BTVs - April 2020 Final Report - Compiled_20200403

(1 DUKE
ENERGY
April 2, 2020
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Attn: Mr. Kenneth B. White
Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301
410 S. Wilmington Street.
Raleigh, NC 27601
Mailing Address
Mail Code NC 15
Raleigh, NC 27601
919-546-7863
Subject: W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Updated Background Threshold Values for
Constituents in Groundwater and Soil
Dear Mr. White
Duke Energy Progress, LLC. (Duke Energy) submits enclosed the updated background datasets through
January 2020 for the W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant (Weatherspoon). These data were used to
calculate updated background threshold values (BTVs) for groundwater and soil. The calculations were
completed consistent with the "Statistical Methods for Developing Reference Background
Concentrations for Groundwater and Soil at Coal Ash Facilities" dated May 2017 and prepared under the
guidance of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) by HDR Engineering, Inc.
and SynTerra Corporation.
If you have any questions or need any clarification regarding the information provided, feel free to
contact me at [e-mail] or at 919-546-7863 at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
IAP/*
16hn Toepfer, PE
Lead Engineer, Duke Energy EHS CCP
Waste & Groundwater Programs
enc: Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater and Soil, W.H.
Weatherspoon Power Plant, prepared by SynTerra Corporation, March 2020
cc: Mr. Eric Smith — NCDEQ
Mr. Steve Lanter —NCDEQ
Mr. Ed Sullivan — Duke Energy
Mr. Ted Volskay — SynTerra Corporation

,61p
synTerra
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES
FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER AND SOIL
W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
491 POWER PLANT ROAD
LUMBERTON� NORTH CAROLINA 28358
MARCH 2O20
PREPARED FOR:
/DUKE
ENERGY
PROGRESS
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS,, LLC
Jess Gilmer
Project Scientist
Ted Volskay
Project Manager

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Purpose...........................................................................................................................1-2
2.0 BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER AND SOIL DATASETS ...........................2-1
2.1 Groundwater................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Unsaturated Soil............................................................................................................2-2
2.3 Extreme Outlier Concentrations................................................................................. 2-3
2.4 Description of Background Datasets..........................................................................2-5
2.4.1 Groundwater........................................................................................................... 2-5
2.4.2 Unsaturated Soil......................................................................................................2-5
3.0 STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY............................................................................3-1
3.1 Background Threshold Values....................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Upper Tolerance Limits.........................................................................................3-2
3.2 Fitting Distributions.....................................................................................................3-3
3.3 Outlier Screening..........................................................................................................3-4
4.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................4-1
Page

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Background Sample Locations
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent
Concentrations in Groundwater
Table 2
Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent
Concentrations in Unsaturated Soil
Table 3
Background Groundwater Analytical Results
Table 4
Background Unsaturated Soil Analytical Results
Table 5
Statistical Analysis Results — Surficial Flow Zone
Table 6
Statistical Analysis Results — Peedee Flow Zone
Table 7
Statistical Analysis Results — Unsaturated Soil
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
March 2020
SynTerra
Attachment 1 Arcadis U.S., Inc. Technical Memorandum: Background Threshold
Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation — Weatherspoon Power Plant,
March 25, 2 02 0.
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits
Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results
Appendix C Quantitative Outlier Test Results
Page ii

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Arcadis
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
bgs
below ground surface
BTV
background threshold value
Duke Energy
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
GOF
goodness of fit
NCDEQ
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
rROS
robust regression on order statistics
SW
Shapiro -Wilk
SynTerra
SynTerra Corporation
TM
technical memorandum
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UTL
upper tolerance limit
Weatherspoon/Site
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
March 2020
SynTerra
Page iii

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
1.0 INTRODUCTION
SynTerra
At the request of Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy), SynTerra Corporation
(SynTerra) updated background threshold values (BTVs) pertaining to constituents
monitored in groundwater and unsaturated soil at the Duke Energy W.H.
Weatherspoon Power Plant (Weatherspoon, Site) (Table 1). This report includes an
attachment titled, "Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation —
Weatherspoon Power Plant, March 25, 2020" prepared by Arcadis U.S., Inc (Arcadis). The
Arcadis attachment (Attachment 1) provides a detailed evaluation of extreme outlier
concentrations identified in the background datasets for groundwater and unsaturated
soil. Arcadis evaluated background groundwater and unsaturated soil data using
multiple lines of evidence that considered broader Site geochemical conditions and
statistical analysis of individual constituents.
Duke Energy previously submitted BTVs to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) in two separate technical memorandums (TM):
• Background Threshold Values for Groundwater, Weatherspoon Power Plant —
Lumberton, NC (September 5, 2017)
• Background Threshold Values for Soil, Weatherspoon Power Plant — Lumberton, NC
(September 5, 2017)
NCDEQ provided response to those BTVs in the letter — "Approval of Provisional
Background Threshold Values for Allen Steam Station, Asheville Steam Electric Plant,
Buck Combined Cycle Station, Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant, James E. Rogers Energy
Complex, Dan River Combined Cycle Station, H.F. Lee Energy Complex, Marshall
Steam Station, L.V. Sutton Energy Complex, and W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant"
(Zimmerman to Draovitch, October 11, 2017).
The groundwater BTVs provided in the September 5, 2017 TM (Table 1) were
statistically derived using a background dataset that:
• Included concentration data from background groundwater samples collected
from March 2015 to March 2017
• Did not include any extreme outlier concentrations even when those
concentrations were valid results not caused by sampling error or laboratory
analytical error
Page 1-1

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
SynTerra
No unsaturated soil BTVs provided in the September 5, 2017 TM (Table 2) because no
background unsaturated soil samples had been collected from the Site.
The updated groundwater BTVs presented in this report (Table 1) were derived using
an augmented background dataset (Table 3) that included:
• Concentration data from background groundwater samples collected from
March 2010 to January 2020
• Extreme outlier concentrations not caused by sampling error or laboratory
analytical error
The updated unsaturated soil BTVs presented in this report (Table 2) were derived
using an augmented background dataset (Table 4) that included:
• Concentration data from background unsaturated soil samples
• 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 and
unsaturated soil at Weatherspoon
• Document the statistical approach used to derive updated BTVs
• Document data excluded from statistical evaluations
• Document the approach used to screen background datasets for extreme
statistical outliers
Page 1-2

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
SynTerra
2.0 BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER AND SOIL DATASETS
2.1 Groundwater
Two distinct hydrogeologic flow zones at Weatherspoon have been identified
(SynTerra, 2015):
• Surficial flow zone
• Peedee flow zone
The surficial flow zone represents the uppermost flow zone at Weatherspoon. The
surficial flow zone consists of undifferentiated Coastal Plain deposits (surficial deposits)
and Yorktown Formation deposits (SynTerra, 2015).
Historically, it was assumed that groundwater in surficial deposits and groundwater in
Yorktown Formation deposits represented two distinct hydrogeologic flow zones
(SynTerra, 2015). In response to that assumption, separate sets of BTVs were calculated
for the surficial flow zone and the lower Yorktown flow zone in 2017 (Table 1). As
additional data have been collected over time, it has been determined that surficial flow
zone groundwater and lower Yorktown flow zone groundwater represent a single flow
zone (collectively referred to as the surficial flow zone) instead of two distinct flow
zones. As a result of that conclusion, background data from the surficial flow zone and
background data from the lower Yorktown flow zone were pooled together to represent
a single background dataset. That background dataset was used to calculate the
updated BTVs pertaining to constituents monitored in groundwater at the Site
(Table 1).
The background groundwater dataset for each of the distinct flow zones consists of
concentration data pooled across background monitoring wells installed within those
flow zones (Table 3). Well installations occurred within each flow zone at locations
where coal ash management or storage does not affect groundwater quality. In
accordance with NCDEQ guidance, the following sample data were not included in the
background groundwater datasets:
• Samples with a recorded groundwater pH greater than 8.5 standard units
• Samples with a 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
Page 2-1

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
SynTerra
• Non -detect values greater than Title 15A, North Carolina Administrative Code,
Subchapter 02L, Groundwater Classification and Standards or Interim Maximum
Allowable Concentrations listed in 15A North Carolina Administrative Code
02L .0202
NCDEQ requirements regarding the exclusion of groundwater sample data were
outlined in letters and through email communication:
• Letter - "Request for Additional Information regarding Statistical Methods
for Developing Reference Background Concentrations for Groundwater and
Soil at Coal Ash Facilities" (HDR Engineering, Inc. and SynTerra, January
2017) (Zimmerman to Draovitch, April 2017)
• 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)
2.2 Unsaturated Soil
Background unsaturated soil samples were collected from borings at locations where
coal ash management or storage has not affected soil quality. The background
unsaturated soil dataset consists of concentration data pooled across sampling locations
and across multiple depth intervals (Table 4). In accordance with NCDEQ guidance, the
following soil sample data were not included in the background unsaturated soil
dataset:
• Samples collected from depths shallower than 0.5 feet below ground surface
(bgs)
• Samples collected from depths deeper than 1 foot above the top of the
seasonal high-water table
• Samples collected from depths deeper than the top of water table
• Non -detect values greater than preliminary soil remediation goals for
protection of groundwater
NCDEQ requirements regarding the exclusion of soil sample data were outlined in the
following letters:
Page 2-2

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
SynTerra
• "Request for Additional Information regarding Statistical Methods for
Developing Reference Background Concentrations for Groundwater and Soil
at Coal Ash Facilities" (HDR Engineering, Inc. and SynTerra, January 2017)
(Zimmerman to Draovitch, April 2017)
• "Duke Energy Submittal — Background Soil and Groundwater Statistical
Methodology for 14 Duke Energy Facilities," May 26, 2017 (Zimmerman to
Draovitch, July 2017)
2.3 Extreme Outlier Concentrations
Extreme outlier concentrations in the background groundwater datasets and the
background unsaturated soil dataset were retained when data validation and
geochemical analysis of background constituent concentrations indicated that those
outlying concentrations did not result from sampling error or laboratory analytical error
(Table 3 and Table 4). The approach used to evaluate whether extreme outlier
concentrations should be retained in background datasets is presented in the technical
memorandum prepared by Arcadis titled, "Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier
Evaluation — Weatherspoon Power Plant, March 25, 2020" (Attachment 1). This is consistent
with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (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 of extreme outlier concentrations. Arcadis
evaluated extreme outlier concentrations identified in the background groundwater
datasets and background unsaturated soil datasets for Weatherspoon using a data -
driven approach that considered the following:
• Concentration of individual constituents
• The broader geochemical conditions at the Site
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
Page 2-3

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra
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 and the background unsaturated soil dataset for the Site
(Attachment 1).
Arcadis identified extreme outlier concentrations that should be included in
background groundwater and unsaturated soil datasets for the Site using the following
criteria:
• Repeatability of constituent concentrations
• Relationship between pairs of constituents or among groups of constituents
• Relationships between the concentrations of major ions and total dissolved solids
(pertinent to groundwater only)
• 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 and the background unsaturated soil dataset for Weatherspoon are identified
in Table 3 and Table 4. Rational for including extreme outlier concentrations in the
background groundwater for the Site is provided in Table 2 and text of Attachment 1.
Page 24

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra
2.4 Description of Background Datasets
2.4.1 Groundwater
The background dataset for each distinct groundwater flow zone was used to
update BTVs for constituents within that flow zone (Table 1).
Surficial Flow Zone
Eight wells (BW-2S, BW-3S, BW-4S, BW-5S, BW-3I, BW-4I, CCR-101-BG, and
MW-1) are used to monitor background groundwater quality within the
surficial flow zone at Weatherspoon (Figure 1). To statistically derive the
updated BTVs provided in this report, concentration data from the eight
background wells were included in the background dataset pertaining to the
surficial flow zone (Table 5). The background datasets for constituents in the
surficial flow zone contain 10 or more valid sample data (Table 5).
Peedee Flow Zone
Two wells (BW-3D and BW-4DA) are used to monitor background
groundwater quality within the Peedee flow zone at Weatherspoon
(Figure 1). To statistically derive the updated BTVs provided in this report,
concentration data from the two background wells were included in the
background dataset pertaining to the Peedee flow zone. The background
datasets for constituents (except for fluoride and lithium) in the Peedee flow
zone contain 10 or more valid sample data (Table 6).
2.4.2 Unsaturated Soil
Unsaturated soil samples were collected from 23 locations throughout the Site
(Figure 1). Soil samples were collected from multiple depth intervals at each
location (Table 4). Only soil samples collected from depths between 0.5 feet
bgs and 1 foot above the water table were included in the background
unsaturated soil dataset. The background datasets for constituents in
unsaturated soil contain 10 or more valid sample data (Table 7).
Page 2-5

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra
3.0 STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
This section describes the statistical approach used to:
• Evaluate the background groundwater datasets and the background unsaturated
soil dataset
• Calculate BTVs pertaining to constituent concentrations in groundwater and
unsaturated soil at Weatherspoon
Statistical methods were performed using guidance provided in the following
documents:
• 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
Site -specific groundwater and unsaturated soil BTVs were represented by one of the
following:
• The upper tolerance limit (UTL) represented the Site -specific BTV for a
constituent when the background dataset for that constituent contained 10 or
more valid sample data and the frequency of non -detects present within the
dataset was less than or equal to 90 percent
• The maximum non -detect value represented the Site -specific BTV for a
constituent when the background dataset for that constituent contained 10 or
more valid sample data and the frequency of non -detects present within the
dataset was greater than 90 percent
• The maximum value represented the Site -specific BTV for a constituent when the
background dataset for that constituent contained fewer than 10 valid sample
data
Page 3-1

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra
Site -specific BTVs represented by the UTL and maximum non -detect value are
identified in Table 5 through Table 7.
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. UTLs were calculated for constituents (except for pH) using ProUCL
version 5.1.002 (Appendix A). Two-sided tolerance intervals consisting of an
upper and lower tolerance limit were calculated for pH using NCSS 11 Statistical
Software (Appendix A) because ProUCL cannot calculate two-sided tolerance
intervals. UTLs were calculated using either parametric statistics or non -
parametric statistics.
Parametric Upper Tolerance Limits
Parametric UTLs were calculated for constituents when the background
dataset contained less than or equal to 50 percent non -detects and the
background dataset fit a discernible distribution model. When those criteria
were met, one of the following UTLs were calculated:
Normal UTLs were calculated for constituents when the background
dataset fit the normal distribution model.
Gamma UTLs were calculated for constituents when the background
dataset fit the gamma distribution model but did not fit the normal
distribution model.
• Lognormal UTLs were calculated for constituents when the
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.
Parametric UTLs were calculated using a coverage of 95 percent and a
confidence level of 95 percent. The Kaplan -Meier method was used to handle
non -detects.
Page 3-2

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
SynTerra
Non -Parametric Upper Tolerance Limits
Non -parametric UTLs were calculated for constituents when the 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
Non -parametric UTLs were calculated using:
A confidence level of 95 percent and a coverage of 85 percent when a
background dataset contained fewer than 29 samples
A confidence level of 95 percent and a coverage of 90 percent when a
background dataset contained from 29 to 58 samples
A confidence level of 95 percent and a coverage of 95 percent when a
background dataset contained 59 or more samples
3.2 Fitting Distributions
Background datasets were fitted 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 groundwater data are provided in
Table 5 through Table 6, and details about the distribution of background unsaturated
soil data are provided in Table 7.
GOF tests were performed using ProUCL version 5.1.002 (Appendix B). If non -detects
were present in a background dataset, those data were handled using robust regression
on ordered statistics (rROS). rROS requires that the detected concentration data in a
dataset fit a distribution model. If the detected concentration data fit a distribution
model, rROS estimates a value for each non -detect. The joint distribution of the
estimated values and detected concentration data is then evaluated for fit with
distribution models using GOF tests. This determines the overall distribution of a
dataset.
Page 3-3

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra
Background data were evaluated for fit 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 and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
• Lognormal distribution — SW test or Lilliefors test
The SW test was used to evaluate data for fit with the normal distribution model
and lognormal distribution model when background datasets contained 50 or fewer
sample data. The Lilliefors test was used to evaluate data for fit with the normal
distribution model and lognormal distribution model when background datasets
contained more than 50 sample data. Both the Anderson -Darling test and the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test were used to evaluate background datasets for fit with
the gamma distribution model, regardless of background dataset sample size.
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
Background groundwater and background unsaturated soil datasets were screened
for extreme outlier concentrations using ProUCL version 5.1.002. Temporally
autocorrelated data were retained in the background groundwater datasets during
outlier screening. Temporal autocorrelation was pertinent only to groundwater data.
Retaining temporally autocorrelated data in background groundwater datasets
helped confirm the validity of apparent statistical outliers or to determine whether
outliers were caused by omitting data about concentrations present in groundwater
at a given point in time.
The background dataset for each constituent within each distinct groundwater flow
zone and the background dataset for each constituent in unsaturated soil were screened
for extreme outlier concentrations using all the following:
• Box -and -whisker plots
• Dixon's outlier test or Rosner's outlier test using a 0.01 significance level
Extreme outlier concentrations identified in the Dixon's outlier test were used when a
background dataset for a constituent contained fewer than 25 samples. Rosner's outlier
test was used when a background dataset for a constituent contained more than 25
Page 34

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
SynTerra
samples. Both Dixon's outlier test and Rosner's outlier test make the assumption that
the background data for a constituent fit the normal distribution model, excluding all
concentrations that are suspected to be outliers. Dixon's test or Rosner's outlier test was
used to screen the background constituent dataset for extreme outlier concentrations
only when the aforementioned assumption was met (Appendix C).
background groundwater datasets are presented in Table 3. Extreme outlier
concentrations identified in the background unsaturated soil dataset are presented in
Table 4.
Page 3-5

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant SynTerra
4.0 REFERENCES
HDR Engineering, Inc. and SynTerra (2017). Revised Statistical Methods for Developing
Reference Background Concentrations for Groundwater and Soil at Coal Ash
Facilities. May 2017.
SynTerra (2015). Comprehensive Site Assessment. W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant.
August 2015.
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 and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
FIGURE
SynTerra

• HASB-1
�• HASB-2
•
.•
OHASB-14 BW-2S HASB-7
♦> '♦✓••� ASB-4
HASB-13 _HASB-5 /
�' ♦` BW-4S/I/DA •' • HASB-6 CCR-101-BG ♦♦
■
• • / HASB-11 HASB-12 �♦ `♦♦
• I ♦
MW-1 ♦%
/• � •• HASB-10 �♦ ♦`
/
/ � HASB-17 � ♦
• HASB-16 /
HASB-18 HASB-15 �� ■ �
BW-3S/I/D ♦ /
♦ I
HASB-19 �.` �•
• BW-5S ♦ _ ♦•
1 + ♦ I•
I
HASB-23 HASB-22 ��•
Z
HASB-21
HASB-20 ' `V •',
•
■
I
■
DUKE
ENERGY
LEGEND
GROUNDWATER SAMPLE LOCATION
® SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY
ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
NPDES COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS PROPERTY LINE
STREAM (AMEC NRTR)
NOTES:
1. SAMPLE LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
2. THE WATERS OF THE U.S. DELINEATION HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE US ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS AT THE TIME OF THE MAP CREATION. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE
USED FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION PURPOSES. THE WETLANDS AND STREAMS
BOUNDARIES WERE OBTAINED FROM STREAM AND WETLAND DELINEATION CONDUCTED
BYAMEC FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL R INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. NATURAL
RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT (NRTR) FOR W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DATED JULY 16, 2015.
3. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC.
4. ALL BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.
5. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM TERRASERVER ON JUNE 18, 2019. AERIAL
WAS COLLECTED ON MARCH 11, 2018.
6. DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH PROJECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE
COORDINATE SYSTEM FIPS 3200 (NAD83).
GRAPHIC SCALE
440 0 440 880
FIGURE 1
(IN FEET)
BACKGROUND SAMPLE LOCATIONS
DRAWN BY: A. ROBINSON DATE: 02/20/2020
W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
REVISED BY: A. ROBINSON DATE: 02/20/2020
CHECKED BY: J. GILMER DATE: 02/20/2020
LU MBERTON, NORTH CAROLINA
APPROVED BY: T. VOLSKAY DATE: 02/20/2020
PROJECT MANAGER: T. VOLSKAY

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
TABLES
SynTerra

TABLE 1
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER
W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Constituent
Reporting Unit
SSA NCAC 02L
Standard
Historical BTVs (2017)1
Updated BTVs (2020)2
Surficial
Lower Yorktown
Peedee
Surficialt
Peedee
PH-
S.U.
6.5-8.5
3.21-6.87
5.5-5.7
6.9-8.3
3.4-7.4
6.0-8.4
Alkalinity
mg/L
NE
37
17
89
136
101
Aluminum
pg/L
NE
1,460
492
66
1,584
349
Antimony
pg/L
1*
ND
1
1
1
1
Arsenic
pg/L
10
1
1
1
2
1
Barium
pg/L
700
32
21
56
41
56
Beryllium
pg/L
4*
ND
1
1
1
1
Bicarbonate
mg/L
NE
37
17
89
136
101
Boron
pg/L
700
ND
50
50
50
50
Cadmium
pg/L
2
ND
1
1
1
1
Calcium
mg/L
NE
15
7
30
51
38
Carbonate
mg/L
NE
ND
5
10
5
5
Chloride
mg/L
250
22
10
3
14
4
Chromium
pg/L
10
2
1
1
2
1
Chromium (VI)
pg/L
10
0.05
0.8
0.2
0.8
0.2
Cobalt
pg/L
1*
ND
1
1
1
1
Copper
pg/L
1,000
ND
1
1
1
2
Fluoride
mg/L
2
---
---
---
0.4
0.1
Iron
pg/L
300
13,231
2,070
1,550
6,780
1,491
Lead
pg/L
15
ND
1
1
1
1
Lithium
pg/L
NE
---
---
---
6
6
Magnesium
mg/L
NE
1
0.5
1
2
1
Manganese
pg/L
50
39
20
41
70
49
Mercury
pg/L
1
ND
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.05
Methane
pg/L
NE
442
1,080
238
932
1,206
Molybdenum
pg/L
NE
ND
1
1
1
5
Nickel
pg/L
100
ND
1
1
1
1
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg/L
NE
2
0.01
0.01
2
0.1
Potassium
mg/L
NE
1
0.9
2
2
2
Selenium
pg/L
20
ND
1
1
1
1
Sodium
mg/L
NE
13
6
7
7
7
Strontium
pg/L
NE
88
41
164
292
200
Sulfate
mg/L
250
14
1
0.2
12
1
Sulfide
mg/L
NE
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
TDS
mg/L
500
90
75
130
157
156
Thallium
pg/L
0.2*
ND
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
TOC
mg/L
NE
8
4
1
8
3
Total Radium
pCi/L
5^
7
5
4
7
6
Total Uranium
pg/mL
0.03^
0.0006
0.001
0.0004
0.0007
0.0002
Vanadium
pg/L
0.3*
15
13
10.3
4
0.4
Zinc
pg/L
1,000
10
5
5
8
5
Prepared by: JHG Checked by: MCM
Notes:
--- - Background threshold value (BTV) not calculated for constituent.
t - Data for surficial flow zone and lower Yorktown flow zone were combined to calculate updated BTVs for surficial flow zone.
* - Interim maximum allowable concentration of the 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02L Standard, Appendix 1, April 1, 2013.
^ - Federal maximum contaminant level
' - BTVs calculated using data from background groundwater samples collected March 2015 to March 2017.
2 - Updated BTVs calculated using data from background groundwater samples collected March 2010 to January 2020.
pg/L - micrograms per liter
pg/mL - micrograms per milliliter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
ND - non -detect. Reporting limit not provided.
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 UNSATURATED SOIL
W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Constituent
PSRG Protection of
Groundwater
Historical BTV (2017)1
Updated BTV (2020)2
pH
NE
---
3.6 - 5.9
Aluminum
110,000
---
41,671
Antimony
0.9
---
0.6
Arsenic
5.8
---
6.1
Barium
580
---
31
Beryllium
63
---
0.3
Boron
45
---
3
Cadmium
3
---
0.03
Calcium
NE
---
280
Chloride
NE
---
12
Chromium
3.8
---
38.4
Cobalt
0.9
---
2
Copper
700
---
4
Iron
150
---
22,324
Lead
270
---
27
Magnesium
NE
---
568
Manganese
65
---
16
Mercury
1
---
0.1
Molybdenum
7.1
---
2.3
Nickel
130
---
11
Nitrate (as N)
NE
---
0.3
Potassium
NE
---
375
Selenium
2.1
---
1.4
Sodium
NE
---
290
Strontium
1,500
---
5
Sulfate
2,938
---
13
Thallium
0.28
---
0.14
Vanadium
350
---
77
Zinc
1,200
---
10
Prepared by: JHG Checked by: MCM
Notes•
--- - Background threshold value (BTV) not calculated for constituent.
1 - Historical BTV not calculated because no background unsaturated soil samples were collected from site.
Z - BTVs calculated using data from background unsaturated soil samples collected during October 2017.
All constituents except for pH are reported in milligrams per kilogram.
NE - not established
pH reported in standard units.
PSRG - preliminary soil remediation goal
Page 1of1

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Well ID
Flow
Zone
one
Sample
Collection
Date
P H
WL
Temp
P
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
y
AlkalinityAluminum
AntimonyArsenic
Barium
Beryllium
y
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Alkalinity
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium VI
Cobalt
Copper
PP
S.U.
Ft (BTOC)
°C
NS/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
BW-2S
Surficial
03/06/2015
6.3
5.01
10
240
0.10
-80
126
216
87
11800
<1
2.39
38
<1
86
<50
<1
44.2
<10
7.8
8.61
---
<1
2.16
BW-2S
Surficial
06/04/2015
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
BW-2S
Surficial
06/05/20151
5.1
9.85
18
86
0.30
-92
113
>1000
21
57400
<1
3.93
96
<1
21
<50
<1
4.08
<10
7
25.9
---
<1
8.05
BW-2S
Surficial
09/30/2015
1 5.0
14.10
22
66
2.10
21
226
29
---
1650
<1
<1
27
<1
---
<50
<1
3.87
---
---
1.54
---
<1
<1
BW-2S
Surficial
12/02/2015
9.8
8.33
18
62
0.40
120
325
34.6
<10
2050
<1
<1
31
<1
<10
<50
<1
2.79
<10
7.2
1.42
0.063
<1
<1
BW-2S
Surficial
01/12/2016
4.7
5.85
13
57
1.06
181
386
9.6
<5
1130
<1
<1
24
<1
<5
<50
<1
3.53
<5
7.6
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
BW-2S
Surficial
03/07/2016
5.6
5.37
16
114
0.21
1
206
61
3120
jE�27.9
<50
<1
14.6
<5
7.3
2.51
0.032
<1
BW-2S
Surficial
06/13/2016
4.8
7.57
20
62
2.18
-65
140
8.2
<5
501
<1
<1
1 22
<1
<5
<50
<1
3.53
<5
6.7 B2
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
BW-2S
Surficial
08/31/2016
4.4
10.41
20
73
0.13
166
371
1 1.5
<5
349
<1
<1
27
<1
<5
<50
<1
2.45
<5
6.9
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
BW-2S
Surficial
12/13/20161
4.5
7.55
16
59
0.48
0
205
4.0
<5
449
<1
<1
26
<1
<5
<50
<1
2.03
<5
5.9
<1
<1
<1
BW-2S
Surficial
03/07/2017
4.5
7.66
15
60
0.33
-89
116
9.7
<5
792
<1
<1
24
<1
<5
<50
<1
2.67
<5
6.8
<1
<0.12 D3
<1
I <1
BW-2S
Surficial
06/01/2017
4.6
8.49
19
70
1.33
-36
169
6.8
<5
658
<1
<1
26 M2
<1
<5
<50
<1
2.34
<5
6.7
<1
<0.12 D3
<1
<1
BW-2S
Surficial
08/22/2017
4.4
11.59
24
56
0.19
101
306
1.7
<5
447
<1
<1
26
<1
<5
<50
<1
2.05
<5
5.4
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-2S
Surficial
12/18/2017
4.6
9.65
18
58
0.33
162
367
9.7
<5
684
<1
<1
27
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.82
<5
6
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-2S
Surficial
02/27/2018
4.5
8.78
15
59
0.49
142
347
4.6
<5
505
<1
<1
27
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.82
<5
5.9
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-2S
Surficial
05/22/2018
4.4
10.06
18
58
0.25
49
254
6.7
<5
803
<1
0.438 j
27
<1
<5
<50
<1
2.01
<5
5.7
0.569 j
<0.025 P4, RO
0.352 j
<1
BW-2S
Surficial
08/08/2018
4.6
9.46
21
90
0.14
74
279
355.0
5.1
26200
<1
1.47
50
0.425 j
5.1
25.621 j
<1
1.9
<5
5.1
12
0.36 M1
0.491 j
2.6
BW-2S
Surficial
10/17/2018
4.5
6.72
21
61
0.28
136
341
168.0
7.1
15400
<1
0.892 j
36
<1
7.1
22.437 j
<1
1.99
<5
5.3
4
0.085
0.432 j
0.958 j
BW-2S
Surficial
04/22/2019
4.5
5.08
17
64
0.40
564
769
3.3
<5
523
---
<1
25
<1
<5
<50
---
2.42
<5
4.5
0.87 j,B2
<0.025
0.669 j
<1
BW-2S
Surficial
10/28/2019
4.3
11.40
20
64
0.17
231
436
81.0
6.89
3650
---
0.963 j
27
<1
6.89
23.332 j
---
1.58
<5
5.1
2.24 S1
<0.025 P4,R0
0.452 j
0.6 j
BW-3S
Surficial
03/05/2015
5.4
3.40
18
112
0.25
41
246
14.3
<10
712
<1
<1
19
<1
<10
<50
<1
3.15
<10
16
1.98
---
<1
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
06/03/2015
5.5
5.62
19
99
0.40
-108
97
19.5
10
749
<1
<1
20
<1
10
<50
<1
3.1
<10
13
2.18
---
<1
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
09/30/2015
5.2
7.38
22
84
0.30
58
263
7.9
---
678
<1
<1
17
<1
---
<50
<1
2.4
---
---
1.71
---
<1
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
12/02/2015
5.3
3.94
18
99
0.33
7
212
5.1
<10
284
<1
<1
19
<1
<10
<50
<1
3.02
<10
16
1.44
0.049
<1
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
01/11/2016
5.1
3.50
15
104
0.29
45
250
2.3
<5
308
<1
<1
20
<1
<5
<50
<1
3.1
<5
18
1.59
0.047
<1
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
03/07/2016
5.4
4.12
14
87
0.17
58
263
2.9
7.6
362
<1
<1
17
<1
7.6
<50
<1
2.9
<5
12
1.61
0.037
<1
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
06/13/2016
5.5
4.98
21
83
0.74
-106
99
4.1
6.4
460
<1
<1
18
<1
6.4
<50
<1
2.85
<5
11 B2
1.59
<0.03
<1
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
08/31/2016
5.4
6.10
21
77
0.17
95
300
10.8
8.7
549
<1
<1
17
<1
8.7
<50
<1
2.38
<5
9.9
1.71
<0.3 D3
<1
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
12/14/2016
5.4
4.05
16
61
0.11
-48
157
4.8
5.2
431
<1
<1
17
<1
5.2
<50
<1
2.08
<5
10
1.63
2.3
<1
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
03/07/2017
5.3
5.04
16
80
0.20
3
208
3.3
6.9
272
<1
<1
20
<1
6.9
<50
<1
2.62
<5
11
1.6
<0.25 D3
1.16
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
04/25/2017
5.2
3.36
17
76 S
0.31
15
220
3.2
9.7
306
<1
<1
20
<1
9.7
<50
<1
2.52 BI
<5
9.8
2.14
1.9
1.31
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
06/01/2017
5.3
4.43
20
77
0.16
22
227
5.9
10.4
365
<1
<1
19
<1
10.4
<50
<1
2.5
<5
10
2.32
0.14
<1
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
08/22/2017
5.3
5.71
23
65
0.26
31
236
5.0
11.6
561
<1
<1
18
<1
11.6
<50
<1
2.18
<5
8.7
1.81
<0.12 D3
<1
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
12/19/2017
5.3
5.21
16
58
0.22
88
293
6.6
7.2
363
<1
<1
16
<1
7.2
<50
<1
2
<5
8.7
1.85
0.06
<1
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
02/27/2018
5.2
4.52
15
64
0.13
56
261
3.6
9.9
382
<1
<1
16
<1
9.9
<50
<1
1.98
<5
8.1
1.69
0.042
<1
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
05/21/2018
5.1
5.06
18
58
0.25
5
210
7.8
9.8
544
<1
0.487 j
16
<1
9.8
20.089 j
<1
1.86
<5
7.7
2.02
<0.025
0.818 j
BW-3S
Surficial
08/08/2018
4.7
5.14
21
59
0.18
98
303
5.1
8.7
475
<1
0.653 j
16
0.755 j
8.7
<50
0.801 j
2.04
<5
8.2
0.063
0.947 j
0.961 j
BW-3S
Surficial
10/17/2018
5.0
3.60
22
60
0.15
95
300
5.5
12.1
582
<1
0.47 j
15
<1
12.1
22.062 j
<1
2.1
<5
9.3
1.79
0.039
0.757 j
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
04/25/2019
5.3
3.96
17
70
0.15
157
362
2.1
7.65
260
---
<1
15
<1
7.65
<50
---
2.77
<5
9.6
1.74
0.06
0.563 j
<1
BW-3S
Surficial
10/24/2019
5.0
5.90
21
60
0.09
268
473
6.0
10.9
381
---
0.414 j
14
<1
10.9
<50
---
2.21
<5
9.4
2.31 B2
<0.025
0.408 j
<1
BW-4S
Surficial
12/19/2017
5.3
22.67
17
64
1.91
107
312
9.7
<5
1050
<1
<1
19
<1
<5
<50
<1
2.1
<5
5
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-4S
Surficial
02/26/2018
4.7
22.22
18
60
3.42
194
399
9.9
<5
1060
<1
<1
16
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.35
<5
4.5
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-4S
Surficial
05/21/2018
4.6
22.17
21
50
3.50
249
454
9.3
<5
2150
<1
<1
15
0.397 j
<5
<50
<1
1.03
<5
3.6
2.09
<0.025
0.542 j
0.564 j
BW-4S
Surficial
08/08/2018
5.1
22.42
24
45
3.90
31
236
6.1
<5
1970
<1
<1
14
<1
<5
<50
<1
0.922
<5
3.4
2.02
<0.025
0.484 j
0.46 j
BW-4S
Surficial
10/17/2018
4.6
20.32
22
44
5.62
452
657
2.4
<5
1100
<1
<1
12
<1
<5
<50
<1
0.901
<5
3.5
1.04
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-4S
Surficial
04/22/2019
4.6
19.89
20
52
4.09
489
694
5.3
<5
1030
---
<1
14
<1
<5
<50
---
1.13
<5
3.7
1.05 B2
<0.025
0.514 j
<1
BW-4S
Surficial
07/01/2019
4.5
21.61
27
48
3.87
237
442
9.9
<5
1900
<1
<1
10
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.14
<5
3
1.59
0.1
0.349 j
<1
BW-4S
Surficial
09/03/2019
4.5
22.24
22
52
3.99
313
518
7.2
<5
2040
<1
<1
12
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.14
<5
3.1
1.84
<0.025
0.393 j
BW-4S
Surficial
11/04/2019
4.5
22.60
21
39
5.55
376
581
8.8
<5
1490
---
<1
12
<1
<5
17.726 j
---
1.02
<5
2.8
1.34
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-4S
Surficial
01/03/2020
5.0
21.14
20
38
4.88
236
441
2.9
<5
1350
<1
<1
13
<1
<5
1 <50
<1
1.1
<5
2.8
1.28
<0.025
0.358 j
<1
BW-5S
Surficial
12/19/2017
5.8
8.21
18
98
0.21
41
246
8.6
30.9
223
<1
<1
29
<1
30.9
<50
<1
8.23
<5
4
1.01
0.026
<1
<1
BW-5S
Surficial
02/26/2018
5.5
8.30
15
104
0.23
19
224
1.5
40.8
169
<1
<1
35
<1
40.8
<50
<1
11.5
<5
5.5
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-5S
Surficial
08/08/2018
5.3
8.35
22
91
0.10
-5
200
1.7
32
142
<1
<1
27
<1
32
29.017 j
<1
7.37
<5
1 4.7
0.903 j
<0.025
1 <1
I <1
BW-55
I Surficial
110/16/20181
6.6
7.00
1 21
1 259
0.17
-27
178
3.1
85
<1
<1
<1
28.324 j
<1
40.6
<5
1 4.2
<1
<0.025
1 <1
I <1
Page 1 of 8

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Well ID
Flow
Zone
Sample
Collection
Date
Fluoride
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
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg -NIL
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
POIL
pg/mL
Ng/L
Ng/L
BW-2S
Surficial
03/06/2015
---
2570
7.85
---
0.669
31
0.17
140
1.32
2.17
<0.01
2.07
1.67
6.26
146
9.1
<0.5
280
<0.2
23
---
---
18.4
<5
BW-2S
Surficial
06/04/2015
1 ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
2.83
1 0.00332
---
---
BW-2S
Surficial
06/05/2015
---
6420
42.1
---
0.535
25
0.78
130
3.64
2.9
0.032
0.599
5.54
11.6
39
8.5
<1
520
<0.2
9.1
---
---
47.3
10
BW-2S
Surficial
09/30/2015
---
2150
1.09
---
0.526
19
0.07
---
<1
<1
---
0.554
<1
4.33
19
---
---
---
<0.2
---
---
---
4.08
<5
BW-2S
Surficial
12/02/2015
---
1240
1.66
---
0.559
15
<0.05
75
<1
<1
<0.01
0.568
<1
4.34
18
7.5
<0.1
62
<0.2
3
---
---
4.42
<5
BW-2S
Surficial
01/12/2016
---
1670
<1
---
0.466
17
<0.05
86.6
<1
<1
0.05
0.524
<1
4.04
19
8.6
0.21
46
<0.2
2.7
---
---
3.08
<5
BW-2S
Surficial
03/07/2016
---
2750
2.17
---
0.64
31
<0.05
145
1
0.632
0.662
<1
4.61
36
7.9
<0.1
110
<0.2
5.8
3.06
0.000393
5.08
BW-2S
Surficial
06/13/2016
---
1520
1 <1
---
0.536
11
<0.05
204
<1
<1
<0.01
0.54
<1
3.87
19
8.2
<0.1
79
<0.2
2.6
4.98
0.000345
1.85
<5
BW-2S
Surficial
08/31/2016
---
970
<1
---
0.462
9
<0.05
298
<1
<1
<0.01
0.506
<1
3.77
17
8.3
0.14
36
<0.2
2.6
10.84
0.0000816 j
1.63
<5
BW-2S
Surficial
12/13/2016
---
493
<1
---
0.487
12
<0.05
37.4
<1
<1
<0.01
0.564
<1
3.79
14
7.4
<0.1
52
<0.2 132
2.3
14.24
0.0000731 j
1.16
<5
BW-2S
Surficial
03/07/2017
---
1010
<1
---
0.485
11
<0.05
127
<1
<1
<0.01
0.507
<1
3.54
16
13
<0.1
51
<0.2
2.5
5.25
0.000123 j
2.74
<5
BW-2S
Surficial
06/01/2017
---
1590
<1
---
0.497
11
<0.05
227
<1
<1
<0.01
0.482
<1
3.5
15
7.9
0.34
25
<0.2
2.6
1 5.02
0.000118 j
2.59
<5
BW-2S
Surficial
08/22/2017
---
878
<1
---
0.466
10
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
0.503
<1
3.42
14
8.8
0.2
<25
<0.2
2.7
4.93
0.0000684 j
1.62
<5
BW-2S
Surficial
12/18/2017
---
692
1 <1
---
0.496
11
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
0.534
<1
3.35
13
13
<0.1
28
<0.2
3.1
5.98
<0.0002
1.51
<5
BW-2S
Surficial
02/27/2018
<0.1
1030
<1
<5
0.536
13
<0.05
---
<1
<1
<0.02
0.554
<1
3.32
13
8.8
0.28
26
<0.2
2.7
6.62
<0.0002
0.875
<5
BW-2S
Surficial
05/22/2018
0.0724 j
1760
0.357 j
<5
0.542
11
<0.05
<1
0.541 j
<0.01
0.527
<1
3.24
14
7.9
0.3
31
<0.2
2.7
1.64
0.0000764
1.96
2.236 j
BW-2S
Surficial
08/08/2018
0.0579 j
5120
16.9
4.948 j
0.775
14
0.19
---
0.762 j
1.42
0.0059 j
0.845
1.03
7.07
23
9
0.16
350
<0.2
4.9
5.57
0.00206
19.3
4.692 j
BW-2S
Surficial
10/17/2018
0.056 j
3340
5.16
<5
0.779
14
0.06
---
0.282 j
0.998 j
0.018
0.784
0.365 j
5.19
20
9.1
<0.1
130
<0.2
3.6
2.64
0.0007
6.09
7
BW-2S
Surficial
04/22/2019
<0.1
340
0.433 j
<5
0.537
16
---
---
0.107 j
1.09
0.051
0.518
<1
5.86
18
12
---
69
<0.2
---
1.091
0.0000991 j
1.44
2.499 j,B1
BW-2S
Surficial
10/28/20191
0.059 j
2250
1 2.82
14 S1
1 0.527
14
---
---
0.212 j
0.655 j
0.024
0.622
<1
5.4
16
9.2
---
78
<0.2
---
1.912
0.000364
4.18
4.782 j,S1
BW-3S
Surficial
03/05/2015
---
5240
<1
---
1.39
46
<0.05
640
<1
<1
0.015
1.17
<1
10
21
5.3
<0.5
69
<0.2
7.2
---
---
3.44
8
BW-3S
Surficial
06/03/2015
---
4490
<1
---
1.44
40
<0.05
510
<1
<1
0.01
1.19
<1
8.75
21
9.1
0.466
75
<0.2
6.8
---
3.68
<5
BW-3S
Surficial
09/30/2015
---
3210
<1
---
1.01
33
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
1.14
<1
7.46
16
---
---
---
<0.2
---
---
---
3.44
<5
BW-3S
Surficial
12/02/2015
---
4100
<1
---
1.45
36
<0.05
560
<1
<1
<0.01
1.19
<1
9.78
21
7.5
0.15
74
<0.2
0.832
---
---
2.63
<5
BW-3S
Surficial
01/11/2016
---
3920
<1
---
1.36
45
<0.05
214
<1
<1
0.037
1.11
<1
10.2
21
10
<0.1
60
<0.2
1.6
---
---
2.95
<5
BW-3S
Surficial
03/07/2016
---
3540
<1
---
1.28
39
<0.05
300
<1
<1
<0.01
0.986
<1
8.11
20
7.5
<0.1
70
<0.2
7.9
1.79
0.000157 j
2.82
<5
BW-3S
Surficial
06/13/2016
---
3670
<1
---
1.39
36
<0.05
211
<1
<1
<0.01
0.993
<1
7.02
19
8.6
<0.1
71
<0.2
7.1
1.74
0.000173 j
2.82
<5
Surficial
08/31/2016
---
2870
<1
---
1.11
25
<0.05
620
<1
<1
<0.01
0.984
<1
6.27
16
3.5
<0.1
56
<0.2
7.2
0.727
0.000279
3.24
<5
BW-3S
Surficial
12/14/2016
---
3070
<1
---
1.1
21
<0.05
267
<1
<1
<0.01
0.929
<1
5.69
15
3.3
0.3
43
<0.2
8
2.224
0.000263
4
<5
BW-3S
Surficial
03/07/2017
---
3540
<1
---
1.43
28
<0.05
488
<1
<1
<0.01
0.916
<1
6.52
19
9
0.29
68
<0.2
7.8
1.135
0.000165 j
3.24
<5 B2
BW-3S
Surficial
04/25/2017
---
3310
<1
---
1.4 B2
25
<0.05
800
<1
<1
<0.01
1.02
<1
6.5
19
6.1
0.54
47
<0.2
8.3
0.272
0.000189 j
3.63
<5
BW-3S
Surficial
06/01/2017
---
3290
<1
---
1.36
28
<0.05
563
<1
<1
<0.01
0.958
<1
6.74
17
5
0.46
47
<0.2
7.8
0.506
0.000235
3.43
<5
BW-3S
Surficial
08/22/2017
---
2780
<1
---
1.12
24
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
1.01
<1
5.77
15
2
0.45
40
<0.2
7.7
0.794
0.000213
3.7
<5
BW-3S
Surficial
12/19/2017
---
2470
<1
---
1.01
20
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
0.955
<1
5.16
15
0.54
<0.1
56
<0.2
7.9
0.765
0.000267
3.88
<5
BW-3S
Surficial
02/27/2018
<0.1
2860
<1
<5
1.05
18
<0.05
---
<1
<1
<0.02
1.03
<1
5.36
14
0.47
0.15
42
<0.2
7.8
1.497
0.000264
3.78
<5
BW-3S
Surficial
05/21/2018
0.0714 j
2530
<1
2.268 j
0.937
19
<0.05
---
<1
1.09
0.0063 j
1.01
<1
5.21
14
0.18
<0.1
50
0.122 j
7.7
0.7938
0.000391
4.48
<5
BW-3S
Surficial
08/08/2018
0.0645 j
2480
0.748 j
3.173 j
0.929
20
<0.05
---
<1
1.11
0.0048 j
1.17
<1
5.2
15
0.98
<0.1
34
0.152 j
7.8
0.456
0.000329
3.84
2.161 j
BW-3S
Surficial
10/17/2018
0.0519 j
2610
<1
<5
0.963
20
<0.05
---
<1
<1
0.009 j
1.12
<1
5.73
14
0.21
<0.1
51
<0.2
7.7
0.597
0.000271
3.56
3.487 j
BW-3S
Surficial
04/25/2019
0.043 j
3230
<1
<5
1.23
33
---
---
<1
<1
0.013 M2
0.904
<1
5.81
18
5.9
---
45
<0.2
---
1.01
0.000188 j
3.08
<5
BW-3S
Surficial
10/24/2019
<0.1
2680
1 <1
3.44 j,B
1 0.975
30
---
---
<1
<1
0.014
0.884
<1
5.54
15
1.9
---
66
<0.2
1 ---
0.5391
0.000231
3.84
4.445 j,132
BW-4S
Surficial
12/19/2017
---
297
<1
---
1.33
32
<0.05
<1
---
1.2
<1
1.58
11
<1
<0.1
27
<0.2
1.4
---
---
0.351
<5
BW-4S
Surficial
02/26/2018
<0.1
100
<1
<5
1.32
13
<0.05
---
<1
<1
2.9
1.08
<1
1.43
8
1.6
<0.1
33
<0.2
1
3.2
0.00015 j
<0.3
<5
BW-4S
Surficial
05/21/2018
0.064 j
244
0.579 j
2.746 j
1.29
7
<0.05
---
0.097 j
0.666 j
2.1
1.03
<1
1.4
7
0.6
<0.1
31
<0.2
0.539
3.117
0.000156
0.815
<5
BW-4S
Surficial
08/08/2018
0.0559 j
224
0.577 j
2.226 j
1.43
3.361 j
<0.05
---
0.115 j
0.681 j
2.1
1.01
<1
1.29
6
0.9
<0.1
<25
<0.2
1.1
0.691
0.000121 j
0.654
<5
BW-4S
Surficial
10/17/2018
0.0413 j
101
<1
<5
1.3
3.481 j
<0.05
---
<1
0.381 j
2
0.874
<1
1.22
6
1.1
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.46
0.573
<0.0002
0.2 j
<5
BW-4S
Surficial
04/22/2019
<0.1
126
<1
<5
1.26
16
---
---
<1
0.641 j
2.2
1.19
<1
2.04
9
0.12
---
29
<0.2
---
0.598
0.0000874 j
0.235 j
<5
BW-4S
Surficial
07/01/2019
<0.1
178
0.573 j
<5
1.34
3.036 j
<0.05
---
<1
0.667 j
2.4
0.874
<1
1.45
9
0.19
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.606 S1
0.468
0.000171 j
0.52
3.736 j
BW-4S
Surficial
09/03/2019
<0.1
224
0.554 j
<5
1.5
2.961 j
<0.05
---
<1
0.803 j
2.8
1.08
<1
1.53
11
0.19
<0.1
26
<0.2
0.618
1.016
0.000137 j
0.582
4.197 j,B2
BW-4S
Surficial
11/04/2019
<0.1
162
0.372 j
1.32
3.754 j
---
---
0.12 j
0.455 j
2.1
0.928
<1
1.26 B2
9
0.15
---
33
0.086 j
---
2.111
0.000133 j
0.335
6
BW-4S
Surficial
01/03/2020
<0.1
152
0.416 j
<5
1.36
3.98 j
<0.05
<1
0.453 j
2
0.892
<1
1.17
9
0.18
<0.1
33
<0.2
0.538 S1
0.588 132
4.813 j,B2
BW-5S
Surficial
12/19/2017
---
6780
<1
---
0.688
53
<0.05
<1
<1
---
1.64
<1
2.22
64
<1
<0.1
54
<0.2
4.5
---
---
2.57
<5
BW-5S
Surficial
02/26/2018
0.5
6520
<1
<5
0.855
70
<0.05
<1
<0.02
1.94
<1
2.77
77
0.86
66
<0.2
3.9
---
---
1.88
<5
BW-5S
Surficial
08/08/2018
0.36
1 5150
<1
3.165 j
0.728
1 48
<0.05
<1
<1
0.014
2.08
<1
2.75
55
0.17
<0.1
49
<0.2
4.7
1 1.131
1 <0.0002
2.23
3.938 j
BW-55
I Surficial
110/16/20181
0.87
1 100001
<1
<5
1.87
1 110
<0.0.5
0.113 j
<1
0.014
1.45
<1
2.9
247
0.72
<0.1
120
<0.2
2.2
1 0.11
10.0000744j
0.677
<5
Page 2 of 8

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Well ID
Flow
Zone
Sample
Collection
Date
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Y
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
AlkalinityChloride
Chromium
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
S. U.
Ft (BTOC)
°C
NS/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg/L
Ng/L
1jg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
BW-5S
Surficial
04/23/2019
6.7
7.06
18
305
0.17
119
324
1.2
7.287 j
---
<1
34
<1
27.152 j
---
<5
3.4
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-5S
Surficial
07/01/2019
5.4
9.01
21
114
0.45
-14
191
1.5
38.8
124
<1
<1
36
<1
38.8
26.607 j
I <1
11.2
<5
4.9
1.03
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-5S
Surficial
09/03/2019
1 5.6
8.92
23
1 100
0.12
1 -32
173
1 1.2
1 33.3
1 121
1 <1
<1
29
1 0.408 j
33.3
35.092 j
<1
8.36
1 <5
4.1
1 1.05
0.075
1 <1
<1
BW-5S
Surficial
11/04/20191
5.5
8.90
20
91
0.15
228
433
1.2
32.7
121
---
<1
32
<1
32.7
28.695 j
---
7.32
<5
3.9
0.928 j
<0.025 P4,RO
<1
<1
BW-5S
Surficial
01/03/2020
5.8
7.53
18
111
0.17
74
279
0.4
40.7
121
<1
<1
40
<1
40.7
25.5 j
<1
10.6
<5
4.1
0.882 j
<0.025 P4,M1,R1,RO
<1
<1
MW-1
Surficial
03/17/2010
3.8
16.74
61
41
NM
NM
NM
NM
---
---
<1
1
7
<1
---
13
<1
---
---
<5
4
---
---
<1
MW-1
Surficial
10/31/2011
NM
18.22
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
11/23/2011
NM
18.31
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
---
---
---
---
---
I ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
12/20/2011
NM
18.10
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
01/26/2012
NM
18.13
NM
NM
NM
I NM
NM
NM
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
02/27/2012
NM
18.04
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
03/20/2012
NM
17.48
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
06/05/2015
4.0
17.88
17
44
2.03
206
411
3.4
<10
265
<1
<1
9
<1
<10
<50
<1
1.09
<10
2.1
<1
---
<1
<1
MW-1
Surficial
12/01/2015
4.6
17.72
19
40
2.27
246
451
3.6
<10
208
<1
<1
10
<1
<10
<50
<1
1.01
<10
2.4
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
MW-1
Surficial
O1/11/2016
4.1
16.32
17
41
1.87
193
1 398
2.9
<5
291
<1
<1
11
<1
<5
<50
<1
0.971
1 <5
2.4
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
MW-1
Surficial
04/20/2016
4.5
16.89
17
38
1.67 S
210
415
2.0
NM
---
<1
<1
9
<1
---
<50
<1
1.11
---
2
<1
---
<1
MW-1
Surficial
06/14/2016
4.7
16.98
19
39
1.99 S
293
498
3.6
<5
194
<1
<1
9
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.22
<5
1.7 B2
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
MW-1
Surficial
07/05/2016
4.6
17.43
19
41
1.68 S
154
359
2.0
<5
---
<1
<1
9
<1
---
<50
<1
1.29
---
2
<1
---
<1
---
MW-1
Surficial
08/30/2016
4.5
17.84
21
41
1.57
88
293
2.8
<5
235
<1
<1
28
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.2
<5
1.8
<1
0.042
<1
<1
MW-1
Surficial
08/30/2016
4.5
17.84
21
41
1.57 S
88
293
2.8
<5
---
<1
<1
11
<1
---
<50
<1
1.18 B1
---
1.6
<1
---
<1
---
MW-1
Surficial
11/15/2016
4.7
15.98
20
40
2.57
11
216
7.6
<5
---
<1
<1
13
<1
---
<50
<1
1.18 B2
---
1.9
<1
---
<1
---
MW-1
Surficial
12/12/2016
4.8
16.42
19
40
3.09
190
395
4.4
<5
211
<1
<1
12
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.26
<5
1.9
<1
<0.025
<1
1.28
MW-1
Surficial
12/12/2016
4.8
16.42
19
40
3.09
190
395
4.4
<5
---
<1
<1
13
<1
---
<50
<1
1.44
---
2
<1
---
<1
---
MW-1
Surficial
02/14/2017
4.7
16.70
18
36
2.38
27
232
8.3
<5
---
<1
<1
9
<1
---
<50
<1
1.3
---
1.8
<1
---
<1
---
MW-1
Surficial
03/08/2017
4.5
17.00
17
37
1.78
-79
126
3.5
<5
216
<1
<1
9
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.17
<5
1.8
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
MW-1
Surficial
04/04/2017
4.6
16.98
17
37
3.01 S
262
467
1.2
<5
---
<1
<1
11
<1
---
<50
<1
1.21
---
1.9
<1
---
<1
---
MW-1
Surficial
05/30/2017
4.5
17.00
18
37
3.03
90
295
1.4
<5
204
<1
<1
12
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.04
<5
1.9
<1
0.036
<1
<1
MW-1
Surficial
05/30/2017
4.5
17.00
18
37
3.03
90
295
1.4
<20
---
<1
<1
12
<1
---
<50
<1
1.11
---
2
<1
---
<1
---
MW-1
Surficial
08/15/2017
4.7
18.41
21
36
2.61
305
510
4.2
<5
219
<1
<1
10
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.13
<5
1.9
<1
0.052
<1
<1
MW-1
Surficial
08/15/2017
4.7
18.41
21
36
2.61
305
510
4.2
<5
---
<1
<1
10
<1
---
<50
<1
1.13
---
2
<1
---
<1
---
MW-1
Surficial
12/18/2017
4.8
18.38
19
37
1.59
183
388
1.7
<5
240
<1
<1
12
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.19
<5
2.2
<1
<0.025
<1
1.09
MW-1
Surficial
02/26/2018
4.7
18.18
17
40
2.60
218
423
3.1
<5
245
<1
<1
11
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.25
<5
2.1
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
MW-1
Surficial
02/26/2018
4.7
18.18
17
40
2.60
218
423
3.1
<5
---
<1
<1
12
<1
---
<50
<1
1.25
---
2.1
<1
---
<1
---
MW-1
Surficial
05/21/2018
4.4
18.48
19
39
2.33
246
451
3.0
<5
266
<1
<1
12
0.436 j
<5
<50
<1
1.13
<5
2
0.341 j
<0.025
0.454 j
0.344 j
MW-1
Surficial
05/21/2018
4.4
18.48
19
39
2.33
246
451
3.0
<5
---
<1
<1
12
<1
---
<50
<1
1.13
---
1.9
<1
---
0.353 j
---
MW-1
Surficial
08/08/2018
3.6
18.34
20
38
1.99
303
508
2.4
<5
267
<1
<1
12
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.1
<5
1.9
0.338 j
<0.025
0.363 j
<1
MW-1
Surficial
10/17/2018
4.5
15.50
20
39
3.16
414
619
1.3
<5
163
<1
<1
11
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.09
<5
2.1
<1
<0.025
0.43 j
<1
MW-1
Surficial
10/17/2018
4.5
15.50
20
39
3.16
414
619
1.3
<5
---
<1
<1
11
<1
---
<50
<1
1.03
---
2
0.375 j
---
0.445 j
---
MW-1
Surficial
04/25/2019
4.5
15.51
18
32
2.87
417
622
1.2
<5
---
<1
<1
7
<1
---
<50
<1
1.17
---
1.5
<1
---
0.446 j
---
MW-1
Surficial
04/25/2019
4.5
15.51
18
32
2.87
417
622
1.20
<5
193
---
<1
7
<1
<5
<50
---
1.14
<5
1.5
<1
0.027
0.435 j
<1
MW-1
Surficial
10/24/2019
4.3
Below Top of Pump
21
38
1.87
323
528
1.40
<5
---
<1
<1
7
<1
---
<50
<1
1.1
---
1.6
0.367 j
---
0.517 j
---
MW-1
Surficial
10/24/2019
4.3
Below Top of Pump
21
38
1.87
323
528
1.4
<5
181
---
<1
8
<1
<5
<50
---
1.11
<5
1.6
0.48 j,B2
<0.025
0.56 j
0.342 j
BW-3I
Surficial
03/04/2015
5.8
3.01
18
92
0.09
-20
186
58.3
22
1460
<1
9.07
31
<1
22
<50
<1
9.25
<10
9.2
2.78
---
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
06/03/2015
5.7
5.27
19
67
0.10
-96
109
20.7
24
224
<1
<1
19
<1
24
<50
<1
7.67
<10
5.8
1.16
---
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
12/02/2015
5.5
3.59
18
76
0.88
-5
200
24.5
16
330
<1
<1
20
<1
16
<50
<1
6.23
<10
11
1.18
1 0.047
<1
<1
BW-31
Surficial
01/11/2016
5.5
3.15
16
88
0.22
70
275
9.9
17.7
226
<1
<1
23
<1
17.7
<50
<1
7.87
<5
12
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
03/07/2016
5.6
3.79
16
77
0.19
73
278
9.9
15
1 492
<1
<1
21
<1
15
<50
1 <1
7.02
<5
10
1.34
0.049
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
06/13/2016
5.7
4.56
20
63
0.49
-13
192
5.50
17.4
186
<1
<1
17
<1
17.4
<50
<1
6.84
<5
6.1 B2
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
08/31/2016
5.7
6.80
21
59
0.10
20
225
4.3
17
122
<1
<1
16
<1
17
<50
<1
6.3
<5
5.7
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
11/15/2016
5.7
4.33
19
60
0.49
-34
171
5.5
15.4
140
<1
3.02
15
<1
15.4
<50
<1
6.46
<5
6
<1
0.84
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
01/17/2017
5.7
3.42
15
77
0.40
113
318
9.6
15.3
363
<1
<1
21
<1
15.3
<50
<1
5.61 B2
<5
11
1.78
0.58
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
03/07/2017
5.5
4.71
17
58
0.09
-26
179
9.6
15.6
305
<1
<1
17
<1
15.6
<50
<1
6.11
1 <5
8
1.26
<0.25 D3
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
04/25/2017
5.5
3.05
17
80 S
0.24
30
235
8.0
15.5
504
<1
<1
21 M2
<1
15.5
<50
1 <1
6.89 B1
<5
10
1.88
0.51
<1
<1
BW-3I
I Surficial
1 06/01/20171
5.8
4.11
1 19
1 61
1 0.18
1 39
244
7.7
17.1
1 236
<1
<1
18
<1
17.1
<50
I <1
6.87
<5
5.8
1.13
<0.025 P4, RO
<1
<1
Page 3 of 8

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Well ID
Flow
Zone
Sample
Collection
Date
Fluoride
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
mg/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Pg/L
IvIL
Ng/L
mg -NIL
mg/L
lig/L
mg/L
Pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
POIL
P9/mL
Pg/L
Ng/L
BW-5S
Surficial
04/23/2019
0.
2240
<1
<5
0.778
41
---
---
0.112 j
0.479 j
0.011
0.615
<1
2.66
8.2
---
150
<0.2
---
---
---
0.224 j
<5
BW-5S
Surficial
1 07/01/2019
0.4
6150
<1
<5
1 0.84
158
<0.05
I
<1
I <1
1 0.022
2.27
<1
2.92
1 77
0.27
<0.1
69
<0.2
4.9
---
---
2.15
<5
BW-5S
Surficial
09/03/2019
0.37
5760
<1
<5
0.762
52
<0.05
---
<1
<1
0.025
2.29
<1
2.56
61
<0.1
<0.1
62
<0.2
5.1
0.848
<0.0002
2.31
3.699 j,B2
BW-5S
Surficial
11/04/2019
0.3
5150
<1
2.938 j
0.797
59
---
---
<1
<1
0.019
2.3
<1
2.46 B2
63
0.26
---
61
<0.2
---
---
---
2.06
<5
BW-5S
Surficial
01/03/2020
0.35
7040
<1
<5
1.01
70
<0.05
<1
<1
0.018
2.38
<1
2.51
73
0.16
<0.1
77
<0.2
4.5
2.22 B2
3.629 j,B2
MW-1
Surficial
03/17/2010
<0.1
1400
<1
4
<0.2
---
---
<1
---
---
<1
---
6
---
<1
0.6
---
---
<1
MW-1
Surficial
10/31/2011
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
11/23/2011
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
12/20/2011
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
---
---
--
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
01/26/2012
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
02/27/2012
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
03/20/2012
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
06/05/2015
---
323
<1
---
1.26
10
<0.05
<10
<1
<1
1.2
1.07
<1
1.41
9
5
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.449
---
---
<0.3
<5
MW-1
Surficial
12/01/2015
---
66
<1
---
1.23
8
<0.05
<10
<1
<1
1.1
1.13
<1
1.44
8
5.6
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.489
---
---
<0.3
<5
MW-1
Surficial
01/11/2016
---
223
<1
---
1.28
11
<0.05
<10
<1
<1
1.2
1.02
<1
1.46
9
4.3
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.555
---
---
<0.3
10
MW-1
Surficial
04/20/2016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
---
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
---
<1
---
---
3.6
---
<25
<0.2
---
5.1
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
06/14/2016
---
313
<1
---
1.28
10
<0.05
<10
<1
<1
1.6
1.15
<1
1.28
10
3.8
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.443
3.74
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
MW-1
Surficial
07/05/2016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
1.22
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.06
<1
1.25
---
3.2
---
<25
<0.2
---
6.25
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
08/30/2016
---
94
<1
---
1.21
30
<0.05
<10
<1
<1
1.7
1.16
<1
1.28
27
3.9
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.529
5.22
0.000105 j
<0.3
23
MW-1
Surficial
08/30/2016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
1.23
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.24
<1
1.31
---
3.7
---
<25
<0.2
---
8.2
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
11/15/2016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
1.29
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.58
<1
1.27
---
1.9
---
150
<0.2
---
4.01
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
12/12/2016
---
242
<1
---
1.31
13
<0.05
<10
<1
1.16
1.7
1.37
<1
1.14
12
3.7
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.435
2.927
0.0000711 j
<0.3
<5
MW-1
Surficial
12/12/2016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
1.42
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.49
<1
1.18
---
4.1
---
38
<0.2
---
2.881
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
02/14/2017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
1.07
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.91
<1
1.22
---
4.5 M2
---
<25
<0.2 B3
---
1.693
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
03/08/2017
---
147
<1
---
0.978
14
<0.05
<10
<1
<1
1.5
0.916
<1
1.18
12
5.3
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.548
2.709
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
MW-1
Surficial
04/04/2017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
1.05
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.61
<1
1.25
---
4.4
---
29
<0.2
---
2.535
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
05/30/2017
---
102
<1
---
1.02
12
<0.05
<10
<1
<1
1.5
1.57
<1
1.17 B2
10
2.8
<0.1
25
<0.2
0.571
3.25
0.0000809 j
<0.3
<5
MW-1
Surficial
05/30/2017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
1.07
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.61
<1
1.19
---
3.3
---
<25
<0.2
---
2.541
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
08/15/2017
---
98
<1
---
1.09
11
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
1.22
<1
1.24
10
2.8
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.425
2.48
0.00011 j
<0.3
<5
MW-1
Surficial
08/15/2017
<0.1
---
I<1
<5
1.1
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.3
<1
1.22
---
2.9
---
36
<0.2
---
2.62
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
12/18/2017
---
1600
<1
---
1.13
12
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
1.68
<1
1.24
11
3.5
<0.1
1<25
<0.2
1 1.1
3.153
<0.0002
<0.3
1 <5
MW-1
Surficial
02/26/2018
<0.1
100
<1
<5
1.16
11
<0.05
---
<1
1.15
1.5
1.71
<1
1.17
11
3.8
<0.1
25
<0.2
0.885
2.83
0.000071 j
<0.3
<5
MW-1
Surficial
02/26/2018
<0.1
---
<1
<5
1.2
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.79
<1
1.28
---
4.6
---
36
<0.2
---
2.7543
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
05/21/2018
0.0509 j
125
<1
<5
1.16
10
<0.05
---
<1
<1
1.5
1.82
<1
1.09
11
3
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.358
1.4882
0.000076
0.322
<5
MW-1
Surficial
05/21/2018
<0.1
---
<1
<5
1.18
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.84
<1
1.14
---
2.3
---
<25
<0.2
---
5.91
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
08/08/2018
<0.1
119
<1
<5
1.13
9
<0.05
---
<1
<1
1.4
1.84
<1
1.12
11
3
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.47
2.58
0.0000958 j
0.137 j
<5
MW-1
Surficial
10/17/2018
<0.1
52
1 <1
<5
1.18
10
<0.05
<1
0.403 j
1.3
1.56
<1
1.39
10
5.9 M2
<0.1
1 27
<0.2
0.549
3.63
0.000076 j
<0.3
1 <5
MW-1
Surficial
10/17/2018
<0.1
---
<1
<5
1.13
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.56
<1
1.4
---
4
---
<25
<0.2
---
2.554
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
04/25/2019
<0.1
---
<1
<5
0.999
---
0.14
---
<1
---
---
0.806
<1
0.938
---
1.9
---
<25
<0.2
---
1.275
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
04/25/2019
<0.1
39
<1
<5
1.02
19
---
---
<1
<1
0.996
0.816
<1
0.928
12
3.8
---
<25
<0.2
---
2.275
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
MW-1
Surficial
10/24/2019
<0.1
---
<1
<5
0.919
---
0.038 j
---
<1
---
---
0.66
<1
0.991
---
4
---
38
<0.2
---
1.714
---
---
---
MW-1
Surficial
10/24/2019
<0.1
763
<1
4.917 j,B
0.9
20
---
---
<1
0.645 j
0.794
0.69
<1
0.913
11
4.1
---
30
<0.2
1 ---
2.44
0.0000852 j
<0.3
3.075 j,B2
BW-3I
Surficial
03/04/2015
---
5790
<1
---
0.39
60
<0.05
620
1.08
<1
<0.02
0.812
<1
5.09
51
0.41
<0.1
86
<0.2
4.8
---
---
5.69
6
BW-3I
Surficial
06/03/2015
---
2280
<1
---
0.341
21
<0.05
660
<1
<1
<0.01
0.877
<1
4.28
41
0.12
<0.1
57
<0.2
2.5
---
---
2.46
<5
BW-3I
Surficial
12/02/2015
--
2200
<1
---
0.389
19
<0.05
710
<1
<1
<0.01
0.908
<1
6.07
36
0.89
<0.2
72
<0.2
0.395
---
---
2.57
<5
BW-31
Surficial
01/11/2016
---
1720
<1
---
0.395
19
<0.05
444
<1
<1
<0.01
0.85
<1
5.7
48
0.18
<0.1
47
<0.2
3.7
---
---
2.04
<5
BW-3I
Surficial
03/07/2016
---
2070
<1
0.487
20
<0.05
499
<1
<1
<0.01
0.827
<1
6
41
1.3
<0.1
75
<0.2
3.5
5.4
0.000434
2.61
<5
BW-3I
Surficial
06/13/2016
---
1260
<1
---
0.312
12
<0.05
782
<1
<1
0.038
0.749
<1
3.62
38
<0.5
<0.1
60
<0.2
2
1.591
0.0009
1.85
<5
BW-3I
Surficial
08/31/2016
---
1180
<1
---
0.29
12
<0.05
1080
<1
<1
<0.01 M2
0.764
<1
3.3
36
<0.1
<0.1
53
<0.2
1.9
2.84
0.000491
1.63
<5
BW-3I
Surficial
11/15/2016
---
724
<1
---
0.292
9
<0.05
639 N2
<1
<1
<0.01
0.885
<1
3.29
36
1.2
<0.1
73
<0.2
1.8
2.61
0.000653
2.45
<5
BW-3I
Surficial
01/17/2017
---
2020
<1
---
0.323
15
<0.05
609 N2
<1
<1
<0.01 M2
0.794
<1
6.04
38
1.8
<0.1
58
<0.2
2.7
1.49
0.000561
3.63
<5
BW-3I
Surficial
03/07/2017
---
1410
<1
---
0.316
12
<0.05
732
<1
<1
<0.01
0.756
<1
4.21
35
1
<0.1
74
<0.2
2.9
1.78
0.000603
2.46
<5 B2
BW-31
Surficial
04/25/2017
---
1840
<1
---
0.411 B2
15
<0.05
886
<1
<1
0.224
0.888
<1
6.4
39
2.3
0.26
67
<0.2
4.8
3.383
0.000481
3.28
<5
BW-3I
Surficial
06/01/2017
---
1310
<1
---
0.308
13
<0.05
939
<1
<1
<0.01
0.739
<1
3.55
37
<0.1
<0.1
38
<0.2
2.1
0.956
0.000975
2.04
1 <5
Page 4of8

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Well ID
Flout
Zone
Sample
Collection
Date
P H
WL
Temp
P
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
y
AlkalinityAluminum
AntimonyArsenic
Barium
Beryllium
y
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Alkalinity
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium VI
Cobalt
Copper
PP
S.U.
Ft (BTOC)
°C
NS/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
BW-3I
Surficial
08/01/2017
5.7
5.36
19
59
0.14
-22
183
3.9
16.6
210
<1
<1
17
<1
16.6
<50
<1
6.81
<5
5.8
<1
0.072
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
08/22/2017
5.6
5.39
21
57
0.13
59
264
6.0
16.3
230
<1
<1
16
<1
16.3
<50
<1
6.16
<5
5.7
<1
<0.12 D3,M1
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
10/03/2017
1 5.7
5.16
20
1 63
0.20
1 79
284
1 8.8
15.4
1 247
<1
<1
1 17
<1
115.4
<50
<1
1 7
<5
7
1 1.12
<0.12 D3
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
12/19/20171
5.5
4.88
18
58
0.24
97
302
8.1
14.8
254
<1
<1
18
<1
14.8
<50
<1
6.35
<5
7.3
1.34
<0.025 M1
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
02/27/2018
5.5
4.59
17
77
0.17
41
246
9.2
15
506
<1
<1
18
<1
15
<50
<1
6.69
<5
9.8
1.49
0.074
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
05/21/2018
5.3
4.81
18
62
0.43
10
215
6.6
15.2
412
<1
0.464 j
20
<1
15.2
18.484 j
<1
6.32
<5
7.8
1.56
0.039
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
08/08/2018
5.0
4.84
19
59
0.19
115
320
4.5
15.3
198
<1
<1
17
<1
15.3
<50
<1
6.55
<5
6.3
0.848 j
0.027
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
10/17/2018
5.2
3.28
21
70
0.27
74
279
8.0
18.2
390
<1
<1
18
0.482 j
18.2
<50
<1
7.18
<5
9.2
1.19
0.062
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
04/25/2019
5.5
3.64
17
78
0.14
1 198
403
1 3.6
14.9
1 82
---
<1
1 20
1 <1
14.9
<50
---
7.12
<5
9.7
1.06
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-3I
Surficial
10/24/2019
5.2
5.60
20
58
0.10
278
483
3.0
18.2
85
---
<1
17
<1
18.2
<50
---
6.19
<5
1 6.7
1 0.828 j,B2
<0.025 P4,R0
<1
<1
BW-41
Surficial
12/19/2017
7.7
23.02
17
252
0.25
-57
148
34.3
143
88
143
<50
<1
44.6
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-4I
Surficial
02/26/2018
7.7
22.82
18
259
0.33
-164
41
9.1
143
81
<1
<1
39
<1
143
<50
<1
49.9
<5
3
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-4I
Surficial
05/21/2018
7.3
23.57
20
258
0.20
52
257
9.9
139
42
<1
<1
39
<1
139
<50
<1
45.6
<5
2.9
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-4I
Surficial
08/08/2018
7.6
23.67
23
260
0.19
-34
171
2.1
132
21
<1
<1
41
<1
132
<50
<1
50.6
<5
2.9
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-4I
Surficial
10/17/2018
7.5
20.46
20
259
0.29
26
231
2.2
132
8
<1
<1
36
<1
132
<50
<1
50.7
<5
3
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-4I
Surficial
04/22/2019
7.4
20.71
21
260
0.41
132
337
1.4
121
8.898999 j
---
<1
38
<1
121
<50
---
48
<5
2.7
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-4I
Surficial
07/01/2019
7.3
21.60
25
264
0.19
-153
52
2.0
125
6.634 j
I <1
<1
1 36
<1
125
<50
<1
50.7
<5
3
<1
0.041
<1
<1
BW-4I
Surficial
09/03/2019
7.6
24.70
22
270
0.12
-184
21
1.1
129
9.266999 j
<1
<1
36
<1
129
<50
<1
50
<5
<0.1
<1
0.035
<1
0.645 j
BW-4I
Surficial
11/04/2019
7.3
24.65
20
272
0.14
75
280
1.0
128
8.693999 j
---
<1
42
<1
128
<50
---
47.8
<5
2.7
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-4I
Surficial
01/03/2020
7.6
22.58
19
247
0.13
-92
113
0.7
130
13
<1
<1
39
<1
130
<50
<1
51.4
<5
2.7
<1
<0.025 M1
<1
<1
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
04/20/2016
6.0
11.35
17
86
0.30
128
333
7.9
NM
---
<1
1.83
16
<1
---
<50
<1
12.1
---
4.8
1.24
---
<1
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
06/14/2016
6.1
12.06
18
96
0.12 S
70
275
4.1
40.8
64
<1
3.25
18
<1
40.8
<50
<1
16.2
<5
3.3 B2
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
07/05/20161
6.1
13.23
19
95
0.19 S
25
230
5.2
44
---
<1
2.62
20
<1
---
<50
<1
16.2
---
3
1.07
---
<1
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
08/30/2016
6.0
14.00
19
93
0.24
-8
198
1.2
30.9
11
<1
1.59
18
<1
30.9
<50
<1
13.6
<5
4.3
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
08/30/2016
6.0
14.00
19
93
0.24 S
-8
198
1.2
35
---
<1
1.86
17
<1
---
<50
<1
14.5 B1
---
3.2
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
11/14/2016
6.3
10.68
18
101
0.30
77
282
7.4
34
---
<1
1.62
18
<1
---
<50
<1
15 B2
---
4.5
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
12/12/2016
6.2
11.78
18
89
1.13
85
290
9.26
34.5
188
<1
1.22
17
<1
34.5
<50
<1
13.6
<5
5
<1
0.46
<1
<1
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
12/12/2016
6.2
11.78
18
89
1.13
85
290
9.3
31
---
<1
1.3
19
<1
---
<50
<1
15.8
---
4.7
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
02/14/2017
6.0
10.81
17
89
3.09
124
329
3.9
27
---
<1
<1
17
<1
---
<50
<1
13.6
---
4.9
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
03/07/2017
6.1
11.37
19
94
0.76
-111
94
9.4
36.5
78
<1
1.35
17
<1
36.5
<50
<1
14.5
<5
4.2
<1
0.027
<1
<1
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
04/04/2017
6.1
11.11
17
87
0.87 S
98
303
3.2
33
---
<1
<1
17
<1
---
<50
<1
13
---
5.4
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
05/30/2017
5.9
12.35
17
91
1.01
-53
152
2.4
31.2
107
<1
1.11
17 M2
<1
31.2
<50
<1
13.9
<5
3.8
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
05/30/2017
5.9
12.35
17
91
1.01
-53
152
2.4
34
---
<1
1.23
17
1 <1
---
<50
<1
14.4
---
3.6
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
08/15/2017
6.1
15.05
19
89
1.26
101
306
3.8
35.2
15
<1
1.02
17
<1
35.2
<50
<1
14.5
<5
3.7
<1
0.035
<1
<1
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
08/15/2017
6.1
15.05
19
89
1.26
101
306
3.8
33
---
<1
1.02
17
<1
---
<50
<1
15
---
3.8
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
12/18/2017
6.0
15.09
18
83
0.52
107
312
9.7
36.4
571
<1
1.17
18
<1
36.4
<50
<1
14.4
<5
3.9
1.42
<0.025
<1
<1
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
02/28/2018
6.0
13.60
16
87
1.27
159
364
7.0
35.8
43
<1
<1
16
<1
35.8
<50
<1
14.6
<5
4.2
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
02/28/2018
6.0
13.60
16
87
1.27
159
364
7.0
23
---
<1
<1
18
<1
---
<50
<1
14.5
---
4.2
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
05/23/2018
5.7
13.79
17
87
1.12
155
360
9.9
33.9
210
<1
0.525 j
16
<1
33.9
<50
<1
13.6
<5
5.3
0.686 j
<0.025
<1
<1
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
05/23/2018
5.7
13.93
17
87
1.12
155
360
9.9
23
---
<1
0.567 j
17
<1
---
<50
<1
13.5
---
5.4
0.582 j
---
<1
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
08/07/2018
5.5
14.78
19
89
0.98
-20
185
1.7
33.8
53
<1
0.477 j
17
<1
33.8
<50
<1
13.3
<5
5.9
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
10/17/2018
5.9
9.85
21
94
2.92
296
501
1.8
24.4
149
<1
0.631 j
17
<1
24.4
<50
<1
11.2
<5
8.3
0.561 j
<0.025
<1
0.397 j
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
10/17/2018
5.9
9.85
21
94
2.92
296
501
1.8
16.2
---
<1
0.577 j
18
<1
---
<50
<1
10.9
---
8.6
0.642 j
---
<1
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
04/23/2019
5.4
8.69
16
64
0.78
370
575
4.5
9.6
---
<1
0.339 j
22
<1
---
<50
<1
5.7
---
9
1.22
---
0.659 j
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
04/23/2019
5.4
8.69
16
64
0.78
370
575
4.5
11.9
442
---
0.353 j
22
<1
11.9
<50
---
5.76
<5
9.4
1.43
0.045
0.677 j
0.431 j
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
10/23/2019
5.9
15.70
19
94
0.41
312
517
1.7
33
---
<1
0.691 j
18
<1
---
<50
<1
13.5
---
5.1
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
10/23/2019
5.9
15.70
19
94
0.41
312
517
1.7
32.6
110
---
0.695 j
18
<1
32.6
<50
---
13
<5
4.7
0.457 j,B2
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-3D
Peedee
03/05/2015
7.2
1.08
17
182
0.22
-111
94
6.2
77
66
<1
<1
51
<1
76
<50
<1
29.2
<10
3
<1
---
<1
<1
BW-3D
Peedee
06/03/2015
7.3
2.41
19
193
0.10
-251
-46
2.3
84
23
<1
<1
45
<1
84
<50
<1
27.7
<10
3.2
<1
---
<1
<1
BW-3D
Peedee
12/02/2015
7.3
1.00
18
191
0.20
-115
90
0.5
87
7
<1
<1
52
<1
87
<50
<1
30
<10
3.3
<1
<0.03
<1
BW-3D
Peedee
01/11/2016
6.6
0.70
15
173
0.33
-57
148
1.0
84.1
47
<1
<1
56
<1
84.1
<50
<1
27.2
<5
3.5
<1
0.076
<1
<1
BW-3D
Peedee
03/07/2016
7.2
0.94
17
178
0.24
-72
133
1.3
85.6
29
<1
<1
56
<1
85.6
<50
<1
26.7
<5
3.2
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
BW-3D
Peedee
06/13/2016
7.2
1.40
22
186
0.15
-124
81
0.4
89
12
<1
<1
52
<1
89
<50
<1
28.4
<5
3.4 B2
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
BW-3D
Peedee
08/31/2016
7.1
1.85
20
184
0.17
-114
92
2.6
86.7
7
<1
<1
52
<1
86.7
<50
<1
27.5
<5
3.2
<1
<0.03
<1
Page 5 of 8

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Well ID
Flow
Zone
Sample
Collection
Date
Fluoride
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
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg -NIL
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
POIL
Ng/mL
Ng/L
Ng/L
BW-3I
Surficial
08/01/2017
---
1250
<1
---
0.311
12
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
0.823
<1
3.6
37
0.53
<0.1
47
<0.2
2.3
0.741
0.000641
1.88
<5
BW-3I
Surficial
08/22/2017
---
1240
1 <1
---
1 0.295
12
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
0.769
<1
1 3.11
35
<0.1
I <0.1
33
<0.2
2.1
1 1.53
0.000423
1.57
1 <5
BW-3I
Surficial
10/03/2017
1 ---
1280
<1
---
0.321
12
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
0.835
<1
3.69 M4
37
0.15
<0.1
51
<0.2
3.2
0.647
0.000632
2
<5
BW-3I
Surficial
12/19/2017
---
1180
<1
---
0.328
12
<0.05
<1
<1
---
0.804
<1
4.04
37
<0.5
<0.1
49
<0.2
3.2
<RL
0.00044
2.69
<5
BW-3I
Surficial
02/27/2018
0.11
1540
<1
<5
0.381
14
<0.05
---
<1
<1
<0.02
0.852
<1
5.94
36
0.34
37
<0.2
5.3
2.847
0.000668
3.41
<5
BW-3I
Surficial
05/21/2018
0.11
1790
<1
6
0.327
14
<0.05
---
0.1 j
<1
<0.01
0.789
<1
4.28
38
0.0934 j
<0.1
58
<0.2
3.5
1.204
0.00072
3.03
2.328 j
BW-3I
Surficial
08/08/2018
0.1
1260
<1
8
0.321
12
<0.05
---
<1
<1
<0.01
0.853
<1
3.49
36
<0.1
<0.1
45
<0.2
2.5
1.251
0.000263
1.55
1.907 j
BW-3I
Surficial
10/17/2018
0.0956 j
1520
<1
2.798 j
0.357
14
<0.05
---
<1
<1
0.0048 j
0.933
<1
5.06
36
0.23
<0.1
50
<0.2
4.7
2.068
0.00041
2.74
12
BW-3I
Surficial
04/25/2019
0.0999 j
1890
<1
2.06 j
0.516
19
---
---
<1
<1
0.0084 j
0.818
<1
5.5
40
1.3
---
30
<0.2
---
0.745
0.000252
1.82
<5
BW-3I
Surficial
10/24/2019
0.088 j
1320
<1
0.309
13
---
---
<1
<1
0.0054 j
0.812
<1
3.71
36
0.27 j
---
47
<0.2
---
0.87
0.000276
1.21
3.485 j,62
BW-41
Surficial
12/19/2017
---
475
<1
1.09
28
<0.05
---
5.92
<1
<1
5.5
274
1.1
<0.1
130
<0.2
2.1
---
BW-4I
Surficial
02/26/2018
0.14
899
<1
<5
1.2
50
<0.05
2.52
<1
<0.02
1.14
<1
3.9
290
0.44
<0.1
130
<0.2
1.7
0.425
0.000163 j
0.408
<5
BW-4I
Surficial
05/21/2018
.1
766
<1
3.213 j
1.11
40
<0.05
---
1.07
<1
<0.01
1.06
<1
1 3.3
292
0.16
<0.1
140
<0.2
0.915
0.369
<0.0002
0.348
<5
BW-4I
Surficial
08/08/2018
0.0975 j
1220
<1
3.384 j
1.15
61
<0.05
---
0.541 j
1.16
0.018
1.11
<1
3
289
<0.1
<0.1
140
<0.2
1.3
0.78
<0.0002
0.18 j
1.794 j
BW-4I
Surficial
10/17/2018
0.11
957
<1
<5
1.13
45
<0.05
---
0.356 j
<1
0.0034 j
1
<1
2.82
282
<0.1
<0.1
150
<0.2
0.837
0.554
<0.0002
<0.3
4.164 j
BW-4I
Surficial
04/22/2019
0.042 j
594
<1
3.513 j
1.1
44
---
---
0.147 j
<1
0.0053 j
1.15
<1
2.8
280
0.067 j
---
160
<0.2
---
0.632
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
BW-4I
Surficial
07/01/2019
<0.1
424
<1
<5
1.09
28
<0.05
---
0.242 j
<1
0.006 j
1.05
<1
2.68
285
0.22
<0.1
129
<0.2
0.76 S1
1.234
<0.0002
<0.3
3.195 j
BW-4I
Surficial
09/03/2019
0.062 j
623
<1
2.183 j
1.01
55
<0.05
---
<1
0.77 j
0.02
1.08
<1
2.68
282
0.056 j
<0.1
154
<0.2
0.757
0.8895
<0.0002
<0.3
4.709 j,132
BW-4I
Surficial
11/04/2019
0.068 j
1110
<1
1.06
55
---
---
0.098 j
<1
0.0048 j
1.14
<1
2.8 B2
297
0.092 j
---
162
<0.2
---
1.8
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
BW-4I
Surficial
01/03/2020
0.08 j
1050
<1
<5
1.11
49
<0.05
0.094 j
<1
<0.01
1.06
<1
2.73
270
0.11
<0.1
157
<0.2
0.783 S1
0.247 j,B2
3.623 j,62
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
04/20/2016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
---
---
<0.05
---
1.01
---
---
<1
---
---
2.4
---
42
<0.2
---
1.44
---
---
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
06/14/2016
---
391
<1
---
0.502
16
<0.05
35.7
<1
<1
0.015
0.497
<1
2.36
92
1.6
<0.1
46
<0.2
0.314
2.732
0.000325
0.797
<5
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
07/05/2016
0.1
---
<1
<5
0.473
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.469
<1
2.45
---
1.5
---
49
<0.2
---
3.35
---
---
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
08/30/2016
---
357
<1
---
0.413
15
<0.05
35.7
<1
<1
0.139
0.425
<1
2.41
88
1.3
<0.1
56
<0.2
0.388
4.56
0.000103 j
<0.3
<5
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
08/30/2016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
0.43
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.422
<1
2.38
---
1.3
---
69
<0.2
---
0.947
---
---
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
11/14/2016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
0.442
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.484
<1
2.69
---
1.3
---
53
<0.2
---
4.08
---
---
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
12/12/2016
---
415
<1
---
0.411
13
<0.05
13.2
4.38
3.26
0.144
0.437
<1
2.73
80
1.1
<0.1
42
<0.2
0.348
1.134
0.000136 j
0.907
<5
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
12/12/2016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
0.465
---
<0.05
---
4.05
---
---
0.52
<1
2.76
---
1.3
---
67
<0.2
---
2.46
---
---
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
02/14/2017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
0.413
---
<0.05
---
2.02
---
---
0.668
<1
2.79
---
2.3 M2
---
45
<0.2 B3
---
1.913
---
---
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
03/07/2017
---
263
<1
---
0.409
12
<0.05
<10
<1
<1
0.044
0.58
<1
2.39
87
2.5
<0.1
71
<0.2
0.415
2.267
0.00039
0.653
<5 B2
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
04/04/2017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
0.406
---
<0.05
---
1.06
---
---
0.575
<1
3.03
---
1.9
---
74
<0.2
---
0.598
---
---
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
05/30/2017
---
211
<1
---
0.399
14
<0.05
20.1
<1
<1
0.05
0.445
<1
2.46 B2
82
1.5
<0.1
60
<0.2
0.359
1.53
0.000215
0.692
<5
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
05/30/2017
0.11
---
<1
<5
0.419
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.48
<1
2.41
---
1.5
---
49
<0.2
---
1.04
---
---
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
08/15/2017
---
239
<1
---
0.411
11
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
0.498
<1
2.38
83
1.4
<0.1
67
<0.2
0.28
1.54
0.000158 j
0.403
<5
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
08/15/2017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
0.422
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.499
<1
2.39
---
1.5
---
61
<0.2
---
3.86
---
---
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
12/18/2017
---
659
<1
---
0.428
13
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
0.607
<1
2.4
83
1.5
<0.1
44
<0.2
1.1
2.918
0.000657
1.39
<5
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
02/28/2018
0.11
56
<1
<5
0.414
9
<0.05
---
<1
<1
0.099
0.495
<1
2.53
81
1.4
<0.1
56
<0.2
0.688
1.807
0.000224
0.596
<5
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
02/28/2018
0.11
---
<1
<5
0.416
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.514
<1
2.55
---
1.5
---
47
<0.2
---
4.893
---
---
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
05/23/2018
0.11
177
<1
<5
0.39
9
<0.05
---
0.426 j
<1
0.164
0.483
<1
2.84
77
1.7
<0.1
53
0.084 j
0.234
2.192
0.000312
0.947
<5
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
05/23/2018
0.098 j
---
<1
3.313 j
0.386
---
<0.05
---
0.414 j
---
---
0.475
<1
2.84
---
1.7
---
57
<0.2
---
1.518
---
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
08/07/2018
0.11
200
<1
<5
0.376
10
<0.05
---
0.29 j
<1
0.187
0.455
<1
2.91
80
1.1
<0.1
35
<0.2
0.733
2.3683
0.0000713 j
0.432
<5
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
10/17/2018
0.0844 j
130
<1
<5
0.333
9
<0.05
---
0.511 j
0.607 j
0.278
0.598
<1
4.1
65
1.5
<0.1
57
<0.2
0.355
1.173
0.000187 j
0.858
5
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
10/17/2018
0.0827 j
---
<1
<5
0.326
---
<0.05
---
0.416 j
---
---
0.599
<1
4.46
---
1.5
---
37
<0.2
---
2.32
---
---
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
04/23/2019
0.043 j
---
<1
<5
0.495
---
<0.05
---
0.362 j
---
---
0.393
<1
4.83
---
1.9
---
79
0.175 j
---
1.2628
---
---
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
04/23/2019
0.0764 j
277
<1
<5
0.517
9
---
---
0.413 j
0.809 j
0.206
0.399
<1
4.91
42
2
---
54
<0.2
---
1.515
0.00034
1.73
6
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
10/23/2019
0.06 j
---
<1
<5
0.404
---
<0.05
---
0.434 j
---
---
0.598
<1
2.9
---
1.5
---
54
<0.2
---
1.861
---
---
---
CCR-101-BG
Surficial
10/23/20191
0.082 j
323
<1
6 B
0.407
13
---
---
0.503 j
0.389 j
0.171
0.589
<1
2.76
79
1.5
---
77
<0.2
---
1.277
0.00015 j
0.665
8 B2
BW-3D
Peedee
03/05/2015
---
721
<1
---
1.04
31
<0.05
15
<1
<1
<0.01
1.54
<1
6.94
157
0.53
<0.5
110
<0.2
0.975
---
---
<0.3
BW-3D
Peedee
06/03/2015
---
1090
<1
---
1.02
41
<0.05
120
<1
<0.01
1.62
<1
7.32
156
0.21
<0.1
120
<0.2
2.3
---
---
<0.3
<5
BW-3D
Peedee
12/02/2015
---
1550
<1
---
1.11
39
<0.05
190
<1
<1
<0.01
1.53
<1
7.27
164
<0.1
<0.1
110
<0.2
1.1
---
---
<0.3
<5
BW-3D
Peedee
01/11/2016
---
837
<1
1.03
25
<0.05
37.2
<1
<1
0.05
1.44
1 <1
6.99
156
0.16
<0.1
110
<0.2
1
---
---
<0.3
<5
BW-3D
Peedee
03/07/2016
---
1040
<1
---
1.01
27
<0.05
29.4
<1
<1
<0.01
1.46
<1
7.2
162
0.17
<0.1
120
<0.2
0.759
2.71
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
BW-31)
Peedee
1 06/13/2016
---
1250
<1
---
1.08
27
<0.05
176
<1
<1
<0.01
1.49
<1
6.99
156
0.12
<0.1
130
<0.2
0.795
2.55
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
BW-3D
I Peedee
1 08/31/2016
---
1 1220
1 <1
---
1 1.05
28
1 <0.05
238
1 <1
<1
0.11
1.48
<1
7.24
158
0.14
<0.1
110
<0.2
0.798
1.76
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
Page 6 of 8

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Well ID
FlowSample
one
Zone
Collection
Date
P H
WL
Temp
P
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
y
AlkalinityAluminum
AntimonyArsenic
Barium
Beryllium
y
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Alkalinity
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium VI )
Cobalt
Copper
PP
S. U.
Ft (BTOC)
°C
NS/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
BW-3D
Peedee
11/15/2016
7.8
0.69
17
173
0.12
-82
123
0.3
85.2
7
<1
<1
52
<1
85.2
<50
<1
25.3
<5
3.2
<1
0.23
<1
<1
BW-3D
Peedee
01/17/2017
7.0
<0.6
16
176
0.20
23
228
0.8
85.8
6
<1
<1
51
<1
85.8
<50
<1
24.6 B2
<5
3.2
<1
0.24
<1
<1
BW-3D
Peedee
03/07/2017
1 6.9
1.38
18
1 180
0.23
1 -80
125
1 1.6
85.8
1 12
<1
<1
1 51
<1
1 85.8
<50
<1
1 25.7
<5
3.1
1 <1
<0.075 D3
<1
<1
BW-3D
Peedee
04/25/2017
7.0
1.26
18
173 S
0.16
-103
102
3.8
82.7
20
<1
<1
50
<1
82.7
<50
<1
26 131
<5
3
<1
0.031
<1
<1
13W-31)
Peedee
06/01/2017
7.0
1.39
19
178
0.21
-87
118
2.0
84.2
5
<1
<1
51
<1
84.2
<50
<1
26.9
<5
3.1
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-3D
Peedee
08/01/2017
7.1
1.93
20
181
0.24
-55
150
8.1
89.3
10
<1
<1
51
<1
89.3
<50
<1
26.6
<5
2.9
<1
0.033
<1
<1
BW-31)
Peedee
08/22/2017
7.1
2.03
23
179
0.25
-101
104
1.5
87.7
8
<1
<1
53
<1
87.7
<50
<1
26.3
<5
3.1
<1
<0.12 D3
<1
<1
BW-31)
Peedee
10/03/2017
7.0
1.78
19
182
0.19
-76
129
6.1
91.5
41
<1
<1
56
<1
91.5
<50
<1
28.3
<5
3.2
<1
0.039
<1
<1
BW-31)
Peedee
12/19/20171
6.9
1.46
15
1 182
0.24
-41
164
7.4
92.2
17
<1
I <1
53
<1
92.2
<50
<1
25.3 M2
<5
3.1
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-31)
Peedee
02/27/2018
6.8
1.65
18
180
0.16
-80
126
1.6
91.1
44
<1
<1
52
<1
91.1
<50
<1
27.2
<5
3.1
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-3D
Peedee
05/21/2018
6.8
2.16
21
176
0.61
2
207
1.5
89.2
11
<1
<1
53
<1
89.2
23.485 j
<1
25.8
<5
3.2
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-3D
Peedee
08/08/2018
6.7
1.84
21
173
0.22
14
219
2.7
87.7
8
<1
<1
51
<1
87.7
21.91 j
<1
27.9
<5
3.3
<1
<0.025
2.15
<1
BW 3D
Peedee
10/17/2018
6.6
0.63
21
177
0.14
29
176
9.7
86.7
20
<1
<1
51
<1
86.7
23.738 j
<1
29.5
<5
3.3
0.41 j
<0.025
0.46 j
<1
BW-4DA
Peedee
01/29/2019
7.4
33.39
18
195
0.21
63
268
9.7
93
---
0.41 j
35
<1
93
<50
---
35.9
<5
4.2
0.996 j
<0.025
<1
BW-4DA
Peedee
04/30/2019
7.4
32.11
20
191
0.27
33
238
2.2
90.8
17
<1
<1
35
<1
90.8
19.155 j
<1
33.9
<5
4
0.344 j
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-4DA
Peedee
07/01/2019
7.5
34.05
24
204
0.29
-199
6
9.6
86.7
166
<1
<1
40
<1
86.7
<50
<1
36.2
<5
4.1
0.561 j
0.045
<1
0.337 j
BW-4DA
Peedee
09/03/2019
8.4
35.66
24
226
0.81
-185
20
4.2
97.6
138
<1
<1
42
<1
97.6
<50
<1
38.1
<5
3.8
0.458 j
0.12
<1
BW-4DA
Peedee
11/05/2019
7.2
35.65
18
214
0.30
123
328
6.6
95.6
<1
<1
43
<1
95.6
23.032 j
<1
38.1
<5
4
0.352 j
<0.025
<1
<1
BW-4DA
Peedee
01/03/2020
7.9
33.92
19
227
0.20
-105
100
2.1
101
104
<1
<1
48
<1
101
18.063 j
<1
1.1
<5
3.9
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
Notes:
- Sample results are invalid for use because recorded sample pH greater than 8.5 standard units, recorded sample turbidity greater than 10 NTU, or no sample pH or turbidity was recorded.
- 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.
- 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, laboratory analytical error, elevated reporting limit.
- 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.
°C - degrees celsius
mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter
SPC - specific conductance
Ng/L - micrograms per liter
mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter
TDS - total dissolved solid
Ng/mL - microgram per milliliter
NM - Field parameter was not measured
Temp - temperature
NS/cm - microsiemens per centimeter
NTU - nephelometric turbidity unit
TOC - total organic carbon
BTOC - below top of casing
ORP - oxidation-reduction potential
WL - water level
DO - dissolved oxygen
pCi/L - picocuries per liter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
S.U. - standard units
Laboratory Oualifiers:
< - Concentration not detected at or above the adjusted reporting limit.
<RL - Less than reporting limit. Result was not included in statistical analysis because no numeric value was provided for the reporting limit.
B - Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit. Target analyte concentration in sample is less than 1X the concentration in the method blank. Analyte concentration in sample could be due to blank contamination.
B1 - Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit. Target analyte concentration in sample was greater than 10X 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.
D3 - Sample was diluted due to the presence of high levels of non -target analytes or other matrix interference.
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
M1 - Matrix spike recovery was high: the associated laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable.
M2 - Matrix spike recovery was Low: the associated Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable.
M4 - The spike recovery value was unusable since the analyte concentration in the sample was disproportionate to the spike level.
N2 - The lab does not hold accreditation for this parameter.
P4 - Sample field preservation does not meet EPA or method recommendations for this analysis.
Data Validation Oualifiers:
S - Associated calibration check did not meet specified criteria.
S1 - Data review findings indicate result may be unreliable. Use with caution.
RO - The data are unusable. The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in meeting QC criteria. The analyte may or may not be present in the sample.
Prepared by: JHG Checked by: VTV
Page 7 of 8

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Well ID
Flow
Zone
Sample
Collection
Date
Fluoride
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
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Ng/L
lig/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg -NIL
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
pCVL
Ng/mL
Ng/L
Ng/L
BW-3D
Peedee
11/15/2016
---
715
<1
---
0.996
22
<0.05
129 N2
<1
<1
<0.01 M2
1.55
<1
7.02
158
0.24
<0.1
130
<0.2
0.619
0.903
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
BW-3D
Peedee
01/17/2017
---
748
1 <1
--
0.961
22
<0.05
41.8 N2
<1
<1
I <0.01
1.43
<1
1 7.07
151
0.17
<0.1
100
1 <0.2
0.12
1 1.625
<0.0002
0.302
<5
BW-3D
Peedee
03/07/2017
1 ---
856
<1
---
1.02
23
<0.05
133
<1
<1
<0.01
1.44
<1
7.05
156
0.15
<0.1
130
<0.2
0.725
1.77
<0.0002
<0.3
<5 B2
BW-3D
Peedee
04/25/2017
---
774
<1
---
1.04 B2
22
<0.05
68.2
<1
<1
<0.01
1.49
<1
7.28
149
0.24
<0.1 M1
130
<0.2
0.7
0.451
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
BW-3D
Peedee
06/01/2017
---
705
<1
---
1.01
21
<0.05
80.8
<1
<1
<0.01
1.42
<1
6.96
149
0.21
<0.1
100
<0.2
0.723
1.812
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
BW-3D
Peedee
08/01/2017
---
882
<1
---
1.06
23
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
1.53
<1
7.21
149
0.16
<0.1
110
<0.2
<1
0.714
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
BW-3D
Peedee
08/22/2017
---
964
<1
1.04
1 26
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
1.44
1 <1
6.93
1 155
0.15
<0.1
90
<0.2
0.83
0.963
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
BW-3D
Peedee
10/03/2017
---
1120
<1
---
1.07
26
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
1.48
<1
7.02 M4
162
0.12
<0.1
1 110
<0.2
1.3
0.673
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
BW-3D
Peedee
12/19/2017
---
856
<1
---
0.965
23
<0.05
<1
<1
---
1.37
<1
6.62
154
0.17
<0.1
120
<0.2
1.2
0.671
0.0000743 j
<0.3
<5
BW-3D
Peedee
02/27/2018
0.13
947
<1
<5
1.04
24
<0.05
---
<1
<1
<0.02
1.54
<1
7.35
155
0.17
<0.1
78
<0.2
1.1
4.425
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
BW-31)
Peedee
05/21/2018
0.14
1010
<1
3.232 j
1.01
26
<0.05
---
0.228 j
<1
0.041
1.5
<1
7.37
151
0.16
<0.1
100
<0.2
0.61
1.188
<0.0002
0.251 j
<5
BW-3D
Peedee
08/08/2018
0.11
613
<1
6
1 1.02
24
<0.05
I ---
0.249 j
1.17
0.0067 j
1 1.52
<1
1 6.87
154
<0.1
100
<0.2
1.1
1.618
1 <0.0002
0.224 j
3.102 j
BW-3D
Peedee
10/17/2018
0.12
672
<1
<5
1.08
22
<0.05
---
0.128 j
<1
0.0036 j
1.5
<1
7.02
153
0.25
<0.1
110
<0.2
0.653
1.252
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
BW-4DA
Peedee
01/29/2019
---
652
10.491 j
3.093 j
0.79
37
---
---
0.999 j
0.556 j
I <0.01
1.53
<1
2.99
188
0.62
---
130
<0.2
---
---
2.06 j
BW-4DA
Peedee
04/30/2019
0.0465 j
533
<1
3.505 j
0.718
38
<0.05
60
4.69
<1
<0.01
<1
4.18
187
1.1
<0.1
140
<0.2
1.8
2.9398
<0.0002
0.218 j
<5
BW-4DA
Peedee
07/01/2019
<0.1
706
<1
<5
0.742
49
<0.05
---
8.79
1.4
<0.01
1.64
<1
3.8
194
0,52
<0.1
138
<0.2
2.2
---
---
0.359
3.661 j
BW-4DA
Peedee
09/03/2019
<0.1
737
<1
2.196 j
0.748
48
<0.05
---E�1'.
.93
1.41
0.282
1.42
<1
3.51
200
0.3
<0.1
138
<0.2
1.9
1.175
<0.0002
0.232 j
3.98 j,B2
BW-4DA
Peedee
11/05/2019
0.074 j
815
<1
6132
0.791
57
<0.05
12356
<1
0.0088 j
1.4
<1
2.85
197
M
<0.1
118
<0.2
1.2
0.527
1 <0.0002
.352
3.37 j,B2
BW-4DA
Peedee
01/03/2020
<0.1
629
<1
<5
0.854
58
<0.05
5.07
<1
<0.01
1.45
<1
3.78
203
0.066 j
I <0.1
138
<0.2
1.9 S1
0.299 j,B2
3.763 j,82
Notes:
- Sample results are invalid for use because recorded sample pH greater than 8.5 standard units, recorded sample turbidity greater than 10 NTU, or no sample pH or turbidity was recorded.
- 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.
- 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, laboratory analytical error, elevated reporting limit.
- 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.
°C - degrees celsius
mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter
SPC - specific conductance
Ng/L - micrograms per liter
mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter
TDS - total dissolved solid
Ng/mL - microgram per milliliter
NM - Field parameter was not measured
Temp - temperature
NS/cm - microsiemens per centimeter
NTU - nephelometric turbidity unit
TOC - total organic carbon
BTOC - below top of casing
ORP - oxidation-reduction potential
WL - water level
DO - dissolved oxygen
pCi/L - picocuries per liter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
S.U. - standard units
Laboratory Oualifiers:
< - Concentration not detected at or above the adjusted reporting limit.
<RL - Less than reporting limit. Result was not included in statistical analysis because no numeric value was provided for the reporting limit.
B - Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit. Target analyte concentration in sample is less than 1X the concentration in the method blank. Analyte concentration in sample could be due to blank contamination.
B1 - Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit. Target analyte concentration in sample was greater than 10X 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.
D3 - Sample was diluted due to the presence of high levels of non -target analytes or other matrix interference.
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
M1 - Matrix spike recovery was high: the associated laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable.
M2 - Matrix spike recovery was Low: the associated Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable.
M4 - The spike recovery value was unusable since the analyte concentration in the sample was disproportionate to the spike level.
N2 - The lab does not hold accreditation for this parameter.
P4 - Sample field preservation does not meet EPA or method recommendations for this analysis.
Data Validation Oualifiers:
S - Associated calibration check did not meet specified criteria.
S1 - Data review findings indicate result may be unreliable. Use with caution.
RO - The data are unusable. The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in meeting QC criteria. The analyte may or may not be present in the sample.
Prepared by: JHG Checked by: VTV
Page 8of8

TABLE 4
WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
BACKGROUND UNSATURATED SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Sample ID
Sample
Collection Date
pH
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
S. U.
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
HAS13-1 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.7
17000
<0.55
2.1 B
15
0.16
<1.9
<0.027
<190
<12
17
1.2
3.1
9100
7
400
16
HASB-2 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.3
13000
<0.51
1.1 B
14
0.14
<2.8
<0.025
<280
<12
11
0.68 j
1.1
6700
5.9
260 j
9.6
HASB-2 (5-5.25)
10/10/2017
4.5
18000
<0.42
0.72 B
10
0.069 j
<2.1
<0.021
<210
<12
15
1.3
0.7
3800
7
160 j
3.4
HASB-3 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.6
5200
<0.54
0.46 j,13
7.1
0.084 j
<2.9
0.036
<290
<12
4.3
<0.75
0.44 j
820
6.4
87 j
2.8
HASB-4 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.8
10000
<0.54
1.2 B
14
0.14
<2.6
<0.027
<260
<12
8.7
0.47 j
1.6
4900
5.6
180 j
10
HASB-4 (5-5.25)
10/10/2017
5.0
15000
0.19 j,13
1.3 B
6.5
0.055 j
<1.9
<0.027
<190
<12
14
0.94
0.89
4100
5.8
190
3.6
HASB-5 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.5
20000
<0.53
3.6 B
24
0.25
<2.4
0.011 j
43 j
<12
21
1.9
2.7
12000
12
340
13
HASB-6 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.8
8700
<0.56
0.71 B
22
0.14
<1.8
<0.028
50 j
<11
5.4
0.37 j
2
3300
4.3
140 j
8.4
HASB-6 (5-5.25)
10/10/2017
5.0
29000
<0.47
3 B
11
0.13
<2.4
<0.023
<240
<11
26
1.6
2.1
12000
8.7
350
6.1
HASB-7 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.8
210
<0.47
<0.47
0.98 j
<0.094
<2.1
<0.023
<210
<11
0.53
<0.66
<0.43
78
0.57
<210
1.5
HASB-8 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.5
3200 M
0.15 j,B
0.53 B
5.1
0.053 j
<1.8
<0.025
<180
<11
3.9
<0.71
0.39
4400 M
3.2
84 j
3.8
HASB-9 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.6
2600
<0.53
0.32 j,13
4.5
0.054 j
<2
<0.027
<200
<11
2
<0.75
0.7
960
2.4
40 j
5.5
HASB-10 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.4
11000
<0.63
0.56 j
17
0.17
0.93 j
<0.032
<220
<13
11
<0.88
1.1
850
14
310
4.7
HASB-11 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.6
12000
<0.56
2.1 B
5.8
0.11
<1.5
<0.028
<150
<11
13
1.1
0.92
6100
11
120 j
2.4
HASB-12 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.6
16000
<0.55
2.3 B
22
0.15
<1.8
<0.027
23 j
<11
16
1.3
2.4
8900
7.1
370
11
HASB-12 (5-5.25)
10/10/2017
6.3
29000
<0.56 M
3.3
13
0.13
<2.7
<0.028
<270
<11
29
1.4
2
15000
9.4
360
6.9
HASB-13 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
5.1
2400
0.14 j
0.12 j
7
0.077 j
<1.9
<0.023
<190
<11
1.7
<0.64
0.56
960
1.9
60 j
5.7
HASB-14 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.1
16000
<0.54
0.46 j
16
0.18
0.9 j
<0.027
<230
25
11
0.54 j
0.7
1400
11
390
6.6
HASB-15 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
5.3
2700
<0.54
0.28 j,13
3.5
0.043 j
<2.4
<0.027
<240
<11
2.9
<0.75
0.53
390
3.4
33 j
6.6
HASB-16 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.4
5700
0.2 j,13
7 B
11
0.13
<2.5
<0.022
<250
<12
12
0.45 j
2.4
7700
7.3
250
6.3
HASB-17 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
4.6
16000
<0.5
2.6 B
8.1
0.064 j
<2.7
<0.025
<270
<11
18
0.89
0.68
9800
6.6
180 j
4.2
HASB-17 (5-5.25)
10/10/2017
4.8
8500
<0.49
0.99 B
5.6
0.046 j
<2.7
<0.024
<270
<11
8.9
0.55 j
0.71
2700
8.1
95 j
2.6
HASB-18 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
5.4
6300
<0.54
0.96
15
0.24
<2.5
0.062
470
<12
6.3
0.71 j
2.1
2900
17
170 j
6.2
HASB-19 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
4.4
2700
<0.43
0.11 j
5.6
0.067 j
<1.6
<0.022
<160
9.1 j
3.2
0.42 j
1.3
700
3.2
120 j
6.6
HASB-20 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
5.1
2900
<0.48
0.13 j
8.4
0.083 j
<2.1
<0.024
<210
<12
3.4
0.32 j
1.3
600
5
87 j
4.6
HASB-21 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
5.0
4900
<0.47
0.24 j
7.5
0.16
<2.8
<0.023
<280
<12
4.3
0.36 j
1.4
990
29
120 j
4.7
HASB-22 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
5.0
3000
<0.51
0.22 j
5.7
0.049 j
<2.4
<0.025
<240
<11
3
0.27 j
1.1
520
3
81 j
4.1
HASB-23 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
4.2
3400
<0.5
0.44 j
6
0.11
<2.2
<0.025
<220
3 j
4.6
0.36 j
3.6
1200
17
100 j
4.7
Notes:
- Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BNs) 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.
- Non -detect value is greater than preliminary soil remediation goal protection of groundwater for the constituent. Non -detect value was not included in the calculation of BNs.
No result because the concentration of analyte was not measured in sample.
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
S.U. - standard units
Laboratory Oualifiers:
< - Concentration not detected at or above the adjusted 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.
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
M - Matrix spike / matrix spike dup failure.
Page 1 of 2

TABLE 4
WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
BACKGROUND UNSATURATED SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Sample ID
Sample
Collection Date
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate (as N)
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfate
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
HASB-1 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
0.069 j
<1.5
6.2
<0.23
280
0.31 j
<190
2.1
<12
0.12 j
34 B
6.5
HASB-2 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
0.032 j
<2.3
3
<0.24
99 j
<1.3
<280
1.1
<12
0.055 j
26 B
4.9
HASB-2 (5-5.25)
10/10/2017
<0.083
<1.7
6.7
<0.23
77 j
<1.1
<210
1.3
<12
0.031 j
17 B
2.3
HASB-3 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
0.067 j
<2.3
<2.3
<0.24
58 j
0.33 j
<290
1.2
<12
<0.14
7.8 B
2.5 j
HASB-4 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
0.032 j
<2.1
2.7
<0.24
78 j
<1.4
<260
1.2
<12
0.06 j
18 B
7.7
HASB-4 (5-5.25)
10/10/2017
0.049 j
<1.5
4.2
<0.23
110 j
<1.4
24 j
1
<12
0.039 j
29 B
2.7
HASB-5 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
0.11
0.67 j
5.7
<0.24
190 j
0.57 j
<240
2.7
<12
0.13 j
59 B
6.5
HASB-6 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
0.046 j
<1.5
2.4
<0.23
511
<1.5
<180
1.2
<11
0.067 j
13 B
2.4
HASB-6 (5-5.25)
10/10/2017
<0.092
0.53 j
6.7
<0.23
190 j
<1.2
<240
1.6
<11
0.087 j
46 B
5.4
HASB-7 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
<0.088
<1.7
<1.7
<0.22
<210
<1.2
<210
0.34 j
<11
<0.12
1.1 j,B
<2.1
HASB-8 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
<0.085
<1.4
0.6 j
<0.22
26 j
<1.3
<180
0.53 j
<11
0.035 j
9.8 B
1.1 j
HASB-9 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
0.026 j
<1.6
0.45 j
<0.22
<200
<1.4
<200
0.63 j
<11
<0.14
4.8 B
1.2 j
HASB-10 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
0.086 j
<1.8
1.1 j
<0.26
300
0.45 j
<220
3.3
<13
0.06 j
16 B
2.9
HASB-11 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
<0.083
0.39 j
3.3
<0.23
781
<1.4
<150
1.9
<11
0.054 j
29 B
2.3
HASB-12 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
0.064 j
0.47 j
5.3
<0.23
200
0.27 j
<180
2.1
<11
0.094 j
36 B
6.1
HASB-12 (5-5.25)
10/10/2017
0.025 j
0.83 j
7.7
<0.23
210 j
<1.5
<270
2.6
<11 M
0.075 j
47 B
6.1
HASB-13 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
<0.081
<1.6
0.51
<0.22
30 j
<1.2
<190
0.59 j
<11
0.03 j
4.7 B
2
HASB-14 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
0.043 j
<1.8
2.2
0.19 j
230
0.28 j
<230
2.4
78
0.083 j
20 B
3.3
HASB-15 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
<0.088
<1.9
<1.9
<0.22
<240
<1.4
<240
1.1
<11
<0.14
4 B
0.86 j
HASB-16 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
0.038 j
7.3
1.2 j
<0.23
220 j
0.43 j
<250
3.5
<12
0.1 j
24 B
3.2
HASB-17 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
0.025 j
<2.1
3.8
<0.23
100 j
0.32 j
<270
1.4
<11
0.055 j
40 B
2.9
HASB-17 (5-5.25)
10/10/2017
0.021 j
<2.2
2 j
<0.22
56 j
<1.3
<270
2.6
<11
0.031 j
13 B
1.5 j
HASB-18 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
0.037 j
<2
1.3 j
<0.24
73 j
0.28 j
<250
5.3
<12
0.057 j
12 B
7
HASB-19 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
0.023 j
<1.3
0.47 j
0.11 j
311
<1.1
<160
0.28 j
27
<0.11
5.3 B
1.5 j
HASB-20 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
0.022 j
<1.7
<1.7
<0.23
363
<1.3
<210
0.8 j
<12
0.028 j
6.4 B
2.8
HASB-21 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
0.027 j
<2.3
<2.3
<0.24
39 j
<1.2
<280
0.72 j
7.7 j
0.034 j
6.3 B
2.2 j
HASB-22 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
<0.091
<2
<2
<0.22
321
<1.3
<240
0.58 j
<11
<0.13
4.3 B
1.8 j
HASB-23 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
0.022 j
<1.8
0.68 j
<0.22
421
<1.3
<220
0.54 j
<11
0.029 j
6 B
5.5
Prepared by: JHG Checked by: VTV
Notes:
- Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BNs) 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.
- Non -detect value is greater than preliminary soil remediation goal protection of groundwater for the constituent. Non -detect value was not included in the calculation of BNs.
No result because the concentration of analyte was not measured in sample.
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
S.U. - standard units
Laboratory Oualifiers:
< - Concentration not detected at or above the adjusted 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.
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
M - Matrix spike / matrix spike dup failure.
Page 2 of 2

TABLE 5
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS - SURFICIAL FLOW ZONE
WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Constituent
Reporting
Unit
Descriptive Statistics
Upper Tolerance Limits
Sample
Size
Number
of NDs
Percent
NDs
Type of UTL1
Coverage
Confidence
Level
Value
PH-
S.U.
97
0
0
Lognormal
95
95
3.4 - 7.4
Alkalinity
mg/L
93
34
37
Non-parametric3
95
95
136
Aluminum
pg/L
97
0
0
Gamma
95
95
1,584
Antimony
pg/L
82
82
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Arsenic
pg/L
97
78
80
Non-parametricZ
95
95
1.59
Barium
pg/L
97
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
41
Beryllium
pg/L
97
92
95
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Bicarbonate
mg/L
93
34
37
Non-parametric3
95
95
136
Boron
pg/L
97
86
89
Non-parametricZ
95
95
50
Cadmium
pg/L
82
81
1 99
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Calcium
mg/L
97
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
50.7
Carbonate
mg/L
93
93
100
1n/a
n/a
n/a
5°
Chloride
mg/L
96
1
1
Gamma
95
95
13.53
Chromium
pg/L
97
48
49
Normal
95
95
2.038
Chromium (VI)
pg/L
94
63
67
Non-parametricZ
95
95
0.84
Cobalt
pg/L
97
77
79
Non-parametricZ
95
95
1
Copper
pg/L
97
85
88
Non-parametricZ
95
95
1.28
Fluoride
mg/L
53
16
30
Non-parametric3
90
95
0.4
Iron
pg/L
97
0
0
Non -parametric°
95
95
6,780
Lead
pg/L
97
88
91
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Lithium
pg/L
53
33
62
Non-parametricZ
90
95
6
Magnesium
mg/L
97
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
1.45
Manganese
pg/L
97
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
70
Mercury
pg/L
82
82
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.05°
Methane
pg/L
30
8
27
Normal
95
95
931.8
Molybdenum
pg/L
97
76
78
Non-parametricZ
95
95
1.07
Nickel
pg/L
97
72
74
Non-parametricZ
95
95
1.16
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg/L
83
25
30
Non-parametric3
95
95
2.4
Potassium
mg/L
97
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
2.29
Selenium
pg/L
97
97
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Sodium
mg/L
97
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
7.46
Strontium
pg/L
97
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
292
Sulfate
mg/L
96
9
9
Non-parametric3
95
95
12
Sulfide
mg/L
81
66
81
Non-parametricZ
95
95
0.34
TDS
mg/L
96
15
16
Non-parametric3
95
95
157
Thallium
pg/L
97
93
96
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.2°
TOC
mg/L
81
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
7.9
Total Radium
pCi/L
81
0
0
Gamma
95
95
6.965
Total Uranium
pg/mL
1 82
16
20
Lognormal
195
195
0.00068
Vanadium
pg/L
97
20
21
Non-parametric3
95
95
3.88
Zinc
pg/L
97
71
73
Non-parametricZ
95
95
8
Prepared by: HEG Checked by: HES
Notes:
* - Upper and lower tolerance limits calculated for constituent.
o - Value represents maximum non -detect value in dataset for constituent.
1 - The type of upper tolerance limit (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.
s - 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
n/a - Dataset was comprised of >90 percent non -detects or contained <10 samples.
ND - non -detect
pCi/L - picocuries per liter
S.U. - standard units
TDS - total dissolved solids
TOC - total organic carbon
Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS - PEEDEE FLOW ZONE
WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Constituent
Reporting
Unit
Descriptive Statistics
Upper Tolerance Limits
Sample
Size
Number
of NDs
Percent
NDs
Type of UTL'
Coverage
Confidence
Level
Value
pH*
S.U.
21
0
0
Normal
95
95
6.0 - 8.4
Alkalinity
mg/L
21
0
0
Normal
95
95
100.7
Aluminum
pg/L
21
0
0
Lognormal
95
95
348.9
Antimony
pg/L
20
20
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Arsenic
pg/L
21
20
95
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Barium
pg/L
21
0
0
Non -parametric'
85
95
56
Beryllium
pg/L
21
21
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Bicarbonate
mg/L
21
0
0
Normal
95
95
100.9
Boron
pg/L
21
16
76
Non-parametricZ
85
95
50
Cadmium
pg/L
20
20
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Calcium
mg/L
21
0
0
Non -parametric'
85
95
38.1
Carbonate
mg/L
18
18
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
5°
Chloride
mg/L
21
0
0
Non -parametric'
85
95
4.1
Chromium
pg/L
21
16
76
Non-parametricZ
85
95
1
Chromium (VI)
pg/L
19
12
63
Non-parametricZ
85
95
0.23
Cobalt
pg/L
21
19
90
Non-parametricZ
85
95
1
Copper
pg/L
21
16
76
Non-parametricZ
85
95
1.49
Fluoride
mg/L
8
3
38
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.14t
Iron
pg/L
21
0
0
Normal
95
95
1,491
Lead
pg/L
21
20
95
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Lithium
pg/L
9
4
44
n/a
n/a
n/a
6t
Magnesium
mg/L
21
0
0
Non -parametric'
85
95
1.08
Manganese
pg/L
21
0
0
Non -parametric'
85
95
49
Mercury
pg/L
20
20
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.05°
Methane
pg/L
10
0
0
Gamma
95
95
1,206
Molybdenum
pg/L
21
12
57
Non-parametricZ
85
95
5.07
Nickel
pg/L
21
17
81
Non-parametricZ
85
95
1.41
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg/L
18
13
72
Non-parametricZ
85
95
0.11
Potassium
mg/L
21
0
0
Non-parametric3
85
95
1.64
Selenium
pg/L
21
21
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Sodium
mg/L
21
0
0
Non-parametric3
85
95
7.35
Strontium
pg/L
21
0
0
Non -parametric'
85
95
200
Sulfate
mg/L
21
1
5
Lognormal
95
95
1.15
Sulfide
mg/L
19
19
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.1°
TDS
mg/L
21
0
0
Normal
95
95
156
Thallium
pg/L
21
21
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.2°
TOC
mg/L
20
1
5
Normal
95
95
2.526
Total Radium
pCi/L
15
0
0
Gamma
95
95
5.74
Total Uranium
Ng/mL
15
14
93
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.0002°
Vanadium
pg/L
21
1 13
1 62
Non-parametricZ
85
95
0.359
Zinc
pg/L
21
1 15
1 71
1 Non- arametricZ
85
95
5
Prepared by: HEG Checked by: HES
Notes:
* - Upper and lower tolerance limits calculated for constituent.
t - Value represents maximum value in dataset for constituent.
o - Value represents maximum non -detect value in dataset for constituent.
' - The type of upper tolerance limit (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 1590 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.
pg/L - micrograms per liter
pg/mL - micrograms per milliliter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
n/a - Dataset was comprised of >90 percent non -detects or contained <10 samples.
ND - non -detect
pCi/L - picocuries per liter
S.U. - standard units
TDS - total dissolved solids
TOC - total organic carbon
Page 1 of 1

TABLE 7
STATISTICS RESULTS - UNSATURATED SOIL
WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, LUMBERTON, NC
Constituent
Descriptive Statistics
Upper Tolerance Limits
Sample
Size
Number
of NDs
Percent
NDs
1
Type of UTL
Coverage
Confidence
Level
Value
pH*
28
0
0
Gamma
95
95
3.6 - 5.9
Aluminum
28
0
0
Gamma
95
95
41,671
Antimony
28
24
86
Non-parametricz
85
95
0.56
Arsenic
28
1
4
Gamma
95
95
6.065
Barium
28
0
0
Gamma
95
95
30.69
Beryllium
28
1
4
Gamma
95
95
0.279
Boron
28
26
93
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.9°
Cadmium
28
25
89
Non-parametricz
85
95
0.032
Calcium
28
24
86
Non-parametricz
85
95
280
Chloride
28
25
89
Non-parametricz
85
95
12
Chromium
28
0
0
Gamma
95
95
38.36
Cobalt
28
7
25
Gamma
95
95
1.961
Copper
28
1
4
Gamma
95
95
4.076
Iron
28
0
0
Gamma
95
95
22,324
Lead
28
0
0
Gamma
95
95
26.6
Magnesium
28
1
4
Gamma
95
95
567.7
Manganese
28
0
0
Gamma
95
95
15.68
Mercury
28
8
29
Gamma
95
95
0.0999
Molybdenum
28
22
79
Non-parametricz
85
95
2.3
Nickel
28
6
21
Gamma
95
95
10.66
Nitrate (as N)
28
26
93
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.26'
Potassium
28
3
11
Gamma
95
95
374.9
Selenium
28
19
68
Non-parametricz
85
95
1.4
Sodium
28
27
96
n/a
n/a
n/a
290'
Strontium
28
0
0
Gamma
95
95
5.232
Sulfate
28
25
89
Non-parametricz
85
95
13
Thallium
28
6
21
Gamma
95
95
0.144
Vanadium
28
0
0
Gamma
95
95
77.16
Zinc
28
1
4
Gamma
95
95
9.806
Prepared by: HEG Checked by: HES
Notes:
* - Upper and lower tolerance limits calculated for constituent.
o - Value represents maximum non -detect value in dataset for constituent.
1 - The type of upper tolerance limit (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.
All constituents (except for pH) are reported in milligrams per kilogram.
n/a - Dataset was comprised of >90 percent non -detects.
ND - non -detect
pH reported in standard units.
Page 1 of 1

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
ATTACHMENT 1
SynTerra

IS Cesign &Consultancy
MEMOAARCAD
builta sets d
built assets
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
To: Copies:
11001 W. 120th Avenue
Scott Davies, PG, Duke Energy
Suite 200
526 South Church Street
Broomfield
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Colorado 80021
Tel [phone]
From:
Fax [phone]
Julie K Sueker, PhD, PH, PE (CO)
Date:
March 25, 2020
Arcadis Project No.:
30043729
Subject:
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation —
W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Arcadis U.S., Inc. (Arcadis) prepared this technical memorandum, titled Background Threshold Value
Statistical Outlier Evaluation — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant, on behalf of Duke Energy Progress, LLC
(Duke Energy) (Figure 1). Arcadis evaluated statistically significant outliers identified in the Updated
Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater (SynTerra Corporation
[SynTerra] 2020) constituent concentration dataset (background groundwater dataset) for the W.H.
Weatherspoon Power Plant (Site), located in Robeson County, North Carolina (Figure 1). This
memorandum presents the results of this evaluation, which was conducted within the context of recent
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance regarding the treatment of statistical
outliers. Results of the statistical outlier evaluation support findings reached in the background threshold
value (BTV) statistical analysis conducted by SynTerra for the Site (SynTerra 2020) applying the technical
approach presented herein. Additionally, this technical memorandum includes a review of regional
background groundwater quality.
Constituent BTVs are calculated to compare 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.
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER QUALITY
The Site is located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Region of the Coastal Plain physiographic province, in
Robeson County . There are six water -bearing formations associated with the Coastal Plain region. These
include, from youngest to oldest, the surficial, Yorktown, Pee Dee, Black Creek, upper Cape Fear, and
Page:

MEMO
lower Cape Fear aquifers . Due to sinkholes and other geologic features, there can be degree of
hydrologic communication between the surficial aquifer and parts of the lower hydrologic units (Harden et
al. 2003, SynTerra 2014). In Robeson County, groundwater is obtained from the surficial, Yorktown, Pee
Dee, and Black Creek aquifers (SynTerra 2014).
Naturally occurring constituent concentrations in Coastal Plain groundwater systems have been measured
at numerous monitoring sites and residential water supply wells by several institutions and government
agencies (Arnold et al. 2016; Coyte et al. 2019; Sutton and Woods 1994; Harden et al. 2003; North
Carolina Department of Health and Human Services [NCDHHS] 2011). These studies demonstrate
variability in groundwater constituent concentrations across the Coastal Plain region as shown on
Figure 2 (Arnold et al. 2016). 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).
Groundwater quality of the Coastal Plain aquifers is generally high quality. However, detections of
naturally occurring metals at concentrations above 02L criteria have been demonstrated. County well
studies conducted by the NCDHHS for Robeson County identified concentrations of copper, iron, lead,
manganese, and zinc exceeding 02L criteria (NCDHHS 2011). Coyte et al. (2019) studied the distribution
of hexavalent and total chromium in North Carolina . Total chromium was found to range from less than
the reporting limit to 9 micrograms per liter (pg/L), less than the North Carolina 02L criterion. Hexavalent
chromium was detected within the greater Coastal Plain region (concentration ranging from non -detect to
1.04 tag/L) (Coyte et al. 2019). Radium has also been detected that exceeds local drinking water
standards (Hunter 2019).
CONSTITUENT OUTLIERS
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) and SynTerra developed protocol and procedures, with input from North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (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 evaluating statistical outliers for inclusion or exclusion
from a background dataset is consistent with guidance and documents provided by the 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) documents state [in bold font within the document]:
arcadis.com Page:
2/11

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 testing of outliers 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 dataset include:
• Data recording errors
• Unusual sampling and laboratory procedures or conditions
• Inconsistent sample turbidity
• Values significantly outside the historical ranges of background data.
The Unified Guidance (USEPA 2009) also states:
`Yn 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 and documents provided by the USEPA (2009 and 2018), statistical outliers identified
by SynTerra in background groundwater datasets for the Site were evaluated to determine whether
statistical outliers should be included or excluded from the background groundwater datasets.
OUTLIER EVALUATION METHODS
A data -driven approach was used to evaluate identified statistical outliers in the background groundwater
datasets for the Site. This approach not only considers analytical results for individual constituents, but
also the broader geochemical conditions at the Site to determine inclusion or exclusion of statistical
outliers in the background groundwater dataset. This section describes the six methods used to evaluate
statistical outliers within the background groundwater datasets for the Site including:
1. Initial screening for turbidity and pH
2. Repeatability of constituent concentrations
3. Relationship among pairs or groups of constituents
4. Relationships between major ions and total dissolved solids
5. Relationship between constituent concentration and pH
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):
arcadis.com Page:
3/11

MEMO
`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 outlier evaluation approach provides multiple lines of evidence to support inclusion or exclusion of
identified statistical outliers in the background groundwater datasets for the Site.
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
dataset as defined in the protocol established by HDR and SynTerra (2017) for the Site.
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; 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 4). 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 5) and exhibited 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 datasets for the Site whether or not
particulate forms of metals were present.
Repeatability of Constituent Concentrations
Statistical outliers identified as a repeated concentration across sample dates for individual wells were
retained within the background groundwater datasets for the Site. All retained outliers for the Site are
provided in Table 2.
Data were evaluated for the repeatability of individual constituent analytical results. Repeatability weighs in
favor of data inclusion because it suggests that 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 BW-41, alkalinity was
measured at concentrations above 120 mg/L in nine consecutive samples between 2018 and 2020, all of
which were flagged as statistical outliers (Table 2). Repeated constituents were also observed for calcium,
bicarbonate alkalinity, and strontium at this well. The consistency of the measurements strongly indicates
that the detected constituent concentrations are not due to sampling artifacts.
Repeatability was evaluated for individual wells across the individual groundwater flow zones shallow
(surficial) and bedrock (Pee Dee) identified for the Site. Figure 6 provides examples of constituents with
repeated concentrations within a small range that were identified as statistical outliers. Statistical outliers
are identified on Figure 6 by orange boxes. The constituents shown on Figure 6, as well as other
constituents with similar profiles, were retained within the background groundwater dataset. The following
bullets summarize the constituents and wells with repeatable concentrations for the Site, a subset of these
are illustrated on Figure 6.
• BW-31 — lithium
• BW-4DA — magnesium, sodium, strontium
arcadis.com Page:
4/11

MEMO
• BW-41 — alkalinity, total and bicarbonate, calcium, strontium
• BW-5S — fluoride
This portion of the evaluation also included evaluating box -and -whisker plots for statistical outliers of
individual constituents by well (SynTerra 2020). Background groundwater constituents that were not
identified as outliers within the individual well box -and -whisker plots were retained.
Relationship among Pairs or Groups of Constituents
Statistical outliers identified to have constituent of interest (COI) concentration distributions similar to those
for other constituents were retained within the background groundwater datasets for the Site and are
provided in Table 2.
Relationships among 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 may be more likely to be invalid.
Groups of Constituents
Statistical outliers were identified for total metals concentrations for several metals including aluminum,
chromium, cobalt, iron, manganese, and nickel (Figures 5, and 8). 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
primarily with particulate form, while statistical outlier concentrations of chromium, cobalt, manganese, and
nickel were typically in dissolved form.
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 (e.g., 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 them 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 can occur for both
groundwater monitoring and drinking water supply wells. Drinking water supply wells 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 dissolved under metal reducing conditions can form particulates via re -oxidation and precipitation
of metals when the dissolved metals encounter less reducing and more oxic (oxygen -rich) conditions.
arcadis.com Page:
5/11

MEMO
Pairs of Constituents
Similarities in distributions of several constituent pairs were observed across monitoring wells and
groundwater flow zones. These similarities in constituent distributions were observed for the constituent
well pairs aluminum and iron (Figure 5), and chromium and hexavalent chromium and nickel (Figure 7),
as well as other constituent pairs and groupings not shown on Figures 5 and 7. These strong similarities
in constituent distributions across wells and groundwater flow zones indicate natural conditions.
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 datasets for the Site and retained outliers
for the Site are provided in Table 2.
Concentrations of major cations (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium) and anions (alkalinity,
chloride, and sulfate) identified as statistical outliers were compared to TDS concentrations. If outlier
cation or anion concentrations were accompanied by a similar increase in TDS, the outlier was retained
within the background groundwater datasets for the Site. TDS concentrations identified as statistical
outliers were then compared with concentrations of major cations and anions.
Relationship between Constituent Concentration and pH
Statistical outliers with pH values (less than 8.5 S.U.) were retained within the background groundwater
datasets for the Site, and retained outliers are provided in Table 2.
Background groundwater datasets were evaluated for relationships between constituent concentrations
and groundwater pH values. Such relationships 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 8). These higher pH values are within the expected naturally
occurring pH range for groundwater at the Site.
Relationship between Constituent Concentration and ORP
Statistical outliers associated with low ORP values were retained within the background groundwater
datasets for the Site, and all retained outliers are provided in Table 2.
Background groundwater datasets were evaluated for relationships between groundwater ORP and
constituent concentrations. Low ORP values were observed to be associated with higher concentrations of
arsenic and other constituent values, as illustrated in groundwater monitoring well CCR-101-BG on Figure
8. The retained higher arsenic concentration shown on Figure 8, identified as statistical outliers, were
observed during a period of low oxidation reduction potential. As the environment transitioned to a more
oxic environment, (increasing oxidation reduction potential), arsenic concentrations decrease.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - GROUNDWATER
Results of the constituent statistical outlier evaluation for groundwater are provided in Table 2. This table
provides the well ID, sampling date, constituent, constituent concentration, reporting unit, and the rationale
for each identified outlier included in the background groundwater datasets for the Site. The general
rationales for each constituent that had an outlier included in the background groundwater datasets for the
Site are summarized below.
arcadis.com Page:
6/11

MEMO
• Alkalinity — Present with higher pH and TDS; Repeated concentration within well over time; Not
identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Aluminum — Present with higher iron and chromium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Arsenic — Present with higher pH and lower ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified.
• Barium — Present with higher iron concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot.
• Bicarbonate alkalinity — Repeated concentration within well over time; Present with higher pH and
TDS; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Correlated with calcium and
magnesium.
• Calcium — Repeated concentration within well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
and flow zone box -and -whisker plots; Present with higher alkalinity, TDS, and pH.
• Chloride — Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots.
• Chromium — Present with higher nickel and TSS concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Chromium (VI) — No laboratory or field errors identified; Present with higher ORP, pH, and nickel
concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Cobalt — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field
errors identified.
• Copper — No laboratory or field errors identified; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot
• Fluoride — Present with higher alkalinity, TDS, and TSS; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration within well over time.
• Iron — Present with higher alkalinity, TDS, and TSS; No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Lithium — Present with higher zinc concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration within well over time; No laboratory or field errors
identified.
• Magnesium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots;
Repeated concentration within well over time.
• Manganese — Present with higher concentrations of iron; Not identified as an outlier on individual
well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Methane — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot.
arcadis.com Page:
7/11

MEMO
• Molybdenum — Present with lower ORP and/or higher pH; Not identified as an outlier on individual
well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field errors identified; Present with alkalinity and ion
concentrations.
• Nickel — Present with higher concentrations of chromium or chromium(VI); Not identified as an
outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field errors detected.
• Nitrate + nitrite — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Potassium — Present with higher TDS and sodium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Sodium — Correlated with TDS; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot;
Repeated concentration within well over time.
• Strontium — Present with higher alkalinity, pH, and TDS; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
and flow zone box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration within well over time.
• Sulfate — Present with higher TDS or ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot.
• Sulfide — Present with lower sulfate and higher iron concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Total radium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or
field errors identified.
• Vanadium —Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field
errors identified.
• Zinc — Present with higher sulfate, manganese, or lower pH; No laboratory or field errors identified.
SOIL OUTLIER EVALUATION METHODS
Unsaturated soil samples for evaluation of background soil constituent concentrations were collected at
background soil boring locations and during installation of background groundwater monitoring wells. HDR
and SynTerra developed protocol and procedures, with input from NCDEQ, for establishing unsaturated
soil 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." As described for groundwater above, this
approach to evaluating statistical outliers for inclusion or exclusion from a background dataset is
consistent with guidance provided by the USEPA in their 2009 Unified Guidance (USEPA 2009) and 2018
Groundwater Statistics Tool — User's Guide (USEPA 2018).
Unsaturated soil constituent concentrations for Weatherspoon background samples were reviewed to
identify outliers to be included or excluded from the background soil data set for calculation of background
soil BTVs. Data were evaluated for potential field sampling or laboratory errors. In addition, data were
evaluated for potential associations between constituents. For example, the soil sample HASB-18 (1-1.25)
arcadis.com Page:
8/11

MEMO
had higher concentrations of calcium and cadmium compared with other soil samples (Table 3). Soil at
this sample location may contain calcium carbonate (calcite) that would contribute to higher calcium
concentration. Cadmium can substitute for calcium in mineral matrices, potentially resulting in the
observed higher cadmium concentrations compared to other background soil sample locations. Results
from the background soil outlier evaluation are presented in Table 3 and discussed below.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - SOIL
Results of the constituent statistical outlier evaluation for soil are provided in Table 3. This table provides
the soil sample ID, sampling date, constituent, constituent concentration, reporting unit, and the rationale
for each identified outlier included in the background soil datasets for the Site. The general rationales for
each constituent that had an outlier included in the background soil datasets for the Site are summarized
below.
• Cadmium — No laboratory or field errors identified; Present with higher calcium concentration,
cadmium substitutes for calcium in minerals.
• Calcium — No laboratory or field errors identified; Present with higher cadmium concentration.
• Chloride — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Lead — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Manganese — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Molybdenum — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• pH — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Sulfate — No laboratory or field errors identified.
arcadis.com Page:
9/11

MEMO
Arnold, T.L., DeSimone, L.A., Bexfield, L.M., Lindsey, B.D., Barlow, J.R., Kulongoski, J.T., Musgrove,
MaryLynn, Kingsbury, J.A., and Belitz, K. 2016. Groundwater quality data from the National Water -
Quality Assessment Project, May 2012 through December 2013 (ver. 1.1, November 2016): U.S.
Geological Survey Data Series 997, 56 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds997.
Coyte, R. K. McKinley, S. Jiang, J. Karr, G. Dwyer, A. Keyworth, C. Davis, A. Kondash, A. Vengosh. 2019.
Occurrence and distribution of hexavalent chromium in groundwater from North Carolina, USA.
Science of the Total Environment
Harden, S.; J. Fine, T. Spruill. 2003. Hydrogeology and Ground -water Quality of Brunswick County, North
Carolina. United States Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 03-4051. Prepared
in cooperation with Brunswick County, North Carolina.
HDR Engineering, Inc. and SynTerra Corporation (HDR and SynTerra). 2017. Revised Statistical Methods
for Developing Reference Background Concentrations for Groundwater and Soil at Coal Ash Facilities.
May.
Hunter, T.C. 2019. `County well taken off line because of radium threat', The Robesonian, Lumberton.
October 3. https://www.robesonian.com/news/127748/county-will-taken-off-line-because-of-radium-
threat. Accessed January 17, 2020.
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 2007. Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Relationship for all Mainstem Portneuf River and Marsh Creek Sites.
https://deg.idaho.gov/media/594342- turbidity tss phosphorus 051507.pdf
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS). 2011. Robeson County Well Water
and Health Contaminant Map. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.
https://epi.dph.ncdhhs.gov/oee/wellwater/county J-Z/robeson.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2020.
Sutton, L. and T. Woods. 1994. Groundwater Geochemistry of the Castle Hayne Aquifer in the Region of
Capacity Use Area No. 1. Northeastern North Carolina. WWRI Project no. 70131. July 1994.
SynTerra Corporation. 2014. Groundwater Assessment Work Plan for W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant.
Prepared for Duke Energy Progress, Inc. September 2014.
SynTerra Corporation. 2020. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Unsaturated Soil. — W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant. January 2020.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater
Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities — Unified Guidance. EPA 530-R-09-007. March.
USEPA. 2018. Groundwater Statistics Tool — User's Guide. September.
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:
10/11

MEMO
TABLES
1 Typical Background Data Patterns for Routine Groundwater Monitoring Analytes
2 Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data — Groundwater
3 Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data — Soil
FIGURES
1 Site Location and Regional Geology
2 Box -and -Whisker Plots for Constituent Concentrations in Coastal Plain, NC
3 Chromium Concentrations in North Carolina Groundwater
4 Relationships between Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids
5 Relationship between Iron and Aluminum Concentrations
6 Repeatability of COI Concentrations
7 Relationships between Chromium and Nickel Concentrations
8 Relationships among pH and ORP and COI Concentrations
arcadis.com Page:

TABLES

0 ARCADIS gesign&Consultancy
farnatural and
builtassets
Table 1
Typical Background Data Patterns for Routine Groundwater Monitoring Analytes
BTV Statistical Outlier Evaluation - W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Detection
Within
Analyte Groups
Frequency of
Detection by
Well
Multiple Between Well Within Well Between Well
Reporting Mean Variability Equal
Limits Differences (CVS) Variances
•
Problems
Between
Analyte
Well Within Well Within Well Within Well Typical
Group correlelation Variation Correlation within Well
Data
Grouping
Major ions, pH, TDS,
High to 100%
✓✓✓ Generally low ✓✓
✓
✓✓
✓✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ Normal
Intrawell
Specific Conductance
0.1 to 0.5
Some to most
✓✓
✓✓
Moderate (0.2
Variable
✓✓
✓
✓
✓ Normal, Log or
Intrawell/
CO3, F, NO2, NO3
detectable
to 1.5)
NPM
Inteawell
Tra
High to 100%
✓✓
✓✓✓
ow
✓
✓
✓
✓ Normal
Intrawell
Ba
0.1Lt 0.5
Some wells high,
✓✓
Moderate (0.2
Normal, Log or
Intrawell/
others low to
✓✓
(some wells)
to 1.5)
Variable
✓✓
✓
✓
NPM
Inteawell
As, Se
zero
Moderate to
Intrawell/
Low to moderate
✓✓
✓
high
✓
✓✓✓
✓
✓
Log or NPM
Inteawell
Al, Mn, Fe
0.3 > 2.0
Moderate to
Intenvell or
Sb, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg,
Zero to low
✓✓✓
high
✓✓
✓✓✓
✓
✓✓
✓
Log or NPM
Pb, Ni, Ag, TI, V, Zn
0.5 > 2.0
NDC
General Notes:
None = Unknown, absent, or infrequently occurring
✓ = Occasionally
✓✓ = Frequently
✓✓✓ = Very frequently
Acronyms and Abbreviations:
% = percent
CV = coefficient of variability
pm = micrometers
NDC = never -detected constituents
NPM = non -parametric method
TDS = total dissolved solids
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities — Unified Guidance. EPA 530-R-09-007. March.
Page 1 of 1

PARC/-\DIS' fesign &Consultancy
fornaturaland
built assets
Table 2
Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data - Groundwater
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Sample
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background
ID
Constituent Concentration
Reporting Unit
W11
Date
Groundwater Data Set
BW-41
2/26/2018
Alkalinity 143
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
5/21/2018
Alkalinity
139
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
8/8/2018
Alkalinity
132
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
10/17/2018
Alkalinity
132
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
4/22/2019
Alkalinity
121
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
7/1/2019
Alkalinity
125
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
9/3/2019
Alkalinity
129
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
11/4/2019
Alkalinity
128
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
1/3/2020
Alkalinity
130
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-5S
10/16/2018
Alkalinity
116
mg-CaCO3/L
Present with higher pH and TDS; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
BW-5S
4/23/2019
Alkalinity
136
mg-CaCO3/L
Present with higher pH and TDS; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
BW-4DA
1/29/2019
Aluminum
220
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-4S
5/21/2018
Aluminum
2150
pg/L
Present with higher iron and chromium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-4S
8/8/2018
Aluminum
1970
pg/L
Present with higher iron and chromium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-4S
7/1/2019
Aluminum
1900
pg/L
Present with higher iron and chromium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-4S
9/3/2019
Aluminum
2040
pg/L
Present with higher iron and chromium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-31
11/15/2016
Arsenic
3.02
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
CCR-101-BG
6/14/2016
Arsenic
3.25
pg/L
Present with lower ORP; No laboratory or field errors identified
CCR-101-BG
8/30/2016
Arsenic
1.59
pg/L
Present with lower ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker
lot
CCR-101-BG 12/12/2016
Arsenic
1.22
pg/L
Present with higher pH and lower ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box
and -whisker plot
Arsenic
1.35
pg/L
Present with higher pH and lower ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box
CCR-101-BG 3/7/2017
and -whisker plot
CCR-101-BG
5/30/2017
Arsenic
1.11
pg/L
Present with higher pH and lower ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box
pg/L
and -whisker plot
CCR-101-BG
8/15/2017
Arsenic
1.02
Present with higher pH and lower ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box
and -whisker plot
CCR-101-BG
12/18/2017
Arsenic
1.17
pg/L
Present with higher pH and lower ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box
and -whisker plot
BW-5S
10/16/2018
Barium
50
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -
and -whisker plot
BW-41
2/26/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
143
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
concentration within well over time; Correlated with magnesium
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
BW-41
5/21/2018
139
mg-CaCO3/L
concentration within well over time; Correlated with magnesium
BW-41
8/8/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
132
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time; Correlated with magnesium
BW-41
10/17/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
132
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
_
121
concentration within well over time; Correlated with magnesium
BW-41
4/22/2019
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
mg-CaCO3/L
concentration within well over time; Correlated with magnesium
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
BW-41
7/1/2019
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
_
125
concentration within well over time; Correlated with magnesium
BW-41
9/3/2019
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
129
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time; Correlated with magnesium
BW-41
11/4/2019
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
128
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
concentration within well over time; Correlated with ma nesium
BW-41
1/3/2020
130
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time; Correlated with magnesium
BW-5S
10/16/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
116
mg-CaCO3/L
Present with higher pH and TDS; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker lot; Correlated with calcium and magnesium
BW-5S
4/23/2019
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
136
mg-CaCO3/L
Present with higher pH and TDS; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker lot; Correlated with calcium and magnesium
BW-4DA
1/29/2019
Calcium
35.9
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots
BW-4DA
4/30/2019
Calcium
33.9
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots
BW-4DA
7/1/2019
Calcium
36.2
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots
BW-4DA
9/3/2019
Calcium
38.1
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots
BW-4DA
1/3/2020
Calcium
41.1
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-41 2/26/2018 Calcium
49.9 mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well overtime
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
BW-41 8/8/2018 Calcium
50.6 mg/L
concentration within well over time
BW-41
10/17/2018
Calcium
50.7
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
4/22/2019
Calcium
48
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
BW-41
7/1/2019
Calcium
50.7
mg/L
concentration within well over time
BW-41
9/3/2019
Calcium
50
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
11/4/2019
Calcium
47.8
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
1/3/2020
Calcium
51.4
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
Present with higher alkalinity, pH, and TDS
BW-5S
4/23/2019
Calcium
59
mg/L
BW-4DA
1/29/2019
Chloride
4.2
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots
BW-4DA
4/30/2019
Chloride
4
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots
BW-4DA
7/1/2019
Chloride
4.1
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots
Page 1 of 4

PARC/-\DIS' fesign &Consultancy
fornaturaland
built assets
Table 2
Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data - Groundwater
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Sample
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background
Well ID
Constituent Concentration
Reporting Unit
Date
Groundwater Data Set
BW-41DA
Chloride 3.8
9/3/2�2O
1/3/ Chloride 3.9
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots
BW-4DA
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots
BW-3S
6/1/2017 Chromium
5/21/2018 Chromium
2.32
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-3S
2.02
Ng/L
Present with higher nickel concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot
BW-3S
8/8/2018
Chromium
2.56
pg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot
BW-3S
10/24/2019
Chromium
2.31 B2
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-4S
5/21/2018
Chromium
2.09
pg/L
Present with higher TSS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -
and -whisker plot
BW-4S
8/8/2018
Chromium
2.02
Ng/L
Present with higher TSS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box
and -whisker piot
BW-2S
12/13/2016
Chromium (VI)
1.2
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-31D
11/15/2016
Chromium (VI)
0.23
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-31D
1/17/2017
Chromium (VI)
0.24
pg/L
Present with higher ORP
BW-31
11/15/2016
Chromium (VI)
0.84
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-31
1/17/2017
Chromium (VI)
0.58
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-31
4/25/2017
Chromium (VI)
0.51
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-3S
12/14/2016
Chromium (VI)
2.3
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-3S
6/1/2017
Chromium (VI)
0.14
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-101-BG
12/12/2016
Chromium (VI)
0.46
pg/L
Present with higher pH and nickel concentration; No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-31D
8/8/2018
Cobalt
2.15
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-3S
3/7/2017
Cobalt
1.16
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-31D
12/2/2015
Copper
1.47
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-31D
8/31/2016
Copper
2.22
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-3S
5/21/2018
Copper
1.71
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-41DA
1/29/2019
Copper
1.49
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-41DA
9/3/2019
Copper
1.04
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-4S
9/3/2019
Copper
1.37
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-1
12/12/2016
Copper
1.28
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-1
12/18/2017
Copper
1.09
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-41
2/26/2018
Fluoride
0.14
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-41
5/21/2018
Fluoride
0.12
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-5S
2/26/2018
Fluoride
0.5
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-5S
8/8/2018
Fluoride
0.36
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
Present with higher alkalinity, TDS, and TSS; Not identified as an outlier on individual
BW-5S
10/16/2018
Fluoride
0.87
mg/L
well box -and -whisker plot
BW-5S
4/23/2019
Fluoride
0.19
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-5S
7/1/2019
Fluoride
0.4
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-5S
9/3/2019
Fluoride
0.37
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-5S
11/4/2019
Fluoride
0.3
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-5S
1/3/2020
Fluoride
0.35
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-5S
10/16/2018
Iron
10000
pg/L
Present with higher alkalinity, TDS, and TSS; No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-31
5/21/2018
Lithium
6
Ng/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-31
8/8/2018
Lithium
8
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-31
10/24/2019
Lithium
6 B
Ng/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
11/4/2019
Lithium
6
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-4S
11/4/2019
Lithium
6
Ng/L
Present with higher zinc concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -
10/23/2019
and -whisker plot
CCR-101-BG
Lithium
6 B
pg/L
th higher zinc concentration; No laboratory or field errors identified
PreEeaed
BW-4DA
1/29/2019
Magnesium
0.79
mg/L
Notied as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots;
Reconcentration within well over time
BW-4DA
4/30/2019
Magnesium
0.718
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41DA
7/1/2019
Magnesium
0.742
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41DA
9/3/2019
Magnesium
0.748
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41DA
1/3/2020
Magnesium
0.854
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots;
Repeated concentration within well over time
BW-31D
6/3/2015
Manganese
41
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on flow zone box -and -whisker plot
BW-31D
12/2/2015
Manganese
39
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on flow zone box -and -whisker plot
BW-41DA
1/29/2019
Manganese
37
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots
BW-41DA
4/30/2019
Manganese
38
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots
BW-41DA
7/1/2019
Manganese
49
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots
BW-41DA
9/3/2019
Manganese
48
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots
BW-41DA
1/3/2020
Manganese
58
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots
BW-5S
10/16/2018
Manganese
110
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration; No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-41DA
4/30/2019
Methane
660
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-31D
6/3/2015
Molybdenum
2.05
pg/L
Present with low ORP; No laboratory or field errors identified
Page 2 of 4

PARC/-\DIS' l7esign &Consultancy
fornaturaland
built assets
Table 2
Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data - Groundwater
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Sample
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background
Well ID
Constituent Concentration
Reporting Unit
Date
Groundwater Data Set
BW-41DA
4/30/2019
Molybdenum 4.69
pg/L
Present with lower ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker
7/1/2019
Molybdenum 8.79
lot
BW-41DA
pg/L
Present with lower ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker
lot
BW-41DA
9/3/2019
Molybdenum
4.93
pg/L
Present with lower ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker
lot
Present with lower ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker
BW-41DA
1/3/2020
Molybdenum
5.07
pg/L
lot
BW-41
2/26/2018
Molybdenum
2.52
pg/L
Present with lower ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker
lot; Present with alkalinity and ion concentrations
BW-41
5/21/2018
Molybdenum
1.07
pg/L
Present with lower ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker
lot; Present with alkalinity and ion concentrations
CCR-101-BG
12/12/2016
Molybdenum
4.38
pg/L
Present with higher pH; No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-2S
4/22/2019
Nickel
1.09
pg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
BW-31D
8/8/2018
Nickel
1.17
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-3S
5/21/2018
Nickel
1.09
pg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
BW-3S
8/8/2018
Nickel
1.11
pg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
BW-41DA
7/1/2019
Nickel
1.47
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-41DA
9/3/2019
Nickel
1.41
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-41
8/8/2018
Nickel
1.16
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-4S
12/19/2017
Nickel
1.17
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-5S
2/26/2018
Nickel
1.01
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
Present with elevated chromium (VI) concentration; No laboratory or field errors
CCR-101-BG
12/12/2016
Nickel
3.26
pg/L
identified
MW-1
12/12/2016
Nickel
1.16
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors detected
MW-1
2/26/2018
Nickel
1.15
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors detected
BW-31D
8/31/2016
Nitrate + Nitrite
0.11
mg-N/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-31D
5/21/2018
Nitrate + Nitrite
0.041
mg-N/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-41DA
9/3/2019
Nitrate + Nitrite
0.282
mg-N/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-41DA
4/30/2019
Potassium
2.14
mg/L
Present with higher TDS and sodium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-41DA
1/29/2019
Sodium
2.99
mg/L
Correlated with TDS; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-41DA
4/30/2019
Sodium
4.18
mg/L
Correlated with TDS; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
Correlated with TDS; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot;
BW-41DA
7/1/2019
Sodium
3.8
mg/L
Repeated concentration within well over time
BW-41DA
9/3/2019
Sodium
3.51
mg/L
Correlated with TDS; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot;
Repeated concentration within well over time
BW-41DA
1/3/2020
Sodium
3.78
mg/L
Correlated with TDS; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot;
Repeated concentration within well over time
BW-41DA
1/29/2019
Strontium
188
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots;
Repeated concentration within well over time
BW-41DA
4/30/2019
Strontium
187
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker plots;
Repeated concentration within well over time
BW-41DA
7/1/2019
Strontium
194
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41DA
9/3/2019
Strontium
200
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41DA
1/3/2020
Strontium
203
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
2/26/2018
Strontium
290
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
BW-41
5/21/2018
Strontium
292
pg/L
concentration within well over time
BW-41
8/8/2018
Strontium
289
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
10/17/2018
Strontium
Y82
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
4/22/2019
concentration within well over time
BW-41
Strontium
280
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
7/1/2019
Strontium
285
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
9/3/2019
Strontium
282
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
11/4/2019
Strontium
297
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-41
1/3/2020
Strontium
270
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated
concentration within well over time
BW-5S
10/16/2018
Strontium
247
pg/L
Present with higher alkalinity, pH, and TDS; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot
BW-5S
4/23/2019
Strontium
313
pg/L
Present with higher alkalinity, pH, and TDS
BW-31D
3/5/2015
Sulfate
0.53
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on flow zone box -and -whisker plot
BW-31D
8/8/2018
Sulfate
0.48
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on flow zone box -and -whisker plot
BW-41DA
1/29/2019
Sulfate
0.62
mg/L
Present with higher ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone
4/30/2019
box -and -whisker plots
Present with higher TDS and ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and
BW-41DA
Sulfate
1.1
mg/L
whisker plot
BW-41DA
7/1/2019
Sulfate
0.52
mg/L
Present with higher TDS and ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well and
flow zone box -and -whisker plots
BW-2S
1/12/2016
Sulfide
0.21
mg/L
Present with lower sulfate and higher iron concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-2S
8/31 /2016
Sulfide
0.14
mg/L
Present with lower sulfate and higher iron concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-2S
6/1/2017
Sulfide
0.34
mg/L
Present with lower sulfate and higher iron concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-2S
8/22/2017
Sulfide
0.2
mg/L
Present with lower sulfate and higher iron concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-2S
2/27/2018 Sulfide
0.28
mg/L
Present with lower sulfate and higher iron concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot
Page 3 of 4

PARC/-\DIS' fesign &Consultancy
fornaturaland
built assets
Table 2
Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data - Groundwater
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Well ID
BW-2S
Sample
Date
5/22/2018
4/25/2017
Constituent Concentration
Sulfide 0.3
Sulfide 0.26
Reporting Unit
mg/L
mg/L
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background
Groundwater Data Set
Present with lower sulfate and higher iron concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot
No laboratory or field errors identified
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-31
BW-31
2/27/2018
Sulfide
0.14
mg/L
BW-3S
12/2/2015
Sulfide
0.15
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-3S
12/14/2016
Sulfide
0.3
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-3S
3/7/2017
Sulfide
0.29
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-3S
6/1/2017
Sulfide
0.46
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-3S
8/22/2017
Sulfide
0.45
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-3S
2/27/2018
Sulfide
0.15
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-5S
2/26/2018
Sulfide
0.31
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-2S
8/31/2016
Total Radium
10.84
pCi/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-2S
12/13/2016
Total Radium
14.24
pCi/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-31D
1/17/2017
Vanadium
0.302
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-41DA
1/29/2019
Vanadium
1.08
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-41DA
7/1/2019
Vanadium
0.359
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BW-31D
3/5/2015
Zinc
11
pg/L
Present with higher sulfate, No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-31
10/17/2018
Zinc
12
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BW-4S
11/4/2019
Zinc
6
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
CCR-101-BG
4/23/2019
Zinc
6
pg/L
Present with lower pH; No laboratory or field errors identified
CCR-101-BG
10/23/2019
Zinc
8 B2
pg/L
Present with lower pH; No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-1
8/30/2016
Zinc
23
Ng/L
Present with higher manganese concentration; No laboratory or field errors identified
General Notes:
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.
Qualifiers:
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.
Acronyms and Abbreviations:
pg/L = micrograms per liter
mg/L = milligrams per liter
mg-CaCO3/L = milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate
mg-N/L = milligrams per liter as nitrogen
ORP = oxidation reduction potential
TDS = total dissolved solids
pCi/L = picocuries per liter
Page 4 of 4

ARCAD IS Design &Consultancy
for natural and
buiitassets
Table 3
Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data - Soil
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Soil Sam�LID
Sample
Date
Constituent
Concentration
fiing Unit
Rationalp for Inclusion of SampWata in Background Soil Data Sat
HASB-18 (1-1.25)
HASB-18 (1-1.25)
HASB-14 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
10/11/2017
10/10/2017
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
0.0062
470
25
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
No laboratory or field errors identified; Present with higher calcium concentration
No laboratory or field errors identified; Present with higher cadmium concentration
No laboratory or field errors identified
HASB-21 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
Lead
29
mg/kg
No laboratory or field errors identified
HASB-01 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
Manganese
16
mg/kg
No laboratory or field errors identified
HAS13-16 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
Molybdenum
7.3
mg/kg
No laboratory or field errors identified
HAS13-12 (5-5.25)
10/10/2017
pH
6.31
S.U.
No laboratory or field errors identified
HASB-14 (1-1.25)
10/10/2017
Sulfate
78
mg/kg
No laboratory or field errors identified
HASB-19 (1-1.25)
10/11/2017
Sulfate
27
mg/kg
No laboratory or field errors identified
General Notes:
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.
Acronyms and Abbreviations:
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
S.U. - standard units
Page 1 of 1

FIGURES

1 f
I
A4o M-rqp
" qKr.
ROUNA
• ���■ {yam` ,
aim
L '.
$ a 60 1 zo 180 KADmetm
Note: Locations and scale approximate
Source: Reid, J.C., and Milici, R.C., 2008, "Hydrocarbon source rocks in the Deep River and Dan River Triassic Basins, North Carolina," U.S.
Geological Survey, Open -File report 2008-1108, 35 p. plus tables (see URL http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1108/).
w 1�
eologt
Regions
Appalachlan P1alc�-ar}
I
Malley and Fridge
Blue Ridge
Lj
Piadmoni
Allantic
Wells Coastal Plain
•
Faulk TrGassic Ba�ir�s

Page 1 of 2
I I calcium
LJ Magnesium
L_I Potassium
U Sodium
L_I Bromide
❑ Chloride
❑ Fluoride
Ann
ILV
An
-3-Ii
on
nLn
4 7
I.G
orn
JJV5
F.-
I X
O
I
,inn
''VV o
Inn 1 �
1 I
I
25 I e
I
200 F o�
1
2.5
"In L
TR
-
Orn 1
-
Gp OU r 0
E I
a 1 O
E 25
pq LU
E
pq
I
pq U.0
pq
I
pp 2
I
£ i U
E
£
- 2UU
-
o I° I
e I
e I
o
o
I
e I
o
+- 2u 11
1 T
I I
Y n n
I
I °
Y 1
O I
A I o
m I SR
m I .I,
m
I
i I
;a 1 O
I°I
I
I T
I T
v I I I
m I
w I I
w inn I—P
w
I
w I
v I
0 4U
0 1 I
0 'I U I—�
0 1 I
0 U.44
F--o—
0 1 0
0 1
'-' I I R I
'-' I I
" I f�
" I I
W
w 1 nn I—n
IJ I �
I I
1n! t4
I I I
I rb1
I°I
I
I I I
I o I
o
I
0
I
I�
I_n I l o l
I I R I
1
r
aUI
ITr n n
n L1 III
G" I I I
I I I
F—r-b—i
U I-T��
I I I
� •L
rn !°
V. 0 1--r-�r
R I
l o l
j I
I L 8 J
I 18 1
i
1 I�
I-
1
n
n1AL
n1
n1
In
n1
In
I Silica
I —I Cillfato
❑ TDB
I I Iron
lul AlulminUm
�n
fV
bU
9uu
n
1 °
25 F7
on I T
UV
bou
I I
I
700
�
r
cI 1
n
i
JV
—
m I Ch
'; 40
Rnn 1 iw
n
1
_ An I I X I
o
E
11
`c_
V
15 1
snn T e
1
m 11° I
o JV F
m 1 6 L
I 1O
- n 1 1 0 1
'In
I
:� 1
4 Y
m I I I
I °
�� I T w
I v
in 1
v
2n 1
.� inn I �l o
i o
°
Data value less than or equal to
U 2n I I I
U -
U 1 1° I
O
11
U
°
I
t.�r 11f1le5 the IfkE0rgk13rti 10 range
T
onn 1—
2
_ 1 eh
outside the quartile
i n I m
'I U I— $
�vv I
1 T
75th percentile
1
1 uu
1
Meat!
1 I° I
I I R I
'�
25th percentile
n
n
n
BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUE STATISTICAL OUTLIER
EVALUATION - W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
Notes:
BOX -AND WHISKER PLOTS FOR CONSTITUENT
pg/L: micrograms
per liter
CONCENTRATIONS IN COASTAL PLAIN, NC
mg/L: milligrams per liter
Data Source: Arnold, T. L.
DeSimone, L. Bexfield, B. Lindsey,
J. Barlow, J. Kulongoski, M. Musgrove, J. Kinsbury, K. Belitz. 2016.
nesi FIGURE
Groundwater -Quality Data
from the National Water -Quality Assessment Project, May 2012 through December 2013. United States
�ARCADIS
fornaturaland
2
Geological Survey Data Series 997, 56 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds997.
huiftassets ssetsultancy

rage Z OT Z
L_J Antimony
I_ -_II Arsenic
r_1_Barium
dr.UT
r_1_Beryllium
efyll.UT
Li Boron
r_1_Cadmium
n,1 R
In 7
35n
n 1 A
9-Finn
n,R
0.16
n,g
qnn
n,1 2
I
U.7
In 14
2UVu
n.n
-
i
n
25n
n 1 I --
=
n��
-
V' " I I
I
I
1
I
n c I
1 0
=
15nn
U.J
=
n I I I
=
0.4
=
200
=
0.08
=
1
=
4
V. I I I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
1
%
I I I
I I I
%
I
%
I
%
I
%
I o
%
0.4
c
nno
U.Uo r_F__F
c
I
0.3
F
I
150
F
I
0.06 F-T_
I
1
F
I
1
o
1 1
I UUU
U.3
=
n nc I I o 1
=
I
C
I
c
c
c
I
U
V.UU Tr-
6
_ I T
u
_ I
u
. I I
u_
I
u_
I$1
U.2 � R
IOU
U.U4
n. I I 1
1 r 6
1 I
1I1-I
I _
U.2 0
U.U1+ I
11 0 1
1 7
1 R 1
5nn
14-
1 1
I I
I t
_0 r1
1 4)
1 1
.1
Ur 1 o I
5U �r
U.U2 r�
I r-A"
0.U2�
FAH
I IoI
I �
IIoI
I I
�J
*
1�
I
l
l
l�
U-
U
V!
n
n
W
n
Li Cnrorniurn
n,F
0.5
c nA
tw
c
G
% 0.3
c
V
C n n
U.1
V
LJ Lead LJ Lithium J Manganese J Molybdenum LJ Nickel J Selenium J Strontium
1.4 i 4U 25U 2U i 1 R I n 07 1 nnn i
1 9 35 �- I 18 �e 16 � n 06 99 - I1 7
..� 2UU � 16 � ,4 � .,..,., SUU
1 i 0 A A I n nri I i
�o i - ""� I I I - n TVV �6
e'o I do 1 - mo I o I ao G I to I I I do I I
25 15U ! 12 I I I 6nn 1--I
o n.R 1 0 �- =o_ I o 0 iU I 0 U.U4 1 0 I I
2n 1 4 1 T .- 1 n I I 5nn i--�
Lz I -- I C I I - I - I - I I - --- 1 6
0 ._ 6_ 1 I I I I I 0 F-= 0.0 3 1 I_L
u I u A c l I u I UU u is u I u I u 4UU Irtcr
c r = c I 0 = r _ = I c r c I I o
u I u I i u I 1 u r_ i " c"i O r ci 1 u nnn 1 1 n
0.4 I I 10 II--i�i I U I 0.02 oUU III-
I 1 1 Q 1 tin Lr-"- 4 1 '+ 2nn I I Y
I I I I I I 1 I R 1 10
U.2 I--r-4--r- = I I-4--4 o I I o I U.U1 I I 0
IXI I ICJ I I n 1 2� 2 1nnU-k-
U! �' U I '� U I U' U U U 49
I]=value less than or equal to
1.5 times the IuEerquartile range
outside the quartile
75th percentile
Meats
Notes: 25th percentile
fag/L: micrograms per liter
Source: Arnold, T. L. DeSimone, L. Bexfield, B. Lindsey, J. Barlow, J. Kulongoski, M. Musgrove, J. Kinsbury, K. Belitz. 2016. Groundwater -
Quality Data from the National Water -Quality Assessment Project, May 2012 through December 2013. United States Geological Survey Data
Series 997, 56 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds997.
Plot for silver and thallium not presented due to insufficient data points.
u Cobalt
n,7
0.6
n5
no
c 0.4
0
= 0.3
C
u
U.2
U.1
V
L Vanadium
n,7
n,F
In
6B
c In 4
0.3
u
v
u
0.2
U.1
LJ Zinc
25U .
5U
0
Li Copper
AS I o
4n
35 i
vn 1
n'o v v 1
= n�
p GJ 1
.R
v 1
r-
iu
U
L Uranium
U.12 i
U.1 i 0
n no
0
0 n6
I
u 1
c 1
U. U.U'+
I BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUE STATISTICAL OUTLIER I
EVALUATION - W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
BOX -AND WHISKER PLOTS FOR CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN COASTAL PLAIN, NC
FIGURE
ltancy
uralandPARCADIS Elfas..t. L

r, '/�'
S�
C�
Cr(Vl)>0.07 Ng1L Exceedance Probability (Belts)
• <0.07 O 1.01 - 10.00 n<10 0 0.25-0.50
O 0.07 - 0.50 • >10 No Exceedance >0.50
O 0.51 - 1.00 0-0.25
Notes:
pg/L: micrograms per liter
Cr(VI) - hexavalent chromium
Source:.Coyte, R. K. McKinley, S. Jiang, J. Karr, G. Dwyer, A. Keyworth, C. Davis, A. Kondash, A. Vengosh. 2019.
Occurrence and distribution of hexavalent chromium in groundwater from North Carolina, USA. Science of the Total
Environment
W.H. Weatherspoon
Power Plant
Location approximate

I �,
Turbidity and total suspended svijds (TSS) relationship
for all majnstetn Portteut R and Muslt Cr sites"
Da
R'4r.94n. FKU-ME-1
1i=21T
T5s = 2&597tLffb3duyin
fiL.0
J_ 5
Q1
E
od
00 ;
+4■
■
it]Q
C.
n Im 21012
turbid-fy ( TLf)
`all sites except Porh-va& River at Siphon Road
3;M -.
1: 0 99
400 80
.K 74 0
30 0 0
y 300 qq� v 40
Gn
ISO C7 30 0
tub 0 0 0 H ()0
s0 0 � OC a IU p
0 _ 4
0 90 100 150 ?60 LR !90 0 20 40 50 80 NO it"
Turbidity (1-ri) Tusbid:tyPELi
(a) (b)
Fig ure 4 Correlation between Total Suspended Solids (TSS in mg'L)-and Tiubidity level [lam. `_
fi=-. (a- left) U riz-er water samples and (b- rI&ht) selected river water• samples at
lower TSS concentration range, which were collected from various river streams iu
Singapoiv between Jan 01 O to 3* 2011.
Notes:
NTU — nephelometric turbidity units
mg/L — milligrams per liter
TSS — Total Suspended Solids
Source:
I: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 2007. Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Relationship for all Mainstem Portneuf
River and Marsh Creek Sites. https://deq.idaho.gov/media/594342- turbidity2ss_phosphorus_O515O7.pdf
It: 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.

Weatherspoon - BW-4S
10000
J
:L
O
.y
L
H
tv
U
q 10C
t.1
10
Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-20 Jan-21
— —Aluminum --Aron
BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUE STATISTICAL OUTLIER
EVALUATION - W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
Notes: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRON AND
: Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier ALUMINUM CONCENTRATIONS
Filled circle : detected result
FIGURE
�►^
pg/L : micrograms per liter /aR�' DIS CesiranBCnnsultancy
fornaturaland
built assets

Weatherspoon - BW-41
1000
10 1
1
Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-20 Jan-21
- -=--Alkalinity (Total and Bicarbonate) --*—Calcium Strontium
Weatherspoon - BW-4DA
0
.1 1�
Jar:-
JaR-19
Sodium Strontium
1
0.9
IxWiI?
0.7
p 0.6
2 0.5
0.4
e
o 0.3
U
ice►;
0.1
0
Jan
1000 9
1 10
Jan-20
8
w
7
J 6
O1 C
? o
E 5
7 ++
L 4
3
CO)O
U
2
1
0 0
Jan-17
Notes:
: Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier
Filled circle : detected result
Unfilled circle : non -detect result; values shown in reporting limit
Non -circled outliers were auto -correlated and not included in the background data set
fag/L : micrograms per liter
mg/L : milligrams per liter
Weathersnoon - BW-5S
•ja r I- 19 0411- IV Jdl I-4V
Fluoride
Weathersnoon - BW-31
-Lithium
Vor 1- 1.7
tan-21
Jan-20

Weatherspoon - BW-2S
J
0.1 l
Jan-15
p 0.1
U
Note: Nickel outlier only
Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
—Chromium Nickel
Weatherspoon - CCR-101-BG
Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-20 Jan-21
—e Chromium (Vt) Nickel
Notes:
: Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier
Filled circle : detected result
Unfilled circle : non -detect result; value shown is reporting limit
pg/L : micrograms per liter
10
0.1 1
Jan-15
Weatherspoon - BW-3S
Jan-16 Jan-17
Chromium
Jan-18 Jan-19
t N ickel
BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUE STATISTICAL OUTLIER
EVALUATION - W.H. WEATHERSPOON POWER PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHROMIUM
AND NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS
FIGURE
ltancy
uralandOAARCADIS t6ulfassets 7

3.5
3
J
�2.5
c
a 2
C
c07i 1.5
c
U 1
0.5
0
Weatherspoon - CCR-101-BG
Note: Orange
outline on
individual
data points
indicates
dataset
outliers
Jan-16 Dec-16 Jan-18 Jan-19
Arsenic fORP
Weatherspoon - BW-5S
400
1
S
E
300
C
�
200 ;
0.1
a
o
c
100 2
m
tl
C
m
0
0 0.01
c
O
U
-100 m
v
x
-200 0
0 001
7
J
6 m rn
c v
5 o
A
4 •D 1
c c
w c
2 a U
1
0 0.1
Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-20 Jan-21 Jan-15
-—Alkalinity (Total and Bicarbonate) —*--Calcium TDS --o—pH
Notes:
: Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier
Filled circle : detected result
Unfilled circle : non -detect result; values shown in reporting limit
Non -circled outliers were auto -correlated and not included in the background data set
pg/L : micrograms per liter TDS: total dissolved solids
mg/L : milligrams per liter
my : millivolts
ORP : oxidation reduction potential
Jan-18
Weatherspoon - BW-4DA
Jan-19
+Nitrate+ Nitrite pH
Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
—e—Molybdenum --o—ORP
8.3
8 N
c
7.7
W
7.4
7.1 z
CL
6.8
6.5
Jan-20
io
)0 O

04ARCADIS built nConsultancy
fornatunaland
hu ilt asss ets
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
11400 Parkside Drive
Suite 410
Knoxville, Tennessee 37934
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.arcadis.com

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
/. - \ � . �,
UPPER TOLERANCE LIMITS
(PROUCL OUTPUT
SynTerra

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Normal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProLICL 5.12/7/2020 12:15:25 PM
From File
Weatherspoon_BG_GW_Data_Surficial_No_Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Chromium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Number of Detects
49
Number of Distinct Detects
45
Minimum Detect
0.338
Maximum Detect
2.56
Variance Detected
0.296
Mean Detected
1.346
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.196
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Number of Distinct Observations
46
Number of Non -Detects
48
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
49.48%
SD Detected
0.544
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.49
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.972 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.947 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0883 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.126 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
1.011
SD
0.533
95% UTL95% Coverage
2.038
95% KM UPL (t)
1.9
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
3.345
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.694
95% KM Percentile (z)
1.887
99% KM Percentile (z)
2.25
95% KM USL
2.715
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.928
SD
0.574
95% UTL95% Coverage
2.034
95% UPL (t)
1.885
90% Percentile (z)
1.663
95% Percentile (z)
1.871
99% Percentile (z)
2.262
95% USL
2.763
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Methane
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
30
Number of Missing Observations
67
Number of Detects
22
Number of Distinct Detects
21
Minimum Detect
13.2
Maximum Detect
1080
Variance Detected
94153
Mean Detected
359.7
Mean of Detected Logged Data
5.318
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.22
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations 22
Number of Non -Detects
8
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
10
Maximum Non -Detect
10
Percent Non -Detects
26.67%
SD Detected
306.8
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.306
d2max (for USL) 2.745
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.915 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.911 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.168 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.184 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
266.5
SD
299.7
95% UTL95% Coverage
931.8
95% KM UPL (t)
784.1
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1594
90% KM Percentile (z)
650.5
95% KM Percentile (z)
759.4
99% KM Percentile (z)
963.7
95% KM USL
1089
DU2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 265.1 SD 306
95% UTL95% Coverage 944.4 95% UPL (t) 793.6
90% Percentile (z) 657.3 95% Percentile (z) 768.4
99% Percentile (z) 977 95% USL 1105
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Aluminum
Gamma Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 12:17:29 PM
From File Weatherspoon_BG_GW_Data_Surficial_No_Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Coverage 95%
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Minimum
6.634
Second Largest
2040
Maximum
2150
Mean
401.7
Coefficient of Variation
1.129
Mean of logged Data
5.355
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Number of Distinct Observations
92
First Quartile
122
Median
245
Third Quartile
501
SD
453.5
Skewness
2.227
SD of logged Data
1.338
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.826 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.787 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.0723 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.0939 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 0.911 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.89
Theta hat (MLE) 440.8 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
451.3
nu hat (MLE) 176.8 nu star (bias corrected)
172.7
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 401.7 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
425.8
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 1222 90% Percentile
951.8
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 1296 95% Percentile
1254
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1458 99% Percentile
1963
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1584
95% WH USL 3068 95% HW USL
3744
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Chloride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
96
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Detects
95
Number of Distinct Detects
60
Minimum Detect
1.5
Maximum Detect
16
Variance Detected
9.122
Mean Detected
5.476
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.546
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.93
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations 61
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Non -Detect
0.1
Percent Non -Detects
1.042%
SD Detected
3.02
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.572
d2max (for USL) 3.196
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.643 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.758 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.067 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.0923 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 5.42 KM SD
3.038
95% UTL95% Coverage 11.28 95% KM UPL (t)
10.49
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 18.73 90% KM Percentile (z)
9.313
95% KM Percentile (z) 10.42 99% KM Percentile (z)
12.49
95% KM USL 15.13
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MILE) 3.394 k star (bias corrected MILE)
3.294
Theta hat (MILE) 1.613 Theta star (bias corrected MILE)
1.662
nu hat (MILE) 644.9 nu star (bias corrected)
625.8
MILE Mean (bias corrected) 5.476
MILE Sd (bias corrected) 3.017 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
13.46
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 0.42 Mean
5.423
Maximum 16 Median
4.7
SD 3.048 CV
0.562
k hat (MILE) 3.098 k star (bias corrected MILE)
3.008
Theta hat (MILE) 1.75 Theta star (bias corrected MILE)
1.803
nu hat (MILE) 594.9 nu star (bias corrected)
577.6
MILE Mean (bias corrected) 5.423 MILE Sd (bias corrected)
3.127
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 12.62 90% Percentile
9.615
95% Percentile 11.37 99% Percentile
15.18
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 12.78 13.18 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 11.41
11.66
95% Gamma USL 21.04 22.78

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Chloride (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
5.42
Variance (KM)
9.23
k hat (KM)
3.182
nu hat (KM)
611
theta hat (KM)
1.703
80% gamma percentile (KM)
7.703
95% gamma percentile (KM)
11.28
SD (KM)
SE of Mean (KM)
k star (KM)
nu star (KM)
theta star (KM)
90% gamma percentile (KM)
99% gamma percentile (KM)
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
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 12.98 13.53 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 11.57
95% KM Gamma Percentile 11.44 11.79 95% Gamma USL 21.55
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.
3.038
0.312
3.09
611
1.754
9.554
15.01
HW
11.93
23.73

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Appendix A
Total Radium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
81
Number of Distinct Observations
81
Number of Missing Observations
16
Minimum
0.11
First Quartile
0.848
Second Largest
10.84
Median
1.591
Maximum
14.24
Third Quartile
2.84
Mean
2.259
SD
2.201
Coefficient of Variation
0.974
Skewness
3.006
Mean of logged Data
0.473
SD of logged Data
0.841
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.958 d2max (for USL) 3.136
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.759 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.769 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.0695 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.101 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 1.606 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.555
Theta hat (MLE) 1.407 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1.453
nu hat (MLE) 260.2 nu star (bias corrected)
251.9
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 2.259 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.812
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 5.759 90% Percentile
4.667
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 5.858 95% Percentile
5.815
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 6.752 99% Percentile
8.402
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 6.965
95% WH USL 12.09 95% HW USL
13.31
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Lognormal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 12:20:51 PM
From File
Weatherspoon_BG_GW_Data_Surficial_No_Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Number of Bootstrap Operations
2000
Total Uranium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 82
Number of Missing Observations 15
Number of Detects 66
Number of Distinct Detects 63
Minimum Detect 6.8400E-5
Maximum Detect 9.0000E-4
Variance Detected 3.7900E-8
Mean Detected 2.5381 E-4
Mean of Detected Logged Data -8.538
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.956
Number of Distinct Observations 64
Number of Non -Detects 16
Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1
Minimum Non -Detect 2.0000E-4
Maximum Non -Detect 2.0000E-4
Percent Non -Detects 19.51 %
SD Detected 1.9468E-4
SD of Detected Logged Data 0.718
d2max (for USL) 3.141
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Approximate Test Statistic 0.938 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00365 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0714 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.109 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 2.2710E-4 SD 1.8241E-4
95% UTL95% Coverage 5.8392E-4 95% KM UPL (t) 5.3245E-4
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.00103 90% KM Percentile (z) 4.6087E-4
95% KM Percentile (z) 5.2714E-4 99% KM Percentile (z) 6.5145E-4
95% KM USL 7.9999E-4
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale 2.2868E-4
Mean in Log Scale -8.641
SD in Original Scale 1.8296E-4
SD in Log Scale 0.701
95% UTL95% Coverage 6.9660E-4
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage 6.6800E-4
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 7.1665E-4
95% UPL (t) 5.7159E-4
90% Percentile (z) 4.3411 E-4
95% Percentile (z) 5.6003E-4
99% Percentile (z) 9.0301 E-4
95% USL 0.0016
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data -8.649
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage 6.8121 E-4
KM SD of Logged Data 0.694
95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 5.6008E-4
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 5.4886E-4
95% KM USL (Lognormal) 0.00155

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Appendix A
Total Uranium (Continued)
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale 2.2380E-4
Mean in Log Scale -8.669
SD in Original Scale 1.8486E-4
SD in Log Scale 0.697
95% UTL95% Coverage 6.7176E-4
95% UPL (t) 5.5184E-4
90% Percentile (z) 4.1979E-4
95% Percentile (z) 5.4075E-4
99% Percentile (z) 8.6950E-4
95% USL 0.00153
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 12:24:04 PM
From File
Weatherspoon_BG_GW_Data_Surficial_No_Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
90%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Fluoride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
53
Number of Missing Observations
44
Number of Detects
37
Number of Distinct Detects
32
Minimum Detect
0.0413
Maximum Detect
0.87
Variance Detected
0.028
Mean Detected
0.155
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-2.198
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.628
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 32
Number of Non -Detects
16
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Non -Detect
0.1
Percent Non -Detects
30.19%
SD Detected
0.167
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.749
d2max (for USL) 2.98
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.13
SD
0.144
95% UTL90% Coverage
0.364
95% KM UPL (t)
0.373
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.762
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.314
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.366
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.464
95% KM USL
0.558
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no
distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
51
95% UTL with90% Coverage
0.4
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.889
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.91
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95% UPL
0.43
95% USL
0.87
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.762
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Lithium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
53
Number of Missing Observations
44
Number of Detects
20
Number of Distinct Detects
16
Minimum Detect
2.06
Maximum Detect
8
Variance Detected
3.007
Mean Detected
4.001
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.303
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.628
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations 17
Number of Non -Detects
33
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
62.26%
SD Detected
1.734
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.415
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
d2max (for USL) 2.98
Mean
3.379
SD
1.277
95% UTL90% Coverage
5.458
95% KM UPL (t)
5.538
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
8.999
90% KM Percentile (z)
5.016
95% KM Percentile (z)
5.48
99% KM Percentile (z)
6.351
95% KM USL
7.185
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no
distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
51
95% UTL with90% Coverage
6
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.889
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.91
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95% UPL
6
95% USL
8
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
8.999
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 12:29:34 PM
From File
Weatherspoon_BG_GW_Data_Surficial_No_Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Alkalinity
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 93
Number of Distinct Observations
54
Number of Missing Observations 4
Number of Detects 59
Number of Non -Detects
34
Number of Distinct Detects 53
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect 5.2
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Detect 143
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Variance Detected 1943
Percent Non -Detects
36.56%
Mean Detected 41.6
SD Detected
44.08
Mean of Detected Logged Data 3.266
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.94
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.935
d2max (for USL)
3.185
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 28.22
SD
39.02
95% UTL95% Coverage 103.7
95% KM UPL (t)
93.4
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 199.2
90% KM Percentile (z)
78.22
95% KM Percentile (z) 92.4
99% KM Percentile (z)
119
95% KM USL 152.5
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 91
95% UTL with95% Coverage
136
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.596 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.85
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124
95% UPL
132
95% USL 143
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
199.2
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Arsenic
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Number of Detects
19
Number of Distinct Detects
19
Minimum Detect
0.353
Maximum Detect
3.25
Variance Detected
0.692
Mean Detected
1.018
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.216
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
20
Number of Non -Detects
78
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
80.41%
SD Detected
0.832
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.659
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Mean
0.609
SD
0.421
95% UTL95% Coverage
1.421
95% KM UPL (t)
1.312
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.454
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.149
95% KM Percentile (z)
1.302
99% KM Percentile (z)
1.589
95% KM USL
1.957
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
95
95% UTL with95% Coverage
1.59
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.667
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.869
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
1.233
95% USL
3.25
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.454
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Barium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Minimum
7
Second Largest
42
Maximum
50
Mean
20.66
Coefficient of Variation
0.443
Mean of logged Data
2.939
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
33
First Quartile
15
Median
18
Third Quartile
26
SD
9.148
Skewness
1.046
SD of logged Data
0.422
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 95 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.667 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
41
95% UPL
39.1
90% Chebyshev UPL
48.24
95% Chebyshev UPL
60.74
95% USL
50
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% 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.
41
0.869
124
39.2
36
39
42.32

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
93
Number of Missing Observations
4
Number of Detects
59
Number of Distinct Detects
53
Minimum Detect
5.2
Maximum Detect
143
Variance Detected
1943
Mean Detected
41.6
Mean of Detected Logged Data
3.266
Number of Distinct Observations 54
Number of Non -Detects
34
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
36.56%
SD Detected
44.08
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.94
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.935
d2max (for USL)
3.185
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 28.22
SD
39.02
95% UTL95% Coverage 103.7
95% KM UPL (t)
93.4
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 199.2
90% KM Percentile (z)
78.22
95% KM Percentile (z) 92.4
99% KM Percentile (z)
119
95% KM USL 152.5
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 91 95% UTL with95% Coverage 136
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.596 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.85
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124 95% UPL 132
95% USL 143 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 199.2
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Boron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Number of Detects
11
Number of Distinct Detects
11
Minimum Detect
17.73
Maximum Detect
35.09
Variance Detected
27.7
Mean Detected
25.34
Mean of Detected Logged Data
3.212
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
12
Number of Non -Detects
86
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
50
Maximum Non -Detect
50
Percent Non -Detects
88.66%
SD Detected
5.263
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.213
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Mean
25.34
SD
5.018
95% UTL95% Coverage
35.02
95% KM UPL (t)
33.72
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
47.33
90% KM Percentile (z)
31.77
95% KM Percentile (z)
33.59
99% KM Percentile (z)
37.01
95% KM USL
41.39
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
95
95% UTL with95% Coverage
50
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.667
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.869
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
50
95% USL
50
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
47.33
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Calcium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Minimum
0.901
Second Largest
51.4
Maximum
59
Mean
10.02
Coefficient of Variation
1.483
Mean of logged Data
1.501
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
83
First Quartile
1.82
Median
3.02
Third Quartile
11.2
SD
14.87
Skewness
2.17
SD of logged Data
1.224
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 95 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.667 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
50.7
95% UPL
50.61
90% Chebyshev UPL
54.85
95% Chebyshev UPL
75.16
95% USL
59
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% 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.
50.7
0.869
124
50.84
42.6
50.12
51.7

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Chromium (VI)
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 94
Number of Distinct Observations
28
Number of Missing Observations 3
Number of Detects 31
Number of Non -Detects
63
Number of Distinct Detects 25
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
3
Minimum Detect 0.026
Minimum Non -Detect
0.025
Maximum Detect 2.3
Maximum Non -Detect
0.12
Variance Detected 0.222
Percent Non -Detects
67.02%
Mean Detected 0.232
SD Detected
0.471
Mean of Detected Logged Data -2.494
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.234
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.933
d2max (for USL)
3.188
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.0936
SD
0.283
95% UTL95% Coverage 0.641
95% KM UPL (t)
0.567
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 1.335
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.457
95% KM Percentile (z) 0.56
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.753
95% KM USL 0.997
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 92
95% UTL with95% Coverage
0.84
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.614 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.855
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124
95% UPL
0.528
95% USL 2.3
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.335
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Cobalt
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Number of Detects
20
Number of Distinct Detects
20
Minimum Detect
0.349
Maximum Detect
1.16
Variance Detected
0.0479
Mean Detected
0.562
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.638
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
21
Number of Non -Detects
77
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
79.38%
SD Detected
0.219
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.348
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Mean
0.537
SD
0.179
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.881
95% KM UPL (t)
0.835
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.319
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.765
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.83
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.952
95% KM USL
1.108
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
95
95% UTL with95% Coverage
1
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.667
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.869
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
1
95% USL
1.16
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.319
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Copper
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 97
Number of Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 12
Minimum Detect 0.342
Maximum Detect 1.71
Variance Detected 0.219
Mean Detected 0.8
Mean of Detected Logged Data -0.379
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
13
Number of Non -Detects
85
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
87.63%
SD Detected
0.468
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.581
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Mean
0.553
SD
0.258
95% UTL95% Coverage
1.05
95% KM UPL (t)
0.983
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.682
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.883
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.977
99% KM Percentile (z)
1.152
95% KM USL
1.377
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
95
95% UTL with95% Coverage
1.28
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.667
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.869
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
1.009
95% USL
1.71
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.682
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Iron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Minimum
39
Second Largest
7040
Maximum
10000
Mean
1566
Coefficient of Variation
1.193
Mean of logged Data
6.613
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
89
First Quartile
242
Median
970
Third Quartile
2020
SD
1868
Skewness
2.045
SD of logged Data
1.348
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 95 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 6780
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.667 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.869
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 6780
95% UPL 6187
90% Chebyshev UPL 7199
95% Chebyshev UPL 9751
95% USL 10000
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 6780
90% Percentile 3592
95% Percentile 5838
99% Percentile 7158
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Magnesium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Minimum
0.29
Second Largest
1.5
Maximum
1.87
Mean
0.847
Coefficient of Variation
0.47
Mean of logged Data
-0.296
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
76
First Quartile
0.428
Median
0.937
Third Quartile
1.16
SD
0.398
Skewness
0.0842
SD of logged Data
0.536
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 95 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.667 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
1.45
95% UPL
1.43
90% Chebyshev UPL
2.046
95% Chebyshev UPL
2.59
95% USL
1.87
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% 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.
1.45
0.869
124
1.45
1.324
1.398
1.515

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Manganese
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Minimum
2.961
Second Largest
70
Maximum
110
Mean
22.37
Coefficient of Variation
0.835
Mean of logged Data
2.825
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
43
First Quartile
11
Median
14
Third Quartile
30
SD
18.67
Skewness
1.898
SD of logged Data
0.749
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 95 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.667 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
70
95% UPL
59.2
90% Chebyshev UPL
78.66
95% Chebyshev UPL
104.2
95% USL
110
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% 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.
70
0.869
124
70
50.8
58.2
71.6

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Molybdenum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Number of Detects
21
Number of Distinct Detects
21
Minimum Detect
0.094
Maximum Detect
4.38
Variance Detected
1.048
Mean Detected
0.588
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.289
Number of Distinct Observations
22
Number of Non -Detects
76
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
78.35%
SD Detected
1.024
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.112
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
d2max (for USL)
3.199
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.318
SD
0.507
95% UTL95% Coverage 1.296
95% KM UPL (t)
1.165
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 2.541
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.968
95% KM Percentile (z) 1.153
99% KM Percentile (z)
1.498
95% KM USL 1.941
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95
95% UTL with95% Coverage
1.07
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.667 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.869
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124
95% UPL
1
95% USL 4.38
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.541
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Nickel
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Number of Detects
25
Number of Distinct Detects
23
Minimum Detect
0.381
Maximum Detect
3.26
Variance Detected
0.326
Mean Detected
0.864
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.278
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
24
Number of Non -Detects
72
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
74.23%
SD Detected
0.571
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.486
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Mean
0.658
SD
0.332
95% UTL95% Coverage
1.299
95% KM UPL (t)
1.213
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.113
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.084
95% KM Percentile (z)
1.204
99% KM Percentile (z)
1.431
95% KM USL
1.721
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
95
95% UTL with95% Coverage
1.16
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.667
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.869
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
1.151
95% USL
3.26
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.113
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Nitrate + Nitrite
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 83
Number of Distinct Observations
46
Number of Missing Observations 14
Number of Detects 58
Number of Non -Detects
25
Number of Distinct Detects 45
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Detect 0.0034
Minimum Non -Detect
0.01
Maximum Detect 2.9
Maximum Non -Detect
0.02
Variance Detected 0.796
Percent Non -Detects
30.12%
Mean Detected 0.698
SD Detected
0.892
Mean of Detected Logged Data -2.089
SD of Detected Logged Data
2.306
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.954
d2max (for USL)
3.145
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.49
SD
0.805
95% UTL95% Coverage 2.062
95% KM UPL (t)
1.837
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 4.019
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.521
95% KM Percentile (z) 1.814
99% KM Percentile (z)
2.362
95% KM USL 3.021
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 81
95% UTL with95% Coverage
2.4
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.421 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.791
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124
95% UPL
2.18
95% USL 2.9
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
4.019
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Potassium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Minimum
0.399
Second Largest
2.3
Maximum
2.38
Mean
0.995
Coefficient of Variation
0.455
Mean of logged Data
-0.0977
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
85
First Quartile
0.615
Median
0.928
Third Quartile
1.14
SD
0.453
Skewness
1.253
SD of logged Data
0.43
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 95 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.667 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 2.29 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL 2.099 90% Percentile
90% Chebyshev UPL 2.361 95% Percentile
95% Chebyshev UPL 2.98 99% Percentile
95% USL 2.38
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
2.29
0.869
124
2.29
1.656
1.968
2.303

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Sodium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 97
Minimum 0.913
Second Largest 8.11
Maximum 9.78
Mean 3.345
Coefficient of Variation 0.553
Mean of logged Data 1.051
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
87
First Quartile
2.04
Median
2.9
Third Quartile
4.1
SD
1.849
Skewness
0.908
SD of logged Data
0.578
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 95 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.667 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
7.46
95% UPL
6.768
90% Chebyshev UPL
8.92
95% Chebyshev UPL
11.45
95% USL
9.78
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% 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.
7.46
0.869
124
7.46
5.83
6.564
8.177

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Strontium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Minimum
6
Second Largest
297
Maximum
313
Mean
60.44
Coefficient of Variation
1.395
Mean of logged Data
3.422
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
49
First Quartile
13
Median
20
Third Quartile
73
SD
84.33
Skewness
2.122
SD of logged Data
1.101
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 95 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.667 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
292
95% UPL
289.1
90% Chebyshev UPL
314.7
95% Chebyshev UPL
429.9
95% USL
313
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% 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.
292
0.869
124
292
256.2
285.8
297.6

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Sulfate
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
96
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Detects
87
Number of Distinct Detects
60
Minimum Detect
0.056
Maximum Detect
13
Variance Detected
11.12
Mean Detected
3.015
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.266
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations 63
Number of Non -Detects
9
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
3
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
9.375%
SD Detected
3.335
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.505
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
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 2.746
SD
3.266
95% UTL95% Coverage 9.048
95% KM UPL (t)
8.198
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 17.05
90% KM Percentile (z)
6.931
95% KM Percentile (z) 8.117
99% KM Percentile (z)
10.34
95% KM USL 13.18
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 94
95% UTL with95% Coverage
12
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
8.83
95% USL 13
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
17.05
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Sulfide
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
81
Number of Missing Observations
16
Number of Detects
15
Number of Distinct Detects
12
Minimum Detect
0.14
Maximum Detect
0.46
Variance Detected
0.0106
Mean Detected
0.265
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.399
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.958
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations 13
Number of Non -Detects
66
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Non -Detect
0.1
Percent Non -Detects
81.48%
SD Detected
0.103
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.399
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
d2max (for USL) 3.136
Mean
0.131
SD
0.0772
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.282
95% KM UPL (t)
0.26
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.469
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.23
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.258
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.31
95% KM USL
0.373
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
79
95% UTL with95% Coverage
0.34
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.386
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.777
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
0.309
95% USL
0.46
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.469
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
TDS
Appendix A
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 96
Number of Distinct Observations
50
Number of Missing Observations 1
Number of Detects 81
Number of Non -Detects
15
Number of Distinct Detects 50
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect 25
Minimum Non -Detect
25
Maximum Detect 162
Maximum Non -Detect
25
Variance Detected 1311
Percent Non -Detects
15.63%
Mean Detected 62.21
SD Detected
36.21
Mean of Detected Logged Data 3.998
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.498
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
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 56.4
SD
35.71
95% UTL95% Coverage 125.3
95% KM UPL (t)
116
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 212.9
90% KM Percentile (z)
102.2
95% KM Percentile (z) 115.1
99% KM Percentile (z)
139.5
95% KM USL 170.5
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 94
95% UTL with95% Coverage
157
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
150.6
95% USL 162
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
212.9
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
TOC
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 81
Minimum
0.234
Second Largest
7.9
Maximum
8
Mean
2.589
Coefficient of Variation
0.958
Mean of logged Data
0.442
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.958
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
62
Number of Missing Observations
16
First Quartile
0.549
Median
1.8
Third Quartile
3.7
SD
2.48
Skewness
1.096
SD of logged Data
1.066
d2max (for USL) 3.136
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 79 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.386 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
7.9
95% UPL
7.8
90% Chebyshev UPL
10.08
95% Chebyshev UPL
13.47
95% USL
8
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% 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.
7.9
0.777
124
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.92

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Vanadium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Number of Detects
77
Number of Distinct Detects
70
Minimum Detect
0.137
Maximum Detect
4.48
Variance Detected
1.475
Mean Detected
1.825
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.281
Number of Distinct Observations
71
Number of Non -Detects
20
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
0.3
Maximum Non -Detect
0.3
Percent Non -Detects
20.62%
SD Detected
1.214
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.912
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
d2max (for USL)
3.199
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 1.491
SD
1.259
95% UTL95% Coverage 3.919
95% KM UPL (t)
3.593
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 7.008
90% KM Percentile (z)
3.105
95% KM Percentile (z) 3.562
99% KM Percentile (z)
4.42
95% KM USL 5.52
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 95
95% UTL with95% Coverage
3.88
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.667 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.869
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124
95% UPL
3.84
95% USL 4.48
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
7.008
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Zinc
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
97
Number of Detects
26
Number of Distinct Detects
25
Minimum Detect
1.794
Maximum Detect
23
Variance Detected
18.17
Mean Detected
4.889
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.396
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.928
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
25
Number of Non -Detects
71
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
73.2%
SD Detected
4.262
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.559
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
d2max (for USL) 3.199
Mean
3.767
SD
2.396
95% UTL95% Coverage
8.388
95% KM UPL (t)
7.768
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
14.27
90% KM Percentile (z)
6.838
95% KM Percentile (z)
7.709
99% KM Percentile (z)
9.342
95% KM USL
11.43
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
95
95% UTL with95% Coverage
8
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.667
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.869
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
6
95% USL
23
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
14.27
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
pH
Percent of Parametric Parametric Nonparame Nonparametric
Population Lower Upper Lower Upper
Between Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance
Limits Limit Limit Limit Limit
95 3.389565 7.356209 3.55 7.7
Appendix A

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Appendix A
Normal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 1:55:28 PM
From File
Weatherspoon_BG_GW_Data_PeeDee_No_Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Alkalinity
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
19
Minimum
77
First Quartile
85.8
Second Largest
97.6
Median
87.7
Maximum
101
Third Quartile
91.1
Mean
88.56
SD
5.102
Coefficient of Variation
0.0576
Skewness
0.375
Mean of logged Data
4.482
SD of logged Data
0.0574
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371 d2max (for USL) 2.58
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.955 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.908 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.112 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.188 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 100.7 90% Percentile (z) 95.1
95% UPL (t) 97.57 95% Percentile (z) 96.95
95% USL 101.7 99% Percentile (z) 100.4
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations 19
Minimum
76
First Quartile 85.8
Second Largest
97.6
Median 87.7
Maximum
101
Third Quartile 91.1
Mean
88.51
SD 5.219
Coefficient of Variation
0.059
Skewness 0.211
Mean of logged Data
4.482
SD of logged Data 0.059
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371 d2max (for USL) 2.58
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.951 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.908 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.12 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.188 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 100.9 90% Percentile (z) 95.2
95% UPL (t) 97.73 95% Percentile (z) 97.1
95% USL 102 99% Percentile (z) 100.7
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Iron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Minimum
533
Second Largest
1250
Maximum
1550
Mean
879.3
Coefficient of Variation
0.294
Mean of logged Data
6.741
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
21
First Quartile
706
Median
774
Third Quartile
1040
SD
258.1
Skewness
0.982
SD of logged Data
0.277
d2max (for USL) 2.58
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.919 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.908 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.182 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.188 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1491 90% Percentile (z) 1210
95% UPL (t) 1335 95% Percentile (z) 1304
95% USL 1545 99% Percentile (z) 1480
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
TDS
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations 7
Minimum
78
First Quartile 110
Second Largest
138
Median 120
Maximum
140
Third Quartile 130
Mean
117.7
SD 16.17
Coefficient of Variation
0.137
Skewness -0.504
Mean of logged Data
4.759
SD of logged Data 0.145
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371 d2max (for USL) 2.58
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.927 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.908 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.16 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.188 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 156 90% Percentile (z) 138.4
95% UPL (t) 146.3 95% Percentile (z) 144.3
95% USL 159.4 99% Percentile (z) 155.3
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
TOC
Appendix A
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
20
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Detects
19
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Detects
16
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.12
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Detect
2.3
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Variance Detected
0.362
Percent Non -Detects
5%
Mean Detected
1.154
SD Detected
0.602
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.0216
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.669
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.396 d2max (for USL) 2.557
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.925 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.901 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.167 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.197 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
1.13
SD
0.583
95% UTL95% Coverage
2.526
95% KM UPL (t)
2.163
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
3.733
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.877
95% KM Percentile (z)
2.089
99% KM Percentile (z)
2.486
95% KM USL
2.62
DU2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
1.121
SD
0.604
95% UTL95% Coverage
2.568
95% UPL (t)
2.191
90% Percentile (z)
1.895
95% Percentile (z)
2.115
99% Percentile (z)
2.526
95% USL
2.665
DU2 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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Methane
Gamma Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 1:56:33 PM
From File Weatherspoon_BG_GW_Data_PeeDee_No_Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Coverage 95%
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 10
Minimum
15
Second Largest
238
Maximum
660
Mean
166.7
Coefficient of Variation
1.131
Mean of logged Data
4.607
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Number of Distinct Observations 10
Number of Missing Observations 10
First Quartile
48.4
Median
124.5
Third Quartile
186.5
SD
188.5
Skewness
2.306
SD of logged Data
1.113
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.242 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.746 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.139 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.273 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
1.119
Theta hat (MLE)
148.9
nu hat (MLE)
22.39
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
166.7
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
593.8
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
626.8
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
1058
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
1206
95% WH USL
696.2
k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.85
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 196.1
nu star (bias corrected) 17.01
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 180.8
90% Percentile 399.5
95% Percentile 529.2
99% Percentile 834
95% HW USL 749.1
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Total Radium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 15
Minimum
0.451
Second Largest
2.94
Maximum
4.425
Mean
1.644
Coefficient of Variation
0.664
Mean of logged Data
0.304
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.566
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Number of Missing Observations
5
First Quartile
0.809
Median
1.252
Third Quartile
2.155
SD
1.092
Skewness
1.307
SD of logged Data
0.645
d2max (for USL) 2.409
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
0.284 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value
0.745 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.122 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value
0.224 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
2.746 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.241
Theta hat (MLE)
0.599 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.733
nu hat (MLE)
82.38 nu star (bias corrected)
67.23
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
1.644 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.098
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
3.929 90% Percentile
3.113
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
4.011 95% Percentile
3.762
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
5.466 99% Percentile
5.193
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
5.74
95% WH USL
5.115 95% HW USL
5.337
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Appendix A
Lognormal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 1:57:34 PM
From File
Weatherspoon_BG_GW_Data_PeeDee_No_Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Number of Bootstrap Operations
2000
Aluminum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Minimum
6
First Quartile
10
Second Largest
166
Median
20
Maximum
220
Third Quartile
44
Mean
46.33
SD
60.03
Coefficient of Variation
1.296
Skewness
1.885
Mean of logged Data
3.182
SD of logged Data
1.127
Critical Values for
Background Threshold
Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.371
d2max (for USL)
2.58
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.918
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
0.908
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.137
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
0.188
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
348.9
90% Percentile (z)
102.2
95% UPL (t)
176.3
95% Percentile (z)
153.9
95% USL
441.8
99% Percentile (z)
331.8
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Sulfate
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Number of Detects
20
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Detects
14
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.066
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Detect
1.1
Maximum Non -Detect
0.1
Variance Detected
0.0603
Percent Non -Detects
4.762%
Mean Detected
0.297
SD Detected
0.246
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.454
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.677
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371 d2max (for USL) 2.58
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.943 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.905 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.181 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.192 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
0.286
SD
0.239
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.852
95% KM UPL (t)
0.707
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.351
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.592
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.678
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.841
95% KM USL
0.902
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale
0.286
Mean in Log Scale
-1.518
SD in Original Scale
0.245
SD in Log Scale
0.721
95% UTL95% Coverage
1.211
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
1.1
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage
1.1
95% UPL (t)
0.783
90% Percentile (z)
0.552
95% Percentile (z)
0.717
99% Percentile (z)
1.173
95% USL
1.409
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
-1.515 95% KM
UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
1.15
KM SD of Logged Data
0.698
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
0.754
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
0.693
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
1.331
Background DL/2 Statistics
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
0.285
Mean in Log Scale
-1.528
SD in Original Scale
0.245
SD in Log Scale
0.74
95% UTL95% Coverage
1.256
95% UPL (t)
0.802
90% Percentile (z)
0.56
95% Percentile (z)
0.733
99% Percentile (z)
1.215
95% USL
1.466
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 2:01:49 PM
From File
Weatherspoon_BG_GW_Data_PeeDee_No_Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
85%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Barium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Minimum
35
First Quartile
48
Second Largest
56
Median
51
Maximum
56
Third Quartile
52
Mean
48.95
SD
6.062
Coefficient of Variation
0.124
Skewness
-1.372
Mean of logged Data
3.883
SD of logged Data
0.136
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
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 20 95% UTL with 85% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.765 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage 56
95% UPL
56
90% Chebyshev UPL
67.57
95% Chebyshev UPL
76
95% USL
56
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% 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.
56
0.845
30
56
53
56
56

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Boron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
6
Number of Detects
5
Number of Non -Detects
16
Number of Distinct Detects
5
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
18.06
Minimum Non -Detect
50
Maximum Detect
23.74
Maximum Non -Detect
50
Variance Detected
6.541
Percent Non -Detects
76.19%
Mean Detected
21.27
SD Detected
2.558
Mean of Detected Logged Data
3.051
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.123
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
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
21.27
SD
2.288
95% UTL85% Coverage
24.89
95% KM UPL (t)
25.31
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
31.48
90% KM Percentile (z)
24.2
95% KM Percentile (z)
25.03
99% KM Percentile (z)
26.59
95% KM USL
27.17
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
20
95% UTL with85% Coverage
50
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
50
95% USL
50
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
31.48
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Calcium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
20
Minimum
24.6
First Quartile
26.6
Second Largest
38.1
Median
27.9
Maximum
41.1
Third Quartile
30
Mean
29.58
SD
4.654
Coefficient of Variation
0.157
Skewness
1.262
Mean of logged Data
3.376
SD of logged Data
0.147
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
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 20 95% UTL with 85% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.765 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage
38.1
95% UPL
40.8
90% Chebyshev UPL
43.87
95% Chebyshev UPL
50.34
95% USL
41.1
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% 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.
38.1
0.845
30
38.1
36.2
38.1
40.5

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Chloride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
11
Minimum
2.9
First Quartile
3.2
Second Largest
4.1
Median
3.2
Maximum
4.2
Third Quartile
3.4
Mean
3.371
SD
0.384
Coefficient of Variation
0.114
Skewness
1.123
Mean of logged Data
1.21
SD of logged Data
0.108
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
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 20 95% UTL with 85% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.765 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage
4.1
95% UPL
4.19
90% Chebyshev UPL
4.549
95% Chebyshev UPL
5.083
95% USL
4.2
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% 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.
4.1
0.845
30
4.1
4
4.1
4.18

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Chromium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
6
Number of Detects
5
Number of Non -Detects
16
Number of Distinct Detects
5
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.344
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Detect
0.996
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Variance Detected
0.0674
Percent Non -Detects
76.19%
Mean Detected
0.554
SD Detected
0.26
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.664
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.41
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
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
0.554
SD
0.232
95% UTL85% Coverage
0.921
95% KM UPL (t)
0.964
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.59
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.851
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.936
99% KM Percentile (z)
1.094
95% KM USL
1.153
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
20
95% UTL with85% Coverage
1
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
1
95% USL
1
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.59
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Chromium (VI)
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
19
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Number of Missing Observations
2
Number of Detects
7
Number of Non -Detects
12
Number of Distinct Detects
7
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Detect
0.031
Minimum Non -Detect
0.025
Maximum Detect
0.24
Maximum Non -Detect
0.03
Variance Detected
0.00878
Percent Non -Detects
63.16%
Mean Detected
0.105
SD Detected
0.0937
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-2.607
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.91
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.619
d2max (for USL)
2.531
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
0.0546
SD
0.0654
95% UTL85% Coverage
0.161
95% KM UPL (t)
0.171
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.347
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.138
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.162
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.207
95% KM USL
0.22
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
18
95% UTL with85% Coverage
0.23
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.588
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.802
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
30
95% UPL
0.24
95% USL
0.24
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.347
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Cobalt
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Detects
2
Number of Distinct Detects
2
Minimum Detect
0.46
Maximum Detect
2.15
Variance Detected
1.428
Mean Detected
1.305
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.00553
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
3
Number of Non -Detects
19
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
90.48%
SD Detected
1.195
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.09
Warning: Data set has only 2 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) 1.583 d2max (for USL) 2.58
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.54
SD
0.36
95% UTL85% Coverage
1.11
95% KM UPL (t)
1.176
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.146
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.002
95% KM Percentile (z)
1.132
99% KM Percentile (z)
1.378
95% KM USL
1.469
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
20
95% UTL with85% Coverage
1
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
2.035
95% USL
2.15
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.146
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Copper
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
6
Number of Detects
5
Number of Non -Detects
16
Number of Distinct Detects
5
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.337
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Detect
2.22
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Variance Detected
0.476
Percent Non -Detects
76.19%
Mean Detected
1.311
SD Detected
0.69
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.107
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.72
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
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
0.569
SD
0.513
95% UTL85% Coverage
1.381
95% KM UPL (t)
1.474
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.857
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.226
95% KM Percentile (z)
1.413
99% KM Percentile (z)
1.762
95% KM USL
1.892
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
20
95% UTL with85% Coverage
1.49
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
2.147
95% USL
2.22
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.857
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Magnesium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
16
Minimum
0.718
First Quartile
0.961
Second Largest
1.08
Median
1.02
Maximum
1.11
Third Quartile
1.05
Mean
0.972
SD
0.123
Coefficient of Variation
0.127
Skewness
-1.146
Mean of logged Data
-0.0373
SD of logged Data
0.137
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
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 20 95% UTL with 85% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.765 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage
1.08
95% UPL
1.107
90% Chebyshev UPL
1.349
95% Chebyshev UPL
1.52
95% USL
1.11
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% 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.
1.08
0.845
30
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.104

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Manganese
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
14
Minimum
22
First Quartile
23
Second Largest
49
Median
27
Maximum
58
Third Quartile
38
Mean
31.29
SD
10.56
Coefficient of Variation
0.338
Skewness
1.199
Mean of logged Data
3.396
SD of logged Data
0.305
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
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 20 95% UTL with 85% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.765 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage
49
95% UPL
57.1
90% Chebyshev UPL
63.71
95% Chebyshev UPL
78.4
95% USL
58
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% 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.
49
0.845
30
49
48
49
56.2

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Molybdenum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Number of Detects
9
Number of Non -Detects
12
Number of Distinct Detects
9
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.128
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Detect
8.79
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Variance Detected
9.099
Percent Non -Detects
57.14%
Mean Detected
3.015
SD Detected
3.017
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.303
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.594
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
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
1.521
SD
2.282
95% UTL85% Coverage
5.133
95% KM UPL (t)
5.55
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
11.7
90% KM Percentile (z)
4.446
95% KM Percentile (z)
5.275
99% KM Percentile (z)
6.831
95% KM USL
7.411
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
20
95% UTL with85% Coverage
5.07
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
8.418
95% USL
8.79
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
11.7
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Nickel
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
5
Number of Detects
4
Number of Non -Detects
17
Number of Distinct Detects
4
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.556
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Detect
1.47
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Variance Detected
0.174
Percent Non -Detects
80.95%
Mean Detected
1.152
SD Detected
0.418
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.0747
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.452
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
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
0.669
SD
0.282
95% UTL85% Coverage
1.116
95% KM UPL (t)
1.167
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.928
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.031
95% KM Percentile (z)
1.133
99% KM Percentile (z)
1.326
95% KM USL
1.397
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
20
95% UTL with85% Coverage
1.41
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
1.464
95% USL
1.47
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.928
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Nitrate + Nitrite
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
18
Number of Distinct Observations
7
Number of Missing Observations
3
Number of Detects
5
Number of Non -Detects
13
Number of Distinct Detects
5
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Detect
0.0036
Minimum Non -Detect
0.01
Maximum Detect
0.282
Maximum Non -Detect
0.02
Variance Detected
0.0135
Percent Non -Detects
72.22%
Mean Detected
0.0887
SD Detected
0.116
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-3.46
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.84
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.64
d2max (for USL)
2.504
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
0.0283
SD
0.0664
95% UTL85% Coverage
0.137
95% KM UPL (t)
0.147
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.326
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.113
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.138
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.183
95% KM USL
0.195
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
17
95% UTL with85% Coverage
0.11
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.5
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.776
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
30
95% UPL
0.282
95% USL
0.282
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.326
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Potassium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Minimum
1.37
First Quartile
1.48
Second Largest
1.64
Median
1.5
Maximum
2.14
Third Quartile
1.54
Mean
1.534
SD
0.152
Coefficient of Variation
0.0991
Skewness
3.404
Mean of logged Data
0.424
SD of logged Data
0.0874
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
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 20 95% UTL with 85% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.765 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage
1.64
95% UPL
2.09
90% Chebyshev UPL
2
95% Chebyshev UPL
2.212
95% USL
2.14
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% 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.
1.64
0.845
30
1.64
1.62
1.64
2.04

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Sodium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
19
Minimum
2.99
First Quartile
6.62
Second Largest
7.35
Median
7.02
Maximum
7.37
Third Quartile
7.24
Mean
6.288
SD
1.533
Coefficient of Variation
0.244
Skewness
-1.342
Mean of logged Data
1.801
SD of logged Data
0.3
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
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 20 95% UTL with 85% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.765 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage
7.35
95% UPL
7.368
90% Chebyshev UPL
11
95% Chebyshev UPL
13.13
95% USL
7.37
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% 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.
7.35
0.845
30
7.35
7.32
7.35
7.366

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Strontium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Minimum
149
First Quartile
154
Second Largest
200
Median
157
Maximum
203
Third Quartile
164
Mean
164.8
SD
17.69
Coefficient of Variation
0.107
Skewness
1.266
Mean of logged Data
5.1
SD of logged Data
0.102
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
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 20 95% UTL with 85% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.765 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage
200
95% UPL
202.7
90% Chebyshev UPL
219.1
95% Chebyshev UPL
243.7
95% USL
203
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% 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.
200
0.845
30
200
194
200
202.4

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Vanadium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Number of Detects
8
Number of Non -Detects
13
Number of Distinct Detects
8
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.218
Minimum Non -Detect
0.3
Maximum Detect
1.08
Maximum Non -Detect
0.3
Variance Detected
0.0845
Percent Non -Detects
61.9%
Mean Detected
0.371
SD Detected
0.291
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.152
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.526
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.293
SD
0.18
95% UTL85% Coverage
0.578
95% KM UPL (t)
0.611
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.096
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.524
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.589
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.712
95% KM USL
0.757
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
20
95% UTL with85% Coverage
0.359
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
1.008
95% USL
1.08
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.096
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Zinc
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
7
Number of Detects
6
Number of Non -Detects
15
Number of Distinct Detects
6
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
2.06
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Detect
11
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Variance Detected
10.32
Percent Non -Detects
71.43%
Mean Detected
4.594
SD Detected
3.213
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.376
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.555
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.583
d2max (for USL)
2.58
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
3.679
SD
1.77
95% UTL85% Coverage
6.481
95% KM UPL (t)
6.804
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
11.58
90% KM Percentile (z)
5.948
95% KM Percentile (z)
6.591
99% KM Percentile (z)
7.797
95% KM USL
8.247
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
20
95% UTL with85% Coverage
5
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
10.4
95% USL
11
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
11.58
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Tolerance Intervals Report
Dataset...\Weatherspoon_BG_GW_Data_PeeDee_No_Outliers.NCSS
Descriptive Statistics of pH
Standard Standard
Count Mean Deviation Error Minimum Maximum Range
21 7.210952 0.4257453 0.0929052 6.57 8.36 1.79
Two -Sided 95% Tolerance Intervals of pH
Percent of Parametric Parametric Nonparamel Nonparametric
Population Lower Upper Lower Upper
Between Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance
Limits Limit Limit Limit Limit
50 6.810447 7.611458 6.8 7.8
75 6.527886 7.894019 6.57 8.36
80 6.449979 7.971926
90 6.234254 8.187651
95 6.047144 8.374761
99 5.681449 8.740456
Notes:
The parametric (normal -based) limits assume that the data follow the normal distribution.
The nonparametric (distribution -free) limits make no special distributional assumption.
NCSS 12.0.8 2/7/2020 14:07
Appendix A

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Gamma Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.11/31/2020 3:39:26 PM
From File WSP BG Soil Data No Outliers a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Coverage 95%
Aluminum
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Second Largest
Maximum
Mean
Coefficient of Variation
Mean of logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
General Statistics
28 Number of Distinct Observations
210 First Quartile
29000 Median
29000 Third Quartile
10158 SD
0.774 Skewness
8.842 SD of logged Data
2.246 d2max (for USL)
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.484 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 0.114 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.169 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
24
3150
8600
16000
7866
0.93
1.048
2.714
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
1.446 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.315
Theta hat (MLE)
7023 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 7723
nu hat (MLE)
80.99 nu star (bias corrected) 73.65
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
10158 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 8857
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
28368 90% Percentile
21859
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
30102 95% Percentile
27663
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
37872 99% Percentile
40881
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
41671
95% WH USL
48229 95% HW USL
54903
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Arsenic
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
26
Number of Detects
27
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Detects
25
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.11
Minimum Non -Detect
0.47
Maximum Detect
7
Maximum Non -Detect
0.47
Variance Detected
2.355
Percent Non -Detects
3.571 %
Mean Detected
1.365
SD Detected
1.535
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.248
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.124
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246 d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.403 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.773 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.114 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.173 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
KM Mean 1.326 KM SD
1.493
95% UTL95% Coverage 4.679 95% KM UPL (t)
3.914
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 7.948 90% KM Percentile (z)
3.239
95% KM Percentile (z) 3.781 99% KM Percentile (z)
4.799
95% KM USL 5.378
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.029 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.939
Theta hat (MLE) 1.327 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1.453
nu hat (MLE) 55.56 nu star (bias corrected)
50.72
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.365
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 1.408 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
5.754
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 0.0539 Mean
1.318
Maximum 7 Median
0.715
SD 1.526 CV
1.158
k hat (MLE) 0.938 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.862
Theta hat (MLE) 1.404 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1.529
nu hat (MLE) 52.55 nu star (bias corrected)
48.26
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.318 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.42
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 5.444 90% Percentile
3.148
95% Percentile 4.163 99% Percentile
6.547
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wbdey (HW) Methods
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 5.942 6.487 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 4.232
4.426
95% Gamma USL 7.86 8.935

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Arsenic (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
1.326
SD (KM)
1.493
Variance (KM)
2.228
SE of Mean (KM)
0.288
k hat (KM)
0.789
k star (KM)
0.728
nu hat (KM)
44.19
nu star (KM)
44.19
theta hat (KM)
1.68
theta star (KM)
1.82
80% gamma percentile (KM)
2.177
90% gamma percentile (KM)
3.297
95% gamma percentile (KM)
4.449
99% gamma percentile (KM)
7.19
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 5.644
6.065 95% Approx.
Gamma UPL 4.064
4.202
95% KM Gamma Percentile 3.825
3.93
95% Gamma USL 7.405
8.256
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Barium
Appendix A
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Minimum
0.98
First Quartile
5.775
Second Largest
22
Median
8.25
Maximum
24
Third Quartile
14.25
Mean
10.41
SD
5.988
Coefficient of Variation
0.575
Skewness
0.777
Mean of logged Data
2.158
SD of logged Data
0.675
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246 d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
0.383 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value
0.754 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.0951 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value
0.167 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear
Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
2.874 k star (bias corrected MLE) 2.59
Theta hat (MLE)
3.621 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 4.018
nu hat (MLE)
161 nu star (bias corrected) 145
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
10.41 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 6.466
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 23.25 90% Percentile
19.07
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 23.99 95% Percentile
22.8
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 29.13 99% Percentile
30.94
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 30.69
95% WH USL 35.31 95% HW USL
37.96
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Beryllium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
22
Number of Detects
27
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Detects
21
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.043
Minimum Non -Detect
0.094
Maximum Detect
0.25
Maximum Non -Detect
0.094
Variance Detected
0.00326
Percent Non -Detects
3.571 %
Mean Detected
0.114
SD Detected
0.0571
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-2.294
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.519
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246 d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.563 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.749 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.149 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.169 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 0.112 KM SD
0.056
95% UTL95% Coverage 0.238 95% KM UPL (t)
0.209
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.361 90% KM Percentile (z)
0.184
95% KM Percentile (z) 0.204 99% KM Percentile (z)
0.243
95% KM USL 0.264
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 4.165 k star (bias corrected MLE)
3.727
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0274 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.0306
nu hat (MLE) 224.9 nu star (bias corrected)
201.3
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.114
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.0592 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
14.72
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 0.043 Mean
0.113
Maximum 0.25 Median
0.11
SD 0.0568 CV
0.505
k hat (MLE) 4.17 k star (bias corrected MLE)
3.747
Theta hat (MLE) 0.027 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.03
nu hat (MLE) 233.5 nu star (bias corrected)
209.8
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.113 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.0581
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 14.78 90% Percentile
0.19
95% Percentile 0.222 99% Percentile
0.289
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wbdey (HW) Methods
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 0.275 0.283 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 0.226
0.229
95% Gamma USL 0.325 0.339

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Beryllium (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
0.112
SD (KM)
0.056
Variance (KM)
0.00313
SE of Mean (KM)
0.0108
k hat (KM)
4.031
k star (KM)
3.623
nu hat (KM)
225.7
nu star (KM)
225.7
theta hat (KM)
0.0279
theta star (KM)
0.031
80% gamma percentile (KM)
0.157
90% gamma percentile (KM)
0.192
95% gamma percentile (KM)
0.224
99% gamma percentile (KM)
0.293
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 0.272
0.279 95% Approx.
Gamma UPL 0.224
0.227
95% KM Gamma Percentile 0.216
0.219
95% Gamma USL 0.321
0.335
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Chromium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
25
Minimum
0.53
First Quartile
3.775
Second Largest
26
Median
8.8
Maximum
29
Third Quartile
14.25
Mean
9.898
SD
7.514
Coefficient of Variation
0.759
Skewness
0.932
Mean of logged Data
1.949
SD of logged Data
0.937
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246 d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
0.308 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value
0.762 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.12 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value
0.168 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
1.604 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.456
Theta hat (MLE)
6.172 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 6.8
nu hat (MLE)
89.8 nu star (bias corrected) 81.51
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
9.898 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 8.204
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 26.78 90% Percentile
20.78
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 28.06 95% Percentile
26.04
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 35.44 99% Percentile
37.96
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 38.36
95% WH USL 44.84 95% HW USL
50.03
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Cobalt
Appendix A
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Number of Detects
21
Number of Non -Detects
7
Number of Distinct Detects
19
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
5
Minimum Detect
0.27
Minimum Non -Detect
0.64
Maximum Detect
1.9
Maximum Non -Detect
0.88
Variance Detected
0.23
Percent Non -Detects
25%
Mean Detected
0.816
SD Detected
0.479
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.37
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.596
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246 d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.554 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.749 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.154 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.191 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 0.721 KM SD
0.441
95% UTL95% Coverage 1.711 95% KM UPL (t)
1.485
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 2.677 90% KM Percentile (z)
1.286
95% KM Percentile (z) 1.446 99% KM Percentile (z)
1.747
95% KM USL 1.918
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 3.157 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.738
Theta hat (MLE) 0.258 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.298
nu hat (MLE) 132.6 nu star (bias corrected)
115
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.816
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.493 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
11.8
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 0.27 Mean
0.725
Maximum 1.9 Median
0.505
SD 0.446 CV
0.615
k hat (MLE) 3.263 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.938
Theta hat (MLE) 0.222 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.247
nu hat (MLE) 182.7 nu star (bias corrected)
164.5
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.725 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.423
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 12.4 90% Percentile
1.291
95% Percentile 1.53 99% Percentile
2.047
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wbdey (HW) Methods
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1.933 1.981 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 1.557
1.573
95% Gamma USL 2.326 2.419

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Cobalt (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
0.721
SD (KM)
0.441
Variance (KM)
0.194
SE of Mean (KM)
0.0865
k hat (KM)
2.673
k star (KM)
2.41
nu hat (KM)
149.7
nu star (KM)
149.7
theta hat (KM)
0.27
theta star (KM)
0.299
80% gamma percentile (KM)
1.056
90% gamma percentile (KM)
1.343
95% gamma percentile (KM)
1.614
99% gamma percentile (KM)
2.209
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 1.914
1.961 95% Approx.
Gamma UPL 1.542
1.557
95% KM Gamma Percentile 1.483
1.494
95% Gamma USL 2.302
2.394
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Copper
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
20
Number of Detects
27
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Detects
19
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.39
Minimum Non -Detect
0.43
Maximum Detect
3.6
Maximum Non -Detect
0.43
Variance Detected
0.761
Percent Non -Detects
3.571 %
Mean Detected
1.427
SD Detected
0.872
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.173
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.625
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246 d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.45 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.752 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.138 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.17 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
KM Mean 1.39 KM SD
0.862
95% UTL95% Coverage 3.327 95% KM UPL (t)
2.885
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 5.215 90% KM Percentile (z)
2.495
95% KM Percentile (z) 2.808 99% KM Percentile (z)
3.396
95% KM USL 3.731
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 2.897 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.599
Theta hat (MLE) 0.493 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.549
nu hat (MLE) 156.4 nu star (bias corrected)
140.4
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.427
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.885 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
11.38
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 0.122 Mean
1.38
Maximum 3.6 Median
1.1
SD 0.891 CV
0.646
k hat (MLE) 2.322 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.097
Theta hat (MLE) 0.594 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.658
nu hat (MLE) 130 nu star (bias corrected)
117.4
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.38 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.953
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 9.8 90% Percentile
2.654
95% Percentile 3.225 99% Percentile
4.487
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wbdey (HW) Methods
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 4.215 4.466 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 3.3
3.414
95% Gamma USL 5.187 5.625

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Copper (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
1.39
SD (KM)
0.862
Variance (KM)
0.744
SE of Mean (KM)
0.166
k hat (KM)
2.596
k star (KM)
2.342
nu hat (KM)
145.4
nu star (KM)
145.4
theta hat (KM)
0.535
theta star (KM)
0.593
80% gamma percentile (KM)
2.042
90% gamma percentile (KM)
2.605
95% gamma percentile (KM)
3.138
99% gamma percentile (KM)
4.309
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 3.926
4.076 95% Approx.
Gamma UPL 3.122
3.182
95% KM Gamma Percentile 2.995
3.043
95% Gamma USL 4.772
5.047
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Iron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Minimum
78
Second Largest
12000
Maximum
15000
Mean
4388
Coefficient of Variation
0.964
Mean of logged Data
7.773
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
26
First Quartile
932.5
Median
3100
Third Quartile
6950
SD
4231
Skewness
1.001
SD of logged Data
1.293
d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.505 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.776 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.143 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.171 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
0.947
Theta hat (MLE)
4635
nu hat (MLE)
53.02
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
4388
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.869
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
5049
nu star (bias corrected)
48.67
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
4707
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 14230 90% Percentile 10458
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 15204 95% Percentile 13818
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 19933 99% Percentile 21703
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 22324
95% WH USL 26324 95% HW USL 30787
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Lead
Appendix A
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
24
Minimum
0.57
First Quartile
4.075
Second Largest
17
Median
6.8
Maximum
29
Third Quartile
9.8
Mean
7.96
SD
5.891
Coefficient of Variation
0.74
Skewness
1.911
Mean of logged Data
1.82
SD of logged Data
0.783
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246 d2max (for USL) 2.714
A-D Test Statistic
0.255
Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value
0.757
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.0997
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value
0.167
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear
Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
2.117
k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.914
Theta hat (MLE)
3.76
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 4.158
nu hat (MLE)
118.6
nu star (bias corrected) 107.2
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
7.96
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 5.753
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 19.51 90% Percentile
15.64
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 20.16 95% Percentile
19.15
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 25.13 99% Percentile
26.94
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 26.6
95% WH USL 31.11 95% HW USL
33.74
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Magnesium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Detects
27
Number of Distinct Detects
23
Minimum Detect
33
Maximum Detect
400
Variance Detected
13866
Mean Detected
188
Mean of Detected Logged Data
5.022
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246
Number of Distinct Observations
24
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
210
Maximum Non -Detect
210
Percent Non -Detects
3.571%
SD Detected
117.8
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.701
d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.491 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.754 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.116 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.17 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 185.4 KM SD
114.6
95% UTL95% Coverage 442.9 95% KM UPL (t)
384.1
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 694 90% KM Percentile (z)
332.3
95% KM Percentile (z) 374 99% KM Percentile (z)
452.1
95% KM USL 496.6
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 2.489 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.237
Theta hat (MLE) 75.56 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
84.07
nu hat (MLE) 134.4 nu star (bias corrected)
120.8
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 188
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 125.7 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
10.25
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 33 Mean
185.6
Maximum 400 Median
150
SD 116.3 CV
0.626
k hat (MLE) 2.54 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.292
Theta hat (MLE) 73.07 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
80.98
nu hat (MLE) 142.3 nu star (bias corrected)
128.3
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 185.6 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
122.6
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 10.42 90% Percentile
349.7
95% Percentile 421.9 99% Percentile
580.9
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 547.7 574.4 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 431.9
443.5
95% Gamma USL 670.1 717.6

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Magnesium (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 185.4 SD (KM)
114.6
Variance (KM) 13144 SE of Mean (KM)
22.15
k hat (KM) 2.615 k star (KM)
2.358
nu hat (KM) 146.4 nu star (KM)
146.4
theta hat (KM) 70.9 theta star (KM)
78.61
80% gamma percentile (KM) 272.2 90% gamma percentile (KM)
347
95% gamma percentile (KM) 417.8 99% gamma percentile (KM)
573.2
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 541.5 567.7 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 427.6
438.9
95% KM Gamma Percentile 409.7 419.1 95% Gamma USL 661.9
708.4
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Manganese
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
24
Minimum
1.5
First Quartile
4.025
Second Largest
13
Median
5.6
Maximum
16
Third Quartile
6.675
Mean
6.129
SD
3.316
Coefficient of Variation
0.541
Skewness
1.318
Mean of logged Data
1.681
SD of logged Data
0.53
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246 d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
0.265 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value
0.75 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.128 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value
0.166 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear
Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
3.94 k star (bias corrected MLE) 3.541
Theta hat (MLE)
1.556 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 1.731
nu hat (MLE)
220.6 nu star (bias corrected) 198.3
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
6.129 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 3.257
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 12.48 90% Percentile
10.5
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 12.66 95% Percentile
12.28
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 15.25 99% Percentile
16.1
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 15.68
95% WH USL 18.11 95% HW USL
18.89
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Mercury
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Detects
20
Number of Distinct Detects
17
Minimum Detect
0.021
Maximum Detect
0.11
Variance Detected 5.9669E-4
Mean Detected
0.0432
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-3.269
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Number of Non -Detects
8
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
6
Minimum Non -Detect
0.081
Maximum Non -Detect
0.092
Percent Non -Detects
28.57%
SD Detected
0.0244
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.499
d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.741 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.746 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.161 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.195 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 0.0418 KM SD
0.0222
95% UTL95% Coverage 0.0916 95% KM UPL (t)
0.0802
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.14 90% KM Percentile (z)
0.0702
95% KM Percentile (z) 0.0783 99% KM Percentile (z)
0.0934
95% KM USL 0.102
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 4.083 k star (bias corrected MLE)
3.503
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0106 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.0123
nu hat (MLE) 163.3 nu star (bias corrected)
140.1
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.0432
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.0231 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
14.08
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 0.021 Mean
0.0414
Maximum 0.11 Median
0.0366
SD 0.021 CV
0.507
k hat (MLE) 5.275 k star (bias corrected MLE)
4.734
Theta hat (MLE) 0.00785 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.00875
nu hat (MLE) 295.4 nu star (bias corrected)
265.1
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.0414 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.019
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 17.57 90% Percentile
0.0669
95% Percentile 0.0769 99% Percentile
0.098
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 0.0931 0.0941 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 0.0778
0.078
95% Gamma USL 0.109 0.111

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Mercury (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 0.0418
SD (KM)
0.0222
Variance (KM) 4.9253E-4
SE of Mean (KM)
0.00478
k hat (KM) 3.541
k star (KM)
3.186
nu hat (KM) 198.3
nu star (KM)
198.3
theta hat (KM) 0.0118
theta star (KM)
0.0131
80% gamma percentile (KM) 0.0591
90% gamma percentile (KM)
0.0731
95% gamma percentile (KM) 0.0862
99% gamma percentile (KM)
0.114
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 0.0984 0.0999 95% Approx.
Gamma UPL 0.0814
0.0818
95% KM Gamma Percentile 0.0787 0.0789
95% Gamma USL 0.116
0.119
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Nickel
Appendix A
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
24
Number of Detects
22
Number of Non -Detects
6
Number of Distinct Detects
21
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
4
Minimum Detect
0.45
Minimum Non -Detect
1.7
Maximum Detect
7.7
Maximum Non -Detect
2.3
Variance Detected
5.541
Percent Non -Detects
21.43%
Mean Detected
3.1
SD Detected
2.354
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.768
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.954
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246 d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.44 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.759 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.113 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.189 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 2.618 KM SD
2.247
95% UTL95% Coverage 7.664 95% KM UPL (t)
6.512
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 12.58 90% KM Percentile (z)
5.497
95% KM Percentile (z) 6.313 99% KM Percentile (z)
7.844
95% KM USL 8.716
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.52 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.343
Theta hat (MLE) 2.04 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
2.309
nu hat (MLE) 66.87 nu star (bias corrected)
59.08
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 3.1
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 2.675 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
7.262
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 0.45 Mean
2.633
Maximum 7.7 Median
1.736
SD 2.272 CV
0.863
k hat (MLE) 1.404 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.277
Theta hat (MLE) 1.875 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
2.061
nu hat (MLE) 78.63 nu star (bias corrected)
71.54
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 2.633 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
2.33
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 7.028 90% Percentile
5.708
95% Percentile 7.243 99% Percentile
10.75
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 10.02 10.71 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 7.452
7.713
95% Gamma USL 12.83 14.14

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Nickel (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
2.618
SD (KM)
2.247
Variance (KM)
5.047
SE of Mean (KM)
0.437
k hat (KM)
1.358
k star (KM)
1.236
nu hat (KM)
76.03
nu star (KM)
76.03
theta hat (KM)
1.928
theta star (KM)
2.118
80% gamma percentile (KM)
4.133
90% gamma percentile (KM)
5.72
95% gamma percentile (KM)
7.283
99% gamma percentile (KM)
10.86
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 9.956
10.66 95% Approx.
Gamma UPL 7.392
7.657
95% KM Gamma Percentile 6.999
7.211
95% Gamma USL 12.76
14.1
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Potassium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Detects
25
Number of Distinct Detects
23
Minimum Detect
26
Maximum Detect
300
Variance Detected
7369
Mean Detected
113.4
Mean of Detected Logged Data
4.445
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246
Number of Distinct Observations
24
Number of Non -Detects
3
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
3
Minimum Non -Detect
200
Maximum Non -Detect
240
Percent Non -Detects
10.71%
SD Detected
85.84
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.785
d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.816 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.758 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.164 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.177 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 110.2 KM SD
82.21
95% UTL95% Coverage 294.8 95% KM UPL (t)
252.7
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 474.9 90% KM Percentile (z)
215.6
95% KM Percentile (z) 245.4 99% KM Percentile (z)
301.4
95% KM USL 333.4
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.895 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.694
Theta hat (MLE) 59.86 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
66.96
nu hat (MLE) 94.75 nu star (bias corrected)
84.71
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 113.4
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 87.15 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
8.478
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 26 Mean
109.6
Maximum 300 Median
77.5
SD 81.75 CV
0.746
k hat (MLE) 2.056 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.86
Theta hat (MLE) 53.29 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
58.92
nu hat (MLE) 115.1 nu star (bias corrected)
104.1
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 109.6 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
80.34
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 9.029 90% Percentile
216.8
95% Percentile 266 99% Percentile
375.6
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 352.3 368 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 272.3
278
95% Gamma USL 437.9 467.9

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Potassium (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
110.2
SD (KM)
82.21
Variance (KM)
6759
SE of Mean (KM)
16.3
k hat (KM)
1.796
k star (KM)
1.628
nu hat (KM)
100.6
nu star (KM)
100.6
theta hat (KM)
61.34
theta star (KM)
67.7
80% gamma percentile (KM)
168.9
90% gamma percentile (KM)
225.1
95% gamma percentile (KM)
279.4
99% gamma percentile (KM)
401.2
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 358.1
374.9 95% Approx.
Gamma UPL 275.8
281.9
95% KM Gamma Percentile 263
267.8
95% Gamma USL 446.4
478.4
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Strontium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Minimum
0.28
First Quartile
0.698
Second Largest
3.5
Median
1.2
Maximum
5.3
Third Quartile
2.175
Mean
1.593
SD
1.157
Coefficient of Variation
0.726
Skewness
1.436
Mean of logged Data
0.219
SD of logged Data
0.734
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246 d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.276 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.757 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.102 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.167 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 2.18 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.97
Theta hat (MLE) 0.731 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.809
nu hat (MLE) 122.1 nu star (bias corrected)
110.3
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.593 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.135
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 3.883 90% Percentile
3.11
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 3.978 95% Percentile
3.797
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 4.993 99% Percentile
5.323
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 5.232
95% WH USL 6.177 95% HW USL
6.618
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Thallium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Detects
22
Number of Distinct Detects
19
Minimum Detect
0.028
Maximum Detect
0.13
Variance Detected 9.1140E-4
Mean Detected
0.0615
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-2.9
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
21
Number of Non -Detects
6
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
4
Minimum Non -Detect
0.11
Maximum Non -Detect
0.14
Percent Non -Detects
21.43%
SD Detected
0.0302
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.486
d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.512 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.747 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.146 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.186 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 0.0609 KM SD
0.0289
95% UTL95% Coverage 0.126 95% KM UPL (t)
0.111
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.189 90% KM Percentile (z)
0.098
95% KM Percentile (z) 0.108 99% KM Percentile (z)
0.128
95% KM USL 0.139
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 4.604 k star (bias corrected MLE)
4.006
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0134 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.0154
nu hat (MLE) 202.6 nu star (bias corrected)
176.3
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.0615
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.0307 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
15.53
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 0.028 Mean
0.0604
Maximum 0.13 Median
0.055
SD 0.0273 CV
0.452
k hat (MLE) 5.5 k star (bias corrected MLE)
4.935
Theta hat (MLE) 0.011 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.0122
nu hat (MLE) 308 nu star (bias corrected)
276.3
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.0604 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.0272
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 18.13 90% Percentile
0.0967
95% Percentile 0.111 99% Percentile
0.141
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wbdey (HW) Methods
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 0.134 0.137 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 0.112
0.114
95% Gamma USL 0.156 0.161

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Thallium (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 0.0609 SD (KM)
0.0289
Variance (KM) 8.3636E-4 SE of Mean (KM)
0.00619
k hat (KM) 4.434 k star (KM)
3.983
nu hat (KM) 248.3 nu star (KM)
248.3
theta hat (KM) 0.0137 theta star (KM)
0.0153
80% gamma percentile (KM) 0.084 90% gamma percentile (KM)
0.102
95% gamma percentile (KM) 0.118 99% gamma percentile (KM)
0.153
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 0.141 0.144 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 0.117
0.118
95% KM Gamma Percentile 0.113 0.114 95% Gamma USL 0.165
0.171
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Vanadium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
26
Minimum
1.1
First Quartile
6.225
Second Largest
47
Median
14.5
Maximum
59
Third Quartile
29
Mean
19.27
SD
15.55
Coefficient of Variation
0.807
Skewness
0.96
Mean of logged Data
2.585
SD of logged Data
0.959
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246 d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
0.343 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value
0.763 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.121 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value
0.168 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
1.484 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.349
Theta hat (MLE)
12.99 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 14.29
nu hat (MLE)
83.09 nu star (bias corrected) 75.52
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
19.27 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 16.59
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 53.52 90% Percentile
41.21
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 55.93 95% Percentile
52.03
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 71.44 99% Percentile
76.62
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 77.16
95% WH USL 90.97 95% HW USL
101.4
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Zinc
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Number of Detects
27
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Detects
22
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.86
Minimum Non -Detect
2.1
Maximum Detect
7.7
Maximum Non -Detect
2.1
Variance Detected
4.265
Percent Non -Detects
3.571 %
Mean Detected
3.524
SD Detected
2.065
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.085
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.617
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.246 d2max (for USL) 2.714
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.666 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.752 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.145 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.169 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 3.449 KM SD
2.029
95% UTL95% Coverage 8.007 95% KM UPL (t)
6.967
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 12.45 90% KM Percentile (z)
6.05
95% KM Percentile (z) 6.787 99% KM Percentile (z)
8.17
95% KM USL 8.957
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 3.022 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.711
Theta hat (MLE) 1.166 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1.3
nu hat (MLE) 163.2 nu star (bias corrected)
146.4
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 3.524
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 2.141 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
11.72
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 0.86 Mean
3.446
Maximum 7.7 Median
2.75
SD 2.069 CV
0.6
k hat (MLE) 2.924 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.634
Theta hat (MLE) 1.179 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1.308
nu hat (MLE) 163.7 nu star (bias corrected)
147.5
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 3.446 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
2.123
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 11.48 90% Percentile
6.291
95% Percentile 7.511 99% Percentile
10.17
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wbdey (HW) Methods
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 9.614 9.984 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 7.674
7.827
95% Gamma USL 11.65 12.32

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Zinc (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
3.449
SD (KM)
2.029
Variance (KM)
4.117
SE of Mean (KM)
0.391
k hat (KM)
2.89
k star (KM)
2.604
nu hat (KM)
161.8
nu star (KM)
161.8
theta hat (KM)
1.194
theta star (KM)
1.325
80% gamma percentile (KM)
5.004
90% gamma percentile (KM)
6.314
95% gamma percentile (KM)
7.545
99% gamma percentile (KM)
10.23
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 9.454
9.806 95% Approx.
Gamma UPL 7.569
7.714
95% KM Gamma Percentile 7.271
7.39
95% Gamma USL 11.43
12.07
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Two -Sided 95% Tolerance Intervals of pH
Percent of
Parametric Parametric Nonparame Nonparametric
Population
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Between
Tolerance
Tolerance
Tolerance
Tolerance
Limits
Limit
Limit
Limit
Limit
50
4.372813
5.15433
4.37
5.1
75
4.097128
5.430015
4.06
6.31
80
4.021118
5.506025
4.06
6.31
90
3.810642
5.7165
95
3.628087
5.899056
99
3.271291
6.255851

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.11/31/2020 4:28:38 PM
From File
WSP BG Soil Data No Outliers a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
85%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Antimony
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Detects
4
Number of Distinct Detects
4
Minimum Detect
0.14
Maximum Detect
0.2
Variance Detected 8.6667E-4
Mean Detected
0.17
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.783
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.493
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Non -Detects
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
Minimum Non -Detect
Maximum Non -Detect
Percent Non -Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged Data
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
16
24
12
0.42
0.63
85.71 %
0.0294
0.175
d2max (for USL) 2.714
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.17
SD
0.0255
95% UTL85% Coverage
0.208
95% KM UPL (t)
0.214
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.283
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.203
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.212
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.229
95% KM USL
0.239
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
26
95% UTL with85% Coverage
0.56
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.529
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.813
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
40
95% UPL
0.599
95% USL
0.63
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.283
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Cadmium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Detects
3
Number of Distinct Detects
3
Minimum Detect
0.011
Maximum Detect
0.062
Variance Detected 6.5033E-4
Mean Detected
0.0363
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-3.538
Number of Distinct Observations
11
Number of Non -Detects
25
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
8
Minimum Non -Detect
0.021
Maximum Non -Detect
0.032
Percent Non -Detects
89.29%
SD Detected
0.0255
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.884
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) 1.493 d2max (for USL) 2.714
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
0.0137
SD
0.0104
95% UTL85% Coverage
0.0292
95% KM UPL (t)
0.0317
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.0598
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.027
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.0308
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.0379
95% KM USL
0.0419
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
26
95% UTL with85% Coverage
0.032
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.529
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.813
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
40
95% UPL
0.0503
95% USL
0.062
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.0598
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Calcium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Detects
4
Number of Distinct Detects
4
Minimum Detect
23
Maximum Detect
470
Variance Detected
46643
Mean Detected
146.5
Mean of Detected Logged Data
4.24
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
18
Number of Non -Detects
24
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
14
Minimum Non -Detect
150
Maximum Non -Detect
290
Percent Non -Detects
85.71%
SD Detected
216
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.318
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.493
d2max (for USL)
2.714
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 54.07
SD
80.83
95% UTL85% Coverage 174.7
95% KM UPL (t)
194.2
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 412.6
90% KM Percentile (z)
157.7
95% KM Percentile (z) 187
99% KM Percentile (z)
242.1
95% KM USL 273.5
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 26 95% UTL with85% Coverage 280
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.529 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.813
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 40 95% UPL 389
95% USL 470 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 412.6
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Chloride
Appendix A
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
6
Number of Detects
3
Number of Non -Detects
25
Number of Distinct Detects
3
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
3
Minimum Detect
3
Minimum Non -Detect
11
Maximum Detect
25
Maximum Non -Detect
13
Variance Detected
129
Percent Non -Detects
89.29%
Mean Detected
12.37
SD Detected
11.36
Mean of Detected Logged Data
2.175
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.061
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) 1.493
d2max (for USL)
2.714
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 6.727
SD
4.619
95% UTL85% Coverage 13.62
95% KM UPL (t)
14.73
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 27.22
90% KM Percentile (z)
12.65
95% KM Percentile (z) 14.32
99% KM Percentile (z)
17.47
95% KM USL 19.27
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 26 95% UTL with85% Coverage 12
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.529 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.813
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 40 95% UPL 19.6
95% USL 25 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 27.22
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Molybdenum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 28
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Number of Detects 6
Number of Non -Detects
22
Number of Distinct Detects 6
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
11
Minimum Detect 0.39
Minimum Non -Detect
1.3
Maximum Detect 7.3
Maximum Non -Detect
2.3
Variance Detected 7.555
Percent Non -Detects
78.57%
Mean Detected 1.698
SD Detected
2.749
Mean of Detected Logged Data -0.155
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.083
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.493
d2max (for USL)
2.714
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.818
SD
1.257
95% UTL85% Coverage 2.694
95% KM UPL (t)
2.997
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 6.393
90% KM Percentile (z)
2.429
95% KM Percentile (z) 2.885
99% KM Percentile (z)
3.742
95% KM USL 4.23
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 26 95% UTL with85% Coverage 2.3
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.529 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.813
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 40 95% UPL 5.05
95% USL 7.3 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 6.393
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix A
Selenium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
13
Number of Detects
9
Number of Non -Detects
19
Number of Distinct Detects
8
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
5
Minimum Detect
0.27
Minimum Non -Detect
1.1
Maximum Detect
0.57
Maximum Non -Detect
1.5
Variance Detected
0.0104
Percent Non -Detects
67.86%
Mean Detected
0.36
SD Detected
0.102
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.053
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.259
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.493
d2max (for USL)
2.714
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
0.36
SD
0.096
95% UTL85% Coverage
0.503
95% KM UPL (t)
0.526
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.786
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.483
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.518
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.583
95% KM USL
0.621
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 26 95% UTL with85% Coverage 1.4
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.529 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.813
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 40 95% UPL 1.5
95% USL 1.5 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.786
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.

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Sulfate
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
28
Number of Detects
3
Number of Distinct Detects
3
Minimum Detect
7.7
Maximum Detect
78
Variance Detected
1319
Mean Detected
37.57
Mean of Detected Logged Data
3.231
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
6
Number of Non -Detects
25
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
3
Minimum Non -Detect
11
Maximum Non -Detect
13
Percent Non -Detects
89.29%
SD Detected
36.32
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.159
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) 1.493
d2max (for USL)
2.714
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 10.9
SD
13.4
95% UTL85% Coverage 30.9
95% KM UPL (t)
34.13
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 70.34
90% KM Percentile (z)
28.07
95% KM Percentile (z) 32.94
99% KM Percentile (z)
42.07
95% KM USL 47.27
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
26
95% UTL with85% Coverage
13
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.529
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.813
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
40
95% UPL
55.05
95% USL
78
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
70.34
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
GOODNESS OF FIT TEST RESULTS
(PROUCL OUTPUT
SynTerra

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
pH
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.12/4/2020 11:44:55 AM
From File Weatherspoon_BG_GW_Data_Surficial_No_Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 0.95
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
97
Number of Distinct Observations
53
Minimum
3.55
Maximum
7.7
Mean of Raw Data
5.373
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.886
Khat
39.9
Theta hat
0.135
Kstar
38.68
Theta star
0.139
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.669
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.157
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.954
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.9
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.2981
E-8
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.119
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.967
A-D Test Statistic
1.955
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.75
K-S Test Statistic
0.0966
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0906
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.973
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.938
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.2910E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0885
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0902
Data appear Approximate_Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Alkalinity
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
97
4
93
59
34
36.56%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
34
5
5
5
5
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
59
5.2
143
41.6
24.4
44.08
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
93
5
143
28.22
11.9
39.23
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
93
2.5
143
27.3
11.9
39.79
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
93
-138.9
143
5.257
11.9
62.38
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
93
0.01
143
26.39
11.9
40.38
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
93
0.42
143
27.6
11.9
39.62
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.222
1.171
34.04
3.266
0.94
0.288
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.865
0.844
32.64
2.66
1.096
0.412
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.675
0.66
40.46
2.407
1.361
0.565
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.247
0.246
107
0.388
3.884
9.999
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
2.434
1.398
0.574
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.836 0.781 0.794 0.97
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.682
3.331 E-16
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.6
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.619
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.928
3.3890E-5
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.321
0.115
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.278
0.0921
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.268
0.0921
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.166
0.0921
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.915
0.923
0.93 0.897
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
3.342
0.775
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.202
0.119
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
6.981
0.789
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.194
0.096
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
4.998
0.801
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.201
0.0969
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
6.424
0.894
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.254
0.102
Data Not Gamma Distributed

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Alkalinity (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.962 0.923 0.937 0.99
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.903
7.6307E-5
Data Not Lognormal
0.823
1.110E-16
Data Not Lognormal
0.846
5.984E-14
Data Not Lognormal
0.96
0.0298
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.142
0.115
Data Not Lognormal
0.198
0.0921
Data Not Lognormal
0.229
0.0921
Data Not Lognormal
0.0739
0.0921
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Aluminum
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
97
Number of Distinct Observations
92
Minimum
6.634
Maximum
2150
Mean of Raw Data
401.7
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
453.5
Khat
0.911
Theta hat
440.8
Kstar
0.89
Theta star
451.3
Mean of Log Transformed Data
5.355
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.338
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.857
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.733
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.193
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.981
A-D Test Statistic
0.826
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.787
K-S Test Statistic
0.0723
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0939
Data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.962
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.91
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.9375E-7
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.134
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Barium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
97
Number of Distinct Observations
33
Minimum
7
Maximum
50
Mean of Raw Data
20.66
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
9.148
Khat
5.751
Theta hat
3.592
Kstar
5.58
Theta star
3.702
Mean of Log Transformed Data
2.939
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.422
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.948
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.89
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.1678E-9
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.202
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.981
A-D Test Statistic
1.719
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.754
K-S Test Statistic
0.16
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.091
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.988
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.963
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0419
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.133
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
97
4
93
59
34
36.56%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
34
5
5
5
5
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
59
5.2
143
41.6
24.4
44.08
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
93
5
143
28.22
11.9
39.23
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
93
2.5
143
27.3
11.9
39.79
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
93
-138.9
143
5.257
11.9
62.38
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
93
0.01
143
26.39
11.9
40.38
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
93
0.42
143
27.6
11.9
39.62
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.222
1.171
34.04
3.266
0.94
0.288
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.865
0.844
32.64
2.66
1.096
0.412
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.675
0.66
40.46
2.407
1.361
0.565
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.247
0.246
107
0.388
3.884
9.999
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
2.434
1.398
0.574
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.836 0.781 0.794 0.97
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.682
3.331 E-16
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.6
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.619
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.928
3.3890E-5
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.321
0.115
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.278
0.0921
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.268
0.0921
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.166
0.0921
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.915
0.923
0.93 0.897
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
3.342
0.775
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.202
0.119
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
6.981
0.789
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.194
0.096
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
4.998
0.801
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.201
0.0969
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
6.424
0.894
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.254
0.102
Data Not Gamma Distributed

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Bicarbonate Alkalinity (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.962 0.923 0.937 0.99
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.903
7.6307E-5
Data Not Lognormal
0.823
1.110E-16
Data Not Lognormal
0.846
5.984E-14
Data Not Lognormal
0.96
0.0298
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.142
0.115
Data Not Lognormal
0.198
0.0921
Data Not Lognormal
0.229
0.0921
Data Not Lognormal
0.0739
0.0921
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Calcium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
97
Number of Distinct Observations
83
Minimum
0.901
Maximum
59
Mean of Raw Data
10.02
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
14.87
Khat
0.745
Theta hat
13.46
Kstar
0.729
Theta star
13.75
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.501
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.224
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.78
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.603
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.277
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.932
A-D Test Statistic
5.29
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.795
K-S Test Statistic
0.179
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0945
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.958
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.89
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.0627E-9
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.134
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Chloride
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
97
1
96
95
1
1.04%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
N/A
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
95
1.5
16
5.476
4.7
3.02
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
96
0.1
16
5.42
4.7
3.054
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
96
0.05
16
5.419
4.7
3.055
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
96
-2.594
16
5.392
4.7
3.115
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
96
0.42
16
5.423
4.7
3.048
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
96
0.985
16
5.429
4.7
3.039
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
3.394
3.294
1.613
1.546
0.572
0.37
Statistics (NDs = DL)
2.869
2.786
1.889
1.506
0.691
0.459
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
2.767
2.688
1.958
1.499
0.734
0.489
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
3.098
3.008
1.75
1.521
0.62
0.407
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
1.53
0.59
0.386
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.964
0.969
0.969 0.973
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.92
3.8329E-6
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.935
1.2248E-4
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.936
1.3691 E-4
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.953
0.00706
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.116
0.0911
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.114
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.113
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.107
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.992
0.991
0.991 0.992
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.643
0.758
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.067
0.0923
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.443
0.76
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.0465
0.0921
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.473
0.76
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.0507
0.0921
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.457
0.759
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.0547
0.092
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Chloride (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.989 0.934 0.905 0.991
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.958
0.0186
Data Not Lognormal
0.902
3.0237E-8
Data Not Lognormal
0.857
2.224E-13
Data Not Lognormal
0.97
0.14
Data Appear Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.0649
0.0911
Data Appear Lognormal
0.0678
0.0907
Data Appear Lognormal
0.0789
0.0907
Data Appear Lognormal
0.0666
0.0907
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Chromium
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
97
0
97
49
48
49.48%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
48
1
1
1
1
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
49
0.338
2.56
1.346
1.42
0.544
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
97
0.338
2.56
1.175
1
0.422
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
97
0.338
2.56
0.928
0.5
0.574
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
97
-0.37
2.56
0.993
0.931
0.591
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
97
0.0922
2.56
1.013
0.903
0.546
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
97
0.256
2.56
1.013
0.881
0.534
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
5.115
4.815
0.263
0.196
0.49
2.493
Statistics (NDs = DL)
8.229
7.982
0.143
0.0992
0.36
3.628
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
3.124
3.034
0.297
-0.244
0.566
-2.32
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
3.196
3.104
0.317
-0.152
0.619
-4.073
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-0.125
0.535
-4.285
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.993 0.911 0.887 0.994
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.832
2.220E-16
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.772
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.978
0.447
Data Appear Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.972
0.947
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.0883
0.126
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.298
0.0902
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.308
0.0902
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.0894
0.0902
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.975
0.942
0.948 0.99
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.744
0.753
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.116
0.127
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
7.229
0.753
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.259
0.0909
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
9.06
0.758
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.322
0.0915
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.326
0.758
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.0619
0.0914
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Chromium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.962 0.92 0.9 0.993
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.852
3.764E-14
Data Not Lognormal
0.79
0
Data Not Lognormal
0.968
0.0996
Data Appear Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.915
0.947
Data Not Lognormal
0.134
0.126
Data Not Lognormal
0.257
0.0902
Data Not Lognormal
0.323
0.0902
Data Not Lognormal
0.0731
0.0902
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Fluoride
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
97
44
53
37
16
30.19%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
16
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.433E-17
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
37
0.0413
0.87
0.155
0.0975
0.167
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
53
0.0413
0.87
0.139
0.1
0.142
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
53
0.0413
0.87
0.124
0.0714
0.148
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
53
-0.0989
0.87
0.127
0.0934
0.152
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
53
0.01
0.87
0.125
0.0825
0.149
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
53
0.0271
0.87
0.13
0.0846
0.145
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.631
1.517
0.0953
-2.198
0.749
-0.341
Statistics (NDs = DL)
2.117
2.01
0.0655
-2.23
0.625
-0.28
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.581
1.504
0.0782
-2.439
0.725
-0.297
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.21
1.154
0.103
-2.549
0.993
-0.389
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-2.354
0.708
-0.301
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.788
0.728
0.735 0.828
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.559
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.566
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.719
1.063E-12
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.641
0.936
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.341
0.144
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.392
0.121
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.348
0.121
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.274
0.121
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.933
0.872
0.904 0.938
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
2.751
0.764
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.288
0.147
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
5.741
0.762
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.347
0.124
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
5.258
0.767
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.261
0.124
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.88
0.775
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.204
0.125
Data Not Gamma Distributed

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Fluoride (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.944 0.906 0.901 0.947
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.828
4.8587E-8
Data Not Lognormal
0.808
6.1611 E-9
Data Not Lognormal
0.901
1.6483E-4
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.886
0.936
Data Not Lognormal
0.234
0.144
Data Not Lognormal
0.297
0.121
Data Not Lognormal
0.186
0.121
Data Not Lognormal
0.196
0.121
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Iron
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
97
Number of Distinct Observations
89
Minimum
39
Maximum
10000
Mean of Raw Data
1566
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
1868
Khat
0.799
Theta hat
1960
Kstar
0.781
Theta star
2005
Mean of Log Transformed Data
6.613
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.348
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.871
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.765
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.207
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.995
A-D Test Statistic
0.899
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.792
K-S Test Statistic
0.0961
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0943
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.987
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.954
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00691
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0892
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
Data appear Approximate_Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Magnesium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
97
Number of Distinct Observations
76
Minimum
0.29
Maximum
1.87
Mean of Raw Data
0.847
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.398
Khat
4.01
Theta hat
0.211
Kstar
3.893
Theta star
0.218
Mean of Log Transformed Data
-0.296
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.536
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.957
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.895
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.4840E-9
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.18
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.943
A-D Test Statistic
4.004
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.756
K-S Test Statistic
0.165
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0912
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.947
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.871
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 7.116E-12
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.18
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Manganese
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
97
Number of Distinct Observations
43
Minimum
2.961
Maximum
110
Mean of Raw Data
22.37
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
18.67
Khat
1.921
Theta hat
11.64
Kstar
1.869
Theta star
11.97
Mean of Log Transformed Data
2.825
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.749
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.882
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.788
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.241
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.976
A-D Test Statistic
3.187
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.766
K-S Test Statistic
0.163
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0922
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.978
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.946
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00129
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.124
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Methane
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
97
67
30
22
8
26.67%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
8
10
10
10
10
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
22
13.2
1080
359.7
282.5
306.8
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
30
10
1080
266.5
165.5
304.8
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
30
5
1080
265.1
165.5
306
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
30
-704.9
1080
162
165.5
432.9
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
30
0.01
1080
263.8
165.5
307.2
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
30
3.107
1080
267.4
165.5
304.1
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.015
0.907
354.2
5.318
1.306
0.246
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.58
0.544
459.7
4.514
1.753
0.388
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.507
0.478
523.3
4.329
2.004
0.463
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.255
0.252
1033
2.804
4.437
1.583
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
4.541
1.754
0.386
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.961 0.912 0.914 0.996
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.915
0.911
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.822
0.927
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.826
0.927
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.988
0.927
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.168
0.184
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.207
0.159
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.205
0.159
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.0988
0.159
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.972
0.964
0.957 0.902
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.431
0.77
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.131
0.191
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
1.246
0.802
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.179
0.168
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
1.099
0.809
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.16
0.169
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.834
0.876
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.202
0.175
Data Not Gamma Distributed

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Methane (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.956 0.936 0.936 0.967
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.905
0.911
0.85
0.927
0.85
0.927
0.917
0.927
0.182
0.184
0.177
0.159
0.189
0.159
0.171
0.159
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 Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Nitrate + Nitrite
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
97
14
83
58
25
30.12%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
25
0.01
0.02
0.012
0.01
0.00408
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
58
0.0034
2.9
0.698
0.142
0.892
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
83
0.0034
2.9
0.492
0.02
0.809
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
83
0.0034
2.9
0.49
0.018
0.81
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
83
-1.526
2.9
0.353
0.02
0.945
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
83
0.0034
2.9
0.495
0.0362
0.807
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
83
2.3355E-4
2.9
0.49
0.0195
0.809
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
0.383
0.375
1.822
-2.089
2.306
-1.104
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.325
0.321
1.513
-2.805
2.219
-0.791
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.3
0.297
1.633
-3.014
2.394
-0.794
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.339
0.335
1.461
-2.698
2.178
-0.807
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-3.064
2.529
-0.826
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.877
0.807
0.807 0.934
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.751
1.084E-12
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.641
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.641
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.867
3.418E-10
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.306
0.116
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.353
0.0974
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.351
0.0974
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.277
0.0974
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.889
0.916
0.91 0.919
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
2.951
0.843
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.182
0.125
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
8.048
0.86
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.273
0.106
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
7.633
0.866
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.249
0.106
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
6.873
0.857
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.234
0.106
Data Not Gamma Distributed

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Nitrate + Nitrite (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.946 0.915 0.91 0.962
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.865
6.5272E-7
Data Not Lognormal
0.81
2.554E-15
Data Not Lognormal
0.798
2.220E-16
Data Not Lognormal
0.902
6.0593E-7
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.179
0.116
Data Not Lognormal
0.233
0.0974
Data Not Lognormal
0.188
0.0974
Data Not Lognormal
0.158
0.0974
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Potassium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
97
Number of Distinct Observations
85
Minimum
0.399
Maximum
2.38
Mean of Raw Data
0.995
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.453
Khat
5.546
Theta hat
0.179
Kstar
5.382
Theta star
0.185
Mean of Log Transformed Data
-0.0977
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.43
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.94
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.871
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 7.675E-12
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.161
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.978
A-D Test Statistic
1.371
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.754
K-S Test Statistic
0.111
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.091
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.984
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.948
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00213
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0924
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Sodium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
97
Number of Distinct Observations
87
Minimum
0.913
Maximum
9.78
Mean of Raw Data
3.345
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
1.849
Khat
3.359
Theta hat
0.996
Kstar
3.262
Theta star
1.025
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.051
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.578
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.961
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.914
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.1176E-7
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.117
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.991
A-D Test Statistic
1.086
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.758
K-S Test Statistic
0.102
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0914
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.982
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.943
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.1418E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.107
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Strontium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
97
Number of Distinct Observations
49
Minimum
6
Maximum
313
Mean of Raw Data
60.44
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
84.33
Khat
0.864
Theta hat
69.92
Kstar
0.845
Theta star
71.56
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.422
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.101
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.783
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.604
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.267
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.923
A-D Test Statistic
5.912
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.789
K-S Test Statistic
0.193
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0941
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.956
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.889
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 8.829E-10
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.163
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0902
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Sulfate
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
97
1
96
87
9
9.38%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
9
0.1
1
0.389
0.1
0.386
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
87
0.056
13
3.015
1.5
3.335
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
96
0.056
13
2.769
1.4
3.267
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
96
0.05
13
2.75
1.4
3.279
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
96
-4.67
13
2.545
1.4
3.531
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
96
0.01
13
2.743
1.4
3.285
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
96
0.0324
13
2.747
1.4
3.282
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
0.719
0.702
4.194
0.266
1.505
5.663
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.667
0.653
4.149
0.107
1.547
14.52
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.632
0.619
4.352
0.0416
1.624
39.08
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.571
0.56
4.804
-0.0809
1.858
-22.96
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.0399
1.614
40.43
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.905 0.89 0.89 0.943
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.803
1.110E-16
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.779
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.778
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.885
3.554E-10
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.206
0.0951
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.218
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.216
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.186
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.968
0.97
0.968 0.964
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
1.137
0.797
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.104
0.0999
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
1.463
0.802
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.107
0.0955
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
1.337
0.806
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.114
0.0957
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.799
0.812
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.0895
0.0961
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Sulfate (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.974 0.975 0.976 0.976
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.922
1.9545E-5
Data Not Lognormal
0.922
4.4837E-6
Data Not Lognormal
0.923
5.5327E-6
Data Not Lognormal
0.927
1.5078E-5
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.105
0.0951
Data Not Lognormal
0.101
0.0907
Data Not Lognormal
0.0993
0.0907
Data Not Lognormal
0.1
0.0907
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
TDS
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
97
1
96
81
15
15.63%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
15
25
25
25
25
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
81
25
162
62.21
52
36.21
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
96
25
162
56.4
48
35.9
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
96
12.5
162
54.44
48
37.86
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
96
-51.42
162
50.11
48
44.07
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
96
0.01
162
53.45
48
39.08
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
96
10.4
162
55.31
48
36.96
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
3.918
3.781
15.88
3.998
0.498
0.125
Statistics (NDs = DL)
3.351
3.253
16.83
3.876
0.538
0.139
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
2.331
2.265
23.36
3.768
0.705
0.187
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.001
0.977
53.37
3.402
1.876
0.551
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
3.821
0.622
0.163
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.888
0.88
0.914 0.96
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.774
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.759
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.819
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.914
5.8175E-7
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.207
0.0985
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.191
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.164
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.151
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.947
0.95
0.966 0.956
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
2.624
0.756
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.134
0.0997
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
3.152
0.758
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.132
0.0919
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
1.682
0.763
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.098
0.0924
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
5.286
0.783
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.217
0.0941
Data Not Gamma Distributed

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
TDS (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.971 0.959 0.969 0.989
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.919
2.7019E-5
Data Not Lognormal
0.893
2.7745E-9
Data Not Lognormal
0.913
5.1170E-7
Data Not Lognormal
0.962
0.0392
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.0996
0.0985
Data Not Lognormal
0.111
0.0907
Data Not Lognormal
0.117
0.0907
Data Not Lognormal
0.0754
0.0907
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
TOC
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
81
Number of Missing Observations
16
Number of Distinct Observations
62
Minimum
0.234
Maximum
8
Mean of Raw Data
2.589
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
2.48
Khat
1.12
Theta hat
2.312
Kstar
1.087
Theta star
2.383
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.442
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.066
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.905
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.794
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.441
E-16
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.183
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0985
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.948
A-D Test Statistic
2.052
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.779
K-S Test Statistic
0.134
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.102
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.97
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.911
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.4030E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.104
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0985
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Total Radium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
81
Number of Missing Observations
16
Number of Distinct Observations
81
Minimum
0.11
Maximum
14.24
Mean of Raw Data
2.259
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
2.201
Khat
1.606
Theta hat
1.407
Kstar
1.555
Theta star
1.453
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.473
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.841
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.838
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.727
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.183
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0985
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.957
A-D Test Statistic
0.759
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.769
K-S Test Statistic
0.0695
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.101
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.992
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.99
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.96
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0522
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0985
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Total Uranium
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
97
15
82
66
16
19.51 %
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
16
2.0000E-4
2.0000E-4
2.0000E-4
2.0000E-4
5.599E-20
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
66
6.8400E-5
9.0000E-4
2.5381 E-4
1.8000E-4
1.9468E-4
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
82
6.8400E-5
9.0000E-4
2.4331 E-4
2.0000E-4
1.7571 E-4
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
82
6.8400E-5
9.0000E-4
2.2380E-4
1.5000E-4
1.8486E-4
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
82
-9.491 E-5
9.0000E-4
2.2826E-4
1.6825E-4
1.8761 E-4
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
82
6.8400E-5
0.01
0.00216
2.5750E-4
0.00389
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
82
4.8074E-5
9.0000E-4
2.2868E-4
1.6050E-4
1.8296E-4
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2.084
1.999
1.2182E-4
-8.538
0.718
-0.0841
Statistics (NDs = DL)
2.507
2.423
9.7061 E-5
-8.534
0.643
-0.0754
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
2.044
1.977
1.0951 E-4
-8.669
0.697
-0.0804
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.403
0.396
0.00535
-7.77
1.695
-0.218
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-8.641
0.701
-0.0811
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.914 0.899 0.878 0.927
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.828
2.866E-10
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.805
1.776E-15
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.767
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.862
1.854E-10
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.17
0.109
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.219
0.098
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.206
0.098
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.168
0.098
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.986 0.976 0.974 0.819
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)
1.237
0.763
0.111
0.111
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
1.678
0.761
0.156
0.0997
Data Not Gamma Distributed
3.48
0.763
0.165
0.0999
Data Not Gamma Distributed
11.46
0.841
0.31
0.106
Data Not Gamma Distributed

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Total Uranium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.981 0.983 0.96 0.984
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.938
0.00365
Data Not Lognormal
0.946
0.00416
Data Not Lognormal
0.899
3.7131 E-7
Data Not Lognormal
0.95
0.00834
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.0714
0.109
Data Appear Lognormal
0.112
0.098
Data Not Lognormal
0.163
0.098
Data Not Lognormal
0.0733
0.098
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Vanadium
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
97
0
97
77
20
20.62%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
20
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
5.695E-17
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
77
0.137
4.48
1.825
1.82
1.214
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
97
0.137
4.48
1.51
1.16
1.246
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
97
0.137
4.48
1.48
1.16
1.277
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
97
-1.914
4.48
1.366
1.16
1.439
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
97
0.01
4.48
1.515
1.16
1.244
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
97
0.0859
4.48
1.507
1.16
1.25
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.706
1.648
1.07
0.281
0.912
3.251
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.283
1.25
1.177
-0.0254
1.012
-39.76
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.027
1.002
1.44
-0.168
1.201
-7.136
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.144
1.115
1.324
-0.0817
1.185
-14.51
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-0.0553
1.069
-19.32
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.972
0.938
0.943 0.988
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.92
5.2834E-5
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.855
9.048E-14
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.862
6.023E-13
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.96
0.0238
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.129
0.101
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.177
0.0902
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.164
0.0902
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.113
0.0902
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.947
0.947
0.935 0.945
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
1.373
0.767
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.107
0.103
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
3.384
0.776
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.154
0.093
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
3.065
0.782
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.125
0.0935
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.41
0.779
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.0983
0.0933
Data Not Gamma Distributed

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Vanadium
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.96 0.952 0.941 0.968
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.902
1.8370E-6
Data Not Lognormal
0.88
6.914E-11
Data Not Lognormal
0.852
3.908E-14
Data Not Lognormal
0.913
4.1015E-7
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.146
0.101
Data Not Lognormal
0.153
0.0902
Data Not Lognormal
0.149
0.0902
Data Not Lognormal
0.136
0.0902
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
pH
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.12/4/2020 1:32:46 PM
From File Weatherspoon_BG_GW_Data_PeeDee_No_Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 0.95
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
14
Minimum
6.57
Maximum
8.36
Mean of Raw Data
7.211
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.426
Khat
311.1
Theta hat
0.0232
Kstar
266.7
Theta star
0.027
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.974
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0577
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.962
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.931
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.142
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.147
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.968
A-D Test Statistic
0.431
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.74
K-S Test Statistic
0.135
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.189
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.971
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.947
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.299
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.135
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Alkalinity
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
19
Minimum
77
Maximum
101
Mean of Raw Data
88.56
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
5.102
Khat
318.7
Theta hat
0.278
Kstar
273.2
Theta star
0.324
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.482
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0574
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.97
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.955
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.415
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.112
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.974
A-D Test Statistic
0.397
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.74
K-S Test Statistic
0.109
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.189
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.971
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.959
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.488
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.116
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Aluminum
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Minimum
6
Maximum
220
Mean of Raw Data
46.33
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
60.03
Khat
0.895
Theta hat
51.79
Kstar
0.799
Theta star
58.02
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.182
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.127
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.833
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.697
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 8.7685E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.28
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.978
A-D Test Statistic
1.152
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.775
K-S Test Statistic
0.207
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.196
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.965
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.918
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0751
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.137
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Barium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Minimum
35
Maximum
56
Mean of Raw Data
48.95
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
6.062
Khat
60.5
Theta hat
0.809
Kstar
51.89
Theta star
0.943
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.883
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.136
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.896
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.8
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 3.9582E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.299
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.876
A-D Test Statistic
2.068
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.741
K-S Test Statistic
0.309
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.189
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.875
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.765
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.0024E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.308
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
19
Minimum
76
Maximum
101
Mean of Raw Data
88.51
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
5.219
Khat
302.4
Theta hat
0.293
Kstar
259.2
Theta star
0.341
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.482
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.059
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.967
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.951
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.354
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.12
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.971
A-D Test Statistic
0.433
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.74
K-S Test Statistic
0.118
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.189
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.966
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.951
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.355
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.125
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Calcium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
20
Minimum
24.6
Maximum
41.1
Mean of Raw Data
29.58
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
4.654
Khat
46.74
Theta hat
0.633
Kstar
40.1
Theta star
0.738
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.376
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.147
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.918
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.839
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00204
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.226
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.938
A-D Test Statistic
1.229
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.741
K-S Test Statistic
0.209
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.189
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.937
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.872
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00872
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.2
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Chloride
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
11
Minimum
2.9
Maximum
4.2
Mean of Raw Data
3.371
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.384
Khat
86.67
Theta hat
0.0389
Kstar
74.32
Theta star
0.0454
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.21
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.108
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.909
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.822
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 9.6841
E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.288
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.922
A-D Test Statistic
1.655
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.74
K-S Test Statistic
0.279
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.189
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.922
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.844
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00253
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.272
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Iron
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
21
Minimum
533
Maximum
1550
Mean of Raw Data
879.3
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
258.1
Khat
13.37
Theta hat
65.75
Kstar
11.49
Theta star
76.49
Mean of Log Transformed Data
6.741
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.277
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.958
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.919
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0813
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.182
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.982
A-D Test Statistic
0.441
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.743
K-S Test Statistic
0.166
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.189
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.984
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.965
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.616
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.151
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Magnesium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
16
Minimum
0.718
Maximum
1.11
Mean of Raw Data
0.972
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.123
Khat
59.08
Theta hat
0.0164
Kstar
50.67
Theta star
0.0192
Mean of Log Transformed Data
-0.0373
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.137
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.907
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.814
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 7.1496E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.245
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.887
A-D Test Statistic
1.905
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.741
K-S Test Statistic
0.259
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.189
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.892
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.788
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.4301
E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.263
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Manganese
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
14
Minimum
22
Maximum
58
Mean of Raw Data
31.29
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
10.56
Khat
10.75
Theta hat
2.911
Kstar
9.245
Theta star
3.384
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.396
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.305
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.914
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.83
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0014
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.241
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.954
A-D Test Statistic
1.16
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.743
K-S Test Statistic
0.219
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.189
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.94
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.873
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0091
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.202
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Methane
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Missing Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Minimum
15
Maximum
660
Mean of Raw Data
166.7
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
188.5
Khat
1.119
Theta hat
148.9
Kstar
0.85
Theta star
196.1
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.607
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.113
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.843
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.733
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00169
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.253
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.962
A-D Test Statistic
0.242
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.746
K-S Test Statistic
0.139
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.273
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.988
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.979
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.942
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.164
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Potassium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Minimum
1.37
Maximum
2.14
Mean of Raw Data
1.534
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.152
Khat
126.9
Theta hat
0.0121
Kstar
108.8
Theta star
0.0141
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.424
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0874
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.763
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.612
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.4075E-7
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.315
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.784
A-D Test Statistic
2.195
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.74
K-S Test Statistic
0.298
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.189
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.805
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.677
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.4109E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.291
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Sodium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
19
Minimum
2.99
Maximum
7.37
Mean of Raw Data
6.288
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
1.533
Khat
13.56
Theta hat
0.464
Kstar
11.65
Theta star
0.54
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.801
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.3
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.82
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.665
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.9788E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.362
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.764
A-D Test Statistic
3.619
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.743
K-S Test Statistic
0.377
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.189
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.808
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.649
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.7594E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.378
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Strontium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Minimum
149
Maximum
203
Mean of Raw Data
164.8
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
17.69
Khat
98.08
Theta hat
1.68
Kstar
84.1
Theta star
1.96
Mean of Log Transformed Data
5.1
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.102
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.879
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.764
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 9.7743E-5
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.28
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.893
A-D Test Statistic
2.13
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.74
K-S Test Statistic
0.268
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.189
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.889
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.781
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.8972E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.262
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
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

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Sulfate
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
21
0
21
20
1
4.76%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
N/A
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
20
0.066
1.1
0.297
0.19
0.246
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
21
0.066
1.1
0.287
0.17
0.243
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
21
0.05
1.1
0.285
0.17
0.245
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
21
-0.128
1.1
0.277
0.17
0.257
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
21
0.01
1.1
0.283
0.17
0.247
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
21
0.0615
1.1
0.286
0.17
0.245
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2.238
1.936
0.133
-1.454
0.677
-0.465
Statistics (NDs = DL)
2.168
1.89
0.133
-1.495
0.685
-0.458
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.984
1.732
0.144
-1.528
0.74
-0.485
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.606
1.408
0.176
-1.604
0.953
-0.594
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-1.518
0.721
-0.475
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.854 0.852 0.861 0.891
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.745
0.905
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.739
0.908
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.755
0.908
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.814
0.908
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.276
0.192
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.275
0.188
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.271
0.188
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.256
0.188
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.956 0.956 0.962 0.969
Appendix B
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.962
0.751
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.209
0.196
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.955
0.753
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.206
0.192
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.776
0.754
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.19
0.192
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distributior
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.712
0.757
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.169
0.193
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Sulfate (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.968 0.972 0.978 0.976
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.943 0.905 Data Appear Lognormal
0.948 0.908 Data Appear Lognormal
0.96 0.908 Data Appear Lognormal
0.953 0.908 Data Appear Lognormal
0.181 0.192 Data Appear Lognormal
0.181 0.188 Data Appear Lognormal
0.153 0.188 Data Appear Lognormal
0.161 0.188 Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
TDS
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
7
Minimum
78
Maximum
140
Mean of Raw Data
117.7
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
16.17
Khat
52.06
Theta hat
2.261
Kstar
44.65
Theta star
2.636
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.759
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.145
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.963
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.927
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.115
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.16
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.953
A-D Test Statistic
0.632
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.741
K-S Test Statistic
0.162
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.189
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.948
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.902
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0357
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.154
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.188
Data appear Approximate_Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
TOC
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
21
1
20
19
1
5.00%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1
1
1
1
1
N/A
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
19
0.12
2.3
1.154
1.1
0.602
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
20
0.12
2.3
1.146
1.05
0.587
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
20
0.12
2.3
1.121
1.038
0.604
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
20
0.12
2.3
1.132
1.038
0.595
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
20
0.12
2.3
1.13
1.038
0.596
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
20
0.12
2.3
1.127
1.038
0.598
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
3.188
2.72
0.362
-0.0216
0.669
-31.04
Statistics (NDs = DL)
3.339
2.871
0.343
-0.0205
0.652
-31.8
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
3.102
2.67
0.362
-0.0551
0.669
-12.12
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
3.231
2.78
0.35
-0.0405
0.657
-16.23
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-0.0454
0.66
-14.55
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.964 0.962 0.964 0.958
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.925 0.901 Data Appear Normal
0.923 0.905 Data Appear Normal
0.924 0.905 Data Appear Normal
0.914 0.905 Data Appear Normal
0.167 0.197 Data Appear Normal
0.182 0.192 Data Appear Normal
0.164 0.192 Data Appear Normal
0.171 0.192 Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.97 0.971 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)
0.462
0.748
0.15
0.2
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.484
0.747
0.147
0.195
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.4
0.747
0.119
0.195
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.518
0.747
0.159
0.195
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Appendix B

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
TOC (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.916 0.914 0.932 0.921
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.856 0.901 Data Not Lognormal
0.853 0.905 Data Not Lognormal
0.882 0.905 Data Not Lognormal
0.864 0.905 Data Not Lognormal
0.187 0.197 Data Appear Lognormal
0.184 0.192 Data Appear Lognormal
0.156 0.192 Data Appear Lognormal
0.197 0.192 Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.

W. H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Total Radium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
15
Number of Missing Observations
5
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Minimum
0.451
Maximum
4.425
Mean of Raw Data
1.644
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
1.092
Khat
2.746
Theta hat
0.599
Kstar
2.241
Theta star
0.733
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.304
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.645
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.934
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.876
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.881
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0407
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.191
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.22
Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.988
A-D Test Statistic
0.284
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.745
K-S Test Statistic
0.122
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.224
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.99
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.975
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.881
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.928
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.106
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.22
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
pH
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.11/31/2020 12:37:03 PM
From File WSP BG Soil Data No Outliers a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 0.95
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
25
Minimum
4.06
Maximum
6.31
Mean of Raw Data
4.764
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.439
Khat
131.2
Theta hat
0.0363
Kstar
117.2
Theta star
0.0406
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.557
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0875
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.934
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.892
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00737
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.138
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.946
A-D Test Statistic
0.546
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.743
K-S Test Statistic
0.133
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.165
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.957
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.933
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0816
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.128
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Aluminum
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
24
Minimum
210
Maximum
29000
Mean of Raw Data
10158
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
7866
Khat
1.446
Theta hat
7023
Kstar
1.315
Theta star
7723
Mean of Log Transformed Data
8.842
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.048
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.948
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.891
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00688
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.152
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.976
A-D Test Statistic
0.484
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.764
K-S Test Statistic
0.114
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.169
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.937
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.89
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00661
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.121
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data appear Approximate_Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Arsenic
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
28
0
28
27
1
3.57%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
N/A
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
27
0.11
7
1.365
0.72
1.535
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
28
0.11
7
1.333
0.715
1.515
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
28
0.11
7
1.324
0.715
1.521
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.11
7
1.32
0.715
1.524
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.0539
7
1.318
0.715
1.526
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.11
7
1.326
0.715
1.52
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.029
0.939
1.327
-0.248
1.124
-4.529
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.038
0.951
1.284
-0.266
1.107
-4.158
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.008
0.924
1.314
-0.291
1.126
-3.869
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.938
0.862
1.404
-0.344
1.213
-3.53
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-0.286
1.121
-3.915
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.864 0.858 0.859 0.86
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.76
0.923
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.751
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.751
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.754
0.924
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.221
0.167
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.223
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.221
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.22
0.164
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.984 0.982 0.984 0.985
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.403
0.773
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.114
0.173
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.481
0.773
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.129
0.17
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.483
0.774
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.121
0.17
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.329
0.776
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.105
0.171
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Arsenic (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.992 0.992 0.991 0.991
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.973
0.923
0.973
0.924
0.971
0.924
0.971
0.924
0.107
0.167
0.104
0.164
0.106
0.164
0.106
0.164
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

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Barium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Minimum
0.98
Maximum
24
Mean of Raw Data
10.41
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
5.988
Khat
2.874
Theta hat
3.621
Kstar
2.59
Theta star
4.018
Mean of Log Transformed Data
2.158
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.675
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.963
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.921
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0407
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.167
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.984
A-D Test Statistic
0.383
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.754
K-S Test Statistic
0.0951
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.167
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.955
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.923
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0448
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.116
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data appear Approximate_Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Beryllium
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
28
0
28
27
1
3.57%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.094
N/A
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
27
0.043
0.25
0.114
0.11
0.0571
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
28
0.043
0.25
0.114
0.11
0.0562
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
28
0.043
0.25
0.112
0.11
0.0575
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.043
0.25
0.113
0.11
0.0567
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.043
0.25
0.113
0.11
0.0568
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.043
0.25
0.113
0.11
0.0568
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
4.165
3.727
0.0274
-2.294
0.519
-0.226
Statistics (NDs = DL)
4.293
3.856
0.0264
-2.297
0.509
-0.222
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
3.981
3.578
0.0281
-2.322
0.529
-0.228
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
4.17
3.747
0.027
-2.309
0.515
-0.223
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-2.309
0.515
-0.223
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.962 0.963 0.958 0.959
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.916
0.923
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.919
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.908
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.91
0.924
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.146
0.167
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.129
0.164
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.15
0.164
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.157
0.164
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.982 0.985 0.981 0.982
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.563
0.749
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.149
0.169
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.473
0.749
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.137
0.166
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.641
0.75
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.147
0.166
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.601
0.75
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.143
0.166
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Beryllium
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.978 0.982 0.975 0.978
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.941
0.923
0.948
0.924
0.933
0.924
0.941
0.924
0.169
0.167
0.157
0.164
0.167
0.164
0.164
0.164
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 Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Chromium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
25
Minimum
0.53
Maximum
29
Mean of Raw Data
9.898
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
7.514
Khat
1.604
Theta hat
6.172
Kstar
1.456
Theta star
6.8
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.949
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.937
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.956
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.908
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0185
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.154
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.989
A-D Test Statistic
0.308
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.762
K-S Test Statistic
0.12
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.168
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.974
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.951
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.23
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.148
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Cobalt
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
28
0
28
21
7
25.00%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
7
0.64
0.88
0.734
0.75
0.0785
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
21
0.27
1.9
0.816
0.68
0.479
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
28
0.27
1.9
0.795
0.71
0.416
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
28
0.27
1.9
0.704
0.46
0.458
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.263
1.9
0.735
0.532
0.441
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.27
1.9
0.725
0.505
0.446
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.27
1.9
0.727
0.506
0.443
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
3.157
2.738
0.258
-0.37
0.596
-1.611
Statistics (NDs = DL)
4.09
3.676
0.194
-0.356
0.516
-1.45
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
2.967
2.673
0.237
-0.529
0.587
-1.109
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
3.263
2.938
0.222
-0.483
0.563
-1.165
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-0.475
0.552
-1.163
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.953 0.958 0.906 0.929
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.9
0.908
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.914
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.815
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.858
0.924
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.187
0.188
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.186
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.238
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.234
0.164
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.983 0.993 0.97 0.977
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.554
0.749
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.154
0.191
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.299
0.75
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.123
0.166
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
1.556
0.754
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.21
0.167
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.095
0.753
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.205
0.166
Data Not Gamma Distributed

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Cobalt (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.979 0.993 0.949 0.966
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.944
0.908
0.976
0.924
0.887
0.924
0.922
0.924
0.125
0.188
0.0901
0.164
0.185
0.164
0.191
0.164
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 Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Appendix B

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Copper
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
28
0
28
27
1
3.57%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
N/A
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
27
0.39
3.6
1.427
1.1
0.872
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
28
0.39
3.6
1.391
1.1
0.877
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
28
0.215
3.6
1.383
1.1
0.886
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
28
-0.341
3.6
1.364
1.1
0.919
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.122
3.6
1.38
1.1
0.891
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.321
3.6
1.387
1.1
0.881
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2.897
2.599
0.493
0.173
0.625
3.616
Statistics (NDs = DL)
2.739
2.47
0.508
0.137
0.643
4.707
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
2.505
2.26
0.552
0.112
0.693
6.2
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
2.322
2.097
0.594
0.0916
0.749
8.181
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.126
0.661
5.243
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.955 0.952 0.96 0.972
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.904
0.923
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.898
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.915
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.946
0.924
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.164
0.167
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.166
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.161
0.164
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.149
0.164
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.989 0.989 0.99 0.99
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.45
0.752
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.138
0.17
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.478
0.755
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.142
0.167
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.32
0.756
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.124
0.167
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.285
0.757
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.114
0.167
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Copper (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.988 0.986 0.989 0.99
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.962
0.923
0.957
0.924
0.973
0.924
0.967
0.924
0.131
0.167
0.129
0.164
0.121
0.164
0.126
0.164
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

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Iron
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
26
Minimum
78
Maximum
15000
Mean of Raw Data
4388
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
4231
Khat
0.947
Theta hat
4635
Kstar
0.869
Theta star
5049
Mean of Log Transformed Data
7.773
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.293
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.932
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.86
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00123
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.189
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.975
A-D Test Statistic
0.505
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.776
K-S Test Statistic
0.143
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.171
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.971
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.94
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.127
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.111
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Lead
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
24
Minimum
0.57
Maximum
29
Mean of Raw Data
7.96
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
5.891
Khat
2.117
Theta hat
3.76
Kstar
1.914
Theta star
4.158
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.82
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.783
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.909
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.842
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.5765E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.187
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.98
A-D Test Statistic
0.255
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.757
K-S Test Statistic
0.0997
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.167
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.97
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.957
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.317
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.129
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Magnesium
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
28
0
28
27
1
3.57%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1
210
210
210
210
N/A
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
27
33
400
188
160
117.8
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
28
33
400
188.8
165
115.6
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
28
33
400
185.1
150
116.6
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
28
33
400
186.1
150
116
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
28
33
400
185.6
150
116.3
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
28
33
400
185.2
150
116.5
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2.489
2.237
75.56
5.022
0.701
0.14
Statistics (NDs = DL)
2.573
2.321
73.39
5.034
0.691
0.137
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
2.519
2.273
73.47
5.009
0.692
0.138
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
2.54
2.292
73.07
5.014
0.69
0.138
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
5.011
0.691
0.138
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.954 0.959 0.95 0.952
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.891
0.923
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.901
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.884
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.889
0.924
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.163
0.167
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.153
0.164
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.176
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.165
0.164
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.958 0.962 0.959 0.96
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.491
0.754
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.116
0.17
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.417
0.756
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.108
0.167
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.539
0.756
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.128
0.167
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.526
0.756
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.131
0.167
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Magnesium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.979 0.98 0.98 0.98
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.946
0.923
0.949
0.924
0.948
0.924
0.948
0.924
0.105
0.167
0.0954
0.164
0.103
0.164
0.103
0.164
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

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Manganese
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
24
Minimum
1.5
Maximum
16
Mean of Raw Data
6.129
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
3.316
Khat
3.94
Theta hat
1.556
Kstar
3.541
Theta star
1.731
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.681
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.53
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.944
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.898
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0101
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.194
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.989
A-D Test Statistic
0.265
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.75
K-S Test Statistic
0.128
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.166
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.992
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.988
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.981
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.104
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Mercury
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
28
0
28
20
8
28.57%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
8
0.081
0.092
0.0864
0.0865
0.004
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
20
0.021
0.11
0.0432
0.0345
0.0244
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
28
0.021
0.11
0.0555
0.0475
0.0286
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
28
0.021
0.11
0.0432
0.0415
0.0205
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.021
0.11
0.0423
0.0387
0.0209
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.021
0.11
0.0414
0.0366
0.021
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.021
0.11
0.0411
0.0356
0.021
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
4.083
3.503
0.0106
-3.269
0.499
-0.153
Statistics (NDs = DL)
3.618
3.254
0.0154
-3.035
0.564
-0.186
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
5.638
5.058
0.00766
-3.233
0.423
-0.131
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
5.275
4.734
0.00785
-3.282
0.43
-0.131
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-3.289
0.427
-0.13
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.913 0.947 0.914 0.913
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.833
0.905
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.878
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.843
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.839
0.924
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.184
0.192
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.17
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.231
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.173
0.164
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.976 0.94 0.966 0.963
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.741
0.746
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.161
0.195
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
1.253
0.751
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.183
0.166
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.678
0.748
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.171
0.166
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.803
0.748
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.162
0.166
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Mercury
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.965 0.95 0.975 0.97
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.919
0.905
0.881
0.924
0.946
0.924
0.934
0.924
0.154
0.192
0.18
0.164
0.144
0.164
0.126
0.164
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Appendix B

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Nickel
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
28
0
28
22
6
21.43%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
6
1.7
2.3
1.983
1.95
0.271
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
22
0.45
7.7
3.1
2.55
2.354
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
28
0.45
7.7
2.861
2.25
2.131
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
28
0.45
7.7
2.648
1.65
2.256
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.176
7.7
2.64
1.922
2.278
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.45
7.7
2.633
1.736
2.272
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.45
7.7
2.629
1.65
2.273
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.52
1.343
2.04
0.768
0.954
1.243
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.8
1.631
1.59
0.748
0.844
1.128
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.481
1.346
1.788
0.6
0.905
1.509
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.404
1.277
1.875
0.572
0.94
1.644
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.575
0.929
1.616
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.958 0.946 0.924 0.938
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.903
0.911
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.882
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.84
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.865
0.924
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.141
0.184
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.193
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.225
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.158
0.164
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.96 0.977 0.969 0.969
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.44
0.759
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.113
0.189
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.354
0.76
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.0971
0.168
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.787
0.763
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.186
0.168
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.706
0.765
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.139
0.169
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Nickel (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.968 0.98 0.976 0.974
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.919
0.911
0.944
0.924
0.933
0.924
0.926
0.924
0.114
0.184
0.113
0.164
0.145
0.164
0.132
0.164
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

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Potassium
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
28
0
28
25
3
10.71 %
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
3
200
240
216.7
210
20.82
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
25
26
300
113.4
78
85.84
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
28
26
300
124.5
88.5
87.4
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
28
26
300
112.9
88.5
81
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
28
26
300
111.2
81.9
81.23
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
28
26
300
109.6
77.5
81.75
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
28
26
300
108.8
76.71
82.09
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.895
1.694
59.86
4.445
0.785
0.177
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.937
1.753
64.28
4.544
0.797
0.175
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
2.103
1.901
53.68
4.47
0.745
0.167
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
2.056
1.86
53.29
4.434
0.741
0.167
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
4.424
0.743
0.168
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.929 0.942 0.938 0.93
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.85
0.918
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.87
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.868
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.853
0.924
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.22
0.173
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.203
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.193
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.224
0.164
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.966 0.949 0.977 0.97
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.816
0.758
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.164
0.177
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
1.006
0.759
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.2
0.168
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.603
0.758
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.138
0.167
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.869
0.758
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.159
0.168
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Potassium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.973 0.964 0.981 0.976
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.927
0.918
0.909
0.924
0.944
0.924
0.934
0.924
0.167
0.173
0.204
0.164
0.137
0.164
0.152
0.164
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Strontium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Minimum
0.28
Maximum
5.3
Mean of Raw Data
1.593
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
1.157
Khat
2.18
Theta hat
0.731
Kstar
1.97
Theta star
0.809
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.219
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.734
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.932
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.874
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00268
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.173
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.992
A-D Test Statistic
0.276
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.757
K-S Test Statistic
0.102
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.167
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.993
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.98
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.863
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0832
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Thallium
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
28
0
28
22
6
21.43%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
6
0.11
0.14
0.13
0.135
0.0126
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
22
0.028
0.13
0.0615
0.056
0.0302
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
28
0.028
0.14
0.0762
0.0635
0.0395
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
28
0.028
0.13
0.0623
0.06
0.0268
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.028
0.13
0.0611
0.0574
0.0272
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.028
0.13
0.0604
0.055
0.0273
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.028
0.13
0.0599
0.0546
0.0273
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
4.604
4.006
0.0134
-2.9
0.486
-0.168
Statistics (NDs = DL)
3.659
3.291
0.0208
-2.717
0.56
-0.206
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
5.745
5.154
0.0108
-2.866
0.437
-0.152
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
5.5
4.935
0.011
-2.901
0.44
-0.152
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-2.908
0.439
-0.151
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.956 0.957 0.964 0.957
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.904
0.911
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.892
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.922
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.909
0.924
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.157
0.184
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.159
0.164
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.137
0.164
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.186
0.164
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.986 0.954 0.987 0.986
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.512
0.747
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.146
0.186
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.739
0.751
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.122
0.166
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.506
0.748
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.138
0.166
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.535
0.748
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.127
0.166
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Thallium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.975 0.965 0.977 0.983
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.935
0.911
0.906
0.924
0.942
0.924
0.951
0.924
0.142
0.184
0.122
0.164
0.166
0.164
0.125
0.164
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Vanadium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
28
Number of Distinct Observations
26
Minimum
1.1
Maximum
59
Mean of Raw Data
19.27
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
15.55
Khat
1.484
Theta hat
12.99
Kstar
1.349
Theta star
14.29
Mean of Log Transformed Data
2.585
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.959
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.948
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.892
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00724
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.157
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.988
A-D Test Statistic
0.343
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.763
K-S Test Statistic
0.121
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.168
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.979
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.957
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.322
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0978
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.164
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Zinc
Appendix B
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
28
0
28
27
1
3.57%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
N/A
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
27
0.86
7.7
3.524
2.8
2.065
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
28
0.86
7.7
3.474
2.75
2.044
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
28
0.86
7.7
3.436
2.75
2.08
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.86
7.7
3.44
2.75
2.075
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.86
7.7
3.446
2.75
2.069
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
28
0.86
7.7
3.449
2.75
2.065
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
3.022
2.711
1.166
1.085
0.617
0.569
Statistics (NDs = DL)
3.06
2.756
1.135
1.073
0.609
0.568
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
2.842
2.562
1.209
1.048
0.637
0.607
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
2.924
2.634
1.179
1.057
0.624
0.591
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
1.059
0.621
0.586
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.949 0.945 0.948 0.947
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.887
0.923
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.88
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.883
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.881
0.924
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.211
0.167
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.218
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.209
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.21
0.164
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.964 0.964 0.964 0.964
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.666
0.752
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.145
0.169
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.731
0.753
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.152
0.167
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.66
0.754
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.138
0.167
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.691
0.754
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.142
0.167
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix B
Zinc (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.98 0.981 0.98 0.981
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.949
0.923
0.949
0.924
0.946
0.924
0.949
0.924
0.131
0.167
0.129
0.164
0.128
0.164
0.129
0.164
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

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
APPENDIX C
QUANTITATIVE OUTLIER TEST RESULTS
(PROUCL OUTPUT
SynTerra

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Appendix C
Outlier Tests for Selected Uncensored Variables
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProLICL 5.11/23/2020 12:06:19 PM
From File Weatherspoon_BG_GW_Data_Boxplots_b.xls
Full Precision OFF
Rosner's Outlier Test for Calcium
Mean 29.44
Standard Deviation 4.664
Number of data 26
Number of suspected outliers 10
Potential
Obs.
Test
Critical
Critical
#
Mean
sd
outlier
Number
value
value (5%)
value (1 %)
1
29.44
4.574
41.1
26
2.55
2.84
3.16
2
28.97
4.095
38.1
24
2.229
2.82
3.14
3
28.59
3.705
38.1
25
2.567
2.8
3.11
4
28.18
3.172
36.2
23
2.529
2.78
3.09
5
27.81
2.708
35.9
21
2.986
2.76
3.06
6
27.43
2.068
33.9
22
3.129
2.732
3.026
7
27.11
1.479
30
3
1.957
2.704
2.992
8
26.95
1.349
29.5
20
1.889
2.676
2.958
9
26.81
1.234
29.2
1
1.935
2.648
2.924
10
26.67
1.114
24.6
9
1.859
2.62
2.89
For 5% significance level, there are 6 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
41.1, 38.1, 38.1, 36.2, 35.9, 33.9
For 1 % Significance Level, there are 6 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
41.1, 38.1, 38.1, 36.2, 35.9, 33.9

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Rosner's Outlier Test for Chloride
Mean 3.369
Standard Deviation 0.378
Number of data 26
Number of suspected outliers 10
Potential
Obs.
Test
Critical
Critical
#
Mean
sd
outlier
Number
value
value (5%)
value (1 %)
1
3.369
0.371
4.2
21
2.24
2.84
3.16
2
3.336
0.345
4.1
23
2.214
2.82
3.14
3
3.304
0.313
4
22
2.225
2.8
3.11
4
3.274
0.282
4
25
2.579
2.78
3.09
5
3.241
0.238
3.9
26
2.765
2.76
3.06
6
3.21
0.192
3.8
24
3.074
2.732
3.026
7
3.18
0.14
3.5
4
2.287
2.704
2.992
8
3.163
0.121
2.9
13
2.172
2.676
2.958
9
3.178
0.106
3.4
6
2.096
2.648
2.924
10
3.165
0.0931
3
1
1.768
2.62
2.89
For 5% significance level, there are 6 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
4.2, 4.1, 4, 4, 3.9, 3.8
For 1 % Significance Level, there are 6 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
4.2, 4.1, 4, 4, 3.9, 3.8
Appendix C

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Rosner's Outlier Test for Magnesium
Mean 0.973
Standard Deviation 0.118
Number of data 26
Number of suspected outliers 10
Potential
Obs.
Test
Critical
Critical
#
Mean
sd
outlier
Number
value
value (5%)
value (1 %)
1
0.973
0.116
0.718
22
2.206
2.84
3.16
2
0.983
0.108
0.742
23
2.234
2.82
3.14
3
0.993
0.0976
0.748
24
2.512
2.8
3.11
4
1.004
0.0843
0.79
21
2.537
2.78
3.09
5
1.014
0.0719
0.791
25
3.096
2.76
3.06
6
1.024
0.0532
0.854
26
3.198
2.732
3.026
7
1.033
0.0371
1.11
3
2.084
2.704
2.992
8
1.029
0.0333
0.961
9
2.031
2.676
2.958
9
1.032
0.0298
0.965
16
2.258
2.648
2.924
10
1.036
0.0254
1.08
6
1.725
2.62
2.89
For 5% significance level, there are 6 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
0.718, 0.742, 0.748, 0.79, 0.791, 0.854
For 1 % Significance Level, there are 6 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
0.718, 0.742, 0.748, 0.79, 0.791, 0.854
Appendix C

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Rosner's Outlier Test for Manganese
Mean 31.12
Standard Deviation 11.19
Number of data 26
Number of suspected outliers 10
Potential
Obs.
Test
Critical
Critical
#
Mean
sd
outlier
Number
value
value (5%)
value (1 %)
1
31.12
10.98
58
26
2.449
2.84
3.16
2
30.04
9.96
57
25
2.707
2.82
3.14
3
28.92
8.402
49
23
2.39
2.8
3.11
4
28.04
7.395
48
24
2.699
2.78
3.09
5
27.14
6.12
41
2
2.265
2.76
3.06
6
26.48
5.409
39
3
2.315
2.732
3.026
7
25.85
4.705
38
22
2.583
2.704
2.992
8
25.21
3.838
37
21
3.072
2.676
2.958
9
24.56
2.64
31
1
2.441
2.648
2.924
10
24.18
2.157
28
7
1.772
2.62
2.89
For 5% significance level, there are 8 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
58, 57, 49, 48, 41, 39, 38, 37
For 1 % Significance Level, there are 8 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
58, 57, 49, 48, 41, 39, 38, 37
Appendix C

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Dixon's Outlier Test for Methane
Number of Observations = 14
10% critical value: 0.492
5% critical value: 0.546
1 % critical value: 0.641
1. Observation Value 660 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.755
For 10% significance level, 660 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 660 is an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 660 is an outlier.
2. Observation Value 15 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.127
For 10% significance level, 15 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 15 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 15 is not an outlier.
Appendix C

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Rosner's Outlier Test for Potassium
Mean 1.513
Standard Deviation 0.143
Number of data 26
Number of suspected outliers 10
Potential
Obs.
Test
Critical
Critical
#
Mean
sd
outlier
Number
value
value (5%)
value (1 %)
1
1.513
0.14
2.14
22
4.481
2.84
3.16
2
1.488
0.0645
1.64
23
2.349
2.82
3.14
3
1.482
0.0575
1.62
2
2.399
2.8
3.11
4
1.476
0.0505
1.37
16
2.1
2.78
3.09
5
1.481
0.046
1.4
25
1.76
2.76
3.06
6
1.485
0.0433
1.55
8
1.506
2.732
3.026
7
1.482
0.0417
1.42
12
1.474
2.704
2.992
8
1.485
0.0402
1.42
24
1.611
2.676
2.958
9
1.488
0.0381
1.43
9
1.532
2.648
2.924
10
1.492
0.0363
1.44
4
1.427
2.62
2.89
For 5% Significance Level, there is 1 Potential Outlier
Potential outliers is: 2.14
For 1 % Significance Level, there is 1 Potential Outlier
Potential outliers is: 2.14
Appendix C

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Rosner's Outlier Test for Sodium
Mean 6.263
Standard Deviation 1.559
Number of data 26
Number of suspected outliers 10
Potential
Obs.
Test
Critical
Critical
#
Mean
sd
outlier
Number
value
value (5%)
value (1 %)
1
6.263
1.529
2.85
25
2.233
2.84
3.16
2
6.399
1.423
2.99
21
2.395
2.82
3.14
3
6.541
1.26
3.51
24
2.405
2.8
3.11
4
6.673
1.107
3.78
26
2.615
2.78
3.09
5
6.805
0.931
3.8
23
3.229
2.76
3.06
6
6.948
0.661
4.18
22
4.189
2.732
3.026
7
7.086
0.19
6.62
16
2.451
2.704
2.992
8
7.111
0.16
7.37
18
1.626
2.676
2.958
9
7.096
0.151
7.35
17
1.682
2.648
2.924
10
7.081
0.141
7.32
2
1.691
2.62
2.89
For 5% significance level, there are 6 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
2.85, 2.99, 3.51, 3.78, 3.8, 4.18
For 1 % Significance Level, there are 6 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
2.85, 2.99, 3.51, 3.78, 3.8, 4.18
Appendix C

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Rosner's Outlier Test for Strontium
Mean 164.4
Standard Deviation 17.65
Number of data 26
Number of suspected outliers 10
Potential
Obs.
Test
Critical
Critical
#
Mean
sd
outlier
Number
value
value (5%)
value (1 %)
1
164.4
17.31
203
26
2.231
2.84
3.16
2
162.8
16.12
200
24
2.305
2.82
3.14
3
161.3
14.44
197
25
2.472
2.8
3.11
4
159.7
12.56
194
23
2.729
2.78
3.09
5
158.2
10.33
188
21
2.886
2.76
3.06
6
156.8
8.093
187
22
3.737
2.732
3.026
7
155.3
4.29
164
3
2.039
2.704
2.992
8
154.8
3.867
162
5
1.865
2.676
2.958
9
154.4
3.55
162
15
2.144
2.648
2.924
10
153.9
3.092
149
11
1.598
2.62
2.89
For 5% significance level, there are 6 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
203, 200, 197, 194, 188, 187
For 1 % Significance Level, there are 6 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
203, 200, 197, 194, 188, 187
Appendix C

W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant
Rosner's Outlier Test for Sulfate
Mean 0.282
Standard Deviation 0.233
Number of data 26
Number of suspected outliers 10
Potential
Obs.
Test
Critical
Critical
#
Mean
sd
outlier
Number
value
value (5%)
value (1 %)
1
0.282
0.229
1.1
22
3.577
2.84
3.16
2
0.249
0.166
0.63
25
2.289
2.82
3.14
3
0.234
0.149
0.62
21
2.588
2.8
3.11
4
0.217
0.127
0.53
1
2.459
2.78
3.09
5
0.203
0.11
0.52
23
2.885
2.76
3.06
6
0.187
0.0862
0.48
19
3.393
2.732
3.026
7
0.173
0.0557
0.3
24
2.285
2.704
2.992
8
0.166
0.0482
0.066
26
2.077
2.676
2.958
9
0.172
0.0429
0.25
20
1.827
2.648
2.924
10
0.167
0.0393
0.24
8
1.854
2.62
2.89
For 5% significance level, there are 6 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
1.1, 0.63, 0.62, 0.53, 0.52, 0.48
For 1 % Significance Level, there are 6 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
1.1, 0.63, 0.62, 0.53, 0.52, 0.48
Appendix C