The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMayo - BTV Report_06122019 R_20190612410 synTerra UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT 10660 BOSTON RD ROXBORO,, NORTH CAROLINA 27574 DUNE 2019 PREPARED FOR: DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC DUKE ENERGY, rJ �i J rry A. Wylie oject Manager Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose...........................................................................................................................1-1 2.0 BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER DATASETS................................................. 2-2 2.1 Extreme Outlier Concentrations................................................................................. 2-3 2.2 Description of Background Datasets..........................................................................2-4 3.0 STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY............................................................................3-1 3.1 Background Threshold Values....................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Upper Tolerance Limits.........................................................................................3-2 3.2 Assessing Dataset Distribution................................................................................... 3-3 3.3 Outlier Screening..........................................................................................................3-4 4.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................4-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Background Groundwater Monitoring Well Location Map LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater Table 2 Background Groundwater Analytical Results Table 3 Statistical Analysis Results — Surficial Flow Zone Table 4 Statistical Analysis Results — Transition Zone Table 5 Statistical Analysis Results — Bedrock Flow Zone LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Arcadis U.S., Inc. Technical Memorandum: Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation —Allen, Belews Creek, Cliffside, Marshall, Mayo, and Roxboro Sites (June 11, 2019) Page Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots — Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Appendix E Box -and -Whisker Plots — Pooled Background Datasets Appendix F Quantitative Outlier Test Results (ProUCL Output) LIST OF ACRONYMS Arcadis Arcadis U.S., Inc. BTV background threshold value GOF goodness of fit Mayo/Site Mayo Steam Electric Plant NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ROS regression on order statistics SW Shapiro -Wilk SynTerra SynTerra Corporation USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency UTL upper tolerance limit Page ii Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of Duke Energy, SynTerra Corporation (SynTerra) updated background threshold values (BTVs) pertaining to constituents monitored in groundwater at the Duke Energy Mayo Steam Electric Plant (Mayo, Site) (Table 1). This report includes an attachment titled, 'Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - Allen, Belews Creek, Cliffside, Marshall, Mayo, and Roxboro Sites," prepared by Arcadis U.S., Inc (Arcadis). The Arcadis attachment (Attachment 1) provides a detailed evaluation of extreme outlier concentrations identified in background groundwater datasets using multiple lines of evidence that took into account broader site geochemical conditions in addition to statistical analysis of individual constituents. Duke Energy previously submitted groundwater BTVs to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) in the Mayo Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) Update as Appendix H — Proposed Background Threshold Values for Naturally Occurring Concentrations in Groundwater and Soil (SynTerra, 2017). Those BTVs (Table 1) were statistically derived using a background groundwater dataset that: • Included concentration data from background groundwater samples collected July 2011 to March 2017 • Did not include any extreme outlier concentrations even when those concentrations were valid results not caused by sampling error or laboratory analytical error SynTerra derived the updated BTVs presented in this report using an augmented background groundwater dataset that included: • Concentration data from background groundwater samples collected April 2010 to December 2018 • Extreme outlier concentrations not caused by sampling error or laboratory analytical error 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this report is to: • Present updated BTVs pertaining to constituents monitored in groundwater at Mayo • Document the statistical approach used to derive updated BTVs • Document groundwater data that were excluded from statistical evaluations • Document the approach used to screen background groundwater datasets for extreme statistical outliers Page 1-1 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 2.0 BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER DATASETS Three distinct hydrogeologic flow zones at Mayo have been identified (SynTerra, 2017): • Surficial flow zone • Transition zone • Bedrock flow zone The background groundwater dataset for each of the distinct flow zones consisted of concentration data pooled across background monitoring wells (Table 2). Well installations occurred within each flow zone at locations where groundwater quality has not been affected by coal ash management or storage. As a result of NCDEQ guidance, the following sample results were not included in the background datasets: • Samples with a recorded groundwater pH greater than 8.5 standard units • Samples with recorded groundwater turbidity greater than 10 nephelometric turbidity units • Samples that had no record of groundwater turbidity or pH • Samples (autocorrelated) collected less than 60 days after the previous sample was collected • Non -detect values greater than 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) .02L standard or Interim Maximum Concentration of 15A NCAC 02L Appendix 1, April 1, 2013 NCDEQ requirements regarding the exclusion of sample results were outlined in a letter and through email communication: • Letter — "Duke Energy Submittal — Background Soil and Groundwater Statistical Methodology for 14 Duke Energy Facilities," May 26, 2017 (Zimmerman to Draovitch, July 2017) • Email — "Duke Energy Comments: Technical Memorandum, Statistical Methods for Developing Reference background Concentrations for Groundwater at Coal Ash Facilities, HDR, October 2016" (Lanter to Sullivan, November 2016) Page 2-1 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 2.1 Extreme Outlier Concentrations For this BTV update, SynTerra retained extreme outlier concentrations in background groundwater datasets when data validation and geochemical analysis of background groundwater concentrations indicated that those outlying concentrations did not result from sampling error or laboratory analytical error (Table 2). The approach used to evaluate whether extreme outlier concentrations should be retained in background groundwater datasets is presented the technical memorandum prepared by Arcadis titled, "Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation —Allen, Belews Creek, Cliffside, Marshall, Mayo, and Roxboro Sites," (Attachment 1). This is consistent with USEPA guidance (2009, 2018), which recommends the following: • Outlier concentrations should not be removed from background datasets based solely on statistical methods because statistical methods do not indicate why outlying concentrations are abnormal with respect to the rest of the background dataset • Statistical outliers should be retained in background datasets unless a specific technical reason (e.g., sampling or laboratory error) for the concentration can be determined SynTerra conducted data validation on the extreme outlier concentrations. Arcadis evaluated extreme outlier constituent concentrations identified in the background groundwater datasets for Allen, Belews Creek, Cliffside, Marshall, Mayo, and Roxboro using a data -driven approach that considered the following: • Concentration of individual constituents • The broader geochemical conditions at each individual Site • The broader geochemical conditions at all six Duke Energy sites Extreme outlier concentrations were evaluated in accordance with the Revised Statistical Methods for Developing Reference Background Concentrations for Groundwater and Soil at Coal Ash Facilities (HDR Engineering, Inc. and SynTerra, 2017), which states: "If statistical outliers have been detected, the project scientist will review the values to determine if they should be removed from the data set or are representative of background and should be retained for statistical analysis." Arcadis reviewed extreme outlier concentrations identified in the background groundwater datasets for each of the six Duke Energy sites (Attachment 1). Page 2-2 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra Arcadis identified extreme outlier concentrations that should be included in background groundwater datasets for each of the six Duke Energy sites using the following criteria: • Repeatability of constituent concentrations • Relationship between pairs or groups of constituents • Relationships between the concentrations of major ion and total dissolved solids • Relationship between constituent concentrations and pH • Relationship between constituent concentrations and oxidation-reduction potential Extreme outlier concentrations that were retained in the background groundwater datasets for Mayo are identified in Table 2. Rational for including extreme outlier concentrations in the background groundwater datasets for the Mayo are provided in Table 7 in Attachment 1. 2.2 Description of Background Datasets The background dataset for each distinct groundwater flow zone was used to update BTVs for constituents within that flow zone (Table 1). Surficial Flow Zone One well (MW-12S) is used to monitor background groundwater quality within the surficial flow zone at Mayo (Figure 1). Concentration data from that well represent the background groundwater dataset pertaining to the surficial flow zone (Table 2). The background dataset for 24 constituents in the surficial flow zone contained fewer than 10 valid sample data (Table 3). Transition Zone Two wells (BG-02 and MW-12D) are used to monitor background groundwater quality within the transition zone at Mayo (Figure 1). Concentration data from those two wells represent the background groundwater dataset pertaining to the transition zone (Table 2). The background datasets for fluoride, lithium, and methane in the transition zone contained fewer than 10 valid sample data (Table 4). Bedrock Flow Zone Four wells (BG-01, MW-13BR, MW-14BR, and CCR-102BR-BG) are used to monitor background groundwater quality within the bedrock flow zone at Mayo (Figure 1). Page 2-3 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra Concentration data from CCR-102BR-BG were not included in the background dataset for the bedrock flow zone used to statistically derive BTVs submitted to NCDEQ in the CSA Update (SynTerra, 2017). To statistically derive the updated BTVs provided in this report, concentration data from CCR-102BR-BG in addition to concentration data from BG-01, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR were included in the background dataset pertaining to the bedrock flow zone. The background datasets for all constituents in the bedrock flow zone contained 10 or more valid sample data (Table 5). Page 2-4 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 3.0 STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY This section describes the statistical approach SynTerra used to evaluate background groundwater datasets and to calculate BTVs pertaining to constituent concentrations in groundwater at Mayo. SynTerra used a statistical approach that was in accordance with procedures included in the following documents: • The Revised Statistical Methods for Developing Reference Background Concentrations for Groundwater and Soil at Coal Ash Facilities (HDR Engineering, Inc. and SynTerra, 2017) • Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities: Unified Guidance (USEPA, 2009) • ProUCL 5.1.002 Technical Guide, Statistical Software for Environmental Applications for Data Sets with and without Nondetect Observations (USEPA, 2015) • Groundwater Statistics Tool User's Guide (USEPA, 2018) 3.1 Background Threshold Values The Site -specific groundwater BTV for a constituent was represented by one of the following: • The upper tolerance limit (UTL) represented the Site -specific BTV for a constituent when the background dataset for that constituent contained 10 or more valid sample data and the frequency of non -detects present within the dataset was less than or equal to 90 percent • The maximum non -detect value represented the Site -specific BTV for a constituent when the background dataset for that constituent contained 10 or more valid sample data and the frequency of non -detects present within the dataset was greater than 90 percent • The maximum value represented the Site -specific BTV for a constituent when the background dataset for that constituent contained fewer than 10 valid sample data Site -specific BTVs represented by the UTL and maximum non -detect value are identified in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5. Site -specific BTVs represented by the maximum concentration value are identified in Table 3 and Table 4. Page 3-1 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 3.1.1 Upper Tolerance Limits UTLs represent — with a specified level of statistical confidence — an upper limit of a range of values in which a specified proportion of the data population resides. SynTerra calculated UTLs for constituents (except for pH) using ProUCL version 5.1.002 (Appendix A). SynTerra calculated two-sided tolerance intervals consisting of an upper and lower tolerance limit for pH using NCSS 11 Statistical Software (Appendix A) because ProUCL cannot calculate two-sided tolerance intervals. UTLs were calculated using either parametric statistics or non - parametric statistics. Parametric Upper Tolerance Limits SynTerra calculated parametric UTLs for constituents when their background dataset contained less than or equal to 50 percent non -detects and their background dataset fit a discernible distribution model. When those criteria were met, SynTerra calculated one of the following UTLs: Normal UTLs were calculated for constituents when their background dataset fit the normal distribution model Gamma UTLs were calculated for constituents when their background dataset fit the gamma distribution model but did not fit the normal distribution model • Lognormal UTLs were calculated for constituents when their background dataset fit only the lognormal distribution model and the standard deviation of the natural log -transformed background dataset for those constituents was less than 1 SynTerra calculated all parametric UTLs using a coverage of 95 percent and a confidence level of 95 percent. SynTerra used the Kaplan -Meier method to handle non -detects in the dataset for a constituent. Non -Parametric Upper Tolerance Limits SynTerra calculated non -parametric UTLs for constituents when their background dataset had one of the following characteristics: • Could not be fitted to a discernible distribution model • Contained greater than 50 percent non -detects and less than or equal to 90 percent non -detects • Could be fitted to the lognormal distribution model but had a standard deviation greater than 1 when the data were natural log -transformed Page 3-2 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra SynTerra calculated non -parametric UTLs using: • A confidence level of 95 percent and a coverage of 85 percent when a background dataset contained fewer than 29 samples • A confidence level of 95 percent and a coverage of 90 percent when a background dataset contained from 29 to 58 samples • A confidence level of 95 percent and a coverage of 95 percent when a background dataset contained 59 or more samples 3.2 Assessing Dataset Distribution SynTerra fitted background datasets to various distribution models using goodness of fit (GOF) tests when background datasets contained less than or equal to 50 percent non -detects. Details about the distribution of background data for each constituent within each distinct flow zone are provided in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5. SynTerra performed GOF tests using ProUCL version 5.1.002 (Appendix B). If non - detects were present in a background dataset, SynTerra handled those data using robust regression on ordered statistics (ROS). Robust ROS requires that the detected concentration data in a dataset fit a distribution model. If the detected concentration data do fit a distribution model, robust ROS estimates a value for each non -detect. The joint distribution of the estimates values and detected concentration data is then evaluated for fit with distribution models using GOF tests to determine the overall distribution of a dataset. SynTerra evaluated the fit of background groundwater data with the normal, gamma, and lognormal distribution models using the following GOF tests: • Normal distribution — Shapiro -Wilk (SW) test or Lilliefors test • Gamma distribution — Anderson Darling test or Kolmogorov-Smirnov test • Lognormal distribution — SW test or Lilliefors test SynTerra used the SW test when background datasets contained 50 or fewer sample data. SynTerra used the Lilliefors test when background datasets contained more than 50 sample data. Background data were considered non -parametric when GOF tests could not fit data to a discernible distribution model, or when the background data were fitted to the lognormal distribution but the standard deviation of the natural log -transformed dataset was greater than 1. Page 3-3 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 3.3 Outlier Screening SynTerra screened background groundwater datasets for extreme outlier concentrations using ProUCL version 5.1.002 and NCSS 11 Statistical Software. SynTerra retained autocorrelated sample results in the background datasets during outlier screening to help confirm the validity of apparent statistical outliers or to determine whether outliers were caused by omitting data about concentrations present in groundwater at a given point in time. SynTerra screened the background dataset for each constituent within each distinct flow zone for extreme outlier concentrations using all of the following: • Scatter plots of time versus concentration (Appendix C) • Box -and -whisker plots comparing constituent concentrations among background wells (Appendix D) • Box -and -whisker plots of the pooled background dataset for each constituent (Appendix E) • Dixon's outlier test or Rosner's outlier test using a 0.01 significance level Dixon's and Rosner's outlier tests make the assumption that the background data for a constituent can be fitted to the normal distribution model, excluding all concentrations that are suspected to be outliers. SynTerra used Dixon's or Rosner's outlier test to screen the background dataset for a constituent for extreme outlier concentrations only when the aforementioned assumption was met (Appendix F). Extreme outlier concentrations identified in background datasets are presented in Table 2. Page 3-4 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 4.0 REFERENCES HDR Engineering, Inc. and SynTerra Corporation (2017). Revised Statistical Methods for Developing Reference Background Concentrations for Groundwater and Soil at Coal Ash Facilities. May 2017. NCSS, LLC (2016). NCSS 11 Statistical Software. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/ncss. SynTerra Corporation (2017). Comprehensive Site Assessment Update. Mayo Steam Electric Plant. October 2017. USEPA (2009). Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities: Unified Guidance. EPA 530-R-09-007. USEPA (2015). ProUCL 5.1.002 Technical Guide, Statistical Software for Environmental Applications for Data Sets with and without Nondetect Observations. EPA/600/R07/041. USEPA (2018). Groundwater Statistics Tool User's Guide. OSWER 9283.1-46. Page 4-1 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant FIGURE SynTerra Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant TABLES SynTerra TABLE 1 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Constituent Reporting Unit 15A NCAC 02L Standard 2017 Background Threshold Values' 2019 Updated Background Threshold Values2 Surficial Flow Zone Transition Zone Bedrock Flow Zone Surficial Flow Zone Transition Zone Bedrock Flow Zone pH S.U. 6.5-8.5 4.9-6.5 5.7-6.5 5.0-7.3 4.9-6.9 5.6-6.6 5.1-7.2 Alkalinity mg-CaCO3/L NE 13 302 223 42 302 240 Aluminum Ng/L NE 566 490 494 566 692 574 Antimony pg/L 1* 1 1 1 1 1 1 Arsenic Ng/L 10 1 1 1 2 1 1 Barium pg/L 700 19 78 97 22 67.7 97 Beryllium Ng/L 4* 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bicarbonate mg-CaCO3/L NE 13 302 223 23 302 221 Boron Ng/L 700 50 50 50 50 50 50 Cadmium pg/L 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Calcium mg/L NE 3 59 73 13 59 73 Carbonate mg-CaCO3/L NE 5 5 5 10 10 10 Chloride mg/L 250 3 33 43 5 39 41 Chromium pg/L 10 3 6 7 8 6 7 Chromium (VI) Ng/L NE 0.1 1 0.4 4 1 0.4 Cobalt pg/L 1* 1 1 1 2 1 5 Copper Ng/L 1000 2 5 5 4 5 5 Fluoride mg/L 2 --- --- --- 0.1 0.3 0.4 Iron Ng/L 300 385 1319 2550 6820 1356 3771 Lead pg/L 15 1 1 1 2 1 1 Lithium pg/L NE --- --- --- 5 6 48 Magnesium mg/L NE 1 14 13 1 14 15 Manganese pg/L 50 253 298 519 395 448 548 Mercury pg/L 1 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.2 Methane pg/L NE 12 2256 10 273 2505 42 Molybdenum pg/L NE 3 1 11 10 1 17 Nickel pg/L 100 3 5 5 5 5 6 Nitrate + Nitrite mg-N/L NE 1 0.3 1 1 1 1 Potassium mg/L NE 4 4 7 5 4 11 Selenium pg/L 20 1 1 1 1 1 2 Sodium mg/L NE 5 53 73 8 53 117 Strontium pg/L NE 25 391 418 27 390 418 Sulfate mg/L 250 2 8 18 3 8 130 Sulfide mg/L NE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 TDS mg/L 500 85 430 340 130 430 470 Thallium pg/L 0.2* 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 TOC mg/L NE 2 2 1 8 2 1 Total Radium pCi/L 5^ 4 9 8 2 35 5 Total Uranium Ng/mL 0.03^ 0.0004 0.001 0.002 0.0002 0.001 0.003 Vanadium pg/L 0.3* 1 6 6 3 6 4 Zinc Ng/L 1000 227 12 37 140 15 35 Prepared by: PPB / ]HC Checked by: HES / JAW Notes: Background threshold values (BTUs) have been rounded to similar levels of precision as 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02L Standard or Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration (IMAC). --- - BTV was not calculated for constituent. * - IMAC of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard, Appendix 1, April 1, 2013. ^ - Federal Maximum Contaminant Level ' - BTVs were calculated using data from background groundwater samples collected July 2011 to March 2017 ' - Updated BTVs were calculated using data from background groundwater samples collected April 2010 to December 2018 pg/L - micrograms per liter pg/mL - micrograms per milliliter mg/L - milligrams per liter mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter NE - not established pCi/L - picocunes per liter S.U. - standard units TDS - total dissolved solids TOC - total organic carbon Page 1 of 1 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Analytical Parameter y pH WL Temp SPC DO ORP Eh Turbidity Alkalinity Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Bicarbonate Alkalinity Boron Cadmium Calcium Carbonate Alkalinity Chloride Chromium Chromium (VI) Cobalt Copper Reporting Unit S.U. Ft (BTOC) °C pit/cm mg/L mV mV NTU mg-CaCO3/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L mg-CaCO3/L Ng/L Ng/L mg/L mg-CaCO3/L mg/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results Surficial Flow Zone °°ems --,---- 16 39.6i IL 24 35 3.66 39:68 44 292 F} F } 24 � 44 ESBJAMmokiln -<#B 34 i.6i - i.09 � MW-12S 06/24/2015 6.0 30.75 22 53 2.92 31 236 3.40 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- MW-12S 09/10/2015 5.8 31.69 20 47 2.30 34 239 6.31 13 98 <1 <1 19 <1 13 <50 <1 1.77 <10 3.1 3.23 --- 1.02 <1 MW-12S 12/02/2015 5.7 32.15 17 68 2.70 159 364 6.90 12 164 <1 <1 16 <1 12 <50 <1 1.56 <10 3.3 7.17 0.043 <1 <1 MW-12S 0110712016 5.8 31.69 10 111 2.86 185 390 9.89 11.1 220 <1 <1 11 <I 11.1 <50 <1 1.96 <5 3.1 1.43 0.038 <1 <1 MW-12S 04/06/2016 5.8 29.91 14 46 2.91 159 364 7.42 10.2 566 <1 <1 12 <1 10.2 <50 <1 1.19 <5 3.3 <1 0.058 <1 <1 MW-12S 06/23/2016 5.6 28.86 18 64 0.28 44 249 8.72 13 --- <1 <1 10 <1 --- <50 <1 3.86 --- 2.4 1.15 --- 1.1 --- MW-12S 0711112016 4.9 28.87 19 54 0.43 92 297 9.82 12.8 392 <1 <1 13 <I 12.8 <50 <1 2.89 <5 2.9 <1 0.045 <1 1.9 MW-12S 0811712016 5.8 29.20 19 47 1.72 182 387 8.61 8.9 --- <I <1 14 <1 --- <50 <I 1.55 81 --- 3.1 1.09 --- <1 --- MW-12S 09/07/2016 5.8 29.93 20 42 2.12 141 346 9.24 9.5 284 <1 <1 12 <1 9.5 <50 <1 1.56 <5 3.2 <1 0.16 <1 <1 MW-12S 1011912016 5.7 30.81 19 45 1.83 30 235 9.49 8.9 --- <1 <1 14 <1 --- <50 <1 1.85 82 --- 2.9 1.14 --- <1 --- MW-12S 1110412016 5.6 31.25 17 41 2.70 185 390 9.12 9.2 200 <I <I 11 <I 9.2 <50 <I 1.14 81 <5 3.1 <1 0.088 <I 1.08 MW-12S 12/07/2016 6.3 31.67 13 50 5.79 2 207 9.97 13 321 <1 <1 8 <1 13 <50 <1 2.12 <5 2.2 <1 0.96 <1 2.22 MW-12S 1210712016 6.3 31.67 13 50 5.79 2 207 9.97 9.8 --- <I <I 8 <I --- <50 <I 2.19 --- 2.1 <1 --- <1 MW-12S 0210112017 6.5 32.32 14 59 0.21 -43 162 8.53 23.8 361 <1 1.79 11 <1 23.8 <50 <1 7.07 82 <5 0.36 1.61 5.7 1.65 9.46 MW-12S 0210112017 6.5 32.32 14 59 0.21 -43 162 8.53 22 --- <1 1.77 12 <1 --- <50 <1 7.88 --- 0.34 1.46 --- 1.59 --- MW-12S 03/28/2017 6.2 31.81 16 77 0.36 -42 163 6.62 22.7 413 <1 1.11 13 <1 22.7 <50 <1 5.1 <5 0.56 1.06 4.4 1.59 3.73 MW-12S 0312812017 6.2 31.81 16 77 0.36 -42 163 6.62 22 --- <1 1.1 14 <1 --- <50 <I 5.04 --- 0.57 1.12 --- 1.6 --- _ _ _ , _ - - . 63 i-/ 49 6.45 3�3 32-8 16.10 4-9 IF - -<4 3 48 4-2 -<4 - F58 -<4 611 - - MW-12S 0711112017 6.4 30.90 22 66 0.30 -61 144 8.79 20.8 627 <1 <1 13 <1 20.8 <50 <1 4.86 83 <5 1.1 1.55 <0.12 D3 1.21 2.75 MW-12S 07/11/2017 6.4 30.90 22 66 0.30 -61 144 8.79 <5 --- <1 <1 13 <1 --- <50 <1 4.62 B2 --- 1.1 1.36 --- 1.18 --- MW-12S 0910612017 6.3 32.27 20 60 0.39 -45 160 8.56 22 --- <1 <1 14 <1 --- <50 <1 3.41 --- 1.3 1 --- 1.11 --- MW 12S ll/()8/2()l3 63 33.73 #3 S} 030 26 23-1 4i58 16..7 2639 -<4 3:98 24 -<4 #fY7 fSB -<4 2.16 -<-5 4 6 3:85 Q.02-5 3.84 4.04 MW i2s ()1r16r2()1 6-.G 34.44 33 45 3.% 85 294) 32.20 3-r.8 3399 -<4 4$7 22 -<4 3r.8 E58 -<4 3:43 -<-5 2-4 3.42 8$3 3148 4-49 MW 12S -, - -, - - - - 6-.G 34.44 33 45 3.06 85 jib 290 32-:28 472 - -<4 i 5 26 -<4 - <50 -<4 i . 54 - 2-.-2 i.53 - 3:94 - MW-12S 04/02/2018 5.9 33.99 18 46 0.32 97 302 9.90 14.5 370 <1 0.908 j 12 <1 14.5 <50 <1 0.843 <5 1.6 <1 0.052 0.695 j 1.06 12S 4-7 50 0.30 A - -<4 3 43 Ilk39 -<4 - F50 -<4 2.09 - 2 3 - MW-12S 07/18/2018 5.2 33.49 21 50 0.35 165 370 9.90 14.6 490 <1 0.52 j 17 <1 14.6 <50 <1 2.16 <5 2.5 0.851 j 0.045 0.667 j 3.51 MW-12S 10/02/2018 5.9 33.14 18616 194 399 9.90 26.4 --- <1 1.53 15 <1 --- <50 <1 8.1 B2 1.6 1.78 2.14 "",`W i2S 3 5-.832.40 4538 44.6 4028 t� &S3j 36 146 <50 t� 2$6 -<-52 &996 &063 &t34& 2 57 Page 1of12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Analytical Parameter Fluoride Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate + Nitrite Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide TDS Thallium TOC Total Radium TotalVanadium Uranium Zinc Reporting Unit mg/L pg/L Ng/L pg/L mg/L pg/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L pg/L mg-N/L mg/L pg/L mg/L pg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Ng/L mg/L pCi/L pg/mL pg/L Ng/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Analytical Results Surficial Flow Zone MW-12S 06/24/2015 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.84 <0.0002 --- --- MW-12S 09/10/2015 --- 108 <1 --- 0.723 253 <0.05 12 <1 2.98 0.7 1.53 <1 5.43 23 1.4 <0.1 55 <0.2 0.633 --- --- <0.3 64 MW-12S 12/02/2015 --- 336 <1 --- 0.792 152 <0.05 <10 <1 5.41 0.638 1.4 <1 5.08 21 1.3 <0.1 26 <0.2 0.519 --- --- 0.313 79 MW-12S 0110712016 --- 178 <1 --- 0.753 68 <0.05 <10 <1 1.6 0.599 1.58 <1 4.76 18 1.4 <0.1 35 <0.2 1.6 --- --- <0.3 157 MW-12S 04/06/2016 --- 338 <1 --- 0.749 24 <0.05 <10 <1 <1 0.798 1.22 <1 5.49 17 1.2 <0.1 29 <0.2 0.522 0.537 0.000217 0.408 43 MW-12S 06/23/2016 <0.1 --- <1 <5 0.679 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.98 <1 3.17 --- 1.8 --- 39 <0.2 --- 0.845 --- --- --- MW-12S 0711112016 --- 385 <I --- 0.694 34 <0.05 <10 <I 1.16 0.566 1.89 <1 4.34 21 1.6 <0.1 43 <0.2 2 <RL <0.0002 0.974 227 MW-12S 0811712016 <0.1 --- <1 <5 0.646 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.33 <1 4.82 --- 1.2 --- 45 <0.2 --- 2.074 --- --- --- MW-12S 09/07/2016 --- 270 <1 --- 0.64 11 <0.05 <10 <1 <1 0.756 1.36 <1 4.78 16 1.1 <0.1 52 <0.2 0.763 1.56 <0.0002 0.711 140 MW-12S 1011912016 <0.1 --- <1 <5 0.725 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.55 <1 4.32 --- 1.1 --- 110 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-12S 1110412016 --- 245 <I --- 0.661 81 19 <0.05 <10 <1 1.19 0.739 1.35 <1 4.85 82 16 0.89 <0.1 52 <0.2 0.53 <RL <0.0002 0.593 73 MW-12S 12/07/2016 --- 327 <1 --- 0.622 22 <0.05 <10 HS 10.3 1.22 0.419 2.33 <1 4.06 14 2.3 <0.1 57 <0.2 3.6 0.54 0.0000838 j 0.698 64 B2 MW-12S 1210712016 <0.1 --- <1 <5 0.65 --- <0.05 --- 9.55 --- --- 2.36 <1 4.46 --- 2.4 --- 61 <0.2 --- 1.869 --- --- --- MW-12S 0210112017 --- 3240 2.41 --- 1.11 211 <0.05 36 N2 3.15 3.03 <0.01 3.78 <1 0.566 82 25 1.6 <0.1 85 <0.2 85 14 <RL 0.000112 j 5.9 90 MW-12S 0210112017 <0.1 --- 2.34 <5 1.17 --- <0.05 --- 2.99 --- --- 3.92 <1 0.577 --- 1.5 --- 82 <0.2 --- 0.81 --- --- --- MW-12S 03/28/2017 --- 6820 1.42 --- 1.25 395 <0.05 273 1.97 1.79 <0.01 3.29 <1 1.59 27 0.95 <0.1 51 <0.2 8.1 B3 0.383 0.000096 j 2.8 21 MW-12S 0312812017 <0.1 --- 1.48 <5 1.34 --- <0.05 --- 1.94 --- --- 3.35 <1 1.68 --- 0.89 --- 42 <0.2 --- 1.639 --- �iw is 05/24/201;1 5 - - - - 4-.&6 �0. �;z I - 3 3 - 87 - - - MW-12S 0711112017 --- 4590 1.17 --- 1.1 210 <0.05 --- <1 1.48 --- 3.1 <1 2.54 25 0.96 <0.1 68 <0.2 83 5.5 <RL 0.000145 j 3.68 26 MW-12S 07/11/2017 <0.1 --- 1.14 <5 0.966 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 2.79 <1 2.3 --- 0.87 --- 32 <0.2 --- 0.696 --- --- --- MW-12S 0910612017 <0.1 --- <1 <5 0.959 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 2.37 <1 2.51 --- 0.85 --- 39 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- ^W i2.Z 11 - -, _ - - . - 4969 2.99 - i . &1 449 Q. B5 - -<# 1.48 - 2.45 -<4 3.72 2-12 i-4 Q.1 43 3-9 H�L Q.0902 2.63 2-B Q.2 B-- MW 12S.S 0116/2018 Q.f 3(49 3-.52 E-5 9.856 498 4).05 - -<4 3.29 9024 2.19 133 -<4 4.05 B1 313 4-5 1 4-7 Q.2 2-.2 338 2-$9 -15 ^ems -, - -, _ _ - Q.1 - i : 6 f-jj 0�5 - �&..05 - <4 - - 2-4 � 4-2 - 3.6 - 3-3 - i.986 - - - �3 MW-12S 04/02/2018 0.0782 j 809 <1 <0.577 128 <0.05 --- 0.205 j 0.805 j 0.047 1.62 <1 4.69 12 1.6 <0.1 32 0.091 j 5.8 0.594 0.0000866 j 1.05 24 9�5 j - Q.05 - - - 3 84 � 4� - 3 8 - 44 O�j - - - MW-12S 07/18/2018 0.0703 j 510 0.383 j 3.690.91 101 <0.05 --- 0.332 j 1.4 0.135 2.06 <1 4.11 B2 21 1.6 <0.1 52 <0.2 1.9 0.3319 <0.0002 1.5 126 B2 MW-12S 10/02/2018 0.041 j --- 1.96 2.091.24 --- 0.029 j 0.902 j 4.6 <1 0.807 2.2 --- 110 <0.2 --- 0.5118 --- --- ---""`.; 12SS ni97R933 0449-3-j 776 8 593 -<- 4-53 e- 2 - 0- i 8 83�j 9-2 2-2-3 i 3 f F2-5 2 3.4 &36 0.0000899 j 2-:09 94 Page 2 of 12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Analytical Parameter pH WL Temp SPC DO ORP Eh Turbidity Alkalinity Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Alkalinity Bicarbonate Boron Cadmium Calcium Alkalinity Carbonate Chloride Chromium (VI) Chromium Cobalt Copper Reporting Unit S.U. (gTt oC p4/cm mg/L mV mV NTU mg-CaCO3/L pg/L pg/L Ng/L Ng/L pg/L mg-CaCO3/L pg/L pg/L mg/L mg-CaCO3/L mg/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results BG 02 __ -- __-- 6-£ 35..57 479 5-76 NM NM NM 33..00 - i799 �9.5 <-5 8i.8 - - E58 EO.08 - 43.5 &.4 - - 44 BG 02 - , _ _, _ _ _ _ 63 33.35 24 623 3.26 7 2-12 i2-49 - 298 �9.5 E-S 6i.3 - - K0 Q.08 - 35.4 E-S - - FS BG-02 07/11/2011 6.3 35.45 26 706 0.32 -77 128 9.20 --- 298 <0.5 <5 64.8 b --- --- <50 <0.08 --- --- 32.6 b 10.2 --- --- <5 BG-02 11/03/2011 6.3 35.90 17 671 0.67 -98 107 5.63 --- 180 <0.5 <5 67.7 --- --- <50 <0.08 --- --- 32.9 7.5 --- <5 BG-02 04/04/2012 6.3 35.71 21 647 0.34 -93 113 5.55 --- <100 <0.5 <5 61.5 --- --- <50 <0.08 --- --- 32.6 <5 --- --- <5 BG-02 07/09/2012 6.3 35.94 20 652 0.51 -78 127 9.47 --- 262 <0.5 <5 53.4 --- --- <50 <0.08 --- --- 35.3 5.9 --- --- <5 BG-02 11/05/2012 6.3 36.20 17 640 0.51 90 295 9.02 --- 506 <0.5 <5 60.2 --- --- <50 <0.08 --- --- 33.3 6 --- --- <5 BG-02 04/10/2013 6.3 35.33 18 725 0.17 -17 188 8.50 --- 226 <1 <1 66 --- <50 <1 --- 28 <5 --- --- <5 BG-02 07/09/2013 6.4 34.66 19 695 0.31 -120 85 8.08 --- 412 <1 <1 69 --- --- <50 <1 --- --- 30 <5 --- --- <5 BG-02 11/13/2013 6.4 34.40 17 658 0.10 18 223 9.50 --- 384 <1 <1 62 --- --- <50 <1 --- --- 29 <5 --- --- <5 BG-02 04/01/2014 6.4 33.78 17 709 0.20 68 273 7.50 --- 316 <1 <1 71 --- --- <50 <1 --- --- 28 <5 --- --- <5 BG-02 07/18/2014 6.4 33.20 18 664 0.14 2 207 7.71 --- 355 <1 <1 65 --- --- <50 <1 --- --- 30 <5 --- --- <5 BG-02 11/12/2014 6.3 33.02 18 630 0.12 21 226 5.33 --- 233 <1 <1 61 --- --- <50 <1 --- --- 30 <5 --- --- <5 BG-02 04/13/2015 6.3 31.93 18 652 0.20 -11 194 7.09 259 136 <1 <1 54 <1 259 <50 <1 57 <5 28 <5 --- <1 <5 BG-02 07/07/2015 6.5 31.53 19 623 0.30 -129 76 8.51 225 193 <1 <1 54 <1 225 <50 <1 56.1 <5 30 <5 --- <1 <5 BG-02 BG-02 09/11/2015 12/09/2015 6.4 6.4 31.49 31.68 18 16 537 612 0.03 0.71 -40 3 165 208 6.88 5.24 220 257 M1 82 <100 <1 <0.5 <1 <0.5 50 60 <1 <0.2 220 257 <50 <50 <1 <0.08 50.6 57.2 M1 <10 <5 32 29.7 4.05 <0.5 B --- <0.03 <1 <0.5 <1 E5 <1 BG-02 0110812016 6.4 31.23 17 588 0.90 -16 189 1.98 263 80 <1 <1 58 <1 263 <50 <1 57.3 <5 33 <1 <0.03 <1 1.21 BG-02 04/04/2016 6.4 30.42 18 651 0.15 139 344 2.71 303 65 <1 <1 65 <1 303 <50 <1 59.2 <5 30 <5 <0.03 <1 <5 BG-02 07/13/2016 6.2 30.04 17 638 0.22 -51 154 3.40 302 58 <1 <1 59 <1 302 <50 <1 59.9 <5 30 <5 <0.03 <1 <5 BG-02 0910712016 6.7 30.04 18 635 0.14 -82 123 2.90 257 151 <1 <1 59 <1 257 <50 <1 56.4 <5 33 <1 <0.03 <1 <1 BG-02 1110212016 6.3 30.55 17 621 0.33 179 384 5.07 235 47 <1 <1 46 <1 235 <50 <1 53.2 <5 33 <5 --- <1 <5 BG-02 11/02/2016 6.3 30.55 17 621 0.33 179 384 5.07 240 59 <1 <1 48 <1 240 <50 <1 51.3 <5 34 <1 <0.03 <1 <1 BG-02 01/30/2017 6.6 31.06 16 535 0.27 48 253 9.68 228 82 <1 <1 43 <1 228 <50 <1 50 B2 <5 33 <1 0.055 <1 <1 BG-02 04/03/2017 6.5 31.26 18 583 0.20 -37 168 7.40 227 100 <1 <1 45 <1 227 <50 <1 53.3 <5 35 <5 --- <1 <5 BG-02 0410312017 6.5 31.26 18 583 0.20 -37 168 7.40 229 293 <1 <1 47 <1 229 <50 B3 <1 55.3 <5 35 <1 <0.025 <1 1.8 BG-02 07/10/2017 6.0 31.52 19 560 0.44 43 248 2.83 239 41 <1 <1 42 <1 239 <50 <1 51.3 <5 37 <5 --- <1 <5 BG-02 0711012017 6.0 31.52 19 560 0.44 43 248 2.83 223 58 <1 <1 44 <1 223 <50 <1 52.7 B2 <5 36 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 BG-02 1110612017 6.5 32.20 17 586 0.24 11 216 8.02 229 98 <1 <1 41 <1 229 <50 <1 51.8 <5 37 <5 --- <1 <5 BG-02 11/06/2017 6.5 32.20 17 586 0.24 11 216 8.02 237 62 <1 <1 42 <1 237 <50 <1 49.1 <5 37 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 BG-02 01/15/2018 6.5 32.92 15 579 0.17 17 222 1.85 218 62 <1 <1 41 <1 218 <50 <1 50.4 B2 <5 39 <1 1 <0.025 <1 <1 BG-02 04/03/2018 6.4 .9 320 18 565 0.21 262 467 1.86 221 48 <1 <1 42 <1 221 <50 <1 49.6 <5 39 <5 --- <1 <5 Page 3of12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Analytical Parameter Fluoride Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrite Nitrate + Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide TDS Thallium TOC Total Radium Total um Uranium Vanadium Zinc Reporting Unit mg/L pg/L Ng/L pg/L mg/L pg/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L pg/L mg-N/L mg/L pg/L mg/L pg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Ng/L mg/L pCi/L pg/mL pg/L Ng/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Analytical Results BG 02 _ _, - -, _ _ - - - 2669 <S - - 448 <0.2 - - <S <�9 - 8� - 349 Q.f - - - 38.9 BG 02 94 ell - 439 <S - - 71.4 Q.2 - - <S - - <+9 - 83 - 382 Q.1 - - BG-02 07/11/2011 --- 559 <5 --- --- 64.2 <0.2 --- --- 9.4 b --- --- <10 --- --- 7.2 b --- 367 b <0.1 --- --- --- <10 BG-02 11/03/2011 --- 312 <5 --- --- 36.7 <0.2 --- --- 5.2 --- --- <10 --- --- 6.9 --- 341 <0.1 --- --- --- --- <10 BG-02 04/04/2012 --- 152 <5 --- --- 27 <0.2 --- --- <5 --- --- <10 --- --- 7.5 --- 412 <0.1 --- --- --- --- <10 BG-02 07/09/2012 --- 460 <5 --- --- 54.9 <0.2 --- --- <5 --- --- <10 --- --- 7.7 --- 382 <0.1 --- --- --- --- <10 BG-02 11/05/2012 --- 759 <5 --- --- 43.7 <0.2 --- --- <5 --- --- <10 --- --- 8.3 --- 389 <0.1 --- --- --- --- <10 BG-02 04/10/2013 --- 646 <1 111 0.18 --- --- <5 <1 --- --- 5.4 --- 430 <0.2 --- --- --- --- <5 BG-02 07/09/2013 --- 1130 <1 --- --- 248 0.11 --- --- <5 --- --- <1 --- --- 5.2 --- 430 <0.2 --- --- --- --- <5 BG-02 11/13/2013 --- 841 <1 --- --- 177 0.11 --- --- <5 --- --- <1 --- --- 5.2 --- 360 <0.2 --- --- --- --- <5 BG-02 04/01/2014 --- 943 <1 --- --- 226 0.06 --- --- <5 --- --- <1 --- --- 4.8 --- 450 <0.2 --- --- --- --- 8 BG-02 07/18/2014 --- 1010 <1 --- --- 244 0.08 --- --- <5 --- --- <1 --- --- 4.9 --- 400 <0.2 --- --- --- --- 5 BG-02 11/12/2014 --- 647 <1 -- --- 180 <0.05 --- --- <5 --- --- <1 --- --- 5 --- 370 <0.2 --- --- --- --- 8 BG-02 04/13/2015 --- 435 <1 --- 11.8 150 0.06 --- <1 <5 --- 3.27 <1 49.7 --- 4.8 --- 380 <0.2 --- --- --- 11 BG-02 07/07/2015 --- 467 <1 --- 12 135 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 3.61 <1 48.2 --- 5.1 --- 370 <0.2 --- --- --- 5.88 15 BG-02 BG-02 09/11/2015 12/09/2015 --- --- 244 4507<' <1 1 --- --- 10.6 12.3 130 200 <0.05 <0.2 400 660 <1 0.74 2.87 0.82 0.019 <0.02 3.56 <5 <1 <0.5 44.6 51.3 291 390 5.4 5.1 <0.1 <0.1 330 314 <0.2 <0.1 1.4 1.1 --- --- --- --- 4 5.8 23 12 BG-02 0110812016 --- 471 --- 12.6 196 <0.05 477 <1 <1 <0.01 3.4 <1 50.6 350 5.5 <0.1 370 <0.2 1.3 --- --- 4.2 <5 BG 02 04/04/2016 5851 13.9 237 <0.05 1130 <1 <5 3.34 <1 56 391 4.9 <0.1 360 <0.2 1.8 4.07 0.00102 5 <5 BG-02 07/13/2016 --- 484 <1 --- 13.5 207 1 <0.05 2260 <1 <5 1 <0.01 3.23 <1 53.3 374 4.9 <0.1 370 1 <0.2 1.6 7.52 0.000918 4.79 <5 BG-02 0910712016 --- 553 <1 --- 13.1 194 <0.05 1670 <1 <1 <0.01 3.31 <1 53.5 378 5.6 <0.1 370 <0.2 1.6 0.997 0.000791 5.34 <5 BG-02 1110212016 --- 186 <1 --- 10.8 124 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 3.37 <1 43.6 302 5.1 --- 350 <0.2 --- --- --- 3.45 <5 BG-02 11/02/2016 --- 213 <1 --- 10.8 131 <0.05 1120 N2 <1 <1 0.02 3.48 <1 45.3 320 5.6 <0.1 330 H1 <0.2 1.4 2.36 0.000855 3.63 <5 BG-02 01/30/2017 --- 184 <1 --- 10.6 104 <0.05 801 N2 <1 <1 <0.01 3.48 <1 44 B2 287 5.6 <0.1 320 <0.2 1.4 <RL 0.000926 4.14 B2 <5 BG-02 04/03/2017 --- 221 <1 --- 10.5 105 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 3.41 <1 45.1 296 5.6 --- 320 <0.2 --- --- --- 3.87 <5 BG-02 0410312017 --- 500 <1 --- 11.2 117 0.05 730 <1 1.34 0.028 3.51 <1 47.2 309 5.5 1 <0.1 320 <0.2 1.4 B3 3.07 0.00109 5.06 <5 BG-02 07/10/2017 --- 175 <1 --- 10.5 95 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 3.27 <1 44.3 289 5.8 --- 310 <0.2 --- --- --- 3.85 <5 BG-02 0711012017 --- 202 <1 --- 11.8 103 <0.05 --- <1 <1 --- 3.32 <1 45.7 295 5 <0.1 140 <0.2 B3 1.4 1.06 0.000885 4.06 <5 BG-02 1110612017 --- 248 <1 --- 10.9 91 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 3.17 <1 44.9 292 4.9 --- 300 <0.2 B3 --- --- --- 5.2 <5 BG-02 11/06/2017 --- 195 <1 --- 10.8 82 <0.05 --- <1 <1 --- 3.3 <1 45.1 296 5.4 1 <0.1 310 <0.2 2.1 4.59 0.000893 5.04 <5 BG-02 01/15/2018 0.34 180 <1 6 10.5 86 <0.05 --- <1 <1 0.026 3.36 <1 45.6 B3 292 5.6 <0.1 270 <0.2 1.5 0.706 0.000839 4.44 <5 BG-02 04/03/2018 186 <1 --- 10.4 82 <0.05 <1 <5 3.4 <1 44.9 290 5.6 --- 310 <0.2 -- 4.72 <5 Page 4 of 12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Analytical Parameter pH WL Temp SPC DO ORP Eh Turbidity Alkalinity Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Alkalinity Bicarbonate Boron Cadmium Calcium Alkalinity Carbonate Chloride Chromium (VI) Chromium Cobalt Copper Reporting Unit S.U. (gTt oC p4/cm mg/L mV mV NTU mg-CaCO3/L pg/L pg/L Ng/L Ng/L pg/L mg-CaCO3/L pg/L pg/L mg/L mg-CaCO3/L mg/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results BG-02 0410312018 6.4 32.90 18 565 0.21 262 467 1.86 222 49 <I <1 42 <1 222 <50 <1 50.9 <5 39 4.33 <0.025 <1 0.41 j BG-02 07/17/2018 6.3 32.28 20 527 0.21 368 573 1.10 207 35 <1 <1 38 <1 207 <50 <1 49.1 B2, M4 <5 42 <5 --- <1 <5 BG-02 0711712018 6.3 32.28 20 527 0.21 368 573 1.10 206 30 <I <1 38 <I 206 <50 <1 49.5 <5 42 <1 <0.025 M1 <1 <I BG-02 11/06/2018 6.3 31.85 17 579 0.12 240 445 1.40 203 14 <1 <1 42 <1 203 <50 <1 52.6 <5 39 <1 <0.025 <1 0.617 j MW-12D 06/24/2015 6.2 31.15 17 136 2.42 -1 204 4.02 53 184 1.63 <1 26 <1 53 <50 <1 12.6 <10 4 <1 --- 1.37 <1 MW-12D 0612512015 6.2 31.10 17 124 2.72 29 234 4.50 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- MW-12D 09/10/2015 6.2 32.10 17 125 2.60 39 244 3.88 57 220 <1 <1 20 <1 57 <50 <1 11.7 <10 4.1 1.1 --- <1 <1 Pqw i29 -_, - _, _ - -- Fr. B 32.50 46 135 3.49 135 349 3i38 54 396 1.44 3 3 -<#B 4.5 343 9sr5 -<4 -<4 MW-12D 1210412015 6.1 32.83 18 122 3.35 140 345 8.08 53.2 150 <0.5 <0.5 20 <0.2 53.2 <50 0.099 11.5 <5 3.7 4.6 0.64 MI 0.51 <1 MW-12D 01/07/2016 6.1 31.95 15 118 3.10 136 341 9.26 53.5 678 <1 <1 22 <1 53.5 <50 <1 11.7 <5 4.5 2.99 0.52 M1 <1 1.54 MW-12D 04/05/2016 5.9 30.28 16 125 3.45 120 325 9.90 55.1 370 <1 <1 21 <1 55.1 <50 <1 11.4 <5 4.5 1.64 0.6 <1 <1 MW-12D 06/23/2016 5.6 29.24 17 132 3.15 51 256 9.52 52 --- <1 <1 16 <1 --- <50 <1 11.5 --- 3.4 1.3 --- <1 --- MW-12D 0711112016 5.7 29.17 18 134 2.91 60 265 9.35 56.3 155 <1 <1 17 <1 56.3 <50 <1 11.5 <5 4.4 1.19 0.73 <1 <1 MW-12D 0811712016 6.2 29.60 18 133 3.37 131 336 7.41 53 --- <1 <1 16 <1 --- <50 <1 11.7 B1 --- 4.2 1.66 --- <1 --- MW-12D 09/07/2016 6.3 30.35 17 128 3.77 38 243 9.20 53.5 257 <1 <1 16 <1 53.5 <50 <1 10.9 <5 4.8 2.99 0.75 <1 <1 MW-12D 1011912016 6.2 31.16 17 130 3.35 21 226 9.37 53 --- <1 <1 17 <1 --- <50 <1 11.7 B2 --- 4.2 4.09 --- <1 --- MW-12D 1110412016 6.3 31.55 16 126 3.41 197 402 9.09 55 272 <1 <I 16 <1 55 <50 <I 10.6 B1 <5 4 1.92 0.64 <1 <I MW-12D 12/06/2016 6.3 31.68 13 129 3.69 13 218 9.22 38 --- <1 <1 20 <1 --- <50 <1 11.4 B2 --- 4.1 1.7 --- <1 --- MW-12D 0210112017 6.1 32.01 14 129 3.07 -21 184 8.42 54.9 115 <1 <I 14 <1 54.9 <50 <1 10.3 B2 <5 3.8 1.39 0.69 <1 <1 MW-12D 0210112017 6.1 32.01 14 129 3.07 -21 184 8.42 49 --- <1 <1 15 <1 --- <50 <1 12.2 --- 4 1.13 --- <1 --- MW-12D 0312812017 5.9 32.17 16 123 3.61 162 367 5.70 54.3 140 <1 <1 15 <1 54.3 <50 <1 12.1 <5 4.3 1.25 0.63 <1 1.24 MW-12D 03/28/2017 5.9 32.17 16 123 3.61 162 367 5.70 53 --- <1 <1 16 <1 --- <50 <1 12.3 --- 4.3 1.11 --- <1 --- MW-12D 0512412017 6.0 31.42 16 127 3.41 129 334 8.31 53 --- <1 <1 18 <1 --- <50 <1 11.8 --- 4.2 1.66 --- <1 --- MW-12D 0711112017 6.1 31.19 18 133 3.81 154 359 5.25 55.8 113 <1 <1 16 <1 55.8 <50 <1 13.1 <5 4.5 1.07 0.61 MI <1 <1 MW-12D 07/11/2017 6.1 31.19 18 133 3.81 154 359 5.25 42 --- <1 <1 15 <1 --- <50 <1 11.6 B2 --- 4.4 1.1 --- <1 --- MW-12D 0910612017 6.2 32.61 17 131 3.91 167 372 8.98 50 --- <I <1 14 <1 --- <50 <I 11.9 --- 4.1 1.02 --- <1 --- MW-12D 11/08/2017 6.3 34.05 13 129 3.87 120 325 9.25 59.5 42 <1 <1 13 <1 59.5 <50 <1 12.5 <5 4.3 1.03 0.65 <1 1.29 MW-12D 01/16/2018 6.2 34.71 14 128 3.46 96 301 6.96 54.9 31 <1 <1 14 <1 54.9 <50 <1 11.3 <5 4.2 <1 0.77 <1 <1 MW-12D 0111612018 6.2 34.71 14 128 3.46 96 301 6.96 52 --- <1 <1 15 <1 --- <50 <1 11.9 --- 4.2 1.11 --- <1 --- MW-12D 0410212018 6.0 34.28 17 129 3.28 104 309 3.67 59.9 38 <1 <1 15 <1 59.9 <50 <1 12.4 <5 4.1 0.882 j 0.64 MI <1 1.66 MW-12D 05/07/2018 6.1 33.57 17 135 3.27 70 275 6.78 58 --- <1 <1 16 <1 --- <50 <1 12.2 --- 4.3 1.45 --- <1 --- MW-12D 07/18/2018 5.8 32.84 18 132 3.41 171 376 2.60 61.9 22 <1 <1 16 <1 61.9 <50 <1 12.1 <5 4.3 0.791 j 0.96 <1 2.83 MW-12D 1010212018 6.0 33.39 17 129 3.13 200 405 3.40 61.2 --- <1 <1 15 <1 --- 1 <50 <1 11.7 B2 -- 4.4 0.949 j -- <1 --- MW-12D 11/07/2018 6.0 32.60 16 151 3.85 316 521 8.09 53.8 82 <1 <1 15 <1 53.8 1 <50 <1 12.7 <5 1 4.4 1.02 0.82 1 <1 0.582 j Page 5of12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Analytical Parameter Fluoride Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrite Nitrate + Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide TDS Thallium TOC Total Radium Total um Uranium Vanadium Zinc Reporting Unit mg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg-N/L mg/L pg/L mg/L pg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L pg/L mg/L pCi/L pg/mL pg/L pg/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Analytical Results BG-02 0410312018 0.31 187 <1 4.667 j 10.5 82 <0.05 --- 0.851 j 3.98 0.028 3.26 <1 43.8 291 5.5 <0.1 300 0.082 j 1.7 2.922 0.000718 4.26 <5 BG-02 07/17/2018 --- 100 <1 --- 9.9 62 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 3.29 <1 42.6 276 5.4 --- 280 <0.2 --- --- --- 5.03 <5 BG-02 0711712018 0.28 94 <1 3.739 j 9.85 62 <0.05 --- 0.629 j 0.508 j 0.033 3.31 <1 42.7 277 5.5 <0.1 340 <0.2 1.3 2.3047 0,00061 4.72 1.975 j BG-02 11/06/2018 0.26 122 <1 2.955 j 10.9 105 0.02 j --- 0.635 j 0.355 j 0.024 3.32 <1 45 299 5.2 1 <0.1 290 1 <0.2 1.4 1.705 0.000639 4.61 <5 MW-12D 06/24/2015 --- 326 <1 --- 3.44 683 <0.05 <10 1.75 2.5 0.08 1.6 <1 8.98 95 0.96 <0.1 120 <0.2 0.396 --- --- 0.719 <5 MW-12D 0612512015 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- MW-12D 09/10/2015 --- 277 <1 --- 3.04 218 <0.05 <10 <1 1.35 0.664 1.41 <1 9.03 85 0.99 <0.1 100 <0.2 1.7 --- --- 0.637 9 D -_, -_, _--- - 504 -<4 - 3.22 493 '0.95 -<#B 3.0i 0432 1.46 -<4 938 99 1 Q.f 97 Q.2 6i66 MW-12D 1210412015 --- 280 <0.1 --- 3.24 160 <0.2 <10 0.8 3.7 0.15 <5 <0.5 9.56 85 <1 <0.1 122 <0.1 <I --- --- --- <10 MW-12D 01/07/2016 --- 968 <1 --- 3.28 131 <0.05 <10 <1 2.23 0.139 1.39 <1 8.76 87 1.1 <0.1 82 <0.2 0.184 --- --- 1.65 5 MW-12D 04/05/2016 --- 385 <1 --- 3.27 100 <0.05 <10 <1 1.49 0.146 1.42 <1 9.35 92 1.1 <0.1 120 <0.2 0.314 6 0.000233 1.06 <5 MW-12D 06/23/2016 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.1 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.36 <1 8.71 --- 1.1 --- 110 <0.2 --- 1.85 --- --- --- MW-12D 0711112016 --- 223 <1 --- 3.16 81 <0.05 17.9 <1 1.23 0.176 1.36 <1 9.26 88 1.1 <0.1 98 <0.2 0.276 2.62 0.0000919 j 0.898 6 MW-12D 0811712016 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.21 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.46 <1 9 --- 1.1 --- 100 <0.2 --- 9.97 --- --- --- MW-12D 09/07/2016 --- 409 <1 --- 3.02 64 <0.05 19.4 <1 2.02 0.18 1.34 <1 9.05 83 1.1 <0.1 100 <0.2 0.289 2.19 0.000105 j 1.13 5 MW-12D 1011912016 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.18 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.46 <1 9.06 --- 1.1 --- 420 <0.2 --- 1.02 --- --- --- MW-12D 1110412016 --- 405 <1 --- 2.97 B1 56 <0.05 28.5 N2 <1 1.37 0.166 1.37 <1 8.39 B2 85 1.1 <0.1 110 <0.2 0.171 0.659 0.000168 j 1.25 <5 MW-12D 12/06/2016 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.24 --- <0.05 --- 1.42 --- --- 1.44 <1 9.11 --- 1 --- 94 <0.2 --- 34.883 --- --- --- MW-12D 0210112017 --- 243 <1 --- 2.8 96 <0.05 71 N2 <1 1.62 0.19 1.22 <1 8.18 B2 83 1 <0.1 110 <0.2 B5 0.366 0.835 0.000146 j 0.874 <5 MW-12D 0210112017 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.24 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.4 <1 8.89 --- 1 --- 120 <0.2 --- 0.606 --- --- --- MW-12D 0312812017 --- 242 <1 --- 3.2 45 <0.05 <10 <1 1.29 0.19 1.41 <1 9.26 85 1.1 <0.1 96 <0.2 0.192 B3 4.68 0.000123 j 0.805 <5 MW-12D 03/28/2017 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.34 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.43 <1 9.3 --- 1.1 --- 99 <0.2 --- 4.93 --- --- --- MW-12D 0512412017 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.26 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.42 <1 9.16 --- 1.1 --- 98 <0.2 --- 1.24 --- --- --- MW-12D 0711112017 --- 193 <1 --- 3.56 38 <0.05 --- <1 1.07 --- 1.52 <1 10.1 87 1.1 <0.1 100 <0.2 B3 0.226 1.32 0,00047 0.825 <5 MW-12D 07/11/2017 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.15 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.33 <1 8.84 --- 1.1 --- 81 <0.2 --- 2.51 --- --- --- MW-12D 0910612017 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.19 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.32 <I 8.79 --- 1.1 --- 100 <0.2 --- 0.869 --- --- --- MW-12D 11/08/2017 --- 108 <1 --- 3.28 24 <0.05 --- <1 <1 --- 1.47 <1 9.34 88 1 <0.1 99 <0.2 B3 1.1 2.83 0.000109 j 0.848 <5 MW-12D 01/16/2018 0.1 92 <1 <5 3.03 20 <0.05 --- <1 <1 0.23 1.33 B3 <1 9.03 Bl 85 1.1 <0.1 98 <0.2 0.689 2.74 0.000102 j 0.741 <5 MW-12D 0111612018 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.12 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.36 <1 8.91 --- 1.1 --- 49 <0.2 B3 --- 0.328 -- --- --- MW-12D 0410212018 0.0968 j 89 <1 <5 3.36 22 <0.05 --- 0.604 j 1.23 0.25 1.41 <1 9.35 91 1.1 <0.1 65 0.109 j 0.495 0.667 0.000108 j 0.709 3.621 j MW-12D 05/07/2018 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.36 --- <0.05 --- 0.397 j --- --- 1.4 <1 9.02 --- 1 --- 85 <0.2 --- 1.825 --- --- --- MW-12D 07/18/2018 0.0788 j 48 <1 3.184 j 3.36 18 <0.05 --- 0.342 j 0.794 j 0.25 1.41 <1 9.4 B2 92 1.1 <0.1 110 <0.2 0.254 15.945 0.0000928 j 0.747 1.962 j,62 MW-12D 1010212018 <0.1 --- <1 1.883 j 3.15 --- <0.05 --- 0.308 j --- --- 1.32 <1 8.95 --- 1.1 --- 120 <0.2 --- 2.783 --- --- --- MW-12D 11/07/2018 <0.1 149 <1 <5 3.39 28 0.021 j --- 0.37 j 0.371 j 0.241 1.42 <1 9.25 92 1.1 <0.1 86 0.083 j 0.264 3.855 0.000107 j 0.68 14 Page 6of12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Analytical Parameter y pH WL Temp SPC DO ORP Eh Turbidity Alkalinity Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Bicarbonate Alkalinity Boron Cadmium Calcium Carbonate Alkalinity Chloride Chromium Chromium (VI) Cobalt Copper Reporting Unit S.U. Ft (BTOC) °C pit/cm mg/L mV mV NTU mg-CaCO3/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L mg-CaCO3/L Ng/L Ng/L mg/L mg-CaCO3/L mg/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results Bedrock Flow Zone BG-01- 0/22/2o201G 5-.6 33.59 475 447 PNW NPh NP NM --- - - <�9 3�9 - - E58 -<4 - - 44 8.2 --- - i$ BG-$1 42106/ P1-9 5-. 9 36.64 36 +86 NM 414 NM --- 7-79 t$5 E5 305 - - E58 &1-2 - - 3-5 45-.3 --- - 3i-.4 BG-41- 04f20/2414 5.5 35.36 2-0 368 i-4-6 50 255 22.70 --- 456 E$5 -<5 99-1 - - E50 0.45 - - 34) 64 --- --- 44-7 BG 01 24 363 4-99 -71 444 24 28 584 -<5 i0i b - - E-58 --- - -<-5 BG-01 11/03/2011 5.5 37.18 18 165 1.27 -103 102 3.84 --- 216 <0.5 <5 95.4 --- --- <50 0.2 --- --- 13.1 7.9 --- <5 BG-01 04/04/2012 5.6 36.01 21 168 0.93 -91 114 9.52 --- 191 <0.5 <5 93 --- --- <50 0.12 --- --- 14.3 6.7 --- --- <5 BG-01 07/09/2012 5.3 36.69 19 166 1.05 -64 141 9.32 --- 478 <0.5 <5 101 --- --- <50 0.13 --- --- 14.6 20 --- --- <5 BG-01 11/05/2012 5.4 37.45 17 166 0.89 178 383 9.45 --- 465 <0.5 <5 101 --- --- <50 0.089 --- --- 13.4 <5 --- --- <5 BG-01 04/10/2013 5.2 35.25 17 165 1 0.79 213 418 9.05 1 --- 202 <1 <1 97 --- --- <50 <1 --- --- 13 7 --- --- <5 BG-01 07/09/2013 5.4 34.17 19 160 1.02 152 357 8.95 --- 383 <1 <1 97 --- --- <50 <1 --- --- 13 <5 --- --- <5 BG-01 11/13/2013 5.5 34.42 15 160 1.30 256 461 8.20 --- 339 <1 <1 95 --- --- <50 <1 --- --- 12 <5 --- --- <5 BG-01 04/01/2014 5.4 32.85 15 159 1.20 340 545 8.20 --- 202 <1 <1 90 --- --- <50 <1 --- --- 12 <5 --- --- <5 BG-01 07/18/2014 5.5 32.12 19 158 1.40 232 437 6.68 --- 245 <1 <1 93 --- --- <50 <1 --- 12 <5 --- --- <5 BG-01 11/12/2014 5.5 31.90 18 167 1.64 255 460 9.96 --- 332 <1 <1 95 --- --- <50 <1 --- --- 12 <5 --- --- <5 BG-01 04/13/2015 5.5 30.16 17 154 1.20 296 501 8.90 49.8 392 <1 <1 90 <1 49.8 <50 <1 12.5 <5 11 <5 --- <1 <5 47/G7R41-5 29 46 }$ 4-54 3 68 -<1 48.3 <50 <1 E 5 BG-01 0911012015 5.3 30.43 19 168 1.50 190 395 7.83 54 276 <1 <I 91 <1 54 <50 <1 12.8 <10 11 <1 --- <1 <1 BG-01 11/03/2015 6.9 30.00 20 14 9.30 7 212 1.79 52.1 33 <1 <1 90 <1 52.1 <50 <1 12.8 B2 <5 12 <5 --- <1 <5 BG-01 1210512015 5.5 30.34 16 150 1.55 128 333 9.50 52.8 250 <0.5 <0.5 94 <0.2 52.8 <50 0.13 12.6 <5 10.1 1 0.31 <0.5 <1 BG-01 01/08/2016 5.1 29.36 15 147 1.48 67 272 5.78 51.1 227 <1 <1 87 <1 51.1 <50 <1 12.6 <5 12 <1 0.2 <1 <1 BG-01 04/04/2016 5.5 28.46 17 149 1.58 206 411 4.30 53 177 <1 <1 88 <1 53 <50 <1 12.1 <5 11 <5 0.19 M1 <1 <5 BG-01 0612312016 5.4 28.03 18 145 1.64 94 299 8.75 47 --- <I <I 89 <I --- <50 <I 12.7 --- 11 <1 --- <1 --- BG-01 0711312016 5.0 28.42 19 148 1.64 85 290 3.84 53.1 66 <I <I 86 <I 53.1 <50 <I 12.3 <5 12 <5 0.23 <1 <5 BG-01 08/16/2016 5.6 28.48 20 146 1.57 194 399 9.30 49 --- <1 <1 88 <1 --- <50 <1 12 B2 --- 10 <1 --- <1 --- BG-01 0910812016 5.5 28.98 18 147 1.61 148 353 9.49 52.9 275 <1 <1 90 <1 52.9 <50 <1 12 <5 11 <1 0.3 <1 <1 BG-01 10/19/2016 5.5 29.31 18 147 1.90 34 239 8.95 50 --- <1 <1 86 <1 --- <50 <1 12.1 B2 --- 11 <1 --- <1 --- BG-01 1110212016 5.5 29.63 17 147 1.90 193 398 2.98 53.5 32 <I <I 85 <I 53.5 <50 <I 12.1 <5 10 <5 --- <1 <5 BG-01 1110212016 5.5 29.63 17 147 1.90 193 398 2.98 52.8 48 <I <I 90 <I 52.8 <50 <I 12.4 <5 11 <1 0.23 <1 <I BG-01 1210612016 5.5 29.59 14 185 2.00 -114 91 0.66 47 --- <I <I 89 <I --- <50 <I 12.7 B2 --- 11 <1 --- <1 --- BG-01 0210112017 5.6 29.98 15 146 1.52 -12 193 1.37 52.8 231 <I <I 87 <I 52.8 <50 <I 12.2 <5 9.5 <1 0.29 <1 1.22 BG-01 02/01/2017 5.6 29.98 15 146 1.52 -12 193 1.37 100 --- <1 <1 86 <1 --- <50 <1 12.9 --- 11 <1 --- <1 --- BG-01 0312812017 5.4 30.07 16 141 1.71 191 396 0.47 53 218 <I <I 87 <I 53 <50 <I 12.9 <5 11 <I 0.25 <1 <I BG-01 0312812017 5.4 30.07 16 141 1.71 191 396 0.47 52 --- <1 <1 92 <1 --- <50 <1 13.1 --- 11 <1 --- <I --- BG-01 0410312017 5.6 30.00 18 149 1.54 -1 204 0.84 53.4 46 <I <1 90 <I 53.4 <50 <I 12.9 <5 10 <5 --- <1 <5 BG-01 04/03/2017 5.6 30.00 18 149 1.54 -1 204 0.84 53.2 66 <1 <1 84 <1 53.2 <50 <1 13 <5 10 <1 0.25 <1 <1 BG-01 0512312017 5.5 29.86 16 146 1.44 184 389 0.99 48 --- <1 <1 86 <I --- <50 <I 12.4 --- 10 <1 --- <1 --- BG-01 07/10/2017 5.5 29.86 18 146 1.64 198 403 1.04 51.6 23 <1 <1 83 <1 51.6 <50 <1 11.9 <5 11 <5 --- <1 <5 BG-01 0711012017 5.5 29.86 18 146 1.64 198 403 1.04 46 --- <1 <I 83 <1 --- <50 <I 12.4 --- 12 <1 --- <I --- BG-01 0711012017 5.5 29.86 18 146 1.64 198 403 1.04 54.5 35 <1 <I 87 <1 54.5 <50 <I 12.4 B2 <5 10 <1 0.23 <I <1 BG-01 0910512017 5.5 30.52 18 148 1.64 224 429 1.39 81 --- <1 <I 85 <1 --- <50 <I 12.4 B2 --- 10 <I --- <1 --- BG-01 11/06/2017 5.6 31.73 17 149 1.78 243 448 1.14 55.2 10 <1 <1 78 <1 55.2 <50 <1 12.2 <5 10 <5 --- <1 <5 BG-01 1110612017 5.6 31.73 17 149 1.78 243 448 1.14 57.1 40 <1 <1 84 <1 57.1 <50 <1 12.6 <5 10 <1 0.36 <1 <1 BG-01 01/16/2018 5.7 32.18 13 147 2.42 187 392 2.50 54.1 22 <1 <1 83 <1 54.1 <50 <1 12 <5 10 <1 0.34 <1 <1 BG-01 0111612018 5.7 32.18 13 147 2.42 187 392 2.50 49 --- <I <I 88 <I --- <50 <I 12.7 --- 10 <1 --- <1 --- BG-01 0410412018 5.5 31.10 16 149 1.58 335 540 0.76 58.8 387 <1 I <I 95 <1 58.8 1 <50 <I 13.5 <5 10 <5 --- <1 <5 BG-01 04/04/2018 5.5 31.10 16 149 1.58 335 540 0.76 58.5 230 <1 <1 94 <1 58.5 <50 <1 12.7 <5 10 0.703 j 0.36 <1 0.899 j Page 7 of 12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Analytical Parameter Fluoride Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate + Nitrite Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide TDS Thallium TOC Total Radium TotalVanadium Uranium Zinc Reporting Unit mg/L pg/L Ng/L pg/L mg/L pg/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L pg/L mg-N/L mg/L pg/L mg/L pg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Ng/L mg/L pCi/L pg/mL pg/L Ng/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Analytical Results Bedrock Flow Zone SG-04 04T22r2013 - 2000 12 - 34 &46 - - F40 - - E10 - - E1 - 13 - B6-0-1- 42/06f2010 - 3$89 -<-5 - 26:3 0.2 --- - 34.9 -<-5 --- 12-6 0.1 --- - - - 74 SG-0-1- 04f2GR414 - 782 -<-5 - - 2" Q.2 --- - -7-.4 - - E10 - - -<-5 --- 13 0.1 --- - - - 45 6 0 11/2Q11 - 1040 E-5 - - 29-.6 - 40.4b - - E18 - - E5 117b Q.1 - - - - 146 BG-01 11/03/2011 --- 261 <5 8.9 <0.2 --- 6.2 --- --- <10 --- --- <5 --- 106 <0.1 --- --- --- --- <10 BG-01 04/04/2012 --- 388 <5 --- 11.6 <0.2 --- --- <5 --- --- <10 --- --- <5 --- 107 <0.1 --- --- --- --- <10 BG-01 07/09/2012 --- 640 <5 --- --- 21.6 <0.2 --- --- 9.4 --- --- <10 --- --- 2 --- 128 <0.1 --- --- --- --- <10 BG-01 11/05/2012 --- 526 <5 --- --- 55.6 <0.2 --- --- <5 --- --- <10 --- --- <2 --- 123 <0.1 --- --- --- --- 11.6 BG-01 04/10/2013 --- 323 <1 --- --- 15 <0.05 --- --- <5 --- --- <1 --- --- 0.44 --- 130 <0.2 --- --- --- --- 7 BG-01 07/09/2013 --- 488 <1 --- --- 48 <0.05 --- <5 --- --- <1 --- --- 0.52 --- 130 <0.2 --- --- --- --- 12 BG-01 11/13/2013 --- 412 <1 --- --- 27 <0.05 --- --- <5 --- --- <1 --- --- 0.51 --- 130 <0.2 --- --- --- --- 30 BG-01 04/01/2014 --- 290 <1 --- 14 <0.05 --- --- <5 --- --- <1 --- --- 0.4 140 <0.2 --- --- --- 29 BG-01 07/18/2014 --- 325 <1 15 <0.05 --- --- <5 --- --- <1 --- 0.46 --- 140 <0.2 --- --- --- --- 16 BG-01 11/12/2014 --- 466 <1 --- --- 25 <0.05 --- --- <5 --- --- <1 --- --- 0.51 --- 120 <0.2 --- --- --- --- 34 BG-01 04/13/2015 --- 409 <1 --- 3.35 35 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.4 <1 12.4 --- 0.32 --- 130 <0.2 --- --- --- --- 29 02i02i201-5 - 557 <� - 3 63 23 <$.95 - E1 K - 1.5 - 430 <�2 BG-01 0911012015 --- 300 <1 --- 3.41 26 <0.05 16 <1 1.78 0.645 1.38 <1 11.6 172 0.37 <0.1 120 <0.2 0.913 --- --- 3.93 17 BG-01 11/03/2015 --- 45 <1 --- 3.28 7 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.35 <1 11.8 B2 179 0.36 --- 110 <0.2 --- --- --- 3.4 <5 BG-01 1210512015 --- 350 0.13 --- 3.28 18 <0.2 <10 <0.5 1.9 0.66 <5 <0.5 12.2 180 <1 <0.1 118 <0.1 1 --- --- 4.2 14 BG-01 01/08/2016 --- 272 <1 --- 3.36 11 <0.05 <10 <1 1.24 0.643 1.39 <1 11.9 166 0.24 <0.1 130 <0.2 0.558 --- --- 3.94 <5 BG-01 04/04/2016 --- 190 <1 --- 3.2 112 <0.05 <10 <1 <5 --- 1.36 <1 11.5 167 0.25 <0.1 130 <0.2 0.738 2.25 <0.0002 3.94 7 BG-01 0612312016 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.24 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.42 <I 12.2 --- 0.22 --- 120 <0.2 --- 26.5 --- --- --- BG-01 0711312016 --- 89 <1 --- 3.09 7 <0.05 <10 <1 <5 0.827 1.28 <1 11.9 177 0.23 <0.1 140 <0.2 0.723 1.29 <0.0002 3.58 <5 BG-01 08/16/2016 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.21 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.4 <1 11.7 --- 0.24 --- 120 <0.2 --- 1.02 --- --- --- BG-01 0910812016 --- 336 <1 --- 3.21 13 <0.05 <10 <1 1.46 0.828 1.32 <1 11.7 172 0.32 <0.1 130 <0.2 0.667 3.876 <0.0002 4.69 26 BG-01 10/19/2016 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.19 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.3 <1 11.7 --- 0.32 --- 66 <0.2 --- 0.688 --- --- --- BG-01 1110212016 --- 32 <1 --- 3.17 7 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.28 <1 11.5 172 0.27 --- 130 <0.2 --- --- --- 3.62 <5 BG-01 1110212016 --- 50 <1 --- 3.18 8 <0.05 <10 N2 <1 1.82 0.811 1.31 <I 11.4 183 0.26 <0.1 110 HI <0.2 0.565 6.24 <0.0002 3.82 <5 BG-01 1210612016 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.3 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.32 <I 11.6 --- 1.1 -- 120 <0.2 --- 5.12 --- --- --- BG-01 0210112017 --- 200 <1 --- 3.19 13 <0.05 <10 N2 <1 1.6 0.809 1.33 <I 11.2 174 0.26 <0.1 140 <0.2 0.703 <RL <0.0002 4.34 B5 <5 BG-01 02/01/2017 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.3 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.36 <1 11.8 --- 0.23 --- 150 <0.2 --- 0.247 --- --- --- BG-01 0312812017 --- 137 <1 --- 3.28 10 <0.05 <10 <1 1.41 0.834 1.38 <I 12.5 173 0.25 <0.1 120 <0.2 0.64 B3 2.862 <0.0002 4 <5 BG-01 0312812017 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.42 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.39 <1 11.9 --- 0.25 --- 120 <0.2 --- 3.39 --- --- --- BG-01 0410312017 --- 40 <1 --- 3.25 6 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.36 <I 12.5 176 0.27 --- 120 <0.2 --- --- --- 3.89 <5 BG-01 04/03/2017 --- 49 <1 --- 3.28 6 <0.05 <10 <1 1.4 0.838 1.36 <1 12.5 169 0.27 <0.1 110 <0.2 0.593 133 3.16 <0.0002 3.76 <5 BG-01 0512312017 <0.1 --- <1 5 3.2 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.35 <1 12.3 --- 0.4 --- 170 <0.2 --- 3.2 --- --- --- BG-01 07/10/2017 --- 17 <1 --- 3.03 5 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.25 <1 11.8 165 0.21 --- 110 <0.2 --- -- --- 3.61 <5 BG-01 0711012017 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.18 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.29 <I 11.9 --- 0.21 --- 110 <0.2 --- 2 --- --- --- BG-01 0711012017 --- 25 <I --- 3.18 7 <0.05 --- <I 1.15 --- 1.31 <I 12.2 165 0.19 <0.1 120 <0.2 B3 0.634 1.65 <0.0002 3.78 6 BG-01 0910512017 <0.1 --- <1 <5 3.21 --- <0.05 <1 --- --- 1.31 <I 11.9 --- 0.25 --- 140 H1 <0.2 --- 1.26 --- --- --- BG-01 11/06/2017 --- 11 <1 --- 3.12 5 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.23 <1 11.2 166 0.26 --- 120 <0.2 133 --- --- --- 3.57 <5 BG-01 1110612017 --- 33 <1 --- 3.21 7 <0.05 --- <1 1.39 --- 1.28 <I 11.8 175 0.25 <0.1 120 <0.2 0.464 5.39 <0.0002 3.58 <5 BG-01 01/16/2018 0.12 18 <1 <5 3.16 <5 <0.05 --- <1 1.2 0.83 1.33 133 <1 11.7 Bl 174 0.28 <0.1 110 <0.2 0.992 2.97 0.00147 3.84 <5 BG-01 0111612018 <0.1 -- <1 <5 3.21 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.36 <I 11.3 --- 0.28 --- 120 <0.2 B3 4.224 --- --- BG-01 0410412018 --- 233 <1 -- 3.48 16 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.41 <I 12.2 179 0.33 --- 120 <0.2 --- 4.74 <5 BG-01 04/04/2018 0.0923 j 126 <1 3.629 j 3.35 9 <0.05 <1 1.32 0.92 1.34 <1 11.8 177 0.3 <0.1 130 0.081 j 0.86 4.345 0.000123 j 4.42 3.977 j Page 8of12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Analytical Parameter pH WL Temp SPC DO ORP Eh Turbidity Alkalinity Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Alkalinity Bicarbonate Boron Cadmium Calcium Alkalinity Carbonate Chloride Chromium (VI) Chromium Cobalt Copper Reporting Unit S.U. (gTt oC p4/cm mg/L mV mV NTU mg-CaCO3/L pg/L pg/L Ng/L Ng/L pg/L mg-CaCO3/L pg/L pg/L mg/L mg-CaCO3/L mg/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results BG-01 0510712018 5.2 30.21 17 154 1.37 220 425 0.32 49 --- <I <1 85 <1 --- <50 <I 12.7 --- 10 0.527 j --- <1 --- BG-01 07/16/2018 5.5 28.89 20 146 1.67 494 699 3.80 57.2 141 <1 <1 90 <1 57.2 <50 <1 13 B2 <5 10 <5 --- <1 <5 BG-01 0711612018 5.5 28.89 20 146 1.67 494 699 3.80 56.8 111 <1 <1 88 <1 56.8 <50 <1 12.5 <5 10 0.687 j 0.42 <1 <1 BG-01 1010112018 5.3 27.75 18 142 1.89 159 364 1.20 56.8 --- <1 <1 81 <1 --- <50 <1 11.9 --- 9.7 0.711 j --- <1 --- BG-01 11/06/2018 5.6 26.84 17 145 2.18 338 543 1.40 51.2 553 <1 <1 86 <1 51.2 <50 <1 12.6 <5 8.9 0.839 j 0.47 1 <1 0.899 j CCR-102BR-BG 0612412016 6.4 23.52 17 739 2.60 5 210 8.86 190 --- <1 <1 40 <1 --- <50 <1 32.6 el --- 11 1.08 --- 2.16 --- CCR-102BR-BG 08/16/2016 6.5 24.45 19 769 1.45 120 325 8.37 220 --- 1 <1 33 <1 --- <50 <1 32.9 B2 --- 13 <1 --- 1.36 --- CCR-102BR-BG 10/19/2016 6.4 25.61 17 872 1.29 13 218 9.72 250 --- <1 <1 32 <1 --- <50 <1 34.5 B2 --- 14 <1 --- 1.23 --- CCR-102BR-BG 1210612016 6.4 26.75 12 826 0.95 -5 200 7.71 230 --- <1 <1 28 <1 --- <50 <1 28.1 B2 --- 14 <1 --- <1 --- CCR-102BR-BG 01/31/2017 6.2 27.70 16 813 0.47 -30 175 0.74 240 --- <1 <1 27 <1 --- <50 <1 31.2 --- 13 <1 --- <1 --- CCR-102BR-BG 0312812017 6.2 28.51 17 773 0.76 145 350 0.54 240 --- <1 <I 27 <1 --- <50 <1 26.6 --- 13 <1 --- <1 --- CCR-102BR-BG 05/23/2017 6.1 28.41 17 776 0.66 148 353 1.77 230 --- <1 <1 24 <1 --- <50 <1 25.8 --- 13 <1 --- <1 --- CCR-102BR-BG 0711112017 6.1 27.79 21 649 0.64 156 361 0.47 210 --- <1 <1 23 <1 --- <50 <1 24.3 B2 --- 13 <1 --- <1 --- CCR-102BR-BG 09/05/2017 6.0 28.98 19 748 0.71 200 405 0.87 230 --- <1 <1 23 <1 --- <50 <1 24.1 B2 --- 13 <1 --- <1 --- CCR-102BR-BG 01/16/2018 6.2 31.76 13 669 0.66 153 358 7.24 220 --- <1 <1 21 <1 --- <50 <1 20.6 --- 12 <1 --- <1 --- CCR-102BR-BG 05/07/2018 6.0 32.33 17 675 0.40 121 326 4.14 220 --- 0.364 j 0.336 j 20 <1 --- <50 <1 21.5 --- 12 <1 --- <1 --- CCR-102BR-BG 10/02/2018 6.5 31.84 19 5 2.43 214 419 1.50 248 --- 0.354 j 0.595 j 20 <1 --- <50 <1 22.6 B2 --- 12 <1 --- 0.768 j --- MW-13BR 06/23/2015 7.2 31.28 21 580 0.40 -228 -23 2.22 210 37 <1 <1 40 <1 210 <50 <1 75.2 <10 46 <1 --- 1.19 <1 MW-13BR 09/08/2015 6.9 31.63 23 579 0.50 -136 69 7.55 230 143 B1 <1 <1 51 <1 230 <50 <1 73 <10 43 <1 --- <1 <1 MW-13BR 12/02/2015 7.0 31.55 16 543 0.30 -130 75 6.50 210 171 <1 <1 45 <1 210 <50 <1 72.7 <10 41 16.3 <0.03 <1 1.2 MW-13BR 0110712016 7.3 30.36 11 544 0.50 -75 130 7.79 223 MI 230 <1 <1 42 <1 223 <50 <I 73.3 <5 45 7.65 <0.03 <1 <I MW-13BR 04/05/2016 7.1 29.70 15 566 0.30 151 356 9.05 217 97 <1 <1 35 <1 217 <50 <1 70.8 <5 43 <1 <0.03 1.01 <1 MW-13BR 07/11/2016 7.0 28.68 19 553 0.19 -89 116 8.80 211 407 <1 <1 29 <1 211 <50 <1 70.2 <5 40 4.51 <0.03 1.92 1.95 MW-13BR 0910612016 7.4 29.77 21 554 0.42 163 42 9.67 216 134 <1 <1 38 <1 216 <50 <1 69.7 <5 38 2.02 <0.03 1.17 <1 MW-13BR 11/08/2016 6.9 29.49 16 524 0.44 -61 144 9.90 221 102 <1 <1 35 <1 221 <50 <1 67 <5 37 3.58 0.18 2.02 <1 MW-13BR 02/02/2017 6.9 29.60 16 552 0.40 -37 168 9.13 213 91 <1 <1 31 <1 213 <50 <1 65 <5 34 2.7 0.26 2.91 <1 MW-13BR 04/05/2017 7.1 29.32 19 517 0.60 -57 148 9.89 209 111 <1 <1 32 <1 209 <50 <1 64.4 <5 33 1.54 <0.12 D3 3.08 <1 MW-13BR 07/11/2017 6.8 29.19 23 501 0.43 23 228 9.29 202 118 <1 I <1 18 <1 202 <50 <1 70.6 B3 <5 32 3.51 0.032 3.77 <1 MW-13BR 11/07/2017 6.9 30.52 16 500 0.61 -87 118 9.87 201 123 <1 <1 23 <1 201 <50 <1 66 <5 28 1.57 <0.025 3.36 <1 MW-13BR 01/16/2018 7.0 30.83 14 494 0.46 -79 126 8.69 197 134 <1 <1 22 <1 197 <50 <1 61.3 <5 29 5.7 <0.025 6.53 <1 MW-13BR 04/04/2018 6.9 30.22 17 493 0.43 39 244 9.83 205 162 0.581 j <1 22 <1 205 <50 <1 65.2 <5 30 3.96 <0.025 4.77 0.945 j ;qW 38 0 0 " 3&58 2-2 496 3 92 -S4 3-24 i4.99 296 3949 9.37 -<4 48 -<4 296 <- 8 -<4 <5 29 3.48 Q.625 5.99 2-.,86 MW-13BR 11/08/2018 6.8 29.55 18 473 0.46 -82 123 4.70 184 111 <1 <1 18 <1 184 <50 <1 62.3 <5 28 0.727 j 0.045 4.67 0.635 j ,qW 148 Own 6-4 16.20 -14 2�8 & 47 41 2-24 35.99 96 589 -<4 -<4 39 -<4 96 F58 -<4 4-9-5 <�8 9:3 -<4 - 3:4f MW-14BR 09/09/2015 6.9 18.03 22 413 1.10 -16 189 3.36 160 61 <1 1.8 1 42 <1 160 65 <1 20.2 <10 11 <1 1.09 <1 Page 9of12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Analytical Parameter Fluoride Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrite Nitrate + Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide TDS Thallium TOC Total Radium Total um Uranium Vanadium Zinc Reporting Unit mg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg-N/L mg/L pg/L mg/L pg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L pg/L mg/L pCi/L pg/mL pg/L pg/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Analytical Results BG-01 0510712018 0.034 j --- <1 1.884 j 3.3 --- 0.019 j --- <1 --- --- 1.29 <1 11.7 --- 0.29 --- 110 <0.2 --- 2.542 --- --- --- BG-01 07/16/2018 --- 94 <1 --- 3.38 8 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.35 <1 12.1 185 0.25 --- 100 <0.2 --- --- --- 3.77 <5 BG-01 0711612018 0.0658 j 91 <1 3.143 j 3.35 8 0.02 j --- <1 1.36 0.869 1.33 <1 11.2 170 0.24 <0.1 98 <0.2 0.585 2.706 <0.0002 3.94 4.785 j BG-01 1010112018 0.0707 j --- <1 3.321 j 3.09 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.22 <1 11.1 --- 0.26 --- 110 <0.2 --- 3.36 --- --- --- BG-01 11/06/2018 0.0793 j 286 <1 2.175 j 3.3 14 0.029 j <1 1.04 0.886 1.31 <1 11.7 176 0.25 <0.1 110 <0.2 0.494 1.7433 1 <0.0002 4.58 5 CCR-102BR-BG 0612412016 0.15 --- <1 12 12.6 --- <0.05 --- 6.1 --- --- 12 2.04 64.7 --- 79 --- 380 <0.2 --- 2.518 --- --- --- CCR-102BR-BG 08/16/2016 0.19 --- <1 11 14.7 --- <0.05 --- 6.43 --- --- 11.4 2.8 83.1 --- 100 --- 430 <0.2 --- 3.34 --- --- --- CCR-102BR-BG 10/19/2016 0.21 <1 15 16.2 --- <0.05 --- 6.91 --- --- 11.5 2.82 114 --- 140 --- 150 <0.2 --- 1.234 --- --- --- CCR-102BR-BG 1210612016 0.21 --- <1 24 14.8 --- <0.05 --- 17.3 --- --- 10.6 2.15 130 --- 140 --- 500 <0.2 --- 1.394 --- --- --- CCR-102BR-BG 01/31/2017 0.23 --- <1 21 16.2 --- <0.05 --- 12.9 --- --- 10.9 2.28 117 --- 130 --- 480 <0.2 133 --- 2.749 --- --- --- CCR-102BR-BG 0312812017 0.26 --- <1 25 14.5 --- <0.05 --- 8.28 --- --- 10.2 2.31 117 --- 130 --- 490 <0.2 --- 1.887 --- --- --- CCR-102BR-BG 05/23/2017 0.29 --- <1 31 14.1 --- <0.05 --- 5.94 --- --- 9.37 2.01 117 130 --- 510 <0.2 --- 0.898 --- --- --- CCR-102BR-BG 0711112017 0.26 --- <1 30 13.6 --- <0.05 --- 5.42 --- --- 8.87 2.15 113 --- 130 --- 450 <0.2 --- 1.179 --- --- --- CCR-102BR-BG 09/05/2017 0.3 --- <1 30 13.3 --- <0.05 M2 --- 5.03 --- --- 8.8 1.75 115 --- 130 --- 500 H1 <0.2 --- 0.54 --- --- --- CCR-102BR-BG 01/16/2018 0.26 --- <1 37 12.2 --- <0.05 --- 3.99 --- --- 8.09 1.61 116 --- 110 --- 460 <0.2 2.077 --- --- --- CCR-102BR-BG 05/07/2018 0.25 --- <1 33 12 --- <0.05 --- 3.79 --- --- 7.92 1.48 107 --- 100 --- 420 0.081 j --- 0.849 --- --- --- CCR-102BR-BG 10/02/2018 0.28 --- <1 35 13.1 --- <0.05 --- 4.25 --- --- 8.35 0.773 j 125 --- 110 --- 470 <0.2 --- 0.848 --- --- --- MW-13BR 06/23/2015 --- 1130 <1 --- 13.1 474 <0.05 <10 8.28 <1 <0.01 5.49 <1 25.7 418 18 0.115 370 <0.2 0.9 1.22 <0.0002 0.381 36 MW-13BR 09/08/2015 --- 2400 <1 --- 12.9 630 <0.05 <10 5.17 <1 <0.01 M2 5.31 <1 24.8 430 12 <0.1 360 0.538 0.859 --- --- 0.465 99 MW-13BR 12/02/2015 --- 2490 <1 --- 13.5 548 <0.05 <10 5.86 7.97 <0.01 5.09 <1 23.3 416 14 <0.2 330 <0.2 0.761 --- --- 0.429 54 MW-13BR 0110712016 --- 2550 <1 --- 12.9 519 <0.05 25.9 5.81 4.98 <0.01 5.12 <1 23.7 389 15 <0.1 330 <0.2 0.647 --- --- <0.3 37 MW-13BR 04/05/2016 --- 1750 <1 --- 12.9 481 <0.05 27 4.3 <1 <0.01 4.72 <1 20.8 393 17 <0.1 340 <0.2 0.733 2.65 0.000629 <0.3 9 MW-13BR 07/11/2016 --- 1330 <1 --- 13 348 1 <0.05 54.6 3.2 2.82 1 <0.01 4.72 <1 19.4 380 18 1 <0.1 330 <0.2 0.594 3.103 0.00188 0.871 23 MW-13BR 0910612016 --- 2520 <1 --- 12.7 432 <0.05 135 2.98 1.68 <0.01 4.58 <1 18.4 381 16 <0.1 330 <0.2 B2 0.645 67.2 0.000451 <0.3 38 MW-13BR 11/08/2016 --- 2430 <1 --- 12.3 471 <0.05 99.6 N2 2.85 2.26 <0.01 4.46 <1 17.3 374 15 <0.1 310 <0.2 0.574 1.392 0.000419 0.38 6 MW-13BR 02/02/2017 --- 2920 <1 --- 12 421 <0.05 55 N2 2.35 1.39 <0.01 4.43 <1 16.8 353 15 <0.1 320 <0.2 0.458 1.01 0.000467 0.406 <5 MW-13BR 04/05/2017 --- 3260 <1 --- 12.1 383 <0.05 41.8 2.2 <1 <0.01 4.34 <1 16.5 360 15 1 <0.1 340 <0.2 0.533 0.748 0.000461 <0.3 <5 MW-13BR 07/11/2017 --- 1060 <1 --- 13.3 270 <0.05 --- 2.11 2.33 --- 4.72 <1 17.9 331 17 <0.1 320 <0.2 0.494 --- --- <0.3 5 MW-13BR 11/07/2017 --- 1770 <1 --- 12.3 260 <0.05 --- 2.02 1.09 --- 4.29 <1 16.7 312 14 <0.1 300 <0.2 B3 1.2 --- --- <0.3 <5 MW-13BR 01/16/2018 0.15 1850 <1 <5 11.3 369 <0.05 --- 2.34 3.52 <0.02 4.14 B3 <1 16.2 Bl 322 15 <0.1 290 <0.2 0.988 --- --- 0.408 <5 MW-13BR 04/04/2018 0.12 1640 <1 3.056 j 12.5 321 <0.05 --- 2.02 2.7 1 <0.02 4.24 <1 16.4 333 16 <0.1 290 <0.2 0.781 --- --- 0.363 3.817 j Mw B 07/18/2el 8.41 2B8B i..2-7 5 383 Q.95 -<4 36.3 B2 344 WF 9 B2 MW-13BR 11/08/2018 0.0772 j 675 <1 2.316 j 12.2 260 0.02 j --- 2.11 <1 <0.01 4.34 <1 15.9 319 16 0.11 280 <0.2 0.496 --- --- 0.282 j <5 MW 14B - 907 -<4 - 2.96 544 �9.95 -<-I-B -<4 8.039 4.08 -<4 33 449 37L' -<4 390 Q.2 4 3 3 29 3$ MW-14BR 09/09/2015 --- 2730 <1 --- 3.07 648 <0.05 13 27.3 <1 0.011 M2 6.56 <1 60.2 167 27 <0.1 260 <0.2 1.3 --- 0.469 <5 Page 10 of 12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Analytical Parameter y pH WL Temp SPC DO ORP Eh Turbidity Alkalinity Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Bicarbonate Alkalinity Boron Cadmium Calcium Carbonate Alkalinity Chloride Chromium Chromium (VI) Cobalt Copper Reporting Unit S.U. Ft (BTOC) °C pit/cm mg/L my my NTU mg-CaCO3/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L mg-CaCO3/L Ng/L Ng/L mg/L mg-CaCO3/L mg/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results MW-14BR 1210212015 6.7 16.54 15 282 0.57 26 231 2.77 100 77 <I <1 22 <1 100 <50 <I 13.4 <10 11 <I <0.03 <1 <I MW-14BR O1/07/2016 6.7 16.31 11 258 2.73 64 269 2.45 94.8 163 <1 <1 17 <1 94.8 <50 <1 13 <5 13 <1 <0.03 <1 1.21 MW-14BR 04/05/2016 6.7 16.27 14 261 2.13 220 425 2.45 104 225 <1 <1 19 <1 104 <50 <1 13 <5 13 <1 <0.03 <1 1.87 MW-14BR 07/11/2016 6.7 15.35 20 311 0.23 90 295 1.34 130 58 <1 <1 22 <1 130 <50 <1 14.4 <5 13 <1 <0.03 <1 1.58 MW-14BR 0910712016 6.7 17.61 18 324 0.24 21 226 5.69 130 59 <1 <1 28 <1 130 <50 <1 15.3 M4 <5 14 <1 <0.03 <1 1.43 MW-14BR 11/08/2016 7.0 17.81 18 345 0.40 44 249 3.74 136 129 <1 <1 28 <1 136 <50 <1 16.2 <5 13 <1 <0.025 1.14 1.97 MW-14BR 02/02/2017 6.7 18.00 13 291 2.67 199 404 1.14 121 63 <1 <1 19 <1 121 <50 <1 28.9 <5 13 <1 0.067 <1 1.36 MW-14BR 04/05/2017 6.6 18.35 19 269 1.84 0 205 1.65 107 83 <1 <1 15 <1 107 <50 <1 13.9 <5 13 <1 0.048 <1 1.77 MW-14BR 07/11/2017 6.4 17.97 22 271 0.45 69 274 1.64 110 77 <1 <1 14 <1 110 <50 <1 15.3 B3 <5 13 <1 <0.025 <1 1.72 MW-14BR 11/07/2017 6.7 21.44 16 346 0.40 171 376 8.62 141 145 <1 <1 27 <1 141 <50 <1 18.2 <5 13 <1 <0.025 1.1 2.52 MW-14BR O1/22/2018 6.9 21.47 16 315 2.56 195 400 2.16 138 42 1 <1 I <1 1 20 <1 1 138 <50 <1 15 <5 14 <1 0.054 <1 1.52 MW-14BR 04/04/2018 6.6 18.66 16 276 2.42 196 401 2.34 115 85 <1 0.621 j 18 <1 115 <50 <1 16 <5 13 <1 0.025 <1 2.09 MW-14BR 07/18/2018 6.5 19.39 22 273 0.85 79 284 5.80 112 118 <1 0.538 j 17 <1 112 <50 <1 15.6 <5 14 <1 <0.025 M1 0.581 j 3.23 MW-14BR 11/07/2018 1 6.3 17.94 18 276 0.48 180 1 385 9.20 101 236 <1 0.582 j 16 <1 101 <50 <1 14.2 <5 13 <1 0.028 1.53 2.65 Prepared Bv: JHG Checked BY: JAW Notes: 0 Sample results are invalid for use because recorded sample pH greater than 8.5 standard units, recorded sample turbidity greater than 10 NTU, or no sample pH or turbidity was recorded. 0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTVs) because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error. 0 Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was not included in the calculation of BTVs because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was a result of field error or laboratory analytical error. - Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BTVs. No result because the concentration of analyte was not measured in sample or the sample result was rejected due to serious deficiencies in meeting QC criteria. < - Concentration not detected at or above the adjusted reporting limit. <RL - Less than reporting limit. Result was not included in statistical analysis because no numeric value was provided for the reporting limit. B - Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit. Target analyte concentration in sample is less than 1OX the concentration in the method blank. Analyte concentration in sample could be due to blank contamination. B1 - Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit. Target analyte concentration in sample was greater than 1OX the concentration in the method blank. Analyte concentration in sample is not affected by blank contamination. 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. B3 - Target analyte was detected in Continuing Calibration 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. B5 - Target analyte was present in blank(s) above the method detection limit but less than the reporting limit. Data is valid for compliance purposes. D3 - Sample was diluted due to the presence of high levels of non -target analytes or other matrix interference. H1 - Analysis conducted outside the EPA method holding time. HS - Results are from sample aliquot taken from VOA vial with headspace (air bubble greater than 6 mm diameter). 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. M2 - Matrix spike recovery was Low: the associated Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable. M4 - The spike recovery value was unusable since the analyte concentration in the sample was disproportionate to the spike level. N2 - The lab does not hold accreditation for this parameter. S - Associated calibration check did not meet specified criteria. °C - degrees celsius ug/L - micrograms per liter Ng/mL - microgram per milliliter pf2/cm - microohm per centimeter BTOC - below top of casing DO - dissolved oxygen mg/L - milligrams per liter mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter NM - Field parameter was not measured NTU - nephelometric turbidity unit ORP - oxidation-reduction potential pCi/L - picocuries per liter S.U. - standard units SPC - specific conductance TDS - total dissolved solid Temp - temperature TOC - total organic carbon WL - water level Page 11of12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Analytical Parameter Fluoride Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate + Nitrite Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide TDS Thallium TOC Total Radium TotalVanadium Uranium Zinc Reporting Unit mg/L pg/L Ng/L pg/L mg/L pg/L Ng/L Ng/L Ng/L pg/L mg-N/L mg/L pg/L mg/L pg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Ng/L mg/L pCi/L pg/mL pg/L Ng/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Analytical Results MW-14BR 1210212015 --- 396 <1 --- 2.29 304 <0.05 <10 6.62 <I 0.112 5.75 <1 41.6 141 10 <0.1 210 <0.2 0.822 1.82 <5 MW-14BR O1/07/2016 --- 98 <1 --- 2.36 199 <0.05 <10 4.56 <1 0.384 4.49 <1 37.4 131 10 <0.1 180 <0.2 0.855 --- --- 2.45 <5 MW-14BR 04/05/2016 --- 89 <1 --- 2.36 196 <0.05 <10 5.06 <1 0.346 4.06 <1 38.4 134 9.9 <0.1 200 <0.2 0.873 0.999 0.000241 2.86 <5 MW-14BR 07/11/2016 --- 37 <1 --- 2.51 247 <0.05 <10 8.07 <1 0.157 5.18 <1 47.9 140 11 <0.1 200 <0.2 0.84 0.947 0.000456 2.48 11 MW-14BR 0910712016 --- 56 <1 --- 2.57 322 <0.05 <10 9.57 <1 0.191 7.13 <1 46.3 M4 168 12 <0.1 230 <0.2 0.887 2 0.000314 2.07 7 MW-14BR 11/08/2016 --- 172 <1 --- 2.64 385 1 <0.05 12.2 N2 10.7 <1 1 0.187 6.78 <1 1 49.9 158 9.6 1 <0.1 220 1 <0.2 0.785 2.07 0.000389 1.56 6 MW-14BR 02/02/2017 --- 37 <1 --- 13.1 96 <0.05 <10 N2 5.04 <1 0.291 4.04 <1 38.4 150 8.6 <0.1 200 <0.2 0.832 <RL 0.000205 2.07 <5 MW-14BR 04/05/2017 --- 52 <1 --- 2.54 130 <0.05 <10 4.34 1.23 0.42 3.84 <1 38 143 8.9 <0.1 210 <0.2 0.948 1.752 0.000157 j 2.45 <5 MW-14BR 07/11/2017 --- 51 <1 --- 2.79 92 <0.05 --- 3.87 <1 --- 4.33 <1 41.9 143 9.8 <0.1 200 <0.2 0.758 --- --- 2.57 <5 MW-14BR 11/07/2017 --- 95 <1 --- 2.97 275 <0.05 --- 10.3 <1 --- 6.21 <1 50.7 175 9.7 <0.1 200 <0.2 133 0.806 --- --- 2.59 <5 MW-14BR O1/22/2018 0.36 30 <1 47 2.49 57 <0.05 --- 5.96 1 <1 0.126 8.63 <1 49.1 B3 230 9.1 <0.1 220 <0.2 1.1 --- --- 2.23 <5 MW-14BR 04/04/2018 0.32 45 <1 7 2.72 55 <0.05 --- 3.99 <1 0.4 3.9 <1 37 161 8.9 <0.1 200 <0.2 1.1 --- --- 2.4 2.407 j MW-14BR 07/18/2018 0.3 104 <1 9 2.71 119 <0.05 --- 4.37 0.42 j 0.364 4.11 <1 38.8 132 147 9.2 <0.1 190 <0.2 0.793 --- 2.55 3.146 j,132 MW-14BR 11/07/2018 0.25 178 <1 9 2.49 114 0.019 j --- 4.18 <1 0.427 3.91 <1 40.6 166 9.5 1 <0.1 160 <0.2 0.8 --- --- 2.74 2.656 j Prepared Bv: JHG Checked Bv: JAW Notes: 0 Sample results are invalid for use because recorded sample pH greater than 8.5 standard units, recorded sample turbidity greater than 10 NTU, or no sample pH or turbidity was recorded. 0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTVs) because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error. 0 Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was not included in the calculation of BTVs because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was a result of field error or laboratory analytical error. - Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BTVs. No result because the concentration of analyte was not measured in sample or the sample result was rejected due to serious deficiencies in meeting QC criteria. < - Concentration not detected at or above the adjusted reporting limit. <RL - Less than reporting limit. Result was not included in statistical analysis because no numeric value was provided for the reporting limit. B - Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit. Target analyte concentration in sample is less than 1OX the concentration in the method blank. Analyte concentration in sample could be due to blank contamination. Bl - Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit. Target analyte concentration in sample was greater than 1OX the concentration in the method blank. Analyte concentration in sample is not affected by blank contamination. 62 - 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. 63 - Target analyte was detected in Continuing Calibration 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. 65 - Target analyte was present in blank(s) above the method detection limit but less than the reporting limit. Data is valid for compliance purposes. D3 - Sample was diluted due to the presence of high levels of non -target analytes or other matrix interference. H1 - Analysis conducted outside the EPA method holding time. HS - Results are from sample aliquot taken from VOA vial with headspace (air bubble greater than 6 mm diameter). 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. M2 - Matrix spike recovery was Low: the associated Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable. M4 - The spike recovery value was unusable since the analyte concentration in the sample was disproportionate to the spike level. N2 - The lab does not hold accreditation for this parameter. S - Associated calibration check did not meet specified criteria. °C - degrees celsius ug/L - micrograms per liter Ng/mL - microgram per milliliter pf2/cm - microohm per centimeter BTOC - below top of casing DO - dissolved oxygen mg/L - milligrams per liter mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter NM - Field parameter was not measured NTU - nephelometric turbidity unit ORP - oxidation-reduction potential pCi/L - picocuries per liter S.U. - standard units SPC - specific conductance TDS - total dissolved solid Temp - temperature TOC - total organic carbon WL - water level Page 12 of 12 TABLE 3 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS - SURFICIAL FLOW ZONE (MW-12S) MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Constituent Reporting Unit Descriptive Statistics Upper Tolerance Limits Sample Size Number of NDs Percent NDs n 10` Percentile n 50` Percentile n 90` Percentile Type of UTL r Coverage Confidence Level Value pH* S.U. 12 0 0 5.6 5.8 6.3 Normal 95 95 4.9 - 6.9 Alkalinity mg-CaCO,/L 11 1 9 10 13 23 Lognormal 95 95 41.68 Aluminum pg/L 8 0 0 144 346 513 n/a n/a n/a 566 Antimony pg/L 11 11 100 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1t Arsenic pg/L 11 7 64 0.9 1 1 Non-Parametric2 85 95 1.53 Barium Ug/L 11 0 0 10 13 17 Normal 95 95 22.29 Beryllium pg/L 11 11 100 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Bicarbonate mg-CaCO,/L 8 0 0 10 13 17 n/a n/a n/s 22.7 Boron pg/L 11 11 100 50 50 50 n/a n/a n/a 50t Cadmium pg/L 11 11 100 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a it Calcium mg/L 11 0 0 1.2 2.1 5.1 Gamma 95 95 12.74 Carbonate mg-CaCO,/L 8 8 100 5 5 10 n/a n/a n/a lot Chloride mg/L 11 0 0 1.1 2.4 3.3 Normal 95 95 4.922 Chromium pg/L 11 4 36 1 1 3 Gamma 95 95 7.796 Chromium (VI) pg/L 7 0 0 0.044 0.058 2.3 n/a n/a n/a 4.4 Cobalt pg/L 11 4 36 0.7 1 2 Normal 95 95 2.298 Copper pg/L 8 4 50 1 1 4 n/a n/a n/a 3.73 Fluoride mg/L 5 2 40 0.05 0.08 0.1 n/a n/a n/a 0.1 Iron pg/L 8 0 0 221 337 2612 n/a n/a n/a 6820 Lead pg/L 11 7 64 1 1 1 Non -Parametric 85 95 1.96 Lithium Ng/L 5 3 60 3 5 5 n/a n/a n/a 5t Magnesium mg/L 11 0 0 0.622 0.749 1.24 Normal 95 95 1.495 Manganese pg/L 8 0 0 18.7 115 296 n/a n/a n/a 395 Mercury pg/L 11 10 91 0.05 0.05 0.05 n/a n/a n/a 0.05t Methane pg/L 6 4 67 10 10 143 n/a n/a n/a 273 Molybdenum pg/L 11 6 55 0.3 1 2 Non -Parametric 85 95 10.3 Nickel Ng/L 8 2 25 0.942 1.31 3.71 n/a n/a n/a 5.41 Nitrate + Nitrite mg-N/L 8 1 13 0.0359 0.529 0.769 n/a n/a n/a 0.769 Potassium mg/L 11 0 0 1.36 1.98 3.29 Normal 95 95 5.079 Selenium pg/L 11 11 100 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Sodium mg/L 11 0 0 1.59 4.11 5.43 Normal 95 95 8.273 Strontium pg/L 8 0 0 13 19 24 n/a n/a n/a 27 Sulfate mg/L 11 0 0 0.95 1.4 2.2 Normal 95 95 2.815 Sulfide mg/L 8 8 100 0.1 0.1 0.1 n/a n/a n/a o. S t TDS mg/L 11 0 0 29 51 57 Gamma 95 95 130.3 Thallium pg/L 11 10 91 0.2 0.2 0.2 n/a n/a n/a 0.2t TOC mg/L 8 0 0 0.521 1.33 6.49 n/a n/a n/a 8.1 Total Radium pCi/L 10 0 0 0.378 0.567 0.917 Gamma 95 95 2.005 Total Uranium pg/mL 7 3 43 0.00009 0.0002 0.0002 n/a n/a n/a 0.000217 Vanadium pg/L 8 1 13 0.309 0.705 1.89 n/a n/a n/a 2.8 LZinc pg/L 8 0 0 23 64 130 n/a n/a n/a 140 Notes: O - Indicates value is the maximum concentration in dataset. The upper tolerance limit (UTL) was not calculated for the constituent because its dataset contained fewer than 10 valid samples. Background well: MW-12S * - Upper and lower tolerance limits calculated for constituent. t - Maximum ND value represents UTL. ' - The type of UTL calculated for each constituent was based on the distribution of its data. 2 - The distribution of the data for the constituent could not be adequately assessed because the dataset contains >50 percent and 1_90 percent NDs. Therefore, the non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent. Ug/L - micrograms per liter Ug/mL - micrograms per milliliter mg/L - milligrams per liter mg-CaCO,/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter n/a - Dataset was comprised of >90 percent non -detects. ND - non -detect pCi/L - picocuries per liter S.U. - standard units TDS - total dissolved solids TOC - total organic carbon Prepared by:JHG Checked by: HES Page 1 of 1 TABLE 4 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS - TRANSITION ZONE MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Constituent Reporting Unit Descriptive Statistics Upper Tolerance Limits Sample Size Number of NDs Percent NDs m 10 Percentile w SO Percentile n 90` Percentile 2 Type of UTL Coverage Confidence Level Value pH* S.U. 40 0 0 6.0 6.3 6.5 Non-Parametric3 90 95 5.6 - 6.6 Alkalinity mg-CaCO,/L 29 0 0 53 203 257 Non -Parametric' 90 95 302 Aluminum Ng/L 35 2 6 37 100 378 Gamma 95 95 692.4 Antimony pg/L 40 39 98 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Arsenic pg/L 35 35 100 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Barium pg/L 40 0 0 16 43 65 Non -Parametric' 90 95 67.7 Beryllium Ng/L 29 29 100 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Bicarbonate mg-CaCO,/L 24 0 0 53.6 219 258 Non -Parametric' 85 95 302 Boron Ng/L 40 40 100 50 50 50 n/a n/a n/a 50t Cadmium pg/L 40 40 100 0 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Calcium mg/L 29 0 0 11 49 57 Non-Parametric3 90 95 59.2 Carbonate mg-CaCO,/L 24 24 100 5 5 9 n/a n/a n/a lot Chloride mg/L 40 0 0 4.2 30 37 Non-Parametric3 90 95 39 Chromium Ug/L 40 23 58 1 4 5 Non -Parametric 90 95 6 Chromium (VI) Ng/L 15 7 47 0.03 0.1 0.8 Normal 95 95 1.275 Cobalt Ug/L 29 28 97 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Copper pg/L 35 30 86 1 5 5 Non-Parametric2 90 95 5 Fluoride mg/L 10 6 60 0.1 0.1 0.3 Non -Parametric 85 95 0.34 Iron Ng/L 35 0 0 114 326 902 Gamma 95 95 1356 Lead pg/L 35 35 100 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Lithium pg/L 10 7 70 3 5 5 Non-Parametric2 85 95 6 Magnesium mg/L 29 0 0 3.1 9.9 12 Non -Parametric' 90 95 13.5 Manganese Ng/L 35 0 0 27.4 105 233 Gamma 95 95 447.6 Mercury pg/L 40 32 80 0.05 0.05 0.2 Non -Parametric 90 95 0.2 Methane Ng/L 11 4 36 10 400 1130 Normal 95 95 2505 Molybdenum Ug/L 29 22 76 0.6 1 1 Non-Parametric2 90 95 1.42 Nickel Ng/L 35 23 66 0.9 5 5 Non-Parametric2 90 95 5.2 Nitrate + Nitrite mg-N/L 15 3 20 0.014 0.08 0.25 Gamma 95 95 0.93 Potassium mg/L 29 1 3 1.4 3.2 3.5 Non-Parametric3 90 95 3.61 Selenium Ug/L 35 35 100 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Sodium mg/L 29 0 0 9 43 50 Non-Parametric3 90 95 53.3 Strontium Ug/L 22 0 0 85.2 288 369 Non -Parametric' 85 95 390 Sulfate mg/L 40 0 0 1 5 7 Non-Parametric3 90 95 7.5 Sulfide mg/L 18 18 100 0.1 0.1 0.1 n/a n/a n/a 0.1t TDS mg/L 40 0 0 93.2 312 401 Non-Parametric3 90 95 430 Thallium Ug/L 40 39 98 0.1 0.2 0.2 n/a n/a n/a 0.2t TOC mg/L 18 0 0 0.261 1.25 1.73 Non-Parametric3 85 95 1.8 Total Radium pCi/L 17 0 0 1.78 2.83 10.9 Lognormal 95 95 34.79 Total Uranium pg/mL 13 0 0 0.000103 0.000639 0.000924 Non-Parametric3 85 95 0.00102 Vanadium Ug/L 23 0 0 0.723 3.87 5.04 Non -Parametric' 85 95 5.8 Zinc Ng/L 35 23 66 5 5 12 Non-Parametric2 90 95 15 Notes: Background wells: BG-02 and MW-12D * - Upper and lower tolerance limits calculated for constituent. t - Maximum ND value represents upper tolerance limit (UTL). 1- The type of UTL calculated for each constituent was based on the distribution of its data. 2 - The distribution of the data for the constituent could not be adequately assessed because the dataset contains >50 percent and :590 percent NDs. Therefore, the non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent. 3 - The non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent because its background dataset could not be fitted to the normal, gamma, or lognormal distribution models. Ug/L - micrograms per liter Ug/mL - micrograms per milliliter mg/L - milligrams per liter mg-CaCO,/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter n/a - Dataset was comprised of >90 percent non -detects. ND - non -detect pCi/L - picocuries per liter S.U. - standard units TDS - total dissolved solids TOC - total organic carbon Prepared by: JHG Checked by: HES Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS - BEDROCK FLOW ZONE MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC Constituent Reporting Unit Descriptive Statistics Upper Tolerance Limits Sample Size Number of NDs Percent NDs to 30 Percentile n 50` Percentile n 90` Percentile Type of UTL i Coverage Confidence Level Value pH* S.U. 58 0 0 5.5 6.4 7.0 Non-Parametric3 90 95 5.1 - 7.2 Alkalinity mg-CaCO3/L 48 0 0 51.5 137 230 Non-Parametric3 90 95 240 Aluminum pg/L 47 0 0 40 141 387 Gamma 95 95 573.7 Antimony Ng/L 58 54 93 0.6 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Arsenic pg/L 54 48 89 1 1 1 Non -Parametric 90 95 1 Barium Ng/L 58 0 0 18 35 95 Non-Parametric3 90 95 97 Beryllium Ug/L 48 48 100 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Bicarbonate mg-CaCO3/L 37 0 0 51.9 121 212 Non-Parametric3 90 95 221 Boron ug/L 58 57 98 50 50 50 n/a n/a n/a 50t Cadmium pg/L 58 54 93 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Calcium mg/L 48 0 0 12.2 17.2 70.3 Non-Parametric3 90 95 72.7 Carbonate mg-CaCO3/L 37 37 100 5 5 7 n/a n/a n/a lot Chloride mg/L 58 0 0 10 13 35 Non-Parametric3 90 95 41 Chromium Ng/L 58 42 72 1 1 5 Non-Parametricz 90 95 7 Chromium (VI) Ug/L 29 14 48 0.03 0.03 0.3 Non -Parametric' 90 95 0.36 Cobalt Ng/L 47 29 62 1 1 3 Non-Parametricz 90 95 4.67 Copper Ug/L 47 29 62 1 2 5 Non-Parametricz 90 95 5 Fluoride mg/L 21 3 14 0.09 0.2 0.3 Normal 95 95 0.417 Iron pg/L 47 0 0 37 290 2412 Gamma 95 95 3771 Lead pg/L 54 54 100 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Lithium pg/L 21 5 24 3 9 35 Normal 95 95 48.47 Magnesium mg/L 48 0 0 2.53 3.36 13.4 Non-Parametric3 90 95 14.7 Manganese Ug/L 47 1 2 7.6 92 472 Non-Parametric3 90 95 548 Mercury Ng/L 58 55 95 0.05 0.05 0.05 n/a n/a n/a 0.2t Methane pg/L 16 11 69 10 10 34 Non-Parametricz 85 95 41.8 Molybdenum Ng/L 48 14 29 1 4 8 Lognormal 95 95 17.24 Nickel pg/L 47 30 64 1 1 5 Non-Parametricz 90 95 6.2 Nitrate + Nitrite mg-N/L 27 11 41 0.01 0.16 0.8 Normal 95 95 0.962 Potassium mg/L 48 0 0 1.34 4.34 8.68 Non-Parametric3 90 95 10.9 Selenium Ng/L 54 46 85 1 1 2 Non-Parametricz 90 95 2.28 Sodium mg/L 48 0 0 11.7 22.1 114 Non-Parametric3 90 95 117 Strontium Ng/L 36 0 0 143 176 387 Non-Parametric3 90 95 418 Sulfate mg/L 58 3 5 0.25 9.4 103 Non-Parametric3 90 95 130 Sulfide mg/L 32 30 94 0.1 0.1 0.1 n/a n/a n/a 0.2t TDS mg/L 58 0 0 110 200 423 Non-Parametric3 90 95 470 Thallium Ng/L 58 55 95 0.2 0.2 0.2 n/a n/a n/a 0.2t TOC mg/L 32 0 0 0.5 0.8 1 Normal 95 95 1.256 Total Radium pCi/L 26 0 0 0.718 1.31 3.13 Gamma 95 95 5.301 Total Uranium pg/mL 16 4 25 0.000179 0.000315 0.00105 Lognormal 95 95 0.00255 Vanadium pg/L 36 4 11 0.3 2 4 Non-Parametric3 90 95 4.42 Zinc Ug/L 46 23 50 4 5 29 Lognormal 95 95 35.11 Notes: Background wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, MW-14BR * - Upper and lower tolerance limits calculated for constituent. t - Maximum ND value represents upper tolerance limit (UTL). 1- The type of UTL calculated for each constituent was based on the distribution of its data. z - The distribution of the data for the constituent could not be adequately assessed because the dataset contains >50 percent and :590 percent NDs. Therefore, the non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent. 3 - The non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent because its background dataset could not be fitted to the normal, gamma, or lognormal distribution models. ° - The dataset for the constituent was lognormally distributed. The standard deviation of the natural log -transformed dataset was >1. As a result, the non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent. pg/L - micrograms per liter pg/mL - micrograms per milliliter mg/L - milligrams per liter mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter n/a - Dataset was comprised of >90 percent non -detects. ND - non -detect pCi/L - picocuries per liter S.U. - standard units TDS - total dissolved solids TOC - total organic carbon Prepared by:JHG Checked by: HES Page 1 of 1 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant ATTACHMENT 1 SynTerra ARICADIS Design&Consultancy fornaturaland V r `. builtassets Arcadis U.S., Inc. To: Copies: 11001 W. 120th Avenue Scott Davies, PG, Duke Energy Matthew Hanchey, Duke Energy Suite 200 526 South Church Street 411 Fayetteville Street Broomfield Colorado 80021 Charlotte, NC 28202 Raleigh, NC 27601 Tel 303 544 0043 Fax 720 887 6051 From: Julie K Sueker, PhD, PH, PE Date: Arcadis Project No.: June 11, 2019 DKNC19CA Subject: Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation — Allen, Belews Creek, Cliffside, Marshall, Mayo, and Roxboro Sites This technical memorandum, titled Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation — Allen, Belews Creek, Cliffside, Marshall, Mayo, and Roxboro Sites, was prepared by Arcadis U.S. Inc. on behalf of Duke Energy. This memorandum presents the results of an evaluation of statistically significant outliers identified in the Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater (SynTerra Corporation (SynTerra), 2019a through 2019f) constituent concentration data sets (background groundwater data sets) for the six Duke Energy sites noted above. This evaluation was conducted within the context of recent EPA guidance regarding the treatment of statistical outliers. This memorandum supports the background threshold value (BTV) statistical analyses conducted by SynTerra for each site (SynTerra 2019a through 2019f) applying the technical approach presented herein. Additionally, this technical memorandum includes a review of regional background groundwater quality. Constituent BTVs are calculated for comparison of concentrations of constituents in site groundwater to these calculated BTVs. These BTV values are used for comparison to site groundwater constituent concentrations when the constituent has no established 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standard (02L) or Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration (IMAC), and/or when the BTVs are higher than either the 02L or IMAC criteria. Page: 1/10 MEMO 1.0 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER QUALITY Naturally occurring constituent concentrations in Piedmont groundwater have been measured at numerous monitoring sites and residential water supply wells by several institutions and government agencies (Chapman et al. 2005, Gunkle and Bradley 2007, Pippin et al. 2008, Harden et al. 2009, Sanders et al. 2012, Chapman et al. 2013, Polizzotto et al. 2015, Gillispie et al. 2016, Vengosh et al. 2016, and NCDEQ 2019). These studies demonstrate variability in groundwater constituent concentrations across the Piedmont region as shown in Figure 1 (Chapman et al. 2013). These patterns in regional groundwater constituent concentration variability are also indicated by the USEPA Unified Guidance (USEPA 2009) to occur for constituent concentrations in groundwater at individual wells (Table 1). Detections of naturally occurring trace metals at concentrations above 02L criteria have been demonstrated. Gunkle and Bradley (2007) compiled Piedmont groundwater dissolved arsenic concentrations and show detections of arsenic above the 02L of 10 µg/L in multiple areas across the region (Figure 2). Manganese has been detected at concentrations above the 02L of 50 µg/L in Piedmont groundwater (Gillispie et al. 2016) (Figure 3). Vengosh et al. (2016) established a range of background groundwater concentrations for chromium (VI), boron, and strontium for the Piedmont Region of North Carolina. Chromium (VI) concentrations ranged from less than the detection limit of 0.012 to 22.9 µg/L (Figure 4), boron concentrations ranged from less than the detection limit of 0.09 to 159.2 µg/L, and strontium concentrations ranged from less than the detection limit of 0.25 to 3,426 µg/L (Vengosh et al. 2016). Data compiled by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) (NCDEQ 2019) demonstrate concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, nitrate plus nitrite, sulfate, TDS, and zinc above their respective 02L criteria for Piedmont groundwater (Table 2 and Attachment A). 2.0 CONSTITUENT OUTLIERS HDR Engineer, Inc. (HDR) and SynTerra Corporation (SynTerra) developed protocol and procedures, with input from NCDEQ, for establishing groundwater BTVs for Duke Energy coal ash facilities (HDR and SynTerra 2017). The protocol establishes identifying extreme statistical outliers using the Dixon's or Rosner's statistical outlier test using a significance level of 0.01. This report states, "If statistical outliers have been detected, the project scientist will review the values to determine if they should be removed from the data set or are representative of background and should be retained for statistical analysis. " This approach to evaluate statistical outliers for inclusion or exclusion from a background data set is consistent with guidance provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in their 2009 Unified Guidance (USEPA 2009) and 2018 Groundwater Statistics Tool — User's Guide (USEPA 2018). The Unified Guidance (USEPA 2009) states: A statistical determination of one or more statistical outliers does not indicate why the measurements are discrepant from the rest of the data set. The Unified Guidance does not recommend that outliers be removed solely on a statistical basis. The outlier tests can provide supportive information, but generally a reasonable rationale needs to be identified for removal of suspect outlier values (usually limited to background data). At the same time there must be some level of confidence that the data are representative of ground water quality. " USEPA (2018) states [in bold font within the guidance document]: arcadis.com Page: 2/10 MEMO "Dixon's [outlier] test is used only to indicate whether a data point can be considered as an outlier statistically; outliers should not be discarded from the data set unless there is also a valid, known technical reason for the outlier (for example, field or lab conditions)." The Unified Guidance (USEPA 2009) recommends that testing of outliers be performed on background data, but they generally should not be removed unless some basis for a likely error or discrepancy can be identified. Possible errors or discrepancies that would exclude outlier data from a background data set include: • data recording errors, • unusual sampling and laboratory procedures or conditions, • inconsistent sample turbidity, and • values significantly outside the historical ranges of background data. The Unified Guidance (USEPA 2009) also states: `In groundwater data collection and testing, background conditions may not be static over time. Caution should be observed in removing observations which may signal a change in natural groundwater quality. Even when conditions have not changed, an apparent extreme measurement may represent nothing more than a portion of the background distribution that has yet to be observed. This is particularly true if the background data set contains fewer than 20 samples." Based on guidance provide by the USEPA (2009 and 2018), statistical outliers identified by SynTerra in background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites were evaluated to determine whether statistical outliers should be included or excluded from the background groundwater data sets. 3.0 OUTLIER EVALUATION METHODS A data -driven approach was utilized to evaluate identified statistical outliers in the background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites. This approach not only considers analytical results for individual constituents, but also the broader geochemical conditions at each individual site in addition to all six Duke Energy sites to determine inclusion or exclusion of statistical outliers in the background groundwater data set. This section describes the six methods utilized to evaluate statistical outliers within the background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites including: 1. Initial screening for turbidity and pH, 2. Repeatability of constituent concentrations, 3. Relationship between pairs or groups of constituents, 4. Relationships between major ions and total dissolved solids, 5. Relationship between constituent concentration and pH, and 6. Relationship between constituent concentration and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) Outlier evaluation methods 2 through 6 were conducted as part of the protocol established by HDR and SynTerra (2017): • `If statistical outliers have been detected, the project scientist will review the values to determine if they should be removed from the data set or are representative of background and should be retained for statistical analysis." arcadis.com Page: 3/10 MEMO This outlier evaluation approach provides multiple lines of evidence to support inclusion or exclusion of identified statistical outliers in the background groundwater data sets for each of the six Duke Energy sites. 3.1 Initial Screening for Turbidity and pH Background groundwater samples with turbidity values greater than 10 Nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) and/or pH values greater than 8.5 standard units (S.U.) were eliminated from the background groundwater data set as defined in the protocol established by HDR and SynTerra (2017) for the six Duke Energy sites Site -specific background data were eliminated for turbidity values greater than 10 NTU to reduce potential effects of particulates entrained in the background groundwater samples on background groundwater metals concentrations. However, particulate metals may still be present in samples with turbidity values less than 10 NTU. Published comparisons of turbidity measured as NTU and total suspended solids (TSS) (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 2007 and Xiang et al. 2011) suggest that turbidity greater than 10 NTU is associated with TSS concentrations generally greater than 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (Figure 5). Combined concentrations of particulate metals, especially iron and aluminum, in all retained site background groundwater data are less than 10 mg/L (e.g., Figure 6) and had turbidity values less than 10 NTU. Therefore, groundwater sample data with associated turbidity values less than 10 NTU were appropriately included within the background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites, whether or not particulate forms of metals were present. 3.2 Repeatability of Constituent Concentrations Statistical outliers identified as a repeated concentration across sample dates for individual well were retained within the background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites. All retained outliers for the six Duke Energy sites are provided in Tables 3 through 8. Data sets were evaluated for the repeatability of individual constituent analytical results. Repeatability weighs in favor of data inclusion because it suggests the measured value is not due to a data recording error or unusual condition. Additionally, if a value is repeatedly measured over time, it is an indication that the sampling is accurately measuring the constituent concentration. For example, in well BG-02D at Belews Creek, calcium was measured at concentrations above 10 ug/L in 15 consecutive samples from 2015 to 2019, all of which were flagged as statistical outliers. Although these sample constituent concentrations may be high relative to the rest of the dataset, the consistency of the measurements strongly indicate the detected constituent concentrations are not due to sampling artifacts. Repeatability was evaluated for individual wells, across individual groundwater flow zones (saprolite/regolith, transition zone and bedrock), across all flow zones for an individual site, and across all six Duke Energy sites. Figure 7 provides examples of constituents with repeated concentrations within a small range that were identified as statistical outliers. Statistical outliers are identified on Figure 7 by orange boxes. The constituents shown in Figure 7 as well as other constituents with similar profiles were retained within the background groundwater data set. The following bullets summarize the constituents and wells with repeatable concentrations illustrated in Figure 1 for each site. • Allen — BG-02S chloride and nitrate, Belews Creek — BG-02D calcium and magnesium, • Cliffside — MW-30D magnesium, lithium, sodium, and molybdenum, arcadis.com Page: 4/10 MEMO • Marshall — BG-01 sulfate, BG-01 D selenium, and BG-02BR total radium, • Mayo — CCR-102BR-BG selenium and sulfate, and • Roxboro — MW-10BR cobalt, and MW-18BR chloride. This portion of the evaluation also included evaluating box -and -whisker plots for statistical outliers of individual constituents by well (SynTerra 20198a through 2019f). Background groundwater constituents that were not identified as outliers within the individual well box -and -whisker plots were retained. 3.3 Relationship Between Pairs or Groups of Constituents Statistical outliers identified to have similar distributions to other constituents were retained within the background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites. All retained outliers for the six Duke Energy sites are provided in Tables 3 through 8. Relationships between constituents provide evidence regarding whether a measured concentration is due to a data recording or unusual condition. When two constituents are correlated, a high concentration for one constituent will typically be associated with a high concentration for the correlated constituent. When a statistical outlier in one constituent is associated with a high value in an associated constituent, this association provides evidence that the statistical outlier is a valid data point that is not associated with sampling or laboratory error. Conversely, a statistical outlier that is not associated with a high value in an associated constituent is more likely to be invalid. Groups of Constituents Statistical outliers were identified for several metals including aluminum, chromium, cobalt, iron, manganese, and nickel (Figures 6, 8, and 9). These statistical outliers were associated with particulate or dissolved forms based on comparison of total and filtered (0.45 micron) metals concentrations. Statistical outlier concentrations of aluminum and iron were typically associated with primarily particulate form while statistical outlier concentrations of chromium, cobalt, manganese, and nickel were typically in dissolved form, although chromium and nickel were also observed to be primarily in particulate form for some outlier samples. Statistical outlier metals in primarily dissolved form were consistent with geochemical conditions including acidic pH and ORP values that indicated presence of metal (e.g., iron and manganese) reducing conditions. Dissolution of iron and manganese oxides in metal reducing conditions results in release of other metals associated with the iron and manganese oxides including arsenic and cobalt. Statistical outlier metals present primarily in particulate form are consistent with chemical and mechanical weathering of the aquifer matrix. Naturally occurring chemical weathering, for example via metal reduction, results in dissolution of minerals present within the aquifer matrix and can result in formation of very fine- grained particles such as clay particles and colloids. Mechanical weathering of the aquifer matrix, e.g., stress applied to the aquifer via groundwater pumping, even under low flow conditions, can dislodge these fine-grained particles and cause these particles to migrate to the well. Although monitoring well filter pack materials are sized to minimize migration of fine-grained particles, some of these fine-grained particles can still migrate through the filter pack and become captured during groundwater sampling. This is a process that will occur for both groundwater monitoring and drinking water supply wells which are often completed as open boreholes in bedrock absent of filter packs to minimize migration of fine-grained particles. Chemical weathering of aquifer matrix minerals can also result in formation of fine-grained particulates. Metals that are dissolved under metal reducing conditions can form particulates via reoxidation and arcadis.com Page: 5/10 MEMO precipitation of metals when the dissolved metals encounter less reducing and more oxic (oxygen rich) conditions. Pairs of Constituents Similarities in distributions of several constituent pairs were observed across monitoring wells, groundwater flow zones, and the six Duke Energy sites. These similarities in constituent distributions were observed for the constituent well pair aluminum and iron (Figure 6), cobalt and manganese (Figure 8) and chromium and nickel (Figure 9) as well as other constituent pairs and groupings not shown in Figures 6, 8, and 9. These strong similarities in constituent distributions across wells, groundwater flow zones and across the six Duke Energy sites indicate natural conditions. 3.4 Relationship Between Major Ions and Total Dissolved Solids Statistical outliers with TDS increase not accompanied by similar increases in major cation and anion concentrations were excluded from the background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites. All retained outliers for the six Duke Energy sites are provided in Tables 3 through 8. Concentrations of major cations (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium) and anions (alkalinity, chloride, and sulfate) that were identified as statistical outliers were compared to total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations. If outlier cation or anion concentrations were accompanied by a similar increase in TDS, the outlier was retained within the background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites. TDS concentrations that were identified as statistical outliers were then compared with concentrations of major cations and anions. 3.5 Relationship Between Constituent Concentration and pH Statistical outliers with pH values (less than 8.5 S.U.) were retained within the background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites. All retained outliers for the six Duke Energy sites are provided in Tables 3 through 8. Background groundwater data sets were evaluated for relationships between constituent concentrations and groundwater pH values. Relationships between constituent concentrations and pH were observed for arsenic and alkalinity with higher arsenic and alkalinity (including bicarbonate and carbonate alkalinity) concentrations observed for higher pH values (less than 8.5 S.U.) (Figure 10). These higher pH values are within the expected naturally occurring pH range for groundwater at the six Duke Energy sites. 3.6 Relationship Between Constituent Concentration and ORP Statistical outliers associated with low ORP values were retained within the background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites. All retained outliers for the six Duke Energy sites are provided in Tables 3 through 8. Background groundwater data sets were evaluated for relationships between groundwater ORP and constituent concentrations. Low ORP values were observed to be associated with higher concentrations of arsenic, methane, sulfide, manganese, iron, and other constituent values, as illustrated for methane in groundwater at Mayo monitoring well MW-12S in Figure 10. Sulfide is produced under sulfate reducing conditions while dissolved metals, including iron and manganese, are released under metal reducing conditions. The retained higher methane concentration shown in Figure 10, identified as a statistical outlier, was also preceded by a short-term increase in total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations prior to arcadis.com Page: 6/10 MEMO the detection of the higher methane concentration. TOC provides an energy source to the bacteria that produce methane during respiration of organic carbon and oxygen from a terminal electron acceptor (nitrate, manganese and iron oxides, sulfate, carbon dioxide). 4.0 SUMMARY Results of the constituent statistical outlier evaluation are provided in Tables 3 through 8. These tables provide the well ID, sampling date, constituent, reporting unit, constituent concentration, and the rationale for each identified outlier that was included in the background groundwater data sets for each site. The general rationale for each constituent that had an outlier included in the background groundwater data sets across the six Duke Energy sites are summarized below. • Alkalinity — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified. • Aluminum — Present with higher concentrations of iron; not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot • Antimony — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified. • Arsenic — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified; higher arsenic value associated with lower ORP. • Beryllium — No laboratory or field errors identified. • Bicarbonate alkalinity — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified; low outlier concentration associated with higher pH. • Boron — No laboratory or field errors identified. • Cadmium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified. • Calcium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot. • Carbonate alkalinity — Present with higher pH value. • Chloride — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot. • Chromium — Present with higher nickel concentrations; not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot. • Chromium (VI) — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified. • Cobalt — Present with higher concentrations of manganese; not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot. • Copper — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified. • Fluoride — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified. arcadis.com Page: 7/10 MEMO • Iron — Present with higher concentrations of aluminum, chromium, cobalt, or nickel; not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified. • Lead — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified. • Magnesium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot. • Manganese — Present with higher concentrations of aluminum, iron, or cobalt; not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot. • Methane — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified; higher methane concentration associated with lower ORP value. • Molybdenum — Present with higher concentrations of chromium, manganese, nickel, or sodium and TDS; not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot, no laboratory or field errors identified. • Nickel — Present with higher concentrations of chromium; not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot. • Nitrate + nitrite — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified. • Potassium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot. • Selenium — Present with higher chromium concentration; not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified. • Sodium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified. • Sulfate — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified. • Sulfide — No laboratory or field errors identified. • Total dissolved solids — Present with higher sodium concentration; not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified. • Total organic carbon — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified. • Total radium — No laboratory or field errors identified. • Total uranium — No laboratory or field errors identified. • Thallium — No laboratory or field errors identified. • Vanadium — No laboratory or field errors identified. • Zinc — No laboratory or field errors identified. arcadis.com Page: 8/10 MEMO REFERENCES: Chapman, M., R. Bolich, and B. Huffman. 2005. Hydrogeologic Setting, Ground -Water Flow, and Ground - Water Quality at the Lake Wheeler Road Research Station, 2001-03. United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2005-5166. Prepared in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Chapman, M., C. Cravotta III, Z. Szabo, and B. Lindsey. 2013. Naturally Occurring Contaminants in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Crystalline -Rock Aquifers and Piedmont Early Mesozoic Basin Siliciclastic-Rock Aquifers, Eastern United States, 1994-2008. United States Geological Survey, Scientific Investigation Report 2013-5072. HDR Engineering, Inc. and SynTerra Corporation. 2017. Revised Statistical Methods for Developing Reference Background Concentrations for Groundwater and Soil at Coal Ash Facilities. May. Gillispie, E. R. Austin, N. Rivera, R. Bolich, O. Duckworth, P. Bradley, A. Amoozegar, D. Hesterberg, and M. Polizzotto. 2016. Soil weathering as and engine for manganese contamination of well water. Environmental Science Technology, 50: 9963-9971. Gunkle, D. and P. Bradley. 2007. Arsenic Occurrence in Groundwater in Orange and Durham Counties. North Carolina Geological Survey and Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Harden, S., M. Chapman, and D. Hamed. 2009. Characterization of Groundwater Quality Based on Regional Geologic Setting in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Physiographic Provinces, North Carolina. United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2009-5149. Prepared in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Aquifer Protection Section. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 2007. Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Relationship for all Mainstem Portneuf River and Marsh Creek Sites. https://deq.idaho.gov/media/594342- turbid ity_tss_phosphorus_051507. pdf North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2019. Piedmont Mountain Groundwater Resource Evaluation Program. Websites for Allison Woods, Bent Creek, Coweeta, Langtree Peninsula, Morgan Mill, Pasour Mountain, Tater Hill, and Upper Piedmont Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations accessed May 21, 2019. https://deg.nc.gov/node/83001. Pippin, C., M. Chapman, B. Huffman, M. Heller, and M. Schelgel. 2008. Hydrogeologic Setting, Ground - Water Flow, and Ground -Water Quality at the Langtree Peninsula Research Station, Iredell County, North Carolina, 2008-5055. United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2009-5149. Prepared in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Polizzotto, M., A. Amoozegar, R. Austin, R. Bolich, P. Bradley, O. Duckworth, and D. Hesterberg. 2015. Surface and Subsurface Properties Regulating Manganese Contamination of Groundwater in the North Carolina Piedmont. Water Resources Research Institute of The University of North Carolina, Report No. 459. Sanders, A., K. Messier, M. Shehee, K Rudo, M. Serre, and R. Fry. 2012. Arsenic in North Carolina: Public Health Implications. Environment International. 38(1): 10-16. Synterra Corporation. 2019a. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater. Allen Steam Station. June 2019. arcadis.com Page: 9/10 MEMO Synterra Corporation. 2019a. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater. Belews Creek Steam Station. June 2019. Synterra Corporation. 2019a. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater. Cliffside Steam Station. June 2019. Synterra Corporation. 2019a. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater. Marshall Steam Station. June 2019. Synterra Corporation. 2019a. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater. Mayo Steam Electric Plant. June 2019. Synterra Corporation. 2019a. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater. Roxboro Steam Electric Plant. June 2019. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities — Unified Guidance. EPA 530-R-09-007. March. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2018. Groundwater Statistics Tool — User's Guide. September. Vengosh, A., R. Coyte, J. Karr, S. Harkness, A. Kondash, L. Ruhl, R. Merola, and G. Dywer. 2016. Origin of hexavalent chromium in drinking water wells from the Piedmont aquifers of North Carolina. Enviro. Sci. Technol. Letters. Accepted September 30, 2016. Xiang, D.L.H., Djati, H.UD., and Hao, K.L.Z. 2011. Correlation between Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids in Singapore Rivers. Journal of Water Sustainability, 1(3): 313-322. arcadis.com Page: 10/10 Figure 1. Box -and Whisker Plots for Constituent Concentrations in Piedmont Region Groundwater A ,9 51 11 96 17 70 55 34 2 16000 A Aft CC CUE 0E CUE E BC - m - ` IA00 El a a ID1 m 9 1O • - y € I - D 9 51 11 90 16 67 55 28 2 100 A AS AB AB AS a AB AS - _ z - t e; w - OA s: - 0.01 8 9 51 16 91 16 57 51 28 2 I,000 A A AS BC C AS BC BC - 9 - v too C 10 E E - a 1 H 8 9 51 10 91 16 57 51 2B A A BC BC C BC BC AS - i00 t0 $ e 1 ° 0.1 f 9 50 10 91 16 67 51 2B 2 s I B AB A AS B A AS AS - n r m 0 m g 0.01 d H 9 51 10 91 16 57 51 28 2 0� B AB AS AS AB A A AB t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Notes provided on following page © Arcadis 2018 C IA00 9 51 10 91 15 57 51 28 2 A AB ABCABC BC C C ABC - a 100 c E 10 S 1 0.1 F 9 51 10 91 16 57 51 21 2 Ipp B AS B B B A AS A-- t0 y . t - 9 51 10 91 16 57 51 28 2 I.OM A A BC BC C BC C AS - m _ a 100 E � - m • 0.1 0.01 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 A 9 51 10 91 16 57 51 28 2 1,000 A AS CC CB 0 CO 0 BC - c 100 t0 p.01 F 1 D 9 51 10 94 18 56 $5 34 2 6 1 43 7 55 12 61 55 17 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8! Source: Chapman et al. 2013 /aRCJaDIS Design&Consultancy fOrnaturaland 6uiltassets 1,000 S 10 a 1 8 9 51 11 96 16 70 52 34 A A B CC 0 BCD 0 BC o - f 9 51 10 91 18 57 51 28 2 loom AB B AB AS A AS AS AB - 10,000 1,000 H 1 K ! a0 1[ 01 30 11 L A A A A A A A- ° O 0 ° 8 ° ° o B ° O 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C 9 5T 11 98 17 70 55 34 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 8.5 0 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 F 9 51 10 91 17 67 55 28 2 100pp B B AS A A AB AS AB - Z g 1,000 I00 ° 0 °° 0.1 1 28 5 55 12 59 55 13 2 A AS B B AB B B- ° ° 0 0 o S o v 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 June 7, 2019 Page 1 of 2 Figure 1. Box -and Whisker Plots for Constituent Concentrations in Piedmont Region Groundwater (cont.) A B C 1 43 7 55 12 61 55 17 2 1 43 7 55 12 61 55 17 2 1 43 7 55 12 61 55 17 2 10,000 m` IXI n 4 100 e 10 I m 0.1 100 Im A B BC BC BC BC C - 8 0 1 28 5 55 12 81 55 13 2 G 9 36 9 91 17 67 55 24 2 -A A B B B B B B 0 ---------- °----- ❑ Q❑ 1 T P P ❑ 0 ❑ — � 0 I,000 10,000 1.000 100 r 10 m a m I 0.1 E 4 0.01 S OA01 B A B 8 8 AB B 10 A A A A A A A 8 P 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 o P 0 o Q 0 $ E F 1 43 7 55 12 61 55 17 2 7 10 4 25 3 8 5 12 2 - 1S A 1s 5 a It H - N 0 27 2 15 3 28 20 3 0 1000B AB - AB - AB AB A - 100 Ia$� E 10 1 • 9 36 8 76 10 60 55 20 1 100,000 Aa A AB A AB A AB A m 10,o00 m - -- m 0 1,000 cF c • 100 9 N s 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 © Arcadis 2018 Source: Chapman et al. 2013 04 ARCAD IS Design&Consultancy for naturand builtassealts o Outlier data value more than 3 [lines the interquartile range outside the quartile Outlier data value less tbao or equal to 3 and more than 1.5 times the interquartile range outside the quartile Data value less than or equal to 1.5 tinnes the interquartile range outside the quartile 75th percentile Mean 25th percentile VAaWTI 1!131DL 1 Clastic sedimentary rocks (CLSD) 2 Claslic lacustriue/evaporite sedimentary rocks (CLSDLAC) 3 Quartz -rich sedimentary rocks (CLSDQ) 4 Metamorphosed clastic sedimentary rocks (CLSDMT) 5 Quartz -rich metamorphic rocks (MTQ) 6 Felsic igneous rocks and their metamorphic equivalents (IGMTF) 7 Intermediate igneous rocks and their metamorphic equivalents (IGMTI) B Mafic igneous rocks and their Metamorphic equivalents (IGMTW 9 Ultramafic rocks MLMAFI June 7, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Figure 2. Arsenic Occurrence in the Carolina and Spring Hope Terranes Consultancy 04 (andaRCAD IS &eats Arsenic Occurrence in the Carolina and Spring Hope Terranes Belews Creek Roxboro Mayo Subject Area Marshall • Irk" i r it • •� •tit � `: � _ .. Cliffsideyj Allen Legend • Arsenic Concentrations Equal to or above EPA MCL of 10 ppb t Albemarle Sequence , ! j� Wgihna Sequence ) Carolina terrane (Carolina slate belt) "t�'y _ Spring Mope lettane (Eastern slate beM 0 s l0 t0 30 40 ® Me. Figure 2 —Dissolved groundwater arsenic occurrence in the Carolina and Spring Hope terranes at concentrations equal to or above the EPA n1CL of 10 ppb. (Data points fi•om DHHS Grounchvater Database, Pippin et al., 2003 and Pippin, 2005 — modified by J. Tootoo) Duke Energy Site Source: Gunkle and Bradley 2007 © Arcadis 2018 June 7, 2019 Figure 3. Manganese Concentrations in the Piedmont Region of North Carolina Belews Creek Roxboro4. Mayo �,y "-�. i.—r�•�•i"' is Soil System Cliffside M Nigh Mountain Broad Basins, River Terraces M Triassic Basin Felsic Crystalline Sandhills Mixed Felsic and Mafic M Upper Coastal Plain and Piedmont Carolina Slate Belt Middle Coastal Plain 04 ARCAD IS O iltass Consultancy fornatura(and 6uiltassets Mn (mg/L) 0 - 0.1 • 0.1 - 0.2 • 0.2 - 0.3 • 0.3 -0.5 • 0.5 -1.0 Figure S3. Nianganiese concentrations from the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) pnivate well water database. 2008-2011. plotted over NC Fiedn mt soil sNVems (SSURGO. 014)_ Duke Energy Site Source: Gillispie et al. 2016 © Arcadis 2018 June 7, 2019 /aRCJaDIS Design&Consultancy Figure 4. Chromium Concentrations in North fornaturaland 6udtassets Carolina Piedmont Groundwater 25 0 • • This study Of 0 NC Environmental Quality 000 0 5 10 15 20 25 Total Chromium (µg/L) Figure 2. Hexavalent chromium concentration vs total Cr concentration in groundwater analyzed in this study (red circles) and reported by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality25 (0). Note the high correlation of Cr(Vl) to CrT in both data sets with an r2 of 0.93 (p < 0.001; n = 77) reported in this study and an r2 of 0.90 (p < 0.001; n = 129) in NC-DEQ data. The —1.1 ratio in most of the samples indicates that Cr(VI) is the predominant species of dissolved Cr in the Piedmont groundwater. © Arcadis 2018 June 7, 2019 Source: Vengosh et al. 2016 Figure 5. Relations between Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) rn E N 4a0 200 0 Turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS) relationship for all mainstem Portneui R and marsh Cr sites' R2=0.945. P�0.0001 N = 217 TSS = 2-3597(turbidilyin NTUI * 9.t109 • 0 '0o 200 300 400 turbidity (NTU) 'all sites except Portneuf River at Siphon Road Source: https://deg.idaho.gov/media/594342- turbidity tss phosphorus 051507.pdf 04 /aRCJaDIS Design&Consultancy fornaturaland 6uiltassets a� 90 JOD 0 80 3t4 0 0 311 60 0 E +C1 0 E (�0 it 40 r 1-4 CJ a Fes" SU 0 r 1U0 0 00 0 ,1 00 51 0 00 l0 0 1 1 0 50 100 151 W :.s0 300 0 20 41 6B !0 14 124 Tutbidity(NM TurbidityPMJ) (a) (b) Figure 4 Correlation between Total Suspended Solids (TSS in mg'L) and Turbidity level (NTU) from. (a- left) 48 river water samples and (b- right) selected river water samples at lower TSS concentration range, which were collected from various river oreams in Singapore between Jan 2010 to fitly 2011. Source: Xiang et al. 2011 © Arcadis 2018 June 7, 2019 Figure 6. Iron and Aluminum Allen BG-02D 1000 E E 1Do a v c Aluminum >500 µg/L 10 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 --*--Iron tAluminum Belews Creek BG-02S 10000 E 10oa c E a G 10n O 10 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 �—Iron —4o—Aluminum Cliffside BG-01S 1000 E E 100 a C C O la Aluminum >400 µL g/ Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 —do--Iron—1—Aiuminum AARCAD1&biLI. tast,.r�r natural and uilt assets Marshall BG-03BR 10000 o�d E loon C E a b lao 0 10 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 --*—Iron --do—Aluminum Marshall MW-04D 10n00 loon E E 100 a v � 10 0 1 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 —Iron —Aluminum Mayo MW-12D 1000 E c E wo 9 O 30 Jan-15 Jan-16 Ian-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 41--Fron ♦Aluminum © Arcadis 2018 Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier June 7, 2019 Figure 7. Repeatability of COI Concentrations 00 /aRCJaDIS Design&Consultancy fornaturaland 6uiltassets Allen BG-025 I Marshall — BG-01 S, BG-01 D, BG-02BR 12 100 zi10 0 � I a y 4 1 y c _ e 2 V L U 0 0.1 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-15 fan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 f Nitrate Nitrhe —0—Chloride f13G-01S Sulfate fBG-011) Selenium—8G-02811 Total Radium Belews Creek BG-02D Mayo CCR-102BR-BG 16 1000 c� 14 E 12 100 y 10 F y, w 8 a 10 a c 6 � E 4 c d E � m u 0 0.1 Jan -is Jan-16 lan-17 Jan-IB Jan-19 fan-15 Jam 16 lan-17 lan-18 Jan 19 Calcium —0--Magnesium �Sele nium —Sulfa [e Cliffside MW-30D is 14 12 10 0 d 6 0 o 4 u 2 0 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 —0—Magnesium—FLithium f-Sod'ium —6-1VIo3yhdenum Jan-19 1:7.37• • • 111�DQI[17 7Ci�11D1'liF:3 3C7 160 ? 140 120 n 100 a U 80 a c 60 a 'a 40 207 0 01/02/15 01/02/16 011OV17 01/01/18 01/01/19 ---Cobalt MW-106R tChloride MW-188R © Arcadis 2018 E) Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier June 7, 2019 Figure 8. Manganese and Cobalt Allen BG-01DA too 10 a u 1 . m as N � 0.1 00 g 0.01 -- — Jan-15 Jan-15 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 f Manganese Cobalt Cliffside BG-01S 1000 100 10 • H c m v d n 1 - c m 0.1 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 lan-19 t Manganese +Cobalt 64 ARCAD IS O iltass Consultancy fornatura(and 6uiltassets Belews Creek BG-035 1000 100 ~�• 10 m a m 1 0.1 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 t Manganese Cobalt 1000 r 1ao m u a 10 iu � 1 c 0.1 Jan-15 Cliffside GWA-30S Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 t Manganese #Cobalt Marshall GWA-125 Marshall GWA-06D 1000 Iwo 100 — ? 10) o � u o C 10 V n 10 - a � v 1 - m � m 1 m 0.1 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-19 Jan-19 0.1 Jan-19 Jan-19 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 -N -Cobalt --e—Manganese Cobalt Manganese ©Arcadis 2018 Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier June 7, 2019 Figure 9. Chromium and Nickel /aRCJaDIS Design&Consultancy f0rnaturaland 6uiltassets Allen BG-01S Marshall GWA-06S 100 100 a 10 Y 10 z c � A N 1 E t E E a o u U 0.1 0.1 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 f Chromium ♦Nickel tChmmium ♦Nickel Belews Creek MW-2028R Mayo MW-13BR 100 100 Y 10 Y 10 z 'z G C m � E 1 E 1 E E E 2 L L V V 0.1 - 0.1 - "- — - Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 fan-19 t Chromium ♦Nickel tChrcmium ♦Nickel Cliffside MW-32BR Roxboro BG-01BR 100 10 - 8 Chromium >1 µg/L 10 — 6 _ Nickel >3 µg/L 4 - E E 1 - - -- E Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan -is Jan-1-] OV02/15 01/01/16 OV01117 01/01/18 01/01/19 —f—Chromium --41�-Chromium —�—Nickel © Arcadis 2018 Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier June 7, 2019 Figure 10. pH, ORP and COI Concentrations Allen GWA-26D 2 u�i 1 Q = 0.5 Arsenic >1.1 µc 0 �— Jan-15 Jal-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Arsenic —6--pH 9 8.5 LZ 7.5 0. 7 Jan-19 Mayo MW-12S 300 16 E 2504*-"* 14 � 20012 O 15010 s m N `m J 1008 U U 506 m ao m 0 4 O LC1J 2 H'100 00 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 —0—Oxidation Reduction Potential f Methane-0—Total Organic Carbon 04ARCADIS Designs Consultancy fornaturatand builtasets Cliffside GWA-30 70 60 GWA-30DA all V 50 alkalinity values 40 '—� 30 Q � " 20 y.j�ia��.� ti� ��• Q. 10 0 7��— -- Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 0 GWA-30SAIk 0—GWA-30SAlk — • — GWA-30S pH — • — GWA-30DA pH 8 7 "c 4 Jan-19 © Arcadis 2018 D Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier June 7, 2019 Table 1. Typical Background Data Patterns for Routine Groundwater Monitoring Analytes Analyte Detection Rates Between Within Well Between Outlier Temporal variation S Grou Well Variability Well Problems P Frequency of Multiple Between Within Detection Reporting Mean (CVs) Equal Well by Well Differ- Variances by Well Limiits Analyte Among ences Group IIIC C.oilsil Else Ills a Within Well Auto- correl. /aRCJaDIS Design&Consultancy fornaturaland 6uiltassets Within Within Well Well Seasonal Time Variation Correl. Typical I Data Distribution Grouping within well Major ions, pH, High to 100% Generally fv �� » » » V Normal Intrawel TDS, Specific low Conductance (.1-.5) CO3, F, Some to most Moderate Variable Norm, Log or Intrawell/ J J , f J NO2,NO3 detectable (.2-1.5) NPM Interwell .9?t1 r'IlIei-cu Irace ItICIIICIlCS Ba High to 100% J Low , Normal Intrawell (.1-.5) As, Se Some wells Moderate Variable Normal, Log Intrawell/ ✓ J f ✓ „ , , high, others (.2-1.5) or NPM Interwell ( some low to zero wells) Al, Mn, Fe Low to Moderate J » J Log or NPM Intrawell/ Moderate to high Interwell (.3-> 2.0 ) Sb, Be, Cd, Cr, Zero to low Moderate Log or NPM Interwell J� J »> > J� Cu, Hg, Pb, Ni, to high or NDC Ag, TI, V, Zn (.5->2.0) \P_lI- non-pammetric methods: XDC- nc-cr-detected coustitucuts Checks: '_None— uiikiiown_ absent or infregiienthr occu17111c" (—Occasionally: ✓ ,(— Frequently: ✓ ,(,(— N.'ery Frequently Source: USEPA 2009 — Unified Guidance © Arcadis 2018 June 7, 2019 Table 3 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Allen Steam Station Duke Energy Allen Steam Station „d 04ARCADIS built.:.,.:f Weill ID Sample �. CCR-BG-01 DA 09/13/2016 Alkalinity 183 mg-CaCO3/L Rationale for Inclusion of Sample �. Data Set Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 DA 02/28/2017 Alkalinity 178 mg-CaCO3/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 DA 04/25/2017 Alkalinity 150 mg-CaCO3/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 02/28/2018 Aluminum 2030 µg/L Present with higher concentrations of iron GWA-19S 03/29/2017 Aluminum 1870 µg/L Present with higher concentrations of iron BG-02D 12/13/2016 Aluminum 540 µg/L Present with higher concentrations of iron BG-02D 12/8/2017 Aluminum 767 µg/L Present with higher concentrations of iron BG-02D 8/28/2018 Aluminum 525 µg/L Present with higher concentrations of iron BG-04D 12/12/2017 Aluminum 670 µg/L Present with higher concentrations of iron BG-04D 03/05/2018 Aluminum 614 µg/L Present with higher concentrations of iron GWA-21 DA 08/31/2018 Aluminum 980 µg/L Present with higher concentrations of iron BG-01 BR 09/06/2018 Antimony 0.67 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02BRA-2 12/07/2018 Antimony 0.61 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-21 BR 06/04/2018 Antimony 3.9 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-21 BR 09/04/2018 Antimony 2.4 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-21 BR 12/12/2018 Antimony 2.6 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 06/21/2017 Arsenic 2.3 µg/L Present with higher iron and manganese concentrations BG-04D 06/23/2017 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 134 mg-CaCO3/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02D 11/08/2017 Boron 50.3 µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-21S 06/20/2017 Cadmium 0 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04D 06/23/2017 Calcium 35.8 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04D 09/07/2017 Calcium 31.6 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04D 11/08/2017 Calcium 30.9 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 DA 02/28/2017 Calcium 36.3 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 12/10/2015 Chloride 9.2 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 03/14/2016 Chloride 10.5 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 05/04/2016 Chloride 10.7 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 09/14/2016 Chloride 11.2 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 12113/2016 Chloride 10.9 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 03129/2017 Chloride 11.2 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 06/2112017 Chloride 9.8 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01S 05/3112018 Chromium 37.6 µg/L Present with higher nickel concentration BG-04S 03/0512018 Chromium 13.4 µg/L Present with higher nickel concentration GWA-23S 03/0512018 Chromium 14.4 µg/L Present with higher nickel concentration BG-01DA 06/2112017 Chromium 93.2 µg/L Present with higher nickel concentration BG-01DA 12/1112017 Chromium 97.6 µg/L Present with higher nickel concentration GWA-21DA 12/1312017 Chromium 18.4 µg/L Present with higher nickel concentration BG-02BRA-2 06/27/2017 Chromium 8.9 µg/L Present with higher nickel concentration BG-04BR 08/27/2018 Chromium 8.6 µg/L Present with higher nickel concentration CCR-BG-01 S 06/22/2016 Cobalt 6.6 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 S 07/19/2016 Cobalt 23.2 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 S 09/13/2016 Cobalt 19.2 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 S 11107/2016 Cobalt 12.4 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 S 01104/2017 Cobalt 6.8 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 S 02/2812017 Cobalt 5.7 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 S 04/2512017 Cobalt 4.9 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 S 06/19/2017 Cobalt 4.6 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 S 08/1512017 Cobalt 5.7 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-21S 03/08/2016 Cobalt 5 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-21S 05/05/2016 Cobalt 5.7 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-21S 09/21/2016 Cobalt 3.6 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-21S 11/08/2016 Cobalt 3.7 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-21S 01/03/2017 Cobalt 3.8 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 DA 6/21/2017 Cobalt 1.1 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 DA 12/11/2017 Cobalt 1.4 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 1/4 Table 3 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Allen Steam Station Duke Energy Allen Steam Station 04ARCADIS built „d.:.,.:f Weill ID Sample Rationale for Inclusion of Sample �. �. Data Set GWA-23D 09/06/2018 Cobalt 1.8 µg/L Present with higher manganese concentration GWA-23D 12/12/2018 Cobalt 4.6 µg/L Present with higher manganese concentration BG-01 DA 03/01/2018 Fluoride 0.35 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 02/28/2018 Iron 2370 µg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration GWA-16S 12/13/2016 Iron 2940 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 06/21/2017 Iron 1860 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 DA 1211112017 Iron 1560 µg/L Present with higher chromium, cobalt, and nickel concentrations GWA-23S 06121/2017 Lead 1.6 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-23S 08/29/2018 Lead 1.4 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02BRA-2 06/27/2017 Lead 0.17 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 DA 0811512017 Lithium 25.3 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-19D 09/06/2018 Lithium 44.9 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-19D 12/11/2018 Lithium 34.9 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04S 02/04/2016 Manganese 470 µg/L Present with higher iron concentration BG-04S 05/04/2016 Manganese 204 µg/L Present with higher iron concentration GWA-16S 12/13/2016 Manganese 1620 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 03/29/2017 Manganese 780 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S O6/21/2017 Manganese 769 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 09/15/2017 Manganese 608 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 12/07/2017 Manganese 318 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 02/28/2018 Manganese 352 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 06/01/2018 Manganese 213 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-21S 03/08/2016 Manganese 286 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-21S 09/21/2016 Manganese 366 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-21S 12/14/2016 Manganese 373 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-21S 03128/2017 Manganese 264 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04D 06123/2017 Manganese 233 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04D 09/07/2017 Manganese 154 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04D 12/12/2017 Manganese 186 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04D 03/05/2018 Manganese 175 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04D O6/04/2018 Manganese 106 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04D 08/27/2018 Manganese 73.2 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04D 12/06/2018 Manganese 78.3 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-23D 09/06/2018 Manganese 659 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-23D 12/12/2018 Manganese 900 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 09123/2016 Manganese 60.4 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 06121/2017 Manganese 160 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 09107/2017 Manganese 176 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 1110812017 Manganese 102 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 12/11/2017 Manganese µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 03/01/2018 Manganese 172 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 05/31/2018 Manganese 230 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 08/28/2018 Manganese 230 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 12/07/2018 Manganese 256 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 12/13/2016 Methane 178 µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-21S 09/21/2016 Methane µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-21S 12/14/2016 Methane µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-26D 09/23/2016 Methane 125 µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-26D 03/27/2017 Methane 38.9 µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-26D O6/21/2017 Methane 451 µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-21 BR O6/20/2017 Methane 89.6 µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01S 05/31/2018 Molybdenum 1.2 µg/L Present with higher chromium and nickel concentrations GWA-16S 12/13/2016 Molybdenum 9 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 03/29/2017 Molybdenum 6.7 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 06/21/2017 Molybdenum 10.7 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 2/4 Table 3 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Allen Steam Station Duke Energy Allen Steam Station 04ARCADIS built „d.:.,.:f Weill ID Sample Rationale for Inclusion of Sample �. �. Data Set GWA-16S 09/15/2017 Molybdenum 8.2 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 12/07/2017 Molybdenum 6 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 02128/2018 Molybdenum 5.1 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 0610112018 Molybdenum 4.9 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 08128/2018 Molybdenum 3.1 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-16S 12107/2018 Molybdenum 2.9 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26S 03/27/2017 Molybdenum 1.3 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 DA 09/13/2016 Molybdenum 26.6 µg/L Present with higher sodium and TDS concentrations CCR-BG-01 DA 06/1912017 Molybdenum 14 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 09/2312016 Molybdenum 30.2 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D O6/21/2017 Molybdenum 23.2 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 09/07/2017 Molybdenum 16.3 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 11/08/2017 Molybdenum 26.2 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 03/01/2018 Molybdenum 13.9 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 05/31/2018 Molybdenum 16.2 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 08/28/2018 Molybdenum 14.3 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 12/07/2018 Molybdenum 16.8 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01S 05/3112018 Nickel 26.2 µg/L Present with higher chromium concentration BG-01 DA 06/21/2017 Nickel 52.6 µg/L Present with higher chromium concentration BG-01 DA 12/11/2017 Nickel 58.3 µg/L Present with higher chromium concentration BG-02S 11/13/2015 Nitrate + Nitrite 2 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 12/10/2015 Nitrate + Nitrite 1.8 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 03/14/2016 Nitrate + Nitrite 1.9 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 05/04/2016 Nitrate + Nitrite 1.8 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 09/14/2016 Nitrate + Nitrite 1.6 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 12/13/2016 Nitrate + Nitrite 1.8 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S O6/21/2017 Nitrate + Nitrite 2 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 09/15/2017 Nitrate + Nitrite 2.2 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 12108/2017 Nitrate + Nitrite 2.4 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 02/28/2018 Nitrate + Nitrite 2.7 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 05130/2018 Nitrate + Nitrite 2.9 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 0812812018 Nitrate + Nitrite 3.2 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 12/07/2018 Nitrate + Nitrite 3.3 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot AB-12D 03/02/2018 Nitrate + Nitrite 2.5 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot AB-12D 08/29/2018 Nitrate + Nitrite 2.5 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot AB-12D 12/07/2018 Nitrate + Nitrite 2.5 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-19D 09/06/2018 Potassium 19 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-19D 12/11/2018 Potassium 17.6 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot A13-12D 06/20/2017 Selenium 1.2 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 DA 09/13/2016 Sodium 78 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 DA 11/07/2016 Sodium 16.8 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 DA 0110412017 Sodium 21.8 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 DA 02/2812017 Sodium 24.7 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 DA 04/25/2017 Sodium 21.3 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCR-BG-01 DA O6/19/2017 Sodium 2 . mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 03/27/2017 Sodium 28.3 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 06/21/2017 Sodium 20.8 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 09/07/2017 Sodium 19 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 11/08/2017 Sodium 24.2 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 03/01/2018 Sodium 18.7 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 05/31/2018 Sodium 20.2 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 08/28/2018 Sodium 19.5 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-26D 12/07/2018 Sodium 22.3 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04S 05/04/2016 Sulfate 10.6 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified CCR-BG-01S 06/22/2016 Sulfate 10.6 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 3/4 Table 3 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Allen Steam Station Duke Energy Allen Steam Station 04ARCADIS built „d.:.,.:f Rationale for Inclusion of Sample �. Weill ID Sample �. Data Set CCR-BG-01 S 04/25/2017 Sulfate 2.7 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-16S 02/09/2016 Sulfate 5.1 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-21S 08/12/2016 Sulfate 2.8 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-23S 02/03/2016 Sulfate 10.7 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-23S 05/05/2016 Sulfate 5.4 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01DA 03/01/2018 Sulfate 22 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01BR 12/07/2018 Sulfate mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02BRA-2 06/27/2017 Sulfate 7.3 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02BRA-2 12/07/2018 Sulfate 33.3 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-26D 3/27/2017 Sulfide 0.12 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-26D 11/8/2017 Sulfide 0.12 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-26D 3/1/2018 Sulfide 0.14 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified CCR-BG-01 DA 09/13/2016 Total Dissolved Solids 280 mg/L Present with higher sodium concentration BG-01 S 06/29/2015 Total Organic Carbon 5.2 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 S 09/23/2015 Total Organic Carbon 4.3 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02S 11 /13/2015 Total Organic Carbon 20.8 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02S 03/29/2017 Total Organic Carbon 4 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-03S 03/31 /2017 Total Organic Carbon 9.1 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-04S 02/04/2016 Total Organic Carbon 1.6 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-04S 03/30/2017 Total Organic Carbon 16.7 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-04S 09/15/2017 Total Organic Carbon 1.1 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-16S 03/29/2017 Total Organic Carbon 3.5 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-19S 03/29/2017 Total Organic Carbon 4 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-21 S 03/08/2016 Total Organic Carbon 12.3 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-23S 03/30/2017 Total Organic Carbon 4.1 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02D 03/14/2016 Total Organic Carbon 11 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02D 03/29/2017 Total Organic Carbon 4.9 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-03D 11/11/2015 Total Organic Carbon 17.3 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-03D 03/31/2017 Total Organic Carbon 6.9 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-16D 02/05/2016 Total Organic Carbon 6.5 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-16D 03/29/2017 Total Organic Carbon 2.3 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-26D 09/23/2016 Total Organic Carbon 2 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-26D 03/27/2017 Total Organic Carbon 2.9 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-04BR 3/30/2017 Total Organic Carbon 5.6 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-21 BR 06/20/2017 Total Organic Carbon 1.1 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-21 BR 09/07/2017 Total Organic Carbon 1.1 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-21 BR 02/28/2018 Total Organic Carbon 1.5 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-21 BR 09/07/2017 Vanadium 15.9 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04S 05/04/2016 Zinc 45.3 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04S 09/14/2016 Zinc 59.8 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-04S 12/13/2016 Zinc 65 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-23S 09/21/2016 Zinc 47.2 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot Notes: j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit. pg/L - micrograms per liter mg/L - milligrams per liter mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter 0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTVs) because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error. 0 - Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BTVs. 4/4 Table 4 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Belews Creek Steam Station Duke Energy Belews Creek Steam Station Well ID BG-02S Sample Date 11/12/2015 Constituent Aluminum BG-03S 11/18/2016 Aluminum BG-03D 07/26/2018 Aluminum MW-202D 01/05/2016 Aluminum MW-202D 09/13/2016 Aluminum MW-202D 09/21/2016 Aluminum MW-202D 01/05/2017 Aluminum MW-202D 05/02/2017 Aluminum MW-202BR 11/12/2015 Aluminum MW-202BR 01/25/2017 Aluminum BG-01D 07/14/2015 Antimony MW-202D 05/05/2015 Antimony MW-202D 07/16/2015 Antimony MW-202D 01/05/2016 Antimony BG-03D 07/26/2018 Barium BG-01D 07/14/2015 Cadmium BG-01D 03/29/2016 Cadmium BG-01D O6/09/2016 Cadmium BG-02D 07/09/2015 Calcium BG-02D 09/29/2015 Calcium BG-02D 11/12/2015 Calcium BG-02D 12/16/2015 Calcium BG-02D 03/29/2016 Calcium BG-02D 05/11/2016 Calcium BG-02D 09/20/2016 Calcium BG-02D 11/16/2016 Calcium BG-02D 01/26/2017 Calcium BG-02D 04/03/2017 Calcium BG-02D 07/18/2017 Calcium BG-02D 10/11/2017 Calcium BG-02D 01/22/2018 Calcium BG-02D 04/18/2018 Calcium BG-02D 07/24/2018 Calcium BG-02D 10/17/2018 Calcium BG-02BRA 04/12/2017 Chromium MW-202BR 05/10/2016 Chromium BG-02S 11/12/2015 Iron BG-03S 11/18/2016 Iron MW-03 10/29/2013 Iron BG-03D 07/26/2018 Iron MW-202D 01/09/2012 Iron MW-202D 09/13/2016 Iron MW-202D 05/02/2017 Iron MW-202D 01/09/2012 Lead BG-02BRA 07/18/2017 Lead BG-02BRA 01/22/2018 Lead BG-02BRA 04/18/2018 Lead BG-02S 03/29/2016 Magnesium BG-02S 05/11/2016 Magnesium BG-02S 09/20/2016 Magnesium BG-02S 07/19/2017 Magnesium BG-02S 10/11/2017 Magnesium BG-02D 07/09/2015 Magnesium BG-02D 09/29/2015 Magnesium 1000 7950 556 204 666 217 315 484 170 144 1.5 1.16 0.94 1.15 45.5 0.2 0.096 0.081 11.4 11.7 12.4 11.7 13.2 13.6 13.7 13.6 13.7 13.2 14.1 13.6 12.6 12.4 12.1 12.9 34.7 54.7 1600 11100 1280 450 850 516 434 1.11 0.14 0.15 0.25 4.23 3.97 3.61 3.94 3.66 5.96 5.86 A A iCIN D I Oosign 8 Gansul[ancy for naturatand huil[asseLs µg/L Present with higher iron concentration µg/L Present with higher iron concentration µg/L Present with higher iron concentration µg/L Present with higher iron concentration Present with higher iron concentration Present with higher iron concentration µg/L µg/L µg/L Present with higher iron concentration µg/L Present with higher iron concentration µg/L Present with higher iron concentration µg/L Present with higher iron concentration µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Present with higher aluminum and iron concentrations µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Present with higher nickel concentrations µg/L Present with higher nickel concentrations µg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration µg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 1/3 Table 4 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Belews Creek Steam Station Duke Energy Belews Creek Steam Station Well ID Sample Constituent Date BG-02D 11/12/2015 Magnesium Con BG-02D 12/16/2015 Magnesium BG-02D 03/29/2016 Magnesium BG-02D 05/11/2016 Magnesium BG-02D 09/20/2016 Magnesium BG-02D 11/16/2016 Magnesium BG-02D 01/26/2017 Magnesium BG-02D 04/03/2017 Magnesium BG-02D 07/18/2017 Magnesium BG-02D 10/11/2017 Magnesium BG-02D 01/22/2018 Magnesium BG-02D 04/18/2018 Magnesium BG-02D 07/24/2018 Magnesium BG-02D 10/17/2018 Magnesium BG-03S 11/18/2016 Manganese BG-01D 07/14/2015 Manganese BG-01D 09/29/2015 Manganese BG-01D 11/12/2015 Manganese BG-01 D 12/16/2015 Manganese BG-01D 03/29/2016 Manganese BG-01D 05/11/2016 Manganese BG-01D 11/16/2016 Manganese BG-01D 07/19/2017 Manganese BG-01D 10/10/2017 Manganese BG-01D 07/23/2018 Manganese BG-01D 10/16/2018 Manganese BG-02BRA 04/12/2017 Manganese BG-02BRA 07/18/2017 Manganese BG-02S 07/24/2018 Molybdenum BG-02S 10/17/2018 Molybdenum MW-202BR 05/10/2016 Nickel BG-01D 05/11/2016 Potassium BG-01D 06/09/2016 Potassium BG-01D 07/27/2016 Potassium BG-01D 09/20/2016 Potassium BG-01D 11/16/2016 Potassium BG-01D 11/16/2016 Potassium BG-01D 01/11/2017 Potassium BG-01D 01/25/2017 Potassium BG-01D 03/07/2017 Potassium BG-01D 04/03/2017 Potassium BG-01 D 06/28/2017 Potassium BG-01 D 07/19/2017 Potassium BG-01 D 10/10/2017 Potassium BG-01D 01/25/2018 Potassium BG-01 D 07/23/2018 Potassium BG-01 D 10/16/2018 Potassium BG-02BRA 04/18/2018 Potassium MW-202D 07/18/2017 Selenium BG-01 D 07/19/2017 Sodium BG-02BRA 07/18/2017 Sodium BG-01 D 10/10/2017 Strontium BG-02S 05/11/2016 Sulfate BG-01 D 07/14/2015 Sulfate .entra 6.22 6.06 7.03 6.92 7.04 7.1 6.9 6.8 7.01 6.98 6.6 6.57 6.21 6.76 189 93 73 57 55 45.7 47.6 22.9 19.3 19.7 98 104 87.1 64.3 1.3 0.64 31 5.72 7.44 5.46 7.18 13.3 9.38 13 7.9 M1 9.1 24.3 14.8 28.6 23.8 11.5 18.8 19.1 7.77 3.7 13.4 18.2 87.8 3.3 10.5 A A iCIN D I Oosign 8 Gansul[ancy for naturaland huil[asseLs Jon Reporting Unit mg/L Data in Background Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Groundwater Data Set Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Present with higher aluminum and iron concentrations µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Present with lower ORP, metal reducing condition µg/L Present with lower ORP, metal reducing condition µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L Present with higher chromium concentration mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Present with higher chromium concentration mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 2/3 Table 4 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Belews Creek Steam Station Duke Energy Belews Creek Steam Station P A iCIN D I Oosign 8 Gansul[ancy for naturaland huil[assets BG-01 D 04/03/2017 Sulfate 11 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified No laboratory or field errors identified No laboratory or field errors identified No laboratory or field errors identified No laboratory or field errors identified BG-03S 03/30/2016 Total Organic Carbon 8.2 3 1.4 mg/L BG-03S 04/05/2017 Total Organic Carbon mg/L BG-03S 10/11/2017 Total Organic Carbon mg/L MW-03 04/06/2017 Total Organic Carbon 2.7 mg/L MW-202S 04/03/2017 Total Organic Carbon 4.1 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified No laboratory or field errors identified 13G-1 D 4/3/2017 Total Organic Carbon 4.9 mg/L 7.8 mg/L 4.7 mg/L 2.8 mg/L 10.9 mg/L 5.8 mg/L 10.2 mg/L 4.1 mg/L 5.74 pCi/L 6.56 pCi/L 4.63 pCi/L 6.4 µg/L 2.01 µg/L 2.3 µg/L 1.8 µg/L 23 µg/L 38.7 µg/L 114 µg/L 107 µg/L 62 µg/L 48.8 i µg/L 30.1 µg/L 31.9 µg/L BG-2D 12/16/2015 Total Organic Carbon No laboratory or field errors identified 13G-213 4/3/2017 Total Organic Carbon No laboratory or field errors identified BG-3D 4/5/2017 Total Organic Carbon No laboratory or field errors identified MW-202D 7/16/2015 Total Organic Carbon No laboratory or field errors identified MW-202D 4/3/2017 Total Organic Carbon No laboratory or field errors identified MW-202BR 3/29/2016 Total Organic Carbon No laboratory or field errors identified MW-202BR 4/4/2017 Total Organic Carbon No laboratory or field errors identified MW-202S 07/16/2015 Total Radium No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 D 07/14/2015 Total Radium No laboratory or field errors identified MW-202D 07/16/2015 Total Radium No laboratory or field errors identified BG-03S 11/18/2016 Vanadium No laboratory or field errors identified MW-03 10/29/2013 Vanadium No laboratory or field errors identified MW-202BR 07/16/2015 Vanadium No laboratory or field errors identified MW-202BR 05/10/2016 Vanadium No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02S 12/16/2015 Zinc No laboratory or field errors identified BG-03S 11/18/2016 Zinc No laboratory or field errors identified MW-03 07/26/2018 Zinc No laboratory or field errors identified MW-03 10/15/2018 Zinc No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 D 12/16/2015 Zinc No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 D 03/29/2016 Zinc No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 D 05/11/2016 Zinc No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 D 11/16/2016 Zinc No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 D 01/25/2017 Zinc 46.2 µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02D 03/29/2016 Zinc 28.5 µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-202BR 10/02/2015 Zinc 41 µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-202BR 03/29/2016 Zinc 52.1 µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified Notes: M1 - Matrix spike recovery was high: the associated Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable. µg/L - micrograms per liter mg/L - milligrams per liter ORP - oxidation-reduction potential pCi/L - picoCuries per liter 0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTVs) because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error. 0 - Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BTVs. 3/3 Table 5 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Cliffside Steam Station Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station � „d 04ARCADIS bu;lt.:.,.:f Well ID GWA-24S Sample .. 09/14/2015 Alkalinity 16.4 mg-CaCO�L Rationale for Inclusion of Sample .. Data Set No laboratory or field errors identified, higher pH GWA-30S 06/22/2015 Alkalinity 12.2 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30S 04/14/2016 Alkalinity 10.9 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30S 06/20/2016 Alkalinity 10.2 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30S 12/21/2016 Alkalinity 13.9 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30S 02/13/2017 Alkalinity GM mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30S 05/16/2017 Alkalinity 19.1 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30S 08/10/2017 Alkalinity 16.2 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30S 11/14/2017 Alkalinity 21.1 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30S 01/31/2018 Alkalinity 17.1 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30S 07/31/2018 Alkalinity 14.7 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30S 10/22/2018 Alkalinity 15 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24D 09/14/2015 Alkalinity 32.9 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified, higher pH MW-30D 05/16/2017 Alkalinity 38.5 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 08/09/2017 Alkalinity 39.1 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 04/30/2018 Alkalinity 42.5 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 07/31/2018 Alkalinity 39.7 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 10/25/2018 Alkalinity 40.7 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 11/20/2017 Alkalinity 53.5 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 01/26/2018 Alkalinity 57.9 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 04/27/2018 Alkalinity 49.3 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 05/07/2018 Alkalinity mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 07/31/2018 Alkalinity 36.2 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 10/25/2018 Alkalinity 37.2 mg-CaCO�L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 10/25/2018 Alkalinity 40 mg-CaCO� L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-32D 09/16/2015 Alkalinity 60.1 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified, higher pH BG-01S 11/12/2015 Aluminum 175 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01S 02/10/2016 Aluminum 253 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01S 03/28/2016 Aluminum 196 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 13G-01S 04/15/2016 Aluminum 163 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 13G-01S 06/21/2016 Aluminum 411 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration 13G-01S 10/17/2016 Aluminum 147 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 13G-01S 12/19/2016 Aluminum 494 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration BG-01S 05/16/2017 Aluminum 134 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01S 01/29/2018 Aluminum 154 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 13G-01S 07/31/2018 Aluminum 288 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration GWA-24S 09/14/2015 Aluminum 240 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration GWA-24S 01/31/2018 Aluminum 3660 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration GWA-25S 09/08/2015 Aluminum 130 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-25S 02/01/2018 Aluminum 171 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration GWA-30S 06/22/2015 Aluminum 680 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration GWA-30S 04/14/2016 Aluminum 106 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 11/11/2015 Aluminum 820 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration MW-30S 09/02/2016 Aluminum 158 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 12/19/2016 Aluminum 638 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 11/20/2017 Aluminum 107 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 01/31/2018 Aluminum 364 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 04/27/2018 Aluminum 124 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 07/31/2018 Aluminum 158 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-32S 06/22/2016 Aluminum 268 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-32S 10/25/2018 Aluminum 199 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24D 06/24/2016 Aluminum 231 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration MW-24D 04/08/2015 Aluminum 153 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-24D 06/30/2015 Aluminum 1800 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration MW-24D 12/03/2015 Aluminum 281 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot Him Table 5 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Cliffside Steam Station Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station � „d 04ARCADIS bu;lt.:.,.:f Well ID MW-24D [ Sample .. 12/07/2015 Aluminum 230 pg/L Rationale for Inclusion of Sample .. Data Set Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-24D 06/27/2016 Aluminum 295 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-24D 08/01/2016 Aluminum 215 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-24D 09/01/2016 Aluminum 98 j pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-24D 12/07/2016 Aluminum 483 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration MW-24D 02/13/2017 Aluminum 290 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-24D 04/04/2017 Aluminum 157 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 11/20/2017 Aluminum 125 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-32D 12/07/2015 Aluminum 110 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-32D 01/26/2018 Aluminum 106 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30BR 06/20/2016 Aluminum 254 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration GWA-30BR 01/31/2018 Aluminum 256 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration MW-22BR 12/22/2016 Aluminum 194 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-22BR 02/15/2017 Aluminum 574 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-22DR 08/03/2015 Aluminum 455 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-22DR 04/04/2016 Aluminum 284 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-24DR 12/08/2015 Aluminum 540 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-32BR 07/31/2018 Aluminum 309 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration BG-01S 06/29/2015 Antimony 0.73 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-32D 09/16/2015 Antimony 0.94 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01S 10/04/2016 Arsenic FMWO.15 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 01/20/2017 Arsenic 0.31 di Arsenic 0.46 Arsenic 0.17 Arsenic 0.13 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24S 02/14/2017 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24S 09/05/2017 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24S 01/31/2018 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-25S 08/16/2017 Arsenic 0.73 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30S 05/16/2017 Arsenic 0.22 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-30S 11/14/2017 Arsenic 0.11 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-30S 10/22/2018 Arsenic 0.11 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 10/03/2016 Arsenic pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 05/07/2018 Arsenic 0.11 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 07/31/2018 Arsenic 0.24 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-32S 06/22/2016 Arsenic 0.22 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-32S 08/03/2017 Arsenic 0.18 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-32S 10/25/2018 Arsenic 0.11 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-24D 06/30/2015 Arsenic 1.8 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-24D 12/07/2016 Arsenic 1.01 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 04/30/2018 Arsenic 1.1 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 07/31/2018 Arsenic 1.6 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 10/25/2018 Arsenic 2 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01S 04/15/2016 Barium 139 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01S 03/28/2016 Beryllium 0.22 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24S 02/14/2017 Beryllium PF 0.29 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24S 09/14/2015 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 16.4 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-30S 12/21/2016 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 13.9 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-30S 02/13/2017 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 14.1 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-30S 05/16/2017 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 19.1 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-30S 08/10/2017 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 16.2 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-30S 11/14/2017 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 21.1 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-30S 01/31/2018 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 17.1 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-30S 07/31/2018 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 14.7 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-30S 10/22/2018 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 15 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24D 09/14/2015 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 32.9 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30D 05/16/2017 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 38.5 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30D 08/09/2017 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 39.1 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified aim Table 5 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Cliffside Steam Station Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station � „d 04ARCADIS bu;lt.:.,.:f Well ID MW-30D [ Sample .. 04/30/2018 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 42.5 mg-CaCO�L Rationale for Inclusion of Sample .. Data Set No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30D 07/31/2018 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 39.7 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30D 10/25/2018 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 40.7 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30DA 11/20/2017 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 53.5 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30DA 01/26/2018 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 57.9 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30DA 04/27/2018 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 49.3 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30DA 07/31/2018 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 36.2 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30DA 10/25/2018 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 37.2 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-32D 09/16/2015 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 60.1 mg-CaCO�L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 D 06/25/2015 Boron 150 77 81 0.087 25.6 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-24D 08/01/2016 Boron pg/L No laboratory or Feld errors identified MW-24DR 08/01/2016 Boron pg/L No laboratory or Feld errors identified BG-01S 03/28/2016 Cadmium pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 06/16/2015 Chromium pg/L Present with higher nickel concentration MW-32S 09/16/2015 Chromium 26.2 pg/L Present with higher nickel concentration MW-30DA 11/20/2017 Chromium 5.6 pg/L Present with higher nickel concentration GWA-24S 05/03/2018 Chromium (VI) 1.2 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 07/01/2015 Chromium (VI) 1.45 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 11/11/2015 Chromium (VI) 2.1 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 09/02/2016 Chromium (VI) 2 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 12/19/2016 Chromium (VI) 4JI pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 02/13/2017 Chromium (VI) 2.2 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 05/16/2017 Chromium (VI) 2.1 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 11/20/2017 Chromium (VI) 4.8 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 01/31/2018 Chromium (VI) 3.7 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 04/27/2018 Chromium (VI) 4.1 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 07/31/2018 Chromium (VI) 2.7 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 10/25/2018 Chromium (VI) 3 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01D 11/09/2015 Chromium (VI) pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified CCPMW-01S 02/01/2018 Chromium (VI) 0.45 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified CCPMW-01S 07/31/2018 Chromium (VI) 0.61 M1 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-32D 03/29/2016 Chromium (VI) 1.2 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-22BR 12/22/2016 Chromium (VI) 0.8 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-32BR 12/19/2016 Chromium (VI) 0.66 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-32BR 08/09/2017 Chromium (VI) 0.45 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01S 02/10/2016 Cobalt 20.4 pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration GWA-24S 09/14/2015 Cobalt 21.1 pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration GWA-25S 09/08/2015 Cobalt 19.3 pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration GWA-30S 05/16/2017 Cobalt 22.9 pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration MW-32S 06/16/2015 Copper 5.9 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-32S 09/16/2015 Copper 3.8 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-32S 11/11/2015 Copper 5.2 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-32S 06/22/2016 Copper 3.6 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-32S 1212112016 Copper 8.6 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-32S 05/16/2017 Copper 3.2 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-32S 11/13/2017 Copper 6.2 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-32S 10/25/2018 Copper 7.3 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 01/26/2018 Fluoride 0.12 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30DA 02/05/2018 Fluoride 0.11 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24S 01/31/2018 Iron 5750 pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration GWA-30S 06/22/2015 Iron 1000 pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration GWA-30S 05/16/2017 Iron 1170 pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration MW-30S 11/11/2015 Iron 1700 pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration MW-30S 12/19/2016 Iron 1320 pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration CCPMW-01 S 10/23/2013 Iron 404 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 4MM Table 5 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Cliffside Steam Station Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station � „d 04ARCADIS bu;lt.:.,.:f Well ID CCPMW-01S [ Sample .. 12/07/2015 Iron 670 pg/L Rationale for Inclusion of Sample .. Data Set Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCPMW-01S 10/12/2016 Iron 532 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot CCPMW-01S 04/27/2017 Iron 411 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-24D 08/01/2011 Iron 383 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-24D 12/05/2011 Iron 382 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-24D 04/02/2012 Iron 515 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-24D 06/30/2015 Iron 3200 pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration MW-24D 06/27/2016 Iron 378 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-24D 12/07/2016 Iron 545 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 11/20/2017 Iron 1830 pg/L Present with lower ORP MW-30DA 1/26/2018 Iron 2320 µg/L Present with lower ORP MW-30DA 04/27/2018 Iron 1840 pg/L Present with lower ORP MW-30DA 07/31/2018 Iron 398 pg/L Present with lower ORP BG-01 S 03/28/2016 Lead .13 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01S 06/21/2016 Lead 0.19 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01S 09/01/2016 Lead 0.11 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 S 12/19/2016 Lead 0. pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24S 01/20/2017 Lead is pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24S 02/14/2017 Lead 0.22 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24S 09/05/2017 Lead 0.39 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24S 01/31/2018 Lead 0.36 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-25S 08/16/2017 Lead 0.11 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 06/13/2016 Lead 0.14 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 08/08/2016 Lead 0.23 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 09/02/2016 Lead 0.15 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 10/03/2016 Lead 0.19 Lead 0.36 Lead 0.11 Lead 0.15 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 12/19/2016 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 01/19/2017 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 05/11/2017 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 07/07/2017 Lead 0.12 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 11/20/2017 Lead 0.17 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 05/07/2018 Lead 0.2 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-32S 06/22/2016 Lead 0.14 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-32S 08/03/2017 Lead 0.16 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-32S 10/25/2018 Lead 0.12 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30D 04/30/2018 Lithium 11.6 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 07/31/2018 Lithium 10.1 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 10/25/2018 Lithium 10.4 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 01/26/2018 Lithium 13.4 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 02/05/2018 Lithium 11 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 04/27/2018 Lithium 9.4 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 05/07/2018 Lithium 8.9 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 07/31/2018 Lithium 10 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 10/25/2018 Lithium 10.6 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 10/25/2018 Lithium 9.1 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 11/20/2017 Magnesium 2.96 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 01/26/2018 Magnesium 2.86 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 02/05/2018 Magnesium 2.87 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 04/27/2018 Magnesium 3.04 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 05/07/2018 Magnesium 3.14 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 07/31/2018 Magnesium 2.95 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 10/25/2018 Magnesium 2.9 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 10/25/2018 Magnesium 3.11 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01S 02/10/2016 Manganese 327 pg/L Present with higher cobalt concentration GWA-24S 09/14/2015 Manganese 1000 pg/L Present with higher cobalt concentration 4/7 Table 5 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Cliffside Steam Station Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station � „d 04ARCADIS bu;lt.:.,.:f Well ID GWA-25S [ Sample .. 06/25/2015 Manganese 620 pg/L Rationale for Inclusion of Sample .. Data Set Present with higher cobalt concentration GWA-25S 09/08/2015 Manganese 630 pg/L Present with higher cobalt concentration GWA-25S 04/13/2016 Manganese 312 pg/L Present with higher cobalt concentration GWA-30S 05/16/2017 Manganese 969 pg/L Present with higher cobalt concentration BG-01 D 06/25/2015 Manganese 260 pg/L Present with higher molybdenum concentration MW-30DA 11/20/2017 Manganese 226 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 01/26/2018 Manganese 408 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 04/27/2018 Manganese 326 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 07/31/2018 Manganese 195 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 10/25/2018 Manganese 147 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 01/20/2017 Molybdenum 0.6 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 06/16/2015 Molybdenum 0.59 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-32S 09/16/2015 Molybdenum 0.85 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 D 06/25/2015 Molybdenum 2.8 pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration MW-30D 05/16/2017 Molybdenum 3.1 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 08/09/2017 Molybdenum 2.9 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 04/30/2018 Molybdenum 2.9 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 07/31/2018 Molybdenum 2.5 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 10/25/2018 Molybdenum 2.7 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 11/20/2017 Molybdenum 5.6 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 01/26/2018 Molybdenum 3.6 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 02/05/2018 Molybdenum 2.7 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 04/27/2018 Molybdenum 1.4 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 07/31/2018 Molybdenum 3.8 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 10/25/2018 Molybdenum 2.6 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 10/25/2018 Molybdenum 1. pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-32D 12/07/2015 Molybdenum 1.9 pg/L No laboratory or Feld errors identified MW-32BR 06/16/2015 Molybdenum 5.1 pg/L No laboratory or Feld errors identified MW-32BR 07/31/2018 Molybdenum 2.8 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24S 09/14/2015 Nickel 12.5 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30S 05/16/2017 Nickel 10.2 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30S 11/14/2017 Nickel 11.3 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 06/16/2015 Nickel 16.7 pg/L Present with higher chromium concentration MW-32S 09/16/2015 Nickel 19.4 pg/L Present with higher chromium concentration CCPMW-01 D 12/07/2015 Nitrate + Nitrite 1.8 mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 05/16/2017 Sodium 8.15 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 08/09/2017 Sodium 8.79 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 04/30/2018 Sodium 9.52 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 07/31/2018 Sodium 8.36 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 10/25/2018 Sodium 8.1 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 11/20/2017 Sodium 10.3 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 01/26/2018 Sodium 8.76 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 02/05/2018 Sodium mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 04/27/2018 Sodium 8.89 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 05/07/2018 Sodium 8. mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 07/31/2018 Sodium 8.17 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 10/25/2018 Sodium 8.1 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30DA 10/25/2018 Sodium 8.34 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 09/14/2015 Sulfate 5.5 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 06/13/2016 Sulfate 2.2 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 06/24/2016 Sulfate 4 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 08/10/2016 Sulfate 4.5 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 10/05/2016 Sulfate 3.7 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 11/29/2016 Sulfate 3.9 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 12/19/2016 Sulfate 3.9 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot Aim Table 5 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Cliffside Steam Station Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station � „d 04ARCADIS bu;lt.:.,.:f Well ID GWA-24S Sample .. 01/20/2017 Sulfate 5.1 mg/L Rationale for Inclusion of Sample .. Data Set Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 02/14/2017 Sulfate 3.8 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 03/17/2017 Sulfate 3.8 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 05/15/2017 Sulfate 2.4 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 05/17/2017 Sulfate 2.5 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 07/07/2017 Sulfate 3.4 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 08/10/2017 Sulfate 3 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 09/05/2017 Sulfate 2.9 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 11/20/2017 Sulfate 3.7 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 01/31/2018 Sulfate 3.1 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 01/31/2018 Sulfate 3.4 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 10/30/2018 Sulfate 2.5 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-24S 10/30/2018 Sulfate 2.6 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-22BR 12/22/2016 Sulfide 0.16 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-22BR 02/15/2017 Sulfide 0.17 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24S 02/14/2017 Thallium 0.31 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-30S 05/03/2018 Thallium 0.28 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-22BR 06/23/2016 Thallium 0.48 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01S 06/29/2015 Total Organic Carbon 8.4 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-32S 09/16/2015 Total Organic Carbon 7.4 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30DA 11/20/2017 Total Organic Carbon 1.5 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30DA 01/26/2018 Total Organic Carbon 1.7 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified CCPMW-01 D 12/07/2015 Total Organic Carbon 7.2 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-22BR 08/17/2017 Total Organic Carbon 1.5 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-24DR 03/30/2016 Total Organic Carbon 9.4 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24S 06/24/2016 Vanadium 1.9 j pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-24S 01/31/2018 Vanadium 1.2 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30S 11/11/2015 Vanadium 1.1 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 09/02/2016 Vanadium 0.72 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30S 01/31/2018 Vanadium 1.1 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-24D 06/27/2016 Vanadium 0.86 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-24D 12/07/2016 Vanadium 0.902 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-30D 05/16/2017 Vanadium 11.4 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 08/09/2017 Vanadium 12.2 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 04/30/2018 Vanadium 11 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 07/31/2018 Vanadium 9.8 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30D 10/25/2018 Vanadium 9.3 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-30BR 09/14/2015 Vanadium 0.67 j pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-22BR 11/17/2017 Vanadium 1.3 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-22BR 01/31/2018 Vanadium 1.5 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-22DR 08/03/2015 Vanadium 1.01 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-24DR 12/08/2015 Vanadium 1.2 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01S 11/12/2015 Zinc 38 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01S 12/08/2015 Zinc 50 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 D 11/09/2015 Zinc 38 36 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 D 11/12/2015 Zinc pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified CCPMW-01S 1 10/12/2016 Zinc 44.3 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified Notes: 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. pg/L - micrograms per liter mg/L - milligrams per liter mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter 6/7 Table 5 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Cliffside Steam Station Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter 04ARCADIS built „d.:.,.:f ORP - oxidation-reduction potential 0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTVs) because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error. 0 - Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BTVs. 7/7 Table 6 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Marshall Steam Station Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station A RCA D I ©esi9n 6 ConstFlrancy 04 Sor rreturat end huitr assMs Well ID Sample Date Constituent BG-02S 11113/2015 Alkalinity Concentration 8.3 rReporting Unit mg-CaCO3/L Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background Groundwater Data Set Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 12/11/2015 Alkalinity 77.9 71.4 67.2 63.4 69.4 63.1 73.6 65.7 1870 2620 2020 180 250 213 mg-CaCO3/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 03/28/2016 Alkalinity mg-CaCO3/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 06/23/2016 Alkalinity mg-CaCO3/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 09/27/2017 Alkalinity mg-CaCO3/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 12/05/2017 Alkalinity mg-CaCO3/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 09/27/2017 Alkalinity mg-CaCO3/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 12/05/2017 Alkalinity mg-CaCO3/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 02/09/2018 Alkalinity mg-CaCO3/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 02/09/2018 Aluminum pg/L Present with higher iron concentration BG-03S 12/05/2017 Aluminum pg/L Present with higher iron concentration MW-04 06/22/2016 Aluminum pg/L Present with higher iron concentration BG-01D 07/17/2015 Aluminum pg/L Present with higher iron concentration BG-01D 11/11/2015 Aluminum pg/L Present with higher iron concentration BG-01D 02/09/2018 Aluminum pg/L Present with higher iron concentration GWA-04D 06/23/2016 Aluminum pg/L Present with higher iron concentration BG-01 BRA 06/15/2017 Aluminum 601 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration BG-01 BRA 12/05/2017 Aluminum 348 1090 346 601 992 422 322 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration BG-01 BRA 02/09/2018 Aluminum pg/L Present with higher iron concentration BG-01BRA 05/11/2018 Aluminum pg/L Present with higher iron concentration BG-03BR 08/10/2018 Aluminum pg/L pg/L Present with higher iron concentration BG-03BR 11/08/2018 Aluminum Present with higher iron concentration GWA-12BR 06/02/2016 Aluminum pg/L Present with higher iron concentration GWA-12BR 05/10/2018 Aluminum pg/L Present with higher iron concentration MW-04D 10/06/2015 Aluminum 329 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration MW-04D 06/22/2016 Aluminum 871 pg/L 0.79 pg/L 0.87 pg/L 1.12 pg/L 1.3 pg/L 0.62 pg/L 0.91 pg/L 1.2 pg/L 1.25 pg/L 1.7 pg/L 2.3 pg/L 336 pg/L Present with higher iron concentration GWA-06S 07/17/2015 Antimony No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-06S 04/12/2016 Antimony No laboratory or field errors identified MW-04 10/06/2015 Antimony No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-04D 10/01/2015 Antimony No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-04D 04/12/2016 Antimony No laboratory or Feld errors identified GWA-04D 07/11/2016 Antimony No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 BRA 06/15/2017 Antimony No laboratory or Feld errors identified MW-04D 10/06/2015 Antimony No laboratory or Feld errors identified GWA-04S 11/07/2018 Arsenic No laboratory or field errors identified BG-03D 12/05/2017 Arsenic No laboratory or Feld errors identified BG-02S 09/27/2017 Barium Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 12/05/2017 Barium 332 392 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 06/23/2016 Barium pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 06/15/2017 Barium 592 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 09/27/2017 Barium 580 730 605 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 12/05/2017 Barium pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 02/09/2018 Barium pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 11/08/2018 Barium 462 0.61 0.655 j 56.7 53.9 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-06S 04/12/2016 Beryllium pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MS-10 09/10/2018 Beryllium pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-04S 05/10/2018 Boron pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified MW-04 02/08/2011 Boron pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 BRA 06/15/2017 Cadmium 1.9 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02S 11/13/2015 Calcium 22.8 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 12/11/2015 Calcium 17.3 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 03/28/2016 Calcium 15.3 10.8 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 06/23/2016 Calcium mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 1/5 Table 6 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Marshall Steam Station Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station A RCA D I Oesi9n 6 ConstFlfancy 04 Sor rreturat end huitt assMs Well ID Sample Date Constituent BG-02S 03/14/2017 Calcium Concentration Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background Data Set 10.7 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 12/05/2017 Calcium 10.6 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 06/15/2017 Chromium 23.3 pg/L Present with higher nickel concentration BG-03S 09/27/2017 Chromium 18.6 pg/L 16.8 pg/L 16.5 pg/L 39.2 pg/L 10.6 pg/L 24.2 pg/L 31 pg/L Present with higher nickel concentration GWA-04S 09/30/2015 Chromium Present with higher nickel concentration GWA-06S 06/23/2016 Chromium Present with higher nickel concentration GWA-08S 06/16/2017 Chromium Present with higher nickel concentration GWA-04D 06/23/2016 Chromium Present with higher nickel concentration BG-03BR 09/27/2017 Chromium Present with higher nickel concentration GWA-06D 12/06/2016 Chromium Present with higher nickel concentration GWA-12S 06/01/2016 Cobalt 4.8 5.2 5.2 3.7 3.3 1.2 3.2 pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration GWA-12S 09/16/2016 Cobalt pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration GWA-12S 12/06/2016 Cobalt pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration GWA-12S 03/14/2017 Cobalt pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration BG-01 D 07/17/2015 Cobalt pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration BG-01D 11/11/2015 Cobalt pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration BG-01 D 12/11/2015 Cobalt pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration BG-01 D 03/15/2016 Cobalt 1.8 Cobalt 1.1 Cobalt 3.9 Fluoride 0.32 Fluoride 0.46 Fluoride 0.45 Fluoride 0.41 Fluoride 0.65 Fluoride 0.48 Fluoride 0.44 Fluoride 0.51 pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration BG-01 D 02/09/2018 pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration GWA-06D 05/14/2018 pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration BG-02S 02/09/2018 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 05/11/2018 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 08/10/2018 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 11/08/2018 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 02/09/2018 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 05/11/2018 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 08/10/2018 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 11/08/2018 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 12/05/2017 Iron 3440 pg/L Preent with higher mangaense concentration GWA-08S 07/21/2015 Iron 1500 pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration MW-04 06/22/2016 Iron 2230 pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration BG-01 D 07/17/2015 Iron 310 pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration BG-01D 11/11/2015 Iron 350 pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration GWA-04D 04/12/2016 Iron 147 pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration GWA-04D O6/23/2016 Iron 243 pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration GWA-05D 07/19/2015 Iron 190 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-05D O6/22/2016 Iron 170 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 BRA 02/09/2018 Iron 757 Iron 1530 Iron 788 Iron 578 Iron 1220 Iron 593 Iron 898 Lead 0.19 Lead 0.11 Lead 0.45 pg/L Present with higher Aluminum concentration GWA-12BR 06/02/2016 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 09/16/2016 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 12/06/2016 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 03/14/2017 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 02/08/2018 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 05/10/2018 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 07/17/2015 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 D 11/11/2015 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-04D 04/12/2016 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-04D 06/23/2016 Lead 0.19 0.12 0.15 0.11 0.13 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-04D 07/11/2016 Lead pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-04D 02/21/2017 Lead pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-04D 09/10/2018 Lead pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-05D 07/19/2015 Lead pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-05D 09/08/2016 Lead 0.15 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 2/5 Table 6 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Marshall Steam Station Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station A RCA D I 0esi9n 6 ConstFlfancy 04 Sor rreturat end huitt assMs Well ID Sample Date Constituent GWAEBRA12/02/2016 Lead Concentration Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background Groundwater Data Set 2.5 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 0.28 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 0.17 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA06/12/2017 Lead GWA06/14/2017 Lead BG-0106/15/2017 Lead 2.5 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-06/02/2016 Lead 1 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 D 02/09/2018 Lithium 10.9 10 9.6 9.6 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 05/11/2018 Lithium pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 08/10/2018 Lithium pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 11/08/2018 Lithium pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 S 07/17/2015 Manganese 160 130 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 S 09/29/2015 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-04S 09/30/2015 Manganese 390 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-04S 06/23/2016 Manganese 99 82 101 130 96.9 186 155 96.7 157 110 80.1 86.8 208 136 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-06S 07/17/2015 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-06S 04/12/2016 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-08S 07/21/2015 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12S 06/01/2016 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12S 09/16/2016 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12S 12/06/2016 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12S 03/14/2017 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03BR 04/13/2016 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-06D 04/12/2016 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-06D 06/23/2016 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-06D 09/16/2016 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-06D 05/14/2018 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 06/02/2016 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 09/16/2016 Manganese 361 330 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 12/06/2016 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 03/14/2017 Manganese 310 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 06/14/2017 Manganese 266 279 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 09/26/2017 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 12/06/2017 Manganese 232 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 02/08/2018 Manganese 279 275 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 05/10/2018 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 08/09/2018 Manganese 198 385 343 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-12BR 11/08/2018 Manganese pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03BR 04/13/2016 Methane pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-06D 03/14/2017 Methane 55.6 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02S 11/13/2015 Molybdenum 1.6 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-03S 06/15/2017 Nickel 21.9 pg/L Present with higher chromium concentration BG-03S 09/27/2017 Nickel 19.7 pg/L Present with higher chromium concentration BG-03S 12/05/2017 Nickel 19.6 21.5 20.8 22.8 pg/L Present with higher chromium concentration GWA-08S 06/16/2017 Nickel pg/L Present with higher chromium concentration BG-03BR 09/27/2017 Nickel pg/L Present with higher chromium concentration GWA-06D 12/06/2016 Nickel pg/L Present with higher chromium concentration BG-01S 11/11/2015 Nitrate + Nitrite 3.9 3.9 16.7 mg-N/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 S 03/15/2016 Nitrate + Nitrite mg-N/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 S 02/09/2018 Nitrate + Nitrite mg-N/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 S 05/11/2018 Nitrate + Nitrite 9.1 6.3 0.65 0.71 0.59 mg-N/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01S 11/08/2018 Nitrate + Nitrite mg-N/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 D 07/17/2015 Selenium pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 09129/2015 Selenium pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01D 11/11/2015 Selenium pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 3/5 Table 6 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Marshall Steam Station Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station A RCA D I 0esi9n 6 ConstFlfancy 04 Sor rreturat end huitt assMs Well ID Sample Date BG-01 D 03/15/2016 Constituent Selenium Concentration Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background Data Set 0.75 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 06/23/2016 Selenium 1.4 pg/L 2.7 pg/L 2.3 pg/L 2.1 pg/L 1 pg/L 2.4 pg/L 2.3 pg/L 2.9 pg/L 2.1 pg/L 2.2 pg/L 2.3 pg/L 0.53 pg/L 2.3 pg/L 14.3 mg/L 407 pg/L 12.6 mg/L 12.4 mg/L 12.8 mg/L mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 09/15/2016 Selenium Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 12/05/2016 Selenium Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 03/15/2017 Selenium Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 06/15/2017 Selenium Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 09/27/2017 Selenium Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 12/05/2017 Selenium Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 02/09/2018 Selenium Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 05/11/2018 Selenium Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 08/10/2018 Selenium Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 11/08/2018 Selenium Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-05D 06/12/2017 Selenium No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 BRA 06/15/2017 Selenium No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-06S 09/30/2015 Sodium No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-06D 04/12/2016 Strontium Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 S 09/27/2017 Sulfate Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 06/15/2017 Sulfate Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03S 09/27/2017 Sulfate Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02S 11/13/2015 Total Dissolved Solids Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 S 07/17/2015 Total Organic Carbon 4.8 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01S 11/11/2015 Total Organic Carbon 2.3 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01S 12/11/2015 Total Organic Carbon 1.6 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 S 02/09/2018 Total Organic Carbon 2.9 1.2 1.4 1.5 9.89 1.01 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01S 05/11/2018 Total Organic Carbon mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 S 08/10/2018 Total Organic Carbon mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 S 11/08/2018 Total Organic Carbon mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-04 08/09/2010 Total Organic Carbon mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-04 02/08/2011 Total Organic Carbon mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-04 12/11/2015 Total Organic Carbon 10.6 17.3 4.8 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 D 09/29/2015 Total Organic Carbon mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-04D 09/16/2016 Total Organic Carbon mg/L mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot GWA-04D 12/02/2016 Total Organic Carbon BG-01 BRA 06/15/2017 Total Organic Carbon 1.7 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-03D 12/11/2015 Total Organic Carbon 20.7 mg/L Total Organic Carbon 13.7 mg/L Total Radium 5.333 pCi/L Total Radium 3.129 pCi/L Total Radium 6.73 pCi/L Total Radium 11.14 pCi/L Total Radium 3.917 pCi/L Total Radium 5.66 pCi/L Total Radium 4.645 pCi/L Total Radium 6.334 pCi/L Total Radium 5.413 pCi/L Total Radium 5.45 pCi/L Total Radium 7.43 pCi/L Total Radium 4.819 pCi/L Total Radium 5.13 pCi/L Total Radium 5.16 pCi/L Total Radium 6.43 pCi/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-04D 03/15/2016 Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-01 S 07/17/2015 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02S 06/23/2016 No laboratory or field errors identified MS-10 08/13/2018 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01 D 07/17/2015 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02BR 03/28/2016 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02BR 06/23/2016 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02BR 09/15/2016 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02BR 12/05/2016 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02BR 03/14/2017 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02BR 06/15/2017 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02BR 09/27/2017 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02BR 12/05/2017 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02BR 02/09/2018 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02BR 05/11/2018 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02BR 08/10/2018 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-02BR 11/08/2018 Total Radium 3.46 pCi/L No laboratory or field errors identified BG-01S 07/17/2015 Total Uranium 0.00346 pg/mL No laboratory or field errors identified 4/5 Table 6 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Marshall Steam Station Duke Energy Marshall Steam Station A RCA D I Oesi9n 6 ConstFlfancy 04 Sor rreturat end huitt assMs BG-03S Sample Date 06/15/2017 Constituent Concentration I Zinc 40.8 pg/L Zinc 74.3 pg/L Zinc 31.6 pg/L Zinc 34.6 pg/L Zinc 31 pg/L Zinc 94.5 pg/L Zinc 31.8 pg/L Zinc 44 pg/L Zinc 29.9 pg/L Zinc 31.8 j pg/L Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background Groundwater Data Set No laboratory or field errors identified No laboratory or field errors identified No laboratory or field errors identified No laboratory or Feld errors identified No laboratory or field errors identified No laboratory or Feld errors identified BG-03S 09/27/2017 BG-03S 08/10/2018 GWA-05S 06/23/2016 GWA-06S 07/17/2015 GWA-06S 04/12/2016 GWA-08S 12/06/2016 No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-04D 10/01/2015 No laboratory or field errors identified GWA-05D 12/02/2016 No laboratory or field errors identified BG-03BR 12/05/2016 No laboratory or Feld errors identified Notes: j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit. pg/L - micrograms per liter pg/mL - micrograms per milliliter mg/L - milligrams per liter mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter 0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTUs) because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -speck geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error. 0 - Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BNs. 5/5 Table 7 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Mayo Steam Electric Plant Duke Energy Mayo Steam Electric Plant MW-12D 06/24/2015 Antimony MW-12S 02/01/2017 Arsenic MW-12S 02/01/2017 Arsenic MW-12S 3/8/2017 Arsenic MW-12S 10/02/2018 Arsenic MW-14BR 09/09/2015 Arsenic MW-14BR 09/09/2015 Boron MW-13BR 06/23/2015 Chloride MW-13BR 09/08/2015 Chloride MW-13BR 12/02/2015 Chloride MW-13BR 01/07/2016 Chloride MW-13BR 04/0512016 Chloride MW-13BR 07/11/2016 Chloride MW-13BR 09/0612016 Chloride MW-13BR 11/08/2016 Chloride MW-13BR 02/02/2017 Chloride MW-13BR 04105/2017 Chloride MW-13BR 07/1112017 Chloride MW-13BR 11107/2017 Chloride MW-13BR 01/16/2018 Chloride MW-13BR 04104/2018 Chloride MW-13BR 11/08/2018 Chloride MW-12S 09/10/2015 Chromium MW-12S 12/02/2015 Chromium BG-01 07/09/2012 Chromium MW-13BR 12/02/2015 Chromium MW-12D 06/24/2015 Cobalt CCR-102BR-BG 08/16/2016 Cobalt CCR-102BR-BG 10/19/2016 Cobalt MW-13BR 06/23/2015 Cobalt MW-13BR 04/0512016 Cobalt MW-13BR 07/11/2016 Cobalt MW-13BR 09/06/2016 Cobalt MW-13BR 11/08/2016 Cobalt MW-13BR 02/02/2017 Cobalt MW-13BR 04/05/2017 Cobalt MW-13BR 07/11/2017 Cobalt MW-13BR 11107/2017 Cobalt MW-13BR 01/16/2018 Cobalt MW-13BR 04/04/2018 Cobalt MW-13BR 11/08/2018 Cobalt MW-14BR 09/09/2015 Cobalt MW-14BR 11/08/2016 Cobalt MW-14BR 11/07/2017 Cobalt BG-02 01/15/2018 Fluoride BG-02 04/03/2018 Fluoride BG-02 07/17/2018 Fluoride BG-02 11/06/2018 Fluoride MW-13BR 01/07/2016 Iron MW-13BR 09/06/2016 Iron MW-13BR 02/02/2017 Iron MW-13BR 04/05/2017 Iron MW-14BR 09/09/2015 Iron MW-12S 10/2/2018 Lead ■ BG-02 01/15/2018 Lithium MW-12D 06/24/2015 Manganese MW-12S 03/28/2017 Methane MW-13BR 07/11/2016 Methane 1.61 1.75 1Ti 1.11 11.52 1.8 65 46 43 41 45 43 40 38 37 34 33 32 28 29 30 28 3.21 7.11 20 16.: 1Z 1.3E 1.2; 1.14 1.01 1.95 1.1 i 2.0, 2.91 3.0E 3.7-i 3.3E 6.52 4.71 4.61 '1.05 1.0 1.1 0.3� 0.31 0.2E 0.2E 2551 2521 2921 3261 2731 1.9E 6 683 273 54.E CA ARCA DIS � d` Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background U=- µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified is µg/L Present with higher iron concentration and lower ORP µg/L Present with lower ORP µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L Consistent with other detected arsenic concentrations for this well µg/L Present with higher iron concentration and lower ORP µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Present with higher nickel concentration µg/L Present with higher nickel concentration µg/L Present with higher nickel concentration µg/L Present with higher nickel concentration µg/L Present with higher manganese concentration µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Present with lower ORP µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Present with lower ORP µg/L Present with lower ORP µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 112 Table 7 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Mayo Steam Electric Plant Duke Energy Mayo Steam Electric Plant MW-13BR 09/06/2016 Methane MW-12S 12/7/2016 Molybdenum MW-12S 12/7/2016 Molybdenum MW-12S 02/01/2017 Molybdenum MW-12S 02/01/2017 Molvbdenum MW-12S 03/28/2017 Molybdenum MW-12S 03/2812017 Molybdenum MW-12D 06/24/2015 Molybdenum MW-12D 1 12/06/2016 1 Molybdenum MW-14BR 09/09/2015 Molybdenum MW-12D 09/10/2015 Nitrate + Nitrite CCR-102BR-BG 06/24/2016 Selenium CCR-102BR-BG 08/16/2016 Selenium CCR-102BR-BG 10119/2016 Selenium CCR-102BR-BG 12/06/2016 Selenium CCR-102BR-BG 01131/2017 Selenium CCR-102BR-BG 03/28/2017 Selenium CCR-102BR-BG 05/23/2017 Selenium CCR-102BR-BG 07/11/2017 Selenium CCR-102BR-BG 09/05/2017 Selenium CCR-102BR-BG 01/16/2018 Selenium CCR-102BR-BG 05/07/2018 Selenium CCR-102BR-BG 06/24/2016 Sulfate CCR-102BR-BG 08/16/2016 Sulfate CCR-102BR-BG 10/19/2016 Sulfate CCR-102BR-BG 12/06/2016 Sulfate CCR-102BR-BG 01/31/2017 Sulfate CCR-102BR-BG 03/28/2017 Sulfate CCR-102BR-BG 05/23/2017 Sulfate CCR-102BR-BG 07/11/2017 Sulfate CCR-102BR-BG 09/05/2017 Sulfate CCR-102BR-BG 01/16/2018 Sulfate CCR-102BR-BG 05/07/2018 Sulfate CCR-102BR-BG 10/02/2018 Sulfate MW-13BR 06/23/2015 Sulfide MW-13BR 11/08/2018 Sulfide MW-13BR 09/08/2015 Thallium MW-12D 08/17/2016 Total Radium MW-12D 12106/2016 Total Radium MW-12D 07/18/2018 Total Radium MW-13BR 06123/2015 Zinc MW-13BR 12/02/2015 Zinc MW-13BR 01/07/2016 Zinc MW-13BR 09/06/2016 Zinc 135 10.3 L 9.55 3.15 2.99 1.97 1.94 1.75 1.42 27.3 0.664 2.04 2.8 2.82 2.15 2.28 2.31 2.01 2.15 1.75 1.61 1.48 79 100 140 - 140 130 130 130 130 130 110 100 110 0.115 0.11 0.538 W 9.97 34.883 15.945 36 54 37 38 CA ARCA DIS � d` µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L Present with higher manganese concentration and lower ORP µg/L Present with lower ORP (manganese not measured on duplicate sample) µg/L Present with higher manganese concentration and lower ORP µg/L Present with lower ORP (manganese not measured on duplicate sample) µg/L Present with higher manganese concentration and lower ORP µg/L Present with lower ORP (manganese not measured on duplicate sample) µg/L Present with higher manganese concentration and lower ORP mg-N/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pCVL No laboratory or field errors identified pCVL No laboratory or field errors identified pCVL No laboratory or field errors identified µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot Notes: pg/L - micrograms per liter mg/L - milligrams per liter mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter ORP - oxidation-reduction potential pCi/L - picoCuries per liter 0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTVs) because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error. 0 - Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BTVs. j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit. 2/2 Table 8 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identified as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Duke Energy Roxboro Steam Electric Plant P A RCAD I 'f7esl�n$Cnnwliancy tarnatvritmd hulltasseTs MW-18D 11/14/2018 Alkalinity 149 Aluminum 1550 Arsenic 2.39 Arsenic 2.7 Arsenic 2.57 Arsenic 1.96 Arsenic 2.16 Arsenic 2.03 Arsenic 1.39 Arsenic 2.6 Arsenic 2.39 Arsenic 2.57 Arsenic 2.9 Arsenic 1.81 Arsenic 1.93 Arsenic 2.84 Arsenic 2.45 Arsenic 2.28 Arsenic 2.18 Arsenic 2.12 Arsenic 1.95 Arsenic 1.64 Arsenic 2.13 Arsenic 2.42 Arsenic 4.42 Arsenic 6.02 Arsenic 6.89 Arsenic 6.67 Arsenic 5.54 Arsenic 3.13 mg-CaCO3/L No laboratory or field errors identified Present with higher iron concentration BG-01 04/07/2016 pg/L BG-02BR 08/10/2017 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02BR 11/14/2017 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02BR 01/29/2018 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02BR 04/09/2018 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02BR 07/31/2018 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02BR 11/13/2018 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-19BRL 06/16/2016 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-19BRL 07/27/2016 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-19BRL 09/28/2016 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-19BRL 11/11/2016 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-19BRL 01/26/2017 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-19BRL 04/19/2017 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-19BRL 07/26/2017 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-19BRL 11/17/2017 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-19BRL 01/30/2018 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-19BRL 04/10/2018 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-19BRL 07/27/2018 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-19BRL 11/14/2018 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-26BR 09/28/2016 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-26BR 11/15/2016 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-26BR 01/26/2017 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-26BR 04/13/2017 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-26BR 07/26/2017 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-26BR 11/20/2017 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-26BR 01/30/2018 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-26BR 04/11/2018 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-26BR 07/26/2018 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-26BR 11/14/2018 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-29BR 07/20/2017 Arsenic 1.71 1.36 1.76 1.71 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-29BR 11/20/2017 Arsenic pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-29BR 01/29/2018 Arsenic pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-29BR 04/11/2018 Arsenic pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-29BR 07/25/2018 Arsenic 1.18 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30BR 07/20/2017 Arsenic 1.34 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30BR 11/20/2017 Arsenic 1.22 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30BR 01/30/2018 Arsenic 1.7 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30BR 04/11/2018 Arsenic 1.49 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30BR 07/26/2018 Arsenic 1.21 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-30BR 11/13/2018 Arsenic 1.17 149 14.5 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-18D 11/14/2018 Bicarbonate Alkalinity mg-CaC%/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot BG-02BR 11/13/2018 Bicarbonate Alkalinity mg-CaCO3/L Decreased due to higher pH value BG-02BR 04/09/2018 Carbonate Alkalinity 35 Carbonate Alkalinity 179 Chloride 120 Chloride 130 Chloride 124 Chloride 120 Chloride 120 Chloride 130 Chloride 120 Chloride 120 Chloride 130 Chloride 140 mg-CaCO3/L Present with more alkaline pH BG-02BR 11/13/2018 mg-CaCO3/L Present with more alkaline pH MW-18BR 06/02/2015 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-18BR 09/14/2015 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-18BR 12/05/2015 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-18BR 01/05/2016 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-18BR 04/08/2016 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-18BR 05/19/2016 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-18BR 11/09/2016 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-18BR 11/09/2016 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-18BR 01/17/2017 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-18BR 01/25/2017 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot MW-18BR 03/14/2017 Chloride 130 B2 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 1/5 Table 8 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Duke Energy Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Well ID MW-18BR Sample Da Constituent 04/13/2017 Chloride MW-18BR 05/01/2017 Chloride MW-18BR 07/19/2017 Chloride MW-18BR 07/19/2017 Chloride MW-18BR 09/11/2017 Chloride MW-18BR 11/16/2017 Chloride MW-18BR 01/24/2018 Chloride MW-18BR 01/24/2018 Chloride MW-18BR 05/15/2018 Chloride MW-18BR 07/30/2018 Chloride MW-18BR 10/09/2018 Chloride MW-18BR 11/14/2018 Chloride BG-01 07/13/2011 Chromium BG-01BR 01/05/2016 Chromium BG-01BR 07/14/2016 Chromium BG-01BR 09/08/2016 Chromium BG-01BR 04/10/2017 Chromium BG-01BR 07/17/2017 Chromium BG-01BR 11/14/2017 Chromium BG-01BR 01/29/2018 Chromium BG-02BR 08/10/2017 Chromium BG-02BR 11/14/2017 Chromium BG-02BR 01/29/2018 Chromium BG-02BR 04/09/2018 Chromium MW-14BR 12/06/2015 Chromium MW-14BR 01/06/2016 Chromium MW-14BR 04/08/2016 Chromium MW-14BR 09/08/2016 Chromium MW-14BR 11/10/2016 Chromium MW-14BR 07/20/2017 Chromium MW-15BR 04/07/2016 Chromium MW-15BR 09/08/2016 Chromium MW-15BR 11/09/2016 Chromium MW-15BR 11/09/2016 Chromium MW-15BR 01/17/2017 Chromium MW-15BR 01/25/2017 Chromium MW-15BR 03/14/2017 Chromium MW-15BR 04/13/2017 Chromium MW-15BR 07/19/2017 Chromium MW-15BR 07/19/2017 Chromium MW-18BR 09/14/2015 Chromium MW-18BR 01/05/2016 Chromium MW-18BR 05/19/2016 Chromium MW-18BR 11/14/2018 Chromium MW-19BRL 11/11/2016 Chromium MW-29BR 02/28/2017 Chromium MW-29BR 07/20/2017 Chromium MW-29BR 11/20/2017 Chromium MW-30BR 02/28/2017 Chromium MW-30BR 04/13/2017 Chromium MW-30BR 07/20/2017 Chromium MW-30BR 11/20/2017 Chromium MW-30BR 01/30/2018 Chromium MW-15BR 11/09/2016 Chromium (VI) MW-15BR 04/13/2017 Chromium (VI) MW-18BR 11/09/2016 Chromium (VI) 120 130 130 130 130 130 140 140 130 130 130 130 42.7 1.96 2.15 3.89 4.44 2.22 3.88 9.27 2.83 2.07 3.36 1.98 2.8 1.98 2.11 3.41 4.16 1.44 1.01 1.32 1.49 1.69 1.32 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.71 1.68 2.23 4.24 5.15 1.43 132 1.04 1.36 1.02 2.51 2.16 2.64 1.68 1.55 1.78 0.67 0.95 1.4 P A RCAD I [� E'W'It S'Pts Nancy V1 larnaw-il and hulltasseTs mq/L INot identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Present with higher nickel concentration pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 2/5 Table 8 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Duke Energy MW-18BR 04/13/2017 Chromium (VI) MW-19BRL 01/26/2017 Chromium (VI) MW-19BRL 04/19/2017 Chromium (VI) MW-19BRL 07/26/2017 Chromium (VI) MW-26BR 11/15/2016 Chromium (VI) MW-26BR 04/13/2017 Chromium (VI) MW-26BR 07/26/2017 Chromium (VI) MW-30BR 04/13/2017 Chromium (VI) MW-30BR 07/20/2017 Chromium (VI) BG-01 04/16/2015 Cobalt BG-01 04/07/2016 Cobalt MW-15D 05/30/2015 Cobalt MW-15D 09/12/2015 Cobalt MW-10BR 05/27/2015 Cobalt MW-10BR 09/12/2015 Cobalt MW-10BR 12/04/2015 Cobalt MW-10BR 01/06/2016 Cobalt MW-10BR 04/07/2016 Cobalt MW-10BR 05/19/2016 Cobalt MW-10BR 07/14/2016 Cobalt MW-10BR 07/14/2016 Cobalt MW-10BR 09/14/2016 Cobalt MW-10BR 09/14/2016 Cobalt MW-10BR 11/09/2016 Cobalt MW-10BR 11/09/2016 Cobalt MW-10BR 01/17/2017 Cobalt MW-10BR 01/26/2017 Cobalt MW-10BR 03/14/2017 Cobalt MW-10BR 04/18/2017 Cobalt MW-10BR 05/03/2017 Cobalt MW-10BR 07/19/2017 Cobalt MW-10BR 07/19/2017 Cobalt MW-10BR 09/11/2017 Cobalt MW-10BR 11/20/2017 Cobalt MW-10BR 01/24/2018 Cobalt MW-10BR 01/24/2018 Cobalt MW-10BR 04/10/2018 Cobalt MW-10BR 05/15/2018 Cobalt MW-10BR 07/30/2018 Cobalt MW-10BR 10/09/2018 Cobalt MW-10BR 11/14/2018 Cobalt BG-01BR 07/14/2016 Copper BG-01BR 01/29/2018 Copper BG-02BR 08/10/2017 Copper BG-02BR 04/09/2018 Copper MW-10BR 05/27/2015 Copper MW-14BR O6/10/2015 Copper MW-14BR 12/06/2015 Copper MW-14BR 01/06/2016 Copper MW-14BR 09/08/2016 Copper MW-19BRL 07/27/2016 Copper MW-26BR O6/17/2016 Copper MW-26BR 07/28/2016 Copper MW-26BR 09/28/2016 Copper MW-30BR 07/20/2017 Copper BG-01 04/07/2016 Iron Roxboro Steam Electric Plant P A RCAD I [� E'W'It� S'Pts Nancy V1 ra�eu�and hulltasseTs 0.69 0.56 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L 0.67 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 0.69 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 0.52 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 0.57 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 0.55 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 0.73 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 0.43 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 2.54 pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration 1.85 pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration 4.01 pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration 1.11 pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration 8.2 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 5.97 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 5.15 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 6.38 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 6.45 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 6.31 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 6.4 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 5.97 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 15.8 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 16.5 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 12.1 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 12.2 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 20.8 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 17.3 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 21.7 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 19.9 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 20.4 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 18.4 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 19.7 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 18 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 17.6 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 16.1 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 16.5 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 19.2 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 16.4 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 15.8 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 12.9 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 13.3 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot 1.27 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 1.4 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 2.59 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 1.82 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 4.67 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 1.69 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 1.9 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 2.16 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 1.69 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 1.01 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 1.86 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 3.89 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 1.15 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 1.01 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 1760 pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration 3/5 Table 8 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Duke Energy MW-19BRL 09/28/2016 MW-19BRL 11/11/2016 MW-18BR 05/19/2016 MW-18D 12/06/2015 MW-18D 01/05/2016 MW-18D 06/23/2016 MW-18D 07/14/2016 MW-18D 09/13/2016 MW-18D 01/25/2017 MW-18D 04/13/2017 MW-18D 07/19/2017 BG-01BR 07/14/2016 BG-01BR 09/08/2016 MW-18BR 04/13/2017 MW-19BRL 06/16/2016 MW-19BRL 09/28/2016 MW-19BRL 04/19/2017 MW-18D 12/06/2015 MW-18D 05/19/2016 MW-18D 06/23/2016 MW-18D 01/17/2017 MW-18D 01/25/2017 BG-01 07/13/2011 BG-01BR 09/08/2016 BG-01BR 04/10/2017 BG-01BR 11/14/2017 BG-01BR 01/29/2018 BG-02BR 08/10/2017 MW-14BR 11/10/2016 BG-01BR 06/10/2015 BG-01BR 12/05/2015 BG-01BR 09/08/2016 BG-01BR 1 11/09/2016 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Iron 6220 Iron 5720 Lithium 46 Manganese 820 Manganese 978 Manganese 1040 Manganese 632 Manganese 405 Manganese 305 Manganese 196 Manganese 260 Methane 1120 Methane 618 Methane 991 Methane 584 Methane 17200 Methane 18800 Molybdenum 8.1 Molybdenum 9.87 Molybdenum 7.03 Molybdenum 6.61 Molybdenum 14.9 Nickel 45.5 B Nickel 3.15 Nickel 4.43 Nickel 3.55 Nickel 7.62 Nickel 4.39 Nickel 4.92 Nitrate + Nitrite 0.593 Nitrate + Nitrite 0.34 Nitrate + Nitrite 0.39 Nitrate + Nitrite 0.381 Nitrate +Nitrite 0.43 Nitrate +Nitrite 0.408 Nitrate +Nitrite 0.391 Potassium 20.9 Selenium 3.57 Selenium 1.44 Selenium 1.2 Selenium 1.01 Selenium 1.78 Selenium 2.2 Selenium 1.64 Selenium 1.95 Selenium 1.25 Selenium 1.19 Strontium 615 Sulfide 0.19 Sulfide 0.16 Sulfide 0.22 Total Organic Carbon 33.6 Total Organic Carbon 11 Total Organic Carbon 29 Total Organic Carbon 26 Total Organic Carbon 9.6 BG-01BR 01/25/2017 BG-01BR 04/10/2017 BG-01BR 01/29/2018 MW-18BR 5/19/2016 BG-01 04/16/2015 BG-01 09/16/2015 BG-01 12/05/2015 BG-01 01/05/2016 BG-01 04/07/2016 MW-18D 12/06/2015 MW-18D 01/05/2016 MW-18D 05/19/2016 MW-18D 06/23/2016 MW-30BR 02/28/2017 MW-18BR 11/14/2018 MW-18D 04/13/2017 MW-18D 11/16/2017 MW-18D 11/14/2018 BG-01BR 12/05/2015 MW-18BR 09/14/2015 MW-19BRL 06/16/2016 MW-19BRL 07/27/2016 MW-19BRL 09/28/2016 P A RCAD I [� E'W'It SCnnwliancy V1 larnaw-il and hulltasseTs pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Present with higher potassium and total dissolved solids concentration pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified 4/5 Table 8 Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Duke Energy Roxboro Steam Electric Plant P A RCAD I ''E,'It n$Cnnwliancy tarnatvritmd hulltasseTs Notes: j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit. pg/L - micrograms per liter mg/L - milligrams per liter mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams as calcium carbonate per liter mg-N/L - milligrams as nitrogen per liter ORP - oxidation-reduction potential 0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTVs) because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site - specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error. 0 - Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BTVs 5/5 Attachment A Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations A ARGADIS Oxidation specific Specific H WH pH -Lab Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Bicarbonate Calcium Chloride Copper Sampling p Reduction p Dissolved Water Turbidity Aluminum Aluminum Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Cadmium Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Chromium Copper pp Cond., Cond., Field WH, Lab Total Total Dissolved Total Total Dissolved Total Mte Depth Field Lab potential, Oxygen Temp. total Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved (mg/L as Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved (standard (standard ug/L as ug/L as (mg/L as mg/L as mg/L as (mg/I as ug/L as s/cm) (mg/L) (deg C) (NTU) (ug/I as Al) ug/L as Al (ug/I as As) (ug/I as Ba) HCO3) HCO3) (ug/I as Cd) ug/L as Cd g/I as Ca) Ca mg/L as CI (ug/I as Cr) ug/L as Cr (ug/I as Cu) Cu -AEEEEI� EL IL 30,00ANIL AL JEEN 0 24 Allison Woods 30002000011 11/28/2006 65 102 100 6.0 6.7 4.7 15.3 <1.0 <50 <5.0 36 38 38 <2.0 19 2.0 <25 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000011 3/5/2007 65 122 99 6.4 6.4 7.8 15.9 <1.0 <50 <5.0 95 41 41 <1.0 8.3 2.6 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000011 719/ 0007 65 86 85 6.3 6.3 na 16.1 <1.0 <50 <5.0 68 32 32 <1.0 6.9 2.2 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000011 11/5/2007 65 55 66 6.1 6.6 7.4 14.6 <1.0 na na na 23 23 na na 2.9 na <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000011 5/27/2008 65 51 54 5.8 6.1 7.6 15.1 <1.0 na <5.0 49 17 17 <1.0 4.5 2.8 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000011 3/16/2009 65 67 na 5.7 6.3 8.0 14.5 na <50 <5.0 71 28 28 <1.0 6 1.7 <10 2.5 Allison Woods 3000200001D 11/28/2006 209 152 150 7.8 8.0 2.2 16.8 <1.0 <50 <5.0 52 66 66 <2.0 20 2.0 <25 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200001D 3/5/2007 209 128 150 8.1 8.0 0.8 16.6 <1.0 <50 <5.0 50 71 71 <1.0 21 1.4 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200001D 7/9/2007 209 157 150 8.1 7.9 0.7 17.5 <1.0 <50 <5.0 48 67 67 <1.0 20 1.3 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200001D 11/5/2007 209 158 150 8.1 8.0 0.4 16.8 <1.0 na na na 65 65 na na 1.8 na <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200001D 5/27/2008 209 155 150 8.0 8.0 0.7 17.5 <1.0 <50 <5.0 49 63 63 <1.0 21 2.1 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200001D 3/16/2009 140 147 na 7.9 7.9 0.3 15.9 na <50 <2.0 48 65 65 <1.0 20 1.1 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 300020000CH1 11/28/2006 67 144 150 6.9 7.2 3.9 15.1 27 <50 <5.0 74 60 60 <2.0 16 2.0 <25 14 Allison Woods 3000200002E 11/28/2006 33 27 18 5.3 5.5 6.0 14.8 <1.0 <50 <5.0 37 4.0 4.0 <2.0 0.47 1.0 <25 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200002E 3/5/2007 33 12 16 5.1 5.3 6.9 14.5 <1.0 <50 <5.0 34 3.0 3.0 <1.0 0.48 1.1 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200002E 7/10/2007 33 15 16 5.2 5.4 9.4 14.8 <1.0 <50 <5.0 35 1 4.8 4.8 <1.0 0.52 1.0 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200002E 11/5/2007 33 12 16 5.1 5.4 9.1 14.5 <1.0 <50 <5.0 37 3.3 3.3 <1.0 0.50 1.6 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200002E 5/27/2008 33 15 16 5.2 9.4 15.2 <1.0 <50 <5.0 35 <1.0 0.55 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200002E 3/17/2009 33 16 na 5.0 5.5 10.5 14.4 na 1 <50 <2.0 35 3.3 3.3 <1.0 0.50 <1.0 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000021 11/28/2006 62 137 160 6.6 7.4 1.7 15.6 6.4 <50 <5.0 58 72 72 <2.0 20 1.0 <25 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000021 3/5/2007 62 174 160 7.2 7.3 na 16.5 <1.0 <50 <5.0 59 79 79 1 <1.0 23 1.2 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000021 7/10/2007 62 151 150 7.0 7.1 1.9 16.2 1.7 <50 <5.0 58 60 60 <1.0 17 1.3 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000021 11/6/2007 62 136 140 6.9 7.1 na 14.6 1.2 na <5.0 na 55 55 na 1.8 na na Allison Woods 30002000021 5/27/2008 62 na 140 na na na 13 <5.0 Allison Woods 30002000021 3/17/2009 62 140 na 7.2 7.5 3.8 14.5 na <50 <2.0 64 58 58 <1.0 19 1.1 1 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200002D 11/28/2006 194 144 150 7.6 7.5 0.7 16.7 <1.0 <50 <5.0 1 91 <2.0 18 1.0 <25 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200002D 3/5/2007 194 117 140 7.4 7.3 1.1 16.6 <1.0 <50 <5.0 88 68 68 <1.0 17 1.2 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200002D 7/9/2007 194 125 130 7.2 7.4 2.2 1 15.8 <1.0 <50 <5.0 90 62 62 <1.0 16 1.2 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200002D 11/5/2007 194 136 130 7.4 7.4 na 16.5 <1.0 <50 <5.0 88 58 1 58 <1.0 17 1 1.6 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200002D 5/27/2008 194 131 130 7.1 7.2 1.8 16.1 <1.0 <50 <5.0 91 56 56 <1.0 17 1.8 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200002D 3/16/2009 140 126 na 7.0 7.2 1.0 15.4 na <50 <2.0 89 52 52 <1.0 16 1.0 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200003E 11/29/2006 15 51 50 5.3 5.3 6.0 14.8 <1 <50 1 <5.0 19 12 12 <2.0 0.8 5.0 <25 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200003E 3/13/2007 15 43 51 5.2 5.5 2.8 12.7 3.2 <50 <5 45 16 16 <1.0 4.0 4.1 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200003E 7/11/2007 15 50 53 5.2 5.6 2.4 14.4 4.8 <50 <5.0 44 14 14 <1.0 4.1 4.0 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200003E 11/6/2007 15 59 55 5.7 5.6 na 15.2 8.3 <50 <5.0 49 13 13 <1.0 4.4 2.5 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200003E 5/28/2008 15 56 56 5.1 5.5 3.4 13.2 5.1 1 <50 <5.0 44 12 12 <1.0 4.2 4.5 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200003E 3/23/2009 15 53 na 4.9 5.2 5.3 12.5 na <50 <2.0 41 8.5 8.5 <1.0 1 4.1 3.6 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000031 11/29/2006 34 83 83 6.0 6.0 5.1 14.3 <1 <50 <5.0 <10 25 1 25 <2.0 <0.10 1.0 <25 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000031 3/13/2007 34 66 78 6.2 6.2 4.6 14.6 <1 <50 <5.0 83 na na <1.0 6.5 3.3 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000031 7/11/2007 34 79 80 5.8 6.2 5.9 14.0 <1 <50 <5.0 77 24 24 <1.0 6.8 3.3 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002050031 11/6/2007 34 51 79 6.0 6.2 5.6 14.2 <1 <50 <5.0 78 23 23 <1.0 7.3 <1 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000031 5/28/2008 34 83 81 5.7 6.2 na 14.2 <1 <50 <5.0 77 23 23 <1.0 7.5 3.6 1 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000031 3/23/2009 34 82 na 5.6 6.0 5.1 14.4 na <50 <2.0 69 1 22 22 <1.0 7.3 2.8 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200003D 11/29/2006 88 145 140 9.0 9.0 0.1 15.8 <1 <50 <5.0 94 52 52 <2.0 6.5 1.0 <25 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200003D 3/13/2007 88 125 150 8.7 8.2 0.5 15.2 1.7 <50 <5.0 17 34 34 <1.0 19 1.1 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200003D 7/11/2007 88 136 150 8.5 8.3 na 17.9 <1 <50 <5.0 39 70 70 <1.0 21 1.2 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200003D 11/6/2007 88 1 154 150 8.6 1 8.4 0.1 15.6 1.2 <50 <5.0 28 62 1 62 <1.0 21 1.4 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200003D 5/28/2008 88 153 150 8.5 8.3 0.2 16.5 2.0 <50 <5.0 27 64 64 <1.0 20 2.0 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200003D 3/23/2009 88 149 na 8.2 8.2 0.2 16.4 na <50 <2.0 41 64 64 <1.0 22 1.1 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200004E 11/29/2006 22 19 22 4.8 5.8 2.6 15.5 1.0 <50 <5.0 25 6.0 6.0 <2.0 7.3 <1 <25 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200004E 3/6/2007 22 15 20 5.3 5.8 5.5 14.2 <1.0 <50 <5.0 17 2.0 2.0 <1.0 0.76 1.3 1 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200004E 7/10/2007 22 19 20 5.2 5.6 8.4 14.6 <1.0 <50 <5.0 16 5.9 5.9 <1.0 0.77 1.0 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200004E 11/6/2007 22 18 20 5.4 5.6 8.6 15.4 <1.0 <50 <5.0 18 5.3 5.3 <1.0 0.87 4.3 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200004E 5/28/2008 22 19 19 5.0 5.5 8.0 13.9 4.7 1 <50 <5.0 17 4.3 4.3 <1.0 1 0.75 1.6 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200004E 3/17/2009 22 19 na 4.9 5.7 8.0 14.0 na <50 <2.0 17 5.8 5.8 <1.0 0.72 1.0 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000041 11/29/2006 39 1 65 67 6.1 6.7 na 14.4 <1.0 <50 <5.0 98 31 31 <2.0 8.3 1.0 <25 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000041 3/6/2007 39 1 58 58 6.0 6.6 8.6 14.3 <1.0 <50 <5.0 24 14 14 <1.0 6.0 1.2 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000041 7/10/2007 39 64 67 6.4 6.6 10.6 14.4 <1.0 <50 1 <5.0 23 31 31 <1.0 7.0 1.1 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000041 11/6/2007 39 73 75 6.5 6.7 7.5 14.4 <1.0 <50 <5.0 27 33 33 <1.0 9.0 1.3 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000041 5/28/2008 39 73 73 6.3 6.5 6.9 14.6 <1.0 <50 <5.0 25 31 31 <1.0 8.0 1.7 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 30002000041 3/17/2009 39 70 na 6.1 6.5 9.7 14.5 na <50 <2.0 24 1 30 30 <1.0 7.5 1 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200004D 11/29/2006 121 134 140 8.4 8.0 0.1 16.4 <1.0 <50 <5.0 14 62 62 <2.0 15 1 3.0 <25 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200004D 3/6/2007 121 112 130 8.3 8.0 0.4 16.5 <1.0 <50 <5.0 37 31 31 <1.0 19 1.1 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200004D 7/10/2007 121 132 140 8.3 8.2 0.3 15.9 <1.0 <50 <5.0 39 61 61 <1.0 19 1.2 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200004D 11/6/2007 121 140 140 8.3 8.2 0.1 15.7 <1.0 <50 <5.0 42 61 61 <1.0 21 1.7 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200004D 5/28/2008 121 139 140 8.2 8.0 0.1 15.7 <1.0 <50 <5.0 42 57 57 <1.0 19 2.0 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200004D 3/17/2009 121 141 na 7.9 8.1 0.2 15.8 na <50 <2.0 46 59 59 <1.0 19 1.0 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods AWCH-4 7/10/2007 88 143 140 8.0 8.1 2.6 1 15.4 <1.0 <50 <5.0 47 64 64 <1 20 1.2 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200001Y 316/20007 na 60 71 6.1 7.2 5.1 12.5 3.0 na na na 8 8 na na 4.0 na na Allison Woods 3000200001Y 7/11/2007 na 59 57 6.1 6.4 7.2 17.4 24 <50 <5.0 39 21 21 <1.0 4.7 2.5 <10 <2.0 Allison Woods 3000200001Y 11/6/2007 na 55 53 6.7 6.8 7.7 12.2 <1.0 na na na 21 21 na na <1.0 na na Allison Woods 3000200001Y 5/27/2008 na 44 7.4 5.2 17.1 <50 <5.0 35 <1.0 4.9 1 <10 28 Allison Woods 3000200001Y 5/28/2008 na 55 na 6.6 na 7.2 15.5 na na na na na na na na 2.9 na na Allison Woods 3000200001Y 3/23/2009 na 1 86 na 7.1 6.5 na 15.9 na <50 <2.0 33 17 17 <1.0 5.2 2.9 <10 <2 Bent Creek BC-3S 22-Apr-031 1 12 5.1 6.3 12.0 50.0 1300 <10 21 5 5 <2 0.8 <5 <25 2.3 Bent Creek BC-3S 27-A r-04 27 15 5.8 6.7 11.9 12.0 <50 380 <10 <10 <10 12 <2 <2 0.8 0.6 <5 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-3S 2-Nov-04 27 18 5.4 4.2 14.4 1.8 <50 <5 <10 6 6 <2 0.7 <1 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-3S 27-Jun-OS 27 14 5.1 7.3 12.4 <2 <50 200 <5 <5 11 11 1.5 1.5 <2 <2 1.0 1.3 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-3S 13-Jun-O6 27 4.4 5.8 12.4 2.0 <50 71 <5 <5 11 12 5.5 5.5 <2 <2 0.8 0.8 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 1/12 Attachment A Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations A ARGADIS Oxidation S ecific Specific H WH pH -Lab Sampling p Reduction p Dissolved Water Cond., Cond., Field WH, Lab Mte Depth Field Lab potential, (standard Oxyg am (standard BC-3i 22-A r-03 49 13 5.7 7.8 12.6 Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Bicarbonate Calcium Chloride Co Turbidity Aluminum Aluminum Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Cadmium Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Chromium Copper pp Total Total Dissolved Total Total Dissolved Total otal Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved (mg/L as Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved ) (ug/I as Al) ug/L as AI (ug/I as As) ug/L as (ug/I as Be) ug/L as (mg/L as mg/L HCO3) (ug/I as Cd) u g/1 as Ca) mg/L as (mg/I as mg/L as CI (ug/I as Cr) s Cr (ug/I as Cu) ug/L a JM". HCO3) + 4� 13.0 470 <10 16 7 7 <2 1.6 <5 <25 <2 <50 <10 <10 <2 1.0 <25 <2 <1 <50 <5 <10 7 7 <2 1.0 <1 <25 <2 Bent Creek Bent Creek BC-3i 27-A r-04 30 17 6.0 7.9 12.4 Bent Creek BC-3i 2-Nov-04 45 19 5.8 7.3 13.2 Bent Creek BC-3i 27-Jun-05 39 16 5.2 7.7 12.9 <1 <50 63 <5 <5 12 10 2 2 <2 <2 1.2 1.2 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-3i 13-Jun-06 45 18 4.6 8.0 12.2 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 11 13 5.5 5.5 <2 <2 1.0 1.1 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-3D 22-A r-03 240 135 8.5 0.1 14.4 19.0 180 <10 29 <2 18.0 <5 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-3D 27-A r-04 240 137 8.3 0.7 14.9 <50 <10 <10 <2 18.0 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-3D 1-Nov-04 240 128 8.5 1.0 15.0 4.4 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 58 58 <2 <2 21.0 21.0 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-3D 27-Jun-05 240 136 8.0 0.1 15.1 1.8 <50 <5 <10 29 29 <2 24.0 1.4 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-3D 13-Jun-06 148 150 7.2 0.2 14.6 7.6 <50 <50 <5 <5 10 13 57 57 <2 <2 23.0 24.0 1.2 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-4S 22-A r-03 8 4.8 7.5 11.6 50.0 3900 <10 69 4 4 <2 0.50 <5 <25 8.1 Bent Creek BC-4S 27-A r-04 11 5.1 7.9 11.5 <50 <10 12 <2 0.48 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-4S 2-Nov-04 17 13 5.5 9.0 15.6 10.0 84 <5 14 5 5 <2 0.53 <1 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-4S 27-Jun-05 17 14 5.5 8.4 12.3 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 14 14 <1 <1 <2 <2 0.61 0.61 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-4S 13-Jun 17 14 5.8 7.8 12.1 1.7 85 <5 16 4 4 <2 0.61 <1 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-4S 21-Au -07 19 15 218 6.1 12.0 14.1 2.0 <50 110 <5 <5 13 14 3.7 3.7 <1 <1 0.57 0.62 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-4i 22-A r-03 6 5.5 9.0 13.2 <1 57 <10 14 4 4 <2 0.79 <5 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-4i 27-A r-04 12 5.2 8.6 12.5 <50 <50 <10 <10 12 12 <2 <2 0.67 0.67 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-4i 2-Nov-04 36 14 5.7 5.4 13.3 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 12 12 6 6 <2 <2 0.71 0.70 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-4i 27Jun-Jun 11 5.6 9.1 12.8 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 13 13 <1 <1 <2 <2 0.78 0.78 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-4i 13Jun-Jun 36 15 6.0 9.9 12.6 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 15 15 4.5 4.5 <2 <2 0.85 0.82 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-4i 21-Au -07 37 16 210 4.2 8.9 12.8 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 13 13 3.7 3.7 <1 <1 0.73 0.76 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-4D 22-A r-03 112 127 8.3 0.1 13.5 3.6 62 <10 13 48 48 <2 18.00 <5 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-4D 27-A r-04 112 101 7.8 0.1 13.3 <50 <10 11 <2 17.00 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-4D 2-Nov-04 115 128 8.2 0.2 14.2 <1 <50 <5 12 46 46 <2 18.00 <1 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-4D 27Jun-Jun 115 104 170 7.7 0.1 14.6 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 12 12 41 41 <2 <2 17.0 18.00 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-4D 13-Jun-06 115 119 7.9 0.2 13.3 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 14 12 45 45 <2 <2 18.0 18.00 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-4D 21-Au -07 105 125 7.8 0.2 12.8 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 17 16 46 46 <1 <1 19.0 18.00 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-5S 23-A r-03 20 6.7 3.8 10.7 3.2 170 <10 26 7 7 <2 1.30 <5 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-5S 28-A r-04 24 5.4 3.6 10.1 <50 <10 16 <2 0.92 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-5S 2-Nov-04 19 24 5.3 1.4 15.4 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 20 21 8 8 <2 <2 1.00 1.10 1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-5S 28-Jun-05 18 24 202 5.4 2.1 13.2 2.2 <50 <50 <5 <5 20 20 <1 <1 <2 <2 1.00 0.99 1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-5S 14-Jun-06 19 22 5.8 3.4 12.2 <1 <50 74 <5 <5 21 21 4 4 <2 <2 0.98 1.20 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-5i 23-A r-03 16 5.0 4.6 12.6 <1 <50 <10 11 7 7 <2 0.87 <5 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-5i 28-A r-04 20 5.1 5.4 12.6 <50 <10 <10 <2 0.66 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-5i 2-Nov-04 35 18 5.5 5.8 15.5 <1 <50 <5 <10 8 8 <2 0.73 <1 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-5i 28-Jun-05 35 20 243 5.6 6.1 13.2 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 10 10 3 3 <2 <2 0.78 0.80 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-5i 14-Jun-06 35 18 5.9 5.8 13.0 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 12 11 6 6 <2 <2 0.82 0.84 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-5D 23-A r-03 85 15 6.6 2.4 14.1 3.8 <50 <10 24 33 33 <2 7.90 <5 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-5D 28-A r-04 85 46 5.7 4.4 14.6 <50 <10 18 <2 3.40 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-5D 3-Nov-04 85 65 6.7 2.1 14.7 4.0 60 <5 16 22 22 <2 3.90 <1 <25 2.5 Bent Creek BC-5D 28-Jun-05 85 50 6.2 4.2 14.5 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 22 16 19 19 <2 <2 5.80 4.60 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-5D 14-Jun-06 85 53 5.9 3.5 14.4 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 21 22 22 22 <2 <2 3.70 4.00 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-7S 23-A r-03 21 4.7 5.7 12.2 980 <10 31 7 7 <2 1.20 <5 <25 9.7 Bent Creek BC-7S 28-A r-04 22 20 5.7 6.4 12.8 830 <10 19 <2 1.20 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-7S 3-Nov-04 20 14 6.1 15.3 80.0 180 <5 19 8 8 <2 0.71 1 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-7S 28Jun-Jun 20 18 5.1 5.4 14.0 3.7 <50 68 <5 <5 18 17 <1 <1 <2 <2 0.82 0.82 1.1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-7S 14Jun-Jun 20 18 4.5 6.7 13.4 8.6 <50 630 <5 <5 19 28 4 4 <2 <2 0.70 0.83 1.1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-7S 21-Au -07 20 10 463 5.9 11.9 17.2 300.0 <50 4700 <5 <5 13 46 3.7 3.7 <1 <1 0.54 0.64 <1 <10 <10 <2 10 Bent Creek BC-7i 23-A r-03 12 5.2 6.9 13.7 3500 <10 84 5 5 <2 0.81 <5 <25 7.1 Bent Creek BC-7i 28-A r-04 45 9 6.1 6.6 13.0 <50 <10 <10 <2 0.47 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-7i 3-Nov-04 40 11 6.6 9.0 14.0 15.0 160 <5 <10 6 6 <2 0.55 <1 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-7i 28-Jun-05 40 11 5.6 7.4 14.1 4.1 <50 70 <5 <5 <10 <10 1.5 1.5 <2 <2 0.50 0.64 1.1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-7i 14-Jun-06 40 14 4.4 7.5 14.7 7.2 <50 160 <5 <5 <10 <10 3 3 <2 <2 0.47 0.51 1.1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-Ti 21-Au -07 40 14 456 5.5 11.2 14.6 2.7 <50 90 <5 <5 <10 <10 3 3 <1 <1 0.40 0.41 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-7D 23-A r-03 140 213 8.6 0.2 15.3 7.8 110 <10 19 54 54 <2 20.00 <5 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-7D 28-A r-04 140 104 8.0 14.8 <50 <10 10 <2 14.00 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-7D 3-Nov-04 140 134 7.8 1.0 15.5 3.0 50 <5 15 53 53 <2 15.00 <1 <25 5.4 Bent Creek BC-7D 28-Jun-05 140 139 7.6 0.3 14.5 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 16 16 56 56 <2 <2 19.00 19.00 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-7D 14-Jun-06 140 180 7.4 0.2 15.3 1.3 <50 57 <5 <5 21 22 71 71 <2 <2 23.00 23.00 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-7D 21-Au -07 140 209 103 8.4 0.6 15.5 1.7 <50 <50 <5 <5 21 21 78 78 <1 <1 27.00 26.00 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-1S 21-A r-03 14 10 5.3 6.0 11.8 2.3 100 100 <10 <10 <10 <10 6 6 <2 <2 0.80 0.80 <1 <25 <25 3 3 Bent Creek BCAS 26-A r-04 14 15 5.8 5.8 11.2 <50 <50 <10 <10 <10 <10 6.2 6.2 <2 <2 0.80 0.80 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BCAS 1-Nov-04 14 12 5.3 6.4 13.6 1.8 <50 51 <5 <5 <10 <10 6 6 <2 <2 0.81 0.78 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BCAS 27Jun-Jun 14 17 283 5.5 4.9 13.7 1.7 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 <1 <1 <2 <2 0.93 0.95 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BCAS 12Jun-Jun 14 16 4.8 5.0 13.6 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 2 2 <2 <2 0.83 1.90 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BCAS 20-Au -07 14 17 196 5.3 1.7 17.0 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 12 11 4 4 <1 <1 0.89 0.81 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-1i 21-A r-03 45 11 5.4 6.9 12.6 <1 <50 <50 <10 <10 <10 <10 5 5 <2 <2 0.76 0.76 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-1i 27-A r-04 45 12 5.8 6.4 12.3 <1 <50 <50 <10 <10 <10 <10 <2 <2 0.73 0.73 <5 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-1i 1-Nov-04 42 14 3.9 9.4 12.2 <1 <50 89 <5 <5 <10 <10 7 7 <2 <2 1.00 1.10 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-1i 45 14 197 5.6 0.2 12.7 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 <1 <1 <2 <2 0.80 0.80 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-1i 12-Jun 40 16 5.1 9.7 12.8 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 4 4 <2 <2 0.82 0.80 <1 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-1i -07 45 16 198 5.8 7.1 14.1 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 2.7 2.7 <1 <1 1.00 0.80 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-1 -03 141 69 7.1 0.1 13.7 1.2 <50 <10 <10 24 24 <2 7.10 1 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-1D -04 141 55 6.6 0.3 14.6 <50 <10 <10 21 21 <2 6.50 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-1D -04 141 69 7.0 0.1 14.5 1.0 <50 <5 <10 20 20 <2 6.50 1.1 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-1D jun-Jun -05 100 73 125 6.9 0.3 13.6 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 15 15 <2 <2 7.50 7.40 1.8 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-1D -06 141 77 6.5 0.9 14.1 1.0 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 22 22 <2 <2 8.00 7.90 2.4 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-1D -07 141 90 24 6.1 0.1 13.7 1.4 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 20 20 <1 <1 7.40 7.40 2 <10 <10 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-2i r-03 215.3 5.0 12.4 <1 <50 <10 <10 8 8 <2 2.00 1 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-2i r-04 19 24 5.7 6.2 12.4 <50 <10<10 62 6.2 <2 1.30 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-2i -04 29 13.8 5.3 7.6 12.6 <1 <50 <5 <10 5 5 <2 1.10 <1 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-2i 29Jun-Jun 29 11 5.3 7.4 122 <1 55 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 1 8.6 8.6 <2 <2 0.46 4.70 1.6 <25 <25 <2 <2 2/12 Attachment A Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations A ARGADIS Oxidation specific Specific H WH pH -Lab Sampling P Reduction P P Dissolved Water Cond., Cond., Field WH, Lab to Depth Field Lab Potential, Oxyg am (standard (standard BC-2i 12-Jun-06 30 24 5.8 5.8 12.4 Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Bicarbonate Calcium Chloride Co Turbidity Aluminum Aluminum Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Cadmium Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Chromium Copper pP Total Total Dissolved Total Total Dissolved Total tall Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved (mg/L as Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved TU) (ug/I as AI) adl&AI (ug/I as As) ug/L as (ug/I as Ba) ug/L as (mg/L as mg/L HCO3) (ug/I as Cd) u g/I as Ca) mg/L as (mg/I as mg/L as Cl (ug/1 s Cr (ug/I as Cu) ug/L a HCO3) <1 <50 <5 <10 6 6 <2 1.90 1 <25 <2 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 1.7 1.7 <1 <1 0.89 0.92 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Bent Creek Bent Creek BC-2i 20-Au -07 29 17 510 5.8 5.8 12.6 Bent Creek BC-2D 21-A r-03 245 314 8.7 0.1 14.3 20.0 250 <10 <10 32 32 <2 36.0 14 <25 2.5 Bent Creek BC-2D 11-Feb-04 245 333 8.5 0.0 15.2 3.5 94 <10 <10 31.2 31.2 <2 38.0 16 <25 <2 Bent Creek BC-2D 26-A r-04 150 278 8.6 14.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 <10 <10 39 39 <2 <2 30.0 30.0 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-2D 3-Nov-04 135 214 8.8 0.3 15.1 2.0 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 48 48 <2 <2 22.0 21.0 8.8 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-2D 29Jun-05 150 166 8.1 0.1 15.3 <1 61 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 51 51 <2 <2 18.0 18.0 5.7 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-2D 12Jun-06 100 174 8.3 0.1 14.2 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 <2 <2 18.0 18.0 6 <25 <25 <2 <2 Bent Creek BC-2D 20-Au -07 150 1 174 88 8.9 0.1 14.8 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 63 63 <1 <1 17.0 17.0 4 <10 <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-1S 21Jul-08 17 31 477 5.3 1.8 17.6 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 17 17 <1 <1 2.9 2.9 1.1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-1S 9-Feb-09 17 31 160 5.2 1.3 13.4 <1 <50 <50 <2 <2 18 18 13 13 <1 <1 3.1 3.1 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-11 21Jul-08 44 32 134 6.4 5.9 1 15.6 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 13 13 <1 <1 2.6 2.7 1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-11 9-Feb-09 44 30 -160 6.2 6.1 15.1 <1 <50 <50 <2 <2 <10 <10 14 14 <1 <1 2.6 2.4 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-1D 21-Jul-08 160 93 297 7.3 4.9 14.9 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 23 23 <1 <1 11.0 11.0 1.2 <10 <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-1D 9-Feb-09 150 91 -91 7.2 4.6 14.6 <1 <50 <50 <2 <2 <10 <10 23 23 <1 <1 10.0 1 10.0 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-21 22-Jul-08 18 24 462 5.7 7.5 14.5 9.1 <50 <50 <5 <5 15 15 9 9 <1 1.4 1.4 1 <10 <2 Coweeta CW-21 10-Feb-09 18 27 5.8 7.4 11.8 3.4 <50 140 <2 <2 15 17 10 10 <1 <1 1.5 2.3 <10 <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-2D 22-Jul-08 90 24 374 6.1 5.3 13.2 3.7 <50 110 <5 <5 <10 <10 9 9 <1 <1 2.5 2.5 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-2D 10-Feb-09 90 22 5.2 7.3 12.8 12.0 <50 880 <2 <2 <10 <10 8.6 1 8.6 <1 <1 2.3 2.3 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-3PI 23-Jul-08 38 23 431 6.1 9.7 13.7 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 1 <10 <10 8 8 <1 <1 2.1 2.2 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-3PI 11-Feb-09 38 23 218 5.8 7.4 1 12.0 <1 <50 <50 <2 <2 <10 <10 9.9 9.9 <1 <1 2.1 2.2 <1 <10 I <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-3D 23-Jul-08 75 40 346 6.9 5.9 13.1 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 16 16 <1 <1 3.8 3.8 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-3D 11-Feb-09 75 37 193 6.4 7.5 12.1 <1 <50 <50 <2 <2 <10 <10 17 17 <1 <1 3.7 3.7 <10 <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-41 22-Jul-08 60 36 400 5.5 7.7 14.3 31 <50 670 <5 <5 <10 <10 12 12 <1 <1 1 3.3 3.2 1.4 <10 <10 <2 2.4 Coweeta CW-41 8-Feb-09 60 37 226 5.3 8.0 12.6 13 <50 350 <2 <2 <10 <10 11 11 <1 <1 2.9 3.1 1.2 <10 <10 <2 <2 Coweeta CW-4D 22-Jul-08 250 78 231 8.1 1.1 17.8 9.1 <50 260 <5 <5 <10 <10 29 29 <1 <1 9.4 9.6 1.2 <10 11 <2 2.6 Langtree Peninsula MW-1 11/12/2003 53 43 5.1 5.7 6.4 18.9 100 2000* <10* 24* 11 11 <2.0* 2.3* 2.0 <25* 8.0* Langtree Peninsula MW-1 6/15/2004 28 30 6.2 5.2 6.6 18.7 100 660 <10 16 1 7.2 7.2 1 <2.0 1.3 1.5 <25 1 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-11 8/28/2002 76 83 6.3 na 5.1 19.9 60 5600* <10* 1 43* 33 33 <2.0* 6.3* 1.0 <25* 28* Langtree Peninsula MW-11 3/4/2003 84 81 6.8 na 5.0 15.5 25 1800* <10* 60* 31 31 <2.0* 7.1* <5 <25* 28* Langtree Peninsula MW-11 11/12/2003 93 79 6.7 6.5 4.5 17.7 37 1600* <10* 12* 31 31 <2.0* 5.0* 1.7 <25* 4.3* Langtree Peninsula MW-11 6/15/2004 71 73 5.2 6.2 5.0 18.4 14 <50 <10 <10 31 31 <2.0 5.1 1.3 <25 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-11 4/14/2009 50 87 na 6.4 6.4 na 16.2 na <50 <2.0 <10 39 39 <1.0 7.8 1.2 <10 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MWAD 8/27/2002 297 320 7.6 na 1.0 17.2 1.4 84* <10* <10* 69 69 <2.0* 46* 2.0 1 <25* 3.2* Langtree Peninsula MWAD 3/3/2003 168 180 7.5 na 2.1 17.4 <1.0 <50* <10* <10* 58 58 <2.0* 22* <5 <25* <2.0* Langtree Peninsula MWAD 11/12/2003 248 240 7.8 7.9 0.9 18.0 <1.0 <50* <10* <10* 68 68 <2.0* 36* 2.1 <25* <2.0* Langtree Peninsula MWAD 6/15/2004 219 250 8.1 7.7 0.8 17.7 <1.0 <50 <10 <10 1 70 70 <2.0 38 1.8 <25 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MWAD 11/28/2007 118 211 na 8.0 8.0 0.7 17.6 na <50 <2.0 <10 62 62 <1.0 34 2.4 1 <10 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MWAD 4/14/2009 118 209 na 7.8 8.0 0.8 17.0 na <50 <2.0 <10 67 67 <1.0 35 1.6 <10 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-2 8/28/2002 65 82 6.2 na 6.1 16.9 4.0 270* <10* <10* 28 28 <2.0* 6.1* 3.0 <25* <2.0* Langtree Peninsula MW-2 3/4/2003 76 80 6.3 na 6.9 16.8 9.1 87* <10* <10* 27 27 <2.0* 6.0* <5.0 <25* 2.0* Langtree Peninsula MW-2 8/14/2009 25 1 65 na 6.0 6.4 6.2 16.7 na <50 <2.0 <10 28 28 <1.0 6.3 2.8 <10 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-21 8/28/2002 122 140 7.0 na 4.2 18.5 12 820* <10* 28* 56 56 <2.0* 8.5* 2.0 <25* 3.9* Langtree Peninsula MW-21 3/4/2003 118 120 6.6 7.1 7.3 16.6 2.1 90* <10* 18* 53 1 53 <2.0* 9.3* <5.0 <25* <2.0* Langtree Peninsula MW-21 11/17/2003 na 120 na 7.1 na na 4 80* <10* 18* 53 53 <2.0* 9.7* <5.0 <25* 1 <2.0* Langtree Peninsula MW-21 6/15/2004 122 130 7.2 7.0 4.8 7.2 23 <50 <10 17 61 61 <2.0 9.5 1.8 <25 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-21 8/14/2009 45 104 na 6.8 7.0 5.0 17.3 na <50 1 <2.0 19 49 49 <1.0 10.0 2.2 <10 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-2D 8/28/2002 220 110 5.2 na 6.1 19.8 7.4 920* <10* <10* 1 1 43 43 <2.0* 11* 1.0 <25* 5.5* Langtree Peninsula MW-2D 3/4/2003 95 100 6.9 na 4.8 17.6 <1.0 <50* <10* <10* 39 39 <2.0* 10* <5.0 <25* 2.4* Langtree Peninsula MW-2D 11/17/2003 96 97 6.8 7.3 10 17.9 1 1.6 <50* <10* <10* 42 42 1 <2.0* 10* <5.0 <25* <2.0* Langtree Peninsula MW-2D 6/15/2004 100 1 100 7.2 7.1 4.7 17.9 3.0 <50 <10 <10 45 45 <2.0 12 1.3 <25 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-2D 8/14/2009 140 103 na 6.85 7.2 4.19 17.3 na <50 <2.0 <10 47 47 <1.0 13 1.3 <10 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-3 8/27/2002 na 38 na na na na 60 1200* <10* <10* 7.0 7.0 <2.0* 0.77* 2.0 <25* 3.9* Langtree Peninsula MW-3 3/5/2003 85 91 6.0 na 6.3 6.0 140 560* <10* 18* 25 25 <2.0* 2.7* <5.0 <25* 3.3* Langtree Peninsula MW-3 11/13/2003 71 75 5.9 6.2 5.8 5.9 50 1400* <10* 17* 26 26 <2.0* 2.1* 3.4 <25* 4.4* Langtree Peninsula MW-3 6/17/2004 69 75 6.3 6.2 na 6.3 50 60 1 <10 <10 26 26 <2.0 1.2 3.4 <25 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-3 4/20/2009 18 30 na 5.3 5.6 na 12.8 na 74 <2.0 <10 7.8 7.8 <1.0 1.4 1.9 <10 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-31 8/26/2002 na 80 na na na na 13 1 1100* <10* 31* 33 33 <2.0* 6.6* 2.0 <25* 6.4* Langtree Peninsula MW-31 3/4/2003 1 76 81 6.2 1 na 10.8 6.2 8.2 130* <10* 26* 32 32 <2.0* 1 7.0* <5.0 <25* 2.3* Langtree Peninsula MW-31 11/13/2003 79 84 6.1 6.4 na 6.1 6.5 430* <10* 25* 37 37 <2.0* 7.0* 2.2 <25* 3.0* Langtree Peninsula MW-31 6/17/2004 91 82 6.3 6.1 na 6.3 2.2 <50 <10 23 36 36 <2.0 6.5 2.1 1 <25 1 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-31 4/20/2009 60 77 na 6.0 6.3 16.8 16.5 na <50 <2.0 31 42 42 <1.0 8.1 2.1 <10 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-4 6/16/2004 57 60 3.9 6.2 6.3 16.9 9.2 <50 <10 <10 24 24 <2.0 4.1 1.8 <25 <2 Langtree Peninsula MW-41 8/27/2002 101 110 6.8 na 8.7 17.8 55 3900* <10* 21* 39 39 <2.0* 7.9* 1.0 <25* 22* Langtree Peninsula MW-41 3/3/2003 79 81 6.8 na 8.0 16.1 3.0 69* 1 <10* <10* 28 28 <2.0* 5.7* <5.0 <25* 2.8* Langtree Peninsula MW-41 11/12/2003 49 54 5.9 6.6 8.5 17.8 18 1500* <10* <10* 17 1 17 <2.0* 3.7* 1.5 <25* 7.4* Langtree Peninsula MW-41 6/16/2004 65 66 1 5.2 6.6 4.7 17.8 4.8 <50 <10 <10 25 25 <1.0 4.9 1.3 <25 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-41 4/20/2009 50 58 na 6.3 6.5 na 16.9 na 67 <2 <10 25 25 <1.0 1 4.7 1.5 <10 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-4D 8/27/2002 132 150 6.7 na 6.8 17.5 50 2300* <10* 1 19* 1 30 30 <2.0* 20* 2.0 1 <25* 1 13* Langtree Peninsula MW-4D 3/3/2003 na 270 na na na na 4.4 360* <10* 12* 35 35 <2.0* 32* <5.0 <25* 8 2* Langtree Peninsula MW-4D 11/12/2003 125 120 6.9 7.2 8.5 18.8 31 3100* <10* 36* 31 31 <2.0* 18* 2.1 <25* 15* Langtree Peninsula MW-4D 6/16/2004 161 170 5.0 7.2 4.0 18.9 380 30000* <10* 75* 41 41 <2.0* 34* 1.8 <25* 23* Langtree Peninsula MW-4D 4/20/2009 140 198 na 7.5 7.6 6.5 16.8 na 460 <2 <10 49 49 <1.0 1 35 1.7 <10 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-51 8/27/2002 NA 190 NA NA NA NA 110 <10* 38* 52 52 <2.0* 16* 2.0 <10* <2.0* Langtree Peninsula MW-51 3/3/2003 274 78 7.1 NA 1.3 16.1 150 <10* 30* 27 27 <2.0* 7.1* <5.0 <10* <2.0* Langtree Peninsula MW-51 11/13/2003 53 67 6.3 6.4 1.1 1 16.0 110 <10* 34* 22 22 <2.0* 6.2* 2.8 <10* <2.0* Langtree Peninsula MW-51 6/16/2004 122 170 7.3 6.5 1.7 16.4 350 <10 42 41 41 <2.0 13 2.7 <10 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-51 4/20/2009 30 70 na 6.4 6.5 na 16.6 na <50 <2.0 <10 1 1 36 36 <1.0 9.0 3.0 1 1 <10 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-5D 8/27/2002 NA 860 NA NA NA NA <1.0 <10* <10* 33 33 <2.0* 150* 8.0 <10* <2.0* Langtree Peninsula MW-5D 3/3/2003 1090 1100 7.5 NA 1.3 16.9 2.8 <10* 13* 28 28 <2.0* 240* 12 <10* <2.0* Langtree Peninsula MW-SD 11/13/2003 1047 1000 7.5 7.7 1.1 16.7 <1.0 <10* <10* 29 29 <2.0* 220* 12 <10* <2.0* Langtree Peninsula MW-SD 6/16/2004 850 820 7.8 7.6 1.7 18.2 <1.0 <10 <10 36 36 <2.0 160 7.0 <10 <2.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-5D 4/20/2009 140 877 na 7.5 7.6 2.63 16.4 na <50 <2.0 <10 44 44 <1.0 240 10 U, P <10 <2.0 3/12 Attachment A Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations A ARGADIS EEEM� Oxidation specific Specific H WH H-Lab Sampling p pe Reduction p p Dissolved Water Cond., Cond., Field WH, Lab to Depth Field Lab potential, Oxyg am (standard (standard MW-6 8/26/2002 36 39 5.6 NA 5.5 5.6 Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Bicarbonate Calcium Chloride Co Turbidity Aluminum Aluminum Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Cadmium Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Chromium Copper pp Total Total Dissolved Total Total Dissolved Total otal Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved (mg/L as Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved ug/L as ug/L as (mg/L as mg/L mg/L as (mg/I as ug/L a mg/L as CI (ug/I a Las Cr (ug/I as Cu) Ca � TU) (ug/I as AI) ug/L as AI s As) (ug/I as Ba) HCO3) (ug/I as Cd) ug/L as Cd��2.9* L 18 500* <10* <10* 10 10 <2.0* 3.0 <25* 2.7" 50 520* <10* <10* 5.0 5.0 <2.0* <5.0 <25" 3.5" 2.1 52* <10* <10* 8.0 8.0 <2.0* 2.0* 2.6 <25* <2.0* Lan tree Peninsula Lan tree Peninsula MW-6 3/5/2003 30 29 6.0 NA 4.6 6.0 Lan tree Peninsula MW-6 11/13/2003 24 33 5.4 6.1 5.8 5.4 Lan tree Peninsula MW-6 6/17/2004 34 37 4.5 5.4 1.9 4.5 10 210 <10 <10 8.2 8.2 <2.0 3.2 2.6 <25 <2.0 Lan tree Peninsula MW-6 4/14/2009 15 47 na 5.1 5.6 4.1 15.2 na <50 <2.0 11 12 12 <1.0 4.2 2.8 <10 <2.0 Lan tree Peninsula MW-61 8/26/2002 53 56 6.0 NA 6.8 16.1 5.4 230* <10* <10* 20 20 <2.0* 5.2* 2.0 <25* 2 9* Lan tree Peninsula MW-61 3/5/2003 44 38 6.2 NA 6.9 16.8 1.6 <50* <10* <10* 15 15 <2.0* 4.0* <5.0 <25" 2.7* Lan tree Peninsula MW-61 11/13/2003 33 38 4.0 5.8 4.8 16.5 1.2 <50* <10* <10* 14 14 <2.0* 3.3* 2.3 <25" 2.4* Lan tree Peninsula MW-61 6/17/2004 1 52 42 4.0 1 NA 4.8 1 19.7 <1.0 <50 <10 I <10 1 15 15 <2.0 4.0 1.9 <25 <2.0 Lan tree Peninsula MW-61 4/14/2009 28 43 na 5.6 6.0 8.0 16.5 na <50 <2.0 <10 17 17 <1.0 4.2 2.1 <10 <2.0 Lan tree Peninsula MW-6D 8/26/2002 53 1300 6.0 NA 6.8 16.0 <1.0 <50" <10* 10* 29 29 <2.0* 260* 15 <25" 2.8" Lan tree Peninsula MW-6D 3/5/2003 1617 1600 8.0 NA 0.12 16.8 <1.0 1 <50* <10* 16* 22 22 1 <2.0* 1 380* 1 19 <25* <2.0* Lan tree Peninsula MW-6D 11/13/2003 2440 2800 8.1 8.1 1.1 16.5 1.1 160* <10* 15* 16 16 <2.0* 550* 33 <25* <2.0* Lan tree Peninsula MW-6D 6/17/2004 2028 2000 6.1 7.7 0.14 17.6 <1.0 <50 <10 18 26 26 <2.0 440 22 <25 <2.0 Lan tree Peninsula MW-6D 4/14/2009 120 1374 na 7.7 7.8 0.36 16.5 na <50 <2.0 11 37 37 <1.0 330 20 U, P <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill MW-1S 11/3/2008 34 na na 6.1 6.6 0.4 16.3 1.5 <50 <5.0 <10 33 33 <1.0 17 3.7 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill MW-1S 1/26/2009 34 194 na 6.2 6.3 1.3 16.0 na <50 2.4 <10 39 39 <1.0 14 7.9 J8 <10 1 <2.0 Morgan Mill MW-1S 4/6/2009 34 141 na 6.0 6.2 0.5 16.3 na <50 2.1 1 <10 35 35 <1.0 12 4.7 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill MW-1S 8/17/2009 34 138 na 5.7 6.4 0.5 16.1 na <50 <2.0 <10 42 42 <1.0 14 11 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill CH-1 11/3/2008 40 na na 7.4 7.6 0.2 16.1 2.4 <50 <5.0 <10 110 110 <1.0 40 15 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill CH-1 1/26/2009 40 301 na 7.4 7.6 0.4 15.8 na 1 <50 3.6 12 120 120 1 <1.0 1 40 1 16 J8 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill CH-1 4/6/2009 40 280 na 7.4 7.4 0.3 16.2 na <50 4.1 10 120 120 <1.0 37 15 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill CH-1 8/17/2009 40 275 na 7.3 7.6 0.3 16.3 na <50 4.0 <10 110 110 <1.0 41 17 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill MW-1D 11/3/2008 118 na na 7.5 7.6 0.6 16.7 <1 <50 5.7 <10 110 110 <1.0 40 15 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill MW-1D 1/26/2009 118 292 na 7.5 7.7 0.4 16.8 na <50 6.9 <10 120 120 <1.0 43 16 J8 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill MW-1D 4/6/2009 118 284 na 7.5 1 7.7 0.2 16.6 na <50 1 7.4 <10 1 120 120 <1.0 40 15 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill MW-1D 5/11/2009 70 283 na 7.4 7.6 0.9 16.6 na <50 7.0 1 <10 120 120 <1.0 41 18 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill MW-1D 8/17/2009 118 258 na 7.6 7.8 0.4 16.9 na <50 7.5 <10 120 120 <1.0 42 18 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill MW-2D 11/12/2008 118 na na 7.5 7.8 0.4 17.0 2.6 <50 2.2 34 120 120 <1.0 1 40 17 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill MW-2D 1/26/2009 118 na na 7.7 7.7 0.2 16.8 na 1 <50 3.6 34 120 120 <1.0 40 1 17 J8 I <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill MW-2D 4/6/2009 118 292 na 7.7 7.6 0.2 16.7 na <50 3.9 35 130 130 <1.0 43 17 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill MW-2D 5/12/2009 70 282 na 7.5 7.7 0.8 16.6 na <50 3.9 32 130 130 <1.0 40 20 <10 <2.0 Morgan Mill MW-2D 8/17/2009 118 191 na 7.6 7.9 0.2 16.9 na <50 4.0 32 120 120 <1.0 44 19 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-1 12/15/2008 85 32 1 30 5.5 6.0 1 7.5 16.8 na <50 <2.0 <10 11 11 <1.0 1.8 1.3 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-1 6/8/2009 85 29 na 5.6 5.9 8.0 16.7 na <50 <2.0 <10 11 11 <1.0 1.7 1.3 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-2 12/15/2008 DRY na na na na na na na na na I na 3.8 3.8 na na na na na Pasour Mountain PM-2 6/22/2009 42 44 na 5.5 5.4 na 18.4 na <50 <2.0 <10 <1.0 1.7 4.3 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-3 12/15/2008 110 25 25 5.4 5.8 8.0 16.6 na <50 <2.0 <10 6.8 1 6.8 <1.0 1 1.3 1.4 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-3 6/8/2009 110 22 na 5.2 5.2 7.6 16.6 na <50 <2.0 <10 5.2 5.2 <1.0 1.3 1 1.3 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-9 12/15/2008 90 22 21 4.9 4.8 7.6 15.9 na <50 <2.0 15 <1 <1 <1.0 0.13 1.8 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-9 6/8/2009 90 20 na 4.5 4.3 8.9 16.5 na <50 <2.0 14 <1 <1 <1.0 <0.10 1.6 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-6 1/22/2009 70 57 53 6.4 6.4 2.5 15.0 na <50* <2.0* 15* 26 26 <1.0* 4.8* 1.2 <10* <2.0* Pasour Mountain PM-6 6/15/2009 130 1 58 1 na 6.1 6.5 1 7.2 16.4 na <50 <2.0 <10 24 24 <1.0 6.1 1.2 <10 1 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-7 1/21/2009 70 18 21 5.4 5.5 9.0 15.1 na 2000* <2.0* 25* 5.2 5.2 <1.0* 1.3* <1.0 <10* <2.0* Pasour Mountain PM-7 6/15/2009 70 14 na 4.9 5.2 9.2 16.6 na 580* <2.0* 1 15* 1.8 1.8 <1.0* 0.24* 1.7 <10* <2.0* Pasour Mountain PM-17 1/21/2009 28 100 92 6.1 6.4 5.2 14.4 na 68 <2.0 <10 42 42 <1.0 4.9 2.9 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-17 6/15/2009 30 92 na 6.1 6.3 9.5 15.0 na <50 <2.0 <10 45 45 1 <1.0 5.1 2.5 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-18 1/21/2009 80 123 110 7.2 7.1 4.3 15.1 na <50 3.0 <10 57 57 <1.0 12 1 1.3 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-18 6/15/2009 119 113 na 7.0 7.1 4.6 16.0 na <50 3.9 <10 58 58 <1.0 12 1.3 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-22 12/15/2008 85 27 25 5.9 5.9 8.0 16.1 na <50 1 <2.0 <10 8.8 8.8 <1.0 0.85 1.1 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-22 6/8/2009 87 18 na 5.4 5.5 8.4 16.6 na <50 <2.0 <10 5.3 5.3 <1.0 0.69 1.3 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-25 12/15/2008 75 1 12.7 1 <14.9 4.4 1 4.9 1 8.9 16.3 na <50 <2.0 <10 <1 <1 <1.0 0.19 1.2 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-25 6/8/2009 70 14 na 4.6 4.5 9.1 16.5 na <50 <2.0 <10 <1 <1 <1.0 0.12 1.4 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-5 12/15/2008 60 16 16 4.7 5.4 na 15.4 na <50 <2.0 <10 1 1 2.7 2.7 <1.0 0.46 1.4 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-5 6/22/2008 60 16 na 4.2 4.9 na 16.3 na <50 <2.0 <10 1.0 1 1.0 <1.0 1 0.17 1.3 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-14 1/21/2009 45 14 13 5.1 5.1 8.8 14.4 na <50 <2.0 <10 <1 <1 <1.0 0.19 1.2 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-14 6/22/2008 45 14 13 4.5 4.8 10.7 16.5 na <50 <2.0 <10 <1 <1 <1.0 0.20 1.2 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-15 1/21/2009 48 17.3 18 5.2 na 15.6 na <50 1 <2.0 <10 2.7 2.7 <1.0 0.44 1.4 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-15 6/22/2008 53 15 na 4.8 5.4 8.0 16.8 na <50 <2.0 <10 2.8 2.8 <1.0 0.4 1.2 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-19 1/21/2009 47 107 99 5.6 5.9 0.5 15.2 na <50 <2.0 <10 29 29 <1.0 3.2 8.4 <10 1 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-19 6/22/2008 1 50 95 1 na 5.5 5.8 1 0.7 15.8 1 na <50 <2.0 <10 28.0 28.0 <1.0 3.2 5.8 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-0 1/22/2009 na* 157 150 7.9 7.8 0.27 17.3 na <50 3.3 1 25 30 30 <1.0 22 1.3 <10 <2.0 Pasour Mountain PM-0 6/22/2008 na 90 na 7.0 6.9 8.42 16.9 na <50 <2.0 21 62 62 <1.0 19 1.2 <10 <2.0 Tater Hill 40004000001 10/2/2007 38 565 650 7.50 10.23 9.98 500.0 18000 <5 82 310 1 310 1 <1 46.0 9.3 20 410 Tater Hill 40004000001 4/2/2008 38 350 <50 11000 <5 <5 12 36 310 310 <1 <1 51.0 1 67.0 1 5.3 <10 17 32.0 150 Tater Hill 40004000001 7/9/2008 41 50 23.0 44000 <5 150 230 230 <1 87.0 <1 43 750 Tater Hill 40004000001 1/12/2009 41 540 600.0 <50 1 18000 <5 <5 <10 61 270 270 <1 <1 94.0 99.0 1.7 1 <10 27 7.1 250 Tater Hill 40004000002 10/2/2007 210 65 74 6.80 9.05 12.17 2.5 <50 150 <5 <5 <10 <10 30 30 <1 <1 11.0 11.0 1.3 <10 <10 2.0 5.0 Tater Hill 40004000002 4/1/2008 250 41 43 1 6.35 12.17 11.37 1.6 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 13 13 <1 <1 5.9 5.8 1.4 <10 <10 6.6 4.1 Tater Hill 40004000002 7/8/2008 250 1 48 1 50 6.68 1 9.52 12.63 <1 <50 62 <5 <5 <10 <10 16 16 <1 <1 7.5 7.3 1.2 <10 <10 2.1 3.4 Tater Hill 40004000002 1/12/2009 242 48 50 6.61 7.70 11.57 <1 <50 <50 <5 1 <5 <10 11 <10 17 17 <1 <1 6.8 6.7 <1 <10 <10 3.4 4.1 Tater Hill 40004000002 7/7/2009 245 52 50 6.56 8.69 13.15 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 20 20 <1 <1 7.0 7.0 <1 <10 <10 2.7 3.9 Tater Hill 40004000003 10/2/2007 245 86 94 7.69 1.88 11.75 <1 <50 100 <5 <5 <10 <10 35 35 1 <1 <1 1 1 1.2 <10 <10 <2 <2 Tater Hill 40004000003 4/2/2008 245 96 94 8.33 2.26 11.06 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 8.2 8.2 <1 <1 13.0 13.0 1.3 <10 <10 <2 <2 Tater Hill 40004000003 7/9/2008 285 30 99 8.44 1.54 11.21 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 34 34 <1 <1 14.0 13.0 1 1.2 <10 <10 <2 <2 Tater Hill 40004000003 1/13/2009 245 90 92 8.45 1.85 10.98 <1 <50 1 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 36 36 <1 <1 14.0 14.0 <1 <10 I <10 <2 <2 Tater Hill 40004000003 1/13/2009** 90 92 8.45 1.85 10.98 <1 <50 <5 <10 37 37 <1 14.0 14.0 <1 <10 <2 Tater Hill 40004000003 7/7/2009 145 99 91 8.14 2.04 10.92 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 40 40 <1 <1 14.0 <1 <10 <10 1 <2 <2 Tater Hill 40004000003 7/7/2009** 1 1 99 1 8.14 1 2.04 10.92 <50 1 <5 <10 <1 13.0 13.0 <10 <2 Tater Hill 40004000004 10/2/2007 NA/SW 29 33 7.14 8.71 13.05 16.0 77 370 <5 <5 <10 <10 13 13 <1 <1 13.0 1.4 <10 <10 <2 Tater Hill 40004000004 4/2/2008 NA/SW 25 25 6.74 12.69 9.02 8.2 <50 380 <5 <5 <10 <10 8 8 <1 <1 3.1 3.2 1.2 <10 <10 <2 Tater Hill 40004000004 7/9/2008 NA/SW 30 30 7.33 8.19 16.01 20.0 96 500 <5 <5 <10 <10 11 11 <1 <1 2.5 2.5 1.2 <10 <10 <2 Tater Hill 40004000004 1/12/2009 NA/SW 21 19 7.06 10.69 3.53 3.3 <50 100 <5 <5 <10 <10 6.4 6.4 <1 <1 3.3 3.3 <1 <10 <10 <2 4/12 Attachment A Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations A ARGADIS Tater Hill Oxidation S ecific Specific H WH pH -Lab Sampling P Reduction P P Dissolved Water Cond., Cond., Field WH, Lab to Depth Field Lab Potential, Oxyg am (standard (standard 40004000004 7/7/2009 NA/SW 29 27 7.44 8.71 14.90 40001000001 12/11/2002 14 150.0 5.91 3.60 14.96 Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Bicarbonate Calcium Chloride Co Turbidity Aluminum Aluminum Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Cadmium Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Chromium Copper pP Total Total Dissolved Total Total Dissolved Total otal Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved (mg/L as Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved TU) (ug/l as AI) ug/L as (ug/l as ug/L as (ug/1 as Ba) ug/L as (mg/L as mg/L HCO3) (ug/l a /1 as Ca) mg/L as (mg/I as mg/L as CI (ug/1 a Cr (ug/1 as Cu) ug/L a L HCO3) + A 51 540 <5 <5 <10 <10 11 11 <1 <1 2.1 1.9 <1 <10 <10 <2 44 1700 <10 22 49 49 <2 15 3 <25 2.8 40 3400 <10 30 24 24 <2 7.8 4.2 <25 3.8 Upper Piedmont Upper Piedmont 40001000001 6/11/2003 101.0 5.31 4.63 14.16 Upper Piedmont 40001000001 12/8/2003 14 101.6 5.64 1.25 16.20 53 4700 <10 41 40 40 <2 13 2.7 <25 6.3 Upper Piedmont 40001000001 7/26/2004 118.5 6.12 2.25 15.70 9.5 540 <10 24 43 43 <2 13 2.7 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000001 3/7/2005 17 131.0 6.38 2.59 12.80 220 <50 1800 <5 <5 11 27 38 38 <2 <2 9.1 9.4 3.4 <25 <25 <2 6.3 Upper Piedmont 40001000001 9/26/2006 136.0 5.22 4.49 17.03 22 580 <5 26 50 50 <2 14 2.9 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000001 9/18/2007 15 140.0 5.89 0.50 16.52 <1 <50 <5 13 49 49 <1 12 2.1 <10 <2 Upper Piedmont 1 40001000001 9/23/2008 15 140.0 6.23 1.51 16.85 1 3.6 1 <50 110 <5 <5 14 15 49 49 <1 <1 1 13 14 3.2 <10 <10 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 12/11/2002 35 416.0 1 6.70 2.20 14.80 2.2 69 <10 16 180 180 <2 16 9 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 6/11/2003 318.0 6.83 3.25 17.55 <1 65 <10 17 110 110 <2 14 10 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 12/8/2003 35 149.0 1.76 14.80 4.3 280 <10 11 78 78 <2 15 9 1 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 7/26/2004 68 184.1 6.81 2.85 16.40 3.4 270 <10 19 80 1 80 <2 15 9.9 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 3/7/2005 65 194.6 6.13 2.48 15.20 5 <50 210 <5 <5 12 13 78 78 <2 <2 17 16 9.9 <25 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 9/26/2006 163.0 6.04 2.77 15.38 26 1100 <5 22 70 70 <2 14 8.4 <25 2.5 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 9/18/2007 67 1 153.0 6.55 1.93 15.86 10 360 <5 12 64 64 <1 14 5.7 <10 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 9/23/2008 55 1 146.0 1 6.45 2.12 16.30 5.1 <50 210 <5 <5 <10 10 59 59 <1 I <1 13 13 5.3 <10 <10 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 12/11/2002 146 238.0 7.79 0.18 15.37 4.2 160 17 <10 110 110 <2 1 27 3 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 6/11/2003 241.0 7.31 0.07 16.50 <1 <50 17 <10 110 110 <2 27 1 2.5 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 12/8/2003 148 174.8 7.80 0.06 15.70 <1 57 17 <10 110 110 <2 27 2.7 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 7/26/2004 145 216.0 8.35 0.20 15.70 5.2 180 22 <10 1 120 120 <2 29 3.6 1 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 3/7/2005 150 249.5 7.91 0.25 15.30 <1 <50 <50 24 25 <10 <10 118 1 118 <2 <2 31 31 3.8 <25 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 9/26/2006 247.0 7.85 0.07 16.10 1.3 <50 18 <10 110 110 <2 29 4.3 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 9/18/2007 150 229.0 8.58 0.08 15.58 1.1 <50 22 <10 110 110 <1 31 3.7 <10 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 9/23/2008 151 248.0 7.65 0.09 15.82 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 110 110 <1 <1 32 31 4.7 <10 <10 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 12/11/2002 NA/SW 1 67.0 1 6.89 10.84 5.76 25 870 <10 25 18 18 1 <2 4.8 5 <25 2.5 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 6/11/2003 NA/SW 61.0 7.33 1 7.20 23.35 8.2 300 <10 24 19 19 <2 4.7 2.8 <25 1 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 12/8/2003 NA/SW 50.0 10.80 8.40 4.8 87 <10 20 26 26 <2 5.5 1 1 3.8 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 7/26/2004 NA/SW 80.4 7.17 6.50 24.00 3.5 120 <10 19 35 35 <2 7.3 5 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 3/7/2005 NA/SW 79.2 7.87 11.02 9.70 8.7 510 <5 <5 1 22 1 26 26 <2 5.8 5.1 1 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 9/26/2006 NA/SW 69.0 7.16 7.11 19.50 6.9 170 <5 12 25 25 <2 5.6 4.1 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 9/18/2007 NA/SW 92.0 6.87 7.69 18.67 3.5 58 <5 28 34 34 <1 7.3 4.8 <10 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 9/23/2008 NA/SW 88.0 7.25 7.39 19.32 2.5 <50 <50 <5 <5 21 22 30 30 <1 <1 7.3 7.3 4.8 <10 <10 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000004 12/11/2002 10 120.0 1 5.45 6.20 10.96 55 2500 <10 83 59 59 <2 7.2 6 <25 3.4 Upper Piedmont 40001000004 6/11/2003 1 110 2900 <10 95 15 15 <2 5.8 5.1 <25 3.9 Upper Piedmont 40001000004 12/8/2003 92.3 5.38 0.04 13.30 1 60 3700 <10 77 22 22 1 <2 1 5.4 3.5 <25 1 3.7 Upper Piedmont 40001000004 7/26/2004 85.6 6.05 4.59 17.10 40 2100 <10 76 22 22 <2 5.4 4.4 <25 2.6 Upper Piedmont 40001000004 3/7/2005 58.0 5.83 5.80 9.90 31 <50 700 <5 <5 58 63 21 21 <2 <2 5.7 5.6 3.7 <25 1 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000004 9/26/2006 98.0 5.81 17.11 4.9 180 <5 86 28 1 28 <2 7 2.6 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000005 12/11/2002 38 192.0 6.35 0.27 13.94 <1 <50 <10 <10 92 92 <2 22 4 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000005 6/11/2003 176.0 7.01 3.49 14.00 <1 160 <10 12 85 85 <2 20 3.4 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000005 12/8/2003 38 180.5 6.43 0.05 13.60 <1 <50 1 <10 <10 83 83 <2 19 3.2 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000005 7/26/2004 42 186.6 6.70 1 0.65 13.90 <1 1 <50 <10 12 1 90 90 <2 20 4 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000005 7/26/2004** 186.6 1 0.65 <1 <50 <10 15 86 86 1 <2 21 4.6 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000005 3/7/2005 41 140.0 6.61 0.60 14.00 <1 <50 60 <5 <5 <10 <10 90 90 <2 <2 22 22 4.2 <25 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000005 9/26/2006 41 171.0 6.67 <1 50 <5 29 46 46 <2 20 4.4 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000006 12/11/2002 156 281.0 7.12 0.20 14.81 4.2 61 <10 <10 140 140 <2 35 4 1 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000006 6/11/2003 290.0 6.80 0.05 15.95 <1 <50 <10 10 130 130 <2 35 3.3 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000006 12/8/2003 156 223.5 6.82 0.02 15.70 1.4 <50 <10 I <10 95 95 <2 25 2.5 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000006 7/26/2004 159 250.2 6.96 0.18 15.40 4 <50 <10 14 130 130 <2 28 3.7 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000006 3/7/2006 159 197.0 1 6.92 0.18 15.80 1 3.8 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 112 112 <2 <2 30 31 3.8 <25 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000006 9/26/2006 235.0 6.86 1 14.63 2.2 <50 <5 <10 150 150 <2 30 3.3 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000007 7/29/2004 340.9 1 6.89 2.08 16.20 140 2300 <10 62 110 1 110 <2 30 9.1 <25 7.8 Upper Piedmont 40001000008 12/12/2002 164 192.0 7.68 0.17 14.90 6.3 230 <10 <10 84 84 <2 22 3 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000008 6/9/2003 164 174.0 8.35 0.05 15.48 13 250 14 <10 74 74 <2 24 2.5 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000008 12/10/2003 164 135.0 7.97 14.00 2 <50 <10 <10 80 80 <2 23 2.8 1 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000008 7/29/2004 167 197.3 7.75 0.03 15.40 <1 <50 <50 10 10 <10 <10 89 89 <2 <2 28 24 3.2 <25 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000008 7/29/2004** 197.3 0.03 <1 <50 <50 10 10 <10 <10 83 83 <2 <2 27 28 3.3 <25 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000008 3/7/2005 167 198.0 1 7.83 0.33 15.47 <1 1 <50 12 <10 1 86 86 <2 24 3.1 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000008 9/28/2006 197.0 7.63 1 0.04 14.58 <1 <50 9.8 <10 33 33 1 <2 24 3.5 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 12/9/2002 65 183.0 6.35 3.50 15.59 4.6 110 <10 <10 38 38 <2 15 12 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 6/9/2003 65 135.0 5.75 1.80 16.75 <1 970 <10 <10 14 1 14 <2 11 10 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 12/9/2003 142.4 5.85 3.10 13.90 <1 1300 <10 <10 14 14 <2 11 9.8 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 7/29/2004 70 145.6 5.28 8.26 16.50 <1 220 220 <10 <10 15 19 6.2 6.2 <2 <2 10 11 14 <25 1 <25 5.7 5.6 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 3/8/2005 67 161.0 5.56 0.58 14.83 2.2 380 <5 <10 8 8 <2 12 13 <25 6 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 9/28/2006 143.0 5.22 9.10 17.70 <1 100 1 <5 29 4.5 4.5 <2 11 13 <25 4.7 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 9/28/2006** 110 <5 31 <2 12 <25 4.6 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 9/18/2007 67 145.0 1 5.48 8.07 15.61 <1 1 93 <5 32 1 4.1 4.1 <1 11 1 12 <10 3.8 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 9/24/2008 57 136.0 5.10 1 9.24 1 16.22 9.1 <50 140 <5 <5 25 24 4 4 <1 <1 11 11 12 <10 <10 3.5 2.5 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 12/9/2002 323 194.0 6.41 3.37 14.56 24 3300 <10 37 43 43 <2 7.5 11 <25 4.3 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 6/9/2003 185.0 6.43 3.80 16.66 22 810 <10 10 39 39 <2 7.1 13 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 12/9/2003 323 189.8 5.90 16.50 26 2000 <10 <10 38 38 <2 7.9 13 1 <25 3.1 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 7/29/2004 150 155.2 6.18 5.86 16.50 4.5 <50 190 <10 <10 <10 <10 31 31 <2 <2 7 7 14 <25 1 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 3/8/2005 185.0 5.91 5.13 15.39 1.5 1600 <5 <10 19 19 <2 8.7 13 <25 2.6 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 9/28/2006 164.0 5.92 8.02 17.14 9 1 740 <5 <10 22 22 <2 7.7 14 <25 1 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 9/18/2007 175.0 6.34 4.30 15.95 120 4100 <5 29 27 27 <1 1 8.7 13 <10 4.9 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 9/24/2008 323 175.0 1 6.09 6.65 16.98 40 <50 1800 <5 1 <5 <10 <10 1 22 22 <1 <1 8.3 8.8 14 <10 <10 <2 2.4 Upper Piedmont 40001000011 12/10/2002 45 191.0 6.87 1 6.60 9.85 270 970 <10 63 23 23 <2 12 11 <25 5.3 Upper Piedmont 40001000011 6/9/2003 174.0 5.87 16.88 160 3100 <10 54 24 24 <2 11 10 <25 2.8 Upper Piedmont 40001000011 12/9/2003 45 160.0 5.45 7.30 17.80 3.1 120 <10 48 15 15 <2 13 12 <25 2.8 Upper Piedmont 40001000011 7/28/2004 48 138.1 5.82 6.68 17.50 50 <50 1100 <10 <10 39 49 16 16 <2 <2 10 10 9.6 <25 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000011 3/9/2005 47 136.7 5.86 15.20 13 460 <5 38 23 23 <2 9 6.9 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000011 9/28/2006 39 121.0 5.82 6.31 16.00 170 880 <5 41 23 23 <2 7.2 5.9 1 <25 1 <2 5/12 Attachment A Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations A ARGADIS Oxidation specific Specific H WH pH -Lab Sampling P � Reduction P P Dissolved Water Cond., Cond., Field WH, Lab to Depth Field Lab Potential, (standard Oxyg am (standard 12/9/2002 200 299.0 7.85 0.06 15.69 Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Bicarbonate Calcium Chloride Co Turbidity Aluminum Aluminum Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Cadmium Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Chromium Copper PP Total Total Dissolved Total Total Dissolved Total otal Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved (mg/L as Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved as AI) AI (ug/I as As) ug/L as (ug/l as Ba) ug/L as (mg/L as mg/L HCO3) (ug/I as Cd) u 9/1 as Ca) mg/L as (mg/I as mg/L as Cl (ug/1 as Cr) Cr (ug/I as Cu) ug/L a Iws HCO3) A 40L 1.8 100 _<10 12 93 93 <2 32 24 <25 <2 1.8 80 <10 16 87 87 <2 32 26 <25 <2 2.1 <50 <10 10 81 81 <2 32 25 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000012 Upper Piedmont 40001000012 6/9/2003 302.0 7.75 17.19 Upper Piedmont 40001000012 12/11/2003 145 305.0 7.67 0.56 16.70 Upper Piedmont 40001000012 7/28/2004 200 271.3 7.75 2.71 18.60 3.8 <50 130 <10 <10 10 17 85 85 <2 <2 36 33 28 <25 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000012 3/9/2005 200 319.7 7.72 17.00 <1 76 <5 18 93 93 <2 36 26 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000012 9/28/2006 145 314.0 8.71 2.38 17.20 1.5 <50 <5 19 45 45 <2 36 29 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000012 9/28/2006** 145 8.71 2.38 17.20 <2 20 27 <25 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 12/10/2002 36 124.0 6.03 7.20 15.25 350 1300 <10 94 17 17 <2 5.1 6 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 6/10/2003 128.9 5.00 5.70 15.92 16 770 <10 57 13 13 <2 5.4 6.7 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 12/10/2003 142.2 4.99 15.20 37 1300 <10 57 15 15 <2 5.7 7.6 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 7/27/2004 38 101.6 5.54 7.68 15.80 14 <50 820 <10 <10 57 60 17 17 <2 <2 6.3 7 7.4 <25 <25 <2 3.9 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 7/27/2004** 38 101.6 5.54 7.68 15.80 50 <50 1200 <10 <10 53 71 15 15 <2 <2 6.2 7 7.6 <25 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 3/8/2005 17 580 <5 57 18 18 <2 6.5 7.4 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 9/27/2006 144.0 4.49 6.37 15.20 110 620 <5 84 16 16 <2 7.3 9 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 9/19/2007 35 157.0 5.41 7.16 15.58 8.2 150 <5 62 14 14 <1 7.1 7.9 <10 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 9/25/2008 38 101.6 6.19 7.68 15.48 2.5 <50 120 <5 <5 68 65 14 14 <1 <1 7.9 7.5 8.3 <10 <10 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 12/10/2002 42 142.0 6.40 13.46 4.2 54 <10 40 20 20 <2 6.8 7 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 6/10/2003 161.2 5.43 5.35 16.00 1.3 <50 <10 53 19 19 <2 7.7 6.3 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 12/10/2003 163.0 5.22 15.30 1 1.3 1 <50 <10 49 18 18 <2 7.4 6.7 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 7/27/2004 55 134.4 5.60 8.79 16.00 1.3 <50 50 <10 <10 55 53 19 19 <2 <2 7.9 7.9 6.9 <25 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 3/8/2005 55 152.3 5.66 7.73 15.51 <1 55 <5 46 19 19 <2 7.8 7 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 9/27/2006 152.0 4.98 7.66 15.32 <1 <50 <5 55 22 22 <2 8.5 8.2 <25 1 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 9/19/2007 53 161.0 1 5.61 7.52 15.45 <1 <50 <5 52 17 17 <1 8.4 5.9 <10 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 9/25/2008 55 173.0 6.58 8.25 15.70 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 60 58 16 16 <1 <1 9.4 9.1 8.6 <10 <10 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 12/10/2002 66 119.0 5.66 8.01 15.49 100 300 <10 20 25 25 <2 6.3 7 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 6/10/2003 117.0 5.76 6.64 21.11 38 1100 <10 27 20 20 <2 6.6 5.2 <25 2.8 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 12/11/2003 1 60 2500 <10 38 20 20 <2 7.9 5.9 <25 6.2 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 7/27/2004 70 129.4 6.00 7.04 17.60 7.4 <50 230 <10 <10 26 29 24 24 <2 <2 8.2 7.8 6 <25 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 3/8/2005 145.0 5.52 7.41 15.51 1.5 120 <5 19 21 21 <2 7.9 6.4 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 9/27/2006 138.0 5.14 7.87 15.40 2.7 65 <5 22 23 23 1 <2 8.9 7.7 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 9/19/2007 70 145.0 5.53 8.22 15.40 1.3 <50 <5 20 21 1 21 <1 9 6.8 <10 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 9/19/2007** 70 145.0 1 5.53 8.22 15.40 5 53 <5 20 22 22 <1 9 6.8 <10 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 9/25/2008 70 164.0 6.22 8.55 15.73 26 <50 870 <5 <5 23 29 21 21 <1 <1 9.7 9.7 8.6 <10 <10 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 12/10/2002 164 164.0 6.33 5.25 15.63 1.3 <50 <10 <10 39 39 <2 12 3 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 6/10/2003 1 <1 <50 <10 <10 34 34 <2 10 5 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 12/10/2003 159 161.0 5.70 1 15.60 1.4 <50 <10 <10 31 31 <2 11 5.4 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 7/27/2004 162 164.3 6.43 5.87 17.00 <1 <50 <50 <10 <10 <10 <10 31 31 <2 <2 11 11 5.9 <25 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 3/8/2005 166.0 6.28 6.63 15.50 <1 <50 <5 <10 33 33 <2 12 1 5.8 1 <25 1 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 3/8/2005** 166.0 6.28 6.63 15.50 <1 <50 <5 <10 1 32 32 1 <2 12 5.8 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 9/27/2006 178.0 5.49 5.80 16.48 2.3 <50 <5 <10 35 1 35 <2 13 7.7 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 9/18/2007 162 177.0 6.24 6.55 15.88 <1 <50 <5 <10 31 31 <1 <1 13 7 <10 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 9/25/2008 162 182.0 6.28 5.91 15.79 <1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 29 29 14 14 8.8 <10 <10 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000017 12/10/2002 13 316 6.15 0.63 14.98 170 2100 <10 16 82 82 <2 31 19 <25 16 Upper Piedmont 40001000017 6/10/2003 332 6.37 1 4.45 14.37 180 6100 1 <10 26 84 84 <2 28 21 <25 14 Upper Piedmont 40001000017 12/9/2003 14 325 6.50 1 15.20 50 1 1900 <10 11 90 90 <2 31 <25 9.1 Upper Piedmont 40001000017 7/28/2004 316 6.72 0.42 16.80 12 <50 1100 <10 <10 1 14 15 90 90 <2 <2 36 36 18 <25 <25 <2 5 Upper Piedmont 40001000017 3/9/2005 201 6.76 0.50 10.10 13 710 <5 <10 91 91 <2 31 1 16 1 <25 4.2 Upper Piedmont 40001000017 3/9/2005** 1 6.76 13 570 <5 <10 1 90 90 1 <2 1 31 15 <25 3.1 Upper Piedmont 40001000017 9/28/2006 277 1 6.70 3.22 17.26 10 180 <5 13 89 1 89 <2 28 15 <25 2.3 Upper Piedmont 40001000018 12/10/2002 30 317 6.60 0.10 14.90 1.8 <50 <10 12 80 80 <2 34 15 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000018 6/10/2003 313 6.64 0.11 14.39 2.1 <50 <10 16 74 74 <2 31 17 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000018 12/9/2003 30 212 6.40 0.30 14.80 1.4 <50 <10 12 72 72 <2 32 17 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000018 7/28/2004 35 301 6.89 1 0.14 14.60 1.4 <50 <50 1 <10 <10 20 18 77 77 <2 <2 33 33 12 <25 <25 <2 1 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000018 3/9/2005 35 239 6.87 0.50 1 14.10 1.3 1 <50 <5 13 78 78 <2 35 16 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000018 9/27/2006 277 6.70 3.22 17.26 <1 <50 <5 13 130 130 <2 33 16 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000019 12/10/2002 132 295 6.90 0.10 15.20 2.3 <50 <10 18 72 72 <2 38 14 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000019 6/10/2003 260 1 6.78 1.23 16.49 <1 <50 <10 1 25 1 64 64 1 <2 1 31 17 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000019 12/9/2003 132 202 6.40 0.06 15.50 <1 <50 <10 22 68 68 <2 33 17 <25 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000019 7/28/2004 135 310 7.06 0.13 15.50 1.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 28 27 71 71 <2 <2 38 42 13 <25 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000019 7/28/2004** 135 7.06 1.1 <50 <50 <10 <10 22 30 73 73 <2 <2 39 36 13 <25 <25 <2 <2 Upper Piedmont 40001000019 3/9/2005 135 230 6.77 0.20 15.20 1.1 <50 <5 25 70 70 <2 39 14 <25 <2 iedmont 40001000019 9/27/2006 302 6.85 0.36 15.00 <1 <50 <5 26 70 70 <2 44 13 <25 <2 iedmont 40001000021 12/10/2002 NA/SW 3.2 66 <10 50 38 38 <2 15 25 <25 <2 iedmont 40001000021 6/10/2003 NA/SW 128 7.14 7.39 21.77 7.3 210 <10 42 32 32 <2 10 7.3 <25 <2 iedmont 40001000021 12/9/2003 NA/SW 82.4 7.00 19.20 4.7 2.8 51 <10 40 35 35 <2 12 14 <25 <2 jUpper iedmont 40001000021 7/28/2004 NA/SW 175.5 7.53 8.33 22.933 <50 710 <10 <10 55 57 32 32 <2 <2 16 198.8 <25 <25 <2 <2 iedmont 40001000021 3/9/2005 NA/SW 856.25 13.80 4.9 13 950 <5 35 33 33 <2 10 13 <25 <2 iedmont 40001000021 9/27/2006 NA/SW 149 7.23 10.04 15.4 4.7 92 <5 44 44 44 <2 14 11 <25 <2 Notes: ND - not detected Langtree * Represents total analysis in unfiltered samples Upper Piedmont and Tater Hill * Below measure point ** Duplicate sample Source: NCDEQ 2019 6/12 Attachment A Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations GO ARG'ADIS e Fluoride Fluoride Iron Iron Lead Lead Magnesium Magnesium Manganese Manganese Mercury Nickel Nickel NO2+ Potassium Potassium Selenium Selenium Mercury Nitrogen, Sodium Sodium Sulfate SulfatSulfide Total Total Zinc Zinc TotalDissolved veota ocation Station ID Sampling Date Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved Total NO3 diss. Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Nitrate a Dissolved Organic Dissolved ua/L as .. ... .. .. Dis (mp/L ,,, ,,, ,. .. .. _ .. ,. (ma/1 as mp/L as (mg/I as mp/L as ,. _. Solids Carbon total (uq/I as ,. _ ed Conoontra= easured �A�111,..nWo.ds 30002000011 11/28/2006 <0.40 18,000 <50 Hg ,_�.. __ _., _�._ __ ... as N) � __ � _ __ .. JALJ a) Na SO4) SO4 ._� _ __ _, (mg/L Zn) 33,000 ND 27 16 120millum. 72 mm�iiiiiiiiiiil� UAL <10 2.9 17 <10 0.22 3.4 na 5.7 <2.0 <0.10 J 71 <2.0 12 Allison Woods 30002000011 3/5/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 3.2 190 <10 0.14 4.1 <5.0 8.0 6.4 <0.1 74 <2.0 20 Allison Woods 30002000011 7/9/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 2.9 97 <10 0.17 3.1 <5.0 6.6 4.7 <0.1 64 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 30002000011 11/5/2007 <0.40 <50 na na na na 0.16 na na na 3.8 na 54 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 30002000011 5/27/2008 <0.40 <50 <10 2.4 33 <10 0.04 2.0 <5.0 2.5 2.0 na 48 <10 Allison Woods 30002000011 3/16/2009 <0.40 780 <10 2.6 49 <10 <0.02 3.2 <5.0 2.7 4.0 <0.1 58 na 10 Allison Woods 3000200001D 11/28/2006 <0.40 <50 <10 4.3 <10 <10 <0.02 4.5 na 5.2 8.0 <0.10 J 103 J <2.0 97 Allison Woods 3000200001D 3/5/2007 <0.40 240 <10 4.4 <10 <10 <0.02 4.3 8.4 5.1 8.2 <0.1 108 <2.0 120 Allison Woods 3000200001D 7/9/2007 <0.40 58 <10 4.2 <10 <10 <0.02 4.3 5.0 4.9 7.8 <0.1 114 <2.0 110 Allison Woods 3000200001D 11/5/2007 1 <0.40 120 na na na na <0.02 na na na 6.4 na 109 <2.0 1306 Allison Woods 3000200001D 5/27/2008 <0.40 <50 <10 4. <10 <10 <0.02 4.4 <5.0 5.2 8.2 na 118 na 120 Allison Woods 3000200001D 3/16/2009 <0.40 <50 <10 4.3 <10 <10 <0.02 4.4 <5.0 4.9 7.5 <0.1 104 na 84 Allison Woods 300020000CH1 11/28/2006 <0.40 3300 <10 4.9 31 <10 <0.02 3.6 na 6.4 10 <0.10 J 106 J <2 14 Allison Woods 3000200002S 11/28/2006 <0.40 <50 <10 0.65 22 <10 <0.02 1.2 na 0.69 <2 <0.10 J <10 J <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 3000200002S 3/5/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 0.63 16 <10 0.02 1.1 <5.0 0.66 <2 <0.10 22 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 3000200002S 7/1012007 <0.40 <50 <10 0.66 11 <10 0.03 1.2 <5.0 0.60 <2 <0.10 J 181 <2.0 12 Allison Woods 3000200002S 11/512007 <0.40 <50 <10 0.68 <10 <10 0.03 1.2 <5.0 0.67 6.3 na 14 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 3000200002S 5/2712008 <50 <10 0.66 <10 <10 0.02 1.2 <5.0 0.72 na 30 na <10 Allison Woods 3000200002S 3/1712009 <0.40 <50 <10 0.61 <10 <10 0.02 1.2 <5.0 0.64 <2 <0.10 30 na <10 Allison Woods 30002000021 11/28/2006 <0.40 <50 <10 4.1 150 <10 <0.02 5.4 na 5.8 9.0 <0.10 114 J <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 30002000021 3/5/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 4.3 160 <10 <0.02 5.5 <5.0 5.5 9.4 <0.10 122 <2.0 11 Allison Woods 30002000021 7/10/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 3.1 140 <10 <0.02 5.4 <5.0 4.1 8.3 <0.10 101 <2.0 26 Allison Woods 30002000021 11/6/2007 <0.40 na na na na 0.05 na 7.7 na 99 <2.0 na Allison Woods 30002000021 5/27/2008 1 0.02 na 110 na Allison Woods 30002000021 3/17/2009 <0.40 <50 <10 3.1 350 <10 <0.02 5.9 <5.0 4.6 8.2 <0.1 102 na <10 Allison Woods 3000200002D 11/28/2006 <0.40 <50 <10 4.6 10 <10 <0.02 5.0 na 5.0 7.0 <0.10 108 J <2.0 65 Allison Woods 3000200002D 3/5/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 4.3 10 <10 <0.02 4.7 <5.0 4.6 8.0 <0.10 111 <2.0 100 Allison Woods 3000200002D 7/9/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 4.0 10 <10 <0.02 4.7 <5.0 4.3 6.5 <0.10 107 <2.0 53 Allison Woods 3000200002D 11/5/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 4.4 <10 <10 <0.02 4.9 <5.0 4.7 6.6 na 97 <2.0 91 Allison Woods 3000200002D 5/27/2008 <0.40 <50 <10 4.3 <10 <10 0.07 4.9 <5.0 4.6 7.6 na 98 na 78 Allison Woods 3000200002D 3/16/2009 <0.40 <10 <10 4.1 <10 <10 <0.02 4.8 <5.0 4.4 7.9 <0.10 57 na 130 Allison Woods 3000200003E 11/29/2006 <0.40 <50 <10 0.97 <10 <10 0.23 0.80 na 1.2 <2.0 <0.10 32 <2 <10 Allison Woods 3000200003E 3/13/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 2.6 16 <10 0.44 0.98 <5.0 1.9 <2.0 <0.1 44 <2 <10 Allison Woods 3000200003E 7/11/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 2.6 16 <10 0.69 1.0 <5.0 1.9 <2.0 na 55 <2 <10 Allison Woods 3000200003E 11/6/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 2.8 11 <10 0.83 1.2 <5.0 2.1 <2.0 <0.10J 50 <2 <10 Allison Woods 3000200003E 5/28/2008 <0.40 <50 <10 2.7 <10 <10 0.94 1.1 <5.0 1.9 1 <2.0 na 48 na <10 Allison Woods 3000200003E 3/23/2009 <0.40 <50 <10 2.5 <10 <10 1.2 1.0 <5.0 1.8 <2.0 <0.1 42 na <10 Allison Woods 30002000031 11/29/2006 1 <0.40 <50 <10 <0.10 <10 <10 2.1 <0.10 na <0.10 7.0 <0.10 67 <2 <10 Allison Woods 30002000031 3/13/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 2.7 35 <10 2.1 3.0 <5.0 4.0 <2.0 <0.1 72 <2 <10 Allison Woods 30002000031 7/11/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 2.8 21 <10 2.3 2.5 <5.0 3.9 <2.0 <0.1Una <10 Allison Woods 30002000031 11/6/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 3.0 11 <10 2.3 2.5 <5.0 4.0 <2.0 na <10 Allison Woods 30002000031 5/28/2008 <0.40 <50 <10 3.1 <10 <10 2.4 2.3 <5.0 4.1 <2.0 na <10 Allison Woods 30002000031 3/23/2009 <0.40 <50 <10 2.9 <10 <10 2.6 2.0 <5.0 3.7 <2.0 <0.1<10 Allison Woods 3000200003D 11/29/2006 <0.40 <50 <10 2.8 53 <10 <0.02 3.7 na 4.2 8.0 <0.10<10 Allison Woods 3000200003D 3/13/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 2.2 <10 <10 <0.02 4.6 <5.0 10 6.4 <0.142 Allison Woods 3000200003D 7/11/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 2.6 24 <10 <0.02 3.7 <5.0 7.8 6.3 <0.113 Allison Woods 3000200003D 11/6/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 2.5 12 <10 0.02 4.3 <5.0 9.4 <2.0 na 21 Allison Woods 3000200003D 5/28/2008 <0.40 <50 <10 2.4 11 <10 <0.02 4.1 <5.0 10 7.0 na na <10 Allison Woods 3000200003D 3/23/2009 <0.40 <50 <10 2.6 26 <10 <0.02 3.5 <5.0 7.7 6.2 <0.1 120 na <10 Allison Woods 3000200004E 11/29/2006 <0.40 <50 <10 2.3 <10 <10 <0.02 1.5 na 3.6 <2.0 <0.1 18 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 3000200004E 3/6/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 0.93 <10 <10 <0.02 0.71 <5.0 1.1 <2.0 1 <0.1 27 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 3000200004S 7/1012007 <0.40 <50 <10 0.90 <10 <10 <0.02 0.72 <5.0 1.1 <2.0 <0.1 21 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 3000200004S 11/612007 <0.40 <50 <10 0.98 <10 <10 0.02 0.85 <5.0 1.3 1 <2.0 na 27 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 3000200004S 5/2812008 <0.40 <50 <10 0.95 <10 <10 <0.02 0.71 <5.0 1.2 <2.0 na 24 na <10 Allison Woods 3000200004S 3/1712009 <0.40 <50 <10 0.89 <10 <10 <0.02 0.68 <5.0 1.2 <2.0 <0.1 20 na <10 Allison Woods 30002000041 11/29/2006 <0.40 <50 <10 3.2 200 <10 <0.02 4.2 na 10 2.0 <0.1 60 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 30002000041 3/6/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 2.0 <10 <10 <0.02 1.4 <5.0 3.1 <2.0 <0.1 58 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 30002000041 7/10/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 2.2 <10 <10 <0.02 1 1.5 <5.0 3.4 <2.0 <0.1 62 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 30002000041 11/6/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 2.6 <10 <10 0.03 1.7 <5.0 4.0 <2.0 na 70 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 30002000041 5/28/2008 <0.40 <50 <10 2.4 <10 <10 0.09 1.5 <5.0 3.8 <2.0 na 68 na <10 Allison Woods 30002000041 3/17/2009 <0.40 <50 <10 2.2 <10 <10 <0.02 1.5 <5.0 3.5 <2.0 <0.1 62 na <10 Allison Woods 3000200004D 11/29/2006 <0.40 <50 <10 1.8 <10 <10 <0.02 5.3 na 14 9.0 <0.1 98 <2.0 15 Allison Woods 3000200004D 3/6/2007 <0.40 <50 <10 3.0 19 <10 <0.02 3.4 <5.0 5.5 7.0 <0.1 100 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 3000200004D 7/1012007 <0.40 <50 <10 3.1 22 <10 0.02 3.4 <5.0 5.4 6.9 <0.1 109 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 3000200004D 11/612007 <0.40 <50 <10 3.4 24 <10 <0.02 3.8 <5.0 5.7 <2.0 na 119 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 3000200004D 5/2812008 <0.40 <50 <10 3.2 25 <10 <0.02 3.5 <5.0 5.2 7.6 na 110 na <10 Allison Woods 3000200004D 3/1712009 <0.40 <50 <10 3.3 26 <10 <0.02 3.7 <5.0 5.2 7.1 <0.1 270 na <10 Allison Woods AWCH-4 7/10/2007 <0.4 <50 <10 3.1 16 <10 0.02 3.5 <5.0 5.2 7.5 <0.1 105 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 3000200001Y 3/6/20007 <0.40 na na na na na 1.70 na na 3.6 2.8 <0.1 73 <2.0 na Allison Woods 3000200001Y 7/11/2007 <0.40 77 <10 2.4 100 <10 0.60 1.2 <5 2.8 <2.0 <0.1 55 <2.0 <10 Allison Woods 3000200001Y 11/6/2007 <0.40 na na na na na 0.25 na na 2.9 <2.0 na 54 <2.0 na Allison Woods 3000200001Y 5/27/2008 140 <10 2.5 37 <10 1.1 <5 na na 20 Allison Woods 3000200001Y 5/28/2008 <0.40 na na na na na na na na 2.8 <2.0 na na na na Allison Woods 3000200001Y 3/23/2009 <0.40 <50 <10 2.6 13 <10 0.95 1.7 <5 3.3 <2.0 <0.1 54 na <10 Bent Creek BC-3S 22-A r-03 <500 2300 <10 0.9 39 <10 <0.02 0.8 <5 1.5 <5 24 <5 13 Bent Creek BC-3S 27-A r-04 <50 <50 800 <10 <10 0.5 0.6 11 20 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.44 0.5 <5 <5 1.10 1.0 <2 18 <5 18 <10 Bent Creek BC-3S 2-Nov-04 <400 <50 <10 0.6 13 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.7 <5 1.4 <2 24 <5 <10 Bent Creek BC-3S 27-Jun-05 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.7 0.7 10 11 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.62 0.6 <5 <5 1.50 1.4 <2 25 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-3S 13-Jun-06 <400 <50 140 <10 <10 0.7 0.7 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.63 0.7 <5 <5 1.40 1.4 <2 23 <10 <10 7/12 Attachment A Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations GO ARG'ADIS Fluoride Fluoride Iron Iron Lead Lead Magnesium Magnesium Manganese Manganese Mercury Mercury Nickel Nickel Nitrogen, NO2+ Potassium Potassium Selenium Selenium Sodium Sodium Sulfate Sulfate Sulfide Total Total Zinc Zinc Total Nitrate Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Organic Dissolved Station ID Sampling Date Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved Total NO3 diss. Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Tot ug/L as Dis (mg/L (mg/1 as mg/L as (mg/1 as mg/L as Solids Carbon total (ug/I as M'� (mg/1 as F) mg/L as F (ug/I as Fe) ug/L as Fe ( Pb) ug/L as Pb (mg/I as Mg) g (ug/I n) ug/L as Mn Lug/I as Hg) H��ug/I as il -a� as N g/L as N) �mg/I as K) g/I as Se) Se a) � 04) J�O4 lug/L as S+ � Zn) ug/ Bent Creek BC-3i 22-Apr-03 <500 540 <10 0.8 16 <10 0.05 1.0 <5 1.2 <5 23 <5 <10 Bent Creek BC-3i 27-Apr-04 <50 <10 0.6 <10 <10 0.6 <5 0.9 <10 Bent Creek BC-3i 2-Nov-04 <400 <50 <10 0.6 <10 <10 0.06 0.06 0.8 <5 1.2 <2 26 <5 210 Bent Creek BC-3i 27-Jun-05 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.6 0.6 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.77 0.8 <5 <5 1.40 1.4 <2 24 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-3i 13-Jun-06 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.6 0.7 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 0.05 0.05 0.73 0.8 <5 <5 1.20 1.3 <2 24 <2 <10 60 Bent Creek BC-31) 22-A r-03 <500 350 <10 1.5 34 <10 <0.02 5.3 <5 6.0 10 340 <5 3800 Bent Creek BC-31) 27-A r-04 85 <10 1.5 95 <10 3.0 <5 3.9 290 Bent Creek BC-31) 1-Nov-04 <400 390 730 <10 <10 1.6 1.6 200 210 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 2.30 2.3 <5 <5 2.80 2.9 7.8 91 <5 460 190 Bent Creek BC-31) 27-Jun-05 <400 230 <10 1.7 130 <200 <10 0.04 0.04 3.20 <5 4.30 13 102 <2 97 Bent Creek BC-31) 13-Jun-06 <400 920 990 <10 <10 1.7 1.8 230 230 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 2.50 2.5 <5 <5 3.20 3.4 11 98 <2 66 110 Bent Creek BC-4S 22-A r-03 <500 5400 <10 1.20 450 <10 <0.02 1.00 <5 0.68 <5 <10 <5 29 Bent Creek BC-4S 27-A r-04 <50 <10 0.42 <10 <10 0.43 <5 0.53 <10 Bent Creek BC-4S 2-Nov-04 <400 96 <10 0.45 14 <10 2.7 2.7 0.74 <5 0.85 <2 <10 <5 <10 Bent Creek BC-4S 27-Jun-05 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.51 0.51 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.69 0.66 <5 <5 0.84 0.84 <2 19 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-4S 13-Jun-06 <400 91 <10 0.51 14 <200 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.66 <5 0.84 <2 15 <2 <10 Bent Creek BC-4S 21-Au -07 <400 <50 110 <10 <10 0.45 0.46 <10 11 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.65 0.68 <5 <5 0.77 0.80 <2 <0.1 12 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-4i 22-A r-03 <500 <50 <10 0.46 <10 <10 <0.02 0.62 <5 0.87 <5 16 <5 <10 Bent Creek BC-4i 27-A r-04 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.41 0.41 <10 <10 <10 <10 0.57 0.57 <5 <5 0.70 0.70 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-4i 2-Nov-04 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.45 0.44 <10 <10 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.76 0.76 <5 <5 0.85 0.89 <2 19 <5 <10 22 Bent Creek BC-4i 27-Jun-05 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.47 0.48 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 0.06 0.06 0.78 0.78 <5 <5 0.96 1.00 <2 14 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-4i 13-Jun-06 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.50 0.49 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.83 0.80 <5 <5 0.95 0.95 <2 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-4i 21-Au -07 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.45 0.44 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.75 0.71 <5 <5 0.87 0.87 <2 <0.1 16 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-4D 22-A r-03 <500 210 <10 1.30 45 <10 <0.02 4.40 <5 3.90 12 86 <5 440 Bent Creek BC-4D 27-A r-04 <50 <10 1.10 25 <10 3.30 <5 3.30 46 Bent Creek BC-4D 2-Nov-04 <400 <50 <10 1.10 25 <10 <0.2 <0.02 3.80 <5 3.50 12 85 <5 120 Bent Creek BC-4D 27-Jun-05 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 1.10 1.10 31 31 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 3.70 3.70 <5 <5 3.70 3.80 10 82 <2 130 140 Bent Creek BC-4D 13-Jun-06 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 1.10 1.10 21 21 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 3.60 3.60 <5 <5 3.70 3.70 9.3 80 <2 140 150 Bent Creek BC-4D 21-Au -07 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 1.10 1.10 20 20 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 3.90 3.80 <5 <5 3.40 3.40 10 <0.1 82 <2 210 230 Bent Creek BC-5S 23-A r-03 <500 610 <10 1.10 47 <10 0.25 1.10 <5 1.60 <5 18 <5 <10 Bent Creek BC-5S 28-A r-04 <50 <10 0.72 13 <10 0.57 <5 1.20 <10 Bent Creek BC-5S 2-Nov-04 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.80 0.78 30 29 <10 <10 0.09 0.09 0.94 0.98 <5 <5 1.90 2.00 <2 27 <5 <10 390 Bent Creek BC-5S 28-Jun-05 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.69 0.70 13 17 <200 <200 <10 <10 0.07 0.07 0.84 0.83 <5 <5 1.90 1.70 <2 22 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-5S 14-Jun-06 <400 <50 79 <10 <10 0.72 0.70 12 12 <200 <200 <10 <10 0.23 0.23 0.78 0.77 <5 <5 1.90 1.80 <2 22 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-5i 23-A r-03 <500 <50 <10 0.54 <10 <10 <0.02 0.59 <5 1.80 <5 <10 <5 <10 Bent Creek BC-5i 28-A r-04 58 <10 0.46 <10 <10 0.44 <5 1.50 <10 Bent Creek BC-5i 2-Nov-04 <400 <50 <10 0.56 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.61 <5 1.80 <2 26 <5 <10 Bent Creek BC-5i 28-Jun-05 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.59 0.60 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.60 0.62 <5 <5 2.00 1.90 <2 15 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-5i 14-Jun-06 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.59 0.59 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.60 0.57 <5 <5 1.90 1.90 <2 26 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-5D 23-A r-03 <500 350 <10 1.50 190 <10 <0.02 3.00 <5 2.90 <5 47 <5 2600 Bent Creek BC-5D 28-A r-04 58 <10 1.10 83 <10 1.50 <5 2.20 870 Bent Creek BC-5D 3-Nov-04 <400 880 32 1.20 76 <10 <0.2 <0.02 1.70 <5 2.70 <2 41 <5 1400 Bent Creek BC-5D 28-Jun-05 <400 86 82 <10 <10 1.50 1.50 86 47 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.2 <0.2 2.20 1.70 <5 <5 3.20 3.00 2.6 46 <2 1900 1000 Bent Creek BC-5D 14-Jun-06 <400 52 92 <10 <10 1.30 1.40 64 68 <200 <200 <10 <10 0.03 0.03 1.70 1.80 <5 <5 2.70 2.90 2.8 40 <2 1700 1800 Bent Creek BC-7S 23-A r-03 <500 3600 <10 0.97 35 <10 <0.02 1.50 <5 1.00 <5 16 <5 24 Bent Creek BC-7S 28-A r-04 2900 <10 0.69 <10 <10 1.20 <5 0.73 <10 Bent Creek BC-7S 3-Nov-04 <400 490 <10 0.65 <10 <10 <0.2 <0.02 1.40 <5 1.10 <2 16 <5 13 Bent Creek BC-7S 28-Jun-05 <400 <50 75 <10 <10 0.71 0.71 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 0.07 0.07 1.40 1.40 <5 <5 0.97 0.92 <2 11 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-7S 14-Jun-06 <50 1400 <10 <10 0.74 0.83 <10 13 <200 <200 <10 <10 0.02 0.02 1.20 1.40 <5 <5 0.99 1.00 <2 16 <2 <10 14 Bent Creek BC-7S 21-Au -07 <50 17000 <10 <10 0.62 1.40 <10 90 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 1.00 1.60 <5 <5 0.89 0.99 <2 <0.1 2.7 <10 21 Bent Creek BC-71 23-A r-03 <500 9800 <10 1.70 580 <10 <0.02 1.40 <5 0.83 <5 12 <5 30 Bent Creek BC-7i 28-A r-04 <50 <10 0.66 580 <10 0.50 <5 0.50 <10 Bent Creek BC-7i 3-Nov-04 <400 460 <10 0.76 30 <10 <0.2 <0.02 0.72 <5 0.76 <2 16 <5 <10 Bent Creek BC-7i 28-Jun-05 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.72 0.74 <10 18 <200 <200 <10 <10 0.1 <0.1 0.65 0.67 <5 <5 0.71 0.79 <2 10 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-7i 14-Jun-06 <400 <50 440 <10 <10 0.73 0.78 <10 26 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.64 0.70 <5 <5 0.68 0.71 <2 17 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-7i 21-Au -07 <400 <50 260 <10 <10 0.67 0.68 <10 15 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.58 0.63 <5 <5 0.61 0.64 <2 <0.1 14 <2 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-7D 23-A r-03 <500 250 <10 3.00 27 <10 <0.02 10.00 <5 14.00 38 110 <5 2600 Bent Creek BC-7D 28-A r-04 380 <10 2.40 95 <10 2.30 <5 4.90 1000 Bent Creek BC-7D 3-Nov-04 <400 140 <10 2.90 120 <10 <0.2 <0.02 3.00 <5 6.40 7.5 78 <5 1600 Bent Creek BC-7D 28-Jun-05 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 3.10 3.00 <10 13 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 3.60 3.60 <5 <5 8.40 8.50 13 100 <2 650 700 Bent Creek BC-7D 14-Jun-06 <400 <50 56 <10 <10 3.30 3.30 150 150 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 4.30 4.40 <5 <5 9.10 9.20 15 100 <2 820 900 Bent Creek BC-7D 21-Au -07 <400 <50 150 <10 <10 3.50 3.40 17 32 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 4.80 4.70 <5 <5 8.70 8.40 15 <0.1 116 <2 610 730 Bent Creek BC-1S 21-A r-03 <500 170 170 <10 <10 0.53 0.53 19 19 <10 <10 <0.02 0.26 0.26 <5 <5 0.99 0.99 <5 17 <5 27 Bent Creek BC-1S 26-A r-04 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.51 0.51 <10 <10 <10 <10 0.22 0.22 <5 <5 0.99 0.99 <10 Bent Creek BC-1S 1-Nov-04 <400 <50 68 <10 <10 0.57 0.55 <10 <10 <10 <10 <0.02 0.02 0.33 0.33 <5 <5 1.20 1.10 <2 22 <5 <10 Bent Creek BC-1S 27-Jun-05 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.61 0.62 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.37 0.35 <5 <5 1.40 1.50 <2 24 <2 10 Bent Creek BC-1S 12-Jun-06 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.56 0.56 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.34 0.37 <5 <5 1.20 1.30 <2 14 <2 10 Bent Creek BC-1S 20-Au -07 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.52 0.51 17 15 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.45 0.45 <5 <5 1.40 1.40 <2 <0.1 22 <2 <10 Bent Creek BC-1i 21-A r-03 <500 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.48 0.48 <10 <10 <10 <10 <0.02 0.24 0.24 <5 <5 1.10 1.10 <5 <10 <5 <10 Bent Creek BC-1i 27-A r-04 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.47 0.47 <10 <10 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.21 0.21 <5 <5 0.81 0.81 <2 10 <5 <10 Bent Creek BC-1i 1-Nov-04 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.51 0.54 <10 <10 <10 <10 0.35 0.35 0.31 0.32 <5 <5 1.10 1.30 <2 25 <5 37 Bent Creek BC-1i 27-Jun-05 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.53 0.53 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.30 0.31 <5 <5 1.10 1.10 <2 20 <2 <10 Bent Creek BC-1i 12-Jun-06 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.56 0.54 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.30 0.30 <5 <5 1.10 1.10 <2 14 <2 <10 Bent Creek BC-1i 20-Au -07 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.52 0.52 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 0.02 0.02 0.28 0.32 <5 <5 1.20 1.10 <2 <0.1 21 <2 <10 Bent Creek BC-1D 21-A r-03 <500 390 <10 1.20 20 <10 <0.02 0.72 <5 4.70 6 64 <5 Bent Creek BC-1D 26-A r-04 540 <10 1.10 18 <10 0.62 <5 3.60 Bent Creek BC-1D 2-Nov-04 <400 1 580 <10 1.10 20 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.75 <5 4.40 1 8.1 64 <5 Bent Creek BC-1D 27-Jun-05 <400 680 690 <10 <10 1.30 1.30 21 21 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.79 0.80 <5 <5 5.30 5.10 8.3 67 <2 130 Bent Creek BC-1D 12-Jun-06 <400 840 820 <10 <10 1.40 1 1.30 1 23 23 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.85 0.86 <5 <5 5.60 5.60 8.9 64 <2 100 Bent Creek BC-1D 20-Au -07 <400 910 910 <10 <10 1.20 1.20 23 23 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.80 0.85 <5 <5 5.80 5.20 7.3 <0.1 68 <2 97 Bent Creek BC-2i 21-A r-03 <500 69 <10 1.10 11 <10 0.1 0.29 <5 0.9 <5 24 <5 <10 Bent Creek BC-2i 26 -A r-04 <50 <10 0.80 <10 <10 0.24 <5 0.6 <10 Bent Creek BC-2i 1-Nov-04 <400 <50 <10 0.78 <10 <10 <0.02 0.03 0.36 <5 0.8 <2 24 <5 <10 Bent Creek BC-2i 29-Jun-05 <400 <50 <50 1 <10 <10 2.20 2.30 <10 <10 <200 <200 1 <10 <10 0.14 0.14 0.44 1 0.45 1 <5 1 <5 1 1.50 1.3 4.4 1 37 <2 <10 <10 8/12 Attachment A Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations GO ARG'ADIS Mercury Nitrogen, Sodium Sodium Sulfate Sulfate Total Total Zinc Fluoride Fluoride Iron Iron Lead Lead Magnesium Magnesium Manganese Manganese Mercury Nickel Nickel NO2+ Potassium Potassium Selenium Selenium Sulfide Zinc Total Nitrate Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Organic Dissolved Station ID Sampling Date Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved Total NO3 diss. Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Tot ug/L as Di (mg/L (mg/1 as mg/L as (mg/1 as mg/L as Solids Carbon total (ug/I as (mg/1 as F) mg/L as F (ug/I as Fe) ug/L /I as Pb) ug/L as Pb (mg/I as Mg) m Las Mg (ug/I as Mn) ug/L as Mn (ug/I as Hg) (ug/I a as Ni (mg/L as N) (mg as K) g/I as Se) O4) (ug/L as S) (m9/L ug/ �. Bent Creek BC-2i 12-Jun-06 <400 <50 <10 1.10 <10 <200 <10 0.04 0.04 0.35 <5 1.0 2 18 <2 <10 Bent Creek BC-2i 20-Aug-07 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.70 0.71 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 0.04 0.04 0.36 0.33 <5 <5 0.81 0.9 <2 <0.1 18 12 <10 <10 Bent Creek BC-2D 21-A r-03 1.2 420 <10 0.85 <10 <10 <0.02 2.20 <5 22.0 65 200 <5 910 Bent Creek BC-2D 11-Feb-04 1 180 <10 0.80 <10 <10 <0.02 1.40 <5 19.0 72 190 <5 590 Bent Creek BC-2D 26-A r-04 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.63 0.63 <10 <10 <10 <10 1.30 1.30 <5 <5 18.0 18.0 15 Bent Creek BC-2D 3-Nov-04 1.3 <50 62 <10 <10 0.46 0.45 <10 160 <10 <10 <0.2 <0.02 1.10 1.10 <5 <5 22.0 21.0 34 140 <5 64 460 Bent Creek BC-2D 29-Jun-05 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.37 0.38 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 0.07 0.07 1.10 1.10 <5 <5 20.0 21.0 18 120 <2 72 110 Bent Creek BC-2D 12-Jun-06 0.9 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.36 0.36 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.95 0.95 <5 <5 21.0 20.0 13 <2 22 49 Bent Creek BC-2D 20-Au -07 1 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.35 0.35 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.91 0.97 <5 <5 19.0 19.0 11 <0.1 112 <2 <10 12 Coweeta CWAS 21-Jul-08 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.84 0.8 39 40 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 0.02 0.02 0.9 0.8 <5 <5 2.5 2.4 <2 <0.1 58 <2 <10 <10 Coweeta CWAS 9-Feb-09 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.9 0.91 130 130 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 0.08 0.08 0.7 0.7 <5 <5 2.1 2.2 <2 <0.1 32 <2 <10 Coweeta CW-11 21-Jul-08 <0.4 <50 55 <10 <10 0.66 0.7 29 32 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 0.02 0.02 1 1.0 <5 <5 3.2 3.2 <2 <0.1 53 <2 240 220 Coweeta CW-11 9-Feb-09 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.65 0.6 <10 <10 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 0.02 0.02 0.94 0.9 <5 <5 3.2 3.1 <2 <0.1 6 <2 210 200 Coweeta CW-1D 21-Jul-08 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 1.3 1.2 <10 <10 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 0.02 0.02 1.8 1.8 <5 <5 7.4 7.1 16 <0.1 88 <2 150 170 Coweeta CW-1D 9-Feb-09 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 1.2 1.2 <10 <10 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 0.02 0.02 1.6 1.6 <5 <5 7 7.1 19 <0.1 64 <2 180 180 Coweeta CW-21 22-Jul-08 <0.4 <50 <10 <10 0.92 0.9 28 <0.2 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 1.4 1.4 <5 <5 1.9 1.9 <2 <0.1 50 <2 <10 <10 Coweeta CW-21 10-Feb-09 <0.4 <50 110 <10 <10 0.88 0.9 <10 13 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 1.1 1.2 <5 <5 2.7 2.7 2.4 <0.1 <12 <2 <10 <10 Coweeta CW-2D 22-Jul-08 <0.4 <50 140 <10 <10 0.49 0.5 <10 <10 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.83 0.9 <5 <5 1.8 1.7 <2 <0.1 34 <2 49 50.0 Coweeta CW-2D 10-Feb-09 <0.4 <50 820 <10 <10 0.5 0.71 <10 <10 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.8 0.92 <5 <5 1.7 <2 <0.1 30 <2 120 130 Coweeta CW-3P1 23-Jul-08 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.63 0.7 <10 <10 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.74 0.8 <5 <5 2.1 2.2 <2 <0.1 38 <2 <10 <10 Coweeta CW-3P1 11-Feb-09 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.64 0.6 <10 <10 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 0.76 0.8 <5 <5 2.2 2.2 <2 <0.1 33 <2 <10 <10 Coweeta CW-3D 23-Jul-08 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.98 1.0 <10 <10 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 <0.02 <0.02 1 1.1 <5 <5 3.4 3.4 2 <0.1 52 <2 200 260 Coweeta CW-3D 11-Feb-09 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.9 0.92 <10 <10 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 0.79 0.79 1.0 1.1 <5 <5 3.3 3.3 2.4 <0.1 <12 <2 380 430 Coweeta CW-41 22-Jul-08 <0.4 <50 690 <10 <10 1.4 1.5 <10 12 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 0.31 0.32 0.8 0.9 <5 <5 2.1 2.1 <2 <0.1 56 <2 <10 <10 Coweeta CW-41 8-Feb-09 <0.4 <50 370 <10 <10 1.2 1.2 <10 <10 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 0.32 0.32 0.71 0.7 <5 <5 2 2.1 <2 <0.1 69 <2 <10 <10 Coweeta CW-4D 22-Jul-08 <50 990 <10 <10 0.88 1.0 <10 11 <0.2 <0.2 <10 <10 0.02 <0.02 1.7 1.7 <5 <5 6.2 6.3 4.9 <0.1 69 <2 66 110.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-1 11/12/2003 <0.5 1500* <10* 1.9* 37* na <10* na 0.74 0.37* <5.0* 0.96* 3.8 na 24 <5.0 10* Langtree Peninsula MW-1 6/15/2004 <0.1 270 <10 1.9 12 <0.2 <10 0.39 0.41 0.24 <5.0 1.1 <1.0 X2 38 <5.0 12 Langtree Peninsula MW-11 8/28/2002 <0.5 4900* <10* 4.4* 61* na 10* na 0.74 2.0* <5.0* 3.5* <5 na 76 <5.0 43* Langtree Peninsula MW-11 3/4/2003 <0.5 1600* <10* 4.9* 78* na 10* na 1.00 2.0* <5.0* 3.6* <5 na 78 <5.0 49* Langtree Peninsula MW-11 11/12/2003 0.07 850* <10* 3.3* <10* na <10* na 0.89 1.2* <5.0* 5.1* 2.7 na 100 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-11 6/15/2004 <0.1 <50 <10 3.8 <10 <0.2 <10 0.83 0.83 0.92 <5.0 3.6 <1.0 X2 80 <5.0 22 Langtree Peninsula MW-11 4/14/2009 1.2 <50 <10 5.1 <10 na <10 na 1.00 1.5 4.0 <2.0 <0.1 68 na <10 Langtree Peninsula MWAD 8/27/2002 <0.5 120* <10* 2.4* <10* na <10* na 0.05 2.3* <5.0* 8.5* 80 na 220 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MWAD 3/3/2003 <0.5 <50* <10* 2.7* <10* na <10* na 0.26 2.4* <5.0* 6.5* 18 na 130 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MWAD 11/12/2003 0.07 <50* <10* 1.9* <10* na <10* na 0.08 1.8* <5.0* 7.9* 52 na 150 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MWAD 6/15/2004 <0.1 <50 <10 1.9 <10 <0.2 <10 0.7 0.07 1.9 <5.0 8.7 33 na 180 <5.0 <10 Langtree Peninsula MWAD 11/28/2007 2.4 <50 <10 2.0 <10 na <10 na 0.09 2.0 <5.0 9.0 35 na 138 na <10 Langtree Peninsula MWAD 4/14/2009 1.6 <50 <10 1.9 <10 na <10 na 0.06 1.9 <5.0 9.1 38 <0.1 156 na <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-2 8/28/2002 <0.5 180* <10* 3.2* <10* na <10* 0.78 0.53* <5.0* 3.5* <5.0 na 72 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-2 3/4/2003 <0.5 51* <10* 3.0* <10* na <10* 1.40 0.58* <5.0* 3.2* <5.0 na 70 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-2 8/14/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 3.2 <10 na <10 0.62 0.49 <5.0 3.8 <2.0 na 62 na <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-21 8/28/2002 <0.5 590* <10* 4.5* 15* na <10* 0.79 2.5* <5.0* 6.0* <5.0 na 96 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-21 3/4/2003 <0.5 75* <10* 4.4* <10* na <10* 0.92 2.0* <5.0* 5.6* <5.0 na 85 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-21 11/17/2003 <0.5 67* <10* 4.6* <10* na <10* 0.81 2.0* <5.0* 5.9* <5.0 na 82 <5.0 18* Langtree Peninsula MW-21 6/15/2004 0.2 <50 <10 4.8 <10 <0.2 <10 0.87 2.3 <5.0 6.1 2.0 X2 110 <5.0 <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-21 8/14/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 5.0 <10 na <10 1.10 2.2 <5.0 5.7 <2.0 na 88 na <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-2D 8/28/2002 <0.5 840* <10* 3.1* 20* na <10* 0.97 1.8* <5.0* 4.7* <5.0 na 98 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-2D 3/4/2003 <0.5 <50* <10* 2.7* 2.7* na <10* 1.30 1.8* <5.0* 4.5* <5.0 na 91 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-2D 11/17/2003 <0.5 <50* <10* 2.6* <10* na <10* 0.77 1.7* <5.0* 4.1* <5.0 na 84 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-2D 6/15/2004 <0.1 <50 <10 2.9 <10 <0.2 <10 1.30 1.9 <5.0 4.9 1.0 X2 100 <5.0 <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-2D 8/14/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 3.3 <10 na <10 1.50 2.1 <5.0 5.4 <2.0 na 96 na <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-3 8/27/2002 <0.5 1200* <10* 0.81* 36* <10* na 0.04 0.47* <5.0* 3.6* <5.0 na 48 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-3 3/5/2003 <0.5 350* <10* 1.0* 26* <10* na 0.05 0.63* <5.0* 12* 5.0 na 140 <5.0 13* Langtree Peninsula MW-3 11/13/2003 0.05 3500* <10* 1.1* 170* <10* na <0.2 0.83* <5.0* 9.6* 3.0 na 130 <5.0 15* Langtree Peninsula MW-3 6/17/2004 0.05 <50 <10 0.56 <10 <10 na <0.2 0.97 <5.0 7.1 3.0 na 130 <5.0 12 Langtree Peninsula MW-3 4/20/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 0.86 <10 <10 0.12 1.3 <5.0 3.0 <2.0 na 27 na <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-31 8/26/2002 <0.5 1200* <10* 3.8* 20* <10* na 0.06 0.88* <5.0* 2.1* <5.0 na 50 <5.0 11* Langtree Peninsula MW-31 3/4/2003 <0.5 160* <10* 3.9* <10* <10* na 0.12 0.86* <5.0* 2.1* <5.0 na 70 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-31 11/13/2003 0.06 500* <10* 3.6* 13* <10* na 0.27 0.89* <5.0* 3.3* 1.2 na 72 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-31 6/17/2004 <0.1 161 <10 3.7 <10 <10 0.2 0.20 0.93 <5.0 3.0 1.0 na 74 <5.0 <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-31 4/20/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 4.6 <10 <10 na 0.17 1.1 <5.0 2.8 <2.0 na 67 na <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-4 6/16/2004 <0.1 <50 <10 2.9 <10 <10 0.85 0.89 0.53 na 1.5 <1 na 56 <5.0 Langtree Peninsula MW-41 8/27/2002 <0.5 2200 <10* 3.8* 48* <10* na 1.00 2.0* <5.0* 7.5* <5.0 na 79 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-41 3/3/2003 <0.5 <50 <10* 2.4* <10* <10* na 1.50 1.3* <5.0* 4.7* <5.0 na 68 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-41 11/12/2003 0.07 540 <10* 2.5* <10* <10* na 1.50 0.54* <5.0* 1.2* <2.0 na 44 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-41 6/16/2004 <0.1 <50 <10 2.1 <10 <10 1.3 1.30 1.0 <5.0 3.6 <1.0 60 <5.0 <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-41 4/20/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 3.2 <10 <10 na 0.85 0.67 <5.0 2.0 <2.0 na 55 na <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-4D 8/27/2002 <0.5 1300* <10* 2.0* 35* <10* na 0.55 2.0* <5.0* 6.0 25 na 110 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-4D 3/3/2003 <0.5 360* <10* 1.5* 11* <10* na 0.69 1.5* <5.0* 6.7 62 na 190 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-4D 11/12/2003 0.08 1700* <10* 2.1* 47* <10* na 0.93 2.1* <5.0* 5.5 19 na 90 <5.0 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-4D 6/16/2004 <0.1 10000* <10* 3.9* 79* <10* 0.46 0.73 3.9* <5.0* 10* 34 na 140 <5.0 <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-4D 4/20/2009 <0.4 140 <10 1.9 <10 <10 na 0.59 1.60 <5.0 8.2 53 na 160 na <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-51 8/27/2002 <0.5 3200* <10* 3.7* 370* na <10* 0.29 4.9* <5.0* 6.7* <5.0 na 98 NA 10* Langtree Peninsula MW-51 3/3/2003 <0.5 2200* <10* 2.4* 66* na <10* 1.10 1.6* <5.0* 2.8* <5.0 na 76 <5 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-51 11/13/2003 0.06 3000* <10* 2.9* 33* na <10* 0.83 1.3* <5.0* 2.1* 1.8 na 66 <5 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-51 6/16/2004 <0.1 200 <10 2.8 340 na <10 0.47 2.8 na 4.9 1 10 na 200 <5 <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-51 4/20/2009 <0.4 68 <10 3.1 57 na <10 0.64 1.2 <5.0 3.0 <2.0 na 62 na <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-5D 8/27/2002 <0.5 <50* <10* 1.7* <10* na <10* <0.02 3.3* 1 <5.0* 22* 370 na 680 <5 <10* Langtree Peninsula MW-5D 3/3/2003 <0.5 120* <10* 1.9* 14* na <10* 0.04 4.1* <5.0* 34* 540 na 930 <5 <10* Lan tree Peninsula MW-5D 11/13/2003 0.1 <50* <10* 1.4* <10* na <10* 0.11 3.2* <5.0* 24* 580 na 830 <5 <10* Lan tree Peninsula MW-5D 6/16/2004 0.1 <50 <10 1.5 <10 na <10 0.11 3.3 na 23 390 na 640 <5 <10 Langtree Peninsula MW-5D 4/20/2009 4 U, P <50 <10 2.0 <10 na <10 0.19 2.9 <5.0 32 490 1 na 1 804 na <10 9/12 Attachment A Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations GO ARG'ADIS Fluoride Fluoride Iron Iron Lead Lead Magnesium Magnesium Manganese Manganese Mercury Mercury Nickel Nickel Nitrogen, NO2+ Potassium Potassium Selenium Selenium Sodium Sodium Sulfate Sulfate Sulfide Total Total Zinc Zinc Station ID Sampling Date Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Nitrate NO3 diss. Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved Organic Dissolved Total ug/L as Dis (mg/L (mg/1 as mg/L as (mg/I as mg/L as Solids Carbon total (ug/I as (mg/1 as F) mg/L as F (ug/I as Fe) ug/L as Fe Pb) ug/L as Pb (mg/I as Mg) mg/L as Mg (ug/I as Mn) ug/L as Mn (ug/I as Hg) H (ug/I as Ni) ug/L as Ni (mg/L as N) (mg/I as K) mg/L as K /L as Se a SO4) 04 (ug/L as S) ug/L as Zn JL J Lan tree Peninsula MW-6 8/26/2002 <0.5 870* <10" 1.1* 21* <10* NA 0.15 0.51* <5.0* 1.4* <5.0 na 22 <5.0 <10* Lan tree Peninsula MW-6 3/5/2003 <1 790* <10" 0.78* 48* <10* NA 0.09 0.49* <5.0* 1.2* _ <5.0 na 14 <5.0 15* Lanqtree Peninsula MW-6 11/13/2003 <0.5 82* <10" 1.1* <10" <10" NA 0.55 0.38* <5.0" 0.87* 0.4 na 29 <5.0 22* Lan tree Peninsula MW-6 6/17/2004 <0.1 <50 <10 1.2 <10 <10 0.24 0.24 0.52 <5.0 1.3 1.3 na 38 na <10" Lan tree Peninsula MW-6 4/14/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 1.9 35 <10 na 0.21 0.62 <5.0 2.0 5.1 na 32 na <10 Lan tree Peninsula MW-61 8/26/2002 <0.5 230* <10* 1.6" 21* <10" na 0.35 0.64* <5.0* 1.9* <5.0 na 38 <5.0 <10* Lan tree Peninsula MW-61 3/5/2003 <0.5 <50" <10" 1.5" <10" <10* na 0.53 0.56* <5.0* 1.7* <5.0 na 41 <5.0 <10* Lan tree Peninsula MW-61 11/13/2003 0.04 <50" <10* 1.2* <10* <10* na 0.28 0.44* <5.0* 1.4* 0.4 na 38 <5.0 <10* Lan tree Peninsula MW-61 6/17/2004 <0.1 <50 <10 1.4 <10 <10 na 0.33 0.54 <5.0 1.9 <1.0 na 54 na 25 Lan tree Peninsula MW-61 4/14/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 2.0 <10 <10 na 0.33 0.63 <5.0 2.1 <2.0 na 36 na <10 Lan tree Peninsula I MW-6D 8/26/2002 <0.5 <50* <10* 2.3* 12* <10* na <0.02 3.9* <5.0* 36* 740 na 1100 <5.0 <10* Lan tree Peninsula MW-6D 3/5/2003 <0.5 <50* <10* 2.2* 15* <10* na <0.02 4.3* <5.0* 42* 710 na 1400 <5.0 <10* Lan tree Peninsula MW-6D 11/13/2003 0.1 110* <10* 1.1* 22* <10* na <0.02 4.2* <5.0* 55* 1500 na 2500 <5.0 <10* Lan tree Peninsula MW-6D 6/17/2004 0.1 <50 <10 2.2 21 <10 <0.02 <0.02 5.7 <5.0 55 1000 na 1700 na 13 Lan tree Peninsula MW-6D 4/14/2009 8.0 U, P <50 <10 1.9 25 <10 na <0.02 2.5 <5.0 34 800 na 1224 na <10 Morgan Mill MW-1S 11/3/2008 <0.4 910 <10 8.7 350 15 <0.02 1.00 <5.0 14 55 152 <2 10 Morgan Mill MW-1S 1/26/2009 <0.4 J8 1400 <10 7.0 280 <10 <0.02 0.78 <5.0 14 40 J8 <0.1 144 <2 17 Morgan Mill MW-1S 4/6/2009 <0.4 1100 <10 6.8 220 <10 <0.02 0.83 <5.0 13 35 <0.1 135 J na 14 Morgan Mill MW-1S 8/17/2009 <0.4 2000 <10 6.6 310 <10 <0.02 0.72 <5.0 13 34 na 138 na <10 Morgan Mill CH-1 11/3/2008 <0.4 150 <10 5.1 180 <10 <0.02 0.85 <5.0 20 15 182 <2 <10 Morgan Mill CH-1 1/26/2009 <0.4 J8 280 <10 5.1 150 <10 <0.02 0.57 <5.0 21 14 J8 <0.1 179 <2 <10 Morgan Mill CH-1 4/6/2009 <0.4 1 250 <10 1 4.9 140 <10 1 <0.02 0.60 <5.0 21 13 <0.1 190 J na <10 Morgan Mill CH-1 8/17/2009 <0.4 540 <10 4.7 140 <10 <0.02 0.52 <5.0 19 14 na 180 na <10 Morgan Mill MW-1D 11/3/2008 <0.4 <50 <10 4.6 33 <10 0.06 0.35 <5.0 20 11 178 <2 <10 Morgan Mill MW-1D 1/26/2009 <0.4 J8 <50 <10 4.5 30 <10 0.03 0.39 <5.0 21 12 J8 <0.1 178 <2 <10 Morgan Mill MW-1D 4/6/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 4.5 26 <10 0.02 0.40 <5.0 21 12 <0.1 193 J na <10 Morgan Mill MW-1D 5/11/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 4.4 36 <10 <0.02 0.39 <5.0 21 14 190 na <10 Morgan Mill MW-1D 8/17/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 4.4 29 <10 0.03 0.34 <5.0 21 13 na 183 na <10 Morgan Mill MW-2D 11/12/2008 <0.4 120 <10 6.1 88 <10 <0.02 0.41 1 <5.0 23 13 193 <2 82 Morgan Mill MW-2D 1/26/2009 <0.4 J8 170 <10 1 5.9 98 1 <10 <0.02 0.34 <5.0 22 13 J8 <0.1 186 <2 170 Morgan Mill MW-2D 4/6/2009 <0.4 1 180 <10 6.1 98 <10 <0.02 0.40 <5.0 23 14 <0.1 202 J na 32 Morgan Mill MW-2D 5/12/2009 <0.4 220 <10 5.7 110 <10 <0.02 0.41 <5.0 21 15 206 na 40 Morgan Mill MW-2D 8/17/2009 <0.4 150 <10 5.7 90 <10 <0.02 0.38 <5.0 21 15 na 184 na 27 Pasour Mountain PM-1 12/15/2008 <0.4 110 <10 1.9 22 <10 0.12 0.51 <5.0 1.8 <2.0 <0.1J6 31 <2.0 <10 Pasour Mountain PM-1 6/8/2009 <0.4 71 <10 1.7 13 <10 0.12 0.43 <5.0 1.7 <2.0 na 29 na <10 Pasour Mountain PM-2 12/15/2008 na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na Pasour Mountain PM-2 6/22/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 1.7 130 1 <10 2.20 1 0.75 <5.0 3.3 <2.0 na 38 na <10 Pasour Mountain PM-3 12/15/2008 <0.4 90 <10 1.1 1.1 <10 0.20 0.41 <5.0 1.8 <2.0 <0.1J6 1 26 <2.0 1 <10 Pasour Mountain PM-3 6/8/2009 <0.4 87 <10 1 1.0 1.0 1 <10 0.21 0.38 <5.0 1.7 <2.0 na 24 na <10 Pasour Mountain PM-9 12/15/2008 <0.4 1 <50 1 <10 0.32 51 <10 1.00 0.24 <5.0 2.3 <2.0 <0.1J6 23 <2.0 <10 Pasour Mountain PM-9 6/8/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 0.29 <10 0.98 0.24 <5.0 2.1 <2.0 na 20 na <10 Pasour Mountain PM-6 1/22/2009 <0.4 18000* <10* 0.57* 0.57* <10* <0.02 0.71* <5.0* 7.2" <2.0 <2.0 62 <2.0 <10* Pasour Mountain PM-6 6/15/2009 <0.4 76 <10 0.66 0.66 <10 <0.02 0.51 <5.0 7.0 <2.0 na 70 na <10 Pasour Mountain PM-7 1/21/2009 <0.4 1200* <10* 0.4* 180* <10* 0.02 0.48* <5.0* 4.5* <2.0 <0.1 62 <2.0 12 Pasour Mountain PM-7 6/15/2009 <0.4 540* <10* 0.19* 100* <10* <0.02 0.16* <5.0* 2* <2.0 na 20 na <10* Pasour Mountain PM-17 1/21/2009 <0.4 60 <10 6.1 12 <10 1 0.26 0.89 1 <5.0 8.7 <2.0 <0.1 43 <2.0 <10 Pasour Mountain PM-17 6/15/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 6.2 <10 <10 0.27 0.78 <5.0 1 6.8 <2.0 1 na 73 na <10 Pasour Mountain PM-18 1/21/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 1 5.8 <10 I <10 0.04 0.81 <5.0 7.2 3.8 <0.1 97 <2.0 <10 Pasour Mountain PM-18 6/15/2009 <0.4 <50 1 <10 5.4 <10 <10 0.05 0.79 <5.0 6.7 3.7 na 91 na <10 Pasour Mountain PM-22 12/15/2008 <0.4 410 <10 1.0 21 <10 0.06 0.44 <5.0 1.3 <2.0 <0.1J6 25 <2.0 1600 Pasour Mountain PM-22 6/8/2009 <0.4 130 <10 0.7 33 <10 0.11 0.34 <5.0 1.3 <2.0 na 20 na 640 Pasour Mountain PM-25 12/15/2008 <0.4 <50 <10 0.27 32 <10 0.32 0.24 <5.0 1.2 <2.0 <0.1J6 20 <2.0 <10 Pasour Mountain PM-25 6/8/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 0.22 37 <10 0.36 0.18 <5.0 1.2 <2.0 na 18 na <10 Pasour Mountain PM-5 12/15/2008 <0.4 <50 <10 0.19 49 <10 0.34 0.28 <5.0 1.6 <2.0 <0.1 J6 18 <2 <10 Pasour Mountain PM-5 6/22/2008 <0.4 <50 <10 0.16 35 <10 0.26 0.26 <5.0 1.7 <2.0 na 16 na <10 Pasour Mountain PM-14 1/21/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 0.21 28 <10 0.42 0.19 <5.0 1 1.4 <2.0 1 <0.1 <12 <2 <10 Pasour Mountain PM-14 6/22/2008 <0.4 <50 <10 1 0.2 29 1 <10 0.18 <5.0 1.3 <2.0 na 14 na <10 Pasour Mountain PM-15 1/21/2009 <0.4 <50 1 <10 0.79 18 <10 0.35 0.22 <5.0 1.3 <2.0 <0.1 <12 <2 <10 Pasour Mountain PM-15 6/22/2008 <0.4 <50 <10 0.73 18 <10 0.35 0.21 <5.0 1.2 <2.0 na 16 na <10 Pasour Mountain PM-19 1/21/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 1.3 47 <10 1.80 0.97 <5.0 14 <2.0 <0.1 58 <2.0 <10 Pasour Mountain PM-19 6/22/2008 <0.4 <50 <10 1.2 50 <10 3.70 0.80 <5.0 13 <2.0 na 63 na <10 Pasour Mountain PM-O 1/22/2009 <0.4 <50 <10 4.4 <10 <10 <0.02 0.52 <5.0 8.9 <2.0 <0.1 126 <2.0 120 Pasour Mountain PM-O 6/22/2008 <0.4 <50 <10 0.9 <10 <10 <0.02 0.61 <5.0 6.2 <2.0 na 100 na 1900 Tater Hill 40004000001 10/2/2007 <0.4 12000 <10 12.0 570 12 <0.02 3.20 <5 1 120.00 45 510 12.0 73 Tater Hill 40004000001 4/2/2008 <0.4 <50 9000 <10 <10 16.0 20.0 150 310 <10 <10 0.30 2.90 3.40 <5 <5 89.00 97.00 1 64 457 <10 1 39 Tater Hill 40004000001 7/9/2008 <0.4 33000 <10 1 30.0 1 940 27 0.26 3.30 <5 33.00 28 324 8.5 140 Tater Hill 40004000001 1/12/2009 <0.4 <50 13000 <10 <10 24.0 27.0 18 490 <10 14 0.20 2.70 3.20 <5 1 <5 16.00 17.00 48 350 5.4 <10 84 Tater Hill 40004000002 10/2/2007 <0.4 1 <50 130 <10 <10 1.5 1.6 30 32 <10 <10 0.05 1.40 1.40 <5 <5 1.60 1.70 3.9 54 <2 <10 <10 Tater Hill 40004000002 4/1/2008 <0.4 <50 77 <10 <10 1.2 1.2 <10 I <10 <10 <10 0.02 0.45 0.43 <5 <5 1.10 1.00 2.9 37 <2 17 20 Tater Hill 40004000002 7/8/2008 <0.4 <50 85 <10 <10 1.4 1.4 <10 <10 <10 <10 0.05 0.52 0.47 <5 <5 1.40 1.30 4 32 <2 19 23 Tater Hill 40004000002 1/12/2009 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 1.5 1.5 <10 <10 <10 <10 1 0.02 1 0.36 0.39 <5 <5 1.30 1.40 3.8 26 <2 19 16 Tater Hill 40004000002 7/7/2009 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 1.4 1.4 <10 <10 <10 <10 0.03 0.41 0.43 <5 <5 1.30 1.40 5 32 <10 13 Tater Hill 40004000003 10/2/2007 <0.4 <50 160 <10 <10 <10 <10 11 <10 <10 0.02 <5 <5 1 9.2 69 <2 <10 <10 Tater Hill 40004000003 4/2/2008 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 1.8 1.8 <10 <10 <10 <10 0.02 1.20 1.20 <5 <5 4.30 4.30 1 9.4 74 <2 <10 <10 Tater Hill 40004000003 7/9/2008 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 1.9 1 1.8 <10 <10 <10 <10 0.02 1.20 1.10 <5 <5 4.50 4.40 8.2 64 <2 <10 <10 Tater Hill 40004000003 1/13/2009 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 1.9 1.9 <10 <10 <10 <10 0.02 1.20 1.10 <5 1 <5 4.60 4.60 8.9 58 <2 <10 <10 Tater Hill 40004000003 1/13/2009** <0.4 1 <50 <10 1.9 1.9 1 <10 <10 <0.02 1.20 1.20 <5 4.40 4.40 9.0 58 <2 <10 Tater Hill 40004000003 7/7/2009 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 1.7 1.8 <10 <10 <10 <10 0.02 1.20 <5 <5 4.40 9.5 66 <10 <10 Tater Hill 40004000003 7/7/2009** <50 <10 1.7 1.7 <10 <10 1.10 1.10 <5 4.30 4.40 <10 Tater Hill 40004000004 10/2/2007 <0.4 980.00 2400 <10 <10 72 110 <10 <10 0.13 1.10 <5 <5 4.30 <2 33 2.8 <10 <10 Tater Hill 40004000004 4/2/2008 <0.4 230.00 840 <10 <10 1.6 1.7 30 42 <10 <10 .0.24 0.33 0.38 <5 <5 1.20 1.30 <2 30 2.0 <10 <10 Tater Hill 40004000004 7/9/2008 <0.4 620 1800 <10 <10 1.3 1.3 58 79 <10 <10 0.13 0.39 0.38 <5 <5 1.50 1.10 <2 32 3.0 <10 <10 Tater Hill 40004000004 1/12/2009 <0.4 140 270 <10 <10 1.7 1.7 17 16 <10 <10 0.24 0.37 0.34 <5 <5 1.20 1.20 <2 <12 2.2 <10 <10 10/12 Attachment A Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations GO ARG'ADIS Fluoride Fluoride Iron Iron Lead Lead Magnesium Magnesium Manganese Manganese Mercury Mercury Nickel Nickel Nitrogen, NO2+ Potassium Potassium Selenium Selenium Sodium Sodium Sulfate Sulfate Sulfide Total Total Zinc Zinc Total Nitrate Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Organic Dissolved ug/L as Dis (mg/L (mg/1 as mg/L as (mg/I as mg/L as Solids Carbon total (ug/I as (mg/1 as F) mg/L as F (ug/l as Fe) ug/L as Fe ug/1 as Pb) ug/L as Pb (mg/I as Mg) g (ug/1 as Mn) ug as Mn (ug/l as Hg) H ( as Ni (mg as N) (mg/I as K) OW O4) J� (ug/L as S) Zn) ug/L as Zn Eb ".tali.nSampling Date Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved Total NO3 diss. Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Tater Hill 40004000004 7/7/2009 <0.4 310 1400 <10 <10 1.1 1.1 38 62 <10 <10 0.13 0.21 0.25 <5 <5 0.92 0.91 <2 29�_"7 <10 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000001 12/11/2002 <0.5 2800 <10 6.8 79 <10 0.1 1.6 <5 4.5 13 120 <5 Upper Piedmont 40001000001 6/11/2003 <0.08 5600 <10 6.3 56 <10 0.02 0.63 <5 4.6 16 76 <5 28 Upper Piedmont 40001000001 12/8/2003 0.1 7900 <10 8.1 86 <10 0.09 1.6 <5 4.5 15 110 <5 13 Upper Piedmont 40001000001 7/26/2004 <0.2 680 <10 7.1 30 <10 0.05 1.3 <5 4.5 17 120 25 Upper Piedmont 40001000001 3/7/2005 <0.4 <50 1900 <10 <10 7.6 9 20 61 <10 <10 <0.02 0.61 0.65 <5 <5 7.6 7.5 22 110 3.2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000001 9/26/2006 <0.4 960 <10 8.1 24 <10 0.06 1.6 <5 4.9 17 114 <2 <10 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000001 9/18/2007 0.4 <50 <10 6.9 <10 <10 0.06 1.2 <5 5.5 12 108 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000001 9/23/2008 <0.4 <50 140 <10 <10 7.5 7.7 12 10 <10 <10 0.08 1.3 1.5 <5 <5 6.1 6.2 13 110 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 12/11/2002 <0.5 70 <10 7.6 67 <10 1 0.69 1 2 <5 64 1 17 280 <5 <10 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 6/11/2003 0.24 79 <10 6.8 17 <10 1.4 1.8 <5 31 7.4 180 <5 34 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 12/8/2003 0.16 280 <10 6.6 15 <10 2.4 1.8 <5 14 2.7 1 140 <5 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 7/26/2004 <0.2 160 <10 7.4 33 <10 2.2 1.8 <5 12 3.2 160 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 3/7/2005 <0.4 <50 140 <10 <10 7.9 7.9 31 44 <10 <10 2 1.7 1.7 <5 <5 15 15 3.5 140 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 9/26/2006 <0.4 1500 <10 7.4 87 <10 0.96 1.6 <5 12 5.4 132 <2 <10 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 9/18/2007 <0.4 490 <10 6.2 6 65 <10 0.47 1.7 <5 11 3.2 123 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000002 9/23/2008 <0.4 <50 280 <10 <10 24 44 <10 <10 0.19 1.7 1.7 1 <5 <5 1 11 11 4.6 118 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 12/11/2002 1.4 1 200 1 <10 1 4.8 11 <10 <0.02 0.89 <5 18 1 <5 140 <5 41 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 6/11/2003 1.4 <50 <10 4.8 <10 <10 1 <0.02 0.81 <5 15 5.7 140 <5 170 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 12/8/2003 1.2 63 <10 5.1 10 <10 <0.02 0.27 <5 14 5.5 140 <5 140 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 7/26/2004 1.2 240 <10 5.6 12 <10 NA 0.97 <5 15 6 1 170 54 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 3/7/2005 1.3 <50 54 <10 <10 5.7 5.7 <10 <10 <10 <10 <0.02 0.83 0.84 <5 <5 19 19 6.2 150 <2 1 200 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 9/26/2006 1.2 <50 <10 5.6 <10 <10 <0.02 0.84 <5 18 6.9 150 <2 15 180 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 9/18/2007 1 <50 <10 5.7 <10 <10 <0.02 0.87 <5 17 5.9 154 <2 180 Upper Piedmont 40001000003 9/23/2008 1 <50 <50 <10 <10 6.1 5.8 <10 <10 <10 <10 0.05 0.89 0.86 <5 <5 19 19 8 148 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 12/11/2002 <0.5 1600 <10 2.6 120 1 1 <10 0.16 2.2 <5 3.5 <5 65 <5 <10 19 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 6/11/2003 0.11 1 1500 1 <10 1 2.3 150 <10 0.11 1.9 <5 1 2.9 1 4.2 54 <5 14 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 12/8/2003 0.1 1200 <10 2.8 1 71 <10 1 0.14 2 <5 3.8 3.2 56 <5 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 7/26/2004 <0.2 510 <10 3.4 200 <10 0.22 1.8 <5 5.1 2 70 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 3/7/2005 <0.4 1200 <10 3.1 89 <10 0.24 2.1 <5 5.3 4.4 1 60 2.4 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 9/26/2006 <0.4 1400 <10 2.8 130 <10 0.08 2.7 <5 3.8 3.3 68 4.5 1 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 9/18/2007 <0.4 590 <10 3.7 130 <10 0.31 2.3 <5 5.9 <2 72 3.5 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000020 9/23/2008 400 630 <10 <10 3.7 3.6 84 97 <10 <10 0.17 2.5 2.4 <5 1 <5 5.5 5.3 3 64 3 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000004 12/11/2002 <0.5 4600 <10 3.3 470 <10 0.81 3.9 <5 6.2 11 120 <5 35 Upper Piedmont 40001000004 6/11/2003 0.15 6700 11.00 2.5 320 <10 0.02 3.4 <5 4.9 15 85 <5 11 Upper Piedmont 40001000004 12/8/2003 0.09 1 3300 1 <10 2.4 350 <10 0.02 3.4 <5 1 4.9 8.8 86 <5 12 Upper Piedmont 40001000004 7/26/2004 <0.2 10000 1 <10 2.2 1 410 1 <10 1 <0.02 3.6 <5 5.8 8.2 76 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000004 3/7/2005 <0.4 760 1600 <10 <10 2.2 2.3 250 290 <10 <10 0.14 3.1 3.2 <5 <5 6.1 6.2 1 9.4 75 <2 <10 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000004 9/26/2006 <0.4 570 <10 2.7 170 <10 <0.02 4 <5 5.8 10 1 82 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000005 12/11/2002 <0.5 <50 <10 7.2 <10 <10 US 1.7 <5 6.9 <5 150 <5 23 Upper Piedmont 40001000005 6/11/2003 0.22 170 <10 7.1 41 <10 0.05 1.8 <5 6.5 2.2 120 1 <5 1 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000005 12/8/2003 0.2 <50 <10 7.2 <10 <10 0.07 1.8 1 <5 6.5 2.6 110 <5 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000005 7/26/2004 0.2 <50 <10 7.6 <10 <10 0.07 1.9 <5 7 3 130 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000005 7/26/2004** 0.27 <50 <10 8.5 <10 <10 0.07 2 <5 1 7.7 3.9 150 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000005 3/7/2005 <0.4 1 <50 50 1 <10 <10 1 8.5 8.4 <10 <10 <10 <10 0.11 2 2 <5 <5 7.9 1 7.9 3.1 130 <2 <10 29 Upper Piedmont 40001000005 9/26/2006 <0.4 55 <10 7.6 1 <10 <10 I NA 1.7 <5 6.8 3.4 126 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000006 12/11/2002 0.8 160 <10 7.1 340 1 <10 <0.02 2.4 <5 9 1 <5 170 <5 8900 Upper Piedmont 40001000006 6/11/2003 0.92 51 <10 6.6 410 <10 <0.02 3.6 <5 8.6 3.4 170 <5 6300 Upper Piedmont 40001000006 12/8/2003 1.2 120 <10 5.3 180 <10 0.05 1.3 <5 10 5.5 130 <5 740 Upper Piedmont 40001000006 7/26/2004 0.72 990 <10 7 1000 <10 <0.02 1.6 <5 9.6 4 160 3100 Upper Piedmont 40001000006 3/7/2005 0.8 420 580 <10 <10 7.5 7.7 830 880 <10 <10 0.03 1.6 1.6 <5 <5 11 11 5 140 <2 2000 2100 Upper Piedmont 40001000006 9/26/2006 1.5 330 <10 6.2 330 <10 0.02 1.5 1 <5 14 6.9 153 <2 790 Upper Piedmont 40001000007 7/29/2004 0.9 6200 <10 18 2800 <10 7.1 <5 26 52 200 86 Upper Piedmont 40001000008 12/12/2002 2.2 1 190 11 1 5 130 <10 <0.02 2.1 <5 1 8.9 7 140 <5 35 Upper Piedmont 40001000008 6/9/2003 1.9 200 <10 5 1 130 1 1 <10 1 <0.02 2.1 <5 9.7 10 120 <5 28 Upper Piedmont 40001000008 12/10/2003 1.7 <50 <10 5.5 140 <10 <0.02 2 <5 9.3 9.8 1 130 <5 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000008 7/29/2004 2 <50 <50 <10 <10 6 6.2 150 150 <10 <10 2.1 2.2 <5 <5 9.7 9.9 10 120 <10 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000008 7/29/2004** 2 <50 <50 <10 <10 6.2 6.2 150 150 <10 <10 2.2 2.2 <5 <5 10 10 10 140 <10 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000008 3/7/2005 1.8 <50 <10 6.4 160 <10 <0.02 2.1 <5 10 9.4 130 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000008 9/28/2006 1.8 <50 <10 6.3 140 <10 <0.02 2.1 <5 10 9.7 134 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 12/9/2002 1.6 660.00 <10 3.3 2500 <10 3.7 3.8 1 <5 11 12 120 5.4 30 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 6/9/2003 3.1 130 <10 2.8 1500 <10 2.7 4.4 <5 4.8 16 100 <5 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 12/9/2003 3.6 1 61 1 <10 1 3.8 880 12 3.1 4.2 <5 1 4.4 1 19 81 <5 23 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 7/29/2004 0.88 <50 <50 <10 <10 4.7 4.9 1 130 130 1 <10 <10 1 1 4.5 4.8 <5 <5 8.6 9.1 1 12 150 10 13 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 3/8/2005 1.3 190 <10 4.2 150 <10 7.9 4.3 <5 8.4 13 1 120 <2 1 36 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 9/28/2006 0.44 <50 <10 3.1 25 <10 7.5 3.3 <5 8.9 14 136 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 9/28/2006** <50 <10 3.3 26 <10 7.4 3.6 <5 9A <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 9/18/2007 <0A <50 <10 3 18 <10 7.1 3.2 <5 8.9 12 138 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000009 9/24/2008 0.4 <50 230 <10 <10 2.3 2.9 23 25 <10 <10 6 3A 3.2 <5 <5 9.2 9.2 16 120 <2 <10 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 12/9/2002 0.6 5400 14 8.3 120 <10 7.9 2.7 <5 13 <5 140 <5 1 13000 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 6/9/2003 0.45 2000 12 5.7 36 <10 7A 0.99 <5 1 11 4.6 140 <5 10000 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 12/9/2003 0.41 1 5100 1 <10 1 7 69 <10 7.8 1.2 1 <5 12 4.6 130 <5 11000 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 7/29/2004 0.54 <50 560 <10 <10 6.9 6.7 I <10 12 1 1 <10 <10 I 7.6 1 0.87 0.84 <5 <5 13 11 1 <5 150 3200 3100 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 3/8/2005 <0A 2400 <10 7.3 68 <10 9.3 1.1 <5 16 4.5 1 140 <2 7100 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 9/28/2006 <0A 1400 <10 7.3 33 <10 8.6 0.85 <5 15 5A 151 <2 1000 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 9/18/2007 <0A 18000 12 10 190 <10 7.5 2 <5 15 5 148 <2 1700 Upper Piedmont 40001000010 9/24/2008 0.4 <50 5800 <10 <10 7.4 8.9 12 61 <10 <10 8.g 0.89 1.1 <5 <5 16 17 8 156 <2 140 330 Upper Piedmont 40001000011 12/10/2002 <0.5 1600 <10 5.1 220 <10 10 1.8 <5 14 14 150 <5 1 92 Upper Piedmont 40001000011 6/9/2003 0.14 5300 <10 4.7 460 <10 5.1 2 <5 11 17 140 <5 66 Upper Piedmont 40001000011 12/9/2003 0.11 140 <10 4.8 25 <10 9.1 1.6 <5 10 17 120 <5 40 U er Piedmont 40001000011 7/28/2004 <0.2 <50 1200 <10 <10 4.4 4.6 36 77 <10 <10 6 1.6 1.6 <5 <5 9 9.2 16 120 24 51 Upper Piedmont 40001000011 3/9/2005 <0.4 350 <10 3.8 46 <10 3.1 1.6 <5 12 18 100 2.5 23 Upper Piedmont 40001000011 9/28/2006 <0A 690 <10 3.3 41 <10 14 16 <5 11 19 108 <2 27 11/12 Attachment A Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations GO ARG'ADIS Fluoride Fluoride Iron Iron Lead Lead Magnesium Magnesium Manganese Manganese Mercury Mercury Nickel Nickel Nitrogen, NO2+ Potassium Potassium Selenium Selenium Sodium Sodium Sulfate Sulfate Sulfide Total Total Zinc Zinc ".tal,.nSampling Date Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved Total NO3 diss. Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total ug/L as Dis (mg/L (mg/I as mg/L as (mg/I as mg/L as Solids Carbon total (ug/I as Eb Total Nitrate Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Organic Dissolved (mg/I as F) mg/L as F (ug/I as Fe) ug/ Pb) ug/L as Pb (mg/I as Mg) g (ug/I as Mn) ug/L as Mn (ug/I as Hg) HLug/I as as Ni as N (mg/L as N) �mg/I as K) (ug/I as Se) Se a) 04) SO4 lug/L as S� Zn) ug/L as Zn 11016 Upper Piedmont 40001000012 12/9/2002 3.2 230 <10 6.7 100 <10 0.23 5.5 <5 13 16 170 <5 4400 Upper Piedmont 40001000012 6/9/2003 3 160 <10 7.8 130 <10 0.23 5.5 <5 11 19 180 <5 610 Upper Piedmont 40001000012 12/11/2003 2.8 120 <10 8.6 200 <10 0.12 4.7 <5 12 22 160 <5 2' Upper Piedmont 40001000012 7/28/2004 3.1 <50 330 <10 <10 10 10 210 220 <10 <10 <0.02 4.2 4.3 <5 <5 12 12 22 200 760 1000 Upper Piedmont 40001000012 3/9/2005 2.9 150 <10 10 230 <10 0.26 5.5 <5 14 21 190 <2 460 Upper Piedmont 40001000012 9/28/2006 2.8 140 <10 10 170 <10 0.32 5.6 <5 13 22 198 <2 270 Upper Piedmont 40001000012 9/28/2006** 2.8 21 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 12/10/2002 <0.5 1300 10 2.3 170 <10 8.1 2.1 <5 14 <5 120 <5 27 Upper Piedmont 1 40001000013 6/10/2003 0.07 1000 <10 1.9 58 <10 9.9 2.1 1 <5 12 <1 130 <5 11 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 12/10/2003 0.05 1000 <10 2 46 <10 9.6 2 <5 13 0.44 130 <5 18 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 7/27/2004 <0.2 <50 280 <10 <10 2 2.2 <10 16 <10 <10 9.4 2.3 2.4 <5 <5 14 15 2.3 170 41 1100 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 7/27/2004** 1 <0.2 1 <50 620 <10 <10 2 2.4 1 <10 65 <10 <10 11 2.2 2.4 <5 18 1 16 5.8 210 14 130 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 3/8/2005 <0.4 240 <10 2.2 12 <10 10 2.2 <5 19 1 <2 130 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 9/27/2006 0.4 650 <10 2.8 82 <10 9.9 2.4 <5 19 <2 151 <2 11 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 9/19/2007 <0.4 140 <10 2.3 <10 <10 11 2.2 <5 18 <2 152 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000013 9/25/2008 <0.4 <50 160 <10 <10 2.6 2.5 <10 <10 <10 <10 12 2.4 2.3 <5 <5 20 19 2 139 <2 <10 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 12/10/2002 <0.5 <50 <10 2.2 18 <10 9.7 1.7 <5 14 <5 120 <5 16 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 6/10/2003 0.06 <50 <10 2.4 <10 <10 9.6 1.9 <5 14 11 130 <5 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 12/10/2003 0.07 <50 <10 2.3 <10 <10 9 1.9 <5 15 10 140 <5 12 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 7/27/2004 <0.2 <50 <50 <10 <10 2.6 2.5 <10 <10 <10 <10 10 2.1 2.1 <5 <5 18 18 4.5 180 1 <10 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 3/8/2005 1 <0.4 1 <50 <10 2.5 1 <10 <10 10 1.9 <5 1 19 1 3.2 1 120 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 9/27/2006 <0.4 <50 <10 2.7 <10 <10 1 10 1.9 <5 19 <2 149 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 9/19/2007 <0.4 <50 <10 2.6 <10 <10 1 11 1.9 <5 18 <2 154 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000014 9/25/2008 <0.4 <50 <50 <10 <10 2.9 2.9 <10 <10 <10 <10 12 2.1 2.1 <5 <5 20 20 <2 144 <2 <10 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 12/10/2002 <0.5 460 <10 1 2.2 67 <10 7 1.1 1 <5 11 25 110 <5 28 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 6/10/2003 0.08 2200 <10 2.4 78 24 7.1 1.3 <5 10 <1 120 <5 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 12/11/2003 0.08 4700 <10 3.3 140 <10 7.6 1.6 <5 12 0.49 100 <5 54 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 7/27/2004 <0.2 <50 230 <10 <10 2.5 2.5 22 29 <10 <10 8 1.4 1.4 <5 <5 12 11 <2 160 <10 10 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 3/8/2005 <0.4 110 <10 2.6 15 <10 8.7 1.3 <5 1 15 1 <2 120 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 9/27/2006 1 <0.4 1 54 <10 1 2.9 <10 <10 9 1.4 <5 16 <2 143 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 9/19/2007 <0.4 54 <10 2.9 <10 <10 1 9.9 1.4 <5 15 <2 150 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 9/19/2007** <0.4 58 <10 2.9 <10 I I <10 1 9.7 1.4 <5 15 <2 150 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000015 9/25/2008 <0.4 <50 1600 <10 <10 3.1 3.5 <10 42 <10 <10 10 1.5 1 1.6 <5 <5 17 16 <2 144 <2 <10 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 12/10/2002 <0.5 70 <10 4.1 <10 <10 8.5 0.87 <5 11 <5 130 <5 4000 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 6/10/2003 0.15 74 <10 4 <10 <10 8.6 0.85 <5 10 1.9 140 <5 1200 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 12/10/2003 0.14 <50 <10 4 <10 <10 8.8 0.84 <5 10 1.8 140 <5 1100 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 7/27/2004 <0.2 <50 <50 1 <10 <10 4.7 4.8 <10 <10 <10 <10 9.4 0.98 0.99 <5 <5 10 12 <2 210 780 800 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 3/8/2005 <0.4 <50 <10 5 1 <10 <10 9.8 0.98 <5 1 14 1 <2 150 <2 610 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 3/8/2005** <0.4 1 <50 <10 5 <10 <10 9.8 0.98 <5 14 <2 150 <2 1 610 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 9/27/2006 <0.4 180 <10 5.4 <10 <10 1 9.7 1.2 <5 15 2.3 161 <2 750 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 9/18/2007 <0.4 85 <10 5.2 <10 <10 9.9 0.99 <5 13 <2 154 <2 610 Upper Piedmont 40001000016 9/25/2008 <0.4 <50 65 <10 I <10 5.8 5.7 <10 <10 <10 <10 11 1.2 1.1 <5 <5 15 15 3.4 166 <2 300 470 Upper Piedmont 40001000017 12/10/2002 <0.5 4800 13 18 620 <10 <0.02 2.3 <5 7.3 41 210 <5 46 Upper Piedmont 40001000017 6/10/2003 0.18 11000 <10 17 670 <10 <0.02 2.5 <5 8 43 240 <5 26 Upper Piedmont 40001000017 12/9/2003 3200 <10 16 570 <10 <0.02 2.5 <5 8.1 200 <5 16 Upper Piedmont 40001000017 7/28/2004 0.26 770 3200 1 <10 <10 1 18 19 690 780 <10 <10 NA 3 2.9 <5 1 <5 8 1 8.8 52 230 NA <10 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000017 3/9/2005 <0.4 1600 <10 16 1 650 <10 <0.02 2.3 <5 7.6 39 190 2.5 1 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000017 3/9/2005** <0.4 1300 <10 16 610 <10 <0.02 2.2 <5 7.6 39 200 2.5 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000017 9/28/2006 <0.4 1700 <10 15 740 1 <10 1 <0.02 2.5 <5 7.2 39 200 <2 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000018 12/10/2002 <0.5 830 <10 12 140 <10 1 0.68 1.9 <5 8.4 55 200 <5 360 Upper Piedmont 40001000018 6/10/2003 0.21 810 <10 12 160 <10 <0.02 1.9 <5 8.2 49 210 <5 1700 Upper Piedmont 40001000018 12/9/2003 0.2 790 <10 11 160 <10 <0.02 1.9 <5 8.6 53 170 <5 1600 Upper Piedmont 40001000018 7/28/2004 0.21 870 840 <10 <10 12 12 170 170 <10 <10 <0.02 2.4 2.3 <5 <5 8.1 8.2 42 210 1500 1600 Upper Piedmont 40001000018 3/9/2005 <0.4 920 <10 13 180 <10 <0.02 2 1 <5 9.6 52 190 <2 1900 Upper Piedmont 40001000018 9/27/2006 <0.4 800 <10 1 12 170 <10 <0.02 2 1 <5 1 9.3 51 211 <2 1100 Upper Piedmont 40001000019 12/10/2002 <0.5 260 <10 5.4 1 74 <10 <0.02 2.2 <5 11 1 51 200 <5 1300 Upper Piedmont 40001000019 6/10/2003 0.22 360 <10 6.4 84 <10 <0.02 2.7 <5 9.5 40 200 <5 730 Upper Piedmont 40001000019 12/9/2003 0.26 330 <10 6.8 88 1 <10 1 <0.02 2.7 <5 10 48 160 <5 470 560 Upper Piedmont 40001000019 7/28/2004 0.56 290 280 <10 <10 7.8 7.5 81 80 <10 <10 NA 3.1 2.9 <5 <5 12 12 58 210 470 490 Upper Piedmont 40001000019 7/28/2004** 0.55 270 280 <10 <10 7.2 7.4 84 80 <10 <10 NA 2.8 2.9 <5 <5 11 11 59 220 500 Upper Piedmont 40001000019 3/9/2005 0.4 320 <10 8 1 86 <10 <0.02 1 2.9 <5 13 61 200 2.3 550 Upper Piedmont 40001000019 9/27/2006 0.5 290 <10 7.1 76 <10 <0.02 2.8 <5 17 71 228 <2 380 Upper Piedmont 40001000021 12/10/2002 0.6 440 <10 4.8 130 <10 0.68 7.5 <5 12 <5 130 <5 24 Upper Piedmont 40001000021 6/10/2003 0.21 840 <10 1 3.5 97 <10 0.58 2.9 1 <5 6.3 12 96 <5 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000021 12/9/2003 1 0.18 1 380 <10 1 4 110 <10 0.9 3.4 <5 9.6 1 1 13 98 <5 <10 Upper Piedmont 40001000021 7/28/2004 1 0.47 <50 1 1100 1 <10 <10 5.2 5.2 54 110 <10 <10 0.2 6.6 6.4 <5 <5 9.9 9.3 33 130 <10 <10 Upper Piedmont 1 40001000021 3/9/2005 0.4 960 <10 4.2 100 1 <10 1 0.8 3 <5 11 11 90 4 <10 U er Piedmont 40001000021 9/27/2006 <0.4 630 <10 4.7 120 <10 0.42 11 <5 9.4 16 115 2.2 <10 Notes: ND - not detected Langtree * Represents total analysis in unfiltered samples Upper Piedmont and Tater Hill * Below measure point ** Duplicate sample Source: NCDEQ 2019 12/12 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant UPPER TOLERANCE LIMITS (PROUCL OUTPUT SynTerra Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Normal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:10:30 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 95 Different or Future K Observations 1 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Barium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Minimum 8 Second Largest 17 Maximum 19 Mean 13.36 Coefficient of Variation 0.237 Mean of logged Data 2.566 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 Number of Distinct Observations 8 Number of Missing Observations 1 First Quartile 12 Median 13 Third Quartile 15.5 SD 3.171 Skewness 0.191 SD of logged Data 0.246 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Normal GOF Test Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.972 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.182 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 22.29 90% Percentile (z) 17.43 95% UPL (t) 19.37 95% Percentile (z) 18.58 95% USL 20.45 99% Percentile (z) 20.74 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Chloride General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Minimum 0.56 Second Largest 3.3 Maximum 3.3 Mean 2.26 Coefficient of Variation 0.418 Mean of logged Data 0.702 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 Number of Distinct Observations 9 Number of Missing Observations 1 First Quartile 1.6 Median 2.4 Third Quartile 3.15 SD 0.946 Skewness -0.486 SD of logged Data 0.555 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Normal GOF Test Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.915 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.176 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 4.922 90% Percentile (z) 3.472 95% UPL (t) 4.05 95% Percentile (z) 3.815 95% USL 4.372 99% Percentile (z) 4.46 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Cobalt General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 8 Number of Missing Observations 1 Number of Detects 7 Number of Non -Detects 4 Number of Distinct Detects 7 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Detect 0.667 Minimum Non -Detect 1 Maximum Detect 2.14 Maximum Non -Detect 1 Variance Detected 0.27 Percent Non -Detects 36.36% Mean Detected 1.199 SD Detected 0.519 Mean of Detected Logged Data 0.105 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.418 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.908 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.803 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.229 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.304 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 1.011 SD 0.457 95% UTL95% Coverage 2.298 95% KM UPL (t) 1.876 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 3.093 90% KM Percentile (z) 1.597 95% KM Percentile (z) 1.763 99% KM Percentile (z) 2.075 95% KM USL 2.032 DU2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.945 SD 0.535 95% UTL95 % Coverage 2.45 95% UPL (t) 1.957 90% Percentile (z) 1.63 95% Percentile (z) 1.825 99% Percentile (z) 2.189 95% USL 2.14 DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Magnesium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Minimum 0.577 Second Largest 1.24 Maximum 1.25 Mean 0.832 Coefficient of Variation 0.283 Mean of logged Data -0.218 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 Number of Distinct Observations 11 Number of Missing Observations 1 First Quartile 0.66 Median 0.749 Third Quartile 0.938 SD 0.236 Skewness 0.991 SD of logged Data 0.265 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Normal GOF Test Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.866 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.203 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1.495 90% Percentile (z) 1.134 95% UPL (t) 1.278 95% Percentile (z) 1.219 95% USL 1.358 99% Percentile (z) 1.38 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Potassium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Minimum 1.22 Second Largest 3.29 Maximum 4.6 Mean 2.198 Coefficient of Variation 0.466 Mean of logged Data 0.704 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 Number of Distinct Observations 11 Number of Missing Observations 1 First Quartile 1.465 Median 1.98 Third Quartile 2.56 SD 1.023 Skewness 1.463 SD of logged Data 0.414 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Normal GOF Test Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.855 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.19 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 5.079 90% Percentile (z) 3.51 95% UPL (t) 4.135 95% Percentile (z) 3.881 95% USL 4.484 99% Percentile (z) 4.579 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Sodium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Minimum 0.807 Second Largest 5.43 Maximum 5.49 Mean 3.773 Coefficient of Variation 0.424 Mean of logged Data 1.198 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 Number of Distinct Observations 11 Number of Missing Observations 1 First Quartile 2.735 Median 4.11 Third Quartile 4.93 SD 1.598 Skewness -0.785 SD of logged Data 0.608 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Normal GOF Test Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.901 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.208 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 8.273 90% Percentile (z) 5.822 95% UPL (t) 6.799 95% Percentile (z) 6.402 95% USL 7.344 99% Percentile (z) 7.492 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Sulfate General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Minimum 0.87 Second Largest 2.2 Maximum 2.3 Mean 1.484 Coefficient of Variation 0.319 Mean of logged Data 0.349 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 Number of Distinct Observations 10 Number of Missing Observations 1 First Quartile 1.15 Median 1.4 Third Quartile 1.7 SD 0.473 Skewness 0.552 SD of logged Data 0.318 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Normal GOF Test Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.942 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.13 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 2.815 90% Percentile (z) 2.09 95% UPL (t) 2.379 95% Percentile (z) 2.262 95% USL 2.54 99% Percentile (z) 2.584 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Two -Sided 95% Tolerance Intervals of pH Percent of Parametric Parametric Population Lower Upper Between Tolerance Tolerance Limits Limit Limit 95 4.867073 6.899594 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Gamma Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:11:47 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 95 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Calcium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Minimum 0.843 Second Largest 5.1 Maximum 8.1 Mean 2.989 Coefficient of Variation 0.739 Mean of logged Data 0.872 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 Number of Distinct Observations 10 Number of Missing Observations 1 First Quartile 1.56 Median 2.12 Third Quartile 4.24 SD 2.21 Skewness 1.396 SD of logged Data 0.691 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Gamma GOF Test A-D Test Statistic 0.428 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.737 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.237 Kolmogorov-Smimov Gamma GOF Test 5% K-S Critical Value 0.258 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics k hat (MLE) 2.391 Theta hat (MLE) 1.25 nu hat (MLE) 52.59 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 2.989 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.799 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 1.661 nu star (bias corrected) 39.58 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 2.229 Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 7.85 90% Percentile 5.962 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 8.029 95% Percentile 7.335 95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 11.98 99% Percentile 10.4 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 12.74 95% WH USL 9.241 95% HW USL 9.583 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Chromium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 8 Number of Missing Observations 1 Number of Detects 7 Number of Non -Detects 4 Number of Distinct Detects 7 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Detect 0.851 Minimum Non -Detect 1 Maximum Detect 7.17 Maximum Non -Detect 1 Variance Detected 5.11 Percent Non -Detects 36.36% Mean Detected 2.372 SD Detected 2.261 Mean of Detected Logged Data 0.58 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.75 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only A-D Test Statistic 0.613 Anderson -Darling GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.716 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.266 Kolmogorov-Smimov GOF 5% K-S Critical Value 0.315 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution KM Mean 1.819 KM SD 1.823 95% UTL95% Coverage 6.95 95% KM UPL (t) 5.269 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 10.12 90% KM Percentile (z) 4.155 95% KM Percentile (z) 4.817 99% KM Percentile (z) 6.059 95% KM USL 5.89 Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) 1.916 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.19 Theta hat (MLE) 1.238 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 1.993 nu hat (MLE) 26.82 nu star (bias corrected) 16.66 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 2.372 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 2.174 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 6.709 Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects GROS may not be used when data set has > 50 % NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20) For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs This is especially true when the sample size is small. For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates Minimum 0.01 Mean 1.524 Maximum 7.17 Median 1.06 SD 2.109 CV 1.384 k hat (MLE) 0.435 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.377 Theta hat (MLE) 3.5 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 4.04 nu hat (MLE) 9.579 nu star (bias corrected) 8.3 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.524 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 2.481 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 3.199 90% Percentile 4.348 95% Percentile 6.461 99% Percentile 11.81 The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods WH HW WH HW 95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 15.15 20.99 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 7.513 8.967 95% Gamma USL 9.928 12.55 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Chromium (Continued) Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates Mean (KM) 1.819 SD (KM) 1.823 Variance (KM) 3.322 SE of Mean (KM) 0.594 k hat (KM) 0.996 k star (KM) 0.785 nu hat (KM) 21.9 nu star (KM) 21.9 theta hat (KM) 1.827 theta star (KM) 2.318 80% gamma percentile (KM) 2.975 90 % gamma percentile (KM) 4.443 95% gamma percentile (KM) 5.941 99% gamma percentile (KM) 9.484 The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods WH HW WH HW 95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 7.605 7.796 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 4.875 4.836 95% KM Gamma Percentile 4.272 4.208 95% Gamma USL 5.791 5.808 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A TDS General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Minimum 26 Second Largest 57 Maximum 110 Mean 48.64 Coefficient of Variation 0.48 Mean of logged Data 3.801 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 Number of Distinct Observations 9 Number of Missing Observations 1 First Quartile 32 Median 51 Third Quartile 53.5 SD 23.34 Skewness 1.948 SD of logged Data 0.412 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Gamma GOF Test A-D Test Statistic 0.556 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.731 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.205 Kolmogorov-Smimov Gamma GOF Test 5% K-S Critical Value 0.256 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics k hat (MLE) 6.124 k star (bias corrected MLE) 4.514 Theta hat (MLE) 7.942 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 10.77 nu hat (MLE) 134.7 nu star (bias corrected) 99.32 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 48.64 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 22.89 Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 94.61 90% Percentile 79.3 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 95.17 95% Percentile 91.36 95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 127.4 99% Percentile 117 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 130.3 95% WH USL 106 95% HW USL 107.2 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Total Radium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 10 Minimum 0.332 Second Largest 0.845 Maximum 1.56 Mean 0.684 Coefficient of Variation 0.514 Mean of logged Data -0.475 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911 Number of Distinct Observations 10 Number of Missing Observations 2 First Quartile 0.518 Median 0.567 Third Quartile 0.804 SD 0.352 Skewness 1.91 SD of logged Data 0.441 d2max (for USL) 2.176 Gamma GOF Test A-D Test Statistic 0.397 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.729 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.169 Kolmogorov-Smimov Gamma GOF Test 5% K-S Critical Value 0.267 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics k hat (MLE) 5.414 k star (bias corrected MLE) 3.856 Theta hat (MLE) 0.126 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.177 nu hat (MILE) 108.3 nu star (bias corrected) 77.13 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.684 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.348 Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 1.396 90% Percentile 1.151 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 1.407 95% Percentile 1.339 95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1.949 99% Percentile 1.741 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 2.005 95% WH USL 1.527 95% HW USL 1.546 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Lognormal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:12:48 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 95 Different or Future K Observations 1 Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Alkalinity General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 9 Number of Missing Observations 1 Number of Detects 10 Number of Non -Detects 1 Number of Distinct Detects 8 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Detect 9.5 Minimum Non -Detect 5 Maximum Detect 26.4 Maximum Non -Detect 5 Variance Detected 29.31 Percent Non -Detects 9.091 % Mean Detected 14.89 SD Detected 5.414 Mean of Detected Logged Data 2.65 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.321 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.882 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.262 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 13.99 SD 5.663 95% UTL95% Coverage 29.93 95% KM UPL (t) 24.71 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 39.77 90% KM Percentile (z) 21.25 95% KM Percentile (z) 23.31 99% KM Percentile (z) 27.16 95% KM USL 26.64 Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects Mean in Original Scale 14.14 Mean in Log Scale 2.581 SD in Original Scale 5.709 SD in Log Scale 0.381 95% UTL95% Coverage 38.64 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 26.4 95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 26.4 95% UPL (t) 27.19 90% Percentile (z) 21.54 95% Percentile (z) 24.74 99% Percentile (z) 32.07 95% USL 30.96 Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM Mean of Logged Data 2.556 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage 41.68 KM SD of Logged Data 0.417 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 28.37 95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 25.58 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 32.71 Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Mean in Original Scale 13.76 Mean in Log Scale 2.493 SD in Original Scale 6.351 SD in Log Scale 0.605 95% UTL95% Coverage 66.44 95% UPL (t) 38.03 90% Percentile (z) 26.27 95% Percentile (z) 32.73 99% Percentile (z) 49.43 95% USL 46.74 DU2 is not a Recommended Method. DU2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons. Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Nonparametric Background Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:13:22 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 85 Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Arsenic General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Minimum 0.52 Second Largest 1.11 Maximum 1.53 Mean 1.006 Coefficient of Variation 0.229 Mean of logged Data -0.0201 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.891 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 5 Number of Missing Observations 1 First Quartile 1 Median 1 Third Quartile 1 SD 0.231 Skewness 0.289 SD of logged Data 0.25 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 11 95% UTL with 85% Coverage 1.53 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.941 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.833 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 19 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage 1.53 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage 1.32 95% UPL 1.53 90% Percentile 1.11 90% Chebyshev UPL 1.729 95% Percentile 1.32 95% Chebyshev UPL 2.056 99% Percentile 1.488 95% USL 1.53 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Lead General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Minimum 0.383 Second Largest 1.42 Maximum 1.96 Mean 1.082 Coefficient of Variation 0.349 Mean of logged Data 0.0177 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.891 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 5 Number of Missing Observations 1 First Quartile 1 Median 1 Third Quartile 1.07 SD 0.377 Skewness 0.841 SD of logged Data 0.389 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 11 95% UTL with 85% Coverage 1.96 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.941 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.833 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 19 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage 1.96 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage 1.96 95% UPL 1.96 90% Percentile 1.42 90% Chebyshev UPL 2.265 95% Percentile 1.69 95% Chebyshev UPL 2.8 99% Percentile 1.906 95% USL 1.96 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Appendix A Molybdenum General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Minimum 0.205 Second Largest 1.97 Maximum 10.3 Mean 1.792 Coefficient of Variation 1.595 Mean of logged Data 0.02 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.891 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 6 Number of Missing Observations 1 First Quartile 0.951 Median 1 Third Quartile 1 SD 2.857 Skewness 3.172 SD of logged Data 0.981 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 11 95% UTL with 85% Coverage 10.3 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.941 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.833 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 19 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage 10.3 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage 6.135 95% UPL 10.3 90% Percentile 1.97 90% Chebyshev UPL 10.74 95% Percentile 6.135 95% Chebyshev UPL 14.8 99% Percentile 9.467 95% USL 10.3 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Normal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:31:27 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_a.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 95 Different or Future K Observations 1 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Chromium VI General Statistics Total Number of Observations 15 Number of Missing Observations 25 Number of Detects 8 Number of Distinct Detects 8 Minimum Detect 0.055 Maximum Detect 0.96 Variance Detected 0.0746 Mean Detected 0.641 Mean of Detected Logged Data -0.661 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.566 Number of Distinct Observations 10 Number of Non -Detects 7 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Non -Detect 0.025 Maximum Non -Detect 0.03 Percent Non -Detects 46.67 % SD Detected 0.273 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.925 d2max (for USL) 2.409 Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.88 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.204 Lilliefors GOF Test 5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.283 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.353 SD 0.359 95 % UTL95 % Coverage 1.275 95 % KM UPL (t) 1.007 95 % KM Chebyshev UPL 1.971 90 % KM Percentile (z) 0.814 95 % KM Percentile (z) 0.944 99 % KM Percentile (z) 1.189 95 % KM USL 1.219 DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.348 SD 0.377 95 % UTL95 % Coverage 1.315 95 % UPL (t) 1.034 90 % Percentile (z) 0.831 95 % Percentile (z) 0.968 99 % Percentile (z) 1.225 95 % USL 1.256 DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Methane General Statistics Total Number of Observations 11 Number of Missing Observations 21 Number of Detects 7 Number of Distinct Detects 7 Minimum Detect 19.4 Maximum Detect 2260 Variance Detected 507098 Mean Detected 912.9 Mean of Detected Logged Data 6.273 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 Number of Distinct Observations 8 Number of Non -Detects 4 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 10 Maximum Non -Detect 10 Percent Non -Detects 36.36 % SD Detected 712.1 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.553 d2max (for USL) 2.234 Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.93 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.803 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.237 Lilliefors GOF Test 5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.304 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 584.6 SD 682.1 95 % UTL95 % Coverage 2505 95 % KM UPL (t) 1876 95 % KM Chebyshev UPL 3690 90 % KM Percentile (z) 1459 95 % KM Percentile (z) 1707 99 % KM Percentile (z) 2171 95% KM USL 2108 DU2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 582.8 SD 717 95 % UTL95 % Coverage 2601 95 % UPL (t) 1940 90 % Percentile (z) 1502 95 % Percentile (z) 1762 99 % Percentile (z) 2251 95 % USL 2184 DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Gamma Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:32:09 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_a.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 95 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Aluminum General Statistics Total Number of Observations 35 Number of Distinct Observations 30 Number of Missing Observations 5 Number of Detects 33 Number of Non -Detects 2 Number of Distinct Detects 30 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Detect 14 Minimum Non -Detect 100 Maximum Detect 678 Maximum Non -Detect 100 Variance Detected 25837 Percent Non -Detects 5.714 % Mean Detected 184.7 SD Detected 160.7 Mean of Detected Logged Data 4.799 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.997 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.157 d2max (for USL) 2.812 Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only A-D Test Statistic 0.547 Anderson -Darling GOF Test 5 % A-D Critical Value 0.769 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.153 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF 5 % K-S Critical Value 0.157 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution KM Mean 177.1 KM SD 156.8 95% UTL95% Coverage 515.4 95% KM UPL (t) 446.1 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 870.4 90% KM Percentile (z) 378.1 95% KM Percentile (z) 435.1 99% KM Percentile (z) 541.9 95% KM USL 618.1 Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) 1.332 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.231 Theta hat (MLE) 138.6 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 150 nu hat (MLE) 87.93 nu star (bias corrected) 81.27 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 184.7 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 166.4 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 6.86 Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20) For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs This is especially true when the sample size is small. For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates Minimum 14 Mean 177.2 Maximum 678 Median 100 SD 159.1 CV 0.898 k hat (MLE) 1.3 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.208 Theta hat (MLE) 136.3 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 146.7 nu hat (MLE) 91.03 nu star (bias corrected) 84.56 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 177.2 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 161.2 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 6.775 90% Percentile 389.4 95% Percentile 496.9 99% Percentile 743.1 The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROB Statistics on Imputed Data Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods WH HW WH HW 95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 659.4 706 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 506.4 526.3 95% Gamma USL 938.2 1052 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Aluminum (Continued) Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates Mean (KM) 177.1 Variance (KM) 24591 k hat (KM) 1.276 nu hat (KM) 89.32 theta hat (KM) 138.8 80 % gamma percentile (KM) 280.8 95% gamma percentile (KM) 499.9 The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods SD (KM) 156.8 SE of Mean (KM) 26.93 k star (KM) 1.186 nu star (KM) 89.32 theta star (KM) 149.4 90 % gamma percentile (KM) 391.1 99 % gamma percentile (KM) 749.6 WH HW WH 95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 647.9 692.4 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 498.7 95% KM Gamma Percentile 477.4 493.2 95% Gamma USL 919.4 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. HW 517.5 1028 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A I ron General Statistics Total Number of Observations 35 Minimum 48 Second Largest 1010 Maximum 1130 Mean 413.2 Coefficient of Variation 0.718 Mean of logged Data 5.751 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.157 Number of Distinct Observations 35 Number of Missing Observations 5 First Quartile 182 Median 326 Third Quartile 572 SD 296.5 Skewness 0.919 SD of logged Data 0.787 d2max (for USL) 2.812 Gamma GOF Test A-D Test Statistic 0.354 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test 5 % A-D Critical Value 0.76 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.109 Kolmogorov-Smimov Gamma GOF Test 5 % K-S Critical Value 0.151 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics k hat (MLE) 1.982 Theta hat (MLE) 208.4 nu hat (MLE) 138.8 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 413.2 Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 1027 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 1058 95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1288 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1356 95% WH USL 1750 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.832 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 225.6 nu star (bias corrected) 128.2 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 305.3 90 % Percentile 820.5 95% Percentile 1008 99 % Percentile 1426 95% HW USL 1907 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Manganese General Statistics Total Number of Observations 35 Minimum 18 Second Largest 248 Maximum 683 Mean 131.7 Coefficient of Variation 0.902 Mean of logged Data 4.57 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.157 Number of Distinct Observations 32 Number of Missing Observations 5 First Quartile 63 Median 105 Third Quartile 178.5 SD 118.8 Skewness 3.057 SD of logged Data 0.825 d2max (for USL) 2.812 Gamma GOF Test A-D Test Statistic 0.337 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.763 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.0908 Kolmogorov-Smimov Gamma GOF Test 5% K-S Critical Value 0.151 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics k hat (MLE) 1.76 Theta hat (MLE) 74.84 nu hat (MLE) 123.2 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 131.7 Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 337.4 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 345.9 95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 427 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 447.6 95% WH USL 586.9 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.628 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 80.9 nu star (bias corrected) 114 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 103.2 90% Percentile 269 95% Percentile 333.9 99 % Percentile 479.5 95% HW USL 637.5 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Nitrate Nitrite General Statistics Total Number of Observations 15 Number of Distinct Observations 13 Number of Missing Observations 25 Number of Detects 12 Number of Non -Detects 3 Number of Distinct Detects 12 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Detect 0.019 Minimum Non -Detect 0.01 Maximum Detect 0.664 Maximum Non -Detect 0.02 Variance Detected 0.0324 Percent Non -Detects 20 % Mean Detected 0.168 SD Detected 0.18 Mean of Detected Logged Data -2.34 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.195 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.566 d2max (for USL) 2.409 Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only A-D Test Statistic 0.482 Anderson -Darling GOF Test 5 % A-D Critical Value 0.756 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.196 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF 5 % K-S Critical Value 0.252 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution KM Mean 0.137 KM SD 0.166 95% UTL95% Coverage 0.564 95% KM UPL (t) 0.44 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.886 90% KM Percentile (z) 0.35 95% KM Percentile (z) 0.411 99% KM Percentile (z) 0.524 95% KM USL 0.538 Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) 1.031 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.829 Theta hat (MLE) 0.163 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.203 nu hat (MLE) 24.75 nu star (bias corrected) 19.89 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.168 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.185 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 5.31 Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20) For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs This is especially true when the sample size is small. For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates Minimum 0.01 Mean 0.137 Maximum 0.664 Median 0.08 SD 0.172 CV 1.262 k hat (MLE) 0.747 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.642 Theta hat (MLE) 0.183 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.213 nu hat (MLE) 22.4 nu star (bias corrected) 19.25 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.137 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.171 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 4.507 90% Percentile 0.35 95% Percentile 0.48 99% Percentile 0.792 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Nitrate -Nitrite (Continued) The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods WH HW WH HW 95 % Approx. Gamma UTL with 95 % Coverage 0.867 1 95 % Approx. Gamma UPL 0.518 0.553 95%Gamma USL 0.783 0.89 Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates Mean (KM) 0.137 SD (KM) 0.166 Variance (KM) 0.0277 SE of Mean (KM) 0.0449 k hat (KM) 0.676 k star (KM) 0.585 nu hat (KM) 20.27 nu star (KM) 20.27 theta hat (KM) 0.202 theta star (KM) 0.234 80 % gamma percentile (KM) 0.225 90 % gamma percentile (KM) 0.358 95 % gamma percentile (KM) 0.497 99 % gamma percentile (KM) 0.834 The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods WH HW WH HW 95 % Approx. Gamma UTL with 95 % Coverage 0.815 0.93 95 % Approx. Gamma UPL 0.492 0.522 95 % KM Gamma Percentile 0.432 0.45 95 % Gamma USL 0.738 0.829 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Lognormal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:32:50 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_a.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 95 Different or Future K Observations 1 Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Total Radium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 17 Minimum 0.706 Second Largest 15.95 Maximum 34.88 Mean 5.912 Coefficient of Variation 1.395 Mean of logged Data 1.295 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.486 Number of Distinct Observations 17 Number of Missing Observations 23 First Quartile 2.19 Median 2.83 Third Quartile 4.93 SD 8.248 Skewness 3.126 SD of logged Data 0.907 d2max (for USL) 2.475 Lognormal GOF Test Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.935 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test 5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.892 Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.142 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test 5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.207 Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution 95 % UTL with 95 % Coverage 34.79 90 % Percentile (z) 11.67 95 % UPL (t) 18.62 95 % Percentile (z) 16.22 95 % USL 34.44 99 % Percentile (z) 30.1 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Nonparametric Background Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:34:04 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_a.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 90 Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Alkalinity General Statistics Total Number of Observations 29 Minimum 38 Second Largest 302 Maximum 303 Mean 149.4 Coefficient of Variation 0.649 Mean of logged Data 4.744 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.788 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 27 Number of Missing Observations 11 First Quartile 53.8 Median 203 Third Quartile 228 SD 96.97 Skewness 0.0874 SD of logged Data 0.774 d2max (for USL) 2.73 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 28 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 302 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.556 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.801 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 302 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 302.2 95% UPL 302.5 90% Percentile 257.4 90% ChebyshevUPL 445.2 95% Percentile 284.8 95% ChebyshevUPL 579.3 99% Percentile 302.7 95% USL 303 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Barium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 40 Number of Distinct Observations 29 Minimum 13 First Quartile 20 Second Largest 69 Median 42.5 Maximum 71 Third Quartile 60.4 Mean 41.82 SD 19.96 Coefficient of Variation 0.477 Skewness -0.176 Mean of logged Data 3.588 SD of logged Data 0.583 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.69 d2max (for USL) 2.868 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 38 95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage 67.7 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.407 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.777 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 67.83 95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 67.83 95 % UPL 68.94 90 % Percentile 65.1 90 % Chebyshev UPL 102.4 95 % Percentile 67.77 95 % Chebyshev UPL 129.9 99 % Percentile 70.22 95 % USL 71 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Calcium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 29 Minimum 10.9 Second Largest 59.2 Maximum 59.9 Mean 33.19 Coefficient of Variation 0.637 Mean of logged Data 3.247 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.788 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 25 Number of Missing Observations 11 First Quartile 11.7 Median 49.1 Third Quartile 51.3 SD 21.16 Skewness -0.0222 SD of logged Data 0.764 d2max (for USL) 2.73 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 28 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 59.2 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.556 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.801 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 59.34 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 59.34 95% UPL 59.55 90% Percentile 57.04 90% ChebyshevUPL 97.75 95% Percentile 58.4 95% ChebyshevUPL 127 99% Percentile 59.7 95% USL 59.9 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Chloride General Statistics Total Number of Observations 40 Number of Distinct Observations 23 Minimum 3.4 First Quartile 4.4 Second Largest 39 Median 30 Maximum 42 Third Quartile 33.08 Mean 22.9 SD 14.21 Coefficient of Variation 0.621 Skewness -0.487 Mean of logged Data 2.773 SD of logged Data 0.992 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.69 d2max (for USL) 2.868 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 38 95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage 39 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.407 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.777 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 39 95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 39 95 % UPL 39 90 % Percentile 37.2 90 % Chebyshev UPL 66.06 95 % Percentile 39 95 % Chebyshev UPL 85.61 99 % Percentile 40.83 95 % USL 42 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Chromium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 40 Number of Distinct Observations 18 Minimum 0.5 First Quartile 1.028 Second Largest 7.5 Median 3.52 Maximum 10.2 Third Quartile 5 Mean 3.359 SD 2.331 Coefficient of Variation 0.694 Skewness 0.586 Mean of logged Data 0.918 SD of logged Data 0.826 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.69 d2max (for USL) 2.868 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 38 95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage 6 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.407 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.777 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 6.15 95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 6.06 95 % UPL 7.425 90 % Percentile 5.09 90 % Chebyshev UPL 10.44 95 % Percentile 6.075 95 % Chebyshev UPL 13.65 99 % Percentile 9.147 95 % USL 10.2 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Copper General Statistics Total Number of Observations 35 Minimum 0.582 Second Largest 5 Maximum 5 Mean 3.225 Coefficient of Variation 0.618 Mean of logged Data 0.894 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.724 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 7 Number of Missing Observations 5 First Quartile 1 Median 5 Third Quartile 5 SD 1.991 Skewness -0.249 SD of logged Data 0.825 d2max (for USL) 2.812 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 34 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 5 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.889 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.878 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 5 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 5 95% UPL 5 90% Percentile 5 90% ChebyshevUPL 9.284 95% Percentile 5 95% ChebyshevUPL 12.03 99% Percentile 5 95% USL 5 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Magnesium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 29 Minimum 3.02 Second Largest 13.5 Maximum 13.9 Mean 7.39 Coefficient of Variation 0.564 Mean of logged Data 1.817 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.788 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 23 Number of Missing Observations 11 First Quartile 3.28 Median 9.9 Third Quartile 10.8 SD 4.17 Skewness 0.0643 SD of logged Data 0.637 d2max (for USL) 2.73 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 28 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 13.5 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.556 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.801 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 13.5 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 13.5 95% UPL 13.7 90% Percentile 12.06 90% ChebyshevUPL 20.11 95% Percentile 13.02 95% ChebyshevUPL 25.88 99% Percentile 13.79 95% USL 13.9 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Mercury General Statistics Total Number of Observations 40 Number of Distinct Observations 8 Minimum 0.02 First Quartile 0.05 Second Largest 0.2 Median 0.05 Maximum 0.2 Third Quartile 0.065 Mean 0.0785 SD 0.0576 Coefficient of Variation 0.734 Skewness 1.533 Mean of logged Data -2.74 SD of logged Data 0.592 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.69 d2max (for USL) 2.868 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 38 95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage 0.2 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.407 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.777 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 0.2 95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 0.2 95 % UPL 0.2 90 % Percentile 0.2 90 % Chebyshev UPL 0.253 95 % Percentile 0.2 95 % Chebyshev UPL 0.333 99 % Percentile 0.2 95 % USL 0.2 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Molybdenum General Statistics Total Number of Observations 29 Minimum 0.342 Second Largest 1.42 Maximum 1.75 Mean 0.954 Coefficient of Variation 0.285 Mean of logged Data -0.0978 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.788 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 8 Number of Missing Observations 11 First Quartile 1 Median 1 Third Quartile 1 SD 0.272 Skewness -0.0633 SD of logged Data 0.351 d2max (for USL) 2.73 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 28 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 1.42 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.556 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.801 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 1.42 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 1 95% UPL 1.585 90% Percentile 1 90% ChebyshevUPL 1.783 95% Percentile 1.252 95% ChebyshevUPL 2.159 99% Percentile 1.658 95% USL 1.75 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Nickel General Statistics Total Number of Observations 35 Minimum 0.355 Second Largest 5.2 Maximum 9.4 Mean 3.44 Coefficient of Variation 0.633 Mean of logged Data 0.942 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.724 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 14 Number of Missing Observations 5 First Quartile 1 Median 5 Third Quartile 5 SD 2.179 Skewness 0.234 SD of logged Data 0.878 d2max (for USL) 2.812 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 34 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 5.2 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.889 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.878 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 5.2 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 5 95% UPL 6.04 90% Percentile 5 90% ChebyshevUPL 10.07 95% Percentile 5.06 95% ChebyshevUPL 13.07 99% Percentile 7.972 95% USL 9.4 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Potassium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 29 Minimum 1.33 Second Largest 3.61 Maximum 5 Mean 2.485 Coefficient of Variation 0.443 Mean of logged Data 0.809 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.788 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 24 Number of Missing Observations 11 First Quartile 1.41 Median 3.23 Third Quartile 3.36 SD 1.101 Skewness 0.255 SD of logged Data 0.465 d2max (for USL) 2.73 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 28 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 3.61 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.556 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.801 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 3.888 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 3.61 95% UPL 4.305 90% Percentile 3.496 90% ChebyshevUPL 5.844 95% Percentile 3.59 95% ChebyshevUPL 7.366 99% Percentile 4.611 95% USL 5 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Sodium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 29 Minimum 8.71 Second Largest 53.3 Maximum 56 Mean 28.7 Coefficient of Variation 0.679 Mean of logged Data 3.055 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.788 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 27 Number of Missing Observations 11 First Quartile 9.05 Median 42.6 Third Quartile 45.1 SD 19.48 Skewness -0.0064 SD of logged Data 0.837 d2max (for USL) 2.73 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 28 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 53.3 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.556 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.801 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 53.84 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 53.84 95% UPL 54.65 90% Percentile 50.02 90% ChebyshevUPL 88.12 95% Percentile 52.5 95% ChebyshevUPL 115 99% Percentile 55.24 95% USL 56 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Sulfate General Statistics Total Number of Observations 40 Number of Distinct Observations 17 Minimum 0.96 First Quartile 1.1 Second Largest 7.7 Median 5.05 Maximum 8.3 Third Quartile 5.6 Mean 4.074 SD 2.371 Coefficient of Variation 0.582 Skewness -0.253 Mean of logged Data 1.143 SD of logged Data 0.817 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.69 d2max (for USL) 2.868 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 38 95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage 7.5 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.407 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.777 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 7.52 95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 7.52 95 % UPL 7.69 90 % Percentile 6.93 90 % Chebyshev UPL 11.27 95 % Percentile 7.51 95 % Chebyshev UPL 14.54 99 % Percentile 8.066 95 % USL 8.3 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A TDS General Statistics Total Number of Observations 40 Minimum 81 Second Largest 430 Maximum 450 Mean 264.5 Coefficient of Variation 0.488 Mean of logged Data 5.414 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.69 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 28 First Quartile 107.5 Median 312 Third Quartile 370 SD 129.2 Skewness -0.379 SD of logged Data 0.629 d2max (for USL) 2.868 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 38 95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage 430 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.407 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.777 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 430 95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 430 95 % UPL 430 90 % Percentile 401.2 90 % Chebyshev UPL 656.7 95 % Percentile 430 95 % Chebyshev UPL 834.4 99 % Percentile 442.2 95 % USL 450 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Zinc General Statistics Total Number of Observations 35 Minimum 1.962 Second Largest 15 Maximum 23 Mean 7.342 Coefficient of Variation 0.556 Mean of logged Data 1.877 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.724 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 10 Number of Missing Observations 5 First Quartile 5 Median 5 Third Quartile 10 SD 4.081 Skewness 2.022 SD of logged Data 0.471 d2max (for USL) 2.812 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 34 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 15 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.889 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.878 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 14.6 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 14.6 95% UPL 16.6 90% Percentile 11.6 90% ChebyshevUPL 19.76 95% Percentile 14.3 95% ChebyshevUPL 25.38 99% Percentile 20.28 95% USL 23 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Two -Sided 95% Tolerance Intervals of pH Percent of Nonparametri Nonparametric Population Lower Upper Between Tolerance Tolerance Limits Limit Limit 90 5.6 6.6 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Nonparametric Background Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:38:31 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_a.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 85 Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Bicarbonate General Statistics Total Number of Observations 24 Minimum 53 Second Largest 302 Maximum 303 Mean 170.3 Coefficient of Variation 0.55 Mean of logged Data 4.926 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.538 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 23 Number of Missing Observations 16 First Quartile 56.53 Median 219 Third Quartile 237.5 SD 93.65 Skewness -0.326 SD of logged Data 0.724 d2max (for USL) 2.644 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 23 95% UTL with 85 % Coverage 302 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 2.029 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.894 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 30 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 282.7 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 282.7 95% UPL 302.8 90% Percentile 258.4 90% ChebyshevUPL 457.1 95% Percentile 295.6 95% ChebyshevUPL 587 99% Percentile 302.8 95% USL 303 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Fluoride General Statistics Total Number of Observations 10 Minimum 0.0788 Second Largest 0.26 Maximum 0.34 Mean 0.138 Coefficient of Variation 0.636 Mean of logged Data -2.108 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.956 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 4 Number of Missing Observations 30 First Quartile 0.1 Median 0.1 Third Quartile 0.1 SD 0.0877 Skewness 1.951 SD of logged Data 0.482 d2max (for USL) 2.176 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 10 95% UTL with 85 % Coverage 0.34 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.765 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.803 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 19 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 0.34 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 0.312 95% UPL 0.34 90% Percentile 0.268 90% ChebyshevUPL 0.414 95% Percentile 0.304 95% ChebyshevUPL 0.539 99% Percentile 0.333 95% USL 0.34 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Lithium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 10 Minimum 2.955 Second Largest 5 Maximum 6 Mean 4.714 Coefficient of Variation 0.196 Mean of logged Data 1.53 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.956 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 4 Number of Missing Observations 30 First Quartile 5 Median 5 Third Quartile 5 SD 0.923 Skewness -1.19 SD of logged Data 0.224 d2max (for USL) 2.176 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 10 95% UTL with 85 % Coverage 6 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.765 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.803 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 19 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 6 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 4.364 95% UPL 6 90% Percentile 5.1 90% ChebyshevUPL 7.617 95% Percentile 5.55 95% ChebyshevUPL 8.932 99% Percentile 5.91 95% USL 6 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Strontium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 22 Minimum 83 Second Largest 390 Maximum 391 Mean 222.3 Coefficient of Variation 0.531 Mean of logged Data 5.229 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.567 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 18 Number of Missing Observations 18 First Quartile 92 Median 288 Third Quartile 296 SD 118 Skewness -0.146 SD of logged Data 0.641 d2max (for USL) 2.603 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 21 95% UTL with 85 % Coverage 390 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.853 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.863 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 30 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 387.6 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 387.6 95% UPL 390.9 90% Percentile 368.6 90% ChebyshevUPL 584.1 95% Percentile 389.2 95% ChebyshevUPL 748 99% Percentile 390.8 95% USL 391 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A TOC General Statistics Total Number of Observations 18 Minimum 0.184 Second Largest 1.8 Maximum 2.1 Mean 1.049 Coefficient of Variation 0.601 Mean of logged Data -0.212 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.64 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 14 Number of Missing Observations 22 First Quartile 0.335 Median 1.25 Third Quartile 1.475 SD 0.631 Skewness -0.135 SD of logged Data 0.827 d2max (for USL) 2.504 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 17 95% UTL with 85 % Coverage 1.8 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.5 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.776 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 30 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 1.935 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 1.88 95% UPL 2.1 90% Percentile 1.73 90% ChebyshevUPL 2.994 95% Percentile 1.845 95% ChebyshevUPL 3.875 99% Percentile 2.049 95% USL 2.1 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Total Uranium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 13 Minimum 9.2800E-5 Second Largest 9.2600E-4 Maximum 0.00102 Mean 5.2606E-4 Coefficient of Variation 0.755 Mean of logged Data -7.974 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.791 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 13 Number of Missing Observations 27 First Quartile 1.0700E-4 Median 6.3900E-4 Third Quartile 8.9300E-4 SD 3.9700E-4 Skewness-0.0657 SD of logged Data 1.06 d2max (for USL) 2.331 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 13 95% UTL with 85 % Coverage 0.00102 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 2.294 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.879 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 19 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 0.00102 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 0.00102 95% UPL 0.00102 90% Percentile 9.2440E-4 90% Chebyshev UPL 0.00176 95% Percentile 9.6360E-4 95% Chebyshev UPL 0.00232 99% Percentile 0.00101 95% USL 0.00102 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Vanadium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 23 Minimum 0.637 Second Largest 5.8 Maximum 5.88 Mean 3.174 Coefficient of Variation 0.611 Mean of logged Data 0.872 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.552 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 23 Number of Missing Observations 17 First Quartile 0.954 Median 3.87 Third Quartile 4.755 SD 1.94 Skewness -0.256 SD of logged Data 0.857 d2max (for USL) 2.624 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 22 95% UTL with 85 % Coverage 5.8 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.941 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.88 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 30 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 5.572 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 5.572 95% UPL 5.864 90% Percentile 5.038 90% ChebyshevUPL 9.119 95% Percentile 5.724 95% ChebyshevUPL 11.81 99% Percentile 5.862 95% USL 5.88 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Normal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 11:24:22 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_b.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 95 Different or Future K Observations 1 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Fluoride General Statistics Total Number of Observations 21 Number of Missing Observations 37 Number of Detects 18 Number of Distinct Detects 15 Minimum Detect 0.0772 Maximum Detect 0.36 Variance Detected 0.00803 Mean Detected 0.215 Mean of Detected Logged Data -1.639 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371 Number of Distinct Observations 16 Number of Non -Detects 3 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 0.1 Maximum Non -Detect 0.1 Percent Non -Detects 14.29% SD Detected 0.0896 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.502 d2max (for USL) 2.58 Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.933 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.897 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.15 Lilliefors GOF Test 5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.202 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.197 SD 0.093 95 % UTL95 % Coverage 0.417 95 % KM UPL (t) 0.361 95 % KM Chebyshev UPL 0.612 90 % KM Percentile (z) 0.316 95 % KM Percentile (z) 0.35 99 % KM Percentile (z) 0.413 95 % KM USL 0.437 DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.192 SD 0.102 95 % UTL95 % Coverage 0.433 95 % UPL (t) 0.371 90 % Percentile (z) 0.322 95 % Percentile (z) 0.359 99 % Percentile (z) 0.428 95 % USL 0.454 DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Lithium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 21 Number of Missing Observations 37 Number of Detects 16 Number of Distinct Detects 15 Minimum Detect 2.175 Maximum Detect 47 Variance Detected 220.1 Mean Detected 18.51 Mean of Detected Logged Data 2.491 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371 Number of Distinct Observations 16 Number of Non -Detects 5 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 5 Maximum Non -Detect 5 Percent Non -Detects 23.81 % SD Detected 14.83 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.058 d2max (for USL) 2.58 Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.89 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.194 Lilliefors GOF Test 5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.213 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 14.77 SD 14.22 95 % UTL95 % Coverage 48.47 95 % KM UPL (t) 39.86 95 % KM Chebyshev UPL 78.19 90 % KM Percentile (z) 32.99 95 % KM Percentile (z) 38.15 99 % KM Percentile (z) 47.84 95 % KM USL 51.45 DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 14.7 SD 14.62 95 % UTL95 % Coverage 49.37 95 % UPL (t) 40.52 90 % Percentile (z) 33.44 95 % Percentile (z) 38.75 99 % Percentile (z) 48.72 95 % USL 52.44 DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Nitrate Nitrite General Statistics Total Number of Observations 27 Number of Missing Observations 31 Number of Detects 16 Number of Distinct Detects 16 Minimum Detect 0.011 Maximum Detect 0.92 Variance Detected 0.0832 Mean Detected 0.452 Mean of Detected Logged Data -1.126 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.26 Number of Distinct Observations 18 Number of Non -Detects 11 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Non -Detect 0.01 Maximum Non -Detect 0.02 Percent Non -Detects 40.74 % SD Detected 0.288 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.088 d2max (for USL) 2.698 Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.915 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.222 Lilliefors GOF Test 5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.213 Data Not Normal at 5 % Significance Level Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.272 SD 0.306 95 % UTL95 % Coverage 0.962 95 % KM UPL (t) 0.803 95 % KM Chebyshev UPL 1.628 90 % KM Percentile (z) 0.663 95 % KM Percentile (z) 0.774 99 % KM Percentile (z) 0.983 95 % KM USL 1.096 DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.27 SD 0.313 95 % UTL95 % Coverage 0.977 95 % UPL (t) 0.814 90 % Percentile (z) 0.671 95 % Percentile (z) 0.785 99 % Percentile (z) 0.998 95 % USL 1.114 DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A TOC General Statistics Total Number of Observations 32 Minimum 0.458 Second Largest 1.2 Maximum 1.3 Mean 0.794 Coefficient of Variation 0.266 Mean of logged Data -0.266 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.186 Number of Distinct Observations 30 Number of Missing Observations 26 First Quartile 0.594 Median 0.797 Third Quartile 0.88 SD 0.211 Skewness 0.364 SD of logged Data 0.273 d2max (for USL) 2.773 Normal GOF Test Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.954 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.93 Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.109 Lilliefors GOF Test 5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.154 Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1.256 90% Percentile (z) 1.065 95% UPL (t) 1.158 95% Percentile (z) 1.141 95% USL 1.38 99% Percentile (z) 1.286 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Gamma Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 11:25:04 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_b.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 95 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Aluminum General Statistics Total Number of Observations 47 Minimum 10 Second Largest 478 Maximum 553 Mean 174.9 Coefficient of Variation 0.747 Mean of logged Data 4.859 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.074 Number of Distinct Observations 44 Number of Missing Observations 11 First Quartile 84 Median 141 Third Quartile 226 SD 130.7 Skewness 1.192 SD of logged Data 0.864 d2max (for USL) 2.933 Gamma GOF Test A-D Test Statistic 0.182 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test 5 % A-D Critical Value 0.764 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.0648 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test 5 % K-S Critical Value 0.131 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics k hat (MLE) 1.789 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.689 Theta hat (MLE) 97.74 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 103.5 nu hat (MLE) 168.2 nu star (bias corrected) 158.8 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 174.9 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 134.6 Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 442.6 90 % Percentile 354.1 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 459.6 95% Percentile 438 95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 541 99 % Percentile 626 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 573.7 95% WH USL 817.3 95% HW USL 911.5 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Iron General Statistics Total Number of Observations 47 Minimum 11 Second Largest 2920 Maximum 3260 Mean 724.7 Coefficient of Variation 1.271 Mean of logged Data 5.605 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.074 Number of Distinct Observations 45 Number of Missing Observations 11 First Quartile 91.5 Median 290 Third Quartile 1095 SD 921.3 Skewness 1.413 SD of logged Data 1.579 d2max (for USL) 2.933 Gamma GOF Test A-D Test Statistic 0.975 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test 5 % A-D Critical Value 0.802 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.105 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test 5 % K-S Critical Value 0.135 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics k hat (MLE) 0.626 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.6 Theta hat (MLE) 1157 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 1207 nu hat (MLE) 58.85 nu star (bias corrected) 56.43 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 724.7 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 935.3 Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 2546 90 % Percentile 1885 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 2696 95% Percentile 2607 95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 3411 99 % Percentile 4355 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 3771 95% WH USL 6061 95% HW USL 7388 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Total Radium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 26 Minimum 0.247 Second Largest 3.34 Maximum 4.345 Mean 1.725 Coefficient of Variation 0.613 Mean of logged Data 0.347 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275 Number of Distinct Observations 26 Number of Missing Observations 26 First Quartile 0.91 Median 1.313 Third Quartile 2.55 SD 1.058 Skewness 0.771 SD of logged Data 0.676 d2max (for USL) 2.681 Gamma GOF Test A-D Test Statistic 0.426 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test 5 % A-D Critical Value 0.753 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.141 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test 5 % K-S Critical Value 0.173 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics k hat (MLE) 2.675 k star (bias corrected MLE) 2.392 Theta hat (MLE) 0.645 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.721 nu hat (MLE) 139.1 nu star (bias corrected) 124.4 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.725 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 1.115 Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 3.965 90 % Percentile 3.219 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 4.072 95% Percentile 3.87 95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 5.051 99 % Percentile 5.301 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 5.301 95% WH USL 5.997 95% HW USL 6.405 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Lognormal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 11:26:13 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_b.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 95 Different or Future K Observations 1 Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Molybdenum General Statistics Total Number of Observations 48 Number of Missing Observations 10 Number of Detects 34 Number of Distinct Detects 31 Minimum Detect 2.02 Maximum Detect 27.3 Variance Detected 21.41 Mean Detected 5.641 Mean of Detected Logged Data 1.537 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.069 Number of Distinct Observations 32 Number of Non -Detects 14 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 1 Maximum Non -Detect 1 Percent Non -Detects 29.17 % SD Detected 4.627 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.585 d2max (for USL) 2.941 Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.94 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.933 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.104 Lilliefors GOF Test 5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.15 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 4.287 SD 4.378 95% UTL95 % Coverage 13.34 95% KM UPL (t) 11.71 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 23.57 90 % KM Percentile (z) 9.898 95% KM Percentile (z) 11.49 99 % KM Percentile (z) 14.47 95% KM USL 17.16 Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects Mean in Original Scale 4.354 Mean in Log Scale 1.131 SD in Original Scale 4.381 SD in Log Scale 0.83 95% UTL95 % Coverage 17.23 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 22.26 95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95 % Coverage 22.26 95% UPL (t) 12.64 90 % Percentile (z) 8.969 95% Percentile (z) 12.12 99 % Percentile (z) 21.34 95% USL 35.53 Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM Mean of Logged Data 1.088 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95 % Coverage 17.24 KM SD of Logged Data 0.85 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 12.55 95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 12.02 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 36.19 Background DU2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Mean in Original Scale 4.141 Mean in Log Scale 0.886 SD in Original Scale 4.54 SD in Log Scale 1.135 95% UTL95 % Coverage 25.4 95% UPL (t) 16.63 90 % Percentile (z) 10.39 95% Percentile (z) 15.7 99 % Percentile (z) 34.04 95% USL 68.4 DU2 is not a Recommended Method. DU2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons. Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Total Uranium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 16 Number of Missing Observations 36 Number of Detects 12 Number of Distinct Detects 12 Minimum Detect 1.2300E-4 Maximum Detect 0.00188 Variance Detected 2.9384E-7 Mean Detected 5.7475E-4 Mean of Detected Logged Data -7.786 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.524 Number of Distinct Observations 13 Number of Non -Detects 4 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 2.0000E-4 Maximum Non -Detect 2.0000E-4 Percent Non -Detects 25 % SD Detected 5.4207E-4 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.815 d2max (for USL) 2.443 Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.941 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.193 Lilliefors GOF Test 5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.243 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 4.6606E-4 SD 4.8736E-4 95% UTL95 % Coverage 0.0017 95% KM UPL (t) 0.00135 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.00266 90 % KM Percentile (z) 0.00109 95% KM Percentile (z) 0.00127 99 % KM Percentile (z) 0.0016 95% KM USL 0.00166 Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects Mean in Original Scale 4.6184E-4 Mean in Log Scale -8.104 SD in Original Scale 5.0666E-4 SD in Log Scale 0.918 95% UTL95 % Coverage 0.00307 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 0.00188 95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95 % Coverage 0.00188 95% UPL (t) 0.00159 90 % Percentile (z) 9.8077E-4 95% Percentile (z) 0.00137 99 % Percentile (z) 0.00256 95% USL 0.00285 Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM Mean of Logged Data -8.06 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95 % Coverage 0.00255 KM SD of Logged Data 0.828 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 0.00141 95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 0.00123 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 0.00239 Background DU2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Mean in Original Scale 4.5606E-4 Mean in Log Scale -8.142 SD in Original Scale 5.1045E-4 SD in Log Scale 0.945 95% UTL95 % Coverage 0.00316 95% UPL (t) 0.00161 90 % Percentile (z) 9.7720E-4 95% Percentile (z) 0.00138 99 % Percentile (z) 0.00262 95% USL 0.00293 DU2 is not a Recommended Method. DU2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons. Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Zinc General Statistics Total Number of Observations 46 Number of Missing Observations 12 Number of Detects 23 Number of Distinct Detects 19 Minimum Detect 2.407 Maximum Detect 54 Variance Detected 193.9 Mean Detected 15.07 Mean of Detected Logged Data 2.308 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.079 Number of Distinct Observations 20 Number of Non -Detects 23 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Non -Detect 5 Maximum Non -Detect 10 Percent Non -Detects 50 % SD Detected 13.92 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.931 d2max (for USL) 2.924 Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.947 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.914 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.133 Lilliefors GOF Test 5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.18 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 9.181 SD 11.3 95% UTL95 % Coverage 32.68 95% KM UPL (t) 28.37 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 58.98 90 % KM Percentile (z) 23.67 95% KM Percentile (z) 27.77 99 % KM Percentile (z) 35.48 95% KM USL 42.23 Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects Mean in Original Scale 9.137 Mean in Log Scale 1.655 SD in Original Scale 11.5 SD in Log Scale 1.025 95% UTL95 % Coverage 44.06 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 49 95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95 % Coverage 49.5 95% UPL (t) 29.8 90 % Percentile (z) 19.46 95% Percentile (z) 28.23 99 % Percentile (z) 56.75 95% USL 104.7 Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM Mean of Logged Data 1.736 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95 % Coverage 35.11 KM SD of Logged Data 0.876 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 25.13 95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 23.99 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 73.62 Background DU2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Mean in Original Scale 8.948 Mean in Log Scale 1.657 SD in Original Scale 11.55 SD in Log Scale 0.941 95% UTL95 % Coverage 37.09 95% UPL (t) 25.9 90 % Percentile (z) 17.51 95% Percentile (z) 24.65 99 % Percentile (z) 46.8 95% USL 82.11 DU2 is not a Recommended Method. DU2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons. Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Nonparametric Background Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 11:32:26 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_b.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 90 Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Alkalinity General Statistics Total Number of Observations 48 Minimum 49 Second Largest 248 Maximum 250 Mean 144.2 Coefficient of Variation 0.496 Mean of logged Data 4.819 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.648 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 43 Number of Missing Observations 10 First Quartile 58.18 Median 137 Third Quartile 211.5 SD 71.54 Skewness -0.0613 SD of logged Data 0.594 d2max (for USL) 2.941 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 46 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 240 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.704 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.871 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 240 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 233 95% UPL 244.4 90% Percentile 230 90 % Chebyshev UPL 361.1 95% Percentile 236.5 95% Chebyshev UPL 459.3 99 % Percentile 249.1 95% USL 250 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Arsenic General Statistics Total Number of Observations 54 Minimum 0.336 Second Largest 1 Maximum 1.8 Mean 0.972 Coefficient of Variation 0.186 Mean of logged Data -0.0493 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.624 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 7 Number of Missing Observations 4 First Quartile 1 Median 1 Third Quartile 1 SD 0.181 Skewness 0.249 SD of logged Data 0.221 d2max (for USL) 2.987 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 52 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 1 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.926 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.917 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 1 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 1 95% UPL 1 90% Percentile 1 90 % Chebyshev UPL 1.519 95% Percentile 1 95% Chebyshev UPL 1.767 99 % Percentile 1.376 95% USL 1.8 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Barium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 58 Minimum 14 Second Largest 101 Maximum 101 Mean 52.51 Coefficient of Variation 0.63 Mean of logged Data 3.734 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.61 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 35 First Quartile 22 Median 35 Third Quartile 88 SD 33.1 Skewness 0.275 SD of logged Data 0.7 d2max (for USL) 3.014 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 55 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 97 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.528 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.844 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 75 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 97 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 97 95% UPL 97.2 90% Percentile 95 90 % Chebyshev UPL 152.7 95% Percentile 97 95% Chebyshev UPL 198 99 % Percentile 101 95% USL 101 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Bicarbonate General Statistics Total Number of Observations 37 Minimum 49.8 Second Largest 221 Maximum 230 Mean 131.5 Coefficient of Variation 0.493 Mean of logged Data 4.738 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.709 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 36 Number of Missing Observations 21 First Quartile 57.2 Median 121 Third Quartile 202 SD 64.9 Skewness 0.0957 SD of logged Data 0.564 d2max (for USL) 2.835 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 36 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 221 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 2 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.896 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 221 95% UPL 221.9 90 % Chebyshev UPL 328.8 95% Chebyshev UPL 418.2 95% USL 230 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 218.6 90% Percentile 211.8 95% Percentile 217.8 99% Percentile 226.8 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Calcium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 48 Minimum 11.9 Second Largest 73 Maximum 75.2 Mean 30.94 Coefficient of Variation 0.762 Mean of logged Data 3.174 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.648 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 42 Number of Missing Observations 10 First Quartile 12.98 Median 17.2 Third Quartile 61.55 SD 23.59 Skewness 0.926 SD of logged Data 0.702 d2max (for USL) 2.941 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 46 95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage 72.7 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.704 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.871 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 72.7 95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 72.79 95% UPL 72.87 90% Percentile 70.32 90 % Chebyshev UPL 102.4 95 % Percentile 72.04 95 % Chebyshev UPL 134.8 99 % Percentile 74.17 95 % USL 75.2 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Chloride General Statistics Total Number of Observations 58 Number of Distinct Observations 21 Minimum 8.9 First Quartile 12 Second Largest 43 Median 13 Maximum 46 Third Quartile 14.23 Mean 17.45 SD 10.38 Coefficient of Variation 0.594 Skewness 1.593 Mean of logged Data 2.733 SD of logged Data 0.467 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.61 d2max (for USL) 3.014 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 55 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 41 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.528 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.844 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 75 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 41.6 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 41.6 95% UPL 43 90% Percentile 34.9 90 % Chebyshev UPL 48.85 95% Percentile 41.3 95% Chebyshev UPL 63.07 99 % Percentile 44.29 95% USL 46 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Chromium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 58 Number of Distinct Observations 18 Minimum 0.703 First Quartile 1 Second Largest 16.3 Median 1 Maximum 20 Third Quartile 5 Mean 3.056 SD 3.549 Coefficient of Variation 1.161 Skewness 2.934 Mean of logged Data 0.676 SD of logged Data 0.889 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.61 d2max (for USL) 3.014 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 55 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 7 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.528 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.844 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 75 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 7.27 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 7 95% UPL 8.32 90% Percentile 5.21 90 % Chebyshev UPL 13.79 95% Percentile 7.135 95% Chebyshev UPL 18.66 99 % Percentile 17.89 95% USL 20 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Chromium VI General Statistics Total Number of Observations 29 Minimum 0.025 Second Largest 0.36 Maximum 0.47 Mean 0.104 Coefficient of Variation 1.185 Mean of logged Data -2.828 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.788 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 17 Number of Missing Observations 29 First Quartile 0.025 Median 0.03 Third Quartile 0.18 SD 0.124 Skewness 1.62 SD of logged Data 1.022 d2max (for USL) 2.73 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 28 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 0.36 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.556 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.801 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 0.382 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 0.366 95% UPL 0.415 90% Percentile 0.276 90 % Chebyshev UPL 0.481 95% Percentile 0.352 95% Chebyshev UPL 0.652 99 % Percentile 0.439 95% USL 0.47 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Cobalt General Statistics Total Number of Observations 47 Minimum 0.581 Second Largest 4.77 Maximum 6.53 Mean 1.521 Coefficient of Variation 0.806 Mean of logged Data 0.24 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.653 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 19 Number of Missing Observations 10 First Quartile 1 Median 1 Third Quartile 1.165 SD 1.225 Skewness 2.586 SD of logged Data 0.527 d2max (for USL) 2.933 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 45 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 4.67 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.667 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.862 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 4.67 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 4.67 95% UPL 4.73 90% Percentile 3.192 90 % Chebyshev UPL 5.237 95% Percentile 4.4 95% Chebyshev UPL 6.919 99 % Percentile 5.72 95% USL 6.53 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Copper General Statistics Total Number of Observations 47 Minimum 0.635 Second Largest 5 Maximum 5 Mean 2.617 Coefficient of Variation 0.687 Mean of logged Data 0.712 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.653 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 19 Number of Missing Observations 11 First Quartile 1 Median 1.77 Third Quartile 5 SD 1.799 Skewness 0.493 SD of logged Data 0.723 d2max (for USL) 2.933 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 45 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 5 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.667 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.862 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 5 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 5 95% UPL 5 90% Percentile 5 90 % Chebyshev UPL 8.073 95% Percentile 5 95% Chebyshev UPL 10.54 99 % Percentile 5 95% USL 5 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Magnesium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 48 Minimum 2.36 Second Largest 16.2 Maximum 16.2 Mean 7.614 Coefficient of Variation 0.68 Mean of logged Data 1.763 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.648 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 35 Number of Missing Observations 10 First Quartile 3.06 Median 3.355 Third Quartile 12.9 SD 5.179 Skewness 0.254 SD of logged Data 0.757 d2max (for USL) 2.941 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 46 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 14.7 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.704 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.871 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 14.7 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 14.7 95% UPL 15.53 90% Percentile 13.36 90 % Chebyshev UPL 23.31 95% Percentile 14.49 95% Chebyshev UPL 30.42 99 % Percentile 16.2 95% USL 16.2 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Manganese General Statistics Total Number of Observations 47 Minimum 5 Second Largest 630 Maximum 648 Mean 174.6 Coefficient of Variation 1.099 Mean of logged Data 4.196 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.653 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 42 Number of Missing Observations 11 First Quartile 14 Median 92 Third Quartile 298 SD 192 Skewness 0.956 SD of logged Data 1.633 d2max (for USL) 2.933 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 45 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 548 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.667 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.862 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 548 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 548 95% UPL 597.2 90% Percentile 472.2 90 % Chebyshev UPL 756.6 95% Percentile 527.9 95% Chebyshev UPL 1020 99 % Percentile 639.7 95% USL 648 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Nickel General Statistics Total Number of Observations 47 Minimum 0.42 Second Largest 7.97 Maximum 9.4 Mean 2.841 Coefficient of Variation 0.783 Mean of logged Data 0.733 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.653 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 19 Number of Missing Observations 11 First Quartile 1 Median 1.39 Third Quartile 5 SD 2.225 Skewness 0.924 SD of logged Data 0.806 d2max (for USL) 2.933 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 45 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 6.2 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.667 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.862 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 6.2 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 5 95% UPL 7.262 90% Percentile 5 90 % Chebyshev UPL 9.586 95% Percentile 5.84 95% Chebyshev UPL 12.64 99 % Percentile 8.742 95% USL 9.4 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Potassium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 48 Minimum 1.23 Second Largest 11.4 Maximum 11.5 Mean 4.612 Coefficient of Variation 0.627 Mean of logged Data 1.304 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.648 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 41 Number of Missing Observations 10 First Quartile 1.398 Median 4.335 Third Quartile 5.67 SD 2.89 Skewness 0.73 SD of logged Data 0.72 d2max (for USL) 2.941 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 46 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 10.9 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.704 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.871 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 10.9 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 10.9 95% UPL 11.18 90% Percentile 8.681 90 % Chebyshev UPL 13.37 95% Percentile 10.36 95% Chebyshev UPL 17.34 99 % Percentile 11.45 95% USL 11.5 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Selenium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 54 Minimum 0.773 Second Largest 2.8 Maximum 2.82 Mean 1.139 Coefficient of Variation 0.369 Mean of logged Data 0.0881 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.624 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 9 Number of Missing Observations 4 First Quartile 1 Median 1 Third Quartile 1 SD 0.421 Skewness 3.071 SD of logged Data 0.262 d2max (for USL) 2.987 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 52 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 2.28 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.926 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.917 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 2.199 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 2.199 95% UPL 2.41 90% Percentile 1.571 90 % Chebyshev UPL 2.413 95% Percentile 2.105 95% Chebyshev UPL 2.99 99 % Percentile 2.809 95% USL 2.82 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Sodium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 48 Minimum 11.2 Second Largest 117 Maximum 125 Mean 39.08 Coefficient of Variation 0.915 Mean of logged Data 3.32 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.648 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 40 Number of Missing Observations 10 First Quartile 12.33 Median 22.05 Third Quartile 48.2 SD 35.74 Skewness 1.416 SD of logged Data 0.81 d2max (for USL) 2.941 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 46 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 117 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.704 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.871 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 117 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 117 95% UPL 117 90% Percentile 114.3 90 % Chebyshev UPL 147.4 95% Percentile 116.7 95% Chebyshev UPL 196.5 99 % Percentile 121.2 95% USL 125 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Strontium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 36 Minimum 131 Second Largest 418 Maximum 430 Mean 236.4 Coefficient of Variation 0.432 Mean of logged Data 5.381 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.716 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 32 Number of Missing Observations 22 First Quartile 164 Median 175.5 Third Quartile 331.5 SD 102 Skewness 0.702 SD of logged Data 0.408 d2max (for USL) 2.824 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 35 95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage 418 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.944 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.887 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 418 95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 417 95% UPL 419.8 90% Percentile 386.5 90 % Chebyshev UPL 546.7 95 % Percentile 416.5 95 % Chebyshev UPL 687.3 99 % Percentile 425.8 95 % USL 430 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Sulfate General Statistics Total Number of Observations 58 Minimum 0.21 Second Largest 130 Maximum 140 Mean 22.65 Coefficient of Variation 1.752 Mean of logged Data 1.477 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.61 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 39 First Quartile 0.41 Median 9.35 Third Quartile 15.75 SD 39.69 Skewness 2.122 SD of logged Data 2.132 d2max (for USL) 3.014 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 55 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 130 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.528 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.844 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 75 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 130 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 130 95% UPL 130 90% Percentile 103 90 % Chebyshev UPL 142.7 95% Percentile 130 95% Chebyshev UPL 197.1 99 % Percentile 134.3 95% USL 140 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A TDS General Statistics Total Number of Observations 58 Minimum 66 Second Largest 500 Maximum 510 Mean 226.2 Coefficient of Variation 0.536 Mean of logged Data 5.287 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.61 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 34 First Quartile 130 Median 200 Third Quartile 317.5 SD 121.2 Skewness 0.865 SD of logged Data 0.52 d2max (for USL) 3.014 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 55 95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage 470 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.528 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.844 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 75 95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 473 95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 473 95% UPL 481 90% Percentile 423 90 % Chebyshev UPL 592.8 95 % Percentile 471.5 95 % Chebyshev UPL 758.9 99 % Percentile 504.3 95 % USL 510 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Vanadium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 36 Minimum 0.282 Second Largest 4.42 Maximum 4.58 Mean 2.04 Coefficient of Variation 0.722 Mean of logged Data 0.295 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.716 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 31 Number of Missing Observations 22 First Quartile 0.408 Median 2.425 Third Quartile 3.443 SD 1.472 Skewness 0.0812 SD of logged Data 1.047 d2max (for USL) 2.824 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 35 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 4.42 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.944 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.887 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 4.26 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 4.26 95% UPL 4.444 90% Percentile 3.89 90 % Chebyshev UPL 6.518 95% Percentile 4.06 95% Chebyshev UPL 8.546 99 % Percentile 4.524 95% USL 4.58 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Two -Sided 95% Tolerance Intervals of pH Percent of Nonparametric Nonparametric Population Lower Upper Between Tolerance Tolerance Limits Limit Limit 90 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Nonparametric Background Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 11:35:35 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_b.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 85 Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Fluoride General Statistics Total Number of Observations 21 Minimum 0.0772 Second Largest 0.32 Maximum 0.36 Mean 0.199 Coefficient of Variation 0.464 Mean of logged Data -1.734 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.583 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level Number of Distinct Observations 16 Number of Missing Observations 37 First Quartile 0.1 Median 0.21 Third Quartile 0.28 SD 0.0924 Skewness 0.0747 SD of logged Data 0.521 d2max (for USL) 2.58 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 20 95% UTL with 85 % Coverage 0.32 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.765 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.845 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 30 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 0.32 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 0.32 95% UPL 0.356 90% Percentile 0.3 90 % Chebyshev UPL 0.483 95% Percentile 0.32 95% Chebyshev UPL 0.611 99 % Percentile 0.352 95% USL 0.36 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Methane General Statistics Total Number of Observations 16 Minimum 10 Second Largest 41.8 Maximum 54.6 Mean 16.16 Coefficient of Variation 0.829 Mean of logged Data 2.589 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.69 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 6 Number of Missing Observations 36 First Quartile 10 Median 10 Third Quartile 12.4 SD 13.41 Skewness 2.285 SD of logged Data 0.56 d2max (for USL) 2.443 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 15 95% UTL with 85 % Coverage 41.8 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.324 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.716 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 30 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 47.7 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage 41.8 95% UPL 54.6 90% Percentile 34.4 90 % Chebyshev UPL 57.62 95% Percentile 45 95% Chebyshev UPL 76.39 99 % Percentile 52.68 95% USL 54.6 Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20. Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations. The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant /'TWO• -3 GOODNESS OF FIT TEST RESULTS (PROUCL OUTPUT SynTerra Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:03:10 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data_No AC-Outliers.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone pH Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 11 Minimum 5.23 Maximum 6.4 Mean of Raw Data 5.883 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 0.319 Khat 366.9 Theta hat 0.016 Kstar 275.2 Theta star 0.0214 Mean of Log Transformed Data 1.771 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.0547 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.976 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.959 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.859 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.667 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.146 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.243 Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.976 A-D Test Statistic 0.302 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.731 K-S Test Statistic 0.138 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.245 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.973 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.955 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.859 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.593 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.145 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.243 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Alkalinity Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 12 1 11 10 1 9.09% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1 5 5 5 5 N/A Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 10 9.5 26.4 14.89 13 5.414 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 11 5 26.4 13.99 13 5.939 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 11 2.5 26.4 13.76 13 6.351 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 11 2.628 26.4 13.78 13 6.329 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 11 4.464 26.4 13.94 13 6.022 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 11 6.628 26.4 14.14 13 5.709 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 10.11 7.146 1.472 2.65 0.321 0.121 Statistics (NDs = DL) 6.214 4.58 2.251 2.556 0.437 0.171 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 4.028 2.99 3.417 2.493 0.605 0.243 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 5.752 4.244 2.424 2.545 0.463 0.182 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 2.581 0.381 0.148 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.893 0.935 0.941 0.941 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.803 0.842 Data Not Normal 0.89 0.85 Data Appear Normal 0.906 0.85 Data Appear Normal 0.905 0.85 Data Appear Normal 0.321 0.262 Data Not Normal 0.277 0.251 Data Not Normal 0.266 0.251 Data Not Normal 0.266 0.251 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.934 0.959 0.95 0.959 Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.732 0.725 0.283 0.267 Data Not Gamma Distributed 0.486 0.731 0.223 0.256 Data Appear Gamma Distributed 0.69 0.733 0.207 0.256 Data Appear Gamma Distributed 0.507 0.731 0.219 0.256 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Alkalinity (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.938 0.95 0.88 0.966 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.882 0.842 Data Appear Lognormal 0.923 0.85 Data Appear Lognormal 0.805 0.85 Data Not Lognormal 0.944 0.85 Data Appear Lognormal 0.262 0.262 Data Not Lognormal 0.206 0.251 Data Appear Lognormal 0.254 0.251 Data Not Lognormal 0.215 0.251 Data Appear Lognormal Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Barium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 11 Number of Missing Observations 1 Number of Distinct Observations 8 Minimum 8 Maximum 19 Mean of Raw Data 13.36 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 3.171 Khat 18.94 Theta hat 0.706 Kstar 13.83 Theta star 0.966 Mean of Log Transformed Data 2.566 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.246 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.984 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.972 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.88 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.182 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.986 A-D Test Statistic 0.245 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.729 K-S Test Statistic 0.169 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.255 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.979 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.965 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.775 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.189 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Calcium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 11 Number of Missing Observations 1 Number of Distinct Observations 10 Minimum 0.843 Maximum 8.1 Mean of Raw Data 2.989 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 2.21 Khat 2.391 Theta hat 1.25 Kstar 1.799 Theta star 1.661 Mean of Log Transformed Data 0.872 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.691 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.915 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.841 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0314 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.283 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.982 A-D Test Statistic 0.428 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.737 K-S Test Statistic 0.237 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.258 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.981 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.957 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.765 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.195 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Chloride Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 11 Number of Missing Observations 1 Number of Distinct Observations 9 Minimum 0.56 Maximum 3.3 Mean of Raw Data 2.26 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 0.946 Khat 4.557 Theta hat 0.496 Kstar 3.375 Theta star 0.67 Mean of Log Transformed Data 0.702 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.555 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.966 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.915 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.373 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.176 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.909 A-D Test Statistic 0.52 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.732 K-S Test Statistic 0.176 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.256 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.921 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.849 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0427 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.198 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data appear Approximate —Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Chromium Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 12 1 11 7 4 36.36% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 4 1 1 1 1 0 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 7 0.851 7.17 2.372 1.36 2.261 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 11 0.851 7.17 1.873 1.06 1.883 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 11 0.5 7.17 1.691 1.06 1.989 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 11 -2.201 7.17 1.204 1.06 2.458 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 11 0.01 7.17 1.524 1.06 2.109 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 11 0.315 7.17 1.713 1.06 1.978 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.916 1.19 1.238 0.58 0.75 1.292 Statistics (NDs = DL) 2.089 1.58 0.897 0.369 0.65 1.761 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.368 1.056 1.236 0.117 0.866 7.382 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.435 0.377 3.5 -1.07 2.466 -2.306 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.137 0.875 6.373 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.837 0.743 0.794 0.933 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) Correlation Coefficient R Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.716 0.803 Data Not Normal 0.575 0.85 Data Not Normal 0.65 0.85 Data Not Normal 0.893 0.85 Data Appear Normal 0.318 0.304 Data Not Normal 0.338 0.251 Data Not Normal 0.3 0.251 Data Not Normal 0.225 0.251 Data Appear Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS 0.958 0.891 0.946 0.99 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.613 0.716 0.266 0.315 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed 1.58 0.738 0.307 0.258 Data Not Gamma Distributed 0.801 0.745 0.209 0.26 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution 0.488 0.794 0.204 0.271 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Chromium (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.94 0.852 0.939 0.976 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.885 0.803 Data Appear Lognormal 0.738 0.85 Data Not Lognormal 0.874 0.85 Data Appear Lognormal 0.96 0.85 Data Appear Lognormal 0.216 0.304 Data Appear Lognormal 0.274 0.251 Data Not Lognormal 0.189 0.251 Data Appear Lognormal 0.15 0.251 Data Appear Lognormal Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Cobalt Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 12 1 11 7 4 36.36% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 4 1 1 1 1 0 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 7 0.667 2.14 1.199 1.1 0.519 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 11 0.667 2.14 1.127 1 0.415 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 11 0.5 2.14 0.945 0.695 0.535 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 11 0.238 2.14 0.973 0.87 0.531 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 11 0.326 2.14 0.977 0.829 0.52 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 11 0.49 2.14 1.006 0.84 0.49 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 6.726 3.939 0.178 0.105 0.418 3.976 Statistics (NDs = DL) 9.74 7.144 0.116 0.0669 0.328 4.904 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 4.058 3.012 0.233 -0.185 0.517 -2.792 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 4.212 3.124 0.232 -0.147 0.525 -3.578 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) -0.0869 0.438 -5.043 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.954 0.889 0.915 0.96 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.908 0.803 Data Appear Normal 0.808 0.85 Data Not Normal 0.833 0.85 Data Not Normal 0.932 0.85 Data Appear Normal 0.229 0.304 Data Appear Normal 0.267 0.251 Data Not Normal 0.225 0.251 Data Appear Normal 0.167 0.251 Data Appear Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.985 0.931 0.974 0.989 Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.269 0.709 0.179 0.313 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed 0.754 0.729 0.219 0.255 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution 0.594 0.733 0.208 0.256 Data Appear Gamma Distributed 0.202 0.732 0.144 0.256 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Cobalt (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.979 0.937 0.948 0.981 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.949 0.803 Data Appear Lognormal 0.89 0.85 Data Appear Lognormal 0.881 0.85 Data Appear Lognormal 0.961 0.85 Data Appear Lognormal 0.157 0.304 Data Appear Lognormal 0.237 0.251 Data Appear Lognormal 0.201 0.251 Data Appear Lognormal 0.156 0.251 Data Appear Lognormal Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Magnesium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 11 Number of Missing Observations 1 Number of Distinct Observations 11 Minimum 0.577 Maximum 1.25 Mean of Raw Data 0.832 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 0.236 Khat 15.14 Theta hat 0.0549 Kstar 11.07 Theta star 0.0751 Mean of Log Transformed Data -0.218 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.265 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.938 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.866 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0911 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.203 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.959 A-D Test Statistic 0.473 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.729 K-S Test Statistic 0.177 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.255 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.965 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.915 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.36 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.16 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Potassium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 11 Number of Missing Observations 1 Number of Distinct Observations 11 Minimum 1.22 Maximum 4.6 Mean of Raw Data 2.198 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 1.023 Khat 6.148 Theta hat 0.358 Kstar 4.532 Theta star 0.485 Mean of Log Transformed Data 0.704 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.414 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.922 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.855 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0471 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.19 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.974 A-D Test Statistic 0.386 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.731 K-S Test Statistic 0.174 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.256 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.973 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.941 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.569 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.158 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Sodium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 11 Number of Missing Observations 1 Number of Distinct Observations 11 Minimum 0.807 Maximum 5.49 Mean of Raw Data 3.773 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 1.598 Khat 4.013 Theta hat 0.94 Kstar 2.979 Theta star 1.267 Mean of Log Transformed Data 1.198 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.608 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.957 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.901 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.243 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.208 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.883 A-D Test Statistic 0.735 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.733 K-S Test Statistic 0.26 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.256 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.899 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.809 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0136 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.267 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Sulfate Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 11 Number of Missing Observations 1 Number of Distinct Observations 10 Minimum 0.87 Maximum 2.3 Mean of Raw Data 1.484 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 0.473 Khat 11.07 Theta hat 0.134 Kstar 8.11 Theta star 0.183 Mean of Log Transformed Data 0.349 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.318 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.978 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.942 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.647 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.13 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.987 A-D Test Statistic 0.191 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.729 K-S Test Statistic 0.115 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.255 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.991 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.968 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.949 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.103 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone TDS Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 11 Number of Missing Observations 1 Number of Distinct Observations 9 Minimum 26 Maximum 110 Mean of Raw Data 48.64 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 23.34 Khat 6.124 Theta hat 7.942 Kstar 4.514 Theta star 10.77 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.801 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.412 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.873 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.782 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00465 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.269 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.925 A-D Test Statistic 0.556 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.731 K-S Test Statistic 0.205 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.256 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.95 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.91 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.85 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.211 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.187 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.251 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Surficial Flow Zone Thallium Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 12 1 11 1 10 90.91 % Total Radium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 10 Number of Missing Observations 2 Number of Distinct Observations 10 Minimum 0.332 Maximum 1.56 Mean of Raw Data 0.684 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 0.352 Khat 5.414 Theta hat 0.126 Kstar 3.856 Theta star 0.177 Mean of Log Transformed Data -0.475 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.441 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.888 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.809 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.842 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0129 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.223 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.262 Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.946 A-D Test Statistic 0.397 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.729 K-S Test Statistic 0.169 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.267 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.969 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.949 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.842 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.56 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.144 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.262 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:26:26 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_a.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone pH Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 40 Number of Distinct Observations 16 Minimum 5.6 Maximum 6.6 Mean of Raw Data 6.256 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 0.208 Khat 902.5 Theta hat 0.00693 Kstar 834.8 Theta star 0.00749 Mean of Log Transformed Data 1.833 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.034 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.943 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.896 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.94 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00117 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.215 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.139 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.94 A-D Test Statistic 1.7 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.747 K-S Test Statistic 0.219 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.139 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.936 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.885 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.94 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.5929E-4 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.22 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.139 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Alkalinity Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 29 Number of Missing Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 27 Minimum 38 Maximum 303 Mean of Raw Data 149.4 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 96.97 Khat 2.061 Theta hat 72.48 Kstar 1.87 Theta star 79.85 Mean of Log Transformed Data 4.744 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.774 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.898 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.785 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.926 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.0125E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.299 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.161 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.875 A-D Test Statistic 3.202 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.757 K-S Test Statistic 0.287 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.165 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.889 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.769 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.926 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 9.2388E-6 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.286 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.161 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Aluminum Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 40 5 35 33 2 5.71 % Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 2 100 100 100 100 0 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 33 14 678 184.7 136 160.7 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 35 14 678 179.9 100 157.2 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 35 14 678 177 100 159.1 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 35 14 678 177.7 104 158.9 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 35 14 678 177.2 100 159.1 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 35 14 678 177.3 100 158.9 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.332 1.231 138.6 4.799 0.997 0.208 Statistics (NDs = DL) 1.379 1.28 130.4 4.788 0.969 0.202 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.309 1.216 135.2 4.748 0.99 0.208 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.3 1.208 136.3 4.746 0.998 0.21 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 4.752 0.988 0.208 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.934 0.929 0.924 0.929 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.871 0.931 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.863 0.934 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.853 0.934 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.863 0.934 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.193 0.152 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.209 0.148 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.21 0.148 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.193 0.148 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.991 0.993 0.991 0.991 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.547 0.769 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.153 0.157 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 0.489 0.769 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.144 0.152 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 0.741 0.77 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.167 0.152 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.635 0.77 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.166 0.152 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Aluminum (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.984 0.988 0.983 0.985 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.958 0.931 0.968 0.934 0.957 0.934 0.959 0.934 0.139 0.152 0.119 0.148 0.131 0.148 0.129 0.148 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Appendix B Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Barium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 40 Number of Distinct Observations 29 Minimum 13 Maximum 71 Mean of Raw Data 41.82 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 19.96 Khat 3.603 Theta hat 11.6 Kstar 3.35 Theta star 12.48 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.588 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.583 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.95 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.874 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.94 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.9792E-4 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.165 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.139 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.911 A-D Test Statistic 2.152 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.753 K-S Test Statistic 0.181 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.14 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.928 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.836 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.94 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.0447E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.21 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.139 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Bicarbonate Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 24 Number of Missing Observations 16 Number of Distinct Observations 23 Minimum 53 Maximum 303 Mean of Raw Data 170.3 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 93.65 Khat 2.519 Theta hat 67.64 Kstar 2.231 Theta star 76.34 Mean of Log Transformed Data 4.926 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.724 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.902 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.794 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.916 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.3105E-4 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.261 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.177 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.854 A-D Test Statistic 2.918 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.753 K-S Test Statistic 0.315 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.18 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.866 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.73 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.916 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 9.6004E-6 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.329 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.177 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Calcium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 29 Number of Missing Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 25 Minimum 10.9 Maximum 59.9 Mean of Raw Data 33.19 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 21.16 Khat 2.106 Theta hat 15.76 Kstar 1.911 Theta star 17.37 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.247 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.764 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.864 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.722 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.926 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.0579E-6 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.316 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.161 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.827 A-D Test Statistic 4.065 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.757 K-S Test Statistic 0.315 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.165 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.852 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.7 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.926 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.1822E-7 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.319 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.161 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Chloride Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 40 Number of Distinct Observations 23 Minimum 3.4 Maximum 42 Mean of Raw Data 22.9 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 14.21 Khat 1.543 Theta hat 14.85 Kstar 1.444 Theta star 15.86 Mean of Log Transformed Data 2.773 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.992 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.888 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.765 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.94 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 7.0196E-8 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.29 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.139 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.793 A-D Test Statistic 5.494 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.765 K-S Test Statistic 0.35 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.142 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.845 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.691 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.94 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.378E-10 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.363 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.139 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Chromium VI Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 40 25 15 8 7 46.67% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 7 0.025 0.03 0.0279 0.03 0.00267 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 8 0.055 0.96 0.641 0.7 0.273 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 15 0.025 0.96 0.355 0.055 0.371 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 15 0.0125 0.96 0.348 0.055 0.377 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 15 -0.295 0.96 0.322 0.168 0.418 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 15 0.055 0.96 0.418 0.267 0.318 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 15 0.0446 0.96 0.386 0.15 0.343 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 2.477 1.632 0.259 -0.661 0.925 -1.4 Statistics (NDs = DL) 0.622 0.542 0.57 -2.025 1.647 -0.813 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 0.492 0.438 0.707 -2.349 1.98 -0.843 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.434 1.191 0.292 -1.26 1.01 -0.802 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) -1.494 1.171 -0.784 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.927 0.893 0.893 0.969 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.88 0.818 Data Appear Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.775 0.881 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.775 0.881 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.921 0.881 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.204 0.283 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.324 0.22 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.315 0.22 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.177 0.22 Data Appear Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.823 0.856 0.834 0.933 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 1.151 0.723 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.335 0.297 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 1.796 0.784 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.291 0.232 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 1.759 0.795 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.298 0.234 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.54 0.755 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.175 0.226 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Chromium -VI (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.768 0.876 0.877 0.939 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.62 0.818 0.739 0.881 0.739 0.881 0.856 0.881 0.378 0.283 0.282 0.22 0.292 0.22 0.23 0.22 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Appendix B Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Iron Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 35 Number of Missing Observations 5 Number of Distinct Observations 35 Minimum 48 Maximum 1130 Mean of Raw Data 413.2 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 296.5 Khat 1.982 Theta hat 208.4 Kstar 1.832 Theta star 225.6 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.751 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.787 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.951 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.892 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.934 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00219 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.144 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.148 Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.985 A-D Test Statistic 0.354 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.76 K-S Test Statistic 0.109 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.151 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.989 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.969 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.934 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.492 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0884 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.148 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Magnesium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 29 Number of Missing Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 23 Minimum 3.02 Maximum 13.9 Mean of Raw Data 7.39 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 4.17 Khat 2.881 Theta hat 2.565 Kstar 2.606 Theta star 2.836 Mean of Log Transformed Data 1.817 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.637 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.886 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.763 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.926 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.9622E-6 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.311 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.161 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.874 A-D Test Statistic 3.598 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.753 K-S Test Statistic 0.31 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.164 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.87 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.732 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.926 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.6903E-6 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.302 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.161 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Manganese Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 35 Number of Missing Observations 5 Number of Distinct Observations 32 Minimum 18 Maximum 683 Mean of Raw Data 131.7 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 118.8 Khat 1.76 Theta hat 74.84 Kstar 1.628 Theta star 80.9 Mean of Log Transformed Data 4.57 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.825 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.833 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.724 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.934 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.9495E-8 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.175 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.148 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.926 A-D Test Statistic 0.337 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.763 K-S Test Statistic 0.0908 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.151 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.982 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.963 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.934 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.359 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.107 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.148 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Methane Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 32 21 11 7 4 36.36% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 4 10 10 10 10 0 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 7 19.4 2260 912.9 801 712.1 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 11 10 2260 584.6 400 715.4 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 11 5 2260 582.8 400 717 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 11 -1602 2260 225.6 400 1134 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 11 0.01 2260 580.9 400 718.6 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 11 5.69 2260 589.2 400 711.4 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.055 0.698 865.6 6.273 1.553 0.248 Statistics (NDs = DL) 0.423 0.368 1382 4.829 2.337 0.484 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 0.372 0.331 1567 4.577 2.643 0.577 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.184 0.195 3155 2.317 5.618 2.425 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 5.034 2.154 0.428 Correlation Coefficient R Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) Correlation Coefficient R Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS 0.956 0.902 0.902 0.99 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.93 0.803 Data Appear Normal 0.813 0.85 Data Not Normal 0.814 0.85 Data Not Normal 0.979 0.85 Data Appear Normal 0.237 0.304 Data Appear Normal 0.24 0.251 Data Appear Normal 0.239 0.251 Data Appear Normal 0.122 0.251 Data Appear Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS 0.966 0.963 0.958 0.921 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.445 0.727 0.222 0.319 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed 0.901 0.796 0.27 0.272 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution 0.878 0.806 0.236 0.273 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution 1.166 0.876 0.272 0.283 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Methane (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.867 0.902 0.904 0.95 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.777 0.803 0.784 0.85 0.787 0.85 0.882 0.85 0.285 0.304 0.242 0.251 0.249 0.251 0.217 0.251 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Appendix B Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Nitrate Nitrite Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 40 25 15 12 3 20.00% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 3 0.01 0.02 0.0133 0.01 0.00577 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 12 0.019 0.664 0.168 0.143 0.18 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 15 0.01 0.664 0.137 0.08 0.172 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 15 0.005 0.664 0.136 0.08 0.173 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 15 -0.267 0.664 0.094 0.08 0.223 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 15 0.01 0.664 0.137 0.08 0.172 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 15 0.00432 0.664 0.136 0.08 0.173 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.031 0.829 0.163 -2.34 1.195 -0.511 Statistics (NDs = DL) 0.782 0.67 0.175 -2.747 1.362 -0.496 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 0.682 0.59 0.199 -2.886 1.556 -0.539 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.747 0.642 0.183 -2.793 1.415 -0.507 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) -2.869 1.532 -0.534 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.866 0.843 0.849 0.951 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.766 0.859 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.726 0.881 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.735 0.881 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.921 0.881 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.241 0.243 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.23 0.22 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.225 0.22 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.175 0.22 Data Appear Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.963 0.969 0.971 0.97 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.482 0.756 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.196 0.252 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 0.671 0.774 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.239 0.23 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 0.477 0.78 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.205 0.231 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.644 0.775 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.228 0.23 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Nitrate -Nitrite (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.953 0.959 0.97 0.973 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.894 0.859 0.904 0.881 0.926 0.881 0.935 0.881 0.204 0.243 0.213 0.22 0.188 0.22 0.187 0.22 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Appendix B Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Potassium Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 40 11 29 28 1 3.45% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1 5 5 5 5 N/A Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 28 1.33 3.61 2.395 2.415 1.007 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 29 1.33 5 2.485 3.23 1.101 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 29 1.33 3.61 2.399 2.5 0.989 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 29 1.33 3.61 2.395 2.395 0.989 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 29 1.33 3.61 2.392 2.287 0.989 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 29 1.33 3.61 2.388 2.182 0.99 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 5.518 4.95 0.434 0.78 0.447 0.573 Statistics (NDs = DL) 5.084 4.581 0.489 0.809 0.465 0.575 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 5.707 5.14 0.42 0.785 0.44 0.56 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 5.707 5.139 0.419 0.782 0.439 0.562 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.78 0.439 0.563 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.858 0.886 0.869 0.869 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.711 0.924 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.776 0.926 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.73 0.926 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.73 0.926 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.296 0.164 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.272 0.161 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.282 0.161 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.283 0.161 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.842 0.892 0.853 0.854 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 3.892 0.748 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.31 0.166 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 3.443 0.747 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.295 0.163 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 3.675 0.747 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.294 0.163 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 3.646 0.747 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.297 0.163 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Potassium (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.856 0.879 0.866 0.868 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.708 0.924 0.755 0.926 0.725 0.926 0.727 0.926 0.31 0.164 0.3 0.161 0.294 0.161 0.297 0.161 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Appendix B Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Sodium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 29 Number of Missing Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 27 Minimum 8.71 Maximum 56 Mean of Raw Data 28.7 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 19.48 Khat 1.806 Theta hat 15.89 Kstar 1.642 Theta star 17.48 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.055 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.837 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.864 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.724 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.926 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.1572E-6 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.322 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.161 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.828 A-D Test Statistic 4.234 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.759 K-S Test Statistic 0.324 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.165 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.845 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.689 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.926 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.6080E-7 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.318 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.161 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Strontium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 22 Number of Missing Observations 18 Number of Distinct Observations 18 Minimum 83 Maximum 391 Mean of Raw Data 222.3 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 118 Khat 3.018 Theta hat 73.66 Kstar 2.636 Theta star 84.31 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.229 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.641 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.902 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.795 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.911 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.4085E-4 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.269 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.184 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.874 A-D Test Statistic 2.562 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.749 K-S Test Statistic 0.31 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.187 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.877 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.749 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.911 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 3.8481 E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.32 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.184 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Sulfate Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 40 Number of Distinct Observations 17 Minimum 0.96 Maximum 8.3 Mean of Raw Data 4.074 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 2.371 Khat 2.063 Theta hat 1.975 Kstar 1.925 Theta star 2.116 Mean of Log Transformed Data 1.143 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.817 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.913 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.813 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.94 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.8710E-6 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.27 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.139 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.866 A-D Test Statistic 4.716 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.759 K-S Test Statistic 0.332 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.141 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.865 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.725 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.94 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.2313E-9 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.349 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.139 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone TDS Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 40 Number of Distinct Observations 28 Minimum 81 Maximum 450 Mean of Raw Data 264.5 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 129.2 Khat 3.205 Theta hat 82.52 Kstar 2.981 Theta star 88.71 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.414 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.629 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.923 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.826 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.94 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.1134E-6 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.218 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.139 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.873 A-D Test Statistic 3.649 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.754 K-S Test Statistic 0.258 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.14 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.893 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.773 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.94 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.1690E-7 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.271 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.139 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone TOC Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 18 Number of Missing Observations 22 Number of Distinct Observations 14 Minimum 0.184 Maximum 2.1 Mean of Raw Data 1.049 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 0.631 Khat 2.07 Theta hat 0.507 Kstar 1.762 Theta star 0.596 Mean of Log Transformed Data -0.212 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.827 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.954 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.894 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.897 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0543 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.211 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.202 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.908 A-D Test Statistic 1.193 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.752 K-S Test Statistic 0.247 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.206 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.925 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.84 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.897 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00594 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.256 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.202 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Total Radium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 17 Number of Missing Observations 23 Number of Distinct Observations 17 Minimum 0.706 Maximum 34.88 Mean of Raw Data 5.912 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 8.248 Khat 1.176 Theta hat 5.027 Kstar 1.008 Theta star 5.867 Mean of Log Transformed Data 1.295 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.907 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.732 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.562 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.892 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 8.4228E-7 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.319 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.207 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.91 A-D Test Statistic 1.169 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.762 K-S Test Statistic 0.215 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.214 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.959 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.935 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.892 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.231 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.142 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.207 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Total Uranium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 13 Number of Missing Observations 27 Number of Distinct Observations 13 Minimum 9.2800E-5 Maximum 0.00102 Mean of Raw Data 5.2606E-4 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 3.9700E-4 Khat 1.322 Theta hat 3.9791 E-4 Kstar 1.068 Theta star 4.9245E-4 Mean of Log Transformed Data -7.974 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 1.06 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.9 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.782 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.866 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00561 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.246 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.234 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.832 A-D Test Statistic 1.436 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.753 K-S Test Statistic 0.268 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.242 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.888 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.759 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.866 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00291 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.261 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.234 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Vanadium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 23 Number of Missing Observations 17 Number of Distinct Observations 23 Minimum 0.637 Maximum 5.88 Mean of Raw Data 3.174 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 1.94 Khat 1.918 Theta hat 1.655 Kstar 1.697 Theta star 1.871 Mean of Log Transformed Data 0.872 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.857 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.928 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.84 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.914 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00131 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.202 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.18 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.864 A-D Test Statistic 2.018 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.756 K-S Test Statistic 0.275 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.184 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.9 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.79 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.914 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.4925E-4 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.295 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.18 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 11:20:15 AM From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_b.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone pH Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 58 Number of Distinct Observations 28 Minimum 5.1 Maximum 7.2 Mean of Raw Data 6.208 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 0.65 Khat 91.47 Theta hat 0.0679 Kstar 86.75 Theta star 0.0716 Mean of Log Transformed Data 1.82 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.106 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.944 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.865 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.7692E-7 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.204 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.116 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.939 A-D Test Statistic 2.985 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.748 K-S Test Statistic 0.204 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.116 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.942 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.863 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.2729E-7 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.201 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.116 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Alkalinity Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 48 Number of Missing Observations 10 Number of Distinct Observations 43 Minimum 49 Maximum 250 Mean of Raw Data 144.2 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 71.54 Khat 3.427 Theta hat 42.09 Kstar 3.226 Theta star 44.71 Mean of Log Transformed Data 4.819 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.594 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.942 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.856 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.947 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.0230E-6 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.186 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.127 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.907 A-D Test Statistic 2.485 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.755 K-S Test Statistic 0.2 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.129 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.927 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.829 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.947 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 3.8200E-7 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.2 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.127 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Aluminum Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 47 Number of Missing Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 44 Minimum 10 Maximum 553 Mean of Raw Data 174.9 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 130.7 Khat 1.789 Theta hat 97.74 Kstar 1.689 Theta star 103.5 Mean of Log Transformed Data 4.859 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.864 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.944 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.883 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.946 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 8.6249E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.144 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.128 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.991 A-D Test Statistic 0.182 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.764 K-S Test Statistic 0.0648 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.131 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.982 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.961 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.946 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.198 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0908 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.128 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Barium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 58 Number of Distinct Observations 35 Minimum 14 Maximum 101 Mean of Raw Data 52.51 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 33.1 Khat 2.36 Theta hat 22.25 Kstar 2.249 Theta star 23.35 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.734 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.7 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.903 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.784 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.377E-11 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.219 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.116 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.882 A-D Test Statistic 3.995 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.761 K-S Test Statistic 0.231 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.118 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.927 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.83 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 9.3298E-9 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.233 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.116 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Bicarbonate Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 37 Number of Missing Observations 21 Number of Distinct Observations 36 Minimum 49.8 Maximum 230 Mean of Raw Data 131.5 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 64.9 Khat 3.7 Theta hat 35.55 Kstar 3.418 Theta star 38.48 Mean of Log Transformed Data 4.738 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.564 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.943 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.862 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.936 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.6326E-4 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.168 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.144 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.922 A-D Test Statistic 1.708 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.753 K-S Test Statistic 0.18 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.146 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.935 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.845 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.936 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.2068E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.18 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.144 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Calcium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 48 Number of Missing Observations 10 Number of Distinct Observations 42 Minimum 11.9 Maximum 75.2 Mean of Raw Data 30.94 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 23.59 Khat 2.087 Theta hat 14.83 Kstar 1.971 Theta star 15.7 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.174 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.702 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.863 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.721 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.947 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 3.363E-11 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.242 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.127 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.909 A-D Test Statistic 4.317 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.761 K-S Test Statistic 0.226 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.129 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.905 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.789 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.947 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.0287E-8 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.21 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.127 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Chloride Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 58 Number of Distinct Observations 21 Minimum 8.9 Maximum 46 Mean of Raw Data 17.45 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 10.38 Khat 4.106 Theta hat 4.251 Kstar 3.905 Theta star 4.47 Mean of Log Transformed Data 2.733 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.467 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.819 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.662 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.110E-16 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.384 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.116 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.898 A-D Test Statistic 7.694 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.754 K-S Test Statistic 0.349 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.117 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.868 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.74 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 3.029E-13 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.321 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.116 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Chromium VI Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 58 29 29 15 14 48.28% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 14 0.025 0.12 0.0339 0.0275 0.0249 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 15 0.025 0.47 0.17 0.18 0.143 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 29 0.025 0.47 0.104 0.03 0.124 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 29 0.0125 0.47 0.0961 0.028 0.128 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 29 -0.401 0.47 -0.00371 0.025 0.222 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 29 0.01 0.47 0.0927 0.025 0.13 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 29 0.00196 0.47 0.0933 0.0272 0.129 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.303 1.087 0.13 -2.203 1.033 -0.469 Statistics (NDs = DL) 1.015 0.933 0.103 -2.828 1.022 -0.361 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 0.732 0.679 0.131 -3.163 1.278 -0.404 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.624 0.583 0.149 -3.362 1.423 -0.423 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) -3.43 1.579 -0.46 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.945 0.836 0.84 0.993 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.881 0.881 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.698 0.926 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.705 0.926 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.979 0.926 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.231 0.22 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.313 0.161 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.314 0.161 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.0994 0.161 Data Appear Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.969 0.969 0.973 0.971 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.647 0.757 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.195 0.226 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 3.06 0.774 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.291 0.167 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 2.346 0.786 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.235 0.169 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 2.699 0.798 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.281 0.171 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Chromium -VI (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Correlation Coefficient R 0.958 0.893 0.922 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.896 0.881 0.78 0.926 0.829 0.926 0.952 0.926 0.215 0.22 0.278 0.161 0.24 0.161 0.137 0.161 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Log ROS 0.984 Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Cobalt Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 57 10 47 18 29 61.70% Number Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 29 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 18 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 47 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 47 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 47 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 47 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 47 K hat Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 2.3 Statistics (NDs = DL) 2.938 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.457 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.363 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD 1 1 1 1 0 0.581 6.53 2.361 1.64 1.689 0.581 6.53 1.521 1 1.225 0.5 6.53 1.213 0.5 1.375 -4.079 6.53 0.419 0.56 2.155 0.01 6.53 1.014 0.432 1.503 0.103 6.53 1.236 0.768 1.381 K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV 1.953 1.027 0.626 0.703 1.123 2.765 0.518 0.24 0.527 2.196 1.379 0.832 -0.188 0.776 -4.133 0.354 2.794 -1.829 2.458 -1.344 -0.247 0.953 -3.854 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.93 0.733 0.769 0.985 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.863 0.897 Data Not Normal 0.554 0.946 Data Not Normal 0.601 0.946 Data Not Normal 0.974 0.946 Data Appear Normal 0.223 0.202 Data Not Normal 0.381 0.128 Data Not Normal 0.315 0.128 Data Not Normal 0.141 0.128 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.985 0.864 0.934 0.984 Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.607 0.751 0.204 0.206 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed 8.693 0.756 0.357 0.13 Data Not Gamma Distributed 6.858 0.769 0.355 0.132 Data Not Gamma Distributed 2.551 0.847 0.259 0.139 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Cobalt (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Correlation Coefficient R 0.978 0.804 0.837 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.947 0.897 0.656 0.946 0.69 0.946 0.977 0.946 0.175 0.202 0.35 0.128 0.359 0.128 0.104 0.128 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Log ROS 0.992 Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Fluoride Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 58 37 21 18 3 14.29% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.700E-17 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 18 0.0772 0.36 0.215 0.24 0.0896 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 21 0.0772 0.36 0.199 0.21 0.0924 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 21 0.05 0.36 0.192 0.21 0.102 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 21 0.0434 0.36 0.196 0.21 0.0964 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 21 0.0751 0.36 0.199 0.21 0.093 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 21 0.0754 0.36 0.198 0.21 0.0936 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 4.949 4.161 0.0435 -1.639 0.502 -0.306 Statistics (NDs = DL) 4.343 3.754 0.0458 -1.734 0.521 -0.3 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 2.903 2.52 0.0661 -1.833 0.672 -0.366 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 4.209 3.64 0.0472 -1.739 0.532 -0.306 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) -1.745 0.537 -0.308 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.974 0.962 0.968 0.973 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.933 0.897 Data Appear Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.91 0.908 Data Appear Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.921 0.908 Data Appear Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.934 0.908 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.15 0.202 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.185 0.188 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.145 0.188 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.167 0.188 Data Appear Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.942 0.949 0.932 0.95 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.743 0.743 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.187 0.204 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 0.894 0.747 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.171 0.19 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 0.844 0.75 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.175 0.191 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.807 0.747 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.171 0.19 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Fluoride (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Correlation Coefficient R 0.947 0.954 0.945 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.881 0.897 0.893 0.908 0.877 0.908 0.893 0.908 0.193 0.202 0.177 0.188 0.182 0.188 0.176 0.188 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Log ROS 0.954 Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Iron Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 47 Number of Missing Observations 11 Number of Distinct Observations 45 Minimum 11 Maximum 3260 Mean of Raw Data 724.7 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 921.3 Khat 0.626 Theta hat 1157 Kstar 0.6 Theta star 1207 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.605 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 1.579 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.87 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.746 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.946 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.337E-10 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.266 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.128 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.962 A-D Test Statistic 0.975 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.802 K-S Test Statistic 0.105 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.135 Data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.985 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.949 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.946 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0645 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0866 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.128 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Lithium Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 58 37 21 16 5 23.81 % Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 5 5 5 5 5 0 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 16 2.175 47 18.51 13 14.83 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 21 2.175 47 15.29 9 14.14 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 21 2.175 47 14.7 9 14.62 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 21 -10.21 47 14.08 9 15.53 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 21 0.01 47 14.77 9 14.61 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 21 1.428 47 14.9 9 14.47 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.313 1.108 14.1 2.491 1.058 0.425 Statistics (NDs = DL) 1.261 1.113 12.12 2.281 0.994 0.436 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.009 0.897 14.57 2.116 1.145 0.541 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.722 0.651 20.45 1.859 1.89 1.017 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 2.162 1.122 0.519 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.952 0.911 0.907 0.96 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.89 0.887 Data Appear Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.82 0.908 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.812 0.908 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.919 0.908 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.194 0.213 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.243 0.188 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.223 0.188 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.2 0.188 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.946 0.959 0.953 0.943 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.511 0.758 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.187 0.22 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 0.924 0.764 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.199 0.194 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 1.208 0.769 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.212 0.195 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.39 0.785 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.141 0.197 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Lithium (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Correlation Coefficient R 0.963 0.968 0.938 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.906 0.887 0.922 0.908 0.859 0.908 0.928 0.908 0.18 0.213 0.179 0.188 0.194 0.188 0.151 0.188 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Log ROS 0.971 Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Magnesium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 48 Number of Missing Observations 10 Number of Distinct Observations 35 Minimum 2.36 Maximum 16.2 Mean of Raw Data 7.614 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 5.179 Khat 2.022 Theta hat 3.765 Kstar 1.91 Theta star 3.987 Mean of Log Transformed Data 1.763 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.757 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.876 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.741 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.947 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.756E-10 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.335 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.127 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.866 A-D Test Statistic 5.677 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.762 K-S Test Statistic 0.321 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.129 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.879 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.745 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.947 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.385E-10 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.306 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.127 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Manganese Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 58 11 47 46 1 2.13% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1 5 5 5 5 N/A Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 46 5 648 178.3 94 192.4 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 47 5 648 174.6 92 192 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 47 2.5 648 174.6 92 192 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 47 -290.8 648 168.3 92 202.2 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 47 5 648 174.7 92 191.9 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 47 1.226 648 174.6 92 192 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 0.655 0.627 272.2 4.252 1.605 0.377 Statistics (NDs = DL) 0.634 0.608 275.4 4.196 1.633 0.389 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 0.626 0.6 278.9 4.181 1.66 0.397 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.643 0.616 271.9 4.211 1.612 0.383 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 4.166 1.694 0.406 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.919 0.915 0.915 0.941 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.825 0.945 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.819 0.946 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.82 0.946 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.886 0.946 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.214 0.129 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.219 0.128 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.219 0.128 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.198 0.128 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.946 0.946 0.945 0.947 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 1.345 0.799 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.142 0.137 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 1.412 0.802 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.147 0.135 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 1.316 0.802 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.144 0.135 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.466 0.801 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.15 0.135 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Manganese (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Correlation Coefficient R 0.96 0.959 0.964 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.892 0.945 0.89 0.946 0.906 0.946 0.915 0.946 0.153 0.129 0.151 0.128 0.15 0.128 0.148 0.128 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Log ROS 0.966 Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Molybdenum Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 58 10 48 34 14 29.17% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 14 1 1 1 1 0 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 34 2.02 27.3 5.641 4.355 4.627 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 48 1 27.3 4.287 3.83 4.425 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 48 0.5 27.3 4.141 3.83 4.54 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 48 -9.232 27.3 2.882 3.83 5.977 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 48 0.01 27.3 4.003 3.83 4.657 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 48 0.521 27.3 4.354 3.83 4.381 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 2.741 2.519 2.058 1.537 0.585 0.38 Statistics (NDs = DL) 1.507 1.426 2.845 1.088 0.859 0.789 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.071 1.018 3.867 0.886 1.135 1.281 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.416 0.404 9.612 -0.183 2.786 -15.24 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 1.131 0.83 0.734 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.791 0.811 0.829 0.941 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.656 0.933 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.687 0.947 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.716 0.947 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.912 0.947 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.237 0.15 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.229 0.127 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.211 0.127 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.151 0.127 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.9 0.937 0.953 0.958 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 1.02 0.755 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.152 0.152 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 1.292 0.767 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.166 0.13 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 1.552 0.777 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.19 0.131 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 4.02 0.834 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.263 0.137 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Molybdenum (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Correlation Coefficient R 0.969 0.958 0.939 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.94 0.933 0.903 0.947 0.863 0.947 0.985 0.947 0.104 0.15 0.189 0.127 0.21 0.127 0.117 0.127 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Log ROS 0.993 Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Nitrate Nitrite Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 58 31 27 16 11 40.74% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 11 0.01 0.02 0.0118 0.01 0.00405 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 16 0.011 0.92 0.452 0.392 0.288 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 27 0.01 0.92 0.273 0.157 0.311 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 27 0.005 0.92 0.27 0.157 0.313 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 27 -0.702 0.92 0.151 0.157 0.449 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 27 0.01 0.92 0.278 0.157 0.307 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 27 0.00907 0.92 0.284 0.157 0.302 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.654 1.386 0.273 -1.126 1.088 -0.967 Statistics (NDs = DL) 0.528 0.494 0.516 -2.492 1.879 -0.754 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 0.442 0.417 0.612 -2.775 2.195 -0.791 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.597 0.556 0.465 -2.316 1.754 -0.757 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) -2.059 1.469 -0.714 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.964 0.904 0.905 0.99 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.915 0.887 Data Appear Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.801 0.923 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.802 0.923 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.968 0.923 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.222 0.213 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.236 0.167 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.241 0.167 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.0841 0.167 Data Appear Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.936 0.921 0.907 0.932 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.528 0.753 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.163 0.219 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 1.826 0.805 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.245 0.178 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 1.919 0.821 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.254 0.179 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.098 0.798 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.178 0.177 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Nitrate -Nitrite (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Correlation Coefficient R 0.876 0.904 0.899 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.786 0.887 0.792 0.923 0.783 0.923 0.925 0.923 0.211 0.213 0.229 0.167 0.23 0.167 0.159 0.167 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Log ROS 0.972 Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Potassium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 48 Number of Missing Observations 10 Number of Distinct Observations 41 Minimum 1.23 Maximum 11.5 Mean of Raw Data 4.612 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 2.89 Khat 2.378 Theta hat 1.94 Kstar 2.243 Theta star 2.056 Mean of Log Transformed Data 1.304 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.72 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.948 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.88 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.947 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.1564E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.158 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.127 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.971 A-D Test Statistic 1.995 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.76 K-S Test Statistic 0.195 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.129 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.938 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.854 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.947 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.0446E-6 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.231 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.127 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Sodium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 48 Number of Missing Observations 10 Number of Distinct Observations 40 Minimum 11.2 Maximum 125 Mean of Raw Data 39.08 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 35.74 Khat 1.593 Theta hat 24.54 Kstar 1.507 Theta star 25.93 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.32 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.81 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.865 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.732 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.947 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 8.300E-11 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.218 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.127 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.946 A-D Test Statistic 2.62 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.766 K-S Test Statistic 0.182 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.13 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.942 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.86 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.947 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 7.1749E-6 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.163 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.127 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Strontium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 36 Number of Missing Observations 22 Number of Distinct Observations 32 Minimum 131 Maximum 430 Mean of Raw Data 236.4 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 102 Khat 6.095 Theta hat 38.79 Kstar 5.605 Theta star 42.17 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.381 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.408 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.904 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.795 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.935 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.7531 E-6 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.304 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.145 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.93 A-D Test Statistic 2.915 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.75 K-S Test Statistic 0.282 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.147 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.921 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.825 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.935 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.8446E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.266 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.145 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Sulfate Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 58 0 58 55 3 5.17% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 3 2 5 4 5 1.732 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 55 0.21 140 23.67 9.6 40.53 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 58 0.21 140 22.65 9.35 39.69 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 58 0.21 140 22.55 9.35 39.74 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 58 -12.98 140 22.18 9.35 39.99 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 58 0.01 140 22.45 9.35 39.8 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 58 0.21 140 22.48 9.35 39.78 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 0.393 0.384 60.18 1.486 2.188 1.472 Statistics (NDs = DL) 0.4 0.391 56.58 1.477 2.132 1.444 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 0.394 0.385 57.24 1.441 2.141 1.485 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.347 0.341 64.66 1.171 2.527 2.158 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 1.386 2.176 1.57 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.762 0.754 0.754 0.768 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.575 0 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.564 0 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.564 0 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.588 0 Data Not Normal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.392 0.119 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.391 0.116 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.39 0.116 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.386 0.116 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.917 0.918 0.918 0.917 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 2.823 0.841 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.19 0.129 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 2.738 0.839 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.191 0.125 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 2.771 0.841 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.189 0.125 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 2.377 0.852 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.187 0.126 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Sulfate (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Correlation Coefficient R 0.935 0.943 0.944 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Log ROS 0.938 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.846 1.7895E-7 Data Not Lognormal 0.861 4.2042E-7 Data Not Lognormal 0.863 5.6032E-7 Data Not Lognormal 0.852 1.3349E-7 Data Not Lognormal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.238 0.119 Data Not Lognormal 0.21 0.116 Data Not Lognormal 0.216 0.116 Data Not Lognormal 0.224 0.116 Data Not Lognormal Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone TDS Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 58 Number of Distinct Observations 34 Minimum 66 Maximum 510 Mean of Raw Data 226.2 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 121.2 Khat 3.882 Theta hat 58.27 Kstar 3.693 Theta star 61.25 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.287 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.52 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.941 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.868 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 9.5924E-7 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.172 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.116 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.975 A-D Test Statistic 1.658 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.754 K-S Test Statistic 0.157 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.117 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.972 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.928 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00229 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.152 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.116 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Non -parametric GOF Test Results Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone TOC Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 32 Number of Missing Observations 26 Number of Distinct Observations 30 Minimum 0.458 Maximum 1.3 Mean of Raw Data 0.794 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 0.211 Khat 14.34 Theta hat 0.0553 Kstar 13.02 Theta star 0.061 Mean of Log Transformed Data -0.266 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.273 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.98 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.954 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.93 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.225 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.109 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.154 Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.986 A-D Test Statistic 0.554 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.746 K-S Test Statistic 0.136 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.155 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.98 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.951 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.93 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.182 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.154 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.154 Data appear Approximate —Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Total Radium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 26 Number of Missing Observations 26 Number of Distinct Observations 26 Minimum 0.247 Maximum 4.345 Mean of Raw Data 1.725 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 1.058 Khat 2.675 Theta hat 0.645 Kstar 2.392 Theta star 0.721 Mean of Log Transformed Data 0.347 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.676 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.96 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.917 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.92 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0409 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.179 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.17 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.984 A-D Test Statistic 0.426 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.753 K-S Test Statistic 0.141 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.173 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.979 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.96 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.92 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.415 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.109 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.17 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Total Uranium Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 52 36 16 12 4 25.00% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 4 2.0000E-4 2.0000E-4 2.0000E-4 2.0000E-4 0 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 12 1.2300E-4 0.00188 5.7475E-4 4.3750E-4 5.4207E-4 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 16 1.2300E-4 0.00188 4.8106E-4 3.1500E-4 4.9353E-4 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 16 1.0000E-4 0.00188 4.5606E-4 3.1500E-4 5.1045E-4 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 16 -4.425E-4 0.00188 3.9286E-4 3.1500E-4 5.7597E-4 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 16 1.2300E-4 0.01 0.00293 4.6400E-4 0.00424 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 16 7.0023E-5 0.00188 4.6184E-4 3.1500E-4 5.0666E-4 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.689 1.323 3.4020E-4 -7.786 0.815 -0.105 Statistics (NDs = DL) 1.666 1.395 2.8872E-4 -7.969 0.771 -0.0967 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.254 1.06 3.6374E-4 -8.142 0.945 -0.116 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.542 0.482 0.00541 -6.991 1.584 -0.227 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) -8.104 0.918 -0.113 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.853 0.809 0.83 0.918 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.735 0.859 Data Not Normal 0.666 0.887 Data Not Normal 0.696 0.887 Data Not Normal 0.857 0.887 Data Not Normal 0.329 0.243 Data Not Normal 0.324 0.213 Data Not Normal 0.304 0.213 Data Not Normal 0.261 0.213 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.952 0.935 0.957 0.857 Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) 0.615 0.744 0.249 0.249 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution 1.117 0.753 0.224 0.219 Data Not Gamma Distributed 0.781 0.759 0.184 0.22 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution 1.62 0.793 0.288 0.227 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Total -Uranium (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Correlation Coefficient R 0.972 0.946 0.958 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.941 0.859 0.894 0.887 0.904 0.887 0.956 0.887 0.193 0.243 0.189 0.213 0.131 0.213 0.13 0.213 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Log ROS 0.98 Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Vanadium Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 58 22 36 32 4 11.11 % Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 32 0.282 4.58 2.257 2.465 1.417 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 36 0.282 4.58 2.04 2.425 1.472 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 36 0.15 4.58 2.023 2.425 1.493 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 36 -1.276 4.58 1.937 2.425 1.626 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 36 0.282 4.58 2.063 2.425 1.446 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 36 0.176 4.58 2.037 2.425 1.476 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.656 1.522 1.363 0.483 0.955 1.978 Statistics (NDs = DL) 1.34 1.247 1.522 0.295 1.047 3.546 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.167 1.088 1.734 0.218 1.176 5.386 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.489 1.383 1.386 0.352 0.976 2.77 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.281 1.073 3.813 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.955 0.942 0.948 0.972 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.889 0.93 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.863 0.935 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.874 0.935 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.928 0.935 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.178 0.154 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.218 0.145 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.212 0.145 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.178 0.145 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.894 0.896 0.886 0.905 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 2.208 0.763 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.227 0.158 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 2.486 0.77 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.216 0.15 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 2.123 0.773 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.219 0.151 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 2.275 0.767 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.206 0.15 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Vanadium (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Correlation Coefficient R 0.905 0.91 0.922 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.799 0.93 0.802 0.935 0.827 0.935 0.827 0.935 0.257 0.154 0.243 0.145 0.251 0.145 0.245 0.145 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Log ROS 0.921 Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Zinc Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 58 12 46 23 23 50.00% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 23 5 10 5.652 5 1.722 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 23 2.407 54 15.07 9 13.92 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 46 2.407 54 10.36 5 10.9 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 46 2.407 54 8.948 3.482 11.55 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 46 -21.24 54 6.41 4.752 14.31 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 46 0.01 54 8.154 3.865 12.07 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 46 0.651 54 9.137 4.716 11.5 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.379 1.228 10.93 2.308 0.931 0.404 Statistics (NDs = DL) 1.644 1.551 6.303 2.004 0.739 0.369 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.072 1.017 8.344 1.657 0.941 0.568 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.319 0.313 25.54 -0.0396 3.119 -78.72 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 1.655 1.025 0.619 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.907 0.789 0.788 0.952 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.822 0.914 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.636 0.945 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.63 0.945 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.918 0.945 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.239 0.18 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.295 0.129 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.306 0.129 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.189 0.129 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.982 0.933 0.956 0.977 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.719 0.762 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.169 0.185 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 4.957 0.766 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.299 0.133 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 4.842 0.776 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.237 0.134 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.736 0.857 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.191 0.141 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Zinc (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Correlation Coefficient R 0.98 0.907 0.891 Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Lilliefors (Detects Only) Lilliefors (NDs = DL) Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) Test value Crit. (0.05) 0.947 0.914 0.82 0.945 0.778 0.945 0.96 0.945 0.133 0.18 0.29 0.129 0.244 0.129 0.127 0.129 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Log ROS 0.984 Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Appendix B Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant APPENDIX C SCATTER PLOTS OF TIME VERSUS CONCENTRATION SynTerra Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S 6.5 6.0 Q 5.5 5.0 4.5 06/24115 34 33 32 31 30 23 28 06/24/15 25 20 >Z E 15 H 10 5 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 Date 04/18/16 02/ 11 / 17 12/07/17 Date 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 Date Appendix C Well ID • MW-12S 10/02/18 120 100 U Well ID a 8o V) • MW-12S 60 40 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S s 4 0 3 2 1 0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 Date Appendix C 200 150 0. 100 WeII ID W 50 0 0 • MW-12S -50 -100 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 400 350 300 Well ID L 250 W 200 • MW-12S 150 100 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 10 WeII ID 6 L • MW-12S I-- 4 2 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S 30 25 Y 20 rn R 15 Y 10 Q 5 0 06/24/15 800 600 400 200 W 0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 Date Appendix C 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date to 0.6 O 0.6 Well ID E 0.4 • MW-12S Q 0.2 0.0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 2.0 1.5 Well ID d H a` to • MW-12S 0.5 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S 20 15 Well ID 10 • MW-12S 5 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 1.0 • ��• Nam• —:ram• • • • • • • 0.8 0.6 Well ID y 0.4 • MW-12S m 0.2 0.0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 25 Gf � 20 Well ID M 15 L a4 • MW-12S V 10 m 5 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 51.0 50.5 C Well ID 2 50.0 C O •—• • Nam• • • • • • • m • MW-12S 49.5 49.0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11 / 17 12/07/ 17 10/02/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S Appendix C to O •—• • Nam• • • • • • • E 0.8 0.6 Well ID E R 0.4 • MW-12S U 02 0.0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 10 8 6 Well ID v 4 • MW-12S 2 0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11 / 17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 10 m s o 8— R7 • MW-12S U 6 5 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 4 y 3 0 2 Well ID • MW-12S U 1 0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02111117 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S Appendix C E 6 3 E 4 Well ID O • MW-12S 2 U 0 06124115 04/18/16 02/11117 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 6 > 5 EI 4 O Well ID 3 LI. O L 2 • MW-12S � 1 U 0 . 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 2.5 2.0 Well ID 1.5 • MW-12S 1.0 0.5 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 10 8 ti. N 6 1z tZ O 4 U 2 0 06/24/15 Date 04/18/16 02111117 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S 0.10 0.09 0.08 0 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 06/24/15 8,000 6,000 c 0 4,000 2,000 0 06/24/ 15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 Date 04/18/16 02/11 /17 12/07/17 Date Appendix C 3.0 2.5 V 2.0 We11 1D y 1.5 J 1.0 • MW-12S 0.5 0.0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 5.0 4.5 4.0 Well ID 3.5 3.0 • MW-12S 2.5 2.0 O6/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S 1.40 E 1.15 .N = 0.90 0.65 0.40 06/24/15 400 N 300 d c 200 c 100 0 06/24/15 0.050 0.045 0.040 7 L 0.035 N 0.030 0.025 0.020 06/24/ 15 04/18/16 02/11 / 17 12/07/17 Date Appendix C 10/02/18 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 04/18/16 02/11 /17 12/07/17 Date WeII ID • MW-12S 10/02/18 300 250 200 WeIIID t 150 m 100 • MW-12S 50 0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S 15 7 C 10 d T 5 O 2 0 06/24/15 6 5 4 Y 3 v Z 2 1 0 06/24/15 0.8 d r 0.6 Z �I 0.4 R r 02 Z 0.0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 Date 04/18/16 02/11117 12/07/17 Date 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 Date Appendix C Well ID • MW-12S 101021l 8 Well ID • MW-12S 10/02/18 s 4 y 3 WeII ID G • MW-12S a 2 1 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S Appendix C 1.0 O •—• • N��• • • • • • • £ 0.8 0.6 Well ID d 0.4 • MW-12S y 0.2 0.0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 6 5 3 4 Well ID :a 3 G 2 • MW-12S N 1 0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02111117 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 30 25 Well ID 20 • MW-12S 15 10 06/24/15 04/18/16 02111117 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 2.5 2.0 N _ 1.5 Well ID y to• MW-12S 0.5 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S to 0.8 m 'a 0.6 1� 7 0.4 02 0.0 06/24/15 120 100 80 F- 60 40 20 06/24/15 0.20 E 0.15 s 0.10 F- 0.05 J�— 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 Date 04/18/16 Appendix C 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 04/18/16 02/11 / 17 12107/ 17 10/02/18 Date 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S 2.5 2.0 to 1.5 Well ID I 1.0 • MW-12S R p 0.5 H 0.0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 0.00025 E .E 0.00020 ` Well ID 0.00015 I • MW-12S 0.00010 H 0.00005 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 6 5 4 Well ID 3 2 • MW-12S 1 0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date 300 250 200 WeIIID 150 N 100 • MW-12S 50 0 06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D Appendix C 7.0 6.5 Well ID Q A o m 4 0 • BG-02 6.0 A p0 0 MW-12D 5.5 4 07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06117 11 /06/18 Date 38 36 34 0 0 0 Well ID J 32 • BG-02 � pp 30 o MW-12D 28 07/11/11 051 9/13 03/09115 01/06/17 11106/18 Date 30 25 fl.. Well ID 20 0 • BG-02 15 AAA 0 MW-12D 0 0 10 07/11/11 051 9/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11106/18 Date 800 600 Well ID U d 400 • BG-02 200 0 MW-12D A A m A AMM�&AAAAA A 0 AL A 0 0 07/11/ 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D Appendix C 4 ° ° ° Well ID p 2 ZS • BG-02 1 o MW-12D 0 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09115 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 400 300 a 200 ° ° ° Well ID ° ° ° 0 100 °° . BG-02 0 MW-12D -100 -200 07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 Date 600 500 400 LIA Well ID °° j 300 ° ° ° ° ° °° ° • BG-02 200 Q ° ° 0 MW-12D 100 0 07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11106/18 Date 10 ° r 8 Q Q°��° °° ° ° Well ID 4 /� ° ° ° ° • BG-02 I— 2 ° 0 MW-12D 0 07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11 /06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D Appendix C r C R Y Q 400 300 200 100 0 07/11 / 11 05/09/13 A m 4 �AAAhA A A 4 03/09115 01 /06117 11 /06/18 Date Well ID • BG-02 A MW-12D 800 0 600 Well ID 400 p • BG-02 200 0 MW-12D Qp0 0 07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11106/18 Date 2.0 = 1.5 Well ID O • BG-02 Q 1.0 II II /"tmIrk /}AIIAQII II6.II...2AO o MW-12D 0.5 07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 Date 5 4 Well ID = 3 i 2 • BG-02 Q A MW-12D 1 II II..II...1"If"8QAnAin .in InL.8 N 0 �^ 07/11111 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06117 11 /06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D Appendix C 60 60 Well ID 40 • BG-02 cc 20 p '�A 4 0 MW-12D 0 07/11 / 11 051 9/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06118 Date 1.0- A..II. n..W,_a AD 0.6 Well ID 0.6 • BG-02 m 0.4 o MW-12D 0.2 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 0 C/06/17 11/06/18 Date 400 d R 300 c 200 L R 00V 100 0 07/11/11 Well ID • BG-02 o MW-12D 4 4 A/, A AAA A A A 0 0 A 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 51.0 50.5 c Well ID C 50.0 a _m...n �rvrm^.&0Ala Aa II M 0 2. 4 • BG 02 m 49.5 o MW-12D 49.0 07/11/ 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06117 11/06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D to E 0.6 0.6 E 'a 0.4 R L) 0.2 0.0 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 Date Appendix C n rn��QQana n m m �� Well ID • BG-02 MW-12D 01 /06117 11 /06/18 60 50 E Well ID 2 40 v 0 BG-02 30 U 20 0 MW-12D 10 07/11/11 051 9/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11106/18 Date 10 p m s 8 Well ID 7 0 BG-02 C) 6 o MW-12D 5 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 50 40 d �O 30 Well ID .L � 20 • BG-02 U 10 0 MW-12D 0 A 4 ZIA 4 �AAAAA A 0 m 0 A 07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11 /06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D 12 £ 10 7 8 O 6 4- 2 0 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 Date 1.0 >I 0.8 0.6 E 0.4 t 0.2 U 0.0 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 Date Appendix C Well ID • BG-02 p 0 MW-12D 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 01/06/17 0 Well ID • BG-02 MW-12D 11 /06/18 1.40 4 1.15 well ID cc 0.90 • BG-02 0.65 MW-12D 0.40 07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 Date s 4 L. 3 Well ID O O 2 • BG-02 U 1 4 4 4 A MW-12D 0 07111111 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D 0.4 y 0.3 C 02 0 LL- 0.1 0.0 07/11/11 1,500 1,000 C O 500 0 07/11 /11 s 4 V 3 a4 J 1 0 07111111 6 5 7 4 w 3 J 2 1 07/11111 05/09/13 05/09/13 Appendix C Well ID • BG-02 04444A004 0 pp 0 0 A MW-12D 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 Date p Well ID - - • BG-02 p A MW-12D � fl 03/09/15 01 /06/ 17 11 /06/18 Date 05/09/13 03/09/15 Date 05/09/13 03/09/15 Date Well ID • BG-02 II l/%IYVmIIQAIIAII II DN; II-/G0 MW-12D 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 440��4400 Well ID p� • BG-02 A MW-12D 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D Appendix C 15 .N 10 Well ID d _ • BG-02 �1 5 A 0 MW-12D 0 07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06118 Date 800 d o d 600 WeIIID c 400 • BG-02 C 200 o MW-12D 0 07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 Date 0.20 0.15 7 i 0.10 d 0.05 0.00 07/11/11 3, 000 2,500 2,000 � 1,500 1,000 500 0 07/11 /11 05/09/13 03/09/15 Date 05/09/13 03/09/15 Date Well ID • BG-02 II...LB��IIIIDIIDIIII..m.� o MW-12D 01 /06117 11 /06/18 01 /06117 Well ID • BG-02 o MW-12D 11 /06/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D Appendix C 2.0 E ° = 1.5 ° WeIIID d 1.0 • �4 4 , <M; ^�Q°4° II it • BG-02 T 0 0.5 0 MW-12D ° ° 0.0 07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06117 11 /06/18 Date 10 8 .he6 Well ID 4 • BG-02 Z ° 2 ° 0 MW-12D 0 07111111 05/09/13 03109/15 01/06/17 11 /06/18 Date 0.$ d 'r ° 0.6 Well ID Z �I 0.4 • BG-02 y_ 0.2 ° °°° °° A MW-12D L\AZ ° 0.0 07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 Date 5 / 4 �( WeIIID 3 •••ii�--_ ��_ • BG-02 y a 2 A MW-12D ° ° ° °fig°°Q° ° ° m ° ° 1 07/11111 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D 10 05/09/13 03/09/15 Date Appendix C Well ID • BG-02 0 MW-12D B IN. 8.1Y,-.6 d 01/06/17 11/06/13 60 50 E 40 Well ID 0 30 0 BG-02 20 U) 0 MW-12D 10 A 0 4L A �4AAA A A A m A L 0 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11 /06/18 Date 400 300 200 100 0 07/11/11 Well ID 0 BG-02 0 A AL 4 04A 04 4 A 4 4 A o MW-12D 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 Date 10 8 m 6 w 7 4- 2 0 pp A& 4 MMMAAAAAApAL\A44 07/11/11 051 9/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11 /06/13 Date Well ID • BG-02 o MW-12D Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D Appendix C 10 0.s 4) Well ID a3 0.6 � 0.4 • BG-02 A MW-12D 0.2 0.0 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06117 11 /06/18 Date 500 400 Well ID 300 200 • BG-02 100 A A0 A Z��M'nA' 60A AA 0 Op A 4 o MW-12D 0 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 Date 0.20 E 0.15 s 0.10 F- 0.05 07/11/11 well ID i • BG-02 A MW-12D 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11 /06/18 Date 2.5 2.0 U 1.5 Well ID 0 1.0 • BG-02 0.5 0 o MW-12D 0.0 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D 40 E 3 30 �c R � zo I w 10 H 0 07/11/11 0.0012 E 0.000� o.000 I 0.000 H 0.000 111/11 30 25 20 V 15 IV 10 5 0 07/11/11 05/09/13 03109/15 Date 05/09/ 13 03/09/ 15 Date 05/09/13 0 IGYILII:3itl Appendix C Well ID • BG-02 0 MW-12D 11 /06118 Well ID A • BG-02 A MW-12D AAA AA AA A A 4 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 Well ID • BG-02 0 MW-12D 04 A 4 A 00 0 0'L0 4 03/09M 5 01 /06/17 11 /06/18 Date A Q--4II.II....8Q....II.... 05/09/13 03109/15 01/06/17 Date Well ID • BG-02 0 MW-12D 11106/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR a.o 7.5 7.0 ■ l W.-M U ■... ■_ Well ID 65 - a v A • BG-01 ■ MW-136R 6.0- ♦ CCR-102BR-BG V MW-14BR 5.5 5.0 07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/C6/17 11/06/18 Date 40 35 30 Well ID 25 w v 0 0 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR 20 v vv vv v "�'- ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 1s v 10 07/11/11 O5/09/1� 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Data 2s M' v 20 Well ID a Q -\ p-i 75 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR ' ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 10 07/11/11 05/09/1� 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 1,000 B00 AAAADOA 0 iS 60D F ■ �. -in■ ■ 4 0 4 WeII ID d F' ■--.F..i...f_IF..._..._. v) 400 v • BG-01 ■ MW-136R 2W VV v �� v v v v v ♦ CCR-102BR-BG V MW-14BR N 0 07/11/11 05109/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 10 6 Well ID s- o 4 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR 2 v 4 a - ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR 600 400 Well ID 0. 200 p frn D \Q v j 0 v • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR E- f ■r ■ ■ ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 20D r -400 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date BOO 600 Well ID t 400 v - ,,- W 200 I■ V, • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 0 r,r -200 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 19 Q A \x Well ID 0 6 i v n V ..Q� 4 j 0 BG-01 ■ MW-13BR F 2 F ; p ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR D 07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/13 Date 300 250 Q QQ A 200 or r1�0��.� Well ID 150 v pp7 v v • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR m 10 - `b v a ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 5o s D 07/11/11 05/09/1 03/09/1 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date boa 500 E 3 400 Well ID c 300 / \ • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR _3 Q 200 100 ■ ■ _� ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR ■ v- Int ° 8 D 07/11/11 05/09/1 D3/09/1 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR 1.0-❑-i3S7IIII->?Q-CF �� M GD.6 ; // Well ID £ 0.6 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR _ i. 0.4 A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 0.2 07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date s 4 Well ID E 3 d • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR 2 Q 1 o CCR-102BR-BG 7 MW-14BR ffXII�IISiIIQ4Q Q� 17 �• D 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 12a 100 £ so Well ID 60 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR m 40 r "� y, o CCR-102BR-BG 7 MW-14BR 20 70 p�� D p 0 D 07/11/11 05/09/1 03/09/1 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 1.0-Q-II><IIIil-II?JUi21 a no E 0.s � Well ID 0.6 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR m 0.4 A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 0.z 07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 250 C 150 '7 ... Well D .Ea100 p0 p 7�7 V V 7, X�V- F-_ • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR 0 50 • CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 0 07/11/11 051 9/1 D3/09/1 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR ss p c g0 Well ID O O • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR CO 55 o CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 50 07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 1.0-Q-ffia13GO I-I!�-Q iY IM a d E 0.s 3 0.6 Well ID E -O 0.4 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR U 0.2 • CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 0.0 07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 80 ■ E 6D F.�..i..f■..F..Iwlr ..y i..,..._.. _... Well ID 'v 40 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR U 20 p � AAA A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 0 07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 10 IF ❑ d 9 e a `I Well ID a7 I • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR V 6 % ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 5 07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 50 W. 40- Wf—■— v ~; ■. ■ Well ID O 20 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR s C) 70 - A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 0 07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR 20 3 15 Well ID G 10 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR U 5 I R o CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 0 07/11/11 05/09/1� 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date _ 0.s �I 0.a 0.3 WeII ID E 0.2 �: • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR t01 /' a CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR U Fes` _. 0.0 07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date s Well ID p 4 -■—• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR U r� z A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR �7-i7ffi57IIffi 0 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date s 4 L 3 Well ID 0. 0 2 v 8 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR A CCR-1026R-BG ♦ MW-146R 0 07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 0.4 v N 0.3 ° ° v ° ° Well ID p 0.2 ° °°° • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR LL o.1 • CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 0.0 07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR 4,00D 3,000 C O 2.000 1,000 0 07/11/11 50 4D 7 30 20 J 10 0 07/11/11 20 E15 afe+ 10 C CI � 5 0 07/11/11 Boo p ■�� WeIIID / -■ / \■-t... • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR IN �� • CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date Well ID • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR -V AUUMVGIIfv14II U ❑1 V no CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date v A04 p A Well ID A A • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR AA A A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR v 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11106118 Date 05/09/11 4 � ■ �..i �■ �� A. Well ID • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR * CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR D3/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date y 600 r-- N M 400 e v io �_..II .■ _.._ zoo v p 0 v - 0 07/11/11 05/09/13 1)3/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date Well ID • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR • CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR 0,20 0,15 Well ID 7 0,10 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR 0.05- ]aGnO-aIIII 4 o CCR-102BR-BG v MW-14BR 0.00 07/11/11 D5/09/1 03/09/1 01/0^oi17 11/06/18 Date 150 100 I , Well ID / • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR d g 50 f� A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR F�-II-II�II� 0 07/11/11 05/09/1 03/09/1 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 30 E 25 c 20 Well ID �Q V 15 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR T 10 v00 0 0�2 O ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 5 f.�ii..� 17p p 0 0 0 07/11/11 D5/09/1� 03/09/15 01/06/17 Data 11/06/13 10 8 � Well ID v 4 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR Z ■ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 2 0 F U 0 0 - 07/11/11 O5/09/1� D3/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 1.0 d i 0.8 Z 0.6 WeII ID RI 0.4 -_ - V, F _ • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR Z - ,-F-.� - ` A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR !_ 0.2 0.0 07/11/11 OS/09/1� 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR 15 E 0AAA�p 1p Well ID w AAA S .� 5 F 0 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR ILE- o CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 0 07/11/11 05/09/1� 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Data 10 a Well ID 6 4 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR 2 00 A�ppp0p A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR p -Q i7Q0QQ•IIfII if �ii II Q� 0 D7/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 150 p 4A4pp p E 1o0 A Well ID A 'B o v p • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR W so v vvv vv ✓ - V,V_ V 0 CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR F Svv 0 07/"/ 11 05/09/1 03/09/1 01 /06/17 11/06/18 Date 500 �a00 ■ 4 -■ Well ID �.� M.—U45-M._... C o 300 _... • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR y 200 • CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR v v 100 07/11/11 O5/09/1� 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 150 0000000 d 100 0 o A Well ID w • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR y 50 A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 0 - 07/11/11 05/09/1 D3/09/1 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR 0,20 0.18 :2 0,16 3 0.14 to 0,12 0,10 07/11/11 600 500 400 p 300 ~ 200 100 D 07/11/11 D5/09/1 03/09/1 Date Well ID • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR 0 CCR-102BR-BG v MW-14BR 01/06/17 11/06/18 Q� AAAAAA p Q 0 ■ ■ .� ♦ i�.F.rF♦..�..■..�.._..._. v vv°p ov 17'71717 0 /09/1 03/09/1 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date Well ID • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR 0,60 0,45 \. Well ID 0,30 / \ �\ • BG-01 ■ MW-136R 0.15 'II->1I7�IIII-4II CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW14BR 0.00 07/11/11 05/0911 03/09/1 CVO^oil,' 11/06/18 Date 1.40 v 1.15 Well ID 0.90 W. 0 0 17 V p ' • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR 0.65,� ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR ...\ .,■. ...i 0.40 07/11/11 D5/09/1 03/09/1 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 80 E 6D -O I1 Well ID W 40 • 8G-01 ■ MW-13BR :° 20A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR F j I 0 07/11/11 O5 /09/1� D3/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/13 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR 0.002U s 3 0.0015 'c R :3 0.0010 _I R 0.0005 o.0000 07/11/11 s E 4 C5 3 R 2 c S 1 0 07/11/11 1oa so C 60 N 40 20 0 07/11/11 05/09/13 05109/13 05/09/14 / 1 or 03/09/15 Date 01/06/17 11/06/18 v ° v° v° v v°° v v ° 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18 Date 03/09/1 Date r 01/06/17 11/06/18 Well ID • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR 0 CCR-102BR-13G v MW-14BR Well ID • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR o CCR-102BR-BG v MW-14BR Well ID • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR o CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra BOX -AND -WHISKER PLOTS - COMPARISON OF CONCENTRATIONS AMONG BACKGROUND WELLS Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Transition Zone 7.0 6.5 2 6.0 5.5 BG-02 MW-12D 400 300 c 200 Y a loll] 0 800 E 600 3 c E 400 3 Q 200 0 BG-02 BG-02 T MW-12D MW-12D 2.0 1.5 E Q 1.0 0.5 BG-02 5 �k 4 v 'E 3 d 2 a 1 0 BG-02 80 60 40 20 0 BG-02 MW-12D MW-12D T MW-12D Appendix D 1.0 E 0.8 0.6 N m 0.4 0.2 BG-02 MW-12D H& +' 300 R T c 4 Q 200 R 100 CO 0 BG-02 MW-12D 51.0 50.5 c O 50.0 O m 49.5 49.0 BG-02 MW-12D Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Transition Zone 1.0 0.8 E 0.6 E ca 0.4 U 0.2 0.0 BG-02 MW-12D 50 50 40 30 U 20 10 BG-02 10 �k d 9 � 8 O 7 to U 6 5 BG-02 MW-12D y MW-12D 50 40 d 30 O :E 20 U 10 0 BG-02 T MW-12D 12 10 �_ 8 E 6 O 4 U 2 0 BG-02 MW-12D 1.0 >� 0.8 E 0.6 EO 0.4 V 0.2 0.0 BG-02 MW-12D Appendix D 1.40 1.15 <o 0.90 U 0.65 0.40 BG-02 MW-12D 5 4 3 U 2 1 O 0 BG-02 MW-12D 0.4 N 0.3 0 0.2 u- 0.1 0.0 BG-02 MW-12D Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Transition Zone 1500 1000 C O L 500 0 BG-02 5 4 3 2 1 0 BG-02 7 T MW-12D MW-12D 11 N 600 m c a1 400 c � 200 0 6 0.20 5 0.15 4 v 0.10 J 0.05 2 * 1 0.00 BG-02 MW-12D BG-02 BG-02 BG-02 T MW-12D MW-12D MW-12D 3000 2500 2000 1500 .F+ v 1000 500 0 BG-02 Appendix D MW-12D 2.0 E 1.5 ,g c m � 1.0 O 0.5 0.0 BG-02 MW-12D 10 6 � 4 Z 2 0 BG-02 T MW-12D Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Transition Zone 0.8 41 0.6 Z �I 0.4 t6 r 0.2 Z 0.0 BG-02 MW-12D E 4 N 3 O a 2 1 BG-02 y MW-12D 10 8 E 6 d 4 d N 2 0 BG-02 MW-12D 60 50 E 40 3 30 20 10 0 BG-02 400 E 300 200 0 Vi 100 T MW-12D 0 BG-02 MW-12D 10 8 6 4 2 0 BG-02 T MW-12D Appendix D 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 BG-02 MW-12D 500 400 v} 300 F- 200 100 0 BG-02 MW-12D 0.20 E 0.15 3 R H 0.10 0.05 BG-02 MW-12D Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Transition Zone 2.5 2.0 V 1.5 O 1.0 0.5 0.0 W E = 30 20 I 10 H 0 0.0012 0.0009 C to 0.0006 I r 0.0003 O H 0.0000 BG-02 MW-12D BG-02 MW-12D BG-02 T MW-12D E4 �a 3 2 1 0 30 25 20 15 N 10 5 0 BG-02 MW-12D BG-02 MW-12D Appendix D Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 8.0 7.5 7.0 * �� Q- 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 7 BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR 300 250 200 c 150 Y 100 Q 600 500 400 c 300 200 Q 100 0 1.0 T BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR T MW-14BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 5 4 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1.0 B 0.8 x 300 250 zoo Q 150 v 10o m 50 0 BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR T MW-14BR 77 BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR �r BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 65 r 60 M., 1.0 0.8 E 2 0.6 E '0 0.4 U 0.2 0.0 80 E 60 3 v 40 R U 20 0 U. U 2 0 BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR T MW-14BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 50 40 O 30 O s 20 U 10 0 41 0 0.5 >. 0.4 E 0.3 E 0.2 L U 0.1 0.0 s 6 R O 4 O U 2 0 BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR T BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR T MW-14BR i BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR T MW-14BR Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 5 4 0.4 IL 0.1 0.0 4000 3000 O 2000 L 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR MW-14BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR 1 7- BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR T MW-14BR Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 50 40 E 30 20 J 20 E 15 800 N 600 m c 400 c 200 0 0.20 0.15 L 0.10 N 0.05 � 0 BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR E BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR T MW-14BR 6 T MW-14BR T MW-14BR Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 150 100 tg 50 0 30 E 25 20 O M 15 10 O 2 5 0 10 s 1.0 BG-01 BG-01 T BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR T MW-14BR T MW-14BR i i i CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 15 = 10 O O 5 (L 0 10 8 a 6 d 4 d N 2 0 150 E 100 U) 50 0 500 E 400 300 200 100 0 mag BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR T BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR 0 MW-14BR T MW-14BR i MW-14BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 150 100 50 0 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 600 500 400 p 300 F- 200 100 0 0.60 E 0.45 3 R 0.30 0.15 0.00 ;M; Ep- BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR giTla mii= BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR MW-14BR Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 1.5 1.0 U O 0.5 0.0 BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR 80 E 60 :a 40 I O 20 H 0 BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR 0.0020 E 0.0015 �c ca 0.0010 I Q 0.0005 0.0000 BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR 5 E 4 3 'a C 2 1 ,Ic 0 BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone too ao c3 K c N 40 20 n BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant APPENDIX E BOX -AND -WHISKER PLOTS - POOLED BACKGROUND DATAS ETS SynTerra Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled background Dataset (MW-12S) Surficial Flow Zone 6.5 77 6.0 Q. 5.5 5.0 4.5 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 30 25 :! 20 C 15 10 Q 5 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 80o E 600 c E 400 O Q 200 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 1.0 0.8 c O 0.6 E +� 0.4 c Q 0.2 0.0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 2.0 1.5 c m Q 1.0 0.5 1 If Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) pill 15 10- 5 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) Appendix E 1.0 0.8 E 0.6 0.4 N m 0.2 0.0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 25 - 20 tQ C Q 15 O 10 m 5 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 51.0 50.5 c O 50.0 O m 49.5 49.0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled background Dataset (MW-12S) Surficial Flow Zone 1.0 0.8 E 0.6 E -0 0.4 U 0.2 0.0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 10 8 E 6 � 4 U 2 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) d c O 10 9 8 7 6 5 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 4 O 3 O 2 LY U 1 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) a E 6 E0 4 L ,yy T U 2 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 6 5 I �k E 4 E3 O 2 •� 1 U 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) Appendix E 2.5 2.0 is �O 1.5 U 1.0 0.5 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 10 8 d 6 Q U 4 2 W= 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 0.10 0.09 0.08 `p 0.07 0.06 LL 0.05 0.04 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled background Dataset (MW-12S) Surficial Flow Zone 8000 6000 c O 4000 `4111I1" 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 3.0 2.5 2.0 �c 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 5.0 4.5 E 4.0 3.5 J 3.0 2.5 2.0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 1.40 E 1.15 0.90 0.65 0.40 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) HO] y 300 d C 200 c 100 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 0.050 0.045 0.040 LU 0.035 0.030 0.025 0.020 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) Appendix E 300 250 200 150 d 100 50 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) E W 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 6 5 4 Y 3 77 c� Z 2 1 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled background Dataset (MW-12S) Surficial Flow Zone 0.8 0.0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 5 E 4 3 3 ca O 2 0. 1 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 1.0 0.8 E 0.6 C 7'DFD 0.4 N 0.2 0.0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 6 5 E 4 3 O 2 1 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 30 E 25 20 O N 15 10 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) Appendix E 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 120 100 �} 80 F- 60 40 20 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) MWO E 0.15 3 ca H 0.10 0.05 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled background Dataset (MW-12S) Surficial Flow Zone 15 10 (U O 5 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 2.5 E 2.0 1.5 I 1.0 r 0.5 0.0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 0.00025 E 0.00020 C cv 0.00015 I r 0.00010 O H 0.00005 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 6 5 E 4 �a 3 2 1 T 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) 300 250 200 Cs 150 N 100 50 0 Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S) Appendix E Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots — Pooled Background Datasets Transition Zone We, 6.5 2 6.0 09 400 >, 300 C 200 Y Q 100 0 800 E 600 3 c E 400 3 Q 200 0 Transition Zone -U Transition Zone Transition Zone rM w 5 4 is C 3 W i 2 Q 1 0 Transition Zone I& Transition Zone E 0.8 0.6 N m 0.4 W 400 +' 300 ca c Q 200 c`a v 100 m X 80 51.0 60 50.5 c 40 0 50.0 m 20 49.5 0 49.0 Transition Zone Appendix E Transition Zone Transition Zone Transition Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots — Pooled Background Datasets Transition Zone 1.0 0.8 E 0.6 E ca 0.4 U 0.2 we Transition Zone 60 50 40 .0 30 U 20 10 Transition Zone T d 9 8 0 t6 U 6 5 Transition Zone 50 40 d 30 O 20 U 10 0 Transition Zone 12 10 �_ 8 E 6 a 4 U 2 0 Transition Zone 1.0 0.8 E 0.6 EO 0.4 U 0.2 not Transition Zone 1.40 1.15 io 0.90 tU 0.65 0.40 5 4 3 Q Q 0 2 U 1 0 0.4 N 0.3 0 0.2 u. 0.1 not Appendix E Transition Zone Transition Zone Transition Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots — Pooled Background Datasets Transition Zone 1500 1000 C O i 500 0 5 4 3 Ct 1 0 6 5 4 r 3 J Transition Zone I& Transition Zone Transition Zone 15 E 10 0 Soo N 600 d c M 400 c 200 0 0.20 0.15 LU 0.10 N 0.05 Transition Zone Transition Zone Transition Zone 3000 2500 2000 1500 O 1000 500 0 O got 10 8 Y 6 O 4 Z is Appendix E Transition Zone Transition Zone Transition Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots — Pooled Background Datasets Transition Zone 0.8 Z 0.0 5 E 4 N 3 N 2 O 2 a 1 10 8 6 C d 4 2 0 Transition Zone 60 1.0 50 0.8 40 3 0.6 30 20 0.4 10 0.2 0 0.0 Transition Zone Appendix E Transition Zone 400 500 300 400 300 200 p I- 200 100 100 0 0 Transition Zone Transition Zone Transition Zone dL Transition Zone 10 0.20 8 E 0.15 6 4. 0.10 2 0L 0.05 Transition Zone Transition Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets Transition Zone 2.5 6 2.0 5 E V 1.5 4 O 3 t— 1.0 2 ; 0.5 1 0.0 0 40 E 0 30 'a3 20 O10 H 0 0.0012 0.0009 to 0.0006 I r 0.0003 O H 0.0000 Transition Zone Transition Zone Transition Zone Transition Zone 30 25 20 Cs 15 N 10 5 0 Transition Zone Appendix E Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets Bedrock Flow Zone 8.0 7.5 7.0 Q 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 Bedrock Flow Zone 300 250 :t 200 c 150 Y 100 Q 50 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 600 500 400 c 300 200 Q 100 0 Bedrock Flow Zone U Bedrock Flow Zone 5 4 .E 3 d Q2 1 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix E 1.0 E 0.8 0.6 N m 0.4 0.2 Bedrock Flow Zone 250 +; 200 ca 0 150 100 c� m 50 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 65 r 60 O O m 55 .L 50 Bedrock Flow Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets Bedrock Flow Zone 1.0 0.8 E 0.6 E 0 0.4 U 0.2 0.0 Bedrock Flow Zone s0 E 60 v 40 U 20 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 0 t6 's 10 9 8 6 5 Bedrock Flow Zone 50 40 d 30 O 20 U 10 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 20 y E 15 2 10 a � U 5 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 0.5 >� 0.4 E 0.3 EO 0.2 V 0.1 0.0 Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix E 8 6 io �M O 4 U 2 4- 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 5 4 3 O. Q 0 2 U 1 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 0.4 N 0.3 0 0.2 LL 0.1 0.0 Bedrock Flow Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets Bedrock Flow Zone 4000 3000 C 0 2000 1000 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 5 4 3 Ct 1 0 dr Bedrock Flow Zone 50 40 E 30 ate-+ 20 J 10 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 20 E 15 O .y 10 rn 5 0 Bedrock Flow Zone lli N 600 a� c 400 c 200 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 0.20 0.15 i 0.10 N 0.05 0.00 Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix E 150 O 100 c �k R 50 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 30 E 25 2 5 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 10 8 Y 6 O 4 Z 2 0 Bedrock Flow Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets Bedrock Flow Zone U 0.8 L Z 0.6 1 ++ 0.4 Z 0.2 'fit Bedrock Flow Zone 15 3 10 �a O 5 LOW Bedrock Flow Zone 10 8 6 4 d � 2 0 Bedrock Flow Zone E 100 2 50 0 71 Bedrock Flow Zone 500 400 300 200 100 Bedrock Flow Zone 150 100 50 0 Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix E 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 Bedrock Flow Zone 600 500 400 p 300 F- 200 100 1 in Bedrock Flow Zone 0.60 E 0.45 3 = 0.30 R 0.15 0.00 Bedrock Flow Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets Bedrock Flow Zone 1.40 1.15 V p 0.90 F- 0.65 0.40 Bedrock Flow Zone so E = 60 40 O 20 T H 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 0.0020 E 0.0015 �c to 0.0010 I 0 0.0005 H 0.0000 Bedrock Flow Zone 5 4 3 3 'a c 2 1 0 Bedrock Flow Zone c N 100 �c 80 60 40 �y 20 0 Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix E Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant APPENDIX F QUANTITATIVE OUTLIER TEST RESULTS (PROUCL OUTPUT SynTerra Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix F Quantitative Outlier Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Outlier Tests for Selected Uncensored Variables User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/22/2019 3:13:12 PM From File Mayo_BG GW Data -Raw File_b.xls Full Precision OFF Rosner's Outlier Test for Total Radium Mean 4.097 Standard Deviation 10.03 Number of data 48 Number of suspected outliers 10 Potential Obs. Test Critical Critical # Mean sd outlier Number value value (5%) value (1%) 1 4.097 9.924 67.2 40 6.359 3.11 3.46 2 2.754 3.789 26.5 2 6.267 3.1 3.46 3 2.238 1.369 6.24 7 2.924 3.09 3.45 4 2.149 1.242 5.39 17 2.609 3.09 3.44 5 2.075 1.153 5.12 8 2.641 3.08 3.43 6 2.004 1.065 4.345 20 2.197 3.07 3.418 7 1.949 1.013 4.224 19 2.246 3.06 3.406 8 1.893 0.959 3.876 5 2.068 3.05 3.394 9 1.844 0.916 0.247 9 1.743 3.04 3.382 10 1.884 0.89 3.39 11 1.691 3.03 3.37 For 5% significance level, there are 2 Potential Outliers Potential outliers are: 67.2, 26.5 For 1 % Significance Level, there are 2 Potential Outliers Potential outliers are: 67.2, 26.5