1812_DukeMarshall_ILFCell6_CCRRemovalReport_FID1795569_20221214

(' DUKE
ENERGY-.
December 14, 2022
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Attn: Ms. Brandy Costner (submitted electronically)
Re: Clean Closure Verification — Visual Confirmation and PLM Results
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future ILF Phase 2, Cell 6)
Marshall Steam Station
Terrell, North Carolina 28682
Dear Ms. Costner,
526 South Church St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 1006
Mail Code EC 13K.
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
Duke Energy is submitting the Marshall Steam Station Clean Closure Verification - Visual Confirmation and
PLM Results report for the portion of the Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road formerly within the footprint of the
future Cell 6 of the Industrial Landfill No. 1 (1812-INDUS). This report includes visual inspection documentation,
PLM sampling results, and lab reports to document the completion of CCR removal within the Ash Basin and
bottom Ash Road extents.
The visual and sampling CCR removal verification criteria were documented and collected in accordance with
the Excavation Soil Sampling Plan, Marshall Steam Station, For Ash Basin Excavation, North Carolina Ash
Basin Closure, Revision 2, dated December 2019 and the Excavation Soil Sampling Plan, Marshall Steam
Station, For Bottom Ash Road Excavation, dated June 2020, and in accordance with the soil closure guidelines
Duke Energy received from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) on November
4, 2016.
This submittal is being transmitted electronically only. If you have any questions or need additional
information regarding this submittal, please contact me at Ashley. Healy ct.duke-energy.com or (717) 982-
0986.
Regards,
j4V&
Ashley Healy, P.G.
Environmental Services
Attachments: Clean Closure Verification — Visual Confirmation and PLM Results — Ash Basin and Bottom
Ash Road (within future ILF Phase 2, Cell 6), Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station (S&ME,
Inc., 2022)
www.duke-energy.com Page 1 of 2

cc (via e-mail): Eric Smith, NCDEQ
Sarah Moutos, NCDEQ
Claire Osborn, NCDEQ
Ed Mussler, NCDEQ
Sherri Stanley, NCDEQ
Scott Saunders, Duke Energy
Chris Varner, Duke Energy
John Metcalf, Duke Energy
Dan Zakary, Duke Energy
Tyler Hardin, Duke Energy
Ed Sullivan, Duke Energy
www.duke-energy.com Page 2 of 2

December 14, 2022
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
EHS Groundwater & Waste Programs
8320 NC Highway 150
Terrell, North Carolina 28682
Attention: Ms. Ashley Healy, P.G.
Reference: Clean Closure Verification - Visual Confirmation and PLM Results
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future ILF Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212013, Ph. 06
Ms. Healy:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is pleased to submit this Clean Closure Verification Report documenting field activities and
analytical results supporting the verified removal of the Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) material by excavation
from portions of the ash basin and bottom ash road that are located within the future Industrial Landfill (ILF) No.
(Permit No. INDUS-1812) Phase 2 Expansion, Cell 6 footprint. The ash basin is located at Duke Energy's Marshall
Steam Station in Catawba County, North Carolina.
Approximately 0.5 acre of the ash basin finger extends across the southern boundary and into the southeastern
corner of the future ILF Phase 2, Cell 6 footprint. The portion of the bottom ash road that extends into the future
ILF Phase 2, Cell 6 footprint was purposed as a landfill haul road prior to CCR removal excavation activities. This
bottom ash road portion extends through the southern boundary of the future ILF Phase 2, Cell 6 footprint to the
northeastern corner, spanning approximately 3.5 acres in area.
S&ME understands that sitewide excavation of CCR material from the ash basin will be ongoing for several years
and that S&ME will be notified by Duke Energy as needed for subsequent sampling events and clean closure
verification reporting.
S&ME personnel visually observed and documented the removal of CCR material, as well as obtained soil samples
for laboratory analysis to confirm the removal of CCR material. Samples within the ash basin and bottom ash road
were documented and collected in accordance with the "Excavation Soil Sampling Plan, Marshall Steam Station,
For Ash Basin Excavation, North Carolina Ash Basin Closure, Revision 2, dated December 2019" and the
"Excavation Soil Sampling Plan, Marshall Steam Station, For Bottom Ash Road Excavation, dated June 2020"
(hereafter, Ash Basin Excavation Soil Sampling Plan and Bottom Ash Road Excavation Sampling Plan,
respectively) included in Attachment I.
S&ME, Inc. 12016 Ayrsley Town Blvd., Suite 2-A I Charlotte, NC 282731 p 704.523.4726 1 www.smeinc.com

Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
EHS Groundwater & Waste Programs
Field Activities
December 14, 2022
Page 2
S&ME personnel conducted several independent sampling events in November 2021, April 2022, and May 2022 to
obtain samples from portions of the ash basin and bottom ash road. During each sampling event, S&ME
personnel visually observed and documented the removal of CCR material and obtained soil samples for
laboratory analysis concurrent with the sampling grid and sample locations at depths and frequencies outlined in
Section 2.0 of the Ash Basin Excavation Sampling Plan and the Bottom Ash Road Excavation Sampling Plan
(Attachment 1). The sampling grid and proposed sample locations, S&ME's actual sample locations, approximate
boundaries of ash for portions of the ash basin and bottom ash road are shown on Figure 1: PLM Sample
Locations — Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road, included in Attachment 11. S&ME personnel recorded the
location of each sample collected for PLM analysis in the field using a handheld Trimble GPS unit.
A summary of each of the samples collected by S&ME personnel is provided in Table 1: PLM Sample Results,
Soil Sampling Summary, and Grade Comparison, included in Attachment III. Table 1 provides the following
information:
• A soil description of each sample,
• Proposed and actual sample coordinates,
• Sample depths,
• Visual confirmation of CCR material removal,
• PLM analysis results; and
• The expected post CCR removal elevations provided by Trans Ash (final grades) as compared to the
approximate post CCR removal elevations (elevations recorded at sample locations using the handheld
Trimble GPS unit in the field).
Soil samples were obtained at depths of 0 to 6 inches and 2 to 2.5 feet below ground surface (ft-bgs) for the
majority of the sample locations using a hand auger (decontaminated in the field per Section 3.1.5 of both the
Ash Basin Excavation Sampling Plan and the Bottom Ash Road Excavation Sampling Plan). In accordance
with the Excavation Sampling Plans, samples were not collected below a depth of 2.5 ft-bgs due to the location
of sample points within the future lined footprint of the landfill. At the two sample locations collected in
November 2021 (X8 and X9), water was encountered 1 ft-bgs, therefore only one sample was obtained at a depth
of 0 to 6 inches below ground surface at both X8 and X9. To document the sample material and visually verify that
CCR material has been removed from the soil, each sample was photographed prior to placing the soil in the Duke
Energy supplied laboratory sample containers; sample photographs are compiled in the Photographic Log,
included in Attachment IV.
During each of the sampling events, samples to be analyzed for the presence of CCR material using the PLM
method were delivered by S&ME personnel, under proper chain -of -custody protocol, to the Duke Energy Central
Laboratory at McGuire Nuclear Station for receipt. Once samples were received and logged into the Duke Energy
system, they were shipped, under chain -of -custody by the Duke Energy Central Laboratory, to the RJ Lee Group
Laboratory for PLM analysis. PLM Analysis Laboratory Reports and Chain -of -Custody Forms are included in
Attachment V.
S&ME, Inc.

Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
EHS Groundwater & Waste Programs
Clean Closure Verification Results
December 14, 2022
Page 3
The clean closure benchmark value for percent CCR material in soil is 50% as noted in Section 4.2 of the Ash
Basin Excavation Sampling Plan and the Bottom Ash Road Excavation Sampling Plan (Attachment 1). None
of the samples collected contained more than 1% CCR material, resulting in quantitative verification of CCR
material removal from portions of the ash basin and bottom ash road. The majority of the samples resulted in no
detections of any CCR material present in the soil samples, as summarized in Table 1 (Attachment III) and the
PLM Analysis Laboratory Reports (Attachment V). It should be noted that the RJ Lee PLM Analysis
Laboratory Reports (Attachment V) provide results as % CCP (Coal Combustion Products); CCP and CCR
material terminology are deemed interchangeable, as CCP is defined as fly ash, bottom ash, and slag.
Table 1 (Attachment III) along with the Photographic Log (Attachment IV) contain documentation of S&ME
personnel's visual confirmation that CCR material has been removed. As previously mentioned, Table 1
(Attachment III) also includes a grade comparison as earthwork (cut/fill operations) were ongoing at the time of
each sampling event.
Conclusion
CCR material removal from the portions of the ash basin and bottom ash road located within the future ILF Phase
2, Cell 6 footprint has been verified in accordance with the visual observation and PLM quantitative sampling
criteria described in the Ash Basin Excavation Sampling Plan and the Bottom Ash Road Excavation Sampling
Plan (Attachment 1).
S&ME thanks you for your receipt of these records. Should you have any questions or need additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact us at [phone].
Respectfully Submitted,
S&ME, Inc.
rt J, , � 44�
Jasmine Tayouga
Project Manager
Enclosures:
Julie P. Robertson, P.G. (Registration No. 1995)
Principal Hydrogeologist and Group Leader
Attachment I — Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road Excavation Sampling Plans for Marshall Steam Station
Attachment II - Figure 1: PLM Sample Locations —Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road
Attachment III - Table 1: PLM Sampling Results, Soil Sampling Summary, and Grade Comparison
Attachment IV — Photographic Log
Attachment V — PLM Laboratory Reports and Chain -of -Custody Forms
cc: James Malloy, Project Manager, Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Michael Romanello, Project Manager, S&ME
S&ME, Inc.

Attachment I - Excavation Soil Sampling Plans

EXCAVATION SOIL SAMPLING PLAN
MARSHALL STEAM STATION
FOR ASH BASIN EXCAVATION
NORTH CAROLINA ASH BASIN CLOSURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC.
526 SOUTH CHURCH STREET/ECI3K
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 282O2
f DUKE
�. E N E RGY.
Waste & Groundwater Programs
Revision 2
December 2019

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan December 2019
Marshall Steam Station Revision 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 PURPOSE..........................................................................................................................1
2.0 DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY...............................................................................1
TABLE 1 - Post Ash Basin Excavation Soil Data Collection ......................................
1
3.0 SOIL SAMPLING METHODOLOGY.........................................................................
2
3.1 Method Summary........................................................................................................
2
3.1.1 Equipment...............................................................................................................2
3.1.2 Sample Locations...................................................................................................
3
3.1.3 Collection of Representative Samples.................................................................
3
3.1.4 Sample Preservation, Containers, Handling and Storage ................................
4
3.1.5 Decontamination....................................................................................................
4
4.0 VISUAL CONFIRMATION OF ASH REMOVAL ....................................................
5
4.1 Pre -Excavation Documentation.................................................................................
5
4.2 Ash Removal Verification Protocol...........................................................................
5
4.2.1 Field Documentation.............................................................................................
5
4.2.2 Fill Evaluation Criteria..........................................................................................
6
4.3 Visual Removal Not Applicable................................................................................
6
5.0 SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS...........................................................................
7
5.1 Soil Sampling................................................................................................................
7
5.1.1 Scenario I................................................................................................................
8
5.1.2 Scenario 2................................................................................................................
8
5.2 Fate and Transport Modeling.....................................................................................
8
TABLE 2 - Soil Parameters and Analytical Methods Totals and SPLP Analysis
North Carolina Ash Basins to be Closed Via Excavation ...........................................
9
FIGURE 1 - Marshall Steam Station Sample Grid ....................................................
10
Page i

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan December 2019
Marshall Steam Station
1.0 PURPOSE
Revision 2
The purpose of this Excavation Soil Sampling Plan is to provide a standardized method for collecting soil
samples at Duke Energy North Carolina ash basins where areas of excavation are included in the
approved Closure Plan.. Soil samples described in this Excavation Soil Sampling Plan will be collected
following visible ash removal from excavation areas identified in the approved Closure Plan.
This Excavation Soil Sampling Plan is applicable to the collection of representative soil samples. Analysis
of soil samples may be chemical or physical in nature and may be used to determine the following:
Extent and magnitude of constituent occurrence
Input concentrations for groundwater fate and transport model
The methodologies discussed in this Excavation Soil Sampling Plan are applicable to the sampling of soil
in ash basin excavation areas. For the purposes of this plan, soils are those mineral and organic
materials remaining after all visible ash has been removed.
2.0 DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY
TABLE 1 - Post Ash Basin Excavation Soil Data Collection
Task
Description
Test
Depth
Visual Inspection on 100' X 100' grid
Visually confirm primary source
removal at nodes (Figure 1) and
N/A
N/A
node
document with photographs.
Soil sample analysis on 100' X 100'
Collect representative samples at
0 - 6 inches'
grid node
nodes (Figure 1) the appropriate
PLM
2 2 5'
depths.
0 - 6 inches'
Soil Sample Analysis on an acre grid
Collect representative samples at the
Total Metals
2 2.5
systeM2
appropriate depths.
SPLP
7 7.5
12' - 12.5'
17' - 17.5'
Notes:
'If a certain six-inch sample interval does not yield sufficient soil volume to fill five 8-ounce sample bottles, the
sample interval may be expanded to twelve inches to allow for sufficient soil sample volume. The revised sample
interval should be appropriately documented.
2Excavation is complete once confirmed by visual inspection and PLM analysis per Section 4.0.
Page 1

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
Marshall Steam Station
3.0 SOIL SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
December 2019
Revision 2
3.1 Method Summary
This Excavation Soil Sampling Plan has been adapted from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) #2012 and #2006 and North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) Attachment 1 Coal Combustion Residuals Surface Impoundment
Closure Guidelines for Protection of Groundwater, November 4, 2016.
Soil samples are collected directly using stainless steel or plastic trowel, spade, shovel, or scoops.
Following collection, soil is transferred from the sampling device to a stainless steel or plastic bowl to be
homogenized. Once homogenized, the soil is transferred into Duke Energy Laboratory supplied sample
bottles.
Soil samples will be submitted under chain of custody for the following analyses: total metals and
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) metals. Analytical methods for total metals and SPLP
metals are described in Table 2. Ash presence is quantitatively determined by polarized light
microscopy (PLM) by Duke Lab or state approved vendor. PLM analysis passes visible light through a
pair of polarizing filters to create optical effects used in identifying unknown materials. This method is
commonly used in asbestos and coal ash identification.
3.1.1 Equipment
Stainless steel or plastic trowel, scoop, spade or shovel — Used for collecting soil samples
from surface locations.
Sample containers —To be supplied by Duke Energy Laboratory with appropriate
cooler(s). Estimated that five 8-ounce sample bottles with Teflon -lined lids will be
required for each sample location and sample depth. For return of cooler to the lab, ice
will be required.
Gloves — Used for personal protection and to prevent cross -contamination of samples —
nitrile, disposable, powderless.
Field clothing and Personal Protective Equipment — Used as specified in the site Health
and Safety Plan.
Sampling flags — Used for identifying soil sampling locations.
Field notebook — A bound book used to record progress of sampling effort and record
any problems and field observations during sampling.
Three-ring binder book — Used to store necessary forms and record and track samples
collected at the site.
Permanent marking pen — Used to label sample containers, document field logbooks,
data sheets and chain of custody.
Page 2

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
Marshall Steam Station
December 2019
Revision 2
Stainless steel or plastic spoon — Used for homogenizing soil samples within a stainless
steel or plastic bowl.
Stainless steel or plastic bowl — Used for homogenizing soil samples, when applicable.
Camera — Used for photo -documentation of sample locations and samples.
GPS — Device used to obtain elevation, latitude and longitude of sample location.
Trash bag — Used to dispose of gloves and any other non -hazardous waste generated
during sampling.
Decontamination supplies and equipment.
3.1.2 Sample Locations
General locations for soil sampling are determined by the soil scientist in the field at a rate of
one soil sample for every 1 acre of ash basin area excavated. Actual sampling locations on site
may vary to account for site conditions and to allow collection of representative samples.
Representative samples reflect areas where all ash has been visually excavated and natural soil
is observed.
3.1.3 Collection of Representative Samples
For the purpose of this plan, surface soil is considered to range from 0 to 6 inches in depth,
while deeper samples will be collected at a range of 2 to 2.5 feet below ground surface (bgs), 7
to 7.5 feet bgs, 12 to 12.5 feet bgs, and 17 to 17.5 feet bgs (Table 1) unless bedrock, refusal, or
the water table are encountered. A surface soil sample and deeper samples will be collected at
each location for every 1 acre of ash basin excavated. A new pair of nitrile gloves is worn at
each sampling location and each depth. Each sampling location is recorded on the site map
prior to collecting the sample, if location is not already noted on the map. The GPS location of
each sampling location (i.e. elevation, latitude and longitude), sample descriptions, and area
photographs are also recorded. All sampling equipment is decontaminated prior to use
irrespective of depth. The following procedure will be used to collect representative soil
samples with a scoop, shovel, trowel, geoprobe, or excavator:
Locate general sampling locations.
Determine suitability of sampling location for a representative sample.
If sampling location appears to reflect representative conditions that would allow
collection of a representative sample, proceed with sampling procedure. If
location is not indicative of conditions that would allow collection of a
representative sample, notify the project manager so an alternate location can
be identified.
Using a decontaminated sampling instrument, remove the desired thickness and
volume of soil from the sampling area. The sampler must obtain enough soil to
fill five 8-ounce sample bottles. If a certain six-inch sample interval does not
Page 3

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
Marshall Steam Station
December 2019
Revision 2
yield sufficient soil volume to fill five 8-ounce sample bottles, the sample interval
may be expanded to allow for sufficient soil sample volume. The revised sample
interval should be appropriately documented.
Transfer the sample into an appropriate sample or homogenization bowl. Non -
dedicated containers should be adequately decontaminated. Stir for
approximately one minute until there appears to be a uniform color and
consistency.
Transfer homogenized sample to a labeled container(s) of appropriate size and
construction for the analyses requested.
Secure sample container tightly.
3.1.4 Sample Preservation, Containers, Handling and Storage
Chemical preservation of soils is generally not recommended. Cooling to 4°C on wet ice is
usually the best approach, supplemented by the appropriate holding time for the analyses
requested.
The Duke Energy Laboratory will supply the appropriate sample bottles for the collected soil
samples. The sample volume is a function of the analytical requirements and the Duke Energy
Laboratory will ensure the appropriate number of bottles are supplied. Ensure chain of custody
is completed for sample bottle return to the Duke Energy Laboratory.
Table 2 contains a list of parameters to be analyzed with corresponding reporting units and
analytical methods. If a parameter or group of parameters is not included in Table 2, the
laboratory performing the analysis should be contacted to determine the appropriate sample
bottles, volumes, and preservatives.
All non -dedicated sampling devices should be decontaminated and wrapped in plastic. The
sampling device should remain in this wrapping until it is needed. Each sampling device should
be used for only one sample and then decontaminated or disposed of. Non -dedicated sampling
devices should be cleaned in the field using the decontamination procedure described below.
3.1.5 Decontamination
Decontamination procedures can be time consuming; having a sufficient quantity of sampling
tools available is recommended. All non -dedicated sampling equipment must be
decontaminated prior to reuse. Equipment decontamination consists of:
1. Detergent wash and brush cleaning
2. Tap water rinse
3. De -ionized water rinse
4. Air dry
5. Wrap sampling tools with plastic
Page 4

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan December 2019
Marshall Steam Station Revision 2
4.0 VISUAL CONFIRMATION OF ASH REMOVAL
4.1 Pre -Excavation Documentation
Closure by excavation is defined herein as removing the primary source (primary source of potential
constituents of interest) to the point that ash is not visible to the unaided eye at the ground surface.
Closure by Excavation in this Excavation Soil Sampling Plan, can refer to areas of excavation occurring
under any closure scenario, however Closure by Excavation might not apply to the full basin. Primary
source ash is the main body of ash that was deposited in the basin. This method is intended solely to
verify and document primary source ash removal, and is not intended to validate environmental quality
standards of the subsurface (considered the secondary source of potential constituents of interest).
Pre -excavation documentation would consist of:
Review topographic mapping, aerial photography, construction drawings, and boring logs to
estimate the pre -ash placement topography and/or ash/soil interface
Preparation of an ash basin figure illustrating a grid spacing of 100 feet (Figure 1). Each grid
point (node) will be assigned a unique identifier. Each node of the grid spacing (grid point) will
represent a visual verification location.
4.2 Ash Removal Verification Protocol
Ash excavation will be considered complete based on visual and PLM confirmation that all ash has been
removed. Ash removal will be based on sampling of the ash/soil interface and analysis by PLM. Soil
samples will be examined utilizing methods outlined in American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure).
Vertical and horizontal excavation of ash can terminate when the remaining material is documented
using PLM to contain less than 50% ash.
Project will excavate ash until a visible change in color or texture confirms removal of all ash. This
location shall be referred to as the ash/soil interface. If visual evaluation is inconclusive, then request
additional evaluation to confirm ash removal.
4.2.1 Field Documentation
Evaluate the excavated surface elevation relative to the pre -ash placement topography.
Periodically check bottom elevation to evaluate if fill is present above historic bottom elevation.
Visual confirmation will be performed on a 100-foot grid system (Figure 1) unless conditions
prevent such confirmation, as described in Section 4.3. Soil sampling will be performed on a
100-foot grid system and will be analyzed using PLM.
Personnel will locate each node by GPS or survey control, determine elevation, and
evaluate whether that point is above or below the historic bottom elevation.
Personnel will then observe the surface area represented by the node, to note if visible
ash is present at the surface. If present, the location should be documented and
excavation will need to continue. If the evaluation indicates the surface soils are
residuum or bedrock, then hand auger to two feet below surface (or refusal) and
perform visual -manual classification of the soils at the surface and depth according to
Page 5

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
Marshall Steam Station
December 2019
Revision 2
ASTM method D2488. Submit sample from surface and depth (or shallower if refusal)
for PLM analysis. The conditions shall be documented by taking photographs.
The classification indicator for fly ash will be grey to black silt -sized particles with no
plasticity. The classification indicator for bottom ash will be grey to black sand to gravel
sized particles and porous.
If the node point elevation is near the historic bottom elevation then personnel can
conclude the primary source is removed when the following criteria are met:
1. Residuum is indicated by observation
2. Soil is confirmed by visual manual classification (ASTM D2488) and PLM analysis
less than 50%
4.2.2 Fill Evaluation Criteria
The following procedure provides an approach that can be used to ascertain if the fill can remain
in place. The procedure specified is based on the fill material and depth.
If the elevation is less than eight feet above the historic bottom elevation of the ash
basin and residuum is not observed, test pits may be excavated to historic bottom
elevation or until residuum or bedrock is encountered, but no more than eight feet
below the surface.
o Personnel will evaluate existing information to determine if the test pits are
necessary. If necessary, personnel may recommend excavating test pits at a
frequency no tighter than 100 feet by 100 feet.
o If visible ash is not discovered based on information defined above, the primary
source removal may be confirmed.
o If visible ash is discovered, continue excavation.
If the elevation is more than eight feet above historic bottom elevation of the ash basin
and residuum is not observed, discuss with CCP Closure Personnel.
o CCP Closure Personnel will confirm historic information and recommend a
drilling and sampling program at a frequency no tighter than 100 feet by 100
feet to evaluate the presence of ash below the fill in accordance with the
information defined above. If unusual features are revealed by the drilling, CCP
Closure Engineering may request/recommend additional borings. Exploration is
to be performed by continuous sampling during drilling.
o If visible ash is not discovered based on information defined above, then the
primary source removal may be confirmed.
o If visible ash is discovered, continue excavation.
4.3 Visual Removal Not Applicable
If possible, excavation of ash should continue even if groundwater is encountered. Visual
documentation is challenging to complete when removal occurs in saturated conditions. Excavation of
ash could be required in areas below the water table or ponded ash intended for removal by dredging.
Page 6

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
Marshall Steam Station
December 2019
Revision 2
A plan will be submitted to NC DEQ by Duke Energy pertaining to the removal of ash if these conditions
or other restricting factors occur.
4.3.1 Boring Method Summary and Analysis
Boring will be conducted using a barge based on a 100-foot grid to visually determine the
ash/soil interface. Below the interface, soil samples will be collected in 1-foot increments for
PLM analysis. Ash presence is quantitatively determined by PLM by Duke Lab or other state
approved vendor. PLM analysis passes visible light through a pair of polarizing filters to create
optical effects used in identifying unknown materials. This method is commonly used in
asbestos and coal ash identification.
For boring samples were PLM results are less than 50% ash, that location will be determined to
be the visual confirmation of the bottom of the ash basin. This bottom basin elevation will be
used to prepare an updated figure showing bottom of ash basin to be used for dredge
operations. Once excavation is complete, confirmation of ash removal depths and elevation will
be submitted to NCDEQ.
4.3.2 Ash Removal
Wet excavated CCR material will be excavated from the ash basin by hydraulic dredging. The
hydraulic dredge will be placed at the water table elevation and utilize a cutting head to excavate
and sluice the CCR material to one of two rim ditches. The hydraulic dredge will excavate material
from an appropriate elevation above mean sea level (AMSL). The dredge will be equipped with
DredgePak GPS and will be loaded with the final grade machine file documenting bottom of ash
as identified in step 4.3.1 above. The dredge will take survey points during excavation to ensure
final grade requirements. GPS coordinates and depths will be provided and will be adhered to
during excavations activities.
5.0 POST EXCAVATION SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
5.1 Soil Sampling
Analytical evaluation of s the remaining soils (less than 50% ash per PLM analysis) will be necessary to
evaluate the extent of potential secondary source impacts depending on the depth of the water table
and any proposed institutional or engineering controls that may be used in the area of excavation. Soil
sampling will not be required if refusal or the top of bedrock are encountered, or the remaining soils are
below the water table. Soil samples for laboratory analysis must be collected in a manner that will
ensure a relatively uniform distribution of particles throughout the six inch sample.
The systematic approach and design for soil sampling and analysis is dependent upon two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Remaining soil (containing less than 50% ash per PLM analysis) is located above the
seasonal high water table and final constructed institutional and/or engineering controls will
restrict infiltration from the surface reaching the water table (e.g. installation of a liner system).
Page 7

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
Marshall Steam Station
December 2019
Revision 2
Scenario 2: Remaining soil (containing less than 50% ash per PLM analysis) is located above the
seasonal high water table and infiltration from the surface would continue to reach the water
table.
5.1.1 Scenario 1
Confirmation sampling will include discrete surface samples collected from the first six inches of
the soil. Sampling will be performed on an acre grid system. This sample collection
methodology shall be sufficient to characterize the horizontal extent of any remaining potential
secondary source impacts for comparison with the NC DEQ Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals
(PSRG). The samples shall be analyzed by a North Carolina certified laboratory for total
concentrations for the parameters defined in Table 2. No SPLP testing is required.
5.1.2 Scenario 2
Confirmation sampling will include collection of both discrete surface and subsurface soil
samples performed on an acre grid system. Discrete surface samples will be collected from the
first six inches of the soil and a subsurface soil sample will be collected at 2 to 2.5 feet below
ground surface (bgs), 7 to 7.5 feet bgs, 12 to 12.5 feet bgs, and 17 to 17.5 feet bgs unless refusal,
bedrock or the water table are encountered. The use of a geoprobe or excavator is anticipated.
This sample collection methodology shall be sufficient to characterize both the horizontal and
vertical extent of any remaining potential secondary source impacts for comparison with the NC
DEQ PSRGs and/or input into the soil leachate model. The samples shall be analyzed by a North
Carolina certified laboratory for both total concentrations and SPLP for the parameter defined
in Table 2.
5.2 Fate and Transport Modeling
Contingency for stabilization of remaining amounts of potential secondary source impacts in a manner
that will meet the intent of North Carolina Groundwater 2L Rules and closure requirements shall be
considered as site conditions dictate. Provisions to develop groundwater flow and transport models to
evaluate protection of groundwater criteria if potential secondary source material are left in place shall
be considered. In addition, the possibility of metals leaching from a potential change in pH and
geochemical conditions related to dewatering and excavation shall be considered along with plans for
groundwater models to assess resulting site conditions.
Page 8

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
Marshall Steam Station
December 2019
Revision 2
TABLE 2 - Soil Parameters and Analytical Methods Totals and SPLP Analysis North Carolina Ash
Basins to be Closed Via Excavation
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
UNITS
METHOD'
Aluminum
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Antimony
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020E
Arsenic
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020E
Barium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Beryllium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020E
Boron
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Cadmium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Calcium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Chloride
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 9056A
Chromium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Cobalt
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020E
Copper
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Hexavalent Chromium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA Method
7199/218.7
Iron
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Lead
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020E
Magnesium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Manganese
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Mercury
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA Method
7470A/7471B
Molybdenum
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Nickel
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Nitrate as Nitrogen
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 9056A
pH
SU
EPA 9045D
Potassium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Selenium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020E
Silver
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Sodium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Strontium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Sulfate
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 9056A
Thallium (low level) (SPLP Extract only)
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020E
Vanadium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020E
Zinc
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Notes:
1. Soil samples to be analyzed for Total Inorganics using USEPA Methods 6010/6020 and pH
using USEPA Method 9045, as noted above (or similar approved methods). Soil samples will
also be analyzed for leaching potential using SPLP Extraction Method 1312 in conjunction with
USEPA Methods 6010/6020 (or similar approved methods) if Scenario 2 is applicable.
Page 9

00
Aft.
dur "MEW
too A-ammmm
TAMMEAM
MR;
dMffEMMMML%::,. ,AMMMME

IMF limalwAr, '"i.
Ivor-' `4p.1
r X\_3"Mmi
V46111110011A
MENEM
19,
BEAN
INERT
All
Jr.,
MAA= AD AE AF AG%- A Al AD D- A, Al 11 1-

EXCAVATION SOIL SAMPLING PLAN
MARSHALL STEAM STATION
FOR BOTTOM ASH ROAD EXCAVATION
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAs, LLC.
526 SOUTH CHURCH STREET/ECI3K
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 282O2
� DUKE
ENERGY
Waste & Groundwater Programs
Revision 0
June 2020

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan Bottom Ash Roads June 2020
Marshall Steam Station Revision 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 PURPOSE..........................................................................................................................1
2.0 DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY...............................................................................1
TABLE 1 - Post Ash Excavation Soil Data Collection.................................................1
3.0 SOIL SAMPLING METHODOLOGY......................................................................... 2
3.1 Method Summary........................................................................................................ 2
3.1.1 Equipment...............................................................................................................2
3.1.2 Sample Locations................................................................................................... 3
3.1.3 Collection of Representative Samples................................................................. 3
3.1.4 Sample Preservation, Containers, Handling and Storage ................................ 4
3.1.5 Decontamination....................................................................................................4
4.0 VISUAL CONFIRMATION OF ASH REMOVAL .................................................... 5
4.1 Pre -Excavation Documentation................................................................................. 5
4.2 Ash Removal Verification Protocol........................................................................... 5
4.2.1 Field Documentation............................................................................................. 5
4.2.2 Fill Evaluation Criteria.......................................................................................... 6
4.3 Visual Removal Not Applicable................................................................................ 7
5.0 SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS........................................................................... 8
5.1 Soil Sampling................................................................................................................ 8
5.1.1 Scenario 1................................................................................................................ 8
5.1.2 Scenario 2................................................................................................................ 8
5.2 Fate and Transport Modeling..................................................................................... 9
TABLE 2 - Soil Parameters and Analytical Methods Totals and SPLP Analysis
Bottom Ash Road Excavation....................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 1 — Marshall Steam Station Sample Grid ...................................................... 1
Page i

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan Bottom Ash Roads
Marshall Steam Station
1.0 PURPOSE
June 2020
Revision 0
The purpose of this Excavation Soil Sampling Plan is to provide a standardized method for collecting soil
samples at Duke Energy North Carolina ash basins where areas of excavation are included in the
approved Closure Plan. Soil samples described in this Excavation Soil Sampling Plan will be collected
following visible ash removal from bottom ash road excavation areas outside of the ash basin.
This Excavation Soil Sampling Plan is applicable to the collection of representative soil samples. Analysis
of soil samples may be chemical or physical in nature and may be used to determine the following:
• Extent and magnitude of constituent occurrence
• Input concentrations for groundwater fate and transport model
The methodologies discussed in this Excavation Soil Sampling Plan are applicable to the sampling of soil
in ash excavation areas. For the purposes of this plan, soils are those mineral and organic materials
remaining after all visible ash has been removed.
2.0 DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY
TABLE 1- Post Ash Excavation Soil Data Collection
Task
Description
Test
Depth
Visual Inspection on 100' X 100' grid
Visually confirm primary source
node
removal at nodes (Figure 1) and
N/A
N/A
document with photographs.
Soil sample analysis on 100' X 100'
Collect representative samples at
0 - 6 inches'
grid node
nodes (Figure 1) the appropriate
PLM
2 25
depths.
0 - 6 inches'
Soil Sample Analysis on an acre grid
Collect representative samples at the
Total Metals
2 2.5
7 7.5
systemz
appropriate depths.
SPLP
12' - 12.5'
17' - 17.5'
Notes:
'If a certain six-inch sample interval does not yield sufficient soil volume to fill five 8-ounce sample bottles, the
sample interval may be expanded to twelve inches to allow for sufficient soil sample volume. The revised sample
interval should be appropriately documented.
2Excavation is complete once confirmed by visual inspection and PLM analysis per Section 4.0.
Page 1

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan Bottom Ash Roads June 2020
Marshall Steam Station Revision 0
3.0 SOIL SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
3.1 Method Summary
This Excavation Soil Sampling Plan has been adapted from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) #2012 and #2006 and North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) Attachment 1 Coal Combustion Residuals Surface Impoundment
Closure Guidelines for Protection of Groundwater, November 4, 2016.
Soil samples are collected directly using stainless steel or plastic trowel, spade, shovel, or scoops.
Following collection, soil is transferred from the sampling device to a stainless steel or plastic bowl to be
homogenized. Once homogenized, the soil is transferred into Duke Energy Laboratory supplied sample
bottles.
Soil samples will be submitted under chain of custody for the following analyses: total metals and
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) metals. Analytical methods for total metals and SPLP
metals are described in Table 2. Ash presence is quantitatively determined by polarized light
microscopy (PLM) by Duke Lab or state approved vendor. PLM analysis passes visible light through a
pair of polarizing filters to create optical effects used in identifying unknown materials. This method is
commonly used in asbestos and coal ash identification.
3.1.1 Equipment
• Stainless steel or plastic trowel, scoop, spade or shovel — Used for collecting soil samples
from surface locations.
• Sample containers — To be supplied by Duke Energy Laboratory with appropriate
cooler(s). Estimated that five 8-ounce sample bottles with Teflon -lined lids will be
required for each sample location and sample depth. For return of cooler to the lab, ice
will be required.
• Gloves — Used for personal protection and to prevent cross -contamination of samples —
nitrile, disposable, powderless.
• Field clothing and Personal Protective Equipment — Used as specified in the site Health
and Safety Plan.
• Sampling flags — Used for identifying soil sampling locations.
• Field notebook — A bound book used to record progress of sampling effort and record
any problems and field observations during sampling.
• Three-ring binder book — Used to store necessary forms and record and track samples
collected at the site.
• Permanent marking pen — Used to label sample containers, document field logbooks,
data sheets and chain of custody.
Page 2

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan Bottom Ash Roads
Marshall Steam Station
June 2020
Revision 0
• Stainless steel or plastic spoon — Used for homogenizing soil samples within a stainless
steel or plastic bowl.
• Stainless steel or plastic bowl — Used for homogenizing soil samples, when applicable.
• Camera — Used for photo -documentation of sample locations and samples.
• GPS — Device used to obtain elevation, latitude and longitude of sample location.
• Trash bag — Used to dispose of gloves and any other non -hazardous waste generated
during sampling.
• Decontamination supplies and equipment.
3.1.2 Sample Locations
General locations for soil sampling are determined by the soil scientist in the field at a rate of
one soil sample for every 1 acre of ash area excavated. Actual sampling locations on site may
vary to account for site conditions and to allow collection of representative samples.
Representative samples reflect areas where all ash has been visually excavated and natural soil
is observed.
3.1.3 Collection of Representative Samples
For the purpose of this plan, surface soil is considered to range from 0 to 6 inches in depth,
while deeper samples will be collected at a range of 2 to 2.5 feet below ground surface (bgs), 7
to 7.5 feet bgs, 12 to 12.5 feet bgs, and 17 to 17.5 feet bgs (Table 1) unless bedrock, refusal, or
the water table are encountered. A surface soil sample and deeper samples will be collected at
each location for every 1 acre of ash excavated. A new pair of nitrile gloves is worn at each
sampling location and each depth. Each sampling location is recorded on the site map prior to
collecting the sample, if location is not already noted on the map. The GPS location of each
sampling location (i.e. elevation, latitude and longitude), sample descriptions, and area
photographs are also recorded. All sampling equipment is decontaminated prior to use
irrespective of depth. The following procedure will be used to collect representative soil
samples with a scoop, shovel, trowel, geoprobe, or excavator:
• Locate general sampling locations.
• Determine suitability of sampling location for a representative sample.
• If sampling location appears to reflect representative conditions that would allow
collection of a representative sample, proceed with sampling procedure. If
location is not indicative of conditions that would allow collection of a
representative sample, notify the project manager so an alternate location can
be identified.
• Using a decontaminated sampling instrument, remove the desired thickness and
volume of soil from the sampling area. The sampler must obtain enough soil to
fill five 8-ounce sample bottles. If a certain six-inch sample interval does not
Page 3

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan Bottom Ash Roads
Marshall Steam Station
June 2020
Revision 0
yield sufficient soil volume to fill five 8-ounce sample bottles, the sample interval
may be expanded to allow for sufficient soil sample volume. The revised sample
interval should be appropriately documented.
• Transfer the sample into an appropriate sample or homogenization bowl. Non -
dedicated containers should be adequately decontaminated. Stir for
approximately one minute until there appears to be a uniform color and
consistency.
• Transfer homogenized sample to a labeled container(s) of appropriate size and
construction for the analyses requested.
• Secure sample container tightly.
3.1.4 Sample Preservation, Containers, Handling and Storage
Chemical preservation of soils is generally not recommended. Cooling to VC on wet ice is
usually the best approach, supplemented by the appropriate holding time for the analyses
requested.
The Duke Energy Laboratory will supply the appropriate sample bottles for the collected soil
samples. The sample volume is a function of the analytical requirements and the Duke Energy
Laboratory will ensure the appropriate number of bottles are supplied. Ensure chain of custody
is completed for sample bottle return to the Duke Energy Laboratory.
Table 2 contains a list of parameters to be analyzed with corresponding reporting units and
analytical methods. If a parameter or group of parameters is not included in Table 2, the
laboratory performing the analysis should be contacted to determine the appropriate sample
bottles, volumes, and preservatives.
All non -dedicated sampling devices should be decontaminated and wrapped in plastic. The
sampling device should remain in this wrapping until it is needed. Each sampling device should
be used for only one sample and then decontaminated or disposed of. Non -dedicated sampling
devices should be cleaned in the field using the decontamination procedure described below.
3.1.5 Decontamination
Decontamination procedures can be time consuming; having a sufficient quantity of sampling
tools available is recommended. All non -dedicated sampling equipment must be
decontaminated prior to reuse. Equipment decontamination consists of:
1. Detergent wash and brush cleaning
2. Tap water rinse
3. De -ionized water rinse
4. Air dry
5. Wrap sampling tools with plastic
Page 4

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan Bottom Ash Roads June 2020
Marshall Steam Station Revision 0
4.0 VISUAL CONFIRMATION OF ASH REMOVAL
4.1 Pre -Excavation Documentation
Closure by excavation is defined herein as removing the primary source (primary source of potential
constituents of interest) to the point that ash is not visible to the unaided eye at the ground surface.
Closure by Excavation in this Excavation Soil Sampling Plan, can refer to areas of excavation occurring
under any closure scenario. Primary source ash is the main body of ash that was deposited. This method
is intended solely to verify and document primary source ash removal, and is not intended to validate
environmental quality standards of the subsurface (considered the secondary source of potential
constituents of interest). Pre -excavation documentation would consist of:
• Review topographic mapping, aerial photography, construction drawings, and boring logs to
estimate the pre -ash placement topography and/or ash/soil interface
• Preparation of a figure illustrating a grid spacing of 100 feet (Figure 1). Each grid point (node)
will be assigned a unique identifier. Each node of the grid spacing (grid point) will represent a
visual verification location.
4.2 Ash Removal Verification Protocol
Ash excavation will be considered complete based on visual and PLM confirmation that all ash has been
removed. Ash removal will be based on sampling of the ash/soil interface and analysis by PLM. Soil
samples will be examined utilizing methods outlined in American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure).
Vertical and horizontal excavation of ash can terminate when the remaining material is documented
using PLM to contain less than 50% ash.
Project will excavate ash until a visible change in color or texture confirms removal of all ash. This
location shall be referred to as the ash/soil interface. If visual evaluation is inconclusive, then request
additional evaluation to confirm ash removal.
4.2.1 Field Documentation
Evaluate the excavated surface elevation relative to the pre -ash placement topography.
Periodically check bottom elevation to evaluate if fill is present above historic bottom elevation.
Visual confirmation will be performed on a 100-foot grid system (Figure 1) unless conditions
prevent such confirmation, as described in Section 4.3. Soil sampling will be performed on a
100-foot grid system and will be analyzed using PLM.
• Personnel will locate each node by GPS or survey control, determine elevation, and
evaluate whether that point is above or below the historic elevation.
Personnel will then observe the surface area represented by the node, to note if visible
ash is present at the surface. If present, the location should be documented and
excavation will need to continue. If the evaluation indicates the surface soils are
residuum or bedrock, then hand auger to two feet below surface (or refusal) and
perform visual -manual classification of the soils at the surface and depth according to
Page 5

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan Bottom Ash Roads
Marshall Steam Station
June 2020
Revision 0
ASTM method D2488. Submit sample from surface and depth (or shallower if refusal)
for PLM analysis. The conditions shall be documented by taking photographs.
The classification indicator for fly ash will be grey to black silt -sized particles with no
plasticity. The classification indicator for bottom ash will be grey to black sand to gravel
sized particles and porous.
• If the node point elevation is near the historic bottom elevation then personnel can
conclude the primary source is removed when the following criteria are met:
1. Residuum is indicated by observation
2. Soil is confirmed by visual manual classification (ASTM D2488) and PLM analysis
less than 50%
4.2.2 Fill Evaluation Criteria
The following procedure provides an approach that can be used to ascertain if the fill can remain
in place. The procedure specified is based on the fill material and depth.
• If the elevation is less than eight feet above the historic bottom elevation of the ash and
residuum is not observed, test pits may be excavated to historic bottom elevation or
until residuum or bedrock is encountered, but no more than eight feet below the
surface.
o Personnel will evaluate existing information to determine if the test pits are
necessary. If necessary, personnel may recommend excavating test pits at a
frequency no tighter than 100 feet by 100 feet.
o If visible ash is not discovered based on information defined above, the primary
source removal may be confirmed.
o If visible ash is discovered, continue excavation.
• If the elevation is more than eight feet above historic bottom elevation of the ash and
residuum is not observed, discuss with CCP Closure Personnel.
o CCP Closure Personnel will confirm historic information and recommend a
drilling and sampling program at a frequency no tighter than 100 feet by 100
feet to evaluate the presence of ash below the fill in accordance with the
information defined above. If unusual features are revealed by the drilling, CCP
Closure Engineering may request/recommend additional borings. Exploration is
to be performed by continuous sampling during drilling.
o If visible ash is not discovered based on information defined above, then the
primary source removal may be confirmed.
o If visible ash is discovered, continue excavation.
Page 6

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan Bottom Ash Roads
Marshall Steam Station
June 2020
Revision 0
4.3 Visual Removal Not Applicable
If possible, excavation of ash should continue even if groundwater is encountered. Visual
documentation is challenging to complete when removal occurs in saturated conditions. Excavation of
ash from bottom ash roads is not expected below the water table. If there is ash below the water table,
a plan will be submitted to NC DEQ by Duke Energy pertaining to the removal of ash if these conditions
or other restricting factors occur.
4.3.1 Boring Method Summary and Analysis
Boring will be conducted using a barge based on a 100-foot grid to visually determine the
ash/soil interface. Below the interface, soil samples will be collected in 1-foot increments for
PLM analysis. Ash presence is quantitatively determined by PLM by Duke Lab or other state
approved vendor. PLM analysis passes visible light through a pair of polarizing filters to create
optical effects used in identifying unknown materials. This method is commonly used in
asbestos and coal ash identification.
For boring samples where PLM results are less than 50% ash, that location will be determined
to be the visual confirmation of the bottom of the ash. This bottom elevation will be used to
prepare an updated figure showing bottom of ash to be used for dredge operations. Once
excavation is complete, confirmation of ash removal depths and elevation will be submitted to
NCDEQ.
4.3.2 Ash Removal
Wet excavated CCR material will be excavated by hydraulic dredging. The hydraulic dredge will be
placed at the water table elevation and utilize a cutting head to excavate and sluice the CCR
material to one of two rim ditches. The hydraulic dredge will excavate material from an
appropriate elevation above mean sea level (AMSL). The dredge will be equipped with DredgePak
GPS and will be loaded with the final grade machine file documenting bottom of ash as identified
in step 4.3.1 above. The dredge will take survey points during excavation to ensure final grade
requirements. GPS coordinates and depths will be provided and will be adhered to during
excavations activities.
Page 7

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan Bottom Ash Roads June 2020
Marshall Steam Station Revision 0
5.0 POST EXCAVATION SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
5.1 Soil Sampling
Analytical evaluation of the remaining soils (less than 50% ash per PLM analysis) will be necessary to
evaluate the extent of potential secondary source impacts depending on the depth of the water table
and any proposed institutional or engineering controls that may be used in the area of excavation. Soil
sampling will not be required if refusal or the top of bedrock are encountered, or the remaining soils are
below the water table. Soil samples for laboratory analysis must be collected in a manner that will
ensure a relatively uniform distribution of particles throughout the six inch sample.
The systematic approach and design for soil sampling and analysis is dependent upon two scenarios:
• Scenario 1: Remaining soil (containing less than 50% ash per PLM analysis) is located above the
seasonal high water table and final constructed institutional and/or engineering controls will
restrict infiltration from the surface reaching the water table (e.g. installation of a liner system).
Scenario 2: Remaining soil (containing less than 50% ash per PLM analysis) is located above the
seasonal high water table and infiltration from the surface would continue to reach the water
table.
5.1.1 Scenario 1
Confirmation sampling will include discrete surface samples collected from the first six inches of
the soil. Sampling will be performed on an acre grid system. This sample collection
methodology shall be sufficient to characterize the horizontal extent of any remaining potential
secondary source impacts for comparison with the NC DEQ Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals
(PSRG). The samples shall be analyzed by a North Carolina certified laboratory for total
concentrations for the parameters defined in Table 2. No SPLP testing is required.
5.1.2 Scenario 2
Confirmation sampling will include collection of both discrete surface and subsurface soil
samples performed on an acre grid system. Discrete surface samples will be collected from the
first six inches of the soil and a subsurface soil sample will be collected at 2 to 2.5 feet below
ground surface (bgs), 7 to 7.5 feet bgs, 12 to 12.5 feet bgs, and 17 to 17.5 feet bgs unless refusal,
bedrock or the water table are encountered. The use of a geoprobe or excavator is anticipated.
This sample collection methodology shall be sufficient to characterize both the horizontal and
vertical extent of any remaining potential secondary source impacts for comparison with the NC
DEQ PSRGs and/or input into the soil leachate model. The samples shall be analyzed by a North
Carolina certified laboratory for both total concentrations and SPLP for the parameter defined
in Table 2.
Page 8

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan Bottom Ash Roads
Marshall Steam Station
June 2020
Revision 0
5.2 Fate and Transport Modeling
Contingency for stabilization of remaining amounts of potential secondary source impacts in a manner
that will meet the intent of North Carolina Groundwater 2L Rules and closure requirements shall be
considered as site conditions dictate. Provisions to develop groundwater flow and transport models to
evaluate protection of groundwater criteria if potential secondary source material are left in place shall
be considered. In addition, the possibility of metals leaching from a potential change in pH and
geochemical conditions related to dewatering and excavation shall be considered along with plans for
groundwater models to assess resulting site conditions.
Page 9

Excavation Soil Sampling Plan Bottom Ash Roads
Marshall Steam Station
TABLE 2 - Soil Parameters and Analytical Methods Totals and SPLP Analysis Bottom Ash Road
Excavation
June 2020
Revision 0
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
UNITS
METHOD'
Aluminum
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Antimony
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Arsenic
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Barium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Beryllium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Boron
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Cadmium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Calcium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Chloride
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 9056A
Chromium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Cobalt
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Copper
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Hexavalent Chromium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA Method
7199/218.7
Iron
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Lead
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Magnesium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Manganese
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Mercury
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA Method
7470A/7471B
Molybdenum
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Nickel
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Nitrate as Nitrogen
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 9056A
pH
SU
EPA 9045D
Potassium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Selenium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020E
Silver
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Sodium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Strontium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Sulfate
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 9056A
Thallium (low level) (SPLP Extract only)
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020E
Vanadium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
11 Zinc
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Notes•
1. Soil samples to be analyzed for Total Inorganics using USEPA Methods 6010/6020 and pH
using USEPA Method 9045, as noted above (or similar approved methods). Soil samples will
also be analyzed for leaching potential using SPLP Extraction Method 1312 in conjunction with
USEPA Methods 6010/6020 (or similar approved methods) if Scenario 2 is applicable.
Page 10

Attachment II — Figures

Path: T:\Enerov\Proiects\2021\212013 Duke CQA Marshall Lan dfill\6 Confirmatory Sam )Imc CAD and GIS\GIS and GPS\G I S\Draft ILF
a 08-29-2022
....rrr...w..w..w..w.. ..w..w..w..w..w..w..w.. ... .. .. +.—..w.---------.—......w..,�
R S T U V W X Y x
� f
/ 3
op 4
�f 5
I { j 6
INDUS4�RIA-L LANDFILL ! ' f� �a INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL 61812-INDUS)ol
PHASB� E�T2♦EXPANSION ' �1 , i PHASE CE LP6 NSION
CELL 5 I $ I
' 1 •'
•' 9
t 1'Iler
LEGEND
'f ' O
.I • ASH BASIN SAMPLES COLLECTED IN NOVEMBER 2021 FOR PLM ANALYSIS (RESULTS: CCR <50%)
0 200 400
� • BOTTOM ASH HAUL ROAD SAMPLES COLLECTED IN APRILAND MAY 2022 FOR PLM ANALYSIS (RESULTS: <50% CCR)
(FEET) �
i PLM ONLY SAMPLE LOCATIONS
•
REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE LOCATIONS
REFERENCE: I �y�► SAMPLING GRID
PLM ANALYSIS - POLARIZED LIGHT MICROSCOPY ANALYSIS '
APPROXIMATE ASH BASIN BOUNDARY
CCR - COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS
APPROXIMATE BOTTOM ASH HAUL ROAD BOUNDARY
AERIAL BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM TRANS ASH ON 5-19-22. THIS MAP IS FOR AREAS PREVIOUSLY VERIFIED BY OTHERS
INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. -. INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL CELL BOUNDARIES
THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
SCALE: FIGURE
PLM SAMPLE LOCATIONS - ASH BASIN AND BOTTOM ASH ROAD 1 " — 200 '
DATE:
1I I INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL (1812-INDUS) PHASE 2 EXPANSION - CELL 6 8-29-2022
DUKE ENERGY - MARSHALL STEAM STATION PROJECT NUMBER
CATAWBA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 212013 PH. 06

Attachment III — Tables

Table 1: PLM Sampling Results, Soil Sampling Summary, and Grade Comparison
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill, Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
S&ME Project Number: 212013, Ph. 06
D.WEIrP'J
Duke Energy
Sample ID
Sample
Propose
D_pth
Sample Locatio
Proposed
Location
Sample
Actual Sample
Location
Visual confirmation of
ash removal
LM
CC
(% CCR)
�.
"Resu
Description
Approximate Post
Expected Post CC
Elevation
Difference
Co
Depth'
Silty sand (SM) - brown, gray, fine to medium, low to non -plastic fines,
11/17/2021
2021031459
X 8 0"-6"
0"-6"
Shallow
686083.2
1414072.7
686096.6
1414079.5
X
12/1/2021
ND
UNK
UNK
UNK
micaceous [ALLUVIAL]. Water encountered at 12" below ground surface.
Silt (ML) - brown, reddish -brown, non -plastic, micaceous [RES]. Water
11/17/2021
2021031460
X
9
0"-6"
0"-6"
Shallow
685995.8
1414054.0
686006.0
1414049.3
X
12/1/2021
ND
UNK
UNK
UNK
encountered at 12" below ground surface.
4/15/2022
2022010121
R
7
0"-6"
0"-6"
Shallow
686201.5
1413457.2
686213.2
1413495.3
X
4/22/2022
ND
Silty sand (SM) - Brownish red, medium, non -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
857.338
857.975
0.637
4/15/2022
2022010122
R
7
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
686201.5
1413457.2
686213.2
1413495.3
X
4/22/2022
ND
Silty sand (SM) - Red, medium, non -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
857.338
857.975
0.637
Silty sand (SM) - Reddish brown, gray, fine to medium, non -plastic fines,
4/15/2022
2022010119
R
8
0"-6"
0"-6"
Shallow
686098.9
1413454.2
686069.6
1413480.6
X
4/22/2022
ND
857.39
855.139
-2.251
micaceous [RES]
Silty sand (SM) - Reddish brown, gray, fine to medium, non -plastic fines,
4/15/2022
2022010120
R
8
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
686098.9
1413454.2
686069.6
1413480.6
X
4/22/2022
ND
857.39
855.139
-2.251
micaceous [RES]
4/15/2022
2022010123
S
6
0"-6"
0"-6"
Shallow
686295.3
1413551.0
686280.6
1413559.7
X
4/22/2022
ND
Silty sand (SM) - Red, fine to medium, non -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
858.648
858.696
0.048
4/15/2022
2022010124
S
6
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
686295.3
1413551.0
686280.6
1413559.7
X
4/22/2022
ND
Silty sand (SM) - Red, fine to medium, non -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
858.648
858.696
0.048
4/15/2022
2022010127
T
5
0"-6"
0"-6"
Shallow
686392.0
1413659.4
686377.3
1413647.7
X
4/22/2022
ND
Sandy lean clay (CL) - Red, fine, medium -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
859.059
860.086
1.027
4/15/2022
2022010128
T
5
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
686392.0
1413659.4
686377.3
1413647.7
X
4/22/2022
ND
Sandy silt (ML) - Red, fine, non -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
859.059
860.086
1.027
Silty sand (SM) - Red, brown, fine to medium, non -plastic fines, micaceous
4/15/2022
2022010125
U
5
0"-F
0"-6"
Shallow
686406.6
1413750.3
686424.2
1413759.0
X
4/22/2022
ND
863.131
863.352
0.221
[RES]
Clayey sand (SC) - Red, fine to medium, medium -plastic fines, micaceous
4/15/2022
2022010126
U
5
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
686406.6
1413750.3
686424.2
1413759.0
X
4/22/2022
ND
863.131
863.352
0.221
[RES]
Poorly graded sand (SP) - Light red, fine to medium, few lean clay nodules,
4/22/2022
2022011256
U
4
0"-6"
W-F
Shallow
686498.6
1413750.2
686492.1
1413755.4
X
5/5/2022
ND
870.555
864.879
-5.676
micaceous [RES]
Sandy silt (ML) - Brownish red, fine to medium, non -plastic fines, micaceous
4/22/2022
2022011257
U
4
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
686498.6
1413750.2
686492.1
1413755.4
X
5/5/2022
ND
870.555
864.879
-5.676
Clay]y sand (SC) - Reddish brown, fine, medium -plastic fines, micaceous
4/22/2022
2022011252
V
3
0"-F
0"-F
Shallow
686594.1
1413850.9
686570.6
14138525.2
X
5/5/2022
ND
871.811
866.907
-4.904
4/22/2022
2022011253
V
3
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
686594.1
1413850.9
686570.6
14138525.2
X
5/5/2022
ND
Silty sand (SM) - Reddish brown, fine, non -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
871.811
866.907
-4.904
Page 1 of 3

Table 1: PLM Sampling Results, Soil Sampling Summary, and Grade Comparison
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill, Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
S&ME Project Number: 212013, Ph. 06
D.Actua
Duke Energy
ID
I
Sample-
Propose
�_pth
Sample Locatio
'J
Proposed
Location
lorthing
Sample
also
Actual Sample
Location
Visual confirmation of
ash removal
LM
(% CCIR)
CC
�.
"Resu
114
DescriptionSample
Approximate Post
Elevation (ft)
Expected Post CC
(ft)
Elevation
Difference
Approximate)
lll�
Co
LAMMRece
-
Easting
rthing
Easting
YZEN
Silty sand (SM) - Reddish brown, fine to medium, non -plastic fines, some
4/22/2022
2022011254
V 4 0"-6"
0"-6"
Shallow
686501.2
1413844.4
686501.2
1413869.3
X
5/5/2022
ND
863.64
868.885
5.245
rock frags and organics [RES]
Silty sand (SM) - Red, reddish brown, fine to coarse, non -plastic fines,
4/22/2022
2022011255
V
4
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
686501.2
1413844.4
686501.2
1413869.3
X
5/5/2022
ND
863.64
868.885
5.245
micaceous [RES]
4/22/2022
2022011250
W
3
0"-6"
0"-6"
Shallow
686604.6
1413945.1
686616.4
1413971.3
X
5/5/2022
ND
Silty sand (SM) - Red, fine to medium, non -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
866.419
863.888
-2.531
4/22/2022
2022011251
W
3
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
686604.6
1413945.1
686616.4
1413971.3
X
5/5/2022
ND
Silty sand (SM) - Brown, fine to medium, non -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
866.419
863.888
-2.531
Silt with some fine-grained sand (ML) - Tannish brown, fine, non -plastic
4/29/2022
2022011835
R
9
0"-6"
0"-6"
Shallow
686011.0
1413466.0
686019.9
1413480.9
X
5/9/2022
ND
861.521
853.199
-8.322
fines, micaceous [RES]
4/29/2022
2022011836
R
9
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
686011.0
1413466.0
686019.9
1413480.9
X
5/9/2022
ND
Sandy silt (ML) - tan, fine, non -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
861.521
853.199
-8.322
Silt with some fine-grained sand (ML) - Reddish tan, fine, non -plastic fines,
4/29/2022
2022011850
S
7
0"-6"
0"-6"
Shallow
685999.1
1413542.4
686002.0
1413540.6
X
5/9/2022
1
856.209
855.634
-0.575
micaceous [RES]
Sandy silt (ML) - White, black, yellowish brown, fine, non -plastic fines,
4/29/2022
2022011851
S
7
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
685999.1
1413542.4
686002.0
1413540.6
X
5/9/2022
ND
856.209
855.634
-0.575
micaceous, some black banding [RES]
4/29/2022
2022011837
S
8
0"-6"
0"-6"
Shallow
686101.8
1413538.8
686106.7
1413529.9
X
5/9/2022
ND
Sandy silt (ML) - Whitish tan, fine, non -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
851.443
855.976
4.533
Sandy silt (ML) - Orangish brown, fine, non -plastic fines, micaceous, some
4/29/2022
2022011838
S
8
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
686101.8
1413538.8
686106.7
1413529.9
X
5/9/2022
ND
851.443
855.976
4.533
black banding [RES]
4/29/2022
2022011848
S
9
0"-F
W-F
Shallow
686205.7
1413542.4
686198.5
1413546.0
X
5/9/2022
ND
Sandy silt (ML) - Yellowish tan, fine, non -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
850.12
851.853
1.733
4/29/2022
2022011849
S
9
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
686205.7
1413542.4
686198.5
1413546.0
X
5/9/2022
ND
Sandy silt (ML) - Yellowish tan, fine, non -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
850.12
851.853
1.733
4/29/2022
2022011839
T
6
0"-6"
0"-6"
Shallow
686303.6
1413646.3
686299.4
1413651.1
X
5/9/2022
ND
Sandy silt (ML) - Tan, fine, non -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
858.713
860.026
1.313
4/29/2022
2022011840
T
6
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
686303.6
1413646.3
686299.4
1413651.1
X
5/9/2022
ND
Silt (ML) - Light brown, fine, non -plastic fines, micaceous [RES]
858.713
860.026
1.313
Silty sand (SM) - Reddish tan, fine to medium, non -plastic fines, micaceous
4/29/2022
2022011833
X
2
0"-6"
0"-6"
Shallow
686703.6
1414040.3
686706.3
1414039.4
X
5/9/2022
ND
871.735
866.193
-5.542
Silty sand (SM) - Reddish brown, fine to medium, non- to low -plastic fines,
4/29/2022
2022011834
X
2
2'-2.5'
2'-2.5'
Shallow
686703.6
1414040.3
686706.3
1414039.4
X
5/9/2022
1
871.735
866.193
-5.542
micaceous [RES]
Page 2 of 3

Table 1: PLM Sampling Results, Soil Sampling Summary, and Grade Comparison
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill, Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
S&ME Project Number: 212013, Ph. 06
Notes:
(1) PLM method reports results as % CCP, where CCP is defined as any particle consistent with fly ash, bottom ash, and slag. This is consistent with Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) material.
(2) ND = Not Detected. The PLM Method Reporting Level is 1%; samples with less than 1 % CCR are considered ND.
(3) Sample point added in the field to support sampling - not originally included with AECOM soil sampling excavation plan sampling.
UNK - Unknown, no survey data available
Actual sample depths may vary due to sampling method and volume of soil needed for laboratory testing.
'CCR = Coal Combustion Residuals
'Residual Material (RES): Residuum and saprolitic material that is a product of weathered bedrock.
Alluvial Material (ALLUVIAL): unconsolidated material deposited by rivers and streams.
Partially Weathered Rock (PWR): Defined as material that could not be penetrated by hand auger or geoprobe; or had a standard penetration resistance of N>50 using when SPT sampling with a
.hill ri
°United Soil Classification System descriptions are provided for each sample description and are denoted with a two letter abbreviation following the soil type.
Page 3 of 3

Attachment IV - Photographic Log

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
=0
V
O
L C-6
d—X
EO
-g�
'
1► V
r
` Cl- -•
O N
O ..
z
Uj d
v
E
F_M
o a
U w
`° as
Ln
5.
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
epth:
0" - 6"
�7d,arks:
Brown, gray, silty sand
X8
2021031459
Q
-
G.
O O
E L
o
pN
N_
r
a
1
o
s
O a
U w
76
Ln
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
0" - 6"
Remarks:
Brown, reddish brown, fine silt
X9
2021031460
Page 1 of 15

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
=0
I I I AMEW
y
'7
>
y
�
r N
5 l !0
—
rnu d
•
�` �'
CD
=0-�c
s ,.':x-'
N d
U CD
Z
lJ
i a
q
1.
0 d
L N
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
0" - 6"
Remarks:
Brownish red, silty sand
R7
2022010121
\
z
�>O aad
c.
V
-i''V•1
2
4l L
-
-
} G Fk r d
F 3. '
f
i"I
'r,� 'r;``.
U
U ON
a
O
cv
O Z
E v
'1 a
,i
d
U w
•<� � _
N Ln
in
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
2' - 2.5'
Remarks:
I Red, silty sand
R7
2022010122
Page 2 of 15

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
=a
N
Lf
V
>
1 N t00
E
s
v o
w
.
-
0 z0
•Cm
{{ a
Y.. Rom, Y:'�•'
lam/
t ,f
w
U
N
Ln
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
0" - 6"
kRemarks:
Reddish brown, gray, silty sand
R8
2022010119
N
L2
'v,
=
O
ab� •tom �-.�+ F
�.-
0 p
G ti i� - S
a 6 `
W a
N -Y
1 a
V N_
O N
isget
O O
Z
v
V w
m �7
IN
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
2' - 2.5'
Remarks:
Reddish brown, gray, silty sand
R8
2022010120
Page 3 of 15

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
=0
I Air
>32
�di n N cs
t .
V
LE O
O
O d
V w
� cZ$
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
0" - 6"
Remarks:
Red, silty sand
S6
2022010123
•�J -
N
�
V
9i D p i- l0 � SY S -- - 4 -+-•
t+ o r,'GG
O O
E t
V
� v
N.
O a
V w
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
2' - 2.5'
kRmarks:
Red, silty sand
S6
2022010124
Page 4 of 15

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
=0
4r
i �
(6
_
Alm
E: t
v a
_
v
v rj
O N
f
O Z
m
A
V
E
i N
O
i
a
O d
V w
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
0" - 6"
Remarks:
Red, sandy lean clay
T5
2022010127
N
-
N
L2
� r
•v
v�
V N_
`
a 6
y
O N
O O
Z
A
/
6
V
N
O
'
V w
L
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
2' - 2.5'
Remarks:
Red, sandy silt
T5
2022010128
Page 5 of 15

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
=a
N
N
�
L
\
d
�
t
t
�
,4
J 4
CD
4
Ln
-T
0
E
a
U
fl Y
U o
S
a
O z
v
,.8
C
U
cwc
� L
7 C'
�
N
i
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
0" - 6"
Remarks:
Red, brown, silty sand
u5
2022010125
2
A,
o
E L
a
+
�
G C
O N
..!�..
o�`l
r
• 2
O W
V
^-
w
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
2' - 2.5'
Remarks:
Red, clayey sand
u5
2022010126
Page 6 of 15

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
s
0
N
j�
f6
72
i f
ILI
N
d
K
gf+m o
V o
r
V N
v 3i 3tgL5
f:lf
z
j
� V
O d
V w
d
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
0" - 6"
Remarks:
Light red, poorly graded sand
U4
2022011256
A' • r
N
N
V
O C)
.s.h..,
o 0
f i�`�
O O
O Z
O
O d
V w
%
> vi
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
2' - 2.5'
Remarks:
Brownish red, sandy silt
U4
2022011257
Page 7 of 15

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
s
0
N s�
> l0
O O
z
1
o
}F}r;t �
�
U
O
Z
V
V W
L
7
-
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
0" - 6"
FDe�pth�
marks:
Reddish brown, clayey sand
V3
2022011252
N
N
c
N S S d h
t N as
< E 4'
>
Y � �
3 lL�v v F
v 0
s
.�-.•r.
> l0
E t
O
O N
Z
-
O a
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
2' - 2.5'
Remarks:
Reddish brown, silty sand
V3
2022011253
Page 8 of 15

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
s
0
N
at
1 o Cc4�
o
N 5 e
j o
O
V
O
V N_
O N
Z
�.
O d
`
V w
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
0" - 6"
Re m.rks:l
Reddish brown, silty sand
V4
2022011254
' 3
�
s a
0�
j l0
> N N a
N
o
N_
O
Z
V
O d
V w
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
2' - 2.5'
Remarks:
Red, reddish brown, silty sand
V4
2022011255
Page 9 of 15

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
s
0
� d
_ -
V N_
O N
{{�
O
y
O d
V w
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
0" - 6"
Remarks:
Red, silty sand
W3
2022011250
MT3
\
Ju�
s
N d Q. g
_ ei
N
a
O N
V1
�j1
-
O Z
- -
• v
E
V w
7
N Od
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
2' - 2.5'
Remarks:
Brown, silty sand
W3
2022011251
Page 10 of 15

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
s
0
1+ V
B
N
V
h
a.
4 C'
CT-
Q�
0 0
O
t11
pcs
V o
Q
4. �-
V N_
O N
a a�1
o � trl
o Z
C�C
C U
O d
V w
2E
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
0" - 6"
Remarks:
Tannish brown, silt with sand
R9
2022011835
N
1
\t
((
N
V
o
l
4 CT—
�C`
>
y.T
v> M
P�
i
V
o 0
III f;g.
Q"
Vi
O
�
_
V w
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
2' - 2.5'
Remarks:
Tan, sandy silt
R9
2022011836
Page 11 of 15

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
s
0
V
i
x
s
N
o 0
6
a V Kr v7
� �
0 0
Z
\\
.o
0
-- - - - - - t--
o a
V w
N
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
0" - 6"
Remarks:
Reddish tan, silt with sand
S7
2022011850
'
�40"-
N
I
s
v '
C% 11 J
v Q n
06
v, m
> o
F6 1•1
d
U o
Sa V 6 fi
� V 7
O N
p
Z
d
�
— O
—�
O d
N
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
2' - 2.5'
Remarks:
White, yellowish brown, sandy silt
S7
2022011851
Page 12 of 15

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
s
0
N
e
ON\l
N
a
C
V
O N
O O
° d
V w
N
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
T - 6"
Remarks:
Whitish tan, sandy silt
S8
2022011837
Page 13 of 15

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
s
0
aO+
-V C _
0
o
7y d [ 4
M
M d.�
V N
O N
Z
� O
O d
_
V w
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
0" - 6"
Remarks:
I Yellowish tan, sandy silt
S9 2022011848
k
°r12
ro
•
/,=
••
Ln
S&ME Sample ID: Duke Energy Sample ID:
2022011849
• •
Page 14 of 15

Photographic Log - Clean Closure Verification
Ash Basin and Bottom Ash Road (within future Industrial Landfill Phase 2, Cell 6)
Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, North Carolina
s
0
=;
o
�IZ2
C1 -
o
wr
•
O O
���
3r'A.7
T.
�
a
f p���
J d o
U o
�1 Q-�� V '
'
O 0
O
'
E
�
O
C
O
V w
2E
mom
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
T - 6"
Remarks:
Tan, sandy silt
T6
2022011839
�
-
-
N
N
rAJ
N
r
o
ocl
���
Qq
a Q
h M
>0 C)
0 0
a
.� (�
1!� t
l �'..� iWa
[.1
m
V N_
—
N
O� 7
O N
o Z
.
S&ME Sample ID:
Duke Energy Sample ID:
Depth:
2' - 2.5'
T6
2022011840
Ren ks:l
Light brown, silt
Page 15 of 15

Attachment V — PLM Laboratory Reports and Chain -of -Custodies

r DUDE
' ENERGY
Order Number:
Project Name:
Customer Name(s):
Lab Contact:
Report Authorized By:
(Signature)
Program Comments:
Analytical Laboratory
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078-7929
McGuire Nuclear Complex - MG03A2
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]
Vendor QC Data Review
Summary Report
J21110383
Marshall Confirmatory Samples
John Metcalf
Steven H. Guptill
Phone: [phone]
Date: 12/01 /2021
Please review all vendor data for case narratives with explanations of quality control failures and data qualifiers.
Any analytical tests or individual analytes within a test flagged with a qualifier indicate a deviation from the method quality
system or quality control requirement. Certified vendor results and QC qualifiers can be found in the vendor lab final report.
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of the Analytical Laboratory.
Vendor Data Review Criteria:
This vendor data package has been reviewed at the Duke Analytical Laboratory for the following applicable criteria:
• Required QC samples collected and analyzed
• Required tests performed for all samples
• Vendor Laboratory utilized required test methods for all analyses
• Vendor Laboratory met all requested Reporting Limits (RL)
• QC Results reviewed for outlying recovery values
Case Narrative:
No QC issues found during vendor QC data review.

RJ LEE GROUP
DELIVERING SCIENTIFIC RESOLUTION
November 29, 2021
Steven Guptill
Duke Energy Analytical Laboratory
13339 Hagers Ferry Rd.
Building 7405, MG30A2
Huntersville, NC 28078
RE: Duke Energy Project — J21110383
RJ Lee Group Project Number AOH1064302-0
Dear Mr. Guptill,
The RJ Lee Group, Inc. Monroeville laboratory received two samples on November 23, 2021 associated
with Duke Energy job number J21110383. The samples were logged into RJ Lee Group project number
AOH1064302-0 and assigned RJLG sample numbers as indicated in Appendix A.
The samples were received in good condition with all custody seals in place and intact. Attached in
Appendix A is the signed sample receipt confirmation form, COC, and sample receipt check list.
These results are submitted pursuant to RJ Lee Group's current terms and conditions of sale, including
the company's standard warranty and limitation of liability provisions. No responsibility or liability is
assumed for the manner in which the results are used or interpreted. Unless notified to return the
samples covered in this report, RJ Lee Group will store them for a period of ninety (90) days before
discarding.
Should you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
■
Elizabeth A. Fischer
Geologist
Attachments: Chain of Custody Forms
Mineral Identification Report
350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville PA,15146 1 F1 724.325.1776 F 724.733.1799
W W W.RJLG.COM

Appendix A
Chain of Custody Forms
WWW.RJLG.COM

RJ EE
qwwl DEL ERU TILLJI
ON
Effective Date: October 2019
Form A FOR.002.5
Chain of Custody
RJ Lee Group Work Order #: AOH1064302-0
Project Name/Case #: Marshall Confirmatory Samples
Page 1 of 1
Received From:
Relinquished To:
Lynn Iluzada
RJLee Group, Inc.
Duke Energy
350 Hochberg Road
13339 Hagers Ferry Rd.
Monroeville, PA 15146 United States
Huntersville, NC 28078 United States
Main: 724-325-1776 Fax: [phone]
Main: 980-875-5052 Fax: [phone]
Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Received
10552783
2021031459
11/23/2021 10:44 AM EST
10552784
2021031460
11/23/2021 10:44 AM EST
Received From: Lynn Iluzada
Method of Shipment: Federal Express
Company: Duke Energy
Date: 11/23/2021
Received By: Monica Carse
Package Condition Upon Receipt: Sealed
Company: RJ Lee Group, Inc.
Date: 11/23/2021
Relinquished
Method of Shipment:
Company:
Date:
Received By:
Package Condition Upon Receipt:
Company:
Date:
Relinquished
Method of Shipment:
Company:
Date:
Received By:
Package Condition Upon Receipt:
Company:
Date:
Nov 23, 2021 3:32 PM EST 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 Page 1 of 1
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

RJ Lee Group
Sample Receipt and Log in Check List
tii 3s�'€
CIieS�tt}
Duke Energy
i4} . fi*m tw
Dade _ ecerve� sit
11/23/2021
f§49 ��fk^?4
Lo Date
11/23/2021
"-',y`u''�r-j3.`s,�"•�,7k'
TimWNAR rvecl��
10:44 AM
.:-�dr$'
By. a,t � ; •
Monica Carse
i`• s�'�tf�&€' +�.
COC#IF;
J21110383
ROOM
AOH1064302-0
Cno_lers ReceWOCU ,
1
lyleans,of #tipn(le�
FedEX
rBa 1.
53181813 6857
As Received Screen
Yes
No
Comments
Were the Coolers received in good condition?
t/
Was there evidence of tampering?
i/
Are Custody Seals intact and in good condition?
Were Coolers received between 2 and 4 degrees C?
Were all samples intact?
Were all samples accurately labeled?
t/
Was the COC received in good condition?
Did the sample Don COC match the Don the sample jars?
Were there any discrepancies among samples and COC?
Is the COC completely filled out?
>�
Was the COC relinquished properly?
List any anomalies associated with Sample Receipt
Analyst Signature:
Manager Signature:

A CH lO to Y 3 o a - 0 CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD AND ANALYSIS REQUEST FORM
�•� DUI
ENE
Project Name
Mat
Client
Dulu
S&M
Business Unit:
Operating Unit:
j LAB USE ONLY j
Lab ID
•.ZvZly '
i
I i
I i
i
Relinquished By
C. Date/Time
3"
Accepted By ' n
Dale Im
py
- I q - 1 t
`F
b 2 j-
Requested Turnaround
Relinquish
Date/Time
Accepts By:
Da /Tim
JILZ Z !
14 Days
Relinquished By
DaleRime
Accepted By:
Daternme
'7 Days
Sealed/Locked By
Date/Time
sealea/Lock opened
Date/Time
t
By
3-a! Ju: iyand
48 Hr
Comments:

Appendix B
Mineral Identification Report
WWW.RJLG.COM

(� RJ LEE GROUP
DELIVERING SCIENTIFIC RESOLUTION
Mineral Identification
Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) Laboratory Report
Steven Guptill
Report Date:
11/29/2021
Duke Energy Corporation
Sample Received Date:
11/23/2021
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
RJLG Project:
AOH1064302-0
Huntersville, NC 28078 United States
Customer CDC:
J21110383
Email: [e-mail]
Purchase Order:
J21110383 / 8531262
Main: 980-875-3111
Analytical Method:
SOP OPT.023 Determination by PLM
Customer Date Date Area % CCPOther Components
Sample # : RJLG ID Analyzed Collected Comments
2021031459 10552783 11/28/2021 11/17/2021 NO Clay Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2021031460 10552784 11/28/2021 11/17/2021 NO Clay Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
AOH1064302-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 1 of 2

Disclaimer Notes
* Samples will be returned to client immediately upon the release of final report.
* These results are submitted pursuant to RI Lee Group's current terms and conditions of sale, including the company's standard warranty and limitation of liability provisions. No responsibility or liability is assumed for the
manner in which these results are used or interpreted.
* This test report relates to the items tested.
* Any reproduction of this document must include the entire document in order for the report to be valid.
" This report may not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP Lab Code 101208-0 or any agency of the U.S. Government.
* Sample(s) for this project were analyzed at our: Monroeville, PA (AIHA # 100364, NVLAP # 101208-0, NY ELAP # 10884) facility.
* If RI Lee Group, Inc. did not collect the samples analyzed, the verifiability of the laboratory's results is limited to the reported values.
* For the purposes of this method, Coal Combustion Products (CCP) are defined as fly ash, bottom ash, and slag.
`The method reporting level is 1% and anything <1% is considered a not -detected.
Quartz —Angular anisotropic particulate with low relief.
Feldspar —Angular to blocky anisotropic particulate, low to moderate relief, biaxial, can have polysynthetic twinning.
Clay —Sheet silicates with polycrystalline or display non -uniform extinction with low to moderate relief, and zero to low birefringence. Clay also refers to particles that are less than 2.0 microns.
Opaques —Opaque is a generic term for a particle that does not transmit light. Opaque minerals are distinguished from opaque bottom ash based on morphology of fracture.
CCP— Isotropic to opaque spheres, agglomeration of spheres, and angular ash particles.
Organic Particulate— Pollen, plant and insect matter, and carbonaceous matter.
Carbonates — High birefringent, can be rhombohedral, with high relief.
Diatoms —Silica rich isotropic particles with various morphologies.
Mica —Sheet silicate with moderate to high relief and low birefringence, mono -crystalline, and normal extinction.
Miscellaneous Silicate — Isotropic and anisotropic silicates, with low to high relief, identification unsure and beyond the scope of the method to identify.
Amphibole— Elongated anisotropic particulate with moderate to high relief.
Coal — Irregular to angular particles with moderate opacity, edges and thin particles are reddish brown in color.
<1%CCP observed, none counted.
NO — No CCP detected.
AOH1064302-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 2 of 2

_ _C_HAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD AND _ANALYSIS REQUEST FO_R_M_ ...........
Analytical Laboratory Services i i Analytical Laboratory Use Only ; Page�ar�
'DUKE ! IJabNumbor SampleMatd% SOLID sampled Nc_x_
I onginating sc_ ! DISTRIBUTION
ENERGY, Mail Code 9MG03A2Hager (Building 7405) I i og ed U From °H— ORIGINAL l0 LAB,
13339 Hagers Ferry Rd I jLogged by: Logge DateR a SAMPLING PROGRAM: I COPY to CLIENT
M Huntersville, NC 28078 Ground Water— j
91875_5245_ Fax:)980L875-4349_ _ _•� S! NPDES— Soil _X_
RCRA Waste Other
Project Name
Marshall Confimatory Samples
Phane No:
3L'W-Ig85
Client
Duke
S&M
E Business UniC
E
operating Unit:
U
i LAB USE ONLY I
Lab ID
i
r�
!
! !
•vendor
RJ Lee
Preservative:
1: HCL 2: H,SOa
—
— j
tooter i
Fax No: IPO d
John Metcalf, Daniel Alhert
E: Julie Rohertson 5
Project ID: Preservation m H
CCP AROCLMSOt Marshall Steam Station
3: HNO3 4: Ice 5: None r c
Activity ID: Proceu ID C po
MS00 PR -PERMIT gBYPAM ¢ iY O
t
a o
u
LL
LAB USE ONLY
Collection Information E w
o � E
�V
Lab ID Sample Description or ID Date Time Signature J i(7 a
li-n-1J 13:�� srzs - y r r
o X - - II 7•21 13: z7
Y �� 512 s ✓ i------------
5)
5)

r DUDE Analytical Laboratory
' ENERGY
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078-7929
McGuire Nuclear Complex - MG03A2 Phone:
980-875-5245 Fax:[phone]
Revised Vendor QC Data
Review
Summary Report
Order Number:
J22040321
Project Name:
Marshall Confirmatory
Samples
Customer Name(s):
Ashley Healy
Lab Contact:
Steven H. Guptill
Phone:
Report Authorized By:
/(i
Date
(Signature)
.�/�L .
Program Comments:
5/03/2022
Please review all vendor data for case narratives with explanations of quality control failures and data qualifiers.
Any analytical tests or individual analytes within a test flagged with a qualifier indicate a deviation from the method quality
system or quality control requirement. Certified vendor results and QC qualifiers can be found in the vendor lab final report.
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of the Analytical Laboratory.
Vendor Data Review Criteria:
This vendor data package has been reviewed at the Duke Analytical Laboratory for the following applicable criteria:
• Required QC samples collected and analyzed
• Required tests performed for all samples
• Vendor Laboratory utilized required test methods for all analyses
• Vendor Laboratory met all requested Reporting Limits (RL)
• QC Results reviewed for outlying recovery values
Case Narrative:
This is a revised report dated 5/03/2022. At the request of the client, the following
sample IDs were corrected:
Original ID
Corrected ID
AA69
Z69
AB68
AA68
AC67
AB67
R9
R8
S8
R7
S7
S6
V6
U5
T6
T5

RJ LEE GROUP
DELIVERING SCIENTIFIC RESOLUTION
April 21, 2022
Steven Guptill
Duke Energy Analytical Laboratory
13339 Hagers Ferry Rd.
Building 7405, MG30A2
Huntersville, NC 28078
RE: Duke Energy Project — J22040321
RJ Lee Group Project Number AOH1065882-0
Dear Mr. Guptill,
The RJ Lee Group, Inc. Monroeville laboratory received 16 samples on April 19, 2022, associated with
Duke Energy job number J22040321. The samples were logged into RJ Lee Group project number
AOH1065882-0 and assigned RJLG sample numbers as indicated in Appendix A.
The samples were received in good condition with all custody seals in place and intact. Attached in
Appendix A is the signed sample receipt confirmation form, COC, and sample receipt check list.
These results are submitted pursuant to RJ Lee Group's current terms and conditions of sale, including
the company's standard warranty and limitation of liability provisions. No responsibility or liability is
assumed for the manner in which the results are used or interpreted. Unless notified to return the
samples covered in this report, RJ Lee Group will store them for a period of ninety (90) days before
discarding.
Should you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
EVA
"aAn►
Elizabeth A. Fischer
Geologist
Attachments: Chain of Custody Forms
Mineral Identification Report
350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville PA,15146 1 F1 724.325.1776 F 724.733.1799
W W W.RJLG.COM

Appendix A
Chain of Custody Forms
WWW.RJLG.COM

I LEE GRoup
Effective Date: October 2019
Form A FOR.002.5
Chain of Custody
RJ Lee Group Work Order #: AOH1065882-0
Project Name/Case #: Marshall Confirmatory Samples
Page 1 of 2
Received From:
Relinquished To:
Dale Mace
RJI-ee Group, Inc.
Duke Energy
350 Hochberg Road
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
Monroeville, PA 15146 United States
Huntersville, NC 28078 United States
Main: 724-325-1776 Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Main: 980-875-5264 Fax: [phone]
Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Received
10563340
2022010113
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563341
2022010114
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563342
2022010115
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563343
2022010116
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563344
2022010117
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563345
2022010118
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563346
2022010119
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563347
2022010120
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563348
2022010121
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563349
2022010122
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563350
2022010123
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563351
2022010124
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563352
2022010125
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563353
2022010126
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563354
2022010127
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563355
2022010128
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563356
QC_2022010119
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
10563357
QC_2022010126
04/19/2022 9:15 AM EDT
Apr 20, 2022 1:54 PM EDT 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 Page 1 of 2
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Received From: Dale Mace
Method of Shipment: Federal Express
Company: Duke Energy
Date: 04/19/2022
Received By: Linda Marquis
Package Condition Upon Receipt: Sealed
Company: RJ Lee Group, Inc.
Date: 04/19/2022
Relinquished
Method of Shipment:
Company:
Date:
Received By:
Package Condition Upon Receipt:
Company:
Date:
Relinquished
Method of Shipment:
Company:
Date:
Received By:
Package Condition Upon Receipt:
Company:
Date:
Apr 20, 2022 1:54 PM EDT 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 Page 2 of 2
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

RJ Lee Group
Sample Receiptand Log in Check List
}: eR , 4 •'�:
Duke Ener
t�
-'+':.r x.i`�.fV
Date Receiuetl s,:
4/19/2022
y 1'iKih,rif✓_ `
Lo eiribDate4/19/2022
Ti'meReCe ve`d, 2'
E nl4y.
9:15 AM
kp.
Linda uis
Cft
#y
J22040321-841
AOH1065882-0
#`Coolers<•Recerved° k;
1
39 ' rE"
Meansof Sh 110meet. >
PedEX
ArBill ,'3
531818142315
As Received Screen
Yes
No
Comments
Were the Coolers received in good condition?
Was there evidence of tampering?
Are Custody Seals intact and in good condition?
✓
Were Coolers received between 2 and 4 degrees C?
/I
Were all samples intact?
✓
Were all samples accurate) labeled?
Was the COC received in clood condition?
✓
Did the sample ID on COC match the ID on the sample jars?
✓
Were there any discrepancies among samples and COC?
X
See Below
Is the COC completely filled out?
✓
Was the COC relinquished properly?
!✓
List any anomalies associated with Sample Receipt
Both sample #202203.0121 and 202201022 have the collection time as 10:24 on the COC but the time printed on the jar label has 1:24am.
Analyst Signature: 0-Y— ag O
Manager Signature: ����

AZ%4 W CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD AND ANALYSIS REQUEST FORM
---------- ------------- ------3------- *1-�---------------- -----A---n-a--l-y----cal
----------D---u---k--e---E-i--n--e--r--g-y---------- -. .Duke E yA":Analytical Laboratory
--L-a--b-o--r-a-t-o--y---U-s-e---O- -------- -------------------------------
I
Paaof
AnalyticalLaboratory13�39
.,=...:0"
..,— Ferry
!Order atrlx SOLID
,2
Oft—gF-I
NCX
SC
DISTRIBUTION
CIn.,t.'.dy
Sample Log
...... Ok' ..c. Um. 1
;Logged BM. -&,M..
I
AMPL. PROGRAM
ORIGINAL to LAB, COPY to CLIENT
F.X.
ro
a.rd y1.1.1 NPDES
Drinking W,t,,
N.— Marshall Confirmatory Samples PhIne a,:
UST kCi�A West,
CAMA SoNds X
................
................ . . .............
.... ... ........ .. ............
F.. No:
Duke: JIM W1111f. J-1 WW%Iy
S&NE; J.P. R.t,In—
7126"
5" P
Operating Unit: Miles proloot.AROCLIVIS011
Rate. C-nhu To:
0 8(
N...
Business Unit: CCP 1— 1: P—ER11 ale CIdI:
. ..............
—z: z.-o
Container L)
gContai.er
4.
Ty -PG
or...
Customer to complete all appropriate
non•shadeof areas.
Duke Lab Use Only
Sample Location
Collection Info
E'
E
Sampi ID
Date I Time Signature
IL75
)c
AEM 7'-z,5'
AT-0 o",—Lo"
136
A
/I
1;61
4W
)(
x
0) 7-11
X
0-
v U o" - (g
Qv
12'- 2 •
���
— x
"'C
TOTAL
Customer to sign
& date below
n
Iq. y
DatelTI me
166 7-2 /
Accepted By-
—ZM�
T
"a
Requested Turnaround
C4
�Days
Days
Total
RelinquishSoJin
Accepted By,, D*Ilrllll
Relin'q0'sNe—d By DatolTime
Accepted By: Daternme
Sealli-ocked By DatfTim.
S.al.d/Lc.k Op.na"y4'— Oat./Thn.
o
'Other
Add. Cost Will Apply

A-1 UIL41 U la 59Ya--o CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD AND ANALYSIS REQUEST FORM
Duke Energy Duke Energy Analytical Laboratory 1 ! Analytical LaboratoryUse OnlyPage
Analytical Energy
to Mallc a MDOJu (a namg Taos) Order Matrix SOLID
yti ry iJJJe HagaraF rT Rd 1 i0n°"NeijFiani
Chain of Custoda Huma 111a, N. C. —1e ;Logged a Date 6TIma a.nP
Sample Logypoq ns-sras SAMPLE PROGRAM
_ F�e_fTpatne30�e,_, GroU. Wale,_ NPDES_
Protect Name Marshall COnfhmetory Samples Phan- No: ' 'Ventlor •/ UST _ RCRA Waste _
NC X_
sc_
Drinking Wale'_
CAMA Solids X
9 of
DISTRIBUTION
I ORIGINAL to LAB, COPY to CLIENT
obnt Duge: John MetoeM, James Melby Fe. Ne: R, too , Coolel Tam C
SSME: J.P. Rob.d.on
Operating Unit: MS00 Protect: AROCLMS01 Re-P. C-M rTa PG #8531262
Presentative Nona
Business Unit: CCP
—PaP — Mall coda:
Container Volume (mL) 4 oz
stMmn:
Container Type clsae
t
c
Customer to complete all appropriate
0
n•shaded areas. �
U
ae
Duke Lab Use Only
Sample Location
Sam le ID
Collection Information c +
Date Time signature L+ u a
c
F
�6 d
. 2
15
�—
TOTAL
Customer to sign
8 date below
Relinquished
DatelTlme
`[ (
Accepted By . Date Ime
eiZ
a
N 9
n m
c
c
Requested Turnaround
.
14 Days
7 Days
Total
Relinquished ateIT
Accepted By: Datefnme
Relinquished By Daten"Ime
AC a ted By: Daterrime
SBa1lLockad By DatelTime
SealedlLock Opened ByU Daterrime
E
T1
E
Other
Commems
u'
• Add. Cost Will Apply

Appendix B
Mineral Identification Report
WWW.RJLG.COM

RJ LEE GROUP
DELIVERING SCIENTIFIC RESOLUTION
Mineral Identification
Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) Laboratory Report
Steven Guptill
Report Date:
Duke Energy Corporation
Sample Received Date:
04/19/2022
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
RJLG Project:
AOH1065882-0
Huntersville, NC 28078 United States
Customer COC:
J22040321
Email: [e-mail]
Purchase Order:
J22040321 / 8531262
Main: 980-875-3111
Analytical Method:
SOP OPT.023 Determination by PLM
Customer Date Date Area % CCP Other Components
Sample # : RJLG ID Analyzed Collected Comments
2022010113 10563340 04/21/2022 04/14/2022 ND Clay Brownish Yellow Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022010114 10563341 04/21/2022 04/14/2022 NO Clay Brownish Yellow Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Organic Particulate
Quartz
2022010115 10563342 04/21/2022 04/14/2022 ND Amphibole Brownish Yellow Sediment
Clay
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Organic Particulate
Quartz
AOH1065882-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 1 of 5

Customer
Date
Date
Area % CCP Other Components
Sample # :
RJLG ID
Analyzed
Collected
Comments
2022010116
10563343
04/21/2022
04/14/2022
ND Clay Brownish Yellow Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Organic Particulate
Quartz
2022010117
10563344
04/21/2022
04/14/2022
ND Clay Reddish Brown Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022010118
10563345
04/21/2022
04/14/2022
ND Clay Brownish Yellow Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022010119 10563346 04/21/2022 04/15/2022 ND Clay Brownish Yellow Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Quartz
2022010120 10563347 04/21/2022 04/15/2022 ND Clay Brownish Yellow Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
AOH1065882-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 2 of 5

Customer
Date
Date
Area
% CCP Other Components
Sample # :
RJLG ID
Analyzed
Collected
Comments
2022010121
10563348
04/21/2022
04/15/2022
ND
Clay
Brownish Yellow Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022010122
10563349
04/21/2022
04/15/2022
ND
Clay
Reddish Brown Sediment
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022010123
10563350
04/21/2022
04/15/2022
ND
Clay
Reddish Brown Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022010124
10563351
04/21/2022
04/15/2022
ND
Clay
Reddish Brown Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Organic Particulate
Quartz
2022010125
10563352
04/21/2022
04/15/2022
ND
Clay
Reddish Brown Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Organic Particulate
Quartz
AOH1065882-0
350 Hochberg
Road, Monroeville, PA
15146
Phone: [phone] Fax:
[phone] Page 3 of 5

Customer
Date
Date
Area
% CCP Other Components
Sample # :
RJLG ID
Analyzed
Collected
Comments
2022010126
10563353
04/21/2022
04/15/2022
ND
Clay
Reddish Brown Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022010127
10563354
04/21/2022
04/15/2022
ND
Clay
Reddish Yellow Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022010128
10563355
04/21/2022
04/15/2022
ND
Clay
Reddish Yellow Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
QC_2022010119
10563356
04/21/2022
04/15/2022
1%
Clay
Yellowish Red Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
QC_2022010126
10563357
04/21/2022
04/15/2022
ND
Clay
Yellowish Red Sediment
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
Coal
AOH1065882-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 4 of 5

Disclaimer Notes
* Samples will be returned to client immediately upon the release of final report.
* These results are submitted pursuant to RI Lee Group's current terms and conditions of sale, including the company's standard warranty and limitation of liability provisions. No responsibility or liability is assumed for the
manner in which these results are used or interpreted.
* This test report relates to the items tested.
* Any reproduction of this document must include the entire document in order for the report to be valid.
" This report may not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP Lab Code 101208-0 or any agency of the U.S. Government.
* Sample(s) for this project were analyzed at our: Monroeville, PA (AIHA # 100364, NVLAP # 101208-0, NY ELAP # 10884) facility.
* If RI Lee Group, Inc. did not collect the samples analyzed, the verifiability of the laboratory's results is limited to the reported values.
* For the purposes of this method, Coal Combustion Products (CCP) are defined as fly ash, bottom ash, and slag.
`The method reporting level is 1% and anything <1% is considered a not -detected.
Quartz —Angular anisotropic particulate with low relief.
Feldspar —Angular to blocky anisotropic particulate, low to moderate relief, biaxial, can have polysynthetic twinning.
Clay —Sheet silicates with polycrystalline or display non -uniform extinction with low to moderate relief, and zero to low birefringence. Clay also refers to particles that are less than 2.0 microns.
Opaques —Opaque is a generic term for a particle that does not transmit light. Opaque minerals are distinguished from opaque bottom ash based on morphology of fracture.
CCP— Isotropic to opaque spheres, agglomeration of spheres, and angular ash particles.
Organic Particulate— Pollen, plant and insect matter, and carbonaceous matter.
Carbonates — High birefringent, can be rhombohedral, with high relief.
Diatoms —Silica rich isotropic particles with various morphologies.
Mica —Sheet silicate with moderate to high relief and low birefringence, mono -crystalline, and normal extinction.
Miscellaneous Silicate — Isotropic and anisotropic silicates, with low to high relief, identification unsure and beyond the scope of the method to identify.
Amphibole — Elongated anisotropic particulate with moderate to high relief.
Coal — Irregular to angular particles with moderate opacity, edges and thin particles are reddish brown in color.
<1%CCP observed, none counted.
NO — No CCP detected.
AOH1065882-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 5 of 5

.;WA
CHAIN OF CL13TOnY RFrnlZn AIJn AMal Vote 01=nl IIZCT
Duke Energy
Analytical Laboratory a. w. xoo» Iewiw•a..asl i
r«.y na
'•�'•0'�•"OeF^x NCO(- Pa I L
I
IOrder atrls SOLID
„ I
Chain of Custody a x„me�.ni x. c. arml �'
sc_ DISTRIBUTION
leseM Dll
Sonpie Loa nal�reMal
Fa._Mfg
SAMPLE PROGRAM I ORIGINAL to LAB. COPY to CLIENT
_ Cr._.LU
Prslarlxamr �Manlnll Conflmratorysamples m—aa:-� -•
Ground Weler NPDES_ DdMaq Wabr
UST_ RCM WaM_ CAMA Sdtla_E
Weeder
IRJ Lw
ihAa: JMn
Ball: J. RWaNen
I Op—Un• Unx: Mae• ProIM:
AROLLMSDI
R•TC«Mrir.
pr•servatWe
Naea
Butlnne Unit ccP
Container Vdums (mL)
4-
Container Typo
Glna
c
Q
Cuaromer to complete a71 apprapnafe
n•sn•tled cross.
X
Collscdcn Inrormstion
F
Bi
c
Duke
Sample ID
Lab Use Only Sample Location
Vd 9
S
,
r
S
Did.n
alma
S
-
t
X1
x
x,
ai-Acwf
0"-Le"
16
n
i
aJ
211Z
x
2'-Z.•S'
IUi2
X
k
1Wlc
x
3
—
39
8-1
X
x
?y
'L - Z •
X
X
1
to el
, a date Below
TOTAL
ILuseemsr
WllnqulsJ'h•d, B'y, D.MMm•
-r 4l/m
Acupted By: lelTlme
r�
_
n
Requested Turnaround
—_
y4 Days��
Total `/�
R•Unquisbed By O temme
Accepted BY: DeteRNM
�
n °
�-
RelMqulehed BY DetelTime
Accepted`
By-. DeteRlma
c
e o
7 Days
•' j��
SeaVLoclMd BY O.WTlme
seYedlLock Opened BY DaMRInis
E n
: a
o
-
our
Olhar
cesssxm
V
' Add. Cost WIII Apply

.1.a
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD AND ANALYSIS REQUEST FORM
Duke Energy DuIM Energy Maytiul labor Cory i
Mal seal Laboralo ""' I�Noo�a Feena..a noel
Y< ry .ter Ra
Chin of Custody a N,t,.Nm,.iw. w. c. rwn
Sample Lap iRTa.I��WS
Pi.l.et Rsrr. MwM6Confl S.mples iberr Ro:
/IIIKOry
r--�----�1------Analytical Ld m
Uu On "—^--^--------------.
.e...ar..en.e NC x_ Pa9e2 of L
x_ DISTRIBUTION
i ORIGINAL to LAB. COPY to CLIENT
gAYPLE PROGRAM
GmmO WNw NPDES_ Of sarW WMa_
UST_ RCM WNY_ CNM S.W�
Ofder#tie. -I �,. abt, SOLID
l�J'"`�^`�''
iLop♦]•tl ey., wir a 7R..
i �C�
!RJ L••
Coln T• C
D.e•: JOM WtuI. J.a.. uraeY
faeE JUM R.e.d.an
iu Me:
PO.
I
l
Ogrtllea Unll: 10300 Prel.at:
AROCLAISOI
n..p c.rd.r T.:
Pn.ervativ.
Non.
BuYe.st UMt: GCP - W Container Volume (mL)
84tle•.
Container Type
4 UT.
Glass
a
—
LL
2
G.
G.
s
—
_ _—Duke
Sample ID
Lab U" Only Sample Location
Cusromer ro c—PI.I.M appropriate
non-shededdad areas.
Collection
Infonnetien
g$
u' 3
Dttb
Tune
81BnaWn
TOTAL
'L
C—t—, to.—
a d.ta below
RellnquleMtl Mourn—
✓� a-� y_.7 ��
O
Accept.d Deb me
/
e
'u
9
„ L
e
E"
: e`
c
U
Requested Turnaround
14 Dey9�\
7 Days
aner
• Add. Cost will Apply
Total
RallnquleMd By vatem..
Acppt.d By: Deldrima
R.Iinq.I.k.d By betsm—
Aee.pt.d By. Det.Tk—
Sa yl...ked By DN.MM.
S.Md&..k Do-" By DahRbn.
e.•.e.M.

r DUDE Analytical Laboratory
' ENERGY
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078-7929
McGuire Nuclear Complex - MG03A2
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]
Vendor QC Data Review
Summary Report
Order Number:
J22040541
Project Name:
Marshall Confirmatory
Samples
Customer Name(s):
Ashley Healy
Lab Contact:
Steven H. Guptill
Phone: [phone]
Report Authorized By:
(Signature)
/r/
/X
Date: 5/05/2022
A7t&
Program Comments:
Please review all vendor data for case narratives with explanations of quality control failures and data qualifiers.
Any analytical tests or individual analytes within a test flagged with a qualifier indicate a deviation from the method quality
system or quality control requirement. Certified vendor results and QC qualifiers can be found in the vendor lab final report.
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of the Analytical Laboratory.
Vendor Data Review Criteria:
This vendor data package has been reviewed at the Duke Analytical Laboratory for the following applicable criteria:
• Required QC samples collected and analyzed
• Required tests performed for all samples
• Vendor Laboratory utilized required test methods for all analyses
• Vendor Laboratory met all requested Reporting Limits (RL)
• QC Results reviewed for outlying recovery values
Case Narrative:
No QC issues found during vendor QC data review.

RJ LEE GROUP
DELIVERING SCIENTIFIC RESOLUTION
May 5, 2022
Steven Guptill
Duke Energy Analytical Laboratory
13339 Hagers Ferry Rd.
Building 7405, MG30A2
Huntersville, NC 28078
RE: Duke Energy Project—J22040541
RJ Lee Group Project Number AOH1066002-0
Dear Mr. Guptill,
The RJ Lee Group, Inc. Monroeville laboratory received 23 samples on April 29, 2022, associated with
Duke Energy job number J22040541. The samples were logged into RJ Lee Group project number
AOH1066002-0 and assigned RJLG sample numbers as indicated in Appendix A.
The samples were received in good condition with all custody seals in place and intact. Attached in
Appendix A is the signed sample receipt confirmation form, COC, and sample receipt check list.
These results are submitted pursuant to RJ Lee Group's current terms and conditions of sale, including
the company's standard warranty and limitation of liability provisions. No responsibility or liability is
assumed for the manner in which the results are used or interpreted. Unless notified to return the
samples covered in this report, RJ Lee Group will store them for a period of ninety (90) days before
discarding.
Should you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth A. Fischer
Geologist
Attachments: Chain of Custody Forms
Mineral Identification Report
350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville PA,15146 1 P 724.325.1776 F 724.733.1799
W W W.RJLG.COM

Appendix A
Chain of Custody Forms
WWW.RJLG.COM

I LEE GRoup
Effective Date: October 2019
Form A FOR.002.5
Chain of Custody
RJ Lee Group Work Order #: AOH1066002-0
Project Name/Case #: Marshall Confirmatory Samples
Page 1 of 2
Received From:
Relinquished To:
Erin Kinsey
RJLee Group, Inc.
S&ME
350 Hochberg Road
44 Buck Shoals Road
Monroeville, PA 15146 United States
Suite C-3
Main: 724-325-1776 Fax: [phone]
Arden, NC 28704 United States
Email: [e-mail]
Mobile: [phone]
Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Received
10564185
2022011242
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564186
2022011243
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564187
2022011244
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564188
2022011245
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564189
2022011246
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564190
2022011247
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564191
2022011248
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564192
2022011249
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564193
2022011250
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564194
2022011251
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564195
2022011252
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564196
2022011253
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564197
2022011254
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564198
2022011255
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564199
2022011256
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564200
2022011257
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564201
2022011258
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564202
2022011259
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564203
2022011260
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564204
2022011261
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564205
2022011262
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564206
2022011263
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564207
2022011264
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564208
QC01_2022011249
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
10564209
QCO2_2022011261
04/29/2022 4:11 PM EDT
May 02, 2022 8:35 AM EDT 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 Page 1 of 2
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Received From: Erin Kinsey
Method of Shipment: Federal Express
Company: S&ME
Date: 04/29/2022
Received By: Monica Carse
Package Condition Upon Receipt: Sealed
Company: RJ Lee Group, Inc.
Date: 04/29/2022
Relinquished
Method of Shipment:
Company:
Date:
Received By:
Package Condition Upon Receipt:
Company:
Date:
Relinquished
Method of Shipment:
Company:
Date:
Received By:
Package Condition Upon Receipt:
Company:
Date:
May 02, 2022 8:35 AM EDT 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 Page 2 of 2
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

RJ Lee Group
Sample Receipt and Log in Check List
C.Itept��3x
Duke Energy
Aaf�e Recive `
4/29/2022
0_n afe ' _.
5/2/2022
T me @eceiv8�'
4:11 PM
8_. N, �"
Monica Carse
NCO xf
J22040541
AOH1066002-0
oo e`r. 12ecewe
1 Box
Mea �oS'ment !
FedEX
A fBi It<
7767 2027 7940
As Received Screen
Yes
No
Comments
Were the Coolers received in good condition?
Was there evidence of tampering?
Are Custody Seals intact and in good condition?
1�
Were Coolers received between 2 and 4 degrees C?
j
i1
Were all samples intact?
Were all samples accurate) labeled?
Was the COC received in good condition?
Y
Did the sample Don COC match the [Don the sample jars?
Were there any discrepancies among samples and COC?
Is the COC completely filled out?
V,
Was the COC relinquished properly?
List any anomalies associated with Sample Receipt
//9,
C, l4 „ �. C; 5 - O � - 'a aLManager Signature:t/ gl Z(f vz
Analyst Signature: 2-4 %V,(A

/9 /6G!>oo 2-6
rMAIY nC M IWVMV ft—ft .un .u.. --
INd
A,Wyticd Ltlnrtery i Nox Rp_d
't�oyoS
r'��I ar.:....
d
ClrbO.ry \ ,rr..�.aa ar eet Ora — OIOIRWIION
ORgNN.b LAB,COPVbiC1ElIf
.—�L pft u
I, 7iW
hw aum ri 1,41 AMOCL l
_ _ww� !
CaiYYvYalmr(aY.) 4s14
_I—
i Can1�Y,r7yN or
nub Lo Or Oiy t�OpY LoeMbO 0°d""—°�0" x •
Sample ro — Or.
Iwo
Z
I �T,
oqlo
ZS
V 3- O"-e••OILS
5,V,5
7
5'
7iA.
Sys
!
!
I
_
Toriu
!
w w. oy vWir
��iPe qr ". pry�tiA --
�
i
R�UnyuhlW� 0.1.11�
'abtW Dy, Orlllr •--_.
-
Y
$
90a�
.•CHI
�� OrRbr
OPa�!! Obtllr '"
0 .�
0,6
��, r�ev%� 7t7 (/GroO.✓✓ T1 e�d -S�h— L LL
I
-A.KC WMAp*

/90/-1i0LL 00:2-0
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD AND ANALYSIS REOIJE" FORM
DubEnirpy-----
~
P
I�� Yfk 8a✓D �flyniflt� ecx
1 aC_
ll.�y m Tq I•�
C1.b-*bL-G. i x..rEtG eraf
afJL�
ONfR MDk
�,�-:�, �-
Wi L5 x._ �0 30 �,��,
lbw Ii
COPY
oreerceu�uue.caareasrr
.
•W+ oreises�MIR"
roes,
�O-ene41y
lY1l Y---`� lT1.FdtM-9iu
—^
4�
'
G.otlhefl
aL+W
Q
�2`
GT1bee-rb mm�iWfi�p-pib
r+umob �
a
Ddro
c.rn.-wwwri
,_
pw
7b.
- w n
Sample D
P
zS
t$_y �. L.2.5\12
094
S
✓
E
I
zz
..._
1-I-�-��
1�
ALA "- ••
4-
rm
5
✓
:
t
40e-a=a.5•
_
gS
✓
I
i
t
/A{�t^ _ M
G
2.6
-D V .5`
i
t~
TmAL
a -.ev al n tlllf W
Rfiga6lYdey u WYITOr
Aw1Pbd Blr. DdwTbm
�
'Ya".ddTUMW*U d
Targl
_-w . �i-pose-sr.
_...._. — ----- —
E
I
DMWTW?
oi�l„s
14Dp_�
Mi-/iYday owdrmf
Attbldor yblikr .�.
--nrr>v
E
A
a
-Tom
•4a1#
s.wtock.d iy
ur.dn.acer.:+ar c++n-.
.r
x
APPA'

Appendix B
Mineral Identification Report
WWW.RJLG.COM

RJ LEE GROUP Mineral Identification
DELIVERING SCIENTIFIC RESOLUTION Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) Laboratory Report
Steven Guptill
Report Date:
05/05/2022
Duke Energy Corporation
Sample Received Date:
04/29/2022
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
RJLG Project:
AOH1066002-0
Huntersville, NC 28078 United States
Customer COC:
J22040541
Email: [e-mail]
Purchase Order:
J22040541 / 8531262
Main: 980-875-3111
Analytical Method:
SOP OPT.023 Determination by PLM
Customer Date Date Area % CCP Other Components
Sample # : RJLG ID Analyzed Collected Comments
2022011242 10564185 05/03/2022 09/19/2022 1% Mica Light Brown Sediment
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022011243 10564186 05/03/2022 04/19/2022 ND Feldspar Grey Sediment
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022011244 10564187 05/03/2022 04/20/2022 ND Clay Yellowish Red Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022011245 10564188 05/03/2022 04/20/2022 ND Clay Yellowish Red Sediment
Feldspar
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
AOH1066002-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 1 of 5

Customer
Date
Date
Area
% CCP Other Components
Sample # :
RJLG ID
Analyzed
Collected
Comments
2022011246
10564189
05/03/2022
04/20/2022
ND
Clay
Red Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022011247
10564190
05/05/2022
04/20/2022
2%
Feldspar
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011248
10564191
05/05/2022
04/20/2022
1%
Feldspar
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011249
10564192
05/05/2022
04/20/2022
ND
Feldspar
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011250
10564193
05/05/2022
04/22/2022
ND
Mica
Tan Sediment.
Opaques
Quartz
2022011251
10564194
05/05/2022
04/22/2022
ND
Feldspar
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011252
10564195
05/05/2022
04/22/2022
ND
Clay
Red Sediment
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
AOH1066002-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 2 of 5

Customer
Date
Date
Area
% CCP Other Components
Sample # :
RJLG ID
Analyzed
Collected
Comments
2022011253
10564196
05/05/2022
04/22/2022
ND
Clay
Yellowish Red Sediment
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022011254
10564197
05/05/2022
04/22/2022
ND
Clay
Brawn Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Organic Particulate
Quartz
2022011255
10564198
05/05/2022
04/22/2022
ND
Clay
Red Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022011256
10564199
05/05/2022
04/22/2022
ND
Clay
Yellowish Red Sediment
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022011257
10564200
05/05/2022
04/22/2022
ND
Mica
Tan Sediment.
Opaques
Quartz
2022011258
10564201
05/05/2022
04/22/2022
2%
Feldspar
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011259
10564202
05/05/2022
04/22/2022
1%
Mica
Tan Sediment.
Opaques
Quartz
AOH1066002-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 3 of 5

Customer
Date
Date
Area
% CCP Other Components
Sample # :
RJLG ID
Analyzed
Collected
Comments
2022011260
10564203
05/05/2022
04/27/2022
8%
Feldspar
Gray Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
Coal
2022011261
10564204
05/05/2022
04/27/2022
8%
Feldspar
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
Coal
2022011262
10564205
05/05/2022
04/27/2022
ND
Mica
Dark Brown Sediment
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022011263
10564206
05/05/2022
04/27/2022
ND
Clay
Pale Reddish Yellow Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
2022011264
10564207
05/05/2022
04/27/2022
ND
Clay
Pale Brown Sediment
Feldspar
Mica
Misc. Silicates
Opaques
Quartz
QC01_2022011249
10564208
05/05/2022
04/20/2022
ND
NA
Reddish Yellow Sediment
QCO2_2022011261
10564209
05/05/2022
04/27/2022
5%
NA
Yellowish Red Sediment
AOH1066002-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 4 of 5

Disclaimer Notes
* Samples will be returned to client immediately upon the release of final report.
* These results are submitted pursuant to RI Lee Group's current terms and conditions of sale, including the company's standard warranty and limitation of liability provisions. No responsibility or liability is assumed for the
manner in which these results are used or interpreted.
* This test report relates to the items tested.
* Any reproduction of this document must include the entire document in order for the report to be valid.
" This report may not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP Lab Code 101208-0 or any agency of the U.S. Government.
* Sample(s) for this project were analyzed at our: Monroeville, PA (AIHA # 100364, NVLAP # 101208-0, NY ELAP # 10884) facility.
* If RI Lee Group, Inc. did not collect the samples analyzed, the verifiability of the laboratory's results is limited to the reported values.
* For the purposes of this method, Coal Combustion Products (CCP) are defined as fly ash, bottom ash, and slag.
`The method reporting level is 1% and anything <1% is considered a not -detected.
Quartz —Angular anisotropic particulate with low relief.
Feldspar —Angular to blocky anisotropic particulate, low to moderate relief, biaxial, can have polysynthetic twinning.
Clay —Sheet silicates with polycrystalline or display non -uniform extinction with low to moderate relief, and zero to low birefringence. Clay also refers to particles that are less than 2.0 microns.
Opaques —Opaque is a generic term for a particle that does not transmit light. Opaque minerals are distinguished from opaque bottom ash based on morphology of fracture.
CCP— Isotropic to opaque spheres, agglomeration of spheres, and angular ash particles.
Organic Particulate— Pollen, plant and insect matter, and carbonaceous matter.
Carbonates — High birefringent, can be rhombohedral, with high relief.
Diatoms —Silica rich isotropic particles with various morphologies.
Mica —Sheet silicate with moderate to high relief and low birefringence, mono -crystalline, and normal extinction.
Miscellaneous Silicate — Isotropic and anisotropic silicates, with low to high relief, identification unsure and beyond the scope of the method to identify.
Amphibole — Elongated anisotropic particulate with moderate to high relief.
Coal — Irregular to angular particles with moderate opacity, edges and thin particles are reddish brown in color.
<1%CCP observed, none counted.
NO — No CCP detected.
AOH1066002-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 5 of 5

CHAIN OF CIISTnny Rprrmn elan abtal vats ocnuecr cn _
DukeE1esr9Y 1ado" ar-.h,&d ery
4WBd4k ama�
a•"w�°_...__ t o "•emu
"
__ U.�h_.._.A_.. --.
o � -.
«uc m y s. ca�v m c�xr
_ _.._._e
�toyonl aroma
l 2L l v 3 a z c.,00
p
-...=7,w-
sraw�r.ktta�•�r' 4 j aw.
•Iw++vyau4btttfi j
' BUNnn•IW EEr
uay,ar
� ---
Ca7B11emr11Bpats
—_
4=
K
4
=
.lab Uk 0,,j,npte
SBilyfN larrMkll
CV♦t0evbcaglWY�p
IIBRITh�dni,
We
ID
L�M�nuOSB
¢ �
Wtt
Tir
µ 9 mJar
ZvLLu
ft L; a1,- O"-"
��
3op5
r
f.
t
LiD
�i -cm"-cam•`
y22-'
S
f
M251SR-5
1
r
I
157,
1
R�Bn4WMtlb �DddUr
71 E I
13
R-wmsI
tMTu+romtl
14 OWS
-7 pays
•48W_ X
- �wMAP*
TaM
R•IMqui h d®y-r41— tYlYlt�t
QmtM1yt lhYilYr
Na-IR.od dJ�r Oifn
NAM•dltatk Opa/q� p�yllq
�„ - +�c��r 7fzl V eo+�✓✓ -�- {fie �i c�� -sh— L LZ

CHAIM Pig LYIRTnny QCremn. AYn AYAm ve m ecru icca cn -
Dtdw nit �oid■�.erN+hn�art+ear.eq.r
ArnbikW
ii
.-p.L.o
,
~ ,m.wQ...
�.� n.c ems
p"
---.-- --
__ -___-,
! �IREKffl Y
". _.—_ ORWumue.carvhlm
iIIR " RCRllgYab_ GNfA9oii� (�'� 9a'
qq�_
JLZSO
to 30
Ra Lw
.�vusrN ronaNq �r�.T""
�
�
rwuw mcaw YiM;raMw �. ,_.�
��
arcs
o
o.
Zz 0
1125rG
1. "
N-.; -
z
U0,:- a.s•
! -21(9
�v�
- ,_�•5,102AZ
00
s
��ar n.rnr.
RslMquu®y OYYn#
_.
z�e+Wa.r r+rrn..
Amp`!gp �.-. - -
6
e
E
a
E
�c
14 Dmp
•7M
,-<----.-,"�...
FU X
•OIMer
•wac�w�uaaY
RaSiBy OYYllgr
6+•Uiach.d� EaYnr.
AdaMddtfr:
«rrxwtov..+er
�/ /�
-,It 4l " e-e � �. r -C�� e l� -$tt, -
Etrr
TOWN]

r DUDE Analytical Laboratory
' ENERGY
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078-7929
McGuire Nuclear Complex - MG03A2
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]
Vendor QC Data Review
Summary Report
Order Number:
J22050114
Project Name:
Marshall Confirmatory
Samples
Customer Name(s):
Ashley Healy
Lab Contact:
Steven H. Guptill
Phone: [phone]
Report Authorized By:
! (/�.
Date: 5/10/2022
(Signature)
///��
Program Comments:
Please review all vendor data for case narratives with explanations of quality control failures and data qualifiers.
Any analytical tests or individual analytes within a test flagged with a qualifier indicate a deviation from the method quality
system or quality control requirement. Certified vendor results and QC qualifiers can be found in the vendor lab final report.
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of the Analytical Laboratory.
Vendor Data Review Criteria:
This vendor data package has been reviewed at the Duke Analytical Laboratory for the following applicable criteria:
• Required QC samples collected and analyzed
• Required tests performed for all samples
• Vendor Laboratory utilized required test methods for all analyses
• Vendor Laboratory met all requested Reporting Limits (RL)
• QC Results reviewed for outlying recovery values
Case Narrative:
No QC issues found during vendor QC data review.

(� RJ LEE GROUP
DELIVERING SCIENTIFIC RESOLUTION
May 9, 2022
Steven Guptill
Duke Energy Analytical Laboratory
13339 Hagers Ferry Rd.
Building 7405, MG30A2
Huntersville, NC 28078
RE: Duke Energy Project — J22050114
RJ Lee Group Project Number AOH1066054-0
Dear Mr. Guptill,
The RJ Lee Group, Inc. Monroeville laboratory received 20 samples on May 5, 2022, associated with
Duke Energy job number J22050114. The samples were logged into RJ Lee Group project number
AOH1066054-0 and assigned RJLG sample numbers as indicated in Appendix A.
The samples were received in good condition with all custody seals in place and intact. Attached in
Appendix A is the signed sample receipt confirmation form, COC, and sample receipt check list.
These results are submitted pursuant to RJ Lee Group's current terms and conditions of sale, including
the company's standard warranty and limitation of liability provisions. No responsibility or liability is
assumed for the manner in which the results are used or interpreted. Unless notified to return the
samples covered in this report, RJ Lee Group will store them for a period of ninety (90) days before
discarding.
Should you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
fi 0� J-�, Al��
Elizabeth A. Fischer
Geologist
Attachments: Chain of Custody Forms
Mineral Identification Report
350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville PA,15146 1 P 724.325.1776 F 724.733.1799
WWW.RJLG.COM

Appendix A
Chain of Custody Forms
WWW.RJLG.COM

I LEE GRoup
Effective Date: October 2019
Form A FOR.002.5
Chain of Custody
RJ Lee Group Work Order #: AOH1066054-0
Project Name/Case #: Marshall Confirmatory Samples
Page 1 of 2
Received From:
Relinquished To:
Dale Mace
RJI-ee Group, Inc.
Duke Energy
350 Hochberg Road
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
Monroeville, PA 15146 United States
Huntersville, NC 28078 United States
Main: 724-325-1776 Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Main: 980-875-5264 Fax: [phone]
Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Received
10564401
2022011833
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564402
2022011834
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564403
2022011835
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564404
2022011836
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564405
2022011837
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564406
2022011838
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564407
2022011839
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564408
2022011840
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564409
2022011841
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564410
2022011842
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564411
2022011843
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564412
2022011844
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564413
2022011845
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564414
2022011846
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564415
2022011847
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564416
2022011848
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564417
2022011849
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564418
2022011850
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564419
2022011851
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564420
2022011852
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564421
QC01_2022011840
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
10564422
QCO2_2022011849
05/05/2022 8:47 AM EDT
May 05, 2022 9:47 AM EDT 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 Page 1 of 2
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Received From: Dale Mace
Method of Shipment: Federal Express
Company: Duke Energy
Date: 05/05/2022
Received By: Monica Carse
Package Condition Upon Receipt: Sealed
Company: RJ Lee Group, Inc.
Date: 05/05/2022
Relinquished
Method of Shipment:
Company:
Date:
Received By:
Package Condition Upon Receipt:
Company:
Date:
Relinquished
Method of Shipment:
Company:
Date:
Received By:
Package Condition Upon Receipt:
Company:
Date:
May 05, 2022 9:47 AM EDT 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 Page 2 of 2
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

RJ Lee Group
Sample Receipt and Log in Check List
Gl en a
Duke Energy
DaY�e F ece v®d
5/5/2022
5/5/2022
qs
Time Receiared�,
8:47 AM
ys}
�.esd,%aSd t
S, to .#ae
Monica Carse
V-9-W-1 } �
Corr#,.�
J22050114
P%o ecYiu
AOH1066054-0
#oolersa2eceietltt
1
�a so Sfi p edit
FedEX
/kiC BilF�{
5726 0177 1718
As Received Screen
Yes
No
Comments
Were the Coolers received in good condition?
✓
Was there evidence of tampering?
Are Custody Seals intact and in good condition?
Were Coolers received between 2 and 4 degrees C?
n/
Were all samples intact?
Were all samples accurate) labeled?
Was the COC received in good condition?
Did the sample ID on COC match the ID on the sample jars?
✓
Were there any discrepancies among samples and COC?
Is the COC completely filled out?
Was the COC relinquished properly?
b�
List any anomalies associated with Sample Receipt
Analyst Signature: `%� Z C' + o O 6- 0 6 a"A
Manager Signature: os u a'Z

19c 61/'6,4)51-()
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD AND ANALYSIS REQUEST FORM
Duke Energy
Analytical Laboratory
YN ry
Duke Energy Analytical Laboratory
Mwltea. MfAxnx tseiim,e Tea61
lxeee Nye•Fe, Rd
I IcellaboratoryU..Only--..
Page I Of
DISTRIBUTION
Ordr# D/,J, Matrl SOLID
7
e�w�o�wFm Nc_X_
Chain of Custody a
Nnebo•M•, N. c. xeora
(reeletssxes
ORIGINAL to LAB, COPY to CLIENT
Logged ate a rye
Sample Log
—0e�676-NU
S I n_V_
Z Z
SAMPLE PROGRAM
Ground Waler NPDES_ gWafa_
U5T_ RCRA Wade_ AMA SdideX
_ _
Pr•l•crN— Marshall Confirmatory Samples
p
Ph-.N.
Venda
RJ Lee
5 u •1' 5�3�^'D
CooNr long ICI
gek•: John M1"t Jsmss Maroy
eaME: Jues ROMrbon
Fv No:
PO N
Operating Unit: MS00 pmlect:
AROCLMS01
Rssp.CseerTo:
Preservative
-'
Nana
Busfness Unit CCP b . PIU T a"Cod•:
Container Volume (mL)
4 oz
e .a•n:
Container Type
Glass
P
9
Customer to complete all appropriate
non -shaded areas.
it
ti
Collection Information
ti
Duke
Lab Use Only
y
Sample Location
�
D
e
Date
Time
Signature
Sam le ID
u
a
oZZo
1119 ZZ
V-%/
-tir
v
I
Z 2-'2- '
1li
G "
C6
l fr G
c
h a
LV
0(
?
S R 0 =' u"
i
d
U
K
0= 9 "
Iy10
'- Z -
i
I P -7
Z 2,
N`f"f
TOTAL
V
I
Customer to
sign 8 date below
Relinqulshetl By DRWTlme
Acce ed By: OatelTime
Requested Turnaround
Tofal
�
Rel� ul Data?Imerca
grad By: me
C
1=
14 Days
S
S Z G
a
Rel qulahed Bit,L-Cv / II �/ Date/Time
Accepted By: Dete/Time
E
'7 Days
jry
SeallLocked By DatWTfine
SealedfLock Opened By Date/Time
� �
o
48 Hr X
'Other
Comm•nb
�/ �+
l if 4- sue•
'Add. Cost W III Appty
�, n ♦/ y (� G ( T
z L

,�90 // 16 6 6 0,Jrq - 6
CHAIN _ _ _ OF CUSTODY RECORD ANALYSIS REQUEST FORM pp
AMMMAMMwokwu cot,
Andyticat Laboratory ��.Gwm !== I :L pap—, or
eAM
chdn or Cudmv a DISTRIBUTM
LM 0R*0M to LAS. COPY i. WENT
Z
IUL- ClM�aallP x
W—Ow-
4vu
abra
n-w-ha*dww&c
Duke Lmbumoo* smwk - It
le ID . lif
I �A
Z02-20 (.0%, 4-�*22 A-11.1
qq 5
t
-14<� yj
14, jai !Se4
TOTAL
SmtL-... h.i..
.'L. 11'�:.: .i »�. "i:a.�1�!`_. ("LO� /'7, :��!���'CQ ��`'/.:tFid �'�3d vu..T,��
Lek,
14 Da"
Dalmnlims
Dalaft-
*Olkw-
-M&COMWIlApply

Appendix B
Mineral Identification Report
WWW.RJLG.COM

RJ LEE GROUP Mineral Identification
DELIVERING SCIENTIFIC RESOLUTION Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) Laboratory Report
Steven Guptill
Report Date:
05/09/2022
Duke Energy Corporation
Sample Received Date:
05/05/2022
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
RJLG Project:
AOH1066054-0
Huntersville, NC 28078 United States
Customer COC:
J22050114
Email: [e-mail]
Purchase Order:
J22050114 / 8531262
Main: 980-875-3111
Analytical Method:
SOP OPT.023 Determination by PLM
Customer
Date
Date
Area
% CCP Other Components
Sample # :
RJLG ID
Analyzed
Collected
Comments
2022011833
10564401
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
ND
Mica
Tan Sediment.
Opaques
Quartz
2022011834
10564402
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
1%
Clay
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011835
10564403
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
ND
Clay
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011836
10564404
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
ND
Clay
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011837
10564405
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
NO
Clay
Tan Sediment.
Feldspar
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
AOH1066054-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 1 of 4

Customer
Date
Date
Area
% CCP Other Components
Sample # :
RJLG ID
Analyzed
Collected
Comments
2022011838
10564406
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
ND
Mica
Tan Sediment.
Opaques
Quartz
2022011839
10564407
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
ND
Clay
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011840
10564408
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
ND
Clay
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011841
10564409
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
19%
Mica
Gray Sediment.
Opaques
Quartz
2022011842
10564410
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
2%
Clay
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011843
10564411
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
20%
Mica
Gray Sediment.
Opaques
Quartz
2022011844
10564412
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
2%
Clay
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011845
10564413
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
1%
Mica
Tan Sediment.
Opaques
Quartz
2022011846
10564414
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
17%
Mica
Gray Sediment.
Opaques
Quartz
AOH1066054-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 2 of 4

Customer
Date
Date
Area
% CCP Other Components
Sample # :
RJLG ID
Analyzed
Collected
Comments
2022011847
10564415
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
2%
Mica
Tan Sediment.
Opaques
Quartz
2022011848
10564416
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
ND
Clay
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011849
10564417
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
ND
Clay
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011850
10564418
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
1%
Clay
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011851
10564419
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
ND
Clay
Tan Sediment.
Mica
Opaques
Quartz
2022011852
10564420
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
14%
Mica
Gray Sediment.
Opaques
Quartz
QC01_2022011840
10564421
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
ND
NA
Brown Sediment
QCO2_2022011849
10564422
05/09/2022
04/29/2022
1%
NA
Brown Sediment
AOH1066054-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 3 of 4

Disclaimer Notes
* Samples will be returned to client immediately upon the release of final report.
* These results are submitted pursuant to RI Lee Group's current terms and conditions of sale, including the company's standard warranty and limitation of liability provisions. No responsibility or liability is assumed for the
manner in which these results are used or interpreted.
* This test report relates to the items tested.
* Any reproduction of this document must include the entire document in order for the report to be valid.
" This report may not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP Lab Code 101208-0 or any agency of the U.S. Government.
* Sample(s) for this project were analyzed at our: Monroeville, PA (AIHA # 100364, NVLAP # 101208-0, NY ELAP # 10884) facility.
* If RI Lee Group, Inc. did not collect the samples analyzed, the verifiability of the laboratory's results is limited to the reported values.
* For the purposes of this method, Coal Combustion Products (CCP) are defined as fly ash, bottom ash, and slag.
`The method reporting level is 1% and anything <1% is considered a not -detected.
Quartz —Angular anisotropic particulate with low relief.
Feldspar —Angular to blocky anisotropic particulate, low to moderate relief, biaxial, can have polysynthetic twinning.
Clay —Sheet silicates with polycrystalline or display non -uniform extinction with low to moderate relief, and zero to low birefringence. Clay also refers to particles that are less than 2.0 microns.
Opaques —Opaque is a generic term for a particle that does not transmit light. Opaque minerals are distinguished from opaque bottom ash based on morphology of fracture.
CCP— Isotropic to opaque spheres, agglomeration of spheres, and angular ash particles.
Organic Particulate— Pollen, plant and insect matter, and carbonaceous matter.
Carbonates — High birefringent, can be rhombohedral, with high relief.
Diatoms —Silica rich isotropic particles with various morphologies.
Mica —Sheet silicate with moderate to high relief and low birefringence, mono -crystalline, and normal extinction.
Miscellaneous Silicate — Isotropic and anisotropic silicates, with low to high relief, identification unsure and beyond the scope of the method to identify.
Amphibole — Elongated anisotropic particulate with moderate to high relief.
Coal — Irregular to angular particles with moderate opacity, edges and thin particles are reddish brown in color.
<1%CCP observed, none counted.
NO — No CCP detected.
AOH1066054-0 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 1 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Page 4 of 4