Signed LVSutton 1971 Basin Closure Certification_Rev2

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
DUKE
4 10 S. Wilmington Street.
Raleigh, NC 27601
E N E RGY®
Mailing Address
Mail Code NC 15
Raleigh, NC 27601
919-546-7863
August 28, 2019
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Attn: Mr. Steve Lanter
512 North Salisbury Street
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
Re: L.V. Sutton Energy Complex
1971 Ash Basin Documentation of Excavation to Pre -Determined Depths
Dear Mr. Lanter:
Duke Energy Progress, LLC. (DEP) has completed the removal of ash from the 1971 ash basin at the L.V.
Sutton Energy Complex located near Wilmington, North Carolina. The material was removed by both
standard mechanical excavation methods and by dredging. Prior to commencement of dredging in fall
2017, a Geoprobe® investigation was completed on approximately 100-foot grids to determine the
ash/soil interface and at approximately one foot below that, obtain a soil sample for polarized light
microscopy (PLM) testing. Where PLM results determined ash less than 50%, that location was
established as the target grade for excavation of the 1971 ash basin. The volume of the 1971 ash basin
was calculated from the target grade to contain approximately 3,246,300 cubic yards of ash. Note that
within this total includes approximately 142,000 cubic yards of soil (zone from ash/soil interface to the
depth where soil sample determined ash less than 50% by PLM to establish target grade).
During dredging, localized areas of refusal (sandstone) were encountered and documented in a
memorandum submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in January
2019. The volume of refusal was surveyed and estimated at 2,300 cubic yards. DEP received DEQ
concurrence of refusal via letter dated February 11, 2019 which requested information regarding two bullets
(DEP response in italic font):
• Revised estimated volume of coal ash that was stored in the basin
Estimated at 3,244,000 cubic yards from target grade
• Revised base of excavation elevation map showing areas of dredging refusal
See enclosed Figure 1
Note that the volume of materials which were over -excavated from the target grades with the 1971
basin due to equipment capabilities and tree stumps encountered during dredging was estimated at
325,000 cubic yards. The enclosed report dated August 20, 2019 from Geosyntec Consultants of North
Carolina, PC documents the closure certification of the 1971 ash basin.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Mr. Steve Lanter
August 28, 2019
If you have any questions or need any clarification regarding the information provided, feel free to
contact me at iohn.toepfer@duke-ener>;v.com or at 919-546-7863 at your convenience.
AReselly submitted,
ohnp Lead Engineer, Duke Energy EHS CCP
Waste & Groundwater Programs
cc: Ed Sullivan — Duke Energy
Larry Frost - DEQ
enc: 1971 Basin Closure Certification, dated August 20, 2019, prepared by Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71 F
Geosynteccl
consultants
Geosyntec Co n su It ant s of NC, P.C.
Mr. Thomas A. Sylvester, PE, PMP, MBA
Coal Combustion Products (CCP)
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
801 Sutton Steam Plant Rd.
Wilmington, NC 28401
Subject: 1971 Basin Closure Certification
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex
Wilmington, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Sylvester:
1300 South Mint Street, Suite 300
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
PH 704.227.0840
engineering license C-3500
geology license C-295
www.geosyntec.com
20 August 2019
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC (Geosyntec) prepared this Closure Certification Report
(Report) for 1971 Basin at the L.V. Sutton Energy Complex (Sutton), located near Wilmington,
North Carolina (NC). The purpose of this Report is to document information associated with
completion of 1971 Basin excavation and closure activities. The remainder of this Report is
organized to present: (i) background; (ii) bathymetric survey; (iii) additional confirmatory
investigation; and (iv) closing.
1 BACKGROUND
Geosyntec conducted a subsurface investigation within the 1971 Basin in June through August
2017 while coal combustion residuals (CCR) above water level were mechanically excavated.
The subsurface investigation consisted of 227 Geoprobe® borings on an approximately 100-ft by
100-ft grid and polarized light microscopy (PLM) examination of 235 samples collected from the
borings, pursuant to an approach proposed by Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy) and
approved by North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) on 14 June 2017.
The proposed approach was to account for presence of CCR below the water level within 1971
basin and provided an alternative to the original confirmatory testing procedure presented by
NCDEQ in a letter dated 4 November 2016. Geosyntec prepared and submitted the 1971 Basin
Closure Investigation Report (Investigation Report), dated 16 October 2017, to NCDEQ via
Duke Energy. The Investigation Report includes target base of excavation grades (Target
Grades) in the basin, provided in Appendix A, established as part of the basin closure criteria for
areas where CCR to be excavated were present under water.
Subsequently, the contractor encountered dredging refusal in localized areas during the CCR
excavation. The unanticipated site conditions were reported by Duke Energy to NCDEQ
GC6473/LVSutton 1971 Basin Closure Certification
engineers I scientists I innovators

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71 F
Mr. Thomas A. Sylvester, PE, PMP, MBA
20 August 2019
Page 2
(Appendix B) who later issued additional requirements for certification/completion (e.g., revised
excavation grades) in a letter dated 11 February 2019 (Appendix Q.
The contractor completed CCR excavation within the 1971 Basin in May 2019. The
confirmatory investigations were conducted underwater and on -land as detailed in subsequent
sections.
2 BATHYMETRIC SURVEY
McKim & Creed provided bathymetric survey results dated 23 July 2019 as shown in Appendix
D. The survey results were compared with the Target Grades (Appendix A) at the boring
locations. The comparison is summarized in Table 1 and indicates the following:
• The excavated grades met the Target Grades at most boring locations;
• Dredging refusal was encountered in localized areas as shown in Figure 1;
• The volume of materials which were not excavated to the Target Grades due to dredging
refusal was estimated approximately 2,300 cubic yards;
• The volume of materials which were over -excavated from the Target Grades within the
bathymetric survey area due to equipment capabilities and tree stumps encountered
during dredging was estimated approximately 325,000 cubic yards;
• The Target Grades in the eastern corner of the 1971 Basin are above water. Additional
confirmatory investigation was performed in accordance with Excavation Soil Sampling
Plan Revision 2 prepared by Duke Energy (Attachment A of Appendix E) in the area
above water. Details on the additional confirmatory investigation are provided in Section
3;
• Bathymetric survey was not conducted along the edge of water near the dikes due to
access limitations (e.g., navigable depths) of the survey vessel; and
• Confirmatory investigations were not performed in some areas above the water elevation
due to field personnel's health and safety risks during access to those areas.
Based on the survey results provided, the estimated volume of CCR impounded in the 1971
Basin was revised to be approximately 3,244,000 cubic yards by subtracting the volume of
materials not excavated in the dredging refusal areas (i.e., approximately 2,300 cubic yards) from
the previously estimated CCR volume in the basin. The revised volume includes an additional
volume of approximately 142,000 cubic yards from the soil/CCR interface determined by visual
classification to the Target Grades established based on the PLM examination results. The
revised base of excavation (i.e., bathymetric survey results) is shown along with the dredging
refusal areas in Figure 1.
3 ADDITIONAL CONFIRMATORY INVESTIGATION
As described above, additional confirmatory investigation was conducted in the eastern corner of
the 1971 Basin in June 2019 under a supervision of Mr. James McNash, P.E.(Nc). The
GC6473/LVSutton 1971 Basin Closure Certification
engineers I scientists I innovators

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71 F
Mr. Thomas A. Sylvester, PE, PMP, MBA
20 August 2019
Page 3
investigation consisted of nine hand -auger borings and PLM examination of 18 samples. PLM
examination results indicate that all samples contain less than 50 percent fly ash, a majority of
which did not detect any fly ash. The confirmatory investigation is further described in
Appendix E.
4 CLOSING
Geosyntec appreciates the opportunity to submit this Report. If Duke Energy has any questions
regarding this Report, please contact the undersigned at 704 227 0844.
.•�'`*��"�►►r► Sincerely,
•'"��;`� cAR�L�'' by:
DocuSi ned
.: ��.OF�551�' .y � g
qto
` SEAL
D40896
28 August 2019
'�;�GINE� ' ` Woo�ueri ( 'eston)4�f18ri; Ph.D., P.E.(Nc, sc)
�'�Q+fCtJ i N so "' Senior Engineer
amasceno, D., P.E. c, FL>
Princ* al Engineer
Attachments: Table 1 — Comparison of Target Base of Excavation Grades with Excavated Grades
Figure 1 — Revised Base of Excavation
Appendix A — Target Base of Excavation (from 1971 Basin Closure Investigation
Report)
Appendix B
— Duke Energy's Email on Unanticipated Site Conditions
Appendix C
— NCDEQ Letter (Dated 11 February 2019)
Appendix D
— Record Drawing
Appendix E —
Additional Confirmatory Investigation Report
GC6473/LVSutton 1971 Basin Closure Certification
engineers I scientists I innovators

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
TABLE

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
Table 1. Comparison of Target Base of Excavation Grades with Excavated Grades
Boring ID
EastingIll
Northing[']
Target Base
of Excavation
Elevation[']
Elevation of
Excavated
Gradel'l
Differential[21
GB-OOIA
2306218.8
197903.2
2.5
0.8
1.7
GB-002
2306276.0
197925.9
5.6
N.S.
N/A
GB-003
2306245.5
197908.9
2.5
1.0
1.5
GB-004
2306159.7
197911.9
3.2
0.2
3.0
GB-005
2306048.5
197938.3
3.2
1.4
1.8
GB-006
2306361.8
198021.6
6.9
N.S.
N/A
GB-007
2306240.5
198004.5
6.2
-0.7
6.9
GB-008
2306149.3
197995.5
3.6
0.2
3.4
GB-009
2306045.4
198008.9
2.2
-1.1
3.3
GB-010
2305948.3
198015.5
4.0
0.7
3.3
GB-011
2305864.1
198053.9
6.6
5.9
0.7
GB-012
2306403.8
198107.4
9.3
N.S.
N/A
GB-013
2306345.5
198109.1
9.5
N.S.
N/A
GB-014
2306245.5
198109.0
7.5
3.4
4.1
GB-015A
2306147.4
198085.8
2.4
-1.7
4.1
GB-016
2306045.5
198109.0
-2.1
-16.1
14.0
GB-017
2305945.5
198109.0
8.1
-10.2
18.3
GB-018
2305845.4
198109.0
8.2
5.1
3.1
GB-019
2305745.5
198109.0
6.8
5.8
1.0
GB-020
2305656.6
198151.9
6.5
2.4
4.1
GB-021
2306441.7
198208.9
10.0
N.S.
N/A
GB-022
2306345.6
198208.8
13.7
N.S.
N/A
GB-023
2306237.3
198210.9
8.7
0.3
8.4
GB-024
2306117.7
198207.6
-20.8
-25.5
4.7
GB-025
2306045.5
198208.9
-35.6
-35.1
-0.5[5]
GB-026
2305945.5
198209.0
-25.2
-27.9
2.7
GB-026B
2305944.0
198190.7
-20.5
-25.2
4.7
GB-027
2305845.5
198208.9
-5.0
-20.5
15.5
GB-028
2305745.5
198209.0
7.9
1.7
6.2
GB-029
2305645.6
198209.2
7.4
6.2
1.2
GB-030
2305545.6
198208.9
6.8
5.9
0.9
GB-031
2305448.6
198248.3
7.6
5.1
2.5
GB-032
2306424.9
198308.6
10.7
N.S.
N/A
GB-033
2306356.1
198301.2
9.8
N.S.
N/A
GB-034
2306133.8
198320.4
-16.1
-18.8
2.7
GB-035
2306045.4
198309.1
-41.7
-38.6
-3.1[6]
Page 1 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
Table 1. Comparison of Target Base of Excavation Grades with Excavated Grades
(Cont'd)
Boring ID
Eastingl'I
Northing[']
Target Base
of Excavation
Elevation']
Elevation of
Excavated
Grade[']
Differential[2]
GB-036
2305945.5
198309.0
-40.5
-41.2
0.7
GB-037A
2305848.4
198309.5
-40.0
-41.7
1.7
GB-038
2305745.5
198308.9
-25.5
-28.7
3.2
GB-039
2305652.9
198322.9
-7.8
-13.0
5.2
GB-040
2305545.6
198308.9
8.6
3.6
5.0
GB-041
2305445.2
198308.8
7.5
3.0
4.5
GB-042
2305345.6
198309.0
4.6
1.3
3.3
GB-043
2306252.1
198309.2
10.1
N.S.
N/A
GB-044
2305251.6
198528.5
2.4
-7.0
9.4
GB-045
2306345.7
198411.6
9.0
N.S.
N/A
GB-046
2306237.3
198408.2
14.3
N.S.
N/A
GB-047
2306145.4
198408.9
12.4
N.S.
N/A
GB-048
2306045.3
198409.0
-9.2
-13.9
4.7
GB-049
2305945.4
198408.8
-41.3
-41.6
0.3
GB-050
2305845.5
198409.0
-43.0
-37.2
-5.8[6]
GB-051
2305745.5
198409.0
-30.8
-34.0
3.2
GB-052
2305645.5
198408.9
-21.8
-25.1
3.3
GB-053
2305545.4
198408.9
-16.8
-20.1
3.3
GB-054
2305445.3
198409.0
9.0
-4.8
13.8
GB-055
2305345.6
198482.7
8.2
-9.0
17.2
GB-056
2305218.5
198470.6
2.7
-3.1
5.8
GB-057
2305154.4
198482.9
2.1
-11.6
13.7
GB-058
2306397.1
198410.1
8.4
N.S.
N/A
GB-059
2304998.6
198490.9
0.8
-3.7
4.5
GB-060
2306260.7
198457.9
15.0
N.S.
N/A
GB-061
2306347.7
198498.4
16.0
N.S.
N/A
GB-062
2306028.0
198507.8
12.8
N.S.
N/A
GB-063
2305945.6
198509.0
-16.2
-18.4
2.2
GB-064
2305845.5
198508.8
-34.6
-35.1
0.5
GB-065
2305745.5
198509.0
-40.8
-42.1
1.3
GB-066
2305645.5
198509.1
-39.5
-42.3
2.8
GB-067
2305545.5
198509.0
-34.7
-39.2
4.5
GB-068
2305445.5
198509.0
-23.8
-28.9
5.1
GB-069
2305345.5
198509.1
6.1
-9.7
15.8
GB-070
2305245.5
198508.9
3.3
-3.2
6.5
Page 2 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
Table 1. Comparison of Target Base of Excavation Grades with Excavated Grades
(Cont'd)
Boring ID
Eastingl'I
Northing[']
Target Base
of Excavation
Elevation']
Elevation of
Excavated
Grade[']
Differential[2]
GB-071
2305145.6
198509.0
2.9
-11.1
14.0
GB-072
2305045.5
198508.9
1.9
-4.2
6.1
GB-073
2304922.8
198525.0
1.3
-5.7
7.0
GB-074
2304849.8
198565.7
0.7
-4.2
4.9
GB-075
2304788.7
198616.5
2.0
-4.6
6.6
GB-076
2304633.1
198682.7
-16.0
-19.0
3.0
GB-077
2305945.5
198609.0
14.4
N.S.
N/A
GB-078
2305845.4
198609.0
-25.8
-30.6
4.8
GB-079
2305745.5
198609.0
-35.3
-38.7
3.4
GB-080
2305645.4
198609.0
-40.2
-42.3
2.1
GB-081
2305545.6
198609.0
-39.2
-41.1
1.9
GB-082
2305445.5
198609.0
-31.7
-32.5
0.8
GB-083
2305345.5
198608.9
-1.7
-6.4
4.7
GB-084
2305245.5
198609.0
3.5
-8.3
11.8
GB-085
2305145.4
198609.0
1.3
-7.4
8.7
GB-086
2305045.5
198608.9
3.3
-6.0
9.3
GB-087
2304945.5
198608.9
3.6
-3.8
7.4
GB-088
2304845.4
198609.0
-2.5
-4.9
2.4
GB-089
2304744.9
198639.4
1.9
-9.6
11.5
GB-090
2304687.8
198669.8
-4.6
-9.3
4.7
GB-091
2304469.7
198643.9
0.7
-4.1
4.8
GB-092
2305884.2
198662.2
9.4
-5.9
15.3
GB-093
2305845.5
198708.9
12.8
3.0
9.8
GB-094
2305745.5
198708.9
-30.6
-37.3
6.7
GB-095
2305645.5
198709.0
-40.6
-42.9
2.3
GB-096
2305545.5
198709.0
-40.5
-41.3
0.8
GB-097
2305445.5
198708.9
-30.8
-33.3
2.5
GB-098
2305345.6
198709.0
4.2
-10.3
14.5
GB-099
2305245.5
198708.9
3.4
-6.9
10.3
GB-100
2305145.5
198709.0
4.7
-6.8
11.5
GB-101
2305045.6
198709.0
4.0
-1.7
5.7
GB-102
2304945.5
198709.0
4.2
-4.5
8.7
GB-103
2304845.5
198709.0
-1.2
-7.5
6.3
GB-104
2304745.5
198708.9
-6.3
-12.1
5.8
GB-105
2304645.5
198709.0
-10.9
-16.0
5.1
Page 3 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
Table 1. Comparison of Target Base of Excavation Grades with Excavated Grades
(Cont'd)
Boring ID
Eastingl'I
Northing[']
Target Base
of Excavation
Elevation']
Elevation of
Excavated
Grade[']
Differential[2]
GB-106
2304527.1
198713.8
0.3
-5.2
5.5
GB-107
2304345.0
198779.4
-0.9
-3.4
2.5
GB-108
2304445.5
198709.0
-0.2
-2.4
2.2
GB-109
2304272.1
198825.4
-2.2
-3.6
1.4
GB-110
2305792.1
198808.3
13.7
-0.1
13.8
GB-111
2305745.5
198809.0
-2.2
-12.8
10.6
GB-112
2305645.5
198809.0
-31.6
-37.9
6.3
GB-113
2305545.5
198809.0
-37.3
-39.1
1.8
GB-114
2305445.5
198808.9
-25.7
-30.8
5.1
GB-115
2305345.5
198809.0
-4.8
-12.2
7.4
GB-116
2305245.5
198809.0
-1.2
-5.3
4.1
GB-117
2305145.5
198809.0
-1.9
-13.8
11.9
GB-118
2305045.5
198809.0
-14.8
-17.4
2.6
GB-119
2304945.5
198808.9
-19.0
-26.3
7.3
GB-120
2304845.5
198808.9
-24.7
-25.8
1.1
GB-121
2304745.5
198809.0
-15.6
-15.1
-0.5[5]
GB-122
2304645.5
198809.0
2.4
-3.1
5.5
GB-123
2304545.5
198808.9
0.8
-1.6
2.4
GB-124
2304445.5
198808.9
0.4
-3.1
3.5
GB-125
2304357.0
198809.0
0.5
-3.0
3.5
GB-126
2304246.0
198852.0
-1.7
-4.1
2.4
GB-127
2304167.5
198837.0
-0.6
-1.3
0.7
GB-128
2305642.2
198904.6
-20.2
-24.9
4.7
GB-129
2305575.2
198903.3
-31.8
-34.5
2.7
GB-130
2305445.4
198909.0
-31.6
-34.4
2.8
GB-131
2305345.3
198909.2
-35.3
-38.9
3.6
GB-132
2305245.5
198909.0
-35.5
-36.7
1.2
GB-133
2305145.5
198909.0
-40.0
-38.6
-1.4[61
GB-134
2305045.5
198909.0
-41.0
-39.0
-2.0[6]
GB-135
2304945.5
198908.9
-39.9
-38.9
-1.0[61
GB-136
2304845.4
198909.0
-26.8
-28.5
1.7
GB-137
2304745.5
198909.0
3.5
-0.2
3.7
GB-138
2304645.5
198908.9
2.2
0.6
1.6
GB-139
2304545.5
198908.9
-0.9
-2.8
1.9
GB-140
2304445.5
198909.0
-1.8
-5.5
3.7
Page 4 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
Table 1. Comparison of Target Base of Excavation Grades with Excavated Grades
(Cont'd)
Boring ID
Eastingl'I
Northing[']
Target Base
of Excavation
Elevation']
Elevation of
Excavated
Grade[']
Differential[2]
GB-141
2304345.5
198908.9
-1.7
-4.0
2.3
GB-142
2304245.6
198909.0
-0.2
-2.5
2.3
GB-143
2304145.6
198909.0
9.4
N.S.
N/A
GB-144
2305716.8
198909.6
7.8
N.S.
N/A
GB-145
2305601.0
199008.9
11.9
N.S.
N/A
GB-146
2305545.5
199009.0
-3.5
-12.1
8.6
GB-147
2305445.5
199009.0
-25.6
-30.3
4.7
GB-148
2305345.6
199009.0
-39.7
-37.6
-2.1[61
GB-149
2305245.5
199009.0
-37.5
-39.4
1.9
GB-150
2305145.5
199009.0
-38.9
-40.3
1.4
GB-151A
2305045.4
199008.9
-39.7
-39.1
-0.6[51
GB-152
2304945.5
199009.0
-30.7
-34.0
3.3
GB-153
2304845.5
199009.0
3.5
-3.9
7.4
GB-154
2304745.5
199009.0
2.9
1.5
1.4
GB-155
2304645.5
199009.0
1.4
-0.9
2.3
GB-156
2304545.5
199009.0
0.0
-1.9
1.9
GB-157
2304445.5
199009.0
-0.5
-2.4
1.9
GB-158
2304248.7
198959.5
2.2
-1.0
3.2
GB-159
2304345.5
199009.0
1.0
-1.3
2.3
GB-160
2304169.4
198956.8
0.3
-0.2
0.5
GB-161
2305495.2
199107.9
14.7
N.S.
N/A
GB-162
2305445.5
199108.9
9.1
-1.7
10.8
GB-163
2305345.5
199108.9
-20.9
-22.7
1.8
GB-164
2305245.5
199109.0
-31.3
-35.5
4.2
GB-165
2305145.5
199109.0
-40.4
-40.8
0.4
GB-166
2305045.5
199109.0
-35.2
-35.8
0.6
GB-167
2304945.4
199108.9
0.1
-11.3
11.4
GB-168
2304845.5
199109.0
3.1
2.0
1.1
GB-169
2304745.5
199108.9
2.5
0.6
1.9
GB-170
2304645.5
199108.9
1.3
0.0
1.3
GB-171
2304545.5
199109.0
0.1
-1.4
1.5
GB-172
2304445.5
199109.0
0.0
-1.4
1.4
GB-173
2304345.5
199109.0
0.9
-1.8
2.7
GB-174
2304312.4
199008.5
2.6
-0.7
3.3
GB-175
2305476.0
199165.3
14.9
6.0
8.9
Page 5 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
Table 1. Comparison of Target Base of Excavation Grades with Excavated Grades
(Cont'd)
Boring ID
Eastingl'I
Northing[']
Target Base
of Excavation
Elevation']
Elevation of
Excavated
Grade[']
Differential[2]
GB-176
2305445.5
199209.0
11.0
6.0
5.0
GB-177
2305345.5
199208.9
5.7
-6.8
12.5
GB-178
2305245.5
199208.9
-16.0
-23.6
7.6
GB-179
2305145.5
199209.0
-31.0
-35.2
4.2
GB-180
2305045.5
199209.0
-20.1
-24.5
4.4
GB-181
2304945.5
199209.0
4.0
2.3
1.7
GB-182
2304845.5
199208.9
4.2
2.3
1.9
GB-183
2304745.5
199209.0
2.7
1.4
1.3
GB-184
2304645.5
199209.0
1.6
0.4
1.2
GB-185
2304545.4
199209.0
0.7
-0.5
1.2
GB-186
2304445.5
199208.9
0.9
-0.2
1.1
GB-187
2304356.0
199209.1
2.7
0.9
1.8
GB-188
2304407.4
199299.5
7.0
5.7
1.3
GB-189
2305345.5
199309.0
5.2
4.5
0.7
GB-190
2305245.5
199309.0
-1.7
-5.4
3.7
GB-191
2305145.5
199309.0
-10.0
-13.9
3.9
GB-192
2305045.5
199309.0
4.5
1.2
3.3
GB-193A
2304945.5
199308.9
4.4
3.3
1.1
GB-194
2304845.5
199309.0
4.1
3.3
0.8
GB-195
2304745.5
199309.0
3.7
2.5
1.2
GB-196
2304645.5
199309.0
1.6
-1.2
2.8
GB-197
2304545.5
199309.0
1.6
0.5
1.1
GB-198
2304445.5
199309.0
6.1
3.5
2.6
GB-199
2305442.8
199309.0
10.9
N.S.
N/A
GB-200
2305422.9
199407.1
9.3
N.S.
N/A
GB-201
2305345.5
199409.1
9.6
4.7
4.9
GB-202
2305245.5
199409.1
8.9
4.4
4.5
GB-203
2305145.4
199409.0
4.6
2.1
2.5
GB-204
2305045.5
199409.0
4.8
2.5
2.3
GB-205
2304945.4
199408.9
4.9
3.0
1.9
GB-206
2304845.5
199409.0
4.0
1.2
2.8
GB-207
2304745.5
199409.0
3.6
2.1
1.5
GB-208
2304645.4
199409.0
3.2
1.1
2.1
GB-209
2304545.5
199409.0
9.6
6.1
3.5
GB-210
2304479.8
199410.2
8.8
N.S.
N/A
Page 6 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
Table 1. Comparison of Target Base of Excavation Grades with Excavated Grades
(Cont'd)
Boring ID
Eastingl'I
Northing[']
Target Base
of Excavation
Elevation']
Elevation of
Excavated
Grade[']
Differential[2]
GB-211
2305403.8
199483.8
9.8
N.S.
N/A
GB-212
2304547.4
199508.6
11.2
N.S.
N/A
GB-213
2305341.9
199492.4
11.0
N.S.
N/A
GB-214
2305245.4
199509.0
6.3
4.5
1.8
GB-215
2305145.5
199508.9
5.3
4.2
1.1
GB-216
2305045.6
199509.0
5.5
4.1
1.4
GB-217
2304945.5
199508.9
5.2
4.3
0.9
GB-218
2304845.5
199509.0
4.4
3.5
0.9
GB-219
2304745.5
199509.0
3.2
1.2
2.0
GB-220
2304645.4
199508.9
4.3
3.8
0.5
GB-221
2304605.1
199555.8
9.9
N.S.
N/A
GB-222
2305127.5
199557.2
5.1
4.7
0.4
GB-223
2305029.4
199568.5
5.2
3.7
1.5
GB-224
2304660.1
199608.4
9.1
N.S.
N/A
GB-225
2304945.5
199599.5
6.3
N.S.
N/A
GB-226
2304845.4
199609.0
6.0
N.S.
N/A
GB-227
2304745.5
199609.0
6.3
N.S.
N/A
Notes:
[ 1 ] Coordinates are based on North Carolina State Plane grid system, North American Datum
of 1983 (feet, NAD83). Elevations are based on North American Vertical Datum of 1988
(feet, NAVD 88).
[2] Differential was obtained by Target Base of Excavation Elevation minus Elevation of
Excavated Grade. Positive numbers represent over -excavation and negative numbers
represent under -excavation.
[3] N.S. = Not Surveyed. Bathymetric survey was not conducted along the edge of water
near the dikes due to access limitations (e.g., navigable depths) of the survey vessel.
[4] N/A = Not Applicable. Differentials were not calculated where excavated grades were
not surveyed.
[5] According to the record drawing (Appendix D), typical standard deviation for cases water
depth is greater than 15 ft is ±0.8 ft.
[6] The dredging contractor encountered dredging refusal in localized areas during the CCR
excavation.
[7] The record drawing (Appendix D) indicates the elevation of water edge was
approximately Elevation 8.7 to 8.9 ft at the time of survey.
Page 7 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
FIGURE

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
0
APPROXIMATE ,MATE TOP Ov
WATERS EDGE PPpROX�
s.r-as �j o GB-213
1984 BASIN ' �j 22 13-214
Gg_223 GB-215 +GB 20`
GAB 226 ��GB-216 GB-202
GB 227 �GB-217 GB-203 GB
-224 Z 4' �1�cx
�
\ GB �GB-218r�\ B- 04 GB_1�0
APPROXIMATE ,J \J
WATERS EDGE
\ \ 87-8.9' / I !!�GB-219+GB-205 G_19GB-221 N - - J0
GB-220 2_GB-206 GB-192-20�
_
O-S178
GB-21 (
LGB-193A� -3
1/ Jlf17
� B-17
I +GB-208- + B
GB-194 GB-80 �o
l 1,�
J-A GB-209 GB-195 B-181 �+KGB-1655
/� rr C
I BGB-196' (
Gp2l� KGB-18' jj� $-166 �Q
GB 197 0, GB-f83 -167 }�"�O k, 0
/ -v�
rG�B-198O O GB-184 C G -1 `40GB-151A o
GB-188 h`GB 185 G�-J 9 G 1�5 ��!!/y r� B
GB-186 � � �B-153 '40
GB-170 � GB-134
GB�187 GB-171 B-15 ZGB 135
/oGB-172�GB-155�p ^ y� GB-136" GB-11
'4�GB-173 � GB-156 0, `G'B'f 137 _
//`( � GB
�\t ° QGB-157 �GB-13
l —159 �B 1339� 12 1 1� 1,��G V
I° GB-174 . �\
) r B-140 1�2� GB-10(J
GB-158 �
GB-1 0 GB 141 GB--1 3 GB-104 GB-087
1 GB-142� q )B 124 } GB-105 B-088 l
/COOLING
GB-143 - GB-126 GB-125 � GB-106 GB-07
+ B-107 G( GB�
/ POND \ Gv 09� ,GB-108
GB-1277 0 GB-091 B-075
B-089
B-090
NOTES:
1. COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE
PLANE GRID SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983
(FEET, NAD83). ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NORTH
AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (FEET, NAVD 88).
2. THE EXCAVATED GRADES UNDERWATER ARE BASED ON
BATHYMETRIC SURVEY CONDUCTED BY MCKIM & CREED
ON 16 AND 30 MAY 2019. THE ORIGINAL RECORD
DRAWING IS PRESENTED IN APPENDIX D. THE
CONTOURS BEYOND THE EDGE OF WATER WERE
PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY AND ARE SHOWN FOR
COMPLETENESS.
77
4�� W
opt
0
Q 4 B131r-
GB 117 y
r� 0
+GB-099 �\
�GB-100'
01 rR_
GB-086
GB-Q71 B-
GB I
7�
DISCHARGE CANAL
3. THE HATCHED AREAS REPRESENT DREDGING REFUSAL
AREAS ESTIMATED BASED ON INFORMATION REPORTED
BY THE DREDGING CONTRACTOR AND A COMPARISON
OF THE TARGET BASE OF EXCAVATION GRADES WITH
THE EXCAVATED GRADES.
06' \ 0 200
1984 BASIN 0o � o \
SCALE IN FEET
APPROXIMATE
WATERS EDGE
8.7' - 8.9'
GB-145�
\k7MgTF
'20-� `�GB-144 \poF RM
B
GB-113 ;GB-09
,GB-114+ Gg-095 B-i
GB-096 GB-07
GB-097 GB-0
�
398 B-081 �GB- 6
.tk�
-10
GB-0-3 U6-V3V 1
n a 0
\ 10
1
APPROXIMATE \
WATERS EDGE / B-061
I,Q7 j i 060 ^Q nArN
LEGEND
EDGE OF WATER
CCR BASIN BOUNDARY
(APPROXIMATE)
EXCAVATION CONTOUR
(NOTE 2)
DREDGING REFUSAL AREA
(NOTE 3)
G�-049W ,3 — Ub-U34 GB-022 0
40
3 -050 N GB-023
rr \ � o
�GB-036�GB-024 +GB- 1
/3
37A GB-025 GB-014
`KGB-026�� -
--3p
^GB-026B o GB_015A
�
-200 3'B-016— O GB-007
y
UO GB-017 0GB-008 GB 00`
GBNGB� -919 B 0 1 0 gJb0 0
b- Q, 1
�� *- B 004 ,
2 GB-005 1� ' o
1971 BASIN
BOUNDARY
2
APPROXIMATE
WATERS EDGE
8.7'- 8.9'
Y I I PROJECT NO: GC6473 AUGUST 2019

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
APPENDICES

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Appendix A
Target Base of Excavation
(from 1971 Basin Closure Investigation Report)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71 F
- 3
/ 15
• �
1984 BASIN / / / B-222��'GB 214
/ 203
F-A25 GB 2 5 B_223 GB 2151
15 -226 +GB-216 G
1IB-227 GB-217 B-203
� GB 218 +GB-204
\ �GB-219GB 205 3�
G 21
\� ll GB-220 GB-206
�. / IIIIIIIIIIII�I GB 21 \ +GB 207 +GB-193A / B-1
1
�
I
A
"O
/
n
00
i
/COOLING
POND
-I
GB-208 GB-194 33
/GB-209 GB-195
0 �GB-196 GB-182
G$ 198 GB-197 A �
\ +GB_ 183
ck-GIB-184 \ GB\-1/�
�GB-185 rk `GB-169
�cG6-186 \�GB-1\70
-187 +GB-171
\ /y///
J �GB-172
GB-17�1, GB-(156 GB-1I13\
1 KGB-157 \ GB-13 II(
GIB 159 GB 139 U l�G\\
-174
8I GB-141T-/ 40 GB-12 I'�3
-1B 3-142� �GB-124 05 � ,/33/�
iB-126 A, GB- C
B-
-' =12
o� IIII
12 I(��
� Jill�olli
NOTES:
1. COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE
PLANE GRID SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF
1983 (FEET, NAD83). ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON
NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (FEET,
NAVD88).
2. THE PLANIMETRIC LOCATION ON THIS MAP IS BASED ON
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING OF IMAGERY
COLLECTED ON 17 APRIL 2014 AND INTERPRETED BY
WSP OF CARY, NC, DATED MARCH 2O15.
\ ��GB
GB-150 GB-13
3-151A
\ B-1353�
GB-116\\\
-118 GB-0 9 \\
GB-9,00
B-101 a B- 8
B-102 �GB-085 �4
3 A GB-086-7
KGB-07
Q744 GB-059
J
2
DISCHARGE CANAL
3. TARGET BASE OF EXCAVATION SHOWN ABOVE WAS
ESTABLISHED BASED ON THE CLOSURE INVESTIGATION
PERFORMED WITHIN THE BASIN IN JUNE AND JULY 2017
AND THE SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS PERFORMED
ALONG THE DIKE IN 2010, 2014, 2016, AND 2017.
4. TARGET BASE OF EXCAVATION GRADES SHOWN ABOVE
ARE INTENDED TO MEET NCDEQ CLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS AND REPRESENT MINIMUM
EXCAVATION DEPTHS.
�O \6�
'O
1984 BASIN oo \
o -s B-039 GB 02
B-04B-028
-GB041-- $ GB-029
+GB-03WGB-030 +GB-020WGB-019 —�
10
0 200
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
EDGE OF WATER (NOTE 2)
CCR BASIN BOUNDARY
(APPROXIMATE) (NOTE 2)
TARGET BASE OF
EXCAVATION CONTOUR
(NOTES 3 AND 4)
5'�o LGB 43
12
\\\\B 021
,GB- O'+
\�\\\\� GB-02�� IIIIIIIIIIIII
N -O >
r o as o GB-012 1����� e 9�
11B�C'B- 2 GB-014 GB
IIII
B-006
GB -I
G 0 6 GB-007
v
LGB 008 _
GB 009 F GB-0 3 OO
'1971 BASIN
BOUNDARY
5. CCR EXCAVATION ALONG THE DIKE SLOPES WILL TIE
TO THE PROPOSED GRADING SHOWN IN THE 1971
BASIN DAM DECOMMISSIONING PLAN ONCE THE PLAN IS
APPROVED BY NCDEQ.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Appendix B
Duke Energy's Email on Unanticipated Site
Conditions

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
From: Toepfer, John R
To: "ion. risaaard(a ncdenr.aov"
Cc: Watts. Debra <debra.watts(a ncdenr.gov> (debra,watts(a)ncdenr.gov); Lanter. Steven
(Steven. Lanter(&ncdenr.aov); "eric.a.smith(a)ncdenr.aov"; Gordy, Steven W; Atkinson, Daniel E; Williams,
Stephen W.; Sylvester, Thomas A; Russell, Tim; Stroupe, Eric; Tyndall, Kent; Gibbs, Donald E.;
"chris.pruneau(&woodplc.com"; Damasceno, Victor -Geosyntec (VDamasceno(&Geosyntec.com);
pwaldrep(a synterracorp.com; "Sullivan. Ed M (Ed.Sullivan(a duke-energy.com)"; Wells, James; Czop, Ryan;
Sheetz, Bryson; Shull, Andrew Wayne; Hanchey, Matthew F.; Kafka, Michael T.
Subject: Refusal Encountered Duke Energy 1971 Ash Basin - January 2019
Date: Thursday, January 10, 2019 2:45:00 PM
Attachments: Memo Geology 1971 Basin Final.Ddf
Jon — per our discussion on this topic at a meeting yesterday, it is Duke Energy's understanding that
DEQ will review the attached which documents refusal encountered at depth at 3 locations in the
Sutton 1971 basin. DEQ will then contact Duke Energy and determine a path forward. Please let
me know of questions on the attached. thanks
John R. Toepfer, P.E.
Duke Energy
Lead Engineer
410 S. Wilmington Street/NC15
Raleigh, INC 27601
919-546-7863 phone
919-632-3714 cell
919-546-3669fax

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Appendix C
NCDEQ Letter (Dated 11 February 2019)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
crAL
ROY COOPER-
Governor�`��
. r`
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
NORTH CAROLINA
Director
Environmental QuaW
February 11, 2019
Paul Draovitch
Senior Vice President
Environmental, Health, & Safety
Duke Energy
526 South Church Street
Mail Code EC3XP
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Subject: Confirmation of Excavation Requirements for the 1971 Basin
Dear Mr. Draovitch:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm excavation requirements are being met in the L.V. Sutton
Energy Complex 1971 Basin. On December 1, 2017, the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) received the L. V Sutton Electric Plant Coal Ash Excavation Plan
2017 Update. On March 9, 2018, DEQ gave approval of the Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
component of the plan along with direction to follow the "Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR)
Surface Impoundment Closure Guidelines for Protection of Groundwater" - November 4, 2016
and the additional guidance provided in the email from Steve Lanter to John Toepfer dated June
14, 2017 and titled, Sutton 1971 Ash Basin - Bottom of Ash Determination - June 2017.
Duke Energy submitted the 1971 Basin Closure Investigation Report, L. V Sutton Energy Complex,
Wilmington, North Carolina that includes coal ash visual confirmation data and soil analytical
sample results. Figure 3 of this report depicts the anticipated elevations the dredging would reach
to complete excavation based on field data. Documentation of the bathymetry of excavation after
completion of dredging was promised by Duke Energy in the January 10, 2018 correspondence to
DEQ titled, L. V. Sutton Energy Complex - 19 71 Ash Basin Documentation for Closure.
The DEQ has reviewed documentation provided by Duke Energy to assess completion of closure
requirements at the subject basin. DEQ concurs that the data provided in the 1971 Basin Closure
Investigation Report, L. V. Sutton Energy Complex, Wilmington, North Carolina meets the
objectives of sample collection and analysis consistent with recommended technical direction
outlined in DEQ's CCR Surface Impoundment Closure Guidelines for Protection of Groundwater.
DEQ accepts the interpretation of unanticipated site conditions that resulted in dredging refusal
are related to localized lithified sandstone beds in the Pee Dee Formation as documented in the
Memorandum Subsurface Conditions at the Bottom of the 1971 Ash Basin, L. V. Sutton Energy
Complex, Wilmington, North Carolina dated January 9, 2019.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
J/ 512 North Salisbury Street 1 1636 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1636
•,a v
919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Based on our review, DEQ accepts that the data and information provided to date concerning
excavation activities at the 1971 Basin meets the objectives of soil closure guidelines that are
protective of groundwater and that unanticipated subsurface site conditions that were encountered
are adequately documented. In order to complete documentation of the 1971 Basin excavation,
DEQ requests submittal of a technical memorandum to summarize excavation activities that will
include:
• Revised estimated volume of coal ash that was stored in the basin, and a
• Revised base of excavation elevation map showing areas of dredging refusal.
Soil and groundwater samples that were collected during the excavation activities shall be
incorporated into the geochemical and transport models that shall be included in the upcoming
Corrective Action Plan.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Geoff Kegley at (910)-796-7215 or Steve
Lanter at [phone].
Sincerely,
J knRisg �,Chief
Animal Feeding Operations and
Groundwater Section
r---. )
Edward F. Mus:ler III, P.E.
Chief, Solid Waste Section
Division of Waste Management
cc: WIRO WQROS Regional Office Supervisor
Ellen Lorscheider - Division of Waste Management
WQROS Central File Copy

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Appendix D
Record Drawing

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71 F
0
APPROXIMATE
WATERS EDGE
8.7' - &9'
NOTES:
• SOUNDINGS ARE EXPRESSED IN FEET AND TENTHS AND REFERENCED
NAVD 88.
• WATER SURFACE ELEVATION RANGE WAS 8.7' TO 8.9' NAVD88 AT
THE TIME OF THE SURVEY.
• HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NC STATE PLANE COORDINATES
(N AD83/2011).
• SOUNDINGS WERE ACQUIRED USING ODOM CV100 SINGLE BEAM
SONAR ® 200 KHZ AND SHOWN EXPRESSED IN FEET AND TENTHS
AND REFER TO NAVD 88.
• SURVEYED WITH McKIM & CREED SURVEY VESSEL "SV ZEGO", ON
MAY 16&30, 2019 USING RTK FOR HORIZONTAL POSITIONING.
• HYPACK SOFTWARE WAS USED FOR DATA COLLECTION AND
PROCESSING.
• THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP REPRESENTS THE RESULT
OF SURVEYS MADE ON THE DATE INDICATED AND CAN ONLY BE
CONSIDERED AS INDICATING THE CONDITIONS EXISTING AT THAT
TIME. BECAUSE THESE CONDITIONS ARE SUBJECT TO RAPID CHANGE
DUE TO SHOALING EVENTS.
• CONTOURS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY AND MAY
NOT REPRESENT THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS OF THE BOTTOM SURFACE
• THE SURVEYS WERE PERFORMED USING QUALITY CONTROL
PROCEDURES THAT WILL "LIKELY" MEET THE DESIRED STANDARDS IN
TABLE 3-1.
• THIS SURVEY IS A COMBINATION OF SURVEYS CONDUCTED ON
MAY 16 AND MAY 30, 2019.
OF �
PROX�M P�ti
VICINITY MAP — NOT TO SCALE
CONTOURS ABOVE APPROXIMATE
WATERS EDGE WERE PROVIDED
BY GEOSYNTEC FROM AN AERIAL
SURVEY CREATED MAY 06, 2019
APPROXIMATE
WATERS EDGE
8.7' - 8.9'
33 3s �38 3g ,A8 a`3l�.�• r •• / •• 1
cr
9
-�--z.; .,Q.• ATERS EpGE-...-• - .
ATE SHEET PILE APPROXIMATE W
- • • i
IF 3
APPROXIM COOLING C&kNAL _
V.r..r•
'r•• ..°• •�q
• .r
L ��"
SEA �°1NFKR\4&C=
L-3672 tY �' SCALE: 1 = 100 `� 243 NORTH FRONT STREET
,�„ �p�• �ti WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401
r �0��,<*LLJ , 0 5a 1 oa 200 30o TELEPHONE: [phone]
►i!►Nii+�i«O�,y�
`` FAX: (910) 251-$282
NORTH CAROLINA FIRM LICENSE NUMBER: F-1222
A(;(;1 IRA(Y RTATFMFNT
PLANT R1=`
CHS-X# 506
ON 197911.14
E 2306616.45
EL. 22.97
CONTROL POINT
PROVIDED BY
TRANS ASH
EM .1110-2-1003
TABLE 3-1. RECOMMENDED DEPTH ACCURACY STANDARDS FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SURVEYS OF FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECTS BASED ON PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS
PROJECT
TYPICAL
REPEATABILITY
TYPICAL
STANDARD DEVIATION
(FEET AT 95%
MAINTENANCE DREDGING
(SOFT SAND/SILT BOTTOM)
0.3 Fr
t0.8 FT
NEW WORK OR ROCK CUTS
0.2 FT
a.8 FT
COASTAL SHALLOW DRAFT PROJECTS (DI
0.3 FT
f0.8 FT
INLAND NAVIGATION PROJECTS IS FT)
0.3 FT
10.5 FT
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY
FOR
1971 ASH BASIN CLOSURE
SUTTON PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
CITY OF WILMINGTON, NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
JUNE 06, 2019 1" = 100,
JOB NUMBER: 00159-0754
SCALE: 1" = 100'
CAD NUMBER: VH101-001590754-...-COMBO.DWG
PLS: DLJ
PARTY CHIEF: JL
CAD TECH: GDO
FIELD BOOK/PAGE: FB/PG
DRAWING NUMBER: 2019-051
SHEET I OF I

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Appendix E
Additional Confirmatory Investigation Report

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
Geosyntec 1300 South Mint Street, Suite 30
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
PH 704.227.0840
COnsuitantc engineering license C-3500
�7 geology license C-295
www.geosyntec.com
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.
16 August 2019
Mr. Thomas A. Sylvester, P.E.
Project Manager II
CCP Engineering — Carolinas East
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
801 Steam Plant Road
Wilmington, NC 28401
Subject: 1971 Basin PLM Sampling Results
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex
Sutton Steam Plant Road
Wilmington, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Sylvester:
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC (Geosyntec) prepared this Letter Report (Report) to
document the soil sampling activities within the 1971 Basin at L.V. Sutton Energy Complex
(Sutton), located near Wilmington, North Carolina (NC). Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke
Energy) formerly disposed of coal combustion residuals (CCR) within the 1971 Basin. However,
the CCR basins and Lay of the Land Area (LOLA) onsite are being closed through excavation and
removal. Excavated material is placed within the Onsite CCR Landfill located in the northeast
corner of the property. Closure of the 1971 Basin required excavation of CCR materials beneath
the water surface; as such, a hydraulic dredge was utilized to excavate materials to the design
elevations approved by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ).
Duke Energy completed dredge activities in June 2019, and an as -built bathymetric survey was
prepared by McKim and Creed, Inc. to demonstrate that excavation met or exceeded design
elevations, submitted under separate cover.
The 1971 Basin footprint is mostly submerged; however, a limited area in the eastern corner resides
above the typical basin water elevation. This aboveground area was utilized to manage and
maintain dredge equipment during CCR excavation. Geosyntec was retained by Duke Energy to
sample and certify that CCR material was removed from this limited area above the water
elevation. The purpose of this Report is to describe site background, sampling plan, investigation,
and laboratory results associated with the aforementioned sampling activities to demonstrate that
CCR was removed from the 1971 Basin. The investigation was conducted consistent with the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) CCR Surface Impoundment
GC6473/Sutton 1971Basin PLM_Sampling_RevO
engineers I scientists I innovators

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
Mr. Thomas A. Sylvester, P.E.
16 August 2019
Page 2
Closure Guidelines for Protection of Groundwater letter dated 4 November 2016 (Attachment A)
and the Duke Energy Excavation Soil Sampling Plan' (Attachment B).
1 METHODOLOGY AND PLAN
Geosyntec followed the Duke Energy Excavation Soil Sampling Plan approved by NCDEQ to
sample the aforementioned above ground areas within the 1971 Basin. The Excavation Soil
Sampling Plan presents means and methods (e.g., sampling frequency, sample depths, laboratory
requirements) to visually confirm CCR removal above groundwater elevation within CCR basins
at Sutton. Specifically, the Excavation Soil Sampling Plan requires the following:
• Visual confirmation on a 100-ft by 100-ft grid that CCR was removed from the area prior
to sample collection;
• Soil samples collected at 0 to 0.5 feet below ground surface (ft bgs) and 2.0 to 2.5 ft bgs at
locations on a 100-ft by 100-ft sampling frequency for visual classification and CCR
content by polarized light microscopy (PLM); and
• Soil samples collected at several depth intervals (0 to 0.5 ft; 2.0 to 2.5 ft, 7.0 to 7.5 ft; 12.0
to 12.5 ft; and 17.0 to 17.5 ft) at one location per acre for Total Metals and Synthetic
Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) analytical tests.
Geosyntec field located soil sample locations in areas above groundwater elevation within the
1971 Basin on an approximate 100-ft by 100-ft grid using a survey wheel. Each soil sample
location was flagged and labeled with boring numbers 71 B-01 through 71 B-09. A handheld global
positioning system (GPS) unit was utilized to collect coordinates of each location, summarized in
Table 1 and shown on Figure 1. The area above water elevation was approximated to be less than
two acres; however, the exposed area footprint was irregular. Thus, Geosyntec selected three
boring locations (71B-03, 71B-06, and 71B-09) for analytical tests. Soil samples were collected
at the appropriate depth intervals for analytical tests, and the analytical test results will be provided
under separate cover.
2 FIELD ACTIVITIES
Geosyntec mobilized to Sutton during the week of June 17th to collect soil samples at various
locations onsite. Geosyntec representatives delineated and flagged sample locations on 18 June
2019 and subsequently Geosyntec inspected the 1971 Basin footprint area above water to confirm
1 Duke Energy, 2018. "Excavation Soil Sampling Plan - L.V. Sutton Energy Complex: 1984 Basin" Revision 2, Waste
& Groundwater Programs, December 2018.
GC6473/Sutton 1971Basin PLM_Sampling_RevO
engineers I scientists I innovators

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47AO-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71 F
Mr. Thomas A. Sylvester, P.E.
16 August 2019
Page 3
that all CCR was visibly removed. Subsequently, Geosyntec collected soil samples from the 0.0 to
0.5 ft bgs and 2.0 to 2.5 ft bgs depth intervals at borings 71 B-01 through 71 B-09 on 19 June 2019
using a stainless steel hand auger. The hand auger was decontaminated with an Alconox® solution
and rinsed with tap and de -ionized water between each sample interval. After visual classification,
soil samples were packaged within amber, glass soil sample jars, placed within coolers, and iced
before a courier service transported the samples to the Duke Energy Central Laboratory at McGuire
Nuclear Complex for evaluation by PLM.
3 RESULTS
Geosyntec confirmed visually that all CCR was removed prior soil sample collection. Table 1
summarizes the visual soil classifications and PLM test results for each collected sample. The
laboratory test results for the PLM evaluation are provided in Attachment C. The field visual
classification of each sample did not identify CCR material and the PLM laboratory results
indicated that all samples were found to contain less than 50 percent CCR.
CLOSING
Geosyntec appreciates the opportunity to provide this Report to Duke Energy. For any questions
regarding this Report, please contact the undersigned at 704-227-0840.
Attachments:
oti ��.�H CA .1 incerely,
DocuSig ned by:
SEAL �il� 5i GNas�,
044112
32DF16C9CF954DE...
�� J les D. McNash, P.E.(Nc)
senior Engineer
JD 14
}rnt���►
16 August 2019
Attachment A — NCDEQ CCR Surface Impoundment Closure Guidelines for
Protection of Groundwater Letter
Attachment B — Excavation and Soil Sampling Plan
Attachment C — PLM Laboratory Results
GC6473/Sutton 1971Basin PLM_Sampling_RevO
engineers I scientists I innovators

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
TABLE

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
Table 1. 1971 Basin Soil Sample Location and PLM Results
Visible
Boring
Sample
P
Fly Ash
ID
Latitude
Longitude
Interval
Lab ID lal
Field Classification
Removal
Fly
(in.)
(y/N)f41
Ash[51
71 B-01
34.29012332
-77.9856053
0
-
6
2019020104
fine to medium sand, dark brown to brown, moist, loose
Yes
4
71B-01
24
-
30
2019020105
fine to medium sand, dark brown to brown, moist, loose
Yes
ND
71B-02
34.29040825
-77.9858315
0
-
6
2019020100
fine to medium sand, tan, wet, loose
Yes
ND
71B-02
24
-
30
2019020101
fine to medium sand, tan, saturated, loose
Yes
ND
71B-03
34.2904375
-77.9855816
0
-
6
2019020102
fine to medium sand, light brown, moist, loose
Yes
ND
71B-03
24
-
30
2019020103
fine to medium sand, tan, saturated, loose
Yes
ND
71B-04
34.29075977
-77.9859306
0
-
6
2019020088
fine to medium silty sand, brown, moist, loose
Yes
48
71B-04
24
-
30
2019020089
fine to medium sand, dark brown, saturated, loose
Yes
ND
71B-05
34.29072008
-77.9856863
0
-
6
2019020090
fine to medium sand, brown and tan, moist, loose
Yes
3
71B-05
24
-
30
2019020091
fine to medium sand, brown, saturated, loose
Yes
ND
71B-06
34.29089753
-77.9864326
0
-
6
2019020098
fine to medium sand, tan, moist, loose
Yes
ND
71B-06
24
-
30
2019020099
fine to medium sand, dark tan, saturated, loose
Yes
ND
71B-07
34.29095579
-77.9861304
0
-
6
2019020096
fine to medium sand, tan, moist, loose
Yes
ND
71B-07
24
-
30
2019020097
fine to medium sand, tan, moist, loose
Yes
ND
71B-08
34.29102453
-77.9857764
0
-
6
2019020092
fine to medium sand, light yellow and tan, moist, loose
Yes
ND
71B-08
24
-
30
2019020093
fine to medium sand, tan, saturated, loose
Yes
ND
71B-09
34.29105465
-77.9858149
0
-
6
2019020094
fine to medium sand, tan, moist, loose
Yes
ND
71B-09
24
-
30
2019020095
fine to medium sand, tan, moist, loose
Yes
ND
Notes:
[ 1 ] ND — Non -Detect.
[2] Coordinates were collected by handheld GPS and are approximate.
[3] Geosyntec's sample identification numbers are provided on the chain of custody forms in Attachment C . The sample identification is a concatenation of
the Boring ID and Sample Interval. The laboratory subcontracted by Duke Energy's Central Laboratory assigns a "Lab ID" for each sample received. As
such, laboratory results provided by the laboratory (Attachment C) organize PLM results (% Fly Ash) in terms of laboratory ID.
[4] Field observations indicated all visible fly ash was removed prior to sample collection.
[5] Percent % Fly Ash result from PLM test is a percentage of visible microscope area, and does not refer to percentage of mass.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
FIGURE

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
ID Northing Easting Lab Test
71B-01 198147.379 2306411.285 PLM
71B-02 198250.373 2306341.923 PLM
71B-03 198261.788 2306417.276 PLM & Metals
71B-04 198377.992 2306310.662 PLM
71B-05 198364.31 2306385.437 PLM
71B-06 198426.577 2306158.526 PLM & Metals
71B-07 198448.711 2306249.58 PLM
71B-08 198474.819 2306356.247 PLM & Metals
71B-09 198485.662 2306344.506 PLM
j.
�+R
• 0 0
. . . . . . . . . .
t
• On -site CCR �
f F Landfill
Footprint
71 B-09
`-71B=08
7 L,
71 B-05
ff
Is OPIUM
Legend
s�
o Geoprobe Borings
{
1971 Basin Sample Locations
1971 Basin Edge of Water
L=� Lay of Land Area
Q Basin Boundary
�''r.r
+ 250 125 0 250 500 Feet
® On -site CCR Landfill Footprint
k
Notes:
1 . '
1971 BASIN SAMPLING PLAN
1. Aerial Imagery provided by Google Earth and was collected prior
• •' }• r :-
to 1971 Basin excavation.
I
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex
2. Edge of water provided by McKim and Creed bathymetric survey
Wilmington, North Carolina
`
dated 21 May 2019.
�'
3. Geosyntec identified sampling locations on a 100' by 100' grid per
the Duke Energy Excavation Soil Sampling Plan.
'•
'�`ti
Geosyntec ° '� Figure
:I
EEN RGY
4. Geoprobe borings were advanced in 2017 prior to CCR removal.
}
Consultants PROGRESS
to delineate the bottom of CCR surface, and are shown for
_
reference purposes only.
I .1
Source: Esri, DigitaIII GI .' e, GeoEye, Eatthstar Geographies, C«NE CHARLOTTE, NC JULY 2019

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
ATTACHMENT A

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71 F
November 4, 2016
Mr. Harry Sideris
Senior Vice President
Environment, Health, and Safety
Duke Energy
526 South Church Street
Mail Code EC3XP
Charlotte, NC 28202
PAT MCCRQRY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
S. JAY ZININIFIZNlAN
Subject: CCR Surface Impoundment Closure Guidelines for Protection of Groundwater
Dear Mr. Sideris:
Attached are the Coal Combustion Residuals Surface Impoundment Closure Guidelines for Protection of
Groundwater developed by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. The purpose of these
closure guidelines is to promote consistent implementation of performance standards for soil that will meet
15A NCAC 02L and meet the intent of the closure requirements in the Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA)
under § 130A-309.214.
In order to confirm site conditions at the time of closure, details are needed concerning the ash basin closure
procedure employed including the decision making process that guided the depth of excavation for soil
removal, basis for the sampling grid design, soil sampling methods, lab analysis for constituents of interest,
and modeling to support closure.
If your technical team has questions in reference to any of these directions, please feel free to contact Steve
Lanter at [phone]. We would also be willing to set up a meeting for further technical discussion.
Sincerely,
S,ti,ilil"nerman, P.G.,
Division of Water Resources
cc: WQROS Regional Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors
WQROS Central File Copy
Tom Reeder
Attachment (1)
state or North Carolina I Envirotttnental Quality I Water Resources
1611 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-161 1
919 707 9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Attachment 1
Coal Combustion Residuals Surface Impoundment Closure
Guidelines for Protection of Groundwater
The overall objective of these guidelines is to address remediation of discharges or releases of
contaminants into soil and groundwater resulting from Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) disposal
to cleanup levels that meet Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code Subchapter 02L
standards (21, Standards):
• For groundwater, the cleanup level is the site -specific background concentration or the 2L
Standards.
• For soil, the cleanup level is either the site -specific background concentration or the lowest
soil screening level (SSL) protective of groundwater.
Protection of groundwater criteria dictates groundwater and soil remediation goals in the closure
process. Either Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) identified using North Carolina's
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)'s Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) SSLs,'
or site -specific background concentrations in soil will be used to identify soil remediation goals
that are protective of groundwater quality. Any wastes encountered that are not associated with
CCR will be addressed by applicable DEQ Division of Waste Management (DWM) program
guidance.
Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
Sampling and analyses of soil collected during excavation of a CCR Impoundment is needed in
order to develop soil remediation goals and corresponding cleanup levels. The responsible party
may need to prescribe additional sampling and analysis based on site -specific conditions.
A stand-alone Excavation Soil Sampling Plan (Plan) generated for closure of a CCR surface
impoundment shall be developed to ensure the proposed excavation design is comprehensive
enough in scope to meet the performance standards for closure. This Plan shall be submitted to
DEQ as part of an Excavation Plan, with details to show how the sample analytical results and
related modeling will incorporate the data collected as part of the final overall closure plan for
approval, as dictated by § 130A-309.214.
CCR Excavation Determination
CCR excavation will be considered complete based on a visual confirmation that all CCR and co -
mingled CCR/soil has been removed. The extent of co -mingled CCR/soil will be based on
sampling of the material and analysis under Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM). Soil samples will
I The steps or methodology for calculating SSLs for contaminant migration to groundwater were developed to identify
chemical concentrations in soil with the potential to migrate and contaminate groundwater. SSLs protective of
groundwater are calculated with a soil leachate model using default values from the 2L groundwater standard or the
2L groundwater interim maximum allowable concentration (IMAQ as target groundwater concentrations and take
into consideration fate and transport parameters.
Page 1 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
be examined utilizing methods outlined in American Standards for Testing and Measures (ASTM)
D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure).
Vertical and horizontal excavation of CCR can terminate when the remaining material can be
documented using PLM to contain less than 50% CCR.
Visual confirmation sampling of CCR will be performed on a 100-foot grid system. The soil
sample should be collected by advancing a boring using a hand -auger or from a test pit at a
minimum depth of 2 feet below ground surface. The sample should be analyzed using PLM and
excavation of the CCR will be considered complete when the sample contains less than 50%
CCR.
If possible, excavation of CCR material should continue even if groundwater is encountered. If
complete excavation of the CCR and co -mingled CCR/soil (greater than 50% CCR) is not able to
be completed, dOCUmentation of site conditions or other restricting factors shall be presented to
the DEQ.
Soil Sampling and Analysis
Sampling of the remaining soils (containing less than 50% CCR) will be necessary to evaluate the
extent of contamination depending on the depth of water table and any proposed institutional or
engineering controls that may be used in the area of excavation. Soil sampling will not be required
if refusal or the top of bedrock are encountered, or the remaining soils are below the water table.
Soil samples for laboratory analysis must be collected in a manner that will ensure a relatively
uniform distribution of particles throughout the 6-inch sample.
The systematic approach and design for soil sampling and analysis is dependent upon two
scenarios:
Scenario 1: Remaining soil (containing less than 50% CCR) is located above the seasonal
high water table and final constructed institutional and/or engineering controls will restrict
infiltration from the surface reaching the water table (e.g. installation of a liner system).
Scenario 2: Remaining soil (containing less than 50% CCR) is located above the seasonal
high water table and infiltration from the surface would continue to reach the water table.
Scenario 1. Confirmation sampling will include discrete surface samples collected from the first
6 inches of the soil. Sampling will be performed on an acre grid system. This sample collection
methodology shall be sufficient to characterize the horizontal extent of any remaining soil
contamination for comparison with the PSRG. The samples shall be analyzed by a North Carolina
certified lab for total concentrations of the following parameters: Antimony, Aluminum, Arsenic,
Barium, Beryllium, Boron, Cadmium, Calcium, Chloride, Chromium (total and hexavalent),
Cobalt, Copper, Iron, Lead, Magnesium, Manganese, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Nitrate as
Nitrogen, pH, Potassium, Selenium, Silver, Sodium, Strontium, Sulfate, Thallium, Vanadium, and
Zinc.
Scenario 2. Confirmation sampling will include collection of both discrete surface and subsurface
soil samples performed on an acre grid system. Discrete surface samples will be collected from
Page 2 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
the first 6 inches of the soil and a subsurface soil sample will be collected from a 6-inch discrete
interval at a minimum depth of 2-feet below the surface soil sample depth interval unless refusal,
bedrock, or the water table are encountered. This sample collection methodology shall be
sufficient to characterize both the horizontal and vertical extent of any remaining soil
contamination for comparison with the PSRG and/or input into the soil leachate model. The
samples shall be analyzed by a North Carolina certified lab for both total concentrations and by
the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) of the following parameters: Antimony,
Aluminum, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Boron, Cadmium, Calcium, Chloride, Chromium (total
and hexavalent), Cobalt, Copper, Iron, Lead, Magnesium, Manganese, Mercury, Molybdenum,
Nickel, Nitrate as Nitrogen, pH, Potassium, Selenium, Silver, Sodium, Strontium, Sulfate,
Thallium, Vanadium, and Zinc.
Characterization and Management of Non -Ash Material
If non -ash materials are discovered during ash removal activities, work in that area will be stopped,
temporarily relocated to another area, and the Duke Energy environmental team will be contacted
to perform the appropriate assessment(s) to determine the nature and the extent of the non -ash
related impacts. Depending upon the material encountered, the area will either be delineated and
segregated for profiling and proper disposal, or placed directly into roll -off containers for proper
disposal.
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) crews will be mobilized
to the site to perform the excavation activities if hazardous materials are encountered. The
appropriate DEQ Division of Water Resources Regional Office or the DWM will be contacted if
these areas are discovered and the plan for proper removal and disposal will be discussed. Non -
ash related areas will be documented on excavation drawings and information recorded will
include, but not be limited to, the material encountered, the dimensions with coordinates of the
excavated area, the health and safety protocols used to protect human health and the environment
during the execution of these activities, a summary of the sample and confirmation analytical
results, and copies of the appropriate manifests.
Determination of Site -Specific Soil Remediation Goals and Cleanup Levels
Protection of groundwater soil remediation goals can be identified by following specific
instruction found in DWM remediation guidance (referred to below). Only requirements for
remediation goals that involve protection of groundwater criteria will be considered. Risk -based
or health -based remediation goals for unrestricted land use will not be considered for closure
performance standards.
The DWM IHSB guidance documents that contain direction for establishing remediation goals
include:
• Inactive Hazardous Sites Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup:
litt1)://lorait.nt,:deiu-.ur,/c/docunictit I"i'.'(ILlicl=32atidas_t-c1�5t)-���?-��_�7=
201 f9 b2eedc-& Yrouj)ld-38361 and
Page 3 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
Registered Environmental Consultant (REC) Program Implementation Guidance:
hllls:i_i_lit7rt<<l_ixsi,. _ =84,i9--
5(}
Site -specific soil remediation goals are identified by:
• Identifying PSRGs that relate to the SSLs that meet the protection of groundwater criteria
for a specific constituent, and
• Determining site -specific background concentrations in soil.
The procedure for identifying PSRG that meets protection of groundwater criteria and the
corresponding SSL involves the following:
• Screening. Valum The screening values that relate to SSLs protective of groundwater are
shown in the PSRG Table located at:
1�tt�3;/i��ortill,�lccltair:��r�� c/do�uit�en� lil�t�aryl,��i!'iill_?u�aitf=l:��c���s{)I)-���6��-=�5�5-�►bs��=
.:lll�t�C��_l�e�E{��•1,�;"�r�u )lcl=3�i(il.
• PSRG table. This contains a column with soil remediation goals titled "Protection of
Groundwater PSRG" that should be used in evaluating soil -to -groundwater values that
meet and are protective of 2L standards. The values in this table for the respective
constituents are the SSLs, which are the contaminant -specific soil remediation goals that
are the cleanup levels for site closure. Note that the DWM updates this table during the
first and third quarter of each calendar year.
• Transport Model. A transport model is included in the PSRG table for calculating other
SSLs not specifically listed in the table in order to meet protection of groundwater criteria.
15A NCAC 2L .0202 (c) does specify substances that are not permitted in groundwater and
indicates that even those which are not specifically listed in the rule are not allowed above.
the PQL, unless they are naturally occurring. The approved laboratory method PQL for
the substance can be used in the equation if there is no specifically listed 2L standard.
• Background Concentrations. Background concentrations of naturally occurring metals in
soil at a site can be established using US Environmental Protection Agency guidance for
comparing background and chemical concentrations in soil:
-C --i--- ------
Groundwater Modeling
Contingency for stabilization of remaining amounts of contaminated soil in a manner that will
meet the intent of the 2L Rules and closure requirements shall be considered as site conditions
dictate. Provisions to develop groundwater flow and transport models to evaluate protection of
groundwater criteria if some soil contamination is left in place shall be considered. In addition,
the possibility of metals leaching into soils from a potential change in pH and geochemical
conditions related to dewatering and excavation shall be considered along with plans for
groundwater models to assess resulting site conditions.
References
Page 4 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
American Standards for Testing and Measures Standard D D2488-09a Standard Description and
Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), 2009.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Waste
Management — Superfund Section — Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch, Inactive Hazardous Sites
Guidelines forAssessment and Cleanup, November 2014, hays. Jrt ilctlr,s t.rai���u�>>j� �..c�?it7ls, is -
t�uulicll��issc'�__r2(?llatt�t7elltctlt:'D�t'ivfl`�t�/III.S/���i�1:u1��i1�1S[3>�'t)Glll)�`�;�Ci�:���t3�s��:,�;Z�c�;t
--1('atitlt«'01ciiic.dialioji ', avcd1 i202_9-2010.[Af.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Waste
Management — Superfund Section — Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch, Inactive Hazardous Sites
Branch Preliminary Soil Rernediation Goals (PSRG) Table,
(tip //I)oaal, 1Ic"l,Iir.O1-'/c�'doCt1r1w1)t
119`idie t6c1c.L';:rc�ut3ld=,`C 1
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Waste
Management — Superfund Section — Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch, Registered Environmental
Consultant Program Implementation Guidance, November 2014,
hlf pa/po�ial ,t�cdct� r,e>>:;�h/�1_��ctit���!t l l ihl=str�l�el I ile?tl a icl=.�O�c�i}� IZ�-�741t ! _-IL hf-�4
5018415ft,J& tc�:ld= 5')6j
North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A Subchapter 2L Section .0100, .0200, .0300,
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters of North Carolina..
April 1, 2013, ilitpa/portal.Ilcdenr.�rc/cic;��n�;ent lihrz�r_y/tset _filehtLziti-l�ta�tEtl
aL�)6-�-1?
US Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance, for Comparing Background and Chemical
Concentrations in Sail for CERCLA Sites, EPA 540-R-01-003OSWER 9285.7-41, September
2002, ht[ �;//itrcwch.ett�/1�ilcC abitletlGctl�ile'l'ihll3=(��3;1.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Final Rule fo1- Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals
from Electric Utilities. 80 FR 21301. 40 CFR Parts 257 and 261. April 17, 2015.
hilj)-"://w•uvv.cedertil�io�/artlJcs120.15/0/1%/201�-00�57i.d-wast%�-
t11�[il•il C'•il1S-i]�-ti 'e�l lll�lllti �litiill-(JI l'L7i11-C �lIli?ll:�tlC?il-1'l$Il1LI------lit?lll-�ItiC
Page 5 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
ATTACHMENT B

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299El371 F
EXCAVATION SOIL SAMPLING PLAN
L.V. SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
1984 ASH BASIN
FOR ASH BASIN EXCAVATION
NORTH CAROLINA ASH BASIN CLOSURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAs, LLC.
526 SOUTH CHURCH STREET/ECI3K
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202
('DUKE
' ENERGY
Waste & Groundwater Programs
Revision 2
December 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Excavation Soil Sampling Plan December 2018
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex 1984 Ash Basin Revision 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 PURPOSE..........................................................................................................................1
2.0 DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY...............................................................................1
TABLE 1 - Post Ash Basin Excavation Soil Data Collection......................................1
3.0 SOIL SAMPLING METHODOLOGY......................................................................... 2
3.1 Method Summary........................................................................................................ 2
3.1.1 Equipment...............................................................................................................2
3.1.2 Sample Locations................................................................................................... 3
3.1.3 Collection of Representative Samples................................................................. 3
3.1.4 Sample Preservation, Containers, Handling and Storage ................................ 4
3.1.5 Decontamination....................................................................................................4
4.0 VISUAL CONFIRMATION OF ASH REMOVAL .................................................... 5
4.1 Pre -Excavation Documentation................................................................................. 5
4.2 Ash Removal Verification Protocol...........................................................................
5
4.2.1 Field Documentation.............................................................................................
5
4.2.2 Fill Evaluation Criteria..........................................................................................
6
4.3 Visual Removal Not Applicable................................................................................
6
5.0 SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS...........................................................................
7
5.1 Soil Sampling................................................................................................................
7
5.1.1 Scenario 1................................................................................................................
7
5.1.2 Scenario 2................................................................................................................
7
5.2 Fate and Transport Modeling.....................................................................................
8
TABLE 2 - Soil Parameters and Analytical Methods Totals and SPLP Analysis
North Carolina Ash Basins to be Closed Via Excavation ...........................................
9
FIGURE 1— Sutton 1984 Ash Basin Sample Grid ......................................................
10
Page i

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Excavation Soil Sampling Plan December 2018
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex 1984 Ash Basin
Revision 2
The purpose of this Excavation Soil Sampling Plan is to provide a standardized method for collecting soil
samples at Duke Energy North Carolina ash basins that are to be closed via excavation. Soil samples are
being collected following all visible ash removal from certain ash basins to support closure activities.
This Excavation Soil Sampling Plan is applicable to the collection of representative soil samples. Analysis
of soil samples may be chemical or physical in nature and may be used to determine the following:
• Extent and magnitude of constituent occurrence
• Input concentrations for groundwater fate and transport model
The methodologies discussed in this Excavation Soil Sampling Plan are applicable to the sampling of soil
in ash basin excavation areas. For the purposes of this plan, soils are those mineral and organic
materials remaining after all visible ash has been excavated.
2.0 DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY
TABLE 1- Post Ash Basin Excavation Soil Data Collection
Task
Description
Test
Depth
Visual Inspection on 100' X 100' grid
Visually confirm primary source
node
removal at nodes (Figure 1) and
N/A
N/A
document with photographs.
Soil sample analysis on 100' X 100'
Collect representative samples at
0 - 6 inches'
grid node
nodes (Figure 1) the appropriate
PLM
2 2 5'
depths.
0 - 6 inches'
Soil Sample Analysis on an acre grid
Collect representative samples at the
Total Metals
2 2.5
7 7.5
system2
appropriate depths.
SPLP
12' - 12.5'
17' - 17.5'
Notes:
' If a certain six-inch sample interval does not yield sufficient soil volume to fill five 8-ounce sample bottles, the
sample interval may be expanded to twelve inches to allow for sufficient soil sample volume. The revised sample
interval should be appropriately documented.
2Excavation is complete once confirmed by visual inspection and PLM analysis per Section 4.0.
Page 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Excavation Soil Sampling Plan December 2018
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex 1984 Ash Basin Revision 2
3.0 SOIL SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
3.1 Method Summary
This Excavation Soil Sampling Plan has been adapted from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) #2012 and #2006; and North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) Attachment 1 Coal Combustion Residuals Surface Impoundment
Closure Guidelines for Protection of Groundwater, November 4, 2016.
Soil samples are collected directly using stainless steel or plastic trowel, spade, shovel, or scoops.
Following collection, soil is transferred from the sampling device to a stainless steel or plastic bowl to be
homogenized. Once homogenized, the soil is transferred into Duke Energy Laboratory supplied sample
bottles.
Soil samples will be submitted under chain of custody for the following analyses: total metals and
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) metals. Analytical methods for total metals and SPLP
metals are described in Table 2. Ash presence is quantitatively determined by polarized light
microscopy (PLM) by RJ Lee Laboratory (or other approved vendor). PLM analysis passes visible light
through a pair of polarizing filters to create optical effects used in identifying unknown materials. This
method is commonly used in asbestos and coal ash identification.
3.1.1 Equipment
• Stainless steel or plastic trowel, scoop, spade or shovel — Used for collecting soil samples
from surface locations.
• Sample containers — To be supplied by Duke Energy Laboratory with appropriate
cooler(s). Estimated that five 8-ounce sample bottles with Teflon -lined lids will be
required for each sample location and sample depth. For return of cooler to the lab, ice
will be required.
• Gloves — Used for personal protection and to prevent cross -contamination of samples —
nitrile, disposable, powderless.
• Field clothing and Personal Protective Equipment — Used as specified in the site Health
and Safety Plan.
• Sampling flags — Used for identifying soil sampling locations.
• Field notebook — A bound book used to record progress of sampling effort and record
any problems and field observations during sampling.
• Three-ring binder book — Used to store necessary forms and record and track samples
collected at the site.
• Permanent marking pen — Used to label sample containers, document field logbooks,
data sheets and chain of custody.
Page 2

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
December 2018
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex 1984 Ash Basin
Revision 2
• Stainless steel or plastic spoon — Used for homogenizing soil samples within a stainless
steel or plastic bowl.
• Stainless steel or plastic bowl — Used for homogenizing soil samples, when applicable.
• Camera — Used for photo -documentation of sample locations and samples.
• GPS — Device used to obtain elevation, latitude and longitude of sample location.
• Trash bag — Used to dispose of gloves and any other non -hazardous waste generated
during sampling.
• Decontamination supplies and equipment.
3.1.2 Sample Locations
General locations for soil sampling are determined by the soil scientist in the field at a rate of
one soil sample for every 1 acre of ash basin area excavated. Actual sampling locations on site
may vary to account for site conditions and to allow collection of representative samples.
Representative samples reflect areas where all ash has been visually excavated and natural soil
is observed.
3.1.3 Collection of Representative Samples
For the purpose of this plan, surface soil is considered to range from 0 to 6 inches in depth,
while deeper samples will be collected at a range of 2 to 2.5 feet below ground surface (bgs), 7
to 7.5 feet bgs, 12 to 12.5 feet bgs, and 17 to 17.5 feet bgs (Table 1) unless bedrock, refusal, or
the water table are encountered. A surface soil sample and deeper samples will be collected at
each location for every 1 acre of ash basin excavated. A new pair of nitrile gloves is worn at
each sampling location and each depth. Each sampling location is recorded on the site map
prior to collecting the sample if the location is not already noted on the map. The GPS location
of each sampling location (i.e. elevation, latitude and longitude), sample descriptions, and area
photographs are also recorded. All sampling equipment is decontaminated prior to use
irrespective of depth. The following procedure will be used to collect representative soil
samples with a scoop, shovel, trowel, geoprobe, or excavator:
• Locate general sampling locations.
• Determine suitability of sampling location for a representative sample.
• If sampling location appears to reflect representative conditions that would allow
collection of a representative sample, proceed with sampling procedure. If
location is not indicative of conditions that would allow collection of a
representative sample, notify the project manager so an alternate location can
be identified.
• Using a decontaminated sampling instrument, remove the desired thickness and
volume of soil from the sampling area. The sampler must obtain enough soil to
fill five 8-ounce sample bottles. If a certain six-inch sample interval does not
Page 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex 1984 Ash Basin
December 2018
Revision 2
yield sufficient soil volume to fill five 8-ounce sample bottles, the sample interval
may be expanded to allow for sufficient soil sample volume. The revised sample
interval should be appropriately documented.
• Transfer the sample into an appropriate sample or homogenization bowl. Non -
dedicated containers should be adequately decontaminated. Stir for
approximately one minute until there appears to be a uniform color and
consistency.
Transfer homogenized sample to a labeled container(s) of appropriate size and
construction for the analyses requested.
• Secure sample container tightly.
3.1.4 Sample Preservation, Containers, Handling and Storage
Chemical preservation of soils is generally not recommended. Cooling to 4°C on wet ice is
usually the best approach, supplemented by the appropriate holding time for the analyses
requested.
The Duke Energy Laboratory will supply the appropriate sample bottles for the collected soil
samples. The sample volume is a function of the analytical requirements and the Duke Energy
Laboratory will ensure the appropriate number of bottles are supplied. Ensure chain of custody
is completed for sample bottle return to the Duke Energy Laboratory.
Table 2 contains a list of parameters to be analyzed with corresponding reporting units and
analytical methods. If a parameter or group of parameters is not included in Table 2, the
laboratory performing the analysis should be contacted to determine the appropriate sample
bottles, volumes, and preservatives.
All non -dedicated sampling devices should be decontaminated and wrapped in plastic. The
sampling device should remain in this wrapping until it is needed. Each sampling device should
be used for only one sample and then decontaminated or disposed of. Non -dedicated sampling
devices should be cleaned in the field using the decontamination procedure described below.
3.1.5 Decontamination
Decontamination procedures can be time consuming; having a sufficient quantity of sampling
tools available is recommended. All non -dedicated sampling equipment must be
decontaminated prior to reuse. Equipment decontamination consists of:
1. Detergent wash and brush cleaning
2. Tap water rinse
3. De -ionized water rinse
4. Air dry
Page 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Excavation Soil Sampling Plan December 2018
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex 1984 Ash Basin Revision 2
Wrap sampling tools with plastic
4.0 VISUAL CONFIRMATION OF ASH REMOVAL
4.1 Pre -Excavation Documentation
Closure by removal is defined herein as removing the primary source (primary source of potential
constituents of interest) to the point that ash is not visible to the unaided eye at the ground surface.
Primary source ash is the main body of ash that was deposited in the basin. This method is intended
solely to verify and document primary source ash removal and is not intended to validate environmental
quality standards of the subsurface (considered the secondary source of potential constituents of
interest). Pre -excavation documentation would consist of:
• Review topographic mapping, aerial photography, construction drawings, and boring logs to
estimate the pre -ash placement topography and/or ash/soil interface
• Preparation of an ash basin figure illustrating a grid spacing of 100 feet (Figure 1). Each grid
point (node) will be assigned a unique identifier. Each node of the grid spacing (grid point) will
represent a visual verification location.
4.2 Ash Removal Verification Protocol
Ash excavation will be considered complete based on visual confirmation that all ash has been removed.
Ash removal will be based on sampling of the ash/soil interface and analysis by PLM. Soil samples will
be examined utilizing methods outlined in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D2488,
Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure). Vertical and
horizontal excavation of ash can terminate when the remaining material can be documented using PLM
to contain less than 50% ash.
Project will excavate ash until a visible change in color or texture confirms removal. This location shall
be referred to as the ash/soil interface. If visual evaluation is inconclusive, then request additional
evaluation to confirm ash removal.
4.2.1 Field Documentation
Evaluate the excavated surface elevation relative to the pre -ash placement topography.
Periodically check bottom elevation to evaluate if fill is present above historic bottom elevation.
Visual confirmation will be performed on a 100-foot grid system (Figure 1) unless conditions
prevent such confirmation, as described in Section 4.3. Soil sampling will be performed on a
100-foot grid system and will be analyzed using PLM.
• Personnel will locate each node by GPS or survey control, determine elevation and
evaluate whether that point is above or below the historic bottom elevation.
Personnel will then observe the surface area represented by the node, to note if visible
ash is present at the surface. If present, the location should be documented and
excavation will need to continue. If the evaluation indicates the surface soils are
residuum or bedrock, then hand auger to two feet below surface (or refusal) and
perform visual -manual classification of the soils at the surface and depth according to
Page 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
December 2018
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex 1984 Ash Basin
Revision 2
ASTM method D2488. Submit sample from surface and depth (or shallower if refusal)
for PLM analysis. The conditions shall be documented by taking photographs.
The classification indicator for fly ash will be grey to black silt -sized particles with no
plasticity. The classification indicator for bottom ash will be grey to black sand to gravel
sized particles and porous. If the material cannot be positively identified as soil, submit
a sample for PLM analysis.
• If the node point elevation is near the historic bottom elevation then personnel can
conclude the primary source is removed when the following criteria are met:
1. Residuum is indicated by observation
Soil is confirmed by visual manual classification (ASTM D2488) and PLM analysis
less than 50%
4.2.2 Fill Evaluation Criteria
The following procedure provides an approach that can be used to ascertain if the fill can remain
in place. The procedure specified is based on the fill material and depth.
If the elevation is less than eight feet above the historic bottom elevation and residuum
is not observed, then test pits may be excavated to historic bottom elevation or until
residuum or bedrock is encountered, but no more than eight feet below the surface.
o Personnel will evaluate existing information to determine if the test pits are
necessary. If necessary personnel may recommend excavating test pits at a
frequency no tighter than 100 feet by 100 feet.
o If visible ash is not discovered based on information defined above, then the
primary source removal may be confirmed.
o If visible ash is discovered, then continue excavation.
• If the elevation is more than eight feet above historic bottom elevation and residuum is
not observed, discuss with CCP Closure Personnel.
o CCP Closure Personnel will confirm historic information and recommend a
drilling and sampling program at a frequency no tighter than 100 feet by 100
feet to evaluate the presence of ash below the fill in accordance with the
information defined above. If unusual features are revealed by the drilling, CCP
Closure Engineering may request/recommend additional borings. Exploration is
to be performed by continuous sampling during drilling.
o If visible ash is not discovered based on information defined above, then the
primary source removal may be confirmed.
o If visible ash is discovered, then continue excavation.
4.3 Visual Removal Not Applicable
If possible, excavation of ash should continue even if groundwater is encountered. Visual
documentation cannot be completed where ash is under the water table. If Duke Energy cannot
Page 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
December 2018
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex 1984 Ash Basin
Revision 2
complete visual removal because of site conditions or other restricting factors, documentation shall be
presented to NC DEQ.
5.0 SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
5.1 Soil Sampling
Soil sampling of the remaining soils (less than 50% ash per PLM analysis) will be necessary to evaluate
the extent of potential secondary source impacts depending on the depth of the water table and any
proposed institutional or engineering controls that may be used in the area of excavation. Soil sampling
will not be required if refusal or the top of bedrock are encountered or the remaining soils are below the
water table. Soil samples for laboratory analysis must be collected in a manner that will ensure a
relatively uniform distribution of particles throughout the six inch sample.
The systematic approach and design for soil sampling an analysis is dependent upon two scenarios:
• Scenario 1: Remaining soil (containing less than 50% ash per PLM analysis) is located above the
seasonal high water table and final constructed institutional and/or engineering controls will
restrict infiltration from the surface reaching the water table (e.g. installation of a liner system).
Scenario 2: Remaining soil (containing less than 50% ash per PLM analysis) is located above the
seasonal high water table and infiltration from the surface would continue to reach the water
table.
5.1.1 Scenario 1
Confirmation sampling will include discrete surface samples collected from the first six inches of
the soil. Sampling will be performed on an acre grid system. This sample collection
methodology shall be sufficient to characterize the horizontal extent of any remaining potential
secondary source impacts for comparison with the NC DEQ Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals
(PSRG). The samples shall be analyzed by a North Carolina certified laboratory for total
concentrations for the following parameters: antimony, aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
boron, cadmium, calcium, chloride, chromium (total and hexavalent), cobalt, copper, iron, lead,
magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, nitrate as nitrogen, pH, potassium,
selenium, silver, sodium, strontium, sulfate, thallium, vanadium, and zinc. No SPLP testing is
required.
5.1.2 Scenario 2
Confirmation sampling will include collection of both discrete surface and subsurface soil
samples performed on an acre grid system. Discrete surface samples will be collected from the
first six inches of the soil and a subsurface soil sample will be collected at 2 to 2.5 feet below
ground surface (bgs), 7 to 7.5 feet bgs, 12 to 12.5 feet bgs and 17 to 17.5 feet bgs unless refusal,
bedrock or the water table are encountered. The use of a geoprobe or excavator is anticipated.
This sample collection methodology shall be sufficient to characterize both the horizontal and
vertical extent of any remaining potential secondary source impacts for comparison with the NC
DEQ PSRGs and/or input into the soil leachate model. The samples shall be analyzed by a North
Page 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
December 2018
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex 1984 Ash Basin
Revision 2
Carolina certified laboratory for both total concentrations and SPLP for the following
parameters: antimony, aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, calcium,
chloride, chromium (total and hexavalent), cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
mercury, molybdenum, nickel, nitrate as nitrogen, pH, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium,
strontium, sulfate, thallium, vanadium, and zinc.
5.2 Fate and Transport Modeling
Contingency for stabilization of remaining amounts of potential secondary source impacts in a manner
that will meet the intent of North Carolina Groundwater 2L Rules and closure requirements shall be
considered as site conditions dictate. Provisions to develop groundwater flow and transport models to
evaluate protection of groundwater criteria if some secondary source impacts are left in place shall be
considered. In addition, the possibility of metals leaching from a potential change in pH and
geochemical conditions related to dewatering and excavation shall be considered along with plans for
groundwater models to assess resulting site conditions.
Page 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
December 2018
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex 1984 Ash Basin
TABLE 2 - Soil Parameters and Analytical Methods Totals and SPLP Analysis
North Carolina Ash Basins to be Closed Via Excavation
Revision 2
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
UNITS
METHOD'
Aluminum
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Antimony
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Arsenic
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Barium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Beryllium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Boron
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Cadmium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Calcium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Chloride
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 9056A
Chromium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Cobalt
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020E
Copper
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Hexavalent Chromium
mg/kg or µ
EPA Methodg/I 7199/218.7
Iron
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Lead
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Magnesium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Manganese
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Mercury
mg/kg or µg/1
EPA Method
7470A/7471B
Molybdenum
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Nickel
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Nitrate as Nitrogen
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 9056A
pH
SU
EPA 9045D
Potassium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Selenium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020E
Silver
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020E
Sodium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Strontium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Sulfate
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 9056A
Thallium (low level) (SPLP Extract only)
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020E
Vanadium
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6020B
Zinc
mg/kg or µg/I
EPA 6010D
Notes:
1. Soil samples to be analyzed for Total Inorganics using USEPA Methods 6010/6020 and pH
using USEPA Method 9045, as noted above (or similar approved methods). Soil samples will
also be analyzed for leaching potential using SPLP Extraction Method 1312 in conjunction with
USEPA Methods 6010/6020 (or similar approved methods).
Page 9

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Excavation Soil Sampling Plan
L.V. Sutton Energy Complex 1984 Ash Basin
FIGURE 1— Sutton 1984 Ash Basin Sample Grid
9 �4,� 0 i� F fl9G9[tb34�43�,C�ffr14Effi�����7 y
December 2018
Revision 2
� � 1
[
e I oo` :L 1
^❑„ ?a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
n ¢a❑❑❑❑o❑❑❑❑❑❑ ,1
;oa000a000040000�
['y ' 0 4 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O o ❑ ❑ ❑ O o ❑ ❑ C� ..=j...
"I
G7�p❑a❑❑ ❑❑o ❑ ❑�j ICE �
rr �o a o❑❑ a o o❑04 0 0❑❑ o o i; —� 1
� 000❑❑a0000000000�i s �
' '�J ❑ yr' ��❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ j f@W1 1
Mq vikwr
MD
ry; I d`o of rn
— . , ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ L
1/l �
i i,; •:
f4
Legend rd
❑ Proposed 1984 Sawn S—pEing Location 1 — Tsar
Lay ❑f Land Ares {COLA]
0 9asi❑ 6asndary
-ter 5DD 25D a 5DP 1,❑0D Feet
lblei
eogr p tl, 3prt.�: TxaV, IX�6[K U GeoE1p,
earlp�ar , l mN.aptts• cWs'+txde os• 113a1 ups• LV. SUTTON 6ASIN SAMPLING PLAN
2. P4lWr]Y W and Vte pDed T w pubbcAw
2. PrtlpemJ' ❑ c."�IrIpGPtl fmflll W�IC�IY aYdlla[fe tlale Mara LV. Swm E e �C Ina%
3Ca' �� tg 4Ylml�lon, NOM Catllna
13. PlopaeetlLalnPtlrN bm1b115 ehaNn ❑n dpproxlRa[efy 1 W ri @y
1if01[gM-
a oarcwmrmauon smpmwmn m1571 s a O[
KE
paZesucnbdfm acawtce m eeWare. LeosytmEZ1R GY. Figure
Saowmam p pT r WUfn Ile 197 Ou w wrgD ❑r emul�u
applmtl q1' Wnq per aoe Sam pe9wulpy(
j WNpRIiOI)'febilNJ u9ng PalaM1zeetl LHr[MlQoscop7 (PI -!A} CfSIRLOTTE, NC �C�E3A@ER291@
Page 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
ATTACHMENT C

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
DUKE Analytical Laboratory
ENERGY.
1 of 109
Order Number:
Project Name:
Customer Name(s):
Lab Contact:
Report Authorized By:
(Signature)
Program Comments:
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078-7929
McGuire Nuclear Complex - MG03A2
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]
Vendor QC Data Review
Summary Report
J19060496
1971 Basin Closure Samples
Ricky Stroupe
Magda Dziurzynski Phone: [phone]
Digitally signed by Magda
�ri�T �, u[i✓1• eT� Dziurzynski
Date'. 201-TI812:33:3J-0400'
i Ad.be Acrobat version'. Date'
201 ] 011 30142
Magda Dziurzynski
7/18/2019
Please review all vendor data for case narratives with explanations of quality control failures and data qualifiers.
Any analytical tests or individual analytes within a test flagged with a qualifier indicate a deviation from the method quality
system or quality control requirement. Certified vendor results and QC qualifiers can be found in the vendor lab final report.
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of the Analytical Laboratory.
Vendor Data Review Criteria:
This vendor data package has been reviewed at the Duke Analytical Laboratory for the following applicable criteria:
• Required QC samples collected and analyzed
• Required tests performed for all samples
• Vendor Laboratory utilized required test methods for all analyses
• Vendor Laboratory met all requested Reporting Limits (RL)
• QC Results reviewed for outlying recovery values
Case Narrative:
Method: 9045D pH
The pH analysis were performed after the method recommended 15 minute holding time.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71 F
2 of 109
SHEALY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Report of Analysis
Duke Energy
13339 Hagers Ferry Rd
Bldg 7405
Huntersville, NC 28078
Attention: Peggy Kendall
Project Name: Sutton Excavation Soil Samples
Project Number: J19060496
Lot Number:UF21017
Date Completed:07/17/2019
Project Manager:Grant Wilton
07/17/2019 5:20 PM
Approved and released by:
Project Manager: Cathy S. Dover
A C C P E t E❑
The electronic signature above is the equivalent of a handwritten signature.
This report shall not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written approval of Shealy Environmental Services, Inc.
Shealy Environmental Services, Inc.
106 Vantage Point Drive West Columbia, SC 29172 [phone] Fax [phone] www.shealylab.com
Page 1 of 97

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71 F
3 of 109
SHEALY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
SC DHEC No: 32010001 NELAC No: E87653 NC DENR No: 329 NC Field Parameters No: 5639
Case Narrative
Duke Energy
Lot Number: UF21017
This Report of Analysis contains the analytical result(s) for the sample(s) listed on the Sample Summary
following this Case Narrative. The sample receiving date is documented in the header information
associated with each sample.
All results listed in this report relate only to the samples that are contained within this report.
Sample receipt, sample analysis, and data review have been performed in accordance with the most
current approved NELAC standards, the Shealy Environmental Services, Inc. ("Shealy") Quality
Assurance Management Plan (QAMP), standard operating procedures (SOPS), and Shealy policies. Any
exceptions to the NELAC standards, the QAMP, SOPS or policies are qualified on the results page or
discussed below.
Where applicable, all soil sample analysis are reported on a dry weight basis unless flagged with a "W"
qualifier.
The pH analysis associated with the sample(s) in this report was/were performed after the method
recommended 15 minute holding time.
If you have any questions regarding this report please contact the Shealy Project Manager listed on the
cover page.
Shealy Environmental Services, Inc.
106 Vantage Point Drive West Columbia, SC 29172 [phone] Fax [phone] www.shealylab.com
Page 2 of 97

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
Chain of Custody
and
Miscellaneous Documents
Shealy Environmental Services, Inc.
106 Vantage Point Drive West Columbia, SC 29172 [phone] Fax [phone] www.shealylab.com
Page 94 of 97

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71 F
SHEALY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
(WD) .0
LL
.il ! �y
o
'
~
^ A
m`
Y
�kCC
}
�icSy
Im
1
-22
4
II
l
LUI I
I
i5 '
Ch
LL
LLJ
I F
L i i
a L .
-rt
r � I 1
I L i 1 JJII JI I!I
i 1-+ Ti F
-4
of 71cur,�o:k2injer, OxdpSy6lpYa fll Nuolw¢
Shealy Environmental Services, Inc.
106 Vantage Point Drive West Columbia, SC 29172 [phone] Fax [phone] www.shealylab.com
Page 95 of 97

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71 F
SHEALY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
' r
0
SAUejuo. 1� # I�a41 I II
OU
I
•E k
CC 4
LL {
11� I ' ,
Di y, panhaB _" I k I I I Y
2 . I i j I I I
4� I y- I
O';-OiIt�
du
LU
+I..c T �
V
i I 11F I
Z I
I A 0 �F 12
iai pI
�LJ.J 1 I
'NEV 41 -A—FM -----9MMRZE--- �t8ldwoi aq f51W4J6Llj_.. _.._._
w
- - �- - -
Shealy Environmental Services, Inc.
106 Vantage Point Drive West Columbia, SC 29172 [phone] Fax [phone] www.shealylab.com
Page 96 of 97

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71 F
SHEALY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
ShenlyrEkiFmi^neola L-ti iwv%!w,
Dmuboni Nunmr: i4 K!014p .14 FCC l al'l
Sample Receipt $eeklls# (SRC) rrrqulY�nae.8+��+Qda
CI14nt. DUKE �M ERG Y Cooler1rL5 j7 ?dnw.J.- {6r 20-2o]$ r,
]�Jt4' Lf'210f14
Mranq nFrecip[: ^tiCa Client 1 rl}S FedCsx llLiZcr; CxIzJRlER —
Yes Na _ - 'Next aastody mmis rc mnt on the camel'? —
Yes Na `]A 2. rfcJlls[ud teals wcro a1 r1i, were the illtacl and unfs�vfccn7
a SfrJp [D: NA • CI[fudnc Strip 1D; NA Testcdty- NA
tigirlxi ;errlp 3rature tlpun recelpil 1 Clet'ivj (Carmrtcd) le igXMture upon NxXtipl oSolid S„ap-C:up ID: ]9 G I 1
1!�A 'jVA T � A 1NA °� NA YNA °C
Method: [, J C nperaturG ]il +.SJ� � AgainsE $oitle; tR -nm ID; IR Gun Corrcctian Factor- 0 rC
[�frtl7��.tofcoaJsut; Wet'CG �] Tr:oPacks ❑ f]rylce [� Mane —
❑ Yts © Nn ON ' J Ciesmpca�[turc of an}' cooler v-KPm1[crf 6-O'C', was J'ropccf 141aaagrtx N ritied"
was Nuul eq ". hone !rmAil ?fee -fn& {�h ole one},
Hae
op1nDlerciA Cnurinr's packingslit, attached to 01b form:'es
21 Yes
❑ r'�o
El
pmlixi- :u%ody pd+ rr4iu,T'S tin"_f'ngU[shONFIIZOeiV�d) falfu1v:.ri?
TNA4.
sample Ills l lateui nn tJte RUC?
Sam re [Ds ]iste[T on aJI sample condlinNoW
[]e�tiol] date � tim ht mar lj un thecs
f Nomlrrdion
dais; & tht a listed un all salrl 1e COClltainers"
0 Yew
[ >N{�
10, laid WJ canrai,xx Ile''] With ttse Coo
Ycs
❑ No
r 1. w�4'crc t ststu 1M: p�rti�r�ncd listed on the COC•I
Y-1 ❑ Ne,
VJ Yes © Nu
Yes We
Ycs No
[�Yos El No
C7'es Rln
32. rkid all sztrnplcs arrivt in cFla praper coRtair[ersfCr Cla #cst [1nd?or zn good Condilintl
(1Jnbr ken, lids cqo, etc, j'?
] 3. Was aclbyIjgjC,. 3LMP[c Yul av-41miib[r7 -- --
K W?re all SMTJ?lec; rc,ceiued within 14 the balding firru' or 48 hours, wilUeverc.LoW-i first.)
l _ Were M •sainp[usconlaialtrs 1nL"ingIP'.Cess C61cloCue) SmpicsN+at [fs on COC?
1Z TEA lb. Fol' VOA and I€S1C-1 75 se Inpl+js+ were bulrl?les ]'rcSeCrE >"pea-s re' { �"'Or bintts i n dlinit,eficrl
VJ 1n an ' Qf Mlle V0A -0eis? .
A 17. %4'cre a I I D3R nrIa11Ia11-1nutriera samples r4cciverl ai a P1 j AVF ' V
W NA IS. M ere�Al I cypaiide sarnClesivecivedatA PH '-• 12 and sulUe sa[n 1[-s toociv4d ut a 14c-
10 AM —pro sp
....�:,,..4�_. ,. ,
d YcSf ©No1 0 N A
T,,...
❑ Yea NA 20 Were e][eisl rertaarkyreGueslx (i,c, regtu<sted diluttone, [ui(SIMS�}d�sJgrlsxlitms,
nm3cti}' trattseribad fir4ro the COG into fhe �nrnent 5eclian an LIMS?
❑ YGs 140 21. W4'as the 11L1ic nUlllb,-r ii�tlx[ nn tlr� rq�S�;I C7 J2E�e]? IFyes, Quote !# NA
4ample f'reslc�r9tiom �Tv�;lst l,e oo,uple -1 for aRy salts[,fie(s] iatowTcctly prresera tl or with headspltce }
Stunpfe a) 1!A were rL�xLived Irtcarrentry presccvW a]'d wemudiusat amordilagiy
in san�piTa receiving wfth KA _m4 of ti1L:Je urw: ! 12SO4, TIN-03, FICI, k421014 using, SR # NA__
I'ilne of pll ;crti tiott NA�� Ifilrarethan one pr orvF,tiva b nccdad, please tlofe in the curnments be]ow_
ramPk(s) 'dA3nceiw4-i With hubble�, --6 ;n in in d1au,eter,
e11110e5() NA Were rex:civcd vdlh TR C, �1 P,5 irpf L (1 F 419 xo j and u erg
0611sicd 0cWWkrg,[y in sample Itrcivhg w[th rhiosulfm (Na 20 t) with Slwsly 1D: NA
SR I-aecpde [nbcrs App]J-2d Lry. _t jgc-—
Cffarnne���;-
Shealy Environmental Services, Inc.
106 Vantage Point Drive West Columbia, SC 29172 [phone] Fax [phone] www.shealylab.com
Page 97 of 97

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
99 of 109
LEEGROUP
�� 7)RJ
0FLIVERING MENTIFIC RESOLUTION
June 28, 2019
Magda Dziurzynski
Duce Energy Analytical Laboratory
13339 Hagers Ferry Rd.
Building 7405, MG30A2
Huntersville, NC 28078
RE: Duke Energy Project — J19060496
RJ Lee Group Project Number AOH1054379-0
Dear Ms. Dziurzynski,
The RJ Lee Group, Inc. Monroeville laboratory received 18 samples on June 21, 2019 associated with
Duke Energy job number J19060496. The samples were logged into RJ Lee Group project number
AOH1054379-0 and assigned RJLG sample numbers as indicated in Appendix A.
The coolers were received in good condition with all custody seals in place and intact. Upon sample
verification, it was determined that one of the sample jars had arrived broken and contained inside the
bubble pack. The sample was transferred to another glass jar in order to dry and analyze. Attached in
Appendix A is the signed sample receipt confirmation farm, COC, and sample receipt check list.
These results are submitted pursuant to RJ Lee Group's current terms and conditions of sale, including
the company's standard warranty and limitation of liability provisions. No responsibility or liability is
assumed for the manner in which the results are used or interpreted. Unless notified to return the
samples covered in this report, RJ Lee Group will store them for a period of ninety (90) days before
discarding.
Should you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
i;�—
Bryan R. Bandii, PhD
Principal Investigator
Attachments: Chain of Custody Forms
Mineral Identification Report
350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville PA, 15146 1 P 724.325.1776 F 724.733.1799
W W W.RJLG.COM

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
100 of 109
Appendix A
Chain of Custody Forms
WWW.RJLG.COM

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
101 of 109
0 JERLE EGROUP
Original Issue: 09/16/2005
Effective Date: May 2014
Approved By: Quality Assurance
Form A FOR.002.4
Supersedes: Form FOR-002A Rev. 03
Page 1 of 2
Chain of Custody
RJ Lee Group Work Order #: AOH1054379-0
Project Name/Case #: Sutton Excavation Soil Samples
Received From:
Relinquished To:
Dale Mace
RJI-ee Group, Inc.
Duke Energy
350 Hochberg Road
13339 Hagers Ferry Road
Monroeville, PA 15146 United States
Huntersville, NC 28078 United States
Main: 724-325-1776 Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Main: 980-875-5264 Fax: [phone]
Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Received
10480690
2019020088
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480691
2019020089
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480692
2019020090
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480693
2019020091
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480694
2019020092
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480695
2019020093
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480696
2019020094
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480697
2019020095
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480698
2019020096
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480699
2019020097
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480700
2019020098
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480701
2019020099
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480702
2019020100
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480703
2019020101
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480704
2019020102
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480705
2019020103
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480706
2019020104
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480707
2019020105
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
10480708
QC_20190200097
06/21/2019
8:43
AM EDT
Jun 24, 2019 8:18 AM EDT 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 Page 1 of 2
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
102 of 109
Received From: Dale Mace
Method of Shipment: Federal Express
Company: Duke Energy
Date: 06/21/2019
Received By: Monica Carse
Package Condition Upon Receipt: Sealed
Company: RJ Lee Group, Inc.
Date: 06/21/2019
Relinquished
Method of Shipment:
Company:
Date:
Received By:
Package Condition Upon Receipt:
Company:
Date:
Relinquished
Method of Shipment:
Company:
Date:
Received By:
Package Condition Upon Receipt:
Company:
Date:
Jun 24, 2019 8:18 AM EDT 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146 Page 2 of 2
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
` 1190HI [IIRI
RJ Lee Group
Sample receipt and Log in Check List
Client:
Duke Energy
Date Received:
612112019
Log in Date.
6/21/2019
'Time Received-
8:43 AM
By:
Monica Carse
COC# :
119060496
Project:
A+711-11054379-0
#<Coolers Received
2
Means of Shi manta
FedEX
Air Bill:
14756 7993 0647 & 4756 7993 0658
As Received Screen
yes
No
Comments
Were the Coolers received in good condition?
Was there evidence of tam rin ?
tz
Are Custody Seals intact and in good condition?
Were Coolers received between 2 and 4 degrees C?
Ware all samples intact?
x
See Below
Were all sam les accu rately labeled?
Was the COC received in 000d condition?
Did the sample ID on COC match the ID on the sample jars?
t�
Were there any discrepancies among samples and COG?
Is the COC completely filled out?
Was the COG relinquished properly?
List any anomalies associated with Sample Receipt
Sample 2019020090 arrived broken. Material was able to be transferred to another jar for analysis.
Analyst Signature:
Manager Signature:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
lb
•
31
a
I
-
¢
❑ y &
¢ v
5 I
R J.Sc
m
pl�.�
LL;TE��a
G
�8S
I
DI
1 O
` E
f �
!' T
s4sA
1
cc
o
�J
tJ
_ `I
a` n
`x v
F1 C7
i
Q
z��
r
a a
"-.
l ._.. _I ......
'
0'
..___._
i
I
I
W
IN
U7
L0L+ � �
p L ry N �'7
� • =
Ai ?
W LLij5 i
i
a LL
IT
n `_�h
&e;m�i
r=��
V !J
(ay*"am -1
��
m
C
LL i—
QI
0�
2
U;
a
7 Y .m
Ip V
a
xuj
o ,
uJ
N
W
C] w%AWRIP
3,1aumIU00 10 # linel --��
I I {
1 ; t 4 {
Sl -
dld5
(Z aIVs3) sjupui Igloo
Vnd
geJ�a•
_
I �
I I
I
E
S�
o al l=� "'I �'I 0
I I i I
Rol �°�
en
I I I 1.
v
ti ( I
l i I I 1,_{1
�I
CL
E
p a v Q O O p p.d 010 O.p;p
y
�_a ory_n a cN_n m c_� c_a r
(-"N
Y
e z
' i. '� : • • r 4
'
n
�x-
U �
H
]a
iy64� Cq TuujNO-) neudvldde azatw4iti ❑Z lbuoymo
--------------------------------------
a q
in ;O 3 n I V" .
n

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
•
sieumiuvD �o 4 IElol
p ]7 — --• —r _ i r
� tir
_._
• � T I I I r- r
lax
CL
! 1
z'
a k I
mx d7ds 1
_ } i
LPL i >, 79
Iz aIRB3Y slelau+ Ig1ol + . .
N O Ii ...
� � t
IQ EnI W-1d l .
W i �y z pa�{V1haa — gea�a. j
4C\ f
i O V F " �n I ssR{ei�d9i dwaa�, ■ -
I R
a
} J i
.16
I
'
Q
I
a I
�Vt 1•� �' ! 3 1 i
IQ
.�
E
p00 0
cor
, 1.f
c
'
m'
EZ
t }0
G L) Y
i n �
1
i 446V o{ suuuV{oa ajVpdaadve at.1tdaeao va jawmno
.._.._---.__. _
1 r m
J o
1 I—.._.. ----------- -. a_..—.._..---.._..
F
It

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71F
106 of 109
Appendix B
Mineral Identification Report
WWW.RJLG.COM

o mS9 Envelope ID: 43C to DE47A @42ae kGeE6 2q Ee g
k
ƒ
3
\
\
0
m
U /
4- o
r }
Q 9
75
2)
� 2
m 2
� \
t4w
\
£
�
�
>
�
�
\
./
\
\
e
7
»
CD �
\
7
CD2
c
$
/
c
$
{
9
\
%
ƒ
i
\
c
%
2
o
c
<
2
LL
/
�
a
o
o
2
$
u
(D
E
"
\
CL
0
0
0
E
2
m
\
0
§
u
k
2
J$
w
3
a
J
E
\
\
/
\
\
ƒ
0
\
�
r-
2
p
\
_
?
o
\
®
\
\
E
5
ƒ
LU
a)\
2
D
§
m
N
O
\
I
N
9
0
\
L
\
6
\
k
\
5
�
_
E
E
0
U
<
0-
§ E
k U
U)
= 4
± �
<
_0
_
k 0
M U
_0
_
N
± m
3 k
q
U
�
�
w
\
/
0
\
e

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71 F
0
0
w
0
r�
N
C
E
(D
E
E
U)
O
U
C
in
c
a
Q
a�
c
0
.0
U
LL
0-
(A
1 N
C
O
E
O
U
U
(T '(--
Q 7
Z
U
2
O 0
o
�
co
Q
�
�,
0
Q
IL
Z
-0
_O
O
N
U
U
N
+-+
cu
U
o
O
o
04
Co
CoN
Q
O
m
C7
co
J
00
t
O
L LO
O
E a� O
O Q No
cn E m
O
U cn 04
C
N
E
N
c
ca
1
w
m
ca
U U
Fn 7 N
U cn cu co
Q 7
200
0
z
�Z
O
N
a)
0
N
ti
N
O
00
O
co
O
O
It
O
CD
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
C
U
U
c
m
1
w
m
m
U U
CO 7 N
U N cu
Q 7
2 O 0
0
z
0
N
N
O
O
O
CO
0
00
I-
O
C
N
E
U
U)
c
m
U)
m
m
U U
65 7 N
U cu N
Q 7
2i O a
0
z
�Z
O
CV
0)
0
N
N
O
O
O
I-
C)
00
It
O
00
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
C
N
E
N
U)
c
ca
1
w
m
ca
U U
CO 7 N
U cu cu
Q 7
2 O 0
0
z
M
O
N
0)
0
N
ti
N
O
O
rl-
O
It
O
m
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
C
N
E
N
U)
c
cu
m
c�
U U
CO 7 N
U N co
N Q 7
200
0
z
IZ
O
fN
0
O
rn
0
N
N
O
N
O
ti
O
00
It
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
(14
C
N
E
U
U)
c
m
U)
cv
U U
65 7 N
(j cu N
Q 7
2 O 0
0
z
rely
O
N
0)
O
N
N
O
M
O
rl-
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
C
N
E
U
c
co
1
fn
m
cu
U U
65 7 N
(j cucn cu
Q 7200
0
z
�Z
O
N
0)
O
N
ti
N
O
It
O
rl-
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
C
U
70
U
cn
c
m
1
w
m
m
U U
CO 7 N
U N cu
a =)
2 O 0
0
z
O
N
Ei5
0
N
N
O
LO
O
ti
O
00
I -
CD
co
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
C
N
N
cn
0
m
U)
m
cv
U U
65 7 N
U cu N
Q 7
2i O a
0
�Z
O
N
CD
O
N
N
O
O
O
PI -
CD
O
O
Nt
O
O
N
O
O
O
N

DocuSign Envelope ID: 43C1 DAD8-47A0-4286-A446-D6E6299EB71 F
co
C
CN
C
U)
C
CaCl
C
a)
U)
C
m
� C
U)
N
A 0
U
U)
LL Q
(n
7 N
C E
ca cv
Z U
2
0 0
z
O (n
c
Q
Q
IL
Z
z
-0
O
CY)
U
O
C)
rn
rn
c6
0
_(1)
O
U
o
0
FoR �� I U-
I -
(`
Q
O
O
Q
r--
00
O
O
J
00
00
O
O
LA
mFM
Q N
F- CD
U) O
O
O
0
O
N
O
m
0
N
T
m
0
w
U
O
a
N
m
O
Z
vi
c
O
O
Q
T
L
m
O
O
a
T
m
c`a q)
3 m
C T 3
'p m w
Ca
E 'U >
E w -6
m _ m
>
tf
rn O CO O
N a
U o
cCD
Q D L
E wEL
J
U C W N
c>i Z.9
C N p fn
j m m 00 .y
C O C N N
- L m m
m O `O N =
m O C) IL5Q
0 a a0 Q O
O N J [ m
U O
c w O Z m U
O
C: o -0 M °? 3
U
0 o a`) U o 0
a s -2 m
c o m n
m
J = v)
m C
Q C
E O
w E a C Q w U m
7 Z Q> If
0
m (D U> d m m -O
m m
c E 0
N U •O a) > m m U
m
m N
N O` T to y
C m L OC: o
m m U)c v
> m m -o m a 0)
N J N 3 U 0 0-0 C
L
(0 C m N .N j
m O m N 3 a N L Q m
c m N A m U LL m
E m U m a) o
Q U .'= E O m 0 0
U L m U -O N .J .L... .N
g 0 3 :5 °o y 3 0 a)
NE C O V) 3 N
Q jNC= w�� O U w C)
O C N C O
m L m a) O U m 0 0
Z3 .. V w n O
O m 2 O m 6. 5
w a m m m
E a m :) v aJLm
, E
.@ E m E N T .N E m
N (nH NHQH(n 1=L.L�
0* x m x x x « «
vi
c
2
U
E
O
N
m
L
m m
m =3
5 U
m
O O
L
O O
U p
'C L
m O-
O O
O E
n c
w C
O O m
y O O
O L O
_N m L
U 0 E
U a)
C
O
CMO O
3
i 6 m
C Q O
O N
3 0 wO
a)o a _0
C
m � O O O
T
N 7 O
p) U
U 0 C C C O
�p n X m
a a) m C
C N m F 3 >>
n m N O
>' m N O 3 L
O O C C L
O- m m U O a)
>' Cl) N m _O
c E m r c m
3 - C
U O' Q CD
m
3 nL Enm
X m O m U .N U
m ` m -
o m
3 m
_ m o a
� 0 Z: C E _C F
m m
m
O
m cXCc C m m C 3L C m m U= a)m O Om
m � c �L
OE .m
rn,F _ .2m
Eo
O 3 a)
O c a) a U L 0 M m
C'0 N C .3 a 3 ca mca -0 0
m o c m c m E -o = O a
o c y E 0
d m m m (� ate) 7 U m L m
>'O V N m LO Oa
L 'C -2Q O U E>- O m O C
m 0 0) a) O L L UJ 3
S a m m a c `. p) Q E o
m U C m >i L m" w m
(0 C m� N O'D m .3 C
V C C O C U_ m m V' u! C
O L3 mm a
m Tm m '0am m NWaOE j OQ O N O. ma p_ f1OOQ O
mO D 4
O If,3 m "O p) L U
o I L a) f6 m m Q 0
m (6 m 7 _U L .L m 'V 0) T a
@ 0 a am 0) o C$ LL L
3 m m a; U= .N u) W m I Q
Q QI -0 m m m U m a0� m a0)i U) Ii
t N 1 d I t m En U)c o 2 Q O
N Q- � r c o E I m� I 1i Z
m T Q m-2 O m 0 a m o 1
3 m m m °1 m m .� .y E O
O LL U O LL O U D 2 Q U v Z
O
O
M
O