HF Lee - BTV Report_FINAL_20200409

C(> DUKE
C ENEnNf",*Xf%.7
April 8, 2020
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Attn: Mr. William Hart (submitted electronically via email)
Re: H.F. Lee Energy Complex Updated Background Threshold Values
Dear Mr. Hart:
Mailing Address
410 S. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Mail Code NC15
919-546-2104
Duke Energy submits the enclosed updated background groundwater dataset through August 2019 and
background soil dataset through October 2017 for the H.F. Lee Energy Complex. These data were used to
calculate updated background threshold values (BTVs) for soil and groundwater as described in the
attached report, "Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
and Soil" prepared for Duke Energy by SynTerra Corporation. Calculations were completed consistent
with the "Statistical Methods for Developing Reference Background Concentrations for Groundwater and
Soil atCoalAsh Facilities" dated May 2017 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 919-546-2104 at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
I�
1S
Andrew W. Shull, P.E.
Duke Energy, Environmental Services
cc (via email): Mr. Eric Smith — DEQ Central Office
Mr. Steve Lanter — DEQ Central Office
Mr. David May — DEQ Washington Regional Office
Mr. Ed Sullivan - Duke Energy
Mr. Scott Davies — Duke Energy
Mr. John Toepfer —Duke Energy
Mr. Chad Ponce — SynTerra
Mr. Justin Mahan — SynTerra
enc: Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater and Soil,
H.F. Lee Energy Complex; SynTerra Corporation, March 2020

161p
synTerra
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES
FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER AND SOIL
H. F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
1199 BLACKJACK CHURCH ROAD
GOLDSBORO, NC 27530
MARCH 2O20
PREPARED FOR:
/DUKE
ENERGY
PROGRESS
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
Jess Gilmer
Project Scientist
7�?�Ow
Chad Ponce
Project Manager

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - H.F. Lee Energy Complex 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................................................................................. 2-2
2.4 Description of Background Datasets..........................................................................2-4
2.4.1 Groundwater........................................................................................................... 2-4
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 — H.F. Lee Energy Complex
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
— Black Creek Flow Zone
Table 7
Statistical Analysis Results
— Cape Fear Flow Zone
Table 8
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 — H.F. Lee Energy Complex, March 25, 2020.
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 — H.F. Lee Energy Complex
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
H.F. Lee/Site
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
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
March 2020
SynTerra
Page iii

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — H.F. Lee Energy Complex
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 H.F. Lee Energy
Complex (H.F. Lee, Site) (Table 1). This report includes an attachment titled,
"Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation — H.F. Lee Energy Complex,
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, H.F. Lee Energy Complex — Goldsboro,
NC (September 5, 2017)
• Background Threshold Values for Soil, H.F. Lee Energy Complex — Goldsboro, 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).
Groundwater BTVs 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 — H.F. Lee Energy Complex
SynTerra
No unsaturated soil BTVs were provided in the September 5, 2017 TM (Table 2) because
only one background unsaturated soil sample, AMW-16BC (19-21), 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 2015 to August 2019
• Extreme outlier concentrations not caused by sampling error or laboratory
analytical error
The 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 collected from
May 2016 to October 2017
• 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 H.F. Lee
• 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 — H.F. Lee Energy Complex
SynTerra
2.0 BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER AND SOIL DATASETS
2.1 Groundwater
Three distinct hydrogeologic flow zones at H.F. Lee have been identified
(SynTerra, 2015):
• Surficial flow zone
• Black Creek flow zone
• Cape Fear flow zone
The background groundwater dataset for each of the distinct flow zones consisted 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 groundwater quality is not affected by coal ash management or storage. 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
• 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)
Page 2-1

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
• 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 consisted 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:
• "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
Page 2-2

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — H.F. Lee Energy Complex
SynTerra
memorandum prepared by Arcadis titled, "Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier
Evaluation — H.F. Lee Energy Complex, March 25, 2020" (Attachment 1). This is consistent
with USEPA guidance (2009, 2018), which recommends the following:
• Outlier concentrations should not be removed from background datasets
based solely on statistical methods because statistical methods do not indicate
why outlying concentrations are abnormal with respect to the rest of the
background dataset.
• Statistical outliers should be retained in background datasets unless a specific
technical reason (e.g., sampling or laboratory error) for the concentration can
be determined.
SynTerra conducted data validation of extreme outlier concentrations. Arcadis
evaluated extreme outlier concentrations identified in the background groundwater
datasets and background unsaturated soil datasets for H.F. Lee 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
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 each 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)
Page 2-3

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
• 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 H.F. Lee 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.
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
Seven wells (AMW-11S, AMW-12S, AMW-13S, AMW-17S, CCR-100S, IMW-
1S, and IMW-3S) are used to monitor background groundwater quality
within the surficial flow zone at H.F. Lee (Figure 1). To statistically derive the
updated BTVs provided in this report, concentration data from the seven
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).
Black Creek Flow Zone
On June 8, 2017, Duke Energy, NCDEQ, and SynTerra discussed the limited
occurrence of the Black Creek flow zone at the Site. The Black Creek flow
zone is limited in both horizontal and vertical extent at the Site and has only
been identified in borings conducted east of the active ash basin (Figure 1).
Because the Black Creek flow zone is limited in extent at H.F. Lee, only one
background well (AMW-17BC) has been installed in the Black Creek flow
zone at the Site to monitor background groundwater quality within the flow
zone at H.F. Lee (Figure 1). The statistical derivation of BTVs for the Black
Creek flow zone was not completed prior to this report because the
background datasets for each monitored constituent contained less than 10
valid samples. As of August 2019, 18 of the 41 constituents monitored in the
Black Creek flow zone had background datasets that contained less than 10
valid sample data (Table 3 and Table 6). BTVs were calculated for the 41
constituents monitored in the Black Creek flow zone (Table 1).
Page 24

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — H.F. Lee Energy Complex
SynTerra
Cape Fear Flow Zone
Seven wells (AMW-11BC, AMW-12BC, AMW-13BC, AMW-16BC, IMW-1BC,
IMW-2BC, and IMW-3BC) are used to monitor background groundwater
quality within the Cape Fear flow zone at H.F. Lee (Figure 1). To statistically
derive the updated BTVs provided in this report, concentration data from the
seven background wells were included in the background dataset pertaining
to the Cape Fear flow zone. The background datasets for constituents (except
fluoride) in the Cape Fear flow zone contain 10 or more valid sample data
(Table 7).
2.4.2 Unsaturated Soil
Unsaturated soil samples were collected from 16 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 8).
Page 2-5

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — H.F. Lee Energy Complex 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 H.F. Lee
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 — H.F. Lee Energy Complex SynTerra
Site -specific BTVs represented by the UTL and maximum non -detect value are
identified in Table 5 through Table 8.
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 — H.F. Lee Energy Complex
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 7, and details about the distribution of background unsaturated
soil data are provided in Table 8.
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 — H.F. Lee Energy Complex 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
Dixon's outlier test was used when the background dataset for a constituent contained
fewer than 25 samples. Rosner's outlier test was used when the background dataset for
a constituent contained more than 25 samples. Both Dixon's outlier test and Rosner's
Page 34

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — H.F. Lee Energy Complex
SynTerra
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 or Rosner's outlier test were used to screen the background dataset for
a constituent for extreme outlier concentrations only when the aforementioned
assumption was met (Appendix C).
Extreme outlier concentrations identified in the 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 — H.F. Lee Energy Complex 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 Corporation (2015). Comprehensive Site Assessment Update. H.F. Lee Energy
Complex. 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 — H.F. Lee Energy Complex
FIGURE
SynTerra

IMW-1/S/BC Q
T
A
Z
O
�1
O
A
AMW-17S/BC
BGSB-15
, I ♦,1
BGSB-13 .' - . _ -
SNFE,o�o BGSB-12 � OBGSB-14 � 000
o5M • BGSB-10 CCR-100S
000
BGSB-9 ' � AMW-16BC . oo ;
BGSB-5 AMW-12S/BC BGSB-8 O BGSB-11 �' � •, ♦♦
,00'0 �.��
BGSB-4 ♦ BGSB-6 'p o `•♦
IMW-3/S/BC AMW-11S/BC
® ' ' • /BGSB-7 �i' �
♦ IBGSB-3 I 1 ♦� ♦•
♦ 0
BGSB-2 O BGSB-1 • ,
INACTIVE
ASH
BASIN 3
®AMW-13S/BC � ♦ •
/� � `♦ ♦ - ter- - �
10
1 '
LEGEND
I■ li� GROUNDWATER SAMPLE LOCATION
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
I _ - ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY
- • ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
- - DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS PROPERTY LINE
— - - STREAM (AMEC NRTR)
%� DUKE
GRAPHIC SCALE
600 0 600 1,200
ENERGY(IN
FEET)
PROGRESS
DRAWN BY: A. ROBINSON
REVISED BY: A. ROBINSON
DATE: 02/20/2020
DATE: 02/20/2020
CHECKED BY: J. GILMER
DATE: 02/20/2020
APPROVED BY: C. PONCE
DATE: 02/20/2020
PROJECT MANAGER: C. PONCE
NOTES:
1. THE WATERS OF THE US HAVE 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 BY MCKIM & CREED MARCH 2O16.
2. ALL BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.
3. PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS.
4. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM TERRASEVER ON JUNE 18, 2019. AERIAL
WAS COLLECTED ON JANUARY 9, 2019.
5. DRAWING HAS BEEN SET WITH A PROJECTION OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE
COORDINATE SYSTEM RIPS 3200 (NAD83).
FIGURE 1
BACKGROUND SAMPLE LOCATIONS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
GOLDSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — H.F. Lee Energy Complex
TABLES
SynTerra

TABLE 1
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Constituent
Reporting Unit
15A NCAC 02L
Standard
Historical BTVs (2017)1
Updated BTVs (2020)2
Surficial
Black Creek
Cape Fear
Surficial
Black Creek
Cape Fear
pH*
S.U.
6.5 - 8.5
3.4 - 6.8
---
5.3 - 8.3
3.9 - 6.6
6.6 - 7.6
5.0 - 8.5
Alkalinity
mg/L
NE
73
---
219
77
129
207
Aluminum
pg/L
NE
1,059
---
264
816
128
271
Antimony
pg/L
1*
1
---
1
1
1
1
Arsenic
pg/L
10
1
---
1
1
3
1
Barium
pg/L
700
641
---
342
584
64
361
Beryllium
pg/L
4*
1
---
1
1
1
1
Bicarbonate
mg/L
NE
74
---
219
77
129
207
Boron
pg/L
700
50
---
256
76
317
298
Cadmium
pg/L
2
1
---
1
1
1
1
Calcium
mg/L
NE
11
---
31
14
32
31
Carbonate
mg/L
NE
5
---
5
5
5
5
Chloride
mg/L
250
19
---
72
46
31
74
Chromium
pg/L
10
1
---
1
1
1
1
Chromium (VI)
pg/L
10
0.4
---
0.2
0.5
0.03
2
Cobalt
pg/L
1*
14
---
9
13
5
14
Copper
pg/L
1,000
4
---
1
6
1
2
Fluoride
mg/L
2
---
---
---
0.1
0.1
0.2
Iron
pg/L
300
6,320
---
11,600
34,500
2,412
12,200
Lead
pg/L
15
3
---
1
5
1
1
Lithium
pg/L
NE
---
---
---
19
8
26
Magnesium
mg/L
NE
7
---
7
10
9
7
Manganese
pg/L
50
1,140
---
1,560
659
217
1,750
Mercury
pg/L
1
0.05
---
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Methane
pg/L
NE
17
---
7,701
7,070
10
6,590
Molybdenum
pg/L
NE
1
---
11
1
1
14
Nickel
pg/L
100
10
---
15
14
4
41
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg/L
NE
11
---
1
11
0.08
2
Potassium
mg/L
NE
5
---
5
6
7
6
Selenium
pg/L
20
1
---
1
1
1
1
Sodium
mg/L
NE
12
---
102
30
54
124
Strontium
pg/L
NE
119
---
133
122
173
140
Sulfate
mg/L
250
55
---
23
35
79
22
Sulfide
mg/L
NE
0.1
---
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
TDS
mg/L
500
163
---
385
157
290
423
Thallium
pg/L
0.2*
0.2
---
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
TOC
mg/L
NE
2
---
2
3
1
4
Total Radium
pCi/L
5A
23
---
3
18
2
5
Total Uranium
pg/mL
0.03A
0.002
---
0.0004
0.002
0.0005
0.0004
Vanadium
pg/L
0.3*
0.5
---
3
0.7
0.8
3
Zinc
pg/L
1,000
21
---
8
28
8
89
Prepared by: HES Checked by: HEG
Notes:
- Background threshold value (BTV) not calculated for constituent.
* - Interim maximum allowable concentration of the 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02L Standard, Appendix 1, April 1, 2013.
A - 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 2015 to August 2019.
pg/L - micrograms per liter
pg/mL - micrograms per milliliter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
NE - not established
pCi/L - picocuries per liter
S.U. - standard units
TDS - total dissolved solids
TOC - total organic carbon
Page 1 of 1

TABLE 2
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN UNSATURATED SOIL
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Constituent
PSRG Protection of
Groundwater
Historical BTV (2017)1
Updated BTV (2020)2
pH
NE
---
3.9 - 6.2
Aluminum
110,000
---
38,050
Antimony
0.9
---
0.7
Arsenic
5.8
---
2
Barium
580
---
64
Beryllium
63
---
1.1
Boron
45
---
2.8
Cadmium
3
---
0.1
Calcium
NE
---
267
Chloride
NE
13
Chromium
3.8
---
44
Cobalt
0.9
---
11
Copper
700
---
21
Iron
150
- -
30,147
Lead
270
---
17
Magnesium
NE
---
2,104
Manganese
65
---
125
Mercury
1
---
0.1
Molybdenum
7.1
- -
3.7
Nickel
130
---
11
Nitrate (as N)
NE
---
0.3
Potassium
NE
- -
1,027
Selenium
2.1
---
1.4
Sodium
NE
---
1,200
Strontium
1,500
---
7
Sulfate
2,938
---
140
Thallium
0.28
---
0.29
Vanadium
350
---
94
Zinc
1,200
---
48
Prepared by: HES Checked by: HEG
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 Updated BTVs calculated using data from background unsaturated soil samples collected May 2016 to October 2017.
All constituents except for pH are reported in milligrams per kilogram.
NO - non -detect. Reporting limit not provided.
NE - not established
pH reported in standard units.
PSRG - preliminary soil remediation goal
Page 1 of 1

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Alkalinity
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Date
S.U.
Ft (BTOC)
°C
Ns/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg/L
Ng/L
pg/L
pg/L
lig/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
NgA
Ng/L
mg/L
AMW-11S
Surficial
03/02/2015
5.6
4.40
13
82
1.76
9
214
7.0
11
51
<1
<1
16
<1
11
<50
<1
4.16
<10
11
<1
---
12.5
<1
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
06/11/2015
4.4
6.50
17
70
1.55
293
498
2.8
109
<1
<1
119
<1
<10
<50
<1
1.79
<10
12
<1
---
9.13
<1
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
09/24/2015
5.3
8.55
19
56
2.40
193
398
5.3
---
289
<1
<1
64
<1
---
<50
<1
1.41
---
---
<1
---
7.65
1.33
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
12/04/2015
5.0
5.38
16
57
5.00
322
527
1.4
<5
76
<1
<1
95
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.19
<5
9.9
<1
0.041
7.96
<1
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
01/12/2016
5.1
3.73
16
57
1.23
141
346
1.7
<5
129
<1
<1
119
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.26
<5
11
<1
0.049
7.54
<1
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
03/01/2016
4.9 S
3.95
15
57 S
1.76 S
248
453
2.4
<5
172
<1
<1
124
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.13
<5
9.7
<1
0.035
6.76
<1
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
06/07/2016
4.7
6.41
18
63
4.09
327
532
1.9
<5
186
<1
<1
135
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.02
<5
12
<1
0.046
6.59
<1
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
08/03/2016
4.8
6.80
20
63
3.47
169
374
2.3
<5
160
<1
<1
128
<1
<5
<50
<1
0.993
<5
11
<1
0.085
6.58
<1
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
10/06/2016
5.0
7.12
19
63
3.10
198
403
0.9
<5
163
<1
<1
108
<1
<5
<50
<1
0.903
<5
11
<1
0.051
6.24
1.21
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
03/10/2017
4.8
6.23
15
57
3.27
26
231
1.8
<5
211
<1
<1
127
<1
<5
<50
<1
0.961
<5
11
<1
0.076
6.94
<1
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
06/07/2017
4.3
4.66
18
53
2.77
-175
30
2.3
<5
137
<1
<1
102
<1
<5
<50
<1
0.71
<5
8.1
<1
0.051
5.05
<1
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
09/20/2017
4.7
6.36
20
52
2.39
252
457
8.7
<5
182
<1
<1
100
<1
<5
<50
<1
0.77
<5
8.2
<1
0.048
4.83
<1
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
12/13/2017
4.8
7.32
16
50
4.49
247
452
5.0
<5
119
<1
<1
90
<1
<5
<50
<1
0.652
<5
8.3
<1
0.081
5.05
<1
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
03/07/2018
4.9
5.88
14
47
5.23
136
341
3.6
<5
113
<1
<1
88
0.646 j
<5
<50
<1
0.696
<5
7.9
<1
0.08
4.49
0.744 j
0.0953 j
AMW-11S
Surficial
06/04/2018
4.4
5.68
20
55
0.09
202
407
0.5
<5
159
<1
<1
111
0.833 j
<5
<50
<1
0.718
<5
10
<1
0.1
4.69
1.02
0.1
AMW-11S
Surficial
08/16/2018
4.5
5.69
20
56
4.29
265
470
4.0
<5
137
<1
<1
101
0.577 j
<5
<50
<1
0.736
<5
10
<1
0.13
4.21
0.854 j
0.0807 j
AMW-11S
Surficial
02/13/2019
4.5
5.40
15
59
4.97
445
650
1.2
<5
---
<1
<1
115
---
<5
<50
---
0.911
<5
8.8
<1
0.071
4.14
---
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
08/13/2019
4.7
6.94
22
59
1.16
343
548
0.6
<5
172
<1
<1
112
---
<5
<50
---
0.772
<5
11
<1
0.11 Sl
3.9
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
03/02/2015
5.4
5.20
13
111
7.10
143
348
9.1
<
272
<1
<1
177
<1
<10
<50
<1
4.22
<10
13
<1
---
4.05
1.37
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
06/10/2015
4.4
10.08
21
95
2.55
146
351
3.1
<10
<1
<1
152
<1
<10
<50
<1
1.58
<10
11
<1
---
3.17
5.61
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
12/04/2015
4.1
10.80
11
98
0.40
56
261
1.7
<5
19
<1
<1
47
<1
<5
<50
<1
4.54
<5
11
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
01/11/2016
4.2
7.80
15
90
3.40
371
576
7.1
<5
940
<1
<1
137
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.64
<5
12
<1
0.085
2.91
5.51
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
03/01/2016
4.3
7.11
17
97
4.91
299
504
1.2
<5
889
<1
<1
130
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.67
<5
12
<1
0.088
3.01
5.22
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
06/08/2016
4.1
9.29
22
99
3.63
373
578
2.9
<5
731
<1
<1
122
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.6
<5
11 132
<1
0.14
2.14
4.39
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
07/06/2016
4.0
13.54
24
104
3.10
317
522
5.8
<20
---
<1
<1
111
<1
---
<50
<1
1.6
---
11
<1
---
2.16
---
<0.1
AMW-12S
Surficial
08/04/2016
4.0
14.03
21
90
3.53
295
500
5.1
<5
593
<1
<1
105
1.24
<5
<50
<1
1.57
<5
10
<1
0.13
2.09
3.96
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
08/31/2016
4.1
17.44
22
87
2.78
289
494
4.7
<20
---
<1
<1
99
<1
---
<50
<1
1.53 B2
---
9.9
<1
---
2.06
---
<0.1
AMW-12S
Surficial
10/03/2016
4.2
14.11
22
80
3.53
208
413
3.9
<5
512
<1
<1
91
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.37
<5
9.6
<1
0.25
1.77
3.96
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
11/17/2016
4.6
11.87
18
71
6.20
198
403
8.5
<20
---
<1
<1
89
<1
---
<50
<1
1.34
---
8.9
<1
---
1.87
---
<0.5
AMW-12S
Surficial
12/19/2016
4.5
11.18
14
73
5.29
48
253
9.8
<20
---
<1
<1
106
1.45
---
<50
<1
1.48
---
8.9
1.13
---
1.97
---
<0.1
AMW-12S
Surficial
02/21/2017
4.3
7.61
16
73
5.20
251
456
6.1
<20
---
<1
<1
91
<1
---
<50
<1
1.46
---
8.8
<1
---
1.95
---
<0.1
AMW-12S
Surficial
03/10/2017
4.3
7.78
13
75
6.01
221
426
2.8
<5
579
<1
<1
94
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.44
<5
9.4
1.86
0.27
1.88
4.32
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
04/19/2017
4.1
7.93
15
69
5.99
223
428
2.9
<20
---
<1
<1
91
<1
---
<50
<1
1.44
---
8.7
<1
---
1.84
---
<0.1
AMW-12S
Surficial
06/08/2017
4.0
9.88
19
75
5.50
218
423
6.46
<5
602
<1
<1
82
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.3
<5
8.4
1.05
0.093
1.52
3.81
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
06/08/2017
4.0
9.88
19
75
5.50
218
423
6.5
<20
---
<1
<1
87
<1
---
<50
<1
1.41
---
8.8
<1
---
1.64
---
<0.1
AMW-12S
Surficial
08/01/2017
4.1
12.77
26
76
5.80
209
414
9.9
<20
---
<1
<1
74
<1
---
<50
<1
1.28
---
6.8
<1
---
1.43
---
<0.1
AMW-12S
Surficial
09/12/2017
4.2
13.33
20
71
5.34
377
582
4.7
<5
400
<1
<1
70
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.29 132
<5
7.7
<1
0.11
1.38
3.92
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
09/12/2017
4.2
13.33
20
71
5.34
377
582
4.7
<20
---
<1
<1
69
<1
---
<50
<1
1.29 B2
---
7.1
<1
---
1.37
---
<0.1
AMW-12S
Surficial
12/11/2017
4.4
15.41
16
65
4.12
176
381
3.5
<5
426
<1
<1
69
<1
<5
<SO
<1
1.07
<S
7.4
<1
0.17
1.4
3.74
---
Page Iof18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
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
Date
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
lig/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
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
AMW-11S
Surficial
03/02/2015
252
<1
---
1.64
476
<0.05
<10
<1
4.53
0.151
1.32
<1
6.3
32
5.7
<0.5
55
<0.2
0.754
---
---
<0.3
6
AMW-11S
Surficial
06/11/2015
60
<1
---
1.87
139
<0.05
<10
<1
3.52
0.025
1.26
<1
6.09
31
6.2
<0.1
48
<0.2
0.655
---
---
<0.3
7
AMW-11S
Surficial
09/24/2015
973
<1
---
1.11
131
<0.05
---
<1
4.53
---
0.741
<1
5.64
17
---
---
---
<0.2
---
---
---
0.56
13
AMW-11S
Surficial
12/04/2015
44
<1
---
1.35
96
<0.05
<10
<1
3.73
0.075
0.964
<1
4.92
23
5.4
<0.1
32
<0.2
0.595
---
---
<0.3
8
AMW-11S
Surficial
01/12/2016
31
<1
---
1.58
<0.05
<10
<1
3.83
0.084
<1
5.14
24
4.8
<0.1
41
<0.2
0.513
---
---
<0.3
9
AMW-11S
Surficial
03/01/2016
14
<1
---
1.55
45
<0.05
1 <10
<1
3.18
0.216
1.18
<1
4.47
24
5.8
<0.1
28
<0.2
0.572
<RL
<0.0002
<0.3
9
AMW-11S
Surficial
06/07/2016
83
<1
---
1.57
40
<0.05
<10
<1
3.03
0.034
1.33
<1
4.86
24
7
<0.1
25
<0.2
0.561
1.694
0.00202
<0.3
7
AMW-11S
Surficial
08/03/2016
154
<1
---
1.44
3
<0.05
<10
<1
2.87
0.04
1.32
<1
5.08
23
6.5
<0.1
30
<0.
0.598
1.662
<0.0002
<0.3
13
AMW-11S
Surficial
10/06/2016
40
<1
---
1.27
44
<0.05
<10
<1
2.97
0.086
1.08
<1
5.1
19
3.5
<0.1
39
<0.2
0.575
2.42
<0.0002
0.379
10
AMW-11S
Surficial
03/10/2017
43
<1
---
1.55
40
<0.05
<10
<1
3
0.047
1.12
<1
5.19
23
9.8
<0.1
<25
<0.2 B3
2.2 B3
1.038
<0.0002
<0.3
17
AMW-11S
Surficial
06/07/2017
31
<1
---
1.11
29
<0.05
<10
<1
2.46
0.077
1.14
<1
4.32
17
6.7
<0.1
57
<0.2 B3
0.856
1.43
<0.0002
<0.3
23
AMW-11S
Surficial
09/20/2017
82
<1
---
1.1
32
<0.05
---
<1
2.37
---
0.982
<1
4.62
17
6.8
<0.1
36
<0.2
1.5
---
---
<0.3
17
AMW-11S
Surficial
12/13/2017
27
<1
---
1.06
36
<0.05
---
<1
2.63
---
0.714
<1
4.46
17
7.4
<0.1
<25
<0.2
1.1
0.969
<0.0002
<0.3
16
AMW-11S
Surficial
03/07/2018
19
<1
<5
1.18
30
<0.05
---
<1
2.51
0.09
0.761
<1
4.26
17
6
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.56
2.201
<0.0002
0.14 j
9
AMW-11S
Surficial
06/04/2018
8.114 j
<1
1.682 j
1.27 B2
28
<0.05
---
<1
2.3
0.046
0.935
<1
5.01
18
5.4
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.514 SI
0.608
<0.0002
0.216 j
6
AMW-11S
Surficial
08/16/2018
12
<1
2.941 j
1.18
33
<0.05
---
<1
2.59
0.07
0.9
<1
5.47
17
6.2
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.483
0.908
<0.0002
<0.3
11
AMW-11S
Surficial
02/13/2019
18
---
<5
1.37
27
---
---
---
---
0.106
1.16
<1
4.11
20
6.5
---
<25
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
---
AMW-11S
Surficial
08/13/2019
7.888 j
---
<5
1.26
25
---
---
---
---
0.027
1.17
<1
5.27
18
4.1
---
<25
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
03/02/2015
333
<1
---
3.21
67
<0.05
<10
5.34
4.5
2.56
<1
6.6
59
3.2
<0.5
72
<0.2
0.456
---
---
<0.3
20
AMW-12S
Surficial
06/10/2015
60
<1
---
2.69
20
<0.05
10
<1
4.21
4.2
2.47
<1
4.25
26
4.9
<0.1
56
<0.2
0.39
23.4
0.00224
<0.3
14
AMW-12S
Surficial
12/04/2015
8720
<1
---
2.17
176
<0.05
<10
<1
2.1
4.3
0.745
<1
7.82
28
6.4
<0.2
43
<0.2
0.43
---
---
<0.3
<5
AMW-12S
Surficial
01/11/2016
209
<1
---
2.32
19
<0.05
<10
<1
3.69
3.9
2.29
<1
4.08
24
4
<0.1
41
<0
0.366
---
---
0.471
12
AMW-12S
Surficial
03/01/2016
50
<1
---
2.3
17
<0.05
<10
<1
3.55
4.2
2.22
<1
4.06
23
2.4
<0.1
40
<0.2
0.391
17.75
0.002
<0.3
12
AMW-12S
Surficial
06/08/2016
25
<1
---
2.14
16
<0.05
<10
<1
2.56
3.7
2.12
<1
3.88
22
3.9
<0.1
47
<0.2
0.426
21.9
<0.0002
<0.3
8
AMW-12S
Surficial
07/06/2016
---
<1
6
1.96
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
2.04
<1
3.74
---
3.2
---
32
<0.2
---
20.37
---
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
08/04/2016
111
<1
---
1.88
14
<0.05
<10
<1
2.5
3.2
2.13
<1
3.44
20
4
<0.1
54
<0.2
0.48
22.26
0.00197
0.387
9
AMW-12S
Surficial
08/31/2016
---
<1
<5
1.73
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
2.02
<1
2.85
---
3.1
---
170
<0.2
---
27.2
---
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
10/03/2016
77
<1
---
1.61
13
<0.05
<10
<1
2.25
2.8
2.02
<1
3.92
17
3.6
<0.1
30
<0.2
0.413
14.4
0.0018
<0.3
9
AMW-12S
Surficial
11/17/2016
---
<1
<5
1.55
---
<0.05
---
1.58
---
---
1.85
<1
4.01
---
1.2
---
72
<0.2
---
19.63
---
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
12/19/2016
---
<1
14
1.67
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.92
<1
4.96
---
1.4
---
46
<0.2
---
18.42
---
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
02/21/2017
---
<1
6
1.6
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.79
<1
3.52
---
4.5
---
48
<0.2
---
17.65
---
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
03/10/2017
178
<1
---
1.57
15
<0.05
<10 RO
<1
3.24
2.8
1.74
<1
3.59
17
6.8
<0.1
38
<0.2 B3
0.524 133
15.86
0.00162
0.597
12
AMW-12S
Surficial
04/19/2017
---
<1
<5
1.6
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.69
<1
3.72 B2
---
1
---
54
<0.2
---
15.44
---
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
06/08/2017
178
<1
---
1.38
13
<0.05
<10
<1
2.18
2.5
1.65
<1
2.81
16
2.2
<0.1
35
<0.2 B3
0.54
16.74
0.00158
0.705
<5
AMW-12S
Surficial
06/08/2017
---
<1
<5
1.49
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.76
<1
3.03
---
1.5
---
86
<0.2 B3
---
17.68
---
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
08/O1/2017
---
<1
<5
1.37
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.68
<1
2.74
---
2.2
---
30
<0.2
---
16.32
---
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
09/12/2017
74
<1
---
1.24
12
<0.05
---
<1
2.38
---
1.75
<1
2.67
14
2.9
<0.1
47
<0.2
1.5
---
---
0.567 132
7
AMW-12S
Surficial
09/12/2017
---
<1
j <5
j 1.29
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.72
<1
2.7
---
3.6 M2
---
40
<0.2
---
13.89
---
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
12/11/2017
217
<1
---
1.14
12
<0.05
---
<1
2.92
---
1.53
<1
3.07 132,133
13
3.8
<0.1
<25
<0.2
1.3
---
---
0.65
12
Page 2 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Alkalinity
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Date
S.U.
Ft (BTOC)
oC
pS/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
lig/L
Ng/L
mg/L
lig/L
lig/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
lig/L
mg/L
AMW-12S
Surficial
02/12/2018
4.4
8.15
16
63
4.92
210
415
3.3
<20
---
<1
<1
72
<1
---
<50
<1
1.21
---
7.2
<1
---
1.35
---
<0.1
AMW-12S
Surficial
03/05/2018
4.1
7.34
13
60
7.49
20
225
7.4
<5
398
<1
<1
72
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.22
<5
7
1.08
0.16
1.38
2.98
<0.1
AMW-12S
Surficial
04/30/2018
4.0
7.85
15
64
4.16
248
453
5.9
<20
---
<1
0.336 j
72
0.486 j
---
<50
<1
1.21
---
7.1
0.838 j
---
1.36
---
<0.1
AMW-12S
Surficial
06/04/2018
4.3
8.48
27
60
3.34
218
423
2.95
<5
361
<1
1.09
69
<1
<5
<50
<1
1.15
<5
7.2
<1
0.12
0.707 j
<1
0.0683 j
AMW-12S
Surficial
08/16/2018
4.4
14.60
24
60
5.96
499
704
2.8
<5
284
<1
<1
57
0.554 j
<5
<50
<1
1.04
<5
6.6
0.452 j
0.21
0.986 j
2.41
0.0459 j
AMW-12S
Surficial
10/24/2018
4.5
13.59
17
58
4.27
428
633
2.4
<5
---
<1
<1
55
0.632 j
---
<50
<1
1.01
---
6.6
0.361 j
---
1.04
---
0.0528 j
AMW-12S
Surficial
02/14/2019
4.5
6.88
15
56
4.97
404
609
4.2
<5
---
<1
<1
62
---
<5
<50
---
1.11
<5
6.9
0.477 j
0.16
1.07
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
02/14/2019
4.5
6.88
15
56
4.97
404
609
4.2
<5
---
<1
<1
60
0.577 j
---
<50
<1
1.02
---
6.7
0.752 j
---
1.17
---
<0.1
AMW-12S
Surficial
08/13/2019
4.0
19.18
25
67
4.36
603
808
7.9
<5
---
<1
<1
82
1.02
---
<50
<1
1.02
---
7.4
0.521 j
---
1.98
---
<0.1
AMW-12S
Surficial
08/13/2019
4.0
19.18
25
67
4.36
603
808
7.9
<5
480
<1
<1
82
---
<5
<50
---
0.981
<5
7.4
0.423 j
<0.025
1.93
---
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
03/03/2015
5.7
4.47
11
237
2.90
-117
88
60.5
43
3560
<1
<1
136
<1
43
<50
<1
12.4
<10
28
3.78
---
35.7
2.2
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
06/10/2015
5.2
12.19
21
200
2.18
176
381
4.1
26
12
<1
<1
96
<1
26
<50
<1
5.42
<10
29
<1
---
<1
4.81
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
12/04/2015
5.9
8.90
18
86
1 4.60
1 99
304
1.0
16.2
26
<1
<1
52
<1
16.2
<50
<1
2.7
<5
4.1
<1
0.033
2.29
<1
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
01/11/2016
6.7
3.08
16
211
1.92
98
303
3.5
17.7
286
<1
<1
73
<1
17.7
<50
<1
3.82
<5
13
<1
0.095
8.06
<1
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
03/01/2016
5.6
3.75
16
84
5.61
212
417
7.7
13.6
159
<1
<1
47
<1
13.6
<50
<1
3.02
<5
5.5
<1
0.094
1.18
<1
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
06/08/2016
5.3
10.96
18
179
4.20
217
422
0.7
21.3
21
<1
<1
88
<1
21.3
<50
<1
4.81
<5
26 132
<1
0.11
<1
<1
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
08/03/2016
5.5
11.32
22
94
4.61
302
507
1.0
16.6
17
<1
<1
49
<1
16.6
<50
<1
2.83
<5
8.5
<1
0.31
<1
<1
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
10/05/2016
5.3
11.28
20
124
0.88
174
379
2.5
14.9
126
<1
<1
61
<1
14.9
<50
<1
3.55
<5
14
<1
0.13
3.51
<1
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
03/13/2017
5.4
11.67
15
212
2.69
-130
75
1.1
27
24
<1
<1
102
<1
27
<50
<1
5.76
<5
<1
0.16
<1
<1
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
06/06/2017
5.1
8.05
19
215
3.65 S
33
238
3.4
27.4
15
<1
<1
99
<1
27.4
<50
<1
5.4
<5
<1
0.18
<1
<1
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
09/20/2017
5.4
11.61
23
213
0.72
190
395
3.1
34.9
7
<1
<1
95
<1
34.9
<50
<1
5.64
<5
31
<1
0.13
<1
<1
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
12/12/2017
5.6
12.88
18
195
0.18
147
352
3.6
41
27
<1
<1
91
<1
41
<50
<1
5.6 B2
<5
27
<1
<0.025
1.46
<1
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
03/07/2018
5.5
10.50
16
270
0.69
-8
197
1.1
47.4
12
<1
<1
115
<1
47.4
<50
<1
8.3
<5
<1
0.06 P4,110
2.96
0.536 j
0.1
AMW-13S
Surficial
06/06/2018
5.3
8.05
21
320
0.32
562
767
0.6
48.8
6
<1
<1
144
<1
48.8
19.959 j
<1
9.6
<5
<1
0.09 P4,110
5.26
<1
0.0848 j
AMW-13S
Surficial
08/16/2018
5.3
8.09
26
220
1.39
376
581
0.9
33.4
17
<1
<1
90
<1
33.4
<50
<1
5.76
<5
32
<1
0.14
0.681 j
<1
0.0701 j
AMW-13S
Surficial
02/13/2019
5.4
8.62
17
259
1.52
332
537
0.5
34.2
---
<1
<1
125
---
34.2
<50
---
8.39
<5
46
<1
0.12
<1
---
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
08/13/2019
5.2
12.20
25
311
1.20
381
586
1.0
39.2
5.458 j
<1
<1
128
---
39.2
<50
---
8.95
<5
65
<1
0.16 P4,110
3.93
---
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
07/07/2016
4.7
6.21
21
133
1.75 S
232
437
7.9
<5
---
<1
<1
86
<1
---
57
<1
5.12
---
8.5
<1
---
3.08
---
<0.1
AMW-17S
Surficial
07/28/2016
4.6
6.01
23
134
1.94
450
655
2.3
<5
474
<1
<1
73
<1
<5
63
<1
5.22
<5
11
<1
<0.03
2.21
1.33
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
08/29/2016
4.6
7.06
21
127
0.88
213
418
1.7
<20
---
<1
<1
86
<1
---
68
<1
4.7 132
---
9.4
<1
---
1.72
---
<0.1
AMW-17S
Surficial
10/07/2016
4.4
5.09
21
129
1.84
240
445
5.0
<5
494
<1
<1
78
<1
<5
65
<1
4.58
<5
12
<1
<0.03
2.01
<1
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
11/21/2016
4.7
4.64
20
138
1.02
227
432
5.2
<5
---
<1
<1
89
<1
---
66
<1
4.76 132
---
15
<1
---
1.91
---
<0.1
AMW-17S
Surficial
12/21/2016
4.7
4.53
18
121
1.18
7
212
4.9
<5
---
<1
<1
86
<1
---
69
<1
4.16
---
11
<1
---
1.47
---
<0.1
AMW-17S
Surficial
02/16/2017
4.7
4.51
16
121
1.16
197
402
4.8
<5
---
<1
<1
97
<1
---
76
<1
4.66
---
12
<1
---
1.42
---
<1
AMW-17S
Surficial
03/15/2017
4.7
4.44
15
114
0.96
-21
184
1.8
<5
500
<1
<1
93
<1
<5
78
<1
4.66
<5
9.2
<1
0.04
1.34
<1
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
04/18/2017
4.4
4.92
16
111
1.24
163
368
3.3
<5
---
<1
<1
75
<1
---
78
<1
5.19 Bl
---
9.7
<1
---
1.56
---
<0.1
AMW-17S
Surficial
06/08/2017
4.3
4.80
17
121
1.82
-158
47
2.6
<5
456
<1
<1
70
<1
<5
52
<1
4.6
<5
13
<1
0.075
1.59
<1
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
06/08/2017
4.3
4.80
17
121
1.82
-158
47
2.6
<5
---
<1
<1
74
<1
---
59
<1
4.59
---
12
<1
---
1.7
---
<0.1
AMW-17S
Surficial
08/01/2017
4.7
6.09
21
119
1.55
112
317
3.3
<5
---
<1
<1
78
<1
---
58
<1
4.36
---
11
<1
---
1.52
---
<0.1
Page 3 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
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
Date
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pOIL
pgmL
pg L
pg L
AMW-12S
Surficial
02/12/2018
---
<1
<5
1.32
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.6
<1
3.76
---
2.2
---
<25
<0.2
---
13.2
---
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
03/05/2018
277
<1
8
1.27
12
<0.05
---
<1
1.95
2.4
1.59
<1
3.57
14
1.4
<0.1
31
<0.2
0.505
---
---
0.672
6
AMW-12S
Surficial
04/30/2018
---
<1
5
1.32
---
<0.05
---
0.157 j
---
---
1.55
<1
3.51
---
0.77 MS
---
<25
---
11.97
---
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
06/04/2018
28
<1
3.703 j
1.21 B2
11
<0.05
---
0.169 j
2.58
2.2
1.5
<1
2.86
13
2
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.386 S1
---
---
0.212 j
4.214 j
AMW-12S
Surficial
08/16/2018
87
<1
3.169 j
1.03
9
<0.05
---
0.132 j
1.31
2.1
1.49
<1
3.86
11
4.1 M2
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.348
---
---
<0.3
2.313 j
AMW-12S
Surficial
10/24/2018
---
<1
3.322 j
1.04
---
<0.05
---
0.094 j
---
---
1.52
<1
3.1
---
3.9
---
<25
<0.2
---
8.46
---
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
02/14/2019
73
---
7
1.07
11
---
---
---
---
2.2
1.57
<1
4.02
12
5.4
---
35
<0.2
---
---
---
0.184 j
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
02/14/2019
---
<1
4.584 j
1.09
---
<0.05
---
0.203 j
---
---
1.42
<1
3.83
---
1.1
---
40
<
---
8.01
---
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
08/13/2019
---
<1
6
1.23
---
<0.05
---
0.121 j
---
---
1.6
<1
1.78
---
0.061 j
---
46
<0.
---
10.3
---
---
---
AMW-12S
Surficial
08/13/2019
102 B
---
4.966 j
1.24
10
---
---
---
---
2.3
1.52
<1
1.57
13
0.25
---
40
<0.2
---
---
---
0.155 j
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
03/03/2015
2380
<1
---
5.98
<0.05
<10
<1
12.5
<0.01
0.474
<1
22.7
78
14
<0.1
210
<0.2
1.7
---
---
6.71
22
AMW-13S
Surficial
06/10/2015
66
<1
---
6.38
26
<0.05
<10
<1
7.28
0.023
0.197
<1
20.3
66
16
<0.1
140
<0.2
1.6
---
---
<0.3
12
AMW-13S
Surficial
12/04/2015
34
<1
---
2.95
12
<0.05
<10 CL
<1
3.99
0.081
0.1
<1
8.51
30
15
<0.1
83
<0.2
0.333
---
---
<0.3
13
AMW-13S
Surficial
01/11/2016
122
<1
---
3.96
24
<0.05
<10
<1
8.73
0.041
0.158
<1
12
42
18
<0.1
86
<0.2
0.448
---
---
0.398
25
AMW-13S
Surficial
03/01/2016
415
<1
---
3.6
<5
<0.05
<10
<1
3.58
0.453
0.14
<1
7.21
34
15
<0.1
67
<0.2
0.657
0.672
<0.0002
0.59
25
AMW-13S
Surficial
06/08/2016
28
<1
---
5.49
<5
<0.05
<10
<1
4.6
0.027
0.268
<1
18.5
59
15
<0.1
120
<0.2
0.882
1.17
0.000149 j
<0.3
10
AMW-13S
Surficial
08/03/2016
14
<1
---
3.28
<5
<0.05
<10
<1
3.32
0.15
0.189
<1
10
34
14
<0.1
75
<0.2
0.381
<RL
<0.0002
<0.3
10
AMW-13S
Surficial
10/05/2016
47
<1
---
3.75
8
<0.05
<10
<1
5.99
0.288
0.181
<1
13.5
39
17
<0.1
110
<0.2 B2
0.445
<RL
<0.0002
0.332
14
AMW-13S
Surficial
03/13/2017
50
<1
---
6.94
<5
<0.05
<10 M1
<1
8.33
<0.01
0.216
<1
23.8
68
19
<0.1
140
<0.2
1.9
0.852
<0.0002
0.39 B2
14
AMW-13S
Surficial
06/06/2017
47
<1
---
6.61
<5
<0.05
<10
<1
8.07
0.034
0.2
<1
23.9
69
16
<0.1
140
<0.2 132,133
1.5
0.47
<0.0002
<0.3
11
AMW-13S
Surficial
09/20/2017
11
<1
---
6.69
18
<0.05
---
<1
10.4
---
0.227
<1
22.6
69
18
<0.1
120
<0.2
2.9
---
---
<0.3
10
AMW-13S
Surficial
12/12/2017
136
<1
---
7.08
86
<0.05
---
<1
12.4
---
0.235
<1
19.4
70
16
<0.1
140
<0.2
2.5
---
---
0.468
12
AMW-13S
Surficial
03/07/2018
68
<1
<5
10.3
221
<0.05
---
0.217 j
14.3
0.0049 j
0.235
<1
27.4
93
17
<0.1
160
<0.2
2.7
---
---
0.15 j
15
AMW-13S
Surficial
06/06/2018
22
<1
3.387 j
11.8
331
<0.05
---
<1
14.4
<0.01
0.271
<1
31.5 B2
121
22
<0.1
200
<0.2
---
---
0.24 j
14
AMW-13S
Surficial
08/16/2018
80
<1
<5
7.41
80
<0.05
---
<1
8.89
0.078
0.233
<1
23.4
73
17
<0.1
140
<0.2
1.9
---
---
0.219 j
9
AMW-13S
Surficial
02/13/2019
18
---
2.139 j
10
6
---
---
---
0.015
0.263
<1
29.8
106
16
---
140
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
---
AMW-13S
Surficial
08/13/2019
7.914 j
---
1.738 j
10.5
---
---
---
0.0092 j
0.262
<1
31.9
113
12
---
159
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
AMW-17S
Surficial
07/07/2016
---
<1
<5
2.68
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
3.06
<1
9.06
---
42
---
80
<0.2
---
1.45
---
---
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
07/28/2016
49
<1
---
2.73
38
<0.05
<10
<1
1.12
2.8
3.76
<1
9.57
49
35
<0.1
80
<0.2
1.1
1.761
<0.0002
<0.3
14
AMW-17S
Surficial
08/29/2016
---
<1
<5
2.57
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
3.62
<1
9.54
---
33
---
78
<0.2
---
3.56
---
---
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
10/07/2016
43
<1
---
2.4
38
<0.05
<10
<1
<1
2.4
4.37
<1
9.9
46
23
<0.1
70
<0.2
1
2.113
<0.0002
<0.3
10
AMW-17S
Surficial
11/21/2016
---
<1
<5
2.39
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
4.51
<1
10.7
---
27
---
73
<0.2
---
1.87
---
---
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
12/21/2016
---
<1
<5
2.2
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
3.82
<1
8.89
---
21
---
80
<0.2
---
2.3
---
---
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
02/16/2017
---
<1
<5
2.44
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
3.82
<1
9.56 R1
---
36 M2
---
78
<0.2
---
3.26
---
---
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
03/15/2017
65
<1
---
2.35
41
<0.05
<10
<1
<1
2
3.53
<1
7.54
50
35
<0.1
77
<0.2
1 132, 133
2.898
<0.0002
0.495 132
7
AMW-17S
Surficial
04/18/2017
---
<1
<5
2.53
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
3.78
<1
8.18
---
25
---
85
<0.2
---
2.847
---
---
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
06/08/2017
23
<1
---
2.24
32
<0.05
<10
<1
<1
1.8
4.12
<1
9.22
42
27
<0.1
69
<0.2 B3
1.4 133
3.45
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
AMW-17S
Surficial
06/08/2017
<1
<5
2.22
<0.05
---
<1
---
4.04
<1
8.97
25
53
<0.2 B3
---
9.24
AMW-17S
Surficial
08/01/2017
<1
<5
2.28
<0.05
--
<1
---
4.15
<1
8.2
24
70
<0.2
---
1 3.15
Page 4 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Alkalinity
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Date
S.U.
Ft (BTOC)
°C
pS/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg/L
Ng/L
pg/L
pg/L
lig/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Pg/L
lig/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
AMW-17S
Surficial
09/13/2017
4.5
4.44
20
140
1.94
371
576
2.2
<5
417
<1
<1
96
<1
<5
65
<1
4.42 132
<5
13
<1
0.031
1.71
<1
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
09/13/2017
4.5
4.44
20
140
1.94
371
576
2.2
<20
---
<1
<1
93
<1
---
60
<1
4.64 132
---
14
<1
---
1.8
---
<0.1
AMW-17S
Surficial
12/12/2017
4.7
5.30
18
120
0.23
299
504
3.6
<5
312
<1
<1
113
<1
<5
129
<1
5.38
<5
6.6
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
02/13/2018
4.8
4.40
16
115
0.49
241
446
2.2
<5
---
<1
<1
73
<1
---
99
<1
5.35
---
7.7
<1
---
1.29
---
<0.1
AMW-17S
Surficial
03/07/2018
5.0
4.46
16
114
1.24
-21
184
1.6
<5
389
<1
<1
75
<1
<5
76
<1
4.87
<5
9.5
<1
<0.025
1.25
<1
0.091 j
AMW-17S
Surficial
05/01/2018
4.5
4.50
17
134
1.61
382
587
0.9
<5
---
<1
<1
71
<1
---
72
<1
5.48
---
12
<1
---
1.52
---
0.0879 j
AMW-17S
Surficial
06/07/2018
4.0
4.84
18
115
1.65
219
424
6.2
<5
401
<1
<1
67
0.38 j
<5
58
<1
4.91
<5
11
<1
<0.025
1.46
<1
0.0754 j
AMW-17S
Surficial
08/21/2018
4.5
4.00
21
110
0.96
384
589
2.3
<5
215
<1
<1
86
<1
<5
75
<1
4.69
<5
7.6
<1
<0.025
0.612 j
<1
0.0476 j
AMW-17S
Surficial
10/23/2018
3.9
4.47
22
128
2.61
223
428
0.6
<5
---
<1
<1
86
0.453 j
---
61
<1
4.2
---
11
<1
---
1.34
---
<0.1
AMW-17S
Surficial
02/13/2019
4.7
4.31
16
115
2.16
392
597
5.7
<5
---
<1
<1
97
---
<5
62
---
4.3
<5
11
0.338 j
<0.025
1.08
---
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
02/13/2019
4.7
4.31
16
115
2.16
392
597
5.7
<5
---
<1
<1
95
<1
---
64
<1
4.44
---
11
<1
---
1.08
---
<0.1
AMW-17S
Surficial
08/15/2019
4.6
6.62
20
100
0.29
325
530
0.9
<5
---
<1
<1
68
<1
---
66
<1
4.54
---
7.5
0.35 j
---
0.97 j
---
<0.1
AMW-17S
Surficial
08/15/2019
4.6
6.62
20
100
0.29
325
530
0.9
<5
280
<1
<1
71
---
<5
65
---
4.72
<5
7.6
0.402 j
0.042
1.06
---
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
07/06/2016
4.8
26.40
23
179
5.60
294
499
7.5
<5
---
<1
<1
511
<1
---
<50
<1
10.6
---
16
<1
---
6.15
---
<0.1
CCR-100S
Surficial
07/20/2016
4.6
26.32
20
169
5.89
446
651
8.5
<5
320
<1
<1
528
<1
<5
<50
<1
10.9
<5
17
<1
<0.03
5.64
3.52
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
08/30/2016
4.7
26.73
20
165
6.05
262
467
9.7
<5
---
<1
<1
565
<1
---
<50
<1
10.9 132
---
16
<1
---
6.3
---
<0.1
CCR-100S
Surficial
10/06/2016
4.4
26.72
18
167
6.33
354
559
9.0
<5
282
<1
<1
543
<1
<5
<50
<1
10.7
<5
15
<1
<0.03
5.98
3.63
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
11/17/2016
4.5
25.95
17
171
6.82
238
443
1.6
<20
---
<1
<1
539
<1
---
<50
<1
10.3
---
15
<1
---
6.28
---
<0.5
CCR-100S
Surficial
12/15/2016
4.6
26.25
16
174
6.20
223
428
2.3
<5
229
<1
<1
564
1.19
<5
<50
<1
10.9
<5
15
<1
0.027
6.22
3.79
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
12/15/2016
4.6
26.25
16
174
6.20
223
428
2.3
<5
---
<1
<1
600
<1
---
<50
<1
11.4 Bl
---
16
<1
---
6.01
---
<0.1
CCR-100S
Surficial
02/20/2017
4.5
26.29
18
173
6.18
247
452
5.2
<20
---
<1
<1
597
<1
---
<50
<1
11.7
---
15
<1
---
6.15
---
<0.1
CCR-100S
Surficial
03/13/2017
4.5
26.41
17
172
6.45
-78
127
1.3
<5
248
<1
<1
588
<1
<5
<50
<1
11.2
<5
17
<1
0.035
5.99
3.12
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
04/18/2017
4.3
26.46
17
163
6.83
206
411
0.7
<20
---
<1
<1
605
<1
---
<50
<1
11.7 Bl
---
16
<1
---
5.87
---
<0.1
CCR-100S
Surficial
06/09/2017
4.3
26.00
17
174
6.86
225
430
2.9
<5
259
<1
<1
584
<1
<5
<50
<1
9.67
<5
16
<1
0.056
5.83
2.8
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
06/09/2017
4.3
26.00
17
174
6.86
225
430
2.9
<20
---
<1
<1
588
<1
---
<50
<1
11.2
---
17
<1
---
5.75
---
<0.1
CCR-100S
Surficial
08/01/2017
4.3
26.41
20
175
7.53
179
384
2.2
<20
---
<1
<1
559
<1
---
<50
<1
10.6
---
15
<1
---
5.56
---
<0.1
CCR-100S
Surficial
09/12/2017
4.5
26.51
19
169
6.27
367
572
0.8
<5
236
<1
<1
577
<1
<5
<50
<1
10.7 B2
<5
16
<1
0.06
5.76
2.75
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
09/12/2017
4.5
26.51
19
169
6.27
367
572
0.8
<20
---
<1
<1
562
<1
---
<50
<1
10.8 B2
---
16
<1
---
6.03
---
<0.1
CCR-100S
Surficial
12/12/2017
4.5
27.11
17
165
6.73
198
403
9.5
<5
289
<1
<1
565
<1
<5
<50
<1
10.2 B2
<5
16
<1
0.046
5.32
2.39
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
02/12/2018
4.5
26.98
18
160
6.65
301
506
1.4
<20
---
<1
<1
547
<1
---
<50
<1
10.2
---
15
<1
---
5.15
---
<0.1
CCR-100S
Surficial
03/07/2018
4.4
26.80
17
157
7.40
20
225
1.5
<5
220
<1
<1
0
0.846 j
<5
<50
<1
10.3
<5
15
<1
0.025
5.35
2.54
0.0848 j
CCR-100S
Surficial
05/01/2018
4.4
26.41
17
162
6.92
382
587
3.0
<20
---
<1
<1
564
0.714 j
---
<50
<1
10.6
---
15
<1
---
5.28
---
0.0788 j
CCR-100S
Surficial
06/06/2018
5.1
26.93
18
64
4.65
182
387
2.0
10.8
37
<1
<1
19
<1
10.8
18.838 j
<1
2.37
<5
4.9
<1
0.042
12.1
1.33
0.0748 j
CCR-100S
Surficial
08/20/2018
4.5
27.30
20
165
7.48
406
611
5.7
<5
186
<1
<1
518
0.696 j
<5
24.5 j
<1
9.84
<5
15
<1
0.06
4.78
2
0.0609 j
CCR-100S
Surficial
10/23/2018
4.3
25.24
17
161
6.58
328
533
1.5
<5
---
<1
<1
554
0.553 j
---
<50
<1
10.4
---
15
<1
---
5.05
---
0.034 j
CCR-SODS
Surficial
02/13/2019
4.4
24.95
16
167
7.43
401
606
4.6
<5
---
<1
<1
574
---
<5
<50
---
10.5
<5
15
<1
0.036
5.16
---
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
02/13/2019
4.4
24.95
16
167
7.43
401
606
4.6
<5
---
<1
<1
579
0.916 j
---
<50
<1
10.8
---
15
0.635 j
---
5.16
<0.1
CCR-100S
Surficial
08/14/2019
4.4
26.49
23
157
7.41
336
541
4.4
<5
---
<1
<1
508
<1
---
<50
<1
9.41
---
14
0.352 j
---
4.85
---
<0.1
CCR-100S
Surficial
08/14/2019
4.4
26.49
23
157
7.41
336
541
4.4
<5
276
<1
<1
553
<5
17.899 j
10.4
<5
14
<1I
0.033
4.93
---
I --- j
Page 5 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
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
Date
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pg/mL
pg/L
pg/L
AMW-17S
Surficial
09/13/2017
28
<1
---
2.28
30
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
5
<1
10.2
44
22
<0.1
83
<0.2
0.966
---
---
0.305
6
AMW-17S
Surficial
09/13/2017
---
<1
<5
2.32
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
4.95
<1
10.2
---
31
---
110
1 <0.2
---
4.01
---
---
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
12/12/2017
57
<1
---
2.46
70
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
5.91
<1
5.58
57
40
<0.1
70
<0.2
1.7
---
---
0.316
<5
AMW-17S
Surficial
02/13/2018
---
<1
<5
2.57
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
4.57
<1
6.83
---
27
---
80
<0.2
---
2.482
---
---
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
03/07/2018
41
<1
2.074 j
2.47
47
<0.05
---
<1
0.506 j
1.9
4.13
<1
7.43
47
27
<0.1
53
<0.2
1.1
---
---
0.146 j
4.224 j
AMW-17S
Surficial
05/01/2018
---
0.369 j
3.948 j
2.74
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
4.44
<1
8.91
---
24
---
64
0.082 j
---
2.211
---
---
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
06/07/2018
13
<1
2.907 j
2.62
52
<0.05
---
<1
<1
2.9
4.27
<1
8.75 Bl
53
25
<0.1
87
0.103 j
0.93 S1
---
---
0.195 j
2.702 j
AMW-17S
Surficial
08/21/2018
18
<1
<5
2.28
70
<0.05
---
<1
<1
2.4
2.97
<1
6.79
51
26
<0.1
30
<0.2
0.945
---
---
0.197 j
3.7 j
AMW-17S
Surficial
10/23/2018
---
0.489 j
3.78 j
2.23
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
4.8
<1
8.44
---
21
---
45
0.131 j
---
2.744
---
---
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
02/13/2019
131
---
<5
2.6
37
---
---
---
---
1.8
4.56
<1
7.93
51
25
---
47
<0.2
---
---
---
0.325
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
02/13/2019
---
0.427 j
<5
2.6
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
4.63
<1
7.89
---
21
---
66
<0.2
---
3.009
---
---
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
08/15/2019
---
<1
2.966 j
2.23
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
4.19
<1
5.08
---
21
---
72
<0.2
---
2.37
---
---
---
AMW-17S
Surficial
08/15/2019
30
---
2.381 j
2.36
55
---
---
---
---
1.2
4.42
<1
5.27
47
22
---
55
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
07/06/2016
---
2.47
<5
5.3
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
4.47
<1
3.67
---
4.1
---
130
<0.2
---
1.827
---
---
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
07/20/2016
70
2.61
---
5.57
119
<0.05
<10 L3
<1
3.16
10
4.66
<1
3.74
92
4.9
<0.1 M3
110
<0.2
0.564
3.84
0.0001193
0.462
6
CCR-100S
Surficial
08/30/2016
---
3.76
<5
5.5
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
4.64
<1
3.39
---
4.7
---
110
<0.2
---
1.48
---
---
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
10/06/2016
56
3.7
---
5.49
119
<0.05
<10
<1
4.15
11
4.72
<1
3.32
92
2.5
<0.1
96
<0.2
0.415
3.21
0.000122 j
0.624
5
CCR-100S
Surficial
11/17/2016
---
4.39
<5
5.28
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
4.46
<1
2.89
---
2.8
---
130
<0.2
---
3.221
---
---
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
12/15/2016
20
4.16
---
5.55
119
<0.05
<10 CL
<1
3.35
11
4.95
<1
3.1
92
2.8
<0.1
120
<0.2
0.487
4.39
0.000145 j
<0.3
<5
CCR-100S
Surficial
12/15/2016
---
4.27
<5
5.81
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
5.03
<1
3.15
---
11
---
120
<0.2
---
3.79
---
---
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
02/20/2017
---
4.89
<5
5.72
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
5.04
<1
3.14
---
6.2
---
140
<0.2
---
5.53
---
---
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
03/13/2017
21
4.72
---
5.7
125
<0.05
<10 M1
<1
3.12
11
5.07
<1
3.19
93
13
<0.1
100
<0.2
0.467
3.08
0.000131 j
0.471 B2
5
CCR-100S
Surficial
04/18/2017
---
4.79
<5
5.66
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
5.11
<1
3.25
---
4.1
---
140
<0.2
---
3.68
---
---
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
06/09/2017
19
4.74
---
4.81
126
<0.05
<10
<1
3.03
11
4.39
<1
2.63
94
5.3
<0.1
140
<0.2
0.48
3.12
0.000259
0.341
6
CCR-100S
Surficial
06/09/2017
---
4.83
<5
5.52
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
4.99
<1
3
---
4.8
---
120
<0.2
---
2.6
---
---
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
08/01/2017
---
4.78
<5
5.3
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
4.8
<1
2.9
---
4.5
---
140
<0.2
---
3.33
---
---
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
09/12/2017
<10
4.75
---
5.32
115
<0.05
---
<1
3
---
4.98
<1
2.96
92
8.2
<0.1
140
<0.2
0.64
2.224
0.000165 j
0.545 132
<5
CCR-100S
Surficial
09/12/2017
---
4.75
<5
5.32
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
4.93
<1
2.92
---
6.3
---
120
<0.2
---
2.855
---
---
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
12/12/2017
153
5.06
---
4.92
106
<0.05
---
<1
2.64
---
4.85
<1
2.78
85
13
<0.1
120
<0.2
0.987
2.41
0.000141 j
0.568
<5
CCR-100S
Surficial
02/12/2018
---
4.5
<5
5.05
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
5.09
<1
2.88
---
5.8
---
76
<0.2
---
3.29
---
---
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
03/07/2018
3.536 j
4.64
1.935 j
5.18
121
<0.05
---
<1
2.61
9.8
5.18
<1
2.96
93
5.6
<0.1
87
0.145 j
0.575
4.72
0.000165 j
0.308
4.316 j
CCR-100S
Surficial
05/01/2018
---
4.79
<5
5.2
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
5.22
0.364 j
3.02
---
5.6
---
92
0.129 j
---
2.982
---
---
---
CCR-SODS
Surficial
06/06/2018
70
<1
24
2.09
33
<0.05
---
0.553 j
1.6
1.19
<1
4.98
11
3.8
<0.1
28
0.161 j
0.092 j,S1
0.79
<0.0002
1.96 132
28
CCR-100S
Surficial
08/20/2018
29
4.45
1.9 j
4.83
100
<0.05
---
<1
2.5
8.9
4.83
0.432 j
2.81
77
6.7 M2
<0.1
110
0.089 j
0.393
3.41
0.000166 j
0.169 j
6
CCR-100S
Surficial
10/23/2018
---
4.69
2.211 j
5.1
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
5.29
0.334 j
2.9
---
4.9
---
83
0.105 j
---
3.99
---
---
CCR-SODS
Surficial
02/13/2019
23
---
1.9 j
5.19
110
---
---
---
---
11
5.53
0.446 j
3.11
85
12
---
81
0.129 j
---
---
---
0.224 j
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
02/13/2019
5.56
<5
5.23
---
<0.05
<1
---
---
5.79
0.369 j
3.24
---
4.5
---
74
0.166 j
---
4.24
---
---
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
08/14/2019
---
4.83
<5
4.48
---
0.02 j
<1
---
---
5.16
0.431 j
2.9
---
4.3
---
76
0.098 j
---
2.132
---
---
CCR-100S
Surficial
08/14/2019
45
<5
4.95
107
1 ---
---
---
9.7
5.66
<1
3.19
82
5
---
100
0.126 j
---
---
---
0.226 j
---
Page 6 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Alkalinity
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Date
S.U.
Ft (BTOC)
°C
Ns/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg/L
Ng/L
pg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
IMW-1S
Surficial
05/26/2015
5.4
4.72
20
172
0.43
66
271
8.9
12
171
<1
<1
194
<1
12
<50
<1
8.86
<10
19
<1
---
6.21
<1
---
IMW-1S
Surficial
06/12/2015
5.6
5.29
19
166
0.53
205
410
1.7
11
70
<1
<1
206
<1
11
<50
<1
9.73
<10
18
<1
---
4.36
<1
---
IMW-1S
Surficial
09/24/2015
5.3
7.80
20
158
0.50
150
355
0.7
---
97
<1
<1
208
<1
---
<50
<1
8.56
---
---
<1
---
2.43
<1
---
IMW-1S
Surficial
12/06/2015
5.5
3.63
17
283
0.96
103
308
7.4
7.6
110
<0.5
<0.5
190
0.44
7.6
<50
0.12 B
8.76
<5
17.6
<0.5
<0.03
3.4
<1
---
IMW-1S
Surficial
03/01/2016
5.1
3.53
16
152
1.60
94
299
7.7
<5
67
<1
<1
188
<1
<5
<50
<1
8.99
<5
19
<1
0.11
3.86
<1
---
IMW-1S
Surficial
06/07/2016
5.2
3.77
18
153
0.60
104
309
2.8
<5
33
<1
<1
179
<1
<5
<50
<1
8.63
<5
17
<1
0.18
3.95
<1
---
IMW-1S
Surficial
08/03/2016
4.9
4.47
20
150
1.46
310
515
1.3
<5
43
<1
<1
216
1.07
<5
<50
<1
7.11
<5
16
<1
0.5
3.68
<1
---
IMW-1S
Surficial
10/05/2016
4.9
5.42
20
149
0.86
190
395
1.4
<5
52
<1
<1
214
<1
<5
<50
<1
7.92
<5
15
<1
0.44
2.7
<1
---
IMW-1S
Surficial
03/07/2017
5.0
3.71
15
151
1.10
122
327
3.5
<5
39 B2
<1
<1
188
<1
<5
<50
<1
8.02
<5
16
<1
0.38
3.88
<1
---
IMW-1S
Surficial
06/08/2017
5.0
4.59
17
142
1.10
151
356
4.6
<5
29
<1
<1
166
<1
<5
<50
<1
7.46
<5
16
<1
0.31
2.62
<1
---
IMW-1S
Surficial
09/20/2017
4.9
4.55
20
145
1.14
299
504
1.5
<5
37
<1
<1
184
<1
<5
1 <50
<1
7.54
<5
15
<1
0.44
2.49
<1
---
IMW-1S
Surficial
12/13/2017
5.0
4.18
15
144
1.74
140
345
2.14
<5
42
<1
<1
189
<1
<5
<50
<1
6.24
<5
14
<1
0.35
3.79
6.08
---
IMW-1S
Surficial
03/06/2018
5.1
3.63
14
155
1.04
88
293
1.5
<5
30
<1
<1
159
<1
<5
<50
<1
8.2
<5
17
0.445 j
0.27
4.79
0.67 j
<0.1
IMW-1S
Surficial
06/06/2018
4.8
4.74
18
141
2.49
529
734
0.6
<5
28
<1
<1
160
0.434 j
<5
<50
<1
7.55
<5
14
0.472 j
0.38
3.03
0.785 j
<0.1
IMW-1S
Surficial
08/15/2018
4.6
3.45
22
148
0.48
253
458
3.1
<5
46
<1
<1
169
0.744 j
<5
<50
<1
7.48
<5
15
0.501 j
0.28
4.68
0.636 j
<0.1
IMW-1S
Surficial
11/27/2018
4.9
3.35
15
146
1.04
112
317
1.9
<5
25
<1
<1
162
0.625 j
<5
<50
<1
8.23
<5
16
0.445 j
0.3 M1
7
2.79
<0.1
IMW-1S
Surficial
02/12/2019
4.9
3.32
15
148
1.90
451
656
0.8
<5
---
<1
<1
162
---
<5
<50
---
8.41
<5
16
0.439 j
0.28
3.42
---
---
IMW-1S
Surficial
08/13/2019
4.5
5.50
21
136
2.89
451
656
1.2
<5
34
<1
<1
173
---
<5
<50
---
7.41
<5
15
0.696 j
2.66
---
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
05/28/2015
5.8
3.28
21
136
4.13
47
252
9.5
50
76
<1
<1
154
<1
50
<50
<1
8.05
<10
5
<1
---
13.3
<1
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
06/16/2015
5.7
3.40
26
135
2.23
-44
161
4.6
56
22
<1
<1
142
<1
56
<50
<1
10.1
<10
4.5
<1
---
12.2
<1
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
12/06/2015
6.4
1.45
14
215
0.40
-46
159
3.8
91
<100
<0.5
<0.5
230
<0.2
91
<50
<0.08
15
<5
5
<0.5
<0.03
14.9
<1
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
01/13/2016
6.4
1.40
14
150
0.30
-66
139
55.7
79.5
115
<1
<1
236
<1
79.5
<50
<1
15.9
<5
5
5.42
<0.03
16.2
<1
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
03/02/2016
6.3
1.38
16
165
0.49
165
370
14.5
65.7
33
<1
<1
188
<1
65.7
<50
<1
12
<5
5.5
<1
<0.03
9.9
<1
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
06/08/2016
6.6
1.73
20
272
0.20
-94
111
2.6
73.9
68
<1
<1
225
<1
73.9
<50
<1
15.1
<5
4.1 B2
<1
<0.15 D3
12.5
<1
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
08/03/2016
6.5
2.49
24
295
0.23
-19
186
2.1
87.8
70
<1
1.08
276
<1
87.8
<50
<1
14
<5
4.9
<1
<0.6 D3
15.8
<1
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
10/05/2016
6.5
2.28
22
277
0.37
-76
129
0.8
91.6 M1
89
<1
1.21
278
<1
91.6
<50
<1
13.5
<5
3.4
<1
<1.5 D3
15.2
<1
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
03/09/2017
5.9
1.72
18
152
0.27 S
-27
178
68.8
62.7
75
<1
<1
232
<1
62.7
<50
<1
12.2
<5
4.9
<1
4.1
12.6
<1
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
06/09/2017
6.5
2.32
19
229
0.30
-84
121
5.6
76.5
44
<1
<1
215
<1
76.5
<50
<1
12.7
<5
4.6
<1
<0.12 D3
11.6
<1
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
09/20/2017
6.5
1.87
22
256
0.25
-64
141
31.1
77.4
80
<1
<1
248
<1
77.4
<50
<1
12
<5
4.7
<1
0.44
12.5
<1
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
12/13/2017
6.2
1.62
9
131
0.27
44
249
79.1
61.1
45
<1
<1
247
<1
61.1
<50
<1
10.8
<5
4.5
<1
<0.025
13.5
<1
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
03/07/2018
6.2
1.72
12
148
0.37
46
251
29.7
56.4
43
<1
<1
275
<1
56.4
20.978 j
<1
11.7
<5
4.7
<1
<0.025
13.4
<1
0.31
IMW-3S
Surficial
06/04/2018
6.0
1.71
24
255
0.30
25
230
1.2
66.2
50
<1
0.804 j
289
<1
66.2
<50
<1
11.6
<5
4.5
<1
<0.025
14.5
0.517 j
0.34
IMW-3S
Surficial
08/15/2018
6.4
1.38
26
243
0.30
-43
162
5.4
67.8
42
<1
0.407 j
283
<1
67.8
<50
<1
12.1
<5
4.9
<1
<0.025
14
<1
0.3
IMW-3S
Surficial
11/27/2018
6.1
1.22
12
154
0.46
26
231
31.7
56.3
26
<1
<1
264
<1
56.3
21.516 j
<1
11.8
<5
4.8
0.9121
<0.025
14.2
0.526 j
0.3
IMW-3S
Surficial
02/13/2019
6.2
1.10
15
198
0.33
229
434
51.8
52.3
---
<1
<1
217
---
52.3
<50
---
10.4
<5
5.1
1.08
<0.025
9.69
---
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
08/13/2019
6.0
2.50
25
165
0.19
209
414
4.3
62.3
27
0.351 j
0.397 j
207
---
62.3
17.168 j
---
13.9
<5
5.8
<1
<0.025
7.61
---
---
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
08/10/2016
7.3
5.30
23
429
0.48
201
406
16.8
105
141
<1
<1
44
<1
105
262
<1
27.1
<5
23
<1
0.16
1.11
1.17
---
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
10/07/2016
7.2
5.01
21
432
0.21
180
385
9.5
115
87
<1
1.75
46
<1
115
255
<1
32
<5
23
<1
<0.15 D3
1.09
<1
---
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
11/21/2016
7.1
3.97
17
325
2.00
148
353
230.0
82.7
1010 M4
<1
1.17
58
<1
82.7
232
<1
22.8
<5
18
2.12
3.1
2.62
4.17
Page 7 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
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
Date
Ng/L
Ng/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
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
IMW-1S
Surficial
05/26/2015
11
---
6.09
258
<0.05
<10
<1
3.8
2.7
1.58
1.14
7.78
115
24
<0.1
97
<0.2
0.732
---
---
0.627
14
IMW-1S
Surficial
06/12/2015
2230
<1
---
6.55
234
<0.05
<10
<1
3.61
2
1.72
<1
7.8
123
25
<0.1
110
1
---
---
<0.3
77
IMW-1S
Surficial
09/24/2015
195
<1
---
5.65
102
<0.05
---
<1
2.92
---
1.8
<1
7.22
125
---
---
---
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
16
IMW-1S
Surficial
12/06/2015
2100
0.15
---
5.55
130
<0.2
14.7
<0.5
2.9
3.2
<5
0.75
7.61
110
20
<0.1
81
<0.1 B
1.1
---
---
---
<10
IMW-1S
Surficial
03/01/2016
1290
<1
---
5.25
131
<0.05
18.6
<1
3.23
3.6 N1
1.57
<1
7.97
109
22
<0.1
88
<0.2
0.506
0.842
<0.0002
0.313
14
IMW-1S
Surficial
06/07/2016
411
<1
---
5.82
107
<0.05
79.7
<1
3.3
4.4
1.52
<1
6.97
122
22
<0.1
110
<0.2
0.553
1.546
<0.0002
<0.3
11
IMW-1S
Surficial
08/03/2016
114
<1
---
5.88
89
<0.05
35.1
<1
3.02
1.75
<1
7.77
106
23
<0.1
93
<0.2
0.737
0.678
<0.0002
<0.3
11
IMW-1S
Surficial
10/05/2016
119
<1
---
5.38
103
<0.05
16.7
<1
2.98
3.8
1.82
<1
6.69
119
28
<0.1
130
<0.2
0.446
4.429
0.000212
<0.3
14 B2
IMW-1S
Surficial
03/07/2017
119
<1
---
4.92
96
<0.05
<10
<1
3.37
3.2
1.47
<1
7.3
114
22
<0.1
120
<0.2
0.435
1.283
<0.0002
<0.3
14
IMW-1S
Surficial
06/08/2017
56
<1
---
5.12
80
<0.05
<10
<1
2.92
4.3
1.47
<1
7.46
105
21
<0.1
99
<0.2 B3
0.547Amu
<0.0002
0.3
12
IMW-1S
Surficial
09/20/2017
50
<1
---
4.86
88
<0.05
---
<1
3.13
---
1.71
<1
7.18
107
25
<0.1
110
<0.2
1.1
3.181
<0.0002
<0.3
10
IMW-1S
Surficial
12/13/2017
59
<1
---
4.84
77
<0.05
---
<1
3.44
---
1.58
<1
6.99
98
21 M2
<0.1
77
<0.2
1
0.727
<0.0002
<0.3
11
IMW-1S
Surficial
03/06/2018
30
<1
4.506 j
5.23
92
<0.05
---
<1
3.36
2.9
1.56
0.683 j
7.66
103
22
<0.1
89
<0.2
0.51
1.367
0.0000703 j
0.198 j
12
IMW-1S
Surficial
06/06/2018
42
<1
1.878 j
5.01
76
0.029 j
<1
2.73
3.8
1.45
0.822 j
7.22
99
19
<0.1
84
0.132 j
0.405 SI
0.455
<0.0002
0.312 B2
10
IMW-1S
Surficial
08/15/2018
98
<1
2.164 j
4.62
76
<0.05
---
<1
3.33
3.2
1.76
0.699 j
7
101
24
<0.1
83
<0.2
0.36
1.408
<0.0002
0.183 j
15
IMW-1S
Surficial
11/27/2018
42
<1
2.832 j
4.76
115
<0.05
---
<1
9.93
2.6
1.64
<1
7.74
103
23
<0.1
110
0.128 j
0.485
1.095
0.0000681 j
0.121 j
17
IMW-1S
Surficial
02/12/2019
8.868999 j
---
4.049 j
4.83
86
---
---
---
---
2.8
1.54
0.673 j
7.79
113
23
---
100
0.091 j
---
---
---
<0.3
---
IMW-1S
Surficial
08/13/2019
26 B
---
<5
4.74
75
---
---
---
---
4.1
1.69
0.475 j
6.63
97
18
---
112 S1
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
---
IMW-3S
Surficial
05/28/2015
4220
<1
---
3.59
556
<0.05
<10
<1
7.17
<0.01
1.17
<1
6.94
61
1.5
<0.1
85
<0.2
0.984
---
---
<0.3
8
IMW-3S
Surficial
06/16/2015
6320
<1
---
4.56
722
<0.05
<10
<1
6.22
<0.01
1.5
<1
8.05
67
1.4
<0.1
94
<0.2
1.5
---
---
<0.3
16
IMW-3S
Surficial
12/06/2015
25900
<0.1
---
6.62
880
<0.2
<10
<0.5
4.5
<0.02
<5
<0.5
6.85
100
<1
<0.1
132
<0.1
3.8
---
---
---
<10
IMW-3S
Surficial
01/13/2016
35100
<1
---
7.37
822
<0.05
7760
<1
7.96
0.039
1.51
<1
7.14
107
<0.1
<0.1
110
<0.2
1.6
---
---
<0.3
<5
IMW-3S
Surficial
03/02/2016
14700
<1
---
5.66
571
<0.05
5680
<1
5.63
<0.01
1.41
<1
7.06
80
0.34
<0.1
120
<0.2
1.1
<RL
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
IMW-3S
Surficial
06/08/2016
34500
<1
---
6.81
760
<0.05
7070
<1
4.8
<0.01
1.38
<1
6.29
109
0.24
<0.1
120
<0.2
1.1
1.374
0.000294
<0.3
<5
IMW-3S
Surficial
08/03/2016
43200
<1
---
6.33
690
<0.05
13700
<1
6.42
<0.01
1.23
<1
5.68
91
0.29
<0.1
110
<0.2
1.1
2.083
<0.0002
<0.3
6
IMW-3S
Surficial
10/05/2016
39000
<1
---
5.99
659
<0.05
19000
<1
5.14
<0.01 M2
1.28
<1
5.67
91
0.15
<0.1
140
<0.2 B2
1.1
2.77
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
IMW-3S
Surficial
03/09/2017
15200
<1
---
5.06
573
<0.05
13000
<1
4.97
<0.01
2.72
<1
5.56
99
0.2
<0.1
110
<0.2 B3
1.3
0.785
<0.0002
<0.3
526
IMW-3S
Surficial
06/09/2017
17900
<1
---
5.2
591
<0.05
17200
<1
4.85
<0.01
2.72
<1
5.56
109
0.28
<0.1
100
<0.2
1.3
1.085
<0.0002
<0.3
201
IMW-3S
Surficial
09/20/2017
21200
<1
---
5.06
569
<0.05
---
<1
5.28
---
2.21
<1
5.45
95
0.26
<0.1
140
<0.2
1.9
0.439
<0.0002
<0.3
81
IMW-3S
Surficial
12/13/2017
12100
<1
---
4.93
538
<0.05
---
<1
5.22
---
1.48
<1
4.96
82
0.21
<0.1
82
<0.2
1.4
0.54
<0.0002
<0.3
25
IMW-3S
Surficial
03/07/2018
15200
<1
15
5.19
619
<0.05
---
0.242 j
5.49
0.012
1.46
<1
5.24
90
0.33
<0.1
62
<0.2
1
0.558
<0.0002
0.234 j
11
IMW-3S
Surficial
06/04/2018
41400
<1
12
5.23 32
611
<0.05
---
0.598 j
5.8
0.023
1.23
<1
4.94
79
0.0845 j
<0.1
90
<0.2
1.8
1.17
<0.0002
0.283 j
<5
IMW-3S
Surficial
08/15/2018
33100
<1
19
5.01
577
<0.05
---
0.421 j
5.88
0.025
1.94
<1
5.19
94
0.19
<0.1
92
<0.2
1.8
0.828
<0.0002
<0.3
22
IMW-3S
Surficial
11/27/2018
15700
<1
16
4.8
554
0.017 j
---
0.22 j
5.39
0.028
2.45
<1
5.22
95
0.37
<0.1
100
0.12 j
1.7
0.831
<0.0002
<0.3
22
IMW-3S
Surficial
02/13/2019
24000
---
14
4.38
480
---
---
---
---
0.056
1.49
<1
5.19
73
0.66
---
74
<0.2
---
---
---
1.76
---
IMW-35
Surficial
08/13/2019
8380
---
16
3.95
375
---
---
---
---
0.039
4.11
<1
6.67
127
3.9
---
81
<0.2
---
---
---
0.141 j
---
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
507
<1
---
7.41
52
<0.05
<10
1.04
2.95
0.014
6
<1
40.1
153
65
<0.1
220
<0.2
0.417
1.05
0.000622
1.15
<5
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
M11/21/2016
313
<1
---
8.81
59
<0.05
<10
1.37
2.05
0.036
6.69
<1
44.3
162
60
<0.1
250
<0.2
0.454
1.681
0.000461
0.494
<5
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
4560
1.04
---
6.29
68
<0.05
<10 N2
<1
4.65
0.042
5.42
<1
30.9
141
51
<0.1
230
<0.2
0.92
3.26
0.000865
4.6
7
Page 8 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Alkalinity
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Date
S.U.
Ft (BTOC)
°C
Ns/cm
mgA
mV
mV
NTU
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
lig/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
pg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
02/21/2017
7.0
NM
12
373
0.40
14
219
9.7
91.6
94
<1
1.01
58
<1
91.6
259
<1
25.2
<5
20
<1
<0.12 D3
1.69
<1
---
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
03/15/2017
7.1
4.04
7
430
0.47
-146
59
8.8
92
44
<1
<1
59
<1
92
253
<1
24.5
<5
22
<1
0.41
1.55
<1
---
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
06/08/2017
7.0
4.43
17
445
0.87
-229
-24
6.5
104
20
<1
1.8
52
<1
104
250
<1
25.6
<5
25
<1
<0.12 D3
1.9
<1
---
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
09/13/2017
7.4
4.51
22
456
0.24
-120
85
7.1
114
128
<1
1.9
41
<1
114
284
<1
26.6 B2
<5
26
<1
<0.12 D3
<1
<1
---
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
12/12/2017
7.3
4.56
16
449
0.39
-77
128
9.9
111
26
<1
1.87
55
<1
111
244
<1
26 B2
<5
27
<1
<0.025 M1,R1
2.39
<1
---
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
03/07/2018
7.1
4.00
14
442
0.53
-34
171
9.6
112
19
<1
2.27
48
<1
112
258
<1
26.6
<5
27
<1
<0.12 D3
4.41
<1
0.14
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
06/07/2018
7.1
4.53
24
380
1.87
-80
125
9.3
101
20
<1
1.83
53
<1
101
278
<1
26.2
<5
24
<1
<0.025
1.57
0.438 j
0.11
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
08/21/2018
6.9
4.50
24
459
0.37
126
331
9.4
106
16
<1
1.58
45
<1
106
280
<1
25.3
<5
25
<1
<0.025
0.983 j
0.0981 j
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
02/13/2019
7.1
2.80
15
429
0.71
145
350
5.1
94.8
---
<1
2.36
49
---
94.8
288
---
26.3
<5
24
<1
<0.025
2.74
---
---
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
08/15/2019
6.9
5.16
21
428
1.08
157
362
1.8
99
6.8 j
<1
1.02
46
---
99
288
---
27
<5
26
<1
<0.025
0.365 j
---
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
03/02/2015
7.1
3.78
15
1498
0.15
-487
-282
9.90
51
79
<1
<1
6
<1
51
<50
<1
12.3
<10
4.4
<1
---
Z. 75
<1
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
06/11/2015
7.2
6.03
19
134
0.35
-168
38
4.6
51
19
<1
<1
6
<1
51
<50
<1
14.1
<10
4.5
<1
---
1.05
<1
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
09/24/2015
7.6
7.61
19
137
0.29
-230
-25
5.1
---
164
<1
<1
6
<1
---
<50
<1
14.8
---
---
<1
---
<1
<1
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
12/04/2015
7.2
4.90
13
161
0.24
-222
-17
2.6
60.2
52
<1
<1
8
<1
60.2
<50
<1
15.5
<5
4.6
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
01/12/2016
7.1
3.35
15
154
0.21
-171
34
6.6
60.6
129
<1
<1
9
<1
60.6
<50
<1
16.4
<5
4.3
<1
<0.03
1.41
<1
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
03/01/2016
6.9 S
3.26
15
167 S
0.51 S
-181
24
7.6
61.6
34
<1
<1
9
<1
61.6
<50
<1
15.6
<5
4.1
<1
<0.03
1.23
<1
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
06/08/2016
7.4
5.95
18
171
0.20
-193
12
8.4
68.9
197
<1
<1
10
<1
68.9
<50
<1
17
<5
4 B2
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
08/03/2016
6.8
6.21
21
180
0.26
-106
99
6.0
67.2
85
<1
<1
11
<1
67.2
<50
<1
16.9
<5
4.4
<1
1.2
<1
<1
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
10/06/2016
7.2
6.61
19
180
0.39
-157
48
5.3
66.6
23
<1
<1
11
<1
66.6
<50
<1
16.8
<5
4.5
<1
<0.6 D3
1
<1
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
03/10/2017
7.4
5.49
14
192
0.23
-159
46
3.2
70
23
<1
<1
11
<1
70
<50
<1
16.8
<5
4.1
<1
0.81
1.03
<1
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
06/07/2017
6.6
8.30
18
175
0.92
-195
11
4.3
71.2
271
<1
<1
12
<1
71.2
<50
<1
15.7
<5
3.7
<1
<0.12 D3
1.31
<1
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
09/20/2017
7.2
5.87
19
176
0.22
-141
64
6.7
70.4
88
<1
<1
11
<1
70.4
<50
<1
15.7
<5
4
<1
0.4
<1
<1
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
12/13/2017
7.2
6.58
15
164
0.23
-128
77
7.5
65.4
32
<1
<1
10
<1
65.4
<50
<1
14
<5
4.1
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
03/07/2018
7.5
5.32
15
172
0.18
-157
48
2.0
68.5
18
<1
<1
10
<1
68.5
<50
<1
16.2
<5
4
<1
0.406 j
0.607 j
0.19
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
06/04/2018
6.8
5.58
19
162
0.18
-129
76
1.1
67.3
19
<1
<1
11
<1
67.3
<50
<1
14.4
<5
3.5
<1
<0.025
1.11
0.362 j
0.15
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
08/16/2018
7.1
5.10
21
156
0.24
80
285
4.1
61.6
33
<1
<1
8
<1
61.6
<50
<1
14.7
<5
4
<1
<0.025
0.42 j
0.709 j
0.14
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
02/13/2019
6.5
4.72
16
142
0.44
154
359
3.5
53
---
<1
<1
10
---
53
<50
---
13
<5
3.9
<1
<0.025
1.71
---
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
08/13/2019
6.7
6.45
27
126
0.30
89
294
3.9
45.1
33
<1
<1
17
---
45.1
<50
---
10.2
<5
2.8
<1
<0.025
0.801 j
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
03/03/2015
6.2
6.45
10
175
0.50
-399
-194
5.7
36
36
<1
<1
11
<1
36
<50
<1
9.27
<10
14
<1
---
1.19
<1
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
06/10/2015
6.3
11.19
22
142
0.67
54
259
3.8
38
31
<1
<1
13
<1
38
<50
<1
6.21
<10
8.6
<1
---
<1
<1
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
12/04/2015
6.2
11.90
11
112
0.60
-10
195
1.0
23.6
<1
<1
132
<1
23.6
<50
<1
1.5
<5
8.1
<1
0.054
2.46
5.23
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
01/11/2016
6.1
8.60
15
97
0.30
-43
163
1.8
31.5
21
<1
1.12
44
<1
31.5
<50
<1
4.34
<5
8.5
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
03/01/2016
6.3
7.82
16
120
0.62
3
208
0.8
22.4
17
<1
1.17
44
<1
22.4
<50
<1
4.23
<5
8.5
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
06/08/2016
5.9
10.48
20
113
0.45
-17
188
4.4
20.5
13
<1
<1
49
<1
20.5
<50
<1
4.2
<5
7.7 B2
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
07/06/2016
5.9
15.29
24
116
0.74
108
313
9.5
26
---
<1
<1
47
<1
---
<50
<1
4.69
---
7.8
<1
---
<1
---
<0.1
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
08/04/2016
5.7
15.92
21
105
0.36
119
324
9.7
27.7
17
<1
<1
43
<1
27.7
<50
<1
4.38
<5
8
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
08/31/2016
6.0
18.85
22
123
0.34
-4
201
5.9
25
---
<1
1.27
50
<1
---
<50
<1
4.85 B2
---
8
<1
---
<1
---
<0.1
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
10/03/2016
5.9
16.65
20
109
0.30
52
257
8.5
25.4
20
<1
1.42
51
<1
25.4
<50
<1
4.17
<5
7.5
<1
<1.5 D3
1.02
<1
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
11/17/2016
6.0
12.93
18
105
1.31
67
272
8.5
30
---
<1
1.15
45
<1
---
<50
<1
3.97
---
7.5
<1
---
<1
---
<0.5
Page 9 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
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
Date
Ng/L
Ng/L
pg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
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
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
02/21/2017
314
<1
---
7.23
99
<0.05
<10
<1
3.94
0.074
5.88
<1
37.9
147
57
<0.1
220
<0.2
0.592
1.41
0.000268
0.683
8
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
03/15/2017
218
<1
---
6.91
97
<0.05
<10
<1
4.18
1 0.033
5.55
<1
35.4
157
61
<0.1
230
<0.2
0.49 B2, B3
0.449
0.000216
0.887 B2
5
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
06/08/2017
390
<1
---
7.46
100
<0.05
<10
<1
2.63
0.056
5.82
<1
42.3
156
66
<0.1
230
<0.2 B3
0.588 B3
0.767
0.000204
0.444
<5
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
09/13/2017
1280
<1
---
7.8
95
<0.05
---
1.16
<1
---
5.98
<1
48.5
160
69
<0.1
270
<0.2
1.1
---
---
<0.3
<5
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
12/12/2017
682
<1
---
7.37
155
<0.05
---
<1
3.01
---
5.71
<1
39.8
156
72
<0.1
240
<0.2
0.856
---
---
0.392
<5
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
03/07/2018
985
<1
6
7.86
170
<0.05
---
0.925 j
2.77
0.0039 j
6.14
<1
45.1
158
71
<0.1
220
0.152 j
0.395
---
---
0.122 j
1.671 j
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
06/07/2018
941
<1
8
7.98
98
<0.05
---
0.772 j
1.2
0.078
6.31
<1
45.9 BI
160
66
<0.1
240
0.153 j
0.484 SI
---
---
0.335
2.532 j
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
08/21/2018
898
<1
8
7.41
68
<0.05
---
0.777 j
0.89 j
0.058
5.69
<1
44.4
151
67
<0.1
200
<0.2
0.318
---
---
0.24 j
7
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
02/13/2019
2060
---
7
8.1
130
---
---
---
---
0.0085 j
6.24
<1
47.5
163
65
---
210
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
---
AMW-17BC
Black Creek
08/15/2019
936
---
7
7.61
50
---
---
---
---
0.065
6.17
<1
47.5
164
67
---
227
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
03/02/2015
6300
<1
---
3.38
1220
<0.05
19
1.36
1.26
0.013
0.691
<1
6.19
29
1.8
<0.1
<250
<0.2
0.76
---
---
<0.3
<5
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
06/11/2015
3290
<1
---
3.57
983
<0.05
21
1.63
<1
<0.01
0.781
<1
6.56
33
<0.1
<0.1
86
<0.2
---
<0.3
<5
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
09/24/2015
1460
<1
---
3.22
600
<0.05
---
2.44
<1
---
0.851
<1
7.54
37
---
---
---
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
<5
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
12/04/2015
4910
<1
---
4.37
1380
<0.05
1130
2.05
<1
<0.01
0.671
<1
6.29
39
<0.1
<0.1
83
<0.2
---
---
<0.3
<5
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
01/12/2016
6750
<1
---
4.75
1520
<0.05
1160
1.52
<1
0.016
0.701
<1
5.84
39
<0.1
<0.1
92
<0.
5
---
---
<0.3
<5
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
03/01/2016
7460
<1
---
4.43
1560
<0.05
1670
1.55
<1
0.055
0.666
<1
5.34
38
<0.1
<0.1
78
<0.2
.2
0.469
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
06/08/2016
7260
<1
---
4.54
1470
<0.05
5050
1.54
<1
<0.01 M2
1.5
<1
6.45
47
<0.1
<0.1
74
<0.2
1
1
<0.0002
0.361
<5
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
08/03/2016
9820
<1
---
4.65
1680
<0.05
4780
1.55
<1
<0.01
1.12
<1
5.63
43
<0.1
<0.1
85
<0.
6.7
0.894
<0.0002
0.415
<5
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
10/06/2016
9680
<1
---
4.65
1600
<0.05
6590
1.62
<1
0.013
0.97
<1
5.45
41
0.19
<0.1
84
<0.2
1.2
1.998
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
03/10/2017
11600
<1
---
4.79
1920
<0.05
13200
1.28
<1
<0.01
0.728
<1
5.05
43
<0.1
<0.1
81
<0.2
1.7 B3
<RL
<0.0002
<0.3
8
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
06/07/2017
11600
<1
---
4.64
1880
<0.05
16900
1.19
1.11
<0.01 M2
0.694
<1
4.89
40
0.11
<0.1
51
<0.2 B3
0.92
0.535
<0.0002
0.5
<5
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
09/20/2017
9880
<1
---
4.34
1610
<0.05
---
1.12
<1
---
0.78
<1
5.1
39
<0.1
<0.1
110
<0.2
1.3
<RL
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
12/13/2017
8920
<1
---
3.96
1510
<0.05
---
1.52
<1
---
0.733
<1
4.91
38
<0.2
<0.1
36
<0.2
0.808
---
---
<0.3
<5
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
03/07/2018
10300
<1
11
4.77
1700
<0.05
---
1.23
0.384 j
0.016
0.691
<1
5.29
37
<0.1
<0.1
61
<0.2
0.252
---
---
<0.3
3.492 j
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
06/04/2018
10500
<1
12
4.41 B2
1750
<0.05
---
0.877 j
<1
0.012
0.63
<1
4.51
36
0.083 j
<0.1
42
<0.2
0.376 S1
---
---
0.155 j
<5
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
08/16/2018
9270
<1
11
4.22
1390
<0.05
---
0.768 j
<1
0.014
0.765
<1
5.16
37
<0.1
<0.1
63
<0.2
0.181
---
---
<0.3
<5
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
02/13/2019
6780
---
11
3.65
1100
---
---
---
---
0.103
1.36
<1
4.68
33
0.35
---
40
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
---
AMW-11BC
Cape Fear
08/13/2019
11400
---
8
2.49
1180
---
---
---
---
0.038
3.53
<1
3.38
35
0.046 j
---
45
<0.2
---
---
---
0.464
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
03/03/2015
3260
<1
---
2.54
285
<0.05
24
<1
2.2
<0.02
2.19
<1
16.5
46
17
<0.5
110
<0.2
0.566
---
---
<0.3
6
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
06/10/2015
12600
<1
---
2.28
287
<0.05
14
<1
<1
0.025
0.875
<1
11.3
34
8.4
0.201
87
<0.2
0.579
<RL
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
12/04/2015
75
<1
---
2.19
16
<0.05
<10 CL
<1
3.25
<0.01
2.22
<1
3.78
23
8.5
<0.1
68
<0.2
0.268
---
---
<0.3
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
01/11/2016
9280
<1
---
2.03
180
<0.05
<10
<1
1.98
0.019
0.701
<1
10.4
26
9.8
<0.1
65
<0.
0.233
---
---
<0.3
<5
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
03/01/2016
9020
<1
---
1.98
167
<0.05
<10
<1
1.81
<0.01
0.742
<1
10.5
24
11
<0.1
81
<0.2
0.346
0.691
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
06/08/2016
3780
<1
---
1.96
143
<0.05
<10
<1
2.1
<0.01
0.776
<1
9.62
26
9.4
<0.1
54
<0.2
0.324
0.306
0.00021
<0.3
9
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
07/06/2016
---
<1
14
2.09
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.776
<1
8.67
---
8.8
---
59
<0.2
---
1.705
---
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
08/04/2016
5810
<1
---
2.04
149
<0.05
<10
<1
2.21
0.012
0.782
<1
9.47
26
9.4
<0.1
71
<0.2
0.306
0.685
<0.0002
<0.3
9
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
08/31/2016
---
<1
14
2.19
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.792
<1
8.64
---
9
---
58
<0.2
---
2.45
---
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
10/03/2016
5850
<1
---
1.96
164
<0.05
<10
<1
2.59
<0.01 M2
0.696
<1
8.23
27
8.9
<0.1
61
<0.2
0.221
3.799
<0.0002
<0.3
8
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
11/17/2016
---
<1
12
1.87
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.677
<1
9.4
---
8.4
96
<0.2
1.307
Page 10 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Alkalinity
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Date
S.U.
Ft (BTOC)
oC
pS/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
IVA
mg/L
Ng/L
Pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
12/19/2016
6.0
12.50
12
90
0.62
-29
176
116.0
31
---
<1
1.01
54
<1
---
<50
<1
4.42
---
7.5
2.6
---
1.09
---
<0.1
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
02/21/2017
5.9
8.52
16
97
2.36
34
239
54.1
23
---
<1
1.28
48
<1
---
<50
<1
4.14
---
7.5
1.3
---
<1
---
<0.1
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
03/10/2017
5.8
8.69
15
93
1.10
48
253
157.0
25.5
677
<1
1.24
53
<1
25.5
<50
<1
3.94
<5
8.1
3.5
11
1.1
2.4
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
04/19/2017
5.9
8.80
16
88
3.99
62
267
63.9
23
---
<1
1.06
48
<1
---
<50
<1
4.06
---
7.6
1.42
---
<1
---
<0.1
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
06/08/2017
5.7
10.80
19
96
3.97
118
323
25.3
23.2
342
<1
1.05
44
<1
23.2
<50
<1
4.06
<5
8.2
<1
<0.12 D3
<1
<1
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
06/08/2017
5.7
10.80
19
96
3.97
118
323
25.3
20
---
<1
1.15
46
<1
---
<50
<1
3.76
---
7.8
<1
---
<1
---
<0.1
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
08/01/2017
5.8
14.22
24
92
3.13
31
236
9.6
24
---
<1
1.18
41
<1
---
<50
<1
3.61
---
6.4
<1
---
<1
---
<0.1
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
09/12/2017
5.8
14.79
19
87
1.76
92
297
8.4
23.8
55
<1
1.12
44
<1
23.8
<50
<1
3.63 132
<5
8.1
<1
<0.12 D3
<1
<1
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
09/12/2017
5.8
14.79
19
87
1.76
92
297
8.4
19
---
<1
1.12
42
<1
---
<50
<1
3.74 132
---
7.5
<1
---
<1
---
<0.1
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
12/11/2017
6.1
16.85
15
85
1.17
56
261
38.2
24
171
<1
1.16
51
<1
24
<50
<1
4.11 132
<5
7.7
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
02/12/2018
5.8
9.83
17
84
0.97
55
260
9.7
9.4
---
<1
1.05
45
<1
---
<50
<1
3.91
---
7.3
<1
---
<1
---
<0.1
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
03/05/2018
5.6
8.19
14
83
2.32
2
207
9.7
23.6
11
<1
<1
43
<1
23.6
<50
<1
3.54
<5
7.4
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
<0.1
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
04/30/2018
5.8
8.55
15
90
3.44
41
246
9.0
20
---
<1
0.868 j
44
<1
---
21.52 j
<1
3.9
---
7.8
<1
---
0.713 j
---
<0.1
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
06/04/2018
5.5
9.40
20
87
0.31
67
272
6.3
22.2
22
<1
<1
44
0.694 j
22.2
19.045 j
<1
3.81
<5
8.1
0.48 j
<0.025
1.16
2.48
0.0484 j
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
08/16/2018
5.7
15.85
27
95
2.28
268
473
40.5
20.7
514
<1
1.19
49
<1
20.7
17.782 j
<1
4.03
<5
8.2
1.3
<0.025
0.964 j
0.661 j
0.0399 j
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
10/24/2018
5.9
14.55
16
96
0.48
250
455
146.0
25.1
---
<1
0.938 j
61
<1
---
23.392 j
<1
4.54
---
7.9
3.74
---
1.34
---
0.0458 j
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
02/14/2019
5.8
7.72
16
96
0.14
265
470
84.5
24.7
---
<1
0.944 j
52
---
24.7
<50
---
3.98
<5
7.8
2.07
<0.025
1.18
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
02/14/2019
5.8
7.72
16
96
0.14
265
470
84.5
25
---
<1
0.952 j
51
<1
---
19.774 j
<1
4.04
---
7.8
2.09
---
1.08
---
<0.1
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
08/14/2019
5.8
20.31
21
102
0.32
259
464
23.6
27
---
<1
1.84
51
<1
---
24.489 j
<1
5.05
---
8
0.495 j
---
1.28
---
<0.1
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
08/14/2019
5.8
20.31
21
102
0.32
259
464
23.6
25.4
162
<1
0.85 j
52
---
25.4
23.031 j
---
5.28
<5
7.9
0.571 j
<0.025
1.14
---
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
03/05/2015
8.9
4.54
18
360
0.07
-374
-169
69.2
110
372
<1
<1
163
<1
110
70
<1
46.3
<10
24
<1
---
<1
1.63
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
06/10/2015
6.6
12.19
22
317
0.42
-85
120
8.2
100
75
<1
<1
342
<1
100
73
<1
31.6
<10
16
<1
---
<1
<1
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
12/04/2015
7.2
9.23
15
309
0.50
-139
66
1.0
118
69
<1
<1
269
<1
118
67
<1
30.3
<5
16
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
01/11/2016
7.4
3.20
16
310
0.40
-129
76
1.8
114
69
<1
<
114
70
<1
32.9
<5
17
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
03/01/2016
7.1
3.96
17
311
0.30
-133
72
0.9
118
31
<1
<1
272
<1
118
68
<1
32.1
<5
17
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
06/08/2016
6.7
10.62
19
313
0.27
-165
40
1.0
114
68
<1
<1
344
<1
114
68
<1
28.4
<5
15 132
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
08/03/2016
7.0
11.62
21
305
0.25
-41
164
4.8
117
79
<1
<1
117
69
<1
29.9
<5
16
<1
0.65 M6
<1
<1
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
10/05/2016
6.7
11.40
19
310
0.22
-68
137
2.7
112
51
<1
<1
321
<1
112
67
<1
30.8
<5
16
<1
<0.6 D3
<1
<1
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
03/13/2017
6.8
11.40
16
292
0.19
-207
-2
7.8
107
209
<1
<1
352
<1
107
77
<1
28.3
<5
17
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
06/07/2017
6.1
8.58
18
290
0.84
-161
44
7.7
109
45
<1
<1
327
<1
109
63
<1
26.7
<5
16
<1
<0.12 D3
<1
<1
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
09/20/2017
6.7
11.63
21
310
0.14
-79
126
5.5
116
111
<1
<1
349
<1
116
75
<1
29.3
<5
16
<1
<0.12 D3
<1
<1
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
12/12/2017
6.9
12.09
17
301
0.21
-109
96
4.1
115
45
<1
<1
347
<1
115
72
<1
28.9 B2
<5
17
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
03/07/2018
6.5
10.35
17
294
0.47
-280
-75
6.3
108
69
<1
0.855 j
349
<1
108
71
<1
27.7
<5
17
<1
2.4
0.852 j
<1
0.0824 j
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
06/06/2018
6.6
8.11
23
304
0.24
276
481
8.9
113
95
<1
0.86 j
362
<1
113
71
<1
27.5
<5
16
<1
0.055 P4,R0
0.766 j
0.372 j
0.0719 j
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
08/16/2018
6.5
8.60
25
305
0.18
107
312
7.8
110
121
<1
361
<1
110
67
<1
28.4
<5
17
0.388 j
<0.025
0.636 j
0.362 j
0.0584 j
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
02/13/2019
6.7
8.57
18
250
0.13
122
327
1.1
100
---
<1
0.908 j
356
---
100
57
---
27.7
<5
16
<1
<0.025
0.66 j
---
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
02/13/2019
6.7
8.57
18
250
0.13
122
327
1.1
98
---
<1
0.799 j
361
<1
---
74
<1
30.1
---
16
<1
---
0.594 j
---
<0.1
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
08/13/2019
6.7
12.31
24
279
0.19
111
316
5.6
100
---
<1
0.977 j
340
<1
---
71
<1
27.8
16
0.336 j
---
0.933 j
---
<0.1
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
08/13/2019
6.7
12.31
24
279
0.19
111
316
5.6
105
14
<1
0.743 j
345
---
105
72
---
28.6
<5
17
<1
<0.025 M1
0.705 j
---
---
Page 11 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
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
Date
Pg/L
Pg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Pg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
mg/L
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
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
12/19/2016
---
<1
15
2.06
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.791
<1
9.56
---
7.5
---
64
<0.2
---
0.579
---
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
02/21/2017
---
<1
16
1.81
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.713
<1
9.76
---
8.2
---
80
<0.2
---
2.977
---
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
03/10/2017
9940
<1
---
1.75
159
<0.05
114
<1
3.49
<0.01
0.672
<1
9.7
24
8.7
<0.1
80
<0.2 B3
0.88 B3
0.471
0.00024
2.93
14
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
04/19/2017
---
<1
15
1.83
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.693
<1
10.3 B2
---
8.2
---
74
<0.2
---
0.575
---
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
06/08/2017
5260
<1
---
1.87
124
<0.05
40.9
<1
2.66
0.027
0.74
<1
9.56 B3
23
7.9
<0.1
60
<0.2 B3
0.375
0.31
<0.0002
0.83
5
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
06/08/2017
---
<1
15
1.78
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.682
<1
9.53
---
7.7
---
89
<0.2 B3
---
1.03
---
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
08/01/2017
---
<1
15
1.72
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.633
<1
8.95
---
7.7
---
63
<0.2
---
0.974
---
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
09/12/2017
3030
<1
---
1.71
115
<0.05
---
<1
3.06
---
0.68
<1
9
23
8.2
<0.1
67
<0.2
0.998
---
---
0.485 132
5
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
09/12/2017
---
<1
14
1.75
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.64
<1
9
---
7.9
---
62
<0.2
---
<RL
---
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
12/11/2017
5010
<1
---
1.9
154
<0.05
---
<1
2.98
---
0.692
<1
7.84 B2, B3
26
7.6
<0.1
45
<0.2
0.796
---
---
0.89
6
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
02/12/2018
---
<1
15
1.88
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
0.698
<1
9.38
---
7.4
---
51
<0.2
---
0.5
---
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
03/05/2018
2590
<1
17
1.69
133
<0.05
---
<1
2.66
0.014
0.68
<1
9.48
20
7.5
<0.1
54
<0.2
0.325
---
---
<0.3
<5
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
04/30/2018
---
<1
16
1.86
---
<0.05
---
0.147 j
---
---
0.693
<1
9.65
---
7.5
---
50
<0.2
---
0.8507
---
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
06/04/2018
2920
<1
14
1.77 B2
110
<0.05
---
0.105 j
1.27
0.014
0.662
<1
9.17
23
7.7
<0.1
27
0.103 j
0.198 SS
---
---
0.389
7
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
08/16/2018
4600
<1
15
1.96
145
<0.05
---
0.126 j
3.35
0.027
0.723
<1
8.59
25
7.1
<0.1
66
<0.2
0.204
---
---
0.844
6
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
10/24/2018
---
0.906 j
16
2.1
---
<0.05
---
0.117 j
---
---
0.94
<1
8.71
---
7.3
---
52
<0.2
---
1.3745
---
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
02/14/2019
5880
---
17
1.91
147
---
---
---
---
0.063
0.785
<1
9.49
24
7.7
---
62
<0.2
---
---
---
1.6
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
02/14/2019
---
0.526 j
16
1.96
---
<0.05
---
0.103 j
---
---
0.71
<1
9.39
---
7.2
---
75
<0.2
---
1.326
---
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
08/14/2019
---
<1
14
2.26
---
<0.05
---
0.104 j
---
---
0.827
<1
8.89
---
7
---
78
<0.2
---
1.701
---
---
---
AMW-12BC
Cape Fear
08/14/2019
3940
---
16
2.4
167
---
---
---
---
0.021 Sl
0.878
<1
9.25
29
7.1
---
66
<0.2
---
---
---
0.156 j
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
03/05/2015
3620
<1
---
5.18
43
<0.05
<10
2.28
2.21
<0.01
2.48
<1
22.4
151
16
<0.1
200
<0.2
2.4
---
---
0.962
8
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
06/10/2015
10800
<1
---
7.65
99
<0.05
30
<1
1.11
<0.01
1.59
<1
15.8
125
5.7
<0.1
170
<0.2
1.4
---
---
0.324
<5
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
12/04/2015
9880
<1
---
6.32
118
<0.05
172 CL
<1
<1
<0.01
1.57
<1
14.7
134
3.8
<0.2
170
<0.2
0.98
---
---
<0.3
<5
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
01/11/2016
8750
<1
---
6.55
126
<0.05
1030
<1
<1
0.015
1.46
<1
15.9
142
0.28
<0.1
170
<0.2
1.3
---
---
<0.3
<5
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
03/01/2016
9100
<1
---
6.68
117
<0.05
848
<1
<1
<0.01
1.47
<1
15
132
1
<0.1
160
<0.2
1
0.959
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
06/08/2016
10800
<1
---
7.01
102
<0.05
139
<1
<1
<0.01
1.47
<1
14.2
125
5.9
<0.1
150
<0.2
0.76
3.44
0.000281
<0.3
<5
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
08/03/2016
10700
<1
---
6.94
104
<0.05
334
<1
<1
<0.01
2.03
<1
14.4
126
5.6
1 <0.1
150
<0.2
0.845
1.59
<0.0002
0.343
<5
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
10/05/2016
10300
<1
---
6.87
101
<0.05
397
<1
<1
<0.01
1.88
<1
14.8
121
5.8
<0.1
180
<0.2 B2
0.75
1.676
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
03/13/2017
12200
<1
---
7.28
102
<0.05
204
<1
<1
<0.01
1.3
<1
14
115
6.7
<0.1
150
<0.2
0.777
2.33
<0.0002
0.378 B2
<5
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
06/07/2017
10600
<1
---
6.62
95
<0.05
214
<1
1.03
0.035
1.43
<1
13.2
110
7.3
<0.1
140
<0.2 B3
1.3
1.602
<0.0002
0.339
<5
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
09/20/2017
11300
<1
---
6.91
100
<0.05
---
<1
1.01
---
1.27
<1
14.5
119
6.2
<0.1
180
<0.2
1.8
---
---
<0.3
<5
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
12/12/2017
10800
<1
---
6.95
92
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
1.24
<1
14.2
111
6.9
<0.1
170
<0.2
1.5
---
---
0.302
<5
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
03/07/2018
11500
<1
4.238 j
7.42
94
<0.05
---
0.239 j
2.05
0.02 M2
1.3
<1
14.2
111
7.1
<0.1
140
<0.2
0.741
---
---
0.147 j
4.101 j
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
06/06/2018
11400
<1
7
7.4
97
<0.05
---
<1
1.72
0.013
1.29
<1
14.1 B2
117
6.9
<0.1
130
0.098 j
0.695 SI
---
---
0.407
3.074 j
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
08/16/2018
12700
<1
4.708 j
7.43
103
<0.05
---
0.136 j
1.3
0.016
1.3
<1
14.1
119
6.7
<0.1
140
<0.2
1.4
---
---
0.401
3.475 j
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
02/13/2019
11300
---
6
7.37
100
---
---
---
---
0.035
1.42
<1
14.1
117
6.5
---
140
<0.2
---
---
---
0.143 j
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
02/13/2019
---
<1
4 j
7.35
---
<0.05
---
0.165 j
---
1.45
<1
15.2
---
6.8
---
140
<0.2
---
1.541
---
---
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
08/13/2019
---
<1
4.889 j
6.81
---
<0.05
0.094 j
1.32
<1
14.1
---
6.7
---
166
<0.2
---
2.8
---
---
---
AMW-13BC
Cape Fear
08/13/2019
11600
---
5
7.05
97
---
---
---
---
0.042
1.43
<1
14.3
113
7.3
---
127
=<0.2---
---
---
0.106 j
---
Page 12 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Alkalinity
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Date
S.U.
Ft (BTOC)
oC
pS/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
lig/L
Ng/L
mg/L
lig/L
lig/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
lig/L
mg/L
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
07/06/2016
6.7
27.09
23
376
3.50
187
392
3.6
67
---
<1
<1
16
<1
---
<50
<1
14.5
---
30
<1
---
3.23
---
0.13
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
07/20/2016
6.6
27.02
21
297
2.50
322
527
5.9
41
19
<1
<1
16
<1
41
<50
<1
7.38
<5
18
<1
0.058
12.4
<1
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
08/30/2016
6.6
27.44
22
207
2.08
152
357
1.9
42
---
<1
<1
17
<1
---
<50
<1
8.73 132
---
19
<1
---
4.87
---
<0.1
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
10/06/2016
6.4
27.34
19
190
2.79
327
532
3.9
32.8
29
<1
<1
17
<1
32.8
<50
<1
6.37
<5
12
<1
0.15
8.97
<1
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
11/17/2016
6.1
26.64
17
127
2.49
171
376
1.5
18
---
<1
<1
16
<1
---
<50
<1
3.84
---
8.2
<1
---
14.7
---
<1
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
12/15/2016
6.1
26.94
14
102
3.16
178
383
0.7
14
---
<1
<1
17
<1
---
<50
<1
3.58 Bl
---
7.1
<1
---
15.6
---
<0.1
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
02/20/2017
5.7
26.98
18
91.8 S
8.71 S
209
414
3.1
13
---
<1
<1
18
<1
---
<50
<1
3.46
---
6.6
<1
---
16.1
---
<0.1
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
03/13/2017
6.0
27.32
16
SOS
5.97
-156
49
9.0
12.8
128
<1
<1
17
<1
12.8
<50
<1
3.06
<5
6.2
<1
0.037
16.6
1.53
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
04/18/2017
5.9
27.19
17
99
3.93
89
294
9.6
11
---
<1
<1
16
<1
---
<50
<1
2.73 Bl
---
5.5
<1
---
16.6
---
<0.1
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
06/12/2017
5.0
26.71
20
49
6.48
109
314
25.9
10.5
550
<1
<1
16
<1
10.5
<50
<1
2.14
<5
3.2
1.64
<0.12 D3
15.1
1.76
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
06/12/2017
5.0
26.71
20
49
6.48
109
314
25.9
10
---
<1
<1
16
<1
---
<50
<1
2.4
---
3.4
1.16
---
15.7
---
<0.1
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
08/01/2017
5.6
27.14
24
78
6.32
136
341
8.6
12
---
<1
<1
17
<1
---
<50
<1
2.61
---
7.4
<1
---
13.6
---
<0.1
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
09/12/2017
5.6
27.18
19
73
6.22
264
469
7.8
11.4
26
<1
<1
18
<1
11.4
<50
<1
2.54 132
<5
5.4
<1
0.035
14.3
<1
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
09/12/2017
5.6
27.18
19
73
6.22
264
469
7.8
9.9
---
<1
<1
18
<1
---
<50
<1
2.63 132
---
5.5
<1
---
15
---
<0.1
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
12/12/2017
5.6
27.68
16
70
4.10
121
326
9.7
7
65
<1
<1
19
<1
7
<50
<1
2.48 132
<5
6.8
<1
<0.025
12.6
1.05
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
02/12/2018
5.6
27.67
18
68
4.08
240
445
1.5
<5
---
<1
<1
20
<1
---
<50
<1
2.61
---
5.2
<1
---
12.9
---
<0.1
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
03/07/2018
5.6
27.42
15
67
5.30
8
213
2.9
9.1
25
<1
<1
22
<1
9.1
21.032 j
<1
2.36
<5
5.5
<1
0.055
7.18
1.58
0.0833 j
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
05/01/2018
5.4
27.14
17
66
3.96
248
453
2.1
11
---
<1
<1
18
<1
---
19.2 j
<1
2.5
---
4.5
0.342 j
---
13.1
---
0.096 j
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
06/06/2018
4.2
26.12
20
158
5.90
234
439
3.7
<5
216
<1
<1
544
0.536 j
<5
<50
<1
10.3
<5
15
<1
0.056
5.21
2.18
0.0631 j
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
08/21/2018
5.6
26.91
23
73
4.75
327
532
9.5
10.6
108
<1
<1
18
<1
10.6
27.2 j
<1
2.78
<5
4.8
0.542 j
0.043
11.4
1.25
0.0743 j
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
10/23/2018
5.9
25.99
16
60
5.10
224
429
5.8
8.7
---
<1
<1
18
<1
---
<50
<1
2.33
---
4.8
0.376 j
---
12.6
---
0.049 j
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
02/13/2019
5.5
25.74
17
59
4.85
367
572
1.0
13.5
---
<1
<1
17
---
13.5
17.556 j
---
2.26
<5
4
0.354 j
0.058
12.7
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
02/13/2019
5.5
25.74
17
59
4.85
367
572
1.0
8.6
---
<1
<1
17
<1
---
<50
<1
2.38
---
4
<1
---
12.8
---
<0.1
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
08/14/2019
5.4
27.31
22
63
6.42
320
525
0.5
6.3
---
<1
<1
19
<1
---
<50
<1
2.1
---
4.8
<1
---
9.11
<0.1
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
08/14/2019
5.4
27.31
22
63
6.42
320
525
0.5
8.08
11
<1
<1
21
---
8.08
<50
---
2.02
<5
4.8
<1
0.16
5.83
---
---
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
05/27/2015
6.4
4.25
21
427
2.82
147
352
9.4
70
15
<1
<1
95
<1
70
156
<1
16.5
<10
66
1.52
---
<1
<1
---
IMW-16C
Cape Fear
06/12/2015
6.7
4.63
22
419
2.13
203
408
2.7
74
14
<1
<1
101
<1
74
171
<1
17.3
<10
70
<1
---
<1
<1
---
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
09/24/2015
6.8
6.97
20
451
0.40
-76
129
2.1
---
35
<1
<1
98
<1
---
164
<1
18.2
---
---
<1
---
<1
<1
---
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
12/06/2015
7.0
3.40
16
478
0.30
-90
115
1.8
83
<100
<0.5
0.87
100
<0.2
83
150
<0.08
18
<5
73.2
<0.5
<0.03
0.73
<1
---
IMW-16C
Cape Fear
01/12/2016
6.8
3.20
14
250
0.40
-80
125
3.7
82.7
55
<1
<1
108
<1
82.7
158
<1
17.7
<5
74
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
03/04/2016
6.9
3.36
8
447
0.79
143
348
9.7
89.9
39
<1
<1
96
<1
89.9
156
<1
14.7
<5
74
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
06/07/2016
6.8
3.69
22
455
1.30
88
293
7.5
91.9
47
<1
<1
99
<1
91.9
153
<1
15.9
<5
74
<1
0.052
<1
1.69
---
IMW-16C
Cape Fear
08/03/2016
6.7
4.40
22
445
0.60
259
464
7.4
93.6
18
<1
<1
101
<1
93.6
153
<1
16.9
<5
72
<1
0.038
<1
<1
---
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
10/05/2016
6.7
4.99
20
440
0.51
15
220
9.9
91
14
<1
<1
124
<1
91
175
<1
17
<5
69
<1
<0.3 D3
1.04
<1
---
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
03/07/2017
6.6
3.69
15
454
0.43
-77
128
8.5
93
8 B2
<1
<1
103
<1
93
159
<1
16.1
<5
71
<1
<0.12 D3
<1
<1
---
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
06/08/2017
6.8
3.92
19
427
2.16
5
210
9.2
91.6
9
<1
<1
105
<1
91.6
146
<1
15.8
<5
73
<1
0.14
<1
<1
---
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
09/20/2017
6.8
3.80
20
450
0.29
78
283
9.6
102
14
<1
<1
115
<1
102
160
<1
16.2
<5
71
<1
<0.12 D3
<1
<1
---
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
12/13/2017
6.9
4.19
12
463
0.47
-10
195
6.7
99.3
17
<1
<1
130
<1
99.3
154
<1
15.1
<5
70
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
---
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
03/06/2018
6.8
3.58
13
476
0.35
25
230
9.9
92.3
18
<1
<1
107
<1
92.3
147
<1
16.7
<5
72
0.398 j
<0.025
<1
0.78 j
0.16
Page 13 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
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
Date
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pOIL
pgmL
pg L
pg L
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
07/06/2016
---
<1
11
5.61
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
3.29
<1
41.8
---
32
---
180
<0.2
---
0.911
---
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
07/20/2016
16
<1
---
4.12
48
<0.05
<10 L3
<1
37.5
0.953
2.06
<1
17.6
33
19
<0.1
120
<0.2
0.406
3.1
<0.0002
3.2
23
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
08/30/2016
---
<1
18
3.7
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
4.77
<1
23.3
---
23
---
130
<0.2
---
<RL
---
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
10/06/2016
39
<1
---
3.47
33
<0.05
<10
<1
35.2
1.2
4.06
<1
15.8
29
14
<0.1
94
<0.2
0.354
1.54
<0.0002
2.78
20
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
11/17/2016
---
<1
21
2.8
---
<0.05
---
12.6
---
---
1.9
<1
8.75
---
7.9
---
75
<0.2
---
<RL
---
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
12/15/2016
---
<1
22
2.8
---
<0.05
---
5.75
---
---
1.6
<1
7.63
---
6.8
---
52
<0.2
---
<RL
---
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
02/20/2017
---
<1
26
2.63
---
<0.05
---
3.32
---
---
1.44
<1
6.83
---
6.1
---
50
<0.2
---
1.563
---
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
03/13/2017
245
<1
---
2.49
44
<0.05
<10
2.11
47.7
1.3
1.32
<1
6.1
13
5
<0.1
46
<0.2
0.191
0.454
<0.0002
3.33 132
32
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
04/18/2017
---
<1
23
2.31
---
<0.05
---
1.07
---
---
1.14
<1
4.54
---
4.3
---
64
<0.2
---
0.607
---
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
06/12/2017
880
<1
---
1.97
37
<0.05
<10
<1
43.8
1.3
0.969
<1
2.79
10
1.8
<0.1
39
<0.2
0.258 133
<RL
<0.0002
4.4
33
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
06/12/2017
---
<1
22
2.17
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.05
<1
2.94
---
1.8
---
38
<0.2
---
<RL
---
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
08/01/2017
---
<1
22
2.14
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.18
<1
5.33
---
4.3
---
41
<0.2
---
1.596
---
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
09/12/2017
41
<1
---
2.15
38
<0.05
---
<1
40.6
---
1.23
<1
5.24
12
4.5
<0.1
33
<0.2
0.958
---
---
2.42 132
30
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
09/12/2017
---
<1
23
2.19
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.16
<1
4.93
---
4.6
---
45
<0.2
---
1.23
---
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
12/12/2017
169
<1
---
2.01
35
<0.05
---
<1
36.9
---
1.21
<1
5.24
12
6.5
<0.1
46
<0.2
0.828
---
---
2.27
27
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
02/12/2018
---
<1
24
2.17
---
<0.05
---
1.41
---
---
1.24
<1
5.44
---
4.4
---
27
<0.2
---
0.517
---
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
03/07/2018
50
<1
27
1.74
36
<0.05
---
0.87 j
24.2
1.7 M1
1.43
<1
6.49
13
4.8
<0.1
38
0.088 j
0.283
---
---
1.28
23
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
05/01/2018
---
<1
25
2.27
---
<0.05
---
0.51 j
---
---
1.16
<1
4.4
---
3.2
---
29
<0.2
---
0.617
---
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
06/06/2018
22
4.8
1.824 j
5.07
107
0.019 j
---
<1
2.74
8.9
5
0.382 j
2.91
82
5.9
<0.1 Rl
100
0.138 j
0.407 Sl
---
---
0.324 132
4.201 j
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
08/21/2018
306
<1
24
2.11
33
<0.05
---
0.648 j
34.6
2.1
1.14
<1
5.68
12
3.8
<0.1
<25
<0.2
0.155
---
---
2.05
26
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
10/23/2018
---
<1
26
2.03
---
<0.05
---
0.373 j
---
---
1.21
<1
4.58
---
4
---
<25
<0.2
---
0.6374
---
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
02/13/2019
23
---
25
2.08
26
---
---
---
---
1.7
1.08
<1
4.07
10
2.9
---
<25
<0.2
---
---
---
2.11
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
02/13/2019
---
<1
23
2.2
---
<0.05
---
0.286 j
---
---
1.13
<1
4.01
---
2.9
---
38
<0.2
---
1.369
---
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
08/14/2019
---
<1
24
1.73
---
<0.05
---
0.286 j
---
---
1.17
<1
5.09
---
4.3
---
47
<0.2
---
0.435
---
---
---
AMW-16BC
Cape Fear
08/14/2019
<10
---
26
1.62
19
---
---
---
---
2.2
1.32
<1
6.15
11
4.5
---
<25
<0.2
---
---
---
0.832
---
IMW-113C
Cape Fear
05/27/2015
147
<1
---
3.29
59
<0.05
<10
4.78
2.68
0.014
2.22
<1
59.2
105
20
<0.1
220
<0.2
0.398
---
---
<0.3
<5
IMW-lBC
Cape Fear
06/12/2015
98
<1
---
3.52
66
<0.05
<10
3.74
2.25
0.064
2.44
<1
62.5
113
20
<0.1
230
<0.2
0.508
---
---
<0.3
7
IMW-113C
Cape Fear
09/24/2015
4380
<1
---
3.73
111
<0.05
---
2.64
1.57
---
2.57
<1
62.9
120
---
---
---
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
<5
IMW-113C
Cape Fear
12/06/2015
6500
<0.1
---
3.82
110
<0.2
17.9
1.9
0.9
<0.02
<5
<0.5
61
110
15.8
<0.1
223
<0.1
<1
---
---
---
<10
IMW-lBC
Cape Fear
01/12/2016
5490
<1
---
3.66
132
<0.05
18.3
1.97
1.39
0.026
2.4
<1
63
114
18
<0.1
240
<0.2
0.533
---
---
<0.3
<5
IMW-113C
Cape Fear
03/04/2016
583
<1
---
3.11
80
<0.05
21.1
4.25
2.17
0.044
2.15
<1
72.1
97
23
<0.1
26C
<0.2
0.57
2.5
0.000566
<0.3
<5
IMW-SBC
Cape Fear
06/07/2016
890
<1
---
3.23
17
<0.05
<10
2.52
<1
0.07
2.22
<1
68.3
104
22
<0.1
25C
<0.2
0.443
0.784
<0.0002
0.455
<5
IMW-16C
Cape Fear
08/03/2016
493
<1
---
3.45
28
<0.05
<10
1.82
1.21
0.051
2.43
<1
71.2
104
21
<0.1
240
<0.2
0.479
<RL
0.000203
0.332
<5
IMW-SBC
Cape Fear
10/05/2016
2550
<1
---
3.45
132
<0.05
<10
1.21
1.35
<0.01
2.32
<1
67.7
120
19
<0.1
250
<0.2
0.381
0.611
0.0000957 j
<0.3
7 B2
IMW-lBC
Cape Fear
03/07/2017
890
<1
---
3.26
26
<0.05
<10
1.61
<1
0.066
2.69
<1
68.8
103
20
<0.1
260
<0.2
0.435
1.402
0.000248
<0.3
5
IMW-16C
Cape Fear
06/08/2017
455
<1
---
3.15
20
<0.05
11.9
1.31
<1
0.104
2.58
<1
64.1
101
23
<0.1
230
<0.2 B3
0.495
0.411
0.000132 j
0.351
<5
IMW-16C
Cape Fear
09/20/2017
1230
<1
---
3.26
78
<0.05
---
1.25
1.83
---
2.38
<1
68.4
105
19
<0.1
270
<0.2
1.3
---
---
<0.3
<5
IMW-SBC
Cape Fear
12/13/2017
5210
<1
---
3.09
87
<0.05
---
1.32
1.72
---
2.18
<1
66.2
104
19
<0.1
220
<0.2
1
---
---
<0.3
<5
IMW-SBC
Cape Fear
03/06/2018
1760
<1
7
3.43
30
<0.05
1
1.32
0.823 j
1 0.017
3.75
<1
70
101
19
<0.1
230
<0.2
0.507
---
---
0.246 j
3.671 j
Page 14 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Alkalinity
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Date
S.U.
Ft (BTOC)
°C
Ns/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg/L
Ng/L
pg/L
pg/L
lig/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
06/06/2018
6.7
4.04
22
456
2.73
462
667
7.6
97.3
16
<1
<1
111
<1
97.3
153
<1
16.2
<5
72
0.386 j
<0.025
<1
0.844 j
0.14
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
08/15/2018
6.7
3.81
24
459
0.44
1 179
384
9.4
97.1
18
<1
<1
121
<1
97.1
152
<1
15.9
<5
72
0.403 j
<0.025
0.481 j
0.653 j
0.13
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
11/27/2018
6.7
2.71
11
449
0.51
46
251
7.0
92.4
19
<1
<1
131
<1
92.4
156
<1
16.5
<5
71
<1
<0.025
0.626 j
0.357 j
0.11
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
02/12/2019
6.9
3.19
15
467
3.62
169
374
3.5
88.2
---
<1
<1
120
---
88.2
155
---
16.5
<5
70
0.519 j
<0.025 M1
<1
---
---
IMW-SBC
Cape Fear
08/13/2019
6.6
4.75
22
451
0.20
302
507
4.0
89.8
2.012 j
<1
<1
113
---
89.8
155
---
16.5
<5
77
<1
0.051 Sl
<1
---
---
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
05/26/2015
7.8
3.61
23
521
0.70
-137
68
12.0
130
78
<1
1.61
41
<1
130
293
<1
16.2
<10
64
---
<1
<1
---
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
06/12/2015
8.0
3.80
23
587
0.46
124
329
15.8
180
410
<1
2.21
39
<1
170
331
<1
16
<10
69
<1
---
<1
<1
---
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
12/06/2015
7.7
3.76
15
616
0.50
-120
85
7.3
186
240
0.56
1.5
45
<0.2
186
320
<0.08
17.9
<5
70.7
<0.5
<0.03
<0.5
<1
---
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
01/13/2016
8.0
3.51
10
600
0.65
108
313
8.0
197
243
<1
1.69
42
<1
197
308
<1
15.4
<5
72
2.24
<0.03
<1
<1
---
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
03/03/2016
8.2
3.75
14
610
0.36
-210
-5
10.0
198
682
<1
1.36
34
<1
195
315
<1
11
<5
76
<1
0.036
<1
<1
---
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
06/07/2016
8.6
21
663
0.40
-58
147
8.5
206
156
<1
1.37
35
<1
2
289
<1
13.2
<5
72
1.51
<0.03
<1
<1
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
08/03/2016
8.3
3.50
22
604
0.31
-45
160
5.8
201
160
<1
1.37
40
<1
195
284
<1
14.6
72
<1
0.046
<1
<1
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
10/05/2016
8.2
3.99
20
627
0.41
-83
122
6.3
202
131
<1
1.22
35
<1
202
290
<1
12.1
<5
70
<1
<0.3 D3
<1
<1
---
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
03/07/2017
8.2
3.89
17
633
0.38
-111
94
3.6
171
46 B2
<1
1.57
39
<1
171
298
<1
14.3
<5
70
<1
0.062
<1
<1
---
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
06/13/2017
8.0
3.24
22
606
1.09
-102
103
9.8
202
127
<1
1.19
40
<1
202
267
<1
14.9
<5
71
<1
0.042
<1
<1
---
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
09/19/2017
8.2
2.97
22
612
0.38
-188
17
4.7
213
102
<1
1.35
30
<1
213
285
<1
10.3
<5
69
<1
0.051
<1
<1
---
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
12/13/2017
8.1
4.01
14
594
0.46
-60
145
2.4
207
116
<1
1.21
45
<1
207
265
<1
13.8
<5
70
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
---
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
03/06/2018
7.9
3.88
13
633
0.44
-49
156
2.0
204
73
<1
1.11
41
<1
204
259
<1
13.9
<5
73
0.433 j
<0.025
<1
<1
0.23
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
06/06/2018
7.9
3.40
26
620
0.55
199
404
8.6
209
77
<1
1.22
45
<1
209
274
<1
14.1
<5
73
0.434 j
0.043
<1
<1
0.21
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
08/15/2018
7.9
3.54
22
633
0.33
127
332
3.86
204
56
<1
1.19
42
<1
204
274
<1
13.1
<5
72
0.46 j
<0.025
<1
<1
0.19
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
11/27/2018
7.7
2.39
15
588
0.24
-50
155
4.2
181
78
<1
1.29
50
<1
181
274
<1
15.3
<5
71
0.672 j
0.11
<1
<1
0.14
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
02/12/2019
7.9
3.22
16
591
0.18
61
266
1.3
172
---
<1
1.36
49
---
172
283
---
15.8
<5
69
0.524 j
0.056
<1
---
---
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
08/13/2019
7.8
3.50
22
600
0.23
94
299
2.3
179
23
<1
1.37
45
---
179
262
---
14.3
<5
74
<1
0.13 S1
<1
---
---
Cape Fear
05/27/2015
6.3
3.06
26
198
2.57
33
238
82
31
<1
<1
267
<1
<1
25.9
<10
3.1
<1
<1
---
"1-
Cape Fear
06/16/2015
6.2
3.32
22
186
1.76
-12
193
3.15
84
11
<1
<1
258
<1
84
52
<1
24.6
<10
3
<1
---
<1
<1
---
Cape Fear
12/06/2015
6.4
1.57
13
198
0.60
-43
162
4.2
83.6 M1
<100
<0.5
0.5
320
<0.2
83.6
51
<0.08
24.7
<5
3
<0.5
<0.03
1.2
<1
---
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
01/13/2016
6.8
1.50
15
122
5.60
2
207
9.5
85
22
<1
<1
273
<1
85
58
<1
24.3
<5
3.3
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
03/04/2016
6.8
1.55
11
281
0.27
-65
140
41.6
99.1
31
<1
<1
298
<1
99.1
57
<1
26.8
<5
3.6
<1
<0.03
1.31
<1
---
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
06/08/2016
6.5
1.86
20
224
0.30
-37
168
8.7
99.5
26
<1
<1
322
<1
99.5
55
<1
25
<5
2.9 B2
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
---
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
08/03/2016
6.5
2.63
24
228
0.37
31
236
1.3
100
21
<1
<1
343
<1
100
53
<1
25.7
<5
3.3
<1
1.7
1.13
<1
---
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
10/05/2016
6.5
2.30
22
217
0.36
-23
182
0.6
90
24
<1
<1
349
<1
90
53
<1
24.7
<5
3.3
<1
<1.5 D3
1.06
<1
---
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
03/09/2017
6.2
1.09
19
195
2.91 S
-15
190
8.6
91.2
22
<1
<1
320
<1
91.2
61
<1
25.7
<5
3.5
<1
0.65
<1
<1
---
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
06/13/2017
6.3
3.02
21
211
2.98
116
321
36.50
104
23
<1
<1
249
<1
104
54
<1
24.7
<5
3.4
<1
<0.12 D3
<1
<1
---
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
09/20/2017
6.4
2.09
22
202
0.36
33
238
28.5
95.9
21
<1
<1
309
<1
95.9
57
<1
23.7
<5
3.2
<1
0.22
<1
<1
---
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
12/13/2017
6.5
1.69
10
196
0.34
-45
160
15.2
80.5
50
<1
<1
275
<1
80.5
<50
<1
19.9
<5
3.3
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
---
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
03/07/2018
6.5
1.42
13
211
1.82
21
226
3.1
56
60
<1
<1
186
<1
56
39.909 j
<1
18.1
<5
26
<1
<0.025 M1
<1
1.73
0.14
IMW-313C
Cape Fear
06/04/2018
6.3
2.36
24
200
0.26
489
694
0.9
71.7
116
<1
<1
231
<1
71.7
39.549 j
<1
20.7
<5
16
0.4 j
0.046
<1
1.22
0.17
IMW-313C
Cape Fear
08/15/2018
6.4
1.24
28
213
0.39
1
206
3.5
78.3
21
<1
<1
311
<1
78.3
44.001 j
<1
22.9
<5
10
<1
<0.025
1.69
<1
0.16
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
11/27/2018
6.4
0.60
13
208
0.74
31
236
24.7
80.7
28
<1
49.294 j
<1
<1
<0.025
0.859 j
0.475 j
0.14
Page 15 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Well ID
Flow Zone
Sample
Collection
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
Date
IVA
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
pg/L
gg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pg/mL
pg/L
Ng/L
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
06/06/2018
1110
<1
4.761 j
3.34
22
<0.05
---
1.08
1.55
0.068
3.07
<1
68
102
19
<0.1
240
<0.2
0.39 S1
---
---
0.239 j,132
1.722 j
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
08/15/2018
1280
<1
6
3.28
91
<0.05
---
1
1.36
<0.01
2.62
<1
69.3
103
19
<0.1
200
<0.2
0.357
---
---
<0.3
8
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
11/27/2018
4230
<1
5
3.38
97
<0.05
---
0.861 j
0.864 j
0.012
2.42
<1
71.8
106
18
<0.1
250
<0.2
0.444
---
---
<0.3
6
IMW-1BC
Cape Fear
02/12/2019
2150
---
6
3.33
37
---
---
---
---
0.075
3.37
<1
72
107
18
---
230
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
---
IMW-SBC
Cape Fear
08/13/2019
109 B
---
3.77 j
3.31
23
---
---
---
---
0.018
2.89
<1
69.3
101
20
---
215
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
---
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
05/26/2015
364
<1
---
4.74
38
<0.05
<10
9.96
<1
<0.01
3.95
<1
81.4
143
17
<0.2
280
<0.2
0.796
---
---
0.429
<5
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
06/12/2015
771
<1
---
4.86
50
<0.05
<10
30.3
<1
0.023
3.85
<1
101
129
8.6
1.47
350
<0.2
3.1
---
---
0.629
<5
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
12/06/2015
660
<0.1
---
5.43
75
<0.2
84.2
12.7
<0.5
<0.02
7.09
<0.5
92.7
150
<1
0.44
267
<0.1
1.9
---
---
---
<10
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
01/13/2016
572
<1
---
4.47
47
<0.05
46.7
19.1
1.46
<0.01
4.36
<1
119
133
5.1
0.1
340
<0.2
0.146
---
---
0.438
<5
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
03/03/2016
745
<1
---
3.12
25
<0.05
33.6
23.4
<1
<0.01
3.34
<1
128
98
12
<0.1
370
<0.2
1.2
4.013
0.000395
0.637
<5
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
06/07/2016
423
<1
---
3.71
30
<0.05
47
17.6
<1
<0.01
3.72
<1
117
117
9.2
<0.1
350
<0.2
0.337
<0.0002
0.61
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
08/03/2016
245
<1
---
4.07
29
<0.05
94.4
12.4
<1
<0.01
4.08
<1
104
128
8.5
<0.1
340
<0.2
0.874
<RL
0.000241
0.527
<5
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
10/05/2016
289
<1
3.37
25
<0.05
54.6
13.9
<1
<0.01
3.45
<1
124
109
9.8
<0.1
380
<0.2 B2
0.748
0.325
0.000175 j
0.395
<5
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
03/07/2017
253
<1
---
4.1
30
<0.05
38.1
10.6
<1
<0.01
3.97
<1
102 M4
134
13
0.25
320
<0.2
0.701
0.787
0.000147 j
<0.3
<5
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
06/13/2017
248
<1
---
4.09
26
<0.05
59.6
8.87
<1
0.045
3.93
<1
116
122
6.6
0.2
360
<0.2
0.788 62,63,R1
<RL
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
09/19/2017
257
<1
---
2.87
22
<0.05
---
11.5
<1
---
2.96
<1
128
92
5.9
0.16
340
<0.2
1.5
---
---
<0.3
<5
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
12/13/2017
221
<1
---
3.94
29
<0.05
---
7.64
<1
---
3.82
<1
102
135
6.8
0.12
300
<0.2
1.2
---
---
0.303
<5
IMW-26C
Cape Fear
03/06/2018
219
<1
4.024 j
3.94
27
<0.05
---
8.13
<1
<0.01
3.94
<1
117
120
8.2
0.2
310
<0.2
0.7
---
---
0.222 j
<5
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
06/06/2018
224
<1
3.509 j
4.11
31
<0.05
---
7.23
1.27
<0.01
3.94
<1
116 132
130
9.5
<0.1
290
<0.2
0.544 S1
---
---
0.22 j
<5
IMW-26C
Cape Fear
08/15/2018
246
<1
4.855 j
3.71
28
<0.05
---
7.63
<1
<0.01
3.65
<1
122
119
10
<0.1
290
<0.2
0.558
---
---
<0.3
<5
IMW-213C
Cape Fear
11/27/2018
234
<1
<5
4.38
31
<0.05
---
6.86
<1
<0.01
4.08
<1
115 M4
140
11
0.17
310
<0.2
0.593
---
---
0.105 j
3.212 j
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
02/12/2019
194
---
3.291 j
4.47
33
---
---
---
---
<0.01
4.22
<1
286
140
13
---
310
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
---
IMW-2BC
Cape Fear
08/13/2019
178
---
<5
4.02
32
---
---
---
---
0.013
3.9
<1
113
127
13
---
341
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
---
Cape Fear
05/27/2015
1510
<0.05
<10
2.1
2.28
<0.01
1.08
<1
7.39
83
5
<0.1
110
<0.2
0.541
---
---
<0.3
6
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
06/16/2015
994
<1
---
3.7
86
<0.05
<10
1.21
2.25
<0.01
1.13
<1
7.46
76
4.6
<0.1
150
<0.2
0.675
---
---
<0.3
7
IMW-313C
Cape Fear
12/06/2015
9700
<0.1
---
3.73
150
<0.2
35.1
0.65
2.2
<0.02
<5
1 <0.5
<5
81
2.7
<0.1
118 D6
<0.1
<1 M1,R1
---
---
---
<10
IMW-313C
Cape Fear
01/13/2016
1800
<1
---
3.61
45
<0.05
<10
<1
1.45
0.076
5.37
<1
6.54
85
3.4
<0.1
110
<0.2
0.523
---
---
<0.3
7
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
03/04/2016
10900
<1
---
3.91
158
<0.05
1110
<1
1.75
0.016
1.25
<1
15.5
86
4.2
<0.1
130
<0.2
0.697
1.43
<0.0002
<0.3
9
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
06/08/2016
6250
<1
---
3.88
148
<0.05
181
<1
2
<0.01
1.18
<1
10.8
86
4.6
<0.1
110
<0.2
0.568
0.593
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
08/03/2016
11000
<1
---
3.86
144
<0.05
940
<1
2.19
<0.01
1.13
<1
9.04
85
4.7
<0.1
110
<0.2
0.568
2.51
<0.0002
<0.3
<5
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
10/05/2016
9980
<1
---
3.76
140
<0.05
575
<1
1.56
<0.01
1.09
<1
7.48
81
5.3
<0.1
150
<0.2 B2
0.524
1.99
<0.0002
<0.3
7
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
03/09/2017
2110
<1
---
3.52
44
<0.05
35
<1
1.59
<0.01
2.47
<1
7.96
98
5.2
<0.1
110 H
<0.2 B3
0.595,R0
1.877
<0.0002
<0.3
89
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
06/13/2017
2820
<1
---
3.39
83
<0.05
103
<1
1.81
<0.01
1.2
<1
17.6 B4, Bl
69
6.4
<0.1
130
<0.2
0.68 B2,B3
<RL
<0.0002
<0.3
7
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
09/20/2017
3690
<1
---
3.36
84
<0.05
---
<1
2.38
---
1.23
<1
10.7
81
6
<0.1
110
<0.2
1.1
---
---
<0.3
11
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
12/13/2017
4190
<1
---
2.86
82
<0.05
---
<1
2.45
---
2.22
<1
7.98
79
5.4
<0.1
85
<0.2
1.7
---
---
<0.3
24
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
03/07/2018
616
<1
3.995 j
2.73
7
<0.05
---
0.36 j
2
0.514
3.91
<1
17.1
76
5.2
<0.1
82
<0.2
2.1
---
---
0.27 j
106
IMW-36C
Cape Fear
06/04/2018
195
1.06
3.328 j
3.04 B2
8
<0.05
---
0.214 j
1.32
0.141
2.2
<1
12.7
69
5.1
<0.1
82
<0.2
1.1 S1
---
---
0.55
51
IMW-313C
Cape Fear
08/15/2018
6430
<1
4.571 j
3.42
178
<0.05
---
0.18 j
3.05
0.012 M2
1.55
<1
9.83
75
4.9
<0.1
99
<0.2
0.807
---
---
<0.3
39
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
11/27/2018
5940
<1
3.609 j
3.33
0.261 j
2.25
0.079
2.77
83
5.1
<0.1
130
<0
0.896 B2
<0.3
42
Page 16 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Sample
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bicarbonate
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Well ID
Flow Zone
Collection
Alkalinity
Alkalinity
Date
S.U.
Ft (BTOC)
oC
NS/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg/L
Ng/L
pg/L
Ng/L
pg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
02/12/2019
6.6
1.18
17
187
5.32
218
423
4.9
70.8
---
<1
<1
216
---
70.8
38.461 j
---
21.9
<5
9.7
<1
<0.025
<1
---
---
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
08/13/2019
6.2
3.30
26
183
0.21
221
426
9.5
77
15
<1
<1
287
---
77
48.606 j
---
22.8
<5
6.6
<1
<0.025
1.19
---
---
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 or laboratory analytical error, had an elevated reporting limit, or sample was excluded for being collected less than 60 days since previous sampf
- 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
pg/L - micrograms per liter
pg/mL - micrograms per milliliter
pS/cm - microsiemens per centimeter
BTOC - below top of casing
DO - dissolved oxygen
mg/L - milligrams per liter
NM - Field parameter was not measured
NTU - nephelometric turbidity unit
ORP - oxidation-reduction potential
pCi/L - picocuries per liter
S.U. - standard units
SPC - specific conductance
TDS - total dissolved solid
Temp - temperature
TOC - total organic carbon
WL - water level
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 SOX the concentration in the method blank. Analyte concentration in sample could be due to blank contamination.
BI - Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit. Target analyte concentration in sample was greater than 1OX the concentration in the method blank. Analyte concentration in sample is not affected by blank contamination.
B2 - Target analyte was detected in blank(s) at a concentration greater than 1/2 the reporting limit but less than the reporting limit. Analyte concentration in sample is valid and may be used for compliance purposes.
B3 - Target analyte was detected in Continuing Calibration Blank(s) at a concentration greater than 1/2 the reporting limit but less than the reporting limit. Analyte concentration in sample is valid and may be used for compliance purposes.
B4 - Target analyte was detected in Continuing Calibration Blank(s) at or above the reporting limit.
CL - The continuing calibration for this compound is outside of Pace Analytical acceptance limits. The results may be biased low.
D3 - Sample was diluted due to the presence of high levels of non -target analytes or other matrix interference.
D6 - The precision between the sample and sample duplicate exceeded laboratory control limits.
H - Sample analyzed past the recommended holding time.
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
L3 - Analyte recovery in the laboratory control sample (LCS) exceeded quality control (QC) limits. Analyte presence below reporting limits in associated samples. Results unaffected by high bias.
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.
M3 - Matrix spike recovery was outside laboratory control limits due to matrix interference.
M4 - The spike recovery value was unusable since the analyte concentration in the sample was disproportionate to the spike level.
M6 - Matrix spike and Matrix spike duplicate recovery not evaluated against control limits due to sample dilution.
N2 - The lab does not hold accreditation for this parameter.
Data Validation Oualifiers:
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.
5 - Associated calibration check did not meet specified criteria.
S1 - Data review findings indicate result may be unreliable. Use with caution.
Page 17 of 18

TABLE 3
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Sample
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Methane
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate
potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfate
Sulfide
TDS
Thallium
TOC
Total Radium
Total Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Well ID
Flow Zone
Collection
+ Nitrite
Date
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
lig/L
Ng/L
lig/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pg/mL
Ng/L
Ng/L
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
02/12/2019
1800
---
8
2.84
24
---
---
---
---
0.184
4.44
<1
11.3
89
4.2
---
110
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
---
IMW-3BC
Cape Fear
08/13/2019
1810
---
4.02 j
3.2
147
---
---
---
---
0.012
1.7
<1
8.63
75
4.5
---
117
<0.2
---
---
---
<0.3
---
,epared by: HES Checked by: JHG
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 or laboratory analytical error, had an elevated reporting limit, or sample was excluded for being collected less than 60 days since previous sample.
- 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
pg/L - micrograms per liter
pg/mL - micrograms per milliliter
pS/cm - microsiemens per centimeter
BTOC - below top of casing
DO - dissolved oxygen
mg/L - milligrams per liter
NM - Field parameter was not measured
NTU - nephelometric turbidity unit
ORP - oxidation-reduction potential
pCi/L - picocuries per liter
S.U. - standard units
SPC - specific conductance
TDS - total dissolved solid
Temp - temperature
TOC - total organic carbon
WL - water level
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 SOX the concentration in the method blank. Analyte concentration in sample could be due to blank contamination.
BI - Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit. Target analyte concentration in sample was greater than 1OX the concentration in the method blank. Analyte concentration in sample is not affected by blank contamination.
B2 - Target analyte was detected in blank(s) at a concentration greater than 1/2 the reporting limit but less than the reporting limit. Analyte concentration in sample is valid and may be used for compliance purposes.
B3 - Target analyte was detected in Continuing Calibration Blank(s) at a concentration greater than 1/2 the reporting limit but less than the reporting limit. Analyte concentration in sample is valid and may be used for compliance purposes.
B4 - Target analyte was detected in Continuing Calibration Blank(s) at or above the reporting limit.
CL - The continuing calibration for this compound is outside of Pace Analytical acceptance limits. The results may be biased low.
D3 - Sample was diluted due to the presence of high levels of non -target analytes or other matrix interference.
D6 - The precision between the sample and sample duplicate exceeded laboratory control limits.
H - Sample analyzed past the recommended holding time.
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
L3 - Analyte recovery in the laboratory control sample (LCS) exceeded quality control (QC) limits. Analyte presence below reporting limits in associated samples. Results unaffected by high bias.
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.
M3 - Matrix spike recovery was outside laboratory control limits due to matrix interference.
M4 - The spike recovery value was unusable since the analyte concentration in the sample was disproportionate to the spike level.
M6 - Matrix spike and Matrix spike duplicate recovery not evaluated against control limits due to sample dilution.
N2 - The lab does not hold accreditation for this parameter.
Data Validation Oualifiers:
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.
5 - Associated calibration check did not meet specified criteria.
S1 - Data review findings indicate result may be unreliable. Use with caution.
Page 18 of 18

TABLE 4
BACKGROUND UNSATURATED SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Sample ID
Sample
Collection
Date
pH
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate (as N)
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfate
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
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
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
AMW-16BC (19-21)
05/24/2016
---
6220
<2.3 N2
<1.1
14.6
<0.057
<2.8
62.5
---
4.2
<1.1
2
3440
---
177
12.3
<0.0094
<0.57
2
---
123
<1.1
<56.8
1.4
---
<1.1
7.7
4.7
BGSB-1(2.5-3.5)
10/17/2017
5.3
24000
<0.56 M
2 B
58
1
<4.
<0.028
120j
2.2j
24
9.8
15
22000
14
2000
110
<0.099
<3.7
9.2
<0.24
730
0.32j
5.5
<12
0.26
72 B,M
41
BGSB-1 (5-6)
10/17/2017
5.3
18000
0.72
1.8 B
49
<2.6
<0.027
140j
2.1j
47
8.7
12
17000
13
1700
84
<0.093
8.2
7.8
<0.24
550
<1.4
<260
5.9
<12
0.27
70 B
43
BGSB-2 (2.5-3.5)
10/17/2017
5.5
21000
0.29j
0.99 B
33
0.64
1.4j
<0.028
67j
<12
17
4.5
10
14000
10
1200
98
0.022j
<2.2
6.5
<0.23
690
<1.4
<270
2.8
<12 M
0.17
51 B
22
BGSB-2 (5-6)
10/17/2017
5.5
20000
0.33j
1.2 B
31
0.65
1.3j
<0.031
82j
<13
22
5.3
10
16000
13
1400
72
<0.098
<2.1
6.4
<0.26
690
<1.6
<260
3.4
<13
0.18
60 B
23
13GS13-3 (2.5-3.5)
10/17/2017
5.9
9500
0.11 j
0.92 B
14
0.27
<2.6
<0.02
61 j
2.1 j
8
2
4.8
6800
5.9
350
27
<0.078
<2.1
3
<0.22
210 j
<1
<260
1.5
<11
0.069 j
22 B
8.3
BGS13-3 (5-6)
10/17/2017
5.2
6200
<0.42
0.79 B
9.8
0.18
<2.7
<0.021
60 j
<11
5.1
1.7
2.7
3700
3.3
170 j
24
<0.08
<2.1
2.2
<0.22
140 j
<1.1
<270
1.2
<11
0.035 j
12 B
4.9
BGSB-4 (2.5-3.5)
10/17/2017
5.0
17000
<0.45
0.86 B
13
0.13
1.2 j
<0.023
160 j
4.4 j
15
0.44 j
6.7
15000
5.1
360
17
<0.096
<2
2.7
0.11 j
240
0.56 j
<240
2.6
25
0.063 j
33 B
5.2
BGS13-5 (2.5-3.5)
10/17/2017
5.2
5000
0.23 j
0.21 j,B
14
0.096
<2.8
83 j
<12
4
0.29 j
2
2900
9.2
130 j
16
0.023 j
<2.3
1.8 j
<0.25
130 j
<1.2
<280
1.5
<12
0.058 j
7.6 B
21
BGS13-6 (1.5-2)
10/17/2017
5.3
6000
<0.47
1.1 B
18
0.098
<2
u.10
100 j
<11
6.7
0.55 j
3
4800
6.8
200
11
<0.08
<1.6
2.8
<0.22
150 j
<1.2
<200
1.3
<11
0.062 j
17 B
22
13GS13-7 (2.5-3.5)
10/18/2017
4.8
8500
<0.54
0.62 B
13
0.21
<2.3
<0.027
40 j
2.3 j
8.3
2.1
3.6
5600
4.9
470
25
<0.09
<1.8
2.5
0.048 j
220 j
<1.4
<230
1.5
7.9 j
0.061 j
19 B
8.6
13GS13-7 (5-6)
10/18/2017
5.0
8700
<0.46
0.49 B
13
0.22
<2.7
<0.023
51 j
<12
8.2
1.5
3.3
6700
4.8
400
20
<0.096
<2.1
2 j
<0.24
240 j
<1.2
<270
1.5
<12
0.051 j
27 B
7.2
BGSB-8 (1.5-2)
10/18/2017
4.9
14000
<0.45
1.4 B
39
0.22
<0.022
<1200
1.3j
18
3
17
12000
6
520j
38
<0.089
<9.5
7.1j
<0.22
350j
0.37j
<1200
EL
3.4j
<11
0.089j
32 B
19
BGSB-9 (2.5-3.5)
10/18/2017
4.8
3800
<0.41
0.87 B
7
0.079 j
<2.5
0.011 j
<250
<11
2.8
0.46 j
0.85
2700
3.8
89 j
4.9
<0.081
<2
0.98 j
<0.21
77 j
<1.1
<250
0.61 j
<11
0.047 j
9.7 B
2.2 j
BGS13-9 (5-6)
10/18/2017
4.5
13000
0.17 j
0.23 j,13
25
0.13
<2.3
<0.023
<230
4 j
9.2
0.93
4.9
2900
6.9
250
11
0.023 j
<1.9
3.2
0.05 j
220 j
<1.2
<230
1.9
10 j
0.075 j
15 B
5.9
BGSB-10 (2.5-3.5)
10/18/2017
5.0
2300
<0.48
0.23 j,B
10
0.045 j
<2.4
<0.024
32 j
<10
1.9
0.39 j
0.93
1200
1.6
90 j
25
<0.082
<1.9
1.1 j
<0.21
66 j
<1.2
<240
1.1
<10
<0.12
4.3 B
5
BGSB-10 (5-6)
10/18/2017
5.6
7500
<0.52
0.48 j,13
29
0.073 j
<2.6
<0.026
180 j
1.1 j
5.4
0.84
2.6
3700
3.6
290
22
<0.08
<2.1
3.1
<0.22
240 j
<1.4
<260
3.2
<11
0.059 j
12 B
11
BGSB-11 (2.5-3.5)
10/18/2017
4.7
2200 M
<0.38
<0.38 B
6.6
0.045 j
<2.3
<0.019
<230
1.1 j
1.4
<0.53
0.45 j
710
2.6
50 j
13
<0.085
<1.8
<1.8
<0.21
49 j
<0.98
<230
0.58 j
<11
0.028 j
2.8 B
1.7 j
BGSB-11 (5-6)
10/18/2017
4.6
2000
<0.54
<0.54
5.2
<0.11
<2.5
<0.027
<250
1.2 j
1.6
<0.76
0.37 j
540
2.9
50 j
11
<0.093
<2
<2
0.074 j
56 j
<1.4
<250
0.71 j
<11
0.029 j
2.5
1.4 j
BGSB-12 (2.5-3.5)
10/18/2017
4.9
3400
<0.4
0.57
10
0.069 j
<2.2
<0.02
<220
1.1 j
2.6
0.71
1.2
1800
2.6
130 j
18
<0.077
<1.8
1.3 j
<0.2
97 j
<1
<220
1.2
<10
0.042 j
7.6
7.1
BGSB-12(5-6)
10/18/2017
4.8
9500
0.69 B
0.8
16
0.12
1j
<0.025
50j
1.4j
6
0.81
2.8
4000
3.7
280
20
<0.075
<1.8
3.7
<0.21
230
<1.3
<230
2
<11
0.085j
10
11
BGSB-13 (2.5-3.5)
10/18/2017
5.7
1700
0.17 j,B
0.47
10
0.051 j
<2.3
0.011 j
<230
1.1 j
1.5
0.37 j
0.63
1100
1.8
60 j
6.8
<0.075
<1.9
0.61 j
<0.21
45 j
<0.88
<230
0.6 j
<10
0.036 j
4.5
3.9
BGSB-13 (5-6)
10/18/2017
5.7
12000
0.17 j,B
1.5
19
0.11
1.2 j
0.011 j
200 j
2 j
9.5
1
2.6
14000
6.5
260
14
<0.084
<1.9
3.2
0.081 j
250
0.29 j
<240
2.6
<11
0.081 j
26
8.5
BGSB-14 (2.5-3.5)
10/18/2017
5.1
25000
0.13 j,B
1.6
46
0.23
2.1 j
<0.021
240 j
5.5 j
18
1.9
5.8
11000
8
730
31
<0.093
<2.2
0.23
700
<1.1
<270
3.4
25
0.14
36
16
BGSB-14 (5-6)
10/18/2017
4.1
22000
0.11 j,B
0.6
27
0.17
<2.5
<0.028
130j
22
1
5.2
5600
7.7
470
26
<0.093
<2
3.9
440
<1.5
<250
3.4
180
0.09j
27
11
BGSB-15(1-1.5)
10/18/2017
4.4
8900
<0.51
0.33j
21
0.098j
<2.8
<0.027
80j
4.5j
6.5
0.9
0.99
2300
4
360
16
<0.087
<2.2
2.2
0.14j
240j
<1.3
<280
2
140
0.074j
13
5.9
Notes:
- 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 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 BTVs.
--- - 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 10X 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.
N2 - The lab does not hold accreditation for this parameter.
Prepared by: JHG Checked by: TCP
Page 1 of 1

TABLE 5
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS - SURFICIAL FLOW ZONE
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, 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.
96
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
3.9 - 6.6
Alkalinity
mg/L
90
64
71
Non-parametricz
95
95
76.5
Aluminum
pg/L
85
1
1
Gamma
95
95
815.6
Antimony
Ng/L
96
95
99
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Arsenic
pg/L
96
91
95
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Barium
Ng/L
96
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
584
Beryllium
pg/L
83
67
81
Non-parametricz
95
95
1
Bicarbonate
mg/L
86
60
70
Non-parametricz
95
95
76.5
Boron
pg/L
96
78
81
Non-parametricz
95
95
76
Cadmium
Ng/L
83
82
99
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Calcium
mg/L
96
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
13.9
Carbonate
mg/L
82
82
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
5°
Chloride
mg/L
94
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
46
Chromium
Ng/L
96
80
83
Non-parametricz
95
95
1.08
Chromium (VI)
pg/L
76
17
22
Lognormal
95
95
0.492
Cobalt
Ng/L
96
8
8
Gamma
95
95
13.21
Copper
pg/L
78
44
56
Non-parametricz
95
95
5.61
Fluoride
mg/L
26
8
31
Non-parametric3
85
95
0.1
Iron
pg/L
91
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
34,500
Lead
Ng/L
83
72
87
Non-parametricz
95
95
4.72
Lithium
pg/L
39
10
26
Non-parametric3
90
95
19
Magnesium
mg/L
96
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
10.3
Manganese
ug/L
91
4
4
Non-parametric3
95
95
659
Mercury
Ng/L
81
80
99
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.05°
Methane
pg/L
43
35
81
Non-parametricz
90
95
7,070
Molybdenum
Ng/L
83
75
90
Non-parametricz
95
95
1
Nickel
pg/L
78
7
9
Non-parametric3
95
95
14.4
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg/L
78
7
9
Non-parametric3
95
95
11
Potassium
mg/L
96
2
2
Non-parametric3
95
95
5.53
Selenium
Ng/L
96
86
90
Non-parametricz
95
95
1
Sodium
mg/L
96
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
29.8
Strontium
Ng/L
91
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
122
Sulfate
mg/L
94
1
1
Non-parametric3
95
95
35
Sulfide
mg/L
73
73
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.1°
TDS
mg/L
94
11
12
Normal
95
95
157
Thallium
Ng/L
96
85
89
Non-parametricz
95
95
0.2
TOC
mg/L
76
0
0
Non-parametric3
95
95
3
Total Radium
pCi/L
51
0
0
Non -parametric°
90
95
18.42
Total Uranium
pg/mL
49
30
61
Non-parametricz
90
95
0.002
Vanadium
Ng/L
89
44
49
Lognormal
95
95
0.66
Zinc
pg/L
76
9
12
Non- arametric3
95
95
28
Prepared by: HES Checked by: BNM
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.
3 - The non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent because its background dataset could not be fitted to the normal, gamma, or lognormal distribution
models.
4 - The dataset for the constituent was lognormally distributed. The standard deviation of the natural log -transformed dataset was >1. As a result, the
non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent.
pg/L - micrograms per liter
pg/mL - micrograms per milliliter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
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 - BLACK CREEK FLOW ZONE
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, 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.
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
6.6 - 7.6
Alkalinity
mg/L
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
128.7
Aluminum
Ng/L
9
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
128t
Antimony
ug/L
10
10
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Arsenic
ug/L
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
3.04
Barium
ug/L
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
64.34
Beryllium
Ng/L
8
8
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Bicarbonate
mg/L
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
128.7
Boron
ug/L
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
317.4
Cadmium
ug/L
8
8
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Calcium
mg/L
10
0
0
Non-parametric3
85
95
32
Carbonate
mg/L
10
10
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
5n
Chloride
mg/L
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
30.84
Chromium
ug/L
10
10
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Chromium (VI)
ug/L
5
5
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.025t
Cobalt
ug/L
10
1
10
Normal
95
95
5.063
Copper
pg/L
8
6
75
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.09t
Fluoride
mg/L
3
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.14t
Iron
ug/L
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
2,412
Lead
ug/L
8
8
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Lithium
pg/L
5
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
8t
Magnesium
mg/L
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
9.117
Manganese
pg/L
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
217.2
Mercury
pg/L
8
8
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.05t
Methane
pg/L
3
3
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
lot
Molybdenum
pg/L
8
3
38
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.37t
Nickel
pg/L
8
1
13
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.94t
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg/L
8
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.078t
Potassium
mg/L
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
6.966
Selenium
ug/L
10
10
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Sodium
mg/L
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
54.34
Strontium
ug/L
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
173.4
Sulfate
mg/L
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
79.38
Sulfide
mg/L
8
8
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.1t
TDS
mg/L
10
0
0
Normal
95
95
289.8
Thallium
pg/L
10
8
80
Non -parametric'
85
95
0.2
TOC
mg/L
8
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/aM
Total Radium
pCi/L
3
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Total Uranium
pg/mL
3
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Vanadium
ug/L
10
3
30
Normal
95
95
Zinc
ug/L
8
4
50
n/a
n/a
n/a
Prepared by: HES Checked by: BNM
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.
' - The distribution of the data for the constituent could not be adequately assessed because the dataset contains >50 percent and :590 percent NDs.
Therefore, the non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent.
3 - The non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent because its background dataset could not be fitted to the normal, gamma, or lognormal
distribution models.
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
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS - CAPE FEAR FLOW ZONE
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Constituent
Reporting
Unit
Descriptive Statistics
Upper Tolerance Limits
Sample
Size
Number
of NDs
Percent
NDs
1
Type of UTL
Coverage
Confidence
Level
Value
pH*
S.U.
91
0
0
Lognormal
95
95
5.0 - 8.5
Alkalinity
mg/L
89
1
1
Non -parametric'
95
95
207
Aluminum
pg/L
84
2
2
Non -parametric°
95
95
271
Antimony
pg/L
91
90
99
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Arsenic
Ng/L
91
67
74
Non-parametric2
95
95
1.42
Barium
pg/L
91
0
0
Non -parametric'
95
95
361
Beryllium
Ng/L
79
77
97
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Bicarbonate
mg/L
88
1
1
Non -parametric'
95
95
207
Boron
Ng/L
91
33
36
Non -parametric'
95
95
298
Cadmium
pg/L
79
79
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Calcium
mg/L
91
0
0
Non -parametric'
95
95
30.8
Carbonate
mg/L
81
80
99
n/a
n/a
n/a
5°
Chloride
mg/L
89
0
0
Non -parametric'
95
95
74
Chromium
pg/L
91
76
84
Non-parametric2
95
95
1
Chromium (VI)
Ng/L
69
41
59
Non-parametric2
95
95
2.4
Cobalt
pg/L
91
52
57
Non-parametric2
95
95
14.3
Copper
Ng/L
78
59
76
Non-parametric2
95
95
2.48
Fluoride
mg/L
23
2
9
Normal
95
95
0.247
Iron
Ng/L
90
1
1
Non -parametric'
95
95
12,200
Lead
pg/L
79
77
97
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Lithium
Ng/L
35
2
6
Non -parametric'
90
95
26
Magnesium
mg/L
91
0
0
Gamma
95
95
7.492
Manganese
pg/L
90
0
0
Non -parametric'
95
95
1,750
Mercury
pg/L
76
75
99
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.05°
Methane
Ng/L
43
13
30
Non -parametric°
90
95
6,590
Molybdenum
pg/L
79
27
34
Non -parametric'
95
95
13.9
Nickel
Ng/L
78
32
41
Non -parametric'
95
95
40.6
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg/L
77
34
44
Non -parametric'
95
95
2.2
Potassium
mg/L
91
2
2
Lognormal
95
95
5.701
Selenium
pg/L
91
90
99
n/a
n/a
n/a
1°
Sodium
mg/L
91
1
1
Non -parametric'
95
95
124
Strontium
pg/L
90
0
0
Non -parametric'
95
95
140
Sulfate
mg/L
89
10
11
Non -parametric'
95
95
22
Sulfide
mg/L
74
66
89
Non-parametric2
95
95
0.25
TDS
mg/L
89
4
4
Gamma
95
95
423
Thallium
pg/L
91
87
96
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.2°
TOC
mg/L
75
2
3
Lognormal
95
95
3.568
Total Radium
pCi/L
27
0
0
Gamma
95
95
5.177
Total Uranium
pg/mL
32
22
69
Non-parametric2
90
95
0.000395
Vanadium
pg/L
87
49
56
Non-parametric2
95
95
2.78
Zinc
pg/L
75
42
56
Non-parametric2
95
95
89
Prepared by: HES Checked by: BNM
Notes:
* - Upper and lower tolerance limits calculated 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.
2 - The distribution of the data for the constituent could not be adequately assessed because the dataset contains >50 percent and <90 percent NDs.
Therefore, the non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent.
' - 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 8
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS - UNSATURATED SOIL
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, GOLDSBORO, NC
Constituent
Descriptive Statistics
Upper Tolerance Limits
Sample
Size
Number
of NDs
Percent
NDs
1
Type of UTL
Coverage
Confidence
Level
Value
pH*
25
0
0
Normal
95
95
3.9 - 6.2
Aluminum
26
0
0
Gamma
95
95
38,050
Antimony
25
14
56
Non-parametricZ
85
95
0.69
Arsenic
26
3
12
Normal
95
95
1.957
Barium
26
0
0
Gamma
95
95
64.33
Beryllium
26
2
8
Lognormal
95
95
1.079
Boron
26
20
77
Non-parametriCZ
85
95
2.8
Cadmium
26
21
81
Non-parametriCZ
85
95
0.13
Calcium
26
7
27
Gamma
95
95
267.3
Chloride
25
8
32
Non-parametric3
85
95
13
Chromium
26
0
0
Gamma
95
95
43.98
Cobalt
25
2
8
Lognormal
95
95
11.17
Copper
26
0
0
Gamma
95
95
21.04
Iron
26
0
0
Gamma
95
95
30,147
Lead
25
0
0
Gamma
95
95
17.21
Magnesium
26
0
0
Gamma
95
95
2,104
Manganese
26
0
0
Lognormal
95
95
124.6
Mercury
26
23
88
Non-parametriCZ
85
95
0.096
Molybdenum
25
24
96
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.7°
Nickel
26
2
8
Gamma
95
95
11.29
Nitrate (as N)
25
17
68
Non-parametricZ
85
95
0.26
Potassium
26
0
0
Gamma
95
95
1,027
Selenium
26
22
85
Non-parametricZ
85
95
1.4
Sodium
26
26
100
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,200'
Strontium
26
0
0
Gamma
95
95
6.589
Sulfate
25
19
76
Non-parametricZ
85
95
140
Thallium
25
1
4
Lognormal
95
95
0.291
Vanadium
26
0
0
Gamma
95
95
94.45
Zinc
26
0
0
Gamma
95
95
48.14
Prepared by: HES Checked by: BNM
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.
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.
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 — H.F. Lee Energy Complex
ATTACHMENT 1
SynTerra

MEMO
To:
Scott Davies, PG, Duke Energy
526 South Church Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
From:
Julie K Sueker, PhD, PH, PE (CO)
Date:
March 25, 2020
Arcadis Project No.:
30043729
Subject:
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation —
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
AARCAD IS Design &Consultancy
fornaturaland
built assets
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
11001 W. 120th Avenue
Suite 200
Broomfield
Colorado 80021
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
Arcadis U.S. Inc. (Arcadis) prepared this technical memorandum, titled Background Threshold Value
Statistical Outlier Evaluation — H.F. Lee Energy Complex, on behalf of Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke
Energy). 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 H.F. Lee Energy Complex (Site), located
in Wayne 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 Inner Coastal Plain Region of the Coastal Plain physiographic province, in
Wayne County, approximately 30 miles from the fall line that separates the Piedmont and Coastal Plain
physiographic province. In this region there are five water -bearing formations. These include, from
Page:

MEMO
youngest to oldest, the surficial, Yorktown, Pee Dee, Black Creek, and Tuscaloosa formations In Wayne
County, groundwater wells are installed in all major formations (Pusey 1960).
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; North Carolina Department of
Health and Human Services [NCDHHS] 2011; Pusey 1960). These studies demonstrate variability in
groundwater constituent concentrations across the Coastal Plain region as shown in 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 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 NCDHHS for Wayne County identified concentrations of arsenic, 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 criteria. However, hexavalent chromium
exceeding 02L criteria was detected within the greater Coastal Plain region (concentration ranging from
non -detect to 1.04 pg/L) (Coyte et al., 2019).
CONSTITUENT OUTLIERS
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) and SynTerra developed protocol and procedures, with input from the 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) states [in bold font within the document]:
"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). "
arcadis.com Page:
2/11

MEMO
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:
"In groundwater data collection and testing, background conditions may not be static over
time. Caution should be observed in removing observations which may signal a change in
natural groundwater quality. Even when conditions have not changed, an apparent extreme
measurement may represent nothing more than a portion of the background distribution
that has yet to be observed. This is particularly true if the background data set contains
fewer than 20 samples."
Based on guidance and documents provide 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):
"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.
arcadis.com Page:
3/11

MEMO
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 and Xiang et al. 2011) suggest that turbidity greater
than 10 NTU is associated with TSS concentrations generally greater than 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
(Figure 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 IMW-2BC, arsenic
was measured at concentrations above 1.1 pg/L in 14 consecutive samples between 2015 and 2019
(Table 2). All but one, which was autocorrelated, were flagged as statistical outliers. Repeated
constituents were also observed for molybdenum and sulfide 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 deep (Black Creek bedrock and Cape Fear bedrock) 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.
• AMW-11 BC — Manganese
• AMW-1213C — Arsenic
• AMW-12S —Chromium, total radium
• AMW-1613C — Cobalt, copper, nickel, nitrate + nitrite
• CCR-100S — Barium, lead, vanadium
• IMW-2BC —Arsenic, molybdenum, sulfide
arcadis.com Page:
4/11

MEMO
• IMW-3S — Alkalinity, bicarbonate alkalinity, fluoride, iron, manganese
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 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 higher concentration for
one constituent will typically be associated with a higher concentration for the correlated constituent. When
a statistical outlier in one constituent is associated with a higher 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 higher value in an
associated constituent is 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, 7, 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), cobalt and manganese (Figure 7), and chromium and nickel
(Figure 8) 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. The 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 lead, with higher lead concentrations
observed for lower pH (Figure 9). These pH values are within the expected naturally occurring pH range
for groundwater at the Site.
Relationship between Constituent Concentration and Oxidation -Reduction Potential
Statistical outliers associated with lower 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. Lower ORP values were observed to be associated with higher concentrations
of methane and other constituent values, as illustrated in groundwater monitoring well AMW-11 BC on
Figure 9. The retained higher methane concentrations shown on Figure 9, identified as statistical outliers,
were also preceded by elevated concentrations of total organic carbon (TOC) before the detection of the
higher methane concentration, and was accompanied by consistent low oxidation reduction potential (-500
millivolts [mV] to -100 mV). The TOC provides an energy source to the bacteria that produce methane
during respiration of organic carbon and oxygen from a terminal electron acceptor (nitrate, manganese
and iron oxides, sulfate, carbon dioxide).
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - GROUNDWATER
Results of the constituent statistical outlier evaluation 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
arcadis.com Page:
6/11

MEMO
each constituent that had an outlier included in the background groundwater datasets for the Site are
summarized below.
• Alkalinity — Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot; repeated concentration within well over time.
• Aluminum — Present with higher iron concentration; No laboratory or field errors identified; Bot
identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Arsenic — Repeated concentration within well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot; present with higher iron concentration; no laboratory or field errors identified.
• Barium — Correlated with lead and inversely with pH over time; Repeated concentration within well
over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Beryllium — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Bicarbonate alkalinity — Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot; repeated concentration within well over time; Present with
higher calcium and magnesium concentrations.
• Boron — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field
errors identified.
• Calcium — Present with higher alkalinity and magnesium concentrations.
• Carbonate alkalinity — Present with higher pH; No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Chloride — Present with higher sodium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot.
• Chromium — Repeated concentration within well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual
well box -and -whisker plot.
• Chromium (VI) — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot, No laboratory or
field errors identified.
• Cobalt — Repeated concentration within well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot; Present with higher aluminum, copper, and zinc concentrations.
• Copper — No laboratory or field errors identified; Repeated concentrations in well over time; Not
identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Fluoride — Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot.
• Iron — Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -
and -whisker plot; present with higher aluminum and manganese concentrations.
• Lead — Present with lower pH; Repeated concentration within well over time; Not identified as an
outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field errors identified.
arcadis.com Page:
7/11

MEMO
• Lithium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field
errors identified.
• Manganese — Present with higher cobalt concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on individual
well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration within well over time; No laboratory or field errors
identified.
• Methane — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Present with lower
ORP; Repeated concentration within well over time; No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Molybdenum — Repeated concentration within well over time; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Nickel — Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -
and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Nitrate + nitrite — Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual
well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Selenium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Sodium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Sulfide — Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -
and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Total Organic Carbons — Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Total radium — Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual
well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Total uranium — Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual
well box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Vanadium — Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot; No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Zinc — Present with higher copper concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on individual well
box -and -whisker plot; 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
arcadis.com Page:
8/11

MEMO
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 Site 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, soil samples from boring BGSB-1 had higher
concentrations several metals, including beryllium, cobalt, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum and
nickel (Table 3). The presence of elevated concentrations of these metals in both soil samples collected
from the same boring location strongly suggests that these results are due to local geochemical conditions
of the soil. 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.
• Beryllium — Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; no laboratory or field errors identified.
• Cadmium — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Chloride — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Cobalt — Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; no laboratory or field errors identified.
• Magnesium — Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; no laboratory or field errors identified.
• Manganese — Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; no laboratory or field errors identified.
• Molybdenum — Present with other metals identified as outliers; No laboratory or field errors
identified.
• Nickel — Present with other metals identified as outliers; present in both samples from same
location; present at similar concentrations at other locations; No laboratory or field errors
identified.
• Nitrate (as N) — 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.
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.
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- turbidity_tss_phosphorus_051507.pdf
Pusey, R. 1960. Geology and Ground Water in the Goldsboro Area, North Carolina. United States
Geological Survey Groundwater Bulletin Number 2.
http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm/ref/collection/pl6062coII9/id/227134. Accessed January 28, 2020.
NCDHHS. 2011. Wayne 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/wayne.pdf.
Accessed January 29, 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. 2020. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Unsaturated Soil. — H.F. Lee Energy Complex. February 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 Relationship between Cobalt and Manganese Concentrations
8 Relationships between Chromium and Nickel Concentrations
9 Relationships among pH and ORP and COI Concentrations
arcadis.com Page:

TABLES

Table 1
Typical Background Data Patterns for Routine Groundwater Monitoring Analytes
P/aRCJaDIS nan&Consultancy
for
fornaturaland
Guilt assets
BTV Statistical Outlier Evaluation - H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Detection
Within
Within
Frequency of
Detection by
Multiple
Reporting
Between Well
Mean
Within Well
Variability
Between
Well Equal
•
Between Well Within Well
Well Within Well
Typical
Data
Groups Well
Limits
Differences
(CVS)
Variances
ProblemsAnalyte
Inorganic Constituents and Indicators
Major ions, pH, TDS, High to 100%
✓✓✓
Generally low
✓✓
✓
✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓
✓✓ ✓✓
Normal
Intrawell
Specific Conductance
(0.1 to 0.5)
Some to most
I
✓✓
✓✓
Moderate
Variable
✓✓
✓
✓ ✓
Normal, Log
Intrawell/
CO3, F, NO2, NO3
detectable
(0.2 to 1.5)
or NPM
Interwell
0.45 µm Filtered Trace
Elements
High to 100%
✓✓
✓✓✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Normal
Intrawell
Ba
0.1 t 0.Low 5
Some wells
✓✓
Moderate
Normal, Log
Intrawell/
high, others low
✓✓
Variable
✓✓
✓
✓
some wells
( )
(0.2 to 1.5)
or NPM
Interwell
As, Se
to zero
Moderate to
Low to moderate
✓✓
✓
high
✓
✓✓✓
✓
✓
Log or NPM
Intrawell/
Interwell
Al, Mn, Fe
(0.3 > 2.0)
Moderate to
Interwell 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:
No Checkmarks = Unknown, absent, or infrequently occurring
✓ = Occasionally
✓✓ = Frequently
✓✓✓ = Very frequently
Acronyms and Abbreviations:
% = percent
CV = coefficient of variability
µm = 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

Table 2
Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data - Groundwater
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
P ARCADIS fm,t.,.t.
hu ilt assets
Well ID
Sample
Constituent Concentration Reporting Unit
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background Groundwater D.. Set
I
Date
IMW-3S
12/6/2015
Alkalinity 91 mg-CaCO3/1-
Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Alkalinity 73.9 mg-CaCO3/1-
whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well over time
IMW-3S
6/8/2016
Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Alkalinity 91.6 M1 mg-CaCO3/1-
whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well over time
IMW-3S
10/5/2016
Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Alkalinity 76.5 mg-CaCO3/1-
whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well over time
IMW-3S
6/9/2017
Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Alkalinity 66.2 mg-CaCO3/L
whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well over time
IMW-3S
6/4/2018
Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Alkalinity 67.8 mg-CaCO3/1-
whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well over time
IMW-3S
8/15/2018
Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Aluminum 838 pg/L
Aluminum 1100 pg/L
Aluminum 682 pg/L
Arsenic 1.17 pg/L
whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well over time
AMW-12BC
12/4/2015
No laboratory or field errors identified
AMW-12S
6/10/2015
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
IMW-2BC
3/3/2016
Present with higher iron concentration
AMW-12BC
3/1/2016
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
Arsenic 1.42 pg/L
Arsenic 1.12 pg/L
over time
AMW-12BC
10/3/2016
No laboratory or field errors identified
AMW-12BC
9/12/2017
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
Arsenic 1.09 pg/L
Arsenic 1.03 Ng/L
over time
AMW-12S
6/4/2018
No laboratory or field errors identified
AMW-13BC
8/16/2018
Present with higher iron concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker
Arsenic 1.5 Ng/L
lot
IMW-2BC
12/6/2015
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Arsenic 1.36 pg/L
whisker plot
IMW-2BC
3/3/2016
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Arsenic 1.37 pg/L
whisker plot
IMW-2BC
8/3/2016
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Arsenic 1.22 Ng/L
whisker plot
IMW-2BC
10/5/2016
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Arsenic 1.57 pg/L
Arsenic 1.19 Ng/L
whisker plot
IMW-2BC
3/7/2017
Repeated concentration in well over time
IMW-2BC
6/13/2017
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Arsenic 1.35 Ng/L
whisker plot
IMW-2BC
9/19/2017
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Arsenic 1.21 pg/L
whisker plot
IMW-2BC
12/13/2017
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Arsenic 1.11 pg/L
whisker plot
IMW-2BC
3/6/2018
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Arsenic 1.22 Ng/L
whisker plot
IMW-2BC
6/6/2018
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Arsenic 1.19 i pg/L
whisker plot
IMW-2BC
8/15/2018
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Arsenic 1.29 pg/L
whisker plot
IMW-2BC
11/27/2018
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
Arsenic 1.36 pg/L
whisker plot
IMW-2BC
2/12/2019
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
IMW-2BC
8/13/2019
Arsenic
1.37
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
IMW-3S
10/5/2016
Arsenic
1.21
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-100S
3/13/2017
Barium
588 pg/L
Correlated with lead and inversely with pH over time; Repeated concentration in well over time; Not
584 pg/L
identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-100S
6/9/2017
Barium
Correlated with lead and inversely with pH over time; Repeated concentration in well over time; Not
577 pg/L
identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-100S
9/12/2017
Barium
Correlated with lead and inversely with pH over time; Repeated concentration in well over time; Not
590 pg/L
identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-100S
3/7/2018
Barium
Correlated with lead and inversely with pH over time; Repeated concentration in well over time; Not
1.45 pg/L
1.19 pg/L
identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
AMW-12S
12/19/2016
Beryllium
No laboratory or field errors identified
CCR-100S
12/15/2016
Beryllium
No laboratory or field errors identified
AMW-13S
3/7/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
47.4
mg-CaCO3/1-
Present with higher calcium and magnesium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on individual
well box -and -whisker plot
AMW-13S
6/6/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
48.8
mg-CaCO3/1-
Present with higher calcium and magnesium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on individual
well box -and -whisker plot
IMW-3S
5/28/2015
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
50
mg-CaCO3/1-
Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker lot; Repeated concentration in well over time
IMW-3S
12/6/2015
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
91
mg-CaCO3/1-
Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker lot; Repeated concentration in well over time
IMW-3S
6/8/2016
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
73.9
mg-CaCO3/1-
Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker lot; Repeated concentration in well over time
IMW-3S
10/5/2016
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
91.6
mg-CaCO3/1-
Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker lot; Repeated concentration in well over time
IMW-3S
6/9/2017
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
76.5
mg-CaCO3/1-
Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well over time
IMW-3S
6/4/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
66.2 mg-CaCO3/1-
Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
67.8 mg-CaCO3/1-
whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well over time
IMW-3S
8/15/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
62.3 mg-CaCO3/L
whisker lot; Repeated concentration in well over time
IMW-3S
8/13/2019
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
Present with higher TDS concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
63 pg/L
65 pg/L
69 pg/L
78 pg/L
52 pg/L
65 pg/L
129 pg/L
76 pg/L
whisker lot; Repeated concentration in well over time
AMW-17S
7/28/2016
Boron
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
AMW-17S
10/7/2016
Boron
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
AMW-17S
12/21/2016
Boron
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
AMW-17S
3/15/2017
Boron
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
AMW-17S
6/8/2017
Boron
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
AMW-17S
9/13/2017
Boron
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
AMW-17S
12/12/2017
Boron
No laboratory or field errors identified
AMW-17S
3/7/2018
Boron
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
Page 1 of 6

Table 2
Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data - Groundwater
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
& ARCADIS fm,t.,.t.
hu ilt assets
AMW-17S
6/7/2018
Boron
AMW-17S
8/21/2018
Boron
AMW-17S
10/23/2018
Boron
AMW-17S
2/13/2019
Boron
AMW-17S
8/15/2019
Boron
AMW-17BC
10/7/2016
Calcium
IMW-2BC
8/3/2016
Carbonate Alkalinity
AMW-13S
3/13/2017
Chloride
AMW-13S
6/6/2017
Chloride
AMW-13S
3/7/2018
Chloride
AMW-13S
6/6/2018
Chloride
AMW-13S
2/13/2019
Chloride
AMW-13S
8/13/2019
Chloride
AMW-12S
12/19/2016
Chromium
AMW-12S
3/10/2017
Chromium
AMW-12S
6/8/2017
Chromium
AMW-12S
3/5/2018
Chromium
IMW-1BC
5/27/2015
Chromium
AMW-11BC
3/10/2017
Chromium (VI)
AMW-11BC
3/7/2018
Chromium (VI)
AMW-13BC
3/7/2018
Chromium (VI)
IMWAS
8/13/2019
Chromium (VI)
IMW-3BC
3/9/2017
Chromium (VI)
AMW-11BC
3/2/2015
Cobalt
AMW-12BC
12/4/2015
Cobalt
AMW-16BC
7/20/2016
Cobalt
AMW-16BC
10/6/2016
Cobalt
AMW-16BC
12/15/2016
Cobalt
AMW-16BC
3/13/2017
Cobalt
AMW-16BC
9/12/2017
Cobalt
AMW-16BC
12/12/2017
Cobalt
AMW-16BC
3/7/2018
Cobalt
AMW-16BC
6/6/2018
Cobalt
AMW-16BC
8/21/2018
Cobalt
AMW-16BC
2/13/2019
Cobalt
AMW-16BC
8/14/2019
Cobalt
AMW-12BC
12/4/2015
Copper
AMW-12BC
6/4/2018
Copper
AMW-16BC
3/13/2017
Copper
AMW-16BC
12/12/2017
Copper
AMW-16BC
3/7/2018
Copper
AMW-16BC
6/6/2018
Copper
AMW-16BC
8/21/2018
Copper
AMW-17BC
8/21/2018
Copper
IMW-1BC
6/7/2016
Copper
IMW-3BC
3/7/2018
Copper
IMW-3BC
6/4/2018
Copper
IMW-3S
6/4/2018
Fluoride
IMW-3S
8/15/2018
Fluoride
AMW-11S
9/24/2015
Iron
AMW-12S
12/4/2015
Iron
IMWAS
5/26/2015
Iron
IMWAS
12/6/2015
Iron
IMWAS
3/1/2016
Iron
58
75
61
62
65
32
6.2
38
38
45
53
46
65
1.13
1.86
1.05
1.08
1.52
0.81
4.1
2.4
0.7
0.65
2.75
2.46
12.4
8.97
15.6
16.6
14.3
12.6
7.18
5.21
11.4
12.7
5.83
5.23
2.48
1.53
1.05
1.58
2.18
1.25
1.09
1.69
1.73
1.22
0.34
0.3
973
8720
3150
2100
1290
pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L Present with higher alkalinity and magnesium concentrations
mg-CaCO3/1- Present with higher pH; No laboratory or field errors identified
mg/L Present with higher sodium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
mg/L Present with higher sodium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
mg/L Present with higher sodium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
mg/L Present with higher sodium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
mg/L Present with higher sodium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
mg/L Present with higher sodium concentrations; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time
pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
i pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in Well over time; Not Itlentinea as an Outlier on individual Well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
i pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentrations in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
i pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
mg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
mg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration
pg/L Present with higher manganese concentration
pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration
pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration
pg/L Present with higher aluminum concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -an
Page 2 of 6

Table 2
Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data - Groundwater
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
& ARCADIS fm,t.,.t.
hu ilt assets
IMW-3S
5/28/2015
Iron
IMW-3S
12/6/2015
Iron
IMW-3S
6/8/2016
Iron
IMW-3S
10/5/2016
Iron
IMW-3S
6/9/2017
Iron
IMW-3S
6/4/2018
Iron
IMW-3S
8/15/2018
Iron
IMW-3S
8/13/2019
Iron
AMW-16BC
6/6/2018
Lead
CCR-100S
7/20/2016
Lead
CCR-100S
10/6/2016
Lead
CCR-100S
12/15/2016
Lead
CCR-100S
3/13/2017
Lead
CCR-100S
6/9/2017
Lead
CCR-100S
9/12/2017
Lead
CCR-100S
12/12/2017
Lead
CCR-100S
3/7/2018
Lead
CCR-100S
8/20/2018
Lead
CCR-100S
10/23/2018
Lead
IMW-313C
6/4/2018
Lead
AMW-12S
12/19/2016
Lithium
CCR-100S
6/6/2018
Lithium
IMW-3S
6/4/2018
Lithium
IMW-3S
8/15/2018
Lithium
IMW-3S
8/13/2019
Lithium
AMW-11BC
3/2/2015
Manganese
AMW-11BC
6/11/2015
Manganese
AMW-11BC
9/24/2015
Manganese
AMW-11BC
12/4/2015
Manganese
AMW-11BC
3/1/2016
Manganese
AMW-11BC
6/8/2016
Manganese
AMW-11BC
10/6/2016
Manganese
AMW-11BC
3/10/2017
Manganese
AMW-11BC
6/7/2017
Manganese
AMW-11BC
9/20/2017
Manganese
AMW-11BC
12/13/2017
Manganese
AMW-11BC
3/7/2018
Manganese
AMW-11BC
6/4/2018
Manganese
AMW-11BC
8/16/2018
Manganese
AMW-11BC
2/13/2019
Manganese
AMW-11BC
8/13/2019
Manganese
AMW-11S
3/2/2015
Manganese
AMW-13S
8/13/2019
Manganese
IMW-3S
5/28/2015
Manganese
IMW-3S
12/6/2015
Manganese
IMW-3S
6/8/2016
Manganese
IMW-3S
10/5/2016
Manganese
IMW-3S
6/9/2017
Manganese
IMW-3S
6/4/2018
Manganese
IMW-3S
8/15/2018
Manganese
AMW-11BC
12/4/2015
Methane
AMW-11BC
3/1/2016
Methane
AMW-11BC
6/8/2016
Methane
AMW-11BC
10/6/2016
Methane
4220
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
25900
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
34500
Ng/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
39000
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
17900
Ng/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
41400
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
33100
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
8380
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
4.8
pg/L
Present with lower pH; No laboratory or field errors identified
2.61
Ng/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
3.7
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
4.16
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
4.72
Ng/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
4.74
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
4.75
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
5.06
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
4.64
Ng/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box-and-
whiskerplot
4.45
Ng/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
4.69
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
No laboratory or field errors identified
1.06
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
14 pg/L
24
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
12
i pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
19
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
16
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
1220
pg/L
Present with higher cobalt concentration; Correlated with alkalinity over time; Not identified as an
outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well over time
983
Ng/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
over time
600
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
over time
1380
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
over time
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
1560 pg/L
over time
1470
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
over time
1600
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
over time
1920
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
over time
1880
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
over time
1610
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
over time
1510
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
over time
1700
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
over time
1750
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
over time
1390
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
over time
1100
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
over time
1180
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; Repeated concentration in well
over time
476
pg/L
Present with higher cobalt concentrations; No laboratory or field errors identified
500
pg/L
Present with higher cobalt concentrations; No laboratory or Feld errors identified
556
i Ng/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
880
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
760
Ng/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
659
Ng/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
591
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
611
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
577
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
1130
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
1670
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
5050
Ng/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
6590
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
Page 3 of 6

Table 2
Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data - Groundwater
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
& ARCADIS fm,t.,.t.
hu ilt assets
AMW-11BC
AMW-11BC
3/10/2017
Methane
13200
16900
6/7/2017
Methane
AMW-13BC
3/1/2016
Methane
848
139
397
AMW-13BC
6/8/2016
Methane
AMW-13BC
10/5/2016
Methane
AMW-13BC
3/13/2017
Methane
204
AMW-13BC
6/7/2017
Methane
214
IMWAS
12/6/2015
Methane
14.7
IMWAS
3/1/2016
Methane
18.6
IMWAS
6/7/2016
Methane
79.7
16.7
IMWAS
10/5/2016
Methane
IMW-3BC
6/8/2016
Methane
181
575
7070
IMW-313C
10/5/2016
Methane
IMW-3S
6/8/2016
Methane
IMW-3S
10/5/2016
Methane
19000
IMW-3S
6/9/2017
Methane
17200
AMW-12S
3/2/2015
Molybdenum
1.34
AMW-16BC
12/15/2016
Molybdenum
5.75
4.78
IMWABC
5/27/2015
Molybdenum
IMWABC
3/4/2016
Molybdenum
4.25
IMW-213C
12/6/2015
Molybdenum
12.7
IMW-213C
3/3/2016
Molybdenum
23.4
IMW-213C
8/3/2016
Molybdenum
12.4
IMW-213C
10/5/2016
Molybdenum
13.9
IMW-213C
3/7/2017
Molybdenum
10.6
IMW-213C
6/13/2017
Molybdenum
8.87
IMW-213C
9/19/2017
Molybdenum
11.5
IMW-213C
12/13/2017
Molybdenum
7.64
IMW-213C
3/6/2018
Molybdenum
8.13
IMW-213C
6/6/2018
Molybdenum
7.23
IMW-213C
8/15/2018
Molybdenum
7.63
IMW-213C
11/27/2018
Molybdenum
6.86
AMW-13S
12/12/2017
Nickel
12.4
AMW-13S
3/7/2018
Nickel
14.3
AMW-13S
6/6/2018
Nickel
14.4
37.5
AMW-16BC
7/20/2016
Nickel
AMW-16BC
10/6/2016
Nickel
35.2
AMW-16BC
3/13/2017
Nickel
47.7
40.6
AMW-16BC
9/12/2017
Nickel
AMW-16BC
12/12/2017
Nickel
36.9
AMW-16BC
3/7/2018
Nickel
24.2
AMW-16BC
8/21/2018
Nickel
34.6
CCR-100S
6/6/2018
Nickel
34.6
AMW-16BC
AMW-16BC
7/20/2016
Nitrate + Nitrite
0.953
1.2
10/6/2016
Nitrate + Nitrite
AMW-16BC
3/13/2017
Nitrate + Nitrite
1.3
AMW-16BC
3/7/2018
Nitrate + Nitrite
1.7 M1
AMW-16BC
6/6/2018
Nitrate + Nitrite
8.9
AMW-16BC
8/21/2018
Nitrate + Nitrite
2.1
AMW-16BC
2/13/2019
Nitrate + Nitrite
1.7
AMW-16BC
IMW-313C
8/14/2019
Nitrate + Nitrite
2.2
0.514
3/7/2018
Nitrate + Nitrite
IMW-313C
2/12/2019
Nitrate + Nitrite
0.184
IMWAS
5/26/2015
Selenium
1.14
I pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L Present with low ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker
lots
pg/L Present with low ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well and flow zone box -and -whisker
lots
pg/L Present with low ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L Present with low ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L Present with low ORP; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
i pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
i pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker nlnt
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L rtepeatea concentration in weir over time; Not iaentinea as an outuer on moroiauai weir box-ano-
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
i pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg-N/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
mg-N/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
mg-N/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
mg-N/L No laboratory or field errors identified
mg-N/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
mg-N/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
mg-N/L Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
mg-N/L No laboratory or field errors identified
mg-N/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
Page 4 of 6

Table 2
Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data - Groundwater
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
& ARCADIS fm,t.,.t.
hu ilt assets
13S 3/13/2017 Sodium
13S 6/6/2017 Sodium
AMW-13S
9/20/2017
Sodium
AMW-13S
3/7/2018
Sodium
AMW-13S
6/6/2018
Sodium
AMW-13S
8/16/2018
Sodium
AMW-13S
2/13/2019
Sodium
AMW-13S
AMW-12BC
IMW-213C
8/13/2019
Sodium
6/10/2015
Sulfide
12/6/2015
Sulfide
IMW-213C
3/7/2017
Sulfide
IMW-213C
6/13/2017
Sulfide
IMW-213C
9/19/2017
Sulfide
IMW-213C
12/13/2017
Sulfide
IMW-213C
3/6/2018
Sulfide
IMW-213C
11/27/2018
Sulfide
AMW-11BC
6/11/2015
Total Organic Carbon
AMW-11BC
12/4/2015
Total Organic Carbon
AMW-11BC
3/1/2016
Total Organic Carbon
AMW-11BC
6/8/2016
Total Organic Carbon
AMW-13S
6/6/2018
Total Organic Carbon
IMW-3S
12/6/2015
Total Organic Carbon
AMW-12S
6/10/2015
Total Radium
AMW-12S
3/1/2016
Total Radium
AMW-12S
6/8/2016
Total Radium
AMW-12S
12/19/2016
Total Radium
AMW-12S
6/8/2017
Total Radium
AMW-11S
6/7/2016
Total Uranium
AMW-12BC
6/8/2016
Total Uranium
AMW-12S
6/10/2015
Total Uranium
AMW-12S
3/1/2016
Total Uranium
AMW-12S
10/3/2016
Total Uranium
AMW-12S
3/10/2017
Total Uranium
AMW-12S
6/8/2017
Total Uranium
AMW-13BC
6/8/2016
Total Uranium
CCR-100S
6/9/2017
Total Uranium
IMWABC
3/4/2016
Total Uranium
IMWABC
3/7/2017
Total Uranium
IMW-213C
3/3/2016
Total Uranium
IMW-213C
8/3/2016
Total Uranium
IMW-3S
6/8/2016
Total Uranium
AMW-11S
9/24/2015
Vanadium
AMW-12S
3/10/2017
Vanadium
AMW-12S
6/8/2017
Vanadium
AMW-12S
9/12/2017
Vanadium
AMW-12S
12/11/2017
Vanadium
AMW-12S
3/5/2018
Vanadium
AMW-13S
3/1/2016
Vanadium
AMW-13S
12/12/2017
Vanadium
AMW-16BC
7/20/2016
Vanadium
AMW-16BC
10/6/2016
Vanadium
AMW-16BC
3/13/2017
Vanadium
AMW-16BC
9/12/2017
Vanadium
AMW-16BC
12/12/2017
Vanadium
23.8 mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
23.9 mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
22.6 mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
27.4 mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
31.5 B2 mg
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker lot
23.4 mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
29.8 mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
31.9 mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.201 mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.44 mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.25 mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.2 mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.16
mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.12
mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.2
mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.17
mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
8
mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
7.2
mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
4.2
mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
11
mg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
3 mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
3.8 mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
23.4 i pCi/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
17.75 pCi/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
21.9 pCi/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
18.42
pCi/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
16.74 pCi/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.00202 pg/mL
0.00021 pg/mL
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
0.00224 Ng/mL
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.002
pg/mL
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.0018
pg/mL
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.00162 Ng/mL
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.00158 pg/mL
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.000281 pg/mL
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.000259 pg/mL
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.000566 pg/mL
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
0.000248
pg/mL
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
0.000395
pg/mL
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
0.000241 pg/mL
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
0.000294
pg/mL
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.56 pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.597 pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
0.705 pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
0.567 132 pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
0.65
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
0.672
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
0.59
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.468 pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
3.2 pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
2.78 pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
3.33 132 pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
2.42 132 Ng/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
2.27 pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
Page 5 of 6

Table 2
Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data - Groundwater
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
& ARCADIS fm,t.,.t.
hu ilt assets
16BC 3/7/2018 Vanadium
16BC 8/21/2018 Vanadium
AMW-16BC
2/13/2019
Vanadium
AMW-16BC
8/14/2019
Vanadium
AMW-17S
3/15/2017
Vanadium
CCR-100S
F
7/20/2016
Vanadium
CCR-100S
CCR-100S
CCR-100S
CCR-100S
CCR-100S
IMWAS
IMW-2BC
16BC
16BC
AMW-16BC
IMW-3BC
IMW-3BC
IMW-3BC
IMW-3BC
IMW-3S
10/6/2016
3/13/2017
9/12/2017
12/12/2017
6/6/2018
5/26/2015
3/3/2016
12/4/2015
7/20/2016
10/6/2016
3/13/2017
9/12/2017
3/7/2018
8/21 /2018
12/12/2017
3/9/2017
3/7/2018
6/4/2018
8/15/2018
6/9/2017
Vanadium
Vanadium
Vanadium
Vanadium
Vanadium
Vanadium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
1.28
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
2.05
pg/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
2.11
Ng/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.832
Ng/L
Repeated concentration in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.495 B
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.462
pg/L
Repeated concentrations in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.624
pg/L
Repeated concentrations in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.471 132
pg/L
Repeated concentrations in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.545 132
pg/L
Repeated concentrations in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
0.568
pg/L
Repeated concentrations in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
No laboratory or field errors identified
1.96 132 pg/L
0.627
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.637
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
17
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum, cobalt, and copper concentrations; No laboratory or field errors
identified
23
pg/L
Repeated concentrations in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
20
pg/L
Repeated concentrations in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
32
Ng/L
Repeated concentrations in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
30
pg/L
Repeated concentrations in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
23
pg/L
Repeated concentrations in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
26
pg/L
Repeated concentrations in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
Repeated concentrations in well over time; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
27 pg/L
whisker plot
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
89 pg/L
106
i pg/L
Present with higher copper concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
51
pg/L
Present with higher copper concentration; Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -
whisker plot
39
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
201
pg/L
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 (BTUs) because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -specific geochemical
conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of Feld error or laboratory analytical error.
Qualifiers:
62 - Target analyte was detected in blank(s) at a concentration greater than 1/2 the reporting limit but less than the reporting limit. Analyte concentration in sample is valid and may be used for compliance purposes.
M1 - Matrix spike recovery was high: the associated laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable.
Acronyms and Abbreviations:
pg/L = micrograms per liter
pg/mL = micrograms per milliliter
mg/L = milligrams per liter
mg-CaC%/L = milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate
mg-N/L = milligrams per liter as nitrogen
ORP = oxidation-reduction potential
pCi/L = picocuries per liter
TDS = total dissolved solids
TOC = total organic carbon
Page 6 of 6

Table 3
Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data - Soil
IaRCAD l S Qes�gn & Consultancy
fornaturaland
euat assers
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Soil Sample ID Sample Constituent Concentration
Reporting Unit
Ratinnala fnr Inclusion of Samnip nata in Background Soil
■
BGSB-1 (2.5-3.5) 10/17/2017 Beryllium 1
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-1 (5-6)
10/17/2017
Beryllium
0.82
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-5 (2.5-3.5)
10/17/2017
Cadmium
0.13
mg/kg
No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-6 (1.5-2)
10/17/2017
Cadmium
0.18
mg/kg
No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-14 (5-6)
10/18/2017
Chloride
64
mg/kg
No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-1 (2.5-3.5)
10/17/2017
Cobalt
9.8
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-1 (5-6)
10/17/2017
Cobalt
8.7
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-1 (2.5-3.5)
10/17/2017
Magnesium
2000
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-1 (5-6)
10/17/2017
Magnesium
1700
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-2 (2.5-3.5)
10/17/2017
Magnesium
1200
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-2 (5-6)
10/17/2017
Magnesium 1400
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
Manganese 110
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-1 (2.5-3.5)
10/17/2017
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-1 (5-6)
10/17/2017
Manganese
84
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-2 (2.5-3.5)
10/17/2017
Manganese
98
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-2 (5-6) 10/17/2017 Manganese
72
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
Page 1 of 2

Table 3
Rationale for Inclusion of Statistical Outlier Data - Soil
IaRCAD l S Qes�gn & Consultancy
fornaturaland
euat assers
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Soil Sample ID Sample Constituent Concentration
Reporting Unit
or Inclusion f Sa a in Background Soil Data Set
■Am"
AL
BGSB-1 (5-6) 10/17/2017 Molybdenum 8.2
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-1 (2.5-3.5)
10/17/2017
Nickel
9.2
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-1 (5-6)
10/17/2017
Nickel
7.8
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-2 (2.5-3.5)
10/17/2017
Nickel
6.5
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-2 (5-6)
10/17/2017
Nickel
6.4
mg/kg
Present with other metals identified as outliers; Present in both samples from same
location; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-8 (1.5-2)
10/18/2017
Nickel
7.1 j
mg/kg
Present at similar concentrations at other locations; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-14 (2.5-3.5)
10/18/2017
Nickel
8
mg/kg
Present at similar concentrations at other locations; No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-14 (5-6)
10/18/2017
Nitrate (as N)
3.1
mg/kg
No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-4 (2.5-3.5)
10/17/2017
Sulfate
25
mg/kg
No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-14 (2.5-3.5)
10/18/2017
Sulfate
25
mg/kg
No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-14 (5-6)
10/18/2017
Sulfate
180
mg/kg
No laboratory or field errors identified
BGSB-15 (1-1.5)
10/18/2017
Sulfate
140
mg/kg
No laboratory or field errors identified
General Notes:
- 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
mg/L as CaCO3 - milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate
mg/L as N - milligrams per liter as nitrogen
Qualifiers:
j - Estimated concentration above the method detection limit and below the reporting limit.
Page 2 of 2

FIGURES

� �f
KY ,
I
TE
i 1
w 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/).
PLO"
"
Wells
•
Faulk
w
eologt
Regions
Appalachlan Plalc�-ao
Valley and Ridge
Blue Ridge
Lj
Piad ani
Allantic
Coastal Plain
Trossic Basins

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
—
2JV 1 —
Fa OU r 0
E I
a 1 O
E 25
pq LU
E
pq
I
pq U.0
pq pp
I
2
I
£ i U
E
£
- 2UU -
o I° I
e I
e I
o
o
I
e I o
nn 1 1
+- 2n r
" 15 1 T
I I
Y n n
I
I 0
O I
A I o
m I SR
m I .I,
m
I
i I ;a
1 O
l 0 1
I
I T
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 1 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 1 nn I—n IJ
I �
I I
1n!
I I I
I rb1
1101
I W
I I I
I o I
o
I
0
I
I�
I_n I l o l
1
I I R I
r LLB-!
anI
ITr n n
n L1 III
G" I I I
I I I
U I-T��
I I I
�•L
50 ' 0
�.� I-T��
R I
l o l
j I
I L 8 J
I 18 I
i
1 ICJ
I-
1
n
n1AL
n1
n1
n
n1
n
I Silica
I —I Cillfato
❑ TDB
I I Iron
lul Alulminum
�n
�V
nU
9UU
n
1 0
25 F7
on I T
UV
bou
I I
I
700
�
r
cI 1
n
i
JV
—
`aa
m I Ch
'; 40
Rnn 1
o
1
An I I X I
0
E
11
`c_
V
15 1
snn
m 11 0 1
o JV F
m 1 6 L
I 1O
Z- 'In 1 1 0 1
I
- Ann 11�
4
I
Data value less than or equal to
I
I T m
I v
_ 1
1n
0 I I R I
o 2n
inn ! r� c
i 0
0
ntrEsidethe quartile
U
2n 1_
u -
I
U I I 0 I V
o U
T
75th percentile
T
2nn 1 1—
2
1 eh
Moan
i m
1 n
1 n
I X
1
25th percentile
I
Inn I
1 1
1
x
1 IL° 1
1 I I
'�
r
n
n
n
BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUE STATISTICAL OUTLIER
EVALUATION - H.F. LEE ENERGY
COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
Notes:
BOX -AND -WHISKER PLOTS FOR CONSTITUENT
mg/L: milligrams per liter
CONCENTRATIONS IN COASTAL PLAIN, NC
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
fornaturaland �ARCADIS
^
L
Geological Survey Data Series 997, 56 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds997.
huittassets ssetsultancy

rage Z OT Z
I -I
J Antimony
r-I
J Arsenic
r1
dr.UT
__ Barium
r_1_Beryllium
efyll.UT
Li Boron
r_1_Cadmium
n,1 R
n,7
35n
n 1 A
25nn
n,R
0.16 i--I
n.R
qnn
n,12
I
U.7
14
2UVu
n.n
-
i
n
25n
n 1 I --
=
n��
-
V' " 1 I
4
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 F-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+
11 0 1
1 T
1 R 1
5nn
14-
1 1
I I
I t
r -0-I
1 4)
1 1
.1
Ur 1 o I
5U �
r� U.U2
I r-A"
0.U2�
��
r
I lol
I �
Ilol
I I
�J
*
1�
l
l
l
l�
U-
U
V!
n
n
W
n
Li Cnrorniurn
n,F
0.5
c nA
tw
c
0
0.3
c
V
C n n
U.1
V
❑ Lead LJ Lithium j Manganese J Molybdenum ❑ 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 1-e 16 � n 06 9U - I1 7
..� 2UU � 16 � ,4 � .,..,., SUU
1 i 0 A A I n nri I i
�o i - ""� I I I - n TVV F--6e'o I do 1 - mo I o I ao G I to I I I do I I
25 15U ! 12 r I I I 6nn 1--I
o n.R 1 0 �- =o_ I o 0 iU I g U-- 1 0 I I
2n 1 4 1 T - 1 n - I I 5nn ll--�
Lz I -- I C I I - I - I - I I - --- 1 6
0.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 F-= 0.03 1 I-L
u I u A c l I u I UU u tS u I u I u 4UU rl cr
c r = c I 0 = r _ = I S 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 11--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 0.01 I I 0
1 1n1 1 1J 1 1 n 1 2� �
U' og' U I U U I -,ems+- U U U
Data value less than ar equal to
1.5 times the inlerquartile range
outside the quartile
I5th percentile
Moan
Notes: 25th percentile
pg/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
Vanadium
n,7
n,F
n5
c n,4
0.3
u
v
u
0.2
U.1
U
❑ Zinc
25U .
5U
U
V
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 - H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
BOX -AND -WHISKER PLOTS FOR CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN COASTAL PLAIN, NC
FIGURE
ltancy
uralandPARCADIS =Wf.as..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
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Location approximate

I �,
Turbidity and total suspended svijds (TSS) relationship
for all majnstetn Portteut R and Muslt Cr sites"
Da
R'4r.94n. FKU-ME1
1i=21T
Tas = 2&597tLffb3duyin
fiL.0
J_ 5
Q1
E
Go
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 3an?010 to 3*2011.
Notes:
NTU — Nephelometric turbidity units
mg/L — milligram 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
II: 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.

1000 l0000
HF Lee-AMW-11S HF Lee - IMWAS
, - 6 1000
100
0 0
e c
100
m m
U U
C 10 0
U U 10
1
Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
+-Aluminum +Iran 9 Aluminum +Iron
HF Lee - IMW-2BC
J
G
O
10U
c
m
v
c
O
U
Note: Aluminum outlier only
Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
--*-Aluminum-9—Iran
BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUE STATISTICAL OUTLIER
EVALUATION - H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
Notes:
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRON AND
Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier ALUMINUM CONCENTRATIONS
Filled circle : detected result
FIGURE
/aRCJaDIS CesignBCansultancy
�Ig/L :micrograms per liter fulftas ets `5
6uiltassets

J
HF Lee - AMW-16BC
1
Jan-16 Dec-16 Jan-18 Jan-19
—a- Cobalt —41p.-- Nitrate + Nitrite o N Ds 2
2500
Ill F
D'1
o 1500
411(
0 1
Jan-15
HF Lee - AM WA 1 BC
Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
@ Manganese
0
100
J
GI
C
J
O
0
w
=
C
O
c
Y
Y 10
o
c
�
U
C
O
U
Z
m
ro
z
1
Jan-15
100
D 10
HF Lee - IMW-2BC
Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
--*—Arsenic Molybdenum
HF Lee - IMW-3S
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
--*—Alkalinity (Total and Bicarbonate) ♦Iron Manganese
Notes:
J : Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier
Filled circle : detected result
Unfilled circle : non -detect result; value shown is reporting limit
Non -circled outliers were auto -correlated and not included in the background data set
mg/L : milligrams per liter
pg/L : micrograms per liter
COI — Constituents of Interest
100000
tM
C
O
1OOOO
C
O7
U
C
O
U
O
1000 ayi
C
O
C
RI

1 1
Jan-15
I01
3 1000
y
c
0 100
HF Lee - AMW-11S
Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
—a Cobalt --*--Manganese
HF Lee - AMW-11 BC
Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
—� Cobalt —*—Manganese
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
HF Lee - AMW-13S
1000
01
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
Cobalt —o—Manganese

HF Lee - IMW-1 BC
J
rm
S
>_
O
O
C
O
U
0.1
Jan-16 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
-*—Chromium Nickel
BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUE STATISTICAL OUTLIER
EVALUATION - H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
Notes: DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
: Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CHROMIUM
Filled circle : detected result AND NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS
Unfilled circle : non -detect result; value shown is reporting limit FIGURE
pg/L : micrograms per liter �/aRCJaDIS CezignBCansultancy
fornaturaland
6uittassets

HF Lee - AM W-11 BC
100000
a, a 10000
Z'iil
G E
o G 1000
LV a
` 100
m..
U G
G m
0 Q
ti c 10
m U
mU
m 1
0.1
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
-- —Total Organic Carbon +Methane —9—ORP
HF Lee - 1MW-1S
3
ar
0.01 1
Jan-15
Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
* Chromium (VI) --e—ORP
Notes:
O: Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier
Filled circle : detected result
Non -circled outliers were auto -correlated and not included in the
background data set
Unfilled circle : non -detect result; value shown is reporting limit
mV : millivolts
mg/L : milligrams per liter
pg/L : micrograms per liter
200 s
100 £
0 z
Y ~,
-1000 O
G
C
-200 a b
•+ G
-300'
m O
-400 = U
0
-500 a
-600 p
Jan-20
600
S
E
500
c
m
400 0
d
C
300
U
7
200 0
Me
i
Jan-16
HF Lee - AMW-16BC
Dec-16 Jan-18
a Lead
Jan-1 E
tpH
6.5
6 G
'L
5.5
C
ti
5
4
I BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUE STATISTICAL OUTLIER I
EVALUATION - H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PH AND ORP
AND COI CONCENTRATIONS
FIGURE
04ARCA DIS Oesi�ssetsnultancy ^
fornaturaland a�.11
hunt assets

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 - H.F. Lee Energy Complex
UPPER TOLERANCE LIMITS
(PROUCL OUTPUT
SynTerra

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Normal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 3:27:07 PM
From File
HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Different or Future K Observations
1
TDS
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
94
Number of Missing Observations
2
Number of Detects
83
Number of Distinct Detects
47
Minimum Detect
25
Maximum Detect
200
Variance Detected
1465
Mean Detected
85.42
Mean of Detected Logged Data
4.333
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.933
Number of Distinct Observations 47
Number of Non -Detects
11
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
25
Maximum Non -Detect
25
Percent Non -Detects
11.7%
SD Detected
38.28
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.505
d2max (for USL) 3.188
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.953 Normal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0143 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0889 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0974 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
78.35
SD
40.69
95% UTL95% Coverage
157
95% KM UPL (t)
146.3
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
256.7
90% KM Percentile (z)
130.5
95% KM Percentile (z)
145.3
99% KM Percentile (z)
173
95% KM USL
208.1
DL/2 Substitution Background
Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
76.89
SD
42.98
95% UTL95% Coverage
160
95% UPL (t)
148.7
90% Percentile (z)
132
95% Percentile (z)
147.6
99% Percentile (z)
176.9
95% USL
213.9
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Gamma Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 3:28:18 PM
From File
HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Aluminum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
85
Number of Missing Observations
11
Number of Detects
84
Number of Distinct Detects
74
Minimum Detect
5.458
Maximum Detect
1100
Variance Detected
44788
Mean Detected
206
Mean of Detected Logged Data
4.701
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.95
Number of Distinct Observations 75
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
100
Maximum Non -Detect
100
Percent Non -Detects
1.176%
SD Detected
211.6
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.27
d2max (for USL) 3.153
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.715 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.785 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.106 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.101 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
KM Mean 204
KM SD
209.9
95% UTL95% Coverage 613.4
95% KM UPL (t)
555.3
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 1124
90% KM Percentile (z)
473.1
95% KM Percentile (z) 549.4
99% KM Percentile (z)
692.4
95% KM USL 866
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 0.929
k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.904
Theta hat (MILE) 221.7
Theta star (bias corrected MILE)
227.9
nu hat (MLE) 156.1
nu star (bias corrected)
151.9
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 206
MILE Sd (bias corrected) 216.7
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
5.614
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 5.458
Mean
204
Maximum 1100
Median
137
SD 211.2
CV
1.035
k hat (MILE) 0.925
k star (bias corrected MILE)
0.9
Theta hat (MLE) 220.5
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
226.6
nu hat (MILE) 157.3
nu star (bias corrected)
153.1
MILE Mean (bias corrected) 204
MILE Sd (bias corrected)
215
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 5.6
90% Percentile
482.1
95% Percentile 634.5
99% Percentile
991

H.F. Lee Energy Complex Appendix A
Aluminum (Continued)
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
WH HW
WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 758.8 821
95% Approx. Gamma UPL 627.6
662.5
95% Gamma USL 1541 1860
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 204
SD (KM)
209.9
Variance (KM) 44071
SE of Mean (KM)
22.91
k hat (KM) 0.945
k star (KM)
0.919
nu hat (KM) 160.6
nu star (KM)
160.6
theta hat (KM) 216
theta star (KM)
222
80% gamma percentile (KM) 330.5
90% gamma percentile (KM)
479.7
95% gamma percentile (KM) 629.8
99% gamma percentile (KM)
980.6
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 754.1 815.6
95% Approx. Gamma UPL 624
658.5
95% KM Gamma Percentile 611.7 644
95% Gamma USL 1529
1845
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Cobalt
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
96
Number of Detects
88
Number of Distinct Detects
82
Minimum Detect
0.612
Maximum Detect
15.2
Variance Detected
12.99
Mean Detected
4.6
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.236
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.93
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
83
Number of Non -Detects
8
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
8.333%
SD Detected
3.604
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.788
d2max (for USL) 3.196
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.768 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.766 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.0648 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.0967 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
4.279
KM SD
3.593
95% UTL95% Coverage
11.21
95% KM UPL (t)
10.28
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
20.02
90% KM Percentile (z)
8.883
95% KM Percentile (z)
10.19
99% KM Percentile (z)
12.64
95% KM USL
15.76
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
1.871
k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.815
Theta hat (MLE)
2.458
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
2.535
nu hat (MLE)
329.3
nu star (bias corrected)
319.4
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
4.6
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
3.415
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
8.881
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean
Maximum 15.2 Median
SD 3.666 CV
k hat (MLE) 1.018 k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta hat (MLE) 4.154 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu hat (MLE) 195.4 nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 4.228 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 5.964 90% Percentile
95% Percentile 12.7 99% Percentile
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
4.228
3.465
0.867
0.993
4.258
190.6
4.243
9.752
19.54
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 14.61 16.47 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 12.37 13.59
95% Gamma USL 29.41 37.44

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Cobalt (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 4.279 SD (KM)
Variance (KM) 12.91 SE of Mean (KM)
k hat (KM) 1.419 k star (KM)
nu hat (KM) 272.4 nu star (KM)
theta hat (KM) 3.016 theta star (KM)
80% gamma percentile (KM) 6.679 90% gamma percentile (KM)
95% gamma percentile (KM) 11.46 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 12.69 13.21 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 10.96
95% KM Gamma Percentile 10.8 11.07 95% Gamma USL 23.74
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.
3.593
0.369
1.381
272.4
3.098
9.098
16.82
HW
11.25
26.62

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Lognormal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 3:28:49 PM
From File
HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Number of Bootstrap Operations
2000
Chromium (VI)
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
76
Number of Missing Observations
20
Number of Detects
59
Number of Distinct Detects
40
Minimum Detect
0.025
Maximum Detect
0.7
Variance Detected
0.0176
Mean Detected
0.148
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-2.251
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.97
Number of Distinct Observations 41
Number of Non -Detects
17
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.025
Maximum Non -Detect
0.03
Percent Non -Detects
22.37%
SD Detected
0.133
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.839
d2max (for USL) 3.114
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Approximate Test Statistic 0.958 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0844 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0943 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.115 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 0.121 SD
0.127
95% UTL95% Coverage 0.37 95% KM UPL (t)
0.333
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.677 90% KM Percentile (z)
0.283
95% KM Percentile (z) 0.329 99% KM Percentile (z)
0.416
95% KM USL 0.515
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale 0.119 Mean in Log Scale
-2.681
SD in Original Scale 0.129 SD in Log Scale
1.11
95% UTL95% Coverage 0.61 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
0.44
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage 0.44 95% UPL (t)
0.44
90% Percentile (z) 0.284 95% Percentile (z)
0.425
99% Percentile (z) 0.906 95% USL
2.172
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data -2.572 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
0.492
KM SD of Logged Data 0.946 95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
0.373
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 0.362 95% KM USL (Lognormal)
1.451
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale 0.118 Mean in Log Scale
-2.711
SD in Original Scale 0.13 SD in Log Scale
1.135
95% UTL95% Coverage 0.622 95% UPL (t)
0.446
90% Percentile (z) 0.285 95% Percentile (z)
0.43
99% Percentile (z) 0.933 95% USL
2.28
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Vanadium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
89
Number of Missing Observations
7
Number of Detects
45
Number of Distinct Detects
45
Minimum Detect
0.121
Maximum Detect
1.96
Variance Detected
0.0879
Mean Detected
0.383
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.144
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.942
Number of Distinct Observations 45
Number of Non -Detects
44
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
0.3
Maximum Non -Detect
0.3
Percent Non -Detects
49.44%
SD Detected
0.297
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.581
d2max (for USL) 3.169
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.952 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.945 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.1 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.131 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
0.287
SD
0.232
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.737
95% KM UPL (t)
0.674
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.302
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.584
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.668
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.826
95% KM USL
1.021
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming
Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale
0.292
Mean in Log Scale
-1.412
SD in Original Scale
0.234
SD in Log Scale
0.561
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.724
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
0.672
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage
0.674
95% UPL (t)
0.622
90% Percentile (z)
0.5
95% Percentile (z)
0.613
99% Percentile (z)
0.899
95% USL
1.442
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
-1.412 95% KM
UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
0.66
KM SD of Logged Data
0.513
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
0.574
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
0.566
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
1.239
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
0.268
Mean in Log Scale
-1.516
SD in Original Scale
0.24
SD in Log Scale
0.559
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.65
95% UPL (t)
0.558
90% Percentile (z)
0.449
95% Percentile (z)
0.55
99% Percentile (z)
0.805
95% USL
1.289
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 3:30:26 PM
From File
HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Alkalinity
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
90
Number of Missing Observations
6
Number of Detects
26
Number of Distinct Detects
26
Minimum Detect
7.6
Maximum Detect
91.6
Variance Detected
653.3
Mean Detected
40.23
Mean of Detected Logged Data
3.467
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.94
Number of Distinct Observations 27
Number of Non -Detects
64
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
71.11 %
SD Detected
25.56
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.728
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
d2max (for USL) 3.173
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
15.18
SD
20.89
95% UTL95% Coverage
55.71
95% KM UPL (t)
50.09
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
106.7
90% KM Percentile (z)
41.95
95% KM Percentile (z)
49.54
99% KM Percentile (z)
63.78
95% KM USL
81.47
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no
distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
88
95% UTL with95% Coverage
76.5
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.544 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.834
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
70.55
95% USL
91.6
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
106.7
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Barium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
96
Minimum
16
Second Largest
588
Maximum
590
Mean
172
Coefficient of Variation
0.877
Mean of logged Data
4.871
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.93
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
81
First Quartile
86
Median
114
Third Quartile
188
SD
150.9
Skewness
1.909
SD of logged Data
0.718
d2max (for USL) 3.196
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 94 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.649 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
584
95% UPL
566.4
90% Chebyshev UPL
626.9
95% Chebyshev UPL
833
95% USL
590
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.
584
0.864
124
584
523
564.3
588.1

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Beryllium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
83
Number of Missing Observations
12
Number of Detects
16
Number of Distinct Detects
16
Minimum Detect
0.38
Maximum Detect
1.45
Variance Detected
0.081
Mean Detected
0.691
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.436
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.954
Number of Distinct Observations 18
Number of Non -Detects
67
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.2
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
80.72%
SD Detected
0.285
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.362
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) 3.145
Mean
0.592
SD
0.203
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.989
95% KM UPL (t)
0.932
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.483
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.852
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.926
99% KM Percentile (z)
1.065
95% KM USL
1.231
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no
distinction
made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
81
95% UTL with95% Coverage
1
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
1
95% USL
1.45
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.483
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
86
Number of Missing Observations
10
Number of Detects
26
Number of Distinct Detects
26
Minimum Detect
7.6
Maximum Detect
91.6
Variance Detected
653.3
Mean Detected
40.23
Mean of Detected Logged Data
3.467
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.948
Number of Distinct Observations 27
Number of Non -Detects
60
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
69.77%
SD Detected
25.56
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.728
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) 3.157
Mean
15.65
SD
21.25
95% UTL95% Coverage
57.05
95% KM UPL (t)
51.2
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
108.8
90% KM Percentile (z)
42.89
95% KM Percentile (z)
50.61
99% KM Percentile (z)
65.09
95% KM USL
82.76
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no
distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
84
95% UTL with95% Coverage
76.5
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.474
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.81
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
71.77
95% USL
91.6
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
108.8
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Boron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
96
Number of Detects
18
Number of Distinct Detects
16
Minimum Detect
17.17
Maximum Detect
129
Variance Detected
808.5
Mean Detected
56.46
Mean of Detected Logged Data
3.882
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.93
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Number of Non -Detects
78
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
50
Maximum Non -Detect
50
Percent Non -Detects
81.25%
SD Detected
28.43
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.613
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) 3.196
Mean
26.57
SD
18.84
95% UTL95% Coverage
62.92
95% KM UPL (t)
58.02
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
109.1
90% KM Percentile (z)
50.71
95% KM Percentile (z)
57.56
99% KM Percentile (z)
70.39
95% KM USL
86.77
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no
distinction
made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
94
95% UTL with95% Coverage
76
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
69.9
95% USL
129
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
109.1
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Calcium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
96
Minimum
0.652
Second Largest
15
Maximum
15.1
Mean
5.602
Coefficient of Variation
0.71
Mean of logged Data
1.362
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.93
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
92
First Quartile
1.433
Median
4.89
Third Quartile
8.578
SD
3.976
Skewness
0.424
SD of logged Data
0.955
d2max (for USL) 3.196
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 94 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.649 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
13.9
95% UPL
12.82
90% Chebyshev UPL
17.59
95% Chebyshev UPL
23.02
95% USL
15.1
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.
13.9
0.864
124
13.9
10.8
12.25
15.01

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Chloride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 94
Minimum
3.4
Second Largest
53
Maximum
65
Mean
14.26
Coefficient of Variation
0.745
Mean of logged Data
2.47
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.933
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations 48
Number of Missing Observations 2
First Quartile
8.125
Median
11
Third Quartile
15.75
SD
10.63
Skewness
2.538
SD of logged Data
0.584
d2max (for USL) 3.188
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 92 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.614 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
46
95% UPL
39.75
90% Chebyshev UPL
46.33
95% Chebyshev UPL
60.85
95% USL
65
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.
46
0.855
124
46
26.7
38
53.84

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Chromium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
96
Number of Detects
16
Number of Distinct Detects
15
Minimum Detect
0.338
Maximum Detect
1.86
Variance Detected
0.172
Mean Detected
0.661
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.549
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Number of Non -Detects
80
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.5
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
83.33%
SD Detected
0.415
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.497
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.93
d2max (for USL)
3.196
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.485
SD
0.196
95% UTL95% Coverage 0.864
95% KM UPL (t)
0.813
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 1.345
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.736
95% KM Percentile (z) 0.808
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.942
95% KM USL 1.112
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 94
95% UTL with95% Coverage
1.08
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
1.008
95% USL 1.86
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.345
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Copper
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
78
Number of Missing Observations
17
Number of Detects
34
Number of Distinct Detects
32
Minimum Detect
0.517
Maximum Detect
6.08
Variance Detected
2.617
Mean Detected
2.652
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.741
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.965
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations 33
Number of Non -Detects
44
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
56.41 %
SD Detected
1.618
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.752
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) 3.123
Mean
1.538
SD
1.44
95% UTL95% Coverage
4.368
95% KM UPL (t)
3.951
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
7.854
90% KM Percentile (z)
3.383
95% KM Percentile (z)
3.906
99% KM Percentile (z)
4.888
95% KM USL
6.035
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction
made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
77
95% UTL with95% Coverage
5.61
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
2.026
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.907
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
93
95% UPL
4.831
95% USL
6.08
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
7.854
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Iron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 91
Minimum 3.536
Second Largest 39000
Maximum 41400
Mean 2488
Coefficient of Variation 3.317
Mean of logged Data 4.591
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.938
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
74
Number of Missing Observations
5
First Quartile
28
Median
56
Third Quartile
144.5
SD
8253
Skewness
3.737
SD of logged Data
2.114
d2max (for USL) 3.177
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 89 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 34500
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.561 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.839
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 34500
95% UPL 28780
90% Chebyshev UPL 27384
95% Chebyshev UPL 38661
95% USL 41400
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 34500
90% Percentile 3150
95% Percentile 21900
99% Percentile 39240
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Lead
Appendix A
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 83
Number of Distinct Observations
13
Number of Missing Observations 12
Number of Detects 11
Number of Non -Detects
72
Number of Distinct Detects 11
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Detect 0.15
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Detect 5.06
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Variance Detected 3.056
Percent Non -Detects
86.75%
Mean Detected 3.583
SD Detected
1.748
Mean of Detected Logged Data 0.944
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.158
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 0.687
SD
1.294
95% UTL95% Coverage 3.216
95% KM UPL (t)
2.853
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 6.362
90% KM Percentile (z)
2.345
95% KM Percentile (z) 2.816
99% KM Percentile (z)
3.698
95% KM USL 4.757
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and
nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 81
95% UTL with95% Coverage
4.72
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
4.68
95% USL 5.06
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
6.362
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Magnesium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
96
Minimum
1.03
Second Largest
10.5
Maximum
11.8
Mean
3.798
Coefficient of Variation
0.63
Mean of logged Data
1.124
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.93
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
82
First Quartile
1.6
Median
3.4
Third Quartile
5.235
SD
2.394
Skewness
0.919
SD of logged Data
0.675
d2max (for USL) 3.196
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 94 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.649 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
10.3
95% UPL
7.798
90% Chebyshev UPL
11.02
95% Chebyshev UPL
14.29
95% USL
11.8
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.
10.3
0.864
124
10.3
6.615
7.163
10.57

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Manganese
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
91
Number of Missing Observations
5
Number of Detects
87
Number of Distinct Detects
68
Minimum Detect
6
Maximum Detect
880
Variance Detected
34045
Mean Detected
130.4
Mean of Detected Logged Data
4.157
Number of Distinct Observations 69
Number of Non -Detects
4
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
4.396%
SD Detected
184.5
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.189
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.938
d2max (for USL)
3.177
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 124.9
SD
181.2
95% UTL95% Coverage 476.2
95% KM UPL (t)
427.7
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 919.1
90% KM Percentile (z)
357.2
95% KM Percentile (z) 423
99% KM Percentile (z)
546.5
95% KM USL 700.6
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 89
95% UTL with95% Coverage
659
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.561 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.839
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124
95% UPL
599
95% USL 880
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
919.1
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Molybdenum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
83
Number of Missing Observations
12
Number of Detects
8
Number of Distinct Detects
8
Minimum Detect
0.094
Maximum Detect
1.34
Variance Detected
0.169
Mean Detected
0.441
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.172
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.954
Number of Distinct Observations 10
Number of Non -Detects
75
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.5
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
90.36%
SD Detected
0.412
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.899
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) 3.145
Mean
0.301
SD
0.216
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.723
95% KM UPL (t)
0.663
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.248
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.578
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.656
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.803
95% KM USL
0.98
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no
distinction
made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
81
95% UTL with95% Coverage
1
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
1
95% USL
1.34
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.248
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Nickel
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
78
Number of Missing Observations
17
Number of Detects
71
Number of Distinct Detects
67
Minimum Detect
0.506
Maximum Detect
34.6
Variance Detected
20.69
Mean Detected
4.682
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.319
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations 68
Number of Non -Detects
7
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
8.974%
SD Detected
4.548
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.617
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.965
d2max (for USL)
3.123
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 4.307
SD
4.471
95% UTL95% Coverage 13.09
95% KM UPL (t)
11.8
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 23.92
90% KM Percentile (z)
10.04
95% KM Percentile (z) 11.66
99% KM Percentile (z)
14.71
95% KM USL 18.27
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 77
95% UTL with95% Coverage
14.4
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 2.026 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.907
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 93
95% UPL
12.5
95% USL 34.6
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
23.92
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Nitrate + Nitrite
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
78
Number of Missing Observations
18
Number of Detects
71
Number of Distinct Detects
50
Minimum Detect
0.0049
Maximum Detect
11
Variance Detected
10.61
Mean Detected
2.833
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.281
Number of Distinct Observations 52
Number of Non -Detects
7
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.01
Maximum Non -Detect
0.02
Percent Non -Detects
8.974%
SD Detected
3.258
SD of Detected Logged Data
2.221
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.965
d2max (for USL)
3.123
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 2.579
SD
3.19
95% UTL95% Coverage 8.849
95% KM UPL (t)
7.925
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 16.57
90% KM Percentile (z)
6.668
95% KM Percentile (z) 7.827
99% KM Percentile (z)
10
95% KM USL 12.54
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 77
95% UTL with95% Coverage
11
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 2.026 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.907
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 93
95% UPL
11
95% USL 11
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
16.57
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Potassium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
96
Number of Detects
94
Number of Distinct Detects
87
Minimum Detect
0.1
Maximum Detect
5.91
Variance Detected
2.664
Mean Detected
2.124
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.376
Number of Distinct Observations
87
Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
2.083%
SD Detected
1.632
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.992
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.93
d2max (for USL)
3.196
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 2.119
SD
1.619
95% UTL95% Coverage 5.244
95% KM UPL (t)
4.823
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 9.214
90% KM Percentile (z)
4.194
95% KM Percentile (z) 4.782
99% KM Percentile (z)
5.886
95% KM USL 7.294
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 94
95% UTL with95% Coverage
5.53
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
5.197
95% USL 5.91
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
9.214
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Selenium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
96
Number of Detects
10
Number of Distinct Detects
10
Minimum Detect
0.334
Maximum Detect
1.14
Variance Detected
0.0559
Mean Detected
0.645
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.498
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.93
Number of Distinct Observations
12
Number of Non -Detects
86
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.5
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
89.58%
SD Detected
0.236
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.366
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) 3.196
Mean
0.579
SD
0.17
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.908
95% KM UPL (t)
0.864
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.326
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.798
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.86
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.976
95% KM USL
1.124
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no
distinction
made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
94
95% UTL with95% Coverage
1
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
1
95% USL
1.14
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.326
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Sodium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
96
Minimum
1.57
Second Largest
31.5
Maximum
31.9
Mean
7.895
Coefficient of Variation
0.839
Mean of logged Data
1.84
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.93
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
90
First Quartile
4.098
Median
6.19
Third Quartile
7.783
SD
6.625
Skewness
2.274
SD of logged Data
0.624
d2max (for USL) 3.196
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 94 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.649 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
29.8
95% UPL
24.43
90% Chebyshev UPL
27.87
95% Chebyshev UPL
36.92
95% USL
31.9
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.
29.8
0.864
124
29.8
18.95
23.83
31.52

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Strontium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 91
Minimum
11
Second Largest
125
Maximum
127
Mean
61.37
Coefficient of Variation
0.615
Mean of logged Data
3.863
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.938
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
62
Number of Missing Observations
5
First Quartile
23
Median
59
Third Quartile
95.5
SD
37.72
Skewness
0.125
SD of logged Data
0.778
d2max (for USL) 3.177
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
89
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
122
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.561
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.839
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
122
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
122
95% UPL
119.8
90% Percentile
110
90% Chebyshev UPL
175.2
95% Percentile
117
95% Chebyshev UPL
226.7
99% Percentile
125.2
95% USL
127
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Sulfate
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
94
Number of Missing Observations
2
Number of Detects
93
Number of Distinct Detects
54
Minimum Detect
0.0845
Maximum Detect
40
Variance Detected
92.7
Mean Detected
12.38
Mean of Detected Logged Data
2.007
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.933
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations 55
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
1.064%
SD Detected
9.628
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.293
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
d2max (for USL) 3.188
Mean
12.25
SD
9.607
95% UTL95% Coverage
30.82
95% KM UPL (t)
28.29
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
54.34
90% KM Percentile (z)
24.56
95% KM Percentile (z)
28.05
99% KM Percentile (z)
34.59
95% KM USL
42.88
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no
distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
92
95% UTL with95% Coverage
35
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
27.25
95% USL
40
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
54.34
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Thallium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
96
Number of Detects
11
Number of Distinct Detects
11
Minimum Detect
0.089
Maximum Detect
0.161
Variance Detected 5.0316E-4
Mean Detected
0.122
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-2.121
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.93
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
13
Number of Non -Detects
85
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Non -Detect
0.2
Percent Non -Detects
88.54%
SD Detected
0.0224
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.189
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) 3.196
Mean
0.117
SD
0.0228
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.161
95% KM UPL (t)
0.155
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.217
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.146
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.154
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.17
95% KM USL
0.19
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no
distinction
made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
94
95% UTL with95% Coverage
0.2
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.649
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.864
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
0.2
95% USL
0.2
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.217
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
TOC
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 76
Minimum
0.092
Second Largest
3
Maximum
3.8
Mean
0.967
Coefficient of Variation
0.738
Mean of logged Data
-0.252
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.97
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 19
First Quartile
0.482
Median
0.656
Third Quartile
1.1
SD
0.714
Skewness
1.795
SD of logged Data
0.657
d2max (for USL) 3.114
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 75 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.974 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
3
95% UPL
2.73
90% Chebyshev UPL
3.123
95% Chebyshev UPL
4.1
95% USL
3.8
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.
3
0.899
93
3
1.85
2.55
3.2

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Zinc
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
76
Number of Missing Observations
19
Number of Detects
67
Number of Distinct Detects
25
Minimum Detect
2.313
Maximum Detect
201
Variance Detected
565.7
Mean Detected
13.93
Mean of Detected Logged Data
2.332
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations 25
Number of Non -Detects
9
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
11.84%
SD Detected
23.78
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.63
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.97
d2max (for USL)
3.114
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 12.71
SD
22.42
95% UTL95% Coverage 56.86
95% KM UPL (t)
50.28
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 111.1
90% KM Percentile (z)
41.43
95% KM Percentile (z) 49.58
99% KM Percentile (z)
64.86
95% KM USL 82.5
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 75
95% UTL with95% Coverage
28
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.974 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.899
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 93
95% UPL
23.3
95% USL 201
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
111.1
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Two -Sided 95% Tolerance Intervals of pH
Percent of Parametric Parametric Nonparametric Nonparametric
Population
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Between
Tolerance
Tolerance
Tolerance
Tolerance
Limits
Limit
Limit
Limit
Limit
50
4.413549
5.35291
4.4
5.3
60
4.297167
5.469291
4.3
5.4
70
4.16151
5.604949
4.3
5.6
80
3.990822
5.775636
4.1
6
90
3.737837
6.028621
4
6.5
95
3.51841
6.248048
3.94
6.6
99
3.089553
6.676905

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 3:32:00 PM
From File
HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
90%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Lithium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 39
Number of Distinct Observations
29
Number of Missing Observations 57
Number of Detects 29
Number of Non -Detects
10
Number of Distinct Detects 28
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect 1.682
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Detect 24
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Variance Detected 33.48
Percent Non -Detects
25.64%
Mean Detected 5.571
SD Detected
5.786
Mean of Detected Logged Data 1.363
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.781
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.696
d2max (for USL)
2.857
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 4.86
SD
5.072
95% UTL90% Coverage 13.46
95% KM UPL (t)
13.52
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 27.25
90% KM Percentile (z)
11.36
95% KM Percentile (z) 13.2
99% KM Percentile (z)
16.66
95% KM USL 19.35
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and
nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 38
95% UTL with90% Coverage
19
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 2.111 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.912
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46
95% UPL
19
95% USL 24
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
27.25
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Methane
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
43
Number of Missing Observations
50
Number of Detects
8
Number of Distinct Detects
8
Minimum Detect
10
Maximum Detect
19000
Variance Detected
67325991
Mean Detected
5426
Mean of Detected Logged Data
5.447
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.673
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations 8
Number of Non -Detects
35
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
10
Maximum Non -Detect
10
Percent Non -Detects
81.4%
SD Detected
8205
SD of Detected Logged Data
3.413
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
d2max (for USL) 2.897
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 1018 SD 3925
95% UTL90% Coverage 7583 95% KM UPL (t) 7695
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 18322 90% KM Percentile (z) 6047
95% KM Percentile (z) 7473 99% KM Percentile (z) 10148
95% KM USL 12387
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 41 95% UTL with90% Coverage 7070
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.519 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.818
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% UPL 15174
95% USL 19000 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 18322
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Total Radium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 51
Minimum
0.455
Second Largest
21.9
Maximum
23.4
Mean
4.375
Coefficient of Variation
1.352
Mean of logged Data
0.861
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.636
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Number of Distinct Observations 50
Number of Missing Observations 44
First Quartile
1.09
Median
2.201
Third Quartile
3.645
SD
5.918
Skewness
2.104
SD of logged Data
1.042
d2max (for USL) 2.965
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 49 95% UTL with 90% Coverage
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.815 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
18.42
95% UPL
19.81
90% Chebyshev UPL
22.3
95% Chebyshev UPL
30.42
95% USL
23.4
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
18.42
0.896
61
17.75
15.86
18.09
22.65

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Total Uranium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 49
Number of Missing Observations 46
Number of Detects 19
Number of Distinct Detects 19
Minimum Detect 6.8100E-5
Maximum Detect 0.00224
Variance Detected 6.9550E-7
Mean Detected 7.0007E-4
Mean of Detected Logged Data -8.034
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.644
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 20
Number of Non -Detects 30
Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1
Minimum Non -Detect 2.0000E-4
Maximum Non -Detect 2.0000E-4
Percent Non -Detects 61.22%
SD Detected 8.3397E-4
SD of Detected Logged Data 1.271
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
d2max (for USL) 2.949
Mean 3.4960E-4
SD 5.7787E-4
95% UTL90% Coverage
0.0013
95% KM UPL (t)
0.00133
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.00289
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.00109
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.0013
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.00169
95% KM USL
0.00205
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
47
95% UTL with90% Coverage
0.002
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.741
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.88
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95% UPL
0.00201
95% USL
0.00224
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.00289
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 3:32:59 PM
From File
HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
85%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Fluoride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Number of Missing Observations
69
Number of Detects
18
Number of Distinct Detects
16
Minimum Detect
0.034
Maximum Detect
0.34
Variance Detected
0.00679
Mean Detected
0.1
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-2.492
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.514
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 16
Number of Non -Detects
8
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Non -Detect
0.1
Percent Non -Detects
30.77%
SD Detected
0.0824
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.573
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.0907
SD
0.0689
95% UTL85% Coverage
0.195
95% KM UPL (t)
0.211
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.397
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.179
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.204
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.251
95% KM USL
0.275
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
24
95% UTL with85% Coverage
0.1
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.412 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.77
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
40
95% UPL
0.326
95% USL
0.34
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.397
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Normal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 4:40:50 PM
From File
HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers b.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Alkalinity
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
91.6
Second Largest
114
Maximum
115
Mean
104.8
Coefficient of Variation
0.0781
Mean of logged Data
4.65
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Number of Distinct Observations
10
First Quartile
99.5
Median
105
Third Quartile
111.8
SD
8.188
Skewness
-0.296
SD of logged Data
0.0791
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.942 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.174 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 128.7 90% Percentile (z) 115.3
95% UPL (t) 120.6 95% Percentile (z) 118.3
95% USL 122.7 99% Percentile (z) 123.9
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Arsenic
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
1.01
Second Largest
2.27
Maximum
2.36
Mean
1.739
Coefficient of Variation
0.257
Mean of logged Data
0.519
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
10
First Quartile
1.623
Median
1.815
Third Quartile
1.893
SD
0.447
Skewness
-0.571
SD of logged Data
0.29
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.899 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.21 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 3.04 90% Percentile (z) 2.312
95% UPL (t) 2.598 95% Percentile (z) 2.474
95% USL 2.711 99% Percentile (z) 2.778
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Barium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
41
Second Largest
55
Maximum
58
Mean
49.3
Coefficient of Variation
0.105
Mean of logged Data
3.893
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
9
First Quartile
46
Median
48.5
Third Quartile
52.75
SD
5.165
Skewness
0.19
SD of logged Data
0.105
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.978 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.139 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 64.34 90% Percentile (z) 55.92
95% UPL (t) 59.23 95% Percentile (z) 57.8
95% USL 60.54 99% Percentile (z) 61.32
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
91.6
Second Largest
114
Maximum
115
Mean
104.8
Coefficient of Variation
0.0781
Mean of logged Data
4.65
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Number of Distinct Observations
10
First Quartile
99.5
Median
105
Third Quartile
111.8
SD
8.188
Skewness
-0.296
SD of logged Data
0.0791
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.942 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.174 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 128.7 90% Percentile (z) 115.3
95% UPL (t) 120.6 95% Percentile (z) 118.3
95% USL 122.7 99% Percentile (z) 123.9
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Boron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
244
Second Largest
288
Maximum
288
Mean
268.4
Coefficient of Variation
0.0627
Mean of logged Data
5.591
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
9
First Quartile
255.8
Median
268.5
Third Quartile
283
SD
16.83
Skewness
-0.111
SD of logged Data
0.063
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.882 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.216 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 317.4 90% Percentile (z) 290
95% UPL (t) 300.8 95% Percentile (z) 296.1
95% USL 305 99% Percentile (z) 307.5
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Chloride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
20
Second Largest
27
Maximum
27
Mean
24.7
Coefficient of Variation
0.0855
Mean of logged Data
3.203
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
6
First Quartile
24
Median
25
Third Quartile
26
SD
2.111
Skewness
-1.191
SD of logged Data
0.0898
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.9 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.17 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 30.84 90% Percentile (z) 27.41
95% UPL (t) 28.76 95% Percentile (z) 28.17
95% USL 29.29 99% Percentile (z) 29.61
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Cobalt
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Number of Detects
9
Number of Distinct Detects
9
Minimum Detect
0.365
Maximum Detect
4.41
Variance Detected
1.406
Mean Detected
1.904
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.449
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
10%
SD Detected
1.186
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.714
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.933 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.829 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.168 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.274 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
1.781
SD
1.127
95% UTL95% Coverage
5.063
95% KM UPL (t)
3.949
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
6.935
90% KM Percentile (z)
3.226
95% KM Percentile (z)
3.636
99% KM Percentile (z)
4.404
95% KM USL
4.234
DU2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
1.764
SD
1.203
95% UTL95% Coverage
5.266
95% UPL (t)
4.077
90% Percentile (z)
3.306
95% Percentile (z)
3.743
99% Percentile (z)
4.563
95% USL
4.382
DU2 is not a recommended method. DU2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Iron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
313
Second Largest
1280
Maximum
2060
Mean
879.9
Coefficient of Variation
0.598
Mean of logged Data
6.615
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
10
First Quartile
463
Median
917
Third Quartile
974
SD
526.2
Skewness
1.163
SD of logged Data
0.621
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.88 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.221 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 2412 90% Percentile (z) 1554
95% UPL (t) 1892 95% Percentile (z) 1745
95% USL 2025 99% Percentile (z) 2104
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Magnesium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
7.23
Second Largest
8.1
Maximum
8.81
Mean
7.763
Coefficient of Variation
0.0599
Mean of logged Data
2.048
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Number of Distinct Observations
10
First Quartile
7.423
Median
7.705
Third Quartile
7.95
SD
0.465
Skewness
1.257
SD of logged Data
0.0583
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.903 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.143 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 9.117 90% Percentile (z) 8.359
95% UPL (t) 8.657 95% Percentile (z) 8.528
95% USL 8.775 99% Percentile (z) 8.845
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Manganese
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
50
Second Largest
155
Maximum
170
Mean
102.4
Coefficient of Variation
0.385
Mean of logged Data
4.559
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Number of Distinct Observations
10
First Quartile
74.75
Median
98.5
Third Quartile
122.5
SD
39.44
Skewness
0.472
SD of logged Data
0.399
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.934 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.224 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 217.2 90% Percentile (z) 152.9
95% UPL (t) 178.2 95% Percentile (z) 167.3
95% USL 188.2 99% Percentile (z) 194.2
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Potassium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
5.69
Second Largest
6.31
Maximum
6.69
Mean
6.063
Coefficient of Variation
0.0512
Mean of logged Data
1.801
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Number of Distinct Observations
10
First Quartile
5.835
Median
6.06
Third Quartile
6.223
SD
0.31
Skewness
0.707
SD of logged Data
0.0505
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.942 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.122 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 6.966 90% Percentile (z) 6.461
95% UPL (t) 6.659 95% Percentile (z) 6.573
95% USL 6.738 99% Percentile (z) 6.785
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Sodium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
37.9
Second Largest
47.5
Maximum
48.5
Mean
44.32
Coefficient of Variation
0.0776
Mean of logged Data
3.789
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
9
First Quartile
42.8
Median
44.75
Third Quartile
47.1
SD
3.441
Skewness
-0.762
SD of logged Data
0.0799
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.93 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.198 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 54.34 90% Percentile (z) 48.73
95% UPL (t) 50.93 95% Percentile (z) 49.98
95% USL 51.81 99% Percentile (z) 52.32
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Strontium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
147
Second Largest
163
Maximum
164
Mean
157.7
Coefficient of Variation
0.0342
Mean of logged Data
5.06
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Number of Distinct Observations
8
First Quartile
156
Median
159
Third Quartile
161.5
SD
5.397
Skewness
-0.913
SD of logged Data
0.0347
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.924 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.176 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 173.4 90% Percentile (z) 164.6
95% UPL (t) 168.1 95% Percentile (z) 166.6
95% USL 169.4 99% Percentile (z) 170.3
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Sulfate
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
57
Second Largest
71
Maximum
72
Mean
66
Coefficient of Variation
0.0696
Mean of logged Data
4.187
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
8
First Quartile
65.25
Median
66.5
Third Quartile
68.5
SD
4.595
Skewness
-0.825
SD of logged Data
0.0716
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.924 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.214 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 79.38 90% Percentile (z) 71.89
95% UPL (t) 74.83 95% Percentile (z) 73.56
95% USL 76 99% Percentile (z) 76.69
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
TDS
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
200
Second Largest
250
Maximum
270
Mean
230.7
Coefficient of Variation
0.0879
Mean of logged Data
5.438
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
8
First Quartile
220
Median
228.5
Third Quartile
240
SD
20.29
Skewness
0.486
SD of logged Data
0.0871
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.978 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.123 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 289.8 90% Percentile (z) 256.7
95% UPL (t) 269.7 95% Percentile (z) 264.1
95% USL 274.8 99% Percentile (z) 277.9
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Vanadium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Number of Detects
7
Number of Distinct Detects
7
Minimum Detect
0.122
Maximum Detect
0.683
Variance Detected
0.0328
Mean Detected
0.387
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.066
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Number of Distinct Observations
8
Number of Non -Detects
3
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
0.3
Maximum Non -Detect
0.3
Percent Non -Detects
30%
SD Detected
0.181
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.561
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.992 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.803 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.135 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.304 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.325
SD
0.172
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.827
95% KM UPL (t)
0.656
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.113
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.546
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.609
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.726
95% KM USL
0.7
DU2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.316
SD
0.187
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.861
95% UPL (t)
0.676
90% Percentile (z)
0.556
95% Percentile (z)
0.624
99% Percentile (z)
0.751
95% USL
0.723
DU2 is not a recommended method. DU2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Two -Sided 95% Tolerance Intervals of pH
Percent of
Parametric
Parametric
Nonparametric Nonparametric
Population
Lower
Upper
Lower Upper
Between
Tolerance
Tolerance
Tolerance Tolerance
Limits
Limit
Limit
Limit Limit
50
6.912158
7.285842
6.92 7.4
60
6.86586
7.332139
6.92 7.4
70
6.811895
7.386105
80
6.743994
7.454006
90
6.643355
7.554645
95
6.556066
7.641934
99
6.385463
7.812537

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 4:41:43 PM
From File
HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers b.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
85%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Calcium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Minimum
25.2
Second Largest
27
Maximum
32
Mean
26.68
Coefficient of Variation
0.0734
Mean of logged Data
3.282
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.956
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
9
First Quartile
25.7
Median
26.25
Third Quartile
26.6
SD
1.958
Skewness
2.644
SD of logged Data
0.0684
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 10 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 32
95% UPL
32
90% Chebyshev UPL
32.84
95% Chebyshev UPL
35.63
95% USL
32
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.
32
0.803
19
30.25
27.5
29.75
31.55

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Thallium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
10
Number of Detects
2
Number of Distinct Detects
2
Minimum Detect
0.152
Maximum Detect
0.153
Variance Detected 5.0000E-7
Mean Detected
0.153
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.881
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations
3
Number of Non -Detects
8
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
0.2
Maximum Non -Detect
0.2
Percent Non -Detects
80%
SD Detected 7.0711E-4
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.00464
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) 1.956 d2max (for USL) 2.176
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.153
SD 5.0000E-4
95% UTL85% Coverage
0.153
95% KM UPL (t)
0.153
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.155
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.153
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.153
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.154
95% KM USL
0.154
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no
distinction
made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
10
95% UTL with85% Coverage
0.2
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.765
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.803
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
19
95% UPL
0.2
95% USL
0.2
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.155
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
From File
Full Precision
Confidence Coefficient
Coverage
Different or Future K Observations
Fluoride
Normal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
ProUCL 5.12/10/2020 9:07:14 AM
HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers c.xls
OFF
95%
95%
1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
23
Number of Missing Observations
66
Number of Detects
21
Number of Distinct Detects
16
Minimum Detect
0.0484
Maximum Detect
0.23
Variance Detected
0.00277
Mean Detected
0.131
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-2.126
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.328
Number of Distinct Observations 17
Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Non -Detect
0.1
Percent Non -Detects
8.696%
SD Detected
0.0526
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.454
d2max (for USL) 2.624
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.955 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.908 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.149 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.188 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.125
SD
0.0522
95% UTL95% Coverage 0.247
95% KM UPL (t)
0.217
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.358
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.192
95% KM Percentile (z) 0.211
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.247
95% KM USL 0.262
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.124
SD
0.0553
95% UTL95% Coverage 0.252
95% UPL (t)
0.221
90% Percentile (z) 0.194
95% Percentile (z)
0.214
99% Percentile (z) 0.252
95% USL
0.269
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Magnesium
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
From File
Full Precision
Confidence Coefficient
Coverage
Gamma Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
ProUCL 5.12/10/2020 9:08:30 AM
HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers c.xls
OFF
95%
95%
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
91
Minimum
1.62
Second Largest
7.43
Maximum
7.65
Mean
3.924
Coefficient of Variation
0.406
Mean of logged Data
1.289
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.938
Number of Distinct Observations
85
First Quartile
3.065
Median
3.57
Third Quartile
4.42
SD
1.593
Skewness
0.903
SD of logged Data
0.396
d2max (for USL) 3.177
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 1.443 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.754 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.0913 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)
6.601
Theta hat (MLE)
0.594
nu hat (MLE)
1201
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
3.924
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
6.797
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
6.846
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
7.406
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
7.492
95% WH USL
10.71
k star (bias corrected MLE) 6.391
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.614
nu star (bias corrected) 1163
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 1.552
90% Percentile 5.998
95% Percentile 6.776
99% Percentile 8.402
95% HW USL 11.1
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
TDS
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
89
Number of Missing Observations
2
Number of Detects
85
Number of Distinct Detects
57
Minimum Detect
27
Maximum Detect
380
Variance Detected
9626
Mean Detected
158.8
Mean of Detected Logged Data
4.854
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.942
Number of Distinct Observations 58
Number of Non -Detects
4
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
25
Maximum Non -Detect
250
Percent Non -Detects
4.494%
SD Detected
98.11
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.689
d2max (for USL) 3.169
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.832 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.762 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.0916 Kolmogorov-Smimov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.098 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 153.7 KM SD
98.65
95% UTL95% Coverage 345.3 95% KM UPL (t)
318.6
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 586.1 90% KM Percentile (z)
280.1
95% KM Percentile (z) 316 99% KM Percentile (z)
383.2
95% KM USL 466.3
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 2.497 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.417
Theta hat (MLE) 63.57 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
65.69
nu hat (MLE) 424.5 nu star (bias corrected)
410.9
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 158.8
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 102.1 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
10.81
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 9.616 Mean
153.3
Maximum 380 Median
127
SD 99.46 CV
0.649
k hat (MLE) 2.118 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.054
Theta hat (MLE) 72.4 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
74.66
nu hat (MLE) 377 nu star (bias corrected)
365.6
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 153.3 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
107
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 9.662 90% Percentile
296.4
95% Percentile 360.7 99% Percentile
503.1
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 415.5 435.6 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 362.5
375
95% Gamma USL 721.7 807.3

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
TDS (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters
using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
153.7
SD (KM)
98.65
Variance (KM)
9731
SE of Mean (KM)
10.54
k hat (KM)
2.428
k star (KM)
2.353
nu hat (KM)
432.1
nu star (KM)
432.1
theta hat (KM)
63.31
theta star (KM)
65.31
80% gamma percentile (KM)
225.7
90% gamma percentile (KM)
287.9
95% gamma percentile (KM)
346.6
99% gamma percentile (KM)
475.6
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 406.6 423 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 355.7 365.7
95% KM Gamma Percentile 350.9 360.3 95% Gamma USL 698.5 771.6
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Total Radium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 27
Minimum
0.306
Second Largest
3.799
Maximum
4.013
Mean
1.477
Coefficient of Variation
0.749
Mean of logged Data
0.11
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.26
Number of Distinct Observations
27
Number of Missing Observations
59
First Quartile
0.602
Median
1
Third Quartile
1.994
SD
1.107
Skewness
0.986
SD of logged Data
0.781
d2max (for USL) 2.698
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
0.523
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
0.15
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)
1.934
k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.744
Theta hat (MLE)
0.764
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.847
nu hat (MILE)
104.5
nu star (bias corrected)
94.18
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
1.477
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.118
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma
Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
3.759
90% Percentile
2.967
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
3.859
95% Percentile
3.66
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
4.917
99% Percentile
5.211
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
5.177
95% WH USL
6.052
95% HW USL
6.519
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex Appendix A
Lognormal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/10/2020 9:09:17 AM
From File
HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers c.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Number of Bootstrap Operations
2000
Potassium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
91
Number of Distinct Observations
77
Number of Detects
89
Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Detects
77
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.63
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Detect
7.09
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Variance Detected
1.695
Percent Non -Detects
2.198%
Mean Detected
2.059
SD Detected
1.302
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.53
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.629
Critical Values for Background
Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
1.938
d2max (for USL)
3.177
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Approximate Test Statistic
0.931 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 9.4004E-5
Data Not Lognormal
at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0934
Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
0.0941 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
2.057
SD
1.292
95% UTL95% Coverage
4.561
95% KM UPL (t)
4.215
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
7.718
90% KM Percentile (z)
3.712
95% KM Percentile (z)
4.181
99% KM Percentile (z)
5.062
95% KM USL
6.16
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale
2.051
Mean in Log Scale
0.529
SD in Original Scale
1.29
SD in Log Scale
0.623
95% UTL95% Coverage
5.682
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
4.33
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage
4.44
95% UPL (t)
4.81
90% Percentile (z)
3.773
95% Percentile (z)
4.732
99% Percentile (z)
7.237
95% USL
12.3
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged
Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
0.529
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
5.701
KM SD of Logged Data
0.625
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
4.823
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
4.745
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
12.36
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal
Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
2.068
Mean in Log Scale
0.538
SD in Original Scale
1.289
SD in Log Scale
0.625
95% UTL95% Coverage
5.749
95% UPL (t)
4.864
90% Percentile (z)
3.814
95% Percentile (z)
4.785
99% Percentile (z)
7.324
95% USL
12.46
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
TOC
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
75
Number of Missing Observations
14
Number of Detects
73
Number of Distinct Detects
65
Minimum Detect
0.155
Maximum Detect
11
Variance Detected
2.978
Mean Detected
1.13
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.328
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.972
Number of Distinct Observations 65
Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
2.667%
SD Detected
1.726
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.827
d2max (for USL) 3.109
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Approximate Test Statistic 0.939 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00227 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0857 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.104 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
1.115
SD
1.694
95% UTL95% Coverage
4.456
95% KM UPL (t)
3.955
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
8.548
90% KM Percentile (z)
3.286
95% KM Percentile (z)
3.901
99% KM Percentile (z)
5.056
95% KM USL
6.381
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale
1.115
Mean in Log Scale
-0.336
SD in Original Scale
1.705
SD in Log Scale
0.818
95% UTL95% Coverage
3.589
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
7.44
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage
7.44
95% UPL (t)
2.818
90% Percentile (z)
2.039
95% Percentile (z)
2.746
99% Percentile (z)
4.796
95% USL
9.1
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
-0.338 95% KM
UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
3.568
KM SD of Logged Data
0.816
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
2.803
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
2.731
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
9.023
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
1.114
Mean in Log Scale
-0.337
SD in Original Scale
1.705
SD in Log Scale
0.818
95% UTL95% Coverage
3.58
95% UPL (t)
2.812
90% Percentile (z)
2.035
95% Percentile (z)
2.739
99% Percentile (z)
4.782
95% USL
9.069
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Two -Sided 95% Tolerance Intervals of pH
Percent of Parametric Parametric Nonparametric Nonparametric
Population Lower Upper Lower Upper
Between Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance
Limits Limit Limit Limit Limit
50 6.148098 7.330143 6.2 7.2
60 6.001649 7.476593 6 7.67
70 5.830945 7.647297 5.7 7.9
80 5.616159 7.862082 5.6 8.1
90 5.297815 8.180427 5.39 8.2
95 5.021699 8.456542
99 4.482047 8.996195
Appendix A

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/10/2020 9:11:42 AM
From File
HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers c.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Alkalinity
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
89
Number of Missing Observations
2
Number of Detects
88
Number of Distinct Detects
80
Minimum Detect
7
Maximum Detect
213
Variance Detected
3165
Mean Detected
88.64
Mean of Detected Logged Data
4.22
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.942
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 81
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
1.124%
SD Detected
56.26
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.83
d2max (for USL) 3.169
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
87.7
SD
56.32
95% UTL95% Coverage
197.1
95% KM UPL (t)
181.8
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
334.6
90% KM Percentile (z)
159.9
95% KM Percentile (z)
180.3
99% KM Percentile (z)
218.7
95% KM USL
266.2
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
87
95% UTL with95% Coverage
207
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.526 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.828
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
204
95% USL
213
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
334.6
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Aluminum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
84
Number of Missing Observations
7
Number of Detects
82
Number of Distinct Detects
61
Minimum Detect
2.012
Maximum Detect
838
Variance Detected
15298
Mean Detected
76.24
Mean of Detected Logged Data
3.727
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.952
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Number of Distinct Observations 62
Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
100
Maximum Non -Detect
100
Percent Non -Detects
2.381 %
SD Detected
123.7
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.042
d2max (for USL) 3.149
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
75.25
SD
121.7
95% UTL95% Coverage
312.8
95% KM UPL (t)
278.8
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
608.8
90% KM Percentile (z)
231.2
95% KM Percentile (z)
275.4
99% KM Percentile (z)
358.3
95% KM USL
458.4
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
82
95% UTL with95% Coverage
271
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.439 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.797
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
234
95% USL
838
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
608.8
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Arsenic
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
91
Number of Detects
24
Number of Distinct Detects
20
Minimum Detect
0.5
Maximum Detect
1.57
Variance Detected
0.0672
Mean Detected
1.158
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.117
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.938
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Number of Distinct Observations
21
Number of Non -Detects
67
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
73.63%
SD Detected
0.259
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.262
d2max (for USL) 3.177
Mean
0.886
SD
0.24
95% UTL95% Coverage
1.351
95% KM UPL (t)
1.287
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.938
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.194
95% KM Percentile (z)
1.281
99% KM Percentile (z)
1.445
95% KM USL
1.649
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
89
95% UTL with95% Coverage
1.42
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.561
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.839
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
1.37
95% USL
1.57
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.938
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Barium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
91
Minimum
6
Second Largest
362
Maximum
544
Mean
123.1
Coefficient of Variation
1.074
Mean of logged Data
4.092
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.938
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
65
First Quartile
17.5
Median
49
Third Quartile
223.5
SD
132.2
Skewness
1.067
SD of logged Data
1.313
d2max (for USL) 3.177
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
89
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
361
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.561
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.839
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
361
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
361
95% UPL
353.6
90% Percentile
345
90% Chebyshev UPL
522
95% Percentile
350.5
95% Chebyshev UPL
702.7
99% Percentile
380.2
95% USL
544
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
88
Number of Missing Observations
3
Number of Detects
87
Number of Distinct Detects
78
Minimum Detect
7
Maximum Detect
213
Variance Detected
3114
Mean Detected
89.39
Mean of Detected Logged Data
4.237
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.944
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 79
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
1.136%
SD Detected
55.8
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.817
d2max (for USL) 3.165
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
88.43
SD
55.89
95% UTL95% Coverage
197.1
95% KM UPL (t)
181.9
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
333.4
90% KM Percentile (z)
160.1
95% KM Percentile (z)
180.4
99% KM Percentile (z)
218.4
95% KM USL
265.3
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
86
95% UTL with95% Coverage
207
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.509 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.822
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
204
95% USL
213
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
333.4
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Boron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
91
Number of Detects
58
Number of Distinct Detects
47
Minimum Detect
17.56
Maximum Detect
320
Variance Detected
8833
Mean Detected
137.5
Mean of Detected Logged Data
4.652
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.938
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
48
Number of Non -Detects
33
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
50
Maximum Non -Detect
50
Percent Non -Detects
36.26%
SD Detected
93.98
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.791
d2max (for USL) 3.177
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
99.55
SD
90.06
95% UTL95% Coverage
274.1
95% KM UPL (t)
250
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
494.3
90% KM Percentile (z)
215
95% KM Percentile (z)
247.7
99% KM Percentile (z)
309.1
95% KM USL
385.7
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
89
95% UTL with95% Coverage
298
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.561 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.839
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
287
95% USL
320
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
494.3
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Calcium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
91
Minimum
1.5
Second Largest
31.6
Maximum
32.1
Mean
15.62
Coefficient of Variation
0.529
Mean of logged Data
2.537
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.938
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
74
First Quartile
10.65
Median
15.7
Third Quartile
19.45
SD
8.256
Skewness
0.117
SD of logged Data
0.753
d2max (for USL) 3.177
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
89
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
30.8
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.561
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.839
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
30.8
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
30.8
95% UPL
29.7
90% Percentile
28.3
90% Chebyshev UPL
40.52
95% Percentile
29.1
95% Chebyshev UPL
51.81
99% Percentile
31.65
95% USL
32.1
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Chloride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 89
Minimum
2.8
Second Largest
76
Maximum
77
Mean
29.49
Coefficient of Variation
1.011
Mean of logged Data
2.752
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.942
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Appendix A
Number of Distinct Observations 46
Number of Missing Observations 2
First Quartile
4.8
Median
16
Third Quartile
70
SD
29.82
Skewness
0.686
SD of logged Data
1.182
d2max (for USL) 3.169
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
87
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
74
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.526
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.828
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
74
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
75.2
95% UPL
74
90% Percentile
72.2
90% Chebyshev UPL
119.5
95% Percentile
73.68
95% Chebyshev UPL
160.2
99% Percentile
76.12
95% USL
77
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Chromium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
91
Number of Detects
15
Number of Distinct Detects
15
Minimum Detect
0.354
Maximum Detect
1.52
Variance Detected
0.0821
Mean Detected
0.528
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.717
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.938
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Number of Non -Detects
76
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.5
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
83.52%
SD Detected
0.286
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.356
d2max (for USL) 3.177
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.461
SD
0.136
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.724
95% KM UPL (t)
0.687
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.055
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.635
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.684
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.776
95% KM USL
0.892
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
89
95% UTL with95% Coverage
1
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.561 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.839
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
1
95% USL
1.52
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.055
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Chromium (VI)
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
69
Number of Missing Observations
22
Number of Detects
28
Number of Distinct Detects
23
Minimum Detect
0.035
Maximum Detect
4.1
Variance Detected
0.757
Mean Detected
0.355
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-2.278
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.988
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 26
Number of Non -Detects
41
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
3
Minimum Non -Detect
0.025
Maximum Non -Detect
0.3
Percent Non -Detects
59.42%
SD Detected
0.87
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.281
d2max (for USL) 3.079
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.159
SD
0.568
95% UTL95% Coverage
1.288
95% KM UPL (t)
1.112
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.651
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.886
95% KM Percentile (z)
1.093
99% KM Percentile (z)
1.48
95% KM USL
1.907
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
68
95% UTL with95% Coverage
2.4
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.789 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.866
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
93
95% UPL
0.73
95% USL
4.1
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.651
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Cobalt
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
91
Number of Detects
39
Number of Distinct Detects
38
Minimum Detect
0.406
Maximum Detect
16.6
Variance Detected
25.27
Mean Detected
3.925
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.644
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.938
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
39
Number of Non -Detects
52
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.5
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
57.14%
SD Detected
5.027
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.167
d2max (for USL) 3.177
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
2.038
SD
3.638
95% UTL95% Coverage
9.09
95% KM UPL (t)
8.117
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
17.98
90% KM Percentile (z)
6.7
95% KM Percentile (z)
8.022
99% KM Percentile (z)
10.5
95% KM USL
13.6
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
89
95% UTL with95% Coverage
14.3
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.561 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.839
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
12.64
95% USL
16.6
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
17.98
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Copper
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
78
Number of Missing Observations
11
Number of Detects
19
Number of Distinct Detects
18
Minimum Detect
0.357
Maximum Detect
5.23
Variance Detected
1.299
Mean Detected
1.315
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.00157
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.965
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Number of Distinct Observations 19
Number of Non -Detects
59
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
75.64%
SD Detected
1.14
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.744
d2max (for USL) 3.123
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.744
SD
0.657
95% UTL95% Coverage
2.035
95% KM UPL (t)
1.845
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
3.625
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.586
95% KM Percentile (z)
1.825
99% KM Percentile (z)
2.272
95% KM USL
2.795
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
77
95% UTL with95% Coverage
2.48
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
2.026 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.907
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
93
95% UPL
1.753
95% USL
5.23
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
3.625
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Iron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
90
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Detects
89
Number of Distinct Detects
79
Minimum Detect
16
Maximum Detect
12700
Variance Detected 20196583
Mean Detected
4633
Mean of Detected Logged Data
7.409
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.94
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 80
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
10
Maximum Non -Detect
10
Percent Non -Detects
1.111 %
SD Detected
4494
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.872
d2max (for USL) 3.173
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 4581 SD 4470
95% UTL95% Coverage 13255 95% KM UPL (t) 12053
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 24174 90% KM Percentile (z) 10310
95% KM Percentile (z) 11934 99% KM Percentile (z) 14981
95% KM USL 18767
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 88 95% UTL with95% Coverage 12200
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.544 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.834
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124 95% UPL 11600
95% USL 12700 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 24174
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Manganese
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 90
Minimum
7
Second Largest
1880
Maximum
1920
Mean
318.4
Coefficient of Variation
1.699
Mean of logged Data
4.627
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.94
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
75
Number of Missing Observations
1
First Quartile
31.25
Median
97
Third Quartile
148.8
SD
540.8
Skewness
1.91
SD of logged Data
1.432
d2max (for USL) 3.173
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 88 95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1750
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.544 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.834
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 1759
95% UPL 1651
90% Chebyshev UPL 1950
95% Chebyshev UPL 2689
95% USL 1920
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 124
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
1750
90% Percentile
1398
95% Percentile
1606
99% Percentile
1884
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Molybdenum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
79
Number of Missing Observations
10
Number of Detects
52
Number of Distinct Detects
50
Minimum Detect
0.105
Maximum Detect
23.4
Variance Detected
21.7
Mean Detected
3.665
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.603
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.963
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Number of Distinct Observations 50
Number of Non -Detects
27
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
34.18%
SD Detected
4.659
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.244
d2max (for USL) 3.127
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 2.58
SD
4.038
95% UTL95% Coverage 10.51
95% KM UPL (t)
9.344
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 20.29
90% KM Percentile (z)
7.755
95% KM Percentile (z) 9.222
99% KM Percentile (z)
11.97
95% KM USL 15.21
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 78 95% UTL with95% Coverage 13.9
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 2.053 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.91
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 93 95% UPL 12.4
95% USL 23.4 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 20.29
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Nickel
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
78
Number of Missing Observations
11
Number of Detects
46
Number of Distinct Detects
41
Minimum Detect
0.384
Maximum Detect
47.7
Variance Detected
167.7
Mean Detected
7.079
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.957
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.965
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 43
Number of Non -Detects
32
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.5
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
41.03%
SD Detected
12.95
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.198
d2max (for USL) 3.123
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
4.446
SD
10.33
95% UTL95% Coverage
24.75
95% KM UPL (t)
21.76
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
49.77
90% KM Percentile (z)
17.69
95% KM Percentile (z)
21.44
99% KM Percentile (z)
28.48
95% KM USL
36.71
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
77
95% UTL with95% Coverage
40.6
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
2.026 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.907
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
93
95% UPL
36.93
95% USL
47.7
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
49.77
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Nitrate + Nitrite
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
77
Number of Missing Observations
14
Number of Detects
43
Number of Distinct Detects
30
Minimum Detect
0.012
Maximum Detect
8.9
Variance Detected
2.082
Mean Detected
0.511
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-2.724
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.967
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 31
Number of Non -Detects
34
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.01
Maximum Non -Detect
0.02
Percent Non -Detects
44.16%
SD Detected
1.443
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.867
d2max (for USL) 3.118
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.29
SD
1.094
95% UTL95% Coverage
2.442
95% KM UPL (t)
2.123
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
5.09
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.692
95% KM Percentile (z)
2.089
99% KM Percentile (z)
2.835
95% KM USL
3.702
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
76
95% UTL with95% Coverage
2.2
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
2 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.903
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
93
95% UPL
1.74
95% USL
8.9
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
5.09
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Sodium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
90
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Detects
89
Number of Distinct Detects
78
Minimum Detect
2.91
Maximum Detect
128
Variance Detected
1588
Mean Detected
35.06
Mean of Detected Logged Data
2.882
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.94
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 79
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
1.111 %
SD Detected
39.85
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.17
d2max (for USL) 3.173
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
34.71
SD
39.54
95% UTL95% Coverage
111.4
95% KM UPL (t)
100.8
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
208
90% KM Percentile (z)
85.39
95% KM Percentile (z)
99.75
99% KM Percentile (z)
126.7
95% KM USL
160.2
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
88
95% UTL with95% Coverage
124
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.544 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.834
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
119.3
95% USL
128
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
208
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Strontium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 90
Minimum
10
Second Largest
140
Maximum
150
Mean
77.88
Coefficient of Variation
0.544
Mean of logged Data
4.133
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.94
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
58
Number of Missing Observations
1
First Quartile
36.25
Median
90.5
Third Quartile
114.5
SD
42.34
Skewness
-0.198
SD of logged Data
0.754
d2max (for USL) 3.173
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
88
95% UTL with 95% Coverage
140
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.544
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.834
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
140
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
137.8
95% UPL
134.5
90% Percentile
127.1
90% Chebyshev UPL
205.6
95% Percentile
134
95% Chebyshev UPL
263.4
99% Percentile
141.1
95% USL
150
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Sulfate
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
89
Number of Missing Observations
2
Number of Detects
79
Number of Distinct Detects
51
Minimum Detect
0.046
Maximum Detect
23
Variance Detected
38.13
Mean Detected
9.209
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.836
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.942
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 53
Number of Non -Detects
10
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
3
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
11.24%
SD Detected
6.175
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.21
d2max (for USL) 3.169
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
8.182
SD
6.461
95% UTL95% Coverage
20.73
95% KM UPL (t)
18.98
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
36.5
90% KM Percentile (z)
16.46
95% KM Percentile (z)
18.81
99% KM Percentile (z)
23.21
95% KM USL
28.66
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
87
95% UTL with95% Coverage
22
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.526 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.828
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
20
95% USL
23
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
36.5
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Sulfide
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
74
Number of Missing Observations
15
Number of Detects
8
Number of Distinct Detects
7
Minimum Detect
0.12
Maximum Detect
0.44
Variance Detected
0.0095
Mean Detected
0.218
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.594
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.975
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Number of Distinct Observations 8
Number of Non -Detects
66
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Non -Detect
0.1
Percent Non -Detects
89.19%
SD Detected
0.0975
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.379
d2max (for USL) 3.104
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.113
SD
0.0473
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.206
95% KM UPL (t)
0.192
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.32
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.173
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.19
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.223
95% KM USL
0.259
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
73
95% UTL with95% Coverage
0.25
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.921 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.89
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
93
95% UPL
0.2
95% USL
0.44
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.32
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Vanadium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
87
Number of Missing Observations
4
Number of Detects
38
Number of Distinct Detects
37
Minimum Detect
0.105
Maximum Detect
3.33
Variance Detected
0.842
Mean Detected
0.79
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.734
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.946
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 38
Number of Non -Detects
49
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
0.3
Maximum Non -Detect
0.3
Percent Non -Detects
56.32%
SD Detected
0.918
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.953
d2max (for USL) 3.161
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.449
SD
0.671
95% UTL95% Coverage
1.755
95% KM UPL (t)
1.571
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
3.39
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.309
95% KM Percentile (z)
1.553
99% KM Percentile (z)
2.01
95% KM USL
2.57
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
85
95% UTL with95% Coverage
2.78
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.491 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.816
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
124
95% UPL
2.36
95% USL
3.33
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
3.39
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Zinc
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
75
Number of Missing Observations
14
Number of Detects
33
Number of Distinct Detects
24
Minimum Detect
1.722
Maximum Detect
106
Variance Detected
566.9
Mean Detected
18.24
Mean of Detected Logged Data
2.332
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.972
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Number of Distinct Observations 24
Number of Non -Detects
42
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
56%
SD Detected
23.81
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.033
d2max (for USL) 3.109
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
9.912
SD
17.22
95% UTL95% Coverage
43.88
95% KM UPL (t)
38.79
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
85.49
90% KM Percentile (z)
31.99
95% KM Percentile (z)
38.24
99% KM Percentile (z)
49.98
95% KM USL
63.46
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 74 95% UTL with95% Coverage 89
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.947 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.894
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 93 95% UPL 41.4
95% USL 106 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 85.49
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/10/2020 9:10:14 AM
From File
HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers c.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
90%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Lithium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
35
Number of Missing Observations
56
Number of Detects
33
Number of Distinct Detects
26
Minimum Detect
1.824
Maximum Detect
27
Variance Detected
55.69
Mean Detected
9.36
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.977
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.724
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 26
Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
5.714%
SD Detected
7.462
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.708
d2max (for USL) 2.812
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
9.049
SD
7.249
95% UTL90% Coverage
21.54
95% KM UPL (t)
21.48
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
41.09
90% KM Percentile (z)
18.34
95% KM Percentile (z)
20.97
99% KM Percentile (z)
25.91
95% KM USL
29.43
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
34
95% UTL with90% Coverage
26
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.889 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.878
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
46
95% UPL
26.2
95% USL
27
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
41.09
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Methane
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
43
Number of Missing Observations
43
Number of Detects
30
Number of Distinct Detects
30
Minimum Detect
11.9
Maximum Detect
16900
Variance Detected
15789309
Mean Detected
1595
Mean of Detected Logged Data
5.033
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.673
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Number of Distinct Observations 31
Number of Non -Detects
13
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
10
Maximum Non -Detect
10
Percent Non -Detects
30.23%
SD Detected
3974
SD of Detected Logged Data
2.119
d2max (for USL) 2.897
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 1116 SD 3343
95% UTL90% Coverage 6709 95% KM UPL (t) 6805
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 15858 90% KM Percentile (z) 5401
95% KM Percentile (z) 6616 99% KM Percentile (z) 8894
95% KM USL 10802
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 41 95% UTL with90% Coverage 6590
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.519 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.818
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 61 95% UPL 11878
95% USL 16900 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 15858
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Total Uranium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 32
Number of Missing Observations 54
Number of Detects 10
Number of Distinct Detects 10
Minimum Detect 9.5700E-5
Maximum Detect 5.6600E-4
Variance Detected 1.9721E-8
Mean Detected 2.4907E-4
Mean of Detected Logged Data -8.425
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.748
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Number of Distinct Observations 11
Number of Non -Detects 22
Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1
Minimum Non -Detect 2.0000E-4
Maximum Non -Detect 2.0000E-4
Percent Non -Detects 68.75%
SD Detected 1.4043E-4
SD of Detected Logged Data 0.526
d2max (for USL) 2.773
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 1.7231E-4
SD 9.3739E-5
95% UTL90% Coverage 3.3621 E-4
95% KM UPL (t) 3.3372E-4
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 5.8725E-4
90% KM Percentile (z) 2.9245E-4
95% KM Percentile (z) 3.2650E-4
99% KM Percentile (z) 3.9038E-4
95% KM USL 4.3229E-4
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 31 95% UTL with90% Coverage 3.9500E-4
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.722 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.844
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46 95% UPL 4.5485E-4
95% USL 5.6600E-4 95% KM Chebyshev UPL 5.8725E-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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
From File
Full Precision
Confidence Coefficient
Coverage
Different or Future K Observations
Arsenic
Normal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
ProLICL 5.12/10/2020 4:24:56 PM
HF Lee_BG_Soil_Data_Boxplots.xls
OFF
95%
95%
1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Number of Detects
23
Number of Distinct Detects
22
Minimum Detect
0.21
Maximum Detect
2
Variance Detected
0.262
Mean Detected
0.872
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.323
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275
Number of Distinct Observations
24
Number of Non -Detects
3
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
3
Minimum Non -Detect
0.38
Maximum Non -Detect
1.1
Percent Non -Detects
11.54%
SD Detected
0.512
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.658
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.938 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.914 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.124 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.18 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.816
SD
0.502
95% UTL95% Coverage 1.957
95% KM UPL (t)
1.689
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 3.044
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.458
95% KM Percentile (z) 1.641
99% KM Percentile (z)
1.983
95% KM USL 2.16
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.81
SD
0.514
95% UTL95% Coverage 1.98
95% UPL (t)
1.705
90% Percentile (z) 1.469
95% Percentile (z)
1.656
99% Percentile (z) 2.006
95% USL
2.188
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Two -Sided 95% Tolerance Intervals of pH
Percent of Parametric Parametric Nonparametric Nonparametric
Population Lower Upper Lower Upper
Between Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance
Limits Limit Limit Limit Limit
50 4.663373 5.451827 4.56 5.59
60 4.565688 5.549512 4.47 5.67
70 4.451824 5.663376 4.41 5.67
80 4.308557 5.806643 4.1 5.87
90 4.096214 6.018986
95 3.912038 6.203162
99 3.552076 6.563124

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Aluminum
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
From File
Full Precision
Confidence Coefficient
Coverage
Gamma Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
ProLICL 5.12/10/2020 4:26:05 PM
HF Lee_BG_Soil_Data_Boxplots.xls
OFF
95%
95%
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 26
Minimum 1700
Second Largest 24000
Maximum 25000
Mean 10670
Coefficient of Variation 0.684
Mean of logged Data 9
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275
Number of Distinct Observations
25
First Quartile
5250
Median
8800
Third Quartile
16250
SD
7302
Skewness
0.621
SD of logged Data
0.814
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.322
Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.758
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.0953
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.173
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at
5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 1.969
k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.767
Theta hat (MLE) 5419
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 6037
nu hat (MLE) 102.4
nu star (bias corrected) 91.91
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 10670
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 8026
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 27144
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 28196
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 35609
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 38050
95% WH USL 43101
90% Percentile 21370
95% Percentile 26331
99% Percentile 37420
95% HW USL 47108
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Barium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Minimum
5.2
Second Largest
49
Maximum
58
Mean
21.2
Coefficient of Variation
0.665
Mean of logged Data
2.855
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275
Number of Distinct Observations
21
First Quartile
10.75
Median
15.3
Third Quartile
28.5
SD
14.1
Skewness
1.188
SD of logged Data
0.644
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.455 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.753 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.142 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.173 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 2.67
Theta hat (MLE) 7.941
nu hat (MLE) 138.8
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 21.2
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 48.67
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 49.5
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 62.04
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 64.33
95% WH USL 73.7
k star (bias corrected MLE) 2.387
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 8.88
nu star (bias corrected) 124.1
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 13.72
90% Percentile 39.57
95% Percentile 47.6
99% Percentile 65.21
95% HW USL 77.64
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Calcium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Number of Detects
19
Number of Distinct Detects
19
Minimum Detect
32
Maximum Detect
240
Variance Detected
3454
Mean Detected
102
Mean of Detected Logged Data
4.474
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Number of Non -Detects
7
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
4
Minimum Non -Detect
220
Maximum Non -Detect
1200
Percent Non -Detects
26.92%
SD Detected
58.77
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.567
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.334 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.747 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.153 Kolmogorov-Smimov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.2 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 100.7 KM SD
55.84
95% UTL95% Coverage 227.7 95% KM UPL (t)
197.9
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 348.7 90% KM Percentile (z)
172.3
95% KM Percentile (z) 192.5 99% KM Percentile (z)
230.6
95% KM USL 250.4
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 3.457 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.946
Theta hat (MLE) 29.51 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
34.63
nu hat (MLE) 131.4 nu star (bias corrected)
112
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 102
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 59.44 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
12.43
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 32 Mean
99.11
Maximum 240 Median
85.61
SD 51.62 CV
0.521
k hat (MLE) 4.285 k star (bias corrected MLE)
3.816
Theta hat (MLE) 23.13 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
25.97
nu hat (MLE) 222.8 nu star (bias corrected)
198.4
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 99.11 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
50.73
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 14.98 90% Percentile
167.1
95% Percentile 194.5 99% Percentile
253.2
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 242.3 248.3 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 198
200.3
95% Gamma USL 280.1 290.3

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Calcium (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
100.7
Variance (KM)
3118
k hat (KM)
3.251
nu hat (KM)
169.1
theta hat (KM)
30.97
80% gamma percentile (KM)
144.2
95% gamma percentile (KM)
213.3
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
SD (KM)
55.84
SE of Mean (KM)
12.88
k star (KM)
2.902
nu star (KM)
169.1
theta star (KM)
34.7
90% gamma percentile (KM)
179.9
99% gamma percentile (KM)
285.9
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 259.8 267.3 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 209.6 212.4
95% KM Gamma Percentile 201.3 203.5 95% Gamma USL 303 315.7
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Chromium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
24
Minimum
1.4
First Quartile
4.05
Second Largest
24
Median
7.35
Maximum
47
Third Quartile
16.5
Mean
10.61
SD
10.2
Coefficient of Variation
0.961
Skewness
2.029
Mean of logged Data
1.956
SD of logged Data
0.951
Critical Values for Background Threshold
Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.275
d2max (for USL)
2.681
Gamma
GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
0.37
Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value
0.765
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
0.175
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed
at
5% Significance Level
Gamma
Statistics
k hat (MLE)
1.373
k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.24
Theta hat (MLE)
7.728
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
8.555
nu hat (MLE)
71.4
nu star (bias corrected)
64.5
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
10.61
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
9.528
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 30.24
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 31.22
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 41.2
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 43.98
95% WH USL 51.1
90% Percentile 23.17
95% Percentile 29.49
99% Percentile 43.93
95% HW USL 56.03
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Copper
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Minimum
0.37
First Quartile
1.4
Second Largest
15
Median
2.9
Maximum
17
Third Quartile
5.65
Mean
4.67
SD
4.551
Coefficient of Variation
0.975
Skewness
1.464
Mean of logged Data
1.064
SD of logged Data
1.06
Critical Values for Background Threshold
Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.275
d2max (for USL)
2.681
Gamma
GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
0.311
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
0.0982
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value
0.176
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed
at
5% Significance Level
Gamma
Statistics
k hat (MLE)
1.188
k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.076
Theta hat (MLE)
3.932
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
4.339
nu hat (MLE)
61.76
nu star (bias corrected)
55.97
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
4.67
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
4.502
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma
Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
14.02
90% Percentile
10.56
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
14.62
95% Percentile
13.63
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
19.41
99% Percentile
20.73
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
21.04
95% WH USL
24.32
95% HW USL
27.18
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Iron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 26
Minimum 540
Second Largest 17000
Maximum 22000
Mean 6980
Coefficient of Variation 0.865
Mean of logged Data 8.427
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275
Number of Distinct Observations
22
First Quartile
2750
Median
4400
Third Quartile
11750
SD
6041
Skewness
0.984
SD of logged Data
1.017
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
0.415
Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value
0.766
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.112
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value
0.175
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at
5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
1.321
k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.195
Theta hat (MLE)
5283
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 5843
nu hat (MLE)
68.71
nu star (bias corrected) 62.12
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
6980
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 6387
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 20288
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 21238
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 27752
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 30147
95% WH USL 34507
90% Percentile 15383
95% Percentile 19650
99% Percentile 29433
95% HW USL 38594
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Lead
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 25
Minimum
1.6
Second Largest
13
Maximum
14
Mean
6.068
Coefficient of Variation
0.58
Mean of logged Data
1.641
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.292
Number of Distinct Observations 23
Number of Missing Observations 1
First Quartile
3.6
Median
5.1
Third Quartile
7.7
SD
3.518
Skewness
0.949
SD of logged Data
0.593
d2max (for USL) 2.663
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.215 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.751 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.0949 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.176 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
3.242
Theta hat (MLE)
1.872
nu hat (MLE)
162.1
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
6.068
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
13.18
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
13.42
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
16.59
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
17.21
95% WH USL
19.21
k star (bias corrected MLE) 2.879
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 2.107
nu star (bias corrected) 144
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 3.576
90% Percentile 10.86
95% Percentile 12.89
99% Percentile 17.28
95% HW USL 20.2
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Magnesium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Minimum
50
Second Largest
1700
Maximum
2000
Mean
468.7
Coefficient of Variation
1.114
Mean of logged Data
5.646
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275
Number of Distinct Observations
22
First Quartile
140
Median
285
Third Quartile
470
SD
522.2
Skewness
1.876
SD of logged Data
1.032
d2max (for USL)
2.681
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
0.65
Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value
0.77
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.144
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value
0.176
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at
5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
1.129
k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.024
Theta hat (MLE)
415.2
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 457.6
nu hat (MLE)
58.71
nu star (bias corrected) 53.27
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
468.7
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 463.1
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 1418
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 1456
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1976
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 2104
95% WH USL 2486
90% Percentile 1073
95% Percentile 1392
99% Percentile 2133
95% HW USL 2725
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Nickel
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Number of Detects
24
Number of Distinct Detects
21
Minimum Detect
0.61
Maximum Detect
9.2
Variance Detected
6.093
Mean Detected
3.637
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.067
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275
Number of Distinct Observations
21
Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
1.8
Maximum Non -Detect
2
Percent Non -Detects
7.692 %
SD Detected
2.468
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.706
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.51 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.754 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.156 Kolmogorov-Smimov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.18 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 3.439 KM SD
2.422
95% UTL95% Coverage 8.95 95% KM UPL (t)
7.656
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 14.2 90% KM Percentile (z)
6.544
95% KM Percentile (z) 7.424 99% KM Percentile (z)
9.075
95% KM USL 9.934
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 2.38 k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.111
Theta hat (MLE) 1.528 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1.723
nu hat (MLE) 114.3 nu star (bias corrected)
101.3
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 3.637
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 2.504 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
9.844
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 0.61 Mean
3.415
Maximum 9.2 Median
2.75
SD 2.494 CV
0.73
k hat (MLE) 2.034 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.825
Theta hat (MLE) 1.679 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1.872
nu hat (MLE) 105.8 nu star (bias corrected)
94.88
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 3.415 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
2.528
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 8.913 90% Percentile
6.789
95% Percentile 8.342 99% Percentile
11.81
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 11.21 11.82 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 8.567
8.81
95% Gamma USL 13.54 14.58

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Nickel (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
3.439
SD (KM)
2.422
Variance (KM)
5.868
SE of Mean (KM)
0.486
k hat (KM)
2.016
k star (KM)
1.809
nu hat (KM)
104.8
nu star (KM)
104.8
theta hat (KM)
1.706
theta star (KM)
1.902
80% gamma percentile (KM)
5.21
90% gamma percentile (KM)
6.85
95% gamma percentile (KM)
8.424
99% gamma percentile (KM)
11.94
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 10.78
11.29
95% Approx. Gamma UPL 8.314
8.512
95% KM Gamma Percentile 7.916
8.074
95% Gamma USL 12.94
13.82
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Potassium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Minimum
45
Second Largest
700
Maximum
730
Mean
275.9
Coefficient of Variation
0.795
Mean of logged Data
5.306
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275
Number of Distinct Observations
21
First Quartile
124.8
Median
225
Third Quartile
325
SD
219.4
Skewness
1.1
SD of logged Data
0.839
d2max (for USL)
2.681
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.622 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.76 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.179 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.174 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
1.74
Theta hat (MLE)
158.6
nu hat (MLE)
90.47
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
275.9
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 728.6
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 751.3
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 968.3
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1027
95% WH USL 1182
k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.565
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 176.3
nu star (bias corrected) 81.37
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 220.6
90% Percentile 569
95% Percentile 708.6
99% Percentile 1023
95% HW USL 1283
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Strontium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Minimum
0.58
Second Largest
5.5
Maximum
5.9
Mean
2.185
Coefficient of Variation
0.639
Mean of logged Data
0.588
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275
Number of Distinct Observations
17
First Quartile
1.225
Median
1.7
Third Quartile
3.1
SD
1.396
Skewness
1.201
SD of logged Data
0.648
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.405 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.752 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.147 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.173 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
2.744
Theta hat (MLE)
0.796
nu hat (MLE)
142.7
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
2.185
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
4.977
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
5.081
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
6.327
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
6.589
95% WH USL
7.502
k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.453
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.891
nu star (bias corrected)
127.5
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.395
90% Percentile 4.053
95% Percentile 4.865
99% Percentile 6.644
95% HW USL 7.941
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Vanadium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Minimum
2.5
Second Largest
70
Maximum
72
Mean
23.1
Coefficient of Variation
0.874
Mean of logged Data
2.755
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275
Number of Distinct Observations
23
First Quartile
8.2
Median
16
Third Quartile
30.75
SD
20.19
Skewness
1.293
SD of logged Data
0.943
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.266 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 0.0945 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.174 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
1.444
Theta hat (MLE)
16
nu hat (MLE)
75.08
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
23.1
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
64.96
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
67.41
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
88.03
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
94.45
95% WH USL
108.8
k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.303
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
17.73
nu star (bias corrected)
67.75
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
20.24
90% Percentile 49.83
95% Percentile 63.12
99% Percentile 93.4
95% HW USL 119.9
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Zinc
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Minimum
1.4
Second Largest
41
Maximum
43
Mean
12.33
Coefficient of Variation
0.89
Mean of logged Data
2.156
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275
Number of Distinct Observations
22
First Quartile
5.05
Median
8.4
Third Quartile
18.25
SD
10.97
Skewness
1.633
SD of logged Data
0.889
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.452 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.761 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 0.174 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
1.55
Theta hat (MLE)
7.952
nu hat (MLE)
80.61
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
12.33
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
33.72
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
34.73
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
45.34
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
48.14
95% WH USL
55.77
k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.397
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
8.824
nu star (bias corrected)
72.64
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
10.43
90% Percentile 26.14
95% Percentile 32.89
99% Percentile 48.2
95% HW USL 60.68
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Lognormal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProUCL 5.12/10/2020 4:28:25 PM
From File
HF Lee_BG_Soil_Data_Boxplots.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Number of Bootstrap Operations
2000
Beryllium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Number of Detects
24
Number of Distinct Detects
20
Minimum Detect
0.045
Maximum Detect
1
Variance Detected
0.068
Mean Detected
0.24
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.847
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275
Number of Distinct Observations
21
Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.057
Maximum Non -Detect
0.11
Percent Non -Detects
7.692 %
SD Detected
0.261
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.885
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.933 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
0.916 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.128 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
0.177 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
0.226 SD
0.25
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.795 95% KM UPL (t)
0.661
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
1.337 90% KM Percentile (z)
0.546
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.637 99% KM Percentile (z)
0.808
95% KM USL
0.896
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming
Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale
0.225 Mean in Log Scale
-1.934
SD in Original Scale
0.255 SD in Log Scale
0.905
95% UTL95% Coverage
1.134 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
1
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage
1 95% UPL (t)
0.699
90% Percentile (z)
0.461 95% Percentile (z)
0.641
99% Percentile (z)
1.188 95% USL
1.637
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged
Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
-1.927 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
1.079
KM SD of Logged Data
0.88 95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
0.674
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
0.619 95% KM USL (Lognormal)
1.542
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
0.225 Mean in Log Scale
-1.954
SD in Original Scale
0.256 SD in Log Scale
0.933
95% UTL95% Coverage
1.183 95% UPL (t)
0.719
90% Percentile (z)
0.468 95% Percentile (z)
0.657
99% Percentile (z)
1.241 95% USL
1.728
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Cobalt
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
25
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Detects
23
Number of Distinct Detects
22
Minimum Detect
0.29
Maximum Detect
9.8
Variance Detected
6.711
Mean Detected
2.139
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.237
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.292
Number of Distinct Observations 24
Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.53
Maximum Non -Detect
0.76
Percent Non -Detects
8%
SD Detected
2.591
SD of Detected Logged Data
1
d2max (for USL) 2.663
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.948 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.914 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.159 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.18 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
2.001
SD
2.475
95% UTL95% Coverage
7.673
95% KM UPL (t)
6.319
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
13
90% KM Percentile (z)
5.173
95% KM Percentile (z)
6.072
99% KM Percentile (z)
7.758
95% KM USL
8.591
Background Lognormal ROB Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale
1.999
Mean in Log Scale
0.142
SD in Original Scale
2.527
SD in Log Scale
1.013
95% UTL95% Coverage
11.74
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
9.8
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage
9.8
95% UPL (t)
6.745
90% Percentile (z)
4.22
95% Percentile (z)
6.096
99% Percentile (z)
12.16
95% USL
17.09
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
0.147 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
11.17
KM SD of Logged Data
0.989
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
6.5
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
5.889
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
16.11
Background DU2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
1.993
Mean in Log Scale
0.126
SD in Original Scale
2.531
SD in Log Scale
1.032
95% UTL95% Coverage
12.09
95% UPL (t)
6.873
90% Percentile (z)
4.261
95% Percentile (z)
6.2
99% Percentile (z)
12.53
95% USL
17.73
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Manganese
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Minimum
4.9
Second Largest
98
Maximum
110
Mean
29.73
Coefficient of Variation
0.95
Mean of logged Data
3.077
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275
Number of Distinct Observations
21
First Quartile
13.25
Median
20
Third Quartile
26.75
SD
28.25
Skewness
1.919
SD of logged Data
0.769
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.942 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.92 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.157 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.17 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 124.6 90% Percentile (z) 58.08
95% UPL (t) 82.65 95% Percentile (z) 76.79
95% USL 170.2 99% Percentile (z) 129.6
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Thallium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
25
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Detects
24
Number of Distinct Detects
24
Minimum Detect
0.028
Maximum Detect
0.27
Variance Detected
0.00447
Mean Detected
0.0898
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-2.617
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.292
Number of Distinct Observations 25
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
0.12
Maximum Non -Detect
0.12
Percent Non -Detects
4 %
SD Detected
0.0669
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.626
d2max (for USL)
2.663
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.942 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.916 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.161 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.177 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
0.0885
SD
0.0645
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.236
95% KM UPL (t)
0.201
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.375
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.171
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.195
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.239
95% KM USL
0.26
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming
Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale
0.0886
Mean in Log Scale
-2.624
SD in Original Scale
0.0657
SD in Log Scale
0.614
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.296
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
0.27
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage
0.27
95% UPL (t)
0.212
90% Percentile (z)
0.159
95% Percentile (z)
0.199
99% Percentile (z)
0.303
95% USL
0.372
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged
Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
-2.627
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
0.291
KM SD of Logged Data
0.607
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
0.208
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
0.196
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
0.364
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal
Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
0.0886
Mean in Log Scale
-2.624
SD in Original Scale
0.0657
SD in Log Scale
0.614
95% UTL95% Coverage
0.296
95% UPL (t)
0.212
90% Percentile (z)
0.159
95% Percentile (z)
0.199
99% Percentile (z)
0.303
95% USL
0.372
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
ProLICL 5.12/10/2020 4:29:20 PM
From File
HF Lee_BG_Soil_Data_Boxplots.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
85%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Antimony
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
25
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Detects
11
Number of Distinct Detects
8
Minimum Detect
0.11
Maximum Detect
0.72
Variance Detected
0.0483
Mean Detected
0.284
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.481
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.526
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Number of Distinct Observations 20
Number of Non -Detects
14
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
12
Minimum Non -Detect
0.38
Maximum Non -Detect
0.56
Percent Non -Detects
56%
SD Detected
0.22
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.662
d2max (for USL)
2.663
Mean
0.231
SD
0.157
95% UTL85% Coverage
0.47
95% KM UPL (t)
0.504
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.927
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.432
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.489
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.596
95% KM USL
0.648
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction
made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
24
95% UTL with85% Coverage
0.69
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
2.118
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.907
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
30
95% UPL
0.711
95% USL
0.72
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.927
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Boron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Number of Detects
6
Number of Distinct Detects
5
Minimum Detect
1
Maximum Detect
2.1
Variance Detected
0.147
Mean Detected
1.367
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.284
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.514
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Number of Non -Detects
20
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
10
Minimum Non -Detect
2
Maximum Non -Detect
12
Percent Non -Detects
76.92%
SD Detected
0.383
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.251
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
1.346
SD
0.332
95% UTL85% Coverage
1.848
95% KM UPL (t)
1.923
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.818
90% KM Percentile (z)
1.771
95% KM Percentile (z)
1.891
99% KM Percentile (z)
2.117
95% KM USL
2.235
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction
made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
24
95% UTL with85% Coverage
2.8
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.412 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.77
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
40
95% UPL
9.41
95% USL
12
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.818
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Cadmium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Number of Detects
5
Number of Distinct Detects
3
Minimum Detect
0.011
Maximum Detect
0.18
Variance Detected
0.00653
Mean Detected
0.0686
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-3.457
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.514
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Number of Non -Detects
21
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
12
Minimum Non -Detect
0.019
Maximum Non -Detect
0.14
Percent Non -Detects
80.77%
SD Detected
0.0808
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.446
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Mean
0.0223
SD
0.0392
95% UTL85% Coverage
0.0817
95% KM UPL (t)
0.0906
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.197
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.0725
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.0868
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.114
95% KM USL
0.127
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction
made
between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
24
95% UTL with85% Coverage
0.13
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.412
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.77
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
40
95% UPL
0.166
95% USL
0.18
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.197
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Chloride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
25
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Detects
17
Number of Distinct Detects
13
Minimum Detect
1.1
Maximum Detect
64
Variance Detected
225.6
Mean Detected
5.965
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.894
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.526
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Number of Distinct Observations 17
Number of Non -Detects
8
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
4
Minimum Non -Detect
10
Maximum Non -Detect
13
Percent Non -Detects
32%
SD Detected
15.02
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.005
d2max (for USL)
2.663
Mean
4.804
SD
12.16
95% UTL85% Coverage
23.36
95% KM UPL (t)
26.02
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
58.86
90% KM Percentile (z)
20.39
95% KM Percentile (z)
24.81
99% KM Percentile (z)
33.09
95% KM USL
37.19
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction
made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
24
95% UTL with85% Coverage
13
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
2.118
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.907
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
30
95% UPL
48.7
95% USL
64
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
58.86
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Mercury
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Number of Detects
3
Number of Distinct Detects
2
Minimum Detect
0.022
Maximum Detect
0.023
Variance Detected 3.3333E-7
Mean Detected
0.0227
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-3.787
Number of Distinct Observations
18
Number of Non -Detects
23
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
16
Minimum Non -Detect
0.0094
Maximum Non -Detect
0.099
Percent Non -Detects
88.46%
SD Detected 5.7735E-4
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.0257
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) 1.514 d2max (for USL) 2.681
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
0.0194
SD
0.00576
95% UTL85% Coverage
0.0281
95% KM UPL (t)
0.0294
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.0449
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.0267
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.0288
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.0327
95% KM USL
0.0348
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction
made
between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
24
95% UTL with85% Coverage
0.096
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.412
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.77
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
40
95% UPL
0.0987
95% USL
0.099
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.0449
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Nitrate (as N)
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
25
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Detects
8
Number of Distinct Detects
8
Minimum Detect
0.048
Maximum Detect
3.1
Variance Detected
1.125
Mean Detected
0.479
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.958
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.526
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Number of Distinct Observations 14
Number of Non -Detects
17
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
7
Minimum Non -Detect
0.2
Maximum Non -Detect
0.26
Percent Non -Detects
68%
SD Detected
1.061
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.353
d2max (for USL)
2.663
Mean
0.212
SD
0.591
95% UTL85% Coverage
1.114
95% KM UPL (t)
1.243
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.84
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.97
95% KM Percentile (z)
1.184
99% KM Percentile (z)
1.587
95% KM USL
1.786
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction
made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
24
95% UTL with85% Coverage
0.26
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
2.118
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.907
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
30
95% UPL
2.248
95% USL
3.1
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
2.84
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Selenium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
26
Number of Detects
4
Number of Distinct Detects
4
Minimum Detect
0.29
Maximum Detect
0.56
Variance Detected
0.0147
Mean Detected
0.385
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.988
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.514
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Number of Distinct Observations
13
Number of Non -Detects
22
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
9
Minimum Non -Detect
0.88
Maximum Non -Detect
1.6
Percent Non -Detects
84.62%
SD Detected
0.121
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.29
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
0.385
SD
0.105
95% UTL85% Coverage
0.544
95% KM UPL (t)
0.568
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.851
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.52
95% KM Percentile (z)
0.558
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.629
95% KM USL
0.666
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction
made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
24
95% UTL with85% Coverage
1.4
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.412 Approximate Actual Confidence
Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.77
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
40
95% UPL
1.565
95% USL
1.6
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
0.851
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.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix A
Sulfate
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
25
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Detects
6
Number of Distinct Detects
5
Minimum Detect
7.9
Maximum Detect
180
Variance Detected
5667
Mean Detected
64.65
Mean of Detected Logged Data
3.49
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.526
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Number of Distinct Observations 8
Number of Non -Detects
19
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
4
Minimum Non -Detect
10
Maximum Non -Detect
13
Percent Non -Detects
76%
SD Detected
75.28
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.311
d2max (for USL)
2.663
Mean
21.79
SD
41.4
95% UTL85% Coverage
84.96
95% KM UPL (t)
94.02
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
205.8
90% KM Percentile (z)
74.85
95% KM Percentile (z)
89.89
99% KM Percentile (z)
118.1
95% KM USL
132
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
24
95% UTL with85% Coverage
140
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
2.118
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.907
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
30
95% UPL
168
95% USL
180
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
205.8
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.

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater and Soil March 2020
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - H.F. Lee Energy Complex
/_3UT►• -1
GOODNESS OF FIT TEST RESULTS
(PROUCL OUTPUT
SynTerra

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix B
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.12/7/2020 2:54:41
PM
From File HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 0.95
pH
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
96
Number of Distinct Observations
47
Minimum
3.94
Maximum
6.6
Mean of Raw Data
4.883
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.609
Khat
68.84
Theta hat
0.0709
Kstar
66.69
Theta star
0.0732
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.579
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.12
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.965
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.916
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.0278E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.118
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0907
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.976
A-D Test Statistic
1.388
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.751
K-S Test Statistic
0.108
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0911
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.979
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.942
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.4468E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.102
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0907
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Aluminum
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
96
11
85
84
1
1.18%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1
100
100
100
100
N/A
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
84
5.458
1100
206
148
211.6
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
85
5.458
1100
204.8
137
210.7
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
85
5.458
1100
204.2
137
211
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
85
5.458
1100
204.1
137
211.1
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
85
5.458
1100
204
137
211.2
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
85
5.458
1100
204.1
137
211.2
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
0.929
0.904
221.7
4.701
1.27
0.27
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.936
0.911
218.8
4.7
1.262
0.268
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.929
0.904
219.9
4.692
1.265
0.27
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.925
0.9
220.5
4.689
1.267
0.27
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
4.689
1.267
0.27
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.909 0.908 0.907 0.907
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.828
6.917E-14
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.827
2.920E-14
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.825
2.209E-14
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.825
2.165E-14
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.172
0.0968
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.172
0.0962
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.173
0.0962
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.173
0.0962
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 3amma RO'
Correlation Coefficient R 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995
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.)
Appendix B
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.715
0.785
0.106
0.101
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
0.665
0.785
0.102
0.1
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
0.739
0.786
0.112
0.1
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
0.775
0.786
0.111
0.1
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Aluminum (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.982 0.983 0.983 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)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.947
0.00384
Data Not Lognormal
0.949
0.00526
Data Not Lognormal
0.948
0.00503
Data Not Lognormal
0.948
0.00435
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.114
0.0968
Data Not Lognormal
0.109
0.0962
Data Not Lognormal
0.111
0.0962
Data Not Lognormal
0.112
0.0962
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Barium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
96
Number of Distinct Observations
81
Minimum
16
Maximum
590
Mean of Raw Data
172
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
150.9
Khat
1.959
Theta hat
87.79
Kstar
1.905
Theta star
90.29
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.871
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.718
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.836
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.688
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.234
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0907
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.927
A-D Test Statistic
4.355
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.766
K-S Test Statistic
0.145
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0926
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.968
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.93
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 3.6116E-5
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0958
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0907
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Calcium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
96
Number of Distinct Observations
92
Minimum
0.652
Maximum
15.1
Mean of Raw Data
5.602
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
3.976
Khat
1.53
Theta hat
3.66
Kstar
1.49
Theta star
3.761
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.362
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.955
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.965
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.905
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 7.1560E-8
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.144
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0907
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.954
A-D Test Statistic
2.72
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.77
K-S Test Statistic
0.133
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.093
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.949
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.873
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.558E-11
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.172
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0907
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix B
Chloride
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
94
Number of Missing Observations
2
Number of Distinct Observations
48
Minimum
3.4
Maximum
65
Mean of Raw Data
14.26
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
10.63
Khat
2.822
Theta hat
5.055
Kstar
2.739
Theta star
5.208
Mean of Log Transformed Data
2.47
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.584
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.846
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.728
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.25
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0916
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.942
A-D Test Statistic
2.472
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.76
K-S Test Statistic
0.159
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0931
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.983
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.959
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0235
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.118
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0916
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Chromium (VI)
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
96
20
76
59
17
22.37%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
17
0.025
0.03
0.0271
0.025
0.00254
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
59
0.025
0.7
0.148
0.11
0.133
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
76
0.025
0.7
0.121
0.0755
0.127
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
76
0.0125
0.7
0.118
0.0755
0.13
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
76
-0.278
0.7
0.0837
0.0755
0.171
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
76
0.01
0.7
0.117
0.0755
0.13
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
76
0.00622
0.7
0.119
0.0755
0.129
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.601
1.531
0.0927
-2.251
0.839
-0.372
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.261
1.22
0.0962
-2.556
0.934
-0.365
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.002
0.971
0.118
-2.711
1.135
-0.419
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.917
0.889
0.128
-2.778
1.232
-0.444
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-2.681
1.11
-0.414
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.895 0.864 0.879 0.977
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.81
5.190E-10
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.756
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.781
7.772E-16
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.961
0.066
Data Appear Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.186
0.115
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.225
0.102
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.207
0.102
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.142
0.102
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 3amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.989 0.986 0.993 0.994
Appendix B
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.905
0.768
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.0948
0.118
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
2.498
0.775
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.151
0.105
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
1.158
0.781
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.105
0.105
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.134
0.785
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.128
0.106
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Chromium (VI) (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.988 0.964 0.977 0.994
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
0.0844
Data Appear Lognormal
0.905
3.9125E-6
Data Not Lognormal
0.927
2.3381 E-4
Data Not Lognormal
0.971
0.243
Data Appear Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.0943
0.115
Data Appear Lognormal
0.126
0.102
Data Not Lognormal
0.129
0.102
Data Not Lognormal
0.073
0.102
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Cobalt
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
96
0
96
88
8
8.33%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
8
1
1
1
1
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
88
0.612
15.2
4.6
3.89
3.604
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
96
0.612
15.2
4.3
3.465
3.591
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
96
0.5
15.2
4.258
3.465
3.632
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
96
-4.491
15.2
4.036
3.465
3.944
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
96
0.01
15.2
4.228
3.465
3.666
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
96
0.417
15.2
4.279
3.465
3.612
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.871
1.815
2.458
1.236
0.788
0.638
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.681
1.636
2.557
1.133
0.829
0.732
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.482
1.442
2.874
1.075
0.925
0.861
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.018
0.993
4.154
0.876
1.491
1.703
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
1.105
0.875
0.792
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.918 0.91 0.919 0.959
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.829
1.110E-14
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.815
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.829
1.110E-16
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.913
5.6402E-7
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.145
0.0946
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.152
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.15
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.119
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 3amma RO'
Correlation Coefficient R 0.981 0.981 0.983 0.979
Appendix B
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.768
0.766
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.0648
0.0967
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
1.233
0.769
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.0904
0.0929
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.634
0.771
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.0629
0.0931
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.233
0.782
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.0896
0.094
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Cobalt (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.991 0.985 0.984 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)
0.961
0.0406
Data Not Lognormal
0.946
0.00139
Data Not Lognormal
0.942
5.7048E-4
Data Not Lognormal
0.96
0.0237
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.0829
0.0946
Data Appear Lognormal
0.0872
0.0907
Data Appear Lognormal
0.0992
0.0907
Data Not Lognormal
0.0922
0.0907
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Fluoride
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
95
69
26
18
8
30.77%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
8
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.484E-17
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
18
0.034
0.34
0.1
0.0781
0.0824
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
26
0.034
0.34
0.1
0.0932
0.068
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
26
0.034
0.34
0.0849
0.0646
0.072
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
26
0.00722
0.34
0.093
0.0781
0.0726
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
26
0.0178
0.34
0.091
0.0751
0.0722
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
26
0.034
0.34
0.0915
0.0751
0.0705
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2.748
2.327
0.0365
-2.492
0.573
-0.23
Statistics (NDs = DL)
3.903
3.479
0.0257
-2.434
0.481
-0.198
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
2.931
2.618
0.029
-2.647
0.529
-0.2
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
2.704
2.418
0.0337
-2.593
0.606
-0.234
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-2.553
0.518
-0.203
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.771 0.749 0.726 0.815
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)
0.609
0.897
Data Not Normal
0.581
0.92
Data Not Normal
0.544
0.92
Data Not Normal
0.683
0.92
Data Not Normal
0.391
0.202
Data Not Normal
0.425
0.17
Data Not Normal
0.34
0.17
Data Not Normal
0.296
0.17
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 3amma RO'
Correlation Coefficient R 0.874 0.831 0.844 0.892
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)
1.664
0.748
0.311
0.205
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.391
0.748
0.358
0.172
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.593
0.751
0.238
0.172
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.248
0.753
0.206
0.173
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix B
Fluoride (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.918 0.903 0.887 0.928
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)
0.854
0.897
Data Not Lognormal
0.832
0.92
Data Not Lognormal
0.797
0.92
Data Not Lognormal
0.87
0.92
Data Not Lognormal
0.259
0.202
Data Not Lognormal
0.316
0.17
Data Not Lognormal
0.18
0.17
Data Not Lognormal
0.199
0.17
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Iron
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
91
Number of Missing Observations
5
Number of Distinct Observations
74
Minimum
3.536
Maximum
41400
Mean of Raw Data
2488
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
8253
Khat
0.224
Theta hat
11110
Kstar
0.224
Theta star
11113
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.591
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
2.114
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.57
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.341
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.456
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0931
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.923
A-D Test Statistic
16.28
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.905
K-S Test Statistic
0.35
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.103
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.816
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.110E-16
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.205
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0931
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Lithium
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
96
57
39
29
10
25.64%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
10
5
5
5
5
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
29
1.682
24
5.571
3.169
5.786
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
39
1.682
24
5.425
4.049
4.973
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
39
1.682
24
4.784
2.5
5.149
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
39
-1.949
24
5.079
3.322
5.279
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
39
0.01
24
4.921
3.085
5.239
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
39
1.217
24
4.97
3.169
5.126
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.555
1.417
3.583
1.363
0.781
0.573
Statistics (NDs = DL)
2.038
1.898
2.662
1.426
0.679
0.476
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.726
1.61
2.772
1.248
0.699
0.56
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.111
1.043
4.428
1.08
1.296
1.2
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
1.287
0.726
0.564
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.822 0.817 0.765 0.863
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)
0.681
0.926
Data Not Normal
0.678
0.939
Data Not Normal
0.598
0.939
Data Not Normal
0.76
0.939
Data Not Normal
0.3
0.161
Data Not Normal
0.355
0.14
Data Not Normal
0.326
0.14
Data Not Normal
0.236
0.14
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 3amma RO'
Correlation Coefficient R 0.956 0.937 0.918 0.972
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)
2.252
0.762
0.23
0.165
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.074
0.759
0.272
0.143
Data Not Gamma Distributed
4.417
0.763
0.258
0.144
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.401
0.775
0.173
0.145
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Lithium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.933 0.955 0.893 0.949
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)
0.859 0.926 Data Not Lognormal
0.903 0.939 Data Not Lognormal
0.792 0.939 Data Not Lognormal
0.895 0.939 Data Not Lognormal
0.172 0.161 Data Not Lognormal
0.214 0.14 Data Not Lognormal
0.221 0.14 Data Not Lognormal
0.143 0.14 Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix B
Magnesium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
96
Number of Distinct Observations
82
Minimum
1.03
Maximum
11.8
Mean of Raw Data
3.798
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
2.394
Khat
2.528
Theta hat
1.502
Kstar
2.456
Theta star
1.546
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.124
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.675
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.945
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.882
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.712E-10
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.151
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0907
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.977
A-D Test Statistic
2.483
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.762
K-S Test Statistic
0.165
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0923
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.966
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.907
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.1943E-7
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.187
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0907
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Manganese
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
96
5
91
87
4
4.40%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
4
5
5
5
5
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
87
6
880
130.4
75
184.5
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
91
5
880
124.9
70
182.2
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
91
2.5
880
124.8
70
182.3
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
91
-290.1
880
114.3
70
195.7
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
91
0.01
880
124.7
70
182.4
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
91
2.379
880
124.9
70
182.2
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
0.828
0.807
157.5
4.157
1.189
0.286
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.763
0.746
163.7
4.045
1.276
0.315
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.739
0.722
168.9
4.015
1.341
0.334
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.588
0.576
212.1
3.772
2.148
0.569
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
4.031
1.305
0.324
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.792 0.789 0.79 0.851
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.632
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.627
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.629
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.74
0
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.326
0.0951
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.322
0.0931
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.322
0.0931
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.301
0.0931
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 3amma RO'
Correlation Coefficient R 0.958 0.96 0.961 0.967
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)
2.954
0.79
0.182
0.0994
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.633
0.793
0.17
0.0974
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.341
0.795
0.168
0.0975
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.281
0.81
0.152
0.0985
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Manganese (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.987 0.989 0.989 0.992
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.955
0.0156
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.957
0.0181
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.961
0.0385
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.969
0.139
Data Appear Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.101
0.0951
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.0929
0.0931
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.0957
0.0931
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.0942
0.0931
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Nickel
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
95
17
78
71
7
8.97%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
7
1
1
1
1
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
71
0.506
34.6
4.682
3.3
4.548
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
78
0.506
34.6
4.351
3.17
4.464
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
78
0.5
34.6
4.307
3.17
4.5
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
78
-5.063
34.6
4.003
3.17
4.865
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
78
0.01
34.6
4.263
3.17
4.54
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
78
0.506
34.6
4.354
3.17
4.462
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2.375
2.284
1.971
1.319
0.617
0.468
Statistics (NDs = DL)
2.001
1.933
2.175
1.2
0.7
0.583
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.7
1.643
2.533
1.138
0.825
0.725
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.884
0.858
4.822
0.787
1.803
2.291
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
1.201
0.701
0.583
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.726 0.742 0.753 0.817
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.572
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.594
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.609
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.716
0
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.26
0.105
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.25
0.1
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.247
0.1
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.226
0.1
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 3amma RO'
Correlation Coefficient R 0.859 0.876 0.888 0.918
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)
3.894
0.761
0.189
0.107
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.788
0.763
0.164
0.102
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.836
0.767
0.145
0.103
Data Not Gamma Distributed
6.386
0.787
0.271
0.105
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Nickel (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.95 0.971 0.948 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)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.93
7.1915E-4
Data Not Lognormal
0.955
0.0244
Data Not Lognormal
0.899
9.1190E-7
Data Not Lognormal
0.961
0.0613
Data Appear Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.148
0.105
Data Not Lognormal
0.123
0.1
Data Not Lognormal
0.179
0.1
Data Not Lognormal
0.122
0.1
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Nitrate + Nitrite
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
96
18
78
71
7
8.97%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
7
0.01
0.02
0.0114
0.01
0.00378
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
71
0.0049
11
2.833
2.3
3.258
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
78
0.0049
11
2.58
2.05
3.211
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
78
0.0049
11
2.579
2.05
3.211
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
78
-5.165
11
2.276
2.05
3.594
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
78
0.0049
11
2.61
2.05
3.188
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
78
0.00297
11
2.58
2.05
3.211
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
0.483
0.472
5.865
-0.281
2.221
-7.916
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.408
0.401
6.323
-0.66
2.443
-3.702
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.395
0.388
6.531
-0.722
2.548
-3.529
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.487
0.477
5.362
-0.351
2.13
-6.061
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-0.666
2.46
-3.692
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.883 0.87 0.87 0.938
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.761
7.772E-16
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.74
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.74
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.872
5.2450E-9
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.193
0.105
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.211
0.1
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.211
0.1
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.174
0.1
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 3amma RO'
Correlation Coefficient R 0.926 0.924 0.922 0.935
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
2.798
0.821
0.185
0.112
Data Not Gamma Distributed
3.16
0.84
0.175
0.108
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.969
0.843
0.18
0.108
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.054
0.822
0.149
0.107
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Nitrate + Nitrite (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.931 0.933 0.935 0.938
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.844
4.080E-10
Data Not Lognormal
0.844
2.360E-11
Data Not Lognormal
0.844
2.365E-11
Data Not Lognormal
0.853
1.498E-10
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.258
0.105
Data Not Lognormal
0.247
0.1
Data Not Lognormal
0.248
0.1
Data Not Lognormal
0.246
0.1
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Potassium
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
96
0
96
94
2
2.08%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2
5
5
5
5
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
94
0.1
5.91
2.124
1.565
1.632
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
96
0.1
5.91
2.184
1.57
1.667
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
96
0.1
5.91
2.132
1.57
1.616
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
96
0.1
5.91
2.121
1.565
1.618
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
96
0.1
5.91
2.114
1.565
1.618
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
96
0.1
5.91
2.109
1.565
1.62
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.47
1.43
1.445
0.376
0.992
2.639
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.462
1.423
1.494
0.402
0.998
2.484
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.497
1.457
1.424
0.387
0.985
2.543
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.492
1.452
1.417
0.378
0.983
2.605
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.374
0.984
2.631
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.935 0.935 0.938 0.936
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.85
9.492E-14
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.85
3.542E-14
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.857
2.606E-13
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.852
7.105E-14
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.223
0.0916
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.222
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.212
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.22
0.0907
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 3amma RO'
Correlation Coefficient R 0.95 0.943 0.953 0.952
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
2.016
0.772
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.11
0.0941
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
2.115
0.771
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.108
0.0931
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
1.896
0.771
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.0996
0.0931
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
2.009
0.771
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.106
0.0931
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Potassium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.953 0.952 0.953 0.954
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)
0.891
3.5141 E-9
Data Not Lognormal
0.889
1.0341 E-9
Data Not Lognormal
0.891
2.0358E-9
Data Not Lognormal
0.894
3.7002E-9
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.151
0.0916
Data Not Lognormal
0.147
0.0907
Data Not Lognormal
0.151
0.0907
Data Not Lognormal
0.146
0.0907
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Sodium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
96
Number of Distinct Observations
90
Minimum
1.57
Maximum
31.9
Mean of Raw Data
7.895
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
6.625
Khat
2.365
Theta hat
3.338
Kstar
2.298
Theta star
3.436
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.84
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.624
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.821
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.674
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.287
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0907
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.927
A-D Test Statistic
4.731
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.763
K-S Test Statistic
0.2
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0924
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.963
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.919
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.4123E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.145
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0907
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix B
Strontium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
91
Number of Missing Observations
5
Number of Distinct Observations
62
Minimum
11
Maximum
127
Mean of Raw Data
61.37
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
37.72
Khat
2.12
Theta hat
28.96
Kstar
2.057
Theta star
29.84
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.863
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.778
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.955
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.879
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.225E-10
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.136
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0931
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.921
A-D Test Statistic
3.125
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.764
K-S Test Statistic
0.15
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0949
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.948
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.868
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.575E-11
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.149
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0931
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Sulfate
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
96
2
94
93
1
1.06%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1
1
1
1
1
N/A
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
93
0.0845
40
12.38
7.4
9.628
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
94
0.0845
40
12.25
7.2
9.648
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
94
0.0845
40
12.25
7.2
9.654
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
94
-4.966
40
12.19
7.2
9.742
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
94
0.0845
40
12.27
7.2
9.63
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
94
0.0845
40
12.25
7.2
9.651
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.12
1.091
11.05
2.007
1.293
0.644
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.098
1.07
11.16
1.986
1.302
0.656
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.085
1.057
11.29
1.978
1.316
0.665
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.114
1.086
11.01
1.996
1.291
0.647
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
1.983
1.307
0.659
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.955 0.955 0.955 0.961
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.896
1.2889E-8
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.894
6.5764E-9
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.894
7.1213E-9
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.912
6.2282E-7
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.206
0.0921
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.207
0.0916
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.207
0.0916
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.203
0.0916
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 3amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.946 0.945 0.945 0.946
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)
1.916
0.78
0.141
0.0953
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.861
0.781
0.14
0.0949
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.895
0.781
0.141
0.0949
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.887
0.78
0.14
0.0948
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Sulfate (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.925 0.929 0.928 0.929
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)
0.849
1.189E-13
Data Not Lognormal
0.856
4.503E-13
Data Not Lognormal
0.854
2.517E-13
Data Not Lognormal
0.856
4.220E-13
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.147
0.0921
Data Not Lognormal
0.147
0.0916
Data Not Lognormal
0.147
0.0916
Data Not Lognormal
0.147
0.0916
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
TDS
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
96
2
94
83
11
11.70%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
11
25
25
25
25
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
83
25
200
85.42
83
38.28
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
94
25
200
78.35
81
40.91
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
94
12.5
200
76.89
81
42.98
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
94
-35.11
200
75.15
81
46.11
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
94
8.954
200
78.01
81
41.42
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
94
16.45
200
78.4
81
40.88
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
4.539
4.383
18.82
4.333
0.505
0.116
Statistics (NDs = DL)
3.318
3.219
23.62
4.203
0.595
0.142
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
2.421
2.351
31.75
4.122
0.752
0.182
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
3.013
2.924
25.89
4.182
0.644
0.154
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
4.203
0.599
0.143
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.983 0.972 0.983 0.995
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.953
0.0143
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.928
2.8930E-5
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.949
0.00312
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.983
0.685
Data Appear Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.0889
0.0974
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.111
0.0916
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.0897
0.0916
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.0738
0.0916
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 3amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.982 0.975 0.963 0.974
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)
1.074
0.755
0.11
0.0984
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.839
0.758
0.12
0.0928
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.978
0.762
0.141
0.0933
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.3
0.759
0.125
0.093
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
TDS (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.975 0.963 0.944 0.973
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.933
3.0189E-4
Data Not Lognormal
0.901
3.3906E-8
Data Not Lognormal
0.869
1.211 E-11
Data Not Lognormal
0.929
3.2780E-5
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.141
0.0974
Data Not Lognormal
0.15
0.0916
Data Not Lognormal
0.169
0.0916
Data Not Lognormal
0.15
0.0916
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
TOC
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
76
Number of Missing Observations
19
Number of Distinct Observations
62
Minimum
0.092
Maximum
3.8
Mean of Raw Data
0.967
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.714
Khat
2.435
Theta hat
0.397
Kstar
2.348
Theta star
0.412
Mean of Log Transformed Data
-0.252
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.657
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.894
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.804
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.463E-14
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.189
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.102
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.98
A-D Test Statistic
2.145
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.761
K-S Test Statistic
0.174
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.103
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.972
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.952
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0175
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.15
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.102
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix B
Total Radium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
51
Number of Missing Observations
44
Number of Distinct Observations
50
Minimum
0.455
Maximum
23.4
Mean of Raw Data
4.375
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
5.918
Khat
0.945
Theta hat
4.628
Kstar
0.903
Theta star
4.846
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.861
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.042
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.791
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.625
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.665E-15
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.32
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.123
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.942
A-D Test Statistic
3.106
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.783
K-S Test Statistic
0.193
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.128
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.968
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.919
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00181
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.104
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.123
Data appear Approximate_Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Vanadium
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
96
7
89
45
44
49.44%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
44
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.246E-16
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
45
0.121
1.96
0.383
0.312
0.297
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
89
0.121
1.96
0.342
0.3
0.214
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
89
0.121
1.96
0.268
0.15
0.24
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
89
-0.216
1.96
0.277
0.24
0.259
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
89
0.01
1.96
0.27
0.218
0.25
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
89
0.0708
1.96
0.292
0.226
0.234
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2.864
2.687
0.134
-1.144
0.581
-0.508
Statistics (NDs = DL)
5.121
4.956
0.0668
-1.174
0.412
-0.351
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
2.667
2.584
0.1
-1.516
0.559
-0.368
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.39
1.35
0.194
-1.711
1.064
-0.622
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-1.412
0.561
-0.397
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.801 0.711 0.721 0.868
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.557
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.56
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.801
0
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.677
0.945
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.188
0.131
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.324
0.0941
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.286
0.0941
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.162
0.0941
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 3amma RO'
Correlation Coefficient R 0.891 0.792 0.853 0.926
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.)
Appendix B
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.897
0.756
0.119
0.133
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
7.411
0.755
0.286
0.095
Data Not Gamma Distributed
9.851
0.761
0.293
0.0956
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.288
0.774
0.103
0.0967
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Vanadium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.975 0.912 0.866 0.982
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)
0.856
3.344E-12
Data Not Lognormal
0.753
0
Data Not Lognormal
0.972
0.216
Data Appear Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.952
0.945
Data Appear Lognormal
0.1
0.131
Data Appear Lognormal
0.257
0.0941
Data Not Lognormal
0.303
0.0941
Data Not Lognormal
0.0904
0.0941
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Zinc
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
95
19
76
67
9
11.84%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
9
5
5
5
5
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
67
2.313
201
13.93
11
23.78
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
76
2.313
201
12.87
10
22.5
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
76
2.313
201
12.58
10
22.62
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
76
-16.63
201
11.43
10
23.4
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
76
0.01
201
12.28
10
22.77
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
76
2.206
201
12.72
10
22.56
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.806
1.735
7.716
2.332
0.63
0.27
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.77
1.708
7.276
2.247
0.636
0.283
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.507
1.456
8.349
2.165
0.749
0.346
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.617
0.601
19.91
1.511
2.333
1.544
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
2.206
0.69
0.313
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.492 0.49 0.505 0.579
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.292
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.291
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.306
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.395
0
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.359
0.108
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.348
0.102
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.344
0.102
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.327
0.102
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 3amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.634 0.634 0.653 0.715
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)
3.936
0.765
0.211
0.111
Data Not Gamma Distributed
3.863
0.766
0.187
0.104
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.951
0.77
0.177
0.104
Data Not Gamma Distributed
7.591
0.806
0.253
0.107
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Zinc (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.938 0.944 0.95 0.956
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)
0.914
9.4492E-5
Data Not Lognormal
0.921
7.7017E-5
Data Not Lognormal
0.916
2.8318E-5
Data Not Lognormal
0.936
0.00107
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.124
0.108
Data Not Lognormal
0.0994
0.102
Data Appear Lognormal
0.112
0.102
Data Not Lognormal
0.103
0.102
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Appendix B
ME
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProLICL 5.12/7/2020 4:36:26 PM
From File HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers b.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 0.95
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Minimum
6.92
Maximum
7.4
Mean of Raw Data
7.099
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.159
Khat
2226
Theta hat
0.00319
Kstar
1558
Theta star
0.00456
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.96
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0223
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.965
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.921
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.422
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.197
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.966
A-D Test Statistic
0.392
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.724
K-S Test Statistic
0.212
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.266
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.967
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.924
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.454
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.193
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Alkalinity
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Minimum
91.6
Maximum
115
Mean of Raw Data
104.8
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
8.188
Khat
179.2
Theta hat
0.585
Kstar
125.5
Theta star
0.835
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.65
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0791
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.98
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.942
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.73
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.174
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.974
A-D Test Statistic
0.286
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.724
K-S Test Statistic
0.187
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.266
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.978
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.939
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.687
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.175
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Arsenic
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Minimum
1.01
Maximum
2.36
Mean of Raw Data
1.739
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.447
Khat
14.53
Theta hat
0.12
Kstar
10.24
Theta star
0.17
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.519
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.29
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.951
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.899
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.229
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.21
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.933
A-D Test Statistic
0.687
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.725
K-S Test Statistic
0.244
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.266
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.92
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.841
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0502
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.256
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Approximate —Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Barium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Minimum
41
Maximum
58
Mean of Raw Data
49.3
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
5.165
Khat
101.4
Theta hat
0.486
Kstar
71.05
Theta star
0.694
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.893
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.105
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.99
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.978
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.96
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.139
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.991
A-D Test Statistic
0.191
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.724
K-S Test Statistic
0.144
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.266
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.991
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.98
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.969
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.13
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Minimum
91.6
Maximum
115
Mean of Raw Data
104.8
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
8.188
Khat
179.2
Theta hat
0.585
Kstar
125.5
Theta star
0.835
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.65
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0791
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.98
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.942
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.73
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.174
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.974
A-D Test Statistic
0.286
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.724
K-S Test Statistic
0.187
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.266
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.978
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.939
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.687
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.175
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Boron
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Minimum
244
Maximum
288
Mean of Raw Data
268.4
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
16.83
Khat
281.1
Theta hat
0.955
Kstar
196.8
Theta star
1.364
Mean of Log Transformed Data
5.591
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.063
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.953
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.882
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.217
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.216
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.948
A-D Test Statistic
0.59
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.724
K-S Test Statistic
0.23
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.266
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.953
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.884
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.222
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.221
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Calcium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Minimum
25.2
Maximum
32
Mean of Raw Data
26.68
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
1.958
Khat
226.6
Theta hat
0.118
Kstar
158.7
Theta star
0.168
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.282
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0684
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.791
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.655
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.1319E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.335
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.808
A-D Test Statistic
1.323
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.724
K-S Test Statistic
0.32
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.266
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.809
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.683
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.3078E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.318
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Chloride
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
6
Minimum
20
Maximum
27
Mean of Raw Data
24.7
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
2.111
Khat
142.7
Theta hat
0.173
Kstar
99.96
Theta star
0.247
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.203
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0898
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.946
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.9
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.189
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.17
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.936
A-D Test Statistic
0.453
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.724
K-S Test Statistic
0.177
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.266
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.93
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.875
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0923
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.189
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Cobalt
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 10 0 10 9 1 10.00%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
1
1
1
1
1
N/A
9
0.365
4.41
1.904
1.69
1.186
10
0.365
4.41
1.814
1.63
1.154
10
0.365
4.41
1.764
1.63
1.203
10
0.365
4.41
1.752
1.63
1.217
10
0.365
4.41
1.763
1.63
1.204
10
0.365
4.41
1.774
1.63
1.191
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
2.72
1.887
0.7
0.449
0.714
1.589
2.77
2.006
0.655
0.404
0.688
1.702
2.303
1.678
0.766
0.335
0.764
2.281
2.289
1.669
0.77
0.333
0.767
2.304
-
-
-
0.354
0.737
2.08
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.959 0.946 0.956 0.957
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)
0.933
0.829
Data
Appear Normal
0.909
0.842
Data
Appear Normal
0.921
0.842
Data
Appear Normal
0.92
0.842
Data
Appear Normal
0.168
0.274
Data
Appear Normal
0.17
0.262
Data
Appear Normal
0.155
0.262
Data
Appear Normal
0.152
0.262
Data
Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.991 0.99 0.993 0.993
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)
0.167
0.728
0.126
0.282
0.19
0.733
0.137
0.269
0.157
0.735
0.12
0.269
0.161
0.735
0.121
0.269
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Cobalt (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.969 0.974 0.983 0.988
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)
0.955
0.829
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.963
0.842
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.965
0.842
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.979
0.842
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.168
0.274
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.17
0.262
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.16
0.262
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.152
0.262
Data
Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Iron
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Minimum
313
Maximum
2060
Mean of Raw Data
879.9
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
526.2
Khat
3.197
Theta hat
275.2
Kstar
2.304
Theta star
381.8
Mean of Log Transformed Data
6.615
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.621
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.934
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.88
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.11
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.221
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.972
A-D Test Statistic
0.409
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.732
K-S Test Statistic
0.189
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.268
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.961
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.916
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.364
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.217
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Magnesium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Minimum
7.23
Maximum
8.81
Mean of Raw Data
7.763
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.465
Khat
321
Theta hat
0.0242
Kstar
224.8
Theta star
0.0345
Mean of Log Transformed Data
2.048
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0583
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.946
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.903
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.195
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.143
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.953
A-D Test Statistic
0.358
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.724
K-S Test Statistic
0.155
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.266
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.955
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.919
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.298
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.144
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Manganese
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Minimum
50
Maximum
170
Mean of Raw Data
102.4
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
39.44
Khat
7.368
Theta hat
13.9
Kstar
5.224
Theta star
19.6
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.559
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.399
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.971
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.934
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.556
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.224
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.978
A-D Test Statistic
0.306
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.727
K-S Test Statistic
0.176
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.267
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.979
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.949
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.725
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.194
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Potassium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Minimum
5.69
Maximum
6.69
Mean of Raw Data
6.063
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.31
Khat
431.7
Theta hat
0.014
Kstar
302.2
Theta star
0.0201
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.801
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0505
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.972
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.942
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.584
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.122
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.975
A-D Test Statistic
0.25
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.724
K-S Test Statistic
0.132
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.266
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.976
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.948
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.674
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.12
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Sodium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Minimum
37.9
Maximum
48.5
Mean of Raw Data
44.32
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
3.441
Khat
177.7
Theta hat
0.249
Kstar
124.5
Theta star
0.356
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.789
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0799
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.968
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.93
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.495
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.198
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.961
A-D Test Statistic
0.379
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.724
K-S Test Statistic
0.208
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.266
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.961
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.918
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.364
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.212
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Strontium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
8
Minimum
147
Maximum
164
Mean of Raw Data
157.7
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
5.397
Khat
932.2
Theta hat
0.169
Kstar
652.6
Theta star
0.242
Mean of Log Transformed Data
5.06
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0347
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.963
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.924
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.403
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.176
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.96
A-D Test Statistic
0.376
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.724
K-S Test Statistic
0.175
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.266
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.959
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.917
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.341
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.183
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Sulfate
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
8
Minimum
57
Maximum
72
Mean of Raw Data
66
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
4.595
Khat
221.2
Theta hat
0.298
Kstar
154.9
Theta star
0.426
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.187
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0716
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.96
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.924
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.363
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.214
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.955
A-D Test Statistic
0.452
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.724
K-S Test Statistic
0.219
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.266
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.952
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.909
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.25
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.228
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
TDS
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
8
Minimum
200
Maximum
270
Mean of Raw Data
230.7
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
20.29
Khat
145.9
Theta hat
1.581
Kstar
102.2
Theta star
2.258
Mean of Log Transformed Data
5.438
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0871
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.986
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.978
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.921
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.123
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.99
A-D Test Statistic
0.161
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.724
K-S Test Statistic
0.106
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.266
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.991
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.986
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.978
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.111
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Vanadium
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 10 0 10 7 3 30.00%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0
7
0.122
0.683
0.387
0.392
0.181
10
0.122
0.683
0.361
0.318
0.154
10
0.122
0.683
0.316
0.288
0.187
10
0.063
0.683
0.319
0.29
0.19
10
0.102
0.683
0.322
0.288
0.184
10
0.122
0.683
0.323
0.288
0.182
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
4.446
2.636
0.0871
-1.066
0.561
-0.526
5.827
4.146
0.062
-1.107
0.463
-0.418
3.223
2.323
0.098
-1.315
0.609
-0.463
3.254
2.345
0.0989
-1.295
0.621
-0.48
-
-
-
-1.278
0.587
-0.46
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.992 0.964 0.952 0.985
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.992
0.803
Data
Appear Normal
0.947
0.842
Data
Appear Normal
0.897
0.842
Data
Appear Normal
0.969
0.842
Data
Appear Normal
0.135
0.304
Data
Appear Normal
0.167
0.262
Data
Appear Normal
0.213
0.262
Data
Appear Normal
0.15
0.262
Data
Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.983 0.983 0.983 0.993
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)
0.206
0.71
0.16
0.313
0.278
0.729
0.185
0.267
0.451
0.732
0.24
0.268
0.181
0.731
0.124
0.268
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Vanadium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.964 0.959 0.964 0.985
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.939
0.803
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.941
0.842
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.911
0.842
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.954
0.842
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.194
0.304
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.217
0.262
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.23
0.262
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.123
0.262
Data
Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProLICL 5.12/10/2020 8:55:03 AM
From File HF Lee BG GW Data No AC Outliers c.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 0.95
pH
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
91
Number of Distinct Observations
45
Minimum
4.2
Maximum
8.3
Mean of Raw Data
6.739
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.763
Khat
76.64
Theta hat
0.0879
Kstar
74.12
Theta star
0.0909
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.901
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.116
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.984
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.966
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0922
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.109
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0931
Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.982
A-D Test Statistic
0.827
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.751
K-S Test Statistic
0.0954
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0934
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.975
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.957
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0193
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.09
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0931
Data appear Approximate —Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Alkalinity
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 91 2 89 88 1 1.12%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
1
5
5
5
5
N/A
88
7
213
88.64
86.1
56.26
89
5
213
87.7
84
56.64
89
2.5
213
87.67
84
56.68
89
-60.1
213
86.97
84
58.12
89
7
213
87.76
84
56.55
89
7
213
87.73
84
56.59
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
2.038
1.976
43.49
4.22
0.83
0.197
1.913
1.856
45.84
4.19
0.871
0.208
1.867
1.812
46.95
4.183
0.897
0.214
1.962
1.904
44.72
4.199
0.849
0.202
-
4.195
0.857
0.204
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.96 0.96 0.961 0.968
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)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.897
6.0662E-8
Data Not Normal
0.898
6.4521 E-8
Data Not Normal
0.9
9.2484E-8
Data Not Normal
0.926
3.6487E-5
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.142
0.0946
Data Not Normal
0.139
0.0941
Data Not Normal
0.139
0.0941
Data Not Normal
0.139
0.0941
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.961 0.959 0.958 0.96
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)
1.509
0.765
0.113
0.0965
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.586
0.766
0.119
0.0961
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.597
0.767
0.122
0.0961
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.576
0.765
0.116
0.096
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Alkalinity (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.954 0.95 0.945 0.952
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.893
2.2781 E-8
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.89
8.4760E-9
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.888
6.4757E-9
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.887
4.8484E-9
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.163
0.0946
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.17
0.0941
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.173
0.0941
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.167
0.0941
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Aluminum
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 91 7 84 82 2 2.38%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD
2 100 100 100 100 0
82 2.012 838 76.24 34.5 123.7
84 2.012 838 76.81 35.5 122.2
84 2.012 838 75.62 35.5 122.3
84 2.012 838 75.62 34.5 122.3
84 0.01 838 74.99 34.5 122.5
84 2.012 838 75.2 34.5 122.4
K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV
0.956 0.93 79.72 3.727 1.042 0.28
0.976 0.949 78.71 3.748 1.038 0.277
0.975 0.948 77.59 3.732 1.03 0.276
0.855 0.833 87.67 3.63 1.374 0.378
- - - 3.72 1.032 0.277
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.695 0.698 0.692 0.693
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)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.515
0
Data Not Normal
0.52
0
Data Not Normal
0.512
0
Data Not Normal
0.514
0
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.278
0.098
Data Not Normal
0.275
0.0968
Data Not Normal
0.278
0.0968
Data Not Normal
0.278
0.0968
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.893 0.892 0.89 0.899
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)
2.739
0.784
0.139
0.102
2.532
0.783
0.133
0.101
2.719
0.783
0.128
0.101
2.405
0.789
0.121
0.101
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Aluminum (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.984 0.985 0.985 0.984
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.975
0.372
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.977
0.441
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.978
0.462
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.975
0.342
Data Appear Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.0884
0.098
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.0863
0.0968
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.082
0.0968
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.0893
0.0968
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Barium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
91
Number of Distinct Observations
65
Minimum
6
Maximum
544
Mean of Raw Data
123.1
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
132.2
Khat
0.821
Theta hat
150
Kstar
0.801
Theta star
153.7
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.092
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.313
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.892
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.783
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 0
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.246
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.0931
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.935
A-D Test Statistic
2.668
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.791
K-S Test Statistic
0.159
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0972
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.969
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.91
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.2775E-7
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.109
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0931
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 91 3 88 87 1 1.14%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
1
5
5
5
5
N/A
87
7
213
89.39
88.2
55.8
88
5
213
88.43
86.1
56.21
88
2.5
213
88.41
86.1
56.25
88
-58.15
213
87.72
86.1
57.67
88
7
213
88.5
86.1
56.11
88
7
213
88.47
86.1
56.15
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
2.107
2.042
42.44
4.237
0.817
0.193
1.97
1.91
44.9
4.207
0.859
0.204
1.921
1.863
46.03
4.2
0.886
0.211
2.026
1.964
43.69
4.216
0.836
0.198
-
-
4.213
0.843
0.2
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.961 0.962 0.962 0.969
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)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.9
1.3805E-7
Data Not Normal
0.901
1.5204E-7
Data Not Normal
0.903
2.1644E-7
Data Not Normal
0.928
6.3411 E-5
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.143
0.0951
Data Not Normal
0.14
0.0946
Data Not Normal
0.14
0.0946
Data Not Normal
0.141
0.0946
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.962 0.96 0.959 0.961
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)
1.475
0.764
0.113
0.0971
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.566
0.765
0.119
0.0966
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.583
0.766
0.122
0.0966
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.541
0.765
0.115
0.0966
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Bicarbonate Alkalinity (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.953 0.949 0.942 0.951
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.892
2.3986E-8
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.887
6.6122E-9
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.885
3.9385E-9
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.886
5.1528E-9
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.162
0.0951
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.169
0.0946
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.173
0.0946
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.166
0.0946
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Boron
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 91 0 91 58 33 36.26%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD
33 50 50 50 50 0
58 17.56 320 137.5 146.5 93.98
91 17.56 320 105.8 55 85.93
91 17.56 320 96.72 55 92.48
91 -152.1 320 85.81 63 107.5
91 0.01 320 96.5 60.88 93.55
91 8.061 320 99.68 57 90.63
K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV
1.989 1.897 69.16 4.652 0.791 0.17
1.949 1.892 54.26 4.384 0.724 0.165
1.278 1.243 75.67 4.132 0.936 0.227
0.549 0.538 175.7 3.429 2.718 0.792
- - - 4.194 0.929 0.222
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.939 0.866 0.88 0.97
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)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.857
2.6401 E-7
Data Not Normal
0.733
0
Data Not Normal
0.752
0
Data Not Normal
0.926
2.4096E-5
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.223
0.116
Data Not Normal
0.302
0.0931
Data Not Normal
0.255
0.0931
Data Not Normal
0.203
0.0931
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.94 0.937 0.946 0.918
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)
1.686
0.763
0.174
0.118
Data Not Gamma Distributed
7.462
0.766
0.243
0.095
Data Not Gamma Distributed
5.697
0.776
0.22
0.0959
Data Not Gamma Distributed
4.067
0.814
0.16
0.0988
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Boron (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.967 0.929 0.929 0.981
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.915
4.1280E-4
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.848
1.983E-13
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.834
7.550E-15
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.94
5.9413E-4
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.18
0.116
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.21
0.0931
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.231
0.0931
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.132
0.0931
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Calcium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
91
Number of Distinct Observations
74
Minimum
1.5
Maximum
32.1
Mean of Raw Data
15.62
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
8.256
Khat
2.52
Theta hat
6.197
Kstar
2.445
Theta star
6.389
Mean of Log Transformed Data
2.537
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.753
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.974
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.6112E-5
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.137
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0931
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.943
A-D Test Statistic
3.518
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.762
K-S Test Statistic
0.201
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0947
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.924
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.839
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.809E-14
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.238
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0931
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Chloride
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
89
Number of Missing Observations
2
Number of Distinct Observations
46
Minimum
2.8
Maximum
77
Mean of Raw Data
29.49
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
29.82
Khat
0.922
Theta hat
31.97
Kstar
0.899
Theta star
32.81
Mean of Log Transformed Data
2.752
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.182
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.851
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.696
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.314
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0941
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.837
A-D Test Statistic
6.4
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.786
K-S Test Statistic
0.215
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0979
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.932
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.835
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.665E-14
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.214
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0941
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Fluoride
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 89 66 23 21 2 8.70%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
21
0.0484
0.23
0.131
0.14
0.0526
23
0.0484
0.23
0.128
0.14
0.0509
23
0.0484
0.23
0.124
0.14
0.0553
23
0.0484
0.23
0.126
0.14
0.0529
23
0.0484
0.23
0.126
0.14
0.0526
23
0.0484
0.23
0.126
0.14
0.0528
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
5.719
4.934
0.0228
-2.126
0.454
-0.214
6.06
5.299
0.0211
-2.141
0.436
-0.204
4.687
4.105
0.0264
-2.202
0.5
-0.227
5.555
4.859
0.0227
-2.165
0.454
-0.21
-
-
-
-2.167
0.456
-0.21
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.982 0.987 0.975 0.979
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.955
0.908
0.964
0.914
0.936
0.914
0.946
0.914
0.149
0.188
0.116
0.18
0.158
0.18
0.15
0.18
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Normal
Data Appear Normal
Data Appear Normal
Data Appear Normal
Data Appear Normal
Data Appear Normal
Data Appear Normal
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.971 0.983 0.968 0.976
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)
0.572
0.745
0.192
0.19
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distributic
0.369
0.746
0.163
0.182
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.685
0.747
0.188
0.182
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distributic
0.568
0.746
0.176
0.182
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Fluoride (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.969 0.981 0.965 0.973
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.929
0.908
0.953
0.914
0.914
0.914
0.936
0.914
0.209
0.188
0.178
0.18
0.203
0.18
0.192
0.18
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 Not Lognormal
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Iron
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 91 1 90 89 1 1.11 %
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
1
10
10
10
10
N/A
89
16
12700
4633
2920
4494
90
10
12700
4581
2755
4495
90
5
12700
4581
2755
4495
90
-6830
12700
4505
2755
4629
90
16
12700
4596
2755
4482
90
13.09
12700
4581
2755
4495
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
0.599
0.586
7732
7.409
1.872
0.253
0.577
0.565
7940
7.353
1.938
0.264
0.573
0.562
7989
7.345
1.959
0.267
0.602
0.589
7634
7.407
1.862
0.251
-
-
-
7.356
1.93
0.262
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.92 0.918 0.918 0.933
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.814
2.220E-16
Data Not Normal
0.812
1.110E-16
Data Not Normal
0.812
1.110E-16
Data Not Normal
0.857
2.817E-12
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.184
0.0941
Data Not Normal
0.187
0.0936
Data Not Normal
0.187
0.0936
Data Not Normal
0.175
0.0936
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.849 0.847 0.846 0.852
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)
2.827
0.809
0.141
0.0995
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.768
0.811
0.139
0.0991
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.735
0.811
0.139
0.0991
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.735
0.808
0.139
0.0989
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Iron (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.945 0.945 0.944 0.944
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.868
5.962E-11
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.87
6.272E-11
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.873
1.453E-10
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.868
3.894E-11
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.154
0.0941
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.151
0.0936
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.15
0.0936
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.152
0.0936
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Lithium
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 91 56 35 33 2 5.71 %
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
2
5
5
5
5
0
33
1.824
27
9.36
6
7.462
35
1.824
27
9.111
6
7.312
35
1.824
27
8.968
6
7.418
35
1.485
27
9.011
6
7.394
35
1.807
27
8.992
6
7.402
35
1.824
27
9.047
6
7.356
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
2.077
1.909
4.506
1.977
0.708
0.358
2.123
1.96
4.292
1.956
0.693
0.354
1.952
1.804
4.594
1.916
0.731
0.382
1.964
1.814
4.579
1.921
0.732
0.381
-
-
1.94
0.705
0.363
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.886 0.876 0.884 0.885
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.775
0.931
0.758
0.934
0.771
0.934
0.773
0.934
0.239
0.152
0.246
0.148
0.238
0.148
0.24
0.148
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Normal
Data Not Normal
Data Not Normal
Data Not Normal
Data Not Normal
Data Not Normal
Data Not Normal
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.958 0.954 0.959 0.959
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
1.49
0.759
0.185
0.155
1.802
0.759
0.201
0.151
1.436
0.76
0.181
0.151
1.503
0.76
0.183
0.151
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Lithium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.968 0.963 0.974 0.965
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
0.931
0.918
0.934
0.935
0.934
0.92
0.934
0.153
0.152
0.177
0.148
0.148
0.148
0.166
0.148
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Magnesium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
91
Number of Distinct Observations
85
Minimum
1.62
Maximum
7.65
Mean of Raw Data
3.924
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
1.593
Khat
6.601
Theta hat
0.594
Kstar
6.391
Theta star
0.614
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.289
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.396
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.95
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.881
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.245E-10
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.143
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0931
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.97
A-D Test Statistic
1.443
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.754
K-S Test Statistic
0.0913
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
0.983
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.943
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00108
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0893
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0931
Data appear Approximate —Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Manganese
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
90
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Distinct Observations
75
Minimum
7
Maximum
1920
Mean of Raw Data
318.4
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
540.8
Khat
0.551
Theta hat
578
Kstar
0.54
Theta star
589.7
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.627
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.432
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.758
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.566
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.402
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0936
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.919
A-D Test Statistic
8.11
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.813
K-S Test Statistic
0.277
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0993
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.952
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.886
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.8101 E-9
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.161
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0936
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Methane
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 86 43 43 30 13 30.23%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
13
10
10
10
10
0
30
11.9
16900
1595
89.3
3974
43
10
16900
1116
33.6
3383
43
5
16900
1115
33.6
3384
43
-9699
16900
-587
33.6
4824
43
0.01
16900
1113
33.6
3384
43
0.0492
16900
1114
33.6
3384
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
0.295
0.288
5404
5.033
2.119
0.421
0.252
0.25
4422
4.208
2.17
0.516
0.237
0.236
4697
3.998
2.373
0.594
0.156
0.161
7132
2.119
4.813
2.271
-
-
3.479
3.062
0.88
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.666 0.598 0.598 0.894
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.461
0.927
0.382
0.943
0.383
0.943
0.822
0.943
0.38
0.159
0.401
0.134
0.401
0.134
0.247
0.134
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Normal
Data Not Normal
Data Not Normal
Data Not Normal
Data Not Normal
Data Not Normal
Data Not Normal
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.963 0.946 0.95 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)
2.946
0.856
0.275
0.174
5.701
0.884
0.282
0.148
4.832
0.892
0.267
0.149
1.965
0.952
0.172
0.152
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Methane (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.953 0.916 0.942 0.996
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.894
0.927
0.825
0.943
0.871
0.943
0.982
0.943
0.145
0.159
0.19
0.134
0.157
0.134
0.0743
0.134
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Molybdenum
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 89 10 79 52 27 34.18%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
27
1
1
1
1
0
52
0.105
23.4
3.665
1.53
4.659
79
0.105
23.4
2.754
1
3.976
79
0.105
23.4
2.583
1
4.059
79
-7.298
23.4
1.878
1.19
4.724
79
0.01
23.4
2.429
1
4.144
79
0.05
23.4
2.555
1
4.076
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log
Stdv
Log CV
0.846
0.81
4.33
0.603
1.244
2.064
0.943
0.916
2.92
0.397
1.046
2.637
0.757
0.737
3.41
0.16
1.181
7.391
0.352
0.347
6.907
-1.024
2.57
-2.51
-
-
-
0.0162
1.373
84.62
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.836 0.755 0.766 0.906
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)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.711
1.049E-12
Data Not Normal
0.591
0
Data Not Normal
0.606
0
Data Not Normal
0.843
1.348E-11
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.299
0.122
Data Not Normal
0.345
0.0998
Data Not Normal
0.327
0.0998
Data Not Normal
0.255
0.0998
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.981 0.945 0.964 0.988
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)
1.908
0.788
0.204
0.128
7.645
0.784
0.278
0.104
5.762
0.793
0.224
0.104
2.292
0.853
0.179
0.108
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Molybdenum (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.98 0.935 0.957 0.991
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.951
0.0593
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.875
7.1661 E-9
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.908
3.7287E-6
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.968
0.169
Data Appear Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.133
0.122
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.2
0.0998
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.183
0.0998
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.0996
0.0998
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Nickel
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 89 11 78 46 32 41.03%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
32
0.5
1
0.984
1
0.0884
46
0.384
47.7
7.079
1.915
12.95
78
0.384
47.7
4.578
1.11
10.35
78
0.25
47.7
4.377
1.11
10.42
78
-30.91
47.7
-1.068
1.11
14.71
78
0.01
47.7
4.179
1.11
10.5
78
0.0364
47.7
4.325
1.11
10.44
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
0.615
0.59
11.5
0.957
1.198
1.252
0.634
0.619
7.217
0.555
1.039
1.871
0.523
0.512
8.363
0.271
1.237
4.564
0.257
0.255
16.28
-1.325
2.902
-2.19
-
-
-
0.0413
1.527
36.99
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.706 0.614 0.625 0.91
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.389
0
Data Not Normal
0.403
0
Data Not Normal
0.834
3.710E-12
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.502
0.945
Data Not Normal
0.464
0.129
Data Not Normal
0.461
0.1
Data Not Normal
0.453
0.1
Data Not Normal
0.295
0.1
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.9 0.859 0.878 0.915
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)
7.805
0.803
0.385
0.137
16.13
0.805
0.349
0.106
12.05
0.816
0.307
0.107
5.966
0.887
0.245
0.111
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Nickel (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.871 0.813 0.882 0.968
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.665
0
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.771
0
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.929
2.5515E-4
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.756
0.945
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.274
0.129
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.232
0.1
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.205
0.1
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.138
0.1
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Nitrate + Nitrite
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 91 14 77 43 34 44.16%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
34
0.01
0.02
0.0112
0.01
0.00327
43
0.012
8.9
0.511
0.038
1.443
77
0.01
8.9
0.29
0.013
1.101
77
0.005
8.9
0.288
0.012
1.102
77
-4.1
8.9
-0.574
0.012
1.723
77
0.01
8.9
0.29
0.012
1.101
77
1.2145E-5
8.9
0.286
0.012
1.102
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
0.331
0.323
1.543
-2.724
1.867
-0.685
0.302
0.299
0.96
-3.519
1.661
-0.472
0.272
0.27
1.058
-3.825
1.871
-0.489
0.298
0.295
0.971
-3.555
1.676
-0.472
-
-
-
-4.745
2.871
-0.605
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.596 0.501 0.502 0.896
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.295
0
Data Not Normal
0.297
0
Data Not Normal
0.841
2.268E-11
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.393
0.943
Data Not Normal
0.38
0.134
Data Not Normal
0.424
0.101
Data Not Normal
0.423
0.101
Data Not Normal
0.213
0.101
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.909 0.858 0.868 0.859
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)
5.076
0.853
0.293
0.146
14.92
0.865
0.331
0.11
12.64
0.879
0.301
0.111
15.25
0.866
0.327
0.111
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Nitrate + Nitrite (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.913 0.834 0.883 0.993
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.691
0
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.769
0
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.976
0.413
Data Appear Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.821
0.943
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.181
0.134
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.269
0.101
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.215
0.101
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.103
0.101
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Potassium
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 91 0 91 89 2 2.20%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
2
5
5
5
5
0
89
0.63
7.09
2.059
1.55
1.302
91
0.63
7.09
2.123
1.57
1.359
91
0.63
7.09
2.068
1.57
1.289
91
0.63
7.09
2.058
1.55
1.29
91
0.63
7.09
2.053
1.55
1.29
91
0.63
7.09
2.051
1.55
1.29
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
2.753
2.668
0.748
0.53
0.629
1.188
2.659
2.579
0.798
0.553
0.642
1.16
2.806
2.721
0.737
0.538
0.625
1.161
2.797
2.712
0.734
0.53
0.624
1.176
-
-
0.529
0.623
1.178
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.938 0.941 0.941 0.939
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)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.876
3.884E-10
Data Not Normal
0.879
3.731 E-10
Data Not Normal
0.882
8.805E-10
Data Not Normal
0.879
3.517E-10
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.177
0.0941
Data Not Normal
0.177
0.0931
Data Not Normal
0.169
0.0931
Data Not Normal
0.177
0.0931
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.982 0.984 0.983 0.982
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)
1.62
0.761
0.117
0.0956
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.636
0.761
0.119
0.0946
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.507
0.76
0.11
0.0945
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.597
0.76
0.116
0.0945
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Potassium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.977 0.977 0.978 0.978
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.931
9.4004E-5
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.93
6.4809E-5
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.933
1.1416E-4
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.933
1.1906E-4
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.0934
0.0941
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.0912
0.0931
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.0931
0.0931
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.0909
0.0931
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Sodium
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 91 0 91 90 1 1.10%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
1
5
5
5
5
N/A
90
2.91
286
37.84
14.1
47.65
91
2.91
286
37.48
14.1
47.51
91
2.5
286
37.46
14.1
47.52
91
-30.99
286
37.09
14.1
47.93
91
0.01
286
37.43
14.1
47.55
91
2.549
286
37.46
14.1
47.52
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
0.821
0.801
46.08
2.913
1.199
0.412
0.816
0.797
45.91
2.899
1.2
0.414
0.81
0.79
46.26
2.891
1.211
0.419
0.755
0.738
49.55
2.831
1.429
0.505
-
-
-
2.892
1.21
0.419
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.833 0.831 0.832 0.844
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)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.71
0
Data Not Normal
0.708
0
Data Not Normal
0.709
0
Data Not Normal
0.738
0
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.331
0.0936
Data Not Normal
0.333
0.0931
Data Not Normal
0.332
0.0931
Data Not Normal
0.328
0.0931
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.958 0.958 0.959 0.959
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
5.978
0.791
0.257
0.0977
Data Not Gamma Distributed
6.13
0.791
0.257
0.0972
Data Not Gamma Distributed
5.931
0.791
0.255
0.0972
Data Not Gamma Distributed
5.227
0.793
0.241
0.0974
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Sodium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.946 0.945 0.949 0.949
Apr. Test P Value Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.874
1.738E-10
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.872
7.844E-11
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.882
7.177E-10
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.881
6.338E-10
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.184
0.0936
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.183
0.0931
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.181
0.0931
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.181
0.0931
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Strontium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
90
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Distinct Observations
58
Minimum
10
Maximum
150
Mean of Raw Data
77.88
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
42.34
Khat
2.403
Theta hat
32.41
Kstar
2.33
Theta star
33.42
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.133
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.754
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.953
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.88
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.064E-10
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.164
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0936
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.893
A-D Test Statistic
4.34
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.763
K-S Test Statistic
0.203
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.0952
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.93
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.843
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 9.936E-14
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.21
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.0936
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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Sulfate
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 91 2 89 79 10 11.24%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
10
0.1
1
0.2
0.1
0.283
79
0.046
23
9.209
7.1
6.175
89
0.046
23
8.196
6.7
6.48
89
0.046
23
8.185
6.7
6.494
89
-7.961
23
7.798
6.7
7.086
89
0.046
23
8.37
6.7
6.279
89
0.046
23
8.266
6.7
6.396
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
1.445
1.399
6.372
1.836
1.21
0.659
0.843
0.822
9.722
1.405
1.685
1.2
0.769
0.751
10.64
1.327
1.85
1.395
1.29
1.254
6.49
1.689
1.214
0.719
-
-
-
1.601
1.324
0.827
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.954 0.954 0.954 0.98
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)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.889
9.2972E-8
Data Not Normal
0.885
2.7927E-9
Data Not Normal
0.885
2.9521 E-9
Data Not Normal
0.944
0.00161
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.166
0.0998
Data Not Normal
0.144
0.0941
Data Not Normal
0.144
0.0941
Data Not Normal
0.123
0.0941
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.953 0.932 0.925 0.957
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)
2.317
0.771
0.165
0.102
Data Not Gamma Distributed
4.112
0.79
0.205
0.0982
Data Not Gamma Distributed
4.766
0.793
0.221
0.0984
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.211
0.776
0.123
0.097
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Sulfate (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.858 0.877 0.862 0.919
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.742
0
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.753
0
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.725
0
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.838
5.274E-14
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.24
0.0998
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.276
0.0941
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.291
0.0941
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.224
0.0941
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
TDS
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 91 2 89 85 4 4.49%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD
4 25 250 81.25 25 112.5
85 27 380 158.8 140 98.11
89 25 380 155.3 130 99.4
89 12.5 380 153.4 127 99.51
89 -103.1 380 150.3 127 105.2
89 9.616 380 153.3 127 99.46
89 20.29 380 153.5 127 99.09
K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV
2.497 2.417 63.57 4.854 0.689 0.142
2.246 2.178 69.13 4.806 0.739 0.154
2.088 2.025 73.48 4.775 0.794 0.166
2.118 2.054 72.4 4.778 0.783 0.164
- - - 4.795 0.738 0.154
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.964 0.965 0.968 0.981
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)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.904
5.1508E-7
Data Not Normal
0.905
3.2541 E-7
Data Not Normal
0.912
1.4221 E-6
Data Not Normal
0.95
0.00485
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.126
0.0962
Data Not Normal
0.125
0.0941
Data Not Normal
0.121
0.0941
Data Not Normal
0.108
0.0941
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.974 0.972 0.972 0.972
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)
0.832
0.762
0.0916
0.098
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distributic
0.779
0.764
0.0946
0.0959
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distributic
0.535
0.764
0.0857
0.096
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.541
0.764
0.0867
0.0959
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
TDS (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.984 0.982 0.975 0.985
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.945
0.00268
Data Not Lognormal
0.938
4.5228E-4
Data Not Lognormal
0.934
1.8795E-4
Data Not Lognormal
0.947
0.00312
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.103
0.0962
Data Not Lognormal
0.103
0.0941
Data Not Lognormal
0.0879
0.0941
Data Appear Lognormal
0.0969
0.0941
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
TOC
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 89 14 75 73 2 2.67%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
2
1
1
1
1
0
73
0.155
11
1.13
0.701
1.726
75
0.155
11
1.127
0.741
1.702
75
0.155
11
1.114
0.7
1.705
75
0.155
11
1.118
0.701
1.705
75
0.0275
11
1.109
0.7
1.708
75
0.155
11
1.115
0.7
1.705
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
1.251
1.209
0.903
-0.328
0.827
-2.524
1.282
1.239
0.879
-0.319
0.817
-2.563
1.265
1.223
0.881
-0.337
0.818
-2.424
1.189
1.15
0.933
-0.372
0.899
-2.413
-
-
-
-0.336
0.818
-2.434
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.667 0.666 0.664 0.666
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.475
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.473
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.471
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.474
0
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.306
0.104
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.307
0.102
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.304
0.102
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.305
0.102
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.854 0.85 0.85 0.856
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)
3.886
0.775
0.172
0.107
Data Not Gamma Distributed
3.892
0.775
0.18
0.105
Data Not Gamma Distributed
4.094
0.775
0.174
0.106
Data Not Gamma Distributed
3.665
0.777
0.167
0.106
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
TOC (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.969 0.969 0.968 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)
0.939
0.00227
Data Not Lognormal
0.94
0.00224
Data Not Lognormal
0.937
0.00135
Data Not Lognormal
0.937
0.0014
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.0857
0.104
Data Appear Lognormal
0.0949
0.102
Data Appear Lognormal
0.0866
0.102
Data Appear Lognormal
0.0873
0.102
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Total Radium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
27
Number of Missing Observations
59
Number of Distinct Observations
27
Minimum
0.306
Maximum
4.013
Mean of Raw Data
1.477
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
1.107
Khat
1.934
Theta hat
0.764
Kstar
1.744
Theta star
0.847
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.11
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.781
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.94
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.87
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.923
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00259
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.185
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.167
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.983
A-D Test Statistic
0.523
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.757
K-S Test Statistic
0.15
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.171
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.984
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.951
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.923
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.241
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.117
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.167
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProLICL 5.12/10/2020 4:14:27 PM
From File HF Lee_BG_Soil_Data_Boxplots.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 0.95
pH
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
25
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Distinct Observations
24
Minimum
4.1
Maximum
5.87
Mean of Raw Data
5.058
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.434
Khat
139.2
Theta hat
0.0363
Kstar
122.5
Theta star
0.0413
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.617
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.087
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.995
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.987
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.918
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.982
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0764
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.173
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.993
A-D Test Statistic
0.15
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.742
K-S Test Statistic
0.0799
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.174
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.992
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.982
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.918
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.919
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0879
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.173
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Aluminum
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
25
Minimum
1700
Maximum
25000
Mean of Raw Data
10670
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
7302
Khat
1.969
Theta hat
5419
Kstar
1.767
Theta star
6037
Mean of Log Transformed Data
9
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.814
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.963
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.91
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0274
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.179
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.97
A-D Test Statistic
0.322
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.758
K-S Test Statistic
0.0953
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.173
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.977
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.939
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.137
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.1
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Arsenic
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 26 0 26 23 3 11.54%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
3
0.38
1.1
0.673
0.54
0.378
23
0.21
2
0.872
0.8
0.512
26
0.21
2
0.849
0.795
0.496
26
0.19
2
0.81
0.705
0.514
26
0.154
2
0.814
0.706
0.513
26
0.21
2
0.815
0.705
0.508
26
0.21
2
0.816
0.705
0.507
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
2.837
2.496
0.307
-0.323
0.658
-2.036
2.938
2.625
0.289
-0.343
0.639
-1.861
2.503
2.239
0.324
-0.423
0.696
-1.644
2.654
2.374
0.307
-0.404
0.668
-1.654
-
-
-
-0.4
0.66
-1.65
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.973 0.971 0.965 0.968
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)
0.938
0.914
Data Appear Normal
0.933
0.92
Data Appear Normal
0.919
0.92
Data Not Normal
0.927
0.92
Data Appear Normal
0.124
0.18
Data Appear Normal
0.139
0.17
Data Appear Normal
0.144
0.17
Data Appear Normal
0.146
0.17
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.99 0.992 0.99 0.991
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)
0.205
0.751
0.0799
0.183
0.187
0.751
0.084
0.172
0.259
0.754
0.0856
0.173
0.255
0.753
0.0857
0.173
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Arsenic (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.983 0.988 0.984 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)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.954
0.914
Data Appear Lognormal
0.962
0.92
Data Appear Lognormal
0.953
0.92
Data Appear Lognormal
0.962
0.92
Data Appear Lognormal
0.118
0.18
Data Appear Lognormal
0.105
0.17
Data Appear Lognormal
0.106
0.17
Data Appear Lognormal
0.0982
0.17
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Barium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
21
Minimum
5.2
Maximum
58
Mean of Raw Data
21.2
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
14.1
Khat
2.67
Theta hat
7.941
Kstar
2.387
Theta star
8.88
Mean of Log Transformed Data
2.855
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.644
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.936
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.871
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00334
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.182
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.989
A-D Test Statistic
0.455
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.753
K-S Test Statistic
0.142
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.173
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.991
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.973
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.723
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.107
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Beryllium
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 26 0 26 24 2 7.69%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
2
0.057
0.11
0.0835
0.0835
0.0375
24
0.045
1
0.24
0.13
0.261
26
0.045
1
0.228
0.125
0.254
26
0.0285
1
0.225
0.125
0.256
26
-0.107
1
0.218
0.125
0.262
26
0.01
1
0.222
0.125
0.258
26
0.0391
1
0.225
0.125
0.255
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
1.335
1.196
0.18
-1.847
0.885
-0.479
1.331
1.203
0.171
-1.9
0.874
-0.46
1.227
1.111
0.183
-1.954
0.933
-0.477
1.047
0.952
0.212
-2.053
1.117
-0.544
-
-
-
-1.934
0.905
-0.468
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.833 0.821 0.828 0.856
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)
0.697
0.916
Data Not Normal
0.679
0.92
Data Not Normal
0.69
0.92
Data Not Normal
0.743
0.92
Data Not Normal
0.307
0.177
Data Not Normal
0.304
0.17
Data Not Normal
0.299
0.17
Data Not Normal
0.29
0.17
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.956 0.952 0.957 0.964
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)
1.225
0.765
0.195
0.182
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.417
0.766
0.191
0.175
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.175
0.768
0.178
0.175
Data Not Gamma Distributed
0.791
0.772
0.165
0.176
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribul

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Beryllium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.971 0.967 0.979 0.972
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)
0.933
0.916
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.925
0.92
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.952
0.92
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.934
0.92
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.128
0.177
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.141
0.17
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.114
0.17
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.124
0.17
Data
Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Calcium
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 26 0 26 19 7 26.92%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD
7 220 1200 372.9 230 364.9
19 32 240 102 82 58.77
26 32 1200 174.9 125 222.4
26 32 600 124.8 112.5 109.2
26 32 240 101 89.94 51.64
26 32 240 99.11 85.61 51.62
26 32 240 97.96 83.16 51.59
K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV
3.457 2.946 29.51 4.474 0.567 0.127
1.523 1.373 114.9 4.802 0.792 0.165
2.52 2.255 49.51 4.615 0.616 0.133
4.285 3.816 23.13 4.475 0.501 0.112
- - - 4.463 0.499 0.112
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.952 0.686 0.771 0.959
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)
0.902
0.901
Data Appear Normal
0.503
0.92
Data Not Normal
0.624
0.92
Data Not Normal
0.919
0.92
Data Not Normal
0.206
0.197
Data Not Normal
0.329
0.17
Data Not Normal
0.252
0.17
Data Not Normal
0.16
0.17
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.991 0.826 0.879 0.992
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)
0.334
0.747
0.153
0.2
1.039
0.761
0.193
0.174
0.747
0.754
0.16
0.173
0.277
0.747
0.117
0.172
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Calcium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.992 0.962 0.974 0.994
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)
0.975
0.901
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.934
0.92
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.96
0.92
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.984
0.92
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.117
0.197
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.143
0.17
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.11
0.17
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.122
0.17
Data
Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Chloride
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 26 1 25 17 8 32.00%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
8
10
13
11.5
11.5
0.926
17
1.1
64
5.965
2.1
15.02
25
1.1
64
7.736
4
12.55
25
1.1
64
5.896
4
12.27
25
-1.4
64
5.629
2.2
12.54
25
0.01
64
4.882
1.4
12.52
25
1.1
64
4.83
2.2
12.39
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
0.68
0.599
8.768
0.894
1.005
1.124
0.89
0.81
8.688
1.388
1.103
0.794
0.955
0.867
6.173
1.167
0.916
0.785
0.531
0.494
9.189
0.401
1.794
4.471
-
-
-
0.861
0.858
0.996
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.553 0.684 0.554 0.61
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)
0.336
0.892
Data Not Normal
0.498
0.918
Data Not Normal
0.338
0.918
Data Not Normal
0.405
0.918
Data Not Normal
0.454
0.207
Data Not Normal
0.299
0.173
Data Not Normal
0.44
0.173
Data Not Normal
0.384
0.173
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.803 0.863 0.753 0.821
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)
2.84
0.782
0.306
0.218
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.329
0.778
0.197
0.18
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.308
0.775
0.29
0.18
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.007
0.804
0.245
0.184
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Chloride (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.851 0.949 0.912 0.852
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)
0.742
0.892
Data Not Lognormal
0.894
0.918
Data Not Lognormal
0.843
0.918
Data Not Lognormal
0.745
0.918
Data Not Lognormal
0.23
0.207
Data Not Lognormal
0.173
0.173
Data Not Lognormal
0.181
0.173
Data Not Lognormal
0.233
0.173
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Chromium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
24
Minimum
1.4
Maximum
47
Mean of Raw Data
10.61
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
10.2
Khat
1.373
Theta hat
7.728
Kstar
1.24
Theta star
8.555
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.956
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.951
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.882
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.791
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.5398E-5
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.236
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.978
A-D Test Statistic
0.37
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.765
K-S Test Statistic
0.128
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.175
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.988
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.966
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.55
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0934
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Cobalt
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 26 1 25 23 2 8.00%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
2
0.53
0.76
0.645
0.645
0.163
23
0.29
9.8
2.139
1
2.591
25
0.29
9.8
2.019
0.93
2.515
25
0.265
9.8
1.993
0.93
2.531
25
-0.639
9.8
1.934
0.93
2.58
25
0.01
9.8
1.968
0.93
2.549
25
0.29
9.8
1.999
0.93
2.527
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
1.092
0.979
1.958
0.237
1
4.215
1.097
0.992
1.841
0.182
0.977
5.376
1.022
0.926
1.951
0.126
1.032
8.17
0.727
0.666
2.709
-0.15
1.647
-10.97
-
-
-
0.142
1.013
7.135
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.827 0.812 0.817 0.845
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)
0.688
0.914
Data Not Normal
0.666
0.918
Data Not Normal
0.672
0.918
Data Not Normal
0.722
0.918
Data Not Normal
0.289
0.18
Data Not Normal
0.287
0.173
Data Not Normal
0.283
0.173
Data Not Normal
0.274
0.173
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.967 0.961 0.966 0.977
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)
0.995
0.768
0.209
0.186
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.261
0.771
0.227
0.179
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.104
0.773
0.21
0.179
Data Not Gamma Distributed
0.593
0.786
0.143
0.182
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Cobalt (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.978 0.973 0.977 0.972
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)
0.948
0.914
Data Appear Lognormal
0.936
0.918
Data Appear Lognormal
0.941
0.918
Data Appear Lognormal
0.932
0.918
Data Appear Lognormal
0.159
0.18
Data Appear Lognormal
0.174
0.173
Data Not Lognormal
0.149
0.173
Data Appear Lognormal
0.156
0.173
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Copper
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Minimum
0.37
Maximum
17
Mean of Raw Data
4.67
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
4.551
Khat
1.188
Theta hat
3.932
Kstar
1.076
Theta star
4.339
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.064
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.06
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.907
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.818
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.3410E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.208
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.988
A-D Test Statistic
0.311
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.769
K-S Test Statistic
0.0982
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.176
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.99
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.969
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.613
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.113
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Iron
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
22
Minimum
540
Maximum
22000
Mean of Raw Data
6980
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
6041
Khat
1.321
Theta hat
5283
Kstar
1.195
Theta star
5843
Mean of Log Transformed Data
8.427
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.017
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.933
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.862
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00207
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.206
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.974
A-D Test Statistic
0.415
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.766
K-S Test Statistic
0.112
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.175
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.984
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.958
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.371
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.114
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Lead
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
25
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Minimum
1.6
Maximum
14
Mean of Raw Data
6.068
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
3.518
Khat
3.242
Theta hat
1.872
Kstar
2.879
Theta star
2.107
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.641
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.593
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.956
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.904
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.918
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0227
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.128
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.173
Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.986
A-D Test Statistic
0.215
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.751
K-S Test Statistic
0.0949
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.176
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.993
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.976
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.918
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.802
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0694
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.173
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Magnesium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
22
Minimum
50
Maximum
2000
Mean of Raw Data
468.7
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
522.2
Khat
1.129
Theta hat
415.2
Kstar
1.024
Theta star
457.6
Mean of Log Transformed Data
5.646
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.032
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.855
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.732
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.1713E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.269
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.973
A-D Test Statistic
0.65
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.77
K-S Test Statistic
0.144
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.176
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.989
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.966
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.55
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0856
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Manganese
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
21
Minimum
4.9
Maximum
110
Mean of Raw Data
29.73
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
28.25
Khat
1.734
Theta hat
17.15
Kstar
1.559
Theta star
19.07
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.077
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.769
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.838
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.704
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.6836E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.308
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.945
A-D Test Statistic
1.335
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.76
K-S Test Statistic
0.216
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.174
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.971
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.942
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.159
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.157
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Nickel
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 26 0 26 24 2 7.69%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
2
1.8
2
1.9
1.9
0.141
24
0.61
9.2
3.637
2.9
2.468
26
0.61
9.2
3.503
2.75
2.414
26
0.61
9.2
3.43
2.75
2.478
26
0.244
9.2
3.387
2.75
2.527
26
0.61
9.2
3.415
2.75
2.494
26
0.61
9.2
3.441
2.75
2.467
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
2.38
2.111
1.528
1.067
0.706
0.662
2.428
2.173
1.443
1.034
0.687
0.665
2.135
1.914
1.607
0.981
0.743
0.757
2.034
1.825
1.679
0.963
0.771
0.801
-
-
-
0.991
0.729
0.736
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.935 0.924 0.93 0.941
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.866
0.916
Data Not Normal
0.848
0.92
Data Not Normal
0.857
0.92
Data Not Normal
0.878
0.92
Data Not Normal
0.237
0.177
Data Not Normal
0.242
0.17
Data Not Normal
0.229
0.17
Data Not Normal
0.222
0.17
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.971 0.97 0.973 0.973
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)
0.51
0.754
0.156
0.18
0.646
0.754
0.161
0.173
0.513
0.756
0.14
0.173
0.457
0.757
0.135
0.173
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Nickel (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.984 0.984 0.986 0.986
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)
0.963
0.916
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.963
0.92
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.961
0.92
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.963
0.92
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.118
0.177
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.118
0.17
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.112
0.17
Data
Appear Lognormal
0.113
0.17
Data
Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Potassium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
21
Minimum
45
Maximum
730
Mean of Raw Data
275.9
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
219.4
Khat
1.74
Theta hat
158.6
Kstar
1.565
Theta star
176.3
Mean of Log Transformed Data
5.306
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.839
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.915
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.823
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.9673E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.278
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.955
A-D Test Statistic
0.622
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.76
K-S Test Statistic
0.179
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.174
Data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.979
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.942
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.159
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.135
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Strontium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Minimum
0.58
Maximum
5.9
Mean of Raw Data
2.185
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
1.396
Khat
2.744
Theta hat
0.796
Kstar
2.453
Theta star
0.891
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.588
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.648
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.938
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.876
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0043
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.188
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.981
A-D Test Statistic
0.405
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.752
K-S Test Statistic
0.147
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.173
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.983
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.955
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.328
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.111
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Thallium
Appendix B
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 26 1 25 24 1 4.00%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
1
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
N/A
24
0.028
0.27
0.0898
0.066
0.0669
25
0.028
0.27
0.091
0.069
0.0657
25
0.028
0.27
0.0886
0.063
0.0657
25
0.028
0.27
0.0891
0.069
0.0656
25
0.028
0.27
0.0886
0.063
0.0657
25
0.028
0.27
0.0886
0.063
0.0657
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
2.583
2.288
0.0347
-2.617
0.626
-0.239
2.662
2.37
0.0342
-2.597
0.621
-0.239
2.65
2.359
0.0334
-2.624
0.614
-0.234
2.653
2.362
0.0334
-2.624
0.614
-0.234
-
-
-
-2.624
0.614
-0.234
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.875 0.888 0.869 0.871
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)
0.766
0.916
Data Not Normal
0.787
0.918
Data Not Normal
0.755
0.918
Data Not Normal
0.759
0.918
Data Not Normal
0.29
0.177
Data Not Normal
0.266
0.173
Data Not Normal
0.291
0.173
Data Not Normal
0.294
0.173
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.957 0.965 0.953 0.953
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)
0.937
0.753
0.207
0.18
Data Not Gamma Distributed
0.766
0.753
0.185
0.176
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.06
0.753
0.208
0.176
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.06
0.753
0.209
0.176
Data Not Gamma Distributed

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Thallium (Continud)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.975 0.982 0.972 0.972
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)
0.942
0.916
Data Appear Lognormal
0.954
0.918
Data Appear Lognormal
0.937
0.918
Data Appear Lognormal
0.937
0.918
Data Appear Lognormal
0.161
0.177
Data Appear Lognormal
0.141
0.173
Data Appear Lognormal
0.162
0.173
Data Appear Lognormal
0.163
0.173
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Vanadium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Minimum
2.5
Maximum
72
Mean of Raw Data
23.1
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
20.19
Khat
1.444
Theta hat
16
Kstar
1.303
Theta star
17.73
Mean of Log Transformed Data
2.755
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.943
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.922
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.841
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 7.0031 E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.157
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.983
A-D Test Statistic
0.266
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.763
K-S Test Statistic
0.0945
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.174
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.991
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.969
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.623
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0876
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Zinc
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
22
Minimum
1.4
Maximum
43
Mean of Raw Data
12.33
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
10.97
Khat
1.55
Theta hat
7.952
Kstar
1.397
Theta star
8.824
Mean of Log Transformed Data
2.156
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.889
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.897
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.804
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.2169E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.24
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.977
A-D Test Statistic
0.452
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.761
K-S Test Statistic
0.139
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.174
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.988
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.97
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.638
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.093
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

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

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Outlier Tests for Selected Uncensored Variables
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.11/27/2020 8:20:40 AM
From File bg_gw_dataset_hf_lee_b.xls
Full Precision OFF
Dixon's Outlier Test for Calcium
Number of Observations = 11
10% critical value: 0.517
5% critical value: 0.576
1 % critical value: 0.679
1. Observation Value 32 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.794
For 10% significance level, 32 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 32 is an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 32 is an outlier.
2. Observation Value 24.5 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.320
For 10% significance level, 24.5 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 24.5 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 24.5 is not an outlier.
Appendix C

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Outlier Tests for Selected Uncensored Variables
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProLICL 5.11/27/2020 7:46:11 AM
From File bg_soil_dataset_hf_lee.xls
Full Precision OFF
Rosner's Outlier Test for Beryllium
Mean 0.228
Standard Deviation 0.254
Number of data 26
Number of suspected outliers 5
Potential
Obs.
Test
Critical
Critical
# Mean
sd
outlier
Number
value
value (5%)
value (1 %)
1 0.228
0.249
1
2
3.102
2.84
3.16
2 0.197
0.203
0.82
3
3.067
2.82
3.14
3 0.171
0.16
0.65
5
3.001
2.8
3.11
4 0.15
0.126
0.64
4
3.902
2.78
3.09
5 0.128
0.0676
0.27
6
2.105
2.76
3.06
For 5% significance level, there are 4 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
1, 0.82, 0.65, 0.64
For 1 % Significance Level, there are 4 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
1, 0.82, 0.65, 0.64
Appendix C

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Rosner's Outlier Test for Magnesium
Mean
468.7
Standard Deviation
522.2
Number of data
26
Number of suspected outliers
5
Potential
Obs.
Test
Critical
Critical
#
Mean sd
outlier
Number
value
value (5%)
value (1 %)
1
468.7 512
2000
2
2.991
2.84
3.16
2
407.4 427.1
1700
3
3.026
2.82
3.14
3
353.6 338.6
1400
5
3.09
2.8
3.11
4
308.1 260.7
1200
4
3.422
2.78
3.09
5
267.5 177.7
730
24
2.602
2.76
3.06
For 5% significance level, there are 4 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
2000,1700,1400,1200
For 1 % Significance Level, there are 4 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
2000,1700,1400,1200
Appendix C

H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Rosner's Outlier Test for Manganese
Mean 29.73
Standard Deviation 28.25
Number of data 26
Number of suspected outliers 5
Potential
Obs.
Test
Critical
Critical
# Mean
sd
outlier
Number
value
value (5%)
value (1 %)
1 29.73
27.7
110
2
2.897
2.84
3.16
2 26.52
23.5
98
4
3.041
2.82
3.14
3 23.54
18.57
84
3
3.255
2.8
3.11
4 20.91
13.68
72
5
3.733
2.78
3.09
5 18.59
8.138
38
13
2.385
2.76
3.06
For 5% significance level, there are 4 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
110, 98, 84, 72
For 1 % Significance Level, there are 4 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
110, 98, 84, 72
Appendix C