NC0004774_CSA Report Appx E_Field and Sampling QA-QC_20150823

Field, Sampling, and Data Analysis
Quality Assurance / Quality Control
• Field and Sampling Quality Assurance /
Quality Control Procedures
• Data Analysis Quality Assurance/
Quality Control Procedures

Field and Sampling
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures
Documentation of field activities was completed using a combination of logbooks, field data
records (FDRs), sample tracking systems, and sample custody records. Site and field logbooks
were completed to provide a general record of activities and events that occur during each field
task. FDRs have been designated for each exploration and sample collection task, to provide a
complete record of data obtained during the activity.
Field Logbooks
The field logbooks provided a daily handwritten account of field activities. Logbooks were
hardcover books that were permanently bound. All entries were made in indelible ink, and
corrections were made with a single line with the author initials and date. Each page of the
logbook was dated and initialed by the person completing the log. Partially completed pages
will have a line drawn through the unused portion at the end of each day with the author's
initials. The following information was generally entered into the field logbooks:
• The date and time of each entry. The daily log generally begins with the Pre -Job Safety
Brief;
• A summary of important tasks or subtasks completed during the day;
• A description of field tests completed in association with the daily task;
• A description of samples collected including documentation of any quality control
samples that were prepared (rinse blanks, duplicates, matrix spike, split samples, etc.);
• Documentation of equipment maintenance and calibration activities;
• Documentation of equipment decontamination activities; and
• Descriptions of deviations from the work plan.
Field Data Records
Sample FDRs contain sample collection and/or exploration details. An FDR was completed
each time a field sample was collected. The goal of the FDR was to document exploration and
sample collection methods, materials, dates and times, and sample locations and identifiers.
Field measurements and observations associated with a given exploration or sample collection
task were recorded on the FDRs. FDRs were maintained throughout the field program in files
that become a permanent record of field program activities.
Sample Identification
In order to ensure that each number for every field sample collected was unique, samples were
identified by the sample location and depth interval, if applicable (e.g., MW-11S (5-6). Samples
were numbered in accordance with the proposed sample IDs by location.

Field Equipment Calibration
Field sampling equipment (e.g., water quality meter) was properly maintained and calibrated
prior to and during continued use to assure that measurements were accurate within the
limitations of the equipment. Personnel will follow the manufacturers' instructions to determine
if the instruments were functioning within their established operation ranges. The calibration
data was recorded on a FDR.
To be acceptable, a field test must be bracketed between acceptable calibration results.
• The first check may be an initial calibration, but the second check must be a continuing
verification check.
• Each field instrument must be calibrated prior to use.
• Verify the calibration at no more than 24-hour intervals during use and at the end of the
use if the instrument will not be used the next day or time periods greater than 24 hours.
• Initial calibration and verification checks must meet the acceptance criteria
recommended by each instrument manufacturer.
• If an initial calibration or verification check fails to meet the acceptance criteria,
immediately recalibrate the instrument or remove it from service.
• If a calibration check fails to meet the acceptance criteria and it was not possible to
reanalyze the samples, the following actions must be taken:
• Report results between the last acceptable calibration check and the failed calibration
check as estimated (qualified with a "J");
• Include a narrative of the problem; and
• Shorten the time period between verification checks or repair/replace the instrument.
• If historically generated data demonstrate that a specific instrument remains stable for
extended periods of time, the interval between initial calibration and calibration checks
may be increased.
• Acceptable field data must be bracketed by acceptable checks. Data that was not
bracketed by acceptable checks must be qualified.
• Base the selected time interval on the shortest interval that the instrument maintains
stability.
• If an extended time interval was used and the instrument consistently fails to meet the
final calibration check, then the instrument may require maintenance to repair the
problem or the time period was too long and must be shortened.
• For continuous monitoring equipment, acceptable field data must be bracketed by
acceptable checks or the data must be qualified.
Sampling or field measurement instrument determined to be malfunctioning was repaired or was
replaced with a new piece of equipment.

Sample Custody Requirements
A program of sample custody was followed during sample handling activities in both field and
laboratory operations. This program was designed to assure that each sample was accounted
for at all times. The appropriate sampling and laboratory personnel will complete sample FDRs,
chain -of -custody records, and laboratory receipt sheets.
The primary objective of sample custody procedures was to obtain an accurate written record
that can trace the handling of all samples during the sample collection process, through
analysis, until final disposition.
Field Sample Custody
Sample custody for samples collected during each sampling event was maintained by the
personnel collecting the samples. Each sampler was responsible for documenting each sample
transfer, maintaining sample custody until the samples were shipped off -site, and sample
shipment. The sample custody protocol followed by the sampling personnel involves:
• Documenting procedures and amounts of reagents or supplies (e.g., filters) which
become an integral part of the sample from sample preparation and preservation;
• Recording sample locations, sample bottle identification, and specific sample acquisition
measures on appropriate forms;
• Using sample labels to document all information necessary for effective sample
tracking; and,
• Completing sample FDR forms to establish sample custody in the field before sample
shipment.
Prepared labels were normally developed for each sample prior to sample collection. At a
minimum, each label will contain:
• Sample location and depth (if applicable);
• Date and time collected;
• Sampler identification; and,
• Analyses requested and applicable preservative.
A manually -prepared chain -of -custody record was initiated at the time of sample collection. The
chain -of -custody record documents:
• Sample handling procedures including sample location, sample number, and number of
containers corresponding to each sample number;
• The requested analysis and applicable preservative;
• The dates and times of sample collection;
• The names of the sampler(s) and the person shipping the samples (if applicable);
• The date and time that samples were delivered for shipping (if applicable);
• Shipping information (e.g., FedEx Air Bill); and,

• The names of those responsible for receiving the samples at the laboratory.
Chain -of -custody records were prepared by the individual field samplers.
Sample Container Packing
Sample containers were packed in plastic coolers for shipment or pick up by the laboratory.
Bottles were packed tightly to reduce movement of bottles during transport. Ice was placed in
the cooler along with the chain -of -custody record in a separate, resealable, air tight, plastic bag.
A temperature blank provided by the laboratory will also be placed in each cooler prior to
shipment if required for the type of samples collected and analyses requested.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Samples
The following Quality Assurance/Quality Control samples were collected during the proposed
field activities:
• Equipment rinse blanks (one per day or one per 20 samples);
• Field Duplicates (one per 20 samples for field and lab duplicates)
Equipment rinse blanks were collected from non -dedicated equipment used between wells and
from drilling equipment between soil samples. The field equipment was cleaned following
documented cleaning procedures. An aliquot of the final control rinse water was passed over
the cleaned equipment directly into a sample container and submitted for analysis. The
equipment rinse blanks enable evaluation of bias (systematic errors) that could occur due to
decontamination.
A field duplicate was a replicate sample prepared at the sampling locations from equal portions
of all sample aliquots combined to make the sample. Both the field duplicate and the sample
were collected at the same time, in the same container type, preserved in the same way, and
analyzed by the same laboratory as a measure of sampling and analytical precision.
Field QA/QC samples were analyzed for the same constituents as proposed for the soil and
groundwater samples.
Decontamination Procedures
Decontamination Pad
A decontamination pad was constructed for field cleaning of drilling equipment. The
decontamination pad will meet the following requirements:
• The pad was constructed in an area believed to be free of surface contamination.
• The pad was lined with a water -impermeable material with no seams within the pad.
The material should be easily replaced (disposable) or repairable.

If possible, the pad was constructed on a level, paved surface to facilitate the removal of
decontamination water. This may be accomplished by either constructing the pad with
one corner lower than the rest, or by creating a lined sump or pit in one corner.
Sawhorses or racks constructed to hold field equipment while being cleaned were high
enough above ground to prevent equipment from being contacted by splashback during
decontamination.
Decontamination water was allowed to percolate into the ground adjacent to the
decontamination pad. Containment and disposal of decontamination water was not required.
At the completion of field activities, the decontamination pad was removed and any sump or pit
was backfilled with appropriate material.
Decontamination of Field Sampling Equipment
Field sampling equipment was decontaminated between sample locations using potable water
and phosphate -and -borax -free detergent solution and a brush, if necessary, to remove
particulate matter and surface films. Equipment will then be rinsed thoroughly with tap water to
remove detergent solution prior to use at the next sample location.
Decontamination of Drilling Equipment
Any downhole drilling equipment was steam cleaned between boreholes. The following
procedure was used for field cleaning augers, drill stems, rods, tools, and associated downhole
equipment.
• Hollow -stem augers, bits, drilling rods, split -spoon samplers and other downhole
equipment was placed on racks or sawhorses at least two feet above the floor of the
temporary decontamination pad. Soil, mud, and other material were removed by hand,
brushes, and potable water. The equipment was steam cleaned using a high pressure,
high temperature steam cleaner.
Downhole equipment was rinsed thoroughly with potable water after steam cleaning.
The clean equipment will then be removed from the decontamination pad and either placed on
the drill rig, if mobilizing immediately to the next boring, or placed on and covered with clean,
unused plastic sheeting if not used immediately.

Data Analysis
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures

BUCK STATION
DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY REPORT
(SPECIATION)
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM in WATER by BRL IC-ICP-DRC-MS SOP or
CHROMIUM and HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM in WATER by EPA Method 200.8 and
218.6
ARSENIC SPECIATION in WATER by BRL IC-ICP-CRC-MS SOP and EPA Method
1632
SELENIUM SPECIATION in WATER by BRL IC-ICP-CRC-MS SOP and FGS-129/EPA
1638 Modification
IRON SPECIATION in WATER by BRL IC-ICP-CRC-MS SOP and FERROUS IRON by
the FERROZINE PROCEDURE and EPA Method 200.8
MANGANESE SPECIATION in WATER by BRL IC-ICP-CRC-MS SOP and EPA
Method 200.8
Project: Duke Energy: Buck Station Site Investigation
Project/Task Number:
392-246418
Sample Data Package:
J 15060598, J 15060665, J 15060722, J 15060894, J 15060895,
J15060905,J15060907,Ja5061012,J15070322,J15070326,
J15070327,J15070332,J15070372,J15070563
Laboratory:
Brooks Rand Laboratory (BRL), Bothell, WA, Eurofins-Frontier
Global Services (FGS), Bothell, WA, Eurofins-Eaton, Monrovia,
CA, Analytical Resources, Inc., Tukwila, WA, and Fremont
Analytical, Seattle, WA
Sample Matrix:
Equipment, Speciation and Pump Blanks (Aqueous)
Sampling Dates:
24 June through 17 July 2015
Validation Guidelines:
Project Work Plan (Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan
(Rev.1) [HDR, December 2014]), United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, 3rd edition (SW-846), National
Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, EPA-540-R-013-
001 [EPA, August 2014], and professional judgment
Validation Level:
Steps I (verification), Ila (validation) and III (data usability)
Data Reviewer:
Todd Wilson, Al Vetrovs, Hailey Fitterer, Ian Welch, HDR
SUMMARY
Laboratory data were acceptable with qualification as noted below. Completeness was greater
than 95%, which met the goal of 90% for the project.
I. SAMPLE RECEIPT / CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Samples were received generally within a temperature of-1-6'C. Freezing of speciation samples
is acceptable. Minimal qualification was required.
II. HOLDING TIMES
All holding time criteria were met but some qualifications were required for the ferrous iron
analyses (24 hours). Samples were qualified as J- or UJ due to missed holding times.
Duke Energy — Buck Speciation Page 1 of 3

III. SAMPLES ANALYZED
All planned samples were collected and all scheduled analyses were performed. The correct
analyte lists were reported. No qualification was required.
IV RI ANKR
METHOD (PREPARATION) BLANKS
Target analytes were generally not detected in method blanks except as discussed below.
Chromium (Ill and VI): Chromium generally contained low level detections in method blanks.
Qualification as blank contamination was provided as UJ or J+, unless the result was greater than
10 x the blank concentration.
Arsenic (Ill and VI): Arsenic was generally non -detect in the method blanks. Qualification as blank
contamination was provided as UJ or J+, unless the result was greater than 10 x the blank
concentration.
Selenium (IV and VI): Selenium was generally non -detect in the method blanks. Qualification as
blank contamination was provided as UJ or J+, unless the result was greater than 10 x the blank
concentration.
Iron (11 and 111): Iron was generally non -detect in the method blanks. Qualification as blank
contamination was provided as UJ or J+, unless the result was greater than 10 x the blank
concentration.
Manganese (11 and IV): Manganese (total and dissolved) was generally detected in the method
(preparation) blanks. Qualification as blank contamination was provided as UJ or J+, unless the
result was greater than 10 x the blank concentration.
INITIAL AND CONTINUING CALIBRATION BLANKS
The ICB and CCB information was not provided by the laboratory as a BRL Level II data package.
The text within each of the data package indicated the ICB and CCB were within acceptable
criteria. Eurofins provided a Level III Data package and results required no qualification.
Chromium ML Initial and Continuing Calibration Blanks were acceptable. No qualification was
required.
Arsenic (111 and VI): Initial and Continuing Calibration Blanks were acceptable. No qualification
was required.
Selenium (IV and VI): Initial and Continuing Calibration Blanks were acceptable. No qualification
was required.
Iron (ll and Ill): Initial and Continuing Calibration Blanks were acceptable. No qualification was
required.
Manganese (11 and IV): Initial and Continuing Calibration Blanks were acceptable. No qualification
was required.
EQUIPMENT (SPECIATION AND PUMP) BLANKS
Target analytes were detected in the equipment, speciation, and pump blanks (EB, Spec Blank or
PB).
Duke Energy — Buck Speciation Page 2 of 3

All Analyses: A number of the EBs contained detections of metals. Concentrations of the detected
metals were not qualified if less than 10 times concentrations detected in the soil results. If the
results were less than 10 times the blank concentration, data were qualified as UJ or J+.
V. LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES (LCS)
Recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were generally within the laboratory's
control limits. If the LCS was outside of the acceptable criteria of 75-125% recovery the data
were qualified. Data were qualified as J- if the LCS recovery was less than 75% and J+ if the LCS
recovery was greater than 125%.
VI. INITIAL CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SAMPLES (ICV)
Brooks Rand Lab provided a combination of ICV and Certified Reference Materials to provide
an indication of compliance. In general, the ICV and Certified Reference Materials were within
acceptable criteria. Data were qualified as J- if the LCS recovery was less than 90% and J+ if
the LCS recovery was greater than 110%.
VII. MATRIX SPIKE / MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE (MS/MSD)
A sample was not designated on the COCs for MS/MSD analysis. An MS/MSD was analyzed
on every batch. If a site -specific MS/MSD sample was completed, a comparison of the RPDs
was completed. If a site -specific sample was not available, the MS/MSD was not evaluated. In
general, the MS/MSD for ferrous iron samples had a low recovery. Based on this information,
there is a notable matrix effect on some of the speciation analytes.
VIII. FIELD DUPLICATES
Field duplicates were designated, but in some instances the sample pair could not be
determined based on the naming convention used in the field (fictitious name, DUP-X, Date -
Duplicate, etc.). If a field duplicate could be determined, the RPDs were calculated and
comparability between the field and duplicate samples completed. If the RPD was greater than
20% RPD, the field and duplicate analytes were qualified as J.
IX. LABORATORY (MATRIX) DUPLICATES
Laboratory duplicate (LD) analyses were performed on the samples and were generally within
acceptable criteria, and minimal qualification was required.
X. INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION
Instrument calibrations were not provided; however, the laboratory indicated the calibrations were
within acceptable criteria and requirements were met. No qualification was required.
XII. SAMPLE REPORTING LIMITS
All RLs were at or below either the regulatory criteria for human health criteria. The hexavalent
chromium RL was less than 70 pg/L for all the laboratories. The RLs were generally at or below
the ecological criteria, if available for metals speciation.
XIII. SAMPLE RESULTS / TRANSCRIPTION VERIFICATION
Transcription between the data package and the EDDs was verified. Results reported between
the MDLs and RLs were qualified as estimated (J).
Duke Energy — Buck Speciation Page 3 of 3

BUCK STATION
DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY REPORT
(SEEP/GROUNDATER/SURFACE WATER)
TOTAL AND DISSOLVED METALS in WATER by USEPA Method 200.7/200.8
TOTAL AND DISSOLVED MERCURY in WATER by USEPA Method 245.1
LOW-LEVEL MERCURY BY USEPA Method 1631 E
NITROGEN/NITRATE + NITRITE by USEPA Method 353.2
SULFIDE by Standard Method 4500-S2D
TOTAL ORGANIC CONTENT by Standard Method 5310B
METHANE by USEPA RSK SOP-175
SULFATE, CHLORIDE, and NITRATE as N by EPA Method 300.0
ALKALINITY/BICARBONATE and CARBONATE by Standard Method 2320B
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS by Standard Method 2540D
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS by Standard Method 2540C
Project: Duke Energy: Buck Station Site Investigation
Project/Task Number:
392-246418
Sample Data Package:
J 15060340, J 15060414, J 15060464, J 15060468, J 15060483,
J 15060548, J5060551, J 15060600, J 15060624, J 15060670,
J15060743 J 15060773, J 15060774, J 15060810, J 15060811,
J15060812,J15060854,J15060856,J15060877,J15060957,
J15060969, J15070020, J15070063, J 15070104, J15070226,
J15070263,J15070267,J15070400,J15070449
Laboratory:
PACE Laboratories (Asheville, Green Bay, Minneapolis, Ormond
Beach), Shealy Environmental Services, West Columbia, South
Carolina, Prism Laboratories, Charlotte, North Carolina and
Element One, Huntersville, North Carolina
Sample Matrix:
Equipment and Filter Blanks (Aqueous)
Sampling Dates:
9 June through 24 June 2015
Validation Guidelines:
Project Work Plan (Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan
(Rev.1) [HDR, December 2014]), United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, 3rd edition (SW-846), National
Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, EPA-540-R-013-
001 [EPA, August 2014], and professional judgment
Validation Level:
Steps I (verification), Ila (validation) and III (data usability)
Data Reviewer:
Todd Wilson, Al Vetrovs, Hailey Fitterer, Ian Welch, Craig Osborn
HDR
SUMMARY
Laboratory data were acceptable with qualification as noted below. Completeness was greater
than 95%, which met the goal of 90% for the project.
I. SAMPLE RECEIPT / CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Samples were received generally within a temperature of 0-6 °C. Minimal qualification was
required. Documentation of COC between laboratories was not well documented within the Level
II data package.
Duke Energy — Buck Water Page 1 of 4

II. HOLDING TIMES
All holding time criteria were met and minimal qualification was required, except for nitrate
samples. All of the samples were qualified as J- or UJ due to missed holding times.
III. SAMPLES ANALYZED
All planned samples were collected and all scheduled analyses were performed. The correct
analyte lists were reported. No qualification was required.
IV. BLANKS
METHOD BLANKS
Target analytes were generally not detected in method blanks except as discussed below.
Total and Dissolved Metals (including Mercury): Method blanks were generally non -detect for the
metals of interest. Qualification as blank contamination was provided as UJ or J+, unless the result
was greater than 10 x the blank concentration.
Nitrogen, Nitrate, Sulfate, and Chloride: Nitrogen, nitrate, sulfate and chloride were generally non -
detect in the method blanks. Qualification as blank contamination was provided as UJ or J+,
unless the result was greater than 10 x the blank concentration.
Total Organic Carbon: Total Organic Carbon (TOC) was generally non -detect in the method
blanks. Qualification as blank contamination was provided as UJ or J+, unless the result was
greater than 10 x the blank concentration.
Methane: Methane was generally non -detect in the method blanks. Qualification as blank
contamination was provided as UJ or J+, unless the result was greater than 10 x the blank
concentration.
Sulfide: Sulfide was generally non -detect in the method blanks. Qualification as blank
contamination was provided as UJ or J+, unless the result was greater than 10 x the blank
concentration.
TDS/TSS and Alkalinity: These methods were generally non -detect in the method blanks.
Qualification as blank contamination was provided as UJ or J+, unless the result was greater than
10 x the blank concentration.
INITIAL AND CONTINUING CALIBRATION BLANKS
The ICB and CCB information was not provided by the laboratory as a Level II data package. The
text within each of the data package indicated if the ICB and CCB were within acceptable criteria.
Total and Dissolved Metals: Initial and Continuing Calibration Blanks were acceptable. No
qualification was required.
Nitrogen, Nitrate, Sulfate, and Chloride: Initial and Continuing Calibration Blanks were acceptable.
No qualification was required.
Total Organic Carbon: Initial and Continuing Calibration Blanks were acceptable. No qualification
was required.
Methane: Initial and Continuing Calibration Blanks were acceptable. No qualification was required.
Sulfide: Initial and Continuing Calibration Blanks were acceptable. No qualification was required.
Duke Energy — Buck Water Page 2 of 4

TDS/TSS and Alkalinity: Initial and Continuing Calibration Blanks were acceptable. No
qualification was required.
EQUIPMENT BLANKS
Target analytes were detected in the equipment blanks (EB).
Total and Dissolved Metals: A number of the EBs contained detections of metals. Concentrations
of the detected metals were not qualified if less than 10 times concentrations detected in the soil
results. If the results were less than 10 times the blank concentration, data were qualified as UJ or
J+.
Additional Analytes: Additional analyses were collected and analyzed with the EBs. The results
were generally non -detect for the water quality analyses. Concentrations of the detected metals
were not qualified if less than 10 times concentrations detected in the soil results. If the results
were less than 10 times the blank concentration, data were qualified as UJ or J+.
V. LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES (LCS)
Recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were generally within the laboratory's
control limits. If the LCS was outside of the acceptable criteria of 75-125% recovery the data
were qualified. Data were qualified as J- if the LCS recovery was less than 75% and J+ if the LCS
recovery was greater than 125%.
VI. MATRIX SPIKE / MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE (MS/MSD)
A sample was not designated on the COCs for MS/MSD analysis. An MS/MSD was analyzed
for each batch. If a site -specific MS/MSD sample was completed, a comparison of the RPDs
was completed. If a site -specific sample was not available, the MS/MSD was not evaluated.
Total and Dissolved Metals: Samples were diluted due to interferences with the ICPMS method
for all associated metals and samples up to 100X. Non -detect values may be diluted. The
recoveries of total and dissolved metals were generally acceptable, and limited qualification of
data was required.
Nitrogen, Nitrate, Sulfate, and Chloride: The recoveries of nitrogen, nitrate, sulfate and chloride
were generally acceptable, and minimal qualification of data was required.
Total Organic Carbon: The recoveries of TOC were generally acceptable, and minimal
qualification of data was required.
Methane: The recoveries of Methane were generally acceptable, and minimal qualification of data
was required.
Sulfide: The recoveries of sulfide were generally acceptable, and minimal qualification of data was
required.
TDS/TSS and Alkalinity: The recoveries of TDS, TSS, and alkalinity were generally acceptable,
and minimal qualification of data was required.
VII. FIELD DUPLICATES
Field duplicates were designated, but in some instances the sample pair could not be
determined based on the naming convention used in the field (fictitious name, DUP-X, Date -
Duplicate, etc.). If a field duplicate could be determined, the RPDs were calculated and
Duke Energy — Buck Water Page 3 of 4

comparability between the field and duplicate samples completed. If the RPD was greater than
20% RPD, the field and duplicate analytes were qualified as J.
VIII. LABORATORY DUPLICATES
Laboratory duplicate (LD) analyses were performed on the TSS, TDS, alkalinity, TOC, chloride,
sulfate, nitrate, and pH samples. Results and were generally within acceptable criteria, and
minimal qualification was required. If results required qualification, the field and duplicate
samples were qualified J.
Total and Dissolved Metals: During several analyses the dissolved metal result was found to be
greater than the total metal result for several samples. The field personnel appeared to have
switched the total and dissolved bottles in the field. The laboratory confirmed the results by
reanalysis. Samples were qualified by the laboratory as CR for the following samples:
Sample #
Field Location Name
Anal tes
2015019326
GWA-7D
Mo, V
2015019328
BG-3D
Cu, Mo
2015019986
AB-413R
Sb
2015019984
AB-2BR
Al, Cr
2015019983
GWA-6BR
Mo
92255380002
GWA-9S
Cu
92255380003
GWA-9S DUP
Cu
92256515001
AB-10S
Ni
922565733002
BG-1S
Sb
92256733001
MW-6S
Sb
92257009002
AB-9D
Mo, V
IX. INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION
Instrument calibrations were not provided; however, the laboratory narrative indicated the
calibrations were within acceptable criteria and requirements were met. No qualification was
required.
X. SAMPLE REPORTING LIMITS
All RLs were at or below either the regulatory criteria for human health criteria. The RLs were
generally at or below the ecological criteria.
XI. SAMPLE RESULTS / TRANSCRIPTION VERIFICATION
Transcription between the data package and the EDDs was verified. Results reported between
the MDLs and RLs were qualified as estimated (J).
Duke Energy — Buck Water Page 4 of 4

DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY REPORT
U233 U234 U236 and U238 by USEPA SW-846 Method 6020A
Ra-226 by USEPA Method 903.1 Modified
Ra-228 by USEPA Method 904.0/SW-846 Method 9320 Modified
Project:
Project/Task Number:
Sample Data Package
Laboratory:
Sample Matrix:
Sampling Dates:
Validation Guidelines:
Validation Level
Data Reviewer:
SUMMARY
Duke Energy Buck Radiological
392-246400-001
J15060785,J15061000,J15060670
GEL Laboratories, LLC (Charleston, SC)
Groundwater (Aqueous)
18 June, 22 June and 29 June 2015
Project Work Plan (Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan
(Rev.1) [HDR, December 20141), United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, 3rd edition (SW-846), Method
903.1, Method 904.4, National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic
Data Review, EPA-540-R-013-001 [EPA, August 2014], and
professional judgment
Stage 2A
Lynn K. Lutz, HDR
Laboratory data were acceptable with qualification as noted below. No data were rejected.
Completeness was 100%.
I. SAMPLE RECEIPT / CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Samples were received at 21 °C and 23°C. These are acceptable temperatures for metals.
Methods 903.1 and 904.0 state that no sample icing is required. No qualification was required.
II. HOLDING TIMES
All holding time criteria of less than 180 days were met and no qualification was required.
III. SAMPLES ANALYZED
All planned samples were collected and all scheduled analyses were performed. The correct
analyte lists were reported. No qualification was required.
IV. BLANKS
METHOD BLANKS
Target analytes were not detected in the method blank (MB) and no qualification was required.
EQUIPMENT BLANKS
Target analytes were not detected in the equipment blank (EB) and no qualification was required
except as noted below.
Ra-226: Detected in the MB at a trace level. Ra-226 was also detected in the associated field
sample (MW-3D) at less than 10 times the blank concentration, and this result has been
qualified as estimated with a possible high bias (J+).
V. LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES (LCS)
Duke Energy — Buck Radiological Page 1 of 2

Recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within the laboratory's control limits
Qualification was not required.
VI. MATRIX SPIKE / MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE (MS/MSD)
MS/MSD analyses were performed on some samples from this project. RPDs and control limits
were met and no qualification was required.
VII. FIELD DUPLICATES
No field duplicate samples were collected and no qualification was required.
VIII. LABORATORY DUPLICATES
Laboratory duplicate (LD) analyses were performed on some samples from this project. Control
limits of 20% RPD, or less than the MRL for results less than five times the MRL, as suggested
in the Functional Guidelines, were met and no qualification was required.
IX. INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION
Instrument calibration information was not assessed, as it was not included in the data packages.
X. SAMPLE RESULTS / TRANSCRIPTION VERIFICATION
Transcription between the data package and the EDDs was verified. Results reported between
the MDLs and RLs were qualified as estimated (J).
Duke Energy — Buck Radiological Page 2 of 2

DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY REPORT
TOTAL METALS by USEPA SW-846 Method 6010/6020/7471
CHLORIDE, NITRATE as N, SULFATE by USEPA SW-846 Method 9056
TOTAL ORGANIC CONTENT by USEPA SW-846 Method 9060
pH by USEPA SW-846 Method 9045
CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC) by USEPA SW-846 Method 9081
OXIDATION-REDUCATION POTENTIAL (ORP) by METHOD G200-9
Project:
Duke Energy Buck Sediments
Project/Task Number:
392-246400-001
Sample Data Package:
J 15060367, J 15060433, J 15060542, J 15060680, J 15070260,
J15080138
Laboratory:
Access Analytical, Inc. (Atlanta, GA) (CEC, ORP)
PACE Laboratories (Asheville, Green Bay, Ormond Beach)
Sample Matrix:
Sediment
Sampling Dates:
09, 10, 11 and 15 June, 07 July and 06 August 2015
Validation Guidelines:
Project Work Plan (Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan
(Rev. 1) [HDR, December 2014]), United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, 3rd edition (SW-846), National
Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, EPA-540-R-013-
001 [EPA, August 2014], and professional judgment
Validation Level:
Stage 2A (CEC and ORP Stage 1)
Data Reviewer:
Hailey Fitterer, Todd Wilson and Lynn K. Lutz, HDR
SUMMARY
Laboratory data were acceptable with qualification as noted below. No data were rejected.
Completeness was 100%.
I. SAMPLE RECEIPT / CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Samples were received at the correct temperature (between 0°C and 6°C). No qualification was
required.
II. HOLDING TIMES
All holding time criteria were met and no qualification was required, except for all samples for ORC,
nitrate as N and pH; these sample results were qualified as J, J- or UJ due to missed holding
times.
III. SAMPLES ANALYZED
All planned samples were collected and all scheduled analyses were performed. The correct
analyte lists were reported. No qualification was required.
IV. BLANKS
METHOD BLANKS
Target analytes were not detected in method blanks and no qualification was required.
EQUIPMENT BLANKS
Equipment blanks were not collected and no qualification was required.
Duke Energy — Buck Sediments Page 1 of 3

V. LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES (LCS)
Recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within the laboratory's control limits
and no qualification was required except as noted below.
Mercury: Mercury recovery in an LCS was above control limits. Mercury in the associated field
sample (BSWW0025001) has been qualified as estimated with a possible high bias (J+).
VI. MATRIX SPIKE / MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE (MS/MSD)
Recoveries and RPDs were within the laboratory's control limits and no qualification was
required except as noted below.
Metals: Six recoveries in the MS/MSD analysis of sample S-2 were outside control limits.
Results in the parent sample have been qualified as estimated (aluminum, barium, chromium,
iron, manganese and strontium).
Four recoveries in the MS/MSD analysis of sample TERRACOTA were outside control limits.
Results in the parent sample have been qualified as estimated (antimony, lead, magnesium and
strontium).
Four recoveries in the MS/MSD analysis of sample BSWW0025001 were outside control limits.
Results in the parent sample have been qualified as estimated (aluminum, iron, manganese and
vanadium).
RPDs for six analytes in the MS/MSD analysis of sample TERRACOTA were above the control
limit. Results for these analytes (aluminum, calcium, copper, cobalt, manganese and potassium)
in the parent sample have been qualified as estimated.
Mercury recoveries in the MS/MSD analysis of sample S-5 were below control limits. Mercury in
the parent sample and its field duplicate S-5 DUP have been qualified as estimated with a
possible low bias (J-).
Mercury recoveries in the MS/MSD analysis of sample TERRACOTA were below control limits.
Mercury in the parent sample has been qualified as estimated with a possible low bias (J-).
TOC: TOC recoveries in the MS/MSD analysis of sample BSWW0025001 were outside control
limits. Results in the parent sample have been qualified as estimated.
TOC recoveries in the MS/MSD analysis of sample TERRACOTA were outside control limits.
Results in the parent sample have been qualified as estimated.
Anions: Chloride recovery in the MS analysis of sample CULVERT DISCHARGE was outside
control limits. Chloride in the parent sample has been qualified as estimated.
VII. FIELD DUPLICATES
Sample S-5 DUP was collected as a field duplicate (FD) of S-5. A number of analytes had RPDs
above 40%; most of the results for these analytes differed by a factor of approximately two (2). It
should also be noted that the percent moistures of 56.50% and 16.30% convert to percent solid
values of 43.50% and 83.50%, a factor of approximately two, and it is the percent solid value
that is used in calculating the concentration in the sample. These results have all been qualified
as estimated (J):
Aluminum Barium Calcium Chromium
Duke Energy — Buck Sediments Page 2 of 3

Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Nickel
Strontium
Vanadium
Zinc
TOC
Percent Moisture
Sample CULVERT DISCHARGE DUPLICATE was collected as a FD of CULVERT
DISCHARGE. A number of analytes had RPDs OF 68% to 148%, above the control limit of
40%. These results have all been qualified as estimated (J):
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Manganese
Nickel
Strontium
TOC
Zinc
CEC: In the CEC analysis of S-5 and S-5 DUP, CEC was 7.1 meq/100 g in the parent sample
but not detected above the RL of 1.0 meq/100 g in the FD; these results have been qualified as
estimated (J) and non -detect estimated (UJ) respectively.
VIII. LABORATORY DUPLICATES
Laboratory duplicate (LD) analyses were performed on some samples from this project. Control
limits of 20% RPD, or less than the MRL for results less than five times the MRL, as suggested
in the Functional Guidelines, were met and no qualification was required.
IX. INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION
Instrument calibration requirements were met, according to the case narrative. No qualification was
required.
X. SAMPLE RESULTS / TRANSCRIPTION VERIFICATION
Transcription between the data package and the EDDs was verified. Results reported between
the MDLs and RLs were qualified as estimated (J).
In the CEC analysis of S-6, the RPD between the highest and lowest of the triplicate analysis
was 42%, indicating a possible degree of non -homogeneity in the sample, and the CEC results
for S-6 have been qualified as estimated (J).
Duke Energy — Buck Sediments Page 3 of 3

DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY REPORT
TOTAL METALS by USEPA SW-846 Method 6010/6020/6020A/7470A/7471
CHLORIDE, NITRATE as N, SULFATE by USEPA SW-846 Method 9056
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON by USEPA SW-846 Method 9060
pH by USEPA SW-846 Method 9045
CHLORIDE by STANDARD METHOD SM4500-CI-E (SPLP)
NITRATE NITROGEN by USEPA Method 353.2 (SPLP)
SULFATE by USEPA Method 300.0 (SPLP)
Project:
Duke Energy Buck Soil and Ash
Project/Task Number:
392-246400-001
Sample Data Package:
J 15030776, J 15040334, J 15040614, J 15050081, J 15050082,
J15050109,J15050462,J15060118,J15060938,J15060954,
J15070207
Laboratory:
PACE Laboratories (Asheville, Green Bay, Minneapolis, Ormond
Beach)
Sample Matrix:
Soil, Ash, Ash by SPLP, and Equipment Blanks (Aqueous)
Sampling Dates:
23 March to 30 June 2015
Validation Guidelines:
Project Work Plan (Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan
(Rev.1) [HDR, December 20141), United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, 3rd edition (SW-846), National
Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, EPA-540-R-013-
001 [EPA, August 2014], and professional judgment
Validation Level:
Stage 2A
Data Reviewer:
Hailey Fitterer, Todd Wilson and Lynn K. Lutz, HDR
SUMMARY
Laboratory data were acceptable with qualification as noted below. No data were rejected.
Completeness was 100%.
I. SAMPLE RECEIPT / CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Samples were received at the correct temperature (between 0°C and 6°C). No qualification was
required.
II. HOLDING TIMES
All holding time criteria were met and no qualification was required except as noted below
Mercury: Mercury in samples GWA-1 D(5-6.5) and Duplicate(4/14/15) was analyzed two days past
the 28 day holding time, and these results have been qualified as non -detect estimated (UJ).
Mercury in the SPLP analysis of sample AS-3S(7.0-8.5) was analyzed three days past the 28 day
holding time, and this result has been qualified as non -detect estimated (UJ).
Anions: All nitrate as N in soil and nitrate nitrogen in aqueous samples were analyzed past their 48
hour holding time, and these sample results were qualified as estimated with a possible low bias
(J-) or non -detect estimated (UJ).
Duke Energy — Buck Soil and Ash Page 1 of 6

TOC: TOC in samples GWA-4D(25-26.5), GWA-4D(34-35.5), GWA-5D(34.5-36) and GWA-
5D(44.5-46) was analyzed two days past the 28 day holding time, and these results have been
qualified as estimated with a possible low bias (J-) or as non -detect estimated (UJ).
TOC in sample GWA7D(87.5-87.8) was analyzed 20 days past the 28 day holding time, and this
result has been qualified as non -detect estimated (UJ).
�H.' All samples for pH in soil were analyzed past the holding time and these sample results were
qualified as estimated (J).
III. SAMPLES ANALYZED
All planned samples were collected and all scheduled analyses were performed. The correct
analyte lists were reported. No qualification was required.
IV. BLANKS
METHOD BLANKS
Target analytes were generally not detected in method blanks (MB) except as noted below.
Metals: Metals in several samples were detected at less than 10 times the MB concentration, and
these results have been qualified as estimated with a possible high bias (J+). The samples and
metals were:
AB-8D (13.5-18.5)
Lead
AB-6D(19-25.5)
Zinc
AB-8D 13.5-18.5 SPLP
Sodium
SPLP Anions: Sulfate in the SPLP analysis of some samples was detected at less than 10 times
the MB concentration, and these results have been qualified as estimated with a possible high bias
(J+). The samples were:
AB-8D (13.5-18.5) SPLP I AB-6D(19-25.5) SPLP AB-6D(34-37) SPLP
Nitrate nitrogen in the SPLP analysis of some samples was detected at less than 10 times the MB
concentration, and these results have been qualified as estimated with a possible high bias (J+).
The samples were:
AB-8D 13.5-18.5 SPLP
EQUIPMENT BLANKS
Target analytes were generally not detected in equipment (rinsate) blanks (EB) except as noted
below.
Metals: Metals in several samples were detected at less than 10 times the EB concentration, and
these results have been qualified as estimated with a possible high bias (J+). The samples and
metals were:
20150604 Rinsate
Aluminum
20150603 Rinsate
Aluminum
AB-3D (20-21)
Boron
AB-3D (23-24.5)
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Mercury
Mercury
Sodium
Zinc
Zinc
AB-3D (28-29.5)
Nickel
AB-3D (3-5)
Boron
Duke Energy — Buck Soil and Ash Page 2 of 6

Zinc
Cadmium
Mercury
Molybdenum
Zinc
AB-7D (23.5-25)
Beryllium
AB-7D (48.5-50)
Boron
Mercury
Mercury
Zinc
Sodium
Zinc
AB-7D (58.5-60)
Beryllium
AB-7D (63.5-63))
Beryllium
Boron
Zinc
Mercury
Zinc
AB-7D (8.5-10)
Beryllium
AB-8D (13.5-18.5)
Beryllium
Boron
Boron
Mercury
Mercury
Zinc
Zinc
AB-8D (3-5)
Beryllium
AB-8S (8.5-12)
Boron
Mercury
Mercury
Zinc
Sodium
Zinc
Duplicate 7
Boron
GWA-4D (97.5-99)
Beryllium
Mercury
Zinc
Molybdenum
Zinc
GWA-3D 29.5-32
Chromium
EB 3/31/15
Copper
AB-2D 5.0-6.5
mercury
SPLP Metals: Several metals in the SPLP analysis of several samples were detected at less than
10 times the EB concentration, and these results have been qualified as estimated with a possible
high bias (J+). The samples and metals were:
AB-6D(34-37) SPLP
Iron
AB-4D(48.5-50)
Strontium
SPLP
V. LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES (LCS)
Recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within the laboratory's control limits
and no qualification was required.
VI. MATRIX SPIKE / MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE (MS/MSD)
Recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) were within the laboratory's control limits
and no qualification was required except as noted below. Only parent samples were qualified.
Sample ID
Analyte
Recoveries High or
Low?
Qualifier
BG-1D (1-2)
Aluminum
High
J+
Antimony
Low
UJ
Boron
Low
UJ
Cadmium
Low
UJ
Chromium
Low
J-
Iron
Low
J-
Molybdenum
Low
UJ
Selenium
Low
J-
Duke Energy — Buck Soil and Ash Page 3 of 6

Sample ID
Analyte
Recoveries High or
Qualifier
Low?
Vanadium
Low
J-
GWA-11 D (75-75.5)
Aluminum
Low
J-
Antimony
Low
UJ
Barium
High
J+
Beryllium
Low
J-
Cadmium
Low
UJ
Calcium
Low
J-
Iron
Low
J-
Lead
Low
UJ
Magnesium
Low
J-
Manganese
Low
J-
Nickel
Low
J-
Selenium
Low
UJ
Strontium
Low
J-
Zinc
Low
J-
AB-3D 3-5
TOC
High
J+
AB-7D 23.5-25
Chloride
Low
UJ
AB-81D (23.5-25)
Antimony
Low
UJ
Arsenic
Low
J-
Cobalt
Low
J-
Lead
Low
J-
Selenium
Low
UJ
Vanadium
Low
J-
Duplicate-6
Antimony
High
UJ
[collected
Calcium
High
J+
Copper
Low
J-
Manganese
High
J+
Potassium
High
J+
Strontium
High
J+
Vanadium
High
J+
AB-4D(23.5-25)
Calcium
High
J+
Cobalt
High
J+
Magnesium
High
J+
Potassium
High
J+
GWA-1 D(5-6.5)
Aluminum
Low
J-
Iron
Low
J-
Man anese
Low
J-
GWA-4D(25-26.5)
Aluminum
High
J+
Barium
Low
J-
Iron
High
J+
Magnesium
High
J+
Manganese
Low
J-
Potassium
High
J+
AB-5D(3-5')
Aluminum
High
J+
Antimony
Low
UJ
Cadmium
Low
UJ
Cobalt
High
J+
Copper
High
J+
Iron
High
J+
Lead
High
J+
Duke Energy — Buck Soil and Ash Page 4 of 6

Sample ID
Analyte
Recoveries High or
Qualifier
Low?
Manganese
High
J+
Nickel
High
J+
Potassium
High
J+
Selenium
Low
J_
Strontium
High
J+
Vanadium
High
J+
GWA7D(87.5-87.8)
Aluminum
Low
J_
Barium
Low
J_
Calcium
High
J+
Cobalt
High
J+
Iron
High
J+
Magnesium
Low
J_
Vanadium
High
J+
AS-3S 10.5-12.0
Vanadium
High RPD
J
VII. FIELD DUPLICATES
Field duplicate (FD) samples were collected. RPDs were not evaluated.
VIII. LABORATORY DUPLICATES
Laboratory duplicate (LID) analyses were performed on some samples from this project. Control
limits of 20% RPD, or less than the MRL for results less than five times the MRL, as suggested
in the Functional Guidelines, were met and no qualification was required.
IX. INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION
Instrument calibration requirements were met as stated in the case narratives and no qualification
was required.
X. SAMPLE REPORTING LIMITS
Most RLs were at or below the regulatory criteria (RSLs) for human health and the ecological
criteria (ESVs) except as noted in the table below. When an MDL is above the regulatory
criterion, results reported as non -detect cannot be assured to be below the criterion. In most
cases for these analytes, they were not reported as non -detect.
Anal to
RL m /K
MDL m /K
RSL m /K
ESV (mg/Kg)
Antimony
3.7
1.9
ok
3.5
Arsenic
3.7
1.9
3.0
ok
Boron
18.7
9.4
ok
0.50
Chromium
1.9
0.94
ok
0.40
Thallium
3.7
1.9
1.2
1.0
Vanadium
3.7
1.9
ok
2.0
XI. SAMPLE RESULTS / TRANSCRIPTION VERIFICATION
Transcription between the data package and the EDDs was verified. Results reported between
the MDLs and RLs were qualified as estimated (J).
TOC: The RSD for the quadruplicate analyses of TOC was above the control limit of 40% in
several samples, and these results have been qualified as estimated (J).
AS-1 D
26.5-28
As-21D 19-20.5
BG-3D
1-2
Dup -1 [collected 3/26/151
Duke Energy — Buck Soil and Ash Page 5 of 6

AB-6D(19-25.5) GWA-4D(34-35.5)
GWA-3D(9-10.5') AB-2D(73.4-74)
Duke Energy — Buck Soil and Ash Page 6 of 6