2016-0418_Duke_App_D_Cliffside_F

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

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
Table of Contents
Page
List of Tables
List of Figures iii
List of Attachments v
List of Acronyms vi
D. Cliffside 1
D.1 INTRODUCTION
D.1.1
Facility Location and Description
D.1.1.1 Facility Setting
D.1.1.2 Past and Present Operations
D.1.1.3 Facility Geological/Hydrogeological Setting
D.1.2
Current CAMA Status
D.1.2.1 Receptor Survey, September 2014, updated November 2014
D.1.2.2 Comprehensive Site Assessment, Round 1 Sampling Event, March —
September 2015
D.1.2.3 Round 2 Sampling Event, September 2015
D.1.2.4 Corrective Action Plan — Part 1, 16 November 2015
D.1.2.5 Round 3 (November 2015) and Round 4 (December 2015) Background
Well Sampling
D.1.2.6 Corrective Action Plan — Part 2, 12 February 2016
D.1.3
Investigation Results
D.1.4
Selected Remedial Alternative and Recommended Interim Activities
D.1.5
Risk Classification Process
D.1.6
Purpose and Objectives
D.2 WATER SUPPLY WELL DATA EVALUATION
D.2.1
Data Sources
D.2.2
Screening Levels
D.2.3
Results
D.3 STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF BACKGROUND
D.3.1 Initial Data Evaluation
D.3.1.1 Regional Background Water Supply Well Data
D.3.1.2 Facility Background Monitoring Well Data
D.3.2 Raw Data Evaluation
D.3.2.1 Regional Background Water Supply Well Data
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
8
8
12
12
13
13
13
14
15
15
15
16
17
APRIL 2016 i %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
D.5 GROUNDWATER CHARACTERISTICS EVALUATION
D.5.1
D.3.2.2 Facility Background Monitoring Well Data
D.3.3
Testing of Statistical Assumptions
D.5.3
D.3.3.1 Regional Background Water Supply Well Data
D.3.3.2 Facility Background Monitoring Well Data
D.3.4
BTV Estimates
D.3.5
Comparison of Water Supply Well Data to the Regional BTVs
D.4 GROUNDWATER FLOW EVALUATION
D.4.1
Introduction
D.4.2
Site Geology
D.4.3
Site Hydrogeology
D.5.4.1 Box Plot Comparison
D.4.3.1 Site Conceptual Model
D.5.4.2 Correlation Plot Evaluation
D.4.3.2 Groundwater Flow Direction
D.5.4.3 Piper Plot
D.4.3.3 Groundwater Seepage Velocities
Conclusions
D.4.3.4 Constituents Associated with CCR
D.7 REFERENCES
D.4.3.5 Extent of Boron Exceedances in Groundwater
D.4.3.6 Bedrock Flow and Depth of Water Supply Wells
D.4.3.7 Groundwater Mounding
D.4.3.8 Summary
D.4.4
Water Supply Well Capture Zone Analysis
D.4.4.1 Methodology
D.4.4.2 Results
D.4.5
Summary and Conclusions
D.5 GROUNDWATER CHARACTERISTICS EVALUATION
D.5.1
Evaluation Approach
D.5.2
CCR -Related Constituents Screening for Signature Development
D.5.3
Data Analysis Methods
D.5.3.1 Data Sources
D.5.3.2 Data Aggregation
D.5.3.3 Box Plot
D.5.3.4 Correlation Plot
D.5.3.5 Piper Plot
D.5.4
Evaluation Results
D.5.4.1 Box Plot Comparison
D.5.4.2 Correlation Plot Evaluation
D.5.4.3 Piper Plot
D.5.5
Conclusions
D.6 SUMMARY
D.7 REFERENCES
17
17
18
18
18
19
20
20
20
21
21
22
23
23
24
24
25
26
26
27
28
28
29
30
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
33
33
34
38
39
40
42
APRIL 2016 ii %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
List of Tables
Table No.
Title
132-1
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
D2-2
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
D2-3
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
D2-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
D2-5
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
D2-6
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
132-7
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
132-8
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
132-9
Do Not Drink Letter Summary
133-1
Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data
133-2
Facility Specific Background Data for Bedrock and Deep Monitoring Wells
D3-3
Background Data Statistical Evaluation
D3-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Sampling Data to Regional
Background Threshold Values
D3-5
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Sampling Data to Facility Specific
Background Threshold Values
D4-1
Hydrostratigraphic Layer Properties - Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity
D4-2
Estimated Groundwater Seepage Velocities
D5-1
Site -Specific Distribution Coefficient (Kd)
D5-2
Coal Ash Indicator Concentrations Observed in the Water Supply Wells of Low
Oxygen and High Detected Boron Concentrations
List of Figures
Figure No.
D1-1
D1-2
D1-3
D3-1
D4-1
APRIL 2016
Title
Location Map
Key Features
Location of Water Supply Wells and Facility Groundwater Conditions
Facility Background Wells
Two -Medium Groundwater System

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
D4-2
Slope -Aquifer System
D4-3
Regolith as Primary Groundwater Storage
D4-4
Transition Zone as Primary Transmitter of Impacted Groundwater
D4-5
Water Table Surface — Shallow Wells — Groundwater Measurement Dates 6/24 -
6/26, 2015
D4-6
Potentiometric Surface — Deep Wells — Groundwater Measurement Dates 6/24 -
6/26, 2015
D4-7
Potentiometric Surface — Bedrock Wells — Groundwater Measurement Dates
6/24 - 6/26, 2015
134-8
Water Table Surface — Shallow Wells — Groundwater Measurement Date
8/17/2015
134-9
Potentiometric Surface — Deep Wells — Groundwater Measurement Date
8/17/2015
D4-10
Potentiometric Surface — Bedrock Wells — Groundwater Measurement Date
8/17/2015
D4-11
Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements
D4-12
Site Conceptual Model — Plan View Map —Area of Boron Exceedances of
2L Standards
D4-13
Cross -Section Conceptual Site Model
D4-14
Mounding Effect
D4-15
Groundwater Affected by Pumping
D4-16
Water Supply Well Capture Zones
D5-1
Pourbaix Diagrams for Iron and Manganese with Measured Eh and pH from Site
Monitoring Wells
D5-2
Example Box Plot and Piper Plot
D5-3
Box Plot Comparison for Major Coal Ash Constituents
D5-4
Box Plot Comparison for Barium and Cobalt
D5-5
Box Plot Comparison for Dissolved Oxygen, Iron, and Manganese
D5-6
Bedrock Groundwater Wells and Direction of Groundwater Flow
D5-7
Correlation Plot for Boron and Sulfate
D5-8
Correlation Plot for Boron and Dissolved Oxygen
D5-9
Sampled Water Supply Wells
D5-10
Piper Plot Evaluation - Ash Basin Porewater and Facility Downgradient Bedrock
Wells
APRIL 2016 iv %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
D5-11 Piper Plot Evaluation - Water Supply Wells and Facility Bedrock Wells
D5-12 Piper Plot Evaluation - Water Supply, Facility Bedrock, and Ash Basin Porewater
Wells
List of Attachments
Attachment Title
D-1 Histograms and Probability Plots for Selected Constituents
D-2 Results of Statistical Computations
D-3 Method Computation Details
APRIL 2016 v %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
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
CCP Coal Combustion Products
CCR Coal Combustion Residuals
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CCR Coal Combustion Residuals
CSA Comprehensive Site Assessment
D Deep
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
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
PV Photovoltaic
ROS Robust Regression on Order Statistics
RSL Risk -Based Screening Level
S Shallow
SCM Site Conceptual Model
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 Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
D. Cliffside
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 Cliffside Steam
Station (Cliffside, 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 Cliffside ash basins and ash storage area under the CAMA
requirements. A technical weight of evidence approach has been used to evaluate the available data for
the Cliffside site, and the evaluation demonstrates that groundwater utilized by local water supply wells
near the Cliffside ash basins and ash storage area is not impacted by coal ash sources. These results
indicate that a Low classification for the Cliffside Steam Station under the CAMA is warranted.
D.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.
This report provides technical evaluations in four important assessment areas: 1) an evaluation of the
private and public water supply well data collected by the NCDEQ with respect to groundwater
standards and screening levels; 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, including a water supply well capture zone
analysis; and 4) a detailed comparison of facility -specific coal ash groundwater chemistry, background
groundwater chemistry (both regional and facility -specific), and water supply well chemistry.
D.1.1 Facility Location and Description
Duke Energy owns and operates Cliffside which is located in Rutherford and Cleveland Counties near the
town of Cliffside, North Carolina, as shown on Figure D1-1.
D.1.1.1 Facility Setting
Cliffside occupies 1,000 acres of land and is located on the southern bank of the Broad River, north of
McCraw Road. The area surrounding Cliffside generally consists of residential properties, undeveloped
land, and the Broad River (Figure D1-2). The Town of Boiling Springs in Cleveland County, Forest City in
Rutherford County, and land which is also part of Rutherford County borders the Cliffside property.
APRIL 2016 1 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
Boiling Springs is primarily comprised of Cliffside, which is zoned as heavy and light industrial, and
residential properties to the south, east, and northeast of Cliffside. Properties located to the west along
Highway 221A and northwest across the Broad River are in Rutherford County and are zoned rural
residential, including Cliffside, which is identified as average rural. The Town of Forest City does not
quantify zoning outside the city limits.
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.
Approximately 71 water supply wells and one spring are located within a 1,500 -foot radius of the ash
basin compliance boundary (Figure D1-2). The Cliffside site is located in the Broad River watershed, and
the ash basin is adjacent to the Broad River. Suck Creek, a tributary of the Broad River, transects the site
flowing from the south to the north into the Broad River. The surface water classification for the Broad
River and Suck Creek is Class WS -IV. Class WS -IV waters are protected as water supplies which are
generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds.
D.1.1.2 Past and Present Operations
Cliffside began operations in 1940 as a coal-fired electricity generating station and currently operates
two coal-fired units. Units 1-4 operated between 1940 and 2011, Unit 5 began operation in 1972, and
Unit 6 began operation in 2012. Units 5 and 6 are currently operating and have an electric generating
capacity of 1,381 megawatts.
The major ash -related structures at Cliffside include the active ash basin, the Units 1-4 inactive ash
basin, the Unit 5 inactive ash basin, and an ash storage area. These key features are shown on
Figure D1-2.
The active ash basin is located on the eastern portion of the site, east and southeast of Units 5 and 6.
Construction of the active ash basin began in 1975 and it began receiving sluiced ash from Unit 5. The
active ash basin was later expanded in 1980 to its current footprint and continues to receive sluiced
bottom ash and fly ash from Unit 5. The active ash basin is an integral part of the station's wastewater
treatment system and historically received inflows from the ash removal system, station yard drain
sump, stormwater flows, station wastewater, and other permitted discharges. Currently, the Unit 5 ash
removal system and the station yard drainage system are routed through high density polyethylene pipe
sluice lines into the active ash basin. Inflows to the active ash basin are variable based on Unit 5 and
Unit 6 operations.
Effluent from the active ash basin is discharged via a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitted outfall to the Broad River through a concrete discharge tower located in the
northeast portion of the basin. The concrete discharge tower drains through a 42 -inch reinforced
APRIL 2016 2 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
concrete pipe into a rip -rap -lined channel that discharges to the Broad River. The ash basin pond
elevation is controlled by the use of concrete stop logs.
The Units 1-4 were constructed and operated from 1957 and were retired in 1977 when they reached
capacity. Five small settling cells located southeast of the Units 1-4 inactive ash basin still exist on the
western portion of the footprint, and the limited stormwater that drains to these cells is pumped to the
active ash basin.
The Unit 5 inactive ash basin is located on the western portion of the site, west and southwest of Units 5
and 6, and is currently used as a laydown yard for the station. This ash basin was constructed in 1970 (in
advance of Unit 5 operations) and received sluiced ash from Unit 5 starting in 1972 until it was retired in
1980 when it reached full capacity. The basin currently receives stormwater from a localized drainage
area which infiltrates into the basin.
An unlined dry ash storage area, which is split into an eastern and western portion, is also located within
the northwestern portion of the active ash basin waste boundary. This ash storage area was likely
created when ash was removed from the active ash basin in the 1980s to provide additional capacity for
sluiced ash. The CSA investigation results were not conclusive in identifying the boundaries of the ash in
the ash storage area.
Duke Energy discharges managed and treated wastewater from Cliffside in accordance with NPDES
Permit NC0005088, which most recently became effective 1 March 2011. The permitted receiving body
is the Broad River. A permit renewal application was submitted to NCDEQ Division of Water Resources
(DWR) on 28 January 2015 and issuance of the new permit is pending at the date of the CAP -1 report.
Initial decommissioning activities at Cliffside began at Units 1-4 after they were retired in October 2011,
and final demolition work is anticipated to be completed by early 2016. Duke Energy recently
announced its plans for complete excavation of the Units 1-4 inactive ash basin. The coal ash removal
began at the Units 1-4 inactive ash basin at the end of 2015. Approximately 423,600 tons of ash will be
removed from the basin and relocated to the existing lined Cliffside Coal Combustion Products (CCP)
Landfill, which is located southwest of the facility.
D.1.1.3 Facility Geological/Hydrogeological Setting
Cliffside is located in the geologic region known as the Piedmont Province which stretches from New
Jersey to central Alabama. The widest portion of the Piedmont is located in North Carolina. Overall
topography at Cliffside generally slopes from south to north with an elevation difference of
approximately 190 feet over an approximate linear distance of 4,000 feet. Site elevations are highest
southwest of the active ash basin and southwest of the Unit 5 inactive ash basin and lowest at the
interface with the Broad River on the northern extent of the site. Surface water drainage generally
follows site topography and flows from the south to the north across the site except where natural
drainage patterns have been modified by the ash basin or other construction. Unnamed drainage
features are located near the western and eastern extents of the site and generally flow north to the
Broad River. Suck Creek transects the site from south to north, discharging to the Broad River. The
APRIL 2016 3 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
approximate pond elevation for the active ash basin is 762 feet. The elevation of the Broad River
adjacent to the site is approximately 656 feet.
Based on the site investigation, the groundwater system in the natural materials (alluvium, soil,
soil/weathered bedrock, and bedrock) at Cliffside is a fractured bedrock system and is an unconfined,
connected system of flow layers. The Cliffside groundwater system is divided into three layers referred
to in this report as the shallow, deep transition zone (D or TZ), and bedrock flow layers to distinguish the
flow layers within the connected aquifer system. In general, groundwater within the shallow, deep, and
bedrock flow layers flows from south to north toward the Broad River. Groundwater in the shallow and
deep wells located west of the active ash basin and east of Unit 6 flows toward Suck Creek and on to the
Broad River. There are no water supply wells downgradient of the ash disposal areas.
More detail on the site hydrogeology is provided in Section D.4.
D.1.2 Current CAMA Status
The CAMA is primarily administered by the NCDEQ. The CAMA requires the NCDEQ to, as soon as
practicable, but no later than 31 December 2015, prioritize for the purpose of closure and remediation
coal combustion residuals (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 the 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), Note: 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 by 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 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-
APRIL 2016 4 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
sampled water supply well (private well) data in December 2015 (Haley & Aldrich, 2015). This report
serves to augment the evaluations provided in the December 2015 report.
A brief summary of the objectives and approach for the CSA, CAP -1, and CAP -2 is provided below.
D.1.2.1 Receptor Survey, September 2014, updated November 2014
The receptor survey was conducted by Duke Energy for the purpose of identifying drinking water wells
within a 0.5 -mile (2,640 -foot) radius of the Cliffside ash basins and ash storage area compliance
boundary. Supplemental receptor survey information was obtained from responses to water supply
well survey questionnaires mailed to property owners within the required distance requesting
information on the presence of water supply wells, well details, and well usage. Figure D1-2 shows the
water supply wells within this 0.5 -mile radius.
D.1.2.2 Comprehensive Site Assessment, Round 1 Sampling Event, March — September 2015
The purpose of the Cliffside CSA was to collect information necessary 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. The following assessment activities were performed as part of the CSA (HDR, 2015a):
• Installation of 131 groundwater monitoring wells and 9 soil borings to facilitate collection and
analysis of chemical, physical, and hydrogeological parameters of subsurface materials
encountered within and beyond the waste and Compliance Boundary.
• Collection of groundwater samples from 125 groundwater monitoring wells.
• Collection of seep, surface water, and sediment samples.
• Evaluation of laboratory analytical data to support the development of the site conceptual
model (SCM).
• Update of the receptor survey previously completed in September 2014
(updated November 2014) (HDR 2014a, 2014b).
• Completion of a screening -level human health and ecological risk assessment.
D.1.2.3 Round 2 Sampling Event, September 2015
A total of 140 groundwater and ash porewater monitoring wells were sampled during the Round 2
event, including 125 wells installed as part of the CSA and 15 voluntary monitoring wells. Samples were
analyzed for total and dissolved CCR constituents.
D. 1. 2.4 Corrective Action Plan — Part 1, 16 November 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
APRIL 2016 5 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
exceedances per sample medium with regard to PPBCs, refine the SCM, and present the results of the
groundwater flow and contaminant fate and transport model, and the groundwater to surface water
interaction model.
The Cliffside 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
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; the effect of capping the CCR
source areas to reduce rainfall infiltration; and the effect of excavating CCR materials. Each scenario
was modeled over a 250 -year timeframe.
Recommendations for future work were provided at the end of the CAP -1 report as follows: additional
sampling for radiological parameters, and updating the SCM with data from the second round of
sampling in the CAP -2 report.
D.1.2.5 Round 3 (November 2015) and Round 4 (December 2015) Background Well Sampling
In response to an NCDEQ request, Duke Energy collected two rounds of groundwater samples from
background wells. Facility background wells were identified and based on the SCM at the time the CSA
Work Plan was submitted. Groundwater sample collection and analysis were conducted using
procedures described in the CSA Report (HDR, 2015a).
See Section D.3 for a statistical evaluation of background concentrations.
D.1.2.6 Corrective Action Plan — Part 2, 12 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 levels
(HSLs, for hexavalent chromium only);
• A refined SCM;
• Refined groundwater flow and fate and transport model results;
• Refined groundwater to surface water model results;
• Site geochemical model results;
• Findings of the risk assessment;
• Evaluation of methods for achieving groundwater quality restoration;
APRIL 2016 6 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
• Conceptual plan(s) for recommended proposed corrective action(s);
• A schedule for implementation of the proposed corrective action; 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 (21-
Standards);
2LStandards);
• IMACs;
• NCDHHS HSL (for hexavalent chromium only); and/or
• Site-specific PPBCs for groundwater at Cliffside.
D.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 Cliffside are depicted in Figure D1-3 and are described as follows:
• Impacts from CCR -constituents in groundwater are spatially limited to areas beneath and
downgradient of the ash basins and ash storage area, east of the Unit 5 inactive ash basin, and
west of the active ash basin in the vicinity of Unit 6.
• Groundwater impacts are present in the shallow soil/alluvium, deep soil/weathered bedrock,
and bedrock flow layers and may be naturally occurring.
• Surface water impacts were identified in Suck Creek that transects the site from south to north,
discharging to the Broad River; however, the groundwater to surface water mixing model shows
no exceedances of surface water quality standards in the Broad River.
• Groundwater flows from the southern extent of the Cliffside site property boundary northward
toward the Broad River. Monitoring wells installed on the east side of the active ash basin
indicate that groundwater flows toward the active ash basin along the eastern property
boundary. Shallow and deep groundwater at the site discharge directly to the Broad River,
while groundwater in the central portion of the site flows to Suck Creek, which then discharges
to the Broad River. The Broad River serves as a hydrologic boundary for groundwater within the
shallow, deep, and bedrock flow layers at the site.
Constituents identified to exceed the applicable state and federal regulatory standards are listed by
location below:
• Ash: 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, arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, and thallium.
• Groundwater: antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, chromium, cobalt, hexavalent
chromium, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, pH, sulfate, thallium, TDS, and vanadium.
APRIL 2016 7 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
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 USEPA's 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.
D.1.4 Selected Remedial Alternative and Recommended Interim Activities
The recommended remedial alternative selected for Cliffside is the combination of three remediation
technologies: 1) excavation of ash at the Units 1-4 inactive ash basin which began in October 2015;
2) capping the active ash basin, ash storage area, and Unit 5 inactive ash basin; and 3) monitored natural
attenuation (MNA). Excavation of ash will remove the primary source of groundwater contamination at
the site, but will not eliminate the constituent concentrations presently observed in groundwater
beneath the site. Groundwater modeling showed that the construction of an engineered cap to reduce
infiltration would also reduce the movement of groundwater from the capped areas.
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.
Recommended interim activities include: installation of an additional 32 groundwater monitoring wells
and 4 observation wells to fill data gaps identified in the CSA, implementation of an interim
groundwater monitoring plan; and completion of a Tier III MNA evaluation (USEPA, 2007) in 2016. The
final closure option may be modified based on the final risk classification proposed by the NCDEQ.
D.1.5 Risk Classification Process
Duke is required by the CAMA to close the Cliffside 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. According to
the NCDEQ document "Coal Combustion Residual Impoundment Risk Classifications, January 2016"
(NCDEQ, 2016), the active ash basin at Cliffside is ranked "low to intermediate." Risk classifications were
based upon potential risk to public health and the environment. A public meeting was held by NCDEQ in
both Cleveland and Rutherford counties. 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 Cliffside active ash basin. The following are the classification factors as provided in
the NCDEQ document:
APRIL 2016 8 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
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 background concentration determination;
- Amount and extent of CCR in storage areas; and
- Need a better understanding of heterogeneities in subsurface.
NCDEQ has proposed the risk classification for the Retired Unit 1-4 and Retired Unit 5 Basin
as 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.
Surface Water Key Factor:
• The impoundment is not located within the 100 -year floodplains.
Dam Safety Key Factor:
• The impoundments received a low to intermediate ranking before any repairs are made and
a low risk rating once repairs are made and the impoundments have been dewatered.
• Based on the data provided in 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, including adiacent ash storage areas. LOW RISK. There are two
reported water supply wells within 1,500 feet that are side -gradient or possibly
downgradient of the active basin compliance boundary, however, neither well
appears to be impacted by CCR contamination.
- Retired Unit 1-4 Basin. LOW RISK. There are no reported supply wells within 1,500
feet downgradient of the Retired Unit 1-4 Basin compliance boundary.
- Retired Unit 5 Basin. LOW RISK. There are no reported supply wells within 1,500
feet downgradient of the impoundment compliance boundary.
• Exceedance of 2L Standard or IMAC at or Beyond the Established CCR Impoundment
Compliance Boundary:
APRIL 2016 9 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
— Active Ash Basin, including adjacent ash storage areas. HIGH RISK. Several
constituents were detected at or beyond the compliance boundary above the 2L
Standard or IMAC including iron, manganese, cobalt, vanadium, sulfate, and TDS.
- Retired Unit 1-4 Basin. HIGH RISK. Data unavailable at or beyond compliance
boundary in this area. However, several constituents were detected at or beyond
the waste boundary above the 2L Standard or IMAC including iron, manganese,
cobalt, vanadium, TDS, sulfate, antimony, chromium, thallium, and barium.
- Retired Unit 5 Basin. HIGH RISK. Several constituents were detected at or beyond
the compliance boundary above the 2L Standard or IMAC including iron, manganese,
cobalt, vanadium, TDS, chromium, and antimony.
• 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, to include adjacent ash storage areas. HIGH RISK. There are
23 reported supply wells positioned up -gradient or side -gradient of the
impoundment within 1,500 feet of the compliance boundary. With the assumption
of 2.5 users per well, there would potentially be 57 users.
- Retired Unit 1-4 Basin. LOW RISK. There are no reported supply wells positioned
up -gradient or side -gradient of the impoundment within 1500 feet of the compliance
boundary.
- Retired Unit 5 Basin. LOW/INTERMEDIATE RISK. Duke identified 4 supply wells
positioned up -gradient or side -gradient of the impoundment within 1,500 feet of the
compliance boundary. With the assumption of 2.5 users per well, there would
potentially be 10 users.
• Population Served by Water Supply Wells within 1,500 Feet Downgradient of the Established
CCR Impoundment Compliance Boundary:
- Active Ash Basin, including adjacent ash storage areas. LOW/INTERMEDIATE. There
appears to be 2 wells that are potentially downgradient but could also be side -
gradient. With the assumption of 2.5 users per well, there would be 5 users.
- Retired Unit 1-4 Basin. LOW RISK. There does not appear to be any down gradient
wells.
- Retired Unit 5 Basin. LOW RISK. There does not appear to be any down gradient
wells.
Proximity of 2L Standard or IMAC Exceedances Beyond the Established CCR Impoundment
Compliance Boundary with Respect to Water Supply Wells:
- Active Ash Basin, including adjacent ash storage areas. HIGH RISK. There are
several exceedances of the 2L Standard or IMAC less than 500 feet from a supply
well including for cobalt, iron, manganese, and vanadium.
- Retired Unit 1-4 Basin. LOW RISK. There are no supply wells within 1,500 feet of the
Unit 1-4 Basin. The supply well nearest an exceedance of the 2L Standard or IMAC
APRIL 2016 10 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
(Chromium and Vanadium) is on the opposite side of the Broad River 1,400 feet
away from the monitoring well in which the exceedance was observed. That same
monitoring well is located 1,000 feet from the Unit 1-4 Basin compliance boundary.
- Retired Unit 5 Basin. HIGH RISK. There is at least one reported supply well within
500 feet of exceedances of the 2L Standard or IMAC for iron and vanadium;
however, it is believed that the supply well is up -gradient of the basin.
• Groundwater Emanating from the Impoundment that Exceeds 2L Standard or IMAC and that
Discharges into a Surface Water Body:
- Active Ash Basin, to include adjacent ash storage areas. HIGH RISK. Several
constituents were detected above the 2L Standard or IMAC including iron,
manganese, cobalt, vanadium, thallium, chromium, antimony, and TDS that are
potentially discharging to a surface water body.
- Retired Unit 1-4 Basin. HIGH RISK. Several constituents were detected above the
2L Standard or IMAC including iron, manganese, cobalt, vanadium, sulfate,
chromium, thallium, barium, lead, and TDS that are potentially discharging to a
surface water body.
- Retired Unit 5 Basin. HIGH RISK. Several constituents were detected above the
2L Standard or IMAC including iron, manganese, cobalt, vanadium, sulfate, TDS, that
are potentially discharging to a surface water body.
• Data Gaps and Uncertainty Related to Transport of Contaminants to Potential Receptors:
- Active Ash Basin, to include adjacent ash storage areas. HIGH RISK. There is a high
degree of uncertainty with the data presented in the CSA Report. The uncertainties
pertain primarily to background concentration determinations, the extent of ash in
storage areas, and subsurface heterogeneities that could affect flow and transport
characteristics. Background concentrations, ash extent, and subsurface
heterogeneities will be addressed in supplemental reports. Data collected to date
suggest that supply wells in proximity to the active basin are not impacted by CCR
contamination.
- Retired Unit 1-4 Basin. HIGH RISK. There is a high degree of uncertainty with the
data presented in the CSA Report. The uncertainties pertain primarily to background
concentration determinations, the extent of ash in storage areas, and subsurface
heterogeneities that could affect flow and transport characteristics. Background
concentrations, ash extent, and subsurface heterogeneities will be addressed in
supplemental reports. Data collected to date suggest that supply wells in proximity
to the active basin are not impacted by CCR contamination.
- Retired Unit 5 Basin. HIGH RISK. There is a high degree of uncertainty with the data
presented in the CSA Report. The uncertainties pertain primarily to background
concentration determinations, the extent of ash in storage areas, and subsurface
heterogeneities that could affect flow and transport characteristics. Background
concentrations, ash extent, and subsurface heterogeneities will be addressed in
supplemental reports. Data collected to date suggest that supply wells in proximity
APRIL 2016 11 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
to the active basin are not impacted by CCR contamination. There are four reported
supply wells within 1,500 feet (includes up -gradient and side -gradient supply wells)
of the compliance boundary.
D.1.6 Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this document is to provide additional detailed evaluation of the Cliffside-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 Cliffside 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 D.2 provides an evaluation of the water supply well data with respect to regulatory
standards and health -risk-based screening levels.
• Section D.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 Cliffside operations.
• Section D.4 provides the hydrogeologic findings of additional groundwater modeling and an
additional evaluation of groundwater flow patterns in the vicinity of Cliffside with respect to the
locations of the water supply wells.
• Section D.5 provides an evaluation of the geochemical fingerprint of pore water and
groundwater at the ash basin and related coal ash facilities 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 pore water, facility
groundwater, facility background, water supply wells, and regional background, 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 Cliffside.
Section D.6 provides a summary of conclusions and a discussion of their potential impact on the
risk classification for this site.
D.2 WATER SUPPLY WELL DATA EVALUATION
The purpose of this section is to evaluate data for water supply wells in the vicinity of Cliffside with
respect to applicable screening levels.
APRIL 2016 12 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
D.2.1 Data Sources
As part of the receptor survey, 71 private water supply wells were identified within a 0.5 -mile radius of
the ash basin compliance boundary (Figure D1-3). This section presents an evaluation of the water
supply well data from the following three sources:
A total of 22 samples collected by the NCDEQ from 22 wells within a 0.5 -mile radius of the
Cliffside ash basin compliance boundary;
• A total of 9 samples collected by Duke Energy from background water supply wells located
within a 2- to 10 -mile radius from the Cliffside 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.
D.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 IMACs are included when referring to 2L Standards in this report;
• Federal Safe Drinking Water Act 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.
D.2.3 Results
Tables D2-1 through D2-4 present the comparison of the NCDEQ data for the water supply wells located
within a 0.5 -mile radius of the Cliffside ash basin compliance boundary to 2L standards, USEPA MCLS,
NCDHHS screening levels, and USEPA RSLs, respectively.
Tables D2-5 through D2-8 present the comparison of the 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 Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
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 in approximately half of the 22 NCDEQ sampled water supply wells; boron was not
detected in the 9 Duke Energy background wells. pH was below the drinking water standard range in
5 of the 22 NCDEQ-sampled water supply wells. These results are not unexpected, based on a study
published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (Chapman, et al., 2013) and additional North
Carolina specific studies (Brief, 1997) showing that groundwater pH in the state is commonly below the
MCL range of 6.5 to 8.5.
None of the NCDEQ-sampled water supply well results were above Federal primary drinking water
standards (MCLS), with the exception of the few pH results noted above. Approximately half of the
aluminum and iron results were above the SMCL, as were 3 of the results for manganese; however, the
SMCLs are based on aesthetics, and all results but one of the manganese results are below the USEPA
risk-based RSLs. Moreover, the aluminum and iron results for the NCDEQ-sampled water supply wells
were within the range of concentrations from the Duke Energy background wells.
The concentration of cobalt in 5 wells was above the 2L Standard and NCDHHS screening level; however,
cobalt concentrations are within the range detected in the Duke Energy background wells, and below
the USEPA risk-based RSL.
"Do Not Drink" letters were issued by NCDHHS for 18 NCDEQ-sampled water supply wells at Cliffside,
with iron and hexavalent chromium being the primary constituents listed in the letters, and vanadium
being identified in three letters (see Table D2-9), though the letters for the latter two constituents 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 (9 wells), cobalt (4 wells), chromium (1 well), manganese (2 wells), and
sodium (1 well).
A detailed statistical evaluation of background and comparison to the water supply well data is provided
in the next section.
D.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). The estimated BTVs
are based on available background data for regional and facility background wells. 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.
Two datasets are available to describe background groundwater conditions in the vicinity of Cliffside:
• The Duke Energy background water supply well dataset; and
• The Cliffside facility background monitoring well dataset.
APRIL 2016 14 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
The Duke Energy background water supply well dataset is referred to here as regional background, and
the Cliffside background monitoring wells are referred to as facility -specific background.
Eight constituents were selected for the background evaluation studies at Cliffside. 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 D.S. The
BTV values were estimated for the eight constituents at Cliffside by using a stepwise approach outlined
below.
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.
D.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 Cliffside 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.
D.3.1.1 Regional Background Water Supply Well Data
The regional background dataset for Cliffside was provided by Duke Energy. Therefore, test for
homogeneity is not required for the regional dataset. Table D3-1 presents the regional background
water supply well dataset for Cliffside.
D.3.1.2 Facility Background Monitoring Well Data
Water supply wells in this region of North Carolina are predominantly bedrock wells. Section D.4
discusses this in more detail.
APRIL 2016 15 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
Background wells sampled at Cliffside for the CSA included BG-1BR, BG -1D, BG -2D, MW -24D, MW-24DR,
MW -30D, MW-32BR, BG -1S, MW -30S, MW -32S, and MW -32D. The initial facility specific background
evaluation for Cliffside was performed on five background deep (transition zone) wells and three
background bedrock monitoring wells (BG-1BR, BG -1D, BG -2D, MW -24D, MW-24DR, MW -30D, MW-
32BR, and MW -32D) (see Figure D3-1). Background wells screened in the shallow formation were
excluded from the analysis to limit the data used to that 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 Cliffside are presented in Table D3-2. 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 D3-2 and
Figure D3-1 were combined for the facility BTV estimates. The results of the Levine's test are presented
in Attachment D-1.
D.3.2 Raw Data Evaluation
In the raw data evaluation for Cliffside, the descriptive statistics for eight constituents for both the
regional and facility -specific datasets were computed and tabulated in Table D3-3. 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 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 eight constituents for both regional and facility -specific datasets are
APRIL 2016 16 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
presented in Table D3-3. Attachment D-1 presents the histograms, probability plots and outlier tests for
the eight constituents.
D. 3.2.1 Regional Background Water Supply Well Data
The descriptive statistics indicated the presence of a high percentage of non -detects (NDs) for boron,
cobalt, hexavalent chromium, vanadium and nickel; less than 1 sample out of 9 had detections of boron,
hexavalent chromium, and nickel; 3 samples out of 5 had detections for cobalt; 5 samples out of 9 had
detections for vanadium. 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 D3-3 (Columns 13 -
14), an analysis using visual plots and the Dixon 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.
D.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 and cobalt. Boron had 8 detects out of 57 samples; cobalt had
17 detects out of 33 samples. Statistical computations indicated the presence of outliers in the dataset.
However, outliers are inevitable in most environmental data and the decisions to exclude them are
made based on existing knowledge about the facility and groundwater conditions. In this instance,
based on existing knowledge, no outliers were removed from the regional water supply dataset.
D.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 D.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.
APRIL 2016 17 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
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
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 eight constituents for both regional and facility -
specific datasets are presented in Table D3-3. Attachment D-2 presents the GOF tests statistics.
D. 3.3.1 Regional Background Water Supply Well Data
The test statistics revealed that barium, iron, manganese, and vanadium follow a parametric
distribution; hence, parametric methods were used to compute BTVs. No further evaluation was
performed on boron, cobalt, hexavalent chromium, or nickel due to the presence of less than three
detected results.
D. 3.3.2 Facility Background Monitoring Well Data
The test statistics revealed that most of the constituents follow a parametric distribution except barium
and nickel; hence, parametric methods were used to compute BTVs for all constituents except barium
and nickel. Non -parametric test methods were used to compute the BTV for barium and nickel.
D.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 Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
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 D3-3 presents the estimated BTV values (Column 16) and applicable methods (Column 17) used in
estimating the upper threshold values. Attachment D-3 presents the proUCL output of the BTVs
computations.
D.3.5 Comparison of Water Supply Well Data to the Regional BTVs
The data for the water supply wells located within a 0.5 -mile radius from the ash basin compliance
boundary were compared to the regional background BTVs and facility -specific BTVs presented in
Table D3-3. Comparison to the regional background BTVs are presented in Table D3-4, and comparison
to the facility -specific BTVs are presented in Table D3-5.
There are 8 constituents for which regional and facility -specific BTVs were developed. Of the 22 water
supply wells sampled by NCDEQ, there are few results above the regional BTVs. There are no
concentrations of boron, cobalt, and iron above the regional and facility -specific BTVs. Of the remaining
constituents, there is at least one result in this dataset above each of the regional BTVs, but no more
than 5 results for any of the constituents. There is at least one result in this dataset above each of the
facility -specific BTVs, but no more than 3 results for any of the constituents.
As noted in Section D.2.3, none of the NCDEQ-sampled water supply well results for these constituents
were above Federal primary drinking water standards (MCLS).
APRIL 2016 19 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
D.4 GROUNDWATER FLOW EVALUATION
[The evaluation in Section D.4, including figures and tables, was provided by HDR, Inc.]
D.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 Cliffside 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 141 groundwater monitoring wells to complement the existing 25 monitoring wells and
subsequent sampling of the 166 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 August 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 D.4.2, the regional groundwater
system and the hydrogeological SCM are presented in Section D.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 D.4.3.2. Detailed
data were collected to evaluate groundwater flow direction, horizontal and vertical gradients, and the
velocity of groundwater flow as described in Section D.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 D.4.4.
D.4.2 Site Geology
The Cliffside site is located in the Piedmont province of North Carolina. In-situ materials (in addition to
ash and fill) encountered at Cliffside during the CSA include:
Alluvium (S) — Alluvium is unconsolidated sediment that has been eroded by and redeposited by
streams. Alluvium was encountered in borings along the Broad River during the CSA subsurface
exploration activities. Alluvium is present near the Broad River with thickness ranging from 0 to
31 feet.
• Residuum (Regolith -Residual Soils; M1) — Residuum is weathered soil that was derived from the
in-place weathering of bedrock. The range of residuum observed at the site is 0 to 82 feet.
APRIL 2016 20 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
Saprolite/Weathered Rock (Regolith; M2) — Saprolite is soil developed by the in-place
weathering of bedrock and retains remnant bedrock structure. The range of Saprolite/
Weathered Rock observed at the site is 0 to 92 feet.
• 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 0 to 36.5 feet.
Bedrock (BR) — Bedrock is hard rock that is unweathered to slightly weathered and relatively
unfractured. The maximum depth that borings extended into bedrock was 67 feet. The bedrock
at Cliffside consists of biotite gneiss and sillimanite schist. The biotite gneiss contains minor
interlayers of quartzite, quartz feldspar gneiss, and mica schist.
Overlying the in-situ materials are ash and earthen fill used to construct the ash basin embankment
dams and cover over ash storage areas. Additional information on the site geology was presented in
CSA report Section 6.1 (HDR, 2015a).
D.4.3 Site Hydrogeology
D.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 D4-1) 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 D4-2). 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 D4-1) (Heath,
1980; Harried and Daniel, 1992). The residual soil grades into saprolite, a coarser grained material that
APRIL 2016 21 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
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
(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 D4-3). Within the fractured crystalline bedrock layer, the fractures control
both the hydraulic conductivity and storage capacity of the bedrock. A transition zone (TZ) 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 TZ may serve as a conduit of rapid horizontal flow and
transmission of impacted water (Figure D4-4). 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 Cliffside Corrective Action
Plan Part 1 (CAP -1) (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 Cliffside 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 D.4.2. These units are used in the groundwater model of the site
discussed in Section D.4.4.
Additional information concerning the development of the hydrostratigraphic layers is presented in
Section 11.1 of the CSA report (HDR, 2015a).
D.4.3.2 Groundwater Flow Direction
The Cliffside 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 in general, is from the higher topography located south of the Cliffside property to the north
toward the Broad River. Groundwater flows west of the active ash basin and east of Unit 6 is toward
Suck Creek and on to the Broad River.
Water level potentiometric surfaces and directions for the three flow layers are shown on Figures D4-5
(69)1, D4-6 (54), and D4-7 (31) for water levels recorded between 24 and 26 June 2015 and on
Figures D4-8 (50), D4-9 (57), and D4-10 (19) for water levels recorded on 27 August 2015. Water level
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 Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
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
consistent with the slope -aquifer system and show that groundwater flow is away from off-site water
supply wells and toward the discharge features.
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 along the west, south, and
east of the ash basin system serves as a groundwater recharge area and that Broad River serves as the
main discharge feature for groundwater flow at Cliffside.
D.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 D4-11; Table D4-1) obtained during field tests, the average effective porosity obtained from
laboratory testing or from technical literature (CSA report Table 11-8, 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 D4-2. 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 D4-4) at Cliffside.
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).
D.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;
APRIL 2016 23 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
• Calcium;
• Chloride;
• 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.
D.4.3.5 Extent of Boron Exceedances in Groundwater
Groundwater at Cliffside 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 [EPRIJ 2005).
At Cliffside, boron exceedances of the 2L Standards reported in groundwater during the 2015 Round 2
sampling event are shown in plan view (Figure D4-12) and in cross-section view (Figure D4-13) 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, boron exceedances of
the 2L Standards in groundwater are located west of the active ash basin. Groundwater flow in this
location is west towards Suck Creek. Boron exceedances were also reported beneath the western
portion of the ash storage area and beneath the active ash basin downstream dam. Groundwater flow
direction from this location is to the north to the Broad River. The location of the boron exceedances in
groundwater are not located at the southeastern portion of the site near the water supply wells, and
groundwater flow is to the west and north, and away from the water supply wells.
D.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.
APRIL 2016 24 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
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
similar to groundwater such as those found in coal ash). As described above, the groundwater levels
and groundwater seepage velocities in the TZ 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 D4-3).
As noted above, bedrock flow is to the west and north, and not toward the water supply wells. 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 D.4.4.
D.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 D4-14). Topographical and monitoring well groundwater 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 topographic and monitoring well groundwater data at Cliffside found no evidence of
mounding (Figures D4-5 and D4-8).
APRIL 2016 25 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
D.4.3.8 Summary
The hydrogeologic SCM presented in the CSA report (HDR, 2015a) and refined in the CAP -2 (HDR, 2016)
report 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 north toward the Broad
River. The groundwater flow to the west of the active ash basin and east of Unit 6 is eastward towards
Suck Creek. 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 0.049, 0.049 and 0.020 feet/foot in the shallow, deep (TZ) and bedrock
groundwater zones, respectively. The Broad River and Suck Creek serve as the hydrologic discharge
boundaries. There are no water supply wells located between the ash basin system and the Broad River
or between the ash basin system and Suck Creek.
D.4.4 Water Supply Well Capture Zone Analysis
A well capture zone analysis was performed, using reverse particle tracking, to delineate well capture
zones for the active water supply wells near the Duke Energy property boundary at Cliffside. A well
capture zone is the area of an aquifer (all three flow layers) in which water is removed by pumping wells
within a specified time period (Grubb, 1993) (see Figure D4-15). Groundwater pumping produces a low
pressure area in the groundwater flow field that induces groundwater flow towards the well. The
pressure front does not propagate evenly through the aquifer as groundwater upgradient from the well
has higher potential energy and is flowing towards the well (positive kinetic energy). The pressure front
extends outward 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 miscible and mobile constituents in groundwater, if present, within the capture zone
are removed by pumping.
In the capture zone analysis, the previously developed groundwater flow model during CAP -2 (CAP -2
model) is used to simulate the normal pumping of the water supply wells. The capture zones generated
by the model are compared to the footprints of the ash basin waste boundary. This comparison can be
used to identify potential impacts to the recharge areas used by the water supply wells. The capture
zone analysis accounts for the potential effect of adjacent water supply wells pumping at the same time,
and considers the effects of local groundwater flow and other relevant conditions, such as the location
and water level elevations of the ash basin system.
As previously discussed in Section D.4.3, in an unconfined aquifer system, such as at Cliffside,
groundwater flow normally follows the surface topography flowing from areas of higher elevation
(higher water levels) to areas of lower elevation (lower water levels) due to gravity (Freeze and Cherry,
1979). Typically, aquifer recharge occurs at higher elevations where vertical downward flow is
predominant. Aquifer discharge areas (e.g., a groundwater seepline near a stream) are found at lower
elevations. The well capture zone will extend further upgradient than downgradient, as that is the
predominant source of water recharge to the well (see Figures D4-15 and D4-16). As explained
previously, the shape of the capture zone is a result of the well position with respect to the groundwater
flow field and natural hydraulic gradients.
APRIL 2016 26 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
The limited number of questionnaires returned during the Receptor Survey (HDR 2014a, 2014b)
indicates that surrounding water supply wells are installed into bedrock. As discussed in Section D.4.3.1,
although the water supply wells may be drilled into bedrock, the storage characteristics of the overlying
saprolite and transition zone exert control over the sustained quantity of water available to the well
(Harned, 1989). As discussed above, the regolith (soil/saprolite) provides the majority of water in the
water supply wells, not bedrock fractures.
As shown in Figure 2-1 of CAP -2, and included within the CAP -2 model, Cliffside ash sluicing began in
1957 and coal ash sources include the Units 1-4 inactive ash basin, Unit 5 inactive ash basin, active ash
basin and ash storage areas. Reverse particle tracking was performed to delineate well capture zones
using MODPATH (Pollock, 1994). The program computes particle flow paths or tracks, from the water
supply wells, using the groundwater flow results from the CAP -2 model (Niswonger et al., 2011). The
reverse particle tracking was performed to extend the delineation of the modeled capture zone for each
water supply well back in time.
For consistency with the calibrated CAP -2 model, the effective porosity values used for transport model
calibration were also used for reverse particle tracking: 5 percent in ash/fill, 10 percent in soil, 25
percent in saprolite (M1/M2 zones), 1 percent in the transition zone, and 0.5 percent in bedrock. The
mean annual recharge from precipitation in the Piedmont ranges from 4.0 to 9.7 inches/year (Daniel
2001). The recharge rate in the calibrated flow model is 6.5 inches/year, except for 7.5 inches/year at
the Units 1-4 inactive ash basin, Unit 5 inactive ash basin and bulk of the active ash basin, 7 inches per
year in the west ash storage area and 11 inches/year in ponded areas of the active ash basin. The
recharge rate is based on the head pressure from the amount of water within these basins.
D.4.4.1 Methodology
The steady-state groundwater flow and contaminant transport model developed for the Cliffside CAP -2
report (HDR, 2016) was utilized for this study. The CAP -2 model was calibrated to match water levels
measured in June 2015 for shallow, deep (TZ), and bedrock wells. Active water supply wells within the
model domain were included and actively pumped within the model during water level calibration. The
model uses a conservative assumption that each water supply well is pumping continuously at 400
gallons/day, which is the average household usage rate (USEPA, 2008). A detailed presentation of
model calibration was provided in Appendix B of the CAP -2 report.
The flow solution for the Cliffside CAP -2 "existing conditions" model scenario was used by MODPATH to
compute the particle path. A particle's path is computed from one model cell to the next until it reaches
the model boundary, an internal sink that removes water such as a wetland or seep, or satisfies a time
requirement. During reverse particle tracking, MODPATH reverses the sign of the velocity term to
calculate the time required for a discrete "particle of water" placed at a well to travel upstream to
where that particle originated. Groundwater Vistas is the graphical -user interface program that was
used to set-up and process the MODPATH simulations (Rumbaugh and Rumbaugh, 2011).
For the reverse particle tracking, a 30 -foot -diameter ring consisting of 10 particles was inserted in the
upper bedrock layer of the model around each water supply well. Next, MODPATH was run in reverse.
The capture zone for each well was created by connecting the particle track termination points to create
APRIL 2016 27 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
a polygon (Figure D4-16). The capture zone for each well represents an area of the aquifer where the
water will be removed by pumping continuously at 400 gallons/day for 58 years (corresponding to the
length of time that ash has been stored at the Cliffside site, beginning in 1957). Finally, the capture
zones were compared to the ash basin waste boundary to determine if water pumped by the well
originates within the ash basin waste boundary (Figure D4-16).
D.4.4.2 Results
The analysis found that the source of groundwater for the water supply wells is upgradient of the ash
basin and other coal ash sources, and supplied by recharge falling on areas not impacted by coal ash.
The groundwater flow directions are consistent with the slope -aquifer system and show that
groundwater flow is away from off-site water supply wells and toward the discharge features, Suck
Creek and the Broad River. Note that certain limitations and assumptions were made while developing
the model. The limitations and assumptions (listed on Figure D4-16) produce conservative results and
do not affect the findings as presented above. The results are considered conservative because the
water supply wells are assumed to pump continuously at 400 gallons/day, which is the average
household usage rate.
DAS Summary and Conclusions
Major findings from the evaluation of groundwater flow at the Cliffside site are as follows:
The groundwater system at Cliffside 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 from south to north
toward the Broad River away from the water supply wells. The groundwater flow in the shallow
and deep (TZ) wells to the west of the active ash basin and east of Unit 6 flow toward Suck Creek
and on to the Broad River. 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 Cliffside found no evidence of
mounding associated with the ash basin system.
APRIL 2016 28 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
The water supply well capture zone analysis shows that the water supply wells are supplied with
water from precipitation recharge to the regolith (soil/saprolite) surrounding the pumping
well(s) and the capture zones do not intersect or originate in the coal ash sources. This analysis
considered the potential combined effects of adjacent pumping wells. Site-specific water level
measurements and groundwater modeling confirm that the combined pumping effect of the
water supply wells is not affecting the overall site groundwater flow direction.
Based on this evidence, groundwater utilized by water supply wells near the coal ash
impoundments is not impacted by the coal ash sources.
D.5 GROUNDWATER CHARACTERISTICS EVALUATION
The results from the water supply well testing conducted by the NCDEQ in the vicinity of the Cliffside
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 basin system. Thus, it is critical to understand the
naturally occurring background conditions, the groundwater conditions in the tested local water supply
wells, and 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 D.3. As indicated in Section D.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 groundwater transport modeling results in
Section D.4.4.2, the source of groundwater for the water supply wells is upgradient of the ash basin
system, and supplied by recharge falling on areas not impacted by coal ash. 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.
APRIL 2016 29 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
D.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 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;
— Local water supply wells (data from NCDEQ); and
— Regional background wells (data 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. These designations were
determined by referencing bedrock groundwater flow directions discussed in the CAP -2 report
(HDR, 2016), which are consistent with the bedrock groundwater flow model created by HDR
and presented in Section D.S.
• Identify useful sensitive redox 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 promising constituents that can differentiate the site -related impacts and
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 D.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.
APRIL 2016 30 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
D.5.2 CCR -Related Constituents Screening for Signature Development
The first step for the identification of 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 D5-1.
• 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
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 D5-1), 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 oxveen. dissolved iron. and dissolved maneanese: Groundwater in the ash basin
system generally contains very low concentrations of dissolved oxygen, but high concentrations
of dissolved iron and manganese concentrations (HDR, 2015a). The site-specific geochemical
analysis indicates that the groundwater in the ash basin system is generally iron or manganese
reducing (Figure D5-1) (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,
total iron 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, including iron and manganese in this evaluation is
expected to help compare the redox conditions among different well groups.
D.5.3 Data Analysis Methods
D. 5.3.1 Data Sources
The groundwater analytical data used in this evaluation are from the following sources:
• Facility groundwater monitoring well data;
APRIL 2016 31 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
• Local water supply well data from NCDEQ; and
• Duke Energy background water supply well data.
D.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.
• 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.
D.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 D5-2
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 results.
D.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.
D.5.3.5 Piper Plot
Piper plots have been frequently used to assess the relative abundance of general cations (sodium,
potassium, magnesium, calcium) and anions (chloride, sulfate, bicarbonate and carbonate) in
groundwater and to differentiate 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
APRIL 2016 32 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
constituents, it is expected that 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
ash basin system and groundwater in other groups of facility monitoring wells. An example figure is
shown in Figure D5-2, which compares the general water chemistry among the porewater in the ash
basin system, surface water in the ash basins, and groundwater in the background monitoring 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 -5S shows about 13 percent of the total cation charges from sodium and
potassium, approximately 65 percent from calcium, and about 22 percent from magnesium. In the
anion subplot, the data point of BG -1D shows about 28 percent of the total anion charges from sulfate,
approximately 22 percent from chloride and nitrate related anions (NO2- and NO3-), and 50 percent
from carbonate (CO32-)plus bicarbonate (HCO3-) anions. In the diamond subplot, the data point of
AB -5S shows about 70 percent of the total anion charges from chloride, nitrate related anions, and
sulfate, and approximately 88 percent of the total cation charges from calcium and magnesium.
The piper plots for this evaluation were generated using the GW_Chart program developed by the USGS
(Winston, 2000).
D.5.4 Evaluation Results
D. 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 D5-3. 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.
The other constituents also show noticeable elevated concentrations in the ash basin porewater
compared to other on-site locations and compared to the local water supply wells. It should be noted
that Duke Energy regional background wells were not analyzed for chloride, sulfate, and TDS.
The box plot comparison of barium and cobalt is provided in Figure D5-4, which shows trends similar to
those observed for other major CCR constituents in Figure D5-3. 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 thus considered to be effective signature constituents.
The box plot comparison of dissolved oxygen, iron, and manganese is shown in Figure D5-5. The trend
of dissolved oxygen concentrations shows that the groundwater in the local water supply wells is
generally significantly more oxygenic than the porewater in the ash basin system. The observed low
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
APRIL 2016 33 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
leachate is attributed to the occurrence of sulfite or other oxidation processes when oxygenic water
comes in contact with coal ash (USEPA, 1980). It should be noted that Duke Energy regional background
wells were not analyzed for dissolved oxygen or iron.
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
environments (i.e., fractured crystalline rocks mantled with weathered regolith in the Piedmont
Physiographic Province) by the USGS (Brief, 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
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 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 D5-1), 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 can 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.
D.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 monitoring, facility bedrock, and local water supply wells through a correlation
plot. Duke Energy regional background wells were not analyzed for sulfate and dissolved oxygen;
therefore, those wells are not included in the correlation plots.
APRIL 2016 34 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
In this correlation plot evaluation, the boron and dissolved oxygen concentration pairs are grouped as
follows:
• Ash basin porewater wells.
• Water supply wells.
• Facility bedrock wells (Figure D5-6), which are further divided into three subgroup:
— Subgroup 1 (Downgradient): The bedrock wells are located beneath or hydraulically
downgradient of the ash basin system or the ash storage area, 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). The wells that belong to this
group are listed in the table below.
A13-313RU AS-513RU GWA-21BR GWA-213RU MW-36BRU
A13-41313 AS -613R GWA-21BRU GWA-32BR MW-40BRU
A13-513RU AS -713R GWA-22BRU GWA-33BR U5 -413R
A13 -613R GWA-1113RU GWA-28BR GWA-513RU
AS-313RU GWA-12BRU GWA-28BRU IB-213RU
AS -513R GWA-13BR I GWA-29BR I13 -413R
— Subgroup 2 (Side Gradient): The wells are located side 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 system. These wells are not expected to be influenced by
the ash basin system. The wells GWA-1131RU, MW -216R, MW -2213R, and MW-34BRU
belong to this group. It is noted that the groundwater flow field near MW-21BR is
uncertain; it may be assigned as a side gradient or a downgradient well. It is tentatively
assigned as a side gradient well here 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 subsequently flow beneath the ash basin system. 13G -113R,
GWA-3013R, GWA-3013RU, and MW-32BR are in this well group.
A correlation plot of boron and sulfate concentrations is shown in Figure D5-7. Panel (a) shows the
correlation plot for the ash basin porewater wells and the facility downgradient bedrock wells. These
results are distinguished by elevated boron concentrations and relatively high sulfate concentrations for
ash basin porewater wells. In addition, there are many downgradient facility bedrock wells containing
relatively low to non -detect (< 50 micrograms per liter [µg/L]) boron results with variable sulfate
concentrations. Panel (b) shows the data from the facility side gradient and upgradient bedrock wells.
This set of the wells are distinguished by relatively low boron concentrations, and sulfate concentrations
that are generally higher than the ash basin porewater wells in Panel (a) (the red triangles). Panel (c)
shows the overlay of the local water supply wells data and the data in Panel (b).
The Panel (c) plot shows that the data are clustered in two distinct areas. Area 1 contains the data from
the ash basin porewater wells. Area 2 contains the data from the local water supply wells. Many of the
APRIL 2016 35 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
facility downgradient bedrock wells are either in Area 1 or exhibit a significantly higher sulfate
concentration than those of the local water supply wells. These downgradient bedrock wells may be
suspected of being impacted by the ash basin porewater; however, several of them also exhibit high
dissolved oxygen concentrations. For example, AS -7R and US-4BR show very high sulfate
concentrations, but the groundwater therein is fairly oxygenic (4,900 and 4,400 µg/L, respectively),
suggesting little CCR impacts.
As shown in Figure D5-7, the data on the blue strip includes all facility bedrock wells that have NDs of
boron at the reporting limit of 50 pg/L, and the sulfate concentrations generally cluster between
approximately 10,000 and 100,000 µg/L, and are generally higher than those in the local water supply
wells. The side gradient well (MW-22BR), which exhibits the highest sulfate concentrations among all
the upgradient and side gradient wells, is located in the proximity of the local water supply well C1,
which exhibits the highest sulfate concentration among the local water supply wells. This data suggest
that typical facility background sulfate concentrations in the bedrock unit can be higher than the areas
where the local water supply wells are located. Note that, in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Aquifers
chapter of the USGS Ground Water Atlas of the United States, the groundwater of this region as a whole
is described as "generally suitable for drinking... but iron, manganese, and sulfate locally occur in
objectionable concentrations" (HDR, 2015a). Therefore, the high sulfate concentrations in the facility
bedrock wells may be naturally occurring.
Based on Figure D5-5, dissolved oxygen concentration is also a useful indicator for CCR -impacted
groundwater. The correlation plot of boron and dissolved oxygen concentrations is shown in
Figure D5-8. Panel (a) shows the correlation plot for the ash basin porewater wells and the facility
downgradient bedrock wells. These results are distinguished by elevated boron concentrations and
relatively low dissolved oxygen concentrations for ash basin porewater wells. In addition, there are
many downgradient facility bedrock wells containing relatively low to non -detect (reporting limit equals
50 µg/L) boron results with variable dissolved oxygen concentrations. Panel (b) shows the data from the
facility side gradient and upgradient bedrock wells, and the local water supply wells. This set of wells
are distinguished by relatively low boron concentrations, and dissolved oxygen concentrations that are
generally higher than the ash basin porewater wells in Panel (a) (the red triangles). Panel (c) shows the
overlay of data from Panel (b), which includes the local water supply wells, on the data in Panel (a) for
the ash basin porewater and facility downgradient bedrock wells. The Panel (c) plot shows that the data
are clustered in two distinct areas. Area 1 contains the data from the ash basin porewater wells. Area 2
contains the data from the local water supply wells. 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.
A limited amount of data pairs for the facility bedrock wells that are classified as downgradient are
clustered toward the ash basin porewater data pairs (Area 1). In contrast, the majority of data pairs for
facility bedrock wells classified as side gradient, upgradient, and downgradient wells are generally
clustered toward the local water supply wells (Area 2). The correlation plot result shows that the low
oxygen and elevated boron concentrations serve as an effective signature pair to help identify the CCR -
impacted groundwater. The fact that many of the local water supply wells are significantly more
oxygenic suggests that the local water supply wells do not obtain groundwater primarily from the ash
APRIL 2016 36 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
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.
It is noted that the boron concentrations in most of the facility bedrock well data in Area 2 are below the
reporting limit of 50 µg/L; many of these wells are the facility downgradient bedrock wells and exhibit
relatively high dissolved oxygen concentrations (greater than 3,000 pg/L) in comparison to those
observed in the ash basin porewater wells. The relatively high dissolved oxygen concentrations in these
facility downgradient bedrock wells resemble the general high dissolved oxygen concentrations
observed in the local water supply wells. These results strongly suggest that the background bedrock
conditions are generally much more oxygenic than the ash basin porewater, and that the ash basin
porewater has not impacted many of the facility downgradient bedrock wells.
The groundwater data for a subset of the local water supply wells exhibit low dissolved oxygen
concentrations (lower than 3,650 µg/L) or detected boron concentrations higher than or equal to
20 µg/L. These conditions could be suggestive of a potential impact of CCR -impacted groundwater.
Therefore, these locations were further evaluated for the concentrations of other CCR indicator
constituents. The locations of these local water supply wells are shown in Figure D5-9. Table D5-2
shows the comparison between the observed boron and sulfate concentrations in these wells and the
site-specific facility background threshold values for these constituents. The results show that the boron
and sulfate concentrations observed in these wells are all below the threshold values. The
concentrations observed in these local water supply wells are within the range of the background.
Facility downgradient bedrock well GWA-11BRU shows a strong CCR -impacted groundwater signature.
This well is located directly northeast and downgradient of the Units 1-4 inactive ash basin system, but
south of the Broad River, which forms a hydrogeologic boundary. The close proximity of this well to the
ash basin system and the elevated boron concentration indicates that GWA-11BRU is likely influenced
by the CCR -impacted groundwater.
In summary, based on Figures D5-7 and D5-8, CCR -impacted groundwater has been found in the facility
bedrock wells that are within or downgradient of the active and inactive ash basin system footprint.
However, the groundwater in many facility downgradient bedrock wells is much more oxygenic and low
in boron concentrations, thus, the water quality of these facility downgradient wells is more similar to
the local water supply wells than the wells within the ash basin system footprint, and is considered to be
not impacted by CCR. The correlation plots and the conceptual groundwater flow directions consistently
support the conceptual groundwater transport process that the background groundwater of higher
dissolved oxygen and lower 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.
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.
APRIL 2016 37 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
D.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 D5-10.
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 larger than 70 percent, and the anion subplot shows that the
relative abundance of chloride is generally less than 20 percent and sulfate has a relative abundance
larger than 60 percent.
Panel (b) shows the data for both the ash basin porewater wells and the facility downgradient bedrock
wells. The data for the facility downgradient bedrock wells are generally clustered differently than the
ash basin porewater wells, suggesting that the CCR -impacted groundwater is generally not present in
many downgradient bedrock wells. The results are consistent with the results of the correlation plot
evaluation (Figure D5-7). It is noted that some facility bedrock well data points (AS-36RU, GWA-11BRU,
and GWA-2113RU) deviate from the general data distribution pattern. The data points of AS-36RU and
GWA-11BRU are clustered more closely with the ash basin porewater data. These two wells also have
boron detected above 100 pg/L. In contrast, AS-36RU is far away from the ash basin porewater wells,
and this well is high in dissolved oxygen (6,700 µg/L) and of low boron concentration (less than 50 µg/L).
These deviations show the variability of bedrock groundwater quality under the ash basin system
footprint and the varying extent of CCR impacts to the facility downgradient bedrock wells.
The piper plots for the local water supply, upgradient, and side gradient bedrock wells are provided in
Figure D5-11. Panel (a) of Figure D5-11 shows the data for the local water supply wells. Since regional
background wells were not analyzed for multiple constituents, those wells are not plotted in the
following piper plots. As can be seen in Panel (a), the local water supply well data are grouped fairly
tightly together in each of the sections of the piper diagram. This indicates that they have similar major
ion characteristics. Panel (b) of Figure D5-11 shows the data for the local water supply wells in Panel (a)
and the data for two subgroups of the facility bedrock wells (upgradient and side gradient). When
viewed this way, it is clear that the upgradient and side gradient facility bedrock wells have
characteristics very similar to and indistinguishable from the local water supply wells.
As shown in the correlation plot on Figure D5-7, the sulfate concentrations in the upgradient and side
gradient facility bedrock wells are generally higher than those in the local water supply wells; however,
the major ion compositions pattern of these facility bedrock wells agree with those of the local water
supply wells. The piper plot evaluation on Figure D5-11 supports that the elevated sulfate
concentrations in the upgradient and side gradient background wells are naturally occurring.
Figure D5-12 shows a side-by-side comparison of the ash basin related well data in Panel (a) (which is
Panel (b) from Figure D5-10), and the local water supply well related data in Panel (b) (which is Panel (b)
from Figure D5-11). While the cation subplots show that both the ash basin porewater and the local
water supply wells are enriched in calcium cations, the anion subplots show a distinct difference
between these two datasets: the local water supply wells are enriched in carbonate, and the ash basin
porewater is enriched in sulfate. The apparent difference in groundwater characteristics between the
APRIL 2016 38 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
CCR -impacted wells (ash basin porewater wells) and the local water supply wells is shown in their
diamond subplots. The area defined by the blue dotted line in Panel (b) encloses almost all the local
water supply well data, but excludes most of the ash basin porewater well data in Panel (a). Note that
the wells in Panel (a) that are in the area of the Panel (b) blue diamond are bedrock wells that show little
if any impact of a CCR release. This is consistent with the limited extent of boron release above 2L
Standards shown in Figure D4-12.
The groundwater chemistry data analysis provides additional evidence to support the conceptual
groundwater flow process depicted in Figure D4-13 and described in Section D4.3.6, in which the
groundwater is considered to flow primarily in the regolith and weathered rock/TZ zone and the lateral
flow in the TZ predominates over downward flow (i.e., flow into the bedrock unit). This explains why
the ash basin porewater has produced insignificant modifications on the major ion compositions of most
of the facility bedrock wells that were originally perceived to be hydraulically downgradient of the ash
basin porewater.
As described in the correlation plot evaluation, the shallow bedrock well, GWA-11BRU, shows a strong
correlation with the ash basin porewater signature. This suggests that this well is receiving a substantial
amount of CCR -impacted groundwater. Since this shallow bedrock well is located on the south (facility)
side of the Broad River, which forms a hydrogeologic boundary for groundwater, it is not expected that
CCR -impacted groundwater is migrating under the river to the north.
The data for the downgradient facility bedrock wells are generally within the variability of the local
water supply well data. These piper plot results are consistent with the results of the correlation plot
evaluation; both show that the majority of the facility bedrock wells are not impacted by the ash basin
porewater. In the piper plots, the local water supply well data show a different cluster pattern in
comparison with the data of the ash basin porewater wells, indicating that the source water for the
supply wells is not CCR -impacted groundwater.
D.5.5 Conclusions
Base on this evaluation, the following key conclusions can be drawn:
The boron and sulfate concentrations in the ash basin groundwater are considerably higher than
the maximum reported boron concentration found in the local water supply wells. Because
boron and sulfate exhibit little sorption to mineral surfaces and are not expected to precipitate
or be degraded under the site geochemical conditions, they are 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 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 is considered to be a useful signature of CCR -impacted groundwater. This
suggests that the local water supply wells do not 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 the local water supply wells.
APRIL 2016 39 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
The extent of CCR -impacted groundwater identified using the correlation and piper plots is
consistent with the knowledge of the groundwater flow field in the bedrock unit in the facility
area, as described in Section D.4. Limited CCR -impacts found in the facility downgradient
bedrock wells support that the predominant groundwater flow occurs above the bedrock unit,
and that vertical downward flow is very limited. The local water supply wells are generally
upgradient or side gradient of the ash basin system.
The correlation and piper plots show very different clustering patterns from the ash basin
porewater wells and the local water supply wells, specifically in the anion content. 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 D.4.4
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.
D.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
Cliffside ash basins and ash storage area compliance boundary could be impacted by CCR releases from
these ash management units. 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
APRIL 2016 40 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
water supply wells in the vicinity of the Cliffside facility are not impacted by CCR releases from the ash
basins and ash storage area.
The evaluation of the private water supply well data collected by NCDEQ and the detailed statistical
analysis of regional and facility background groundwater data indicates that constituent concentrations
in the water supply wells are generally consistent with background. The concentration of boron and the
other potential coal ash indicators were low and not above screening levels. None of the NCDEQ-
sampled water supply well results were above Federal primary drinking water standards (MCLS), with
the exception of some pH results; pH in these wells was below the state and federal standard range.
However, this is consistent with literature on the pH of groundwater in North Carolina (Briel, 1997;
Chapman, et al., 2013). Approximately half of the aluminum and iron results were above the SMCL, as
were 3 of the results for manganese; however, the SMCLs are based on aesthetics, and all results but
one for manganese are below the USEPA risk-based RSLs. Moreover, the aluminum and iron results for
the NCDEQ-sampled water supply wells were within the range of concentrations from the Duke Energy
background wells.
The comprehensive evaluation of groundwater flow with respect to local water supply wells
demonstrates that groundwater flow across the site is from south to north toward the Broad River. The
groundwater flow in the shallow and deep wells to the west of the active ash basin and east of Unit 6
flow is toward Suck Creek and on to the Broad River. The water supply well capture zone analysis
indicates that groundwater utilized by water supply wells near the coal ash impoundments is not
impacted by the coal ash sources. 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 water supply wells, the source water for the water supply wells is not
CCR -impacted groundwater.
The water supply wells upgradient of the facility are likely placed in bedrock, and it is of interest at
Cliffside that many of the facility bedrock wells that are "downgradient" laterally from the ash
management areas but are not "downgradient" vertically, and remain unimpacted by the CCR releases
from the units. This also supports the lack of impact of CCR releases on the water supply wells.
Based on this combined weight of evidence, groundwater utilized by 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 Cliffside Steam Station under the CAMA is
warranted.
APRIL 2016 41 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D - Cliffside
D.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. CAMA. 2014. North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act. Senate Bill S729v7. Available at:
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S729v7.PDF
3. 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 (Scientific
Investigations Report No. 2013-5072). U.S. Geological Survey.
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). US 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. 2001. Estimating ground -water recharge in the North Carolina Piedmont for
land use planning [abs.], in 2001 Abstracts with Programs, 50th Annual Meeting, Southeastern
Section, April 5-6, 2001: Raleigh, N.C., The Geological Society of America, v. 33, no. 2, p. A-80.
7. 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.
8. Domenico, P.A. and Schwartz, F.W. 1998. Physical and chemical hydrogeology (Vol. 44). New
York: Wiley.
9. 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.
10. EPRI. 2005. Chemical Constituents in Coal Combustion Product Leachate: Boron. Electric Power
Research Institute Report 1005258. March 2005.
11. Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A. 1979. Groundwater, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice -Hall.
12. 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.
APRIL 2016 42 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D - Cliffside
13. Haley & Aldrich. 2015. Evaluation of NCDEQ Private Well Data. December 2015.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. HDR. 2014a. Cliffside 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
17. HDR. 2014b. Cliffside 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
18. HDR. 2014c. Cliffside Steam Station Ash Basin, Proposed Groundwater Assessment Work Plan
(Rev. 1), NPDES Permit NC0005088. HDR, Inc. December 30, 2014.
19. HDR. 2015a. Comprehensive Site Assessment Report, Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station,
August. HDR, Inc.
20. HDR. 2015b. Corrective Action Plan Part 1, Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station Ash Basin,
November. HDR, Inc.
21. HDR. 2016. Corrective Action Plan Part 2, Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station Ash Basin,
February. HDR, Inc.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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
APRIL 2016 43 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality, Groundwater
Section.
26. Niswonger, R.G., Panday, S., and Ibaraki, M. 2011. MODFLOW-NWT, A Newton formulation for
MODFLOW-2005 (Techniques and Methods 6-A37, 44p.). U.S. Geological Survey.
27. 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
28. 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%20lmDoundment%20CIassifications.Ddf
29. 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/get file?p I id=1169848&folderld=24814087&na
me=DLFE-112704.PDF
30. Pollock, D.W. 1994. User's guide for MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT: A particle -tracking post-
processing package for MODFLOW, the U.S. Geological Survey finite -difference ground -water
flow model (Open -File Report 94-464, 249p.). U.S. Geological Survey.
31. Rumbaugh J. and Rumbaugh, D. 2011. Groundwater Vistas Version 6.84 Build 6, Environmental
Simulation, Incorporated.
32. USEPA. 1980. Effects of Coal -ash Leachate on Ground Water Quality. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA -600/7-80-066. March.
33. 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. October.
34. USEPA. 2008. Indoor Water Use in the United States., EPA Water Sense., U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. [Online] URL: https://www3.epa.gov/watersense/docs/ws indoor508.pdf.
35. 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
APRIL 2016 44 %UICH

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
36. 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
37. 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
38. USEPA. 2015b. USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). November 2015. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-
concentration table/Generic Tables/index.htm
39. Winograd, I.J. and Robertson, F.N. 1982. Deep oxygenated ground water: anomaly or common
occurrence? Science, 216(4551), pp.1227-1230.
40. Winston, R.B. 2000. Graphical User Interface for MODFLOW, Version 4 (Open -File Report 00-
315). U.S. Geological Survey. Software:
http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/gwsoftware/GW Chart/GW Chart.html
APRIL 2016 45 %UICH

Table D2-1
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Page 1 of 3
15A NCAC 0ard(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
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
Cliffside
C10
<5
18000
2.3
8
8.1
79
<0.5
1.6
4.3
<0.2
<0.08
2.3
0.31
<0.1
<0.1
0.21
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C11
13.2
22500
5.6
6.6
10.2
101
<0.5
<0.5
55.5
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.31
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C1-2
21
9200
6.5
7.47
13
53
0.3
2.6
23
<0.2
<0.08
3.2
0.4
0.74
0.06
0.13
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
Cl -3
< 25
6400
2.6
6.73
8.5
60
< 1
< 1
14
< 0.4
< 0.1
< 5
0.67
0.15
0.068
0.13
0.36
< 0.5
Cliffside
C15
20
56000
14
8.01
11
190
0.12
1
130
< 0.4
< 0.1
< 5
3.1
0.8
0.064
1.9
< 1
< 0.5
Cliffside
C16
7.1
6100
5.4
6.63
2.6
38
0.19
0.44
55
<0.4
<0.1
<5
0.17
0.75
<0.1
0.084
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
C17
12
71000
61
7.57
1.2
330
<1
1.1
48
<0.4
<0.1
<5
1.7
6.1
0.049
0.081
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
C19
7.1
6200
4.6
7.68
2.5
25
<1
0.86
36
<0.4
<0.1
<5
0.12
0.15
0.056
0.071
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
C23
<5
11600
2.7
6.9
<2
44
<0.5
<0.5
25.3
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
<0.5
0.23
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C24 -1B
<5
24500
4.8
6.7
2.9
101
<0.5
<0.5
49.8
<0.2
<0.08
0.88
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C24 -2A
<5
22000
5.7
6.4
2.2
127
<0.5
<0.5
162
0.22
<0.08
0.91
2.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
0.14
Cliffside
C25
<5
4270
1.4
6.5
5.6
54
<0.5
<0.5
5.4
<0.2
<0.08
14.1
<0.5
0.93
<0.2
0.93
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C26
5.6
6840
4.1
6.2
3.5
61
<0.5
<0.5
4.9
<0.2
<0.08
0.81
<0.5
0.23
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C3
5
12000
3.6
7.23
4.8
48
<0.5
0.26
19
0.043
<0.08
0.56
1.2
1.2
0.058
0.36
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C4-2
S.3
1500
2.4
6.98
2.3
< 10
< 1
< 10
9.6
< 0.4
< 1
< 50
0.77
0.073
0.051
< 100
< 10
< 0.5
Cliffside
C4-3
27
5100
0.98.
6.96
7
160
<1
0.8
36
0.1
<0.1
6.7
0.72
8.5
0.12
<10
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
CS
6.2
15900
5.5
6.6
2.3
80
<0.5
<0.5
24.9
<0.2
<0.08
2.2
<0.5
0.29
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C7
<5
15500
1.4
7.6
6.5
94
<0.5
1.3
3.7
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.11
<0.2
0.61
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C8
<5
8560
4.3
6.2
<2
59
<0.5
<0.5
32.5
<0.2
<0.08
0.86
0.72
0.43
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C85S
6.52690
5.6
5.6
5.9
45
<0.5
<0.5
33.2
<0.2
<0.08
2.2
1.6
2.2
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C9A
6.2
1980
2.2
5.7
2.6
32
<0.5
<0.5
8.2
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.3
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C9B
10.2
13400
1.9
7.1
6.2
97
<0.5
<0.5
8.2
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.53
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016

Table D2-1
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
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
Cliffside
C10
<1
11
0.002
650
<0.6
2300
49.6
2.4
2500
5200
39
0.0101
52
52
<5
0.5
Cliffside
C11
<1
518
0.0031
176
0.096
2990
3
<0.5
1920
5290
39.3
0.113
56.6
<5
<5
<2.5
Cliffside
C1-2
<1
220
0.0129
540
<0.6
1670
13.1
2.9
2490
4470
50.1
0.0182
17.9
17.9
<5
1.7
Cliffside
C1-3
< 5
97
0.03
210
< 20
2000
11
2.5
2600
4600
48
0.032
21
21
< 10
< 1
Cliffside
C15
<5
79
0.0027
2200
< 20
7600
230
9.3
14000
9200
140
0.0075
180
180
< 10
4
Cliffside
C16
< 5
300
0.0019
380
< 20
2100
4.3
1.1
3500
3400
30
0.016
11
11
< 10
1
Cliffside
C17
<5
110
0.0063
3200
< 20
8200
630
6.6
3700
34000
81
0.0074
210
210
< 10
8.1
Cliffside
C19
<5
83
0.014
240
< 20
1900
4.7
0.95
3100
2000
33
0.015
12
12
< 10
2.1
Cliffside
C23
<1
46
0.005
110
0.83
5100
3.1
0.8
1120
1810
15.7
<0.005
43.8
43.8
<5
<2.5
Cliffside
C24 -1B
<1
11.4
0.0012
<50
0.63
1960
3.3
0.86
3140
4080
60.8
<0.005
59.7
59.7
<5
363
Cliffside
C24 -2A
< 1
56.8
0.002
< 50
0.44
5630
51.4
5.3
3460
3070
71.4
0.0333
49.6
49.6
<5
< 2.5
Cliffside
C25
< 1
< 10
0.0025
540
0.11
1010
3.6
6.4
1580
5180
28.2
0.032
18.2
18.2
<5
< 2.5
Cliffside
C26
<1
38.3
0.0062
188
0.15
810
2.7
<0.5
1820
5200
27.1
0.0377
23.1
23.1
<5
<2.5
Cliffside
C3
< 1
27
0.0063
360
< 0.6
1340
25.5
2.7
1400
10000
51
0.0067
42
42
<5
< 1
Cliffside
C4-2
22
26
0.0062
290
< 20
880
26
<50
1200
1700
< 100
0.023
4.3
4.3
< 10
< 1
Cliffside
C4-3
11
5000
0.0047
3200
< 20
1300
11
3.1
3300
570
24
0.024
4.9
4.9
< 10
9.1
Cliffside
CS
< 1
38.1
0.0072
< 50
2.2
2340
1
0.69
1390
4570
20.2
0.0066
51.8
<5
<5
< 2.5
Cliffside
C7
<1
79.9
0.0011
<50
<0.03
2750
7.9
0.54
2320
6660
60.6
<0.005
59.7
<5
<5
<2.5
Cliffside
C8
< 1
< 10
0.0093
57.3
0.74
4670
11
1.4
1780
3150
16
0.008
35.5
35.5
<5
< 2.5
Cliffside
CESS
3
1470
0.0026
1860
<0.03
1950
16.8
1.7
950
2710
14.9
0.0096
38.5
<5
<5
164
Cliffside
C9A
< 1
< 10
0.0029
< 50
0.1
739
2.3
0.63
1140
2240
14.1
< 0.005
7.3
7.3
< 5
< 2.5
Cliffside
C9B
<1
<10
<0.001
749
<0.03
1720
32.4
<0.5
2720
8050
48.9
<0.005
48
48
<5
<2.5
Page 2 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016

Table D2-1
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to 2L Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
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
Cliffside
C10
2.2
17.1
132.1
9.14
36.7
Cliffside
C11
4.2
16
168.8
7.8
152.8
Cliffside
C1-2
1.4
17.2
84
8.35
217.8
Cliffside
C1-3
<1
18
79
2.2
110
Cliffside
C15
2.3
13.9
428
3.65
13
Cliffside
C16
4.9
16.1
81
7.33
160
Cliffside
C17
11
15
587
2.88
140
Cliffside
C19
2.4
14
69
8.44
72
Cliffside
C23
1.1
18.4
113.7
8.1
267.7
Cliffside
C24 -1B
<1
17.2
170.3
6.2
190.8
Cliffside
C24 -2A
<1
17.5
194.7
7.1
193.5
Cliffside
C25
3.9
17
62.2
4.4
242
Cliffside
C26
1.5
18.6
68.9
9.5
234.1
Cliffside
C3
<1
17.8
113
4.2
196.1
Cliffside
C4-2
1.2
14.5
32
8.09
82
Cliffside
C4-3
210
12.9
48
6.54
120
Cliffside
CS
<1
15
121.4
5.1
410.4
Cliffside
C7
<1
16.9
125.4
0.6
305.7
Cliffside
C8
<1
16
105.9
7.5
211.8
Cliffside
C8S5
34.5
19.9
53
7.4
344.6
Cliffside
C9A
<1
14.7
33.5
6.4
248
Cliffside
C9B
<1
15.8
134.3
0.1
<
Page 3 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016

Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to Screening Levels
Cliffside 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 D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 4/9/2016

Table D2.2
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
15A NCAC 02L .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
Cliffside
C10
<5
18000
2.3
8
8.1
79
<0.5
1.6
4.3
<0.2
<0.08
2.3
0.31
<0.1
<0.1
0.21
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C11
13.2
22500
5.6
6.6
10.2
101
<0.5
<0.5
55.5
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.31
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C1-2
21
9200
6.5
7.47
13
53
0.3
2.6
23
<0.2
<0.08
3.2
0.4
0.74
0.06
0.13
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C1-3
<25
6400
2.6
6.73
8.5
60
<1
<1
14
<0.4
<0.1
<5
0.67
0.15
0.068
0.13
0.36
<0.5
Cliffside
C15
20
56000
14
8.01
11
190
0.12
1
130
<0.4
<0.1
<5
3.1
0.8
0.064
1.9
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
C16
7.1
6100
5.4
6.63
2.6
38
0.19
0.44
55
<0.4
<0.1
<5
0.17
0.75
<0.1
0.084
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
C17
12
71000
61
7.57
1.2
330
<1
1.1
48
<0.4
<0.1
<5
1.7
6.1
0.049
0.081
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
C19
71
6200
4.6
7.68
2.5
25
<1
0.86
36
<0.4
<0.1
<5
0.12
0.15
0.056
0.071
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
C23
<5
11600
2.7
6.9
<2
44
<0.5
<0.5
25.3
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
<0.5
0.23
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C24 -1B
<5
24500
4.8
6.7
2.9
101
<0.5
<0.5
49.8
<0.2
<0.08
0.88
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C24 -2A
<5
22000
5.7
6.4
2.2
127
<0.5
<0.5
162
0.22
<0.08
0.91
2.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
0.14
Cliffside
C25
<5
4270
1.4
6.5
5.6
54
<0.5
<0.5
5.4
<0.2
<0.08
14.1
<0.5
0.93
<0.2
0.93
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C26
5.6
6840
4.1
6.2
3.5
61
<0.5
<0.5
4.9
<0.2
<0.08
0.81
<0.5
0.23
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C3
5
12000
3.6
7.23
4.8
48
<0.5
0.26
19
0.043
<0.08
0.56
1.2
1.2
0.058
0.36
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C4-2
5.3
1500
2.4
6.98
2.3
<10
<1
<10
9.6
<0.4
<1
<50
0.77
0.073
0.051
<100
<10
<0.5
Cliffside
C4-3
27
5100
0.98
6.96
7
160
<1
0.8
36
0.1
<0.1
6.7
0.72
8.5
0.12
<10
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
C5
6.2
15900
5.5
6.6
2.3
80
<0.5
<0.5
24.9
<0.2
<0.08
2.2
<0.5
0.29
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C7
<5
15500
1.4
7.6
6.5
94
<0.5
1.3
3.7
<0.2
<0.08
70.5
<0.5
0.11
<0.2
0.61
<0.1
Cliffside
C8
<5
8560
4.3
6.2
<2
59
<0.5
<0.5
32.5
<0.2
<0.08
0.86
0.72
0.43
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
CSss
6.5
2690
5.6
5.6
5.9
45
<0.5
<0.5
33.2
<0.2
<0.08
2.2
1.6
2.2
<0.-
<0.5
F<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C9A
6.2
1980
2.2
5.7
2.6
32
<0.5
<0.5
8.2
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.3
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C9B
10.2
13400
1.9
7.1
6.2
97
<0.5
<0.5
8.2
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.53
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
< 0.1
Page 1 of 2
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016

Table D2.2
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Page 2 of 2
ISANCA02L020
Groundwater Staanndad.rrda:
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 to
u L
u L
m L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
u L
m L
.911.
m L
m L
m L
NTU
'C
umhos cm
.9/1.
mV
Cliffside
C10
<1
11
0.002
650
<0.6
2300
49.6
2.4
2500
5200
39
0.0101
52
52
<5
0.5
2.2
17.1
132.1
9.14
36.7
Cliffside
C11
<1
518
0.0031
176
0.096
2990
3
<0.5
1920
5290
39.3
0.113
56.6
<5
<5
<2.5
4.2
16
168.8
7.8
152.8
Cliffside
C1-2
<1
220
0.0129
540
<0.6
1670
13.1
2.9
2490
4470
50.1
0.0182
17.9
17.9
<5
1.7
1.4
17.2
84
8.35
217.8
Cliffside
C1-3
<5
97
0.03
210
<20
2000
11
2.5
2600
4600
48
0.032
21
21
<10
<1
<1
18
79
2.2
110
Cliffside
C15
<5
79
0.0027
2200
<20
7600
230
9.3
14000
9200
140
0.0075
180
180
<10
4
2.3
13.9
428
3.65
13
Cliffside
C16
<5
300
0.0019
380
<20
2100
4.3
1.1
3500
3400
30
0.016
11
11
<10
1
4.9
16.1
81
7.33
160
Cliffside
C17
<5
110
0.0063
3200
<20
8200
630
6.6
3700
34000
81
0.0074
210
210
<10
8.1
11
15
587
2.88
140
Cliffside
C19
<5
83
0.014
240
<20
1900
4.7
0.95
3100
2000
33
0.015
12
12
<10
2.1
2.4
14
69
8.44
72
Cliffside
C23
<1
46
0.005
110
0.83
5100
3.1
0.8
1120
1810
15.7
<0.005
43.8
43.8
<5
<2.5
1.1
18.4
113.7
8.1
267.7
Cliffside
C24 -1B
<1
11.4
0.0012
<50
0.63
1960
3.3
0.86
3140
4080
60.8
<0.005
59.7
59.7
<5
363
<1
17.2
170.3
6.2
190.8
Cliffside
C24 -2A
<1
56.8
0.002
<50
0.44
5630
51.4
5.3
3460
3070
71.4
0.0333
49.6
49.6
<5
<2.5
<1
17.5
194.7
7.1
193.5
Cliffside
C25
<1
<10
0.0025
540
0.11
1010
3.6
6.4
1580
5180
28.2
0.032
18.2
18.2
<5
<2.5
3.9
17
62.2
4.4
242
Cliffside
C26
<1
38.3
0.0062
188
0.15
810
2.7
<0.5
1820
5200
27.1
0.0377
23.1
23.1
<5
<2.5
1.5
18.6
68.9
9.5
234.1
Cliffside
C3
< 1
27
0.0063
360
< 0.6
1340
25.5
2.7
1400
10000
51
0.0067
42
42
<5
< 1
< 1
17.8
113
4.2
196.1
Cliffside
C4-2
22
26
0.0062
290
< 20
880
26
< 50
1200
1700
< 100
0.023
4.3
4.3
<10
< 1
1.2
14.5
32
8.09
82
Cliffside
C4-3
31
5000
0.0047
3200
<20
1300
11
3.1
3300
570
24
0.024
4.9
4.9
<10
9.1
210
12.9
48
6.54
120
Cliffside
C5
<1
38.1
0.0072
<50
2.2
2340
1
0.69
1390
4570
20.2
0.0066
51.8
<5
<5
<2.5
<1
15
121.4
5.1
410.4
Cliffside
C7
< 1
79.9
0.0011
<50
< 0.03
2750
7.90.
54
2320
6660
60.6
< 0.005
59.7
<5
<5
< 2.5
< 1
16.9
125.4
0.6
305.7
Cliffside
C8
<1
<10
0.0093
57.3
0.74
4670
11
1.4
1780
3150
16
0.008
35.5
35.5
<5
<2.5
<1
16
105.9
7.5
211.8
Cliffside
C8SS
3
1470
0.0026
1860
<0.03
1950
16.8
1.7
950
2710
14.9
0.0096
38.5
<5
<5
164
34.5
19.9
53
7.4
344.6
Cliffside
C9A
<1
<10
0.0029
<50
0.1
739
2.3
0.63
1140
2240
14.1
<0.005
7.3
7.3
<5
<2.5
<1
14.7
33.5
6.4
248
Cliffside
C9B
<1
<10
<0.0.
749
<0.03
1720
32.4 1
<0.5
2720
8050
48.9
<0.005
48
48
<5
<2.5
<1
15.8
134.3
0.1
<
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016

Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to Screening Levels
Cliffside 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 hove the Breen ing level.
_Reporting limit isabove the screening level.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 4/9/2016

Table D2-3
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Page 1 of 3
15A NCA02L.0202
Groundwater Standard ((aa):
)
700
NS
250
6.5-8.5
250
500
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
1s
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
1s
2
NS
50
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
30
1
1s
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
is
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
Cliffside
C10
<5
18000
2.3
8
8.1
79
<0.5
1.6
4.3
<0.2
<0.08
2.3
0.31
<0.1
<0.1
0.21
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C11
13.2
22500
5.6
6.6
10.2
101
<0.5
<0.5
55.5
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.31
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C1-2
21
9200
6.5
7.47
13
53
0.3
2.6
23
<0.2
<0.08
3.2
0.4
0.74
0.06
0.13
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
Cl -3
< 25
6400
2.6
6.73
8.5
60
< 1
< 1
14
< 0.4
< 0.1
< 5
0.67
0.15
0.068
0.13
0.36
< 0.5
Cliffside
C15
20
56000
14
8.01
11
190
0.12
1
130
< 0.4
< 0.1
< 5
3.1
0.8
0.064
1.9
< 1
< 0.5
Cliffside
C16
7.1
6100
5.4
6.63
2.6
38
0.19
0.44
55
<0.4
<0.1
<5
0.17
0.75
<0.1
0.084
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
C17
12
71000
61
7.57
1.2
330
<1
1.1
48
<0.4
<0.1
<5
1.7
6.1
0.049
0.081
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
C19
7.1
6200
4.6
7.68
2.5
25
<1
0.86
36
<0.4
<0.1
<5
0.12
0.15
0.056
0.071
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
C23
<5
11600
2.7
6.9
<2
44
<0.5
<0.5
25.3
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
<0.5
0.23
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C24 -1B
<5
24500
4.8
6.7
2.9
101
<0.5
<0.5
49.8
<0.2
<0.08
0.88
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C24 -2A
<5
22000
5.7
6.4
2.2
127
<0.5
<0.5
162
0.22
<0.08
0.91
2.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
0.14
Cliffside
C25
<5
4270
1.4
6.5
5.6
54
<0.5
<0.5
5.4
<0.2
<0.08
14.1
<0.5
0.93
<0.2
0.93
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C26
5.6
6840
4.1
6.2
3.5
61
<0.5
<0.5
4.9
<0.2
<0.08
0.81
<0.5
0.23
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C3
5
12000
3.6
7.23
4.8
48
<0.5
0.26
19
0.043
<0.08
0.56
1.2
1.2
0.058
0.36
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C4-2
S.3
1500
2.4
6.98
2.3
< 10
< 1
< 10
9.6
< 0.4
< 1
< 50
0.77
0.073
0.051
< 100
< 10
< 0.5
Cliffside
C4-3
27
5100
0.98.
6.96
7
160
<1
0.8
36
0.1
<0.1
6.7
0.72
8.5
0.12
<10
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
CS
6.2
15900
5.5
6.6
2.3
80
<0.5
<0.5
24.9
<0.2
<0.08
2.2
<0.5
0.29
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C7
<5
15500
1.4
7.6
6.5
94
<0.5
1.3
3.7
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.11
<0.2
0.61
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C8
<5
8560
4.3
6.2
<2
59
<0.5
<0.5
32.5
<0.2
<0.08
0.86
0.72
0.43
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C85S
6.52690
5.6
5.6
5.9
45
<0.5
<0.5
33.2
<0.2
<0.08
2.2
1.6
2.2
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C9A
6.2
1950
2.2
5.7
2.6
32
<0.5
<0.5
8.2
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.3
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C9B
10.2
13400
1.9
7.1
6.2
97
<0.5
<0.5
8.2
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.53
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Table D2-3
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
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
Cliffside
C10
<1
11
0.002
650
<0.6
2300
49.6
2.4
2500
5200
39
0.0101
52
52
<5
0.5
Cliffside
C11
<1
518
0.0031
176
0.096
2990
3
<0.5
1920
5290
39.3
0.113
56.6
<5
<5
<2.5
Cliffside
C1-2
<1
220
0.0129
540
<0.6
1670
13.1
2.9
2490
4470
50.1
0.0182
17.9
17.9
<5
1.7
Cliffside
C1-3
< 5
97
0.03
210
< 20
2000
11
2.5
2600
4600
48
0.032
21
21
< 10
< 1
Cliffside
C15
<5
79
0.0027
2200
< 20
7600
230
9.3
14000
9200
140
0.0075
180
180
< 10
4
Cliffside
C16
< 5
300
0.0019
380
< 20
2100
4.3
1.1
3500
3400
30
0.016
11
11
< 10
1
Cliffside
C17
<5
110
0.0063
3200
< 20
8200
630
6.6
3700
34000
81
0.0074
210
210
< 10
8.1
Cliffside
C19
<5
83
0.014
240
<20
1900
4.7
0.95
3100
2000
33
0.015
12
12
<10
2.1
Cliffside
C23
<1
46
0.005
110
0.83
5100
3.1
0.8
1120
1810
15.7
<0.005
43.8
43.8
<5
<2.5
Cliffside
C24 -1B
<1
11.4
0.0012
<50
0.63
1960
3.3
0.86
3140
4080
60.8
<0.005
59.7
59.7
<5
363
Cliffside
C24 -2A
< 1
56.8
0.002
< 50
0.44
5630
51.4
5.3
3460
3070
71.4
0.0333
49.6
49.6
<5
< 2.5
Cliffside
C25
< 1
< 10
0.0025
540
0.11
1010
3.6
6.4
1580
5180
28.2
0.032
18.2
18.2
<5
< 2.5
Cliffside
C26
<1
38.3
0.0062
188
0.15
810
2.7
<0.5
1820
5200
27.1
0.0377
23.1
23.1
<5
<2.5
Cliffside
C3
< 1
27
0.0063
360
< 0.6
1340
25.5
2.7
1400
10000
51
0.0067
42
42
<5
< 1
Cliffside
C4-2
22
26
0.0062
290
< 20
880
26
<50
1200
1700
< 100
0.023
4.3
4.3
< 10
< 1
Cliffside
C4-3
11
5000
0.0047
3200
< 20
1300
11
3.1
3300
570
24
0.024
4.9
4.9
< 10
9.1
Cliffside
CS
< 1
38.1
0.0072
< 50
2.2
2340
1
0.69
1390
4570
20.2
0.0066
51.8
<5
<5
< 2.5
Cliffside
C7
<1
79.9
0.0011
<50
<0.03
2750
7.9
0.54
2320
6660
60.6
<0.005
59.7
<5
<5
<2.5
Cliffside
C8
< 1
< 10
0.0093
57.3
0.74
4670
11
1.4
1780
3150
16
0.008
35.5
35.5
<5
< 2.5
Cliffside
CESS
3
1470
0.0026
1860
<0.03
1950
16.8
1.7
950
2710
14.9
0.0096
38.5
<5
<5
164
Cliffside
C9A
< 1
< 10
0.0029
< 50
0.1
739
2.3
0.63
1140
2240
14.1
< 0.005
7.3
7.3
< S
< 2.5
Cliffside
C9B
<1
<10
<0.001
749
<0.03
1720
32.4
<0.5
2720
8050
48.9
<0.005
48
48
<5
<2.5
Page 2 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Table D2-3
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
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
Cliffside
C10
2.2
17.1
132.1
9.14
36.7
Cliffside
C11
4.2
16
168.8
7.8
152.8
Cliffside
C1-2
1.4
17.2
84
8.35
217.8
Cliffside
C1-3
<1
18
79
2.2
110
Cliffside
C15
2.3
13.9
428
3.65
13
Cliffside
C16
4.9
16.1
81
7.33
160
Cliffside
C17
11
15
587
2.88
140
Cliffside
C19
2.4
14
69
8.44
72
Cliffside
C23
1.1
18.4
113.7
8.1
267.7
Cliffside
C24 -1B
<1
17.2
170.3
6.2
190.8
Cliffside
C24 -2A
<1
17.5
194.7
7.1
193.5
Cliffside
C25
3.9
17
62.2
4.4
242
Cliffside
C26
1.5
18.6
68.9
9.5
234.1
Cliffside
C3
<1
17.8
113
4.2
196.1
Cliffside
C4-2
1.2
14.5
32
8.09
82
Cliffside
C4-3
210
12.9
48
6.54
120
Cliffside
CS
<1
15
121.4
5.1
410.4
Cliffside
C7
<1
16.9
125.4
0.6
305.7
Cliffside
C8
<1
16
105.9
7.5
211.8
Cliffside
C8SS
34.5
19.9
53
7.4
344.6
Cliffside
C9A
<1
14.7
33.5
6.4
248
Cliffside
C9B
<1
15.8
134.3
0.1
<
10
Page 3 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to Screening Levels
Cliffside 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 isabovethe sreening level.
_ Reporting limit is a hove the screening level.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
11
4/9/2016

Table D2-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
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 ry standard) L (b):
(•denotes secondary stan
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
Cliffside
C10
<5
18000
2.3
8
8.1
79
<0.5
1.6
4.3
<0.2
<0.08
2.3
0.31
<0.1
<0.1
0.21
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
Cil
13.2
22500
5.6
6.6
10.2
101
<0.5
<0.5
55.5
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.31
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C1-2
21
9200
6.5
7.47
13
53
0.3
2.6
23
<0.2
<0.08
3.2
0.4
0.74
0.06
0.13
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C1-3
<25
6400
2.6
6.73
8.5
60
<1
<1
14
<0A
<0.1
<5
0.67 1
0.15
0.068
1 0.13
0.36
<0.5
Cliffside
C15
20
56000
14
8.01
11
190
0.12
1
130
<0.4
<0.1
<5
3.1
0.8
0.064
1.9
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
C16
7.1
6100
5.4
6.63
2.6
38
0.19
0.44
55
<0A
<0.1
<5
0.17
0.75
<0A
0.084
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
C17
12
71000
61
7.57
1.2
330
<1
1.1
48
<0.4
<0.1
<5
1.7
6.1
0.049
0.081
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
C19
7.1
6200
4.6
7.68
2.5
25
< 1
0.86
36
< 0.4
< 0.1
< 5
0.12
0.15
0.056
0.071
< 1
< 0.5
Cliffside
C23
<5
11600
2.7
6.9
<2
44
<0.5
<0.5
25.3
<0.2
<0.08
1.5
<0.5
0.23
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C24-16
<5
24500
4.8
6.7
2.9
101
<0.5
<0.5
49.8
<0.2
<0.08
0.88
<0.5
0.18
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C24 -2A
<5
22000
5.7
6.4
2.2
127
<0.5
<0.5
162
0.22
<0.08
0.91
2.5
<0.1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
0.14
Cliffside
C25
<5
4270
1.4
6.5
5.6
54
<0.5
<0.5
5.4
<0.2
<0.08
14.1
<0.5
0.93
<0.2
0.93
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C26
5.6
6840
4.1
6.2
3.5
61
<0.5
<0.5
4.9
<0.2
<0.08
0.81
<0.5
0.23
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C3
5
12000
3.6
7.23
4.8
48
<0.5
0.26
19
0.043
<0,08
0.56
1.2
1.2
0.058
0.36
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C4-2
5.3
1500
2.4
6.98
2.3
< 10
< 1
< 10
9.6
< 0.4
< 1
< 50
0.77
0.073
0.051
< 100
< 10
< 0.5
Cliffside
C4-3
27
5100
0.98
6.96
7
160
<1
0.8
36
0.1
<0.1
6.7
0.72
8.5
0.12
<10
<1
<0.5
Cliffside
CS
6.2
15900
5.5
6.6
2.3
80
<0.5
<0.5
24.9
<0.2
<0.08
2.2
<0.5
0.29
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C7
<5
15500
1.4
7.6
6.5
94
<0.5
1.3
3.7
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.11
<0.2
0.61
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C8
<5
8560
4.3
6.2
<2
59
<0.5
<0.5
32.5
<0.2
<0.08
0.86
0.72
0.43
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
0855
6.5
2690
5.6
5.6
5.9
45
<0.5
<0.5
33.2
<0.2
<0.08
2.2
1.6
2.2
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C9A
6.2
1980
2.2
5.7
2.6
32
<0.5
<0.5
8.2
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.3
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
Cliffside
C96
10.2
13400
1.9
7.1
6.2
97
<0.5
<0.5
8.2
<0.2
<0.08
<0.5
<0.5
0.53
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
12
Page 1 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Table D2-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
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
Cliffside
C10
<1
11
0.002
650
<0.6
2300
49.6
2.4
2500
5200
39
0.0101
52
52
<5
0.5
Cliffside
C11
<1
518
0.0031
176
0.096
2990
3
<0.5
1920
5290
39.3
0.113
56.6
<5
<5
<2.5
Cliffside
C1-2
<1
220
0.0129
540
<0.6
1670
13.1
2.9
2490
4470
50.1
0.0182
17.9
17.9
<5
1.7
Cliffside
I C1-3
<5
97
0.03
210
< 20
2000
11
2.5
2600
4600
48
0.032
21
21
< 10
< 1
Cliffside
C15
<5
79
0.0027
2200
< 20
7600
230
9.3
14000
9200
140
0.0075
180
180
< 10
4
Cliffside
C16
< 5
300
0.0019
380
< 20
2100
4.3
1.1
3500
3400
30
0.016
11
11
< 10
1
Cliffside
C17
<5
110
0.0063
3200
< 20
8200
630
6.6
3700
34000
81
0.0074
210
210
<10
8.1
Cliffside
C19
<5
83
0.014
240
< 20
1900
4.7
0.95
3100
2000
33
0.015
12
12
< 10
2.1
Cliffside
C23
<1
46
0.005
110
0.83
5100
3.1
0.8
1120
1810
15.7
<0.005
43.8
43.8
<5
<2.5
Cliffside
C24-16
< 1
11.4
0.0012
< 50
0.63
1960
3.3
0.86
3140
4080
60.8
< 0.005
59.7
59.7
<5
363
Cliffside
C24 -2A
< 1
56.8
0.002
< 50
0.44
5630
51.4
5.3
3460
3070
71.4
0.0333
49.6
49.6
<5
< 2.5
Cliffside
C25
<1
<10
0.0025
540
0.11
1010
3.6
6.4
1580
5180
28.2
0.032
18.2
18.2
<5
<2.5
Cliffside
C26
<1
38.3
0.0062
188
0.15
810
2.7
<0.5
1820
5200
27.1
0.0377
23.1
23.1
<5
<2.5
Cliffside
C3
<1
27
0.0063
360
<0.6
1340
25.5
2.7
1400
10000
51
0.0067
42
42
<5
<1
Cliffside
C4-2
22
26
0.0062
290
< 20
880
26
< 50
1200
1700
< 100
0.023
4.3
4.3
< 10
< 1
Cliffside
C4-3
11
5000
0.0047
3200
< 20
1300
11
3.1
3300
570
24
0.024
4.9
4.9
< 10
9.1
Cliffside
CS
<1
38.1
0.0072
<50
2.2
2340
1
0.69
1390
4570
20.2
0.0066
51.8
<5
<5
72.5
Cliffside
C7
< 1
79.9
0.0011
< 50
< 0.03
2750
7.9
0.54
2320
6660
60.6
< 0.005
59.7
<5
<5
< 2.5
Cliffside
C8
< 1
< 10
0.0093
57.3
0.74
4670
11
1.4
1780
3150
16
0.008
35.5
35.5
<S
< 2.5
Cliffside
C8S5
3
1470
0.0026
1860
<0.03
1950
16.8
1.7
950
2710
14.9
0.0096
38.5
<5
<5
164
Cliffside
C9A
< 1
< M
0.0029
< 50
0.1
739
2.3
0.63
1140
2240
14.1
7 0.005
7.3
7.3
7 5
< 2.5
Cliffside
C9B
<1
<10
<0.001
749
<0.03
1720
32.4
<0.5
2720
8050
48.9
<0.005
48
48
<51
<2.5
13
Page 2 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Table D2-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
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
Cliffside
C10
2.2
17.1
132.1
9.14
36.7
Cliffside
C11
4.2
16
168.8
7.8
152.8
Cliffside
C1-2
1.4
17.2
84
8.35
217.8
Cliffside
C1-3
<1
18
79
2.2
110
Cliffside
C15
2.3
13.9
428
3.65
13
Cliffside
C16
4.9
16.1
81
7.33
160
Cliffside
C17
11
15
587
2.88
140
Cliffside
C19
2.4
14
69
8.44
72
Cliffside
C23
1.1
18.4
113.7
8.1
267.7
Cliffside
C24-16
< 1
17.2
170.3
6.2
190.8
Cliffside
C24 -2A
<1
17.5
194.7
7.1
193.5
Cliffside
C25
3.9
17
62.2
4.4
242
Cliffside
C26
1.5
18.6
68.9
9.5
234.1
Cliffside
C3
<1
17.8
113
4.2
196.1
Cliffside
C4-2
1.2
14.5
32
8.09
82
Cliffside
C4-3
210
12.9
48
6.54
120
Cliffside
CS
<1
15
121.4
5.1
410.4
Cliffside
C7
<1
16.9
125.4
0.6
305.7
Cliffside
C8
< 1
16
105.9
7.5
211.8
Cliffside
CESS
34.5
19.9
53
7.4
344.6
Cliffside
C9A
<114.7
33.5
6.4
248
Cliffside
C9B
<1
15.8
134.3
0.1
<
14
Page 3 of 3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data to Screening Levels
Cliffside 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 Breen i ng level.
_ Reporting limit is above the screening level.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -1-D2-4 NCDEQ Data Water Supply Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx
15
4/9/2016

16
Table D2-5 Page 1 of 3
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to 21. Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke 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
1
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
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
11.
RSL 2015 (d):
4,000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3,800
25
9.2
22,000
6
15
5.7
Appendix III (f)
Appendix IV (g)
Station
Well ID
Boron
ug/L
Calcium
ug/L
Chloride
mg/L
pH
SI Units
Sulfate
mg/L
Total
Dissolved
Solids
mg/L
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Cliffside
DBKG-Cl
<50
43600
<1
<1
44
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C2
<50
9450
<1
<1
7
<1
<1
<5
<0
1.33
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C3
<50
17200
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C4
<50
26100
<1
4.75
21
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-CS
< 50
14600
< 1
< 1
SS
< 1
< 1
< 5
1.26
< 1
< 0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C6
< 50
4920
< 1
1.34
121
< 1
< 1
12
2.16
6.83
< 0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C7
<50
2250
<1
<1
16
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C8
< 50
2070
< 1
< 1
16
< 1
< 1
S
4.19
< 1
< 0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C9
<50
4950
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<0.05
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016

17
Table D2-5 Page 2 of 3
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to 21. Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016
15A NCACdard a:
Groundwater Standard
NS
20
0.2
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1,000
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
* denotes secondary standard
NS
50
2
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*5000
DHHS Screening Level (c):
18
20
0.2
0.3
3,500
1
2,500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20,000
2,100
1,000
RSL 2015 (d):
100
100
0.2
86
20,000
0.8
14,000
44 (e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12,000
6,000
Appendix IV (g)
Constituents
Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Station
Well ID
Molybdenum Selenium
ug/L ug/L
Thallium
ug/L
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
ug/L ug/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Cliffside
DBKG-C1
<1
<1
<0.2
0.346
40
'0.005
60
8450
<5
<5
2370
2100
88
<5
Cliffside
DBKG-C2
<1
<1
<0.2
<0.3
21
<0.005
2050
1670
183
<5
2090
3390
35
1160
Cliffside
DBKG-C3
<1
<1
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.005
319
1610
66
<5
2500
5950
100
<5
Cliffside
DBKG-C4
<1
<1
<0.2
0.786
48
<0.005
36
4430
<S
<5
16SO
4840
50
<S
Cliffside
DBKG-CS
< 1
< 1
< 0.2
0.499
163
< 0.005
270
6430
6
< 5
1810
2730
37
< 5
Cliffside
DBKG-C6
<1
<1
<0.2
11.4
6350
<0.005
4780
3230
48
<5
2030
4680
92
15
Cliffside
DBKG-C7
< 1
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.3
S8
< 0.005
13200
3230
114
< 5
2080
2930
20
S
Cliffside
DBKG-C8
< 1
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.3
63
< 0.005
9310
1920
90
7
2650
5570
19
< S
Cliffside
DBKG-C9
<1
<1
<0.2
0.481
26
<0.005
35
0.27
600
<S
<5
1710
5350
27
16
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016

18
Table D2-5 Page 3 of 3
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to 21. Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202NS
Groundwater Standard a:
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
* denotes secondary standard
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Station
Well ID
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
mg/L
Turbidity
Temperature
Specific
Conductance
Dissolved
Oxygen
Oxidation
Reduction
potential
Cliffside
DBKG-Cl
Cliffside
DBKG-C2
Cliffside
DBKG-C3
Cliffside
DBKG-C4
Cliffside
DBKG-CS
Cliffside
DBKG-C6
Cliffside
DBKG-C7
Cliffside
DBKG-C8
Cliffside
DBKG-C9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx 2L April 2016

Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to Screening Levels
Cliffside 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
< 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/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.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screen ing-table-generic-tables
(e) - Alternative screening level calculated for hexavalent chromium using RSL calculator (http:Hepa-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 D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well 5creen_2016-04.xlsx
19
Page 1 of 1
4/9/2016

20
Table D2-6 Page 1 of 3
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke 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
1
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
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1L
RSL 2015 (d):
4,000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3,800
25
9.2
22,000
6
15
5.7
Appendix III (f)
Appendix IV (g)
Station
Well ID
Boron
ug/L
Calcium
ug/L
Chloride
mg/L
pH
SI Units
Sulfate
mg/L
Total
Dissolved
Solids
mg/L
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Cliffside
DBKG-Cl
<50
43600
<1
<1
44
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C2
<50
9450
<1
<1
7
<1
<1
<5
<0
1.33
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C3
<50
17200
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C4
<50
26100
<1
4.75
21
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-CS
< 50
14600
< 1
< 1
SS
< 1
< 1
< 5
1.26
< 1
< 0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C6
< 50
4920
< 1
1.34
121
< 1
< 1
12
2.16
6.83
< 0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C7
<50
2250
<1
<1
16
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C8
< 50
2070
< 1
< 1
16
< 1
< 1
S
4.19
< 1
< 0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C9
<50
4950
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<0.05
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016

21
Table D2-6 Page 2 of 3
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016
15A NCACd(a):
Groundwater Standard a
NS
20
0.2
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1,000
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
* denotes secondary standard
NS
50
2
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*5000
DHHS Screening Level (c):
18
20
0.2
0.3
3,500
1
2,500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20,000
2,100
1,000
RSL 2015 (d):
100
100
0.2
86
20,000
0.8
14,000
44 (e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12,000
6,000
Appendix IV (g)
Constituents
Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Station
Well ID
Molybdenum Selenium
ug/L ug/L
Thallium
ug/L
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
ug/L ug/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Cliffside
DBKG-C1
<1
<1
<0.2
0.346
40
'0.005
60
8450
<5
<5
2370
2100
88
<5
Cliffside
DBKG-C2
<1
<1
<0.2
<0.3
21
<0.005
2050
1670
183
<5
2090
3390
35
1160
Cliffside
DBKG-C3
<1
<1
<0.2
<0.3
<S
<0.005
319
1610
66
<5
2500
5950
100
<5
Cliffside
DBKG-C4
<1
<1
<0.2
0.786
48
<0.005
36
4430
<S
<5
16SO
4840
50
<S
Cliffside
DBKG-CS
< 1
< 1
< 0.2
0.499
163
< 0.005
270
6430
6
< 5
1810
2730
37
< 5
Cliffside
DBKG-C6
<1
<1
<0.2
11.4
6350
<0.005
4780
3230
48
<5
2030
4680
92
15
Cliffside
DBKG-C7
< 1
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.3
S8
< 0.005
13200
3230
114
< 5
2080
2930
20
S
Cliffside
DBKG-C8
< 1
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.3
63
< 0.005
9310
1920
90
7
2650
5570
19
< S
Cliffside
DBKG-C9
<1
<1
<0.2
0.481
26
<0.005
35
0.27
600
<S
<5
1710
5350
27
16
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016

22
Table D2-6 Page 3 of 3
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to MCL Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202NS
Groundwater Standard a:
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
* denotes secondary standard
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Station
Well ID
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
mg/L
Turbidity
Temperature
Specific
Conductance
Dissolved
Oxygen
Oxidation
Reduction
potential
Cliffside
DBKG-Cl
Cliffside
DBKG-C2
Cliffside
DBKG-C3
Cliffside
DBKG-C4
Cliffside
DBKG-CS
Cliffside
DBKG-C6
Cliffside
DBKG-C7
Cliffside
DBKG-C8
Cliffside
DBKG-C9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx MCL April 2016

Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to Screening Levels
Cliffside 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
< 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/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.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screen ing-table-generic-tables
(e) - Alternative screening level calculated for hexavalent chromium using RSL calculator (http:Hepa-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 Breen i ng level.
_ Reporting limit is above the screening level.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well 5creen_2016-04.xlsx
23
Page 1 of 1
4/9/2016

24
Table D2-7 Page 1 of 3
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke 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
1
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
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1L
RSL 2015 (d):
4,000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3,800
25
9.2
22,000
6
15
5.7
Appendix III (f)
Appendix IV (g)
Station
Well ID
Boron
ug/L
Calcium
ug/L
Chloride
mg/L
pH
SI Units
Sulfate
mg/L
Total
Dissolved
Solids
mg/L
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Cliffside
DBKG-Cl
<50
43600
<1
<1
44
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C2
<50
9450
<1
<1
7
<1
<1
<5
<0
1.33
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C3
<50
17200
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C4
<50
26100
<1
4.75
21
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-CS
< 50
14600
< 1
< 1
SS
< 1
< 1
< 5
1.26
< 1
< 0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C6
< 50
4920
< 1
1.34
121
< 1
< 1
12
2.16
6.83
< 0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C7
<50
2250
<1
<1
16
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C8
< 50
2070
< 1
< 1
16
< 1
< 1
S
4.19
< 1
< 0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C9
<50
4950
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<0.05
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

25
Table D2-7 Page 2 of 3
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016
15A NCACd(a):
Groundwater Standard a
NS
20
0.2
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1,000
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
* denotes secondary standard
NS
50
2
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*S000
DHHS Screening Level (c):
18
20
0.2
0.3
3,500
1
2,500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20,000
2,100
1,000
RSL 2015 (d):
100
100
0.2
86
20,000
0.8
14,000
44 (e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12,000
6,000
Appendix IV (g)
Constituents
Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Station
Well ID
Molybdenum Selenium
ug/L ug/L
Thallium
ug/L
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
ug/L ug/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Cliffside
DBKG-C1
<1
<1
<0.2
0.346
40
'0.005
60
8450
<S
<5
2370
2100
88
<5
Cliffside
DBKG-C2
<1
<1
<0.2
<0.3
21
<0.005
2050
1670
183
<5
2090
3390
35
1160
Cliffside
DBKG-C3
<1
<1
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.005
319
1610
66
<5
2500
5950
100
<5
Cliffside
DBKG-C4
<1
<1
<0.2 1
0.786
48
<0.005 1
36
1 4430
<S
<5
16SO
4840
50
<S
Cliffside
DBKG-CS
< 1
< 1
< 0.2
0.499
163
< 0.005
270
6430
6
< 5
1810
2730
37
< 5
Cliffside
DBKG-C6
<1
<1
<0.2
11.4
6350
<0.005
4780
3230
48
<5
2030
4680
92
15
Cliffside
DBKG-C7
< 1
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.3
S8
< 0.005
13200
3230
114
< 5
2080
2930
20
S
Cliffside
DBKG-C8
< 1
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.3
63
< 0.005
9310
1920
90
7
2650
5570
19
< S
Cliffside
DBKG-C9
<1
<1
<0.2
0.481
26
<0.005
35
0.27
600
<S
<5
1710
5350
27
16
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

26
Table D2-7 Page 3 of 3
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to DHHS Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202NS
Groundwater Standard a:
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
* denotes secondary standard
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Station
Well ID
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
mg/L
Turbidity
Temperature
Specific
Conductance
Dissolved
Oxygen
Oxidation
Reduction
potential
Cliffside
DBKG-Cl
Cliffside
DBKG-C2
Cliffside
DBKG-C3
Cliffside
DBKG-C4
Cliffside
DBKG-CS
Cliffside
DBKG-C6
Cliffside
DBKG-C7
Cliffside
DBKG-C8
Cliffside
DBKG-C9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx DHHS April 2016

Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to Screening Levels
Cliffside 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
< 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/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.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screen ing-table-generic-tables
(e) - Alternative screening level calculated for hexavalent chromium using RSL calculator (http:Hepa-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 Breen ing level.
Reporting limit is a Bove the screening level.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well 5creen_2016-04.xlsx
27
Page 1 of 1
4/9/2016

28
Table D2-8 Page 1 of 3
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke 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
1
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
2
DHHS Screening Level (c):
700
NS
250
NS
250
NS
1
10
700
4
2
10
1
15
1L
RSL 2015 (d):
4,000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.8
0.052
3,800
25
9.2
22,000
6
15
5.7
Appendix III (f)
Appendix IV (g)
Station
Well ID
Boron
ug/L
Calcium
ug/L
Chloride
mg/L
pH
SI Units
Sulfate
mg/L
Total
Dissolved
Solids
mg/L
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Mercury
ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Cliffside
DBKG-Cl
<50
43600
<1
<1
44
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C2
<50
9450
<1
<1
7
<1
<1
<5
<0
1.33
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C3
<50
17200
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C4
<50
26100
<1
4.75
21
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-CS
< 50
14600
< 1
< 1
SS
< 1
< 1
< 5
1.26
< 1
< 0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C6
< 50
4920
< 1
1.34
121
< 1
< 1
12
2.16
6.83
< 0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C7
<50
2250
<1
<1
16
<1
<1
<5
<0
<1
<0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C8
< 50
2070
< 1
< 1
16
< 1
< 1
5
4.19
< 1
< 0.05
Cliffside
DBKG-C9
<50
4950
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<5
<1
<1
<0.05
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

29
Table D2-8 Page 2 of 3
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016
15A NCACd(a):
Groundwater Standard a
NS
20
0.2
0.3
NS
1
300
NS
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
1,000
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
* denotes secondary standard
NS
50
2
NS
*50 to 200
1.3
*300
NS
NS
*50
NS
NS
NS
NS
*S000
DHHS Screening Level (c):
18
20
0.2
0.3
3,500
1
2,500
0.07
NS
200
100
NS
20,000
2,100
1,000
RSL 2015 (d):
100
100
0.2
86
20,000
0.8
14,000
44 (e)
NS
430
390
NS
NS
12,000
6,000
Appendix IV (g)
Constituents
Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Station
Well ID
Molybdenum Selenium
ug/L ug/L
Thallium
ug/L
Vanadium
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Hexavalent
Chromium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
ug/L ug/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
ug/L
Cliffside
DBKG-C1
<1
<1
<0.2
0.346
40
'0.005
60
8450
<S
<5
2370
2100
88
<5
Cliffside
DBKG-C2
<1
<1
<0.2
<0.3
21
<0.005
2050
1670
183
<5
2090
3390
35
1160
Cliffside
DBKG-C3
<1
<1
<0.2
<0.3
<5
<0.005
319
1610
66
<5
2500
5950
100
<5
Cliffside
DBKG-C4
<1
<1
<0.2 1
0.786
48
<0.005 1
36
1 4430
<S
<5
16SO
4840
50
<S
Cliffside
DBKG-CS
< 1
< 1
< 0.2
0.499
163
< 0.005
270
6430
6
< 5
1810
2730
37
< 5
Cliffside
DBKG-C6
<1
<1
<0.2
11.4
6350
<0.005
4780
3230
48
<5
2030
4680
92
15
Cliffside
DBKG-C7
< 1
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.3
S8
< 0.005
13200
3230
114
< 5
2080
2930
20
S
Cliffside
DBKG-C8
< 1
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.3
63
< 0.005
9310
1920
90
7
2650
5570
19
< S
Cliffside
DBKG-C9
<1
<1
<0.2
0.481
26
<0.005
35
0.27
600
<S
<5
1710
5350
27
16
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

30
Table D2-8 Page 3 of 3
Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to RSL Screening Levels
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016
15A NCAC 02L.0202NS
Groundwater Standard a:
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Federal MCL/SMCL (b):
* denotes secondary standard
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
DHHS Screening Level (c):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
RSL 2015(d):
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Constituents Not Identified in the CCR Rule
Station
Well ID
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Total
Suspended
Solids
mg/L
Turbidity
Temperature
Specific
Conductance
Dissolved
Oxygen
Oxidation
Reduction
potential
Cliffside
DBKG-Cl
Cliffside
DBKG-C2
Cliffside
DBKG-C3
Cliffside
DBKG-C4
Cliffside
DBKG-CS
Cliffside
DBKG-C6
Cliffside
DBKG-C7
Cliffside
DBKG-C8
Cliffside
DBKG-C9
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well Screen_2016-04.xlsx RSL April 2016

Comparison of Duke Energy Background Well Data to Screening Levels
Cliffside 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
< 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/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.epa.gov/risk/risk-based-screen ing-table-generic-tables
(e) - Alternative screening level calculated for hexavalent chromium using RSL calculator (http:Hepa-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 D2 -5-D2-8 Duke Bkg Well 5creen_2016-04.xlsx
31
Page 1 of 1
4/9/2016

Page 1 of 1
32
Table D2-9
Do Not Drink Letter Summary
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table D2-9 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
Cliffside C-4 Well 2
Cliffside C-4 Well 3
X
X
X
_
Cliffside C-8 Spring
X
X
X
Cliffside C-3
X
Cliffside C-5
X
Cliffside C-8
X
Cliffside C-9 Well A
X
Cliffside C-9 Well B
X
Cliffside C-10
X
Cliffside C-11
X
Cliffside C-15
X
X
X
Cliffside C-16
X
Cliffside C-17
X
X
X X
Cliffside C-23
X
Cliffside C-24
X
Cliffside C-24 Well 1
X
Cliffside C-24 Well 1
X
Cliffside C-25
X
X
Total number of Constituent Letters
3
7 0 1
4
9
0
2 1 0 0 0 0
Total Number of "Do Not Drink" Letters
(Excluding Hexavalent Chromium and
Vanadium)
10
Total Number of "Do Not Drink" Letters
(Including Hexavalent Chromium and
Vanadium)
18
Total Number of "Do Not Drink" Letters for
Hexavalent Chromium
7
Total Number of "Do Not Drink" Letters for
Vanadium
3
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table D2-9 Do Not Drink Summary.xlsx April 2016

33
Table D3-1 Page 1 of 2
Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data
Cliftside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Notes:
<- Not detected, value is the reporting limit.
°C- Degrees Celsius.
mg/L- milligrams/liter.
mV - millivolts.
MU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
su-standard units.
ug/L - micrograms/liter.
umhos/cm - micromhos/centimeter.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table D3-1 Duke Energy Background Well Data_2016-04.xlsx April 2016

34
Table D3-1 Page 2 of 2
Duke Energy Background Water Supply Well Data
Clittside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
MMMOMMMMMOMOMM
=mom
Notes:
<- Not detected, value is the reporting limit.
°C - Degrees Celsius.
mg/L- milligrams/liter.
mV - millivolts.
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
su -standard units.
ug/L - micrograms/liter.
umhos/cm - micromhos/centimeter.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table D3-1 Duke Energy Background Well Data_2016-04.xlsx April 2016

35
Page 1 of 2
Table D3-2
Facility Specific Background Data for Bedrock and Deep Monitoring Wells
Cliffside 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)
Vanadium
(ug/L)
MW -24D
CS -MW -24D -FD -4Q15-2
07 -Dec -15
20
<50
0.22
0.039
310
9.1
0.55
0.37
MW -24D
CS -MW -24D -NS -4Q15-2
07 -Dec -15
20
<50
0.22
0.036
290
9.1
0.56
0.3
MW -24D
MW-24D_WG_20110405
05 -Apr -11
30
<50
2170
87
MW -24D
MW-24D_WG_20110801
01 -Aug -11
22
<50
383
43
MW -24D
MW-24D_WG_20111205
05 -Dec -11
19
<50
382
30
MW -24D
MW-24D_WG_20120402
02 -Apr -12
20
<50
515
31
MW -24D
MW-24D_WG_20120814
14 -Aug -12
20
<50
193
21
MW -24D
MW -24D WG 20121203
03 -Dec -12
20
<50
172
19
MW -24D
MW -24D WG_20130401
01 -Apr -13
19
<50
146
16
MW -24D
MW-24D_WG_20130807
07 -Aug -13
20
<50
250
14
MW -24D
MW-24D_WG_20131209
09 -Dec -13
20
<50
140
13
MW -24D
MW-24D_WG_20140401
01 -Apr -14
20
<50
137
11
MW -24D
MW -24D WG_20140804
04 -Aug -14
20
<50
74
8
MW -24D
MW-24D_WG_20141201
01 -Dec -14
20
<50
34
8
MW -24D
MW-24D_WG_20150408
08 -Apr -15
21
<50
<1
134
8
MW -24D
MW -24D WG 20150630
30 -Jun -15
36
<50
0.54
0.032
3200
44
0.58
<1
MW-24DR
CS-MW-24DR-NS-4Q15-2
08 -Dec -15
7.7
<50
0.45
<0.03
2300
63
1.1
1.2
MW-24DR
MW-24DR WG 20110405
05 -Apr -11
<5
<50
963
61
MW-24DR
MW-24DR_WG_20110801
01 -Aug -11
<5
<50
1130
61
MW-24DR
MW-24DR WG 20111205
05 -Dec -11
<5
<50
962
54
MW-24DR
MW-24DR_WG_20120402
02 -Apr -12
<5
<50
1170
54
MW-24DR
MW-24DR_WG_20120814
14 -Aug -12
<5
<50
1710
57
MW-24DR
MW-24DR WG 20121203
03 -Dec -12
<5
<50
1030
54
MW-24DR
MW-24DR_WG_20130401
01 -Apr -13
<5
<50
1290
54
MW-24DR
MW-24DR_WG_20130807
07 -Aug -13
<5
<50
1300
56
MW-24DR
MW-24DR_WG_20131209
09 -Dec -13
<5
<50
1360
58
MW-24DR
MW-24DR_WG_20140401
01 -Apr -14
<5
<50
952
56
MW-24DR
MW-24DR_WG_20140804
04 -Aug -14
<5
<50
934
55
MW-24DR
MW-24DR_WG_20141201
01 -Dec -14
<5
<50
989
56
MW-24DR
MW-24DR_WG_20150408
08 -Apr -15
<5
<50
<1
1040
59
MW-24DR
MW-24DR WG 20150630
30 -Jun -15
3.8
<50
<0.5
1100
56
<0.5
<1
MW-24DR
MW24-DR_WG_20150630
30 -Jun -15
<0.05
BG -IBR
BG -IBR -WG -20150625
25 -Jun -15
39
77
<0.5
54
6.7
0.46
8
BG -113R
BG -IBR -WG -20150629
29 -Jun -15
0.529
BG-1BR
CS -BG -IBR -NS 0.1-3Q15
15 -Sep -15
1.7
BG-1BR
CS -BG -IBR -NS -3Q15
15 -Sep -15
34
<50
<0.5
51
10
0.61
4.2
BG -IBR
CS-13G-I6R-NS-4Q15-1
12 -Nov -15
9.8
<50
<0.5
<0.03
260
38
0.6
0.91
BG -113R
CS -13G -IBR -NS -4Q15-2
07 -Dec -15
16
<50
<0.5 1
1.8 1
170
1 48
1 0.76
1.4
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table 33.2_Facility Bkg Data.xlsx April 2016

36
Page 2 of 2
Table D3-2
Facility Specific Background Data for Bedrock and Deep Monitoring Wells
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Well ID
Sample ID
Date Sampled
Barium
tug/L)
Boron
(ug/L)
Cobalt
(ug/L)
Hexavalent Chromium
tug/L)
Iron
tug/L)
Lead
(ug/L)
Nckel, Dissolved
tug/L)
Vanadium
(ug/L)
BG -11)
BG-1D_WG_20150625
25 -Jun -15
31
150
6.1
44
260
8.2
0.35
BG -1D
BG-1D_WG_20150629
29 -Jun -15
0.14
BG -11)
CS -BG -ID -NS 0.1-3Q15
15 -Sep -15
8.9
BG -11)
CS -13G -ID -NS -3Q15
15 -Sep -15
18
< 50
5.2
60
170
9
0.33
BG -11)
CS -13G -ID -NS -4Q15-1
09 -Nov -15
15
< 50
2.7
0.31
92
78
4.3
< 1
BG -11)
CS -BG -ID -NS -4Q15-2
07 -Dec -15
15
< 50
3.3
0.033
< 50
97
6.8
< 1
BG -21)
BG -21) WG 20150626
26 -Jun -15
9.9
28
0.37
910
29
<0.5
17.1
BG -2D
CS -BG -2D -FD -4Q15-1
12 -Nov -15
8.3
26
1.2
1.8
1400
31
1.4
13.2
BG -2D
CS -BG -2D -NS -3Q15
08 -Sep -15
7
38
<0.5
120
3
0.3
22.8
BG -2D
CS -13G -2D -NS -4Q15-1
12 -Nov -15
8.7
26
1.3
1.6
1600
34
1.1
13.7
BG -21)
CS -BG -2D -NS -4Q15-2
10 -Dec -15
4.4
31
<0.5
1.5
180
3.8
0.43
16.6
MW -30D
CS -MW -30D -NS 0.1-3Q15
15 -Sep -15
0.36
MW -30D
CS -MW -30D -NS -3Q15
15 -Sep -15
14
<50
0.4
810
18
1.9
7.9
MW -30D
CS -MW -30D -NS -4Q15-1
12 -Nov -15
26
<50
<0.5
0.057
160
15
0.96
17.4
MW -30D
CS -MW -30D -NS -4Q15-2
07 -Dec -15
18
<50
<0.5
0.11
74
5.6
0.57
18
MW -30D
MW -30D WG 20150616
16 -Jun -15
27
<50
0.16
367
6.3
0.95
12.3
MW -30D
MW-30D_WG_20150701
01 -Jul -15
0.268
MW-32BR
CS -MW -3213R -FD -3Q15
16 -Sep -15
3.4
<50
<0.5
3600
28
0.81
<1
MW-32BR
CS-MW-32BR-NS-3Q15
16 -Sep -15
3.5
<50
<0.5
3600
30
0.19
<1
MW-32BR
CS-MW-32BR-NS-4Q15-1
11 -Nov -15
3.1
<50
<0.5
<0.03
4700
31
0.27
<1
MW-32BR
CS-MW3213R-NS-4Q15-2
07 -Dec -15
3.3
<50
<0.5
<0.03
1400
24
<1
MW-32BR
MW-32BR_WG_20150616
16 -Jun -15
4.3
<50
<0.5
3700
29
0.28
<1
MW -32D
CS -MW -32D -NS -3Q15
16 -Sep -15
8.3
<50
1.9
32
20
6.7
0.37
MW -32D
CS -MW -32D -NS -4Q15-1
10 -Nov -15
8.9
<50
3.5
<0.03
29
46
13.2
0.42
MW -32D
CS-MW32D-NS-4Q15-2
07 -Dec -15
8.3
<50
3.5
0.046
37
38
13.2
3
MW -32D
MW -32D WG 20150625
25 -Jun -15
13
54
0.36
700
12
1.3
2.1
Notes:
<- Not Detected, value is the reporting limit.
ug/L- Microgram per liter.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table 33.2_Facility Bkg Data.xlsx April 2016

37
Page 1 of 1
Table D3-3
Background Data Statistical Evaluation
Cl iffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 7
8
9 1
10
11
12
13
1 14
15
16
17
Variable
Units
Frequency of Detection
Percent
Non- KM
Detects Range of Non -Detects KM Mean Variance
KM
KM Standard Coefficient of
Deviation Variation
SDth
Percentile
(Q2)
95th
Percentile
Maximo Outlier
m Detect Presence*
Outlier
Removed
Distribution
Regional
Background Evaluation
Method
Barium
ug/L
44
/
57
23%
5
Variable
Units
Frequency of Detection
Percent
Non-
Detects Range of Non -Detects
KM Mean
KM
Variance
KM50th
KM Standard Coefficient of
Deviation Variation
Percentile
(Q2)
95th
Percentile
Maximu
m Detect
Outlier
Presence"
Outlier
Removed
Distribution
BTV
Method
Barium
ug/L
7
/
9
22%
5
5
32.22
1257
35.45
1.1
16
94.6
121
Yes
No
Gamma
112.9
95%Approx. Gamma UPL WH and KM
Boron
ug/L
0
/
9
100%
50
50
NA
NA
NA
NA
50
50
NA
NA
No
NA
50
Maximum RL
Cobalt
ug/L
3
/
5
40%
1
1
1.922
1.468
1.212
0.63
1.26
3.784
4.19
No
No
NA
4.19
Maximum RL
Hexavalent Chromium
ug/L
1
/
1
0%
NA
2%
NA
I NA
NA
NA
0.27
0.27
0.27 1
NA
No I
NA
0.27
IMaximum Detect
Iron
ug/L
9
/
9
0%
NA
57
3340
23468423
4844
1.45
319
11644
13200
No
No
Normal
12836
95% UPL
Manganese
ug/L
6
/
9
33%
5
5
58
3453
58.77
1.013
48
155.4
183
No
No
Normal
173.2
95%UPL
Nickel
ug/L
1
/
9
89%
5
5
5.222
0.395
0.629
0.12
5
6.2
7
NA
No
NA
1 7
IMaximum Detect
Vanadium
ug/L
5
/
9
44%
0.3
0.3
1.635
11.94
3.456
2.114
0.346
7.154
11.4 1
Yes
No I
Gamma
1 6.337
95%Approx. Gamma UPL WH and KM
Notes:
w - Tested at 5% significance level. ug/L- Microgram per liter.
BTV- Background Threshold Value. UPLs- Upper Prediction Limits.
KM - Kaplan -Meier Method. UTLs - Upper Tolerance Limits.
NA - Not Available. Var - Variance.
RL- Reporting Limit. WH - Wilson Hilferty Transformation.
BTV values and statistics were calculated using ProLICL v. 5.0.00
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table D3-3_Backgound _ April 2016
Facility Specific
Background Evaluation
Variable
Units
Frequency of Detection
Percent
Non- KM
Detects Range of Non -Detects KM Mean Variance
KM
KM Standard Coefficient of
Deviation Variation
SDth
Percentile
(Q2)
95th
Percentile
Maximo Outlier
m Detect Presence*
Outlier
Removed
Distribution
BTV
Method
Barium
ug/L
44
/
57
23%
5
5
13.4
93.25
9.656
0.721
9.9
31.6
39
No
No
Distribution free
36
95%UTL
Boron
ug/L
8
/
57
86%
50
50
33.16
310.6
17.62
0.531
50
50.8
150
Yes
No
Gamma
59.7
95%Approx.
Gamma UTL WH and KM
Cobalt
ug/L
17
/
33
48%
0.5
1
1.104
2.31
1.52
1.377
0.5
4.18
6.1
Yes
No
Gamma
4.74
95%Approx.
Gamma UTL WH and KM
Hexavalent Chromium
ug/L
15
/
21
29%
0.03
0.05
1 0.404
0.398
0.631
1.562
0.05
1.8
1 1.8
No
I No
Gamma
1.517
95%Approx.
Gamma UPL WH and KM
Iron
ug/L
56
/
57
2%
50
50
893.8
1138245
1067
1.194
383
3600
4700
Yes
No
Gamma
3801
95%Approx.
Gamma UTL WH and KM
Manganese
ug/L
57
/
57
R.
NA
40.99
1709
41.34
1.009
31
89
260
Yes
No
Gamma
134.1
95%Approx.
Gamma UTL WH
Nickel
ug/L
31
/
33
6%
0.5
0.5
2.688
14.12
3.757
1.398
0.81
10.68
13.2
No
No
Distribution free
13.2
Maximum Detect (95%UTL)
Vanadium
ug/L
22
/
31
29%
1
1
5.351
48.54
6.967
1.302
1
17.7
22.8
No
No
Gamma
19.77
95%Approx.
Gamma UPL WH and KM
Notes:
w - Tested at 5% significance level. ug/L- Microgram per liter.
BTV- Background Threshold Value. UPLs- Upper Prediction Limits.
KM - Kaplan -Meier Method. UTLs - Upper Tolerance Limits.
NA - Not Available. Var - Variance.
RL- Reporting Limit. WH - Wilson Hilferty Transformation.
BTV values and statistics were calculated using ProLICL v. 5.0.00
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table D3-3_Backgound _ April 2016

38
Page 1 of 1
Table D3-4
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Sampling Data to Regional Background Threshold Values
Cliffside 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
22 / 22
3.7 - 162
35.84
4.95
8.55
25.1
45
55.45
112.9
2
Boron
ug/L
14 / 22
5 - 27
10.89
5
5
6.2
11.55
20.9
50
0
Cobalt
ug/L
13 / 22
0.12 - 3.1
1.075
0.319
0.5
0.5
0.758
1.69
4.19
0
Hexavalent Chromium
ug/L
9 / 22
0.096 - 2.2
0.588
0.0366
0.12
0.615
20
20
0.27
5
Iron
ug/L
17 / 22
57.3 - 3200
879.4
50
70.48
265
622.5
2166
12836
0
Manganese
ug/L
22 / 22
1 - 630
51.99
2.73
3.375
11
25.88
51.22
173.2
2
Nickel
ug/L
18 / 22
0.54 - 9.3
2.771
0.504
0.718
1.55
3.05
6.58
7
1
Vanadium
ug/L
3/ 22
3- 22
12
1
1
1
5
5
6.337
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 D3-3.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table D3-4 NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data Compared to Regional BTVs.xlsx April 2016

39
Page 1 of 1
Table D3-5
Comparison of NCDEQ Water Supply Well Sampling Data to Facility Specific Background Threshold Values
Cliffside 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 Specific
BTV
Barium
ug/L
22 / 22
3.7 - 162
35.84
4.95
8.55
25.1
45
55.45
36
3
Boron
ug/L
14 / 22
5 - 27
10.89
5
5
6.2
11.55
20.9
59.7
0
Cobalt
ug/L
13 / 22
0.12 - 3.1
1.075
0.319
0.5
0.5
0.758
1.69
4.74
0
Hexavalent Chromium
ug/L
9 / 22
0.096 - 2.2
0.588
0.0366
0.12
0.615
20
20
1.517
1
Iron
ug/L
17 / 22
57.3 - 3200
879.4
50
70.48
265
622.5
2166
3801
0
Manganese
ug/L
22 / 22
1 - 630
51.99
2.73
3.375
11
25.88
51.22
134.1
2
Nickel
ug/L
18 / 22
0.54 - 9.3
2.771
0.504
0.718
1.55
3.05
6.58
13.2
0
Vanadium
ug/L
3/ 22
3- 22
12
1
1
1
5
5
19.77
1
Notes:
BTV - Background Threshold Value.
DEQ- Department of Environmental Quality.
NA - Not Available.
INC - North Carolina.
ug/L - micrograms/liter.
(a) - Frequency of Detection: number of detects / total number of results.
(b) - BTV values shown on Table D3-3.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Table D3-5 NCDEQ Water Supply Well Data Compared to Facility Specific BTVs.xlsx April 2016

Table D4-1
Hydrostratigraphic Layer Properties - Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Hydrostratigraphic
Unit
N
Geometric
Mean
(cm/sec)
Geometric
Mean + 1SD
(cm/sec)
Geometric
Mean - 1SD
(cm/sec)
Geometric
Median
(cm/sec)
Minimum
(cm/sec)
Maximum
(cm/sec)
Ash
12
1.4E-03
5.7E-03
3.3E-04
1.6E-03
5.8E-05
7.8E-03
Fill
4
7.6E-05
1.8E-04
3.3E-05
9.0E-05
2.5E-05
1.7E-04
Alluvium (S)
3
7.4E-04
1.3E-03
4.3E-04
9.2E-04
4.0E-04
1.1E-03
M1
23
4.8E-04
2.8E-03
8.2E-05
3.0E-04
7.8E-06
1.5E-02
M2
14
3.1 E-04
1.1 E-03
9.2E-05
4.4E-04
3.1 E-05
2.1 E-03
Transition Zone (TZ)
23
5.7E-04
2.3E-03
1.4E-04
9.1 E-04
5.1 E-05
5.2E-03
Bedrock (BR)
97
7.3E-05
5.3E-04
1.0E-05
4.9E-05
2.4E-06
5.0E-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 tables 11-3, 11-5, and 11-7 for historic
conductivity data.
Page 1 of 1
40

Table D4-2
Estimated Groundwater Seepage Velocities
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Well Pair
Ash
Fill
Alluvium
M1
M2
TZ5�
TZ10%
BR2%
BR5%
Regolith (S wells); Seepage Velocity (ft/yr)
U5 -1S / GWA-2S 678.3
25.3
274.9
129.5
71.0
GWA-30S / MW -38S 402.7
15.0
163.2
76.9
42.2
MW -42S / IBAS 360.3
13.4
146.0
68.8
37.7
AB -5S / IB-4S/SL 222.6
8.3
90.2
42.5
23.3
GWA-24S / GWA-21 S 508.7
19.0
206.2
97.1
53.3
-
-
Transition Zone (D Wells); Seepage Velocity (ft/yr)
1.15-1 D / U5 -41D
-
-
-
-
944.22
472.11
1.15-71D / MW -38D
-
-
578.34
289.17
U5 -81D / IB -1 D
-
318.68
159.34
AB -41D I I13 -41D
-
318.68
159.34
GWA-24D / GWA-21 BRU
979.63
489.82
Fractured Bedrock (BR Wells); Seepage Velocity (ft/yr)
MW-32BR / U5-4BR
-
279.64
111.86
GWA-30BR / U5-4BR
-
230.52
92.21
AB-6BR / GWA-33BR 1
75.58
30.23
AB -413R / AS-5BR 1
117.15
1 46.86
Notes:
1. Refer to Table 11-10 for horizontal hydraulic conductivity values.
2. Refer to Table 6-9 for horizontal hydraulic gradients.
3. Refer to Table 11-9 for effective porosity/specific yield for upper hydrostratigraphic units; refer to Table 11-12 for effective porosity/specific
yield for lower hydrostratigraphic units.
Page 1 of 1
41

Table D5-1
Site -Specific Distribution Coefficient (Kd)
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Constituent
Mininum
(L/kg)
Mean
(L/kg)
Maximum
(L/kg)
Antimony
8.33E-06
5.90E-05
2.63E-04
Arsenic
3.00E+01
3.76E+02
1.76E+04
Boron
1.34E-03
3.75E-02
1.12E-01
Barium
3.00E-06
7.47E-06
1.03E-05
Beryllium
3.47E+03
9.08E+03
3.55E+04
Cobalt
8.63E-02
9.22E-01
2.70E+00
Chromium
1.41E+06
3.72E+06
1.67E+07
Iron
1.89E-02
6.46E-02
2.96E-01
Lead
2.79E+02
3.02E+02
9.16E+02
Manganese
2.13E-02
5.25E-02
1.32E-01
Nickel
7.39E-02
2.51E-01
8.58E-01
Selenium
1.15E+00
2.13E+01
1.64E+02
Sulfate
2.54E-03
4.14E-01
1.27E+00
Thallium
NA
NA
NA
Vanadium
I 2.64E+00
I 2.76E+02
I 7.24E+03
Notes:
L/kg - Liters per kilogram.
NA - Not Available.
Table adopted from Appendix E of the CAP -2 Report by HDR.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D5-1 and D5-2.xlsx
Page 1 of 1
April 2016
42

Table D5-2
Coal Ash Indicator Concentrations Observed in the Water Supply Wells of Low Oxygen and High Detected Boron Concentrations
Cliffside Steam Station
Water Supply Well Evaluation
Duke Energy
April 2016
Dissolved
Sulfate
Boron
Boron BTV
Sulfate
Water Supply Well (a) Oxygen
Threshold
(µg/L)
(µg/L) (b)
(µg/L)
(µg/L)
(µg/L)(c)
C1 (Well 3) 2200 21
59.7
13000
28160
C4 7315 27
7000
C7 600 <56500
C9 (Well B) 100 10.2
6200
C15 3650 20
1200
C17 2880 12
1200
Notes:
BTV - Background Threshold Value.
mg/L- Milligrams per liter.
µg/l- - Micrograms per liter.
(a) - The water supply wells contain dissolved oxygen less than 3,650 pg/L or boron concentration
greater than or equal to 20 µg/L.
(b) - Boron BTV - determined from the facility background well data in Section D.3.
(c) - Sulfate Threshold - the 90th percentile value of the maximum sulfate concentrations in
individual upgradient and side gradient facility bedrock wells except MW-22BR.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Tables D5-1 and D5-2.xlsx
Page 1 of 1
April 2016
43

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

Qp LEGEND
\SSP
1
STFRFIELD RO„ � /•\/ i / J \/ � I
7 � r
BROAD RIVeR
r i \
\ UNIT 5 UNITS 1-
��- C IFFSI EI A HBAS
IASH
INUNIT 5 ACTIVE STATION ORAG I NOTES
I ASH BASIN UNIT 6; ASH
STORAGE
rI ACTIVE %
ASH BASIN
I I
COAL COMBUSTION 0
H/NES z `, PRODUCTS LANDFILL \ R �s
FR Rp
} �IO
2 z
O 2
Nu IW ICH
h 2'> RgIZ
O IO
p
I�
410STFC�R Rp
I

0
O� O• _ _ o(OAD RIve / OO
/ O
� l
\ UNITS 1-
��- LIFF SID
EI A H BAS
Ig%UN
11
t)sToARAHG
ASH
I
STORAGE
rICTIVEASH BASIN I O
LEGEND
O NOTES
O
O O
� OO
O
C
/ COAL COMBUSTION
H/NES , PRODUCTS LANDFILL S O\ O •� O
vlo O �
= o Iz
LL
Lir
�OORq� IC.H
O Q � U JAG
O G�
O
O
L O
I y A
O
R� a
�-�Ez�� I MOST�CC,gRRD
I

�p OQ� LEGEND
O
P� O�
�O
O
� I
q OAD RIVe /
6
I I
I I
I 1
J o* I
I
` 1
99
I o; �\ i \/ / C, CI
/
Foye
} I
2
HkUICH
� I
I q
o ;
o 0
0
I o
\10 ' OST�((gRRD
I
NOTES
;N;

F)l
DATE
TWO MEDIUM GROUNDWATER SYSTEM APRIL 2016
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION FIGURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC D4-1
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 D4-1

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 D4-2

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 D4-3

REGOLITH B
z
Q
TRANSITION Ccs
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 D4-4

NOTES:
1. PARCEL DATA FOR THE SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM DUKE ENERGY REAL ESTATE AND IS APPROXIMATE.
2. WASTE BOUNDARY IS APPROXIMATE.
3. AS -BUILT MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY.
4. COMPLIANCE SHALLOW (S) MONITORING WELLS ARE SCREENED ACROSS THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER. 500
5. COMPLIANCE DEEP (D) MONITORING WELLS ARE SCREENED IN THE TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN COMPETENT BEDROCK AND THE REGOLITH. -
6. TOPOGRAPHY DATA FOR THE SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM NC DOT GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) WEB SITE, DATED 2007.
7. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM NC ONE MAP.
8. THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS ESTABLISHED ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION FOUND IN 15A NCAC 02L.01 07 (a).
9. HYDROGRAPHY IS FROM THE PROVISIONAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS MAP (USAGE APPROVAL PENDING), PROVIDED BY AMEC FOSTER WHEELER, DATED MAY 29, 2015.
0 500 1,000
SCALE (FEET)
F)l
LEGEND
ASH BASIN ASSESSMENT GROUNDWATER
MONITORING WELL
ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE GROUNDWATER
MONITORING WELL
ASH BASIN VOLUNTARY GROUNDWATER
MONITORING WELL
O WATER SUPPLY WELLS
WATER TABLE CONTOUR LINE
DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY BOUNDARY
ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY
ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
_ ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY COINCIDENT
WITH DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY BOUNDARY
STREAM
WATER TABLE SURFACE - SHALLOW WELLS (S)
GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENT DATES: 6/24 - 26, 2015
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CLIFFSIDE STEAM STATION ASH BASIN
CLEVELAND & RUTHERFORD COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE
APRIL 2016
FIGURE
D4-5

NOTES:
1. PARCEL DATA FOR THE SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM DUKE ENERGY REAL ESTATE AND IS APPROXIMATE.
2. WASTE BOUNDARY IS APPROXIMATE.
3. AS -BUILT MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY. 500
4. COMPLIANCE SHALLOW (S) MONITORING WELLS ARE SCREENED ACROSS THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER.
5. COMPLIANCE DEEP (D) MONITORING WELLS ARE SCREENED IN THE TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN COMPETENT BEDROCK AND THE REGOLITH.
6. TOPOGRAPHY DATA FOR THE SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM NC DOT GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) WEB SITE, DATED 2007.
7. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM NC ONE MAP.
8. THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS ESTABLISHED ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION FOUND IN 15A NCAC 02L.0107 (a).
9. HYDROGRAPHY IS FROM THE PROVISIONAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS MAP (USAGE APPROVAL PENDING), PROVIDED BYAMEC FOSTER WHEELER, DATED MAY 29, 2015.
0 500 1,000
SCALE (FEET)
F)l
LEGEND
ASH BASIN ASSESSMENT GROUNDWATER
MONITORING WELL
ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE GROUNDWATER
MONITORING WELL
ASH BASIN VOLUNTARY GROUNDWATER
MONITORING WELL
O WATER SUPPLY WELLS
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR LINE
DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY BOUNDARY
ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY
ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
_ ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY COINCIDENT
WITH DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY BOUNDARY
STREAM
NR - NO READING
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE - DEEP WELLS (D)
GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENT DATE: 6/24 - 26, 2015
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CLIFFSIDE STEAM STATION ASH BASIN
CLEVELAND & RUTHERFORD COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE
APRIL 2016
FIGURE
D4-6

NOTES:
1. PARCEL DATA FOR THE SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM DUKE ENERGY REAL ESTATE AND IS APPROXIMATE.
2. WASTE BOUNDARY IS APPROXIMATE.
3. AS -BUILT MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY. 500
4. COMPLIANCE SHALLOW (S) MONITORING WELLS ARE SCREENED ACROSS THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER. -
5. COMPLIANCE DEEP (D) MONITORING WELLS ARE SCREENED IN THE TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN COMPETENT BEDROCK AND THE REGOLITH.
6. TOPOGRAPHY DATA FOR THE SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM NC DOT GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) WEB SITE, DATED 2007.
7. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM NC ONE MAP.
8. THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS ESTABLISHED ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION FOUND IN 15A NCAC 02L.0107 (a).
9. HYDROGRAPHY IS FROM THE PROVISIONAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS MAP (USAGE APPROVAL PENDING), PROVIDED BYAMEC FOSTER WHEELER, DATED MAY 29, 2015.
0 500 1,000
SCALE (FEET)
F)l
LEGEND
ASH BASIN ASSESSMENT GROUNDWATER
MONITORING WELL
O WATER SUPPLY WELLS
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR LINE
DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY BOUNDARY
ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY
ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY COINCIDENT
- - - WITH DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY BOUNDARY
STREAM
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE - BEDROCK WELLS (BR)
GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENT DATES: 6/24 - 26, 2015
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CLIFFSIDE STEAM STATION ASH BASIN
CLEVELAND & RUTHERFORD COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE
APRIL 2016
FIGURE
D4-7

w NOTES:
1. PARCEL DATA FOR THE SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM DUKE ENERGY REAL ESTATE AND IS APPROXIMATE.
2. WASTE BOUNDARY AND ASH STORAGE AREA BOUNDARY ARE APPROXIMATE.
a 3. AS -BUILT MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY.
4. COMPLIANCE SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS (S) ARE SCREENED ACROSS THE SURFICIAL WATER TABLE.
5. COMPLIANCE DEEP MONITORING WELLS ARE SCREENED IN THE TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN COMPETENT
BEDROCK AND THE REGOLITH.
6. TOPOGRAPHY (10 -FOOT INTERVAL) DATA WITHIN THE AREA NORTH OF DUKE POWER (MCCRAW) ROAD WAS 0 370 740
OBAINED FROM WSP DATED APRIL 20, 2015. TOPOGRAPHY (10 -FOOT INTERVAL) DATA WITHIN THE CCP LANDFILL
WAS PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC DATED MAY 21, 2015. AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE CCP LANDFILL
AND SOUTH OF DUKE POWER (MCCRAW) ROAD WAS OBTAINED FROM NCDOT WEBSITE (4 -FOOT INTERVAL) DATED 2010.
7. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM WSP DATED JULY 2015.
8. THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS ESTABLISHED ACCORIDING TO THE DEFINITION FOUND IN 15A NCAC 02L.0107 (a).
9. THE INSTALLATION OF THE FOLLOWING ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE GROUNDWATER MONITIORING WELLS WERE
PROPOSED IN THE 2014 NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION: MW-30S/D, MW-32S/D, MW-34S/D, MW-36S/D, MW-38S/D, MW-40S/D, MW-40S/D, AND MW-42S/D.
10. HYDROGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM THE PROVISIONAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS MAP (USACE APPROVAL PENDING), PROVIDED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER, DATED MAY 29, 2015.
11. THE UNIT 5 INACTIVE ASH BASIN PROVISIONAL COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS DEPICTED PER THE DEFINITION FOUND IN 15A NCAC 02L.0107 (a).
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROVISIONAL COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS PENDING REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY NCDEO.
1,480
= Feet
WATER TABLE SURFACE - SHALLOW WELLS (S)
F)lGROUNDWATER MEASUREMENT DATE: 8/17/2015
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CLIFFSIDE STEAM STATION
CLEVELAND AND RUTHERFORD COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE
APRIL 2016
FIGURE
D4-8

w NOTES:
1. PARCEL DATA FOR THE SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM DUKE ENERGY REAL ESTATE AND IS APPROXIMATE.
2. WASTE BOUNDARY AND ASH STORAGE AREA BOUNDARY ARE APPROXIMATE.
a 3. AS -BUILT MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY.
4. COMPLIANCE SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS (S) ARE SCREENED ACROSS THE SURFICIAL WATER TABLE.
5. COMPLIANCE DEEP MONITORING WELLS ARE SCREENED IN THE TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN COMPETENT
BEDROCK AND THE REGOLITH.
6. TOPOGRAPHY (10 -FOOT INTERVAL) DATA WITHIN THE AREA NORTH OF DUKE POWER (MCCRAW) ROAD WAS 0 370 740
OBAINED FROM WSP DATED APRIL 20, 2015. TOPOGRAPHY (10 -FOOT INTERVAL) DATA WITHIN THE CCP LANDFILL
WAS PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC DATED MAY 21, 2015. AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE CCP LANDFILL
AND SOUTH OF DUKE POWER (MCCRAW) ROAD WAS OBTAINED FROM NCDOT WEBSITE (4 -FOOT INTERVAL) DATED 2010.
7. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM WSP DATED JULY 2015.
8. THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS ESTABLISHED ACCORIDING TO THE DEFINITION FOUND IN 15A NCAC 02L.0107 (a).
9. THE INSTALLATION OF THE FOLLOWING ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE GROUNDWATER MONITIORING WELLS WERE
PROPOSED IN THE 2014 NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION: MW-30S/D, MW-32S/D, MW-34S/D, MW-36S/D, MW-38S/D, MW-40S/D, MW-40S/D, AND MW-42S/D.
10. HYDROGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM THE PROVISIONAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS MAP (USACE APPROVAL PENDING), PROVIDED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER, DATED MAY 29, 2015.
11. THE UNIT 5 INACTIVE ASH BASIN PROVISIONAL COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS DEPICTED PER THE DEFINITION FOUND IN 15A NCAC 02L.0107 (a).
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROVISIONAL COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS PENDING REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY NCDEO.
1,480
= Feet
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE - DEEP WELLS (D AND BRU)
F)lGROUNDWATER MEASUREMENT DATE: 8/17/2015
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CLIFFSIDE STEAM STATION
CLEVELAND AND RUTHERFORD COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE
APRIL 2016
FIGURE
D4-9

w NOTES:
1. PARCEL DATA FOR THE SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM DUKE ENERGY REAL ESTATE AND IS APPROXIMATE.
2. WASTE BOUNDARY AND ASH STORAGE AREA BOUNDARY ARE APPROXIMATE.
a 3. AS -BUILT MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY.
4. COMPLIANCE SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS (S) ARE SCREENED ACROSS THE SURFICIAL WATER TABLE.
5. COMPLIANCE DEEP MONITORING WELLS ARE SCREENED IN THE TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN COMPETENT
BEDROCK AND THE REGOLITH.
6. TOPOGRAPHY (10 -FOOT INTERVAL) DATA WITHIN THE AREA NORTH OF DUKE POWER (MCCRAW) ROAD WAS 0 370 740
OBAINED FROM WSP DATED APRIL 20, 2015. TOPOGRAPHY (10 -FOOT INTERVAL) DATA WITHIN THE CCP LANDFILL
WAS PROVIDED BY DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC DATED MAY 21, 2015. AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE CCP LANDFILL
AND SOUTH OF DUKE POWER (MCCRAW) ROAD WAS OBTAINED FROM NCDOT WEBSITE (4 -FOOT INTERVAL) DATED 2010.
7. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM WSP DATED JULY 2015.
8. THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS ESTABLISHED ACCORIDING TO THE DEFINITION FOUND IN 15A NCAC 02L.0107 (a).
9. THE INSTALLATION OF THE FOLLOWING ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE GROUNDWATER MONITIORING WELLS WERE
PROPOSED IN THE 2014 NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION: MW-30S/D, MW-32S/D, MW-34S/D, MW-36S/D, MW-38S/D, MW-40S/D, MW-40S/D, AND MW-42S/D.
10. HYDROGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM THE PROVISIONAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS MAP (USACE APPROVAL PENDING), PROVIDED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER, DATED MAY 29, 2015.
11. THE UNIT 5 INACTIVE ASH BASIN PROVISIONAL COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS DEPICTED PER THE DEFINITION FOUND IN 15A NCAC 02L.0107 (a).
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROVISIONAL COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS PENDING REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY NCDEO.
1,480
= Feet
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE - BEDROCK WELLS (BR)
F)lGROUNDWATER MEASUREMENT DATE: 8/17/2015
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CLIFFSIDE STEAM STATION
CLEVELAND AND RUTHERFORD COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE
APRIL 2016
FIGURE
D4-10

DATE
NOTES: HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
1. ONLY SITE-SPECIFIC, IN-SITU MATERIAL REPRESENTED IN THIS FIGURE. APRIL 2016
2. REFER TO TABLE D4-1 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Fn MEASUREMENTS
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION FIGURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC D4-11
Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity for Native Hydrostratigraphic Layers N = 157
1.aoE-01
1.00E-02
a
E
Y 1.00E-03
a
2
a
c
U 1.00E-04
L
31
= 1.00E-05
1.00 E-06
M1 (N= 23) M2 (N=14) TZ (N=23) BR (N=97)
4.8E-04 3.1E-04 5.7E-04 7.3E-05
DATE
NOTES: HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
1. ONLY SITE-SPECIFIC, IN-SITU MATERIAL REPRESENTED IN THIS FIGURE. APRIL 2016
2. REFER TO TABLE D4-1 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Fn MEASUREMENTS
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION FIGURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC D4-11

O I�
.00
Hr ti.,y s~ `♦II00
II
OZo
K
&, n
g ROAD RjV
o ,Q
/ �' `• "^""TTT���FFF moi- �'c�iYY� g
►- -_
rC
Olt
wo
dk AN
t'h
of5
' - 'a` ._ y tib'"' -��•. v � � , r• ;. r`�}
e:
^�
' + � . `� „�, � � .. _y � - � \'i �' 'IrF • .ar„���-��s ,�c��`l N . �/('� j� �j ,�� .. F� r� 1.
tJdt Y S'. `* •4a �'�� �•. - .1 i ��, +7 v�9. �'t �.��. \"�L���LJ ��© � �r
....` i ,j * _ x .'VrC'� '� is •{" �r• :r. _ __ C�II��//� II��V�II -
s/,`�,�g3 � 'w �• \ tyle .: r T• i -. i '�* •� '1ld ,i \ 5.., '` �.. .-
' Ma l} �`�.� \ � • ti � :�'.y�,i .. � ya�G` 1,"�n �' - n.' `� } ` T i� _ � a{yG l�i� � .`.a. 5 LJ &UU,O LJ V
♦uwTa �l
• h l y
00
00
100 &aH IM41M 1�2)
k
♦00 r
I
00 000
;(147
ar
k [?
., T ,�:. ' ..` .� - ® - - 5T LV� ��� ��S • . �. ' r� r ''_+7:`i. I iir1 .Lt�: D
®Jro
--- SFJ I
QD
O '
sw
14
4114
ar 5
-�--0- °--- - - - - -
_
-00
.♦
40
.♦ Q
41
•'' , _ CSO[ M 11000 [� °
O400
iool , Q. ®♦
40' 401
Iwo ftft
�/ -♦ ' ��
*10
t
` it • y,. y i
00
i — tiYti
500 0 500 11000
�'. f} _.
'L. r
Ir0 O
41
41
' 41
I`
7
LEGEND:
Lol
• o oma. .
0 0 0
SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL - PLAN VIEW MAP
AREA OF BORON EXCEEDANCES OF 2L STANDARDS
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CLIFFSIDE STEAM STATION ASH BASIN
NOTES:
•r.��R
'a.,r
S ,
W0
�T f
Lol
• o oma. .
0 0 0
SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL - PLAN VIEW MAP
AREA OF BORON EXCEEDANCES OF 2L STANDARDS
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
CLIFFSIDE STEAM STATION ASH BASIN
NOTES:

ASH STORAGE AREA
SOUTH
(WESTERN PORTION) NORTH
AB 3SL
SB
AB 3BRU AS 1AS-ID
CEMW01 D FILL
--
_ GWA25D
AB6BR
AB-3I
AB-3S
�— R
H GWA25S
ACTIVE
- —
—
AB-6D AB-6S ASH BASIN
AS7BR
---------------
----
_
-
/S H
AS-7D
- -- - AS7S BROAD
17 RIVER
AS-2S
PWR/TZ
s2D
BEDROCK.
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF 2L
STANDARD EXCEEDANCES OF
BORON IN GROUNDWATER
LEGEND
ASH
CROSS SECTION CLIFFSIDE ACTIVE
ASH BASIN AND
ASH STORAGE AREA REGOLITH
(LOOKING WEST)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK/
NOTE.
TRANSITION ZONE (PWR/TZ)
BEDROCK
1.
DRAWING NOT
TO SCALE AND
IS INTENDED FOR LLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY.
2.
A PLAN VIEW
OF THE CROSS
SECTION
SHOWN ABOVE LOCATED IN DRINKING WATER
WELL EVALUATION IN
FIGURE 3412: FILL
3.
APPROXIMATE
EXTENT OF 2L
STANDARD
EXCEEDANCES OF BORON IN GROUNDWATER
BASED
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF 2L
ON RESULTS
FROM 2015 ROUND
2.
STANDARD (700 pg/L) EXCEEDANCES
4.
CLMW01 WAS NOT SAMPLED
DURING
THE ROUND 2 SAMPLING EVENT, BUT A BORON EXCEEDANCE
of BORON IN GROUNDWATER
WAS REPORTED
IN THIS WELL
DURING
THE ROUND 1 SAMPLING EVENT; THEREFORE,
A BORON
APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER
EXCEEDANCE
IS DEPICTED ASSOCIATED
WITH THIS WELL,
FLOW DIRECTION
5,
THE CLOSEST
WATER SUPPLY
WELL IS
LOCATED —1,300 FT SOUTHWEST OF TRANSECT ABOVE.
CROSS-SECTION CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
DATE
F)lDUKE
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION
ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
APRIL 2016
CLIFFSIDE STEAM STATION ASH BASIN
FIGURE
CLEVELAND AND RUTHERFORD COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
D41 3

F)l
Pecharge
e w
(Plan \fiew) -41
L
Vertical Per olation
Ground level
Initlal wde.r level
Y
NOTE: F IGURE F ROM NORTH CAROLINAS TATE
UNIVERSITY (1995); MODIFIED FROM DRISCOLL (1986).
DATE
MOUNDING EFFECT APRIL 2016
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION FIGURE
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC D4-14

+ 7f i0murW-foaaar
" O�n,Oa
s .�.
Low gerxweb-d,tlrrack''f�sltie�
81 CROSS SECT104Y
F)l
SDI RL" VIEW
!LE�riafi�l:
Equ ,sMa+tsar urm
Gkound water Q#, do
1f4?w Lina
70 so go
BEAD 1071
110 130 110 101
z Ora+dowim at Well
Zoe" at eamntr4mita+ to "Well
IMaw Talo
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 D4-15

� ,. ' , - .' ....4, ! �11 I I 1. . . -. ` i. �'�' j _ .: ,� . I �' . ..�' . '' I - -, � . . . . ... 11 ­ . I - ' - ' ­� ''' '% ' ' , _ :',-.72k�:' � -' . . I
� .� � - I . .� I , ..' .�'� � I ­ I ,. � . - I .. .1 . , - I I ..
" .­'� '� �' '; - , �.' _"�'..'."" � I I- .� - : � I 11 . � ... .� . � '� � . �_' . A �
.1 � .� � I - _. "I I . - . . . , . :. .�'�' '. , - � I I " � . I : ,-- " - . � . . I a 1. � . �� .7.- i �i � L � � ' �' - V*-. '; �' , � : . : -, , - � , ,
. . -: .'�4 - . , . , . � - . . 7 . . � -7. - � .. - .. . I I '_ - - � I . . I � . �.' � .' , I , . . . . . . . . P, I � , � . I
I � . .. - - I . - . . - . . - - , , , - � . . r- , . -- .. . - -, � . � I . I � I
. �. . 1. I- I , .. . . . � I S.� . 11 �' - "' .. . , � ' -, . �' .�� . � , ' � . " . I - - � , 11 -� . ­ - ".; .'��-' ,� 11 11 I . -.,. . _. . � .:
. �".' . ' : ' � - . I � . I . - _. .. , . , ,* , ' .
. N . 4.'. . I , . I . . , I . ­ .' � - ` ' , ._-. - , -�'� -.� 1. . . . � I . �
I , � 1.11 ��_ j - . '.� . � . . I - � . . . .1. . . - , ­ - � �- , I - IV -1 I W.
. 4.
�
. .
. . ... I . . __ . I . - I I I.. ' - . I . �
- J, � " - . 'I- . I .� . ­ . ,,, : * �.-. - . _.:, -1. .� .
I
, � . , 'e , ,,,, . : � I , � . ' ' . . 1.1 . ' '. - . -il ' .. .� �. � . _11:� - '' . I .* . - - - - .", ..'." ... . .
- " �" I . . � ,. , --�' - , ..'. �:-' _' ; ., � TWI-i
,:_ . 11 - �.' . I � _� _ - . ... -, .' " ' .:, ....­". ... ; -'.'."':'.:�.";e . . %. - . _. . W: � " ..
, � , - , . J',. I.I..'' I , ­ ' ' ' '-�' , *1 -0.1-. " . . . � ._� . . .. I .. i-;. � : %, . ': '�:'­ : ....'..­ jjl'� - '� �- � I'�. ,
' _ . .1 - . -
, . - - . . . g, -!� ;.; , .... '�: ­ � .
.... , ". . I . I I - . ;. 11 .. -, - -, � - - " , j . . . . i . . ,:": ,­ �' - , . . � - ; '�� ...�` 'i . � . �� . - I I �
, "I - -, � . , � � . I i" . _. , -tt - '� - * �' . � .
, 11 I � . . . : . . . -:: - . I I - . - .. , . " - , '� : .' _'. 1-: �, .' I I � .' "I I '.� . . I . � - I . � I � .. . ,.
. 1. . �,r '� . � -�e� '� '. . .. �� . , . . I : .: . 7: I . 11 -.r, : _'�"� .��" � : � -' f!; '�e;�- 114� I - I I I �' . � , . . �. , . . . . . - �� ,. . , , , ,'. "" - 7. 1 " .
I � . � , I �. . . 1� '�'�"' t .., , - � �_" 41, " .'. - �" .. - . . - . � . �
I - . " - � �� I .. ­ . - - -� -,-. , , " , '� . '. �' , - '.. , � - - , .' - � . ... 1, . . .. m �' I � r I � �' I � .
I I . . . � 7'. . . I - � I - ' " , ... I �. : .. .," I.- . . . - . ' , - '. I . ' %1 - ".*�-'-' '., " - � . ' - , ':�. , ' -_ ' : - �'-" - : ': - � - - - ' ��. I I � .. 6 � % 1 )'6 , . � . ..-.- . � � . . . � . . I .
. , I � I ' 'L I � -
� . _: I � A. I . . - ' . . � . . " . . , . !' :-. , , . .' , , . I . � ' I . . . . ; , . � I .L . � : �� . � �. . . . � I : ! � .1 If. 11-1 ' . , 7. _. � . I , � : _� - . , ' � 11 I ; . : - " , . , : '� . .: ,. " .r - .1 .L-, I -- .
. � . . , . . � .� 7 � ' ' ,
. , / '� , 4" .�: - I - 1 4. �' '.-' - . � - 0 '�� :! , � . , : . � � . . I , . ' � ', ; r. - � '�­`. . , - � . - .
I I - , -i � , - , . . . - - - �: m , . . , . , . � . . . . � . I � I 'r I . I I . . . I , I I I - .: � .-.�L�:' :_". : . . ',' " , . . .,�� ;' .' ": .� - .' ....' ­ . . . . . . . . I � . . . .1 4� 1 r l, ' I � ' ' r 1. . � : � .
,
_` ." 2 1 - Rr .P, � I _� ' t m� . -, . - �_ - - ' � , � - , , - -�' . '" ' ' ' ' . :a. " I . ... %� � . I I . . . � . . I . - - I , - , . . . . , . . . � . � � . . I 1�
� , - - - �" - ': , - ' � I I . '7 1 1 � � : I , - 1� , - r7 - - " .- I I . �
� . m � ... .... .� -, . *' ' '
. '
- � . , . I IN I
. ' ' . L � ' � . - I . I � - "';' ' , r , - . . _
.'.,7, .. _� C , - ' - - I .'� - . I ' , . ; ' ' � ' I . .. I , - - - .. . . . - . ,." r� -- � ..�
� . , . . .. . . '-� " : - I :' �- ��.' - ­' : .*- . �
I � < ; I - � , � ' , � . - . - . .L '- -­ -1 . I � ' � _. . '. '; .. I . . I 1 41 .� � ;" . 1. �� . . '. . .1 ! . " : , I ! I 11 I � _� " ' � - . -
'��. . . . . � .... r. . ".. , , I .. . � � I - , .�' '� , ."':..' . .�. . I .� � : �
, � � . , ; . - �. , . , ..' - � .. .. :. , . :_ -�- - '%. �. - �� � � ' Ir �' 11 ' *�_ - I ".. � ..'. ' ,. I : I_
, . r . . . . . �: �A, - � !, t�%7.. .' I . V .7 � I , q; . . -': - .,-, - .'
. _ � �� '! - � , I - ' ' � . -.-l- ...
, , - . I � � I �) . , I �. --�' "
. � 1�' . '. : .. ; '_ .1 - . , , . , �.' - I , , . .1 - ' ' : � , . � .7 � . � � , '- "'i . , � _� �" - ' , - '� , , ,
"', . I I -11 �"" . . � - , . ��_ - .
I , , ' :" ... .1 ,'.' � .I .'-i , -.11 � . .1 . � " � I", - .
-
.': . � - . : ..' , . . '. _. , -,::" . w .' " �' . � . , .' , � . � �' 4!�' "4. � . . __ . - I � . . . � . , , I . )� S -'k, I
,
- I - . � . - '. ��'.' �� , . ,� , , . . I � � � I , . _ . ,
. I ' . . - I . , . � .. I �. . .._.� . . :. .. . ..' r , . , , , "'i it , ­
. , I - �. _:� ' _�:-: � - _r: �" :.. :; '" , -. , . . ' . I � I . I . . ..' .1 -1 -4.. . , � .1 - ' ' - '� - � . . �- _� .... � I -, , .. " .. - , , � , , I KI.t..... �.' � � - -­ ' � : I I . 7
" I . , . � . �" :'�' , _� �'­' � '.. t . -
�
. , - - � . . _ . I . . � . , ­ 1. � . . �!'- ; " - - � . - � 11 - . : : - . - ..'. ,. . . , � ." % L . . �� .; : - -A - � ' v . ��
.
I I A� �'r 0 �': '; " � : ..�'k'� '!: - ... . � � I : . I I 1. � . � � . .. _ I � , .... .. � . . , , ,. � . I
'- .. . '� L "', �'�'� _` . .. I . . r : � . �- A � ' � - , , . .. '. P, :' . . . . .
" ' �. y . , '� . ", , - , � . I . .-. � �. I 1. 11 : _� . � , . _. !.� " -, '. a .! � .z � .' . . � : V r I - � . - I � I. . .
, "� I . ' . I - . . � .. I . 1. - I . � . " _�' :
- I .1 I '.1' � . I , '.. , . , . . � ' I . �
_� I I . -_� I I I ", �'� 4i 1"_ _" ' _- . . .- . . . . � - � . I . -�'- " # . , . �
'�'.:_" .'- :1 101�_ .� . . � . . . . . � . - , : , � , , ' * , .;, . I . I , '�� - 1. . dl� . . . . . .1 .:. � � I - , .' ..
' L. '-,' . "� �_ ! �. -7 - I . � .. . ' . . .' . - ..] . . � �. Jr . __.'. , i : I ��_ , - ., '; ... . ,. 7 4 .1 �
. I . . - '.' . .
- ' . , . I
. . - �- � �i � . � - 1, � . , I I I . - " " � � � - . I *# . ,I,
. -
. . . I ik't . 4 I I ,
, r � - - �Iw . . � . I � : I . . ,
. . . I , � . , ,' �. , , � . . . - . . � - . - - I& I � . I . . .. �. , :­ � r�,- - -� -:,. - I I . , , .. � -1 � . . ." ; 'I" ' '� ' -
- , .:. �e I .11 I * - - -_;�'�F A _�� . � '*' 7 .
� " I . . � '; . . � - I � I I . I f ' ' I. �' ; I I . _ I ,. ��'o . . . C . I , � - ` - - . P , 14 71 . . - -
, . '. . .. I - � . � - "' '_ "' ' I . I I . .� '$� � , ��" '*
. . :. - - . I � . , � ,.,,,,
: I % � � ; r7" I � I - V''
� I ,
. - , . , ' �"'.: � . r _; " -.� , � . . , , ., �'-: ..' '�'. � � . .' 4
.
, I - , , 6 �' '�;-' ,.W-: I - . . � .. � �. '� .' . .� I . . I � I I* I !. . - . , I
� , . . � ,�'A, . . . .. , �A "': � '�.­i ; '­ I . . ' T. � I . I � . : V -, : ": -':� . I ­. . . . � , I � . � � ''. -1 _� I '. � - I ' " ',.- . -, : .I �:_�';�.' .1 . I � " � I , . i�
� . . . - � . � . � .1 . . � - . , I . - . -.'.1 ' . * ' . "L'
'e, I . I I � : � . .' . m I- . �' . . 1� . - � . . , - '. .- . . I
. , I . .� -el. . -7
. -�' . l ' . .- 'r i _-�_ . 1�1 . ( I . : _'*� I I . - �� 1". � I . *# -- - - - .. . � i-1 - 'I, . ��'
.. �� . - i_ a5 . ; . - . . . . i , y ;�' " ,� I . ,
, I "ii"i O -k - . 1, _. , I . - :*,' �' ." - . . . . ' � , . ' . � . . , : a . .:!
. .. . -�� I L - : . . � � . . . . - � . , , - - .
� . I , ' . - SOP . . . I -1 - I .: - - I . ..' ..' . �'. - - . ; -, �'-,. ­.� - -�- I - .-:.-. - . - � 111.�; 1� - .. . � .-. � ''� .� I I
. . . . . . . . , ­. ':. � . ,.e I . I - -
, � I - 24' � I . 6 . � ; 1, ----. ,:.! :1 �.;. " .1, % . - I . . � I ,
. , I I - - I " .' '� 4' . . . . % . . - - - . . .. .* . I !� - - � 1� I
, . ' - . I
. . . .� 1, . � . . - - , "�­- - - ; . I- 1 '. , , ,": ' % - ' ' . . - .. , � "'"' ' " " �;: " -, ' %­ ' - ' -L I � - . � I . - . . . . I , 1. .
". � '0.� I -_' � . '� ' .. - - . * *��'_".�k� ,-- , -- � 1�� � : ' � . 41 . � " ' " "I ""�',,'z - ; ,. , -:. - ' * . , . .- , I . - . '
": ': , " �_--� '.�." � 11 I - . � � . i �
. � , - 1� I 7'� . " . . . . . I I I . '�� ' -1 I - I ­ . - 11 . _e 11 . , -, '
-.'-��' -';�-e�'-. ," . '%. '!6" - . � - �� ' - � . . . � - I
I - .'' - 1� � , 0!'. * - � � . . - I . . , .' � I � . I . ' �. �
. ��'­ - I - . . � "'� ) - - , , � . . # .
- , .7� _"�.:- �
, , (-� `v-' . .1 - . . - . - _ . . . .' T � . .,:. e�! , . _ . . * . - - -
. :1 - - .- : ': -, '� ' " I m '­ . ' ..' ,r'�!_',_ . � � 1
7.. ",: - . , I �. , 4 , " . � �' -_ - . I . . - - : , . . . . . '_'. �� ,.' . � I � ­� , . . - - .I\'--'- '
V., . I 'L�_,-,�..' "';'��'.-'-7'_' - oke, - �'::-' -­ � - , -, 7 . I " -, e . . . . - . . �%' � � , , ,), � � "I ­ I . I I - �' '�_'�-.r'�::. '! ''."`." ..'. I * I - I -',t7'.
_'� �." "� ...' �­ 7 , - '­-� '.' � . . v .%L' - I - ,:. : wd . . . - � " .
" .'��. -A, '': * . . ��"%'* -.-- � I - , � - , I * ' - ' I ". . -�.� 9 --, ",.;, - " . � I .
-� - , . '_ � �k . . . . . I 1 7 .- , . ' 4 � - . - � -
. '- - ;A411' I 1.1n, � '. '_�' - - - � - , - .". * `.'� '... --"".'��_.. �' ' ;._ , � . `
.'-, �"�:' , "" '� OW" .:!t_'- . . . -4
.. � ,,, . ... .
- . .
. � , '�,_ " .�' i'... , , . � I . . . .�.. �. - � . � 4,
..�. - ,� I . - "'­ .".... �: % . . I-, . __."'-j" _.. � .", I , . I .. - .. 1. . � . I ' - . # . 4
' P� I .. I I �'.!'. , .,:" _
y� I - . . . , � , , ... . I i - . I - I 1_ _'� . , I , , r . . � I I - - . L. _ �� � I , " ""', ,,,, ' " .. " I
, . . , , % . , .7;�; . , .� .. �. , . , � I . �'. , . . ? ' ';i� I .. � . �' . ' - . , �' . - -L . I , � - , '�'- " �' , - - + � -
I . . �17 . . . . I i , I � . 1. .. yl�� I . ��" : .. "W �'�.: " . ..� - -
� .1 . . I . . ,� . I , ..� . I .'. � . .�. "' - - - -' - � . r. . .. I 1. . - - . � .- ..� . ' �' � , . _.. - , , 7 . �r " . �'. I �" .. -- .. - I ,.. ,. . A�. . .' 1, 1, � , . .
' I.. � . , , � - . -1 `- , - . " ' . " .' - C
- I , . � - I _: ' I I , . , . - -,�-­e­ .!?--­- -, -
.1 � I I : " I � .. . I . , , a .. � I . 7. , � . -1 .- 1 ­�7 .1 � - . I �.. . I '. I- . - .. - ..' *. � :..-. � - ,;.: .. , . , . I ,... .'e..';..:.'. . . � �, .' .. - "--'..':'.. I . .' .. . . , . � . "I . � � . - �
�" ' I .. -, , . . . I . . . ,. � . j. . I '�' � � I - . , - I - . '� " I- ,,,, 10* , I .. I - 6
� � .: . . . . I ,' � "' I , '. � - .� . ; - I ! . �' . �. A - - - �. . . I , � I .' - . I . . -�'-. ',�'..-.::i_. � ':_. 1, . . . ' .. �_ �'*"� z
I - , . - �� " I . � ' . . . . . . � . . . I .. z_
' _ . , . - - : � '. I . , , . ". . - I , , I � ..' �' � ,. 4 I . . ,,, ' . ,� . . . . ,. . * .' " I . .�'. �
. I . _"' - . . 7 - . . I '. , , I I - "'. �'. -, 4P 1 1 . . .
.
­� - . . � , � I .
. � ... . � � �' .. t : I . - I I . I � � .. . , I I .
,.e , q: ,�.' . . I , , . . . . . - - I . . I , �- -�- �' � - --- 4� '. � - . .' , ' . - - I . � 1. '�� 1_" . I . . � - .. .
-
.
' �' 1� , .. � . (� . _ . . I " , . � . . ` t. � 1�1 ` 1-11 .. I. � " :'-, q __ � . ' ':� . ,* . - - : . - """ : - ".-�'.':�'-"":�_` . 1, ;- .1 , 1. I . 1:- - I
I � . . " � . ! , . , I ' . . .. ­. . , � � . - . -� - -le . I . - � - I �. ..' . - .' I . I 11 � �' . ... � I . . " . . - k
, r _ . I - I . � a I . , - ' ,� ,I '�- :� � _ � ' . . . . ." , . � -1 - � � � .. I "' �
. I � � � . � , -1 V, � �� - - . I I , - r - ' - . 1 -7 . . - .1 .. . I I . - . ' . i - -
I - I :� . ', .,- ��., . I I . - � "'� I - I .. '. . . I . I � � - .. � : .; ". ,': .
1� i .' - � . .' I . I . .. . - - , . 44. "' : ' ' .. I . I . ' . � ... . . . : � I --. ' ,,, , : '� - � " I , :.. . � - . , ��'.. I . . ".1 .
. � r . . . . - .1, .
, � A
, I , . . , , . . ! �"' .r 1. ; '� - . . e� � - . � .1 . _ � -1 , I . �:� : �'
I � . I . , . r '"�. . ::" - e -A , '. , - �_' I � '.1 f- I � . I � .. '...' I � � I , . � :. .' . . 7. -, .. .:. *# ti . , . - .
. _� . , . ­ . . - '. , �-- . . ,� � �__� .. , I . : * . I . .' - -� �"
, � , ':�' � ' :'� '. � - � . - I . ... . .. .1 I . I" . ::, :; e- , ' - . 1. .-. ', - . �: . -, -�. . . ­� 7�
.' . ll . � � , . .0 .� , ' , � I : .1 r. I
­ ' ' ' . . . I . I , - .. . : I . . * - e ' I I . I
.
, . . - - , " � . I . : . . . . . ' � . Z. , , . '� I. . I . . I . - . ' .";,. ' I .� ' �L . T�' : 1. ,. . � I
.
. . . . � . 7 "�'. . I .: I I "' - .� .. .. L' - I ' .. ' � . I . I - �- .. 'r., �- I'. . .. ,I .. .. , I I
. � � . . . � . � � . : - . .1 .. . .. . I . . . . . .
� . ' . - - 11 ' . I � - � � "' � .' �' . . I . . .. ,� . I . � ,. . � . q�- - - . " - - -17 . I . . . . . "
� I I � " I . . . .
. I � . . . s I - . .1 � __ � ' _� " , . � . 4 . ' . L 0 - , , I , % � u . �
. � � 11 - . . - . I -1 � . 'W'77� : _ - �_ , , 1, �­ . , ' ! '.. .. .' � I '. I , � . ' ' �_ . � . � * �' . . I '; .'�
. . : , I � . , . 4 _. . � . : , . .� . . ". I
. ­ '. , - I . - . . . � I - I � . . . ,
. I . : , .. - ' . -
. � ��
, : �
c . . . . 't 1. W04 ' ,. . .
I . . . I .1 . " .i' _ � ;� Z .
.
. . �.Y54� ��:- Ih , I - 11 1� , . . . I I ZA-;,: : : � � 'i ' I
.
. 'O
. - � i�'. ! . , - . . . . . I , . 1. ; - - I I � - . �
I . I . . , - - - .-- , , -, , , ,. . . - . . � � I I I ". . . � - I - . : 1, I - . . . . . �' � . I.:.
- . �.� I . . � I . vp ,� , - I � - '. - - " . � . '� 1 4� .. � " '. - - -_ - - � .�. . " � � ". .. . :t�7'
�
. , 'O P " ' " . I SIDE .
, . 1. .
.1 I . ' . . I . .7i, �P. * v '.. ';�' " '. .. - ­ .." �' . �'. .:.' � ­. I .
.1.. � � e . . � I I ,
� I ... - . � . . . .'.1 .. � liw_ 1. ... t:" _� . - . � ' - , .: �. 1. I . . �. .... I '. I . % � ­:::."'.. _.:�" �.'4 % . `�- �.;-' ' .' .� .
- . I I. I . 7 - � �.� .L* . I . 11 - 1, I - .... ': - I " .. '­ � . . . .1.1 I . - ,11 - '._ .- '�:� - .-,.:. . , .
� . . - . , : .
I '. I ''I . . ?.� L ." �' I '-'�e I , . . . . . -
. : ..' . I I '?, �_ � -, ' I ­ � . . AM : - , , I - . .��' . I I � I
I � I - I . . � .,.!,.,. ". . I � I .t. I , . � 11 '. � . il . I � . --_, '.'.'�­
I., . . . � .1 � ! I . � . , .. . .1. � �'_ � � . 1, , : - � - . I I . . � ...� '.L% , % . . . I -1 - �.
� ' I I . . . .11 .. �. . - '�' , ,� . ­.. . - -%�")' : .� . , ... I . . . 3�- 1 . r I I .. ­...
. : � I - . . . . I � I . '.
I I . . . . .
. I L- - . . -
. . . . I , . , : L ION . . . . . . - I . . . �' ...
I . � .. ­ . - . .
. . . � .11 . . . . ,.,.,7 'A'. . I , �: . . _. � I . I I �� . I" . , %:
, . , . , . -
.� . I . . I 1 7, - . . " - . .�" � .'� I .1 . . 1. -� . .1:
. ' I I I .. . �
. . . . . �
. I ". . , . . . . . I ' . . , , � - - � - ** ,�
. , � . . - - .1 .. ,,'�" .�� , _ ' - L
11 .1. � , - , - A I I ' '. - I . I � .
.' . . I . . . . � . I - - ' 1� - '��" �'- , I , �' I ;%:'-� - �. . � I .. r.. . .
. . . - � . . . ' . �'%� I - .- 'm - ' _�� , � . I . I - ' -I.-! -.� " " .
. '. � . ­ - '�" I .. . � � " � . . _. _' I - . . - - . . ' ." .1
I � I � ­ � . . � . " . 4 ,r 11 I I - . . .. . . . .: ­ "r'. , .
. . . . % wl L . ." " , I rt " . �. . - 11, . . :,-.,. . �'� - � - � 1# lip I'll, '_ .� . - . . - ' �At - '. I . - �-"r " _ ... ,,- -'�' - -, ".. , -
. I . .: � . . I- - - .' �'rl " - I ,,, �-" I ' - '�'�' .. .'. I . . .' � ' .1 � " ' "' I - ' "L%'.�:'_ , . � .". �._ -
. . . I I 1.� I . . - 1�' .. ' . . . �� - " ­_ .1 . - I . 0 : � � � , _­ .'7 11 .
� . I . 1. � . L ' . . . . .- .. , ..� ';e , , - . - . I., V � . �.. . . I., . - . - ,.: -1 .I ,." f I � . . ,. , - .. ; I '. . - �:. � I "�'):'. ..:,. � . - .
,
1. , '_' . 7 L I - . . I 1� � 1. . . � - . ' ' I - ' , : , , . I �� . . .
� .. . . . , - . - ­ ' . . I . " rf . ,� - I , . � - .. � - . I I .
. . . . . , , � L ­ I LL , - , . . .. , .'� ,_ . I I � L I � I - " ��k%."­ � . .. � - , �' � , I � :
% .. I . . - .' . I . � m . I ` r �"' . - " . . .' - .' .' .
' '. - - - . " . . .L .1 �.�;'�'�?;' I ��­.�' �L -� ..' L' - I . _� 1, I . , m . 1:1 . - - I
� � , : . . � - . . .. . - - ' . . � 1-1 ' . . . � , � , � . . � . I . _" .. . . "�' . _'� : � I . I -, - ­_ � I . .. .'! . . L . . .:, � .
.., � .'. . . - I . I -, . �, '�- -1 ... 7��._ 1 ... , I � '� . . : ". ' -, J�'-.'-' �' �. . .. : ". - . .." It", - � I I . . . � . '_ .r)rr L . . . .
,
I � . - : '' ' � I . . ­ . " . .' � . � , . _! 11 ., . " - , UNITS 1-4 . � .'L . -'!777!P7!77 L � ­ � 1:. I . ., . . '­ _; � ��. I I. I 11 . m Z t ' '4 '. ','m' -
� � � � - , , . , �_. - .'., � '�-t. '� � . � . I . , , . � " I., .. . ,_" , - -, . , I .
'. ­ . 7'. .16 .: . . � I . � ' - - -1 q , . - . .
. I I . .. . � ' :.:.":, ';.:'� - '. _'" -, -.�."".
' -1
. �
. .
. . . , ,�._1�11 ,
� . . . . . . . ..' � P 4 �� 11 . , I , !- , . � _" ' ��' . . !e "I :: . � .� � . �
. I ,. . . ,� . 7� f . . � �11 I .� - - .. 17- - �_ I . - IT . - � : I � . I r . :. , - - - I - . I � . . . . . � : � - L, . , .
I
.
. I � . . � ' . . LLL - . INACTIVE ' �� �; ' .%_ I .. :. � I �' .. . I I I I . I .
. I I . . . I I - - �1 � - ., . � . 1- , . �. . . .L. � , : " , . : , , , � : ,.: - .' � .L :' : : I I . I
.0 I . . ­ . I L I -- �% . I I . - � . . � �-.- - : , I .. . .;. � I , .�. I " . I � I . I . . . I :' . . L . . �
. , .
,
- . - -
. I . .� . I I �. I .. " . L L , I.,.;,-. I '.: " '* _� 1� . :5 � � . - - . P 1. ASH - �x. jf� '_; I �­ ­ . . ... . . . I �. . � .. - - I ..
� 00 , . rl_ ME r�' , �;� ' �-� � BASIN " , . . ..
. I ' *W'*gP' I V �- . I :' "A � - -1 . 1, :' , 7 ) 11 ..: . ... 1. ' . . . . ' .. ' � � I L_ � . . I . 1. I I 11 � . L. .1. . . � . L � . I . .
00 . . . . . . L & ' 091 714111. :� - - - - - . 0: ' '8.� - - ;1 , � ... . I . - - � I I . I ­ - m . � . .
;1 .1 . . .. , . . .- I I ' " ! I I . . � ;- L . . � � I � . . . .' .
. ­ ,- � I ' � . . � . . . , . I I -� �' .' ':� � ". - : . �' � _� I I I I . I � . , . . �
. . 00 V - . .1 . I . . I �'% I . 111. . . . �. '�'�� L _" �: .7 . I I - I . . ,� L , . .. - .: " L ' - . . . . . . � . . I . - ,
� . -� 'r ' . - . . '. , � . I �' , . � I . I - . .1 � . _ . r_ _ _ , �Z
,
& .�! . -, . , . . . ­�' . I I . , . . . 1. I i� I _: I " ' . :1 !, � .
00 ; . . : I , - W " I , - � , ,� ' I I . . :: ' I I I . I . . I . , I . .. I
.
lop I .7, 'j. 'A';7�. ,.. Z � .: 1" . . I . .3. I - W. � " � '� ,. .". - . . �_-' �.-,"� . . " . . " ..
I , - . - � . . . � �'
I . . . . . . . I . - :1 . . � , L .
I - ' - ' . . ;S q__
I � ? ' ' " 9114 �" I - j ': ' � ' r L 1'-�%' � ­.' � koo._ . . . I . *" I
"
,e . I � � I L . . _' I I ^ ,;I, r 0. . - r � f M � � .. I ­ .; -. . I . . I
. . � - - ' � �' .. . . I 'V�* .". . . . - �. I . .
� . L 'X.- - 'C ­," I - � . I . I . .. L ,&.1
I I . - 4 - � .. ' . ' . ..' . - L 4 - e, I �' ' ' " r -.. � . .: . '.. � ?�' I . I .. � . � '. '.. . . . � �. �
. . .� . `
I . I ' . � . .' . . I L . , .' -, --
- 1. I . . .1 . . ' L .. . - I . .. . I _ j_ - I - - . '--� . . . �'7!�. . jr." A -
I I I . I . I 'i " I - . I el "'7 T % ,I . . - - - f
- . L . . , . 1� . .; - .. . . 1. . -.� 'PUNIT . � . � , I '10 - . # . I '.E `4
. � I �. . . . . . : . : 4. . " 1. � . I;- � I . :"" �.' . '� 11 sk '. - � . . . � ;; .-' 1. .. - I I � I . . I - I � I *
�� I I I I . .� .. � . " � :­ - .. . I L - . '. , - . � � V� . . � . - . t - I '
, I . . I I � -1 �._ .1., _. I- : . el� . ;1 ,
� . . . , � ' . . . . . - - � . . .- , . �� I I " . - . � * . , I . - - . I - *_. 1. . I I - ." . 0 - i : . � �'- .% I,
i � � I I . I . . I I . ` '�L ' � . � " I 11 . : "'. ,. , , " . . , � I - � : -.1 " -_ ", - ;-� - -
I . I . I I
I L . � I 11 : . , , _ r, -- -- I I � i to-
� - . , 1% . . I , . � r - � !�;� , � L I - , , , , � 'A - , . ...r _ �' " L . - : "' V:*':'--":- mew !:
. I . I I .1� I I , . , , � '.1 '� :'. � . ':
- .
- . . � - I . ' . . I . - - � ,. . - . � - L. � .. � I . L I i ;1� -4 , .'. ' ': . '.' . .
' ( I . . . : . .' � . , 1-1 . -' .
.'. . . , . . . . . ' . . ... �'L '. . - . � I e �' I ' ' ' - .. 1: I � V., yv'-_� '� I � I . . I I I : , - .- - .I-::'. 5! .
I ., I � , .. ' " : ' . � . I � . � � , . , .' - , I �. I . , .
. " I . 0 ..' I .. I ' ' ' " - - - . ,
. I � _. . -- - .
" - . . � A - % ' '. ;,., 7 �' , I : ' - - : ,r , - � .
- � . I . . . �
. . . . "� � , I-, 11 � , . wl , . . . . . I - I . .1 % 4 - � I . - I . : - I I . ;k . � L ' ' , ' ' - W' .% �' : " . r: � . � _ ... �' :�-" , .
. . -� ';..,�- " ; I-- - � . . �:' /' ' . - e ' I I I& I � 1, . �� , � ,� . � - '-� - ..'-1
. . I . I I ^;� _,V r I . I � L I I � � I . . . - '� ..' - - %. �. ._� .1
�
. . � � � . . . I I - - - ­ -
�
L . � � . I ". j , '_' .' , , - . ..: : � "'� . .-/. r I .4. f f , ` - ' " - . - . � . . - I I : � -, - .- - - - - ,-.., - - - L ,j. e, I
. , . � , , , � :. .. � � 1�1 I I �. � I. . I ' � , r. ' . ,' , , . . . . . - ; - , . %. � . , � '� -,
� - . , \ I I ' . , , i . L I . . ; � �� .-, , . ;. .. '� -
. , .. I .1 - ." % - - � i . - L I - i 4_1 , . . . . . I 0 . . .' ,
� . ­ '. - � � , , � . �. -�- , '�' , - . I . I . _ ( ' .t� I . . , � . . I � . 11 . ;.
. -
. I I . L � . I k ' .# - - . , .. . . . . I .
.. . .' " . 41 / . I I ." I'll- _' - . . � I I I ,. '.
I . - L - . . I . '� � : , , , . .- , - , 2 .;-. �.­ , '�" "' � � .. f. ' ,�
I : . . : . � . : j.Q
I , . . � �. - .1. '. I . - . I I � . �� ". . . I I - iL, L - ' - L L . . � .: �
I . . . .. I 40 - . .41 � , .. e - �' 4 ,10- - v I . . I . . . . ,
. . I 1. 1. .1 - � I w1p. � I . . � r'; , � i �-tj� � -'�'�­ - . . I � '4 , '� . e: * ..­ .' -_ ,
� � " , ��, , - I � I " A -P. '� ?. ' e I R �' '. � I �11 . . I" ' � .' _", r"..;L . "L.
1. I I , I . - ' � � 9 .' . 11 I '_
..
. .-. _ . ;: 8�� �' ,I I . - I I :-"J�.' '. � ... W1. � � . .� 1-11 . . . -, 4k � � '- I ' I A . . � I U W I , ' �' ­ .. I , .'.:", . - � .. I ,. � -J� . . ..' . .­­ .T. . 4.
. . L I _'�' r . 11 .1 '� .� f - 1�1 ".� . � . . _ , ; . ' ��' re,
. I . � I. I I "I - I 11 4 - . . L; . � _­­�'�' r.
'
__* , ' 1�11 1 7 ' . r . . r . - 1%," - - .
� e�� .� X I I . : . � 'T . . . . .; I � . 1� 0 _ . � . . �
' ' ' "' ­ "
I : . . " . L ... ' . __ . . � . , IV . ��i . I 1. I - I - . . . ': : -
. - - . I . I � -
I�r I . - IL .. ' ' I : , I . .' .1 . ; . . � � I , .:. ' L -
. - ,,, . ". - I ".1 . - I .1 , UNIT*5- a I . - 11; S' I � X _Mr"' . � � : . . 1. . � . I I , e_��!�C_ _4""L. .. . .. .-
. " �
- . - � � -7 �'
I . � : . I . I . . . ­ ' . - ; f. , � L
, . � � . . I . �L . 1. . 'r ' '::�' I , : - - I .; . . -, -, I -" _: . . . . .' , '
'
I '. '� " - '�"L .. ..' - .. � .1 . ��_,'2,_. . � *ev .. '. '.� h -9 � . I I - ...-. i -..'. �� ir � I 1. � _11 � , _��- '.. . . I.. 1. .. I � - ; - " ... .' - _. 1. .. ­
. .� � , I � .'. _ 1 31 4 , " -rot -- 0-.1 , 1 IL . I . !" L� - .' .
I : INACTIVE . 'r .. � �­ . It, - - N, . . I . 'j ­ r - '�' I I . - , I ' ... I . . . . . --ft
. . 7 , � . . . . r, -L . "I, I r . � '_� I ". . . . �. 4 . V , , . "I . � �, . . - .. , ; . . "I � ': . , .
1. - . .' - .. L . �"" . - I L .' 11 , , -- . ... ;.1. : .; 'r .,!". � . - I . :!�' A ,
I � . . I - ASH BASIN - 'f f .. , L I . " 11� . . . I . I $i� ... . :w' � �� . . , ... . L '�'. - , � . '. I
. ,,,, 1,:. � �'. . .T: , .' - �'-'. - �1. � �. � L -1 ' - - t � z. ,,, .
� .1. � I ..' . I . I . , I , ,_ - - , .:"� '��_ - .1 ­'. , .'P . - L" , "
I .. 1. . -" , , ;' 1�' . . ' ' - * - . '� LL '.'� - "L _ � , � . L �:. � . I � I . . . . -
. . * 0�' - I I � - -�"'L� ­ I? . - , X. - I " � . � . � . . .. , -, ' ' - � 1. 1: I .
� .. I I . . � � .".11 '_� � .; . � ..
' : _. I . : 11 -.I,. .....:��_��� - � �� . "
. f "d 11 - _'�._ I -� "'�. � I A - _$ _41i. � , .' _; � �- �- .,% V, f. I I . I - : I . . . .' . . . L � "I '; L, '. � I
� A , I , � : - I . � - ...
. � �' - .* - " - �K � , . , L . � � � � �' - I . . - - - . : . . I 11
,
A- -:� - I .' -"* a " 11 . � . " 0 , . � I . .1 . � . I 1AW - . . . � --.'"'. . ' - 'L.- .' . 'n � ' I" ".' , .
. , . - . e I - � � - . I . � I , I . . . . . ' .
F, , . . .. . � . ' ­ ' :�" ' . ' . . ' I . -_ Ok%­" .- - � � ' .. ' .. . `L� ' ' � �'I: *_
- . , , I I �; 7_r - I I . '; , ... . L�'. L ,� I .. ' .. �' -
. - - .k , �' � . �� . ': , � " � . , : , L . . . ' I - . � '�"- �_ ' 2- , - . - -:11, � " - I y ." . . I I - . � I . I , , " . - .. -� " . � I '�,' � . . . '... ' '
r � . I " - 1. - , . , I . . . i 1, , " . a .- , _. I . '
. I '
I .
" .
I , . ., I I _� - . ­ L 'L I � . , . I - L I . : � _� .; � L , .'. I "I, � .
" I . . . I .r . L .'
a . . I. '�' . . .. . , ' ? � 10� � I i ' '-�*_ . .1 4 �' . , " .. . - I . . '� - I � . I -, I . . , I . .. . � . I , - .: .' . . , -
I- . '. . - - . .,-": ;, . N � % .': - . . I . 1, �'. . : ! ..' . * .
. .. _` r I I L . ,' . - , ': . � . � A � I I . - . .' - 1� - ". � - ;'� .
. , � � , - , , , 'F ' ' ' ' � I . . . � I �. . - ;
. � I .'. .' . . . .'. ,! L -4 I �T - : , 7'" , '- 4; -, . ,,, * . �' � - . . . i . _ : '�. . . . . .. ­ , .1 . . '. . - . L .
. " ­ : , - � '�' ..' I - I I - . . I . � I . .1 , , " .1 - , . � . .
. , % � . . I . - - - - .
. . . �' I - 1� - i V'-.'� , :.' , - A � V V, - -1 , � �' . �. ". : . . I
'y ' I- I - . . -
'
. '�': � � . . - , I , t r � , . - L, ,. I � . ".:4 . . � , I . I, - .
i �' _ ,%& J�_ e - I - �. .�
, .'
. r- , - . �. . . , ' : " : . : I
- ' . . � " � ; ' "' . - .. ... � : . '�:L ",
- I . . . . �� �;- . ' -
. � I I _ - I L . i ill V �;'. fZ _' I. 1. *41 - 241. '"� , I . . . . .
- L ' ' I . , 11 . � L , ' . . . .. � - .
- 4p- . I , I -. - - - I . . N - . - � I � - . �
-,
- r F I I - - - k� I f le- . " .. . . .
i_ '. .� , . I - I I .. .._,', . �.-� I '-� � T - � '. J�" . . ' ' VP . L . � � , . . , � . . 11 .. - , . I �' � � L
. , . - ' " � ..- I � - . . - - - , 4 , , � - - .. . . . � I I . I . . . . LL 1, � . . I �' - .'. , '' '- .. I 19" �_� .
.
� ". . I I . . - , " ..... - ( � . .. ': ' - '�. � , .1, � . _ . . � V ' 4* ' - q I . . : % . L �.- : �"' " r �� �' . '. -, - � -
. .
'� , . . '� . I . , " 2, :" '.. . - .� . "� ,,,,, � rr �_ , - , .'� - I - �' ' -, - . L - - . �
I _�'�%�. ."-' . .' ­�. �..' �' 1 �5 4,:k,:
. .
. . 1. : �� -, '_' ... . I * I 1._' : ',-,
- � �,_: � , V - �� . . .'�. - ' , .. � �" - - . �'.' -11, _� � % . I � . __ - - - - .N . - L ff �, , .1, ." __.d� - - L - ";!Z- , . I . k-1 1. , � : . I " �­ ". ' I r - I �
�. , . .. , 1�1 � _ . - � I _� , �': L. � _' _ �f�'�'.�:.M' , r - .. - . L I ' � . . ­ .. . I , "
. . , . % ��" L ;' I ". _1 0 . � * Z" I . . . . . . `�'�'
, . - . . I I � - . . .. '. ­ I ' .�'e I _ . L � .'. . I - " ".. I I N ..'i �:_. , , , - I - 1. . - . " - . �'. 11 . . . . , .
T I .' I I . - _. , ""L - I 1 � .. 0. .. -, .1. . 11 _� I .1 I m L I . � , 1.
. ,!,. L, , ", ."..� , . .*. � - I ' ' . 1� . - : I , t" - ," I % I I , ­ � .. %, . IT, � '.� . - I � . ..� .
, - . 1� . - I . I . , i, -, I .
_.'.. , . �V� � . � t . .. I - , , . - - - ". "I �-. - , - . I . ,. '. , L 81
, �'­ I . I . I I I
- - .' -� 4'7� �' 1. I � ' .
- I . . ' .� -
I - ' '��.. . . . . 1, , L . , r - . - I . �_% .�� � . . k - -
0 ' ` - '� . wLl - .. - r " -�-" � '�� :-* - .'.,'.' - ' ,�"':). jL L I - 1. . .. _. . ��­,' I . � '
,
- , " er, . k� 'r V'�'. , " ,. -1. . - I ' " . . r I . .
� 4 L , . : :'� -, �;.z ... (� -' � -' , . , , .'�" ' ­ � 4"� � k.� . i I . � I - I � �.. "� --,- - .- !��- L;' � . I
­'� , - � ­ . r .. : - , �
' ' - � , I ' �' - '. L k - I � . -
- � �"- �_ L ... ! '�- - ­ - ­ - 'L . �_ . _.-� �' - _ - - - - '� , I , 1. - . ' . �� 1 9. L� � ".. I . - . ' ' I � . I ' .' I k -
. .' _ . . .:, � - I , '; r, - i i --, -, � ' � , k',�. ��, L . �:-­�-�. , 11 . - - - . . .1
_�._' , , . �­' _ . .� 1, .1 . ­t� � , I r 1. -
- . `� ' - - 4A ��'_6 . .� - -
. , � ' .1 'ao' I � - . - lk�.'.; I ,. . !'�� . - . - - '. " ,'� . - .. : , . - . . 1: '. .
.'. '. . - :�' 4?;�T -'� "�: -_',- A. ' � � :�: ­tL 4 . � , 11 �� , , .. ., '. tT:
, , I - j4. � "L J� 7 � , . -, , .. 4 � !� 11 � : ' :,aa. � j1- �. � :' .. .C� L � .� .
'.. . , � '�� . ' I I � . . . "I
, 3 . I �' . � I -
, � � ' : ;' , 'r - - ' " .. ' L: .' � i" T I �.-
' '
. I . .
, - � �__� I I , , . .� .. . . P . �� I I . . I . ,
. - � :.L.. .. 1 I .7 - -P I ':"; I . I " I . .. . . �
. - . - .: .1 . I 1: 4 .' X� _� , . - " � L' - . . .1. . . :1 . .
" . �-- , .�' - �;i' - � 5� . ", - .
_� : � , I I '. ';" . . , �i ,� ,' . � � � M I � � ­ . - � ' . �' . . �
le I � - - . r '1' . I P,
. , I _ I . . �� r, A TIVE '
'41 � ,. -�'
. . . k:' ' ':i' ':" , ..."r- I "L.: �f'. �i.-4' *" . " "-. ­��. " ` 'L.,- ... �.�'-'Lt'­"! 'A."..C. . . .' " r - I r� O�� , �
. ,: '� .. 11 �L % , . ' .' r- ­�,_ . . I " . 1�1
. '._� . , '...' - . . ­ L ,j't' L. , '.' �' - . . .
. . - I , - �' Z"'�.' .� _ ..r' � � --. �.. . . - � -
I -�'_, 'C--f, _ , - -- .1"k .. - - .1.11 ­ ' .' . ... 'r .� , . .� , �' . - . .
-, ' : �.&' I. _1� ,' I " � � - ' - : - . ': 1� . - , -, __ ', �._ I 1, I . - . , � '.. _ . I : 0. ,-- t,/ i%k'4. . ASH BASIN I . ��' .: I . . .
41,1y, - - i I ' ; ' -;: .' .:� . , % . . _" - I ,� . I . e
,
_ _ , t ... . 11 , � I '� . , - , . ' . - �; , , . i9l, .
'� . �_ r .- .: I . .1 " - . . . . , � L ,
I � I . . , . 1. I I . . - Ar' " .. . : . - � � . � I . I : � � * -
' "' I
: ,I . - I ", . � .: - �--'!.: � . : � � '� . ' .1 -'i _� 1� I � I ,,, . . . �
! , . : �. t I - - - ' ' ",, r , ,�_ - . .i� 1. � L .. ,:-, - ': i, - "_W� , .." l,7�":' '� .L . - , . . � r . ' '��, , . I !�- .--- ' r�; . Q- � I :_ . r � , ..'" I :' I . . � . I - I � . .
' j � : - ..' � ' ,-'�-' �: '-'- '�. .. . �' - . . .' , . - i , , � �m '.� - ' 11� I " ' ' � �L' " . . :. '" � '� ' .
� , , :' . ,� I , . - �" .1 .� , I r :L - - . ��'rL� '% . .��P . I ' .. ' . I . I . . , . L .�.' . .' , , � ,. .
� � . . ...
. . . -
. . , , . 'r . " , . .- . � , . , � . . . . � . .
. . '. :' 'y '.. 'L.O.-. "'t i� - . � . I F, L , I , � C .. 't- � . , .
, . I -', -L '_ . , I � .. I �L� - _ .! . . r . . . -, ' ' � , - . I � .1 . . . " . . � �"
- � � � . , : . �j.r... . I. '_ . '�' . . , . � ' ­ ' . r , � - - . , � 1 , . : I �' ��
. � __ . . "� .. - r -1 1:: � . . . '� , , , I - - 1- - i I � , -._'7. z *.. _� I.�. .1 " � . .�.,­ ' 61 Ir , I ..� I , . W .
_'� , � P, . �." I. I 11 - �'-._ .1 - , r I . .. ii . � � .' ,
- - L . j � __ - 1, - --s' .. , - - 0-'. - . . . 1: .. % 't . I �� .. �' I
. I . I ..
I ' . % '
. . , .- .: � 'o ' .11 ? r _ � '. . i.- - ;� "L� .. . !, � _.�;��.'. '.. . � . i . . . - % � . . -�'.. . . I , �..L -, k. � I
. � . - ' . I _
. I �i .": -:'-'' , . 1: �. - ,r?:.'� L ­�L."._' � . - 1 7 ­ " . - � I - I
I , - . I � ,�_ 5- � .
I r , -, ­ j;'.' . . - � - . ".� � . . � '& ] . . _" � LL I " "L � I . ]-'� L� '�� I
' - , � . -�! r ' '90, �' ��;- ,.,- - '. � , r:"�'L. , �' , 'r" - �
� �_'L. I ., I . P'# , � .
.. .
. .
, r � .� . � - I , � ' . I I - , - - ..�L. - I .. I %, I . . . - - .. . . . . I - , '! ,. " '' . .
- ' . . .. . , ,. , .
f+' . % ..�'�'� , _.' : , . . _ r L, I _�_ . . . . . �: ­: . r . .1 fa\ � ...- : , . ,
L ."' � �' - I I I I :' .' I., . . . I _­ I " �' .', ,;r­..','�_.­' r. ,'L .1 ,� -.1 I �' � � 1. I . I . _��.� � . , . " I . ..' . � . . .� - .
' -
r . :�' -k .' , ,;" "". . � i - . I . r -, , '.,. . I I .. � I . . I -1 - , - I . - - � ',%��' , YX I ;W,, _':' L. � � I.. I j L. . .... !� 1, - I ' I -, -�--.��' �- 7 4': � . t', - I .
� ' L , �� 0 1 .��' � � " . . fL" , I - %F . "'� _j, : -1 - , � � 1. - - - 0 ;�.' �. - ." I - I . I
. . . - , � � - ��: - r , .
- . I . I . . � I - j.5. -�' I I . � .. I . . . . I
. I . . �
. � . "j, _ ,..r . .- " !" - � � . .' !'�'.�"_"' � .' ; . . : - 11 � '. V, . _ .. . �� .. , k r � : . $7 1 r
- . - k .. � , " . . . - r .. . . r .. % - . . � - ­. . . - . � .L... �.. �' I \ �� � '�� I . -L� I .. I I- . .
I ' -1 *1 �-' ' - , L . I rr ' I , �.. P. . . L .- . . ,V r, . �:' . , .
­�': ! � , ,.-- . - .. .'r� - .. j, � - L , -...� I . - " ' I � : '.' . I . L . I
. . . . A . , -1 ­ � - � - � r .. . �
- ('4 - L I .. , - '�� . I .� � - - . �� ' �. � -1, I � �,_ r - _4�z . L '� �� i, . . . .. ::'.. � :' 4�_ .
� , . . .. - � - , - , , - - ) - , � �� I
N_' I? 1, , . - ­ I . I '. �. . : " � '�" ­u� - �:"_ . � :� .� C�� 'A. -
- .-. -� � � .. � L . r,
- .�. �� 1� '. � . ,.":. , ' , -f , a -�" N--., '� � � 114- 74'1�_ . . �,_'- L , . . ; . � I .�
�
� � I [� .'�, . .t ....' . � . .." , .. IN, -41 . ..e . . :' . . 7. ..
I
. � .1 I . , , , . Ft :�r�i;w� "Jzr' : '� - , R;.-.'�:"­-�h'�-­ -, �'.�-q . . . /* L
'.. . - - - � � .. , .' .. - . , - r . , -
T, _. 44 - * , - , , - - � - _' " , � .�_ - I - " , ,� � . , .
4 I ...S . "'.r'�� .�'* ,, ' '�' _._. ,'-;' - . . . � !" �
� ... ': ' - - '- ' - r '.' I . . w . ..'�' N _. . �.�' _�" ;t._'. ;� '.�-'�� I , . . - ' '�� '; �" : . . I . I 0 . . . . :"?'� � , . . . . :: . I I . 1, ..
. ; I _� . - � . . . * :'%: �
� A� I r 7 - . _* - I . - � .
. - ' ' - . � , .__:% I � . 'P57'.. �' I .- L - .
' � .' - .-.-�_ . .-� L_ �' � � : . . . _rW , - , . , , __ - .1. - - - r . :,!. ".. I . 11 . . L '
­ 'j� L" . I � _ , w , .
-I '; ' ' , . W
.� - - '_ ,;!*., � V*.. I I - - _r � � I
. � � I _. ' . ' I ,". _ " -, 11 - . � - , . . ..
_. �_ '­' _L, . ' - ' � 30 I ..' . I . . . - . . .. .
. .� - - -I. .... '_V -". -, ' I
. I , r ft% � �' . , . . - "� - - ,� '� _0� . � k - � r, I .1 ` m . . . I
� � I';,. : I - - r. . � . � - .. . . � :' �.' . N. .r-: , :" V. "%�. N - ' . . . . .
�
,
, ! 4 '? .. I ��- _� - , , . L : - .- - - 5 �'- : ". I '_� . - �4� ,_ ". . . . - 'r. -1 '­ .. I .. - � . � . - A � ., .1 , . . .,., . 11 - I m . .
, . I 11 --* *** -, - , . , - � , , .1 I �: �_ ­, IV � . I - . .
.- ' r � �7' " t., � _ � ..' � '.,.. ' '. I I
. 6 P I �.'_.'L . . . . ��' � , � %;'� - : ,,, " � - . : �] .. � .
m . ' ' - '. �'!. "' V� - ' r G.'.. 'I- - I . . . . .
; � , . . . . 1% "�� - ' %� , - - . -4 .-_; -'.; . � �L i -lm -,' I T
. - � * . 11 .' i - �- .. , If . .1 . '� I ,!: . - . .' % _,,, � L . -� - �� F5 - -q � :., - �. _" . . . �'
.1. . . ",* 'r .. '_:%�* �_ I . .r , '.�;art " '... A , � . I . I . . . -% . .
, . '%�' * - .`� I . . - ' 1� � , m " . . ' I
*_ .. I . . r �� . - '�-'-j '-.:'.�.i I I .. " . . . -7'_�� . � - �.' I " . P ' 6 . I I '�- �L L . � .
- - I I I r ." 7,­�'.­ ', , I " I I . . . r . . . ' * .. . , . 4 ' ..'
. . . � . . a � . , �'.4 . � . � .' . - ' ' - . 0 . .1 - I ; 'L 41, ' - ',': -­ � . . I . . . ' ' -
i � . , I I .. ' .- _'. I � . - r . I r � N - " - - _ _ _'�_' .:. . 0 1 ' . . :
1 Mv . . , _
, � i 1 . % "L �11 .. I' . � , � .'., ' - ". " - w* - I - � I , 'I. � �.. - I., k *': " i . r . I ' - "
'�( . 'L N I f 'k. �' r .1 . " . � , , _ . � .. �
� .� .r I - . . Nit- . . � "' -" 2 , " , A .-'.'­A�.ir '-"-�" �. - ,�. r. , t ,-P �_ L .' - . I � . r . � .1 .. ,,,
.
!1- � - .' . ,.- . �4 � - .,� � �-i' � ` " � . 42 , _'_ . .
' .. I . : �� % , ;. , . I , " , � " , ,. '. - - - .. I .. I , I ;.� C,
. � .. . .:
"
.
L - '- - �'. . , _.. � " . r I
. . .� '0 r. �
-
� -i � �C' , , . . .� f ) �'
. r, r.
i: . I �' . I - kj�.- -L . . . . . �_ � . . . 11 - � " I . . I -1 . � I " . , IV L It . . .- . � . I .
, ' �:- , - . - If , , I - � ... � I I . � � - 37 . �,'. L � r . .
,
_� " 5 - � .11 , I
' ' , , . it 1; - ... r - . , 11 -e-71 � r 1, . -
1-: . - . �m � - � --1 � . ri� !. . � 00 �" I I I , � . .
" : � . ' r�t 'L .. � " ' ?i, . - ,,' I , " � I i _- � , L" " "S. L :'� ' L � � '-__1 - � .� ' '
" , , .. . " � . r . _: : :.. . ,_ I I - ._� _. it - , ( . �: �
. �' . , I ,.% N � � I *
4 . I � I I - - .. - I , , - .'
_; . � M I . � ,F. , ; , , . '-�' 11 . LL . . . ;� � L .' . :' . .. � :
. .-:" I -1 . . . 7 , - - I . rr __ . 1, !) L . . . - -,
. , .' . . _ �';'A- -�� .
,
# 7r I I .... 1. � - . . - � ... - - v . � . I . I _?,. I . � � . I .
I - - . - 11 . .--.. ' ; . I .
. - . - % . I - '; .' I " r':7��,' �� � - , . t _�- , ,:. - ". I . L . � .� ' i� �
� . . . 1� I � : I - . . . % L . f� , . �
. , I L , . . � _. L . 1� - , . , �'� ',�.'. - I 41 . '. .'r, , , I . -.1 - - - -, . . 1. .-'-.�':';­ '�W'­, " , : � . 11 � . I . . I I . _... - r' '-' - I
� ;_ � i, "I . . � . . . . ... , . , �'.% . -1 I -� r.� I . I - ' i - :- " . I . .. . � � ". _.,. ,
' I � - ;4 -r I ; -.1-1-e , - . I � .1,
, .. � 0. ' ' z . . -, . q r, - - '. _.. . - �n ' .'
.
_% . � I .. - . � e __ I ' - I . . . � . , , .1 . ,- .q, -... , , . - I - _f7r , �'. I _.. - . .. - . .�'. I ' . "..;. �' �� . � � _.
. k 'F . - � . . . I
k
- '. ' I - I . __ . I � . I � . . -� k � , ,- �_ ;'_' - 1, r- .,"- -� r �� ` ... 1. L . , I I
­ - . I . ' - � � . . : �' _. I '� . �� I . . � . : � ...' .
�
- - ' � . I . - ­.., - ' . . ­ I k � , - . - . �­ "' - N' I �'.'_ � : ' , . . L I . . "7.,.,
-
I . . .
. L
: . I . .. I I . " :-� . . - . � . :� , � , I
: . .� I - . , ,:' �� . , - .'� � : . r L
I � - r ' I .'.. 1� - - ' . r . . .
I - _ 'f , 1 7. 15, _* I , �: , I .' . . . . - I
- ` � ' I `/. - .
� . . � '7 . . , . . . � � , 11 , : r _"..' :'. KQ .;�.j�711 ".. ; , ." I , : i - , w re'�" '
.
'�
. , , � f - � r . . . ,�� --. L� 1� 1� �' . : - " ` "2 � - ka' . I-,- - .
L , :�s . �� .1,
1, ' ' .�..­ ..4 � .
. . . 'x, '.: !
- ,
I ,� . . . - � . I r --� :1-1.1 . L I " � _­' - . �' . I .�' 11 - - .- ' : . , . I . . .- ­ !" �r .
;�'j�_ 1�e _ r :.' - A -� , . ." f �� : 'j_ . . - � � . ' ­ . I . . I - ,.
. . ' . . : , '� *'� . '84 I �' .1 . 1 ,-��:� _!� _ . �(-_' , )�% ' . I ' .'Mc ­ . I ": i:' � ' . � �. . . � 1L.
� . - .r , � . r , . �
. 'r . . - ,,, I . -_'�v .' , - - _. ­.. r : , . . ' � . , V. . P. ": k. L
" 0 � - , I - -jj .� _11 � . .
. � � ,
.
� � , � ��
N - 0 lf.l�-- - ') ,
I I
- � : , - . 85 j . . r'C' � )��' ­_ "' . � _�0�7. I � - -k -� ' I , . . 7 L . �
r "_ , $ - , . � I L . . . . . � . . I . r � .
�' I .4- ' " _ - .. - - ` :' , , . . . � '. r . , . . .1 . .
I � . � � . N *" 0 �-6_6 , � : I ,':'�'., ,, '� . % 'N ;' .- I .'� .'� ,I I _'� �-"�_., :' " - ;�� - � . I I I I L I � � I '. I I I - I
� - . __� . I � .� , r "
. . r , . r * 0 '
. . . . , ;1 '�; , � . . . , *. r I ... 0� ' .� ' '-: - 'I" ' . . I . I . . � 'r , , I ' ' �' .. . . I., I . , -71 . . �'
, , . .. . ' , 1�7';' �:' � - .' ' .' -L L - I 7`3C W, ' L.
" " , F I #NN 0 � �.' � , . __ � -",[-"' L I , . � ': N" -, r " . L. , . -, . ,. . . a ." _' . I L .. -
,
I I � �­ :!�W --� ��"_ . ' . � .. �'- . ..; , . I '� ':;:' b L . . I
.
.
`� . : - , '. I I � �. � I . I . , - .� , ­_ _. . I .. � I _,"I 'r. , I . � '% I..... _� _.' I .. .I..., . . . _. � ­ . � I
r I , . . -"� _� !r�.* . _; _1� � , If ..% '. - - , , , . - . . . .
, .. ! � .?,L , - � ..
I , r . , . I - . � , . . � : ­'$ . �' � � .' . . I I , .. � . ,-e' . r, � - - I . . .
. - I .15 Y, '.�- I L - 'k. _. I , � , . , ' ' � - ­ �".' ,. r -'. . � '� _-, -- . . ' '�.. . . I : - � � '. . . ,. .. 'L' . � __
'
.' P_ . *** I/ . .I - W'.. :� , . . - L I . I I � � * .1 . .' - - ; 'g�.- - I �' I . .�� - - . �' . . ..' .� �� . . .,.:, : �. . . Z: I .
- . I �A 'L-J'�It' -
- - . I L" I ' N,,.'�­q ­­ 1�­ . "- � - � . . :11 .. I I ., � .. '." .
I - - I - ' � I . . � .. ' 0 �*'. I - � - �'_ I r
I I
I �' __ � .1 . I L , " . . . I . ' ' . ��'R'--3" ��r.�- �'<-' - . . rr . I I
I _ - - . a � . � i .
�F . . L� **. � _-) . . : I , . , .� 11 - . - . . '�� I . . , . . � . "..' - 'r .. : . . . � ".
r . I " I r .' ".. _. , � - _ �',L' - � . �� I . � . � r . . .
� , ­ ' 1 -$M 4 �-_�� wt�i M - � 11.1 . ­ , 1. L ' � I . r
. b;&, " �:4t.- .'. �'� . .. I " , . " , , . . 1. Z%� _5'. , �. 'r. "O. 01 ' ".r . ly _ .. . . '. . I ..
- ' .�.:' ��! -K � - . I I " , - : .
-
-
- � 1* . .11 . . . . 01 I '��. '�L , '�" . - I - I . 1. . , . �
, , -
'� 1% . - I � " I -, .�-j�'- ' -_�' -k - � i � - .�' - I . . �:
I I . ­ .j," , , - -�' I .. r - I . " I I `
I ' 0 82 . . . 11 . , .. I . . ' , - :' 'L-�%'��.-,.,,�, , ., 'r. I �. "r . . . . , -..t
L . '
I r 'r,' . :. � A - �' fl� % . � . . . I . I 1� - -.--� VL4 ' - � '. ... ,- . . � � . . . I ,. I . � . -
I - I 1. S;' - I : . .. - r - 1161.
. . 46 '. . ' ' . I . 14 1� �.'. " " - ' 7' .� ,� : �:' '�' . , : , . . I � I
'
I I . I _- .' - - � ..­ '�Y. _�' � ' - iftll� I - . - I . .. . .. r
- % 3 4 50 " .� :. . . _"L ��' ��' k-R.W.4 �" .r . .
. I - 7 � � : .
� r - % - r - , - I .
.;
, . . :. , '�- .r . .; ��; I 'K'X"_'.'�'� , ' ' . . r
. . , ".
, . .. . : _L o r .' .'T - - : . . .,..L , . � . I I 1� - - � ..'� 7 I .',­ " " ; �L ,.: I . . I . . I - .1 '_1
I
-1 � . . --ft ." . - 0, V . . . i , ' - r �. I , . 'L."? ... . _.; ql� I I - '� ;' � I,,'-' . . . I . , _1
� �.' .: . � � 800 , 1� � - : 11: ' ' . LL � I .' , ... . I I L�
L " ' - r., .. , � - "L' ' . '. �. I T- � - . � , - , . .� ��N '. ',': ...... �' : , ...... . " .. �. 'f ,r. ,." ".-'.�"� ' - � ­ "4 '. I I - - I I . . . I .' �' �! I , 'r .- . ,- I , � .
.' I . 11 r , 1, � . . I i.. ' � . m . .��. '. � . I T. '. , �
.
,
,� __ � . I : � - - - � - I . , . � I - !. ,� . . . . , , ....L.: L'� !r . 1. . . .' . . _110, 1-5 __ - - - :", ".2 %'� , . % . . � . ­ � .
I _. . . *ft I r , . I .r , '.1 . ".:: "� ' , ,-:.. L � � . _ I.. -
.(:�. - - - - " L , I - . L , - , , " " I . el .!
I " . - -ft '1� , ',� - - , : , , . , _ . _ � ��' k?:� � I I .
'P' . " : ' I .r j : - '7-'3 - - - _'� - , � . . , , '� . . . , I " , ] ! , . . ' I - ?�' : .. � L I . � . I
r : . . - - . � , ', '7 , . .. '� - . � L � IV r - � � ' ' . . - . I I � . I , . �
. � % ' ' 0 - �
� . . _ , r . � , - m -ft .� I ":� . � .. . I �.' . . . - �' . . I L - I - . I -;: .. �'�. �' . % .' . � �
- L I . I . . I
I . � " _. , .' .,� , .;. ., - " : . . � .. r . -� . 1. . . � . �r I � . ,' 11 . . �:
'�� 'Ill ' I - I " Z.z ftft 'Ift �" i r .. L ra , ' "� -, � -�� � .. . : � I . I L
. I : I - - . ', . I - .'. �"�� ' ' , % �­ . .4 1 . ,
- , . - . - . I I I I I I � I r , � ' ' _ � - � r I - � I . '. I 1, . ". � -t ".ql� r It .. � ; I , ,- -
.. .. . 1% I . � � � " . �� . . ... I - - , . � . . . . ;�r . L ,: ;� .. � - - 1. .7 1 1 �
I L - . .': I : . ' '� � - L I . ".��. '.. � :. : � ,_ % - � � . , ' ' r . ' - , . . I
- I - - - . "' � � - _. .'? _ , � � - � . . �
. . I . . I - ','L�" I 7- , �' " , . I � ­ I - . - . . _ '� I ­i� - L . 1. ..� � .
- -
' � � . , . ,� 'e - ,- . ., , - �'�:�' � . � � r , , , C '.� . ' "� . A
� . �_' L - - � � - . 1. � '_� ' ' - :� � '�' 11 � '. N ... I
11 k" - � _' L - I . - � I . : . - ... .- _': ,. : ' d � I
. � � . I _ � I . . �' , " -, --L4, � � . - A . r �
I I � � . . . I � . I - , '19 4 - j� , . .. 4: I - - , -'�O'� �T�'_ , � ",*4`11 . .
I jW , . , , : _;_ ", : : � _'N I.: .. , , , I ,
,
� _ I . � L - I - - . I _.:: :. - - L _ . . . I 1
As �;:. . 6b .1 . ' I . � . . I .. � . . ' � r � I I ' �11 L .. 'r " __ � .. � . .. I I ?z : . I . . ,' _. � 1V � '� . ��: . � . -1 - :'
- . - . .'�� r . .17 -
. r. �
I . � . . , - . , - ; - ��' ,.. . ,�'J��' . , , I I . - . . ;_ - L r'L � �� . .
fe � , , - IN I � ' 01% . �
I , � % . I I ­ . � I . . r . I �T_ __ . I 41 . , .. 7"�' 7" r ­ .'j�.' * 3 ,� /
. W 1. - . � � - - ­'. _ . . . f * L � : ' . r. - �4� - ' I I -t � L � � , � _' �
- I .' '�' - . W _ 11� - I
'
#P" . - .. ' * ' k .. , � - , 4 ,.r"- , _-L - - - . � _ _ ' I . . I ' ' . . i4l..' . r . � I '�. I
': ��
I '. ;' r. _ . . , '� � I � � :" L' I , _� ; . . ..' ... ­,' - I , . I �� . "." . . - - I . � " P " I . . .1 .
. ' ' r � � .1 46?� - '.. ... �­ � ..":%-, .$;.qy . . ;1.1# - I
�2 �' I . . ­ � -1 . - . . I jf.�' 1-1 , . � .�. , ..* '? . �'� . I
�
. . I _k � , �j - 1: ;
,I � "i# ?'. I .. � .� 'j, . % V7 , : .'� - '�."­ . ." e ;;�.
;__ L I . ��. � �. '�_ - :. � - - -�' � .L . '-, � .
- 4. . L . � - - _. " . - I ,111 r.. ­ L . . 1. - _t , . . . . . I % I I ' r r . I
. . . I - �' ,,-" 11 4� - 10* .
. 4 . I . . * N ,*. - % � . � I 1 .41_1_�__11141 "L� . ":!.. !
. F . !� -%�-' - - .-
- , . �� I I.. . . , r � . - _ . , P,
% 'V . . . I . . . 7 , . _ , �- '. �
- L - * - I I �:;� . � _� " . , - , �';Z .�j. 7,�;' ;,�,­ �. �'L�_' �_:t;� . r .,,r; � . I . . .
- . .' Z ,r � '1% Z' . . ­�':_ ' . ' , , le ' . � � . . I -
. . �*-�- , -'. -' , - ,_ L ; " 5-'
. . : .. r �,V t '. _� . �r - - ,4'. - , - - of" L i 'yo , ;. 5 � '
'L � . , . I � . 'N V� A: I I -.1 k i . �
.f . 1. - . . . �' �01 - '� .. �L' . � : .1 ' . . - . - g.4 .� _ � _ L .1 . . . W � , ' . ' 4 .. k, " I � - . � - V_ . . . . . :
'
, , - " � . . . .A .
,
'* . .-. - -i - .-,.. I . .7^1' . -.;, -�. t� .4" .. ' _ ��' . I - 0 "Rpb�q'%#f- .
I '_14 -11 . ^1' ," , L ;3�: � r : :
I - . , ­ ;' "
� �
� r . - i � '. � I . � ,_ 'r . I %. P. - L.. ' ' L ' 1 11�1� " � - ;�- -, '. , I.. � TO � . �-' rp"V%,, , �
, * r . �*P' r I I . L ";' . , -
. . .
. ' � L
'� . ' '. � " , . . , '.. *4 _1W41 . L%.��.. Let �- -_ !'t_ P�' -0-- , I I - - .1. t - �' - "
-e " % . ,
. . .. . .' - � ..� . , , - * 77'r . - e - - ;�d- lkl-'�' �-' , %P - -�- '.. - I
, . - " - . e : , r
- ' .1. . - '. . � _ . . . -, I !'�- � 30�1 ,i%"k A.. : __ . - - r - % ' .. '. - / I
' """ , 't, � ' ';' , : , " ;
I 11 I - . � . '� Ltw:��' " � ,_ , , � � ` . . " 'k - - -�
, :: . .' I . ' --�*�
. I .
.. I & . . . . . .'.... ! _� , � ­Wftyk. - ftft :If�i �S' L - - I W'� ; - % - 14, ' L � - . , . � j X '-Tr- 'r- , 14 - , - r . . -0 ��'
- � I - ,11 k - 40 . . ' : - _ , 11
, " . r , .
. . � _. I . , ..; r ; . . - - ._1 r" I � _1L F, .. "_ - . - . - _. .
, . ,
. ­ I �-ek' ­% - - � �� �' .- � : . 4 , I I %. ,
I � I- ..�� : � 44w;, . � � , � , r .�.: !� �. �. . vr , I �� ,
.1 % i � .. .4*' , . �' �. . .-
- ' . I
�f� � . . '� v& . .1,; �, t , 2�;'L' `­�: '; ' ' ' -, .. ' . - . 4 1 . '. -
, 'I- - -% .: , -. , I L . . - . , c A : 4*- t 1 �4 ", - . _
L " i- t ��FZ4-�4 -%�-- . � z '�_-' �. '_ � . I :1 : - �' . . ­
. L �L' L . '_ I . -� '� .- - �. . , � � I
2 . �' . � . . . . '. � . I � ' - . � - .. * ' . . L 1r, . jL . �4- `7-'� _ 4 ' ., .. . � - . � - " �r , . L ... . I � , . . � '�' � - .. :' : ,:"- .
- . I % I .. I I LANDFILL . . I �� .. , L ' .' . � . -� - - -� , � .. I . "-* r ,­,�_:- , "�f�'�-Y * ", L � - 1-1 '. .. , ': . , � -' 1",i '��' %. � , �1 . � . r �' � . ..
- � .
r -A.ek - ,;,- I .. - 11F - L" 71�_ 1 ... ', � . . . I V -t ' - .
1. . .. , . . I.., ", . ,r .� , - 0 -� '- . . �"' . : , ,q ,", , -F - �z ��. : . .. , �� I . , I .. e ,
. , o- . N : . . 'A'�' ,,, . � _4"' -1 , f�" I . :... � �_ & .� 14 � � : I ..' U. . ,'r.' , L
- V : , .'.� - �;k . ,' '­,� _ L ' L ;:� ?.�­_... . . I " � .. ,' L I . - I . - r I I I I I -, 1 -4. "� . - A! _' , ! . - . - - '. - I -
- r I - : ': ;;- ' 1* - � I - - ....' I '_'. . L ��' % . 7. - ' , %. . , . - �'� ;, ; I I I .
�2 1 . �L" I ' - _�- ' r � :'
I . _)p '
. - 1 4 . . i I � - . .�W_' - �:: � , L:: � -'� -!tG'� - ,)!- - . � - . . '. � _ L ' , " L ,'� L I
�2 . .." - I I � ; . . ' �� , . * � :." - .. * � I 1. . - - I L L ' ' ' I - I . I � . '� L.".. .- � ' "�:', ' , .
I I - . .' . , . � . - � _ .1 , ­ , "�_.-- � . - � � " ' * . .1 I I # - , I , .. - - - -, . '� , - . � . . - . - , - I I i . . ,r '�� . - . -% , I �
-
I . - . . . . � j -iy � , ' ' L ' ; - , I �..
r - . I �_ ' . ', " � ' - � , �. I A - r .. , I ... . * � . , , � - . - . - . . , I . _ . 1�
� . 11 1. . 1 : . . . . I -�� -� ' �' ­ �0 ;� I ,
�e , �' L 2. .: . r . . I L I , I - IN:- I . . r - . :1 I � L L' 7 I , - , - - I . . . I L' .� - - -, , - I I I '.
. ' 'L� . .� , . , ' . . I I . �� '% . - �' L , I � .. � �z . � . . . .
. - � '�-' ., . 0" ��'l ,'_.WW . , . 4 . 1� - I .. . . . .. . .
4 1 . .. I . �. --Lj.- . , . L �- Z - .. '! I - - r - . � L r L . . . I . . n . . Al . - �111
. . . _' "j"., '% _:�' r _ . - , _' �� I - � I - . - . � . -
� . . �.' .�� I r �. . k I - r I - m .. . . .'r . � r .1 I I . . ': I
- I .. .
.
I - �'. I . . , ...' - -'� , . 4, I , . . * I ' ' 1: � ' ,
' - ' - ' . � - I , 'T.. t' � : ei;. L ", i , " . - , "r-1 : - � 'r. ,��p' '�".. ."^ , " P! - I .. - I �.
- .
-i � .. - � i1w " I d - . ..� " '�� '_' - - - � . _1W - . L��-r ' ' - - �_ , ,, r, , r I - . I . Z . . " ' � , . � ;� I � I . . I . . . � ', " � '.' IV, � � '_�
9 1 : . : .. , . L _7 --T.'.-.-. n' - .' , - . ��p Z ;jj� _ �
�' 17y, .�l - 7 , r - - . . . I , I.- . '� . , . �' r , r . . 6. ., . - ! -�"�� -,.- �
I � � ' ' .. . i . " I _� :" , - .. I I . ." I ' ' I I A . , . . I _� L - I . L . . . � . ; I .1 - , . . ;': . . . . I m . I 1, , . . . .. � _"
�L " � - I I - t r . 1�
. , , r. I . ' I L . .
� . -% ' �� i �' . I'll � '. � . . W* " -.'r : . . . I .. . ' ' ' I ­ �
.' .1 . � .. , . , - r rr t , . . . . . � . .r . �� L 'r , - ,
I . . . . . . � * _ .. _ , . I . .1- . ; -
. : : . r I � � . , _ - , �
I - . - � " - % - - ' - I 11 I . * T � I ,
1. ' ' ' . ' -, i�_�" ' ' . � ,- I " ;. - - . - � I - V � . .p --�!�" : � - I . - .. - , 0� I " . . . . - 11 I
o I I ' I i _� " . �L ' I ' : I . . .. ., � � . . :' . .."
J% � I _14111� , ' " . r . r ­ . : . . , , r r '. - �
. I I . _ r .
I . � . I �
� I i . . - - i - -V-,V- - I � - " �!� _� � : - ' � �' . I I - % I I __ . � � .
�_ . . I _�'� 40%, -?1W'-'..-;�' _'77 . I- W, -__ r . I .". . �zl � - "l 03 , - ." � . .. �
- . - � 11-1 I r, , _;
.
. �.4�_ '_',�_ '4 L �_ .6;k_ ; "l 03
1 1 1 -0 . ,�
I - � .' - � , . . . I r " � .
.
. . , . .. . � - I -;_ , - * � ^ , - . . _r . � , - ­ .1 k -S L
, I E. �: '. . , - �. . '. - '?, -, s- f 7..', � I � - , . I . L . ,% --�'� . , .
. . . . . - � , � - : , . �. . 1- ;6%�_" - - .' . '.1 ,.'.! � ' � � . . . I . .� , . � . ­ . .. . ,:-.
. #�' - ' : . .. . - . , . , r . I A 4111;�_ 1, I . � .. . . ; '. , - ' ' �". 4*-... , I . I .. L . � . r 1, � - .� , � . I " ��. . I �'!�' `
. ' ' r I . .
. , . .1 , . - .7 *' - _. r , . � . ..", . .. �' "", �- , - 19� _�.:­ ' . , ' .1 " jr . . . . . I . . ' I � � . L - 1. -
. I �_ ' � %1%r� 1� I 1�__� , � R � F I I ' ; :.. � . k"' � ' � _ :�'� ._ :�.� , , _ I ' � - . � .
,
- ?__ I . � -L � . � % �� 00 ;P - - - - I 1. I
. . ' - , L �' , 'j - - � . . , L ' I . �.' - . . I . � , . . . . , : .. r ; _' I
, . . L: . hik , - 11-11,11, �. - '�- - L - . . �' ,.. - r ' - . I . . I '. . I ! . . 7 . - '� . � . � "
.1 . -;, ' _'"_%� . : : . - � '. " - - , - ; . :r . I . L,
. L� � r � . �� I r -
. , I , r - ` .' i.: : L.' � - . ' � -, - ' ' - ' ' ' 'r . . - . . , .
� , '. - _'� - I "' - � . �­ , . . I � - . � .
- �
- .
� , 7�� . .. - -
- . . . .
I . I ob, 11 j ". r %". ., � _' ' - - . I � . :­ . L � I . "�t � .' . - .. � . I .
1. - . i -c � 4 . . . .- . �- � " 'r , L L . I
I : J, � - al eat� �' "M 4 17 "". ��' - . ,r. :" % ., ' � ,- !_� .. .... �' 7. ' - I -A . I I . � . . , LL - '. � L' '�'
";:L . . . W - �i:" �A :� L . �' .. � . ,� . ­ � ' I I ; : �" ­;
r L
. . L� A , . . r� I � � . . I ' .. %, � L '�� ' - � �. L. L r � 'L . - , *i.1r:1 .
%'�: '�'. !7 , ' ..' I . I - � S _' III' - _, ., r, �d 1 1� .1 _* ! �' "I 00 . - L . . � I . .. . - - I . ..
,I - L: .', **�ftw. .. . * It . : - - ' �� L " ' , ' ' ' �
I I Aixl� - . � . I j� .1r., ' I I
I. . ' : � - �. '. .. .. ... .-.--o so , . ", � - , ' �r, ' r, ,(� ,:L: r ' , , r , � L . . . . -
rt I - . . J_or -It ;� -1 "­: ­. - ,", - ;'-'­ . , - .. A ' . I ,' L . � � . I I � .1. I � r "�- 1,
" . .... .: �_ . - ��.�: , �_ - - I � � . I . . � . . L � �" I . � L . I
� ,:. ; �� .k- '�� � - .' -- -im, " i - ... '.; � - � r r .� . � I . . . I r. I .
6 . . .� �- .' . . I I r �
,
I � . �� . � , A , j� '
,
. * 'V ,
, , .. j, -, � I .!�_ � - I � I . . . . . . . � �. . .
. '. . - - - I - . I 1, :�r � �kj� .1k , .�. I . , %� . _ . _3 . I . I I L .1 . r - . I . . '.�' ..' .
2 R" I 1 7 � 6-"., r�� .L T ; . . - � - . . � . - I/ - . . . . L . I ,� . . I . . � � �_
6 11 " ,.,4- . L�_,-. L � _ __ . '�a j'J'Z i ." 1� - �. r � - e .. � . I � I I . :� .. ,
9 1 '4 1 L , . .:L � � � . � - , -
:'r' .. . . . � , '; - . - .. , � I . �' - 'J' r . ' ' '
- . L 4"'. , , � - , , - r . . . - 'r I �_ �i . � I . I . .1 . ., I � � I I � . . I . ' I . .� 1 .. :,' . - f . - . . . - - , .. I , .
. - Lj , ; �� . � . r , ' r I. , I . . . :1
11 - �T . .'! .". , - .. .Awt , �"­--4 6 -"' I � �'� ' C.- - - � . I., .1
��� I .0 � 0 '� �". -7, ' " " , ' ­ ­P'� 4 �'� '% � j , ' � , .� f �� r !6 .0 . r .'. I . .. � � L : � I � . *' - . . .. ." -L L .. , ' " 6 .
" " r � L . ,'.. , , - : . I . I . . �7 1 . ' ' - : I � , . �
, �' �' � . I . . � . � .1 7 , r . L . . . .. .' .� I . 7! - . . . � . r . r I '�' . . . .1 . - _r I . I r . , .: - � ,
. ­� M_1� iv - - .L . . : LL : _. . S , ... � � �� .. . , - . ,;N . - , . .kl _'P � . . .' I . I ­ .
.1 !v - , .. V1.1, .!� �. , - -, -., I- ... 1�1 . I � .
,'.1" . � ..
.
. '- r. -, ­ " - I . . L r'
�: . I . , , , I I . ., - , r . : ;;_, 4 : '%" I I
.. . . . ..� -, , .' I , I -P : : - � - . �= . I I . . � . . . . I , . . .
� ____ I I r , , , � , - � ­ , - I , � � , , 7 " - -
. " 1. L . I" L " ' . � .1 . - .
. . * L , . -, "' "- ' - ��' - F.." ' ' I - . __ : , - -
C
. L , _'. I". I ' - .- , , L -:� .."". , '. C",, '; _� ­_. % ' � _' - - - . I ' . �..' 4- � . 1, " . '; -. - ..- , '�- ,
.1 - � .. . . - � ; ' . ,'r -1 .' , " , . . , I , . . I , r � - , . 1. I . ..... � , i .
... . :. �" . , - ... . ' *� I . 6 , ��.' .. ',' 7 - 1h. . W - - . .: I . , . . . . ' - '� , � , I . , I . � ,- , I9' .
1. r, . I L � I I' . . . I I . L I .. �v �' , I . .' . , . - . .. � I -
r ! 'X . : _.. . - - V ! � . - . _' _;j_� '4. ' _�:.:' 5�:$ '; '.'� . . - .. , ' . . _.' " 1. � , � � : .
I I I � . � _ - , : I ' , ' ��. .r _- - - . .' 7� 1 1
' - I - - - . ,� . .'� , ��:_ 4 , r , L�' � . :! I" I . �.L'�6 ; I . � : .
� , :i.'��' *11. �.. ,, , :,�' ..
�, . . . 1 31 '�' .r�' " : -, I . . : . . . ,- . . � , I . � I .
. , . ;11 �� �� . � . , . _6 .1 I . . � '�"' " ?­' -L., I . � . � � � I ... M� .' _�'. . � %�r � � It": 11 .7.1 --- - ' m , " . " , . ;i: , , . "' 'r
3 I - ., - � L ' , L � k� ; �' - , � L . ..; , ' ' ' , -�' � :' ..:- - . , . .1 41 . -- ' . . & � , I � - - ' - ' .
L � - '.' , - ; - I , - X . L . - : . .. . : -1 " , _ . .: - . 1. , ". . ' .. . .
. � - 70 -� . .. ' - - ' I " ' ' "�' ; ' _�� r L :Z - 1. . , , � � L r.' , _
1� - - � I - ?:; � IN , - , 11 ' I . I , . . . , � '
.1 rr_ , �" .,. . . L. . . '. , :.T �' ' . '� . r'." - ...' ' .. L �­' �!7! �' 11 ,1 . "I � ' �' I ff.'.. �.. :1: . 1� I � , . ; . . - . I I . , � . �_ . - . . . I I � 11 ; 1: I _.'.'� L : .' 7 '� .
I ' - . :._1 � - I � . , . � . I , :' '
. . .
I - , - ' , L ' - . - I � , 't - . -� I . .. '�; 1� ` . I I . . . - -1 I . , % . .. , - . � - I 1, ' .1 . .
�
�
. � , - - - '-- 7, jj � F.1 - I , , � . :. . � ". I . � �ag_T_ k&k : . � '�. 6 , � r . . i , '. . ' �V- 11
I i' . ':' . , 19' � - � . i ' ) . : " .4". ' 11 _. � , � % i. V, ' 'ilc�.' �' - - ... '..
'
, r . " - , -
, � * :. " L I � - !� L . � , , I .
t . '� 1. -, . N� ,
. . , "' I. ' ' - 'I ��' � �_ .' r 1� �
, 4 , - , , � L _' 7, 4 -.";. - - I- F . . . . .. r I.. 1. . . , �
- ,
3 . 4A 4 �e ' I '� ?I ... � � L$ - - 1. I WR .? �' - , - � ' �L '�' f i. i , . - . � , , . . � . � . r 'i '
.% I ..- - m�
I ' , '
' . - :
� L
. 1, I I . . . . ;1 , :� . _' L ; . , - �
- I . � L . I - . . . _1 F. ' - . � � . - ' L
- j '. . -, ' N . - I . IV4T- , �.� _" . � " ' I . .: ". , '�. .
: , . I 1�11 r ' , "' �t'._ - .1p, - . I. # .'. .0" "I 11 ?'� -W, . - . 1� . ,
1. . :F,: .. I � _.-'�� .'* .- . _�_ � , � ___,Q �... f I '_' � I- .... V r 'A" _�' .' , . ­ : ? _'. ; 1. . � - I �
- . , 4y - . 11 I ­ I . . L � ­ L -
o ' I . . , " . . � .... ' ' .�..L L f �;A �'. .� ,'�q,4�k 0% I . , --" �­ �! .' .. , , - !'. I �. . �� I. " '.' I . Z � -1 : " I :. ... � �.
' rf" F, . " . I . . . � . " , ��� � - . I I- I . le . ­ . , % I -
� � . I r q, -, r . ,.-I*. .��%-".'-'*%j­ ' r . . . . 1. .
, � ��' - . - � -�'5��"*t-e--_*' - - , , *rO_ I � : , -" -'. L � �v -,-� ' '- _' . . .. - . ,
- IL � ". -r I Ai, � 4, .' '% - ,�. "I � . . . . , . � . - I . . .
.: � _"�341 1 � I # ' � '� r , . r 4 .. � .
M_ .��" ?-,"�� ._"�"-_� . -1 X tv, . , Rr , * '. . , " 1,
r W . . .. - I . . 2-j- ,I,t-..; �' ' ' I � , 9" "
, iw .r -, _r 1. �.. � - : , �" , I �
,
- ­_ ::� '� ' r I I !_ f j, -� . . 1. . ­ 11: . �" I IL I . I L 1. I �%- �.�,-'_ ;�� .. .:',
'
L � � , L ' L %. � . 1. . L - W .
I - , - . �' � . .. .'� I __ - I . � . '.'� . ­ r M� I I I I I. . I . L 1. . � . 1-1- - �. . . :,.' . � . .'.' . 1. - I
1. - , � � '� . . -*� , IV. � ' . . � , - .. -, . .'.%� - . e I.: , L
Ve . - r I . . , .1 . 1. . � , . " I I . I C � 7 rrrr . . . . . . � - ' - : � �� . I r .. � - . " . , :-
. A �� . .' . _k I , . . 'j. � .. .11 � , - , . I .� . ._� _' . , L . ... ' - I , �' -
' 1� � - - . _' . 1. '. , � ' . .1 L I I . 017. .1 � . .. I.' ,!/ :
I �' .. _';'� '* - - 1; . , �0 _ .L 'L�r , r . __ , .� r.::,..i,,. "" . , . . k 't.2�"' . . � - � . , . . '­. _. 0 'r- .
. r . , . � .. .' .`� . I � .'� , � - -'�. , � :. - % r�
I -- r I . I . . , . - - -. L � . . . . , L.- 1: , .� : . r I .r � , I - I I : ! - - 'L . . . �. ' . " " . :
I -
-
,
-
-1
I
I
� .' '* .� ; .. .' . �" .'...,',' '� � � - I : I .__ . . 1. �. -� , . - . .
:
� - .%F I ..' i ' � ' " ;.' L .. ��:� , , 1�i - I. _ . : � - .. I . ��' I :�L '4. � � f . 1. � �_' �! -, �.':' #1 ' ' ::: _" � , r� . - � " % : : � .
" , . , ' - - - , 4-':'"-'- - -L' �- . '... � .1, . . . .1 I.., " .'� . ' ' V I . -, .1 , eL - 47, . - . � ' .­�:L' . � . I _ I - � 1�r . ' , , I . 7 . I . .
.
W a , I t_� .' " t .' - .`_ I , _ ' I . t' L , ..' 1* . ,..r � r .. . I I . -
, _ _
, _ _
, _ _
, _ _ .�. .' � . . �
, I � L �L .
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
'
I , - I- _V, - :� .1, . � . � '�' � , . , , I , �� - . I I . . �� ; "" : - '� .r � � '4 _ , . � � . .
. � . � , ' ": J�k - * , P , . r . : : � '�' � _. . I .
, , . .
.
.
I- W .. . '�
..... I . � f r
.
.
.
.
k. ' , . *' r. - ..
. . 4 - I :' ,
: : I- - . �� . . .1 .1 �' - . . ,
I
. �.
- , .1 � I ' r L�-r - - � , A�� r . I . r . . .�Ilr , '.' t - __ - - . . � . L � ' -
I . ,' , L . - - . - I . . ;V . . ,
� ' - - � � .�fi ,7��' - : . �� , � L. '4� . I
. , . � . � .1 . . . I L * * - * - �._- I I L I : 1��' e' '� r ' I - - , �r: -L " . ..� � 1. .,.- I ,; % . I . .
..' - �!(y I., ' � ". - . . - .� . �' .' - � � , r: .."
I . 11 il '�. I , '% � % �� ��% _. -1 , . .' I . . :. � It - I - ­ r �L
2 . '� . I I . , -, L. ' - '-- ;7, . � -1 ' * . . I , . � . . � . I - I . '�k . ' L - 4 �X �.",..' kj._.,,..,. _ - , I . , .: - � - - I . .1 I .. � . L . I.. .
1 � . * � '. _� � 4 , � . . . I i� '­ r - , I I . .�' �: . . - . . . .. I '. < 7 .`_ " ' .' . �.,L ,. , r
51 . . . - " - ' I : �L ' % _' ' , ' '. - L� " ' , ' ' ' . .. - . . . . !�' .- . I . .. % � _ I �� � I . � " , - �­ , . . ��.� ._ _. .. .
4t . . - : _ , . ..
I . . . ' . I . � . . �. L . . - 4% .�� .. , .. 1,-." �'�.--. � *�' � � � '' - . . L � . I . . . , _ . . _. I . �0 �
� I I r � � . ': : I 1. IL � I . : . �� ' - ' . , - , :'! - , - I _ . . . _ .. r
. 11 � , , - . . , � : �. , . . I . . . . . * . �7 1 I'll; - . . . . ' "'� , , I : - I _ r. . . - . . ... . � `� I L � I � . � . . I - - : �
I . � : t.'%% 'i. . '. " � . . - . . . � . � ..' :� 4 �:T . : 11 . .f '! � _'�' �� - . I -.-,, � - - I 1. I , . - - : -,. ­ .
� '. � � � L' . � : - :;41 . I . 11 � ." - . I . ;� .
. . L . , . I r . . .. , , , � I I �.- ' . ' I . I rr , . �L � . , -'. I . . 7 . '..'�':� . .
L 5 . .. �11�-'. ._� � .: L '�­' . , , . � 1. I . . . . . � . * . r . . . �. . . r I k -.1, � � I , ' � , - , ..' - -t'. - - '� � - rl;.,. �_` . .� �� L I �';. " - .. ,L . . . � . - . . . � I - . I
. r L . . . . . � �. , . ! , �' ..: - � . _% , r . . . ' I - . .-
6 - . - - , , ' . . I . ' 11 - -
, , , . , . .. � . . : . . . . . .�' 't, .%, r, . '�. , 1. , � , . _,.. I 1. � . .'
' . ." .. .. . . . � . . A .0'�� , k , .�
' � :e� :. - , . .1 r I I . . .. : I . I �' I . � . r . . "� - .. . . .% � . I ­ � I _% , I, I...
.. - . " . 'a -- - - . . � I . ' 3 4 " - . L . . . L . . '�. I . - '�'
M . - , ';, r . . . . z - . I �� , '. ' 4!.*"�-- . , I � -
. .-,: . �. - *;L.. ' "' , L -'� : ' � , .. . . . . . . I . � I ­ . I .
9 I , '� . , �� ' ­ - : . _r . _�'� � , *,'L�:r , . � . - . . % ..: . - I . . " ' I - �' i�� . I P ' _�t " , , .. --. lr� . % . . . . , , .% .. :' ; - i� � I . . - ' I .' . . . I . .: -' � i" ,
. �T - .'�. - , r. I ' . . . I . � . . _;� . ­ 'r, - - ' ' � . L . , . I . . '. ' L " , 4 '� "
, �'F - - _L , _ . . '� r . . . 7. . - _ - - r - . � . � - . ' , :
L _# � . - I ' ' .�. I . " - � . . ' - , �
, - . .. r .. , . : - I . . . . .' , ,; ., '. � - � . ­. rl. .r. . . . % . �'� .. .r r='. , - L . � . . - � .I. I . . . -'� .- I "-�r- �' .' .' �.
� , " � , � , -'. z I., , , It . _'� ; � . ,
-� ;' :. " �- ,; . . , , . �: _­' - - I . � '. _': . L - . _ _ , ; - "
.1 . _ , � I I . I - �' - . .. I � ..
- - . - .. I - - '. __ I / . I I I I _. . : I �
NOTES:
1 . WASTE BOUNDARY IS APPROXIMATE.
2. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM NC ONE MAP CURRENT ORTHOGRAPHY. 500 0 500 IYOOO
3. THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY IS ESTABLISHED ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION FOUND
IN 15A NCAC 02L.01 07 (a). MENU -
4. DUKE ENERGY OWNS AND OPERATES THE CATAWBA-WATEREE PROJECT (FEDERAL
ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) PROJECT NO. 2232). LAKE WYLIE RESERVOIR SCALE(FEET)
IS PART OF THE CATAWBA-WATEREE PROJECT. ADJACENT TO THE ALLEN SITE, DUKE ENERGY
OWNS ALL OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE FERC PROJECT BOUNDARY WITH THE EXCEPTION
OF ONE PARCEL LOCATED EAST OF THE ASH BASIN. DUKE ENERGY HAS WATER RIGHTS FOR
THE PARCEL. THE LOCATION OF THE COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY AS DRAWN REFLECTS THE
DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY OWNERSHIP.
Z
LEGEND:
ZONE OF AQUIFER THAT CONTRIBUTED GROUNDWATER
TO THE PUMPED WELL DURING THE TIME PERIOD
MODELED
��WELL CAPTURE ZONE UNAFFECTED BY MODEL
WELL CAPTURE ZONE AFFECTED BY MODEL
���
� EXTENT OF MODEL GRID
- - - W APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER FLOW
DIRECTION
0.5 MILE OFFSET FROM ASH BASIN
COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
ASH BASIN COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
COINCIDENT WITH DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY
ASH BASIN WASTE BOUNDARY
ASH STORAGE AREA
- - - DUKE ENERGY PROPERTY BOUNDARY
0 WATER SUPPLY WELLS
NOTES:
Since water supply wells are located near the model grid boundary where cells are
naturally thin, MODPATH particles encountered cells that violate a minimum cell
thickness requirement. This produced early termination of particles prior to 58 years
The edge of the model grid is represented as a no -flow boundary, and as a result the
capture zones for water supply wells that are closest to the boundary are affected as
water does not flow across the boundary. The well capture
zones for nearby water supply wells will be evaluated in the future when the model
grid is expanded to include the wells and the groundwater flow model is updated.
The analysis presented is based on the CAP2 model that is calibrated to steady-state
flow conditions. Average constant pumping rates and average constant groundwater
recharge rates are assumed.
The particle tracks and travel time calculations are based on advective groundwater
flow and other transport processes such as adsorption are not included in the
calculations.
Based on receptor well survey responses and publically available technical literature
in the Piedmont of North Carolina, it is assumed that the water supply wells are
installed in bedrock.
WATER SUPPLY WELL CAPTURE ZONES DATE
WATER SUPPLY WELL EVALUATION APRIL 2016
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC FIGURE
CLIFFSIDE STEAM STATION ASH BASIN
D4-16
RUTHERFORD COUNTYAND CLEVELAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
.

W
1.c
0+L
—0.0 L
2
IRON
0 19) > 0.21 atm
A
#e Fe(OH (o)
3 Ll
A O 00
0 � D � Cr
HA) >
4 6 8
pH
NOTE
DIAGRAMS ADOPTED FROM APPENDIX E OF THE CAP -2
REPORT FOR THE CLIFFSIDE STEAM STATION BY HDR.
10 12 2 4
MANGANESE
r` its
Vall D
® © @
HhDdochrosfio(s)
6 8
pH
10 12
A Shallow
Cl Du up
t- Bcd,ack
0 upgridienl
0 Saurr.c
C, I)ovvng,ddi&nL

Panel (a): Example Box Plot
NOTES
1. BOX PLOT EXPLANATION DIAGRAM ADOPTED FROM
HTTP://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/DAV I DSSTATISTICS/HOME/
NOTCHED -BOX -PLOTS.
2. PIPER PLOT ADOPTED FROM CSA REPORT FOR
CLIFFSIDE STEAM STATION BY HDR.
Panel (b): Example Piper Plot
uvzeo
+ Ash M— Po—aWr
• Ash Basin Mater
Background Momtonng Wells
Possible Outlier
rxva+va
Upper Whiskers
75th (Percentile
aka 3fd Quartile
The "Notch"
55% Confidence Interval of . "•.
: Interquartile (IOR)
the Median
i 1557 Pereerd or Dahl
Median +1- 157 x IORln0.5 .
'Do
a
25th Percentile
aka tst Quartle
Lower Whiskers
NOTES
1. BOX PLOT EXPLANATION DIAGRAM ADOPTED FROM
HTTP://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/DAV I DSSTATISTICS/HOME/
NOTCHED -BOX -PLOTS.
2. PIPER PLOT ADOPTED FROM CSA REPORT FOR
CLIFFSIDE STEAM STATION BY HDR.
Panel (b): Example Piper Plot
uvzeo
+ Ash M— Po—aWr
• Ash Basin Mater
Background Momtonng Wells
c
rxva+va
6F+o 0
IDD
'Do
a
yo reaa<
nbss swa
� a�
wl
,� E146
uW-NON
PP"
ac.,ea
04,68 ua.:�0
S
CMW6
CATIONS
cmww"ohme,, Ft w4ai w
ANIONS

10000000
1000000
100000
C _
l6
C
d
U
0 1000
U
Boron
Calcium
CLIFFSIDE
Chloride
j�
Sulfate
T
L�
10
1
NOTES
1. ACRONYMS:
AB = ASH BASIN POREWATER WELL
FM = OTHER FACILITY MONITORNG WELL
RBG = REGIONAL BACKGROUND WELL
WSW = WATER SUPPLY WELL
2. NO REGIONAL BACKGROUND DATA FOR
CHLORIDE, SULFATE, AND TOTAL DISSOLVED
SOLIDS.

1000
CLIFFSIDE
Barium Cobalt
100
J
m
Z
C
O
iu 10
w
u
0
V
c
1
0
AB FM RBG WSW AB FM RBG WSW
NOTE
ACRONYMS:
AB =ASH BASIN POREWATER WELL
FM = OTHER FACILITY MONITORNG WELL
RBG = REGIONAL BACKGROUND WELL
WSW = WATER SUPPLY WELL

1000000
Dissolved Oxygen
100000
10000
1
0
AB FM
CLIFFSIDE
Iron
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
O -L
RBG WSW AB
NOTES
1. ACRONYMS:
AB = ASH BASIN POREWATER WELL
FM = OTHER FACILITY MONITORNG WELL
RBG = REGIONAL BACKGROUND WELL
WSW = WATER SUPPLY WELL
2. NO REGIONAL BACKGROUND DATA FOR
DISSOLVED OXYGEN.
FM RBG WSW
..... ....
Manganese
AB FM RBG WSW

Qp LEGEND
\SV \
1
-
J
O ,sOAD R/Vzo
<L9
� R UNITS 1-4
GWA32BR INACTIVE ASH BASIN
/ GWAIIBRU AS5BRIBRU <
MW36BRU GWA29BR GWA2113RIBRU
UNIT 5 1B2BR ;GWA22BRU
/ CLIFFSIDE \ 116 8R AS3BRU
GWA26RU STEAM
STATION I AS7BR GWA RIBRU I
UNIT I GWA13BR ASH MW216R NOTES
"q,
MW14BRU /U54BR INACTIVE MW40BRU AS6BR
I f/ ASH BASIN I GWA128RU STORAG
UNIT / GWA33BR d
GWAIBRU
r1 �GWA56RU J ASH STORAGE
I AB3BRU�
OUB A '-qjfL� AB4BR ACTIVE ASH BASIN
1krAl -AI
' �MW32BR GWA30BR I AB5BRU
GWA30BRU AB6BR MW2213R
BG1BR
O T COAL COMBUSTION 1� ` O
HINES R PRODUCTS LANDFILL /� JRd,
NGFR RD L � 1 � 1
1� % I..r ....
} -)IO
2 I�
O 2 y�
N W IWIke
RICH
h 2'> RgIZ
O CIU
O IO
p
I�
MOST�CC gR RO
I

1o,40o,000
1.01)0,004
5
lm,004
P
10,000
Panel fat
•Ash Basin Porewater Well
US-tBR OFaeility Bedrock Well (D—gradient)
w
Bwl ■
Boron < 50 gel. strip 0 ■` A ■
•
MW 22ert ---i 00P G� 1B•
B
o ■
4
O O
1 10 C7 100 1,000 10,000
Boron Concentration (ug/L)
■
A
■
ltlog4,4m Panel (b)
rash Basin Pore M -Well
USAM -F.6, ity Bedrock Wall ( Qo—gradient)
�,�,[, p Fadlity Berock Well (Side Gradient}
1 OOfI O[IO l`� 0 Facility Bedrock Well (Upgrsdient)
p0 ■
!. Boron < 50 gol-strip —'• 0 • • ■
A► A A
5
8 100,0001\ A A ■
Q OOP fiWA I IBRO
o A
10,004 �
©[[yy0
1,00 p
0 0
100,000 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Boron Concentration [ug/L)
NOTES
1. ONLY WELLS SAMPLED FOR BOTH BORON AND SULFATE ARE PLOTTED
2. 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 WELLS.
3. DATA PAIRS ON THE BLUE STRIP HAVE THE BORON CONCENTRATIONS
BELOW THE REPORTING LIMIT OF 50 Ng/L.
100,000
100,000
Panel (c)
l4,ao1),4o4
■Ash amain P—mer Well
liS IRy 6 Fad, ity Bedrock Wall (D.—gradient)
O Facility Berack Well (Sid. Gradient)
A5 -7Z © Facility Ba kr k Well (Upgrad-ee A)
1 000 000
!�1 • Water Supply Wdl
a04,
---------------`--------
p
Baron < 50 pg/Cstrip ---=+ 0 I ■ A
A A I
1 A A
I 1
100,000
1 1
1 A A i
w
MW -2288 - 1
d
1 GWA-IIBRU I
C1 ® *� �►, Area 1
___
1♦ ® I C
w
I d b 0
I Area 2 I
�
1,000
1
10 100 1,000 10,000
Boron Concentration(ug/L)
NOTES
1. ONLY WELLS SAMPLED FOR BOTH BORON AND SULFATE ARE PLOTTED
2. 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 WELLS.
3. DATA PAIRS ON THE BLUE STRIP HAVE THE BORON CONCENTRATIONS
BELOW THE REPORTING LIMIT OF 50 Ng/L.
100,000
100,000

10,000
4,000
8,000
7,004
O,Wo
v 5,000
4,000
3,000
i
a 7,000
c 1,000
0
1
Panel (c)
Panel (b)
�� ♦ W ate r Su pply Wel I
F, OFacilily Berock Well ('Side Gradient)
k 0Fad ity Udrock Well (Upgradient)
10 100 1,000 20,000
Boron Concentration (ug/L)
Panel (a)
10,000
,..,.
• Ash Basun Porewater Well
9,000
■Ash Basin Porewater Well
8,000 .
oFacility Bedrock Well (Downgradient)
c
7,000
*Water Supply Well
r,a74
•
3,000
■ Facility Bedrock well (Downgradient)
4.000
OFacility Berock Well (Side Gradient)
6 004
Area 2
6F201ity Bedrock Well (Upgradient)
3,000
5,000
' '
•
2,000
1000
#
Q
• •
t ♦ '
O
1
10 000 1,000 30.000 100.000
Boron Concentration (ug/L)
10,000
4,000
8,000
7,004
O,Wo
v 5,000
4,000
3,000
i
a 7,000
c 1,000
0
1
Panel (c)
Panel (b)
�� ♦ W ate r Su pply Wel I
F, OFacilily Berock Well ('Side Gradient)
k 0Fad ity Udrock Well (Upgradient)
10 100 1,000 20,000
Boron Concentration (ug/L)
NOTES
1. ONLY WELLS SAMPLED FOR BOTH BORON AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN
ARE PLOTTED.
2. 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 WELLS.
10,000
,..,.
9,000
1
*;
■Ash Basin Porewater Well
'�
♦
*Water Supply Well
8,000
■ Facility Bedrock well (Downgradient)
t
OFacility Berock Well (Side Gradient)
6 004
Area 2
6F201ity Bedrock Well (Upgradient)
5,000
' '
4,000
'
Q
t ♦ '
GWA-11BRU
.3,004
tM -- —------------ j
2/000
0
O[,��
Area 1 l
2400
L
0
t-'------�
--
----
10 100
10
1,000 10,000 100,004
Baron Concentration
(ug/Q
NOTES
1. ONLY WELLS SAMPLED FOR BOTH BORON AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN
ARE PLOTTED.
2. 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 WELLS.

0
00 0 �_� .• �
W I
O� O•
_ o(OAD RIve
_
/ O
�
l
C9
��-
UNIT 5
CSTEALIFF S'MEI
UNITS 1-
�
H BAS
AUNIT
I
STATION I
5
I
ASH
DRAG
I
I
INACTIVE
ASH BASIN UNIT 6
ASH
STORAGE 4
r
C
� ACTIVE
%
OIC4
Ok
ASH BASIN
r
10
�`4
/
�
I O
Cl
C7O O
C15
LEGEND
0
..• o0
O
NOTES
O
O O
� OO
O
C
/ COAL COMBUSTION
H/NES , PRODUCTS LANDFILL S O\ O •� O
C17O,-
t o 0
vlo O �
= o Iz
4/Q
=I w IC.H
U JAG
O G�
O
O
(y O
I y A
O
R� a
10
-1� I MOSTFCCgRRD
I

(a) Ash Basin Porewater Wells Only
EXPLANATION 100
A Ash Basin Well
A` '
�. A "k i
v
A /% ♦ V
° �y `Y
Y
/
0 �� ` it 0
100 0 ; . ,A.
0 100
^ V� AA*S i
--V --- i �. - ----v ---
0 ' / too
100 0
Cal{
CATIONS
100 -------Y---- �----
100
0
Cf-
ANIONS
rANIONS
(b) Ash Basin Porewater and Downgradient Facility Bedrock Wells
EXPLANATION 100
A Ash Basin Well
A Facility Bedrock Well (Downgradient)
.� WA -21 BRU
{ /
`VAN GYV'A-11`Bl U
A• ° / Y �<.
0 A 'K, a $'}. e i � 0
° e
100 0 ; P ,A. /� 0 100
e
^
---y ---
--y----y------A'—�— 3t ---
`y� . i
•1`i �� `.� e `i �`XS-SB U
'A �__Y____ 100
e4/ ` fey
0 0 100 100
100 100 0 0 100
Cat+ Cl
CATIONS ANIONS

(a) Water Supply Wells
EXPLANATION 100
• Water Supply Well
x ; d �
ti A
\V \v o�,k
0 \�� it 0
100 0 ?\ ,n\
A 1
0 100
\\ I /A\
\------ ---`-- Pp
,i -y ---y----
0 100
100 0
Ca"
CATIONS
100----y----�----
100
0
Ci-
ANIONS
CANIONS
(b) Water Supply Wells and Up- and Side Gradient Facility Bedrock Wells
EXPLANATION
• Water Supply Well
■ Facility Bedrock Well (Upgradient)
❑ Facility Bedrock Well (Side Gradient)
0
100 0
100
x v
\ r \ I \ I
\
i\ • ,A\ /�\ 0 100
\/
---y --- G / \ x ---y ---
x---- ---a'—--u----
4.4 �x __ ��___ 100
0 0 100 100 0
100 100 0 0 100
C2. CI
CATIONS ANIONS

(a) Ash Basin Porewater and Downgradient Facility Bedrock Wells
EXPLANATION 1//0��0
A Ash Basin Well / \
A Facility Bedrock Well (Downgradient) /
0 100
/ \ —, —
\\ : A\ L° a •°� i
----V --- i \ $ ----V ---
X
jL4\4,\
\ \\
o � loo
100 0
Ca"
CATIONS
NOTE
Go e \`
A
100—��- ---Y--- —�----
100
0
BLUE DIAMOND DEFINES THE GENERAL DATA CLUSTERING
PATTERN OF THE WATER SUPPLY WELLS.
Cl-
ANIONS
rANIONS
(b) Water Supply Wells and Up- and Side -Gradient Facility Bedrock Wells
EXPLANATION 100
• Water Supply Well
■ Facility Bedrock Well (Upgradient)
0 Facility Bedrock Well (Side Gradient)
100 0 i\ • /A\ 0 loo
\/
---y --- i \\ ---y ---
_w ---,---- —� i --x----
�`� �Y __ -�___ 100 ; __ ;Y
yl
0 0 100 100 0
100 100 0 0 100
c" C1
CATIONS ANIONS

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
ATTACHMENT D-1
Histograms and Probability Plots for Selected Constituents

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
Part -1: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well
Data Test for Equal Variances

CLIFFSIDE 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_loe_code N StDev CI
BG-1BR 3 0.912628 (0.0000360, 224221)
BG -1D 3 0.139689 (0.0000055, 34320)
BG -2D 3 0.152753 (0.0000060, 37529)
MW -24D 3 0.003512 (0.0000001, 863)
MW-24DR 2 0.014142 (
MW -30D 3 0.109768 (0.0000043, 26969)
MW-32BR 2 0.000000
MW -32D 2 0.011314
Individual confidence level = 99.2857%
Tests
Method
Multiple comparisons
Levene
Test
Statistic P -Value
— 0.000
1.70 0.195
* 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-lBR 4 3.25541 (0.308612, 104.9)
BG -1D 4 0.38114 (0.085212, 5.2)
BG -2D 5 3.82845 (0.730505, 43.4)
MW -24D 3 0.38553 (0.000015, 94719.9)
MW-24DR 2 0.14142 (
MW -30D 4 4.74763 (0.574388, 119.8)
MW-32BR 5 0.00000 ( *, *)
MW -32D 4 1.29747 (0.199090, 25.8)
Individual confidence level = 99.2857%

Tests
Method
Multiple comparisons
Levene
Test
Statistic P -Value
— 0.000
3.81 0.007
* NOTE * The graphical summary cannot be displayed because the multiple comparison
intervals
cannot be calculated.

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
Part -2: Histograms and Probability Plots for Background Regional Background
Water Supply Well Data and Facility Background Monitoring Well Data

Histogram of Background Constituents- Cliffside (Regional)
e__arium
3.(ug/L 10Boron (ug/L). Cobalt (ug/L)
0 2
151 5 1 -
o ,10 60 00 0o h0o y.10 yo ,Yo tis ,yo ,Ly ,60 ,Sh 60
T Hexavalent Chromium (ug Iron u Man anese u
� 1.0 4
N 4 FEED
0.5 2 2
LLED E7
0.0 0 0
O.)� O ,A P"' NT 0' ,ycY ,y'Ltl y01'• O •1�' All ,j00 ,'lh ,yy0 ,ah
Nickel (" Q Vanadium u
8 8
4 4
0 - 0
Probability Plot of Background Constituents- Cliffside
Normal - 95% CI (Regional)
99 Badum u 99 Boron u 99 Cobah u L
90 90 • 90 •
50 50 50
10 10 • 10 •
-100 0 100 45 50 55 -5 0 5
99
C 90
01
i s0
Ol
CL 10
1
Hexavalent Chmm u L
•
99 Iron Cu./D 99 Man an
s0 50
Jv 90 90
30 10.•
0.24 0.28 0.32 -5000 10000 25000 -200 0 200
,,._Nickel (u /L) 99 Vanadium u L
90 90
50 50
30 10
1 1
4 6 8 -10 0 10
Histogram of Background Constituents - Cliffside (Facility)
Barium - ug/L -T Boron-ug/L-T for It-ug/L-T
20
l0 10
0 10 0
8 16 24 32 40 40 60 SO 10(1 120 140 0.0 L6 3.2 4.8 6.4
Chromium WD - u L -T Iron -u L -T Man nese-u L -T
V 20-
10
O1
N 1 10
LL
0 0
0.0 0.4 0.8 12 L6 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 60 120 180 zoo
6 Nickel - u L -D Vanadium -ug/L- T
16-
8 8-
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 0 5 10 15 20
Probability Plot of Background Constituents - Cliffside
Normal - 95% CI (Facility)
99 Badum-u L -T 99 Boron -u L -T *. 99 Cohah-u L -T
90 9090
••
50 50 50
10 10 10
11 1 •
0 20 40 0 80 160 4 0 4
99
N 90
s0
Ol
CL 10
I
I //1
— -- i .
//t
-2 0 2 -3000 0 3000 0 100 200
99 Mkkj99
90 • 90
50 50
10 10
1 • 1 —.
-10 0 10 -20 0 20
PRIVLEGED & CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION —ATTORNEY
WORK PRODUCT — DO NOT DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF COUNSEL

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
Part 3: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well
Data Outlier Test Statistics

Attachment D-1: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
Outlier Tests for Selected Uncensored Variables
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation 4/4/2016 2:20:53 PM
From File WorkSheet.xls
Full Precision OFF
Dixon's Outlier Test for Barium (ug/L)
Number of Observations = 9
10% critical value: 0.441
5% critical value: 0.512
1 % critical value: 0.635
1. Observation Value 121 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.569
For 10% significance level, 121 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 121 is an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 121 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.
For 1 % significance level, 5 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Cobalt (ug/L)
Number of Observations = 5
10% critical value: 0.557
5% critical value: 0.642
1 % critical value: 0.78
1. Observation Value 4.19 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.636
For 10% significance level, 4.19 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 4.19 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 4.19 is not an outlier.
2. Observation Value 1 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.000
For 10% significance level, 1 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 1 is not an outlier.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Outlier test stats_regional.xlsx
Page 1 of 3
4/8/2016

Attachment D-1: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
For 1 % significance level, 1 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Iron (ug/L)
Number of Observations = 9
10% critical value: 0.441
5% critical value: 0.512
1 % critical value: 0.635
1. Observation Value 13200 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)
Test Statistic: 0.296
For 10% significance level, 13200 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 13200 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 13200 is not an outlier.
2. Observation Value 35 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.000
For 10% significance level, 35 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 35 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 35 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Manganese (ug/L)
Number of Observations = 9
10% critical value: 0.441
5% critical value: 0.512
1 % critical value: 0.635
1. Observation Value 183 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.388
For 10% significance level, 183 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 183 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 183 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.
For 1 % significance level, 5 is not an outlier.
Dixon's Outlier Test for Vanadium (ug/L)
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Outlier test stats_regional.xlsx
Page 2 of 3
4/8/2016

Attachment D-1: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
Number of Observations = 9
10% critical value: 0.441
5% critical value: 0.512
1 % critical value: 0.635
1. Observation Value 11.4 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.956
For 10% significance level, 11.4 is an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 11.4 is an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 11.4 is an outlier.
2. Observation Value 0.3 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.000
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_regional.xlsx
Page 3 of 3
4/8/2016

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
Part 4: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data Outlier Test Statistics

Attachment D-1: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
Page 1 of 3
Outlier Tests for Selected Uncensored Variables
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation 4/4/2016 3:39:22 PM
From File WorkSheet a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Rower's Outlier Test for Barium - ug/L - T
Mean 13.7
Standard Deviation 9.447
Number of data 57
Number of suspected outliers 1
Potential Obs. Test
Critical
Critical
# Mean sd outlier Number value
value (5%)
value (1%)
1 13.7 9.364 39 36 2.702
3.179
3.536
For 5% Significance Level, there is no Potential Outlier
For 1% Significance Level, there is no Potential Outlier
Rosner's Outlier Test for Boron - ug/L - T
Mean 50.53
Standard Deviation 15.16
Number of data 57
Number of suspected outliers 1
Potential Obs. Test
Critical
Critical
# Mean sd outlier Number value
value (5%)
value (1%)
1 50.53 15.03 150 32 6.62
3.179
3.536
For 5% Significance Level, there is 1 Potential Outlier
Potential outliers is: 150
For 1% Significance Level, there is 1 Potential Outlier
Potential outliers is: 150
Rosner's Outlier Test for Cobalt - ug/L - T
Mean 1.225
Standard Deviation 1.486
Number of data 33
Number of suspected outliers 1
Potential Obs. Test
Critical
Critical
# Mean sd outlier Number value
value (5%)
value (1%)
1 1.225 1.464 6.1 8 3.331
2.95
3.29
For 5% Significance Level, there is 1 Potential Outlier
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Outlier test stats_facility.xlsx
4/8/2016

Attachment D-1: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
Potential outliers is: 6.1
For 1% Significance Level, there is 1 Potential Outlier
Potential outliers is: 6.1
Dixon's Outlier Test for Chromium (VI) - ug/L - T
Number of Observations = 21
10% critical value: 0.391
5% critical value: 0.44
1 % critical value: 0.524
1. Observation Value 1.8 is a Potential Outlier (Upper Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.113
For 10% significance level, 1.8 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 1.8 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 1.8 is not an outlier.
2. Observation Value 0.03 is a Potential Outlier (Lower Tail)?
Test Statistic: 0.000
For 10% significance level, 0.03 is not an outlier.
For 5% significance level, 0.03 is not an outlier.
For 1 % significance level, 0.03 is not an outlier.
Rosner's Outlier Test for Iron - ug/L - T
Mean 894
Standard Deviation 1076
Number of data 57
Number of suspected outliers 1
Potential Obs. Test Critical Critical
# Mean sd outlier Number value value (5%) value (1%)
1 894 1067 4700 51 3.568 3.179 3.536
For 5% Significance Level, there is 1 Potential Outlier
Potential outliers is: 4700
For 1% Significance Level, there is 1 Potential Outlier
Potential outliers is: 4700
Rosner's Outlier Test for Manganese - ug/L - T
Mean 40.99
Standard Deviation 41.34
Number of data 57
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Outlier test stats_facility.xlsx
Page 2 of 3
4/8/2016

Attachment D-1: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data Outlier Test Statistics
Page 3 of 3
Number of suspected outliers 1
Potential Obs. Test Critical Critical
# Mean sd outlier Number value value (5%) value (1%)
1 40.99 40.98 260 32 5.344 3.179 3.536
For 5% Significance Level, there is 1 Potential Outlier
Potential outliers is: 260
For 1 % Significance Level, there is 1 Potential Outlier
Potential outliers is: 260
Rosner's Outlier Test for Nickel - ug/L - D
Mean 2.698
Standard Deviation 3.809
Number of data 33
Number of suspected outliers 1
Potential Obs.
Test
Critical
Critical
# Mean sd outlier Number
value
value (5%)
value (1%)
1 2.698 3.751 13.2 31
2.8
2.95
3.29
For 5% Significance Level, there is no Potential Outlier
For 1 % Significance Level, there is no Potential Outlier
Rosner's Outlier Test for Vanadium - ug/L - T
Mean 5.515
Standard Deviation 6.968
Number of data 31
Number of suspected outliers 1
Potential Obs.
Test
Critical
Critical
# Mean sd outlier Number
value
value (5%)
value (1%)
1 5.515 6.855 22.8 16
2.522
2.92
3.25
For 5% Significance Level, there is no Potential Outlier
For 1% Significance Level, there is no Potential Outlier
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Outlier test stats_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
ATTACHMENT D-2
Results of Statistical Computations

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
Part -1: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
Barium (ug/L)
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Num Valid
Date/Time of Computation
4/4/2016 2:19:07 PM
From File
WorkSheet.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
0.95
Barium (ug/L)
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.888 0.861 0.872 0.882
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
9
0
9
7
2
22.22%
0.295
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2
5
5
5
5
0
Statistics (Detects Only)
7
7
121
40
21
39.59
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
9
5
121
32.22
16
37.6
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
9
2.5
121
31.67
16
38.06
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
9
-64.81
121
19.34
16
53.78
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
9
0.01
121
31.11
16
38.55
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
9
1.831
121
31.69
16
38.05
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Detects Only)
1.441
0.918
27.77
3.303
0.951
0.288
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.051
0.775
30.65
2.927
1.112
0.38
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.861
0.648
36.76
2.773
1.337
0.482
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.355
0.311
87.72
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
2.771
1.348
0.486
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.888 0.861 0.872 0.882
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.801
0.803
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.256
0.335
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.753
0.829
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.284
0.295
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.772
0.829
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.277
0.295
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.952
0.829
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.187
0.295
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.985 0.985 0.991 0.989
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 0.321 0.722
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_regional.xlsx
Page 1 of 6
4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.229
0.317
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.388
0.743
Data Appear Lognormal
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.195
0.287
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.263
0.748
Data Appear Lognormal
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.16
0.288
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.629
0.797
Data Appear Lognormal
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.253
0.299
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.983 0.976 0.98 0.99
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.968
0.803
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.179
0.335
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.936
0.829
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.145
0.295
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.946
0.829
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.167
0.295
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.975
0.829
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.167
0.295
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are
not recommended.
Manganese (ug/L)
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 9 0 9 6 3 33.33%
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
3 5 5 5 5 0
6 6 183 84.5 78 60.73
9 5 183 58 48 62.33
9 2.5 183 57.17 48 63.13
9 -121.2 183 29.66 48 97.23
9 0.01 183 56.34 48 63.95
9 1.695 183 57.65 48 62.68
K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV
1.436 0.829 58.86 4.05 1.197 0.296
0.729 0.56 79.55 3.236 1.544 0.477
0.594 0.47 96.16 3.005 1.83 0.609
0.248 0.239 227.1
3.111 1.73 0.556
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.986 0.927 0.931 0.935
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_regional.xlsx
Page 2 of 6
4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.975 0.977 0.968 0.919
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
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.98
0.788
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.147
0.362
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.851
0.829
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.242
0.295
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.858
0.829
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.236
0.295
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.983
0.829
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.13
0.295
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.975 0.977 0.968 0.919
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)
0.298
0.709
0.788
0.205
0.338
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.679
0.753
0.829
0.283
0.29
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.611
0.763
0.829
0.234
0.292
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.863
0.828
0.829
0.276
0.305
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distri
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.912 0.917 0.925 0.956
Vanadium (ug/L)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.85
0.788
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.274
0.362
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.81
0.829
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.27
0.295
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.825
0.829
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.237
0.295
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.893
0.829
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.225
0.295
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended.
Vanadium (ug/L)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_regional.xlsx
Page 3 of 6
4/8/2016
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
9
0
9
5
4
44.44%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0
Statistics (Detects Only)
5
0.346
11.4
2.702
0.499
4.865
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
9
0.3
11.4
1.635
0.346
3.666
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_regional.xlsx
Page 3 of 6
4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
9
0.15
11.4
1.568
0.346
3.694
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
9
-13.47
11.4
-2.57
0.346
7.435
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
9
0.01
11.4
1.506
0.346
3.721
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
9
0.00498
11.4
1.515
0.346
3.717
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Detects Only)
0.588
0.369
4.593
-0.0591
1.424
-24.09
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.585
0.464
2.792
-0.568
1.174
-2.067
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.482
0.395
3.254
-0.876
1.397
-1.595
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.28
0.261
5.375
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-1.768
2.362
-1.336
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.749 0.627 0.64 0.652
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)
0.582
0.762
Data Not Normal
0.453
0.396
Data Not Normal
0.424
0.829
Data Not Normal
0.48
0.295
Data Not Normal
0.44
0.829
Data Not Normal
0.473
0.295
Data Not Normal
0.934
0.829
Data Appear Normal
0.215
0.295
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2aamma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.958 0.882 0.902 0.939
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)
0.977
0.706
0.427
0.37
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.103
0.764
0.406
0.292
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.574
0.774
0.361
0.295
Data Not Gamma Distributed
0.883
0.815
0.261
0.303
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distri
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.847 0.769 0.862 0.98
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.735 0.762 Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.351 0.396 Data Appear Lognormal
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_regional.xlsx
Page 4 of 6
4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.613
0.829
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.321
0.295
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.756
0.829
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.232
0.295
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.964
0.829
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.173
0.295
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are
not recommended.
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets without Non -Detects
User Selected Options
0.869
Date/Time of Computation
4/4/2016 2:18:35 PM
From File
WorkSheet.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
0.95
Iron (ug/L)
Raw Statistics
0.869
Number of Valid Observations
9
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Minimum
35
Maximum
13200
Mean of Raw Data
3340
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
4844
Khat
0.38
Theta hat
8783
Kstar
0.328
Theta star
10196
Mean of Log Transformed Data
6.369
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
2.377
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.869
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.749
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.829
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0065
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.289
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.295
Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.97
A -D Test Statistic
0.473
A -D Critical (0.05) Value
0.793
K -S Test Statistic
0.24
K -S Critical(0.05) Value
0.298
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_regional.xlsx
Page 5 of 6
4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data GOF Statistics
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.961
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.893
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.829
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.368
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.164
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.295
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_regional.xlsx
Page 6 of 6
4/8/2016

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
Part -2: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation 4/4/2016 3:40:14 PM
From File WorkSheet a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 0.95
Barium - ug/L - T
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.971 0.941 0.945 0.475
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
64
7
57
44
13
22.81%
0.117
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
13
5
5
5
5
0
Statistics (Detects Only)
44
3.1
39
16.27
18
9.306
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
57
3.1
39
13.7
9.9
9.447
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
57
2.5
39
13.13
9.9
10.02
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
57
-8.073
39
13.01
9.9
10.4
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
57
0.311
39
13.59
9.9
9.616
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
57
2.087
39
13.64
9.9
9.527
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Detects Only)
2.582
2.421
6.301
2.583
0.71
0.275
Statistics (NDs = DL)
2.104
2.005
6.511
2.361
0.746
0.316
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.49
1.423
8.81
2.203
0.941
0.427
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.679
1.602
8.092
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
2.336
0.792
0.339
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.971 0.941 0.945 0.475
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.929
0.944
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.14
0.134
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
N/A
N/A
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.172
0.117
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
N/A
N/A
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.159
0.117
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
N/A
N/A
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.127
0.117
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.97 0.973 0.962 0.973
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only) 1.136 0.757
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_facility.xlsx
Page 1 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.168
0.135
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
2.014
0.762
Data Not Lognormal
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.194
0.119
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
2.267
0.769
Data Not Lognormal
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.154
0.12
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.878
0.766
Data Not Lognormal
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.141
0.12
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.957 0.96 0.94 0.974
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.897
0.944
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.19
0.134
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
N/A
N/A
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.194
0.117
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
N/A
N/A
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.171
0.117
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
N/A
N/A
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.162
0.117
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are
not recommended.
Boron - ug/L - T
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 64 7 57 8 49 85.96%
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
49 50 50 50 50 0
8 26 150 53.75 34.5 42.72
57 26 150 50.53 50 15.16
57 25 150 29.04 25 18.16
57 -24.28 150 34.52 32.45 28.12
57 0.846 150 33.58 28.75 24.22
57 11.8 150 35.57 31 20.59
K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV
2.637 1.732 20.38 3.783 0.628 0.166
17.65 16.74 2.862 3.894 0.227 0.0582
7.258 6.888 4 3.298 0.297 0.0901
1.958 1.866 17.15
3.459 0.457 0.132
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.843 0.564 0.469 0.333
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_facility.xlsx
Page 2 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.723
0.818
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.269
0.313
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
N/A
N/A
17
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.461
0.117
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
N/A
N/A
0.118
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.461
0.117
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
N/A
N/A
0.171
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.0506
0.117
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.951 0.598 0.573 0.972
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.691
0.722
0.217
0.251
0.297
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
14.22
0.749
17
0.433
0.118
Data Not Gamma Distributed
17.56
0.752
N/A
0.465
0.118
Data Not Gamma Distributed
0.289
0.763
Data Not Lognormal
0.0683
0.119
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.924 0.666 0.533 0.987
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.848
0.818
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.217
0.313
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
N/A
N/A
17
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.444
0.117
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
N/A
N/A
Median
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.465
0.117
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
N/A
N/A
0.171
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.037
0.117
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are
not recommended.
1.882
Cobalt - ug/L - T
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_facility.xlsx
Page 3 of 11
4/8/2016
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
64
31
33
17
16
48.48%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
16
0.5
1
0.563
0.5
0.171
Statistics (Detects Only)
17
0.16
6.1
1.848
1.2
1.882
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
33
0.16
6.1
1.225
0.5
1.486
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_facility.xlsx
Page 3 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
33
0.16
6.1
1.088
0.25
1.551
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
33
-1.908
6.1
1.063
0.54
1.714
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
33
0.01
6.1
1.098
0.414
1.567
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
33
0.0656
6.1
1.14
0.45
1.532
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Detects Only)
0.948
0.82
1.949
0.00167
1.222
729.8
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.146
1.062
1.069
-0.293
0.932
-3.178
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.827
0.772
1.315
-0.629
1.099
-1.747
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.466
0.444
2.358
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-0.568
1.167
-2.055
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.918 0.804 0.789 0.937
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)
0.834
0.892
Data Not Normal
0.227
0.215
Data Not Normal
0.653
0.931
Data Not Normal
0.344
0.154
Data Not Normal
0.627
0.931
Data Not Normal
0.365
0.154
Data Not Normal
0.901
0.931
Data Not Normal
0.172
0.154
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2aamma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.973 0.954 0.961 0.983
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)
0.646
0.768
0.206
0.216
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
3.263
0.773
0.337
0.157
Data Not Gamma Distributed
4.062
0.784
0.301
0.159
Data Not Gamma Distributed
0.708
0.819
0.151
0.163
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.968 0.927 0.886 0.98
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only) 0.917 0.892 Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only) 0.164 0.215 Data Appear Lognormal
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_facility.xlsx
Page 4 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.855
0.931
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.303
0.154
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.773
0.931
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.27
0.154
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.95
0.931
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.134
0.154
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are
not recommended.
Data Appear Normal
Chromium (VI) - ug/L - T
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 63 42 21 15 6 28.57%
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
6 0.03 0.05 0.0333 0.03 0.00816
15 0.032 1.8 0.553 0.14 0.716
21 0.03 1.8 0.405 0.05 0.646
21 0.015 1.8 0.4 0.046 0.649
21 -1.514 1.8 0.133 0.046 0.927
21 0.01 1.8 0.398 0.046 0.65
21 0.00132 1.8 0.397 0.046 0.651
K hat K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV
0.59 0.517 0.937 -1.641 1.597 -0.973
0.509 0.468 0.796 -2.15 1.573 -0.732
0.451 0.418 0.887 -2.348 1.763 -0.751
0.417 0.389 0.954
-2.656 2.168 -0.816
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.851 0.788 0.793 0.87
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)
0.707
0.881
Data Not Normal
0.3
0.229
Data Not Normal
0.615
0.908
Data Not Normal
0.326
0.193
Data Not Normal
0.622
0.908
Data Not Normal
0.322
0.193
Data Not Normal
0.918
0.908
Data Appear Normal
0.186
0.193
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO:
Correlation Coefficient R 0.899 0.916 0.915 0.913
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_facility.xlsx
Page 5 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
1.012
0.787
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.19
0.233
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distri
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
2.285
0.805
Data Appear Lognormal
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.283
0.2
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
1.733
0.815
Data Not Lognormal
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.25
0.202
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.479
0.822
Data Appear Lognormal
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.229
0.202
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.944 0.902 0.939 0.984
Iron - ug/L - T
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 64 7 57 56 1 1.75%
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
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.862
0.881
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.178
0.229
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.795
0.908
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.247
0.193
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.861
0.908
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.187
0.193
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.956
0.908
Data Appear Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.112
0.193
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended.
29
Iron - ug/L - T
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 64 7 57 56 1 1.75%
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
56
29
4700
909.1
449
1080
57
29
4700
894
383
1076
57
25
4700
893.6
383
1077
57
-742.1
4700
880.1
383
1092
57
0.01
4700
893.2
383
1077
57
29
4700
893.8
383
1076
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
0.746
0.718
1218
6.01
1.429
0.238
0.73
0.704
1224
5.973
1.443
0.242
0.721
0.695
1239
5.961
1.464
0.246
0.632
0.61
1414
5.967
1.453
0.244
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.875 0.873 0.873 0.874
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_facility.xlsx
Page 6 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.984 0.984 0.984 0.983
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
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.208
0.118
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.211
0.117
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.21
0.117
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.2
0.117
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.984 0.984 0.984 0.983
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)
0.878
0.793
0.158
0.117
0.124
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distri
0.95
0.794
Data Not Lognormal
0.12
0.123
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distri
0.888
0.795
not recommended.
0.117
0.123
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distri
0.644
0.803
3.809
0.108
0.124
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.98 0.979 0.979 0.978
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.159
0.118
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.158
0.117
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.158
0.117
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.159
0.117
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are
not recommended.
33
Nickel - ug/L - D
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 64 31 33 31 2 6.06%
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)
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
31
0.19
13.2
2.84
0.95
3.89
33
0.19
13.2
2.698
0.81
3.809
33
0.19
13.2
2.683
0.81
3.818
33
-2.064
13.2
2.588
0.81
3.903
33
0.01
13.2
2.668
0.81
3.828
33
0.19
13.2
2.684
0.81
3.818
K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV
0.683 3.879 0.224 1.264 5.654
0.683 3.702 0.168 1.244 7.404
Page 7 of 11
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016
K hat
Statistics (Detects Only)
0.732
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.729
K Star Theta hat Log Mean Log Stdv Log CV
0.683 3.879 0.224 1.264 5.654
0.683 3.702 0.168 1.244 7.404
Page 7 of 11
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Statistics (NDs = DL/2) 0.702 0.658 3.823 0.126
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates) 0.59 0.556 4.526
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates) 0.128
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.825 0.813 0.815 0.816
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)
1.285 10.19
1.285 10.07
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.676
0.929
Data Not Normal
0.337
0.159
Data Not Normal
0.658
0.931
Data Not Normal
0.341
0.154
Data Not Normal
0.661
0.931
Data Not Normal
0.339
0.154
Data Not Normal
0.721
0.931
Data Not Normal
0.328
0.154
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2aamma ROc
Correlation Coefficient R 0.957 0.955 0.957 0.958
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
2.211
0.789
0.153
0.23
0.164
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.621
0.79
Data Not Lognormal
0.236
0.159
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.393
0.792
0.895
0.227
0.16
Data Not Gamma Distributed
1.522
0.803
Data Appear Lognormal
0.195
0.161
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.957 0.95 0.955 0.957
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.9
0.929
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.153
0.159
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.887
0.931
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.16
0.154
Data Not Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.895
0.931
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.146
0.154
Data Appear Lognormal
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.898
0.931
Data Not Lognormal
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.146
0.154
Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are
not recommended.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_facility.xlsx
Page 8 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Vanadium - ug/L - T
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.922 0.861 0.857 0.775
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
64
33
31
22
9
29.03%
Data Not Normal
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
9
1
1
1
1
0
Statistics (Detects Only)
22
0.3
22.8
7.361
3.6
7.553
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
31
0.3
22.8
5.515
1
6.968
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
31
0.3
22.8
5.369
0.91
7.068
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
31
-7.5
22.8
5.055
2.1
7.576
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
31
0.01
22.8
5.452
1.4
7.026
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
31
0.0997
22.8
5.412
1.2
7.042
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Detects Only)
0.667
0.607
11.03
1.084
1.622
1.496
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.651
0.61
8.47
0.77
1.446
1.88
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.561
0.528
9.57
0.568
1.586
2.79
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.452
0.429
12.07
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.558
1.658
2.97
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.922 0.861 0.857 0.775
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)
0.836
0.911
Data Not Normal
0.218
0.189
Data Not Normal
0.731
0.929
Data Not Normal
0.303
0.159
Data Not Normal
0.725
0.929
Data Not Normal
0.293
0.159
Data Not Normal
0.889
0.929
Data Not Normal
0.217
0.159
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/23amma RO;
Correlation Coefficient R 0.911 0.939 0.933 0.926
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_facility.xlsx
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
1.016
0.79
0.168
0.194
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distri
2.188
0.796
0.258
0.165
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.629
0.804
0.273
0.166
Data Not Gamma Distributed
0.676
0.821
0.123
0.168
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Page 9 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.942 0.944 0.917 0.962
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets without Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.866
0.911
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.182
0.189
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.869
0.929
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.219
0.159
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.816
0.929
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.271
0.159
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.907
0.929
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.141
0.159
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets without Non -Detects
User Selected Options
0.82
Date/Time of Computation
4/4/2016 3:39:53 PM
From File
Worksheet a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
0.95
Manganese - ug/L - T
Raw Statistics
0.82
Number of Valid Observations
57
Number of Missing Observations
7
Number of Distinct Observations
42
Minimum
3
Maximum
260
Mean of Raw Data
40.99
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
41.34
Khat
1.424
Theta hat
28.79
Kstar
1.361
Theta star
30.13
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.323
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.935
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.82
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.702
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.188E-14
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.21
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.117
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_facility.xlsx
Page 10 of 11
4/8/2016

Attachment D-2: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data GOF Statistics
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.932
A -D Test Statistic
0.729
A -D Critical (0.05) Value
0.77
K -S Test Statistic
0.117
K -S Critical(0.05) Value
0.12
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.982
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.961
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.127
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.118
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.117
Data appear Approximate—Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
GOF test stats_facility.xlsx
Page 11 of 11
4/8/2016

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
ATTACHMENT D-3
Method Computation Details

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
Part -1: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data BTVs Statistics

Attachment D-3: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data BTVs Statistics
Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
General Statistics
Date/Time of Computation
4/4/2016 2:20:08 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)
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 3.031
Page 1 of 4
Number of Missing Observations 0
Number of Non -Detects
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
9
Number of Distinct Observations
7
Number of Detects
7
Number of Distinct Detects
6
Minimum Detect
7
Maximum Detect
121
Variance Detected
1567
Mean Detected
40
Mean of Detected Logged Data
3.303
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 3.031
Page 1 of 4
Number of Missing Observations 0
Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
22.22%
SD Detected
39.59
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.951
d2max (for USL) 2.11
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic 0.321 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value 0.722 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance
Level
K -S Test Statistic 0.229 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K -S Critical Value 0.317 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) 1.441 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.918
Theta hat (MLE) 27.77 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
43.55
nu hat (MLE) 20.17 nu star (bias corrected)
12.86
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 40
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 41.74 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
5.672
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
31.11
Maximum 121 Median
16
SD 38.55 CV
1.239
k hat (MLE) 0.355 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.311
Theta hat (MLE) 87.72 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
100.2
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_regional.xlsx
4/8/2016

Attachment D-3: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data BTVs Statistics
9
Minimum
Page 2 of 4
nu hat (MLE) 6.384 nu star (bias corrected)
5.59
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 31.11 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
55.83
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 2.81 90% Percentile
91.37
95% Percentile 140.8 99% Percentile
268.5
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
6.369
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 378.7 614.9 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 171.8
228.6
95% Gamma USL 194.4 266.5
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) 0.826 nu hat (KM)
14.87
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 208.7 235.2 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 112.9
117.6
95% Gamma USL 124 130.5
Iron (ug/L)
General Statistics
Manganese (ug/L)
Total Number of Observations
9
Minimum
35
Second Largest
9310
Maximum
13200
Mean
3340
Coefficient of Variation
1.45
Mean of logged Data
6.369
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 3.031
Number of Distinct Observations
9
First Quartile
60
Median
319
Third Quartile
4780
SD
4844
Skewness
1.425
SD of logged Data
2.377
d2max (for USL) 2.11
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.749 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.829 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.289 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.295 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 18023
95% UPL (t) 12836
95% USL 13560
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 9
Number of Distinct Observations 7
Number of Detects 6
Number of Distinct Detects 6
90% Percentile (z) 9548
95% Percentile (z) 11308
99% Percentile (z) 14610
Number of Missing Observations 0
Number of Non -Detects 3
Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_regional.xisx 4/8/2016

Attachment D-3: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data BTVs Statistics
Vanadium (ug/L)
Minimum Detect
6
Maximum Detect
183
Variance Detected
3688
Mean Detected
84.5
Mean of Detected Logged Data
4.05
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 3.031
d2max (for USL) 2.11
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.98 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.147 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.362 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
Page 3 of 4
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
33.33%
SD Detected
60.73
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.197
d2max (for USL) 2.11
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.98 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.147 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.362 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
58
SD
58.77
95% UTL95% Coverage
236.1
95% KM UPL (t)
173.2
90% KM Percentile (z)
133.3
95% KM Percentile (z)
154.7
99% KM Percentile (z)
194.7
95% KM USL
182
DU2 Substitution Background
Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Mean
57.17
SD
63.13
95% UTL95% Coverage
248.5
95% UPL (t)
180.9
90% Percentile (z)
138.1
95% Percentile (z)
161
99% Percentile (z)
204
95% USL
190.4
DU2 is not a recommended method. DU2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
-0.0591
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 3.031 d2max (for USL) 2.11
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic 0.977 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value 0.706 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K -S Test Statistic 0.427 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K -S Critical Value 0.37 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
9
Number of Missing Observations
0
Number of Distinct Observations
6
Number of Detects
5
Number of Non -Detects
4
Number of Distinct Detects
5
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.346
Minimum Non -Detect
0.3
Maximum Detect
11.4
Maximum Non -Detect
0.3
Variance Detected
23.67
Percent Non -Detects
44.44%
Mean Detected
2.702
SD Detected
4.865
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.0591
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.424
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 3.031 d2max (for USL) 2.11
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic 0.977 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value 0.706 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K -S Test Statistic 0.427 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K -S Critical Value 0.37 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment D-3: Cliffside Regional Background Water Supply Well Data BTVs Statistics
Page 4 of 4
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 0.588 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.369
Theta hat (MLE) 4.593 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
7.33
nu hat (MLE) 5.883 nu star (bias corrected)
3.687
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 2.702
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 4.451 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
3.15
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
1.506
Maximum 11.4 Median
0.346
SD 3.721 CV
2.471
k hat (MLE) 0.28 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.261
Theta hat (MLE) 5.375 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
5.773
nu hat (MLE) 5.043 nu star (bias corrected)
4.695
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.506 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
2.948
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 2.493 90% Percentile
4.505
95% Percentile 7.196 99% Percentile
14.32
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 19.25 24.65 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 7.775
8.264
95% Gamma USL 8.981 9.811
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) 0.224 nu hat (KM)
4.027
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 13.28 13.68 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 6.337
5.996
95% Gamma USL 7.108 6.8
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_regional.xlsx 4/8/2016

Evaluation of Water Supply Well
in the Vicinity of Duke Energy Coal Ash Basins
Appendix D — Cliffside
Part -2: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics

Attachment D-3: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
General Statistics
Date/Time of Computation
4/4/2016 3:41:51 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
Boron - ug/L - T
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
57
31
44
30
3.1
39
86.6
16.27
2.583
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.028
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
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)
Page 1 of 8
VA
13
1
5
5
22.81%
9.306
0.71
3.007
Nonparametric Upper Limits for BTVs(no distinction made between detects and nondetects)
Order of Statistic, r 56 95% UTL with95% Coverage 36
Approximate f 1.474 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.785
95% UPL 34.2 95% USL 39
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 55.86
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.
Number of Missing Observations 7
Number of Non -Detects
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
57
Number of Distinct Observations
8
Number of Detects
8
Number of Distinct Detects
7
Minimum Detect
26
Maximum Detect
150
Variance Detected
1825
Number of Missing Observations 7
Number of Non -Detects
49
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
50
Maximum Non -Detect
50
Percent Non -Detects
85.96%
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment D-3: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
Cobalt - ug/L - T
General Statistics
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016
Page 2 of 8
Mean Detected 53.75 SD Detected
42.72
Mean of Detected Logged Data 3.783 SD of Detected Logged Data
0.628
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.028 d2max (for USL)
3.007
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic 0.691 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value 0.722 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K -S Test Statistic 0.251 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K -S Critical Value 0.297 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) 2.637 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.732
Theta hat (MLE) 20.38 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
31.04
nu hat (MLE) 42.19 nu star (bias corrected)
27.7
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 53.75
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 40.85 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
8.603
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 0.846 Mean
33.58
Maximum 150 Median
28.75
SD 24.22 CV
0.721
k hat (MLE) 1.958 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.866
Theta hat (MLE) 17.15 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
17.99
nu hat (MLE) 223.2 nu star (bias corrected)
212.8
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 33.58 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
24.58
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 9.051 90% Percentile
66.39
95% Percentile 81.43 99% Percentile
114.9
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 97.27 103.5 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 81.67
85.28
95% Gamma USL 152.9 172.1
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) 3.54 nu hat (KM)
403.6
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 59.7 58.77 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 54.15
53.28
95% Gamma USL 77.72 76.92
Cobalt - ug/L - T
General Statistics
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016

Attachment D-3: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
Total Number of Observations
33
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Number of Detects
17
Number of Distinct Detects
15
Minimum Detect
0.16
Maximum Detect
6.1
Variance Detected
3.54
Mean Detected
1.848
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.00167
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.176
Page 3 of 8
Number of Missing Observations 31
Number of Non -Detects
16
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.5
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
48.48%
SD Detected
1.882
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.222
d2max (for USL) 2.787
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic 0.646 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value 0.768 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K -S Test Statistic 0.206 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K -S Critical Value 0.216 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) 0.948 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.82
Theta hat (MLE) 1.949 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
2.254
nu hat (MLE) 32.24 nu star (bias corrected)
27.89
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.848
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 2.041 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
5.274
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
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
1.098
Maximum 6.1 Median
0.414
SD 1.567 CV
1.427
k hat (MLE) 0.466 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.444
Theta hat (MLE) 2.358 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
2.475
nu hat (MLE) 30.74 nu star (bias corrected)
29.28
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.098 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.649
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 3.555 90% Percentile
3.043
95% Percentile 4.401 99% Percentile
7.779
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 6.226 7.37 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 4.271
4.722
95% Gamma USL 9.664 12.48
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) 0.527 nu hat (KM)
34.8
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_facility.xlsx
4/8/2016

Attachment D-3: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
Page 4 of 8
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 4.74 4.888 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 3.458
3.452
95% Gamma USL 6.901 7.456
Chromium (VI) - ug/L - T
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 21 Number of Missing Observations
42
Number of Distinct Observations 16
Number of Detects 15 Number of Non-Detects
6
Number of Distinct Detects 14 Number of Distinct Non-Detects
2
Minimum Detect 0.032 Minimum Non-Detect
0.03
Maximum Detect 1.8 Maximum Non-Detect
0.05
Variance Detected 0.513 Percent Non-Detects
28.57%
Mean Detected 0.553 SD Detected
0.716
Mean of Detected Logged Data -1.641 SD of Detected Logged Data
1.597
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 1.012 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.787 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.19 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.233 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 0.59 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.517
Theta hat (MLE) 0.937 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1.071
nu hat (MLE) 17.71 nu star (bias corrected)
15.5
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.553
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.77 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
3.924
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
0.398
Maximum 1.8 Median
0.046
SD 0.65 CV
1.633
k hat (MLE) 0.417 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.389
Theta hat (MLE) 0.954 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1.023
nu hat (MLE) 17.52 nu star (bias corrected)
16.35
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.398 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.638
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 3.266 90% Percentile
1.13
95% Percentile 1.67 99% Percentile
3.031
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_facility.xlsx
4/8/2016

Attachment D-3: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
57
Number of Distinct Observations
Page 5 of 8
WH HW
WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 2.732 3.12 95% Approx. Gamma UPL
1.632
1.708
95% Gamma USL 3.204 3.768
4700
Variance Detected
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Mean Detected
909.1
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
6.01
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 1073 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
k hat (KM) 0.41
nu hat (KM)
17.22
WH HW
WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 2.463 2.691 95% Approx. Gamma UPL
1.517
1.544
95% Gamma USL 2.864 3.207
Minimum 0.01 Mean
Iron - ug/L - T
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.028
Number of Missing Observations 7
Number of Non -Detects
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
57
Number of Distinct Observations
54
Number of Detects
56
Number of Distinct Detects
53
Minimum Detect
29
Maximum Detect
4700
Variance Detected
1165993
Mean Detected
909.1
Mean of Detected Logged Data
6.01
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.028
Number of Missing Observations 7
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
50
Maximum Non -Detect
50
Percent Non -Detects
1.754%
SD Detected
1080
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.429
d2max (for USL) 3.007
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic 0.878 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value 0.793 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K -S Test Statistic 0.117 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K -S Critical Value 0.124 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 0.746 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.718
Theta hat (MLE) 1218 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1266
nu hat (MLE) 83.6 nu star (bias corrected)
80.45
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 909.1
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 1073 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
4.845
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
893.2
Maximum 4700 Median
383
SD 1077 CV
1.206
k hat (MLE) 0.632 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.61
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_facility.xlsx
4/8/2016

Attachment D-3: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
Page 6 of 8
Theta hat (MLE) 1414 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1464
nu hat (MLE) 71.99 nu star (bias corrected)
69.54
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 893.2 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1144
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 4.364 90% Percentile
2314
95% Percentile 3195 99% Percentile
5321
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
14
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
170
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 3949 4473 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 3056
3323
95% Gamma USL 7448 9453
56
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
40.99
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
41.34
k hat (KM) 0.702 nu hat (KM)
80.01
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 3801 4165 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 2957
3128
95% Gamma USL 7084 8594
0.935
Manganese - ug/L - T
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
57
Number of Distinct Observations
42
5% A -D Critical Value
0.77 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Number of Missing Observations
7
Minimum
3
First Quartile
14
Second Largest
170
Median
31
Maximum
260
Third Quartile
56
Mean
40.99
SD
41.34
Coefficient of Variation
1.009
Skewness
3.254
Mean of logged Data
3.323
SD of logged Data
0.935
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.028 d2max (for USL) 3.007
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 110
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 113.2
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 134.1
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_facility.xlsx
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Gamma GOF Test
A -D Test Statistic
0.729 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value
0.77 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K -S Test Statistic
0.117 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test
5% K -S Critical Value
0.12 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 110
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 113.2
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 134.1
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_facility.xlsx
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
1.424
Theta hat (MLE)
28.79
nu hat (MLE)
162.3
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
40.99
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 110
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 113.2
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 134.1
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_facility.xlsx
k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.361
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
30.13
nu star (bias corrected)
155.1
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
35.14
90% Percentile 87.49
95% Percentile 110.4
99% Percentile 162.3
4/8/2016

Attachment D-3: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
31 Number of Missing Observations
33
Page 7 of 8
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
140.8
Number of Detects
22 Number of Non -Detects
95% WH USL
222.5
95% HW USL
248.6
Nickel - ug/L - D
0.3 Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Detect
22.8 Maximum Non -Detect
General Statistics
Variance Detected
57.05 Percent Non -Detects
Total Number of Observations
33
Number of Missing Observations
31
Number of Distinct Observations
30
1.622
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Number of Detects
31
Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Detects
29
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.19
Minimum Non -Detect
0.5
Maximum Detect
13.2
Maximum Non -Detect
0.5
Variance Detected
15.13
Percent Non -Detects
6.061%
Mean Detected
2.84
SD Detected
3.89
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.224
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.264
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.176
d2max (for USL)
2.787
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 33 95% UTL with95% Coverage 13.2
Approximate f 1.737 Confidence Coefficient (CC) achieved by UTL 0.816
95% UPL 13.2 95% USL 13.2
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 19.31
Vanadium - ug/L - T
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
31 Number of Missing Observations
33
Number of Distinct Observations
22
Number of Detects
22 Number of Non -Detects
9
Number of Distinct Detects
21 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.3 Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Detect
22.8 Maximum Non -Detect
1
Variance Detected
57.05 Percent Non -Detects
29.03%
Mean Detected
7.361 SD Detected
7.553
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.084 SD of Detected Logged Data
1.622
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.197 d2max (for USL)
2.76
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A -D Test Statistic
1.016 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A -D Critical Value
0.79 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K -S Test Statistic
0.168 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
5% K -S Critical Value
0.194 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance
Level
Detected data follow Appr.
Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_facility.xlsx
4/8/2016

Attachment D-3: Cliffside Facility Background Monitoring Well Data BTVs Statistics
Page 8 of 8
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 0.667 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.607
Theta hat (MLE) 11.03 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
12.14
nu hat (MLE) 29.36 nu star (bias corrected)
26.69
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 7.361
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 9.452 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k)
4.348
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
5.452
Maximum 22.8 Median
1.4
SD 7.026 CV
1.289
k hat (MLE) 0.452 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.429
Theta hat (MLE) 12.07 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
12.69
nu hat (MLE) 28 nu star (bias corrected)
26.63
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 5.452 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
8.319
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2k) 3.482 90% Percentile
15.2
95% Percentile 22.1 99% Percentile
39.32
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 32.05 38.33 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 21.66
24.09
95% Gamma USL 48.2 62.59
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) 0.59 nu hat (KM)
36.57
WH HW WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 28.86 32.1 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 19.77
20.74
95% Gamma USL 42.89 51.07
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
BTV test stats_facility.xlsx 4/8/2016