The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRoxboro - BTV Report_06122019 R(1)_20190612synTerra UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT 1700 DUNNAWAY ROAD SEMORA� NORTH CAROLINA 28343 DUNE 2019 PREPARED FOR: DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC DUKE ENERGY, iig Eady Project Manager Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose...........................................................................................................................1-1 2.0 BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER DATASETS................................................. 2-1 2.1 Extreme Outlier Concentrations................................................................................. 2-2 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.........................................................................................3-1 3.2 Assessing Dataset Distribution................................................................................... 3-3 3.3 Outlier Screening..........................................................................................................3-3 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 — Transition Zone Table 4 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 — Roxboro 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 Roxboro/Site Roxboro 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 — Roxboro 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 Roxboro Steam Electric Plant (Roxboro, Site) (Table 1). This report includes an attachment titled, 'Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation — Allen, Belews Creek, Cliftside, 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 Roxboro 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 November 2010 to January 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 November 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 Roxboro • 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 — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 2.0 BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER DATASETS Two distinct hydrogeologic flow zones at Roxboro have been identified (SynTerra, 2017): • 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 — Roxboro 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 in 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 — Roxboro 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 Roxboro are identified in Table 2. Rational for including extreme outlier concentrations in the background groundwater datasets for the Roxboro are provided in Table 8 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). Transition Zone Three wells (BG-01, MW-15D, and MW-18D) are used to monitor background groundwater quality within the transition zone at Roxboro (Figure 1). Concentration data from those three wells represent the background groundwater dataset pertaining to the transition zone (Table 2). The background datasets for all constituents in the transition zone contained 10 or more valid sample data (Table 3). Bedrock Flow Zone Ten wells (BG-01BR, CCR-112BR-BG, MW-10BR, MW-14BR, MW-15BR, MW-18BR, MW-19BRL, MW-26BR, MW-29BR, and MW-30BR) are used to monitor background groundwater quality within the bedrock flow zone at Roxboro (Figure 1). Concentration data from CCR-112BR-BG, MW-26BR, MW-29BR, and MW-30BR 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-112BR-BG, MW-26BR, MW-29BR, and MW-30BR in addition to Page 2-3 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra concentration data from BG-01BR, MW-10BR, MW-14BR, MW-18BR, and MW- 19BRL 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 4). Page 2-4 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro 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 Roxboro. 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 Site -specific BTVs represented by the UTL and maximum non -detect value are identified in Table 3 and Table 4. 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 Page 3-1 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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 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 Page 3-2 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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 and Table 4. 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. 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 Page 3-3 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra 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 — Roxboro 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. Roxboro 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 — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant FIGURE SynTerra Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant TABLES SynTerra TABLE 1 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Constituent Reporting Unit SSA NCAC 02L Standard 2017 Background Threshold Values' 2019 Updated Background Threshold Values Transition Zone Bedrock Flow Zone Transition Zone Bedrock Flow Zone PH S.U. 6.5-8.5 6.3-7.6 6.8-8.3 6.3-7.6 6.1-8.3 Alkalinity mg-CaCO,/L NE 273 317 283 379 Aluminum pg/L NE 1237 378 734 183 Antimony pg/L 1* 1 1 1 1 Arsenic pg/L 10 1 1 1 6 Barium pg/L 700 91 185 94 135 Beryllium pg/L 4* 1 1 1 1 Bicarbonate mg-CaCO3/L NE 273 317 284 388 Boron pg/L 700 50 50 50 50 Cadmium pg/L 2 1 1 1 1 Calcium mg/L NE 132 102 111 106 Carbonate mg-CaCO3/L NE 5 5 5 5 Chloride mg/L 250 150 120 180 130 Chromium pg/L 10 25 4 22 4 Chromium (VI) pg/L NE 17 0.2 12 1 Cobalt pg/L 1* 1 6 3 18 Copper pg/L 1000 10 1 10 2 Fluoride mg/L 2 --- --- 0.4 0.4 Iron pg/L 300 1210 4227 1293 5130 Lead pg/L 15 1 1 1 1 Lithium pg/L NE --- --- 26 27 Magnesium mg/L NE 42 32 45 39 Manganese pg/L 50 405 1198 260 1773 Mercury pg/L 1 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 Methane pg/L NE 10 367 10 1120 Molybdenum pg/L NE 4 35 8 22 Nickel pg/L 100 19 2 17 3 Nitrate + Nitrite mg-N/L NE 3 0.3 4 0.4 Potassium mg/L NE 5 9 5 SO Selenium pg/L 20 2 1 2 1 Sodium mg/L NE 36 38 36 57 Strontium pg/L NE 760 232 760 438 Sulfate mg/L 250 37 74 38 69 Sulfide mg/L NE 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 TDS mg/L 500 540 530 710 560 Thallium pg/L 0.2* 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 TOC mg/L NE 3 4 2 11 Total Radium pCi/L 5^ 7 5 SO 4 Total Uranium pg/mL 0.03^ 0.005 0.003 0.004 0.006 Vanadium pg/L 0.3* 30 2 23 3 Zinc pg/L 1000 12 7 14 44 Prepared by: HES Checked by: jR Notes: Background threshold values (BTVs) 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 November 2010 to January 2017 2 - Updated BTVs were calculated using data from background groundwater samples collected November 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 - picocuries 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 ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Analytical Parameter 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 Fluoride Reporting Unit S.U. (BTt °C p4/cm mg/L mV mV NTU mg-CaCO,/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg-CaCO,/L pg/L pg/L mg/L mg-CaCO,/L mg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results BG-01 11/30/2010 6.8 38.81 19 491 NM NM NM 8.56 --- 713 Transition <0.5 Zone <5 69.7 --- <50 <0.08 --- --- 14.2 11.1 --- --- 11.2 --- BG-01 04/20/2011 6.4 38.42 20 460 4.42 58 263 9.92 --- 330 <0.5 <5 73.1 --- --- <50 <0.08 --- --- 13.4 15 --- --- 11.4 --- BG-01 07/13/2011 6.4 38.48 22 459 6.80 -136 69 9.58 --- <100 <0.5 <5 84 b --- --- <50 <0.08 --- --- 12.7 b 42.7 --- --- <5 --- BG-01 11/02/2011 6.6 39.72 21 475 5.48 -82 123 9.42 --- 201 <0.5 <5 75.6 --- --- <50 <0.08 --- 13.4 16.8 --- --- <5 --- BG-01 04/02/2012 6.4 38.73 23 467 5.11 -72 133 9.80 --- 301 <0.5 <5 72.3 --- --- <50 <0.08 --- --- 15.5 8.8 --- --- <5 --- BG-01 07/11/2012 6.3 38.94 18 487 5.33 -51 154 8.57 --- 734 <0.5 <5 81 --- <50 <0.08 --- --- 14.5 <5 --- --- 6.4 --- BG-01 11/06/2012 6.4 40.00 15 468 6.36 140 345 7.91 --- 438 <0.5 <5 84.2 --- --- <50 <0.08 --- --- 15 16.1 --- --- <5 --- BG-01 04/08/2013 6.3 39.74 18 475 5.90 115 320 5.24 --- 110 <1 <1 79 --- <50 <1 --- --- 14 <5 --- --- <5 --- BG-01 07/08/2013 6.3 39.31 19 482 6.79 10 215 6.79 --- 300 <1 <1 83 --- --- <50 <1 --- 15 10 --- --- <5 --- BG-01 11/11/2013 6.4 39.73 18 488 5.00 182 387 9.80 --- 438 <1 <1 83 --- --- <50 <1 --- --- 14 7 --- --- <5 --- BG-01 04/03/2014 6.4 39.10 18 506 6.80 253 458 6.60 --- 311 <1 <1 86 --- --- <50 <1 --- --- 17 6 --- --- <5 --- BG-01 07/15/2014 6.3 38.54 18 496 5.37 179 384 4.40 --- 205 <1 <1 81 --- --- <50 <1 --- --- 16 <5 --- --- <5 --- BG-01 11/12/2014 6.5 39.38 17 505 6.79 345 550 7.45 --- 373 <1 <1 87 --- --- <50 <1 --- --- 16 6 --- --- <5 --- BG-01 04/16/2015 6.6 30.05 16 574 3.10 341 546 7.86 209 278 <1 <1 95 <1 209 <50 <1 46.7 <5 16 13 --- 2.54 <5 --- BG 61 15 6� 3845 }8 534 340 4- 9 334 3�00 242 476 <4 90 Fl 2 -2 E58 <4 44.7 i� 6 - 1.28 - BG-01 09/16/2015 6.5 39.38 18 529 4.70 157 362 9.81 220 801 <1 <1 91 <1 220 <50 <1 40.4 <10 16 6.77 --- <1 3.19 --- BG-01 12/05/2015 6.4 39.18 17 §32 535 3.67 125 330 9.50 231 228 587 310 F1 <0.5 <0.5 86 <0.2 23} 228 <50 <0.08 44.2 <5 � 16.4 8 5.6 - 6.2 F1 0.62 E-5 2 - --- BG-01 0110512016 6.4 38.65 15 528 3.49 170 375 8.46 231 434 <1 <I 91 <1 231 <50 <I 43.4 <5 18 9.02 4.5 <1 2.49 --- BG-01 04/07/2016 6.5 36.66 17 535 5.11 125 330 8.12 233 1550 <1 <1 97 <1 233 <50 <1 44.6 <5 21 18 10.2 1.85 10 BG-01 07/12/2016 6.3 36.60 17 512 5.11 82 287 9.78 243 323 <1 <1 90 <1 243 <50 <1 43.8 B1 <5 20 6 6.1 M6 <1 <5 --- BG-01 0910812016 6.5 36.78 17 505 5.88 68 273 8.68 229 830 <I <I 91 <1 229 <50 <I 41.7 <5 18 8.46 7.6 <1 3.94 --- BG-01 11/01/2016 6.8 S 37.31 17 535 3.50 318 523 6.11 237 458 <1 <1 89 <1 237 <50 <1 45.4 <5 20 8 --- <1 <5 --- BG-01 1111012016 6.6 S 37.36 17 510 3.71 131 336 9.85 235 346 <I <I 87 <1 235 <50 <I 42.5 <5 18 7.24 4.4 <1 2.87 --- BG-01 1111612016 6.4 37.31 16 488 4.39 90 295 8.73 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- BG-01 01/26/2017 6.6 37.68 18 523 4.23 -22 183 4.49 244 224 <1 <1 91 <1 244 <50 <1 43.1 <5 19 8.74 13.1 <1 1.8 --- BG-01 04/10/2017 6.5 38.24 20 499 5.90 7 212 8.66 225 335 <1 <1 88 <1 225 <50 B3 <1 43.6 B3 <5 19 17 --- <1 <5 --- BG-01 0411012017 6.5 38.24 20 499 5.90 7 212 8.66 237 206 <I <I 89 <1 237 <50 <I 45 M4 <5 19 7.18 6.9 <I 1.69 --- BG-01 07/17/2017 6.4 37.78 20 509 5.30 74 279 3.41 265 187 <1 <1 86 <1 265 <50 <1 45.5 <5 20 6 --- <1 <5 --- BG-01 0711712017 6.4 37.78 20 509 5.30 74 279 3.41 251 156 <I <I 89 <1 251 <50 <I 44.7 <5 20 6.09 5 <I 1.65 --- BG-01 11/14/2017 6.5 38.91 15 523 4.36 146 351 9.28 259 61 <1 <1 89 <1 259 <50 <1 47.9 B2 <5 17 5 --- <1 <5 --- BG-01 1111412017 6.5 38.91 15 523 4.36 146 351 9.28 263 104 <I <I 86 <1 263 <50 <I 42.9 B2 <5 17 6.24 4.9 <I 1.23 --- BG-01 01/29/2018 6.8 39.43 12 532 5.47 86 291 8.35 249 167 <1 <1 83 <1 249 <50 <1 45.3 <5 17 5.49 4.7 <1 1.52 0.2 BG-01 04/09/2018 6.4 39.24 18 551 3.66 123 328 5.74 244 277 <1 <1 94 <1 244 <50 <1 46.3 <5 17 <5 --- <1 <5 --- BG-01 0410912018 6.4 39.24 18 551 3.66 123 328 5.74 230 268 <1 <1 94 <1 230 <50 <I 45.2 <5 18 2.88 2.5 <1 1.8 0.13 BG-01 07/25/2018 6.3 38.51 18 564 4.13 322 527 1.00 243 26 <1 <1 87 <1 243 <50 <1 46.2 B3,M4 <5 18 <5 --- <1 <5 --- BG-01 0712512018 6.3 38.51 18 564 4.13 322 527 1.00 253 24 <1 <I 88 <1 253 <50 <1 46.6 <5 19 2.4 2.3 <I 1.1 0.15 BG-01 11/14/2018 6.5 37.74 14 566 4.34 517 722 1.30 233 15 <1 <1 92 <1 233 <50 <1 47.3 <5 18 <5 --- <1 <5 --- BG-01 1111412018 6.5 37.74 14 565 4.34 517 722 1.30 234 20 <1 <1 89 <1 234 <50 <1 44.5 <5 19 2.09 B2 2.2 <1 0.704 j 0.13 MW-15D 05/30/2015 6.4 8.29 18 658 0.90 58 263 2.57 230 121 <1 <1 10 <1 230 <50 <1 67.8 <10 43 1.26 --- 4.01 <1 --- MW-15D 09/12/2015 7.1 10.76 20 668 1.40 35 240 6.59 240 588 <1 <1 9 <1 240 <50 <1 66.6 <10 43 2.4 --- 1.11 1.42 --- MW-15D 12/05/2015 6.7 8.02 14 624 1.94 35 240 0.74 <5 <100 <0.5 <0.5 5 <0.2 <5 <50 <0.08 66 <5 41.2 1.7 2.1 <0.5 <1 --- MW-15D 0110512016 6.4 6.63 10 617 1.18 151 356 3.29 233 201 <1 <I 8 <1 233 <50 <I 60.4 <5 40 1.77 1.5 M6 <1 <1 --- MW-15D 05/19/2016 6.7 7.02 14 647 1.80 50 255 0.73 230 --- <1 <1 8 <1 --- <50 <1 67.5 --- 47 2.1 --- <1 --- 0.12 B2 MW-15D 0612312016 6.6 7.58 19 653 1.94 166 371 3.04 237 45 <I <I 7 <1 237 <50 <I 65.5 <5 44 2.56 2.7 <I <1 --- MW-15D 0711212016 6.6 7.22 18 651 1.62 80 285 1.25 254 36 <I <I 7 <1 254 <50 <I 68.1 <5 46 2.8 2.5 <I <1 --- MW-15D 0711212016 6.6 7.22 18 651 1.62 80 285 1.25 230 H2 --- <I <I 7 <1 --- <50 <I 67 B2 --- 46 2.47 --- <I --- <0.1 MW-15D 09/08/2016 6.9 8.85 19 649 1.95 32 237 3.46 240 125 <1 <1 6 <1 240 <50 <1 63.7 <5 44 2.81 2.7 <1 <1 --- PageIof12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Analytical Parameter Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate + Nitrite Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide TDS Thallium TOC Total Radium Total Uranium Vanadium Zinc Reporting Unit 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 Transition Zone BG-01 11/30/2010 881 <5 --- 27.2 <0.2 --- --- <5 --- --- <10 --- --- 12.5 --- 299 <0.1 --- --- --- 12.3 BG-01 04/20/2011 499 <5 --- 18.5 <0.2 --- --- 17.4 --- --- <10 --- --- 11.7 --- 282 <0.1 --- --- --- --- 18.9 BG-01 07/13/2011 752 <5 --- --- 25.8 b <0.2 --- --- 45.5 b --- --- <10 --- --- 11.6 b --- 248 b <0.1 --- --- --- --- <10 BG-01 11/02/2011 307 <5 --- --- 7.8 <0.2 --- 12 --- --- <10 --- --- 12.4 --- 263 b <0.1 --- --- --- --- <10 BG-01 04/02/2012 286 <5 --- --- 6.5 <0.2 --- --- <5 --- <10 --- --- 11.7 --- 298 <0.1 --- --- --- --- <10 BG-01 07/11/2012 866 <5 --- --- 18.7 <0.2 --- --- <5 --- --- <10 --- --- 14.2 --- 312 <0.1 --- --- <10 BG-01 11/06/2012 532 <5 --- --- 11.1 <0.2 --- --- 6.2 --- --- <10 --- --- 14.3 --- 300 <0.1 --- --- --- --- <10 BG-01 04/08/2013 113 <1 --- --- 5 <0.05 --- --- <5 --- --- <1 11 --- 310 <0.2 --- --- --- --- <5 BG-01 07/08/2013 368 <1 --- --- 9 <0.05 --- --- 6 --- --- <1 --- --- 12 --- 330 <0.2 --- --- --- --- <5 BG-01 11/11/2013 507 <1 11 <0.05 --- --- <5 --- --- <1 --- --- 12 --- 320 <0.2 --- --- --- --- 12 BG-01 04/03/2014 370 <1 --- --- 8 <0.05 --- --- <5 --- --- <1 --- --- 13 --- 320 <0.2 --- --- --- --- <5 BG-01 07/15/2014 218 <1 --- --- 6 <0.05 --- --- <5 --- --- <1 --- --- 14 --- 330 <0.2 --- --- --- --- <5 BG-01 11/12/2014 437 <1 --- --- 9 <0.05 --- --- 7 --- --- <1 --- --- 13 --- 310 <0.2 --- --- --- --- 11 BG-01 04/16/2015 283 <1 --- 25.9 54 <0.05 --- 3.04 <5 --- 3.44 3.57 35.4 --- 40 --- 370 <0.2 --- --- --- --- 7 BG 01 9,12915 546 -<4 - 25..9 F&$b 1.41 <-5 - 2.36 1 �9 32.3 - 24 - 368 2 - 0.7i9 0.000504 i74 38 BG-01 09/16/2015 811 <1 --- 24.5 M4 21 <0.05 <10 <1 1.96 1.9 1.52 1.44 30.5 414 27 <0.1 320 0.231 0.672 --- --- 22.7 14 594 <4 - 26.2 <$.$5 3.G7 <-5 - 2-0-7 1.39 3-2.9 449 2-5 Q.2 - -JIL 18.1 BG-01 12/05/2015 360 <0.1 --- 25.1 16 <0.2 <10 0.65 1.5 2.5 <5 1.2 32.4 440 20.6 <0.1 331 <0.1 <1 --- --- 14.5 <10 BG-01 0110512016 484 <1 --- 20.6 17 <0.05 <10 <1 2.96 2.6 1.87 1.01 31.6 445 23 <0.1 350 <0.2 0.579 --- --- 17.5 <5 BG-01 04/07/2016 1760 <1 --- 26.1 34 <0.05 <10 <1 5 2.7 1.65 1.78 31.5 436 24 <0.1 330 <0.2 0.704 5.45 0.000511 24.4 <5 BG-01 07/12/2016 322 <1 --- 27.2 9 <0.05 <10 P2,CL <1 <5 2.6 1.94 <1 31.8 442 21 <0.1 330 <0.2 0.682 1.23 0.000524 18.3 <5 BG-01 0910812016 766 <1 --- 24.9 14 <0.05 <10 <1 1.91 2.6 1.79 <I 30.4 443 19 <0.1 330 <0.2 0.73 1.14 0.000487 19.8 6 BG-01 11/01/2016 533 <1 --- 25.3 12 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.86 <1 32.1 442 20 --- 340 <0.2 --- --- --- 18.8 <5 BG-01 1111012016 356 <1 --- 23.4 13 <0.05 <10 N2 <1 2.59 2.3 1.92 <I 30.3 457 19 <0.1 340 <0.2 0.764 --- --- 15.8 <5 BG-01 1111612016 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- <RL 0.000474 --- --- BG-01 01/26/2017 227 <1 --- 25.1 M4 5 <0.05 <10 N2 <1 1.61 2.4 1.81 <1 30.8 456 18 <0.1 320 <0.2 0.735 <RL <0.0002 18.7 <5 BG-01 04/10/2017 375 <1 --- 25.2 B3 8 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.45 <1 33 422 22 --- 340 <0.2 --- --- --- 21.3 <5 BG-01 0411012017 202 <1 --- 27 M4 <5 <0.05 <10 <1 1.46 2.5 1.93 <I 32.1 M4 448 18 <0.1 340 <0.2 0.747 <RL 0.000444 17.3 <5 BG-01 07/17/2017 213 <1 --- 25.4 <5 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.74 <1 30.8 439 17 --- 340 <0.2 --- --- --- 16.7 <5 BG-01 0711712017 151 <1 --- 25.2 <5 <0.05 --- <1 1.89 --- 1.89 <I 32.5 455 17 <0.1 340 <0.2 0.732 <RL 0.00048 17.2 <5 BG-01 11/14/2017 71 <1 --- 26.6 <5 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.91 <1 34.9 459 19 --- 320 <0.2 B2 --- --- --- 18.2 18 BG-01 1111412017 102 <1 --- 25.4 <5 <0.05 --- <1 2.75 --- 1.8 <I 32.5 426 19 <0.1 330 <0.2 0.72 1.41 0,000449 18 22 BG-01 01/29/2018 183 <1 5 26 <5 <0.05 --- <1 1.6 2.2 1.8 <1 33.9 445 17 <0.1 330 <0.2 0.877 0.992 0.000482 19.2 <5 BG-01 04/09/2018 225 <1 --- 29 5 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.9 <1 33.9 469 17 --- 340 <0.2 --- --- --- 17.3 <5 BG-01 0410912018 215 <1 4.561 j 27.5 5 <0.05 --- 0.686 j 1.44 2.5 1.94 <I 33.3 469 18 <0.1 340 <0.2 0.763 1.452 0.000615 17.3 <5 BG-01 07/25/2018 26 <1 --- 26 M4 <5 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.79 <1 32.9 M4 449 17 --- 340 <0.2 --- --- --- 17.3 <5 BG-01 0712512018 24 <1 3.507 j 26.3 1.761 j <0.05 --- 0.65 j 1.22 2.5 1.83 <I 33.4 455 17 <0.1 330 <0.2 0.878 -0.1404 0.000585 16.7 1.757 j BG-01 11/14/2018 19 <1 --- 26.9 <5 <0.05 --- <1 <5 --- 1.84 <1 34.6 473 18 --- 310 <0.2 --- --- --- 17.6 <5 BG-01 1111412018 17 B2 <1 4.022 j 25.6 <5 <0.05 --- 0.609 j 0.689 j 2.8 1.84 <I 33.1 458 18 <0.1 330 0.177 j 0.745 0.28 0.0006 18.1 <5 MW-15D 05/30/2015 163 <1 --- 26.6 316 <0.05 <10 1.11 20.8 2.9 1.09 <1 28.4 243 29 <0.1 410 <0.2 1.1 --- --- 4.96 <5 MW-15D 09/12/2015 671 <1 --- 27.7 80 <0.05 <10 <1 16.7 3.4 1.11 <1 29.2 241 28 <0.1 400 <0.2 0.925 --- --- 7.66 <5 MW-15D 12/05/2015 58 <0.1 --- 26.6 45 <0.2 <10 <0.5 13.3 3.3 <5 <0.5 29.2 240 24.3 <0.1 421 <0.1 1.2 --- --- 6.5 <10 MW-15D 0110512016 240 <1 --- 24.3 48 <0.05 <10 <1 15.2 3 <1 <1 26.3 231 24 <0.1 M1 430 <0.2 0.935 --- --- 8.03 <5 MW-15D 05/19/2016 --- <1 <5 28.3 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.04 <1 29.1 --- 30 --- 420 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- -- MW-15D 0612312016 48 <1 --- 28 23 <0.05 <10 <1 11.5 3.6 1.05 <I 28.9 239 29 <0.1 430 <0.2 1.1 <RL 0.000673 9.15 <5 MW-15D 0711212016 43 <1 --- 28.7 22 <0.05 <10 <1 11.9 3.5 1.08 <I 30.4 248 31 <0.1 420 <0.2 1.1 0.664 0.000705 9.56 <5 MW-15D 0711212016 --- <1 <5 26.4 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1 <I 28.1 --- 31 --- 420 <0.2 --- 0.664 MW-15D 09/08/2016 146 <1 --- 26.7 18 <0.05 <10 <1 10.9 3 1.04 <1 28.1 241 29 <0.1 410 <0.2 1 3.762 0.000681 9.36 15 Page 2 of 12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Analytical Parameter 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 Fluoride Reporting Unit S.U. (BTOC) oc pn cm mg/L mV mV NTU mg-CaCO3/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg-CaCO3/L pg/L pg/L mg/L mg-CaCO3/L mg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results MW-15D 0910812016 6.9 8.85 19 649 1.95 32 231 3.46 240 --- <1 <1 6 <1 --- <50 <1 65.9 82 --- 45 2.6 --- <1 --- <0.1 MW-15D 11/09/2016 6.6 9.10 15 643 1.99 158 363 8.87 240 331 <1 <1 7 <1 240 <50 <1 63.1 <5 46 4.53 9.4 <1 1.66 --- MW-15D 1110912016 6.6 9.10 15 643 1.99 158 363 8.87 230 --- <I <I 7 <1 --- <50 <1 70.5 82 --- 43 4.21 --- <1 --- <1 MW-15D 01/17/2017 6.6 8.55 14 629 2.01 -25 180 2.75 230 --- <1 <1 6 <1 --- <50 <1 70.3 --- 46 3.63 --- <1 --- <0.1 MW-15D 0112512017 6.6 7.82 16 651 3.14 S 137 342 1.27 233 55 <I <I 6 <1 233 <50 <I 65.8 <5 45 2.66 2.8 <1 <1 --- MW-15D 0311412017 6.7 8.98 13 626 2.50 118 323 5.96 230 --- <I <I 6 <1 --- <50 <I 65.6 --- 49 82 2.98 --- <I --- <0.1 MW-15D 04/13/2017 6.6 8.88 14 640 2.65 112 317 0.48 242 14 <1 <1 6 <1 242 <50 <1 66.4 <5 41 2.53 2.2 <1 <1 --- MW-15D 0510112017 6.5 7.91 18 643 4.05 139 344 0.72 230 --- <I <I 10 <1 --- <50 <I 68.7 --- 44 3.5 --- <I --- <0.1 MW-15D 07/19/2017 6.5 8.36 17 638 2.16 104 309 0.74 241 17 <1 <1 6 <1 241 <50 <1 63.7 <5 43 2.79 2.8 <1 <1 --- MW-15D 0711912017 6.5 8.36 17 638 2.16 S 104 309 0.74 220 --- <I <I 6 <1 --- <50 <I 64.9 --- 41 2.62 --- <I --- <0.1 MW-15D 0911112017 6.6 9.69 16 624 2.28 100 305 0.67 230 --- <1 <1 <5 <1 --- <50 <1 66.2 82 --- 44 2.85 --- <1 --- <0.1 MW-15D 11/16/2017 6.6 10.92 16 660 2.12 142 347 0.63 235 11 <1 <1 5 <1 235 <50 <1 62.7 <5 41 2.77 1.9 <1 <1 --- MW-15D 01/24/2018 6.7 11.59 13 660 5.03 33 238 0.60 236 9 <1 <1 6 <1 236 <50 <1 67.2 <5 46 2.77 2.6 <1 <1 0.12 MW-I5D 0112412018 6.7 11.59 13 660 5.03 S 33 238 0.60 240 --- <I <I 6 <1 --- <50 <I 67.5 --- 47 2.59 --- <I --- <0.1 MW-15D 04/10/2018 6.5 8.21 15 636 2.40 125 330 0.80 262 79 <1 <1 6 <1 262 <50 <1 66.2 <5 47 2.7 2.4 <1 0.493 j 0.1 MW-I5D 0511512018 6.5 7.33 17 650 2.74 97 302 0.80 230 --- <I <I 7 <1 --- <50 <I 63.5 M4 --- 43 2.8 --- <I --- 0.11 MW-15D 07/30/2018 6.3 8.51 26 651 2.44 304 509 0.90 235 18 <1 <1 5 <1 235 <50 <1 61.6 <5 40 2.59 3.1 <1 <1 0.0695 j MW-I5D 1010912018 6.7 6.72 20 640 1.27 137 342 0.50 229 --- <I <I 5 <1 --- 18.033 j <I 65.7 --- 45 2.84 --- <1 --- 0.0751 j MW-15D 11/14/2018 6.5 5.02 14 615 1.38 67 272 1.50 223 13 <1 <1 6 <1 223 <50 <1 63.3 <5 43 2.72 B2 2.9 <1 <1 <0.1 ---- 3i.5 45.58 26 1216 2-29 191 444 333 140 126 3.72 -<4 68 -- 33 E-W -<4 4-08 69 128 -73 - -<4 4-.6-7 - w/29REAS 1 .8 45.88 2B i333 2.06 -7 2 -2 5.81 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MW-18D 09kl-4---- 12/06/2015 8.6 7.1 46.7 i 47.45 19 17 919 1049 6.79 3.15 --1-3 28 49-2 233 1340 7.16 138 213 M1,R1 67 230 233 0.64 39 36 -<4 <0.2 136 213 -w -<4 863 103 M6 E}9 <5 17B 181 M6 16r.9im 6.6 5.1 0.56 1.3 - --- <0.5 <50 <0.08 MW-18D 0110512016 7.2 47.07 16 1055 1.23 -24 181 1.25 237 31 <1 <I 19 <1 237 <50 <I 85.3 <5 170 2 0.78 <I <I --- MW-18D 05/19/2016 7.5 45.14 20 964 1.70 -63 143 2.56 170 --- <1 <1 33 <1 --- <50 <1 90.8 --- 180 12.6 --- <1 --- 0.26 B2 MW-18D 0612312016 7.1 44.72 17 945 2.13 -97 109 6.43 210 71 <I <I 37 <1 210 <50 <I 92 <5 150 19.5 11.2 <I <I --- MW-18D 0711412016 7.4 44.71 18 857 2.95 -121 84 9.71 275 21 <I <I 33 <1 275 <50 <I 106 <5 150 5.42 0.26 <I 1.57 --- MW-18D 0711412016 7.4 44.71 18 857 2.95 -121 84 9.71 220 --- <I <I 32 <1 --- <50 <I 98.2 82, M4 --- 150 4.84 --- <I --- 0.14 MW-18D 09/13/2016 7.6 44.99 19 961 1.38 -191 14 2.44 226 38 <1 <1 45 <1 226 <50 <1 104 <5 150 7.73 2.1 <1 <1 --- MW-18D 0911312016 7.6 44.99 19 961 1.38 -191 14 2.44 230 --- <I <I 44 <1 --- <50 <1 108 82 --- 160 7.54 --- <I --- <0.5 9� 45.29 45 842 2,95 i69 36 9-26 228 2-3 <58 1&3 13B - =1 09/201 9� 45.20 13 842 2135 �69 36 9.26 26B - 2§ � 3H B2 - 168 9.44 <4 - E1 MW-18D 01/17/2017 6.9 45.87 15 1019 1.10 -130 75 0.82 210 --- <1 <1 20 <1 --- <50 <1 115 --- 180 5.66 <1 --- <0.5 MW-18D 0112512017 6.9 45.80 15 998 2.47 S -46 159 0.63 198 60 <I <I 29 <1 198 <50 <I 108 M4 <5 190 14.8 12.2 <I 1.13 --- MW-18D 0311412017 7.1 45.70 13 992 1.00 -42 163 1.75 220 --- <I <I 26 <1 --- <50 <I 116 --- 180 82 7.25 --- <I --- <0.5 MW-18D 04/13/2017 7.0 46.19 17 1080 0.67 -50 155 0.77 220 8 <1 <1 21 <1 220 <50 <1 111 <5 170 4.34 2.5 <1 <1 --- MW-18D 0510112017 7.6 45.71 18 919 2.09 -90 115 1.50 220 --- <I <I 31 <1 --- <50 <I 117 --- 180 8.35 --- <I --- <0.5 MW-18D 07/19/2017 7.0 45.36 19 929 1.05 S -107 98 0.76 208 10 <1 <1 19 <1 208 <50 <1 95 <5 160 3.54 4 <1 <1 --- MW-18D 0711912017 7.0 45.36 19 929 1.05 S -107 98 0.76 170 --- <I <I 18 <1 --- <50 <I 97 --- 160 3.08 --- <I --- <0.5 MW-18D 0911112017 6.9 45.84 16 953 0.85 -80 125 0.78 210 --- <I <I 18 <1 --- <50 <I 96.7 82 --- 160 5.12 --- <I --- <2.5 MW-18D 11/16/2017 7.0 46.65 16 1027 1.05 -50 155 0.56 216 5 <1 <1 18 <1 216 <50 <1 95.5 <5 170 4.34 1.6 <1 <1 --- MW-18D 01/24/2018 6.7 47.56 14 1023 1.17 -37 168 1.30 185 10 <1 <1 23 <1 185 <50 <1 93.9 <5 180 7.31 6.7 <1 <1 <0.5 MW-18D 0112412018 6.7 47.56 14 1023 1.17 S -37 168 1.30 160 --- <I <I 22 <1 --- <50 <I 97.3 --- 180 7.12 --- <I --- <0.2 MW-18D 04/10/2018 7.1 48.05 14 952 1.72 -55 150 0.70 211 9 <1 <1 42 <1 211 <50 <1 103 <5 180 12.3 11.8 <1 0.559 j 0.2805 j MW-18D 0511512018 7.0 47.80 18 1004 1.49 36 241 3.14 200 --- <I <I 33 <1 --- <50 <I 96.7 --- 170 5.54 --- <I --- 0.1868 j MW-18D 07/30/2018 7.1 47.75 18 969 1.80 77 282 2.50 213 27 <1 0.354 j 31 <1 213 <50 <1 94.2 <5 150 3.51 2.8 <1 0.447 j 0.24 j MW-18D 1010912018 7.2 41.16 1 / 925 0.84 41 246 1.80 227 --- <I 0.353 j 25 <1 --- <50 <I 91 --- 160 3.12 --- <1 --- 0.21 j MW-18D 11/14/2018 6.8 46.70 13 918 1 0.68 1 -46 159 1.30 149 9 <1 <1 46 <1 149 <50 <1 82.9 <5 170 12.7 12.1 <1 0.528 j 0.189 j Page 3 of 12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Analytical Parameter Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate + Nitrite Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide TDS Thallium TOC Total Radium Total Uranium Vanadium Zinc Reporting Unit 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 MW-15D 0910812016 --- <1 <5 19.2 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 0.989 <1 27.1 --- 29 --- 400 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-15D 11/09/2016 371 <1 --- 25.6 18 <0.05 <10 N2 1.56 11.1 3.2 1.02 <1 27.1 242 30 <0.1 400 H1 <0.2 1 0.773 0.000765 9.73 <5 MW-15D 1110912016 --- <1 <5 27.4 --- <0.05 --- 1.62 --- --- 1.08 <I 29.7 --- 29 --- 420 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-15D 01/17/2017 --- <1 <5 27.5 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.06 <1 29.4 --- 30 --- 410 <0.2 --- 0.636 --- --- --- MW-15D 0112512017 72 <1 --- 27.7 8 <0.05 <10 N2 1.78 9.12 3.4 1.11 <I 28.4 246 29 <0.1 420 <0.2 1.1 0.221 0.000748 9.4 82 <5 MW-I5D 0311412017 --- <1 <5 27.1 --- <0.05 --- 1.46 --- --- 1.02 <I 28.2 --- 33 --- 410 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-15D 04/13/2017 16 <1 --- 27.6 <5 <0.05 <10 Ll <1 8.62 3.7 1.04 <1 28.3 239 28 <0.1 410 <0.2 1.1 <RL 0.000739 9.37 <5 MW-I5D 0510112017 --- <1 <5 27.2 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.05 <I 29.3 81 --- 29 --- 410 <0.2 --- 0.217 --- --- --- MW-15D 07/19/2017 19 <1 --- 27.5 <5 <0.05 --- <1 8.51 --- 1.01 <1 27.9 241 30 <0.1 420 <0.2 B3 0.987 132,133 0.178 0.000741 9.81 <5 MW-I5D 0711912017 --- <1 <5 28 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.04 <I 28.4 --- 29 --- 380 <0.2 --- 0.246 --- --- --- MW-15D 0911112017 --- <1 <5 27.5 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 0.988 <1 28.2 82 --- 28 --- 400 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-15D 11/16/2017 14 <1 --- 25.9 <5 <0.05 --- <1 8.02 --- 1.03 <1 28.9 229 28 <0.1 440 <0.2 2 0.498 0.00097 9.97 <5 MW-15D 01/24/2018 12 <1 <5 27.8 <5 <0.05 --- <1 7.69 3.6 1.06 <1 29.2 Bl 244 30 <0.1 400 <0.2 1.1 0.093 0.000808 9.78 <5 MW-15D 0112412018 --- <1 <5 26.9 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 1.06 <I 28.8 --- 30 --- 420 <0.2 --- 0.991 --- --- --- MW-15D 04/10/2018 86 <1 <5 28.6 4.561 j <0.05 --- 1.78 7.91 3.8 1.06 <1 28.5 229 30 <0.1 420 <0.2 0.995 1.145 0.00073 9.84 3.252 j MW-15D 0511512018 --- <1 1.977 j 25.3 M4 --- <0.05 --- 0.174 j --- --- 0.974 <1 27.8 M4 --- 28 --- 400 <0.2 --- 0.478 --- --- --- MW-15D 07/30/2018 25 <1 <5 27.3 <5 <0.05 --- 0.173 j 6.6 4 0.99 <1 27.3 62 221 27 <0.1 420 <0.2 0.983 0.693 0.000628 9.8 <5 MW-I5D 1010912018 --- <1 <5 27 --- <0.05 --- 0.207 j --- --- 1.04 <1 29 --- 28 --- 410 <0.2 --- 0.529 --- --- --- MW-15D 11/14/2018 18 B2 <1 1.873 j 25.1 <5 0.024 j 0.147 j 6.03 3.7 0.964 <1 27.6 232 27 <0.1 390 <0.2 1 0.281 0.000579 10.4 3.497 j,B ---- 148 -<4 2 68 E-5 Q.05 *-1-B 3EYf -<4 9.$i7 36.1 4-5-.9 59.7 i27B 438 Q.1 580 2 - 643 5 06/29i2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MW-18D - ---- 12/06/2015 51- 190 -<4 0.11 Aj --- 49.6 M1 3$2 820 <-0-:65 <0.2 -<4-B <10 34 8.1 -<4 1 0.049 0.27 32.6 764 670 6-1 48.1 Q.1 <0.1 658 554 Q.2 <0.1 2.1 R1 --- 0 --- MEJJJMM 1.7 41 <10 5.48 M1 mm'39-.6 2.2 MW-18D 0110512016 334 <1 --- 42.3 978 <0.05 <10 6.08 <1 0.198 2.96 1.64 21.9 629 39 <0.1 610 <0.2 2.4 --- --- 1.1 8 MW-18D 05/19/2016 --- <1 23 37.7 --- <0.05 --- 9.87 --- --- 4.21 1.95 28.8 --- 38 --- 690 <0.2 --- 1.09 --- --- --- MW-18D 0612312016 456 <1 --- 41.9 1040 <0.05 <10 7.03 2.96 0.207 4.12 1.25 27.5 767 37 <0.1 640 <0.2 1.8 20.2 0.00434 1.33 <5 MW-18D 0711412016 298 <1 --- 44.5 632 <0.05 <10 1.44 4.13 0.102 4.28 <1 27.9 730 37 <0.1 540 <0.2 1.9 2.36 0.00501 0.551 <5 MW-18D 0711412016 --- <1 25 40.8 --- <0.05 --- 1.39 --- --- 3.77 <I 25.2 --- 37 --- 340 <0.2 --- 2.36 --- --- --- MW-18D 09/13/2016 186 <1 --- 40.4 405 <0.05 <10 4.17 <1 0.125 3.87 <1 25.8 760 31 <0.1 540 <0.2 1.7 2.183 0.00381 1.23 <5 MW-18D 0911312016 -- ---_ --- - <1 F1 22 42.4 --- 525 - <0.05 F&$5 <$.$5 --- 4.2 --- --- 3.86 <I 26.4 25-.3 27.7 --- 667 - 35 35 --- Q.1 - 530 699 64B <0.2 �2 --- 1.16 94 i 9 --- --- --- <5 MW-18D 01/17/2017 --- <1 14 44.1 --- <0.05 --- 6.61 --- --- 3.63 <1 25.8 --- 33 --- 700 <0.2 --- 5.83 --- --- --- MW-18D 0112512017 193 <1 --- 39.7 M4 305 <0.05 <10 N2 14.9 <I 0.209 4.13 <I 28.3 767129 33 <0.1 600 <0.2 1.7 0.535 0.00387 1.35 82 <5 MW-18D 0311412017 --- <1 15 40.3 --- <0.05 --- 5.01 --- --- 3.81 <I 27.1 --- --- 720 <0.2 --- 0.5 --- --- --- MW-18D 04/13/2017 163 <1 --- 44.7 196 <0.05 <10 Ll 3.39 <1 0.232 3.52 <1 25 665 32 0.19 750 <0.2 1.8 1.03 0.00359 0.983 <5 MW-18D 0510112017 --- <1 15 40.4 --- <0.05 --- 5.28 --- --- 3.78 <I 28.6 81 --- 31 --- 730 <0.2 --- 0.55 --- --- --- MW-18D 07/19/2017 227 <1 --- 43.6 260 <0.05 --- 2.48 <1 --- 3.16 <1 23.4 598 34 <0.1 670 <0.2 1.5 132,133 1.65 0.00322 0.991 <5 MW-18D 0711912017 --- <1 10 43.5 --- <0.05 --- 2.39 --- --- 3.24 <I 24 --- 33 --- 640 <0.2 --- 0.579 --- --- --- MW-18D 0911112017 --- <1 11 40.6 --- <0.05 --- 2.4 --- --- 3.03 <I 24.8 82 --- 33 --- 660 <0.2 --- 1.22 --- --- --- MW-18D 11/16/2017 134 <1 --- 40.6 82 <0.05 --- 2.53 <1 --- 3.21 <1 26.4 574 30 0.16 740 <0.2 2.4 7.89 0.00309 1.02 <5 MW-18D 01/24/2018 98 <1 13 41.4 45 <0.05 --- 3.32 <1 0.329 3.35 <1 28.9 Bl 664 32 <0.1 630 <0.2 1.5 6.5899 0.00362 1.7 <5 MW-18D 0112412018 --- <1 14 39.1 --- <0.05 --- 3.31 --- --- 3.19 <I 27.8 --- 31 --- 650 <0.2 --- 1.609 --- --- --- MW-18D 04/10/2018 54 <1 14 39.5 16 <0.05 --- 4.94 0.751j 0.265 3.54 0.598j 31.8 732 32 <0.1 710 0.112j 1.5 1.003 0.00319 1.27 <5 MW-I8D 0511512018 --- <1 9 40.6 --- <0.05 --- 2.12 --- --- 2.95 0.428 j 25.7 --- 32 --- 650 <0.2 --- 1.07 --- --- --- MW-18D 07/30/2018 165 <1 8 44.8 86 <0.05 --- 1.71 2.35 0.263 2.96 0.338 j 24.4 132 579 33 <0.1 590 <0.2 1.7 1.156 0.0027 1.2 2.94 j MW-I8D 1010912018 --- <1 5 41.5 --- <0.05 --- 1.36 --- --- 2.83 <I 23.8 --- 33 --- 610 <0.2 --- 1.243 --- --- --- MW-18D 11/14/2018 180 <1 14 28 132 93 0.024 j --- 4.06 1.65 0.227 3.6 0.475 j 35.1 782 29 0.22 570 <0.2 1.4 1.664 0.00264 1.13 <5 Page 4 of 12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Analytical Parameter 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 Fluoride Reporting Unit S.U. (BTt °C p4/cm mg/L mV mV NTU mg-CaCO,/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg-CaCO,/L pg/L pg/L mg/L mg-CaCO,/L mg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results Bedrock Flow Zone BG-01BR 06/10/2015 6.8 39.69 18 562 0.50 -63 142 8.40 240 174 <1 <1 21 <1 240 <50 <1 65.5 <10 15 <1 --- 1.44 <1 --- BG-01BR 0710912015 6.9 39.84 19 531 0.40 -70 135 5.60 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- BG-01BR 09/12/2015 7.0 40.52 19 490 0.90 93 298 2.30 230 19 <1 <1 27 <1 230 <50 <1 58.1 <10 13 <1 --- <1 <1 --- BG-01BR 12/05/2015 6.8 40.51 15 496 0.25 9 214 5.83 234 <100 <0.5 <0.5 30 <0.2 234 <50 <0.08 59.3 <5 11.7 0.71 <0.03 <0.5 <1 --- BG-01BR 0110512016 6.8 39.96 14 469 0.35 66 271 7.91 227 118 <I <I 33 <1 227 <50 <I 58.2 <5 12 1.96 <0.03 <I <I --- BG-01BR 04/07/2016 6.9 38.06 1 17 473 1 0.17 1 9 214 1 9.86 259 19 <1 I <1 29 1 <1 259 <50 1 <1 60.3 <5 13 1 <1 0.035 <1 I <1 --- BG-01BR 07/14/2016 6.9 38.00 19 466 0.24 8 213 9.78 236 181 <1 <1 37 <1 236 <50 <1 61.3 <5 14 2.15 <0.03 <1 1.27 --- BG-01BR 0910812016 6.9 38.32 18 476 0.28 -30 175 8.68 235 71 <1 <1 33 <1 235 <50 <1 59.7 M4 <5 12 3.89 0.064 <1 <1 BG-01BR 11/09/2016 6.8 38.67 16 474 0.44 72 277 9.51 235 19 <1 <1 31 <1 235 <50 <1 58.9 <5 13 <1 1.2 <1 <1 --- BG-01BR 01/25/2017 6.9 39.16 17 509 0.28 -36 169 4.77 250 12 <1 <1 33 <1 250 <50 <1 60.9 <5 13 <1 0.086 <1 <1 --- BG-01BR 04/10/2017 6.9 39.61 19 479 0.41 -8 197 9.71 243 24 <1 <1 39 <1 243 <50 <1 60.6 <5 13 4.44 0.054 <1 <1 --- BG-01BR 07/17/2017 6.8 39.15 1 21 484 1 0.40 66 271 3.63 1 260 9 1 <1 <1 1 37 <1 260 <50 <1 62.6 1<5 13 2.22 <0.025 1 <1 <1 BG-01BR 11/14/2017 6.8 40.27 14 476 0.28 78 283 8.54 255 27 <1 <1 29 <1 255 <50 <1 58.1 B2 <5 13 3.88 0.088 <1 <1 --- BG-01BR 01/29/2018 7.0 41.75 9 500 0.43 15 220 9.94 248 224 <1 <1 37 <1 248 <50 <1 61.2 <5 13 9.27 0.07 <1 1.4 0.16 BG-01BR 04/09/2018 6.8 40.22 16 490 0.46 5 210 7.74 231 38 0.482 j 0.421 j 39 <1 231 <50 <1 60.3 <5 13 0.779 j 0.053 0.521 j 0.617 j 0.1 BG-01BR 07/31/2018 6.8 40.05 20 512 0.27 -392 -187 0.40 296 4.638 j 0.346 j 0.483 j 31 <1 296 <50 <1 62.9 <5 14 <1 0.12 0.581 j 0.459 j 0.11 BG-01BR 11/13/2018 7.0 38.69 14 493 0.69 -19 186 9.60 258 10 <1 1 0.461 j 31 <1 1 258 <50 <1 60.5 M4 <5 13 <1 0.049 0.485 j 0.44 j 0.051 j BG-02BR 08/10/2017 7.5 51.72 20 513 0.83 176 381 6.80 230 115 <1 2.39 18 <1 230 <50 <1 65.1 <5 22 2.83 <0.12 D3 <1 2.59 --- BG-02BR 11/14/2017 7.7 50.68 16 535 0.54 -71 134 9.60 234 56 <1 2.7 17 <1 234 <50 <1 65.1 B2 <5 18 2.07 <0.025 M1,111 <1 <1 --- BG-02BR 01/29/2018 7.9 51.14 14 566 0.70 -131 74 6.51 232 60 <1 2.57 14 <1 232 <50 <1 72.5 <5 33 3.36 <0.025 <1 <1 0.21 BG-02BR 04/09/2018 8.2 49.32 16 574 0.62 42 247 7.20 218 250 <1 1.96 26 <1 183 <50 <1 29.6 35 29 1.98 <0.025 <1 1.82 0.18 BG-02BR 07/31/2018 8.3 48.91 18 546 1.31 -107 98 6.60 231 40 <1 2.16 14 <1 231 <50 <1 60.4 <5 35 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 0.17 BG-02BR 11/13/2018 8.0 47.63 14 438 0.89 -114 91 2.80 194 12 <1 2.03 11 <1 14.5 <50 <1 2.85 179 28 <1 0.045 <1 <1 0.18 CCR-112BR-BG 05/24/2016 6.1 15.56 16 224 3.50 127 332 8.46 80 --- <1 <1 22 <1 --- <50 <1 21.4 --- 3.9 <1 --- <1 --- <0.1 CCR-112BR-BG 0712012016 6.5 16.13 22 310 3.13 109 314 4.30 120 --- <I <I 25 <1 --- <50 <I 26.5 --- 4.4 <1 --- <I --- 0.13 CCR-112BR-BG 09/20/2016 6.4 18.48 19 318 1.72 179 384 2.61 130 --- <1 <1 25 <1 --- <50 <1 27.6 B2 --- 5 <1 --- <1 --- 0.11 CCR-112BR-BG 1111012016 6.95 18.82 15 326 0.70 83 288 9.32 110 <1 <I 25 <1 --- <50 <I 26.3 --- 4.9 <1 --- <I <0.1 CCR-112BR-BG 01/19/2017 6.5 18.89 12 318 0.31 -45 160 1.25 110 --- <1 <1 24 <1 --- <50 <1 25.2 --- 5.3 <1 --- <1 --- <0.1 CCR-112BR-BG 0311412017 6.5 18.17 11 304 0.3 S -4 201 2.59 110 --- <I <I 21 <1 --- <50 <I 24.6 M4 --- 4.8 B2 <1 --- <I --- <0.1 CCR-112BR-BG 05/04/2017 6.5 17.06 15 295 0.35 -7 198 4.30 110 --- <1 <1 20 <1 --- <50 <1 24.5 Bl --- 4.7 <1 --- <1 --- 0.12 CCR-112BR-BG 07/20/2017 6.5 17.09 21 298 0.30 31 236 0.94 96 --- <1 <1 18 <1 --- <50 <1 25.4 --- 4.7 <1 --- <1 --- <0.1 CCR-112BR-BG 0911312017 6.4 19.23 18 294 0.25 107 312 1.37 97 --- <1 <1 20 <1 --- <50 <I 25.8 B2 --- 4.7 <1 --- <I --- <0.1 CCR-112BR-BG 01/23/2018 6.5 21.33 16 325 0.32 144 349 1.30 110 --- <1 <1 19 <1 --- <50 <1 24.6 B2 --- 4.8 <1 --- <1 --- <0.1 CCR-112BR-BG 05/16/2018 6.4 18.75 18 303 0.27 82 287 2.86 93 --- 0.408 j 0.426 j 18 <1 --- <50 <1 24.8 --- 5.2 0.693 j <1 --- 0.11 CCR-112BR-BG 10/08/2018 6.4 17.24 19 288 0.26 123 328 0.75 112 --- <1 <1 17 <1 --- <50 <1 24.3 --- 4.9 <1 --- <1 --- 0.068 j MW-10BR 05/27/2015 7.1 22.58 19 569 1.80 111 316 2.50 240 24 <1 <1 93 <1 240 <50 <1 60 <10 17 <1 --- 8.2 4.67 --- MW-10BR 0612912015 7.3 22.79 18 581 2.02 298 503 4.01 -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- MW-10BR 09/12/2015 7.0 24.26 18 619 0.30 91 296 1.18 260 25 <1 <1 107 <1 260 <50 <1 58.6 <10 16 <1 I--- 5.97 <1 --- MW-10BR 12/04/2015 7.1 23.80 14 570 0.34 129 334 0.65 251 13 <1 <1 107 <1 251 <50 <1 57.1 <5 17 <1 <0.03 5.15 <1 --- MW-10BR 0110612016 6.8 23.31 12 567 0.48 24 229 0.61 250 8 <1 <1 120 <1 250 <50 <1 57.7 <5 18 <1 <0.03 6.38 <1 --- MW-10BR 04/07/2016 7.0 22.14 16 583 0.34 145 1 350 0.39 268 6 <1 <1 112 <1 268 <50 <1 52.4 <5 18 <1 <0.03 6.45 <1 --- MW-10BR 0511912016 7.0 22.28 15 587 1.30 38 243 1.80 240 --- <I <1 116 <1 --- <50 <I 53.1 M4 --- 18 <1 --- 6.31 --- 0.39 MW-10BR 07/14/2016 7.1 22.00 23 592 0.81 -10 195 0.61 264 <5 <1 <1 131 <1 264 <50 <1 57.4 <5 19 <1 <0.03 6.4 <1 --- MW-10BR 0711412016 7.1 22.00 23 592 0.81 -10 195 0.61 230 --- <I <I 127 <1 --- <50 <1 55.6 B2 --- 19 <1 --- 5.97 --- 0.34 MW-10BR 09/14/2016 7.4 S 22.84 20 605 0.51 -133 73 1.99 240 6 <1 <1 135 <1 240 <50 <1 52.6 <5 18 <1 0.096 M1 15.8 <1 --- MW-10BR 0911412016 7.4 S 22.84 20 605 0.51 -133 73 1.99 240 --- <I <I 135 <1 --- <50 <I 55.8 M4 --- 19 <1 --- 16.5 --- 0.38 MW-10BR 1110912016 7.2 23.02 16 574 1.79 -26 179 5.73 236 8 <I <I 120 <1 236 <50 <I 49.6 <5 19 <1 1.1 12.1 <1 --- MW-10BR 1110912016 7.2 23.02 16 574 1.79 -26 179 5.73 230 --- <1 <I 136 <1 --- <50 <I 56.3 B2 --- 18 <1 --- 12.2 --- <1 MW-10BR 0111712017 7.0 23.43 15 549 0.42 -36 169 0.40 230 --- <I <I 150 <1 --- <50 <I 54.5 --- 19 <1 --- 20.8 --- 0.31 MW-10BR 0112612017 1 7.0 23.24 17 573 0.97 54 259 0.43 249 7 <1 <I 145 <1 249 <50 <I 51 <5 1 18 I <1 0.15 17.3 <I --- Page 5 of 12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Analytical Parameter Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate + Nitrite Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide TDS Thallium TOC Total Radium Total Uranium Vanadium Zinc Reporting Unit 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 Bedrock Flow Zone BG-01BR 06/10/2015 225 <1 --- 16.8 690 <0.05 <10 16.5 1.86 0.593 5.36 <1 36.4 183 28 <0.2 350 <0.2 1.3 --- --- 1.94 44 BG-01BR 0710912015 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.41 0.00122 --- --- BG-01BR 09/12/2015 374 <1 --- 14.4 614 <0.05 <10 5.36 1.3 0.089 5.51 <1 24.6 160 20 <0.1 300 <0.2 1 --- --- 0.425 23 BG-01BR 12/05/2015 380 <0.1 --- 14.6 420 <0.2 <10 3.2 1 0.34 5.13 <0.5 23 160 15 <0.1 297 <0.1 33.6 --- --- --- <10 BG-01BR 0110512016 375 <1 --- 13.5 445 <0.05 <10 9.26 2.1 0.295 5.09 <I 21.9 163 21 <0.1 330 <0.2 0.693 --- --- 1.25 51 BG-01BR 04/07/2016 139 <1 I--- 14.3 1 398 <0.05 29.6 7.42 1.45 1 0.192 5.18 <1 1 23.5 166 20 1 <0.1 300 <0.2 1 0.703 2.16 1 0.000932 1.23 6 BG-01BR 07/14/2016 460 <1 --- 13.8 473 <0.05 1120 4.18 1.08 0.229 5.54 <1 20.5 162 20 <0.1 300 <0.2 0.795 <RL 0.000961 1.67 7 BG-01BR 0910812016 183 <1 --- 14.3 431 <0.05 618 7.38 3.15 0.39 5.23 <1 22.4 M4 171 20 <0.1 260 <0.2 0.777 <RL 0.000923 1.7 <5 BG-01BR 11/09/2016 52 <1 --- 14.5 341 <0.05 569 N2 5.11 1.34 0.381 5.1 <1 21.8 169 19 <0.1 330 <0.2 0.773 1.09 0.00084 1.79 <5 BG-01BR 01/25/2017 43 <1 --- 15.3 369 <0.05 367 N2 7.57 1.1 0.43 5.29 <1 24.2 183 19 <0.1 330 <0.2 0.849 <RL 0.00122 2.34 B2 <5 BG-01BR 04/10/2017 117 <1 --- 15.1 390 <0.05 360 4.79 4.43 0.408 5.49 <1 23.3 179 19 <0.1 310 <0.2 0.814 0.461 0.000871 2.26 6 BG-01BR 07/17/2017 41 <1 I--- 15.4 369 1 <0.05 --- 3.59 2.34 --- 1 5.74 <1 23.3 1 168 19 <0.1 1 320 <0.2 1 0.83 0.262 0.000951 1 2.04 <5 BG-01BR 11/14/2017 105 <1 --- 15.8 236 <0.05 --- 3 3.55 --- 5.41 <1 23.9 166 18 <0.1 320 <0.2 0.832 0.882 0.000875 2.15 5 BG-01BR 01/29/2018 445 <1 17 16.1 287 <0.05 --- 2.7 7.62 0.391 5.8 <1 23.6 177 17 <0.1 320 <0.2 0.96 2.659 0.000841 2.51 6 BG-01BR 04/09/2018 113 <1 16 15 280 <0.05 --- 2.54 1.55 0.288 6.1 <1 23 173 19 <0.1 300 <0.2 0.792 1.047 0.000886 2.05 2.976 j BG-01BR 07/31/2018 28 <1 14 16.6 263 <0.05 --- 2.48 0.892 j 0.3 5.48 <1 24.7 189 17 <0.1 330 <0.2 0.825 0.123 0.000902 2.26 B2 3.138 j BG-01BR 11/13/2018 40 <1 14 15.7 179 0.02 j --- 2.41 0.86 j 0.231 5.49 <1 1 23.1 177 17 <0.1 310 <0.2 0.775 0.775 0.000805 2.26 9 BG-02BR 08/10/2017 116 <1 --- 11.8 167 <0.05 --- 4.36 4.39 --- 4.26 <1 23.4 268 21 <0.1 320 1 <0.2 1.2 <RL 0.00541 0.764 27 BG-02BR 11/14/2017 202 <1 --- 12.2 159 <0.05 --- 4.85 1.56 --- 8 <1 27.5 285 15 <0.1 330 <0.2 1.4 --- --- 0.416 <5 BG-02BR 01/29/2018 260 <1 28 13.1 172 <0.05 --- 7.63 2.62 <0.01 7.6 <1 31.2 306 27 <0.1 350 <0.2 2 0.897 0.00567 0.322 8 BG-02BR 04/09/2018 299 <1 167 9.51 64 0.019 j --- 15.5 1.77 <0.01 41.8 M4 <1 64.1 273 34 0.17 270 <0.2 2.5 2.339 0.00366 0.687 8 BG-02BR 07/31/2018 182 <1 50 11.7 129 <0.05 --- 7.94 <1 <0.01 12.8 <1 36.5 293 26 <0.1 330 <0.2 2 2.76 0.0042 0.241 j,B2 <5 BG-02BR 11/13/2018 12 <1 238 2.06 <5 0.019 j --- 21.1 0.399 j <0.01 59.2 <1 83.5 153 36 0.28 310 <0.2 2.5 1.26 0.000587 0.258 j 2.354 j CCR-112BR-BG 05/24/2016 --- <1 6 5.5 --- <0.05 --- <1 --- --- 2.98 <1 12.6 --- 17 --- 180 <0.2 --- 3.17 --- --- --- CCR-112BR-BG 0712012016 --- <1 <5 6.55 --- <0.05 --- 4.35 --- --- 5.17 <I 23.8 --- 22 --- 220 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- CCR-112BR-BG 09/20/2016 --- <1 <5 6.9 --- <0.05 --- 4.5 --- --- 5.73 <1 26.6 --- 21 --- 300 <0.2 --- 0.228 --- --- --- CCR-112BR-BG 1111012016 --- <1 <5 6.31 --- <0.05 --- 38.8 --- --- 4.88 <I 22.5 --- 19 --- 220 <0.2 B2 --- 1.25 --- --- --- CCR-112BR-BG 01/19/2017 --- <1 <5 6.57 --- <0.05 --- 15 --- --- 4.28 <1 23.4 --- 19 --- 200 <0.2 --- 0.208 --- --- --- CCR-112BR-BG 0311412017 --- <1 <5 6.18 --- <0.05 --- 10 --- --- 3.84 <I 20.3 --- 19 --- 210 <0.2 --- 0.159 --- --- --- CCR-112BR-BG 05/04/2017 --- <1 <5 6.33 B4 --- <0.05 --- 8.91 --- --- 3.89 <1 21.5 --- 20 --- 170 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- CCR-112BR-BG 07/20/2017 --- <1 <5 6.35 --- <0.05 --- 12.3 --- --- 4.46 <1 26.8 --- 19 --- 190 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- CCR-112BR-BG 0911312017 --- <1 <5 6.24 --- <0.05 --- 7.73 --- --- 4.64 <I 21.7 --- 19 --- 200 <0.2 --- 0.757 --- --- --- CCR-112BR-BG 01/23/2018 --- <1 7 B2 6.28 --- <0.05 --- 8.63 --- --- 4.03 <1 23.1 --- 19 --- 200 <0.2 --- 0.912 --- --- --- CCR-112BR-BG 05/16/2018 --- <1 2.938 j 6.05 --- <0.05 --- 7.45 --- --- 3.8 <1 22 --- 19 --- 200 <0.2 --- 0.88 --- --- --- CCR-112BR-BG 10/08/2018 --- <1 3.604 j 5.86 --- <0.05 --- 6.69 --- --- 4.06 <1 21.6 --- 19 --- 170 <0.2 --- 0.851 --- --- --- MW-10BR 05/27/2015 33 <1 --- 20.6 478 <0.05 <10 24.1 2.44 0.225 9.05 <1 36.5 194 40 <0.1 350 <0.2 1.1 --- --- 2.09 <5 MW-10BR 0612912015 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- MW-10BR 09/12/2015 46 <1 --- 20.8 840 <0.05 <10 24.3 <1 0.083 9.28 <1 37.6 201 40 <0.1 350 <0.2 1 --- --- 1.34 <5 MW-lOBR 12/04/2015 65 <1 --- 19 811 <0.05 <10 23.3 <1 0.079 9.29 <1 37.5 196 41 <0.2 330 <0.2 0.992 --- --- 1.3 <5 MW-10BR 0110612016 87 <1 --- 19.8 752 <0.05 <10 22.7 <I 0.049 9.21 <I 36.7 196 42 <0.1 370 <0.2 0.902 --- --- 1.28 <5 MW-10BR 04/07/2016 91 <1 --- 18.1 481 <0.05 <10 19 <1 0.136 8.41 <1 37.2 181 41 <0.1 330 <0.2 0.952 0.771 0.00309 1.51 51 MW-10BR 0511912016 --- <1 5 20 --- <0.05 --- 17.9 --- --- 8.67 <1 36.7 --- 41 --- 360 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-10BR 07/14/2016 50 <1 --- 19.7 518 <0.05 <10 19.2 <1 0.082 10 <1 40 191 41 <0.1 340 <0.2 0.993 1.49 0.00301 1.68 <5 MW-10BR 0711412016 --- <1 7 18.9 --- <0.05 --- 18.7 --- --- 8.98 <1 36 --- 41 --- 430 <0.2 --- 1.49 --- --- --- MW-10BR 09/14/2016 54 <1 --- 18.3 446 <0.05 <10 18.4 <1 0.152 9.11 <1 36.7 188 41 <0.1 820 <0.2 1.1 0.621 0.00278 2.04 <5 MW-10BR 0911412016 --- <1 6 19.3 --- <0.05 --- 18 --- --- 9.04 <1 36.8 M4 --- 43 --- 370 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-10BR 1110912016 31 <1 --- 17.7 362 <0.05 <10 N2 19.6 <I 0.251 7.51 <I 35.6 160 42 <0.1 230 <0.2 B2 0.992 0.756 0.0029 2.68 <5 MW-10BR 1110912016 <1 5 19.3 <0.05 --- 19.8 --- 7.87 <1 38.9 --- 40 --- 360 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-10BR 0111712017 <1 <5 19.1 <0.05 --- 17 --- 8.24 1 <I 37.8 --- 41 --- 350 <0.2 --- 0.71 --- --- --- MW-10BR 0112612017 17 <1 18.1 333 <0.05 <10 N2 16.3 <I 0.213 8.1 <I 1 37 176 40 <0.1 330 <0.2 1 0.966 <RL 0.00309 1 2.91 <5 Page 6 of 12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Analytical Parameter 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 Fluoride Reporting Unit S.U. (gTt �C p52/cm mg/L mV mV NTU mg-CaCO,/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg-CaCO,/L pg/L pg/L mg/L mg-CaCO,/L mg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results MW-10BR 03/14/2017 7.0 23.20 11 548 2.84 S -15 190 1.02 230 --- <1 <1 153 <1 --- <50 <1 50.9 --- 21 132 <1 --- 21.7 --- 0.28 MW-10BR 0411812017 7.0 23.35 18 567 0.51 16 221 0.46 234 <5 <I <1 145 <1 234 <50 <I 50.7 <5 18 <1 0.14 19.9 <1 --- MW-10BR 0510312017 7.1 23.25 18 549 1.30 -16 189 0.45 210 --- <1 <1 155 <1 --- <50 <1 52.8 --- 19 <1 --- 20.4 --- 0.36 MW-10BR 07/19/2017 6.8 22.74 21 556 2.02 32 237 0.29 229 <5 <1 <1 138 <1 229 <50 <1 48.3 <5 18 <1 0.17 18.4 <1 --- MW-10BR 0711912017 6.8 22.74 21 556 2.02 32 237 0.29 210 --- <1 <1 137 <1 --- <50 <1 49.3 --- 18 <1 --- 19.7 --- 0.33 MW-10BR 0911112017 7.0 23.68 17 536 0.43 22 227 0.33 220 --- <1 <I 136 <1 --- <50 <1 51.9 82 --- 19 <1 --- 18 --- 0.35 MW-10BR 11/20/2017 7.0 24.62 15 547 1.31 50 255 0.25 245 <5 <1 <1 129 <1 245 <50 <1 47.3 <5 18 <1 0.11 M1 17.6 <1 --- MW-10BR 01/24/2018 6.9 24.90 14 556 1.31 36 241 0.50 224 <5 <1 <1 127 <1 224 <50 <1 49.4 <5 18 <1 0.19 16.1 <1 0.39 MW-10BR 0112412018 6.9 24.90 14 556 1.31 S 36 241 0.50 220 --- <1 <1 122 <1 --- <50 <1 50.7 --- 19 <1 --- 16.5 --- 0.51 MW-10BR 04/10/2018 6.9 24.32 16 550 1.46 9 214 0.51 233 1.945 j <1 <1 141 <1 233 <50 <1 49.2 <5 20 <1 0.13 19.2 <1 0.39 MW-10BR 0511512018 6.9 23.76 20 557 0.63 14 219 0.67 220 --- <I <I 132 <1 --- <50 <I 49.6 --- 19 <1 --- 16.4 --- 0.38 MW-10BR 1 07/30/2018 7.0 24.16 20 548 0.70 104 309 1.30 1 226 1 4.853 j <1 <1 125 <1 226 <50 <1 48.4 1 <5 18 <1 1 0.14 15.8 0.457 j 0.35 MW-10BR 1010912018 6.9 23.04 18 541 0.66 162 367 0.62 227 --- <I <I 1 118 <1 --- <50 <I 48.8 --- 19 <1 --- 12.9 --- 0.4 MW-10BR 11/14/2018 6.9 22.70 15 525 0.78 44 249 3.10 208 2.16 j <1 <1 122 <1 208 <50 <1 47.7 <5 19 <1 0.24 13.3 <1 0.32 MW-14BR 06/10/2015 7.0 48.49 20 662 0.80 -128 245 4.00 250 12 <1 <1 32 <1 250 <50 <1 71.2 <10 40 <1 --- 1.1 1.69 --- -7-.4 49.47 4-8 638 9 9 --77 42-8 2940 2-79 2-24 <4 a 37 -<4 249 --50 <4 67E.7E -<48 40 3-&5 MW-14BR 12/06/2015 7.1 50.32 15 631 0.48 -106 99 6.28 276 <100 <0.5 <0.5 34 <0.2 276 <50 <0.08 71.3 <5 41.9 2.8 <0.03 0.94 1.9 --- MW-14BR 0110612016 7.0 49.95 7 618 0.88 70 275 6.18 269 57 <1 <1 38 <1 269 <50 <1 67.6 <5 43 1.98 <0.03 1.25 1 2.16 MW-14BR 04/08/2016 7.2 47.00 16 630 0.52 -115 90 8.75 273 15 <1 <1 32 <1 273 <50 <1 65.3 <5 41 2.11 <0.03 M1 1.86 <1 --- MW-14BR 07/14/2016 7.3 46.15 20 653 0.58 -108 97 9.50 293 53 <1 <1 37 <1 293 <50 <1 69.2 <5 42 10.9 <0.03 <1 <1 --- MW-14BR 0910812016 7.2 46.55 21 644 0.33 -195 10 8.78 272 69 <1 <1 35 <1 272 <50 <1 64.6 <5 41 3.41 <0.03 1.89 1.69 --- MW-14BR 11/10/2016 7.4 S 47.82 16 610 0.60 -95 110 5.88 273 19 <1 <1 34 <1 273 <50 <1 64.4 <5 40 4.16 1.7 3.13 <1 MW-14BR 01/26/2017 7.2 48.22 17 650 0.38 -83 122 3.75 282 16 <1 <1 33 <1 282 <50 <1 66.7 <5 41 <1 0.22 2.02 <1 --- MW-14BR 04/17/2017 7.2 48.15 19 644 0.54 -71 134 3.66 271 16 <1 <1 32 <1 271 <50 <1 65.2 <5 39 <1 0.65 2.25 <1 --- MW-14BR 07/20/2017 7.1 46.58 20 632 0.53 -39 166 8.01 265 54 <1 <1 33 <1 265 <50 <1 63.9 M4 <5 42 1.44 <0.12 D3 2.12 <1 MW-14BR 11/20/2017 7.6 49.03 15 619 0.89 -88 117 9.40 276 13 <1 <1 30 <1 276 <50 <1 60.5 <5 44 <1 <0.025 10.4 <1 --- MW-14BR 01/29/2018 7.3 50.25 12 632 0.46 -88 117 6.80 270 57 <1 <1 31 <1 270 <50 <1 66.9 <5 42 <1 <0.025 2.25 <1 0.23 MW-14BR 04/11/2018 7.1 50.97 15 637 0.31 -48 157 4.45 307 23 <1 0.334 j 34 <1 307 <50 <1 68.4 <5 43 0.799 j <0.025 2.58 0.415 j 0.16 MW-14BR 07/25/2018 7.3 50.27 19 638 1.83 -74 131 3.80 264 33 0.373 j 0.479 j 35 <1 264 <50 <1 65.5 <5 47 0.895 j <0.025 4.22 0.631 j 0.18 MW-14BR 11/13/2018 7.2 48.85 15 644 0.30 -62 143 2.10 244 6 <1 0.503 j 36 <1 244 <50 <1 64.1 <5 52 <1 <0.025 2.68 0.377 j 0.15 MW-15BR 15 09/12/2015 8.3 11.66 21 497 0.50 i63 -159 253 46 3.00 298 170 377 <1 <1 19 <1 170 <50 <1 645 48.7 <10 34 34 <1 --- <1 <1 --- MW-15BR 12/05/2015 8.3 9.05 14 430 1 0.27 -153 52 2.19 149 200 <0.5 0.59 15 <0.2 149 <50 <0.08 41.4 <5 33.2 <0.5 <0.03 <0.5 <1 --- MW-15BR 0110512016 7.6 7.74 10 429 0.49 50 255 2.26 145 164 <1 <1 16 <1 145 <50 <1 38 <5 34 <1 <0.03 <1 <1 --- MW-15BR 04/07/2016 7.7 7.65 16 481 0.34 -199 6 7.30 178 343 <1 <1 18 <1 178 <50 <1 48.1 <5 37 1.01 <0.03 <1 <1 --- MW-15BR 0511912016 7.8 8.00 14 486 0.60 -147 58 7.21 190 --- <1 <1 23 <1 --- <50 <1 58.3 --- 38 <1 --- <1 --- 0.16 82 MW-15BR 07/12/2016 8.0 8.28 20 472 0.23 -202 4 2.15 168 131 <1 <1 15 <1 168 <50 <1 46.5 <5 37 3.62 0.038 <1 <1 --- MW-15BR 0711212016 8.0 8.28 20 472 0.23 -202 4 2.15 150 H2 --- <1 <1 14 <1 --- <50 <1 45.5 82 --- 37 3.23 --- <1 --- 0.14 MW-15BR 0910812016 7.9 9.85 22 525 0.35 -230 -25 7.03 189 98 <1 <I 16 <1 189 <50 <1 54.3 <5 37 <1 0.033 M1 <I <1 --- MW-15BR 0910812016 7.9 9.85 22 525 0.35 -230 1 -25 7.03 190 --- <1 <I 20 <1 --- <50 <1 61.7 82 --- 38 1.32 --- <I --- 0.13 MW-15BR 11/09/2016 7.7 11.04 16 498 1.00 -58 147 4.66 243 169 <1 <1 19 <1 240 <50 <1 70.8 M4 <5 38 1.49 0.67 <1 <1 --- MW-15BR 1110912016 7.7 11.04 16 498 1.00 -58 147 4.66 230 --- <1 <I 22 <1 --- <50 <I 81.6 82 --- 38 1.69 --- <I --- <1 MW-15BR 0111712017 7.8 9.66 14 499 0.38 -93 112 6.06 190 --- <1 <I 21 <1 --- <50 <I 62.2 --- 39 1.32 --- <I --- <0.1 MW-15BR 01/25/2017 7.6 8.88 17 567 OAS -119 86 4.16 217 146 <1 <1 20 <1 217 <50 <1 65.5 <5 39 1.07 0.19 <1 <1 --- MW-15BR 0311412017 7.4 9.62 6 553 3.85 46 251 3.68 190 --- <1 <1 20 <1 --- <50 <I 55.9 --- 37 82 1.53 --- <1 --- <0.1 MW-15BR 04/13/2017 7.3 9.80 14 524 0.98 -93 112 3.20 233 58 <1 <1 20 <1 233 <50 <1 69.8 <5 36 1.07 0.95 <1 <1 --- MW-15BR 0510112017 7.5 8.94 19 557 0.92 -108 97 2.89 210 --- <1 <1 23 <1 --- <50 <1 68.1 --- 40 <1 --- <1 --- <0.1 MW-15BR 07/19/2017 7.4 9.42 18 528 0.48 -102 103 3.12 195 115 <1 <1 20 <1 195 <50 <1 73.1 <5 39 1.71 0.1 <1 <1 --- MW-15BR 0711912017 7.4 9.42 18 528 0.48 -102 103 3.12 210 --- <1 <1 19 <1 --- <50 <1 75.4 --- 38 1.68 --- <1 --- <0.1 MW-15BR 0911112017 7.7 10.72 16 540 0.36 -123 82 2.91 200 --- <1 <1 16 <1 --- <50 <I 69.5 82 --- 40 <1 --- <1 --- 0.11 MW-15BR 11/16/2017 7.9 11.86 16 560 0.43 -121 84 1.79 243 57 <1 <1 17 <1 243 <50 <1 69.4 <5 38 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 --- MW-15BR 0112412018 7.7 12.45 13 538 0.37 S -77 128 1.70 220 --- <1 <1 16 <1 --- <50 <1 64.3 --- 41 <1 --- <I --- <0.1 MW-15BR 01/24/2018 7.1 12.45 13 538 0.37 -77 128 1.70 236 42 <1 <1 16 <1 236 <50 <1 64.1 <5 41 <1 0.038 <1 <1 0.14 MW-15BR 04/10/2018 7.6 9.31 15 551 0.54 93 298 1.60 220 41 <1 0.403 j 1 18 <1 220 <50 <1 63.9 <5 43 0.537 j <0.025 M1 <1 0.358 j 0.13 MW-15BR 0511512018 7.6 9.45 18 581 0.66 -104 101 3.39 220 --- <1 0.543 j 17 <1 --- <50 <1 65.9 --- 41 0.583 j --- <1 --- 0.12 MW-15BR 07/30/2018 7.5 9.27 31 559 0.93 102 307 2.00 239 M1 82 <1 <1 16 <1 239 <50 <1 61.9 <5 41 0.365 j 0.091 <1 <1 0.0877 j MW-15BR 1010912018 7.8 7.93 20 503 1.33 -69 136 0.60 229 --- <1 <I 16 <1 18.259 j <1 67 --- 42 0.431 j --- <1 --- 0.0895 j MW-15BR 11/14/2018 7.5 6.23 14 546 0.40 -137 68 2.10 210 1 58 1 <1 <1 17 <1 210 <50 <1 65.3 <5 42 0.632 ' B2 1 0.039 1 <1 <1 0.0746 Page 7 of 12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Analytical Parameter Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate + Nitrite Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide TDS Thallium TOC Total Radium Total Uranium Vanadium Zinc Reporting Unit 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 MW-10BR 03/14/2017 --- <1 <5 19.1 --- <0.05 --- 15 --- --- 8.13 <1 36.9 --- 48 --- 340 <0.2 --- 0.525 --- --- --- MW-10BR 0411812017 <10 <1 --- 18.2 352 <0.05 <10 14.1 <1 0.229 7.65 <I 36.8 169 40 <0.1 M1 330 <0.2 0.98 <RL 0.00308 2.9 <5 MW-10BR 0510312017 --- <1 6 18.8 --- <0.05 --- 14 --- --- 8.09 <I 38.5 --- 43 --- 320 <0.2 --- 0.219 --- --- --- MW-10BR 07/19/2017 <10 <1 --- 17.5 289 <0.05 --- 13.4 <1 --- 7 <1 36.2 174 46 <0.1 320 <0.2 B3 0.97 132,133 0.485 0.00304 2.69 <5 MW-10BR 0711912017 --- <1 <5 18 --- <0.05 --- 14.1 --- --- 7.18 <I 36.8 --- 40 --- 330 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-10BR 0911112017 --- <1 <5 18.1 --- <0.05 --- 13.1 --- --- 7.16 <I 37.182 --- 40 --- 330 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-10BR 11/20/2017 <10 <1 --- 18 199 <0.05 --- 11.8 <1 --- 7.06 <1 36.5 161 39 <0.1 320 <0.2 0.923 0.858 0.00288 2.88 <5 MW-10BR 01/24/2018 <10 <1 6 17.6 239 <0.05 --- 12 <1 0.254 6.64 <1 37.4 Bl 177 40 <0.1 320 <0.2 0.978 0.361 0.00297 2.89 <5 MW-10BR 0112412018 --- <1 5 18.3 --- <0.05 --- 11.9 --- --- 6.32 <I 35.7 --- 41 --- 340 <0.2 --- 2.079 --- --- --- MW-10BR 04/10/2018 8.903 j <1 9 B2 18.1 246 <0.05 --- 11.5 <1 0.238 6.86 <1 36.8 178 42 <0.1 340 <0.2 0.922 1.347 0.00278 2.82 <5 MW-10BR 0511512018 --- <1 4.561 j 18.3 --- <0.05 --- 11.9 --- --- 6.73 <I 36.8 82 --- 39 --- 320 <0.2 --- 1.304 --- --- --- MW-10BR 07/30/2018 5.719 j <1 4.475 j 17.9 191 1 <0.05 1 10.8 0.34 j 0.257 6.5 <1 36.9 B2 167 39 <0.1 340 <0.2 1.1 0.809 0.00261 2.78 <5 MW-10BR 1010912018 --- <i 1 4.179 j 17.7 --- <0.05 --- 10.3 --- --- 6.14 0.41 j 36.2 -- 39 --- 320 <0.2 --- 0.861 --- --- MW-10BR 11/14/2018 14 <1 5 18.3 B2 135 0.026 j --- 10.4 <1 0.273 6.35 0.364 j 35.9 166 39 <0.1 310 <0.2 0.995 1.021 0.00238 3.03 <5 MW-14BR 06/10/2015 898 <1 --- 29.3 328 <0.05 <10 1.43 <1 <0.01 5.52 <1 22 165 15 <0.1 370 <0.2 1 --- --- 0.444 54 Mw 44BR o^gbl--� 2990 F1 - 2-8 395NNW: 4.2-7 84-7 0 0i7 2 <4 2-2.4 3-&9 4-3 <$1 4-IL0 -0.2 3. - 3 84 2-3 MW-14BR 12/06/2015 2200 <0.1 --- 27.8 340 <0.2 22.8 1 2.5 <0.02 7.93 <0.5 25.4 180 11.3 <0.1 358 <0.1 1.4 --- --- --- 17 MW-14BR 0110612016 1780 <1 --- 27.2 291 <0.05 25.8 1.44 1.8 0.014 7.19 <I 22.1 175 12 <0.1 390 <0.2 0.943 --- --- 0.362 45 MW-14BR 04/08/2016 1160 <1 --- 29.4 286 1 <0.05 <10 1.39 2.72 1 <0.01 6.53 <1 1 22.2 159 13 <0.1 380 <0.2 0.944 2.45 0.000148 j <0.3 5 MW-14BR 07/14/2016 1150 <1 --- 28.6 281 <0.05 <10 4.84 <1 <0.01 8.52 <1 24.7 181 11 <0.1 360 <0.2 1.1 2.01 0.000163 j 0.745 12 MW-14BR 0910812016 1960 <1 --- 27.4 350 <0.05 166 1.49 2.06 <0.01 7.23 <I 22.7 176 11 <0.1 360 <0.2 1.1 2.157 0.000158 j 0.423 17 MW-14BR 11/10/2016 1340 <1 --- 26 348 <0.05 129 N2 1.44 4.92 <0.01 M2 6.7 <1 21.6 175 12 <0.1 360 <0.2 1 B2 1.18 0.00015 j <0.3 7 MW-14BR 01/26/2017 1220 <1 --- 1 29.7 304 <0.05 1 71.3 N2 1.53 1.57 <0.01 6.52 <1 22.2 165 13 <0.1 350 <0.2 1.1 2.076 0.000182 j 0.43 <5 MW-14BR 04/17/2017 1230 <1 --- 27.6 291 <0.05 122 1.42 1.33 0.016 6.32 <1 22.3 164 13 <0.1 360 <0.2 B3 1.1 1.381 0.000175 j <0.3 <5 MW-14BR 07/20/2017 1280 <1 --- 26.8 273 <0.05 --- 2.52 2.06 --- 6.68 <1 22.8 169 14 <0.1 350 1 <0.2 1.1 1.975 0.00021 0.486 <5 MW-14BR 11/20/2017 881 <1 --- 26.2 229 <0.05 --- 2.48 1.03 --- 6.74 <1 23.2 159 13 <0.1 350 <0.2 1.1 2.3 1 0.00161 0.327 5 MW-14BR 01/29/2018 1320 <1 9 27.2 314 <0.05 --- 1.87 1.21 0.025 6.66 <1 23.3 175 13 <0.1 Rl 370 <0.2 1.1 1.144 0.00023 0.313 16 MW-14BR 04/11/2018 1320 <1 5 28.2 352 <0.05 --- 1.74 1.15 0.013 6.37 <1 23.6 168 13 <0.1 350 0.174 j 1 0.724 0.000222 0.251 j 9 MW-14BR 07/25/2018 1730 <1 1 3.699 j 28.5 397 <0.05 --- 3.08 1.05 0.0035 j 6.16 <1 23.4 183 13 <0.1 360 <0.2 1.2 1.388 0.000328 0.522 6 MW-14BR 11/13/2018 1640 <1 3.154 j 30 353 0.018 j --- 4.04 <1 <0.01 6.38 <1 24.2 197 13 <0.1 340 <0.2 1.1 1.88 0.000296 0.133 j <5 MW-15BR /" .!U11M 09/12/2015 456 F1MEAM <1 --- 10.6 30 <0.05 <10 IMEEME 10.8 1.42 0.027 7.88 <1 1 32.9 711=11001 110 26 <0.1 300 ME <0.2 1 1.6 ME --- - --- 3.533 IME 0.369 <5 MW-15BR 12/05/2015 230 <0.1 --- 8.52 19 <0.2 <10 11 0.61 <0.02 8.14 <0.5 36.1 90 19.7 0.428 231 <0.1 1.2 --- --- --- <10 MW-15BR 0110512016 262 <1 --- 7.76 10 <0.05 <10 13.8 <I 0.01 7.58 <1 35.3 92 22 <0.1 280 <0.2 0.694 --- --- <0.3 <5 MW-15BR 04/07/2016 637 <1 --- 8.44 29 <0.05 <10 9.14 1.24 <0.01 6.05 <1 34.1 72 25 <0.1 300 <0.2 0.755 2.64 0.00047 0.441 <5 MW-15BR 0511912016 --- <i I <5 12.5 --- <0.05 --- 8.74 --- --- 5.52 <1 31.3 --- 27 --- 340 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-15BR 07/12/2016 399 <1 --- 8.71 25 <0.05 <10 20.9 <1 <0.01 5.51 <1 41.9 64 30 <0.1 300 <0.2 0.77 <RL 0.000285 0.354 <5 MW-15BR 0711212016 --- <1 <5 7.73 --- <0.05 --- 19.5 --- --- 1 4.84 <1 37.1 --- 30 --- 300 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-15BR 0910812016 569 <1 --- 10.8 35 <0.05 <10 9.47 <1 <0.01 5.03 <1 1 32.6 76 27 0.36 310 <0.2 1 0.753 <RL 0.000503 <0.3 <5 MW-15BR 0910812016 --- <1 <5 13.2 --- <0.05 --- 12.5 --- --- 4.67 <I 30.7 --- 32 --- 290 <0.2 --- 0.557 --- --- --- MW-15BR 11/09/2016 982 <1 --- 16.6 47 <0.05 <10 N2 16.8 1.86 <0.01 4.59 <1 24.9 140 28 <0.1 360 <0.2 0.782 1.16 0.000745 0.488 <5 MW-15BR 1110912016 --- <1 <5 18.7 --- <0.05 --- 15.5 --- --- 4.92 <I 27.6 --- 29 --- 370 <0.2 --- 0.547 --- --- --- MW-15BR 0111712017 --- <i I <5 13.6 --- <0.05 --- 19.7 --- --- 5.01 <1 33.2 --- 29 --- 320 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-15BR 01/25/2017 838 <1 --- 15.2 49 <0.05 <10 N2 11.4 1.18 <0.01 5.03 <1 28.2 141 29 <0.1 350 <0.2 0.776 1 0.611 0.000535 0.456 62 <5 MW-15BR 0311412017 --- <1 <5 12.4 --- <0.05 --- 15.1 --- --- 5.26 <1 32.1 --- 27 --- 330 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-15BR 04/13/2017 806 <1 --- 15.9 49 <0.05 <10 Ll 6.05 <1 <0.01 5 <1 26.6 136 27 <0.1 350 <0.2 0.813 <RL 0.000482 <0.3 <5 MW-15BR 0510112017 --- <1 5 15 --- <0.05 --- 11.4 --- --- 5.46 <1 32.2 81 --- 30 --- 340 <0.2 --- 0.18 --- --- --- MW-15BR 07/19/2017 1110 <1 --- 18.5 53 <0.05 --- 7.17 1.43 --- 5.66 <1 25.7 148 32 <0.1 300 <0.2 B3 0.879 132,133 <RL 0.000704 0.333 <5 MW-15BR 0711912017 --- <1 6 17.9 --- <0.05 --- 7.39 --- --- 5.88 <1 26.3 --- 30 --- 320 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-15BR 0911112017 --- <i 1 <5 15 --- <0.05 --- 13.2 --- --- 5.06 <1 31.2 82 --- 33 --- 350 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-15BR 11/16/2017 751 <1 --- 16.3 43 <0.05 --- 6.42 <1 --- 5.76 <1 27.4 112 30 <0.1 440 <0.2 1.7 <RL 0.000575 0.435 <5 MW-15BR 0112412018 --- <1 21 15.5 --- <0.05 --- 14.9 --- --- 8.56 <I 31.1 --- 33 --- 350 <0.2 --- 0.611 --- --- --- MW-15BR 01/24/2018 667 <1 21 14.9 33 <0.05 --- 14.9 1.47 0.02 8.51 <1 31.4 Bl 133 32 <0.1 390 <0.2 0.868 0.7 0.000909 0.45 <5 MW-15BR 04/10/2018 657 <1 10 B2 14.5 36 <0.05 --- 15.1 0.631 j 0.151 5.43 <1 32.3 138 33 <0.1 350 0.088 j 0.737 0.4489 0.000691 0.271 j <5 MW-15BR 0511512018 --- <1 3.259 j 15.2 --- <0.05 --- 10.5 --- --- 4.81 <1 30.1 82 --- 29 --- 330 <0.2 --- 0.0575 --- --- --- MW-15BR 07/30/2018 575 <1 8 14.2 38 <0.05 --- 12.1 0.698 j 0.013 6.14 <1 30.1 B2 121 32 <0.1 380 <0.2 0.818 0.895 0.000549 0.238 j <5 MW-15BR 1010912018 --- <1 7 15.1 --- 1 <0.05 7.69 --- --- 6.1 <1 29 --- 31 --- 340 <0.2 --- 0.4052 --- --- -- MW-15BR 11/14/2018 598 B2 <1 16 15.2 41 1 0.025 j 11.3 0.402 ' 0.033 1 7.74 <1 31.5 1 126 1 33 1 <0.1 320 <0.2 0.jL__j 0.6186 0.000611 0.282 ' <5 Page 8 of 12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Analytical Parameter 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 Fluoride Reporting Unit S.U. (gTt 'C p52/cm mg/L mV mV NTU mg-CaCO,/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg-CaCO,/L pg/L pg/L mg/L mg-CaCO,/L mg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results MW-18BR 06/02/2015 7.5 46.22 18 784 0.40 -232 -27 9.60 180 55 <1 <1 77 <1 180 <50 <1 95.4 <10 120 <1 --- 20.1 <1 --- MW-18BR 0612912015 8.0 46.29 18 802 1.26 22 227 4.33 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- MW-18BR 09/14/2015 8.0 47.15 18 739 0.30 -200 5 6.55 140 44 <1 <1 52 <1 140 <50 <1 82 <10 130 2.23 --- 1.03 <1 --- MW-18BR 12/05/2015 7.9 47.52 15 746 0.13 -190 15 7.64 168 <100 <0.5 <0.5 49 <0.2 168 <50 <0.08 89 <5 124 0.99 <0.03 1.9 <1 --- MW-ISBR 01/05/2016 7.6 47.05 14 757 0.22 -127 78 5.56 195 71 <I <I 62 <I 195 <50 <I 94.5 <5 120 4.24 <0.03 1.63 <I --- MW-18BR 04/08/2016 8.3 45.44 14 765 0.18 30 235 4.68 191 10 <1 <1 51 <1 191 <50 <1 89.3 <5 120 <1 <0.03 <1 <1 --- MW-18BR 0511912016 8.4 45.26 15 768 0.20 -231 -26 9.78 180 --- <1 <1 49 <1 --- <50 <1 80 --- 130 5.15 --- <1 --- <0.5 82 44.() 44-95 49 864 6:28 196 99 9.25 242 42 5-S K0 - - <-5 42-0 4. 1:4 = <4 - 44.() 44?95 49 864 6:28 106 99 9.25 470 - <4 -<4 5-3 -<4 - F58 -<4 83 B2 - 128 1.-" - 145 - 0,46 09/13/2016 9-.6 45.27 48 644 033 345 i46 5:88 444 27 <4 -<4 46 -<4 444 K0 <4 54.2 Fs 420 e4 F .03 <4 <4 - MW-18BR 09i=3i2046 9-.6 45.27 48 644 0.13 -345 -140 140 - F4 F4 46 E4 - F50 - 430 F4 - 9.z} MW-18BR 11/09/2016 7.7 NM 15 807 0.24 -163 42 1.26 211 7 <1 <1 47 <1 211 <50 <1 97.2 <5 120 <1 1.4 <1 <1 --- MW-18BR 1110912016 7.7 NM 15 807 0.24 -163 42 1.26 200 --- <I <I 49 <1 --- <50 <1 102 B2 --- 120 <1 --- <I --- 0.12 MW-18BR 0111712017 7.9 46.28 14 734 0.27 -158 48 7.36 190 --- <I I <I 50 1 <1 --- <50 <I 100 --- 130 <1 --- 1.77 --- <0.5 MW-18BR 01/25/2017 7.7 46.11 16 771 1.86 S -160 45 0.88 183 9 <1 <1 50 <1 183 <50 <1 89.7 <5 140 <1 <0.12 D3,M1 <1 <1 --- MW-18BR 0311412017 7.8 46.11 13 764 0.28 -100 105 2.49 190 --- <I <I 50 <1 --- <50 <I 96.6 --- 130 B2 <1 --- <I --- <0.5 MW-18BR 04/13/2017 7.9 46.37 17 796 0.35 -178 27 0.57 200 6 <1 <1 48 <1 200 <50 <1 103 M4 <5 120 <1 0.69 <1 <1 --- MW-18BR 0510112017 7.7 46.07 18 783 0.57 -154 51 1.24 210 --- <1 <1 52 <1 --- <50 <1 109 --- 130 <1 --- <1 --- <0.5 MW-18BR 07/19/2017 7.7 45.64 19 812 0.11 S -168 37 0.55 209 6 <1 <1 53 <1 209 <50 <1 98.4 <5 130 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 --- MW-18BR 0711912017 7.7 45.64 19 812 0.11 S -168 37 0.55 180 --- <I <I 54 <1 --- <50 <I 103 --- 130 <1 --- <I --- <0.5 MW-18BR 0911112017 7.9 46.26 16 767 0.13 -195 10 0.32 180 --- <I I <I 58 <1 --- <50 <I 1 93.9 82 --- 130 <1 --- <I --- <0.5 MW-18BR 1111612017 8.4 47.11 16 731 0.17 -218 -13 0.27 168 27 <I <I 65 <1 168 <50 <I 78.1 <5 130 <1 <0.025 <I <I --- MW-18BR 01/24/2018 7.9 48.00 14 786 0.14 -180 25 0.50 193 5 <1 <1 62 <1 193 <50 <1 93.1 <5 140 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 <0.5 MW-18BR 0112412018 7.9 48.00 14 786 0.14 S -180 25 0.50 190 --- <1 <1 61 <1 --- <50 <1 97.9 --- 140 <1 --- <1 --- <0.5 MW-18BR 04/10/2018 7.9 48.35 14 796 0.17 -175 30 2.70 196 14 <1 <1 83 <1 196 <50 <1 97.9 <5 150 <1 <0.025 0.599j <1 0.1985j MW-18BR 0511512018 8.0 48.10 17 799 0.15 -210 -5 1.01 180 --- <1 0.467 j 89 <1 --- <50 <1 91.4 --- 130 <1 --- 0.525 j --- 0.166 j MW-18BR 07/30/2018 7.9 48.09 17 796 0.03 -102 103 7.10 197 43 <1 <1 88 <1 197 <50 <1 98.2 <5 130 <1 <0.025 1.62 <1 0.2525 j MW-18BR 1010912018 7.9 47.41 18 800 0.20 -134 71 1.40 205 --- <I 0.35 j 100 <1 --- <50 <I 97.6 --- 130 <1 --- 1.02 --- 0.07 j MW-18BR 11/14/2018 8.1 46.60 14 810 0.36 -189 16 3.50 185 13 <1 0.4 j 99 <1 185 <50 <1 93.7 <5 130 1.43 B2 <0.025 1.6 <1 <0.5 MW-19BRL 06/16/2016 7.5 37.58 18 616 0.18 -140 65 6.34 190 M1 120 <1 1.39 79 <1 190 <50 <1 58.1 <5 59 <1 <0.03 2.03 <1 --- MW-19BRL 0712712016 7.2 37.70 18 634 0.18 -181 24 9.08 234 163 <1 2.6 85 <1 234 <50 <1 65.181 <5 63 <1 <0.03 1.77 1.01 --- MW-19BRL 09/28/2016 7.2 38.67 17 648 0.15 S -113 92 7.18 244 225 <1 2.39 73 <1 244 <50 <1 73.8 M4 <5 68 <1 <0.3 D3 1.33 <1 --- MW-19BRL 1111112016 7.2 38.68 16 710 0.27 -337 -132 3.80 276 65 <I 2.57 63 <1 276 <50 <I 78.7 B1 <5 70 1.04 <0.5 D3 <I <I MW-19BRL 01/26/2017 7.2 38.42 16 767 0.09 -114 91 2.64 284 44 <1 2.9 60 <1 284 <50 <1 92.3 <5 74 <1 0.56 <1 I <1 --- MW-19BRL 04/19/2017 7.4 38.68 16 714 0.20 -121 84 1.81 243 12 <1 1.81 38 <1 243 <50 <1 90.1 <5 87 <1 0.67 <1 <1 --- MW-19BRL 07/26/2017 7.2 38.16 18 712 0.07 154 359 6.84 252 33 <1 1.93 48 <1 252 <50 <1 83.7 <5 87 <1 0.69 <1 <1 --- MW-19BRL 11/17/2017 7.2 39.49 16 783 0.19 -146 59 3.76 310 <400 <1 2.84 55 <1 310 <50 <1 99.3 B2 <5 78 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 --- MW-19BRL 01/30/2018 7.1 39.76 15 787 0.30 -120 85 2.55 310 26 <1 2.45 58 <1 310 <50 <1 106 <5 80 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 <0.2 MW-19BRL 04/10/2018 7.0 38.48 16 801 0.07 -131 74 3.63 336 36 <1 2.28 56 <1 336 <50 <1 112 <5 83 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 0.19 MW-19BRL 07/27/2018 7.0 38.35 17 786 0.39 -95 110 1.50 308 21 <1 2.18 49 <1 308 <50 <1 102 <5 77 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 0.1684j MW-19BRL 11/14/2018 7.1 36.33 15 794 0.14 -81 124 4.90 283 12 <1 2.12 52 <1 283 <50 <1 107 <5 73 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 0.1434j MW-26BR 06/17/2016 7.1 37.74 17 724 0.48 18 223 7.72 364 131 <1 <1 70 <1 364 <50 <1 102 <5 35 <1 <0.03 <1 1.86 --- MW-26BR 0712812016 7.1 36.99 20 892 0.24 -96 110 6.60 360 142 <1 <1 75 <1 360 <50 <1 96.7 <5 37 <1 <0.03 <1 3.89 --- MW-26BR 09/28/2016 7.2 38.53 18 851 0.33 -68 137 9.05 363 80 <1 1.95 71 <1 363 <50 <1 89.4 M4 <5 40 <1 <0.15 D3 1.24 1.15 --- MW-26BR 1111512016 7.2 38.15 13 846 0.61 -63 142 8.86 347 79 <I 1.64 60 <1 347 <50 <I 91.6 <5 44 <1 0.52 <I <I --- MW-26BR 01/26/2017 7.1 37.64 15 876 0.15 -89 116 2.73 370 27 <1 2.13 60 <1 370 <50 <1 88.6 <5 40 <1 <0.12 D3 <1 <1 --- MW-26BR 04/13/2017 7.3 37.94 18 867 0.31 -116 89 5.32 354 39 <1 2.42 62 <1 354 <50 <1 88.7 B2 <5 38 <1 0.57 <1 <1 --- MW-26BR 07/26/2017 7.2 38.55 18 878 0.32 148 353 7.73 398 16 <1 4.42 61 <1 398 <50 <1 85.3 <5 42 <1 0.55 <1 <1 --- MW-26BR 11/20/2017 7.2 39.45 14 862 0.52 -102 103 5.29 389 58 <1 6.02 59 <1 389 <50 <1 79.1 <5 40 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 --- MW-26BR 01/30/2018 7.2 38.32 13 884 0.36 -96 109 4.19 376 59 <1 6.89 62 <1 376 <50 <1 83.9 <5 42 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 0.14 MW-26BR 04/11/2018 7.2 35.94 14 887 0.37 -109 96 6.96 388 M1 69 <1 6.67 61 <1 388 21.977 j <1 81.2 <5 41 <1 <0.025 0.661 j 0.403 j 0.13 MW-26BR 07/26/2018 7.2 36.55 18 877 1.12 -100 105 3.10 379 M1 33 <1 5.54 65 <1 379 <50 <1 85.8 <5 39 0.443 j <0.025 0.847 j 0.798 j 0.13 MW-26BR 11/14/2018 7.2 35.32 14 867 2.18 -68 137 5.90 348 14 <1 3.13 65 <1 348 <50 <1 87.8 <5 39 <1 <0.025 0.627j 0.345j 0.12 MW-29BR 02/28/2017 7.2 41.21 17 509 2.34 -13 192 2.64 240 37 <1 <1 28 <1 240 <50 <1 58.3 <5 17 1.36 0.076 <1 <1 --- MW-29BR 0411312017 7.3 40.53 16 542 0.30 -21 184 1.87 266 22 <1 <1 34 <1 266 <50 <1 59 <5 17 <1 0.038 <1 <1 MW-29BR 07/20/2017 7.2 39.85 21 544 0.25 39 244 6.66 253 107 <1 1.71 58 <1 253 <50 <1 56.5 <5 16 1.02 <0.025 <1 <1 --- MW-29BR 11/20/2017 7.6 43.46 15 533 0.45 -87 118 9.48 271 110 <1 1.36 45 <1 271 <50 <1 55.4 <5 1 15 2.51 <0.025 <1 <1 --- MW-29BR 01/29/2018 7.5 44.28 13 517 0.32 -68 137 3.75 255 84 <1 1.76 47 <1 255 <50 <1 59.3 <5 13 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 0.23 MW-29BR 04/11/2018 7.3 42.00 14 514 0.24 -12 1 193 6.80 262 115 <1 1.71 52 <1 1 262 <50 <1 60.2 <5 13 0.489 ' <0.025 0.426 ' 0.435 j 0.17 MW-29BR 07/25/2018 7.3 41.78 17 392 1 0.74 1 -75 1 130 2.00 224 17 <1 1.18 1 34 <1 1 224 <50 <1 55.6 <5 11 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 0.18 Page 9 of 12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Analytical Parameter Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate + Nitrite Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide TDS Thallium TOC Total Radium Total Uranium Vanadium Zinc Reporting Unit 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 MW-18BR 06/02/2015 95 <1 --- 19.7 789 <0.05 14 7.62 <1 <0.01 4.59 <1 19 224 16 <0.1 530 <0.2 1.7 --- --- 0.931 36 MW-18BR 0612912015 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- MW-18BR 09/14/2015 363 <1 --- 19.5 475 <0.05 21 10.5 <1 <0.01 5.75 <1 20 209 3.7 <0.2 540 <0.2 11 --- --- <0.3 <5 MW-18BR 12/05/2015 1000 <0.1 --- 20 660 <0.2 12.3 6.3 0.7 <0.02 <5 <0.5 19 230 1.5 <0.1 413 <0.1 8.7 --- --- --- <10 MW-18BR 0110512016 1260 <1 --- 21.7 874 <0.05 11.7 4.92 2.11 <0.01 4.52 <I 18.8 232 5 <0.1 530 <0.2 3 --- --- <0.3 7 MW-18BR 04/08/2016 1060 <1 --- 22.7 819 <0.05 <10 2.98 <1 <0.01 10.4 <1 20.3 213 11 <0.1 480 <0.2 3.6 3.14 0.000424 <0.3 <5 MW-18BR 0511912016 --- <1 46 18.8 --- <0.05 --- 3.6 --- --- 20.9 <I 26.3 --- 9.9 --- 500 <0.2 --- 0.964 --- --- --- 324 - i$7 295 F0 05 36r4 rB6 34-.6 391 6 430 3 76 .3 E-5 - F1 59 4.7 - Q..05 - 2-8-2 - - 24.7 F1 29.4 - 7:6 - 400 Q.2 - 1.76 - - - 373 -<4 - i34 360 Q.05 647 6..32 F&01 2{r.3 <4 29-5 497 313 Q.1 390 Q.2 7� 3.4 0.E0024 0-4it F5 - F1 4r.8 - Q.05 - - - 24. 3 F1 32-7 - - 400 .2 - 4.97 - - - MW-18BR 11/09/2016 1510 <1 --- 22.1 871 <0.05 17.7 N2 3.23 <1 <0.01 6.1 <1 17.4 249 13 <0.1 530 <0.2 1.8 0.703 0.000984 <0.3 <5 MW-18BR 1110912016 --- <1 8 23.1 --- <0.05 --- 3.13 --- --- 5.77 <I 18.1 --- 12 --- 520 <0.2 --- 0.362 --- --- --- MW-18BR 0111712017 --- <1 7 23.4 --- <0.05 --- 3.42 --- --- 5.98 <I 18.9 --- 4.6 --- 520 <0.2 --- 1.79 --- --- --- MW-18BR 01/25/2017 1250 <1 --- 22.9 902 <0.05 173 N2 4.67 <1 <0.01 8.74 <1 19.9 252 4.5 <0.1 460 <0.2 3.1 1.344 0.00017 j <0.3 B2 <5 MW-18BR 0311412017 --- I <1 10 23.1 --- <0.05 --- 3.5 --- --- 7.1 <I 18.8 --- 3.5 --- 550 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-18BR 04/13/2017 1200 <1 --- 21.8 937 <0.05 991 4.32 <1 <0.01 7.19 <1 18.9 249 5.8 <0.1 560 <0.2 2.3 0.697 0.000231 <0.3 <5 MW-18BR 0510112017 --- <1 15 23.5 --- <0.05 --- 3.95 --- --- 8.68 <I 20.5 BI --- 10 --- 580 <0.2 --- 0.706 --- --- --- MW-18BR 07/19/2017 1570 <1 --- 23.9 941 <0.05 --- 3.25 <1 --- 7.33 <1 18.6 315 11 <0.1 600 <0.2 B3 2.1 B2,B3 3.18 0.000811 <0.3 <5 MW-18BR 0711912017 --- <1 12 21.8 --- <0.05 --- 3.35 --- --- 7.66 <I 19.1 --- 11 --- 540 <0.2 --- <RL --- --- --- MW-18BR 0911112017 --- <1 20 23.1 --- <0.05 --- 5.14 --- --- 9.77 <I 20.9 B2 --- 9.6 --- 590 <0.2 --- 1.04 --- --- --- MW-18BR 1111612017 776 <1 --- 20.4 662 <0.05 --- 6.75 <I --- 10.6 <I 21.7 458 6.2 <0.1 550 <0.2 4.2 4 0.000384 0.354 <5 MW-18BR 01/24/2018 1380 <1 17 23.9 838 <0.05 --- 4.06 <1 <0.01 8.06 <1 20 Bl 369 8 <0.1 500 <0.2 2.9 1.782 0.000386 <0.3 <5 MW-18BR 0112412018 --- <1 20 23.8 --- <0.05 --- 4.01 --- --- 7.99 <I 19.8 --- 7.7 --- 540 <0.2 --- 4.005 --- --- --- MW-18BR 04/10/2018 1720 <1 14 24.1 782 <0.05 --- 3.59 0.351 j <0.01 7.86 <1 19.4 438 8.8 <0.1 580 0.153 j 2.3 3.321 0.000346 0.12 j <5 MW-18BR 0511512018 --- <1 22 21.2 --- <0.05 --- 4.2 --- --- 9.98 <I 20.6 --- 10 --- 490 <0.2 --- 1.808 --- --- --- MW-18BR 07/30/2018 1270 <1 16 24.5 833 <0.05 --- 3.09 0.424 j <0.01 8.1 <1 19.2 B2 453 12 <0.1 530 <0.2 1.9 6.695 0.000409 0.233 j 2.18 j MW-18BR 1010912018 --- <1 21 24.8 --- <0.05 --- 3.43 --- --- 9.93 <I 20.7 --- 14 --- 510 <0.2 --- 2.699 --- --- --- MW-18BR 11/14/2018 822 B2 <1 34 21.1 811 0.022 j --- 4.86 0.463 j <0.01 12.8 <1 22.2 615 16 <0.1 500 <0.2 1.8 1.75 0.000686 0.344 17 B MW-19BRL 06/16/2016 2890 <1 --- 13 1180 <0.05 584 5.08 <1 <0.01 6.49 <1 36.7 189 7.7 <0.1 380 <0.2 29 1.39 0.000332 0.602 <5 MW-19BRL 0712712016 5030 <1 --- 14 1200 <0.05 1180 CH,P2 5.08 <I <0.01 7.31 <I 39 192 0.83 <0.1 380 <0.2 26 <RL 0.000104 j 0.71 <5 MW-19BRL 09/28/2016 6220 <1 --- 14.3 M4 1050 <0.05 17200 5.41 <1 <0.01 6.46 <1 34.1 200 0.18 <0.1 430 <0.2 9.6 0.517 <0.0002 1 0.75 <5 MW-19BRL 1111112016 5720 <1 --- 15 BI 1010 <0.05 20300 N2,P2,E 8.54 <I <0.02 5.96 <I 30.2 B2 217 2.5 <0.1 420 1 <0.2 1.5 0.68 0.000357 0.488 <5 MW-19BRL 01/26/2017 5570 <1 --- 17 1110 <0.05 25800 N2,CH,P2 7.39 <1 <0.01 6.28 <1 31.1 230 5 <0.1 440 <0.2 1.9 1.84 <0.0002 <0.3 <5 MW-19BRL 04/19/2017 4520 <1 --- 16.2 1040 <0.05 18800 7.37 <1 0.011 6.32 <1 29.8 228 1.4 <0.1 450 <0.2 1.9 1.22 <0.0002 0.433 <5 MW-19BRL 07/26/2017 4360 <1 --- 15.5 916 <0.05 --- 5.89 <1 --- 6.12 <1 33.2 222 1.2 0.12 440 <0.2 1.7 1.177 <0.0002 <0.3 <5 MW-19BRL 11/17/2017 5200 <1 --- 19.8 1200 <0.05 --- 4.07 <1 --- 6.32 133 <1 31.4 241 14 0.18 490 <0.2 1.8 2.034 0.0000861 j 0.309 <20 MW-19BRL 01/30/2018 4160 <1 7 20.7 1510 <0.05 --- 2.32 <1 0.014 6.63 <1 34.6 132„133 256 14 0.29 470 <0.2 2 1.007 0.0000707 j 0.378 <5 MW-19BRL 04/10/2018 3770 <1 8 132 22 1340 <0.05 --- 2.31 0.457 j 0.0097 j 6.68 <1 31.2 251 11 0.18 480 0.106 j 1.8 0.7887 0.0000688 j 0.426 <5 MW-19BRL 07/27/2018 3820 <1 6 21.3 1440 <0.05 --- 3.9 <1 0.013 6.36 <1 31.5 250 17 <0.1 430 1 <0.2 1.7 1.278 <0.0002 0.476 4.399 j MW-19BRL 11/14/2018 3610 <1 6 21.3 B2 1470 0.023 j --- 2.64 <1 <0.01 6.18 <1 28.9 246 23 0.15 470 <0.2 1.8 0.882 0.000143 j 0.324 <5 MW-26BR 06/17/2016 424 <1 --- 43.7 594 <0.05 <10 4.67 1.28 0.012 8.01 <1 25.5 279 74 <0.1 550 <0.2 1.4 6.894 0.00335 1.04 B2 <5 MW-26BR 0712812016 497 <1 --- 42.9 587 <0.05 <10 6.13 1.23 <0.01 8.91 <I 33.4 281 71 <0.1 510 <0.2 2 4.24 0.00341 0.756 8 MW-26BR 09/28/2016 1000 <1 --- 39.9 M4 638 <0.05 <10 7.14 1.07 <0.01 8.56 <1 37.9 278 73 <0.1 540 <0.2 1.7 0.692 0.00367 0.622 <5 MW-26BR 1111512016 1140 <1 --- 38.9 601 <0.05 <10 N2 7.13 <I <0.01 8.22 <I 35.8 260 73 <0.1 520 <0.2 1.6 0.695 0.00418 0.303 <5 MW-26BR 01/26/2017 1160 <1 --- 39.3 562 <0.05 <10 N2 8.66 <1 <0.01 8.12 <1 38.7 255 64 <0.1 500 <0.2 1.5 <RL 0.0044 <0.3 <5 MW-26BR 04/13/2017 1280 <1 --- 39 564 <0.05 <10 Ll 8.49 <1 <0.01 8.03 <1 38.9 261 61 0.1 500 <0.2 1.5 0.406 0.004 0.392 <5 MW-26BR 07/26/2017 1530 <1 --- 37.1 547 <0.05 --- 11.8 <1 --- 7.72 <1 51.6 255 61 0.18 500 <0.2 1.4 --- --- <0.3 <5 MW-26BR 11/20/2017 1780 <1 --- 33.1 522 <0.05 --- 12.5 1.11 --- 7.78 <1 56.5 244 63 0.19 500 <0.2 1.6 --- --- 0.363 <5 MW-26BR 01/30/2018 2050 <1 <5 34 527 <0.05 --- 15.7 <1 <0.01 7.84 <1 64.8 132„133 257 66 0.14 510 <0.2 1.6 --- --- 0.403 <5 MW-26BR 04/11/2018 2090 <1 <5 33.9 520 <0.05 --- 15.5 0.818 j 0.0039 j 7.46 <1 62.8 243 64 0.17 510 0.177 j 1.5 --- --- 0.337 <5 MW-26BR 07/26/2018 2300 <1 <5 38.2 570 <0.05 --- 14.9 1.28 0.0085 j 7.97 <1 55.5 262 67 <0.1 510 0.09 j 1.6 --- --- 0.399 9 MW-26BR 11/14/2018 1620 <1 <5 36.1 132 530 0.023 j --- 14.4 0.404 j <0.01 8 <1 52.8 264 69 <0.1 510 <0.2 1.5 --- --- 0.317 <5 MW-29BR 02/28/2017 46 <1 --- 20.5 53 <0.05 <10 1.09 1.2 0.102 5.07 <1 18 137 22 <0.1 280 <0.2 1 0.664 0.00112 1.15 <5 MW-29BR 0411312017 43 <1 --- 19.7 67 <0.05 <10 LI 1.82 <1 <0.01 6.02 <I 19.8 147 19 <0.1 300 <0.2 1.1 <RL 0.00185 1.24 <5 MW-29BR 07/20/2017 293 <1 --- 19.6 128 <0.05 --- 2.53 <1 --- 7.89 <1 22.3 171 19 <0.1 320 <0.2 1.3 --- --- 0.652 <5 MW-29BR 11/20/2017 425 <1 --- 20 106 <0.05 --- 2.52 1.99 --- 6.78 <1 19.8 148 16 <0.1 300 <0.2 1.2 --- 0.555 <5 MW-29BR 01/29/2018 483 <1 <5 21 110 <0.05 --- 2.45 <1 <0.01 7.24 <1 19.9 63 160 14 <0.1 290 <0.2 0.992 --- --- 0.455 <5 MW 29BR 04/11/2018 545 <1 <5 21 108 <0.05 2.21 0.523 ' <0.01 7 <1 19.7 157 13 <0.1 260 <0.2 0.822 0.447 2.423 ' MW-29BR 07/25/2018 1 380 <1 <5 19.2 77 <0.05 2 0.443 j <0.01 5.18 <1 17.5 142 11 <0.1 270 1 <0.2 0.78 0.34 1 <5 Page 10 of 12 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Analytical Parameter 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 Fluoride Reporting Unit S.U. (gTt �C p52/cm mg/L mV mV NTU mg-CaCO3/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg-CaCO3/L pg/L pg/L mg/L mg-CaCO3/L mg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L mg/L Well ID Sample Collection Date Field Parameters Analytical Results MW-29BR 11/13/2018 7.2 37.83 15 486 1.70 -58 147 2.30 229 12 <1 0.859 j 29 <1 229 <50 <1 56.6 <5 11 <1 <0.025 <1 <1 0.15 MW-30BR 02/28/2017 6.9 64.40 16 818 0.61 -23 182 3.64 342 52 <1 <1 18 <1 342 <50 <1 112 <5 37 2.16 0.032 <1 <1 --- MW-30BR 0411312017 6.9 63.91 17 805 0.08 -68 137 2.16 321 MI 37 <1 <1 15 <1 321 <50 <1 105 <5 31 2.64 0.73 <1 <1 --- MW-30BR 07/20/2017 6.8 64.32 18 768 0.26 26 231 5.29 330 M1 132 <1 1.34 14 <1 330 <50 <1 99.4 <5 30 1.68 0.43 <1 1.01 --- MW-30BR 11/20/2017 7.2 64.60 16 775 0.17 -74 131 4.20 345 39 <1 1.22 13 <1 345 <50 <1 96.1 <5 30 1.55 <0.025 <1 <1 --- MW-30BR O1/30/2018 6.9 1 64.09 14 777 0.38 -52 153 1.94 349 33 <1 1.7 14 <1 349 <50 <1 104 <5 32 1.78 <0.025 <1 <1 1 0.11 MW-30BR 04/11/2018 6.8 64.21 15 1 782 1 0.22 13 1 218 1 2.00 334 38 <1 1.49 15 <1 334 23.429 j <1 105 <5 31 0.745 j <0.025 1 0.644 j 0.354 j 0.12 MW-30BR 07/26/2018 6.8 J 1 64.13 17 773 1.60 -46 159 2.70 331 25 <1 1.21 13 <1 331 25.522 j <1 97.2 <5 1 32 <1 <0.025 0.529 j 1 0.336 j 0.12 MW-30BR 11/13/2018 6.9 1 63.30 15 782 0.34 -42 163 2.50 308 7 <1 1.17 12 <1 308 27.242 ' <1 98.8 <5 1 32 1 <1 <0.025 0.511 ' I <1 0.09 ' Notes: Sample results invalid for use because recorded sample pH was greater than 8.5 standard units, recorded sample was turbidity greater than 10 NTU, or no sample pH or turbidity was recorded. F__1 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. 0 - 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. B4 - Target analyte was detected in Continuing Calibration Blank(s) at or above 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. 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. CC - The continuing calibration for this compound is outside of Pace Analytical acceptance limits. The result may be biased. CH - The continuing calibration for this compound is outside of Pace Analytical acceptance limits. The results may be biased high. CL - The continuing calibration for this compound is outside of Pace Analytical acceptance limits. The results may be biased low. D3 - Sample was diluted due to the presence of high levels of non -target analytes or other matrix interference. E - Percent difference of sample and SO is >10%. Sample concentration must meet flagging criteria. H1 - Analysis conducted outside the EPA method holding time. H2 - Extraction of preparation conducted outside EPA method holding time. j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit. Ll - Analyte recovery in the laboratory control sample (LCS) was above quality control (QC) limits. Results may be biased high. 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. M6 - Matrix spike and Matrix spike duplicate recovery not evaluated against control limits due to sample dilution. N2 - The lab does not hold accreditation for this parameter. P2 - Re -extraction or re -analysis could not be performed due to insufficient sample amount. Rl - Relative Percent Difference (RPD) value was outside control limits. S - Associated calibration check did not meet specified criteria. °C - degrees celsius pg/L - micrograms per liter pg/mL - microgram per milliliter p4/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 Prepare By: JHG Checked By: KTL Pagellofl2 TABLE 2 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Analytical Parameter Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury Methane Molybdenum Nickel Nitrate + Nitrite Potassium Selenium Sodium Strontium Sulfate Sulfide TDS Thallium TOC Total Radium Total Uranium Vanadium Zinc Reporting Unit 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 MW-29BR 11/13/2018 331 <1 <5 19.3 81 0.021 j --- 1.88 <1 <0.01 4.94 <1 17.3 141 11 <0.1 260 <0.2 0.553 --- --- 0.169 j <5 MW-30BR 02/28/2017 828 <1 --- 27.7 1170 <0.05 116 6.26 2.01 <0.01 4.91 1.19 32.1 287 77 <0.1 510 <0.2 2.3 0.638 0.00605 0.767 <5 MW-30BR 0411312017 1260 <1 --- 25.5 1110 <0.05 88.8 6.11 1.71 <0.01 5.31 <I 31.6 288 64 <0.1 M1 480 <0.2 1.9 0.684 0.00357 0.3 <5 MW-30BR 07/20/2017 1650 <1 --- 22.8 1070 <0.05 --- 5.91 1.43 --- 4.71 <1 29.5 289 65 <0.1 460 <0.2 1.9 --- --- 0.599 <5 MW-30BR 11/20/2017 1720 <1 --- 23.1 956 <0.05 --- 5.18 1.09 --- 4.57 <1 29.4 271 60 <0.1 470 <0.2 1.7 --- --- <0.3 <5 MW-30BR O1/30/2018 2110 <1 6 24.2 1050 <0.05 5.06 1.7 <0.01 4.62 <1 32.9 B2„B3 304 63 <0.1 470 <0.2 1.9 --- --- 0.31 <5 MW-30BR 04/11/2018 2290 <1 2.981 j 24.7 1080 <0.05 --- 4.6 0.815 j 0.0035 j 4.53 1 <1 1 33 305 1 61 1 <0.1 450 <0.2 1 1.8 --- 1 0.269 j <5 MW-30BR 07/26/2018 2180 <1 3.406 j 23.8 1070 <0.05 --- 4.66 0.601 j 0.0068 j 4.36 <1 31.6 298 62 <0.1 450 <0.2 1.8 --- 0.302 3.02 j MW-30BR 11/13/2018 2080 <1 2.872 ' 24.2 1080 <0.05 --- 4.97 <1 <0.01 4.28 <1 30.5 294 63 <0.1 470 <0.2 1.7 --- --- 0.222 ' <5 Notes: Sample results invalid for use because recorded sample pH was greater than 8.5 standard units, recorded sample was turbidity greater than 10 NTU, or no sample pH or turbidity was recorded. F__1 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. 0 - 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. B4 - Target analyte was detected in Continuing Calibration Blank(s) at or above 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. 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. CC - The continuing calibration for this compound is outside of Pace Analytical acceptance limits. The result may be biased. CH - The continuing calibration for this compound is outside of Pace Analytical acceptance limits. The results may be biased high. CL - The continuing calibration for this compound is outside of Pace Analytical acceptance limits. The results may be biased low. D3 - Sample was diluted due to the presence of high levels of non -target analytes or other matrix interference. E - Percent difference of sample and SO is >10%. Sample concentration must meet flagging criteria. H1 - Analysis conducted outside the EPA method holding time. H2 - Extraction of preparation conducted outside EPA method holding time. j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit. Ll - Analyte recovery in the laboratory control sample (LCS) was above quality control (QC) limits. Results may be biased high. 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. M6 - Matrix spike and Matrix spike duplicate recovery not evaluated against control limits due to sample dilution. N2 - The lab does not hold accreditation for this parameter. P2 - Re -extraction or re -analysis could not be performed due to insufficient sample amount. Rl - Relative Percent Difference (RPD) value was outside control limits. S - Associated calibration check did not meet specified criteria. °C - degrees celsius pg/L - micrograms per liter pg/mL - microgram per milliliter p4/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 Prepare By: JHG Checked By: KTL Page 12 of 12 TABLE 3 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS - TRANSITION ZONE ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Constituent Reporting Unit Descriptive Statistics Upper Tolerance Limits Sample Size Number of NDs Percent NDs 1n 30 Percentile m SO Percentile m 90 Percentile Type Of UTL i Coverage Confidence Level Value pH* S.U. 52 0 0 6.3 6.6 7.1 Non-parametric3 90 95 6.3 - 7.6 Alkalinity mg-CaCO3/L 38 0 0 209 232 246 Gamma 95 95 283.3 Aluminum pg/L 48 2 4 10 177 497 Non-parametric3 90 95 734 Antimony pg/L 52 51 98 0.5 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Arsenic pg/L 45 44 98 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Barium pg/L 52 0 0 6 71 91 Non-parametric3 90 95 94 Beryllium pg/L 39 39 100 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Bicarbonate mg-CaCO3/L 34 0 0 210 234 248 Gamma 95 95 283.6 Boron pg/L 52 52 100 50 50 50 n/a n/a n/a 50t Cadmium pg/L 52 52 100 0.08 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Calcium mg/L 39 0 0 44 64 103 Non-parametric3 90 95 111 Carbonate mg-CaCO3/L 32 32 100 5 5 5 n/a n/a n/a 5t Chloride mg/L 52 0 0 14 21 170 Non-parametric3 90 95 180 Chromium pg/L 52 6 12 2.6 5.5 15 Gamma 95 95 21.64 Chromium (VI) pg/L 24 0 0 2.1 3 11 Non-parametric3 85 95 12.1 Cobalt pg/L 39 33 85 1 1 1 Non-parametricZ 90 95 2.54 Copper pg/L 48 33 69 1 2.6 5 Non-parametricZ 90 95 10 Fluoride mg/L 13 4 31 0.1 0.2 0.5 Normal 95 95 0.361 Iron pg/L 48 0 0 19 216 695 Gamma 95 95 1293 Lead pg/L 45 44 98 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Lithium pg/L 13 5 38 5 5 14 Normal 95 95 25.89 Magnesium mg/L 39 0 0 25 27 44 Non-parametric3 90 95 44.8 Manganese pg/L 47 11 23 5 11 89 Non-parametric3 90 95 260 Mercury pg/L 42 40 95 0.05 0.05 0.05 n/a n/a n/a 0.05t Methane pg/L 14 14 100 10 10 10 n/a n/a n/a Sot Molybdenum pg/L 39 21 54 0.9 1 4.3 Non-parametricZ 90 95 8.1 Nickel pg/L 48 21 44 1 5 12 Non -parametric° 90 95 17.4 Nitrate + Nitrite mg-N/L 23 0 0 0.2 2.6 3.7 Non-parametric3 85 95 3.8 Potassium mg/L 39 2 5 1 1.8 3.9 Non-parametric3 90 95 5 Selenium pg/L 45 36 80 1 1 1.3 Non-parametricZ 90 95 1.95 Sodium mg/L 39 0 0 26 29 34 Normal 95 95 36.47 Strontium pg/L 34 0 0 234 441 669 Non-parametric3 90 95 760 Sulfate mg/L 52 0 0 12 26 33 Non-parametric3 90 95 38 Sulfide mg/L 27 24 89 0.1 0.1 0.1 Non-parametricZ 85 95 0.16 TDS mg/L 52 0 0 301 355 666 Non-parametric3 90 95 710 Thallium pg/L 51 50 98 0.1 0.2 0.2 n/a n/a n/a 0.2t TOC mg/L 27 1 4 0.7 1.1 1.9 Gamma 95 95 2.465 Total Radium PDX 22 0 0 0.3 1.1 5.8 Gamma 95 95 10.46 Total Uranium pg/mL 21 1 5 0.000511 0.000765 0.00359 Non-parametric3 85 95 0.00362 Vanadium pg/L 34 0 0 1.2 9.8 19 Non-parametric3 90 95 22.7 Zinc pg/L 48 38 79 5 5 11 Non- arametricZ 90 1 95 14 Notes: Background wells: BG-01, MW-15D, MW-18D * - 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. 4 - 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: HES Checked by: Page 1 of 1 TABLE 4 UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS - BEDROCK FLOW ZONE ROXBORO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC, SEMORA, NC Constituent Reporting Unit Descriptive Statistics Upper Tolerance Limits Sample Size Number of NDs Percent NDs en 10 Percentile m 50 Percentile 1n 90 Percentile Type of UTL i Coverage Confidence Level Value pH* S.U. 113 0 0 6.8 7.2 7.9 Non-parametric3 95 95 6.1 - 8.3 Alkalinity mg-CaCO3/L 113 0 0 168 243 344 Non -parametric' 95 95 379 Aluminum pg/L 101 7 7 6 33 131 Gamma 95 95 183 Antimony pg/L 113 109 96 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Arsenic pg/L 113 66 58 0.5 1 2.4 Non-parametricZ 95 95 5.54 Barium pg/L 113 0 0 16 35 105 Non -parametric' 95 95 135 Beryllium pg/L 113 113 100 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 Bicarbonate mg-CaCO3/L 104 0 0 187 245 347 Non -parametric' 95 95 388 Boron pg/L 113 109 96 50 50 50 n/a n/a n/a 50t Cadmium pg/L 113 113 100 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Calcium mg/L 113 0 0 47 65 99 Non-parametric3 95 95 106 Carbonate mg-CaCO3/L 96 94 98 5 5 5 n/a n/a n/a 5t Chloride mg/L 112 0 0 13 35 87 Non-parametric3 95 95 130 Chromium pg/L 111 72 65 0.9 1 2.2 Non -parametric 95 95 4.16 Chromium (VI) pg/L 96 58 60 0.03 0.03 0.57 Non-parametricZ 95 95 1.2 Cobalt pg/L 111 68 61 0.7 1 6 Non-parametricZ 95 95 18.4 Copper pg/L 104 80 77 0.5 1 1 Non-parametricZ 95 95 1.9 Fluoride mg/L 49 7 14 0.1 0.15 0.33 Gamma 95 95 0.354 Iron pg/L 104 3 3 42 814 2297 Gamma 95 95 5130 Lead pg/L 113 113 100 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Lithium pg/L 46 13 28 3.5 5.5 17 Lognormal 95 95 26.64 Magnesium mg/L 113 0 0 9 19 30 Non-parametric3 95 95 39 Manganese pg/L 104 1 1 48 380 1070 Gamma 95 95 1773 Mercury pg/L 109 99 91 0.05 0.05 0.05 n/a n/a n/a 0.05t Methane pg/L 42 25 60 10 10 562 Non-parametricZ 90 95 1120 Molybdenum pg/L 113 1 1 2 5.4 16 Gamma 95 95 21.78 Nickel pg/L 104 42 40 0.6 1 2 Lognormal 95 95 3.21 Nitrate + Nitrite mg-N/L 85 44 52 0.01 0.01 0.27 Non-parametricZ 95 95 0.408 Potassium mg/L 111 1 1 4.6 6.4 8.5 Normal 95 95 9.795 Selenium pg/L 113 111 98 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a It Sodium mg/L 112 0 0 20 27 38 Non-parametric3 95 95 56.5 Strontium pg/L 104 0 0 139 183 292 Non -parametric' 95 95 438 Sulfate mg/L 113 0 0 11 19 63 Non-parametric3 95 95 69 Sulfide mg/L 104 91 88 0.1 0.1 0.17 Non-parametricZ 95 95 0.28 TDS mg/L 113 0 0 272 350 510 Non-parametric3 95 95 560 Thallium pg/L 113 107 95 0.2 0.2 0.2 n/a n/a n/a 0.2t TOC mg/L 104 0 0 0.8 1 2.3 Non-parametric3 95 95 11 Total Radium pCi/L 71 0 0 0.5 1 2.7 Gamma 95 95 4.117 Total Uranium pg/mL 72 5 7 0.000171 0.000698 0.00363 Non-parametric3 95 95 0.00567 Vanadium pg/L 100 16 16 0.27 0.43 2.3 Non-parametric3 95 95 2.88 Zinc pg/L 104 73 70 5 5 11 Non- arametricZ 95 95 44 Notes: Background wells: BG-01BR, BG-02BR, CCR-112BR-BG, MW-10BR, MW-14BR, MW-15BR, MW-18BR, MW-19BRL, MW-26BR, MW-29BR, MW-30BR * - Upper and lower tolerance limits calculated for constituent. t - Maximum ND value represents upper tolerance limit (UTL). ' - 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. Ng/L - micrograms per liter Ug/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: HES Checked by: Page 1 of 1 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant UPPER TOLERANCE LIMITS (PROUCL OUTPUT SynTerra Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro 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 5.15/30/2019 8:57:52 AM From File Roxboro 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Fluoride General Statistics Total Number of Observations 13 Number of Missing Observations 39 Number of Detects 9 Number of Distinct Detects 8 Minimum Detect 0.0695 Maximum Detect 0.281 Variance Detected 0.00578 Mean Detected 0.175 Mean of Detected Logged Data -1.837 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.671 Number of Distinct Observations 9 Number of Non -Detects 4 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Non -Detect 0.1 Maximum Non -Detect 0.5 Percent Non -Detects 30.77% SD Detected 0.076 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.484 d2max (for USL) 2.331 Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.931 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.829 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.212 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.274 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 0.156 SD 0.0766 95% UTL95% Coverage 0.361 95% KM UPL (t) 0.298 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.503 90% KM Percentile (z) 0.254 95% KM Percentile (z) 0.282 99% KM Percentile (z) 0.334 95% KM USL 0.335 DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.168 SD 0.0856 95% UTL95% Coverage 0.396 95% UPL (t) 0.326 90% Percentile (z) 0.277 95% Percentile (z) 0.308 99% Percentile (z) 0.367 95% USL 0.367 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Lithium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 13 Number of Missing Observations 39 Number of Detects 8 Number of Distinct Detects 6 Minimum Detect 1.873 Maximum Detect 23 Variance Detected 42.9 Mean Detected 11.61 Mean of Detected Logged Data 2.242 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.671 Number of Distinct Observations 6 Number of Non -Detects 5 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 5 Maximum Non -Detect 5 Percent Non -Detects 38.46% SD Detected 6.55 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.794 d2max (for USL) 2.331 Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.933 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.233 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 7.864 SD 6.748 95% UTL95% Coverage 25.89 95% KM UPL (t) 20.35 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 38.39 90% KM Percentile (z) 16.51 95% KM Percentile (z) 18.96 99% KM Percentile (z) 23.56 95% KM USL 23.59 DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 8.106 SD 6.805 95% UTL95% Coverage 26.28 95% UPL (t) 20.69 90% Percentile (z) 16.83 95% Percentile (z) 19.3 99% Percentile (z) 23.94 95% USL 23.96 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Sodium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 39 Minimum 23.4 Second Largest 35.1 Maximum 35.4 Mean 29.86 Coefficient of Variation 0.104 Mean of logged Data 3.391 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.124 Number of Distinct Observations 32 Number of Missing Observations 13 First Quartile 28 Median 29.2 Third Quartile 32.25 SD 3.107 Skewness 0.00504 SD of logged Data 0.105 d2max (for USL) 2.857 Normal GOF Test Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.969 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.939 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.123 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.14 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution 95 % UTL with 95% Coverage 36.47 90% Percentile (z) 33.85 95% UPL (t) 35.17 95% Percentile (z) 34.98 95% USL 38.74 99% Percentile (z) 37.09 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 - Roxboro 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 5.15/30/2019 8:59:34 AM From File Roxboro BG GW Data No AC-Outliers.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 % Coverage 95% Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Alkalinity General Statistics Total Number of Observations 38 Minimum 149 Second Largest 262 Maximum 265 Mean 227.3 Coefficient of Variation 0.101 Mean of logged Data 5.421 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.132 Number of Distinct Observations 28 Number of Missing Observations 14 First Quartile 217 Median 231.5 Third Quartile 240.8 SD 22.99 Skewness -1.42 SD of logged Data 0.111 d2max (for USL) 2.846 Gamma GOF Test A-D Test Statistic 1.533 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.746 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.138 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test 5% K-S Critical Value 0.143 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics k hat (MLE) 89.17 k star (bias corrected MLE) 82.15 Theta hat (MLE) 2.549 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2.767 nu hat (MLE) 6777 nu star (bias corrected) 6243 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 227.3 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 25.08 Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 270.6 90% Percentile 260 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 271.2 95% Percentile 270.1 95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 282.4 99% Percentile 289.7 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 283.3 95% WH USL 303 95% HW USL 304.6 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Bicarbonate Alkalinity General Statistics Total Number of Observations 34 Minimum 149 Second Largest 262 Maximum 265 Mean 229.3 Coefficient of Variation 0.0955 Mean of logged Data 5.43 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.166 Number of Distinct Observations 26 Number of Missing Observations 18 First Quartile 220 Median 234 Third Quartile 241.8 SD 21.9 Skewness -1.56 SD of logged Data 0.105 d2max (for USL) 2.799 Gamma GOF Test A-D Test Statistic 1.255 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.746 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.137 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test 5% K-S Critical Value 0.15 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics k hat (MLE) 99.84 k star (bias corrected MLE) 91.05 Theta hat (MLE) 2.297 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2.519 nu hat (MLE) 6789 nu star (bias corrected) 6191 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 229.3 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 24.03 Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 270.8 90% Percentile 260.6 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 271.4 95% Percentile 270.2 95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 282.7 99% Percentile 288.9 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 283.6 95% WH USL 300 95% HW USL 301.4 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Chromium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 52 Number of Detects 46 Number of Distinct Detects 41 Minimum Detect 1.26 Maximum Detect 42.7 Variance Detected 48.82 Mean Detected 7.762 Mean of Detected Logged Data 1.769 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.049 Number of Distinct Observations 41 Number of Non -Detects 6 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 5 Maximum Non -Detect 5 Percent Non -Detects 11.54% SD Detected 6.987 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.739 d2max (for USL) 2.972 Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only A-D Test Statistic 0.682 Anderson -Darling GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.762 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.104 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF 5% K-S Critical Value 0.132 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 7.206 KM SD 6.686 95% UTL95% Coverage 20.91 95% KM UPL (t) 18.51 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 36.63 90% KM Percentile (z) 15.77 95% KM Percentile (z) 18.2 99% KM Percentile (z) 22.76 95% KM USL 27.08 Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) 1.937 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.825 Theta hat (MLE) 4.008 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 4.253 nu hat (MLE) 178.2 nu star (bias corrected) 167.9 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 7.762 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 5.746 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 8.914 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 Maximum 42.7 Median SD 6.837 CV k hat (MLE) 1.347 k star (bias corrected MLE) Theta hat (MLE) 5.271 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) nu hat (MLE) 140.1 nu star (bias corrected) MLE Mean (bias corrected) 7.099 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 7.044 90% Percentile 95% Percentile 19.5 99% Percentile The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data Upper Limits using Wilson Hilfeny (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods 7.099 5.545 0.963 1.282 5.538 133.3 6.27 15.37 28.93 WH HW WH HW 95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 23.5 25.44 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 19.12 20.18 95% Gamma USL 37.8 43.74 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Chromium (Continued) Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates Mean (KM) 7.206 Variance (KM) 44.7 k hat (KM) 1.162 nu hat (KM) 120.8 theta hat (KM) 6.203 80% gamma percentile (KM) 11.5 95% gamma percentile (KM) 20.83 SD (KM) 6.686 SE of Mean (KM) 0.939 k star (KM) 1.107 nu star (KM) 120.8 theta star (KM) 6.507 90% gamma percentile (KM) 16.18 99% gamma percentile (KM) 31.54 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 21.18 21.64 95%Approx. Gamma UPL 17.56 17.69 95% KM Gamma Percentile 17.13 17.22 95% Gamma USL 32.72 34.88 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Iron General Statistics Total Number of Observations 48 Minimum 12 Second Largest 881 Maximum 1760 Mean 302.9 Coefficient of Variation 1.049 Mean of logged Data 5.137 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.069 Number of Distinct Observations 45 Number of Missing Observations 4 First Quartile 95 Median 215.5 Third Quartile 372 SD 317.7 Skewness 2.425 SD of logged Data 1.245 d2max (for USL) 2.941 Gamma GOF Test A-D Test Statistic 0.377 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.779 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.0846 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test 5% K-S Critical Value 0.132 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics k hat (MLE) 1.001 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.952 Theta hat (MLE) 302.6 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 318.1 nu hat (MLE) 96.1 nu star (bias corrected) 91.43 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 302.9 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 310.4 Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 923.9 90% Percentile 705.9 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 980.7 95% Percentile 923.3 95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1180 99% Percentile 1430 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1293 95% WH USL 1953 95% HW USL 2311 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A TOC General Statistics Total Number of Observations 27 Number of Missing Observations 25 Number of Detects 26 Number of Distinct Detects 19 Minimum Detect 0.672 Maximum Detect 2.4 Variance Detected 0.218 Mean Detected 1.256 Mean of Detected Logged Data 0.165 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.26 Number of Distinct Observations 19 Number of Non -Detects 1 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 1 Maximum Non -Detect 1 Percent Non -Detects 3.704% SD Detected 0.467 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.358 d2max (for USL) 2.698 Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only A-D Test Statistic 0.575 Anderson -Darling GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.745 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.176 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF 5% K-S Critical Value 0.171 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution KM Mean 1.241 KM SD 0.457 95% UTL95% Coverage 2.273 95% KM UPL (t) 2.034 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 3.269 90% KM Percentile (z) 1.826 95% KM Percentile (z) 1.992 99% KM Percentile (z) 2.304 95% KM USL 2.473 Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) 8.128 k star (bias corrected MLE) 7.215 Theta hat (MLE) 0.155 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.174 nu hat (MLE) 422.6 nu star (bias corrected) 375.2 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.256 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.468 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 24.25 Gamma ROB 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 0.672 Mean 1.239 Maximum 2.4 Median 1.1 SD 0.466 CV 0.376 k hat (MLE) 8.022 k star (bias corrected MLE) 7.155 Theta hat (MLE) 0.154 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.173 nu hat (MLE) 433.2 nu star (bias corrected) 386.4 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.239 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.463 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 24.09 90% Percentile 1.858 95% Percentile 2.086 99% Percentile 2.562 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone TOC (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 2.462 2.495 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 2.111 2.124 95% Gamma USL 2.784 2.841 Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates Mean (KM) 1.241 SD (KM) 0.457 Variance (KM) 0.209 SE of Mean (KM) 0.0898 k hat (KM) 7.375 k star (KM) 6.58 nu hat (KM) 398.2 nu star (KM) 398.2 theta hat (KM) 0.168 theta star (KM) 0.189 80% gamma percentile (KM) 1.619 90% gamma percentile (KM) 1.887 95% gamma percentile (KM) 2.128 99% gamma percentile (KM) 2.633 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 2.434 2.465 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 2.092 2.104 95% KM Gamma Percentile 2.036 2.045 95% Gamma USL 2.747 2.801 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Total Radium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 22 Minimum 0.093 Second Largest 6.59 Maximum 7.89 Mean 2.083 Coefficient of Variation 1.092 Mean of logged Data 0.181 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.349 Number of Distinct Observations 22 Number of Missing Observations 30 First Quartile 0.713 Median 1.118 Third Quartile 2.053 SD 2.274 Skewness 1.529 SD of logged Data 1.138 d2max (for USL) 2.603 Gamma GOF Test A-D Test Statistic 0.75 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.77 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.197 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test 5% K-S Critical Value 0.191 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics k hat (MLE) 1.04 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.928 Theta hat (MLE) 2.003 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2.244 nu hat (MLE) 45.74 nu star (bias corrected) 40.84 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 2.083 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 2.162 Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 6.608 90% Percentile 4.884 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 6.883 95% Percentile 6.406 95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 9.596 99% Percentile 9.96 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 10.46 95% WH USL 11.12 95% HW USL 12.37 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/30/2019 9:02:34 AM From File Roxboro BG GW Data No AC-Outliers.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 % Coverage 90% Different or Future K Observations 1 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Aluminum General Statistics Total Number of Observations 48 Number of Missing Observations 4 Number of Detects 46 Number of Distinct Detects 42 Minimum Detect 5 Maximum Detect 1550 Variance Detected 83123 Mean Detected 242.1 Mean of Detected Logged Data 4.584 Number of Distinct Observations 43 Number of Non -Detects 2 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 100 Maximum Non -Detect 100 Percent Non -Detects 4.167% SD Detected 288.3 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.618 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.648 d2max (for USL) 2.941 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 232.9 SD 282.7 95% UTL90% Coverage 698.8 95% KM UPL (t) 712.1 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 1478 90% KM Percentile (z) 595.2 95% KM Percentile (z) 697.8 99% KM Percentile (z) 890.5 95% KM USL 1064 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 46 95% UTL with90% Coverage 734 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% UPL 770.9 95% USL 1550 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 1478 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Barium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 52 Number of Distinct Observations 36 Minimum 5 First Quartile 9.75 Second Largest 95 Median 71 Maximum 97 Third Quartile 86 Mean 52.34 SD 36 Coefficient of Variation 0.688 Skewness -0.21 Mean of logged Data 3.513 SD of logged Data 1.123 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.632 d2max (for USL) 2.972 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 50 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.852 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 93.8 95% UPL 94.35 90% Chebyshev UPL 161.4 95% Chebyshev UPL 210.7 95% USL 97 95% UTL with 90% Coverage Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 90% Percentile 95% Percentile 99% Percentile 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. 94 0.903 61 93.8 90.9 92.9 95.98 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Calcium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 39 Minimum 40.4 Second Largest 111 Maximum 115 Mean 67.56 Coefficient of Variation 0.331 Mean of logged Data 4.162 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.696 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 37 Number of Missing Observations 13 First Quartile 46.25 Median 63.7 Third Quartile 86.85 SD 22.36 Skewness 0.64 SD of logged Data 0.321 d2max (for USL) 2.857 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 38 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 111 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 2.111 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.912 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 105.4 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 105.4 95% UPL 111 90% Percentile 103 90% Chebyshev UPL 135.5 95% Percentile 104.7 95% Chebyshev UPL 166.2 99% Percentile 113.5 95% USL 115 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Chloride General Statistics Total Number of Observations 52 Number of Distinct Observations 26 Minimum 12.7 First Quartile 16 Second Largest 180 Median 20.5 Maximum 181 Third Quartile 46.25 Mean 56.29 SD 60.89 Coefficient of Variation 1.082 Skewness 1.349 Mean of logged Data 3.553 SD of logged Data 0.933 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.632 d2max (for USL) 2.972 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 50 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.852 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 180 95% UPL 180 90% Chebyshev UPL 240.7 95% Chebyshev UPL 324.3 95% USL 181 95% UTL with 90% Coverage Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 90% Percentile 95% Percentile 99% Percentile 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. 180 0.903 61 179 170 180 180.5 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Cobalt General Statistics Total Number of Observations 39 Number of Missing Observations 13 Number of Detects 6 Number of Distinct Detects 6 Minimum Detect 0.56 Maximum Detect 4.01 Variance Detected 1.768 Mean Detected 1.782 Mean of Detected Logged Data 0.33 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.696 Number of Distinct Observations 8 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Number of Non -Detects 33 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Non -Detect 0.5 Maximum Non -Detect 1 Percent Non -Detects 84.62% SD Detected 1.33 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.787 d2max (for USL) 2.857 Mean 0.746 SD 0.651 95% UTL90% Coverage 1.85 95% KM UPL (t) 1.858 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 3.619 90% KM Percentile (z) 1.58 95% KM Percentile (z) 1.817 99% KM Percentile (z) 2.26 95% KM USL 2.606 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 38 95% UTL with90% Coverage 2.54 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 2.111 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.912 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% UPL 2.54 95% USL 4.01 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 3.619 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Copper General Statistics Total Number of Observations 48 Number of Missing Observations 4 Number of Detects 15 Number of Distinct Detects 15 Minimum Detect 0.447 Maximum Detect 11.4 Variance Detected 16.41 Mean Detected 3.594 Mean of Detected Logged Data 0.684 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.648 Number of Distinct Observations 17 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Number of Non -Detects 33 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Non -Detect 1 Maximum Non -Detect 5 Percent Non -Detects 68.75% SD Detected 4.051 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.14 d2max (for USL) 2.941 Mean 1.62 SD 2.601 95% UTL90% Coverage 5.907 95% KM UPL (t) 6.029 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 13.07 90% KM Percentile (z) 4.953 95% KM Percentile (z) 5.898 99% KM Percentile (z) 7.67 95% KM USL 9.269 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 46 95% UTL with90% Coverage 10 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% UPL 10.66 95% USL 11.4 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 13.07 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Magnesium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 39 Minimum 24.5 Second Largest 44.8 Maximum 49.6 Mean 30.71 Coefficient of Variation 0.24 Mean of logged Data 3.4 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.696 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 32 Number of Missing Observations 13 First Quartile 25.95 Median 27.3 Third Quartile 33.35 SD 7.365 Skewness 1.281 SD of logged Data 0.215 d2max (for USL) 2.857 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 38 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 44.8 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 2.111 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.912 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 44.8 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 44.8 95% UPL 44.8 90% Percentile 43.7 90% Chebyshev UPL 53.08 95% Percentile 44.71 95% Chebyshev UPL 63.22 99% Percentile 47.78 95% USL 49.6 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Manganese General Statistics Total Number of Observations 47 Number of Distinct Observations 28 Number of Missing Observations 5 Number of Detects 36 Number of Non -Detects 11 Number of Distinct Detects 28 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Detect 4.561 Minimum Non -Detect 5 Maximum Detect 820 Maximum Non -Detect 5 Variance Detected 23181 Percent Non -Detects 23.4% Mean Detected 69.34 SD Detected 152.3 Mean of Detected Logged Data 3.148 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.322 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.653 d2max (for USL) 2.933 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 54.18 SD 134.2 95% UTL90% Coverage 276 95% KM UPL (t) 281.9 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 645.4 90% KM Percentile (z) 226.2 95% KM Percentile (z) 274.9 99% KM Percentile (z) 366.4 95% KM USL 447.8 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 45 95% UTL with90% Coverage 260 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% UPL 347 95% USL 820 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 645.4 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Molybdenum General Statistics Total Number of Observations 39 Number of Missing Observations 13 Number of Detects 18 Number of Distinct Detects 18 Minimum Detect 0.147 Maximum Detect 9.87 Variance Detected 7.172 Mean Detected 3.313 Mean of Detected Logged Data 0.757 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.696 Number of Distinct Observations 20 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Number of Non -Detects 21 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Non -Detect 0.5 Maximum Non -Detect 1 Percent Non -Detects 53.85% SD Detected 2.678 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.164 d2max (for USL) 2.857 Mean 1.678 SD 2.333 95% UTL90% Coverage 5.635 95% KM UPL (t) 5.661 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 11.98 90% KM Percentile (z) 4.668 95% KM Percentile (z) 5.515 99% KM Percentile (z) 7.105 95% KM USL 8.343 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 38 95% UTL with90% Coverage 8.1 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 2.111 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.912 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% UPL 8.1 95% USL 9.87 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 11.98 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Nickel General Statistics Total Number of Observations 48 Number of Missing Observations 4 Number of Detects 27 Number of Distinct Detects 27 Minimum Detect 0.751 Maximum Detect 45.5 Variance Detected 82.19 Mean Detected 8.804 Mean of Detected Logged Data 1.734 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.648 Number of Distinct Observations 27 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Number of Non -Detects 21 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Non -Detect 1 Maximum Non -Detect 5 Percent Non -Detects 43.75% SD Detected 9.066 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.016 d2max (for USL) 2.941 Mean 5.445 SD 7.69 95% UTL90% Coverage 18.12 95% KM UPL (t) 18.48 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 39.31 90% KM Percentile (z) 15.3 95% KM Percentile (z) 18.09 99% KM Percentile (z) 23.34 95% KM USL 28.06 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 46 95% UTL with90% Coverage 17.4 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% UPL 19.27 95% USL 45.5 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 39.31 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Potassium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 39 Number of Missing Observations 13 Number of Detects 37 Number of Distinct Detects 33 Minimum Detect 0.964 Maximum Detect 5.48 Variance Detected 1.398 Mean Detected 2.127 Mean of Detected Logged Data 0.614 Number of Distinct Observations 34 Number of Non -Detects 2 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 5 Maximum Non -Detect 5 Percent Non -Detects 5.128% SD Detected 1.183 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.531 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.696 d2max (for USL) 2.857 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 2.122 SD 1.16 95% UTL90% Coverage 4.09 95% KM UPL (t) 4.103 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 7.245 90% KM Percentile (z) 3.609 95% KM Percentile (z) 4.031 99% KM Percentile (z) 4.822 95% KM USL 5.437 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 38 95% UTL with90% Coverage 5 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 2.111 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.912 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% UPL 5 95% USL 5.48 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 7.245 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Selenium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 45 Number of Missing Observations 7 Number of Detects 9 Number of Distinct Detects 9 Minimum Detect 0.338 Maximum Detect 3.57 Variance Detected 1.045 Mean Detected 1.506 Mean of Detected Logged Data 0.168 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.662 Number of Distinct Observations 11 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Number of Non -Detects 36 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Non -Detect 0.5 Maximum Non -Detect 1 Percent Non -Detects 80% SD Detected 1.022 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.785 d2max (for USL) 2.915 Mean 0.664 SD 0.609 95% UTL90% Coverage 1.677 95% KM UPL (t) 1.699 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 3.349 90% KM Percentile (z) 1.445 95% KM Percentile (z) 1.666 99% KM Percentile (z) 2.081 95% KM USL 2.44 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 43 95% UTL with90% Coverage 1.95 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.593 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.841 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% UPL 2.125 95% USL 3.57 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 3.349 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Strontium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 34 Minimum 221 Second Largest 760 Maximum 782 Mean 430.9 Coefficient of Variation 0.407 Mean of logged Data 5.982 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.732 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 30 Number of Missing Observations 18 First Quartile 241.3 Median 441 Third Quartile 548.8 SD 175.6 Skewness 0.406 SD of logged Data 0.423 d2max (for USL) 2.799 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 33 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 760 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.833 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.867 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 760 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 751.6 95% UPL 765.5 90% Percentile 668.5 90% Chebyshev UPL 965.4 95% Percentile 741.8 95% Chebyshev UPL 1207 99% Percentile 774.7 95% USL 782 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Sulfate General Statistics Total Number of Observations 52 Number of Distinct Observations 30 Minimum 11 First Quartile 16.33 Second Largest 40 Median 25.65 Maximum 48.1 Third Quartile 30 Mean 23.72 SD 8.834 Coefficient of Variation 0.372 Skewness 0.259 Mean of logged Data 3.092 SD of logged Data 0.399 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.632 d2max (for USL) 2.972 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 50 95% UTL with 90% Coverage Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.852 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 37.6 95% UPL 38.7 90% Chebyshev UPL 50.47 95% Chebyshev UPL 62.59 95% USL 48.1 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 90% Percentile 95% Percentile 99% Percentile 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. 38 0.903 61 34 32.9 35.8 43.97 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A TDS General Statistics Total Number of Observations 52 Minimum 248 Second Largest 740 Maximum 750 Mean 413.4 Coefficient of Variation 0.328 Mean of logged Data 5.98 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.632 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 30 First Quartile 320 Median 355 Third Quartile 420.3 SD 135.5 Skewness 1.282 SD of logged Data 0.291 d2max (for USL) 2.972 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 50 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 710 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.852 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.903 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 709 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 708 95% UPL 720.5 90% Percentile 666 90% Chebyshev UPL 823.7 95% Percentile 704.5 95% Chebyshev UPL 1010 99% Percentile 744.9 95% USL 750 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Vanadium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 34 Minimum 0.983 Second Largest 22.7 Maximum 24.4 Mean 10.69 Coefficient of Variation 0.694 Mean of logged Data 1.938 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.732 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 32 Number of Missing Observations 18 First Quartile 2.515 Median 9.805 Third Quartile 17.53 SD 7.422 Skewness 0.104 SD of logged Data 1.124 d2max (for USL) 2.799 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 33 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 22.7 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.833 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.867 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 22.57 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage 22.28 95% UPL 23.13 90% Percentile 19.08 90% Chebyshev UPL 33.28 95% Percentile 21.79 95% Chebyshev UPL 43.51 99% Percentile 23.84 95% USL 24.4 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Zinc General Statistics Total Number of Observations 48 Number of Missing Observations 4 Number of Detects 10 Number of Distinct Detects 10 Minimum Detect 2.94 Maximum Detect 18.9 Variance Detected 35.04 Mean Detected 10.29 Mean of Detected Logged Data 2.132 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.648 Number of Distinct Observations 12 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Number of Non -Detects 38 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Non -Detect 5 Maximum Non -Detect 10 Percent Non -Detects 79.17% SD Detected 5.919 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.719 d2max (for USL) 2.941 Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 4.719 SD 3.853 95% UTL90% Coverage 11.07 95% KM UPL (t) 11.25 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 21.69 90% KM Percentile (z) 9.656 95% KM Percentile (z) 11.06 99% KM Percentile (z) 13.68 95% KM USL 16.05 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 46 95% UTL with90% Coverage 14 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% UPL 16.2 95% USL 18.9 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 21.69 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Two -Sided 95% Tolerance Intervals of off Percent of Nonparametric Population Upper Between Tolerance Limits Limit 90 7.6 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/30/2019 9:05:54 AM From File Roxboro BG GW Data No AC-Outliers.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95% Coverage 85% Different or Future K Observations 1 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Chromium (VI) General Statistics Total Number of Observations 24 Minimum 1.6 Second Largest 12.1 Maximum 13.1 Mean 5.046 Coefficient of Variation 0.719 Mean of logged Data 1.399 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) 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 22 Number of Missing Observations 28 First Quartile 2.475 Median 3 Third Quartile 6.325 SD 3.629 Skewness 1.15 SD of logged Data 0.658 d2max (for USL) 2.644 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 23 95% UTL with 85% Coverage 12.1 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 12.1 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage 11.97 95% UPL 12.85 90% Percentile 11.32 90% Chebyshev UPL 16.16 95% Percentile 12.06 95% Chebyshev UPL 21.19 99% Percentile 12.87 95% USL 13.1 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Nitrate + Nitrite General Statistics Total Number of Observations 23 Minimum 0.125 Second Largest 3.8 Maximum 4 Mean 2.2 Coefficient of Variation 0.646 Mean of logged Data 0.323 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) 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 22 Number of Missing Observations 29 First Quartile 0.3 Median 2.6 Third Quartile 3.35 SD 1.422 Skewness -0.485 SD of logged Data 1.219 d2max (for USL) 2.624 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 22 95% UTL with 85% Coverage 3.8 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 3.77 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage 3.8 95% UPL 3.96 90% Percentile 3.7 90% Chebyshev UPL 6.557 95% Percentile 3.79 95% Chebyshev UPL 8.531 99% Percentile 3.956 95% USL 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Sulfide General Statistics Total Number of Observations 27 Number of Missing Observations 25 Number of Detects 3 Number of Distinct Detects 3 Minimum Detect 0.16 Maximum Detect 0.22 Variance Detected 9.0000E-4 Mean Detected 0.19 Mean of Detected Logged Data -1.669 Number of Distinct Observations 4 Number of Non -Detects 24 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 0.1 Maximum Non -Detect 0.1 Percent Non -Detects 88.89% SD Detected 0.03 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.159 Warning: Data set has only 3 Detected Values. This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates. Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.503 d2max (for USL) 2.698 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.11 SD 0.0294 95% UTL85% Coverage 0.154 95% KM UPL (t) 0.161 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.241 90% KM Percentile (z) 0.148 95% KM Percentile (z) 0.158 99% KM Percentile (z) 0.178 95% KM USL 0.189 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 25 95% UTL with85% Coverage 0.16 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.471 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.793 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 40 95% UPL 0.208 95% USL 0.22 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.241 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Appendix A Total Uranium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 21 Number of Missing Observations 31 Number of Detects 20 Number of Distinct Detects 20 Minimum Detect 4.8200E-4 Maximum Detect 0.00381 Variance Detected 1.7246E-6 Mean Detected 0.0017 Mean of Detected Logged Data -6.685 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.583 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 21 Number of Non -Detects 1 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 2.0000E-4 Maximum Non -Detect 2.0000E-4 Percent Non -Detects 4.762% SD Detected 0.00131 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.81 d2max (for USL) 2.58 Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.00163 SD 0.00129 95% UTL85% Coverage 0.00367 95% KM UPL (t) 0.00391 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.00738 90% KM Percentile (z) 0.00328 95% KM Percentile (z) 0.00375 99% KM Percentile (z) 0.00463 95% KM USL 0.00496 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 20 95% UTL with85% Coverage 0.00362 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% UPL 0.00379 95% USL 0.00381 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.00738 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 - Roxboro 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 5.15/30/2019 10:15:16 AM From File Roxboro 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Potassium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 111 Number of Distinct Observations 98 Number of Missing Observations 2 Number of Detects 110 Number of Non -Detects 1 Number of Distinct Detects 98 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Detect 2.98 Minimum Non -Detect 5 Maximum Detect 12.8 Maximum Non -Detect 5 Variance Detected 2.928 Percent Non -Detects 0.901 % Mean Detected 6.554 SD Detected 1.711 Mean of Detected Logged Data 1.848 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.256 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.908 d2max (for USL) 3.245 Normal GOF Test on Detects Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.95 Normal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only 5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00133 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0843 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0848 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 6.534 SD 1.709 95% UTL95% Coverage 9.795 95% KM UPL (t) 9.383 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 14.02 90 % KM Percentile (z) 8.725 95% KM Percentile (z) 9.346 99 % KM Percentile (z) 10.51 95% KM USL 12.08 DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 6.518 SD 1.746 95% UTL95 % Coverage 9.85 95% UPL (t) 9.428 90% Percentile (z) 8.756 95% Percentile (z) 9.39 99% Percentile (z) 10.58 95% USL 12.18 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 - Roxboro 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 DatefTime of Computation ProUCL 5.15/30/2019 10:16:49 AM From File Roxboro BG GW Data No AC -Outliers a.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 95 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Aluminum General Statistics Total Number of Observations 101 Number of Missing Observations 12 Number of Detects 94 Number of Distinct Detects 59 Minimum Detect 1.945 Maximum Detect 250 Variance Detected 3131 Mean Detected 51.78 Mean of Detected Logged Data 3.4 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.922 Number of Distinct Observations 60 Number of Non -Detects 7 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Non -Detect 5 Maximum Non -Detect 100 Percent Non -Detects 6.931 % SD Detected 55.95 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.103 d2max (for USL) 3.213 Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only A-D Test Statistic 1.157 Anderson -Darling GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.782 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.092 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF 5% K-S Critical Value 0.095 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution KM Mean 49.15 KM SD 54.76 95% UTL95% Coverage 154.4 95% KM UPL (t) 140.5 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 289 90 % KM Percentile (z) 119.3 95% KM Percentile (z) 139.2 99 % KM Percentile (z) 176.5 95% KM USL 225.1 Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) 1.049 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.023 Theta hat (MLE) 49.36 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 50.64 nu hat (MLE) 197.2 nu star (bias corrected) 192.3 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 51.78 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 51.21 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 6.079 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 48.95 Maximum 250 Median 27 SD 55.15 CV 1.127 k hat (MLE) 0.729 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.714 Theta hat (MLE) 67.13 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 68.54 nu hat (MLE) 147.3 nu star (bias corrected) 144.3 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 48.95 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 57.93 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 4.827 90 % Percentile 122.3 95% Percentile 165.4 99 % Percentile 268.2 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Aluminum (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 186.6 210.4 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 155.7 170.6 95% Gamma USL 408.4 530.1 Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates Mean (KM) 49.15 SD (KM) 54.76 Variance (KM) 2999 SE of Mean (KM) 5.491 k hat (KM) 0.805 k star (KM) 0.788 nu hat (KM) 162.7 nu star (KM) 162.7 theta hat (KM) 61.02 theta star (KM) 62.36 80 % gamma percentile (KM) 80.38 90% gamma percentile (KM) 119.9 95% gamma percentile (KM) 160.3 99% gamma percentile (KM) 255.7 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 173.3 183 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 146 151.2 95% KM Gamma Percentile 143.6 148.4 95% Gamma USL 365.9 429.6 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Fluoride General Statistics Total Number of Observations 49 Number of Distinct Observations 27 Number of Missing Observations 64 Number of Detects 42 Number of Non -Detects 7 Number of Distinct Detects 25 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 3 Minimum Detect 0.051 Minimum Non -Detect 0.1 Maximum Detect 0.39 Maximum Non -Detect 0.5 Variance Detected 0.00647 Percent Non -Detects 14.29% Mean Detected 0.169 SD Detected 0.0805 Mean of Detected Logged Data -1.877 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.447 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.063 d2max (for USL) 2.949 Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only A-D Test Statistic 0.559 Anderson -Darling GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.752 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.123 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF 5% K-S Critical Value 0.137 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 0.16 KM SD 0.0801 95% UTL95% Coverage 0.325 95% KM UPL (t) 0.296 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.513 90 % KM Percentile (z) 0.263 95% KM Percentile (z) 0.292 99 % KM Percentile (z) 0.346 95% KM USL 0.396 Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) 5.209 k star (bias corrected MLE) 4.853 Theta hat (MLE) 0.0324 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.0348 nu hat (MLE) 437.6 nu star (bias corrected) 407.7 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.169 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.0767 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 17.9 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 0.0385 Mean 0.158 Maximum 0.39 Median 0.14 SD 0.0809 CV 0.511 k hat (MLE) 4.318 k star (bias corrected MLE) 4.068 Theta hat (MLE) 0.0367 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.0389 nu hat (MLE) 423.2 nu star (bias corrected) 398.6 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.158 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.0785 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 15.7 90 % Percentile 0.264 95% Percentile 0.306 99 % Percentile 0.395 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Fluoride (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 0.354 0.362 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 0.308 0.312 95% Gamma USL 0.484 0.507 Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates Mean (KM) 0.16 SD (KM) 0.0801 Variance (KM) 0.00642 SE of Mean (KM) 0.0119 k hat (KM) 3.989 k star (KM) 3.758 nu hat (KM) 390.9 nu star (KM) 390.9 theta hat (KM) 0.0401 theta star (KM) 0.0426 80 % gamma percentile (KM) 0.222 90% gamma percentile (KM) 0.271 95% gamma percentile (KM) 0.315 99% gamma percentile (KM) 0.411 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 0.348 0.354 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 0.304 0.307 95% KM Gamma Percentile 0.298 0.301 95% Gamma USL 0.472 0.49 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Iron General Statistics Total Number of Observations 104 Number of Missing Observations 9 Number of Detects 101 Number of Distinct Detects 94 Minimum Detect 5.719 Maximum Detect 6220 Variance Detected 1675432 Mean Detected 1169 Mean of Detected Logged Data 6.271 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.917 Number of Distinct Observations 95 Number of Non -Detects 3 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 10 Maximum Non -Detect 10 Percent Non -Detects 2.885 % SD Detected 1294 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.561 d2max (for USL) 3.223 Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only A-D Test Statistic 0.531 Anderson -Darling GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.795 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.0625 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF 5% K-S Critical Value 0.0927 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 1135 KM SD 1284 95% UTL95% Coverage 3597 95% KM UPL (t) 3277 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 6759 90 % KM Percentile (z) 2781 95% KM Percentile (z) 3247 99 % KM Percentile (z) 4122 95% KM USL 5273 Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) 0.754 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.738 Theta hat (MLE) 1549 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 1583 nu hat (MLE) 152.4 nu star (bias corrected) 149.2 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1169 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 1360 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 4.931 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 1135 Maximum 6220 Median 814 SD 1290 CV 1.137 k hat (MLE) 0.577 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.567 Theta hat (MLE) 1968 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2003 nu hat (MLE) 120 nu star (bias corrected) 117.8 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1135 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 1508 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 4.162 90 % Percentile 2990 95% Percentile 4169 99 % Percentile 7036 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Iron (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 4697 5477 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 3881 4374 95% Gamma USL 10860 14975 Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates Mean (KM) 1135 SD (KM) 1284 Variance (KM) 1648773 SE of Mean (KM) 126.5 k hat (KM) 0.781 k star (KM) 0.765 nu hat (KM) 162.5 nu star (KM) 162.5 theta hat (KM) 1453 theta star (KM) 1483 80 % gamma percentile (KM) 1859 90% gamma percentile (KM) 2790 95% gamma percentile (KM) 3741 99% gamma percentile (KM) 5997 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 4556 5130 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 3777 4128 95% KM Gamma Percentile 3711 4044 95% Gamma USL 10398 13611 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Manganese General Statistics Total Number of Observations 104 Number of Missing Observations 9 Number of Detects 103 Number of Distinct Detects 96 Minimum Detect 19 Maximum Detect 1510 Variance Detected 151970 Mean Detected 496 Mean of Detected Logged Data 5.757 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.917 Number of Distinct Observations 97 Number of Non -Detects 1 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 5 Maximum Non -Detect 5 Percent Non -Detects 0.962% SD Detected 389.8 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.112 d2max (for USL) 3.223 Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only A-D Test Statistic 0.907 Anderson -Darling GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.776 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.0815 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF 5% K-S Critical Value 0.0908 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution KM Mean 491.3 KM SD 389 95% UTL95% Coverage 1237 95% KM UPL (t) 1140 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 2195 90 % KM Percentile (z) 989.8 95% KM Percentile (z) 1131 99 % KM Percentile (z) 1396 95% KM USL 1745 Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) 1.253 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.223 Theta hat (MLE) 395.9 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 405.7 nu hat (MLE) 258.1 nu star (bias corrected) 251.9 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 496 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 448.6 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 6.829 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 19 Mean 491.7 Maximum 1510 Median 379.5 SD 390.4 CV 0.794 k hat (MLE) 1.23 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.201 Theta hat (MLE) 399.8 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 409.5 nu hat (MLE) 255.8 nu star (bias corrected) 249.7 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 491.7 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 448.7 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 6.748 90 % Percentile 1082 95% Percentile 1382 99 % Percentile 2068 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Manganese (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 1614 1749 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 1383 1470 95% Gamma USL 3245 3906 Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates Mean (KM) 491.3 SD (KM) 389 Variance (KM) 151343 SE of Mean (KM) 38.33 k hat (KM) 1.595 k star (KM) 1.555 nu hat (KM) 331.7 nu star (KM) 331.7 theta hat (KM) 308.1 theta star (KM) 315.9 80 % gamma percentile (KM) 757.1 90% gamma percentile (KM) 1015 95% gamma percentile (KM) 1264 99% gamma percentile (KM) 1827 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 1626 1773 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 1391 1487 95% KM Gamma Percentile 1371 1462 95% Gamma USL 3285 3995 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Molybdenum General Statistics Total Number of Observations 113 Number of Distinct Observations 103 Number of Detects 112 Number of Non -Detects 1 Number of Distinct Detects 103 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Detect 1 Minimum Non -Detect 1 Maximum Detect 24.3 Maximum Non -Detect 1 Variance Detected 32.44 Percent Non -Detects 0.885 % Mean Detected 7.685 SD Detected 5.696 Mean of Detected Logged Data 1.759 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.779 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.905 d2max (for USL) 3.251 Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only A-D Test Statistic 0.908 Anderson -Darling GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.766 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.0869 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF 5% K-S Critical Value 0.0876 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution KM Mean 7.626 KM SD 5.68 95% UTL95% Coverage 18.45 95% KM UPL (t) 17.09 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 32.49 90 % KM Percentile (z) 14.9 95% KM Percentile (z) 16.97 99 % KM Percentile (z) 20.84 95% KM USL 26.09 Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only k hat (MLE) 1.932 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.886 Theta hat (MLE) 3.978 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 4.075 nu hat (MLE) 432.7 nu star (bias corrected) 422.5 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 7.685 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 5.596 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 9.116 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 7.617 Maximum 24.3 Median 5.41 SD 5.716 CV 0.75 k hat (MLE) 1.671 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.633 Theta hat (MLE) 4.557 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 4.665 nu hat (MLE) 377.7 nu star (bias corrected) 369 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 7.617 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 5.961 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 8.271 90% Percentile 15.55 95% Percentile 19.29 99 % Percentile 27.69 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Molybdenum (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 21.73 23.02 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 19.06 19.92 95% Gamma USL 41.4 47.74 Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates Mean (KM) 7.626 SD (KM) 5.68 Variance (KM) 32.26 SE of Mean (KM) 0.537 k hat (KM) 1.803 k star (KM) 1.761 nu hat (KM) 407.4 nu star (KM) 407.4 theta hat (KM) 4.23 theta star (KM) 4.331 80 % gamma percentile (KM) 11.59 90% gamma percentile (KM) 15.29 95% gamma percentile (KM) 18.84 99% gamma percentile (KM) 26.79 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 21.01 21.78 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 18.51 18.97 95% KM Gamma Percentile 18.3 18.74 95% Gamma USL 39.37 43.82 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Total Radium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 71 Minimum 0.123 Second Largest 6.695 Maximum 6.894 Mean 1.421 Coefficient of Variation 0.856 Mean of logged Data 0.0756 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.983 Number of Distinct Observations 70 Number of Missing Observations 36 First Quartile 0.699 Median 1.047 Third Quartile 1.86 SD 1.217 Skewness 2.637 SD of logged Data 0.754 d2max (for USL) 3.089 Gamma GOF Test A-D Test Statistic 0.764 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 0.107 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test 5% K-S Critical Value 0.107 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics k hat (MLE) 1.965 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.891 Theta hat (MLE) 0.723 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.751 nu hat (MLE) 279 nu star (bias corrected) 268.6 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.421 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 1.033 Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Wilson Hilferly (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 3.418 90 % Percentile 2.8 95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 3.472 95% Percentile 3.43 95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 4.001 99 % Percentile 4.834 95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 4.117 95% WH USL 6.68 95% HW USL 7.246 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 - Roxboro 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 5.15/30/2019 10:17:27 AM From File Roxboro 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Lithium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 46 Number of Distinct Observations 20 Number of Missing Observations 67 Number of Detects 33 Number of Non -Detects 13 Number of Distinct Detects 20 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Detect 2.872 Minimum Non -Detect 5 Maximum Detect 34 Maximum Non -Detect 5 Variance Detected 55.76 Percent Non -Detects 28.26 % Mean Detected 10.06 SD Detected 7.467 Mean of Detected Logged Data 2.073 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.691 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.079 d2max (for USL) 2.924 Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.948 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.931 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.127 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.152 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 8.179 SD 6.92 95% UTL95% Coverage 22.57 95% KM UPL (t) 19.93 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 38.67 90% KM Percentile (z) 17.05 95% KM Percentile (z) 19.56 99% KM Percentile (z) 24.28 95% KM USL 28.41 Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects Mean in Original Scale 8.181 Mean in Log Scale 1.815 SD in Original Scale 7.017 SD in Log Scale 0.744 95% UTL95% Coverage 28.86 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 28 95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 32.5 95% UPL (t) 21.72 90% Percentile (z) 15.94 95% Percentile (z) 20.88 99% Percentile (z) 34.68 95% USL 54.12 Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM Mean of Logged Data 1.83 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage 26.64 KM SD of Logged Data 0.699 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 20.41 95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 19.67 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 48.08 Background DU2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Mean in Original Scale 7.927 Mean in Log Scale 1.746 SD in Original Scale 7.177 SD in Log Scale 0.785 95% UTL95% Coverage 29.35 95% UPL (t) 21.75 90% Percentile (z) 15.69 95% Percentile (z) 20.86 99% Percentile (z) 35.63 95% USL 56.98 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Nickel General Statistics Total Number of Observations 104 Number of Distinct Observations 59 Number of Missing Observations 9 Number of Detects 62 Number of Non -Detects 42 Number of Distinct Detects 59 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Detect 0.34 Minimum Non -Detect 1 Maximum Detect 7.62 Maximum Non -Detect 1 Variance Detected 1.574 Percent Non -Detects 40.38% Mean Detected 1.525 SD Detected 1.255 Mean of Detected Logged Data 0.181 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.683 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.917 d2max (for USL) 3.223 Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only Shapiro Wilk Approximate Test Statistic 0.967 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.225 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0896 Lilliefors GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.112 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 1.139 SD 1.075 95% UTL95% Coverage 3.2 95% KM UPL (t) 2.932 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 5.847 90% KM Percentile (z) 2.517 95% KM Percentile (z) 2.907 99% KM Percentile (z) 3.64 95% KM USL 4.603 Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects Mean in Original Scale 1.143 Mean in Log Scale -0.148 SD in Original Scale 1.081 SD in Log Scale 0.72 95% UTL95% Coverage 3.43 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 4.39 95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 4.424 95% UPL (t) 2.865 90% Percentile (z) 2.17 95% Percentile (z) 2.819 99% Percentile (z) 4.603 95% USL 8.776 Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution KM Mean of Logged Data -0.138 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage 3.21 KM SD of Logged Data 0.68 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 2.709 95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 2.667 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 7.802 Background DU2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Mean in Original Scale 1.111 Mean in Log Scale -0.172 SD in Original Scale 1.09 SD in Log Scale 0.68 95% UTL95% Coverage 3.102 95% UPL (t) 2.617 90% Percentile (z) 2.013 95% Percentile (z) 2.577 99% Percentile (z) 4.096 95% USL 7.534 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/30/2019 10:19:16 AM From File Roxboro 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Alkalinity General Statistics Total Number of Observations 113 Minimum 80 Second Largest 389 Maximum 398 Mean 246.3 Coefficient of Variation 0.274 Mean of logged Data 5.463 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.905 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discemible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 86 First Quartile 211 Median 243 Third Quartile 276 SD 67.38 Skewness -0.0251 SD of logged Data 0.311 d2max (for USL) 3.251 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 110 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 379 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.447 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.822 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 153 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 382.6 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 382.6 95% UPL 371.8 90 % Percentile 344.4 90% Chebyshev UPL 449.3 95% Percentile 366.4 95% Chebyshev UPL 541.3 99 % Percentile 388.9 95% USL 398 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Arsenic General Statistics Total Number of Observations 113 Number of Distinct Observations 47 Number of Detects 47 Number of Non -Detects 66 Number of Distinct Detects 45 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Detect 0.334 Minimum Non -Detect 0.5 Maximum Detect 6.89 Maximum Non -Detect 1 Variance Detected 2.487 Percent Non -Detects 58.41 % Mean Detected 2.053 SD Detected 1.577 Mean of Detected Logged Data 0.44 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.792 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.905 d2max (for USL) 3.251 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 1.129 SD 1.276 95% UTL95% Coverage 3.56 95% KM UPL (t) 3.255 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 6.716 90 % KM Percentile (z) 2.765 95% KM Percentile (z) 3.228 99 % KM Percentile (z) 4.098 95% KM USL 5.277 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 110 95% UTL with95 % Coverage 5.54 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.447 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.822 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 153 95% UPL 3.517 95% USL 6.89 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 6.716 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Barium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 113 Minimum 11 Second Largest 141 Maximum 153 Mean 47.36 Coefficient of Variation 0.721 Mean of logged Data 3.629 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.905 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discemible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 64 First Quartile 20 Median 35 Third Quartile 60 SD 34.15 Skewness 1.378 SD of logged Data 0.675 d2max (for USL) 3.251 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 110 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 135 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.447 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.822 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 153 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 136.2 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 136.2 95% UPL 129.6 90 % Percentile 105.4 90% Chebyshev UPL 150.3 95% Percentile 127.8 95% Chebyshev UPL 196.9 99 % Percentile 140.6 95% USL 153 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Bicarbonate Alkalinity General Statistics Total Number of Observations 104 Minimum 14.5 Second Largest 389 Maximum 398 Mean 255.2 Coefficient of Variation 0.242 Mean of logged Data 5.5 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.917 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discemible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 79 Number of Missing Observations 9 First Quartile 225.5 Median 244.5 Third Quartile 282.3 SD 61.78 Skewness -0.0332 SD of logged Data 0.355 d2max (for USL) 3.223 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 102 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 388 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.789 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.897 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 386.7 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 386.7 95% UPL 374.5 90 % Percentile 347.1 90% Chebyshev UPL 441.5 95% Percentile 369.1 95% Chebyshev UPL 525.8 99 % Percentile 389 95% USL 398 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Calcium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 113 Minimum 2.85 Second Largest 112 Maximum 112 Mean 68.24 Coefficient of Variation 0.331 Mean of logged Data 4.144 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.905 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discemible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 99 First Quartile 57.4 Median 65.1 Third Quartile 88.6 SD 22.6 Skewness -0.183 SD of logged Data 0.47 d2max (for USL) 3.251 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 110 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 106 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.447 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.822 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 153 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 106.4 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 106.4 95% UPL 104.3 90 % Percentile 98.72 90% Chebyshev UPL 136.3 95% Percentile 103.4 95% Chebyshev UPL 167.2 99 % Percentile 111.4 95% USL 112 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Chloride General Statistics Total Number of Observations 112 Minimum 3.9 Second Largest 140 Maximum 140 Mean 40.75 Coefficient of Variation 0.847 Mean of logged Data 3.376 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.906 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discemible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 53 Number of Missing Observations 1 First Quartile 16 Median 35 Third Quartile 42 SD 34.5 Skewness 1.544 SD of logged Data 0.849 d2max (for USL) 3.248 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 109 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 130 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.434 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.817 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 153 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 130 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 130 95% UPL 130 90 % Percentile 87 90% Chebyshev UPL 144.7 95% Percentile 126.7 95% Chebyshev UPL 191.8 99 % Percentile 138.9 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Chromium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 111 Number of Distinct Observations 40 Number of Missing Observations 2 Number of Detects 39 Number of Non -Detects 72 Number of Distinct Detects 38 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Detect 0.365 Minimum Non -Detect 0.5 Maximum Detect 9.27 Maximum Non -Detect 1 Variance Detected 2.549 Percent Non -Detects 64.86 % Mean Detected 1.868 SD Detected 1.597 Mean of Detected Logged Data 0.37 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.708 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.908 d2max (for USL) 3.245 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5 % Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 1.079 SD 1.11 95% UTL95% Coverage 3.197 95% KM UPL (t) 2.929 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 5.939 90 % KM Percentile (z) 2.502 95% KM Percentile (z) 2.905 99 % KM Percentile (z) 3.661 95% KM USL 4.681 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 109 95% UTL with95% Coverage 4.16 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.912 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.92 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124 95% UPL 3.042 95% USL 9.27 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 5.939 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Chromium (VI) General Statistics Total Number of Observations 96 Number of Distinct Observations 38 Number of Missing Observations 17 Number of Detects 38 Number of Non -Detects 58 Number of Distinct Detects 34 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 5 Minimum Detect 0.032 Minimum Non -Detect 0.025 Maximum Detect 1.7 Maximum Non -Detect 0.3 Variance Detected 0.171 Percent Non -Detects 60.42% Mean Detected 0.348 SD Detected 0.413 Mean of Detected Logged Data -1.727 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.196 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.93 d2max (for USL) 3.196 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.154 SD 0.301 95% UTL95% Coverage 0.735 95% KM UPL (t) 0.657 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 1.473 90 % KM Percentile (z) 0.54 95% KM Percentile (z) 0.649 99 % KM Percentile (z) 0.854 95% KM USL 1.116 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 94 95% UTL with95% Coverage 1.2 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.649 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.864 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124 95% UPL 0.729 95% USL 1.7 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 1.473 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Cobalt General Statistics Total Number of Observations 111 Number of Distinct Observations 43 Number of Missing Observations 2 Number of Detects 43 Number of Non -Detects 68 Number of Distinct Detects 41 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Detect 0.426 Minimum Non -Detect 0.5 Maximum Detect 21.7 Maximum Non -Detect 1 Variance Detected 39.54 Percent Non -Detects 61.26% Mean Detected 4.973 SD Detected 6.288 Mean of Detected Logged Data 0.868 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.222 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.908 d2max (for USL) 3.245 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5 % Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 2.286 SD 4.42 95% UTL95% Coverage 10.72 95% KM UPL (t) 9.652 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 21.64 90 % KM Percentile (z) 7.951 95% KM Percentile (z) 9.557 99 % KM Percentile (z) 12.57 95% KM USL 16.63 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 109 95% UTL with95% Coverage 18.4 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.912 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.92 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124 95% UPL 15.92 95% USL 21.7 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 21.64 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Copper General Statistics Total Number of Observations 104 Number of Distinct Observations 25 Number of Missing Observations 9 Number of Detects 24 Number of Non -Detects 80 Number of Distinct Detects 24 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Detect 0.336 Minimum Non -Detect 1 Maximum Detect 4.67 Maximum Non -Detect 1 Variance Detected 1.006 Percent Non -Detects 76.92 % Mean Detected 1.074 SD Detected 1.003 Mean of Detected Logged Data -0.24 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.769 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.917 d2max (for USL) 3.223 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.601 SD 0.55 95% UTL95% Coverage 1.656 95% KM UPL (t) 1.518 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 3.01 90 % KM Percentile (z) 1.306 95% KM Percentile (z) 1.506 99 % KM Percentile (z) 1.881 95% KM USL 2.374 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 102 95% UTL with95% Coverage 1.9 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.789 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.897 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124 95% UPL 1.788 95% USL 4.67 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 3.01 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Magnesium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 113 Minimum 2.06 Second Largest 39.9 Maximum 43.7 Mean 19.84 Coefficient of Variation 0.415 Mean of logged Data 2.886 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.905 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discemible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 101 First Quartile 15 Median 19.2 Third Quartile 24.1 SD 8.239 Skewness 0.518 SD of logged Data 0.492 d2max (for USL) 3.251 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 110 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 39 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.447 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.822 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 153 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 39.12 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 39.12 95% UPL 37.43 90 % Percentile 29.64 90% Chebyshev UPL 44.67 95% Percentile 36.5 95% Chebyshev UPL 55.91 99 % Percentile 39.83 95% USL 43.7 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Nitrate + Nitrite General Statistics Total Number of Observations 85 Number of Distinct Observations 39 Number of Missing Observations 28 Number of Detects 41 Number of Non -Detects 44 Number of Distinct Detects 38 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Detect 0.0035 Minimum Non -Detect 0.01 Maximum Detect 0.593 Maximum Non -Detect 0.02 Variance Detected 0.0233 Percent Non -Detects 51.76 % Mean Detected 0.15 SD Detected 0.153 Mean of Detected Logged Data -2.768 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.587 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.95 d2max (for USL) 3.153 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5 % Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.0753 SD 0.127 95% UTL95% Coverage 0.323 95% KM UPL (t) 0.288 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.632 90 % KM Percentile (z) 0.238 95% KM Percentile (z) 0.284 99 % KM Percentile (z) 0.371 95% KM USL 0.476 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 83 95% UTL with95% Coverage 0.408 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.456 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.804 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124 95% UPL 0.388 95% USL 0.593 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.632 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Sodium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 112 Minimum 12.6 Second Largest 64.1 Maximum 64.8 Mean 29.29 Coefficient of Variation 0.343 Mean of logged Data 3.327 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.906 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discemible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 85 Number of Missing Observations 1 First Quartile 22.28 Median 26.6 Third Quartile 34.93 SD 10.04 Skewness 1.513 SD of logged Data 0.309 d2max (for USL) 3.248 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 109 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 56.5 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.434 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.817 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 153 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 59.33 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 59.92 95% UPL 53.75 90 % Percentile 37.87 90% Chebyshev UPL 59.56 95% Percentile 52.14 95% Chebyshev UPL 73.27 99 % Percentile 63.96 95% USL 64.8 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Strontium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 104 Minimum 64 Second Largest 453 Maximum 615 Mean 209.3 Coefficient of Variation 0.374 Mean of logged Data 5.283 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.917 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Number of Distinct Observations 84 Number of Missing Observations 9 First Quartile 163.5 Median 183 Third Quartile 252.8 SD 78.23 Skewness 1.877 SD of logged Data 0.347 d2max (for USL) 3.223 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 102 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 438 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.789 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.897 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 427.7 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 427.7 95% UPL 312.8 90 % Percentile 291.8 90% Chebyshev UPL 445.1 95% Percentile 305.9 95% Chebyshev UPL 551.9 99 % Percentile 452.6 95% USL 615 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Sulfate General Statistics Total Number of Observations 113 Minimum 0.18 Second Largest 74 Maximum 77 Mean 27.3 Coefficient of Variation 0.706 Mean of logged Data 3.008 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.905 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discemible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 54 First Quartile 13 Median 19 Third Quartile 39 SD 19.29 Skewness 1.007 SD of logged Data 0.918 d2max (for USL) 3.251 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 110 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 69 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.447 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.822 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 153 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 70.6 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 70.6 95% UPL 66.3 90 % Percentile 62.8 90% Chebyshev UPL 85.41 95% Percentile 65.4 95% Chebyshev UPL 111.7 99 % Percentile 73.88 95% USL 77 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Sulfide General Statistics Total Number of Observations 104 Number of Distinct Observations 11 Number of Missing Observations 9 Number of Detects 13 Number of Non -Detects 91 Number of Distinct Detects 10 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 2 Minimum Detect 0.1 Minimum Non -Detect 0.1 Maximum Detect 0.428 Maximum Non -Detect 0.2 Variance Detected 0.00767 Percent Non -Detects 87.5% Mean Detected 0.198 SD Detected 0.0876 Mean of Detected Logged Data -1.692 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.385 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.917 d2max (for USL) 3.223 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5 % Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.112 SD 0.0442 95% UTL95% Coverage 0.197 95% KM UPL (t) 0.186 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.306 90 % KM Percentile (z) 0.169 95% KM Percentile (z) 0.185 99 % KM Percentile (z) 0.215 95% KM USL 0.255 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 102 95% UTL with95% Coverage 0.28 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.789 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.897 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124 95% UPL 0.2 95% USL 0.428 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.306 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A TDS General Statistics Total Number of Observations 113 Minimum 170 Second Largest 600 Maximum 820 Mean 379.4 Coefficient of Variation 0.28 Mean of logged Data 5.899 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.905 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discemible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 38 First Quartile 310 Median 350 Third Quartile 470 SD 106.3 Skewness 0.711 SD of logged Data 0.284 d2max (for USL) 3.251 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 110 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 560 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.447 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.822 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 153 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 568 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 560 95% UPL 543 90 % Percentile 510 90% Chebyshev UPL 699.7 95% Percentile 540 95% Chebyshev UPL 844.8 99 % Percentile 597.6 95% USL 820 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A TOC General Statistics Total Number of Observations 104 Minimum 0.553 Second Largest 29 Maximum 33.6 Mean 2.179 Coefficient of Variation 2.013 Mean of logged Data 0.35 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.917 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discemible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 55 Number of Missing Observations 9 First Quartile 0.95 Median 1.2 Third Quartile 1.8 SD 4.385 Skewness 6.055 SD of logged Data 0.673 d2max (for USL) 3.223 Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values Order of Statistic, r 102 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 11 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.789 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.897 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124 95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 10.79 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 10.79 95% UPL 7.425 90 % Percentile 2.3 90% Chebyshev UPL 15.4 95% Percentile 3.525 95% Chebyshev UPL 21.39 99 % Percentile 28.46 95% USL 33.6 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Total Uranium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 72 Number of Missing Observations 35 Number of Detects 67 Number of Distinct Detects 66 Minimum Detect 6.8800E-5 Maximum Detect 0.00605 Variance Detected 2.3278E-6 Mean Detected 0.00139 Mean of Detected Logged Data -7.188 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.98 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Number of Distinct Observations 67 Number of Non -Detects 5 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 2.0000E-4 Maximum Non -Detect 2.0000E-4 Percent Non -Detects 6.944 % SD Detected 0.00153 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.168 d2max (for USL) 3.094 Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.0013 SD 0.0015 95% UTL95% Coverage 0.00426 95% KM UPL (t) 0.00381 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.00787 90 % KM Percentile (z) 0.00322 95% KM Percentile (z) 0.00376 99 % KM Percentile (z) 0.00478 95% KM USL 0.00593 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 71 95% UTL with95% Coverage 0.00567 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.868 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.881 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 93 95% UPL 0.00475 95% USL 0.00605 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.00787 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Vanadium General Statistics Total Number of Observations 100 Number of Distinct Observations 82 Number of Missing Observations 13 Number of Detects 84 Number of Non -Detects 16 Number of Distinct Detects 81 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Detect 0.12 Minimum Non -Detect 0.3 Maximum Detect 3.03 Maximum Non -Detect 0.3 Variance Detected 0.712 Percent Non -Detects 16 % Mean Detected 0.927 SD Detected 0.844 Mean of Detected Logged Data -0.449 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.853 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.923 d2max (for USL) 3.21 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05) Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 0.814 SD 0.811 95% UTL95% Coverage 2.374 95% KM UPL (t) 2.168 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 4.367 90 % KM Percentile (z) 1.854 95% KM Percentile (z) 2.148 99 % KM Percentile (z) 2.701 95% KM USL 3.417 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 98 95% UTL with95% Coverage 2.88 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.719 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.882 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124 95% UPL 2.776 95% USL 3.03 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 4.367 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Zinc General Statistics Total Number of Observations 104 Number of Distinct Observations 23 Number of Missing Observations 9 Number of Detects 31 Number of Non -Detects 73 Number of Distinct Detects 21 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 3 Minimum Detect 2.18 Minimum Non -Detect 5 Maximum Detect 54 Maximum Non -Detect 20 Variance Detected 207.4 Percent Non -Detects 70.19 % Mean Detected 13.34 SD Detected 14.4 Mean of Detected Logged Data 2.149 SD of Detected Logged Data 0.919 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.917 d2max (for USL) 3.223 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5 % Significance Level Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 6.059 SD 9.101 95% UTL95% Coverage 23.51 95% KM UPL (t) 21.24 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 45.92 90 % KM Percentile (z) 17.72 95% KM Percentile (z) 21.03 99 % KM Percentile (z) 27.23 95% KM USL 35.39 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 102 95% UTL with95% Coverage 44 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.789 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.897 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124 95% UPL 26 95% USL 54 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 45.92 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Two -Sided 95% Tolerance Intervals of pH Percent of Nonparametric Population Upper Between Tolerance Limits Limit 95 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/30/2019 10:20:28 AM From File Roxboro BG GW Data No AC -Outliers a.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 95 Coverage 90 Different or Future K Observations 1 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix A Methane General Statistics Total Number of Observations 42 Number of Missing Observations 65 Number of Detects 17 Number of Distinct Detects 17 Minimum Detect 12.3 Maximum Detect 18800 Variance Detected 34935444 Mean Detected 2340 Mean of Detected Logged Data 5.129 Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs) Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.678 Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5 % Significance Level Number of Distinct Observations 18 Number of Non -Detects 25 Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1 Minimum Non -Detect 10 Maximum Non -Detect 10 Percent Non -Detects 59.52 % SD Detected 5911 SD of Detected Logged Data 2.278 d2max (for USL) 2.887 Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution Mean 953.2 SD 3823 95% UTL90% Coverage 7369 95% KM UPL (t) 7463 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 17815 90 % KM Percentile (z) 5853 95% KM Percentile (z) 7242 99 % KM Percentile (z) 9847 95% KM USL 11993 Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects) Order of Statistic, r 40 95% UTL with90% Coverage 1120 Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.481 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.805 Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% UPL 14788 95% USL 18800 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 17815 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant /'TWO• -3 GOODNESS OF FIT TEST RESULTS (PROUCL OUTPUT SynTerra Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro 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 5.15/30/2019 8:26:48 AM From File Roxboro BG GW Data No AC-Outliers.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone pH Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 52 Number of Distinct Observations 19 Minimum 6.29 Maximum 7.6 Mean of Raw Data 6.635 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 0.304 Khat 503.9 Theta hat 0.0132 Kstar 474.9 Theta star 0.014 Mean of Log Transformed Data 1.891 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.0446 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.938 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.874 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 9.5605E-6 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.181 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.122 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.944 A-D Test Statistic 1.76 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.748 K-S Test Statistic 0.176 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.123 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.945 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.885 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 3.4245E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.173 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.122 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Alkalinity Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 38 Number of Missing Observations 14 Number of Distinct Observations 28 Minimum 149 Maximum 265 Mean of Raw Data 227.3 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 22.99 Khat 89.17 Theta hat 2.549 Kstar 82.15 Theta star 2.767 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.421 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.111 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.939 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.894 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.938 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00144 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.128 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.142 Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.928 A-D Test Statistic 1.533 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.746 K-S Test Statistic 0.138 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.143 Data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.906 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.839 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.938 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.3227E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.148 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.142 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro 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 52 4 48 46 2 4.17% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 2 100 100 100 100 0 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 46 5 1550 242.1 194 288.3 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 48 5 1550 236.2 177 283.6 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 48 5 1550 234.1 177 284.8 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 48 -50.69 1550 232.6 177 286.2 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 48 2.71 1550 232.9 177 285.7 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 48 5 1550 233.1 177 285.5 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 0.671 0.642 360.7 4.584 1.618 0.353 Statistics (NDs = DL) 0.688 0.659 343.1 4.585 1.583 0.345 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 0.675 0.647 346.8 4.556 1.589 0.349 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.637 0.611 365.4 4.49 1.67 0.372 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 4.524 1.612 0.356 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.862 0.859 0.858 0.864 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.763 0.945 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.757 0.947 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.755 0.947 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.769 0.947 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.205 0.129 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.207 0.127 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.211 0.127 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.192 0.127 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.98 0.981 0.981 0.981 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 1.197 0.798 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.138 0.136 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 1.012 0.797 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.129 0.134 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 1.047 0.799 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.124 0.134 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.125 0.802 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.131 0.134 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro 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 0.953 0.958 0.96 0.957 Test value Crit. (0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.889 0.945 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.899 0.947 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.903 0.947 Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.896 0.947 Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.177 0.129 Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.158 0.127 Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.165 0.127 Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.17 0.127 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Barium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 52 Number of Distinct Observations 36 Minimum 5 Maximum 97 Mean of Raw Data 52.34 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 36 Khat 1.265 Theta hat 41.38 Kstar 1.205 Theta star 43.45 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.513 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 1.123 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.91 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.796 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.9575E-9 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.213 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.122 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.801 A-D Test Statistic 4.202 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.773 K-S Test Statistic 0.255 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.126 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.894 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.772 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.708E-10 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.262 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.122 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Bicarbonate Alkalinity Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 34 Number of Missing Observations 18 Number of Distinct Observations 26 Minimum 149 Maximum 265 Mean of Raw Data 229.3 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 21.9 Khat 99.84 Theta hat 2.297 Kstar 91.05 Theta star 2.519 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.43 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.105 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.933 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.89 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.933 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00219 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.134 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.15 Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.923 A-D Test Statistic 1.255 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.746 K-S Test Statistic 0.137 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.15 Data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.895 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.826 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.933 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 3.4824E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.144 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.15 Data appear Approximate —Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Calcium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 39 Number of Missing Observations 13 Number of Distinct Observations 37 Minimum 40.4 Maximum 115 Mean of Raw Data 67.56 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 22.36 Khat 9.929 Theta hat 6.804 Kstar 9.182 Theta star 7.357 Mean of Log Transformed Data 4.162 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.321 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.945 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.874 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.939 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.5508E-4 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.188 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.14 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.963 A-D Test Statistic 1.468 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.748 K-S Test Statistic 0.179 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.141 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.958 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.896 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.939 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0014 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.178 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.14 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Chloride Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 52 Number of Distinct Observations 26 Minimum 12.7 Maximum 181 Mean of Raw Data 56.29 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 60.89 Khat 1.185 Theta hat 47.5 Kstar 1.13 Theta star 49.84 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.553 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.933 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.819 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.653 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.550E-15 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.349 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.122 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.899 A-D Test Statistic 4.928 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.775 K-S Test Statistic 0.244 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.126 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.91 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.801 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.7485E-9 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.226 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.122 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Chromium Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 52 0 52 46 6 11.54% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 6 5 5 5 5 0 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 46 1.26 42.7 7.762 6 6.987 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 52 1.26 42.7 7.443 5.545 6.623 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 52 1.26 42.7 7.154 5.545 6.779 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 52 -2.082 42.7 7.121 5.545 6.859 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 52 0.01 42.7 7.099 5.545 6.837 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 52 1.26 42.7 7.216 5.545 6.745 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.937 1.825 4.008 1.769 0.739 0.418 Statistics (NDs = DL) 2.102 1.993 3.542 1.751 0.696 0.398 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.833 1.74 3.902 1.671 0.747 0.447 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.347 1.282 5.271 1.545 1.174 0.76 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 1.687 0.739 0.438 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.835 0.82 0.822 0.847 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.705 6.035E-13 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.706 6.600E-13 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.753 4.597E-11 Data Not Normal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.726 0.945 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.182 0.129 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.202 0.122 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.192 0.122 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.181 0.122 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.94 0.929 0.938 0.952 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) 0.682 0.762 0.104 0.132 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed 0.973 0.762 0.142 0.125 Data Not Gamma Distributed 1.315 0.764 0.144 0.125 Data Not Gamma Distributed 0.672 0.771 0.109 0.126 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Chromium (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.99 0.989 0.978 0.988 Apr. Test P Value Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.98 0.721 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.955 0.0835 Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.974 0.503 Test value Crit. (0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.979 0.945 Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.101 0.129 Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.092 0.122 Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.15 0.122 Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.1 0.122 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Chromium (VI) Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 24 Number of Missing Observations 28 Number of Distinct Observations 22 Minimum 1.6 Maximum 13.1 Mean of Raw Data 5.046 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 3.629 Khat 2.431 Theta hat 2.076 Kstar 2.155 Theta star 2.342 Mean of Log Transformed Data 1.399 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.658 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.904 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.807 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.916 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.2910E-4 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.246 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.177 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.964 A-D Test Statistic 1.179 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.753 K-S Test Statistic 0.226 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.18 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.96 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.906 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.916 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.028 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.2 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 Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Fluoride Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 52 39 13 9 4 30.77% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 4 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.231 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 9 0.0695 0.281 0.175 0.189 0.076 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 13 0.0695 0.5 0.214 0.189 0.144 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 13 0.05 0.281 0.168 0.189 0.0856 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 13 0.0216 0.281 0.151 0.12 0.0814 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 13 0.0457 0.281 0.153 0.12 0.0774 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 13 0.0595 0.281 0.154 0.12 0.0754 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 5.355 3.644 0.0328 -1.837 0.484 -0.264 Statistics (NDs = DL) 2.793 2.2 0.0765 -1.732 0.631 -0.364 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 3.289 2.582 0.051 -1.946 0.633 -0.325 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 3.861 3.021 0.0397 -2.01 0.565 -0.281 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) -1.991 0.52 -0.261 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.975 0.911 0.957 0.983 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.931 0.829 Data Appear Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.82 0.866 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.891 0.866 Data Appear Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.953 0.866 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.212 0.274 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.204 0.234 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.186 0.234 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.188 0.234 Data Appear Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.958 0.961 0.914 0.969 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.354 0.723 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.196 0.28 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 0.526 0.74 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.211 0.238 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 0.653 0.739 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.196 0.238 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.323 0.738 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.179 0.238 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Fluoride (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.969 0.971 0.942 0.98 Test value Crit. (0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.925 0.829 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.929 0.866 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.866 0.866 Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.941 0.866 Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.193 0.274 Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.192 0.234 Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.209 0.234 Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.161 0.234 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Iron Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 48 Number of Missing Observations 4 Number of Distinct Observations 45 Minimum 12 Maximum 1760 Mean of Raw Data 302.9 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 317.7 Khat 1.001 Theta hat 302.6 Kstar 0.952 Theta star 318.1 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.137 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 1.245 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.873 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.782 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.947 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.2353E-9 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.181 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.127 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.981 A-D Test Statistic 0.377 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.779 K-S Test Statistic 0.0846 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.132 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.969 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.926 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.947 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00573 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.153 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.127 Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Lithium Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 52 39 13 8 5 38.46% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 5 5 5 5 5 0 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 8 1.873 23 11.61 13.5 6.55 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 13 1.873 23 9.067 5 6.019 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 13 1.873 23 8.106 5 6.805 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 13 -5.874 23 7.078 5 8.124 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 13 0.01 23 7.922 5 7.053 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 13 1.124 23 8.089 5 6.849 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 2.535 1.668 4.58 2.242 0.794 0.354 Statistics (NDs = DL) 2.58 2.036 3.514 1.999 0.685 0.343 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.532 1.23 5.291 1.732 0.904 0.522 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.716 0.602 11.07 1.228 2.055 1.674 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 1.691 0.986 0.583 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.96 0.911 0.909 0.98 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.933 0.818 Data Appear Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.836 0.866 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.819 0.866 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.96 0.866 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.233 0.283 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.289 0.234 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.257 0.234 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.152 0.234 Data Appear Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.933 0.956 0.954 0.935 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) 0.501 0.723 0.278 0.297 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed 0.868 0.741 0.281 0.239 Data Not Gamma Distributed 1.023 0.75 0.285 0.241 Data Not Gamma Distributed 0.456 0.773 0.184 0.246 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Lithium (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.919 0.94 0.927 0.971 Test value Crit. (0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.858 0.818 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.89 0.866 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.839 0.866 Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.928 0.866 Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.283 0.283 Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.253 0.234 Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.278 0.234 Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.197 0.234 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Magnesium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 39 Number of Missing Observations 13 Number of Distinct Observations 32 Minimum 24.5 Maximum 49.6 Mean of Raw Data 30.71 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 7.365 Khat 20.77 Theta hat 1.478 Kstar 19.19 Theta star 1.6 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.4 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.215 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.853 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.718 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.939 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.9392E-9 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.335 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.14 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.887 A-D Test Statistic 4.747 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.747 K-S Test Statistic 0.317 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.141 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.869 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.743 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.939 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.6770E-8 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.304 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.14 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Manganese Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs Raw Statistics 52 5 47 36 11 Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 11 5 5 5 5 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 36 4.561 820 69.34 18 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 47 4.561 820 54.28 11 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 47 2.5 820 53.69 11 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 47 -285.4 820 14.28 11 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 47 0.01 820 53.11 11 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 47 0.316 820 53.5 11 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 0.571 0.542 121.5 3.148 1.322 Statistics (NDs = DL) 0.523 0.504 103.8 2.788 1.328 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 0.472 0.456 113.7 2.626 1.497 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.266 0.264 199.4 1.333 3.513 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 2.481 1.714 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.658 0.615 0.62 0.845 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.464 0.935 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.413 0.946 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.419 0.946 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.753 0.946 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.335 0.145 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.357 0.128 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.353 0.128 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.243 0.128 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.922 0.902 0.912 0.954 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 2.837 0.806 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.225 0.154 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 4.864 0.812 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.248 0.136 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 3.549 0.821 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.224 0.137 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.714 0.879 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.169 0.141 Data Not Gamma Distributed Appendix B % NDs 23.40% SD 0 152.3 135.6 135.9 169 136.1 135.9 Log CV 0.42 0.476 0.57 2.634 0.691 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Manganese (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.958 0.922 0.961 0.995 Test value Crit. (0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.91 0.935 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.841 0.946 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.909 0.946 Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.986 0.946 Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.149 0.145 Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.169 0.128 Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.127 0.128 Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.0777 0.128 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Nickel Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 52 4 48 27 21 43.75% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 21 1 5 4.048 5 1.746 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 27 0.751 45.5 8.804 7 9.066 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 48 0.751 45.5 6.723 5 7.242 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 48 0.5 45.5 5.838 2.5 7.573 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 48 -16.07 45.5 2.794 1.836 10.4 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 48 0.01 45.5 5.141 1.695 7.965 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 48 0.216 45.5 5.488 2.103 7.762 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.275 1.158 6.904 1.734 1.016 0.586 Statistics (NDs = DL) 1.414 1.34 4.754 1.512 0.92 0.608 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.035 0.984 5.64 1.209 1.07 0.885 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.317 0.311 16.23 -0.521 3.051 -5.857 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.945 1.286 1.361 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.841 0.786 0.782 0.948 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.729 0.923 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.652 0.947 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.642 0.947 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.921 0.947 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.212 0.167 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.23 0.127 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.274 0.127 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.121 0.127 Data Appear Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.955 0.92 0.944 0.978 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.501 0.768 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.127 0.172 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 1.557 0.769 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.211 0.13 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 1.596 0.778 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.263 0.132 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 2.173 0.858 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.226 0.139 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Nickel (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.975 0.961 0.975 0.99 Test value Crit. (0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.947 0.923 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.92 0.947 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.941 0.947 Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.969 0.947 Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.189 0.167 Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.271 0.127 Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.212 0.127 Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.12 0.127 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Nitrate + Nitrite Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 23 Number of Missing Observations 29 Number of Distinct Observations 22 Minimum 0.125 Maximum 4 Mean of Raw Data 2.2 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 1.422 Khat 1.213 Theta hat 1.814 Kstar 1.084 Theta star 2.03 Mean of Log Transformed Data 0.323 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 1.219 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.929 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.843 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.914 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00152 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.21 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.18 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.808 A-D Test Statistic 2.49 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.765 K-S Test Statistic 0.272 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.186 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.87 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.744 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.914 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.2577E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.301 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 - Roxboro 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 52 13 39 37 2 5.13% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 2 5 5 5 5 0 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 37 0.964 5.48 2.127 1.8 1.183 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 39 0.964 5.48 2.274 1.81 1.318 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 39 0.964 5.48 2.146 1.81 1.154 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 39 0.964 5.48 2.124 1.8 1.156 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 39 0.964 5.48 2.117 1.8 1.157 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 39 0.964 5.48 2.113 1.8 1.156 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 3.713 3.43 0.573 0.614 0.531 0.865 Statistics (NDs = DL) 3.35 3.109 0.679 0.665 0.563 0.846 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 3.887 3.605 0.552 0.629 0.521 0.828 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 3.856 3.576 0.549 0.615 0.52 0.846 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.613 0.519 0.848 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.923 0.929 0.934 0.928 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.844 0.936 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.846 0.939 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.864 0.939 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.853 0.939 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.238 0.144 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.241 0.14 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.212 0.14 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.23 0.14 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.966 0.969 0.973 0.97 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) 1.74 0.753 0.18 0.146 Data Not Gamma Distributed 1.68 0.754 0.18 0.142 Data Not Gamma Distributed 1.468 0.753 0.173 0.142 Data Not Gamma Distributed 1.604 0.753 0.166 0.142 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro 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 0.948 0.952 0.956 0.954 Test value Crit. (0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.88 0.936 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.881 0.939 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.894 0.939 Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.89 0.939 Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.183 0.144 Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.174 0.14 Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.176 0.14 Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.17 0.14 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Sodium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 39 Number of Missing Observations 13 Number of Distinct Observations 32 Minimum 23.4 Maximum 35.4 Mean of Raw Data 29.86 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 3.107 Khat 93.84 Theta hat 0.318 Kstar 86.64 Theta star 0.345 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.391 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.105 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.991 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.969 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.939 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.44 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.123 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.14 Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.989 A-D Test Statistic 0.311 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.747 K-S Test Statistic 0.111 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.141 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.99 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.968 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.939 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.436 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.103 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.14 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Strontium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 34 Number of Missing Observations 18 Number of Distinct Observations 30 Minimum 221 Maximum 782 Mean of Raw Data 430.9 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 175.6 Khat 6.09 Theta hat 70.76 Kstar 5.573 Theta star 77.33 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.982 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.423 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.948 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.879 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.933 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00108 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.209 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.15 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.96 A-D Test Statistic 1.654 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.749 K-S Test Statistic 0.226 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.151 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.941 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.863 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.933 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 3.7328E-4 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.227 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.15 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Sulfate Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 52 Number of Distinct Observations 30 Minimum 11 Maximum 48.1 Mean of Raw Data 23.72 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 8.834 Khat 6.906 Theta hat 3.434 Kstar 6.521 Theta star 3.637 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.092 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.399 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.967 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.925 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00313 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.145 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.122 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.967 A-D Test Statistic 1.595 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.752 K-S Test Statistic 0.182 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.123 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.962 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.907 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.0664E-4 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.195 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.122 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone TDS Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 52 Number of Distinct Observations 30 Minimum 248 Maximum 750 Mean of Raw Data 413.4 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 135.5 Khat 11.32 Theta hat 36.52 Kstar 10.68 Theta star 38.71 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.98 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.291 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.905 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.807 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 8.4709E-9 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.247 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.122 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.941 A-D Test Statistic 2.863 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.75 K-S Test Statistic 0.206 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.123 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.944 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.877 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.3898E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.198 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.122 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone kfiZo Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 52 25 27 26 1 3.70% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1 1 1 1 1 N/A Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 26 0.672 2.4 1.256 1.1 0.467 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 27 0.672 2.4 1.247 1.1 0.461 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 27 0.5 2.4 1.228 1.1 0.48 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 27 0.672 2.4 1.24 1.1 0.466 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 27 0.672 2.4 1.239 1.1 0.466 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 27 0.672 2.4 1.24 1.1 0.465 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 8.128 7.215 0.155 0.165 0.358 2.168 Statistics (NDs = DL) 8.317 7.418 0.15 0.159 0.353 2.216 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 7.105 6.34 0.173 0.133 0.388 2.908 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 8.022 7.155 0.154 0.151 0.359 2.38 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.152 0.358 2.352 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.959 0.954 0.968 0.956 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.912 0.92 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.904 0.923 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.933 0.923 Data Appear Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.907 0.923 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.208 0.17 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.218 0.167 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.198 0.167 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.21 0.167 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.984 0.981 0.988 0.983 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.575 0.745 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.176 0.171 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 0.686 0.745 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.186 0.168 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 0.433 0.746 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.157 0.168 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.602 0.745 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.176 0.168 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone TOC (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.982 0.98 0.989 0.982 Test value Crit. (0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.952 0.92 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.948 0.923 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.973 0.923 Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.952 0.923 Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.154 0.17 Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.164 0.167 Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.132 0.167 Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.156 0.167 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Total Radium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 22 Number of Missing Observations 30 Number of Distinct Observations 22 Minimum 0.093 Maximum 7.89 Mean of Raw Data 2.083 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 2.274 Khat 1.04 Theta hat 2.003 Kstar 0.928 Theta star 2.244 Mean of Log Transformed Data 0.181 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 1.138 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.868 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.751 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.911 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.1493E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.3 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.184 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.966 A-D Test Statistic 0.75 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.77 K-S Test Statistic 0.197 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.191 Data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.979 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.956 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.911 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.408 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.127 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.184 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Total Uranium Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 52 31 21 20 1 4.76% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1 2.0000E-4 2.0000E-4 2.0000E-4 2.0000E-4 N/A Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 20 4.8200E-4 0.00381 0.0017 7.8650E-4 0.00131 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 21 2.0000E-4 0.00381 0.00163 7.6500E-4 0.00132 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 21 1.0000E-4 0.00381 0.00162 7.6500E-4 0.00133 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 21 -0.00128 0.00381 0.00156 7.6500E-4 0.00144 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 21 4.8200E-4 0.01 0.0021 8.0800E-4 0.00222 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 21 1.9080E-4 0.00381 0.00163 7.6500E-4 0.00132 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.769 1.537 9.6159E-4 -6.685 0.81 -0.121 Statistics (NDs = DL) 1.563 1.371 0.00104 -6.772 0.885 -0.131 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.45 1.274 0.00112 -6.805 0.963 -0.141 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.337 1.178 0.00157 -6.586 0.911 -0.138 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) -6.775 0.89 -0.131 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.887 0.893 0.897 0.923 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) 0.766 0.905 Data Not Normal 0.782 0.908 Data Not Normal 0.79 0.908 Data Not Normal 0.848 0.908 Data Not Normal 0.311 0.192 Data Not Normal 0.31 0.188 Data Not Normal 0.308 0.188 Data Not Normal 0.278 0.188 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.901 0.905 0.903 0.937 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) 1.944 0.755 0.281 0.197 Data Not Gamma Distributed 1.662 0.758 0.264 0.193 Data Not Gamma Distributed 1.501 0.759 0.249 0.193 Data Not Gamma Distributed 1.523 0.762 0.264 0.193 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Total Uranium (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.911 0.936 0.931 0.937 Test value Crit. (0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.806 0.905 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.868 0.908 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.867 0.908 Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.869 0.908 Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.255 0.192 Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.225 0.188 Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.2 0.188 Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.223 0.188 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Vanadium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 34 Number of Missing Observations 18 Number of Distinct Observations 32 Minimum 0.983 Maximum 24.4 Mean of Raw Data 10.69 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 7.422 Khat 1.302 Theta hat 8.212 Kstar 1.206 Theta star 8.86 Mean of Log Transformed Data 1.938 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 1.124 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.961 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.901 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.933 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00494 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.152 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.15 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.907 A-D Test Statistic 1.884 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.77 K-S Test Statistic 0.207 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.154 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.91 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.806 Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value 0.933 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.1057E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.252 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.15 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant 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 5.15/30/2019 10:06:42 AM From File Roxboro BG GW Data No AC -Outliers a.xls Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone pH Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 113 Number of Distinct Observations 38 Minimum 6.1 Maximum 8.3 Mean of Raw Data 7.236 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 0.45 Khat 263.3 Theta hat 0.0275 Kstar 256.3 Theta star 0.0282 Mean of Log Transformed Data 1.977 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.0618 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.984 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.958 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0076 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.134 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0837 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.986 A-D Test Statistic 1.309 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.75 K-S Test Statistic 0.126 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.0858 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.987 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.964 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0353 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.122 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0837 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Alkalinity Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 113 Number of Distinct Observations 86 Minimum 80 Maximum 398 Mean of Raw Data 246.3 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 67.38 Khat 11.75 Theta hat 20.95 Kstar 11.45 Theta star 21.51 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.463 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.311 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.987 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.959 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0115 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0908 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0837 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.977 A-D Test Statistic 2.002 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.752 K-S Test Statistic 0.131 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.086 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.954 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.905 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.4730E-9 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.152 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0837 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Aluminum Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 113 12 101 94 7 6.93% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 7 5 100 45.71 5 50.78 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 94 1.945 250 51.78 33 55.95 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 101 1.945 250 51.36 33 55.4 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 101 1.945 250 49.78 33 54.82 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 101 -68.49 250 47.25 33 57.76 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 101 0.01 250 48.95 27 55.15 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 101 1.945 250 49.03 27 55.01 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.049 1.023 49.36 3.4 1.103 0.325 Statistics (NDs = DL) 1.005 0.982 51.12 3.365 1.141 0.339 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 0.979 0.957 50.83 3.317 1.175 0.354 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.729 0.714 67.13 3.067 1.903 0.62 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 3.3 1.156 0.35 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.88 0.888 0.879 0.915 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.768 0 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.78 0 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.766 0 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.842 3.331E-16 Data Not Normal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.218 0.0916 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.2 0.0884 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.218 0.0884 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.195 0.0884 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.987 0.99 0.988 0.988 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 1.157 0.782 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.092 0.095 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 1.1 0.783 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.0878 0.0919 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 0.861 0.784 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.0911 0.0919 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.084 0.797 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.0919 0.0928 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Aluminum (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DU2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.994 0.992 0.992 0.994 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.97 0.168 Data Appear Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.963 0.0426 Data Not Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DU2) 0.962 0.0316 Data Not Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.968 0.0929 Data Appear Lognormal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.0565 0.0916 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.0608 0.0884 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (NDs = DU2) 0.0757 0.0884 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.0624 0.0884 Data Appear Lognormal Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Barium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 113 Number of Distinct Observations 64 Minimum 11 Maximum 153 Mean of Raw Data 47.36 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 34.15 Khat 2.334 Theta hat 20.29 Kstar 2.278 Theta star 20.79 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.629 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.675 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.918 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.827 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.172 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0837 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.981 A-D Test Statistic 1.693 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.763 K-S Test Statistic 0.104 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.0871 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.986 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.948 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.2681E-4 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0912 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0837 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Bicarbonate Alkalinity Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 104 Number of Missing Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 79 Minimum 14.5 Maximum 398 Mean of Raw Data 255.2 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 61.78 Khat 11.97 Theta hat 21.32 Kstar 11.63 Theta star 21.94 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.5 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.355 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.974 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.957 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0103 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.109 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0872 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.97 A-D Test Statistic 2.56 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.752 K-S Test Statistic 0.134 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.0883 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.789 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.678 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.171 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0872 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Calcium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 113 Number of Distinct Observations 99 Minimum 2.85 Maximum 112 Mean of Raw Data 68.24 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 22.6 Khat 6.515 Theta hat 10.48 Kstar 6.347 Theta star 10.75 Mean of Log Transformed Data 4.144 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.47 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.982 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.951 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00156 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.115 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0837 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.957 A-D Test Statistic 3.011 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.754 K-S Test Statistic 0.148 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.0862 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.865 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.781 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.188 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0837 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Chloride Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 112 Number of Missing Observations 1 Number of Distinct Observations 53 Minimum 3.9 Maximum 140 Mean of Raw Data 40.75 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 34.5 Khat 1.655 Theta hat 24.62 Kstar 1.617 Theta star 25.2 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.376 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.849 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.894 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.783 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.26 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.084 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.964 A-D Test Statistic 2.178 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.768 K-S Test Statistic 0.156 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.0878 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.98 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.941 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 9.5721 E-5 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.111 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.084 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Fluoride Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs Raw Statistics 113 64 49 42 7 Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 7 0.1 0.5 0.229 0.1 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 42 0.051 0.39 0.169 0.15 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 49 0.051 0.5 0.177 0.15 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 49 0.05 0.39 0.161 0.143 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 49 0.00817 0.39 0.158 0.14 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 49 0.0385 0.39 0.158 0.14 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 49 0.051 0.39 0.159 0.14 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 5.209 4.853 0.0324 -1.877 0.447 Statistics (NDs = DL) 4.03 3.797 0.044 -1.858 0.496 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 3.957 3.728 0.0407 -1.957 0.532 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 4.318 4.068 0.0367 -1.963 0.503 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) -1.944 0.465 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.937 0.9 0.957 0.955 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.845 0.942 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.81 0.947 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.905 0.947 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.911 0.947 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.183 0.135 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.204 0.126 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.145 0.126 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.148 0.126 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.978 0.965 0.99 0.983 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.559 0.752 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.123 0.137 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 1.163 0.753 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.137 0.127 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 0.339 0.754 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.0823 0.127 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.409 0.753 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.088 0.127 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Appendix B % NDs 14.29% SD 0.189 0.0805 0.102 0.0838 0.0827 0.0809 0.0793 Log CV -0.238 -0.267 -0.272 -0.256 -0.239 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Fluoride (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DU2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.99 0.985 0.986 0.994 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.941 0.942 Data Not Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.966 0.947 Data Appear Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DU2) 0.955 0.947 Data Appear Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.979 0.947 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.0962 0.135 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.1 0.126 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (NDs = DU2) 0.0946 0.126 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.0863 0.126 Data Appear Lognormal Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Iron Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 113 9 104 101 3 2.88% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 3 10 10 10 10 0 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 101 5.719 6220 1169 828 1294 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 104 5.719 6220 1135 814 1290 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 104 5 6220 1135 814 1290 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 104 -1761 6220 1093 814 1350 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 104 0.01 6220 1135 814 1290 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 104 5.719 6220 1135 814 1290 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 0.754 0.738 1549 6.271 1.561 0.249 Statistics (NDs = DL) 0.689 0.676 1647 6.156 1.676 0.272 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 0.676 0.663 1679 6.136 1.726 0.281 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.577 0.567 1968 5.957 2.39 0.401 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 6.173 1.64 0.266 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.889 0.886 0.886 0.918 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.786 0 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.782 0 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.782 0 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.852 1.665E-15 Data Not Normal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.184 0.0884 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.191 0.0872 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.191 0.0872 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.181 0.0872 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.99 0.99 0.989 0.987 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.531 0.795 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.0625 0.0927 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 0.635 0.801 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.0674 0.0923 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 0.614 0.802 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.0701 0.0924 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.036 0.811 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.0912 0.093 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Iron (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL Correlation Coefficient R 0.966 0.962 Apr. Test P Value Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.919 1.0128E-6 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.906 1.6763E-8 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DU2) 0.898 1.6157E-9 Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.914 1.6653E-7 Test value Crit. (0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.131 0.0884 Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.135 0.0872 Lilliefors (NDs = DU2) 0.136 0.0872 Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.134 0.0872 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. NDs = DU2 Log ROS 0.958 0.965 Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Lithium Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs Raw Statistics 113 67 46 33 13 Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 13 5 5 5 5 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 33 2.872 34 10.06 7 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 46 2.872 34 8.633 5.5 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 46 2.5 34 7.927 5.5 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 46 -6.715 34 7.522 5.998 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 46 0.01 34 7.762 5.5 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 46 1.443 34 8.181 5.628 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 2.274 2.087 4.427 2.073 0.691 Statistics (NDs = DL) 2.497 2.348 3.458 1.942 0.62 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.691 1.595 4.688 1.746 0.785 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.794 0.757 9.771 1.302 1.878 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 1.815 0.744 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.912 0.856 0.872 0.944 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.833 0.931 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.741 0.945 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.764 0.945 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.903 0.945 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.193 0.152 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.261 0.129 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.225 0.129 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.186 0.129 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.984 0.957 0.979 0.99 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.724 0.758 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.141 0.155 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 2.659 0.758 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.236 0.132 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 2.096 0.765 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.163 0.133 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.298 0.788 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.175 0.135 Data Not Gamma Distributed Appendix B % NDs 28.26% SD 0 7.467 6.706 7.177 7.772 7.364 7.017 Log CV 0.333 0.319 0.45 1.443 0.41 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro 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 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.982 0.953 0.948 0.985 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.948 0.931 Data Appear Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.897 0.945 Data Not Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.877 0.945 Data Not Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.961 0.945 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.127 0.152 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.205 0.129 Data Not Lognormal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.146 0.129 Data Not Lognormal Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.121 0.129 Data Appear Lognormal Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Magnesium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 113 Number of Distinct Observations 101 Minimum 2.06 Maximum 43.7 Mean of Raw Data 19.84 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 8.239 Khat 5.086 Theta hat 3.901 Kstar 4.957 Theta star 4.003 Mean of Log Transformed Data 2.886 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.492 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.986 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.963 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0268 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0847 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0837 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.99 A-D Test Statistic 1.09 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.755 K-S Test Statistic 0.11 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.0862 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.957 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.924 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.4620E-7 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.141 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0837 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 - Roxboro 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 113 9 104 103 1 0.96% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1 5 5 5 5 N/A Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 103 19 1510 496 390 389.8 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 104 5 1510 491.3 379.5 390.9 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 104 2.5 1510 491.3 379.5 390.9 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 104 -550.9 1510 485.9 379.5 401.3 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 104 19 1510 491.7 379.5 390.4 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 104 16.36 1510 491.4 379.5 390.8 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.253 1.223 395.9 5.757 1.112 0.193 Statistics (NDs = DL) 1.181 1.153 416.1 5.717 1.179 0.206 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.166 1.139 421.2 5.711 1.205 0.211 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.23 1.201 399.8 5.739 1.122 0.196 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 5.729 1.145 0.2 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.961 0.961 0.961 0.97 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.901 4.7163E-9 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.901 3.5788E-9 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.901 3.8309E-9 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.936 5.7569E-5 Data Not Normal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.124 0.0876 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.123 0.0872 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.123 0.0872 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.116 0.0872 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.968 0.966 0.966 0.968 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.907 0.776 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.0815 0.0908 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 0.903 0.778 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.0801 0.0907 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 0.896 0.779 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.0797 0.0907 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.959 0.777 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.0813 0.0906 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Manganese (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL Correlation Coefficient R 0.963 0.958 Apr. Test P Value Shapira -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.905 1.4026E-8 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.909 3.3559E-8 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.905 1.0325E-8 Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.903 6.9660E-9 Test value Crit. (0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.117 0.0876 Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.127 0.0872 Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.13 0.0872 Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.122 0.0872 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. NDs = DL/2 Log ROS 0.952 0.962 Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro 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 113 0 113 112 1 0.88% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1 1 1 1 1 N/A Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 112 1 24.3 7.685 5.65 5.696 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 113 1 24.3 7.626 5.41 5.705 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 113 0.5 24.3 7.621 5.41 5.71 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 113 -7.394 24.3 7.551 5.41 5.845 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 113 0.01 24.3 7.617 5.41 5.716 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 113 0.669 24.3 7.623 5.41 5.708 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.932 1.886 3.978 1.759 0.779 0.443 Statistics (NDs = DL) 1.883 1.839 4.05 1.743 0.793 0.455 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.85 1.807 4.12 1.737 0.81 0.466 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.671 1.633 4.557 1.702 0.98 0.576 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 1.74 0.802 0.461 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.942 0.942 0.943 0.952 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.869 1.088E-14 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.869 7.327E-15 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.872 2.121E-14 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.905 1.5029E-9 Data Not Normal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.155 0.084 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.156 0.0837 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.155 0.0837 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.147 0.0837 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.988 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.908 0.766 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.0869 0.0876 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 0.851 0.766 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.0841 0.0873 Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 0.756 0.767 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.0813 0.0874 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.628 0.768 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.0664 0.0875 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Molybdenum (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DU2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.992 0.992 0.992 0.992 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.961 0.0156 Data Not Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.959 0.0113 Data Not Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DU2) 0.97 0.103 Data Appear Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.967 0.0589 Data Appear Lognormal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.0764 0.084 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.0757 0.0837 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (NDs = DU2) 0.0734 0.0837 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.0745 0.0837 Data Appear Lognormal Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Nickel Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 113 9 104 62 42 40.38% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 42 1 1 1 1 0 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 62 0.34 7.62 1.525 1.225 1.255 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 104 0.34 7.62 1.313 1 0.999 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 104 0.34 7.62 1.111 0.562 1.09 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 104 -1.458 7.62 1.027 0.906 1.218 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 104 0.01 7.62 1.048 0.804 1.146 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 104 0.167 7.62 1.143 0.835 1.081 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 2.231 2.134 0.683 0.181 0.683 3.769 Statistics (NDs = DL) 3.204 3.118 0.41 0.108 0.533 4.935 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.955 1.905 0.568 -0.172 0.68 -3.956 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.765 0.75 1.369 -0.733 1.695 -2.312 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) -0.148 0.72 -4.875 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.853 0.77 0.787 0.907 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.748 5.618E-14 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.626 0 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.645 0 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.852 1.443E-15 Data Not Normal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.211 0.112 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.249 0.0872 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.24 0.0872 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.166 0.0872 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.955 0.88 0.93 0.982 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.958 0.762 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.12 0.114 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 6.883 0.758 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.209 0.089 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 7.125 0.766 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.259 0.0896 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 2.395 0.794 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.116 0.0918 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Nickel (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL Correlation Coefficient R 0.988 0.941 Apr. Test P Value Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.967 0.225 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.891 1.768E-10 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DU2) 0.847 3.331E-16 Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.983 0.664 Test value Crit. (0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.0896 0.112 Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.237 0.0872 Lilliefors (NDs = DU2) 0.269 0.0872 Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.0393 0.0872 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. NDs = DU2 Log ROS 0.925 0.994 Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Appear Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Appear Lognormal Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Potassium Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs Raw Statistics 113 2 111 110 1 Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1 5 5 5 5 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 110 2.98 12.8 6.554 6.365 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 111 2.98 12.8 6.54 6.36 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 111 2.5 12.8 6.518 6.36 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 111 2.98 12.8 6.533 6.36 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 111 2.98 12.8 6.534 6.36 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 111 2.98 12.8 6.535 6.36 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 15.55 15.14 0.421 1.848 0.256 Statistics (NDs = DL) 15.55 15.14 0.421 1.846 0.256 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 14.33 13.95 0.455 1.839 0.27 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 15.37 14.96 0.425 1.844 0.258 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 1.844 0.257 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.974 0.974 0.978 0.974 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.95 0.00133 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.949 9.7864E-4 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.959 0.0121 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.95 0.00117 Data Not Normal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.0843 0.0848 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.0844 0.0844 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.0801 0.0844 Data Appear Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.0829 0.0844 Data Appear Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.988 0.988 0.989 0.988 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.362 0.751 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.0543 0.0867 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 0.37 0.751 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.0544 0.0865 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 0.364 0.751 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.0515 0.0865 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.371 0.751 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.0546 0.0865 Data Appear Gamma Distributed Appendix B % NDs 0.90% SD N/A 1.711 1.71 1.746 1.718 1.717 1.715 Log CV 0.139 0.139 0.147 0.14 0.139 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Potassium (Continued) Lognormal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DU2 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.994 0.994 0.99 0.994 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.988 0.885 Data Appear Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.988 0.889 Data Appear Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DU2) 0.984 0.716 Data Appear Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.987 0.867 Data Appear Lognormal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.06 0.0848 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.0601 0.0844 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (NDs = DU2) 0.0579 0.0844 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.0602 0.0844 Data Appear Lognormal Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Sodium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 112 Number of Missing Observations 1 Number of Distinct Observations 85 Minimum 12.6 Maximum 64.8 Mean of Raw Data 29.29 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 10.04 Khat 10.18 Theta hat 2.878 Kstar 9.91 Theta star 2.955 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.327 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.309 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.929 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.861 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.551 E-16 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.133 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.084 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.965 A-D Test Statistic 1.995 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.752 K-S Test Statistic 0.119 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.0863 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.979 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.954 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00311 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.107 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.084 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Strontium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 104 Number of Missing Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 84 Minimum 64 Maximum 615 Mean of Raw Data 209.3 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 78.23 Khat 8.444 Theta hat 24.79 Kstar 8.207 Theta star 25.5 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.283 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.347 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.924 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.878 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 3.747E-12 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.141 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0872 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.96 A-D Test Statistic 1.424 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.753 K-S Test Statistic 0.114 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.0884 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.979 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.972 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.166 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0938 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0872 Data appear Approximate —Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Sulfate Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 113 Number of Distinct Observations 54 Minimum 0.18 Maximum 77 Mean of Raw Data 27.3 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 19.29 Khat 1.821 Theta hat 14.99 Kstar 1.779 Theta star 15.35 Mean of Log Transformed Data 3.008 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.918 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.939 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.862 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.661E-16 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.196 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0837 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.971 A-D Test Statistic 1.487 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.767 K-S Test Statistic 0.114 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.0874 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.927 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.875 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.018E-14 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.156 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0837 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone TDS Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 113 Number of Distinct Observations 38 Minimum 170 Maximum 820 Mean of Raw Data 379.4 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 106.3 Khat 12.97 Theta hat 29.25 Kstar 12.63 Theta star 30.03 Mean of Log Transformed Data 5.899 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.284 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.969 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.944 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.4172E-4 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.165 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0837 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.979 A-D Test Statistic 1.772 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.751 K-S Test Statistic 0.13 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.086 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.978 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.954 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00275 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.113 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0837 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone TOC Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 104 Number of Missing Observations 9 Number of Distinct Observations 55 Minimum 0.553 Maximum 33.6 Mean of Raw Data 2.179 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 4.385 Khat 1.308 Theta hat 1.666 Kstar 1.277 Theta star 1.706 Mean of Log Transformed Data 0.35 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.673 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.521 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.307 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.394 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0872 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.724 A-D Test Statistic 13.39 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.775 K-S Test Statistic 0.286 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.0905 Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.869 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.769 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.171 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0872 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 - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Total Radium Raw Statistics Number of Valid Observations 71 Number of Missing Observations 36 Number of Distinct Observations 70 Minimum 0.123 Maximum 6.894 Mean of Raw Data 1.421 Standard Deviation of Raw Data 1.217 Khat 1.965 Theta hat 0.723 Kstar 1.891 Theta star 0.751 Mean of Log Transformed Data 0.0756 Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 0.754 Normal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.857 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.748 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.110E-16 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.2 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.105 Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level Gamma GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.955 A-D Test Statistic 0.764 A-D Critical (0.05) Value 0.764 K-S Test Statistic 0.107 K-S Critical(0.05) Value 0.107 Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level Lognormal GOF Test Results Correlation Coefficient R 0.992 Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.985 Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.838 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0705 Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.105 Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Total Uranium Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs Raw Statistics 107 35 72 67 5 Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 5 2.0000E-4 2.0000E-4 2.0000E-4 2.0000E-4 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 67 6.8800E-5 0.00605 0.00139 8.0500E-4 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 72 6.8800E-5 0.00605 0.00131 6.9750E-4 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 72 6.8800E-5 0.00605 0.0013 6.9750E-4 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 72 -0.00143 0.00605 0.00125 6.9750E-4 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 72 6.8800E-5 0.01 0.00199 8.4050E-4 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 72 6.7591 E-5 0.00605 0.0013 6.9750E-4 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 0.952 0.92 0.00146 -7.188 1.168 Statistics (NDs = DL) 0.911 0.882 0.00144 -7.28 1.176 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 0.86 0.834 0.00151 -7.328 1.239 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.759 0.736 0.00262 -7.008 1.306 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) -7.312 1.22 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.883 0.872 0.874 0.913 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.769 3.675E-14 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.751 1.110E-16 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.755 1.110E-16 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.832 4.085E-11 Data Not Normal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.292 0.108 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.294 0.104 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.292 0.104 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.275 0.104 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.974 0.974 0.975 0.962 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 1.639 0.782 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.173 0.112 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 2.101 0.785 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.168 0.109 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 1.715 0.787 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.159 0.109 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 2.052 0.792 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.197 0.109 Data Not Gamma Distributed Appendix B % NDs 6.94% SD 0 0.00153 0.0015 0.00151 0.00157 0.00265 0.00151 Log CV -0.162 -0.162 -0.169 -0.186 -0.167 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro 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 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.986 0.983 0.984 0.985 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.951 0.0227 Data Not Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.944 0.00618 Data Not Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.942 0.00458 Data Not Lognormal Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.946 0.0083 Data Not Lognormal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.109 0.108 Data Not Lognormal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.107 0.104 Data Not Lognormal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.103 0.104 Data Appear Lognormal Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.104 0.104 Data Appear Lognormal Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended. Appendix B Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output) Bedrock Flow Zone Vanadium Appendix B Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs Raw Statistics 113 13 100 84 16 16.00% Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 16 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 5.733E-17 Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 84 0.12 3.03 0.927 0.456 0.844 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value) 100 0.12 3.03 0.827 0.428 0.806 Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value) 100 0.12 3.03 0.803 0.428 0.824 Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 100 -1.097 3.03 0.735 0.428 0.902 Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 100 0.01 3.03 0.787 0.428 0.837 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 100 0.0689 3.03 0.808 0.428 0.82 K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV Statistics (Non -Detects Only) 1.483 1.438 0.625 -0.449 0.853 -1.898 Statistics (NDs = DL) 1.461 1.424 0.566 -0.57 0.829 -1.454 Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 1.224 1.194 0.656 -0.681 0.946 -1.389 Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.828 0.81 0.951 -0.953 1.475 -1.547 Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) -0.66 0.934 -1.414 Normal GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.884 0.853 0.869 0.934 Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.763 0 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.713 0 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.737 0 Data Not Normal Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.863 2.576E-13 Data Not Normal Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.254 0.0968 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.283 0.0889 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.269 0.0889 Data Not Normal Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates) 0.228 0.0889 Data Not Normal Gamma GOF Test Results No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.953 0.948 0.956 0.955 Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 4.403 0.771 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.21 0.0993 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 7.447 0.771 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL) 0.237 0.0912 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2) 4.566 0.777 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2) 0.197 0.0917 Data Not Gamma Distributed Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 2.067 0.791 Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.129 0.0927 Data Not Gamma Distributed Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro 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 Log ROS Correlation Coefficient R 0.962 0.94 0.964 0.974 Apr. Test P Value Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.903 5.2676E-7 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.865 3.881 E-13 Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2) 0.9 6.6266E-9 Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.928 1.2573E-5 Test value Crit. (0.05) Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.171 0.0968 Lilliefors (NDs = DL) 0.192 0.0889 Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2) 0.135 0.0889 Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.144 0.0889 Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended. Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Conclusion with Alpha(0.05) Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Data Not Lognormal Appendix B Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant APPENDIX C SCATTER PLOTS OF TIME VERSUS CONCENTRATION SynTerra Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-01, MW-15D, and MW-18D Appendix C 8.0 7.5 /. ■..■ Well ID _ A 4m ■ 0 A MW-15D ■ MW-18D &0 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date 50 4011 Well ID J 30 • BG-01 20 o MW-15D 10 0 'LA42�� 4�� 4� LA 0 LA ■ MW-18D 0 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date 30 25 Q E 20 H 15 10 11 /30/10 4 � � 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 Date 0 Well ID • BG-01 0 MW-15D ■ MW-18D 11 /14/18 1,200 1,000 �..� � ■� soA..■ 08-9 well ID a 800 • BG-01 rn 600 4 4C�4 �p2 �p 0 0 MW-15D ■ MW-18D 400 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-01, MW-15D, and MW-18D 600 400 a W 200 O 0 -200 11 /30/10 800 600 W 400 200 0 11 /30/10 Appendix C Well ID A • BG-01 ■ A Op 0 o MW-15D A — �7�:�* A■ F■ '�.� ■ MW-18D 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11/17/16 11 /14/18 Date 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 Date 11 /25/12 11/22/14 Date 11/17/16 1 AF 11/17/16 10 Fes- 2 4 0 / 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11/17/16 Date Well ID BG-01 ■.. o MW-15D ■ ■ MW-18D 11114/18 Well ID BG-01 ■ .MIL 0 MW-15D ■ ■ MW-18D MINH-] Well ID BG-01 n MW-15D / ■ MW-18D T� 11 /14/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-01, MW-15D, and MW-18D 300 250 Y 200 rn R 150 Y 100 Q 50 0 11 /30/10 2,000 E 1,500 c E 1,000 7 Q 500 0 11 /30/10 to 0.9 C O 0.8 E 'a. 0.7 c a 0.6 0.5 11 /30/10 s 4 c.� = 3 d i 2 4 1 0 11/30/10 ♦ ♦ c! ♦ir, ♦. Appendix C 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 Date 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 Date 11/25/12 11/22/14 Date Well ID • BG-01 A MW-15D ■ MW-18D f Well ID • BG-01 MW-15D ■ MW-18D 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Well ID • BG-01 0 MW-15D —*N"QSMFAIIU& FiI d 2�w ■ MW-18D not 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-01, MW-15D, and MW-18D 100 80 60 40 20 0 11 /30/10 11/25/12 to 0.8 7 0.6 d m 0.4 02 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 300 d 250 = 200 M 150 L u 100 m 50 0 11 /30/10 50 40 C OL 30 O m 20 10 11 /30/10 Appendix C Well ID • BG-01 0 MW-15D i��H.■..r ■ MW-18D T4 4LL L�1T AAAAAA A 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 M 4/18 Date 40A >F •21*AM MUM-lA-l-war AUM i I Well ID • BG-01 i MW-15D j� ■ MW-18D 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date Well I— _ - • BG-01 A MW-15D ■ MW-18D n 11125/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 Date Q...il■-�iQ�rrr■ �»i��t Well ID • BG-01 o MW-15D ■ MW-18D 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-01, MW-15D, and MW-18D to E 0.s 3 0.6 E 0.4 R (i 0.2 0.0 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 Date Appendix C Well ID • BG-01 MW-15D ■ MW-18D 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 120 100 5-■ Well ID 2 80 i • BG-01 U A MW15D 60 ■ MW-18D 40 11 /30/10 11125/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11114/18 Date 10 � s Well ID p 8 • BG-01 7 R A MW-15D C3 6 ■ MW-18D 5 11130/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date zoo ~ irk 4%1, Well ID N 150 OR M-op L p 100 • BG-01 MW-15D Vo 50 4 A[A 4t�AA4L�p4404,A46, ■ MW-18D 0 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-01, MW-15D, and MW-18D 50 40 7 •£ 30 OL 20 t U 10 0 11130/10 11 /30/10 s 4 3 2 1 0 11/30/10 15 4) 10 CL a O 5 U 0 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 Date 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 Date 11/25/12 11/22/14 Date Appendix C Well ID • BG-01 0 MW-15D * ■ MW-18D 11 /14118 * ! Well ID \ \ i • BG-01 / / o MW-15D L Ail z�.. ■ MW-18D 11 /17/16 11114/18 0 Well ID • MW-1 A MW-15D — ait�� ■ MW-18D 11/17/16 11/14/18 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 Date Well ID • BG-01 o MW-15D ■ MW-18D 11 /14/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-01, MW-15D, and MW-18D 3.0 2.5 2.0 I \ C t5 I `\ 1.0 I ly \ 0.5 --H■ 0.0 11/30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11/17/16 Date 2,000 1,500 C 0 1,000 500 0 11 /30/10 5 4 'C 3 R J 2 1 0 11/30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 Date 11/25/12 11/22/14 11/17/16 Date Appendix C Well ID • BG-01 MW-15D ■ MW-18D 11/14/18 Well ID • BG-01 A MW-15D ■ MW-18D 11/14/18 Well ID • BG-01 o MW-15D !A MAN ■ MW-18D -r---r--1 11/14/18 30 25 20 ■ �\ Well ID BG-01 10 ■■r i ■ 0 MW-15D 5 AAA 4AAA 0A Q-Q_ ■ MW-18D 0 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-01, MW-15D, and MW-18D Appendix C 50 E 40 s...1. ■ .■tF■�� 1� Well ID 30 1 �� • BG-01 ✓31 20 0 MW-15D ■ MW-18D 10 11 /30110 11/25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14118 Date 1,500 N U) C 1,000 R rn 500 cc I 11 /30/10 0.20 -41 0.15 i 0.10 d 0.05 0.00 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 Date 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 Date i - -M ■ 0 ■... , ■ 11/17/16 Well ID • BG-01 MW-15D ■ MW-18D 11/14/18 I Well ID • BG-01 I A MW-15D *--•f4�1 *! M ■ MW-18D 11/17/16 11/14/18 11.0 y 10.5 Well ID C t 10.0 - BG-01 5 o MW-15D ■ MW-18D 9.0 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11/22/14 11 /17/16 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-01, MW-15D, and MW-18D 15 I.. Well ID C 10 ■ �I 0 BG-01 . 5 * ��'■■ ■: ._. Q MW-15D ■ 2 r ■ �` QQ..Q.. ■ MW-18D 0 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date 50 40 Well ID 30 0 BG-01 Z 20 Q Q 0 MW-15D 10 &QQ Q Q ■ MW-18D 0 — — 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date 4 Q .ri 3 Q Q QQ �QQ Q Q Q Q Q Well ID NI 2 • BG-01 R o MW-15D i 1 `� ■ MW-18D 0 11/30/10 11/25/12 11/22/14 11/17/16 11/14/18 Date 6 5 � Well ID 4 '�I■.-=Y N 3 • BG-01 a 2 Q MW-15D a 1 Q Q ��Q QQ Q Q L6Q Q 4, • MW-18D 0 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-01, MW-15D, and MW-18D 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 Date Appendix C Well ID 0 BG-01 0 MW-15D ■ MW-18D 11 /14/18 40 35 Well ID E 7 0 30 Q 4 ��_. Q Q 0 ■ BG-01 0 MW-15D 25 Q ■� ism ■ MW-18D 20 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 Date ti ti, Well ID • BG-01 A MW-15D ■ MW-18D 0 4 qA 404 n 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 50 40 Well ID � o MW-15D 20 ■ MW-18D 10 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-01, MW-15D, and MW-18D Appendix C 0.25 r Well ID N 0.20 / • BG-01 y 0.15 !\ � / � MW-15D / \ \ 0.10 4-0 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date 800 700 0% ■ )0 Well ID 600 p 500 �� I • BG-01 ~ 400 4 p QQ�dl� p�Q�� MW-15D 300 ■ MW-18D 200 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date 0.25 E 0.20 H 0.15 0.10 11 /30/10 2.5 2.0 U 0 1.5 H 1.0 0.5 11/30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 Date Well ID I \ I • BG-01 I I o MW-15D ■ MW-18D L 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Well ID a Am ■ ■ ■ o MW-15D m�� ■ MW-18D 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11/17/16 11 /14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Transition Zone Wells: BG-01, MW-15D, and MW-18D 30 E 7 20 V 10 I w 0 H -10 11/30/10 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 FOR 0.000 11 /30/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 Date 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 Date Appendix C ■ Well ID I: �I • BG-01 ■� y /■ �' MW-15D ■ MW-18D 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Well ID -a—ry_ • BG-01 A MW-15D p ■ MW-18D 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 30 25 E Well ID 20 15 • BG-01 R 10 A L�LAA 0 4 0 A 0 A AA 0 MW-15D 5 A ■ MW-18D 0 11 /30110 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14118 Date 30 25 20 Well ID 15 • BG-01 N 10 0 MW-15D s — MW-18D 0 11130/10 11 /25/12 11 /22/14 11 /17/16 11 /14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01BR, BG-02BR, and MW-15BR 8.5 8.0 .�-...-f.\ ■ 0 Well ID 2 f-...A.-M/ f -�. -7 r A`, *..._...■...W.._.. ,.�.t.■ • BG-01BR o BG-02BR 7.0 ■ MW-15BR 6.5 05/27/15 04/07/ 16 02/18/17 01 /01 /18 11 /14/18 Date 60 50 40 N J 30 20 10 0 05/27/15 Well ID • BG-01 BR 0 BG-02BR ■ ..._...■ F..._...■...■...�--f... ■-...-■-Aw..._.■ ...A..._.r..._■- ... y-._... f.._...�..■ ■ MW-15BR 04/07116 02/18/17 01 /01 /18 11114/18 Date 40 30 A Well ID CL 20 — L ` • BG-016R or ■ �� 0 BG-02BR ■ MW-15BR 0 05/27/15 04/07116 02/18/17 01 /01 /18 11 /14/18 Date 600 550 r ■... 0 ■..\ Well ID CL BG-02BR 450 ' 4 ■ MW-15BR H 400 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01BR, BG-02BR, and MW-15BR 4- 3 - 0 2 - 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 Date 200 100 0 0. W -100 - 0 - -200- .300- .400 -�- 05/27/15 -.4 D4/07/16 02/18/17 Date 01101/18 Appendix C Well ID 0 BG-01BR A BG-02BR 0 MW-15BR 11/14/18 Well ID Mr BG-01BR ♦ BG-02BR ■ MW-15BR 01/01/18 MUM 400- 300 - ■• Well ID 200 - M Ui 100 - --W W A • BG-01BR 0- BG-02BR --in -100- ■ MW-15BR -200 i 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11114118 Date A _A Well ID BG-01 BR 4- A BG-02BR 2 - MW-15BR —j 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01 /01 /18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01BR, BG-02BR, and MW-15BR 300 250 200 Y 150 100 O5/27/15 aoo E 300 7 C E 200 7 Q 100 0 05/27/15 to 0-- 0.8 O E 0.6 c Q 0.4 0.2 05/27/15 3.0 2.5 V 2.0 Gl 1.5 a 1.0 0.5 0.0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 Date 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 Date 04/07/16 04/07/16 02/18/17 Date 02/18/17 Date Appendix C Well ID ■..� • BG-01 BR ♦ BG-02BR ■ MW-15BR 11/14/18 Well ID • BG-01 BR ♦ BG-02BR ■ MW-15BR 11/14/18 Well ID • BG-01 BR e BG-02BR ■ MW-15BR 11/14/18 k .,.. �..._..._..._� Well 10 • BG-01 BR ■ _..f ■ ♦ BG-02BR ■ MW-15BR 01/01/18 11/14/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01BR, BG-02BR, and MW-15BR 40 35 Well ID 30 25 • BG-01 BR 20 �... ;In..\ * ,. ).__ ��...�..�� 0 BG-02BR 15 �...M.W...__ .: i ■ ...-A.—...l.._.■ a.._.t. —0_■ ■ MW-15BR 10 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01 /01118 11 /14/18 Date 1 0 f— t—�.....f f— -U---- It AN 0.8 Well ID 3 0.6 • BG-01 BR a 0 BG-02BR m 0.4 ■ MW-15BR 0.2 05/27/15 04/07/ 16 02/18/17 01 /01 /18 11 /14/18 Date 300 a 250 C 200 �- Q 150 �..._...K �..._..._�_. r V 100 m 50 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 50 •— 40 C 2 30 O m 20 10 05/27/15 02/18/17 01/01/18 Date 04/07/16 02/18/17 Date _..�..._..._� Well ID 0 • BG-01 BR BG-02BR ■ MW-15BR MUM —IV ---0—-All i--.....r...............ti Well ID \ ! • BG-01 BR \ ! o BG-02BR ■ MW-15BR 01 /01 /18 11 /14/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01BR, BG-02BR, and MW-15BR E 0.8 Well ID E 0.6 • BG-01 BR 0.4 0 BG-02BR U 02 ■ MW-15BR 0.0 05/27/15 04/07/ 16 02/18/17 01 /01 /18 11/14/18 Date 100 80 Well ID U 40 ■ ■ 0 o BG-02BR 20 ■ MW-15BR 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01118 11/14/18 Date 200 0 0) 150 Well ID R M 100 • BG-01 BR R o BG-02BR V 50 0 ■ MW-15BR 0 -- — 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11 /14/18 Date 50 40 ■..._-■—.■..f..._...■...—F■ Well ID L F..._...■.f...— A • BG-01BR p 30 t 0 o BG-026R U 20 4 ■ MW-156R loll 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01BR, BG-02BR, and MW-15BR ,o £ 8 7 •£ 6 O 4 t A _.. 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 Date Appendix C Well IQ • BG-01 BR 0 BG-02BR ■ MW-15BR ............ 11114/18 1.5 >I Well ID 1.0A • BG-01 BR O0.5 iM\ . 7 o BG-02BR �. V ■ MW-15BR e _ ... 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 1.6 1.4 •� +' 1.2 cC O 1.0 U 0.8 0.6 0.4 05/27/15 3.0 2.5 `y 2.0 rL 1.5 U to � 0.5 0.0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 Date 04/07/16 02/18/17 Date Well ID o BG-02BR ■ MW-15BR 01/01/18 11/14/18 well ID 0 • BG-01 BR A -..._...-A 0 BG-02BR �r ■ MW-15BR 01/01/18 11/14/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01BR, BG-02BR, and MW-15BR 1.0 0.8 Well ID a a 0.6 \ • BG-01 BR 3\` o BG-026R 0 ■ MW-15BR o.o 05/27/15 04/07/ 16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 1,500 Well ID 0 i ■..._...� �...�...a..._ • BG 01BR ��. �..._�_..._...i._..._...� 50o a BG-02BR A 0 ■ MW-15BR 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 1.0 •~ 0.8 V 0.6 R J 0.4 0.2 0.0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 Date ->t---a-.....A. t-.....a----...f-0 Well ID • BG-01 BR o BG-02BR ■ MW-15BR 01/01/18 11/14/18 300 250 0 Well ID 200 150 0 • BG-01 BR 100 A BG-02BR 50 p ■ MW-15BR 0 _ ... 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01BR, BG-02BR, and MW-15BR 20 E ■� 15 Well ID BG-02BR <a 5 0 ■ MW-15BR 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01 /01 /18 11114/18 Date Boa a 600 Well ID N R aoo • BG-01 BR rn 1- A BG-02BR 200 4 p 0 ■ MW-15BR 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 0.20 0.15 Well ID 2 i 0.10 • BG-01 BR m o BG-02BR 2 0.05- . 0 � ■ MW-156R 0.00 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01 /01 / 18 11/14/18 Date 1,500 Well ID C 1,000 R • BG-01 BR 5 w 500 0 BG-02BR ■ MW-15BR 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01BR, BG-02BR, and MW-15BR 25 7 20 WellID C �.. \ -p �.. • BG-01BR \ ' �' 0 BG-02BR 0 ■ MW-15BR 0 05/27/15 04/07116 02/18/17 01 /01 /18 11 /14/18 Date 8 g Well ID 4 A • BG-01BR Z p 0 BG-02BR 2 f....... ■: - _f_._...■..._..._.... _ ■,..., ■ MW-15BR 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01 /01 /18 11 /14/18 Date 0.60 0.45 Well ID 4)I 0.30 • BG-01 BR + o BG-02BR i 0.15 �■ ■ MW-15BR 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01 /01 / 18 11 /14/18 Date 60 p 50 Well ID 40 30 • BG-01 BR 20 o BG-02BR 10 .. _ A �_■ ■ MW-15BR 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01 /01 /18 11 /14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01BR, BG-02BR, and MW-15BR 1.0 � E 0.9 0.8 N 0.7 d CO 0.6 0.5 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 Date 100 80 60 40 20 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 Date Well ID • BG-01 BR 0 BG-02BR ■ MW-15BR 01/01/18 11/14/18 o well ID 0 • BG-01 BR o BG-02BR -...y.A .■ ...�_. f-...�...■..._..*..._�■ ■ MW-15BR 01/01118 11/14/18 400 E 300 � Well ID � 4 0 200 • BG-01 BR _F..._ _ _.JU o BG-02BR f ■ ..._...■..._...♦_..� ■ MW-15BR 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01118 11/14/18 Date 40 35 ■ ...� —...� ■_...i.AN Well ID 25 • BG-01 BR �j 20 \ 0 _♦ o BG-026R 15 4 ■ MW-15BR 10 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01 /01 /18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01BR, BG-02BR, and MW-15BR 0.s 0.4 ■ Well ID /1 ■ 0.3 i / i • BG-01 BR / / p o BG-02BR 0.2 I /' 4 ■ MW-15BR 0.1 lie IP 05/27/15 04/07/16 02118117 01 /01 /18 11 /14/18 Date 500 450 )♦ \ Well ID 400 CO) i' At or • BG-01BR 300 - o BG-02BR ■- 250 ■ ■ MW-15BR 200 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01118 11 /14/18 Date 0.20 - a.... _..f....- I VA / Well ID E 0.15 1 • BG-01 BR � o BG-02BR F- 0.10 \. ■ MW-15BR 0.05 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01 /01 / 18 11 /14/18 Date 40 30 Well ID U p 20 • BG-01 BR ~ o BG-026R 10 ■ MW-15BR 0 _ ...L . . . _ 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01 /01 /18 11 /14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01BR, BG-02BR, and MW-15BR 3.0 2.5 A- Well ID a 2.0 � 1.5 i • BG-01 BR —I 1.0 \. �\ 0 BG-02BR to 0.5—...■ _..._..._..._. — ■ MW-15BR 0.0 W ._ 05/27/15 04/07/ 16 02/18/17 01 /01 /18 11 /14/18 Date 0.006 0.005 Well ID 0.004 0 0.003 • BG-01 BR 0.002 BG-02BR m 0.001 ■ MW-156R — — D.000 05/27/15 04/07/18 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/`8 Date 3.0 E 2.5 Well ID 3 2.0 1.5 • BG-01 BR cc = 1.0 0 BG-02BR R L 0.5 0.0 ■..._...—■—...i—... f..._ F..._... ♦_..�... y._..._.�..._..._. ...y_..._...A.._..._.., ■ MW-15BR 05/27/15 D4/07/16 02/18/17 01 /01 /18 11 /14/18 Date 60 50 40 \ V 30 IV 20 10 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 Date Well ID • BG-01 BR 0 BG-02BR _�. ■ MW-15BR 01 /01 /18 11 /14/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: MW-10BR, MW-18BR, MW-19BRL, and MW-26BR 6.5 0 fi.o-- o 0 0 0 Y_..._...�,G._..._.�.._--o Well ID G- 7.5 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL "'- ♦ 7.0 _...-"' MW-18BR V MW-26BR 6.5 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 50 45 Y.._._Y.._..Y Y- - p A m 4 4o p 4 0 ♦ - -A- .._.. Y-- 40-C7-�... .�..._ Well ID 35 _# • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL 30 ♦ MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 25 20 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 25 C 20 -� v 10 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 Date 900 soo s , 700 600 ■ 500 05/27/15 D4/07/16 3.0 2.5 2.0 0 1.5 1.0 0.5 D.0 05/27/16 Well ID • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL ♦ MW-18BR v MW-26BR 1 11/14/18 17 V V V V ----- � -'/-----fi ---- V Well ID • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL ♦ o MW-18BR v MW-26BR 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 Date Well ID • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL ♦ MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 11/14/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: MW-10BR, MW-18BR, MW-19BRL, and MW-26BR 400 200 V Well ID 0 1. A--f—� �.' v � � ` _II - � _ _ j • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL -200 A - p 0 ■ ..� .. 0 p 1S MW 186R ♦ MW 26BR -400 05/27/15 D4/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 600 4D0 20o A W 0 -200 05/27/15 A 4 D4/07/16 02/18/17 Date 10 a 4 - 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/1 Date D. Well ID • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL p 0 a p 4 o MW-18BR v MW-26BR 01/01/18 11/14/18 V AL Well ID v v , • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL • `- -t... v / A MW-18BR v MW-26BR 7 01/01/18 11/14/18 400 350 f-f- -V , V--♦�"� . _..■.._.. 300 IV---M WeIIID — 250 �.. • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL Q 200-�A.-____ _._..., `..,�Y ' _ p 4 0 0 0 o MW-18BR v MW-26BR 150 100 05/27/15 D4/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 400 {� 300 7' :1 WeIIID = 200 is 1.\ = • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL o MW-18BR v MW-26BR 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: MW-10BR, MW-18BR, MW-19BRL, and MW-26BR 1.0... .... .... .QII...inW-Q- W-V- -M-III... a ..II. -..O -b2- AU 4- U- - IN- ]a � o.s c Well ID E o.a 'a+ 0.7 • MW-10131R ■ MW-19BRL Q 0.6 A MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 0.5 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date a) Q s 4 2 4! 0 05/27/15 � - �� r1- f: ..._...�—. K..._..._F..._...♦ — ��:�........ a.....Q.......d..... 04/07/18 D2/18/17 D1/01/18 11/14/18 Date Well I6 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL A MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 200 150 Well ID ,..., 4 A A 4 0 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL CO100- 50 _.��.__._..A __..-A__A.._. _- = :.- .; ..-.._..�7..._�'..._II-..._...�__..._..� A MW-18BR v MW-26BR 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 1.0 ..4---19--111.n--4-i E 0.8 Well ID o.s • MW-1061R ■ MW-19BRL p•p 0.4 • MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 0.2 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 400 ,V----♦-- - f 300 �F ♦� ■..._. Well ID 9 250 ■- " • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL � 200 0.__.__.. �..._.... .._..._..._..._... .,... ..-A _._.._... �"'�' " _...,. �._ 0 MW-18BR v MW-26BR m 150 100 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: MW-10BR, MW-18BR, MW-19BRL, and MW-26BR 50 .............Q..........a a ...........II.. II 1J-Q- Q- 47- - -M - III - - U II--...n - - da---A..-a--... ----4-II 45 = 40Well ID 0 30 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 25 20 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date to .... .... .... .Q FII ...........II...Q Vii-... il- A7- #-6.—�----� -� E D.8 Well ID o.s 'a 0.4 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL U 0.2 \ i A MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR D.0 D5/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 120 ■-..41 ■ o _.. E 100 v 0 4 p 0 .- ,i... ...A 0 Well ID 80 4 A p v r..._..*.._..�� io Ir • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL V 60 ■ A MW-18BR v MW-26BR 40 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 10 d 9 c 6 Well ID s 7 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR Q 6 5 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01M8 11/14/18 Date 150 p 100 Well ID ♦_■_...�,..,F-■..._.__,.�..._.■ ... ■-..._... ■..__ _..■ • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL 50 f ..t ... V-f- F-V--T --♦- v----fi- -♦- -V- - -- C v o MW-18BR v MW-26BR so 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: MW-10BR, MW-18BR, MW-19BRL, and MW-26BR 6 5 A E q A Well ID 3 O • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL 2 0 U 1 -Q- i7-[7-- ��r! II - -i7 - IV-- -CI-�- - -�-- ♦ MW-18BR 0 MW-26BR 0 0 05/27/15 D4/07115 02/18117 01/0111B 11/14/18 Date 1.5 I E to O 0.5 s` U 0.0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 Date Well ID • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL ♦ MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 11/14/18 30 25 ++ 20 Well ID C 15 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL U 10 ♦ MW-18BR v MW-26BR 5 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 5 4 0 d 3 Well lb 1z U2 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL ♦ MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 1.... .... ... n..13..........II.......WW-4�7-.�-..�-IIIIF 0 V -- --- .- - 05/27/15 04/07/15 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 1.0 0.8 m Well ID 'a 0.s 0 0.4 4 0 0 A 4 0 r • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL •�♦ LL 0.2 ♦ ♦ MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR D.0 05/27/15 D4/07116 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: MW-10BR, MW-18BR, MW-19BRL, and MW-26BR 8,000 6,000 F ...—��. _...M... Well ID r- or O 4,000 "�._..�-..._..._�_..._...-0 0 MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL 2,000 - - _ ♦ MW-18BR V MVW26BR 0 - _ 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 1.0.._.._.-_Q........._4._IIQ---Q-II----II�?--S�-Q..-.II.-67-_-Q.fl..-_d..-fl-Q 0.a 'Q 0.6 Well ID R j 04 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL i ♦ MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 0.2 0.0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 50 40- j ♦ Well ID 30 �.. x • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL �..._.. J ♦.._.._♦' �." ♦ MW-18BR v MW-26BR 10 0 05/27/15 D4/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 50 £ 40 ---fi--�----�-__ F-- - 41 Well ID 30 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL aT ♦ MW-18BR V MW-26BR 10 11-41 11 05/27/15 D4/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 2,000 1,500 �..�...� f..._..._�—..._...-� WeIIID to 1,000 F ...y—�—" — m 0 ze, 41 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL 500 0 0 0 - - - - - ♦ MW-18BR V MW-26BR 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: MW-10BR, MW-18BR, MW-19BRL, and MW-26BR 0.2o A 0.15 Well ID 0.10 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL 0-05 MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 0.00 05/27/16 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 30,000 25,000 � JL 20,000 in Well ID 75,000 • MW-101311 ■ MW-19BRL 10,000 / ♦ MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR s,00a 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 30 E 25 20 Well ID 4) 15 -' - F - - - f - - - -♦ • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL 10 ♦ MW-18BR v MW-26BR 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 3.0 2.5 d 2.0 0 Well ID tYf 1.5 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL Z 1.0 F41M--Q -II- .. -a—....._.... �� , A MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 0.5 0.0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 0.300 as 0.225 Well ID Z �I 0.150 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL 0.075 A MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR Z 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: MW-10BR, MW-18BR, MW-19BRL, and MW-26BR 25 E 20 4 3 15 10 go 0 O IL 5 _. A p 0 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 tolk— E 0.8 0.6 a U) 0.4 0.2 05/27/16 Well ID • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL ♦- _ _..._. ... - _ - - '- - - ♦ MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Well ID • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL ♦ MW-18BR v MW-26BR 70 60 - ----V 50 ,�-' Well ID 7 40 - - • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL 0 to 30 �.. �F..._�_..._F..._... .... _♦..._...;._..._...� ♦ MW 18BR v MW 26BR 20 _.._.�..._..._...-..._..._. �-..._.�..._..._ - 10 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 70a 600 500 = 400 Y 300 1n 200 100 05/27/15 80 60 w 40 3 N 20 0 05/27/15 0 0 0 0 Well ID 4 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL v 0 v17 A MW-18BR v MW-26BR 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Well ID • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL ♦ MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 0 4 0 �..�..._... 0_. 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: MW-10BR, MW-18BR, MW-19BRL, and MW-26BR D.30 ■ 0.25 Well I D a 3 0.20 p J,(. �'' • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL 0-15 A o MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 0 0.10 05/27/16 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 1,00D boa Well ID y p 60D - _ A Q, 4 • MW-iOBR ■ MW-19BRL 400 0 _,.. ..-_ _..._... i -` A MW-18BR v MW-26BR 20D 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 0.20 .......... n....n. o-Q...Q - IF ... -M - n— ... _. fij...n..- ...Q .. _ D.15 WeIIID `�'� • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL 0-10 �' ♦ MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR D.05 05/27/15 D4/07116 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 30 III 25 ■ 20 Well ID 5- • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL 10 4 0 ♦ MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR 5 0 p 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date s E 7 6 'a R Q' 4 I 2 H 0 05/27/15 04/07/15 02/18/17 01/01/18 Date 11/14/18 Well ID • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: MW-10BR, MW-18BR, MW-19BRL, and MW-26BR 0.005 3 v c 0.004 p f - -V Well ID ` 0.003 0.002 0 MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL 0.001 ♦ MW-18BR ♦ MVW26BR 12 0.000 - _... _..._... ._..._..._... 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date a E 3 7 a 2 R C D0..._..._...�-..._..._..._..._..._..._... -II- .. �'...—.�.._..._..�s� 05/27/15 D4/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 Date 60 50 v 40 30 N 20 ■. 10 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 D1/01M8 Date 11/14/18 11/14/18 Well I6 • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL ♦ MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR Well ID • MW-10BR ■ MW-19BRL ♦ MW-18BR ♦ MW-26BR Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: CCR-112BR-BG, MW-14BR, MW-29BR, and MW-30BR so ■.._ Well ID 7.0 O. p p 0 F - _----- V_ _ - _ ♦ • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR 6.5 A MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 6.0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 70 60 ♦-♦---fi----� - F--♦----♦----♦ 50 ° ° ° _.._..._�..._..._... �...._.k..._....-..._...-_..._...A..._...__._..._._..._...,._..._...._..._�..._..._..._.A.._..._.._...� Well ID J ao"'■"'— ■_"'— ..-■_...-■.. _... ■... _..._�... _... i • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR 30 MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 20 10 05/27/15 04/07/16 D2118/17 01/01/11 11/14/is Date 2s 20 ° ° y Well ID F15 ° ° ___ • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR CL 10 A MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR ° 5 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 1,000 BOO 0 p V - - --�--f--♦----♦----V Well ID d 6W--...___.. ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° __..�._._..._A..--- .A_..._._... -A • CCR-1126R-BG ■ MW-29BR y ■ ■..._...� _...♦_...�.._...■...� ■ 400MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 208 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 4 3 Well ID In 2 e ■ • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR 1 ° ° A MW-14SR v MW-30BR ° ° ° ° 0♦ W z 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: CCR-112BR-BG, MW-14BR, MW-29BR, and MW-30BR zoo 100 p Well ID 0 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR �.. -100 A MW-14BR ♦ MW-308R -200 0 5/27/11 04/07/11 OD8tE7 D1/01/11 11/14/18 40a 300 L 2 w 00 10O D Dsmi11 �— Well ID • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR .e p - _ - A MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR n I ITS iTi i i i� 04/07/1 02118/17 01/01/1 11/14/18 Date 10 0 0 0 Z s o 0 0 or e Well ID n `i` A • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR H 2 ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 Oil 1111 11/14/18 Date 400 A p *:-...._... _.::.s*._.:-.. . _ �..._...' ...� — -'... Well ID r _.t..._...—Q Y 200 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR Q 100 o MW-14BR v MW-30BR D 05/27/11 04/07/11 DDate7 01/01/11 11/14/18 150 100- Well ID • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR Q '.. `,*/, • ... V.-::V:.. V _ A MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 0 05/27/11 D4/07/11 DDate7 01/01/11 11/14/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: CCR-112BR-BG, MW-14BR, MW-29BR, and MW-30BR a s 0Well ID O E 06 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR C Q 0.4 ♦ MW-14BR v MW-30BR 0.2 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/1 1 11/14/18 Date 2.0 �, •c�...` WeIIID 41 1.0 ♦ A 0....0 L• 8.......Q..G .1;AW ....Q..... y • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR ` ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 0.0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 60 � 50 ■ / �...�...� _...�..� ...\ Well ID j 40 p / �... .O 4 0 0 �._..._..._♦..._..._..._. ♦ ..._..._..._.::� ♦ • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR m 30 f .._}..._...� 1 20 ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR v------♦--7---- ---- 10 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date E 0.s Well ID � 0.6 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR m 0.4 ♦ MW-14BR V MW-30BR 0.2 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 Date 11/14/18 350 O C 300 F---V- :.♦,... Well ID a 0 p ♦ .._. _ . .._ ._. ...�. \ ♦ .. �� • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR V250 t...� '■" �• A MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR _ _ 200 05/27/11 04/07/11 ODate7 01/01/11 11/14/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: CCR-112BR-BG, MW-14BR, MW-29BR, and MW-30BR 50 ♦ 4 �� = �t� I) Ca• i 45 = 40 Well ID O 35 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR m 30 ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR ♦_ _ 20 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 1.0 ♦._.. E 0.8 3 0.6 Well ID 'G 0.4 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR U 0.2 ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 0.0 j 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 120 100 ao 60 U 40 20 05/27/11 Well ID d A__ _ A. _ _ _p 0 A 0 _ 0 4 j • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR 0 MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 04/07/1 D2/18/17 01/01/1 11/14/18 Date 10 A d 9 e a Well ID a7 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR V 6 o MW-14BR v MW-30BR 5 05/27/15 04107116 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 60 50 - v 40 4 4 p O p p p F p �- -._♦- _.�._ _♦- Well ID p 30 V---- ♦----- V--V--V--Vfi---� • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR U 20 F...f..._..._..._...-■_....■.._...�..._..._F..._...♦ ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 D2/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: CCR-112BR-BG, MW-14BR, MW-29BR, and MW-30BR 15 E 3 10 E O t 5 U 0 O5127/15 2.0 �I 1.5 E � 1.0 �E 0 0.5 t U 0.0 05/27/15 1z 10 a 0 s O U 4 2 0 O5127/15 Well ID • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR 0 A ♦ MW-14BR v MW-30BR 00 o v 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date Well ID • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR v ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 4y 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date p 4 A 0 • "` •Ty 4 - 04/07/16 02/18/17 Date Well ID • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR A 4 0 0 ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR -it- � 01/01/11 11/14/18 2.5 2.0 Well ID Q O 1.0 A 4 A 0 II- la - -II- .. - .. -17 - II. A9—"'—' V • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR U : ♦ MW-146R MW-306R 0.5 ' 0.0 O5/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 0,25 0,20` well ID c 0,15 ��s • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR 0 -V----7-- LL 0,10 �-V ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 0.05 O5/27/11 04/07/11 0Date7 01/01/11 11/14/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: CCR-112BR-BG, MW-14BR, MW-29BR, and MW-30BR 3,000 2,500 2,000 �- _ - - " " V----- ♦ Well ID O 1,500 ""�----', ��_--A • CCR-1126R-BG ■ MW-29BR ♦ ;' A MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 0 - 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 1.0 ♦ ♦- ._ -A - k M wee4Ta a so 0.8 cc 0.6 Well ID 0.4 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 0.2 0.D 05/27/15 D4/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 10 8 E Well ID 6 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR 4 ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 2 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 30 _ A... --- A _ . . _ .. A- A ---.-_..—A E 25 --V- ---V V 20 - ---fi--V- ■-...f..._...�_..._...♦_...�.._...�..._..._ WeIIID c 75 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR 01 15 ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 0 05/27/15 D4/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 1,500 m e 1.000 V-V---�----�--"V--V----V ----7 WeIIID t6 • CCR-112SR-BG ■ MW-29BR SOD _ ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR ..._...-f—..._...♦_... �.. _...�... _..._F..._...♦ 0PL... 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: CCR-112BR-BG, MW-14BR, MW-29BR, and MW-30BR 0,20 tp 0,15 i; Well ID ` 0,10! � • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR m 0.05 0....0 ....'m a....... t1...up U0 IF as W _ 0 i A MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 0.00 05/27/11 04/07/11 ODate7 01/01/11 11/14/18 200 d 150 RK Well D i 100 ♦ • CCR-1126R-BG ■ MW-29BR g 50� A MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR �A 0 0 A A 05/27/11 04/0711� ODate7 01/01/11 11/14/18 40 30 C m M 20 T p 10 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 Date ifliEMP: Well ID • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR A MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR s � 4 Well ID Y 3 �. v 2 - - F- �` �� • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR %<V` ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date 012 L 010 Z 0,08\ Well ID �[ 0,06\ • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR 0,04\ ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR �= 002 - 0.00 1 05/27/11 04/07/11 ODate7 01/01/11 11/14/18 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: CCR-112BR-BG, MW-14BR, MW-29BR, and MW-30BR 10 A E 8 E 4 4 i _ _ Well ID ■ 6 .. ... ♦ - __ -♦ .� 1R ♦_ _ _ �..._... • CCR-1126R-BG ■ MW-29BR 4 - - - - - - -V ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR IL 2 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 1.2 p 1.0 ♦ 0 A 0.....0....d... _QWell ID 0.8 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR 0.6 ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 0 0.4 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 4a 35 E 30 ♦-♦--_----fi-,♦---V----�--- V Well ID :a 25 � _ _ p �� _ _...♦- --- y_.._ _ _ __ __ ..._..._ ..._. _..._... ._..._.. _...� . _ ._.._♦ • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR � 20 _.::_#._ _F ♦ _ _ _ ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 15 10 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 350 300 0 v E ♦-♦---�-___ _ v v Well ID 3 250 C O 200 p • CCR 1126R-BG ■ 29BR - MW - N 150 ♦.♦_._ - -i— ..._.,._... _. _A p p o MW-14BR v MW-30BR 100 05/27/11 04/07/11 ODate7 01/01/11 11/14/18 8o R ---♦-----v 60 0 ♦---- ♦----♦ .. WeIIID w 40 3 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR to 20 ♦ MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: CCR-112BR-BG, MW-14BR, MW-29BR, and MW-30BR 1.0 0.s d Well ID 6 0.6 3 0.4 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR y 0.2 ♦ MW-14BR v MW-30BR 0.0 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 600 500 V- _ '-'fi------F--�----7----T Well ID y 400 �._..._..._�..._..._..._. �.._..._.. p - k..._.♦.._...�..._...�..._..._k..._..._... _.._. ..�-.._.. t..._..._..._..�._ p • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR F 300 �... _...-... _...�_... 200 MW-14BR ♦ MW-30BR 100 05/27/11 04/07/11 DDate7 01/01/11 11/14/18 0,20...... .....4....._C..ii_CI�_.._.--II-_♦_.-II_-- 0.18 Well ID 0,18 014 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR 0,12 ♦ MW-14BR V MW-30BR 0.10 05/27/11 04/07/11 DDate7 01/01/1� 11/14/18 2,5 v zo 0 0 v ----V Well ID V - 1.5 • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR ' ♦ MW-14BR MW-30BR 0.5 ' 05/27/15 D4/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 11/14/18 Date 4 3 well ID WI 2 0 A , --♦ • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR ♦ MW-14SR v MW-30BR 12 • -� � D 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 11/14/18 Date Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: CCR-112BR-BG, MW-14BR, MW-29BR, and MW-30BR o.00a s ' o.00s 'c v N :3 0.004 I 0 a002 Q 12 or o.000 05/27/15 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/18 Date 1.5 1.0 �o R 0.5 Q 0.0 05/27/15 60 50 Q 40 O C 30 N 20 10 0 05/27/15 Q v 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 Date Q Q Q Q Q Q 'Lau--u-..-..- 04/07/16 02/18/17 01/01/11 Date Well ID • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR o MW-14BR v MW-30BR 11/14/18 Well ID • CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR 0 MW-14BR V MW-30BR 11/14/18 11/14/18 Well ID CCR-112BR-BG ■ MW-29BR Q MW-14BR v MW-30BR Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant SynTerra BOX -AND -WHISKER PLOTS - COMPARISON OF CONCENTRATIONS AMONG BACKGROUND WELLS Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentration among Background Wells Transition Zone 8.0 7.5 Q 7.0 6.5 6.0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 300 250 4 y 200 C 150 Y 100 a 50 0 2000 E 1500 c E 1000 3 a 500 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 1.0 M9 5 4 10 80 60 40 20 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D V: BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D Appendix D 1.0 E 0.8 0.6 N m 0.4 0.2 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 300 N 250 mj'�3 rr 200 150 v 100 m 50 0 '!c 50 40 c O 30 m 20 10 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentration among Background Wells Transition Zone 1.0 0.8 E 2 0.6 E 0.4 U 0.2 0.0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 120 100 3 Z; 80 ) S 60 4 40 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 10 9 G) c 8 O - 7 t� U 6 5 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 200 y 150 M p 100 U 50 — 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 50 E 40 30 E O 20 U 10 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 15 I E 10 3 E O 5 .c U 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D Appendix D 5 4 �k R 3 .0 O 2 U 1 � 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 15 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 3.0 2.5 �k 2.0 p 1.5 1.0 �k LL 0.5 0.0 4 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentration among Background Wells Transition Zone 2000 1500 C O 1000 500 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 5 4 3 2 1 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 30 25 E 20 7 15 J 10 5 0 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 50 E 40 .y 30 20 'g 10 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 1500 N d 1000 C cv 500 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 0.20 '& IL. 0.15 L 0.10 d 0.05 0.00 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D Appendix D Iwo, 10.5 c 10.0 E 9.5 9.0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 15 10 5 * � 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 50 40 m 30 c3 Z 20 10 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentration among Background Wells Transition Zone BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 6 4 EDy 3 p 2 (- 1 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 10 4P 8 � 6 d 4 d N 2 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 40 35 30 O 25 20 1 GTT2 + BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 50 40 �k 30 20 10 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D Appendix D 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 800 700 600 Cl 500 ~ 400 300 200 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 0.25 3 0.20 ca H 0.15 0.10 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentration among Background Wells Transition Zone 2.5 30 25 t> 2.0 * E 3 20 p 1.5 15 15 0.5 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 30 30 M 25 20 * 'a 20 10 S N 15 4 10 �k �I 0 5 or- -10 0 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D 0.006 E 0.005 C 0.004 ca 0.003 io 0.002 r 0.001 0.000 BG-01 MW-15D MW-18D Appendix D Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots — Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 9.0 6.5 6.0 I� Q 7.5 �J 7.0 0 6.5 Q &0 400 nT+ 300 � 4 200 Q 4 E Y_ Q 100 0 400 E 300 3 C 00 1 � 00 0 min RA G IM to — 0 0.6 0 E 0.s a 0.4 0.z T IS 6 6 ccv O Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots — Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone s 6 .2 d a Vl Q 2 Goa EP 0 Cf't, 011, Olt, 011, 16�� oil 011, G 200 Asa E 100 R 00 so MIJIM E o.s d m 0.4 0.2 G�16� GOZQ'� �12��G �p6"I �p6� �g$� �,�g0� �9L60� �29$� 3�� 0 6 GG� 0 O aoo +0' 300 0 200 4 � T 'm 100 0 6 6 Go". Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots — Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 50 — a0 c O 30 m 20 10 ,�\'1-�R�G .51 �:�4 � .�y:��'��1;�9�'L6$� �'L9�A �3��f� Q' Q' GGtz 0 eA o.s E E "0 0.4 R U 0.2 o.o �NIP��G .�Aqp o\112:11 �'��,10410�� 150 100 M M 50 �r 0 1�$R- SJ 19�4�. IOR- IO 200 150 M n 100 L (j 50 0 J_ - 1Olei tiSIP, R GGIII� oil 41 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots — Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 150 100 5o 0 G010� GAti6� � 0og� � 1p0� �;�SQ'� 51;�9�'�� 3,26q�A �'L°'4i� 6 6 cc� 0 is 4 0 0 15 7 10 0 # O 5 0 01�� O,L�FL 12�601 ,� Ft0�� G �al� 1y$�L 26q�i 29�Ft g0�� oil 2.0 > i 1.s to * 0 o.s U o.o G 0'IQ'� G ��'� 11��G �0�� a�� y�� 4la:" .tJ 6 6 GG� CS O Cr 30 25 20 R .0 15 O U 10 5 s ,�p"e- "gRI\ �g6� \O��V 266� 2g6� 306� Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots — Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 6 4 L C 3 U 2 1 F 0 G 6G0 6G0 G�11'L G — — min= — 4 to 0.8 � 0.6 `o 0.4- LL 4 0.2 EMS �� 4 �� e 4 o.o G o10� G OZ6� ��G �p6� "p6� �g0� �,�g0� ' N96V'� 6 e GGEz o o eA is 8000 6000 O 4000 2000 S o Y � G 01�� 02lp- 10�� 1�� 1y�� GG�� Off. ��. Off. Olt, 011T 04, Olt, EP to — 0.8 a 06 1 0.4 0.2 o.o G�1�� G�Z�� 112��G 3J�9��V 26�� L92� ,�� Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots — Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 300 250 E 200 150 1 100 50 0 50 E 4G N 30 m 20 �� T 0 � o1��t ol�i 12��t6G �o�� a�� 1y$�t ��9ovV 2000, m 1500 S � 141 c 1000 EffM � 500 � i 3� 0 Go,��Et G�2lEL �1��Co 10�� 1�� 1y�� 18'� 19��V �o 6 6 GGEz Olt, 0.20 0.15 2 0.10 m 0.05 0.00 AGO AGO GG�,��L 0 0\ 19 01. OAI Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots — Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 30000 25000 20000 t 15000 10000 5000 0 loGO3' 10�� O'w 1O� 04, 04, ts� 19��V Olt, Olt, 04, 30�� G 40 30 C Q 20 >. T^ O 101 r-� 01 4 0 eIvNqP � 6 GG cR' OoN 4 . eA s 6 N Y 4 V Z 2 o 6G 0�1?;'- 6G Olap- GEL11�(t0,�� 0� 19��V G 0.60 d - 0.45 Z �[ 0.30 .`. 0.15 Z 0.00 G Cry 1y�� Olt" 1$�� G Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots — Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 60 50 40 y 30 M p 20 IL 10 0 N\""oil 34Aa�f � .�1'�� .{J .tl .1V'L6$� 441'L9�A 011 � 1.20 # 0.95 0.70 0.45 'k 0.20 01� 6gEz O� �� 19 100 60 0 60 (p 40 20 �� i OEM= 0 0 1$$� `� 19�¢V GG� Cr C� 0 O Cr Cr 600 E 600 3 = 400 MOM C 200 =am 0 �2V19- 3J 41 �a1� 6 6 GGEL Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots — Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 80 60 4 d w 40 3 N 20 � � r 0 N<1-��G .51=�1�:�.�y:��'�� 1;�9�¢� �'L6$� �'L9�A �3��f� 6 6 GGtZ 0 4 A * 0,1V � � o.s o.a -tea o.s N .2 0 o.o G o1G�t G oLGi 3�� 1000 800 y 600 i 400 T �� 200 Mae-4 i 0 Go,��Et zISO- NNIOQV Co . 401 1NO 1y�� 18�� 19��V 26�f �9q,� 3001 6 6 GGEz 0111, o 0.20 — 0.15 k 0.10 k k k # 0.05 �0� 2o�� yg� $gt� over lopO 6G 0 GG�N<� ��y 1 �� 1 �� 1 Olt, Olt" "IS O'SA 2 ��.2 Olt" 3 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots — Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 40 30 # 20 10 0 4 4— His= �6-- 41,011 � alfZ �� 0"- �9lgV � L6$� � 29�A � ,o�fs 6 6 GGtZ 00,14A � � �� s E 6 'a 4 Su Y 2 � T 0 G 041 0.008 E ? 0.006 c R 0.004 � T :a 0.002 B 0.000 �r 2"'0 �9�� 3�� 6 6 GGEz CS Cs Cs Cs a E 3 R3 P 2 C R 02v- �G� 11�eoG�� O�i 0,IA ORIL 0,1A �a�f Z C�� 19�� Olt"�6�i � �90i 010 101a�Z Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots — Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells Bedrock Flow Zone 60 50 � 40 30 N 20 * # 10 4 - LZ *- 6 6 GGtZ 0 Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant APPENDIX E BOX -AND -WHISKER PLOTS - POOLED BACKGROUND DATAS ETS SynTerra Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots — Pooled Background Datasets Transition Zone 8.0 7.5 CL 7.0 6.5 6.0 Transition Zone 300 20 y 200 C 150 �k Y 100 Q 50 0 Transition Zone 2000 E 1500 3 C E 1000 3 Q 500 0 Transition Zone 1.0 0.9 c O 0.8 E +� 0.7 c Q 0.6 0.5 Transition Zone 5 4 3 m i 2 Q 1 0 Transition Zone 100 80 60 40 20 0 Transition Zone Appendix E 1.0 E 0.8 0.6 N m 0.4 0.2 Transition Zone 'C O N 250 200 150 �k v 100 m 50 0 Transition Zone 50 40 C 0 30 O m 20 10 Transition Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots — Pooled Background Datasets Transition Zone 1.0 0.8 0.6 E 0 0.4 U 0.2 'fit 120 E 100 3 v 80 U 60 40 T d 9 8 0 t6 U 6 5 Transition Zone Transition Zone dL Transition Zone ►„ 150 0 100 t U 50 0 50 E 40 30 O 20 U 10 0 15 E 10 O 5 t U 0 Transition Zone Transition Zone Transition Zone 5 4 3 .Q O 2 U 1 0 15 10 Q Q O 5 U 0 3.0 2.5 IA Appendix E Transition Zone Transition Zone Transition Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots — Pooled Background Datasets Transition Zone 2000 1500 O 1000 61111, 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 30 25 E 20 15 t J 10 M Transition Zone r9 Transition Zone Lrj Transition Zone 50 E 40 O 30 C1 20 i[f 1500 N d 1000 C cv 500 0 0.20 0.15 LU 0.10 N 0.05 :M: Transition Zone Transition Zone J. Transition Zone IMUOI 9.5 9.0 15 E 10 O 5 O 2 0 50 40 Appendix E Transition Zone d. Transition Zone Transition Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots — Pooled Background Datasets Transition Zone 4 Z 0 6 5 _E 4 u) 3 w 0 2 d 1 0 10 8 6 C 4 d 2 0 Transition Zone Transition Zone Transition Zone 40 35 30 0 N 25 ►XI 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 50 40 30 20 10 Transition Zone Transition Zone Transition Zone 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 800 700 600 C1 500 F- 400 300 200 0.25 E 0.20 3 ca F- 0.15 out Appendix E Transition Zone Transition Zone Transition Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets Transition Zone 2.5 30 25 2.0 E U 20 p 1.5 15 ; 10 1.0 5 0.5 0 Transition Zone 30 20 30 �I 10 25 0 20 _ 15 -10 N 10 Transition Zone 5 0 0.006 E 0.005 C 0.004 c4 0.003 ca 0.002 0.001 0.000 Transition Zone Transition Zone Transition Zone Appendix E Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets Bedrock Flow Zone 9.0 8.5 8.0 Q. 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 Bedrock Flow Zone 400 y 300 200 Q 100 - 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 400 E 300 3 c 200 E Q 100 0 Bedrock Flow Zone girl, >. 0.8 C O E 0.6 C Q 0.4 Bedrock Flow Zone 8 v 6 N 4 Q 2 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 200 150 100 50 0 Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix E 1.0 E 0.8 0.6 N m 0.4 0.2 Bedrock Flow Zone 400 +' 300 c4 C 200 ca— — v 100 m 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 50 40 C 0 30 O m 20 10 Bedrock Flow Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro 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 150 E 100 3 .2 to 5 U 0 0 Bedrock Flow Zone ►W. 4? 150 R 0 100 (j 50 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 150 100 U 50 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 15 10 E O 5 U 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 2.0 > I 1.5 E 1.0 E O 0.5 U 0.0 Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix E 30 25 20 O 15 U 10 5 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 5 4 �c L O 3 L Q U 2 1 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 1.0 0.8 O 0.6 3 0.4 LL 0.2 0.0 Bedrock Flow Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets Bedrock Flow Zone 8000 6000 c O 4000 2000 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Bedrock Flow Zone 300 250 E 200 150 J 100 50 Ik 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 50 E 40 3 y 30 d a1 20 M 2 10 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 2000 y 1500 d C 1000 C 500 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 0.20 0.15 i 0.10 N 0.05 0.00 Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix E 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 40 30 C '0 20 �O 10 0 1 Bedrock Flow Zone 8 6 0 Bedrock Flow Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets Bedrock Flow Zone 0.60 d 0.45 0.00 Bedrock Flow Zone 60 �c 50 40 N 30 r O 20 a 10 0 Bedrock Flow Zone E 0.95 3 0.70 0.45 'k y 0.20 Bedrock Flow Zone 100 80 60— 0 40 U) 20 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 800 600 400 200 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 80 60 40 20 0 Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix E 0.5 0.4 0.3 � 0.2 0.1 Bedrock Flow Zone 1000 800 U) 600 0 I— 400 Ep 200 0 Bedrock Flow Zone 0.20 E 0.15 3 ca H 0.10 0.05 Bedrock Flow Zone Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets Bedrock Flow Zone 40 CT I, O 20 10 0 s 0 Bedrock Flow Zone Bedrock Flow Zone 0.008 E 0.006 C c4 0.004 ;a 0.002 O I- Bedrock Flow Zone 4 E 3 3 'a 2 c� C 1 0 60 50 40 30 N 20 10 0 Bedrock Flow Zone Bedrock Flow Zone Appendix E Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019 Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant APPENDIX F QUANTITATIVE OUTLIER TEST RESULTS (PROUCL OUTPUT SynTerra Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Quantitative Outlier Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Outlier Tests for Selected Uncensored Variables User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/24/2019 10:20:59 AM From File Roxboro BG GW Data Raw File.xls Full Precision OFF Rosner's Outlier Test for Bicarbonate Mean 227.7 Standard Deviation 37.7 Number of data 52 Number of suspected outliers 10 Potential Obs. Test Critical Critical # Mean sd outlier Number value value (5%) value (1%) 1 227.7 37.34 5 26 5.966 3.144 3.496 2 232.1 20.93 149 52 3.97 3.134 3.486 3 233.8 17.42 185 49 2.8 3.126 3.478 4 234.8 16.1 275 43 2.5 3.116 3.476 5 233.9 15.15 198 45 2.371 3.106 3.466 6 234.7 14.35 265 13 2.114 3.098 3.455 7 234 13.77 263 16 2.105 3.091 3.444 8 233.4 13.2 262 37 2.168 3.083 3.432 9 232.7 12.6 259 15 2.085 3.076 3.421 10 232.1 12.08 208 47 1.997 3.068 3.41 For 5% significance level, there are 2 Potential Outliers Potential outliers are: 5, 149 For 1 % Significance Level, there are 2 Potential Outliers Potential outliers are: 5, 149 Appendix F Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Quantitative Outlier Test Results (ProUCL Output) Transition Zone Rosner's Outlier Test for Total Radium Mean 1.859 Standard Deviation 3.224 Number of data 47 Number of suspected outliers 10 Potential Obs. Test Critical Critical # Mean sd outlier Number value value (5%) value (1%) 1 1.859 3.19 20.2 27 5.75 3.1 3.46 2 1.46 1.728 7.89 40 3.72 3.09 3.45 3 1.317 1.447 6.59 41 3.643 3.09 3.44 4 1.197 1.218 5.83 32 3.805 3.08 3.43 5 1.089 0.997 5.45 1 4.372 3.07 3.41 6 0.986 0.738 3.762 11 3.764 3.058 3.4 7 0.918 0.6 2.36 28 2.402 3.046 3.39 8 0.882 0.561 2.36 29 2.634 3.034 3.38 9 0.844 0.514 2.183 30 2.605 3.022 3.37 10 0.809 0.471 -0.14 7 2.016 3.01 3.36 For 5% significance level, there are 6 Potential Outliers Potential outliers are: 20.2, 7.89, 6.59, 5.83, 5.45, 3.762 For 1 % Significance Level, there are 6 Potential Outliers Potential outliers are: 20.2, 7.89, 6.59, 5.83, 5.45, 3.762 Appendix F