0 1 < NA 1 1 NA NA 1.14 (o) 1 N 3 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1 1 0 1 1 < I NA 1 1 NA NA 20 20 N 3 Nickel 7440-02-0 1 0 1 < NA 1 1 NA 4,600 78 (p) 4,600 N 3 Potassium 7440-09-7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Selenium 7782-49-2 1 0 1 < NA 1 1 NA 4,200 20 4,200 N 3 Sodium 7440-23-5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Strontium 7440-24-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,400 2,400 NA NA Thallium 7440-28-0 1 1 0 1 0.2 < NA 0.2 0.2 NA 0.47 0.04 (q) 0.47 N 1 3 Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17.2 17 NA NA Zinc 7440-66-6 1 1 39 S-19 NA 39 NA 26,000 1,200 26,000 N 2 Alkalinity ALK NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB NA I NA NA I NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chloride 7647-14-5 1 1 12 S-19 NA 12 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Methane 74-82-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nitrate 14797-55-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6,400 6,400 NA NA pH PH 1 1 5.6 S-19 NA NA NA NA NA NA (ii) NA 5 Sulfate 7757-82-6 1 1 7.1 S-19 NA 7.1 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Dissolved Solids TDS 1 1 95 S-19 NA 95 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Organic Carbon TOC NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Suspended Solids TSS 1 0 5 < NA 5 5 NA NA NA NA L NA 5 Notes: AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/s729v7.pdf CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service CCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration COPC-Constituent of Potential Concern DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services ESV - Ecological Screening Value HH - Human Health HI - Hazard Index IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram NA - Not Available NC - North Carolina NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal Q - Qualifier RSL - Regional Screening Level RSV - Refinement Screening Value SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level vrepareD Dy: rur/vit-u �-necKeo oy: vini SSL - Soil Screening Level su - Standard units ug/L - micrograms/liter USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency WS - Water Supply < - Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit b - Data flagged due to detection in field blank P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-5 Surface Water HH Screening Lumber River Downgradient.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4-5 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING - SURFACE WATER - LUMBER RIVER W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Categories 1 - The constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration is above the screening level 2 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because all detected concentrations are below the applicable screening level 3 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is below the screening level 4 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitiation limit; however, the quantitation limit(s) is above the screening level 5 - The constituent was detected, but there is no current screening value available (for example, screening values are not available for essential nutrients such as Ca, K, Mg, or Na) and the constituent is therefore not identified as a COPC 6 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and there is no current screening level available (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (June 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstandards2012. pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_Iibrary/get_file?uuid=laa3fa13-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fb1d25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http ://reports. oa h. state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20envi ron mental %20qual ity/chapter%2002%20-%20envi ron menta 1%20 ma nagement/subchapter%20 b/subchapter%20b%20 ru les. pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water. Human Health Standards are based on the consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies are available. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/r4_era_guidance_document_draft_final_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (i) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (1) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMCJ) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMC1 and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.lanl.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Lindskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (gg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (hh) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=Of60lffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 (ii) - As part of the water quality evaluation conducted under the CSA, pH was measured and is reported as a metric data set. The pH comparison criteria are included as ranges as opposed to single screening values. pH is not typically included as part of a risk assessment based on potential toxic effects, therefore; pH was not investigated further as a category 1 COPC. Water quality relative to pH will be addressed as a component of water quality monitoring programs for the site. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-5 Surface Water HH Screening Lumber River Downgradient.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 4-6 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING - SEEP WATER - ASH BASIN W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analyte CAS Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Range of Detection Min. Q Max. Location of Maximum Concentration Q Range of Detection Limits Concentration Used for Screening 15A NCAC 02B Human Health CHH) (u9/L) USEPA AWQC Consumption of Organism Only (a) (ug/L) Tap Water RSL HI = 0.2 2015 (a) (u9/L) Screening Value Used COPC? Constituent Category Aluminum 7429-90-5 21 21 9 66000 S-10 NA 66000 NA NA 4,000 4,000 y 1 Antimony 7440-36-0 21 0 1 < 10 < NA 1-10 10 NA 0.64 1.56 m 0.64 N 4 Arsenic 7440-38-2 21 20 1 < 1910 S-10 1 1910 10 0.14 (h) 0.052 (h) 10 y 1 Barium 7440-39-3 21 21 30 1950 S-10 NA 1950 NA NA 760 760 y 1 Beryllium 7440-41-7 15 0 1 < 10 < NA 1-10 10 NA NA 5 5 N 4 Boron 7440-42-8 21 21 114 3090 S-14 NA 3090 NA NA 800 800 y 1 Cadmium 7440-43-9 21 1 1 < 1.27 S-10 1-10 1.27 NA NA 1.84 1.84 N 3 Calcium 7440-70-2 15 15 7.47 270 S-10 NA 270 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 21 1 1 < 67.4 S-10 1-10 67.4 NA NA 4,400 (n) 4,400 N 2 Chromium, Hexavalent 18540-29-9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.035 0.035 NA NA Chromium, Trivalent 16065-83-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4,400 4,400 NA NA Cobalt 7440-48-4 15 5 1 < 32.1 S-10 1-10 32.1 NA NA 1.2 1.2 Y 1 Copper 7440-50-8 21 1 1 < 166 S-10 1-10 166 NA NA 160 160 y 1 Iron 7439-89-6 21 21 867 2E+06 S-10 NA 1610000 NA NA 2,800 2,800 y 1 Lead 7439-92-1 21 2 1 < 161 S-10 1-10 161 NA NA 15 15 y 1 Magnesium 7439-95-4 15 15 1.99 21.2 S-10 NA 21.2 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Manganese 7439-96-5 21 21 32 2600 S-10 NA 2600 NA 100 86 100 y 1 Mercury 7439-97-6 21 13 0.0005 < 0.0055 S-01 0.0005-0.005 0.0055 NA NA 1.14 0 1.14 N 2 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 21 14 1 < 158 S -03A 1-10 158 NA NA 20 20 y 1 Nickel 7440-02-0 21 16 1 < 71.6 S-10 1-10 71.6 NA 4,600 78 4,600 N 2 Potassium 7440-09-7 15 15 1.82 20.7 S-10 NA 20.7 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Selenium 7782-49-2 21 1 1 < 4.57 S-10 1-10 4.57 NA 4,200 20 4,200 N 2 Sodium 7440-23-5 15 15 7.68 44.3 S-15 NA 44.3 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Strontium 7440-24-6 15 15 177 10800 S-10 NA 10800 NA NA 2,400 2,400 y 1 Thallium 7440-28-0 21 4 0.2 < 2.82 S-10 0.2-2 2.82 NA 0.47 0.04 (q) 0.5 y 1 Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 15 15 0.58 43.5 S-10 NA 43.5 NA NA 17.2 17.2 y 1 Zinc 7440-66-6 21 12 5 < 411 S-10 5 411 NA 26,000 1,200 26,000 N 2 Alkalinity ALK 15 15 18 370 S-10 NA 370 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB 15 15 18 370 S-10 NA 370 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB 15 0 10 < 10 < NA 10 10 NA NA NA NA NA 6 Chloride 7647-14-5 21 21 10 53 S-11 NA 53 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Methane 74-82-8 15 12 10 < 120 S-10 10 120 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Nitrate 14797-55-8 21 20 0.01 < 0.24 S -03B 0.01 0.24 NA NA 6,400 6,400 N 2 pH PH 21 21 6 7.7 S-16 NA NA NA NA NA NA (ii) NA 5 Sulfate 7757-82-6 21 21 0.29 310 S-03 NA 310 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Sulfide 18496-25-8 15 1 0 0.1 < 0.1 < NA 0.1 0.1 NA NA NA NA NA 6 Total Dissolved Solids TDS 21 21 91 730 S-10 NA 730 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Organic Carbon TOC 15 15 4 24 S-10 NA 24 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Suspended Solids TSS 21 15 5 < 17000 S-10 5-125 17000 NA NA NA NA NA 5 Notes: AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S729v7.pdf CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service GCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration COPC - Constituent of Potential Concern DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services ESV - Ecological Screening Value HH - Human Health HI - Hazard Index IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram NA - Not Available NC - North Carolina NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal Q - Qualifier RSL - Regional Screening Level RSV - Refinement Screening Value Preparea Dy: Kur/Mcu LnecKea Dy: Mtsi SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SSL - Soil Screening Level su - Standard units ug/L - micrograms/liter USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency WS - Water Supply < - Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-6 Seep Water HH Screening.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4-6 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING - SEEP WATER - ASH BASIN W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Categories 1 - The constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration is above the screening level 2 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because all detected concentrations are below the applicable screening level 3 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is below the screening level 4 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitiation limit; however, the quantitation limit(s) is above the screening level 5 - The constituent was detected, but there is no current screening value available (for example, screening values are not available for essential nutrients such as Ca, K, Mg, or Na) and the constituent is therefore not identified as a COPC 6 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and there is no current screening level available (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (June 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstandards2012.pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=laa3fal3-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fbld25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http ://reports. oa h. state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20envi ron menta I %20q ua I ity/chapter%2002%20-%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/subchapter%20b%20 ru I es. pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water Human Health Standards are based on the consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies are available. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/r4_era_guidance_document_draft_final_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (i) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (1) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMC1) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMCJ and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.Ian1.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Lindskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gIiclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (gg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (hh) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=Of60lffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 (ii) - As part of the water quality evaluation conducted under the CSA, pH was measured and is reported as a metric data set. The pH comparison criteria are included as ranges as opposed to single screening values. pH is not typically included as part of a risk assessment based on potential toxic effects, therefore; pH was not investigated further as a category 1 COPC. Water quality relative to pH will be addressed as a component of water quality monitoring programs for the site. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\ReportTables\Section 4\Table 4-6 Seep Water HH Screening.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 4-7 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING -SEEP SOIL - ASH BASIN W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analyte CAS Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Range of Detection Min. Q Max. Q Location of Maximum Concentration Range of Detection Limits Concentration Used for Screening (mg/kg) NC PSRG Residential Health Screening Level (hh) (mg/kg) Residential Soil RSL (a) HI = 0.2 June 2015 (mg/kg) NC PSRG Industrial Health Screening Level (hh) (mg/kg) Industrial Soil RSL (a) HI = 0.2 2 June 2015 (mg/kg) Residential Screening Value Used (mg/kg) Industrial Screening Value Used (mg/kg) Residential Industrial COPC? COPC? Constituent Category Aluminum 7429-90-5 41 41 183 17200 SB -02 (3-4) NA 17200 15,000 15,000 100,000 220,000 15,000 100,000 y N la Antimony 7440-36-0 41 1 1 < 136 SB -04 (4-5) Ito 4 136 6.2 (m) 6.2 (m) 94 (m) 94 (m) 6.2 94 y y lb Arsenic 7440-38-2 41 20 1 < 139 SB -04 (4-5) 1-3.3 139 0.67 (h) 0.68 (h) 3 (h) 3 (h) 0.67 3 y y lb Barium 7440-39-3 41 40 5.6 < 157 SB -03 (0-2) NA 157 3,000 3,000 44,000 44,000 3,000 44,000 N N 2 Beryllium 7440-41-7 41 15 0.12 < 13.8 SB -04 (4-5) 0.12-0.4 13.8 32 32 460 460 32 460 N N 2 Boron 7440-42-8 41 17 2.6 < 15.5 AB -01 (20-21) 2.6-28.8 15.5 3,200 3,200 46,000 46,000 3,200 46,000 N N 2 Cadmium 7440-43-9 41 2 0.12 < 14.1 SB -04 (4-5) 0.12-0.49 14.1 14 14.2 200 196 14 200 y N is Calcium 7440-70-2 41 31 26 < 4010 AW -02 (34-35) 26-33.5 4010 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 41 38 1.5 < 17.7 SB -02 (3-4) 1.5-3 17.7 24,000 (n) 24,000 (n) 100,000 (n) 360,000 (n) 24,000 100,000 N N 2 Chromium, Hexavalent 18540-29-9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.3 0.3 6.3 6.3 0.3 6.3 NA NA NA Chromium, Trivalent 16065-83-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 24,000 24,000 100,000 360,000 24,000 100,000 NA NA NA Cobalt 7440-48-4 41 9 1 < 152 SB -04 (4-5) 1-3.3 152 4.6 4.6 70 70 4.6 70 y y 1b Copper 7440-50-8 41 35 0.26 < 11.8 AW -02 (34-35) 0.26-2.8 11.8 620 620 9,400 9,400 620 9,400 N N 2 Iron 7439-89-6 41 41 78.5 17400 SB -02 (3-4) NA 17400 11,000 11,000 100,000 164,000 11,000 100,000 y N la Lead 7439-92-1 41 34 1.1 < 155 SB -04 (4-5) 1.1-3.3 155 400 400 800 800 400 800 N N 2 Magnesium 7439-95-4 41 31 26.9 < 327 AW -02 (0-2) 26.9-280 327 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Manganese 7439-96-5 41 38 0.3 < 56.5 SB -03 (0-2) 0.3-2.8 56.5 360 360 5,200 5,200 360 5,200 N N 2 Mercury 7439-97-6 41 23 0.0085 < 0.079 SB -02 (3-4) 0.0085-0.01 0.079 4.6 (o) 4.6 (o) 3.1 (o) 70 (0) 4.6 3.1 N N 2 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 41 13 0.52 < 5.2 AB -02 (33-35) 0.52-6 5.2 78 78 1,200 1,160 78 1,200 N N 2 Nickel 7440-02-0 41 33 0.26 < 7.1 SB -03 (0-2) 0.26-3 7.1 300 (p) 300 (p) 4,400 (p) 4,400 (p) 300 4,400 N N 2 Potassium 7440-09-7 41 19 51.9 < 202 SB -03 (0-2) 51.9-311 202 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Selenium 7782-49-2 41 8 1 < 140 SB -04 (4-5) 1-3.3 140 78 78 1,200 1,160 78 1,200 y N is Sodium 7440-23-5 41 1 51.9 < 77.4 SB -03 (0-2) 51.9-311 77.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Strontium 7440-24-6 41 34 0.52 < 85 SB -03 (0-2) 0.52-5.6 85 9,400 9,400 100,000 100,000 9,400 100,000 N N 2 Thallium 7440-28-0 41 1 1 < 146 SB -04 (4-5) 1 to 4 146 0.16 (q) 0.156 (q) 2.4 (q) 2.4 (q) 0.16 2.4 y y lb Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 41 34 1.1 < 150 SB -04 (4-5) 1.1-3.3 150 78 78 1,160 1,160 78 1,160 y N la Zinc 7440-66-6 41 21 1 37 BW -03 (42-43) 1-11.9 37 4,600 4,600 70,000 70,000 4,600 70,000 N N 2 Alkalinity ALK NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chloride 7647-14-5 41 0 264 < 404 < SB -03 (0-2) 264-404 404 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Methane 74-82-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nitrate 14797-55-8 41 0 26.4 < 40.4 < NA 26.4-40.4 40.4 26,000 26,000 100,000 380,000 26,000 100,000 N N 3 pH PH 41 41 3.6 11 9.2 AW -02 (28-31) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Sulfate 7757-82-6 41 4 264 < 301 AW -02 (28-31) 264-404 301 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Dissolved Solids TDS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Organic Carbon TOC 41 25 599 < 23800 SB -03 (0-2) 599-743 23800 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Suspended Solids TSS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Notes: AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S729v7.pdf CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service CCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration COPC - Constituent of Potential Concern DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services ESV - Ecological Screening Value HH - Human Health HI - Hazard Index IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram NA - Not Available NC - North Carolina NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal Q - Qualifier RSL - Regional Screening Level RSV - Refinement Screening Value SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SSL - Soil Screening Level su - Standard units ug/L - micrograms/liter USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency WS - Water Supply < - Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit Prepared by: MCU/ I LP LneCkea by: MCJ P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-7 Seep Soil HH Screening.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4-7 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING -SEEP SOIL - ASH BASIN W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Categories la - Constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration exceeds its residential screening value. lb - Constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration exceeds both its residential and industrial screening values. 2- Constituent is not identified as a COPC because the detected values are below the applicable screening level. 3- Constituent is not identified as a COPC because it is not detected above the quantitation limit; and the quantitaion limit(s) is below the screening level. 4a - Constituent is not identified as a COPC because it is not found in concentrations exceeding the quantitation limit; however, the quantitation limits exceed its residential screening value. 4b - Constituent is not identified as a COPC because it is not detected above the quantitation limit; however, the quantitation limits exceed both residential and industrial screening values. 5- Constituent is detected, but there is no current screening value available. 6- Constituent is not detected and there is no current screening level available. (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (June 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstandards2012. pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=laa3fal3-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fbld25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http://reports. oa h.state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20environ mental%20qual ity/chapter%2002%20-%20envi ronmenta I%20ma nagement/subchapter%20b/subchapter%20b%20ruies. pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water. Human Health Standards are based on the consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies are available. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/r4_era_guidance_document_draft_final_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (i) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (1) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMC1) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMCJ and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.Ian1.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Lindskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (gg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (h h) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=Of601ffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-7 Seep Soil HH Screening.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 4-8 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING -SEDIMENT - JACOB CREEK W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analyte CAS Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Range of Detection Min. Q Max. Location of Maximum Concentration Q Range of Detection Limits Concentration Used for Screening (mg/kg) NC PSRG Residential Health Screening Level (hh) (mg/kg) Residential Soil RSL (a) HI = 0.2 June 2015 (mg/kg) NC PSRG Industrial Health Screening Level (hh) (mg/kg) Industrial Soil RSL (a) HI = 0.2 2 June 2015 (mg/kg) Residential Screening Value Used (mg/kg) Industrial Screening Value Used (mg/kg) Residential Industrial COPC? COPC? Constituent Category Aluminum 7429-90-5 1 1 7710 SW -01 NA 7710 15,000 15,000 100,000 220,000 15,000 100,000 N N 2 Antimony 7440-36-0 1 0 55.2 < NA 55.2 55.2 6.2 (m) 6.2 (m) 94 (m) 94 (m) 6.2 94 N N 4a Arsenic 7440-38-2 1 0 55.2 < NA 55.2 55.2 0.67 (h) 0.68 (h) 3 (h) 3 (h) 0.67 3 N N 4b Barium 7440-39-3 1 1 171 SW -01 NA 171 3,000 3,000 44,000 44,000 3,000 44,000 N N 2 Beryllium 7440-41-7 1 0 2.8 < NA 2.8 2.8 32 32 460 460 32 460 N N 3 Boron 7440-42-8 1 0 138 < NA 138 138 3,200 3,200 46,000 46,000 3,200 46,000 N N 3 Cadmium 7440-43-9 1 0 6.6 < NA 6.6 6.6 14 14.2 200 196 14 200 N N 3 Calcium 7440-70-2 1 1 8670 SW -01 NA 8670 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 1 1 8 j SW -01 NA 8 24,000 (n) 24,000 (n) 100,000 (n) 360,000 (n) 24,000 100,000 N N 2 Chromium, Hexavalent 18540-29-9 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.3 0.3 6.3 6.3 0.3 6.3 NA NA NA Chromium, Trivalent 16065-83-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 24,000 24,000 100,000 360,000 24,000 100,000 NA NA NA Cobalt 7440-48-4 1 0 55.2 < NA 55.2 55.2 4.6 4.6 70 70 4.6 70 N N 4a Copper 7440-50-8 1 1 18.5 SW -01 NA 18.5 620 620 9,400 9,400 620 9,400 N N 2 Iron 7439-89-6 1 1 11600 SW -01 NA 11600 11,000 11,000 100,000 164,000 11,000 100,000 Y N la Lead 7439-92-1 1 0 55.2 < NA 55.2 55.2 400 400 800 800 400 800 N N 2 Magnesium 7439-95-4 1 1 916 j SW -01 NA 916 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Manganese 7439-96-5 1 1 81.6 SW -01 NA 81.6 360 360 5,200 5,200 360 5,200 N N 2 Mercury 7439-97-6 1 1 0.11 SW -01 NA 0.11 4.6 (0) 4.6 (o) 3.1 (0) 70 (o) 4.6 3.1 N N 2 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1 0 27.6 < NA 27.6 27.6 78 78 1,200 1,160 78 1,200 N N 3 Nickel 7440-02-0 1 0 13.8 < NA 13.8 13.8 300 (P) 300 (P) 4,400 (p) 4,400 (p) 300 4,400 N N 3 Potassium 7440-09-7 1 0 2760 < NA 2760 2760 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Selenium 7782-49-2 1 0 55.2 < NA 55.2 55.2 78 78 1,200 1,160 78 1,200 N N 3 Sodium 7440-23-5 1 0 2760 < NA 2760 2760 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Strontium 7440-24-6 1 1 1 106 SW -01 NA 106 9,400 9,400 100,000 100,000 9,400 100,000 N N 2 Thallium 7440-28-0 1 0 55.2 < NA 55.2 55.2 0.16 (q) 0.156 (q) 2.4 (q) 2.4 (q) 0.16 2.4 N N 4b Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 1 0 55.2 < NA 55.2 55.2 78 78 1,160 1,160 78 1,160 N N 3 Zinc 7440-66-6 1 1 45.2 j SW -01 NA 45.2 4,600 4,600 70,000 70,000 4,600 70,000 N N 2 Alkalinity ALK NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chloride 7647-14-5 1 0 2630 < SW -01 2630 2630 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Methane 74-82-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nitrate 14797-55-8 1 0 263 < NA 263 263 26,000 26,000 100,000 380,000 26,000 100,000 N N 3 pH PH 1 1 6.1 SW -01 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Sulfate 7757-82-6 1 0 2630 < NA 2630 2630 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Dissolved Solids TDS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Organic Carbon TOC 1 1 173000 SW -01 NA 173000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Suspended Solids TSS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Notes: AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, ESV - Ecological Screening Value http://www,ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S729v7.pdf HH - Human Health CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service HI - Hazard Index CCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level COPC - Constituent of Potential Concern mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram j - Indicates concentration reported below Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) but above Method Detection Limit (MDL) and therefore concentration is estimated NA - Not Available NC - North Carolina NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal Q - Qualifier RSL - Regional Screening Level RSV - Refinement Screening Value SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SSL - Soil Screening Level su - Standard units ug/L - micrograms/liter USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency WS - Water Supply < - Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit Prepared oy: mcuncP cnedKed oy: mai P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-8 Sediment HH Screening Jacob Creek.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4-8 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING -SEDIMENT - JACOB CREEK W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Categories la - Constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration exceeds its residential screening value. lb - Constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration exceeds both its residential and industrial screening values. 2- Constituent is not identified as a COPC because the detected values are below the applicable screening level. 3- Constituent is not identified as a COPC because it is not detected above the quantitation limit; and the quantitaion limit(s) is below the screening level. 4a - Constituent is not identified as a COPC because it is not found in concentrations exceeding the quantitation limit; however, the quantitation limits exceed its residential screening value. 4b - Constituent is not identified as a COPC because it is not detected above the quantitation limit; however, the quantitation limits exceed both residential and industrial screening values. 5- Constituent is detected, but there is no current screening value available. 6- Constituent is not detected and there is no current screening level available. (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (June 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstandards2012. pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=laa3fal3-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fbld25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http://reports. oa h.state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20environ mental%20qual ity/chapter%2002%20-%20envi ronmenta I%20ma nagement/subchapter%20b/subchapter%20b%20ruies. pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water. Human Health Standards are based on the consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies are available. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/r4_era_guidance_document_draft_final_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (i) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (1) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMC1) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMCJ and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.Ian1.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Lindskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (gg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (h h) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=Of601ffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-8 Sediment HH Screening Jacob Creek.xlsx Page 2 of 2 Analyte Barium Beryllium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Cadmium Calcium Lead Lead Magr Manc Merc MolybdenL Nickel (dis Nickel (tot Potassium Selenium nadium Alkalinity Bicarbonate Alb Carbonate Alka Chloride Methane Nitrate Dissolved Solids Oroanic Carbon TABLE 4-9 ECOLOGICAL SCREENING - SURFACE WATER - JACOB CREEK W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC CAS Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Range of Detection Min. Q Max. Location of Maximum Concentration Q Range of Detection Limits Concentration Used for Screening 7429-90-5 5 5 128 (b) 286 SW -01 NA 286 7440-36-0 5 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 7440-38-2 4 2 1 < 2.26 SW -01 1 2.26 7440-38-2 5 1 1 < 1.9 SW -01 1-5 1.9 7440-39-3 5 5 42 (n, r) 64 SW -01 NA 64 7440-41-7 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 7440-41-7 4 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 7440-42-8 5 1 50 < 60 SW -01 50 60 7440-43-9 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 7440-43-9 4 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 7440-70-2 5 5 10.6 (cc) 15.9 S-20 NA 15.9 7440-47-3 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 7440-47-3 5 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 7440-48-4 4 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 7440-50-8 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 7440-50-8 5 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 7439-89-6 5 5 1050 3350 NA NA 3350 7439-92-1 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 7439-92-1 5 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 7439-95-4 5 5 3.49 4.89 S-20 NA 4.89 7439-96-5 5 5 69 129 SW -01 NA 129 7439-97-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7439-97-6 5 3 0.0005 < 0.00138 S-20 0.0005-1 0.00138 7439-98-7 5 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 7440-02-0 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 7440-02-0 5 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 7440-09-7 4 4 5.04 8.04 S-20 NA 8.04 7782-49-2 5 0 1 < 5 < NA 1-5 5 7440-23-5 4 4 5.4 7.33 SW -01 NA 7.33 7440-24-6 4 4 49 107 SW -01 NA 107 7440-28-0 5 0 0.2 < 1 < NA 0.2-1 1 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7440-62-2 4 3 0.505 0.819 SW -01 1.5 0.819 7440-66-6 4 3 5 < 132 SW -01 5 132 7440-66-6 5 1 5 < 6 S-20 5 6 ALK 4 4 25 46 S-20 NA 46 ALKBICARB 4 4 21 45 S-20 NA 45 ALKCARB 4 4 10 < 10 < NA 10 10 7647-14-5 5 5 12 23 SW -01 NA 23 74-82-8 4 4 32 1000 S-20 NA 1000 14797-55-8 4 3 0.01 < 0.026 S-20 NA 0.026 PH 5 5 5.7 6.5 SW -01 NA NA 7757-82-6 5 5 1.4 5.8 SW -01 NA 5.8 18496-25-8 4 0 0.1 < 0.2 < NA 0.1-0.2 0.2 TDS 5 5 100 320 S-20 NA 320 TOC 4 4 19 24 SW -01 NA 24 Notes: AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria LAMA - Coal Ash Management Act North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S729v7.pdf CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service CCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration COPC-Constituent of Potential Concern DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services ESV - Ecological Screening Value HH - Human Health HI - Hazard Index IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram NA - Not Available 15A NCAC 2113 Freshwater Aquatic Life Acute (f) (ug/L) Total Dissolved IA NA IA NA IA 340 IA NA IA NA IA 65 IA NA IA NA IA 0.82 (u; IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA 3.6 (u; IA NA IA NA IA 13.88 (u, IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA 144.92 (u; IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA 36.2 (u; IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA IA NA 15A NCAC 213 Freshwater Aquatic Life Chronic (f) (ug/L) Total Dissolved NA NA NA NA NA 150 NA NA NA NA NA 6.5 NA NA NA NA NA 0.15 (U) NA NA NA NA NA NA 50 NA NA NA NA 2.7 (u) NA NA NA NA NA 0.54 (u) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.012 NA NA NA NA 16 (u) NA NA NA NA 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 36 (u) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30,000 (v) NA NA NA NA NA .0 - 9.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NC - North Carolina NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal Q - Qualifier RSL - Regional Screening Level RSV - Refinement Screening Value SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level USEPA Region 4 Freshwater Chronic Freshwater Acute Screening NA (ug/L) Values (g) Total Dissolved (ug/L) Total Dissolved 750 (b) NA 900 (cc) NA NA 150 340 (b, 1 340 (b, h) NA 2000 (cc) NA NA 3.6 NA 31 (r, cc) NA 34,000 (cc) NA NA 0.16 1.0 (r) 1.054 (r) NA NA NA NA NA 48.8 322.96 (n, 1,022 (n, r) NA 120 (cc) NA NA 5.16 7.0 (r) 7.3 (r) NA NA NA NA NA 1.32 30.1 (r) 33.8 (r) NA NA 93 NA 1,680 (cc) NA NA 0.77 1.2 (b, 1.4 (b, s) NA 7,200 (cc) NA NA 29.0 260 (r) 261 (r) NA NA 5 NA 20 (cc) NA NA 5,300 NA 38,000 (cc) NA 54 (cc) NA NA 27 NA 79 (cc) NA NA 67 65 (r) 66.6 (r) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 230,000 NA 60,000 (b) NA NA NA NA NA 6.5 - 9.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA USEPA Region 4 Freshwater Chronic Screening Values (g) NA (ug/L) Total Dissolved Total Dissolved 87 (b) NA 190 (cc) NA NA NA 150 (b, h; 150 (b, h) NA 220 (cc) NA NA 2.01 (r) NA 3.6 (r, cc) NA 7,200 (cc) NA NA NA 0.15 (r) 0.16 (r) NA 116,000 (dd) NA NA 64.6 (r) 42.0 (n, r) 48.8 (n, r) NA 19 (cc) NA NA 1.4 4.95 (r) 5.16 (r) NA 1,000 (b) NA NA NA 1.17 (r) 1.32 (r) NA 82,000 (dd) NA 93 (cc) NA NA NA 0.65 (b, s) 0.77 (b, s) NA 800 (cc) NA NA NA 28.9 (r) 29.0 (r) NA 53,000 (dd) NA 5 (cc) NA 680,000 (dd) NA 5,300 (cc) NA 6 (cc) NA NA NA 27 (cc) NA NA 66 (r) 67 (r) NA 20,000 NA NA NA NA NA 230,000 (b) NA NA NA NA NA 6.5 - 9.0 (b) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA SSL - Soil Screening Level su - Standard units ug/L - micrograms/liter USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency WS - Water Supply < - Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit USEPA AWQC (b) CCC (chronic) (ug/L) USEPA AWQC (b) CMC (acute) NA (ug/L) Total Dissolved 750 NA NA NA NA 340 (h) 340 (h) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.01 (r) 2.13 (r) NA NA NA NA 570 (n, r) 1,803 (n, r) NA NA NA NA 13.4 (r) 14.0 (r) NA NA NA NA 64.6 (r) 81.6 (r) NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.2 (s) 1.4 (s) NA NA NA NA 468 (r) 469 (r) NA NA NA 12.82 (t) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 117 (r) 120 (r) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 60,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA USEPA AWQC (b) CCC (chronic) (ug/L) Total Dissolved 87 NA NA NA NA 150 (h) 150 (h) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.25 (r) 0.27 (r) NA NA NA 74.1 (n, r) 86.2 (n, r) NA NA NA NA 8.96 (r) 9.33 (r) NA 1,000 NA NA 2.52 3.18 (r) NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.65 0.77 (s) NA NA NA NA 52.0 52.2 (r) NA NA NA 5 (t) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 118 120 (r) NA 20,000 NA NA NA NA NA 230,000 NA NA NA NA NA 6.5 - 9.0 NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA Screening Constituent Value Used COPC? Category (ug/L) 87 190 150 150 220 6.5 3.600 7200 0.150 0.160 116000 42.000 50 19 2.700 5.160 1000 0.540 1.320 82000 93 0.65 0.012 800 16.000 29.000 53000 5 680000 5300 6 NA 27 36.000 67.000 20000 NA NA 230000 NA NA NA (ii) NA 2 NA NA 3 2 2 2 3 4 2 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 4 4 2 1 NA - 2 3 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 NA 2 1 2 2 5 6 2 5 5 5 5 3 5 -5- P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-9 Surface Water Ecological Screening Jacob Creek.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4-9 ECOLOGICAL SCREENING - SURFACE WATER - JACOB CREEK W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Categories 1 - The constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration is above the screening level 2 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because all detected concentrations are below the applicable screening level 3 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is below the screening level 4 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitiation limit; however, the quantitation limit(s) is above the screening level 5 - The constituent was detected, but there is no current screening value available (for example, screening values are not available for essential nutrients such as Ca, K, Mg, or Na) and the constituent is therefore not identified as a COPC 6 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and there is no current screening level available (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (June 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015. http://www2. epa. gov/risk/risk-based-screen i ng -table -generic -tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swgui dance/standards/criteria/current/i ndex. cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http://water. epa. gov/action/advisories/dri n king/upload/dwstanda rds2012. pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704. pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=laa3fal3-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fbld25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http://reports. oa h. state. nc. us/ncac/title°/u2015a%20-0/*20envi ron menta 1°/u20q ua I ity/chapter%2002%20-%20envi ron menta 1°/u20management/subchapter%20 b/subchapter%20 b%20rules. pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water. Human Health Standards are based on the consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies are available. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http: //www2. epa. g ov/sites/production/fi les/2015-09/documents/r4_era_g u idance_document_d raft_fi na I_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (i) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (1) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMCJ) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMCJ and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.lani.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Lindskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (gg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (hh) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=Of60lffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 (ii) - As part of the water quality evaluation conducted under the CSA, pH was measured and is reported as a metric data set. The pH comparison criteria are included as ranges as opposed to single screening values. pH is not typically included as part of a risk assessment based on potential toxic effects, therefore; pH was not investigated further as a category 1 COPC. Water quality relative to pH will be addressed as a component of water quality monitoring programs for the site. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-9 Surface Water Ecological Screening Jacob Creek.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 4-10 ECOLOGICAL SCREENING - SEEP WATER - ASH BASIN W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analyte CAS Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Range of Detection Min. Max. Location of Maximum Concentration Q Range of Detection Limits Concentration Used for Screening 15A NCAC 2B Freshwater Aquatic Life Acute (f) [ug/L) Total Dissolved 15A NCAC 2B Freshwater Aquatic Life Chronic (f) (ug/L) Total Dissolved USEPA Region 4 Freshwater Acute Screening Values (g) (ug/L) Total I Dissolved USEPA Region 4 Freshwater Chronic Screening Values (g) (ug/L) Total I Dissolved USEPA AWQC (b) CMC (acute) (ug/L) Total Dissolved USEPA AWQC (b) CCC (chronic) (ug/L) Total Dissolved Screening Value Used (ug/L) COPC? Constituent Category Aluminum 7429-90-5 20 20 9 66000 S-03 NA 66000 NA NA NA NA 750 (b) NA 87 (b) NA 750 NA 87 NA 87 Y 1 Antimony 7440-36-0 20 0 1 < 10 < NA 1-10 10 NA NA NA NA 900 (cc) NA 190 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 190 N 3 Arsenic (diss) 7440-38-2 15 15 1.13 161 S-10 NA 161 NA 340 NA 150 NA 340 (b, h) NA 150 (b, h) NA 340 (h) NA 150 (h) 150 Y 1 Arsenic (tot) 7440-38-2 20 20 1 1910 S-10 NA 1910 NA NA NA NA 340 (b, h) NA 150 (b, h) NA 340 (h) NA 150 (h) NA 150 Y 1 Barium 7440-39-3 20 20 30 1950 S-10 NA 1950 NA NA NA NA 2000 (cc) NA 220 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 220 Y 1 Beryllium (diss) 7440-41-7 15 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA 65 NA 6.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6.5 N 3 Beryllium (tot) 7440-41-7 15 0 1 < 10 < NA 1-10 10 NA NA NA NA 31 (r, cc) NA 3.6 (r, cc) NA NA NA NA NA 4 N 4 Boron 7440-42-8 20 20 114 2990 S-10 NA 2990 NA NA NA NA 34,000 (cc) NA 7,200 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 7200 N 2 Cadmium (diss) 7440-43-9 15 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA 0.82 (u) NA 0.15 (u) NA 1.0 (r) NA 0.15 (r) NA 2.01 (r) NA 0.25 (r) 0.15 N 4 Cadmium (tot) 7440-43-9 17 1 1 < 1.27 S-10 1-10 1.27 NA NA NA NA 1.1 (r) NA 0.16 (r) NA 2.13 (r) NA 0.27 (r) 0.2 Y 1 Calcium 7440-70-2 15 15 7.5 270 S-10 NA 270 NA NA NA NA NA NA 116,000 (dd) NA NA NA NA NA 116000 N 2 Chromium (Total diss) 7440-47-3 15 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA 323 (n, r) NA 42.0 (n, r) NA 570 (n, r) NA 74.1 (n, r) 42 N 3 Chromium (Total recov) 7440-47-3 20 1 1 < 67.4 S-10 1-10 67.4 NA NA 50 NA 1,022 (n, r) NA 48.8 (n, r) NA 1,803 (n, r) NA 86.2 (n, r) NA 50 Y 1 Cobalt 7440-48-4 15 5 1 < 32.1 S-10 1-10 32.1 NA NA NA NA 120 (cc) NA 19 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 19 Y 1 Copper (diss) 7440-50-8 15 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA 3.6 (u) NA 2.7 (u) NA 7.0 (r) NA 4.95 (r) NA 13.4 (r) NA 8.96 (r) 2.7 N 3 Copper (tot) 7440-50-8 20 1 1 < 166 S-10 1-10 166 NA NA NA NA 7.3 (r) NA 5.16 (r) NA 14.0 (r) NA 9.33 (r) NA 5.2 Y 1 Iron 7439-89-6 20 20 867 1610000 S-10 NA 1610000 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,000 (b) NA NA NA 1,000 NA 1000 Y 1 Lead (diss) 7439-92-1 15 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA 14 (u) NA 0.54 (u) NA 30.1 (r) NA 1.17 (r) NA 64.6 (r) NA 2.52 (r) 1 N 4 Lead (tot) 7439-92-1 20 2 1 < 161 S-10 1-10 161 NA NA NA NA 33.8 (r) NA 1.32 (r) NA 81.6 (r) NA 3.18 (r) NA 1.3 Y 1 Magnesium 7439-95-4 15 15 2 21.2 S-10 NA 21.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 82,000 (dd) NA NA NA NA NA 82000 N 2 Manganese 7439-96-5 15 15 32 2600 S-10 NA 2600 NA NA NA NA 1,680 (cc) NA 93 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 93 Y 1 Mercury (diss) 7439-97-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.2 (b, s) NA 0.65 (b, s) NA 1.2 (s) NA 0.65 (s) 0.65 NA NA Mercury (tot) 7439-97-6 20 13 0.0008 < 0.0055 S-01 0.0005-0.005 0.0055 NA NA 0.012 NA 1.4 (b, s) NA 0.77 (b, s) NA 1.4 (s) NA 0.77 (s) NA 0.012 N 2 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 20 14 1 < 158 S -03A 1-10 158 NA NA NA NA 7,200 (cc) NA 800 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 800 N 2 Nickel (diss) 7440-02-0 15 14 1 < 22.8 S -03A 1 22.8 NA 145 (u) NA 16 (u) NA 260 (r) NA 28.9 (r) NA 468 (r) NA 52.0 (r) 16 Y 1 Nickel (tot) 7440-02-0 20 15 1 < 71.6 S-10 1-10 71.6 NA NA NA NA 261 (r) NA 29.0 (r) NA 469 (r) NA 52.2 (r) NA 29 Y 1 Potassium 7440-09-7 15 15 1.82 20.7 S-10 NA 20.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 53,000 (dd) NA NA NA NA NA 53000 N 2 Selenium 7782-49-2 20 1 1 < 4.57 S-10 1-10 4.57 NA NA 5 NA 20 (cc) NA 5 (cc) NA 12.82 (t) NA 5 (t) NA 5 N 2 Sodium 7440-23-5 15 15 7.68 44.3 S-15 NA 44.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 680,000 (dd) NA NA NA NA NA 680000 N 2 Strontium 7440-24-6 15 15 177 10800 S-10 NA 10800 NA NA NA NA 48,000 (cc) NA 5,300 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 5300 Y 1 Thallium 7440-28-0 20 3 0.2 < 2.82 S-10 0.2-2 2.82 NA NA NA NA 54 (cc) NA 6 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 6 N 2 Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 15 15 0.58 43.5 S-10 NA 43.5 NA NA NA NA 79 (cc) NA 27 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 27 Y 1 Zinc (diss) 7440-66-6 15 8 5 < 89 S -03A 5 89 NA 36 (u) NA 36 (u) NA 65 (r) NA 66 (r) NA 117 (r) NA 118 (r) 36 Y 1 Zinc (tot) 7440-66-6 20 12 5 < 411 S-10 5 411 NA NA NA NA 67 (r) NA 67 (r) NA 120 (r) NA 120 (r) NA 67 Y 1 Alkalinity ALK 15 15 18 370 S-10 NA 370 NA NA NA NA NA NA 20,000 NA NA NA 20,000 NA 20000 N 2 Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB 20 20 18 370 S-10 NA 370 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB 15 0 10 < 10 < NA 10 10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Chloride 7647-14-5 20 20 10 53 S-11 NA 53 NA NA 230,000 (v) NA 860,000 (b) NA 230,000 (b) NA 860,000 NA 230,000 NA 230000 N 2 Methane 74-82-8 15 12 10 < 120 S-10 10 120 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Nitrate 14797-55-8 20 19 0.01 < 0.24 S -03B 0.01 0.24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 pH PH 20 20 6 7.7 S-16 NA NA NA NA 6.0 - 9.0 NA NA NA 6.5 - 9.0 (b) NA NA NA 6.5 - 9.0 NA NA (ii) NA 5 Sulfate 7757-82-6 20 20 0.29 310 S-03 NA 310 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Sulfide 18496-25-8 15 0 0.1 < 0.1 < NA 0.1 0.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA 2 N 3 Total Dissolved Solids TDS 20 20 91 730 S-10 NA 730 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Organic Carbon TOC 15 15 4 24 S-10 NA 24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Suspended Solids TSS 20 15 5 < 17000 S-10 5-50 17000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Notes; AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services NA - Not Available North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, ESV - Ecological Screening Value NC - North Carolina http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S72gv7.pdf HH - Human Health NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service HI - Hazard Index ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory CCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level Q - Qualifier COPC-Constituent of Potential Concern RSL - Regional Screening Level RSV - Retirement Screening Value SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SSL - Soil Screening Level su - Standard units ug/L - micrograms/liter USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency WS - Water Supply Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit Prepared by: KNS/TCP Checked by: MBJ P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-10 Seep Water Ecological Screening Ash Basin.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4-10 ECOLOGICAL SCREENING - SEEP WATER - ASH BASIN W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, INC Constituent Categories 1 - The constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration is above the screening level 2 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because all detected concentrations are below the applicable screening level 3 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is below the screening level 4 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitiation limit; however, the quantitation limit(s) is above the screening level 5 - The constituent was detected, but there is no current screening value available (for example, screening values are not available for essential nutrients such as Ca, K, Mg, or Na) and the constituent is therefore not identified as a COPC 6 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and there is no current screening level available (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (June 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015. http: //www2. epa. gov/risk/risk-based-screen ing-table-generic-tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http: //water. epa.gov/scitech/swg u ldance/standards/criteria/current/i ndex. cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http: //water. epa. gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwsta ndards2012. pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_fiile?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=laa3fal3-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fbld25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http: //reports. oa h. state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a°/n20-%20envi ronmental%20qu al ity/chapter%2002%20-%20envi ronmenta I%20 ma nagement/subchapter°/u20b/subchapter°/u20b%20ru les. pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water. Human Health Standards are based on the consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies are available. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http://www2. epa. gov/sites/prod uction/fi les/2015-09/documents/r4_era_guidance_docu ment_d raft_fi na I_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (i) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (1) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMCJ) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and 1`2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMCJ and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.Ian1.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Lindskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumag! and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (gg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (hh) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_Ilbrary/get file?uuid=Of601ffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 (ii) - As part of the water quality evaluation conducted under the CSA, pH was measured and is reported as a metric data set. The pH comparison criteria are included as ranges as opposed to single screening values. pH is not typically included as part of a risk assessment based on potential toxic effects, therefore; pH was not investigated further as a category 1 COPC. Water quality relative to pH will be addressed as a component of water quality monitoring programs for the site. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-10 Seep Water Ecological Screening Ash Basin.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 4-11 ECOLOGICAL SCREENING - SEEP WATER - RAILROAD DITCH W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analyte CAS Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Range of Detection Min. Q Max. Q Location of Maximum Concentration Range of Detection Limits Concentration Used for Screening 15A NCAC 2B Freshwater Aquatic Life Acute (f) (ug/L) Total Dissolved 15A NCAC 26 Freshwater Aquatic Life Chronic (f) (ug/L) Total Dissolved USEPA Region 4 Freshwater Acute Screening Values (g) (ug/L) Total Dissolved USEPA Region 4 Freshwater Chronic Screening Values (g) (ug/L) Total Dissolved USEPA AWQC (b) CMC (acute) (ug/L) Total Dissolved USEPA AWQC (b) CCC (chronic) (ug/L) Total Dissolved Screening Value Used (ug/L) COPC? Constituent Category Aluminum 7429-90-5 5 5 38 15400 5-06 NA 15400 NA NA NA NA 750 (b) NA 87 (b) NA 750 NA 87 NA 87 Y 1 Antimony 7440-36-0 5 0 1 < 10 < NA 1-10 SO NA NA NA NA 900 (cc) NA 190 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 190 N 3 Arsenic (diss) 7440-38-2 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA 340 NA 150 NA 340 (b, h) NA 150 (b, h) NA 340 (h) NA 150 (h) 150 N 3 Arsenic (tot) 7440-38-2 5 3 1 < 12.2 5-06 1 12.2 NA NA NA NA 340 (b, h) NA 150 (b, h) NA 340 (h) NA 150 (h) NA 150 N 2 Barium 7440-39-3 5 5 32 81 5-06 NA 81 NA NA NA NA 2000 (cc) NA 220 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 220 N 2 Beryllium (diss) 7440-41-7 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA 65 NA 6.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6.5 N 3 Beryllium (tot) 7440-41-7 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA 31 (r, cc) NA 3.6 (r, cc) NA NA NA NA NA 3.600 N 3 Boron 7440-42-8 5 0 50 < 50 < NA 50 50 NA NA NA NA 34,000 (cc) NA 7,200 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 7200 N 3 Cadmium (diss) 7440-43-9 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA 0.82 (u) NA 0.15 (u) NA 1.0 (r) NA 0.15 (r) NA 2.01 (r) NA 0.25 (r) 0.150 N 4 Cadmium (tot) 7440-43-9 5 0 1 < 10 < NA 1-10 SO NA NA NA NA 1.1 (r) NA 0.16 (r) NA 2.13 (r) NA 0.27 (r) 0.160 N 4 Calcium 7440-70-2 4 4 1.62 2.26 5-07 DUP NA 2.26 NA NA NA NA NA NA 116,000 (dd) NA NA NA NA NA 116000 N 2 Chromium (Total diss) 7440-47-3 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA 323 (n, r) NA 42.0 (n, r) NA 570 (n, r) NA 74.1 (n, r) 42.000 N 3 Chromium (Total recov) 7440-47-3 5 0 1 < 10 < NA 1-10 SO NA NA 50 NA 1,022 (n, r) NA 48.8 (n, r) NA 1,803 (n, r) NA 86.2 (n, r) NA 50 N 3 Cobalt 7440-48-4 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA 120 (cc) NA 19 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 19 N 3 Copper (diss) 7440-50-8 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA 3.6 (u) NA 2.7 (u) NA 7.0 (r) NA 4.95 (r) NA 13.4 (r) NA 8.96 (r) 2.700 N 3 Copper (tot) 7440-50-8 5 1 1 < 10.9 5-06 1 10.9 NA NA NA NA 7.3 (r) NA 5.16 (r) NA 14.0 (r) NA 9.33 (r) NA 5.160 Y 1 Iron 7439-89-6 5 5 617 28900 5-06 NA 28900 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,000 (b) NA NA NA 1,000 NA 1000 y 1 Lead (diss) 7439-92-1 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA 14 (u) NA 0.54 (u) NA 30.1 (r) NA 1.17 (r) NA 64.6 (r) NA 2.52 (r) 0.540 N 4 Lead (tot) 7439-92-1 5 0 1 < 10 < NA 1-10 10 NA NA NA NA 33.8 (r) NA 1.32 (r) NA 81.6 (r) NA 3.18 (r) NA 1.320 N 4 Magnesium 7439-95-4 4 4 0.699 1.04 5-07; 5-07 DUP NA 1.04 NA NA NA NA NA NA 82,000 (dd) NA NA NA NA NA 82000 N 2 Manganese 7439-96-5 5 5 9 47 5-06 47 NA NA NA NA 1,680 (cc) NA 93 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 93 N 2 Mercury (diss) 7439-97-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.2 (b, s) NA 0.65 (b, s) NA 1.2 (s) NA 0.65 (s) 0.65 NA NA Mercury (tot) 7439-97-6 5 4 5E-04 < 0.0019 5-06 0.0005 0.00192 NA NA 0.012 NA 1.4 (b, s) NA 0.77 (b, s) NA 1.4 (s) NA 0.77 (s) NA 0.012 N 2 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 5 0 1 < 10 < NA 1-10 10 NA NA NA NA 7,200 (cc) NA 800 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 800 N 3 Nickel (diss) 7440-02-0 4 0 1 < 1 < NA 1 1 NA 145 (u) NA 16 (u) NA 260 (r) NA 28.9 (r) NA 468 (r) NA 52.0 (r) 16.000 N 3 Nickel (tot) 7440-02-0 5 1 1 < 15.2 5-06 1 15.2 NA NA NA NA 261 (r) NA 29.0 (r) NA 469 (r) NA 52.2 (r) NA 29.000 N 2 Potassium 7440-09-7 4 4 2.41 3.18 5-07 NA 3.18 NA NA NA NA NA NA 53,000 (dd) NA NA NA NA NA 53000 N 2 Selenium 7782-49-2 5 0 1 < 10 < NA 1-10 SO NA NA 5 NA 20 (cc) NA 5 (cc) NA 12.82 (t) NA 5 (t) NA 5 N 4 Sodium 7440-23-5 4 4 2.02 2.38 5-07 NA 2.38 NA NA NA NA NA NA 680,000 (dd) NA NA NA NA NA 680000 N 2 Strontium 7440-24-6 4 4 28 40 5-07 NA 40 NA NA NA NA 48,000 (cc) NA 5,300 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 5300 N 2 Thallium 7440-28-0 5 0 0.2 < 2 < NA 0.2 2 NA NA NA NA 54 (cc) NA 6 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 6 N 3 Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 4 1 0.3 < 0.312 5-07 DUP 0.3 0.312 NA NA NA NA 79 (cc) NA 27 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA 27 N 2 Zinc (diss) 7440-66-6 4 2 5 < 24 5-07 5 24 NA 36 (u) NA 36 (u) NA 65 (r) NA 66 (r) I NA 117 (r) NA 118 (r) 36.000 N 2 Zinc (tot) 7440-66-6 5 2 5 < 94 5-06 5 94 NA NA NA NA 67 (r) NA 67 (r) NA 120 (r) NA 120 (r) NA 67.000 y 1 Alkalinity ALK 4 0 SO < 10 < NA 10 SO NA NA NA NA NA NA 20,000 NA NA NA 20,000 NA 20000 N 3 Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB 4 0 SO < 10 < NA 10 SO NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB 4 0 SO < 10 < NA 10 SO NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Chloride 7647-14-5 5 5 3.6 9.7 5-06 NA 9.7 NA NA 230,000 (v) NA 860,000 (b) NA 230,000 (b) NA 860,000 NA 230,000 NA 230000 N 2 Methane 74-82-8 4 3 10 < 14 5-07 DUP 10 14 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Nitrate 14797-55-8 5 5 0.027 0.177 5-07 DUP NA 0.177 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 pH PH 5 5 6.2 7 5-07; 5-07 DUP NA NA NA NA 6.0-9.0 NA NA NA 6.5-9.0 (b) NA NA NA 6.5-9.0 NA NA (ii) NA 5 Sulfate 7757-82-6 5 5 2 11 5-06 NA 11 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Sulfide 18496-25-8 4 0 0.1 NA 0.1-0.2 0.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA 2 N 3 Total Dissolved Solids TDS 5 4 125 5-07 125 39 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Organic Carbon TOC 4 4 2.75-07 ;<= DUP NA 3.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Suspended Solids TSS 5 4 5 5-06 5 380 NA NA NA NA NA I NA I NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Notes: AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S729v7.pdf CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service CCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration COPC-Constituent of Potential Concern DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services ESV - Ecological Screening Value HH - Human Health HI - Hazard Index IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram NA - Not Available NC - North Carolina NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal Q - Qualifier RSL - Regional Screening Level RSV - Refinement Screening Value SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SSL - Soil Screening Level su - Standard units ug/L - micrograms/liter USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency WS - Water Supply < - Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit Prepared by: MBJ1TCP Checked by: MBJ P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-11 Seep Water Ecological Screening RR Ditch.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4-11 ECOLOGICAL SCREENING - SEEP WATER - RAILROAD DITCH W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Categories 1 - The constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration is above the screening level 2 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because all detected concentrations are below the applicable screening level 3 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is below the screening level 4 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitiation limit; however, the quantitation limit(s) is above the screening level 5 - The constituent was detected, but there is no current screening value available (for example, screening values are not available for essential nutrients such as Ca, K, Mg, or Na) and the constituent is therefore not identified as a COPC 6 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and there is no current screening level available (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (June 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015. http: //www2. epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screen i ng -table -generic -tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swg uidance/standards/criteria/cu rrent/i ndex. cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http: //water. epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstanda rds20l2. pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=laa3fal3-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fbld25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http: //reports. oa h. state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a %20-%20envi ron mental %20qua lity/chapter%2002%20-%20environmental%20ma nagement/subchapter%20b/subchapter%20 b%20rules. pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water. Human Health Standards are based on the consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies are available. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/r4 era-guidance-document_d raft_fi na I_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (i) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (1) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMCJ) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMCJ and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.IanI.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan, 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Lindskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (gg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (hh) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_ _library/getfile?uuid=0f60lffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 (ii) - As part of the water quality evaluation conducted under the CSA, pH was measured and is reported as a metric data set. The pH comparison criteria are included as ranges as opposed to single screening values. pH is not typically included as part of a risk assessment based on potential toxic effects, therefore; pH was not investigated further as a category 1 COPC. Water quality relative to pH will be addressed as a component of water quality monitoring programs for the site. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-11 Seep Water Ecological Screening RR Ditch.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 4-12 ECOLOGICAL SCREENING - SEDIMENT - JACOB CREEK W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analyte CAS Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Range of Detection Min. Q Max. Q Location of Maximum Concentration Range of Detection Limits Concentration Used for Screening (mg/kg) USEPA Region 4 Sediment Screening Values (g) (mg/kg) ESV RSV Screening Value Used (mg/kg) COPC? Constituent Category Aluminum 7429-90-5 1 1 7710 SW -01 NA 7710 25,000 (x) 58,000 (x) 25,000 N 2 Antimony 7440-36-0 1 0 27.6 < NA 27.6 27.6 2 (y) 25 (y) 2 N 4 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1 0 27.6 < NA 27.6 27.6 9.8 (Z) 33 (Z) 10 N 4 Barium 7440-39-3 1 1 171 SW -01 NA 171 20 (Z) 60 (Z) 20 Y 1 Beryllium 7440-41-7 1 0 1.4 < NA 1.4 1.4 NA NA NA NA 6 Boron 7440-42-8 1 0 1 69 < NA 69 69 NA NA NA NA 6 Cadmium 7440-43-9 1 0 3.3 < NA 3.3 3.3 1 (Z) 5 (Z) 1 N 4 Calcium 7440-70-2 1 1 8670 SW -01 NA 8670 NA NA NA NA 5 Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 1 1 8 SW -01 1.2 8 43.4 (Z) 111 (Z) 43 N 2 Chromium, Hexavalent 18540-29-9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chromium, Trivalent 16065-83-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 7440-48-4 1 0 1 1 27.6 <1 NA 27.6 27.6 50 (aa) NA (aa) 50 N 3 Copper 7440-50-8 1 1 18.5 SW -01 NA 18.5 31.6 (Z) 149 (Z) 32 N 2 Iron 7439-89-6 1 1 11600 SW -01 NA 11600 20,000 (aa) 40,000 (aa) 20,000 N 2 Lead 7439-92-1 1 0 27.6 < NA 27.6 27.6 35.8 (Z) 128 (Z) 36 N 3 Magnesium 7439-95-4 1 1 916 SW -01 125 916 NA NA NA NA 5 Manganese 7439-96-5 1 1 81.6 SW -01 NA 81.6 460 (bb) 1,100 (bb) 460 N 2 Mercury 7439-97-6 1 1 0.11 SW -01 NA 0.11 0.18 (Z) 1.1 (Z) 0.18 N 2 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1 0 13.8 < NA 13.8 13.8 NA NA NA NA 6 Nickel 7440-02-0 1 0 6.9 < NA 6.9 6.9 22.7 (Z) 48.6 (Z) 23 N 2 Potassium 7440-09-7 1 0 1380 < NA 1380 1380 NA NA NA NA 6 Selenium 7782-49-2 1 0 27.6 < NA 27.6 27.6 11 (bb) 20 (bb) 11 N 4 Sodium 7440-23-5 1 0 1380 < NA 1380 1380 NA NA NA NA 6 Strontium 7440-24-6 1 1 106 SW -01 NA 106 NA NA NA NA 5 Thallium 7440-28-0 1 0 27.6 < NA 27.6 27.6 NA NA NA NA 6 Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 1 0 27.6 NA 27.6 27.6 NA NA NA NA 5 Zinc 7440-66-6 1 1 45.2 SW -01 NA 45.2 121 (Z) 459 (Z) 121 N 2 Alkalinity ALK NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chloride 7647-14-5 1 0 1320 < NA 1320 1320 NA NA NA NA 6 Methane 74-82-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nitrate 14797-55-8 1 0 132 < NA 132 132 NA NA NA NA 6 pH PH 1 1 6.1 SW -01 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Sulfate 7757-82-6 1 0 1 1320 <1 NA 193-1320 1320 NA NA NA NA 6 Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA 39 (bb) 61 (bb) 39 NA NA Total Dissolved Solids TDS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Organic Carbon TOC 1 1 173000 SW -01 NA 173000 NA NA NA NA 5 Total Sus ended Solids TSS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Notes: AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S729v7.pdf CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service CCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration COPC - Constituent of Potential Concern DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services ESV - Ecological Screening Value HH - Human Health HI - Hazard Index IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram NA - Not Available NC - North Carolina NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal RSL - Regional Screening Level RSV - Refinement Screening Value Q - Qualifier SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SSL - Soil Screening Level su - Standard units Prepared By: MCD/TCP Checked By: MBI ug/L - micrograms/liter USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency WS - Water Supply < - Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-12 Sediment Ecological Screening Jacob Creek.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4-12 ECOLOGICAL SCREENING - SEDIMENT - JACOB CREEK W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Categories 1 - The constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration is above the screening level 2 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because all detected concentrations are below the applicable screening level 3 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is below the screening level 4 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitiation limit; however, the quantitation limit(s) is above the screening level 5 - The constituent was detected, but there is no current screening value available (for example, screening values are not available for essential nutrients such as Ca, K, Mg, or Na) and the constituent is therefore not identified as a COPC 6 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and there is no current screening level available (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (June 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstandards2012. pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=laa3fal3-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fbld25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20environmental%20quaIity/chapter%2002%20-%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/subchapter%20b%20ruIes. pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water. Human Health Standards are based on the consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies are available. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/r4_era_guidance_document_draft_final_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (i) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (1) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMC1) + (f2/CMC2)] where f1 and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMC1 and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.lanl.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Lindskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gIiclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (gg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (hh) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=Of60lffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-12 Sediment Ecological Screening Jacob Creek.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 4-13 ECOLOGICAL SCREENING - SEEP SOIL - ASH BASIN W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, INC Analyte CAS Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Range of Detection Min. Max. Location of Maximum Concentration Range of Detection Limits Concentration Used for Screening USEPA Region 4ORNL Soil Screening Benchmark (a) (m9/kg) Eco -SSL (aa) Avian Soil Screening Benchmark (mg/kg) Eco -SSL (aa) Invertebrate Soil Screening Benchmark (mg/kg) Eco -SSL (aa) Mammalian Soil Screening Benchmark (mg/kg) Eco -SSL (aa) Plants Soil Screening Benchmark (mg/kg) ORNL (bb) Invertebrate Soil Screening Benchmark (mg/kg) (bb) Plant Screening Benchmark (m9/kg) Screening Value Used (mg/kg) COPC? Constituent Category Aluminum 7429-90-5 9 9 1230 16800 S-03 B NA 16800 50 NA NA NA NA NA 50 50 Y 1 Antimony 7440-36-0 9 0 3.4 < 16.1 < NA 3.4-16.1 16.1 0.27 NA 78 0.27 NA NA 5 0.27 N 4 Arsenic 7440-38-2 9 8 3.4 < 1090 S-05 3.4 1090 18 43 NA 46 18 60 10 18 Y 1 Barium 7440-39-3 9 9 1.8 j 232 S-02 NA 232 330 NA 330 2,000 NA NA 500 330 N 2 Beryllium 7440-41-7 9 6 0.17 < 2.1 S-05 0.17-0.34 2.1 10 NA 40 21 NA NA 10 10 N 2 Boron 7440-42-8 9 6 7.7 < 146 S-10 7.7-15.1 146 7.5 NA NA NA 0.5 NA 0.5 8 Y 1 Cadmium 7440-43-9 9 0 0.37 < 1.9 < NA 0.37-1.9 1.9 0.36 0.77 140 0.36 32 20 4 0.360 N 4 Calcium 7440-70-2 9 8 83.8 < 13400 S-02 83.8 13400 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 9 9 1.4 j 16.4 S-03 B NA 16.4 28 NA NA NA NA 0.4 1 28 N 2 Chromium, Hexavalent 18540-29-9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.35 NA NA 130 NA 0.4 1 0.350 NA NA Chromium, Trivalent 16065-83-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 18 26 NA 34 NA NA NA 18 NA NA Cobalt 7440-48-4 9 3 3.1 < 16.4 j S-05 3.1-13.1 16.4 13 120 NA 230 13 NA 20 13 Y 1 Copper 7440-50-8 9 8 0.84 < 33.3 S-02 0.84 33.3 28 120 NA 230 13 50 100 28 Y 1 Iron 7439-89-6 9 9 474 145000 S-05 NA 145000 200 NA NA NA NA NA NA 200 Y 1 Lead 7439-92-1 9 7 3.4 < 28.8 S-03 B 3.4-16.1 28.8 11 11 1700 56 120 500 50 11 y 1 Magnesium 7439-95-4 9 8 83.8 < 1150 S-10 83.8 1150 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Manganese 7439-96-5 9 8 0.84 < 811 S-05 0.84 811 220 4,300 450 4,000 220 NA 500 220 y 1 Mercury 7439-97-6 9 9 0.007 j 0.19 S-03 B NA 0.19 0.1 NA 0.1 NA 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 Y 1 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 9 8 1.7 j 333 S-10 1.7 333 2 NA NA NA 2 NA 2 2 Y 1 Nickel 7440-02-0 9 7 0.84 < 8.4 S-02 0.84-2.7 8.4 38 210 280 130 38 200 30 38 N 2 Potassium 7440-09-7 9 2 154 < 757 j S-10 154-805 757 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Selenium 7782-49-2 9 2 3.1 < 170 S-02 3.1-16.1 170 0.52 1.2 4.1 0.63 0.52 70 1 1 y 1 Sodium 7440-23-5 9 0 154 < 805 < NA 154-805 805 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Strontium 7440-24-6 9 8 1.7 < 745 S-02 1.7 745 96 NA NA NA NA NA NA 96 Y 1 Thallium 7440-28-0 9 0 3.1 < 16.1 < NA 3.1-16.1 16.1 0.22 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.220 N 4 Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 9 8 3.4 < 73.5 S-05 3.4 73.5 7.8 7.8 NA 280 2 NA 2 8 Y 1 Zinc 7440-66-6 9 5 3.4 < 76.1 S-15 3.4-13.1 76.1 46 46 120 79 160 100 50 46 Y 1 Alkalinity ALK NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chloride 7647-14-5 9 0 157 < 749 < NA 157-749 749 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Methane 74-82-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nitrate 14797-55-8 9 0 15.7 < 74.9 < NA 15.7-74.9 74.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 pH PH 9 9 5.1 7.6 S-02 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Sulfate 7757-82-6 9 4 157 < 1100 j S-05 157-441 1100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Dissolved Solids TDS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Organic Carbon TOC 9 9 12500 132000 S-02 NA 132000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Suspended Solids TSS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Notes: AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S729v7.pdf CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service CCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration COPC - Constituent of Potential Concern DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services ESV - Ecological Screening Value HH - Human Health HI - Hazard Index IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram NA - Not Available NC - North Carolina NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal RSL - Regional Screening Level RSV - Refinement Screening Value Q - Qualifier SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SSL - Soil Screening Level su - Standard units ug/L - micrograms/liter Prepared by: MBI/MCD Checked by: MBI USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency WS - Water Supply < - Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit I - Indicates concentration reported below Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) but above Method Detection Limit (MDL) and therefore concentration is estimated P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-13 Seep Soil Ecological Screening Ash Basin.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4-13 ECOLOGICAL SCREENING - SEEP SOIL - ASH BASIN W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Categories 1 - The constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration is above the screening level 2 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because all detected concentrations are below the applicable screening level 3 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is below the screening level 4 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitiation limit; however, the quantitation limit(s) is above the screening level 5 - The constituent was detected, but there is no current screening value available (for example, screening values are not available for essential nutrients such as Ca, K, Mg, or Na) and the constituent is therefore not identified as a COPC 6 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and there is no current screening level available (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (June 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http : //water. epa. gov/scitech/swg u ida nce/standards/criteria/current/i ndex. cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/d rin king/upload/dwstandards2012. pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=laa3fal3-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fbld25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http: //repo rts. oa h. state. nc. u s/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20envi ron menta I%20q u a I ity/chapter%2002%20-%20envi ron m e nta 1 %20m a nagement/subchapter%20 b/subchapter%20 b%20 ru les. pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water. Human Health Standards are based on the consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies are available. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http: //www2. a pa. gov/sites/prod uctio n/fi les/2015-09/documents/r4_era_g u ida nce_d ocu ment_d raft_fi na I_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (1) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (1) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMCJ) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMCJ and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.lanl.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Lindskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdo (gg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (hh) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=Of60lffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\ReportTables\Section 4\Table 4-13 Seep Soil Ecological Screening Ash Basin.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 4-14 ECOLOGICAL SCREENING - SEEP SOIL - RAILROAD DITCH W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analyte CAS Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Range of Detection Min. Max. Location of Maximum Concentration Range of Detection Limits Concentration Used for Screening USEPA Region 4 Soil Screening Benchmark (a) m k (mg/kg) Eco -SSL (aa) Avian Soil Screening Benchmark ((mg/kg) Eco -SSL (aa) Invertebrate Soil Screening Benchmark (mg/kg) Eco -SSL (aa) Mammalian Soil Screening Benchmark (mg/kg) Eco -SSL (aa) Plants Soil Screening Benchmark (mg/kg) ORNL (bb) ORNL (bb) Plant Invertebrate Soil Screening Screening Benchmark Benchmark m 9/k 9) (mg/kg) (mg/kg Screening Value Used (mg/kg) COPC? Constituent Category Aluminum 7429-90-5 2 2 1400 3240 5-07 DUP NA 3240 50 NA NA NA NA NA 50 50 y 1 Antimony 7440-36-0 2 0 3.7 < 4.3 < NA 3.7-4.3 4.3 0.27 NA 78 0.27 NA NA 5 0.27 N 4 Arsenic 7440-38-2 2 0 3.7 < 4.3 < NA 3.7-4.3 4.3 18 43 NA 46 18 60 10 18 N 3 Barium 7440-39-3 2 2 17.5 26.1 S-07 DUP NA 26.1 330 NA 330 2,000 NA NA 500 330 N 2 Beryllium 7440-41-7 2 0 0.19 < 0.21 < NA 0.19-0.21 0.21 10 NA 40 21 NA NA SO 10 N 3 Boron 7440-42-8 2 0 9.3 < 10.7 < NA 9.3-10.7 10.7 7.5 NA NA NA 0.5 NA 0.5 8 N 4 Cadmium 7440-43-9 2 0 0.45 < 0.51 < NA 0.45-0.51 0.51 0.36 0.77 140 0.36 32 20 4 0.360 N 4 Calcium 7440-70-2 2 2 253 299 S-07 NA 299 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 2 2 1.6 j 3.6 S-07 DUP NA 3.6 28 NA NA NA NA 0.4 1 28 N 2 Chromium, Hexavalent 18540-29-9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.35 NA NA 130 NA 0.4 1 0.350 NA NA Chromium, Trivalent 16065-83-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 18 26 NA 34 NA NA NA 18 NA NA Cobalt 7440-48-4 2 0 3.7 < 4.3 < NA 3.7-4.3 4.3 13 120 NA 230 13 NA 20 13 N 3 Copper 7440-50-8 2 2 1.5 j 3.4 S-07 DUP NA 3.4 28 120 NA 230 13 50 100 28 N 2 Iron 7439-89-6 2 2 1710 2430 S-07 NA 2430 200 NA NA NA NA NA NA 200 Y 1 Lead 7439-92-1 2 1 4.3 < 39.3 S-07 DUP 4.3 39.3 11 11 1700 56 120 500 50 11 Y 1 Magnesium 7439-95-4 2 2 109 j 114 j S-07 DUP NA 114 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Manganese 7439-96-5 2 2 9.3 33.8 S-07 NA 33.8 220 4,300 450 4,000 220 NA 500 220 N 2 Mercury 7439-97-6 2 2 0.008 j 0.028 S-07 DUP NA 0.028 0.1 NA 0.1 NA 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 N 2 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2 0 1.9 < 2.1 < NA 1.9-2.1 2.1 2 NA NA NA 2 NA 2 2 N 4 Nickel 7440-02-0 2 2 1.6 j 1.8 j S-07 DUP NA 1.8 38 210 280 130 38 200 30 38 N 2 Potassium 7440-09-7 2 0 186 < 214 < NA 186-214 214 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Selenium 7782-49-2 2 0 3.7 < 4.3 < NA 3.7-4.3 4.3 0.52 1.2 4.1 0.63 0.52 70 1 1 N 4 Sodium 7440-23-5 2 0 186 < 214 < NA 186-214 214 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Strontium 7440-24-6 2 2 5.1 5.3 S-07 NA 5.3 96 NA NA NA NA NA NA 96 N 2 Thallium 7440-28-0 2 0 3.7 < 4.3 < S-07 3.7-4.3 4.3 0.22 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.220 N 4 Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 2 1 4.3 < 6.9 j 5-07 DUP 4.3 6.9 7.8 7.8 NA 280 2 NA 2 8 N 2 Zinc 7440-66-6 2 2 9.3 16.7 S-07 DUP NA 16.7 46 46 120 79 160 100 50 46 N 2 Alkalinity ALK NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chloride 7647-14-5 2 0 193 < 210 < NA 192-210 210 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Methane 74-82-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nitrate 14797-55-8 2 0 19.3 < 21 < NA 19.3-21 21 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 pH PH 2 2 5.6 6.2 S-07 DUP NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Sulfate 7757-82-6 2 0 193 < 210 < NA 192-210 210 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Dissolved Solids TDS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Organic Carbon TOC 2 2 8170 26600 5-07 DUP NA 26600 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Total Suspended Solids TSS NA I NA I NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Notes: AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S729v7.pdf CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service CCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration COPC - Constituent of Potential Concern DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services ESV - Ecological Screening Value HH - Human Health HI - Hazard Index IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram NA- Not Available NC - North Carolina NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal RSL - Regional Screening Level RSV - Refinement Screening Value Q - Qualifier SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SSL - Soil Screening Level su - Standard units ug/L - micrograms/liter Prepared by: MBI/MCD Checked by: MB. USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency WS - Water Supply < - Concentration not detected at or above the reporting limit I - Indicates concentration reported below Practical quantitation Limit (PQL) but above Method Detection Limit (MDL) and therefore concentration is estimated P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 4\Table 4-14 Seep Soil Ecological Screening RR Ditch.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE 4-14 ECOLOGICAL SCREENING - SEEP SOIL - RAILROAD DITCH W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Categories 1 - The constituent is identified as a COPC because the maximum detected concentration is above the screening level 2 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because all detected concentrations are below the applicable screening level 3 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is below the screening level 4 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitiation limit; however, the quantitation limit(s) is above the screening level 5 - The constituent was detected, but there is no current screening value available (for example, screening values are not available for essential nutrients such as Ca, K, Mg, or Na) and the constituent is therefore not identified as a COPC 6 - The constituent is not identified as a COPC because it was not detected above the quantitation limit and there is no current screening level available (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (lune 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http : //water. epa. gov/scitech/swg u ida nce/standards/criteria/current/i n dex. cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http: //water. epa. gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwsta nda rds2012. pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=laa3fal3-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fbld25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http: //reports. oa h. state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20envi ron menta I °/u 20q u a I ity/chapter%2002°/u20-%20envi ron m enta I %20m a nagement/subchapter%20 b/subchapter%20 b%20 ru les. pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water. Human Health Standards are based on the consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies are available. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http : //www2. epa. gov/sites/prod uctio n/fi les/2015-09/documents/r4_era_g u ida nce_docu ment_d raft_fi na I_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (i) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (I) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMCJ) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMC1 and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed is the site-specific total hardness of mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.lanl.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Lindskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gIiclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (gg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (hh) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_fiile?uuid=Of60lffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\ReportTables\Section 4\Table 4-14 Seep Soil Ecological Screening RR Ditch.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF SEEP SOIL EPC/RBC COMPARISON ON-SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6 to <16) W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC COPC CASRN Risk -Based Concentration Seep Soil Ash Basin Risk Ratio Non -Cancer Cancer F nal EPC Basis Non -Cancer Cancer (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Aluminum 7429-90-5 3.6E+06 nc 3.6E+06 nc 10084 0.00283 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.5E+03 2.4E+03 1.5E+03 nc 489.7 0.31780 0.204 Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.1E+03 nc 1.1E+03 nc 13 0.01214 nc Iron 7439-89-6 2.5E+06 nc 2.5E+06 nc 124256 0.04974 nc Selenium 7782-49-2 1.8E+04 nc 1.8E+04 nc 170 0.00953 nc Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.8E+04 nc 1.8E+04 nc 41.06 1 0.00230 1 nc Cumulative Risk 1 0.39433 1 0.204 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - rcarcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5-2 SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT EPC/RBC COMPARISON ON-SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6 to <16) W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - rcarcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 Risk -Based Concentration Jacob Creek Sediment Risk Ratio COPC CASRN Non -Cancer Cancer I Final EPC Non -Cancer Cancer Basis (mg/kg) I (mg/kg) I (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Iron 1 7439-89-6 1 2.5E+07 I nc I 2.5E+07 I nc 1 11600 1 0.00046433 1 nc Cumulative Risk I 4.64E-04 1 0.00 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - rcarcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5-3 SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER AND SEEP WATER EPC/RBC COMPARISON ON-SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6 to <16) W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC COPC CASRN Risk -Based Concentration Non -Cancer Cancer Final (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Basis Ash Basin Seep Water EPC (mg/L) Risk Ratio Non -Cancer Cancer Jacob Creek Surface Water EPC (mg/L) Risk Ratio Non -Cancer Cancer Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.3E+04 nc 1.3E+04 nc 16.361 0.001267112 nc SCR Arsenic 7440-38-2 3.9E+00 6.0E+00 3.9E+00 nc 0.6827 0.176243724 0.1133 SCR Barium 7440-39-3 5.5E+02 nc 5.5E+02 nc 0.5578 0.00100922 nc SCR NA Boron 7440-42-8 2.6E+03 nc 2.6E+03 nc 1.854 0.000717934 nc SCR Cobalt 7440-48-4 4.6E+00 nc 4.6E+00 nc 0.01266 0.002726236 nc SCR Copper 7440-50-8 5.2E+02 nc 5.2E+02 nc 0.166 0.000321405 nc SCR Iron 7439-89-6 9.0E+03 nc 9.0E+03 nc 371.964 0.041153605 nc 3.35 3.7E-04 nc Lead (b) 7439-92-1 (a) 1.5E-02 nc 0.0101 0.673333333 nc SCR NA Manganese 7439-96-5 2.4E+02 nc 2.4E+02 nc 0.7511 0.003171898 nc 0.129 5.4E-04 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 6.5E+01 nc 6.5E+01 nc 0.03971 0.000615085 nc SCR Strontium 7440-24-6 7.7E+03 nc 7.7E+03 nc 4.247 0.000548196 nc SCR Thallium 7440-28-0 NA (c) 0.000554 NC nc SCR NA Vanadium 1 7440-62-2 1 5.7E+00 nc 5.7E+00 nc 1 0.01493 1 0.002625872 1 nc SCR Cumulative Risk 1 0.23 1 0.1133 1 L0.0009 0.0000 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern SCR - Constituent screened out (not a category 1 COPC) c - carcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected (a) Final RBC values for lead are 400 mg/kg for Children's exposures to solid media (seep soil and/or sediment), 800 mg/kg for adult exposures to solid media (seep soil and/or sediment), or 15 ug/L for surface water and seep water exposures. Refer toAttachment D, Section 2.5. (b) Lead is not included in the cumulative risk calculation. (c) RBCS were not given for Thallium. Refer to Attachment D, Table 4-3. Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 5E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5-4 SUMMARY OF SEEP SOIL EPC/RBC COMPARISON COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC COPC CASRN Risk -Based Concentration Seep Soil Ash Basin Risk Ratio Non -Cancer Cancer I Final EPC Basis Non -Cancer Cancer (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.2E+06 nc 1.2E+06 nc 10084 0.00864 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 4.8E+02 3.0E+02 3.0E+02 c 489.7 1.01 1.63 Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.5E+02 nc 3.5E+02 nc 13 0.03711 nc Iron 7439-89-6 8.2E+05 nc 8.2E+05 nc 124256 0.15198 nc Selenium 7782-49-2 5.8E+03 nc 5.8E+03 nc 170 0.02911 nc Vanadium 7440-62-2 5.8E+03 nc 5.8E+03 nc 41.06 0.00703 nc Cumulative Risk 1.25 1.63 Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - carcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected Incidental Ingestion Dermal Contact Particulate Inhalation Ambient Vapor Inhalation Exposure Routes Evaluated Yes Yes Yes No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 5E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 5E-04 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5-5 SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT EPC/RBC COMPARISON COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - carcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected Exoosure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 Jacob Creek Risk -Based Concentration Risk Ratio Sediment COPC CASRN Non -Cancer Cancer Final EPC Basis Non -Cancer Cancer m /k (mg/kg) m /k (mg/kg) Iron 7439-89-6 1 3.4E+08 I nc I 3.4E+08 I nc 1 11600 1 3.40509E-05 nc Cumulative Risk 1 0.00003 0.00 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - carcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected Exoosure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5-6 SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER AND SEEP WATER EPC/RBC COMPARISON COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC COPC CASRN Risk -Based Concentration Non -Cancer Cancer Final (m /L) (mg/L) (m /L) Basis I Ash Basin Seep Water EPC (mg/L) Risk Ratio Non -Cancer Cancer Jacob Creek Surface Water EPC (mg/L) Risk Ratio Non -Cancer Cancer Aluminum 7429-90-5 9.1E+05 nc 9.1E+05 nc 16.361 0.00002 nc SCR Arsenic 7440-38-2 2.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 c 0.6827 0.00251 0.0040 SCR Barium 7440-39-3 1.3E+04 nc 1.3E+04 nc 0.5578 0.00004 nc SCR NA Boron 7440-42-8 1.8E+05 nc 1.8E+05 nc 1.854 0.00001 nc SCR Cobalt 7440-48-4 6.8E+02 nc 6.8E+02 nc 0.01266 0.00002 nc SCR Copper 7440-50-8 3.6E+04 nc 3.6E+04 nc 0.166 0.00000 nc SCR Iron 7439-89-6 6.4E+05 nc 6.4E+05 nc 371.964 0.00059 nc 3.35 5.3E-06 nc Lead (b) 7439-92-1 (a) nc 1.5E-02 nc 0.0101 0.673 nc SCR NA Manganese 7439-96-5 5.1E+03 nc 5.1E+03 nc 0.7511 0.00015 nc 0.129 2.5E-05 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 4.5E+03 nc 4.5E+03 nc 0.03971 0.00001 nc SCR Strontium 7440-24-6 5.4E+05 nc 5.4E+05 nc 4.247 0.00001 nc SCR Thallium 7440-28-0 NA (c) 0.000554 NC nc SCR NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.2E+02 nc 1.2E+02 nc 0.01493 0.00013 nc SCR Cumulative Risk 0.00348 0.0040 0.000031 0.0000 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - carcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected SCR - Constituent screened out (not a category 1 COPC) (a) Final RBC values for lead are 400 mg/kg for Children's exposures to solid media (seep soil and/or sediment), 800 mg/kg for adult exposures to solid media (seep soil and/or sediment), or 15 ug/L for all surface water and seep water exposures. Refer toAttachment D, Section 2.5. (b) Lead is not included in the cumulative risk calculation. (c) RBCs were not given for Thallium. Refer to Attachment D, Table 4-6. Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1.00000 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 0.00010 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5-7 SUMMARY OF SEEP SOIL EPC/RBC COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION - CONSTRUCTION WORKER (ADULT) W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC COPC CASRN Risk -Based Concentration Seep Soil Ash Basin Risk Ratio Non -Cancer Cancer Final EPC Basis Non -Cancer Cancer (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.5E+06 nc 1.5E+06 nc 10084 0.00684 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 6.4E+02 9.9E+03 6.4E+02 nc 489.7 0.76892 0.05 Cobalt 7440-48-4 4.4E+03 nc 4.4E+03 nc 13 0.00294 nc Iron 7439-89-6 1.0E+06 nc 1.0E+06 nc 124256 0.12037 nc Selenium 7782-49-2 7.4E+03 nc 7.4E+03 nc 170 0.02305 nc Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.5E+04 nc 1.5E+04 nc 41.06 0.00278 nc Cumulative Risk 1 0.92491 0.05 Notes: Seep soil - represents soil collected from seep areas which are not inunduated by water year round. COPC - chemical of potential concern c - carcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected Incidental Ingestion Dermal Contact Particulate Inhalation Ambient Vapor Inhalation Exposure Routes Evaluated Yes Yes Yes No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 5E-04 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5-8 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER EPC/RBC COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION - CONSTRUCTION WORKER (ADULT) W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer Cancer Final (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Basis Surficial GW EPC (mg/L) Risk Ratio Non -Cancer Cancer Yorktown GW EPC (mg/L) Risk Ratio Non -Cancer Cancer PeeDee GW EPC (mg/L) Risk Ratio Non -Cancer Cancer Aluminum 7429-90-5 9.6E+04 nc 9.6E+04 nc 38.469 4.0E-04 nc 0.2423 2.5E-06 nc SCR Antimony 7440-36-0 1.7E+01 nc 1.7E+01 nc SCR NA 0.00395 2.3E-04 nc SCR Arsenic 7440-38-2 2.9E+01 4.5E+02 2.9E+01 4.8E+02 nc nc 0.01171 0.00455 4.1E-04 9.5E-06 0.00003 nc SCR SCR NA SCR SCR Beryllium 7440-41-7 4.8E+02 nc Boron 7440-42-8 1.9E+04 nc 1.9E+04 nc 0.3204 1.7E-05 nc 0.9828 5.1E-05 nc SCR NA Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.0E+01 nc 1.0E+01 nc 0.001404 1.4E-04 nc SCR NA SCR Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 8.6E+03 nc 8.6E+03 nc 0.003874 4.5E-07 nc 0.00267 3.1E-07 nc SCR Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 2.8E+01 7.6E+01 2.8E+01 nc NA (c) NC NC NA (b) NC NC SCR Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.3E+02 2c3.3E+02 nc 0.0265 8.0E-05 nc 0.002602 NC nc SCR Iron 7439-89-6 6.7E+04 nc 6.7E+04 nc 9.405 1.4E-04 nc 5.28 7.9E-05 nc 1.084 1.6E-05 nc Lead 7439-92-1 (a) 0.001793 NC nc SCR NA SCR NA Manganese 7439-96-5 2.2E+03 nc 2.2E+03 nc 0.6609 3.0E-04 nc 0.3232 1.5E-04 nc 0.05254 2.4E-05 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 4.8E+02 nc 4.8E+02 nc SCR NA 0.006431 1.3E -OS nc SCR Nickel 7440-02-0 1.0E+03 nc 1.0E+03 nc 0.1549 1.5E-04 nc SCR NA SCR NA Thallium 7440-28-0 NA (d) 0.000364 NC nc 0.000263 NCnc SCR Vanadium 7440-62-2 9.6E+02 nc 9.6E+02 nc 0.00208 2.2E-06 nc 0.001096 1.1E-06 nc 0.000823 8.6E-07 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.1E+04 nc 3.1E+04 nc SCR NA 0.0124 3.9E-07 I nc SCR NA Cumulative Risk 1 0.00164 0.00003 0.000521 0.00001 1 0.000041 0.0000 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern SCR - Constituent screened out (not a category 1 COPC) c - carcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected (a) Final RBC values for lead are 400 mg/kg for Children's exposures to solid media (seep soil and/or sediment), 800 mg/kg for adult exposures to solid media (seep soil and/or sediment), or 15 ug/L for surface water and seep water exposures. Refer to Attachment D, Section 2.5. (b) Lead is not included in the cumulative risk calculation (c) Chromium VI (hexavalent) was not analyzed for during this study. (d) RBCS were not given for Thallium. Refer to Attachment D, Table 4-8. Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1.00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1.00E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weathempoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).x1sx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5-9 SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER EPC/RBC COMPARISON OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL SWIMMER - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - carcinogen nc -non-carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected There was no corresponding sediment sample collected to Lumber River and/or Lumber River Downgradient Surface Water samples. Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section S HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 Lumber River Lumber River Risk -Based Concentration Risk Ratio Downgradient Risk Ratio COPC CASRN Surface Water Surface Water Non -Cancer Cancer Final EPC EPC Basis Non -Cancer Cancer Non -Cancer Cancer m /L m /L m /L m /L m /L Antimony 1 7440-36-0 1 2.6E-01 I nc I 2.6E-01 I nc 1 0.00225 1 8.6E-03 I nc 1 0.00202 1 7.7E-03 I nc 11 Cumulative Risk 0.00861 0 1 0.0077 0.000 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - carcinogen nc -non-carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected There was no corresponding sediment sample collected to Lumber River and/or Lumber River Downgradient Surface Water samples. Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section S HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5-10 SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER EPC/RBC COMPARISON OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL WADER - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - carcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected There was no corresponding sediment sample collected to Lumber River and/or Lumber River Downgradient Surface Water samples. Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 Lumber River Lumber River Risk -Based Concentration Risk Ratio Downgradient Risk Ratio COPC CASRN Surface Water Surface Water Non -Cancer Cancer Final EPC EPC Non -Cancer Cancer Non -Cancer Cancer Basis (mg/L) I (mg/L) I (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Antimony 1 7440-36-0 1 3.9E-01 I nc I 3.9E-01 I nc 1 0.00225 1 5.7E-03 I nc 1 0.00202 1 5.1E-03 Inc Cumulative Risk 1 0.0057 1 0.00 1 1 0.0051 0.00 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - carcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected There was no corresponding sediment sample collected to Lumber River and/or Lumber River Downgradient Surface Water samples. Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLES -11 SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER EPC/RBC COMPARISON OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL BOATER - RECREATIONAL BOATER (ADULT) W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Cumulative Risk 1 0.00067 1 0.0000 0.00060 0.0000 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - carcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected There was no corresponding sediment sample collected to Lumber River and/or Lumber River Downgradient Surface Water samples. Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Dermal Contact yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 Lumber River Risk -Based Concentration Lumber River Risk Ratio Downgradient Risk Ratio COPC CASRN Surface Water Surface Water Non -Cancer I Cancer I Final EPC EPC EPC Basis Non -Cancer Cancer Non -Cancer Cancer (tri (mg/L) (mg/L) (irl Antimony 1 7440-36-0 1 3.4E+00 I nc I 3.4E+00 I nc 1 0.00225 1 6.7E-04 I nc 1 0.00202 1 6.0E-04 I nc Cumulative Risk 1 0.00067 1 0.0000 0.00060 0.0000 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - carcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected There was no corresponding sediment sample collected to Lumber River and/or Lumber River Downgradient Surface Water samples. Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Dermal Contact yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5-12 SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER EPC/RBC COMPARISON OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL FISHER - RECREATIONAL FISHER (ADULT) W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - carcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected There was no corresponding sediment sample collected to Lumber River and/or Lumber River Downgradient Surface Water samples. Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 Lumber River Lumber River Risk -Based Concentration Risk Ratio Downgradient Risk Ratio Surface Water COPC CASRN Surface Water Non -Cancer Cancer Final EPC EPC Basis I Non -Cancer Cancer Non -Cancer Cancer (mg/L) (mg/L) I (mg/L) I (mg/6 (mg/L) Antimony 7440-36-0 1 3.4E+00 I nc I 3.4E+00 I nc 1 0.00225 1 6.7E-04 I nc 1 0.00202 1 6.0E-04 nc Il Cumulative Risk 0.00067 0.0000 0.00060 0.0000 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern c - carcinogen nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected There was no corresponding sediment sample collected to Lumber River and/or Lumber River Downgradient Surface Water samples. Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5-13 SUMMARY OF FISH TISSUE EPC/RBC COMPARISON OFF-SITE FISHER - RECREATIONAL W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern (a) Fish tissue COPC is based upon surface water COPC. c - carcinogen (b) Cancer -based RBCS incorporates ADAF of 3 for adolescent. nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected BCF - Bioconcentration Factor Surface water RBC - Fish Tissue RBC / BCF Exoosure Routes Evaluated Ingestion Yes Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 Risk -Based Concentration - Fish Tissue COPC (a) CASRN Lowest Non -Cancer RBC Value Lowest Cancer RBC Value BCF (unitless) Concentration - Surface Water Lumber River Surface Water Risk Ratio Lumber River Downgradient Surface Water Risk Ratio Adult Adolescent (b)Risk-Based Non -Cancer Cancer Final Non -Cancer Cancer Final Non -Cancer Cancer Final EPC EPC Basis Basis Non -Cancer Cancer Non -Cancer Cancer Basis (mg/kg) I (mg/kg) I (mg/kg) I (mg/L) (mg/kg) I (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/L) I (mg/L) I (mg/L) (mg/L) Antimony 7440-36-0 1 1.8E+00 I nc I 1.8E+00 I nc I 2.3E+00 I nc I 2.3E+00 I nc I 1.8E+00 nc 40 4.6E-02 I nc I 4.6E-02 nc 1 0.00225 1 4.9E-02 nc 0.00202 4.4E-02 nc Cumulative Risk 0.0492 10.00 0.0442 0.00 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC - chemical of potential concern (a) Fish tissue COPC is based upon surface water COPC. c - carcinogen (b) Cancer -based RBCS incorporates ADAF of 3 for adolescent. nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected BCF - Bioconcentration Factor Surface water RBC - Fish Tissue RBC / BCF Exoosure Routes Evaluated Ingestion Yes Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5-14 SUMMARY OF FISH TISSUE EPC/RBC COMPARISON OFF-SITE FISHER - SUBSISTENCE W. H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC . chemical of potential concern (a) Fish tissue COPC is based upon surface water COPC, c - carcinogen (b) Cancer -based RBCS incorporates ADAF of 10 for chit, nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected BCF - Bioconcentration Factor Surface water RBC = Fish Tissue RBC / BCF Exposure Routes Evaluated Ingestion Yes Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 5E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 Risk -Based Concentration - Fish Tissue Lumber River Lowest Non Lowest Risk -Based Concentration - Surface Water Lumber River Surface Water Risk Ratio Downgradient Risk Ratio COPC (a) CASRN Adult Child (b) Cancer RBC Cancer BCF Surface Water RBC (unitless) Non -Cancer Cancer Final I Basis Non -Cancer Cancer Final Non -Cancer Cancer Final EPC EPC Value Value Basis (mg/kg) I (mg/kg) I (mg/kg) (mg/kg) I (mg/kg) I (mg/kg) I Basis (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Non -Cancer Cancer Non -Cancer Cancer (mg/L) Andmon 7440-36-0 1 1.9E-01 nc 1.9E-01 I nc I 6.1E-02 I nc I 6.1E-02 I nc I 6.1E-02 I nc 1 40 1 1.5E-03 nc 1.5E-03 nc 1 0.00225 1 1.4700 1 nc 1 0.00202 1 1.3197 nc Cumulative Risk1 1.4700 — 1 1.3197 1 0.00 Prepared by: HHS Checked by: MCD Notes: COPC . chemical of potential concern (a) Fish tissue COPC is based upon surface water COPC, c - carcinogen (b) Cancer -based RBCS incorporates ADAF of 10 for chit, nc - non -carcinogen NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated NC - Not calculated ND - Not detected BCF - Bioconcentration Factor Surface water RBC = Fish Tissue RBC / BCF Exposure Routes Evaluated Ingestion Yes Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 5E-04 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 5\Weatherspoon Section 5 HH Risk Summary tables (MCD edits 1-15-16).xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 6-1 TRVs FOR TERRESTRIAL RECEPTORS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: MMS Checked by: MCD Notes: To be consistent with the selection of effects endpoints in the SLERA, Toxicity Reference Values were adopted from that document (CH214 HILL, 2008. Table 3-12). P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 6\Table 6-1 Eco TRVs - Terrestrial. xlsx Page 1 of 1 Wildlife Receptor Toxicity Reference Value Calculated using the 'No Observed Adverse Effects Level' Wildlife Receptor Toxicity Reference Value Calculated using the 'Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level' Analyte Terrestrial Terrestrial American Robin (mg/kg/day) Red -Tailed Hawk (mg/kg/day) Meadow Vole (mg/kg/day) Red Fox (mg/kg/day) American Robin (mg/kg/day) Red -Tailed Hawk (mg/kg/day) Meadow Vole (mg/kg/day) Red Fox (mg/kg/day) Aluminum 109.70 109.70 1.93 1.93 1100.00 1100.00 19.30 19.30 Arsenic 9.30 9.30 1.04 1.04 40.30 40.30 1.66 1.66 Barium 20.80 20.80 45.00 45.00 41.70 41.70 75.00 75.00 Boron 28.80 28.80 28.00 28.00 100.00 100.00 93.60 93.60 Cadmium 1.47 1.47 1.00 1.00 2.37 2.37 10.00 10.00 Chromium 1.00 1.00 2740.00 2740.00 5.00 5.00 27400.00 27400.00 Cobalt 7.61 7.61 7.33 7.33 7.80 7.80 10.90 10.90 Copper 4.05 4.05 5.60 5.60 12.10 12.10 9.34 9.34 Iron Lead 1.63 1.63 4.70 4.70 3.26 3.26 8.90 8.90 Manganese 179.00 179.00 51.50 51.50 348.00 348.00 71.00 71.00 Mercury 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.16 0.16 Molybdenum 3.53 3.53 0.26 0.26 35.30 35.30 2.60 2.60 Nickel 6.71 6.71 1.70 1.70 11.50 11.50 3.40 3.40 Selenium 0.29 0.29 0.14 0.14 0.58 0.58 0.22 0.22 Strontium 263.00 263.00 2630.00 2630.00 Vanadium 0.34 0.34 4.16 4.16 0.69 0.69 8.31 8.31 Zinc 66.10 66.10 75.40 75.40 66.50 66.50 75.90 75.90 Prepared by: MMS Checked by: MCD Notes: To be consistent with the selection of effects endpoints in the SLERA, Toxicity Reference Values were adopted from that document (CH214 HILL, 2008. Table 3-12). P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 6\Table 6-1 Eco TRVs - Terrestrial. xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 6-2 TRVs FOR AQUATIC RECEPTORS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: MMS Checked by: MCD Notes: To be consistent with the selection of effects endpoints in the SLERA, Toxicity Reference Values were adopted from that document (CH2M HILL, 2008. Table 3-12). P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 6\Table 6-2 Eco TRVs - Aquatic.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Wildlife Receptor Toxicity Reference Value Calculated using the 'No Observed Adverse Effects Level' Wildlife Receptor Toxicity Reference Value Calculated using the 'Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level' Analyte Aquatic Aquatic Mallard Duck (mg/kg/day) Great Blue Heron (mg/kg/day) Muskrat (mg/kg/day) River Otter (mg/kg/day) Mallard Duck (mg/kg/day) Great Blue Heron (mg/kg/day) Muskrat (mg/kg/day) River Otter (mg/kg/day) Aluminum 109.7 109.7 1.93 1.93 1100 1100 19.3 19.3 Arsenic 9.3 9.3 1.04 1.04 40.3 40.3 1.66 1.66 Barium 20.8 20.8 45 45 41.7 41.7 75 75 Boron 28.8 28.8 28 28 100 100 93.6 93.6 Cadmium 1.47 1.47 1 1 2.37 2.37 10 10 Chromium 1 1 2740 2740 5 5 27400 27400 Cobalt 7.61 7.61 7.33 7.33 7.8 7.8 10.9 10.9 Copper 4.05 4.05 5.6 5.6 12.1 12.1 9.34 9.34 Iron Lead 1.63 1.63 4.7 4.7 3.26 3.26 8.9 8.9 Manganese 179 179 51.5 51.5 348 348 71 71 Mercury 0.068 0.068 0.032 0.032 0.37 0.37 0.16 0.16 Molybdenum 3.53 3.53 0.26 0.26 35.3 35.3 2.6 2.6 Nickel 6.71 6.71 1.7 1.7 11.5 11.5 3.4 3.4 Selenium 0.29 0.29 0.143 0.143 0.579 0.579 0.215 0.215 Strontium 263 263 2630 2630 Vanadium 0.344 0.344 4.16 4.16 0.688 0.688 8.31 8.31 Zinc 66.1 66.1 75.4 75.4 66.5 66.5 75.9 75.9 Prepared by: MMS Checked by: MCD Notes: To be consistent with the selection of effects endpoints in the SLERA, Toxicity Reference Values were adopted from that document (CH2M HILL, 2008. Table 3-12). P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 6\Table 6-2 Eco TRVs - Aquatic.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 6-3 HAZARD QUOTIENTS FOR COPCS IN ASH BASIN SOIL AND SEEPS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analyte Wildlife Receptor Hazard Quotient Estimated using the 'No Observed Adverse Effects Level' Terrestrial American Robin Red -Tailed Hawk Meadow Vole Red Fox Analyte Wildlife Receptor Hazard Quotient Estimated using the 'Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level' Terrestrial American Robin Red -Tailed Hawk Meadow Vole Red Fox Aluminum 0.5 0.001 9 0.1 Aluminum 0.05 0.0001 0.9 0.01 Arsenic 0.2 0.001 0.6 0.04 Arsenic 0.05 0.0003 0.4 0.02 Barium 0.6 0.001 0.3 0.03 Barium 0.3 0.001 0.2 0.02 Boron 0.03 0.001 0.03 0.001 Boron 0.008 0.0002 0.009 0.0003 Cadmium 0.00001 0.00002 Cadmium 0.000003 0.000002 Chromium 0.5 0.009 0.00001 0.000001 Chromium 0.1 0.002 0.000001 0.0000004 Cobalt 0.01 0.0003 0.006 0.0004 Cobalt 0.01 0.0003 0.004 0.0003 Copper 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.007 Copper 0.03 0.006 0.01 0.004 Iron Iron Lead 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.002 Lead 0.08 0.007 0.005 0.001 Manganese 0.07 0.0001 0.2 0.02 Manganese 0.04 0.00003 0.1 0.01 Mercury 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.02 Mercury 0.01 0.02 0.005 0.004 Molybdenum 4 0.4 10 1 Molybdenum 0.4 0.04 1 0.1 Nickel 0.2 0.002 0.02 0.002 Nickel 0.1 0.001 0.009 0.001 Selenium 19 0.09 27 6 Selenium 10 0.05 18 4 Strontium 0.1 0.01 Strontium 0.01 0.001 Vanadium 0.6 0.02 0.01 0.0001 Vanadium 0.3 1 0.009 0.006 0.00003 Zinc 0.1 0.009 0.01 0.003 Zinc 0.1 0.009 0.01 0.003 Prepared by: MMS Checked by: MCD Notes: ' A Hazard Quotient is estimated by dividing the Exposure Point Concentration for that species by its respective Toxicity Reference Value for the COPC. Exposures are adjusted for the proportion of this exposure area that represents the animal's home range, i.e. 1 acres/10 acres = 0.1. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weathempoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\ReportTables\Section 6\Table 6-3 Eco Hazard Quotients Ash Basin - Terrestrial.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 6-4 HAZARD QUOTIENTS FOR COPCS IN JACOB CREEK W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: MMS Checked by: MCD Notes: ' A Hazard Quotient is estimated by dividing the Exposure Point Concentration for that species by its respective Toxicity Reference Value for the COPC. Exposures are adjusted for the proportion of this exposure area that represents the animal's home range, i.e. 1 acres/10 acres = 0.1. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 6\Table 6-4 Eco Hazard Quotients Jacob Creek - Aquatic.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Wildlife Receptor Hazard Quotient Estimated using the 'No Observed Adverse Effects Level' Wildlife Receptor Hazard Quotient Estimated using the 'Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level' Analyte Aquatic Aquatic Mallard Duck Great Blue Heron Muskrat River Otter Mallard Duck Great Blue Heron Muskrat River Otter Aluminum 0.0000003 0.0004 0.02 0.0001 0.00000003 0.00004 0.002 0.00001 Barium 0.00000009 0.01 0.0004 0.0002 0.00000004 0.008 0.0003 0.0002 Iron 0.0000003 0.0004 0.02 0.0001 0.00000003 0.00004 0.002 0.00001 Manganese 0.003 0.3 0.001 0.2 Zinc 0.0000001 0.2 0.0001 0.0008 0.0000001 0.2 0.0001 0.0008 Prepared by: MMS Checked by: MCD Notes: ' A Hazard Quotient is estimated by dividing the Exposure Point Concentration for that species by its respective Toxicity Reference Value for the COPC. Exposures are adjusted for the proportion of this exposure area that represents the animal's home range, i.e. 1 acres/10 acres = 0.1. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 6\Table 6-4 Eco Hazard Quotients Jacob Creek - Aquatic.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE 6-5 HAZARD QUOTIENTS FOR COPCS IN RAILROAD DITCH W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: MMS Checked by: MCD Notes: ' A Hazard Quotient is estimated by dividing the Exposure Point Concentration for that species by its respective Toxicity Reference Value for the COPC. 2 Exposures are adjusted for the proportion of this exposure area that represents the animal's home range, i.e. 1 acres/10 acres = 0.1. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 6\Table 6-5 Eco Hazard Quotients Railroad Ditch - Terrestria I. xlsx Page 1 of 1 Wildlife Receptor Hazard Quotient Estimated using the 'No Observed Adverse Effects Level' Wildlife Receptor Hazard Quotient Estimated using the 'Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level' Analyte Terrestrial Terrestrial American Robin Red -Tailed Hawk I Meadow Vole Red Fox American Robin Red -Tailed Hawk I Meadow Vole Red Fox Aluminum 0.1 0.00005 4 0.007 0.01 0.000005 0.4 0.0007 Copper 0.0000009 0.000002 0.0000003 0.000001 Iron Lead 0.3 0.001 0.01 0.0001 0.2 0.0006 0.007 0.00007 Zinc 1 0.0000005 1 0.000001 1 0.0000005 1 0.000001 Prepared by: MMS Checked by: MCD Notes: ' A Hazard Quotient is estimated by dividing the Exposure Point Concentration for that species by its respective Toxicity Reference Value for the COPC. 2 Exposures are adjusted for the proportion of this exposure area that represents the animal's home range, i.e. 1 acres/10 acres = 0.1. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Tables\Report Tables\Section 6\Table 6-5 Eco Hazard Quotients Railroad Ditch - Terrestria I. xlsx Page 1 of 1 Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant ATTACHMENT A RISK ASSESSMENT DATA SETS SynTerra P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Text\App Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx TABLE A-1 SURFACE WATER AND SEEP ANALYTICAL RESULTS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS Notes: Analytical Parameter PH Temp Spec Card DO ORP Eh Turbidity Flow Alkalinity Aluminum DIS Aluminum TOT Antimony DIS Antimony TOT Arsenic DIS Arsenic TOT Barium DIS Barium TOT Beryllium DIS Beryllium TOT Bi- carbonate Alkalinity Y Boron DIS Boron TOT Cadmium DIS Cadmium TOT Calcium TOT Carbonate Alkalinity Chloride Chromium DIS Chromium Cobalt Cobalt TOT DIS TOT COD Copper Copper DIS TOT Fluoride Hardness Iron Iron Lead Lead DIS TOT DIS TOT Reporting Units S.U. Deg C u./ch.s mg/I ri mV NTUs MGD mg/I ug/I ug/I R/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I mg/I ug/I ug/I ug/I u9/1 mg/I mg/I mg/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I mg/I ug/I ug/1 mg/I mg/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I 15A NCAC 02B / EPA Human Health April 2015 5-9 HE NE HE NE NE 50 HE HE NE 8000 NE 640 NE 10 HE 200000 HE NE NE HE NE HE NE NE HE NE NE NE NE 4 HE HE HE NE HE NE NE NE NE 15A NCAC 02B/ EPA Ecological April 2015 6.5-9 NE NE 5 NE NE 50 NE HE HE 87 NE HE 150 NE HE NE 6.5 NE NE NE NE 0.15 NE NE HE 230 11 NE NE HE HE 2.7 HE NE HE NE NE 0.54 HE 15A NCAC 02L Standard, 6.5-8.5 NE I NE HE HE NE I NE I NE HE NE NE NE 1+ NE 1 10 1 HE 1 700 1 HE 4' 1 HE NE 700 NE 2 NE HE 250 NE 10 NE I• HE HE 1000 2 NE NE 300 NE 15 Sample ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results BACKGROUND ANALYTICAL RESULTS 5-17 08/19/2014 1 5.9 1 26 1 92 1 5.51 1 158 1 NM 2.92 1 NM I NA I NA I 507 I NA 1 2.25 1 NA 1 1 1 NA 1 31 1 NA I NA I NA NA <50 NA 1 11 3.33 b NA 13 NA <1 NA NA 52 NA 1.93 <0.1 13.6 NA 867 NA 11 5-20 08/19/2014 5.9 24 154 1:53 83 NM 7.41 NM NA NA 128 NA <1 NA <1 NA 60 NA NA NA NA <50 NA <1 15.7 b NA 12 NA <1 NA NA 56 NA <1 <0.1 57.2 NA 2]70 NA <1 5-20 04/22/2015 5.] 18 943 1.01 17 NM 3.6 0.83983 31 186 252 <1 <1 <1 <1 41 43 <1 <1 21 <50 <50 <1 <1 10.6 <30 15 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 1300 1640 <1 <1 S-20 09/30/2015 6.0 23 1 148 1 0.6 1 23 12281 12.3 1 NM 1 46 1 116 1 156 1 <1 I <1 I <1 1 <1 1 61 1 64 1 <1 I <1 1 45 1 50 1 <50 I <1 I <1 1 15.9 1 <10 1 21 1 <1 I <1 I <1 I <1 I NA I 1 I 1 I NA I NA 1 768 1 2240 <1 <1 SEEPS S-02 04/23/2015 6.9 16 13099 0.5 -225 NM OOR NM 98 14 137 <1 <1 28.7 204 111 122 <1 <1 98 1030 985 <1 <1 58.6 <10 15 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 10700 31800 <1 <1 S-03 04/24/2015 6.5 12 686 4.37 -9 NM 2.87 0.00384 190 <5 14 <I <1 68.5 174 98 101 <1 <1 190 1630 1620 <1 <1 85.3 <10 27 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 334 1430 <1 <1 S-03 09/30/2015 6.8 26 861 1.6 -37 168 152 NM 150 6 82 <1 <1 29.4 382 126 151 <1 <1 150 2190 2200 <1 <1 121 <10 29 <1 <1 3.74 4.22 NA 11 <1 NA NA 2300 19700 <1 <1 S -03A 04/24/2015 7.4 13 13 0.25 -264 NM 4.31 NM 180 <5 9 <1 <1 88.9 116 94 96 <1 <1 180 1430 1460 <1 <1 77.8 <10 25 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 807 1170 <1 <1 S -03A 09/30/2015 7.0 26 880 1.5 -23 182 20 NM 220 <5 36 <1 <1 76.2 777 138 160 <1 <1 220 2070 2070 <1 <1 110 <10 29 <1 <1 1.28 1.34 NA <1 <1 NA NA 565 13000 <1 <I S -03B 04/24/2015 7.3 13 999 0.47 -278 NM 6.39 NM 210 <5 41 <1 <1 86.7 1530 97 121 <1 <1 210 1740 1850 <1 <1 92.6 <10 28 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 453 13200 <1 <1 S-05 04/23/2015 6.8 16 1357 5.9 -34 NM 1.41 D01723 220 <5 13 <1 <1 4.08 14.5 91 93 <1 <1 220 1910 1900 <1 <1 90.7 <10 32 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 182 975 <1 <1 SEEPS TO NPDES S-01 04/23/2015 6.0 16 2435 3.72 17 NM 14 NM 18 156 416 <1 <1 1.17 2.5 28 30 <1 <1 18 116 114 <1 <1 7.47 <10 10 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 767 2900 <1 <1 5-01 09/30/2015 6.6 27 332 0.35 -91 114 29.8 NM 110 48 4]00 <1 <10 6.43 21.1 85 114 <1 <LO 110 717 697 <1 <10 32.5 <10 17 <1 <10 <1 <10 NA <1 <10 NA NA 970 9410 <1 10.1 5-09 08/19/2015 6.2 27 589 1.9 -14 191 92.7 NM NA NA 572 NA <1 NA 4.41 NA 95 NA NA NA NA 990 NA <1 NA NA 20 NA <1 NA NA NA NA <1 <0.1 NA NA 21300 NA <1 S -09A 04/23/2015 6.5 17 5443 7.02 -51 NM 21.3 0.27143 41 76 458 <1 <1 1.14 3.16 46 48 <1 <1 41 332 327 <1 <1 23.9 <10 13 <1 <1 1.73 2.04 NA <1 <1 NA NA 1950 4600 <1 <1 S -09A 09/30/2015 6.8 25 638 5.5 -26 180 13.8 NM 83 11 52 <1 <1 1.13 1.4 89 89 <1 <1 83 1490 1470 <1 <1 83.5 <30 30 <1 <1 1.4 1.44 NA <1 <1 NA NA 811 1490 <1 <1 S-10 04/23/2015 6.9 27 20489 0.97 -111 NM OUR NM 350 <5 66000 <1 <1 6.63 230 170 1950 <1 <10 350 2630 2990 <1 1.27 270 <10 43 <1 67.4VNA 32.1 NA <1 166 NA NA 24 1610000 <1 161 S-10 09/30/2015 7.3 27 963 0.3 -223 -18 '1000 NM 370 9 40] <1 <1 161 1910 143 228 <1 <1 370 2400 2360 <1 <1 141 <10 39 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 5400 56200 <1 <1 S-11 08/19/2015 6.6 35 792 1.1 -90 115 173 NM NA NA 2810 NA <10 NA 236 NA 251 NA NA NA NA 1930 NA <10 NA NA 53 NA <10 NA NA NA <10 0.16 NA NA 56400 NA <10 S-12 08/19/2015 7.4 35 611 1.5 -53 152 119 NM NA NA 2710 NA <10 NA 149 NA 270 NA NA NA NA 2300 NA <10 NA NA 41 NA <10 NA NA NA <10 0.29 NA NA 36900 NA <10 S-13 08/19/2015 7.6 36 715 3.2 60 265 128 NM NA NA 7700 NA <10 NA 130 NA 240 NA NA NA NA 2900 NA <10 NA NA 48 NA <10 NA NA NA <10 0.28 NA NA 31600 NA <3S-14 08/19/2015 6.7 28 685 2.7 -47 158 28.7 NM NA NA 75 NA <1 NA <1 NA 118 NA NA NA NA 3090 NA <1 NA NA 39 NA <1 NA NA NA <1 <0.1 NA NA 21900 NA <1 5-15 04/23/2015 7.2 18 1342 2.7180NM38.4NM240 <5 113 <1 <1 2.05 5.31 121 123 <1 <1 240 1680 1650 <1 <17.9<1028<1<1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 113 1270 <1 <1 5-15 09/30/2015 J.4 28 629 3.4 -106 99 32.4 NM 270 7 178 <1 <1 10.2 13.5 182 185 <1 <1 270 2240 2200 <1 <1 61.7 <10 37 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 39 996 <1 <1 S-16 08/19/2015 7.7 22 620 7.2 12 217 9.25 NM NA NA 154 NA <1 NA 1 NA 95 NA NA NA NA 1250 NA <1 NA NA 28 NA <1 NA NA NA NA <1 <0.1 NA NA 867 NA <1 SURFACE WATER S-06 08/19/2015 6.2 29 149 1.23 8.1 NM NA NA 15400 NA <10 NA 12.2 NA 81 NA NA NA NA <50 NA <10 NA NA 9.7 NA <10 NA NA NA NA 10.9 <0.1 NA NA 28900 NA <10 S-07 04/23/2015 6.3 18 962 7.5 .02 0.09112 <10 27 61 <1 <1 <1 <1 46 47 <1 <1 <10 <50 <50 <1 <1 2.22 <10 3.6 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 194 617 <1 <1 S-07 DUP 04/23/2015 6.3 18 962 7.5 .02 0.09112 <10 25 63 <1 <1 <1 1.12 46 47 <1 <1 <10 <50 <50 <1 <1 2.26 <10 3.7 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 167 620 <1 <1 S-07 09/30/2015 7.0 24 472 3.6 .67 NM <10 17 38 <1 <1 <1 <1 31 32 <1 <1 <10 <50 <50 <1 <1 1.65 <10 4.5 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 251 665 <1 <1 S-07 DUP 09/30/2015 7.0 24 472 3.6 17E22879.91 .67 NM <10 17 66 <1 <1 <1 1.22 30 35 <1 <1 <I0 <50 <50 <1 <1 1.62 <10 4.5 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 259 810 <1 <1 SW -01 04/22/2015 6.0 19 31 2.36.92 NM 25 146 193 <1 <1 1.5 1.9 48 42 <1 <1 25 54 <50 <1 <1 10.9 <10 15 <1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NA 828 1050 <1 <1 SW -01 09/30/2015 6.5 24 213 0.5 49 NM 40 95 286 <1 <5 2.26 <5 59 64 <1 <5 40 58 60 <1 <5 14.5 <10 23 <1 <5 <1 <5 NA <1 <5 NA NA 1790 3350 <1 <5 SW -02 04/22/2015 5.1 17 882 3.6 7.1 2.5876725 475 598 <l <1 <1 1.02 42 43<1 <l 25 <50 <10<1 <l 15.5 <10 14<1 <1 <1 <1 NA <1 <1 NA NAL749 1140 1 1.36 Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS Notes: 0 - Bald highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Human Health (consumption of organisms), April 2015. 0 - Bald highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Ecological, April 2015. 0 - Bald highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard, Appendix 2, April 1, 2013. S.U. = Standard Units my = millivolts NA = Not Applicable M2 = Matrix spike recovery was low; the associated blank spike recovery was acceptable umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units NM = Not Measured b = Target analyte detected In method blank at or above the method reporting limit mg/I = milligrams per liter MGD = Million Gallons per Day Dup = Duplicate j = Estimated value ug/I = micrograms per liter NE = Not Estimated Temp = Temperature DO = Dissolved Oxygen ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential oor= out of range <= less than P!\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weethempoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-1 Surface Water and Seep Analytical Result-1sx Page 1 of 2 TABLE A-1 SURFACE WATER AND SEEP ANALYTICAL RESULTS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS Notes: Analytical Parameter Magnesium TOT Manganese DIS Manganese TOT Mercury TOT Methane Molybdenum DIS Molybdenum TOT Nickel Nickel DIS TOT Nitrate (as N) Oil and grease Potassium TOT Selenium DIS Selenium TOT Sodium TOT Strontium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide ThalliumEThallium DIS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Total Dissolved Solids Total Or Organic Carbon Total Suspended Solids Vanadium DIS Vanadium TOT Zinc Zinc DIS TOT DIS TOT ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential Reporting Units mg/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I mg-N/L mg/I mg/I ug/I ug/I mg/I ug/I ug/I mg/I mg/I ug/I mg/I mg/I mg/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ISA NCAC 02B / EPA Human Health April 2015 NE NE 100 NE NE NE 2000 NE 4600 NE NE NE NE 4200 NE NE 40000 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 26000 ISA NCAC 02B / EPA Ecological April 2015 NE NE NE 0.012 NE NE NE 16 NE NE NE NE NE 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 36 NE 15A NCAC 02L Standartl NE NE 50 I NE NE NE NE 100 10 NE NE NE 20 NE NE NE 250 NE NE 0.2 500 NE NE NE 0.3* NE 1000 Sample ID Sample Collection Date Analytical Results BACKGROUND ANALYTICAL RESULTS 5-17 08/19/2014 1.29 b NA 79 <1 NA NA <1 NA <1 NA <5 NA NA <1 NA NA NA 7.3 NA NA 10.2 98 NA 7 NA NA NA 41 5-20 08/19/2014 4.38 b NA 122 <1 NA NA <I NA <I NA <5 NA NA <I NA NA NA 3.2 NA NA 10.2 130 NA I1 NA NA NA <5 5-20 04/22/2015 3.49 74 n 0.00138 300 <1 <1 <1 <1 0.016 NA 5.19 <1 <1 5.4 48 49 5.6 <0.1 '0.2 10.2 100 19 <5 0.529 0.592 <5 6 S-20 09/30/2015 4.89 89 91 10.0005 1000 <1 11 <I <I 0.026 NA 8.04 <1 <1 6.39 72 72 1.4 <0.2 <0.2 10.2 320 23 12 10.3 0.505 7 15 SEEPS S-02 04/23/2015 9.77 269 280 <0.005 47 4.89 6.25 <1 <1 0.012 NA 8.58 <1 <1 18.5 2620 2460 100 <0.1 10.2 <0.2 330 6.2 100 <0.3 0.58 47 138 S-03 04/24/2015 13.3 468 527 <0.0005 11 28.7 28.9 15 17.5 0.232 NA 10.4 <1 <1 34.8 3450 3440 120 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 430 4.1 6 1.42 1.62 <5 9 S-03 09/30/2015 15.6 1710 2160 0.00377 <10 101 117 22.5 22.3 0.02 NA 15.4 <1 <I 38.7 4650 4720 310 <0.1 10.2 <0.2 620 9.1 31 0.564 0.941 6 9 S -03A 04/24/2015 12.2 722 712 (0.0005 48 18.9 20.7 14.6 17.3 0.217 NA 10.4 <1 <1 32.5 3100 3160 120 <0.1 10.2 <0.2 420 4 <5 1.6 1.92 89 40 S -03A 09/30/2015 16 1350 1500 0.00131 27 162 158 22.8 22.3 0.021 NA 15.4 <1 <1 39.4 4540 4640 190 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 590 9.4 49 0.73 1.19 <5 15 S-036 04/24/2015 14.2 351 401 <0.0005 25 41.2 64 15.4 16.3 0.24 NA 11.3 <1 <1 38.5 3570 3750 120 <0.1 10.2 10.2 440 4 <5 1.11 1.85 <5 <5 S-05 04/23/2015 13.9 32 44 <o.000S <10 50.5 52.1 12.7 14.2 0.194 NA 11 <1 <1 43.1 3580 3620 120 <0A <0.2 <0.2 450 4.1 '5 <0.3 0.618 <5 <5 SEEPS TO NPDES S-01 04/23/2015 1.99 49 57 0.0055 49 <1 <1 1.25 1.45 0.036 NA 1.82 '1 <1 7.68 171 177 9.6 <0.1 <0.2 8.7 28 0.378 1.58 9 7 S-01 09/30/2015 8.93 116 189 0.00173 86 2.34 <10 1.7 <10 0.029 NA 9.38 <I <10 16.7 1140 1170 30 10.1 <0.2 10 36 0.607 8.1 5 57 S-09 08/19/2015 NA NA 405 10.002 NA NA <1 NA 3.79 0.019 M2 NA NA NA <1 NA NA NA 120 NA NA NA <50 NA NA NA 12 S -09A 04/23/2015 4.42 174 177 0.00287 14 3.3 3.72 3.27 3.77 0.066 NA 4.04 <1 <1 12 659 651 50 <0.1 <0.2 7.3 13 <0.3 1.43 12 11 S -09A 09/30/2015 11.7 139 138 0.000787 <10 11.3 10.8 10.4 9.84 0.108 NA 12.5 <I <I 35.7 2580 2560 240 10.1 <0.2 M0.369500 4.6 <5 1.04 0.999 6 <5 S-10 04/23/2015 21.2 254 2600 '0.005 120 21.8 33.7 9.28 71.6 0.01 NA 20.7 <1 4.57 43.8 5430 10800 130 <0.1 <0.2 24 17000 <0.3 43.5 <5 411 S-10 09/30/2015 15.9 349 426 0.00248 100 65.9 73.6 10.2 9.87 '0.01 NA 20.5 <I <I 39.9 5630 5710 110 <0.1 <0.2 0 9.7 520 10.3 0.953 <5 <5 S-11 08/19/2015 NA NA 327 0.00468 NA NA <10 NA <10 0.016 NA NA NA <10 NA NA NA 0.29 NA NA 0 NA 190 NA NA NA 10 S-12 08/19/2015 NA NA 224 0.00151 NA NA <10 NA <10 0.055 NA NA NA <10 NA NA NA 4 NA NA 0 NA 230 NA NA NA 8 S-13 08/19/2015 NA NA 103 0.00449 NA NA <10 NA <10 0.02 NA NA NA <10 NA NA NA 24 NA NA <2 410 NA 130 NA NA NA 11 S-14 08/19/2015 NA NA 252 10.0005 NA NA <1 NA 2 0.029 NA NA NA '1 NA NA NA 71 NA NA 0.524 360 NA <125 NA NA NA <5 S-15 04/23/2015 11.7 76 78 0.00304 12 6.24 6.16 5.47 5.75 0.023 NA 6.39 <1 <I 39 3170 3140 64 10.1 <0.2 10.2 410 4.3 26 <0.3 0.692 <5 <5 S-15 09/30/2015 13.2 22 32 8.71E-04 18 7.46 6.59 6.74 6.27 0.03 NA 16.9 <I <I 44.3 3300 3290 12 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 390 6.9 14 0.568 1.11 7 15 S-1608/19/2015 NA NA 89 0.00158 NA NA 2.7 NA 7.41 0.083 NA NA NA <1 NA NA NA 200 NA NA 0.323 400 NA 9 NA NA NA 15 SURFACE WATER S-06 08/19/2015 NA NA 47 0.00192 NA NA <10 NA 15.2 0.027 NA NA NA <10 NA NA NA 11 NA NA <2 <125 NA 380 NA NA NA 94 S-07 04/23/2015 1.04 34 35 0.00166 12 <1 <1 <1 <1 0.069 NA 2.42 <1 <1 2.02 40 40 5.1 <0.1 10.2 <0.2 33 2.7 13 <0.3 <0.3 24 6 S-07 DUP 04/23/2015 1.04 34 35 0.00167 14 <1 <I <I <I 0.177 NA 2.41 <1 <1 2.33 40 39 5.1 <0.1 10.2 <0.2 34 2.7 9 <0.3 0.312 13 25 S-07 09/30/2015 0.703 8 9 <0.0005 <10 '1 <I '1 <I 0.058 NA 3.18 <I <I 2.38 28 28 2 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 39 2.8 6 <0.3 <0.3 <5 <5 S-07 OUP 09/30/2015 0.699 10 12 6.37E-04 12 <1 <1 <1 <I 0.05 M2 NA 3.14 <I <I 2.29 28 29 2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 34 3.1 <5 <0.3 <0.3 <5 <5 SW-Ol 04/22/2015 3.54 66 69 0.00111 32 <1 <I <I <I <0.01 NA 5.04 <I <I 5.98 105 85 5.8 <U.1 <0.2 <0.2 110 19 6 0.352 0.819 132 15 SW-Ol 09/30/2015 4.66 128 129 0.000944 310 <1 <5 <1 <5 0.015 NA 6.88 <I <5 7.33 107 107 2.8 <0.2 <0.2 <I 300 24 26 0.362 <1.5 6 <5 SW -02 04/22/2015 1.78 38 59 0.00575 19 <1 <1 <1 <I 0.013 NA 1.23 <1 <I 6.63 102 102 7.1 10.1 <0.2 <0.2 130 23 17 0.863 1.43 8 6 Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS Notes: ®- Bald highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Human Health (consumption of organisms), April 2015. 0 -Bold highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Ecological, April 2015. 0 -Bold highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the 15A NCAC 021 -Standard, Appendix 2, April 1, 2013. S.U. = Standard Units mV = millivolts NA = Not Applicable M2 = Matrix spike recovery was low; the associated blank spike recovery was acceptable umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units NM = Not Measured b = Target analyte detected In method blank at or above the method reporting limit mg/I = milligrams per liter MGD = Million Gallons per Day Dup = Duplicate j = Estimated value ug/I = micrograms per liter NE = Not Estimated Temp = Temperature DO = Dissolved Oxygen ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential oor=out of range <= less than P!\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weathempoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-1 Surface Water and Seep Analytical Results.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE A-2 GROUNDWATER - SURFICIAL AQUIFER ANALYTICAL RESULTS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analytical Parameter pH Water Level Temp Spec Cond DO ORP Eh Turbidity Ferrous Iron Alkalinity Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Bi carbonate Alkalinity BOD Boron Cadmium Calcium Carbonate Alkalinity Chloride Chromium Cobalt COD Copper Fluoride Iron Lead Reporting Units S.U. ft Deg C 'mhos mg/I mV mV NTUs mg/I mg/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I mg/I mg/I ug/I ug/I mg/I mg/I mg/I ug/I ug/I mg/I ug/I mg/I ug/I ug/I 15A NCAC 02L Standard 6.5-8.5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 1* 10 700 4* NE NE 700 2 NE NE 250 10 1* NE 1000 2 300 15 Sample ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results BACKGROUND ANALYTICAL RESULTS BW -01 11/16/2010 4.5 8.35 18 0 NM NM NM 4.5 NM NA NA <0.5 <5 114 NA NA NA NA 0.22 NA NA 21 NA NA NA NA NA 1390 <5 BW -01 03/01/2011 4.2 6.80 14 289 0.4 -13 192 6.28 NM NA NA <0.5 <5 100 b NA NA NA <50 0.26 NA NA 36.4 b <5 NA NA <5 NA 2040 <5 BW -01 06/07/2011 4.2 7.99 18 162 0.52 -59 146 1.25 NM NA NA <0.5 <5 109 NA NA NA 59.9 0.39 NA NA 6.2 <5 NA NA <5 NA 87.9 <5 BW -01 10/03/2011 4.6 7.31 19 164 0.5 -149 56 0.58 NM NA NA <0.5 <5 84.8 NA NA NA 86.8 0.23 NA NA 13.5 <5 NA NA <5 NA 643 <5 BW -01 03/05/2012 4.2 5.63 16 241 0.45 -38 167 0.58 NM NA NA <0.5 <5 96.3 NA NA NA <50 0.32 NA NA 30 <5 NA NA <5 NA 591 <5 BW -01 06/04/2012 4.1 7.38 18 151 4.2 -56 149 2.2 NM NA NA <0.5 <5 1 68.4 NA NA NA 52.6 <0.08 NA NA 8.7 <5 NA NA <5 NA <50 <5 BW -01 10/01/2012 4.3 8.43 20 155 0.5 214 419 0.53 NM NA NA <0.5 <5 60.6 NA NA NA 58.3 0.31 NA NA 7.9 <5 NA NA <5 NA <50 <5 BW -01 03/11/2013 3.9 6.32 17 227 1.29 289 494 2.78 NM NA NA <1 <1 81 NA NA NA <50 <1 NA NA 19 <5 NA NA <5 NA 143 1.4 BW -01 06/11/2013 4.0 6.62 19 152 0.59 318 523 1.72 NM NA NA <1 <1 61 NA NA NA 69 <1 NA NA 7.1 <5 NA NA <5 NA 44 <1 BW -01 DUP 06/11/2013 4.0 6.62 19 152 0.59 318 523 1.72 NM NA NA <1 <1 60 NA NA NA 66 <1 NA NA 7.2 <5 NA NA <5 NA 43 <1 BW -01 10/01/2013 4.2 5.94 20 187 0.24 101 306 9.9 NM NA NA <1 1.05 83 NA NA NA <50 <1 NA NA 16 <5 NA NA <5 NA 392 <1 BW -01 03/06/2014 3.9 5.23 12 1 256 1 1 381 1586 0.52 1 NM NA I NA <1 <1 1 86 NA NA NA <50 5.2 NA NA 34 <5 NA NA <5 NA 657 1.35 BW -01 06/04/2014 4.0 5.80 18 123 NM 345 550 1.1 NM NA NA <1 1.18 81 NA NA NA <50 <1 NA NA 33 <5 NA NA <5 NA 2140 1.56 BW -01 10/03/2014 4.3 8.36 20 139 0.27 247 452 3.31 NM NA NA <1 <1 49 NA NA NA 74 <1 NA NA 8.1 <5 NA NA <5 NA 283 1.1 BW -01 03/09/2015 4.1 4.55 14 179 1.34 327 532 2.88 NM NA NA <1 <1 63 NA NA NA <50 <1 NA NA 13 <5 NA NA <5 NA 162 1.14 BW -01 06/02/2015 4.4 8.18 17 147 0.1 108 313 4.86 0.75 <5 1900 <1 <1 56 <1 <5 NA 67 <1 1 5.13 <5 7.1 <5 <1 NA <5 NA 253 1.1 BW -01 DUP 06/02/2015 4.4 8.18 17 147 0.1 108 313 4.86 0.75 <5 1860 <1 <1 57 <1 <5 NA 67 <1 5.16 <5 7.1 <5 <1 NA <5 NA 231 1.05 BW -01 10/14/2015 4.2 1 8.78 19 756 0.3 244 449 0.46 NM 1 <5 1170 <1 I <1 69 <1 <5 NA 70 <1 5.75 <5 6.2 <5 <1 NA <5 NA 39 1.13 BW -02S 03/06/2015 6.3 5.01 10 240 0.1 -80 126 216 2 87 11800 <1 2.39 38 1 <1 86 NA <50 <1 44.2 <10 7.8 8.61 <1 NA 2.16 NA 2570 7.85 BW -02S 06/05/2015 5.1 9.85 18 86 0.3 -92 113 >1000 NM 21 57400 <1 3.93 96 <1 21 NA <50 <1 4.08 <10 7 25.9 <1 NA 8.05 NA 6420 42.1 BW -02S 09/30/2015 5.0 14.10 22 66 2.1 21 226 29 NM NA 1650 <1 <1 27 <1 NA NA <50 <1 3.87 NA NA 1.54 <1 NA <1 NA 2150 1.09 BW -03S 03/05/2015 5.4 3.40 18 112 0.25 41 246 14.3 4.5 <10 712 <1 <1 19 <1 <10 NA <50 <1 3.15 <10 16 1.98 <1 NA <1 NA 5240 <1 BW -03S 06/03/2015 5.5 5.62 19 99 0.4 -108 97 19.5 3 10 749 <1 <1 20 <1 10 NA <50 <1 3.1 <10 13 2.18 <1 NA <1 NA 4490 <1 BW -03S 09/30/2015 5.2 1 7.38 22 84 0.3 58 263 7.89 NM NA 678 <1 I <1 17 <1 I NA NA <50 <1 2.4 NA NA 1.71 <1 NA <1 NA 3210 <1 MW -01 03/19/1990 6.4 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA ND 10 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 180 ND MW -01 07/05/1990 6.3 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA ND 10 NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 140 ND MW -01 11/05/1990 7.0 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA ND ND NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 90 ND MW -01 03/06/1991 7.4 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA ND ND NA NA NA NA 0.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 300 1.4 MW -01 07/01/1991 5.8 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA 1 ND NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 500 ND MW -01 11/06/1991 6.0 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA ND ND NA NA NA NA 0.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 360 3.9 MW -01 03/02/1992 7.2 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA 1 10.6 NA NA NA NA 0.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND ND MW -01 07/07/1992 4.9 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA ND 7 NA NA NA NA 0.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 230 ND MW -01 11/04/1992 5.6 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA <1 <5 NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <50 <1 MW -01 03/10/1993 5.0 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA 1 13 NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2300 <1 MW -01 07/12/1993 7.5 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA 1 12.6 NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3000 <1 MW -01 11/08/1993 5.1 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA 1 11 NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 800 <1 MW -01 03/07/1994 4.5 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA <1 20 NA NA NA NA 0.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1100 <1 MW -01 07/12/1994 7.1 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA <1 <20 NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4700 <1 MW -01 10/31/1994 4.8 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA <1 13 NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17000 <1 MW -01 03/07/1995 5.7 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA <1 <10 NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6700 <5 MW -01 07/11/1995 5.9 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA 4 17 NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 18000 <1 MW -01 03/05/1996 5.8 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA 2.4 NA NA NA NA NA 0.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1900 4 MW -01 03/18/1997 5.6 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM__L NM NA NA NA 1.8 NA t NA NA NA NA <0.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9800___2 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-2 Surficial Analytical Results.xlsx Page 1 of 4 TABLE A-2 GROUNDWATER - SURFICIAL AQUIFER ANALYTICAL RESULTS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analytical Parameter Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate (as N) Nitrate Nitrite Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide Thallium Total Dissolved Solids Total Organic Carbon Total Organic Halides Total Suspended Solids Vanadium Zinc Reporting Units mg/l ug/l ug/I ug/l ug/l ug/I mg-N/L mg/I mg/l mg/1 ug/I ug/I mg/I ug/l mg/l mg/1 ug/l mg/I mg/l mg/l mg/I ug/l ug/1 SSA NCAC 02L Standard NE 50 1 NE NE 100 10 10 NE NE 20 20 NE NE 250 NE 0.2* 500 NE NE NE 0.3* 1000 Sample ID Sample Collection Date Analytical Results BACKGROUND ANALYTICAL RESULTS BW -01 11/16/2010 NA NA NA NA NA <5 NA 0.8 NA NA <10 NA NA NA 42.6 NA 0.11 113 NA NA NA NA <10 BW -01 03/01/2011 NA 20.7 <0.2 NA NA <5 NA <0.1 NA NA <10 NA NA NA 56.3 NA <0.1 222 b NA NA NA NA 21.2 b BW -01 06/07/2011 NA 33.4 <0.2 NA NA <5 NA 4.4 NA NA <10 NA NA NA 17.6 NA 0.14 96 NA NA NA NA <10 BW -01 10/03/2011 NA 26.6 <0.2 NA NA <5 NA <0.2 NA NA <10 NA NA NA 35.5 NA 0.12 92 NA NA NA NA <10 BW -01 03/05/2012 NA 17.8 <0.2 NA NA <5 NA <0.2 NA NA <10 NA NA NA 56.5 NA 0.1 209 NA NA NA NA 17.7 BW -01 06/04/2012 NA 29.5 <0.2 NA NA <5 NA 1.4 NA NA <10 NA NA NA 38.8 NA 0.66 92 NA NA NA NA <10 BW -01 10/01/2012 NA 28.2 <0.2 NA NA <5 NA 1.7 NA NA <10 NA NA NA 35.9 NA 0.14 86 NA NA NA NA <10 BW -01 03/11/2013 NA 14 <0.05 NA NA <5 NA 0.03 NA NA 1.15 NA NA NA 56 NA <0.2 150 NA NA NA NA 23 BW -01 06/11/2013 NA 29 <0.05 NA NA <5 NA 1.1 NA NA 2.07 NA NA NA 37 NA <0.2 85 NA NA NA NA 8 BW -01 DUP 06/11/2013 NA 29 <0.05 NA NA <5 NA 1.1 NA NA 2.13 NA NA NA 37 NA <0.2 87 NA NA NA NA <5 BW -01 10/01/2013 NA 27 <0.05 NA NA <5 NA <0.023 NA NA 1.06 NA NA NA 40 NA <0.2 110 NA NA NA NA <5 BW -01 03/06/2014 NA 16 <0.05 NA NA <5 NA <0.023 NA NA <1 NA NA NA 58 NA <0.2 170 NA NA NA NA 13 BW -01 06/04/2014 NA 13 <0.05 NA NA <5 NA <0.023 NA NA <1 NA NA NA 56 NA <0.2 170 NA NA NA NA 15 BW -01 10/03/2014 NA 22 <0.05 NA NA <5 NA 0.83 NA NA 1.92 NA NA NA 36 NA <0.2 82 NA NA NA NA <5 BW -01 03/09/2015 NA 10 <0.05 NA NA <5 NA 0.22 NA NA <1 NA NA NA 51 NA <0.2 130 NA NA NA NA 14 BW -01 06/02/2015 2.6 24 <0.05 30 <1 <5 1.4 5.8 NA 13 1.42 NA 3.14 <1000 47 <0.1 <0.2 87 6.7 NA 6 1 5.09 <5 BW -01 DUP 06/02/2015 2.59 25 <0.05 NA <1 <5 1.4 6 NA 13.2 1.38 NA 3.19 <1000 48 NA <0.2 97 NA NA 5 5.02 <5 BW -01 10/14/2015 2.25 1 32 <0.05 NA <1 <5 2.2 9.6 NA 18 1.65 NA 2.86 28 59 NA 0.302 96 NA NA <5 2.98 9 BW -02S 03/06/2015 0.669 31 0.17 140 1.32 2.17 <0.01 NA NA 2.07 1.67 NA 6.26 146 9.1 1 <0.5 <0.2 280 23 NA 31 18.4 <5 BW -02S 06/05/2015 0.535 25 0.78 130 3.64 2.9 0.032 NA NA 0.599 5.54 NA 11.6 39 8.5 <1 <0.2 520 9.1 NA <125 47.3 10 BW -02S 09/30/2015 0.526 19 0.07 NA <1 <1 NA NA NA 0.554 <1 NA 4.33 19 NA NA <0.2 NA NA NA NA 4.08 <5 BW -03S 03/05/2015 1.39 46 <0.05 640 <1 <1 0.015 NA NA 1.17 <1 NA 10 21 5.3 <0.5 <0.2 69 7.2 NA 41 3.44 8 BW -03S 06/03/2015 1.44 40 <0.05 510 <1 <1 0.01 NA NA 1.19 <1 NA 8.75 21 9.1 0.466 <0.2 75 6.8 NA <5 3.68 <5 BW -03S 09/30/2015 1.01 1 33 <0.05 NA <1 <1 NA NA NA 1.14 <1 NA 7.46 16 NA NA <0.2 NA NA NA NA 3.44 <5 MW -01 03/19/1990 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA 13 NA NA 10 NA NA NA NA NA MW -01 07/05/1990 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA 9.2 NA NA 56 NA NA NA NA NA MW -01 11/05/1990 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA 15 NA NA 44 NA ND NA NA NA MW -01 03/06/1991 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA 17 NA NA 130 NA NA NA NA NA MW -01 07/01/1991 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA 10 NA NA 110 NA NA NA NA NA MW -01 11/06/1991 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA 7.3 NA NA 60 NA 0.0111 NA NA NA MW -01 03/02/1992 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA 11 NA NA 58 NA NA NA NA NA MW -01 07/07/1992 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ND NA NA NA 10 NA NA 40 NA NA NA NA NA MW -01 11/04/1992 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <1 NA NA NA 6.7 NA NA 64 NA <0.005 NA NA NA MW -01 03/10/1993 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <1 NA NA NA 10 NA NA 38 NA NA NA NA NA MW -01 07/12/1993 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA NA NA 15 NA NA 39 NA NA NA NA NA MW -01 11/08/1993 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <1 NA NA NA 8.7 NA NA 44 NA <0.01 NA NA NA MW -01 03/07/1994 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <1 NA NA NA 12 NA NA 36 NA NA NA NA NA MW -01 07/12/1994 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <1 NA NA NA 7.8 NA NA 32 NA NA NA NA NA MW -01 10/31/1994 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <1 NA NA NA 7.9 NA NA 35 NA 0.141 NA NA NA MW -01 03/07/1995 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <1 NA NA NA 8.1 NA NA 32 NA 1.6 NA NA NA MW -01 07/11/1995 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <1 NA NA NA 11 NA NA 56 NA <0.01 NA NA NA MW -01 03/05/1996 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 523 NA NA NA NA NA MW -01 03/18/1997 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-2 Surficial Analytical Results.xlsx Page 2 of 4 TABLE A-2 GROUNDWATER - SURFICIAL AQUIFER ANALYTICAL RESULTS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analytical Parameter PH Water Level Temp Spec Cond DO ORP Eh Turbidity Ferrous Iron Alkalinity Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Bi carbonate Alkalinity BOD Boron Cadmium Calcium Carbonate Alkalinity Chloride Chromium Cobalt COD Copper Fluoride Iron Lead Reporting Units S.U. ft Deg C 'mhos mg/I mV mV NTUs mg/1 mg/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 mg/1 mg/1 ug/l ug/I mg/1 mg/I mg/I ug/1 ug/1 mg/1 ug/1 mg/l ug/l ug/1 SSA NCAC 02L Standard 6.5-8.5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 1* 10 700 4* NE NE 700 2 NE NE 250 10 1* NE 1000 2 300 15 Sample ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results BACKGROUND ANALYTICAL RESULTS (continued) MW -01 03/09/1998 5.0 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA NA <3 NA NA NA NA NA <0.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3700 <2 MW -01 12/13/2006 4.5 16.81 65 0 NM NM NM NM NM NA NA 0.69 0.12 14.4 <0.051 NA 2 16.4 0.024 NA NA 2.1 0.23 NA 10 0.8 0.155 536 0.16 MW -01 03/14/2007 4.5 16.80 62 NM NM NM NM NM NM NA NA <3 <2 11 <1 NA <2 11 <1 NA NA 3 <5 NA 6 <5 <0.1 1270 <3 MW -01 11/13/2007 4.5 21.69 67 102 NM NM NM NM NM NA NA <2.5 <2 14 <1 NA <2 22 <1 NA NA 7 <5 NA 17 <5 <0.1 401 <5 MW -01 03/18/2008 3.8 17.12 62 54 NM NM NM NM NM NA NA 2 <5 13 <1 NA <2 20 <2 NA NA 5 5 NA 5 <3 0.1 313 <3 MW -01 11/11/2008 4.7 1 18.15 67 39 NM NM NM NM NM NA NA <2.5 <2 1 13 <1 NA <2 8 1 <1 NA NA 3 <5 NA <5 I <5 0.1 414 <2 MW -01 3/24/2009 4.0 17.15 62 36 NM NM NM NM NM NA NA <1 <1 9 1 <1 NA <2 45 <1 NA NA 4 5 NA 15 1 <0.1 408 2 MW -01 10/15/2009 4.1 19.35 67 48 NM NM NM NM NM NA NA <1 <1 10 <1 NA <2 17.2 <1 NA NA 7 4 NA <5 2 <0.1 1520 2 MW -01 03/17/2010 3.8 16.74 61 41 NM NM NM NM NM NA NA <1 <1 7 <1 NA <2 13 <1 NA NA <5 4 NA <5 <1 <0.1 1400 <1 MW -01 06/05/2015 4.0 17.88 17 44 2.03 1 206 14111 3.43 <0.5 <10 265 <1 <1 9 <1 <10 NA <50 <1 1.09 <10 2.1 <1 <1 NA <1 NA 323 <1 ANALYTICAL RESULTS AW -01S 03/03/2015 4.5 11.64 16 46 3.46 196 14011 4.88 <0.5 <10 301 <1 <1 6 <1 <10 NA <50 <1 1.73 <10 1.8 <1 <1 NA <1 NA 283 <1 AW -01S 06/02/2015 4.7 12.95 21 30 2.79 210 415 2.68 NM <10 106 <1 <1 <5 <1 <10 NA <50 <1 1.42 <10 2.3 <1 <1 NA <1 NA 12 <1 AW -02S 03/03/2015 4.1 10.23 14 615 1.82 11 216 5.31 3.5 <10 34400 <1 1.02 22 10.3 <10 NA 130 1.85 38.1 <10 4.8 16.6 65.1 NA 84.2 NA 10900 2.22 AW -02S DUP 03/03/2015 4.1 10.23 14 615 1.82 11 216 5.31 3.5 <10 34100 <1 <1 23 10 <10 NA 138 1.92 38.5 <10 6.2 15.3 70.3 NA 87.1 NA 13600 2.4 AW -02S 06/03/2015 3.6 12.59 19 695 1.22 326 531 0.81 3 <10 32100 <1 <1 20 9.86 <10 NA 117 1.89 42.2 <10 5.9 5.48 61.6 NA 76.3 NA 7750 3.52 AW -02S 09/29/2015 3.5 13.28 24 1 870 0.4 375 580 3.36 NM NA 43900 <1 1.11 23 14.2 NA NA 1 165 3.16 68.6 NA NA 6.46 109 NA 119 NA 10500 6.18 AW -03S 03/04/2015 5.8 3.16 24 121 3.88 -2 203 217 <0.5 11 14500 <1 I <1 27 <1 11 NA <50 1 <1 2.07 <10 12 3.52 <1 NA 1.05 NA 4800 1.69 AW -03S 06/04/2015 5.8 5.12 20 136 0.6 -76 129 23 3.5 31 1730 <1 4.97 10 <1 31 NA <50 <1 2.25 <10 14 1.36 <1 NA <1 NA 17000 <1 AW -03S 09/30/2015 5.7 7.35 24 94 0.4 -98 107 9.87 NM NA 775 <1 3.7 5 <1 NA NA <50 <1 1.2 NA NA <1 <1 NA <1 NA 11900 <1 CW -01 03/09/2015 5.9 3.69 13 138 0.31 35 240 7.58 NM NA NA <1 <1 34 NA NA NA <50 <1 NA NA 3.8 <5 NA NA <5 NA 2310 <1 CW -02 DUP 03/09/2015 7.4 4.52 13 270 0.69 244 449 2.21 1 NM NA NA <1 <1 20 NA NA NA <50 <1 NA NA 4.4 <5 NA NA <5 NA 65 <1 CW -01 06/02/2015 5.5 5.44 19 1 105 0.46 -107 98 9.14 1.5 22.8 1 626 <1 <1 27 <1 22.8 NA <50 <1 11.1 <5 3.5 <5 <1 NA <5 NA 2020 <1 CW -01 10/14/2015 5.7 4.30 20 129 0.4 45 250 3.75 NM 21 517 <1 1.34 38 <1 21 NA <50 <1 12.8 <5 3.9 <5 <1 NA <5 NA 2200 <1 CW -02 03/09/2015 7.4 4.52 13 270 0.69 1 244 449 2.21 NM NA NA <1 <1 20 NA NA NA <50 <1 NA NA 4.4 <5 NA NA <5 NA 65 <1 CW -02 06/02/2015 7.4 5.86 18 268 0.52 -235 -30 1.61 <0.5 120 10 <1 <1 21 <1 120 NA <50 <1 50.7 <5 4.6 <5 <1 NA <5 NA 384 <1 CW -02 10/14/2015 7.2 4.92 20 282 0.4 52 257 0.98 NM 121 10 <1 <1 26 <1 121 NA <50 <1 52.7 <5 7.3 <5 <1 NA <5 NA 65 <1 CW -02 DUP 10/14/2015 7.2 4.92 1 20 282 0.4 52 257 0.98 NM 1 121 11 <1 I <1 26 <1 121 NA <50 <1 51.8 <5 7.4 1 <5 <1 NA <5 NA 65 <1 CW -03 03/09/2015 6.2 3.99 14 456 3.83 226 431 4.72 NM NA NA <1 <1 89 NA NA NA 130 <1 NA NA 60 <5 NA NA <5 NA 96 <1 CW -03 06/02/2015 6.5 6.97 20 295 0.4 -79 126 3.34 0.5 67.1 31 <1 <1 53 <1 67.1 NA <50 <1 40.8 <5 19 <5 <1 NA <5 NA 1010 <1 CW -03 10/14/2015 6.4 7.78 20 201 0.3 6 211 1.05 NM 87.4 58 <1 <1 32 <1 87.4 NA <50 <1 36.8 <5 4.5 <5 <1 NA <5 NA 727 <1 MW -03 06/05/2015 6.5 3.77 20 516 0.2 -189 16 1 4.76 3.25 180 179 <1 5.39 94 <1 180 NA 791 <1 76.5 <10 24 <1 <1 NA <1 NA 2390 <1 MW -05 06/09/2015 4.9 4.71 19 273 0.53 35 240 4.9 4 15 72 <1 2.48 16 <1 15 NA 247 <1 2.08 <10 41 <1 1.06 NA <1 NA 11700 <1 MW -06 06/09/2015 6.7 6.12 18 375 0.2 -103 102 1.9 4.5 94 43 <1 2.38 62 <1 94 NA 108 <1 55 <10 22 <1 <1 NA <1 NA 12700 <1 MW -33S 06/08/2015 5.0 6.88 20 170 0.2 30 235 4.12 7 <10 707 <1 <1 33 <1 <10 NA <50 <1 15.6 <10 3.9 1.06 1.74 NA <1 NA 6780 <1 MW -445A 06/04/2015 6.2 23.27 21 997 0.68 -105 100 16.1 3 220 856 <1 74.4 196 <1 220 NA 1620 <1 175 <10 51 2.71 3.15 NA 1.34 NA 4430 <1 Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS Notes: - Bold highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard, Appendix 2, April 1, 2013. S.U. = Standard Units mV = millivolts NA = Not Applicable umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units NM = Not Measured mg/I = milligrams per liter MGD = Million Gallons per Day Dup = Duplicate ug/1 = micrograms per liter NE = Not Estimated Temp = Temperature ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential DO = Dissolved Oxygen j = Estimated Value <= less than ND= Not Detected P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-2 Surficial Analytical Results.xlsx Page 3 of 4 TABLE A-2 GROUNDWATER - SURFICIAL AQUIFER ANALYTICAL RESULTS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analytical Parameter Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate (as N) Nitrate Nitrite Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide Thallium Total Dissolved Solids Total Organic Carbon Total Organic Halides Total Suspended Solids Vanadium Zinc Duplicate Reporting Units mg/l ug/l ug/I ug/l ug/l ug/I mg-N/L mg/I mg/l mg/1 ug/I ug/I mg/I ug/l mg/l mg/1 ug/l mg/I mg/l mg/l mg/I ug/l ug/1 SSA NCAC 02L Standard NE 50 1 NE NE 100 10 10 NE NE 20 20 NE NE 250 NE 0.2* Soo NE NE NE 0.3* 1000 Sample ID Sample Collection Date Analytical Results BACKGROUND ANALYTICAL RESULTS (continued) MW -01 03/09/1998 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA MW -01 12/13/2006 NA 7.7 <0.1 NA NA 0.43 NA 0.215 0.05 NA 0.17 <0.017 NA NA 3.36 NA 0.051 10 5 <0.01 NA NA 1.4 MW -01 03/14/2007 NA 8 <0.2 NA NA <5 NA 0.03 <0.02 NA <5 <5 NA NA 5 NA <1 22 4.3 <0.01 NA NA <5 MW -01 11/13/2007 NA <5 <0.2 NA NA <5 NA 0.04 <0.02 NA <5 <5 NA NA 24 NA <1 52 3.1 0.0141 NA NA 30 MW -01 03/18/2008 NA <5 <0.2 NA NA <5 NA 0.25 <0.02 NA <5 <2 NA NA 8 NA <5 33 1.1 <0.03 NA NA 12 MW -01 11/11/2008 NA 7 <0.2 NA NA <5 NA 0.25 <0.02 NA <1 <5 NA NA <10 NA <1 63 0.7 <0.03 NA NA 25 MW -01 03/24/2009 NA 6 <0.2 NA NA 1 NA <0.02 <0.02 NA <1 <1 NA NA <5 NA <1 35 0.5 <0.03 NA NA 23 MW -01 10/15/2009 NA 6 <0.2 NA NA 2 NA 0.34 <0.02 NA <1 <1 NA NA 7 NA <1 25 0.6 <0.03 NA NA 9 MW -01 03/17/2010 NA 4 <0.2 NA NA <1 NA 0.27 <0.02 NA <1 <1 NA NA 6 NA <1 9 0.6 <0.03 NA NA <1 MW -01 06/05/2015 1.26 10 <0.05 <10 <1 <1 1.2 NA NA 1.07 <1 NA 1.41 9 5 <0.1 <0.2 <25 0.449 NA <5 <0.3 <5 ANALYTICAL RESULTS AW -01S 03/03/2015 0.548 13 <0.05 <10 <1 2.04 1.5 NA NA 0.425 <1 NA 1.42 9 16 <0.1 <0.2 25 0.379 NA <5 <0.3 <5 AW -01S 06/02/2015 0.526 <5 <0.05 <10 <1 <1 0.814 NA NA 0.272 <1 NA 1.14 7 4.4 <0.1 <0.2 <25 0.247 NA <5 <0.3 <5 AW -02S 03/03/2015 7.71 859 <0.05 69 <1 140 1.1 NA NA 1.54 1.81 NA 4.44 241 500 <0.1 <0.2 520 0.903 NA 6 0.34 379 AW -02S DUP 03/03/2015 8.56 940 <0.05 56 <1 149 1 NA NA 1.61 1.42 NA 4.6 250 600 <0.1 <0.2 540 0.85 NA 5 <0.3 388 AW -02S 06/03/2015 8.82 982 <0.05 40 <1 130 1.9 NA NA 1.74 1.53 NA 4.39 268 710 <0.1 0.237 500 0.98 NA <5 <0.3 379 AW -02S 09/29/2015 11.3 1270 <0.05 NA <1 216 NA NA NA 2.27 2.95 NA 6.46 386 NA NA 0.364 NA NA NA NA 0.405 635 AW -03S 03/04/2015 0.592 39 0.06 <10 <1 1.46 <0.01 NA NA 0.481 <1 NA 20.3 20 14 1 <2 <0.2 240 50 NA 87 3.99 14 AW -03S 06/04/2015 0.914 57 <0.05 60 <1 <1 0.052 NA NA 0.227 <1 NA 11.3 20 1.1 0.178 <0.2 80 7.3 NA 17 2.65 12 AW -03S 09/30/2015 0.521 24 <0.05 NA <1 <1 NA NA NA 0.19 <1 NA 6.49 10 NA NA <0.2 NA NA NA NA 2.04 <5 CW -01 03/09/2015 NA 39 <0.05 NA NA <5 NA <0.023 NA NA <1 NA NA NA 15 NA <0.2 83 NA NA NA NA <5 CW -02 DUP 03/09/2015 NA <5 <0.05 NA NA <5 NA 0.09 NA NA <1 NA NA NA 9.8 NA <0.2 160 NA NA NA NA <5 CW -01 06/02/2015 0.728 1 36 <0.05 530 1 <1 <5 0.01 1 <0.1 NA 1.06 <1 NA 1 6.12 <1000 14 1.14 <0.2 71 3.6 NA <5 1.29 <5 CW -01 10/14/2015 0.851 45 <0.05 NA <1 <5 <0.023 <0.1 NA 1.23 <1 NA 7.55 82 22 NA <0.2 66 NA NA 8 0.834 <5 CW -02 03/09/2015 NA <5 <0.05 NA NA <5 NA 0.1 NA NA <1 NA NA NA 9.8 NA <0.2 150 NA NA NA NA <5 CW -02 06/02/2015 1.23 10 <0.05 84 1.09 <5 0.169 0.51 NA 0.507 <1 NA 3.54 <1000 9.9 <0.2 <0.2 170 0.168 NA <5 <0.3 <5 CW -02 10/14/2015 1.27 <5 <0.05 NA 1.46 <5 0.52 2.3 NA 0.67 <1 NA 4.24 215 7.4 NA <0.2 160 NA NA <5 0.769 <5 CW -02 DUP 10/14/2015 1.25 <5 <0.05 NA 1.36 <5 0.52 2.3 NA 0.669 <1 NA 4.29 216 7.4 NA <0.2 160 NA NA <5 0.765 <5 CW -03 03/09/2015 NA 29 <0.05 NA NA <5 NA 0.08 NA NA <1 NA NA NA 85 NA <0.2 280 NA NA NA NA <5 CW -03 06/02/2015 1.64 46 <0.05 220 <1 <5 0.012 <0.1 NA 0.798 <1 NA 11.8 <1000 32 <0.1 <0.2 170 1.4 NA <5 0.636 <5 CW -03 10/14/2015 1.01 26 <0.05 NA <1 <5 <0.023 <0.1 NA 0.719 <1 NA 3.49 191 3.7 NA <0.2 110 NA NA <5 0.323 <5 MW -03 06/05/2015 4.39 63 <0.05 820 <1 <1 0.02 NA NA 3.44 <1 NA 21.2 688 36 <0.1 <0.2 310 3.3 NA 5 0.663 <5 MW -05 06/09/2015 1.83 23 <0.05 45 <1 <1 0.015 NA NA 0.242 <1 NA 38.9 24 50 <0.2 <0.2 150 1.1 NA <5 0.467 <5 MW -06 06/09/2015 1.68 39 <0.05 150 1.64 <1 0.027 NA NA 1.37 <1 NA 13 330 46 <0.1 <0.2 230 2.2 NA 11 0.448 <5 MW -33S 06/08/2015 1.3 73 <0.05 420 <1 1.11 0.036 NA NA 1.92 <1 NA 3.17 66 50 0.978 <0.2 120 8.3 NA <5 1.5 <5 MW-44SA 06/04/2015 1 9.28 172 <0.05 1 57 7.47 1.87 0.116 NA NA 4.49 <1 NA 34 2050 230 <0.5 1 <0.2 690 3.7 NA 18 3.8 51 Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS Notes: = - Bold highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard, Appendix 2, April 1, 2013. S.U. = Standard Units mV = millivolts NA = Not Applicable umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units NM = Not Measured mg/I = milligrams per liter MGD = Million Gallons per Day Dup = Duplicate ug/1 = micrograms per liter NE = Not Estimated Temp = Temperature ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential DO = Dissolved Oxygen j = Estimated Value <= less than ND= Not Detected P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-2 Surficial Analytical Results.xlsx Page 4 of 4 TABLE A-3 GROUNDWATER - LOWER YORKTOWN ANALYTICAL RESULTS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Notes: - Bold highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard, Appendix 2, April 1, 2013. S.U. = Standard Units NA = Not Applicable DO = Dissolved Oxygen umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter NM = Not Measured ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential mg/I = milligrams per liter ug/I = micrograms per liter my = millivolts NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units MGD = Million Gallons per Day NE = Not Estimated Dup = Duplicate <= less than M2 = Matrix spike recovery was low; the associated blank spike recovery was acceptable b = Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the method reporting limit j = Estimated value Temp = Temperature Spec Cond = Specific Conductance Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-3 Lower Yorktown Analytical Results.xlsx Page 1 of 2 Analytical Parameter pH Water Level Temp Spec Cond DO ORP Eh Turbidity Ferrous Iron Alkalinity Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Bi carbonate Alkalinity Boron Cadmium Calcium Carbonate Alkalinity Chloride Chromium Cobalt Copper Fluoride Reporting Units S. U. ft Deg C hos ummg/1 mV mV NTUs mg/I mg/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/I ug/I ug/l mg/l ug/1 ug/1 mg/I mg/l mg/l ug/l ug/1 ug/1 mg/1 15A NCAC 02L Standard 6.5-8.5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 1* 10 700 4* NE 700 2 NE NE 250 10 1* 1000 2 Sample ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results BACKGROUND ANALYTICAL RESULTS BW -02I 03/05/2015 7.0 7.18 11 291 0.29 -73 132 89.9 1 110 2730 <1 1.8 26 <1 110 <50 <1 50.4 <10 4.6 7.08 <1 <1 NA BW -02I 06/04/2015 7.3 10.11 18 285 0.16 -115 90 413 <0.5 130 18300 <1 3.89 53 1.19 130 <50 <1 45.6 <10 4.4 30.8 1.31 2.56 NA BW -02I 09/30/2015 7.7 13.48 21 295 0.2 -201 4 9.99 NM NA 3140 <1 1.01 26 <1 NA <50 <1 42.8 NA NA 7.81 <1 <1 NA BW -03I 03/04/2015 5.8 3.01 18 92 0.09 -20 186 58.3 5.5 22 1460 <1 9.07 31 <1 22 <50 <1 9.25 <10 9.2 2.78 <1 <1 NA BW -03I 06/03/2015 5.7 5.27 19 67 0.1 -96 109 20.7 2.5 24 224 <1 <1 19 <1 24 <50 <1 7.67 <10 5.8 1.16 <1 <1 NA AW -01I 03/03/2015 6.4 14.56 18 82 0.2 1 89 1294 5.03 1 4.5 23 108 <1 <1 24 <1 23 <50 <1 7.85 <10 3.8 <1 <1 <1 NA AW -01I 06/02/2015 6.4 15.83 22 85 0.4 -174 31 4.36 2.7 26 58 <1 <1 29 <1 26 <50 <1 7.95 <10 3.6 <1 <1 <1 NA AW -02I 04/02/2015 7.2 18.21 21 267 0.48 15 220 14.8 <0.5 70 123 <1 <1 41 <1 69 <50 <1 43.9 <10 5.9 <1 <1 <1 NA AW -02I 06/03/2015 7.1 19.26 20 289 0.96 -142 63 38.3 <0.5 88 260 <1 <1 40 <1 87 <50 <1 48.4 <10 5.2 <1 <1 <1 NA AW -03I 03/04/2015 7.0 3.70 16 252 0.72 44 249 6.97 <0.5 87 318 <1 <1 17 <1 87 <50 <1 40.9 <10 12 <1 <1 <1 NA AW -03I 06/04/2015 6.7 5.30 19 239 0.3 -103 102 2.63 >7 75 114 <1 6.14 23 <1 75 <50 <1 31 <10 10 <1 <1 <1 NA MW -02 06/05/2015 7.5 3.04 22 1 298 0.26 1-1401 65 15.5 1 0.5 110 449 <1 <1 57 <1 110 <50 <1 53.1 <10 5.5 <1 <1 <1 NA MW -04 06/05/2015 6.0 4.84 18 667 0.38 51 256 2.45 <0.5 95 61 <1 <1 86 <1 95 1640 <1 69 <10 57 <1 6.25 <1 NA MW -04 09/29/2015 5.9 6.40 21 675 1.8 176 381 1.77 NM NA 121 <1 <1 85 <1 NA 1720 <1 64.5 NA NA <1 6.77 <1 NA MW -04 DUP 09/29/2015 5.9 6.40 21 675 1.8 176 381 1.77 NM NA 67 <1 <1 84 <1 NA 1710 <1 62.7 NA NA <1 6.77 <1 NA MW -07 06/08/2015 7.4 5.39 19 363 0.4 -232 -27 3.97 1.2 140 15 <1 <1 52 <1 140 <50 <1 63.3 <10 4.8 <1 <1 <1 NA MW -08I 06/04/2015 5.3 29.32 20 844 0.45 -86 119 16.6 1 65 510 <1 9.88 43 <1 65 1080 <1 106 <10 46 2.29 <1 1.26 NA MW -08I 09/29/2015 6.2 31.69 25 630 0.8 120 325 1.71 NM NA 117 3.95 7.09 84 <1 NA 737 <1 75.8 NA NA 2.67 <1 12.7 NA MW -33I 06/09/2015 6.9 7.05 19 887 0.2 -70 135 1.26 NM 230 72 <1 <1 75 <1 230 <50 <1 198 <10 7.9 <1 <1 <1 NA MW -44I 06/03/2015 7.3 23.75 20 451 0.32 -204 1 6.19 0.5 170 42 <1 <1 47 <1 170 <50 <1 89.1 <10 12 <1 <1 <1 NA MW -49I 06/09/2015 6.9 23.49 22 979 0.38 -210 -5 4.82 3 300 77 <1 <1 81 <1 300 3400 <1 142 <10 71 <1 <1 <1 NA MW -53I 06/01/2015 7.8 5.17 20 305 0.2 -301 -96 3.99 1.5 110 112 <1 <1 48<1 110 <50 <1 47.9 <10 6.4 <1 <1 <1 NA MW -55I 08/19/2015 6.2 5.14 20 521 0.19 118 323 1 NM 130 9 <1 <1 58 <1 130 498 <1 64.7 f <10 50 <1 1.61 <1 NA Notes: - Bold highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard, Appendix 2, April 1, 2013. S.U. = Standard Units NA = Not Applicable DO = Dissolved Oxygen umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter NM = Not Measured ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential mg/I = milligrams per liter ug/I = micrograms per liter my = millivolts NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units MGD = Million Gallons per Day NE = Not Estimated Dup = Duplicate <= less than M2 = Matrix spike recovery was low; the associated blank spike recovery was acceptable b = Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the method reporting limit j = Estimated value Temp = Temperature Spec Cond = Specific Conductance Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-3 Lower Yorktown Analytical Results.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE A-3 GROUNDWATER - LOWER YORKTOWN ANALYTICAL RESULTS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Notes: - Bold highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard, Appendix 2, April 1, 2013. S.U. = Standard Units NA = Not Applicable DO = Dissolved Oxygen umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter NM = Not Measured ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential mg/I = milligrams per liter ug/I = micrograms per liter my = millivolts NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units MGD = Million Gallons per Day NE = Not Estimated Dup = Duplicate <= less than M2 = Matrix spike recovery was low; the associated blank spike recovery was acceptable b = Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the method reporting limit j = Estimated value Temp = Temperature Spec Cord = Specific Conductance Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-3 Lower Yorktown Analytical Results.xlsx Page 2 of 2 Analytical Parameter Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate N itN) Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide Thallium Total Dissolved Solids Total Organic Carbon Total Organic Halides Total Suspended Solids Vanadium Zinc Reporting Units ug/I ug/I mg/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I mg-N/L mg/I ug/I ug/I mg/I ug/I mg/I mg/I ug/I mg/I mg/I mg/I mg/I ug/I ug/I 15A NCAC 02L Standard 300 15 NE 50 1 NE NE 100 30 NE 20 20 NE NE 250 NE 0.2* 500 NE NE NE 0.3* 1000 Sample ID Sample Collection Date Analytical Results BACKGROUND ANALYTICAL RESULTS BW -02I 03/05/2015 2090 1.29 0.827 35 <0.05 65 11 <1 <0.01 4.92 3.16 NA 12.2 229 13 <2 <0.2 200 8.4 NA <5 8.88 7 BW -02I 06/04/2015 7850 8.99 0.841 50 0.1 710 12.5 2.88 0.021 2.11 1.09 NA 19 255 2.1 <0.5 <0.2 440 8.2 NA 200 36.6 19 BW -02I 09/30/2015 882 1.63 0.852 22 <0.05 NA 9.33 <1 NA 5.76 <1 NA 15.5 233 NA NA <0.2 NA NA NA NA 11.4 <5 BW -03I 03/04/2015 5790 <1 0.39 60 <0.05 620 1.08 <1 <0.02 0.812 <1 NA 5.09 51 0.41 <0.1 <0.2 86 4.8 NA 23 5.69 6 BW -03I 06/03/2015 2280 <1 0.341 21 <0.05 660 <1 <1 <0.01 0.877 <1 NA 4.28 41 0.12 <0.1 <0.2 57 2.5 NA 5 2.46 <5 AW -01I 03/03/2015 66001 <1 0.829 1 98 <0.05 24 1.33 <1 <0.01 1.1 <1 NA 1.45 48 3.8 <0.5 I <0.2 30 3.3 NA 8 0.41 20 AW -01I 06/02/2015 8400 <1 0.823 146 <0.05 270 1.01 <1 0.018 0.85 <1 NA 1.19 50 3.2 <0.2 <0.2 53 1.1 NA <5 <0.3 <5 AW -02I 04/02/2015 276 <1 1.35 53 <0.05 <10 3.56 <1 <0.01 1.57 <1 NA 4.92 229 8.3 <0.1 <0.2 160 1.9 NA 6 0.442 <5 AW -02I 06/03/2015 863 <1 1.26 73 <0.05 14 3.03 <1 <0.01 1.46 <1 NA 4.67 257 38 <0.1 <0.2 170 1.3 NA 20 0.637 9 AW -03I 03/04/2015 308 <1 1.01 164 <0.05 <10 2.61 <1 0.199 0.226 <1 NA 4.76 138 2.9 <0.5 <0.2 130 4.7 NA 7 0.7 <5 AW -03I 06/04/2015 5650 <1 0.968 632 <0.05 120 4.81 <1 0.195 0.257 <1 NA 4.92 131 3.5 0.12 <0.2 110 1.9 NA 11 0.392 <5 MW -02 06/05/2015 25301 <1 1.11 138 <0.05 42 <1 <1 0.027 1.08 <1 NA 2.99 300 24 <0.1 <0.2 170 0.53 NA 11 0.304 <5 MW -04 06/05/2015 167 <1 3.37 576 0.28 40 <1 1.48 <0.01 2.44 <1 NA 60.2 403 140 <0.2 0.352 400 1.1 NA <5 <0.3 11 MW -04 09/29/2015 172 <1 3.58 597 <0.05 NA <1 1.76 NA 2.35 <1 NA 63.4 367 NA NA 0.509 NA NA NA NA 0.382 <5 MW -04 DUP 09/29/2015 153 <1 3.47 591 <0.05 NA <1 1.58 NA 2.34 <1 NA 63.8 361 NA NA 0.411 NA NA NA NA 0.48 5 MW -07 06/08/2015 909 <1 1.4 73 <0.05 990 2.74 <1 0.413 1.73 <1 NA 10.2 333 29 <0.1 <0.2 240 2.1 NA <5 <0.3 <5 MW -08I 06/04/2015 1880 <1 9.15 147 <0.05 1400 <1 1.12 <0.01 13.3 <1 NA 45.1 1220 250 0.636 <0.2 560 4.7 NA 8 3.64 31 MW -08I 09/29/2015 229 1 <1 6.58 58 <0.05 NA 27.7 3.46 NA 15.5 1.29 NA 34.9 973 NA NA 0.254 NA NA NA NA 2.4 21 MW -33I 06/09/2015 7770 <1 1.89 115 <0.05 96 <1 <1 0.019 0.844 <1 NA 6.79 1080 220 <0.1 <0.2 620 2 NA 16 <0.3 <5 MW -44I 06/03/2015 450 <1 1.25 31 1 <0.05 130 <1 <1 <0.01 1.63 <1 NA 4.68 476 32 <0.1 <0.2 280 1.6 NA 5 0.542 <5 MW -49I 06/09/2015 6420 <1 6.24 111 <0.05 2300 3.37 1.7 0.04 6.01 <1 NA 64.6 749 90 <0.2 <0.2 600 5.4 NA 15 0.422 <5 MW -53I 06/01/2015 2660 <1 0.905 31 <0.05 240 <1 <1 <0.01 6.37 <1 NA 8.81 275 27 <0.1 <0.2 180 0.808 NA 9 <0.3 <5 MW -55I 08/19/2015 70 <1 2.1 63 <0.05 27 <1 <1 0.044 0.935 <1 NA 34 354 45 <0.1 <0.2 290 1 NA <5 <0.3 <5 Notes: - Bold highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard, Appendix 2, April 1, 2013. S.U. = Standard Units NA = Not Applicable DO = Dissolved Oxygen umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter NM = Not Measured ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential mg/I = milligrams per liter ug/I = micrograms per liter my = millivolts NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units MGD = Million Gallons per Day NE = Not Estimated Dup = Duplicate <= less than M2 = Matrix spike recovery was low; the associated blank spike recovery was acceptable b = Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the method reporting limit j = Estimated value Temp = Temperature Spec Cord = Specific Conductance Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-3 Lower Yorktown Analytical Results.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE A-4 GROUNDWATER - PEEDEE AQUIFER ANALYTICAL RESULTS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analytical Parameter y PH Water Level Temp Spec Cond DO ORP Eh Turbidity Ferrous Iron Alkalinity Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Bi- carbonate Alkalinity Boron Cadmium Calcium Carbonate Alkalinity Chloride Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Reporting Units S.U. ft Deg C urnhos mg/I mV mV NTUs mg/I mg/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/l mg/l ug/I ug/I mg/I mg/I mg/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I mg/l 15A NCAC 02L Standard 6.5-8.5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 1* 10 700 4* NE 700 2 NE NE 250 10 1* 1000 300 15 NE Sample ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results BACKGROUND ANALYTICAL RESULTS BW -02D 03/05/2015 12.5 27.82 10 3609 1.14 -31 174 4.55 <0.5 530 1810 <1 <1 121 <1 15 <50 <1 352 380 3.1 24.5 <1 1.27 17 <1 0.007 BW -02D 06/03/2015 11.5 28.63 20 1040 0.4 -257 -52 2 <0.5 190 1080 <1 1.01 50 <1 <10 <50 <1 55.4 100 4.4 1.32 <1 <1 <10 <1 0.232 BW -03D 03/05/2015 7.2 1.08 17 182 0.22 -111 94 6.19 0.5 77 66 <1 <1 51 <1 1 76 <50 <1 29.2 <10 3 <1 <1 <1 721 <1 1.04 BW -03D 06/03/2015 7.3 2.41 19 193 0.1 -251 -46 2.3 2 84 23 <1 <1 45 <1 84 <50 <1 27.7 <10 3.2 <1 I <1 I <1 1 10901 <1 1.02 ANALYTICAL RESULTS AW -01D 03/03/2015 9.3 21.86 15 179 0.31 32 237 3.08 <0.5 56 46 <1 <1 21 <1 52 <50 <1 26.6 <10 3.6 <1 <1 <1 77 <1 0.378 AW -01D 06/02/2015 8.3 22.88 23 169 0.2 -188 17 1.23 0.5 57 13 <1 <1 29 <1 57 <50 <1 26 <10 3.8 <1 <1 <1 349 <1 0.744 AW -02D 03/03/2015 8.7 20.68 12 324 0.36 -75 131 17.6 <0.5 87 115 <1 <1 70 <1 85 <50 <1 68.4 <10 2.5 <1 <1 <1 77 <1 1.12 AW -02D 06/03/2015 7.8 21.68 21 321 0.36 -228 -23 4.47 <0.5 100 35 <1 <1 54 <1 1 100 <50 <1 54.4 <10 2.2 <1 <1 <1 57 <1 1.17 AW -03D 03/04/2015 8.3 5.51 17 258 0.14 -294 -89 7.34 0.5 110 98 <1 <1 20 <1 110 <50 <1 46.1 <10 3.2 <1 <1 <1 613 <1 1.07 AW -03D 1 06/04/2015 7.5 1 6.04 19 1 261 1 0.28 -118 87 1 2.9 1 1 1 120 1 80 1 <1 <1 1 28 <1 120 <50 <1 46.9 1 <10 3.1 <1 <1 I <1 2050 <1 1.06 MW -53D 06/01/2015 6.9 10.01 19 276 0.72 -137 68 7.31 <0.5 110 25 <1 <1 49 <1 110 <50 <1 1 46.5 1 <10 4.7 <1 <1 I <1 724 <1 1.03 MW -54D 06/08/2015 6.9 11.09 19 253 0.35 -19 186 3.52 <0.5 120 63 <1 <1 46 <1 120 <50 <1 46.5 <10 3.3 <1 <1 I <1 1 269 1 <1 1.18 MW -55D 06/05/2015 7.0 8.37 18 252 1 0.38 -197 8 1 2.95 1.3 110 41 <1 <1 39 <1 110 <50 <1 44.8 <10 3.2 <1 I <1 I <1 13.5701 <1 1 1.07 Notes: = - Bold highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard, Appendix 2, April 1, 2013. S.U. = Standard Units umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/I = milligrams per liter ug/I = micrograms per liter my = millivolts NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units MGD = Million Gallons per Day NE = Not Estimated NA = Not Applicable DO = Dissolved Oxygen NM = Not Measured ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential Dup = Duplicate <= less than M2 = Matrix spike recovery was low; the associated blank spike recovery was acceptable b = Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the method reporting limit j = Estimated value Temp = Temperature Spec Cond = Specific Conductance Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-4 Pee Dee Analytical Results.xlsx Page 1 of 2 TABLE A-4 GROUNDWATER - PEEDEE AQUIFER ANALYTICAL RESULTS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analytical Parameter Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate (as N) Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide Thallium Total Dissolved Solids Total Organic Carbon Total Suspended Solids Vanadium Zinc Reporting Units ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I ug/I mg-N/L mg/l ug/I mg/l ug/I mg/I mg/l ug/I mg/1 mg/I mg/1 ug/1 ug/I 15A NCAC 02L Standard 50 1 NE NE 100 10 NE 20 NE NE 250 NE 0.2* 500 NE NE 0.3* 1000 Sample ID Sample Collection Date Analytical Results BACKGROUND ANALYTICAL RESULTS BW -02D 03/05/2015 <5 <0.05 12 5.95 <1 <0.01 5.52 1.4 1 8.56 1100 3.8 1 <0.1 <0.2 740 32 27 4.75 73 BW -02D 06/03/2015 <5 <0.05 19 4.99 <1 <0.01 12.7 <1 8.45 454 7.2 <0.1 <0.2 240 7.6 <5 19.3 <5 BW -03D 03/05/2015 31 <0.05 15 <1 <1 <0.01 1.54 <1 6.94 157 0.53<0.5 <0.2 110 0.975 6 <0.3 11 BW -03D 06/03/2015 41 <0.05 120 2.05 <1 <0.01 1.62 <1 7.32 156 0.21 <0.1 <0.2 120 2.3 <5 <0.3 <5 ANALYTICAL RESULTS AW -01D 03/03/2015 <5 <0.05 49 6.01 <1 <0.01 1.83 <1 7.66 142 20 <0.1 <0.2 96 2.9 <5 0.648 <5 AW -01D 06/02/2015 33 <0.05 72 4.59 <1 <0.01 1.45 <1 4.83 146 18 0.162 <0.2 110 0.48 <5 <0.3 <5 AW -02D 03/03/2015 5 <0.05 420 1.39 <1 <0.01 4.51 <1 7.2 490 61 <0.1 <0.2 210 1.2 45 1.53 <5 AW -02D 06/03/2015 12 <0.05 280 1.24 <1 0.012 4.83 <1 7.66 340 53 <0.2 <0.2 210 0.798 21 0.317 10 AW -03D 03/04/2015 77 <0.05 <10 2 <1 <0.01 2.36 <1 3.19 227 2 <0.1 <0.2 150 3.2 6 0.85 <5 AW -03D 06/04/2015 88 <0.05 27 1 <1 <1 <0.01 1.6 <1 2.7 237 0.7 <0.1 <0.2 150 2.3 6 <0.3 <5 MW -53D 06/01/2015 27 <0.05 28 <1 <1 <0.01 1.41 <1 5.4 263 14 <0.1 <0.2 170 0.716 9 <0.3 <5 MW -54D 06/08/2015 23 <0.05 88 <1 <1 0.014 1.47 <1 3.19 247 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 160 0.877 71 <0.3 <5 MW -55D 06/05/2015 37 <0.05 52 1 <1 <1 0.03 1.3 <1 2.81 234 0.12 <0.1 <0.2 140 0.797 5 <0.3 <5 Notes: = - Bold highlighted concentration indicates exceedance of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard, Appendix 2, April 1, 2013. S.U. = Standard Units umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/I = milligrams per liter ug/I = micrograms per liter my = millivolts NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units MGD = Million Gallons per Day NE = Not Estimated NA = Not Applicable DO = Dissolved Oxygen NM = Not Measured ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential Dup = Duplicate <= less than M2 = Matrix spike recovery was low; the associated blank spike recovery was acceptable b = Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the method reporting limit j = Estimated value Temp = Temperature Spec Cond = Specific Conductance Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-4 Pee Dee Analytical Results.xlsx Page 2 of 2 TABLE A-5 SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS WITH REPORTING LIMITS NON -DETECTS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Analytical Parameter Percent Moisture pH at 25 Degrees C Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate (as N) Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Thallium Total Organic Carbon Vanadium Zinc Reporting Units % Std. Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kgmg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPA R4 -Freshwater Sediment ESV NE NE 25000 2 9.8 20 NE NE 1 NE NE 43.4 50 31.6 20000 35.8 NE 460 0.18 NE 22.7 NE NE 11 NE NE NE NE NE NE 121 Sample ID Sample Collection Date Analytical Results BACKGROUND ANALYTICAL RESULTS 5-20 04/22/2015 68.8 5.6 3850 <16.7 <16.7 32 1 <0.84 <41.8 <2 1600 <803 5 <16.7 4.4 1 3940 1 17 399j 27.6 0.021j <8.4 <4.2 <80.3 <836 <16.7 <836 8j I <803 <16.7 65400 llj 58.3 ASH BASIN DITCHES S-01 04/23/2015 23.9 5.1 1230 <6.7 <6.7 1.8 j <0.34 <16.8 <0.8 <168 <323 1.4 j <6.7 <1.7 474 <6.7 <168 <1.7 0.007 j <3.4 <1.7 <32.3 <335 <6.7 <335 <3.4 <323 <6.7 12500 <6.7 <6.7 S-02 04/23/2015 80.5 7.6 10000 <26.2 23.8 j 232 1.1j 63.4j <3.1 13400 <1270 10 <26.2 33.3 7660 17.2j 1020 138 0.066 11.5j 8.4 <127 <1310 170 <1310 745 740j <26.2 132000 29.5 <26.2 S-03 04/24/2015 57.7 7.2 8980 <12.3 613 31.5 <0.62 43.1 <1.5 4920 <588 11.3 <12.3 3.9 14000 7.3j 313 102 0.036 168 2.6j <58.8 <616 <12.3 <616 195 449j <12.3 60300 23.4 <12.3 S-03 A 04/24/2015 61.8 7.1 6790 <13.6 301 41.6 <0.68 51.1 <1.6 6810 <654 7.2 16.1 7 14800 12.1j 415 43.1 0.12 140 7 <65.4 <679 <13.6 <679 280 <654 <13.6 70400 17.7 13j S-03 B 04/24/2015 71.9 6.9 16800 <17.1 324 45.3 0.66j 49 <2.1 7270 <882 16.4 <17.1 11.8 21800 28.8 577 31 0.19 306 6.8 <88.2 <854 <17.1 <854 281 <882 <17.1 85000 38.1 <17.1 S-05 04/23/2015 83.8 7.2 11700 <32.2 1090 169 2.1 52.1j <3.9 9610 <1500 11.6 16.4j 18.5 145000 <32.2 781j 811 0.055 249 4.3j <150 <1610 <32.2 <1610 405 1100j <32.2 110000 73.5 45.2 S-07 04/23/2015 40.2 6.2 1400 <8.5 <8.5 17.5 <0.43 <21.4 <1 299 <420 1.6 j <8.5 1.5 j 2430 <8.5 109 j 33.8 0.0082j <4.3 1.6 j <42 <427 <8.5 <427 5.3 <420 <8.5 8170 <8.5 9.3 S-07 CUP 04/23/2015 35.7 5.6 3240 <7.4 <7.4 26.1 <0.37 <18.6 <0.89 253 <386 3.6 <7.4 3.4 1710 39.3 114 j 9.3 0.028 <3.7 1.8 j <38.6 <371 <7.4 <371 5.1 <386 <7.4 26600 6.9 j 16.7 S -09A 04/23/2015 21.4 6.4 1980 <6.2 8.7 12.8 0.2j <15.4 <0.74 571 <314 2.1 <6.2 2.7 7160 3.3j 88.2j 12.2 0.011 1.9j 0.8j <31.4 <308 <6.2 <308 5.7 <314 <6.2 26300 4.5j 19.4 S-10 04/23/2015 75.7 7.3 5110 <21.4 305 72.4 0.65j 146 <2.6 4900 <1030 5.7 <21.4 13.2 137000 11.6j 1150 156 0.019j 333 <5.4 <103 757j <21.4 <1070 195 782j <21.4 123000 14.5j 14j S-15 04/23/2015 56.5 6.9 7610 <12.1 196 86.1 1.6 <30.2 <1.4 6230 <568 11.7 6.8j 22.2 45700 12.8 382 186 0.047 14.6 7.2 <56.8 411j 7.6j <603 137 <568 <12.1 25900 59.9 76.1 STREAM SW -01 1 04/22/2015 90.7 6.1 7710 <55.2 <55.2 171 <2.8 <138 <6.6 8670 <2630 8j <55.2 18.5 11600 <55.2 916j 81.6 0.11 <27.6 <13.8 <263 <2760 <55.2 <2760 106 <2630 <55.2 173000 <55.2 45.2j WETLAND SW -02 1 04/22/2015 49.8 6.1 1720 <10 <10 17.4 <0.5 <24.9 <1.2 1220 <497 <2.5 <10 <2.5 1670 8.2j <249 35.4 0.02 <5 <2.5 <49.7 <499 <10 <499 9.2 <497 <10 39500 <10 7.3j Notes: 0 - Total metal concentration greater than USEPA Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft (EPA 2015). Table 2A Region 4 Sediment Screening values (Freshwater ESV). S.U. = Standard Units NA = Not Applicable umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter NM = Not Measured mg/I = milligrams per liter Cup = Duplicate ug/I = micrograms per liter j = Estimated Value M2 = Matrix spike recovery was low; the associated blank spike recovery was acceptable b = Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the method reporting limit mV = millivolts NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units MGD = Million Gallons per Day NE = Not Estimated Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS P:\Duke Energy Progress. 3026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-05 Sediment Analytical Results with RL Non-Detects.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE A-6 SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS WITH METHOD DETECTION LIMIT NON -DETECTS W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS Notes: 0 - Total metal concentration greater than USEPA Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft (EPA 2015). Table 2A Region 4 Sediment Screening values (Freshwater ESV). S.U. = Standard Units NA = Not Applicable NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter NM = Not Measured MGD = Million Gallons per Day mg/I = milligrams per liter Dup = Duplicate NE = Not Estimated ug/I = micrograms per liter j = Estimated Value mV = millivolts M2 = Matrix spike recovery was low; the associated blank spike recovery was acceptable b = Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the method reporting limit P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-06 Sediment Analytical Results with MDL Non-Detects.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Analytical Parameter Percent Moisture pH at 25 Degrees C Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate (as N) Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Thallium Total Organic Carbon Vanadium Zinc Reporting Units % Std. Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg EPA R4 -Freshwater Sediment ESV NE NE 25000 2 9.8 20 NE NE 1 NE NE 43.9 50 31.6 20000 35.8 NE 460 0.18 NE 22.7 NE NE 11 NE NE NE NE NE NE 121 Sample ID ample ColleSction Date Analytical Results BACKGROUND ANALYTICAL RESULTS 5-20 04/22/2015 1 68.8 5.6 3850 <8.4 <8.4 32 <0.42 <20.9 <1 1600 <402 5 <8.4 4.4 3940 1 17 399j 27.6 0.021 j <4.2 <2.1 <40.2 <418 <8.4 <418 8 j <402 <8.4 65400 11j 58.3 ASH BASIN DITCHES 5-01 04/23/2015 23.9 5.1 1230 <3.4 <3.4 1.8 j <0.17 <8.4 <0.4 <83.8 <162 1.4 j <3.4 <0.84 474 <3.4 <83.8 <0.84 0.007 j <1.7 <0.84 <16.2 <168 <3.4 <168 <1.7 <162 <3.4 12500 <3.4 <3.4 5-02 04/23/2015 80.5 7.6 10000 <13.1 23.8 j 232 1.1 j 63.4 j <1.6 13400 <637 10 <13.1 33.3 7660 17.2 j 1020 138 0.066 11.5 j 8.4 <63.7 <655 170 <655 745 740j <13.1 132000 29.5 <13.1 S-03 04/24/2015 57.7 7.2 8980 <6.2 613 31.5 <0.31 43.1 <0.74 4920 <294 11.3 <6.2 3.9 14000 7.3 j 313 102 0.036 168 2.6 j <29.4 <308 <6.2 <308 195 449j <6.2 60300 23.4 <6.2 S-03 A 04/24/2015 61.8 7.1 6790 <6.8 301 41.6 <0.34 51.1 <0.62 6610 <327 7.2 16.1 7 14800 12.1 j 415 43.1 0.12 140 7 <32.7 <340 <6.8 <340 280 <327 <6.8 70400 17.7 13j S-03 B 04/24/2015 71.9 6.9 16600 <8.5 324 45.3 0.66j 49 <1 7270 <441 16.4 <8.5 11.8 21800 28.8 577 31 0.19 306 6.8 <44.1 <427 <8.5 <427 281 <441 <6.5 85000 38.1 <8.5 S-05 04/23/2015 83.8 7.2 11700 <16.1 1090 169 2.1 52.1 j <1.9 9610 <749 11.6 16.4 j 18.5 145000 <16.1 781j 811 0.055 249 4.3 j <74.9 <805 <16.1 <805 405 1100j <16.1 110000 73.5 45.2 S-07 04/23/2015 40.2 6.2 1400 <4.3 <4.3 17.5 <0.21 <10.7 <0.51 299 <210 1.6 j <4.3 1.5 j 2430 <4.3 109j 33.8 0.0082 j <2.1 1.6 j <21 <214 <4.3 <214 5.3 <210 <4.3 8170 <4.3 9.3 5-07 DUP 04/23/2015 35.7 5.6 3240 <3.7 <3.7 26.1 <0.19 <9.3 <0.45 253 <193 3.6 <3.7 3.4 1710 39.3 114 j 9.3 0.028 <1.9 1.6 j <19.3 <186 <3.7 1 <186 5.1 1 <193 <3.7 26600 6.9 j 16.7 S -09A 04/23/2015 21.4 6.4 1980 <3.1 8.7 12.8 0.2 j <7.7 <0.37 571 <157 2.1 <3.1 2.7 7160 3.3 j 88.2 j 12.2 0.011 1.9 j 0.8 j <15.7 <154 <3A <154 5.7 <157 <3.1 26300 4.5 j 19.4 S-10 04/23/2015 75.7 7.3 5110 <10.7 305 72.4 0.65 j 146 <1.3 4900 <517 5.7 <10.7 13.2 137000 11.6 j 1150 156 0.019 j 333 <2.7 <51.7 757j <10.7 <536 195 782j <10.7 123000 14.5 j 14 j S-15 04/23/2015 56.5 6.9 7610 <6 196 86.1 1.6 <15.1 <0.72 6230 <284 11.7 6.8 j 22.2 45700 12.8 382 186 0.047 14.6 7.2 <28.4 411j 7.6 j <302 137 <284 <6 25900 59.9 76.1 STREAM SW -01 04/22/2015 90.7 6.1 7710 <27.6 <27.6 171 <1.4 <69 <3.3 8670 <1320 8 j <27.6 18.5 11600 <27.6 916j 81.6 0.11 <13.8 <6.9 <132 <1380 <27.6 <1380 106 <1320 <27.6 173000 <27.6 45.2 j WETLAND SW -02 04/22/2015 49.8 6.1 1720 <5 <5 17.4 <0.25 <12.5 <0.6 1220 <248 11.2 <5 <1.2 1670 8.2j <125 35.4 0.02 <2.5 <1.2 <24.8 <249 <5 <249 9.2 <248 <5 39500 <5 7.3j Prepared by: BER Checked by: HHS Notes: 0 - Total metal concentration greater than USEPA Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft (EPA 2015). Table 2A Region 4 Sediment Screening values (Freshwater ESV). S.U. = Standard Units NA = Not Applicable NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter NM = Not Measured MGD = Million Gallons per Day mg/I = milligrams per liter Dup = Duplicate NE = Not Estimated ug/I = micrograms per liter j = Estimated Value mV = millivolts M2 = Matrix spike recovery was low; the associated blank spike recovery was acceptable b = Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the method reporting limit P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment A\Table A-06 Sediment Analytical Results with MDL Non-Detects.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant ATTACHMENT B BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES SynTerra P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx TABLE B-1 BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES GROUNDWATER - SURFICIAL AQUIFER W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Reporting Units NumberFrequency of Sampless Detection Minimum Detected Concentration Maximum Detected Concentration Mean Kaplan-MeiernUCL Method Mean (a) Selected UCL BTV BTV (mg/L) Aluminum ug 1 1 --- 1170 --- --- -- --- 1170 1.17 Antimony ug 16 0 --- nd --- --- -- --- ND ND Arsenic ug/L 16 2 1.05 1.18 1.115 1.026 95% KM (t) UCL 1.072 1.072 0.001072 Barium ug/L 16 16 49 114 78.88 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 87.29 87.29 0.08729 Beryllium ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Boron ug/L 15 8 52.6 86.8 64.88 57.94 95% KM (t) UCL 63.16 63.16 0.06316 Cadmium ug/L 1 16 7 0.22 5.2 0.99 0.567 95% KM (BCA) 1.217 1.217 0.001217 Chromium ug/L 15 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Cobalt ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Copper ug/L 15 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Iron ug/L 16 16 39 2140 620.2 --- 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 1202 1202 1.202 Lead ug/L 16 7 1.1 1.56 1.287 1.223 95% KM (t) UCL 1.339 1.339 0.001339 Manganese ug/L 15 15 10 33.4 22.91 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 26.26 26.26 1 0.02626 Mercury ug/L 15 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Molybdenum ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Nickel ug/L 16 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Selenium ug/L 16 6 1.06 10 2.873 1.825 95% KM (% Bootstrap) UCL 2.902 2.902 0.002902 Strontium ug/L 2 1 --- 28 --- --- --- --- 28 0.028 Thallium ug/L 16 1 7 1 0.1 1 0.66 0.225 0.164 95% KM (% Bootstrap) UCL 0.231 0.231 0.000231 Vanadium ug/L 1 1 -- 2.98 --- --I -- 2.98 1 0.00298 Zinc ug/L 16 1 8 1 8 1 23 5 -.11-1 10.49 95% KM (t) UCL 1 13.34 1 13.34 1 0.01334 Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/L - milligrams per liter ug/L - micrograms per liter nd- Not Detected ND - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit BTV - Background Threshold Values Prepared By: MBJ Checked By: MCD (a)- Mean calculated by ProUCL using the Kaplan -Meier (KM) estimation method for non -detect values: only given for datasets with FOD less than 100% and that met the minimum sample size and FOD requirements for use with ProUCL; see note(b). (b)- Sample size was greater than or equal to 10 and the number of detected values was greater than or equal to 6, therefore, a 95% UCL was calculated by ProUCL. The UCL shown is the one recommended by ProUCL. If more than one UCL was recommended, the higher UCL was selected. ProUCL, version 5.0 (c) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (d) - For risk assessment purposes BTVs were treated as EPC for potential future comparisons. The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the BTV is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the BTV. (e) - BTVs were not screened for COPCs P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment B_BTV Summary Tables.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE B-2 BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES GROUNDWATER - LOWER YORKTOWN AQUIFER W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT BASELINE RISK ASSESSSMENT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Reporting Units Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Minimum Detected Concentration Maximum Detected Concentration Mean Kaplan -Meier Method Mean (a) UCL Selected UCL BTV BTV (mg/L) Aluminum ug/L 5 5 224 18300 5171 --- 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 65205 18300 18.3 Antimony ug/L 5 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Arsenic ug/L 5 4 1.01 9.07 3.943 3.354 95% KM (t) UCL 6.708 6.708 0.006708 Barium ug/L 5 5 19 53 31 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 43.41 43.41 0.04341 Beryllium ug/L 5 1 --- 1.19 --- --- --- --- 1.19 0.00119 Boron ug/L 5 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Cadmium ug/L 5 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Chromium ug/L 5 5 1.16 30.8 9.926 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 21.37 21.37 0.02137 Cobalt ug/L 5 1 --- 1.31 --- --- --- --- 1.31 0.00131 Copper ug/L 5 1 --- 2.56 --- --- --- --- 2.56 0.00256 Iron ug/L 5 5 882 7850 3778 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 6562 6562 6.562 Lead ug/L 5 3 1.29 8.99 3.97 2.782 95% KM (t) UCL 6.417 6.417 0.006417 Manganese ug/L 5 5 21 60 37.6 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 53.98 53.98 0.05398 Mercury ug/L 5 1 --- 0.1 --- --- --- --- 0.1 0.0001 Molybdenum ug/L 5 4 1.08 12.5 8.478 6.982 95% KM (t) UCL 12.44 12.44 0.01244 Nickel ug/L 5 1 --- 2.88 --- --- --- --- 2.88 0.00288 Selenium ug/L 5 2 1.09 3.16 2.125 1.45 95% KM (t) UCL 2.604 2.604 0.002604 Strontium ug/L 5 5 41 255 161.8 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 263.1 255 0.255 Thallium ug/L 5 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Vanadium ug/L 5 5 2.46 36.6 13.01 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 25.98 25.98 0.02598 Zinc u9/L 5 3 6 19 10.67 8.4 95% KM (t) UCL 14.65 14.65 0.01465 Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean Prepared By: MBI Checked By: MCD nd- Not Detected ND - Not Determined mg/L - milligrams per liter UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit ug/L - micrograms per liter BTV - Background Threshold Values (a)- Mean calculated by PmUCL using the Kaplan -Meier (KM) estimation method for non -detect values: only given for datasets with FOD less than 100% and that met the minimum sample size and FOD requirements for use with ProUCL; see note(b). (b)- Sample size was greater than or equal to 10 and the number of detected values was greater than or equal to 6, therefore, a 95% UCL was calculated by ProUCL. The UCL shown is the one recommended by ProUCL. If more than one UCL was recommended, the higher UCL was selected. P.UCL, version 5.0 ,c)- 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (d) - For risk assessment purposes BTVs were treated as EPC for potential future comparisons. The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the BTV is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described n "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the BTV. (e) - BTVs were not screened for COPCs P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment B_BTV Summary Tables.xlsx Page 1 of i TABLE B-3 BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES GROUNDWATER - PEEDEE AQUIFER W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Reporting Units Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Minimum Detected Concentration Maximum Detected Concentration Mean Kaplan -Meier Method Mean UCL Selected UCL BTV BTV (mg/L) Aluminum ug/L 2 2 23 66 44.5 --- --- 66 0.066 Antimony ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Arsenic ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Barium ug/L 2 2 45 51 48 --- --- 51 0.051 Beryllium ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- ND ND Boron ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- -- ND ND Cadmium ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Chromium ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Cobalt ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- ND ND Copper ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- ND ND Iron ug/L 2 2 721 1090 905.5 --- --- --- 1090 1.09 Lead ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- ND ND Manganese ug/L 2 2 31 41 36 --- --- --- 41 0.041 Mercury ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- ND ND Molybdenum ug/L 2 1 --- 2.05 --- --- --- --- 2.05 0.00205 Nickel ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Selenium ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- ND ND Strontium ug/L 2 2 156 157 156.5 --- --- -- 157 0.157 Thallium ug/L 2 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Vanadium ug/L 2 0 nd --- --- ND ND Zinc ug/L 2 1 --- 11 --- --- --- --- 11 0.011 Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/L - milligrams per liter ug/L - micrograms per liter (a) - If single sample, value was used as a maximum concentration and no minimum concentration was reported. This is denoted with " Prepared By: MBI Checked By: MCD ND - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit nd - Not Detected BTV - Background Threshold Value (b) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (c) - For risk assessment purposes BTVs were treated as EPG for potential future comparisons. The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -ft test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the BTV is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the BTV. (d) - BTVs were not screened for COPCs P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment B_BTV Summary Tables.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE B-4 BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES SURFACE WATER - LUMBER RIVER W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Reporting Units Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Minimum Detected Concentration Maximum Detected Concentration Mean Kap an - Meier Method Mean UCL Selected UCL BTV BTV (mg/L) Aluminum (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- -- --- --- --- ND ND Aluminum ug/L 1 1 --- 507 --- --- --- --- 507 0.507 Antimony (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Antimony ug/L 1 1 --- 2.25 --- --- --- --- 2.25 0.00225 Arsenic (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Arsenic ug/L 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Barium (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Barium ug/L 1 1 --- 31 --- --- --- --- 31 0.031 Beryllium (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Beryllium ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Boron (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Boron ug/L 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Cadmium (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Cadmium ug/L 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Chromium (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Chromium ug/L 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Cobalt (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Cobalt ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Copper (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Copper ug/L 1 1 --- 1.93 --- --- --- --- 1.93 0.00193 Iron (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Iron ug/L 1 1 --- 867 --- --- --- --- 867 0.867 Lead (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Lead ug/L 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Manganese (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Manganese ug/L 1 1 --- 79 --- --- --- --- 79 0.079 Mercury ug/L 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Molybdenum (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Molybdenum ug/L 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Nickel (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Nickel ug/L 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Selenium (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Selenium ug/L 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Strontium (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Strontium ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Thallium (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Thallium ug/L 1 0 --- nd --- ------ --- ND ND Vanadium (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Vanadium ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Zinc (dissolved) ug/L 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND Zinc ug/L 1 1 --- 41 --- --- --- --- 41 0.041 N ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/L - milligrams per liter ug/L - micrograms per liter Prepared By: M_BI Checked By: MCD ND - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit nd - Not Detected BN - Background Threshold Value (a) - If single sample, value was used as a maximum concentration and no minimum concentration was reported. This is denoted with (b) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (c) - For risk assessment purposes BTVs were treated as EPC for potential future comparisons. The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -ft test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the BTV Is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the BTV. (d) - BTVs were not screened for COPCs P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment B_BTV Summary Tables.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE B-5 BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES SURFACE WATER - JACOB CREEK W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Reporting Units Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Minimum Detected Concentration Maximum Detected Concentration Mean Kaplan -Meier Method Mean UCL Selected UCL BTV BTV (mg/L) Aluminum (dissolved) ug/L 3 3 116 475 259 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 579.8 475 0.475 Aluminum ug/L 4 4 128 598 283.5 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 538 538 0.538 Antimony (dissolved) ug/L 3 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Antimony ug/L 4 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Arsenic (dissolved) ug/L 3 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Arsenic ug/L 4 1 --- 1.02 --- --- --- --- 1.02 0.00102 Barium (dissolved) ug/L 3 3 41 61 48 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 67 61 0.061 Barium ug/L 4 4 43 64 52.5 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 65.55 64 0.064 Beryllium (dissolved) ug/L 3 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Beryllium ug/L 3 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Boron (dissolved) ug/L 3 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Boron ug/L 4 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Cadmium (dissolved) ug/L 3 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Cadmium ug/L 4 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Chromium (dissolved) ug/L 3 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Chromium ug/L 4 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Cobalt (dissolved) ug/L 3 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Cobalt ug/L 3 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Copper (dissolved) ug/L 3 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Copper ug/L 4 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Iron (dissolved) ug/L 3 3 749 1300 939 --- 950/a Student's -t UCL 1466 1300 1.3 Iron ug/L 4 4 1140 2770 1948 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 2782 2770 2.77 Lead (dissolved) ug/L 3 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Lead ug/L 4 1 --- 1.36 --- --- --- --- 1.360.00136 Manganese (dissolved) ug/L 3 3 38 89 67 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 111.2 89 0.089 Manganese ug/L 4 4 59 122 87.25 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 118.6 118.6 0.1186 Mercury ug/L 4 2 0.00138 0.00575 0.00357 --- --- --- 0.00575 5.75E-06 Molybdenum (dissolved) ug/L 3 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Molybdenum ug/L 4 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Nickel (dissolved) ug/L 3 -1 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Nickel ug/L 4 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Selenium (dissolved) ug/L 3 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Selenium ug/L 4 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Strontium (dissolved) ug/L 3 3 49 102 74.33 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 119.1 102 0.102 Strontium ug/L 3 3 49 102 74.33 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 119.1 102 0.102 Thallium (dissolved) ug/L 3 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Thallium ug/L 4 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND ND Vanadium (dissolved) ug/L 3 2 0.529 0.863 0.696 --- --- --- 0.863 0.000863 Vanadium ug/L 3 3 0.505 1.43 0.842 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 1.703 1.43 0.00143 Zinc (dissolved) ug/L 3 3 5 8 6.667 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 9.242 8 0.008 Zinc ug/L 4 2 6 8 7 --- --- ---1 8 0.008 Notes: --- : Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/L- milligrams per liter ug/L- micrograms per liter ND - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit nd - Not Detected BTV - Background Threshold Value Prepared By: Ma] Checked By: MCD (a) - If single sample, value was used as a maximum concentration and no minimum concentration was reported. This is denoted with (b) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (c) - For risk assessment purposes BTVs were treated as EPC for potential future comparisons. The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -ft test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the BTV is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 20021b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution the data set. PnoUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the BN. (d) - BTVs were not screened for COPCs P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weathempoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\AttachmentsW.ttachment B_BTV Summary Tables.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE B-6 BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES SEDIMENT - JACOB CREEK W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Reporting Units Number of Samples Frequency of Minimum Detected Detection Concentration Maximum Detected Concentration Mean Kaplan -Meier Method Mean UCL Selected UCL BTV Aluminum mg/kg 1 1 1720 --- --- --- --- 1720 Antimony mg/kg 1 0 nd --- --- --- --- ND Arsenic mg/kg 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND Barium mg/kg 1 1 --- 17.4 --- --- --- --- 17.4 Beryllium mg/kg 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND Boron mg/kg 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND Cadmium mg/kg 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND Chromium mg/kg 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND Cobalt mg/kg 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND Copper mg/kg 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND Iron mg/kg 1 1 --- 1670 --- --- --- --- 1670 Lead mg/kg 1 1 --- 8.2 --- --- --- --- 8.2 Manganese mg/kg 1 1 --- 35.4 --- --- --- --- 35.4 Mercury mg/kg 1 1 --- 0.02 --- --- --- --- 0.02 Molybdenum mg/kg 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND Nickel mg/kg 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND Selenium mg/kg 1 0 --- nd --- --- --- --- ND Strontium mg/kg 1 1 --- 9.2 --- --- --- --- 9.2 Thallium mg/kg 1 0 nd --- --- --- ND Vanadium mg/kg 1 0 nd ND Zinc mg/kg 1 1 7.3 7.3 Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram Prepared By: MBI Checked By: MCD ND - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit nd - Not Detected BTV - Background Threshold Value (a) - If single sample, value was used as a maximum concentration and no minimum concentration was reported. This is denoted with "---". (b) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (c) - For risk assessment purposes BTVs were treated as EPC for potential future comparisons. The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the BTV is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the BTV. (d) - BTVs were not screened for COPCs P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment B_BTV Summary Tables.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra ATTACHMENT C HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL CONSTITUENT SCREENING CRITERIA P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx TABLE C-1 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL SCREENING LEVELS RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITES DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC Page 1 of 4 Data compiled by Hailey and Aldrich, January 2016 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weathempoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Nttachments\Attachment C -Screening tables.xlsx Ecological Screening Levels Soil and Sediment Groundwater Surface Water NC PSRGNC Residential PSRG Industrial NC Protection 15A NCAC 15A NCAC USEPA AWQC USEPA AWQC Constituent CAS Residential Soil RSL (a) Industrial Soil RSL (a) of SSA NCAC 02L 15A NCAC DHHS Federal Tap Water 02B 02B Consumption Consumption Health Screening HI = 0.2 Health Screening HI = 0.2 Groundwater .0202 Standard (e) 02L .0202 IMAC (e) Screening Level (d) MCL/ SMCL (c) RSL HI = 0.2 2015 (a) Water Supply Human Health of Water and of Organism Level (hh) lune Level (hh) lune (PSRG) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (WS) (f) (HH) (f) Organism (b) Only (mg/kg) (m9/k9) kg) (m9/kg) kg) (m9/k9) (m /kg) (ug/L) (ug/L) (u9/L) L) (u9/L) Aluminum 7429-90-5 15,000 15,000 100,000 220,000 NA NA NA 3,500 50 to 200 (i) 4,000 NA NA NA NA Antimony 7440-36-0 6.2 (m) 6.2 (m) 94 (m) 94 (m) 0.9 (m) 1 NA 1 6 1.56 (m) NA NA 5.6 0.64 Arsenic 7440-38-2 0.68 (h) 0.68 (h) 3 (h) 3 (h) 5.8 (h) 10 NA 10 10 0.052 (h) 10 10 0.018 (h) 0.14 (h) Barium 7440-39-3 3,000 3,000 44,000 44,000 580 700 NA 700 2,000 760 1,000 NA 1,000 NA Beryllium 7440-41-7 32 32 460 460 63 NA 4 4 4 5 NA NA NA NA Boron 7440-42-8 3,200 3,200 46,000 46,000 45 700 NA 700 NA 800 NA NA NA NA Cadmium 7440-43-9 14 14.2 200 196 3 2 NA 2 5 1.84 NA NA NA NA Calcium 7440-70-2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 24,000 (n) 24,000 (n) 100,000 (n) 360,000 (n) 360,000 (n) 10 NA 10 100 (j) 4,400 (n) NA NA NA NA Chromium, Hexavalent 18540-29-9 0.3 0.3 6.3 6.3 3.8 NA NA 0.07 NA 0.035 NA NA NA NA Chromium, Trivalent 16065-83-1 24,000 24,000 100,000 360,000 360,000 NA NA NA NA 4,400 NA NA NA NA Cobalt 7440-48-4 4.6 4.6 70 70 0.9 NA 1 1 NA 1.2 NA NA NA NA Copper 7440-50-8 620 620 9,400 9,400 700 1,000 NA 1,000 1,300 (k) 160 NA NA 1,300 NA Iran 7439-89-6 11,000 11,000 100,000 164,000 150 300 NA 2,500 300 (i) 2,800 NA NA NA NA Lead 7439-92-1 400 400 800 800 270 15 NA 15 15 (1) 15 NA NA NA NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 7439-96-5 360 360 5,200 5,200 65 50 NA 200 50 (i) 86 200 NA 50 100 Mercury 7439-97-6 4.6 (0) 4.6 (0) 3.1 (o) 70 (o) 1 (0) 1 NA 1 2 1.14 (o) NA NA NA NA Molybdenum 7439-98-7 78 78 1,200 1,160 NA NA NA 18 NA 20 NA NA NA NA Nickel 7440-02-0 300 (p) 300 (p) 4,400 (p) 4,400 (p) 130 (p) 100 NA 100 NA 78 (p) 25 NA 610 4,600 Potassium 7440-09-7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Selenium 7782-49-2 78 78 1,200 1,160 2.1 20 NA 20 50 20 NA NA 170 4,200 Sodium 7440-23-5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA Strontium 7440-24-6 9,400 9,400 100,000 100,000 NA NA NA 2,100 NA 2,400 NA NA NA NA Thallium 7440-28-0 0.16 (q) 0.156 (q) 2.4 (q) 2.4 (q) 0.28 (q) 0.2 NA 0.2 2 0.04 (q) NA NA 0.24 0.47 Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 78 78 1,160 1,160 6 NA NA 0.3 NA 17.2 NA NA NA NA Zinc 7440-66-6 4,600 4,600 70,000 70,000 1,200 1 NA 1 5,000 (i) 1,200 NA NA 7,400 26,000 Alkalinity ALK NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chloride 7647-14-5 NA NA NA NA NA 250,000 NA 0.25 250,000 (i) NA 250,000 NA NA NA Methane 74-82-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nitrate 14797-55-8 26,000 26,000 100,000 380,000 NA NA NA NA 10,000 6,400 10,000 NA 10,000 NA PH PH NA NA NA NA NA 6.5-8.5 NA NA 6.5-8.5 NA NA NA 5.0 - 9.0 NA Sulfate 7757-82-6 NA NA NA NA NA 250,000 NA 250,000 (w) 250,000 (i) NA 250,000 NA NA NA Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Dissolved Solids TDS NA NA NA NA NA 500,000 NA NA 500,000 (1) NA 500,000 NA 250,000 NA Total Organic Carbon TOC NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Suspended Solids I TSS I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA NA NA I NA I NA I NA I NA Page 1 of 4 Data compiled by Hailey and Aldrich, January 2016 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weathempoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Nttachments\Attachment C -Screening tables.xlsx TABLE C-1 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL SCREENING LEVELS RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITES DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC Page 2 of 4 Data compiled by Hailey and Aldrich, January 2016 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weathempoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Nttachments\Attachment C -Screening tables.xlsx Ecological Screening Levels Soil Sediment USEPA Region 4 USEPA Region 4 Eco -SSL (ee) Eco -SSL (ee) Eco -SSL (ee) Eco -SSL (ee) ORNL (ff) ORNL (gg) Sediment Constituent CAS Avian Soil Invertebrate Soil Mammalian Plants Soil Invertebrate Soil Plant Screening Values (g) Soil Screening Screening Screening Soil Screening Screening Screening Screening (mg/kg) Benchmark (g) Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) ESV RSV Aluminum 7429-90-5 50 NA NA NA NA NA 50 25,000 (x) 58,000 (x) Antimony 7440-36-0 0.27 NA 78 0.27 NA NA 5 2 (y) 25 (y) Arsenic 7440-38-2 18 43 NA 46 18 60 10 9.8 (z) 33 (z) Barium 7440-39-3 330 NA 330 2,000 NA NA Soo 20 (z) 60 (z) Beryllium 7440-41-7 10 NA 40 21 NA NA 10 NA NA Boron 7440-42-8 7.5 NA NA NA 0.5 NA 0.5 NA NA Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.36 0.77 140 0.36 32 20 4 1 (z) 5 (z) Calcium 7440-70-2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 28 NA NA NA NA 0.4 1 43.4 (z) 111 (z) Chromium, Hexavalent 18540-29-9 0.35 NA NA 130 NA 0.4 1 NA NA Chromium, Trivalent 16065-83-1 18 26 NA 34 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 7440-48-4 13 120 NA 230 13 NA 20 50 (aa) NA (aa) Copper 7440-50-8 28 120 NA 230 13 50 100 31.6 (z) 149 (z) Iron 7439-89-6 200 NA NA NA NA NA NA 20,000 (aa) 40,000 (aa) Lead 7439-92-1 11 11 1700 56 120 500 50 35.8 (z) 128 (z) Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 7439-96-5 220 4,300 450 4,000 220 NA 500 460 (bb) 1,100 (bb) Mercury 7439-97-6 0.1 NA 0.1 NA 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.18 (z) 1.1 (z) Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2 NA NA NA 2 NA 2 NA NA Nickel 7440-02-0 38 210 280 130 38 200 30 22.7 (z) 48.6 (z) Potassium 7440-09-7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Selenium 7782-49-2 0.52 1.2 4.1 0.63 0.52 70 1 11 (bb) 20 (bb) Sodium 7440-23-5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Strontium 7440-24-6 96 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Thallium 7440-28-0 0.22 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 7.8 7.8 NA 280 2 NA 2 NA NA Zinc 7440-66-6 46 46 120 79 160 100 50 121 (z) 459 (z) Alkalinity ALK NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chloride 7647-14-5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Methane 74-82-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nitrate 14797-55-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA PH PH NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sulfate 7757-82-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 39 (bb) 61 (bb) Total Dissolved Solids TDS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Organic Carbon TOC NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Suspended Solids I TSS I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA NA Page 2 of 4 Data compiled by Hailey and Aldrich, January 2016 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weathempoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Nttachments\Attachment C -Screening tables.xlsx TABLE C-1 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL SCREENING LEVELS RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITES DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC Page 3 of 4 Data compiled by Hailey and Aldnch, January 2016 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Nttachments\Attachment C -Screening tables.xlsx Ecological Screening Levels Surface Water 15A NCAC 2B 15A NCAC 2B USEPA Region 4 USEPA Region 4 USEPA USEPA Constituent CAS Freshwater Aquatic Life Acute (f) Freshwater Aquatic Life Chronic (f) Freshwater Acute Screening Values (g) Freshwater Chronic Screening Values (g) AWQC (b) CMC (acute) AWQC (b) CCC (chronic) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total j Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Aluminum 7429-90-5 NA NA NA NA 750 (b) NA 87 (b) NA 750 NA 87 NA Antimony 7440-36-0 NA NA NA NA 900 (cc) NA 190 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA Arsenic 7440-38-2 NA 340 NA 150 340 (b, h) 340 (b, h) 150 (b, h) 150 (b, h) 340 (h) 340 (h) 150 (h) 150 (h) Barium 7440-39-3 NA NA NA NA 2000 (cc) NA 220 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA Beryllium 7440-41-7 NA 65 NA 6.5 31 (r, cc) NA 3.6 (r, cc) NA NA NA NA NA Boron 7440-42-8 NA NA NA NA 34,000 (cc) NA 7,200 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA Cadmium 7440-43-9 NA 0.82 (u) NA 0.15 (u) 1.1 (r) 1.0 (r) 0.16 (r) 0.15 (r) 2.13 (r) 2.01 (r) 0.27 (r) 0.25 (r) Calcium 7440-70-2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 116,000 (dd) NA NA NA NA NA Chromium (Total) 7440-47-3 NA NA 50 NA 1,022 (n, r) 323 (n, r) 48.8 (n, r) 42.0 (n, r) 1,803 (n, r) 570 (n, r) 86.2 (n, r) 74.1 (n, r) Chromium, Hexavalent 18540-29-9 NA 16 NA 11 16 (b) 15.4 (b) 11 (b) 10.6 (b) NA NA NA NA Chromium, Trivalent 16065-83-1 NA 183 (u) NA 24 (u) 1,022 (r) 323 (r) 48.8 (r) 42.0 (r) 1,803 (r) 570 (r) 86.2 (r) 74.1 (r) Cobalt 7440-48-4 NA NA NA NA 120 (cc) NA 19 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA Copper 7440-50-8 NA 3.6 (u) NA 2.7 (u) 7.3 (r) 7.0 (r) 5.16 (r) 4.95 (r) 14.0 (r) 13.4 (r) 9.33 (r) 8.96 (r) Iron 7439-89-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,000 (b) NA NA NA 1,000 NA Lead 7439-92-1 NA 14 (u) NA 0.54 (u) 33.8 (r) 30.1 (r) 1.32 (r) 1.17 (r) 81.6 (r) 64.6 (r) 3.18 (r) 2.52 (r) Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 82,000 (dd) NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 7439-96-5 NA NA NA NA 1,680 (cc) NA 93 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA Mercury 7439-97-6 NA NA 0.012 NA 1.4 (b, s) 1.2 (b, s) 0.77 (b, s) 0.65 (b, s) 1.4 (s) 1.2 (s) 0.77 (s) 0.65 (s) Molybdenum 7439-98-7 NA NA NA NA 7,200 (cc) NA 800 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA Nickel 7440-02-0 NA 145 (u) NA 16 (u) 261 (r) 260 (r) 29.0 (r) 28.9 (r) 469 (r) 468 (r) 52.2 (r) 52.0 (r) Potassium 7440-09-7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 53,000 (dd) NA NA NA NA NA Selenium 7782-49-2 NA NA 5 NA 20 (cc) NA 5 (cc) NA 12.82 (t) NA 5 (t) NA Sodium 7440-23-5 NA NA NA NA NA NA 680,000 (dd) NA NA NA NA NA Strontium 7440-24-6 NA NA NA NA 48,000 (cc) NA 5,300 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA Thallium 7440-28-0 NA NA NA NA 54 (cc) NA 6 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 NA NA NA NA 79 (cc) NA 27 (cc) NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 7440-66-6 NA 36 (u) NA 36 (u) 67 (r) 65 (r) 67 (r) 66 (r) 120 (r) 117 (r) 120 (r) 118 (r) Alkalinity ALK NA NA NA NA NA NA 20,000 NA NA NA 20,000 NA Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chloride 7647-14-5 NA NA 230,000 (v) NA 860,000 (b) NA 230,000 (b) NA 860,000 NA 230,000 NA Methane 74-82-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nitrate 14797-55-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA pH PH NA NA 6.0-9.0 NA NA NA 6.5-9.0 (b) NA NA NA 6.5-9.0 NA Sulfate 7757-82-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA Total Dissolved Solids TDS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA. NA NA NA NA Total Organic Carbon TOC NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Suspended Solids I TSS I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA NA Page 3 of 4 Data compiled by Hailey and Aldnch, January 2016 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Nttachments\Attachment C -Screening tables.xlsx (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (lune 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015 http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index. cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http://water. epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstanda rds2012. pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=laa3fal3-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fbld25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title / 2015a / 20- / 20environmental / 20quality/chapter / 2002 / 20- / 20environmental / 20management/subchapter / 20b/subchapter / 20b / 20ruies.pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water. Human Health Standards are based on the consumption offish only unless dermal contact studies are available.. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/r4_era_guidance_document _draft _final_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (1) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (I) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed corresponds to a default total hardness of 100 mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMCJ) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMCJ and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed corresponds to a default total hardness of 25 mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.IanI.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Undskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/7M-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (qg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (hh) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get file?uuid=Of60lffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 Page 4 of 4 Data compiled by Hailey and Aldnch, January 2016 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weathempoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Nttachments\Attachment C -Screening tables.xlsx TABLE C-1 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL SCREENING LEVELS RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITES DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC Notes: AWQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria. DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources. mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram. RSV - Refinement Screening Value. CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act. DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services. NA - Not Available. SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, ESV - Ecological Screening Value. NC - North Carolina. SSL - Soil Screening Level. http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S729v7. HH - Human Health NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code. su - Standard units. CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service. HI - Hazard Index. ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ug/L - micrograms/liter. CCC - Criterion Continuous Concentration. IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration. PSRG - Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal. USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency. CMC - Criterion Maximum Concentration. MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level. RSL - Regional Screening Level. WS - Water Supply. (a) - USEPA Regional Screening Levels (lune 2015). Values for Residential Soil, Industrial Soil, and Tap Water. HI = 0.2. Accessed November 2015 http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables (b) - USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. Accessed April 2015. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index. cfm USEPA AWQC Human Health for the Consumption of Organism Only apply to total concentrations. (c) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. Accessed April 2015. http://water. epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstanda rds2012. pdf (d) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf (e) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standards & IMACs. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=laa3fal3-2cOf-45b7-ae96-5427fbld25b4&groupId=38364 Amended April 2013. (f) - North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water and Wetland Standards. Amended January 1, 2015. http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title / 2015a / 20- / 20environmental / 20quality/chapter / 2002 / 20- / 20environmental / 20management/subchapter / 20b/subchapter / 20b / 20ruies.pdf WS standards are applicable to all Water Supply Classifications. WS standards are based on the consumption of fish and water. Human Health Standards are based on the consumption offish only unless dermal contact studies are available.. For Class C, use the most stringent of freshwater (or, if applicable, saltwater) column and the Human Health column. For a WS water, use the most stringent of Freshwater, WS and Human Health. Likewise, Trout Waters and High Quality Waters must adhere to the most stingent of all applicable standards. (g) - USEPA Region 4. 2015. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Interim Draft. August. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/r4_era_guidance_document _draft _final_8-25-2015. pdf (h) - Value applies to inorganic form of arsenic only. (1) - Value is the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. (j) - Value for Total Chromium. (k) - Copper Treatment Technology Action Level is 1.3 mg/L. (I) - Lead Treatment Technology Action Level is 0.015 mg/L. (m) - RSL for Antimony (metallic) used for Antimony. (n) - Value for Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts used for Chromium. (o) - RSL for Mercuric Chloride used for Mercury. (p) - RSL for Nickel Soluble Salts used for Nickel. (q) - RSL for Thallium (Soluble Salts) used for Thallium. (r) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed corresponds to a default total hardness of 100 mg/L. (s) - Value for Inorganic Mercury. (t) - Acute AWQC is equal to 1/[(fl/CMCJ) + (f2/CMC2)] where fl and f2 are the fractions of total selenium that are treated as selenite and selenate, respectively, and CMCJ and CMC2 are 185.9 ug/L and 12.82 ug/L, respectively. Calculated assuming that all selenium is present as selenate, a likely overly conservative assumption. (u) - Criterion expressed as a function of total hardness (mg/L). Value displayed corresponds to a default total hardness of 25 mg/L. (v) - Chloride Action Level for Toxic Substances Applicable to NPDES Permits is 230,000 ug/L. (w) - Applicable only to persons with a sodium restrictive diet. (x) - Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database. http://www.IanI.gov/community-environment/environmental-stewardship/protection/eco-risk-assessment.php (y) - Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment -Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Used effects range low (ER -L) for chronic and effects range medium (ER -M) for acute. (z) - MacDonald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Smorong, D.E.; Undskoog, R.A.; Sloane, G.; and T. Bernacki. 2003. Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Used threshold effect concentration (TEC) for the ESV and probable effect concentration (PEC) for the RSV. (aa) - Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of Ontario. (bb) - Washington State Sediment Management Standards, Cleanup Objections. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_standards.htm (cc) - Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) Clearinghouse resources Tier II criteria revised 2013. http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/ (dd) - Suter, G.W., and Tsao, C.L. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm96r2.pdf (ee) - USEPA. 2015. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents (ff) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/7M-126/R2. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tml26r2l.pdf) (qg) - Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. (Available at http://www.esd.orni.gov/programs/ecorisk/documents/tm85r3.pdf) (hh) - North Carolina Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. HI = 0.2. September 2015. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get file?uuid=Of60lffa-574d-4479-bbb4-253af0665bf5&groupId=38361 Page 4 of 4 Data compiled by Hailey and Aldnch, January 2016 P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weathempoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Nttachments\Attachment C -Screening tables.xlsx TABLE C-2 NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH FISH TISSUE SCREENING LEVELS FOR HUMAN INGESTION EXPOSURES RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITES DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC Constituent CAS Human Health Screening Level Fish Tissue - Subsistence Fish Tissue - Recreational Angler (a) Angler (c) (mg/kg) (b) (mg/kg) (b) Aluminum 7429-90-5 410 3983 Antimony 7440-36-0 0.16 1.55 Arsenic (as inorganic As) 7440-38-2 0.027 0.262 Arsenic (as total As) 7440-38-2 0.27 2.62 Barium 7440-39-3 82 797 Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.6 15.5 Boron 7440-42-8 82 797 Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.41 3.98 Calcium 7440-70-2 NA NA Chromium (VI) 18540-29-9 1.2 11.7 Cobalt 7440-48-4 0.12 1.17 Copper 7440-50-8 16 155 Iron 7439-89-6 290 2817 Lead 7439-92-1 NA NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA NA Manganese 7439-96-5 58 563 Nickel 7440-02-0 8.2 79.7 Sodium 7440-23-5 NA NA Thallium 7440-28-0 0.004 0.04 Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.1 20.4 Zinc 7440-66-6 120 1166 Notes• CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act. North Carolina Session Law 2014-122, http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S729v7.pdf CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service. mg/kg - milligrams/kilogram. NA - Not Available. USEPA, 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume 1, Fish Sampling and Analysis, Third Edition. EPA 823-B-00-007. USEPA Office of Water. 2000. (a) - NC screening levels are based on fish ingestion rate of 170 g/day, which represents the 95th percentile for Native American subsistence fishers (USEPA 2000). Acceptable Cancer Risk Level of 1E-04, a 70 kg adult, and daily life -time exposure. (b) - All values as wet weight fillet tissue. Prepared September 16, 2014. (c) - Screening levels are calculated based on fish ingestion rate of 17.5 g/day, which represents the 95th percentile for recreational fishers (USEPA 2000). Acceptable Cancer Risk Level of 1E-04, a 70 kg adult, and daily life -time exposure. Data compiled by Hailey and Aldrich, January 2016 Page 1 of 1 P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment C -Screening tables.xlsx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra ATTACHMENT D HUMAN HEALTH RBC DERIVATION P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Human Health Site -Specific Risk Based Concentrations (RBCS) Site-specific risk based concentrations (RBCs) are risk-based screening levels that are refined to account for the receptor population characteristics and exposure pathways applicable to each of the receiving media identified in the conceptual site model (CSM). As such, the site-specific RBCs are less conservative, i.e., more realistic, than screening levels and are, therefore, useful for evaluating whether constituents of potential concern (COPCs) may have the potential to pose health risks above risk thresholds. For example, whereas surface water that is used as a recreational water body for swimming is screened for COPCs using drinking water standards which assume that people are drinking and bathing in the water daily, site-specific RBCs for surface water developed here reflect incidental ingestion and dermal contact at an exposure rate and magnitude commensurate with swimming activities. This appendix provides documentation of the derivation of RBCs. Section 1 describes the exposure scenarios that are used to develop the RBCs, Section 2 documents the toxicity values and other chemical -specific inputs that are used to derive RBCs, and Section 3 provides the equations that are used to derive the RBCs. RBCs for each exposure scenario, for each exposure medium are presented in tables that accompany Section 4 of this appendix. 1. Human Health Exposure Scenarios Exposure scenarios are used to quantitatively describe the COPC exposures that could theoretically occur for each land use and exposure pathway evaluated. In 'forward' risk calculations that derive estimates of cancer and non -cancer risk, the exposure scenarios are used in conjunction with exposure point concentrations (EPCs) to derive quantitative estimates of COPC intake or exposure. In the derivation of RBCs, the exposure scenarios are used in combination with target risks to derive COPC concentrations that are protective for the exposure scenario at the target risk levels. The ultimate goal of developing exposure scenarios, as defined in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance, is to identify the combination of exposure parameters that results in the most intense level of exposure that may "reasonably" be expected to occur under the current and future site conditions (USEPA, 1989). As such, a single exposure scenario is often selected to provide a conservative evaluation for the range of possible receptors and populations that could be exposed under a given land use. Exposure scenarios use numerical parameters that include ingestion rates, dermal contact areas, body weights, exposure times, exposure frequencies, and exposure durations. The specific numerical values for each of these parameters are selected in consideration of the receptor activities and ages that the exposure scenarios are modeling, and are generally selected as the upper - end (generally 95th percentile) values for each quantitative parameter. Using receptor scenarios that are protective for all potentially exposed populations associated with a given land use, with numerical parameters that are generally based on the upper -end distributions, result in reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenarios. 1.1 EXPOSURE PARAMETERS Exposure parameters are developed from USEPA Region 4 (USEPA, 2014b) and USEPA national guidance (USEPA, 2002; 2011; 2014a). The exposure parameters used to quantify exposures for each of the scenarios described in this section are provided in Table 1-1. Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 1.1.1 Exposure Durations Exposure duration refers to the total amount of time in years that a receptor population is assumed to be exposed to the media that are being evaluated. USEPA has established standard exposure durations of 26 years for residential land use, 25 years for commercial/industrial land use, and 1 year for construction work. These values are based on upper percentile values for the length of time that people live at the same residence (26 years), and the length of time that people stay at the same place of employment (25 years). The duration for construction work is based on an assumption that the earth moving and excavation portions of a construction project would generally not continue for more than one year. For other receptor scenarios (e.g., trespasser), the exposure duration is based on the age range of the receptor evaluated. For example, the exposure duration for a 6 through 16 year old is 10 years, based on the premise that an individual begins the exposure activity at age 6 and continues to age 16. 1.1.2 Ingestion Rates Ingestion rates quantify the amount of media that is ingested. All soil, surface water, and groundwater ingestion rate values are USEPA default values as follows: Soil: 200 mg/day for children ages 1 through 6 100 mg/day for the trespassing adolescent and commercial/industrial workers 330 mg/day for construction workers Groundwater: • 0.004 L/day for the construction worker [Note that drinking water uses were evaluated by directly comparing groundwater or surface water concentrations to drinking water criteria, where this is a complete exposure pathway. If groundwater does not migrate to a private well, the groundwater drinking water pathway was not evaluated. ] Surface water: • 50 mL/hour (applies to swimming scenarios only), 50 mL/hour for children ages 1 through 6 • 10 ml/hour for adolescents and adults (wading scenarios) [Note that drinking water uses were evaluated by directly comparing groundwater or surface water concentrations to drinking water criteria, where this is a complete exposure pathway. If the adjacent surface water body is not used as a source of drinking water, the surface water drinking water pathway was not evaluated.] Sediment • 10 mg/day for children and adolescents • 5 mg/day for adults The soil ingestion rates are intended to represent total daily exposure to all sources of soil (i.e., soil within a yard, playground, athletic field, as well as dust indoors). In accordance with Region 4 guidance (USEPA, 2014b), only unsubmerged sediment is available for potential exposure. Unsubmerged sediment is generally only present along water body shorelines. Activities involving potential exposure Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 to water bodies, such as wading, swimming, and boating, would not involve long durations of exposure to shoreline sediments. Therefore, potential exposure to unsubmerged sediment would represent only a small portion of total daily exposure to soil. To account for this, the sediment ingestion values represent one-tenth the USEPA default soil ingestion rates. It is important to recognize that the ingestion rates used for soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater are based on total ingestion of those media each day. In other words, the ingestion rate for soil is based on incidental ingestion of soil from all sources throughout a day, including soil that is translocated indoors as household dust. The assumption that receptors who access a site incur their total daily ingestion of soil while at the site is likely to overestimate potential exposures, particularly for non-residential land uses. In addition, summation of risks across multiple media, such as soil and sediment, results in double -counting the daily soil ingestion rate, since each medium (i.e., soil and sediment) is evaluated using the total ingestion rates shown above. 1.1.3 Dermal Contact Rates Dermal contact rates quantify the amount of media that contacts the skin and is, therefore, a potential source for absorption of COPCs through the skin. Soil and sediment dermal contact rates are based on the skin surface area assumed to contact the soil or sediment, and the adherence of the soil or sediment to the skin. Skin surface area and adherence factors for recreational, commercial/industrial, and construction work scenarios are specified by USEPA (USEPA, 2014a; 2011; 2002). The surface area values used to evaluate recreational visitor wading exposures to surface water and sediment were calculated as the average of 50th percentile body surface areas, for the body parts assumed to be exposed to surface water and sediment, for males and females within the age range evaluated. Body surface area values are obtained from USEPA references (USEPA, 2011). 1.1.4 Body Weights Body weights are specified by USEPA for children ages 1 through 6 (15 kg) and adults (80 kg). Body weights for the adolescent (6-<16 years) age group were calculated using body weight data provided in USEPA references (USEPA, 2011), as the average of 50th percentile weights for males and females within the age range evaluated. 1.1.5 Exposure Times The exposure time quantifies the amount of time that potential exposure to air or water occurs. The exposure time parameter is used to quantify inhalation exposures, dermal exposures to water, and incidental ingestion exposures to water (i.e., during swimming). Exposure time parameters used in the RBC derivations are based on USEPA-recommended exposure times for time spent indoors and time spent outdoors (used for residential and recreational exposures), or site-specific exposure time is provided. Exposure time parameters for commercial/industrial worker and construction worker scenarios are based on an assumed 8 -hour work day (assuming four hours of contact with surface water and sediment in a seep area and/or on-site tributary in the commercial/industrial scenario, and four hours of contact with groundwater in a trench for the construction worker). Variables related to exposure time also include fraction ingested, fraction dermal, and event -day, which describe the number of exposure events that are assumed to occur each day that exposure at the site takes place. For all scenarios, these parameters were established at a value of 1. Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 1.1.6 Exposure Frequencies Exposure frequency describes the number of days per year (or number of events per year) in which exposure to a medium at a site occurs. Exposure frequency parameters are based on USEPA default values for residential, trespasser, recreational, and construction worker scenarios. Exposure frequency for the current/future on-site commercial worker is site-specific and assumes contact with site soil, sediment, and surface water one day per month for 12 months. Receptor scenarios are described below, and are summarized in the CSM in Figure 1-1. The exposure parameters are provided in Table 1-1. 1.2 RECEPTORS 1.2.1 Current/Future Off -Site Resident The drinking water pathway is only potentially complete for those residents who use groundwater or surface water as a drinking water source. Drinking water uses were evaluated by directly comparing groundwater or surface water concentrations to drinking water criteria, where this is a complete exposure pathway. 1.2.2 Current/Future On -Site Trespasser Trespassers may potentially contact soil remaining post -excavation directly via incidental ingestion and dermal contact. Additionally, trespassers may inhale coal ash -derived particulates entrained in dusts. Trespassers may also be exposed to seep water and seep soil via dermal contact, and to on-site surface water and sediment (via incidental ingestion and dermal contact) at on-site surface water bodies. This scenario assumes an adolescent trespasser (ages 6 to 16) trespasses on-site for 45 days per year (USEPA, 2014b), for two hours per day. Given that the on-site water bodies are located on Duke -owned commercial -use properties where trespassers are the only potential off-site receptors, it is assumed that only wading exposures could potentially occur at the on-site surface water bodies. Coal ash basins will be de -watered in the future, thereby removing on-site water bodies as potential exposure media. 1.2.3 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Swimmer Recreational swimmers may contact coal ash -derived COPCs in surface water or in sediment (via incidental ingestion and dermal contact) while swimming in off-site surface water bodies. This scenario assumes that a child (ages 1to 6), adolescent (ages 6 to 16) and adult swim at nearby off-site surface water bodies for 45 days per year (USEPA, 2014b), for two hours per day. 1.2.4 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Wader Recreational waders may contact coal ash -derived COPCs in off-site surface water bodies while wading via dermal contact with surface water and incidental ingestion and dermal contact with sediment. This scenario assumes that a child (ages 1 to 6), adolescent (ages 6 to 16), and adult wade at nearby off-site surface water bodies for 45 days per year (USEPA, 2014b), for two hours per day. The principal differences between the wading and swimming scenarios are that more body surface area is assumed to contact surface water, and a greater incidental ingestion rate of surface water, is assumed to occur Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 during swimming activities. Potential contact with unsubmerged sediment is assumed to be the same for both wading and swimming scenarios. 1.2.5 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Boater Recreational boaters may contact coal ash -derived COPCs in off-site surface water bodies while boating via incidental ingestion with surface water and incidental ingestion and dermal contact with sediment. This scenario assumes that an adult boater is present at nearby off-site surface water bodies for 45 days per year (USEPA, 2014b), for two hours per day. 1.2.6 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Fisher Recreational fishers may contact coal ash -derived COPCs in off-site surface water bodies while wading during fishing activities (via incidental ingestion with surface water and via incidental ingestion and dermal contact for sediment). Recreational fishers may also contact coal ash -derived COPCs via fish tissue ingestion. This scenario assumes that an adult fishes and wades at nearby off-site surface water bodies for 45 days per year (USEPA, 2014b), for two hours per day. Children are not assumed to accompany adults in angling activities. However, children (i.e., family members) were considered in the selection of fish ingestion rates under the assumption that family members consume fish that is caught by adults. Two fish ingestion rates are used to evaluate the range of potential exposures. Subsistence Angling: North Carolina Division of Public Health Fish Tissue Screening Levels (NCDWR, 2014) were developed based on a fish ingestion rate of 170 g/day, which represents the 95th percentile value for Native American subsistence fishers (USEPA, 2000). The same study used to support this value also derived a 95`" percentile fish ingestion rate for children ages birth to 5 yrs of age of 98 g/day. These values are used to represent the most sensitive receptor population for fish ingestion. Recreational Angling: Based on the information provided in USEPA (2000), a recreational fish ingestion rate of 17.5 g/day is used to represent the general recreational adult fisher population. Recreational fish ingestion rate data on children and adolescents is limited. However, USEPA (2011) cites average rates for consuming recreational anglers of 7.9 g/day for children ages 6 to 10 and 7.3 g/day for children ages 11 to 20. The average of these values (7.6 g/day) is used as the fish ingestion rate for children ages 6 to 16. 1.2.7 Current/Future On -Site Commercial/Industrial Workers On-site commercial/industrial workers may potentially contact coal ash -derived COPCs in post - excavation soil directly via incidental ingestion and dermal contact. Additionally, commercial/industrial workers may inhale coal ash -derived particulates entrained in dusts. Commercial/industrial workers may also be exposed to seep water and seep soil via dermal contact, and to on-site surface water and sediment (via incidental ingestion and dermal contact), in the case of on-site surface water bodies. It is assumed that an on-site commercial/industrial worker would potentially be exposed to on-site soil for 250 days per year and to sediment or surface water one day per month for twelve months of the year, while doing maintenance and/or landscaping activities at the site. It is also assumed that the worker would only contact site media for half of the day (four hours). USEPA default exposure factors are used for the commercial/industrial worker, however it is assumed that the worker would contact sediment and surface water on hands and forearms only. Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 1.2.8 Current/Future On -Site Construction Workers The construction worker scenario is designed to evaluate conditions pre- or post -remedy. This receptor is not intended to describe potential exposures to remediation workers. Construction workers may potentially contact coal ash -derived COPCs in post -excavation soil directly via incidental ingestion and dermal contact. Additionally, construction workers may inhale coal ash -derived particulates entrained in dusts. Construction workers may also directly contact COPCs in groundwater via incidental ingestion and dermal contact if groundwater is encountered during excavation. The construction worker scenario is evaluated to characterize risks associated with high intensity, short duration exposures to soil. Construction workers are not expected to be exposed to surface water or sediment. Exposures are characterized using USEPA national standardized parameters for construction worker scenarios, which allow for use of a site-specific exposure frequency. An exposure frequency of 60 days per year is used to accommodate the assumption that a large-scale development project would involve soil excavation activities over a total of 12 weeks in a one-year take up to a year to complete. It is assumed that contact with groundwater would occur for 20% of the total exposure frequency and time (50 days and 1.6 hours per day). 2. Chemical -Specific Inputs 2.1 Toxicity Values The toxicity values used to derive the RBCs were obtained from USEPA-approved sources of toxicity values, following USEPA's guidance regarding the hierarchy of sources of human health dose -response values in risk assessment (USEPA, 2003), as updated (USEPA, 2013). The sources include: • USEPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) JUSEPA, 2015bl; • National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) provisional peer reviewed toxicity values (PPRTVs) (USEPA, 2014c), • California Environmental Protection Agency (CALEPA) toxicity values (CALEPA, 2011 and 2014), and • Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR's) Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) (ATSDR, 2014). Toxicity values, including cancer slope factors (CSFs), inhalation unit risk values (IURs), and inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) are provided in Table 2-1. Chronic and sub -chronic oral reference doses (RfDs), including target organs, are provided in Table 2-2. Chronic toxicity values were used to derive RBCs for all scenarios except the construction worker. Sub -chronic RfD and RfC values, when available, are used to derive RBCs for the construction worker exposure scenario. Dermal CSF and RfD values were derived using oral absorption factors in accordance with USEPA guidance (USEPA, 2004). 2.2 Mutagenic Mode of Action USEPA guidance for early life exposure to carcinogens (USEPA, 2005) requires that risks for potentially carcinogenic constituents that are presumed to act by a mutagenic mode of action be calculated differently than for constituents that do not act via a mutagenic mode of action. Of the constituents on Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 Table 2-1, only hexavalent chromium, based on a draft evaluation, is considered to act by a mutagenic mode of action. Therefore, the age -dependent adjustment factors (ADAF) are applied in the oral and inhalation intake calculations involving children under the age of 16. The ADAFs are as follows: Age 0 to 2 years (2 year interval from birth until 2nd birthday) — ADAF = 10 Ages 2 to 16 years (14 year interval from 2nd birthday to 16th birthday) — ADAF = 3 Ages 16 and up (after 16th birthday) — no adjustment - ADAF = 1 Where a receptor group addressed in the exposure assessment spans one or more of these categories, the highest (most conservative) ADAF is used. 2.3 Dermal Absorption Factors Dermal absorption factors were obtained from USEPA guidance (USEPA, 2004). The dermal absorption factors (ABScl) for COPCs in soil and sediment accounts for lower absorption through the skin. USEPA (2004) provides constituent -specific dermal absorption fractions for a limited number of COPCs. Table 2-3 shows the dermal absorption factors. The estimation of exposure dose resulting from incidental dermal contact with groundwater or surface water requires the use of a dermal permeability constant (Kp) in units of centimeters per hour (cm/hr). The Kp values are derived from EPA (2004) Exhibit 3-1. Table 2-3 shows the dermal permeability constants. 2.4 Oral Absorption Factors USEPA has determined that the bioavailable fraction of arsenic in soil and sediment typically does not exceed 60%, and because the arsenic toxicity values are based on a highly absorbable form (dissolved in water), EPA has therefore published a default relative oral absorption fraction (ABSing) of 0.6 for arsenic in soils relative to arsenic in water, which is the basis of exposure for the toxicity value (USEPA, 2012a). This value will be used to derive RRCs for soil and sediment. No relative bioavailability adjustments were for all other COPCs for soil, sediment, and water. 2.5 Lead RBCS for lead are derived using biokinetic models. USEPA has developed risk-based screening levels (RSLs) for lead in soil using biokinetic models; the RSLs have been derived by USEPA for a standard residential and a standard commercial exposure scenario (USEPA, 2015a). Rather than derive site- specific RBCs for lead in this appendix, the USEPA RSLs are used as RBCs. The residential soil RSL for lead of 400 mg/kg was used as the soil/sediment RBC for exposure scenarios which incorporate children: the on-site trespasser, off-site swimmer, and off-site wader. The commercial/industrial RSL of 800 mg/kg was used for exposure scenarios which are limited to adults: the off-site boater, off-site recreational fisher, on-site commercial/industrial worker, and on-site construction worker. USEPA has also developed an action level of 15 ug/L for lead in drinking water (USEPA, 2012b). For surface water and groundwater, the lead action level was used as the RBC for all receptor scenarios. For sites in which lead EPCs exceed these screening levels, biokinetic models will be used with site- specific EPCs to derive estimates of blood lead concentrations. The estimated blood lead concentrations Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 will be compared to USEPA blood lead thresholds to describe risks associated with potential exposures to lead. 3. RBC Equations The RBCs are calculated using the equations in the following sections. The lower of the site-specific RBCs developed based on potential cancer and noncancer effects for the applicable age group is used as the selected site-specific RBC. The RBCs are calculated using a target ELCR of 1x10-4 (one in ten thousand) and a target HI value of 1, which corresponds to levels of exposure that people (including sensitive individuals such as children) could experience without expected adverse effects. The target ELCR is within the target risk range of one in one million to one in ten thousand (USEPA, 1991) and is consistent with the target risk level used for the derivation of the North Carolina fish tissue screening levels (NCDWR, 2014). As noted in Section 2, only one constituent, arsenic, is identified by USEPA as a carcinogen by the oral route of exposure; hexavalent chromium has been proposed by USEPA to be classified as an oral carcinogen but that review process is not yet completed. Nonetheless, USEPA does use an oral cancer toxicity value derived by the State of New Jersey in its Risk-based Screening Levels (RSL) tables (USEPA, 2015a). Parameter definitions and units are also provided below and receptor -specific exposure parameter values are provided in Table 1-1. 3.1 Calculation of RBCs for Sediment and Soil Incidental ingestion and dermal contact with sediment is assumed to potentially occur for off-site recreational receptors (swimmer, wader, boater, and fisher). Incidental ingestion and dermal contact with soil and inhalation of particulates from soil is assumed to potentially occur for on-site receptors (trespasser, commercial/industrial worker, and construction worker). The following equations will be used to calculate RBCs if COPCs are identified in sediment or soil for any of the off-site recreational receptors or the on-site receptors. Parameter definitions and units are also provided below and receptor -specific exposure parameter values are provided in Table 1-1. 3.1.1 Noncorcinogenic Soil/Sediment RBCs RBC for Incidental Ingestion of Soil/Sediment - Noncarcinogenic: RBCsoil/sednc (mg/kg) - THQ x ATnc x BW EF x ED x Rfno x IR x ABSing x CF RBC for Dermal Contact with Soil/Sediment- Noncarcinogenic: THQ xATnc x BW RBCsoil/sednc (mg/kg) - EF x ED xR1fDd x SA x AF x ABSd x CF RBC for Inhalation of Particulates from Soil- Noncarcinogenic: THQ x ATnc RBCsoilnc (mg/kg) — EF x ED x ET x 1x 1 RfC �PEF� Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 Total i RBCsednc (mg/kg) = 1 1 Ingestion RBCsednc + Dermal RBCsednc 1 RBCsoilnc (mg/kg) = 1 1 1 Ingestion RBCsoilnc + Dermal RBCsoilnc+Inhalation RBCsoilnc 3.1.2 Carcinogenic Soil/Sediment RBCS RBC for Incidental Ingestion of Soil/Sediment - Carcinogenic: RBCsoil/sednc (mg/kg) _ TRxATc xBW CSFo x ABSing x ED x EF x IR For receptors that include more than one age group (e.g., recreational visitors), BW, ED, and IR are replaced by IFSodj, where: IFSadi (mg-yr/kg-day) = Age group 1 BW ED x [R + Age group 2 BW ED x IR + Age group 3 ED x IR BW RBC for Dermal Contact with Soil/Sediment— Carcinogenic: _ TRxATcxBW RBCsoil/sednc (mg/kg) — CSFd x EF x SA x AF x ABSd x CF For receptors that include more than one age group (e.g., recreational visitors), BW, ED, AF, and SA are replaced by DFSadj where: DFS,,EDxSAxAF EDxSAxAF d; (mg-yr/kg-day) = Age group 1 BW + Age group 2 BW + Age group 3 EDxSAxAF BW RBC for Inhalation of Particulates from Soil— Carcinogenic: Total TR x ATc RBCsoilc (mg/kg) _ EF x ED x ETx IUR x �PEF� i RBCsednc= 1 1 Ingestion RBCsedc +Dermal RBCsedc 1 RBCsouc (mg/kg) = 1 1 1 Ingestion RBCsoilc + Dermal RBCsoilc + Inhalation RBCsoilc Parameter Definition (units) ABSd Dermal Absorption Fraction (compound -specific) (unitless) ABSing Oral Absorption Fraction (compound -specific) (unitless) AF Soil/Sediment Adherence Factor (mg/cm2) ATc Averaging time - Carcinogenic (days) ATnc Averaging time - noncarcinogenic (days) BW Body weight (kg) Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 9 Parameter Definition (units) CF Conversion factor (106 kg/mg) CSFd Dermal Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg -day) -1 CSFo Oral Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg -day) -1 DFSadj Age -Adjusted Dermal Contact Factor (mg-yr/kg-day) ED Exposure duration (years) EF Exposure frequency (days/year) ET Exposure Time (hours/event) IFSadj Age -Adjusted Soil/Sediment Ingestion Rate (mg-yr/kg-day) IR Soil/Sediment Ingestion Rate (mg/day) IUR Inhalation Unit Risk (ug/m3)-1 PEF Particulate Emission Factor (M3 /kg) RBCsoil/sedc Soil/Sediment RBC - Carcinogenic RBCsoil/sednc Soil/Sediment RBC - Noncarcinogenic RfDd Dermal Reference Dose (mg/kg -day) RfDo Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg -day) SA Exposed Skin Surface Area (cm') THQ Target Hazard Quotient TR Target Risk The soil and sediment RBC calculations for each scenario are summarized in Section 4. Derivation of the PEF value is based on the climactic zone for Raleigh, NC, and an assumed 30 -acre site with 50% vegetative cover. To facilitate transparency of the RBC calculations, the equations above were broken into two steps: Step 1 derives an intake associated with a nominal media COPC concentration of '1 mg/kg' and Step 2 incorporates the intake with the toxicity value and target risk to derive the RBC. This is shown in the equations and associated calculations which document the RBC derivation (Section 4). 3.2 Calculation of RBCS for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Seep Water Incidental ingestion and dermal contact with groundwater is assumed to potentially occur for the on-site construction worker if groundwater is encountered at the construction trench. Incidental ingestion and dermal contact with surface water is assumed to potentially occur for both off-site recreational swimmer and wader receptors and on-site receptors (trespasser, commercial/industrial worker, and construction worker) if on-site and off-site surface water bodies are present. Off-site boater and fisher receptors are assumed to contact surface water through incidental ingestion only. The following equations will be used to calculate RBCS if COPCs are identified in groundwater or surface water. Parameter definitions and units are also provided below and receptor -specific exposure parameter values are provided in Table 1-1. The surface water RBCS derived for the trespasser and commercial worker scenarios will be used to evaluate seep water, under the conservative assumption that seep water is representative of surface water quality for water bodies into which seep water migrates. 3.2.1 Noncarcinogenic Groundwater/Surface Water RBCS RBC for Incidental Ingestion of Groundwater/Surface Water - Noncarcinogenic: ( /) THQ x ATnc x BW x CF RBCGW/SWnc Ug _ EF x ED x 1 x IR x ABSing x FI Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 10 RBC for Dermal Contact with Inorganics in Groundwater/Surface Water — Noncarcinogenic: Total DAevent x (1000 cm3/L) RBCGw/swnc (Ug/L) = KP x t—event Where DAevent for inorganics = THQ x ATnc x CF x BW DAevent (Ug/Cm2-event) — (( \RIDd)xEVxEDxEFxSA RBCGw/swnc (Ug/L) = 1 1 1 Ingestion RBCswnc + Dermal RBCswnc 3.2.2 Carcinogenic Groundwater/Surface Water RRCs RBC for Incidental Ingestion Groundwater/Surface Water - Carcinogenic: TRxATcxCFxBW RBCGw/swc (Ug/L) = CSFo x IR x EF x ED x ABSing For receptors that include more than one age group (e.g., recreational visitors), BW, ED, EF, and IR are replaced by IFWad;, where: I FWadj (L/kg) = Age group 1 ED x EF x IR + Age group 2 ED x EF x IR + Age group 3 ED x EF x IR BW BW BW RBC for Dermal Contact with Groundwater/Surface Water — Carcinogenic: Total DAevent x (1000 cm3/L) RBCGw/swc (Ug/L) = Kp x t—event Where DAevent for inorganics = TR x ATnc x CF x BW DAevent (ug/cm2-event) = CSFd x EV x ED x EF x SA For receptors that include more than one age group (e.g., recreational visitors), BW, ED, EV EF, and SA are replaced by DFWpd/ where: DFW (events-cm2/kg) Age group 1 EV x ED x EF x SA + Age group 2 Ev x ED x EF x sA + Age group adi ( / g) = g g p BW g g p BW g g p 3 EVxEDxEFxSA BW 1 RBCGw/swc (ug/L) = 1 1 Ingestion RBCswc + Dermal RBCswc Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 11 Parameter Definition (units) ABSing Oral Absorption Fraction (compound -specific) (unitless) ATc Averaging time - Carcinogenic (days) ATnc Averaging time - noncarcinogenic (days) BW Body weight (kg) CF Conversion factor (1000 ug/mg) CSFd Dermal Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg -day)-' CSFo Oral Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg -day) -1 DAevent Absorbed dose per event (µg/cm2 - event) DFWadj Age -Adjusted Dermal Contact Factor (events-cm2/kg) ED Exposure duration (years) EF Exposure frequency (days) ET Exposure Time (hours) FI Fraction Ingested (unitless) t -event Exposure Time (dermal contact; hours) IFWadj Age -Adjusted Ingestion Factor (L/kg) EV Event time (events/day) IR Ingestion Rate (L/day) Kp Dermal Permeability Constant (cm/hour) PC Permeability Constant (cm/hr) RBCgw/swc Groundwater/Surface Water RBC -Carcinogenic (ug/L) RBCgw/swnc Groundwater/Surface Water RBC- Noncarcinogenic (ug/L) RfDd Dermal Reference Dose (mg/kg -day) RfDo Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg -day) THQ Target Hazard Quotient TR Target Risk The surface water and groundwater RBC calculations for each scenario are summarized in Section 4. To facilitate transparency of the RBC calculations, the equations above were broken into two steps: Step 1 derives an intake associated with a nominal media concentration of '1 ug/L' and Step 2 incorporates the intake with the toxicity value and target risk to derive the RBC. This is shown in the equations and associated calculations which document the RBC derivation (Section 4). Calculation of RBCS for Fish Ingestion Fish ingestion RBCS were derived as both tissue RBCs and surface water RBCS. The tissue RBCS are expressed as mg/kg COPC wet weight concentrations in fish tissue. These values can be compared to measured fish tissue concentrations (in wet weight). Surface water RBCS were derived using bioconcentration factors (BCFs) that relate surface water COPC concentration to fish tissue concentration. Surface water RBCS protective for consumption of fish were derived by dividing the fish tissue RBCS by the BCF. BCFs are provided in Table 2-4. RBC for Ingestion of Fish Tissue - Noncarcinogenic: (Mg/kg) g/ g) - THQ x ATnc x BW RBCfishnc m k EF x ED x RfDo x IR x ABSing x CF Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 12 RBC for Ingestion of Fish Tissue - Carcinogenic: RBCfishc (mg/kg) _ TR x ATc CSFo x ABSing x EF x ED x IR x CF Parameter Definition (units) ABSing Gastrointestinal Absorption Factor (unitless) ATc Averaging time - Carcinogenic (days) ATnc Averaging time - noncarcinogenic (days) BW Body weight (kg) CF Conversion factor (103 kg/g) CSFo Oral Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg -day)-' ED Exposure duration (years) EF Exposure frequency (days/year) IR Fish Ingestion Rate (g/day) RBCfishc Fish Tissue RBC - Carcinogenic RBCfishnc Fish Tissue RBC - Noncarcinogenic RfDo Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg -day) THQ Target Hazard Quotient TR Target Risk 3.2 Calculation of RBCS for Hexavalent Chromium As described in Section 2.2, hexavalent chromium is evaluated as a carcinogen by the inhalation route that acts through a mutagenic mode of action based on a draft USEPA assessment. In accordance with USEPA guidance, ADAFs are applied to the intake algorithms to account for increased early life susceptibility (USEPA, 2008). For scenarios which involve children under the age of 16, separate RBC calculations are provided for hexavalent chromium. To accommodate the assignment of ADAF values to specific age ranges, the young child (age 0 to 6) scenario was broken into 0 to 2 and 2 to 6 year age groups. Exposure parameters for the 0 to 6 year age group (Table 1-1) were assigned to both the 0 to 2 and 2 to 6 year ages. Cancer -based RBCS are derived using the same equations provided in subsection 3.1 and 3.2., however, the age-adjusted intake factors are adjusted to include four age groups and the ADAFs, as follows: IFSM is used in place of IFSadj, and is derived as: IFSM = {(child ED [0-2] x child IR [0-2] x ADAF [0-2] / child BW [0-2]1 + {(child ED [2-6] x child IR [2-6] x ADAF [2-6] / child BW [2-6]) + {(older child ED [6-16] x older child IR [6-16] x ADAF [6-16] / older child BW [6-16]1 + {(adult ED x adult IR x adult ADAF / adult BW)) DFSM is used in place of DFSadj, and is derived as: DFSM = {(child ED [0-2] x child SA [0-2] x child AF [0-2] x ADAF [0-2] / child BW [0-2]1 + {(child ED [2-6] x child SA [2-6] x child AF [2-6] x ADAF [2-6] / child BW [2-6]) + {(older child ED [6-16] x older child SA [6- 16] x older child AF [6-16] x ADAF [6-16] / older child BW [6-16]1 + {(adult ED x adult SA x adult AF x adult ADAF / adult BW)) IFWM is used in place of IFWadj, and is derived as: Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 13 IFWM = {(child ED [0-2] x child EF [0-2] x child IR [0-2] x ADAF [0-2] / child BW [0-2]1 + {(child ED [2-6] x child EF [2-6] x child IR [2-6] x ADAF [2-6] / child BW [2-6]1 + {(older child ED [6-16] x child EF [6-16] x older child IR [6-16] x ADAF [6-16] / older child BW [6-16]1 + {(adult ED x adult EF x adult IR x adult ADAF / adult BW)1 DFWM is used in place of DFWadj, and is derived as: DFWM = {(child EF [0-2] x child ED [0-2] x child SA [0-2] x child EV [0-2] x ADAF [0-2] / child BW [0-2]1 + {(child EF [2-6] x child ED [2-6] x child SA [2-6] x child EV [2-6] x ADAF [2-6] / child BW [2-6]1 + {(older child EF [6-16] x older child ED [6-16] x older child SA [6-16] x older child EV [6-16] x ADAF [6-16] / older child BW [6-16])1 + {(adult EF x adult ED x adult SA x adult EV x adult ADAF / adult BW)1 4. Summary of RBCs Calculations of the RBCs for each receptor scenario are provided in attachments to this appendix and are summarized in Tables 4-1 through 4-17, as follows: • Current/Future On -Site Trespasser o Soil: Table 4-1 and Attachment A o Sediment: Table 4-2 and Attachment B o Surface Water: Table 4-3 and Attachment C • Current/Future On -Site Commercial/Industrial Worker o Soil: Table 4-4 and Attachment D o Sediment: Table 4-5 and Attachment E o Seep Water: Table 4-6 and Attachment F • Future On -Site Construction Worker o Soil: Table 4-7 and Attachment G o Groundwater: Table 4-8 and Attachment H • Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Swimmer o Sediment: Table 4-9 and Attachment I o Surface Water: Table 4-10 and Attachment H • Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Wader o Sediment: Table 4-11 and Attachment J o Surface Water: Table 4-12 and Attachment K • Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Boater o Sediment: Table 4-13 and Attachment L o Surface Water: Table 4-14 and Attachment M • Current/Future Off -Site Fisher o Sediment: Table 4-15 and Attachment N o Surface Water: Table 4-16 and Attachment 0 o Recreational Fish Tissue / Surface Water: Table 4-17 and Attachment P o Subsistence Fish Tissue / Surface Water: Table 4-18 and Attachment Q Within each attachment cited above, three tables are provided which document: Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 14 1) The RBC algorithms and receptor -specific parameters used; 2) The chemical -specific parameters and derivation of cancer -based RBCS 3) The chemical -specific parameters and derivation of non -cancer based RBCs As discussed in section 2.5, RBCs were not calculated for lead. The residential soil RSL for lead of 400 mg/kg was used as the soil/sediment RBC for the on-site trespasser, off-site swimmer, and off-site wader. The commercial/industrial RSL of 800 mg/kg was used for the off-site boater, off-site recreational fisher, on-site commercial/industrial worker, and on-site construction worker. For surface water and groundwater, the lead action level of 15 ug/L was used as the RBC for all receptor scenarios. S. References 1. ATSDR. 2014. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Minimal Risk Levels, updated October 2015. Available at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/mrllist.asp 2. CALEPA. 2011. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cancer Slope Factors, December 2011. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/chemicaldb/index.asp 3. CALEPA. 2014. California Environmental Protection Agency, Reference Exposure Levels, June 2014. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/chemicaldb/index.asp 4. NCDWR. 2014. North Carolina Division of Water Resources Baseline Assessment of Fish Tissue Metal in the Dan River Following the Eden Coal Ash Spill. Available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=7f2740ed-5495-4933-aa8b- 5127bf813c8d&groupld=38364 5. USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. EPA/540/1-89/002. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. December. 6. USEPA. 1991. Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions. OSWER Directive #9355.0-30. April. 7. USEPA. 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume 1, Fish Sampling and Analysis, Third Edition. EPA 823-B-00-007. USEPA Office of Water. 2000. 8. USEPA. 2002. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites OWSWER 9355.4-24 9. USEPA. 2003. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. OSWER Directive 9285.7-53. December 5, 2003. 10. USEPA. 2004. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment, Interim), Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA/540/R/99/005. 11. USEPA. 2005. Supplemental Guidance from Early -Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/630/R- 03/003F.2005. Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 15 12. USEPA, 2008. Handbook for Implementing Supplemental Cancer Guidance at Waste and Cleanup Sites. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 13. USEPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. EPA/600/R-09/052F. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. September. 14. USEPA. 2012a. Compilation and Review of Data on Relative Bioavailability of Arsenic in Soil. OSWER No. 9200.1-113; December. 15. USEPA. 2012b. USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories, Spring 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm 16. USEPA. 2014a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER 9200.1-120. February 6, 2011. 17. USEPA. 2014b. Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance. January 2014. Draft Final. 18. USEPA. 2014c. Provisional Peer Reviewed Reference Toxicity Values (PPRTVs). November 2014. http://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/ 19. USEPA. 2015a. USEPA Risk -Based Screening Levels. June 2015. Available at: http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-table-generic-tables 20. USEPA. 2015b. Integrated Risk Information System. http://www2.epa.gov/iris Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 16 Tables Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 17 Page 1 of 5 TABLE 1-1 HUMAN HEALTH EXPOSURE PARAMETERS RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITE: DUKEENERGY Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 18 1/11/2016 Current/Future On -Site Current/Future Off -Site Resident Trespasser Cument/Future Off -Site Recreational Swimmer Child (Age <6) Adult Child and Adult (Ages 1-26) Adolescent (6-<16 years) Child (Age <6) Adolescent (6-<16 years) Adult Child, Adolescent and Adult (Ages 1 - 26) Parameter Units Standard Parameters Body Weight BW kg 15 USEPA, 80 USEPA, NA 44 USEPA, 2011 15 USEPA, 44 USEPA, 80 USEPA, NA 2014a 2014a [1] 2011 [1] 2011 [1] 2014a Exposure Duration ED years 6 Ages <6 20 Balance of 26 USEPA, 10 Ages 6 - <16 6 Ages <6 10 Ages 6 - <16 10 Balance of 26 Site - 26 -yr 2014a 26 -yr specific exposure I exposure Non—carcinogenic Averaging Time Amc days 2190 ED 7300 ED 9490 ED 3650 ED expressed 2190 ED 3650 ED 3650 ED 9490 ED expressed in expressed expressed in days expressed in expressed in expressed in expressed days in days in days days days days in days Carcinogenic Averaging Time Atc days 25550 70 year 25550 70 year 25550 70 year 25550 70 year 25550 70 year 25550 70 year 25550 70 year 25550 70 year lifetime lifetime lifetime lifetime lifetime lifetime lifetime lifetime Incidental Ingestion of Soil Exposure Frequency EF days/year NA NA NA 45 USEPA, NA NA NA NA 2014b Soil Ingestion Rate IR mg/day NA NA NA 100 USEPA, 2011 NA NA NA NA [4] Fraction Ingested FI. unitiess NA NA NA 1.0 Site-specific NA NA NA NA [s] Age -Adjusted Soil Ingestion Rate IFSadj mg-yr/kg-day NA NA NA 23 NA NA NA NA Age -Adjusted Soil Ingestion Factor- IFSM mg-yr/kg-day 68 Mutagenic Dermal Exposure with Soil Exposed Skin Surface Area SA cm2 NA NA NA 3160 USEPA, 2011 NA NA NA NA [7] Soil Adherence Factor AF mg/cm' NA NA NA 0.10 USEPA, 2011 NA NA NA NA [9] Fraction Dermal EV event/day NA NA NA 1.0 Site-specific NA NA NA NA [6] Age -Adjusted Dermal Contact Factor DFSadj mg-yr/kg-day NA NA NA 72 NA NA NA NA Age -Adjusted Dermal Contact Factor- DFSM 215 mg-yr/kg-day Mutagenic Particulate Inhalation Exposure Time ETA hours/day NA NA NA 2 Site-specific NA NA NA NA 2] Incidental Ingestion of Sediment Exposure Frequency days/year NA NA NA 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 2014b 2014b 2014b 2014b 20141, Sediment Ingestion Rate [IFSadj mg/day NA NA NA 10 USEPA, 2011 10 USEPA, 10 USEPA, 5 USEPA, NA [4] 2011 [4] 2011 [4] 2011141 Fraction Ingested unitless NA NA NA 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site - 181 [6] [s] [s] specific Age -Adjusted Sediment Ingestion Rate mg-yr/kg-day NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA 7 Age -Adjusted Sediment Ingestion Factor- IFSM mg-yr/kg-day NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA 29 Mutagenic Dermal Exposure with Sediment Exposed Skin Surface Area SA crm' NA NA NA 3820 USEPA, 2011 6378 USEPA, 13350 USEPA, 20900 USEPA, NA [12] 2014a 2011 [111 2014a Sediment Adherence Factor AF mg/cm' NA NA NA 0.10 USEPA, 2011 0.10 USEPA, 0.10 USEPA, 0.07 USEPA, NA [9] 2011 [9] 2011 [9] 2011 [8] Fraction Dermal EV event/day NA NA NA 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 site - [6] [6] [6] [6] specific Age -Adjusted Dermal Contact Factor DFSadj mg-yr/kg-day NA NA NA 87 NA NA NA 741 Age -Adjusted Dermal Contact Factor- DFSM NA NA NA 260 NA NA NA 2454 mg-yr/kg-day Mutagenic Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 18 1/11/2016 Page 2 of 5 TABLE 1-1 HUMAN HEALTH EXPOSURE PARAMETERS RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITE: DUKEENERGY Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 19 1/11/2016 Current/Future On -Site Current/Future Off -Site Resident Trespasser Current/Futurs Off -Site Recreational Swimmer Child and Adult (Ages Adolescent (6-<16 Adolescent (6-<16 Child, Adolescent Child (Age <61 Adult 1-26) Child (Age �6) Adult and Adult (Ages 1 - Parameter Units years) years) 26) Incidental Ingestion of Groundwater [17] Exposure Frequency EF days/year NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Water Ingestion Rate IR Uday NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fraction Ingested FI unitless NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Dermal Exposure with Groundwater Exposure Frequency EF days/year NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Exposed Skin Surface Area SA cm' NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Exposure Time t -event hr/event NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eventsper Day EV event/day NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Incidental Ingestion of Surface Water [17] Exposure Frequency EF days/year NA NA NA 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 20141, 20146 2014b 20141, 20146 Water Ingestion Rate IR Uday NA NA NA 0.02 USEPA, 0.10 USEPA, 0.10 USEPA, 0.10 USEPA, NA 2014b [13] 2014b [13] 20141, [13] 20141b [13] Fraction Ingested FI unitless NA NA NA 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site - [5] [5] [5] [5] specific Age -Adjusted Water Ingestion Rate IFWadj Ukg NA NA NA 0.2 NA NA NA 3.4 Age -Adjusted Water Ingestion Factor- IFWM Ukg NA NA NA 0.6 NA NA NA 13.2 Mutagenic Dermal Exposure with Surface Water Exposure Frequency EF days/year NA NA NA 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA,: 20141b 20146 2014b 2014b 20141, Exposed Skin Surface Area SA cm' NA NA NA 3820 USEPA, 2011 6378 USEPA, 13350 USEPA, 20900 USEPA, NA [12] 2014a 2011 [N] 2014a Exposure Time t -event hr/event NA NA NA 2 Site-specific 2 Site-specific 2 Site-specific 2 Site-specific 2 [5] [5] [5] [5] Events per Day EV event/day NA NA NA 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site -speck 1.0 Site - [5] [5] [5] [5] specific Age -Adjusted Dermal Contact Factor DFWadj events-cm2/kg NA NA NA 39068 NA NA NA 368901 Age -Adjusted Dermal Contact Factor- DFWM events-cm'/kg NA NA NA 117205 NA NA NA 1139453 Mutagenic Ingestion of Fish - Subsistence Angler Fish Ingestion Rate IR g/day NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fraction Ingested FI unitless NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Exposure Frequency EF days/year NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ingestion of Fish - Recreational Angler Fish Ingestion Rate IR g/day NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fraction Ingested FI unitless NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Exposure Frequency EF days/year NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 19 1/11/2016 Page 3 of 5 TABLE 1-1 HUMAN HEALTH EXPOSURE PARAMETERS RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITE: DUKEENERGY Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 20 1/11/2016 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Wader Current/Future On- Current/Future On - Parameter Units Current/Future Off- Site Recreational Boater Current/Future Off -Site Fisher Site Commercial/ Industrial Worker Site Construction Worker Child (Age <6) Adolescent (6-<16 years) Adult Child, Adolescent and Adult (Ages 1 - 26) Standard Parameters Body Weight BW kg 15 USEPA, 44 USEPA, 80 USEPA, NA 80 USEPA, 80 USEPA, 2014a 80 USEPA, 80 USEPA, 2011 [1] 2011 [1] 2014a 2014a 2014a 2014a Exposure Duration ED years 6 Ages <6 10 Ages 6 - <16 10 Balance of 26 Site- 10 Balance of 10 Balance of 26 -yr 25 USEPA, 1 USEPA, 2002 26 -yr specific 26 -yr exposure 2014a exposure exposure Non—carcinogenic Averaging Time Atnc days 2190 ED 3650 ED 3650 ED 9490 ED 3650 ED 3650 ED expressed in 9125 ED 365 ED expressed in expressed in expressed in expressed expressed in days expressed in expressed in days days days in days days days days Carcinogenic Averaging Time Atc days 25550 70 year 25550 70 year 25550 70 year 25550 70 year 25550 70 year 25550 70 year lifetime 25550 70 year 25550 70 year lifetime lifetime lifetime lifetime lifetime lifetime lifetime Incidental Ingestion of Soil Exposure Frequency EF days/year NA NA NA NA NA NA 250 USEPA, 60 Site-specific 2014a [16] Soil Ingestion Rate IR mg/day NA NA NA NA NA NA 100 USEPA, 330 USEPA, 2014a 2002 Fraction Ingested FI uni6ess NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.0 USEPA, 1.0 USEPA, 2002 2014. Age -Adjusted Soil Ingestion Rate IFSadj mg-yr/kg-day NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Age -Adjusted Soil Ingestion Factor- IFSM mg-yr/kg-day Mutagenic Dermal Exposure with Soil Exposed Skin Surface Area SA cm2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3470 USEPA, 3470 USEPA, 2014a 2014a Soil Adherence Factor AF mg/cm' NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.12 USEPA, 0.3 USEPA, 2002 2014a Fraction Dermal EV event/day NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.0 USEPA, 1.0 USEPA, 2002 2014. Age -Adjusted Dermal Contact Factor DFSadj mg-yr/kg-day NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Age -Adjusted Dermal Contact Factor- DFSM mg-yr/kg-day Mutagenic Particulate Inhalation Exposure Time ET- hours/day NA NA NA NA NA NA 4 Site-specific 8 USEPA, [14] 2014a Incidental Ingestion of Sediment Exposure Frequency EF dayslyear 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 2014b 12 Site-specifc NA 2014b 2014b 20141, 2014b 2014b [14] Sediment Ingestion Rate IR mg/day 10 USEPA, 10 USEPA, 5 USEPA, NA 5 USEPA, 5 USEPA, 2011 5 USEPA, 2011 NA 2011 [4] 2011 [4] 2011 [41 2011 [4] [4] 141 Fraction Ingested FI uni6ess 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site- 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific [6] 1.0 USEPA, NA [6] [6] [6] specific [6] 2014a Age -Adjusted Sediment Ingestion Rate IFSadj mg-yr/kg-day NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA Age -Adjusted Sediment Ingestion Factor- IFSM mg-yr/kg-day NA NA NA 29 NA NA NA NA Mutagenic Dermal Exposure with Sediment Exposed Skin Surface Area SA crm' 1770 USEPA, 3820 USEPA, 5790 USEPA, NA 5790 USEPA, 5790 USEPA, 2011 670 USEPA, 2011 NA 2011 [121 2011 [121 2011 [12) 2011 [121 [121 [151 AF mg/cm' 0.10 USEPA, 0.10 USEPA, 0.07 USEPA, NA 0.1 USEPA, NA Sediment Adherence Factor 0.1 USEPA, 0.1 USEPA, 2011 2011 [9] 2011 [9] 2011 [8] 2011 Jul 1 [8] 2014a Fraction Dermal EV event/day 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site- 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific [6] 1,0 USEPA, NA. [6] [6] [6] specific [6] 2014a Age -Adjusted Dermal Contact Factor DFSadj mg-yr/kg-day NA NA NA 208 NA NA NA NA Age -Adjusted Dermal Contact Factor- DFSM NA NA NA 689 NA NA NA NA mg-yr/kg-day Mutagenic Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 20 1/11/2016 Page 4 of 5 TABLE 1-1 HUMAN HEALTH EXPOSURE PARAMETERS RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITE: DUKEENERGY Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 21 1/11/2016 Current/Future Off -Site Recreational Wader Current/Future On. Current/Future On - Current/Future Off- Site Commercial/ Site Construction Child, Adolescent Child (Age <6) Adolescent (6-<16 Adult and Adult (Ages 1 - Site Recreational Current/Future Off -Site Industrial Worker Worker Parameter Units years) 26) Boater Fisher Incidental Ingestion of Groundwater [17] Exposure Frequency EF days/year NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 60 Site-specific [16] Water Ingestion Rate IR L/day NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.004 USEPA, 2011 [101 Fraction Ingested FI unitless NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.0 Assumption Dermal Exposure with Groundwater Exposure Frequency EF days/year NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 60 Site-specifio [16] Exposed Skin Surface Area SA cm' NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 670 USEPA, 2011 [15] Exposure Time t -event hr/event NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.6 Site-specific 116] Events per Day EV event/day NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.0 Assumption Incidental Ingestion of Surface Water [17] Exposure Frequency EF days/year 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, NA NA NA NA 2014b 2014b 20141, 2014b Water Ingestion Rate IR L/day 0.10 USEPA, 0.02 USEPA, 0.02 USEPA, NA NA NA NA NA 20141, [13] 2014b [13]2014b [13] Fraction Ingested FI uni8ess 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site- NA NA NA NA 151 [5] [5] specific Age -Adjusted Water Ingestion Rate IFWad] L/kg NA NA NA 2.12 NA NA NA NA Age -Adjusted Water Ingestion Factor- IFWM L/kg NA NA NA 10.33 NA NA NA NA Mutagenic Dermal Exposure with Surface Water Exposure Frequency EF days/year 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 45 USEPA, 2014b 12 Site-specific NA 20141, 20141, 2014b 2014b 20141, [14] Exposed Skin Surface Area SA cm2 1770 USEPA, 3820 USEPA, 5790 USEPA, NA 5790 USEPA, 5790 USEPA, 2011 670 USEPA, 2011 NA 2011 [12) 2011 [12] 2011 [12] 2011 [12) [12] [151 Exposure Time t -event hr/event 2 Site-specific 2 Site-specific 2 Site-specific 2 2 Site-specific 2 Site-specific [5] 4 Site -speck NA [5] [5] [5] [5] [14] Events per Day EV eventiday 1.0 Site -speck 1.0 Site-specfic 1.0 Site-specific 1.0 Site- 1 Site-specific 1 Site-specific [5] 1.0 Assumption NA 151 151 151 specific 151 Age -Adjusted Dermal Contact Factor DFWadj events-cm2/kg NA NA NA 103497 NA NA NA NA Age -Adjusted Dermal Contact Factor- DFWM eventscm'/kg NA NA NA 319693 NA NA NA NA Mutagenic Ingestion of Fish - Subsistence Angler Fish Ingestion Rate IR g/day NA NA NA NA NA Adult: 170 USEPA, 2000 NA NA [18] Child: 98 USEPA, 2011 [20] Fraction Ingested FI unitless NA NA NA NA NA 1.0 Site-specific. NA NA Assumes 100 offish is from the Site. Exposure Frequency EF days/year NA NA NA NA NA 365 NA NA Ingestion of Fish - Recreational Angler Fish Ingestion Rate IR g/day NA NA NA NA NA Adult: 17.5 USEPA, 2000 NA NA [19] Adolescent: USEPA, 2011 7.6 [21[ Fraction Ingested FI unitless NA NA NA NA NA 1.0 Site-specific. NA NA Assumes 100 of fish is from the Site. Exposure Frequency EF days/year NA NA NA NA NA 365 NA NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 21 1/11/2016 Page 5 of 5 TABLE 1-1 HUMAN HEALTH EXPOSURE PARAMETERS RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITE: DUKEENERGY Notes and Abbreviations USEPA, 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume 1, Fish Sampling and Analysis, Third Edition. EPA 823-B-00-007. USEPA Office of Water. 2000. USEPA, 2002 - Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. OWSWER 9355.4-24 USEPA, 2011 - Exposure Factors Handbook. USEPA/600/R-10/030. October, 2011. USEPA, 2014a - Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER 9200.1-120. February 6, 201. USEPA, 20141,- Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance. January 2014. Draft Final. [i] - Table 8-1 of USEPA (2011). [2] - Assumes 2 hours per day. [3] - One-tenth of the value for swimming (49 ml/hour; Table 3-5 of USEPA (2011)) used to approximate incidental ingestion during wading in washes during storm water events. [4] - Table 5-1 of USEPA (2011), recommended value for soil plus dust. For sediment, these values are adjusted by a factor of 0.1 to account for the lower sediment exposure potential. [5] - Assumes 2 hours per event and that on days when play in water occurs, all daily exposure to water is derived from locations at the Site. [6] - Assumes that on days when visitation to the Site occurs , all daily exposure to soil is derived from locations at the Site. [!] - Based on surface area of face, hands, forearms, lower legs. [e] - Based on weighted skin adherence tactor for'sporls-oudoors'. [9] - Based on weighted skin adherence factor for'activities with soil'. [7 0] - One-tenth of the value for swimming (21 ml/hour; Table 3-5 of USEPA (2011)) used to approximate incidental ingestion during wading. [71] - Based on weighted average of mean values for 6-16 years. [12] - Based on surface area of hands, forearms, lower legs, and feet. [13] - Ingestion of 50 milliliter per hour (ml/hour) of surface water should be used for exposures to water during swimming. Intake rates for exposure to surface water during wading should be 50 ml/hour for children 1-6 and 10 ml/hour for adolescents and adults. The water ingestion rate in liters/day is calculated as follows: ingestion (ml/hr) x exposure time (hr/event)/1000 (mill). [14] -Assumes contact with surface water and sediment in a seep area and/or on-site tributary one day per month for half a day (4 hours). [75]- Based on surface area of hands and forearms. [16] - Assumes that excvation work occurs a total of 12 work -weeks over the duration of a one year construction project and that contact with groundwater in a trench occurs for a portion of each excavation work -day. [1 7] - Drinking water will be evaluated by comparison of groundwater and surface water data to drinking water criteria. [18] - Value is the 95th percentile for Native American subsistence fishers (USEPA, 2000). [1 91 - Value is the 95th percentile for recreational fishers (USEPA, 2000). [20] - Value is the 95th percentile for Native American subsistence fishers ages 0 - 5 from same source used to derive 95th percentile for adult Native American subsistence fishers (EFH, Table 10-6). [21] - Value is the average of mean ingestion rates for children of consuming recreational anglers ages 6 - 20 (EFH, Table 10-5). Values are based on time -weighted average of child, adolescent, and adult exposure values, calculated as follows: Soil EF = (child EF x child ED) + (adolescent EF x adolescent ED) + (adult EF x adult ED) / total scenario ED IFSadj = (child ED x child IR / child BW)+ (adolescent ED x adolescent IR / adolescent BW) + (adult ED x adult IR / adult BW) DFSadj = (child ED x child SA x child AF / child BW)+ (adolescdent ED x adolescent SA x adolescent AF / adolescent BW) + (adult ED x adult SA x adult AF / adult BW) ET = (child ET x child ED) + (adolescent ET x adolescent ED)+ (adult ET x adult ED) / total scenario ED Soil - mutagenic IFSM = (child ED [0-2] x child IR [0-2] x ADAF [0-2] / child BW [0-2]) + (child ED [2-6] x child IR [2-6] x ADAF [2-6] / child BW [2-6])+ (older child ED [6-16] x older child IR [6-16] x ADAF [6-16] / older child BW [6-16])+ (adult ED x adult IR x adult ADAF / adult BW) DFSM = (child ED [0-2] x child SA [0-2] x child AF [0-2] x ADAF [0-2] / child BW [0-2]) + (child ED [2-6] x child SA [2-6] x child AF [2-6] x ADAF [2-6] / child BW [2-6]) + (older child ED [6-16] x older child SA [6-16] x older child AF [6-16] x ADAF [6-16] / older child BW [6-16]) + (adult ED x adult SA x adult AF x adult ADAF / adu INHF = [(child ET [0-2] x child EF [0-2] x child ED [0-2] x ADAF [0-2]) + (child ET [2-6] x child EF [2-6] x child ED [2-6] x ADAF [2-6]) + (older child ET [6-16] x older child EF [6-16] x older child ED [6-16] x ADAF [6-16]) + (adult ET x adult EF x adult ED x adult ADAF)] Water IFWadj = (child ED [0-2] x child EF [0-2] x child IR [0-2] / child BW [0-2]) + (child ED [2-6] x child EF [2-6] x child IR [2-6] / child BW [2-6])+ (older child ED [6-16] x older child EF [6-16] x older child IR [6-16] / older child BW [6-16]) + (adult ED x adult EF x adult IR / adult BW) DFWadj = (child EF [0-2] x child ED [0-2] x child SA [0-2] x child EV [0-2] / child BW [0-2]) + (child EF [2-61 x child ED [2-6] x child SA [2-6] x child EV [2-6] / child BW [2-6]) + (older child EF [6-16] x older child ED [6-16] x older child SA [6-16] x older child EV [6-16] / older child BW [6-16])+ (adult EF x adult ED x adult SA x a Water- mutagenic IFWM = (child ED [0-2] x child EF [0-2] x child IR [0-2] x ADAF [0-2] / child BW [0-2]) + (child ED [2-6] x child EF [2-6] x child IR [2-6] x ADAF [2-6] / child BW [2-6]) + (older child ED [6-16] x child EF [6-16] x older child IR [6-16] x ADAF [6-16] / older child BW [6-16]) + (adult ED x adult EF x adult IR x adult ADAF /adult BW) DFWM = (child EF [0-2] x child ED [0-2] x child SA [0-2] x child EV [0-2] x ADAF [0-2] / child BW [0-2]) + (child EF [2-6] x child ED [2-6] x child SA [2-6] x child EV [2-6] x ADAF [2-6] / child BW [2-6]) + (older child EF [6-16] x older child ED [6-16] x older child SA [6-16] x older child EV [6-16] x ADAF [6-16] / older child BW [6-1E (adult EF x adult ED x adult SA x adult EV x adult ADAF / adult BW) USEPA guidance for early life exposure to carcinogens (USEPA, 2005) requires that risks for potentially carcinogenic constituents that are presumed to act by a mutagenic mode of action be calculated differently than for constituents that do not act via a mutagenic mode of action. Therefore, the age -dependent adjustment factors (ADAF) will be applied for calculations involving children under the age of 16. The ADAFs are as follows: Age 0 to 2 years (2 year interval from birth until 2nd birthday)—ADAF = 10 Ages 2 to 16 years (14 year interval from 2nd birthday to 16th birthday) —ADAF = 3 Ages 16 and up (after 16th birthday)— no adjustment -ADAF = 1 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 22 1/11/2016 TABLE 2-1 HUMAN HEALTH TOXICITY VALUES - CANCER AND INHALATiON NON -CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITES DUKE ENERGY Constituent CAS Chronic Inhalation Reference Concentration RfC-i mg/m3 REF Subchronic Inhalation Reference Concentration RfC-i mg/m3 REF Oral Cancer Slope Factor CSF -o 1/(mg/kg/day) REF Dermal Cancer Slope Factor CSF -d 1/(mg/kg/day) REF Inhalation Unit Risk IUR 1/(Ng/m3) REF Mutagen Metals Aluminum 7429-90-5 5.0E-03 P 5.0E-03 Cr N Antimony 7440-36-0 N Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.5E-05 C 1.5E-05 Cr 1.5E+00 I 1.5E+00 I 4.3E-03 I N Barium 7440-39-3 5.0E-04 H 5.0E-03 H N Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.0E-05 I 2.0E-05 H 2.4E-03 I N Boron 7440-42-8 2.0E-02 H 2.0E-02 H N Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.0E-05 C 2.0E-05 Cr 1.8E-03 I N Calcium 7440-70-2 N Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 N Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.0E-04 I 3.0E-04 A 8.4E-02 I N Chromium VI (hexavalent) (a) 18540-29-9 1.0E-04 I 3.0E-04 A 5.0E-01 J 8.4E-02 I Y Chromium III 16065-83-1 N Cobalt 7440-48-4 6.0E-06 P 2.0E-05 P 9.0E-03 P N Copper 7440-50-8 N Iron 7439-89-6 N Lead 7439-92-1 N Magnesium 7439-95-4 N Manganese (b) 7439-96-5 5.0E-05 I 5.0E-05 Cr N Mercury 7439-97-6 3.0E-04 I 3.0E-04 H N Molybdenum 7439-98-7 N Nickel 7440-02-0 9.0E-05 A 2.0E-04 A 2.4E-04 I N Potassium 7440-09-7 N Selenium 7782-49-2 2.0E-02 C 2.0E-02 Cr N Sodium 7440-23-5 N Strontium 7440-24-6 N Thallium 7440-28-0 N Titanium 7440-32-6 1.0E-04 A N Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.0E-04 A 1.0E-04 A N Zinc 7440-66-6 N General Chemistry Alkalinity ALK N Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB N Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB N Chloride 7647-14-5 N Methane 74-82-8 N Nitrate 14797-55-8 N pH PH N Sulfate 7757-82-6 N Sulfide 18496-25-8 N Total Dissolved Solids TDS N Total Organic Carbon TOC N Total Suspended Solids I TSS I N Notes: A - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (MRL) C - California Environmental Protection Agency. CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act 2014, North Carolina Session Law 2014-122. Page 1 of 5 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. G:\42058_Duk \tR df G'gWelSuWNCl Otl,-OMUWy�f&s.xlsx, Inhalation and Cancer 23 1/11/2016 TABLE 2-1 HUMAN HEALTH TOXICITY VALUES - CANCER AND INHALATiON NON -CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITES DUKE ENERGY CAS - Chemical Abstracts ServicE Cr - Chronic value. EN - Essential Nutrient. I - Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). H - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). J - New Jersey; as provided on the USEPA RSL table. mg/kg -day - Milligrams per kilograms body weigt Page 2 of 5 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. G:\42058_Dukdft2df G'gWelSuWN lAOt),-OMUWy f&s.xlsx, Inhalation and Cancer 24 1/11/2016 Chronic Subchronic Inhalation Inhalation Reference Reference Oral Dermal Concentration Concentration Cancer Slope Cancer Slope Inhalation RfC-i RfC-i Factor Factor Unit Risk CSF -o CSF -d IUR Constituent CAS mg/m3 REF mg/m3 REF 1/(mg/kg/day) REF 1/(mg/kg/day) REF 1/(Ng/m3) REF Mutagen CAS - Chemical Abstracts ServicE Cr - Chronic value. EN - Essential Nutrient. I - Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). H - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). J - New Jersey; as provided on the USEPA RSL table. mg/kg -day - Milligrams per kilograms body weigt Page 2 of 5 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. G:\42058_Dukdft2df G'gWelSuWN lAOt),-OMUWy f&s.xlsx, Inhalation and Cancer 24 1/11/2016 TABLE 2-2 HUMAN HEALTH ORAL NONCANCER TOXICITY VALUES RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITES DUKE ENERGY Page 3 of 5 Constituent CAS Chronic Oral Reference Dose RfD-o (mg/kg -day) REF Chronic Dermal Reference Dose RfD-d (mg/kg -day) REF USEPA Confidence Level Combined Uncertainty/ Modifying Factors Primary Target Critical Endpoint Subchronic Oral Reference Dose RfD-o (mg/kg -day) REF Subchronic Dermal Reference Dose RfD-d (mg/kg -day) REF USEPA Confidence Level Combined Uncertainty/ Modifying Factors Primary Target Critical Endpoint Metals Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.0E+00 P 1.0E+00 P Low 100 Neurological Neurological Toxicity 1.0E+00 A 1.0E+00 A NA 30 Neurological Neurological Toxicity Antimony 7440-36-0 4.0E-04 I 6.0E-05 I Low 1000 Mortality, Blood Longevity, blood glucose, and cholesterol 4.0E-04 P 6.0E-05 P Low 1000 Mortality, Blood Longevity, blood glucose, and cholesterol Hyperpigmentation, keratosis and possible Hyperpigmentation, keratosis and possible Arsenic 7440-38-2 3.0E-04 I 3.0E-04 I Medium 3 Skin, Vascular vascular complications 3.0E-04 Cr 3.0E-04 Cr Medium 3 Skin, Vascular vascular complications Barium 7440-39-3 2.0E-01 I 1.4E-02 I Medium 300 Kidney Nephropathy 2.0E-01 A 1.4E-02 A Medium 300 Kidney Nephropathy Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.0E-03 I 1.4E-05 I Low/Medium 300 Gastrointestinal Small intestinal lesions 5.0E-03 H 5.0E-03 H Low/Medium 300 Gastrointestinal Small intestinal lesions Boron 7440-42-8 2.0E-01 I 2.0E-01 I High 66 Developmental Decreased fetal weight (developmental) 2.0E-01 A 2.0E-01 A High 66 Developmental Decreased fetal weight (developmental) Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.0E-03 I 2.5E-05 I High 10 Kidney Significant proteinuria 1.0E-03 Cr 2.5E-05 Cr High 10 Kidney Significant proteinuria Calcium 7440-70-2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.5E+00 I 2.0E-02 I Low 100 No effects observed No effects observed 1.5E+00 H 2.0E-02 H Low 100 No effects observed No effects observed Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.0E-03 I 7.5E-05 I Low 900 None reported None reported 5.0E-03 A 1.3E-04 A NA 100 Blood Microcytic, hypochromic anemia Chromium VI (hexavalent) (a) 18540-29-9 3.0E-03 I 7.5E-05 I Low 900 None reported None reported 5.0E-03 A 1.3E-04 A NA 100 Blood Microcytic, hypochromic anemia Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.5E+00 I 2.0E-02 I Low 100 None No effects observed 1.5E+00 H 2.0E-02 H Low 100 None No effects observed Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.0E-04 P 3.0E-04 P Low/Medium 3000 Thyroid Decreased iodine uptake 3.0E-03 P 3.0E-03 P Low/Medium 300 Thyroid Decreased iodine uptake Copper 7440-50-8 4.0E-02 H 4.0E-02 H NA NA Gastrointestinal Gastrointestinal system irritation 4.0E-02 Cr 4.0E-02 Cr NA NA Gastrointestinal Gastrointestinal system irritation Iron 7439-89-6 7.0E-01 P 7.0E-01 P NA NA Gastrointestinal Gastrointestinal toxicity 7.0E-01 P 7.0E-01 P NA NA Gastrointestinal Gastrointestinal toxicity Lead 7439-92-1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA CNS Effects (Other Effect: Impairment of CNS Effects (Other Effect: Impairment of Manganese (b) 7439-96-5 1.4E-01 I 5.6E-03 I Medium 3 Neurological Neurobehavioral Function) 1.4E-01 H 5.6E-03 H Medium 3 Neurological Neurobehavioral Function) Mercury 7439-97-6 3.0E-04 1 2.1E-05 I High 1000 Immune Autoimmune 2.0E-03 A 1.4E-04 A NA 100 Kidney Renal effects Molybdenum 7439-98-7 5.0E-03 I 5.0E-03 I Medium 30 Urinary Increased uric acid levels 5.0E-03 H 5.0E-03 H Medium 30 Urinary Increased uric acid levels Nickel 7440-02-0 2.0E-02 I 8.0E-04 I Medium 300 General Decreased body and organ weights 2.0E-02 H 8.0E-04 H Medium 300 Decreased body and organ weights Potassium 7440-09-7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Selenium 7782-49-2 5.0E-03 I 5.0E-03 I High 3 Skin, Nails, Hair,B Clinical selenosis 5.0E-03 H 5.0E-03 H High 3 Skin, Nails, Hair,B Clinical selenosis Sodium 7440-23-5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Strontium 7440-24-6 6.0E-01 I 6.0E-01 I Medium 300 Musculoskeletal Rachitic bone 2.0E+00 A 2.0E+00 A NA 90 Musculoskeletal Skeletal toxicity Thallium 7440-28-0 1.0E-05 X 1.0E-05 X 3000 Hair Hair follicle atrophy 1.0E-05 X 1.0E-05 X 3000 Hair Hair follicle atrophy Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA Hematological alterations and blood Vanadium 7440-62-2 5.0E-03 I 1.3E-04 I Low 100 Hair Decreased hair cystine 1.0E-02 A 1.0E-02 A NA 10 Blood pressure Decreases in erythrocyte Cu, Zn -superoxide Decreases in erythrocyte Cu, Zn -superoxide dismutase (ESOD) activity in dismutase (ESOD) activity in Zinc 7440-66-6 3.0E-01 I 3.0E-01 I Medium/High 3 Blood healthy adult male and female volunteers 3.0E-01 A 3.0E-01 A NA 3 Blood healthy adult male and female volunteers General Chemistry Alkalinity ALK NA NA NA NA NA NA Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB NA NA NA NA NA NA Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB NA NA NA NA NA NA Chloride 7647-14-5 NA NA NA NA NA NA Methane 74-82-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA Early clinical signs of methemoglobinemia in Early clinical signs of methemoglobinemia in excess of 10% (0-3 months old infants excess of 10% (0-3 months old infants Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.6E+00 I 1.6E+00 I High 1 Blood formula) 1.6E+00 Cr 1.6E+00 Cr High 1 Blood formula) pH PH NA NA NA NA NA NA Sulfate 7757-82-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Dissolved Solids TDS NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Organic Carbon TOC NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Suspended Solids TSS NA NA NA NA NA NA Haley & Aldrich Inc P#f@g BBY6-bWYiAr4. WWato)S?JaWM;WiiICSubch Oral Derm NC 25 1/11/2016 TABLE 2-2 HUMAN HEALTH ORAL NONCANCER TOXICITY VALUES RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITES DUKE ENERGY Page 4 of 5 Notes: A - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (MRL) mg/m3 - Milligrams per cubic meter. C - California Environmental Protection Agency. N - No. CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act 2014, North Carolina Session Law 2014-122. P - Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV). CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service REF - Reference. Cr - Chronic value. RSL - Risk-based Screening Level. EN - Essential Nutrient. ug/m3 - Micrograms per cubic Meter. I - Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). USEPA - US Environmental Protection Agency. H - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). X - Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV) Appendix. J - New Jersey; as provided on the USEPA RSL table. Y - Yes. mg/kg -day - Milligrams per kilograms body weight per day. (a) - The basis of the draft oral cancer toxicity value used in the calculation of the RSL has been questioned by USEPA's Science Advisory Board. (b) - RfD for food used because manganese is expected to be present in a less bioavailable form in environmental media, particularly given the presence of iron which will reduce manganese absorption. Haley & Aldrich Inc P* @g�BY6-bWYiAr4. WWato)S?JaWM;WiiICSubch Oral Derm NC 26 1/11/2016 Subchronic Chronic Oral Chronic Dermal Subchronic Oral Dermal Reference Dose Reference Dose Combined Reference Dose Reference Dose Combined RfD-o RfD-d USEPA Uncertainty/ RfD-o RfD-d USEPA Uncertainty/ Confidence Modifying Confidence Modifying Constituent CAS (mg/kg -day) REF (mg/kg -day) REF Level Factors Primary Target Critical Endpoint (mg/kg -day) REF (mg/kg -day) REF Level Factors Primary Target Critical Endpoint Notes: A - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (MRL) mg/m3 - Milligrams per cubic meter. C - California Environmental Protection Agency. N - No. CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act 2014, North Carolina Session Law 2014-122. P - Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV). CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service REF - Reference. Cr - Chronic value. RSL - Risk-based Screening Level. EN - Essential Nutrient. ug/m3 - Micrograms per cubic Meter. I - Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). USEPA - US Environmental Protection Agency. H - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). X - Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV) Appendix. J - New Jersey; as provided on the USEPA RSL table. Y - Yes. mg/kg -day - Milligrams per kilograms body weight per day. (a) - The basis of the draft oral cancer toxicity value used in the calculation of the RSL has been questioned by USEPA's Science Advisory Board. (b) - RfD for food used because manganese is expected to be present in a less bioavailable form in environmental media, particularly given the presence of iron which will reduce manganese absorption. Haley & Aldrich Inc P* @g�BY6-bWYiAr4. WWato)S?JaWM;WiiICSubch Oral Derm NC 26 1/11/2016 Page 5 of 5 TABLE 2-3 DERMAL ABSORPTION FACTORS AND DERMAL PERMEABILITY CONSTANT; RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITES DUKE ENERGY Constituent CAS Dermal Absorption Fraction (ABSd) (unitless) Dermal Permeability Constant (Kp) (cm/hr) (b) Metals Aluminum Antimony 7429-90-5 7440-36-0 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 Arsenic 7440-38-2 0.03 1.0E-03 Barium 7440-39-3 1.0E-03 Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.0E-03 Boron 7440-42-8 1.0E-03 Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.001 1.0E-03 Calcium 7440-70-2 1.0E-03 Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.0E-03 Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 0.1 2.0E-03 Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.0E-03 Cobalt 7440-48-4 4.0E-04 Copper 7440-50-8 1.0E-03 Iron 7439-89-6 1.0E-03 Lead 7439-92-1 1.0E-04 Magnesium 7439-95-4 1.0E-03 Manganese 7439-96-5 1.0E-03 Mercury 7439-97-6 1.0E-03 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.0E-03 Nickel 7440-02-0 2.0E-04 Potassium 7440-09-7 2.0E-04 Selenium 7782-49-2 1.0E-03 Sodium 7440-23-5 6.0E-04 Strontium 7440-24-6 1.0E-03 Thallium 7440-28-0 1.0E-03 Titanium 7440-32-6 1.0E-03 Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.0E-03 Zinc 7440-66-6 6.0E-04 General Chemistry Alkalinity ALK NA Bicarbonate Alkalinity ALKBICARB NA Carbonate Alkalinity ALKCARB NA Chloride 7647-14-5 NA Methane 74-82-8 NA Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.0E-03 pH PH NA Sulfate 7757-82-6 NA Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Total Dissolved Solids TDS NA Total Organic Carbon TOC NA Total Suspended Solids TSS NA Notes: ABS - absorption factor. CAMA - Coal Ash Management Act 2014. (a) - USEPA, 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1, Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. Exhibit 4-1. Where USEPA, 2004 does not recommend adjustments, no value is listed. (b) - USEPA, 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1, Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Haley & Aldrich, Inc. G: 42d5'�e�ll��o�D�+�h�?1�lCid-�I�f)A�I-i(�Ciliil�rya�®r�Ftlsx, Dermal values (2) 27 1/11/2016 TABLE 2-4 WATER TO FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS (BCFs) USED IN THE FOOD CHAIN MODEL' RISK ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN FOR CAMA SITES DUKE ENERGY Analyte Chemical Abstract Number Bioconcentration Reference Factor Aluminum 7429-90-5 2.7 USEPA, 1999 Antimony 7440-36-0 40 USEPA, 1999 Arsenic 7440-38-2 114 USEPA, 1999 Barium 7440-39-3 633 USEPA, 1999 Beryllium 7440-41-7 62 USEPA, 1999 Boron 7440-42-8 0.3 WHO, 1998 Cadmium 7440-43-9 907 USEPA, 1999 Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 19 USEPA, 1999 Cobalt 7440-48-4 400 IAEA, 2012 Copper 7440-50-8 710 USEPA, 1999 Cyanide 57-12-5 633 USEPA, 1999 Lead 7439-92-1 0.1 USEPA, 1999 Lithium 7439-93-2 1 NCRP, 1996 Manganese 7439-96-5 2.4 IAEA, 2012 Mercury 7439-97-6 4500 IAEA, 2012 Nickel 7440-02-0 71 USEPA, 1999 Selenium 7782-49-2 1000 OEHHA, 2010 Silver 7440-22-4 87.7 USEPA, 1999 Strontium 7440-24-6 30 USNRC, 1977 Thallium 7440-28-0 190 USEPA, 1999 Uranium 7440-61-1 2.4 IAEA, 2012 Vanadium 7440-62-2 290 IAEA, 2012 Zinc 7440-66-6 2059 USEPA, 1999 'The values are typically the maximum value cited in the Reference. If the maximum value was not chosen (based on professional judgment), the value generally falls within the range cited in the scientific literature. Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 28 Table 4-1 Summary of Risk Based Concentrations Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Soil ON-SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<16) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy 1of18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer (mg/kg) Final (mg/kg) Basis Aluminum 7429-90-5 3.6E+06 3.6E+06 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 1.4E+03 1.4E+03 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.5E+03 2.4E+03 1.5E+03 nc Barium 7440-39-3 7.1E+05 7.1E+05 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 7.1E+03 8.7E+08 7.1E+03 nc Boron 7440-42-8 7.1E+05 7.1E+05 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.2E+03 1.2E+09 3.2E+03 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 5.4E+06 5.4E+06 nc Chromium A (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.1E+04 1.7E+03 1.7E+03 c Chromium III 16065-83-1 5.4E+06 5.4E+06 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.1E+03 2.3E+08 1.1E+03 nc Copper 7440-50-8 1.4E+05 1.4E+05 nc Iron 7439-89-6 2.5E+06 2.5E+06 nc Lead 7439-92-1 4.0E+02 nc Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 5.0E+05 5.0E+05 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 1.1E+03 1.1E+03 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.8E+04 1.8E+04 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 7.1E+04 8.7E+09 7.1E+04 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 1.8E+04 1.8E+04 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 2.1E+06 2.1E+06 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 3.6E+01 3.6E+01 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.8E+04 1.8E+04 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 1.1E+06 1.1E+06 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 5.7E+06 5.7E+06 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 29 1/15/2016 Table 4-2 Summary of Risk Based Concentrations Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment ON-SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<16) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy 2of18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer I (mg/kg) Final (mg/kg) Basis Aluminum 7429-90-5 3.6E+07 3.6E+07 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 1.4E+04 1.4E+04 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 6.1 E+03 9.5E+03 6.1 E+03 nc Barium 7440-39-3 7.1 E+06 7.1 E+06 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 7.1 E+04 7.1 E+04 nc Boron 7440-42-8 7.1E+06 7.1E+06 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.4E+04 1.4E+04 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 5.4E+07 5.4E+07 nc Chromium A (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.1E+05 1.7E+04 1.7E+04 c Chromium III 16065-83-1 5.4E+07 5.4E+07 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.1E+04 1.1 E+04 nc Copper 7440-50-8 1.4E+06 1.4E+06 nc Iron 7439-89-6 2.5E+07 2.5E+07 nc Lead 7439-92-1 4.0E+02 nc Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 5.0E+06 5.0E+06 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 1.1E+04 1.1E+04 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.8E+05 1.8E+05 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 7.1 E+05 7.1 E+05 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 1.8E+05 1.8E+05 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 2.1E+07 2.1E+07 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 3.6E+02 3.6E+02 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.8E+05 1.8E+05 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 5.7E+07 5.7E+07 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 30 1/15/2016 Table 4-3 Summary of Risk Based Concentrations Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water & Seep Water ON-SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<16) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy 3of18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/L) Cancer (mg/L) Final (mg/L) Basis Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.3E+04 1.3E+04 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 2.0E+00 2.0E+00 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 3.9E+00 6.0E+00 3.9E+00 nc Barium 7440-39-3 5.5E+02 5.5E+02 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 6.4E-01 6.4E-01 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.6E+03 2.6E+03 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 8.8E+02 8.8E+02 nc Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.7E+00 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 c Chromium III 16065-83-1 8.8E+02 8.8E+02 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 4.6E+00 4.6E+00 nc Copper 7440-50-8 5.2E+02 5.2E+02 nc Iron 7439-89-6 9.0E+03 9.0E+03 nc Lead 7439-92-1 1.5E-02 nc Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 2.4E+02 2.4E+02 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 8.3E-01 8.3E-01 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 6.5E+01 6.5E+01 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 1.2E+02 1.2E+02 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 6.5E+01 6.5E+01 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 7.7E+03 7.7E+03 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 5.7E+00 5.7E+00 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 4.4E+03 4.4E+03 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 2.1 E+04 2.1 E+04 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 31 1/15/2016 4-4 iary of Risk Based Concentrations ation of Risk Based Concentrations - Soil AERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy 4of18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer (mg/kg) Final (mg/kg) Basis Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.2E+06 1.2E+06 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 4.7E+02 4.7E+02 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 4.8E+02 3.0E+02 3.0E+02 c Barium 7440-39-3 2.3E+05 2.3E+05 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.3E+03 3.1E+07 2.3E+03 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.3E+05 2.3E+05 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.0E+03 4.2E+07 1.0E+03 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.8E+06 1.8E+06 nc Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.5E+03 6.5E+02 6.5E+02 c Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.8E+06 1.8E+06 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.5E+02 8.3E+06 3.5E+02 nc Copper 7440-50-8 4.7E+04 4.7E+04 nc Iron 7439-89-6 8.2E+05 8.2E+05 nc Lead 7439-92-1 8.0E+02 nc Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 1.6E+05 1.6E+05 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 3.5E+02 3.5E+02 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 5.8E+03 5.8E+03 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.3E+04 3.1E+08 2.3E+04 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 5.8E+03 5.8E+03 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 7.0E+05 7.0E+05 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 5.8E+03 5.8E+03 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.5E+05 3.5E+05 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.9E+06 1.9E+06 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 32 1/15/2016 5of18 4-5 Lary of Risk Based Concentrations ttion of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment AERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer (mg/kg) Final I (mg/kg) Basis Aluminum 7429-90-5 4.91=+08 4.91=+08 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 1.9E+05 1.9E+05 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.5E+05 9.1E+04 9.1E+04 c Barium 7440-39-3 9.7E+07 9.7E+07 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 9.7E+05 9.7E+05 nc Boron 7440-42-8 9.7E+07 9.7E+07 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.2E+05 3.2E+05 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 7.3E+08 7.3E+08 nc Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.5E+06 2.7E+05 2.7E+05 c Chromium III 16065-83-1 7.3E+08 7.3E+08 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.5E+05 1.5E+05 nc Copper 7440-50-8 1.9E+07 1.9E+07 nc Iron 7439-89-6 3.4E+08 3.4E+08 nc Lead 7439-92-1 8.0E+02 nc Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 6.8E+07 6.8E+07 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 1.5E+05 1.5E+05 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 9.7E+06 9.7E+06 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 2.9E+08 2.9E+08 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 4.9E+03 4.9E+03 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 1.5E+08 1.5E+08 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 7.8E+08 7.8E+08 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 33 1/15/2016 Table 4-6 Summary of Risk Based Concentrations Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Seep Water COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy 6of18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalat No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/L) I Cancer (mg/L) I Final (mg/L) Basis Aluminum 7429-90-5 9.1E+05 Antimony 7440-36-0 5.4E+01 Arsenic 7440-38-2 2.7E+02 Barium 7440-39-3 1.3E+04 Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.3E+01 Boron 7440-42-8 1.8E+05 Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.3E+01 Calcium 7440-70-2 Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.8E+04 Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.4E+01 Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.8E+04 Cobalt 7440-48-4 6.8E+02 Copper 7440-50-8 3.6E+04 Iron 7439-89-6 6.4E+05 Lead 7439-92-1 Magnesium 7439-95-4 Manganese 7439-96-5 5.1 E+03 Mercury 7439-97-6 1.9E+01 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 4.5E+03 Nickel 7440-02-0 3.6E+03 Potassium 7440-09-7 Selenium 7782-49-2 4.5E+03 Sodium 7440-23-5 Strontium 7440-24-6 5.4E+05 Thallium 7440-28-0 Titanium 7440-32-6 Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.2E+02 Zinc 7440-66-6 4.5E+05 Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.5E+06 Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.7E+02 6.4E+00 9.1E+05 nc 5.4E+01 nc 1.7E+02 c 1.3E+04 nc 1.3E+01 nc 1.8E+05 nc 2.3E+01 nc NA 1.8E+04 nc 6.4E+00 c 1.8E+04 nc 6.8E+02 nc 3.6E+04 nc 6.4E+05 nc 1.5E-02 nc NA 5.1 E+03 nc 1.9E+01 nc 4.5E+03 nc 3.6E+03 nc NA 4.5E+03 nc NA 5.4E+05 nc NA NA 1.2E+02 nc 4.5E+05 nc 1.5E+06 nc NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 34 1/15/2016 Summary of Risk Based Concentrations Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Soil CONSTRUCTION - CONSTRUCTION WORKER (ADULT) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy - chemical of potential concern 7of18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Taraet Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer (mg/kg) FinalBasis (mg/kg) Antimony Aluminum /4Zy-JU-b l.bL+Ub LbL+U6 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 5.9E+02 5.9E+02 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 6.4E+02 9.9E+03 6.4E+02 nc Barium 7440-39-3 2.9E+05 2.9E+05 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 7.4E+03 1.6E+09 7.4E+03 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.9E+05 2.9E+05 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.3E+03 2.2E+09 1.3E+03 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 2.2E+06 2.2E+06 nc Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 7.4E+03 2.1E+04 7.4E+03 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 2.2E+06 2.2E+06 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 4.4E+03 4.3E+08 4.4E+03 nc Copper 7440-50-8 5.9E+04 5.9E+04 nc Iron 7439-89-6 1.0E+06 1.0E+06 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 2.0E+05 2.0E+05 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 2.9E+03 2.9E+03 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 7.4E+03 7.4E+03 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.9E+04 1.6E+10 2.9E+04 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 7.4E+03 7.4E+03 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 2.9E+06 2.9E+06 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.5E+04 1.5E+04 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 4.4E+05 4.4E+05 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 35 1/15/2016 Table 4-8 Summary of Risk Based Concentrations Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Groundwater CONSTRUCTION - CONSTRUCTION WORKER (ADULT) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy 8of18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/L) Cancer (mg/L) Final (mg/L) Basis Aluminum 7429-90-5 9.6E+04 9.6E+04 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 1.7E+01 1.7E+01 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 2.9E+01 4.5E+02 2.9E+01 nc Barium 7440-39-3 5.0E+03 5.0E+03 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 4.8E+02 4.8E+02 nc Boron 7440-42-8 1.9E+04 1.9E+04 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.0E+01 1.0E+01 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 8.6E+03 8.6E+03 nc Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 2.8E+01 7.6E+01 2.8E+01 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.3E+02 3.3E+02 nc Copper 7440-50-8 3.8E+03 3.8E+03 nc Iron 7439-89-6 6.7E+04 6.7E+04 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 2.2E+03 2.2E+03 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 5.0E+01 5.0E+01 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 4.8E+02 4.8E+02 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 4.8E+02 4.8E+02 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 1.9E+05 1.9E+05 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 9.6E+02 9.6E+02 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.1 E+04 3.1 E+04 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.5E+05 1.5E+05 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 36 1/15/2016 Table 4-9 Summary of Risk Based Concentrations Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL SWIMMER - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy 9of18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer (mg/kg) I FinalBasis (mg/kg) 7440-36-0 Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.2E+07 1.2E+07 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 4.9E+03 4.9E+03 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.5E+03 1.4E+03 1.4E+03 c Barium 7440-39-3 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.4E+04 2.4E+04 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.4E+03 3.4E+03 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.8E+07 1.8E+07 nc Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.7E+04 3.9E+03 3.9E+03 c Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.8E+07 1.8E+07 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.7E+03 3.7E+03 nc Copper 7440-50-8 4.9E+05 4.9E+05 nc Iron 7439-89-6 8.5E+06 8.5E+06 nc Lead 7439-92-1 4.0E+02 nc Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 1.7E+06 1.7E+06 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 3.7E+03 3.7E+03 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 6.1 E+04 6.1 E+04 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.4E+05 2.4E+05 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 6.1E+04 6.1E+04 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 7.3E+06 7.3E+06 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 1.2E+02 1.2E+02 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 6.1E+04 6.1E+04 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.7E+06 3.7E+06 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.9E+07 1.9E+07 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 37 1/15/2016 Table 4-10 Summary of Risk Based Concentrations Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL SWIMMER - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy 10 of 18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/L) Cancer (mg/L) I Final (mg/L) Basis Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.1E+03 Antimony 7440-36-0 2.6E-01 Arsenic 7440-38-2 3.2E-01 Barium 7440-39-3 8.6E+01 Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.3E-01 Boron 7440-42-8 2.2E+02 Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.0E-01 Calcium 7440-70-2 Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.7E+02 Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.3E-01 Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.7E+02 Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.5E-01 Copper 7440-50-8 4.3E+01 Iron 7439-89-6 7.6E+02 Lead 7439-92-1 Magnesium 7439-95-4 Manganese 7439-96-5 4.1 E+01 Mercury 7439-97-6 1.3E-01 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 5.4E+00 Nickel 7440-02-0 1.5E+01 Potassium 7440-09-7 Selenium 7782-49-2 5.4E+00 Sodium 7440-23-5 Strontium 7440-24-6 6.5E+02 Thallium 7440-28-0 Titanium 7440-32-6 Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.0E+00 Zinc 7440-66-6 3.4E+02 Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.7E+03 Sulfide 18496-25-8 4.1 E-01 2.0E-02 1.1E+03 nc 2.6E-01 nc 3.2E-01 nc 8.6E+01 nc 1.3E-01 nc 2.2E+02 nc 2.0E-01 nc NA 1.7E+02 nc 2.0E-02 c 1.7E+02 nc 3.5E-01 nc 4.3E+01 nc 7.6E+02 nc 1.5E-02 nc NA 4.1 E+01 nc 1.3E-01 nc 5.4E+00 nc 1.5E+01 nc NA 5.4E+00 nc NA 6.5E+02 nc NA NA 1.0E+00 nc 3.4E+02 nc 1.7E+03 nc NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 38 1/15/2016 Table 4-11 Summary of Risk Based Concentrations Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL WADER - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy 11 of 18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/kg) I Cancer (mg/kg) FinalBasis (mg/kg) 7440-36-0 Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.2E+07 1.2E+07 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 4.9E+03 4.9E+03 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 3.2E+03 3.6E+03 3.2E+03 nc Barium 7440-39-3 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.4E+04 2.4E+04 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 7.1 E+03 7.1 E+03 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.8E+07 1.8E+07 nc Chromium A (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.7E+04 3.9E+03 3.9E+03 c Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.8E+07 1.8E+07 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.7E+03 3.7E+03 nc Copper 7440-50-8 4.9E+05 4.9E+05 nc Iron 7439-89-6 8.5E+06 8.5E+06 nc Lead 7439-92-1 4.0E+02 nc Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 1.7E+06 1.7E+06 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 3.7E+03 3.7E+03 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 6.1 E+04 6.1 E+04 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.4E+05 2.4E+05 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 6.1 E+04 6.1 E+04 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 7.3E+06 7.3E+06 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 1.2E+02 1.2E+02 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 6.1 E+04 6.1 E+04 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.7E+06 3.7E+06 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.9E+07 1.9E+07 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 39 1/15/2016 Table 4-12 Summary of Risk Based Concentrations Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL WADER - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy 12 of 18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/L) I Cancer (mg/L) Final (mg/L) Basis Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.2E+03 1.2E+03 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 3.9E-01 3.9E-01 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 3.5E-01 7.3E-01 3.5E-01 nc Barium 7440-39-3 1.6E+02 1.6E+02 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 4.0E-01 4.0E-01 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.4E+02 2.4E+02 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 5.0E-01 5.0E-01 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 4.9E+02 4.9E+02 nc Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 9.5E-01 8.3E-02 8.3E-02 c Chromium III 16065-83-1 4.9E+02 4.9E+02 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.6E-01 3.6E-01 nc Copper 7440-50-8 4.7E+01 4.7E+01 nc Iron 7439-89-6 8.2E+02 8.2E+02 nc Lead 7439-92-1 1.5E-02 nc Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 9.0E+01 9.0E+01 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 2.4E-01 2.4E-01 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 5.9E+00 5.9E+00 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.1 E+01 2.1 E+01 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 5.9E+00 5.9E+00 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 7.1 E+02 7.1 E+02 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.6E+00 2.6E+00 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.6E+02 3.6E+02 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.9E+03 1.9E+03 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 40 1/15/2016 Table 4-13 Summary of Risk Based Concentrations Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL BOATER - OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL BOATER (ADULT) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy 13 of 18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer (mg/kg) Final (mg/kg) Basis Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.3E+08 1.3E+08 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 5.2E+04 5.2E+04 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 9.6E+03 1.5E+04 9.6E+03 nc Barium 7440-39-3 2.6E+07 2.6E+07 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.6E+05 2.6E+05 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.6E+07 2.6E+07 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.3E+04 2.3E+04 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.9E+08 1.9E+08 nc Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.9E+05 1.8E+05 1.8E+05 c Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.9E+08 1.9E+08 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.9E+04 3.9E+04 nc Copper 7440-50-8 5.2E+06 5.2E+06 nc Iron 7439-89-6 9.1 E+07 9.1 E+07 nc Lead 7439-92-1 4.0E+02 nc Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 1.8E+07 1.8E+07 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 3.9E+04 3.9E+04 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 6.5E+05 6.5E+05 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.6E+06 2.6E+06 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 6.5E+05 6.5E+05 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 7.8E+07 7.8E+07 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 1.3E+03 1.3E+03 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 6.5E+05 6.5E+05 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.9E+07 3.9E+07 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 2.1 E+08 2.1 E+08 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 41 1/15/2016 Table 4-14 Summary of Risk Based Concentrations Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL BOATER - RECREATIONAL BOATER (ADULT) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy 14 of 18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04_ COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/L) I Cancer g/L) Final (mg/L) Basis Aluminum 7429-90-5 5.6E+04 Antimony 7440-36-0 3.4E+00 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.7E+01 Barium 7440-39-3 7.8E+02 Beryllium 7440-41-7 7.8E-01 Boron 7440-42-8 1.1E+04 Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.4E+00 Calcium 7440-70-2 Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.1E+03 Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 2.1 E+00 Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.1E+03 Cobalt 7440-48-4 4.2E+01 Copper 7440-50-8 2.2E+03 Iron 7439-89-6 3.9E+04 Lead 7439-92-1 Magnesium 7439-95-4 Manganese 7439-96-5 3.1 E+02 Mercury 7439-97-6 1.2E+00 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.8E+02 Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 Potassium 7440-09-7 Selenium 7782-49-2 2.8E+02 Sodium 7440-23-5 Strontium 7440-24-6 3.4E+04 Thallium 7440-28-0 Titanium 7440-32-6 Vanadium 7440-62-2 7.3E+00 Zinc 7440-66-6 2.8E+04 Nitrate 14797-55-8 9.0E+04 Sulfide 18496-25-8 2.6E+01 9.8E-01 5.6E+04 nc 3.4E+00 nc 1.7E+01 nc 7.8E+02 nc 7.8E-01 nc 1.1 E+04 nc 1.4E+00 nc NA 1.1E+03 nc 9.8E-01 c 1.1E+03 nc 4.2E+01 nc 2.2E+03 nc 3.9E+04 nc 1.5E-02 nc NA 3.1 E+02 nc 1.2E+00 nc 2.8E+02 nc 2.2E+02 nc NA 2.8E+02 nc NA 3.4E+04 nc NA NA 7.3E+00 nc 2.8E+04 nc 9.0E+04 nc NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 42 1/15/2016 e 4-15 mary of Risk Based Concentrations cation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment REATIONAL FISHER - OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL FISHER (ADULT) an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites a Energy 15 of 18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer (mg/kg) FinalBasis (mg/kg) 7440-36-0 Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.3E+08 1.3E+08 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 5.2E+04 5.2E+04 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 9.6E+03 1.5E+04 9.6E+03 nc Barium 7440-39-3 2.6E+07 2.6E+07 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.6E+05 2.6E+05 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.6E+07 2.6E+07 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.3E+04 2.3E+04 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.9E+08 1.9E+08 nc Chromium A (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.9E+05 1.8E+05 1.8E+05 c Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.9E+08 1.9E+08 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.9E+04 3.9E+04 nc Copper 7440-50-8 5.2E+06 5.2E+06 nc Iron 7439-89-6 9.1E+07 9.1E+07 nc Lead 7439-92-1 8.0E+02 nc Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 1.8E+07 1.8E+07 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 3.9E+04 3.9E+04 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 6.5E+05 6.5E+05 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.6E+06 2.6E+06 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 6.5E+05 6.5E+05 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 7.8E+07 7.8E+07 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 1.3E+03 1.3E+03 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 6.5E+05 6.5E+05 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.9E+07 3.9E+07 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 2.1 E+08 2.1 E+08 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 43 1/15/2016 Table 4-16 Summary of Risk Based Concentrations Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL FISHER - RECREATIONAL FISHER (ADULT) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy 16 of 18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalat No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/L) Cancer I (mg/L) Final I (mg/L) Basis Aluminum 7429-90-5 5.6E+04 5.6E+04 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 3.4E+00 3.4E+00 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.7E+01 2.6E+01 1.7E+01 nc Barium 7440-39-3 7.8E+02 7.8E+02 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 7.8E-01 7.8E-01 nc Boron 7440-42-8 1.1 E+04 1.1 E+04 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.1E+03 1.1E+03 nc Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 2.1E+00 9.8E-01 9.8E-01 c Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.1E+03 1.1E+03 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 4.2E+01 4.2E+01 nc Copper 7440-50-8 2.2E+03 2.2E+03 nc Iron 7439-89-6 3.9E+04 3.9E+04 nc Lead 7439-92-1 1.5E-02 nc Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 3.1 E+02 3.1 E+02 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.8E+02 2.8E+02 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 2.2E+02 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 2.8E+02 2.8E+02 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 3.4E+04 3.4E+04 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 7.3E+00 7.3E+00 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 2.8E+04 2.8E+04 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 9.0E+04 9.0E+04 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 44 1/15/2016 17 of 18 I dMe 4-1/ Summary of Risk Based Concentrations Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Biota Off -Site Fisher - OFF-SITE FISHER - RECREATIONAL (ADULT AND ADOLESCENT) Exposure Routes Evalt. Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Ingestion Duke Energy Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) Target Cancer Risk(per Chemical COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index BCF - Bioconcentration Factor [a] - Cancer -based RBCs incorporates ADAF of 3 for s c - Risk Based Concentration based on can NA - no toxicity value available: Risk Based Concentration not calculat Surface water RBC = Fish Tissue RBC / BCF Aluminum Risk Based Concentration - Fish Tissue Lowest Non- I Lowest Cancer I BCF I Risk Based Concentration - St Adult Adolescent 4.6E+U3 Non -Cancer Cancer Final Basis Non -Cancer Cancer Final Basis Non -Cancer Cancer Final COPC CASRN Cancer RBC (unitless) Arsenic (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) nc (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) 1.4E+00 2.1E+00 RBC Value Value 1.8E-02 1.2E-02 (mg/L) (mg/kg) (mg/L) Aluminum 1429-90-5 4.(it+03 4.bE+U3 nc b.8E+U3 b.8E+U3 nc 4.6E+U3 "2./ 1.1E+U3 1./t+03 Antimony 7440-36-0 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 nc 2.3E+00 2.3E+00 nc 1.8E+00 40 4.6E-02 4.6E-02 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.4E+00 2.1E+00 1.4E+00 nc 1.7E+00 2.7E+00 1.7E+00 nc 1.4E+00 2.1E+00 114 1.2E-02 1.8E-02 1.2E-02 Barium 7440-39-3 9.1 E+02 9.1 E+02 nc 1.2E+03 1.2E+03 nc 9.1 E+02 633 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 Beryllium 7440-41-7 9.1E+00 9.1E+00 nc 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 nc 9.1E+00 62 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 Boron 7440-42-8 9.1 E+02 9.1 E+02 nc 1.2E+03 1.2E+03 nc 9.1 E+02 0.3 3.0E+03 3.0E+03 Cadmium 7440-43-9 4.6E+00 4.6E+00 nc 5.8E+00 5.8E+00 nc 4.6E+00 907 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 Calcium 7440-70-2 NA NA NA NA NA NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 6.9E+03 6.9E+03 nc 8.7E+03 8.7E+03 nc 6.9E+03 19 3.6E+02 3.6E+02 Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.4E+01 6.4E+00 6.4E+00 c 1.7E+01 2.7E+00 2.7E+00 c 2.7E+00 2.7E+00 NA NA NA NA Chromium III 16065-83-1 6.9E+03 6.9E+03 nc 8.7E+03 8.7E+03 nc 6.9E+03 19 3.6E+02 3.6E+02 Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 nc 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 nc 1.4E+00 400 3.4E-03 3.4E-03 Copper 7440-50-8 1.8E+02 1.8E+02 nc 2.3E+02 2.3E+02 nc 1.8E+02 710 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 Iron 7439-89-6 3.2E+03 3.2E+03 nc 4.1E+03 4.1E+03 nc 3.2E+03 NA NA NA Lead 7439-92-1 NA NA NA 0.1 3.9E+01 3.9E+01 Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 7439-96-5 6.4E+02 6.4E+02 nc 8.1E+02 8.1E+02 nc 6.4E+02 2.4 2.7E+02 2.7E+02 Mercury 7439-97-6 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 nc 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 nc 1.4E+00 4500 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 nc 2.9E+01 2.9E+01 nc 2.3E+01 NA NA NA Nickel 7440-02-0 9.1 E+01 9.1 E+01 nc 1.2E+02 1.2E+02 nc 9.1 E+01 71 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 Potassium 7440-09-7 NA NA NA NA NA NA Selenium 7782-49-2 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 nc 2.9E+01 2.9E+01 nc 2.3E+01 1000 2.3E-02 2.3E-02 Sodium 7440-23-5 NA NA NA NA NA NA Strontium 7440-24-6 2.7E+03 2.7E+03 nc 3.5E+03 3.5E+03 nc 2.7E+03 30 9.1E+01 9.1E+01 Thallium 7440-28-0 4.6E-02 4.6E-02 nc 5.8E-02 5.8E-02 nc 4.6E-02 190 2.4E-04 2.4E-04 Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 nc 2.9E+01 2.9E+01 nc 2.3E+01 290 7.9E-02 7.9E-02 Zinc 7440-66-6 1.4E+03 1.4E+03 nc 1.7E+03 1.7E+03 nc 1.4E+03 2059 6.7E-01 6.7E-01 Nitrate 14797-55-8 7.3E+03 7.3E+03 nc 9.3E+03 9.3E+03 nc 7.3E+03 NA NA NA Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 45 1/15/2016 mmary of Risk Based Concentrations rivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Biota -Site Fisher - OFF-SITE FISHER - SUBSISTENCE )ULT AND CHILD) man Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites ke Energy 18 of 18 Exposure Routes Evaluated Ingestion Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - Risk Based Concentration based on non -cancer hazard index BCF - Bioconcentration Factor [a] - Cancer -based RBCs incorporates ADAF of 10 for child. c - Risk Based Concentration based on cancer NA - no toxicity value available; Risk Based Concentration not calculate Surface water RBC = Fish Tissue RBC / BCF Risk Based Concentration - Fish Tissue Lowest Risk Based Concentration - Surface A Lowest Adult Child Non- BCF COPC CASRN Cancer Cancer (unitless) I ased Concen Cancer Final Basis Non -Cancer Cancer Final Basis Non -Cancer Cancer Final (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) RBC Valuel RBC Value (mg/L) (mg/kg) (mg/L) Aluminum 7429-90-5 4.7E+02 4.7E+02 nc 1.5E+02 1.5E+02 nc 1.5E+02 2.7 5.7E+01 5.7E+01 Antimony 7440-36-0 1.9E-01 1.9E-01 nc 6.1 E-02 6.1 E-02 nc 6.1 E-02 40 1.5E-03 1.5E-03 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.4E-01 2.2E-01 1.4E-01 nc 4.6E-02 1.2E-01 4.6E-02 nc 4.6E-02 1.2E-01 114 4.0E-04 1.1E-03 4.0E-04 Barium 7440-39-3 9.4E+01 9.4E+01 nc 3.1E+01 3.1E+01 nc 3.1E+01 633 4.8E-02 4.8E-02 Beryllium 7440-41-7 9.4E-01 9.4E-01 nc 3.1E-01 3.1E-01 nc 3.1E-01 62 4.9E-03 4.9E-03 Boron 7440-42-8 9.4E+01 9.4E+01 nc 3.1E+01 3.1E+01 nc 3.1E+01 0.3 1.0E+02 1.0E+02 Cadmium 7440-43-9 4.7E-01 4.7E-01 nc 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 nc 1.5E-01 907 1.7E-04 1.7E-04 Calcium 7440-70-2 NA NA NA NA NA NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 7.1E+02 7.1E+02 nc 2.3E+02 2.3E+02 nc 2.3E+02 19 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.4E+00 6.6E-01 6.6E-01 c 4.6E-01 3.6E-02 3.6E-02 c 4.6E-01 3.6E-02 NA NA NA NA Chromium III 16065-83-1 7.1E+02 7.1E+02 nc 2.3E+02 2.3E+02 nc 2.3E+02 19 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 nc 4.6E-02 4.6E-02 nc 4.6E-02 400 1.1E-04 1.1E-04 Copper 7440-50-8 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 nc 6.1E+00 6.1E+00 nc 6.1E+00 710 8.6E-03 8.6E-03 Iron 7439-89-6 3.3E+02 3.3E+02 nc 1.1E+02 1.1E+02 nc 1.1E+02 NA NA NA Lead 7439-92-1 NA NA NA 0.1 4.0E+00 4.0E+00 Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 7439-96-5 6.6E+01 6.6E+01 nc 2.1E+01 2.1E+01 nc 2.1E+01 2.4 8.9E+00 8.9E+00 Mercury 7439-97-6 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 nc 4.6E-02 4.6E-02 nc 4.6E-02 4500 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 nc 7.7E-01 7.7E-01 nc 7.7E-01 NA NA NA Nickel 7440-02-0 9.4E+00 9.4E+00 nc 3.1E+00 3.1E+00 nc 3.1E+00 71 4.3E-02 4.3E-02 Potassium 7440-09-7 NA NA NA NA NA NA Selenium 7782-49-2 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 nc 7.7E-01 7.7E-01 nc 7.7E-01 1000 7.7E-04 7.7E-04 Sodium 7440-23-5 NA NA NA NA NA NA Strontium 7440-24-6 2.8E+02 2.8E+02 nc 9.2E+01 9.2E+01 nc 9.2E+01 30 3.1E+00 3.1E+00 Thallium 7440-28-0 4.7E-03 4.7E-03 nc 1.5E-03 1.5E-03 nc 1.5E-03 190 8.1E-06 8.1E-06 Titanium 7440-32-6 NA NA NA NA NA NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 nc 7.7E-01 7.7E-01 nc 7.7E-01 290 2.6E-03 2.6E-03 Zinc 7440-66-6 1.4E+02 1.4E+02 nc 4.6E+01 4.6E+01 nc 4.6E+01 2059 2.2E-02 2.2E-02 Nitrate 14797-55-8 7.5E+02 7.5E+02 nc 2.4E+02 2.4E+02 nc 2.4E+02 NA NA NA Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA NA NA NA NA NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 46 1/15/2016 Attachments Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 47 Page 1 of 5 to to Outdoor Air EPC Calculations n of Risk Based Concentrations - Soil TRESPASSER -ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<16) in Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy = EPClsoal x PARTICULATEjp I x 1E-06 [kg/mg] TICULATElgiR1= (1/PEF * 1 E+09 ug/kg) or Measured/Modelled (m3/kg) = O/C x [(3600 s/hr) / ((0.036 x (1- V) x (Um/Ur)3 x F(X) )] PARAMETERIDEFINITION UNITS DEFAULT Source PARTICULATEl, I / Particulate concentration in air ug/. 0.03279 Calculated or measured Measured or modeled PARTICULATE,, ug/m3 1 Measured value PEP / Particulate emission factor m3/kg 1 Guidance value PEP / Particulate emission factor m3/kg 3.05E+10 Calculated here O/C / inverse of the mean concentration at the center of a 0.5 -acre -square source g/m2-s per kg/m3 36.80 Calculated / USEPA, 2014 V / Fraction of vegetative cover unitless 0.5 Site-specific, estimated Um / mean annual windspeed m/s 3.44 Site-specific / USEPA, 2014 Ut / equivalent threshold value of wind speed at 7 m m/s 11.32 USEPA, 2014 F(x) / function dependant on U,/Ut derived using Cowherd at al. (1985) unitless 8.60E-03 Calculated / USEPA, 2014 USEPA, 2014. Regional Screening Levels. Climactic zone: Phoenix Arizona Area of Source: Specific to size of Exposure Area CASRN COPC EPC Soil (mg/kg) EPC Particulate (ug/m') 7429-90-5 Aluminum 1 3.3E-08 7440-36-0 Antimony 1 3.3E-08 7440-38-2 Arsenic 1 3.3E-08 7440-39-3 Barium 1 3.3E-08 7440-41-7 Beryllium 1 3.3E-08 7440-42-8 Boron 1 3.3E-08 7440-43-9 Cadmium 1 3.3E-08 7440-70-2 Calcium 1 3.3E-08 7440-47-3 Chromium, Total 1 3.3E-08 16065-83-1 Chromium III 1 3.3E-08 7440-484 Cobalt 1 3.3E-08 7440-50-8 Copper 1 3.3E-08 7439-89-6 Iron 1 3.3E-08 7439-92-1 Lead 1 3.3E-08 7439-95-4 Magnesium 1 3.3E-08 7439-96-5 Manganese 1 3.3E-08 7439-97-6 Mercury 1 3.3E-08 7439-98-7 Molybdenum 1 3.3E-08 7440-02-0 Nickel 1 3.3E-08 7440-09-7 Potassium 1 3.3E-08 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 48 Page 2 of 5 Attachment A - Table 4-1 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Soil ON-SITE TRESPASSER -ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<16) Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Incidental Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 NC - not carcinogenic by this emosure route NV - not volatile EC - emosure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxcity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potential concern Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN Intake;naea,ion DADde,,,,,; (mg/kg/day) EC�_ (ug/m') ECvAB$ING (uglm') (unitless) ABSa (unitless) CSFo,,; CSF.IUR (mg/kg/day)-' (mg/kg/day)" (ug/m)-' RBC ;ses,;e„ RBCde,m,; RBCp,,,;�,,;,,e RBC__ RBC_., Aluminum 7429-90-5 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Antimony 7440-36-0 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 2.4E-08 3.8E-09 4.8E-11 NE 0.6 0.03 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 2.8E+03 1.8E+04 4.8E+08 NE 2.4E+03 Barium 7440-39-3 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Beryllium 7440-41-7 NC NC 4.8E-11 NE NC NC 2.4E-03 NC NC 8.7E+08 NE 8.7E+08 Boron 7440-42-8 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 NC NC 4.8E-11 NE NC NC 1.8E-03 NC NC 1.2E+09 NE 1.2E+09 Calcium 7440-70-2 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Chromium III 16065-83-1 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Cobalt 7440-48-4 NC NC 4.8E-11 NE NC NC 9.0E-03 NC NC 2.3E+08 NE 2.3E+08 Copper 7440-50-8 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Iron 7439-89-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Lead 7439-92-1 NC NC NC NE 1 NC NC NC NE Magnesium 7439-954 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Manganese 7439-96-5 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Mercury 7439-97-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Molybdenum 7439-98-7 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Nickel 7440-02-0 NC NC 4.8E-11 NE NC NC 2.4E-04 NC NC 8.7E+09 NE 8.7E+09 Potassium 7440-09-7 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Selenium 7782-49-2 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Sodium 7440-23-5 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Strontium 7440-24-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Thallium 7440-28-0 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Titanium 7440-32-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Zinc 7440-66-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 49 Attachment A - Table 4-1 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Soil ON-SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<16) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Page 3 of 5 NV - not volatile EC - e),posure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - risk based concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non -Cancer Toxicity Values Intake;pg,awp mg/kg/day) I DADde,n„ (mglkglday) ECparcmwaa (mglms) EC,,.no. (mglm3) ABSinc (unitless) ABSd (unitless) RfD-, (mg/kg/day) RfDd,,,,,,I (mg/kg/day) RfC (mg/m') COPC CASRN RBC;n,p id RBCd-1 RBCp.ai..e RBC__ RBCtn Aluminum 7429-90-5 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 3.6E+06 1.5E+10 NE 3.6E+06 Antimony 7440-36-0 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 4.0E-04 6.0E-05 1.4E+03 NTV NE 1.4E+03 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.7E-07 2.7E-08 3.4E-13 NE 0.6 0.03 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 1.8E+03 1.1E+04 4.5E+07 NE 1.5E+03 Barium 7440-39-3 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 2.0E-01 1.4E-02 5.0E-04 7.1E+05 1.5E+09 NE 7.1E+05 Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 2.0E-03 1.4E-05 2.0E-05 7.1E+03 5.9E+07 NE 7.1E+03 Boron 7440-42-8 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-02 7.1E+05 5.9E+10 NE 7.1E+05 Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.8E-07 8.9E-10 3.4E-13 NE 1 0.001 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 3.6E+03 2.8E+04 5.9E+07 NE 3.2E+03 Calcium 7440-70-2 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 5.4E+06 NTV NE 5.4E+06 Chromium III 16065-83-1 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 5.4E+06 NTV NE 5.4E+06 Cobalt 7440-48-4 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 6.0E-06 1.1E+03 1.8E+07 NE 1.1E+03 Copper 7440-50-8 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 1.4E+05 NTV NE 1.4E+05 Iron 7439-89-6 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 2.5E+06 NTV NE 2.5E+06 Lead 7439-92-1 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Manganese 7439-96-5 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 5.0E+05 1.5E+08 NE 5.0E+05 Mercury 7439-97-6 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 3.0E-04 2.1E-05 3.0E-04 1.1E+03 8.9E+08 NE 1.1E+03 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 1.8E+04 NTV NE 1.8E+04 Nickel 7440-02-0 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 9.0E-05 7.1E+04 2.7E+08 NE 7.1E+04 Potassium 7440-09-7 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Selenium 7782-49-2 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 1.8E+04 5.9E+10 NE 1.8E+04 Sodium 7440-23-5 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Strontium 7440-24-6 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 2.1E+06 NTV NE 2.1E+06 Thallium 7440-28-0 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 3.6E+01 NTV NE 3.6E+01 Titanium 7440-32-6 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 1.8E+04 3.0E+08 NE 1.8E+04 Zinc 7440-66-6 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 1.1E+06 NTV NE 1.1E+06 Nitrate 14797-55-8 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 5.7E+06 NTV NE 5.7E+06 Sulfide 18496-25-8 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 50 Attachment A - Table 4-1 Risk Based Concentration Summary Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Soil ON-SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<16) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy concern Page 4 of 5 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Taraet Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/kg) I Cancer (mg/kg) FinalBasis (mg/kg) Antimony Aluminum /4Z`J-`JU-b 3.bL+Ub J.bL+Ub nc Antimony 7440-36-0 1.4E+03 1.4E+03 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.5E+03 2.4E+03 1.5E+03 nc Barium 7440-39-3 7.1E+05 7.1E+05 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 7.1E+03 8.7E+08 7.1E+03 nc Boron 7440-42-8 7.1 E+05 7.1 E+05 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.2E+03 1.2E+09 3.2E+03 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 5.4E+06 5.4E+06 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 5.4E+06 5.4E+06 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.1 E+03 2.3E+08 1.1E+03 nc Copper 7440-50-8 1.4E+05 1.4E+05 nc Iron 7439-89-6 2.5E+06 2.5E+06 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 5.0E+05 5.0E+05 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 1.1E+03 1.1E+03 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.8E+04 1.8E+04 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 7.1E+04 8.7E+09 7.1E+04 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 1.8E+04 1.8E+04 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 2.1E+06 2.1E+06 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 3.6E+01 3.6E+01 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.8E+04 1.8E+04 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 1.1 E+06 1.1E+06 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 5.7E+06 5.7E+06 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 51 Table 4-1 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBCtntai = 1 [(1/RBC,nget;)+(1/RBCdarn,a)+(1/RBCp,rt)+(1/RBC,,p)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC„g,,t;e,= TR / Intaken,* CSF [EPC]a.;[ * IR * ABSiNO * FI * EF * ED * C1 I ntake,ng (age gmuP x) _ BWx ` ATereuma Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCde M = TR / DAD * CSF DAE.ant * SA * EV * EF * ED DADaerm(age group x)= BW. * ATrraume DAEvent = [EPC]..,, * ABSd * AF * C1 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC,nga t;e, = THI Intake,,, / RfD Intake;n, = [EPC]se;i * IR * ABS,ng * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW*AT RBCdern,ai= THI DAD / RfD DADderm = DAE„a„t * SA * EV * EF * ED BW*AT DAE-nt = [EPC]an;i * ABSd * AF * C1 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBCmhaial;en= TR / EC,an* IUR [EPC]PART * ETPart * EF * ED --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVaP * EF * ED EC- (age grnup x)= 24 * ATiaaume Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC,,nhaiatro THI ECn, / RfC EC- = [EPC]PART * ETPart * EF * ED * C2 --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVaP* EF * ED * C2 24*AT Page 5 of 5 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific (mg/kg -day)' IUR Chemical specific (ug/m')-' Intake Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day EC- Age/chemical specific (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific unitless RID Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE—t Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm2-event ECn, Age/chemical specific mg/m' HQ Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC]geii Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg [EPC]PART Attachment A - TABLE Attachment A - TABLE ug/m' [EPC]VAPOR Attachment A- TABLE Attachment A- TABLE ug/m' ABS,ng Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless ABSd Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW 44 44 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 10 10 year AT — 3650 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IR 100 100 mg/day FI 1 1 unitless C1 0.000001 0.000001 kg/mg SA 3160 3160 cm2 AF 0.1 0.1 mg/cm2 EV 1 1 event/day ETPart 2 2 hours/day C2 0.001 0.001 mg/ug E- Vap 8 8 hours/day 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 52 Page 1 of 4 nent A - Table 4-1 late to Outdoor Air EPC Calculations ion of Risked Based Concentrations - Soil E TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<16) n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy PC'[PARTIcuLATE. = EPC[SOiLI x PARTICULATE[AiR[ x 1 E-06 [kg/mg] LATE[AIR] _ (1/PEF * 1 E+09 ug/kg) or Measured/Modelled EF (m'/kg) = C/C x [(3600 s/hr) / ((0.036 x (1-V) x (Um/Ur)3 x F(x) )] METERIDEFINITION UNITS DEFAULT Source PARTICULATEIA,rl / Particulate concentration in air Ug/M30.03 Calculated or measured Measured or modeled PARTICULATE[A 1 ug/m3 Measured value PEF / Particulate emission factor m'/kg PEF / Particulate emission factor m'/kg 3.05E+10 Calculated here Q/C / inverse of the mean concentration at the center of a 0.5 -acre -square source g/m2-s per kg/m' 36.8 USEPA, 2014 V / Fraction of vegetative cover unitless 0.5 USEPA, 2014 U, / mean annual windspeed m/s 3.44 USEPA, 2014 U, / equivalent threshold value of wind speed at 7 m m/s 11.32 USEPA, 2014 F(x) / function dependant on U,/U, derived using Cowherd at al. (1985) unitless 8.60E-03 USEPA, 2014 USEPA, 2014. Regional Screening Levels. Climactic region: Raleigh, NC; Site Area: 30 acres CASRN COPC EPC Soil EPC Particulate (mg/kg) I (ug 18540-29-9 Chromium VI (hexavalent) 1 3.3E-08 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 53 Page 2 of 4 :hment A - Table 4-1 Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based ,ation of Risked Based Concentrations - Soil 117E TRESPASSER -ADOLESCENT (AGE6-<16) an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - nsk NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potential concern Intake Calculations sorption Factors Muta enic Cancer Toxicity Values IOPC CASRN EPC Soil Intakeina,01pn DADapn,i ECp fticul . EC„p,� ABSING ABSa MOA? CSF- i CSFs„n,,, IUR RBCi„p„spn RBCd, 1 RBCp n1cu„ r, RBC,,,,, RBC,a„i (mg/kg) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (ug/m') (uglm') (unitless) (unitless) (mg/kg/day)” (mg/kg/day)” (ug/m)-' Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.0E+00 1.2E-07 FALSE 1.4E-10 NE 1 Y 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8RE-02 1.7E+03 8.2E+06 NE 1.7E+0:3 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 54 Page 3 of 4 Attachment A - Table 4.1 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risked Based Concentrations - Soil ON-SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<l6) Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Incidental Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No TaRBCet Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 NV - not volatile EC - exoosure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - risk based concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non -Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN EPC Soil Intakei....r;.n DADa ..I ECP. ; .,.t. EC -p., ABSING ABSa RfD.r,i RfDa—M RfCJRBCj.,_tj_ RBCa.,,,,.i RBCp,rcm.l.t. RBC,,.p., RBCmt.I (mglkg) (mglkg/day) (mg/kglday) (mglm') (mg/m')(unitless) (unitless) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kglday) (mglm Chromium VI(hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.0E+00 2.8E-07 3.4E-13 NE 1 3.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E-04 1.1E+04 3.0E+08 NE 1.1E+04 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 55 Attachment A - Table 4-1 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBC,.,., = 1 [(1/RBC„get;)+(1/RBCdar„a)+(1/RBCp,rt)+(1/RBC,,p)] Cancer -Based Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC,,,gest;e„= TR / Intake,,,* CSF [EPC],,,, *[IFSadj - OR - IFSM] * ABSiNO * FI * EF * C1 Intake,ng loge grnuP x)= BW. * AT rrarma Cancer -Based Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCda,,,ai= TR / DAD * CSF DAH * SA * EV * EF * ED DADda (agegr px)= BW. *ATrrerme DAE-nt = [EPC]..,, * [DFSadj - OR - DFSM] * C1 Cancer -Based Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;nhaiatbn= TR / ECean* IUR [EPC]PART * ETPart * EF * ED --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVaP* EF' ED EC- (age group x)= 24 * ATiaarma For mutagens, IHHM is used in place of ED Noncancer-Based Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC,ngesenn= THI Intake,,, / RfD Intaken, = [EPC]se;i * IR * ABS,,, * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW*AT Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption THI RBCdermai= DAD / RfD DADde,n, = DAE„e,t * SA * EV * EF * ED BW*AT DAE—t = [EPC]s„, * ABSd * AF * C1 Noncancer-Based Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation THI RBC;,haian= o, EC / RfC EC- = [EPC]PART * ETPart * EF * ED * C2 --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVaP * EF * ED * C2 24*AT Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 56 Page 4 of 4 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific (mg/kg -day)' IUR Chemical specific (ug/m')-' Intake Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day EC- Age/chemical specific (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific unitless RID Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE„ent Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm2-event ECn, Age/chemical specific mg/m3 HQ Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC].., Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg [EPC]PART Attachment A - TABLE 4-1 ttachment A - TABLE 4-1 ug/m' [EPC]VAPOR -----NOT USED----- -----NOT USED----- ug/m' ABS;ng Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless ABSd Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW NA 44 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 10 10 year AT -- 3650 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IFSadj 23 mg-yr/kg-day IFSM 68 -- mg-yr/kg-day IR NA 100 mg/day FI 1 1 unitless C1 0.000001 0.000001 kg/mg SA NA 3160 cm2 AF NA 0.1 mg/cm2 EV 1 1 event/day DFSadj 72 -- mg-yr/kg-day DFSM 215 -- mg-yr/kg-day ETPart 2 2 hours/day C2 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 2 2 ug/mg INHM 2700 unitless 1/8/2016 Attachment B - Table 4-2 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment ON-SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<16) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) tE-04 Page 1 of 4 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - Risk Based Concentration NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potential concern Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Cancer Toxicity Values Intake;,a„u„ (mg/kg/day) DAD�,,,,,� (mglkglday) EC,,.nmm,t, (uglm') EC,,,,,r (ug/m') ABS- (unitless) ABSd (unitless) CSF.., (mg/kg/day)'' CSFd,r,,,i (mglkglday)-' IUR (uglm')-' COPC CASRN RBC„g„ti„ RBCd,,,,,,i RBCp tk,i,t, RBC�.,t,,, RBCt,t,i Aluminum 7429-90-5 INC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Antimony 7440-36-0 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 2.4E-09 4.6E-09 NE NE 0.6 0.03 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 2.8E+04 1.5E+04 NE NE 9.5E+03 Barium 7440-39-3 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Beryllium 7440-41-7 NC NC NE NE NC NC 2.4E-03 NC NC NE NE Boron 7440-42-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 NC NC NE NE NC NC 1.8E-03 NC NC NE NE calcium 7440-70-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Chromium, Total 744047-3 NC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Chromium III 16065-83-1 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Cobalt 7440484 NC NC NE NE NC NC 9.0E-03 NC NC NE NE Copper 7440-50-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Iron 7439-89-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Lead 7439-92-1 NC NC NE NE 1 NC NC NE NE Magnesium 7439-954 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Manganese 7439-96-5 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Mercury 7439-97-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Molybdenum 7439-98-7 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Nickel 7440-02-0 NC NC NE NE NC NC 2.4E-04 NC NC NE NE Potassium 7440-09-7 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Selenium 778249-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Sodium 7440-23-5 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Strontium 7440-24-6 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Thallium 7440-28-0 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Titanium 7440-32-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Zinc 7440-66-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 57 Page 2 of 4 Attachment B - Table 4-2 7429-90-5 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based NE Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment 1 ON-SITE TRESPASSER -ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-16) 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Incidental Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Dermal Contact Yes Antimony Particulate Inhalation No 2.8E-08 Ambient Vapor Inhalation No NE Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - Risk Based Concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations I Absorption Factors I Non -Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN I Intakes-.- I DADd.-al I ECw.s ' r. EC-p.ABS,.G ABSa RfD_, RfDd.r,.., RfC RBC;,,p.0_ RBCd.r,,,y RBCwm,.w RBC_., RBC_.. (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mg/ms) (mg/ms) (unitless) (unitiess) (mg/kglday) (mg/kg/day) I (mg/ms) Aluminum 7429-90-5 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 3.6E+07 NE NE 3.6E+07 Antimony 7440-36-0 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 4.0E-04 6.0E-05 1.4E+04 NE NE 1.4E+04 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.7E-08 3.2E-08 NE NE 0.6 0.03 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 1.8E+04 9.3E+03 NE NE 6.1E+03 Barium 7440-39-3 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 2.0E-01 1.4E-02 5.0E-04 7.1E+06 NE NE 7.1E+06 Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 2.0E-03 1.4E-05 2.0E-05 7.1E+04 NE NE 7.1E+04 Boron 7440-42-8 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-02 7.1E+06 NE NE 7.1E+06 Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.8E-08 1.1E-09 NE NE 1 0.001 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 3.6E+04 2.3E+04 NE NE 1.4E+04 Calcium 7440-70-2 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 5.4E+07 NE NE 5.4E+07 Chromium III 16065-83-1 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 5.4E+07 NE NE 5.4E+07 Cobalt 7440-48-4 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 6.0E-06 1.1E+04 NE NE 1.1E+04 Copper 7440-50-8 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 1.4E+06 NE NE 1.4E+06 Iron 7439-89-6 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 2.5E+07 NE NE 2.5E+07 Lead 7439-92-1 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Manganese 7439-96-5 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 5.0E+06 NE NE 5.0E+06 Mercury 7439-97-6 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 3.0E-04 2.1E-05 3.0E-04 1.1E+04 NE NE 1.1E+04 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 1.8E+05 NE NE 1.8E+05 Nickel 7440-02-0 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 9.0E-05 7.1E+05 NE NE 7.1E+05 Potassium 7440-09-7 2.8E-08 NE NE i NTV NTV NE NE Selenium 7782-49-2 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 1.8E+05 NE NE 1.8E+05 Sodium 7440-23-5 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Strontium 7440-24-6 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 2.1E+07 NE NE 2.1E+07 Thallium 7440-28-0 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 3.6E+02 NE NE 3.6E+02 Titanium 7440-32-6 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 1.8E+05 NE NE 1.8E+05 Zinc 7440-66-6 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 1.1E+07 NE NE 1.1E+07 Nitrate 14797-55-8 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 5.7E+07 NE NE 5.7E+07 Sulfide 18496-25-8 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 58 Attachment B - Table 4-2 Risk Based Concentration Summary Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment ON-SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<16) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy concern Page 3 of 4 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Taraet Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/kg) I Cancer (mg/kg) FinalBasis (mg/kg) 7440-36-0 Aluminum /4Z`J-`JU-b 3.bL+U/ J.bL+Ut nc Antimony 7440-36-0 1.4E+04 1.4E+04 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 6.1E+03 9.5E+03 6.1E+03 nc Barium 7440-39-3 7.1E+06 7.1E+06 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 7.1E+04 7.1E+04 nc Boron 7440-42-8 7.1 E+06 7.1 E+06 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.4E+04 1.4E+04 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 5.4E+07 5.4E+07 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 5.4E+07 5.4E+07 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.1 E+04 1.1E+04 nc Copper 7440-50-8 1.4E+06 1.4E+06 nc Iron 7439-89-6 2.5E+07 2.5E+07 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 5.0E+06 5.0E+06 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 1.1E+04 1.1E+04 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.8E+05 1.8E+05 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 7.1E+05 7.1E+05 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 1.8E+05 1.8E+05 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 2.1E+07 2.1E+07 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 3.6E+02 3.6E+02 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.8E+05 1.8E+05 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 1.1 E+07 1.1E+07 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 5.7E+07 5.7E+07 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 59 4-2 Based Concentration Calculations n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Risk Based Concentration RBC,.,., = 1(1/RBC„gastro,) + (1/RBCda„na) + (1/RBCp,rt) + (1/RBC,,p)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC„g,,t;o,= TR / Intaken,* CSF [EPC]so;, * IR * ABS,NO * FI * EF * ED * C1 I ntakeing (age group x) _ BW„ ` ATereuma Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCde M = TR / DAD * CSF DAE.ant * SA * EV * EF * ED DADaarm(aye grooP x)= BW. * ATrrauma DAEvant = [EPC] 11 * ABSd * AF * C1 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBCinga tin = THI Intake,,, / RfD Intake,,, = [EPC]sn;, * IR * ABS,ng * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW*AT Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCdarma,= THI DAD / RfD DADdar,n = DA,v t * SA * EV * EF * ED BW * AT DAE—t = [EPC]_j, * ABSd * AF * C1 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC,,,,a,at,,n= TR / ECcnn* IUR [EPC]PART * ETP., * EF * ED --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVaP * EF * ED EC- lase grow.I= 24 * ATrrerme Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;,,,aiadnn= THI EC- / RIC EC- = [EPC]PART * ETPan * EF * ED * C2 --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVaP* EF * ED * C2 24 * AT Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 60 Page 4 of 4 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific (mg/kg -day)' IUR Chemical specific (ug/m')-' Intake Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day EC- Age/chemical specific (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific unitless RID Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE—t Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm2-event ECn, Age/chemical specific mg/m' HO Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC].,, Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg [EPC]PART Attachment B - TABLE Attachment B - TABLE ug/m' [EPC]VAPOR Attachment B - TABLE Attachment B - TABLE ug/m' ABS,ng Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless ABSd Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW 44 44 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 10 10 year AT — 3650 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IR 10 10 mg/day FI 1 1 unitless C1 0.000001 0.000001 kg/mg SA 3820 3820 cm2 AF 0.1 0.1 mg/cm2 EV 1 1 event/day ETPart 2 2 hours/day C2 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 8 8 hours/day 1/8/2016 Page 1 of 4 :hment B - Table 4-2 Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based ,ation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment ;ITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6 - <16) an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy exposure Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potential concern Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Muta enic Cancer Toxicity Values IC OPC CASRN EPC Soil Intakein�,.0ipn DADd,nn,i ECp.dlcul . EC„p,� ABSING ABSd MOA? CSF- i CSFd,rn„ i IUR RBCinp„dpn RBCd,nn,i RBCp,dipn„ r, RBC,,,�r RBCS j (mg/kg) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (ug/m') (ug (unitless) (unitless) (mg/kg/day)” I (mg/kg/day)" (uglm')-' Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.0E+00 1.2E-08 FALSE NE NE 1 Y 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8RE-02 1.7E+04 NE NE 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 61 Page 2 of 4 Attachment B - Table 4.2 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment ON-SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6 - <16) Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Incidental Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 NV - not volatile EC - exoosure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - risk based concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non -Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN EPC Soil Intakei....r;.n DADa ..I ECP. ; .,. EC -p., ABSING ABSa RfD.ra RfDa—M RfC RBC;.g..t;o. RBCa.,,,,.i RBCp.njc.j , RBC,,.p., RBCm.I (mglkg) (mglkg/day) DAD.., (mglm') (mg/m') (unitless) (unitless) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kglday) (mglm') Chromium VI(hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.0E+00 2.8E-08 NE NE 1 3.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E-04 1.1E+05 NE NE 1.1E+05 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 62 Based Concentration Summary ation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment ITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6 - <16) man Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites ke Energy COPC - chemical of potential concern c - risk based concentration based on EPCs Page 3 of 4 Exposure Routes Evaluated Risk Based Concentration Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index NA - no toxicity value available; Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer (mg/kg) FinalBasis (mg/kg) Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.1 E+05 1.7E+04 1.7E+04 c 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 63 Attachment B - Table 4-2 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBC,.,., = 1 [(1/RBC„get;)+(1/RBCdar„a)+(1/RBCp,rt)+(1/RBC,,p)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC,,,gest;e„= TR / Intake,,,* CSF [EPC],,,, *[IFSadj - OR - IFSM] * ABSiNO * FI * EF * C1 Intake,ng loge group x)= BW. * AT rrarma Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCdar„ai= TR / DAD * CSF DAH * SA * EV * EF * ED DADderm(egegr px)= BW. *ATrrerme DAE-nt = [EPC]..,, * [DFSadj - OR - DFSM] * C1 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;nhaiatbn= TR / ECean* IUR [EPC]PART * ETPart * EF * ED --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVap* EF' ED EC- (age group x)= 24 * ATiaarma For mutagens, IHHM is used in place of ED Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration foringestior RBC,ngesenn= THI Intake,,, / RfD Intaken, = [EPC]se;i * IR * ABS,,, * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW*AT Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption THI RBCdermai= DAD / RfD DADdern, = DAE„e,t * SA * EV * EF * ED BW*AT DAE—t = [EPC]s„, * ABSd * AF * C1 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation THI RBC;,haian= o, EC- / RfC EC- = [EPC]PART * ETPart * EF * ED * C2 --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVap * EF * ED * C2 24*AT Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 64 Page 4 of 4 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific (mg/kg -day)' IUR Chemical specific (ug/m')-' Intake Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day EC- Age/chemical specific (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific unitless RID Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE„ent Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm2-event ECn, Age/chemical specific mg/m3 HQ Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC].., Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg [EPC]PART ----NOT USED----- ----NOT USED----- ug/m' [EPC]VAPOR ----NOT USED----- ----NOT USED----- ug/m' ABS;,g Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless ABSd Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW NA 44 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 10 10 year AT -- 3650 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IFSadj 2 mg-yr/kg-day IFSM 7 -- mg-yr/kg-day IR NA 10 mg/day FI 1 1 unitless C1 0.000001 0.000001 kg/mg SA NA 3820 cm2 AF NA 0.1 mg/cm2 EV 1 1 event/day DFSadj 87 -- mg-yr/kg-day DFSM 260 -- mg-yr/kg-day ETPart 2 2 hours/day C2 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 2 2 ug/mg INHM 2700 unitless 1/6/2016 Page 1 of 4 Attachment C - Table 4-3 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water ON-SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-c16) Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Dermal Contact Yes Duke Energy Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value avai [(1/RBC;,,ge_) + (1/RBCde,,,, DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potenital concern Intake Calculations Tapwater Dermal Parameters Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN EPC finke;ns„r;,, DP,,,,,, DADd,,,,,; EC,,,p„ B t N Kip FA In EPD? CSF,,,; CSF�,,,,1 IUR RBC;,s„n„ RBCa,,,,,,i RBC,,,o„ RBCt,,,i (mglL) lkglday) (mglkglday) (mglkglday) (ugl;'; (unitless) (h even (hr) (cmlhr) (unitless) (YIN) (mg/kg/day)-' (mglkglday)-' (ug/m')-' (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.0E-03 1.5E-01 3.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Antimony 7440-36-0 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 4.2E-03 5.1E-01 1.2E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.00E-03 8.0E-09 2.0E-09 3.1E-09 NE 3.3E-03 2.8E-01 6.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 8.3E+00 2.2E+01 NE 6.0E+00 Barium 7440-39-3 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 4.5E-03 6.2E-01 1.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.2E-03 1.2E-01 2.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.4E-03 NC NC NE Boron 744042-8 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.4E-03 1.3E-01 3.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 4.1E-03 4.5E-01 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.8E-03 NC NC NE Calcium 7440-70-2 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Chromium 111 16065-83-1 1.00E-03 NC NC INC NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.2E-03 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 4.0E-04 1 Y 9.0E-03 NC NC NE Copper 7440-50-8 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3:1 E-03 2.4E-01 5.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Iron 7439-89-6 1.00E-03 INC NC NC NE 2.9E-03 2.2E-01 5.2E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Lead 7439-92-1 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 5.5E-04 1.5E+00 3.7E+00 1.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Manganese 7439-96-5 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.9E-03 2.1E-01 5.1E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Mercury 7439-97-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 5.4E-03 1.4E+00 3.4E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.8E-03 3.6E-01 8.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Nickel 7440-02-0 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 5.9E-04 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 2.0E-04 1 Y 2.4E-04 NC NC NE Potassium 7440-09-7 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Selenium 7782-49-2 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.4E-03 2.9E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Sodium 7440-23-5 1.00E-03 NC NC INC NE 6.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Strontium 7440-24-6 1.00E-03 INC NC NC NE 3.6E-03 3.3E-01 7.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Thallium 7440-28-0 1.00E-03 INC NC INC NE 5.5E-03 1.5E+00 3.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Titanium 7440-32-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.7E-03 2.0E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Zinc 7440-66-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.9E-03 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 6.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.0E-03 2.3E-0 5.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 4.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 65 1/11/2016 ,hment C - Table 4-3 Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based ,ation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<16) an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 - chemical of Dotenital concern Page 2 of 4 NN - no toxicity value avai [(1/RBC;ng m.) + (1/RBCft DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Tapwater Dermal Parameters Non -Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN EPC Intake;n�,r„n DAr�,d DADd„n,,, EC,, IS t N KP FA In EPD7 RID,,,, Mdern„ i RfC RBC;ng ,.. RBC._., RBC,, RBCr j (mg/L) (mglkg/day) (mg/kglday) (mglkg/day) (mg/m') (unitless) (hr/event) (hr) (cmlhr) (unitless) (Y/N) (mglkg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mglm') (mglL) (mg/L) (mg/L) Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E-08 NE 2.0E-03 1.5E-01 3.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 1.8E+04 4.7E+04 NE 1.3E+04 Antimony 7440-36-0 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E-08 NE 4.2E-03 5.1E-01 1.2E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 4.0E-04 6.0E-05 7.1E+00 2.8E+00 NE 2.0E+00 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E -OB NE 3.3E-03 2.8E-01 6.6E-01 1.0E-03 0.6 Y 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 5.4E+00 1.4E+01 NE 3.9E+00 Barium 7440-39-3 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1 E- NE 4.5E-03 6.2E-01 1.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.0E-01 1.4E-02 5.0E-04 3.6E+03 6.5E+02 NE 5.5E+02 Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E -OS NE 1.2E-03 1.2E-01 2.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.0E-03 1.4E -OS 2.0E-05 3.6E+01 6.5E-01 NE 6.4E-01 Boron 7440-42-8 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E-08 NE 1.4E-03 1.3E-01 3.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-02 3.6E+03 9.3E+03 NE 2.6E+03 Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E-08 NE 4.1E-03 4.5E-01 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.0E-03 2.5E -OS 2.0E-05 1.8E+01 1.2E+00 NE 1.1E+00 Calcium 7440-70-2 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E-08 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NN NN NE Chromium, To[al 7440.47-3 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E-08 NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 V 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 2.7E+04 9.1E+02 NE 8.8E+02 Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E -O8 NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 V 1.5E+pp 2.0E-02 2.7E+04 9.1E+02 NE 8.8E+02 Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 8.0E-10 8.6E-09 NE 1.2E-03 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 4.0E-04 1 Y 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 6.0E-06 5.4E+00 3.5E+01 NE 4.6E+00 Copper 7440-50-8 1.00E-03 5.6E -OS 2.0E-09 2.1E-08 NE 3.1E-03 2.4E-01 5.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 7.1E+02 1.9E+03 NE 5.2E+02 Iron 7439-89-6 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E-08 NE 2.9E-03 2.2E-01 5.2E-01 1.0E-03 1 V 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 1.2E+04 3.3E+04 NE 9.0E+03 Lead 7439-92-1 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-10 2.1E-09 NE 5.5E-04 1.5E+00 3.7E+00 1.0E-04 1 Y NN NN NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 1.00E-03 5.6E -OS 2.0E-09 2.1E -OS NE 1.0E-03 1 V NTV NN NE Manganese 7439-96-5 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E-08 NE 2.9E-03 2.1E-01 5.1E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 2.5E+03 2.6E+02 NE 2.4E+02 Mercury 7439-97-6 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E -OS NE 5.4E-03 1.4E+00 3.4E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 3.0E-04 2.1E-05 3.0E-04 5.4E+00 9.8E-01 NE 8.3E-01 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E -OB NE 3.8E-03 3.6E-01 8.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 8.9E+01 2.3E+02 NE 6.5E+01 Nickel 7440-02-0 1.00E-03 5.6E -OS 4.0E-10 4.3E-09 NE 5.9E-04 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 2.0E-04 1 V 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 9.0E-05 3.6E+02 1.9E+02 NE 1.2E+02 Potassium 7440-09-7 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 4.0E-10 4.3E-09 NE 2.0E-04 1 Y NN NN NE Selenium 7782-49-2 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2:1 E-08 NE 3.4E-03 2.9E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 V 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 8.9E+01 2.3E+02 NE 6.5E+01 Sodium 7440-23-5 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 1.2E-09 1.3E-08 NE 6.0E-04 1 Y NN NN NE Strontium 7440.24-6 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E-08 NE 3.6E-03 3.3E-01 7.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 1.1E+04 2.8E+04 NE 7.7E+03 Thallium 7440-28-0 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E-08 NE 5.5E-03 1.5E+00 3.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NN NN NE Titanium 7440.32-6 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E -OS NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NN NN NE Vanadium 7440.62-2 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E-08 NE 2.7E-03 2.0E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 8.9E+01 6.1E+00 NE 5.7E+00 Zinc 7440.66-6 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 1.2E-09 1.3E-08. NE 1.9E-03 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 6.0E-04 1 V 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 5.4E+03 2.3E+04 NE 4.4E+03 Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 2.0E-09 2.1E-08 NE 3.0E-03 2.3E-01 5.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 2.9E+04 7.5E+04 NE 2.1E+04 Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 7.9E-10 8.5E-09 NE 4.0E-04 1 V NTV NN NE Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 66 1/11/2016 ttachment C - Table 4-3 isk Based Concentration Summary arivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water N -SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<16) n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Page 3 of 4 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potenital concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based [0/RBCinq.tion) + (1/RBCdermai NA - no toxicity value available; remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/L) Cancer I (mg/L) Final I (mg/L) Basis Hiuminum /4Z`J-`,fU-b 1..5t+U4 I.15t+U4 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 2.0E+00 2.0E+00 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 3.9E+00 6.0E+00 3.9E+00 nc Barium 7440-39-3 5.5E+02 5.5E+02 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 6.4E-01 6.4E-01 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.6E+03 2.6E+03 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 8.8E+02 8.8E+02 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 8.8E+02 8.8E+02 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 4.6E+00 4.6E+00 nc Copper 7440-50-8 5.2E+02 5.2E+02 nc Iron 7439-89-6 9.0E+03 9.0E+03 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 2.4E+02 2.4E+02 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 8.3E-01 8.3E-01 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 6.5E+01 6.5E+01 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 1.2E+02 1.2E+02 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 6.5E+01 6.5E+01 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 7.7E+03 7.7E+03 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 5.7E+00 5.7E+00 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 4.4E+03 4.4E+03 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 2.1 E+04 2.1 E+04 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 67 1/11/2016 fable 4-3 Risk Based Concentration Calculations iuman Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites )uke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBCmtai = 1 [(1/RBC1ng.,i.) + (1 /RBCd..A) + (1 /RBC,,ap)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion TR RBC;ng.rnJ. = Intake;,, *CSF Intake;, - [EPC]wete, * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 gage groap •l - BW * ATImne Cancer -Risk Based Concentration from Dermal Absorption TR RBCde,,; = n, DAD,_ * CSF DADd.. DA..nt * SA * EV * EF * ED d (agegroup.)= ATrrerma DAE„ent = [EPC]water * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCevent - 2 « FA « K « 6 • r *rTevent TevenKt* event PCeventTevenb=t« = FA * � . �t + B �+ 2 « r * 1 + B z 1 + 36 + 3B' ) Inorganics Compounds: PCevent = KP ' Tevent C2 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation TR RBCmnaiabon = - EC,a, IUR [EPC]vAPOR * ETvap * EF * ED * C1 ECS, (aga ,map -0 _ 24 * AT;;rat;n,e Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC;ngeed„ = THI Intake;n, / RfD Intake;,, = [EPC]wate, * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW *AT Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCde,n,a; = THI DADdenn / RfD DAE„e„t * DFWadj DADdena (agegroup.) _ AT;;fat;ma DAE.nt= [EPC]_, * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCeventTevenK* _ 2 . FA * KP, 6 « r *rTevent event 1+3B+3B' PCeventTevent =t« = FA * C2 ' 1 + B -2— 1 —+B—)') Inorganics Compounds: Kip «Tevent PCevent = C2 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;nh ;at;,, = THI ECn / RfC EC„ = [EPC]—OR * ETVap * EF * ED * C2 24 * AT Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific -- (mg/kg-day)- IUR Chemical specific -- (ug/m3)-' Intake Age/chemical specific -- mg/kg -day EC,en Age/chemical specific -- (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific -- unitless RfD -- Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC -- Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE„e,t Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm`-event ECnc -- Age/chemical specific mg/m' HQ -- Age/chemical specific unitless [EPCLate, Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/L PCevent Chemical specific Chemical specific L/cm2-event [EPC]„ar„ ---NOT USED----- -----NOT USED--- ug/m' BW 44 44 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 10 10 year AT -- 3650 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IR 0.02 0.02 L/day FI 1 1 unitless SA 3820 3820 cm2 Tevent 2.00 2 hr/event EV 1 1 event/day Cl 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 2 2 hr/day C2 1000 1000 cm'/L Page 4 of 4 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 68 1/11/2016 Pace 1 of 4 Attachment C - Table 4-3 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface water ON-SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<16) Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Dermal Contact Yes Duke Energy Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC -risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS -absorption factor UR - cancer unit nsk COPC - chemical of potential concern EPD - effective permeability domain Intake Calculations Tapwater Dermal Parameters Cancer Toxic/ Values COPC CASRN EPC Intake,pp,,,,pp DA.- DAD-- ECv,pp, B t* Kp FA In EPD? Mutagenic CSF,,,, CSFs,,,p„ IUR RBC,ag,.u.. RBCd.rmn RBC,,RBC,,,,, (mg/L) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (ug/m') (unitless) (hr/event) (hr) (cm/hr) (unitless) (YIN) MOA? (mg/kg/day)-' (mg/kg/day)' (ug/m')-' (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Chromium VI hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.00E-03 2.4E-08 4.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 5.5E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 2.0E-03 1 Y Y 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8.4E-02 8.3E+00 2.7E-01 NE 2.6E-01 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 69 1/8/2016 4ttachment C - Table 4-3 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based )erivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface water 3N -SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-06) -luman Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites )uke Energy COPC CASRN EPC Intake;ngesd,n DA,�„d DADde,,,,,; EC,,,o„ B t t* Kp R (mg/L) (mg/kg/day) (mglkglday) (mg/kglday) (mg/m') (unitless) (hrlevent) (hr) (cmlhr) (unit) Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.00E-03 5.6E-08 4.0E-09 4.3E-08 NE 5.5E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 2.0E-03 1 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 - chemical of Dotential concern 'PD? R11)./ , RfDd,rn,a; RfC RBC;na„.;,n RBC;n�,r;,n RBCde,,,,,i RBC ) (mg kg (mg lkglday) (mg m') (m L) (m L) (mg1L Y 3.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E-04 5.4E+01 1.8E+00 NE 1.7E+00 Pape 2 of 4 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 70 1/8/2016 ttachment C - Table 4-3 isk Based Concentration Summary erivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface water N -SITE TRESPASSER - ADOLESCENT (AGE 6-<16) n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Page 3 of 4 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potenital concern nc -risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c -risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available: remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/L) Cancer I (mg/L) Final I (mg/L) Basis Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.7E+00 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 c Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 71 1/8/2016 Attachment C - Table 4-3 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBCtotal = 1 [(1/RBG,agaadm) + (1/1RBCde,n,e;) + (1/RBCvav)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion TR RBC;ngeet;en = Intake;ng *CSF [EPC]water * IFWadj * FI Intake;ng(ne group x)= BW*AT lifetime Cancer -Risk Based Concentration from Dermal Absorption RBCde„nn; = TR DAD,- *CSF m DAE.nt * DFWadj DADder (age group x) = ATlirar e DAEvem = [EPC]„,a,a, * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCevent 2 * FA * C-2 6 * r *T event Tevent<t* _ Kp . Kp fl /1 + 36 + 38' PCeventTevent>=t* = FA * C2 * [(Tevent + B J+ 2 * T * l0__ B = JJ Inorganics Compounds: Kp * Tevent PCevent= C2 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation Value - Non -Cancer TR RBC,nnalaron = ECcnn *IUR — [EPC]VAPOR* ETvap* EF * ED * C1 EC.nn= (age group x) * — 24 ATliretime Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC; _ �e0�on r THI mg/kg -day Intake;ng / RfD Intake;ng = [EPC]water * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 (ug/m') BW * AT Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption THI RBCaermal = DADde,r„ / RfD DADd en„ DAE„ent " SA * EV " EF * ED (agegroup x) = BW"AT DAEvem = [EPC]_ * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCevent 2 * FA * KP * F6. s *T event Tevent<h = Kp event 1 + 3B + 3Ba PCeventTevent>=t* = FA * C2 * 1 + B + 2 * r * 1 + B z t ) Inorganics Compounds: Kp * Tevent PCevent= C2 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;n THI nalatlon = ECnc / RfC ECne = [EPC]VAPOR * ETvap * EF * ED * C1 24 * AT Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific — (mg/kg-dayy' IUR Chemical specific — (ug/may' Intake Age/chemical specific — mg/kg -day EC_ Age/chemical speck — (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific — unitless RID — Chemical speck mg/kg -day RIC — Chemical specific (mg/m') DAD Age/chemical speck Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAi, m Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/crfl2-event EC,a — Agelchemical specific rl" W HO — Age/chemical specific unitleas [Epq_le, Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/L PCevent Chemical speck Chemical specific Ucm`-event [EPC]_ —NOT USED-- ---NOT USED— ug/m' BW NA 44 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 10 10 year AT — 3650 day ATINetirre 25550 — day IFWadj 1 — L/kg IR 0 0 L/day FI NA 0.02 unitless SA 0.613636364 0 cm2 Tevent 0.00 0 hr/event EV NA 3820 event/day DFWadj 2 2 events-cm2/kg C1 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 39068.18182 NA Wday C2 1000 1000 cm'/L Page 4 of 4 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 72 1/8/2016 to Outdoor Air EPC Calculations of Risk Based Concentrations - Soil IAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy = EPClson.l x PARTICULATE[_1 x 1E-06 [kg/mg] = (1IPEF * 1 E+09 ug/kg) or Measured/Modelled (m'Ikg) = O/C x [(3600 s/hr) / ((0.036 x (1- V) x (Um/U,)3 x F(x))] PARAMETERIDEFINITION UNITS DEFAULT Source PARTICULATE,,l / Particulate concentration in air ug/m 0.03279 Calculated or measured Measured or modeled PARTICULATEIasI ug/m3 1 Measured value PEF / Particulate emission factor m3/kg 1 Guidance value PEF / Particulate emission factor m3/kg 3.05E+10 Calculated here O/C / inverse of the mean concentration at the center of a 0.5 -acre -square source g/m2-s per kg/m3 36.80 Calculated / USEPA, 2014 V / Fraction of vegetative cover unitless 0.5 Site-specific, estimated Um / mean annual windspeed m/s 3.44 Site-specific / USEPA, 2014 U, / equivalent threshold value of wind speed at 7 m m/s 11.32 USEPA, 2014 F(x) / function dependant on U./U, derived using Cowherd at al. (1985) unitless 8.60E-03 Calculated / USEPA, 2014 USEPA, 2014. Regional Screening Levels. Climactic zone: Phoenix Arizona Area of Source: CASRN COPC EPC Soil (mg/kg) EPC Particulate (ug/m') 7429-90-5 Aluminum 1 3.3E-08 7440-36-0 Antimony 1 3.3E-08 7440-38-2 Arsenic 1 3.3E-08 7440-39-3 Barium 1 3.3E-08 7440-41-7 Beryllium 1 3.3E-08 7440-42-8 Boron 1 3.3E-08 7440-43-9 Cadmium 1 3.3E-08 7440-70-2 Calcium 1 3.3E-08 744047-3 Chromium, Total 1 3.3E-08 16065-83-1 Chromium III 1 3.3E-08 7440-48-4 Cobalt 1 3.3E-08 7440-50-8 Copper 1 3.3E-08 7439-89-6 Iron 1 3.3E-08 7439-92-1 Lead 1 3.3E-08 7439-95-4 Magnesium 1 3.3E-08 7439-96-5 Manganese 1 3.3E-08 7439-97-6 Mercury 1 3.3E-08 7439-98-7 Molybdenum 1 3.3E-08 7440-02-0 Nickel 1 3.3E-08 7440-09-7 Potassium 1 3.3E-08 Specific to size of Exposure Area Page 1 of 5 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 73 Attachment D - Table 4-4 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Soil COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) tE-04 Page 2 of 5 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potential concern Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Cancer Toxicity Values Intake;,,„d„ (mglkglday) DADd,,,,,, (mglkglday) EC,,.nmmat, ug/M3) EC,,,,„ (ug/m') ABSM (unitless) ABSd (unitless) CSF,,,, (mg/kg/day)'' CSFs,,,,,, (mglkglday)-' IUR (uglm')-' COPC CASRN RBC„g„t,,, RBCd,,,,,,, RBC, ni uj,t, RBC,,,,, RBCt,t„ Aluminum 7429-90-5 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Antimony 7440-36-0NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.8E-07 3.8E-08 1.3E-09 NE 0.6 0.03 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 3.6E+02 1.7E+03 1.7E+07 NE 3.0E+02 Barium 7440-39-3 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Beryllium 744041-7 NC NC 1.3E-09 NE NC NO 2.4E-03 NC NC 3.1E+07 NE 3.1E+07 Boron 744042-8 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 NC NC 1.3E-09 NE NC NC 1.8E-03 NC NC 4.2E+07 NE 4.2E+07 calcium 7440-70-2 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Chromium, Total 744047-3 NC NC NC NE NC NC INC NC NC NE Chromium III 16065-83-1 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Cobalt 7440-48-4 NC NC 1.3E-09 NE NC NO 9.0E-03 NC NO 8.3E+06 NE 8.3E+06 Copper 7440-50-8 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Iron 7439-89-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Lead 7439-92-1 NC NC NC NE 1 NC NC NC NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Manganese 7439-96-5 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Mercury 7439-97-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC INC NC NC NE Molybdenum 7439-98-7 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Nickel 7440-02-0 NC NC 1.3E-09 NE NC NC 2.4E-04 NC NC 3.1E+08 NE 3.1E+08 Potassium 7440-09-7 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Selenium 7782A9-2 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Sodium 7440-23-5 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Strontium 7440-24-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Thallium 7440-28-0 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Titanium 7440-32-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Zinc 7440-66-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Chromium A (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.1E-07 1.3E-09 NE 1 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8.4E-02 6.5E+02 8.9E+05 NE 6.5E+02 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 74 :hment D - Table 4-4 Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based ration of Risk Based Concentrations - Soil MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Page 3 of 5 NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - risk based concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non -Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN Intake;-.- (mg/kg/day) DADdom.ai (mg/kg/day) ECw.s ' ra (mg/m3) EC_ABSiao (mg/ms) (unitless) ABSa (unitiess) RfD,.a (mg/kglday) RfDaarma (mg/kg/day) RfC (mg/m3) RBC;,,g,a - RBCda,,,,y RBCwrowj w RBC_., RBCS .j Aluminum 7429-90-5 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 1.2E+06 1.3E+09 NE 1.2E+06 Antimony 7440-36-0 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 4.0E-04 6.0E-05 4.7E+02 NTV NE 4.7E+02 Arsenic 7440-38-2 5.1E-07 1.1E-07 3.7E-12 NE 0.6 0.03 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 5.8E+02 2.8E+03 4.0E+06 NE 4.8E+02 Barium 7440-39-3 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 2.0E-01 1.4E-02 5.0E-04 2.3E+05 1.3E+08 NE 2.3E+05 Beryllium 7440-41-7 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 2.0E-03 1.4E-05 2.0E-05 2.3E+03 5.3E+06 NE 2.3E+03 Boron 7440-42-8 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-02 2.3E+05 5.3E+09 NE 2.3E+05 Cadmium 7440-43-9 8.6E-07 3.6E-09 3.7E-12 NE 1 0.001 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 1.2E+03 7.0E+03 5.3E+06 NE 1.0E+03 Calcium 7440-70-2 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.8E+06 NTV NE 1.8E+06 Chromium III 16065-83-1 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.8E+06 NTV NE 1.8E+06 Cobalt 7440-4811 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 6.0E-06 3.5E+02 1.6E+06 NE 3.5E+02 Copper 7440-50-8 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 4.7E+04 NTV NE 4.7E+04 Iron 7439-89-6 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 8.2E+05 NTV NE 8.2E+05 Lead 7439-92-1 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Manganese 7439-96-5 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 1.4E-01 5.61 5.0E-05 1.6E+05 1.3E+07 NE 1.6E+05 Mercury 7439-97-6 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 3.0E-04 2.1E-05 3.0E-04 3.5E+02 8.0E+07 NE 3.5E+02 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 5.8E+03 NTV NE 5.8E+03 Nickel 7440-02-0 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 9.0E-05 2.3E+04 2.4E+07 NE 2.3E+04 Potassium 7440-09-7 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Selenium 7782-49-2 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 5.8E+03 5.3E+09 NE 5.8E+03 Sodium 7440-23-5 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Strontium 7440-24-6 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 7.0E+05 NTV NE 7.0E+05 Thallium 7440-28-0 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 1.2E+01 NTV NE 1.2E+01 Titanium 7440-32-6 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 5.0E-03 1.31 1.0E-04 5.8E+03 2.7E+07 NE 5.8E+03 Zinc 7440-66-6 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 3.5E+05 NTV NE 3.5E+05 Nitrate 14797-55-8 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 1.9E+06 NTV NE 1.9E+06 Sulfide 18496-25-8 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 8.6E-07 3.7E-12 NE 1 3.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E-04 3.5E+03 2.7E+07 NE 3.5E+03 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 75 Page 4 of 5 Attachment D - Table 4-4 Risk Based Concentration Summary Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Soil COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Incidental Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk(per Chemical 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/kg) I Cancer (mg/kg) FinalBasis (mg/kg) Antimony Aluminum /4Z`J-`JU-b I.ZL+Ub I.ZL+Ue nc Antimony 7440-36-0 4.7E+02 4.7E+02 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 4.8E+02 3.0E+02 3.0E+02 c Barium 7440-39-3 2.3E+05 2.3E+05 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.3E+03 3.1E+07 2.3E+03 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.3E+05 2.3E+05 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.0E+03 4.2E+07 1.0E+03 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.8E+06 1.8E+06 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.8E+06 1.8E+06 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.5E+02 8.3E+06 3.5E+02 nc Copper 7440-50-8 4.7E+04 4.7E+04 nc Iron 7439-89-6 8.2E+05 8.2E+05 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 1.6E+05 1.6E+05 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 3.5E+02 3.5E+02 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 5.8E+03 5.8E+03 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.3E+04 3.1E+08 2.3E+04 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 5.8E+03 5.8E+03 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 7.0E+05 7.0E+05 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 5.8E+03 5.8E+03 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.5E+05 3.5E+05 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.9E+06 1.9E+06 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 76 Table 4-4 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Remedial Goal RBC,.,., = 1 1(1/RBC„gastro,) + (1/RBCda,na) + (1/RBCp,rt) + (1/RBC„ap)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC„g,,t;o,= TR / Intake,,,* CSF [EPC]aa;, * IR * ABS,NO * FI * EF * ED * C1 I ntakeing (age group x) _ BW„ ` ATerauma Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCde M = TR / DAD * CSF DAE.,t*SA*EV*EF*ED DADaerm(aye grooP x)= BW. * ATrrauma DAEant = [EPC] 11 * ABSd * AF * Cl Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBCinga tin = THI Intake,,, / RfD Intake,,, = [EPC]sn;, * IR * ABS„g * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW*AT Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCdar„a,= THI DAD / RfD DADda,n = DA,v t * SA * EV * EF * ED BW * AT DAE—t = [EPC]_j, * ABSd * AF * C1 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC,,na,at,,,= TR / ECcan* IUR [EPC]PART * ETP., * EF * ED --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVaP * EF * ED EC- laea groaP x1= 24 * ATrrarme Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation THI RBC;n„aiadnn= EC, / RIC EC- = [EPC]PART * ETPan * EF * ED * C2 --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVaP* EF * ED * C2 24 * AT Page 5 of 5 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific (mg/kg -day)' IUR Chemical specific (ug/m')-' Intake Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day EC,a, Age/chemical specific (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific unitless RID Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE—t Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm2-event ECn, Age/chemical specific mg/m' HO Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC].,, Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg [EPC]PART Attachment D - TABLE Attachment D - TABLE ug/m' [EPC]VAPOR Attachment D - TABLE Attachment D - TABLE ug/m' ABS,ng Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless ABSd Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW 80 80 kg EF 250 250 day/year ED 25 25 year AT — 9125 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IR 100 100 mg/day FI 1 1 unitless C1 0.000001 0.000001 kg/mg SA 3470 3470 cm2 AF 0.12 0.12 mg/cm2 EV 1 1 event/day ETPart 4 4 hours/day C2 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 8 8 hours/day 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 77 Page 1 of 4 Attachment E - Table 4-5 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Incidental Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 NC - not carcinogenic by this emosure route NV - not volatile EC - emosure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no topcity value available Attachment E - DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS -absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potential concern Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN [—Intake;naesilpn DAD_.., (mg/kg/day) EC.... a (uglm') EC," (ug/m') ABSING (unitless) ABSa (unitless) CSFpr,; (mg/kg/day)-' CSF.IUR (mg/kg/day)'' (ug/m)-' RBC;,,,i_.„ RBC --i RBCpa,,;a„Ia,e RBC__RBC_.,(mg/kg/day) Aluminum 7429-90-5 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Antimony 7440-36-0 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 4.4E-10 3.0E-10 NE NE 0.6 0.03 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 1.5E+05 2.3E+05 NE NE 9.1E+04 Barium 7440-39-3 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Beryllium 7440-41-7 NC NC NE NE NC NC 2.4E-03 NC NC NE NE Boron 7440-42-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 NC NC NE NE NC NC 1.8E-03 NC NC NE NE Calcium 7440-70-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Chromium III 16065-83-1 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Cobalt 7440-48-4 NC NC NE NE NC NC 9.0E-03 NC NC NE NE Copper 7440-50-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Iron 7439-89-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Lead 7439-92-1 NC NC NE NE 1 NC NC NE NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Manganese 7439-96-5 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Mercury 7439-97-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Molybdenum 7439-98-7 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Nickel 7440-02-0 NC NC NE NE NC NC 2.4E-04 NC NC NE NE Potassium 7440-09-7 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Selenium 7782-49-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Sodium 7440-23-5 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Strontium 7440-24-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Thallium 7440-28-0 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Titanium 7440-32-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Zinc 7440-66-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 7.3E-10 NE NE 1 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8.4E-02 2.7E+05 NE NE 2.7E+05 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 78 :hment E - Table 4-5 Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based ration of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Page 2 of 4 NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - risk based concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non -Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN Intakes-.- (mg/kg/day) DADd.-al (mg/kg/day) ECwrs.mara (mg/m3) EC_ABSiao (mg/ms) (unitless) ABSd (unitiess) RfD,,a (mg/kglday) RfDdarm (mg/kg/day) RfC (mg/m3) RBCj... - RBCd,r,,,v RBCwm=,.w RBC --r RBCS .j Aluminum 7429-90-5 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 4.9E+08 NE NE 4.9E+08 Antimony 7440-36-0 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 4.0E-04 6.0E-05 1.9E+05 NE NE 1.9E+05 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.2E-09 8.3E-10 NE NE 0.6 0.03 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 2.4E+05 3.6E+05 NE NE 1.5E+05 Barium 7440-39-3 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 2.0E-01 1.4E-02 5.0E-04 9.7E+07 NE NE 9.7E+07 Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 2.0E-03 1.4E-05 2.0E-05 9.7E+05 NE NE 9.7E+05 Boron 7440-42-8 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-02 9.7E+07 NE NE 9.7E+07 Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.1E-09 2.8E-11 NE NE 1 0.001 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 4.9E+05 9.1E+05 NE NE 3.2E+05 Calcium 7440-70-2 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 7.3E+08 NE NE 7.3E+08 Chromium III 16065-83-1 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 7.3E+08 NE NE 7.3E+08 Cobalt 7440-48-4 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 6.0E-06 1.5E+05 NE NE 1.5E+05 Copper 7440-50-8 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 1.9E+07 NE NE 1.9E+07 Iron 7439-89-6 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 3.4E+08 NE NE 3.4E+08 Lead 7439-92-1 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Manganese 7439-96-5 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 6.8E+07 NE NE 6.8E+07 Mercury 7439-97-6 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 3.0E-04 2.1E-05 3.0E-04 1.5E+05 NE NE 1.5E+05 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.4E+06 NE NE 2.4E+06 Nickel 7440-02-0 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 9.0E-05 9.7E+06 NE NE 9.7E+06 Potassium 7440-09-7 2.1E-09 NE NE i NTV NTV NE NE Selenium 7782-49-2 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 2.4E+06 NE NE 2.4E+06 Sodium 7440-23-5 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Strontium 7440-24-6 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 2.9E+08 NE NE 2.9E+08 Thallium 7440-28-0 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 4.9E+03 NE NE 4.9E+03 Titanium 7440-32-6 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 2.4E+06 NE NE 2.4E+06 Zinc 7440-66-6 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 1.5E+08 NE NE 1.5E+08 Nitrate 14797-55-8 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 7.8E+08 NE NE 7.8E+08 Sulfide 18496-25-8 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 2.1E-09 NE NE 1 3.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E-04 1.5E+06 NE NE 1.5E+06 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 79 Page 3 of 4 achment E - Table 4-5 * Based Concentration Summary rivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment ,MMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) Exposure Routes Evaluated man Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Incidental Ingestion Yes ke Energy Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 ,PC - chemical of notential concern nc - risk based concentration based on nnn-cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; risk based concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/kg) I Cancer (mg/kg) I FinalBasis (mg/kg) 7440-36-0 Aluminum /429-9U-5 4.9E+08 4.9E+U8 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 1.9E+05 1.9E+05 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.5E+05 9.1 E+04 9.1 E+04 c Barium 7440-39-3 9.7E+07 9.7E+07 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 9.7E+05 9.7E+05 nc Boron 7440-42-8 9.7E+07 9.7E+07 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.2E+05 3.2E+05 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 7.3E+08 7.3E+08 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 7.3E+08 7.3E+08 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.5E+05 1.5E+05 nc Copper 7440-50-8 1.9E+07 1.9E+07 nc Iron 7439-89-6 3.4E+08 3.4E+08 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 6.8E+07 6.8E+07 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 1.5E+05 1.5E+05 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 9.7E+06 9.7E+06 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 2.9E+08 2.9E+08 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 4.9E+03 4.9E+03 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 1.5E+08 1.5E+08 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 7.8E+08 7.8E+08 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.5E+06 2.7E+05 2.7E+05 c 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 80 Table 4-5 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBC,_, = 1 [(1/RBC,ng ,a ) + (1/RBCae al) + (1/R13Cp,rt) + (1/RBC„ap)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC,ngeaaen = TR / Intake;,,,* CSF [EPC],; * IR * ABSING * FI * EF * ED * C1 Intake, (age g—P x) _ BWx * ATnraume Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCdennal = TR / DAD * CSF DAEem*SA*EV*EF*ED DADaermlage g,nnP xi = BW. * ATnreume DAE t = [EPC]-;; * ABSd * AF * C1 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC,ngeadnn = THI Intake;ng / RfD Intake;,, = [EPC]—; * IR * ABS,ng * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW * AT Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCdern,a; = THI DAD / RfD DADde,m = DAE.ent * SA * EV * EF * ED BW * AT DAEent = [EPC]se;; * ABSd * AF * C1 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC,nhalaeen = TR / ECcan * IUR [EPC]PART * ETPan * EF * ED --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVap * EF * ED EC- (age group x) — 24 * AT lifetime Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation THI RBC;nna]atmn = EC- / RfC EC- = [EPC]PART * ET, * EF * ED * C2 --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR* ETVap* EF * ED * C2 24 * AT Page 4 of 4 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific (mg/kg -day)-' IUR Chemical specific (ug/m3)-' Intake Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day EC- Age/chemical specific (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific unitless RfD Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC — Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAEvent Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm2-event ECn, Age/chemical specific mg/m' HQ Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC].;; Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg [EPC]PART Attachment E - TABLE Attachment E - TABLE ug/m' [EPC]VAPOR Attachment E - TABLE Attachment E - TABLE ug/m' ABS;ng Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless ABSd Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW 80 80 kg EF 12 12 day/year ED 25 25 year AT -- 9125 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IR 5 5 mg/day FI 1 1 unitless C1 0.000001 0.000001 kg/mg SA 670 670 cm2 AF 0.1 0.1 mg/cm2 EV 1 1 event/day ETPart 4 4 hours/day C2 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 8 8 hours/day 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 81 Pace i of 4 Attachment F -Table 4-6 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Seep Water COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Dermal Contact Yes Duke Energy Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value avai Attachment F - DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potenital concern Intake Calculations Ta water Dermal Parameters Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN EPC Intake;n� ,.. Dk-. DADeer,,,,; EC_ B t• Kp FA In EPD7 CSFs,; CSFa<,, 1 IUR RBC;,,aes,;o„ RB ..I RBC_po, RBC-ai (mg/L) (mg/kg/day) (mglkg/day) (mg/kg/day) (ug/m') (un itless) (hr/event) (hr) (cm/hr) (unitless) (YIN) (mg/kg/day)-' (mg/kg/day)-' (uglm')-' (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.0E-03 1.5E-01 3.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Antimony 7440-36-0 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 4.2E-03 5.1E-01 1.2E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 3.9E-10 NE 3.3E-03 2.8E-01 6.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 NE 1.7E+02 NE 1.7E+02 Barium7440-39-3 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 4.5E-03 6.2E-07 1.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 1.2E-03 1.2E-01 2.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.4E-03 NE -- NE Boron 7440-42-8 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 1.4E-03 1.3E-01 3.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 4.1E-03 4.5E-01 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.8E-03 NE -- NE Calcium 7440-70-2 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Chromium 111 16065-83-1 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 1.2E-03 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 4.0E-04 1 Y 9.0E-03 NE -- NE Copper 7440-50-8 7.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 3.1E-03 2.4E-Oi 5.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Iron 7439-89-6 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.9E-03 2.2E-07 5.2E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Lead 7439-92-1 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 5.5E-04 1.5E+00 3.7E+00 1.0E-04 7 Y NE -- NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Manganese 7439-96-5 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.9E-03 2.1E-01 5.1E-01 1.0E-03 7 Y NE -- NE Mercury 7439-97-6 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 5.4E-03 1.4E+00 3.4E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 3.8E-03 3.6E-01 8.7E-01 7.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Nickel 7440-02-0 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 5.9E-04 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 2.0E-04 1 Y 2.4E-04 NE -- NE Potassium 7440-09-7 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.0E-04 1 Y NE -- NE Selenium 7782-49-2 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 3.4E-03 2.9E-01 7.0E-07 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Sodium7440-23-5 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 6.0E-04 1 Y NE -- NE Strontium 7440-24-6 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 3.6E-03 3.3E-01 7.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Thallium 7440-28-0 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 5.5E-03 1.5E+00 3.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Titanium 7440-32-6 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.7E-03 2.0E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Zinc 7440-66-6 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 1.9E-03 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 6.0E-04 1 Y NE -- NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 3.0E-03 2.3E-01 5.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 4.0E-04 1 Y NE -- NE Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.00E-03 NE 8.0E-09 7.9E-10 NE 5.5E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 2.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8.4E-02 NE 6.4E+00 NE 6.4E+00 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 82 1/8/2016 Page 2 of 4 ,hment F -Table 4-6 Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based ,ation of Risk Based Concentrations - Seep Water MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 COPC CASRN EPC (mg/L) Intakeind, D ,n A , (mglkglday) (mglkglday) DADde,,,` (mglkg/day) EC,,,o„ (mg/m') B (unitless) z (hrlevent) t• (hr) K P (cmlhr) FA (unitless) In EPD. r/N) Rf)*;, (mg/kglday) RfDderm,i (mglkglday) RfC (mg /m') RBCi„ee,r;,, (m L) RBCde,,,,,i (mglL) RBC,,,o,r (mg; RBC„„ Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 2.0E-03 1.5E-01 3.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 NE 9.1E+05 NE 9.1E+05 Antimony 7440-36-0 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 4.2E-03 5.1E-01 1.2E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 4.0E-04 6.0E-05 NE 5.4E+01 NE 5.4E+01 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 3.3E-03 2.8E-01 6.6E-01 1.0E-03 0.6 V 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 NE 2.7E+02 NE 2.7E+02 Barium 7440-39-3 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 4.5E-03 6.2E-01 1.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.0E-01 1.4E-02 5.0E-04 NE 1.3E*04 NE 1.3E+04 Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 1.2E-03 1.2E-01 2.BE-01 1.0E-03 1 V 2.0E-03 1.4E-05 2.0E-05 NE 1.3E+01 NE 1.3E+01 Boron 7440-42-8 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 1.4E-03 1.3E-01 3.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-02 NE 1.8E+05 NE 1.8E+05 Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 4.1E-03 4.5E-01 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 1 V 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 NE 2.3E+01 NE 2.3E+01 Calcium 7440-70-2 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE NTV NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 V 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 NE 1.8E+04 NE 1.8E+04 Chromium 111 16065-83-1 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 NE 1.8E+04 NE 1.8E+04 Cobalt 7440-08-4 1.00E-03 NE 1.6E-09 4.4E-10 NE 1.2E-03 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 4.0E-04 1 Y 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 6.0E-06 NE 6.8E+02 NE 6.8E+02 Copper 7440-50-8 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 3.1E-03 2.4E-01 5.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 NE 3.6E+04 NE 3.6E+04 Iron 7439-89-6 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 2.9E-03 2.2E-01 5.2E-01 1.0E-03 1 y 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 NE 6.4E+05 NE 6.4E+05 Lead 7439-92-1 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-10 1.1E-10 NE 5.5E-04 1.5E+00 3.7E+00 1.0E-04 1 Y NE NTV NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 1.0E-03 1 V NE NTV NE Manganese 7439-96-5 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 2.9E-03 2.1E-01 5.1E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 NE 5.1E+03 NE 5.1E+03 Mercury 7439-97-6 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 5,4E-03 1.4E+00 3.4E+00 1.0E-03 1 V 3.0E-04 2.1E-05 3.0E-04 NE 1.9E+01 NE 1.9E+01 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 3.BE-03 3.6E-01 8.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 NE 4.5E+03 NE 4.5E+03 Nickel 7440-02-0 1.00E-03 NE 8.0E-10 2.2E-10 NE 5.9E-04 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 2.0E-04 1 V 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 9.0E-05 NE 3.6E+03 NE 3.6E+03 Potassium 7440-09-7 1.00E-03 NE 8.0E-10 2.2E-10 NE 2.0E-04 1 Y NE NTV NE Selenium 7782-49-2 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 3.4E-03 2.9E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 V 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 NE 4.5E+03 NE 4.5E+03 Sodium 7440-23-5 1.00E-03 NE 2.4E-09 6.6E-10 NE 6.0E-04 1 V NE NTV NE Strontium 7440-24-6 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 3.6E-03 3.3E-01 7.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 V 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 NE 5.4E+05 NE 5.4E+05 Thallium 7440-28-0 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 5.5E-03 1.5E+00 3.5E*00 1.0E-03 1 Y NE NTV NE Titanium 7440-32-6 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 1.0E-03 1 V NE NTV NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 2.7E-03 2.0E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 NE 1.2E+02 NE 1.2E+02 Zinc 7440-66-6 1.00E-03 NE 2.4E-09 6.6E-10 NE 1.9E-03 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 6.0E-04 1 Y 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 NE 4.5E+05 NE 4.5E+05 Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 1.1E-09 NE 3.0E-03 2.3E-01 5.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 NE 1.5E+06 NE 1.5E+06 Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.00E-03 NE 1.6E-09 4.4E-10 NE 4.0E-04 1 V NE NTV NE Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.00E-03 NE 8.0E-09 2.2E-09 NE 5.5E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 2.0E-03 1 Y 3.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E-04 NE 3.4E+01 NE 3.4E+01 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 83 1/8/2016 achment F -Table 4-6 ;k Based Concentration Summary rivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Seep Water IMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL WORKER (ADULT) n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Page 3 of 4 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potenital concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/L) Cancer I (mg/L) Final I (mg/L) Basis Aluminum M29 -91J -b 9.1E+Ub U.'IE+Ub nc Antimony 7440-36-0 5.4E+01 5.4E+01 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 2.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 c Barium 7440-39-3 1.3E+04 1.3E+04 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.3E+01 1.3E+01 nc Boron 7440-42-8 1.8E+05 1.8E+05 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.8E+04 1.8E+04 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.8E+04 1.8E+04 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 6.8E+02 6.8E+02 nc Copper 7440-50-8 3.6E+04 3.6E+04 nc Iron 7439-89-6 6.4E+05 6.4E+05 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 5.1 E+03 5.1 E+03 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 4.5E+03 4.5E+03 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 3.6E+03 3.6E+03 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 4.5E+03 4.5E+03 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 5.4E+05 5.4E+05 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.2E+02 1.2E+02 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 4.5E+05 4.5E+05 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.5E+06 1.5E+06 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.4E+01 6.4E+00 6.4E+00 c Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 84 1/8/2016 fable 4-6 Risk Based Concentration Calculations iuman Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites )uke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBCmtai = 1 [(1/RBC1ng.de„) + (1 /RBCd..A) + (1 /RBC,,ap)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion TR RBC;ng.sJ. = Intake;,, *CSF Intake;, - [EPC]wate, * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 gage groap •l - BW * ATImne Cancer -Risk Based Concentration from Dermal Absorption TR RBCde,,; = n, DAD,_ * CSF DADd.. DA..nt * SA * EV * EF * ED d (agegroup.)= ATrrerma DAE„ent = [EPC]wate, * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCevent Tevent<t* _ F6' 2 * FA * **T event PCevent-revent—t* = FA * � * �event + B )+ 2 * T * (1 + 38 + 3B'(1 B'1 + B)' ) Inorganics Compounds: PCevent = KP * Tevent C2 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation TR RBCmnaiam„ = EC,a, * IUR [EPC]vAPOR * ETvap * EF * ED * C1 ECS, (aga g.�ap >D 24 * AT;;rat;n,e Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC;ngasd„ = THI Intake;n, / RfD Intake;,, = [EPC]wate, * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW *AT Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCde,n,a; = THI DADde,n / RfD DAE„e„t * DFWadj DADdena (agegreup.) _ AT;;renma DAE.nt= [EPC]_, * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCeventTevenKt* _ 2 * FA * C-2 * Kp 6 * r *rTevent event 1+3B+3B' PCeventTevent =t* = FA * C2 * 1-+—B -2— 1 —+B—)') Inorganics Compounds: Kip* Tevent PCevent = C2 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;nha;at;,, = THI ECn / RfC ECn, = [EPCI—OR * ETVap * EF * ED * C2 24 * AT Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific -- (mg/kg-day)- IUR Chemical specific -- (ug/m3)-' Intake Age/chemical specific -- mg/kg -day EC,en Age/chemical specific -- (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific -- unitless RfD -- Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC -- Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE„a„t Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm`-event ECnc -- Age/chemical specific mg/m' HQ -- Age/chemical specific unitless [EPCLate, Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/L PCevent Chemical specific Chemical specific L/cm2-event [EPC]„ar„ ---NOT USED----- -----NOT USED--- ug/m' BW 80 80 kg EF 12 12 day/year ED 25 25 year AT -- 9125 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IR L/day FI unitless SA 670 670 cm2 Tevent 4.00 4 hr/event EV 1 1 event/day C1 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 4 4 hr/day C2 1000 1000 cm'/L Page 4 of 4 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 85 1/8/2016 to Outdoor Air EPC Calculations of Risk Based Concentration - Soil TION - CONSTRUCTION WORKER (ADULT) n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy = EPClsos.l x PARTICULATEIgs I x 1 E-06 [kg/mg] = (1/PEF * 1E+09 ug/kg) or Measured/Modelled (m3/kg) = O/C x [(3600 s/hr) / ((0.036 x (1- V) x (Um/U,)3 x F(x))] PARAMETERIDEFINITION UNITS DEFAULT Source PARTICULATE,,l / Particulate concentration in air ug/m 0.03279 Calculated or measured Measured or modeled PARTICULATEwq ug/m3 1 Measured value PEF / Particulate emission factor m3/kg 1 Guidance value PEF / Particulate emission factor m3/kg 3.05E+10 Calculated here O/C / inverse of the mean concentration at the center of a 0.5 -acre -square source g/m2-s per kg/m3 36.80 Calculated / USEPA, 2014 V / Fraction of vegetative cover unitless 0.5 Site-specific, estimated Um / mean annual windspeed m/s 3.44 Site-specific / USEPA, 2014 U, / equivalent threshold value of wind speed at 7 m m/s 11.32 USEPA, 2014 Fix) / function dependant on U./U, derived using Cowherd at al. (1985) unitless 8.60E-03 Calculated / USEPA, 2014 USEPA, 2014. Regional Screening Levels. Climactic zone: Phoenix Arizona Area of Source: CASRN COPC EPC Soil (mg/kg) EPC Particulate (ug/m') 7429-90-5 Aluminum 1 3.3E-08 7440-36-0 Antimony 1 3.3E-08 7440-38-2 Arsenic 1 3.3E-08 7440-39-3 Barium 1 3.3E-08 7440-41-7 Beryllium 1 3.3E-08 7440-42-8 Boron 1 3.3E-08 7440-43-9 Cadmium 1 3.3E-08 7440-70-2 Calcium 1 3.3E-08 744047-3 Chromium, Total 1 3.3E-08 16065-83-1 Chromium III 1 3.3E-08 7440-48-4 Cobalt 1 3.3E-08 7440-50-8 Copper 1 3.3E-08 7439-89-6 In 1 3.3E-08 7439-92-1 Lead 1 3.3E-08 7439-95-4 Magnesium 1 3.3E-08 7439-96-5 Manganese 1 3.3E-08 7439-97-6 Mercury 1 3.3E-08 7439-98-7 Molybdenum 1 3.3E-08 7440-02-0 Nickel 1 3.3E-08 7440-09-7 Potassium 1 3.3E-08 Specific to size of Exposure Area Page 1 of 5 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\HH PRGs\PRG calculations\Soil-Template-EPA-non-M-V11-ConstructionW-D2-RBC update.xlsx 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 86 :hment G - Table 4-7 Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based ,ation of Risk Based Concentration - Soil STRUCTION - CONSTRUCTION WORKER (ADULT) an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) tE-04 Page 2 of 5 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potential concern Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Cancer Toxicity Values Intake;,,„d„ (mg/kg/day) DAD.ECn.nm'a (mg/kg/day) (ug/m') EC,,,,,r (ug/m') ABS- (unitless) ABSd (unitless) CSFs„ (mg/kg/day)'' CSFd,,,,,i (mg/kg/day)-' IUR (ug/m')-' COPC CASRN RBC,_.ti„ RBCd,,,,,,i RBC, ni uj,t, RBC,,,,, RBCt,t,i Aluminum 7429-90-5 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Antimony 7440-36-0 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 5.8E-09 9.2E-10 2.6E-11 NE 0.6 0.03 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 1.1E+04 7.3E+04 9.1E+08 NE 9.9E+03 Barium 7440-39-3 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Beryllium 744041-7 NC NC 2.6E-11 NE NC NC 2.4E-03 NC NC 1.6E+09 NE 1.6E+09 Boron 744042-8 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 NC NC 2.6E-11 NE NC NC 1.8E-03 NC NC 2.2E+09 NE 2.2E+09 Calcium 7440-70-2 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Chromium, Total 744047-3 NC NC NC NE NC NC INC NC NC NE Chromium III 16065-83-1 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Cobalt 7440-48-4 NC NC 2.6E-11 NE NC NC 9.0E-03 NC NC 4.3E+08 NE 4.3E+08 Copper 7440-50-8 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Iron 7439-89-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Lead 7439-92-1 NC NC NC NE 1 NC NC NC NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Manganese 7439-96-5 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Mercury 7439-97-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC INC NC NC NE Molybdenum 7439-98-7 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Nickel 7440-02-0 NC NC 2.6E-11 NE NC NC 2.4E-04 NC NC 1.6E+10 NE 1.6E+10 Potassium 7440-09-7 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Selenium 7782A9-2 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Sodium 7440-23-5 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Strontium 7440-24-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Thallium 7440-28-0 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Titanium 7440-32-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Zinc 7440-66-6 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 INC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 NC NC NC NE NC NC NC NC NC NE Chromium A(hexavalent) 18540-29-9 9.7E-09 2.6E-11 NE 1 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8.4E-02 2.1E+04 4.6E+07 NE 2.1E+04 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\HH PRGs\PRG calculations\Soil - Template-EPA-non-M-V11-ConstructionW-D2-RBC update.xlsx 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 87 Attachment G - Table 4-7 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentration - Soil CONSTRUCTION - CONSTRUCTION WORKER (ADULT) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Page 3 of 5 NV - not volatile EC - e),posure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - risk based concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non -Cancer Toxicity Values Intake;,,,pa„ mg/kg/day) I DADae.p,a (mglkglday) ECp;,ipwaa (mglm3) EC..pp. (mglm3) ABSiNG (unitless) ABSa limitless) RfD«a, (mglkg/day) RfDdppp I (mg/kg/day) RfC (mg/m') COPC CASRN RBC;n,p id RBCd,r,,,i RBCp,d;p,�,e, RBCS.,,,, RBC-,, Aluminum 7429-90-5 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 1.5E+06 2.8E+09 NE 1.5E+06 Antimony 7440-36-0 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 4.0E-04 6.0E-05 5.9E+02 NTV NE 5.9E+02 Arsenic 7440-38-2 4.1E-07 6.4E-08 1.8E-12 NE 0.6 0.03 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 7.4E+02 4.7E+03 8.3E+06 NE 6.4E+02 Barium 7440-39-3 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 2.0E-01 1.4E-02 5.0E-03 2.9E+05 2.8E+09 NE 2.9E+05 Beryllium 7440-41-7 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 5:0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-05 7.4E+03 1.1E+07 NE 7.4E+03 Boron 7440-42-8 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-02 2.9E+05 1.1E+10 NE 2.9E+05 Cadmium 7440-43-9 6.8E-07 2.1E-09 1.8E-12 NE 1 0.001 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 1.5E+03 1.2E+04 1.1E+07 NE 1.3E+03 Calcium 7440-70-2 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 2.2E+06 NTV NE 2.2E+06 Chromium III 16065-83-1 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE i 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 2.2E+06 NTV NE 2.2E+06 Cobalt 7440-48-4 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 3.0E-03 3.0E-03 2.0E-05 4.4E+03 1.1E+07 NE 4.4E+03 Copper 7440-50-8 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 5.9E+04 NTV NE 5.9E+04 Iron 7439-89-6 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E+06 NTV NE 1.0E+06 Lead 7439-92-1 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Manganese 7439-96-5 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 2.1E+05 2.8E+07 NE 2.0E+05 Mercury 7439-97-6 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 2.0E-03 1.4E-04 3.0E-04 2.9E+03 1.7E+08 NE 2.9E+03 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 7.4E+03 NTV NE 7.4E+03 Nickel 7440-02-0 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 2.0E-04 2.9E+04 1.1E+08 NE 2.9E+04 Potassium 7440-09-7 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Selenium 7782-49-2 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 7.4E+03 1.1E+10 NE 7.4E+03 Sodium 7440-23-5 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Strontium 7440-24-6 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 2.0E+00 2.0E+00 2.9E+06 NTV NE 2.9E+06 Thallium 7440-28-0 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Titanium 7440-32-6 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 1.0E-04 1.5E+04 5.6E+07 NE 1.5E+04 Zinc 7440-66-6 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 4.4E+05 NTV NE 4.4E+05 Nitrate 14797-55-8 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 2.4E+06 NTV NE 2.4E+06 Sulfide 18496-25-8 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 NTV NTV NTV NE Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 6.8E-07 1.8E-12 NE 1 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 3.0E-04 7.4E+03 1.7E+08 NE 7.4E+03 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058 Duke\002\HH PRGs\PRG calculations\Soil -Template-EPA-non-M-V11-ConstructionW-D2-RBC update.xlsx 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 88 :hment G - Table 4-7 Based Concentration Summary ,ation of Risk Based Concentration - Soil STRUCTION - CONSTRUCTION WORKER (ADULT) an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy concern Page 4 of 5 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Taraet Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/kg) I Cancer (mg/kg) FinalBasis (mg/kg) Antimony Aluminum /4Z`J-`JU-b l.bL+Ub l.bL+ub nc Antimony 7440-36-0 5.9E+02 5.9E+02 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 6.4E+02 9.9E+03 6.4E+02 nc Barium 7440-39-3 2.9E+05 2.9E+05 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 7.4E+03 1.6E+09 7.4E+03 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.9E+05 2.9E+05 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.3E+03 2.2E+09 1.3E+03 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 2.2E+06 2.2E+06 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 2.2E+06 2.2E+06 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 4.4E+03 4.3E+08 4.4E+03 nc Copper 7440-50-8 5.9E+04 5.9E+04 nc Iron 7439-89-6 1.0E+06 1.0E+06 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 2.0E+05 2.0E+05 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 2.9E+03 2.9E+03 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 7.4E+03 7.4E+03 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.9E+04 1.6E+10 2.9E+04 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 7.4E+03 7.4E+03 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 2.9E+06 2.9E+06 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.5E+04 1.5E+04 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 4.4E+05 4.4E+05 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 89 Table 4-7 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBC,.,., = 1 [(1/RBC„gat,)+(1/RBCda„a)+(1/RBCp,rt)+(1/RBC,,p)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC„g,,t,o,= TR / Intake,,,* CSF [EPC]so„ * IR * ABS,NG * FI * EF * ED * C1 I ntakeing lase group x) _ BW„ ` ATereuma Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCda M = TR / DAD * CSF DAE.ant * SA * EV * EF * ED DADaarm(aye grooP x)= BW. * ATrrauma DAEant = [EPC] 11 * ABSd * AF * Cl Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBCingaadnn= THI Intake,,, / RfD Intake,,, = [EPC]an;, * IR * ABS„g * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW*AT Noncancer-Based Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RGdarmai= THI DAD / RfD DADda„ = DA, t * SA * EV * EF * ED BW * AT DAEent = [EPC]_j, * ABSd * AF * C1 Cancer -Based Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RG;,ha,at,,, = TR / ECS IUR [EPC]PART * ETP.,, * EF * ED --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVaP * EF * ED EC- lase grow.I= 24 * ATrrarma Noncancer-Based Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RG;,naiadon= THI EC, / RIC EC, = [EPC]PART * ETPan * EF * ED * C2 --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVaP* EF * ED * C2 24 * AT Page 5 of 5 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific (mg/kg -day)' IUR Chemical specific (ug/m')-' Intake Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day EC,,, Age/chemical specific (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific unitless RID Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE—t Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm2-event ECn, Age/chemical specific mg/m' HO Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC].,, Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg [EPC]PART Attachment G - TABLE Attachment G - TABLE ug/m' [EPC]VAPOR Attachment G - TABLE Attachment G - TABLE ug/m' ABS,,, Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless ABSd Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW 80 80 kg EF 60 60 day/year ED 1 1 year AT — 365 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IR 330 330 mg/day FI 1 1 unitless C1 0.000001 0.000001 kg/mg SA 3470 3470 cm2 AF 0.3 0.3 mg/cm2 EV 1 1 event/day ETPart 8 8 hours/day C2 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 8 8 hours/day Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058 Duke\002\HH PRGs\PRG calculations\Soil - Template-EPA-non-M-V11-ConstructionW-D2-RBC update.xlsx 1/8/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 90 Page 1 of 4 Attachment H - Table 4-8 by this exposure route Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based NV - not volatile Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Groundwater CONSTRUCTION - CONSTRUCTION WORKER (ADULT) Exposure Routes Evaluated CSF - cancer slope Incidental Ingestion Yes Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Dermal Contact Yes Duke Energy Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potenital concern Intake Calculations I Tapwater Dermal Parameters Cancer Toxici Values COPC CASRN EPC Intakeinae,d„ DA,,,,,r DADd,,,,i ECS B z t* Kp FA In EPD? CSF,,,, CSFd,,,,i IUR RBCi,,g - RBCd,n„i RBC,,,,,r RBC„r,i (mg/L) (mg/kglday) (mglkg/day) (mg/kglday) p„ lug, (unitless) (hrlevent) (hr) (cmlhr) (unitless) (YIN) (mg/kglday)"' (mglkg/day)"' (uglm')"' (mg/L) (mglL) (mg/L) (mg/L) Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.00E-03 NC INC NC NE 2.0E-03 1.5E-01 3.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Antimony 7440-36-0 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 4.2E-03 5.1E-01 1.2E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.00E-03 1.2E-10 1.6E-09 3.1E-11 NE 3.3E-03 2.8E-01 6.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 5.7E+02 2.1E+03 NE 4.5E+02 Barium 7440-39-3 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 4.5E-03 6.2E-01 1.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 V NC NC NE Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.2E-03 1.2E-01 2.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.4E-03 NC NC NE Boron 7440-42-8 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.4E-03 1.3E-01 3.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 4.1E-03 4.5E-01 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.8E-03 NC NC NE Calcium 7440-70-2 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Chromium III 1606583-1 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 V NC NC NE Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.2E-03 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 4.0E-04 1 Y 9.0E-03 NC NC NE Copper 7440-50-8 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.1E-03 2.4E-01 5.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Iron 7439-89-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.9E-03 2.2E-01 5.2E-01 1.0E-03 1 V NC NC NE Lead 7439-92-1 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 5.5E-04 1.5E+00 3.7E+00 1.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 V NC NC NE Manganese 7439-96-5 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.9E-03 2.1E-01 5.1E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Mercury 7439-97-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 5.4E-03 1.4E+00 3.4E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Molybdenum -0- 7439987 0E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.8E-03 3.6E-01 8.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE 74402 0 . 1l . 4Et 2.0E-04 1 YNicke 2.4E-04 NC NC NE Potassium 7440-09-7 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Selenium 778249-2 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.4E-03 2.9E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Sodium7440-23-5 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 6.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Strontium 7440-24-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.6E-03 3.3E-01 7.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Thallium 7440-28-0 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 5.5E-03 1.5E+00 3.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Titanium 7440-32-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Vanadium 7440-02-2 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.7E-03 2.0E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 V NC NC NE Zinc 7440-66-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.9E-03 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 6.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.0E-03 2.3E-01 5.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.00E-03 NC INC NC NE 4.OE-04 1 Y NC NC NE Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.00E-03 1.2E-10 3.2E-09 6.3E-11 NE 5.5E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 2.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8.4E-02 1.7E+03 7.9E+01 NE 7.6E+01 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 91 116/2016 Page 2 of 4 :hment H - Table 48 Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based ,ation of Risk Based Concentrations - Groundwater STRUCTION - CONSTRUCTION WORKER (ADULT) an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - risk based concentration COPC - chemical of potenital concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Tapwater Dermal Parameters Non -Cancer ToxicityValues COPC CASRN EPC rn1akeina„d,n DA,,,,nr DADd,nnai EC,, _ B 1: t* KpPA In EPD1 RfDaraiRfDdai RfC RBCins„d,n RBCd- I RBC*,00, RBC_, (mg/L) g/kglday) (mglkg/day) I. kg (mg/m') (unitless) (hrlevent) (hr) (cmlhr) (unitless) (YIN) (mglkglday) (mglkglday) (mglma) (Mg/ (mgll) (mglL) Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 2.0E-03 1.5E-01 3.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 1.2E+05 4.5E+05 NE 9.6E+04 Antimony 7440-36-0 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 4.2E-03 5.1E-01 1.2E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 4.0E-04 6.0E-05 4.9E+01 2.7E+01 NE 1.7E+01 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 3.3E-03 2.8E-01 6.6E-01 1.0E-03 0.6 Y 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 3.7E+01 1.4E+02 NE 2.9E+01 Barium 7440-39-3 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 4.5E-03 6.2E-01 1.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.0E-01 1.4E-02 5.0E-03 2.4E+04 6.4E+03 NE 5.0E+03 Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 1.2E-03 1.2E-01 2.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-05 6.1E+02 2.3E+03 NE 4.8E+02 Boron 7440-42-8 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 1.4E-03 1.3E-01 3.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-02 2.4E+04 9.1E+04 NE (14 Cadmium 7440-03-9 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 4.1E-03 4.5E-01 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 1.2E+02 1.1E+01 NE 1:9E 1.0E+01 Calcium 7440-70-2 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NTV NTV NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.8E+OS 9.1E+03 NE 8.6E+03 Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.8E+05 9.1E+03 IN 8.6E+03 Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 6.4E-10 8.8E-10 NE 1.2E-03 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 4.0E-04 1 Y 3.0E-03 3.0E-03 2.0E-05 3.7E+02 3.4E+03 NE 3.3E+02 Copper 7440-50-8 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 3.1E-03 2.4E-01 5.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 4.9E+03 1.8E+04 NE 3.8E+03 Iron 7439-89-6 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 2.9E-03 2.2E-01 5.2E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 8.5E+04 3.2E+05 NE 6.7E+04 Lead 7439-92-1 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-10 2.2E-10 NE 5.5E-04 1.5E+00 3.7E+00 1.0E-04 1 Y NTV NTV NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NTV NTV NE Manganese 7439-96-5 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 2.9E-03 2.1E-01 5.1E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y '1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 1.7E+04 2.5E+03 IN 2.2E+03 Mercury 7439-97-6 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 5.4E-03 1.4E+00 3.4E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.0E-03 1.4E-04 3.0E-04 2.4E+02 6.4E+01 NE 5.0E+01 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 3.8E-03 3.6E-01 8.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 6.1E+02 2.3E+03 NE 4.SE+02 Nickel7440-02-0 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 3.2E-10 4.4E-10 NE 5.9E-04 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 2.0E-04 1 Y 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 2.0E-04 2.4E+03 1.8E+03 NE 1.0E+03 Potassium 7440-09-7 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 3.2E-10 4.4E-10 NE 2.0E-04 1 Y NTV NTV NE Selenium 7782-49-2 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 3.4E-03 2.9E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 6.1E+02 2.3E+03 NE 4.8E+02 Sodium 7440-23-5 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 9.6E-10 1.3E-09 NE 6.0E-04 1 Y NTV NTV NE Strontium 7440-24-6 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 3.6E-03 3.3E-01 7.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.0E+00 2.0E+00 2.4E+05 9.1E+05 NE 1.9E+05 Thallium 7440-28-0 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 5.5E-03 1.5E+00 3.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NTV NTV NE Mbirium 7440-32-6 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 HE 1.0E-03 1 Y NTV NTV NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 2.7E-03 2.0E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 1.0E-04 1.2E+03 4.5E+03 NE 9.6E+02 Zinc 7440-66-6 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 9.6E-10 1.3E-09 NE 1.9E-03 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 6.0E-04 1 Y 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 3.7E+04 2.3E+05 NE 3.1E+04 Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 1.6E-09 2.2E-09 NE 3.0E-03 2.3E-01 5.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 1.9E+05 7.3E+05 NE 1.5E+05 Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 6.3E-10 8.7E-10 NE 4.0E-04 1 Y NTV NTV NE Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.00E-03 8.2E-09 3.2E-09 4.4E-09 NE 5.5E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 2.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 3.0E-04 6.1E+02 3.0E+01 HE 2.8E+01 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 92 116/2016 Page 3 of 4 3chment H - Table 4-8 k Based Concentration Summary ivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Groundwater NSTRUCTION - CONSTRUCTION WORKER (ADULT) n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potenital concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available: remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/L) I Cancer (mg/L) I Final (mg/L) Basis Aluminum /4Zbl_Uu-0 V.0t+u4 y.bt+U4 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 1.7E+01 1.7E+01 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 2.9E+01 4.5E+02 2.9E+01 nc Barium 7440-39-3 5.0E+03 5.0E+03 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 4.8E+02 4.8E+02 nc Boron 7440-42-8 1.9E+04 1.9E+04 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.0E+01 1.0E+01 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 8.6E+03 8.6E+03 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 8.6E+03 8.6E+03 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.3E+02 3.3E+02 nc Copper 7440-50-8 3.8E+03 3.8E+03 nc Iron 7439-89-6 6.7E+04 6.7E+04 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 2.2E+03 2.2E+03 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 5.0E+01 5.0E+01 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 4.8E+02 4.8E+02 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 4.8E+02 4.8E+02 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 1.9E+05 1.9E+05 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 9.6E+02 9.6E+02 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.1E+04 3.1E+04 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.5E+05 1.5E+05 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 2.8E+01 7.6E+01 2.8E+01 nc Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 93 1/6/2016 Table 4-8 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBC,orai = 1 [(1/RBC;ngaah.) + (1/RBCd-0 + (1/RBC,)] Cancer -Based Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC; TR �0w = Intake;ng * CSF [EPC]watar * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 Intake;*, (eye ,,pup x) = BW * AT; ireuma Cancer -Based Risk Based Concentration from Dermal Absorption TR ma; RBCda,= DADd— *CSF DADd.- DA�,e„ r * SA * EV * EF * ED tl (,.grwpx)— AT,;w;me DAE—t = [EPC]- * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCevent TevenKt* _ 2 * FA * C2 . 6 -7- . event Kp. PCeventTevenb=t* = FA * C2 * ll 1 + B J+2 t ) Inorganics Compounds: PCevent = KP ` Tevent C2 Cancer -Based Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation Value - Non -Cancer TR RBCmhaienon= EEC_* IUR -- [EPCI—R* ETvap* EF * ED * C1 EC*a„ (*ga graap.) = 24 * AT; -- uet� e m Noncancer-Based Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC;ngaar;pn = THI mg/kg -day Intake;, / RfD Intake;ng = [EPC]ware, * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 (ug/m') BW * AT Noncancer-Based Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCdan„a; = THI DADd— / RfD De,m DA, * DFWadj AD d (,.group.) = ATrre,�me. DAE� = [EPC]_, * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCeventTevenKt* = 2 * FA , K , 6 * r *rTevent Kp. (1+3B+3B'\1 PCeventTevent =t* = FA * C2 * [(Tevent) + B J-2— 1 + B ' )JJ t Inorganics Compounds: PKP ` Tevent Cevent = C2 Noncancer-Based Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;nhaiagpn = THI EC_ / RfC ECn� _ [EPC]VAPOR * ETVap * EF * ED * C2 24 * AT Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific -- (mg/kg -day)" IUR Chemical specific -- (ug/m3)"t Intake Age/chemical specific -- mg/kg -day EC— Age/chemical specific -- (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific -- unitless Rfl) -- Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC -- Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE_ Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm`-event EC- -- Age/chemical specific mg/m' HQ -- Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC]_., Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/L PCevent Chemical specific Chemical specific L/cmc-event [EPChapp, ----NOT USED--- -----NOT USED--- ug/m' BW 80 80 kg EF 60 60 day/year ED 1 1 year AT -- 365 day ATlifetime 25550 — day IR 0.004 0.004 Uday FI 1 1 unitless SA 670 670 cm2 Tevent 1.60 1.6 hr/event EV 1 1 event/day C1 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 1.6 1.6 hr/day C2 1000 1000 cm'/L Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 94 1/6/2016 Attachment I - Table 4-9 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment Off -Site Recreational Swimmer - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) tE-04 Page 1 of 4 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - Risk Based Concentration NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potential concern Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Cancer Toxicity Values Intake;,,a.su=„ (mglkglday) DADde,,,,,� (mglkglday) EC,,.nmmete (uglm') EC,,,e=r (ug/m') ABS- (unitless) ABSd (unitless) CSF.., (mg/kg/day)'' CSFd.r (mglkglday)-' IUR (uglm')-' COPC CASRN RBC,_.ti,,, RBCd,,,,,,i RBCp uj w RBC�.,t,,, RBCt t,i Aluminum 7429-90-5 INC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Antimony 7440-36-0 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 7.3E-09 3.9E-08 NE NE 0.6 0.03 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 9.1E+03 1.7E+03 NE NE 1.4E+03 Barium 7440-39-3 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Beryllium 7440-41-7 NC NC NE NE NC NC 2.4E-03 NC NC NE NE Boron 7440-42-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 NC NC NE NE NC NC 1.8E-03 NC NC NE NE calcium 7440-70-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Chromium, Total 744047-3 NC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Chromium III 16065-83-1 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Cobalt 7440484 NC NC NE NE NC NC 9.0E-03 NC NC NE NE Copper 7440-50-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Iron 7439-89-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Lead 7439-92-1 NC NC NE NE 1 NC NC NE NE Magnesium 7439-954 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Manganese 7439-96-5 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Mercury 7439-97-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Molybdenum 7439-98-7 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Nickel 7440-02-0 NC NC NE NE NC NC 2.4E-04 NC NC NE NE Potassium 7440-09-7 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Selenium 778249-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Sodium 7440-23-5 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Strontium 7440-24-6 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Thallium 7440-28-0 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Titanium 7440-32-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Zinc 7440-66-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 95 Attachment I - Table 4-9 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment Off -Site Recreational Swimmer - CHILD (AGE <6) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Page 2 of 4 NV - not volatile EC - e)posure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - Risk Based Concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern NTV - no toncity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non -Cancer Toxicity Values I Intake;,,a,t,„ mg/kg/day) I DADda.p,ay (mglkglday) ECp;,ipwata (mglm3) EC.app. (mg ABSING (unitless) ABSa (unities s) RfD«a, (mg/kg/day) RfDdapp I (mg/kg/day) RfC COPC CASRN RBC;n,pad,n RBCdar„ai RBCpadku� RBC__ RBCtn I(mglm') Aluminum 7429-90-5 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 1.2E+07 NE NE 1.2E+07 Antimony 7440-36-0 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 4.0E-04 6.0E-05 4.9E+03 NE NE 4.9E+03 Arsenic 7440-38-2 4.9E-08 1.6E-07 NE NE 0.6 0.03 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 6.1E+03 1.9E+03 NE NE 1.5E+03 Barium 7440-39-3 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 2.0E-01 1.4E-02 5.0E-04 2.4E+06 NE NE 2.4E+06 Beryllium 7440-41-7 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 2.0E-03 1.4E-05 2.0E-05 2.4E+04 NE NE 2.4E+04 Boron 7440-42-8 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-02 2.4E+06 NE NE 2.4E+06 Cadmium 7440-43-9 8.2E-08 5.2E-09 NE NE 1 0.001 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 1.2E+04 4.8E+03 NE NE 3.4E+03 Calcium 7440-70-2 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Chromium, Total 744047-3 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.8E+07 NE NE 1.8E+07 Chromium III 16065-83-1 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.8E+07 NE NE 1.8E+07 Cobalt 7440-484 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 6.0E-06 3.7E+03 NE NE 3.7E+03 Copper 7440-50-8 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 4.9E+05 NE NE 4.9E+05 Iron 7439-89-6 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 8.5E+06 NE NE 8.5E+06 Lead 7439-92-1 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Manganese 7439-96-5 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 1.7E+06 NE NE 1.7E+06 Mercury 7439-97-6 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 3.0E-04 2.1E-05 3.0E-04 3.7E+03 NE NE 3.7E+03 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 6.1E+04 NE NE 6.1E+04 Nickel 7440-02-0 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 9.0E-05 2.4E+05 NE NE 2.4E+05 Potassium 7440-09-7 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Selenium 7782-49-2 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 6.1E+04 NE NE 6.1E+04 Sodium 7440-23-5 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Strontium 7440-24-6 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 7.3E+06 NE NE 7.3E+06 Thallium 7440-28-0 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 1.2E+02 NE NE 1.2E+02 Titanium 7440-32-6 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 6.1E+04 NE NE 6.1E+04 Zinc 7440-66-6 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 3.7E+06 NE NE 3.7E+06 Nitrate 14797-55-8 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 1.9E+07 NE NE 1.9E+07 Sulfide 18496-25-8 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 96 Page 3 of 4 Attachment I - Table 4-9 Risk Based Concentration Summary Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment Off -Site Recreational Swimmer - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Incidental Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk(per Chemical 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/kg) I Cancer (mg/kg) FinalBasis (mg/kg) 7440-36-0 Aluminum /4Z`J-`JU-b I.ZL+U/ l.zL+ut nc Antimony 7440-36-0 4.9E+03 4.9E+03 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.5E+03 1.4E+03 1.4E+03 c Barium 7440-39-3 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.4E+04 2.4E+04 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.4E+03 3.4E+03 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.8E+07 1.8E+07 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.8E+07 1.8E+07 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.7E+03 3.7E+03 nc Copper 7440-50-8 4.9E+05 4.9E+05 nc Iron 7439-89-6 8.5E+06 8.5E+06 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 1.7E+06 1.7E+06 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 3.7E+03 3.7E+03 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 6.1E+04 6.1E+04 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.4E+05 2.4E+05 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 6.1 E+04 6.1 E+04 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 7.3E+06 7.3E+06 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 1.2E+02 1.2E+02 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 6.1E+04 6.1E+04 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.7E+06 3.7E+06 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.9E+07 1.9E+07 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 97 Table 4-9 Risk Based Concentration Calculations - Composite Receptor/Age-Adjusted Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBC,.,., = 1 [(1/RBC,ngets)+(1/RBCder„a)+(1/RBCp,rt)+(1/RBC,ap)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC,ngest;cn= TR / Intake,,,* CSF [EPC]a.;; * IFSadj * ABS;NO * FI * EF * C1 Intake,ng (age group x)= BW. ` ATrreume Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCdern,a; = TR / DAD * CSF DADdern,(ege gr P x)= DAE.ent * SA * EV * EF * ED BW. * ATef.,m DAEvent = [EPC]-; * DFSadj * C1 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC„g,,t;en= THI Intake,,, * RfD Intake;n, = [EPC]sn;; * IR * ABS,,, * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW*AT Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCder„a;= THI DAD * RfD DADde = DAE-nt * SA * EV * EF * ED BW*AT DAEvent = [EPC]so;; * ABSd * AF * C1 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBCmnaiaeen = TR / ECS IUR EC- (age group x)— [EPC]PART * ETFp.� * EF * ED --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVap * EF * ED 24 * ATrreume Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation THI RBC;nneiarnn= EC- * RfC ECn, = [EPCIPART * ETp.,i * EF * ED * C2 --- OR--- [EPCIVAPOR * ETVap * EF * ED * C2 24 * AT Page 4 of 4 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific (mg/kg -day)-' IUR Chemical specific (ug/m')-' Intake Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day ECS, Age/chemical specific (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific unitless RfD Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC — Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE„ent Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm'-event EC,� Age/chemical specific mg/m' HQ Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC]a.;; Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg [EPC]PART -----NOT USED----- -----NOT USED----- ug/m' [EPC]VAPOR -----NOT USED----- -----NOT USED----- ug/m' ABS;ng Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless ABSd Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW NA 15 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 26 6 year AT -- 2190 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IFSadj 7 -- mg-yr/kg-day IR NA 10 mg/day FI 1 1 unitless C1 0.000001 0.000001 kg/mg SA NA 6378 cm2 AF NA 0.1 mg/cm2 EV 1 1 event/day DFSadj 741 NA mg-yr/kg-day ETPart 1 2 hours/day C2 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap ug/mg 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 98 Page 1 of 4 :hment I Table 4-9 Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based ,ation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment site Recreational Swimmer - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 exposure concentration CSF- cancer slope factor RBC -risk NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potential concern Intake Calculations sorption Factors Muta enic Cancer Toxicity Values IC OPC CASRN EPC Soil Intakeinp,.0ipn DADe,nn,I ECp.dlcul . ECS pp, ABSING ABSd MOA? CSF- CSFa,rn„ i IUR RBCinp„spn RBCd-1 RBCp njc „ r, RISC_ RBCrapi (mg/kg) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (ug/m') (uglm') (unitless) (unitless) (mg/kg/day)'' (mg/kg/day)” (uglm')'' Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.0E+00 5.1E-08 FALSE NE NE 1 Y 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8AE-02 3.9E+03 NE NE 3. SIE,0 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 99 Page 2 of 4 Attachment I Table 4.9 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment Off -Site Recreational Swimmer - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Incidental Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 NV - not volatile EC - exoosure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC -risk based concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non -Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN EPC Soil Intake;�gsa,n DADa....I ECp,rcmm,ta EC�,p„ ABSING ABSa RfD_ RfDa.r RIC RBCmgasro„ RBCa,,,,,,i RBCp,rcm�ue. RBC,,,p.r RBCm.I (mglkg) (mglkglday) (mg/kglday) (mglm') (mg/m') (unitless) (unitless) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mglm') Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.0E+00 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 3.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E-04 3.7E+04 NE NE 3.7E+04 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 100 Attachment I Table 4-9 Risk Based Concentration Summary Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment Off -Site Recreational Swimmer - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Exposure Routes Evaluated IHuman Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy IN al concern c -risk based concentration based on EPCs Page 3 of 4 Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Taraet Cancer Risk Iger Chemical) 1 E-04 nc -risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index NA - no toxicitv value available:Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer (mg/kg) Final (mg/kg) Basis Chromium A (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.7E+04 3.9E+03 3.9E+03 c 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 101 Attachment I Table 4-9 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBC,.,., = 1 [(1/RBC„get;)+(1/RBCdar„a)+(1/RBCp,rt)+(1/RBC,,p)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC„gast;e,= TR / Intake,,,* CSF [EPC],,,, *[IFSadj - OR - IFSM] * ABSiNO * FI * EF * C1 Intake,ng loge grn,p x)= BW. * AT rrarma Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCdar„ai= TR / DAD * CSF DAH * SA * EV * EF * ED DADderm(egegr px)= BW. *ATrrerme DAE-nt = [EPC]..,, * [DFSadj - OR - DFSM] * C1 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;nhaiatbn= TR / ECean* IUR [EPC]PART * ETPart * EF * ED --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVap* EF' ED EC- (age group x)= 24 * ATiaarma For mutagens, IHHM is used in place of ED Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration foringestior THI RBim C,ng-t= Intake,,, / RfD Intaken, = [EPC]se;i * IR * ABS,,, * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW*AT Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption THI RBCdermai= DAD / RfD DADde,n, = DAE„e,t * SA * EV * EF * ED BW*AT DAE—t = [EPC]s„, * ABSd * AF * C1 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation THI RBC;,haian= o, EC- / RfC EC- = [EPC]PART * ETPart * EF * ED * C2 --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVap * EF * ED * C2 24*AT Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 102 Page 4 of 4 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific (mg/kg -day)' IUR Chemical specific (ug/m')-' Intake Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day EC- Age/chemical specific (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific unitless RID Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE„ent Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm2-event ECn, Age/chemical specific mg/m3 HQ Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC].., Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg [EPC]PART ----NOT USED----- ----NOT USED----- ug/m' [EPC]VAPOR ----NOT USED----- ----NOT USED----- ug/m' ABS;,g Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless ABSd Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW NA 15 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 26 2 year AT -- 730 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IFSadj 7 mg-yr/kg-day IFSM 29 -- mg-yr/kg-day IR NA 10 mg/day FI 1 1 unitless C1 0.000001 0.000001 kg/mg SA NA 6378 cm2 AF NA 0.1 mg/cm2 EV 1 1 event/day DFSadj 741 -- mg-yr/kg-day DFSM 2454 -- mg-yr/kg-day ETPart 2 2 hours/day C2 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 2 2 ug/mg INHM 6480 unitless 1/6/2016 Page 1 of 4 Attachment J - Table 4-10 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water Off -Site Recreational Swimmer - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Dermal Contact Yes Duke Energy Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentrations NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potenital concern Intake Calculations I Tapwater Dermal Parameters Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN EPC Intakeing-ri DA._ DADd*m,,, EC* B z t* Kp FA In EPD? CSF i CSFs*rn„ i IUR RBCins*,don RBCdnnn,i RBC__ RBC„rni (mglL) (mg/kglday) (mglkg/day) (mg/kglday) po, (ug/m') (unitless) (hrlevent) (hr) (cmlhr) (unitless) (YIN) (mg/kglday)'' (mglkg/day)"' (uglm')"' (mglL) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.0E-03 1.5E-01 3.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Antimony 7440-36-0 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 4.2E-03 5.1E-01 1.2E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.00E-03 1.3E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 3.3E-03 2.8E-01 6.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 5.0E-01 2.3E+00 NE 4.1E-01 Barium 7440-39-3 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 4.5E-03 6.2E-01 1.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 V NC NC NE Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.2E-03 1.2E-01 2.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.4E-03 NC NC NE Boron 7440-42-8 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.4E-03 1.3E-01 3.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 4.1E-03 4.5E-01 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.8E-03 NC NC NE Calcium 7440-70-2 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Chromium III 1606583-1 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 V NC NC NE Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.2E-03 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 4.0E-04 1 Y 9.0E-03 NC NC NE Copper 7440-50-8 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.1E-03 2.4E-01 5.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Iron 7439-89-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.9E-03 2.2E-01 5.2E-01 1.0E-03 1 V NC NC NE Lead 7439-92-1 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 5.5E-04 1.5E+00 3.7E+00 1.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 V NC NC NE Manganese 7439-96-5 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.9E-03 2.1E-01 5.1E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Mercury 7439-97-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 5.4E-03 1.4E+00 3.4E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Molybdenum -0- 7439987 0E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.8E-03 3.6E-01 8.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE 74402 0 . 1l . 4Et 2.0E-04 1 YNicke 2.4E-04 NC NC NE Potassium 7440-09-7 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Selenium 778249-2 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.4E-03 2.9E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Sodium 7440-23-5 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 6.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Strontium 7440-24-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.6E-03 3.3E-01 7.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Thallium 7440-28-0 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 5.5E-03 1.5E+00 3.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Titanium 7440-32-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Vanadium 7440-02-2 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.7E-03 2.0E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 V NC NC NE Zinc 7440-66-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.9E-03 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 6.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.0E-03 2.3E-01 5.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.00E-03 NC INC NC NE 4.GE-04 1 Y NC NC NE Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 103 1/8/2016 Page 2 of 4 :hment J - Table 4-10 Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based ,ation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water site Recreational Swimmer - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - risk based concentrations COPC - chemical of potenital concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Tapwater Dermal Parameters Non -Cancer ToxicityValues COPC CASRN EPC Intakeina**non DA,nr DADn,nn*i EC.po, B 1: t* Kp FA FA In EPD1 RfDnr,i RID—, RfC RBCins**mn RBCd*rm.i RBCS .r RBCro (mg/L) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mg/m') (unities (hrlevent) (hr) (cmlhr) (YIN) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mg/m') (mg/L) (mg/L) g/L) Aluminum 7429905 E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 .E-07 NE 2.0E-03 1.5E-01 3.6E-01 E-03 .E-0Antimony 1 Y 10E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 1.2E+03 9.5E+03 NE 1.1E+03 -- 7440-3 1.E NE 4.2E-03 51 1 E-0 1.2E+00 103 1 Y 4.0E-04 6.0E-05 4.9E-01 5.7E-01 NE 2.6E-01 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 3.3E-03 2.8E-01 6.6E-01 0E-03 .0E-03 0.6 Y 3.0E-04 30E-04 1.5E-05 3.7E-01 2.9E+00 NE 3.2E-01 7440-39-3 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2 0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 4.5E 2E01 1.5E+00 1 1 Y 200Barum E1 1.4E-02 5.0E-04 2.4E+02 1.3E+02 NE 8.6E+01 Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.00E-03 8.2E - 2.0E -0 E-07 1.E-07 NE 1.2E-03 1.2E-01 2.8E-01 . E-03 1 Y 2.0E-03 14E-05 2.0E-05 2.4E+00 1.3E-01 NE 1.3E-01 B 7440-42-8 1.00E-03 2E-0 7 00 E9 0 NE 14E-03 1.3E1 3.0E -0 1 0E-03 1 Y 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-02 2.4E+02 1.9E+03 NE 2.2E+02oron Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 4.1E-03 4.5E-01 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 1.2E+00 2.4E-01 NE 2.0E-01 Calcium 7440-70-2 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NTV NTV NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.8E+03 1.9E+02 NE 1.7E+02 Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.8E+03 1.9E+02 NE 1.7E+02 Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 8.0E-10 4.2E-08 NE 1.2E-03 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 4.0E-04 1 Y 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 6.0E-06 3.7E-01 7.2E+00 NE 3.5E-01 Copper 7440-50-8 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 3.1E-03 2.4E-01 5.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 4.9E+01 3.8E+02 NE 4.3E+01 Iron 7439-89-6 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 2.9E-03 2.2E-01 5.2E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 8.5E+02 6.7E+03 NE 7.6E+02 Lead 7439-92-1 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-10 1.0E-08 NE 5.5E-04 1.5E+00 3.7E+00 1.0E-04 1 Y NTV NTV NE Magnesium 7439-95-41.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NTV NTV NE Manganese 7439-96-5 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 2.9E-03 2.1E-01 5.1E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 1.7E+02 5.3E+01 NE 4.1E+01 Mercury 7439-97-6 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 5AE-03 1.4E+00 3.4E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 3.0E-04 2.1E-05 3.0E-04 3.7E-01 2.0E-01 NE 1.3E-01 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 3.8E-03 3.6E-01 8.7E-01 1.0E-03 1Y 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 6.1E+00 4.8E+01 NE 5.4E+00 Nickel 7440-02-0 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 4.0E-10 2.1E-08 NE 5.9E-04 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 2.0E-04 1 Y 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 9.0E-05 2.4E+01 3.8E+01 NE 1.5E+01 Potassium 7440-09-7 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 4.0E-10 2.1E-08 NE 2.0E-04 1 Y NTV NTV NE Selenium 7782-49-2 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 3.4E-03 2.9E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 6.1E+00 4.8E+01 NE 5.4E+00 Sodium 7440-23-5 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 1.2E-09 6.3E-08 NE 6.0E-04 1 Y NTV NTV NE Strontium 7440-24-6 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 3.6E-03 3.3E-01 7.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 7.3E+02 5.7E+03 NE 6.5E+02 Thallium 7440-28-0 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 5.5E-03 1.5E+00 3.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NTV NTV NE Titanium 7440-32-6 1.110E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NTV NTV NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 2.7E-03 2.0E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 6.1E+00 1.2E+00 NE 1.0E+00 Zinc 7440-66-6 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 1.2E-09 6.3E-08 NE 1.9E-03 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 6.0E-04 1 Y 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 3.7E+02 4.8E+03 NE 3.4E+02 Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 1.0E-07 NE 3.0E-03 2.3E-01 5.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 1.9E+03 1.5E+04 NE 1.7E+03 Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 7.9E-10 4.2E-08 NE 4.0E-04 1 Y NTV NTV NE Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 104 1/8/2016 achment J - Table 4-10 ;k Based Concentrations Summary rivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water :.Site Recreational Swimmer - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Page 3 of 4 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potenital concern nc - risk based concentrations based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentrations based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/L) Cancer I (mg/L) Final I (mg/L) Basis Aluminum M29 -91J -b 1.11=+U3 1.11=+U3 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 3.2E-01 4.1 E-01 3.2E-01 nc Barium 7440-39-3 8.6E+01 8.6E+01 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.2E+02 2.2E+02 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.5E-01 3.5E-01 nc Copper 7440-50-8 4.3E+01 4.3E+01 nc Iron 7439-89-6 7.6E+02 7.6E+02 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 4.1E+01 4.1E+01 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 5.4E+00 5.4E+00 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 5.4E+00 5.4E+00 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 6.5E+02 6.5E+02 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.4E+02 3.4E+02 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.7E+03 1.7E+03 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 105 1/8/2016 Table 4-10 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentrations RBCin = 1 [(1/RBCingep,inn) + (1/RBCdanna1) + (1/RBCvep)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentrations for Ingestion RBC;nees = TR Intake;ng *CSF [EPC]waie. * IFWadj * FI Intake;ng(agegn,cpx)= BW*ATli,e,ime Cancer -Risk Based Concentrations from Dermal Absorption TR RBCae,n,a; = DADae,,, *CSF DAE„e„t * DFWadj DADd— lase g—p x) _ AT;;r�;me DAEvan, = [EPC]wata, * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCevent Kp F6- r * levant Teventct* = 2 ' FA * C2 f'/ \. \I1I PCevent FA * Cz ` 11e+ nt 1+ 2 . . rt +1 ++ B)'Bz/1 Tevent>=t* = L\ Inorganics Compounds: PCevent = Kp * Tevent C2 Cancer -Risk Based Concentrations for Inhalation Value - Non -Cancer TR RBC;nhaledm = EC,_ *IUR -- [EPC]vApoR* ETvap* EF * ED * C1 ECxan _ lege g=p.) - * — 24 ATliterma Noncancer-Risk Based Concentrations for Ingestion RBC;n,tion = THI mg/kg -day Intake;ng / RfD Intake;ng = [EPC]wa,ar * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 (ug/m') BW*AT Noncanc—Risk Based Concentrations for Dermal Absorption THI RBCaem,a; = DADae,n, / RfD DAD em. = DAE„ent * SA * EV * EF * ED d lege 9rapx)- BW*AT DAEvant = [EPC]we,ar * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCevent Teventq* _ 2 * FA e. C2 * 6 * x *R event + PCeventTevent>=t* ' FA * Kp C2 ' [(1 + BTevent) +2-* (1 3B + 3B' )] C ) Inorganics Compounds: PCevent = Kp * Tevent C2 Noncancei-Risk Based Concentrations for Inhalation RBC;n a THI h Itdim = EC„p / RfC ECnp = [EPC)—OR * ETvep * EF * ED * C1 24 * AT Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific -- (mg/kg -day)' IUR Chemical specific — (ug/m')'' Intake Age/chemical specific -- mg/kg -day EC -n Age/chemical specific -- (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific — unkless RfD — Chemical specific mg/kg-tlay RFC -- Chemical speck (mg/m') DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DA,,- Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm'-event ECnn — Age/chemical specific mg/m' HQ — Age/chemical speck unftless [EPCIw Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/L PCevent Chemical specific Chemical specific L/cm`-event [EPCIwpo, --NOT USED— —NOT USED— ug/m' BW NA 15 kg EF 45 45 daylyear ED 26 6 year AT — 2190 day ATIRetime 25550 -- day IFWadj 3 -- L/kg IR NA 0.1 L/day FI 1 1 unftless SA NA 6378 cm2 Tevent 2.00 2 hr/event EV 1 1 event/day DFWadj 368901 NA event-2/kg C1 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 2 2 hr/day C2 1000 1000 Page 4 of 4 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 106 1/8/2016 Pace 1 of 4 Attachment J - Table 4-10 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface water Off -Site Recreational Swimmer - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Dermal Contact Yes Duke Energy Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC -exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV- no toxicity value avaih Attachment J DAD- dermally absorbed dose ABS- absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC- chemical of potential concern EPD- effective permeability domain Intake Calculations Tapwater Dermal Parameters Cancer Toxici Values Mutagenic COPC CASRN EPC Intake;r;DA,,r DADa,,,,,; EC,,,o„ B x t• Kp FA In EPD7 MOAN CSF,,,; CSFs,,,,,; IUR RBC;s,:u.. RBCa,,,,,; RBC,,,no,. RBC,o„i (mg /L) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (ug/m') (unitless) (hr/event) (hr) (cmlhr) (unitless) (YIN) (mg/kg/dayr' (mg/kg/day) (u) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.00E-03 5.2E-07 4.0E-09 2.4E-07 NE 5.5E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 2.0E-03 1 Y Y 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8.4E-02 3.9E-01 2.1E-02 NE 2.0E-02 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 107 1/6/2016 4ttachment J - Table 4-10 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based 3erivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface water Jff-Site Recreational Swimmer - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Auman Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites 3uke Energy COPC CASRN EPC Intake;nges,„n DA,�„d DADde,,,,,i EC,,,o„ B t t* Kp F, (mg/L) (mg/kg/day) (mglkglday) (mg/kglday) (mg/m') (unities.) (hrlevent) (hr) (cmlhr) (unit) Chromium Vl(in—alent) 18540-29-9 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 4.0E-09 2.1E-07 NE 5.5E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 2.0E-03 1 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 - chemical of Dotential concern ,PD? RfD,,,, RfDda,n,ai RIC RBC,_.j,n RBCinae,r„n RBCde,,,,,i RBC„„ /N) (mglkglday) (mglkglday) (mg/m') (mg/L) (m L) (mg1L Y 3.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E-04 3.7E+00 3.6E-01 NE 3.3E-01 Pape 2 of 4 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 108 1/8/2016 achment J - Table 4-10 ;k Based Concentration Summary rivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface water -Site Recreational Swimmer - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Page 3 of 4 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potenital concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based , Attachment J NA - no toxicity value available; remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/L) Cancer I (mg/L) Final I (mg/L) Basis Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.3E-01 2.0E-02 2.0E-02 c Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 109 1/8/2016 Table 4-10 Risk Based Concentration Calculations - Cancer -Based - Single Age Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration 1 RBC,cal= [(1/RBC,,,geelion)+(1/RBCdemal)+(1/RBC:;)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion TR RBC;ng.eon = Intake;pg *CSF [EPC]wa,p, * IFWM * FI Intakeing cage group.)= BW*AT; i_ Cancer -Risk Based Concentration from Dermal Absorption TR RBCde,ma; = DADdem, *CSF DAD am, (agegrpupx)= DAEvent * DFWM tl ATrre,ime DAE„ent = [EPCI—r * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCeven 2 * FA * C2 , 6 *r *R event tTevent<t* _ PCevent FA*C2*[(1+Bt)+2*�r, (1 38 g38'\l Tevent>=h = LL ( Y JJ Inorganics Compounds: Kip * Tevent PCevent= C2 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation TR RBCinhalan = m ECoap *IUR ECoan [EPC]VAPOR * INMH * C1 (age group x) 24 * ATrfetime Noneancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion THI RBC;ngesdm= Intake;ng / RfD Intake;ng = [EPC1w ar * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW * AT Noneancer-Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption THI RBCde,ma; = DADdem, / RfD DADd— – DAE.nt * SA * EV * EF * ED a lege grow°') BW*AT DAE—t = [EPCI—car * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCevent 2 * FA * C2 , F6-7- aTevent Tevent<t* _ KpTevent 1 + 3B + 3B' PCeventTevent>=t* = FA * C2 ' 1 + B +2-,- 1 + -Y Inorganics Compounds: Kip * Tevent PCevent = C2 Noneancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation THI RBC;nhalatmn= ECpo / RfC ECno = [EPC]VAPOR * ETvap * EF * ED * C1 24 * AT Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific -- (mg/kg -day)'' IUR Chemical specific — (uglm')'f Intake Age/chemical specific -- mg/kg -day EC— Age/chemical specific -- (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific -- undless RfD — Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC -- Chemical specific (mg/ma) DAD Agelchemical specific Age/chemical speck mg/kg -day DAewm Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm2-event EC- -- Age/chemical specific mg/m3 HO — Age/chemical specific unkless IEPC]„.,,*, Chemical specific Chemical specfic mg/L PCevent Chemical specific Chemical specific L/cm`-event IEPC].pa, ----NOT USED— --NOT USED ug/m' BW NA 15 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 26 2 year AT -- 730 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IFWM 3.4 -- L/kg IR 0 0.1 L/day FI NA 1 unkless SA 13 6378 cm2 Tevent 0.00 2 hr/event EVNA 1 event/day DFWM 1 — events-cm2/kg C10.001 0.001 mg/ug INHM 1537099 NA hr/day C2 1000 1000 cm' /L Page 4 of 4 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 110 102016 Page 1 of 4 Attachment K - Table 4-11 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment Off -Site Recreational Wader - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Incidental Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 NC - not carcinogenic by this emosure route NV - not volatile EC - emosure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no topcity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potential concern Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN Intake;naea,ion (mg/kg/day) DAD_.., (mg/kg/day) EC�sowme (ug/m') ECveaorABSING (uglm') (unitless) ABSa (unitless) CSFo,,; CSF.IUR (mg/kg/day)-' (mg/kg/day)" (ug/m)-' RBC;ses,;e„ RBCde,m,; RBCp,,,;�,,;,,e RBC,,,po, RBC_., Aluminum 7429-90-5 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Antimony 7440-36-0 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 7.3E-09 1.1E-08 NE NE 0.6 0.03 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 9.1E+03 6.1E+03 NE NE 3.6E+03 Barium 7440-39-3 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Beryllium 7440-41-7 NC NC NE NE NC NC 2.4E-03 NC NC NE NE Boron 7440-42-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 NC NC NE NE NC NC 1.8E-03 NC NC NE NE Calcium 7440-70-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Chromium III 16065-83-1 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Cobalt 7440-48-4 NC NC NE NE NC NC 9.0E-03 NC NC NE NE Copper 7440-50-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Iron 7439-89-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Lead 7439-92-1 NC NC NE NE 1 NC NC NE NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Manganese 7439-96-5 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Mercury 7439-97-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Molybdenum 7439-98-7 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Nickel 7440-02-0 NC NC NE NE NC NC 2.4E-04 NC NC NE NE Potassium 7440-09-7 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Selenium 7782-49-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Sodium 7440-23-5 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Strontium 7440-24-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Thallium 7440-28-0 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Titanium 7440-32-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Zinc 7440-66-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 111 Attachment K - Table 4-11 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment Off -Site Recreational Wader - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Page 2 of 4 NV - not volatile EC - e),posure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - risk based concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non -Cancer Toxicity Values Intake;,,,pe„ mg/kg/day) I DADde,n„ (mglkglday) ECparcmwaa (mglm3) EC, P..o, (mglm3) ABSine (unitless) ABSa (unities s) RfD«a, (mg/kg/day) RfDdp,.,, I (mg/kg/day) RfC (mglm') COPC CASRN RBC;n,p id RBCdpr,,,i RBCp,d;puy RBC__ RBCto Aluminum 7429-90-5 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 1.2E+07 NE NE 1.2E+07 Antimony 7440-36-0 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 4.0E-04 6.0E-05 4.9E+03 NE NE 4.9E+03 Arsenic 7440-38-2 4.9E-08 4.4E-08 NE NE 0.6 0.03 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 6.1E+03 6.9E+03 NE NE 3.2E+03 Barium 7440-39-3 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 2.0E-01 1.4E-02 5.0E-04 2.4E+06 NE NE 2.4E+06 Beryllium 7440-41-7 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 2.0E-03 1.4E-05 2.0E-05 2.4E+04 NE NE 2.4E+04 Boron 7440-42-8 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-02 2.4E+06 NE NE 2.4E+06 Cadmium 7440-43-9 8.2E-08 1.5E-09 NE NE 1 0.001 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 1.2E+04 1.7E+04 NE NE 7.1E+03 Calcium 7440-70-2 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Chromium, Total 744047-3 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.8E+07 NE NE 1.8E+07 Chromium III 16065-83-1 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.8E+07 NE NE 1.8E+07 Cobalt 7440-484 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 6.0E-06 3.7E+03 NE NE 3.7E+03 Copper 7440-50-8 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 4.9E+05 NE NE 4.9E+05 Iron 7439-89-6 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 8.5E+06 NE NE 8.5E+06 Lead 7439-92-1 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Manganese 7439-96-5 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 1.7E+06 NE NE 1.7E+06 Mercury 7439-97-6 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 3.0E-04 2.1E-05 3.0E-04 3.7E+03 NE NE 3.7E+03 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 6.1E+04 NE NE 6.1E+04 Nickel 7440-02-0 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 9.0E-05 2.4E+05 NE NE 2.4E+05 Potassium 7440-09-7 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Selenium 7782-49-2 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 6.1E+04 NE NE 6.1E+04 Sodium 7440-23-5 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Strontium 7440-24-6 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 7.3E+06 NE NE 7.3E+06 Thallium 7440-28-0 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 1.2E+02 NE NE 1.2E+02 Titanium 7440-32-6 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 8.21 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 6.1E+04 NE NE 6.1E+04 Zinc 7440-66-6 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 3.7E+06 NE NE 3.7E+06 Nitrate 14797-55-8 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 1.9E+07 NE NE 1.9E+07 Sulfide 18496-25-8 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 112 Page 3 of 4 Attachment K - Table 4-11 Risk Based Concentration Summary Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment Off -Site Recreational Wader - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Incidental Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer (mg/kg) I Final I (mg/kg) Basis Aluminum t4Za-VU-b 1.2L+U/ I.LL+U/ nc Antimony 7440-36-0 4.9E+03 4.9E+03 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 3.2E+03 3.6E+03 3.2E+03 nc Barium 7440-39-3 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.4E+04 2.4E+04 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.4E+06 2.4E+06 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 7.1E+03 7.1E+03 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.8E+07 1.8E+07 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.8E+07 1.8E+07 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.7E+03 3.7E+03 nc Copper 7440-50-8 4.9E+05 4.9E+05 nc Iron 7439-89-6 8.5E+06 8.5E+06 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 1.7E+06 1.7E+06 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 3.7E+03 3.7E+03 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 6.1E+04 6.1E+04 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.4E+05 2.4E+05 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 6.1E+04 6.1E+04 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 7.3E+06 7.3E+06 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 1.2E+02 1.2E+02 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 6.1E+04 6.1E+04 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.7E+06 3.7E+06 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.9E+07 1.9E+07 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 113 Attachment K - Table 4-11 Risk Based Concentration Calculations - Composite Receptor/Age-Adjusted Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration 1 RBC,.,.,[(1/RG,ngee,ro)+(VRGd— 0+(VRGp,r)+(1/RG„ap)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC,ng.st;en= TR / Intake,,,* CSF [EPC]a.;; * IFSadj * ABS;NG * FI * EF * C1 Intakeing (age group.)= BW. ` ATrreume Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCder„a; = TR / DAD * CSF DADder„ (ege g—P xI= DAE... t * SA * EV * EF * ED BW. * ATef.,m DAEvent = [EPC]-; * DFSadj * C1 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC„g,,t;en= THI Intake,,, * RfD Intake;n, = [EPC]se;; * IR * ABS,n, * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW*AT Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCder„a;= THI DAD * RfD DADde„ = DAE-nt * SA * EV * EF * ED BW*AT DAEvent = [EPC]so;; * ABSd * AF * C1 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBCmhW.ti n = TR / ECS IUR EC- (age group x)— [EPC]PART * ETFp.� * EF * ED --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVap * EF * ED 24 * ATrreume Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation THI RBC;nneiarnn= EC, * RfC EC, = [EPCIPART * ETp.,i * EF * ED * C2 --- OR--- [EPCIVAPOR * ETVap * EF * ED * C2 24 * AT Page 4 of 4 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific (mg/kg -day)-' IUR Chemical specific (ug/m')-' Intake Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day ECS, Age/chemical specific (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific unitless RfD Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC — Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE„ent Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm'-event EC,� Age/chemical specific mg/m' HQ Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC]a.;; Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg [EPC]PART -----NOT USED----- -----NOT USED----- ug/m' [EPC]VAPOR -----NOT USED----- -----NOT USED----- ug/m' ABS;ng Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless ABSd Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW NA 15 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 26 6 year AT -- 2190 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IFSadj 7 -- mg-yr/kg-day IR NA 10 mg/day FI 1 1 unitless C1 0.000001 0.000001 kg/mg SA NA 1770 cm2 AF NA 0.1 mg/cm2 EV 1 1 event/day DFSadj 208 NA mg-yr/kg-day ETPart 1 2 hours/day C2 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap ug/mg 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 114 Page 1 of 4 :hment K - Table 4-11 Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based ,ation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment site Recreational Wader - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potential concern Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Mute enic Cancer Toxicity Values IOPC CASRN EPC Soil Intakeinp,01pn DADd,1 ECp.dlcul . ECS pp, ABSING ABSd MOA? CSF- i CSFd,rn„ i IUR RBCinp„dpn RBCd-1 RBCp,dipn„ r, RBC-_ RBCS 1 (mg/kg) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (ug/m') (uglm') (unitless) (unitless) (mg/kg/day)” I (mg/kg/day)" (ug/m')-' Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.0E+00 5.1E-08 FALSE NE NE 1 V 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8AE-02 3.9E+03 NE NE :i �:'F 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 115 Page 2 of 4 Attachment K - Table 4.11 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment Off -Site Recreational Wader - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Incidental Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 NV - not volatile EC - exoosure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - Risk Based Concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non -Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN EPC S i 1 Intakei....r;on DADe.I ECp. ; r,. EC -p., ABSING ABSa RfD.ra RfDa—M RfC RBC;.g..t;o. RBCa.,,,,.i RBCp,rcm.l.t. RBC,,.p., RBCmt.I (mglkg) (mglkg/day) (mg/kglday) (mglm') (mg/m') (unitless) (unitless) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kglday) (mglm') Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.0E+00 8.2E-08 NE NE 1 3.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E-04 3.7E+04 NE NE 3.7E+04 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 116 Page 3 of 4 Attachment K - Table 4-11 Risk Based Concentration Summary Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment Off -Site Recreational Wader - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Dermal Contact Yes Duke Energy Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk(per Chemical 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on EPCs NA - no toxicitv value available: Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer (mg/kg) Final (mg/kg) Basis Chromium A (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.7E+04 3.9E+03 3.9E+03 c 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 117 Attachment K - Table 4-11 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBC,.,., = 1 [(1/RBC„get;)+(1/RBCdar„a)+(1/RBCp,rt)+(1/RBC,,p)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC,,,gest;e„= TR / Intake,,,* CSF [EPC],,,, *[IFSadj - OR - IFSM] * ABSiNO * FI * EF * C1 Intake,ng loge grn,p x)= BW. * AT rrarma Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCdar„ai= TR / DAD * CSF DAH * SA * EV * EF * ED DADderm(egegr px)= BW. *ATrrerme DAE-nt = [EPC]..,, * [DFSadj - OR - DFSM] * C1 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;nhaiatbn= TR / ECean* IUR [EPC]PART * ETPart * EF * ED --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVap* EF' ED EC- (age group x)= 24 * ATiaarma For mutagens, IHHM is used in place of ED Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration foringestior RBC,ngesenn= THI Intake,,, / RfD Intaken, = [EPC]se;i * IR * ABS,,, * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW*AT Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption THI RBCdermai= DAD / RfD DADde,n, = DAE„e,t * SA * EV * EF * ED BW*AT DAE—t = [EPC]s„, * ABSd * AF * C1 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation THI RBC;,haian= o, EC- / RfC EC- = [EPC]PART * ETPart * EF * ED * C2 --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVap * EF * ED * C2 24*AT Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 118 Page 4 of 4 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific (mg/kg -day)' IUR Chemical specific (ug/m')-' Intake Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day EC- Age/chemical specific (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific unitless RID Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE„ent Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm2-event ECn, Age/chemical specific mg/m3 HQ Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC].., Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg [EPC]PART ----NOT USED----- ----NOT USED----- ug/m' [EPC]VAPOR ----NOT USED----- ----NOT USED----- ug/m' ABS;,g Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless ABSd Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW NA 15 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 26 2 year AT -- 730 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IFSadj 7 mg-yr/kg-day IFSM 29 -- mg-yr/kg-day IR NA 10 mg/day FI 1 1 unitless C1 0.000001 0.000001 kg/mg SA NA 1770 cm2 AF NA 0.1 mg/cm2 EV 1 1 event/day DFSadj 208 -- mg-yr/kg-day DFSM 689 -- mg-yr/kg-day ETPart 2 2 hours/day C2 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 2 2 ug/mg INHM 6480 unitless 1/6/2016 Pace i of 4 Attachment L - Table 4-12 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water Off -Site Recreational Wader- CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Dermal Contact Yes Duke Energy Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potenital concern Intake Calculations Tapwater Dermal Parameters Cancer ToxicityValues COPC CASRN EPC �ntake;n�,e,n D"Z DADe,,,,; ECper B t t• Kp FA I7 CSF,,,;CSFB1 IDR RBC;naes,;nn RBCee„nai RBCvapn, RBC(mg/L) glkglday) (mglkglday) (mg/kg/day) (uglm') (unitless) (hr/event) (hr) (cmlhr) (unitless) (YIN) (mglkg/day)-' (mglkglday)-' (uglm')-' (mglL) (mg/L) (mg/L) Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.0E-03 1.5E-01 3.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Antimony 7440-36-0 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 4.2E-03 5.1E-01 1.2E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.00E-03 8.3E-08 2.0E-09 8.1E-09 NE 3.3E-03 2.8E-01 6.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 8.0E-01 8.2E+00 NE 7.3E-01 Barium 7440-39-3 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 4.5E-03 6.2E-01 1.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Beryllium 7440-01-7 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.2E-03 1.2E-01 2.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.4E-03 NC NC NE Boron 7440-02-8 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.4E-03 1.3E-01 3.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Cadmium 7440-03-9 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 4.1E-03 4.5E-01 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.8E-03 NC NC NE Calcium 7440-70-2 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Chromium,Total 7440-47-3 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Chromium 111 16065-83-1 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.2E-03 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 4.0E-04 1 Y 9.0E-03 NC NC NE Copper 7440-50-8 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.1E-03 2.4E-01 5.7E-01 1.0E -O 1 Y NC NC NE loon 7439-89-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.9E-03 2.2E-01 5.2E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Lead 7439-92-1 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 5.5E-04 1.5E+00 3.7E+00 1.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Manganese 7439-96-5 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.9E-03 2.1E-01 5.1E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Mercury 7439-97-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 5.4E-03 1.4E+00 3.4E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.8E-03 3.6E-01 8.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Nickel 7440-02-0 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 5.9E-04 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 2.0E-04 1 Y 2.4E-04 NC NC NE Potassium 7440-09-7 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Selenium 7782-09-2 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.4E-03 2.9E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Sodium 7440-23-5 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 6.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Strontium 7440-24-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.6E-03 3.3E-01 7.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Thallium 7440.28-0 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 5.5E-03 1.5E+00 3.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Titanium 7440-32-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 2.7E-03 2.0E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Zinc 7440.66-6 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 1.9E-03 2.4E-Ot 5.9E-Ot 6.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 3.0E-03 2.3E-01 5.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NC NC NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.00E-03 NC NC NC NE 4.0E-04 1 Y NC NC NE Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 119 1/8/2016 Page 2 of 4 Attachment L - Table 4-12 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water Off -Site Recreational Wader- CHILD (AGE <6) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 - chemical of Dotenital concern COPC CASRN EPC (mglL) Intakeinw.1„n D,4,,,m (mglkglday) (mglkglday) DADae,,,,,i (mglkg/day) EC,,,on, (mg/m') B (unitless) z (hrlevent) t• (hr) Kp (cmlhr) FA (unitless) In EPD7 r/N) RID,r„ It day) RlDaern„i m. kg RIC (mg/m') RBCins„t;,n (mg/L) RBCae,,m (mglL) RBC,,,o,r (mglL) RBC_' Aluminum 7429.90-5 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 2.0E-03 1.5E-01 3.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 1.2E+03 3.4E+04 NE 1.2E+03 Antimony 7440-36-0 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 4.2E-03 5.1E-01 1.2E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 4.0E-04 6.0E-05 4.9E-01 2.1E+00 NE 3.9E-01 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 3.3E-03 2.8E-01 6.6E-01 1.0E-03 0.6 Y 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 3.7E-01 1.0E+01 NE 3.5E-01 Barium 7440-39-3 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 4.5E-03 6.2E-01 1.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.0E-01 1.4E-02 5.0E-04 2.4E+02 4.8E+02 NE 1.6E+02 Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 1.2E-03 1.2E-01 2.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.0E-03 1.4E-05 2.0E-05 2.4E+00 4.8E-01 NE 4.0E-01 Boron 7440-42-8 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 1.4E-03 1.3E-01 3.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-02 2.4E+02 6.9E+03 NE 2.4E+02 Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 4.1E-03 4.5E-01 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 1.2E+00 8.6E-01 NE 5.0E-01 Calcium 7440-70-2 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 29E-08 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NTV NTV NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E -OS NE 2.BE-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 V 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.8E+03 6.7E+02 NE 4.9E+02 Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 2.BE-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.8E+03 6.7E+02 NE 4.9E+02 Cobalt 744036-4 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 8.0E-10 1.2E -OB NE 1.2E-03 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 4.0E-04 1 V 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 6.0E-06 3.7E-01 2.6E+01 NE 3.6E-01 Copper 7440-50-8 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 3.1E-03 2.4E-01 5.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 4.9E+01 1.4E+03 NE 4.7E+01 Iron 7439-89-6 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E -OB NE 2.9E-03 2.2E-01 5.2E-01 1.0E-03 1 V 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 8.5E+02 2.4E+04 NE 8.2E+02 Lead 7439-92-1 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-10 2.9E-09 NE 5.5E-04 1.5E+00 3.7E+00 1.0E-04 1 Y NN NN NE Magnesium 7439-953 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E -OS NE 1.0E-03 1 V NTV NN NE Manganese 7439-96-5 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 2.9E-03 2.1E-01 5.1E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 1.7E+02 1.9E+02 NE 9.0E+01 Mercury 7439-97-6 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 5.4E-03 1.4E+00 3.4E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 3.0E-04 2.1E-05 3.0E-04 3.7E-01 7.2E-01 NE 2.4E-01 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 3.8E-03 3.6E-01 8.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 6.1E+00 1.7E+02 NE 5.9E+00 Nickel 7440-02-0 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 4.0E-10 5.BE-09 NE 5.9E-04 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 2.0E-04 1 Y 2.0E-02 B.OE-04 9.0E-05 2.4E+01 1.4E+02 NE 2.1E+01 Potassium 7440-09-7 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 4.0E-10 5.8E-09 NE 2.0E-04 1 Y NN NN NE Selenium 7782-49-2 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 3.4E-03 2.9E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 6.1E+00 1.7E+02 NE 5.9E+00 Sodium 7440-23-5 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 1.2E-09 1.7E-08 NE 6.0E-04 1 Y NN NTV NE Strontium 7440-24-6 1.00E-03 8:2E-07 2.0E-09 2:9E -OB NE 3.6E-03 3.3E-01 7.BE-07 1.0E-03 1 V 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 7.3E+02 2.1E+04 NE 7.1E+02 Thallium 7440-28-0 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 5.5E-03 1.5E+00 3.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NN NTV NE Titanium 7440-32-6 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NN NN NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 2.7E-03 2.0E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 6.1E+00 4.5E+00 NE 2.6E+00 Zinc 7440-66-6 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 1.2E-09 1.7E -OB NE 1.9E-03 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 6.0E-04 1 V 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 3.7E+02 1.7E+04 NE 3.6E+02 Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 2.0E-09 2.9E-08 NE 3.0E-03 2.3E-01 5.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 1.9E+03 5.5E+04 NE 1.9E+03 Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 7.9E-10 1.2E-08 NE 4.0E-04 1 V NN NN NE Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 120 1/8/2016 achment L - Table 4-12 ;k Based Concentration Summary rivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water :.Site Recreational Wader - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Page 3 of 4 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potenital concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: risk based concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/L) Cancer I (mg/L) Final I (mg/L) Basis Aluminum M29 -91J -b 1.21=+U3 1.21=+U3 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 3.9E-01 3.9E-01 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 3.5E-01 7.3E-01 3.5E-01 nc Barium 7440-39-3 1.6E+02 1.6E+02 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 4.0E-01 4.0E-01 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.4E+02 2.4E+02 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 5.0E-01 5.0E-01 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 4.9E+02 4.9E+02 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 4.9E+02 4.9E+02 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.6E-01 3.6E-01 nc Copper 7440-50-8 4.7E+01 4.7E+01 nc Iron 7439-89-6 8.2E+02 8.2E+02 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 9.0E+01 9.0E+01 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 2.4E-01 2.4E-01 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 5.9E+00 5.9E+00 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.1E+01 2.1 E+01 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 5.9E+00 5.9E+00 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 7.1 E+02 7.1 E+02 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.6E+00 2.6E+00 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.6E+02 3.6E+02 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.9E+03 1.9E+03 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 121 1/8/2016 Table 4-12 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration 1 RBCtpe;=[(1/RBCi,y.;an)+(1/RBCda,,,,a;)+(1/RBC,,)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion TR RBC;n ges1ion Intakeng * CSF [EPC]w,ser * IFWadj * FI Intake;ng (age gm„ p x) = BW * ATlif*time Cancer -Risk Based Concentration from Dermal Absorption TR RBCae,,p; = n DADae,,, *CSF DAE„ent * DFWadj DADaen„ lege g—p x) ATliraume DAEvant = [EPC]wece, * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCevent Kp F6- r * Tevent Teventct* = 2 ' FA * C2 [(Tevent) '/ \. \I1I PCevent FA * Cz ` 11e+ nt 1+ 2 . . rt +1 ++ B)'Bz/1 Tevent>=t* = L\ Inorganics Compounds: PCevent = Kp * Tevent C2 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation Value - Non -Cancer TR RBCmhalsgm = EC,_ *IUR -- [EPC]vApoR* ETvep* EF * ED * C1 EC�n (age,—p x) = * — 24 ATrrerma Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC;ngest;en = THI mg/kg -day Intake;ng / RfD Intake;ng = [EPC]we,er * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 (ug/m') BW*AT Noncanc—Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption THI RBCaem,p; = DADae,n, / RfD DADd,. = DAE„ent * SA * EV * EF * ED a lege 9rwpx)- BW*AT DAEvant = [EPC]wata, * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCevent Teventq* _ 2 * FA e. C2 * 6 * x *R event + PCeventTevent>=t* ' FA * Kp C2 ' [(1 + BTevent) +2-* (1 3B + 3B' )] C ) Inorganics Compounds: PCevent = Kp * Tevent C2 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;n a THI h Wim = EC„p / RfC ECnp = [EPC)—OR * ETvap * EF * ED * C1 24 * AT Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific -- (mg/kg -day)' IUR Chemical specific — (ug/m')'' Intake Age/chemical specific -- mg/kg -day ECS n Age/chemical specific -- (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific — unkless RfD — Chemical specific mg/kg-tlay RFC -- Chemical specific (mg/m') DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DA,,- Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm'-event EC„, — Age/chemical specific mg/m' HQ — Age/chemical speck unftleas [EPC[wa,*, Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/L PCevent Chemical specific Chemical specific L/cm`-event [EPCIwpo, --NOT USED— —NOT USED— ug/m' BW NA 15 kg EF 45 45 daylyear ED 26 6 year AT — 2190 day ATIffetime 25550 -- day IFWadj 2 -- L/kg IR NA 0.1 L/day FI 1 1 unkless SA NA 1770 cm2 Tevent 2.00 2 hr/event EV 1 1 event/day DFWadj 103497 NA event-2/kg C1 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 2 2 hr/day C2 1000 1000 Page 4 of 4 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 122 1/8/2016 Pace 1 of 4 Attachment L - Table 4-12 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface water Off -Site Recreational Wader - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Dermal Contact Yes Duke Energy Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS -absorption factor UR - cancer unit nsk COPC - chemical of potential concern EPD - effective permeability domain Intake Calculations -TapIwater Dermal Parameters Cancer Toxicl Values COPC CASRN EPC Intake�„a,nio„ DA.,,.m DADd.rm„ ECv,pp, B t* KP FA In EPD? Mutagenic CSFB,., CSFs.,,p„ IUR RBC,n...uoo RBCd.rp,.. RBC,,,p„ RBC,,,,, (mg/L) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (ug/m') (unitless) (hr/event) (hr) (cm/hr) (unitless) (YIN) MOA? (mg/kglday)-' (mg/kg/day)' (ug/m')-' (mg/L) (mglL) (mg/L) (mg/y Chromium VI(hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.00E-03 4.0E-07 4.0E-09 5.0E-08 NE 5.5E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 2.0E-03 1 Y Y 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8.4E-02 4.9E-01 1.0E-01 NE 8.3E-02 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 123 1/8/2016 Page 2 of 4 Attachment L - Table 4-12 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface water Off -Site Recreational Wader - CHILD (AGE 0-<2) Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Dermal Contact Yes Duke Energy Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - risk based concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration EPD - effective permeability domain Intake Calculations Tapwater Dermal Parameters I Non -Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN EPC Intakeing,*ngn DA,,,,nr DADn,nn,i EC,,,gg, B i t* Kp FA In EPD? RfDar,i RID�, , RfC RBCing„n,n RBCing„mn RBC- 1 RBCr,dI mg/L) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kglday) (mg/kg/day) (mg/m') (unitless) (hrlevent) (hr) (cmlhr) (unitless) (YIN) (mglkg/day) (mglkglday) mg/m, (mglL) (mg/L) (mglL) Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.00E-03 8.2E-07 4.0E-09 5.8E-08 NE 5.5E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 2.0E-03 1 Y 3.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E-04 3.7E+00 1.3E+00 NE 9.5E-01 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 124 1/8/2016 achment L - Table 4-12 ;k Based Concentration Summary rivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface water -Site Recreational Wader - CHILD, ADOLESCENT, and ADULT n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Page 3 of 4 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potenital concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available: remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/L) Cancer I (mg/L) Final I (mg/L) Basis Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 9.5E-01 8.3E-02 8.3E-02 c Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 125 1/8/2016 Attachment L - Table 4-12 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration 1 RBC,,n, [(1/RBCingee.inn)+(1/RBCdan„a;)+(1/RBCvap)I Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC;n TR geci°" Intakeng * CSF [EPClwate, * IFWM * FI Intake;nglagagmvp„)= BW*ATlif*time Cancer -Risk Based Concentration from Dermal Absorption TR RBCae,n,n; = DADae,,, *CSF DAE„ent * DFWM DADd— (age g—p x) _ AT;;re,;ma DAEvant = [EPClweta, * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCevent Kp F6- r * levant Teventct* = 2 * FA * C2 f'/ \. \I1I PCevent FA * Cz ` 11e+ nt 1+ 2 . . rt +1 ++ B)'Bz/1 Tevent>=t* = L\ Inorganics Compounds: PCevent= Kp*Tevent C2 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation Value - Non -Cancer TR RBCmhalaerw, = ECew, *IUR -- INMH * C1 EC�n(,.,—p.)[EPCIVAPOR* = * — 24 ATlin ma Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion R13C;ngejw = THI mg/kg -day Intake;ng / RfD Intake;ng = [EPC]we,er * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 (ug/m') BW*AT Noncanc—Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption THI RBCaem,n; = DADae,n, / RfD DAD em, = DAE„ent * SA * EV * EF * ED a (ago grpap=)- BW*AT DAEvant = [EPClwatar * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCevent Teventq* _ 2 * FA - C2 * 6 * x *ar event + PCeventTevent>=t* ' FA * Kp C2 ' [(1 + BTevent) +2-* (1 3B + 3B' )] C ) Inorganics Compounds: PCevent = Kp * Tevent C2 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;n a THI h b im = EC„p / RfC ECnp = [EPC)—OR * ETvap * EF * ED * C1 24 * AT Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific -- (mg/kg -day)' IUR Chemical specific — (ug/m')'' Intake Age/chemical specific -- mg/kg -day EC -n Age/chemical specific -- (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific — unkless RfD — Chemical spacRc mg/kg-tlay RFC -- Chemical specific (mg/m') DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAEwm Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm'-event EC_ — Age/chemical specific mg/m' HQ — Age/chemical speck unftleas [EPCIw Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/L PCevent Chemical specific Chemical specific L/cm`-event [EPCIwpo, --NOT USED— —NOT USED— ug/m' BW NA 15 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 26 2 year AT — 730 day ATIffetime 25550 -- day IFWM 2.1 -- L/kg IR 0 0.1 L/day FI NA 1 unitless SA 10 1770 cm2 Tevent 0.00 2 hr/event EVNA 1 event/day DFWM 1 — events-cm2/kg C1 0.001 0.001 mg/ug INHM 319693 NA hr/day C2 1000 1000 cm•/L Page 4 of 4 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 126 1/8/2016 :hment M - Table 4-13 Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based ,ation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment SITE RECREATIONAL BOATER - OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL BOATER (ADULT) an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) tE-04 Page 1 of 4 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potential concern Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Cancer Toxicity Values Intake;,,„d„ (mg/kg/day) DAD.- (mg/kg/day) ECn.nm'e (ug/m') EC,,,,,r (ug/m') ABS- (unitless) ABSd (unitless) CSFs„ (mg/kg/day)'' CSFd,r,,,i (mg/kg/day)-' IUR (ug/m')-' COPC CASRN RBC,_.ti„ RBCd,,,,,,i RBC, uj,t, RBC,,,,, RBCt,t,i Aluminum 7429-90-5 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Antimony 7440-36-0NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 6.6E-10 3.8E-09 NE NE 0.6 0.03 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 1.0E+05 1.7E+04 NE NE 1.5E+04 Barium 7440-39-3 INC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Beryllium 7440-41-7 NC INC NE NE NC NC 2.4E-03 NC NC NE NE Boron 7440-42-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 NC INC NE NE INC NC 1.8E-03 NC NC NE NE calcium 7440-70-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Chromium, Total 744047-3 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Chromium III 16065-83-1 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Cobalt 7440484 NC NC NE NE NC NC 9.0E-03 NC NC NE NE Copper 7440-50-8 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Iron 7439-89-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Lead 7439-92-1 INC NC NE NE 1 INC NC NE NE Magnesium 7439-954 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Manganese 7439-96-5 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Mercury 7439-97-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Molybdenum 7439-98-7 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Nickel 7440-02-0 NC INC NE NE NC NC 2.4E-04 NC NC NE NE Potassium 7440-09-7 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Selenium 778249-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Sodium 7440-23-5 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Strontium 7440-24-6 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Thallium 7440-28-0 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Titanium 7440-32-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Zinc 7440-66-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.1E-09 NE NE 1 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8.4E-02 1.8E+05 NE NE 1.8E+05 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 127 :hment M - Table 4-13 Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based ration of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment SITE RECREATIONAL BOATER - OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL BOATER (ADULT) an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Page 2 of 4 NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - risk based concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non -Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN Intake;-.- (mg/kg/day) DADd.-al (mg/kg/day) ECwrs.mara (mg/m3) EC_ABSiao (mg/ms) (unitless) ABSa (unitiess) RfD,,a (mg/kglday) RfDdarm (mg/kg/day) RfC (mg/m3) RBCj... - RBCd.-W RBCwm=,.w RBC --r RBCS .j Aluminum 7429-90-6 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 1.3E+08 NE NE 1.3E+08 Antimony 7440-36-0 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 4.0E-04 6.0E-05 5.2E+04 NE NE 5.2E+04 Arsenic 7440-38-2 4.6E-09 2.7E-08 NE NE 0.6 0.03 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 6.5E+04 1.1E+04 NE NE 9.6E+03 Barium 7440-39-3 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 2.0E-01 1.4E-02 5.0E-04 2.6E+07 NE NE 2.6E+07 Beryllium 7440-41-7 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 2.0E-03 1.4E-05 2.0E-05 2.6E+05 NE NE 2.6E+05 Boron 7440-42-8 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-02 2.6E+07 NE NE 2.6E+07 Cadmium 7440-43-9 7.7E-09 8.9E-10 NE NE 1 0.001 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 1.3E+05 2.8E+04 NE NE 2.3E+04 Calcium 7440-70-2 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.9E+08 NE NE 1.9E+08 Chromium III 16065-83-1 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.9E+08 NE NE 1.9E+08 Cobalt 7440-48-4 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 6.0E-06 3.9E+04 NE NE 3.9E+04 Copper 7440-50-8 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 5.2E+06 NE NE 5.2E+06 Iron 7439-89-6 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 9.1E+07 NE NE 9.1E+07 Lead 7439-92-1 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Manganese 7439-96-5 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 1.8E+07 NE NE 1.8E+07 Mercury 7439-97-6 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 3.0E-04 2.1E-05 3.0E-04 3.9E+04 NE NE 3.9E+04 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 6.5E+05 NE NE 6.5E+05 Nickel 7440-02-0 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 9.0E-05 2.6E+06 NE NE 2.6E+06 Potassium 7440-09-7 7.7E-09 NE NE i NTV NTV NE NE Selenium 7782-49-2 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 6.5E+05 NE NE 6.5E+05 Sodium 7440-23-5 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Strontium 7440-24-6 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 7.8E+07 NE NE 7.8E+07 Thallium 7440-28-0 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 1.3E+03 NE NE 1.3E+03 Titanium 7440-32-6 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 6.5E+05 NE NE 6.5E+05 Zinc 7440-66-6 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 3.9E+07 NE NE 3.9E+07 Nitrate 14797-55-8 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 2.1E+08 NE NE 2.1E+08 Sulfide 18496-25-8 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 3.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E-04 3.9E+05 NE NE 3.9E+05 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 128 Page 3 of 4 Attachment M - Table 4-13 Risk Based Concentration Summary Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL BOATER - OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL BOATER (ADULT) Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Incidental Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; risk based concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/kg) I Cancer (mg/kg) FinalBasis (mg/kg) 7440-36-0 Aluminum /4L`J-`JU-5 1.JL+Ub l.3L+ub nc Antimony 7440-36-0 5.2E+04 5.2E+04 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 9.6E+03 1.5E+04 9.6E+03 nc Barium 7440-39-3 2.6E+07 2.6E+07 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.6E+05 2.6E+05 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.6E+07 2.6E+07 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.3E+04 2.3E+04 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.9E+08 1.9E+08 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.9E+08 1.9E+08 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.9E+04 3.9E+04 nc Copper 7440-50-8 5.2E+06 5.2E+06 nc Iron 7439-89-6 9.1E+07 9.1E+07 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 1.8E+07 1.8E+07 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 3.9E+04 3.9E+04 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 6.5E+05 6.5E+05 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.6E+06 2.6E+06 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 6.5E+05 6.5E+05 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 7.8E+07 7.8E+07 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 1.3E+03 1.3E+03 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 6.5E+05 6.5E+05 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.9E+07 3.9E+07 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 2.1 E+08 2.1 E+08 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 129 Attachment M - Table 4-13 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBCtnta; = 1 [(1/RBC,nget;)+(1/RBCde,n,a)+(1/RBC,a)+(1/RBC„ap)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC,,,9est;o„= TR / Intakeng* CSF [EPCI,[ * IR * ABS;NO * FI * EF * ED * C1 I ntake,ng (age grn„P x) _ BW, ` ATereume Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBC6e M = TR / DAD * CSF DAE,ent * SA * EV * EF * ED DADaa(aye grnoP x)= BW. * ATrreume DAEvent = [EPC] 11 * ABSd * AF * Cl Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC,nga tin = THI Intakeng/ RfD Intakeng = [EPC]en;; * IR * ABS,ng * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW*AT Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCde,me;= THI DAD / RfD DADde,n, = DA,_ * SA * EV * EF * ED BW * AT DAEent = [EPC]so;; * ABSd * AF * C1 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;n„,lagan= TR / ECS * IUR [EPC]PART * ET,* EF * ED --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVaP * EF * ED EC- loge g,ow.I= 24 * ATrrerme Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation THI RBdnn C;nnaia= EC- / RIC EC- = [EPC]PART * ETPan * EF * ED * C2 --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVaP* EF * ED * C2 24 * AT Page 4 of 4 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific (mg/kg -day)-' IUR Chemical specific (ug/m3)-' Intake Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day ECS Age/chemical specific (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific unitless Rf) Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC — Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAEvent Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm2-event ECnc Age/chemical specific mg/m' HQ Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC].., Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg [EPC]PART Attachment M - TABLE Attachment M - TABLE ug/m' [EPC]VAPOR Attachment M - TABLE Attachment M - TABLE ug/m' ABS,,, Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless ABSd Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW 80 80 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 10 10 year AT -- 3650 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IR 5 5 mg/day FI 1 1 unitless C1 0.000001 0.000001 kg/mg SA 5790 5790 cm2 AF 0.1 0.1 mg/cm2 EV 1 1 event/day ETPart 4 4 hours/day C2 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 8 8 hours/day 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 130 Page 1 of 4 Attachment N - Table 4-14 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL BOATER - RECREATIONAL BOATER (ADULT) Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Dermal Contact Yes Duke Energy Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC -risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potenital concern Intake Calculations Tapwater Dermal Parameters Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN EPC Intakeina„d,n DA,,,,nr DADd,,,,,,i EC*,,,, B z t* Kp FA In EPD? CSF,,,, CSFs,rn„ i IUR RBCins„d,n RBCd,nn,i RBC,,,,,r RBCtm., (mglL) (mg/kglday) (mglkg/day) (mg/kglday) (uglm') (unitless) (hrlevent) (hr) (cmlhr) (unitless) (YIN) (mg/kglday)"' (mglkg/day)"' (uglm')"' (mglL) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.0E-03 1.5E-01 3.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Antimony 7440-36-0 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 4.2E-03 5.1E-01 1.2E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 2.5E-09 NE 3.3E-03 2.8E-01 6.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 NE 2.6E+01 NE 2.6E+01 Barium 7440-39-3 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 4.5E-03 6.2E-01 1.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Beryllium 744041-7 1.00E-03 NE NC NC HE 1.2E-03 1.2E-01 2.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.4E-03 NE - NE Boron 7440-42-8 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 1.4E-03 1.3E-01 3.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 4.1E-03 4.5E-01 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.8E-03 NE - NE Calcium 7440-70-2 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Cobalt 7440-08-4 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 1.2E-03 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 4.0E-04 1 Y 9.0E-03 NE - NE Copper 7440-50-8 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 3.1E-03 2.4E-01 5.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Iron 7439-89-6 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.9E-03 2.2E-01 5.2E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Lead 7439-92-1 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 5.5E-04 1.5E+00 3.7E+00 1.0E-04 1 Y NE - NE Magnesium 7430-95-4 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Manganese 7439-96-5 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.9E-03 2.1E-01 5.1E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Mercury 7439-97-6 1.00E-03 HE NC NC NE 5.4E-03 1.4E+00 3.4E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y HE - NE Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 3.8E-03 3.6E-01 8.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Nickel 7440-02-0 1.00E-03 HE NC NC NE 5.9E-04 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 2.0E-04 1 Y 2.4E-04 NE - NE Potassium 7440-09-7 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.0E-04 1 Y NE - NE Selenium 7782-49-2 1.00E-03 NE NC NC HE 3.4E-03 2.9E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y HE - NE Sodium 7440-23-5 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 6.0E-04 1 Y NE - NE Strontium 7440-24-6 1.00E-03 HE NC NC HE 3.6E-03 3.3E-01 7.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y HE - NE Thallium 7440-28-0 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 5.5E-03 1.5E+00 3.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Titanium 7440-32-6 1.00E-03 NE NC NC HE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.7E-03 2.0E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Zinc 7440-66-6 1.00E-03 NE NC INC NE 1.9E-03 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 6.0E-04 1 Y NE - NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 3.0E-03 2.3E-01 5.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.00E-03 NE NC INC NE 4.0E-04 1 Y NE - NE Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 5.1E-09 NE 5.5E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 2.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8.4E-02 NE 9.8E-01 NE 9.8E-01 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 131 1/8/2016 Page 2 of 4 Attachment N - Table 4-14 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL BOATER - RECREATIONAL BOATER (ADULT) Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Dermal Contact Yes Duke Energy Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC -nsk based concentration COPC - chemical of potenital concern NN - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Tapwater Dermal Parameters Non -Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN EPC rntakeig,,n,n DA,,,ar DADs,,,,i EC„ap„ B 1: t* KpFA In EPD1 Rfl)r RfD._ai RfC RBCins,.don RBCda I RBC RBC_, (mg/L) g/kglday) (mglkg/day) (mg/kglday) (mg/ma) (unitless) (hrlevent) (hr) (cmlhr) (unitless) (YIN) (mglkglday) (mglkglday) (mglma) (mglL) (mg/L) -.r (mglL) Aluminum 7429-90-5 . 00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 20E03 1.5E-01 3.6E-01 . 0E-03 1 Y 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 NE 5.6E+04 NE 5.6E+04 1 00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E -OS NE - 20 5.1 E-01 1.2E+00 +07440-36-0 NE 3.4E+00Antimony Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 3.3E-03 2.8E-01 6.6E-01 0E-03 0.6 Y 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 NE 1.7E+0 NE 17E+01 Barium 7440-39-3 1.00E-03 NE 20E09 1.8E-08 NE 45E03 6.2E-01 1.5E+00 1.0E03 1 Y 20E01 14E-02 50E04 NE 7.8E+02 NE 7.8E+02 Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 1.2E-03 1.2E-01 2.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.0E-03 1.4E -OS 2.0E-05 NE 7.8E-01 NE 7.8E-01 Boron 7440-42-8 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 1.4E-03 1.3E-01 3.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.0E-01 2.0E -D1 2.0E-02 NE 1.1E+04 NE 1.1E+p4 Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 4.1E-03 4.5E-01 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 NE 1.4E+00 NE 1.4E+00 Calcium 7440-70-2 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE NN NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 NE 1.1E+03 NE 1.1E+03 Chromium III 16065-83-i 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 NE 1.1E+03 NE 1.1E+03 Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.00E-03 NE 8.0E-10 7.1E-09 NE 1.2E-03 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 4.0E-04 1 Y 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 6.0E-06 NE 4.2E+01 NE 4.2E+01 Copper 7440-50-8 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 3.1E-03 2.4E-01 5.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 NE 2.2E+03 NE 2.2E+03 Iron 7439-89-6 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 2.9E-03 2.2E-01 5.2E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 NE 3.9E+04 NE 3.9E+04 Lead 7439-92-1 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-10 1.8E-09 NE 5.5E-04 1.5E+00 3.7E+00 1.0E-04 1 Y NE NN NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE NN NE Manganese 7439-96-5 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 2.9E-03 2.1E-01 5.1E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 NE 3.1E+02 NE 3.1E+02 Mercury 7439-97-6 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 5.4E-03 1.4E+00 3.4E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 3.0E-04 2.1E-05 3.0E-04 NE 1.2E+00 NE 1.2E+00 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 3.8E-03 3.6E-01 8.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 NE 2.8E+02 NE 2.SE+02 Nickel 7440-02-0 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-10 3.6E-09 NE 5:9E-04 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 2.0E-04 1 Y 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 9.0E-05 NE 2.2E+02 NE 2.2E+02 Potassium 7440-09-7 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-10 3.6E-09 NE 2.0E-04 1 Y NE NN NE Selenium 7782-49-2 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 3.4E-03 2.9E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 NE 2.8E+02 NE 2.8E+02 Sodium 7440-23-5 1.00E-03 NE 1.2E-09 1.1E-08 NE 6.0E-04 1 Y NE NN NE Strontium 7440-24-6 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.812-08 NE 3.6E-03 3.3E-01 7.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 NE 3.4E+04 NE 3.4E+04 Thallium 7440-28-0 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 5.5E-03 1.5E+00 3.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NE NN NE Titanium 7440-32-6 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y HE NN NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 2.7E-03 2.0E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 NE 7.3E+00 NE 7.3E+00 Zinc 7440-66-8 1.00E-03 NE 1.2E-09 1.1E-08 NE 1.9E-03 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 6.0E-04 1 Y 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 NE 2.8E+04 NE 2.8E+04 Nitrate 14797-55-5 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 3.0E-03 2.3E-01 5.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 NE 9.0E+04 NE 9.0E+04 Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.00E-03 NE 7.9E-10 7.1E-09 NE 4.0E-04 1 Y NE NN NE Chromium VI(hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 3.6E-08 NE 5.5E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 2.0E-03 1 Y 3.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E-04 NE 2.1E+00 NE 2.1E+00 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 132 1/8/2016 ttachment N - Table 4-14 isk Based Concentration Summary erivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water FF -SITE RECREATIONAL BOATER - RECREATIONAL BOATER (ADULT) n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Page 3 of 4 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potenital concern nc -risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c -risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/L) Cancer I (mg/L) Final I (mg/L) Basis Aluminum 1429 -9U -b b.bE+U4 b.bE+U4 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 3.4E+00 3.4E+00 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.7E+01 2.6E+01 1.7E+01 nc Barium 7440-39-3 7.8E+02 7.8E+02 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 7.8E-01 7.8E-01 nc Boron 7440-42-8 1.1 E+04 1.1 E+04 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.1E+03 1.1E+03 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.1E+03 1.1E+03 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 4.2E+01 4.2E+01 nc Copper 7440-50-8 2.2E+03 2.2E+03 nc Iron 7439-89-6 3.9E+04 3.9E+04 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 3.1 E+02 3.1 E+02 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.8E+02 2.8E+02 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 2.2E+02 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 2.8E+02 2.8E+02 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 3.4E+04 3.4E+04 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 7.3E+00 7.3E+00 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 2.8E+04 2.8E+04 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 9.0E+04 9.0E+04 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 2.1E+00 9.8E-01 9.8E-01 c Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 133 1/8/2016 fable 4-14 Risk Based Concentration Calculations iuman Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites )uke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBCmtai = 1 [(1/RBC1ng.,i.) + (1 /RBCd..A) + (1 /RBC,,ap)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion TR RBC;ng.rnJ. = Intake;,, *CSF Intake;, - [EPC]wete, * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 gage groap •l - BW * ATImne Cancer -Risk Based Concentration from Dermal Absorption TR RBCde,,; = n, DAD,_ * CSF DADd.. DA..nt * SA * EV * EF * ED d (agegroup.)= ATrrerma DAE„ent = [EPC]water * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCevent - 2 « FA « K « 6 • r *rTevent TevenKt* event PCeventTevenb=t« = FA * � . �t + B �+ 2 « r * 1 + B z 1 + 36 + 3B' ) Inorganics Compounds: PCevent = KP ' Tevent C2 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation TR RBCmnaianon = - EC,a, IUR [EPC]vAPOR * ETvap * EF * ED * C1 ECS, (aga ,.nap >D 24 * AT;;rat;n,e Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC;ngeed„ = THI Intake;n, / RfD Intake;,, = [EPC]wate, * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW *AT Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCde,n,a; = THI DADdenn / RfD DAE„e„t * DFWadj DADdena (agegroup.) _ AT;;regma DAE.nt= [EPC]_, * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCeventTevenK* _ 2 . FA * KP, 6 « r *rTevent event 1+3B+3B' PCeventTevent =t« = FA * C2 ' 1 + B -2— 1 —+B—)') Inorganics Compounds: Kip «Tevent PCevent = C2 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;nh ;at;,, = THI ECn / RfC EC„ = [EPC]—OR * ETVap * EF * ED * C2 24 * AT Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific -- (mg/kg-day)- IUR Chemical specific -- (ug/m3)-' Intake Age/chemical specific -- mg/kg -day EC,en Age/chemical specific -- (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific -- unitless RfD -- Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC -- Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE„e,t Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm`-event ECnc -- Age/chemical specific mg/m' HQ -- Age/chemical specific unitless [EPCLate, Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/L PCevent Chemical specific Chemical specific L/cm2-event [EPC]„ar„ ---NOT USED----- -----NOT USED--- ug/m' BW 80 80 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 10 10 year AT -- 3650 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IR L/day FI unitless SA 5790 5790 cm2 Tevent 2.00 2 hr/event EV 1 1 event/day Cl 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 2 2 hr/day C2 1000 1000 cm'/L Page 4 of 4 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 134 1/8/2016 :hment O - Table 4-15 Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based ,ation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment 2EATIONAL FISHER - OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL FISHER (ADULT) an Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) tE-04 Page 1 of 4 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potential concern Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Cancer Toxicity Values Intake;,,„d„ (mg/kg/day) DAD.ECn.nm'e (mglkglday) (ug/m') EC,,,,,r (uglm') ABS- (unitless) ABSd (unitless) CSFs„ (mg/kg/day)'' CSFd,r,,,i (mglkglday)-' IUR (ug/m')-' COPC CASRN RBC,_.ti„ RBCd,,,,,,i RBC, uj,t, RBC,,,,, RBCt,t,i Aluminum 7429-90-5 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Antimony 7440-36-0NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 6.6E-10 3.8E-09 NE NE 0.6 0.03 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 1.0E+05 1.7E+04 NE NE 1.5E+04 Barium 7440-39-3 INC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Beryllium 7440-41-7 NC INC NE NE NC NC 2.4E-03 NC NC NE NE Boron 7440-42-8 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 NC NC NE NE INC NC 1.8E-03 NC NC NE NE calcium 7440-70-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Chromium, Total 744047-3 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Chromium III 16065-83-1 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Cobalt 7440484 NC NC NE NE NC NC 9.0E-03 NC NC NE NE Copper 7440-50-8 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Iron 7439-89-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Lead 7439-92-1 INC NC NE NE 1 INC NC NE NE Magnesium 7439-954 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Manganese 7439-96-5 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Mercury 7439-97-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Molybdenum 7439-98-7 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Nickel 7440-02-0 NC INC NE NE NC NC 2.4E-04 NC NC NE NE Potassium 7440-09-7 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Selenium 778249-2 NC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Sodium 7440-23-5 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Strontium 7440-24-6 INC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Thallium 7440-28-0 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Titanium 7440-32-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Zinc 7440-66-6 NC NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 INC NC NE NE NC NC INC NC NE NE Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.1E-09 NE NE 1 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8.4E-02 1.8E+05 NE NE 1.8E+05 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 135 Attachment O - Table 4-15 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment RECREATIONAL FISHER - OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL FISHER (ADULT) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion Yes Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 Page 2 of 4 NV - not volatile EC - e),posure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - risk based concentration COPC - chemical of potential concern NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non -Cancer Toxicity Values Intake;pg,ptwp mg/kg/day) I DADde,m,� (mglkglday) ECparcwwaa (mglm3) EC..pp. (mglm3) ABSiNo (unitless) ABSa (unities s) RfD_, (mg/kg/day) RfDdppp I (mg/kg/day) RfC trig m') COPC CASRN RBCwgpptwp RBCd,r, 1 RBCp,d up RBC_, RBCto Aluminum 7429-90-5 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 1.3E+08 NE NE 1.3E+08 Antimony 7440-36-0 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 4.0E-04 6.0E-05 5.2E+04 NE NE 5.2E+04 Arsenic 7440-38-2 4.6E-09 2.7E-08 NE NE 0.6 0.03 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 6.5E+04 1.1E+04 NE NE 9.6E+03 Barium 7440-39-3 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 2.0E-01 1.4E-02 5.0E-04 2.6E+07 NE NE 2.6E+07 Beryllium 7440-41-7 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 2.0E-03 1.4E-05 2.0E-05 2.6E+05 NE NE 2.6E+05 Boron 7440-42-8 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-02 2.6E+07 NE NE 2.6E+07 Cadmium 7440-43-9 7.7E-09 8.9E-10 NE NE 1 0.001 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 1.3E+05 2.8E+04 NE NE 2.3E+04 Calcium 7440-70-2 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Chromium, Total 744047-3 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.9E+08 NE NE 1.9E+08 Chromium III 16065-83-1 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 1.9E+08 NE NE 1.9E+08 Cobalt 7440-484 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 6.0E-06 3.9E+04 NE NE 3.9E+04 Copper 7440-50-8 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 5.2E+06 NE NE 5.2E+06 Iron 7439-89-6 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 9.1E+07 NE NE 9.1E+07 Lead 7439-92-1 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Manganese 7439-96-5 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 1.8E+07 NE NE 1.8E+07 Mercury 7439-97-6 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 3.0E-04 2.1E-05 3.0E-04 3.9E+04 NE NE 3.9E+04 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 6.5E+05 NE NE 6.5E+05 Nickel 7440-02-0 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 9.0E-05 2.6E+06 NE NE 2.6E+06 Potassium 7440-09-7 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Selenium 7782-49-2 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 6.5E+05 NE NE 6.5E+05 Sodium 7440-23-5 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Strontium 7440-24-6 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 7.8E+07 NE NE 7.8E+07 Thallium 7440-28-0 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 1.3E+03 NE NE 1.3E+03 Titanium 7440-32-6 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 6.5E+05 NE NE 6.5E+05 Zinc 7440-66-6 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 3.9E+07 NE NE 3.9E+07 Nitrate 14797-55-8 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 2.1E+08 NE NE 2.1E+08 Sulfide 18496-25-8 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 NTV NTV NE NE Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 7.7E-09 NE NE 1 3.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E-04 3.9E+05 NE NE 3.9E+05 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 136 Page 3 of 4 Attachment O - Table 4-15 Risk Based Concentration Summary Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Sediment RECREATIONAL FISHER - OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL FISHER (ADULT) Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Incidental Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Dermal Contact Yes Particulate Inhalation No Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk(per Chemical 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; Risk Based Concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/kg) I Cancer (mg/kg) FinalBasis (mg/kg) 7440-36-0 Aluminum /4L`J-`JU-5 1.JL+Ub l.3L+ub nc Antimony 7440-36-0 5.2E+04 5.2E+04 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 9.6E+03 1.5E+04 9.6E+03 nc Barium 7440-39-3 2.6E+07 2.6E+07 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.6E+05 2.6E+05 nc Boron 7440-42-8 2.6E+07 2.6E+07 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.3E+04 2.3E+04 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.9E+08 1.9E+08 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.9E+08 1.9E+08 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 3.9E+04 3.9E+04 nc Copper 7440-50-8 5.2E+06 5.2E+06 nc Iron 7439-89-6 9.1E+07 9.1E+07 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 1.8E+07 1.8E+07 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 3.9E+04 3.9E+04 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 6.5E+05 6.5E+05 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.6E+06 2.6E+06 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 6.5E+05 6.5E+05 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 7.8E+07 7.8E+07 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 1.3E+03 1.3E+03 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 6.5E+05 6.5E+05 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 3.9E+07 3.9E+07 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 2.1 E+08 2.1 E+08 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 137 Table 4-15 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBC,.,., = 1 [(1/RBC„gat,)+(1/RBCda„a)+(1/RBCp,rt)+(1/RBC,,p)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC„g,,t,o,= TR / Intake,,,* CSF [EPC]so„ * IR * ABS,NO * FI * EF * ED * C1 I ntakeing (age group x) _ BW„ ` ATereuma Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCde M = TR / DAD * CSF DAE.ant * SA * EV * EF * ED DADaarm(aye grooP x)= BW. * ATrrauma DAEant = [EPC] 11 * ABSd * AF * Cl Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBCinga tin = THI Intake,,, / RfD Intake,,, = [EPC]sn;, * IR * ABS„g * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW*AT Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption RBCdar„a,= THI DAD / RfD DADda„ = DA,v t * SA * EV * EF * ED BW * AT DAE—t = [EPC]_j, * ABSd * AF * C1 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;,,,a,at,,, = TR / EC- IUR [EPC]PART * ETP., * EF * ED --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVaP * EF * ED EC- lase grow.I= 24 * ATrrerme Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation THI RBC;,,,aiadnn= EC, / RIC EC, = [EPC]PART * ETPan * EF * ED * C2 --- OR--- [EPC]VAPOR * ETVaP* EF * ED * C2 24 * AT Page 4 of 4 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific (mg/kg -day)' IUR Chemical specific (ug/m')-' Intake Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day EC,,, Age/chemical specific (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific unitless RID Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE—t Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm2-event ECn, Age/chemical specific mg/m' HO Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC].,, Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg [EPC]PART Attachment O - TABLE Attachment O - TABLE ug/m' [EPC]VAPOR Attachment O - TABLE Attachment 0 - TABLE ug/m' ABS,,, Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless ABSd Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW 80 80 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 10 10 year AT — 3650 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IR 5 5 mg/day FI 1 1 unitless C1 0.000001 0.000001 kg/mg SA 5790 5790 cm2 AF 0.1 0.1 mg/cm2 EV 1 1 event/day ETPart 4 4 hours/day C2 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 8 8 hours/day 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 138 Page 1 of 4 Attachment P - Table 4-16 Risk Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface water OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL FISHER - RECREATIONAL FISHER (ADULT) Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Dermal Contact Yes Duke Energy Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration CSF - cancer slope factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor UR - cancer unit risk COPC - chemical of potenital concern Intake Calculations I Tapwater Dermal Parameters Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN EPC Intakeing-n DA,,,,,r DADd,nn,i ECv,p„ B z t* Kp FA In EPD? CSF,,,, CSFs,rn„ i IUR RBCins„d,n RBCd,nn,i RBC,,,,,r RBCtm., (mglL) (mg/kglday) (mglkg/day) (mg/kglday) (ug/m') (unitless) (hrlevent) (hr) (cmlhr) (unitless) (YIN) (mg/kglday)"' (mglkg/day)"' (uglm')"' (mglL) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.0E-03 1.5E-01 3.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Antimony 7440-36-0 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 4.2E-03 5.1E-01 1.2E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 2.5E-09 NE 3.3E-03 2.8E-01 6.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 4.3E-03 NE 2.6E+01 NE 2.6E+01 Barium 7440-39-3 1.00E-03 NE NC NC HE 4.5E-03 6.2E-01 1.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Beryllium 744041-7 1.00E-03 NE NC NC HE 1.2E-03 1.2E-01 2.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 2.4E-03 NE - NE Boron 7440-42-8 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 1.4E-03 1.3E-01 3.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 4.1E-03 4.5E-01 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.8E-03 NE - NE Calcium 7440-70-2 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE -- NE Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Cobalt 7440-08-4 1.00E-03 NE NC NC HE 1.2E-03 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 4.0E-04 1 Y 9.0E-03 NE - NE Copper 7440-50-8 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 3.1E-03 2.4E-01 5.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Iron 7439-89-6 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.9E-03 2.2E-01 5.2E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Lead 7439-92-1 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 5.5E-04 1.5E+00 3.7E+00 1.0E-04 1 Y NE - NE Magnesium 7430-95-4 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Manganese 7439-96-5 1.00E-03 NE NC NC HE 2.9E-03 2.1E-01 5.1E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Mercury 7439-97-6 1.00E-03 HE NC NC HE 5.4E-03 1.4E+00 3.4E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y HE - NE Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 3.8E-03 3.6E-01 8.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Nickel 7440-02-0 1.00E-03 HE NC NC NE 5.9E-04 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 2.0E-04 1 Y 2.4E-04 NE - NE Potassium 7440-09-7 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.0E-04 1 Y NE - NE Selenium 7782-49-2 1.00E-03 NE NC NC HE 3.4E-03 2.9E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y HE - NE Sodium 7440-23-5 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 6.0E-04 1 Y NE - NE Strontium 7440-24-6 1.00E-03 HE NC NC HE 3.6E-03 3.3E-01 7.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Thallium 7440-28-0 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 5.5E-03 1.5E+00 3.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Titanium 7440-32-6 1.00E-03 NE NC NC HE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 2.7E-03 2.0E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Zinc 7440-66-6 1.00E-03 NE NC INC NE 1.9E-03 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 6.0E-04 1 Y NE - NE Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.00E-03 NE NC NC NE 3.0E-03 2.3E-01 5.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y NE - NE Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.00E-03 NE NC INC NE 4.0E-04 1 Y NE - NE Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 5.1E-09 NE 5.5E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 2.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-01 2.0E+01 8.4E-02 NE 9.8E-01 NE 9.8E-01 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 139 1/8/2016 Page 2 of 4 Attachment P - Table 4-16 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface water OFF-SITE RECREATIONAL FISHER - RECREATIONAL FISHER (ADULT) Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Dermal Contact Yes Duke Energy Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 NV - not volatile EC - exposure concentration RfD - reference dose RBC - risk based concentration COPC - chemical of potenital concern NN - no toxicity value available DAD - dermally absorbed dose ABS - absorption factor RfC - reference concentration Intake Calculations Tapwater Dermal Parameters Non -Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN EPC rntak.1n,,;,;;FD&_r DADd,nni EC,,,po, B 1: t* KpFA In EPD1 Rfl)„ RfDd,m„i RfC RBCins„don RBCd, I RBC RBC_, (mglL) g/kgglkg/day) I. kg (mg/m') (witless) (hrlevent) (hr) (cmlhr) (unitless) (YIN) (mglkglday) (mglkglday) (mglm') (mg/L) (mg/L) -.r (mg/L) Aluminum 7429-90-5 . 00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 20E03 1.5E-01 3.6E-01 . 0E-03 1 Y 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E-03 NE 5.6E+04 NE 5.6E+04 1 00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E -OS NE - 20 5.1 E-01 1.2E+00 +07440-36-0 NE 3.4E+00Antimony Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 3.3E-03 2.8E-01 6.6E-01 0E-03 0.6 Y 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 NE 1.7E+0 NE 17E+01 Barium 7440-39-3 1.00E-03 NE 20E09 1.8E-08 NE 45E03 6.2E-01 1.5E+00 1.0E03 1 Y 20E01 14E-02 50E04 NE 7.8E+02 NE 7.8E+02 Beryllium 740-41-7 1.0E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.E 8 NE . 2E-03 1.2E-01 2.8E-011 E-03 .E-03 1 Y 2.0E-03 1.4E-O 2.0E-05 NE 7.8E-01 NE 7.8E-01 74 00E-03 NE 2 0 1 1 3E-0 30E-0 1oron 0 1 Y 0010-42-8 2E 2.0ED1 2.0E-02 NE 1.1E+04 NEB 1.1E+p4 Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 4.1E-03 4.5E-01 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 2.0E-05 NE 1.4E+00 NE 1.4E+00 Calcium 7440-70-2 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE NN NE Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 NE 1.1E+03 NE 1.1E+03 Chromium III 16065-83-i 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 2.8E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.5E+00 2.0E-02 NE 1.1E+03 NE 1.1E+03 Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.00E-03 NE 8.0E-10 7.1E-09 NE 1.2E-03 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 4.0E-04 1 Y 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 6.0E-06 NE 4.2E+01 NE 4.2E+01 Copper 7440-50-8 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 3.1E-03 2.4E-01 5.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 NE 2.2E+03 NE 2.2E+03 Iron 7439-89-6 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 2.9E-03 2.2E-01 5.2E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 7.0E-01 7.0E-01 NE 3.9E+04 NE 3.9E+04 Lead 7439-92-1 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-10 1.8E-09 NE 5.5E-04 1.5E+00 3.7E+00 1.0E-04 1 Y NE NN NE Magnesium 7439-95-4 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE NN NE Manganese 7439-96-5 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 2.9E-03 2.1E-01 5.1E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 5.0E-05 NE 3.1E+02 NE 3.1E+02 Mercury 7439-97-6 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 5.4E-03 1.4E+00 3.4E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y 3.0E-04 2.1E-05 3.0E-04 NE 1.2E+00 NE 1.2E+00 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 3.8E-03 3.6E-01 8.7E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 NE 2.8E+02 NE 2.SE+02 Nickel 7440-02-0 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-10 3.6E-09 NE 5:9E-04 2.2E-01 5.4E-01 2.0E-04 1 Y 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 9.0E-05 NE 2.2E+02 NE 2.2E+02 Potassium 7440-09-7 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-10 3.6E-09 NE 2.0E-04 1 Y NE NN NE Selenium 7782-49-2 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 3.4E-03 2.9E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-02 NE 2.8E+02 NE 2.8E+02 Sodium 7440-23-5 1.00E-03 NE 1.2E-09 1.1E-08 NE 6.0E-04 1 Y NE NN NE Strontium 7440-24-6 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.812-08 NE 3.6E-03 3.3E-01 7.8E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 NE 3.4E+04 NE 3.4E+04 Thallium 7440-28-0 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 5.5E-03 1.5E+00 3.5E+00 1.0E-03 1 Y NE NN NE Ttanium 7440-32-6 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 1.0E-03 1 Y NE NN NE Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 HE 2.7E-03 2.0E-01 4.9E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 5.0E-03 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 NE 7.3E+00 NE 7.3E+00 Zinc 7440-66-8 1.00E-03 NE 1.2E-09 1.1E-08 NE 1.9E-03 2.4E-01 5.9E-01 6.0E-04 1 Y 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 NE 2.8E+04 NE 2.8E+04 Nitrate 14797-55-5 1.00E-03 NE 2.0E-09 1.8E-08 NE 3.0E-03 2.3E-01 5.6E-01 1.0E-03 1 Y 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 NE 9.0E+04 NE 9.0E+04 Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.00E-03 NE 7.9E-10 7.1E-09 NE 4.0E-04 1 Y NE NN NE Chromium VI(hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.00E-03 NE 4.0E-09 3.6E-08 NE 5.5E-03 2.1E-01 4.9E-01 2.0E-03 1 Y 3.0E-03 7.5E-05 1.0E-04 NE 2.1E+00 NE 2.1E+00 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 140 1/8/2016 ttachment P - Table 4-16 isk Based Concentration Summary erivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Surface Water FF -SITE RECREATIONAL FISHER - RECREATIONAL FISHER (ADULT) n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Page 3 of 4 Exposure Routes Evaluated Incidental Ingestion No Dermal Contact Yes Ambient Vapor Inhalation No Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potenital concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicitv value available: remedial not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration I Non -Cancer (mg/L) Cancer I (mg/L) Final I (mg/L) Basis Aluminum 1429 -9U -b b.bE+U4 b.bE+U4 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 3.4E+00 3.4E+00 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.7E+01 2.6E+01 1.7E+01 nc Barium 7440-39-3 7.8E+02 7.8E+02 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 7.8E-01 7.8E-01 nc Boron 7440-42-8 1.1 E+04 1.1 E+04 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.1E+03 1.1E+03 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.1E+03 1.1E+03 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 4.2E+01 4.2E+01 nc Copper 7440-50-8 2.2E+03 2.2E+03 nc Iron 7439-89-6 3.9E+04 3.9E+04 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 3.1 E+02 3.1 E+02 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.8E+02 2.8E+02 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 2.2E+02 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 2.8E+02 2.8E+02 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 3.4E+04 3.4E+04 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 NA Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 7.3E+00 7.3E+00 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 2.8E+04 2.8E+04 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 9.0E+04 9.0E+04 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 2.1E+00 9.8E-01 9.8E-01 c Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 141 1/8/2016 fable 4-16 Risk Based Concentration Calculations iuman Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites )uke Energy Total Risk Based Concentration RBCmtai = 1 [(1/RGmg-i.)+(1/RGda A)+(1/RGaap)] Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion TR RBC;ng.rnJ. = Intake;,, *CSF Intake;, - [EPC]wete, * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 gaga groap •l- BW *ATrragma Cancer -Risk Based Concentration from Dermal Absorption TR RBCda,,; = n, DAD,_ * CSF DADd.. DA..nt * SA * EV * EF * ED d (agegroup.)= ATrrerma DAE„ant = [EPC]water * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCevent - 2 « FA « K « 6 • r *rTevent TevenKt* event PCeventTevenb=t« = FA * � . �t + B �+ 2 « r * 1 + B z 1 + 36 + 3B' ) Inorganics Compounds: PCevent = KP ' Tevent C2 Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation TR RBCmnaianon = - EC,a, IUR [EPC]vAPOR * ETvap * EF * ED * C1 ECS, (aga ,.nap >D 24 * AT;;rat;n,e Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC;ngeet;,, = THI Intake;n, / RfD Intake;,, = [EPC]wate, * IR * FI * EF * ED * C1 BW *AT Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Dermal Absorption THI RBCdenna; = DADde,n / RfD DAE„e„t * DFWadj DADdana (Wag—p.) _ AT;;regma DAE.nt= [EPC]_, * PCevent Organic Compounds: PCeventTevenK* _ 2 . FA * KP, 6 « r *rTevent event 1+3B+3B' PCeventTevent =t« = FA * C2 ' 1 + B -2— 1 —+B—)') Inorganics Compounds: Kip «Tevent PCevent = C2 Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Inhalation RBC;nh ;at;,, = THI ECn / RfC EC„ = [EPC]—OR * ETVap * EF * ED * C2 24 * AT Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific -- (mg/kg-day)- IUR Chemical specific -- (ug/m3)-' Intake Age/chemical specific -- mg/kg -day EC,en Age/chemical specific -- (ug/m') ELCR Age/chemical specific -- unitless RfD -- Chemical specific mg/kg -day RfC -- Chemical specific (mg/m3) DAD Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day DAE„e,t Age/chemical specific Age/chemical specific mg/cm`-event ECnc -- Age/chemical specific mg/m' HQ -- Age/chemical specific unitless [EPCLata, Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/L PCevent Chemical specific Chemical specific L/cm2-event [EPC]„ar„ ---NOT USED----- -----NOT USED--- ug/m' BW 80 80 kg EF 45 45 day/year ED 10 10 year AT -- 3650 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IR L/day FI unitless SA 5790 5790 cm2 Tevent 2.00 2 hr/event EV 1 1 event/day Cl 0.001 0.001 mg/ug ETVap 2 2 hr/day C2 1000 1000 cm'/L Page 4 of 4 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 142 1/8/2016 Page 1 of 4 Attachment Q - Table 4-17 Risk Based Concentration - Cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentration - Biota Off -Site Fisher - OFF-SITE FISHER - RECREATIONAL(ADULT) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Exposure Routes Evaluated Duke Energy Ingestion Yes Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1&01 COPC - chemical of potential concern INC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route ABS - absorption factor CSF - cancer slope factor ABS - absorption factor RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value available Intake Calculations Absorption Factors CancerToxlci Values COPC CASRN IntakeN,aes,,, ABSiNe CSFs„ RBC'... (mglkglday) (unit (mglkglday)' Aluminum 7429-90-5 NC NC INC Antimony 7440-36-0 NC INC NC A".7 440-38-2 3.1E-05 1 1.5E+00 2.1E+00 2.1E+00 Barium 7440-39-3 NC INC NC Beryllium 7440-41-7 NC INC NC Boron 7440-42-8 NC NC NC Cadmium 7440-43-9 NC INC NC Calcium 7440-70-2 NC NC NC Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 NC INC NC Chromium III 16065-83-1 NC NC NC Cobalt 7440-48-4 NC INC NC Copper 7440-50-8 NC INC NC Iron 7439-89-6 NC NC NC Lead 7439-92-1 NC 1 NC Magnesium 7439-95-4 NC NC NC Manganese 7439-96-5 NC INC NC Mercury 7439-97-6 NC INC NC Molybdenum 7439-98-7 NC NC NC Nickel 7440-02-0 NC NC NC Potassium 7440-09-7 NC NC NC Selenium 7782-49-2 NC NC NC Sodium 7440-23-5 NC NC NC Strontium 7440-24-6 NC INC NC Thallium 7440-28-0 NC NC NC Titanium 7440-32-6 NC NC NC Vanadium 7440-62-2 NC NC NC Zinc 7440-66-6 NC NC NC Nitrate 14797-55-8 NC NC NC Sulfide 18496-25-8 NC NC NC Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.1E-05 1 5.0E-01 6.4E+00 6.4E+00 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 143 Page 2 of 4 tachment O - Table 4-17 sk Based Concentration - Nan -cancer -Based mivation of Risk Based Concentration - Biota f -Site Fisher - OFF-SITE FISHER - RECREATIONAL(ADULT) iman Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites rke Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Ingestion Yes Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) IE )PC - chemical of potential concern RfD - reference dose NTV - no toxicity value available ABS -absorption factor RBC - risk based concentration Intake Calculations I Aluminum 7429-90-5 2.2E-04 1 1.0E+00 4.6E+03 4.6E+03 Antimony 7440-36-0 2.2E-04 1 4.0E-04 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 Arsenic 7440-38-2 2.2E-04 1 3.0E-04 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 Barium 7440-393 2.2E-04 1 2.0E-01 9.1E+02 9.1E+02 Beryllium 7440-41-7 2.2E-04 1 2.0E-03 9.1E+00 9.1E+00 Boron 744042-8 2.2E-04 1 2.0E-01 9.1E+02 9.1E+02 Cadmium 7440-03-9 2.2E-04 1 1.0E-03 4.6E+00 4.6E+00 Calcium 7440-70-2 2.2E-04 1 NTV Chromium, Total 744047-3 2.2E-04 1 1.5E+00 6.9E+03 6.9E+03 Chromium III 16065-83-1 2.2E-04 1 1.5E+00 6.9E+03 6.9E+03 Cobalt 7440484 2.2E-04 1 3.0E-04 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 Copper 7440-50-8 2.2E-04 1 4.0E-02 1.8E+02 1.8E+02 Iron 7439-89-6 2.2E-04 1 7.OE-01 3.2E+03 3.2E+03 Lead 7439-92-1 2.2E-04 1 NTV Magnesium 7439-95-0 2.2E-04 1 NTV Manganese 7439-96-5 2.2E-04 1 1.4E-01 6.4E+02 6.4E+02 Mercury 7439-97-6 2.2E-04 1 3.0E-04 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.2E-04 1 5.0E-03 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E-04 1 2.0E-02 9.1E+01 9.1E+01 Potassium 7440-09-7 2.2E-04 1 NTV Selenium 778249-2 2.2E-04 1 5.0E-03 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 Sodium 7440-23-5 2.2E-04 1 NTV Strontium 7440-24 2.2E-04 1 6.0E-01 2.7E+03 2.7E+03 Thallium 7440-28-0 2.2E-04 1 1.0E-05 4.6E-02 4.6E-02 Titanium 7440-32-6 2.2E-04 1 NTV Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.2E-04 1 5.0E-03 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 Zinc 7440-6" 2.2E-04 1 3.0E-01 1.4E+03 1.4E+03 Nitrate 14797-55-8 2.2E-04 1 1617+00 7.3E+03 7.3E+03 Sulfide 18496-25-8 2.2E-04 1 NTV Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 2.2E-04 1 3.0E-03 1.4E+01 1.4E+01 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 144 Page 3 of 4 Attachment 0 - Table 4-17 Risk Based Concentration Summary Derivation of Risk Based Concentration - Biota Off -Site Fisher - OFF-SITE FISHER - RECREATIONAL(ADULT) Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk(per Chemical 1E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; risk based concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer I (mg/kg) Final I (mg/kg) Basis Hiuminum 4Z`J-au-o 4.0t+u3 4.bt+u5 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.4E+00 2.1 E+00 1.4E+00 nc Barium 7440-39-3 9.1E+02 9.1E+02 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 9.1E+00 9.1E+00 nc Boron 7440-42-8 9.1 E+02 9.1 E+02 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 4.6E+00 4.6E+00 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 6.9E+03 6.9E+03 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 6.9E+03 6.9E+03 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 nc Copper 7440-50-8 1.8E+02 1.8E+02 nc Iron 7439-89-6 3.2E+03 3.2E+03 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 6.4E+02 6.4E+02 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 9.1E+01 9.1E+01 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 2.7E+03 2.7E+03 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 4.6E-02 4.6E-02 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 1.4E+03 1.4E+03 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 7.3E+03 7.3E+03 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Chromium A (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.4E+01 6.4E+00 6.4E+00 c 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 145 Attachment Q - Table 4-17 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC;.9est;o„ = TR / Intake;., * CSF [EPC]b;ota * IR * ABS;Nc' EF * ED * C1 Intake,n9 (a9e 9,ow x) _ BWx * ATrreame Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion THI RBC,n9est;on= Intake;t,9 / RfD Intake;n9 = [EPC]b;ota * IR * ABS;,,, * EF * ED * C1 BW*AT Page 4 of 4 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific (mg/kg -day)'' Intake Age/chemical specific mg/kg -day ELCR Age/chemical specific unitless RfD Chemical specific mg/kg -day HQ Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC]biota Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg ABS;,,, Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW 80 80 kg EF 365 365 day/year ED 10 10 year AT 3650 day ATlifetime 25550 day IR 17.5 17.5 g/day C1 0.001 0.001 kg/g 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 146 Page 1 of 4 hment Q - Table 4-17 Based Concentration - Cancer -Based ation of Risk Based Concentration - Biota ite Fisher - OFF-SITE FISHER - RECREATIONAL ADOLESCENT (AGE 6 - <16) n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy COPC - chemical of potential concern ABS - absorption factor ABS - absorption factor NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route CSF - cancer slope factor Exposure Routes Evaluated Ingestion Yes Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value available Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Cancer Toxicity Values NC NC COPC CASRN Intakeing-t;o„ ABSiNG CSFor,i RBC;,,9ast;o„El NC (mglkg/day) (unitless) (mg/kglday)'t 1 1.5E+00 2.7E+00 2.7E+00 Aluminum 7429-90-5 NC NC NC Antimony 7440-36-0 NC NC NC Arsenic 7440-38-2 2.5E-05 1 1.5E+00 2.7E+00 2.7E+00 Barium 7440-39-3 NC NC NC Beryllium 7440-41-7 NC NC NC Baron 7440-42-8 NC NC NC Cadmium 7440-43-9 NC NC NC Calcium 7440-70-2 NC NC NC Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 NC NC NC Chromium III 16065-83-1 NC NC NC Cobalt 7440-48-4 NC NC NC Copper 7440-50-8 NC NC NC Iron 7439-89-6 NC NC NC Lead 7439-92-1 NC 1 NC Magnesium 7439-95-4 NC NC NC Manganese 7439-96-5 NC NC NC Mercury 7439-97-6 NC NC NC Molybdenum 7439-98-7 NC NC NC Nickel 7440-02-0 NC NC NC Potassium 7440-09-7 NC NC NC Selenium 7782-49-2 NC NC NC Sodium 7440-23-5 NC NC NC Strontium 7440-24-6 NC NC NC Thallium 7440-28-0 NC NC NC Titanium 7440-32-6 NC NC NC Vanadium 7440-62-2 NC NC NC Zinc 7440-66-6 NC NC NC Nitrate 14797-55-8 NC NC NC Sulfide 18496-25-8 NC NC NC Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 7.4E-05 1 5.0E-01 2.7E+00 2.7E+00 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 147 Page 2 of 4 Attachment Q - Table 4-17 Risk Based Concentration - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentration - Biota Off -Site Fisher - OFF-SITE FISHER - RECREATIONAL ADOLESCENT (AGE 6 - <16) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Ingestion Yes Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) ._. f.nP(. _ nh.-inal of nnfanfmi rnnrorn Rfn _ -f.-nro Hl Nn/ _ nn fnvinifv vale is availahlc ABS -absorption factor RBC - risk based concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non•Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN Intakeings i.n ABSING RID_ l RBCmaestloa RBCeoral (mg/kglday) (unitless) (mg/kg/day) Aluminum 7429-90-5 1.7E-04 1 1.0E+00 5.8E+03 5.8E+03 Antimony 7440-36-0 1.7E-04 1 4.0E-04 2.3E+00 2.3E+00 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.7E-04 1 3.0E-04 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 Barium 7440-39-3 1.7E-04 1 2.0E-01 1.2E+03 1.2E+03 Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.7E-04 1 2.0E-03 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 Boron 7440-42-8 1.7E-04 1 2.0E-01 1.2E+03 1.2E+03 Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.7E-04 1 1.0E-03 5.8E+00 5.8E+00 Calcium 7440-70-2 1.7E-04 1 NTV Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 1.7E-04 1 1.5E+00 8.7E+03 8.7E+03 Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.7E-04 1 1.5E+00 8.7E+03 8.7E+03 Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.7E-04 1 3.0E-04 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 Copper 7440-50-8 1.7E-04 1 4.0E-02 2.3E+02 2.3E+02 Iron 7439-89-6 1.7E-04 1 7.0E-01 4.1E+03 4.1E+03 Lead 7439-92-1 1.7E-04 1 NTV Magnesium 7439-95-4 1.7E-04 1 NTV Manganese 7439-96-5 1.7E-04 1 1.4E-01 8.1E+02 8.1E+02 Mercury 7439-97-6 1.7E-04 1 3.0E-04 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.7E-04 1 5.0E-03 2.9E+01 2.9E+01 Nickel 7440-02-0 1.7E-04 1 2.0E-02 1.2E+02 1.2E+02 Potassium 7440-09-7 1.7E-04 1 NTV Selenium 778249-2 1.7E-04 1 5.0E-03 2.9E+01 2.9E+01 Sodium 7440-23-5 1.7E-04 1 NTV Strontium 7440-24-6 1.7E-04 1 6.0E-01 3.5E+03 3.5E+03 Thallium 7440-28-0 1.7E-04 1 1.oE-05 5.8E-02 5.8E-02 Titanium 7440-32-6 1.7E-04 1 NTV Vanadium 7440-62-2 1.7E-04 1 5.0E-03 2.9E+01 2.9E+01 Zinc 7440-66-6 1.7E-04 1 3.0E-01 1.7E+03 1.7E+03 Nitrate 14797-55-8 1.7E-04 1 1.6E+00 9.3E+03 9.3E+03 Sulfide 18496-25-8 1.7E-04 1 NTV Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.7E-04 1 3.0E-03 1.7E+01 1.7E+01 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 148 Page 3 of 4 hment Q - Table 4-17 Based Concentration Summary ation of Risk Based Concentration - Biota its Fisher - OFF-SITE FISHER - RECREATIONAL ADOLESCENT (AGE 6 - <16) n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Ingestion Yes Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1E+00 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; risk based concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer (mg/kg) I Final (mg/kg) Basis Hmmmum iaza-au-o o.ae+us o.at+us nc Antimony 7440-36-0 2.3E+00 2.3E+00 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.7E+00 2.7E+00 1.7E+00 nc Barium 7440-39-3 1.2E+03 1.2E+03 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 nc Boron 7440-42-8 1.2E+03 1.2E+03 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 5.8E+00 5.8E+00 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 8.7E+03 8.7E+03 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 8.7E+03 8.7E+03 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 nc Copper 7440-50-8 2.3E+02 2.3E+02 nc Iron 7439-89-6 4.1E+03 4.1E+03 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 8.1E+02 8.1E+02 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.9E+01 2.9E+01 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 1.2E+02 1.2E+02 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 2.9E+01 2.9E+01 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 3.5E+03 3.5E+03 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 5.8E-02 5.8E-02 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.9E+01 2.9E+01 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 1.7E+03 1.7E+03 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 9.3E+03 9.3E+03 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.7E+01 2.7E+00 2.7E+00 c 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 149 Attachment Q - Table 4-17 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBCingestion = TR / Intakeing * CSF Irltakeing (age group x) _ [EPC]biota' IR * ABSING * EF * ED * C1 — BWx * ATlifetime Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC - THI ngestion - Intakeing / RfD Intake - [EPC]biota * IR * ABSing * EF * ED * C1 ng_ BW*AT Page 4 of 4 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific -- (mg/kg -day) Intake Age/chemical specific -- mg/kg -day ELCR Age/chemical specific -- unitless RfD -- Chemical specific mg/kg -day HQ -- Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC]biota Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg ABSing Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW 44 44 kg EF 365 365 day/year ED 10 10 year AT -- 3650 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IR 7.6 7.6 g/day C1 0.001 0.001 kg/g 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 150 Page 1 of 4 hmerd R - Table 4-18 Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based ,ation of Risk Based Concentrations - Biota its Fisher - OFF-SITE FISHER - SUBSISTENCE(CHILD <6) n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy COPC - chemical of potential concern ABS - absorption factor ABS - absorption factor NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route CSF - cancer slope factor Exposure Routes Evaluated Ingestion Yes Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1E-04 RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value available Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Cancer Toxicity Values NC NC COPC CASRN Intakoing-;oo ABSING CSForol RBCing-fioo RBC,o,ol (mg/kg/day) (unitless) (mg/kg/day)"� 1 1.5E+00 1.2E-01 1.2E-01 Aluminum 7429-90-5 NC NC NC Antimony 7440-36-0 NC NC NC Arsenic 7440-38-2 5.6E-04 1 1.5E+00 1.2E-01 1.2E-01 Barium 7440-39-3 NC NC NC Beryllium 7440-41-7 NC NC NC Boron 7440-42-8 NC NC NC Cadmium 7440-43-9 NC NC NC Calcium 7440-70-2 NC NC NC Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 NC NC NC Chromium III 16065-83-1 NC NC NC Cobalt 7440-48-4 NC NC NC Copper 7440-50-8 NC NC NC Iron 7439-89-6 NC NC NC Lead 7439-92-1 NC 1 NC Magnesium 7439-95-4 NC NC NC Manganese 7439-96-5 NC NC NC Mercury 7439-97-6 NC NC NC Molybdenum 7439-98-7 NC NC NC Nickel 7440-02-0 NC NC NC Potassium 7440-09-7 NC NC NC Selenium 7782-49-2 NC NC NC Sodium 7440-23-5 NC NC NC Strontium 7440-24-6 NC NC NC Thallium 7440-28-0 NC NC NC Titanium 7440-32-6 NC NC NC Vanadium 7440-62-2 NC NC NC Zinc 7440-66-6 NC NC NC Nitrate 14797-55-8 NC NC NC Sulfide 18496-25-8 NC NC NC Chromium A (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 5.6E-03 1 5.0E-01 3.6E-02 3.6E-02 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 151 Page 2 of 4 Attachment R - Table 4-18 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Biota Off -Site Fisher - OFF-SITE FISHER - SUBSISTENCE(CHILD <6) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Ingestion Yes Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) ._. r:r1Pr: _ nh.-inal of nnfanfmi nnnrorn Rfn _ -f.-nro Hl Nn/ _ nn fnvinifv vale is availahlc ABS -absorption factor RBC - risk based concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non•Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN Intakeings i.n ABSING RID_ l RBC;ngesf;on RBCt f l (mg/kglday) (unitless) (mg/kg/day) Aluminum 7429-90-5 6.5E-03 1 1.0E+00 1.5E+02 1.5E+02 Antimony 7440-36-0 6.5E-03 1 4.0E-04 6.1E-02 6.1E-02 Arsenic 7440-38-2 6.5E-03 1 3.0E-04 4.6E-02 4.6E-02 Barium 7440-39-3 6.5E-03 1 2.0E-01 3.1E+01 3.1E+01 Beryllium 744041-7 6.5E-03 1 2.0E-03 3.1E-01 3.1E-01 Boron 7440-42-8 6.5E-03 1 2.0E-01 3.1E+01 3.1E+01 Cadmium 7440-43-9 6.5E-03 1 1.0E-03 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 Calcium 7440-70-2 6.5E-03 1 NTV Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 6.5E-03 1 1.5E+00 2.3E+02 2.3E+02 Chromium III 16065-83-1 6.5E-03 1 1.5E+00 2.3E+02 2.3E+02 Cobalt 7440-48-4 6.5E-03 1 3.0E-04 4.6E-02 4.6E-02 Copper 7440-50-8 6.5E-03 1 4.0E-02 6.1E+00 6.1E+00 Iron 7439-89-6 6.5E-03 1 7.0E-01 1.1E+02 1.1E+02 Lead 7439-92-1 6.5E-03 1 NTV Magnesium 7439-95-4 6.5E-03 1 NTV Manganese 7439-96-5 6.5E-03 1 1.4E-01 2.1E+01 2.1E+01 Mercury 7439-97-6 6.5E-03 1 3.0E-04 4.6E-02 4.6E-02 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 6.5E-03 1 5.0E-03 7.7E-01 7.7E-01 Nickel 7440-02-0 6.5E-03 1 2.0E-02 3.1E+00 3.1E+00 Potassium 7440-09-7 6.5E-03 1 NTV Selenium 778249-2 6.5E-03 1 5.0E-03 7.7E-01 7.7E-01 Sodium 7440-23-5 6.5E-03 1 NTV Strontium 7440-24-6 6.5E-03 1 6.0E-01 9.2E+01 9.2E+01 Thallium 7440-28-0 6.5E-03 1 1.0E-05 1.5E-03 1.5E-03 Titanium 7440-32-6 6.5E-03 1 NTV Vanadium 7440-62-2 6.5E-03 1 5.0E-03 7.7E-01 7.7E-01 Zinc 7440-66-6 6.5E-03 1 3.0E-01 4.6E+01 4.6E+01 Nitrate 14797-55-8 6.5E-03 1 1.6E+00 2.4E+02 2.4E+02 Sulfide 18496-25-8 6.5E-03 1 NTV Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 6.5E-03 1 3.0E-03 4.6E-01 4.6E-01 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 152 Page 3 of 4 Attachment R - Table 4-18 Risk Based Concentrations Summary Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Biota Off -Site Fisher - OFF-SITE FISHER - SUBSISTENCE(CHILD <6) Exposure Routes Evaluated Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Ingestion Yes Duke Energy Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Target Cancer Risk(per Chemical 1 E-04 COPC - chemical of potential concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; remedial goal not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer (mg/kg) FinalBasis (mg/kg) 7440-36-0 Aluminum /429 -9U -b 1.5E+U2 1.bE+U2 nc Antimony 7440-36-0 6.1 E-02 6.1 E-02 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 4.6E-02 1.2E-01 4.6E-02 nc Barium 7440-39-3 3.1E+01 3.1E+01 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 3.1E-01 3.1E-01 nc Boron 7440-42-8 3.1 E+01 3.1 E+01 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 2.3E+02 2.3E+02 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 2.3E+02 2.3E+02 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 4.6E-02 4.6E-02 nc Copper 7440-50-8 6.1 E+00 6.1 E+00 nc Iron 7439-89-6 1.1 E+02 1.1E+02 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 2.1 E+01 2.1 E+01 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 4.6E-02 4.6E-02 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 7.7E-01 7.7E-01 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 3.1 E+00 3.1 E+00 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 7.7E-01 7.7E-01 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 9.2E+01 9.2E+01 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 1.5E-03 1.5E-03 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 7.7E-01 7.7E-01 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 4.6E+01 4.6E+01 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 2.4E+02 2.4E+02 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Chromium A (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 4.6E-01 3.6E-02 3.6E-02 c 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 153 Attachment R - Table 4-18 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy on RBCingestion = TR / Intakeing * CSF Intakeing (age group x) — [EPC]biota' IR * ABSING * EF * ED * C1 BWx * ATlifetime Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration Goal for Ingestion RBC - THI ngestion - Intakeing / RfD Intake - [EPC]biota * IR * ABSing * EF * ED * C1 ng_ BW*AT Page 4 of 4 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific -- (mg/kg -day) Intake Age/chemical specific -- mg/kg -day ELCR Age/chemical specific -- unitless RfD -- Chemical specific mg/kg -day HQ -- Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC]biota Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg ABSing Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW 15 15 kg EF 365 365 day/year ED 6 6 year AT -- 2190 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IR 98 98 g/day C1 0.001 0.001 kg/g 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 154 Page 1 of 4 hment R - Table 4-18 Based Concentrations - Cancer -Based ation of Risk Based Concentrations - Biota ite Fisher - OFF-SITE FISHER - SUBSISTENCE(ADULT) n Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Energy COPC - chemical of potential concern ABS - absorption factor ABS - absorption factor NC - not carcinogenic by this exposure route CSF - cancer slope factor Exposure Routes Evaluated Ingestion Yes Target Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 RBC - risk based concentration NTV - no toxicity value available Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Cancer Toxicity Values NC NC COPC CASRN Intakeing-t;o„ ABSiNG CSFor,i RBC;,,9ast;o„El NC (mglkg/day) (unitless) (mg/kglday)'t 1 1.5E+00 2.2E-01 2.2E-01 Aluminum 7429-90-5 NC NC NC Antimony 7440-36-0 NC NC NC Arsenic 7440-38-2 3.0E-04 1 1.5E+00 2.2E-01 2.2E-01 Barium 7440-39-3 NC NC NC Beryllium 7440-41-7 NC NC NC Boron 7440-42-8 NC NC NC Cadmium 7440-43-9 NC NC NC Calcium 7440-70-2 NC NC NC Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 NC NC NC Chromium III 16065-83-1 NC NC NC Cobalt 7440-48-4 NC NC NC Copper 7440-50-8 NC NC NC Iron 7439-89-6 NC NC NC Lead 7439-92-1 NC 1 NC Magnesium 7439-95-4 NC NC NC Manganese 7439-96-5 NC NC NC Mercury 7439-97-6 NC NC NC Molybdenum 7439-98-7 NC NC NC Nickel 7440-02-0 NC NC NC Potassium 7440-09-7 NC NC NC Selenium 7782-49-2 NC NC NC Sodium 7440-23-5 NC NC NC Strontium 7440-24-6 NC NC NC Thallium 7440-28-0 NC NC NC Titanium 7440-32-6 NC NC NC Vanadium 7440-62-2 NC NC NC Zinc 7440-66-6 NC NC NC Nitrate 14797-55-8 NC NC NC Sulfide 18496-25-8 NC NC NC Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 3.0E-04 1 5.0E-01 6.6E-01 6.6E-01 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 155 Page 2 of 4 Attachment R - Table 4-18 Risk Based Concentrations - Non -cancer -Based Derivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Biota Off -Site Fisher - OFF-SITE FISHER - SUBSISTENCE(ADULT) Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Exposure Routes Evaluated Ingestion Yes Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) ._. f:f1Pr: _ nh.-inal of nnfanfmi nnnrorn Rfn _ -f.-nro Hl Nn/ _ nn fnvinifv vale is availahlc ABS -absorption factor RBC - risk based concentration Intake Calculations Absorption Factors Non•Cancer Toxicity Values COPC CASRN Intakeings i.n ABSING RID_ l RBCm9a,tlon RBCeoral (mg/kglday) (unitless) (mg/kg/day) Aluminum 7429-90-5 2.1E-03 1 1.0E+00 4.7E+02 4.7E+02 Antimony 7440-36-0 2.1E-03 1 4.0E-04 1.9E-01 1.9E-01 Arsenic 7440-38-2 2.1E-03 1 3.0E-04 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 Barium 7440-39-3 2.1E-03 1 2.0E-01 9.4E+01 9.4E+01 Beryllium 744041-7 2.1E-03 1 2.0E-03 9.4E-01 9.4E-01 Boron 7440-42-8 2.1E-03 1 2.0E-01 9.4E+01 9.4E+01 Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.1E-03 1 1.0E-03 4.7E-01 4.7E-01 Calcium 7440-70-2 2.1E-03 1 NTV Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 2.1E-03 1 1.5E+00 7.1E+02 7.1E+02 Chromium III 16065-83-1 2.1E-03 1 1.5E+00 7.1E+02 7.1E+02 Cobalt 7440-48-4 2.1E-03 1 3.0E-04 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 Copper 7440-50-8 2.1E-03 1 4.0E-02 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 Iron 7439-89-6 2.1E-03 1 7.0E-01 3.3E+02 3.3E+02 Lead 7439-92-1 2.1 E-03 1 NTV Magnesium 7439-95-4 2.1E-03 1 NTV Manganese 7439-96-5 2.1E-03 1 1.4E-01 6.6E+01 6.6E+01 Mercury 7439-97-6 2.1E-03 1 3.0E-04 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.1E-03 1 5.0E-03 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 Nickel 7440-02-0 2.1E-03 1 2.0E-02 9.4E+00 9.4E+00 Potassium 7440-09-7 2.1E-03 1 NTV Selenium 778249-2 2.1E-03 1 5.0E-03 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 Sodium 7440-23-5 2.1E-03 1 NTV Strontium 7440-24-6 2.1E-03 1 6.0E-01 2.8E+02 2.8E+02 Thallium 7440-28-0 2.1E-03 1 1.0E-05 4.7E-03 4.7E-03 Titanium 7440-32-6 2.1E-03 1 NTV Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.1E-03 1 5.0E-03 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 Zinc 7440-66-6 2.1E-03 1 3.0E-01 1.4E+02 1.4E+02 Nitrate 14797-55-8 2.1E-03 1 1.6E+00 7.5E+02 7.5E+02 Sulfide 18496-25-8 2.1E-03 1 NTV Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 2.1E-03 1 3.0E-03 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 156 Page 3 of 4 achment R - Table 4-18 * Based Concentration Summary rivation of Risk Based Concentrations - Biota -Site Fisher - OFF-SITE FISHER - SUBSISTENCE(ADULT) Exposure Routes Evaluated man Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Ingestion Yes ke Energy Target Hazard Index (per Chemical) 1 E+00 Taraet Cancer Risk (per Chemical) 1 E-04 - chemical of potential concern nc - risk based concentration based on non -cancer hazard index c - risk based concentration based on cancer risk NA - no toxicity value available; risk based concentration not calculated COPC CASRN Risk Based Concentration Non -Cancer (mg/kg) Cancer (mg/kg) Final (mg/kg) Basis Hiuminum 14Za-au-o 4. / C+uz 4. / t+uz nc Antimony 7440-36-0 1.9E-01 1.9E-01 nc Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.4E-01 2.2E-01 1.4E-01 nc Barium 7440-39-3 9.4E+01 9.4E+01 nc Beryllium 7440-41-7 9.4E-01 9.4E-01 nc Boron 7440-42-8 9.4E+01 9.4E+01 nc Cadmium 7440-43-9 4.7E-01 4.7E-01 nc Calcium 7440-70-2 NA Chromium, Total 7440-47-3 7.1E+02 7.1E+02 nc Chromium III 16065-83-1 7.1E+02 7.1E+02 nc Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 nc Copper 7440-50-8 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 nc Iron 7439-89-6 3.3E+02 3.3E+02 nc Lead 7439-92-1 NA Magnesium 7439-95-4 NA Manganese 7439-96-5 6.6E+01 6.6E+01 nc Mercury 7439-97-6 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 nc Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 nc Nickel 7440-02-0 9.4E+00 9.4E+00 nc Potassium 7440-09-7 NA Selenium 7782-49-2 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 nc Sodium 7440-23-5 NA Strontium 7440-24-6 2.8E+02 2.8E+02 nc Thallium 7440-28-0 4.7E-03 4.7E-03 nc Titanium 7440-32-6 NA Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 nc Zinc 7440-66-6 1.4E+02 1.4E+02 nc Nitrate 14797-55-8 7.5E+02 7.5E+02 nc Sulfide 18496-25-8 NA Chromium VI (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.4E+00 6.6E-01 6.6E-01 c 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 157 Table 4-18 Risk Based Concentration Calculations Human Health Risk Assessment for CAMA Sites Duke Energy Cancer -Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBCingestion = TR / Intakeing * CSF Irltakeing (age group x) _ [EPC]biota' IR * ABSING * EF * ED * C1 — BWx * ATlifetime Noncancer-Risk Based Concentration for Ingestion RBC - THI ngestion - Intakeing / RfD Intake - [EPC]biota * IR * ABSing * EF * ED * C1 ng_ BW*AT Page 4 of 4 Parameter Value - Cancer Value - Non -Cancer Units CSF Chemical specific -- (mg/kg -day) Intake Age/chemical specific -- mg/kg -day ELCR Age/chemical specific -- unitless RfD -- Chemical specific mg/kg -day HQ -- Age/chemical specific unitless [EPC]biota Chemical specific Chemical specific mg/kg ABSing Chemical specific Chemical specific unitless BW 80 80 kg EF 365 365 day/year ED 10 10 year AT -- 3650 day ATlifetime 25550 -- day IR 170 170 g/day C1 0.001 0.001 kg/g 1/6/2016 Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich, January 2016 158 Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra ATTACHMENT E EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra ATTACHMENT E EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026 \ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment \ CAP RA\Text\ WSP Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx TABLE E-1 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS HUMAN HEALTH - GROUNDWATER - SURFICIAL AQUIFER W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Reportin g Units Number of Frequency of Samples Detection Minimum Detected Concentration Maximum Detected Concentration Mean Kaplan- Meier Method Mean (a) UCL Selected UCL Exposure Point Concentration Exposure Point Concentration (mg/L) Aluminum ug/L 19 19 9.5 43900 6883 --- 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 38469 38469 38.469 Arsenic ug/L 22 9 1.02 74.4 10.75 4.99 95% KM (BCA) UCL 11.71 11.71 0.01171 Beryllium ug/L 19 3 9.86 14.2 11.52 2.661 95% KM (t) UCL 4.55 4.55 0.00455 Boron ug/L 22 8 108 1620 414 182.4 95% KM (BCA) UCL 320.4 320.4 0.3204 Cadmium ug/L 22 3 1.885 3.16 2.312 1.179 95% KM (t) UCL 1.404 1.404 0.001404 Chromium ug/L 22 7 1.06 15.95 5.22 2.533 95% KM (t) UCL 3.874 3.874 0.003874 Cobalt ug/L 19 6 1 1.06 109 40.71 13.54 95% KM (t) UCL 26.5 26.5 0.0265 Iron ug/L 22 22 12 17000 5062 --- 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 9405 9405 9.405 Lead ug/L 22 4 1 6.18 2.795 1.326 95% KM (t) UCL 1.793 1.793 0.001793 Manganese ug/L 22 19 10 1270 204.5 177.3 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 660.9 660.9 0.6609 Nickel ug/L 22 7 1.11 216 71 23.37 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 154.9 154.9 0.1549 Thallium ug/L 1 22 2 0.237 1 0.364 1 0.301 --- --- ---0.364 0.000364 Vanadium ug/L 1 19 15 1 0.323 1 3.99 1 1.344 --- 1 95% GROS Adjusted Gamma UCL 2.08 2.08 0.00208 Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/L - milligrams per liter ug/L - micrograms per liter NO - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit nd - Not Detected Prepared By: MB] Checked By: MCD (a)- Mean calculated by ProUCL using the Kaplan -Meier (KM) estimation method for non -detect values: only given for datasets with FOD less than 100% and that met the minimum sample size and FOD requirements for use with ProUCL; (b)- Sample size was greater than or equal to 30 and the number of detected values was greater than or equal to 6, therefore, a 95% UCL was calculated by ProUCL. The UCL shown is the one recommended by ProUCL. If more than one UCL was recommended, the higher UCL was selected. ProUCL, version 5.0 (c ) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (d) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 3026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE E-2 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS HUMAN HEALTH - GROUNDWATER - LOWER YORKTOWN AQUIFER W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Reporting Units Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Minimum Detected Concentration Maximum Detected Concentration Mean Kaplan- Meier Method Mean (a) UCL Selected UCL Exposure Point Concentration Exposure Point Concentration (mg/L) Aluminum ug/L 17 17 9 510 149.4 --- 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 242.3 242.3 0.2423 Antimony ug/L 17 1 --- 3.95 --- --- --- --- 3.95 0.00395 Boron ug/L 17 6 498 3400 1512 565.9 95% KM (t) UCL 982.8 982.8 0.9828 Chromium ug/L 17 2 2.29 2.67 2.48 --- --- --- 2.67 0.00267 Cobalt ug/L 17 3 1.61 6.77 4.877 1.684 95% KM (t) UCL 2.602 2.602 0.002602 Iron ug/L 17 17 70 8400 2667 --- 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 5280 5280 5.28 Manganese ug/L 1 17 17 31 632 176.6 --- 95% H -UCL 323.2 323.2 0.3232 Molybdenum ug/L 17 9 1.01 27.7 5.573 3.421 95% KM (% Bootstrap) UCL 6.431 6.431 0.006431 Thallium ug/L 17 3 0.254 0.46 0.355 0.227 95% KM (t) UCL 0.263 0.263 0.000263 Vanadium ug/L 17 11 0.304 3.64 0.938 0.713 95% KM (BCA) UCL 1.096 1.096 0.001096 Zinc ug/L 17 6 5 31 16.17 8.941 95% KM (t) UCL 12.4 12.4 0.0124 Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/L - milligrams per liter ug/L - micrograms per liter ND - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit nd - Not Detected Prepared By: MBI Checked By: MCD (a)- Mean calculated by ProUCL using the Kaplan -Meier (KM) estimation method for non -detect values: only given for datasets with FOD less than 100% and that met the minimum sample size and FOD requirements for use with ProUCL; see note(b). (b)- Sample size was greater than or equal to 10 and the number of detected values was greater than or equal to 6, therefore, a 95% UCL was calculated by ProUCL. The UCL shown is the one recommended by ProUCL. If more than one UCL was recommended, the higher UCL was selected. ProUCL, version 5.0 (c ) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (d) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The. ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE E-3 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS HUMAN HEALTH - GROUNDWATER - PEEDEE AQUIFER W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/L - milligrams per liter ug/L - micrograms per liter ND - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit nd - Not Detected Prepared By: MBI Checked By: MCD (a)- Mean calculated by ProUCL using the Kaplan -Meier (KM) estimation method for non -detect values: only given for datasets with FOD less than 100% and that met the minimum sample size and FOD requirements for use with ProUCL; see note(b). (b)- Sample size was greater than or equal to 10 and the number of detected values was greater than or equal to 6, therefore, a 95% UCL was calculated by ProUCL. The UCL shown is the one recommended by ProUCL. If more than one UCL was recommended, the higher UCL was selected. ProUCL, version 5.0 (c ) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (d) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Number Minimum Maximum Exposure Reporting Frequency of Kaplan- Meier Exposure Point Point Constituent Units of Detection Detected Detected Mean Method Mean (a) UCL Selected UCL Concentration Concentratio Samples Concentration Concentration Iron ug/L 9 9 57 2050 642.9 --- 95% Student's -t 1084 1084 1.084 Manganese ug/L 9 85 88 37.75 34.11 95% KM (t) UCL 52.74 52.74 0.05274 Vanadium ug/L 9 4-4 0.317 1.53 0.836 0.538 95% KM (t) UCL 0.823 0.823 0.000823 Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/L - milligrams per liter ug/L - micrograms per liter ND - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit nd - Not Detected Prepared By: MBI Checked By: MCD (a)- Mean calculated by ProUCL using the Kaplan -Meier (KM) estimation method for non -detect values: only given for datasets with FOD less than 100% and that met the minimum sample size and FOD requirements for use with ProUCL; see note(b). (b)- Sample size was greater than or equal to 10 and the number of detected values was greater than or equal to 6, therefore, a 95% UCL was calculated by ProUCL. The UCL shown is the one recommended by ProUCL. If more than one UCL was recommended, the higher UCL was selected. ProUCL, version 5.0 (c ) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (d) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE E-4 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS HUMAN HEALTH - SEEP SOIL - ASH BASIN SITE W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Reporting Units Number of Frequency of Samples Detection Minimum Detected Concentration Maximum Detected Concentration Mean Kaplan- Meier Method Mean (a) UCL Selected UCL Exposure Point Concentration Aluminum mg/kg 10 10 1230 16800 7252 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 10084 10084 Arsenic mg/kg 10 8 8.7 1090 357.7 287.5 95% KM (t) UCL 489.7 489.7 Cobalt mg/kg 10 3 6.8 16.4 13.1 9.214 95% KM (t) UCL 13 13 Iron mg/kg 10 10 474 145000 39566 --- 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 124256 124256 Selenium mg/kg 10 2 7.6 170 88.8 23 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 241.1 170 Vanadium I mg/kg 10 9 4.5 73.5 1 29.78 1 27.25 1 95% KM (t) UCL 41.06 41.06 Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram NO - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit nd - Not Detected Prepared By: MBI Checked By: MCD (a)- Mean calculated by ProUCL using the Kaplan -Meier (KM) estimation method for non -detect values: only given for datasets with FOD less than 100°/% and that met the minimum sample size and FOD requirements for use with ProUCL; see note(b). (b)- Sample size was greater than or equal to 10 and the number of detected values was greater than or equal to 6, therefore, a 95% UCL was calculated by ProUCL. The UCL shown is the one recommended by ProUCL. If more than one UCL was recommended, the higher UCL was selected. ProUCL, version 5.0 (c ) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (d) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE E-5 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS HUMAN HEALTH - SEEP WATER - ASH BASIN SITE W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Reporting Units Number of Samples Frequency �of Detection Minimum Detected Concentration Maximum Detected Concentration Mean Kaplan- Meier Method Mean (a) UCL Selected UCL Exposure Point Concentration Exposure Point Concentratio in fmo/L) Aluminum ug/L 24 24 9 66000 4258 95% Chebyshev (Mean, SD) UCL 16361 16361 16.361 Arsenic ug/L 24 23 1 1910 257.4 246.7 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 682.7 682.7 0.6827 Barium ug/L 23 23 30 1950 207 95% Chebyshev (Mean, SD) UCL 557.8 557.8 0.5578 Boron ug/L 24 21 114 3090 1731 95% KM (t) UCL 1854 1854 1.854 Cobalt ug/L 17 5 1.34 32.1 8.228 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 12.66 12.66 0.01266 Copper ug/L 24 2 10.9 166 88.45 --- --- 166 0.166 Iron ug/L 24 24 618.5 1610000 81974 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 371964 371964 371.964 Lead ug/L 24 1 --- 10.1 --- --- --- 10.1 0.0101 Manganese ug/L 24 24 10.5 2600 450.6 --- 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 751.1 751.1 0.7511 Molybdenum ug/L 24 14 2.7 158 41.73 95% KM (t) UCL 39.71 39.71 0.03971 Strontium ug/L 17 17 28.5 10800 3139 95% Student's -t UCL 4247 4247 4.247 Thallium ug/L 24 4 0.323 2.82 1.009 0.342 95% KM (t) UCL 0.554 0.554 0.000554 Vanadium ug/L 17 16 0.312 43.5 4.212 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 14.93 14.93 0.01493 Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/L - milligrams per liter ug/L - micrograms per liter ND - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit nd - Not Detected Prepared By: MB] Checked By: MCD (a)- Mean calculated by ProUCL using the Kaplan -Meier (KM) estimation method for non -detect values: only given for datasets with FOD less than 100% and that met the minimum sample size and FOD requirements for use with ProUCL; see note(b). (b)- Sample size was greater than or equal to 10 and the number of detected values was greater than or equal to 6, therefore, a 95% UCL was calculated by ProUCL. The UCL shown is the one recommended by ProUCL. If more than one UCL was recommended, the higher UCL was selected. PmUCL, version 5.0 (c ) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (d) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non-discemable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weathempoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE E-6 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS HUMAN HEALTH - SURFACE WATER - LUMBER RIVER DOWNGRADIENT W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Number Minimum Maximum Exposure I Exposure Point Reporting Frequency of Kaplan -Meier UCL Constituent of Detected Detected Mean UCL Point Concentration Units Detection Method Mean Selected Samples Concentration Concentration Concentration m L Antimony I ug/L 1 1 1 1 1 --- 1 2.02 1 -- -- --- I --- 1 2.02 0.00202 Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/L - milligrams per liter ug/L - micrograms per liter Prepared By: MBJ Checked By: MCD NO - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit nd - Not Detected (a) - If single sample, value was used as a maximum concentration and no minimum concentration was reported. This is denoted with "---". (b) 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (c) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\ Attachment E EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE E-7 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS HUMAN HEALTH - SURFACE WATER - JACOB CREEK W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared By: MBJ Checked By: MCD Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples ND - Not Determined Mean - Arithmetic mean UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit mg/L - milligrams per liter nd - Not Detected ug/L - micrograms per liter (a) - If single sample, value was used as a maximum concentration and no minimum concentration was reported. This is denoted with "---" (b.) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (c ) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Reporting Number of Frequency Minimum Maximum Kaplan- UCL Exposure Point Exposure Point Constituent Units Samples of Detection Detected Detected Mean Meier Method Selected UCL Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Mean (mg/L) Iron ug/L 2 2 1050 3350 2200 3350 3.35 Manganese ug/L 2 2 69 129 99 129 0.129 Prepared By: MBJ Checked By: MCD Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples ND - Not Determined Mean - Arithmetic mean UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit mg/L - milligrams per liter nd - Not Detected ug/L - micrograms per liter (a) - If single sample, value was used as a maximum concentration and no minimum concentration was reported. This is denoted with "---" (b.) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (c ) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE E-8 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS ECOLOGICAL - SEEP SOIL - RAILROAD DITCH W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: MCD Checked by: MBI Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean ND - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram nd - Not Detected (a) - If single sample, value was used as a maximum concentration and no minimum concentration was reported. This is denoted with "---". (b ) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (c ) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Minimum Maximum plan- Reporting Number of Frequency of Exposure Point Constituent Units Samples Detection Detected Detected Mean MeiKa er Method UCL Selected UCL Concentration Concentration Concentration Mean Aluminum mg/kg 1 1 --- 2320 --- --- --- --- 2320 Iron mg/kg 1 1 --- 2070 --- --- --- --- 2070 Lead mg/kg 1 1 --- 39.3 --- --- --- ---I 39.3 Prepared by: MCD Checked by: MBI Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean ND - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram nd - Not Detected (a) - If single sample, value was used as a maximum concentration and no minimum concentration was reported. This is denoted with "---". (b ) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (c ) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE E-9 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS ECOLOGICAL - SEEP SOIL - ASH BASIN W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Reporting Units Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Minimum Detected Concentration Maximum Detected Concentration Mean Kaplan- Meier Method Mean (a) UCL Selected UCL Exposure Point Concentration Exposure Point Concentration Aluminum mg/kg 9 9 1230 16800 7800 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 10803 10803 10.803 Arsenic mg/kg 9 8 8.7 1090 357.7 318.7 95% KM (t) UCL 537.1 537.1 0.5371 Boron mg/kg 9 6 43.1 146 67.45 --- 95% GROS Adjusted Gamma UCL 310.4 146 0.146 Cobalt mg/kg 9 3 6.8 16.4 13.1 9.683 95% KM (t) UCL 14.01 14.01 0.01401 Copper mg/kg 9 8 2.7 33.3 14.08 12.7 95% KM (t) UCL 19.25 19.25 0.01925 Iron mg/kg 9 9 474 145000 43733 --- 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 148837 145000 145 Lead mg/kg 9 7 3.3 28.8 13.3 12.05 95% KM (t) UCL 17.57 17.57 0.01757 Manganese mg/kg 9 8 12.2 811 184.9 --- 95% GROS Adjusted Gamma UCL 778.3 778.3 0.7783 Mercury mg/kg 9 9 0.007 0.19 0.0612 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 0.098 0.098 0.000098 Molybdenum mg/kg 9 8 1.9 333 153 136.2 95% KM (t) UCL 221.1 221.1 0.2211 Selenium mg/kg 9 2 7.6 170 88.8 --- --- --- 170 0.17 Strontium I mg/kg(t) UCL 391.1 391.1 0.3911 Vanadium mg/kg 9 8 4.5 73.5 32.64 29.51 9594. KM (t) UCL 44.47 44.47 0.04447 Zinc mg/kg 9 5 13 76.1 33.54 1 22.54 95% KM (t) UCL 37.88 37.88 0.03788 Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram NO - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit nd - Not Detected Prepared by: MCD Checked by: MBI (a)- Mean calculated by ProUCL using the Kaplan -Meier (KM) estimation method for non -detect values: only given for datasets with FOD less than 100% and that met the minimum sample size and FOD requirements for use with ProUCL; see note(b) (b)- Sample size was greater than or equal to 10 and the number of detected values was greater than or equal to 6, therefore, a 95% UCL was calculated by ProUCL. The UCL shown is the one recommended by ProUCL. If more than one UCL was recommended, the higher UCL was selected. ProUCL, version 5.0 (c ) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (d) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress.1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE E-10 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS ECOLOGICAL - SEEP WATER, RAILROAD DITCH W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Reporting Units Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Minimum Detected Maximum Detected Concentration Concentration Kaplan- Meier Mean Method Mean UCL Selected UCL Exposure Point Concentration Exposure Point Concentration (mg/L) Aluminum (dissolved) ug/L 2 2 17 26 21.5 --- --- --- 26 0.026 Aluminum ug/L 3 3 52 15400 5171 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 20105 15400 15.4 Copper ug/L 3 1 --- 10.9 --- --- --- --- 10.9 0.0109 Iron (dissolved) ug/L 2 2 180.5 255 217.8 --- --- --- 255 0.255 Iron ug/L 3 3 618.5 28900 10085 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 37555 28900 28.9 Zinc (dissolved) ug/L 2 1 --- 18.5 --- --- --- --- 18.5 0.0185 Zinc ug/L 3 2 15.5 94 54.75 --- --- --- 94 0.094 Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/L- milligrams per liter ug/L - micrograms per liter (a) - If single sample, value was used as a maximum concentration and no minimum concentration was reported. This is denoted with "--" (b ) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. ND - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit nd - Not Detected Prepared by: MCD Checked by: MB] (c ) - The 95% UCL values arecalculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -Flt test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value In accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weathempoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\A.ttachments\A.ttachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xisx Page 1 of 1 TABLE E-11 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS ECOLOGICAL - SEEP WATER - ASH BASIN W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent Reporting Units Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Minimum Detected Concentration Maximum Detected Concentration Mean Kaplan- Meier Method Mean (a) UCL Selected UCL Exposure Point Exposure Point Concentration Concentration m L Aluminum (dissolved) ug/L 15 8 6 156 40.88 --- 95% GROS Adjusted Gamma UCL 91.96 91.96 0.09196 Aluminum (total) ug/L 21 21 9 66000 4127 --- 95% Chebyshev (Mean, SO) UCL 17740 17740 17.74 Arsenic (dissolved) ug/L 15 SS 1.13 161 38.15 --- 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 87.18 87.18 0.08718 Arsenic (total) ug/L 21 19 1.4 1910 310.7 281.2 95$ KM (Chebyshev) UCL 772.7 772.7 0.7727 Barium (dissovled) ug/L 15 15 28 182 107.9 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 126.7 126.7 0.1267 Barium (total) ug/L 21 21 30 1950 222.9 --- 95% Chebyshev (Mean, SO) UCL 604.3 604.3 0.6043 Cadmium (total) ug/L 21 1 --- 1.27 --- --- --- --- 1.27 0.00127 Chromium (total) ug/L 21 1 --- 67.4 ------ --- --- 67.4 0.0674 Cobalt (dissolved) ug/L 15 4 1.28 3.74 2.038 1.277 95% KM (t) UCL 1.639 1.639 0.001639 Cobalt (total) ug/L 15 5 1.34 32.1 8.228 3.435 95% Adjusted Gamma KM -UCL 15.07 15.07 0.01507 Copper (total) ug/L 21 1 --- 166 --- --- --- --- 166 0.166 Iron (dissolved) ug/L 15 15 24 10700 1694 --- 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 3845 3845 3.845 Iron (total) ug/L 21 21 867 1610000 92243 --- 95% Chebyshev (Mean, SD) UCL 423451 423451 423.451 Lead (total) ug/L 21 1 --- 10.1 --- --- --- --- 10.1 0.0101 Manganese (dissolved) ug/L 15 15 22 1710 405.4 --- 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 778 778 0.778 Manganese (total) ug/L 21 21 32 2600 510.5 --- 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 847.3 847.3 0.8473 Nickel (dissolved) ug/L 15 14 1.25 22.8 10.81 10.15 95% KM (t) UCL 13.39 13.39 0.01339 Nickel (total) ug/L 21 1 16 1.45 71.6 14.48 --- 95% GROS Adjusted Gamma UCL 21.59 21.59 0.02159 Strontium (dissovled) ug/L 15 15 171 5630 3173 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 3899 3899 3.899 Strontium (total) ug/L 15 15 177 10800 1 3553 --- 95% Student's -t UCL 4692 4692 4.692 Vanadium (dissovled) ug/L 15 9 0.378 1.6 0.859 0.654 95% KM (t) UCL 0.859 0.859 0.000859 Vanadium (total) ug/L 15 15 0.58 43.5 4.472 --- 95% Chebyshev (Mean, SO) UCL 16.816.8 0.0168 Zinc (dissolved) ug/L 15 8 5 89 22.63 14.4 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 111.6 89 0.089 Zinc (total) I ug/L 21 12 1 7 1 411 60.25 36.57 1 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 124.8 124.8 0.1248 Notes: --- : Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples Mean - Arithmetic mean mg/L - milligrams per liter ug/L - micrograms per liter ND - Not Determined UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit nd - Not Detected Prepared by: MCD Checked by: MBJ (a)- Mean calculated by ProUCL using the Kaplan -Meier (KM) estimation method for non -detect values: only given for datasets with FOD less than 100% and that met the minimum sample size and FOD requirements for use with ProUCL; see note(b) (b)- Sample size was greater than or equal to 10 and the number of detected values was greater than or equal to 6, therefore, a 95% UCL was calculated by ProUCL. The UCL shown is the one recommended by ProUCL. If more than one UCL was recommended, the higher UCL was selected. ProUCL, version 5.0 (c ) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (d) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described In "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE E-12 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCETRATIONS ECOLOGICAL - SEDIMENT - JACOB CREEK W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Prepared by: MCD Checked by: MBJ Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples NO - Not Determined Mean - Arithmetic mean UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram nd - Not Detected (a) - If single sample, value was used as a maximum concentration and no minimum concentration was reported. This is denoted with "---" (b ) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (c ) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Reporting Number of Frequency of Minimum Maximum Kaplan- Meier UCL Exposure Point Constituent Mean UCL Units Samples Detection Detected Detected Method Mean Selected Concentration Barium mg/kg 1 1 - - 171 - - - - 171 Prepared by: MCD Checked by: MBJ Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples NO - Not Determined Mean - Arithmetic mean UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram nd - Not Detected (a) - If single sample, value was used as a maximum concentration and no minimum concentration was reported. This is denoted with "---" (b ) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (c ) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. P:\Duke Energy Progress. 1026\109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\1.10 Risk Assessment\CAP RA\Attachments\Attachment E_EXPOSURE POINT SUMMARY WEATHERSPOON.xlsx Page 1 of 1 TABLE E-13 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS ECOLOGICAL - SURFACE WATER - JACOB CREEK W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC Constituent FConcentration Reporting Units Number of Samples Frequency of Detection Minimum Detected Maximum Detected Concentration Kaplan- Meier UCL Mean Method Mean Selected UCL Exposure Point Concentration Exposure Point Concentration (mg/L) Aluminum (dissolved) ug/L 2 2 95 146 120.5 --- --- --- 146 0.146 Aluminum ug/L 2 2 193 286 239.5 --- --- --- 286 0.286 Iron (dissolved) ug/L 2 2 826 1790 1308 --- --- --- 1790 1.79 Iron ug/L 2 2 1050 3350 2200 --- --- --- 3350 3.35 Manganese (dissolved) ug/L 2 2 66 128 97 --- --- --- 128 0.128 Manganese ug/L 2 2 69 129 99 --- --- --- 129 0.129 Zinc (dissolved) ug/L 2 2 6 132 68 --- --- --- 132 0.132 Prepared By: MB] Checked By: MCD Notes: ---: Calculations were not performed due to lack of samples ND - Not Determined Mean - Arithmetic mean UCL - 95% Upper Confidence Limit mg/L - milligrams per liter nd - Not Detected ug/L - micrograms per liter (a) - If single sample, value was used as a maximum concentration and no minimum concentration was reported. This is denoted with "--". (b ) - 0 is defined as a number of samples analyzed or the frequency of detection among samples. (c ) - The 95% UCL values are calculated using the ProUCL software (V. 5.0; USEPA, 2013a). The ProUCL software performs a goodness -of -fit test that accounts for data sets without any non -detect observations, as well as data sets with non -detect observations. The software then determines the distribution of the data set for which the EPC is being derived (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma, or non -discernable), and then calculates a conservative and stable 95% UCL value in accordance with the framework described in "Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites" (USEPA, 2002b). The software includes numerous algorithms for calculating 95% UCL values, and provides a recommended UCL value based on the algorithm that is most applicable to the statistical distribution of the data set. ProUCL will calculate a 95% UCL where there are 3 or more total samples with detected concentrations. Where too few samples or detects are available, the maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC. Risk Assessment January 2016 W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant ATTACHMENT F SynTerra ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS P:\ Duke Energy Progress.1026\ 109. Weatherspoon Ash Basin GW Assessment Plan\ 1.10 Risk Assessment\ CAPRA\Text\App E Risk Assessment Jan 2016.docx Page 1 of 1 Table F-1 Exposure Parameters for Selected Ecological Receptors Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy (a) Receptor Body Weight Food Ingestion Rate g Water Intake Dietary Composition Home Range g Seasonal(c) Use Factor Plants Animal Soilb ) Algorithm ID BW IRF IRw PF AF SF HR SUF Units kg kg/kg BW/day L/kg BW/day % % % hectares % HERBIVORE Meadow Vole 0.033 0.33 0.330 100% 0.0% 2.4% 0.027 100% Muskrat 1.17 0.30 0.152 95.0% 5.0% 2.0% 0.13 100% OMNIVORE Mallard Duck 1.16 0.60 0.057 90.0% 10.0% 3.3% 435 100% American Robin 0.08 1.20 0.140 50.0% 50.0% 5.0% 0.25 100% CARNIVORE Red -Tailed Hawk 1.06 0.18 0.058 0% 100% 0% 876 100% Red Fox 4.54 0.10 0.085 4.6% 95% 2.8% 504 100% PISCIVORE River Otter 7.36 0.19 0.081 0% 100% 0% 348 100% Great Blue Heron 2.34 0.18 0.045 0% 100% 0% 0.6 100% BW, body weight; IRF, Ingestion Rate (food); IRw, Ingestion Rate (water); PF, Fraction Plants; AF, Fraction Animal; SF, Fraction Soil/Sediment; HR, Home Range; AUF, Area Use Factor; SUF, Seasonal Use Factor (a)Most values cited were obtained from USEPA's Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (1993). Missing values were obtained from U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (2004) or USEPA's Hazardouse Waste Identification Rule document (USEPA, 1999). (b)The amount of soil that is inadvertantly ingested during feeding is expressed a the percentage (by weight) of the total diet (Beyer, 1994). (c)Seasonal Use Factor (SUF) calculated by dividing residence time at the site (months) by 12 months/year. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\ 1/26/2016 Page 1 of 1 Table F-2 Exposure Areas and Area Use Factors for Selected Ecological Receptors Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Exposure Point Exposure Point Area (hectares) Area Use Factor Mallard Great Blue American Red -Tailed Meadow Duck Heron River Otter Muskrat Robin Hawk Vole Red Fox Jacob Creek 2.0 0.5% 100% 0.6% 100% NA NA NA NA Ash Basin 91.0 NA NA NA NA 100% 10.39% 100% 18.06% RR Ditch 5.2 NA NA NA NA 100% 0.59% 100% 1.0% Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\Area Use Factor Table.xlsx 1/26/2016 Page 1 of 1 Table F-3 Toxicity Reference Values for Selected Ecological Receptors Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Notes: 'Toxicity Reference Values were presented in the Work Plan (Haley & Aldrich, 2015). Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\TRVs.xlsx 1/26/2016 Wildlife Receptor (NOAEL) Analyte Aquatic Terrestrial Mallard Duck (mg/kg/day) Great Blue Heron m /k /day) Muskrat (mg/kg/day) River Otter (m /k /day) American Robin (mg/kg/day) Red -Tailed Hawk (m /k /day) Meadow Vole (mg/kg/day) Red Fox (m /k /da Aluminum 109.7 109.7 1.93 1.93 109.7 109.7 1.93 1.93 Arsenic 9.3 9.3 1.04 1.04 9.3 9.3 1.04 1.04 Barium 20.8 20.8 45 45 20.8 20.8 45 45 Boron 28.8 28.8 28 28 28.8 28.8 28 28 Cadmium 1.47 1.47 1 1 1.47 1.47 1 1 Chromium 1 1 2740 2740 1 1 2740 2740 Cobalt 7.61 7.61 7.33 7.33 7.61 7.61 7.33 7.33 Copper 4.05 4.05 5.6 5.6 4.05 4.05 5.6 5.6 Iron Lead 1.63 1.63 4.7 4.7 1.63 1.63 4.7 4.7 Manganese 179 179 51.5 51.5 179 179 51.5 51.5 Mercury 0.068 0.068 0.032 0.032 0.068 0.068 0.032 0.032 Molybdenum 3.53 3.53 0.26 0.26 3.53 3.53 0.26 0.26 Nickel 6.71 6.71 1.7 1.7 6.71 6.71 1.7 1.7 Selenium 0.29 0.29 0.143 0.143 0.29 0.29 0.143 0.143 Strontium 263 263 263 263 Vanadium 0.344 0.344 4.16 4.16 0.344 0.344 4.16 4.16 Zinc 66.1 66.1 75.4 75.4 66.1 66.1 75.4 75.4 Notes: 'Toxicity Reference Values were presented in the Work Plan (Haley & Aldrich, 2015). Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\TRVs.xlsx 1/26/2016 Wildlife Receptor (LOAEL) Analyte Aquatic Terrestrial Mallard Duck (mg/kg/day) Great Blue Heron m /k /day) Muskrat (mg/kg/day) River Otter (m /k /day) American Robin (mg/kg/day) Red -Tailed Hawk (m /k /day) Meadow Vole (mg/kg/day) Red Fox (m /k /da Aluminum 1100 1100 19.3 19.3 1100 1100 19.3 19.3 Arsenic 40.3 40.3 1.66 1.66 40.3 40.3 1.66 1.66 Barium 41.7 41.7 75 75 41.7 41.7 75 75 Boron 100 100 93.6 93.6 100 100 93.6 93.6 Cadmium 2.37 2.37 10 10 2.37 2.37 10 10 Chromium 5 5 27400 27400 5 5 27400 27400 Cobalt 7.8 7.8 10.9 10.9 7.8 7.8 10.9 10.9 Copper 12.1 12.1 9.34 9.34 12.1 12.1 9.34 9.34 Iron Lead 3.26 3.26 8.9 8.9 3.26 3.26 8.9 8.9 Manganese 348 348 71 71 348 348 71 71 Mercury 0.37 0.37 0.16 0.16 0.37 0.37 0.16 0.16 Molybdenum 35.3 35.3 2.6 2.6 35.3 35.3 2.6 2.6 Nickel 11.5 11.5 3.4 3.4 11.5 11.5 3.4 3.4 Selenium 0.579 0.579 0.215 0.215 0.579 0.579 0.215 0.215 Strontium 2630 2630 2630 2630 Vanadium 0.688 0.688 8.31 8.31 0.688 0.688 8.31 8.31 Zinc 66.5 66.5 75.9 75.9 66.5 66.5 75.9 75.9 Notes: 'Toxicity Reference Values were presented in the Work Plan (Haley & Aldrich, 2015). Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\TRVs.xlsx 1/26/2016 Table F-4 Sediment and Surface Water EPC for Use in the Risk Assessment Jacob's Creek - Sediment and Surface Water Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant rOPC' - rhnmiral of notantinl rnnrarn EPC - exposure point concentration Aquatic EPCs COPC ENTER Sediment EPC used for Surface Water EPC used CASRN Risk Assessment for Risk Assessment HERE (mg/kg) (mg/L) Aluminum 7429-90-5 0.286 Barium 7440-39-3 171 Iron 7439-89-6 3.35 Manganese 7439-96-5 0.129 Zinc (dissolved) 7440-66-6 0.132 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0121-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Jacobs Creek.xlsx, EPCs Page 1 of 1 1/26/2016 Page 1 of 1 Table F-5 Calculation of Average Daily Dpses for Ne Mallard Duck - Jacob's Creek Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Dake Energy W.H. Wealh... poon Power Plan[ AVERAGE DAILY DOSE VIA: DRINKING WATER PLANTSNEGETATION INVERTEBRATES SOIL EPC. EPCe EPC. EPQy NIRw ADgv Pe NIW NIR e ADDe AF NIRA ADD. Se NIS ADDS eF ADDr TUF AUF ADDrar Notes: :Conwntm8on in vegetation (or molybtlenum estimated by multiplying a plant uptake factor (0.25) obtained fmm Baes et el., 1994. Uptake factors (cr remaining metals estimatetl from lag -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs, concentretion in plants) published in Bechtel Jacobs Company, 1998. 'Concentration of metals in invertebrates were estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentregon in plants) published in Sample et al., 1998. 'For plats, invedebrete and ..it exposure, Ne dry weight bad Ingestion rete was muitipiied by the fracdon of the diet far each respective media. it was assumed that the percent dry weight of both plants and Invertebrates was approximately 13% of the fresh —1 weight. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \1MAMcommarW2050_Cpke\0021Ecologicel Risk\Weelaerspa W01Ml2-AI-FCM-Wel—poop J.— Creekxlsx 1I26I2016 able F-6 Calculation of Average Daily Doses for the Great Blue Heron - Jacob's Creek Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant AVERAGE DAILY DOSE VIA: DRINKING WATER FISH Page 1 of 1 Notes: 'Concentration in prey for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a default bioaccumulation factor (1). Bioaccumulation factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in small mammals) published in Sample et al., 1998. 2For exposure via ingestion of fish, the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of the prey was approximately 25% of the fresh wet weight. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42056_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0121-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Jacobs Creek.xlsx 1/26/2016 EPCvv EPC, EPCPREY NIRw ADD, PF NIRf NIRA ADDT ADD, TUF AUF ADDTOT Area Use Adjusted Total COPEC COPEC Concentration Water Average Daily Fraction Diet Food Ingestion s Fish Ingestion Unadjusted Temporal Factor Piscivore Analyte in Water in Solid BCF in Fish Ingestion Rate Dose Water Animal Matter Rate, Wet Rate Average Daily Piscivore Intake Use Factor (Foraging Average Daily (mg/L) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (L/kg BW/day) (mg/kg/day) (percent) (kg/kg BW/day) (kglkg BW/day) Dose( mg g y) /k /da (unitless) Area/Home Dose (mglkglday) Range) (mg/kg/day) Aluminum 0.286 1 2.7 1 0.77 0.05 1 0.013 100% 1 0.2 1 0.05 1 0.035 1 0.048 1 1.0 1 1.0 0.048 Barium 171 Iron 3.35 0.05 0.15 0.15 1.0 1.0 0.15 Manganese 0.129 450 1 58 0.05 0.0058 100% 0.2 0.05 2.6 2.6 1.0 1.0 2.6 Zinc (dissolved) 0.132 2059 1 272 0.05 0.0059 100% 0.2 0.05 12 12 1.0 1.0 12 Notes: 'Concentration in prey for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a default bioaccumulation factor (1). Bioaccumulation factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in small mammals) published in Sample et al., 1998. 2For exposure via ingestion of fish, the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of the prey was approximately 25% of the fresh wet weight. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42056_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0121-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Jacobs Creek.xlsx 1/26/2016 Page 1 of 1 Table F-7 Calculation of Average Daily Doses for the Muskrat - Jacob's Creek Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant AVERAGE DAILY DOSE VIA: DRINKING WATER PLANTS I VEGETATION i SOIL EPC. I EPCS EPC. NIR. I ADD. Ps NIR, I NIRe ADDe I Sr I NIRS T ADDS BF ADD, I TUF I AUF I ADD, Notes: 'Concentration in vegetation for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a plant uptake factor (0.25) obtained from Baes et al., 1994. Uptake factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in plants) published in Bechtel Jacobs Company, 1998. 2For soil and plant exposure, the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of plants was approximately 13% of the fresh wet weight. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 1WAWcommon\42058_Duke=2\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoonl2016-0121-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Jacobs Cmek.xlsx 1/26/2016 Slope or Estimated' Soil Ingestion' Area Use Adjusted Total COPEC COPEC Plant Concentration in Water Average Daily Fraction Die[ Food Ingestion Plant Ingestion Average Daily Fraction Rate Average Daily BioavailabiliTy Temporal Herbivore Intake Factor Herbivore Analyte in Water in Solid Uptake Intercept Vegetation Ingestion Rate Dose Water Plant Matter Rate, Wet Rate, Dry Dose Plant Diet Soil (kg dry/kg Dose Soil Factor Use Factor (mg/kg/day) (Foraging Average Daily (mglL) (mglkg) Factor (mg/kg dry) (L/kg BW/day) (mg/kg/day) (percent) (kg/kg BW/day) (kg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (percent) BW/day) (mg/kg/day) (percent) (unitless) Area/Home Dose Range) m Ik /da Aluminum 0.286 0.2 0.043 100% 0.043 1.00 1.0 0.043 Barium 171 2.100 359 95% 0.3 0.04 13 2.0% 0.0008 0.13 100% 13 1.00 1.0 13 Iron 3.35 0.2 0.51 100% 0.51 1.00 1.0 0.51 Man anese 0.129 0.2 0.020 100% 0.020 1.00 1.0 0.020 Zinc dissolved 0.132 0.2 0.020 50% 0.010 1.00 1.0 0.010 Notes: 'Concentration in vegetation for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a plant uptake factor (0.25) obtained from Baes et al., 1994. Uptake factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in plants) published in Bechtel Jacobs Company, 1998. 2For soil and plant exposure, the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of plants was approximately 13% of the fresh wet weight. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 1WAWcommon\42058_Duke=2\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoonl2016-0121-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Jacobs Cmek.xlsx 1/26/2016 able F-8 Calculation of Average Daily Doses for the River Otter - Jacob's Creek Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant AVERAGE DAILY DOSE VIA: DRINKING WATER FISH Page 1 of 1 Notes: 'Concentration in prey for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a default bioaccumulation factor (1). Bioaccumulation factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in small mammals) published in Sample et al., 1998. 2For exposure via ingestion of fish, the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of the prey was approximately 25% of the fresh wet weight. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42056_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0121-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Jacobs Creek.xlsx 1/26/2016 EPCvv EPC, EPCPREY NIRw ADD, PF NIRf NIRA ADDT ADD, TUF AUF ADDTOT Area Use Adjusted Total COPEC COPEC Concentration Water Average Daily Fraction Diet Food Ingestion Fish Ingestion s Unadjusted Temporal Factor Piscivore Analyte in Water in Solid BCF in Fish Ingestion Rate Dose Water Animal Matter Rate, Wet Rate Average Daily Piscivore Intake Use Factor (Foraging Average Daily (mg/L) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (L/kg BW/day) (mg/kg/day) (percent) (kg/kg BW/day) (kglkg BW/day) Dose( mg g y) /k /da (unitless) Area/Home Dose (mglkglday) Range) (mg/kg/day) Aluminum 0.286 1 2.7 1 0.77 0.08 1 0.023 100% 1 0.2 1 0.05 1 0.036 1 0.059 1 1.0 1 0.0046 0.00027 Barium 171 Iron 3.35 10.08 0.27 0.27 1.0 0.0046 0.0012 Manganese 0.129 450 1 58 0.08 0.010 100% 1 0.2 0.05 2.7 2.7 1.0 0.0046 0.012 Zinc (dissolved) 0.132 2059 1 272 0.08 0.011 100% 1 0.2 0.05 13 13 1.0 0.0046 0.057 Notes: 'Concentration in prey for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a default bioaccumulation factor (1). Bioaccumulation factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in small mammals) published in Sample et al., 1998. 2For exposure via ingestion of fish, the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of the prey was approximately 25% of the fresh wet weight. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42056_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0121-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Jacobs Creek.xlsx 1/26/2016 Page 1 of 1 Hazard Quotients' for COPECs in Jacob's Creek Sediment and Surface Water' Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Analyte Wildlife Receptor Hazard Quotient Estimated using the 'No Observed Adverse Effects Level' Aquatic Mallard Duck Great Blue Heron Muskrat River Otter Aluminum 0.0000003 0.0004 0.02 0.0001 Barium 0.003 0.3 Iron Manganese 0.00000009 0.01 0.0004 0.0002 Zinc (dissolved) 0.0000001 0.2 0.0001 0.0008 Analyte Wildlife Receptor Hazard Quotient Estimated using the 'Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level' Aquatic Mallard Duck Great Blue Heron Muskrat River Otter Aluminum 0.00000003 0.00004 0.002 0.00001 Barium 0.001 0.2 Iron Manganese 0.00000004 0.008 0.0003 0.0002 Zinc (dissolved) 0.0000001 0.2 0.0001 0.0008 Notes: 'A Hazard Quotient is estimated by dividing the Exposure Point Concentration for that species by its respective Toxicity Reference Value for the COPEC. 2Exposures are adjusted for the proportion of this exposure area that represents the animal's home range, i.e. 1 acres/10 acres = 0.1. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0121-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Jacobs Creek.xlsx 1/26/2016 e F-10 and Seep EPC for Use in the Risk Assessment Basin - Soil and Seep seline Ecological Risk Assessment ke Energy H. Weatherspoon Power Plant rh—iral of nntantinl rnnrarn EPC - exposure point concentration Terrestrial EPCs COPC ENTER Soil EPC used for Seep EPC used CASRN Risk Assessment for Risk Assessment HERE (mg/kg) (mg/L) Aluminum 7429-90-5 10803 17.74 Arsenic 7440-38-2 537.1 0.7727 Barium 7440-39-3 0.6043 Boron 7440-42-8 146 Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.00127 Chromium 7440-47-3 0.0674 Cobalt 7440-48-4 14.01 0.01507 Copper 7440-50-8 19.25 1 ron 7439-89-6 145000 423.451 Lead 7439-92-1 17.57 0.05483 Manganese 7439-96-5 778.3 0.8473 Mercury 7439-97-6 0.098 Nickel 7440-02-0 0.02159 Molybdenum 7439-98-7 221.1 Selenium 7782-49-2 170 Strontium 7440-24-6 391.1 4.692 Vanadium 7440-62-2 44.47 0.0168 Zinc 7440-66-6 37.88 0.1248 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Ash Basin.xlsx, EPCs Page 1 of 1 1/26/2016 page 1 of 1 Table F-11 Calculation of Average Daily Doses for the American Robin -Ash Basin B ... lias Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weath... p..b Power Plant AVERAGE DAILY DOSE VIA: DRINKING WATER PLANTSIVEGETATION INVERTEBRATES SOIL C. EPC. EPC. EPC- NIRw ADDy Pr NIRr NIR. ADDo h NIRA ADDS Se NIR. ADD. BF ADD, TUF AUF ADD- Note.: 'C,,w,treti,, i, vegetation for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a plant uptake factor (0.25) obtained from Be,, et al., 1994. Uptake factors for remaining metal. eMi..ta J from log -log regression relationships (--bad- i. soli vs. c..c.btreti.. m plants) published i. Bechtel Jacob. Company, 1998. 2,_ ,a, of metals in Invertebrates were estimated ham log -log regression relationships (co c.abadoa m soil vs. concentration i, plants) published i, Sample et L. 1998. 'For plant,inv.rtebmte and soil exposure, the dry weight f,o ingestion ret. was moldplled by the fraction of the diet for each reapectiv.m,di,, It was assumed that th.pem.nt dry weight of both plants a,d invertebretes was appwimatety 13% of the fre,h wet weight. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. MAMco—W2050_Duke\0021E 1Wic.l Risk\We.lherspoonl2o-22-IIAI-FCM-VJe—poon Asn Basin wsx 1I26I2016 Table F-12 Calculation of Average Daily Doses for the Red -Tailed Hawk - Ash Basin Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant AVERAGE DAILY DOSE VIA: DRINKING WATER I VERTEBRATE PREY Page 1 of 1 Notes: 'Concentration in prey for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a default bioaccumulation factor (1). Bioaccumulation factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in small mammals) published in Sample et al., 1998. 2For exposure via ingestion of prey (small mammal), the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of the prey was approximately 32% of the fresh wet weight Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Ash Basin.xlsx 1/26/2016 EPC,,, EPC. EPCPREY NIRw ADD„Y PF NIRt NIRA ADDT ADDT TUF AUF ADDror Analyte COPEC in Water (mg/L) COPEC in Solid (mg/kg) Slope ' (or BAF) Intercept Concentration Water Ingestion Average Daily in Prey Rate Dose Water /kg)(L/kg BW/day)(mg/kg/day)(percent) Fraction Diet Animal Matter Food Ingestion Vertebrate 2 Rate, Wet Ingestion Rate (k /k BW/day) (kg/kg BW/day) Unadjusted Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day) Temporal Carnivore Intake Use Factor (mg/kg/day) (unitless) Area Use Factor (Foraging Area/Home Range) Adjusted Total Carnivore Average Daily Dose(m (mg/kg/day) Aluminum 17.74 10803 0.06 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.10 0.11 Arsenic 0.7727 537.1 0.8188 -4.8471 1.3 0.06 0.045 100% 0.2 0.06 0.076 0.12 1.0 0.10 0.013 Barium 0.6043 0.06 0.035 0.035 1.0 0.10 0.0036 Boron 146 Cadmium 0.00127 0.06 0.000074 0.000074 1.0 0.10 0.0000077 Chromium 0.0674 0.06 0.0039 0.0039 1.0 0.10 0.00041 Cobalt 0.01507 14.01 1.307 -4.4669 0.36 0.06 0.00087 100% 0.2 0.06 0.020 0.021 1.0 0.10 0.0022 Copper 19.25 0.1444 2.042 12 100% 0.2 0.06 0.67 0.67 1.0 0.10 0.070 Iron 423.451 145000 0.5969 -0.2879 903 0.06 25 100% 0.2 0.06 51 76 1.0 0.10 7.9 Lead 0.05483 17.57 0.4422 0.0761 3.8 0.06 0.0032 100% 0.2 0.06 0.22 0.22 1.0 0.10 0.023 Manganese 0.8473 778.3 0.06 0.049 0.049 1.0 0.10 0.0051 Mercury 0.098 -2.2764 -4.8666 1.5 100% 0.2 0.06 0.086 0.086 1.0 0.10 0.0090 Nickel 0.02159 0.06 0.0013 0.0013 1.0 0.10 0.00013 Molybdenum 221.1 1 221 100% 0.2 0.06 13 13 1.0 0.10 1.3 Selenium 170 0.3764 -0.4158 4.6 100% 0.2 0.06 0.260.26 1.0 0.10 0.027 Strontium 4.692 391.1 0.06 0.27 0.27 1.0 0.10 0.028 Vanadium 0.0168 44.47 0.06 0.00097 0.00097 1.0 0.10 0.00010 Zinc 0.1248 37.88 0.0706 1 4.3632 101 0.06 0.0072 100% 0.2 0.06 5.7 5.8 1.0 0.10 0.60 Notes: 'Concentration in prey for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a default bioaccumulation factor (1). Bioaccumulation factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in small mammals) published in Sample et al., 1998. 2For exposure via ingestion of prey (small mammal), the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of the prey was approximately 32% of the fresh wet weight Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Ash Basin.xlsx 1/26/2016 Page 1 of 1 Table F-13 Calculation of Average Daily Doses for the Meadow Vole -Ash Basin Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant AVERAGE DAILY DOSE VIA: DRINKING WATER PLANTS /VEGETATION SOIL EPC,., EPC77 I EPC„ I NIR.,, I ADD. I P. I NIR. NIR, I ADD, I S. I N I R -.--T ADDS I BF AD0. I TUF I AUF I ADD - Analyte COPEC in Water (mglL) COPEC in Solid (mg/kg) Slope or Plant Uptake Factor Intercept Estimated' Concentration in Vegetation (mg/kg dry) Water Ingestion Rate (Ukg BW/day) Average Daily Dose Water (mg/kg/day) Fraction Diet Plant Matter (percent) Food Ingestion Rate, Wet (kg/kg BW/day) Plant Ingestion Rate, Dry (kg/kg/day) Average Daily Dose Plant (mg/kg/day) Fraction Diet Soil (percent) Soil Ingestion Rate (kg dry/kg BW/day) Average Daily Dose Soil (mg/kg/day) Bioavailability Factor (percent) Herbivore Intake (mg/kg/day) Area Temporal Use Factor (as Use FactorAdjusted (Foraging Area/Home Range) Total Herbivore Average Daily Dose Aluminum 17.74 10803 0.3 5.9 2.4% 0.001 11 100% 17 1.00 1.0 17 Arsenic 0.7727 537.1 0.564 -1.992 4.7 0.3 0.25 100% 0.3 0.04 0.20 2.4% 0.001 0.55 60% 0.61 1.00 1.0 0.61 Barium 0.6043 0.3 0.20 Boron 146 2.4% 0.001 0.15 100% 0.15 1.00 1.0 0.15 Cadmium 0.00127 0.3 0.00042 Chromium 0.0674 0.3 0.022 Cobalt 0.01507 14.01 0.036 0.50 0.3 0.0050 100% 0.3 0.04 0.022 2.4% 0.001 0.014 100% 0.041 1.00 1.0 0.041 Copper 19.25 0.394 0.669 6.3 100% 0.3 0.04 0.27 2.4% 0.001 0.020 40% 0.12 1.00 1.0 0..12 Iron 423.451 145000 0.009 1233 0.3 140 100% 0.3 0.04 53 2.4% 0.001 149 100% 342 1.00 1.0 342 Lead 0.05483 17.57 0.561 -1.328 1.3 0.3 0.018 100% 0.3 0.04 0.057 2.4% 0.001 0.018 50% 0.046 1.00 1.0 0.046 Manganese 0.8473 778.3 0.220 171 0.3 0.28 100% 0.3 0.04 7.3 2.4% 0.001 0.80 100% 8.4 1.00 1.0 8.4 Mercury0.098 0.544 -0.996 0.10 100% 0.3 0.04 0.0045 2.4% 0.001 0.00010 19% 0.00088 1.00 1.0 0.00088 Nickel 0.02159 0.3 0.0071 Molybdenum 221.1 0.250 55 100% 0.3 0.04 2.4 2.4% 0.001 0.23 100% 2.6 1.00 1.0 2.6 Selenium 170 1.104 -0.678 147 100% 0.3 0.04 6.3 2.4% 0.001 0.18 60% 3.9 1.00 1.0 3.9 Strontium 4.692 391.1 1.400 548 0.3 1.5 100% 0.3 0.04 23 2.4% 0.001 0.40 100% 25 1.00 1.0 25 Vanadium 0.0168 44.47 0.3 0.0055 2.4% 0.001 0.046 100% 0.051 1.00 1.0 0.051 Zinc 0.1248 37.88 0.555 1.575 36 0.3 0.041 100% 0.3 0.04 1.6 2.4% 0.001 0.039 50% 0.82 1.00 1.0 0.82 Notes: 'Concentration in vegetation for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a plant uptake factor (0.25) obtained from Baes at al., 1994. Uptake factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in plants) published in Bechtel Jacobs Company, 1998. 'For soil and plant exposure, the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of plants was approximately 13% of the fresh wet weight. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weathempoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Ash Basin.xlsx 1/26/2016 Table F-14 Calculation of Average Daily Doses for the Red Fox - Ash Basin Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant AVERAGE DAILY DOSE VIA: DRINKING WATER I VERTEBRATE PREY Page 1 of 1 Notes: 'Concentration in prey for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a default bioaccumulation factor (1). Bioaccumulation factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in small mammals) published in Sample et al., 1998. 2For exposure via ingestion of prey (small mammal), the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of the prey was approximately 32% of the fresh wet weight Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Ash Basin.xlsx 1/26/2016 EPC, EPC. EPCPREY NIRw ADDw PF NIRf NIRA ADDT ADDT TUF AUF ADDTOT Analyte COPEC in Water (mg/L) COPEC in Solid (mg/kg) Slope (or BAF) Intercept Concentration in Prey (mg/kg) Water Ingestion Average Daily Rate Dose Water (L/kg BW/day)(mg/kg/day)(percent) Fraction Diet Animal Matter Food Ingestion Vertebrate 2 Rate, Wet Ingestion Rate (k /k BW/day) (kg/kg BW/day) Unadjusted Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day) Carnivore Intake Use Factor (mg/kg/day) (unitless) Area UseTemporal Factor (Foraging Area/Home Range) Adjusted Total Carnivore ADD (mg/kg/day) Aluminum 17.74 10803 0.09 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.18 0.27 Arsenic 0.7727 537.1 0.564 -1.992 4.7 0.09 0.066 95% 0.10 0.03 0.14 0.21 1.0 0.18 0.038 Barium 0.6043 0.09 0.051 0.051 1.0 0.18 0.0093 Boron 146 Cadmium 0.00127 0.09 0.00011 0.00011 1.0 0.18 0.000020 Chromium 0.0674 0.09 0.0057 0.0057 1.0 0.18 0.0010 Cobalt 0.01507 14.01 0.036 0.50 0.09 0.0013 95% 0.10 0.03 0.015 0.017 1.0 0.18 0.0030 Copper 19.25 0.394 0.669 6.3 95% 0.10 0.03 0.19 0.19 1.0 0.18 0.034 Iron 423.451 145000 0.0085 1233 0.09 36 95% 0.10 0.03 37 73 1.0 0.18 13 Lead 0.05483 17.57 0.561 -1.328 1.3 0.09 0.0047 95% 0.10 0.03 0.040 0.045 1.0 0.18 0.0081 Manganese 0.8473 778.3 0.22 171 0.09 0.072 95% 0.10 0.03 5.2 5.3 1.0 0.18 0.95 Mercury 0.098 0.544 -0.996 0.10 95% 0.10 0.03 0.0032 0.0032 1.0 0.18 0.00057 Nickel 0.02159 0.09 0.0018 0.0018 1.0 0.18 0.00033 Molybdenum 221.1 0.25 55 95% 0.10 0.03 1.7 1.7 1.0 0.18 0.30 Selenium 170 1.104 -0.678 147 95% 0.10 0.03 4.5 4.5 1.0 0.18 0.81 Strontium 4.692 391 A 1.4 548 0.09 0.40 95 % 0.10 0.03 17 17 1.0 0.18 3.1 Vanadium 0.0168 44.47 0.09 0.0014 0.0014 1.0 0.18 0.00026 Zinc 0.1248 37.88 0.555 1 1.575 36 0.09 0.011 95% 0.10 0.03 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.18 0.20 Notes: 'Concentration in prey for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a default bioaccumulation factor (1). Bioaccumulation factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in small mammals) published in Sample et al., 1998. 2For exposure via ingestion of prey (small mammal), the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of the prey was approximately 32% of the fresh wet weight Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Ash Basin.xlsx 1/26/2016 Page 1 of 1 Table F-15 Hazard Quotients' for COPECs in Ash Basin Soil and Seep' Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Analyte Wildlife Receptor Hazard Quotient Estimated using the'No Observed Adverse Effects Level' Terrestrial American Robin Red -Tailed Hawk Meadow Vole Red Fox Aluminum 0.5 0.0010 9 0.1 Arsenic 0.2 0.001 0.6 0.04 Barium 0.0002 0.0002 Boron 0.02 0.005 Cadmium 0.000005 0.00002 Chromium 0.0004 0.0000004 Cobalt 0.01 0.0003 0.006 0.0004 Copper 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.006 Iron Lead 0.2 0.01 0.010 0.002 Manganese 0.07 0.00003 0.2 0.02 Mercury 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.02 Nickel 0.00002 0.0002 Molybdenum 4 0.4 10 1 Selenium 19 0.09 27 6 Strontium 0.10 0.01 Vanadium 0.6 0.0003 0.01 0.00006 Zinc 0.1 0.009 0.01 0.003 Analyte Wildlife Receptor Hazard Quotient Estimated using the 'Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level' Terrestrial American Robin Red -Tailed Hawk Meadow Vole Red Fox Aluminum 0.05 0.00010 0.9 0.01 Arsenic 0.05 0.0003 0.4 0.02 Barium 0.00009 0.0001 Boron 0.007 0.002 Cadmium 0.000003 0.000002 Chromium 0.00008 0.0000000 Cobalt 0.01 0.0003 0.004 0.0003 Copper 0.03 0.006 0.01 0.004 Iron Lead 0.08 0.007 0.005 0.0009 Manganese 0.04 0.00001 0.1 0.01 Mercury 0.01 0.02 0.005 0.004 Nickel 0.00001 0.00010 Molybdenum 0.4 0.04 1.0 0.1 Selenium 10 0.05 18 4 Strontium 0.010 0.001 Vanadium 0.3 0.0001 0.006 0.00003 Zinc 0.1 0.009 0.01 0.003 Notes: 'A Hazard Quotient is estimated by dividing the Exposure Point Concentration for that species by its respective Toxicity Reference Value for the COPEC. 2Exposures are adjusted for the proportion of this exposure area that represents the animal's home range, i.e. 1 acres/10 acres = 0.1. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon Ash Basin.xlsx 1/26/2016 Table F-16 Soil and Seep EPC for Use in the Risk Assessment Railroad Ditch - Soil and Seep Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant r.OPr: - rhamiral of nntantial rnnrarn EPC - exposure point concentration Terrestrial EPCs COPC QNTER Soil EPC used for Seep EPC used SRN Risk Assessment for Risk Assessment ML (mg/kg) (mg/L) Aluminum 7429-90-5 2320 15.4 Copper 7440-50-8 0.0109 Iron 7439-89-6 2070 28.9 Lead 7439-92-1 39.3 Zinc 7440-66-6 0.094 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon RR Ditch.xlsx, EPCs Page 1 of 1 1/26/2016 page 1 of 1 Table F-17 Calculation of Average Daily Dose. for the American Robin - Railmd Ditch B..elina Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weath... p— Power Plant AVERAGE DAILY DOSE VIA: ORINgNG WATER PLANTSIVEGETATION INVERTEBRATES SOIL C. EPC. EPC. EPC— NIRw ADDy Pr NIRr NIRA ADOp h NIRA ADDS Se NIR. ADD. BF ADD, TUF AUF ADD,, Nctas: :Concenta4on in vegetation for mplybtlenum estimated by multiplying a plant uptake factor (0.25) obiain. from It— et al., 1994. Uptake facba for remaining metals astimatetl from log -log regression ralationahipe (concentration in axil vas concanbation in plant.) publiehatl in Bechtel Jacobs Company, 1998. 'Concan tagon of metals in Invertebrates were estimated from log -log regression relationships (concenbetim In mil v.. concentagon in planta) published in Sample et al., 1998. 'For plant, invertebate and soil exposure, the dry weight bad Ingestion ate was multiplled by the fracdon of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of both plants and invertebrates was approximately 13% of the fresh wet weight. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \WAMco —W OSa DuW021 .IWic.l Risk\W..laerspaonl201M122JAI-FCM-We.Merspoon RR DRO xl.x 1I2Mn16 Table F-18 Calculation of Average Daily Doses for the Red -Tailed Hawk - Railroad Ditch Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant AVERAGE DAILY DOSE VIA: DRINKING WATER I VERTEBRATE PREY Page 1 of 1 Notes: 'Concentration in prey for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a default bioaccumulation factor (1). Bioaccumulation factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in small mammals) published in Sample et al., 1998. 2For exposure via ingestion of prey (small mammal), the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of the prey was approximately 32% of the fresh wet weight Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon RR Ditch.xlsx 1/26/2016 EPC,,, EPC. EPCPREY NIRw ADD„Y PF NIRt NIRA ADDT ADDT TUF AUF ADDror Area Use Adjusted Total COPEC COPEC ' Concentration Water Ingestion Average Daily Fraction Diet Food Ingestion Vertebrate Unadjusted Temporal Factor Carnivore Analyte in Water in Solid Slope Intercept in Prey Rate Dose Water Animal Matter Rate, Wet 2 Ingestion Rate Average Daily Carnivore Intake Use Factor (Foraging Average Daily (mg/L) (mg/kg) (or BAF) /kg)(L/kg BW/day)(mg/kg/day)(percent) (k /k BW/day) (kg/kg BW/day) Dose (mg/kg/day) (unitless) Area/Home Dose(m (mg/kg/day) Range) (mg/kg/day) Aluminum 15.4 2320 1 1 0.06 1 0.89 0.89 1.0 0.0059 1 0.0053 Copper 0.0109 0.06 0.00063 0.00063 1.0 0.0059 0.0000038 Iron 28.9 2070 0.5969 0.2879 71 0.06 1.7 100% 0.2 0.06 4.0 5.7 1.0 0.0059 0.034 Lead 39.3 0.4422 0.07 51 5.5 1 1 1 100% 1 0.2 0.06 1 0.31 1 0.31 1.0 0.0059 0.0018 Zinc 0.094 1 1 0.06 0.0055 0.0055 1.0 0.0059 0.000032 Notes: 'Concentration in prey for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a default bioaccumulation factor (1). Bioaccumulation factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in small mammals) published in Sample et al., 1998. 2For exposure via ingestion of prey (small mammal), the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of the prey was approximately 32% of the fresh wet weight Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon RR Ditch.xlsx 1/26/2016 Page 1 of 1 Table F-19 Calculation of Average Daily Doses for the Meadow Vole - Railroad Ditch Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant AVERAGE DAILY DOSE VIA: DRINKING WATER PLANTS /VEGETATION SOIL EPC,., EPC77 I EPC„ I NIR.,, I ADD. I P. I NIR. NIR, I ADD, I S. I N I R -.--T ADDS I BF AD0. I TUF I AUF I ADD - Notes: 'Concentration in vegetation for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a plant uptake factor (0.25) obtained from Bees at al., 1994. Uptake factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in plants) published in Bechtel Jacobs Company, 1998. 2For soil and plant exposure, the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of plants was approximately 13% of the fresh wet weight. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN%c rnmon\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weathempoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon RR Ditch.xisx 1/26/2016 Slope or Estimated' Soil Ingestion Area Use FactorAdjusted Total COPEC COPEC Plant Concentration in Water Ingestion Average Daily Fraction Diet Food Ingestion Plant Ingestion Average Daily Fraction Diet Rate Average Daily Bioavailability Herbivore Intake Temporal (Foraging Herbivore Analyte in Water (mg/L) in Solid (mg/kg) Uptake Intercept Vegetation Rate (Ukg BW/day) Dose Water (mg/kg/day) Plant Matter (percent) Rate, Wet (kg/kg BW/day) Rate, Dry (kg/kg/day) Dose Plant (mg/kg/day) Soil (percent) (kg dry/kg Dose Soil (mg/kg/day) Factor (percent) (mg/kg/day) Use Factor (as Area/Home Average Daily Dose Factor (mg/kg dry) BW/day) Range) Aluminum 15.4 2320 0.3 5.1 2.4% 0.001 2.4 100% 7.5 1.00 1.0 7.5 Copper 0.0109 0.3 0.0036 Iron 28.9 2070 0.009 18 0.3 9.5 100% 0.3 0.04 0.75 2.4% 0.001 2.1 100% 12 1.00 1.0 12 Lead 39.3 0.561 -1.328 2.1 100% 0.3 0.04 0.089 2.4% 0.001 0.040 50 % 0.065 1.00 1.0 0.065 Zinc 0.094 0.3 0.031 Notes: 'Concentration in vegetation for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a plant uptake factor (0.25) obtained from Bees at al., 1994. Uptake factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in plants) published in Bechtel Jacobs Company, 1998. 2For soil and plant exposure, the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of plants was approximately 13% of the fresh wet weight. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN%c rnmon\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weathempoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon RR Ditch.xisx 1/26/2016 Table F-20 Calculation of Average Daily Doses for the Red Fox - Railroad Ditch Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant AVERAGE DAILY DOSE VIA: DRINKING WATER I VERTEBRATE PREY Page 1 of 1 Notes: 'Concentration in prey for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a default bioaccumulation factor (1). Bioaccumulation factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in small mammals) published in Sample et al., 1998. 2For exposure via ingestion of prey (small mammal), the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of the prey was approximately 32% of the fresh wet weight Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon RR Ditch.xlsx 1/26/2016 EPC, EPC. EPCPREY NIRw ADDw PF NIRf NIRA ADDT ADDT TUF AUF ADDTOT Area UseTemporal COPEC COPEC Water Ingestion Average Daily Fraction Diet Food Ingestion Vertebrate Unadjusted Factor Adjusted Total Analyte in Water in Solid Slope Concentration Intercept Rate Dose Water Animal Matter Rate, Wet 2 Ingestion Rate Average Daily Carnivore Intake Use Factor (Foraging Carnivore ADD (mg/L) (mg/kg) (or BAF) in Prey (mg/kg) (L/kg BW/day)(mg/kg/day)(percent) (k /k BW/day) (kg/kg BW/day) Dose (mg/kg/day) (unitless) Area/Home (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) Range) Aluminum 15.4 2320 0.09 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.010 0.014 Copper 0.0109 0.09 0.00093 0.00093 1.0 0.010 0.0000096 Iron 28.9 2070 0.0085 18 0.09 2.5 95% 0.10 0.03 0.53 3.0 1.0 0.010 0.031 Lead 39.3 0.561 -1.328 2.1 95% 0.10 0.03 0.063 0.063 1.0 0.010 0.00065 Zinc 0.094 1 1 1 0.09 0.0080 0.0080 1.0 0.010 0.000082 Notes: 'Concentration in prey for molybdenum estimated by multiplying a default bioaccumulation factor (1). Bioaccumulation factors for remaining metals estimated from log -log regression relationships (concentration in soil vs. concentration in small mammals) published in Sample et al., 1998. 2For exposure via ingestion of prey (small mammal), the dry weight food ingestion rate was multiplied by the fraction of the diet for each respective media. It was assumed that the percent dry weight of the prey was approximately 32% of the fresh wet weight Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon RR Ditch.xlsx 1/26/2016 Page 1 of 1 Hazard Quotients' for COPECs in Railroad Ditch Soil and Seep2 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Duke Energy W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Analyte Wildlife Receptor Hazard Quotient Estimated using the 'No Observed Adverse Effects Level' Terrestrial American Robin Red -Tailed Hawk Meadow Vole Red Fox Aluminum 0.1 0.00005 4 0.007 Copper 0.0000009 0.000002 Iron Lead 0.3 0.001 0.01 0.0001 Zinc 0.0000005 1 i 0.000001 Analyte Wildlife Receptor Hazard Quotient Estimated using the 'Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level' Terrestrial American Robin Red -Tailed Hawk Meadow Vole Red Fox Aluminum 0.01 0.000005 0.4 0.0007 Copper 0.0000003 0.000001 Iron Lead 0.2 0.0006 0.007 0.00007 Zinc 0.0000005 0.000001 Notes: 'A Hazard Quotient is estimated by dividing the Exposure Point Concentration for that species by its respective Toxicity Reference Value for the COPEC. 2Exposures are adjusted for the proportion of this exposure area that represents the animal's home range, i.e. 1 acres/10 acres = 0.1. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. \\MAN\common\42058_Duke\002\Ecological Risk\Weatherspoon\2016-0122-HAI-FCM-Weatherspoon RR Ditch.xlsx 1/26/2016