NC0038377_Mayo_Appendix F_20191231

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

,61p
synTerra
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
10660 BOSTON ROAD
ROXBORO, NC 27573
DECEMBER 2019
PREPARED FOR
DUKE
ENERGY
PROGRESS
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS,, LLC
Peggy Altman
Project Geologist
e�f� /I /Z�-
Jerry ylie, N 1425
Proje anager

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

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

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
LIST OF ACRONYMS
02L
North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapter 02L,
Groundwater Classification and Standards
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials
bgs
below ground surface
CAP
Corrective Action Plan
Core Labs
Core Laboratories
COI
Constituent of Interest
CSA
Comprehensive Site Assessment
Duke Energy
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
en
hydraulic aperture
FLASH
Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes
g
acceleration due to gravity
g
gram
g/cm3
grams per cubic centimeter
GEL
GEL Solutions
HPF
heat pulse flowmeter
IMP
Interim Monitoring Plan
Ka
distribution coefficient
Mayo
Mayo Steam Electric Plant
µ
viscosity of water
µg/L
micrograms per liter
µm
microns
mm
millimeters
n
number of individual fractures in a flow layer
NCAC
North Carolina Administrative Code
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NTU
nephelometric turbidity unit
pW
density of water
PVC
polyvinyl chloride
Q
flow rate
ro
radius of influence
rW
radius of borehole
s
well drawdown
Site
Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Page iii

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
LIST OF ACRONYMS (CONTINUED)
SP
spontaneous potential
SPR
single point resistance
T
transmissivity
TD
total depth
USGS
United States Geological Survey
SynTerra
Page iv

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report provides a detailed characterization of bedrock near the ash basin dam at
the Mayo Steam Electric Plant (Mayo or Site). The characterization is based on
additional evaluation of lineaments, the bedrock fracture system, and the bedrock
matrix. The information in this report supplements information presented in the
Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) Update (SynTerra, 2017).
Page 1-1

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
2.0 LINEAMENT EVALUATION
To supplement the CSA bedrock characterization and support the CAP for the ash basin
at Mayo, SynTerra evaluated lineaments in the vicinity of the ash basin. Lineaments are
linear features at ground surface that might have resulted from underlying bedrock
fractures, fracture zones, faults, or other geologic structures. Lineaments represent the
approximate area of possible preferential groundwater flow zones in the bedrock.
2.1 Imagery Selection
Aerial imagery and topographic information used for the lineament evaluation met the
following criteria:
• The scale and resolution are sufficiently detailed to identify apparent linear
features not caused by anthropogenic activity.
• The aerial image (1951 aerial) and topographic map (1968) used for the
evaluation predated ash basin construction in 1983.
Details pertaining to the aerial image and selected topographic map include:
• Topographic map - The 1968 Cluster Springs VA -NC Quadrangle 7.5 Minute
Series was obtained from the USGS website at http://store.usgs.gov (Figure 1A).
The scale is 1:24,000.
• Aerial photograph- The March 22, 1951, photograph was obtained from the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Explorer website at
http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov (Figure 2A).
2.2 Lineament Selection and Summary
As provided by USGS (Clark et al., 2016), the features used to identify the lineaments for
this evaluation include:
• Linear topographic features
• Straight stream segments
• Aligned gaps in ridges
• Vegetation
Areas near the Mayo ash basin south of the North Carolina -Virginia state line, north of
Bethel Hill, NC, and west of US Highway 501, were visually reviewed to identify linear
features. The selected aerial photograph and topographic map were evaluated
separately.
Page 2-1

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Lineaments identified on the 1968 topographic survey map are presented in Figure 1B,
and lineaments identified on the 1951 aerial photograph are presented on Figure 2B.
Lineament orientations from each image have been summarized using a 360-degree
compass rose diagram to identify general trends.
Observations from the aerial photograph and topographic map are summarized as
follows:
1951 USGS Aerial Photograph
• Thirteen (13) linear features were identified.
• No trend in orientation was observed.
1968 Topographic Survey
• Nineteen (19) linear features, with a wide range of orientations, and that
generally align with topographic expressions of the valleys of the Crutchfield
Branch stream system, were identified.
• A predominant lineament group, oriented north-northeast and south-southwest,
was interpreted; 58 percent of the lineaments appear between azimuths of 355
degrees and 62 degrees.
• The remaining 31 percent of the interpreted lineaments cross -cut the
predominant set and present a wide range of orientations.
There is general agreement on 10 linear features identified with the topographic survey
and aerial photograph (or more than 50 percent).
These data indicate a weak trend lineament orientation of north-south/northeast-
southwest, with relatively fewer cross -cutting lineaments of various orientations.
Page 2-2

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
3.0 DEEP BEDROCK EVALUATION FIELD PROCEDURES
AND IMPLEMENTATION
3.1 Purpose
To refine the ash basin Site conceptual model and further improve the groundwater
model being prepared for the CAP, additional bedrock wells have been installed
adjacent to the ash basin dam in the area of impacts downgradient of the ash basin. The
locations selected for additional bedrock evaluation are presented on Figure 3. The
scope of work described in the following text was implemented to evaluate deep
bedrock groundwater quality near the dam and to further refine the understanding of
the bedrock fracture system and hydraulic properties in the area.
3.2 Drilling Methodology and Well Design
Monitoring wells were installed in accordance with 15A North Carolina Administrative
Code (NCAC) 02C .0108 Standards of Construction: Wells Other Than Water Supply. Prior to
the start of drilling activities, subsurface utility scans were conducted in the area of the
proposed borings. Geologic Exploration conducted drilling under contract with Duke
Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy). Boring advancement and well design/installation
were similar for all deep bedrock evaluation locations.
The air rotary drilling method was used to drill through unconsolidated material to the
top of competent rock at each location. These borings measured 10 inches in diameter.
A permanent 8-inch diameter, schedule 80 flush -joint threaded polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) outer casing was installed into competent rock. The casing was fitted with a
grout shoe seated into the top of rock and tremie-grouted into place. Any casings that
exceeded 100 feet were grouted in at least two lifts with approximately 80 feet per lift.
After the grout cured (at least 24 hours), air hammer drilling was resumed to advance
boring through the 8-inch casing to a target depth. The target depth was approximately
30 feet below the screen interval of the deepest adjacent monitoring well where
constituents of interest (COIs) were detected at concentrations greater than standards in
North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapter 02L, Groundwater Classification
and Standards (02L). Once the boring reached its target depth, a 6-inch diameter,
schedule 80 flush -joint threaded PVC casing was installed and tremie-grouted into
place. Any casings that exceeded 100 feet were grouted in at least two lifts with
approximately 80 feet per lift. Once grout curing was complete (at least 24 hours), the
borings were advanced to total depths (TD) of 352 feet below ground surface (bgs)
(MW-103BRL), 250 feet bgs (MW-104BRL and MW-105 BRL), and 302 feet bgs (MW-
107BRL). Target TD intervals were initially determined by data needs for flow and
transport model calibration of vertical impact predictions and refined in the field based
on observations during drilling.
Page 3-1

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
During the air rotary boring advancement below the 6-inch PVC casing, the field
SynTerra
geologist noted potential fractures based on driller and drill rig observations. Estimated
yield of water -bearing zones was determined through downhole circulation after each
10-foot run. On identifying a potential water -bearing fracture or fracture zone, a sample
was collected by air -lifting formation water from the borehole. The sample was
screened for boron with a Hach TNT877 spectrophotometer. Samples were field -filtered
with a 0.45 micron (µm) filter to reduce influence of turbidity (i.e., suspended solids) on
screening results. The Hach TNT877 test kit detects boron concentrations from 50
micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 2,500 µg/L. The presence or absence of boron at depth is
significant for refining groundwater model assumptions, and the 02L standard for
boron (700 µg/L) was considered during well design. Field boron screening results
indicated that boron was not detected at concentrations greater than 700 µg/L at any of
the fractures observed during drilling in all borehole locations. Borings continued until
reaching the target TD.
When reaching TD at each location and prior to well construction, geophysical logging
was conducted using the following downhole tools: acoustic televiewer, optical
televiewer, caliper, fluid conductivity, fluid temperature, single point resistance (SPR),
spontaneous potential (SP), and heat pulse flowmeter (HPF).
Screen intervals for the wells were set to capture the deepest water -bearing fracture
zone observed during geophysical logging. Additionally, a second borehole was drilled
at each location to target water -bearing fracture zones identified during geophysical
logging located at depths approximately in the middle of each logged borehole. During
drilling of each middle zone borehole, permanent 6-inch schedule 80 flush -joint
threaded PVC surface casings were installed at depths that cased off the deepest
fracture(s) observed above the target fracture zone for each borehole. Once grout curing
was complete (at least 24 hours), borings were advanced via air rotary through the 6-
inch casing to the target TDs of 242 feet bgs (MW-103BRM), 180 feet bgs (MW-104BRM),
125 feet bgs (MW-105BRM), and 193 feet bgs (MW-107BRM).
Each well consists of a 2-inch-inner-diameter schedule 40 flush -joint threaded 10-foot
screen coupled with a 5-foot screen for a total screen length of 15 feet. Screens have
0.010-inch-wide slots and were packed in the field with a No. 2 filter pack. The annular
space between the borehole wall/inner casing and prepacked well screens for each of
the wells was also filled with No. 2 filter pack. The sand pack extends a minimum of 2
feet to 3 feet above the top of the prepacked screen at each well. The well seal is
composed of a minimum of 3 feet of coated pelletized bentonite.
Portland cement grout was used for the remainder of annular space into the outer
casing where present, and within the outer casing to fill the remaining annular space to
Page 3-2

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
ground surface. If the unsaturated annulus exceeded 100 feet in length, grouting was
conducted in lifts of approximately 80 feet at a time.
Monitoring wells were completed with aboveground steel protective casings with
locking caps and well tags. The protective covers were secured and completed in a
concrete collar and a minimum 2-square-foot concrete pad with bollards. The geologic
logs and well installation details are provided in Attachment A.
3.3 Well Development
Shortly after installation, deep bedrock monitoring wells that had sufficient water
volumes were developed via submersible pumps. The drilling contractor conducted the
initial 2-hour pre -developments. The drilling contractor was unable to record
monitoring parameters (e.g., conductivity, pH, temperature) during initial development.
SynTerra performed successive developments until monitoring parameters stabilized
and turbidity was measured at acceptable levels (10 nephelometric turbidity units
(NTUs) or less). The low yield from the majority of the eight wells required a prolonged
well development process. Wells MW-103BRM and MW-107BRM did not yield
sufficient water for development or sampling and were subsequently designated as
piezometers only.
3.4 Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements
Slug tests were conducted at each screened interval after well completion. Because of
the low yield of the wells, a single rising head slug test was conducted at seven of the
eight deep bedrock wells. Multiple tests were conducted at MW-104BRL. Artesian
conditions are present at MW-104BRL and MW-104BRM; therefore, only rising head
tests could be completed at these locations. The artesian conditions are expected given
that the wells are located immediately downgradient of the dam. Slug testing was
performed in compliance with standards and policy, including the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards and North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) policy.
3.5 Deep Bedrock Groundwater Sampling
After well installation, development, and slug testing, groundwater was sampled at
each well for laboratory analysis [and in accordance with the approved Interim
Monitoring Plan (IMP)]. The wells were sampled after water quality parameters
stabilized (Duke Energy, 2015).
Six of the eight wells produce enough water to collect sufficient volume for a full IMP
parameter analysis. Two wells (MW-103BRM and MW-107BRM) were sampled using a
HydraSleeveTM and analyzed for boron only. Analytical results indicate boron
concentrations less than the lab reporting limit (50 µg/L) at six of the eight wells. The
Page 3-3

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
boron concentrations for two locations were moderately greater than the method
reporting limit - 68 µg/L at MW-107BRL and 83 µg/L at MW-107BRM. Analytical
results for the eight deep bedrock wells are presented in Table 1.
Page 3-4

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
4.0 BEDROCK FRACTURE EVALUATION
Deep bedrock borehole logging data were used to characterize depths of flow zones to
set targets for monitoring well screen placement, hydraulic conductivity, the hydraulic
apertures of fractures and fracture spacing, and the in -situ orientations of bedrock
fractures. These evaluations provide a comprehensive assessment of the bedrock
fracture system in support of the CAP.
4.1 Flow Profile Characterization
FLASH (Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes), a computer program developed by the
USGS, uses HPF data for ambient and pumping conditions to estimate transmissivity
profiles along single boreholes (Day -Lewis et al., 2011). FLASH software was used to
analyze the HPF data from the deep bedrock boreholes and generate a transmissivity
profile for each logged borehole. To produce a unique fit to the data, FLASH estimates
transmissivity or radius -of -influence. All model iterations used an estimated radius of
influence of 1,000 feet. Calculated transmissivity results are relatively insensitive to the
radius of influence; however, a conservatively large estimate was selected to produce
conservatively high estimates for transmissivity. The "objective function" for the
FLASH code incorporates the mean squared error between interpreted (from borehole
HPF data) and predicted flow profiles and the sum of squared differences between the
water level in the borehole and the far -field head. For each borehole, the automated
solver in FLASH ran until the objective function reached a minimum value.
Total transmissivity for each borehole was calculated using the Thiem Equation for
steady-state flow to a well in a confined aquifer (Thiem, 1906):
lT = 21c(s) In (\rro
where T is transmissivity, Q is flow rate, s is drawdown, n is radius of influence, and rw
is the radius of the borehole. For boreholes with a Thiem-calculated transmissivity that
was greater than the FLASH estimated total transmissivity, the transmissivity values for
borehole intervals from FLASH were proportionally scaled up to produce a total
FLASH transmissivity that equaled the transmissivity value calculated for the entire
borehole.
Results from FLASH analysis of the HPF data from six boreholes are presented in detail
in Attachment B. Transmissivity values for individual bedrock intervals were divided
by the interval vertical length to calculate hydraulic conductivity values, which are
illustrated versus depth below top of bedrock in Figure 4. Calculated deep bedrock
Page 4-1

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
hydraulic conductivity values based on FLASH analysis generally range from
approximately 0.0004 feet per day to 0.5 feet per day. For comparison, Figure 4 also
shows hydraulic conductivity based on slug test results for the completed deep bedrock
monitoring wells. Overall, these datasets indicate low hydraulic conductivity and little
or no relationship between hydraulic conductivity and depth within approximately the
top 280 feet of bedrock at the Site.
Most of the deep bedrock borehole intervals did not indicate notable transmissivity (or
hydraulic conductivity) based on HPF data; therefore, the data related to those borehole
intervals are not included in this analysis. In addition, monitoring wells were installed
at depths interpreted as having significant water -bearing fractures based on field
observations and measurements. Therefore, the overall hydraulic conductivity of the
bedrock fracture system is less than suggested by the data shown in Figure 4.
4.2 Fracture Hydraulic Apertures
Transmissivity data generated by FLASH were also used to estimate the average
hydraulic aperture (eh) for individual bedrock intervals applying the local cubic law
(Steele, 2006):
F12 eh
where T is transmissivity, µ is the viscosity of water, pw is the density of water, g is the
acceleration due to gravity, and n is the number of individual fractures in the flow
layer. Bedrock fractures are rough, so fracture widths (apertures) vary at different
points within the fracture. The hydraulic aperture is the width of an idealized parallel -
plate opening with transmissivity that is the same as an actual, rough -walled fracture. It
is approximated by the geometric mean of the individual aperture values within the
fracture (Keller, 1998).
Average hydraulic apertures were estimated for each deep bedrock borehole interval
with a transmissivity greater than zero. The number of fractures in each zone was
determined from the fracture summary table provided in the geophysical evaluation
report by GEL Geophysics, LLC (GEL) (Attachment C). No "open major' fractures were
identified by GEL in any of the boreholes; therefore, only "open minor" fractures
identified by GEL were included in the fracture count for each zone; "closed" fractures
were excluded. For layers without any identified open fractures, but with measurable
transmissivity, it is assumed that one fracture was present.
Page 4-2

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
Based on HPF data and FLASH analysis, estimated mean hydraulic apertures of
bedrock fractures at the Site generally range from approximately 0.02 to 0.16
millimeters (mm) (20 to 160 µm). Additionally, fracture hydraulic apertures were
calculated based on slug test results and fracture logging data for the completed deep
bedrock monitoring wells (Figure 5). Overall, these datasets indicate that bedrock
fractures have small hydraulic apertures, and little or no relationship between hydraulic
apertures and depth within approximately the top 280 feet of bedrock at the Site. The
low values for calculated hydraulic apertures are consistent with GEL's deep bedrock
geophysical logging report not identifying any "major open" fractures.
As noted, many of the bedrock borehole intervals logged using HPF did not indicate
any significant contribution to flow within the borehole. Most of these intervals had
interpreted open fractures but indicated negligible (approximately zero) transmissivity;
therefore, data from those intervals were not used in fracture aperture calculations.
Those depth intervals have hydraulic apertures near zero. This fracture aperture
evaluation represents only the most transmissive fractures within each logged bedrock
borehole. The overall aperture sizes within the bedrock fracture system are less than
suggested by the data shown in Figure 5.
4.3 Fracture Spacing
Fracture spacing for each borehole interval was calculated by dividing the length of the
interval by the number of open fractures identified in that interval. For intervals with a
transmissivity of zero, and where no open fractures were identified, it was assumed
there were no fractures; therefore, no fracture spacing was calculated for that interval.
Televiewer logging results (discussed below) from the combined dataset indicated
approximately 63 open fractures identified by GEL in 815 vertical feet of logging at the
eight logged bedrock boreholes, which indicates an overall average spacing of 12.9 feet
(vertical separation) between interpreted open fractures. However, the frequency of
dipping bedrock fractures is greater than was indicated in vertical borehole data
(Morin, Carleton, & Poirier, 1997). Within the investigated depth intervals, the bedrock
at the Mayo site consists of relatively small, sparse fractures. However, fractures of
various orientations were often identified within short vertical intervals, indicating that
fractures of various orientations intersect and produce an overall, interconnected
fracture network.
Figure 6 shows the mean vertical spacing of open fractures in bedrock intervals
identified as relatively transmissive based on HPF logging; these intervals were
evaluated using FLASH software to calculate hydraulic apertures shown in Figure 5.
Fracture spacings within these intervals are smaller than the overall average for the
Page 4-3

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
bedrock, discussed above. These data suggest that fracture spacing within transmissive
bedrock intervals is relatively consistent with depth below the top of rock.
4.4 Fracture Orientations
GEL measured in -situ bedrock fractures at four deep bedrock boreholes using a
combination of optical televiewer and acoustic televiewer. Data are summarized as
bedrock fracture tables, stereonet plots, and rose diagrams of fracture orientation
statistics in Attachment C. GEL classifies each identified fracture as either "closed,"
"minor open," or "major open" based on flow logging or other evidence. GEL identified
no "major open" fractures; therefore, only "minor open" fractures were evaluated in
terms of orientation; "closed" fracture orientations were compared qualitatively.
Bedrock fracture orientations logged at each deep bedrock borehole indicate the
following general consistencies from location to location:
• Fractures most frequently strike toward the north-northeast and dip gently to
moderately toward the east-southeast. The mean strike of open fractures at three
locations (MW-103BRL, MW-104BRL, and MW-105BRL) was between north 5
degrees east (N5E) and N20E. Each of these locations is located west of the
Crutchfield Branch stream valley.
• The mean strike of open fractures at MW-107BRL was N24W. MW-107BRL is
located to the east of the Crutchfield Branch stream valley.
• The dip of open fractures at the logged locations was generally between 41
degrees and 65 degrees toward the east-southeast.
• Overall, televiewer logging results from the combined dataset indicated the
following statistics for the approximately 63 open fractures observed in 815
vertical feet of logging at the four logged bedrock boreholes:
o Mean fracture strike direction (azimuth) approximately N4E
o Mean fracture dip angle below the horizontal plane approximately 49
degrees toward the east.
The cross-section presented in Figure 7 illustrates the generalized fracture orientations
identified based on televiewer data. This cross-section has 5x vertical exaggeration, so
the illustrated predominant fracture dip is greater than the actual dip within the plane
of the cross-section. For the cross-section, the apparent dip of the predominant fracture
set was first calculated along the general orientation (bearing); vertical exaggeration
was then applied to the calculated apparent dip. The cross-section is approximately
Page 4-4

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
parallel to the strike of the predominant fracture orientations, so their apparent dips are
close to horizontal.
The relative lengths of fractures shown on the cross -sections decrease with depth to
illustrate that, at a conceptual level, the degree of overall fracturing decreases with
depth. However, the lengths and spacings of fractures are conceptual and qualitative.
As noted above, the overall average vertical spacing between open fractures is
approximately 12.9 feet; therefore, fractures at the Site are too numerous to illustrate on
the cross -sections. In -situ fracture lengths are impractical to measure, but Gale (1982)
suggested that typical fracture lengths might be on the order of 3 to 4 times the fracture
spacing.
In addition to the fractures that were interpreted to be "minor open," numerous
interpreted "closed" fractures were reported, and their orientations were generally
consistent with those of the open fractures. However, since closed fractures would not
be expected to transmit groundwater flow, they were not included in the assessment of
fracture hydraulic aperture and spacing.
4.5 Summary of Bedrock Fracture Characteristics
Overall, the bedrock hydraulic conductivity and calculated hydraulic apertures near the
ash basin dam show little or no trend with increasing depth below the top of rock down
to approximately 280 feet below the top of rock. Fracture spacing in the logged intervals
of the bedrock is relatively consistent with depth below the top of rock. This finding,
reported by Snow (1968), is consistent with the data provided for a variety of rock
types.
The predominant bedrock fracture set near the ash basin dam strikes toward the north-
northeast, is generally aligned with the Crutchfield Branch stream valley, and is
consistent with the results of the lineament evaluation. The majority of bedrock
fractures dip moderately to the east-southeast. Fewer cross -cutting fractures were also
observed, with various orientations.
4.6 Implications of Bedrock Fracture Network for Groundwater
Flow
Based on the predominant orientations of lineaments and bedrock fractures, horizontal
groundwater flow within the bedrock would be expected to occur preferentially toward
the general north-northeast direction (the predominant strike direction of bedrock
fractures). The current groundwater flow model for the ash basin area does not include
plan -view anisotropy, but the simulated flow directions in the bedrock are generally
Page 4-5

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
aligned with the predominant flow direction interpreted based on fracture
characteristics, discussed above.
Overall, the hydraulic conductivity values and calculated fracture hydraulic apertures
in the bedrock near the ash basin dam are low. These data suggest that the bedrock is
not likely to serve as a preferential flow zone for groundwater downgradient of the ash
basin. This interpretation is supported by the limited presence and vertical extent of
boron at concentrations greater than the 02L standards in bedrock groundwater, which
is generally limited to approximately the top 40 feet of bedrock.
Page 4-6

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
5.0 BEDROCK MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS
Bedrock rock core samples were collected and analyzed by Core Laboratories (Core
Labs) for porosity, bulk density, and thin section petrography. Data provided by Core
Labs can be used to evaluate the potential influence of matrix diffusion and sorption on
constituent fate and transport within the fractured bedrock system.
5.1 Sample Selection
Three rock core samples were selected from two locations, CCR-105BR and MW-16S,
which represent hydrogeologic conditions downgradient of the ash basin dam (Figure
3). Samples were chosen from discrete depths of rock core with the most notable
weathering of fracture surfaces interpreted to coincide with zones of preferential
groundwater flow. Sample locations and depth intervals were:
• CCR-105BR:
o 31.5 feet bgs
o 39.0 feet bgs
• MW-16BR:
o 47.0 feet bgs
5.2 Matrix Porosity and Bulk Density
Core Laboratories prepared samples by pulling 1-inch-diameter drilled plugs from the
rock core and trimming them into right-angled cylinders with a diamond -blade trim
saw. Samples were then cleaned by Soxhlet extraction and oven -dried at 240' F to
weight equilibrium (+/- 0.001 gram (g)).
Rock core samples were analyzed for porosity using Boyle's Law technique by
measuring grain volume and pore volume at ambient conditions. Grain density values
were calculated by direct measurement of grain volume and weight on the dried plug
samples. Grain volume was measured by Boyle's Law technique.
Results from the matrix porosity and bulk density analyses are presented in Table 2.
The reported matrix porosity values ranged from 0.46 to 4.97 percent, with an average
of 2.11 percent. Bulk density ranged from 2.594 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3) to
2.711 g/cm3, with an average of 2.67 g/cm3.
Page 5-1

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
5.3 Petrographic Evaluation
Thin sections were prepared by impregnating the samples with epoxy to augment
cohesion and to prevent loss of material during grinding. Each thinly sliced sample was
mounted on a slide and ground to an approximate thickness of 30 µm. Thin sections
were stained to aid in mineral identification and analyzed using standard petrographic
techniques. The thin section petrographic evaluation results are presented in
Attachment D.
Core Labs classified all rock core samples as tonalite (igneous rocks) based on the
relative abundances of minerals (i.e., quartz, alkali feldspar, and plagioclase). The
principal minerals are plagioclase, quartz, biotite, and muscovite. Accessory minerals
consist of epidote, pyrite, magnetite, sphene, and apatite. Plagioclase crystals are
extensively altered into sericite. Minor biotite crystals are altered into chlorite. Rare to
minor Fe -calcite and calcite are present in two samples (CCR-105BR 39.0 feet bgs and
MW-16BR 47.0 feet bgs).
5.4 Implications of Bedrock Matrix Characteristics for Flow and
Transport
The reported matrix porosity values are within the range of those reported for
crystalline rocks in the literature (Freeze and Cherry, 1979; L6fgren, 2004; Zhou, Liu, &
Molz, 2008; Ademeso, Adekoya, & Olaleye, 2012). The presence of measurable matrix
porosity suggests that matrix diffusion contributes to plume retardation at the Site
(Lipson, Kueper, & Gefell, 2005). In addition, the identification of sericite (a mixture of
muscovite, illite, or paragonite produced by hydrothermal alteration of feldspars) in
both samples indicates the bedrock has some capacity to sorb boron and other elements
associated with coal ash. The influences of matrix diffusion and sorption are implicitly
included in the groundwater flow and transport model as a component of the
constituent partition coefficient (Ka) term used for the bedrock layers.
Page 5-2

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
6.0 REFERENCES
Ademeso, O.A., J.A. Adekoya, & B.M. Olaleye. (2012). The Inter -relationship of Bulk
Density and Porosity of Some Crystalline Basement Complex Rocks: A Case
Study of Some Rock Types In Southwestern Nigeria. Journal of Engineering, Vol. 2,
No. 4, pp. 555-562.
Clark, S.F., R.B. Moore, E.W. Ferguson, M.Z. Picard. (2016). Criteria and Methods for
Fracture Trace Analysis of the New Hampshire Bedrock Aquifer. U.S. Geological
Survey Open File Report 96-479.
Day -Lewis, F.D., C.D. Johnson, F.L. Paillet, & K.J. Halford. (2011). FLASH: A Computer
Program for Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes. Computer software. Version 1.0. U.S.
Geological Survey.
Duke Energy. (2015). Low Flow Sampling Plan, Duke Energy Facilities, Ash Basin
Groundwater Assessment Program, North Carolina.
Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry. (1979). Groundwater. Prentice -Hall, Inc. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey. 604 p.
Gale, J.E. (1982). Assessing the permeability characteristics of fractured rock. Geological
Society of America Special paper 189.
Keller, A. (1998). High -resolution, non-destructive measurement and characterization of
fracture apertures. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 35(8), pp. 1037-1050.
Lipson, D.S, B.H. Kueper and M.J. Gefell. (2005). Matrix diffusion -derived plume
attenuation in fractured bedrock. Ground Water, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 30-39.
L6fgren, M. (2004). Diffusive properties of granitic rock as measured by in -situ electrical
methods. Doctoral Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Morin, R.H., G.B. Carleton, and S. Poirier. (1997). Fractured -Aquifer Hydrogeology
from Geophysical Logs; The Passaic Formation, New Jersey. Ground Water, 35(2),
328-338.
Neretnieks, I. (1985). Transport in fractured rocks. Hydrology of Rocks of Low
Permeability. Memoirs. International Association of Hydrogeologists, v. XVII,
part 1 of 2, pp. 301-318.
Page 6-1

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
Snow, D.T. (1968). Rock fracture spacings, openings, and porosities. J. Soil Mech. Found.
Div., Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Engrs., v. 94, pp. 73-91.
Steele, A., D.A. Reynolds, B.H. Kueper, and D.N. Lerner. (2006). Field determination of
mechanical aperture, entry pressure and relative permeability of fractures using
NAPL injection. Geotechnique 56, no. 1, pp. 27-38.
SynTerra. (2017). Comprehensive Site Assessment Update — May Steam Electric Plant —
October 2017. Roxboro, NC.
Thiem, G. (1906). Hydrologische methoden. Leipzig: Gebhardt.
Zhou, Q., H.H. Liu and F.J. Molz. (2008). Field -scale effective matrix diffusion
coefficient for fractured rock: results from literature survey. Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory. https:Hescholarship.org/uc/item/3dw5c7ff.
Page 6-2

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

FUTURE 60' MAYO LAKE
•
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
o
DUKE ENERGY
PROGRESS
JPROPERTY LINE
FUTURE WASTE BOUNDARY FUTURE
(APPROXIMATE) ,.� ASH BASIN
(�� 5
— )
• I FUTURE 100' HWY 501
I RIGHT-OF-WAY
�534 I _ i ) O ( 'FUTURE MAY(
I RESERVOIR
4 , o
ell
of
FUTU
PLANRE POWER ._ ; ,
--C
F DUKE ENERGY
i 5 PROGRESS `(�Q
i PROPERTY LINE
(� ,_
op
SOURCE:
1968 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS (CLUSTER SPRINGS, VA -NC & VIRGILINA, VA -NC OBTAINED FROM THE
USGS STORE AT http,.//store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/b2c/start/%%%28xcm=r3standardpitrex_prd%%%29/.do
DUKE GRAPHIC SCALE FIGURE 1A
500 0 500 1000
ENERGY IN FEET 1968 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP WITHOUT
PROGRESS DRAWN BY: J. CHASTAIN DATE:8/1/2019 LINEAMENTS
REVISED BY: D. KREFSKI DATE:12/2/2019 FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
CHECKEDBY:BY., .ALTMAALTMAN DATE:12/2/2019 MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
APPROVED BY: P. ALTMAN DATE:12/2/2019
PROJECT MANAGER: P. ALTMAN DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
WnTem www.synterracorp.com ROXBORO, NORTH CAROLINA

FUTURE 60' MAYO LAKE 1 (�
` \ E ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY J
DUKE ENERGYPROGRESS
I PROPERTY LINE �� V
FUTURE WASTE BOUNDARY
FUTURE ��.. -
(APPROXIMATE) ,,ASH BASIN /�
r
—�—
I i
I �
�� • ll FUTURE 100' HWY 501)�
I RIGHT-OF-WAY
34 i FUTURE MAYO
RESERVOIR
„o
� r
on
FUTURE
POWER PLANT �.
i
LINEAMENT ORIENTATION SUMMARY
oo
�v
,1 270o 90o
( 55 DUKE ENERGY
/ 1 PROGRESS �
f PROPERTY LINE
180*
RANGE OF PREDOMINANT ORIENTATIONS
IASOURCE:
SOU USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS (CLUSTER SPRINGS, VA -NC & VIRGILINA, VA -NC OBTAINED FROM THE
USGS STORE AT http,.//store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/b2c/start/%%%28xcm=r3standardpitrex_prd%%%29/.do
DUKE GRAPHIC SCALE FIGURE 1B
500 0 500 1000
ENERGY IN FEET 1968 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP WITH
PROGRESS DRAWN BY: J. CHASTAIN DATE:8/1/2019 LINEAMENTS
REVISED BY: D. KREFSKI DATE:12/2/2019 FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
�* CHECKED BY: .ALTMAALTMAN DATE:12/2/2019 MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
APPROVED BY: P. ALTMAN DATE: 12/2/2019
PROJECT MANAGER: P. ALTMAN DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
synTema www.synterracorp.com ROXBORO, NORTH CAROLINA

sd
-- --� -- -- -- -- -- --
RE -- -- -,
FUTU60' MAYO LAKE
/ '4ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
DUKE ENERGY
PROGRESS
PROPERTY LINE
1/
11
II
II
II
I�
II
II
II
II
,` 11
II
11 II
II
/ II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1
1
I
I
BOUNDARY \_
i
r-
SOURCE:
MARCH 22, 1951 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM THE USGS EARTH EXPLORER WEB SITE AT
FUTURE
ASH BASIN
FUTURE POWER,
.i. PLANT
DUKE GRAPHIC SCALE FIGURE 2A
500 0 500 1000
ENERGY IN FEET 1951 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WITHOUT
PROGRESS DRAWN BY: J. CHASTAIN DATE:8/1/2019 LINEAMENTS
REVISED BY: D. KREFSKI DATE:12/2/2019 FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
CHECKED BY: P. ALTMAN DATE:12/2/2019
APPROVED BY: P. ALTMAN DATE: 12/2/2019 MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
PROJECT MANAGER: P. ALTMAN DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
synTem www.synterracorp.com ROXBORO, NORTH CAROLINA

/ TURE 60' LAKE
/FUROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
OF -WAY
I� DUKE ENERGY
PROGRESS
PROPERTY LINE
r='lx�n'F'►1
FUTURE WASTE BOUNDARYFUTURE
a
(APPROXIMATE) ASH BASIN
►I
I
I
I
I
I
�� II
�� II
�� II
II
� II
II
II
FUTURE MAYO
RESERVOIR
IIIIIIIIIIIIIlly
I I LINEAMENT ORIENTATION SUMMARY
II
low
II
II
II
270'
DUKEENERGY
PROGRESS
-PR -- OPERTY LINE
r I NO
('DUKE
ENERGY
PROGRESS
16,
synTem
GRAPHIC SCALE
500 0 500 1000
IN FEET
DRAWN BY: J. CHASTAIN DATE: 8/1/2019
REVISED BY: D.KREFSKI DATE: 12/2/2019
CHECKED BY: P. ALTMAN DATE: 12/2/2019
APPROVED BY: P. ALTMAN DATE:12/2/2019
PROJECT MANAGER: P. ALTMAN
www.synterracorp.com
0°
90°
180,
DOMINANT LINEAMENT DIRECTION
SOURCE:
MARCH 22, 1951 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM THE USGS EARTH EXPLORER WEB SITE AT
FIGURE 2B
1951 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WITH LINEAMENTS
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
ROXBORO, NORTH CAROLINA

• // —
'V �/ ♦ 1 �♦
i
RTHFSrFRRo r / //
/ r '
/ / r
r r �♦ `
\ ,r �; ♦ 4
\ ' 1
\ F
1 1
` `QOQD I 1 ♦' .�
I I lI • %�
I I IN� -i ■�i► `s
APPROXIMATE FUTURE
ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY 77lKKC .
(SEE NOTE I) f
rr I I
/ / 1
� � 1
1 ,
1 �
I a ♦ ` 1 1
•
LOUISIANA PACIFIC CORPORATICA%
IF-jouip "k
3
= MU LLINS LN
y
9'
%' DUKE
ENERGY
PROGRESS
410
synTerra
HALIFAX COUNTY'
PERSON COUNTY
GRAPHIC SCALE
500 0 500 1,000
(IN FEET)
DRAWN BY: A. ROBINSON DATE: 06/05/2019
REVISED BY: A. ROBINSON DATE: 12/02/2019
CHECKED BY: P. ALTMAN DATE: 12/02/2019
APPROVED BY: J. WYLIE DATE: 12/02/2019
PROJECT MANAGER: J. WYLIE
NORTH CAROLINA-VIRGINIA STATE LINE
LEGEND
DEEP BEDROCK EVALUATION LOCATION
Q ROCK CORE SAMPLE LOCATION
APPROXIMATE ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY
- - - - - ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
- - - - - RIGHT-OF-WAY (DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY)
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS PROPERTY LINE
STREAM (AMEC NRTR)
® WETLAND (AMEC NRTR)
NOTES:
1. AREA OF INVESTIGATION THAT DETERMINED SETTLED CCR MATERIAL IS NOT
PRESENT IN THIS AREA OF THE ASH BASIN. A FUTURE REPRESENTATIVE ASH
BASIN WASTE AND COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS INCLUDED IN THE MAYO NPDES
PERMIT NCO038377 PART I, 5.A.(18.) ATTACHMENT B FIGURE 1.1 DATED JULY 13,
2018.
2. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS.
3. THE WATERS OF THE U.S. HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS AT THE TIME OF THE MAP CREATION. THIS MAP IS NOT TO
BE USED FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION PURPOSES. THE WETLANDS AND
STREAMS BOUNDARIES WERE OBTAINED FROM AMEC FOSTER WHEELER
ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL
REPORT(NRTR) FOR MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DATED JANUARY 20, 2014.
4. ALL BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.
5. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM ESRI ONLINE ON JUNE 10, 2019. AERIAL
WAS COLLECTED ON FEBRUARY 6, 2017.
6. DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE
PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM FIPS 3200 (NAD83).
FIGURE 3
DEEP BEDROCK EVALUATION LOCATIONS
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
ROXBORO, NORTH CAROLINA

T
0
v
v
LL
Y
Z
�Y
3
c
0
u
u
m
L
T
x
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Depth (Feet Below Top of Rock)
NOTES:
1. FLASH hydraulic conductivity values calculated
from FLASH estimated transmissivity values.
2. SLUG hydraulic conductivity values estimated
from slug test data.
/� DUKE
DRAWN BY: P. ALTMAN
G ENERGY,
REVISED BY:
PROGRESS
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT MANAGER: J. WYLIE
410
synTerra
DATE:10/22/2019
www.synterracorp.com
• MW-103BRL FLASH
AMW-103BRM SLUG
OMW-103BRL SLUG
• MW-104BRL FLASH
,&MW-104BRM SLUG
0MW-104BRL SLUG
• MW-105BRL FLASH
,&MW-105BRM SLUG
OMW-105BRL SLUG
• MW-107BRL FLASH
AMW-107BRM SLUG
OMW-107BRL SLUG
FIGURE 4
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
VERTICAL PROFILE
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
ROXBORO, NORTH CAROLINA

0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
E
E
v 0.10
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
•
•
O
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
�
O
O
• MW-103BRL FLASH
AMW-103BRM SLUG
O MW-103BRL SLUG
• MW-104BRL FLASH
AMW-104BRM SLUG
O MW-104BRL SLUG
• MW-105BRL FLASH
AMW-105BRM SLUG
O MW-105BRL SLUG
• MW-107BRL FLASH
,&MW-107BRM SLUG
O MW-107BRL SLUG
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Depth (Feet Below Top of Rock)
NOTES•• 444)
DUKE DRAWN BY: P. ALTMAN DATE: 10/22/2019
ENERGY' REVISED BY: FIGURE 5
1. FLASH hydraulic aperture values calculated PROGRESS CHECKED BY: HYDRAULIC APERTURE
from FLASH estimated transmissivity values. APPROVED BY: VERTICAL PROFILE
PROJECT MANAGER: J. WYLIE FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
2. SLUG hydraulic aperture values estimated tipMAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
from slug test data. ROXBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
synTerra www.synterracorp.com

20
18
16
14
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Depth (Feet Below Top of Rock)
NOTES' DI vr— DRAWN BY: P. ALTMAN DATE: 10/22/2019
1. Fracture spacing data shown above are specific to
*'ENERGY,
REVISED BY:
relatively transmissive bedrock intervals identified
PROGRESS
CHECKED BY:
based on HPF logging and FLASH analysis.
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT MANAGER: J. WYLIE
2. Fracture spacing calculated by dividing the length of
tip
interval by the number of open fractures
identified in that interval.
synTerra
www.synterracorp.com
•
•
• • • •• • • • • • •
• • • • •
•
•
•
•
300
• M W-103BRL
• MW-104BRL
M W-105BRL
• M W-107BRL
FIGURE 6
FRACTURE SPACING
VERTICAL PROFILE
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
ROXBORO, NORTH CAROLINA

A -I
(SOUTHWEST)
AN
_ I
ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY (NORTHEAST)
O
ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY
w
w
ABMW-4 WELL CLUSTER LOCATED
IN THE
a
ORIGINAL CHANNEL OF CRUTCHFIELD
r ar a
BRANCH BASED ON HISTORIC USGS
TOPO
z
AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
J
SAPROLITE
SMALL STREAM
pa pa p p
m m m
¢ a ¢
ma m m
m m
?i
g
p
9.30 L
0 0 0 0
m m
TOP OF ASH z
;50
COAL PILE AREA
J J J J
a a a a
Q Q
BASIN DAM=488 u�
Q
m
EARTHEN DAM (FILL) a
j TRANSITION — SAPROLITE d a
WATER ELEVATION=480 ZONE GENERALIZED _____ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ - -
_ a
GROUNDWATERFLOW --_- _ 483.33 -- -----, p p m
DIRECTION TRANSITION = _ _ - _ -ASH_-= _-_ _ _ _ -ASH-cn
ZONE 485.74------- ------ y�y�
� � g TI i
SAPROLITE U U
1,340 /� �/ Or 2 2 2E
\L\
3,240 ` E1D\RO.C-// Ki.-'\\-`-\�'/'/\ -/'i♦,-/\-\:1\�/,/��`.-/�/i,-'\-`-\'/'/\`-/'i.,-/\-\-: \\�/,/\.-//i,-'\-`-- \�'/'/\\`-/'i`,/-\-\-:1\'/,/\�.-//i.,-�\-`- --\\48I3\.0,\2
.B
R'A\IV/ -T-N\381.30
366.15
0 OZONEI 353 10055.65 <0ALLUVIUM
..—_
\/\I/1" /\I ♦/ /\I 1`/ /\I ♦/ /\I/1" /\I ♦/ /\I/1" /\I ♦/ /\I/1" /\I ♦/ /\I/1" /\/1" /\ /1 \ /1" /\I ♦/ -/\ �\/ \; /I \/-/ 1- I` \—\\/.\/'/\ /\I \//-/ 11-I`, \-\/\ �\/ �\; /I /-/ 1- I`,_ \—\\/.\/' /\ /I \//-/ 11 -I`, \\-\/\ �\/ %\; /I �// 1 - I,` _ \—\\/.1/' /\ /\I \�/-/ 11- I` \\'\/\T �/ %\; I // 1 I` _\/./ /\ \I \// 11-I ` \ \i/� ; /1' \\/./\ �// 1-1 \\/� ; / 1_ \\/\ \/\ �///1/1-I \ \/� /; / I_ \\/ ; / 1_\\/\ ;;\ �///1/1-1 \\/ �/\;I//1/I_ \\/\ \//\ \ \///1/1 - I \�\/ �/�; //1/I" ' \\/ .//\ I \// 1-I♦\/ \\/ ;/\;I //1,I 789 421 I .
SAP
2ROLITE
T101pT I
381.02 73.7
366.81
BDROC31
3
/ <50
CRUTCHFIELD
366.58-
1\\/BRANCH \ 1
\��11.�r\/\I/1`\/\I/1�\/\I/1`\/\I/1��\/\I/1`\/\I/1��\/\I/1`\/\I/1�\/\I/'`.,T/�'/'�1'/"'�I Ti`-f\7\I/1��\/\I/1`\/\I/1��\/\I/1`\/\I/1��\/\I/1`\/\I/1�/ \ /
/. \/� / 1, \/ ;i\ //1, \/� / I, \/ \i\ //I, \/ \� //I, \/ \i` //I, \/ ;� /'I, _♦ \/ ;� //I, \/ \;\ //I, \/ ;� //1, \/�/\ / 1, \/�
\/\I/1`�\%\I/1`�\%\I/1`�\%\I/1`�\%\I/1`�\%\I/1`�\%\I/1`��-\fjl>✓`t'��\fl"�L/1`�\i\I/1`��i\I/1`�\i\I/1`BEDROCK
\/\I/ 1; ��%\I/ 1` `\%\I/ 1; ��%\I/ 1` `\%\I/1; ��%\I/ 1` `\%\I/ 1; ��%\I/ 1` `\%\I/1; ��%\I/1` `\%\I/1; ��%\I/1` `\%\I/ 1; ��%\I/ 1` `\%\I/1; ��%\I/1` `\%\I/ 1; ��%\I/ 1` `\%\I/ 1; ��%\I/ 1`!r\.J��-.i+� �[i�*/ j � �\r\I/ 1; ��i\I/ 1` �\i\I/1; ��i\I/1` �\•
/. � / I� \/./\ / li \/. � / I� \/./� / li \/. � / I� \/./\ / li \/. � / I� \/./� / I.yL. � / li \lil\ / 1, \l• � / 1' \/ ;�\ //I, \/• � / I' \/ \�\ //I, \/ �� //1' \/ ;�\ //1, \/ �� //I' \/ \�\ //I, \/ �� //I' \/ \�� //I, \/ ;� /,I' \/ ;�\ //I \/ ;� //I' \/ \�\ //I, \/ ;� /,1' \/ ;�\ //1, \/�
SEE NOTE 2
1<50
♦ / \ / \ I / 1 � ' � / \ I / 1 � ' \ / \ I / 1 �' � / \ I / 1 � ' \ / \ I / 1 � ' � / \ I / 1 � ' \ / \ I / 1 � ' � / \ I / 1 � ' \ / \ I / 1 �' � / \ I / 1 � ' \ / \ I / 1 � ' � / \ I / 1 � ' \ / \ I / 1 � ' � / \ I / 1 � ' \ / \ I / 1 � ' � / \ I / 1 � ' \ / \ I / 1 � ' � / \ I / 1 � ' \ / \ I / 1 �' � / \ I / 1 � ' \ .
LEGEND
MW 12S
WELL IN ALLUVIUM OR SAPROLITE
MW 16D
WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE
MW 16BR
WELL IN BEDROCK
ABMW 2
WELL IN ASH PORE WATER
Z
GENERALIZED WATER TABLE
GENERALIZED GROUNDWATER
FLOW DIRECTION
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE ASH
Mmmml,
PORE WATER FLOW DIRECTION
GENERALIZED VERTICAL
HYDRAULIC GRADIENT
— — — GENERALIZED FRACTURE
ORIENTATIONS
0 ASH
ASH PORE WATER / WASTEWATER
0 SAPROLITE
® TRANSITION ZONE
BEDROCK
m
483.02
<50
NOTES
1.
WATER ELEVATIONS REPRESENT THE APRIL 2019 GAUGING EVENT FOR EACH WELL. NOTE
ASH PORE WATER FLOW LAYER
ELEVATIONS WITHIN EACH CLUSTER ARE MEASURED IN THE SAME DAY. REFERENCED TO NORTH
WATER LEVEL ELEVATION
AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988.
ALLUVIUM OR SAPROLITE FLOW LAYER
2.
WATER LEVEL IN MW-105BRL IS NOT PROVIDED BECAUSE THE WATER LEVEL HAD NOT REACHED
GROUNDWATER LEVEL ELEVATION
STATIC CONDITIONS.
3.
BORON CONCENTRATIONS REPRESENT THE APRIL 2019 SAMPLING EVENT.
TRANSITION ZONE FLOW LAYER GROUNDWATER
LEVEL ELEVATION
4.
FRACTURES DEPICTED ON THIS CROSS SECTION REPRESENT THE GENERALIZED
ORIENTATIONS OF THE PREVALENT FRACTURE SETS OBSERVED AT THE SITE BASED ON TELEVIEWER
LOGGING AT SITE -SPECIFIC BOREHOLES. THEY ARE SHOWN WITH APPROPRIATE APPARENT DIP, WITH
BEDROCK FLOW LAYER GROUNDWATER
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION. THIS CROSS SECTION IS APPROXIMATELY PARALLEL TO THE
LEVEL ELEVATION
PREDOMINANT FRACTURE STRIKE DIRECTION. THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF FRACTURES IS FAR TOO
NUMEROUS TO ILLUSTRATE AT THIS SCALE. IN ADDITION, THE DEPTHS AND LENGTHS OF FRACTURES
VERSUS DEPTH ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY.
WELL SCREEN
5.
ALL BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.
6.
CROSS SECTION REPRESENTATIVE OF PRE -DECANTING CONDITIONS.
WATER LEVEL (FEET)
BORON CONCENTRATION ((Jg/L)
(LABEL COLORING BY FLOW ZONE)
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
PROPERTY LINE
— — ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY
4 DUKE
ENERGY
PROGRESS
116rip
synTena
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 135 270 540
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 540'
VERTICAL SCALE: V = 100'
5X VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
DRAWN BY: J. CHASTAIN
DATE: 08/02/2019
REVISED BY: D. KREFSKI
DATE: 12/2/2019
CHECKED BY: P. ALTMAN
DATE: 12/2/2019
APPROVED BY: P. ALTMAN
DATE: 12/2/2019
PROJECT MANAGER: J. WYLIE
LAYOUT: FIG 7 (LAYOUT)
www.synterracorp.com
FIGURE 7
GENERAL CROSS-SECTION A -A'
ASH BASIN
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
ROXBORO, NORTH CAROLINA

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

TABLE 1
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DEEP BEDROCK WELLS
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Analytical Parameters
pH
Turbidity
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Chromium
(VI)
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Molybdenum
Strontium
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Vanadium
Reporting Units
S.U.
NTUs
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
SSA NCAC 02L Standard
6.5-8.5
NE
10
700
700
10
110
1*
300
50
NE
NE
250
500
0.3*
Bedrock Background Threshold Values
5.1-7.2
NE
1
97
50
0.4
7
5
3,771
548
17
418
130
470
4.4
Sample ID
Screen Interval
(ft bgs)
Sample
Collection Date
Analytical Results
MW-103BRL
336-351
02/12/2019
12.9
9.5
0.35j
1070
<50
21.8
14.8
<1
41
<5
11
8740
4.6
2000
3.32
MW-103BRL
336 - 351
04/22/2019
11.8
3.5
<1
1200
<50
14.7
15.9 B2
<1
42
<5
11
9720
1.2
2200
2.52
MW-103BRM
225 - 240
02/12/2019
12.0
146.0
NM
NM
<50
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
MW-103BRM
225 - 240
04/23/2019
10.7
4.5
NM
NM
<50
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
MW-104BRL
235 - 250
11/29/2018
7.2
1.8
<1
29
<50
<0.025
<1
<1
224
80
2.22
957
55
390
<0.3
MW-104BRL
235 - 250
02/11/2019
7.3
0.6
0.367 j
29
<50
0.04
<1
<1
239
87
2.26
972
54
420
<0.3
MW-104BRL
235 - 250
04/23/2019
7.3
6.9
<1
30
<50
<0.025
0.411 j
<1
397
92
2.21
973
56
440
0.286 j
MW-104BRM
165 - 180
11/29/2018
8.0
9.9
0.871 j
19
<50
0.53
9.04
<1
158
17
4.95
714
37
290
3.63
MW-104BRM
165 - 180
02/12/2019
7.9
0.3
0.812 j
18
<50
0.25
0.85 j
<1
3.512 j
10
4.7
643
38
310
2.42
MW-104BRM
165 - 180
04/23/2019
7.7
9.8
0.9 j
19
<50
0.027
<1
<1
74
57
6.87
726
39
320
0.637
MW-105BRL
235 - 250
02/12/2019
10.8
25.2
2.66
43
<50
0.22 M1
2.28
<1
369
26
12.1
595
19
330
1.91
MW-105BRL
235 - 250
04/23/2019
11.2
2.6
4.01
52
<50
0.081
2.7
<1
142
12
11.5
614
15
400
1.52
MW-105BRM
110 - 125
11/29/2018
7.2
16.1
<1
32
<50
0.036
2.1
<1
337
347
2.97
441
29
350
1.2
MW-105BRM
110 - 125
02/11/2019
7.3
3.7
1.28
27
<50
0.041 M1
0.433 j
<1
788
415
2.75
443
32
370
0.224 j
MW-105BRM
110 - 125
04/23/2019
7.2
3.6
2.71
32
<50
<0.025
<1
<1
1150
426
3.01
473
27
360
0.166 j
MW-107BRL
287-302
02/11/2019
12.6
6.7
1.23
313
64
8.2
6.49
<1
87
11
13.8
2740
31
1100
10
MW-107BRL
287 - 302
04/22/2019
12.3
6.4
1.15
309
68
5.8
7.57 B2
<1
91
6
14.4
2820
32
1200
9.82
MW-107BRM
177 - 192
02/12/2019
10.5
109.0
NM
NM
44.891 j
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
MW-107BRM
177 - 192
04/22/2019
10.7
303.0
1 NM
NM
83
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Notes:
0 - Turbidity of Sample >_ 10 NTUs
Background Threshold Values updated with Background Results through December 2018.
^ - Federal MCL.
ft bgs - feet below ground surface
µg/L - micrograms per liter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
NE - Not established
NM - Not measured
NTUs - Nephelometric Turbidity Units
S.U. - Standard Units
< - Concentration not detected at or above the adjusted reporting limit.
* - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations (IMACs) of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard, Appendix 1, April 1, 2013.
B2 - Target analyte was detected in blank(s) at a concentration greater than 1/2 the reporting limit but less than the reporting limit. Analyte concentration in sample is valid and may be used for compliance purposes.
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
M1 - Matrix spike recovery was high: the associated Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable.
Prepared by: PWA Checked by: GRK
Page 1 of 1

TABLE 2
POROSITY AND BULK DENSITY RESULTS
FRACTURED BEDROCK EVALUATION
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Sample ID
Depth (ft bgs)
Porosity (%)
Grain De 3sity
(g/cm)
Bulk Density
(g/cm )
CCR-105BR
31.5
4.97
2.719
2.594
CCR-105BR
39.0
0.89
2.720
2.701
MW-16BR
47.0
0.46
2.721
2.711
Prepared by: AKM Checked by: PWA
Notes:
1.0" diameter plugs were drilled and trimmed into right cylinders with a diamond -blade trim saw.
Plugs selected for core analysis were cleaned by Soxhlet extraction cycling between a chloroform /methanol
(87:13) azeotrope and methanol.
Samples were oven dried at 2400 F to weight equilibrium (+/- 0.001 g).
Porosity was determined using Boyle's Law technique by measuring grain volume & calculating pore volume at ambient
conditions.
Grain density values were calculated using Boyle's Law technique by direct measurement of grain volume and weight on
dried plug samples.
ft bgs - feet below ground surface
g/cm3 - gram per cubic centimeter
% - percent
Page 1 of 1

Fractured Bedrock Evaluation
December 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
ATTACHMENT A
BORING LOGS AND
WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORDS
SynTerra

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O3BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/11/18
COMPLETED: 10/18/18
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,015,456.1
EASTING: 2,030,508.9
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 488.53
M.P. ELEV: 491.88 ft
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 352 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY: W.
Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
(gwn)
po
u. gpo
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-
Sandy Silt: See log for CCR-103BR or CCR-103D
for detailed lithologic description.
(ML) Sandy -clayey silt, medium, reddish yellow
(5YR 6/8), nonplastic, dry, noncohesive
At —10' cuttings becoming pale brown (2.5Y 7/3)
At —15' cuttings becoming pale brown (10YR 6/3)
PWR: At —25' very pale brown (lOYR 7/4) with
rock fragments
Increased rock fragments of granite/metagranite
Dust/cuttings are light gray
Observe moisture in cuttings at 35'
Observe water while drilling at 40'
Cement grout
8" surface
casing
Cement grout
6" surface
casing
Cement grout
2" PVC riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 7

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-103BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/11/18
COMPLETED: 10/18/18
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,015,456.1
EASTING: 2,030,508.9
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 488.53
M.P. ELEV: 491.88 ft
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 352 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY: W.
Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po
u. gpo
4.
Fractured at 57' w/ significant water production
60 `
Quartz pieces in cuttings at 60'
Gneiss: Granitic gneiss, strong to very strong, gray
matrix (Gleyl 7/N) with black accessory
biotite/hornblende, phaneritic, weak foliation to
65 massive, slight moisture Cement grout
Cuttings dry ' '
70 V 6" surface
casing
75 Cement grout
V
80 2" PVC riser
85 ��� At —85' increased K-feldspar content, lithology
remains granitic gneiss; wet
90
W7
100 �L\ At 98' small fracture w/ slight water production
Cuttings have faint Fe staining
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 7

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O3BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/11/18
COMPLETED: 10/18/18
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,015,456.1
EASTING: 2,030,508.9
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 488.53
M.P. ELEV: 491.88 ft
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 352 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY: W.
Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po
u. gpo
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
Cement grout
2" PVC riser
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 7

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-103BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/11/18
COMPLETED: 10/18/18
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,015,456.1
EASTING: 2,030,508.9
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 488.53
M.P. ELEV: 491.88 ft
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 352 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY: W.
Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpr)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po
u. gpo
155
160
165 ,
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
At 181' soft zone - no water
At 190' thin zone of more mafic material (darker
dust), very fine fragments w/ possible small
fracture
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 4 OF 7

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-103BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/11/18
COMPLETED: 10/18/18
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,015,456.1
EASTING: 2,030,508.9
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 488.53
M.P. ELEV: 491.88 ft
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 352 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY: W.
Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po
u. gpo
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
At 217' apparent fracture w/ water production
Relatively low yield —0.25 gpm
Schist: Very small rock fragments, primarily dust;
appear to be diabase or mafic schist/phyllite, black,
not as strong as the prevalent granitic gneiss
At 240' fracture w/ water production exceeding
that at 217'
Advancement through more mafic rock such as at
240' is more rapid
Granite: Predominant rock type remains granitic
gneiss/metagranite
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 5 OF 7

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-103BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/11/18
COMPLETED: 10/18/18
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,015,456.1
EASTING: 2,030,508.9
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 488.53
M.P. ELEV: 491.88 ft
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 352 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY: W.
Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po
u. gpo
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 6 OF 7

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-103BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/11/18
COMPLETED: 10/18/18
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,015,456.1
EASTING: 2,030,508.9
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 488.53
M.P. ELEV: 491.88 ft
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 352 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY: W.
Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po
u. gpo
305
310
315
Bentonite
320
325
330
335
340
Sand filter pack
Well screen
345
350
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 7 OF 7

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-104BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/10/2018
COMPLETED: 10/15/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,015,167.4
EASTING: 2,031,318.2
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 407.03
M.P. ELEV: 410.08
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 252 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
T T :
T T
T T'
T
Silty Sand
See log for CCR-104BR and CCR-104S for
additional lithology details
(SM) Silty sand, loose, yellowish -red (5YR, 5/6),
nonplastic, dry, micaceous
Sandy Clay
(CL) Sandy clay, stiff, pale brown (2.5Y, 7/3),
nonplastic, dry, noncohesive, w/ rock fragments
PWR
Rock (PWR)
Diorite
Diorite-metadiorite, white (Gleyl, 8/1) with black
. � .
accessory minerals
8" surface casing set to 21' on 9/10/18. Begin
advancement through 8" casing on 9/12/18.
Gneiss
Granitic gneiss, massive (see lithologic log for
CCR-104BR)
Cement grout
8" surface
casing
Cement grout
6" surface
casing
Cement grout
2" PVC riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 5

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-104BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/10/2018
COMPLETED: 10/15/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,015,167.4
EASTING: 2,031,318.2
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 407.03
M.P. ELEV: 410.08
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 252 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
4.
60
W,
70
75
80
EE
90
W7
100
6" surface
casing
Cement grout
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 5

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O4BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/10/2018
COMPLETED: 10/15/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,015,167.4
EASTING: 2,031,318.2
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 407.03
M.P. ELEV: 410.08
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 252 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 5

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-104BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/10/2018
COMPLETED: 10/15/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,015,167.4
EASTING: 2,031,318.2
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 407.03
M.P. ELEV: 410.08
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 252 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 4 OF 5

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-104BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/10/2018
COMPLETED: 10/15/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,015,167.4
EASTING: 2,031,318.2
DRILLING METHOD:
Air Rotary/Hammer
G.S. ELEV: 407.03
M.P. ELEV: 410.08
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 252 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
Bentonite
Sand filter pack
Well screen
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 5 OF 5

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O5BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/19/2018
COMPLETED: 10/15/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,014,904.91
EASTING: 2,031,768.75
DRILLING METHOD:
Air rotary/hammer
G.S. ELEV: 388.07
M.P. ELEV: 391.35
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 250 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
(gwn)
po u. gpo
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
T T :
T T
T T'
T
• T T
T T'
Silty Sand
See log for CCR-105BR for detailed lithologic
description
(SM) Silty sand, medium dense, pale brown (10YR,
6/3), noncohesive, dry, nonplastic
At 10' occasional small rock fragments
PWR
Rock (PWR)
Increasingly hard
Gneiss
Biotite gneiss, strong, dark gray matrix w/ black
accessory mineral (biotite), foliated, moist cuttings
At 30' quartz fragments present
Occasional pieces of gneiss w/ phyllitic appearance
present
Granitic gneiss w/ quartz, very strong, gray matrix
w/ black biotite, foliated, wet cuttings
At 38' observed increased resistance to drilling
8" surface casing set to 46' on 9/19/18. Begin
advancement through 8" surface casing on
9/20/18.
Cement grout
8" surface
casing
Cement grout
6" surface
casing
2" PVC riser
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 5

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O5BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/19/2018
COMPLETED: 10/15/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,014,904.91
EASTING: 2,031,768.75
DRILLING METHOD:
Air rotary/hammer
G.S. ELEV: 388.07
M.P. ELEV: 391.35
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 250 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
4.
60
At—56-57' rock becomes softer: gneiss
At 62' small fracture correlating w/ decreased dust
level
65
70
75 SAA: Granitic gneiss
80
EE
90
W7
100
At 80-87' occasional accessory epidote present in
rock fragments
6" surface casing set to 87' on 9/21/18. Begin
advancement through 6" surface casing w/ 5.5"
hammer on 9/24/18.
Cement grout
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 5

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O5BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/19/2018
COMPLETED: 10/15/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,014,904.91
EASTING: 2,031,768.75
DRILLING METHOD:
Air rotary/hammer
G.S. ELEV: 388.07
M.P. ELEV: 391.35
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 250 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
SynTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 5

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-105BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/19/2018
COMPLETED: 10/15/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,014,904.91
EASTING: 2,031,768.75
DRILLING METHOD:
Air rotary/hammer
G.S. ELEV: 388.07
M.P. ELEV: 391.35
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 250 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 4 OF 5

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-105BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/19/2018
COMPLETED: 10/15/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,014,904.91
EASTING: 2,031,768.75
DRILLING METHOD:
Air rotary/hammer
G.S. ELEV: 388.07
M.P. ELEV: 391.35
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 250 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberley CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
Bentonite
Sand filter pack
Well screen
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 5 OF 5

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O7BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/18/2018
COMPLETED: 10/19/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,014,570.06
EASTING: 2,032,273.45
DRILLING METHOD:
Air rotary/hammer
G.S. ELEV: 439.82
M.P. ELEV: 443.32 ft
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 302 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Clay and Silt
See log for CCR-107BR for additional lithology
description
(ML) Clayey silt, medium, reddish -yellow (5YR,
—
-'
6/8), nonplastic, dry, noncohesive
-
Sandy Silt
(ML) Sandy silt, pale olive (5Y, 6/3), dry
PWR
(ML) Sandy silt, stiff, light gray (5Y, 7/2) w/
abundant rock fragments; (PWR)
Increased rock fragments of granite/metagranite;
rich in quartz w/ K-feldspar, biotite and hornblende
At 32' increased water production; diabase/diabase
schist w/ granitic-metagranite
Granite
Granite/metagranite
8" surface casing set to 46' on 9/18/18. Begin
advancement through 8" surface casing on
9/20/18.
Cement grout
8" surface
casing
2" PVC riser
Cement grout
6" surface
casing
41P SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 1 OF 6

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O7BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/18/2018
COMPLETED: 10/19/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,014,570.06
EASTING: 2,032,273.45
DRILLING METHOD:
Air rotary/hammer
G.S. ELEV: 439.82
M.P. ELEV: 443.32 ft
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 302 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
55
60
65
70
75
80
EE
90
W7
100
At 60' fracture w/ increased water production
6" surface set to 67' on 9/20/18. Begin
advancement through 6" surface casing w/ 5.5"
hammer on 9/25/18.
SAA: Granite/metagranite
Cement grout
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 2 OF 6

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-107BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/18/2018
COMPLETED: 10/19/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,014,570.06
EASTING: 2,032,273.45
DRILLING METHOD:
Air rotary/hammer
G.S. ELEV: 439.82
M.P. ELEV: 443.32 ft
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 302 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
SAA: Granite/metagranite w/ prevalent quartz at
some intervals
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 3 OF 6

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-107BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/18/2018
COMPLETED: 10/19/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,014,570.06
EASTING: 2,032,273.45
DRILLING METHOD:
Air rotary/hammer
G.S. ELEV: 439.82
M.P. ELEV: 443.32 ft
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 302 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
155
160
165 ,
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
SAA: Granite/metagranite
At 181' small fracture
At 190' small fracture
At 200' increased felsic content
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 4 OF 6

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-1O7BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/18/2018
COMPLETED: 10/19/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,014,570.06
EASTING: 2,032,273.45
DRILLING METHOD:
Air rotary/hammer
G.S. ELEV: 439.82
M.P. ELEV: 443.32 ft
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 302 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
205
210 P,111111W,
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
SAA: Granite/metagranite
At 235-237' soft w/ quartz pieces; no water
production
At 240' soft w/ no water production
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s)mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 5 OF 6

PROJECT: Mayo Steam Electric Plant
WELL/BORING NO:
MW-107BRL
PROJECT NO: 1026.105
STARTED: 9/18/2018
COMPLETED: 10/19/2018
DRILLING COMPANY:
Geologic Exploration
NORTHING: 1,014,570.06
EASTING: 2,032,273.45
DRILLING METHOD:
Air rotary/hammer
G.S. ELEV: 439.82
M.P. ELEV: 443.32 ft
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
10, 8, 5.5 IN
DEPTH TO WATER:
TOTAL DEPTH: 302 ft
NOTES:
LOGGED BY:
W. Wimberly CHECKED BY:
Caliper
V
6.0
(n) 7.0
w
ay
p
DESCRIPTION
V H
H
WELL CONSTRUCTION
0 0E-Ambien6 040
Lu
J
(gpm)
O
O.00HPF-PPumping0.80
Own)
po u. gpo
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
Bentonite
Sand filter pack
Well screen
41p SynTerra CLIENT: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
148 River Street, Suite 220 PROJECT LOCATION: Roxboro, NC
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
s mTerra Phone: [phone] PAGE 6 OF 6

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
I. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable irell colnviruc•tion perinies (i.e. C'oaa(v. Staie, Variance, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural ❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Industrial/Commere ial ❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
Non -Water Supply Well:
(DMonitorinit ❑Recovery
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heating/Coolmg
4. Dote Well(s) Completed:
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under 421 1
10/11/18 Well ID# MW-103BRL
5a. Well Location:
MAYO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (ifapplicable)
10660 BOSTON ROAD ROXBORO 27574
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(if well field, one lat/long is sufficient)
36' 32' 03.67" N 780 53' 02.51" 11i
6. Is (are) the well(s): 101'ermanent or ❑Tempurary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: 01'es or ElNo
//'thA,is a repair, fill out kmnrn irell c•on.strucuon itr/brination and explain the nanire rflhe
repair under 'J 2l rentarks .section or on the back of this fctrin.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
For multiple inlec•tion or non-iraier.supph' hells ONLY with the same construction, you can
submit one fimn.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 351.0
For t"uhiple wells list all depths iiJ'ch&rent (example- 3@200' and 2 it 1001
0
10. Static water level below top of casing: 48.(ft.)
//•hater level is above casing, use "- "
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
For Internal Use UNLY
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
I DESCRIPTION
ft.
ff.
ft.
it.
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER ifr licable)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft•
60.0 ft•
8.0 in
SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM
I TO
I DIAMETER I
THICKNESS
I MATERIAL
0.0 ft'
336.0 ft'
1 2.0 in.SCH
40
1 PVC
0.0 ft.
175.0 ft'
1 6.0 in.
SCH 80
1 PVC
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOT SIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
336.0ft•
351.0 ft'
2.0 in.
.010
SCH 40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD &AMOUNT
0.0 ft-
310.0 ft'
PORTLMDUNTONiTE
SLURRY
0.0 ft-
175.0 ft-
PORT DBENTONnE
SLURRY
0.0 ft'
60.0 ft'
PORT DBENTONiTE
SLURRY
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if applicable)
FROM
TO
MATERIAL I
EMPLACEM ENT METHOD
331.0 fL
351.0 fL
20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING LOG attach additional sheets ifnecessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION (color, hardness, soil1mck type, rain size, etc.
0.0 ft.
58.0 ft-
BROWN SILTY SAND
58.0 ft'
351.0 "'
ROCK
R.
ft.
R,
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
D.
ft.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 310.0 TO 331.0 FEET
22. Certification:
^
S
Signature of Certified Well Contractor
10/22/18
Date
Hv signing this fimn, l hereby c•ertt/i, that the well(i) has (here) ennsirucied in accordance
with 15A NCAC 02C .0100 or 15A NCAC 02C .0200 Well Construclion Standards and dial a
copy mf'this record has been provided to the well owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For lniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address DI 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: AIR construction to the following:
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
Division of Water Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a, field (gpm) 1llethod of test 24c. For Water Supply & lniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
Form G W-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Res ised Jan. 201

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
1. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicahle well c•onsintc'tion permits (he. County, ';rate, Variance, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
❑Agricultural
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
❑Industrial/Commere ial
Non -Water Supply Well:
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recover)'
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling
❑Municipal/Public
❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
C
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under 421 P
4, Date Well(s) Completed: 10/09/18 Well IDt1 MW-104BRL
5a. Well Location:
MAYO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (ifapplicable)
10660 BOSTON ROAD ROXBORO 27574
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(it'well field, one lat/long is sufficient)
360 32' 08.12" N 780 53' 09.20" 11,
For Internal Use ONLY
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
ft.
ft.
ft.
it.
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER if •r licable
FROM
TO
DIAM Ef ER
TIi1CKNE55
MATERIAL
0.0 ft-
21 0 ft-
1 8.0 in
SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft'
235.0 rL
2.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
0.0 ft.
80.0 rt•
6.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOT SIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
235.Oft•
250.0 ft'
2.0 in.
.010
SCH 40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in.
IS. GROUT
FROM
I TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEM ENT METHOD& AMOUNT
0.0 ft'
200.0 ft-
roRTUNDBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft-
80.0 ft.
MRTIANa6ENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft'
21.0 ft'
PORTWDaENTONITE
SLURRY
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if applicable)
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
230.0 ft'
250.0 ft'
20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION cala4 hardness, soillmck type, grain sin, etc.
0.0 ft.
10.0 ft.
BROWN SILTY SAND
10.0 rt•
252.0 ft'
ROCK
fr.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 200.0 TO 230.0 FEET
22. CertificatiuQ,.�,(
Signature of Certified Well Contractor
10/22/18
Date
6. Is (are) the well(s): ❑Permanent or ❑Temporary J J),
BY signing this brit, l hereby � c•eru that the wells was (it -ere) constructed in accordance
frith 15.4 NCAC 02C .Ill00 or 15A NCAC 02C .0200 Well Construction Standards and that it
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: 01'es or EINo copy rJ7his record has heen provided to the well owner.
lfihis is a repair.,lill out known well c•on.xiruc'tiun hybrination and explain the noire of the
repair under all remarks section or on die hack i/'dii.x Jbrm. 23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
8. Number of welts constructed: 1 construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
1•iir multiple injection or nun-u•nter supply tre/Lr ON/.3' u•idi dye same cvnr.rtruction. you c•un
suhmitoneJiirin. SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
9. Totul well depth below land surface: 250.0 (ft.)
har mtiltiple ire/ls list all deptli.s iJ dWerent (eraniple- 3 ci 2(Nl' and 2@100')
10. Static water level below top of casing: +3'0 (ft.)
IJ irater have/ is ahare caring, rise ••+ •'
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: AIR construction to the following:
(i.e. atiger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc )
Division of Water Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. Yield (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Witter Supply & Iniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the count), health department of the county
where constructed.
Form G W-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jan. 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This fbrm can be used for single or multiple wells
1. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable well construction permits (i.e. Cunnt,v, ';late, Irarianee, etc.)
3, Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural ❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Industrial/Commercial ❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Irrigation
Non -Water SupDW Well:
❑Aquiter Recharge
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Aquiter Storage and Recovery
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Aquifer Test
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Experimental Technology
❑Subsidence Control
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Tracer
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Return)
❑Other (explain under #21 Rei
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 10/09/18 Well 1D# MW-105BRL
5a. Well Location:
MAYO STEAM PLANT
FncilityiOw•ner Name Facilitv ID# (ifapplicable)
10660 BOSTON ROAD ROXBORO 27574
Physical Address. City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(if well field, one tat/long is sufficient)
360 32' 08.36" N 780 53' 09.80" W
6. Is (are) the well(s): Permanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: 01'es or ONo
lflhi.s is a repair, fill out known hell construction hJoraation and explain the nature oJ7lie
repair under #21 reniarkv section or an the back of iris fimn.
S. Number of wells constructed: 1
FLr rnaltiple injection or non water supply welly ONLY with the .cane construction, You c•an
submit one f inn.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 250.0 (ft.)
hor nahiple wells list all depths ifdifJerent (example- 9 tt 200 • nod 2 cc 100')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 0.0 (ft.)
IJlraier level is ahove casing. use "+'•
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
12. Well construction method: _
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
For Internal Use ONLY
14. WATER ZONES
FROM TO I DESCRIPTION
ft. ft.
tt. ft.
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased welts OR LINER if a licable
FROM TU DIAMETER THICKNESS MATERIAL
0.0 ft• 46.0 ft• 8.0 in SCH 40 PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM I TO I DIAMETER I THICKNESS I MATERIAL
0.0 ft. 235.0 ft. 1 2.0 in' I SCH 40 1 PVC
0.0 ft. 87.0 ft• 6.0 in. I SCH 40 PVC
17. SCREEN
FROM TO DIAMETER SLOTSIZE THICKNESS MATERIAL
235.Oft' 250.0 ft• 2.0 in. .010 SCH 40 PVC
ft. ft. in.
18. GROUT
FROM I TO MATERIAL EMPLACEMENT METHOD & AMOUNT
0.0 ft' 205.0 ft' PORn DBENTONITE SLURRY
0.0 ft. 87.0 ft. PORTL DBENTONITE SLURRY
0.0 ft' 46.0 ft' PORTLANDBENTONITE SLURRY
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if a licable
FROM TO MATERIAL EMPLACEMENTMETHOD
230.0 ft' 250.0 ft. 20-40 FINE SILICA SAND
ft. ft.
20. DRILLING LOG attach additional sheets if necessa
FROM TO DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soiltmck type, grain sim, etc.
0.0 ft- 17.0 ft- BROWN SILTY SAND
17.0 ft. 250.0 ft' ROCK
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 205.0 TO 230.0 FEET
22. Certirtcatio
10/22/18
Signature of Certified Well Contractor Date
Ry signing thi.v frhrrn, I hereby certify that the i ell(v) was (irere) constructed in accordance
with I5A NCAC 02C .0100 or 15A NCAC 02C .0200 Well Construction Standards and that a
copy (#'this record has been provided to the well owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Iniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13ta. Yield (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Supply & Iniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
AIR
Form GW-I North Carolina Department of Em uonment and Natural Resources - Division of Water duality Revised Jan. 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This Corm can be used for single or mulliple wells
For Internal Use ONLY
1. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A-2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable well construction permits (i.e. r •ounly, State, Variance, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Witter Supply Well:
❑Agricultural
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
❑ Industrial/Commercial
❑Municipal/Public
OResidential Water Supply (single)
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Irri ation
Non -Water Supply Well:
hJMonitorine ORecovery
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Aquifer Test
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Experimental Technology
❑Subsidence Control
OGeothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Tracer
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Return)
❑Other (explain under 921 Ret
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 10/11/18 Well ID# MW-107BRL
5a. Well Location:
MAYO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facilitv ID# (hfapplicable)
10660 BOSTON ROAD ROXBORO 27574
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
I DESCRIPTION
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER if a
licable
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft•
46.0 ft•
8.0 i"
SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal
closed -loop)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft'
287.0 ft.
2.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
0.0 ft.
67.0 ft'
6.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOTSIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
287.Oft•
302.0 ft.
2.0 "'
1 .010
SCH 40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in.
IS. GROUT
FROM
I TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD&AMOUNr
0.0 ft'
252.0 ft'
P RT DBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft.
6.7.0 ft.
P RrANDBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft'
46.0 ft'
V RT DBENTONITE
SLURRY
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if a licable
FROM
I TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
282.0 ft'
302.0 ft
1 20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
ft.
I ft.
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soittreck type, grain sin, etc.
0.0 ft.
31.0 ft-
BROWN SILTY SAND
31.0 ft'
302.0 ft.
ROCK
ft.
ft.
rt.
rr.
rr.
rt.
ft.
ft.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 252.0 TO 282.0 FEET
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees: 22. Certification'
(if well field, one tat/long is sutlicient)
36 32 06.25 N 78 53 05.32 W <l,s V`�'
6. Is (are) the well(s): I211'ermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or ONo
if this is a repair, fill out known well construction it fornmlion and explain the nature r f'Ihe
repair under 421 remarks section or on the back gjihis form.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
hor muhiple it feclion or nab-irater supply wells ONLY with the sane construction, yeti can
submit one forn.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 302.0
hor multiple hells list all depths ifdiffiretn (example- 3 rt 200' and 2 c@100')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 21.0
11'water level is above casing, use ••-+..'
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875/10.0 (in.)
Signature of Certified Well Contractor
10/22/18
Dale
BY signing this fmn, I hereby certlj, that the well(.+) was (were) constructed in accordance
with 15A NC'AC 02C .0100 or I5A NCAC 02C .01110 Nell Construction Standards (life/ that a
copy of'ihis record has been provided to the hell owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
(ft.) 24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
(ft.) Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: AIR construction to the following:
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
Division ofWater Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. Yield (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Supply & Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
Form G W-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jan. 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
For Internal Use ONLY:
I. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contmclor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable well construction perinitc (i.e. Coanry. State, Variance, etc,)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural ❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Industrial/Commercial ❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Irrl atlon
Non -Water Supply Well:
Injection Well:
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Return
4. Date Well(s) Completed:
❑ Recovery
❑Groundwater Remediahon
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsistence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under #21 F
10/18/18 Well ID# MW-103BRM
5a. Well Location:
MAYO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facilitv ID# (ifapplicable)
10660 BOSTON ROAD ROXBORO 27574
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(ifwell field, one lat/long is sufficient)
360 32' 02.36" N 780 53' 06.39" W
6. Is (are) the well(s): OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or ONo
Ilihi.c n a repair, Jill out knuu n irell construction h fimniation and explain the nature of the
repair wider ,; 2/ renarkc suction or on the back o f'ihis form.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
For nuduple injection or non-u ater supply a el/s ON!-Y woh the more construction, you can
rubina oneJorin.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 240.0 (ft.)
For ind"ple iregls list all dcpihs ifdiJ)erem (example- 3 tt,200' and 2@100')
10. Static water level below top of easing: 48.0
I f hater level is above caring, use "+
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875 (in.)
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO_l
DESCRIPTION
ft.
ft.
rr.
rc.
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER if a licable
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
D.
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -lop
FROM
TO
DIAM EI'ER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft'
225.0 ft'
2•0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in.
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOTSIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
225.0ft•
240.0 ff•
2.0 "'
.010
SCH 40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD & AMOUNT
0.0 ft.
190.0 ft-
P°nn.nDBE TeN'TE
SLURRY
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if u licable
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENTMETHOD
220.0 ft'
240.0 fL
20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soiit.ck type, %min size, etc.
0.0 ft-
58.0 ft-
BROWN SILTY SAND
58.0 ft-
240.0 ft•
ROCK
ft.
fr.
ft.
fr.
rt.
n.
ft.
fr.
ft.
rc.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 190.0 TO 220.0 FEET
22. Certification: - w -
�nzt- V'w-
Signature of Certified Well Contractor
10/22/18
Date
By signing; Ihi.c Jimm, l hereby certify that the hell(s) iras (here) constructed in accordance
inth 15A NC'AC 02C .0100 or 15.4 NCAC 02C .0200 Well Construction Standards and that a
cope aJ'dris record has been prorided to the hell owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 da)s of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: AIR construction to the following:
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc.)
Division of Water Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. Yield (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Supply & lniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
Form G W-I North Carolina Department of Environment mid Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jan. 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
1. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Nanie
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable well construction permits (i.e. C•oun/r, Slate, Parlance, etc)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural ❑Municipal/Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Industrial/Commercial ❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Irrl ation
Non -Water Supply Well:
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
OGeothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (1-leatmg/Coolmg Return)
❑Recovery
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
OStormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain udder #21 1
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 10/10/18 Nell ID# MW-104BRM
5a. Well Location:
MAYO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (ifapplicable)
10660 BOSTON ROAD ROXBORO 27574
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
For Internal Use ONLY:
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
ft.
ft.
rr.
rr.
15. OUTER CASING fur multi -cased wells OR LINER ifr licable
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 fr.
150.0 fr•
6.0 i"
SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft'
165.0 fr.
2.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in.
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOT SIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
165.Ofr'
180.0 ft'
2.0 "'
.010
SCH 40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD & AMOUNr
0.0 ft'
135.0 ft'
POMANDBENTONITE
SLURRY
0.0 ft.
150.0 ft.
r+ORLANDBENTONITE
SLURRY
ft.
ft.
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK(if applicable)
FROM
TO
MATERIAL I
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
160.0 ft'
180.0 ft'
20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
D.
ft.
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
I TO
DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soil/mck type, rain sin, etc.
0.0 ft.
10.0 It.
BROWN SILTY SAND
10.0 ft'
180.0 fr.
ROCK
ft.
ft.
ft.
fr.
ft.
fr.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 135.0 TO 160.0 FEET
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees: 22. Certification:
(if well field, one hat/long is sufficient)
360 32' 02.93" N 780 53' 06.45" W � ,� �ji tires 10/22/18
Signature of Certified Nell Contractor Date
6. Is (are) the well(s): 1271"ermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or ElNo
//lhi.v is a repair, fill om known well con.svntc•tion in/ornlation and explain the nature n/'the
repair under t,21 rentarkv section or on the hack (J'this fbrnh.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
For nroltiple infection or non -ureter supply wells OAT Y with tire same construction, you can
s•ubnhii one Jinn.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 180.0 (ft.)
For multiple we//v list all depths tf different (example- 3 a 200' and 2 100')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 1.0
ff hater lerel is above caving, a.ve "
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875 (in.)
Hp signing dhi.v Jhrm, l herehv c•ertiJy dial the we//(t) was (were) constructed in accordance
with 15A NC'AC 02C•.0100 or 15A NCAC 02C.0200 Well Consvrucrmn Siandardv and that a
copy of7his record has been provided to the well owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 1llail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For lniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion o1' well
12. Well construction method: AIR construction to the following:
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc)
Division of N'uter Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. Yield (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Suvyly & lniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
Form G W-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Revised Jan. 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
1. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable well construction permits (i e. Couniv. State, Variance, etc)
3. Well Use (check well use):
Water Supply Well:
❑Agricultural ❑Municipal Public
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply) ❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Industrial/Commercial ❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Irri alion
Non -Water Supply Well:
MMonitoring ❑Recovery
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Aquifer Test
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Experimental Technology
❑Subsidence Control
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Tracer
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Return)
❑Other (explain under #21 Ren
4. Date Well(s) Completed: 10/11/18 Well ID# MW-105BRM
5a. Well Location:
MAYO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facilitv ID# (d'applicable)
10660 BOSTON ROAD ROXBORO 27574
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
5b. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(ifwell field, one lat/long is sufficient)
360 32' 04.93" N 780 53' 05.62" W
6. Is (are) the well(s): OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: ❑Yes or ONo
lfilus is a repair, Jill out known well construction it fhrinalion and explain the nature oJthe
repair under it 21 rentarks section or our the hack c f this forni.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
For multiple injection or min-iraler supply wells ONLY with the .wane construction, you can
suhntit one fiwin.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 125.0
Vor multiple ire//s lisl all depths !/'different (eraniple-1 u 200' and 2 rr 100')
10. Static water level below top of casing: 10.0
//rater level Is ahore casing, use "
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875
For Internal Use ONLY:
14. WATER ZONES
FROM TO DESCRIPTION
rt. rr.
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER if a licable
FROM TO DI_AM EPER THICKNESS MATERIAL
0.0 ft. 100.0 ft- 6.0 i" SCH 40 PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM TO DIAMETER THICKNESS MATERIAL
0.0 ft' 110.0 ft. 2.0 in. SCH 40 PVC
ft. ft. in.
17. SCREEN
FROM TO DIAMETER SLOT SIZE THICKNESS MATERIAL
110.0ft' 125.0 ft' 2.0 "' .010 SCH 40 PVC
ft. ft. in.
IS. GROUT
FROM I TO MATERIAL EMPLACEMENT METHOD & AMOUNT
0.0 rt. 80.0 R. PORT DBENTON"E SLURRY
0.0 ft. 100.0 ft- PORTL-DBENTONITE SLURRY
fr. ft.
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if a licable
FROM TO MATERIAL EMPLACEMENTMETHOD
105.0 ft' 125.0 ft' 20-40 FINE SILICA SAND
ft. ft.
20. DRILLING LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM TO DESCRIPTION color, hardness, soillmck type, grain sin, etc)
0.0 ft. 17.0 ft. BROWN SILTY SAND
17.0 ft' 125.0 ft. ROCK
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
D. e.
ft. ft.
rt. rt.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 80.0 TO 105.0 FEET
22. Certification:
� ZnLw V w,- 10/22/18
Signature ofCertitied Well Contractor Dale
Hy signing this /hrin, l herehv certify that the we/l(i) was (were) constructed in accordance
with 15.4 NCAC 02C'.0/00 or 15A NCAC 02C.0200 Well Construction Standards and that it
copy of this record has been provided to the well owner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
12. Well construction method: AIR construction to the following:
(i.e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc)
Division of Water Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
On. Yield (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Supply & Infection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
(in.)
(ft.)
Form G W-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality Revised Jan 2013

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
This form can be used for single or multiple wells
For Internal Use ONLY-
I. Well Contractor Information:
BRIAN THOMAS
Well Contractor Name
A - 2581
NC Well Contractor Certification Number
GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION, INC
Company Name
2. Well Construction Permit #:
List all applicable well construction permits (i.e. Countt•, State. Variance, etc.)
3. Well Use (check well use):
❑Agricultural
❑Geothermal (Heating/Cooling Supply)
❑ Industrial/Commercial
❑Irrigation
Non -Water Supply Well:
OMonitoring
Injection Well:
❑Aquifer Recharge
❑Aquifer Storage and Recovery
❑Aquifer Test
❑Experimental Technology
❑Geothermal (Closed Loop)
❑Geothermal (HeatinP./Coolina Return)
❑Municipal)Pubhc
❑Residential Water Supply (single)
❑Residential Water Supply (shared)
❑Groundwater Remediation
❑Salinity Barrier
❑Stormwater Drainage
❑Subsidence Control
❑Tracer
❑Other (explain under #21 1
4. Date 11'ell(s) Completed: 10/17/18 Well ID# MW-107BRM
5a. 11'ell Location:
MAYO STEAM PLANT
Facility/Owner Name Facility ID# (ifapplicable)
10660 BOSTON ROAD ROXBORO 27574
Physical Address, City, and Zip
PERSON
County
Parcel Identification No. (PIN)
Sb. Latitude and Longitude in degrees/minutes/seconds or decimal degrees:
(ifwell field, one lat/long is sufficient)
360 32' 06.38" N 780 53' 03.92" W
6. Is (are) the well(s): OPermanent or ❑Temporary
7. Is this a repair to an existing well: 01'es or ONo
lf'ihis is a repair, Ji/I out known well construclion /iifimnation and explain the name r jilie
repair under 421 rentarkv section or on the back of this frmw.
8. Number of wells constructed: 1
loth multiple hyeelion or non -hater supply hells ONLY with the same construction, you colt
submit unc Junin.
9. Total well depth below land surface: 192.0 (ft.)
For iutihiple ivehtv list all depths if diJJerent (example- 3 a 200' and 2 a l001
10. Static water level below top of casing: 21.0 (ft.)
lf'iraier level is above caving, use " I "
11. Borehole diameter: 6.0/7.875 (in.)
12. Well construction method: _
it e. auger, rotary, cable, direct push, etc )
AIR
14. WATER ZONES
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION
(t.
ft.
ft.
ft.
15. OUTER CASING for multi -cased wells OR LINER if a licable
FROM
TO
DIAMETER THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 ft.
125.0 ft•
6.0 in SCH 40
PVC
16. INNER CASING OR TUBING(geothermal closed -loop)
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
0.0 fL
177.0 fr,
2.0 in.
SCH 40
PVC
in.
17. SCREEN
FROM
TO
DIAMETER
SLOTSIZE
THICKNESS
MATERIAL
177.0ft•
192.0 fL
2.0 in.
.010
SCH 40
PVC
ft.
ft.
in.
18. GROUT
FROM
I To
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD & AMOUNT
0.0 ft'
140.0 ft'
MRTI DBENTONITE
SLURRY
0,0 ft.
125.0 ft.
MRTL DDENTONITE
SLURRY
ft.
ft.
19. SAND/GRAVEL PACK if a licable
FROM
TO
MATERIAL
EMPLACEMENT METHOD
171.0 ft'
192.0 ft'
20-40
FINE SILICA SAND
ft.
ft.
20. DRILLING
LOG attach additional sheets if necessary)
FROM
TO
DESCRIPTION (color, hardness, soiLtmck type, grain sin, etc.)
0.0 ft.
31.0 ft-
BROWN SILTY SAND
31.0 ft'
192.0 ft'
ROCK
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
21. REMARKS
BENTONITE SEAL FROM 140.0 TO 171.0 FEET
22. Certification:
!:2/ Sin�- &-J.- 10/22/18
Signature of Certified Well Contractor Date
Hy signing this firm, I hereby cerfifj, that rite ire/I(.T) was (here) comtructed in accordance
ividt 15A NCAC 02C.0100 or 15A NC'AC 02C.0200 Well ('on.ivruction bYa)idardr and that it
copy r fthis record has been provided to the hell corner.
23. Site diagram or additional well details:
You may use the back of this page to provide additional well site details or well
construction details. You may also attach additional pages if necessary.
SUBMITTAL INSTUCTIONS
24a. For All Wells: Submit this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following.
Division of Water Quality, Information Processing Unit,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
24b. For lniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to the address in 24a
above, also submit a copy of this form within 30 days of completion of well
construction to the following:
Division of Water Quality, Underground Injection Control Program,
FOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS ONLY: 1636 Flail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
13a. field (gpm) Method of test: 24c. For Water Supply & lniection Wells: In addition to sending the form to
the address(es) above, also submit one copy of this form within 30 days of
13b. Disinfection type: Amount: completion of well construction to the county health department of the county
where constructed.
Form GW-I North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Wafer Quality Revised Jan. 2013

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

FLASH - Flow Log Analysis of Single Holes Ambient Flow Profile Pumped Flow Profile
REQUIRED Wellname: Mayo MW-103BRL upward Flow, in GPM Upward Flow, in GPM
INPUT:
o.00 0.05
Elevation of measuring point [FT] 0 lun Solver `• Estimate Transmissivity
Number of flow zones[-] 24 Estimate Rol
Well diameter [IN] 5.5
Drawdown [FT] 18.00
Depth to ambient water level [FT] 89.5 Solve without Regularization
Depth at bottom of casing [FT] 106.2
Depth at bottom of well [FT] 351.2 Solve with Regularization
Radius of influence (Ro) [FT] 1000.0
Total transmissivity (Tteml) [FT2/day] 0.17
•
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00 1DD 10
Regularization weight 1.00E-04 •I I
Tfactor minimum [-I 1.00E-09
Flow above layer bottom depths �` I
1
FRACTURES Bottom Depth [FT] Ambient [GPM] Stressed [GPM] Tfactor [FT'ID] Ah [FT] Fairfield head [FT]
24
23
22 150 0
21 1
20 r
19 i
18
17
16
1s
14 I
13
12 I .0
11 r 10
s 1
a f
60.011c r _
5 n }
I G
3 •1
2 25o I o
1
SIMULATED PROFILES (DO NOT EDIT) r
MSE [GPM2J 7.564122E-OS Sum Tf,�, 1.000 Sum 4h^2 0.0009594259308
Ambient WL [FT] 89.50 Estimated Ttotal [FT2/day] 0.168 Regularized Misfit o.00
Pumped WL [FT]-107.50 I
Ambient Stressed Ambient Stressed 300 �♦
Depth Flow above Flow above Error Error Zone T Fraction of total 300
FRACTURES: [FT] [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [FT2/day] transmissivity
24
23
22
21 r zo
19 y
is T
17
16
15 0
350
14
13
12
11
10
9
a
7
6
5
4 aoo
3 eoo
2
t
Dashedlines indicate interpretationsofine waddata. Sdidlinesindicatesimulata 1pcfiles.
124.91
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
130.54
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
135.06
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.00
-89.50
145.00
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.00
-89.50
155.30
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
164.82
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
174.73
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
185.37
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
194.59
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
205.10
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
214.79
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
225.21
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
-89.50
235.06
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
245.51
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
254.85
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
265.18
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
274.75
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
285.12
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
295.20
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
305.15
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
315.06
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.00
-89.50
325.22
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-89.50
335.21
0.01
0.01
0.86
0.03
-89.47
345.10
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
-89.50
124.91
0.000
0.012
0.015
-0.003
0.000
0.000
130.54
0.000
0.012
0.025
0.002
0.000
0.000
135.06
0.000
0.012
0.011
0.001
0.008
0.045
145.00
0.000
0.011
0.010
0.000
0.013
0.075
155.30
0.000
0.010
0.011
-0.004
0.000
0.000
164.82
0.000
0.010
0.010
-0.002
0.000
0.000
174.73
0.000
0.010
0.012
0.001
0.000
0.000
185.37
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.001
0.000
0.000
194.59
0.000
0.010
0.013
-0.001
0.000
0.000
205.10
0.000
0.010
0.013
0.000
0.000
0.000
214.79
0.000
0.010
0.010
-0.001
0.000
0.000
225.21
0.000
0.010
0.011
-0.010
0.000
0.000
235.06
0.000
0.010
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
245.51
0.000
0.010
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
254.85
0.000
0.010
0.011
0.002
0.000
0.000
265.18
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.002
0.000
0.000
274.75
0.000
0.010
0.008
0.004
0.000
0.000
285.12
0.000
0.010
0.010
-0.001
0.000
0.000
295.20
0.000
0.010
0.012
0.001
0.000
0.000
305.15
0.000
0.010
0.012
0.000
0.000
0.000
315.06
0.000
0.010
0.012
0.008
0.004
0.021
325.22
0.000
0.010
0.015
0.000
0.000
0.000
335.21
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.144
0.859
345.10
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
MW-103BRL FLASH

MW-103BRL FLASH Results and Individual Hydraulic Aperture Values
Depth
(fee bgs)
Depth
(fee BTOR)
Int—al
(feet Irroe�
.1 Fracture. in
Fl— Lay.r
Fmct.,?
Fraction of Total
Transmissivity
Transmissivity
2/day)
CALIBRATED
2/day)
®
... hy,,__
Ac
�®
��l".��SF�L�!'331fL�iiL•1f6��EI�����s344�sd14�sd14� � �-� �� ��
Open Fractures
Flow Layer in
Identified by
FLASH
GEL
125
1
129
130
2
133
3
227
13
231
233
246
IS
257
16
2l6
18
326
326
23
346
349
24
®®®
Motes:
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of the FLASH model to radius of influence, a conservative value of 1000 feet was
sad.
2. Objective function, F, for model inmpora[es mean squared error (MSE) between interpreted and predicted Flow profiles and the
m of squared differences (ah) between the borehole', water level and far -field heads. Model objective is to minimize F;
therefore, a value closer to zero indicates a better fit.
3. Model was run until no more iterations produced changes in output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., ]oh nson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer Program for Flow -
Log Analysis of Single Holes v1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J., 2011, A computer program for Flow -log analysis
of single holes (FLASH): Ground Water, hdps://dx.doi.oM/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00798..
6. Highlighted cells indicate flow levels that do not have any observed open fractures and did not contribute to total transmisswity.
These depth intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because it is assumed that there
are no fractures in these intervals.
Total Transmissivity Calculated from Thiem Equation
Q (gpm) ft3 d Drawdown, s (ft) Ro (ft) R. (In) R. (ft) T ru ftt/da
0.1 19.25 IBI 1000 1 2.75 1 0.229 1 1.43
FLASH Total T and Fit Parameters
Radius of
Transmissivity
Influence, Ro
, TT
MSE
Ah
F
(ft)
(W/day)
1000
0.1]
].56E-OS
9.59E-04
].5]3RE-OS
S ug Test Information
Screen ft
Interval
Screen Interval (ft
BTOR
Mid -point of
interval
�1]2
Hydraulic Aperture
Hydraulic
Conductivit
MW-103BRM
225
164
0.014
6.67E-04
240
1]9
MW-103BRL
283
0.005
1 1.33E-05
1 356
295

FLASH - Flow Log Analysis of Single Holes Ambient Flow Profile Pumped Flow Profile
Upward Flow, in GPM Upward Flow, In GPM
REQUIRED Wellname: Mavo MW-104BRL -0.10 -005 o.00 o.05 0.10 0.15 -o.to -0.05 0.00 0.D5 0.10 0,15
INPUT: So so
Elevation of measuring point [FT] 0 Bun Solver `• Eslmate Transmissivity
Number of flow zones[-] 23 Estimate Rol
Well diameter [IN] 5.5
Drawdown [FT] 34.00
Depth to ambient water level [FT] 1 Solve without Regularization rT
Depth at bottom of casing [FT] 78.9
Depth at bottom of well [FT] 250.8 Solve with Regularization
Radius of influence (RD) [FT] 1000.0
Total transmissivity (Tro,l) [FT2/day] p,gq
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00 1
Regularization weight 1.00E-04
Tfactor minimum 1-1 1.00E-09
Flow above layer bottom depths I
t r• loo
I
FRACTURES Bottom Depth [FT] Ambient [GPM] Stressed [GPM] Tfactor [FT'ID] Ah [FT] Fairfield head [FT] •I •
23 I
22
21 I 20
19 `
18 r
17
16
15
14
13 150
12 I
11
10 I 9
s 1
7 I r
s
q 5 I -
3
z
t
2 p� 200
SIMULATED PROFILES (DO NOT EDIT) 1
MSE [GPM2J 5.324184E-04 Sum Tf r 1.000 Sum 4h^2 0.0137329076615 I
Ambient WL [FT] 1.00 Estimated Ttotal [FT2/day] 0.844 Regularized Misfit 0.00
Pumped WL [FT] -35.00
Ambient Stressed Ambient Stressed I
Depth Flow above Flow above Error Error Zone T Fraction of total
FRACTURES: [FT] [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [FT'/day] transmissivily 1
23
22 r
21
20 1-6
19 250
18 250
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
a
7
6
5
4
a
2 00 JL 300
1
Dwhedlirw indicate interpretations of -muted data. Sdidlirwindiczte simulated profiles.
80.34
0.06
0.11
0.40
0.02
-0.98
84.76
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.00
-1.00
90.41
0.03
0.06
0.08
0.01
-0.99
100.17
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.00
-1.00
110.08
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.00
-1.00
120.05
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.00
-1.00
130.08
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.00
-1.00
140.03
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.01
-0.99
149.88
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.00
-1.00
159.34
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
-1.00
169.98
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.00
-1.00
180.24
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.02
-0.98
185.01
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.00
-1.00
189.97
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
-1.00
200.26
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.00
-1.00
210.11
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.00
-1.00
219.48
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
-1.00
230.36
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
-1.00
234.91
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.00
-1.00
239.39
0.05
0.04
0.21
0.10
-0.90
244.73
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
-1.00
247.89
0.02
0.01
0.12
0.06
-0.94
249.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-1.00
80.34
0.000
0.112
0.061
0.000
0.337
0.399
84.76
0.000
0.067
0.029
0.000
0.034
0.041
90.41
0.000
0.063
0.029
0.000
0.070
0.084
100.17
0.000
0.053
0.032
-0.002
0.000
0.000
110.08
0.000
0.053
0.026
-0.007
0.000
0.000
120.05
0.000
0.053
0.037
0.009
0.014
0.016
130.08
0.000
0.052
0.036
-0.003
0.000
0.000
140.03
0.000
0.052
0.032
0.003
0.061
0.072
149.88
0.000
0.043
0.031
-0.001
0.000
0.000
159.34
0.000
0.043
0.031
-0.013
0.000
0.000
169.98
0.000
0.043
0.037
0.010
0.000
0.000
180.24
0.000
0.043
0.040
0.004
0.045
0.053
185.01
0.000
0.038
0.024
-0.001
0.000
0.000
189.97
0.000
0.038
0.026
-0.007
0.000
0.000
200.26
0.000
0.038
0.028
0.008
0.004
0.005
210.11
0.000
0.037
0.022
-0.003
0.000
0.000
219.48
0.000
0.037
0.029
-0.006
0.000
0.000
230.36
0.000
0.037
0.027
-0.004
0.000
0.000
234.91
0.000
0.037
0.023
0.007
0.000
0.000
239.39
0.000
0.037
0.046
0.005
0.177
0.210
244.73
0.000
0.013
0.032
0.000
0.000
0.000
247.89
0.000
0.013
0.016
0.001
0.101
0.120
249.99
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
MW-104BRL FLASH

MW-104BRL FLASH R ... It. and Individual Hydraulic Apart- Values
FlDepth
Layer
Depth
of
Center offe 'at BT.11)ow
.ctum,
Flow Lay-
Fractu,
(ft2/day)
Ty
®Hydraulic
Density of
Acc.1-ti
due to 0
®®
AL
calculamd
•
• �������
Open
Fractures Flow Layer in
Identified by FLASH
GEL
84.6 2
96.1 4
107.0 5
109.2
111.8 6
117.0
147.4 9
149.4
150.9
151.5 10
155.4
166.5
166.9 11
167.1
175.4 12
179.5
181.5 13
239.1 20
244.7 21
245.1 22
248.8 23
a0�0
0�0
©0�0
a0�0
Notes:
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of the FLASH model tc radius of influence, a conservative value of 1000 feet
ws used.
2 a0bjective function, F, for model incoporates mean squared error (MSE) between interpreted and predicted flow profiles
antl the sum of squared differences (4h) between the borehole's water level and far -field heads. Model objective is to
minimize F; therefore, a value closer to zero indicates a better fit.
3.Model was run until no more iterations produced changes in output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer program for
Flow -Log Analysis of Single Holes v1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Pallet, F.L., and Halford, K.J., 2011, A computer program for flow -log
analysis of single holes (FLASH): Ground Water, https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00798.,
6. Highlighted cells indicate Flow levels that do not have any observed open fractures and did not contribute to total
transmissivity. These depth intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because it
is assumed that there are no fractures in these intervals.
Total Transmissivity Calculated from Thiem Equation
Q OPm) ft2/tla Drawtlown, s (ft) & (ft) R. (in) R. (ft) T-L ft2/da
0.1 19.11 34 1000 2.11 0.229 1 0.76
FLASH Total T and Fit Parameters
Radius of
Transmissivity,
Influence, R.
TTOTnL
MSE
Ah
F
(ft)
(ft2/day)
1000
0.84
5.32E-04
1.38E-02
5.34E-04
Slug Test Information
Screen Interval Screen Interval
Mid -point of
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
R b s ft BTOR
ee interval
Aperturem m
Conductivi
MW-104BRM 165
80
150
165
158
0.023
2.67E-03'
MW-104BRL 250
23',
228
0.103
2.02E-01

FLASH - Flow Log Analysis of Sin
REQUIRED Wellname: Mayo MW-105BRL
INPUT:
Elevation of measuring point [FT]
0
Number offlowzones[-]
19
Well diameter [IN]
5.5
Drawdown [FT]
14.40
Depth to ambient water level [FT]
0.2
Depth at bottom of casing [FT]
86.8
Depth at bottom of well [FT]
249.9
Radius of influence (R0) [FT]
1000.0
Total transmissivity (T j) [FT2/day]
0.73
Holes
i Solver Estimate 7-missivity
Estimate ROI
Solve without Regularization
- Solve with Regularization
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00
Regularization weight 1.00E-04
Tfactor minimum[-] 1.00E-09
Flow above layer bottom depths
.S Bottom Depth [FT] Ambient [GPM] Stressed [GPM] Tfactor [FT'/D] Ah [FT] Fairfield head [FT]
19
1s
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
a
7
6
5
4
3
2
90.56
0.01
0.04
0.27
0.00
-0.20
94.61
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
-0.20
100.49
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
-0.20
105.84
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
-0.20
109.53
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.00
-0.20
114.70
0.01
0.03
0.53
0.02
-0.18
125.68
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.20
135.53
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.20
145.55
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.20
155.35
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.20
165.39
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.20
175.82
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.20
185.54
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.20
194.94
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.20
205.10
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.20
215.45
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.20
225.07
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.20
235.06
0.01
0.01
0.13
0.02
-0.18
244.84
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.20
MSE [GPM2]
4.687376E-OS
Sum Tf r 1.000
Sum 4h^2
0.0006133470977
Ambient WL [FT]
-0.Z
Estimated Ttotal [FT2/day] 0.731
Regularized Misfit
o.00
Pumped WL [FT]
-14.60
Ambient Stressed Ambient
Stressed
Depth
Flow above Flow above Error
Error Zone T Fraction of total
FRACTURES:
[FT]
[GPM] [GPM] [GPM]
[GPM] [Fr/day] transmissivity
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
a
7
6
5
4
3
2
90.56
0.000
0.041
0.006
0.000
0.195
0.266
94.61
0.000
0.030
0.008
-0.001
0.000
0.000
100.49
0.000
0.030
0.007
0.001
0.003
0.003
105.84
0.000
0.030
0.007
-0.003
0.000
0.000
109.53
0.000
0.030
0.009
0.003
0.049
0.066
114.70
0.000
0.027
0.010
0.000
0.384
0.525
125.68
0.000
0.006
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
135.53
0.000
0.006
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
145.55
0.000
0.006
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
155.35
0.000
0.006
0.012
0.000
0.003
0.004
165.39
0.000
0.006
0.013
-0.006
0.000
0.000
175.82
0.000
0.006
0.012
0.001
0.000
0.000
185.54
0.000
0.006
0.014
0.001
0.000
0.000
194.94
0.000
0.006
0.009
0.001
0.000
0.000
205.10
0.000
0.006
0.008
0.001
0.000
0.000
215.45
0.000
0.006
0.007
0.001
0.000
0.000
225.07
0.000
0.006
0.009
0.001
0.002
0.002
235.06
0.000
0.0051
0.008
0.000
0.097
0.132
244.84
0.000
0.0001
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ambient Flow Profile
Upward Flow, in GPM
o.100 -0.050 0.000 0.050 o.100
w
II 200
•
Pumped Flow Profile
Upward Flow, in GPM
-o.io ..as o.aa 0.D5 a
so
01
MW-105BRL FLASH

MW-10SBRL FLASH R ... It, and Individual Hydraulic Ap-t— Vol...
Open
Fractures Flow Layer In
Identified by FLASH
GEL
93.8 2
98.T 3
98.9
117.7 ]
1.2
18886.] 14
199.3 15
232.0 18
2ao.�
241.3 19
241.9
Notes:
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of the FLASH model to radius of influence, a conservative value of 1000 feet was
ed.
2. Objective function, F, for model incoporates ,an squared error (MSE) between interpreted and predicted flow profiles and
the sum of squared differences (Ah) between the borehole's water level and far -field heads. Model objective is to minimize F;
therefore, a value closer to zero indicate, a better fit.
3. Model was run until no more iterations produced changes in output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halfortl, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer program for Flow -
Log Analysis of Single Holes v1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D.,roJohnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halfortl, K.J., 2011, A computer program far Flow -log
analysis of single holes (FLASH): Gund Water, https://d..doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00798..
6. Highlighted cells indicate flow levels that do not have any observed open fractures and did not contribute to total
transmissivity. These depth intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because it is
assumed that there are no fractures in these intervals.
Total Transmissivity Calculated from Thiem Equation
Q (9pm) ftr tla Drawdown, s (R) Ro (R) Rw (in) Rw (R) T ru tt'/tla
0.1 19.25 14.4 1000 2.]5 0.229 1.]8
FLASH Total T and Fit Parameters
Open
Fractures Flow Layer In
Identified by FLASH
GEL
93.8 2
98.T 3
98.9
117.7 ]
1.2
18886.] 14
199.3 15
232.0 18
2ao.�
241.3 19
241.9
Notes:
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of the FLASH model to radius of influence, a conservative value of 1000 feet was
ed.
2. Objective function, F, for model incoporates ,an squared error (MSE) between interpreted and predicted flow profiles and
the sum of squared differences (Ah) between the borehole's water level and far -field heads. Model objective is to minimize F;
therefore, a value closer to zero indicate, a better fit.
3. Model was run until no more iterations produced changes in output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halfortl, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer program for Flow -
Log Analysis of Single Holes v1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D.,roJohnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halfortl, K.J., 2011, A computer program far Flow -log
analysis of single holes (FLASH): Gund Water, https://d..doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00798..
6. Highlighted cells indicate flow levels that do not have any observed open fractures and did not contribute to total
transmissivity. These depth intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because it is
assumed that there are no fractures in these intervals.
Total Transmissivity Calculated from Thiem Equation
Q (9pm) ftr tla Drawdown, s (R) Ro (R) Rw (in) Rw (R) T ru tt'/tla
0.1 19.25 14.4 1000 2.]5 0.229 1.]8
FLASH Total T and Fit Parameters
Radius of
Transmissivity,
Influence, Re
Trvru
MSE
Ah F
(R)
(R'/day)
1000
0.73
4.69E-OS
6.13E-04 4.69E-OS
Slu Test Information
Screen Interval (R,
b s
Screen Interval (R
BTOR
Mid -point of
interval
reen93
Mytlraulic
A erture m m
Mytlraulic
C.nductivi[
MW-105BRM
0.019
6.67E-04
1211
15
MW-105BRL
218
0.008
6.67E-05
250
225

FLASH - Flow Log Analysis of Single Holes LAOAmbient Flow Profile Pumped Flow Profile
REQUIRED weunamo. Mayo MW-107BRL Upward Flow, in GPM Upward Flow, In GPM
INPUT:005
Elevation of measuring point [FT] 0 un Solver n EsUnt ale Tran1,111 Vlry
Number of Flow zones[-] 36 OEstlmate ROl
Well diameter [IN] 5.5
Dmwdown [FT] 1980.
Depth to ambient water level [FT] 22.2 •
Depth at bottom of casing [FT] 66.4 C' Solve without Reg ularl2atlon
Depth at bottom of well [FT] 301.3 C' Solvewltll Requ MRZetlon
Radius of influence (Ro) [FT] 1000.0 `
Total tmnsmissivity (Tew) [FT'/day] 0,14
ABS(Ah) maximum 5.00E+00 j
Regularization weight 1.00E-04 T
Tfanor minimum[-) 1.00E-09 1
Flow abovelayerbottom depths 1
FRACTURES Bottom Depth [FT] Ambient [GPM] Stressed [GPM] Tfactor [FT -A)] Ah [FT] Farfield Mad [FTI
36 69.9 0.009 0.011 0.12 0.00 -22.20 1
35
34
33 1
32 f
31
30
29
28 I 27
28 1
25 1
24 I
23
22 1
21
20
19
,8
17 1
,fi
15
16 I 13
12
11 r
10
9
8 LL t
II _ •
6 Sn
a 1 c
2 1
1
SIMULATED PROFILES (DO NOT EDIT)
MSE [GPMr] 5.795196E-05 Sum Tr�do, 1.000 Sum AM2 0.000490sa84a51
Ambient W L [FT] 22.20 Estimated Ttotal [FT'/day] 0.137 Regularized Misfit 0.00 1
Pumped WL[FT] -02.00
Ambient Stressed Ambient Stressed 1 2sv
Depth Flow above Flow above Error Error Zone T Frmtlon of Wral I
FRACTURES: [FT] [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [GPM] [FT'may] transmisslvlly
34
35
34
33
32 •
31
30
29
28 11
27 l
28
25
24
23
22
21
2a
19
,8
,7
16
,5
14
13
1211
10
9
S
7
6
5 4- !K
4 0
3 0
2
D-hed uh. irdicela inte retatima of measured date. -d HnaeinEeataeimuleted las.
60.1
0.007
0.007
0.00
0.00
-22.20
90.2
0.010
0.008
0.00
0.00
-22.20
99.7
0.006
0.006
0.00
0.00
-22.20
110.4
0.007
0.007
0.00
0.00
-22.20
119.9
0.007
0.000
0.00
0.00
-22.20
130.5
0.006
0.007
0.00
0.00
-22.20
139.7
0.006
0.007
0.00
0.00
-22.20
150.3
0.006
0.007
0.00
0.00
-22.20
159.5
0.008
0.007
0.00
0.00
-22.20
170.0
0.009
0.010
0.00
0.00
-22.20
180.0
0.013
0.007
0.00
0.00
-22.20
184.7
0.013
0.009
0.00
0.00
-22.20
190.0
0.025
0.011
0.00
0.00
-22.20
195.2
0.016
0.010
0.00
0.00
-22.20
200.2
0.013
0.015
0.00
0.00
-22.20
204.7
0.014
0.018
0.00
0.00
-22.20
209.6
0.0,1
0.0,1
0.00
0.00
-22.20
214.9
0.012
0.013
0.00
0.00
-22.20
220.0
0.009
0.0,0
0.00
0.00
-22.20
225.0
0.010
0.007
0.00
0.00
-22.20
229.9
0.010
0.009
0.00
0.00
-22.20
235.0
0.013
0.007
0.00
0.00
-22.20
240.2
0.010
0.006
0.00
0.00
-22.20
244.8
0.008
0.013
0.00
0.00
-22.20
249.9
0.008
0.009
0.00
0.00
-22.20
254.8
0.007
0.007
0.00
0.00
-22.20
260.1
0.006
0.009
0.00
0.00
-22.20
265.1
0.008
0.011
0.00
0.00
-22.20
270.0
0.007
0.009
0.00
0.00
-22.20
275.2
0.007
0.010
0.00
0.00
-22.20
279.8
0.010
0.008
0.00
0.00
-22.20
285.1
0.006
0.011
0.00
0.00
-22.20
289.E
0.011
0.014
0.00
0.00
-22.20
zs5.o
o.a10
o.a1a
0.88
0.02
-22.18
300.0
0
0
0.00
0.00
-22.20
69.94
0.000
0.011
0.009
0.000
0.017
0.125
80.11
0.000
0.009
0.007
-0.002
0.000
0.000
90.21
0.000
0.009
0.010
-0.002
0.000
0.000
99.71
0.000
0.009
0.006
-0.003
0.000
0.000
110.36
0.000
0.009
0.007
-0.003
0.000
0.000
119.91
0.000
0.009
0.007
-0.009
0.000
0.000
130.46
0.000
0.009
0.006
-0.002
0.000
0.000
139.75
0.000
0.009
0.006
-0.003
0.000
0.000
150.31
0.000
0.009
0.006
-0.002
0.000
0.000
159.49
0.000
0.009
0.008
-0.002
0.000
0.000
170.04
0.000
0.009
0.009
0.001
0.000
0.000
180.03
0.000
0.009
0.013
-0.002
0.000
0.000
184.70
0.000
0.009
0.013
-0.001
0.000
0.000
190.01
0.000
0.009
0.025
0.001
0.000
0.000
195.18
0.000
0.009
0.016
0.001
0.000
0.000
200.16
0.000
0.009
0.013
0.006
0.000
0.000
204.67
0.000
0.009
0.014
0.009
0.000
0.000
209.56
0.000
0.009
0.011
0.002
0.000
0.000
214.67
0.000
0.009
0.012
0.004
0.000
0.000
219.96
0.000
0.009
0.009
0.001
0.000
0.000
225.00
0.000
0.009
0.010
-0.002
0.000
0.000
229.94
0.000
0.009
0.010
-0.001
0.000
0.000
235.04
0.000
0.009
0.013
-0.002
0.000
0.000
240.17
0.000
0.009
0.010
-0.001
0.000
0.000
244.79
0.000
0.009
0.008
0.003
0.000
0.000
249.68
0.000
0.009
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
254.79
0.000
0.009
0.007
-0.002
0.000
0.000
260.12
0.000
0.009
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
2fi5.12
0.000
0.009
0.006
0.001
0.000
0.000
270.02
0.000
0.009
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
275.16
0.000
0.009
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
279.62
0.000
0.009
0.010
-0.001
0.000
0.000
285.13
0.000
0.009
0.006
0.001
0.000
0.000
289.63
0.000
0.009
0.011
0.004
0.000
0.000
294.95
0.000
0.009
0.010
0.005
0.120
0.875
300.05
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
MW-1076RL FLASH

���Depth
of
at BTCR)
-.F1.ct­1 11
Fracture
Spacing in
Fraction If I
CALIBIZATED
®
CH,dra.Ii.
Vilc*litY 11
Da"'ItY Of Water,
Acceleration due
®®
402
��
�l��IIE4•��3SE4•�IIIIIIIIIIF3-f�1�IIIIIIIIIIIIIFEi��llllllllllllll[E•�S3l�SrErIrIr���nnn��- �� ��-�
am�m
a0�m
a0�m
m�a�a
Notes:
1. Following a logarithmic sensitivity analysis of the FLASH model to radius of influence, a conservative value of 1000 feet was
used.
2. Objective function, F, for model incoporates mean squared error (MSE) between interpreted and predicted flow profiles and
the sum of squared differences (Ah) between the borehole's water level and far -field heads. Model objective is to minimize F;
therefore, a value closer to zero indicates a better fit.
3. Model was run until no more iterations produced changes in output.
4. FLASH Software: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J, 2011, FLASH: A Computer Program for Flow -
Log Analysis of Single Holes v1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Software Release, 07 March 2011,
5. FLASH Report: Day -Lewis, F.D., Johnson, C. D., Paillet, F.L., and Halford, K.J., 2011, A computer program For flow -log
analysis of single holes (FLASH): Ground Water, https://d..doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00798..
6. Highlighted cells indicate flow levels that do not have any observed open fractures and did not contribute to total
transmissivity. These depth intervals were not used for fracture spacing versus depth below top of rock figure because it is
assumed that there are no fractures in these intervals.
Total Transmissivity Calculated from Thiem Equation
RR. (in) R. ) /dayl Rs tla Drawdw, s (R)
0.25 48.125 19.8 2.876 1 0.240 3.22
FLASH Total T and Fit Parameters
Rediva of Tranamiasmity,
Intluente, Ro Tz MSE Ah F
(R) (Ro/day)
1000 0.14 5.80E-OS 4.91E-04 5.80E-OS
Slu Test Information
Screen Interval
R
Screen Interval (R
BTOR
Mid-poin[ of
ee interval
Hydraulic
A enure m
Hydraulic
Conductiyi
MW-107BRM
1]]s
13]
145
0.01
2.00E-04
192
152
MW-107BRL
255
0.02
2.67E-03
302
262

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

Solutions
821 Livingston Court, Suite E
Marietta, GA 30067
770.980.1002
Geophysical Logging Report
103BRL, 104BRL, 105BRL, and 107BRL
Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Roxboro, North Carolina
Performed for:
SynTerra
March 28, 2019
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report-103BRL, 104BRL, 105BRL, and 107BRL
Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Roxboro, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
SignaturePage..................................................................................................................................ii
ExecutiveSummary......................................................................................................................... iii
1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Equipment and Methodology................................................................................................ 1
2.1 Acoustic Televiewer...................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Optical Televiewer........................................................................................................ 2
2.3 3-Arm Caliper................................................................................................................ 2
2.4 Fluid Temperature........................................................................................................ 2
2.5 Fluid Resistivity............................................................................................................. 2
2.6 Single Point Resistance(SPR)........................................................................................ 3
2.7 Spontaneous Potential (SP).......................................................................................... 3
2.8 Heat Pulse Flowmeter(HPF)......................................................................................... 3
3.0 Field Procedures.................................................................................................................... 3
4.0 Data Processing and Results.................................................................................................. 4
Appendices
Appendix 1 Fracture Summary Table
Appendix 2 Schmidt Stereonets and Rose Diagrams
Appendix 3 Heat Pulse Flowmeter Logs and Fracture Characteristics
Appendix 4 Geophysical Logs
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report — 103BRL, 104BRL, 105BRL, and 107BRL March 28, 2019
Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Roxboro, North Carolina (synt00118) Page ii
SIGNATURE PAGE
This report, entitled "Geophysical Logging Report—103BRL, 104BRL, 105BRL, and 107BRL, Mayo Steam
Electric Plant, Roxboro, North Carolina" has been prepared for SynTerra located in Greenville, South Carolina.
It has been prepared under the supervision of Mr. Jorgen Bergstrom at the request of and the exclusive use
of SynTerra. This report has been prepared in accordance with accepted quality control practices and has
been reviewed by the undersigned.
GEL Solutions, LLC
A Member of the GEL Group, Inc.
Jorgen Bergstrom, P.Gp.
Senior Geophysicist
Nicholas Rebman
Geophysical Specialist
March 28, 2019
Date
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report — 103BRL, 104BRL, 105BRL, and 107BRL March 28, 2019
Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Roxboro, North Carolina (synt00118) Page iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GEL Solutions performed geophysical borehole logging services in 4 borings located at Mayo Steam
Electric Plant in Roxboro, North Carolina. The field investigations were performed between October 1, 2018
and October 9, 2018 during two separate mobilizations. This investigation was conducted to aid SynTerra in
evaluating potential pathways for groundwater migration through fractured bedrock at the site. The
geophysical logs consisted of acoustic televiewer, optical televiewer, caliper, fluid resistivity, fluid temperature,
single point resistance (SPR), spontaneous potential (SP), and heat pulse flowmeter (HPF). HPF logging was
conducted under both ambient and pumping conditions throughout the logging intervals.
The logging data was analyzed to determine the location and orientation of fractures; and other features.
In addition to these data sets, synthetic caliper logs were calculated from the acoustic televiewer travel time
data to aid in the interpretation. The logs were analyzed for fractures and other features. Dip and azimuth (dip
direction) were calculated for each detected fracture based on the televiewer dataset. HPF data was analyzed
to detect water producing fractures.
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report — 103BRL, 104BRL, 105BRL, and 107BRL March 28, 2019
Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Roxboro, North Carolina (synt00118) Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
GEL Solutions performed geophysical borehole logging services in 4 borings located at Mayo Steam
Electric Plant in Roxboro, North Carolina. The geophysical logs consisted of acoustic and optical televiewer, 3-
arm caliper, fluid resistivity, fluid temperature, single point resistance (SPR), spontaneous potential (SP), and
heat pulse flowmeter (HPF). The field investigation was performed between October 1, 2018 and October 9,
2018. The logging data was analyzed to determine the location and orientation of fractures; and other features.
In addition to these data sets, synthetic caliper logs were calculated from the acoustic televiewer travel time
data to aid in the interpretation.
2.0 EQUIPMENT AND METHODOLOGY
The information below is an overview of the geophysical methodologies used for this investigation. The
intent of this overview is to give the reader a better understanding of each method, and background information
as to what is actually measured, the resolution of the method, and the limitations imposed by site -specific
subsurface conditions.
2.1 Acoustic Televiewer
Acoustic televiewer (ATV) logging produces a high resolution, magnetically oriented digital image of the
borehole wall to map the location and orientation of intersecting fractures, foliations, and lithologic contacts.
The Acoustic televiewer tool emits a rotating, narrow, acoustic beam that is reflected off the borehole wall. The
travel time and amplitude of the reflected wave are recorded by the tool and used to create borehole images.
Both datasets are useful for identifying the location and orientation of fractures. The amplitude of the reflected
signal will decrease at the location of fractures and the travel time will increase. The travel time data can also
be used for developing a high resolution caliper log for a more comprehensive analysis of fractures. Acoustic
televiewers can only be used in fluid filled boreholes. However, the fluid does not have to be optically clear for
the method to work.
When operating the ATV, a "time window" is set based on the borehole diameter. The time window is
the time interval in which the ATV instrument searches for an echo from the borehole wall. For smaller
increases in borehole diameter around fractures and sections of weaker rock, the ATV typically records an
accurate borehole diameter (correlates well with three -arm caliper data). However, if borehole openings are
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report — 103BRL, 104BRL, 105BRL, and 107BRL March 28, 2019
Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Roxboro, North Carolina (synt00118) Page 2
much larger than the borehole diameter, the echo from the borehole wall may fall outside the time window, or
be too weak to be detected. In these situations, borehole diameters recorded with ATV may be inaccurate.
Since ATV only records the reflection from the borehole wall, the data cannot be used to determine how far a
fracture extends from the borehole. The acoustic televiewer has a vertical resolution of 2 millimeters.
2.2 Optical Televiewer
Optical televiewer (OTV) logging is used to record and digitize a 360-degree color image of the borehole
wall. Planar features such as fractures, foliation, and lithologic contacts can be identified directly on the images.
The tool is magnetically oriented in order to determine the strike and dip of features. Televiewers have a
vertical resolution of 2mm. As a result, it is able to see features other tools may not resolve. Optical images can
be collected above or below the water surface, provided the water is sufficiently clear for viewing the borehole
wall.
2.3 3-Arm Caliper
Caliper logging is used to generate a profile of the borehole diameter with depth. The tool measures the
borehole diameter using three spring -loaded arms. Narrow enlargements in the borehole diameter can, in most
cases, be attributed to fractures. Caliper logging can be conducted above and below the water surface.
2.4 Fluid Temperature
Fluid temperature logging is used to identify where water enters or exits the borehole. In the absence of
fluid flow, a gradual increase on water temperature of approximately 1°F per 100 feet of depth is expected.
Rapid changes in the fluid temperature indicate water -producing or water -receiving zones. Little or no
temperature gradient indicates intervals of vertical flow.
2.5 Fluid Resistivity
Fluid resistivity logging is used to measure the electrical resistivity of the fluid in the borehole. Variations
in fluid resistivity can be contributed to concentration variations of dissolved solids. These differences can occur
when sources of water have contrasting chemistry and have come from different transmissive zones. Fluid
temperature and resistivity are measured concurrently using the same logging tool.
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report — 103BRL, 104BRL, 105BRL, and 107BRL March 28, 2019
Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Roxboro, North Carolina (synt00118) Page 3
2.6 Single Point Resistance (SPR)
Single point resistance logging involves passing an alternate current between a surface electrode and a
probe electrode and measuring the voltage difference created by the current. SPR is then calculated using
Ohm's law. SPR is the sum of cable resistance, and the resistance based on the composition of the medium, the
cross sectional area and length of the path through the medium. Therefore, the single point resistance log does
not provide quantitative data. In general, SPR increases with increasing grain size and decreases with increasing
borehole diameter, fracture density, and the concentration of dissolved solids in the water. Single -point
resistance logs are useful in the determination of lithology, water quality, and location of fracture zones
2.7 Spontaneous Potential (SP
SP logging is conducted to measure naturally occurring voltage differences along a borehole. The method
has been found useful for delineating sandstone/shale layering and other boundaries between permeable and
impermeable beds. The measurements are made with reference to an electrode at ground level. Therefore, SP
logging does not provide quantitative data.
2.8 Heat Pulse Flowmeter (HPF)
HPF logging measures the direction and rate of vertical fluid flow in a borehole by heating up a small
volume of water and monitoring temperature variations as the heated water moves with the fluid flow in the
borehole. Under ambient conditions, differences in hydraulic head between two transmissive fractures produce
vertical flow in the borehole. However, if the hydraulic head is the same, no flow will occur under ambient
conditions. Therefore, HPF logging is also conducted under low -rate pumping conditions. HPF readings are
point readings at the location of fractures. The location and number of these readings can be determined after
analyzing the other geophysical logs for fractures. HPF can be used for measuring vertical flows between 0.005
gallons per minute (gpm) and approximately 1.5 gpm. In HPF data, upward flow is shown as positive flow, and
downward flow is shown as negative flow.
3.0 FIELD PROCEDURES
All GEL Solutions activities on -site were supervised by a senior geophysicist. For this investigation, GEL
Solutions used a Mount Sopris Matrix logging system. Pumping tests during HPF testing were conducted using a
Grundfos Redi-Flow-2 water pump with variable speed control box and an in -situ Mini -Troll pressure transducer
with logging capabilities. The pump is placed above the interval to be analyzed and preferably in the casing
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report — 103BRL, 104BRL, 105BRL, and 107BRL March 28, 2019
Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Roxboro, North Carolina (synt00118) Page 4
(unless the water level is too low). HPF logging under pumping conditions commenced after the borehole water
level had stabilized. HPF logging was conducted at every 10 feet throughout the logging intervals under ambient
and pumping conditions. More closely spaced readings were then conducted at sections with abrupt changes in
flow. A summary of the configuration of the boreholes, pumping rates, and water levels is provided below. All
depth measurements are referenced from the ground surface. All borings are surface cased and open hole
below the casing.
Logging Configuration Summary
Well ID:
103BRL
104BRL
105BRL
107BRL
Casing material:
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
Casing diameter (in):
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Open hole (ft):
106.2-351.2
78.9-250.8
86.8-249.9
66.4-301.3
Open hole diameter (in):
5.5
5.5
5.5
6.0 to 135'
5.5 to 301.3'
Pumping rate (gpm):
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.25
Pump depth (ft):
120
45
50
50
Water level before pumping (ft):
89.5
1.0
0.2
22.2
Water level at equilibrium (ft):
107.5
35.0
14.6
42.0
4.0 DATA PROCESSING AND RESULTS
The logs were analyzed for fractures and other features using WellCAD software, manufactured by
Advanced Logic Technology. The travel time data from the acoustic televiewer log was used to develop a
maximum caliper log. Fractures were interpreted through a complete data analysis of all logs. Dip and azimuth
(dip direction) were calculated for each detected fracture. The fracture data was corrected from apparent to
true dip and azimuth using deviation logs included with the televiewer dataset, and from magnetic north to true
north by rotating the fracture azimuths 9.1° counterclockwise. Magnetic north is 9.1° west of true north at the
site (according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). The reported azimuth is measured
clockwise from true north (Figure 1). A fracture summary table including fracture attributes is provided in
Appendix 1. Dominating water producing fractures based on flow logging or other evidence are highlighted and
shown in bold and italics text. Minor water producing fractures based on flow logging are shown in bold.
problem solved

Geophysical Logging Report — 103BRL, 104BRL, 105BRL, and 107BRL March 28, 2019
Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Roxboro, North Carolina (synt00118) Page 5
Schmidt stereonets (lower hemisphere) with fracture characteristics and fracture rose diagrams are
presented on Appendix 2. HPF logs and fracture characteristics are shown on Appendix 3. All logs are presented
on Appendix 4. All depths are referenced from ground surface.
Vert
Hart
Relations bcA,,? z Dip and A:intntb angle
Figure 1 Explanation of azimuth and dip for fractures
problem solved

APPENDIX 1

Fracture Summary Table
Mayo Steam Electric Plant
103BRL
Depth Azimuth Dip
ft deg deg
107.7 88 42
107.8 93 46
110.9 246 65
113.3 236 65
113.6 242 66
113.6 237 60
114.6 241 63
122.0 1 62
122.7 184 63
123.2 132 73
125.5 171 70
128.8 87 57
130.0 97 36
132.6 59 85
138.1 93 52
138.6 175 73
139.9 166 69
140.2 64 37
145.8 37 9
146.0 87 16
146.6 31 90
147.5 53 86
150.3 91 33
151.4 89 55
153.8 108 40
154.0 110 30
156.2 58 24
189.7 342 11
214.7 149 41
215.6 146 53
222.6 115 52
227.5 128 48
230.7 145 43
232.5 135 39
239.9 142 28
242.7 159 47
246.4 158 48
253.6 66 73
256.3 73 16
256.4 89 11
256.5 64 34
256.6 87 33
258.7 138 62
263.2 141 44
263.5 160 46
264.8 136 41
272.9 149 48
273.7 123 44
276.2 ill 54
285.1 130 59
294.5 111 37
294.9 95 49
299.1 172 40
299.5 141 37
302.3 164 78
306.1 104 66
306.6 104 50
307.4 123 72
307.8 141 60
310.2 121 47
310.6 147 62
311.2 137 54
328.1 132 40
328.3 141 43
343.0 111 35
348.4 106 23
348.8 56 33
104BRL
Depth Azimuth Dip
ft deg deg
84.6 99 31
87.5 118 58
88.4 110 63
92.1 105 58
92.8 100 58
96.1 113 55
99.5 113 55
100.2 110 49
100.5 115 60
107.0 97 57
109.2 81 85
111.8 96 51
114.0 93 49
114.4 78 30
117.0 123 58
117.8 114 56
118.1 121 64
120.9 135 60
123.6 19 10
124.0 117 61
124.2 132 63
127.6 213 70
128.3 164 58
129.9 110 36
130.2 110 33
131.1 80 58
131.5 126 55
132.7 151 44
133.5 328 57
136.2 260 69
137.5 150 51
137.5 313 66
139.2 322 61
142.2 212 11
142.4 89 65
142.6 100 11
144.3 87 54
144.9 173 36
146.0 169 45
146.4 170 40
147.4 67 65
147.4 245 75
147.7 244 73
147.8 173 42
147.9 169 41
148.7 33 54
149.4 87 73
150.9 138 44
151.5 58 70
152.7 190 84
155.4 84 55
155.7 79 57
155.8 81 58
156.1 71 60
157.9 80 62
166.5 18 56
166.9 110 47
167.1 152 45
172.7 112 42
174.8 79 45
175.0 77 42
175.4 129 46
179.5 269 56
181.5 110 69
184.8 89 61
186.2 108 27
187.0 291 75
104BRL
Depth
ft
Azimuth
deg
Dip
deg
187.5
188
88
192.8
88
55
193.0
112
49
196.2
139
60
198.9
71
38
205.1
134
63
215.6
312
66
216.5
115
47
216.8
123
47
220.7
125
70
220.9
127
74
223.2
172
64
225.9
139
49
229.3
125
46
230.1
121
44
230.3
123
45
232.9
130
40
236.2
126
47
236.9
320
66
238.2
43
25
239.1
106
50
244.7
118
61
245.1
121
63
248.8
74
54
105BRL
Depth
Azimuth
Dip
ft
deg
deg
88.1
61
9
90.5
64
59
93.8
354
55
96.7
89
51
96.9
79
52
107.7
131
59
108.1
107
54
109.5
117
59
117.7
107
24
119.2
103
30
124.4
139
25
128.8
139
42
129.1
140
44
134.0
146
53
134.2
142
52
136.4
151
50
139.9
159
88
140.3
154
52
140.5
155
48
140.6
144
59
148.5
154
59
148.7
151
57
148.7
154
60
157.1
138
46
158.9
75
64
160.3
127
49
160.6
127
51
160.7
121
49
161.1
126
46
161.3
152
46
178.7
233
69
181.0
68
52
182.3
252
46
183.6
267
59
188.7
102
48
189.6
102
52
190.2
105
50
192.0
10
76
199.3
86
48
213.2
110
43
213.6
124
43
216.4
339
37
226.4
239
72
229.1
298
39
232.0
93
52
240.7
107
39
241.3
103
39
241.9
110
49
Dominating water producing fractures are highlighted and shown in bold and italics text. Minor water producing
fractures are shown in bold. Closed fractures are shown in plain text.

Fracture Summary Table
Mayo Steam Electric Plant
107BRL
Depth Azimuth Dip
ft deg deg
69.0 307 15
69.3 144 38
75.9 113 46
76.4 122 38
80.1 105 46
82.3 109 64
84.4 123 60
97.9 120 56
101.2 112 39
101.2 128 38
102.6 133 56
103.6 115 50
104.3 110 32
105.0 108 38
109.1 115 56
110.5 128 56
122.7 189 67
122.9 195 67
152.9 249 58
153.6 194 61
161.7 112 35
170.8 74 65
174.4 16 66
174.5 143 37
178.3 39 66
185.2 62 46
185.2 52 60
185.3 57 71
187.5 87 53
192.0 70 69
196.1 111 68
196.4 117 68
196.6 116 71
199.0 108 63
199.0 100 66
203.7 118 66
206.8 115 67
216.8 74 59
228.6 99 38
233.2 108 60
233.5 104 65
233.6 101 61
233.7 51 72
235.1 115 58
237.6 167 53
245.9 72 81
247.5 99 39
248.5 29 72
250.7 49 71
250.8 28 69
251.9 35 59
254.6 94 48
255.0 89 44
261.5 113 55
262.9 62 64
272.9 129 49
276.1 56 52
284.0 147 47
290.5 67 54
294.8 30 56
296.2 40 65
297.2 245 51
299.0 64 81
299.1 185 63
299.4 62 67
300.6 242 71
Dominating water producing fractures are highlighted and shown in bold and italics text. Minor water producing
fractures are shown in bold. Closed fractures are shown in plain text.

APPENDIX 2

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:500ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
75
100
125
Well ID:
103BRL
150
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
Depth: 100.69 [ft] to 359.71 [ft] Depth: 101.02 [ft] to 360.37 [ft]
175
0° o°
--
so — �-8
7�0
200
0 0
50 50 \ ,,
1 0 10
3 0 3
O 2I 2
0 10
225
270° 10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80 90° 270° 10-20-30 4 0-5 0-6 0-7 0-8 0 90°
I
250
275
180° 180'
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg] Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
Mean 67 40.23 123.08 Mean 67 40.23 33.08
53 40.29 127.26 O 53 40.29 37.26
300
O 14 40.92 110.33 0 14 40.92 20.33
Major open fracture
325
Minor open fracture
4* Closed fracture
350
375
Page 1

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:500ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
75
Well ID:
100
104BRL
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
Depth: 74.77 [ft] to 281.30 [ft] Depth: 74.77 [ft] to 281.63 [ft]
0.125 -- ----T-
50 X ��0--__ �
I �
150
I 0
o --4
- - i �
30 30 �\
y
2�0 2�0 1 �
270' 10-20-30-40-500-70-80 90" 270° 10 20'-30-40-50-60-70-80 90°
175
200
-
---------- -----
180° 180'
225
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg] Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
Mean 91 50.52 111.49 Mean 91 50.52 21.49
O 21 54.98 100.44 G 21 54.98 10.44
250
70 49.18 115.91 O 70 49.18 25.91
Major open fracture
275
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
300
Page 1

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:500ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
75
Well ID:
100
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 105BRL Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
Depth: 74.77 [ft] to 262.60 [ft] Depth: 74.77 [ft] to 262.27 [ft]
0° 0°
-�—
so ao
125
io o
��0 ......V�
0
50 50
0 0—
30 30
150
O zo 20
270° 10-20-30-40-50 0-70-80 90° 270° 10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80 90°
175
•
200
•,O
180° 180°
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg] Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
225
Mean 48 44.85 121.17 Mean 48 44.85 31.17
37 47.30 131.45 37 47.30 41.45
O 11 41.81 94.62 O 11 41.81 4.62
250
Major open fracture
275
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
300
Page 1

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:500ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
50
75
Well ID:
100
107BRL
125
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
Depth: 56.33 [ft] to 325.85 [ft] Depth: 56.66 [ft] to 325.85 [ft]
0" 0`
--
80
n
150
70 _--70--
'
I I \
50---50--- `
0 _40-_.
30 -30� O
17 5
,lo ;l0_
270' 10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80 90" 270° 10-20-30-40-50-6Jr0-70 80 90°
200
-
225
180° 180,
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg] Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
or Mean 66 51.74 94.76 Mean 66 51.74 4.76
250
O 17 64.51 65.61 0 17 64.51 335.61
O 49 50.47 103.33 0 49 50.47 13.33
275
Major open fracture
Minor open fracture
300
Closed fracture
325
Page 1

Depth Fractures Poles - Dip - Lower Hemisphere Great Circles - Strike - Lower Hemisphere
1ft:500ft 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
50
75
All Wells
100
125
Schmidt Plot - LH - Type Schmidt Plot (Strike) - LH - Type
150
Depth: 54.36 [ft] to 363.75 [ft] Depth: 54.36 [ft] to 364.57 [ft]
80
70 / 70�
175
a'o
0 _—ao-
30
—30
_210
200
270° 10-20-30-40-50 0-70-80 90° 270° \ 10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80� 90°
2 2 5
• • z
250
- -- -
130° i eo°
Counts Dip[deg] Azi[deg] Counts Dip[deg] Strike[deg]
Mean 272 46.70 112.10 Mean 272 46.70 22.10
275
O 63 48.95 94.24 0 63 48.95 4.24
O 209 46.64 118.01 O 209 46.64 28.01
300
Major open fracture
Minor open fracture
^+ Closed fracture
325
350
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
'
1ft:1000ft 0 90Azimuth - Absolute (Count) Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
100
Azimuth -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 88.91 [ft] to 358.10 [ft]
0°
Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
150
1C
Depth: 88.91 [ft] to 357.61 [ft]
0°
18
200
.i c
10
Well ID:
103BRL
250
- �1118
Counts: 67.00
Mean (3D): 40.23
300
180°
Min: 9.48
Components: Azimuth
Max: 89.66
Counts: 67.00
Mean (3D): 123.08
350
Min: 1.40
Max: 342.47
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
1ft:500ft 0 90 Azimuth - Absolute (Count) Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
75
41
100
Azimuth -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 64.30 [ft] to 276.08 [ft]
0c
125
14
Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 64.30 [ft] to 276.90 [ft]
150
0°
3
Well ID:
1e14
104BRL
175
- 2230
Counts: 91.00
200
Mean (3D): 50.52
180'
Min: 10.15
Components: Azimuth
Max: 87.87
Counts: 91.00
225
Mean (3D): 111.49
Min: 17.98
Max: 328.13
250
275
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
1ft:500ft 0 90 Azimuth - Absolute (Count) Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
75
100
Azimuth -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 76.74 [ft] to 256.86 [ft]
0°
125
Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 77.07 [ft] to 257.68 [ft]
150
6
0°
,
8
,
' Well ID:
105BRL
175
1222
Counts: 48.00
Mean (3D): 44.85
200
180°
Min: 8.61
Components: Azimuth
Max: 87.94
Counts: 48.00
Mean (3D): 121.17
225
Min: 10.31
Max: 354.16
250
Page 1

Depth Fractures Rose Diagram - Dip Direction Rose Diagram - Dip
1ft:1000ft 0 90 Azimuth - Absolute (Count) Dip Count - Absolute (Count)
50
Azimuth -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 41.99 [ft] to 329.40 [ft]
0°
100
14
Dip Count -Absolute (Count)
Depth: 39.70 [ft] to 330.38 [ft]
0°
150'
0
� Well ID:
1,e14
' 107BRL
200
10 �20
Counts: 66.00
Mean (3D): 51.74
250
180°
Min: 14.93
Components: Azimuth
Max: 81.14
Counts: 66.00
300
Mean (3D): 94.76
Min: 15.75
Max: 307.35
Page 1

APPENDIX 3

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF - Ambient
1ft:200ft 5.5 in 5.8 0 90 0 gpm 0.04
Caliper - max from AN HPF - Pumping
5.5 in 6.2 0 gpm 0.04
Well ID:
103BRL
100.0
Bottom of Casing
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
Major open fracture
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
170.0
180.0
190.0
200.0
210.0
220.0
Page 1

230.0
240.0 '
250.0
260.0
270.0
280.0
}
290.0
300.0
ti
310.0
320.0
330.0
340.0
350.0
Page 2

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF - Ambient
1ft:200ft 5.5 in 6.5 0 90 0 gpm 0.12
Caliper - max from AN HPF-Pumping
5.5 in 6.5 0 gpm 0.12
70.0
Well ID:
104BRL
Bottom of Casing
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
Major open fracture
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
190.0
Page 1

200.0
210.0
220.0
230.0
240.0
250.0
Page 2

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF - Ambient
1ft:200ft 5.5 in 6 0 90 0 gpm 0.04
Caliper - max from AN HPF - Pumping
5.5 in 6.5 0 gpm 0.04
Bottom of Casing
90.0
100.0
Well ID:
105BRL
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
Major open fracture
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
190.0
200.0
210.0
Page 1

220.0
230.0
240.0
Page 2

Depth Caliper Fractures HPF - Ambient
1ft:200ft 5.5 in 6 0 90 0 gpm 0.04
Caliper - max from AN HPF - Pumping
5.5 in 6.5 0 gpm 0.04
60.0
Bottom of Casing
70.0
80.0
Well ID:
1076RL
90.0
--51
100.0
Major open fracture
Minor open fracture
Closed fracture
4-
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
Page 1

190.0
200.0
210.0
220.0
230.0
240.0
250.0
260.0
270.0
280.0
290.0
300.0
Page 2

APPENDIX 4

i
L
�' _&Y.F

old-
-
ON 'I I w-
I x NOR-
-
-,. F'-s.
1. .0,
MUM,
IWO

� 1
�
:V

s jc

-1.1 For
421-
W z

M-21-61"
MU-3-91
,3 wyr - �
n
c
•� f -
iipw;ii"--
`yam: '• -

-
■■
W,Aa � .
�� .sus
:,
Nam.,
MEL.
-
WWI
i it:.�_i:
"; An--,tt-
CIA- ultilm"I
.��:.NNE-
+xyWIbfi��L

quo

r Z . . xy,Y ...
Y .
NEW-
'•5 ate..
AI

F
jio
.•ra• ��'. -ma's --
�p_' y3i-ice .
On
Ma-
�I�d. a�.�-i1:°.@��:a8i:�':S'S°�'a:.. - _ �L'�• �` t �':l�if F.---DE' +�C
lo-

Ak.
Opl�

RP,� RM-1-!
d
i
'SSA... a1-, .�•. �-�4. -
= - r
Ila
lam'•, -.
.� Li
-.:.- .,.'A ,.
Y *.
TT-
;Y
gi�r W
` S.
ME
y,
'-Iwo.
g•:_-�+�,�e��w�� :. ter: Wiz._' _ .,�--�a� - m

. � x

•} S. HP aµ- .�
yx;
Rj�'_ TY

`WJ1177
F�4. a_Y _ x���.'.;

taw

Boom
if
� x� m
Aim
•�_ l �� MEMO
®WEN
aaa
..74- RE It I Tr
iol
F_ a mom
t-Aw.-
�■�
y;�L10
}
-

-I
01
-r
� ■I
a ME
link' El
OWN..,
�';d a� 'yam ':
-.. �3•�_�4 ..
mom`��•
- �I
RM
_ �I

i-
4�0-.
r#,
y
. •�,
YYEEZZ..
t6
- 'i
licolmlolmom
mommminikillm
mommmisimin
No minifflom
0
INLElmlimmilummillm

0
MINEEMMIRINE
MOMME111101
MENEEMME1101
MEMEMME111101
mommommillsol
MINEEMMIUMINI
EMEMEMMINIMI
Emmmillsomi
MENEEMMINMEMAIN
i
{
MA '
m -

:
lio
HIM
_.�� .
r y
�R _
ENWWW44M

6
—
1
#
V
- -
ffe
Em
4 _ � -
-•
.�y�F.
1.
g
±�
,k s Y
C
—

WN
e'Ny

AOL" . 1
S
rum
.
r �
�A
21�

IRK
250.0
f.l-252.0
Page 13

s

W.9i
b "'} 'r^.��•l rid
F
r7--•°- x-�:=�•t�.►�4i.T
it7 �s,T..�n -
k Y -� • _•
.•

cw, v_
°t
. ;� _
._.
_41 y
M
t aa5j•'�
_sfy.
.-
z_r
ggai4i

stn

ig
--
I—®R
12

M. I

- - Y
`Y! y4< £
'°

NP
Op
V.4
4-N
amu.,Tl%l

iNO
�
SEEM
WERE
D
AN,
V
HIN On
-`'RK,
, ANISH
-19, - - - - T-- I I mi. � W. � NEW
ffw`�,4,
wo"IN-Sks.-
NEEAw
f�yfil.r, _ - �- �� - ...' - - --_ tam, •� -�' - ONNFA
R!". N-,w
' s's s� ��••g - � �
#,tom' �'� ., �3��"'rG •' s �t,;, � -,
`ice•.- 4 .,4.
{

AA _ J ,.s
w
L
64 3 7rm ff -3 Ike'lau-,
wk,
INN
Po
AN

Mfg
T .
wu r.
RL-7
2!�--
-
r R Np
AEL..

.r., l {`
r
t
Alf

«•R� ��� ^� � �Orr,
2�.
� ER
,..
.
� . : \

J�
_ y'f�ry
a' . - �,� r
-_ ?Ne-�� sic

Page 11

4a

MMM'
wM - 5- P
I

- 300.0
- 301.0
Page 17

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

Umm Lab
AESIA10012t arrnNaAR1
PETROLEUM SERVICES
Petrographic Evaluation
Of Core Samples
SynTerra Corporation
1026-105-52 Mayo Project
September 2019
Core Laboratories, Inc.
Houston Advanced Technology Center
6316 Windfern Road
Houston, Texas 77040
Houston ATC Job File No.: 1902502G
The analytical results, opinions or interpretations contained in this report are based upon information and material supplied by the client for whose
exclusive and confidential use this report has been made. The analytical results, opinions or interpretations expressed represent the best judgment of
Core Laboratories. Core Laboratories, however, makes no warranty or representation, expressed or implied, of any type, and expressly disclaims
same as to the productivity, proper operations or profitableness of an oil, gas, coal or other mineral, property, well or sand in connection with which
such report is used or relied upon for any reason whatsoever. This report shall not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without the written approval of
Core Laboratories.

PETROGRAPHIC SUMMARY
Three core samples from 1026-105-52 Mayo project were selected for thin section
petrographic analysis (Table 1). The analytical program and petrographic summary
are presented in Table 1. Thin section photomicrographs and descriptions are
provided in Plates 1 — 3.
• Three samples are all igneous rocks, and classified as tonalite (Table 1)
based on the relative abundances of minerals (quartz, alkali feldspar, and
plagioclase).
• The principal minerals are plagioclase, quartz, biotite, and muscovite.
Accessory minerals consist of epidote, pyrite, magnetite, sphene, and
apatite.
• Plagioclase crystals are extensively altered into sericite/illitic clays. Minor
biotite crystals are altered into chlorite. Rare to minor Fe -calcite and calcite
are present in two samples.
• Macropores are rare to minor, and consist of dissolution intracrystal, moldic
and fracture pores. Micropores are probably rare to minor in abundance and
associated with some illitic clays.
Thank you for choosing Core Laboratories to perform this study. Please feel free
to contact us if you have any questions or comments concerning this report.
Sincerely,
Yong Q. Wu PhD
Staff Geologist
Reservoir Geology
Core Laboratories - Houston
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: Yong.Wu(@corelab.com

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

TABLE 1
SynTerra Corp., 1026-105-52 Mayo Project
ANALYTICAL PROGRAM AND SAMPLE SUMMARY
Sample No.:
Depth (ft):
TS
Porosity (%)
Grain
Density
(g/cc)
Lithology:
Classification:
Plate No.
CCR-105BR
31.5
X
4.97
2.719
Igneous Rock
Tonalite
1
CCR-105BR
39.0
X
0.89
2.720
Igneous Rock
Tonalite
2
MW-16BR
47.0
X
0.46
2.721
Igneous Rock
Tonalite
3

PLATE 1
Thin Section Petrography
Company:
SynTerra Corp.
Project:
1026-105-52 Mayo
Location:
na
Sample No.: CCR-105BR
Depth (ft):
31.5
A
. Fr
B
Relative Abundances:
Rare
<1 %
Minor
1-5%
Moderate
5-10%
Common
10-20%
HESERVOIR Abundant
>20%
Sample Description
Lithology: Igneous Rock
Classification: Tonalite
Crystal Size (mm): 0.93
Structures:
massive, fractures
Principal Minerals:
abundant plagioclase; abundant quartz; minor biotite; minor
muscovite
5.
Accessory Minerals:
rare to minor epidote, magnetite, sphene, and apatite
v )p
Core Analysis Data:
Porosity (%): 4.97
Grain Density (g/cc): 2.719
Alteration and Replacement:
abundant plagioclase crystals are altered into sericite
and/or illitic clays; rare illitic clays fill intracrystal, moldic and
fracture pores
Pore Types:
minor dissolution intracrystal, moldic and fracture pores
Photomicrograph Caption
Plagioclase (Plag), quartz (Q), biotite (Bi), and muscovite
(Mus) are the principal minerals in this igneous rock
(tonalite). These mineral crystals show an interlocking
fabric. Accessory minerals consist of epidote (Ep),
magnetite, sphene, and apatite. Abundant plagioclase
crystals are altered into sericite/illitic clays (Ser).
Macropores are minor, and consist of dissolution
intracrystal (IP), moldic (MP) and fracture (Fr) pores. Note
these pores are locally filled by illitic clays (IL). Micropores
are probably rare to minor in abundance and associated
with some illitic clays. The green box in Image A indicates
the location of Image B.

PLATE 2
Thin Section Petrography
Company: SynTerra Corp.
Project: 1026-105-52 Mayo
Location: na
Sample No.: CCR-105BR
Depth (ft): 39.0
A
p.
'3
Fr
°Plag/Ser®s �6:,
cat
.o_ ..,..,` Plag/Ser '
w 1 mm
B
`g ` Plag/Ser'
Pla /Ser
Ot
100 pm
Relative Abundances:
Rare
<1 %
Minor
1-5%
Moderate
5-10%
Common
10-20%
HESERVOIR Abundant
>20%
Core Analysis Data:
Porosity (%): 0.89
Grain Density (g/cc): 2.720
Sample Description
Lithology: Igneous Rock
Classification: Tonalite
Crystal Size (mm): 0.85
Structures:
massive, fractures
Principal Minerals:
abundant plagioclase; abundant quartz; moderate
muscovite: minor biotite
Accessory Minerals:
rare to minor epidote, pyrite, magnetite, sphene, and apatite
Alteration and Replacement:
abundant plagioclase crystals are altered into sericite
and/or illitic clays; minor Fe -calcite; rare illitic clays fill
fracture pores
Pore Types:
rare dissolution intracrystal and fracture pores
Photomicrograph Caption
The principal minerals are plagioclase (Plag), quartz (Q),
muscovite (Mus), and biotite (Bi) in this igneous rock
(tonalite). These mineral crystals show an interlocking
fabric. Accessory minerals are epidote (Ep), pyrite,
magnetite, sphene, and apatite. Plagioclase crystals have
been extensively altered into sericite/illitic clays (Ser). Fe -
calcite (Fcal; stained purplish blue) is highly scattered.
Macropores are rare, and consist of dissolution intracrystal
(IP) and fracture (Fr) pores. Some fracture pores are partly
filled with illitic clays. Micropores are probably rare to minor
in abundance and associated with some illitic clays. The
green box in Image A indicates the location of Image B.

PLATE 3
Thin Section Petrography
Company: SynTerra Corp.
Project: 1026-105-52 Mayo
Location: na
Sample No.: MW-16BR
Depth (ft): 47.0
A
plag/sera
Q
B
Plag/r
A
Ype
.,.�,
call , k
t 'M M
a
Relative Abundances:
Rare
<1 %
Minor
1-5%
Moderate
5-10%
Common
10-20%
HESERVOIR Abundant
>20%
Core Analysis Data:
Porosity (%): 0.46
Grain Density (g/cc): 2.721
Sample Description
Lithology: Igneous Rock
Classification: Tonalite
Crystal Size (mm): 1.30
Structures:
massive, fractures
Principal Minerals:
abundant plagioclase; abundant quartz; minor biotite; minor
muscovite
Accessory Minerals:
rare to minor epidote, pyrite, magnetite, sphene, and apatite
Alteration and Replacement:
abundant plagioclase crystals are altered into sericite
and/or illitic clays; minor biotite crystals are altered into
chlorite; minor Fe -calcite; rare calcite
Pore Types:
rare dissolution intracrystal and fracture pores
Photomicrograph Caption
Plagioclase (Plag), quartz (Q), biotite (Bi), and muscovite
(Mus) are the principal minerals in this igneous rock
(tonalite). These mineral crystals show an interlocking
fabric. Accessory minerals consist of epidote (Ep), pyrite,
magnetite, sphene, and apatite. Abundant plagioclase
crystals are altered into sericite/illitic clays (Ser). Biotite
crystals are locally altered into chlorite. Fe -calcite (Fcal;
stained purplish blue) is highly scattered. Macropores are
rare, and mostly dissolution intracrystal and fracture pores.
Note some fractures are filled with calcite (Fr/cal; stained
reddish). Micropores are probably rare in abundance. The
green box in Image A indicates the location of Image B.