2016-0418_Duke_App_A_Allen_F

4ERICH
:_'•: •►
www.haleyaldrich.com
EVALUATION OF WATER SUPPLY WELLS IN THE VICINITY OF DUKE
ENERGY COAL ASH BASINS IN NORTH CAROLINA
APPENDIX A -ALLEN STEAM STATION
by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts
for Duke Energy
File No. 43239
April 2016

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
Table of Contents
Page
List of Tables
List of Figures
iii
List of Attachments
v
List of Acronyms
Vi
A. Allen
1
A.1 INTRODUCTION
1
A.1.1
Facility Location and Description
1
A.1.1.1 Facility Setting
1
A.1.1.2 Past and Present Operations
2
A.1.1.3 Facility Geological/Hydrogeological Setting
4
A.1.2
Current CAMA Status
5
A.1.2.1 Updated Receptor Survey and Update Drinking Water Supply Well
Survey, February through August 2015
5
A.1.2.2 Comprehensive Site Assessment, Round 1 Sampling Event, March —
September 2015
6
A.1.2.3 Round 2 Sampling Event, September through October 2015
6
A.1.2.4 Corrective Action Plan — Part 1, 8 December 2015
6
A.1.2.5 Round 3 (November 2015) and Round 4 (December 2015) Background
Well Sampling
7
A.1.2.6 Corrective Action Plan — Part 2, 19 February 2016
7
A.1.3
Investigation Results
8
A.1.4
Selected Remedial Alternative and Recommended Interim Activities
9
A.1.5
Risk Classification Process
9
A.1.6
Purpose and Objectives
12
A.2 WATER SUPPLY WELL DATA EVALUATION
12
A.2.1
Data Sources
13
A.2.2
Screening Levels
13
A.2.3
Results
13
A.3 STATISTICAL
EVALUATION OF BACKGROUND
14
A.3.1
Initial Data Evaluation
15
A.3.1.1 Regional Background Water Supply Well Data
15
A.3.1.2 Facility Background Monitoring Well Data
15
APRIL 2016 i %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
A.3.2 Raw Data Evaluation
A.3.2.1 Regional Background Water Supply Well Data
A.3.2.2 Facility Background Monitoring Well Data
A.3.3 Testing of Statistical Assumptions
A.3.3.1 Regional Background Water Supply Well Data
A.3.3.2 Facility Background Monitoring Well Data
A.3.4 BTV Estimates
A.3.5 Comparison of Water Supply Well Data to the Regional BTVs
A.4 GROUNDWATER FLOW EVALUATION
A.4.1 Introduction
A.4.2 Site Geology
A.4.3 Site Hydrogeology
A.4.3.1 Site Conceptual Model
A.4.3.2 Groundwater Flow Direction
A.4.3.3 Groundwater Seepage Velocities
A.4.3.4 Constituents Associated with CCR
A.4.3.5 Extent of Boron Exceedances in Groundwater
A.4.3.6 Bedrock Flow and Depth of Water Supply Wells
A.4.3.7 Groundwater Mounding
A.4.3.8 Summary
A.4.4 Water Supply Well Capture Zone Analysis
A.4.5 Summary and Conclusions
A.5 GROUNDWATER CHARACTERISTICS EVALUATION
A.5.1 Evaluation Approach
A.5.2 CCR -Related Constituents Screening for Signature Development
A.5.3 Data Analysis Methods
A.5.3.1 Data Sources
A.5.3.2 Data Aggregation
A.5.3.3 Box Plot
A.5.3.4 Correlation Plot
A.5.3.5 Piper Plot
A.5.4 Evaluation Results
A.5.4.1 Box Plot Comparison
A.5.4.2 Correlation Plot Evaluation
A.5.4.3 Piper Plot
A.5.5 Conclusions
A.6 SUMMARY
A.7 REFERENCES
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
20
20
20
21
21
22
23
23
24
24
25
26
26
27
27
28
29
30
30
30
31
31
31
32
32
33
37
38
40
42
APRIL 2016 ii %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
List of Tables
Table No.
Title
A2-1
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
A2-2
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
A2-3
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
A2-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
A2-5
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to
2L Screening Levels
A2-6
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to
MCL Screening Levels
A2-7
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to
DHHS Screening Levels
A2-8
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to
RSL Screening Levels
A2-9
Do Not Drink Letter Summary
A3-1
NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data
A3-2
Facility Specific Background Data for Bedrock and Deep Monitoring Wells
A3-3
Background Data Statistical Evaluation
A3-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Sampling Data to Regional
Background Threshold Values
A3-5
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Sampling Data To Facility Specific
Background Threshold Values
A4-1
Hydrostratigraphic Layer Properties — Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity
A4-2
Estimated Groundwater Seepage Velocities
A5-1
Site -Specific Distribution Coefficient (Kd)
A5-2
Evaluation of Water Supply Wells with Boron Detected above 20 Microgram per
Liter
List of Figures
Figure No. Title
Al -1 Location Map
A1-2 Key Features
APRIL 2016 iii U'CH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
A1-3
Location of Water Supply Wells and Facility Groundwater Conditions
A3-1
Facility Background Wells
A4-1
Two -Medium Groundwater System
A4-2
Slope -Aquifer System
A4-3
Regolith as Primary Groundwater Storage
A4-4
Transition Zone as Primary Transmitter of Impacted Groundwater
A4-5
Water Table Surface — Shallow Wells — Groundwater Measurement Dates 6/25 —
6/26, 2015
A4-6
Potentiometric Surface — Deep Wells — Groundwater Measurement Dates 6/25 —
6/26, 2015
A4-7
Potentiometric Surface — Bedrock Wells (BRU and BR) — Groundwater
Measurement Dates 6/25 — 6/26, 2015
A4-8
Water Table Surface Map — Shallow Flow Layer — Groundwater Measurement
Date 9/18/2015
A4-9
Potentiometric Surface Map — Deep Flow Layer — Groundwater Measurement
Date 9/18/2015
A4-10
Potentiometric Surface Map — Bedrock Wells — Groundwater Measurement
Date 9/18/2015
A4-11
Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements
A4-12
Site Conceptual Model — Plan View Map —Area of Boron Exceedances of
2L Standards
A4-13
Cross -Section Conceptual Site Model
A4-14
Mounding Effect
A4-15
Groundwater Affected by Pumping
A5-1
Pourbaix Diagrams for Iron and Manganese with Measured Eh and pH from Site
Monitoring Wells
A5-2
Example Box Plot and Piper Plot
A5-3
Box Plot Comparison for Major Coal Ash Constituents
A5-4
Box Plot Comparison for Barium and Cobalt
A5-5
Box Plot Comparison for Dissolved Oxygen, Iron, and Manganese
A5-6
Bedrock Groundwater Wells and Direction of Groundwater Flow
A5-7
Correlation Plot for Boron and Sulfate
A5-8
Correlation Plot for Boron and Dissolved Oxygen
A5 -9A
Sampled Water Supply Wells
APRIL 2016 iv %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
A5 -9B
Sampled Water Supply Wells
A5-10
Piper Plot Evaluation - Ash Basin Porewater and Facility Downgradient Bedrock
Wells
A5-11
Piper Plot Evaluation - Water Supply, Regional Background, and Facility Bedrock
Wells
A5-12
Piper Plot Evaluation - Water Supply, Regional Background, Facility Bedrock, and
Ash Basin Porewater Wells
A5-13
Cross -Section Conceptual Site Model
List of Attachments
Attachment Title
A-1 Histograms and Probability Plots for Selected Constituents
A-2 Results of Statistical Computations
A-3 Method Computation Details
APRIL 2016 v DRICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
List of Acronyms
2L Standards North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standards as specified in Title 15A NCAC.0202L
BR Bedrock
BTV Background Threshold Value
CAMA North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014
CAP Corrective Action Plan
CC Confidence Coefficient
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CCR Coal Combustion Residuals
CSA Comprehensive Site Assessment
D Deep
DORS Distribution of Residual Solids
DWR Division of Water Resources
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization
GOF Goodness -Of -Fit
HDR HDR, Inc.
HSL Health Screening Levels
IID Independent, Identically Distributed
IMAC Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations
IQR Interquartile Range
KM Kaplan -Meier
pg/L Micrograms per Liter
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MDL Method Detection Limit
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
ND Non -Detect
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NCDHHS North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
PPBC Proposed Provisional Background Concentration
RAB Retired Ash Basin
ROS Robust Regression on Order Statistics
RSL Risk -Based Screening Level
S Shallow
SCM Site Conceptual Model
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TZ Transition Zone
UPL95 95% Upper Prediction Limit
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UTL95-95 Upper Tolerance Limit with 95% confidence and 95% coverage
APRIL 2016 vi %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
A. Allen
The contents of this document supplements previous work completed by Duke Energy to meet the
requirements of the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (CAMA) for the Allen Steam
Station (Allen or site), a coal-fired generating station. The purpose of this document is to provide the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) with the additional information it needs
to develop a final risk classification for the Allen ash basin under the CAMA requirements. A technical
weight of evidence approach has been used to evaluate the available data for the Allen site, and the
evaluation demonstrates that groundwater utilized by local water supply wells near the Allen coal ash
impoundments is not impacted by coal ash sources. These results indicate that a Low classification for
the Allen Steam Station under the CAMA is warranted.
A.1 INTRODUCTION
The first section of this document provides a description of the facility location, setting, past and present
operations, a summary of activities conducted to meet the CAMA requirements, a summary of the on-
site, and background data evaluation and findings and recommendations of the following reports:
• Comprehensive Site Assessment Report (CSA; HDR, Inc. [HDR], 2015a);
Corrective Action Plan, Volume 1 (CAP -1; HDR, 2015b);
• Corrective Action Plan Volume 2 (CAP -2; HDR 2016).
A review of the risk classification process and the status of that process are also provided.
Additionally, this document provides supplemental technical evaluations in four important assessment
areas: 1) a more detailed evaluation of the private and public water supply well data collected by the
NCDEQ; 2) additional statistical analysis of regional background groundwater data, and facility -specific
background groundwater data; 3) a more comprehensive evaluation of groundwater flow with respect
to local water supply wells; and 4) a detailed comparison of coal ash groundwater chemistry and
background groundwater chemistry in the vicinity of Allen.
A.1.1 Facility Location and Description
Duke Energy owns and operates Allen which is located in Gaston County near the town of Belmont,
North Carolina (Figure A1-1).
A.1.1.1 Facility Setting
The Allen site occupies 1,009 acres of land and is located on the west bank of the Catawba River on Lake
Wylie as shown on Figure A1-2. Properties located within a 0.5 -mile radius of the Allen ash basin
compliance boundary are predominately located in and south of Belmont, Gaston County, North
Carolina. The majority of the land is residential or undeveloped property as shown on Figure A1-2 and
land use is typical of rural areas. Residential properties are located primarily west and south of the ash
APRIL 2016 1 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
basin compliance boundary within the 0.5 -mile radius. In addition, residential properties are present
across the Catawba River to the east in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Per the North Carolina Administrative Code (15A NCAC 02L.0102), "Compliance Boundary" means a
boundary around a disposal system at and beyond which groundwater quality standards may not be
exceeded, and only applies to facilities that have received a permit issued under the authority of North
Carolina General Statute (G.S.) 143-215.1 or G.S. 130A. The ash basin compliance boundary is defined in
accordance with 15A NCAC 02L.0107(a) as being established at either 500 feet from the waste boundary
or at the property boundary, whichever is closer to the waste. The review of property ownership
indicated that Duke Energy owns all of the property within the project boundary with the exception of
one parcel located east of the ash basin within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission boundary
(Lake Wylie) and bisected by the ash basin compliance boundary. Duke Energy has water rights for the
parcel.
Four public water supply wells and 219 private water supply wells are in use within a 0.5 -mile radius of
the ash basin compliance boundary (Figure A1-3). Groundwater flow direction is away from the
direction of the nearest public or private water supply wells. The Catawba River and discharge canal
serve as hydrologic boundaries for groundwater within the shallow layer at the site. There are no water
supply wells located between the ash basins and the Catawba River or between the ash basin and the
discharge canal.
A.1.1.2 Past and Present Operations
Allen began operations in 1957 as a coal-fired electricity generating station and currently operates five
coal-fired units. Units 1 and 2 began operation in 1957, Unit 3 in 1959, Unit 4 in 1960, and Unit 5 in
1961. The plant has the capacity to generate 1,155 megawatts of power along the Lake Wylie.
The major ash -related structures at Allen include the active ash basin, the inactive ash basin, a lined
Retired Ash Basin (RAB) landfill, two unlined distribution of residual solids (DORS) structural fill units,
and two unlined dry ash storage areas located on top of the inactive ash basin. These key features are
shown on Figure A1-2. The ash basin system waste boundary encompasses approximately 322 acres.
The Allen ash basins are situated between the Allen powerhouse to the north, and topographic divides
to the west (along South Point Road) and south (along Reese Wilson Road) (Figure A1-2). Coal ash from
the coal combustion process has historically been disposed of in the Allen ash basin system. The active
ash basin, located on the southern portion of the property, is approximately 169 acres in area and
contains an estimated 71700,000 tons of ash. The inactive ash basin, located between the generating
units and the active ash basin, is approximately 132 acres in area and contains approximately 3,900,000
tons of ash.
The inactive ash basin was commissioned in 1957 and is located adjacent to and north of the active ash
basin. The inactive ash basin was formed by constructing the earthen North Dike (located along the
west bank of the Catawba River), and the northern portion of the East Dike (located between active and
inactive ash basins) across drainage features along the shore of the Catawba River.
APRIL 2016 2 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
The active ash basin was constructed in 1973 and was formed by constructing the southern portion of
the East Dike. Fly ash precipitated from flue gas and bottom ash collected in the bottom of the boilers
were sluiced to the ash basin using conveyance water withdrawn from the Catawba River. Since 2009,
fly ash has been dry -handled and disposed of in the on-site ash landfill, and bottom ash has continued to
be sluiced to the active ash basin. Coal ash was sluiced to the inactive ash basin until the active ash
basin was constructed in 1973. During operations, the sluice lines discharge the water/ash slurry (and
other permitted flows) into the three Primary Ponds on the northern portion of the active ash basin.
Primary Ponds 1, 2, and 3 were constructed in approximately 2004. Currently, Primary Ponds 2 and 3
are utilized for settling purposes. The ash basin is operated as an integral part of the station's
wastewater treatment system, which receives flows from the ash removal system, coal pile runoff,
landfill leachate, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, the station yard drain sump, and site
stormwater. Due to variability in station operations and weather, the inflows to the ash basin are highly
variable.
Effluent from the ash basin is discharged from the discharge tower to the Catawba River via a 42 -inch
diameter reinforced concrete pipe located in the southeastern portion of the ash basin (Outfall 002).
The water surface elevation in the ash basin is controlled by the use of stop logs in the discharge tower.
The RAB landfill is located on the eastern portion of the Allen site, on top of the inactive ash basin. The
landfill was constructed in 2009 and is bound to the north, east, and south by earthen dikes. The RAB
dam comprises the northern and eastern boundaries of the landfill. The lined landfill is permitted to
receive coal combustion residual (CCR) materials including fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, mill rejects,
and FGD waste generated by Duke Energy. In addition to these CCR materials, the landfill is permitted
to receive non -hazardous sandblast material, limestone, coal, carbon, sulfur pellets, cation and anion
resins, sediment from sumps, and cooling tower sludge.
The two unlined DORS structural ash fills are located on top of the western portion of the inactive ash
basin, adjacent to and west of the RAB Ash Landfill. These fills were constructed of ponded ash
removed from the active ash basin per Duke Energy's DORS Permit issued by North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Water Quality. Placement of dry ash in the
structural fills began in 2003 and was completed in 2009. During and following the completion of filling,
the structural fill areas were graded to drain, soil cover was placed on the top slopes and side slopes,
and vegetation was established. The eastern structural fill covers approximately 17 acres and contains
approximately 500,000 tons of ash. The western structural fill covers approximately 17 acres and
contains approximately 328,000 tons of ash.
The two unlined ash storage areas are located on top of the western portion of the inactive ash basin,
adjacent to and west of the two DORS structural fills. Similar to the two DORS structural fills, the ash
storage areas were constructed in 1996 by excavating ash from the northern portion of the active ash
basin in order to provide capacity for sluiced ash in the active ash basin and the future construction of
Primary Ponds 1, 2, and 3. Following the completion of stockpiling, the ash storage areas were graded
to drain, and a minimum of 18 and 24 inches of soil cover were placed on the top slopes and side slopes,
respectively, and vegetation was established. Approximately 300,000 cubic yards of ash is stored in the
ash storage areas, which encompass an area of approximately 15 to 20 acres of the western portion of
the inactive ash basin.
APRIL 2016 3 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
The air pollution control system for the coal-fired units at Allen includes an FGD system that began
operations in 2009. Coal is delivered to the station by rail. Other areas of the site are occupied by
facilities supporting power production and transmission (two switchyards and associated transmission
lines), the FGD wastewater treatment system, and the gypsum handling station (associated with the
FGD system).
Duke Energy discharges managed and treated wastewater from Allen in accordance with National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit NC0004979. The permitted receiving bodies are
the Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River. The permit is authorized by the NCDEQ Division of
Water Resources (DWR) under the NPDES program.
A.1.1.3 Facility Geological/Hydrogeologica/ Setting
Allen is located in the geologic region known as the Piedmont Province which stretched from New Jersey
to central Alabama. The widest portion of the Piedmont is located in North Carolina. The natural
topography at the site generally slopes downward and eastward from the divide along South Point Road
toward Lake Wylie. Topography at the Allen site ranges from approximately 650 to 680 feet elevation
near the west and southwest boundaries of the site, to an approximate low elevation of 570 feet at the
shoreline of Lake Wylie. Topography generally slopes from a west to east direction with an elevation
change of approximately 110 feet to 80 feet over an approximate distance of 0.8 miles.
The Allen site is located in the Catawba River watershed and the ash basin is adjacent to the Catawba
River and on the eastern side of a peninsula bounded by the South Fork Catawba River. A topographic
divide runs north to south along Highway 273 (South Point Road). Surface water features on the
peninsula generally follow this topographic divide, with drainage features on the western side of South
Point Road draining west to South Point River and drainage features on the eastern side draining east to
the Catawba River.
The surface water classification for the Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River are Class WS -IV B
and Class WS -V waters, respectively. Class WS -IV waters are protected as water supplies, which are
generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. Class WS -V waters are protected as water
supplies, which are generally upstream of and draining to Class WS -IV waters. No categorical
restrictions on watershed development or treated wastewater discharges are required.
Based on the CSA investigation, the groundwater system in the natural materials (alluvium, soil,
soil/weathered bedrock, and bedrock) at the Allen site is consistent with the Piedmont regolith -
fractured rock system and is an unconfined, connected system of flow layers. In general, groundwater
within the shallow alluvium/soil (S) and deep soil/weathered bedrock layers (D or transition zone [TZ]
wells) and bedrock layer (BR wells) flows from west and southwest to the east toward the Catawba River
and to the north toward Duke Energy property and the Station Discharge Canal. The Catawba River and
discharge canal serve as hydrologic boundaries for groundwater within the shallow layer at the site.
More detail on the site hydrogeology is provided in Section A.4.
APRIL 2016 4 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
A.1.2 Current CAMA Status
The CAMA is primarily administered by the NCDEQ. The CAMA required the NCDEQ to, as soon as
practicable, but no later than 31 December 2015, prioritize for the purpose of closure and remediation
CCR surface impoundments, including active and retired sites, based on these sites' risks to public
health, safety, and welfare, the environment, and natural resources.
To this end, CAMA includes the following requirements for coal -fueled facilities that manage coal ash or
CCR, the material that results from the combustion of coal for the creation of electric energy:
• An assessment of groundwater at CCR surface impoundments; and
• Corrective action for the restoration of groundwater quality at CCR surface impoundments.
Duke Energy owns and operates, or has operated, 14 coal -fueled electric generating facilities in the state
of North Carolina. Per CAMA, the investigation reporting milestones for each facility include the
following:
• Groundwater Assessment Work Plan;
• Groundwater Assessment Report, referred to as a Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA); and
Corrective Action Plan (CAP), prepared once the site investigation is complete. As agreed with
NCDEQ, the CAP reports were prepared in two parts, CAP -1 and CAP -2.
Duke Energy has submitted the Groundwater Assessment Work Plans, CSAs, and CAP reports as required
by the CAMA schedule. The CSA reports were submitted for all facilities by 2 September 2015. The CAP -
1 reports were submitted for all facilities on 8 December 2015. CAP -2 reports were submitted by 7
March 2016. The CAP -2 reports include a site-specific human health and ecological risk assessment that
will be used to inform the remedial decision making for each facility.
The CAMA also requires a survey of drinking water supply wells and replacement of water supplies if
NCDEQ determines a well is contaminated by CCR -derived constituents. NCDEQ has yet to make such a
determination under the CAMA. Duke Energy provided the NCDEQ with an evaluation of the NCDEQ-
sampled water supply well (private well) data in December 2015 (Haley & Aldrich, 2015). This report
augments the evaluations provided in the December 2015 report.
A brief summary of the objectives and approach for the Receptor Survey, CSA, CAP -1, CAP -2, and
multiple sampling rounds is provided below:
A.1.2.1 Updated Receptor Survey and Update Drinking Water Supply Well Survey, February through
August 2015
The initial receptor survey was conducted by Duke Energy in September and November 2014 (HDR,
2014a, 2014b). The survey was conducted for the purpose of identifying drinking water wells within a
0.5 -mile (2,640 -foot) radius of the Allen ash basin compliance boundary. Based upon this survey,
NCDEQ arranged for independent analytical laboratories to collect and analyze water samples obtained
from the identified private wells, if the owner agreed to have their well sampled. Approximately 150
APRIL 2016 5 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
private drinking water supply wells within 0.5 mile of the Allen compliance boundary were sampled by
NCDEQ. NCDEQ also provided analytical results for several drinking water wells located outside of the
0.5 -mile radius that would be considered representative of background water quality. Figure A1-3
shows the water supply wells within this 0.5 -mile radius.
A.1.2.2 Comprehensive Site Assessment, Round 1 Sampling Event, March — September 2015
The purpose of the Allen CSA was to characterize the extent of impacts resulting from historical
production and storage of coal ash, evaluate the chemical and physical characteristics of CCR
constituents, investigate the geology and hydrogeology of the site including factors relating to
contaminant transport, and examine risk to potential receptors and exposure pathways.
In addition to historic voluntary groundwater monitoring between May 2004 and July 2015, the
following assessment activities were performed as part of the CSA:
• Installation of 80 groundwater monitoring wells and 8 soil borings.
• Collection of groundwater sampled from 79 newly installed groundwater monitoring wells,
compliance wells, and voluntary wells, and analysis of samples for total and dissolved inorganics
and anions/cations. A limited number of samples were analyzed for metals speciation.
• Collection of ash, soil, bedrock, seep, surface water, and sediment samples.
• Completion of hydraulic testing at 73 newly installed monitoring wells.
• Completion of packer tests in 8 bedrock borings.
• Update of the receptor survey.
• Completion of fracture trace analysis.
• Completion of a screening -level human health and ecological risk assessment.
A.1.2.3 Round 2 Sampling Event, September through October 2015
A total of 85 groundwater monitoring wells were sampled during the Round 2 event, including
80 compliance monitoring wells installed prior to the CSA and 5 voluntary monitoring wells. Samples
were analyzed for total and dissolved CCR constituents.
A.1.2.4 Corrective Action Plan — Part 1, 8 December 2015
The purpose of the CAP -1 report was to summarize CSA findings, evaluate background conditions by
calculating Proposed Provisional Background Concentrations (PPBCs) for Soil and Groundwater, evaluate
exceedances per sample medium with regard to PPBCs, refine the site conceptual model (SCM), and
present the results of the groundwater flow and contaminant fate and transport model, and the
groundwater to surface water interaction model.
The Allen CAP -1 (HDR, 2015b) presented PPBCs for groundwater and soil. The PPBCs and other
applicable regulatory standards were compared to the current site data from each of these media to
APRIL 2016 6 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
determine the CCR constituents to be addressed in a potential corrective action to be proposed in
CAP -2. This evaluation is updated in the subsequent CAP -2 report (HDR, 2016), as additional data were
collected and evaluated against regulatory standards for each medium.
Groundwater modeling of the fate and transport of CCR constituents identified to exceed standards was
conducted to inform the corrective action plan. Three modeling scenarios were completed to assess the
impact of potential corrective actions as follows: existing conditions were modeled into the future over
a 250 -year period; the effect of capping the CCR source areas to reduce rainfall infiltration was modeled
over a 250 -year timeframe; and the effect of excavating CCR materials was modeled over a 100 -year
timeframe.
Recommendations for future work were provided at the end of the CAP -1 report as follows: refinement
of PPBCs; additional sampling of radiological parameters; identification of an on-site background surface
water and seep sample location; updating the SCM with the second round of sampling in the CAP -2
report; update and revision of the groundwater and geochemical models; additional data collection near
BG -1 and BG -2 to better determine flow direction in this area; and continued collection and statistical
evaluation of data from background monitoring wells.
A.1.2.5 Round 3 (November 2015) and Round 4 (December 2015) Background Well Sampling
In response to a NCDEQ request, Duke Energy collected two rounds of groundwater samples from
background wells. Facility background wells within the compliance boundary were identified and based
on the SCM during preparation of the CSA Work Plan (HDR, 2014c).
See Section A.3 for a statistical evaluation of background concentrations.
A.1.2.6 Corrective Action Plan — Part 2, 19 February 2016
The purpose of the CAP -2 report is to provide the following:
• A description of exceedances of groundwater quality standards, surface water quality standards,
and sample results greater than the Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations (IMACs) and
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) health screening level
(HSL; hexavalent chromium only);
• A refined SCM;
• Refined groundwater flow and contaminant fate and transport model results;
• Refined groundwater to surface water interaction model results;
• Site geochemical model results;
• Findings of the risk assessment;
• Evaluation of methods for achieving groundwater quality restoration;
• Conceptual plan(s) for recommended proposed corrective action(s);
APRIL 2016 7 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
• A schedule for implementation of the proposed corrective action(s); and
• A plan for monitoring and reporting the effectiveness of the proposed corrective action(s).
Groundwater data collected during the four sampling rounds were compared to the following standards:
• North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standards as specified in Title 15A NCAC .0202L
(2L Standards);
• IMACs;
• NCDHHS HSL (hexavalent chromium only); and/or
• Site-specific PPBCs for groundwater at Allen.
A.1.3 Investigation Results
Based on the CSA, CAP -1, and CAP -2 results, general observations regarding the spatial distribution of
constituents in groundwater at Allen are depicted in Figure A1-3 and are described as follows:
• The horizontal and vertical extent of groundwater impacts at the Allen site is limited to within
the compliance boundary.
• Impacts from CCR -constituents in groundwater are spatially limited to areas beneath the active
and inactive ash basins, immediately downgradient of the ash basins to the east and north,
within the Duke Energy Property boundary.
• Groundwater impacts are present in the shallow soil/alluvium and deep soil/weathered bedrock
flow layers at the site.
• No exceedances of state or federal criteria were detected in bedrock; in fact, the vertical
migration of CCR constituents is limited by the underlying bedrock.
• Groundwater flows radially to the east and north toward the Catawba River and the discharge
canal, and not towards off-site receptors.
• Soil impacts are limited to the area beneath the ash basin and the uppermost soil sampling
collected beneath ash.
Constituents identified to exceed applicable state and federal regulatory standards are listed by location
below:
• Soil: arsenic, barium, boron, cobalt, iron, manganese, selenium, and vanadium.
• Ash pore water samples: antimony, arsenic, boron, cobalt, iron, manganese, pH, sulfate,
thallium, total dissolved solids (TDS), and vanadium.
• Ash basin surface water: aluminum, cadmium, cobalt, copper, iron, and manganese.
• Groundwater: antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, iron,
manganese, nickel, selenium, sulfate, thallium, TDS, vanadium, and zinc, although many of these
constituents are found above 2L Standards due to naturally occurring concentrations.
APRIL 2016 8 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
Sediment: boron, cobalt, hexavalent chromium, iron, manganese, thallium, and vanadium. Iron,
manganese, and vanadium concentrations exceeded the North Carolina Preliminary Soil
Remediation Goal for Protection of Groundwater, but are also considered naturally occurring
constituents in background soil.
Finally, boron, sulfate, and TDS, all of which exceeded their 2L Standards and PPCBs either beneath or
downgradient of the source areas, are considered to be detection monitoring constituents in Code of
Federal Regulations Title 40 (40 CFR) Section 257, Appendix III, of the USEPA Hazardous and Solid Waste
Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities CCR Rule (USEPA,
2015a). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) detection monitoring constituents are
potential indicators of groundwater contamination from CCR as these constituents are associated with
CCR and move with groundwater flow unlike other constituents whose movement is impeded by
chemical or physical interactions with soil and weathered rock.
A.1.4 Selected Remedial Alternative and Recommended Interim Activities
The recommended remedial alternative selected for Allen is the combination of two remediation
technologies: 1) capping the ash basin, and 2) monitored natural attenuation (MNA). Groundwater
modeling showed that the construction of an engineered cap to reduce infiltration would also reduce
the movement of groundwater from the ash basin.
Geochemical modeling demonstrated that CCR constituents are removed from groundwater with
precipitation of iron and manganese. Fe -Mn -AI oxides adsorbed onto clays were found in samples and
were identified as a primary attenuation mechanism which results in the reduction in concentration of
CCR constituents in groundwater. A MNA program including collection and evaluation of groundwater
data would be implemented until remedial objectives are reached.
Additional groundwater monitoring well installation and a Tier III MNA evaluation (USEPA, 2007) was
recommended for implementation in 2016. Interim and effectiveness monitoring plans are also
scheduled to begin in 2016. The final closure option may be modified based on the final risk
classification proposed by the NCDEQ.
A.1.5 Risk Classification Process
Duke is required by the CAMA to close the Allen ash basin system no later than 1 August 2029 or as
otherwise dictated by NCDEQ risk ranking classification. On 31 January 2016, NCDEQ released draft
proposed risk classifications for Duke Energy's coal ash impoundments in North Carolina (NCDEQ, 2016).
The proposed risk classification for the Allen ash basins was Low -to -Intermediate. Risk classifications
were based upon potential risk to public health and the environment. A public meeting was held by
NCDEQ regarding the proposed risk classification for the Allen ash basins. NCDEQ will release the final
risk classifications after review of public comments.
Upon further review, the NCDEQ will issue either a final Low classification or a final Intermediate
classification for the Allen ash basin. The following are the classification factors for Allen as provided in
the NCDEQ (2016) document:
APRIL 2016 9 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
Groundwater Key Factor:
If either it is determined that no receptor is impacted by the coal ash impoundments or
alternate water is made available to all residents whose wells are being impacted by coal
ash impoundments, the overall groundwater risk would be low. Based on the information
received to date, there appears to be no downgradient receptors located 1,500 feet
downgradient of the impoundment compliance boundary. The following data gaps related
to groundwater uncertainty include:
- Incomplete capture zone modeling in fractured bedrock for up -gradient and side -
gradient supply wells in the immediate vicinity of the impoundments.
- Incomplete geochemical modeling.
- Incomplete background concentration determination.
Based on the data provided in the CSA Report and results of the groundwater modeling
results presented in the CAP Report, the number of downgradient receptors (well users)
1,500 feet from the compliance boundary that are potentially or currently known to be
exposed to impacted groundwater from source(s) or migration pathways related to the CCR
impoundments:
- Active Ash Basin. LOW RISK. There are no reported supply wells within 1,500 feet
downgradient of the impoundment compliance boundary.
- Retired Ash Basin. LOW RISK. There are no reported supply wells within 1,500 feet
downgradient of the impoundment boundary.
• Exceedance of 15A NCAC 2L Standard or IMAC at or Beyond the Established CCR
Impoundment Compliance Boundary:
- Active Ash Basin. HIGH RISK. Several constituents were detected at or beyond the
compliance boundary above the 2L Standard or IMAC including chromium, cobalt,
and vanadium.
- Retired Ash Basin. HIGH RISK. Several constituents were detected at or beyond the
compliance boundary above the 2L Standard or IMAC including antimony,
chromium, cobalt, and vanadium.
• Population Served by Water Supply Wells Within 1,500 feet Up -Gradient or Side -Gradient of
the Established CCR Impoundment Compliance Boundary:
- Active Ash Basin. HIGH RISK. Duke identified approximately 126 water supply wells
within 1,500 feet of the ash basins. These wells are located roughly evenly between
the Active and Retired Ash Basins. With the assumption of 2.5 users per well, even
dividing the number of wells in half, there would be 158 users.
- Retired Ash Basin. HIGH RISK. Duke identified approximately 126 water supply wells
within 1,500 feet of the ash basins. These wells are located roughly evenly between
the Active and Retired Ash Basins. With the assumption of 2.5 users per well, even
dividing the number of wells in half, there would be 158 users.
APRIL 2016 10 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
• Population Served by Water Supply Wells within 1,500 Feet Downgradient of the Established
CCR Impoundment Compliance Boundary:
- Active Ash Basin. LOW RISK. Based on information in the CSA Report and
groundwater modeling in the CAP Report related to hydraulic flow, constituent
concentrations, and water supply well locations, there are no supply wells located
within 1,500 feet of the Active Ash Basin compliance boundary.
- Retired Ash Basin. LOW RISK. Based on information in the CSA Report related to
hydraulic flow, constituent concentrations, and water supply well locations, there
are no water supply wells that are located in the overall downgradient groundwater
flow direction within 1,500 feet of the Inactive Ash Basin compliance boundary.
• Proximity of 15A NCAC 2L Standard or IMAC Exceedances Beyond the Established CCR
Impoundment Compliance Boundary with Respect to Water Supply Wells:
- Active Ash Basin. HIGH RISK. There are several exceedances of the 2L Standard or
IMAC within 500 feet of a water supply well.
- Retired Ash Basin. HIGH RISK. There are several exceedances of the 2L Standard or
IMAC within 500 feet of a water supply well.
Groundwater Emanating from the Impoundment that Exceeds 2L Standard or IMAC and that
Discharges into a Surface Water Body:
- Active Ash Basin. HIGH RISK. Several constituents were detected above the 2L
Standard or IMAC in seeps potentially associated with the active ash basin, including
boron, cobalt, and vanadium that are potentially discharging to a surface water
body. Several constituents were detected above the 2L Standard or IMAC in
groundwater samples collected downgradient of the active basin and adjacent to
surface waters. These constituents included boron, chromium, cobalt, and
vanadium.
- Retired Ash Basin. HIGH RISK. In addition to lower toxicity constituent manganese
being detected in seeps potentially associated with the retired ash basin, vanadium
was also detected which is potentially discharging to a surface water body. Several
constituents were detected above the 2L Standard or IMAC in groundwater samples
collected downgradient of the inactive basin and adjacent to surface waters. These
constituents included boron, chromium, cobalt, and vanadium.
• Data Gaps and Uncertainty Related to Transport of Contaminants to Potential Receptors:
- Active Ash Basin. HIGH RISK. There is a high degree of uncertainty with the data
presented in the CSA Report, CAP Report, and subsequent characterization by Duke
Energy related to the impoundment. The horizontal extent of contamination
remains unclear until adequate background information can be determined and
whether there is any potential current or historical on -or off-site hydraulic influence
on observed contaminant distribution. There appear to be four water supply wells
that may be located side -gradient or downgradient within 1,500 feet of the Active
Ash Basin compliance boundary. Currently, there are not enough bedrock well
locations to refine the understanding of groundwater flow in this area.
APRIL 2016 11 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
— Retired Ash Basin. INTERMEDIATE RISK. There is a moderate degree of uncertainty
with the data presented in the CSA Report, CAP Report, and subsequent
characterization by Duke Energy related to the impoundment. The horizontal extent
of contamination remains unclear until adequate background information can be
determined and whether there is any potential current or historical on -or off-site
hydraulic influence on observed contaminant distribution.
A.1.6 Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this document is to provide additional detailed evaluation of Allen -related data to clarify
the subjects noted in the NCDEQ risk classification comments (see previous section). More specifically,
this appendix is written to provide a technical evaluation to determine if water supply wells in the
vicinity of Allen may be affected by CCR constituents, and provide a better understanding of whether
those metals and other constituents present in water supply wells are naturally occurring or whether
they are present due to migration from the groundwater in the vicinity of the ash basins.
This document is divided into four sections:
• Section A.2 provides an evaluation of the water supply well data with respect to regulatory
standards and health -risk-based screening levels.
• Section A.3 presents additional statistical evaluation of the water supply well data and
background data to provide a more detailed and critical evaluation of constituents that may be
present either due to the influence of nearby ash basins or are naturally occurring and
commonly found in groundwater not affected by Allen operations.
• Section A.4 provides the hydrogeologic findings of additional groundwater modeling and an
additional evaluation of groundwater flow patterns in the vicinity of Allen with respect to the
locations of the water supply wells.
• Section A.5 provides an evaluation of the geochemical fingerprint of pore water compared to
the geochemical fingerprint of water supply wells and regional background wells. This
comparison provides a statistical evaluation of constituent data for specific data sets: ash basin
porewater, facility groundwater, facility background groundwater, water supply wells, and
regional background groundwater, and identifies where these fingerprints are the same, similar,
or significantly different. An interpretation of the data is provided together with specific
conclusions regarding areas that show the potential presence of CCR constituents within and
outside of the compliance boundary for Allen.
Section A.6 provides a summary of conclusions and a discussion of their potential impact on the
risk classification for this site.
A.2 WATER SUPPLY WELL DATA EVALUATION
The purpose of this section is to evaluate data for water supply wells in the vicinity of Allen with respect
to applicable screening levels.
APRIL 2016 12 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
A.2.1 Data Sources
Four public water supply wells and 219 private water supply wells are in use within a 0.5 -mile radius of
the Allen ash basin compliance boundary (Figure A1-3). This section presents an evaluation of the water
supply well data from the following two sources:
• A total of 124 samples collected by the NCDEQ within a 0.5 -mile radius of the Allen ash basin
compliance boundary; and
• A total of 23 samples, combined, collected by NCDEQ in the vicinity of the Allen site, and by
Duke Energy from background water supply wells located within a 2- to 10 -mile radius from the
Allen site boundary.
Where there were multiple results for a single well in the NCDEQ-sampled local water supply well
dataset, a representative value was identified to be used in the evaluation, which is defined as the
maximum of the detected values if the analytical results are not detected values. If the analytical results
are all not detected, the lowest reporting limit is defined as the representative value.
A.2.2 Screening Levels
Analytical data from the NCDEQ-sampled water supply wells and the background water supply wells
were compared to the following state and federal drinking water levels:
• North Carolina Statute 15A NCAC 02L.0202 (2L Standard) groundwater standards (NCAC, 2013),
note that IMACs are included when referring to 2L Standards in this report;
• Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) maximum contaminant levels (MCLS) and secondary
drinking water standards (SMCLs) (USEPA, 2012);
• NCDHHS screening levels (NCDHHS, 2015); and
• USEPA Risk -Based Screening Levels (RSLs) (USEPA, 2015b).
As discussed in the main report, the IMAC value used by NCDEQ and the NCDHHS screening level for
vanadium has been changed, but to date the new screening level has not been released. Similarly, the
NCDHHS screening level for hexavalent chromium has been changed, but to date the new screening
level has not been released. Thus, these screening tables use the publicly available values for these two
constituents.
A.2.3 Results
Tables A2-1 through A2-4 present the comparison of the NCDEQ-sampled data for the water supply
wells located within a 0.5 -mile radius of the Allen ash basin compliance boundary to 2L standards,
USEPA MCLS, NCDHHS screening levels, and USEPA RSLs, respectively.
Tables A2-5 through A2-8 present the comparison of the combined NCDEQ and Duke Energy data for the
background water supply wells to 2L standards, USEPA MCLS, NCDHHS screening levels, and USEPA RSLs,
respectively.
APRIL 2016 13 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
The concentration of boron and the other potential coal ash indicators (discussed in Section 3 of the
main report) were low and not above screening levels in the water supply wells sampled by NCDEQ.
Boron was detected infrequently (27 of 124 samples) in the NCDEQ-sampled water supply wells, and
infrequently in the combined background water supply well dataset (4 of 23 samples). In general, pH in
these wells (both near the facility and in the background wells) was below the state and federal
standard range. These results are not unexpected, based on a study published by the USGS (Chapman,
et al., 2013) and additional North Carolina specific studies (Briel, 1997) showing that groundwater pH in
the state is commonly below the MCL range of 6.5 to 8.5.
Other than pH, there were very few NCDEQ-sampled water supply well results above 2L standards. Of
the 124 wells sampled, 1 result was above the 2L Standard for lead, 1 result for antimony, 2 results for
cobalt, 1 result for thallium, 4 results for copper, 15 results for iron, 1 result for manganese, and
2 results for zinc. Of these, only the value for lead and 3 of the 4 values for copper were above the
federal primary drinking water standards.
"Do Not Drink" Letters were issued by NCDHHS for 141 water supply wells at Allen, with hexavalent
chromium and vanadium being the primary constituents listed in the letters (see Table A2-9). The
letters were based on the now -outdated screening levels, and those "Do Not Drink" warnings have been
lifted for these two constituents. Letters were issued for constituents other than hexavalent chromium
and vanadium, primarily for iron (13 wells), lead (2 wells), cobalt (1 well), sodium (1 well), strontium
(1 well), sulfate (1 well), and thallium (1 well).
A.3 STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF BACKGROUND
The purpose of the background evaluation is to develop a site-specific or facility -specific descriptor of
background for constituents of interest, i.e., a background threshold value (BTV). If a sample result is
below the BTV, there is reasonable confidence that the constituent concentration is consistent with
background. However, a sample result above a BTV does not mean that it is not consistent with
background, only that statistically it cannot be determined based on the available background dataset.
Three datasets are available to describe background groundwater conditions in the vicinity of Allen:
• The NCDEQ-sampled reconnaissance or background water supply well dataset;
• The Duke Energy background water supply well dataset; and
• The Allen facility background monitoring wells.
The NCDEQ and the Duke Energy background water supply well datasets are referred to here as regional
background, and the Allen background monitoring well dataset is referred to as facility -specific
background. Nine constituents were selected for the background evaluation studies at Allen. The
subset of constituents was defined first by whether "Do Not Drink" letters were issued for those
constituents, and second by the needs of the groundwater chemistry evaluation, which is presented in
Section A.S. The BTV values were estimated for the nine constituents at Allen by using a stepwise
approach outlined below.
APRIL 2016 14 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
1) Initial evaluation of background input data sources.
2) Raw data evaluation by descriptive statistics, histograms, outlier tests, and trend tests.
3) Testing of statistical assumptions of the input data by checking for independent, identically
distributed (IID) measurements and goodness -of -fit (GOF) distribution tests.
4) Selection of an appropriate parametric or non -parametric analysis method to estimate
constituents BTVs.
5) Summarizing the statistical analysis results and drawing conclusions.
The statistical methodology and the conclusions for the background evaluation are presented in the
following sections.
A.3.1 Initial Data Evaluation
The initial statistical evaluation was performed to check the homogeneity of variance assumption for
multiple groups of wells included in the regional background water supply well dataset, and separately
for the Allen facility -specific background monitoring well dataset, before combining each into a single
dataset. In this step, data from discrete data sources for each background dataset were tested for
statistical variations using Levine's test. The test examines if the differences in sample variances occur
because of random sampling. Note that the original focus of the background evaluation was on
vanadium and hexavalent chromium, as these were the two constituents for which the majority of the
"Do Not Drink" letters were issued. This statistical analysis was begun prior to the lifting of the "Do Not
Drink" letters, however, the use of these two constituents for the purpose of determining whether the
datasets can be combined is appropriate.
A.3.1.1 Regional Background Water Supply Well Data
Vanadium and hexavalent chromium were used in the statistical computations to determine if the two
background datasets (NCDEQ and Duke Energy) could be combined. The results of the Levine's test are
presented in Attachment A-1.
Statistical computations revealed that there are no significant differences in the variances between the
background regional water supply well data provided by NCDEQ and Duke Energy for both vanadium
and hexavalent chromium data. Therefore, further evaluation was performed on the combined dataset.
Table A3-1 presents the combined regional background water supply well dataset for Allen.
A.3.1.2 Facility Background Monitoring Well Data
Water supply wells in this region of North Carolina are predominantly bedrock wells. Section A.4
discusses this in more detail.
Background wells sampled at Allen for the CSA included BG -1D, BG-2BR, BG -2D, BG -1S, BG -2S, BG -3S
and BG -3D. The initial facility -specific background evaluation for Allen was performed on three
background deep (transition zone) wells and one background bedrock monitoring wells (BG -1D, BG-2BR,
APRIL 2016 15 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
BG -2D, and BG -3D) (see Figure A3-1). Background wells screened in the shallow formation were
excluded from the analysis to limit the data used to the same flow layer that the off-site water supply
wells draw from. The facility -specific background monitoring well data that is used in the background
data evaluation for Allen is presented in Table A3-2. The sample size for both vanadium and hexavalent
chromium consists of less than five samples per well. The results of the statistical computations
indicated that there are no significant differences between monitoring well data for vanadium and
hexavalent chromium. Although decisions based upon statistics computed using discrete data sets of
small sizes (e.g., < 8) are generally not used to make decisions, based on facility -specific knowledge
developed during the detailed environmental investigations and the limited statistical evaluation, the
data from facility -specific background monitoring wells presented in Table A3.2 and Figure A3-1 were
combined for the facility BTV estimates.
A.3.2 Raw Data Evaluation
In the raw data evaluation for Allen, the descriptive statistics for nine constituents for both the regional
and facility -specific datasets were computed and tabulated in Table A3-3. The most common
descriptive statistics included the following: Frequency of Detection (Column 3), Percent Non -Detects
(ND) (Column 4), Range of Non -Detects (Column 5), Mean (Column 6), Variance (Column 7), Standard
Deviation (Column 8), Coefficient of Variation (Column 9), 50th percentile (Column 10), 95th Percentile
(Column 11), and Maximum Detects (Column 12). Critical information such as the requirement for a
certain minimum number of samples and percent non -detects (NDs) were evaluated during this step.
Ideally, 8-10 background measurements would be available, and preferably more, to perform
meaningful statistical tests.
In cases where there is a small fraction of non -detects in a dataset (10-15 % or less) censored at a single
reporting limit, simple substitution methods were utilized by substituting each non -detect with an
imputed value of the method detection limit (MDL). In complicated situations such as the presence of
multiple MDLs intermingled with difference non -detect levels or when the proportion of non -detects
was larger, strategies such as Kaplan -Meier (KM) and Robust Regression on Order Statistics (ROS) were
utilized.
Visual plots such as histograms and probability plots were plotted to examine the data closely and
visually determine if there were extreme outliers in the dataset. If extreme outliers were visually
identified, then outlier tests (Dixon's and Rosner's) were performed to confirm if there are outliers at a
5% significance level. The decision to include or exclude outliers in statistical computations was decided
by the project team based on constituent and facility -specific knowledge. If the presence of an outlier
was confirmed, and if there was enough evidence to remove the outlier, then the outlier was removed
from further statistical analysis. The results of the outlier tests, Outlier Presence (Column 13) and
Outlier Removal (Column 14), for nine constituents for both regional and facility -specific datasets are
presented in Table A3-3. Attachment A-1 presents the histograms, probability plots and outlier tests for
the nine constituents.
APRIL 2016 16 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
A.3.2.1 Regional Background Water Supply Well Data
The descriptive statistics indicated the presence of a high percentage of NDs for boron, cobalt, iron,
lead, nickel, and thallium; cobalt and thallium had no detects out of a total of 20 and 21 samples
respectively; boron had 4 detects, iron had 6 detects, lead had 11 detects, and nickel had 5 detects out
of a total of 21 samples. Due to the presence of a high percentage of NDs in the dataset, the outlier test
statistics were computed using the detected data alone. As presented in Table A3-3 (Columns 13 -14),
an analysis using visual plots and the Dixon Outlier Test indicated the presence of outliers in the data
set, specifically with regard to water supply wells DBKG-AL4, and DBKG-ALS. Sampling results from
these two wells showed significant concentration variation from the remaining sample results and,
therefore, these wells were removed from further analysis and descriptive statistics were recalculated.
A.3.2.2 Facility Background Monitoring Well Data
The descriptive statistics performed on facility -specific background data indicated that greater than
40 percent of samples had NDs for boron, cobalt, and thallium. Out of a total of 17 samples, boron had
1 detect, while cobalt and thallium each had 8 detects. As indicated on Table A3-3, an analysis using
visual plots and the Dixon's Outlier Test indicated the presence of outliers in the data set. However,
outliers are inevitable in most environmental data and the decisions to exclude them need to be made
based on existing knowledge about the facility and the regional groundwater conditions. In this
instance, based on existing knowledge that these are data from background locations not adjacent to
the facility, no outliers were removed from the regional water supply dataset.
A.3.3 Testing of Statistical Assumptions
After performing the initial statistical evaluation and addressing outliers as discussed in the previous
section, two critical statistical assumptions were tested for IID measurements and normality. In general,
the background groundwater data for both the regional and facility -specific datasets were assumed to
have IID measurements for statistical analysis because the design and implementation of a monitoring
program typically results in IID measurements. The groundwater samples are not statistically
independent when analyzed as aliquots or splits from a single physical sample. Therefore, split sample
data were treated as described in Section A.2.1, such that a single value for each constituent was used in
the statistical evaluations.
To test for normality, the data was first analyzed visually by generating histograms and probability plots.
This was followed by an evaluation using GOF tests. The GOF statistics were generated using USEPA
ProUCL software (USEPA, 2013), which tests for normal, lognormal and gamma distributions to establish
the appropriate distribution. If the GOF test statistics suggested the data to follow normal, lognormal or
gamma distributions, parametric methods were utilized to estimate BTV values. If the normality
assumption was not met the data was considered to be distribution free, and non -parametric statistical
methods were used to estimate BTV values.
A common difficulty in checking for normality among groundwater measurements is the frequent
presence of non -detect values, known in statistical terms as left -censored (positively skewed)
measurements. The magnitude of these sample concentrations is unknown and they fall somewhere
APRIL 2016 17 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
between zero and the detection or reporting limit. Many positively skewed data sets follow a lognormal
as well as a gamma distribution. It is well-known that for moderately skewed to highly skewed data
sets, the use of a lognormal distribution tends to yield inflated and unrealistically large values of the
decision statistics especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <20-30). In general, it has been
observed that the use of a gamma distribution tends to yield reliable and stable values. The
distributions determined by GOF tests (Column 15) for nine constituents for both regional and facility -
specific datasets are presented in Table A3-3. Attachment A-2 presents the GOF tests statistics.
A.3.3.1 Regional Background Water Supply Well Data
The test statistics revealed that most of the constituents follow a parametric distribution except cobalt
and thallium; hence, parametric methods were used to compute BTVs for all constituents except cobalt
and thallium. No further evaluation was performed for cobalt and thallium due to the presence of no
detected samples.
A.3.3.2 Facility Background Monitoring Well Data
The test statistics revealed that cobalt, iron, lead, and thallium follow a parametric distribution; hence,
parametric methods were used to compute BTVs for these constituents. No further evaluation was
performed on boron due to the presence of only one detected result. The remaining constituents did
not follow a specific distribution; hence non -parametric methods were used to compute the BTVs for
the remaining constituents.
A.3.4 BTV Estimates
In this step, an appropriate parametric or non -parametric test method to estimate BTVs was selected
based on conclusions from the above sections. When selecting parametric methods or non -parametric
methods, it is implicitly assumed that the background dataset used to estimate BTVs represents an
unimpacted, single statistical population that is free from outliers. However, since outliers are
inevitable in most environmental data (high percentage of NDs), when present, outliers were treated on
a facility -specific basis using all existing knowledge about the facility, groundwater conditions, and
reference areas under investigation as discussed in the previous section. The BTVs for the constituents
were estimated using proUCL (USEPA, 2013) by using one of the following methods.
• Parametric or non -parametric 95% Upper Prediction Limits (UPL95)
• Parametric or non -parametric Upper Tolerance Limits (UTL95-95) with 95% confidence and 95%
coverage
A prediction interval is the interval (based upon background data) within which a newly and
independently obtained (future observation) site observation (e.g., onsite, downgradient well) of the
predicted variable (e.g., boron) falls with a given probability (or Confidence Coefficient [CC]).
Prediction interval tells about the distribution of values, not the uncertainty in determining the
population mean. A UPL95 represents that statistical concentration, such that an independently -
APRIL 2016 18 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
collected new/future observation from the population will exhibit a concentration less than or equal to
the UPL95 with a CC of 0.95.
A tolerance limit is a confidence limit on a percentile of the population rather than a confidence limit on
the mean. A UTL95-95 represents that statistic such that 95% of the observations (current and future)
from the target population will be less than or equal to the UTL95-95 with a CC of 0.95. Stated
differently, the UTL95-95 represents a 95% UCL of the 95th percentile of the data distribution. A UTL95-
95 is designed to simultaneously provide coverage for 95% of all potential observations (current and
future) from the background population with a CC of 0.95. A UTL95-95 can be used when many
(unknown) current or future on-site observations need to be compared with a BTV. For moderately to
highly skewed data sets (high percentage of NDs), upper limits using KM estimates in gamma UCL and
UTL equations provide better results, if the detected observations in the left -censored data set follow a
gamma distribution.
The nonparametric upper limits (e.g., UTLs, UPLs) are computed by the higher order statistics such as
the largest, the second largest, the third largest, and so on of the background data. The order of the
statistic used to compute a nonparametric upper limit depends on the sample size, coverage probability,
and the desired CC. In practice, non -parametric upper limits do not provide the desired coverage to the
population parameter (upper threshold) unless the sample size is large.
Table A3-3 presents the estimated BTV values (Column 16) and applicable methods (Column 17) used in
estimating the upper threshold values. Attachment A-3 presents the ProUCL output of the BTVs
computations.
A.3.5 Comparison of Water Supply Well Data to the Regional BTVs
The data for the water supply wells located within the 0.5 -mile radius from the ash basin compliance
boundary were compared to the regional background BTVs presented in Table A3-3. Comparison to the
regional background BTVs is provided in Table A3-4, and comparison to the facility -specific BTVs is
presented in Table A3-5.
There are 9 constituents for which regional and facility -specific BTVs were developed. Of the 124 water
supply wells sampled by NCDEQ, there are few results above the BTVs. No water supply well result is
above the regional or facility -specific BTV for nickel. No water supply well result is above the facility -
specific BTV for hexavalent chromium and thallium. Barium, cobalt, hexavalent chromium, thallium, and
vanadium each had fewer than 4 percent of the water supply well results above their respective regional
BTVs. For boron, iron, and lead, 18 percent or less of the water supply well results were above their
respective regional BTVs. Barium, boron, cobalt, iron, lead, and vanadium had 10 percent or less of the
water supply well results above their respective facility -specific BTV.
APRIL 2016 19 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
A.4 GROUNDWATER FLOW EVALUATION
[The evaluation in Section A.4, including figures and tables, was provided by HDR, Inc.]
A.4.1 Introduction
The objective of this report is to expand upon site-specific groundwater flow and water quality data that
were presented in the CSA report (HDR, 2015a) for Allen to demonstrate that ash -impacted
groundwater associated with the ash basin system has not migrated toward water supply wells located
up- and side -gradient of the ash basin system.
The CSA was conducted to comply with CAMA. Fieldwork for the CSA was implemented in accordance
with the NCDEQ approved Groundwater Assessment Plan (Work Plan) (HDR, 2014c) and consisted of the
installation of 80 groundwater monitoring wells to complement the existing 17 monitoring wells and
subsequent sampling of the 97 total monitoring wells. The wells were installed to delineate potential
impacts to groundwater from the ash basin system; facilitate collection of geologic, geotechnical, and
hydrogeologic subsurface data; and support characterization of background groundwater conditions. To
date, two rounds of comprehensive groundwater sampling were conducted between June 2015
and September 2015. Water level measurements were recorded in each well prior to sample collection
during each of the two comprehensive sampling events. The water level data collected during the two
comprehensive sampling rounds in 2015 were used to evaluate the groundwater flow direction and
velocity at the facility. The third round of comprehensive sampling is presently being performed.
Groundwater flow within the slope -aquifer system is directly influenced by the underlying geologic
framework of the site. The geology at the site is presented in Section A.4.2, the regional groundwater
system and the hydrogeological SCM are presented in Section A.4.3.1, and the location of water supply
wells in the vicinity of the facility and hydrogeology of the site is presented in Section 3.2. Detailed data
were collected to evaluate groundwater flow direction, horizontal and vertical gradients, and the
velocity of groundwater flow as described in Section A.4.3. The data were used to support the
development of a groundwater flow model, which resulted in an understanding of present and potential
future groundwater conditions. The model incorporated the effects of the water supply well pumping
adjacent to the site. The model results are discussed in Section A.4.4.
A.4.2 Site Geology
The Allen site is located in the Piedmont Province of North Carolina. In-situ materials (in addition to ash
and fill) encountered at Allen during the CSA include:
Alluvium (S) — Alluvium is unconsolidated sediment that has been eroded and redeposited by
streams. Alluvium is present near the shoreline of Lake Wylie with thickness ranging from a few
inches to 34.5 feet.
• Residuum (Regolith -Residual Soils; M1) — Residuum is soil that was derived from the in-place
weathering of bedrock. The range of residuum observed at the site is a few inches to 82 feet.
• Saprolite/Weathered Rock (Regolith; M2) — Saprolite is soil developed by the in-place
weathering of bedrock and retains remnant bedrock structures. The thickness varies across the
APRIL 2016 20 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
site from a very thin mantle where bedrock is near the surface to as much as 75 feet in other
areas.
• Partially Weathered/Fractured Rock (TZ) — This material consists of partially weathered and/or
highly fractured bedrock that occurs below Saprolite/Weathered Rock and above bedrock. The
thickness ranges from a few inches to 33 feet.
• Bedrock (BR) — Bedrock is hard rock that is unweathered to slightly weathered and relatively
unfractured. The bedrock at Allen consists of meta -quartz diorite as the primary rock type
underlying the site with meta -diabase occurring as intrusions into the meta -quartz diorite.
Overlying the in-situ materials are ash and earthen fill used to construct the ash basin embankment
dams and cover over the ash storage areas. Additional information on the site geology was presented in
CSA report Section 6.1 (HDR, 2015a).
A.4.3 Site Hydrogeology
A.4.3.1 Site Conceptual Model
An SCM was developed during preparation of the Work Plan to inform decisions regarding the field
exploration (i.e., monitoring well locations, screened intervals, target depths, etc.). The SCM was based
largely on the LeGrand (1988, 1989) conceptual model of the groundwater setting in the Piedmont and
incorporated Harned and Daniel's (1992) (see Figure A4-1) two -medium system described as follows: the
generalized conceptual model is a slope -aquifer system where a surface drainage basin is contained
within one or more adjacent topographic divides, located along ridge tops serving as the upper hydraulic
boundaries and with a stream, river, or lake serving as the lower hydraulic boundary (LeGrand, 1988).
Each basin is similar to adjacent basins and the conditions are generally repetitive from basin to basin.
Within a basin, movement of groundwater is generally restricted to the area extending from the
drainage divides to a perennial stream (Slope -Aquifer System; LeGrand, 1988; 1989; 2004) (see
Figure A4-2). Rarely does groundwater move beneath a perennial stream to another more distant
stream or across drainage divides (LeGrand, 1989). The crests of the water table underneath
topographic drainage divides represent natural groundwater divides within the slope -aquifer system
and limit the area of influence of wells or contaminant plumes located within their boundaries. The
concave topographic areas between the topographic divides may be considered as flow compartments
that are open-ended down slope. In natural areas, groundwater flow paths in the Piedmont are almost
invariably restricted to the zone underlying the topographic slope extending from a topographic divide
to an adjacent stream, with the stream serving as the discharge feature. Under natural conditions, the
general direction of groundwater flow can be approximated from the surface topography (LeGrand,
2004).
The two -medium system consists of two interconnected layers, or media: 1) residual soil/saprolite and
weathered fractured rock (regolith), overlying 2) fractured crystalline bedrock (Figure A4-1) (Heath,
1980; Harned and Daniel, 1992). The residual soil grades into saprolite, a coarser grained material that
retains the structure of the parent bedrock. Beneath the saprolite, partially weathered/fractured
bedrock occurs with depth until sound bedrock is encountered. This mantle of residual soil and saprolite
APRIL 2016 21 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
(regolith) is a hydrogeologic unit that covers and crosses various types of rock (LeGrand, 1988). These
layers serve as the principal groundwater storage reservoir and provide an intergranular medium
through which the recharge and discharge of water from the underlying fractured rock occurs (Daniel
and Harned, 1998) (Figure A4-3). Within the fractured crystalline bedrock layer, the fractures control
both the hydraulic conductivity and storage capacity of the bedrock. A transition zone at the base of the
regolith is present in many areas of the Piedmont. Harned and Daniel (1992) described the zone as
"being the most permeable part of the system, even slightly more permeable than the soil zone."
Harned and Daniel (1992) indicated the transition zone may serve as a conduit of rapid horizontal flow
and transmission of impacted water (Figure A4-4). Additional details of the SCM are presented in
Sections 5.2 and 6.2.4 of the CSA report (HDR, 2015a) and Section 3.0 of the Allen CAP -1 report (HDR,
2015b).
Based on the results of the CSA, the groundwater system in the in-situ materials (alluvium, soil,
soil/saprolite, and bedrock) and the overlying ash and fill at Allen is consistent with the slope-
aquifer/regolith-fractured rock groundwater model and is an unconfined, connected aquifer system.
The hydrostratigraphic layers (layers of material that have different hydraulic parameters) at the site
consist of in-situ units, Alluvium (S), Residuum (Regolith -Residual Soil; M1), Saprolite/Weathered Rock
(Regolith; M2), Partially Weathered/Fractured Rock (TZ), Bedrock (BR), and anthropogenic units, ash (A),
and fill (F), as described in Section A.4.2. These units are used in the groundwater model of the site
discussed in Section A.4.4.
Additional information concerning the development of the hydrostratigraphic layers is presented in
Section 11.1 of the CSA report (HDR, 2015a).
A.4.3.2 Groundwater Flow Direction
The Allen groundwater system is divided into three flow layers referred to as the shallow (S); deep
(D, which is representative of the TZ); and bedrock (BR) flow layers to distinguish the layers within the
connected, unconfined aquifer system. Monitoring wells were installed with screens in each of these
flow layers during the CSA.
Groundwater elevations measured in monitoring wells show that groundwater flow in all three flow
layers is from the higher topography located along the western and southern extent of the Allen
property to the east and southeast toward the Lake Wylie, as well as north and northeast toward the
station discharge canal.
Water level potentiometric surfaces and directions for the three flow layers are shown on Figures A4-5
(42)1, A4-6 (40), and A4-7 (9) for water levels recorded between 25 and 26 June 2015 and on
Figures A4-8 (42), A4-9 (42), and A4-10 (8) for water levels recorded on 18 September 2015. Water level
data obtained from CSA monitoring wells and existing on-site wells were used to prepare these figures.
The location of the water supply wells are also shown on these figures. The flow directions are
1 Numbers shown in parentheses represent the number of measurements used to prepare the groundwater flow
maps.
APRIL 2016 22 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
consistent with the slope -aquifer system and show that groundwater flow is away from off-site water
supply wells and toward the discharge feature, Lake Wylie.
Vertical gradients, as measured by differences in groundwater elevations at monitoring wells screened
in the three different flow layers, indicate that the higher topography located west and south of the ash
basin system serves as a groundwater recharge area and that Lake Wylie serves as the discharge feature
for groundwater flow at Allen.
A.4.3.3 Groundwater Seepage Velocities
Groundwater seepage velocities were estimated for the hydrostratigraphic units at the site. The
seepage velocity is calculated using the average horizontal hydraulic conductivity values (permeability;
Figure A4-11; Table A4-1) obtained during field tests, the average effective porosity obtained from
laboratory testing or from technical literature (CSA report Table 11-9, and CSA Supplement #1
Table 11-12), and measured horizontal hydraulic gradients between a number of well pairs in the same
flow layer(s) (CSA report Section 6.2.2, Table 6-9). The estimated groundwater seepage velocities are
shown in Table A4-2. These results show higher estimated groundwater velocities in the TZ than in the
regolith above and the bedrock below, which is consistent with the definition of the TZ of Harned and
Daniel (1992). Thus, the TZ serves as a conduit of relatively rapid horizontal flow and transmission of
impacted water away from the water supply wells (Figure A4-4) at Allen.
Additional details on the field testing and laboratory testing for estimating hydrogeologic parameters
are presented in Section 11.2 of the CSA report (HDR, 2015a).
A.4.3.4 Constituents Associated with CCR
The data evaluation in the previous sections of this report determined that there is greater horizontal
flow than there is vertical downward flow at the site, particularly in the TZ flow layer. This section builds
upon that knowledge to evaluate the presence of constituents in groundwater associated with a release
from the ash basins. Evaluation of constituent presence or absence in each flow layer, and the
magnitude of the concentrations provide an independent means of assessing the horizontal and vertical
flow of groundwater, and the ability of groundwater to migrate vertically between the flow layers.
Certain constituents present in coal ash can serve as indicators of a release from a coal ash management
area to groundwater; these have been used by USEPA to design the groundwater monitoring program
under the final CCR Rule (USEPA, 2015a). The USEPA defined a phased approach to groundwater
monitoring. The first phase is detection monitoring where groundwater is monitored to detect the
presence of specific constituents that are considered to be indicators of a release from a coal ash
management area (e.g., metals) and other monitoring parameters (e.g., pH, TDS). These data are used
to determine if there has been a release from a coal ash management area. Detection monitoring is
performed for the following list of "indicator" constituents identified in Appendix III of the CCR Rule:
• Boron;
• Calcium;
• Chloride;
APRIL 2016 23 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
• Fluoride (this constituent was not analyzed for in the CSA);
• pH;
• Sulfate; and
• TDS.
In selecting the constituents for detection monitoring, USEPA chose constituents that are present in CCR
and that are more soluble and move through the soil column and with groundwater without
retardation, relative to other constituents. Thus, groundwater monitoring for these constituents allows
for an evaluation of whether constituents are migrating from a CCR unit. Coal ash constituents dissolve
in groundwater with no measurable increase in density as compared to other constituents that would
tend to "sink" in the aquifer, such as dense non -aqueous phase liquids or saltwater. Thus, releases from
coal ash management areas tend to remain in the shallower groundwater flow layers.
A.4.3.5 Extent of Boron Exceedances in Groundwater
Groundwater at Allen was monitored for a wide range of constituents, as required by the CAMA, and
listed in the CSA report (HDR, 2015a). Boron may be one of the more common indicators for evaluation
of groundwater for releases from coal ash management areas due to boron concentrations in CCR
leachate usually being greater than in typical groundwater. Boron also tends to be highly mobile in
groundwater. For these reasons, boron is often used as an indicator constituent for CCR leachate
(Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI], 2005).
At Allen, boron exceedances of the 2L Standards reported in groundwater during the 2015 Round 2
sampling event are shown in plan view (Figure A4-12) and in cross-section view (Figure A4-13) to
illustrate where this leading indicator associated with CCR is located across the site. Boron was selected
since it is typically prevalent in CCR (USEPA, 2015a) and is not naturally occurring in detectable
concentrations in Piedmont groundwater. As can be seen from this cross-section, the boron
exceedances of the 2L Standards in groundwater are located beneath the eastern end of the inactive ash
basin and the retired ash basin dam. Groundwater flow direction from the ash basin is to the east to
Lake Wylie as well as north and northeast toward the station discharge canal. The locations of the
boron exceedances in groundwater are also located at the eastern end of the ash basin system, below
Primary Pond 2, and adjacent to Lake Wylie. There are no water supply wells between the ash basin,
where the boron exceedances are located, and Lake Wylie.
A.4.3.6 Bedrock Flow and Depth of Water Supply Wells
Monitoring wells installed during the CSA investigation were located and screened at depths to
characterize potential vertical and horizontal extent of impacts from the ash basin system. Monitoring
wells were installed to assess groundwater in each of the three flow layers: shallow, transition zone, and
deep (bedrock). These monitoring wells are located in areas of suspected impacts, in presumed
background areas, and in areas between the ash basin system and off-site water supply wells.
Water supply wells constructed in the Piedmont province are typically drilled to greater depths than
monitoring wells installed for evaluation of inorganic constituents (i.e., constituents with specific gravity
APRIL 2016 24 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
similar to groundwater such as those found in coal ash). As described above, the groundwater levels
and groundwater seepage velocities in the transition zone indicate that lateral flow predominates over
downward flow and that coal ash constituent concentrations decrease with depth.
Duke Energy mailed water supply well questionnaires to surrounding well owners during the Receptor
Survey in 2014 (HDR, 2014a, 2014b); however, very few of the returned questionnaires provided well
construction information. Those that were returned indicated that the wells were completed, or draw
water from, the bedrock groundwater zone. It is our understanding that the NCDEQ requested that
their third -party samplers record well construction information (if available) during sampling of the
supply wells, but Duke Energy has not been provided with that data.
In the absence of well -specific construction data, published literature (Daniel, 1989) was consulted to
yield an average depth of water supply wells in the North Carolina Piedmont (for domestic, commercial -
industrial, public water) as 154 feet from the ground surface with 100 feet in bedrock. Water supply
wells are generally cased though the regolith (soil/saprolite), with additional boring performed as
needed into bedrock to produce the desired well yield. Although these water supply wells may be
drilled into bedrock, the storage characteristics of the overlying saprolite and transition zone control the
sustained quantity of water available to the well (Harned, 1989). It is the regolith (soil/saprolite) that
provides the majority of water used in the water supply wells and the bedrock fractures convey that
stored groundwater to the water supply well (Harned, 1989) (see Figure A4-3).
As noted above, bedrock flow is away from the off-site water supply wells and towards Lake Wylie. The
data collection and analysis of flow in all three groundwater flow layers at the site was conducted while
the off-site water supply wells were under normal operations. The effect of pumping off-site water
supply wells on the direction of groundwater flow at the site is reflected in the water levels measured in
the existing network of monitoring wells. Thus, the measurements of groundwater flow velocity and
direction, and the potentiometric flow maps, reflect groundwater conditions under normal use of the
off-site water supply wells. The effect of pumping water supply wells on groundwater flow and direction
is discussed in more detail in Section A.4.4.
A.4.3.7 Groundwater Mounding
Groundwater mounding refers to the extent to which ash ponds, or any other pond, may raise or
variably influence the natural groundwater levels causing flow to leave the basin radially against the
prevailing slope -aquifer gradient (Figure A4-14). Groundwater and ash basin water elevation data can
be used to establish the extent to which localized hydraulic mounding may emanate from an ash basin
and if this may affect the local groundwater flow direction.
A review of groundwater elevations measured in monitoring wells at Allen found evidence of mounding
in the active ash basin (Figures A4-5 and A4-8). The net effect of the localized gradients resulting from
mounding is reflected in the current data set. The mounding appears to be caused by the variable
discharge of water to the northern and western portions of the active ash basin. Mounding in this area
of the active ash basin is more apparent in the September 2015 groundwater elevation data compared
to July 2015 data.
APRIL 2016 25 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
A review of historical groundwater analytical results for boron and sulfate from NPDES compliance wells
adjacent to the area where mounding is occurring (AB-4S/D, A13 -11D, AB-12S/D and AB-13S/D) do not
show evidence of impacts from coal ash indicator constituents, which suggests that overall groundwater
flow is away from the water supply wells. These compliance monitoring wells are generally located
between the area where mounding is occurring in the ash basin and off-site water supply wells.
Although these data suggest that groundwater between the area of mounding and the off-site water
supply wells is not impacted by coal ash, Duke Energy is installing additional assessment monitoring
wells west of the ash basin in the vicinity of the off-site water supply wells to further evaluate
groundwater quality and to better define the dominant groundwater flow direction west of the ash
basin. Furthermore, Duke Energy is planning to perform additional studies to further evaluate the
effects of mounding in the ash basin.
A.4.3.8 Summary
The hydrogeologic SCM presented in the CSA report (HDR, 2015a) and refined in the CAP -2 report (HDR,
2016) describes groundwater flow in the shallow (S — water table), deep (TZ — transition zone), and
bedrock (BR) groundwater zones as predominantly horizontal with flow to the east toward the Lake
Wylie, and the north portion of the inactive ash basin flowing to the northeast and north toward Duke
Energy property and the discharge canal. The basis for this conclusion is the analysis of monitoring well
water elevation data during the sampling events. The eastern flow direction is away from the water
supply wells with average horizontal gradients of 0.020, 0.033, and 0.030 feet/foot in the shallow, deep,
and bedrock groundwater zones, respectively. The Lake Wylie and Station Discharge Canal serve as the
hydrologic discharge boundaries for groundwater at the site. There are no water supply wells located
between the ash basin system and Lake Wylie.
A.4.4 Water Supply Well Capture Zone Analysis
A well capture zone is the region of an aquifer in which water is removed by pumping wells within a
specified time period (Grubb, 1993) (see Figure A4-15). Groundwater pumping produces a low pressure
area in the groundwater flow field that induces groundwater flow towards the well.
The low pressure area due to the pumping action of the well may not propagate evenly through the
aquifer as groundwater upgradient from the well has higher potential energy and is already flowing
towards the well (positive kinetic energy). The pressure front extends outward from the well into the
aquifer until equilibrium is reached. At this point, the aquifer volume contributing water stabilizes and
the flow rate of water into the well equals the pumping rate. Consequently, the water within the
capture zone, and contaminants, if present, within the zone are captured by pumping. The shape of a
capture zone is typically portrayed as a planar shape, but is a three-dimensional volume.
A preliminary well capture zone analysis was performed and submitted to NCDEQ in December 2015,
using reverse particle tracking and the data available from the CSA, to delineate well capture zones for
the water supply wells near the Duke Energy property boundary at Allen. Duke Energy is in the process
of performing additional borings and installing additional monitoring wells at the site and in off-site
areas adjacent to the site. Information from the borings and monitoring wells will be used to refine the
APRIL 2016 26 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
groundwater model and to expand the groundwater model domain. A revised capture zone analysis will
be developed and submitted to NCDEQ after completion of the refined model.
A.4.5 Summary and Conclusions
Major findings from the evaluation of groundwater flow at the Allen Steam Station are as follows:
The groundwater system at Allen is consistent with the conceptual model of groundwater within
an unconfined, two -medium system (regolith consisting of soil and saprolite overlying bedrock)
separated by a transition zone of higher hydraulic conductivity (permeability) within a slope -
aquifer system. Within the basin footprint, ash, fill, and alluvium are additional layers that
overlie the two -medium system. Three primary flow layers (as defined by the regolith, the
transition zone, and bedrock) are present in the unconfined groundwater system at the site;
shallow (S - water table), deep (D - TZ), and bedrock (BR).
• Site-specific water level measurements confirm that groundwater flow is to the east toward
Lake Wylie and to a limited degree to the north towards the station discharge canal from the
topographic divide west of the ash basin system away from the water supply wells, and also
confirm the flow model predictions.
• The transition zone that separates the regolith above from the bedrock below serves as the
primary transmitter of impacted groundwater with the regolith as the principal reservoir of
groundwater. Water level data and the groundwater modeling indicate horizontal flow
predominates over downward vertical flow. In essence, it is easier for groundwater to flow
horizontally within the transition zone than vertically down through the bedrock.
• Groundwater flow is laterally away from the water supply wells within the transition zone and
overlying saprolite, and soil limiting the impact of coal ash related constituents in bedrock as
shown by analytical data and supported by groundwater modeling.
• A review of topographic and monitoring well groundwater data at Allen found evidence of
mounding in the active ash basin. Groundwater analytical results adjacent to the area where
mounding is occurring do not show evidence of impacts from leading coal ash indicator
constituents (i.e., boron and sulfate).
• Duke Energy plans to update and refine the groundwater flow model with recently collected
data and expand the model grid to include more water supply wells. The revised model will be
used to perform a well capture zone analysis.
• Based on this evidence, groundwater utilized by water supply wells near the coal ash
impoundments is not impacted by the coal ash sources.
A.5 GROUNDWATER CHARACTERISTICS EVALUATION
The results from the local water supply well testing conducted by the NCDEQ in the vicinity of the Allen
facility indicated that some constituents were present at concentrations above state and/or federal
standards and/or screening levels. As noted previously, these constituents are naturally occurring, and
some can be associated with releases from coal ash basins. Thus, it is critical to understand the naturally
occurring background conditions, the groundwater conditions in the tested local water supply wells, and
APRIL 2016 27 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
the conditions in groundwater at the facility where CCR impacts have been demonstrated. A detailed
statistical evaluation of background groundwater data compared to the local water supply well data was
presented in Section A.3. As indicated in Section A.4.3.6, the local water supply wells are generally
cased through the regolith (soil/saprolite) and obtain water through the bedrock fractures that convey
stored groundwater in the regolith. Based on the hydrogeological evaluation in Section A.4,
groundwater utilized by local water supply wells near the coal ash impoundments is not impacted by the
coal ash sources. In this section, the chemistry of the groundwater at the facility in both CCR -impacted
areas and areas not impacted by a CCR release is compared to the chemistry of the local water supply
wells. The similarity or discrepancy in the chemistry of groundwater among various facility monitoring
well groups and the local water supply wells is expected to provide additional insights on the extent of
CCR impacted groundwater.
The objective of the evaluation is to understand, from the groundwater chemistry perspective, whether
the CCR -impacted groundwater at the facility has resulted in the water quality exceedances found in the
local water supply wells.
The evaluation consists of the following two key steps:
• Identify site-specific CCR -related signature constituents that can effectively serve as indicators
to evaluate the extent of the CCR -impacted groundwater.
• Compare the absolute and relative abundance of major common constituents and signature
constituents among various well groups to determine whether CCR -impacted groundwater at
the site has resulted in the water quality exceedances found in the local water supply wells.
Based on the results of this evaluation, there is no relationship between the CCR -impacted groundwater
and the water quality exceedances reported in the local water supply wells.
More details regarding the evaluation approach, data analysis methods, results, and conclusions are
presented below.
A.5.1 Evaluation Approach
A multiple -lines -of -evidence approach, as summarized below, was used to facilitate the development of
chemical signatures of the CCR impacted groundwater. The approach consists of the following key
components:
Screen the geochemical and transport behaviors of typical CCR -related constituents to establish
candidate constituents for further evaluation.
• Assess the presence and magnitude, or range in concentration, of candidate constituents in the
groundwater beneath the site as a result of a release from the ash basin system by comparing
the concentration magnitude of these constituents in the four major well groups below:
— Ash basin porewater monitoring wells;
— Other facility monitoring wells, including wells screened in the shallow flow layer
(shallow wells), wells screened in the transition zones (deep wells), and bedrock wells;
APRIL 2016 28 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
— Local water supply wells (data from NCDEQ); and
— Regional background wells (data from NCDEQ and from Duke Energy).
Note that the wells in a major group may be further divided into multiple subgroups in order to
evaluate the spatial trends of the groundwater data; for example, the facility bedrock wells may
be further divided into two subgroups based on the groundwater flow direction in the bedrock
unit: (a) facility bedrock wells that are likely to be within the area of CCR -impacted groundwater,
and (b) facility bedrock wells that are likely to be outside of this area.
• Identify useful redox sensitive constituents that can also serve as an indicator or a signature for
CCR -impacted groundwater by comparing the concentration magnitude of dissolved oxygen,
iron, and manganese among various well groups.
• Select the most effective constituents that can differentiate the site -related impacts from
background conditions to serve as signature constituents to assess the potential relationship
between the facility CCR -impacted groundwater and the local water supply wells.
• Compare the relative abundance patterns of major cations and anions in groundwater among
various well groups to assess the data clustering pattern and correlation among various well
groups.
• Apply the site-specific geochemical principles and the knowledge of the groundwater flow field,
which have been developed and documented in the CSA and CAP reports (HDR, 2015a; 2015b;
2016) and summarized in Section A.4, to coherently interpret the groundwater data trends and
to verify or reject the connection between the CCR -impacted groundwater and the water quality
exceedances found in the local water supply wells.
A.5.2 CCR -Related Constituents Screening for Signature Development
The first step for determining the CCR -impacted signature constituents is to identify the constituents
that have the following characteristics:
• They are recalcitrant to degradation and transformation under site-specific conditions.
• They are very soluble and subject to little sorption. The site-specific sorption coefficients for
various CCR -related constituents are shown in Table A5-1.
• During the transport process, the constituents of interest are not likely subject to a mechanism
that can increase or decrease their concentrations.
• Their concentrations or values are substantially different from the background concentrations or
values.
Based on these criteria and a review of the chemical data in the CSA report (HDR, 2015a), the following
constituents are considered to be the candidates for signature development:
• Boron, calcium, sulfate, chloride, and TDS: Based on the understanding of the behavior of
constituents that can be released from coal ash into groundwater, USEPA has identified those
constituents that are considered to be indicators of a potential release from coal ash. These
constituents belong to the CCR Rule Appendix III constituents (USEPA, 2015a). Of these, boron
APRIL 2016 29 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
and sulfate are the most common constituents used to evaluate the potential for an ash
management area impact in groundwater, as will be shown in the evaluation presented below.
Barium and cobalt: These two trace metals are less sensitive to the redox conditions and not
readily sorbed to mineral surfaces (Table A5-1), and can be associated with CCR impacts to
groundwater (USEPA, 2015a). These two trace metals are also selected as candidate
constituents. Total barium and cobalt concentrations were used in this evaluation.
• Dissolved oxygen, dissolved iron, and dissolved manganese: Groundwater in the ash basin
system area generally contains very low concentrations of dissolved oxygen, but high
concentrations of dissolved iron and manganese (HDR, 2015a). The site-specific geochemical
analysis indicates that the redox state of groundwater in the ash basin system area is generally
iron or manganese reducing (Figure A5-1) (HDR, 2016). It is noted that, because groundwater
samples collected from the regional background wells and local water supply wells only
analyzed for total iron and total manganese, total iron and total manganese concentrations
were used to conservatively represent the iron concentrations in these groundwater samples.
Because the concentrations of dissolved iron and manganese are sensitive to the presence of
dissolved oxygen, the iron and manganese data used in this evaluation will help identify and
compare the redox conditions of the different well groups.
A.5.3 Data Analysis Methods
A.5.3.1 Data Sources
The groundwater analytical data used in this evaluation are from the following sources:
• Facility groundwater monitoring well data;
• Local water supply well data from NCDEQ;
• NCDEQ reconnaissance or background water supply well data; and
• Duke Energy background water supply well data.
A.5.3.2 Data Aggregation
The general rules for data aggregation are described here. When multiple sampling events occur for a
well, the following rules were used to find a representative concentration value for the box plot and
correlation plot evaluations:
For boron, calcium, chloride, sulfate, TDS, barium, and cobalt, the representative value is
defined as the maximum of the detected values if the analytical results are not all NDs. If the
analytical results are all NDs, the lowest reporting limit is defined as the representative value.
Using the maximum concentrations will help not underestimate the CCR impacts to the local
water supply wells and facility monitoring wells.
• For dissolved oxygen, total and dissolved iron, and total and dissolved manganese, the average
concentration is used as the representative value for the general conditions observed in a well.
APRIL 2016 30 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
• For piper plots, the average concentration is used as the representative value for the general
conditions observed in a well.
• The reporting limits are used to represent the ND results.
A.5.3.3 Box Plot
The comparisons of the concentration magnitude among different well groups for various potential
indicators were made using the box plots produced by the ProUCL software (USEPA, 2013). Figure A5-2
Panel (a) defines the various components of the box plot. The location of the upper whisker is the lesser
of 1.5 times the interquartile range (IQR) above the 75 percentile or the maximum value; the location of
the lower whisker is the greater of 1.5 times the IQR below the 25 percentile or the minimum value.
This analysis includes both detected and non-detected values.
A.5.3.4 Correlation Plot
The constituents found to be signature indicators of the CCR -impacted groundwater can be used to
generate correlation plots to further evaluate the relationships among various data groups. To create a
correlation plot, different data groups can be plotted using different symbols with the concentrations of
one constituent on the x-axis and the concentrations of the other constituent on the y-axis. The
clustering patterns or trends will illustrate the correlations among data groups.
A.5.3.5 Piper Plot
Piper plots have been frequently used to assess the relative abundance of general cations (sodium,
potassium, magnesium, and calcium) and anions (chloride, sulfate, bicarbonate, and carbonate) in
groundwater and to differentiate between different water sources in hydrogeology (Domenico and
Schwartz, 1998). Groundwater resulting from different water sources or in different geologic units may
exhibit distinct clustering patterns on a piper plot. Because calcium and sulfate are common coal ash
constituents, it is expected the CCR -impacted groundwater may show a different clustering pattern than
the background groundwater or the groundwater that has not been impacted by CCR.
In the CSA report, the piper plots were used to evaluate the water chemistry between the porewater in
the ash basin system and groundwater in other groups of facility monitoring wells. An example figure is
shown in Panel (b) of Figure A5-2, which compares the general water chemistry among the porewater in
the ash basin system, surface water in the ash basin system, and groundwater in the bedrock wells. The
piper plot consists of three subplots: a cation composition trilinear plot in the lower left corner, an anion
composition trilinear plot in the lower right corner, and a diamond plot in between. The red lines on
each subplot show how to read the meanings of a data point in a subplot. For example, in the cation
subplot, the data point of AB -38S shows about 18 percent of the total cation charges from sodium and
potassium, approximately 45 percent from calcium, and about 37 percent from magnesium. In the
anion subplot, the data point of AB-24SL shows about 25 percent of the total anion charges from sulfate,
approximately 10 percent from chloride and nitrate related anions (NO2_ and NO3-), and 65 percent
from carbonate (CO32-)plus bicarbonate (HCO3-) anions. In the diamond subplot, the data point of
AB -30S shows about 40 percent of the total anion charges from chloride, nitrate related anions, and
sulfate, and approximately 82 percent of the total cation charges from calcium and magnesium.
APRIL 2016 31 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
The piper plots for this evaluation were generated using the GW_Chart program developed by the USGS
(Winston, 2000).
A.5.4 Evaluation Results
A.5.4.1 Box Plot Comparison
The box plot comparison of boron, calcium, chloride, sulfate, and TDS concentrations among various
well groups is shown in Figure A5-3. The most significant concentration differences between the results
of the ash basin porewater wells and the local water supply wells were found to be boron and sulfate;
however, sulfate is noticeably less significant than boron. Calcium and total dissolved solids also show
slightly elevated concentrations in the ash basin porewater compared to other on-site locations and
compared to the local water supply wells. Chloride concentrations in the ash basin porewater are
generally within the range of chloride concentrations in the local water supply wells.
The box plot comparison of barium and cobalt is provided in Figure A5-4, which shows trends similar to
those observed for other major CCR constituents in Figure A5-3. The barium and cobalt concentration
differences between the ash basin porewater and the groundwater in local water supply wells are also
not as significant as boron and sulfate. Because boron and sulfate are very mobile, subject to little
sorption onto mineral surfaces, and not susceptible to degradation or transformation, and because they
show the most elevated concentrations (relative to the concentrations found in the local water supply
wells), they are considered to be effective signature constituents.
The box plot comparison of dissolved oxygen, iron, and manganese is shown in Figure A5-5. The trend
of dissolved oxygen concentrations shows that the groundwater in the local water supply wells is
significantly more oxygenic than the porewater in the ash basin system. The observed low dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the ash basin porewater are consistent with the understanding that coal ash
leachate is a chemically reduced solution (USEPA, 1980). The depletion of dissolved oxygen in the
leachate is attributed to the occurrence of sulfite or other oxidation processes when oxygenic water
contacts with coal ash (USEPA, 1980).
It is noted that dissolved oxygen occurs in groundwater through recharge by precipitation and air within
the unsaturated zone. Dissolved oxygen remains in groundwater until it is used by bacteria, organic
material, or reduced elements in minerals (Cunningham and Daniel, 2001). High dissolved oxygen
concentrations in groundwater may indicate relatively rapid groundwater recharge (Cunningham and
Daniel, 2001). The range of the dissolved oxygen concentrations observed in the local water supply
wells is consistent with the range of dissolved oxygen concentrations found in similar geologic
environment (i.e., fractured crystalline rocks mantled with weathered regolith in the Piedmont
Physiographic Province) by the USGS (Briel, 1997).
There is some uncertainty associated with the dissolved oxygen concentrations observed in local water
supply wells and regional background wells. These concentration values may be less accurate because
the sampling protocol for these wells is not known and the dissolved oxygen measurements may be
affected by the interference from well and plumbing configurations that admit air to the sample water
(Donnahue and Kibler, 2007). Although the dissolved oxygen concentrations may be overestimated in
APRIL 2016 32 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
some cases, the trend of dissolved oxygen data collected from water supply wells have been used for
other studies to help understand the general geochemical conditions (Winograd and Robertson, 1982;
Cunningham and Daniel, 2001; Donnahue and Kibler, 2007).
The iron and manganese concentration trends are generally opposite to that of dissolved oxygen. Based
on the site-specific geochemical evaluation, the site groundwater generally favors the presence of
reduced iron and manganese (Figure A5-1), which is consistent with the low oxygen content in
groundwater in that area. The results are consistent with the iron and manganese geochemical
behavior in that they tend to form precipitates under oxygenic conditions and are removed from the
groundwater.
The lack of dissolved oxygen in the ash basin porewater may serve as a useful signature. If the
groundwater obtained by a local water supply well is primarily from the ash basin system, it is expected
that the dissolved oxygen concentration would be low because there is no effective mass transfer
process to increase the dissolved oxygen concentration during groundwater transport in the deep
overburden and bedrock units. In contrast, reduced iron and manganese ions can be re -oxidized and
form precipitates when they migrate into an aquifer system containing mineral oxides. Dissolved
oxygen is thus considered to be a useful signature constituent.
A.5.4.2 Correlation Plot Evaluation
Boron, sulfate, and dissolved oxygen were identified to be the effective signature constituents to assess
the extent of the CCR -impacted groundwater. The spatial patterns of boron and sulfate concentrations
observed in the facility bedrock wells were first evaluated using the boron and sulfate concentrations
observed in the ash basin system monitoring, facility bedrock, local water supply, and the regional
background wells through a correlation plot.
In this correlation plot evaluation, the boron and dissolved oxygen concentration pairs are grouped as
follows:
• Ash basin porewater wells;
• Local water supply wells;
• Regional background wells;
• Facility bedrock wells (see Figure A5-6), which are further divided into three subgroups:
— Subgroup 1 (Downgradient): The bedrock wells are located beneath or hydraulically
downgradient of the ash basin system or ash landfill or groundwater flowing through
these wells is likely originated from the ash basin system. CCR -impacted groundwater is
more likely to impact these wells based on the groundwater flow field in the deep
overburden and bedrock units (HDR, 2015b). Wells AB-21BR, AB-25BR, AB-35BR, AB-
23BRU, AB-25BRU, GWA-313R, and GWA-SBR belong to this subgroup.
— Subgroup 2 (Side Gradient): The wells are located cross gradient of the ash basin system
or groundwater flowing through these wells is not likely to subsequently flow beneath
the footprint of the ash basin. These wells are not expected to be greatly influenced by
the ash basin system. Wells GWA-1BR and GWA-6BR belong to this group. It is noted
APRIL 2016 33 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
that the groundwater flow field near GWA-1BR is uncertain; it may be assigned as a side
gradient or a downgradient well. It is also noted that well GWA-6BR is difficult to
classify based on its location. Both wells are tentatively assigned as a side gradient well
primarily because the concentrations of dissolved oxygen, iron, and manganese
generally do not resemble the characteristics of the ash basin porewater.
— Subgroup 3 (Upgradient): Groundwater flowing through the bedrock wells in this
subgroup is expected to flow beneath the ash basin system later. Only BG-2BR is in this
well group.
The data obtained from the facility bedrock wells may help identify the potential groundwater chemistry
characteristics of a CCR -impacted bedrock well and help illustrate the spatial pattern of CCR -impacted
facility bedrock wells, which may be used to assess the potential impacts to the local water supply wells.
It should be noted that the subgroups formed above is to facilitate the evaluation presented below. The
final well group assignment will be based on the evaluation results, as shown in Figure A5-6.
Based on Figure A5-3, boron and sulfate concentrations are also a useful indicator for CCR -impacted
groundwater. A correlation plot of boron and sulfate concentrations is shown in Figure A5-7. Panel (a)
shows the correlation plot for the ash basin porewater wells and the facility downgradient bedrock
wells. These results are distinguished by generally elevated boron concentrations and typically high
sulfate concentrations (>10,000 microgram per liter [µg/L]). Panel (b) shows the data from the facility
side gradient and upgradient bedrock wells in addition to the data in Panel (a). These added wells are
distinguished by relatively low boron concentrations (<100 Vg/L) in comparison to the ash basin
porewater wells in Panel (a). Panel (c) shows the overlay of the data from the regional background wells
and local water supply wells on the data in Panel (b).
Panel (c) shows that most of the ash basin porewater data are clustered in Area 1 and most of the local
water supply well data are clustered in Area 2. The data pairs for the side and down gradient bedrock
wells generally cluster between Area 1 and Area 2, and exhibit a significantly higher sulfate
concentration than those of the local water supply wells. It is noted that variability of sulfate
concentrations in the regional background wells are much larger than that for the local water supply
wells. As described earlier, it is difficult to classify the side gradient wells to be side gradient or
downgradient. The facility upgradient bedrock well shows similar boron and sulfate concentrations to
those observed in the local water supply wells. All local water supply wells outside Area 2 were
evaluated further below; none are considered to be impacted by CCR.
A subset of the ash basin porewater wells contains groundwater data with sulfate concentrations less
than 10,000 µg/L. The wells AB -365, AB -375, AB -385, and AB -39S are located in the northwestern
inactive basin area of the site and are further upgradient than most of the ash basin porewater wells in
the site area. The groundwater data suggests less impact of CCR -related groundwater due to the well
locations and the groundwater flow direction.
Based on Figures A5-3 and Figure A5-5, boron and dissolved oxygen concentration may also be useful
indicators for CCR -impacted groundwater. The correlation plot for boron and dissolved oxygen is shown
in Figure A5-8. Panel (a) shows the correlation plot for the ash basin porewater wells and the facility
downgradient bedrock wells. The ash basin porewater results are distinguished by elevated boron
APRIL 2016 34 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
concentrations and relatively low dissolved oxygen concentrations. The facility downgradient wells are
distinguished by moderately low boron concentrations and a range of dissolved oxygen concentrations
compared to the ash basin porewater wells. This trend indicates some impact on downgradient bedrock
wells by CCR -impacted groundwater. Panel (b) shows the data from the facility side gradient and
upgradient bedrock wells in addition to the data in Panel (a). The three added wells are distinguished by
relatively low boron concentrations (less than 50 µg/L) and a range of dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Panel (c) shows the overlay of the data from the regional background wells and local water supply wells
on the data in Panel (b). These added wells are distinguished by generally low to non -detect levels of
boron, and a wide range of dissolved oxygen concentrations. The variability of the dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the local water supply wells and regional background wells is consistent with the
range reported for groundwater in the bedrock unit in the Piedmont Province (Briel, 1997). It is noted
that dissolved oxygen concentrations in some regional background and local water supply wells are very
low (<1,000 ug/L), suggesting that uncertainty resulting from the interference from the sampling
protocol or well and plumbing configurations that admit air to the sample water is within 1,000 ug/L for
these wells. In addition, some of the facility side gradient and downgradient wells (e.g., AB-35BR, GW-
1BR) exhibit high oxygen concentrations, suggesting that the oxygenic groundwater is present in the un-
impacted groundwater.
The Panel (c) plot shows that the data are clustered in two distinct areas. The areas were drawn to help
identify and discuss the data clustering patterns. Area 1 contains most of the data from the ash basin
porewater wells. Area 2 contains most of the data from the local water supply wells and regional
background wells. The data pairs for the facility bedrock wells that are classified as the downgradient
group are generally clustered between the ash basin porewater data pairs and the supply water data
pairs. One deviation from the downgradient facility bedrock well (GWA-5BR) shows high boron
concentrations, indicating impact from CCR -impacted groundwater. Due to the uncertainty in the
dissolved oxygen concentrations in the NCDEQ-sampled water supply wells, the upper bound of Area 2
has been truncated at approximately 7,000 µg/L dissolved oxygen.
The dissolved oxygen concentrations in the facility downgradient bedrock wells show an interesting
spatial pattern when these wells are divided into the following three groups:
Wells close to Lake Wylie (GWA-3BR and GWA-5BR): Dissolved oxygen concentrations are
lowest and boron concentrations are highest.
Wells farther away from Lake Wylie (AB-21BR, AB-23BRU, and AB-35BR): Dissolved oxygen
concentrations are substantially higher than the previous group and boron concentrations are
less than the first group.
• Wells in between the two groups above (AB-25BRU and AB-25BR): Dissolved oxygen
concentrations are higher than the first group but lower than the second group; the deeper well
(AB-25BR) is more oxygenic than the shallow well (AB-25BRU).
Because the general groundwater flow direction in the bedrock unit is toward Lake Wylie (Figure A5-6),
the spatial pattern of dissolved oxygen concentration indicates that oxygenic background groundwater
gradually becomes less oxygenic as it passes beneath the ash basin system footprint. The dissolved
oxygen distribution in these bedrock wells is consistent with the understanding that coal ash can remove
oxygen through chemical oxidation processes (USEPA, 1980). The results also indicate that the
APRIL 2016 35 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
background groundwater in the bedrock unit is expected to be oxygenic. This is consistent with the fact
that the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the local water supply wells are generally fairly oxygenic
(greater than 4,000 µg/L) (Figure A5-8).
The correlation plot result shows that the low oxygen and elevated boron concentrations serve as a
useful signature pair to help identify the CCR -impacted groundwater. The fact that the local water
supply wells are typically more oxygenic suggests that the local water supply wells do not obtain
groundwater from the ash basin system because no effective mass transfer mechanism can replenish
oxygen during the groundwater transport from the ash basin system to a local water supply well.
The groundwater data for a subset of the local water supply wells exhibit high detected boron
concentrations (greater than 20 µg/L). These conditions could be suggestive of a potential impact of
CCR -impacted groundwater, and thus these local water supply wells were further evaluated for the
concentrations of other CCR indicator constituent — sulfate. It is noted that the boron and dissolved
oxygen concentration pairs for these local water supply wells are distributed between Area 1 and Area 2
in the correlation plot shown in Figure A5-8.
The locations of these local water supply wells are shown in Figures A5 -9A and -96. It should be noted
that the maximum boron concentration for a well was used, to not underestimate the CCR impacts in
the correlation plot evaluation (Figures A5-7 and A5-8). Most of these local water supply wells have
been sampled twice. The results of initial sampling are all significantly higher than the results of
resampling. Note that there seems to be some quality control issues identified with the laboratory that
analyzed the first samples, and all resamples were analyzed by Pace, a NCDEQ accredited lab. Thus, the
resampling results are used to compare the site-specific background threshold values.
Table A5-2 shows the comparison between the observed boron and sulfate concentrations in these
wells and the site-specific facility BTVs for these constituents. The results indicate that the boron and
sulfate concentrations observed in these local water supply wells are below the threshold values, except
for AL -115 and AL -117. It is noted that water supply well AL -115 is approximately 900 feet deep,
significantly deeper than the facility bedrock wells. This well also contained elevated concentrations of
sulfate, total dissolved solids, calcium, and sodium compared to the ash basin porewater wells, but a
much lower boron concentrations, indicating that it is not the ash basin porewater. In addition, the
locations of these two wells are further away from the ash basin system; they are not likely to be
impacted by CCR in groundwater because there are many other local water supply wells between them
and the ash basin system that show lower concentrations. It should also be noted that the groundwater
quality study performed by the USGS in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Crystalline -Rock aquifers shows
that boron concentration in the bedrock unit can be higher than 100 µg/L (Chapman, et al., 2013),
higher than the boron concentrations in AL -115 (39 µg/L) and AL -117 (42 µg/L).
Based on Figures A5-7 and A5-8, CCR -impacted groundwater has been found in the facility bedrock wells
that are within, downgradient, and potentially side gradient of the ash basin system footprint. However,
the groundwater in the facility upgradient and side gradient bedrock wells is generally much more
oxygenic and low in boron concentrations, which is more consistent with the water quality of the local
water supply wells. The correlation plots and the conceptual groundwater flow directions consistently
support the conceptual groundwater transport process that, the background groundwater of high
APRIL 2016 36 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
dissolved oxygen and low boron and sulfate concentrations is upgradient of the ash basin system and
the groundwater becomes enriched with boron and/or sulfate and/or deprived of oxygen, as it flows
through the ash basin system area.
Note that this correlation plot evaluation uses groundwater concentration data under the influence of
historic pumping of the local water supply wells. The lack of elevated concentrations of CCR -related
signatures and the distinct discrepancy between the data patterns on the correlation plots indicate that
the pumping of the local water supply wells is not able to reverse the natural hydraulic gradient to the
extent that can capture the ash basin porewater.
A. 5.4.3 Piper Plot
Two piper plots were created to evaluate the relative abundance patterns of major ions in the ash basin
porewater and in the facility downgradient bedrock wells. The results are shown in Figure A5-10.
Panel (a) shows the data for the ash basin porewater wells; the cation subplot shows that calcium is the
dominant cation in the porewater, the diamond subplot shows that the relative abundance of calcium
and magnesium in the porewater is generally larger than 70 percent, and the anion subplot shows that
the relative abundance of chloride is generally less than 20 percent. The results also show that these
wells have a wide range of sulfate abundance.
Panel (b) shows the data for both the ash basin porewater wells and the facility downgradient bedrock
wells. The data for many facility downgradient bedrock wells are away from the ash basin porewater
well data, suggesting that the CCR -impacted groundwater is not the major groundwater source for these
facility downgradient wells. For example, the facility bedrock well data of AB-25BRU deviates from the
ash basin porewater well data. It is noted that the ash basin porewater well AB-29SL deviates from the
other ash basin porewater wells. These two data points are located at two opposite sides of the
diamond subplot, showing the variability of groundwater quality under the ash basin system footprint.
The piper plots for the water supply, regional background, and upgradient and side gradient bedrock
wells are provided in Figure A5-11. Panel (a) of Figure A5-11 shows the data for the local water supply
and regional background wells. As can be seen in the plot, the well data are grouped fairly tightly
together in each of the sections of the piper diagram except for an outlier, local water supply well
AL -115, in each subplot (see blue circles). This indicates that the water supply and regional background
wells have similar major ion characteristics, and the grouping is very distinctive from the ash basin
system related wells in Figure A5-10.
Panel (b) of Figure A5-11 shows the data for two subgroups of the facility bedrock wells (upgradient and
side gradient) on top of the data of the water supply and regional background wells in Panel (a) of
Figure A5-11. It is noted that the two side gradient bedrock wells (GWA-1131R and GWA-613R) data appear
to deviate from the clustering of the local water supply well data. It is also clear that BG-2BR data are
very different from the side gradient bedrock well data. This well is located in the northwest corner of
the facility approximately 1,300 feet from the site ash basin system waste boundary. This is consistent
with the findings from the correlation plot of boron and sulfate (Figure A5-7).
APRIL 2016 37 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
Figure 5-12 shows a side-by-side comparison of the ash basin system related well data in Panel (a), and
the local water supply well related data in Panel (b). The diamond subplots show the general difference
in groundwater characteristics between the CCR -impacted wells and the local water supply wells. The
area defined by the blue line in Panel (b) encloses almost all the local water supply well data, but
excludes most of the ash basin system related data in Panel (a).
As described in the correlation plot evaluation, wells GWA-1BR and GWA-6BR are somewhat difficult to
classify as side gradient or a downgradient because of the uncertainty in groundwater flow direction
near GWA-1BR, and because of the groundwater data for GWA-6BR. The piper plot indicates that the
groundwater at these locations have a significantly higher relative abundance of sulfate in comparison
to that in most of the local water supply wells, suggesting some influence from CCR -impacted
groundwater. The ash basin porewater well data that exhibit considerably higher boron concentrations
(greater than 700 µg/L) are generally clustered in the area that is richer in sulfate and calcium than the
area defined by the blue diamond.
These piper plot results are consistent with the results of the correlation plots; both show different data
clustering patterns between the ash basin porewater wells and the local water supply wells, supporting
that the source water for the supply wells is not CCR -impacted groundwater. The ash basin porewater
has very limited impact on several facility downgradient bedrock wells, evidenced by apparent different
major ion compositions revealed in the piper plots.
A.5.5 Conclusions
Based on this groundwater chemistry evaluation, the following key conclusions can be drawn:
• The boron concentrations in the ash basin porewater are considerably higher than the
maximum sampled boron concentration found in the local water supply wells. Because boron
exhibits little sorption to mineral surfaces and are not expected to precipitate or be transformed
under the site geochemical conditions, it is considered to be the most effective signature
constituents among the coal ash related constituents for evaluating the groundwater impacts
from the ash basin system.
• The boron and sulfate concentrations detected in the local water supply wells are within the
range of the boron and sulfate concentrations found in the facility -specific background
conditions except for AL -115 and AL -117. Therefore, the presence of boron and sulfate in the
local water supply wells (except AL -115 and AL -117) cannot be attributed to the impacts from
the ash basin porewater.
Based on the locations, groundwater chemistry, and/or well depth of AL -115 and AL -117, they
are not likely affected by CCR -impacted groundwater. Many other local water supply wells
between their location and the ash basin system do not show evidence of CCR -impact, and AL -
115 and AL -117 are two of the wells located furthest from the ash basin system.
• The redox conditions in the ash basin porewater are generally anoxic, with the characteristics of
low dissolved oxygen concentrations, and high iron and manganese concentrations. The redox
conditions found in the local water supply wells are generally more oxygenic. The lack of
dissolved oxygen can be considered to be a useful signature of CCR -impacted groundwater. This
APRIL 2016 38 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
suggests that many of the local water supply wells are not likely to obtain groundwater primarily
from the ash basin system because no effective mass transfer mechanism can replenish oxygen
during the groundwater transport from the ash basin system to local water supply wells.
The CCR -impacted facility bedrock wells identified using the correlation and piper plots are
consistent with the knowledge of the groundwater flow field in the vicinity of the facility, as
described in Section A.4. The local water supply wells are generally upgradient or side gradient
of the ash basin system.
• Many on-site facility bedrock wells within the ash basin system footprint farther away from Lake
Wylie show insignificant CCR impacts. The facility bedrock well (GWA-5BR) showing a
significantly elevated boron concentration is hydraulically downgradient of the ash basin system
and adjacent to Lake Wylie. The results indicate that the primary ash basin porewater transport
direction is toward Lake Wylie, supporting the site conceptual groundwater flow model
described in Section A.4. Because the local water supply wells are all further upgradient of the
ash basin system, they are very unlikely affected by CCR -impacted groundwater.
The correlation and piper plots show different clustering patterns between the ash basin
porewater wells and the local water supply wells. The source water for the local water supply
wells is not CCR -impacted groundwater.
The evaluation uses groundwater concentration data under the influence of historic pumping of
the local water supply wells. The lack of elevated concentrations of CCR -related signatures and
the distinct discrepancy between the data patterns on the correlation plots and piper plots
indicate that the pumping of the local water supply wells is not able to reverse the natural
hydraulic gradient to the extent that can capture CCR -impacted groundwater.
The evaluation provided here is an independent review of the available data from a
groundwater chemistry standpoint. Available information on groundwater levels and
groundwater chemistry for the facility has been used to conduct the evaluation and develop
conclusions. These conclusions need to be considered in the context of the long operation
history of the site and complexity of groundwater flow in the fractured bedrock system. There
may be changing patterns of groundwater flow over time, which makes the classification of
certain on-site bedrock wells into a particular subgroup (e.g., side -gradient or downgradient,
upgradient or side -gradient) challenging when considering both the hydraulic and chemical
data. While there may be some uncertainty in these specific classifications, that uncertainty
does not change the more important conclusions about the major directions of groundwater
flow and the impact on groundwater chemistry. From the results of the evaluation, it is clear
what areas are upgradient and what areas are downgradient. And the groundwater in the local
water supply wells is clearly aligned chemically with the upgradient facility monitoring well.
• This evaluation has provided additional lines of evidence, using (1) the presence of CCR
signature constituents and (2) general major ion chemistry, to support the groundwater flow
and transport results presented in Section A.4.
It is concluded that there is no connection between the CCR -impacted groundwater and the
water quality exceedances found in the local water supply wells.
APRIL 2016 39 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
A.6 SUMMARY
This document presents the results of supplemental technical evaluations in four important assessment
areas to determine whether or not the water supply wells located within a 1,500 -foot radius of the Allen
ash basin compliance boundary could be impacted by CCR releases from the ash basin. The evaluations
in this document are based on the currently available data, which includes: generally one sampling
round from the water supply wells (note some wells had one or more re -analyses), three to four
sampling rounds from the ash basin wells, and multiple years of compliance well sampling. The
conclusion from the detailed weight of evidence demonstrates that water supply wells in the vicinity of
the Allen facility are not impacted by CCR releases from the ash basin.
The evaluation of the private and public local water supply well data collected by NCDEQ and the
detailed statistical analysis of regional background groundwater data indicate that constituent
concentrations in the local water supply wells are generally consistent with background. Of the 124
local water supply wells sampled by NCDEQ, there are few results above the BTVs. No local water
supply well result is above the BTV for nickel. Barium, cobalt, hexavalent chromium, thallium, and
vanadium each had fewer than 4 percent of the local water supply well results above their respective
BTVs. For boron, iron, and lead, 18 percent or less of the local water supply well results were above
their respective BTVs.
The concentration of boron and the other potential coal ash indicators were low and not above
screening levels in the local water supply wells sampled by NCDEQ. Boron was detected infrequently
(23 of 124 samples) in the NCDEQ-sampled local water supply wells, and infrequently in the combined
background water supply well dataset (4 of 23 samples). In general, pH in these wells (both near the
facility and in the background wells) was below the state and federal standard range. This is consistent
with literature on the pH of groundwater in North Carolina (Brief, 1997; Chapman, et al., 2013).
Other than pH, there were very few NCDEQ-sampled local water supply well results above 2L standards.
Of the 124 wells sampled, 1 result was above the 2L Standard for lead, 1 result for antimony, 2 results
for cobalt, 1 result for thallium, 4 results for copper, 15 results for iron, 1 result for manganese, and
2 results for zinc. Of these, only the value for lead and 3 of the 4 values for copper were above the
federal primary drinking water standards.
The comprehensive evaluation of groundwater flow with respect to local water supply wells
demonstrates that groundwater flow is to the east toward Lake Wylie from the topographic divide west
of the ash basin system away from the water supply wells. Coal ash constituents do not measurably
increase the density of groundwater or have a separate liquid phase in groundwater as compared to
other dense liquids that would "sink" in the aquifer, like saltwater. Thus, releases from coal ash
management areas tend to remain in the shallower groundwater flow layers.
This conclusion is confirmed by the detailed characterization of groundwater chemistry including
evaluation of CCR indicators, redox conditions, and correlation evaluations. The results of the chemical
correlation analyses indicate that, based on the different constituent clustering patterns from the ash
basin porewater wells and the local water supply wells, the source water for the local water supply wells
is not CCR -impacted groundwater.
APRIL 2016 40 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
Based on this combined weight of evidence, groundwater utilized by local water supply wells near the
coal ash impoundments is not impacted by the coal ash sources.
These results indicate that a Low classification for the Allen Steam Station under the CAMA is warranted.
APRIL 2016 41 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A -Allen
A.7 REFERENCES
1. Briel, L.I. 1997. Water quality in the Appalachian Valley and Ridge, the Blue Ridge, and the
Piedmont physiographic provinces, eastern United States (Professional Paper No. 1422-D). U.S.
Geological Survey.
2. Chapman, M.J., Cravotta III, C.A., Szabo, Z. and Lindsay, B.D. 2013. Naturally occurring
contaminants in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge crystalline -rock aquifers and Piedmont Early
Mesozoic basin siliciclastic-rock aquifers, eastern United States, 1994-2008 (No. 2013-5072).
U.S. Geological Survey.
3. CAMA. 2014. North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act. Senate Bill S729v7. Available at:
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S729v7.PDF
4. Cunningham, W.L. and Daniel, C.C. 2001. Investigation of ground -water availability and quality
in Orange County, North Carolina (Water Resources Investigation No. 4286). U.S. Department of
the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
5. Daniel, C.C., III. 1989. Statistical analysis relating well yield to construction practices and siting
of wells in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces of North Carolina (Water Supply Paper
2341-A). U.S. Geological Survey.
6. Daniel, C.C., III and Harned, D.A. 1998. Ground -water recharge to and storage in the regolith -
fractured crystalline rock aquifer system, Guilford County, North Carolina (Water Resources
Investigations Report 97-4140, 65p.). U.S. Geological Survey.
7. Domenico, P.A. and Schwartz, F.W. 1998. Physical and chemical hydrogeology (Vol. 44). New
York: Wiley.
8. Donnahue, J.C. and Kibler, S.R., 2007. Ground Water Quality in Piedmont/Blue Ridge Unconfined
Aquifer System of Georgia, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection
Division, Watershed protection branch, regulatory support program, Circular 12U, Atlanta.
9. EPRI. 2005. Chemical Constituents in Coal Combustion Product Leachate: Boron. Electric Power
Research Institute. Report 1005258. March 2005.
10. Grubb, S. 1993. Analytical Model for Estimation of Steady -State Capture Zones of Pumping
Wells in Confined and Unconfined Aquifers. Ground Water, Vol. 31, No. 1, January -February
1993.
11. Haley & Aldrich. 2015. Evaluation of NCDEQ Private Well Data. December 2015
12. Harned, D.A. 1989. The hydrogeologic framework and a reconnaissance of ground -water
quality in the Piedmont Province of North Carolina, with a design for future study (Water -
Resources Investigations Report 88-4130, 55p.). U.S. Geological Survey.
APRIL 2016 42 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
13. Harned, D.A. and Daniel, C.C., III. 1992. The transition zone between bedrock and regolith:
Conduit for contamination?, p. 336-348, in Daniel, C.C., III, White, R.K., and Stone, P.A., eds.,
Groundwater in the Piedmont: Proceedings of a Conference on Ground Water in the Piedmont
of the Eastern United States, October 16-18, 1989, Clemson University, 693p.
14. HDR. 2014a. Allen Steam Station — Ash Basin Drinking Water Supply Well and Receptor, Survey.
HDR, Inc. [Online] URL: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/drinking-water-receptor-surveys
15. HDR. 2014b. Allen Steam Station — Ash Basin Supplement to Drinking Water Supply Well and
Receptor Survey. HDR, Inc. [Online] URL: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/drinking-water-
receptorsurveys
16. HDR. 2014c. Allen Steam Station Ash Basin, Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan
(Rev. 1), NPDES Permit NC0004979. HDR, Inc. December 30.
17. HDR. 2015a. Comprehensive Site Assessment Report, Duke Energy Allen Steam Station. HDR,
Inc. September.
18. HDR. 2015b. Corrective Action Plan Part 1, Duke Energy Allen Steam Station Ash Basin. HDR,
Inc. December.
19. HDR. 2016. Corrective Action Plan Part 2, Duke Energy Allen Steam Station Ash Basin. HDR, Inc.
March.
20. Heath, R.C. 1980. Basic elements of groundwater hydrology with reference to conditions in
North Carolina (Open File Report 80-44, 86p.). U.S. Geological Survey.
21. LeGrand, H.E. 1988. Region 21, Piedmont and Blue Ridge. In Hydrogeology, The Geology of
North America, vol. 0-2, ed. W.B. Back, J.S. Rosenshein, and P.R. Seaber, 201-207. Geological
Society of America. Boulder CO: Geological Society of America.
22. LeGrand, H.E. 1989. A conceptual model of ground water settings in the Piedmont region. In
Ground Water in the Piedmont, ed. C.C. Daniel III, R.K. White, and P.A. Stone, 693. Proceedings
of a Conference on Ground Water in the Piedmont of the Eastern United States, Clemson
University, Clemson, South Carolina. Charlotte, NC: U.S. Geological Survey.
23. LeGrand, H.E. 2004. A Master Conceptual Model for Hydrogeological Site Characterization in
the Piedmont and Mountain Region of North Carolina, A Guidance Manual, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality, Groundwater
Section.
24. NCAC. 2013. 15A NCAC 02L.0202. Groundwater Standard (2L), Classifications and Water
Quality Standards Applicable to Groundwaters of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative
Code. April 1, 2013. Available at:
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=laa3fa13-2cOf-45b7-ae96-
5427fb1d25b4&groupld=38364
APRIL 2016 43 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A -Allen
25. NCDEQ. 2016. Coal Combustion Residual Impoundment Risk Classifications. North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality. January 2016. Available at:
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/document-
library/1.29.16 Coal%20Combustion%20Residual%201mpoundment%20CIassifications.pdf
26. NCDHHS. 2015. DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of
Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology
Branch. April 24, 2015. Available at:
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/Ret file?p I id=1169848&folderld=24814087&na
me=DLFE-112704.PDF
27. USEPA. 1980. Effects of Coal -ash Leachate on Ground Water Quality. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA -600/7-80-066. March.
28. USEPA. 2007. Monitored Natural Attenuation of Inorganic Contaminants in Groundwater,
Vol. 1: Technical Basis for Assessment. 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA/600/R-07/139.
29. USEPA. 2012. 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories.
Spring 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at:
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm
30. USEPA. 2013. Statistical Software ProUCL 5.0.00 for Environmental Applications for Data Sets
with and without Nondetect Observations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Software:
http://www2.epa.gov/land-research/proucl-software, and User's Guide:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/proucl v5.0 tech.pdf
31. USEPA. 2015a. Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rule (Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; FR 80(74): 21302-
21501, April 19, 2015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pl<g/FR-2015-04-17/PDF/2015-00257. PDF
32. USEPA. 2015b. USEPA Risk -Based Screening Levels (RSLs). November 2015. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Available at: htt_p://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-
concentration table/Generic Tables/index.htm
33. Winograd, I.J. and Robertson, F.N., 1982. Deep oxygenated ground water: anomaly or common
occurrence? Science, 216(4551), pp.1227-1230.
34. Winston, R.B. 2000. Graphical User Interface for MODFLOW, Version 4: U.S. Geological Survey
Open -File Report 00-315. Software:
http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/gwsoftware/GW Chart/GW Chart.html
APRIL 2016 44 %UICH

Table A2-1
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Page 1 of 9
Groundwater
15A NCAC 02L.0202
d(a):
Standard (
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1
NS
20
0.2
Federal M L(b):
(• denotes secondary standard)
NS
N5
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
"500
6
30
2000
4
5
100
NS
15
2
NS
50
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1 L
18
20
0.2
RSL 2015(d):
4000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3800
25
9.2
22000
6
15
5.7
100
100
0.2
Appendix III
App
endix IV
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
pH
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Selenium
Thallium
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
su
m L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
Allen
AL1
< 5
16400
5.1
6.9
< 1
100
< 0.5
< 0.5
26
< 0.2
< 0.08
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
0.63
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL100
<5
21500
5.22
7.2
2.8
150
<0.5
<0.5
15
<0.2
<0.08
0.71
<0.5
3.11
<0.2
0.89
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL101
< 5
5570
2.2
6.6
< 2
40
< 0.5
< 0.5
10.5
< 0.2
< 0.08
2.9
< 0.5
0.2
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL102
9.5
8560
5.7
6.4
<2
109
<0.5
<0.5
44.9
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
0.49
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL103
< 500
11000
1.4
6.2
< 1
120
0.078
< 1
29
< 1
0.22
7.2
0.74
0.77
< 0.2
0.7
< 1
< 1
Allen
AL11
<5
10500
4.28
6.68
2.2
118
<0.5
<0.5
34.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
2.98
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL110
<5
10600
4.4
6.8
2
110
<0.5
<0.5
16.5
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
<0.5
0.42
<0.2
1
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL111
43
11600
2.5
6.6
2.8
140
0.1
< 0.5
26.2
< 0.2
0.067
1.3
0.068
0.2
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
0.063
Allen
AL112
9.2
27200
3.6
7.8
6.5
144
<0.5
1.2
11.6
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
2.9
0.71
<0.1
Allen
AL113
<5
15600
5.3
6.9
2.2
108
<0.5
<0.5
30.5
<0.2
<0.08
2.8
<0.5
0.47
<0.2
0.64
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL114
<5
15000
5
6.9
2.3
128
<0.5
<0.5
26.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.7
<0.5
0.39
<0.2
0.64
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL115
38.8
145000
19.1
7.6
373
675
<0.5
0.82
19.9
<0.2
<0.08
0.63
<0.5
3.3
<0.2
2.7
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL117
120
45000
12
6.4
38.3
270
0.089
< 0.5
200
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.4
0.11
1.3
< 0.2
1.1
1.8
< 0.1
Allen
AL118
<5
13000
4.47
6.4
1.09
107
<0.5
<0.5
65
<0.2
<0.08
2.8
<0.5
5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL119
7.4
20800
1.8
7.4
5.6
114
<0.5
1.2
9.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.3
<0.5
0.58
<0.2
3.4
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL12
<5
21200
8.4
6.1
4.5
146
<0.5
<0.5
58.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.7
<0.5
0.65
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL120
15.8
25100
3.1
8.1
11.2
128
< 0.5
1.1
7
< 0.2
< 0.08
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
3.6
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL121
<5
4970
2.2
6.9
<2
73
<0.5
<0.5
11.8
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.17
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL122
<5
15900
7.8
6.5
<2
129
<0.5
<0.5
62
<0.2
<0.08
1.6
0.66
75.5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL123
<5
12100
11.2
6.3
<2
160
<0.5
<0.5
74.6
<0.2
<0.08
2.2
<0.5
0.3
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL124
< 5
16100
5.1
6.6
2.6
133
< 0.5
< 0.5
29
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.1
< 0.5
0.5
< 0.2
0.56
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL125
5.6
18400
2.3
8.5
6.9
97
<0.5
3.6
0.77
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
7
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL126
<5
9540
2.2
6.9
2.1
103
<0.5
<0.5
26.2
<0.2
<0.08
4.4
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL127
<5
11500
2.3
6.8
<2
109
<0.5
<0.5
17
<0.2
<0.08
5
<0.5
0.11
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL129
<5
22700
9.5
6.4
2.8
182
<0.5
<0.5
44
<0.2
<0.08
0.63
<0.5
0.52
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL130
<5
9070
2
6.4
<2
110
<0.5
<0.5
43.4
<0.2
<0.08
2.4
<0.5
0.62
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL131
<5
5260
2.3
6.9
<2
75
<0.5
<0.5
25.4
<0.2
<0.08
1.1
<0.5
0.34
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL132
<5
19100
2.2
6.3
2.1
133
<0.5
<0.5
21.4
<0.2
<0.08
0.98
<0.5
0.74
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL133
<5
5930
3.1
7
<2
99
<0.5
<0.5
20.1
<0.2
<0.08
0.95
<0.5
0.46
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL135
<5
13300
4.1
6.5
2.1
107
<0.5
<0.5
48.8
<0.2
<0.08
2.4
<0.5
2.3
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL136
<5
28300
21.7
6.2
2.1
233
<0.5
<0.5
117
<0.2
<0.08
3.3
<0.5
0.73
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL137
<5
14400
2.1
6.7
4.6
101
<0.5
<0.5
23.8
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.42
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL138
<5
17500
10.8
6.6
<2
160
<0.5
<0.5
51.4
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.72
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL139A
<5
13900
6
6.3
2.7
137
<0.5
<0.5
42.7
<0.2
<0.08
4.8
<0.5
0.54
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL139B
<5
5180
2.1
6.4
<2
81
<0.5
<0.5
19.4
<0.2
<0.08
0.81
<0.5
0.46
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL14
<100
31000
22.3
5.9
6.92
214
<1
<5
96
<1
<0.1
4
<1
<2
<0.2
<5
<5
<0.1
Allen
AL140
<5
16600
12.2
6.2
2.8
151
<0.5
<0.5
45.4
<0.2
<0.08
2.5
<0.5
0.24
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL141
<5
8090
2.1
6.8
<2
98
<0.5
<0.5
22.5
<0.2
0.092
3.9
<0.5
0.42
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL142
<5
10800
5
6.6
<2
105
<0.5
<0.5
23.7
<0.2
<0.08
0.89
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL15
10.9
19600
7.7
6.69
4.6
156
<0.5
<0.5
50.4
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.25
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL16
< 5
11000
4.7
6.4
< 1
116
< 0.5
< 0.5
16
< 0.2
< 0.08
2
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL17
< 5
13500
4.3
6.5
2.1
130
< 0.5
< 0.5
31.4
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.4
< 0.5
0.8
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL19
<5
16600
8.08
6.76
<2
157
<0.5
<0.5
51.3
<0.2
<0.08
2.7
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL2
6.6
16500
2.6
7
3
114
<0.5
0.64
22.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
<0.5
0.12
<0.2
1.2
0.66
<0.1
Allen
AL20
<5
13400
4.28
7.11
2.1
134 1
<0.5
<0.5
21.7
<0.2
<0.08
1.6
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<05
<0.1
Allen
AL21
<5
13800
2.5
7.24
2.2
119
<0.5
<0.5
23.2
<0.2
<0.08
0.92
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL22
<5
21700
3.8
Z4
3.2
133
<0.5
<0.5
1.2
<0.2
<0.08
0.58
<0.5
0.15
<0.2
2.2
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL23
<5
10800
2.2
7
2.2
94
<0.5
<0.5
15
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
0.79
0.13
0.055
0.57
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL24
< 5
14500
2.8
7.3
3.8
108
< 0.5
< 0.5
1.7
< 0.2
< 0.08
0.89
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
2.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL25
<5
1 18100
1 4.5 1
6.3
1 11
1 14311
0.081
1 <0.5
1 75.1
1 <0.2
1 <0.08
2.7
<0.5
0.3
<0.2
0.14
<0.5
<0.1
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
April 2016

Table A2-1
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Page 2 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
d(a):
Groundwater Standard (a)
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1
NS
20
0.2
Federal MCL/SMCL(b):
(' denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
"500
6
30
2000
4
5
100
NS
15
2
NS
50
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1 L
18
20
0.2
RSL 2015(d):
4000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3800
25
9.2
22000
6
15
5.7
100
100
0.2
Appendix III
App
endix IV
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
pH
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Selenium
Thallium
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
su
m L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
Allen
AL26
<5
16200
8.8
7.05
2.5
147
<0.5
<0.5
44.7
<0.2
<0.08
0.79
<0.5
0.25
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL27
<5
18000
10.9
6.7
<1
166
<0.5
<0.5
51
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.27
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL28
<20
6590
2
7.03
<5
152
<0.4
0.18
14.8
<0.11
<0.06
2.05
<0.03
3.79
<0.01
0.95
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL29
<5
6640
2.8
6.6
<1
100
0.072
<0.5
23.6
<0.2
<0.08
2.3
<0.5
0.72
<0.2
0.32
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL3
49
4870
2.1
6.6
0.15
83
0.2
< 0.5
17
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.9
0.099
0.46
< 0.2
0.36
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL30
<5
15200
13.2
6.5
<2
122
<0.5
<0.5
55.5
<0.2
<0.08
3.6
<0.5
0.16
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL31
43
7180
8.8
6.3
<2
88.6
1.16
<0.08
38.5
<0.11
<0.06
2.47
<0.02
3.17
<0.2
<0.11
0.22
<0.06
Allen
AL32
<5
10500
1.5
6.2
<2
100
<0.5
<0.5
44.8
<0.2
<0.08
2.4
<0.5
0.76
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL33
<5
7450
3.32
6.S
<2
116
<0.5
<0.5
15.4
<0.2
<0.08
4.2
<0.5
1.58
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL34
<5
12200
4.28
6.7
2.2
108
<03
<0.5
29.9
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL39A
<5
7770
7
6.34
<2
112
<0.5
<0.08
9.89
<0.11
<0.06
2.18
<0.03
1.9
<0.01
0.16
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL39B
<5
24500
4.2
8.1
6.5
212
<0.4
0.92
1.1
<0.11
<0,06
1.08
<0.04
0.44
0.02
3.7
1.81
<0.06
Allen
AL40
<5
6230
2.3
6.41
<2
87
0.42
<0.08
10.9
<0.11
<0.06
1.1
<0.03
0.25
<0.01
0.34
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL41
< 5
3910
1.4
6.5
< 2
49
< 0.5
< 0.5
5.8
< 0.2
< 0.08
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
0.69
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL42
< 5
7300
1.9
6.68
0.34
62
0.14
< 0.5
22
0.04
< 0.08
0.89
0.085
0.49
< 0.1
0.21
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL44
26.9
6500
11
5.8
<2
63
<0.5
<0.5
70.9
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
1.4
0.74
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL45
< 5
7600
1.8
7.32
< 1
74
0.31
< 0.5
17
0.064
< 0.08
0.89
0.089
4.4
< 0.1
0.39
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL47
<5
25300
15.1
6.4
1.02
229
<0.5
<0.5
74
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
0.27
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL48
68
11000
6.5
6.6
4
109
0.064
0.5
51
< 0.2
0.063
7.5
< 0.5
8
< 0.2
0.14
< 0.5
0.08
Allen
AL49
<5
15700
4.2
6.8
2.6
117
<0.5
<0.5
36.7
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
0.35
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL5
<100
7500
2.44
6.8
1.11
88
<1
<5
20
<1
<0.1
3
<1
11
<0.2
2
<5
<0.1
Allen
AL50A
7
20900
3.9
7.1
5.9
125
<0.5
1.5
3.7
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.13
<0.2
4.3
0.66
<0.1
Allen
AL50B
5.8
5810
1.6
6.6
<2
78
<0.5
<0.5
12
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL50C
102
11200
8.4
6.1
4.9
96
<0.5
<0.5
33.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.8
<0.5
1.9
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL51
<5
29300
14.2
6.31
2
178
<0.5
<0.5
41
<0.2
<0.08
0.76
0.21
2.7
0.041
<0.5
0.31
<0.1
Allen
ALS2
62
19000
8.8
6.3
<1
158
0.053
<0.5
28
<0.2
<0.08
0.71
<0.5
0.68
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL53
<20
11000
5
6.31
<5
75
<0.4
0.12
25.5
<0.11
<0.06
4.06
<0.03
0.23
<0.01
<0.11
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL54
<5
19000
16
6.42
3.8
145
<0.5
<0.5
26
<0.2
<0.08
3.2
0.24
0.33
0.051
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL55
<5
12000
4.6
6.52
2.5
125
0.25
0.44
27.2
<0.2
<0.08
2
0.21
0.9
0.052
0.27
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL56
66
13000
7.9
6.3
2.6
140
0.12
< 0.5
93
< 0.2
< 0.08
4.5
2.1
2.7
< 0.2
0.51
< 0.5
0.057
Allen
AL57
< 5
14900
3.3
6.5
< 2
123
< 0.5
< 0.5
67
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.2
< 0.5
0.48
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0,5
< 0.1
Allen
AL58
6.6
21100
7.8
6.7
4.3
137
0.1
0.82
33
< 0.2
< 0.08
0.63
0.22
0.47
0.058
0.49
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL59
<5
12800
3.3
6.6
<2
107
<0.5
<0.5
32.8
<0.2
<0.08
3
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
0.24
Allen
AL6
<5
7180
3
6.99
2.1
86
<0.5
<0.5
30.5
<0.2
<0.08
3.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL60
<5
25300
14.6
6.4
<2
197
<0.5
<0.5
64.9
<0.2
<0.08
5.8
<0.5
0.12
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL61
<5
18200
8.9
6.5
3.3
148
<0.5
<0.5
29.2
<0.2
<0.08
4.8
<0.5
0.22
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL62
<20
16300
7
6.63
<5
108
<0.4
0.12
25.3
<0.11
<0.06
2.84
<0.03
0.13
<0.01
0.45
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL63
< 20
21400
15
6.04
6
204
< 0.5
< 0.08
43.8
< 0.11
< 0.06
3.31
0.05
0.59
< 0.01
0.27
0.25
< 0.06
Allen
AL64
<5
33700
37.9
6.1
<2
233
<0.5
<0.5
68.1
<0.2
<0.08
4.4
<0.5
0.53
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL65
<5
23800
10.7
6.6
3.2
165
<0.5
<0.5
8.9
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.9
<0.2
1.1
0.52
<0.1
Allen
AL66
<5
18300
8.8
6.4
<2
160
<0.5
<0.5
47.6
<0.2
<0.08
0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL67
47
26800
6.3
7.4
3.3
159
0.12
0.31
12
< 0.2
< 0.08
0.89
< 0.5
2
< 0.2
1.2
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL68
<5
21400
8.3
6.7
2.7
160
<0.5
<0.5
12.5
<0.2
<0.08
2.8
<0.5
0.16
<0.2
0.63
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL69
<5
16000
3.8
6.5
<2
141
<0.5
<0.5
40
<0.2
<0,08
1.8
<0.5
0.32
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL7
< 5
14400
3,7
6.9
< 2
119
< 0.5
< 0.5
18.8
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.2
< 0.5
0.11
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL70
<5
24000
9
6.73
2.7
164
<0.5
<0.5
52
<0.2
<0.08
1.8
<0.5
2.45
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL71
<5
23800
9.5
6.5
<2
149
<0.5
<0.5
35.8
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
<0.5
0.29
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL72
<5
23300
9
6.5
<2
132
<0.5
<0.5
30
<0.2
<0.08
2.5
<0.5
1.4
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL73
<5
15300
4.8
6.63
<2
133
<0.4
0.12
35.3
<0.11
<0.06
3.11
<0.03
0.65
<0.01
<0,12
<0.06
Allen
AL74
<5
21000
10.9
6.3
<2
168
<0.5
<0.5
51.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
<0.5
0.34
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
April 2016

Table A2-1
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Page 3 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
d(a):
Groundwater Standard (a)
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1
NS
20
0.2
Federal MCL/SMCL(b):
(' denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
"500
6
30
2000
4
5
100
NS
15
2
NS
50
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1 L
18
20
0.2
RSL 2015(d):
4000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3800
25
9.2
22000
6
15
5.7
100
100
0.2
Appendix III
App
endix IV
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
pH
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Selenium
Thallium
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
su
m L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
Allen
AL75
<5
7380
2.5
6.8
<1
110
0.095
<0.5
12
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
<0.5
1.4
<0.2
0.17
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL76
<20
7120
2
6.41
<5
87
<0.4
0.13
11.9
<0.11
<0.06
2.62
<0.03
0.13
<0.01
<0.12
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL77
<5
15100
7.7
6.4
2.5
157
<0.5
<0.5
49
<0.2
<0.08
1
<0.5
0.24
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL78
< 5
6290
2.9
6.1
< 2
70
< 0.5
< 0.5
26
< 0.2
< 0.08
< 0.5
< 0.5
0.19
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL79
< 5
11700
6.5
6.3
2.1
104
< 0.5
< 0.5
24.8
< 0.2
< 0.08
0.6
< 0.5
0.29
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL8
97
15000
4.8
6.4
<1
132
0.08
<0.5
59
<0.2
<0.08
3.1
<0.5
1.7
<0.2
0.4
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL81
<5
17000
7.9
6.3
<2
137
<0.5
<0.5
30.2
<0.2
<0.08
0.73
<0.5
1.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL82
<5
24300
14.3
6.3
2.1
223
<0.5
<0.5
69.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.23
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL83
<5
21300
15.3
6.2
3.9
228
<0.5
<0.5
42.1
<0.2
<0.08
3.5
<0.5
0.24
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL84
<5
13600
6.6
6.8
<2
134
<03
<0.5
23.5
<0.2
<0.08
0.55
<0.5
0.22
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL85
<5
4720
1.4
6.7
<2
67
<0.5
<0.5
13
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL88
<5
6500
2.1
6.4
<2
63
<0.5
<0.5
23.6
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.2
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL89
67
8600
1.9
6.8
< 1
140
0.14
0.31
26
< 0.2
< 0.08
4
< 0.5
1.1
< 0.2
0.39
< 0.5
0.1
Allen
AL9
<100
21000
8.06
6.2
1.22
165
<1
<5
54
<1
<0.1
6
<1
<2
<0.2
<5
<5
<0.1
Allen
AL90
<5
12000
4.54
7
<1
101
<0.5
<0.5
58
<0.2
<0.08
3
<0.5
7
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL91
<5
11300
1.5
7.1
2
98
<0.5
<0.5
8.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
< ..5
0.16
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL92
<5
10800
5.3
6.3
<1
90
<0.5
<0.5
22.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
0.72
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL93
90
8000
2.9
6.7
< 1
98
0.064
< 0.5
20.4
< 0.2
< 0.08
2.4
0.099
2.3
< 0.2
0.77
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL94
5.5
23600
3.1
7.7
5.4
156
< 0.4
2.4
9.57
< 0.11
< 0.06
1.3
< 0.03
0.57
< 0.01
5.1
2.49
< 0.06
Allen
AL95
7.4
11900
7.4
6.1
<2
107
<0.5
<0.5
30.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.8
<0.5
1.5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL96
<5
8540
4
6.7
<2
91
<0.4
0.16
39.9
<0.11
<0.06
0.82
<0.03
0.11
<0.01
<0.11
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL97
8
25000
2.3
8.1
7.5
112
< 0.5
1.4
6.2
< 0.2
< 0.08
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
4.7
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL98
< 20
28300
1
8.01
14
173
< 0.4
1.84
9.37
< 0.11
< 0.06
0.82
< 0.03
0.75
< 0.01
3.95
< 0.16
< 0.06
Allen
AL99
< 5
12100
2.1
6.7
1.18
105
< 0.5
'0.5
4
< 0.2
< 0.08
0.91
< 0.5
0.15
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016

Table A2-1
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
Page 4 of 9
April 2016
ISA NCAC 02L.020
Groundwater Standard (a):
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(* denotes secondary standard)
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*5
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
0.3
3500
1
2500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20000
2100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
86
20000
0.8
14000
44(e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR
Rule
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
m L
m L
m L
m L
m L
Allen
AL1
6.3
<10
0.01
65
0.17
3220
1.1
<0.5
2450
7550
130
0.155
48
48
<0
<1
Allen
AL100
12.8
12
< 0.001
19.7
0.56
6610
1.54
< 0.5
2370
9200
162
0.0479
78.3
78.3
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL101
4
<10
0.0023
<50
0.61
1240
6.9
1.6
812
5810
72.5
0.807
22.4
22.4
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL102
9
<10
0.0017
<50
1.4
3580
<0.5
0.79
1600
5880
116
0.0087
24
24
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL103
9.1
870
0.0037
2700
< 10
3500
3.6
3.6
1 2500
7200
1 110
0.48
57
1 57
<5
34
Allen
AL11
5.2
<10
0.00416
<50
1.6
2910
<0.5
0.64
1570
8360
153
0.0064
45.4
45.4
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL110
11.3
<10
0.0192
<50
1.7
4260
<0.5
<0.5
2180
7240
110
0.0105
39.9
39.9
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL111
10.4
15
0.0016
< 50
1.1
3920
2
0.7
2100
8600
120
0.026
58
58
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL112
4
< 10
< 0.001
< 50
0.05
4250
0.65
< 0.5
2230
9860
187
0.0186
89.6
89.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL113
11.4
<10
0.0054
<50
2
5280
0.66
<0.5
1940
9730
169
0.236
49.9
49.9
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL114
10.5
< 10
0.0034
< 50
2.2
4940
0.97
< 0.5
1810
8510
162
0.215
52.3
52.3
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL115
5.3
<10
<0.001
238
0.16
3720
23.9
0.89
2670
28000
3400
0.121
42
42
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL117
5.4
77
0.023
200
1 0.15
13000
1 3.5
1.6
4640
1 19000
463
1 0.017
140
140
1 < 1
1.6
Allen
AL118
10.6
< 10
0.056
<50
2.3
4300
< 0.5
1.1
1610
9280
230
0.026
48
48
<0
< 1
Allen
AL119
3.1
77.7
0.0044
144
0.056
3340
6.6
0.81
3020
8570
129
0.0344
64.9
64.9
<5
8.2
Allen
AL12
2.4
<10
0.0314
<50
1.5
3620
0.8
<0.5
1930
8690
286
0.0255
49.5
49.5
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL120
< 1
98.4
< 0.001
< 50
< 0.03
2970
8.9
< 0.5
1850
10800
162
< 0.005
75.2
75.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL121
13.1
23.3
0.0018
< 50
1.7
1630
1
< 0.5
929
6120
67.1
0.0202
20.6
20.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL122
8.4
465
0.159
4300
0.25
6080
23.1
2.7
1960
6790
285
0.123
52.3
52.3
<5
44.1
Allen
AL123
7.6
< 10
0.0024
< 50
2
5640
0.74
1.1
1960
8210
173
0.0143
29.9
29.9
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL124
9.3
< 10
0.0624
< 50
1
5930
< 0.5
< 0.5
2430
7770
198
< 0.005
66.1
66.1
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL125
<1
<10
<0.001
<50
<0.03
1610
6.7
<0.5
1470
9300
111
<0.005
52.9
52.9
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL126
12
< 10
0.0065
< 50
4.2
3790
< 0.5
< 0.5
2210
6270
118
0.0138
48.2
48.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL127
10.6
< 10
< 0.001
< 50
4.4
3770
< 0.5
< 0.5
1760
7530
130
0.0258
46.8
46.8
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL129
6.8
< 10
0.0112
< 50
0.41
7190
0.87
< 0.5
3200
9950
225
0.0168
86.7
86.7
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL130
7.9
<10
0.0139
<50
2.4
3410
1.1
<0.5
1720
6980
106
0.138
48.7
48.7
<5
<2S
Allen
AL131
7.9
< 10
0.0056
< 50
0.78
1940
< 0.5
< 0.5
1300
5570
59.5
0.0218
22.6
22.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL132
7.8
< 10
0.0104
< 50
0.93
5570
< 0.5
< 0.5
1750
10700
234
< 0.005
83.1
83.1
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL133
7.4
< 10
0.002
273
0.72
1840
5.2
< 0.5
1370
5840
89.9
0.11
25.4
25.4
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL135
7
<10
0.0161
88.6
2.1
4920
3
<0.5
1760
9050
180
0.0217
51.4
51.4
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL136
4.5
107
0.359
52.8
2.8
9920
0.82
0.57
2370
12000
378
0.0495
63.9
63.9
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL137
6.5
< 10
0.0047
< 50
0.33
4620
< 0.5
< 0.5
1800
8060
155
0.0054
59.8
59.8
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL138
6.4
< 10
0.0051
< 50
1.2
6780
< 0.5
< 0.5
1920
9180
215
0.0261
61.8
61.8
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL139A
5.4
< 10
0.0121
< 50
0.64
4660
< 0.5
< 0.5
1900
8490
255
0.0229
33.8
33.8
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL139B
5.7
<10
0.139
<50
4.9
1320
4.1
<0.5
1330
6660
81.4
0.0577
21.7
21.7
<5
<5
Allen
AL14
2
< 50
0.03
< 50
5
7900
< 5
<5
1900
10000
360
0.021
61.7
61.7
<0
< 1
Allen
AL140
4.7
<10
0.014
58.4
2.4
5050
2
<0.5
1730
8890
189
0.0755
41.4
41.4
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL141
12.8
< 10
0.0052
< 50
4.4
3160
1.8
0.58
1440
6800
104
0.425
33.2
33.2
< 5
<S
Allen
AL142
4.9
< 10
0.0056
958
0.079
3670
21.3
0.71
2010
6830
125
0.0667
38.2
1 38.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL15
4.8
<10
0.0512
14.5
1.8
6230
1.8
<0.5
1570
9540
227
0.0715
72.8
72.8
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL16
4.2
89
0.006
510
1.8
2600
9
<0.5
1000
8240
150
0.784
53.9
53.9
<0
1.9
Allen
AL17
7.8
14.3
0.0171
59.3
1.1
3860
1.7
<0.5
1200
9650
168
0.0173
56.9
56.9
<1
<2S
Allen
AL19
4.5
<10
0.0568
19.4
2.6
5180
1.1
<0.5
2040
9830
233
0.0177
55.9
55.9
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL2
9.9
21.9
<0.001
<50
1
4320
0.92
<0.5
2170
8210
142
0.0077
60.7
60.7
<5
<2.5
Allen
A 2
12
< 10
0.0023
< 50
1.4
4390
< 0.5
< 0.5
1570
8020
165
< 0.005
65.7
65.7
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
A 2
12.6
< 10
< 0.001
< 50
0.74
5190
< 0.5
< 0.5
1850
7910
158
0.00575
70.1
70.1
< 1
< 2.8
Allen
AL22
8.9
12.4
< 0.001
< 50
0.39
4750
< 0.5
< 0.5
2140
6690
109
< 0.005
74.1
74.1
<5
<5
Allen
AL23
13.4
22.5
0.0018
310
1.1
3820
1.4
1.5
2070
6670
110
0.0061
44
44
<5
2.6
Allen
AL24
12.5
< 10
0.0026
< 50
0.77
3830
< 0.5
< 0.5
2200
6900
82
0.011
52.2
52.2
<0
< 1
Allen
AL25
5.3
< 10
0.0661
< 50
2.3
4610
1 0.63
0.53
2400
10100
240
0.028
60
60
< 5
< 2.5
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
Page 4 of 9
April 2016

Table A2-1
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
Page 5 of 9
April 2016
ISA NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(* denotes secondary standard)
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*5
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
0.3
3500
1
2500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20000
2100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
86
20000
0.8
14000
44(e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR
Rule
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
m L
m L
m L
m L
m L
Allen
AL26
7.6
10.6
0.00768
15.6
0.55
4970
0.68
<0.5
2110
8670
187
0.0977
54.8
54.8
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL27
4.2
< 10
0.0069
< 50
1.8
5750
1.2
0.53
1800
10000
230
0.13
54
54
<0
< 1
Allen
AL28
13
<10
0.0259
<25
2.05
2660
<0.84
0.2
1550
5580
75
0.00212
34
<2.5
Allen
AL29
8.3
< 10
0.0045
< 50
2.2
2280
0.65
0.55
1800
6710
86.4
0.048
29
29
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL3
7.7
68
1.1
100
1.9
1700
5.2
0.33
1300
5700
80.2
0.033
26
26
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL30
5.8
< 10
0.0703
< 50
3.5
3720
< 0.5
< 0.5
1840
8760
220
0.018
55.8
55.8
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL31
22.6
12
0.0699
92.8
1.7
1570
2.59
0.5
1700
5590
90
0.0314
32
30.4
<5
4
Allen
AL32
2.7
< 10
0.0254
< 50
2.7
2600
1.1
< 0.5
1850
7160
157
0.0167
44.7
44.7
<5
< 2.6
Allen
AL33
6.4
<10
0.0129
<50
4.1
2030
<0.5
0.53
1030
6540
127
<0.005
38.3
38.3
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL34
10.1
< 10
0.00644
< 50
2.3
2790
< 0.5
< 0.5
1140
7510
146
0.0087
49.3
49.3
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL39A
3.54
< 30
0.0272
< 15
0.78
1710
< 0.43
0.26
1310
7320
115
0.0092
33
26.4
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL39B
13.1
154
0.0032
271
0.18
3830
8.9
0.46
2490
7910
134
0.0176
69.2
69.2
<5
4.6
Allen
AL40
3.4
13
0.0023
15.3
0.19
1270
1.36
0.19
1370
5150
71
0.112
23
21.4
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL41
3.5
<10
0.0014
<50
0.12
879
<0.5
<0.5
1120
4240
47.2
<0.005
16.3
16.3
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL42
3.6
11.7
0.11
200
0.72
2800
0.58
0.66
1800
5100
80.3
0.0025
35
35
<5
<1
Allen
AL44
< 1
21
0.0572
< 50
0.17
4400
9.2
1.1
1060
5910
31.8
0.116
23.9
23.9
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL45
8.2
< 10
0.034
1400
0.69
1520
4.1
0.77
1080
6600
80
0.016
31
31
<5
2
Allen
AL47
4
40.7
0.007
70.9
2.2
6710
2.6
<0.5
2220
10400
276
0.021
35.3
35.3
<0
8.4
Allen
AL48
16
< 10
0.055
4000
3.8
3100
4.7
< 0.5
1600
8600
160
0.038
32
32
<5
12
Allen
AL49
12.6
< 10
0.0185
< 50
0.9
4860
0.91
< 0.5
2260
7860
141
0.0179
58.7
58.7
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL5
14
45
0.014
75
4
2700
<5
<5
1500
5900
110
0.041
36.3
36.3
<0
1.4
Allen
AL50A
5.5
< 10
0.0019
< 50
0.21
3290
< 0.5
< 0.5
2350
7970
91.4
< 0.005
62.7
62.7
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL50B
6.7
44.8
0.0045
< 50
0.24
1660
< 0.5
< 0.5
1570
5010
62.9
< 0.005
22.2
22.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL50C
3.7
< 10
0.0035
< 50
1.1
3410
< 0.5
1
1530
81000
133
< 0.005
35.2
35.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL51
2.4
3.6
15
1200
0.43
4400
0.88
2.1
1600
11000
346
0.012
50
50
<5
0.7
Allen
AL52
3.4
20
0.058
< 50
0.12
5800
0.76
0.46
1700
11000
240
0.021
62
62
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL53
4.3
<10
0.00498
<15
2.9
3470
<0.84
0.58
1240
6350
142
0.00729
42
<2.5
Allen
AL54
4.4
2.7
29
580
2.9
5600
3.9
2.2
1300
10000
251
0.013
55
55
< 5
< 1
Allen
AL55
7.5
2.8
4.7
330
8.4
3800
1.4
1.2
1430
8000
140
0.056
40
40
<5
< 1
Allen
AL56
7.6
330
0.066
7160
<0.03
4300
361
2.8
3400
9400
230
0.15
59
59
<5
14.3
Allen
AL57
8.3
<10
0.0922
<50
1
4500
1.3
<0.5
1890
9780
205
0.0184
56.8
56.8
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL58
12.2
12
0.53
690
0.24
7000
4.4
2
3230
9510
203
0.0069
76
76
<5
1.1
Allen
AL59
19.1
< 10
0.0017
< 50
2.4
5060
1.9
< 0.5
1860
8730
183
0.274
53.8
53.8
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL6
6.4
<10
0.0011
60.8
3.2
2310
<0.5
<0.5
1410
6410
94
<0.005
31.7
31.7
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL60
9
< 10
0.014
56.9
5.3
9310
8.6
0.96
2550
12100
317
1.38
68.3
68.3
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL61
13.6
<10
0.0207
<50
4.6
6840
0.57
<0.5
2130
9900
208
0.0632
59.5
59.5
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL62
11.2
22.2
0.00202
<15
2.26
5870
<0.84
0.42
1810
8640
205
0.00634
65
<2.5
Allen
AL63
7.02
14.8
0.00707
435
1.94
7050
2.74
0.81
2310
8980
274
0.0434
62
5
Allen
AL64
2.8
< 10
0.165
< 50
4.3
9020
1.6
2.6
2180
9530
424
0.0289
42.9
42.9
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL65
6
30.7
0.0082
< 50
0.25
6350
< 0.5
< 0.5
3260
9000
180
0.0075
70.3
70.3
<5
<5
Allen
AL66
5.3
< 10
0.0388
< 50
0.38
5890
3.9
1.2
1660
11000
306
0.0928
48.8
48.8
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL67
13.3
26
0.02
47
0.62
6880
2.1
0.72
3000
8600
150
0.038
94
94
<5
2.1
Allen
AL68
15.4
51.1
0.0061
85.9
1.8
8650
2.8
<0.5
2880
10100
182
0.0552
73.7
73.7
<5
3.5
Allen
AL69
8.4
<10
0.0748
75.8
1.2
5280
1.9
<0.5
1720
8420
219
0.0446
55.3
55.3
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL7
10.9
< 10
0.0011
<50
0.97
5460
< 0.5
< 0.5
1790
8340
180
0.0176
58.7
58.7
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL70
9.4
<10
0.013
210
1.6
8960
<0.5
0.57
2300
10000
265
<0.005
87.6
87.6
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL71
9.2
< 10
0.0739
< 50
1
8430
< 0.5
< 0.5
2120
9570
256
0.013
73.6
73.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL72
5.1
<10
0.0032
<50
1.1
7650
7.7
<0.5
1820
9640
265
0.0623
69.9
69.9
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL73
9.6
< 10
0.038
55
2.4
5160
0.72
0.75
1670
9450
188
0.0102
69
62.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL74
5.8
< 10
0.126
< 50
2
6540
2.2
< 0.5
2080
10100
293
0.0124
69.8
69.8
< 5
< 2.5
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
Page 5 of 9
April 2016

Table A2-1
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Page 6 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016
ISA NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(* denotes secondary standard)
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*5
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
0.3
3500
1
2500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20000
2100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
86
20000
0.8
14000
44(e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR
Rule
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
m L
m L
m L
m L
m L
Allen
AL75
14
< 10
0.048
< 50
1.7
3840
1
0.26
1500
6600
86
0.038
43
43
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL76
8.34
< 10
0.00732
< 25
2.62
2760
1.5
0.45
1120
6820
109
0.0266
35
< 2.5
Allen
AL77
8.6
101
0.104
< 50
0.7
4980
0.54
< 0.5
2160
9940
238
0.0543
44.1
44.1
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL78
2.1
<10
0.247
<50
0.1
1590
1
<0.5
1060
5320
86.1
0.126
19
19
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL79
4.4
<10
0.0395
54.9
0.33
3230
0.71
<0.5
2240
8320
157
0.0203
40.9
40.9
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL8
8.5
< 10
0.04
< 50
3.5
5200
25.9
0.7
1700
9800
240
0.016
61
61
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL81
2.2
< 10
0.232
< 50
0.78
3050
6.5
0.95
1580
9700
228
5.26
46.9
46.9
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL82
4.7
< 10
0.182
< 50
0.81
7600
1.7
0.71
2400
12300
392
0.0199
47.8
47.8
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL83
9
< 10
0.104
< 50
3.5
8060
1.5
1.3
1760
10800
289
0.0299
49.5
49.5
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL84
8.2
<10
0.016
59.8
0.59
6030
15.7
<0.5
1880
9050
185
0.0794
46.7
46.7
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL85
9.6
< 10
0.0046
< 50
2.5
1420
< 0.5
< 0.5
978
4900
69.2
0.0098
19.6
19.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL88
< 1
< 10
0.146
136
0.82
1830
34.6
0.62
1300
6290
83.2
0.061
28.7
28.7
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL89
12
< 10
0.021
< 50
4
2740
0.72
0.44
1560
6400
120
0.037
43
43
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL9
7
< 50
0.006
< 50
5
6600
< 5
< 5
1400
11000
300
0.172
65.7
65.7
<0
< 1
Allen
AL90
10
<10
0.046
2100
1.9
3100
8.4
0.72
2100
8200
160
0.031
40
40
<0
5.1
Allen
AL91
12.2
<10
0.0015
67.6
1.5
3720
0.5
<0.5
1940
6140
127
0.01
46.1
46.1
<5
<2.6
Allen
AL92
5.1
< 10
0.008
< 50
0.46
2740
0.5
< 0.5
2020
7820
125
0.007
33.3
33.3
<0
< 1
Allen
AL93
9.7
86
0.021
94
1.5
2500
7.7
0.68
2300
6700
82
0.074
39
39
<5
5.2
Allen
AL94
26.5
<10
0.013
16.3
0.18
4910
<0.5
0.56
2340
8760
142
0.0164
81.6
81.6
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL95
2.5
<10
0.0043
1980
1.3
3670
39.7
0.71
2030
9110
186
0.0389
41.6
41.6
<5
4.2
Allen
AL96
6.8
< 10
0.00157
< 25
0.43
2360
< 0.5
0.18
1430
6740
141
0.00349
35
34.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL97
0.28
29
< 0.001
< 50
< 0.03
3800
6
< 0.5
2500
10000
130
< 0.005
83
83
< 0
Allen
AL98
0.25
< 10
0.00551
< 25
< 5
2320
6.43
0.6
2270
11400
34
0.00344
84
<<215
.
Allen
AL99
7.1
< 10
0.0024
1 < 50
0.78
4010
< 0.5
< 0.5
2640
8900
140
0.012
62.7
62.7
<0
< 1
Page 6 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016

Table A2-1
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
Page 7 of 9
April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.020
Groundwater Standard (a):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(• denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID
Turbidity
NTU
Temperature
°C
Specific
Conductance
umhos cm
Dissolved
Oxygen
m L
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
my
Allen
AL1
< 1
18.6
142.4
7.1
207
Allen
AL100
< 1
18.3
215
5.42
280.4
Allen
AL101
< 1
17.8
61.3
8.1
167.5
Allen
AL102
< 1
18.8
112.5
6.8
226.4
Allen
AL103
18
17
101
7.5
170
Allen
AL11
< 1
19.3
157
7.9
202.6
Allen
AL110
< 1
17.8
123
7.3
226.2
Allen
AL111
0.24
18.2
121.1
5.2
166
Allen
AL112
< 1
16.7
212.8
0.8
622
Allen
AL113
< 1
16
133.2
12.2
763.4
Allen
AL114
< 1
16
131.7
7.9
774.7
Allen
AL115
< 1
823
2.7
313
Allen
AL117
1.4
16.9
385
5.7
191.6
Allen
AL118
< 1
19.3
135
5.5
241
Allen
AL119
< 1
17.4
163.9
1.4
156.6
Allen
AL12
< 1
19.1
177.4
6.1
258.6
Allen
AL120
< 1
17.1
200.3
0.03
<
Allen
AL121
< 1
18
64.8
9
149.1
Allen
AL122
38.2
17.9
160.3
7
165.7
Allen
AL123
< 1
17.2
151
6.4
235.4
Allen
AL124
< 1
18
157.5
5.1
205.2
Allen
AL125
< 1
18.2
141.8
0.1
<
Allen
AL126
< 1
18.3
104.4
6.8
193.9
Allen
AL127
< 1
18
110.2
8.4
151.6
Allen
AL129
< 1
17.3
210.3
1.9
216.7
Allen
AL130
< 1
17.1
102.4
4.8
173
Allen
AL131
< 1
18.1
69.5
8
179.2
Allen
AL132
< 1
21.1
179.5
5.2
226.1
Allen
AL133
1.8
17.3
72.5
5.6
108.9
Allen
AL135
< 1
19.6
141.2
4.3
189.2
Allen
AL136
< 1
21.4
301.1
5.6
226.9
Allen
AL137
< 1
18.7
143.5
6.7
125.9
Allen
AL138
< 1
17.7
193.9
5.9
143.5
Allen
AL139A
< 1
18.4
152.6
7.9
148.1
Allen
AL139B
<1
22
68.1
7.7
158.8
Allen
AL14
< 1
19.2
276
5.8
213
Allen
AL140
< 1
21.3
171.9
7.3
192.8
Allen
AL141
< 1
17.7
97.9
7
158.4
Allen
AL142
2.8
17.4
119.7
5.6
48.2
Allen
AL15
< 1
19
252
7.1
162.8
Allen
AL16
11
20.1
127.7
7.5
191.8
Allen
AL17
< 1
17.3
176
6.4
359.7
Allen
AL19
< 1
17.8
242
5.6
243.2
Allen
AL2
< 1
17.2
158.6
5.3
168.8
Allen
A 2
< 1
17.4
174
6.7
162.1
Allen
AL21
< 1
16.6
191
6.91
291.4
Allen
AL22
< 1
8
167.5
3.9
132.6
Allen
AL23
< 1
17.2
114.1
5.52
272.8
Allen
AL24
< 1
20.1
137.7
4.9
197
Allen
AL25
0.15
18.8
175.9
8.6
220.3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
Page 7 of 9
April 2016

Table A2-1
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
Page 8 of 9
April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(• denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID
Turbidity
NTU
Temperature
°C
Specific
Conductance
umhos cm
Dissolved
Oxygen
m L
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
my
Allen
AL26
< 1
17.4
217
6.74
347.8
Allen
AL27
< 1
21
200.2
5.8
207
Allen
AL28
< 1
14.8
105
7.91
Allen
AL29
0.2
18.9
91.1
9.5
212.7
Allen
AL3
0.9
20.5
125.8
10.3
221
Allen
AL30
< 1
18.5
191
7.28
301
Allen
AL31
< 1
20.5
89
7.62
159.2
Allen
AL32
< 1
19.4
112.3
5.4
267.4
Allen
AL33
< 1
18
108
6.83
302.5
Allen
AL34
< 1
17.3
130
6.82
294.2
Allen
AL39A
1.3
18.1
104
7.47
313.9
Allen
AL39B
< 1
17.2
185.2
1.6
178.1
Allen
AL40
< 1
18.8
668
8.3
240.7
Allen
AL41
< 1
18.8
46.4
8.6
183.2
Allen
AL42
< 1
18.1
81
7.8
218.1
Allen
AL44
< 1
17.1
104.4
4
229.5
Allen
AL45
6.2
18.3
75.9
7.65
201.2
Allen
AL47
< 1
19.1
187
7.88
239.6
Allen
AL48
18
18.3
131
8.4
160.5
Allen
AL49
< 1
17.2
159.3
3.9
209.8
Allen
AL5
< 1
17.5
91
4.8
183
Allen
AL50A
< 1
16.8
172
2.2
188.1
Allen
AL50B
< 1
16.7
71.3
6.7
245.3
Allen
AL50C
< 1
16.3
120.8
4.4
207
Allen
AL51
< 1
18.1
225.8
5.7
266.1
Allen
AL52
< 0.14
20.3
375.1
8.1
188.8
Allen
AL53
< 1
15.9
134
7.41
Allen
AL54
< 1
17.1
178
6.82
267.4
Allen
AL55
< 1
16.7
116
6.18
227.9
Allen
AL56
82.5
20.5
163.7
7.3
170
Allen
AL57
< 1
19.5
153.8
3.9
240.2
Allen
AL58
1.8
17.1
205.5
5.01
108.4
Allen
AL59
< 1
18
137
5.2
198
Allen
AL6
< 1
18.6
111
6.95
302.6
Allen
AL60
< 1
17.5
230.4
3.2
194.9
Allen
AL61
< 1
19.9
190.8
5.5
181.8
Allen
AL62
< 1
15.5
193
7.41
Allen
AL63
8.7
11.2
244
7.1
Allen
AL64
< 1
17
329.8
4
223.5
Allen
AL65
< 1
17.3
232.7
3.5
200.4
Allen
AL66
< 1
17.9
189
5.2
261.2
Allen
AL67
0.25
18.2
233.1
6.2
195.3
Allen
AL68
< 1
20.6
219.3
4.4
140.3
Allen
AL69
< 1
17.3
153.5
4.9
202.3
Allen
AL7
< 1
16.9
141.8
8.1
155
Allen
AL70
< 1
18.6
295
5.17
262.3
Allen
AL71
< 1
18
212.6
3.3
271
Allen
AL72
< 1
18.4
200.3
2.8
169.8
Allen
AL73
< 1
20.6
288.1
6.99
174.8
Allen
AL74
< 1
18.3
176.3
4
178.4
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
Page 8 of 9
April 2016

Table A2-1
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Page 9 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016
ISA NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(• denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID
Turbidity
NTU
Temperature
°C
Specific
Conductance
umhos cm
Dissolved
Oxygen
m L
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
my
Allen
AL75
0.31
20.4
102.9
7.4
179
Allen
AL76
< 1
16.1
110
7.87
Allen
AL77
< 1
18.5
175.4
5.6
264.2
Allen
AL78
< 1
17.7
75.8
7.2
231.2
Allen
AL79
< 1
17.8
128.3
5.8
183.4
Allen
AL8
0.27
18.8
153.8
7.3
246
Allen
AL81
< 1
20.6
171.3
6.8
185.6
Allen
AL82
< 1
22.3
254
5.4
273.3
Allen
AL83
< 1
19.4
223.7
5.6
200.4
Allen
AL84
< 1
17
179.1
5.2
180.6
Allen
AL85
< 1
18.3
61.5
8.7
219.8
Allen
AL88
< 1
17
129.4
2.21
186.6
Allen
AL89
0.29
19
92.6
9.6
191.8
Allen
AL9
< 1
18.7
205
6
259
Allen
AL90
13
19.3
109.3
9.6
205.1
Allen
AL91
< 1
16.4
109
7
245
Allen
AL92
< 1
19.8
112.4
7.8
232
Allen
AL93
0.38
19.7
92.4
8.3
172
Allen
AL94
< 1
17
202
6.31
218.2
Allen
AL95
14.1
17.5
117.1
2.8
194.5
AllenAL96
< 1
18.1
119
7.73
167.9
Allen
AL97
< 1
19
178.4
0.1
120
Allen
AL98
< 1
13.8
231
6.85
Allen
AL99
< 1
18.5
128.6
7.2
238.1
Page 9 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016

Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Notes:
A - Denotes [MAC value.
* - Denotes SMCL value.
°C - Degrees Celsius.
Blank data cells indicate no data available.
CCR - Coal Combustion Residual.
DEQ- Department of Environmental Quality.
DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services.
HI - Hazard Index.
IMAC- Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration.
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level.
MDL - Method Detection Limit.
mg/L - milligrams/liter.
mV - millivolts.
NA - Not available.
NS - No Standard Available.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
PQL- Practical Quantitation Limit (h).
RSL - Risk Based Screening Level.
SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.
su - standard units.
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency.
ug/L - micrograms/liter.
umhos/cm - micromhos/centimeter.
Data Qualifiers
B Detected in method blank (MB).
1 Estimated result between PQL and MDL.
12 Spike recovery outside quality assurance limits @ 135%.
Zb Sample was clear but contained sand -like particles.
Zc Well depth was 635 feet per well tag.
18 Temperature of the sample was exceeded during storage.
BH Method Blank (MB) greater than one half of the Reporting Level (RL), but the sample concentrations are greater than 10x the MB.
** Alkalinity = carbonate + bicarbonate.
S1 Matrix spike and / or matrix spike duplicate sample recovery was not within control limits due to matrix interference. Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) was within control limits.
Z Sample was re -digested and re -analyzed with similar sample and spike results.
M1 Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery.
D6 The relative percent difference (RPD) between the sample and sample duplicate exceeded laboratory control limits.
< Measurement limited by threshold (cannot detect measureable amount below this number). Actual detectable amount below threshold is unknown.
(a) - Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Groundwaters of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code. April 1, 2013.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/gwstandards
(b) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/dwstandards2012.pdf.
(c) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental
Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf
(d) - USEPA Risk Based Screening Levels (November 2015). Values for tapwater. HI = 1.
http://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-ta ble-generic-tables
(e) - Alternative screening level calculated for hexavalent chromium using RSL calculator (http://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/chemicals/csl_search) and current dose -response data from the USEPA's
Integrated Risk Information System. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/. The RSL for hexavalent chromium is not a drinking water standard, and the basis of the draft oral cancer toxicity value
used in the calculation of the RSL has been questioned by USEPA's Science Advisory Board; therefore, RSL for Chromium (IV) is based on the noncancer values developed by USEPA.
(f) - The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Detection Monitoring (Appendix III).
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-04-17/pdf/2015-00257.pdf
(g) -The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Assessment Monitoring (Appendix IV).
(h) - Each analytical procedure has a PQL, which is defined as "the lowest level achievable among laboratories within specified limits during routine laboratory operation". The PQL is about three to
five times the calculated MDL for the analytical procedure, and represents a practical and routinely achievable reporting limit with a relatively good certainty that any reported value is reliable.
Detected value is above the sreening level.
Reporting limit is above the screening level.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
10
4/14/2016

Table A2.2
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
35A NCAC 021 .0201700
Groundwater Standard a:
NS
250
6.5-8 5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1
NS
20
0.2
denotes
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
seconds standard
NS
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
*500
6
10
2000
4
5
100
NS
15
2
NS
50
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1 L
18
20
0.2
RSL 2015 (d):
4000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3800
25
9.2
22000
6
35
5.7
100
100
0.2
Appendix III
Appendix IV
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
pH
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Selenium
Thallium
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
su
m L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
Allen
ALL
<5
16400
5.1
6.9
<1
100
<0.5
<0.5
26
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
0.63
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL100
<5
21500
5.22
7.2
2.8
150
<0.5
<0.5
15
<0.2
<0.08
0.71
<0.5
3.11
<0.2
0.89
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL101
<5
5570
2.2
6.6
<2
40
<0.5
<0.5
10.5
<0.2
<0.08
2.9
<0.5
0.2
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL102
9.5
8560
5.7
6.4
<2
109
<0.5
<0.5
44.9
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
0.49
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL103
<500
11000
1.4
6.2
<1
120
0.078
<1
29
<1
0.22
7.2
0.74
0.77
<0.2
0.7
<1
<1
Allen
AL11
<5
10500
4.28
6.68
2.2
118
<0.5
<0.5
34.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
2.98
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL110
<5
10600
4.4
6.8
2
110
<0.5
<0.5
16.5
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
<0.5
0.42
<0.2
1
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL111
43
11600
2.5
6.6
2.8
140
0.1
<0.5
26.2
<0.2
0.067
1.3
0.068
0.2
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
0.063
Allen
AL112
9.2
27200
3.6
7.8
6.5
144
<0.5
1.2
11.6
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
2.9
0.71
<0.1
Allen
AL113
<5
15600
5.3
6.9
2.2
108
<0.5
<0.5
30.5
<0.2
<0.08
2.8
<0.5
0.47
<0.2
0.64
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL114
<5
15000
5
6.9
2.3
128
<0.5
<0.5
26.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.7
<0.5
0.39
<0.2
0.64
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL115
38.8
145000
19.1
7.6
373
675
<0.5
0.82
19.9
<0.2
<0.08
0.63
<0.5
3.3
<0.2
2.7
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL117
120
45000
12
6.4
38.3
270
0.089
<0.5
200
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
0.11
1.3
<0.2
1.1
1.8
<0.1
Allen
AL118
<5
13000
4.47
6.4
1.09
107
<0.5
<0.5
65
<0.2
<0.08
2.8
<0.5
5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL119
7.4
20800
1.8
7.4
5.6
114
<0.5
1.2
9.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.3
<0.5
0.58
<0.2
3.4
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL12
<5
21200
8.4
6.1
4.5
146
<0.5
<0.5
58.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.7
<0.5
0.65
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL120
15.8
25100
3.1
8.1
11.2
128
<0.5
1.1
7
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
3.6
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL121
<5
4970
2.2
6.9
<2
73
<0.5
<0.5
11.8
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.17
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL122
<5
15900
7.8
6.5
<2
129
<0.5
<0.5
62
<0.2
<0.08
1.6
0.66
75.5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL123
<5
12100
11.2
6.3
<2
160
<0.5
<0.5
74.6
<0.2
<0.08
2.2
<0.5
0.3
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL124
<5
16100
5.1
6.6
2.6
133
<0.5
<0.5
29
<0.2
<0.08
1.1
<0.5
0.5
<0.2
0.56
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL125
5.6
18400
2.3
8.5
6.9
97
<0.5
3.6
0.77
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
7
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL126
<5
9540
2.2
6.9
2.1
103
<0.5
<0.5
26.2
<0.2
<0.08
4.4
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL127
<5
11500
2.3
6.8
<2
109
<0.5
<0.5
17
<0.2
<0.08
5
<0.5
0.11
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL129
<5
22700
9.5
6.4
2.8
182
<0.5
<0.5
44
<0.2
<0.08
0.63
<0.5
0.52
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL130
<5
9070
2
6.4
<2
110
<0.5
<0.5
43.4
<0.2
<0.08
2.4
<0.5
0.62
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL131
<5
5260
2.3
6.9
<2
75
<0.5
<0.5
25.4
<0.2
<0.08
1.1
<0.5
0.34
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL132
<5
19100
2.2
6.3
2.1
133
<0.5
<0.5
21.4
<0.2
<0.08
0.98
<0.5
0.74
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL133
<5
5930
3.1
7
<2
99
<0.5
<0.5
20.1
<0.2
<0.08
0.95
<0.5
0.46
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL135
<5
13300
4.1
6.5
2.1
107
<0.5
<0.5
48.8
<0.2
<0.08
2.4
<0.5
2.3
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL136
<5
28300
21.7
6.2
2.1
233
<0.5
<0.5
117
<0.2
<0.08
3.3
<0.5
0.73
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL137
<5
14400
2.1
6.7
4.6
101
<0.5
<0.5
23.8
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.42
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL138
<5
17500
10.8
6.6
<2
160
<0.5
<0.5
51.4
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.72
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL139A
<5
13900
6
6.3
2.7
137
<0.5
<0.5
42.7
<0.2
<0.08
4.8
<0.5
0.54
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL139B
<5
5180
2.1
6.4
<2
81
<0.5
<0.5
19.4
<0.2
<0.08
0.81
<0.5
0.46
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL14
<100
31000
22.3
5.9
6.92
214
<1
<5
96
<1
<0.1
4
<1
<2
<0.2
<5
<5
<0.1
Allen
AL140
<5
16600
12.2
6.2
2.8
151
<0.5
<0.5
45.4
<0.2
<0.08
2.5
<0.5
0.24
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL141
<5
8090
2.1
6.8
<2
98
<0.5
<0.5
22.5
<0.2
0.092
3.9
<0.5
0.42
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL142
<5
10800
5
6.6
<2
105
<0.5
<0.5
23.7
<0.2
<0.08
0.89
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL15
10.9
19600
7.7
6.69
4.6
156
<0.5
<0.5
50.4
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.25
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL16
<5
11000
4.7
6.4
<1
116
<0.5
<0.5
16
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL17
<5
13500
4.3
6.5
2.1
130
<0.5
<0.5
31.4
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.8
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL19
<5
16600
8.08
6.76
<2
157
<0.5
<0.5
51.3
<0.2
<0.08
2.7
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL2
6.6
16500
2.6
7
3
114
<0.5
0.64
22.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
<0.5
0.12
<0.2
1.2
0.66
<0.1
Allen
AL20
<5
13400
4.28
7.11
2.1
134
<0.5
<0.5
21.7
<0.2
<0.08
1.6
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL21
<5
13800
2.5
7.24
2.2
119
<0.5
<0.5
23.2
<0.2
<0.08
0.92
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL22
<5
21700
3.8
7.4
3.2
133
<0.5
<0.5
1.2
<0.2
<0.08
0.58
<0.5
0.15
<0.2
2.2
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL23
<5
10800
2.2
7
2.2
94
<0.5
<0.5
15
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
0.79
0.13
0.055
0.57
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL24
<5
14500
2.8
7.3
3.8
108
<0.5
<0.5
1.7
<0.2
<0.08
0.89
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
2.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL25
<5
18100
4.5
6.3
<1
143
0.081
<0.5
75.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.7
<0.5
0.3
<0.2
0.14
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL26
<5
16200
8.8
7.05
2.5
147
<0.5
<0.5
44.7
<0.2
<0.08
0.79
<0.5
0.25
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL27
<5
18000
10.9
6.7
<1
166
<0.5
<0.5
51
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.27
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL28
<20
6590
2
7.03
<5
152
<0.4
0.18
14.8
<0.11
<0.06
2.05
<0.03
3.79
<0.01
0.95
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL29
<5
6640
2.8
6.6
<1
100
0.072
<0.5
23.6
<0.2
<0.08
2.3
<0.5
0.72
<0.2
0.32
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL3
49
4870
2.1
6.6
0.15
83
0.2
<0.5
17
10.2
<0.08
1.9
0.099
0.46
<0.2
0.36
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL30
<5
15200
13.2
6.5
<2
122
<0.5
<0.5
55.5
<0.2
<0.08
3.6
<0.5
0.16
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL31
43
7180
8.8
6.3
<2
88.6
1.16
<0.08
38.5
<0.11
<0.06
2.47
<0.02
3.17
<0.2
<0.11
0.22
<0.06
11
Page 1 of 6
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016

Table A2.2
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
DukeEnergy
April 2016
ISA water. 02L.020
Groundwater Standard a:
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1
NS
20
0.2
*' denotes
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
seconds standard)NS
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
*500
6
10
2000
4
5
100
NS
15
2
NS
50
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1 L
18
20
0.2
RSL 2015 (d):
4000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3800
25
9.2
22000
6
35
5.7
100
100
0.2
Appendix III
Appendix IV
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
pH
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Selenium
Thallium
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
su
m L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
Allen
AL32
<5
10500
1.5
6.2
<2
100
<0.5
<0.5
44.8
<0.2
<0.08
2.4
<0.5
0.76
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL33
<5
7450
3.32
6.5
<2
116
<0.5
<0.5
15.4
<0.2
<0.08
4.2
<0.5
1.58
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL34
<5
12200
4.28
6.7
2.2
108
<0.5
<0.5
29.9
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL39A
<5
7770
7
6.34
<2
112
<0.5
<0.08
9.89
<0.11
<0.06
2.18
<0.03
1.9
<0.01
0.16
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL39B
<5
24500
4.2
8.1
6.5
212
<0.4
0.92
1.1
<0.11
<0.06
1.08
<0.04
0.44
0.02
3.7
1.81
<0.06
Allen
AL40
<5
6230
2.3
6.41
<2
87
0.42
<0.08
10.9
<0.11
<0.06
1.1
<0.03
0.25
<0.01
0.34
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL41
<5
3910
1.4
6.5
<2
49
<0.5
<0.5
5.8
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
0.69
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL42
<5
7300
1.9
6.68
0.34
62
0.14
<0.5
22
0.04
<0.08
0.89
0.085
0.49
<0.1
0.21
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL44
26.9
6500
11
5.8
<2
63
<0.5
<0.5
70.9
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
1.4
0.74
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL45
<5
7600
1.8
7.32
<1
74
0.31
<0.5
17
0.064
<0.08
0.89
0.089
4.4
<0.1
0.39
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL47
<5
25300
15.1
6.4
1.02
229
<0.5
<0.5
74
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
0.27
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL48
68
11000
6.5
6.6
4
109
0.064
0.5
51
<0.2
0.063
7.5
<0.5
8
<0.2
0.14
<0.5
0.08
Allen
AL49
<5
15700
4.2
6.8
2.6
117
<0.5
<0.5
36.7
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
0.35
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALS
<100
7500
2.44
6.8
1.11
88
<1
<5
20
<1
<0.1
3
<1
11
<0.2
2
<5
<0.1
Allen
AL50A
7
20900
3.9
7.1
5.9
125
<0.5
1.5
3.7
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.13
<0.2
4.3
0.66
<0.1
Allen
AL50B
5.8
5810
1.6
6.6
<2
78
<0.5
<0.5
12
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALSOC
102
11200
8.4
6.1
4.9
96
<0.5
<0.5
33.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.8
<0.5
1.9
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL51
<5
29300
14.2
6.31
2
178
<0.5
<0.5
41
<0.2
<0.08
0.76
0.21
2.7
0.041
<0.5
0.31
<0.1
Allen
AL52
62
19000
8.8
6.3
<1
158
0.053
<0.5
28
<0.2
<0.08
0.71
<0.5
0.68
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL53
<20
11000
5
6.31
<5
75
<0.4
0.12
25.5
<0.11
<0.06
4.06
<0.03
0.23
<0.01
<0.11
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL54
<5
19000
16
6.42
3.8
145
<0.5
<0.5
26
<0.2
<0.08
3.2
0.24
0.33
0.051
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL55
<5
12000
4.6
6.52
2.5
125
0.25
0.44
27.2
<0.2
<0.08
2
0.21
0.9
0.052
0.27
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL56
66
13000
7.9
6.3
2.6
140
0.12
<0.5
93
<0.2
<0.08
4.5
2.1
2.7
<0.2
0.51
<0.5
0.057
Allen
AL57
<5
14900
3.3
6.5
<2
123
<0.5
<0.5
67
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
0.48
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL58
6.6
21100
7.8
6.7
4.3
137
0.1
0.82
33
<0.2
<0.08
0.63
0.22
0.47
0.058
0.49
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL59
<5
12800
3.3
6.6
<2
107
<0.5
<0.5
32.8
<0.2
<0.08
3
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
0.24
Allen
AL6
<5
7180
3
6.99
2.1
86
<0.5
<0.5
30.5
<0.2
<0.08
3.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL60
<5
25300
14.6
6.4
<2
197
<0.5
<0.5
64.9
<0.2
<0.08
5.8
<0.5
0.12
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL61
<5
18200
8.9
6.5
3.3
148
<0.5
<0.5
29.2
<0.2
<0.08
4.8
<0.5
0.22
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL62
<20
16300
7
6.63
<5
108
<0.4
0.12
25.3
<0.11
<0.06
2.84
<0.03
0.13
<0.01
0.45
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL63
<20
21400
15
6.04
6
204
<0.5
<0.08
43.8
<0.11
<0.06
3.31
0.05
0.59
<0.01
0.27
0.25
<0.06
Allen
AL64
<5
33700
37.9
6.1
<2
233
<0.5
<0.5
68.1
<0.2
<0.08
4.4
<0.5
0.53
<0.2
<0.5
<O.5
<0.1
Allen
AL65
<5
23800
10.7
6.6
3.2
165
<0.5
<0.5
8.9
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.9
<0.2
1.1
0.52
<0.1
Allen
AL66
<5
18300
8.8
6.4
<2
160
<0.5
<0.5
47.6
<0.2
<0.08
0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL67
47
26800
6.3
7.4
3.3
159
0.12
0.31
12
<0.2
<0.08
0.89
<0.5
2
<0.2
1.2
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL68
<5
21400
8.3
6.7
2.7
160
<0.5
<0.5
12.5
<0.2
<0.08
2.8
<0.5
0.16
<0.2
0.63
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL69
<5
16000
3.8
6.5
<2
141
<0.5
<0.5
40
<0.2
<0.08
1.8
<0.5
0.32
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AU
<5
14400
3.7
6.9
<2
119
<0.5
<0.5
18.8
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
0.11
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL70
<5
24000
9
6.73
2.7
164
<0.5
<0.5
52
<0.2
<0.08
1.8
<0.5
2.45
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL71
<5
23800
9.5
6.5
<2
149
<0.5
<0.5
35.8
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
<0.5
0.29
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL72
<5
23300
9
6.5
<2
132
<0.5
<0.5
30
<0.2
<0.08
2.5
<0.5
1.4
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL73
<5
15300
4.8
6.63
<2
133
<0.4
0.12
35.3
<0.11
<0.06
3.11
<0.03
0.65
<0.01
<0.12
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL74
<5
21000
10.9
6.3
<2
168
<0.5
<0.5
51.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
<0.5
0.34
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL75
<5
7380
2.5
6.8
<1
110
0.095
<0.5
12
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
<0.5
1.4
<0.2
0.17
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL76
<20
7120
2
6.41
<5
87
<0.4
0.13
11.9
<0.11
<0.06
2.62
<0.03
0.13
<0.01
<0.12
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL77
<5
15100
7.7
6.4
2.5
157
<0.5
<0.5
49
<0.2
<0.08
1
<0.5
0.24
<0.2
<0.5
<O.5
<0.1
Allen
AL78
<5
6290
2.9
6.1
<2
70
<0.5
<0.5
26
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.19
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL79
<5
11700
6.5
6.3
2.1
104
<0.5
<0.5
24.8
<0.2
<0.08
0.6
<0.5
0.29
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALS
97
15000
4.8
6.4
<1
132
0.08
<0.5
59
<0.2
<0.08
3.1
<0.5
1.7
<0.2
0.4
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL81
<5
17000
7.9
6.3
<2
137
<0.5
<0.5
30.2
<0.2
<0.08
0.73
<0.5
1.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL82
<5
24300
14.3
6.3
2.1
223
<0.5
<0.5
69.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.23
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL83
<5
21300
15.3
6.2
3.9
228
<0.5
<0.5
42.1
<0.2
<0.08
3.5
<0.5
0.24
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL84
<5
13600
6.6
6.8
<2
134
<0.5
<0.5
23.5
<0.2
<0.08
0.55
<0.5
0.22
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL85
<5
4720
1.4
6.7
<2
67
<0.5
<0.5
13
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL 88
<5
6500
2.1
6.4
<2
63
<0.5
<0.5
23.6
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.2
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
LB
67
8600
1.9
6.8
<1
140
0.14
0.31
26
<0.2
<0.08
4
<0.5
1.1
<0.2
0.39
<0.5
0.1
Allen
AL9
<100
21000
8.06
6.2
1.22
165
<1
<5
54
<1
<0.1
6
<1
<2
<0.2
<5
<5
<0.1
12
Page 2 of 6
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016

Table A2.2
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Groundwater
ISA water. 02L.020
Standard a:
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1
NS
20
0.2
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
*' standard)NS
denotes seconds
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
*500
6
10
2000
4
5
100
NS
15
2
NS
50
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1 L
18
20
0.2
RSL 2015 (d):
4000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3800
25
9.2
22000
6
35
5.7
100
100
0.2
Appendix III
Appendix IV
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
pH
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Selenium
Thallium
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
su
m L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
Allen
AL90
<5
12000
4.54
7
<1
101
<0.5
<0.5
58
10.2
<0.08
3
<0.5
7
<0.2
<0.5
10.5
<0.1
Allen
AL91
<5
11300
1.5
7.1
2
98
<0.5
10.5
8.1
10.2
<0.08
2.1
<0.5
0.16
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL92
<5
10800
5.3
6.3
<1
90
10.5
<0.5
22.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
0.72
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL93
90
8000
2.9
6.7
<1
98
0.064
<0.5
20.4
<0.2
<0.08
2.4
0.099
2.3
<0.2
0.77
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL94
5.5
23600
3.1
7.7
5.4
156
<0.4
2.4
9.57
<0.11
<0.06
1.3
<0.03
0.57
<0.01
5.1
2.49
<0.06
Allen
AL95
7.4
11900
7.4
6.1
<2
107
<0.5
<0.5
30.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.8
<0.5
1.5
<0.2
<0.5
10.5
<0.1
Allen
ALL96
<5
8540
4
6.7
<2
91
<0.4
0.16
39.9
10.11
10.06
0.82
10.03
0.11
10.01
<0.11
10.16
<0.06
Allen
A97
8
25000
2.3
8.1
7.5
112
<0.5
1.4
6.2
<0.2
<0.08
10.5
<0.5
10.1
<0.2
4.7
10.5
10.1
Allen
AL98
120
28300
1
8.01
14
173
<0.4
1.84
9.37
10.11
<0.06
0.82
<0.03
0.75
<0.01
3.95
10.16
<0.06
Allen
AL99
<5
12100
2.1
6.7
1.18
105
10.5
<0.5
4
10.2
10.08
0.91
10.5
0.15
10.2
10.5
10.5
<0.1
13
Page 3 of 6
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016

Table A2.2
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
14
Page 4 of 6
15at02L.020
Standard
Groundwater a :
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
N5
• denotes
Federal MCL/SMCL(b):
secondary standard
NS
•50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*S
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
N5
NS
N5
DHHS Screening Level (c):
0.3
3500
1
2500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20000
2100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
86
20000
0.8
14000
44(e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents
Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
Turbidity
Temperature
Specific
Conductance
Dissolved
Oxygen
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
m L
m L
m L
m L
m L
NTU
'C
umhos cm
.9/1.
mV
Allen
ALL
6.3
<10
0.01
65
0.17
3220
1.1
<0.5
2450
7550
130
0.155
48
48
<0
<1
<1
18.6
142.4
7.1
207
Allen
AL100
12.8
12
<0.001
19.7
0.56
6610
1.54
<0.5
2370
9200
162
0.0479
78.3
78.3
<1
<2.5
<1
18.3
215
5.42
280.4
Allen
AL101
4
<10
0.0023
< 50
0.61
1240
6.9
1.6
812
5810
72.5
0.807
22.4
22.4
<5
< 2.5
<1
17.8
61.3
8.1
167.5
Allen
AL102
9
<10
0.0017
< 50
1.4
3580
< 0.5
0.79
1600
5880
116
0.0087
24
24
<5
< 2.5
<1
18.8
112.5
6.8
226.4
Allen
AL103
9.1
870
0.0037
2700
<10
3500
3.6
3.6
2500
7200
110
0.48
57
57
<5
34
18
17
101
7.5
170
Allen
AL11
5.2
<10
0.00416
<50
1.6
2910
<0.5
0.64
1570
8360
153
0.0064
45.4
45.4
<1
<2.5
<1
19.3
157
7.9
202.6
Allen
AL110
11.3
<10
0.0192
< 50
1.7
4260
< 0.5
< 0.5
2180
7240
110
0.0105
39.9
39.9
<5
< 2.5
<1
17.8
123
7.3
226.2
Allen
AL111
10.4
15
0.0016
<50
1.1
3920
2
0.7
2100
8600
120
0.026
58
58
<5
<2.5
0.24
18.2
121.1
5.2
166
Allen
AL112
4
< 10
< 0.001
<50
0.05
4250
0.65
< 0.5
2230
9860
187
0.0186
89.6
89.6
<5
< 2.5
< 1
16.7
212.8
0.8
622
Allen
AL113
11.4
<10
0.0054
< 50
2
5280
0.66
< 0.5
1940
9730
169
0.236
49.9
49.9
<5
< 2.5
<1
16
133.2
12.2
763.4
Allen
AL114
10.5
<10
0.0034
<50
2.2
4940
0.97
<0.5
1810
8510
162
0.215
52.3
52.3
<5
<2.5
<1
16
131.7
7.9
774.7
Allen
AL115
5.3
<10
< 0.001
238
0.16
3720
23.9
0.89
2670
28000
3400
0.121
42
42
<S
< 2.5
<1
823
2.7
313
Allen
AL117
5.4
77
0.023
200
0.15
13000
3.5
1.6
4640
19000
463
0.017
140
140
< 1
1.6
1.4
16.9
385
5.7
191.6
Allen
AL118
10.6
<10
0.056
< 50
2.3
4300
< 0.5
1.1
1610
9280
230
0.026
48
48
<0
<1
<1
19.3
135
5.5
241
Allen
AL119
3.1
77.7
0.0044
144
0.056
3340
6.6
0.81
3020
8570
129
0.0344
64.9
64.9
<5
8.2
<1
17.4
163.9
1.4
156.6
Allen
AL12
2.4
<10
0.0314
<50
1.5
3620
0.8
<0.5
1930
8690
286
0.0255
49.5
49.5
<5
<2.5
<1
19.1
177.4
6.1
258.6
Allen
AL120
<1
98.4
<0.001
<50
<0.03
2970
8.9
<0.5
1850
10800
162
<0.005
75.2
75.2
<5
<2.5
<1
17.1
200.3
0.03
<
Allen
AL121
13.1
23.3
0.0018
<50
1.7
1630
1
<0.5
929
6120
67.1
0.0202
20.6
20.6
<5
<2.5
<1
18
64.8
9
149.1
Allen
AL122
8.4
465
0.159
4300
0.25
6080
23.1
2.7
1960
6790
285
0.123
52.3
52.3
<5
44.1
38.2
17.9
160.3
7
165.7
Allen
AL123
7.6
<10
0.0024
<50
2
5640
0.74
1.1
1960
8210
173
0.0143
29.9
29.9
<5
< 2.5
<1
17.2
151
6.4
235.4
Allen
AL124
9.3
<10
0.0624
<50
1
5930
<0.5
<0.5
2430
7770
198
<0.005
66.1
66.1
<5
<2.5
<1
18
157.5
5.1
205.2
Allen
AL125
<1
<10
<0.001
<50
<0.03
1610
6.7
<0.5
1470
9300
111
<0.005
52.9
52.9
<5
<2.5
<1
18.2
141.8
0.1
<
Allen
AL126
12
< 10
0.0065
<50
4.2
3790
< 0.5
< 0.5
2210
6270
118
0.0138
48.2
48.2
<5
< 2.5
<1
18.3
104.4
6.8
193.9
Allen
AL127
10.6
<10
< 0.001
<50
4.4
3770
< 0.5
< 0.5
1760
7530
130
0.0258
46.8
46.8
<5
< 2.5
<1
18
110.2
8.4
151.6
Allen
AL129
6.8
<10
0.0112
<50
0.41
7190
0.87
<0.5
3200
9950
225
0.0168
86.7
86.7
<5
<2.5
<1
17.3
210.3
1.9
216.7
Allen
AL130
7.9
<10
0.0139
<50
2.4
3410
1.1
< 0.5
1720
6980
106
0.138
48.7
48.7
<5
< 2.5
<1
17.1
102.4
4.8
173
Allen
AL131
7.9
<10
0.0056
<50
0.78
1940
<0.5
<0.5
1300
5570
59.5
0.0218
22.6
22.6
<5
<2.5
<1
18.1
69.5
8
179.2
Allen
AL132
7.8
<10
0.0104
<50
0.93
5570
<0.5
<0.5
1750
10700
234
<0.005
83.1
83.1
<5
<2.5
<1
21.1
179.5
5.2
226.1
Allen
AL133
7.4
<10
0.002
273
0.72
1840
5.2
<0.5
1370
5840
89.9
0.11
25.4
25.4
<5
<2.5
1.8
17.3
72.5
5.6
108.9
Allen
AL135
7
<10
0.0161
88.6
2.1
4920
3
<O.5
1760
9050
180
0.0217
51.4
51.4
<5
<2.5
<1
19.6
141.2
4.3
189.2
Allen
AL136
4.5
107
0.359
52.8
2.8
9920
0.82
0.57
2370
12000
378
0.0495
63.9
63.9
<5
<2.5
<1
21.4
301.1
5.6
226.9
Allen
AL137
6.5
< 10
0.0047
<50
0.33
4620
< 0.5
< 0.5
1800
8060
155
0.0054
59.8
59.8
'S
< 2.5
<1
18.7
143.5
6.7
125.9
Allen
AL138
6.4
<10
0.0051
<50
1.2
6780
<0.5
<0.5
1920
9180
215
0.0261
61.8
61.8
<5
<2.5
<1
17.7
193.9
5.9
143.5
Allen
AL139A
5.4
<10
0.0121
<50
0.64
4660
<0.5
<0.5
1900
8490
255
0.0229
33.8
33.8
<5
<2.5
<1
18.4
152.6
7.9
148.1
Allen
AL139B
5.7
<10
0.139
<50
4.9
1320
4.1
<0.5
1330
6660
81.4
0.0577
21.7
21.7
<5
<5
<1
22
68.1
7.7
158.8
Allen
AL14
2
<50
0.03
< 50
5
7900
<5
<5
1900
10000
360
0.021
61.7
61.7
<O
<1
<1
19.2
276
5.8
213
Allen
AL140
4.7
<10
0.014
58.4
2.4
5050
2
<0.5
1730
8890
189
0.0755
41.4
41.4
<5
<2.5
<1
21.3
171.9
192.8
Allen
AL141
12.8
<10
0.0052
<50
4.4
3160
1.8
0.58
1440
6800
104
0.425
33.2
33.2
<5
<5
<1
17.7
97.9
158.4
Allen
AL142
4.9
<10
0.0056
958
0.079
3670
21.3
0.71
2010
6830
125
0.0667
38.2
38.2
<5
<2.5
2.8
17.4
119.7
48.2
Allen
AL15
4.8
<10
0.0512
14.5
1.8
6230
1.8
<0.5
1570
9540
227
0.0715
72.8
72.8
<1
<2.5
<1
19
252
162.8
Allen
AL16
4.2
89
0.006
510
1.8
2600
9
<0.5
1000
8240
150
0.784
53.9
53.9
<0
1.9
11
20.1
127.7
U6.7
191.8
Allen
AL17
7.8
14.3
0.0171
59.3
1.1
3860
1.7
<0.5
1200
9650
168
0.0173
56.9
56.9
<1
<2.5
<1
17.3
176
359.7
Allen
AL19
4.5
<10
0.0568
19.4
2.6
5180
1.1
<0.5
2040
9830
233
0.0177
55.9
55.9
<1
<2.5
<1
17.8
242
243.2
Allen
AL2
9.9
21.9
< 0.001
< 50
1
4320
0.92
< 0.5
2170
8210
142
0.0077
60.7
60.7
'S
< 2.5
<1
17.2
158.6
168.8
Allen
AL20
12
< 10
0.0023
< 50
1.4
4390
< 0.5
< 0.5
1570
8020
165
< 0.005
65.7
65.7
< 1
< 2.5
<1
17.4
174
162.1
Allen
AL21
12.6
< 10
< 0.001
< 50
0.74
5190
< 0.5
< 0.5
1850
7910
158
0.00575
70.1
70.1
< 1
< 2.8
<1
16.6
191
6.91
291.4
Allen
AL22
8.9
12.4
'0.001
<50
0.39
4750
< 0.5
< 0.5
2140
6690
109
< 0.005
74.1
74.1
<5
<5
<1
8
167.5
3.9
132.6
Allen
AL23
13.4
22.5
0.0018
310
1.1
3820
1.4
1.5
2070
6670
110
0.0061
44
44
<5
2.6
<1
17.2
114.1
5.52
272.8
Allen
AL24
12.5
<10
0.0026
<50
0.77
3830
<0.5
<0.5
2200
6900
82
0.011
52.2
52.2
<0
<1
<1
20.1
137.7
4.9
197
Allen
AL25
5.3
<10
0.0661
< 50
2.3
4610
0.63
0.53
2400
10100
240
0.028
60
60
<5
< 2.5
0.15
18.8
175.9
8.6
220.3
Allen
AL26
7.6
1 10.6 1
0.00768
15.6
0.55
4970
0.68
<0.5
1 2110
8670
187
0.0977
54.8
54.8
<1
<2.5
<1
17.4
217
6.74
347.8
Allen
AL27
4.2
< 10
0.0069
<50
1.8
5750
1.2
0.53
1800
10000
230
0.13
54
54
<O
<1
<1
21
200.2
5.8
207
Allen
AL28
13
<10
0.0259
<25
2.05
2660
<0.84
0.2
1550
5580
75
0.00212
34
<2.5
<1
14.8
105
7.91
Allen
AL29
8.3
<10
0.0045
<50
2.2
2280
0.65
0.55
1800
6710
86.4
0.048
29
29
<5
<2.5
0.2
18.9
91.1
9.5
212.7
Allen
AL3
7.7
68
1.1
100
1.9
1700
5.2
0.33
1300
5700
80.2
0.033
26
26
<5
<2.5
0.9
20.5
125.8
10.3
221
Allen
AL30
5.8
< 10
0.0703
< 50
3.5
3720
< 0.5
< 0.5
1840
8760
220
0.018
55.8
55.8
< 1
< 2.5
<1
18.5
191
7.28
301
Allen
AL31
22.6
12
0.0699
92.8
1.7
1570
2.59
0.5
1700
5590
90
0.0314
32
30.4
<5
4
<1
20.5
89
7.62
159.2
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016

Table A2.2
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
15
Page 5 of 6
water. 02L.020
Groundwater Standard a:
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
N5
• denotesseconda
Federal MCL/SMCL(b):
standard
NS
•50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*S
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
N5
NS
N5
DHHS Screening Level (c):
0.3
3500
1
2500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20000
2100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
86
20000
0.8
14000
44(e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents
Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
Turbidity
Temperature
Specific
Conductance
Dissolved
Oxygen
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
m L
m L
m L
m L
m L
NTU
'C
umhos cm
../L
mV
Allen
AL32
2.7
<10
0.0254
<50
2.7
2600
1.1
<0.5
1850
7160
157
0.0167
44.7
44.7
<5
<2.6
<1
19.4
112.3
5.4
267.4
Allen
AL33
6.4
< 10
0.0129
< 50
4.1
2030
< 0.5
0.53
1030
6540
127
< 0.005
38.3
38.3
< 1
< 2.5
< 1
18
108
6.83
302.5
Allen
AL34
10.1
< 10
0.00644
< 50
2.3
2790
< 0.5
< 0.5
1140
7510
146
0.0087
49.3
49.3
< 1
< 2.5
< 1
17.3
130
6.82
294.2
Allen
AL39A
3.54
<10
0.0272
<15
0.78
1710
<0.43
0.26
1310
7320
115
0.0092
33
26.4
<5
<2.5
1.3
18.1
104
7.47
313.9
Allen
AL39B
13.1
154
0.0032
271
0.18
3830
8.9
0.46
2490
7910
134
0.0176
69.2
69.2
<5
4.6
<1
17.2
185.2
1.6
178.1
Allen
AL40
3.4
13
0.0023
15.3
0.19
1270
1.36
0.19
1370
5150
71
0.112
23
21.4
<5
<2.5
<1
18.8
668
8.3
240.7
Allen
AL41
3.5
<10
0.0014
<50
0.12
879
<0.5
<0.5
1120
4240
47.2
<0.005
16.3
16.3
<5
<2.5
<1
18.8
46.4
8.6
183.2
Allen
AL42
3.6
11.7
0.11
200
0.72
2800
0.58
0.66
1800
5100
80.3
0.0025
35
35
<5
<1
<1
18.1
81
7.8
218.1
Allen
AL44
<1
21
0.0572
<50
0.17
4400
9.2
1.1
1060
5910
31.8
0.116
23.9
23.9
<5
<2.5
<1
17.1
104.4
4
229.5
Allen
AL45
8.2
<10
0.034
1400
0.69
1520
4.1
0.77
1080
6600
80
0.016
31
31
<5
2
6.2
18.3
75.9
7.65
201.2
Allen
AL47
4
40.7
0.007
70.9
2.2
6710
2.6
<0.5
2220
10400
276
0.021
35.3
35.3
<0
8.4
<1
19.1
187
7.88
239.6
Allen
AL48
16
<10
0.055
4000
3.8
3100
4.7
<0.5
1600
8600
160
0.038
32
32
<5
12
18
18.3
131
8.4
160.5
Allen
AL49
12.6
< 10
0.0185
< 50
0.9
4860
0.91
< 0.5
2260
7860
141
0.0179
58.7
58.7
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
17.2
159.3
3.9
209.8
Allen
ALS
14
45
0.014
75
4
2700
< 5
< 5
1500
5900
110
0.041
36.3
36.3
< 0
1.4
< 1
17.5
91
4.8
183
Allen
AL50A
5.5
< 10
0.0019
< 50
0.21
3290
< 0.5
< 0.5
2350
7970
91.4
< 0.005
62.7
62.7
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
16.8
172
2.2
188.1
Allen
AL50B
6.7
44.8
0.0045
<50
0.24
1660
<0.5
<0.5
1570
5010
62.9
<0.005
22.2
22.2
<5
<2.5
<1
16.7
71.3
6.7
245.3
Allen
AL50C
3.7
< 10
0.0035
< 50
1.1
3410
< 0.5
1
1530
81000
133
< 0.005
35.2
35.2
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
16.3
120.8
4.4
207
Allen
AL51
2.4
3.6
35
1200
0.43
4400
0.88
2.1
1600
11000
346
0.012
50
50
<5
0.7
<1
18.1
225.8
5.7
266.1
Allen
AL52
3.4
20
0.058
< 50
0.12
5800
0.76
0.46
1700
11000
240
0.021
62
62
< 5
< 2.5
< 0.14
20.3
375.1
8.1
188.8
Allen
AL53
4.3
<10
0.00498
<15
2.9
3470
<0.84
0.58
1240
6350
142
0.00729
42
<2.5
<1
15.9
134
7.41
Allen
AL54
4.4
2.7
29
580
2.9
5600
3.9
2.2
1300
10000
251
0.013
55
55
<5
<1
<1
17.1
178
6.82
267.4
Allen
AL55
7.5
2.8
4.7
330
8.4
3800
1.4
1.2
1430
8000
140
0.056
40
40
<5
<1
<1
16.7
116
6.18
227.9
Allen
AL56
7.6
330
0.066
7160
<0.03
4300
361
2.8
3400
9400
230
0.15
59
59
<5
14.3
82.5
20.5
163.7
7.3
170
Allen
AL57
8.3
< 10
0.0922
< 50
1
4500
1.3
< 0.5
1890
9780
205
0.0184
56.8
56.8
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
19.5
153.8
3.9
240.2
Allen
AL58
12.2
12
0.53
690
0.24
7000
4.4
2
3230
9510
203
0.0069
76
76
< 5
1.1
1.8
17.1
205.5
5.01
108.4
Allen
AL59
19.1
< 10
0.0017
< 50
2.4
5060
1.9
< 0.5
1860
8730
183
0.274
53.8
53.8
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
18
137
5.2
198
Allen
AL6
6.4
<10
0.0011
60.8
3.2
2310
<0.5
<0.5
1410
6410
94
<0.005
31.7
31.7
<1
<2.5
<1
18.6
111
6.95
302.6
Allen
AL60
9
< 10
0.014
56.9
5.3
9310
8.6
0.96
2550
12100
317
1.38
68.3
68.3
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
17.5
230.4
3.2
194.9
Allen
AL61
13.6
< 10
0.0207
< 50
4.6
6840
0.57
< 0.5
2130
9900
208
0.0632
59.5
59.5
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
19.9
190.8
5.5
181.8
Allen
AL62
11.2
22.2
0.00202
<15
2.26
5870
<0.84
0.42
1810
8640
205
0.00634
65
<2.5
<1
15.5
193
7.41
Allen
AL63
7.02
14.8
0.00707
435
1.94
7050
2.74
0.81
2310
8980
274
0.0434
62
5
8.7
11.2
244
7.1
Allen
AL64
2.8
< 10
0.165
< 50
4.3
9020
1.6
2.6
2180
9530
424
0.0289
42.9
42.9
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
17
329.8
4
223.5
Allen
AL65
6
30.7
0.0082
<50
0.25
6350
<0.5
<0.5
3260
9000
180
0.0075
70.3
70.3
<5
<5
<1
17.3
232.7
3.5
200.4
Allen
AL66
5.3
< 10
0.0388
< 50
0.38
5890
3.9
1.2
1660
11000
306
0.0928
48.8
48.8
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
17.9
189
5.2
261.2
Allen
AL67
13.3
26
0.02
47
0.62
6880
2.1
0.72
3000
8600
150
0.038
94
94
<5
2.1
0.25
18.2
233.1
6.2
195.3
Allen
AL68
15.4
51.1
0.0061
85.9
1.8
8650
2.8
<0.5
2880
10100
182
0.0552
73.7
73.7
<5
3.5
<1
20.6
219.3
4.4
140.3
Allen
AL69
8.4
<10
0.0748
75.8
1.2
5280
1.9
<0.5
1720
8420
219
0.0446
55.3
55.3
<5
<2.5
<1
17.3
153.5
4.9
202.3
Allen
AU
10.9
<10
0.0011
<50
0.97
5460
<0.5
<0.5
1790
8340
180
0.0176
58.7
58.7
<5
<2.5
<1
16.9
141.8
8.1
155
Allen
AL70
9.4
< 10
0.013
210
1.6
8960
< 0.5
0.57
2300
10000
265
< 0.005
87.6
87.6
< 1
< 2.5
< 1
18.6
295
5.17
262.3
Allen
AL71
9.2
< 10
0.0739
< 50
1
8430
< 0.5
< 0.5
2120
9570
256
0.013
73.6
73.6
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
18
212.6
3.3
271
Allen
AL72
5.1
<10
0.0032
<50
1.1
7650
7.7
<0.5
1820
9640
265
0.0623
69.9
69.9
<5
<2.5
<1
18.4
200.3
2.8
169.8
Allen
AL73
9.6
< 10
0.038
55
2.4
5160
0.72
0.75
1670
9450
188
0.0102
69
62.2
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
20.6
288.1
6.99
174.8
Allen
AL74
5.8
<10
0.126
<50
2
6540
2.2
<0.5
2080
10100
293
0.0124
69.8
69.8
<5
<2.5
<1
18.3
176.3
4
178.4
Allen
AL75
14
<10
0.048
<50
1.7
3840
1
0.26
1500
6600
86
0.038
43
43
<5
<2.5
0.31
20.4
102.9
7.4
179
Allen
AL76
8.34
< 10
0.00732
< 25
2.62
2760
1.5
0.45
1120
6820
109
0.0266
35
< 2.5
< 1
16.1
110
7.87
Allen
AL77
8.6
101
0.104
<50
0.7
4980
0.54
<0.5
2160
9940
238
0.0543
44.1
44.1
<5
<2.5
<1
18.5
175.4
5.6
264.2
Allen
AL78
2.1
<10
0.247
<50
0.1
1590
1
<0.5
1060
5320
86.1
0.126
19
19
<5
<2.5
<1
17.7
75.8
7.2
231.2
Allen
AL79
4.4
<10
0.0395
54.9
0.33
3230
0.71
<0.5
2240
8320
157
0.0203
40.9
40.9
<5
<2.5
<1
17.8
128.3
5.8
183.4
Allen
AL8
8.5
<10
0.04
<50
3.5
5200
25.9
0.7
1700
9800
240
0.016
61
61
<1
<2.5
0.27
18.8
153.8
7.3
246
Allen
AL81
2.2
< 10
0.232
< 50
0.78
3050
6.5
0.95
1580
9700
228
5.26
46.9
46.9
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
20.6
171.3
6.8
185.6
Allen
AL82
4.7
< 10
0.182
< 50
0.81
7600
1.7
0.71
2400
12300
392
0.0199
47.8
47.8
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
22.3
254
5.4
273.3
Allen
AL83
9
< 10
0.104
< 50
3.5
8060
1.5
1.3
1760
10800
289
0.0299
49.5
49.5
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
19.4
223.7
5.6
200.4
Allen
AL84
8.2
<10
0.016
59.8
0.59
6030
15.7
<0.5
1850
9050
185
0.0794
46.7
46.7
<5
<2.5
<1
17
179.1
5.2
180.6
Allen
AL85
9.6
<10
0.0046
<10
2.5
1420
<0.5
<0.5
978
4900
69.2
0.0098
19.6
19.6
<5
<2.5
<1
18.3
61.5
8.7
219.8
Allen
AL88
< 1
< 10
0.146
136
0.82
1830
34.6
0.62
1300
6290
83.2
0.061
28.7
28.7
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
17
129.4
2.21
186.6
Allen
AL89
12
<10
0.021
<50
4
2740
0.72
0.44
1560
6400
120
0.037
43
43
<5
<2.5
0.29
19
92.6
9.6
191.8
Allen
AL9
7
<50
0.006
<50
5
6600
<5
<5
1400
11000
300
0.172
65.7
65.7
<0
<1
<1
18.7
205
6
259
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016

Table A2.2
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
16
Page 6 of 6
Groundwater
water. 02L.020
Standard a:
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
N5
Federal MCL/SMCL(b):
• denotesseconda standard
NS
•50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*S
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
N5
NS
N5
DHHS Screening Level (c):
0.3
3500
1
2500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20000
2100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
86
20000
0.8
14000
44(e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents
Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
Turbidity
Temperature
Specific
Conductance
Dissolved
Oxygen
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
m L
m L
m L
m L
m L
NTU
'C
umhos cm
m L
mV
Allen
AL90
10
<10
0.046
2100
1.9
3100
8.4
0.72
2100
8200
160
0.031
40
40
<0
5.1
13
19.3
109.3
9.6
205.1
Allen
AL91
12.2
<10
0.0015
67.6
1.5
3720
0.5
<0.5
1940
6140
127
0.01
46.1
46.1
<5
<2.6
<1
16.4
109
7
245
Allen
AL92
5.1
< 10
0.008
< 50
0.46
2740
0.5
< 0.5
2020
7820
125
0.007
33.3
33.3
< 0
< 1
< 1
19.8
112.4
7.8
232
Allen
AL93
9.7
86
0.021
94
1.5
2500
7.7
0.68
2300
6700
82
0.074
39
39
<5
5.2
0.38
19.7
92.4
8.3
172
Allen
AL94
26.5
< 10
0.013
16.3
0.18
4910
< 0.5
0.56
2340
8760
142
0.0164
81.6
81.6
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
17
202
6.31
218.2
Allen
AL91
2.5
<10
0.0043
1980
1.3
3670
39.7
0.71
2030
9110
186
0.0389
41.6
41.6
<5
4.2
14.1
17.5
117.1
2.8
194.5
Allen
AL96
6.8
< 10
0.00157
< 25
0.43
2360
< 0.5
0.18
1430
6740
141
0.00349
35
34.6
< 5
< 2.5
< 1
18.1
119
7.73
167.9
Allen
AL97
0.28
29
<0.001
<50<0.03
3800
6
<0.5
2500
10000
130
<0.005
83
83
<0
<1
<1
19
178.4
0.1
120
Allen
AL98
0.25
< 10
0.00551
< 25
< 5
2320
6.43
0.6
2270
11400
34
0.00344
84
< 2.5
< 1
13.8
231
6.85
Allen
AL99
7.1
<10
0.0024
<50
0.78
4010
<0.5
<0.5
2640
1 8900
140
0.012
62.7
62.7
<0
<1
<1
18.5
128.6
7.2
238.1
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016

Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Notes:
A - Denotes [MAC value.
* - Denotes SMCL value.
°C - Degrees Celsius.
Blank data cells indicate no data available.
CCR - Coal Combustion Residual.
DEQ- Department of Environmental Quality.
DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services.
HI - Hazard Index.
IMAC- Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration.
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level.
MDL - Method Detection Limit.
mg/L - milligrams/liter.
mV - millivolts.
NA - Not available.
NS - No Standard Available.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
PQL- Practical Quantitation Limit (h).
RSL - Risk Based Screening Level.
SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.
su - standard units.
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency.
ug/L - micrograms/liter.
umhos/cm - micromhos/centimeter.
Data Qualifiers
B Detected in method blank (MB).
1 Estimated result between PQL and MDL.
12 Spike recovery outside quality assurance limits @ 135%.
Zb Sample was clear but contained sand -like particles.
Zc Well depth was 635 feet per well tag.
18 Temperature of the sample was exceeded during storage.
BH Method Blank (MB) greater than one half of the Reporting Level (RL), but the sample concentrations are greater than 10x the MB.
** Alkalinity = carbonate + bicarbonate.
S1 Matrix spike and / or matrix spike duplicate sample recovery was not within control limits due to matrix interference. Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) was within control limits.
Z Sample was re -digested and re -analyzed with similar sample and spike results.
M1 Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery.
D6 The relative percent difference (RPD) between the sample and sample duplicate exceeded laboratory control limits.
< Measurement limited by threshold (cannot detect measureable amount below this number). Actual detectable amount below threshold is unknown.
(a) - Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Groundwaters of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code. April 1, 2013.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/gwstandards
(b) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/dwstandards2012.pdf.
(c) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental
Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf
(d) - USEPA Risk Based Screening Levels (November 2015). Values for tapwater. HI = 1.
http://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-ta ble-generic-tables
(e) - Alternative screening level calculated for hexavalent chromium using RSL calculator (http://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/chemicals/csl_search) and current dose -response data from the USEPA's
Integrated Risk Information System. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/. The RSL for hexavalent chromium is not a drinking water standard, and the basis of the draft oral cancer toxicity value
used in the calculation of the RSL has been questioned by USEPA's Science Advisory Board; therefore, RSL for Chromium (IV) is based on the noncancer values developed by USEPA.
(f) - The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Detection Monitoring (Appendix III).
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-04-17/pdf/2015-00257.pdf
(g) -The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Assessment Monitoring (Appendix IV).
(h) - Each analytical procedure has a PQL, which is defined as "the lowest level achievable among laboratories within specified limits during routine laboratory operation". The PQL is about three to
five times the calculated MDL for the analytical procedure, and represents a practical and routinely achievable reporting limit with a relatively good certainty that any reported value is reliable.
Detected value is a Bove the sreeni ng level.
Reporting limit is above the screeni ng level.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
17
4/14/2016

Table A2-3
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
18
Page 1 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
d(a):
Groundwater Standard (a)
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1
NS
20
0.2
Federal MCL/SMCL(b):
(• denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
"500
6
10
2000
4
5
100
NS
15
2
NS
50
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1 L
18
20
0.2
RSL 2015(d):
4000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3800
25
9.2
22000
6
15
5.7
100
100
0.2
Appendix III
App
endix IV
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
pH
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Selenium
Thallium
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
su
m L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
Allen
AL1
< 5
16400
5.1
6.9
< 1
100
< 0.5
< 0.5
26
< 0.2
< 0.08
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
0.63
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL100
<5
21500
5.22
7.2
2.8
150
<0.5
<0.5
15
<0.2
<0.08
0.71
<0.5
3.11
<0.2
0.89
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL101
< 5
5570
2.2
6.6
< 2
40
< 0.5
< 0.5
10.5
< 0.2
< 0.08
2.9
< 0.5
0.2
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL102
9.5
8560
5.7
6.4
<2
109
<0.5
<0.5
44.9
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
0.49
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL103
< 500
11000
1.4
6.2
< 1
120
0.078
< 1
29
< 1
0.22
7.2
0.74
0.77
< 0.2
0.7
< 1
< 1
Allen
AL11
<5
10500
4.28
6.68
2.2
118
<0.5
<0.5
34.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
2.98
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL110
<5
10600
4.4
6.8
2
110
<0.5
<0.5
16.5
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
<0.5
0.42
<0.2
1
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL111
43
11600
2.5
6.6
2.8
140
0.1
< 0.5
26.2
< 0.2
0.067
1.3
0.068
0.2
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
0.063
Allen
AL112
9.2
27200
3.6
7.8
6.5
144
<0.5
1.2
11.6
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
2.9
0.71
<0.1
Allen
AL113
<5
15600
5.3
6.9
2.2
108
<0.5
<0.5
30.5
<0.2
<0.08
2.8
<0.5
0.47
<0.2
0.64
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL114
<5
15000
5
6.9
2.3
128
<0.5
<0.5
26.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.7
<0.5
0.39
<0.2
0.64
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL115
38.8
145000
19.1
7.6
373
675
<0.5
0.82
19.9
<0.2
<0.08
0.63
<0.5
3.3
<0.2
2.7
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL117
120
45000
12
6.4
38.3
270
0.089
< 0.5
200
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.4
0.11
1.3
< 0.2
1.1
1.8
< 0.1
Allen
AL118
<5
13000
4.47
6.4
1.09
107
<0.5
<0.5
65
<0.2
<0.08
2.8
<0.5
5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL119
7.4
20800
1.8
7.4
5.6
114
<0.5
1.2
9.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.3
<0.5
0.58
<0.2
3.4
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL12
<5
21200
8.4
6.1
4.5
146
<0.5
<0.5
58.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.7
<0.5
0.65
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL120
15.8
25100
3.1
8.1
11.2
128
< 0.5
1.1
7
< 0.2
< 0.08
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
3.6
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL121
<5
4970
2.2
6.9
<2
73
<0.5
<0.5
11.8
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.17
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL122
<5
15900
7.8
6.5
<2
129
<0.5
<0.5
62
<0.2
<0.08
1.6
0.66
75.5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL123
<5
12100
11.2
6.3
<2
160
<0.5
<0.5
74.6
<0.2
<0.08
2.2
<0.5
0.3
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL124
< 5
16100
5.1
6.6
2.6
133
< 0.5
< 0.5
29
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.1
< 0.5
0.5
< 0.2
0.56
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL125
5.6
18400
2.3
8.5
6.9
97
<0.5
3.6
0.77
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
7
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL126
<5
9540
2.2
6.9
2.1
103
<0.5
<0.5
26.2
<0.2
<0.08
4.4
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL127
<5
11500
2.3
6.8
<2
109
<0.5
<0.5
17
<0.2
<0.08
5
<0.5
0.11
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL129
<5
22700
9.5
6.4
2.8
182
<0.5
<0.5
44
<0.2
<0.08
0.63
<0.5
0.52
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL130
<5
9070
2
6.4
<2
110
<0.5
<0.5
43.4
<0.2
<0.08
2.4
<0.5
0.62
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL131
<5
5260
2.3
6.9
<2
75
<0.5
<0.5
25.4
<0.2
<0.08
1.1
<0.5
0.34
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL132
<5
19100
2.2
6.3
2.1
133
<0.5
<0.5
21.4
<0.2
<0.08
0.98
<0.5
0.74
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL133
<5
5930
3.1
7
<2
99
<0.5
<0.5
20.1
<0.2
<0.08
0.95
<0.5
0.46
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL135
<5
13300
4.1
6.5
2.1
107
<0.5
<0.5
48.8
<0.2
<0.08
2.4
<0.5
2.3
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL136
<5
28300
21.7
6.2
2.1
233
<0.5
<0.5
117
<0.2
<0.08
3.3
<0.5
0.73
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL137
<5
14400
2.1
6.7
4.6
101
<0.5
<0.5
23.8
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.42
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL138
<5
17500
10.8
6.6
<2
160
<0.5
<0.5
51.4
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.72
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL139A
<5
13900
6
6.3
2.7
137
<0.5
<0.5
42.7
<0.2
<0.08
4.8
<0.5
0.54
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL139B
<5
5180
2.1
6.4
<2
81
<0.5
<0.5
19.4
<0.2
<0.08
0.81
<0.5
0.46
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL14
<100
31000
22.3
5.9
6.92
214
<1
<5
96
<1
<0.1
4
<1
<2
<0.2
<5
<5
<0.1
Allen
AL140
<5
16600
12.2
6.2
2.8
151
<0.5
<0.5
45.4
<0.2
<0.08
2.5
<0.5
0.24
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL141
<5
8090
2.1
6.8
<2
98
<0.5
<0.5
22.5
<0.2
0.092
3.9
<0.5
0.42
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL142
<5
10800
5
6.6
<2
105
<0.5
<0.5
23.7
<0.2
<0.08
0.89
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL15
10.9
19600
7.7
6.69
4.6
156
<0.5
<0.5
50.4
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.25
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL16
< 5
11000
4.7
6.4
< 1
116
< 0.5
< 0.5
16
< 0.2
< 0.08
2
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL17
< 5
13500
4.3
6.5
2.1
130
< 0.5
< 0.5
31.4
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.4
< 0.5
0.8
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL19
<5
16600
8.08
6.76
<2
157
<0.5
<0.5
51.3
<0.2
<0.08
2.7
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL2
6.6
16500
2.6
7
3
114
<0.5
0.64
22.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
<0.5
0.12
<0.2
1.2
0.66
<0.1
Allen
AL20
<5
13400
4.28
7.11
2.1
134 1
<0.5
<0.5
21.7
<0.2
<0.08
1.6
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<05
<0.1
Allen
AL21
<5
13800
2.5
7.24
2.2
119
<0.5
<0.5
23.2
<0.2
<0.08
0.92
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL22
<5
21700
3.8
7.4
3.2
133
<0.5
<0.5
1.2
<0.2
<0.08
0.58
<0.5
0.15
<0.2
2.2
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL23
<5
10800
2.2
7
2.2
94
<0.5
<0.5
15
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
0.79
0.13
0.055
0.57
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL24
< 5
14500
2.8
7.3
3.8
108
< 0.5
< 0.5
1.7
< 0.2
< 0.08
0.89
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
2.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL25
<5
1 18100
4.5 1
6.3
1 <1
1 14311
0.081
1 <0.5
1 75.1
1 <0.2
1 <0.08
2.7
<0.5
0.3
<0.2
0.14
<0.5
<0.1
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Table A2-3
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
19
Page 2 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
d(a):
Groundwater Standard (a)
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
S00
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1
NS
20
0.2
Federal MCL/SMCL(b):
(* denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
*500
6
10
2000
4
5
100
NS
15
2
NS
50
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
30
1
15
1 L
18
20
0.2
RSL 2015(d):
4000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3800
25
9.2
22000
6
15
5.7
100
100
0.2
Appendix III
App
endix IV
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
pH
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Selenium
Thallium
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
su
m L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
Allen
AL26
<5
16200
8.8
7.05
2.5
147
<0.5
<0.5
44.7
<0.2
<0.08
0.79
<0.5
0.25
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL27
<5
18000
10.9
6.7
<1
166
<0.5
<0.5
51
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.27
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL28
<20
6590
2
7.03
<5
152
<0.4
0.18
14.8
<0.11
<0.06
2.05
<0.03
3.79
<0.01
0.95
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL29
<5
6640
2.8
6.6
<1
100
0.072
<0.5
23.6
<0.2
<0.08
2.3
<0.5
0.72
<0.2
0.32
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AU
49
4870
2.1
6.6
0.15
83
0.2
< 0.5
17
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.9
0.099
0.46
< 0.2
0.36
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL30
<5
15200
13.2
6.5
<2
122
<0.5
<0.5
55.5
<0.2
<0.08
3.6
<0.5
0.16
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL31
43
7180
8.8
6.3
<2
88.6
1.16
<0.08
38.5
<0.11
<0.06
2.47
<0.02
3.17
<0.2
<0.11
0.22
<0.06
Allen
AL32
<5
10500
1.5
6.2
<2
100
<0.5
<0.5
44.8
<0.2
<0.08
2.4
<0.5
0.76
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL33
<5
7450
3.32
6.5
<2
116
<0.5
<0.5
15.4
<0.2
<0.08
4.2
<0.5
1.58
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL34
<5
12200
4.28
6.7
2.2
108
<03
<0.5
29.9
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL39A
<5
7770
7
6.34
<2
112
<0.5
<0.08
9.89
<0.11
<0.06
2.18
<0.03
1.9
<0.01
0.16
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL39B
<5
24500
4.2
8.1
6.5
212
<0.4
0.92
1.1
<0.11
<0,06
1.08
<0.04
0.44
0.02
3.7
1.81
<0.06
Allen
AL40
<5
6230
2.3
6.41
<2
87
0.42
<0.08
10.9
<0.11
<0.06
1.1
<0.03
0.25
<0.01
0.34
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL41
< 5
3910
1.4
6.5
< 2
49
< 0.5
< 0.5
5.8
< 0.2
< 0.08
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
0.69
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL42
< 5
7300
1.9
6.68
0.34
62
0.14
< 0.5
22
0.04
< 0.08
0.89
0.085
0.49
< 0.1
0.21
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL44
26.9
6500
11
5.8
<2
63
<0.5
<0.5
70.9
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
1.4
0.74
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL45
< 5
7600
1.8
7.32
< 1
74
0.31
< 0.5
17
0.064
< 0.08
0.89
0.089
4.4
< 0.1
0.39
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL47
<5
25300
15.1
6.4
1.02
229
<0.5
<0.5
74
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
0.27
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL48
68
11000
6.5
6.6
4
109
0.064
0.5
51
< 0.2
0.063
7.5
< 0.5
8
< 0.2
0.14
< 0.5
0.08
Allen
AL49
<5
15700
4.2
6.8
2.6
117
<0.5
<0.5
36.7
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
0.35
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL5
<100
7500
2.44
6.8
1.11
88
<1
<5
20
<1
<0.1
3
<1
11
<0.2
2
<5
<0.1
Allen
AL50A
7
20900
3.9
7.1
5.9
125
<0.5
1.5
3.7
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.13
<0.2
4.3
0.66
<0.1
Allen
AL50B
5.8
5810
1.6
6.6
<2
78
<0.5
<0.5
12
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL50C
102
11200
8.4
6.1
4.9
96
<0.5
<0.5
33.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.8
<0.5
1.9
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL51
<5
29300
14.2
6.31
2
178
<0.5
<0.5
41
<0.2
<0.08
0.76
0.21
2.7
0.041
<0.5
0.31
<0.1
Allen
AL52
62
19000
8.8
6.3
<1
158
0.053
<0.5
28
<0.2
<0.08
0.71
<0.5
0.68
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL53
<20
11000
5
6.31
<5
75
<0.4
0.12
25.5
<0.11
<0.06
4.06
<0.03
0.23
<0.01
<0.11
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL54
<5
19000
16
6.42
3.8
145
<0.5
<0.5
26
<0.2
<0.08
3.2
0.24
0.33
0.051
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL55
< 5
12000
4.6
6.52
2.5
125
0.25
0.44
27.2
< 0.2
< 0.08
2
0.21
0.9
0.052
0.27
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL56
66
13000
7.9
6.3
2.6
140
0.12
< 0.5
93
< 0.2
< 0.08
4.5
2.1
2.7
< 0.2
0.51
< 0.5
0.057
Allen
AL57
< 5
14900
3.3
6.5
< 2
123
< 0.5
< 0.5
67
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.2
< 0.5
0.48
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0,5
< 0.1
Allen
AL58
6.6
21100
7.8
6.7
4.3
137
0.1
0.82
33
< 0.2
< 0.08
0.63
0.22
0.47
0.058
0.49
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL59
<5
12800
3.3
6.6
<2
107
<0.5
<0.5
32.8
<0.2
<0.08
3
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
0.24
Allen
AL6
<5
7180
3
6.99
2.1
86
<0.5
<0.5
30.5
<0.2
<0.08
3.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL60
<5
25300
14.6
6.4
<2
197
<0.5
<0.5
64.9
<0.2
<0.08
5.8
<0.5
0.12
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL61
<5
18200
8.9
6.5
3.3
148
<0.5
<0.5
29.2
<0.2
<0.08
4.8
<0.5
0.22
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL62
<20
16300
7
6.63
<5
108
<0.4
0.12
25.3
<0.11
<0.06
2.84
<0.03
0.13
<0.01
0.45
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL63
< 20
21400
15
6.04
6
204
< 0.5
< 0.08
43.8
< 0.11
< 0.06
3.31
0.05
0.59
< 0.01
0.27
0.25
< 0.06
Allen
AL64
<5
33700
37.9
6.1
<2
233
<0.5
<0.5
68.1
<0.2
<0.08
4.4
<0.5
0.53
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL65
<5
23800
10.7
6.6
3.2
165
<0.5
<0.5
8.9
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.9
<0.2
1.1
0.52
<0.1
Allen
AL66
<5
18300
8.8
6.4
<2
160
<0.5
<0.5
47.6
<0.2
<0.08
0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL67
47
26800
6.3
7.4
3.3
159
0.12
0.31
12
< 0.2
< 0.08
0.89
< 0.5
2
< 0.2
1.2
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL68
<5
21400
8.3
6.7
2.7
160
<0.5
<0.5
12.5
<0.2
<0.08
2.8
<0.5
0.16
<0.2
0.63
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL69
<5
16000
3.8
6.5
<2
141
<0.5
<0.5
40
<0.2
<0,08
1.8
<0.5
0.32
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AU
< 5
14400
3,7
6.9
< 2
119
< 0.5
< 0.5
18.8
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.2
< 0.5
0.11
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL70
<5
24000
9
6.73
2.7
164
<0.5
<0.5
52
<0.2
<0.08
1.8
<0.5
2.45
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL71
<5
23800
9.5
6.5
<2
149
<0.5
<0.5
35.8
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
<0.5
0.29
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL72
<5
23300
9
6.5
<2
132
<0.5
<0.5
30
<0.2
<0.08
2.5
<0.5
1.4
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL73
<5
15300
4.8
6.63
<2
133
<0.4
0.12
35.3
<0.11
<0.06
3.11
<0.03
0.65
<0.01
<0,12
<0.06
Allen
AL74
<5
21000
10.9
6.3
<2
168
<0.5
<0.5
51.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
<0.5
0.34
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Table A2-3
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
20
Page 3 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016
15A NCAC d(a):
Groundwater Standard (a)
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1
NS
20
0.2
Federal MCL/SMCL(b):
(* denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
*500
6
10
2000
4
5
100
NS
15
2
NS
50
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
30
1
15
1 L
18
20
0.2
RSL 2015(d):
4000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3800
25
9.2
22000
6
15
5.7
100
100
0.2
Appendix III
App
endix IV
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
pH
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Selenium
Thallium
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
su
m L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
Allen
AL75
<5
7380
2.5
6.8
<1
110
0.095
<0.5
12
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
<0.5
1.4
<0.2
0.17
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL76
<20
7120
2
6.41
<5
87
<0.4
0.13
11.9
<0.11
<0.06
2.62
<0.03
0.13
<0.01
<0.12
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL77
<5
15100
7.7
6.4
2.5
157
<0.5
<0.5
49
<0.2
<0.08
1
<0.5
0.24
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL78
< 5
6290
2.9
6.1
< 2
70
< 0.5
< 0.5
26
< 0.2
< 0.08
< 0.5
< 0.5
0.19
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL79
< 5
11700
6.5
6.3
2.1
104
< 0.5
< 0.5
24.8
< 0.2
< 0.08
0.6
< 0.5
0.29
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL8
97
15000
4.8
6.4
<1
132
0.08
<0.5
59
<0.2
<0.08
3.1
<0.5
1.7
<0.2
0.4
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL81
<5
17000
7.9
6.3
<2
137
<0.5
<0.5
30.2
<0.2
<0.08
0.73
<0.5
1.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL82
<5
24300
14.3
6.3
2.1
223
<0.5
<0.5
69.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.23
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL83
<5
21300
15.3
6.2
3.9
228
<0.5
<0.5
42.1
<0.2
<0.08
3.5
<0.5
0.24
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL84
<5
13600
6.6
6.8
<2
134
<03
<0.5
23.5
<0.2
<0.08
0.55
<0.5
0.22
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL85
<5
4720
1.4
6.7
<2
67
<0.5
<0.5
13
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL88
<5
6500
2.1
6.4
<2
63
<0.5
<0.5
23.6
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.2
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL89
67
8600
1.9
6.8
< 1
140
0.14
0.31
26
< 0.2
< 0.08
4
< 0.5
1.1
< 0.2
0.39
< 0.5
0.1
Allen
AL9
<100
21000
8.06
6.2
1.22
165
<1
<5
54
<1
<0.1
6
<1
<2
<0.2
<5
<5
<0.1
Allen
AL90
<5
12000
4.54
7
<1
101
<0.5
<0.5
58
<0.2
<0.08
3
<0.5
7
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL91
<5
11300
1.5
7.1
2
98
<0.5
<0.5
8.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
< ..5
0.16
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL92
<5
10800
5.3
6.3
<1
90
<0.5
<0.5
22.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
0.72
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL93
90
8000
2.9
6.7
< 1
98
0.064
< 0.5
20.4
< 0.2
< 0.08
2.4
0.099
2.3
< 0.2
0.77
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL94
5.5
23600
3.1
7.7
5.4
156
< 0.4
2.4
9.57
< 0.11
< 0.06
1.3
< 0.03
0.57
< 0.01
5.1
2.49
< 0.06
Allen
AL95
7.4
11900
7.4
6.1
<2
107
<0.5
<0.5
30.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.8
<0.5
1.5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL96
<5
8540
4
6.7
<2
91
<0.4
0.16
39.9
<0.11
<0.06
0.82
<0.03
0.11
<0.01
<0.11
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL97
8
25000
2.3
8.1
7.5
112
< 0.5
1.4
6.2
< 0.2
< 0.08
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
4.7
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL98
< 20
28300
1
8.01
14
173
< 0.4
1.84
9.37
< 0.11
< 0.06
0.82
< 0.03
0.75
< 0.01
3.95
< 0.16
< 0.06
Allen
AL99
< 5
12100
2.1
6.7
1.18
105
< 0.5
'0.5
4
< 0.2
< 0.08
0.91
< 0.5
0.15
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Table A2-3
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
21
Page 4 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016
ISA NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(• denotes secondary standard)
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*5
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
0.3
3500
1
2500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20000
2100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
86
20000
0.8
14000
44(e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR
Rule
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
m L
m L
m L
m L
m L
Allen
AL1
6.3
<10
0.01
65
0.17
3220
1.1
<0.5
2450
7550
130
0.155
48
48
<0
<1
Allen
AL100
12.8
12
<0.001
19.7
0.56
6610
1.54
<0.5
2370
9200
162
0.0479
78.3
78.3
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL101
4
<10
0.0023
<50
0.61
1240
6.9
1.6
812
5810
72.5
0.807
22.4
22.4
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL102
9
<10
0.0017
<50
1.4
3580
<0.5
0.79
1600
5880
116
0.0087
24
24
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL103
9.1
870
0.0037
2700
< 10
3500
3.6
3.6
1 2500
7200
1 110
0.48
57
1 57
<5
34
Allen
AL11
5.2
<10
0.00416
<50
1.6
2910
<0.5
0.64
1570
8360
153
0.0064
45.4
45.4
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL110
11.3
<10
0.0192
<50
1.7
4260
<0.5
<0.5
2180
7240
110
0.0105
39.9
39.9
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL111
10.4
15
0.0016
< 50
1.1
3920
2
0.7
2100
8600
120
0.026
58
58
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL112
4
< 10
< 0.001
< 50
0.05
4250
0.65
< 0.5
2230
9860
187
0.0186
89.6
89.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL113
11.4
< 10
0.0054
< 50
2
5280
0.66
< 0.5
1940
9730
169
0.236
49.9
49.9
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL114
10.5
< 10
0.0034
< 50
2.2
4940
0.97
< 0.5
1810
8510
162
0.215
52.3
52.3
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL115
5.3
<10
<0.001
238
0.16
3720
23.9
0.89
2670
28000
3400
0.121
42
42
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL117
5.4
77
0.023
200
1 0.15
13000
1 3.5
1.6
4640
1 19000
463
1 0.017
140
140
1 < 1
1.6
Allen
AL118
10.6
< 10
0.056
<50
2.3
4300
< 0.5
1.1
1610
9280
230
0.026
48
48
<0
< 1
Allen
AL119
3.1
77.7
0.0044
144
0.056
3340
6.6
0.81
3020
8570
129
0.0344
64.9
64.9
<5
8.2
Allen
AL12
2.4
<10
0.0314
<50
1.5
3620
0.8
<0.5
1930
8690
286
0.0255
49.5
49.5
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL120
< 1
98.4
< 0.001
< 50
< 0.03
2970
8.9
< 0.5
1850
10800
162
< 0.005
75.2
75.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL121
13.1
23.3
0.0018
< 50
1.7
1630
1
< 0.5
929
6120
67.1
0.0202
20.6
20.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL122
8.4
465
0.159
4300
0.25
6080
23.1
2.7
1960
6790
285
0.123
52.3
52.3
<5
44.1
Allen
AL123
7.6
< 10
0.0024
< 50
2
5640
0.74
1.1
1960
8210
173
0.0143
29.9
29.9
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL124
9.3
< 10
0.0624
< 50
1
5930
< 0.5
< 0.5
2430
7770
198
< 0.005
66.1
66.1
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL125
<1
<10
<0.001
<50
<0.03
1610
6.7
<0.5
1470
9300
111
<0.005
52.9
52.9
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL126
12
< 10
0.0065
< 50
4.2
3790
< 0.5
< 0.5
2210
6270
118
0.0138
48.2
48.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL127
10.6
< 10
< 0.001
< 50
4.4
3770
< 0.5
< 0.5
1760
7530
130
0.0258
46.8
46.8
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL129
6.8
< 10
0.0112
< 50
0.41
7190
0.87
< 0.5
3200
9950
225
0.0168
86.7
86.7
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL130
7.9
<10
0.0139
<50
2.4
3410
1.1
<0.5
1720
6980
106
0.138
48.7
48.7
<5
<2S
Allen
AL131
7.9
< 10
0.0056
< 50
0.78
1940
< 0.5
< 0.5
1300
5570
59.5
0.0218
22.6
22.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL132
7.8
< 10
0.0104
< 50
0.93
5570
< 0.5
< 0.5
1750
10700
234
< 0.005
83.1
83.1
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL133
7.4
< 10
0.002
273
0.72
1840
5.2
< 0.5
1370
5840
89.9
0.11
25.4
25.4
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL135
7
<10
0.0161
88.6
2.1
4920
3
<0.5
1760
9050
180
0.0217
51.4
51.4
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL136
4.5
107
0.359
52.8
2.8
9920
0.82
0.57
2370
12000
378
0.0495
63.9
63.9
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL137
6.5
< 10
0.0047
< 50
0.33
4620
< 0.5
< 0.5
1800
8060
155
0.0054
59.8
59.8
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL138
6.4
< 10
0.0051
< 50
1.2
6780
< 0.5
< 0.5
1920
9180
215
0.0261
61.8
61.8
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL139A
5.4
< 10
0.0121
< 50
0.64
4660
< 0.5
< 0.5
1900
8490
255
0.0229
33.8
33.8
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL139B
5.7
<10
0.139
<50
4.9
1320
4.1
<0.5
1330
6660
81.4
0.0577
21.7
21.7
<5
<5
Allen
AL14
2
< 50
0.03
< 50
5
7900
< 5
<5
1900
10000
360
0.021
61.7
61.7
<0
< 1
Allen
AL140
4.7
<10
0.014
58.4
2.4
5050
2
<0.5
1730
8890
189
0.0755
41.4
41.4
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL141
12.8
< 10
0.0052
< 50
4.4
3160
1.8
0.58
1440
6800
104
0.425
33.2
33.2
< 5
<S
Allen
AL142
4.9
< 10
0.0056
958
0.079
3670
21.3
0.71
2010
6830
125
0.0667
38.2
1 38.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL15
4.8
<10
0.0512
14.5
1.8
6230
1.8
<0.5
1570
9540
227
0.0715
72.8
72.8
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL16
4.2
89
0.006
510
1.8
2600
9
<0.5
1000
8240
150
0.784
53.9
53.9
<0
1.9
Allen
AL17
7.8
14.3
0.0171
59.3
1.1
3860
1.7
<0.5
1200
9650
168
0.0173
56.9
56.9
<1
<2S
Allen
AL19
4.5
<10
0.0568
19.4
2.6
5180
1.1
<0.5
2040
9830
233
0.0177
55.9
55.9
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL2
9.9
21.9
<0.001
<50
1
4320
0.92
<0.5
2170
8210
142
0.0077
60.7
60.7
<5
<2.5
Allen
A 2
12
< 10
0.0023
< 50
1.4
4390
< 0.5
< 0.5
1570
8020
165
< 0.005
65.7
65.7
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
A 2
12.6
< 10
< 0.001
< 50
0.74
5190
< 0.5
< 0.5
1850
7910
158
0.00575
70.1
70.1
< 1
< 2.8
Allen
AL22
8.9
12.4
< 0.001
<50
0.39
4750
< 0.5
< 0.5
2140
6690
109
< 0.005
74.1
74.1
<5
<5
Allen
AL23
13.4
22.5
0.0018
310
1.1
3820
1.4
1.5
2070
6670
110
0.0061
44
44
<5
2.6
Allen
AL24
12.5
< 10
0.0026
< 50
0.77
3830
< 0.5
< 0.5
2200
6900
82
0.011
52.2
52.2
<0
< 1
Allen
AL25
5.3
<10
0.0661
<50
2.3
4610
1 0.63
0.53
2400
10100
240
0.028
60
60
<5
<2.5
21
Page 4 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Table A2-3
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
22
Page 5 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016
ISA NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(• denotes secondary standard)
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*5
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
0.3
3500
1
2500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20000
2100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
86
20000
0.8
14000
44(e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR
Rule
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
m L
m L
m L
m L
m L
Allen
AL26
7.6
10.6
0.00768
15.6
0.55
4970
0.68
<0.5
2110
8670
187
0.0977
54.8
54.8
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL27
4.2
< 10
0.0069
< 50
1.8
5750
1.2
0.53
1800
10000
230
0.13
54
54
<0
< 1
Allen
AL28
13
<10
0.0259
<25
2.05
2660
<0.84
0.2
1550
5580
75
0.00212
34
<2.5
Allen
AL29
8.3
< 10
0.0045
< 50
2.2
2280
0.65
0.55
1800
6710
86.4
0.048
29
29
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AU
7.7
68
1.1
100
1.9
1700
5.2
0.33
1 1300
5700
1 80.2
0.033
26
26
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL30
5.8
< 10
0.0703
< 50
3.5
3720
< 0.5
< 0.5
1840
8760
220
0.018
55.8
55.8
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL31
22.6
12
0.0699
92.8
1.7
1570
2.59
0.5
1700
5590
90
0.0314
32
30.4
<5
4
Allen
AL32
2.7
< 10
0.0254
< 50
2.7
2600
1.1
< 0.5
1850
7160
157
0.0167
44.7
44.7
<5
< 2.6
Allen
AL33
6.4
<10
0.0129
<50
4.1
2030
<0.5
0.53
1030
6540
127
<0.005
38.3
38.3
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL34
10.1
< 10
0.00644
< 50
2.3
2790
< 0.5
< 0.5
1140
7510
146
0.0087
49.3
49.3
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL39A
3.54
< 30
0.0272
< 15
0.78
1710
< 0.43
0.26
1310
7320
115
0.0092
33
26.4
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL39B
13.1
154
0.0032
271
0.18
3830
8.9
0.46
2490
7910
134
0.0176
69.2
69.2
<5
4.6
Allen
AL40
3.4
13
0.0023
15.3
1 0.19
1270
1 1.36
0.19
1370
1 5150
71
1 0.112
23
21.4
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL41
3.5
<10
0.0014
<50
0.12
879
<0.5
<0.5
1120
4240
47.2
<0.005
16.3
16.3
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL42
3.6
11.7
0.11
200
0.72
2800
0.58
0.66
1800
5100
80.3
0.0025
35
35
<5
<1
Allen
AL44
<1
21
0.0572
<50
0.17
4400
9.2
1.1
1060
5910
31.8
0.116
23.9
23.9
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL45
8.2
< 10
0.034
1400
0.69
1520
4.1
0.77
1080
6600
80
0.016
31
31
<5
2
Allen
AL47
4
40.7
0.007
70.9
2.2
6710
2.6
<0.5
2220
10400
276
0.021
35.3
35.3
<0
8.4
Allen
AL48
16
< 10
0.055
4000
3.8
3100
4.7
< 0.5
1600
8600
160
0.038
32
32
<5
12
Allen
AL49
12.6
< 10
0.0185
< 50
0.9
4860
0.91
< 0.5
2260
7860
141
0.0179
58.7
58.7
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL5
14
45
0.014
75
4
2700
<5
<5
1500
5900
110
0.041
36.3
36.3
<0
1.4
Allen
AL50A
5.5
< 10
0.0019
< 50
0.21
3290
< 0.5
< 0.5
2350
7970
91.4
< 0.005
62.7
62.7
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL50B
6.7
44.8
0.0045
< 50
0.24
1660
< 0.5
< 0.5
1570
5010
62.9
< 0.005
22.2
22.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL50C
3.7
< 10
0.0035
< 50
1.1
3410
< 0.5
1
1530
81000
133
< 0.005
35.2
35.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL51
2.4
3.6
15
1200
0.43
4400
0.88
2.1
1600
11000
346
0.012
50
50
<5
0.7
Allen
AL52
3.4
20
0.058
< 50
0.12
5800
0.76
0.46
1700
11000
240
0.021
62
62
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL53
4.3
<10
0.00498
<15
2.9
3470
<0.84
0.58
1240
6350
142
0.00729
42
<2.5
Allen
AL54
4.4
2.7
29
580
2.9
5600
3.9
2.2
1300
10000
251
0.013
55
55
< 5
< 1
Allen
ALSS
7.5
2.8
4.7
330
8.4
3800
1.4
1.2
1430
8000
140
0.056
40
40
1 <5
< 1
Allen
ALS6
7.6
330
0.066
7160
< 0.03
4300
361
2.8
3400
9400
230
0.15
59
59
< 5
14.3
Allen
AL57
8.3
<10
0.0922
<50
1
4500
1 1.3
<0.5
1890
9780
205
1 0.0184
56.8
56.8
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL58
12.2
12
0.53
690
0.24
7000
4.4
2
3230
9510
203
0.0069
76
76
<5
1.1
Allen
ALS9
19.1
<10
0.0017
<50
2.4
5060
1.9
<0.5
1860
8730
183
0.274
53.8
53.8
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL6
6.4
<10
0.0011
60.8
3.2
2310
<0.5
<0.5
1410
6410
94
<0.005
31.7
31.7
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL60
9
< 10
0.014
56.9
5.3
9310
8.6
0.96
2550
12100
317
1.38
68.3
68.3
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL61
13.6
<10
0.0207
<50
4.6
6840
0.57
<0.5
2130
9900
208
0.0632
59.5
59.5
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL62
11.2
22.2
0.00202
<15
2.26
5870
<0.84
0.42
1810
8640
205
0.00634
65
<2.5
Allen
AL63
7.02
14.8
0.00707
435
1.94
7050
2.74
0.81
2310
8980
274
0.0434
62
5
Allen
AL64
2.8
< 10
0.165
< 50
4.3
9020
1.6
2.6
2180
9530
424
0.0289
42.9
42.9
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL65
6
30.7
0.0082
< 50
0.25
6350
< 0.5
< 0.5
3260
9000
180
0.0075
70.3
70.3
<5
<5
Allen
AL66
5.3
< 10
0.0388
< 50
0.38
5890
3.9
1.2
1660
11000
306
0.0928
48.8
48.8
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL67
13.3
26
0.02
47
0.62
6880
2.1
0.72
3000
8600
150
0.038
94
94
<5
2.1
Allen
AL68
15.4
51.1
0.0061
85.9
1.8
8650
2.8
<0.5
2880
10100
182
0.0552
73.7
73.7
<5
3.5
Allen
AL69
8.4
<10
0.0748
75.8
1.2
5280
1.9
<0.5
1720
8420
219
0.0446
55.3
55.3
<5
<2.5
Allen
AU
10.9
< 10
0.0011
<50
0.97
5460
< 0.5
< 0.5
1790
8340
180
0.0176
58.7
58.7
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL70
9.4
<10
0.013
210
1.6
8960
<0.5
0.57
2300
10000
265
<0.005
87.6
87.6
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL71
9.2
< 10
0.0739
< 50
1
8430
< 0.5
< 0.5
2120
9570
256
0.013
73.6
73.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL72
5.1
<10
0.0032
<50
1.1
7650
7.7
<0.5
1820
9640
265
0.0623
69.9
69.9
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL73
9.6
< 10
0.038
55
2.4
5160
0.72
0.75
1 1670
9450
188
0.0102
69
62.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL74
5.8
< 10
0.126
< 50
2
6540
2.2
< 0.5
2080
10100
293
0.0124
69.8
69.8
<5
< 2.5
22
Page 5 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Table A2-3
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
23
Page 6 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(• denotes secondary standard)
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*5
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
0.3
3500
1
2500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20000
2100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
86
20000
0.8
14000
44(e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR
Rule
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
m L
m L
m L
m L
m L
Allen
AL75
14
< 10
0.048
< 50
1.7
3840
1
0.26
1500
6600
86
0.038
43
43
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL76
8.34
< 10
0.00732
< 25
2.62
2760
1.5
0.45
1120
6820
109
0.0266
35
< 2.5
Allen
AL77
8.6
101
0.104
< 50
0.7
4980
0.54
< 0.5
2160
9940
238
0.0543
44.1
44.1
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL78
2.1
<10
0.247
<50
0.1
1590
1
<0.5
1060
5320
86.1
0.126
19
19
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL79
4.4
<10
0.0395
54.9
0.33
3230
0.71
<0.5
1 2240
8320
157
1 0.0203
40.9
40.9
1 <5
<2.5
Allen
AL8
8.5
< 10
0.04
< 50
3.5
5200
25.9
0.7
1700
9800
240
0.016
61
61
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL81
2.2
< 10
0.232
< 50
0.78
3050
6.5
0.95
1580
9700
228
5.26
46.9
46.9
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL82
4.7
< 10
0.182
< 50
0.81
7600
1.7
0.71
2400
12300
392
0.0199
47.8
47.8
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL83
9
< 10
0.104
< 50
3.5
8060
1.5
1.3
1760
10800
289
0.0299
49.5
49.5
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL84
8.2
<10
0.016
59.8
0.59
6030
15.7
<0.5
1880
9050
185
0.0794
46.7
46.7
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL85
9.6
< 10
0.0046
< 50
2.5
1420
< 0.5
< 0.5
978
4900
69.2
0.0098
19.6
19.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL88
< 1
< 10
0.146
136
0.82
1830
34.6
0.62
1300
6290
83.2
0.061
28.7
28.7
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL89
12
< 10
0.021
< 50
1 4
2740
1 0.72
0.44
1560
1 6400
120
0.037
43
43
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL9
7
< 50
0.006
< 50
5
6600
< 5
< 5
1400
11000
300
0.172
65.7
65.7
1 <0
< 1
Allen
AL90
10
<10
0.046
2100
1.9
3100
8.4
0.72
2100
8200
160
0.031
40
40
<0
5.1
Allen
AL91
12.2
<10
0.0015
67.6
1.5
3720
0.5
<0.5
1940
6140
127
0.01
46.1
46.1
<5
<2.6
Allen
AL92
5.1
< 10
0.008
< 50
0.46
2740
0.5
< 0.5
2020
7820
125
0.007
33.3
33.3
<0
< 1
Allen
AL93
9.7
86
0.021
94
1.5
2500
7.7
0.68
2300
6700
82
0.074
39
39
<5
5.2
Allen
AL94
26.5
<10
0.013
16.3
0.18
4910
<0.5
0.56
2340
8760
142
0.0164
81.6
81.6
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL95
2.5
<10
0.0043
1980
1.3
3670
39.7
0.71
2030
9110
186
0.0389
41.6
41.6
<5
4.2
Allen
AL96
6.8
< 10
0.00157
< 25
0.43
2360
< 0.5
0.18
1430
6740
141
0.00349
35
34.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL97
0.28
29
< 0.001
< 50
< 0.03
3800
6
< 0.5
2500
10000
130
< 0.005
83
83
< 0
Allen
AL98
0.25
< 10
0.00551
< 25
< 5
2320
6.43
0.6
2270
11400
34
0.00344
84
<<215
.
Allen
AL99
7.1
< 10
0.0024
1 < 50
1 0.78
4010
1 < 0.5
< 0.5
i 2640
8900
140
0.012
62.7
62.7
<0
< 1
23
Page 6 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Table A2-3
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
24
Page 7 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016
ISA NCAC 02L .020
Groundwater Standard (a):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(• denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID
Turbidity
NTU
Temperature
°C
Specific
Conductance
umhos cm
Dissolved
Oxygen
m L
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
my
Allen
AL1
< 1
18.6
142.4
7.1
207
Allen
AL100
< 1
18.3
215
5.42
280.4
Allen
AL101
< 1
17.8
61.3
8.1
167.5
Allen
AL102
< 1
18.8
112.5
6.8
226.4
Allen
AL103
18
17
101
7.5
170
Allen
AL11
< 1
19.3
157
7.9
202.6
Allen
AL110
< 1
17.8
123
7.3
226.2
Allen
AL111
0.24
18.2
121.1
5.2
166
Allen
AL112
< 1
16.7
212.8
0.8
622
Allen
AL113
< 1
16
133.2
12.2
763.4
Allen
AL114
< 1
16
131.7
7.9
774.7
Allen
AL115
< 1
823
2.7
313
Allen
AL117
1.4
16.9
385
5.7
191.6
Allen
AL118
< 1
19.3
135
5.5
241
Allen
AL119
< 1
17.4
163.9
1.4
156.6
Allen
AL12
< 1
19.1
177.4
6.1
258.6
Allen
AL120
< 1
17.1
200.3
0.03
<
Allen
AL121
< 1
18
64.8
9
149.1
Allen
AL122
38.2
17.9
160.3
7
165.7
Allen
AL123
< 1
17.2
151
6.4
235.4
Allen
AL124
< 1
18
157.5
5.1
205.2
Allen
AL125
< 1
18.2
141.8
0.1
<
Allen
AL126
< 1
18.3
104.4
6.8
193.9
Allen
AL127
< 1
18
110.2
8.4
151.6
Allen
AL129
< 1
17.3
210.3
1.9
216.7
Allen
AL130
< 1
17.1
102.4
4.8
173
Allen
AL131
< 1
18.1
69.5
8
179.2
Allen
AL132
< 1
21.1
179.5
5.2
226.1
Allen
AL133
1.8
17.3
72.5
5.6
108.9
Allen
AL135
< 1
19.6
141.2
4.3
189.2
Allen
AL136
< 1
21.4
301.1
5.6
226.9
Allen
AL137
< 1
18.7
143.5
6.7
125.9
Allen
AL138
< 1
17.7
193.9
5.9
143.5
Allen
AL139A
< 1
18.4
152.6
7.9
148.1
Allen
AL139B
<1
22
68.1
7.7
158.8
Allen
AL14
< 1
19.2
276
5.8
213
Allen
AL140
< 1
21.3
171.9
7.3
192.8
Allen
AL141
< 1
17.7
97.9
7
158.4
Allen
AL142
2.8
17.4
119.7
5.6
48.2
Allen
AL15
< 1
19
252
7.1
162.8
Allen
AL16
11
20.1
127.7
7.5
191.8
Allen
AL17
< 1
17.3
176
6.4
359.7
Allen
AL19
< 1
17.8
242
5.6
243.2
Allen
AL2
< 1
17.2
158.6
5.3
168.8
Allen
A 2
< 1
17.4
174
6.7
162.1
Allen
AL21
< 1
16.6
191
6.91
291.4
Allen
AL22
< 1
8
167.5
3.9
132.6
Allen
AL23
< 1
17.2
114.1
5.52
272.8
Allen
AL24
< 1
20.1
137.7
4.9
197
Allen
AL25
0.15
18.8
175.9
8.6
220.3
24
Page 7 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Table A2-3
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
25
Page 8 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016
ISA NCAC 02L .020
Groundwater Standard (a):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(• denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID
Turbidity
NTU
Temperature
°C
Specific
Conductance
umhos cm
Dissolved
Oxygen
m L
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
my
Allen
AL26
< 1
17.4
217
6.74
347.8
Allen
AL27
< 1
21
200.2
5.8
207
Allen
AL28
< 1
14.8
105
7.91
Allen
AL29
0.2
18.9
91.1
9.5
212.7
Allen
AU
0.9
20.5
125.8
10.3
221
Allen
AL30
< 1
18.5
191
7.28
301
Allen
AL31
< 1
20.5
89
7.62
159.2
Allen
AL32
< 1
19.4
112.3
5.4
267.4
Allen
AL33
< 1
18
108
6.83
302.5
Allen
AL34
< 1
17.3
130
6.82
294.2
Allen
AL39A
1.3
18.1
104
7.47
313.9
Allen
AL39B
< 1
17.2
185.2
1.6
178.1
Allen
AL40
< 1
18.8
668 1
8.3
240.7
Allen
AL41
< 1
18.8
46.4
8.6
183.2
Allen
AL42
< 1
18.1
81
7.8
218.1
Allen
AL44
< 1
17.1
104.4
4
229.5
Allen
AL45
6.2
18.3
75.9
7.65
201.2
Allen
AL47
< 1
19.1
187
7.88
239.6
Allen
AL48
18
18.3
131
8.4
160.5
Allen
AL49
< 1
17.2
159.3
3.9
209.8
Allen
AL5
< 1
17.5
91
4.8
183
Allen
AL50A
< 1
16.8
172 1
2.2
188.1
Allen
AL50B
< 1
16.7
71.3
6.7
245.3
Allen
AL50C
< 1
16.3
120.8
4.4
207
Allen
AL51
< 1
18.1
225.8
5.7
266.1
Allen
AL52
< 0.14
20.3
375.1
8.1
188.8
Allen
AL53
< 1
15.9
134
7.41
Allen
AL54
< 1
17.1
178
6.82
267.4
Allen
AL55
< 1
16.7
116
6.18
227.9
Allen
AL56
82.5
20.5
163.7
7.3
170
Allen
AL57
< 1
19.5
153.8
3.9
240.2
Allen
AL58
1.8
17.1
205.5
5.01
108.4
Allen
AL59
< 1
18
137
5.2
198
Allen
AL6
< 1
18.6
111
6.95
302.6
Allen
AL60
< 1
17.5
230.4
3.2
194.9
Allen
AL61
< 1
19.9
190.8
5.5
181.8
Allen
AL62
< 1
15.5
193
7.41
Allen
AL63
8.7
11.2
244
7.1
Allen
AL64
< 1
17
329.8
4
223.5
Allen
AL65
< 1
17.3
232.7
3.5
200.4
Allen
AL66
< 1
17.9
189
5.2
261.2
Allen
AL67
0.25
18.2
233.1
6.2
195.3
Allen
AL68
< 1
20.6
219.3
4.4
140.3
Allen
AL69
< 1
17.3
153.5
4.9
202.3
Allen
AL7
< 1
16.9
141.8
8.1
155
Allen
AL70
< 1
18.6
295
5.17
262.3
Allen
AL71
< 1
18
212.6
3.3
271
Allen
AL72
< 1
18.4
200.3
2.8
169.8
Allen
AL73
< 1
20.6
288.1
6.99
174.8
Allen
AL74
< 1
18.3
176.3
4
178.4
25
Page 8 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Table A2-3
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
26
Page 9 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016
15A NCAC 02L .020
Groundwater Standard (a):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(• denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID
Turbidity
NTU
Temperature
°C
Specific
Conductance
umhos cm
Dissolved
Oxygen
m L
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
my
Allen
AL75
0.31
20.4
102.9
7.4
179
Allen
AL76
< 1
16.1
110
7.87
Allen
AL77
< 1
18.5
175.4
5.6
264.2
Allen
AL78
< 1
17.7
75.8
7.2
231.2
Allen
AL79
< 1
17.8
128.3
5.8
183.4
Allen
AL8
0.27
18.8
153.8
7.3
246
Allen
AL81
< 1
20.6
171.3
6.8
185.6
Allen
AL82
< 1
22.3
254
5.4
273.3
Allen
AL83
< 1
19.4
223.7
5.6
200.4
Allen
AL84
< 1
17
179.1
5.2
180.6
Allen
AL85
< 1
18.3
61.5
8.7
219.8
Allen
AL88
< 1
17
129.4
2.21
186.6
Allen
AL89
0.29
19
92.6
9.6
191.8
Allen
AL9
< 1
18.7
205
6
259
Allen
AL90
13
19.3
109.3
9.6
205.1
Allen
AL91
< 1
16.4
109
7
245
Allen
AL92
< 1
19.8
112.4
7.8
232
Allen
AL93
0.38
19.7
92.4
8.3
172
Allen
AL94
< 1
17
202
6.31
218.2
Allen
AL95
14.1
17.5
117.1
2.8
194.5
AllenAL96
< 1
18.1
119
7.73
167.9
Allen
AL97
< 1
19
178.4
0.1
120
Allen
AL98
< 1
13.8
231
6.85
Allen
AL99
< 1
18.5
128.6
7.2
238.1
26
Page 9 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Notes:
A - Denotes [MAC value.
* - Denotes SMCL value.
°C - Degrees Celsius.
Blank data cells indicate no data available.
CCR - Coal Combustion Residual.
DEQ- Department of Environmental Quality.
DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services.
HI - Hazard Index.
IMAC- Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration.
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level.
MDL - Method Detection Limit.
mg/L - milligrams/liter.
mV - millivolts.
NA - Not available.
NS - No Standard Available.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
PQL- Practical Quantitation Limit (h).
RSL - Risk Based Screening Level.
SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.
su - standard units.
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency.
ug/L - micrograms/liter.
umhos/cm - micromhos/centimeter.
Data Qualifiers
B Detected in method blank (MB).
1 Estimated result between PQL and MDL.
12 Spike recovery outside quality assurance limits @ 135%.
Zb Sample was clear but contained sand -like particles.
Zc Well depth was 635 feet per well tag.
18 Temperature of the sample was exceeded during storage.
BH Method Blank (MB) greater than one half of the Reporting Level (RL), but the sample concentrations are greater than 10x the MB.
** Alkalinity = carbonate + bicarbonate.
S1 Matrix spike and / or matrix spike duplicate sample recovery was not within control limits due to matrix interference. Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) was within control limits.
Z Sample was re -digested and re -analyzed with similar sample and spike results.
M1 Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery.
D6 The relative percent difference (RPD) between the sample and sample duplicate exceeded laboratory control limits.
< Measurement limited by threshold (cannot detect measureable amount below this number). Actual detectable amount below threshold is unknown.
(a) - Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Groundwaters of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code. April 1, 2013.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/gwstandards
(b) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/dwstandards2012.pdf.
(c) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental
Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf
(d) - USEPA Risk Based Screening Levels (November 2015). Values for tapwater. HI = 1.
http://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-ta ble-generic-tables
(e) - Alternative screening level calculated for hexavalent chromium using RSL calculator (http://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/chemicals/csl_search) and current dose -response data from the USEPA's
Integrated Risk Information System. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/. The RSL for hexavalent chromium is not a drinking water standard, and the basis of the draft oral cancer toxicity value
used in the calculation of the RSL has been questioned by USEPA's Science Advisory Board; therefore, RSL for Chromium (IV) is based on the noncancer values developed by USEPA.
(f) - The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Detection Monitoring (Appendix III).
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-04-17/pdf/2015-00257.pdf
(g) -The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Assessment Monitoring (Appendix IV).
(h) - Each analytical procedure has a PQL, which is defined as "the lowest level achievable among laboratories within specified limits during routine laboratory operation". The PQL is about three to
five times the calculated MDL for the analytical procedure, and represents a practical and routinely achievable reporting limit with a relatively good certainty that any reported value is reliable.
Detected value is above the sreening level.
Reporting limit is above the screening level.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
27
4/14/2016

Table A2-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
28
Page 1 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
d(a):
Groundwater Standard (a)
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1
NS
20
0.2
Federal M L(b):
(* denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
*500
6
10
2000
4
5
100
NS
15
2
NS
50
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1 L
18
20
0.2
RSL 2015(d):
4000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3800
25
9.2
22000
6
15
5.7
100
100
0.2
Append x III f
Appendix IV
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
pH
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Selenium
Thallium
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
su
m L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
Allen
AL1
<5
16400
5.1
6.9
<1
100
<0.5
<0.5
26
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
0.63
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL100
<5
21500
5.22
7.2
2.8
150
<0.5
<0.5
15
<0.2
<0.08
0.71
<0.5
3.11
<0.2
0.89
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL101
< 5
5570
2.2
6.6
< 2
40
< 0.5
< 0.5
10.5
< 0.2
< 0.08
2.9
< 0.5
0.2
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL102
9.5
8560
5.7
6.4
<2
109
<0.5
<0.5
44.9
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
0.49
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL103
< 500
11000
1.4
6.2
< 1
120
0.078
< 1
29
< 1
0.22
7.2
0.74
0.77
< 0.2
0.7
< 1
< 1
Allen
AL11
<5
10500
4.28
6.68
2.2
118
<0.5
<0.5
34.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
2.98
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL110
<5
10600
4.4
6.8
2
110
<0.5
<0.5
16.5
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
<0.5
0.42
<0.2
1
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL111
43
11600
2.5
6.6
2.8
140
0.1
< 0.5
26.2
< 0.2
0.067
1.3
0.068
0.2
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
0.063
Allen
AL112
9.2
27200
3.6
7.8
6.5
144
<0.5
1.2
11.6
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
2.9
0.71
<0.1
Allen
AL113
<5
15600
5.3
6.9
2.2
108
<0.5
<0.5
30.5
<0.2
<0.08
2.8
<0.5
0.47
<0.2
0.64
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL114
<5
15000
5
6.9
2.3
128
<0.5
<0.5
26.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.7
<0.5
0.39
<0.2
0.64
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL115
38.8
145000
19.1
7.6
373
675
<0.5
0.82
19.9
<0.2
<0.08
0.63
<0.5
3.3
<0.2
2.7
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL117
120
45000
12
6.4
38.3
270
0.089
<0.5
200
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
0.11
1.3
<0.2
1.1
1.8
<0.1
Allen
AL118
<5
13000
4.47
6.4
1.09
107
<0.5
<0.5
65
<0.2
<0.08
2.8
<0.5
5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL119
7.4
20800
1.8
7.4
5.6
114
<0.5
1.2
9.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.3
<0.5
0.58
<0.2
3.4
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL12
<5
21200
8.4
6.1
4.5
146
<0.5
<0.5
58.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.7
<0.5
0.65
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL120
15.8
25100
3.1
8.1
11.2
128
< 0.5
1.1
7
< 0.2
< 0.08
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
3.6
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL121
<5
4970
2.2
6.9
<2
73
<0.5
<0.5
11.8
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.17
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL122
<5
15900
7.8
6.5
<2
129
<0.5
<0.5
62
<0.2
<0.08
1.6
0.66
75.5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL123
<5
12100
11.2
6.3
<2
160
<0.5
<0.5
74.6
<0.2
<0.08
2.2
<0.5
0.3
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL124
< 5
16100
5.1
6.6
2.6
133
< 0.5
< 0.5
29
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.1
< 0.5
0.5
< 0.2
0.56
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL125
5.6
18400
2.3
8.5
6.9
97
<0.5
3.6
0.77
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
7
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL126
<5
9540
2.2
6.9
2.1
103
<0.5
<0.5
26.2
<0.2
<0.08
4.4
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL127
< 5
11500
2.3
6.8
< 2
109
< 0.5
< 0.5
17
< 0.2
< 0.08
5
< 0.5
0.11
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL129
<5
22700
9.5
6.4
2.8
182
<0.5
<0.5
44
<0.2
<0.08
0.63
<0.5
0.52
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL130
<5
9070
2
6.4
<2
110
<0.5
<0.5
43.4
<0.2
<0.08
2.4
<0.5
0.62
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL131
<5
5260
2.3
6.9
<2
75
<0.5
<0.5
25.4
<0.2
<0.08
1.1
<0.5
0.34
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL132
<5
19100
2.2
6.3
2.1
133
<0.5
<0.5
21.4
<0.2
<0.08
0.98
<0.5
0.74
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL133
<5
5930
3.1
7
<2
99
<0.5
<0.5
20.1
<0.2
<0.08
0.95
<0.5
0.46
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL135
<5
13300
4.1
6.5
2.1
107
<0.5
<0.5
48.8
<0.2
<0.08
2.4
<0.5
2.3
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL136
<5
28300
21.7
6.2
2.1
233
<0.5
<0.5
117
<0.2
<0.08
3.3
<0.5
0.73
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL137
<5
14400
2.1
6.7
4.6
101
<0.5
<0.5
23.8
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.42
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL138
<5
17500
10.8
6.6
<2
160
<0.5
<0.5
51.4
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.72
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL139A
<5
13900
6
6.3
2.7
137
<0.5
<0.5
42.7
<0.2
<0.08
4.8
<0.5
0.54
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL139B
<5
5180
2.1
6.4
<2
81
<0.5
<0.5
19.4
<0.2
<0.08
0.81
<0.5
0.46
<O.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL14
<100
31000
22.3
5.9
6.92
214
<1
<5
96
<1
<0.1
4
<1
<2
<0.2
<5
<5
<0.1
Allen
AL140
<5
16600
12.2
6.2
2.8
151
<0.5
<0.5
45.4
<0.2
<0.08
2.5
<0.5
0.24
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL141
<5
8090
2.1
6.8
<2
98
<0.5
<0.5
22.5
<0.2
0.092
3.9
<0.5
0.42
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL142
<5
10800
5
6.6
<2
105
<0.5
<0.5
23.7
<0.2
<0.08
0.89
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL15
10.9
19600
7.7
6.69
4.6
156
<0.5
<0.5
50.4
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.25
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL16
< 5
11000
4.7
6.4
< 1
116
< 0.5
< 0.5
16
< 0.2
< 0.08
2
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL17
< 5
13500
4.3
6.5
2.1
130
< 0.5
< 0.5
31.4
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.4
< 0.5
0.8
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL19
<5
16600
8.08
6.76
<2
157
<0.5
<0.5
51.3
<0.2
<0.08
2.7
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL2
6.6
16500
2.6
7
3
114
<0.5
0.64
22.2
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
<0.5
0.12
<0.2
1.2
0.66
<0.1
Allen
A 2
<5
13400
4.28
7.11
2.1
134
<0.5
<0.5
21.7
<0.2
<0.08
1.6
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL21
<5
13800
2.5
7.24
2.2
119
<0.5
<0.5
23.2
<0.2
<0.08
0.92
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL22
<521700
3.8
7.4
3.2
133
<0.5
<0.5
1.2
<0.2
<0.08
0.58
<0.5
0.15
<0.2
2.2
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL23
<5
10800
2.2
72.2
94
<0.5
<0.5
15
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
0.79
0.13
0.055
0.57
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL24
< 5
14500
2.8
7.3
3.8
108
< 0.5
< 0.5
1.7
< 0.2
< 0.08
0.89
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
2.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL25
<5
18100
4.5
6.3
<1
143
0.081
<0.5
7 A
<0.2
<0.08
2.7
<0.5
0.3
<0.2
0.14
<0.5
<0.1
28
Page 1 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Table A2-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
29
Page 2 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
d(a):
Groundwater Standard (a)
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1
NS
20
0.2
Federal M L(b):
(' denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
*500
6
10
2000
4
5
100
NS
15
2
NS
50
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1 L
18
20
0.2
RSL 2015(d):
4000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3800
25
9.2
22000
6
15
5.7
100
100
0.2
Append x III f
Appendix IV
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
pH
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Selenium
Thallium
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
su
m L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
Allen
AL26
<5
16200
8.8
7.05
2.5
147
<0.5
<0.5
44.7
<0.2
<0.08
0.79
<0.5
0.25
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL27
<5
18000
10.9
6.7
<1
166
<0.5
<0.5
51
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.27
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL28
<20
6590
2
7.03
<5
152
<0.4
0.18
14.8
<0.11
<0.06
2.05
<0.03
3.79
<0.01
0.95
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL29
< 5
6640
2.8
6.6
< 1
100
0.072 1
< 0.5
23.6
< 0.2
< 0.08
2.3
< 0.5
0.72
< 0.2
0.32
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL3
49
4870 1
2.1
6.6 1
0.15
83
0.2
< 0.5
17
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.9
0.099
0.46
< 0.2
0.36
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL30
<5
15200
13.2
6.5
<2
122
<0.5
<0.5
55.5
<0.2
<0.08
3.6
<0.5
0.16
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL31
43
7180
8.8
6.3
<2
88.6
1.16
<0.08
38.5
<0.11
<0.06
2.47
<0.02
3.17
<0.2
<0.11
0.22
<0.06
Allen
AL32
<5
10500
1.5
6.2
<2
100
<0.5
<0.5
44.8
<0.2
<0.08
2.4
<0.5
0.76
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL33
<S
7450
3.32
6.5
<2
116
<0.5
<0.5
15.4
<0.2
<0.08
4.2
<0.5
1.58
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL34
<5
12200
4.28
6.7
2.2
108
<0.5
<0.5
29.9
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL39A
<5
7770
7
6.34
<2
112
<0.5
<0.08
9.89
<0.11
<0.06
2.18
<0.03
1.9
<0.01
0.16
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL39B
<5
24500
4.2
8.1
6.5
212
<0.4
0.92
1.1
<0.11
<0.06
1.08
<0.04
0.44
0.02
3.7
1.81
<0.06
Allen
AL40
<5
6230
2.3
6.41
<2
87
0.42 1
<0.08
10.9
<0.11
<0.06
1.1
<0.03
0.25
<0.01
0.34
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL41
< 5
3910
1.4
6.5
< 2
49
< 0.5
< 0.5
5.8
< 0.2
< 0.08
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
0.69
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL42
< 5
7300
1.9
6.68
0.34
62
0.14
< 0.5
22
0.04
< 0.08
0.89
0.085
0.49
<O.1
0.21
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL44
26.9
6500
11
5.8
<2
63
<0.5
<0.5
70.9
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
1.4
0.74
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL45
< 5
7600
1.8
7.32
< 1
74
0.31
< 0.5
17
0.064
< 0.08
0.89
0.089
4.4
< 0.1
0.39
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL47
<5
25300
15.1
6.4
1.02
229
<0.5
<0.5
74
<0.2
<0.08
2.6
<0.5
0.27
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL48
68
11000
6.5
6.6
4
109
0.064
0.5
51
< 0.2
0.063
7.5
< 0.5
8
< 0.2
0.14
< 0.5
0.08
Allen
AL49
<5
15700
4.2
6.8
2.6
117
<0.5
<0.5
36.7
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
0.35
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL5
<100
7500
2.44
6.8
1.11
88
<1
<5
20
<1
<0.1
3
<1
11
<0.2
2
<5
<0.1
Allen
AL50A
7
20900
3.9
7.1
5.9
125
<0.5 1
1.5
3.7
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.13
<0.2
4.3
0.66
<0.1
Allen
AL50B
5.8
5810
1.6
6.6
<2
78
<0.5
<0.5
12
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL50C
102
11200
8.4
6.1
4.9
96
<0.5
<0.5
33.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.8
<0.5
1.9
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL51
<5
29300
14.2
6.31
2
178
<0.5
<0.5
41
<0.2
<0.08
0.76
0.21
2.7
0.041
<0.5
0.31
<0.1
Allen
AL52
62
19000
8.8
6.3
<1
158
0.053
<0.5
28
<0.2
<0.08
0.71
<0.5
0.68
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL53
<20
11000
5
6.31
<5
75
<0.4
0.12
25.5
<0.11
<0.06
4.06
<0.03
0.23
<0.01
<0,11
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL54
<5
19000
16
6.42
3.8
145
<0.5
<0.5
26
<0.2
<0.08
3.2
0.24
0.33
0.051
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL55
<5
12000
4.6
6.52
2.5
125
0.25
0.44
27.2
<0.2
<0.08
2
0.21
0.9
0.052
0.27
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL56
66
13000
7.9
6.3
2.6
140
0.12
<0.5
93
<0.2
<0.08
4.5
2.1
2.7
<0.2
0.51
<0.5
0.057
Allen
AL57
<5
14900
3.3
6.5
<2
123
<0.5
<0.5
67
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
0.48
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL58
6.6
21100
7.8
6.7
4.3
137
0.1
0.82
33
< 0.2
< 0.08
0.63
0.22
0.47
0.058
1 0.49
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL59
<5
12800
3.3
6.6
<2
107
<0.5
<0.5
32.8
<0.2
<0.08
3
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
0.24
Allen
AL6
<5
7180
3
6.99
2.1
86
<0.5
<0.5
30.5
<0.2
<0.08
3.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL60
<5
25300
14.6
6.4
<2
197
<0.5
<0.5
64.9
<0.2
<0.08
5.8
<0.5
0.12
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL61
<5
18200
8.9
6.5
3.3
148
<0.5
<0.5
29.2
<0.2
<0.08
4.8
<0.5
0.22
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL62
<20
16300
7
6.63
<5
108
<0.4
0.12
25.3
<0.11
<0.06
2.84
<0.03
0.13
<0.01
0.45
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL63
< 20
21400
15
6.04
6
204
< 0.5
< 0.08
43.8
< 0.11
< 0.06
3.31
0.05
0.59
< 0.01
0.27
0.25
< 0.06
Allen
AL64
<5
33700
37.9
6.1
<2
233
<0.5
<0.5
68.1
<0.2
<0.08
4.4
<0.5
0.53
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL65
<5
23800
10.7
6.6
3.2
165
<0.5
<0.5
8.9
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.9
<0.2
1.1
0.52
<0.1
Allen
AL66
<5
18300
8.8
6.4
<2
160
<0.5
<0.5
47.6
<0.2
<0.08
0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL67
47
26800
6.3
7.4
3.3
159
0.12
0.31
12
<0.2
<0.08
0.89
<0.5
2
<0.2
1.2
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL68
<5
21400
8.3
6.7
2.7
160
<0.5
<0.5
12.5
<0.2
<0.08
2.8
<0.5
0.16
<0.2
0.63
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL69
<5
16000
3.8
6.5
<2
141
<0.5
<0.5
40
<0.2
<0.08
1.8
<0.5
0.32
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL7
< 5
14400
3.7
6.9
< 2
119
< 0.5
< 0.5
18.8
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.2
< 0.5
0.11
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL70
<5
24000
9
6.73
2.7
164
<0.5
<0.5
52
<0.2
<0.08
1.8
<0.5
2.45
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL71
<5
23800
9.5
6.5
<2
149
<0.5
<0.5
35.8
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
<0.5
0.29
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL72
<5
23300
9
6.5
<2
132
<0.5
<0.5
30
<0.2
<0.08
2.5
<0.5
1.4
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL73
<5
15300
4.8
6.63
<2
133
<0.4
0.12
35.3
<0.11
<0.06
3.11
<0.03
0.65
<0.01
<0, 12
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL74
<5
21000
10.9
6.3
<2
168
<0.5
<0.5
51.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
<0.5
0.34
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
29
Page 2 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Table A2-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
30
Page 3 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016
15A NCACd(a):
Groundwater Standard (a)
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1
NS
20
0.2
Federal M L(b):
(' denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
*500
6
10
2000
4
5
100
NS
15
2
NS
50
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1 L
18
20
0.2
RSL 2015(d):
4000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3800
25
9.2
22000
6
15
5.7
100
100
0.2
Append x III f
Appendix IV
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
pH
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Selenium
Thallium
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
su
m L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
Allen
AL75
<5
7380
2.5
6.8
<1
110
0.095
<0.5
12
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
<0.5
1.4
<0.2
0.17
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL76
<20
7120
2
6.41
<5
87
<0.4
0.13
11.9
<0.11
<0.06
2.62
<0.03
0.13
<0.01
<0.12
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL77
<5
15100
7.7
6.4
2.5
157
<0.5
<0.5
49
<0.2
<0.08
1
<0.5
0.24
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL78
< 5
6290
2.9
6.1
< 2
70
< 0.5
< 0.5
26
< 0.2
< 0.08
< 0.5
< 0.5
0.19
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL79
<5
11700 1
6.5
6.3 1
2.1
104
<0.5
<0.5
24.8
<0.2
<0.08
0.6
<0.5
0.29
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL8
97
15000
4.8
6.4
<1
132
0.08
<0.5
59
<0.2
<0.08
3.1
<0.5
1.7
<0.2
0.4
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL81
<5
17000
7.9
6.3
<2
137
<0.5
<0.5
30.2
<0.2
<0.08
0.73
<0.5
1.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL82
<5
24300
14.3
6.3
2.1
223
<0.5
<0.5
69.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.23
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL83
<5
21300
15.3
6.2
3.9
228
<0.5
<0.5
42.1
<0.2
<0.08
3.5
<0.5
0.24
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL84
<5
13600
6.6
6.8
<2
134
<0.5
<0.5
23.5
<0.2
<0.08
0.55
<0.5
0.22
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALES
< 5
4720
1.4
6.7
< 2
67
< 0.5
< 0.5
13
< 0.2
< 0.08
2.6
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL88
<5
6500
2.1
6.4
<2
63
<0.5
<0.5
23.6
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.2
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL89
67
8600
1.9
6.8
<1
140
0.14
0.31
26
<0.2
<0.08
4
<0.5
1.1
<0.2
0.39
<0.5
0.1
Allen
AL9
<100
21000
8.06
6.2
1.22
165
<1
<5
54
<1
<0.1
6
<1
<2
<0.2
<5
<5
<0.1
Allen
AL90
<5
12000
4.54
7
<1
101
<0.5
<0.5
58
<0.2
<0.08
3
<0.5
7
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL91
<5
11300
1.5
7.1
2
98
<0.5
<0.5
8.1
<0.2
<0.08
2.1
<0.5
0.16
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL92
<5
10800
5.3
6.3
<1
90
<0.5
<0.5
22.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
0.72
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL93
90
8000
2.9
6.7
< 1
98
0.064
< 0.5
20.4
< 0.2
< 0.08
2.4
0.099
2.3
< 0.2
0.77
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL94
5.5
23600
3.1
7.7
5.4
1 156
< 0.4
2.4
9.57
< 0.11
< 0.06
1.3
< 0.03
0.57
< 0.01
5.1
2.49
< 0.06
Allen
AL95
7.4
11900
7.4
6.1
< 2
107
< 0.5
< 0.5
30.2
< 0.2
< 0.08
1.8
< 0.5
1.5
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.1
Allen
AL9§
<5
8540
4
6.7
<2
91
<0.4
0.16
39.9
<0.11
<0.06
0.82
<0.03
0.11
<0.01
<0.11
<0.16
<0.06
Allen
AL97
8
25000
2.3
8.1
7.5
112
<0.5
1.4
6.2
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.2
4.7
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
AL98
< 20
28300
1
8.01
14
173
< 0.4
1.84
9.37
< 0.11
< 0.06
0.82
< 0.03
0.75
< 0.01
3.95
< 0.16
< 0.06
Allen
AL99
<5
12100
2.1
6.7
1.18
105
<0.5
<0.5
4
1 <0.2
<0.08
1 0.91
<0.5 1
0.15
1 <0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
30
Page 3 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Table A2-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
31
Page 4 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016
ISA NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(* denotes secondary standard)
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*5
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
0.3
3500
1
2500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20000
2100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
86
20000
0.8
14000
44(e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the
CCR Rule
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
m L
m L
m L
m L
m L
Allen
AL1
6.3
< 10
0.01
65
0.17
3220
1.1
< 0.5
2450
7550
130
0.155
48
48
<0
< 1
Allen
AL100
12.8
12
<0.001
19.7
0.56
6610
1.54
<0.5
2370
9200
162
0.0479
78.3
78.3
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL101
4
< 10
0.0023
< 50
0.61
1240
6.9
1.6
812
5810
72.5
0.807
22.4
22.4
<5
< 2.5
Allen
I AL102
9
< 10
0.0017
< 50
1.4
3580
< 0.5
0.79
1600
5880
116
0.0087
24
24
<5
I < 2.5
Allen
AL103
9.1
870
0.0037
2700
< 10
3500
3.6
3.6
2500
7200
110
0.48
57
57
<5
34
Allen
AL11
5.2
< 10
0.00416
< 50
1.6
2910
< 0.5
0.64
1570
8360
153
0.0064
45.4
45.4
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL110
11.3
< 10
0.0192
< 50
1.7
4260
< 0.5
< 0.5
2180
7240
110
0.0105
39.9
39.9
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL111
10.4
15
0.0016
< 50
1.1
3920
2
0.7
2100
8600
120
0.026
58
58
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL112
4
< 10
< 0.001
< 50
0.05
4250
0.65
< 0.5
2230
9860
187
0.0186
89.6
89.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL113
11.4
< 10
0.0054
< 50
2
5280
0.66
< 0.5
1940
9730
169
0.236
49.9
49.9
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL114
10.5
< 10
0.0034
< 50
2.2
4940
0.97
< 0.5
1810
8510
162
0.215
52.3
52.3
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL115
5.3
<10
<0.001
238
0.16
3720
23.9
0.89
2670
25000
3400
0.121
42
42
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL117
5.4
77
0.023
200
0.15
13000
3.5
1.6
4640
19000
463
0.017
140
140
< 1
1.6
Allen
AL118
10.6
< 10
0.056
< 50
2.3
4300
< 0.5
1.1
1610
9250
230
0.026
48
48
<0
< 1
Allen
AL119
3.1
77.7
0.0044
144
0.056
3340
6.6
0.81
3020
8570
129
0.0344
64.9
64.9
<5
8.2
Allen
AL12
2.4
< 10
0.0314
< 50
1.5
3620
0.8
< 0.5
1930
8690
286
0.0255
49.5
49.5
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL120
< 1
98.4
< 0.001
< 50
< 0.03
2970
8.9
< 0.5
1850
10800
162
< 0.005
75.2
75.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL121
13.1
23.3
0.0018
< 50
1.7
1630
1
< 0.5
929
6120
67.1
0.0202
20.6
20.6
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL122
8.4
465
0.159
4300
0.25
6080
23.1
2.7
1960
6790
285
0.123
52.3
52.3
<5
44.1
Allen
AL123
7.6
< 10
0.0024
< 50
2
5640
0.74
1.1
1960
8210
173
0.0143
29.9
29.9
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL124
9.3
< 10
0.0624
< 50
1
5930
< 0.5
< 0.5
2430
7770
198
< 0.005
66.1
66.1
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL125
< 1
< 10
< 0.001
< 50
< 0.03
1610
6.7
< 0.5
1470
9300
111
< 0.005
52.9
52.9
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL126
12
< 10
0.0065
< 50
4.2
3790
< 0.5
< 0.5
2210
6270
118
0.0138
48.2
48.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL127
10.6
< 10
< 0.001
< 50
4.4
3770
< 0.5
< 0.5
1760
7530
130
0.0258
46.8
46.8
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL129
6.8
< 10
0.0112
< 50
0.41
7190
0.87
< 0.5
3200
9950
225
0.0168
86.7
86.7
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL130
7.9
< 10
0.0139
< 50
2.4
3410
1.1
< 0.5
1720
6980
106
0.138
48.7
48.7
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL131
7.9
< 10
0.0056
< 50
0.78
1940
< 0.5
< 0.5
1300
5570
59.5
0.0218
22.6
22.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL132
7.8
< 10
0.0104
< 50
0.93
5570
< 0.5
< 0.5
1750
10700
234
< 0.005
83.1
83.1
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL133
7.4
< 10
0.002
273
0.72
1840
5.2
< 0.5
1370
5840
89.9
0.11
25.4
25.4
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL135
7
< 10
0.0161
88.6
2.1
4920
3
< 0.5
1760
9050
180
0.0217
51.4
51.4
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL136
4.5
107
0.359
52.8
2.8
9920
0.82
0.57
2370
12000
378
0.0495
63.9
63.9
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL137
6.5
< 10
0.0047
< 50
0.33
4620
< 0.5
< 0.5
1800
8060
155
0.0054
59.8
59.8
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL138
6.4
< 10
0.0051
< 50
1.2
6780
< 0.5
< 0.5
1920
9180
215
0.0261
61.8
61.8
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL139A
5.4
< 10
0.0121
< 50
0.64
4660
< 0.5
< 0.5
1900
8490
255
0.0229
33.8
33.8
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL139B
5.7
< 10
0.139
< 50
4.9
1320
4.1
< 0.5
1330
6660
81.4
0.0577
21.7
21.7
<5
<5
Allen
AL14
2
< 50
0.03
< 50
5
7900
< S
< S
1900
10000
360
0.021
61.7
61.7
<0
< 1
Allen
AL140
4.7
< 10
0.014
58.4
2.4
5050
2
< 0.5
1730
8890
189
0.0755
41.4
41.4
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL141
12.8
< 10
0.0052
< 50
4.4
3160
1.8
0.58
1440
6800
104
0.425
33.2
33.2
< 5
<5
Allen
AL142
4.9
< 10
0.0056
958
0.079
3670
21.3
0.71
2010
6830
125
0.0667
38.2
38.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL15
4.8
< 10
0.0512
14.5
1.8
6230
1.8
< 0.5
1570
9540
227
0.0715
72.8
72.8
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL16
4.2
89
0.006
510
1.8
2600
9
<0.5
1000
8240
150
0.784
53.9
53.9
<0
1.9
Allen
AL17
7.8
14.3
0.0171
59.3
1.1
3860
1.7
< 0.5
1200
9650
168
0.0173
56.9
56.9
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL19
4.5
< 10
0.0568
19.4
2.6
5180
1.1
< 0.5
2040
9830
233
0.0177
55.9
55.9
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL2
9.9
21.9
< 0.001
< 50
1
4320
0.92
< 0.5
2170
8210
142
0.0077
60.7
60.7
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
A 2
12
< 10
0.0023
< 50
1.4
4390
< 0.5
< 0.5
1570
8020
165
< 0.005
65.7
65.7
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL21
12.6
< 10
< 0.001
< 50
0.74
5190
< 0.5
< 0.5
1850
7910
158
0.00575
70.1
70.1
< 1
< 2.8
Allen
AL22
8.9
12.4
< 0.001
< 50
0.39
4750
< 0.5
< 0.5
2140
6690
109
< 0.005
74.1
74.1
<5
<5
Allen
AL23
13.41::::2:2::1::::::j=0015
310
1.1
3820
1.4
1.5
2070
6670
110
0.0061
44
44
<5
2.6
Allen
AL24
12.5
< 10
0.0026
< 50
0.77
3830
< 0.5
< 0.5
2200
6900
82
0.011
52.2
52.2
<0
< 1
Allen
AL25
5.3
< 10 1
0.0661 1
< 50
2.3
4610
0.63 1
0.53
1 2400
10100
240
0.028
60
60
< 5
< 2.5
31
Page 4 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Table A2-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
32
Page 5 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016
ISA NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(* denotes secondary standard)
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*5
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
0.3
3500
1
2500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20000
2100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
86
20000
0.8
14000
44(e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the
CCR Rule
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
m L
m L
m L
m L
m L
Allen
AL26
7.6
10.6
0.00768
15.6
0.55
4970
0.68
< 0.5
2110
8670
187
0.0977
54.8
54.8
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL27
4.2
< 10
0.0069
< 50
1.8
5750
1.2
0.53
1800
10000
230
0.13
54
54
<0
< 1
Allen
AL28
13
< 10
0.0259
< 25
2.05
2660
< 0.84
0.2
1550
5580
75
0.00212
34
< 2.5
Allen
AL29
8.3
< 10
0.0045
< 50
2.2
2280
0.65
0.55
1800
6710
86.4
0.048
29
29
<5
I < 2.5
Allen
AL3
7.7
68 1
1.1
100
1.9
1 1700
5.2 1
0.33
1300
5700
80.2
0.033
26
26
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL30
5.8
< 10
0.0703
< 50
3.5
3720
< 0.5
< 0.5
1840
8760
220
0.018
55.8
55.8
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL31
22.6
12
0.0699
92.8
1.7
1570
2.59
0.5
1700
5590
90
0.0314
32
30.4
<5
4
Allen
AL32
2.7
< 10
0.0254
< 50
2.7
2600
1.1
< 0.5
1850
7160
157
0.0167
44.7
44.7
< 5
< 2.6
Allen
AL33
6.4
<10
0.0129
<50
4.1
2030
<0.5
0.53
1030
6540
127
<0.005
38.3
38.3
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL34
10.1
< 10
0.00644
< 50
2.3
2790
< 0.5
< 0.5
1140
7510
146
0.0087
49.3
49.3
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL39A
3.54
< 10
0.0272
<15
0.78
1710
< 0.43
0.26
1310
7320
115
0.0092
33
26.4
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL39B
13.1
154
0.0032
271
0.18
3830
8.9
0.46
2490
7910
134
0.0176
69.2
69.2
<5
4.6
Allen
AL40
3.4
13
0.0023
15.3
0.19
1270
1.36
0.19
1370
5150
71
0.112
23
21.4
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL41
3.5
< 10
0.0014
< 50
0.12
1 879
< 0.5
< 0.5
1120
4240
47.2
< 0.005
16.3
16.3
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL42
3.6
11.7
0.11
200
0.72
2800
0.58 1
0.66
1800
5100
80.3
0.0025
35
35
<5
< 1
Allen
AL44
< 1
21
0.0572
< 50
0.17
4400
9.2 1
1.1
1060
5910
31.8
0.116
23.9
23.9
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL45
8.2
< 10
0.034
1400
0.69
1520
4.1
0.77
1080
6600
80
0.016
31
31
<5
2
Allen
AL47
4
40.7
0.007
70.9
2.2
6710
2.6
< 0.5
2220
10400
276
0.021
35.3
35.3
<0
8.4
Allen
AL48
16
<10
0.055
4000
3.8
3100
4.7
<0.5
1600
8600
160
0.038
32
32
<5
12
Allen
AL49
12.6
< 10
0.0185
< 50
0.9
4860
0.91
< 0.5
2260
7860
141
0.0179
58.7
58.7
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL5
14
45
0.014
75
4
2700
<5
<5
1500
5900
110
0.041
36.3
36.3
<0
1.4
Allen
AL50A
5.5
< 10
0.0019
< 50
0.21
3290
< 0.5
< 0.5
2350
7970
91.4
< 0.005
62.7
62.7
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL50B
6.7
44.8
0.0045
< 50
0.24
1660
< 0.5
< 0.5
1570
5010
62.9
< 0.005
22.2
22.2
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL50C
3.7
< 10
0.0035
< 50
1.1
3410
< 0.5
1
1530
81000
133
< 0.005
35.2
35.2
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL51
2.4
3.6
15
1200
0.43
4400
0.88
2.1
1600
11000
346
0.012
50
50
<5
0.7
Allen
AL52
3.4
20
0.058
< 50
0.12
5800
0.76
0.46
1700
11000
240
0.021
62
62
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL53
4.3
<10
0.00498
<15
2.9
3470
<0.84
0.58
1240
6350
142
0.00729
1 42
<2.5
Allen
ALS4
4.4
2.7
29
580
2.9
5600
3.9
2.2
1300
10000
251
0.013
55
55
< 5
< 1
Allen
AL55
7.5
2.8
4.7
330
8.4
3800
1.4
1.2
1430
8000
140
0.056
40
40
<5
< 1
Allen
AL56
7.6
330
0.066
7160
<0.03
4300
361
2.8
3400
9400
230
0.15
59
59
<5
14.3
Allen
AL57
8.3
< 10
0.0922
< 50
1
4500
1.3
< 0.5
1890
9780
205
0.0184
56.8
56.8
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL58
12.2
12
0.53
690
0.24
7000
4.4
2
3230
9510
203
0.0069
76
76
< 5
1.1
Allen
AL59
19.1
< 10
0.0017
< 50
2.4
5060
1.9
< 0.5
1860
8730
1 183
0.274
53.8
53.8
<5
< 2,5
Allen
AL6
6.4
<10
0.0011
60.8
3.2
2310
<0.5
<0.5
1410
6410
94
<0.005
31.7
31.7
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL60
9
< 10
0.014
56.9
5.3
9310
8.6
0.96
2550
12100
317
1.38
68.3
68.3
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL61
13.6
< 10
0.0207
< 50
4.6
6840
0.57
< 0.5
2130
9900
208
0.0632
59.5
59.5
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL62
11.2
22.2
0.00202
<15
2.26
5870
<0.84
0.42
1810
8640
205
0.00634
65
<2.5
Allen
AL63
7.02
14.8
0.00707
435
1.94
7050
2.74
0.81
2310
8980
274
0.0434
62
S
Allen
AL64
2.8
< 10
0.165
< 50
1 4.3
9020
1.6
2.6
2180
9530
424
0.0289
42.9
42.9
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL65
6
30.7
0.0082
< 50
0.25
6350
< 0.5
< 0.5
3260
9000
180
0.0075
70.3
70.3
< 5
< 5
Allen
AL66
5.3
< 10
0.0388
< 50
0.38
5890
3.9 1
1.2
1660 1
11000
306
0.0928
48.8
48.8
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL67
13.3
26
0.02
47
0.62
6880
2.1
0.72
3000
8600
150
0.038
94
94
<5
2.1
Allen
AL68
15.4
51.1
0.0061
85.9
1.8
8650
2.8
< 0.5
2880
10100
182
1 0.0552
73.7
73.7
<5
3.5
Allen
AL69
8.4
< 10
0.0748
75.8
1.2
5280
1.9
< 0.5
1720
8420
219
0.0446
55.3
55.3
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL7
10.9
< 10
0.0011
< 50
0.97
5460
< 0.5
< 0.5
1790
8340
180
0.0176
58.7
58.7
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL70
9.4
<10
0.013
210
1.6
8960
<0.5
0.57
2300
10000
265
<0.005
87.6
87.6
<1
<2.5
Allen
AL71
9.2
< 10
0.0739
< 50
1
8430
< 0.5
< 0.5
2120
9570
256
0.013
73.6
73.6
< 5
Allen
AL72
5.1
< 10
0.0032
< 50
1.1
7650
7.7
< 0.5
1820
9640
265
0.0623
69.9
69.9
< 5
Allen
AL73
9.6
<10
0.038
55
2.4
5160
0.72
0.75
1670
9450
188
0.0102
69
62.2
<5
d�p
Allen
AL74
5.8
< 10
0.126
< 50
2
6540
2.2
< 0.5
2080
10100
293
0.0124
69.8
69.8
< 5
32
Page 5 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Table A2-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
33
Page 6 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016
ISA NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(* denotes secondary standard)
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*5
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
0.3
3500
1
2500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20000
2100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
86
20000
0.8
14000
44(e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the
CCR Rule
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
Plant
Well Owner ID
u L
u L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
m L
m L
m L
m L
m L
Allen
AL75
14
< 10
0.048
< 50
1.7
3840
1
0.26
1500
6600
86
0.038
43
43
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL76
8.34
< 10
0.00732
< 25
2.62
2760
1.5
0.45
1120
6820
109
0.0266
35
< 2.5
Allen
AL77
8.6
101
0.104
< 50
0.7
4980
0.54
< 0.5
2160
9940
238
0.0543
44.1
44.1
<5
< 2.5
Allen
I AL78
2.1
< 10
0.247
< SO
0.1
1590
1
< 0.5
1060
5320
86.1
0.126
19
19
<S
< 2.5
Allen
AL79
4.4
< 10 1
0.0395
54.9
0.33
1 3230
0.71 1
< 0.5
2240
8320
157
0.0203
40.9
40.9
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL8
8.5
< 10
0.04
< 50
3.5
5200
25.9
0.7
1700
9800
240
0.016
61
61
< 1
< 2.5
Allen
AL81
2.2
< 10
0.232
< 50
0.78
3050
6.5
0.95
1580
9700
228
5.26
46.9
46.9
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL82
4.7
< 10
0.182
< 50
0.81
7600
1.7
0.71
2400
12300
392
0.0199
47.8
47.8
< 5
< 2.5
Allen
AL83
9
< 10
0.104
< 50
3.5
8060
1.5
1.3
1760
10800
289
0.0299
49.5
49.5
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL84
8.2
< 10
0.016
59.8
0.59
6030
15.7
< 0.5
1880
9050
185
0.0794
46.7
46.7
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL85
9.6
< 10
0.0046
< 50
2.5
1420
< 0.5
< 0.5
978
4900
69.2
0.0098
19.6
19.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL88
< 1
< 10
0.146
136
0.82
1830
34.6
0.62
1300
6290
83.2
0.061
28.7
28.7
<S
< 2.5
Allen
AL89
12
< 10
0.021
< 50
4
2740
0.72
0.44
1560
6400
120
0.037
43
43
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL9
7
< 50
0.006
< 50
5
1 6600
<5
<5
1400
11000
300
0.172
65.7
65.7
<0
< 1
Allen
AL90
10
<10
0.046
2100
1.9
3100
8.4 1
0.72
2100
8200
160
0.031
40
40
<0
5.1
Allen
AL91
12.2
< 10
0.0015
67.6
1.5
3720
0.5 1
< 0.5
1940
6140
127
0.01
46.1
46.1
< 5
< 2.6
Allen
AL92
5.1
< 10
0.008
< 50
0.46
2740
0.5
< 0.5
2020
7820
125
0.007
33.3
33.3
<0
< 1
Allen
AL93
9.7
86
0.021
94
1.5
2500
7.7
0.68
2300
6700
82
0.074
39
39
< 5
5.2
Allen
AL94
26.5
<10
0.013
16.3
0.18
4910
<0.5
0.56
2340
8760
142
0.0164
81.6
81.6
<5
<2.5
Allen
AL95
2.5
< 10
0.0043
1980
1.3
3670
39.7
0.71
2030
9110
186
0.0389
41.6
41.6
<S
4.2
Allen
AL96
< 10
0.00157
< 25
0.43
2360
< 0.5
0.18
1430
6740
141
O. 0349
35
34.6
<5
< 2.5
Allen
AL97
2
29
< 0.001
< 50
< 0.03
3800
6
< 0.5
2500
10000
130
< 0.005
83
83
<0
< 1
Allen
AL98
25
]7.818
< 10
0.00551
< 25
< 5
2320
6.43
0.6
2270
11400
34
0.00344
84
< 2.5
Allen
AL99
< 10
0.0024
< 50
0.78
4010
< 0.5
< 0.5
2640
8900
140
1 0.012
62.7
62.7 1
<0
< 1
33
Page 6 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Table A2-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
34
Page 7 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016
15A NCAC 02L .020
Groundwater Standard (a):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(• denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 201S (d):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID
Turbidity
NTU
Temperature
°C
Specific
Conductance
umhos cm
Dissolved
Oxygen
m L
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
my
Allen
AL1
< 1
18.6
142.4
7.1
207
Allen
AL100
< 1
18.3
215
5.42
280.4
Allen
AL101
< 1
17.8
61.3
8.1
167.5
Allen
AL102
< 1
18.8
112.5
6.8
226.4
Allen
AL103
18
17
101
7.5
170
Allen
AL11
< 1
19.3
157
7.9
202.6
Allen
AL110
< 1
17.8
123
7.3
226.2
Allen
AL111
0.24
18.2
121.1
5.2
166
Allen
AL112
< 1
16.7
212.8
0.8
622
Allen
AL113
< 1
16
133.2
12.2
763.4
Allen
AL114
< 1
16
131.7
7.9
774.7
Allen
AL115
< 1
823
2.7
313
Allen
AL117
1.4
16.9
385
5.7
191.6
Allen
AL118
< 1
19.3
135
5.5
241
Allen
AL119
< 1
17.4
163.9
1.4
156.6
Allen
AL12
< 1
19.1
177.4
6.1
258.6
Allen
AL120
< 1
17.1
200.3
1 0.03
<
Allen
AL121
< 1
18
64.8
9
149.1
Allen
AL122
38.2
17.9
160.3
7
165.7
Allen
AL123
< 1
17.2
151
6.4
235.4
Allen
AL124
< 1
18
157.5
5.1
205.2
Allen
AL125
< 1
18.2
141.8
0.1
<
Allen
AL126
< 1
18.3
104.4
6.8
193.9
Allen
AL127
< 1
18
110.2
8.4
151.6
Allen
AL129
< 1
17.3
210.3
1.9
216.7
Allen
AL130
< 1
17.1
102.4
4.8
173
Allen
AL131
< 1
18.1
69.5
8
179.2
Allen
AL132
< 1
21.1
179.5
5.2
226.1
Allen
AL133
1.8
17.3
72.5
5.6
108.9
Allen
AL135
< 1
19.6
141.2
4.3
189.2
Allen
AL136
< 1
21.4
301.1
5.6
226.9
Allen
AL137
< 1
18.7
143.5
6.7
125.9
Allen
AL138
< 1
17.7
193.9
5.9
143.5
Allen
AL139A
< 1
18.4
152.6
7.9
148.1
Allen
AL139B
<1
22
68.1
7.7
158.8
Allen
AL14
< 1
19.2
276
5.8
213
Allen
AL140
< 1
21.3
171.9
7.3
192.8
Allen
AL141
< 1
17.7
97.9
7
158.4
Allen
AL142
2.8
17.4
119.7
5.6
48.2
Allen
AL15
< 1
19
252
7.1
162.8
Allen
AL16
11
20.1
127.7
7.5
191.8
Allen
AL17
< 1
17.3
176
6.4
359.7
Allen
AL19
< 1
17.8
242
5.6
243.2
Allen
AL2
< 1
17.2
158.6
5.3
168.8
Allen
AL20
< 1
17.4
174
6.7
162.1
Allen
AL21
< 1
16.6
191
6.91
291.4
Allen
AL22
< 1
8
167.5
3.9
132.6
Allen
AL23
< 1
17.2
114.1
5.52
272.8
Allen
AL24
< 1
20.1
137.7
4.9
197
Allen
AL25
0.15
18.8
175.9
8.6
220.3
34
Page 7 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Table A2-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
35
Page 8 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016
15A NCAC 02L .020
Groundwater Standard (a):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(• denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 201S (d):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID
Turbidity
NTU
Temperature
°C
Specific
Conductance
umhos cm
Dissolved
Oxygen
m L
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
my
Allen
AL26
< 1
17.4
217
6.74
347.8
Allen
AL27
< 1
21
200.2
5.8
207
Allen
AL28
< 1
14.8
105
7.91
Allen
AL29
0.2
18.9
91.1
9.5
212.7
Allen
AL3
0.9
20.5
125.8
10.3
221
Allen
AL30
< 1
18.5
191
7.28
301
Allen
AL31
< 1
20.5
89
7.62
159.2
Allen
AL32
< 1
19.4
112.3
5.4
267.4
Allen
AL33
< 1
18
108
6.83
302.5
Allen
AL34
< 1
17.3
130
6.82
294.2
Allen
AL39A
1.3
18.1
104
7.47
313.9
Allen
AL39B
< 1
17.2
185.2
1.6
178.1
Allen
AL40
< 1
18.8
668
8.3
240.7
Allen
AL41
< 1
18.8
46.4
8.6
183.2
Allen
AL42
< 1
18.1
81
7.8
218.1
Allen
AL44
< 1
17.1
104.4
4
229.5
Allen
AL45
6.2
18.3
75.9
7.65
201.2
Allen
AL47
< 1
19.1
187
7.88
239.6
Allen
AL48
18
18.3
131
8.4
160.5
Allen
AL49
< 1
17.2
159.3
3.9
209.8
Allen
AL5
< 1
17.5
91
4.8
183
Allen
AL50A
< 1
16.8
172
2.2
188.1
Allen
AL50B
< 1
16.7
71.3
6.7
245.3
Allen
AL50C
< 1
16.3
120.8
4.4
207
Allen
AL51
< 1
18.1
225.8
5.7
266.1
Allen
AL52
<0.14
20.3
375.1
8.1
188.8
Allen
AL53
< 1
15.9
134
7.41
Allen
AL54
< 1
17.1
178
6.82
267.4
Allen
AL55
< 1
16.7
116
6.18
227.9
Allen
AL56
82.5
20.5
163.7
7.3
170
Allen
AL57
< 1
19.5
153.8
3.9
240.2
Allen
AL58
1.8
17.1
205.5
5.01
108.4
Allen
AL59
< 1
18
137
5.2
198
Allen
AL6
< 1
18.6
111
6.95
302.6
Allen
AL60
< 1
17.5
230.4
1 3.2
194.9
Allen
AL61
< 1
19.9
190.8
5.5
181.8
Allen
AL62
< 1
15.5
193
7.41
Allen
AL63
8.7
11.2
244
7.1
Allen
AL64
< 1
17
329.8
4
223.5
Allen
AL65
< 1
17.3
232.7
3.5
200.4
Allen
AL66
< 1
17.9
189
5.2
261.2
Allen
AL67
0.25
18.2
233.1
6.2
195.3
Allen
AL68
< 1
20.6
219.3
4.4
140.3
Allen
AL69
< 1
17.3
153.5
4.9
202.3
Allen
AL7
< 1
16.9
141.8
8.1
155
Allen
AL70
< 1
18.6
295
5.17
262.3
Allen
AL71
< 1
18
212.6
3.3
271
Allen
AL72
< 1
18.4
200.3
2.8
169.8
Allen
AL73
< 1
20.6
288.1
6.99
174.8
Allen
AL74
< 1
18.3
176.3
4
178.4
35
Page 8 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Table A2-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
36
Page 9 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016
15A NCAC 02L .020
Groundwater Standard (a):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
(• denotes secondary standard)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 201S (d):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID
Turbidity
NTU
Temperature
°C
Specific
Conductance
umhos cm
Dissolved
Oxygen
m L
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
my
Allen
AL75
0.31
20.4
102.9
7.4
179
Allen
AL76
< 1
16.1
110
7.87
Allen
AL77
< 1
18.5
175.4
5.6
264.2
Allen
AL78
< 1
17.7
75.8
7.2
231.2
Allen
AL79
< 1
17.8
128.3
5.8
183.4
Allen
AL8
0.27
18.8
153.8
7.3
246
Allen
AL81
< 1
20.6
171.3
6.8
185.6
Allen
AL82
< 1
22.3
254
5.4
273.3
Allen
AL83
< 1
19.4
223.7
5.6
200.4
Allen
AL84
< 1
17
179.1
5.2
180.6
Allen
AL85
< 1
18.3
61.5
8.7
219.8
Allen
AL88
< 1
17
129.4
2.21
186.6
Allen
AL89
0.29
19
92.6
9.6
191.8
Allen
AL9
< 1
18.7
205
6
259
Allen
AL90
13
19.3
109.3
9.6
205.1
Allen
AL91
< 1
16.4
109
7
245
Allen
AL92
< 1
19.8
112.4
7.8
232
Allen
AL93
0.38
19.7
92.4
8.3
172
Allen
AL94
< 1
17
202
6.31
218.2
Allen
AL95
14.1
17.5
117.1
2.8
194.5
Allen
M§<
1
18.1
119
7.73
167.9
Allen
AL97
< 1
19
178.4
0.1
120
Allen
AL98
< 1
13.8
231
6.85
Allen
AL99
< 1
18.5
128.6
7.2
238.1
36
Page 9 of 9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Notes:
A - Denotes [MAC value.
* - Denotes SMCL value.
°C - Degrees Celsius.
Blank data cells indicate no data available.
CCR - Coal Combustion Residual.
DEQ- Department of Environmental Quality.
DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services.
HI - Hazard Index.
IMAC- Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration.
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level.
MDL - Method Detection Limit.
mg/L - milligrams/liter.
mV - millivolts.
NA - Not available.
NS - No Standard Available.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
PQL- Practical Quantitation Limit (h).
RSL - Risk Based Screening Level.
SMCL - Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.
su - standard units.
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency.
ug/L - micrograms/liter.
umhos/cm - micromhos/centimeter.
Data Qualifiers
B Detected in method blank (MB).
1 Estimated result between PQL and MDL.
12 Spike recovery outside quality assurance limits @ 135%.
Zb Sample was clear but contained sand -like particles.
Zc Well depth was 635 feet per well tag.
18 Temperature of the sample was exceeded during storage.
BH Method Blank (MB) greater than one half of the Reporting Level (RL), but the sample concentrations are greater than 10x the MB.
** Alkalinity = carbonate + bicarbonate.
S1 Matrix spike and / or matrix spike duplicate sample recovery was not within control limits due to matrix interference. Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) was within control limits.
Z Sample was re -digested and re -analyzed with similar sample and spike results.
M1 Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery.
D6 The relative percent difference (RPD) between the sample and sample duplicate exceeded laboratory control limits.
< Measurement limited by threshold (cannot detect measureable amount below this number). Actual detectable amount below threshold is unknown.
(a) - Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Groundwaters of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code. April 1, 2013.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/gwstandards
(b) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/dwstandards2012.pdf.
(c) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental
Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf
(d) - USEPA Risk Based Screening Levels (November 2015). Values for tapwater. HI = 1.
http://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screening-ta ble-generic-tables
(e) - Alternative screening level calculated for hexavalent chromium using RSL calculator (http://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/chemicals/csl_search) and current dose -response data from the USEPA's
Integrated Risk Information System. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/. The RSL for hexavalent chromium is not a drinking water standard, and the basis of the draft oral cancer toxicity value
used in the calculation of the RSL has been questioned by USEPA's Science Advisory Board; therefore, RSL for Chromium (IV) is based on the noncancer values developed by USEPA.
(f) - The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Detection Monitoring (Appendix III).
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-04-17/pdf/2015-00257.pdf
(g) -The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Assessment Monitoring (Appendix IV).
(h) - Each analytical procedure has a PQL, which is defined as "the lowest level achievable among laboratories within specified limits during routine laboratory operation". The PQL is about three to
five times the calculated MDL for the analytical procedure, and represents a practical and routinely achievable reporting limit with a relatively good certainty that any reported value is reliable.
Detected value is above the sreening level.
Reporting limit is above the screening level.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -1-A2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
37
4/14/2016

Table A2-5
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
38
Page 1 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
* denotes secondary standard
NS
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
*500
6
10
2,000
4
5
100
NS
15
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
30
700
4
2
30
1
15
RSL 2015(d):
4,000
NS
NS
N5
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3,800
25
9.2
22,000
6
15
Appendix III (f)
Appendix IV (g)
Plant
Well Owner ID Source
Boron
ug/L
Calcium
ug/L
Chloride
mg/L
pH
su
Sulfate
mg/L
Total DissolvedSolids
mg/L
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Allen
ALBKG-1 NCDEQ
<5
17200
4
6.36
3.7
106
<0.5
<0.5
8.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALBKG-5 NCDEQ
<5
12400
1.9
6.17
<2
132
<0.5
<0.5
32.3
<0.2
<0.08
0.51
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALBKG-6 NCDEQ
<5
11100
1.8
6.28
<2
82
<0.5
<0.5
37
<0.2
<0.08
0.56
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALBKG-13 NCDEQ
12.4
36900
2.6
7.85
15.8
158
<0.5
4.4
77.3
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.18
Allen
ALBKG-16 NCDEQ
<5
27100
2.2
6.86
3.4
133
<0.5
<0.5
13.7
<0.2
<0.08
1
<0.5
0.2
Allen
ALBKG-7 NCDEQ
<5
56600
9.5
6.63
39.4
345
<0.5
<0.5
26.1
<0.2
<0.08
5
<0.5
0.72
Allen
ALBKG-9 NCDEQ
<5
12900
1.8
6.61
4.6
88
<0.5
<0.5
18.5
<0.2
<0.08
0.75
<0.5
0.68
Allen
DBKG-AL1 Duke
<50
10700
<1
<1
7
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL2 Duke
<50
16300
<1
<1
22
<1
<0
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL3 Duke
<50
11300
<1
<1
43
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL4 Duke
<50
14000
<1
<1
16
<1
<1
<5
<1
33
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
< 50
38600
< 1
< 1
126
< 1
< 1
< 5
4.99
14
Allen
DBKG-AL6 Duke
< 50
18200
1.14
< 1
50
< 1
< 1
< 5
< 1
< 1
Allen
DBKG-AL7 Duke
<50
11700
<1
<1
19
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL8 Duke
<50
29300
<1
1.14
17
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL9 Duke
<50
19000
1.22
<1
58
<1
<1
<5
<1
1.82
Allen
DBKG-AL10 Duke
<5
16400
1.2
<0.5
37.2
<0.2
<0.08
2.9
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
DBKG-AL11 Duke
<5
39800
20
7.17
29
300
0.64
<0.5
119
<0.2
<0.08
6.1
<0.5
0.83
Allen
DBKG-AL12 Duke
5.9
62700
5.5
7.86
66
320
1.1
<0.5
3.4
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.27
Allen
DBKG-AL13 Duke
<5
15900
9.8
6.95
0.41
150
0.53
<0.5
79.1
<0.2
<0.08
0.58
<0.5
0.31
Allen
DBKG-AL14 Duke
5.1
26800
6.7
7.11
2.3
120
0.62
<0.5
19.9
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.12
Allen
DBKG-AL15 Duke
<5
13800
2.4
7.08
0.52
100
0.65
<0.5
40.9
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.17
Allen
DBKG-AL16 Duke
5.5
13300
2.5
7.31
2.3
93
0.61
<0.5
17.8
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.26
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016

Table A2-5
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
39
Page 2 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
1
NS
20
0.2
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
denotes secondary
` standard
2
NS
50
2
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
1L
18
20
0.2
0.3
3,500
1
2,500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20,000
RSL 2015 (d):
5.7
100
100
0.2
86
20,000
0.8
14,000
44 (e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
Appendix IV (g)
Constituents
Not Identified in the CCR
Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID Source
Mercury
ug/L
Molybdenum
ug/L
Selenium
ug/L
Thallium
ug/L
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Chromium,Hexavalent
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
ug/L ug/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Allen
ALBKG-1 NCDEQ
<0.2
0.96
<0.5
<0.1
3.1
<10
<0.001
<50
0.89
5440
<0.5
<0.5
1860
9420
Allen
ALBKG-5 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
2.1
<10
0.0027
<50
0.31
2070
0.5
<0.5
1550
9030
Allen
ALBKG-6 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
2.7
41.3
0.0017
<50
<0.6
2200
0.84
<0.5
1580
8190
Allen
ALBKG-13 NCDEQ
<0.2
2.1
<0.5
<0.1
<1
<10
<0.001
<50
<0.6
2880
8.3
<0.5
2970
12200
Allen
ALBKG-16 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
3.6
<10
0.0029
<50
<0.6
5260
<0.5
<0.5
2540
7360
Allen
ALBKG-7 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
23.7
93.4
0.0084
129
4.5
28800
2
0.53
1660
18800
Allen
ALBKG-9 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
6.2
<10
0.0116
<50
<0.6
5580
<0.5
1
1290
6610
Allen
DBKG-AL1 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.005
48
2000
75
<5
1700
8940
Allen
DBKG-AL2 Duke
<0.05
1.25
<1
<0.2
3.4
5
<0.005
<10
3830
<5
<5
1940
8040
Allen
DBKG-AL3 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
5.77
<5
0.01
<10
4550
<5
<5
1060
8470
Allen
DBKG-AL4 Duke
<0.05
1.27
<1
<0.2
19.8
47
0.052
1980
4380
<5
<5
1380
7000
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
<0.05
<0
<1
<0.2
1.77
53
0.106
4200
926
4820
6
2490
4370
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
13
21
<0.005
29
7770
<5
<5
2200
8090
Allen
DBKG-AL7 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
10.2
<5
<0.005
<10
3750
<5
<5
1750
7390
Allen
DBKG-ALS Duke
<0.05
2.73
<1
<0.2
4.03
<5
<0.005
<10
4340
<5
<5
2180
10700
Allen
DBKG-AL9 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
7.55
8
0.992
17
6250
<5
12
2520
9390
Allen
DBKG-AL10 Duke
<0.2
0.92
<0.5
<0.1
5.2
60.6
0.0754
151
3970
66.4
4.1
4340
7270
Allen
DBKG-AL11 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
19.3
60.5
0.0089
475
5.8
22600
3
1.4
2620
27200
Allen
DBKG-AL12 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
7.8
<10
0.032
<50
0.22
14000
<0.5
<0.5
2970
10700
Allen
DBKG-AL13 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
3.4
<10
0.0491
<50
0.61
4740
1.1
<0.5
2230
8760
Allen
DBKG-AL14 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
1.1
<0.1
1.5
<10
0.0072
<50
0.064
4110
6.7
<0.5
1680
5910
Allen
DBKG-AL15 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
4.5
<10
0.0248
<50
1.6
4440
1.4
<0.5
1760
8270
Allen
DBKG-AL16 Duke
<0.2
0.6
<0.5
<0.1
8.5
11.7
0.0032
<50
0.9
4730
7.5
<0.5
1740
5870
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016

Table A2-5
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
40
Page 3 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard a:
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
` denotes secondary standard
NS
`5
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
2,100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
12,000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID Source
Strontium
ug/L
Zinc
mg/L
Alkalinity
mg/L
Bicarbonate
mg/L
Carbonate
mg/L
Total
Suspended
Solids
mg/L
Turbidity
NTU
Temperature
°C
Specific
Conductance
umhos/cm
Dissolved
Oxygen
mg/L
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
my
Allen
ALBKG-1 NCDEQ
84.4
<0.005
79
79
<5
<2.5
<1
16.49
0.186
3.56
146
Allen
ALBKG-5 NCDEQ
150
0.0051
52.7
<5
<5
<2.5
<1
16.49
0.116
2.91
180
Allen
ALBKG-6 NCDEQ
145
<0.005
48.3
48.3
<5
<2.5
<1
16.45
0.117
2.64
153
Allen
ALBKG-13 NCDEQ
760
0.0065
106 M1
106
<5
<5
<1
17.59
0.271
0.33
-63
Allen
ALBKG-16 NCDEQ
157
0.032
97.8
97.8
<5
<2.5
<1
16.35
0.221
4.8
131
Allen
ALBKG-7 NCDEQ
518
0.0259
226
226
<5
4.2
2
16.4
0.607
5.39
171
Allen
ALBKG-9 NCDEQ
142
0.0138
58.9
58.9
<5
<2.5
<1
17.2
0.147
2.62
191
Allen
DBKG-AL1 Duke
43
0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL2 Duke
128
<0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL3 Duke
141
<0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL4 Duke
107
0.363
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
63
0.023
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
146
<0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL7 Duke
133
0.06
Allen
DBKG-ALS Duke
185
0.044
Allen
DBKG-AL9 Duke
180
0.844
Allen
DBKG-AL10 Duke
140
0.645
Allen
DBKG-AL11 Duke
398
0.127
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL12 Duke
380
0.0129
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL13 Duke
196
0.0191
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL14 Duke
246
0.0114
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL15 Duke
155
0.0611
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL16 Duke
112
0.0162
<5
40
Page 3 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016

41
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Notes:
^ - Denotes IMAC value.
* - Denotes SMCL value.
°C - Degrees Celsius.
Blank data cells indicate no data available.
CCR - Coal Combustion Residual.
DEQ- Department of Environmental Quality.
DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services.
HI - Hazard Index.
IMAC- Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration.
MCL- Maximum Contaminant Level.
MDL- Method Detection Limit.
mg/L - milligrams/liter.
mV - millivolts.
NA- Not available.
NS- No Standard Available.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
PQL- Practical Quantitation Limit (h).
RSL- Risk Based Screening Level.
SMCL -Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.
su - standard units.
USEPA- United States Environmental Protection Agency.
ug/L- micrograms/liter.
umhos/cm - micromhos/centimeter.
Data Qualifiers
< Not Detected below the laboratory reporting limit.
Ml Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery.
(a) - Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Groundwaters of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code. April 1, 2013.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/gwstandards
(b) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/dwstandards20l2.pdf.
(c) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental
Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf
(d) - USEPA Risk Based Screening Levels (November 2015). Values for tapwater. HI = 1.
http://www. a pa.gov/risk/risk-based-screen i ng-ta bl e -generic -tables
(e) -Alternative screening level calculated for hexavalent chromium using RSL calculator (http://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/chemicals/csl_search) and current dose -response data from the USEPA's
Integrated Risk Information System. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/. The RSL for hexavalent chromium is not a drinking water standard, and the basis of the draft oral cancer toxicity value
used in the calculation of the RSL has been questioned by USEPA's Science Advisory Board; therefore, RSL for Chromium (IV) is based on the noncancer values developed by USEPA.
(f) -The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Detection Monitoring (Appendix III).
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-04-17/pdf/2015-00257.pdf
(g) - The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Assessment Monitoring (Appendix IV).
(h) - Each analytical procedure has a PQL, which is defined as "the lowest level achievable among laboratories within specified limits during routine laboratory operation". The PQL is about three to
five times the calculated MDL for the analytical procedure, and represents a practical and routinely achievable reporting limit with a relatively good certainty that any reported value is reliable.
Detected value is above the sreening level.
_ Reporting limit is above the screening level.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx April 2016

Table A2-6
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
42
Page 1 of 3
Haley Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
* denotes secondary standard
NS
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
*500
6
10
2,000
4
5
100
NS
15
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
RSL 2015 (d):
4,000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3,800
25
9.2
22,000
6
15
Appendix III (f)
Appendix IV (g)
Plant
Well Owner ID Source
Boron
ug/L
Calcium
ug/L
Chloride
mg/L
pH
su
Sulfate
mg/L
Total DissolvedSolids
mg/L
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Allen
ALBKG-1 NCDEQ
<5
17200
4
6.36
3.7
106
<0.5
<0.5
8.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALBKG-5 NCDEQ
<5
12400
1.9
6.17
<2
132
<0.5
<0.5
32.3
<0.2
<0.08
0.51
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALBKG-6 NCDEQ
<5
11100
1.8
6.28
<2
82
<0.5
<0.5
37
<0.2
<0.08
0.56
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALBKG-13 NCDEQ
12.4
36900
2.6
7.85
15.8
158
<0.5
4.4
77.3
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.18
Allen
ALBKG-16 NCDEQ
<5
27100
2.2
6.86
3.4
133
<0.5
<0.5
13.7
<0.2
<0.08
1
<0.5
0.2
Allen
ALBKG-7 NCDEQ
<5
56600
9.5
6.63
39.4
345
<0.5
<0.5
26.1
<0.2
<0.08
5
<0.5
0.72
Allen
ALBKG-9 NCDEQ
<5
12900
1.8
6.61
4.6
88
<0.5
<0.5
18.5
<0.2
<0.08
0.75
<0.5
0.68
Allen
DBKG-AL1 Duke
<50
10700
<1
<1
7
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL2 Duke
<50
16300
<1
<1
22
<1
<0
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL3 Duke
<50
11300
<1
<1
43
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL4 Duke
<50
14000
<1
<1
16
<1
<1
<5
<1
33
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
<50
38600
<1
<1
126
<1
<1
<5
4.99
14
Allen
DBKG-AL6 Duke
<50
18200
1.14
<1
50
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-A1-7 Duke
<50
11700
<1
<1
19
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL8 Duke
< 50
29300
< 1
1.14
17
< 1
< 1
< S
< 1
< 1
Allen
DBKG-AL9 Duke
< 50
19000
1.22
< 1
58
< 1
< 1
< 5
< 1
1.82
Allen
DBKG-AL10 Duke
<5
16400
1.2
<0.5
37.2
<0.2
<0.08
2.9
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
DBKG-AL11 Duke
<5
39800
20
7.17
29
300
0.64
<0.5
119
<0.2
<0.08
6.1
<0.5
0.83
Allen
DBKG-AL12 Duke
5.9
62700
5.5
7.86
66
320
1.1
<0.5
3.4
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.27
Allen
DBKG-AL13 Duke
<5
15900
9.8
6.95
0.41
150
0.53
<0.5
79.1
<0.2
<0.08
0.58
<0.5
0.31
Allen
DBKG-AL14 Duke
5.1
26800
6.7
7.11
2.3
120
0.62
<0.5
19.9
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.12
Allen
DBKG-AL15 Duke
<5
13800
2.4
7.08
0.52
100
0.65
<0.5
40.9
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.17
Allen
DBKG-AL16 Duke
5.5
13300
2.5
7.31
2.3
93
0.61
<0.5
17.8
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.26
Haley Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016

Table A2-6
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
43
Page 2 of 3
Haley Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard a:
1
NS
20
0.2
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL(b):
* denotes secondary standard
2
NS
50
2
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
SL
18
20
0.2
0.3
3,500
1
2,500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20,000
RSL 2015 (d):
5.7
100
100
0.2
86
20,000
0.8
14,000
44 (e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
Appendix IV (g)
Constituents
Not Identified in the CCR
Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID
Source
Mercury
ug/L
Molybdenum
ug/L
Selenium
ug/L
Thallium
ug/L
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Chromium,Hexavalent
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
ug/L ug/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Allen
ALBKG-1
NCDEQ
<0.2
0.96
<0.5
<0.1
3.1
<10
<0.001
<50
0.89
5440
<0.5
<0.5
1860
9420
Allen
ALBKG-5
NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
2.1
<10
0.0027
<50
0.31
2070
0.5
<0.5
1550
9030
Allen
ALBKG-6
NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
2.7
41.3
0.0017
<50
<0.6
2200
0.84
<0.5
1580
8190
Allen
ALBKG-13
NCDEQ
<0.2
2.1
<0.5
<0.1
<1
<10
<0.001
<50
<0.6
2880
8.3 1
<0.5
2970
12200
Allen
ALBKG-16
NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
3.6
<10
0.0029
<50
<0.6
5260
<0.5
<0.5
2540
7360
Allen
ALBKG-7
NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
23.7
93.4
0.0084
129
4.5
28800
2
0.53
1660
18800
Allen
ALBKG-9
NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
6.2
<10
0.0116
<50
<0.6
5580
<0.5
1
1290
6610
Allen
DBKG-AL1
Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.005
48
2000
75
<5
1700
8940
Allen
DBKG-AL2
Duke
<0.05
1.25
<1
<0.2
3.4
5
<0.005
<10
3830
<5
<5
1940
8040
Allen
DBKG-AL3
Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
5.77
<5
0.01
<10
4550
<5
<5
1060
8470
Allen
DBKG-AL4
Duke
<0.05
1.27
<1
<0.2
19.8
47
0.052
1980
4380
<5
<5
1380
7000
Allen
DBKG-AL5
Duke
<0.05
<0
<1
<0.2
1.77
53
0.106
4200
926
4820
6
2490
4370
Allen
DBKG-AL6
Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
13
21
<0.005
29
7770
<5
<5
2200
8090
Allen
DBKG-AL7
Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
10.2
<5
<0.005
<10
3750
<5
<5
1750
7390
Allen
DBKG-ALS
Duke
<0.05
2.73
<1
<0.2
4.03
<5
<0.005
<10
4340
<5
<5
2180
10700
Allen
DBKG-AL9
Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
7.55
8
0.992
17
6250
<5
12
2520
9390
Allen
DBKG-AL10
Duke
<0.2
0.92
<0.5
<0.1
5.2
60.6
0.0754
151
3970
66.4
4.1
4340
7270
Allen
DBKG-AL11
Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
19.3
60.5
0.0089
475
5.8
22600
3
1.4
2620
27200
Allen
DBKG-AL12
Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
7.8
<10
0.032
<50
0.22
14000
<0.5
<0.5
2970
10700
Allen
DBKG-AL13
Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
3.4
<10
0.0491
<50
0.61
4740
1.1
<0.5
2230
8760
Allen
DBKG-AL14
Duke
<0.2
<0.5
1.1
<0.1
1.5
<10
0.0072
<50
0.064
4110
6.7
<0.5
1680
5910
Allen
DBKG-AL15
Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
4.5
<10
0.0248
<50
1.6
4440
1.4
<0.5
1760
8270
Allen
DBKG-AL16
Duke
<0.2
0.6
<0.5
<0.1
8.5
11.7
0.0032
<50
0.9
4730
7.5
<0.5
1740
5870
Haley Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016

Table A2-6
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
44
Page 3 of 3
Haley Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
* denotes secondary standard
NS
*5
NS
NS
Ns
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
2,100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
12,000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID Source
Strontium
ug/L
Zinc
mg/L
Alkalinity
mg/L
Bicarbonate
mg/L
Carbonate
mg/L
Total
Suspended
Solids
mg/L
Turbidity
NTU
Temperature
°C
Specific
Conductance
umhos/cm
Dissolved
Oxygen
mg/L
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
my
Allen
ALBKG-1 NCDEQ
84.4
<0.005
79
79
<5
<2.5
<1
16.49
0.186
3.56
146
Allen
ALBKG-5 NCDEQ
150
0.0051
52.7
<5
<5
<2.5
<1
16.49
0.116
2.91
180
Allen
ALBKG-6 NCDEQ
145
<0.005
48.3
48.3
<5
<2.5
<1
16.45
0.117
2.64
153
Allen
ALBKG-13 NCDEQ
760
0.0065
106 M1
106
<5
<5
<1
17.59
0.271
0.33
-63
Allen
ALBKG-16 NCDEQ
157
0.032
97.8
97.8
<5
<2.5
<1
16.35
0.221
4.8
131
Allen
ALBKG-7 NCDEQ
518
0.0259
226
226
<5
4.2
2
16.4
0.607
5.39
171
Allen
ALBKG-9 NCDEQ
142
0.0138
58.9
58.9
<5
<2.5
<1
17.2
0.147
2.62
191
Allen
DBKG-AL1 Duke
43
0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL2 Duke
128
<0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL3 Duke
141
<0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL4 Duke
107
0.363
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
63
0.023
Allen
DBKG-AL6 Duke
146
<0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL7 Duke
133
0.06
Allen
DBKG-ALS Duke
185
0.044
Allen
DBKG-AL9 Duke
180
0.844
Allen
DBKG-AL10 Duke
140
0.645
Allen
DBKG-AL11 Duke
398
0.127
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL12 Duke
380
0.0129
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL13 Duke
196
0.0191
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL14 Duke
246
0.0114
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL15 Duke
155
0.0611
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL16 Duke
112
0.0162
<5
44
Page 3 of 3
Haley Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016

45
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Notes:
^ - Denotes IMAC value.
* - Denotes SMCL value.
°C - Degrees Celsius.
Blank data cells indicate no data available.
CCR - Coal Combustion Residual.
DEQ- Department of Environmental Quality.
DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services.
HI - Hazard Index.
IMAC- Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration.
MCL- Maximum Contaminant Level.
MDL- Method Detection Limit.
mg/L - milligrams/liter.
mV - millivolts.
NA- Not available.
NS- No Standard Available.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
PQL- Practical Quantitation Limit (h).
RSL- Risk Based Screening Level.
SMCL -Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.
so - standard units.
USEPA- United States Environmental Protection Agency.
ug/L- micrograms/liter.
umhos/cm - micromhos/centimeter.
Data Qualifiers
< Not Detected below the laboratory reporting limit.
Ml Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery.
(a) - Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Groundwaters of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code. April 1, 2013.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/gwstandards
(b) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/dwstandards20l2.pdf.
(c) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental
Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf
(d) - USEPA Risk Based Screening Levels (November 2015). Values for tapwater. HI = 1.
http://www. a pa.gov/risk/risk-based-screen i ng-ta bl e -generic -tables
(e) -Alternative screening level calculated for hexavalent chromium using RSL calculator (http://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/chemicals/csl_search) and current dose -response data from the USEPA's
Integrated Risk Information System. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/. The RSL for hexavalent chromium is not a drinking water standard, and the basis of the draft oral cancer toxicity value
used in the calculation of the RSL has been questioned by USEPA's Science Advisory Board; therefore, RSL for Chromium (IV) is based on the noncancer values developed by USEPA.
(f) -The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Detection Monitoring (Appendix III).
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-04-17/pdf/2015-00257.pdf
(g) - The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Assessment Monitoring (Appendix IV).
(h) - Each analytical procedure has a PQL, which is defined as "the lowest level achievable among laboratories within specified limits during routine laboratory operation". The PQL is about three to
five times the calculated MDL for the analytical procedure, and represents a practical and routinely achievable reporting limit with a relatively good certainty that any reported value is reliable.
Detected value is above the sreeni ng level.
Reporting limit is above the screening level.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx April 2016

Table A2-7
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
46
Pagel of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
Federal MGL/SMCL (b):
` denotes secondary standard
NS
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
*500
6
10
2,000
4
5
100
NS
15
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
is
RSL 2015 (d):
4,000
Ns
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3,800
25
9.2
22,000
6
15
Appendix III (f)
Appendix IV (g)
Plant
Well Owner ID Source
Boron
ug/L
Calcium
ug/L
Chloride
mg/L
pH
su
Sulfate
mg/L
Total DissolvedSolids
mg/L
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Allen
ALBKG-1 NCDEQ
<5
17200
4
6.36
3.7
106
<0.5
<0.5
8.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALBKG-5 NCDEQ
<5
12400
1.9
6.17
<2
132
<0.5
<0.5
32.3
<0.2
<0.08
0.51
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALBKG-6 NCDEQ
<5
11100
1.8
6.28
<2
82
<0.5
<0.5
37
<0.2
<0.08
0.56
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALBKG-13 NCDEQ
12.4
36900
2.6
7.85
15.8
158
<0.5
4.4
77.3
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.18
Allen
ALBKG-16 NCDEQ
<5
27100
2.2
6.86
3.4
133
<0.5
<0.5
13.7
<0.2
<0.08
1
<0.5
0.2
Allen
ALBKG-7 NCDEQ
<5
56600
9.5
6.63
39.4
345
<0.5
<0.5
26.1
<0.2
<0.08
5
<0.5
0.72
Allen
ALBKG-9 NCDEQ
<5
12900
1.8
6.61
4.6
88
<0.5
<0.5
18.5
<0.2
<0.08
0.75
<0.5
0.68
Allen
DBKG-AL1 Duke
<50
10700
<1
<1
7
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL2 Duke
<50
16300
<1
<1
22
<1
<0
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL3 Duke
<50
11300
<1
<1
43
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL4 Duke
<50
14000
<1
<1
16
<1
<1
<5
<1
33
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
<50
38600
<1
<1
126
<1
<1
<5
4.99
14
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
<50
18200
1.14
<1
50
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL7 Duke
<50
11700
<1
<1
19
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL8 Duke
< 50
29300
< 1
1.14
17
< 1
< 1
< 5
< 1
< 1
Allen
DBKG-AL9 Duke
< 50
19000
1.22
< 1
58
< 1
< 1
< 5
< 1
1.82
Allen
DBKG-AL10 Duke
<5
16400
1.2
<0.5
37.2
<0.2
<0.08
2.9
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
DBKG-AL11 Duke
<5
39800
20
7.17
29
300
0.64
<0.5
119
<0.2
<0.08
6.1
<0.5
0.83
Allen
DBKG-AL12 Duke
5.9
62700
5.5
7.86
66
320
1.1
<0.5
3.4
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.27
Allen
DBKG-AL13 Duke
<5
15900
9.8
6.95
0.41
150
0.53
<0.5
79.1
<0.2
<0.08
0.58
<0.5
0.31
Allen
DBKG-AL14 Duke
5.1
26800
6.7
7.11
2.3
120
0.62
<0.5
19.9
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.12
Allen
DBKG-AL15 Duke
<5
13800
2.4
7.08
0.52
100
0.65
<0.5
40.9
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.17
Allen
DBKG-AL16 Duke
5.5
13300
2.5
7.31
2.3
93
0.61
<0.5
17.8
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.26
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Table A2-7
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
47
Page 2 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard a:
1
Ns
20
0.2
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
* denotes secondary standard
2
NS
50
2
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
Ns
*50
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
1L
18
20
0.2
0.3
3,500
1
2,500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20,000
RSL 2015(d(:
5.7
100
100
0.2
86
20,000
0.8
14,000
44(e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
Appendix IV (g)
Constituents
Not Identified in the CCR
Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID Source
Mercury
ug/L
Molybdenum
ug/L
Selenium
ug/L
Thallium
ug/L
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Chromium,Hexavalent
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
ug/L ug/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Allen
ALBKG-1 NCDEQ
<0.2
0.96
<0.5
<0.1
3.1
<10
<0.001
<50
0.89
5440
<0.5
<0.5
1860
9420
Allen
ALBKG-5 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
2.1
<10
0.0027
<50
0.31
2070
0.5
<0.5
1550
9030
Allen
ALBKG-6 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
2.7
41.3
0.0017
<50
<0.6
2200
0.84
<0.5
1580
8190
Allen
ALBKG-13 NCDEQ
<0.2
2.1
<0.5
<0.1
<1
<10
<0.001
<50
<0.6
2880
8.3
<0.5
2970
12200
Allen
ALBKG-16 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
3.6
<10
0.0029
<50
<0.6
5260
<0.5
<0.5
2540
7360
Allen
ALBKG-7 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
23.7
93.4
0.0084
129
4.5
28800
2
0.53
1660
18800
Allen
ALBKG-9 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
6.2
<10
0.0116
<50
<0.6
5580
<0.5
1
1290
6610
Allen
DBKG-AL1 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.005
48
2000
75
<5
1700
8940
Allen
DBKG-AL2 Duke
<0.05
1.25
<1
<0.2
3.4
5
<0.005
<10
3830
<5
<5
1940
8040
Allen
DBKG-AL3 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
5.77
<5
0.01
<10
4550
<5
<5
1060
8470
Allen
DBKG-AL4 Duke
<0.05
1.27
<1
<0.2
19.8
47
0.052
1980
4380
<5
<5
1380
7000
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
<0.05
<0
<1
<0.2
1.77
53
0.106
4200
926
4820
6
2490
4370
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
13
21
<0.005
29
7770
<5
<5
2200
8090
Allen
DBKG-AL7 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
10.2
<5
<0.005
<10
3750
<5
<5
1750
7390
Allen
DBKG-ALS Duke
<0.05
2.73
<1
<0.2
4.03
<5
<0.005
<10
4340
<5
<5
2180
10700
Allen
DBKG-AL9 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
7.55
8
0.992
17
6250
<5
12
2520
9390
Allen
DBKG-AL10 Duke
<0.2
0.92
<0.5
<0.1
5.2
60.6
0.0754
151
3970
66.4
4.1
4340
7270
Allen
DBKG-AL11 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
19.3
60.5
0.0089
475
5.8
22600
3
1.4
2620
27200
Allen
DBKG-AL12 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
7.8
<10
0.032
<50
0.22
14000
<0.5
<0.5
2970
10700
Allen
DBKG-AL13 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
3.4
<10
0.0491
<50
0.61
4740
1.1
<0.5
2230
8760
Allen
DBKG-AL14 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
1.1
<0.1
1.5
<10
0.0072
<50
0.064
4110
6.7
<0.5
1680
5910
Allen
DBKG-AL15 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
4.5
<10
0.0248
<50
1.6
4440
1.4
<0.5
1760
8270
Allen
DBKG-AL16 Duke
< 0.2
0.6
< 0.5
< 0.1
8.5
11.7
0.0032
< 50
0.9
4730
7.5
< 0.5
1740
5870
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Table A2-7
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
48
Page 3 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
Ns
1
Ns
Ns
Ns
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
* denotes secondary standard
NS
*5
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
2,100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d(:
12,000
6
NS
Ns
Ns
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID Source
Strontium
ug/L
Zinc
mg/L
Alkalinity
mg/L
Bicarbonate
mg/L
Carbonate
mg/L
Total
Suspended
Solids
mg/L
Turbidity
NTU
Temperature
°C
Specific
Conductance
umhos/cm
Dissolved
Oxygen
mg/L
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
my
Allen
ALBKG-1 NCDEQ
84.4
<0.005
79
79
<5
<2.5
<1
16.49
0.186
3.56
146
Allen
ALBKG-5 NCDEQ
150
0.0051
52.7
<5
<5
<2.5
<1
16.49
0.116
2.91
180
Allen
ALBKG-6 NCDEQ
145
<0.005
48.3
48.3
<5
<2.5
<1
16.45
0.117
2.64
153
Allen
ALBKG-13 NCDEQ
760
0.0065
106 M1
106
<5
<5
<1
17.59
0.271
0.33
-63
Allen
ALBKG-16 NCDEQ
157
0.032
97.8
97.8
<5
<2.5
<1
16.35
0.221
4.8
131
Allen
ALBKG-7 NCDEQ
518
0.0259
226
226
<5
4.2
2
16.4
0.607
5.39
171
Allen
ALBKG-9 NCDEQ
142
0.0138
58.9
58.9
<5
<2.5
<1
17.2
0.147
2.62
191
Allen
DBKG-AL1 Duke
43
0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL2 Duke
128
<0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL3 Duke
141
<0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL4 Duke
107
0.363
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
63
0.023
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
146
<0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL7 Duke
133
0.06
Allen
DBKG-ALS Duke
185
0.044
Allen
DBKG-AL9 Duke
180
0.844
Allen
DBKG-AL10 Duke
140
0.645
Allen
DBKG-AL11 Duke
398
0.127
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL12 Duke
380
0.0129
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL13 Duke
196
0.0191
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL14 Duke
246
0.0114
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL15 Duke
155
0.0611
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL16 Duke
112
0.0162
<5
48
Page 3 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

49
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Notes:
^ - Denotes IMAC value.
* - Denotes SMCL value.
°C - Degrees Celsius.
Blank data cells indicate no data available.
CCR - Coal Combustion Residual.
DEQ- Department of Environmental Quality.
DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services.
HI - Hazard Index.
IMAC- Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration.
MCL- Maximum Contaminant Level.
MDL- Method Detection Limit.
mg/L - milligrams/liter.
mV - millivolts.
NA- Not available.
NS- No Standard Available.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
PQL- Practical Quantitation Limit (h).
RSL- Risk Based Screening Level.
SMCL -Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.
su - standard units.
USEPA- United States Environmental Protection Agency.
ug/L- micrograms/liter.
umhos/cm - micromhos/centimeter.
Data Qualifiers
< Not Detected below the laboratory reporting limit.
Ml Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery.
(a) - Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Groundwaters of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code. April 1, 2013.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/gwstandards
(b) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/dwstandards20l2.pdf.
(c) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental
Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf
(d) - USEPA Risk Based Screening Levels (November 2015). Values for tapwater. HI = 1.
http://www. a pa.gov/risk/risk-based-screen i ng-ta bl e -generic -tables
(e) -Alternative screening level calculated for hexavalent chromium using RSL calculator (http://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/chemicals/csl_search) and current dose -response data from the USEPA's
Integrated Risk Information System. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/. The RSL for hexavalent chromium is not a drinking water standard, and the basis of the draft oral cancer toxicity value
used in the calculation of the RSL has been questioned by USEPA's Science Advisory Board; therefore, RSL for Chromium (IV) is based on the noncancer values developed by USEPA.
(f) -The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Detection Monitoring (Appendix III).
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-04-17/pdf/2015-00257.pdf
(g) - The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Assessment Monitoring (Appendix IV).
(h) - Each analytical procedure has a PQL, which is defined as "the lowest level achievable among laboratories within specified limits during routine laboratory operation". The PQL is about three to
five times the calculated MDL for the analytical procedure, and represents a practical and routinely achievable reporting limit with a relatively good certainty that any reported value is reliable.
Detected value is above the sreening 1-1.
_ Reporting limit is above the screening level.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx April 2016

Table A2-8
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
50
Page 1 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
Federal MGL/SMCL (b):
` denotes secondary standard
NS
NS
*250
6.5-8.5
*250
*500
6
30
2,000
4
5
100
NS
15
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
30
700
4
2
30
1
15
RSL 2015 (d):
4,000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3,800
25
9.2
22,000
6
15
Appendix III (f)
Appendix IV (g)
Plant
Well Owner ID Source
Boron
ug/L
Calcium
ug/L
Chloride
mg/L
pH
su
Sulfate
mg/L
Total Dissolved
Solids
mg/L
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Allen
ALBKG-1 NCDEQ
<5
17200
4
6.36
3.7
106
<0.5
<0.5
8.5
<0.2
<0.08
1.2
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALBKG-5 NCDEQ
<5
12400
1.9
6.17
<2
132
<0.5
<0.5
32.3
<0.2
<0.08
0.51
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALBKG-6 NCDEQ
<5
11100
1.8
6.28
<2
82
<0.5
<0.5
37
<0.2
<0.08
0.56
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
ALBKG-13 NCDEQ
12.4
36900
2.6
7.85
15.8
158
<0.5
4.4
77.3
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.18
Allen
ALBKG-16 NCDEQ
<5
27100
2.2
6.86
3.4
133
<0.5
<0.5
13.7
<0.2
<0.08
1
<0.5
0.2
Allen
ALBKG-7 NCDEQ
<5
56600
9.5
6.63
39.4
345
<0.5
<0.5
26.1
<0.2
<0.08
5
<0.5
0.72
Allen
ALBKG-9 NCDEQ
<5
12900
1.8
6.61
4.6
88
<0.5
<0.5
18.5
<0.2
<0.08
0.75
<0.5
0.68
Allen
DBKG-AL1 Duke
<50
10700
<1
<1
7
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL2 Duke
<50
16300
<1
<1
22
<1
<0
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL3 Duke
<50
11300
<1
<1
43
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL4 Duke
<50
14000
<1
<1
16
<1
<1
<5
<1
33
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
<50
38600
<1
<1
126
<1
<1
<5
4.99
14
Allen
DBKG-AL6 Duke
<50
18200
1.14
<1
50
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL7 Duke
<50
11700
<1
<1
19
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
Allen
DBKG-AL8 Duke
< 50
29300
< 1
1.14
17
< 1
< 1
< 5
< 1
< 1
Allen
DBKG-AL9 Duke
< 50
19000
1.22
< 1
58
< 1
< 1
< 5
< 1
1.82
Allen
DBKG-AL10 Duke
<5
16400
1.2
<0.5
37.2
<0.2
<0.08
2.9
<0.5
<0.1
Allen
DBKG-AL11 Duke
<5
39800
20
7.17
29
300
0.64
<0.5
119
<0.2
<0.08
6.1
<0.5
0.83
Allen
DBKG-AL12 Duke
5.9
62700
5.5
7.86
66
320
1.1
<0.5
3.4
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.27
Allen
DBKG-AL13 Duke
<5
15900
9.8
6.95
0.41
150
0.53
<0.5
79.1
<0.2
<0.08
0.58
<0.5
0.31
Allen
DBKG-AL14 Duke
5.1
26800
6.7
7.11
2.3
120
0.62
<0.5
19.9
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.12
Allen
DBKG-AL15 Duke
<5
13800
2.4
7.08
0.52
100
0.65
<0.5
40.9
<0.2
<0.08
2
<0.5
0.17
Allen
DBKG-AL16 Duke
5.5
13300
2.5
7.31
2.3
93
0.61
<0.5
17.8
<0.2
<0.08
1.4
<0.5
0.26
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Table A2-8
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
51
Page 2 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard a:
1
NS
20
0.2
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
denotes secondary
* standard
2
N5
SO
2
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
1L
18
20
0.2
0.3
3,500
1
2,500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20,000
RSL 2015 (d):
5.7
100
100
0.2
86
20,000
0.8
14,000
44 (e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
Appendix IV (g)
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR
Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID Source
Mercury
ug/L
Molybdenum
ug/L
Selenium
ug/L
Thallium
ug/L
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Chromium,Hexavalent
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
ug/L ug/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Allen
ALBKG-1 NCDEQ
<0.2
0.96
<0.5
<0.1
3.1
<10
<0.001
<50
0.89
5440
<0.5
<0.5
1860
9420
Allen
ALBKG-5 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
2.1
<10
0.0027
<50
0.31
2070
0.5
<0.5
1550
9030
Allen
ALBKG-6 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
2.7
41.3
0.0017
<50
<0.6
2200
0.84
<0.5
1580
8190
Allen
ALBKG-13 NCDEQ
<0.2
2.1
<0.5
<0.1
<1
<10
<0.001
<50
<0.6
2880
8.3
<0.5
2970
12200
Allen
ALBKG-16 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
3.6
<10
0.0029
<50
<0.6
5260
<0.5
<0.5
2540
7360
Allen
ALBKG-7 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
23.7
93.4
0.0084
129
4.5
28800
2
0.53
1660
18800
Allen
ALBKG-9 NCDEQ
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
6.2
<10
0.0116
<50
<0.6
5580
<0.5
1
1290
6610
Allen
DBKG-AL1 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.005
48
2000
75
<5
1700
8940
Allen
DBKG-AL2 Duke
<0.05
1.25
<1
<0.2
3.4
5
<0.005
<10
3830
<5
<5
1940
8040
Allen
DBKG-AL3 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
5.77
<5
0.01
<10
4550
<5
<5
1060
8470
Allen
DBKG-AL4 Duke
<0.05
1.27
<1
<0.2
19.8
47
0.052
1980
4380
<5
<5
1380
7000
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
<0.05
<0
<1
<0.2
1.77
53
0.106
4200
926
4820
6
2490
4370
Allen
DBKG-AL6 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
13
21
<0.005
29
7770
<5
<5
2200
8090
Allen
DBKG-AL7 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
10.2
<5
<0.005
<10
3750
<5
<5
1750
7390
Allen
DBKG-ALS Duke
<0.05
2.73
<1
<0.2
4.03
<5
<0.005
<10
4340
<5
<5
2180
10700
Allen
DBKG-AL9 Duke
<0.05
<1
<1
<0.2
7.55
8
0.992
17
6250
<5
12
2520
9390
Allen
DBKG-AL10 Duke
<0.2
0.92
<0.5
<0.1
5.2
60.6
0.0754
151
3970
66.4
4.1
4340
7270
Allen
DBKG-AL11 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
19.3
60.5
0.0089
475
5.8
22600
3
1.4
2620
27200
Allen
DBKG-AL12 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
7.8
<10
0.032
<50
0.22
14000
<0.5
<0.5
2970
10700
Allen
DBKG-AL13 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
3.4
<10
0.0491
<50
0.61
4740
1.1
<0.5
2230
8760
Allen
DBKG-AL14 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
1.1
<0.1
1.5
<10
0.0072
<50
0.064
4110
6.7
<0.5
1680
5910
Allen
DBKG-AL15 Duke
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
4.5
<10
0.0248
<50
1.6
4440
1.4
<0.5
1760
8270
Allen
DBKG-AL16 Duke
<0.2
0.6
<0.5
<0.1
8.5
11.7
0.0032
<50
0.9
4730
7.5
<0.5
1740
5870
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Table A2-8
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
52
Page 3 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202
Groundwater Standard (a):
NS
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
* denotes secondary standard
NS
*5
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
2,100
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
12,000
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Plant
Well Owner ID Source
Strontium
ug/L
Zinc
mg/L
Alkalinity
mg/L
Bicarbonate
mg/L
Carbonate
mg/L
Total
Suspended
Solids
mg/L
Turbidity
NTU
Temperature
°C
Specific
Conductance
umhos/cm
Dissolved
Oxygen
mg/L
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
my
Allen
ALBKG-1 NCDEQ
84.4
<0.005
79
79
<5
<2.5
<1
16.49
0.186
3.56
146
Allen
ALBKG-5 NCDEQ
150
0.0051
52.7
<5
<5
<2.5
<1
16.49
0.116
2.91
180
Allen
ALBKG-6 NCDEQ
145
<0.005
48.3
48.3
<5
<2.5
<1
16.45
0.117
2.64
153
Allen
ALBKG-13 NCDEQ
760
0.0065
106 M1
106
<5
<5
<1
17.59
0.271
0.33
-63
Allen
ALBKG-16 NCDEQ
157
0.032
97.8
97.8
<5
<2.5
<1
16.35
0.221
4.8
131
Allen
ALBKG-7 NCDEQ
518
0.0259
226
226
<5
4.2
2
16.4
0.607
5.39
171
Allen
ALBKG-9 NCDEQ
142
0.0138
58.9
58.9
<5
<2.5
<1
17.2
0.147
2.62
191
Allen
DBKG-AL1 Duke
43
0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL2 Duke
128
<0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL3 Duke
141
<0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL4 Duke
107
0.363
Allen
DBKG-AL5 Duke
63
0.023
Allen
DBKG-AL6 Duke
146
<0.005
Allen
DBKG-AL7 Duke
133
0.06
Allen
DBKG-ALS Duke
185
0.044
Allen
DBKG-AL9 Duke
180
0.844
Allen
DBKG-AL10 Duke
140
0.645
Allen
DBKG-AL11 Duke
398
0.127
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL12 Duke
380
0.0129
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL13 Duke
196
0.0191
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL14 Duke
246
0.0114
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL15 Duke
155
0.0611
<5
Allen
DBKG-AL16 Duke
112
0.0162
<5
52
Page 3 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

53
Comparison of NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data to Screening Levels
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Notes:
^ - Denotes IMAC value.
* - Denotes SMCL value.
°C - Degrees Celsius.
Blank data cells indicate no data available.
CCR - Coal Combustion Residual.
DEQ- Department of Environmental Quality.
DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services.
HI - Hazard Index.
IMAC- Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration.
MCL- Maximum Contaminant Level.
MDL- Method Detection Limit.
mg/L - milligrams/liter.
mV - millivolts.
NA- Not available.
NS- No Standard Available.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
PQL- Practical Quantitation Limit (h).
RSL- Risk Based Screening Level.
SMCL -Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.
su - standard units.
USEPA- United States Environmental Protection Agency.
ug/L- micrograms/liter.
umhos/cm - micromhos/centimeter.
Data Qualifiers
< Not Detected below the laboratory reporting limit.
Ml Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery.
(a) - Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Groundwaters of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code. April 1, 2013.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/gwstandards
(b) - USEPA 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Spring 2012. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/dwstandards20l2.pdf.
(c) - DHHS Screening Levels. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section, Occupational and Environmental
Epidemiology Branch. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_I_id=1169848&folderld=24814087&name=DLFE-112704.pdf
(d) - USEPA Risk Based Screening Levels (November 2015). Values for tapwater. HI = 1.
http://www. a pa.gov/risk/risk-based-screen i ng-ta bl e -generic -tables
(e) -Alternative screening level calculated for hexavalent chromium using RSL calculator (http://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/chemicals/csl_search) and current dose -response data from the USEPA's
Integrated Risk Information System. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/. The RSL for hexavalent chromium is not a drinking water standard, and the basis of the draft oral cancer toxicity value
used in the calculation of the RSL has been questioned by USEPA's Science Advisory Board; therefore, RSL for Chromium (IV) is based on the noncancer values developed by USEPA.
(f) -The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Detection Monitoring (Appendix III).
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-04-17/pdf/2015-00257.pdf
(g) - The CCR Rule lists these constituents as Constituents for Assessment Monitoring (Appendix IV).
(h) - Each analytical procedure has a PQL, which is defined as "the lowest level achievable among laboratories within specified limits during routine laboratory operation". The PQL is about three to
five times the calculated MDL for the analytical procedure, and represents a practical and routinely achievable reporting limit with a relatively good certainty that any reported value is reliable.
Detected value is a hove the sreening level.
_ Reporting limit is above the screeni ng level.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables A2 -5-A2-8 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx April 2016

Page 1 of 4
54
Table A2-9
Do Not Drink Letter Summary
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table A2-9 Do Not Drink Summary.xlsx April 2016
Constituents Listed in Part I of Letter
Hex
Chromium
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table A2-9 Do Not Drink Summary.xlsx April 2016

Page 2 of 4
55
Table A2-9
Do Not Drink Letter Summary
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table A2-9 Do Not Drink Summary.xlsx April 2016

Page 3 of 4
56
Table A2-9
Do Not Drink Letter Summary
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table A2-9 Do Not Drink Summary.xlsx April 2016

Page 4 of 4
57
Table A2-9
Do Not Drink Letter Summary
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table A2-9 Do Not Drink Summary.xlsx April 2016
Constituents Listed in Part 1 of Letter
Facility Well ID
Vanadium
Hex
Chromium
Chloride Chromium Cobalt Iron
Lead Manganese Sodium Strontium Sulfate Thallium Zinc
Allen AL -114
X
X
Allen AL -115
X
X
X X X
Allen AL -117
X
Allen AL -118
X
Allen AL -119
X
Allen AL -121
X
X
Allen AL -121
X
X
Allen AL -122
X
X
X
X
Allen AL -122
X
X
X
X
Allen AL -123
X
X
Allen AL -124
X
X
Allen AL -124
X
X
Allen AL -126
X
X
Allen AL -127
X
X
Allen AL -127
X
X
Allen AL -129
X
X
Allen AL -129
X
X
Allen AL -130
X
X
Allen AL -130
X
X
Allen AL -131
X
X
Allen AL -133
X
X
Allen AL -136
Allen AL -136
Allen AL -44
X
X
X
X
X
X
Total number of Constituent Letters
140
91
0 0 1 13
2 0 1 1 1 1 0
Total Number of "Do Not Drink" Letters
(Excluding Hexavalent Chromium and
Vanadium)
16
Total Number of "Do Not Drink" Letters
(Including Hexavalent Chromium and
Vanadium)
141
Total Number of "Do Not Drink" Letters
for Hexavalent Chromium
91
Total Number of "Do Not Drink" Letters
for Vanadium
140
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table A2-9 Do Not Drink Summary.xlsx April 2016

58
Table A3-1 Page 1 of 2
NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Notes:
<- Not detected, value is the reporting limit.
.0 - Degrees Celsius.
DEQ- Department of Environmental Quality.
Ml - Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits.
Batch accepted based on laboratory control
sample (LCS) recovery.
mg/L - milligrams/liter.
mV - millivolts.
INC - North Carolina.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
su -standard units.
ug/L - micrograms/liter.
umhos/cm - micromhos/centimeter.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table A3-1 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Well Data_2016-04.xlsx April 2016

59
Table A3-1 Page 2 of 2
NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
MMMOMMMMMOMOMM
=mom
Notes:
<- Not detected, value is the reporting limit.
°C - Degrees Celsius.
DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality.
Ml - Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits.
Batch accepted based on laboratory control
sample (LCS) recovery.
mg/L - milligrams/liter.
mV - millivolts.
NC - North Carolina.
.TU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
so - standardunits.
ug/L - micrograms/liter.
umhos/cm - micromhos/centimeter.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table A3-1 NCDEQ and Duke Energy Background Well Data_2016-04.xlsx April 2016

60
Page 1 of 1
Table A3-2
Facility Specific Background Data for Bedrock and Deep Monitoring Wells
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Well ID
Sample ID
Date Sampled
Barium
(ug/L)
Boron
(ug/L)
Cobalt
(ug/L)
Hexavalent Chromium
(ug/L)
Iron
(ug/L)
Lead
(ug/L)
Nckel, Dissolved
(ug/L)
Thallium
(ug/L)
Vanadium
(ug/L)
BG -11)
AN -BG -ID -NS -3Q15
23 -Sep -15
17
<50
0.65
520
0.19
14.8
0.017
21.6
BG -11)
AN -BG -ID -NS -4Q15-1
11 -Nov -15
14
< 50
< 0.5
0.81
2000
< 0.1
< 0.5
< 0.1
9.3
BG -11)
AN -BG -ID -NS -4Q15-2
10 -Dec -15
13
30
<0.5
0.092
64
0.05
<0.5
<0.1
24.3
BG -1D
BG -1D -WG -20150619
19 -Jun -15
19
<50
0.74
960
0.38
0.3
<0.1
22.5
BG-2BR
AN-BG-2BR-FD-4Q15-1
10 -Nov -15
14
<50
<0.5
30.1
<50
0.76
0.6
0.084
0.55
BG-2BR
AN-BG-2BR-NS-3Q15
23 -Sep -15
1700
< 50
< 2.5
< 50
4.7
0.39
0.43
< 5
BG-2BR
AN-BG-2BR-NS-4Q15-1
10 -Nov -15
1300
<50
<0.5
28.9
69
0.75
0.64
0.087
0.52
BG-2BR
AN-13G-2BR-NS-4Q15-2
10 -Dec -15
1100
<50
<0.5
34.3
36
0.72
0.7
0.082
<1
BG -213R
BG-2BR_WG_20150627
27 -Jun -15
1400
<50
0.14
71
0.85
0.68
0.14
0.6
BG -21)
AN -BG -2D -NS -3Q15
23 -Sep -15
29
<50
0.49
540
0.047
4.5
<0.1
10.7
BG -2D
AN -BG -2D -NS -4Q15-1
10 -Nov -15
49
<50
0.44
0.96
580
0.083
0.83
<0.1
8.6
BG -21)
AN -BG -2D -NS -4Q15-2
10 -Dec -15
45
< 50
< 0.5
0.91
180
< 0.1
0.68
< 0.1
9.5
BG -2D
BG-2D_WG_20150622
22 -Jun -15
54
<50
2.4
3700
0.4
1.5
0.033
14.9
BG -31)
AN -BG -3D -NS -3Q15
24 -Sep -15
83
<50
0.75
1400
0.15
1.4
0.018
9.9
BG -3D
AN -BG -3D -NS -4Q15 -111
-Nov -15
14
<50
<0.5
0.27
310
<0.1
0.67
<0.1
5.7
BG -3D
AN -BG -3D -NS -4Q15-2
10 -Dec -15
78
< 50
< 0.5
0.3
180
< 0.1
0.22
< 0.1
7.4
BG -3D
BG -3D WG 20150626
26 -Jun -15
99
1 <50
0.32
110
<0.1
0.76
<0.1
6.5
Notes:
<- Not Detected, value is the reporting limit.
ug/L- Microgram per liter.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table A3.2 -Facility Bkg Data.xlsx April 2016

H
Page 1 of 1
Table A3-3
Background Data Statistical Evaluation
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 7 8 9 30 1 11 12 1 13 1 14 15 16 17
Notes:
* - Tested at 5% significance level.
BTV - Background Threshold Value.
KM - Kaplan -Meier Method.
NA - Not Available.
RL - Reporting Limit.
ug/L - Microgram per liter.
UPLs - Upper Prediction Limits.
UTLs - Upper Tolerance Limits.
Var - Variance.
WH -Wilson Hilferty Transformation.
(a) - Data is removed as part of the outlier test for other constituents
BTV values and statistics were calculated using ProUCL v. 5.0.00.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table A3-3313ackground Evaluation_Allen.xlsx April 2016
Facility Specific Background Evaluation
Regional Background Evaluation
Variable
Variable
Units
Frequency of
Detection
Percent
Non-
Detects
Range of Non-
Detects
KM Mean
KM
Variance
KM
KM Standard Coefficient
Deviation of Variation
50th
Percentile
(O,2)
95th
Percentile
Maximum
Detect
Outlier
Presence*
Outlier
Removed
Distribution
BN
Method
Barium
ug/L
21
/ 21
0%
NA
NA
35.56
810.8
28.47
0.801
26.1
79.1
119
No
Yes (a)
Normal
103.1
95% Normal UTL
Boron
ug/L
4
/ 21
81%
5
50
5.636
3.584
1.893
0.336
5.1
50
12.4
No
No
Normal
10.12
95% Normal KM UTL
Cobalt
ug/L
0
/ 20
100%
0.5
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
1
NA
NA
No
NA
1
Maximum MDL
Hexavalent Chromium
ug/L
9
/ 13
31% 1
0.6
0.6
1.207
3.065
1 1.751
1.451
0.6
5.02 1
5.8
Yes
No
Gamma
4.539
95% Gamma UPL WH and KM
Iron
ug/L
6
/ 21
71%
10
50
52.36
10350
1 101.7
1.943
50
151
475
No
Gamma
Gamma
260.9
195% Gamma UTL WH and KM
Lead
ug/L
11
/ 21
48%
0.1
1
0.368
0.162
0.403
1.094
0.31
1
1.82
No
Gamma
1.462
195% Gamma UTL WH and KM
Nickel
ug/L
5
/ 21
76%
0.5
5
1.39
6.46
2.542
1.829
0.53
5
12
No
MNANo
Normal
7.416
95% Normal KM UTL
Thallium
ug/L
0
/ 21
100%
0.1
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.2
NA
No
Gamma
NA
0.2
Maximum MDL
Vanadium
ug/L
19
/ 21
10%
0.3
1
6.483
33.79
5.813
0.897
4.5
19.3
23.7
No
Normal
20.27
95% Normal KM UTL
Notes:
* - Tested at 5% significance level.
BTV - Background Threshold Value.
KM - Kaplan -Meier Method.
NA - Not Available.
RL - Reporting Limit.
ug/L - Microgram per liter.
UPLs - Upper Prediction Limits.
UTLs - Upper Tolerance Limits.
Var - Variance.
WH -Wilson Hilferty Transformation.
(a) - Data is removed as part of the outlier test for other constituents
BTV values and statistics were calculated using ProUCL v. 5.0.00.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table A3-3313ackground Evaluation_Allen.xlsx April 2016
Facility Specific Background Evaluation
Variable
Units
Frequency of
Detection
Percent
Non-
Detects
Range of Non-
Detects
KM
KM Mean Variance
KM Standard
Deviation
KM
Coefficient
of Variation
50th
Percentile
(Ct2)
95th
Percentile
Maximum
Detect
Outlier Outlier
Presence* Removed
Distribution
BTV
Method
Barium
ug/L
17
/ 17
0%
NA
NA
354.6
352807
594
1.675
49
1460
1700
No
No
Distribution free
99
The Fifth Larget Detect
Boron
ug/L
1
/ 17
94%
50
50
30
0
0
NA
50
50
30
NA
No
NA
30
Maximum Detect
Cobalt
ug/L
8
/ 17
53%
0.5
2.5
0.544
0.264
0.513
0.943
0.5
2.42
2.4
Yes
No
Gamma
1.913
95%Approx. Gamma UTL WH and KM
Hexavalent Chromium
ug/L
9
/ 9
0%
NA
NA
10.74
235.3
15.34
1.429
0.91
32.62
34.3
No
No
Distribution free
34.3
Maximum Detect (95% UTL)
Iron
ug/L 1
15
/ 17
12%
50
50
1 634.8
871163
1 933.4
1 1.47 1
180
2340 1
3700
Yes
No
Gamma
2334
95%Approx. Gamma UPL WH and KM
Lead
ug/L
12
/ 17
29%
0.1
0.1
0.552
1.158
1.076
1.95
0.15
1.62
4.7
Yes
No
Gamma
3.271
95%Approx. Gamma UTL WH and KM
Nickel
ug/L
15
/ 17
12%
0.5
0.5
1.722
11.62
3.408
1.979
0.68
6.56
14.8
Yes
No
Distribution free
14.8
Maximum Detect (95% UTL)
Thallium
ug/L
8
/ 17
53%
0.1
0.1
0.0807
0.0089
0.0943
1.169
0.1
0.198
0.43
Yes
No
Gamma
0.346
95%Approx. Gamma UTL WH and KM
Vanadium
ug/L
15
/ 17
1 12%
1
5
9.04
58.25
1 7.632
0.844
8.6
22.86
24.3
No
No
Distribution free
24.3
Maximum Detect (95% UTL)
Notes:
* - Tested at 5% significance level.
BTV - Background Threshold Value.
KM - Kaplan -Meier Method.
NA - Not Available.
RL - Reporting Limit.
ug/L - Microgram per liter.
UPLs - Upper Prediction Limits.
UTLs - Upper Tolerance Limits.
Var - Variance.
WH -Wilson Hilferty Transformation.
(a) - Data is removed as part of the outlier test for other constituents
BTV values and statistics were calculated using ProUCL v. 5.0.00.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table A3-3313ackground Evaluation_Allen.xlsx April 2016

62
Page 1 of 1
Table A3-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Sampling Data To Regional Background Threshold Values
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Constituents
Units
Frequency of
Detection (a)
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Mean
Detect
10th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
50th
Percentile
75th
Percentile
90th
Percentile
Regional
Background Threshold
Value (BTV) (b)
Number of
Samples Above
Regional BTV
Barium
ug/L
124 / 124
0.77 - 200
33.56
9.43
16.88
26.2
44.83
64.03
103.1
2
Boron
ug/L
27 / 124
5.5 - 120
37.96
5
5
5
7.1
48.4
10.12
16
Cobalt
ug/L
16 / 124
0.05 - 2.1
0.448
0.0554
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
2
Hexavalent Chromium
ug/L
118 / 124
0.05 - 8.4
1.692
0.17
0.558
1.25
2.325
4.07
4.539
6
Iron
ug/L
48 / 124
14.5 - 7,160
661.4
31.6
50
50
68.43
403.5
260.9
17
Lead
ug/L
107 / 124
0.1 - 76
1.751
0.1
0.178
0.42
0.825
2.625
1.462
22
Nickel
ug/L
58 / 124
0.18 - 3.6
0.944
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.71
1.44
7.416
0
Thallium
ug/L
5 / 124
0.057 - 0.24
0.108
0.06
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
1
Vanadium
ug/L
120 / 124
0.25 - 26.5
7.986
2.73
4.65
7.55
10.18
12.94
20.27
2
Notes:
BTV - Background Threshold Value.
DEQ- Department of Environmental Quality.
NC - North Carolina.
ug/L - micrograms/liter.
(a) - Frequency of Detection: number of detects / total number of results.
(b) - BTV values shown on Table A3-3.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table A3-4 NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data Compared to Regional BTVs.xlsx April 2016

63
Page 1 of 1
Table A3-5
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Sampling Data To Facility Specific Background Threshold Values
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Constituents
Units
Frequency of
Detection (a)
Range of Detected
Concentrations
Mean
Detect
10th
Percentile
25th
Percentile
50th
Percentile
75th
Percentile
90th
Percentile
Facility Specific
Background Threshold
Value (BTV) (b)
Number of Samples
Above Facility Spectific
BTV
Barium
ug/L
124 / 124
0.77 - 200
33.56
9.43
16.88
26.2
44.83
64.03
99
2
Boron
ug/L
27 / 124
5.5 - 120
37.96
5
5
5
7.1
48.4
30
13
Cobalt
ug/L
16 / 124
0.05 - 2.1
0.448
0.0554
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.913
1
Hexavalent Chromium
ug/L
118 / 124
0.05 - 8.4
1.692
0.17
0.558
1.25
2.325
4.07
34.3
0
Iron
ug/L
48 / 124
14.5 - 7,160
661.4
31.6
50
50
68.43
403.5
2334
4
Lead
ug/L
107 / 124
0.1 - 76
1.751
0.1
0.178
0.42
0.825
2.625
3.271
8
Nickel
ug/L
58 / 124
0.18 - 3.6
0.944
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.71
1.44
14.8
0
Thallium
ug/L
5 / 124
0.057 - 0.24
0.108
0.06
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.346
0
Vanadium
I ug/L
1 120 / 124
1 0.25 - 26.5
1 7.986
1 2.73
1 4.65
1 7.55
1 10.18
1 12.94
1 24.3
1 1
Notes:
BTV - Background Threshold Value.
DEQ- Department of Environmental Quality.
NA - Not Applicable.
NC - North Carolina.
ug/L - micrograms/liter.
(a) - Frequency of Detection: number of detects / total number of results.
(b) - BTV values shown on Table A3-3.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table A3-5 NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data Compared to Facility Specific BTVs.xlsx April 2016

Table A4-1
Hydrostratigraphic Layer Properties - Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Hydrostratigraphic Unit
N
Geometric Geometric
Geometric Geometric
Mean Mean + Mean - Median
(cm/sec) 1SD 1SD (cm/sec)
(cm/sec) (cm/sec)
Minimum
(cm/sec)
Maximum
(cm/sec)
Ash
19
1.3E-03
7.0E-03
2.3E-04
1.3E-03
8.8E-05
3.3E-02
Fill
4
1.3E-05
6.3E-05
2.6E-06
9.2E-06
2.9E-06
1.1 E-04
Alluvium (S)
10
4.9E-04
5.2E-03
4.6E-05
1.0E-03
8.2E-06
2.6E-02
M1
29
3.7E-04
1.9E-03
7.4E-05
6.3E-04
2.1E-05
4.7E-03
M2
13
1.8E-04
1.2E-03
2.9E-05
1.5E-04
1.5E-05
4.1 E-03
Transition Zone (TZ)
20
4.4E-04
3.5E-03
5.5E-05
6.7E-04
9.1 E-06
2.1 E-02
Bedrock (BR)
42
3.2E-05
I 3.0E-04
3.5E-06
I 3.2E-05
I 2.0E-07
I 2.6E-03
Notes:
1. Hydraulic Conductivity, 'k,' values have an approximate lognormal distribution. Geometric mean, median, and standard
deviation estimated by taking the log of the values and running standard statistics on the log values, then converting those
values back.
2. Dataset derived from CSA Investigation and historical reports. Refer to CSA report tables 11-3, 11-5, and 11-7 for historic
conductivity data.
3. Alluvium dataset derived from CSA Investigations for Allen (N=2), Cliffside (N=3), Dan River (N=2), and Riverbend (N=3).
4. Data derived from Dan River data (See Note 3 above) have been updated to reflect revised slug test reports from that site.
Page 1 of 1
64

Table A4-2
Estimated Groundwater Seepage Velocities
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Well Pair
Ash
Fill
Alluvium
M1
M2
TZ,
TZ10%
BR,%
BR,
Regolith (S wells); Seepage Velocity (ft/year)
AB -21 S / AB -22S 189.43 2.46
44.47
42.81
12.65
-
-
-
-
AB -21 S / GWA-1 S 129.61 1.682
30.43
29.29
8.65
-
-
-
-
AB -35S / AB -31 S 169.49 2.20
39.79
38.31
11.31
-
-
-
-
AB -39S / GWA-7S 348.95 4.53
81.93
78.87
23.29
-
-
-
-
AB -38S / GWA-8S 1 179.46 2.33
42.13
40.56
11.98
-
-
-
-
Transition Zone (D Wells); Seepage Velocity (ft/year)
AB -21 D / GWA-2D - -
-
-
-
255.1
127.6
-
-
AB -24D / GWA-31D - -
-
-
-
309.8
154.9
-
-
AB -39D / GWA-7D - -
-
-
-
364.4
182.2
-
-
AB -29D / AB -9D - -
-
-
-
492.0
246.0
-
-
AB -35D / AB -33D - -
-
-
-
145.8
72.9
-
-
AB -30D / AB -32D - -
-
-
-
218.7
109.3
-
-
Fractured Bedrock (BR Wells); Seepage Velocity (ft/year)
AB -21 BR / GWA-1 BR - -
-
-
-
-
-
23.4
9.3
AB-25BR / GWA-3BR - -
-
-
-
-
-
103.5
41.4
AB-35BR / GWA-6BR - -
-
-
-
-
-
20.0
8.0
AB-35BR / GWA-5BR - -
-
-
-
-
-
53.4
21.4
Notes:
1. Refer to CSA report Section 11 tables for horizontal hydraulic conductivity values.
2. Refer to CSA report Table 6-9 for horizontal hydraulic gradients.
3. Refer to Section 11 Tables for effective porosity/specific yield for upper and lower hydrostratigraphic units.
4. TZ and BR subscripts indicate effective porosities used in calculations.
Page 1 of 1
65

Table A5-1
Site -Specific Distribution Coefficient (Kd)
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Constituent
Mininum
(L/kg)
Mean
(L/kg)
Maximum
(L/kg)
Antimony
9.10E-06
4.07E-04
8.41E-04
Arsenic
1.17E+02
1.80E+05
6.00E+05
Boron
3.84E-04
2.48E-01
1.31E+00
Barium
1.33E-05
8.75E-05
4.66E-04
Beryllium
4.93E+03
3.75E+04
1.01E+05
Cobalt
3.71E-01
1.27E+01
1.01E+02
Chromium
2.42E+06
2.18E+07
6.05E+07
Iron
3.29E-02
4.67E-01
2.66E+00
Lead
8.85E+01
2.14E+03
9.00E+03
Manganese
6.48E-02
4.63E-01
2.38E+00
Nickel
1.89 E-01
1.51E+00
7.84E+00
Selenium
2.08E+00
3.89E+02
1.15E+03
Sulfate
1.13E-02
3.53E+00
1.24E+01
Thallium
NA
NA
NA
Vanadium
1.22E+01
I 5.43E+04
I 1.90E+05
Notes:
L/kg - Liters per kilogram
NA - Not Available
Table adopted from Appendix E of the CAP -2 Report by HDR.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Allen Tables (Privileged & Confidential)_D6.x1sx
Page 1 of 1
April 2016
66

67
Page 1 of 2
Table A5-2
Evaluation of Water Supply Wells With Boron Detected Above 20 Microgram Per Liter
Allen Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Water Supply
Well (a)
Dissolved
Oxygen
(µg/L)
Initial
Sampling
Date
Initial
Sampling
Result
(µg/L) (b)
Split
Sample
Result
(µg/L) (b,c)
Resampling
Date
Resampling
Result (µg/L)
(b)
Boron
BTV
(d)
(µg/L)
Sulfate
(µg/L)
Sulfate
Threshold
(µg/L) (e)
Comment
AL3
9,200
3/14/2015
49
NA
7/29/2015
7
150
AL8
6,300
3/23/2015
97
<50
7/29/2015
<5
1,000
The results of the initial
AL31
7,560
4/9/2015
43
NA
8/13/2015
<5
2,000
samples were all biasedly
AL44
4,000
4/24/2015
27
NA
NA
NA
2,000
higher than the resampling
AL48
7,850
2/20/2015
68
NA
8/17/2015
<5
4,000
results. The boron
AL50 (Well C)
4,433
4/29/2015
102
NA
6/11/2015
19
5,900
concentrations of the
AL52
7,450
2/20/2015
62
NA
7/29/2015
<5
1,000
resampling results and the
AL56
4,850
2/25/2015
66
NA
8/13/2015
<5
2,600
sulfate concentrations are
AL67
4,850
2/25/2015
47
NA
7/29/2015
5
3,300
all below their respective
AL89
9,250
2/25/2015
67
NA
7/30/2015
<5
1,000
threshold values. These
wells are considered not
AL93
7,550
2/20/2015
90
NA
8/17/2015
<5
30
1,000
6,500
impacted by the ash basin
AL111
4,000
2/19/2015
43
NA
7/30/2015
<5
2,800
porewater.
These two wells are farther
AL115
2,700
4/28/2015
39
NA
NA
NA
373,000
away from the ash basins
than many water supply
wells nearby, and thus they
are very unlikely impacted
AL117
5,260
3/23/2015
120
<50
7/31/2015
42
38,300
by the ash basin.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Allen Tables (Privileged & Confidential)_D6.xlsx April 2016

Ash Basin
Dissolved
Boron
Sulfate
Porewater
Oxygen
Boron
BTV
Sulfate
Threshold
Well (f)
(µg/L)
(µg/L)
(µg/L) (d)
(µg/L)
(Vg/L) (e)
AB -28S
2,390
960
158,000
AB -29S
150
1100
98,900
30
6,500
AB -30S
210
840
53,700
AB -35S
2,150
860
313,000
Notes:
(a) - The water supply wells contain boron concentrations higher than 20 ug/L.
(b) - Split samples were taken concurrently with the initial samples.
(`) - A split sample is one of two equivalent portions of the same sample that is analyzed separately, typically using different laboratories,
and is used to spot check the accuracy of data. Split samples can also provide a measure of the sample
variability and a measure of analytical errors.
(d) - BTV = background threshold value in the unit of µg/L determined from the facility background well data (see Section A.3).
(e) - Sulfate threshold concentration is determined by the maximum sulfate concentration among all local water supply wells that boron
were not detected at the reporting limit of 5 µg/L.
(f) - Chosen ash basin porewater wells have representative boron concentrations within the ash basin porewater wells group.
µg/L - Micrograms per liter
BTV - Background Threshold Value
mg/L - Milligrams per liter
NA - Not Applicable
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Allen Tables (Privileged & Confidential)_D6.xlsx
Page 2 of 2
April 2016
68

VIRGINIA
L i, I I III i
--------' --- MAYO
I --------- II• ROXBORO, NC
BELEWS CREEK R MORA, NC
O
BELEWS CREEK, NC
• I •
L u,
L II
BUCK
I + + I MARSHALL SALISBURY, NC
I, dl TERELL, NC
� =li Dile
I I •,• III•
CLIFFSIDE
MOORESBORO,NC ALLEN
BELMONT, NC
+ •ai ill
IIIIIII li 3' ff
SOUTH
CAROLINA
,III •i E
NORTH
CAROLINA

1
I
DIS
CHARGECANAL
rBASIN
ASH
l \J --_STORAGE
ASH
INACTIVE STORAGE
z > ASH BASIN
STRUCTURAL
FILL
S POINT-��
11 I
I
ALLEN t J 1
STEAM
STATION \
\1
1
STRUCTURAL
FILL
RETIRED ASH BASIN
ASH LANDFILL
PERMIT NO. 3612
PRIMARY PRIMARY
MIDVd00D LN i POND 1 PRIMARY POND 3
POND
%^
-WiLD�E RDI(
r
?G ACTIVE
QO ASH BASIN
P�
l
� v
D
�
"'`Sora
Ro
"'OST
� 7
LAKE WYLIE
(CATAWBARIVER)
\\ IO
U
O (7
\ U 2
zIm
r °2 z
U)i Lu
< -i
"j"
W
&CH
LEGEND
NOTES

ASH RETIRED ASH BASIN
i INACTIVE STORAGE ASH LANDFILL
PERMIT N0. 3612
SASH BASIN
STRUCTURAL
OO
• , Fo FILL
C A O
LAKE WYLIE I
•Op .• �Q Oe n__O' PRIMARY PRIMARY I (CATAWBARIVER)
n�l�i�JJ POND 1 POND 3
PRIMARY
0 QO•,'� O. �' POND2 �—
r ` 10
O
O
010
'
e -O
p?G
O O
t
ACTIVE
—►
z m
o z
A
ASH BASIN
r
UI
P� o
I
w
p0
�
�
I
O �
o po
O
I
0 o I
1
1
OO
/
o �o
00
II
DIS
ALLEN
STEAM \
1I
g�
0 0
°
STATION
o
\
00
\\
r
STRUCTURAL
I
FILL
\
INACTIVE
ASH BASIN
I
Ll%\
{
J_-- I O I
ASH
STORAGE
ASH RETIRED ASH BASIN
i INACTIVE STORAGE ASH LANDFILL
PERMIT N0. 3612
SASH BASIN
STRUCTURAL
OO
• , Fo FILL
C A O
LAKE WYLIE I
•Op .• �Q Oe n__O' PRIMARY PRIMARY I (CATAWBARIVER)
n�l�i�JJ POND 1 POND 3
PRIMARY
0 QO•,'� O. �' POND2 �—
r ` 10
CO]
LEGEND
O
0
L_-]
NOTES
O
O
010
'
e -O
p?G
O O
t
ACTIVE
—►
z m
o z
A
ASH BASIN
r
UI
P� o
I
w
p0
Ot
�
O �
o po
O
OO
/
o �o
00
0 0
°
o
00
CO]
LEGEND
O
0
L_-]
NOTES

r -
1
I
q BG3S D/SCHARGECANgL
II f BG2S B� D rBASINASHl \J ---STORAGE
J ASH
INACTIVE STORAGE
z ASH BASIN
STRUCTURAL
FILL
S POINT-��
11 I
I
ALLEN t J 1
STEAM
STATION \
\1
1
STRUCTURAL
FILL
RETIRED ASH BASIN
ASH LANDFILL
PERMIT NO. 3612
PRIMARY PRIMARY
wDWOOD LN i POND PRIMARY POND3
POND
%^
.WiLD�E RD�
r
?G ACTIVE
QO ASH BASIN
P�
l
I BG1D
BG1S
"1LSON
R�
"'OST
� 7
LAKE WYLIE
(CATAWBARIVER)
\\ IO
U
O (7
\ U 2
zIm
r °2 z
U)i Lu
< -i
"j"
W
&CH
LEGEND
NOTES

F)l
DATE
TWO MEDIUM GROUNDWATER SYSTEM APRIL 2016
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION FIGURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC A4-1
SOIL
Regolith
ONE'
ZONE'-
unsaturated
unsaturated
none
Water table
REGOLITH
Regolith
RESIDUUM
saturated
II
zone
JfFANSITION{
4 _
ZONE l
WEATHERED
J / BEDROCK
j�
UNWEATHERED
BEDROCK
r .�
r\
t
FRACTURED BEDROCK
SHEETJOINT
r
r��
1
�
I
BEDROCK
STRUCTURE
r
� 4 1
-
r
''
I11
I
�l FRACTURE
1
1
t
NOTES:
1. HARNED, D.A. AND DANIEL III, C.C.
1992. THE TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN BEDROCK REGOLITH: CONDUIT FOR
CONTAMINATION?, P. 336-348, IN
DANIEL, C.C., III, WHITE,
R.K., AND STONE, P.A., EDS., GROUNDWATER IN
THE PIEDMONT: PROCEEDINGS OF A CONFERENCE ON GROUND WATER IN THE PIEDMONT OF THE EASTERN
UNITED STATES, OCTOBER 16-18,
1989, CLEMSON UNIVERSITY, 693P.
F)l
DATE
TWO MEDIUM GROUNDWATER SYSTEM APRIL 2016
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION FIGURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC A4-1

F)l
�IffR
log A0
STEM A
Slope Aquifer Boundary and Topographic D1171de
Discharge Boundary
- - - - - - - Compartment (C) Boundary
.... 0........... Water Table
X�x> - Fractures
Groundwater Flow Direction
SOURCE: LEGRAND, 2004
DATE
SLOPE AQUIFER SYSTEM APRIL 2016
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION FIGURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC A4-2

WELL
--------- "+
RECDC]LITH RESlzRVOIR -----------
.
�P
`5 }
STORAGE
REDROCI{
- ERACTUR'ES BEDROCK
J F
t _ Y
1 1 Y
5 Y
m
0 r, Y
P
fTA 1 � Y
Y
1
Y
Source: Heath, 1984
DATE
REGOLITH AS PRIMARY APRIL 2016
GROUNDWATER STORAGE
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION FIGURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC A4-3

J
J
J
LU
D W
W �
CL'
0 cc
03 a
REGOLITH B
z
Q
TRANSITION Cca
700E "A
BEDROCK
LAND FILL.
Arrows indicate direction
of ground -water flow
,LEACHATE4
W J
J
Q
W
0
Source: Harned and Daniel, 1992
DATE
FNTRANSITION ZONE AS PRIMARY TRANSMITTER APRIL 2016
OF IMPACTED GROUNDWATER
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION FIGURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC A4-4

OAB128
O f.Ow AB5
08 ..-
0Emi
•
•
(Dogg)W&o G36eoP
• 5e6.50r •
•
•
•
•
•
�A
OAB128
O f.Ow AB5
08 ..-
0Emi
•
•
(Dogg)W&o G36eoP
• 5e6.50r •
•
•
•
•
•

~. !s. "��}''7 +9.4-��. � •t +lam
O r
.moi 5.ra2 yy ''inF
0
0=
O
00
0 __,I °
O ° OOO
�
08 8 °
0 000
0 00
0 0
Y e o o ° oo0 o o° °-� `
° ° 0 O ,.
0
w r ° 0
- o ° p°oo��� o
O �.
00
000 0
0
0
GWAIB
614.2T
500 0 500 1,000
fir i a"4-
2
" t.00R
.00
sS.
r r0
GWAIB
614.2T
500 0 500 1,000

h
y' w d +' 1 In
•�. #
i
BG3S
605.12'
' GWA8S S
s
1 9 G A7S ,
606.66' Epp O. 580.3' s�
+
r s?o GWA6S
�BG2S 39S 59579' ; #�
588.95'
8S 1 AB33S
• CAB3'•
-y. 621.52' 599 59'
GWA5S
• A 32 564.15'
ti� F AB34S 581 ,49'
+ • ; � 611.52"
r` `'' • AB36S' p B 5S AB31 S
fjWAl 5S 576.89'
�6 8.41 AB37617.9' c 61 ; . GWA4IIL
•
619.54' B AB29S 5fi9.9T A69S •
,6
• • ^ 6. 4 611.11' f 565.68' �4
• • • GWA14S A629SL
�� I
• r - � 623.12' 6:11-23_�,.A627S s,,
• � •• • ,A628S (�aQacnlSa G36norr
•. • a
- 641.19' -565.W
• • •• • • AB13S AB24S B26S •
• • • • • ••• 634.26' 637.59' A625SL AB25S 580.4' < •
_ 4. • • • • • • • • 637.27' 640.11'GW
•
• • • • •
-«� , ` • I s' i ��6B4 �••• 23 {6 7.38L 640, 5 9' * + •. .
637.17'
n
• !633.45 AB10S
k ` •, ° • AB20S 563.51' a�
636.38' A621 SL AB22S
636.1`5"
i. • 636.35' 588.39'��� I
, AB6A • •
4 • ¢� • AB12S A66R 570.25'
r f • " " ' 571��25' •
633.11
i;, T .k r r �• AB5
t � * �,�� � � • 636.01' •
•
- ,x ' s . . � • • . •.• .-.,'_, _
13WA1S GWA2S •
• � 568.42'
•` i, i �` • BG 1 S �`L�' 6ti� ,�O p �o hyo ��o • '
• • 633.92' `° �O �' •

•
. _-.•BG3D 1
s 605.02' f-
GWA7D
GAS© \575>21'�"
609:31' "
_ r
588.55
'\BG2D" " AB38D B�3 U Epp,
586.47' • 621.06' 1 .
\AB33D
�� 59446'
AB32D
B. D 575:25'1 �GW 5®
g. 1U. �1 569': T
y� • AB37D ' AB31iDl
6u19:64' 578.01
s, �� - ,r • •_- '�AB36D�GWA4'U'
_ g ? G. .-36' 618.1 1 g. I 568.88'
qmwqmmmmp"w�6r't a` PuB14D� 623.36' B 9DAB9D
All • 621.4' i �B2D B OU
'`,' • • 56886'
Ipt
,� -- .• i • -•_618x34. ' 619.4- �� �� ���-
• GWAD
• i •i •� 6`303' • G A628D6B22 6aQannDa G3bn©P
r•' • • i •r 629.52' mW&W ,
• • i •',!�A643D AB24D AB26D
• •• • • • • • • • 634.5'% A62582.15 �GWA3D >^�
•
636./41'
�`� • • AB4D • AB23BRU
ti 634.44 .607.26'%
^1
�� • ® cp�� p AB22D =
• 6 4?7D AB21 D �o58/ .48' -%AB10D
636.32" p 563.49'
rn
• • -�,,AB12D hr
"�1 r ' • 634.61' I II •.
• • -�
'4 r • • " GWAG571?ZD�
1D ••
+." _ _ •
.. • 612.48'
+• '• • • • BG1D AB11D
r • 9 . • •! •
634.04'%1. 606:83' • •
i4 R • •
VI

�• _ _ 0 r .
*S s
aO 0 F
°- °
O (sl 0 07-
° 8 0
0 � 00
y
og 8 O
0 Oo 000000
o ° 0 00 ° °0 0 ° 0- .c )
0 0 0 0 O o r
_. o ° 0 °oo 000�0
3 °. `b
� O0 pO O
0
A, O
,. o
o
- o
0
° O
w t, O
0 O
O
O
W: O O
O
0 0
_k"N j
°
V,
- .° °... -Or 0 �a4P t rNv
Yl
� k` ...
GW 1BR !
612.,°
500 0 500 1,000
FEZ
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP - BEDROCK WELLS (BR)
GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENT DATE: 9/18/2015
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
ALLEN STEAM STATION ASH BASIN

DATE
HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
1. ON Y SITE-SPECIFIC IN-SITU MATERIAL REPRESENTED IN THIS FIGURE. FnMEASUREMENTS APRIL 2016
2. REFER TO TABLE A4-1 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION FIGURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC A4-11
Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity for Native Hydrostratigraphic Layers N = 104
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
U
d
E 1.0E-03
a
1.0E-04
v
c
O
U
•_ 1.0E-05
v
x
1.0E-06
c
N
O
= 1.0E-07
1.0E-08
M1 (N=29) M2 (N=13) TZ (N=20) BR (N=42)
3.7E-04 1.8E-04 4.4E-04 3.2E-05
DATE
HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
1. ON Y SITE-SPECIFIC IN-SITU MATERIAL REPRESENTED IN THIS FIGURE. FnMEASUREMENTS APRIL 2016
2. REFER TO TABLE A4-1 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION FIGURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC A4-11

0
L
0
t
o ►
O I r,y , x � ►
- o >' ►
O O I s.
0 _ _I 1
'
-- Na •',gyp '
rte_ ' NAM ,
1 1 max• i , s.. " y • `t .t ` `��'r' I
� im
ft* It
1► � ''�/_\+ t Sk " � 1
-- l
d p
' ► ► y, • .. �,,��`y? ',fid -Ln\ ���
V ► �� � cru ',. �- ,.: r•� � �
- I
1, •
Q G] ALL
;, `} fie-' ;'� x� �•. ,
G3rnnnio : fj
LMIDFH
pCG]0� q
r 0 uU UJ1J �� air J Ir`�u� 4�nv�ln°/G4�
,V,#r o •/- 0 0 -P
0 e\,i�1J VLrd
O' ..,;O O ®•`o o ^ ! , y
` 0 �a O 0
'PIN 00 00 00
x • O 0 0
y t
' y O O 00 pG30G` ^ �v PRI /n1J31
O O p
O 0 � I] `C G `� pcc
0 ©MD }
a 0 O �0 O
O 0 00 0 0
O O O O r
0 0 00 0di 00 00
10,
.
_wl�� err ,•i°,� t` � ,y. �`
o
y
ri
Z i -'P a ,Y`,Y %
y t
rc i'`• .. r- +E,"F O O R'I1YN+.y"+ yam•`%«y. y.''tr^Y
0
0 '.� ?P.. IJ' •,..tr.. sir4 a'P'-5'Sf�.`$id.a :'PiSTs�
a
�••. �. J '4. .. .. .. i
tt y
0
0 �►
0 0
O
F r
R'
<, t0
•
w
w,
ryor0
.. ':F.
► O 0 0 aye. '.♦ f
eE p
o
01
O — — —
Q 00
O
w 0 0 O
.� .,
a .
0
0 0
x •
60 0
Ailt 1
500 0 500 1, 000
m
LEGEND:
MAI,
Am
0 J
0 0
0
0
_
O 0 O 0 O
O O O
0 a `- �` NOTES:
{�[� ,� is; �' ! � -.^ �.,�'`• �,�"•,� � � •fie "w, , t
SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL - PLAN VIEW MAP
AREA OF BORON EXCEEDANCES OF 2L STANDARDS
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
ALLEN STEAM STATION ASH BASIN
11

o'
Q
0
z
z
D
D' L-1
O
m
z
J
w
SOUTH PMT ROAD
U
WEST
cc
z EAST
w
COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY COINCIDENT
WITH PROPERTY BOUNDARY
0
RAB ASH RETIRED ASH �
o
STRUCTURAL
LANDFILL BASIN DAM
FILL
ASH STORAGE
AB--35BR
INACTIVE
AREA
'D_35S SB-6
—
WATER ASH BAS N
SUPPLY
WELL
AB-36D SB-1
-
FILL
AB-37D
AB -36S
AB 31S
AB-37S
AB-31D
NACTIVE ASH
—BASIN
- GWA-4S
_ - -
cwA-4o
CATAWBA
LLUVIUM —
RIVER
--�
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF
STANDARD
REGOLITH2L
EXCEEDANCES OF BORON
-----___I
—
N IGROUNDWATER
I I
- ----- - - -
PWR /TZ
BEDROCK
LEGEND
ASH
CROSS SECTION ALLEN INACTIVE ASH
BASIN REGOLITH
(LOOKING NORTH)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED
ROCK/TRANZITION
ZONE (PWR/TZ)
BEDROCK
NOTE:
FILL
1. TRANSECT DD' FROM FIGURE 1 1 1 IN
THE CSA REPORT USED FOR
CROSS—SECTION SHOWN ABOVE.
APPROXIMATE EXTENT
of 2L STANDARD
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE AND IS INTENDED
FOR LLUSTRATION PURPOSES
ONLY.
(700 WA) ExcEEDANCEs
GROUNDNWATER
of BORON IN
2. APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF 2L STANDARD
EXCEEDANCES OF BORON IN
GROUNDWATER BASED ON RESULTS
FROM 2015 ROUND 2 SAMPLING EVENT.
APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER
FLOW DIRECTION
CROSS-SECTION CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
DATE
IM)l
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
APRIL 2016
ALLEN STEAM STATION ASH BASIN
FIGURE
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROHN-
A4 13

F)l
4
Rechaige
Alect I W
Flan Mew)
L
Vertical Per of ion
x foIJfid levd
Initl.al water level
F
DATE
MOUNDING EFFECT APRIL 2016
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION FIGURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC A4-14

F)l
Rrd'+r" Zoo Gfaun+� w#pr
I � CDY�+7!
A
WOW Ttwb
w t I At
1
I
`= .,iry+
1) CORM SEC TOOK
bi PLAN VIEW
cwound wan. D. d4
fcv++ L•F&
'Q++Iurldii @NIP
ENv4m
110 120 110 100
G 1 Ofa+w (m— at wvgI
Zofw of contaob++1w to "w mill
WaW Table
NOTE: FIGURE FROM NORTH CAROLINA STATE
UNIVERSITY (1995); MODIFIED FROM DRISCOLL (1986).
DATE
GROUNDWATER AFFECTED BY PUMPING APRIL 2016
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION FIGURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC A4-15

1.G
O.
LLI
o-
-V
IRON
02(g i } a.21 atm
+�+ Fe(flHjdfa}
0
!1 X3
000a
..2 4 6 8 10 1
pH
NOTE
DIAGRAMS ADOPTED FROM APPENDIX E OF THE CAP -2
REPORT FOR THE ALLEN STEAM STATION BY HDR.
1.0
MANGANESE
Op{q) > 0,21 a.krn
Pyrr.�luste�sl
okmAZ A A 13 r
n 013:103 m
RhDduchrmite(s)
—0j 5 1 1 1 1 1 �. 1
V� 2 4 +6 8 10 12
pH
4 -shallow
El Dtcp
G Bedrock
4 Upgradieanl
0 Sauyte
b Downgo-adienl.

Panel (a): Example Box Plot
a Possible Outlier
NOTES
1. BOX PLOT EXPLANATION DIAGRAM ADOPTED FROM
HTTP:HS ITES. GOOGLE.COM/S ITE/DAVI DSSTATI STI CS/HOME/
NOTCHED -BOX -PLOTS.
2. PIPER PLOT ADOPTED FROM CSA REPORT FOR
ALLEN STEAM STATION BY HDR.
Panel (b): Example Piper Plot
Ash Baaln P - ter
Ash smin Walt
® All'RFt' Warb
KIM
s
CATIONS
�Mmna*latrge., a02 oh . Mn
/ANIONS
Upper Whiskers
75th Percentile
aka 3fd Quartile
The "Notch"
55% Confidence Interval of . •.
: Interquartile (IOR)
the Mediani
1557 Pereent of Oatel
Median +1- 1.57 x IQR/n°'.5
25th Percentile
aka tst Quartle
Lower Whiskers
NOTES
1. BOX PLOT EXPLANATION DIAGRAM ADOPTED FROM
HTTP:HS ITES. GOOGLE.COM/S ITE/DAVI DSSTATI STI CS/HOME/
NOTCHED -BOX -PLOTS.
2. PIPER PLOT ADOPTED FROM CSA REPORT FOR
ALLEN STEAM STATION BY HDR.
Panel (b): Example Piper Plot
Ash Baaln P - ter
Ash smin Walt
® All'RFt' Warb
KIM
s
CATIONS
�Mmna*latrge., a02 oh . Mn
/ANIONS

10000000.0
Boron
1000000.0
100000.0
J
7 10000.0
C
O
a
CU
C 1000.0
O
U
100.0
10.0
1.0
Calcium
ALLEN
Chloride
T
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids
AB FM RBG WSW AB FM RBG WSW AB FM RBG WSW AB FM RBG WSW AB FM RBG WSW
NOTES
1. ACRONYMS:
AB = ASH BASIN POREWATER WELL
FM = OTHER FACILITY MONITORNG WELL
RBG = REGIONAL BACKGROUND WELL
WSW = WATER SUPPLY WELL
2. NO CHLORIDE, SULFATE, OR TOTAL DISSOLVED
SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS DATA FOR LESS THAN HALF
OF THE DUKE ENERGY REGIONAL BACKGROUND WELLS.

AI—AUIHUK: UKANI BUWLN—UFFIUt: PHA
ALLEN
1000.0
Barium Cobalt
100.0
J
Q1
7
C
0
10.0
L
y.+
co
G1
4
C3
i
•
1.4 +
i
01
AB FM RBG WSW AB FM RBG WSW
NOTE
ALLEN STEAM STATION
AN WATER SUPPLY
ABO ASH m` BASIN POREWATER WELL UICH DUKE ENERGY WELL EVALUATION
FM = OTHER FACILITY MONITORNG WELL
RBG = REGIONAL BACKGROUND WELL
WSW = WATER SUPPLY WELL
BOX PLOT COMPARISON FOR
BARIUM AND COBALT
APRIL 2016 FIGURE A5-4

WbO-D-0
100000.0
10000.0
J
1000.0
0
L
d
100.0
0
U
10.0
1.0
0.1
AB
Dissolved Oxygen
FM RBG WSV
NOTES
1. ACRONYMS:
AB = ASH BASIN POREWATER WELL
FM = OTHER FACILITY MONITORNG WELL
RBG = REGIONAL BACKGROUND WELL
WSW = WATER SUPPLY WELL
2. NO DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION DATA FOR
LESS THAN HALF OF THE DUKE ENERGY REGIONAL
BACKGROUND WELLS.
DISSOLVED
AB
ALLEN
Iron
DISSOLVED
I
TOTAL
TOTAL
7L 74�
FM RBG WSW
Manganese
DISSOLVED
TOTAL TOTAL
AB FM RBG WSW

r -
1 � I
I
I 11 �I
tJ
DIS ALLEN
STEAM \
y `1 STATION \
41STRUCTURAL 711�
1 I
FILL 1
II fl
BG26R INACTIVE
ASH BASIN
l
® 11�
�\ --_I
{ ASH
I STORAGE
J
ASH
STORAGE
JA s:>I<
INACTIVE
z ASH BASIN
STRUCTURAL
FILL
SPOINT�
'
PRIMARY/
LN i POND 1
WOV400D PRIMARY
POND2
RD
.y1,ILD1�E
' r A6239RU
r
10
if
RETIRED ASH BASIN
ASH LANDFILL
PERMIT NO. 3612 I
J
PRIMARY
POND 3'
25BRU
AB25BR
l ' GWA16R
�
"14 SOIV
R�
q
OST_
LEGEND
r
LAKE WYLIE
(CATAWBA RIVER)
GWA3BR
I �O
U
U IC
'r Q �?
ILu
&CH
ACTIVE
A621BR
ASH BASIN
PRIMARY
POND 3'
25BRU
AB25BR
l ' GWA16R
�
"14 SOIV
R�
q
OST_
LEGEND
r
LAKE WYLIE
(CATAWBA RIVER)
GWA3BR
I �O
U
U IC
'r Q �?
ILu
&CH

Panel(a)
Ia.aOa.aa4
a Aa{5 Bapn Pwvweeer Wet
l�epllty 0edrock wNl Ipormlrlientl
1,404,400
L
A
♦
xcn,QaQ ♦ ♦ ,
®®
A
♦
10.4aQ ♦ ♦ ♦ '
• A&365
I,PPO
1 1Q ioa 1,000 l0oao
BAFOrI COnMQV1114a I -9A%
Panel (b)
Sg4mpao
a 1aF Bealn Ponwa{Pr Woo
• Fap4ty aetlrock Well 14arm�edbM]
e Fadllry W—kWellISidw Geed t]
la Fadllty 8edrack well (upv dyer
1.000004
IFgaQa d Q➢
♦
10.aoo ♦
A&385
0
1,40
♦
J-1
Sao .
1 1Q ldl
�A,aa c�nrea1rA11,., rv�nr
Sgomoao
Panel (c)
-
a a.n 4swr e.�wce. w..n
al,<ulty serro�s wel 14e,.are�aarnll
plarWty 9eboak Vhl lsk9e 4rae�s+M]
1,440.444
oladliry aeaw wel W-=0
.waUrs,:.ppry well
___=_;
C+eepmal Aaclgwnd WcO
l.tAl-111
♦
AL
AL -115
♦ ♦
1
1
1
04
! S`r
1
1
4t
1
1
i • i ♦ i ;1
F,D00
1 1
_� �f}l AL3
dffl2 1
A
1 0 A4-3Ai
1
p&365
l00
1
10 104
1,444
10444
NOTES
1. ONLY WELLS SAMPLED FOR BOTH BORON AND SULFATE ARE PLOTTED
2. THE DATA PAIRS FOR THE WATER SUPPLY WELLS, ALS, AL9, AL14, AND AL103
WERE NOT PLOTTED BECAUSE BORON WAS NOT DETECTED AT A
REPORTING LIMIT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THOSE FOR THE OTHER
SUPPLY WELLS (<90 ug/L ). SULFATE FOR AL5, AL9, AL14, AND AL103
WAS DETECTED AND LOWER THAN 7,000 ug/L.
3. AREA 1 IS DEFINED BY THE DATA CLUSTERING PATTERN OF THE ASH BASIN
POREWATER; AREA 2 IS DEFINED BY THE DATA CLUSTERING PATTERN OF THE
WATER SUPPLY AND REGIONAL BACKGROUND WELLS.

Panel (a)
1d,rlw Id,000
. AFP W. var.wac.r w.lt
• F.tlll#y Bbreck W.0 (Ovwe✓Q.d�.nC3
lz, -- 12.000
S 10,000 a 101Ua0
8,000 � 8,000
SAM
8 • yg
.irs '"� • ''00°
o L
2AW • ►L "w
0 • '® ■ A L_ ALMA L. L . LLL M... 0
1 la 1130 IAGG 1GAW 1 10
Ovrerr ConsePrraaior. ius/Lf
Panel (b)
AFP BIIIA Per.w.f.r Well
•P4NiYY Bedrock Well �oown�aanena}
s Faoll#y Bedrock Well (ode Grbbna}
O FaceiW Bedrock Well EUW dl.nll
•
L
• AA
Q) AA.--LAADA A ■ v A M
100 1,000 1r1000
Somm Conte 1L.81JPR tualU
NOTES
1. ONLY WELLS SAMPLED FOR BOTH BORON AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN
ARE PLOTTED.
2. THE DATA PAIRS FOR THE WATER SUPPLY WELLS, AL5, AL9, AL14, AND AL103
WERE NOT PLOTTED BECAUSE BORON WAS NOT DETECTED ATA
REPORTING LIMIT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THOSE FOR THE OTHER
SUPPLY WELLS (<90 Ng/L). THE DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS
FOR AL5, AL9, AL14, AND AL1 03 WERE LARGER THAN 4,000 Ng/L.
3. AREA 1 IS DEFINED BY THE DATA CLUSTERING PATTERN OF THE ASH BASIN
POREWATER; AREA 2 IS DEFINED BY THE DATA CLUSTERING PATTERN OF THE
WATER SUPPLY AND REGIONAL BACKGROUND WELLS.
Panel (c)
1-0,000
a AaP Bean Pwewe4ar Wep
� FMIIaY Bedrock Wdl 16awnOrbi.ntl
12,000
♦
pFltllrry Bedrock WNl j^yde Gredlen#j
p Flelrty Badecck WNI jVPp+Menr3
� N.#.r SupylY W.11
o Fa1Wn.1 B.ck[#—d Well
� 10,000
–♦
_4,tVA 1BA
6,000
�
r
�i
♦ A&35BR �—�'®
1
I ♦ ♦
m a,oao
1
1
Area 2 ; (r• +
1
A—A�sas
fSf
♦
a,nao
1♦✓
------------
na-x1e11 � �B,y.rax i–'–'--'–`--'rT`.
i
A&" A&2&0a.: fiw'�— Area 1ot
1
10 fawA-38R 100 1,000 10.000
— 61, BawB Carlcanlra#inn [vBjL)
NOTES
1. ONLY WELLS SAMPLED FOR BOTH BORON AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN
ARE PLOTTED.
2. THE DATA PAIRS FOR THE WATER SUPPLY WELLS, AL5, AL9, AL14, AND AL103
WERE NOT PLOTTED BECAUSE BORON WAS NOT DETECTED ATA
REPORTING LIMIT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THOSE FOR THE OTHER
SUPPLY WELLS (<90 Ng/L). THE DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS
FOR AL5, AL9, AL14, AND AL1 03 WERE LARGER THAN 4,000 Ng/L.
3. AREA 1 IS DEFINED BY THE DATA CLUSTERING PATTERN OF THE ASH BASIN
POREWATER; AREA 2 IS DEFINED BY THE DATA CLUSTERING PATTERN OF THE
WATER SUPPLY AND REGIONAL BACKGROUND WELLS.

1
I
I
�/SCyARGEALLEN
CANAC STEAM \ 1
`1 STATION ` I
I
I STRUCTURAL \
INACTIVE FILL
ASH BASIN
ASH I \
Z %\ J --_I O I STORAGE
lr/ 7 AL3
ASH RETIRED ASH BASIN
O J CTIVE STORAGE ASH LANDFILL
O AL117 O ALS PERMIT N0.3612
ASH BASIN I
�- STRUCTURAL
FILL
AL31 O
LAKE WYLIE
AL115 C'L67 :RlMNDfRY7POPPOND 3Y (CATAWBA RIVER) I
PRIMARY
AL52�AL56� POND2 �—
r
I
Q AL93 0 \ 0 0:
o�Q O OAL48 Y Z m
2O
ACTIVE w
O O� SEE A5-98 FOR DETAIL ASH BASIN Y
I iLu
� A 4
O Oq
A 5
O� O V ` ---
O --
�
(�)AL89
O O
0 0
00
0
0
00
0 0
o °
00
[O]
1ICH
LEGEND
O
NOTES

(�
HEATHER GI -EN �N
,..raONGRO
I
°
I
O ALB
O INACTIVE
ASH BASIN
O O I
I I
0 0
WARRE"R O 0
S POINT DR
N 0
j AL31
O =
° X
° 0 0
0
I
N I
0 ° AL67
O o
0 O 0
q 0 MIDW OGD L
O O
° � I
r AL56
rn
O o AL52 O
o O 0 O O
\NILDLIFE RD
� I
O �
i
O I
AL93 AL48
o I
ASH
STORAGE
LEGEND
NOTES

(a) Ash Basin Porewater Wells Only (b) Ash Basin Porewater and Downgradient Facility Bedrock Wells
EXPLANATION 100 EXPLANATION 100
♦ Ash Basin Porewater Well ♦ Ash Basin Porewater Well
A Facility Bedrock Well(Downgradient) AB29SL
x \v 'A `V
♦♦\. / ` �. / ♦♦\.
./ ./
♦f\ A �. A
/ .` / `. `� ,�c/
100 0 ,� /.A 0 100 100 0 e , /. 0 100
V . / ` / . At . ` /
�.`AB- BRU AB29SL
ex
-- x--- dx / `` -- x---
1 -- x
ao
/ . x `♦ / . / . X `♦ /
`/ ./ `f'x U ♦ `/ ./ `/ ./ fix U ♦ `/ ./
.♦ / s.�. .♦ / ♦.
♦♦ ./1 ` / . / ./ ` / ♦♦
-tA —�--- --- 100 �y --- --- --- AB29SL-�f - --- k--- 100 -may --- --- ---
0 � 100 100 � 0 0 A� 100 100 � 0
100 0 0 100 100 0 0 100
AB-25BRU
Ca 2+ Cl Ca 2+ Cl
CATIONS ANIONS CATIONS ANIONS

(a) Water Supply and Regional Background Wells
EXPLANATION 100
• Water Supply Well
A L 115
O Regional Background Well
x `v
• A
\` \`
100 0 • /v 0 100
--- '----- 100
0 •`�/ 100 100
100 0 0 100
Ca 2+ CI
CATIONS ANIONS
NOTE
BLUE CIRCLES SHOW THE DATA THAT APPARENTLY DEVIATE
FROM THE GENERAL DATA CLUSTERING PATTERN.
(b) Water Supply and Regional Background Wells and Up- and Side Gradient
Facility Bedrock Wells
EXPLANATION
• Water Supply Well
O Regional Background Well
■ Facility Bedrock Well (Upgradient)
❑ Facility Bedrock Well (Side Gradient
0
too 0
loo
---� --- 2 A $ ---y ---
/A wx
—�� -- �+F---- °
OF --�r� -- �4----
0 0 too too o
loo 0 0 100
Cat' CI
CATIONS ANIONS
13/
/® `v \ ,
\ Ak \ \ /
o
o/ ,d`
/ • \Y \� `
O 100
---� --- 2 A $ ---y ---
/A wx
—�� -- �+F---- °
OF --�r� -- �4----
0 0 too too o
loo 0 0 100
Cat' CI
CATIONS ANIONS

(a) Ash Basin Porewater and Downgradient Facility Bedrock Wells
EXPLANATION 100
♦ Ash Basin Porewater Well
e Facility Bedrock Well (Downgradient)
Ca 2+
CATIONS
NOTE
BLUE DIAMOND DEFINES THE GENERAL DATA CLUSTERING
PATTERN OF THE WATER SUPPLYAND REGIONAL
BACKGROUND WELLS.
Cr
ANIONS
(b) Water Supply and Regional Background Wells and
Up- and Side -Gradient Facility Bedrock Wells
EXPLANATION
• Water Supply Well
O Regional Background Well
■ Facility Bedrock Well (Upgradient)
❑ Facility Bedrock Well (Side Gradient
0
100 0
100
• /< �\
\ /\ �\ /
\/
OtRV /� h
0 100
,<
zy
— -- �x i
--- --- too —• —�i—---*--- ,F---
/ /
0 0� oo too o
-----------------
100 0 0 too
Ca 2+
CATIONS
C1
ANIONS

o'
Q
0
z
z
D
D' L-1
O
m
z
J
w
SOUTH PMT ROAD
U
WEST
cc
z EAST
w
COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY COINCIDENT
WITH PROPERTY BOUNDARY
0
RAB ASH RETIRED ASH �
o
STRUCTURAL
LANDFILL BASIN DAM
FILL
ASH STORAGE
AB--35BR
INACTIVE
AREA
'D_35S SB-6
—
WATER ASH BAS N
SUPPLY
WELL
AB-36D SB-1
-
FILL
AB-37D
AB -36S
AB 31S
AB-37S
AB-31D
NACTIVE ASH
—BASIN
- GWA-4S
_ - -
cwA-4o
CATAWBA
LLUVIUM —
RIVER
--�
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF
STANDARD
REGOLITH2L
EXCEEDANCES OF BORON
-----___I
—
N IGROUNDWATER
I I
- ----- - - -
PWR /TZ
BEDROCK
LEGEND
ASH
CROSS SECTION ALLEN INACTIVE ASH
BASIN REGOLITH
(LOOKING NORTH)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED
ROCK/TRANZITION
ZONE (PWR/TZ)
BEDROCK
NOTE:
FILL
1. TRANSECT DD' FROM FIGURE 1 1 1 IN
THE CSA REPORT USED FOR
CROSS—SECTION SHOWN ABOVE.
APPROXIMATE EXTENT
of 2L STANDARD
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE AND IS INTENDED
FOR LLUSTRATION PURPOSES
ONLY.
(700 WA) ExcEEDANCEs
GROUNDNWATER
of BORON IN
2. APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF 2L STANDARD
EXCEEDANCES OF BORON IN
GROUNDWATER BASED ON RESULTS
FROM 2015 ROUND 2 SAMPLING EVENT.
APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER
FLOW DIRECTION
CROSS-SECTION CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
DATE
IM)l
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
APRIL 2016
ALLEN STEAM STATION ASH BASIN
FIGURE
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROHN-
A4 13

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
ATTACHMENT A-1
Histograms and Probability Plots for Selected Constituents
APRIL 2016 U'CH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
Part -1: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well
Data Test for Equal Variances
APRIL 2016 DRICH

ALLEN REGIONAL BACKGROUND WATER SUPPLY WELL DATA
Test for Equal Variances: Hexavalent Chromium (ug/L) versus Data Source
Method
Null hypothesis All variances are equal
Alternative hypothesis At least one variance is different
Significance level a = 0.05
95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for Standard Deviations
Data
Source N StDev
Duke 6 2.16085
NC DEQ 7 1.48354
CI
(0.347387, 21.4566)
(0.246712, 13.1228)
Individual confidence level = 97.5%
Tests
Method
Multiple comparisons
Levene
Test
Statistic P -Value
— 0.656
0.41 0.533
Test for Equal Variances: Hexavalent Chromium (ug/L) vs Data Source
Multiple comparison intervals for the standard deviation, a = 0.05
Multiple Comparisons
P -Value 0.656
Levene's Test
Duke P -Value 0.533
v
V
i
3
0
N
(0
f6
NC DEQ -
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
If intervals do not overlap, the corresponding stdevs are significantly different.
Test for Equal Variances: Vanadium (ug/L) versus Data Source

Method
Null hypothesis All variances are equal
Alternative hypothesis At least one variance is different
Significance level a = 0.05
95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for Standard Deviations
Data
Source N StDev
Duke 16 5.84117
NC DEQ 7 7.94331
CI
(3.39840, 11.6754)
(1.40667, 65.9829)
Individual confidence level = 97.5%
Tests
Method
Multiple comparisons
Levene
Test
Statistic P -Value
— 0.593
0.01 0.909
Test for Equal Variances: Vanadium (ug/L) vs Data Source
Multiple comparison intervals for the standard deviation, a = 0.05
I
Duke
NC DEQ
5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0
If intervals do not overlap, the corresponding stdevs are significantly different.
Multiple Comparisons
P -Value 0.593
Levene's Test
P -Value 0.909

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
Part -2: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well
Data Test for Equal Variances
APRIL 2016 DRICH

ALLEN FACILITY BACKGROUND MONITORING WELL DATA
Test for Equal Variances: Chromium (VI) - ug/L - T versus sys_loc_code
Method
Null hypothesis All variances are equal
Alternative hypothesis At least one variance is different
Significance level a = 0.05
95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for Standard Deviations
sys loc code N StDev
BG -1D 2 0.50770
BG-2BR 3 2.83549
BG -2D 2 0.03536
BG -3D 2 0.02121
CI
(0.0108479, 4426.62)
Individual confidence level = 98.75%
Tests
Test
Method Statistic P -Value
Multiple comparisons — 0.018
Levene 1.02 0.459
* NOTE * The graphical summary cannot be displayed because the multiple comparison
intervals
cannot be calculated.
Test for Equal Variances: Vanadium - ug/L - T versus sys_loc_code
Method
Null hypothesis All variances are equal
Alternative hypothesis At least one variance is different
Significance level a = 0.05
95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for Standard Deviations
sys_loc_code N StDev CI
BG -1D 4 6.84270 (0.730404, 170.685)
BG-2BR 5 1.94725 (0.341405, 22.192)
BG -2D 4 2.78613 (0.336885, 61.352)
BG -3D 4 1.82094 (0.236982, 37.255)
Individual confidence level = 98.75%
Tests
Test
Method Statistic P -Value
Multiple comparisons — 0.289
Levene 0.73 0.551

Test for Equal Variances: Vanadium - ug/L - T vs sys_loc_code
Multiple comparison intervals for the standard deviation, a = 0.05
BG -1D I I
-0 BG-2BR
O
U
U
O
NI
BG -2D
BG -3D
r'
0 10 20 30 40
If intervals do not overlap, the corresponding stdevs are significantly different.
Multiple Comparisons
P -Value 0.289
Levene's Test
P -Value 0.551

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
Part -3: Histograms and Probability Plots for Background Regional Background
Water Supply Well Data and Facility Background Monitoring Well Data
APRIL 2016 DRICH

Histogram of Background Constituents - Allen (Regional)
Barium (ug/L) Boron (ug/L) I Cobalt (ug/L)
8
30 0
4
5 5
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 10 20 30 40 50 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Hexava lent Chromium (uajQ Iron u L Lead u
V 10
C
O/ 5.0
d 2.5 S.
5
LL
0.0 L 0 Lj_
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 120 240 360 480 0.4 0.8 L2 L6
Nickel u L Thallium u L Vanadium u
16
23-
20-
10-
0210 a
1P77
0 0
IE
0 3 6 9 12 O1 0.2 0 5 10 15 20
99
90
50
Probability Plot of Background Constituents - Allen
Normal - 95% CI (Regional)
Barium u y9 Boron u 99 Cobah u L
90 90 •
so 50
10 30 10
1 1 • 1 •
-SD 0 80 -50 0 50 0.0 OS LO
99 Hexavalent Chromium u L 93 Iron ug/y 99 Lead u
Y •
90 90 90
50 50 so
1 30 10 30
•
1 1 1
-5
0 5 -300 0 300 0.0 12 24
0.0 0.1 0.2 -5 10 25
Histogram of Background Constituents- Allen (Facility)
Barium - ug/L - T Boron - ug/L -T Cobalt - ug/L - T
16 to -
5
30
8
'
0 0
° 0 e Yry8 1e + P° y° °9 op o% titi tib � q.
vChromium I - u L -T 10 Iron-ug/L-T 1 Lead - u L -T
5.0-
5
� 2.5
LL
0.0 0 MIN a L,_�I.
O 5 ,YO .Yh ti0 by .j0 n� ° 58 10' 1�° 'L5� ^Y 35°O O Y
Nickel - u L -D Thallium - u L -T Vanadium-uq/L-T
10 10 5
5 5 2
0 0 0.0
0=7_r]
Probability Plot of Background Constituents- Allen
Normal - 95% CI (Facility)
999 Barium -ug/L- T 99 Boron - u L -T 99 �_ Cobalt -u L -T
•
90 90 90- •
50 50- s0
30 • 10 • � 30
1 3 —
-2000 0 2000 30 45 60 -2 0 2
99 Chromium (Vu - Ug/ L -T Iron -us, 99 Lead -u L -T
BO 90 • 90 -
so.
0 s0 s0 s0
C 10 10 111-
-50
0 -so o so -3000 0 30ao e o 4
99 9s Thallium-ua 99. Vanadium-ua/L-T
90 • 90 • 90
50 50 50
30 0 10
•
1 1 1
-10 0 10 0.00 0.25 0.50 0 20 40
PRIVLEGED & CONFIDENTIAL —ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION —ATTORNEY
WORK PRODUCT — DO NOT DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF COUNSEL

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
Part 4: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well
Data Outlier Test Statistics
APRIL 2016 DRICH

Attachment A-1: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
Outlier Tests for Selected Uncensored Variables
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation 4/1/2016 5:37:09 PM
From File WorkSheet a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Dixon's Outlier Test for Barium - ug/L - T
Number of Observations = 17
10% critical value: 0.438
5% critical value: 0.49
1 % critical value: 0.577
1. Observation Value 1700 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.237
For 10% significance level, 1700 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 1700 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 1700 is not an outlier.
2. Observation Value 13 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.001
For 10% significance level, 13 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 13 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 13 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Cobalt - ug/L - T
Number of Observations = 17
10% critical value: 0.438
5% critical value: 0.49
1 % critical value: 0.577
1. Observation Value 2.5 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.850
For 10% significance level, 2.5 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 2.5 is an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 2.5 is an outlier.
2. Observation Value 0.14 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.492
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Outlier test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 1 of 4
4/8/2016

Attachment A-1: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
For 10% significance level, 0.14 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 0.14 is an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 0.14 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Chromium (VI) - ug/L - T
Number of Observations = 9
10% critical value: 0.441
5% critical value: 0.512
1 % critical value: 0.635
1. Observation Value 34.3 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.123
For 10% significance level, 34.3 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 34.3 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 34.3 is not an outlier.
2. Observation Value 0.092 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.006
For 10% significance level, 0.092 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 0.092 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 0.092 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Iron - ug/L - T
Number of Observations = 17
10% critical value: 0.438
5% critical value: 0.49
1 % critical value: 0.577
1. Observation Value 3700 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.630
For 10% significance level, 3700 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 3700 is an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 3700 is an outlier.
2. Observation Value 36 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.010
For 10% significance level, 36 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 36 is not an outlier.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Outlier test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 2 of 4
4/8/2016

Attachment A-1: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
For 1 % significance level, 36 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Lead - ug/L - T
Number of Observations = 17
10% critical value: 0.438
5% critical value: 0.49
1 % critical value: 0.577
1. Observation Value 4.7 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.853
For 10% significance level, 4.7 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 4.7 is an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 4.7 is an outlier.
2. Observation Value 0.047 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.050
For 10% significance level, 0.047 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 0.047 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 0.047 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Nickel - ug/L - D
Number of Observations = 17
10% critical value: 0.438
5% critical value: 0.49
1 % critical value: 0.577
1. Observation Value 14.8 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.923
For 10% significance level, 14.8 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 14.8 is an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 14.8 is an outlier.
2. Observation Value 0.22 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.133
For 10% significance level, 0.22 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 0.22 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 0.22 is not an outlier.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Outlier test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 3 of 4
4/8/2016

Attachment A-1: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
Dixon's Outlier Test for Thallium - ug/L - T
Number of Observations = 17
10% critical value: 0.438
5% critical value: 0.49
1 % critical value: 0.577
1. Observation Value 0.43 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.831
For 10% significance level, 0.43 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 0.43 is an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 0.43 is an outlier.
2. Observation Value 0.017 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.193
For 10% significance level, 0.017 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 0.017 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 0.017 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Vanadium - ug/L - T
Number of Observations = 17
10% critical value: 0.438
5% critical value: 0.49
1 % critical value: 0.577
1. Observation Value 24.3 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.114
For 10% significance level, 24.3 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 24.3 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 24.3 is not an outlier.
2. Observation Value 0.52 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.004
For 10% significance level, 0.52 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 0.52 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 0.52 is not an outlier.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Outlier test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 4 of 4
4/8/2016

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
Part 5: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
APRIL 2016 DRICH

Attachment A-1: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
Outlier Tests for Selected Uncensored Variables
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation 4/1/2016 3:25:02 PM
From File WorkSheet.xls
Full Precision OFF
Dixon's Outlier Test for Barium (ug/L)
Number of Observations = 23
10% critical value: 0.374
5% critical value: 0.421
1 % critical value: 0.505
1. Observation Value 126 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.399
For 10% significance level, 126 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 126 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 126 is not an outlier.
2. Observation Value 3.4 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.067
For 10% significance level, 3.4 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 3.4 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 3.4 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Boron (ug/L)
Number of Observations = 23
10% critical value: 0.374
5% critical value: 0.421
1 % critical value: 0.505
1. Observation Value 50 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.000
For 10% significance level, 50 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 50 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 50 is not an outlier.
2. Observation Value 5 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.000
For 10% significance level, 5 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 5 is not an outlier.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Outlier test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx
Page 1 of 4
4/8/2016

Attachment A-1: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
For 1 % significance level, 5 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Hexavalent Chromium (ug/L)
Number of Observations = 13
10% critical value: 0.467
5% critical value: 0.521
1 % critical value: 0.615
1. Observation Value 5.8 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.753
For 10% significance level, 5.8 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 5.8 is an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 5.8 is an outlier.
2. Observation Value 0.064 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.055
For 10% significance level, 0.064 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 0.064 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 0.064 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Iron (ug/L)
Number of Observations = 23
10% critical value: 0.374
5% critical value: 0.421
1 % critical value: 0.505
1. Observation Value 4200 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.889
For 10% significance level, 4200 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 4200 is an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 4200 is an outlier.
2. Observation Value 10 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.000
For 10% significance level, 10 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 10 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 10 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Lead (ug/L)
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Outlier test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx
Page 2 of 4
4/8/2016

Attachment A-1: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
Number of Observations = 23
10% critical value: 0.374
5% critical value: 0.421
1 % critical value: 0.505
1. Observation Value 33 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.948
For 10% significance level, 33 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 33 is an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 33 is an outlier.
2. Observation Value 0.1 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.000
For 10% significance level, 0.1 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 0.1 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 0.1 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Nickel (ug/L)
Number of Observations = 23
10% critical value: 0.374
5% critical value: 0.421
1 % critical value: 0.505
1. Observation Value 12 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.609
For 10% significance level, 12 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 12 is an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 12 is an outlier.
2. Observation Value 0.5 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.000
For 10% significance level, 0.5 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 0.5 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 0.5 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Vanadium (ug/L)
Number of Observations = 23
10% critical value: 0.374
5% critical value: 0.421
1 % critical value: 0.505
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Outlier test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx
Page 3 of 4
4/8/2016

Attachment A-1: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
1. Observation Value 23.7 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.198
For 10% significance level, 23.7 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 23.7 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 23.7 is not an outlier.
2. Observation Value 0.3 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.063
For 10% significance level, 0.3 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 0.3 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 0.3 is not an outlier.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Outlier test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx
Page 4 of 4
4/8/2016

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
ATTACHMENT A-2
Results of Statistical Computations
APRIL 2016 U'CH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
Part -1: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
APRIL 2016 DRICH

Attachment A-2: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets without Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation 4/1/2016 3:49:17 PM
From File WorkSheet.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 0.95
Barium (ug/L)
Raw Statistics
0.924
Number of Valid Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
21
Minimum
3.4
Maximum
119
Mean of Raw Data
35.56
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
28.47
Khat
1.763
Theta hat
20.17
Kstar
1.543
Theta star
23.05
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.261
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.858
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.924
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.86
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00514
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.159
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.193
Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.993
A -D Test Statistic
0.193
A -D Critical (0.05) Value
0.756
K -S Test Statistic
0.105
K -S Critical(0.05) Value
0.192
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
0.193
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.987
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.977
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.908
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.851
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.118
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.193
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx
Page 1 of 10
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Num Obs
Date/Time of Computation
4/1/2016 3:49:03 PM
From File
WorkSheet.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
0.95
Boron (ug/L)
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.84 0.803 0.841 0.459
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
21
0
21
4
17
80.95%
0.193
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
17
5
50
23.53
5
22.83
Statistics (Detects Only)
4
5.1
12.4
7.225
5.7
3.465
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
21
5
50
20.42
5.1
21.49
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
21
2.5
25
10.9
5.1
10.46
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
21
-15.52
12.4
-2.388
-2.44
7.346
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
21
0.01
12.4
2.002
0.01
3.391
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
21
0.424
12.4
3.035
2.078
2.873
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Detects Only)
7.216
1.971
1.001
1.907
0.412
0.216
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.991
0.881
20.61
2.434
1.089
0.447
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.105
0.979
9.862
1.872
1.057
0.565
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.242
0.239
8.259
-
-
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.738
0.892
1.209
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.84 0.803 0.841 0.459
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.717
0.748
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.399
0.443
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.626
0.908
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.369
0.193
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.686
0.908
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.303
0.193
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.986
0.908
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.0841
0.193
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.92 0.819 0.838 0.964
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx
Page 2 of 10
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.692
0.658
0.375
0.405
0.395
Data Not Gamma Distributed
3.645
0.77
Data Not Lognormal
0.366
0.195
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.602
0.767
0.735
0.293
0.194
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.591
0.875
Data Not Lognormal
0.355
0.208
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.866 0.821 0.87 0.996
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.762
0.748
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.375
0.443
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.655
0.908
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.346
0.193
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.735
0.908
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.293
0.193
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.986
0.908
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.0792
0.193
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are
not recommended.
0.61
Hexavalent Chromium (ug/L)
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 20 7 13 9 4 30.77%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0
9
0.064
5.8
1.655
0.89
2.059
13
0.064
5.8
1.33
0.6
1.756
13
0.064
5.8
1.238
0.31
1.803
13
-1.437
5.8
1.055
0.61
1.978
13
0.01
5.8
1.163
0.31
1.849
13
0.0562
5.8
1.201
0.335
1.826
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
0.772
0.589
2.144
-0.269
1.432
-5.33
0.927
0.764
1.436
-0.343
1.175
-3.424
0.774
0.647
1.599
-0.556
1.253
-2.251
0.427
0.379
2.726
-0.775
1.463
-1.887
Normal GOF Test Results
Page 3 of 10
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.868 0.797 0.794 0.854
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.751
0.829
Data Not Normal
0.31
0.295
Data Not Normal
0.647
0.866
Data Not Normal
0.366
0.246
Data Not Normal
0.639
0.866
Data Not Normal
0.344
0.246
Data Not Normal
0.806
0.866
Data Not Normal
0.3
0.246
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.97 0.946 0.957 0.974
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.311
0.751
0.121
0.202
0.289
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.888
0.761
Data Appear Lognormal
0.267
0.244
Data Not Gamma Distributed
0.987
0.769
0.922
0.259
0.246
Data Not Gamma Distributed
0.336
0.805
Data Appear Lognormal
0.129
0.252
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.988 0.958 0.958 0.986
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.972
0.829
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.121
0.295
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.931
0.866
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.213
0.246
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.922
0.866
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.227
0.246
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.959
0.866
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.124
0.246
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are
not recommended.
Iron (ug/L)
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 21 0 21 6 15 71.43%
Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx
Page 4 of 10
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
15
10
50
39.33
50
18.31
Statistics (Detects Only)
6
17
475
141.5
88.5
172.3
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
21
10
475
68.52
50
99.45
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
21
5
475
54.48
25
103.2
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
21
-437.1
475
-86.22
-90.61
216.2
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
21
0.01
475
45.51
0.01
107.6
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
21
0.65
475
48.74
11.4
105.8
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Detects Only)
0.966
0.594
146.5
4.352
1.224
0.281
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.146
1.014
59.79
3.731
0.957
0.257
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.782
0.702
69.7
3.236
1.13
0.349
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.152
0.162
299.9
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
2.47
1.75
0.708
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.864 0.675 0.648 0.449
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.76
0.788
Data Not Normal
0.311
0.362
Data Appear Normal
0.482
0.908
Data Not Normal
0.431
0.193
Data Not Normal
0.445
0.908
Data Not Normal
0.407
0.193
Data Not Normal
0.964
0.908
Data Appear Normal
0.0886
0.193
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.983 0.851 0.875 0.989
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.301
0.716
0.205
0.341
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
1.966
0.766
0.357
0.194
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.467
0.781
0.353
0.197
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.724
0.941
0.395
0.214
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.987 0.914 0.908 0.995
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx
Page 5 of 10
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.967
0.788
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.161
0.362
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.841
0.908
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.282
0.193
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.832
0.908
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.268
0.193
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.985
0.908
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.0678
0.193
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are
not recommended.
0.2
Lead (ug/L)
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 21 0 21 11 10 47.62%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
10
0.1
1
0.64
1
0.465
11
0.12
1.82
0.505
0.27
0.502
21
0.1
1.82
0.57
0.31
0.478
21
0.05
1.82
0.417
0.31
0.399
21
-0.868
1.82
0.197
0.2
0.602
21
0.01
1.82
0.337
0.2
0.43
21
0.0325
1.82
0.347
0.2
0.411
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
1.578
1.208
0.32
-1.031
0.838
-0.812
1.344
1.184
0.424
-0.979
0.995
-1.017
1.292
1.139
0.323
-1.309
1.037
-0.792
0.609
0.554
0.554
-1.57
1.034
-0.659
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.851 0.915 0.868 0.934
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.738
0.85
Data Not Normal
0.288
0.267
Data Not Normal
0.835
0.908
Data Not Normal
0.23
0.193
Data Not Normal
0.769
0.908
Data Not Normal
0.227
0.193
Data Not Normal
0.95
0.908
Data Appear Normal
0.14
0.193
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Page 6 of 10
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
Correlation Coefficient R 0.964 0.939 0.958 0.981
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.616
0.742
0.926
0.251
0.26
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
1.148
0.762
Data Appear Lognormal
0.174
0.193
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distri
0.505
0.763
0.201
0.169
0.194
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.665
0.795
Data Appear Lognormal
0.189
0.199
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.965 0.943 0.961 0.994
Nickel (ug/L)
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 21 0 21 5 16 76.19%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD
16 0.5 5 2.188 0.5 2.25
5 0.53 12 3.806 1.4 4.786
21 0.5 12 2.573 0.53 2.979
21 0.25 12 1.74 0.53 2.633
21 -19.84 12 -6.078 -6.361 7.846
21 0.01 12 0.986 0.01 2.702
21 0.00443 12 1.045 0.147 2.674
K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV
0.942 0.51 4.04 0.719 1.234 1.715
0.907 0.809 2.837 0.301 1.165 3.868
0.765 0.687 2.274 -0.227 1.262 -5.559
0.233 0.231 4.235
-1.846 2.036 -1.103
Normal GOF Test Results
Page 7 of 10
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.926
0.85
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.203
0.267
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.873
0.908
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.201
0.193
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.916
0.908
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.2
0.193
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.986
0.908
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.0779
0.193
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Nickel (ug/L)
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 21 0 21 5 16 76.19%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD
16 0.5 5 2.188 0.5 2.25
5 0.53 12 3.806 1.4 4.786
21 0.5 12 2.573 0.53 2.979
21 0.25 12 1.74 0.53 2.633
21 -19.84 12 -6.078 -6.361 7.846
21 0.01 12 0.986 0.01 2.702
21 0.00443 12 1.045 0.147 2.674
K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV
0.942 0.51 4.04 0.719 1.234 1.715
0.907 0.809 2.837 0.301 1.165 3.868
0.765 0.687 2.274 -0.227 1.262 -5.559
0.233 0.231 4.235
-1.846 2.036 -1.103
Normal GOF Test Results
Page 7 of 10
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.87 0.831 0.746 0.682
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.765
0.762
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.292
0.396
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.699
0.908
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.277
0.193
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.578
0.908
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.291
0.193
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.984
0.908
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.0859
0.193
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.994 0.935 0.924 0.962
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.357
0.693
0.28
0.365
2.469
0.775
0.316
0.196
1.782
0.782
0.285
0.197
3.787
0.879
0.446
0.208
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.98 0.873 0.902 0.996
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
From File
Full Precision
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
4/1/2016 4:04:04 PM
WorkSheet.xls
OFF
Page 8 of 10
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.956
0.762
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.222
0.396
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.748
0.908
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.313
0.193
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.802
0.908
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.297
0.193
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.988
0.908
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.0637
0.193
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
From File
Full Precision
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
4/1/2016 4:04:04 PM
WorkSheet.xls
OFF
Page 8 of 10
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
Confidence Coefficient 0.95
Vanadium (ug/L)
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.887 0.898 0.902 0.905
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
21
0
21
19
2
9.52%
Data Appear Normal
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2
0.3
1
0.65
0.65
0.495
Statistics (Detects Only)
19
1.5
23.7
7.134
5.2
5.893
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
21
0.3
23.7
6.517
4.5
5.922
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
21
0.15
23.7
6.486
4.5
5.955
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
21
-5.574
23.7
5.924
4.5
6.773
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
21
0.01
23.7
6.456
4.5
5.988
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
21
0.993
23.7
6.549
4.5
5.888
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Detects Only)
2.059
1.769
3.465
1.703
0.726
0.426
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.422
1.251
4.582
1.483
0.996
0.671
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.246
1.099
5.207
1.417
1.151
0.812
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.78
0.701
8.272
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
1.54
0.86
0.558
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.887 0.898 0.902 0.905
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.793
0.901
Data Not Normal
0.198
0.203
Data Appear Normal
0.812
0.908
Data Not Normal
0.188
0.193
Data Appear Normal
0.818
0.908
Data Not Normal
0.186
0.193
Data Appear Normal
0.897
0.908
Data Not Normal
0.162
0.193
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.977 0.987 0.989 0.99
Page 9 of 10
4/8/2016
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.448
0.752
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.119
0.201
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.215
0.76
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.0811
0.193
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.26
0.764
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.105
0.194
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx
Page 9 of 10
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates) 1.043 0.781
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.) 0.202 0.197 Data Not Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.991 0.974 0.947 0.993
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Page 10 of 10
4/8/2016
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.98
0.901
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.0878
0.203
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.958
0.908
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.124
0.193
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.907
0.908
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.166
0.193
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.979
0.908
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.0792
0.193
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Page 10 of 10
4/8/2016

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
Part -2: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
APRIL 2016 DRICH

Attachment A-2: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets without Non -Detects
User Selected Options
0.784
Date/Time of Computation
4/1/2016 5:38:09 PM
From File
Worksheet a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
0.95
Barium - ug/L - T
Raw Statistics
0.784
Number of Valid Observations
17
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Minimum
13
Maximum
1700
Mean of Raw Data
354.6
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
594
Khat
0.422
Theta hat
839.8
Kstar
0.387
Theta star
916.4
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.326
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.782
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.784
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.611
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.892
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.1530E-6
0.00415
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.431
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.215
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.918
A -D Test Statistic 1.974
A -D Critical (0.05) Value 0.815
K -S Test Statistic 0.323
K -S Critical(0.05) Value 0.223
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.916
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.821
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.892
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00415
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.205
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.215
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 1 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Data appear Approximate—Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Chromium (VI) - ug/L - T
Raw Statistics
0.83
Number of Valid Observations
9
Number of Missing Observations
8
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Minimum
0.092
Maximum
34.3
Mean of Raw Data
10.74
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
15.34
Khat
0.368
Theta hat
29.17
Kstar
0.319
Theta star
33.61
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.562
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
2.277
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.83
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.669
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.829
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00118
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.405
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.295
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.847
A -D Test Statistic 1.005
A -D Critical (0.05) Value 0.795
K -S Test Statistic 0.35
K -S Critical(0.05) Value 0.299
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.933
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.849
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.829
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.111
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.271
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.295
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 2 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Date/Time of Computation 4/1/2016 5:38:39 PM
From File WorkSheet a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 0.95
Cobalt - ug/L - T
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 17 0 17 8 9 52.94%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
9
0.5
2.5
0.722
0.5
0.667
8
0.14
2.4
0.741
0.57
0.702
17
0.14
2.5
0.731
0.5
0.662
17
0.14
2.4
0.54
0.25
0.556
17
-0.282
2.4
0.514
0.49
0.565
17
0.01
2.4
0.498
0.39
0.543
17
0.128
2.4
0.522
0.391
0.52
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
1.824
1.223
0.406
-0.598
0.812
-1.357
2.231
1.876
0.328
-0.554
0.659
-1.19
1.791
1.514
0.302
-0.921
0.728
-0.791
1.015
0.875
0.491
-0.923
0.707
-0.767
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.825 0.747 0.785 0.982
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.709
0.818
Data Not Normal
0.37
0.313
Data Not Normal
0.573
0.892
Data Not Normal
0.371
0.215
Data Not Normal
0.638
0.892
Data Not Normal
0.242
0.215
Data Not Normal
0.763
0.892
Data Not Normal
0.279
0.215
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.928 0.859 0.927 0.925
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.446 0.726
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.271 0.298 Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL) 2.28 0.749
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 3 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.325
0.211 Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
1.427
0.752
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.272
0.212 Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.521
0.766
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.163
0.215 Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.963 0.878 0.924 0.97
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.952
0.818
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.226
0.313
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.795
0.892
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.29
0.215
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.861
0.892
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.268
0.215
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.952
0.892
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.126
0.215
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are
not recommended.
180
Iron - ug/L - T
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 17 0 17 15 2 11.76%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
2
50
50
50
50
0
15
36
3700
714.7
310
999.9
17
36
3700
636.5
180
961
17
25
3700
633.5
180
962.9
17
-1109
3700
523.4
180
1082
17
0.01
3700
630.6
180
965
17
14.8
3700
633.1
180
963.2
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
0.713
0.615
1002
5.727
1.398
0.244
0.648
0.573
982.2
5.513
1.44
0.261
0.605
0.538
1047
5.432
1.55
0.285
0.348
0.326
1813
5.409
1.59
0.294
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.83 0.809 0.812 0.815
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.703 0.881 Data Not Normal
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 4 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.287
0.229
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.669
0.892
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.288
0.215
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.673
0.892
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.287
0.215
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.839
0.892
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.244
0.215
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.99 0.988 0.99 0.998
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.442
0.778
0.962
0.167
0.231
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.688
0.785
Data Appear Lognormal
0.185
0.219
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.506
0.789
0.16
0.168
0.219
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.503
0.831
Data Appear Lognormal
0.171
0.225
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.987 0.975 0.986 0.993
Lead - ug/L - T
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 17 0 17 12 5 29.41%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Number
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.962
0.881
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.119
0.229
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.937
0.892
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.16
0.215
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.957
0.892
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.127
0.215
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.976
0.892
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.117
0.215
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Lead - ug/L - T
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 17 0 17 12 5 29.41%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
12
0.047
4.7
0.757
0.39
1.278
17
0.047
4.7
0.564
0.15
1.104
17
0.047
4.7
0.549
0.15
1.111
17
-1.084
4.7
0.411
0.15
1.218
Page 5 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 17 0.01 4.7 0.537 0.15 1.116
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 17 0.0194 4.7 0.553 0.15 1.109
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
0.713
0.59
1.061
-1.124
1.354
-1.205
0.677
0.597
0.833
-1.471
1.252
-0.851
0.578
0.515
0.949
-1.675
1.426
-0.852
0.427
0.391
1.259
-1.653
1.451
-0.877
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.715 0.664 0.668 0.721
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.541
0.859
Data Not Normal
0.388
0.256
Data Not Normal
0.47
0.892
Data Not Normal
0.339
0.215
Data Not Normal
0.475
0.892
Data Not Normal
0.334
0.215
Data Not Normal
0.67
0.892
Data Not Normal
0.3
0.215
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.906 0.885 0.898 0.918
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.584
0.768
0.155
0.226
0.255
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
1.285
0.783
Data Appear Lognormal
0.219
0.218
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.323
0.791
0.211
0.22
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distri
0.709
0.814
0.151
0.223
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.972 0.949 0.927 0.978
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.943
0.859
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.155
0.256
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.901
0.892
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.217
0.215
Data Not Lognormal
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 6 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.85
0.892
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.235
0.215
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.956
0.892
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.12
0.215
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are
not recommended.
Mean
Nickel - ug/L - D
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.652 0.63 0.636 0.637
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
17
0
17
15
2
11.76%
Data Not Normal
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
Statistics (Detects Only)
15
0.22
14.8
1.911
0.68
3.712
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
17
0.22
14.8
1.745
0.68
3.504
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
17
0.22
14.8
1.716
0.68
3.516
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
17
-2.014
14.8
1.52
0.68
3.65
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
17
0.01
14.8
1.688
0.68
3.529
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
17
0.182
14.8
1.715
0.68
3.516
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Detects Only)
0.784
0.672
2.437
-0.111
1.049
-9.446
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.805
0.702
2.168
-0.18
1
-5.57
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.748
0.655
2.295
-0.261
1.069
-4.093
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.54
0.484
3.127
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-0.27
1.082
-4.008
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.652 0.63 0.636 0.637
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.454
0.881
Data Not Normal
0.411
0.229
Data Not Normal
0.426
0.892
Data Not Normal
0.41
0.215
Data Not Normal
0.434
0.892
Data Not Normal
0.407
0.215
Data Not Normal
0.54
0.892
Data Not Normal
0.385
0.215
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.882 0.863 0.873 0.9
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 1.966 0.773
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only) 0.332 0.23 Data Not Gamma Distributed
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 7 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
2.361
0.774
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.345
0.217 Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
2.047
0.777
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.326
0.217 Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.271
0.795
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.262
0.22 Data Not Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.909 0.899 0.918 0.927
Thallium - ug/L - T
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 17 0 17 8 9 52.94%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD
9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.472E-17
8 0.017 0.43 0.111 0.083 0.135
17 0.017 0.43 0.105 0.1 0.0897
17 0.017 0.43 0.0789 0.05 0.095
17 -0.0659 0.43 0.0852 0.082 0.108
17 0.01 0.43 0.0826 0.062 0.1
17 0.0124 0.43 0.0798 0.0544 0.0978
K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV
1.095 0.768 0.102 -2.717 1.087 -0.4
2.176 1.832 0.0484 -2.497 0.75 -0.3
1.688 1.429 0.0467 -2.864 0.733 -0.256
1.078 0.927 0.0766
-2.964 0.918 -0.31
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.819 0.727 0.69 0.896
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 8 of 11
4/8/2016
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.844
0.881
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.262
0.229
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.826
0.892
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.267
0.215
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.853
0.892
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.237
0.215
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.871
0.892
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.234
0.215
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended.
Thallium - ug/L - T
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 17 0 17 8 9 52.94%
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Number Minimum Maximum Mean Median SD
9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.472E-17
8 0.017 0.43 0.111 0.083 0.135
17 0.017 0.43 0.105 0.1 0.0897
17 0.017 0.43 0.0789 0.05 0.095
17 -0.0659 0.43 0.0852 0.082 0.108
17 0.01 0.43 0.0826 0.062 0.1
17 0.0124 0.43 0.0798 0.0544 0.0978
K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV
1.095 0.768 0.102 -2.717 1.087 -0.4
2.176 1.832 0.0484 -2.497 0.75 -0.3
1.688 1.429 0.0467 -2.864 0.733 -0.256
1.078 0.927 0.0766
-2.964 0.918 -0.31
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROE
Correlation Coefficient R 0.819 0.727 0.69 0.896
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 8 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.692
0.818
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.321
0.313
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.564
0.892
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.406
0.215
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.507
0.892
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.348
0.215
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.821
0.892
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.185
0.215
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.955 0.82 0.843 0.942
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.437
0.734
0.204
0.218
0.301
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
1.967
0.749
Data Not Lognormal
0.322
0.211
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.734
0.753
0.849
0.317
0.212
Data Not Gamma Distributed
0.423
0.764
Data Not Lognormal
0.117
0.215
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.967 0.867 0.909 0.979
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.931
0.818
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.204
0.313
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.775
0.892
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.322
0.215
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.849
0.892
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.277
0.215
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.961
0.892
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.105
0.215
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are
not recommended.
7.686
Vanadium - ug/L - T
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 9 of 11
4/8/2016
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
17
0
17
15
2
11.76%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2
1
5
3
3
2.828
Statistics (Detects Only)
15
0.52
24.3
10.17
9.3
7.686
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
17
0.52
24.3
9.328
8.6
7.607
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
17
0.5
24.3
9.151
8.6
7.753
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 9 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data) 17
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data) 17
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data) 17
Statistics (Detects Only)
Statistics (NDs = DL)
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-0.12 24.3 8.961 8.6 7.961
0.52 24.3 9.202 8.6 7.693
0.52 24.3 9.106 8.6 7.793
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
1.128
0.947
9.014
1.815
1.318
0.726
1.067
0.918
8.74
1.696
1.309
0.772
0.967
0.836
9.463
1.615
1.386
0.859
1.061
0.913
8.676
1.615
1.357
0.84
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.956 0.951 0.949 0.946
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.901
0.881
Data Appear Normal
0.206
0.229
Data Appear Normal
0.891
0.892
Data Not Normal
0.193
0.215
Data Appear Normal
0.887
0.892
Data Not Normal
0.186
0.215
Data Appear Normal
0.89
0.892
Data Not Normal
0.178
0.215
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.943 0.953 0.948 0.954
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.842
0.761
Data Not Lognormal
0.208
0.227
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distri
0.699
0.765
Data Not Lognormal
0.168
0.215
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.738
0.767
0.175
0.215
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.561
0.765
0.158
0.215
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.894 0.922 0.921 0.93
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.788
0.881
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.277
0.229
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL) 0.835
0.892
Data Not Lognormal
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 10 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment A-2: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.238
0.215
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.83
0.892
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.242
0.215
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.846
0.892
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.243
0.215
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are
not recommended.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Page 11 of 11
4/8/2016

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
ATTACHMENT A-3
Method Computation Details
APRIL 2016 U'CH

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
Part -1: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data BTVs Statistics
APRIL 2016 DRICH

Attachment A-3: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data BTVs Statistics
Page 1 of 7
Boron (ug/L)
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371 d2max (for USL) 2.58
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.86 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.908 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.159 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.193 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 103.1
95% UPL (t) 85.82
95% USL 109
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Variance Detected
Mean Detected
Mean of Detected Logged Data
General Statistics
21
6
4
4
5.1
12.4
12.01
7.225
1.907
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
90% Percentile (z) 72.05
95% Percentile (z) 82.39
99% Percentile (z) 101.8
Number of Missing Observations 0
Number of Non -Detects
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
Minimum Non -Detect
Maximum Non -Detect
Percent Non -Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged Data
17
2
5
50
80.95%
3.465
0.412
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016
Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
4/1/2016 4:11:27 PM
From File
WorkSheet.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Number of Bootstrap Operations
2000
Barium (ug/L)
General Statistics
Total
Number of Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
21
Minimum
3.4
First Quartile
17.8
Second Largest
79.1
Median
26.1
Maximum
119
Third Quartile
43
Mean
35.56
SD
28.47
Coefficient of Variation
0.801
Skewness
1.522
Mean of logged Data
3.261
SD of logged Data
0.858
Boron (ug/L)
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371 d2max (for USL) 2.58
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.86 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.908 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.159 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.193 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 103.1
95% UPL (t) 85.82
95% USL 109
Total Number of Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Detects
Number of Distinct Detects
Minimum Detect
Maximum Detect
Variance Detected
Mean Detected
Mean of Detected Logged Data
General Statistics
21
6
4
4
5.1
12.4
12.01
7.225
1.907
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
90% Percentile (z) 72.05
95% Percentile (z) 82.39
99% Percentile (z) 101.8
Number of Missing Observations 0
Number of Non -Detects
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
Minimum Non -Detect
Maximum Non -Detect
Percent Non -Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged Data
17
2
5
50
80.95%
3.465
0.412
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment A-3: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data BTVs Statistics
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371
Page 2 of 7
d2max (for USL) 2.58
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.717 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.748 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.399 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.443 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
5.636
SD
1.893
95% UTL95% Coverage
10.12
95% KM UPL (t)
8.978
90% KM Percentile (z)
8.062
95% KM Percentile (z)
8.75
99% KM Percentile (z)
10.04
95% KM USL
10.52
DU2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
9
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
Mean
10.9
SD
10.46
95% UTL95% Coverage
35.7
95% UPL (t)
29.36
90% Percentile (z)
24.3
95% Percentile (z)
28.1
99% Percentile (z)
35.23
95% USL
37.89
DU2 is not a recommended method. DU2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Hexavalent Chromium (ug/L)
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
13
Number of Missing Observations
7
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Number of Detects
9
Number of Non -Detects
4
Number of Distinct Detects
9
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.064
Minimum Non -Detect
0.6
Maximum Detect
5.8
Maximum Non -Detect
0.6
Variance Detected
4.241
Percent Non -Detects
30.77%
Mean Detected
1.655
SD Detected
2.059
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.269
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.432
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.671
d2max (for USL)
2.331
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic
0.311
Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value
0.751 Detected data appear
Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K -S Test Statistic
0.202
Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K -S Critical Value
0.289 Detected data appear
Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance
Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
0.772
k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.589
Theta hat (MLE)
2.144
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
2.811
nu hat (MLE)
13.9
nu star (bias corrected)
10.6
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
1.655
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment A-3: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data BTVs Statistics
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM)
Page 3 of 7
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 2.157 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
4.266
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
HW
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
HW
GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small such as < 0.1
9.057
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
4.704
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
6.993
Minimum 0.01 Mean
1.163
Maximum 5.8 Median
0.31
SD 1.849 CV
1.59
k hat (MLE) 0.427 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.379
Theta hat (MLE) 2.726 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
3.064
nu hat (MLE) 11.09 nu star (bias corrected)
9.865
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.163 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.888
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 3.211 90% Percentile
3.314
95% Percentile 4.92 99% Percentile
8.979
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
6
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
15
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 10.23 12.94 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 5.33
5.952
95% Gamma USL 7.942 9.551
17
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM)
0.475
nu hat (KM)
12.35
WH
HW
WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 8.055
9.057
95% Approx. Gamma UPL 4.539
4.704
95% Gamma USL 6.435
6.993
Iron (ug/L)
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
8
Number of Detects
6
Number of Non -Detects
15
Number of Distinct Detects
6
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Detect
17
Minimum Non -Detect
10
Maximum Detect
475
Maximum Non -Detect
50
Variance Detected
29674
Percent Non -Detects
71.43%
Mean Detected
141.5
SD Detected
172.3
Mean of Detected Logged Data
4.352
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.224
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371 d2max (for USL) 2.58
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic 0.301 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value 0.716 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K -S Test Statistic 0.205 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K -S Critical Value 0.341 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment A-3: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data BTVs Statistics
Page 4 of 7
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
General Statistics
k hat (MLE) 0.966 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.594
Theta hat (MLE) 146.5 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
238.3
nu hat (MLE) 11.59 nu star (bias corrected)
7.127
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 141.5
13
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 183.6 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
4.29
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
11
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
10
GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small such as < 0.1
11
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
2
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
0.12
Minimum 0.01 Mean
45.51
Maximum 475 Median
0.01
SD 107.6 CV
2.365
k hat (MLE) 0.152 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.162
Theta hat (MLE) 299.9 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
281.3
nu hat (MLE) 6.373 nu star (bias corrected)
6.796
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 45.51 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
113.1
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 1.754 90% Percentile
136.2
95% Percentile 246.6 99% Percentile
562.4
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 376.8 485.3 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 198.7
216.2
95% Gamma USL 456.9 620.3
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM) 0.265 nu hat (KM) 11.13
WH HW WH HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 260.9 263.2 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 169.9 164.3
95% Gamma USL 298.6 306
Lead (ug/L)
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
13
Number of Detects
11
Number of Non -Detects
10
Number of Distinct Detects
11
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Detect
0.12
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Detect
1.82
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Variance Detected
0.252
Percent Non -Detects
47.62%
Mean Detected
0.505
SD Detected
0.502
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.031
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.838
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.371
d2max (for USL)
2.58
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx
4/8/2016

Attachment A-3: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data BTVs Statistics
Page 5 of 7
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
0.835
k hat (MLE) 1.578 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.208
Theta hat (MLE) 0.32 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.418
nu hat (MLE) 34.72 nu star (bias corrected)
26.58
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.505
1.517 95%
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.46 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
6.776
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
1.714
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small such as < 0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
General Statistics
Minimum 0.01 Mean
0.337
Maximum 1.82 Median
0.2
SD 0.43 CV
1.275
k hat (MLE) 0.609 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.554
Theta hat (MLE) 0.554 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.609
nu hat (MLE) 25.59 nu star (bias corrected)
23.26
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.337 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.453
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 4.103 90% Percentile
0.893
95% Percentile 1.249 99% Percentile
2.117
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
0.53
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
0.5
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 2.037 2.431 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 1.298
1.434
95% Gamma USL 2.346 2.874
22.91
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM)
0.835
nu hat (KM)
35.09
WH
HW
WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1.462
1.517 95%
Approx. Gamma UPL 1.035
1.041
95% Gamma USL 1.633
1.714
Nickel (ug/L)
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
7
Number of Detects
5
Number of Non -Detects
16
Number of Distinct Detects
5
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Detect
0.53
Minimum Non -Detect
0.5
Maximum Detect
12
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Variance Detected
22.91
Percent Non -Detects
76.19%
Mean Detected
3.806
SD Detected
4.786
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.719
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.234
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.371
d2max (for USL)
2.58
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx
4/8/2016

Attachment A-3: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data BTVs Statistics
Vanadium (ug/L)
Page 6 of 7
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.765 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.762 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.292 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.396 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
1.39
SD
2.542
95% UTL95% Coverage
7.416
95% KM UPL (t)
5.876
90% KM Percentile (z)
4.647
95% KM Percentile (z)
5.57
99% KM Percentile (z)
7.302
95% KM USL
7.948
DU2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
18
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
Mean
1.74
SD
2.633
95% UTL95% Coverage
7.982
95% UPL (t)
6.387
90% Percentile (z)
5.114
95% Percentile (z)
6.07
99% Percentile (z)
7.864
95% USL
8.533
DU2 is not a recommended method. DU2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Mean of Detected Logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371 d2max (for USL) 2.58
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.793 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.901 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.198 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.203 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
General Statistics
SD
5.813
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
20
95% KM Percentile (z)
16.05
Number of Detects
19
Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Detects
18
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Detect
1.5
Minimum Non -Detect
0.3
Maximum Detect
23.7
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Variance Detected
34.73
Percent Non -Detects
9.524%
Mean Detected
7.134
SD Detected
5.893
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.703
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.726
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371 d2max (for USL) 2.58
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.793 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.901 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.198 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.203 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
6.483
SD
5.813
95% UTL95% Coverage
20.27
95% KM UPL (t)
16.75
90% KM Percentile (z)
13.93
95% KM Percentile (z)
16.05
99% KM Percentile (z)
20.01
95% KM USL
21.48
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment A-3: Allen Regional Background Water Supply Well Data BTVs Statistics
Page 7 of 7
DU2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 6.486 SD 5.955
95% UTL95% Coverage 20.6 95% UPL (t) 17
90% Percentile (z) 14.12 95% Percentile (z) 16.28
99% Percentile (z) 20.34 95% USL 21.85
DU2 is not a recommended method. DU2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic 0.448 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value 0.752 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K -S Test Statistic 0.119 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K -S Critical Value 0.201 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016

Evaluation of Water Supply Wells
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix A —Allen
Part -2: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
APRIL 2016 DRICH

Attachment A-3: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
17
Date/Time of Computation
4/1/2016 5:40:09 PM
From File
WorkSheet a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95%
Coverage
95%
Different or Future K Observations
1
Number of Bootstrap Operations
2000
Barium - ug/L - T
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
17
Minimum
13
Second Largest
1400
Maximum
1700
Mean
354.6
Coefficient of Variation
1.675
Mean of logged Data
4.326
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.486
Page 1 of 7
Number of Distinct Observations
15
First Quartile
17
Median
49
Third Quartile
99
SD
594
Skewness
1.496
SD of logged Data
1.782
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
d2max (for USL) 2.475
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
General Statistics
Order of Statistic, r
17 95% UTL with
95% Coverage
1700
Approximate f
0.895 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL
0.582
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
1700 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with
95% Coverage
1700
95% UPL
1700
90% Percentile
1340
90% Chebyshev UPL
2188
95% Percentile
1460
95% Chebyshev UPL
3019
99% Percentile
1652
95% USL
1700
Variance Detected
0.493
Cobalt - ug/L - T
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
17
Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Number of Detects
8
Number of Non -Detects
9
Number of Distinct Detects
8
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Detect
0.14
Minimum Non -Detect
0.5
Maximum Detect
2.4
Maximum Non -Detect
2.5
Variance Detected
0.493
Percent Non -Detects
52.94%
Mean Detected
0.741
SD Detected
0.702
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.598
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.812
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment A-3: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.486
Page 2 of 7
d2max (for USL) 2.475
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
9
A -D Test Statistic 0.446 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
8
5% A -D Critical Value 0.726 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance
Level
K -S Test Statistic 0.271 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
0.91
5% K -S Critical Value 0.298 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance
Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.824 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.223
Theta hat (MLE) 0.406 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.606
nu hat (MLE) 29.18 nu star (bias corrected)
19.57
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.741
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.67 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
6.83
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small such as < 0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean
0.498
Maximum 2.4 Median
0.39
SD 0.543 CV
1.09
k hat (MLE) 1.015 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.875
Theta hat (MLE) 0.491 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.569
nu hat (MLE) 34.51 nu star (bias corrected)
29.76
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.498 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.533
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 5.498 90% Percentile
1.185
95% Percentile 1.565 99% Percentile
2.455
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 2.514 2.914 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 1.642
1.786
95% Gamma USL 2.498 2.892
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM) 1.124 nu hat (KM)
38.22
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1.913 1.975 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 1.367
1.375
95% Gamma USL 1.903 1.964
Chromium (VI) - ug/L - T
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9
Minimum 0.092
Second Largest 30.1
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Number of Missing Observations
8
First Quartile
0.3
Median
0.91
4/8/2016

Attachment A-3: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
Maximum
34.3
Mean
10.74
Coefficient of Variation
1.429
Mean of logged Data
0.562
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 3.031
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
d2max (for USL) 2.11
Order of Statistic, r 9 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate f 0.474 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 34.3 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL 34.3 90% Percentile
90% Chebyshev UPL 59.25 95% Percentile
95% Chebyshev UPL 81.22 99% Percentile
95% USL 34.3
Iron - ug/L - T
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Page 3 of 7
Third Quartile
28.9
SD
15.34
Skewness
0.889
SD of logged Data
2.277
d2max (for USL) 2.11
Order of Statistic, r 9 95% UTL with 95% Coverage
Approximate f 0.474 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 34.3 95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage
95% UPL 34.3 90% Percentile
90% Chebyshev UPL 59.25 95% Percentile
95% Chebyshev UPL 81.22 99% Percentile
95% USL 34.3
Iron - ug/L - T
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.486
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non -Detects
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
Minimum Non -Detect
Maximum Non -Detect
Percent Non -Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged Data
d2max (for USL)
34.3
0.37
34.3
30.94
32.62
33.96
0
2
1
50
50
11.76%
999.9
1.398
2.475
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic 0.442 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value 0.778 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K -S Test Statistic 0.167 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K -S Critical Value 0.231 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 0.713
k star (bias corrected MILE) 0.615
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
17
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Number of Detects
15
Number of Distinct Detects
14
Minimum Detect
36
Maximum Detect
3700
Variance Detected 999783
Mean Detected
714.7
Mean of Detected Logged Data
5.727
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.486
Number of Missing Observations
Number of Non -Detects
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
Minimum Non -Detect
Maximum Non -Detect
Percent Non -Detects
SD Detected
SD of Detected Logged Data
d2max (for USL)
34.3
0.37
34.3
30.94
32.62
33.96
0
2
1
50
50
11.76%
999.9
1.398
2.475
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic 0.442 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value 0.778 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K -S Test Statistic 0.167 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K -S Critical Value 0.231 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 0.713
k star (bias corrected MILE) 0.615
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment A-3: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
Page 4 of 7
Theta hat (MLE) 1002 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1162
nu hat (MLE) 21.39 nu star (bias corrected)
18.45
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 714.7
17
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 911.3 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
4.387
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
13
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small such as < 0.1
12
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
5
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
12
Minimum 0.01 Mean
630.6
Maximum 3700 Median
180
SD 965 CV
1.53
k hat (MLE) 0.348 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.326
Theta hat (MLE) 1813 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1937
nu hat (MLE) 11.82 nu star (bias corrected)
11.07
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 630.6 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1105
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 2.901 90% Percentile
1840
95% Percentile 2809 99% Percentile
5301
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
-1.124
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
1.354
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 4771 6428 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 2744
3277
95% Gamma USL 4732 6364
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM) 0.463 nu hat (KM)
15.73
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 3854 4310 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 2334
2428
95% Gamma USL 3825 4272
Lead - ug/L - T
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.486 d2max (for USL) 2.475
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic 0.584 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
17
Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
13
Number of Detects
12
Number of Non -Detects
5
Number of Distinct Detects
12
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.047
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Detect
4.7
Maximum Non -Detect
0.1
Variance Detected
1.634
Percent Non -Detects
29.41%
Mean Detected
0.757
SD Detected
1.278
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.124
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.354
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.486 d2max (for USL) 2.475
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic 0.584 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment A-3: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
Page 5 of 7
5% A -D Critical Value 0.768 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K -S Test Statistic 0.226 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
nu hat (KM)
5% K -S Critical Value 0.255 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance
Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
WH
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 3.271
k hat (MLE) 0.713 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.59
Theta hat (MLE) 1.061 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1.282
nu hat (MLE) 17.11 nu star (bias corrected)
14.17
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.757
Nickel - ug/L - D
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.985 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
4.274
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small such as < 0.1
Total Number of Observations
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
Number of Missing Observations
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum 0.01 Mean
0.537
Maximum 4.7 Median
0.15
SD 1.116 CV
2.079
k hat (MLE) 0.427 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.391
Theta hat (MLE) 1.259 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1.375
nu hat (MLE) 14.51 nu star (bias corrected)
13.28
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.537 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.859
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 3.273 90% Percentile
1.523
95% Percentile 2.25 99% Percentile
4.081
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Variance Detected
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
Percent Non -Detects
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 3.903 4.553 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 2.214
2.344
95% Gamma USL 3.871 4.508
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM)
0.263
nu hat (KM)
8.937
WH
HW
WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 3.271
3.493
95% Approx. Gamma UPL 1.964
1.965
95% Gamma USL 3.246
3.462
Nickel - ug/L - D
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
17
Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
15
Number of Detects
15
Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Detects
14
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.22
Minimum Non -Detect
0.5
Maximum Detect
14.8
Maximum Non -Detect
0.5
Variance Detected
13.78
Percent Non -Detects
11.76%
Mean Detected
1.911
SD Detected
3.712
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment A-3: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
Thallium - ug/L - T
Page 6 of 7
Mean of Detected Logged Data -0.111 SD of Detected Logged Data 1.049
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.486 d2max (for USL) 2.475
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 17 95% UTL with95% Coverage 14.8
Approximate f 0.895 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.582
95% UPL 14.8 95% USL 14.8
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 17.01
Note: The use of USL to estimate a BTV is recommended only when the data set represents a background
data set free of outliers and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.486 d2max (for USL) 2.475
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
General Statistics
0.437 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value
Total Number of Observations
17
Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
Number of Detects
8
Number of Non -Detects
9
Number of Distinct Detects
8
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.017
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Detect
0.43
Maximum Non -Detect
0.1
Variance Detected
0.0183
Percent Non -Detects
52.94%
Mean Detected
0.111
SD Detected
0.135
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-2.717
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.087
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.486 d2max (for USL) 2.475
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic
0.437 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value
0.734 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K -S Test Statistic
0.218 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K -S Critical Value
0.301 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
1.095 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.768
Theta hat (MLE)
0.102 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.145
nu hat (MLE)
17.52 nu star (bias corrected) 12.28
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
0.111
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.127 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 5.055
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment A-3: Allen Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
0.732
nu hat (KM)
Page 7 of 7
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
HW
GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small such as < 0.1
HW
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
0.364 95%
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
0.237
Minimum 0.01 Mean
0.0826
Maximum 0.43 Median
0.062
SD 0.1 CV
1.215
k hat (MLE) 1.078 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.927
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0766 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.0891
nu hat (MLE) 36.64 nu star (bias corrected)
31.51
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.0826 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.0858
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 5.704 90% Percentile
0.194
95% Percentile 0.254 99% Percentile
0.395
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
15
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 0.407 0.443 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 0.266
0.275
95% Gamma USL 0.404 0.44
2
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
k hat (KM)
0.732
nu hat (KM)
24.9
WH
HW
WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 0.346
0.364 95%
Approx. Gamma UPL 0.234
0.237
95% Gamma USL 0.344
0.362
Vanadium - ug/L - T
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
17
Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Number of Detects
15
Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Detects
15
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Detect
0.52
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Detect
24.3
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Variance Detected
59.08
Percent Non -Detects
11.76%
Mean Detected
10.17
SD Detected
7.686
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.815
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.318
Critical Values for
Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.486
d2max (for USL)
2.475
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r
17
95% UTL with95% Coverage 24.3
Approximate f
0.895
Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.582
95% UPL
24.3
95% USL 24.3
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
43.27
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats for Allen_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016