Duke Mayo Updated BTV Report Submittal_20190613

4� DUKE
ENERGY
June 13, 2019
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources Water Quality Regional Operations
Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Attention: Mr. Eric Rice (Information transmitted electronically only)
Subject: Duke Energy — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
CAMA Ash Basin Assessment
Updated Background Threshold Values
Dear Mr. Rice:
2500 Fairfax Road
Greensboro, NC 27407
336-215-4576
Duke Energy submits the enclosed updated background groundwater dataset through calendar year 2018
for the Mayo Steam Electric Plant (Mayo) facility. These data were used to calculate updated background
threshold values (BTVs) for groundwater as described in the attached report, "Updated Background
Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater" prepared for Duke Energy by
SynTerra Corporation. Calculations were completed consistent with the "Statistical Methods for
Developing Reference Background Concentrations for Groundwater and Soil at Coal Ash Facilities "
dated May 2017 prepared under the guidance of the North Caroline Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) by HDR Engineering, Inc. and SynTerra Corporation.
Duke Energy requests concurrence from NCDEQ by mid -July 2019 so the updated BTVs can be used to
prepare the Corrective Action Plan for Mayo. Contact me at [e-mail] or at
336-215-4576 if you have any questions or comments.
Respectfully submitted,
,G� z L,/
Kimberlee Witt, ME, PE
Environmental Services
Attachment: Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
Mayo Steam Electric Plant, Synterra Corporation, June 2019
Excel Files
Mayo background groundwater analytical results
Mayo background groundwater data no outliers
Mayo background groundwater data raw files
Page 1 of 2

cc (via email): Eric Smith — NCDEQ DWR Central Office
Steve Lanter — NCDEQ DWR Central Office
Ed Sullivan - Duke Energy
Scott Davies — Duke Energy
Matt Hanchey — Duke Energy
Jerry Wylie — SynTerra Corporation
Page 2 of 2

410
synTerra
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR
CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
10660 BOSTON RD
ROXBORO,, NORTH CAROLINA 27574
DUNE 2019
PREPARED FOR:
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC
DUKE
ENERGY,
rJ �i
J rry A. Wylie
oject Manager

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Purpose...........................................................................................................................1-1
2.0 BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER DATASETS................................................. 2-2
2.1 Extreme Outlier Concentrations................................................................................. 2-3
2.2 Description of Background Datasets..........................................................................2-4
3.0 STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY............................................................................3-1
3.1 Background Threshold Values....................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Upper Tolerance Limits.........................................................................................3-2
3.2 Assessing Dataset Distribution................................................................................... 3-3
3.3 Outlier Screening..........................................................................................................3-4
4.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................4-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Background Groundwater Monitoring Well Location Map
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater
Table 2
Background Groundwater Analytical Results
Table 3
Statistical Analysis Results — Surficial Flow Zone
Table 4
Statistical Analysis Results — Transition Zone
Table 5
Statistical Analysis Results — Bedrock Flow Zone
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Arcadis U.S., Inc. Technical Memorandum: Background Threshold
Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation —Allen, Belews Creek, Cliffside,
Marshall, Mayo, and Roxboro Sites (June 11, 2019)
Page

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Appendix B Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Appendix C Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Appendix D Box -and -Whisker Plots — Comparison of Concentrations among
Background Wells
Appendix E Box -and -Whisker Plots — Pooled Background Datasets
Appendix F Quantitative Outlier Test Results (ProUCL Output)
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Arcadis
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
BTV
background threshold value
GOF
goodness of fit
Mayo/Site
Mayo Steam Electric Plant
NCAC
North Carolina Administrative Code
NCDEQ
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
ROS
regression on order statistics
SW
Shapiro -Wilk
SynTerra
SynTerra Corporation
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
UTL
upper tolerance limit
Page ii

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the request of Duke Energy, SynTerra Corporation (SynTerra) updated background
threshold values (BTVs) pertaining to constituents monitored in groundwater at the
Duke Energy Mayo Steam Electric Plant (Mayo, Site) (Table 1). This report includes an
attachment titled, 'Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation - Allen,
Belews Creek, Cliffside, Marshall, Mayo, and Roxboro Sites," prepared by Arcadis U.S.,
Inc (Arcadis). The Arcadis attachment (Attachment 1) provides a detailed evaluation of
extreme outlier concentrations identified in background groundwater datasets using
multiple lines of evidence that took into account broader site geochemical conditions in
addition to statistical analysis of individual constituents.
Duke Energy previously submitted groundwater BTVs to the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) in the Mayo Comprehensive Site
Assessment (CSA) Update as Appendix H — Proposed Background Threshold Values for
Naturally Occurring Concentrations in Groundwater and Soil (SynTerra, 2017). Those BTVs
(Table 1) were statistically derived using a background groundwater dataset that:
• Included concentration data from background groundwater samples collected
July 2011 to March 2017
• Did not include any extreme outlier concentrations even when those
concentrations were valid results not caused by sampling error or laboratory
analytical error
SynTerra derived the updated BTVs presented in this report using an augmented
background groundwater dataset that included:
• Concentration data from background groundwater samples collected April 2010
to December 2018
• Extreme outlier concentrations not caused by sampling error or laboratory
analytical error
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to:
• Present updated BTVs pertaining to constituents monitored in groundwater
at Mayo
• Document the statistical approach used to derive updated BTVs
• Document groundwater data that were excluded from statistical evaluations
• Document the approach used to screen background groundwater datasets for
extreme statistical outliers
Page 1-1

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
2.0 BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER DATASETS
Three distinct hydrogeologic flow zones at Mayo have been identified (SynTerra,
2017):
• Surficial flow zone
• Transition zone
• Bedrock flow zone
The background groundwater dataset for each of the distinct flow zones consisted of
concentration data pooled across background monitoring wells (Table 2). Well
installations occurred within each flow zone at locations where groundwater quality
has not been affected by coal ash management or storage. As a result of NCDEQ
guidance, the following sample results were not included in the background
datasets:
• Samples with a recorded groundwater pH greater than 8.5 standard units
• Samples with recorded groundwater turbidity greater than 10 nephelometric
turbidity units
• Samples that had no record of groundwater turbidity or pH
• Samples (autocorrelated) collected less than 60 days after the previous sample
was collected
• Non -detect values greater than 15A North Carolina Administrative Code
(NCAC) .02L standard or Interim Maximum Concentration of 15A NCAC
02L Appendix 1, April 1, 2013
NCDEQ requirements regarding the exclusion of sample results were outlined in a
letter and through email communication:
• Letter — "Duke Energy Submittal — Background Soil and Groundwater
Statistical Methodology for 14 Duke Energy Facilities," May 26, 2017
(Zimmerman to Draovitch, July 2017)
• Email — "Duke Energy Comments: Technical Memorandum, Statistical
Methods for Developing Reference background Concentrations for
Groundwater at Coal Ash Facilities, HDR, October 2016" (Lanter to Sullivan,
November 2016)
Page 2-1

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
2.1 Extreme Outlier Concentrations
For this BTV update, SynTerra retained extreme outlier concentrations in
background groundwater datasets when data validation and geochemical analysis
of background groundwater concentrations indicated that those outlying
concentrations did not result from sampling error or laboratory analytical error
(Table 2). The approach used to evaluate whether extreme outlier concentrations
should be retained in background groundwater datasets is presented the technical
memorandum prepared by Arcadis titled, "Background Threshold Value Statistical
Outlier Evaluation —Allen, Belews Creek, Cliffside, Marshall, Mayo, and Roxboro Sites,"
(Attachment 1). This is consistent with USEPA guidance (2009, 2018), which
recommends the following:
• Outlier concentrations should not be removed from background datasets
based solely on statistical methods because statistical methods do not indicate
why outlying concentrations are abnormal with respect to the rest of the
background dataset
• Statistical outliers should be retained in background datasets unless a specific
technical reason (e.g., sampling or laboratory error) for the concentration can
be determined
SynTerra conducted data validation on the extreme outlier concentrations. Arcadis
evaluated extreme outlier constituent concentrations identified in the background
groundwater datasets for Allen, Belews Creek, Cliffside, Marshall, Mayo, and
Roxboro using a data -driven approach that considered the following:
• Concentration of individual constituents
• The broader geochemical conditions at each individual Site
• The broader geochemical conditions at all six Duke Energy sites
Extreme outlier concentrations were evaluated in accordance with the Revised
Statistical Methods for Developing Reference Background Concentrations for Groundwater
and Soil at Coal Ash Facilities (HDR Engineering, Inc. and SynTerra, 2017), which
states: "If statistical outliers have been detected, the project scientist will review the
values to determine if they should be removed from the data set or are
representative of background and should be retained for statistical analysis."
Arcadis reviewed extreme outlier concentrations identified in the background
groundwater datasets for each of the six Duke Energy sites (Attachment 1).
Page 2-2

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
Arcadis identified extreme outlier concentrations that should be included in
background groundwater datasets for each of the six Duke Energy sites using the
following criteria:
• Repeatability of constituent concentrations
• Relationship between pairs or groups of constituents
• Relationships between the concentrations of major ion and total dissolved solids
• Relationship between constituent concentrations and pH
• Relationship between constituent concentrations and oxidation-reduction
potential
Extreme outlier concentrations that were retained in the background groundwater
datasets for Mayo are identified in Table 2. Rational for including extreme outlier
concentrations in the background groundwater datasets for the Mayo are provided
in Table 7 in Attachment 1.
2.2 Description of Background Datasets
The background dataset for each distinct groundwater flow zone was used to
update BTVs for constituents within that flow zone (Table 1).
Surficial Flow Zone
One well (MW-12S) is used to monitor background groundwater quality within the
surficial flow zone at Mayo (Figure 1). Concentration data from that well represent
the background groundwater dataset pertaining to the surficial flow zone (Table 2).
The background dataset for 24 constituents in the surficial flow zone contained
fewer than 10 valid sample data (Table 3).
Transition Zone
Two wells (BG-02 and MW-12D) are used to monitor background groundwater
quality within the transition zone at Mayo (Figure 1). Concentration data from those
two wells represent the background groundwater dataset pertaining to the
transition zone (Table 2). The background datasets for fluoride, lithium, and
methane in the transition zone contained fewer than 10 valid sample data (Table 4).
Bedrock Flow Zone
Four wells (BG-01, MW-13BR, MW-14BR, and CCR-102BR-BG) are used to monitor
background groundwater quality within the bedrock flow zone at Mayo (Figure 1).
Page 2-3

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
Concentration data from CCR-102BR-BG were not included in the background
dataset for the bedrock flow zone used to statistically derive BTVs submitted to
NCDEQ in the CSA Update (SynTerra, 2017). To statistically derive the updated
BTVs provided in this report, concentration data from CCR-102BR-BG in addition to
concentration data from BG-01, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR were included in the
background dataset pertaining to the bedrock flow zone. The background datasets
for all constituents in the bedrock flow zone contained 10 or more valid sample data
(Table 5).
Page 2-4

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
3.0 STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
This section describes the statistical approach SynTerra used to evaluate background
groundwater datasets and to calculate BTVs pertaining to constituent concentrations in
groundwater at Mayo. SynTerra used a statistical approach that was in accordance with
procedures included in the following documents:
• The Revised Statistical Methods for Developing Reference Background Concentrations
for Groundwater and Soil at Coal Ash Facilities (HDR Engineering, Inc. and
SynTerra, 2017)
• Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities: Unified
Guidance (USEPA, 2009)
• ProUCL 5.1.002 Technical Guide, Statistical Software for Environmental Applications
for Data Sets with and without Nondetect Observations (USEPA, 2015)
• Groundwater Statistics Tool User's Guide (USEPA, 2018)
3.1 Background Threshold Values
The Site -specific groundwater BTV for a constituent was represented by one of the
following:
• The upper tolerance limit (UTL) represented the Site -specific BTV for a
constituent when the background dataset for that constituent contained 10 or
more valid sample data and the frequency of non -detects present within the
dataset was less than or equal to 90 percent
• The maximum non -detect value represented the Site -specific BTV for a
constituent when the background dataset for that constituent contained 10 or
more valid sample data and the frequency of non -detects present within the
dataset was greater than 90 percent
• The maximum value represented the Site -specific BTV for a constituent when the
background dataset for that constituent contained fewer than 10 valid sample
data
Site -specific BTVs represented by the UTL and maximum non -detect value are
identified in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5. Site -specific BTVs represented by the
maximum concentration value are identified in Table 3 and Table 4.
Page 3-1

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
3.1.1 Upper Tolerance Limits
UTLs represent — with a specified level of statistical confidence — an upper
limit of a range of values in which a specified proportion of the data population
resides. SynTerra calculated UTLs for constituents (except for pH) using ProUCL
version 5.1.002 (Appendix A). SynTerra calculated two-sided tolerance intervals
consisting of an upper and lower tolerance limit for pH using NCSS 11 Statistical
Software (Appendix A) because ProUCL cannot calculate two-sided tolerance
intervals. UTLs were calculated using either parametric statistics or non -
parametric statistics.
Parametric Upper Tolerance Limits
SynTerra calculated parametric UTLs for constituents when their background
dataset contained less than or equal to 50 percent non -detects and their
background dataset fit a discernible distribution model. When those criteria were
met, SynTerra calculated one of the following UTLs:
Normal UTLs were calculated for constituents when their background
dataset fit the normal distribution model
Gamma UTLs were calculated for constituents when their background
dataset fit the gamma distribution model but did not fit the normal
distribution model
• Lognormal UTLs were calculated for constituents when their background
dataset fit only the lognormal distribution model and the standard
deviation of the natural log -transformed background dataset for those
constituents was less than 1
SynTerra calculated all parametric UTLs using a coverage of 95 percent and a
confidence level of 95 percent. SynTerra used the Kaplan -Meier method to
handle non -detects in the dataset for a constituent.
Non -Parametric Upper Tolerance Limits
SynTerra calculated non -parametric UTLs for constituents when their
background dataset had one of the following characteristics:
• Could not be fitted to a discernible distribution model
• Contained greater than 50 percent non -detects and less than or equal to
90 percent non -detects
• Could be fitted to the lognormal distribution model but had a standard
deviation greater than 1 when the data were natural log -transformed
Page 3-2

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
SynTerra calculated non -parametric UTLs using:
• A confidence level of 95 percent and a coverage of 85 percent when a
background dataset contained fewer than 29 samples
• A confidence level of 95 percent and a coverage of 90 percent when a
background dataset contained from 29 to 58 samples
• A confidence level of 95 percent and a coverage of 95 percent when a
background dataset contained 59 or more samples
3.2 Assessing Dataset Distribution
SynTerra fitted background datasets to various distribution models using goodness of
fit (GOF) tests when background datasets contained less than or equal to 50 percent
non -detects. Details about the distribution of background data for each constituent
within each distinct flow zone are provided in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5.
SynTerra performed GOF tests using ProUCL version 5.1.002 (Appendix B). If non -
detects were present in a background dataset, SynTerra handled those data using robust
regression on ordered statistics (ROS). Robust ROS requires that the detected
concentration data in a dataset fit a distribution model. If the detected concentration
data do fit a distribution model, robust ROS estimates a value for each non -detect. The
joint distribution of the estimates values and detected concentration data is then
evaluated for fit with distribution models using GOF tests to determine the overall
distribution of a dataset.
SynTerra evaluated the fit of background groundwater data with the normal, gamma,
and lognormal distribution models using the following GOF tests:
• Normal distribution — Shapiro -Wilk (SW) test or Lilliefors test
• Gamma distribution — Anderson Darling test or Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
• Lognormal distribution — SW test or Lilliefors test
SynTerra used the SW test when background datasets contained 50 or fewer sample
data. SynTerra used the Lilliefors test when background datasets contained more
than 50 sample data.
Background data were considered non -parametric when GOF tests could not fit data
to a discernible distribution model, or when the background data were fitted to the
lognormal distribution but the standard deviation of the natural log -transformed
dataset was greater than 1.
Page 3-3

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
3.3 Outlier Screening
SynTerra screened background groundwater datasets for extreme outlier
concentrations using ProUCL version 5.1.002 and NCSS 11 Statistical Software.
SynTerra retained autocorrelated sample results in the background datasets during
outlier screening to help confirm the validity of apparent statistical outliers or to
determine whether outliers were caused by omitting data about concentrations
present in groundwater at a given point in time.
SynTerra screened the background dataset for each constituent within each distinct
flow zone for extreme outlier concentrations using all of the following:
• Scatter plots of time versus concentration (Appendix C)
• Box -and -whisker plots comparing constituent concentrations among
background wells (Appendix D)
• Box -and -whisker plots of the pooled background dataset for each constituent
(Appendix E)
• Dixon's outlier test or Rosner's outlier test using a 0.01 significance level
Dixon's and Rosner's outlier tests make the assumption that the background data for a
constituent can be fitted to the normal distribution model, excluding all concentrations
that are suspected to be outliers. SynTerra used Dixon's or Rosner's outlier test to screen
the background dataset for a constituent for extreme outlier concentrations only when
the aforementioned assumption was met (Appendix F).
Extreme outlier concentrations identified in background datasets are presented in Table
2.
Page 3-4

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant SynTerra
4.0 REFERENCES
HDR Engineering, Inc. and SynTerra Corporation (2017). Revised Statistical Methods
for Developing Reference Background Concentrations for Groundwater and Soil
at Coal Ash Facilities. May 2017.
NCSS, LLC (2016). NCSS 11 Statistical Software. Kaysville, Utah, USA,
ncss.com/software/ncss.
SynTerra Corporation (2017). Comprehensive Site Assessment Update. Mayo Steam
Electric Plant. October 2017.
USEPA (2009). Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities:
Unified Guidance. EPA 530-R-09-007.
USEPA (2015). ProUCL 5.1.002 Technical Guide, Statistical Software for Environmental
Applications for Data Sets with and without Nondetect Observations.
EPA/600/R07/041.
USEPA (2018). Groundwater Statistics Tool User's Guide. OSWER 9283.1-46.
Page 4-1

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
FIGURE
SynTerra

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
TABLES
SynTerra

TABLE 1
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Constituent
Reporting
Unit
15A NCAC 02L
Standard
2017 Background Threshold Values'
2019 Updated Background Threshold Values2
Surficial
Flow Zone
Transition
Zone
Bedrock
Flow Zone
Surficial
Flow Zone
Transition
Zone
Bedrock
Flow Zone
pH
S.U.
6.5-8.5
4.9-6.5
5.7-6.5
5.0-7.3
4.9-6.9
5.6-6.6
5.1-7.2
Alkalinity
mg-CaCO3/L
NE
13
302
223
42
302
240
Aluminum
Ng/L
NE
566
490
494
566
692
574
Antimony
pg/L
1*
1
1
1
1
1
1
Arsenic
Ng/L
10
1
1
1
2
1
1
Barium
pg/L
700
19
78
97
22
67.7
97
Beryllium
Ng/L
4*
1
1
1
1
1
1
Bicarbonate
mg-CaCO3/L
NE
13
302
223
23
302
221
Boron
Ng/L
700
50
50
50
50
50
50
Cadmium
pg/L
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Calcium
mg/L
NE
3
59
73
13
59
73
Carbonate
mg-CaCO3/L
NE
5
5
5
10
10
10
Chloride
mg/L
250
3
33
43
5
39
41
Chromium
pg/L
10
3
6
7
8
6
7
Chromium (VI)
Ng/L
NE
0.1
1
0.4
4
1
0.4
Cobalt
pg/L
1*
1
1
1
2
1
5
Copper
Ng/L
1000
2
5
5
4
5
5
Fluoride
mg/L
2
---
---
---
0.1
0.3
0.4
Iron
Ng/L
300
385
1319
2550
6820
1356
3771
Lead
pg/L
15
1
1
1
2
1
1
Lithium
pg/L
NE
---
---
---
5
6
48
Magnesium
mg/L
NE
1
14
13
1
14
15
Manganese
pg/L
50
253
298
519
395
448
548
Mercury
pg/L
1
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.05
0.2
0.2
Methane
pg/L
NE
12
2256
10
273
2505
42
Molybdenum
pg/L
NE
3
1
11
10
1
17
Nickel
pg/L
100
3
5
5
5
5
6
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg-N/L
NE
1
0.3
1
1
1
1
Potassium
mg/L
NE
4
4
7
5
4
11
Selenium
pg/L
20
1
1
1
1
1
2
Sodium
mg/L
NE
5
53
73
8
53
117
Strontium
pg/L
NE
25
391
418
27
390
418
Sulfate
mg/L
250
2
8
18
3
8
130
Sulfide
mg/L
NE
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
TDS
mg/L
500
85
430
340
130
430
470
Thallium
pg/L
0.2*
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
TOC
mg/L
NE
2
2
1
8
2
1
Total Radium
pCi/L
5^
4
9
8
2
35
5
Total Uranium
Ng/mL
0.03^
0.0004
0.001
0.002
0.0002
0.001
0.003
Vanadium
pg/L
0.3*
1
6
6
3
6
4
Zinc
Ng/L
1000
227
12
37
140
15
35
Prepared by: PPB / ]HC Checked by: HES / JAW
Notes:
Background threshold values (BTUs) have been rounded to similar levels of precision as 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02L Standard or Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration (IMAC).
--- - BTV was not calculated for constituent.
* - IMAC of the 15A NCAC 02L Standard, Appendix 1, April 1, 2013.
^ - Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
' - BTVs were calculated using data from background groundwater samples collected July 2011 to March 2017
' - Updated BTVs were calculated using data from background groundwater samples collected April 2010 to December 2018
pg/L - micrograms per liter
pg/mL - micrograms per milliliter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter
mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter
NE - not established
pCi/L - picocunes per liter
S.U. - standard units
TDS - total dissolved solids
TOC - total organic carbon
Page 1 of 1

TABLE 2
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Analytical Parameter
y
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Alkalinity
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium
(VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Reporting Unit
S.U.
Ft
(BTOC)
°C
pit/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg-CaCO3/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg-CaCO3/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg-CaCO3/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Well ID
Sample
Collection Date
Field Parameters
Analytical Results
Surficial Flow Zone
°°ems
--,----
16
39.6i
IL
24
35
3.66
39:68
44
292
F}
F }
24
�
44
ESBJAMmokiln
-<#B
34
i.6i
-
i.09
�
MW-12S
06/24/2015
6.0
30.75
22
53
2.92
31
236
3.40
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MW-12S
09/10/2015
5.8
31.69
20
47
2.30
34
239
6.31
13
98
<1
<1
19
<1
13
<50
<1
1.77
<10
3.1
3.23
---
1.02
<1
MW-12S
12/02/2015
5.7
32.15
17
68
2.70
159
364
6.90
12
164
<1
<1
16
<1
12
<50
<1
1.56
<10
3.3
7.17
0.043
<1
<1
MW-12S
0110712016
5.8
31.69
10
111
2.86
185
390
9.89
11.1
220
<1
<1
11
<I
11.1
<50
<1
1.96
<5
3.1
1.43
0.038
<1
<1
MW-12S
04/06/2016
5.8
29.91
14
46
2.91
159
364
7.42
10.2
566
<1
<1
12
<1
10.2
<50
<1
1.19
<5
3.3
<1
0.058
<1
<1
MW-12S
06/23/2016
5.6
28.86
18
64
0.28
44
249
8.72
13
---
<1
<1
10
<1
---
<50
<1
3.86
---
2.4
1.15
---
1.1
---
MW-12S
0711112016
4.9
28.87
19
54
0.43
92
297
9.82
12.8
392
<1
<1
13
<I
12.8
<50
<1
2.89
<5
2.9
<1
0.045
<1
1.9
MW-12S
0811712016
5.8
29.20
19
47
1.72
182
387
8.61
8.9
---
<I
<1
14
<1
---
<50
<I
1.55 81
---
3.1
1.09
---
<1
---
MW-12S
09/07/2016
5.8
29.93
20
42
2.12
141
346
9.24
9.5
284
<1
<1
12
<1
9.5
<50
<1
1.56
<5
3.2
<1
0.16
<1
<1
MW-12S
1011912016
5.7
30.81
19
45
1.83
30
235
9.49
8.9
---
<1
<1
14
<1
---
<50
<1
1.85 82
---
2.9
1.14
---
<1
---
MW-12S
1110412016
5.6
31.25
17
41
2.70
185
390
9.12
9.2
200
<I
<I
11
<I
9.2
<50
<I
1.14 81
<5
3.1
<1
0.088
<I
1.08
MW-12S
12/07/2016
6.3
31.67
13
50
5.79
2
207
9.97
13
321
<1
<1
8
<1
13
<50
<1
2.12
<5
2.2
<1
0.96
<1
2.22
MW-12S
1210712016
6.3
31.67
13
50
5.79
2
207
9.97
9.8
---
<I
<I
8
<I
---
<50
<I
2.19
---
2.1
<1
---
<1
MW-12S
0210112017
6.5
32.32
14
59
0.21
-43
162
8.53
23.8
361
<1
1.79
11
<1
23.8
<50
<1
7.07 82
<5
0.36
1.61
5.7
1.65
9.46
MW-12S
0210112017
6.5
32.32
14
59
0.21
-43
162
8.53
22
---
<1
1.77
12
<1
---
<50
<1
7.88
---
0.34
1.46
---
1.59
---
MW-12S
03/28/2017
6.2
31.81
16
77
0.36
-42
163
6.62
22.7
413
<1
1.11
13
<1
22.7
<50
<1
5.1
<5
0.56
1.06
4.4
1.59
3.73
MW-12S
0312812017
6.2
31.81
16
77
0.36
-42
163
6.62
22
---
<1
1.1
14
<1
---
<50
<I
5.04
---
0.57
1.12
---
1.6
---
_ _ _ , _ - - .
63
i-/
49
6.45
3�3
32-8
16.10
4-9 IF
-
-<4
3 48
4-2
-<4
-
F58
-<4
611
-
-
MW-12S
0711112017
6.4
30.90
22
66
0.30
-61
144
8.79
20.8
627
<1
<1
13
<1
20.8
<50
<1
4.86 83
<5
1.1
1.55
<0.12 D3
1.21
2.75
MW-12S
07/11/2017
6.4
30.90
22
66
0.30
-61
144
8.79
<5
---
<1
<1
13
<1
---
<50
<1
4.62 B2
---
1.1
1.36
---
1.18
---
MW-12S
0910612017
6.3
32.27
20
60
0.39
-45
160
8.56
22
---
<1
<1
14
<1
---
<50
<1
3.41
---
1.3
1
---
1.11
---
MW 12S
ll/()8/2()l3
63
33.73
#3
S}
030
26
23-1
4i58
16..7
2639
-<4
3:98
24
-<4
#fY7
fSB
-<4
2.16
-<-5
4 6
3:85
Q.02-5
3.84
4.04
MW i2s
()1r16r2()1
6-.G
34.44
33
45
3.%
85
294)
32.20
3-r.8
3399
-<4
4$7
22
-<4
3r.8
E58
-<4
3:43
-<-5
2-4
3.42
8$3
3148
4-49
MW 12S
-, - -, - - - -
6-.G
34.44
33
45
3.06
85
jib
290
32-:28
472
-
-<4
i 5
26
-<4
-
<50
-<4
i . 54
-
2-.-2
i.53
-
3:94
-
MW-12S
04/02/2018
5.9
33.99
18
46
0.32
97
302
9.90
14.5
370
<1
0.908 j
12
<1
14.5
<50
<1
0.843
<5
1.6
<1
0.052
0.695 j
1.06
12S
4-7
50
0.30
A
-
-<4
3 43
Ilk39
-<4
-
F50
-<4
2.09
-
2 3
-
MW-12S
07/18/2018
5.2
33.49
21
50
0.35
165
370
9.90
14.6
490
<1
0.52 j
17
<1
14.6
<50
<1
2.16
<5
2.5
0.851 j
0.045
0.667 j
3.51
MW-12S
10/02/2018
5.9
33.14
18616
194
399
9.90
26.4
---
<1
1.53
15
<1
---
<50
<1
8.1 B2
1.6
1.78
2.14
"",`W i2S
3
5-.832.40
4538
44.6
4028
t�
&S3j
36
146
<50
t�
2$6
-<-52
&996
&063
&t34&
2 57
Page 1of12

TABLE 2
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Analytical Parameter
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Methane
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfate
Sulfide
TDS
Thallium
TOC
Total
Radium
TotalVanadium
Uranium
Zinc
Reporting Unit
mg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
pg/L
mg-N/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pg/mL
pg/L
Ng/L
Well ID
Sample
Collection Date
Analytical Results
Surficial Flow Zone
MW-12S
06/24/2015
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.84
<0.0002
---
---
MW-12S
09/10/2015
---
108
<1
---
0.723
253
<0.05
12
<1
2.98
0.7
1.53
<1
5.43
23
1.4
<0.1
55
<0.2
0.633
---
---
<0.3
64
MW-12S
12/02/2015
---
336
<1
---
0.792
152
<0.05
<10
<1
5.41
0.638
1.4
<1
5.08
21
1.3
<0.1
26
<0.2
0.519
---
---
0.313
79
MW-12S
0110712016
---
178
<1
---
0.753
68
<0.05
<10
<1
1.6
0.599
1.58
<1
4.76
18
1.4
<0.1
35
<0.2
1.6
---
---
<0.3
157
MW-12S
04/06/2016
---
338
<1
---
0.749
24
<0.05
<10
<1
<1
0.798
1.22
<1
5.49
17
1.2
<0.1
29
<0.2
0.522
0.537
0.000217
0.408
43
MW-12S
06/23/2016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
0.679
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.98
<1
3.17
---
1.8
---
39
<0.2
---
0.845
---
---
---
MW-12S
0711112016
---
385
<I
---
0.694
34
<0.05
<10
<I
1.16
0.566
1.89
<1
4.34
21
1.6
<0.1
43
<0.2
2
<RL
<0.0002
0.974
227
MW-12S
0811712016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
0.646
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.33
<1
4.82
---
1.2
---
45
<0.2
---
2.074
---
---
---
MW-12S
09/07/2016
---
270
<1
---
0.64
11
<0.05
<10
<1
<1
0.756
1.36
<1
4.78
16
1.1
<0.1
52
<0.2
0.763
1.56
<0.0002
0.711
140
MW-12S
1011912016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
0.725
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.55
<1
4.32
---
1.1
---
110
<0.2
---
<RL
---
---
---
MW-12S
1110412016
---
245
<I
---
0.661 81
19
<0.05
<10
<1
1.19
0.739
1.35
<1
4.85 82
16
0.89
<0.1
52
<0.2
0.53
<RL
<0.0002
0.593
73
MW-12S
12/07/2016
---
327
<1
---
0.622
22
<0.05
<10 HS
10.3
1.22
0.419
2.33
<1
4.06
14
2.3
<0.1
57
<0.2
3.6
0.54
0.0000838 j
0.698
64 B2
MW-12S
1210712016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
0.65
---
<0.05
---
9.55
---
---
2.36
<1
4.46
---
2.4
---
61
<0.2
---
1.869
---
---
---
MW-12S
0210112017
---
3240
2.41
---
1.11
211
<0.05
36 N2
3.15
3.03
<0.01
3.78
<1
0.566 82
25
1.6
<0.1
85
<0.2 85
14
<RL
0.000112 j
5.9
90
MW-12S
0210112017
<0.1
---
2.34
<5
1.17
---
<0.05
---
2.99
---
---
3.92
<1
0.577
---
1.5
---
82
<0.2
---
0.81
---
---
---
MW-12S
03/28/2017
---
6820
1.42
---
1.25
395
<0.05
273
1.97
1.79
<0.01
3.29
<1
1.59
27
0.95
<0.1
51
<0.2
8.1 B3
0.383
0.000096 j
2.8
21
MW-12S
0312812017
<0.1
---
1.48
<5
1.34
---
<0.05
---
1.94
---
---
3.35
<1
1.68
---
0.89
---
42
<0.2
---
1.639
---
�iw is
05/24/201;1
5
-
-
-
-
4-.&6
�0.
�;z I
-
3 3
-
87
-
-
-
MW-12S
0711112017
---
4590
1.17
---
1.1
210
<0.05
---
<1
1.48
---
3.1
<1
2.54
25
0.96
<0.1
68
<0.2 83
5.5
<RL
0.000145 j
3.68
26
MW-12S
07/11/2017
<0.1
---
1.14
<5
0.966
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
2.79
<1
2.3
---
0.87
---
32
<0.2
---
0.696
---
---
---
MW-12S
0910612017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
0.959
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
2.37
<1
2.51
---
0.85
---
39
<0.2
---
<RL
---
---
---
^W i2.Z
11 - -, _ - - .
-
4969
2.99
-
i . &1
449
Q. B5
-
-<#
1.48
-
2.45
-<4
3.72
2-12
i-4
Q.1
43
3-9
H�L
Q.0902
2.63
2-B
Q.2 B--
MW 12S.S
0116/2018
Q.f
3(49
3-.52
E-5
9.856
498
4).05
-
-<4
3.29
9024
2.19 133
-<4
4.05 B1
313
4-5
1
4-7
Q.2
2-.2
338
2-$9
-15
^ems
-, - -, _ _ -
Q.1
-
i : 6
f-jj
0�5
-
�&..05
-
<4
-
-
2-4
�
4-2
-
3.6
-
3-3
-
i.986
-
-
-
�3
MW-12S
04/02/2018
0.0782 j
809
<1
<0.577
128
<0.05
---
0.205 j
0.805 j
0.047
1.62
<1
4.69
12
1.6
<0.1
32
0.091 j
5.8
0.594
0.0000866 j
1.05
24
9�5 j
-
Q.05
-
-
-
3 84
�
4�
-
3 8
-
44
O�j
-
-
-
MW-12S
07/18/2018
0.0703 j
510
0.383 j
3.690.91
101
<0.05
---
0.332 j
1.4
0.135
2.06
<1
4.11 B2
21
1.6
<0.1
52
<0.2
1.9
0.3319
<0.0002
1.5
126 B2
MW-12S
10/02/2018
0.041 j
---
1.96
2.091.24
---
0.029 j
0.902 j
4.6
<1
0.807
2.2
---
110
<0.2
---
0.5118
---
---
---""`.;
12SS
ni97R933
0449-3-j
776
8 593
-<-
4-53
e- 2
-
0- i
8 83�j
9-2
2-2-3
i 3
f
F2-5
2
3.4
&36
0.0000899 j
2-:09
94
Page 2 of 12

TABLE 2
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Analytical Parameter
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Alkalinity Bicarbonate
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Alkalinity Carbonate
Chloride
Chromium
(VI) Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Reporting Unit
S.U.
(gTt
oC
p4/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg-CaCO3/L
pg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
pg/L
mg-CaCO3/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg-CaCO3/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Well ID
Sample
Collection Date
Field Parameters
Analytical Results
BG 02
__ -- __--
6-£
35..57
479
5-76
NM
NM
NM
33..00
-
i799
�9.5
<-5
8i.8
-
-
E58
EO.08
-
43.5
&.4
-
-
44
BG 02
- , _ _, _ _ _ _
63
33.35
24
623
3.26
7
2-12
i2-49
-
298
�9.5
E-S
6i.3
-
-
K0
Q.08
-
35.4
E-S
-
-
FS
BG-02
07/11/2011
6.3
35.45
26
706
0.32
-77
128
9.20
---
298
<0.5
<5
64.8 b
---
---
<50
<0.08
---
---
32.6 b
10.2
---
---
<5
BG-02
11/03/2011
6.3
35.90
17
671
0.67
-98
107
5.63
---
180
<0.5
<5
67.7
---
---
<50
<0.08
---
---
32.9
7.5
---
<5
BG-02
04/04/2012
6.3
35.71
21
647
0.34
-93
113
5.55
---
<100
<0.5
<5
61.5
---
---
<50
<0.08
---
---
32.6
<5
---
---
<5
BG-02
07/09/2012
6.3
35.94
20
652
0.51
-78
127
9.47
---
262
<0.5
<5
53.4
---
---
<50
<0.08
---
---
35.3
5.9
---
---
<5
BG-02
11/05/2012
6.3
36.20
17
640
0.51
90
295
9.02
---
506
<0.5
<5
60.2
---
---
<50
<0.08
---
---
33.3
6
---
---
<5
BG-02
04/10/2013
6.3
35.33
18
725
0.17
-17
188
8.50
---
226
<1
<1
66
---
<50
<1
---
28
<5
---
---
<5
BG-02
07/09/2013
6.4
34.66
19
695
0.31
-120
85
8.08
---
412
<1
<1
69
---
---
<50
<1
---
---
30
<5
---
---
<5
BG-02
11/13/2013
6.4
34.40
17
658
0.10
18
223
9.50
---
384
<1
<1
62
---
---
<50
<1
---
---
29
<5
---
---
<5
BG-02
04/01/2014
6.4
33.78
17
709
0.20
68
273
7.50
---
316
<1
<1
71
---
---
<50
<1
---
---
28
<5
---
---
<5
BG-02
07/18/2014
6.4
33.20
18
664
0.14
2
207
7.71
---
355
<1
<1
65
---
---
<50
<1
---
---
30
<5
---
---
<5
BG-02
11/12/2014
6.3
33.02
18
630
0.12
21
226
5.33
---
233
<1
<1
61
---
---
<50
<1
---
---
30
<5
---
---
<5
BG-02
04/13/2015
6.3
31.93
18
652
0.20
-11
194
7.09
259
136
<1
<1
54
<1
259
<50
<1
57
<5
28
<5
---
<1
<5
BG-02
07/07/2015
6.5
31.53
19
623
0.30
-129
76
8.51
225
193
<1
<1
54
<1
225
<50
<1
56.1
<5
30
<5
---
<1
<5
BG-02
BG-02
09/11/2015
12/09/2015
6.4
6.4
31.49
31.68
18
16
537
612
0.03
0.71
-40
3
165
208
6.88
5.24
220
257 M1
82
<100
<1
<0.5
<1
<0.5
50
60
<1
<0.2
220
257
<50
<50
<1
<0.08
50.6
57.2 M1
<10
<5
32
29.7
4.05
<0.5 B
---
<0.03
<1
<0.5
<1
E5
<1
BG-02
0110812016
6.4
31.23
17
588
0.90
-16
189
1.98
263
80
<1
<1
58
<1
263
<50
<1
57.3
<5
33
<1
<0.03
<1
1.21
BG-02
04/04/2016
6.4
30.42
18
651
0.15
139
344
2.71
303
65
<1
<1
65
<1
303
<50
<1
59.2
<5
30
<5
<0.03
<1
<5
BG-02
07/13/2016
6.2
30.04
17
638
0.22
-51
154
3.40
302
58
<1
<1
59
<1
302
<50
<1
59.9
<5
30
<5
<0.03
<1
<5
BG-02
0910712016
6.7
30.04
18
635
0.14
-82
123
2.90
257
151
<1
<1
59
<1
257
<50
<1
56.4
<5
33
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
BG-02
1110212016
6.3
30.55
17
621
0.33
179
384
5.07
235
47
<1
<1
46
<1
235
<50
<1
53.2
<5
33
<5
---
<1
<5
BG-02
11/02/2016
6.3
30.55
17
621
0.33
179
384
5.07
240
59
<1
<1
48
<1
240
<50
<1
51.3
<5
34
<1
<0.03
<1
<1
BG-02
01/30/2017
6.6
31.06
16
535
0.27
48
253
9.68
228
82
<1
<1
43
<1
228
<50
<1
50 B2
<5
33
<1
0.055
<1
<1
BG-02
04/03/2017
6.5
31.26
18
583
0.20
-37
168
7.40
227
100
<1
<1
45
<1
227
<50
<1
53.3
<5
35
<5
---
<1
<5
BG-02
0410312017
6.5
31.26
18
583
0.20
-37
168
7.40
229
293
<1
<1
47
<1
229
<50 B3
<1
55.3
<5
35
<1
<0.025
<1
1.8
BG-02
07/10/2017
6.0
31.52
19
560
0.44
43
248
2.83
239
41
<1
<1
42
<1
239
<50
<1
51.3
<5
37
<5
---
<1
<5
BG-02
0711012017
6.0
31.52
19
560
0.44
43
248
2.83
223
58
<1
<1
44
<1
223
<50
<1
52.7 B2
<5
36
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BG-02
1110612017
6.5
32.20
17
586
0.24
11
216
8.02
229
98
<1
<1
41
<1
229
<50
<1
51.8
<5
37
<5
---
<1
<5
BG-02
11/06/2017
6.5
32.20
17
586
0.24
11
216
8.02
237
62
<1
<1
42
<1
237
<50
<1
49.1
<5
37
<1
<0.025
<1
<1
BG-02
01/15/2018
6.5
32.92
15
579
0.17
17
222
1.85
218
62
<1
<1
41
<1
218
<50
<1
50.4 B2
<5
39
<1
1 <0.025
<1
<1
BG-02
04/03/2018
6.4
.9
320
18
565
0.21
262
467
1.86
221
48
<1
<1
42
<1
221
<50
<1
49.6
<5
39
<5
---
<1
<5
Page 3of12

TABLE 2
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Analytical Parameter
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Methane
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrite Nitrate +
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfate
Sulfide
TDS
Thallium
TOC
Total Radium
Total um
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Reporting Unit
mg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
pg/L
mg-N/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pg/mL
pg/L
Ng/L
Well ID
Sample
Collection Date
Analytical Results
BG 02
_ _, - -, _ _ - -
-
2669
<S
-
-
448
<0.2
-
-
<S
<�9
-
8�
-
349
Q.f
-
-
-
38.9
BG 02
94 ell
-
439
<S
-
-
71.4
Q.2
-
-
<S
-
-
<+9
-
83
-
382
Q.1
-
-
BG-02
07/11/2011
---
559
<5
---
---
64.2
<0.2
---
---
9.4 b
---
---
<10
---
---
7.2 b
---
367 b
<0.1
---
---
---
<10
BG-02
11/03/2011
---
312
<5
---
---
36.7
<0.2
---
---
5.2
---
---
<10
---
---
6.9
---
341
<0.1
---
---
---
---
<10
BG-02
04/04/2012
---
152
<5
---
---
27
<0.2
---
---
<5
---
---
<10
---
---
7.5
---
412
<0.1
---
---
---
---
<10
BG-02
07/09/2012
---
460
<5
---
---
54.9
<0.2
---
---
<5
---
---
<10
---
---
7.7
---
382
<0.1
---
---
---
---
<10
BG-02
11/05/2012
---
759
<5
---
---
43.7
<0.2
---
---
<5
---
---
<10
---
---
8.3
---
389
<0.1
---
---
---
---
<10
BG-02
04/10/2013
---
646
<1
111
0.18
---
---
<5
<1
---
---
5.4
---
430
<0.2
---
---
---
---
<5
BG-02
07/09/2013
---
1130
<1
---
---
248
0.11
---
---
<5
---
---
<1
---
---
5.2
---
430
<0.2
---
---
---
---
<5
BG-02
11/13/2013
---
841
<1
---
---
177
0.11
---
---
<5
---
---
<1
---
---
5.2
---
360
<0.2
---
---
---
---
<5
BG-02
04/01/2014
---
943
<1
---
---
226
0.06
---
---
<5
---
---
<1
---
---
4.8
---
450
<0.2
---
---
---
---
8
BG-02
07/18/2014
---
1010
<1
---
---
244
0.08
---
---
<5
---
---
<1
---
---
4.9
---
400
<0.2
---
---
---
---
5
BG-02
11/12/2014
---
647
<1
--
---
180
<0.05
---
---
<5
---
---
<1
---
---
5
---
370
<0.2
---
---
---
---
8
BG-02
04/13/2015
---
435
<1
---
11.8
150
0.06
---
<1
<5
---
3.27
<1
49.7
---
4.8
---
380
<0.2
---
---
---
11
BG-02
07/07/2015
---
467
<1
---
12
135
<0.05
---
<1
<5
---
3.61
<1
48.2
---
5.1
---
370
<0.2
---
---
---
5.88
15
BG-02
BG-02
09/11/2015
12/09/2015
---
---
244
4507<'
<1
1
---
---
10.6
12.3
130
200
<0.05
<0.2
400
660
<1
0.74
2.87
0.82
0.019
<0.02
3.56
<5
<1
<0.5
44.6
51.3
291
390
5.4
5.1
<0.1
<0.1
330
314
<0.2
<0.1
1.4
1.1
---
---
---
---
4
5.8
23
12
BG-02
0110812016
---
471
---
12.6
196
<0.05
477
<1
<1
<0.01
3.4
<1
50.6
350
5.5
<0.1
370
<0.2
1.3
---
---
4.2
<5
BG 02
04/04/2016
5851
13.9
237
<0.05
1130
<1
<5
3.34
<1
56
391
4.9
<0.1
360
<0.2
1.8
4.07
0.00102
5
<5
BG-02
07/13/2016
---
484
<1
---
13.5
207
1 <0.05
2260
<1
<5
1 <0.01
3.23
<1
53.3
374
4.9
<0.1
370
1 <0.2
1.6
7.52
0.000918
4.79
<5
BG-02
0910712016
---
553
<1
---
13.1
194
<0.05
1670
<1
<1
<0.01
3.31
<1
53.5
378
5.6
<0.1
370
<0.2
1.6
0.997
0.000791
5.34
<5
BG-02
1110212016
---
186
<1
---
10.8
124
<0.05
---
<1
<5
---
3.37
<1
43.6
302
5.1
---
350
<0.2
---
---
---
3.45
<5
BG-02
11/02/2016
---
213
<1
---
10.8
131
<0.05
1120 N2
<1
<1
0.02
3.48
<1
45.3
320
5.6
<0.1
330 H1
<0.2
1.4
2.36
0.000855
3.63
<5
BG-02
01/30/2017
---
184
<1
---
10.6
104
<0.05
801 N2
<1
<1
<0.01
3.48
<1
44 B2
287
5.6
<0.1
320
<0.2
1.4
<RL
0.000926
4.14 B2
<5
BG-02
04/03/2017
---
221
<1
---
10.5
105
<0.05
---
<1
<5
---
3.41
<1
45.1
296
5.6
---
320
<0.2
---
---
---
3.87
<5
BG-02
0410312017
---
500
<1
---
11.2
117
0.05
730
<1
1.34
0.028
3.51
<1
47.2
309
5.5
1 <0.1
320
<0.2
1.4 B3
3.07
0.00109
5.06
<5
BG-02
07/10/2017
---
175
<1
---
10.5
95
<0.05
---
<1
<5
---
3.27
<1
44.3
289
5.8
---
310
<0.2
---
---
---
3.85
<5
BG-02
0711012017
---
202
<1
---
11.8
103
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
3.32
<1
45.7
295
5
<0.1
140
<0.2 B3
1.4
1.06
0.000885
4.06
<5
BG-02
1110612017
---
248
<1
---
10.9
91
<0.05
---
<1
<5
---
3.17
<1
44.9
292
4.9
---
300
<0.2 B3
---
---
---
5.2
<5
BG-02
11/06/2017
---
195
<1
---
10.8
82
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
3.3
<1
45.1
296
5.4
1 <0.1
310
<0.2
2.1
4.59
0.000893
5.04
<5
BG-02
01/15/2018
0.34
180
<1
6
10.5
86
<0.05
---
<1
<1
0.026
3.36
<1
45.6 B3
292
5.6
<0.1
270
<0.2
1.5
0.706
0.000839
4.44
<5
BG-02
04/03/2018
186
<1
---
10.4
82
<0.05
<1
<5
3.4
<1
44.9
290
5.6
---
310
<0.2
--
4.72
<5
Page 4 of 12

TABLE 2
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Analytical Parameter
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Alkalinity Bicarbonate
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Alkalinity Carbonate
Chloride
Chromium
(VI) Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Reporting Unit
S.U.
(gTt
oC
p4/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg-CaCO3/L
pg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
pg/L
mg-CaCO3/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg-CaCO3/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Well ID
Sample
Collection Date
Field Parameters
Analytical Results
BG-02
0410312018
6.4
32.90
18
565
0.21
262
467
1.86
222
49
<I
<1
42
<1
222
<50
<1
50.9
<5
39
4.33
<0.025
<1
0.41 j
BG-02
07/17/2018
6.3
32.28
20
527
0.21
368
573
1.10
207
35
<1
<1
38
<1
207
<50
<1
49.1 B2, M4
<5
42
<5
---
<1
<5
BG-02
0711712018
6.3
32.28
20
527
0.21
368
573
1.10
206
30
<I
<1
38
<I
206
<50
<1
49.5
<5
42
<1
<0.025 M1
<1
<I
BG-02
11/06/2018
6.3
31.85
17
579
0.12
240
445
1.40
203
14
<1
<1
42
<1
203
<50
<1
52.6
<5
39
<1
<0.025
<1
0.617 j
MW-12D
06/24/2015
6.2
31.15
17
136
2.42
-1
204
4.02
53
184
1.63
<1
26
<1
53
<50
<1
12.6
<10
4
<1
---
1.37
<1
MW-12D
0612512015
6.2
31.10
17
124
2.72
29
234
4.50
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MW-12D
09/10/2015
6.2
32.10
17
125
2.60
39
244
3.88
57
220
<1
<1
20
<1
57
<50
<1
11.7
<10
4.1
1.1
---
<1
<1
Pqw i29
-_, - _, _ - --
Fr. B
32.50
46
135
3.49
135
349
3i38
54
396
1.44
3 3
-<#B
4.5
343
9sr5
-<4
-<4
MW-12D
1210412015
6.1
32.83
18
122
3.35
140
345
8.08
53.2
150
<0.5
<0.5
20
<0.2
53.2
<50
0.099
11.5
<5
3.7
4.6
0.64 MI
0.51
<1
MW-12D
01/07/2016
6.1
31.95
15
118
3.10
136
341
9.26
53.5
678
<1
<1
22
<1
53.5
<50
<1
11.7
<5
4.5
2.99
0.52 M1
<1
1.54
MW-12D
04/05/2016
5.9
30.28
16
125
3.45
120
325
9.90
55.1
370
<1
<1
21
<1
55.1
<50
<1
11.4
<5
4.5
1.64
0.6
<1
<1
MW-12D
06/23/2016
5.6
29.24
17
132
3.15
51
256
9.52
52
---
<1
<1
16
<1
---
<50
<1
11.5
---
3.4
1.3
---
<1
---
MW-12D
0711112016
5.7
29.17
18
134
2.91
60
265
9.35
56.3
155
<1
<1
17
<1
56.3
<50
<1
11.5
<5
4.4
1.19
0.73
<1
<1
MW-12D
0811712016
6.2
29.60
18
133
3.37
131
336
7.41
53
---
<1
<1
16
<1
---
<50
<1
11.7 B1
---
4.2
1.66
---
<1
---
MW-12D
09/07/2016
6.3
30.35
17
128
3.77
38
243
9.20
53.5
257
<1
<1
16
<1
53.5
<50
<1
10.9
<5
4.8
2.99
0.75
<1
<1
MW-12D
1011912016
6.2
31.16
17
130
3.35
21
226
9.37
53
---
<1
<1
17
<1
---
<50
<1
11.7 B2
---
4.2
4.09
---
<1
---
MW-12D
1110412016
6.3
31.55
16
126
3.41
197
402
9.09
55
272
<1
<I
16
<1
55
<50
<I
10.6 B1
<5
4
1.92
0.64
<1
<I
MW-12D
12/06/2016
6.3
31.68
13
129
3.69
13
218
9.22
38
---
<1
<1
20
<1
---
<50
<1
11.4 B2
---
4.1
1.7
---
<1
---
MW-12D
0210112017
6.1
32.01
14
129
3.07
-21
184
8.42
54.9
115
<1
<I
14
<1
54.9
<50
<1
10.3 B2
<5
3.8
1.39
0.69
<1
<1
MW-12D
0210112017
6.1
32.01
14
129
3.07
-21
184
8.42
49
---
<1
<1
15
<1
---
<50
<1
12.2
---
4
1.13
---
<1
---
MW-12D
0312812017
5.9
32.17
16
123
3.61
162
367
5.70
54.3
140
<1
<1
15
<1
54.3
<50
<1
12.1
<5
4.3
1.25
0.63
<1
1.24
MW-12D
03/28/2017
5.9
32.17
16
123
3.61
162
367
5.70
53
---
<1
<1
16
<1
---
<50
<1
12.3
---
4.3
1.11
---
<1
---
MW-12D
0512412017
6.0
31.42
16
127
3.41
129
334
8.31
53
---
<1
<1
18
<1
---
<50
<1
11.8
---
4.2
1.66
---
<1
---
MW-12D
0711112017
6.1
31.19
18
133
3.81
154
359
5.25
55.8
113
<1
<1
16
<1
55.8
<50
<1
13.1
<5
4.5
1.07
0.61 MI
<1
<1
MW-12D
07/11/2017
6.1
31.19
18
133
3.81
154
359
5.25
42
---
<1
<1
15
<1
---
<50
<1
11.6 B2
---
4.4
1.1
---
<1
---
MW-12D
0910612017
6.2
32.61
17
131
3.91
167
372
8.98
50
---
<I
<1
14
<1
---
<50
<I
11.9
---
4.1
1.02
---
<1
---
MW-12D
11/08/2017
6.3
34.05
13
129
3.87
120
325
9.25
59.5
42
<1
<1
13
<1
59.5
<50
<1
12.5
<5
4.3
1.03
0.65
<1
1.29
MW-12D
01/16/2018
6.2
34.71
14
128
3.46
96
301
6.96
54.9
31
<1
<1
14
<1
54.9
<50
<1
11.3
<5
4.2
<1
0.77
<1
<1
MW-12D
0111612018
6.2
34.71
14
128
3.46
96
301
6.96
52
---
<1
<1
15
<1
---
<50
<1
11.9
---
4.2
1.11
---
<1
---
MW-12D
0410212018
6.0
34.28
17
129
3.28
104
309
3.67
59.9
38
<1
<1
15
<1
59.9
<50
<1
12.4
<5
4.1
0.882 j
0.64 MI
<1
1.66
MW-12D
05/07/2018
6.1
33.57
17
135
3.27
70
275
6.78
58
---
<1
<1
16
<1
---
<50
<1
12.2
---
4.3
1.45
---
<1
---
MW-12D
07/18/2018
5.8
32.84
18
132
3.41
171
376
2.60
61.9
22
<1
<1
16
<1
61.9
<50
<1
12.1
<5
4.3
0.791 j
0.96
<1
2.83
MW-12D
1010212018
6.0
33.39
17
129
3.13
200
405
3.40
61.2
---
<1
<1
15
<1
---
1 <50
<1
11.7 B2
--
4.4
0.949 j
--
<1
---
MW-12D
11/07/2018
6.0
32.60
16
151
3.85
316
521
8.09
53.8
82
<1
<1
15
<1
53.8
1 <50
<1
12.7
<5
1 4.4
1.02
0.82
1 <1
0.582 j
Page 5of12

TABLE 2
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Analytical Parameter
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Methane
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrite Nitrate +
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfate
Sulfide
TDS
Thallium
TOC
Total Radium
Total um
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Reporting Unit
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg-N/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pg/mL
pg/L
pg/L
Well ID
Sample
Collection Date
Analytical Results
BG-02
0410312018
0.31
187
<1
4.667 j
10.5
82
<0.05
---
0.851 j
3.98
0.028
3.26
<1
43.8
291
5.5
<0.1
300
0.082 j
1.7
2.922
0.000718
4.26
<5
BG-02
07/17/2018
---
100
<1
---
9.9
62
<0.05
---
<1
<5
---
3.29
<1
42.6
276
5.4
---
280
<0.2
---
---
---
5.03
<5
BG-02
0711712018
0.28
94
<1
3.739 j
9.85
62
<0.05
---
0.629 j
0.508 j
0.033
3.31
<1
42.7
277
5.5
<0.1
340
<0.2
1.3
2.3047
0,00061
4.72
1.975 j
BG-02
11/06/2018
0.26
122
<1
2.955 j
10.9
105
0.02 j
---
0.635 j
0.355 j
0.024
3.32
<1
45
299
5.2
1 <0.1
290
1 <0.2
1.4
1.705
0.000639
4.61
<5
MW-12D
06/24/2015
---
326
<1
---
3.44
683
<0.05
<10
1.75
2.5
0.08
1.6
<1
8.98
95
0.96
<0.1
120
<0.2
0.396
---
---
0.719
<5
MW-12D
0612512015
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MW-12D
09/10/2015
---
277
<1
---
3.04
218
<0.05
<10
<1
1.35
0.664
1.41
<1
9.03
85
0.99
<0.1
100
<0.2
1.7
---
---
0.637
9
D
-_, -_, _---
-
504
-<4
-
3.22
493
'0.95
-<#B
3.0i
0432
1.46
-<4
938
99
1
Q.f
97
Q.2
6i66
MW-12D
1210412015
---
280
<0.1
---
3.24
160
<0.2
<10
0.8
3.7
0.15
<5
<0.5
9.56
85
<1
<0.1
122
<0.1
<I
---
---
---
<10
MW-12D
01/07/2016
---
968
<1
---
3.28
131
<0.05
<10
<1
2.23
0.139
1.39
<1
8.76
87
1.1
<0.1
82
<0.2
0.184
---
---
1.65
5
MW-12D
04/05/2016
---
385
<1
---
3.27
100
<0.05
<10
<1
1.49
0.146
1.42
<1
9.35
92
1.1
<0.1
120
<0.2
0.314
6
0.000233
1.06
<5
MW-12D
06/23/2016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.1
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.36
<1
8.71
---
1.1
---
110
<0.2
---
1.85
---
---
---
MW-12D
0711112016
---
223
<1
---
3.16
81
<0.05
17.9
<1
1.23
0.176
1.36
<1
9.26
88
1.1
<0.1
98
<0.2
0.276
2.62
0.0000919 j
0.898
6
MW-12D
0811712016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.21
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.46
<1
9
---
1.1
---
100
<0.2
---
9.97
---
---
---
MW-12D
09/07/2016
---
409
<1
---
3.02
64
<0.05
19.4
<1
2.02
0.18
1.34
<1
9.05
83
1.1
<0.1
100
<0.2
0.289
2.19
0.000105 j
1.13
5
MW-12D
1011912016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.18
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.46
<1
9.06
---
1.1
---
420
<0.2
---
1.02
---
---
---
MW-12D
1110412016
---
405
<1
---
2.97 B1
56
<0.05
28.5 N2
<1
1.37
0.166
1.37
<1
8.39 B2
85
1.1
<0.1
110
<0.2
0.171
0.659
0.000168 j
1.25
<5
MW-12D
12/06/2016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.24
---
<0.05
---
1.42
---
---
1.44
<1
9.11
---
1
---
94
<0.2
---
34.883
---
---
---
MW-12D
0210112017
---
243
<1
---
2.8
96
<0.05
71 N2
<1
1.62
0.19
1.22
<1
8.18 B2
83
1
<0.1
110
<0.2 B5
0.366
0.835
0.000146 j
0.874
<5
MW-12D
0210112017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.24
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.4
<1
8.89
---
1
---
120
<0.2
---
0.606
---
---
---
MW-12D
0312812017
---
242
<1
---
3.2
45
<0.05
<10
<1
1.29
0.19
1.41
<1
9.26
85
1.1
<0.1
96
<0.2
0.192 B3
4.68
0.000123 j
0.805
<5
MW-12D
03/28/2017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.34
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.43
<1
9.3
---
1.1
---
99
<0.2
---
4.93
---
---
---
MW-12D
0512412017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.26
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.42
<1
9.16
---
1.1
---
98
<0.2
---
1.24
---
---
---
MW-12D
0711112017
---
193
<1
---
3.56
38
<0.05
---
<1
1.07
---
1.52
<1
10.1
87
1.1
<0.1
100
<0.2 B3
0.226
1.32
0,00047
0.825
<5
MW-12D
07/11/2017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.15
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.33
<1
8.84
---
1.1
---
81
<0.2
---
2.51
---
---
---
MW-12D
0910612017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.19
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.32
<I
8.79
---
1.1
---
100
<0.2
---
0.869
---
---
---
MW-12D
11/08/2017
---
108
<1
---
3.28
24
<0.05
---
<1
<1
---
1.47
<1
9.34
88
1
<0.1
99
<0.2 B3
1.1
2.83
0.000109 j
0.848
<5
MW-12D
01/16/2018
0.1
92
<1
<5
3.03
20
<0.05
---
<1
<1
0.23
1.33 B3
<1
9.03 Bl
85
1.1
<0.1
98
<0.2
0.689
2.74
0.000102 j
0.741
<5
MW-12D
0111612018
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.12
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.36
<1
8.91
---
1.1
---
49
<0.2 B3
---
0.328
--
---
---
MW-12D
0410212018
0.0968 j
89
<1
<5
3.36
22
<0.05
---
0.604 j
1.23
0.25
1.41
<1
9.35
91
1.1
<0.1
65
0.109 j
0.495
0.667
0.000108 j
0.709
3.621 j
MW-12D
05/07/2018
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.36
---
<0.05
---
0.397 j
---
---
1.4
<1
9.02
---
1
---
85
<0.2
---
1.825
---
---
---
MW-12D
07/18/2018
0.0788 j
48
<1
3.184 j
3.36
18
<0.05
---
0.342 j
0.794 j
0.25
1.41
<1
9.4 B2
92
1.1
<0.1
110
<0.2
0.254
15.945
0.0000928 j
0.747
1.962 j,62
MW-12D
1010212018
<0.1
---
<1
1.883 j
3.15
---
<0.05
---
0.308 j
---
---
1.32
<1
8.95
---
1.1
---
120
<0.2
---
2.783
---
---
---
MW-12D
11/07/2018
<0.1
149
<1
<5
3.39
28
0.021 j
---
0.37 j
0.371 j
0.241
1.42
<1
9.25
92
1.1
<0.1
86
0.083 j
0.264
3.855
0.000107 j
0.68
14
Page 6of12

TABLE 2
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Analytical Parameter
y
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Alkalinity
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium
(VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Reporting Unit
S.U.
Ft
(BTOC)
°C
pit/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg-CaCO3/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg-CaCO3/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg-CaCO3/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Well ID
Sample
Collection Date
Field Parameters
Analytical Results
Bedrock
Flow Zone
BG-01-
0/22/2o201G
5-.6
33.59
475
447
PNW
NPh
NP
NM
---
-
-
<�9
3�9
-
-
E58
-<4
-
-
44
8.2
---
-
i$
BG-$1
42106/ P1-9
5-. 9
36.64
36
+86
NM
414
NM
---
7-79
t$5
E5
305
-
-
E58
&1-2
-
-
3-5
45-.3
---
-
3i-.4
BG-41-
04f20/2414
5.5
35.36
2-0
368
i-4-6
50
255
22.70
---
456
E$5
-<5
99-1
-
-
E50
0.45
-
-
34)
64
---
---
44-7
BG 01
24
363
4-99
-71
444
24 28
584
-<5
i0i b
-
-
E-58
---
-
-<-5
BG-01
11/03/2011
5.5
37.18
18
165
1.27
-103
102
3.84
---
216
<0.5
<5
95.4
---
---
<50
0.2
---
---
13.1
7.9
---
<5
BG-01
04/04/2012
5.6
36.01
21
168
0.93
-91
114
9.52
---
191
<0.5
<5
93
---
---
<50
0.12
---
---
14.3
6.7
---
---
<5
BG-01
07/09/2012
5.3
36.69
19
166
1.05
-64
141
9.32
---
478
<0.5
<5
101
---
---
<50
0.13
---
---
14.6
20
---
---
<5
BG-01
11/05/2012
5.4
37.45
17
166
0.89
178
383
9.45
---
465
<0.5
<5
101
---
---
<50
0.089
---
---
13.4
<5
---
---
<5
BG-01
04/10/2013
5.2
35.25
17
165
1 0.79
213
418
9.05
1 ---
202
<1
<1
97
---
---
<50
<1
---
---
13
7
---
---
<5
BG-01
07/09/2013
5.4
34.17
19
160
1.02
152
357
8.95
---
383
<1
<1
97
---
---
<50
<1
---
---
13
<5
---
---
<5
BG-01
11/13/2013
5.5
34.42
15
160
1.30
256
461
8.20
---
339
<1
<1
95
---
---
<50
<1
---
---
12
<5
---
---
<5
BG-01
04/01/2014
5.4
32.85
15
159
1.20
340
545
8.20
---
202
<1
<1
90
---
---
<50
<1
---
---
12
<5
---
---
<5
BG-01
07/18/2014
5.5
32.12
19
158
1.40
232
437
6.68
---
245
<1
<1
93
---
---
<50
<1
---
12
<5
---
---
<5
BG-01
11/12/2014
5.5
31.90
18
167
1.64
255
460
9.96
---
332
<1
<1
95
---
---
<50
<1
---
---
12
<5
---
---
<5
BG-01
04/13/2015
5.5
30.16
17
154
1.20
296
501
8.90
49.8
392
<1
<1
90
<1
49.8
<50
<1
12.5
<5
11
<5
---
<1
<5
47/G7R41-5
29 46
}$
4-54
3 68
-<1
48.3
<50
<1
E 5
BG-01
0911012015
5.3
30.43
19
168
1.50
190
395
7.83
54
276
<1
<I
91
<1
54
<50
<1
12.8
<10
11
<1
---
<1
<1
BG-01
11/03/2015
6.9
30.00
20
14
9.30
7
212
1.79
52.1
33
<1
<1
90
<1
52.1
<50
<1
12.8 B2
<5
12
<5
---
<1
<5
BG-01
1210512015
5.5
30.34
16
150
1.55
128
333
9.50
52.8
250
<0.5
<0.5
94
<0.2
52.8
<50
0.13
12.6
<5
10.1
1
0.31
<0.5
<1
BG-01
01/08/2016
5.1
29.36
15
147
1.48
67
272
5.78
51.1
227
<1
<1
87
<1
51.1
<50
<1
12.6
<5
12
<1
0.2
<1
<1
BG-01
04/04/2016
5.5
28.46
17
149
1.58
206
411
4.30
53
177
<1
<1
88
<1
53
<50
<1
12.1
<5
11
<5
0.19 M1
<1
<5
BG-01
0612312016
5.4
28.03
18
145
1.64
94
299
8.75
47
---
<I
<I
89
<I
---
<50
<I
12.7
---
11
<1
---
<1
---
BG-01
0711312016
5.0
28.42
19
148
1.64
85
290
3.84
53.1
66
<I
<I
86
<I
53.1
<50
<I
12.3
<5
12
<5
0.23
<1
<5
BG-01
08/16/2016
5.6
28.48
20
146
1.57
194
399
9.30
49
---
<1
<1
88
<1
---
<50
<1
12 B2
---
10
<1
---
<1
---
BG-01
0910812016
5.5
28.98
18
147
1.61
148
353
9.49
52.9
275
<1
<1
90
<1
52.9
<50
<1
12
<5
11
<1
0.3
<1
<1
BG-01
10/19/2016
5.5
29.31
18
147
1.90
34
239
8.95
50
---
<1
<1
86
<1
---
<50
<1
12.1 B2
---
11
<1
---
<1
---
BG-01
1110212016
5.5
29.63
17
147
1.90
193
398
2.98
53.5
32
<I
<I
85
<I
53.5
<50
<I
12.1
<5
10
<5
---
<1
<5
BG-01
1110212016
5.5
29.63
17
147
1.90
193
398
2.98
52.8
48
<I
<I
90
<I
52.8
<50
<I
12.4
<5
11
<1
0.23
<1
<I
BG-01
1210612016
5.5
29.59
14
185
2.00
-114
91
0.66
47
---
<I
<I
89
<I
---
<50
<I
12.7 B2
---
11
<1
---
<1
---
BG-01
0210112017
5.6
29.98
15
146
1.52
-12
193
1.37
52.8
231
<I
<I
87
<I
52.8
<50
<I
12.2
<5
9.5
<1
0.29
<1
1.22
BG-01
02/01/2017
5.6
29.98
15
146
1.52
-12
193
1.37
100
---
<1
<1
86
<1
---
<50
<1
12.9
---
11
<1
---
<1
---
BG-01
0312812017
5.4
30.07
16
141
1.71
191
396
0.47
53
218
<I
<I
87
<I
53
<50
<I
12.9
<5
11
<I
0.25
<1
<I
BG-01
0312812017
5.4
30.07
16
141
1.71
191
396
0.47
52
---
<1
<1
92
<1
---
<50
<1
13.1
---
11
<1
---
<I
---
BG-01
0410312017
5.6
30.00
18
149
1.54
-1
204
0.84
53.4
46
<I
<1
90
<I
53.4
<50
<I
12.9
<5
10
<5
---
<1
<5
BG-01
04/03/2017
5.6
30.00
18
149
1.54
-1
204
0.84
53.2
66
<1
<1
84
<1
53.2
<50
<1
13
<5
10
<1
0.25
<1
<1
BG-01
0512312017
5.5
29.86
16
146
1.44
184
389
0.99
48
---
<1
<1
86
<I
---
<50
<I
12.4
---
10
<1
---
<1
---
BG-01
07/10/2017
5.5
29.86
18
146
1.64
198
403
1.04
51.6
23
<1
<1
83
<1
51.6
<50
<1
11.9
<5
11
<5
---
<1
<5
BG-01
0711012017
5.5
29.86
18
146
1.64
198
403
1.04
46
---
<1
<I
83
<1
---
<50
<I
12.4
---
12
<1
---
<I
---
BG-01
0711012017
5.5
29.86
18
146
1.64
198
403
1.04
54.5
35
<1
<I
87
<1
54.5
<50
<I
12.4 B2
<5
10
<1
0.23
<I
<1
BG-01
0910512017
5.5
30.52
18
148
1.64
224
429
1.39
81
---
<1
<I
85
<1
---
<50
<I
12.4 B2
---
10
<I
---
<1
---
BG-01
11/06/2017
5.6
31.73
17
149
1.78
243
448
1.14
55.2
10
<1
<1
78
<1
55.2
<50
<1
12.2
<5
10
<5
---
<1
<5
BG-01
1110612017
5.6
31.73
17
149
1.78
243
448
1.14
57.1
40
<1
<1
84
<1
57.1
<50
<1
12.6
<5
10
<1
0.36
<1
<1
BG-01
01/16/2018
5.7
32.18
13
147
2.42
187
392
2.50
54.1
22
<1
<1
83
<1
54.1
<50
<1
12
<5
10
<1
0.34
<1
<1
BG-01
0111612018
5.7
32.18
13
147
2.42
187
392
2.50
49
---
<I
<I
88
<I
---
<50
<I
12.7
---
10
<1
---
<1
---
BG-01
0410412018
5.5
31.10
16
149
1.58
335
540
0.76
58.8
387
<1
I <I
95
<1
58.8
1 <50
<I
13.5
<5
10
<5
---
<1
<5
BG-01
04/04/2018
5.5
31.10
16
149
1.58
335
540
0.76
58.5
230
<1
<1
94
<1
58.5
<50
<1
12.7
<5
10
0.703 j
0.36
<1
0.899 j
Page 7 of 12

TABLE 2
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Analytical Parameter
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Methane
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfate
Sulfide
TDS
Thallium
TOC
Total
Radium
TotalVanadium
Uranium
Zinc
Reporting Unit
mg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
pg/L
mg-N/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pg/mL
pg/L
Ng/L
Well ID
Sample
Collection Date
Analytical Results
Bedrock
Flow Zone
SG-04
04T22r2013
-
2000
12
-
34
&46
-
-
F40
-
-
E10
-
-
E1
-
13
-
B6-0-1-
42/06f2010
-
3$89
-<-5
-
26:3
0.2
---
-
34.9
-<-5
---
12-6
0.1
---
-
-
-
74
SG-0-1-
04f2GR414
-
782
-<-5
-
-
2"
Q.2
---
-
-7-.4
-
-
E10
-
-
-<-5
---
13
0.1
---
-
-
-
45 6
0 11/2Q11
-
1040
E-5
-
-
29-.6
-
40.4b
-
-
E18
-
-
E5
117b
Q.1
-
-
-
-
146
BG-01
11/03/2011
---
261
<5
8.9
<0.2
---
6.2
---
---
<10
---
---
<5
---
106
<0.1
---
---
---
---
<10
BG-01
04/04/2012
---
388
<5
---
11.6
<0.2
---
---
<5
---
---
<10
---
---
<5
---
107
<0.1
---
---
---
---
<10
BG-01
07/09/2012
---
640
<5
---
---
21.6
<0.2
---
---
9.4
---
---
<10
---
---
2
---
128
<0.1
---
---
---
---
<10
BG-01
11/05/2012
---
526
<5
---
---
55.6
<0.2
---
---
<5
---
---
<10
---
---
<2
---
123
<0.1
---
---
---
---
11.6
BG-01
04/10/2013
---
323
<1
---
---
15
<0.05
---
---
<5
---
---
<1
---
---
0.44
---
130
<0.2
---
---
---
---
7
BG-01
07/09/2013
---
488
<1
---
---
48
<0.05
---
<5
---
---
<1
---
---
0.52
---
130
<0.2
---
---
---
---
12
BG-01
11/13/2013
---
412
<1
---
---
27
<0.05
---
---
<5
---
---
<1
---
---
0.51
---
130
<0.2
---
---
---
---
30
BG-01
04/01/2014
---
290
<1
---
14
<0.05
---
---
<5
---
---
<1
---
---
0.4
140
<0.2
---
---
---
29
BG-01
07/18/2014
---
325
<1
15
<0.05
---
---
<5
---
---
<1
---
0.46
---
140
<0.2
---
---
---
---
16
BG-01
11/12/2014
---
466
<1
---
---
25
<0.05
---
---
<5
---
---
<1
---
---
0.51
---
120
<0.2
---
---
---
---
34
BG-01
04/13/2015
---
409
<1
---
3.35
35
<0.05
---
<1
<5
---
1.4
<1
12.4
---
0.32
---
130
<0.2
---
---
---
---
29
02i02i201-5
-
557
<�
-
3 63
23
<$.95
-
E1
K
-
1.5
-
430
<�2
BG-01
0911012015
---
300
<1
---
3.41
26
<0.05
16
<1
1.78
0.645
1.38
<1
11.6
172
0.37
<0.1
120
<0.2
0.913
---
---
3.93
17
BG-01
11/03/2015
---
45
<1
---
3.28
7
<0.05
---
<1
<5
---
1.35
<1
11.8 B2
179
0.36
---
110
<0.2
---
---
---
3.4
<5
BG-01
1210512015
---
350
0.13
---
3.28
18
<0.2
<10
<0.5
1.9
0.66
<5
<0.5
12.2
180
<1
<0.1
118
<0.1
1
---
---
4.2
14
BG-01
01/08/2016
---
272
<1
---
3.36
11
<0.05
<10
<1
1.24
0.643
1.39
<1
11.9
166
0.24
<0.1
130
<0.2
0.558
---
---
3.94
<5
BG-01
04/04/2016
---
190
<1
---
3.2
112
<0.05
<10
<1
<5
---
1.36
<1
11.5
167
0.25
<0.1
130
<0.2
0.738
2.25
<0.0002
3.94
7
BG-01
0612312016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.24
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.42
<I
12.2
---
0.22
---
120
<0.2
---
26.5
---
---
---
BG-01
0711312016
---
89
<1
---
3.09
7
<0.05
<10
<1
<5
0.827
1.28
<1
11.9
177
0.23
<0.1
140
<0.2
0.723
1.29
<0.0002
3.58
<5
BG-01
08/16/2016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.21
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.4
<1
11.7
---
0.24
---
120
<0.2
---
1.02
---
---
---
BG-01
0910812016
---
336
<1
---
3.21
13
<0.05
<10
<1
1.46
0.828
1.32
<1
11.7
172
0.32
<0.1
130
<0.2
0.667
3.876
<0.0002
4.69
26
BG-01
10/19/2016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.19
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.3
<1
11.7
---
0.32
---
66
<0.2
---
0.688
---
---
---
BG-01
1110212016
---
32
<1
---
3.17
7
<0.05
---
<1
<5
---
1.28
<1
11.5
172
0.27
---
130
<0.2
---
---
---
3.62
<5
BG-01
1110212016
---
50
<1
---
3.18
8
<0.05
<10 N2
<1
1.82
0.811
1.31
<I
11.4
183
0.26
<0.1
110 HI
<0.2
0.565
6.24
<0.0002
3.82
<5
BG-01
1210612016
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.3
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.32
<I
11.6
---
1.1
--
120
<0.2
---
5.12
---
---
---
BG-01
0210112017
---
200
<1
---
3.19
13
<0.05
<10 N2
<1
1.6
0.809
1.33
<I
11.2
174
0.26
<0.1
140
<0.2
0.703
<RL
<0.0002
4.34 B5
<5
BG-01
02/01/2017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.3
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.36
<1
11.8
---
0.23
---
150
<0.2
---
0.247
---
---
---
BG-01
0312812017
---
137
<1
---
3.28
10
<0.05
<10
<1
1.41
0.834
1.38
<I
12.5
173
0.25
<0.1
120
<0.2
0.64 B3
2.862
<0.0002
4
<5
BG-01
0312812017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.42
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.39
<1
11.9
---
0.25
---
120
<0.2
---
3.39
---
---
---
BG-01
0410312017
---
40
<1
---
3.25
6
<0.05
---
<1
<5
---
1.36
<I
12.5
176
0.27
---
120
<0.2
---
---
---
3.89
<5
BG-01
04/03/2017
---
49
<1
---
3.28
6
<0.05
<10
<1
1.4
0.838
1.36
<1
12.5
169
0.27
<0.1
110
<0.2
0.593 133
3.16
<0.0002
3.76
<5
BG-01
0512312017
<0.1
---
<1
5
3.2
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.35
<1
12.3
---
0.4
---
170
<0.2
---
3.2
---
---
---
BG-01
07/10/2017
---
17
<1
---
3.03
5
<0.05
---
<1
<5
---
1.25
<1
11.8
165
0.21
---
110
<0.2
---
--
---
3.61
<5
BG-01
0711012017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.18
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.29
<I
11.9
---
0.21
---
110
<0.2
---
2
---
---
---
BG-01
0711012017
---
25
<I
---
3.18
7
<0.05
---
<I
1.15
---
1.31
<I
12.2
165
0.19
<0.1
120
<0.2 B3
0.634
1.65
<0.0002
3.78
6
BG-01
0910512017
<0.1
---
<1
<5
3.21
---
<0.05
<1
---
---
1.31
<I
11.9
---
0.25
---
140 H1
<0.2
---
1.26
---
---
---
BG-01
11/06/2017
---
11
<1
---
3.12
5
<0.05
---
<1
<5
---
1.23
<1
11.2
166
0.26
---
120
<0.2 133
---
---
---
3.57
<5
BG-01
1110612017
---
33
<1
---
3.21
7
<0.05
---
<1
1.39
---
1.28
<I
11.8
175
0.25
<0.1
120
<0.2
0.464
5.39
<0.0002
3.58
<5
BG-01
01/16/2018
0.12
18
<1
<5
3.16
<5
<0.05
---
<1
1.2
0.83
1.33 133
<1
11.7 Bl
174
0.28
<0.1
110
<0.2
0.992
2.97
0.00147
3.84
<5
BG-01
0111612018
<0.1
--
<1
<5
3.21
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.36
<I
11.3
---
0.28
---
120
<0.2 B3
4.224
---
---
BG-01
0410412018
---
233
<1
--
3.48
16
<0.05
---
<1
<5
---
1.41
<I
12.2
179
0.33
---
120
<0.2
---
4.74
<5
BG-01
04/04/2018
0.0923 j
126
<1
3.629 j
3.35
9
<0.05
<1
1.32
0.92
1.34
<1
11.8
177
0.3
<0.1
130
0.081 j
0.86
4.345
0.000123 j
4.42
3.977 j
Page 8of12

TABLE 2
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Analytical Parameter
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Alkalinity Bicarbonate
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Alkalinity Carbonate
Chloride
Chromium
(VI) Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Reporting Unit
S.U.
(gTt
oC
p4/cm
mg/L
mV
mV
NTU
mg-CaCO3/L
pg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
pg/L
mg-CaCO3/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg-CaCO3/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Well ID
Sample
Collection Date
Field Parameters
Analytical Results
BG-01
0510712018
5.2
30.21
17
154
1.37
220
425
0.32
49
---
<I
<1
85
<1
---
<50
<I
12.7
---
10
0.527 j
---
<1
---
BG-01
07/16/2018
5.5
28.89
20
146
1.67
494
699
3.80
57.2
141
<1
<1
90
<1
57.2
<50
<1
13 B2
<5
10
<5
---
<1
<5
BG-01
0711612018
5.5
28.89
20
146
1.67
494
699
3.80
56.8
111
<1
<1
88
<1
56.8
<50
<1
12.5
<5
10
0.687 j
0.42
<1
<1
BG-01
1010112018
5.3
27.75
18
142
1.89
159
364
1.20
56.8
---
<1
<1
81
<1
---
<50
<1
11.9
---
9.7
0.711 j
---
<1
---
BG-01
11/06/2018
5.6
26.84
17
145
2.18
338
543
1.40
51.2
553
<1
<1
86
<1
51.2
<50
<1
12.6
<5
8.9
0.839 j
0.47
1 <1
0.899 j
CCR-102BR-BG
0612412016
6.4
23.52
17
739
2.60
5
210
8.86
190
---
<1
<1
40
<1
---
<50
<1
32.6 el
---
11
1.08
---
2.16
---
CCR-102BR-BG
08/16/2016
6.5
24.45
19
769
1.45
120
325
8.37
220
---
1
<1
33
<1
---
<50
<1
32.9 B2
---
13
<1
---
1.36
---
CCR-102BR-BG
10/19/2016
6.4
25.61
17
872
1.29
13
218
9.72
250
---
<1
<1
32
<1
---
<50
<1
34.5 B2
---
14
<1
---
1.23
---
CCR-102BR-BG
1210612016
6.4
26.75
12
826
0.95
-5
200
7.71
230
---
<1
<1
28
<1
---
<50
<1
28.1 B2
---
14
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-102BR-BG
01/31/2017
6.2
27.70
16
813
0.47
-30
175
0.74
240
---
<1
<1
27
<1
---
<50
<1
31.2
---
13
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-102BR-BG
0312812017
6.2
28.51
17
773
0.76
145
350
0.54
240
---
<1
<I
27
<1
---
<50
<1
26.6
---
13
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-102BR-BG
05/23/2017
6.1
28.41
17
776
0.66
148
353
1.77
230
---
<1
<1
24
<1
---
<50
<1
25.8
---
13
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-102BR-BG
0711112017
6.1
27.79
21
649
0.64
156
361
0.47
210
---
<1
<1
23
<1
---
<50
<1
24.3 B2
---
13
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-102BR-BG
09/05/2017
6.0
28.98
19
748
0.71
200
405
0.87
230
---
<1
<1
23
<1
---
<50
<1
24.1 B2
---
13
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-102BR-BG
01/16/2018
6.2
31.76
13
669
0.66
153
358
7.24
220
---
<1
<1
21
<1
---
<50
<1
20.6
---
12
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-102BR-BG
05/07/2018
6.0
32.33
17
675
0.40
121
326
4.14
220
---
0.364 j
0.336 j
20
<1
---
<50
<1
21.5
---
12
<1
---
<1
---
CCR-102BR-BG
10/02/2018
6.5
31.84
19
5
2.43
214
419
1.50
248
---
0.354 j
0.595 j
20
<1
---
<50
<1
22.6 B2
---
12
<1
---
0.768 j
---
MW-13BR
06/23/2015
7.2
31.28
21
580
0.40
-228
-23
2.22
210
37
<1
<1
40
<1
210
<50
<1
75.2
<10
46
<1
---
1.19
<1
MW-13BR
09/08/2015
6.9
31.63
23
579
0.50
-136
69
7.55
230
143 B1
<1
<1
51
<1
230
<50
<1
73
<10
43
<1
---
<1
<1
MW-13BR
12/02/2015
7.0
31.55
16
543
0.30
-130
75
6.50
210
171
<1
<1
45
<1
210
<50
<1
72.7
<10
41
16.3
<0.03
<1
1.2
MW-13BR
0110712016
7.3
30.36
11
544
0.50
-75
130
7.79
223 MI
230
<1
<1
42
<1
223
<50
<I
73.3
<5
45
7.65
<0.03
<1
<I
MW-13BR
04/05/2016
7.1
29.70
15
566
0.30
151
356
9.05
217
97
<1
<1
35
<1
217
<50
<1
70.8
<5
43
<1
<0.03
1.01
<1
MW-13BR
07/11/2016
7.0
28.68
19
553
0.19
-89
116
8.80
211
407
<1
<1
29
<1
211
<50
<1
70.2
<5
40
4.51
<0.03
1.92
1.95
MW-13BR
0910612016
7.4
29.77
21
554
0.42
163
42
9.67
216
134
<1
<1
38
<1
216
<50
<1
69.7
<5
38
2.02
<0.03
1.17
<1
MW-13BR
11/08/2016
6.9
29.49
16
524
0.44
-61
144
9.90
221
102
<1
<1
35
<1
221
<50
<1
67
<5
37
3.58
0.18
2.02
<1
MW-13BR
02/02/2017
6.9
29.60
16
552
0.40
-37
168
9.13
213
91
<1
<1
31
<1
213
<50
<1
65
<5
34
2.7
0.26
2.91
<1
MW-13BR
04/05/2017
7.1
29.32
19
517
0.60
-57
148
9.89
209
111
<1
<1
32
<1
209
<50
<1
64.4
<5
33
1.54
<0.12 D3
3.08
<1
MW-13BR
07/11/2017
6.8
29.19
23
501
0.43
23
228
9.29
202
118
<1
I <1
18
<1
202
<50
<1
70.6 B3
<5
32
3.51
0.032
3.77
<1
MW-13BR
11/07/2017
6.9
30.52
16
500
0.61
-87
118
9.87
201
123
<1
<1
23
<1
201
<50
<1
66
<5
28
1.57
<0.025
3.36
<1
MW-13BR
01/16/2018
7.0
30.83
14
494
0.46
-79
126
8.69
197
134
<1
<1
22
<1
197
<50
<1
61.3
<5
29
5.7
<0.025
6.53
<1
MW-13BR
04/04/2018
6.9
30.22
17
493
0.43
39
244
9.83
205
162
0.581 j
<1
22
<1
205
<50
<1
65.2
<5
30
3.96
<0.025
4.77
0.945 j
;qW 38
0 0
"
3&58
2-2
496
3 92
-S4
3-24
i4.99
296
3949
9.37
-<4
48
-<4
296
<- 8
-<4
<5
29
3.48
Q.625
5.99
2-.,86
MW-13BR
11/08/2018
6.8
29.55
18
473
0.46
-82
123
4.70
184
111
<1
<1
18
<1
184
<50
<1
62.3
<5
28
0.727 j
0.045
4.67
0.635 j
,qW 148
Own
6-4
16.20
-14
2�8
& 47
41
2-24
35.99
96
589
-<4
-<4
39
-<4
96
F58
-<4
4-9-5
<�8
9:3
-<4
-
3:4f
MW-14BR
09/09/2015
6.9
18.03
22
413
1.10
-16
189
3.36
160
61
<1
1.8
1 42
<1
160
65
<1
20.2
<10
11
<1
1.09
<1
Page 9of12

TABLE 2
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Analytical Parameter
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Methane
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrite Nitrate +
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfate
Sulfide
TDS
Thallium
TOC
Total Radium
Total um
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Reporting Unit
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
mg-N/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pg/mL
pg/L
pg/L
Well ID
Sample
Collection Date
Analytical Results
BG-01
0510712018
0.034 j
---
<1
1.884 j
3.3
---
0.019 j
---
<1
---
---
1.29
<1
11.7
---
0.29
---
110
<0.2
---
2.542
---
---
---
BG-01
07/16/2018
---
94
<1
---
3.38
8
<0.05
---
<1
<5
---
1.35
<1
12.1
185
0.25
---
100
<0.2
---
---
---
3.77
<5
BG-01
0711612018
0.0658 j
91
<1
3.143 j
3.35
8
0.02 j
---
<1
1.36
0.869
1.33
<1
11.2
170
0.24
<0.1
98
<0.2
0.585
2.706
<0.0002
3.94
4.785 j
BG-01
1010112018
0.0707 j
---
<1
3.321 j
3.09
---
<0.05
---
<1
---
---
1.22
<1
11.1
---
0.26
---
110
<0.2
---
3.36
---
---
---
BG-01
11/06/2018
0.0793 j
286
<1
2.175 j
3.3
14
0.029 j
<1
1.04
0.886
1.31
<1
11.7
176
0.25
<0.1
110
<0.2
0.494
1.7433
1 <0.0002
4.58
5
CCR-102BR-BG
0612412016
0.15
---
<1
12
12.6
---
<0.05
---
6.1
---
---
12
2.04
64.7
---
79
---
380
<0.2
---
2.518
---
---
---
CCR-102BR-BG
08/16/2016
0.19
---
<1
11
14.7
---
<0.05
---
6.43
---
---
11.4
2.8
83.1
---
100
---
430
<0.2
---
3.34
---
---
---
CCR-102BR-BG
10/19/2016
0.21
<1
15
16.2
---
<0.05
---
6.91
---
---
11.5
2.82
114
---
140
---
150
<0.2
---
1.234
---
---
---
CCR-102BR-BG
1210612016
0.21
---
<1
24
14.8
---
<0.05
---
17.3
---
---
10.6
2.15
130
---
140
---
500
<0.2
---
1.394
---
---
---
CCR-102BR-BG
01/31/2017
0.23
---
<1
21
16.2
---
<0.05
---
12.9
---
---
10.9
2.28
117
---
130
---
480
<0.2 133
---
2.749
---
---
---
CCR-102BR-BG
0312812017
0.26
---
<1
25
14.5
---
<0.05
---
8.28
---
---
10.2
2.31
117
---
130
---
490
<0.2
---
1.887
---
---
---
CCR-102BR-BG
05/23/2017
0.29
---
<1
31
14.1
---
<0.05
---
5.94
---
---
9.37
2.01
117
130
---
510
<0.2
---
0.898
---
---
---
CCR-102BR-BG
0711112017
0.26
---
<1
30
13.6
---
<0.05
---
5.42
---
---
8.87
2.15
113
---
130
---
450
<0.2
---
1.179
---
---
---
CCR-102BR-BG
09/05/2017
0.3
---
<1
30
13.3
---
<0.05 M2
---
5.03
---
---
8.8
1.75
115
---
130
---
500 H1
<0.2
---
0.54
---
---
---
CCR-102BR-BG
01/16/2018
0.26
---
<1
37
12.2
---
<0.05
---
3.99
---
---
8.09
1.61
116
---
110
---
460
<0.2
2.077
---
---
---
CCR-102BR-BG
05/07/2018
0.25
---
<1
33
12
---
<0.05
---
3.79
---
---
7.92
1.48
107
---
100
---
420
0.081 j
---
0.849
---
---
---
CCR-102BR-BG
10/02/2018
0.28
---
<1
35
13.1
---
<0.05
---
4.25
---
---
8.35
0.773 j
125
---
110
---
470
<0.2
---
0.848
---
---
---
MW-13BR
06/23/2015
---
1130
<1
---
13.1
474
<0.05
<10
8.28
<1
<0.01
5.49
<1
25.7
418
18
0.115
370
<0.2
0.9
1.22
<0.0002
0.381
36
MW-13BR
09/08/2015
---
2400
<1
---
12.9
630
<0.05
<10
5.17
<1
<0.01 M2
5.31
<1
24.8
430
12
<0.1
360
0.538
0.859
---
---
0.465
99
MW-13BR
12/02/2015
---
2490
<1
---
13.5
548
<0.05
<10
5.86
7.97
<0.01
5.09
<1
23.3
416
14
<0.2
330
<0.2
0.761
---
---
0.429
54
MW-13BR
0110712016
---
2550
<1
---
12.9
519
<0.05
25.9
5.81
4.98
<0.01
5.12
<1
23.7
389
15
<0.1
330
<0.2
0.647
---
---
<0.3
37
MW-13BR
04/05/2016
---
1750
<1
---
12.9
481
<0.05
27
4.3
<1
<0.01
4.72
<1
20.8
393
17
<0.1
340
<0.2
0.733
2.65
0.000629
<0.3
9
MW-13BR
07/11/2016
---
1330
<1
---
13
348
1 <0.05
54.6
3.2
2.82
1 <0.01
4.72
<1
19.4
380
18
1 <0.1
330
<0.2
0.594
3.103
0.00188
0.871
23
MW-13BR
0910612016
---
2520
<1
---
12.7
432
<0.05
135
2.98
1.68
<0.01
4.58
<1
18.4
381
16
<0.1
330
<0.2 B2
0.645
67.2
0.000451
<0.3
38
MW-13BR
11/08/2016
---
2430
<1
---
12.3
471
<0.05
99.6 N2
2.85
2.26
<0.01
4.46
<1
17.3
374
15
<0.1
310
<0.2
0.574
1.392
0.000419
0.38
6
MW-13BR
02/02/2017
---
2920
<1
---
12
421
<0.05
55 N2
2.35
1.39
<0.01
4.43
<1
16.8
353
15
<0.1
320
<0.2
0.458
1.01
0.000467
0.406
<5
MW-13BR
04/05/2017
---
3260
<1
---
12.1
383
<0.05
41.8
2.2
<1
<0.01
4.34
<1
16.5
360
15
1 <0.1
340
<0.2
0.533
0.748
0.000461
<0.3
<5
MW-13BR
07/11/2017
---
1060
<1
---
13.3
270
<0.05
---
2.11
2.33
---
4.72
<1
17.9
331
17
<0.1
320
<0.2
0.494
---
---
<0.3
5
MW-13BR
11/07/2017
---
1770
<1
---
12.3
260
<0.05
---
2.02
1.09
---
4.29
<1
16.7
312
14
<0.1
300
<0.2 B3
1.2
---
---
<0.3
<5
MW-13BR
01/16/2018
0.15
1850
<1
<5
11.3
369
<0.05
---
2.34
3.52
<0.02
4.14 B3
<1
16.2 Bl
322
15
<0.1
290
<0.2
0.988
---
---
0.408
<5
MW-13BR
04/04/2018
0.12
1640
<1
3.056 j
12.5
321
<0.05
---
2.02
2.7
1 <0.02
4.24
<1
16.4
333
16
<0.1
290
<0.2
0.781
---
---
0.363
3.817 j
Mw B
07/18/2el
8.41
2B8B
i..2-7
5
383
Q.95
-<4
36.3 B2
344
WF
9 B2
MW-13BR
11/08/2018
0.0772 j
675
<1
2.316 j
12.2
260
0.02 j
---
2.11
<1
<0.01
4.34
<1
15.9
319
16
0.11
280
<0.2
0.496
---
---
0.282 j
<5
MW 14B
-
907
-<4
-
2.96
544
�9.95
-<-I-B
-<4
8.039
4.08
-<4
33
449
37L'
-<4
390
Q.2
4 3
3 29
3$
MW-14BR
09/09/2015
---
2730
<1
---
3.07
648
<0.05
13
27.3
<1
0.011 M2
6.56
<1
60.2
167
27
<0.1
260
<0.2
1.3
---
0.469
<5
Page 10 of 12

TABLE 2
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Analytical Parameter
y
pH
WL
Temp
SPC
DO
ORP
Eh
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bicarbonate
Alkalinity
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Alkalinity
Chloride
Chromium
Chromium
(VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Reporting Unit
S.U.
Ft
(BTOC)
°C
pit/cm
mg/L
my
my
NTU
mg-CaCO3/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg-CaCO3/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
mg/L
mg-CaCO3/L
mg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Well ID
Sample
Collection Date
Field Parameters
Analytical Results
MW-14BR
1210212015
6.7
16.54
15
282
0.57
26
231
2.77
100
77
<I
<1
22
<1
100
<50
<I
13.4
<10
11
<I
<0.03
<1
<I
MW-14BR
O1/07/2016
6.7
16.31
11
258
2.73
64
269
2.45
94.8
163
<1
<1
17
<1
94.8
<50
<1
13
<5
13
<1
<0.03
<1
1.21
MW-14BR
04/05/2016
6.7
16.27
14
261
2.13
220
425
2.45
104
225
<1
<1
19
<1
104
<50
<1
13
<5
13
<1
<0.03
<1
1.87
MW-14BR
07/11/2016
6.7
15.35
20
311
0.23
90
295
1.34
130
58
<1
<1
22
<1
130
<50
<1
14.4
<5
13
<1
<0.03
<1
1.58
MW-14BR
0910712016
6.7
17.61
18
324
0.24
21
226
5.69
130
59
<1
<1
28
<1
130
<50
<1
15.3 M4
<5
14
<1
<0.03
<1
1.43
MW-14BR
11/08/2016
7.0
17.81
18
345
0.40
44
249
3.74
136
129
<1
<1
28
<1
136
<50
<1
16.2
<5
13
<1
<0.025
1.14
1.97
MW-14BR
02/02/2017
6.7
18.00
13
291
2.67
199
404
1.14
121
63
<1
<1
19
<1
121
<50
<1
28.9
<5
13
<1
0.067
<1
1.36
MW-14BR
04/05/2017
6.6
18.35
19
269
1.84
0
205
1.65
107
83
<1
<1
15
<1
107
<50
<1
13.9
<5
13
<1
0.048
<1
1.77
MW-14BR
07/11/2017
6.4
17.97
22
271
0.45
69
274
1.64
110
77
<1
<1
14
<1
110
<50
<1
15.3 B3
<5
13
<1
<0.025
<1
1.72
MW-14BR
11/07/2017
6.7
21.44
16
346
0.40
171
376
8.62
141
145
<1
<1
27
<1
141
<50
<1
18.2
<5
13
<1
<0.025
1.1
2.52
MW-14BR
O1/22/2018
6.9
21.47
16
315
2.56
195
400
2.16
138
42
1 <1
I <1
1 20
<1
1 138
<50
<1
15
<5
14
<1
0.054
<1
1.52
MW-14BR
04/04/2018
6.6
18.66
16
276
2.42
196
401
2.34
115
85
<1
0.621 j
18
<1
115
<50
<1
16
<5
13
<1
0.025
<1
2.09
MW-14BR
07/18/2018
6.5
19.39
22
273
0.85
79
284
5.80
112
118
<1
0.538 j
17
<1
112
<50
<1
15.6
<5
14
<1
<0.025 M1
0.581 j
3.23
MW-14BR
11/07/2018
1 6.3
17.94
18
276
0.48
180
1 385
9.20
101
236
<1
0.582 j
16
<1
101
<50
<1
14.2
<5
13
<1
0.028
1.53
2.65
Prepared Bv: JHG Checked BY: JAW
Notes:
0 Sample results are invalid for use because recorded sample pH greater than 8.5 standard units, recorded sample turbidity greater than 10 NTU, or no sample pH or turbidity was recorded.
0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTVs) because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error.
0 Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was not included in the calculation of BTVs because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was a result of field error or laboratory analytical error.
- Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BTVs.
No result because the concentration of analyte was not measured in sample or the sample result was rejected due to serious deficiencies in meeting QC criteria.
< - Concentration not detected at or above the adjusted reporting limit.
<RL - Less than reporting limit. Result was not included in statistical analysis because no numeric value was provided for the reporting limit.
B - Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit. Target analyte concentration in sample is less than 1OX the concentration in the method blank. Analyte concentration in sample could be due to blank contamination.
B1 - Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit. Target analyte concentration in sample was greater than 1OX the concentration in the method blank. Analyte concentration in sample is not affected by blank contamination.
B2 - Target analyte was detected in blank(s) at a concentration greater than 1/2 the reporting limit but less than the reporting limit. Analyte concentration in sample is valid and may be used for compliance purposes.
B3 - Target analyte was detected in Continuing Calibration Blank(s) at a concentration greater than 1/2 the reporting limit but less than the reporting limit. Analyte concentration in sample is valid and may be used for compliance purposes.
B5 - Target analyte was present in blank(s) above the method detection limit but less than the reporting limit. Data is valid for compliance purposes.
D3 - Sample was diluted due to the presence of high levels of non -target analytes or other matrix interference.
H1 - Analysis conducted outside the EPA method holding time.
HS - Results are from sample aliquot taken from VOA vial with headspace (air bubble greater than 6 mm diameter).
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
M1 - Matrix spike recovery was high: the associated laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable.
M2 - Matrix spike recovery was Low: the associated Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable.
M4 - The spike recovery value was unusable since the analyte concentration in the sample was disproportionate to the spike level.
N2 - The lab does not hold accreditation for this parameter.
S - Associated calibration check did not meet specified criteria.
°C - degrees celsius
ug/L - micrograms per liter
Ng/mL - microgram per milliliter
pf2/cm - microohm per centimeter
BTOC - below top of casing
DO - dissolved oxygen
mg/L - milligrams per liter
mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter
mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter
NM - Field parameter was not measured
NTU - nephelometric turbidity unit
ORP - oxidation-reduction potential
pCi/L - picocuries per liter
S.U. - standard units
SPC - specific conductance
TDS - total dissolved solid
Temp - temperature
TOC - total organic carbon
WL - water level
Page 11of12

TABLE 2
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Analytical Parameter
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Methane
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfate
Sulfide
TDS
Thallium
TOC
Total
Radium
TotalVanadium
Uranium
Zinc
Reporting Unit
mg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
Ng/L
pg/L
mg-N/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
pg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Ng/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pg/mL
pg/L
Ng/L
Well ID
Sample
Collection Date
Analytical Results
MW-14BR
1210212015
---
396
<1
---
2.29
304
<0.05
<10
6.62
<I
0.112
5.75
<1
41.6
141
10
<0.1
210
<0.2
0.822
1.82
<5
MW-14BR
O1/07/2016
---
98
<1
---
2.36
199
<0.05
<10
4.56
<1
0.384
4.49
<1
37.4
131
10
<0.1
180
<0.2
0.855
---
---
2.45
<5
MW-14BR
04/05/2016
---
89
<1
---
2.36
196
<0.05
<10
5.06
<1
0.346
4.06
<1
38.4
134
9.9
<0.1
200
<0.2
0.873
0.999
0.000241
2.86
<5
MW-14BR
07/11/2016
---
37
<1
---
2.51
247
<0.05
<10
8.07
<1
0.157
5.18
<1
47.9
140
11
<0.1
200
<0.2
0.84
0.947
0.000456
2.48
11
MW-14BR
0910712016
---
56
<1
---
2.57
322
<0.05
<10
9.57
<1
0.191
7.13
<1
46.3 M4
168
12
<0.1
230
<0.2
0.887
2
0.000314
2.07
7
MW-14BR
11/08/2016
---
172
<1
---
2.64
385
1 <0.05
12.2 N2
10.7
<1
1 0.187
6.78
<1
1 49.9
158
9.6
1 <0.1
220
1 <0.2
0.785
2.07
0.000389
1.56
6
MW-14BR
02/02/2017
---
37
<1
---
13.1
96
<0.05
<10 N2
5.04
<1
0.291
4.04
<1
38.4
150
8.6
<0.1
200
<0.2
0.832
<RL
0.000205
2.07
<5
MW-14BR
04/05/2017
---
52
<1
---
2.54
130
<0.05
<10
4.34
1.23
0.42
3.84
<1
38
143
8.9
<0.1
210
<0.2
0.948
1.752
0.000157 j
2.45
<5
MW-14BR
07/11/2017
---
51
<1
---
2.79
92
<0.05
---
3.87
<1
---
4.33
<1
41.9
143
9.8
<0.1
200
<0.2
0.758
---
---
2.57
<5
MW-14BR
11/07/2017
---
95
<1
---
2.97
275
<0.05
---
10.3
<1
---
6.21
<1
50.7
175
9.7
<0.1
200
<0.2 133
0.806
---
---
2.59
<5
MW-14BR
O1/22/2018
0.36
30
<1
47
2.49
57
<0.05
---
5.96
1 <1
0.126
8.63
<1
49.1 B3
230
9.1
<0.1
220
<0.2
1.1
---
---
2.23
<5
MW-14BR
04/04/2018
0.32
45
<1
7
2.72
55
<0.05
---
3.99
<1
0.4
3.9
<1
37
161
8.9
<0.1
200
<0.2
1.1
---
---
2.4
2.407 j
MW-14BR
07/18/2018
0.3
104
<1
9
2.71
119
<0.05
---
4.37
0.42 j
0.364
4.11
<1
38.8 132
147
9.2
<0.1
190
<0.2
0.793
---
2.55
3.146 j,132
MW-14BR
11/07/2018
0.25
178
<1
9
2.49
114
0.019 j
---
4.18
<1
0.427
3.91
<1
40.6
166
9.5
1 <0.1
160
<0.2
0.8
---
---
2.74
2.656 j
Prepared Bv: JHG Checked Bv: JAW
Notes:
0 Sample results are invalid for use because recorded sample pH greater than 8.5 standard units, recorded sample turbidity greater than 10 NTU, or no sample pH or turbidity was recorded.
0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTVs) because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error.
0 Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was not included in the calculation of BTVs because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was a result of field error or laboratory analytical error.
- Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BTVs.
No result because the concentration of analyte was not measured in sample or the sample result was rejected due to serious deficiencies in meeting QC criteria.
< - Concentration not detected at or above the adjusted reporting limit.
<RL - Less than reporting limit. Result was not included in statistical analysis because no numeric value was provided for the reporting limit.
B - Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit. Target analyte concentration in sample is less than 1OX the concentration in the method blank. Analyte concentration in sample could be due to blank contamination.
Bl - Target analyte detected in method blank at or above the reporting limit. Target analyte concentration in sample was greater than 1OX the concentration in the method blank. Analyte concentration in sample is not affected by blank contamination.
62 - Target analyte was detected in blank(s) at a concentration greater than 1/2 the reporting limit but less than the reporting limit. Analyte concentration in sample is valid and may be used for compliance purposes.
63 - Target analyte was detected in Continuing Calibration Blank(s) at a concentration greater than 1/2 the reporting limit but less than the reporting limit. Analyte concentration in sample is valid and may be used for compliance purposes.
65 - Target analyte was present in blank(s) above the method detection limit but less than the reporting limit. Data is valid for compliance purposes.
D3 - Sample was diluted due to the presence of high levels of non -target analytes or other matrix interference.
H1 - Analysis conducted outside the EPA method holding time.
HS - Results are from sample aliquot taken from VOA vial with headspace (air bubble greater than 6 mm diameter).
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
M1 - Matrix spike recovery was high: the associated laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable.
M2 - Matrix spike recovery was Low: the associated Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable.
M4 - The spike recovery value was unusable since the analyte concentration in the sample was disproportionate to the spike level.
N2 - The lab does not hold accreditation for this parameter.
S - Associated calibration check did not meet specified criteria.
°C - degrees celsius
ug/L - micrograms per liter
Ng/mL - microgram per milliliter
pf2/cm - microohm per centimeter
BTOC - below top of casing
DO - dissolved oxygen
mg/L - milligrams per liter
mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter
mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter
NM - Field parameter was not measured
NTU - nephelometric turbidity unit
ORP - oxidation-reduction potential
pCi/L - picocuries per liter
S.U. - standard units
SPC - specific conductance
TDS - total dissolved solid
Temp - temperature
TOC - total organic carbon
WL - water level
Page 12 of 12

TABLE 3
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS - SURFICIAL FLOW ZONE (MW-12S)
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Constituent
Reporting
Unit
Descriptive Statistics
Upper Tolerance Limits
Sample
Size
Number
of NDs
Percent
NDs
n
10` Percentile
n
50` Percentile
n
90` Percentile
Type of UTL r
Coverage
Confidence
Level
Value
pH*
S.U.
12
0
0
5.6
5.8
6.3
Normal
95
95
4.9 - 6.9
Alkalinity
mg-CaCO,/L
11
1
9
10
13
23
Lognormal
95
95
41.68
Aluminum
pg/L
8
0
0
144
346
513
n/a
n/a
n/a
566
Antimony
pg/L
11
11
100
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
1t
Arsenic
pg/L
11
7
64
0.9
1
1
Non-Parametric2
85
95
1.53
Barium
Ug/L
11
0
0
10
13
17
Normal
95
95
22.29
Beryllium
pg/L
11
11
100
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Bicarbonate
mg-CaCO,/L
8
0
0
10
13
17
n/a
n/a
n/s
22.7
Boron
pg/L
11
11
100
50
50
50
n/a
n/a
n/a
50t
Cadmium
pg/L
11
11
100
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
it
Calcium
mg/L
11
0
0
1.2
2.1
5.1
Gamma
95
95
12.74
Carbonate
mg-CaCO,/L
8
8
100
5
5
10
n/a
n/a
n/a
lot
Chloride
mg/L
11
0
0
1.1
2.4
3.3
Normal
95
95
4.922
Chromium
pg/L
11
4
36
1
1
3
Gamma
95
95
7.796
Chromium (VI)
pg/L
7
0
0
0.044
0.058
2.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.4
Cobalt
pg/L
11
4
36
0.7
1
2
Normal
95
95
2.298
Copper
pg/L
8
4
50
1
1
4
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.73
Fluoride
mg/L
5
2
40
0.05
0.08
0.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.1
Iron
pg/L
8
0
0
221
337
2612
n/a
n/a
n/a
6820
Lead
pg/L
11
7
64
1
1
1
Non -Parametric
85
95
1.96
Lithium
Ng/L
5
3
60
3
5
5
n/a
n/a
n/a
5t
Magnesium
mg/L
11
0
0
0.622
0.749
1.24
Normal
95
95
1.495
Manganese
pg/L
8
0
0
18.7
115
296
n/a
n/a
n/a
395
Mercury
pg/L
11
10
91
0.05
0.05
0.05
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.05t
Methane
pg/L
6
4
67
10
10
143
n/a
n/a
n/a
273
Molybdenum
pg/L
11
6
55
0.3
1
2
Non -Parametric
85
95
10.3
Nickel
Ng/L
8
2
25
0.942
1.31
3.71
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.41
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg-N/L
8
1
13
0.0359
0.529
0.769
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.769
Potassium
mg/L
11
0
0
1.36
1.98
3.29
Normal
95
95
5.079
Selenium
pg/L
11
11
100
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Sodium
mg/L
11
0
0
1.59
4.11
5.43
Normal
95
95
8.273
Strontium
pg/L
8
0
0
13
19
24
n/a
n/a
n/a
27
Sulfate
mg/L
11
0
0
0.95
1.4
2.2
Normal
95
95
2.815
Sulfide
mg/L
8
8
100
0.1
0.1
0.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
o. S t
TDS
mg/L
11
0
0
29
51
57
Gamma
95
95
130.3
Thallium
pg/L
11
10
91
0.2
0.2
0.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.2t
TOC
mg/L
8
0
0
0.521
1.33
6.49
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.1
Total Radium
pCi/L
10
0
0
0.378
0.567
0.917
Gamma
95
95
2.005
Total Uranium
pg/mL
7
3
43
0.00009
0.0002
0.0002
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.000217
Vanadium
pg/L
8
1
13
0.309
0.705
1.89
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.8
LZinc
pg/L
8
0
0
23
64
130
n/a
n/a
n/a
140
Notes:
O - Indicates value is the maximum concentration in dataset. The upper tolerance limit (UTL) was not calculated for the constituent because its dataset contained fewer than 10 valid samples.
Background well: MW-12S
* - Upper and lower tolerance limits calculated for constituent.
t - Maximum ND value represents UTL.
' - The type of UTL calculated for each constituent was based on the distribution of its data.
2 - The distribution of the data for the constituent could not be adequately assessed because the dataset contains >50 percent and 1_90 percent NDs. Therefore, the non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent.
Ug/L - micrograms per liter
Ug/mL - micrograms per milliliter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
mg-CaCO,/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter
mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter
n/a - Dataset was comprised of >90 percent non -detects.
ND - non -detect
pCi/L - picocuries per liter
S.U. - standard units
TDS - total dissolved solids
TOC - total organic carbon
Prepared by:JHG Checked by: HES
Page 1 of 1

TABLE 4
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS - TRANSITION ZONE
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Constituent
Reporting
Unit
Descriptive Statistics
Upper Tolerance Limits
Sample
Size
Number
of NDs
Percent
NDs
m
10 Percentile
w
SO Percentile
n
90` Percentile
2
Type of UTL
Coverage
Confidence
Level
Value
pH*
S.U.
40
0
0
6.0
6.3
6.5
Non-Parametric3
90
95
5.6 - 6.6
Alkalinity
mg-CaCO,/L
29
0
0
53
203
257
Non -Parametric'
90
95
302
Aluminum
Ng/L
35
2
6
37
100
378
Gamma
95
95
692.4
Antimony
pg/L
40
39
98
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Arsenic
pg/L
35
35
100
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Barium
pg/L
40
0
0
16
43
65
Non -Parametric'
90
95
67.7
Beryllium
Ng/L
29
29
100
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Bicarbonate
mg-CaCO,/L
24
0
0
53.6
219
258
Non -Parametric'
85
95
302
Boron
Ng/L
40
40
100
50
50
50
n/a
n/a
n/a
50t
Cadmium
pg/L
40
40
100
0
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Calcium
mg/L
29
0
0
11
49
57
Non-Parametric3
90
95
59.2
Carbonate
mg-CaCO,/L
24
24
100
5
5
9
n/a
n/a
n/a
lot
Chloride
mg/L
40
0
0
4.2
30
37
Non-Parametric3
90
95
39
Chromium
Ug/L
40
23
58
1
4
5
Non -Parametric
90
95
6
Chromium (VI)
Ng/L
15
7
47
0.03
0.1
0.8
Normal
95
95
1.275
Cobalt
Ug/L
29
28
97
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Copper
pg/L
35
30
86
1
5
5
Non-Parametric2
90
95
5
Fluoride
mg/L
10
6
60
0.1
0.1
0.3
Non -Parametric
85
95
0.34
Iron
Ng/L
35
0
0
114
326
902
Gamma
95
95
1356
Lead
pg/L
35
35
100
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Lithium
pg/L
10
7
70
3
5
5
Non-Parametric2
85
95
6
Magnesium
mg/L
29
0
0
3.1
9.9
12
Non -Parametric'
90
95
13.5
Manganese
Ng/L
35
0
0
27.4
105
233
Gamma
95
95
447.6
Mercury
pg/L
40
32
80
0.05
0.05
0.2
Non -Parametric
90
95
0.2
Methane
Ng/L
11
4
36
10
400
1130
Normal
95
95
2505
Molybdenum
Ug/L
29
22
76
0.6
1
1
Non-Parametric2
90
95
1.42
Nickel
Ng/L
35
23
66
0.9
5
5
Non-Parametric2
90
95
5.2
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg-N/L
15
3
20
0.014
0.08
0.25
Gamma
95
95
0.93
Potassium
mg/L
29
1
3
1.4
3.2
3.5
Non-Parametric3
90
95
3.61
Selenium
Ug/L
35
35
100
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Sodium
mg/L
29
0
0
9
43
50
Non-Parametric3
90
95
53.3
Strontium
Ug/L
22
0
0
85.2
288
369
Non -Parametric'
85
95
390
Sulfate
mg/L
40
0
0
1
5
7
Non-Parametric3
90
95
7.5
Sulfide
mg/L
18
18
100
0.1
0.1
0.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.1t
TDS
mg/L
40
0
0
93.2
312
401
Non-Parametric3
90
95
430
Thallium
Ug/L
40
39
98
0.1
0.2
0.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.2t
TOC
mg/L
18
0
0
0.261
1.25
1.73
Non-Parametric3
85
95
1.8
Total Radium
pCi/L
17
0
0
1.78
2.83
10.9
Lognormal
95
95
34.79
Total Uranium
pg/mL
13
0
0
0.000103
0.000639
0.000924
Non-Parametric3
85
95
0.00102
Vanadium
Ug/L
23
0
0
0.723
3.87
5.04
Non -Parametric'
85
95
5.8
Zinc
Ng/L
35
23
66
5
5
12
Non-Parametric2
90
95
15
Notes:
Background wells: BG-02 and MW-12D
* - Upper and lower tolerance limits calculated for constituent.
t - Maximum ND value represents upper tolerance limit (UTL).
1- The type of UTL calculated for each constituent was based on the distribution of its data.
2 - The distribution of the data for the constituent could not be adequately assessed because the dataset contains >50 percent and :590 percent NDs. Therefore, the non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent.
3 - The non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent because its background dataset could not be fitted to the normal, gamma, or lognormal distribution models.
Ug/L - micrograms per liter
Ug/mL - micrograms per milliliter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
mg-CaCO,/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter
mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter
n/a - Dataset was comprised of >90 percent non -detects.
ND - non -detect
pCi/L - picocuries per liter
S.U. - standard units
TDS - total dissolved solids
TOC - total organic carbon
Prepared by: JHG Checked by: HES
Page 1 of 1

TABLE 5
UPDATED BACKGROUND THRESHOLD VALUES FOR CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS - BEDROCK FLOW ZONE
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC, ROXBORO, NC
Constituent
Reporting
Unit
Descriptive Statistics
Upper Tolerance Limits
Sample
Size
Number
of NDs
Percent
NDs
to
30 Percentile
n
50` Percentile
n
90` Percentile
Type of UTL i
Coverage
Confidence
Level
Value
pH*
S.U.
58
0
0
5.5
6.4
7.0
Non-Parametric3
90
95
5.1 - 7.2
Alkalinity
mg-CaCO3/L
48
0
0
51.5
137
230
Non-Parametric3
90
95
240
Aluminum
pg/L
47
0
0
40
141
387
Gamma
95
95
573.7
Antimony
Ng/L
58
54
93
0.6
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Arsenic
pg/L
54
48
89
1
1
1
Non -Parametric
90
95
1
Barium
Ng/L
58
0
0
18
35
95
Non-Parametric3
90
95
97
Beryllium
Ug/L
48
48
100
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Bicarbonate
mg-CaCO3/L
37
0
0
51.9
121
212
Non-Parametric3
90
95
221
Boron
ug/L
58
57
98
50
50
50
n/a
n/a
n/a
50t
Cadmium
pg/L
58
54
93
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Calcium
mg/L
48
0
0
12.2
17.2
70.3
Non-Parametric3
90
95
72.7
Carbonate
mg-CaCO3/L
37
37
100
5
5
7
n/a
n/a
n/a
lot
Chloride
mg/L
58
0
0
10
13
35
Non-Parametric3
90
95
41
Chromium
Ng/L
58
42
72
1
1
5
Non-Parametricz
90
95
7
Chromium (VI)
Ug/L
29
14
48
0.03
0.03
0.3
Non -Parametric'
90
95
0.36
Cobalt
Ng/L
47
29
62
1
1
3
Non-Parametricz
90
95
4.67
Copper
Ug/L
47
29
62
1
2
5
Non-Parametricz
90
95
5
Fluoride
mg/L
21
3
14
0.09
0.2
0.3
Normal
95
95
0.417
Iron
pg/L
47
0
0
37
290
2412
Gamma
95
95
3771
Lead
pg/L
54
54
100
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
It
Lithium
pg/L
21
5
24
3
9
35
Normal
95
95
48.47
Magnesium
mg/L
48
0
0
2.53
3.36
13.4
Non-Parametric3
90
95
14.7
Manganese
Ug/L
47
1
2
7.6
92
472
Non-Parametric3
90
95
548
Mercury
Ng/L
58
55
95
0.05
0.05
0.05
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.2t
Methane
pg/L
16
11
69
10
10
34
Non-Parametricz
85
95
41.8
Molybdenum
Ng/L
48
14
29
1
4
8
Lognormal
95
95
17.24
Nickel
pg/L
47
30
64
1
1
5
Non-Parametricz
90
95
6.2
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg-N/L
27
11
41
0.01
0.16
0.8
Normal
95
95
0.962
Potassium
mg/L
48
0
0
1.34
4.34
8.68
Non-Parametric3
90
95
10.9
Selenium
Ng/L
54
46
85
1
1
2
Non-Parametricz
90
95
2.28
Sodium
mg/L
48
0
0
11.7
22.1
114
Non-Parametric3
90
95
117
Strontium
Ng/L
36
0
0
143
176
387
Non-Parametric3
90
95
418
Sulfate
mg/L
58
3
5
0.25
9.4
103
Non-Parametric3
90
95
130
Sulfide
mg/L
32
30
94
0.1
0.1
0.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.2t
TDS
mg/L
58
0
0
110
200
423
Non-Parametric3
90
95
470
Thallium
Ng/L
58
55
95
0.2
0.2
0.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.2t
TOC
mg/L
32
0
0
0.5
0.8
1
Normal
95
95
1.256
Total Radium
pCi/L
26
0
0
0.718
1.31
3.13
Gamma
95
95
5.301
Total Uranium
pg/mL
16
4
25
0.000179
0.000315
0.00105
Lognormal
95
95
0.00255
Vanadium
pg/L
36
4
11
0.3
2
4
Non-Parametric3
90
95
4.42
Zinc
Ug/L
46
23
50
4
5
29
Lognormal
95
95
35.11
Notes:
Background wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, MW-14BR
* - Upper and lower tolerance limits calculated for constituent.
t - Maximum ND value represents upper tolerance limit (UTL).
1- The type of UTL calculated for each constituent was based on the distribution of its data.
z - The distribution of the data for the constituent could not be adequately assessed because the dataset contains >50 percent and :590 percent NDs. Therefore, the non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent.
3 - The non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent because its background dataset could not be fitted to the normal, gamma, or lognormal distribution models.
° - The dataset for the constituent was lognormally distributed. The standard deviation of the natural log -transformed dataset was >1. As a result, the non -parametric UTL was calculated for the constituent.
pg/L - micrograms per liter
pg/mL - micrograms per milliliter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter
mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter
n/a - Dataset was comprised of >90 percent non -detects.
ND - non -detect
pCi/L - picocuries per liter
S.U. - standard units
TDS - total dissolved solids
TOC - total organic carbon
Prepared by:JHG Checked by: HES
Page 1 of 1

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
ATTACHMENT 1
SynTerra

ARICADIS Design&Consultancy
fornaturaland
V r `. builtassets
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
To:
Copies:
11001 W. 120th Avenue
Scott Davies, PG, Duke Energy
Matthew Hanchey, Duke Energy
Suite 200
526 South Church Street
411 Fayetteville Street
Broomfield
Colorado 80021
Charlotte, NC 28202
Raleigh, NC 27601
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
From:
Julie K Sueker, PhD, PH, PE
Date: Arcadis Project No.:
June 11, 2019 DKNC19CA
Subject:
Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation — Allen, Belews
Creek, Cliffside, Marshall, Mayo, and Roxboro Sites
This technical memorandum, titled Background Threshold Value Statistical Outlier Evaluation — Allen,
Belews Creek, Cliffside, Marshall, Mayo, and Roxboro Sites, was prepared by Arcadis U.S. Inc. on behalf
of Duke Energy. This memorandum presents the results of an evaluation of statistically significant outliers
identified in the Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
(SynTerra Corporation (SynTerra), 2019a through 2019f) constituent concentration data sets (background
groundwater data sets) for the six Duke Energy sites noted above. This evaluation was conducted within
the context of recent EPA guidance regarding the treatment of statistical outliers. This memorandum
supports the background threshold value (BTV) statistical analyses conducted by SynTerra for each site
(SynTerra 2019a through 2019f) applying the technical approach presented herein. Additionally, this
technical memorandum includes a review of regional background groundwater quality.
Constituent BTVs are calculated for comparison of concentrations of constituents in site groundwater to
these calculated BTVs. These BTV values are used for comparison to site groundwater constituent
concentrations when the constituent has no established 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Standard
(02L) or Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration (IMAC), and/or when the BTVs are higher than either
the 02L or IMAC criteria.
Page:
1/10

MEMO
1.0 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Naturally occurring constituent concentrations in Piedmont groundwater have been measured at
numerous monitoring sites and residential water supply wells by several institutions and government
agencies (Chapman et al. 2005, Gunkle and Bradley 2007, Pippin et al. 2008, Harden et al. 2009, Sanders
et al. 2012, Chapman et al. 2013, Polizzotto et al. 2015, Gillispie et al. 2016, Vengosh et al. 2016, and
NCDEQ 2019). These studies demonstrate variability in groundwater constituent concentrations across
the Piedmont region as shown in Figure 1 (Chapman et al. 2013). These patterns in regional groundwater
constituent concentration variability are also indicated by the USEPA Unified Guidance (USEPA 2009) to
occur for constituent concentrations in groundwater at individual wells (Table 1).
Detections of naturally occurring trace metals at concentrations above 02L criteria have been
demonstrated. Gunkle and Bradley (2007) compiled Piedmont groundwater dissolved arsenic
concentrations and show detections of arsenic above the 02L of 10 µg/L in multiple areas across the
region (Figure 2). Manganese has been detected at concentrations above the 02L of 50 µg/L in Piedmont
groundwater (Gillispie et al. 2016) (Figure 3). Vengosh et al. (2016) established a range of background
groundwater concentrations for chromium (VI), boron, and strontium for the Piedmont Region of North
Carolina. Chromium (VI) concentrations ranged from less than the detection limit of 0.012 to 22.9 µg/L
(Figure 4), boron concentrations ranged from less than the detection limit of 0.09 to 159.2 µg/L, and
strontium concentrations ranged from less than the detection limit of 0.25 to 3,426 µg/L (Vengosh et al.
2016). Data compiled by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) (NCDEQ
2019) demonstrate concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, nitrate plus
nitrite, sulfate, TDS, and zinc above their respective 02L criteria for Piedmont groundwater (Table 2 and
Attachment A).
2.0 CONSTITUENT OUTLIERS
HDR Engineer, Inc. (HDR) and SynTerra Corporation (SynTerra) developed protocol and procedures, with
input from NCDEQ, for establishing groundwater BTVs for Duke Energy coal ash facilities (HDR and
SynTerra 2017). The protocol establishes identifying extreme statistical outliers using the Dixon's or
Rosner's statistical outlier test using a significance level of 0.01. This report states, "If statistical outliers
have been detected, the project scientist will review the values to determine if they should be removed
from the data set or are representative of background and should be retained for statistical analysis. "
This approach to evaluate statistical outliers for inclusion or exclusion from a background data set is
consistent with guidance provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in their
2009 Unified Guidance (USEPA 2009) and 2018 Groundwater Statistics Tool — User's Guide (USEPA
2018). The Unified Guidance (USEPA 2009) states:
A statistical determination of one or more statistical outliers does not indicate why the
measurements are discrepant from the rest of the data set. The Unified Guidance does not
recommend that outliers be removed solely on a statistical basis. The outlier tests can provide
supportive information, but generally a reasonable rationale needs to be identified for removal of
suspect outlier values (usually limited to background data). At the same time there must be some
level of confidence that the data are representative of ground water quality. "
USEPA (2018) states [in bold font within the guidance document]:
arcadis.com
Page:
2/10

MEMO
"Dixon's [outlier] test is used only to indicate whether a data point can be considered as an outlier
statistically; outliers should not be discarded from the data set unless there is also a valid, known
technical reason for the outlier (for example, field or lab conditions)."
The Unified Guidance (USEPA 2009) recommends that testing of outliers be performed on background
data, but they generally should not be removed unless some basis for a likely error or discrepancy can be
identified. Possible errors or discrepancies that would exclude outlier data from a background data set
include:
• data recording errors,
• unusual sampling and laboratory procedures or conditions,
• inconsistent sample turbidity, and
• values significantly outside the historical ranges of background data.
The Unified Guidance (USEPA 2009) also states:
`In groundwater data collection and testing, background conditions may not be static over time.
Caution should be observed in removing observations which may signal a change in natural
groundwater quality. Even when conditions have not changed, an apparent extreme measurement
may represent nothing more than a portion of the background distribution that has yet to be
observed. This is particularly true if the background data set contains fewer than 20 samples."
Based on guidance provide by the USEPA (2009 and 2018), statistical outliers identified by SynTerra in
background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites were evaluated to determine whether
statistical outliers should be included or excluded from the background groundwater data sets.
3.0 OUTLIER EVALUATION METHODS
A data -driven approach was utilized to evaluate identified statistical outliers in the background
groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites. This approach not only considers analytical results
for individual constituents, but also the broader geochemical conditions at each individual site in addition
to all six Duke Energy sites to determine inclusion or exclusion of statistical outliers in the background
groundwater data set. This section describes the six methods utilized to evaluate statistical outliers within
the background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites including:
1. Initial screening for turbidity and pH,
2. Repeatability of constituent concentrations,
3. Relationship between pairs or groups of constituents,
4. Relationships between major ions and total dissolved solids,
5. Relationship between constituent concentration and pH, and
6. Relationship between constituent concentration and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)
Outlier evaluation methods 2 through 6 were conducted as part of the protocol established by HDR and
SynTerra (2017):
• `If statistical outliers have been detected, the project scientist will review the values to determine if
they should be removed from the data set or are representative of background and should be
retained for statistical analysis."
arcadis.com
Page:
3/10

MEMO
This outlier evaluation approach provides multiple lines of evidence to support inclusion or exclusion of
identified statistical outliers in the background groundwater data sets for each of the six Duke Energy
sites.
3.1 Initial Screening for Turbidity and pH
Background groundwater samples with turbidity values greater than 10 Nephelometric turbidity units
(NTU) and/or pH values greater than 8.5 standard units (S.U.) were eliminated from the background
groundwater data set as defined in the protocol established by HDR and SynTerra (2017) for the six Duke
Energy sites
Site -specific background data were eliminated for turbidity values greater than 10 NTU to reduce potential
effects of particulates entrained in the background groundwater samples on background groundwater
metals concentrations. However, particulate metals may still be present in samples with turbidity values
less than 10 NTU. Published comparisons of turbidity measured as NTU and total suspended solids (TSS)
(Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 2007 and Xiang et al. 2011) suggest that turbidity greater
than 10 NTU is associated with TSS concentrations generally greater than 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
(Figure 5). Combined concentrations of particulate metals, especially iron and aluminum, in all retained
site background groundwater data are less than 10 mg/L (e.g., Figure 6) and had turbidity values less than
10 NTU. Therefore, groundwater sample data with associated turbidity values less than 10 NTU were
appropriately included within the background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites, whether
or not particulate forms of metals were present.
3.2 Repeatability of Constituent Concentrations
Statistical outliers identified as a repeated concentration across sample dates for individual well were
retained within the background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites. All retained outliers
for the six Duke Energy sites are provided in Tables 3 through 8.
Data sets were evaluated for the repeatability of individual constituent analytical results. Repeatability
weighs in favor of data inclusion because it suggests the measured value is not due to a data recording
error or unusual condition. Additionally, if a value is repeatedly measured over time, it is an indication that
the sampling is accurately measuring the constituent concentration. For example, in well BG-02D at
Belews Creek, calcium was measured at concentrations above 10 ug/L in 15 consecutive samples from
2015 to 2019, all of which were flagged as statistical outliers. Although these sample constituent
concentrations may be high relative to the rest of the dataset, the consistency of the measurements
strongly indicate the detected constituent concentrations are not due to sampling artifacts.
Repeatability was evaluated for individual wells, across individual groundwater flow zones
(saprolite/regolith, transition zone and bedrock), across all flow zones for an individual site, and across all
six Duke Energy sites. Figure 7 provides examples of constituents with repeated concentrations within a
small range that were identified as statistical outliers. Statistical outliers are identified on Figure 7 by
orange boxes. The constituents shown in Figure 7 as well as other constituents with similar profiles were
retained within the background groundwater data set. The following bullets summarize the constituents
and wells with repeatable concentrations illustrated in Figure 1 for each site.
• Allen — BG-02S chloride and nitrate,
Belews Creek — BG-02D calcium and magnesium,
• Cliffside — MW-30D magnesium, lithium, sodium, and molybdenum,
arcadis.com
Page:
4/10

MEMO
• Marshall — BG-01 sulfate, BG-01 D selenium, and BG-02BR total radium,
• Mayo — CCR-102BR-BG selenium and sulfate, and
• Roxboro — MW-10BR cobalt, and MW-18BR chloride.
This portion of the evaluation also included evaluating box -and -whisker plots for statistical outliers of
individual constituents by well (SynTerra 20198a through 2019f). Background groundwater constituents
that were not identified as outliers within the individual well box -and -whisker plots were retained.
3.3 Relationship Between Pairs or Groups of Constituents
Statistical outliers identified to have similar distributions to other constituents were retained within the
background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites. All retained outliers for the six Duke
Energy sites are provided in Tables 3 through 8.
Relationships between constituents provide evidence regarding whether a measured concentration is due
to a data recording or unusual condition. When two constituents are correlated, a high concentration for
one constituent will typically be associated with a high concentration for the correlated constituent. When a
statistical outlier in one constituent is associated with a high value in an associated constituent, this
association provides evidence that the statistical outlier is a valid data point that is not associated with
sampling or laboratory error. Conversely, a statistical outlier that is not associated with a high value in an
associated constituent is more likely to be invalid.
Groups of Constituents
Statistical outliers were identified for several metals including aluminum, chromium, cobalt, iron,
manganese, and nickel (Figures 6, 8, and 9). These statistical outliers were associated with particulate or
dissolved forms based on comparison of total and filtered (0.45 micron) metals concentrations. Statistical
outlier concentrations of aluminum and iron were typically associated with primarily particulate form while
statistical outlier concentrations of chromium, cobalt, manganese, and nickel were typically in dissolved
form, although chromium and nickel were also observed to be primarily in particulate form for some outlier
samples.
Statistical outlier metals in primarily dissolved form were consistent with geochemical conditions including
acidic pH and ORP values that indicated presence of metal (e.g., iron and manganese) reducing
conditions. Dissolution of iron and manganese oxides in metal reducing conditions results in release of
other metals associated with the iron and manganese oxides including arsenic and cobalt.
Statistical outlier metals present primarily in particulate form are consistent with chemical and mechanical
weathering of the aquifer matrix. Naturally occurring chemical weathering, for example via metal reduction,
results in dissolution of minerals present within the aquifer matrix and can result in formation of very fine-
grained particles such as clay particles and colloids. Mechanical weathering of the aquifer matrix, e.g.,
stress applied to the aquifer via groundwater pumping, even under low flow conditions, can dislodge these
fine-grained particles and cause these particles to migrate to the well. Although monitoring well filter pack
materials are sized to minimize migration of fine-grained particles, some of these fine-grained particles can
still migrate through the filter pack and become captured during groundwater sampling. This is a process
that will occur for both groundwater monitoring and drinking water supply wells which are often completed
as open boreholes in bedrock absent of filter packs to minimize migration of fine-grained particles.
Chemical weathering of aquifer matrix minerals can also result in formation of fine-grained particulates.
Metals that are dissolved under metal reducing conditions can form particulates via reoxidation and
arcadis.com
Page:
5/10

MEMO
precipitation of metals when the dissolved metals encounter less reducing and more oxic (oxygen rich)
conditions.
Pairs of Constituents
Similarities in distributions of several constituent pairs were observed across monitoring wells,
groundwater flow zones, and the six Duke Energy sites. These similarities in constituent distributions were
observed for the constituent well pair aluminum and iron (Figure 6), cobalt and manganese (Figure 8) and
chromium and nickel (Figure 9) as well as other constituent pairs and groupings not shown in Figures 6, 8,
and 9. These strong similarities in constituent distributions across wells, groundwater flow zones and
across the six Duke Energy sites indicate natural conditions.
3.4 Relationship Between Major Ions and Total Dissolved Solids
Statistical outliers with TDS increase not accompanied by similar increases in major cation and anion
concentrations were excluded from the background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites.
All retained outliers for the six Duke Energy sites are provided in Tables 3 through 8.
Concentrations of major cations (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium) and anions (alkalinity,
chloride, and sulfate) that were identified as statistical outliers were compared to total dissolved solids
(TDS) concentrations. If outlier cation or anion concentrations were accompanied by a similar increase in
TDS, the outlier was retained within the background groundwater data sets for the six Duke Energy sites.
TDS concentrations that were identified as statistical outliers were then compared with concentrations of
major cations and anions.
3.5 Relationship Between Constituent Concentration and pH
Statistical outliers with pH values (less than 8.5 S.U.) were retained within the background groundwater
data sets for the six Duke Energy sites. All retained outliers for the six Duke Energy sites are provided in
Tables 3 through 8.
Background groundwater data sets were evaluated for relationships between constituent concentrations
and groundwater pH values. Relationships between constituent concentrations and pH were observed for
arsenic and alkalinity with higher arsenic and alkalinity (including bicarbonate and carbonate alkalinity)
concentrations observed for higher pH values (less than 8.5 S.U.) (Figure 10). These higher pH values are
within the expected naturally occurring pH range for groundwater at the six Duke Energy sites.
3.6 Relationship Between Constituent Concentration and ORP
Statistical outliers associated with low ORP values were retained within the background groundwater data
sets for the six Duke Energy sites. All retained outliers for the six Duke Energy sites are provided in Tables
3 through 8.
Background groundwater data sets were evaluated for relationships between groundwater ORP and
constituent concentrations. Low ORP values were observed to be associated with higher concentrations of
arsenic, methane, sulfide, manganese, iron, and other constituent values, as illustrated for methane in
groundwater at Mayo monitoring well MW-12S in Figure 10. Sulfide is produced under sulfate reducing
conditions while dissolved metals, including iron and manganese, are released under metal reducing
conditions. The retained higher methane concentration shown in Figure 10, identified as a statistical
outlier, was also preceded by a short-term increase in total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations prior to
arcadis.com
Page:
6/10

MEMO
the detection of the higher methane concentration. TOC provides an energy source to the bacteria that
produce methane during respiration of organic carbon and oxygen from a terminal electron acceptor
(nitrate, manganese and iron oxides, sulfate, carbon dioxide).
4.0 SUMMARY
Results of the constituent statistical outlier evaluation are provided in Tables 3 through 8. These tables
provide the well ID, sampling date, constituent, reporting unit, constituent concentration, and the rationale
for each identified outlier that was included in the background groundwater data sets for each site. The
general rationale for each constituent that had an outlier included in the background groundwater data
sets across the six Duke Energy sites are summarized below.
• Alkalinity — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or
field errors identified.
• Aluminum — Present with higher concentrations of iron; not identified as an outlier on individual
well box -and -whisker plot
• Antimony — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or
field errors identified.
• Arsenic — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field
errors identified; higher arsenic value associated with lower ORP.
• Beryllium — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Bicarbonate alkalinity — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no
laboratory or field errors identified; low outlier concentration associated with higher pH.
• Boron — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Cadmium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or
field errors identified.
• Calcium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Carbonate alkalinity — Present with higher pH value.
• Chloride — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Chromium — Present with higher nickel concentrations; not identified as an outlier on individual
well box -and -whisker plot.
• Chromium (VI) — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory
or field errors identified.
• Cobalt — Present with higher concentrations of manganese; not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Copper — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field
errors identified.
• Fluoride — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field
errors identified.
arcadis.com
Page:
7/10

MEMO
• Iron — Present with higher concentrations of aluminum, chromium, cobalt, or nickel; not identified
as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified.
• Lead — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field
errors identified.
• Magnesium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Manganese — Present with higher concentrations of aluminum, iron, or cobalt; not identified as an
outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Methane — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or
field errors identified; higher methane concentration associated with lower ORP value.
• Molybdenum — Present with higher concentrations of chromium, manganese, nickel, or sodium
and TDS; not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot, no laboratory or field
errors identified.
• Nickel — Present with higher concentrations of chromium; not identified as an outlier on individual
well box -and -whisker plot.
• Nitrate + nitrite — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory
or field errors identified.
• Potassium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot.
• Selenium — Present with higher chromium concentration; not identified as an outlier on individual
well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified.
• Sodium — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field
errors identified.
• Sulfate — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field
errors identified.
• Sulfide — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Total dissolved solids — Present with higher sodium concentration; not identified as an outlier on
individual well box -and -whisker plot; no laboratory or field errors identified.
• Total organic carbon — Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot; no
laboratory or field errors identified.
• Total radium — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Total uranium — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Thallium — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Vanadium — No laboratory or field errors identified.
• Zinc — No laboratory or field errors identified.
arcadis.com
Page:
8/10

MEMO
REFERENCES:
Chapman, M., R. Bolich, and B. Huffman. 2005. Hydrogeologic Setting, Ground -Water Flow, and Ground -
Water Quality at the Lake Wheeler Road Research Station, 2001-03. United States Geological Survey
Scientific Investigation Report 2005-5166. Prepared in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
Chapman, M., C. Cravotta III, Z. Szabo, and B. Lindsey. 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. United States Geological Survey, Scientific Investigation
Report 2013-5072.
HDR Engineering, Inc. and SynTerra Corporation. 2017. Revised Statistical Methods for Developing
Reference Background Concentrations for Groundwater and Soil at Coal Ash Facilities. May.
Gillispie, E. R. Austin, N. Rivera, R. Bolich, O. Duckworth, P. Bradley, A. Amoozegar, D. Hesterberg, and
M. Polizzotto. 2016. Soil weathering as and engine for manganese contamination of well water.
Environmental Science Technology, 50: 9963-9971.
Gunkle, D. and P. Bradley. 2007. Arsenic Occurrence in Groundwater in Orange and Durham Counties.
North Carolina Geological Survey and Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Harden, S., M. Chapman, and D. Hamed. 2009. Characterization of Groundwater Quality Based on
Regional Geologic Setting in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Physiographic Provinces, North Carolina.
United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2009-5149. Prepared in cooperation with
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Aquifer
Protection Section.
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 2007. Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Relationship for all Mainstem Portneuf River and Marsh Creek Sites. https://deq.idaho.gov/media/594342-
turbid ity_tss_phosphorus_051507. pdf
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2019. Piedmont Mountain Groundwater
Resource Evaluation Program. Websites for Allison Woods, Bent Creek, Coweeta, Langtree Peninsula,
Morgan Mill, Pasour Mountain, Tater Hill, and Upper Piedmont Groundwater Monitoring and Research
Stations accessed May 21, 2019. https://deg.nc.gov/node/83001.
Pippin, C., M. Chapman, B. Huffman, M. Heller, and M. Schelgel. 2008. Hydrogeologic Setting, Ground -
Water Flow, and Ground -Water Quality at the Langtree Peninsula Research Station, Iredell County, North
Carolina, 2008-5055. United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2009-5149.
Prepared in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality.
Polizzotto, M., A. Amoozegar, R. Austin, R. Bolich, P. Bradley, O. Duckworth, and D. Hesterberg. 2015.
Surface and Subsurface Properties Regulating Manganese Contamination of Groundwater in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Water Resources Research Institute of The University of North Carolina, Report No.
459.
Sanders, A., K. Messier, M. Shehee, K Rudo, M. Serre, and R. Fry. 2012. Arsenic in North Carolina:
Public Health Implications. Environment International. 38(1): 10-16.
Synterra Corporation. 2019a. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater. Allen Steam Station. June 2019.
arcadis.com
Page:
9/10

MEMO
Synterra Corporation. 2019a. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater. Belews Creek Steam Station. June 2019.
Synterra Corporation. 2019a. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater. Cliffside Steam Station. June 2019.
Synterra Corporation. 2019a. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater. Marshall Steam Station. June 2019.
Synterra Corporation. 2019a. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater. Mayo Steam Electric Plant. June 2019.
Synterra Corporation. 2019a. Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in
Groundwater. Roxboro Steam Electric Plant. June 2019.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater
Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities — Unified Guidance. EPA 530-R-09-007. March.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2018. Groundwater Statistics Tool — User's
Guide. September.
Vengosh, A., R. Coyte, J. Karr, S. Harkness, A. Kondash, L. Ruhl, R. Merola, and G. Dywer. 2016. Origin
of hexavalent chromium in drinking water wells from the Piedmont aquifers of North Carolina. Enviro. Sci.
Technol. Letters. Accepted September 30, 2016.
Xiang, D.L.H., Djati, H.UD., and Hao, K.L.Z. 2011. Correlation between Turbidity and Total Suspended
Solids in Singapore Rivers. Journal of Water Sustainability, 1(3): 313-322.
arcadis.com
Page:
10/10

Figure 1. Box -and Whisker Plots for Constituent
Concentrations in Piedmont Region Groundwater
A
,9 51 11 96 17 70 55 34 2
16000
A Aft CC CUE 0E CUE E BC -
m -
` IA00
El
a a
ID1
m 9 1O • -
y €
I -
D
9 51 11 90 16 67 55 28 2
100
A AS AB AB AS a AB AS - _
z -
t e;
w -
OA
s: -
0.01
8
9 51 16 91 16 57 51 28 2
I,000 A A AS BC C AS BC BC -
9 -
v too C
10
E
E
-
a 1
H
8
9 51 10 91 16 57 51 2B
A A BC BC C BC BC AS -
i00
t0 $ e
1
°
0.1
f
9 50 10 91 16 67 51 2B 2
s I B AB A AS B A AS AS -
n
r
m
0
m
g 0.01
d
H
9 51 10 91 16 57 51 28 2
0� B AB AS AS AB A A AB
t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1
Notes provided on following page
© Arcadis 2018
C
IA00 9 51 10 91 15 57 51 28 2
A AB ABCABC BC C C ABC -
a 100
c
E 10
S 1
0.1
F
9 51 10 91 16 57 51 21 2
Ipp B AS B B B A AS A--
t0
y .
t -
9 51 10 91 16 57 51 28 2
I.OM A A BC BC C BC C AS -
m _
a 100
E � -
m •
0.1
0.01
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9
A
9 51 10 91 16 57 51 28 2
1,000 A AS CC CB 0 CO 0 BC -
c 100 t0
p.01 F 1
D
9 51 10 94 18 56 $5 34 2
6
1 43 7 55 12 61 55 17 2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8!
Source: Chapman et al. 2013
/aRCJaDIS Design&Consultancy
fOrnaturaland
6uiltassets
1,000
S 10
a
1
8
9 51 11 96 16 70 52 34
A A B CC 0 BCD 0 BC
o -
f
9 51 10 91 18 57 51 28 2
loom AB B AB AS A AS AS AB -
10,000
1,000
H
1 K ! a0 1[ 01 30 11 L
A A A A A A A-
°
O
0 °
8 ° °
o B °
O
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
C
9 5T 11 98 17 70 55 34
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
8.5
0 6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
F
9 51 10 91 17 67 55 28 2
100pp B B AS A A AB AS AB -
Z
g 1,000
I00 ° 0
°°
0.1
1 28 5 55 12 59 55 13 2
A AS B B AB B B-
° °
0
0 o S o
v 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
June 7, 2019 Page 1 of 2

Figure 1. Box -and Whisker Plots for Constituent
Concentrations in Piedmont Region Groundwater
(cont.)
A B C
1 43 7 55 12 61 55 17 2 1 43 7 55 12 61 55 17 2 1 43 7 55 12 61 55 17 2
10,000
m`
IXI
n
4 100
e
10
I
m
0.1
100
Im
A B BC BC BC BC C -
8
0
1 28 5 55 12 81 55 13 2
G
9 36 9 91 17 67 55 24 2
-A A B B B B B B
0
---------- °-----
❑
Q❑
1 T P
P ❑
0
❑ — � 0
I,000
10,000
1.000
100
r 10
m
a
m I
0.1
E
4 0.01
S
OA01
B A B 8 8 AB B 10
A A A A A A A
8 P
0
0 0
0 ❑ 0
o P 0
o Q 0 $
E F
1 43 7 55 12 61 55 17 2 7 10 4 25 3 8 5 12 2
- 1S
A 1s
5 a
It H -
N
0 27 2 15 3 28 20 3 0
1000B AB - AB - AB AB A -
100
Ia$�
E 10
1 •
9 36 8 76 10 60 55 20 1
100,000 Aa A AB A AB A AB A
m
10,o00
m
- --
m
0 1,000
cF
c •
100
9
N
s
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
© Arcadis 2018 Source: Chapman et al. 2013
04 ARCAD IS Design&Consultancy
for naturand
builtassealts
o Outlier data value more than
3 [lines the interquartile range
outside the quartile
Outlier data value less tbao
or equal to 3 and more than
1.5 times the interquartile
range outside the quartile
Data value less than or equal to
1.5 tinnes the interquartile range
outside the quartile
75th percentile
Mean
25th percentile
VAaWTI 1!131DL
1 Clastic sedimentary rocks (CLSD)
2 Claslic lacustriue/evaporite sedimentary rocks (CLSDLAC)
3 Quartz -rich sedimentary rocks (CLSDQ)
4 Metamorphosed clastic sedimentary rocks (CLSDMT)
5 Quartz -rich metamorphic rocks (MTQ)
6 Felsic igneous rocks and their metamorphic equivalents (IGMTF)
7 Intermediate igneous rocks and their metamorphic equivalents (IGMTI)
B Mafic igneous rocks and their Metamorphic equivalents (IGMTW
9 Ultramafic rocks MLMAFI
June 7, 2019 Page 2 of 2

Figure 2. Arsenic Occurrence in the
Carolina and Spring Hope Terranes
Consultancy
04 (andaRCAD IS &eats
Arsenic Occurrence in the Carolina and Spring Hope Terranes
Belews Creek Roxboro Mayo
Subject Area
Marshall
• Irk"
i r
it
• •� •tit � `: � _
..
Cliffsideyj Allen
Legend
• Arsenic Concentrations Equal to or above EPA MCL of 10 ppb
t Albemarle Sequence , ! j�
Wgihna Sequence ) Carolina terrane (Carolina slate belt) "t�'y
_ Spring Mope lettane (Eastern slate beM
0 s l0 t0 30 40
® Me.
Figure 2 —Dissolved groundwater arsenic occurrence in the Carolina and Spring Hope
terranes at concentrations equal to or above the EPA n1CL of 10 ppb.
(Data points fi•om DHHS Grounchvater Database, Pippin et al., 2003 and Pippin, 2005 — modified by J. Tootoo)
Duke Energy Site
Source: Gunkle and Bradley 2007
© Arcadis 2018 June 7, 2019

Figure 3. Manganese Concentrations in the
Piedmont Region of North Carolina
Belews Creek Roxboro4.
Mayo
�,y "-�. i.—r�•�•i"' is
Soil System Cliffside
M Nigh Mountain
Broad Basins, River Terraces M Triassic Basin
Felsic Crystalline Sandhills
Mixed Felsic and Mafic M Upper Coastal Plain and Piedmont
Carolina Slate Belt Middle Coastal Plain
04 ARCAD IS O iltass Consultancy
fornatura(and
6uiltassets
Mn (mg/L)
0 - 0.1
• 0.1 - 0.2
• 0.2 - 0.3
• 0.3 -0.5
• 0.5 -1.0
Figure S3. Nianganiese concentrations from the North Carolina Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) pnivate well water database. 2008-2011. plotted over NC Fiedn mt soil
sNVems (SSURGO. 014)_
Duke Energy Site
Source: Gillispie et al. 2016
© Arcadis 2018 June 7, 2019

/aRCJaDIS Design&Consultancy
Figure 4. Chromium Concentrations in North fornaturaland
6udtassets
Carolina Piedmont Groundwater
25
0
•
• This study Of
0 NC Environmental Quality 000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Total Chromium (µg/L)
Figure 2. Hexavalent chromium concentration vs total Cr
concentration in groundwater analyzed in this study (red circles)
and reported by the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality25 (0). Note the high correlation of Cr(Vl) to CrT in both data
sets with an r2 of 0.93 (p < 0.001; n = 77) reported in this study and an
r2 of 0.90 (p < 0.001; n = 129) in NC-DEQ data. The —1.1 ratio in
most of the samples indicates that Cr(VI) is the predominant species
of dissolved Cr in the Piedmont groundwater.
© Arcadis 2018 June 7, 2019
Source: Vengosh et al. 2016

Figure 5. Relations between Turbidity and Total
Suspended Solids (TSS)
rn
E
N
4a0
200
0
Turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS) relationship
for all mainstem Portneui R and marsh Cr sites'
R2=0.945. P�0.0001
N = 217
TSS = 2-3597(turbidilyin NTUI * 9.t109
•
0 '0o 200 300 400
turbidity (NTU)
'all sites except Portneuf River at Siphon Road
Source: https://deg.idaho.gov/media/594342-
turbidity tss phosphorus 051507.pdf
04 /aRCJaDIS Design&Consultancy
fornaturaland
6uiltassets
a� 90
JOD 0 80
3t4 0 0
311 60 0
E +C1 0 E
(�0 it 40
r 1-4 CJ a Fes" SU 0 r
1U0 0 00 0 ,1 00
51 0 00 l0 0
1 1
0 50 100 151 W :.s0 300 0 20 41 6B !0 14 124
Tutbidity(NM TurbidityPMJ)
(a) (b)
Figure 4 Correlation between Total Suspended Solids (TSS in mg'L) and Turbidity level (NTU)
from. (a- left) 48 river water samples and (b- right) selected river water samples at
lower TSS concentration range, which were collected from various river oreams in
Singapore between Jan 2010 to fitly 2011.
Source: Xiang et al. 2011
© Arcadis 2018 June 7, 2019

Figure 6. Iron and Aluminum
Allen BG-02D
1000
E
E 1Do
a
v
c
Aluminum >500 µg/L
10
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
--*--Iron tAluminum
Belews Creek BG-02S
10000
E 10oa
c
E
a
G 10n
O
10
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
�—Iron —4o—Aluminum
Cliffside BG-01S
1000
E
E 100
a
C
C
O
la Aluminum >400 µL g/
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
—do--Iron—1—Aiuminum
AARCAD1&biLI. tast,.r�r natural and
uilt assets
Marshall BG-03BR
10000
o�d
E loon
C
E
a
b lao
0
10
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
--*—Iron --do—Aluminum
Marshall MW-04D
10n00
loon
E
E 100
a
v
� 10
0
1
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
—Iron —Aluminum
Mayo MW-12D
1000
E
c
E wo
9
O
30
Jan-15
Jan-16 Ian-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
­41--Fron ♦Aluminum
© Arcadis 2018 Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier
June 7, 2019

Figure 7. Repeatability of COI Concentrations
00 /aRCJaDIS Design&Consultancy
fornaturaland
6uiltassets
Allen BG-025 I Marshall — BG-01 S, BG-01 D, BG-02BR
12 100
zi10
0
� I a
y 4 1
y c
_ e
2 V
L
U
0 0.1
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-15 fan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
f Nitrate Nitrhe —0—Chloride f13G-01S Sulfate fBG-011) Selenium—8G-02811 Total Radium
Belews Creek BG-02D Mayo CCR-102BR-BG
16 1000
c� 14
E 12 100
y 10
F y,
w 8 a 10
a
c 6 �
E 4 c
d
E �
m
u 0 0.1
Jan -is Jan-16 lan-17 Jan-IB Jan-19 fan-15 Jam 16 lan-17 lan-18 Jan 19
Calcium —0--Magnesium �Sele nium —Sulfa [e
Cliffside MW-30D
is
14
12
10
0
d 6
0
o 4
u
2
0
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18
—0—Magnesium—FLithium f-Sod'ium —6-1VIo3yhdenum
Jan-19
1:7.37• • • 111�DQI[17 7Ci�11D1'liF:3 3C7
160
? 140
120
n 100
a
U 80
a
c
60
a
'a 40
207
0
01/02/15 01/02/16 011OV17 01/01/18 01/01/19
---Cobalt MW-106R tChloride MW-188R
© Arcadis 2018 E) Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier June 7, 2019

Figure 8. Manganese and Cobalt
Allen BG-01DA
too
10
a
u
1 .
m
as
N
� 0.1
00
g 0.01 -- —
Jan-15 Jan-15 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
f Manganese Cobalt
Cliffside BG-01S
1000
100
10 • H
c
m
v
d
n 1 -
c
m
0.1
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 lan-19
t Manganese +Cobalt
64 ARCAD IS O iltass Consultancy
fornatura(and
6uiltassets
Belews Creek BG-035
1000
100
~�•
10
m
a
m 1
0.1
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18
t Manganese Cobalt
1000
r 1ao
m
u
a 10
iu
� 1
c
0.1
Jan-15
Cliffside GWA-30S
Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18
t Manganese #Cobalt
Marshall GWA-125
Marshall GWA-06D
1000
Iwo
100 — ?
10)
o �
u o
C 10 V
n 10 -
a
� v
1 - m
� m 1
m
0.1
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-19 Jan-19 0.1
Jan-19
Jan-19
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
-N -Cobalt --e—Manganese
Cobalt Manganese
©Arcadis 2018 Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier June 7, 2019

Figure 9. Chromium and Nickel
/aRCJaDIS Design&Consultancy
f0rnaturaland
6uiltassets
Allen BG-01S Marshall GWA-06S
100 100
a
10 Y 10
z
c �
A N
1 E t
E E
a o
u
U
0.1 0.1
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19
f Chromium ♦Nickel tChmmium ♦Nickel
Belews Creek MW-2028R Mayo MW-13BR
100 100
Y 10 Y 10
z 'z
G C
m �
E 1 E 1
E E
E 2
L L
V V
0.1 - 0.1 - "- — -
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18 fan-19
t Chromium ♦Nickel tChrcmium ♦Nickel
Cliffside MW-32BR Roxboro BG-01BR
100 10 -
8 Chromium >1 µg/L
10 — 6 _ Nickel >3 µg/L
4 -
E E 1 - - --
E
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan -is Jan-1-] OV02/15 01/01/16 OV01117 01/01/18 01/01/19
—f—Chromium --41�-Chromium —�—Nickel
© Arcadis 2018 Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier June 7, 2019

Figure 10. pH, ORP and COI Concentrations
Allen GWA-26D
2
u�i 1
Q
= 0.5
Arsenic >1.1 µc
0 �—
Jan-15 Jal-16
Jan-17 Jan-18
Arsenic —6--pH
9
8.5 LZ
7.5 0.
7
Jan-19
Mayo MW-12S
300
16
E 2504*-"*
14
� 20012
O
15010
s
m
N
`m
J 1008
U
U
506
m
ao
m 0
4 O
LC1J
2 H'100
00
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17
Jan-18 Jan-19
—0—Oxidation Reduction Potential f Methane-0—Total
Organic Carbon
04ARCADIS Designs Consultancy
fornaturatand
builtasets
Cliffside GWA-30
70
60 GWA-30DA all
V 50 alkalinity values
40
'—� 30
Q � "
20
y.j�ia���.� ti� ��• Q. 10
0 7��— --
Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18
0 GWA-30SAIk 0—GWA-30SAlk
— • — GWA-30S pH — • — GWA-30DA pH
8
7 "c
4
Jan-19
© Arcadis 2018 D Constituent concentration identified as a statistical outlier June 7, 2019

Table 1. Typical Background Data Patterns for
Routine Groundwater Monitoring Analytes
Analyte Detection Rates Between Within Well Between Outlier Temporal variation
S Grou Well Variability Well Problems
P Frequency of Multiple Between Within
Detection Reporting Mean (CVs) Equal Well by Well
Differ- Variances
by Well Limiits Analyte Among
ences
Group
IIIC C.oilsil Else Ills a
Within
Well
Auto-
correl.
/aRCJaDIS Design&Consultancy
fornaturaland
6uiltassets
Within Within
Well Well
Seasonal Time
Variation Correl.
Typical I Data
Distribution Grouping
within well
Major ions, pH,
High to 100%
Generally fv
�� �» » » V
Normal
Intrawel
TDS, Specific
low
Conductance
(.1-.5)
CO3, F,
Some to most
Moderate Variable
Norm, Log or
Intrawell/
J J
, f J
NO2,NO3
detectable
(.2-1.5)
NPM
Interwell
.9?t1 r'IlIei-cu Irace ItICIIICIlCS
Ba
High to 100%
J
Low
,
Normal
Intrawell
(.1-.5)
As, Se
Some wells
Moderate
Variable
Normal, Log
Intrawell/
✓ J
f ✓
„
,
,
high, others
(.2-1.5)
or NPM
Interwell
( some
low to zero
wells)
Al, Mn, Fe
Low to
Moderate
J
» J
Log or NPM
Intrawell/
Moderate
to high
Interwell
(.3-> 2.0 )
Sb, Be, Cd, Cr,
Zero to low
Moderate
Log or NPM
Interwell
J�
J
»>
> J�
Cu, Hg, Pb, Ni,
to high
or NDC
Ag, TI, V, Zn
(.5->2.0)
\P_lI- non-pammetric methods: XDC- nc-cr-detected coustitucuts
Checks: '_None— uiikiiown_ absent or infregiienthr occu17111c" (—Occasionally: ✓ ,(— Frequently: ✓ ,(,(— N.'ery Frequently
Source: USEPA 2009 — Unified Guidance
© Arcadis 2018 June 7, 2019

Table 3
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Allen Steam Station
Duke Energy
Allen Steam Station
„d
04ARCADIS built.:.,.:f
Weill ID Sample
�.
CCR-BG-01 DA 09/13/2016 Alkalinity 183 mg-CaCO3/L
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample �.
Data Set
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 DA
02/28/2017
Alkalinity
178
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 DA
04/25/2017
Alkalinity
150
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
02/28/2018
Aluminum
2030
µg/L
Present with higher concentrations of iron
GWA-19S
03/29/2017
Aluminum
1870
µg/L
Present with higher concentrations of iron
BG-02D
12/13/2016
Aluminum
540
µg/L
Present with higher concentrations of iron
BG-02D
12/8/2017
Aluminum
767
µg/L
Present with higher concentrations of iron
BG-02D
8/28/2018
Aluminum
525
µg/L
Present with higher concentrations of iron
BG-04D
12/12/2017
Aluminum
670
µg/L
Present with higher concentrations of iron
BG-04D
03/05/2018
Aluminum
614
µg/L
Present with higher concentrations of iron
GWA-21 DA
08/31/2018
Aluminum
980
µg/L
Present with higher concentrations of iron
BG-01 BR
09/06/2018
Antimony
0.67
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02BRA-2
12/07/2018
Antimony
0.61
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-21 BR
06/04/2018
Antimony
3.9
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-21 BR
09/04/2018
Antimony
2.4
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-21 BR
12/12/2018
Antimony
2.6
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
06/21/2017
Arsenic
2.3
µg/L
Present with higher iron and manganese concentrations
BG-04D
06/23/2017
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
134
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02D
11/08/2017
Boron
50.3
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-21S
06/20/2017
Cadmium
0
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04D
06/23/2017
Calcium
35.8
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04D
09/07/2017
Calcium
31.6
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04D
11/08/2017
Calcium
30.9
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 DA
02/28/2017
Calcium
36.3
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
12/10/2015
Chloride
9.2
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
03/14/2016
Chloride
10.5
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
05/04/2016
Chloride
10.7
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
09/14/2016
Chloride
11.2
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
12113/2016
Chloride
10.9
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
03129/2017
Chloride
11.2
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
06/2112017
Chloride
9.8
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01S
05/3112018
Chromium
37.6
µg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
BG-04S
03/0512018
Chromium
13.4
µg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
GWA-23S
03/0512018
Chromium
14.4
µg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
BG-01DA
06/2112017
Chromium
93.2
µg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
BG-01DA
12/1112017
Chromium
97.6
µg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
GWA-21DA
12/1312017
Chromium
18.4
µg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
BG-02BRA-2
06/27/2017
Chromium
8.9
µg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
BG-04BR
08/27/2018
Chromium
8.6
µg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
CCR-BG-01 S
06/22/2016
Cobalt
6.6
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 S
07/19/2016
Cobalt
23.2
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 S
09/13/2016
Cobalt
19.2
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 S
11107/2016
Cobalt
12.4
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 S
01104/2017
Cobalt
6.8
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 S
02/2812017
Cobalt
5.7
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 S
04/2512017
Cobalt
4.9
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 S
06/19/2017
Cobalt
4.6
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 S
08/1512017
Cobalt
5.7
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-21S
03/08/2016
Cobalt
5
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-21S
05/05/2016
Cobalt
5.7
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-21S
09/21/2016
Cobalt
3.6
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-21S
11/08/2016
Cobalt
3.7
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-21S
01/03/2017
Cobalt
3.8
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 DA
6/21/2017
Cobalt
1.1
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 DA
12/11/2017
Cobalt
1.4
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
1/4

Table 3
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Allen Steam Station
Duke Energy
Allen Steam Station
04ARCADIS built „d.:.,.:f
Weill ID Sample Rationale for Inclusion of Sample �.
�. Data Set
GWA-23D 09/06/2018 Cobalt 1.8 µg/L Present with higher manganese concentration
GWA-23D
12/12/2018
Cobalt
4.6
µg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
BG-01 DA
03/01/2018
Fluoride
0.35
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
02/28/2018
Iron
2370
µg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
GWA-16S
12/13/2016
Iron
2940
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
06/21/2017
Iron
1860
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 DA
1211112017
Iron
1560
µg/L
Present with higher chromium, cobalt, and nickel concentrations
GWA-23S
06121/2017
Lead
1.6
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-23S
08/29/2018
Lead
1.4
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02BRA-2
06/27/2017
Lead
0.17
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 DA
0811512017
Lithium
25.3
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-19D
09/06/2018
Lithium
44.9
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-19D
12/11/2018
Lithium
34.9
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04S
02/04/2016
Manganese
470
µg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
BG-04S
05/04/2016
Manganese
204
µg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
GWA-16S
12/13/2016
Manganese
1620
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
03/29/2017
Manganese
780
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
O6/21/2017
Manganese
769
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
09/15/2017
Manganese
608
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
12/07/2017
Manganese
318
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
02/28/2018
Manganese
352
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
06/01/2018
Manganese
213
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-21S
03/08/2016
Manganese
286
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-21S
09/21/2016
Manganese
366
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-21S
12/14/2016
Manganese
373
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-21S
03128/2017
Manganese
264
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04D
06123/2017
Manganese
233
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04D
09/07/2017
Manganese
154
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04D
12/12/2017
Manganese
186
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04D
03/05/2018
Manganese
175
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04D
O6/04/2018
Manganese
106
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04D
08/27/2018
Manganese
73.2
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04D
12/06/2018
Manganese
78.3
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-23D
09/06/2018
Manganese
659
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-23D
12/12/2018
Manganese
900
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
09123/2016
Manganese
60.4
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
06121/2017
Manganese
160
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
09107/2017
Manganese
176
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
1110812017
Manganese
102
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
12/11/2017
Manganese
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
03/01/2018
Manganese
172
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
05/31/2018
Manganese
230
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
08/28/2018
Manganese
230
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
12/07/2018
Manganese
256
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
12/13/2016
Methane
178
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-21S
09/21/2016
Methane
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-21S
12/14/2016
Methane
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-26D
09/23/2016
Methane
125
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-26D
03/27/2017
Methane
38.9
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-26D
O6/21/2017
Methane
451
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-21 BR
O6/20/2017
Methane
89.6
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01S
05/31/2018
Molybdenum
1.2
µg/L
Present with higher chromium and nickel concentrations
GWA-16S
12/13/2016
Molybdenum
9
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
03/29/2017
Molybdenum
6.7
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
06/21/2017
Molybdenum
10.7
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
2/4

Table 3
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Allen Steam Station
Duke Energy
Allen Steam Station
04ARCADIS built „d.:.,.:f
Weill ID Sample Rationale for Inclusion of Sample �.
�. Data Set
GWA-16S 09/15/2017 Molybdenum 8.2 µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
12/07/2017
Molybdenum
6
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
02128/2018
Molybdenum
5.1
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
0610112018
Molybdenum
4.9
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
08128/2018
Molybdenum
3.1
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-16S
12107/2018
Molybdenum
2.9
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26S
03/27/2017
Molybdenum
1.3
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 DA
09/13/2016
Molybdenum
26.6
µg/L
Present with higher sodium and TDS concentrations
CCR-BG-01 DA
06/1912017
Molybdenum
14
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
09/2312016
Molybdenum
30.2
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
O6/21/2017
Molybdenum
23.2
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
09/07/2017
Molybdenum
16.3
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
11/08/2017
Molybdenum
26.2
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
03/01/2018
Molybdenum
13.9
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
05/31/2018
Molybdenum
16.2
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
08/28/2018
Molybdenum
14.3
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
12/07/2018
Molybdenum
16.8
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01S
05/3112018
Nickel
26.2
µg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
BG-01 DA
06/21/2017
Nickel
52.6
µg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
BG-01 DA
12/11/2017
Nickel
58.3
µg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
BG-02S
11/13/2015
Nitrate + Nitrite
2
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
12/10/2015
Nitrate + Nitrite
1.8
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
03/14/2016
Nitrate + Nitrite
1.9
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
05/04/2016
Nitrate + Nitrite
1.8
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
09/14/2016
Nitrate + Nitrite
1.6
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
12/13/2016
Nitrate + Nitrite
1.8
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
O6/21/2017
Nitrate + Nitrite
2
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
09/15/2017
Nitrate + Nitrite
2.2
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
12108/2017
Nitrate + Nitrite
2.4
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
02/28/2018
Nitrate + Nitrite
2.7
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
05130/2018
Nitrate + Nitrite
2.9
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
0812812018
Nitrate + Nitrite
3.2
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
12/07/2018
Nitrate + Nitrite
3.3
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
AB-12D
03/02/2018
Nitrate + Nitrite
2.5
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
AB-12D
08/29/2018
Nitrate + Nitrite
2.5
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
AB-12D
12/07/2018
Nitrate + Nitrite
2.5
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-19D
09/06/2018
Potassium
19
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-19D
12/11/2018
Potassium
17.6
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
A13-12D
06/20/2017
Selenium
1.2
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 DA
09/13/2016
Sodium
78
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 DA
11/07/2016
Sodium
16.8
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 DA
0110412017
Sodium
21.8
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 DA
02/2812017
Sodium
24.7
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 DA
04/25/2017
Sodium
21.3
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCR-BG-01 DA
O6/19/2017
Sodium
2 .
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
03/27/2017
Sodium
28.3
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
06/21/2017
Sodium
20.8
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
09/07/2017
Sodium
19
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
11/08/2017
Sodium
24.2
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
03/01/2018
Sodium
18.7
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
05/31/2018
Sodium
20.2
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
08/28/2018
Sodium
19.5
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-26D
12/07/2018
Sodium
22.3
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04S
05/04/2016
Sulfate
10.6
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
CCR-BG-01S
06/22/2016
Sulfate
10.6
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
3/4

Table 3
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Allen Steam Station
Duke Energy
Allen Steam Station
04ARCADIS built „d.:.,.:f
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample �.
Weill ID Sample �. Data Set
CCR-BG-01 S 04/25/2017 Sulfate 2.7 mg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-16S
02/09/2016
Sulfate
5.1
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-21S
08/12/2016
Sulfate
2.8
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-23S
02/03/2016
Sulfate
10.7
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-23S
05/05/2016
Sulfate
5.4
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01DA
03/01/2018
Sulfate
22
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01BR
12/07/2018
Sulfate
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02BRA-2
06/27/2017
Sulfate
7.3
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02BRA-2
12/07/2018
Sulfate
33.3
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-26D
3/27/2017
Sulfide
0.12
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-26D
11/8/2017
Sulfide
0.12
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-26D
3/1/2018
Sulfide
0.14
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
CCR-BG-01 DA
09/13/2016
Total Dissolved Solids
280
mg/L
Present with higher sodium concentration
BG-01 S
06/29/2015
Total Organic Carbon
5.2
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 S
09/23/2015
Total Organic Carbon
4.3
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02S
11 /13/2015
Total Organic Carbon
20.8
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02S
03/29/2017
Total Organic Carbon
4
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-03S
03/31 /2017
Total Organic Carbon
9.1
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-04S
02/04/2016
Total Organic Carbon
1.6
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-04S
03/30/2017
Total Organic Carbon
16.7
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-04S
09/15/2017
Total Organic Carbon
1.1
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-16S
03/29/2017
Total Organic Carbon
3.5
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-19S
03/29/2017
Total Organic Carbon
4
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-21 S
03/08/2016
Total Organic Carbon
12.3
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-23S
03/30/2017
Total Organic Carbon
4.1
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02D
03/14/2016
Total Organic Carbon
11
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02D
03/29/2017
Total Organic Carbon
4.9
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-03D
11/11/2015
Total Organic Carbon
17.3
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-03D
03/31/2017
Total Organic Carbon
6.9
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-16D
02/05/2016
Total Organic Carbon
6.5
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-16D
03/29/2017
Total Organic Carbon
2.3
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-26D
09/23/2016
Total Organic Carbon
2
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-26D
03/27/2017
Total Organic Carbon
2.9
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-04BR
3/30/2017
Total Organic Carbon
5.6
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-21 BR
06/20/2017
Total Organic Carbon
1.1
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-21 BR
09/07/2017
Total Organic Carbon
1.1
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-21 BR
02/28/2018
Total Organic Carbon
1.5
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-21 BR
09/07/2017
Vanadium
15.9
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04S
05/04/2016
Zinc
45.3
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04S
09/14/2016
Zinc
59.8
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-04S
12/13/2016
Zinc
65
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-23S
09/21/2016
Zinc
47.2
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
Notes:
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
pg/L - micrograms per liter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter
mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter
0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTVs) because data validation and detailed evaluation of
Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error.
0 - Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BTVs.
4/4

Table 4
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Belews Creek Steam Station
Duke Energy
Belews Creek Steam Station
Well ID
BG-02S
Sample
Date
11/12/2015
Constituent
Aluminum
BG-03S
11/18/2016
Aluminum
BG-03D
07/26/2018
Aluminum
MW-202D
01/05/2016
Aluminum
MW-202D
09/13/2016
Aluminum
MW-202D
09/21/2016
Aluminum
MW-202D
01/05/2017
Aluminum
MW-202D
05/02/2017
Aluminum
MW-202BR
11/12/2015
Aluminum
MW-202BR
01/25/2017
Aluminum
BG-01D
07/14/2015
Antimony
MW-202D
05/05/2015
Antimony
MW-202D
07/16/2015
Antimony
MW-202D
01/05/2016
Antimony
BG-03D
07/26/2018
Barium
BG-01D
07/14/2015
Cadmium
BG-01D
03/29/2016
Cadmium
BG-01D
O6/09/2016
Cadmium
BG-02D
07/09/2015
Calcium
BG-02D
09/29/2015
Calcium
BG-02D
11/12/2015
Calcium
BG-02D
12/16/2015
Calcium
BG-02D
03/29/2016
Calcium
BG-02D
05/11/2016
Calcium
BG-02D
09/20/2016
Calcium
BG-02D
11/16/2016
Calcium
BG-02D
01/26/2017
Calcium
BG-02D
04/03/2017
Calcium
BG-02D
07/18/2017
Calcium
BG-02D
10/11/2017
Calcium
BG-02D
01/22/2018
Calcium
BG-02D
04/18/2018
Calcium
BG-02D
07/24/2018
Calcium
BG-02D
10/17/2018
Calcium
BG-02BRA
04/12/2017
Chromium
MW-202BR
05/10/2016
Chromium
BG-02S
11/12/2015
Iron
BG-03S
11/18/2016
Iron
MW-03
10/29/2013
Iron
BG-03D
07/26/2018
Iron
MW-202D
01/09/2012
Iron
MW-202D
09/13/2016
Iron
MW-202D
05/02/2017
Iron
MW-202D
01/09/2012
Lead
BG-02BRA
07/18/2017
Lead
BG-02BRA
01/22/2018
Lead
BG-02BRA
04/18/2018
Lead
BG-02S
03/29/2016
Magnesium
BG-02S
05/11/2016
Magnesium
BG-02S
09/20/2016
Magnesium
BG-02S
07/19/2017
Magnesium
BG-02S
10/11/2017
Magnesium
BG-02D
07/09/2015
Magnesium
BG-02D
09/29/2015
Magnesium
1000
7950
556
204
666
217
315
484
170
144
1.5
1.16
0.94
1.15
45.5
0.2
0.096
0.081
11.4
11.7
12.4
11.7
13.2
13.6
13.7
13.6
13.7
13.2
14.1
13.6
12.6
12.4
12.1
12.9
34.7
54.7
1600
11100
1280
450
850
516
434
1.11
0.14
0.15
0.25
4.23
3.97
3.61
3.94
3.66
5.96
5.86
A A iCIN D I Oosign 8 Gansul[ancy
for naturatand
huil[asseLs
µg/L Present with higher iron concentration
µg/L Present with higher iron concentration
µg/L Present with higher iron concentration
µg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
Present with higher iron concentration
Present with higher iron concentration
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
µg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
µg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
µg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Present with higher aluminum and iron concentrations
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Present with higher nickel concentrations
µg/L
Present with higher nickel concentrations
µg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
µg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
1/3

Table 4
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Belews Creek Steam Station
Duke Energy
Belews Creek Steam Station
Well ID Sample Constituent
Date
BG-02D 11/12/2015 Magnesium
Con
BG-02D
12/16/2015
Magnesium
BG-02D
03/29/2016
Magnesium
BG-02D
05/11/2016
Magnesium
BG-02D
09/20/2016
Magnesium
BG-02D
11/16/2016
Magnesium
BG-02D
01/26/2017
Magnesium
BG-02D
04/03/2017
Magnesium
BG-02D
07/18/2017
Magnesium
BG-02D
10/11/2017
Magnesium
BG-02D
01/22/2018
Magnesium
BG-02D
04/18/2018
Magnesium
BG-02D
07/24/2018
Magnesium
BG-02D
10/17/2018
Magnesium
BG-03S
11/18/2016
Manganese
BG-01D
07/14/2015
Manganese
BG-01D
09/29/2015
Manganese
BG-01D
11/12/2015
Manganese
BG-01 D
12/16/2015
Manganese
BG-01D
03/29/2016
Manganese
BG-01D
05/11/2016
Manganese
BG-01D
11/16/2016
Manganese
BG-01D
07/19/2017
Manganese
BG-01D
10/10/2017
Manganese
BG-01D
07/23/2018
Manganese
BG-01D
10/16/2018
Manganese
BG-02BRA
04/12/2017
Manganese
BG-02BRA
07/18/2017
Manganese
BG-02S
07/24/2018
Molybdenum
BG-02S
10/17/2018
Molybdenum
MW-202BR
05/10/2016
Nickel
BG-01D
05/11/2016
Potassium
BG-01D
06/09/2016
Potassium
BG-01D
07/27/2016
Potassium
BG-01D
09/20/2016
Potassium
BG-01D
11/16/2016
Potassium
BG-01D
11/16/2016
Potassium
BG-01D
01/11/2017
Potassium
BG-01D
01/25/2017
Potassium
BG-01D
03/07/2017
Potassium
BG-01D
04/03/2017
Potassium
BG-01 D
06/28/2017
Potassium
BG-01 D
07/19/2017
Potassium
BG-01 D
10/10/2017
Potassium
BG-01D
01/25/2018
Potassium
BG-01 D
07/23/2018
Potassium
BG-01 D
10/16/2018
Potassium
BG-02BRA
04/18/2018
Potassium
MW-202D
07/18/2017
Selenium
BG-01 D
07/19/2017
Sodium
BG-02BRA
07/18/2017
Sodium
BG-01 D
10/10/2017
Strontium
BG-02S
05/11/2016
Sulfate
BG-01 D
07/14/2015
Sulfate
.entra
6.22
6.06
7.03
6.92
7.04
7.1
6.9
6.8
7.01
6.98
6.6
6.57
6.21
6.76
189
93
73
57
55
45.7
47.6
22.9
19.3
19.7
98
104
87.1
64.3
1.3
0.64
31
5.72
7.44
5.46
7.18
13.3
9.38
13
7.9 M1
9.1
24.3
14.8
28.6
23.8
11.5
18.8
19.1
7.77
3.7
13.4
18.2
87.8
3.3
10.5
A A iCIN D I Oosign 8 Gansul[ancy
for naturaland
huil[asseLs
Jon
Reporting Unit
mg/L
Data in Background
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Groundwater Data Set
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Present with higher aluminum and iron concentrations
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Present with lower ORP, metal reducing condition
µg/L
Present with lower ORP, metal reducing condition
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
2/3

Table 4
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Belews Creek Steam Station
Duke Energy
Belews Creek Steam Station
P A iCIN D I Oosign 8 Gansul[ancy
for naturaland
huil[assets
BG-01 D
04/03/2017
Sulfate
11
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
No laboratory or field errors identified
No laboratory or field errors identified
No laboratory or field errors identified
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-03S
03/30/2016
Total Organic Carbon
8.2
3
1.4
mg/L
BG-03S
04/05/2017
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
BG-03S
10/11/2017
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
MW-03
04/06/2017
Total Organic Carbon
2.7
mg/L
MW-202S
04/03/2017
Total Organic Carbon
4.1
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
No laboratory or field errors identified
13G-1 D
4/3/2017
Total Organic Carbon
4.9 mg/L
7.8 mg/L
4.7 mg/L
2.8 mg/L
10.9 mg/L
5.8 mg/L
10.2 mg/L
4.1 mg/L
5.74 pCi/L
6.56 pCi/L
4.63 pCi/L
6.4 µg/L
2.01 µg/L
2.3 µg/L
1.8 µg/L
23 µg/L
38.7 µg/L
114 µg/L
107 µg/L
62 µg/L
48.8 i µg/L
30.1 µg/L
31.9 µg/L
BG-2D
12/16/2015
Total Organic Carbon
No laboratory or field errors identified
13G-213
4/3/2017
Total Organic Carbon
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-3D
4/5/2017
Total Organic Carbon
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-202D
7/16/2015
Total Organic Carbon
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-202D
4/3/2017
Total Organic Carbon
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-202BR
3/29/2016
Total Organic Carbon
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-202BR
4/4/2017
Total Organic Carbon
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-202S
07/16/2015
Total Radium
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 D
07/14/2015
Total Radium
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-202D
07/16/2015
Total Radium
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-03S
11/18/2016
Vanadium
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-03
10/29/2013
Vanadium
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-202BR
07/16/2015
Vanadium
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-202BR
05/10/2016
Vanadium
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02S
12/16/2015
Zinc
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-03S
11/18/2016
Zinc
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-03
07/26/2018
Zinc
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-03
10/15/2018
Zinc
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 D
12/16/2015
Zinc
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 D
03/29/2016
Zinc
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 D
05/11/2016
Zinc
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 D
11/16/2016
Zinc
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 D
01/25/2017
Zinc
46.2
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02D
03/29/2016
Zinc
28.5
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-202BR
10/02/2015
Zinc
41
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-202BR
03/29/2016
Zinc
52.1
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
Notes:
M1 - Matrix spike recovery was high: the associated Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable.
µg/L - micrograms per liter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
ORP - oxidation-reduction potential
pCi/L - picoCuries per liter
0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTVs) because data validation and detailed
evaluation of Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error.
0 - Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BTVs.
3/3

Table 5
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Cliffside Steam Station
Duke Energy
Cliffside Steam Station
� „d
04ARCADIS bu;lt.:.,.:f
Well ID
GWA-24S
Sample
..
09/14/2015
Alkalinity 16.4
mg-CaCO�L
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample ..
Data Set
No laboratory or field errors identified, higher pH
GWA-30S
06/22/2015
Alkalinity
12.2
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30S
04/14/2016
Alkalinity
10.9
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30S
06/20/2016
Alkalinity
10.2
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30S
12/21/2016
Alkalinity
13.9
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30S
02/13/2017
Alkalinity
GM
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30S
05/16/2017
Alkalinity
19.1
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30S
08/10/2017
Alkalinity
16.2
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30S
11/14/2017
Alkalinity
21.1
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30S
01/31/2018
Alkalinity
17.1
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30S
07/31/2018
Alkalinity
14.7
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30S
10/22/2018
Alkalinity
15
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24D
09/14/2015
Alkalinity
32.9
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified, higher pH
MW-30D
05/16/2017
Alkalinity
38.5
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
08/09/2017
Alkalinity
39.1
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
04/30/2018
Alkalinity
42.5
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
07/31/2018
Alkalinity
39.7
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
10/25/2018
Alkalinity
40.7
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
11/20/2017
Alkalinity
53.5
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
01/26/2018
Alkalinity
57.9
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
04/27/2018
Alkalinity
49.3
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
05/07/2018
Alkalinity
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
07/31/2018
Alkalinity
36.2
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
10/25/2018
Alkalinity
37.2
mg-CaCO�L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
10/25/2018
Alkalinity
40
mg-CaCO� L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-32D
09/16/2015
Alkalinity
60.1
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified, higher pH
BG-01S
11/12/2015
Aluminum
175
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01S
02/10/2016
Aluminum
253
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01S
03/28/2016
Aluminum
196
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
13G-01S
04/15/2016
Aluminum
163
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
13G-01S
06/21/2016
Aluminum
411
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
13G-01S
10/17/2016
Aluminum
147
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
13G-01S
12/19/2016
Aluminum
494
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
BG-01S
05/16/2017
Aluminum
134
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01S
01/29/2018
Aluminum
154
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
13G-01S
07/31/2018
Aluminum
288
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
GWA-24S
09/14/2015
Aluminum
240
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
GWA-24S
01/31/2018
Aluminum
3660
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
GWA-25S
09/08/2015
Aluminum
130
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-25S
02/01/2018
Aluminum
171
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
GWA-30S
06/22/2015
Aluminum
680
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
GWA-30S
04/14/2016
Aluminum
106
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
11/11/2015
Aluminum
820
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
MW-30S
09/02/2016
Aluminum
158
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
12/19/2016
Aluminum
638
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
11/20/2017
Aluminum
107
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
01/31/2018
Aluminum
364
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
04/27/2018
Aluminum
124
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
07/31/2018
Aluminum
158
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-32S
06/22/2016
Aluminum
268
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-32S
10/25/2018
Aluminum
199
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24D
06/24/2016
Aluminum
231
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
MW-24D
04/08/2015
Aluminum
153
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-24D
06/30/2015
Aluminum
1800
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
MW-24D
12/03/2015
Aluminum
281
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
Him

Table 5
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Cliffside Steam Station
Duke Energy
Cliffside Steam Station
� „d
04ARCADIS bu;lt.:.,.:f
Well ID
MW-24D
[ Sample
..
12/07/2015
Aluminum
230
pg/L
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample ..
Data Set
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-24D
06/27/2016
Aluminum
295
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-24D
08/01/2016
Aluminum
215
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-24D
09/01/2016
Aluminum
98 j
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-24D
12/07/2016
Aluminum
483
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
MW-24D
02/13/2017
Aluminum
290
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-24D
04/04/2017
Aluminum
157
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
11/20/2017
Aluminum
125
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-32D
12/07/2015
Aluminum
110
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-32D
01/26/2018
Aluminum
106
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30BR
06/20/2016
Aluminum
254
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
GWA-30BR
01/31/2018
Aluminum
256
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
MW-22BR
12/22/2016
Aluminum
194
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-22BR
02/15/2017
Aluminum
574
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-22DR
08/03/2015
Aluminum
455
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-22DR
04/04/2016
Aluminum
284
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-24DR
12/08/2015
Aluminum
540
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-32BR
07/31/2018
Aluminum
309
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
BG-01S
06/29/2015
Antimony
0.73
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-32D
09/16/2015
Antimony
0.94
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01S
10/04/2016
Arsenic
FMWO.15
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
01/20/2017
Arsenic 0.31 di
Arsenic 0.46
Arsenic 0.17
Arsenic 0.13
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24S
02/14/2017
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24S
09/05/2017
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24S
01/31/2018
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-25S
08/16/2017
Arsenic
0.73
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30S
05/16/2017
Arsenic
0.22
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-30S
11/14/2017
Arsenic
0.11
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-30S
10/22/2018
Arsenic
0.11
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
10/03/2016
Arsenic
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
05/07/2018
Arsenic
0.11
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
07/31/2018
Arsenic
0.24
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-32S
06/22/2016
Arsenic
0.22
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-32S
08/03/2017
Arsenic
0.18
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-32S
10/25/2018
Arsenic
0.11
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-24D
06/30/2015
Arsenic
1.8
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-24D
12/07/2016
Arsenic
1.01
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
04/30/2018
Arsenic
1.1
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
07/31/2018
Arsenic
1.6
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
10/25/2018
Arsenic
2
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01S
04/15/2016
Barium
139
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01S
03/28/2016
Beryllium
0.22
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24S
02/14/2017
Beryllium
PF 0.29
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24S
09/14/2015
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
16.4
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-30S
12/21/2016
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
13.9
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-30S
02/13/2017
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
14.1
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-30S
05/16/2017
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
19.1
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-30S
08/10/2017
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
16.2
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-30S
11/14/2017
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
21.1
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-30S
01/31/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
17.1
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-30S
07/31/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
14.7
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-30S
10/22/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
15
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24D
09/14/2015
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
32.9
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30D
05/16/2017
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
38.5
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30D
08/09/2017
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
39.1
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
aim

Table 5
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Cliffside Steam Station
Duke Energy
Cliffside Steam Station
� „d
04ARCADIS bu;lt.:.,.:f
Well ID
MW-30D
[ Sample
..
04/30/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity 42.5
mg-CaCO�L
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample ..
Data Set
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30D
07/31/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
39.7
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30D
10/25/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
40.7
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30DA
11/20/2017
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
53.5
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30DA
01/26/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
57.9
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30DA
04/27/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
49.3
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30DA
07/31/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
36.2
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30DA
10/25/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
37.2
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-32D
09/16/2015
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
60.1
mg-CaCO�L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 D
06/25/2015
Boron
150
77
81
0.087
25.6
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-24D
08/01/2016
Boron
pg/L
No laboratory or Feld errors identified
MW-24DR
08/01/2016
Boron
pg/L
No laboratory or Feld errors identified
BG-01S
03/28/2016
Cadmium
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
06/16/2015
Chromium
pg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
MW-32S
09/16/2015
Chromium
26.2
pg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
MW-30DA
11/20/2017
Chromium
5.6
pg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
GWA-24S
05/03/2018
Chromium (VI)
1.2
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
07/01/2015
Chromium (VI)
1.45
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
11/11/2015
Chromium (VI)
2.1
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
09/02/2016
Chromium (VI)
2
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
12/19/2016
Chromium (VI)
4JI
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
02/13/2017
Chromium (VI)
2.2
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
05/16/2017
Chromium (VI)
2.1
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
11/20/2017
Chromium (VI)
4.8
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
01/31/2018
Chromium (VI)
3.7
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
04/27/2018
Chromium (VI)
4.1
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
07/31/2018
Chromium (VI)
2.7
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
10/25/2018
Chromium (VI)
3
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01D
11/09/2015
Chromium (VI)
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
CCPMW-01S
02/01/2018
Chromium (VI)
0.45
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
CCPMW-01S
07/31/2018
Chromium (VI)
0.61 M1
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-32D
03/29/2016
Chromium (VI)
1.2
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-22BR
12/22/2016
Chromium (VI)
0.8
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-32BR
12/19/2016
Chromium (VI)
0.66
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-32BR
08/09/2017
Chromium (VI)
0.45
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01S
02/10/2016
Cobalt
20.4
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
GWA-24S
09/14/2015
Cobalt
21.1
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
GWA-25S
09/08/2015
Cobalt
19.3
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
GWA-30S
05/16/2017
Cobalt
22.9
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
MW-32S
06/16/2015
Copper
5.9
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-32S
09/16/2015
Copper
3.8
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-32S
11/11/2015
Copper
5.2
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-32S
06/22/2016
Copper
3.6
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-32S
1212112016
Copper
8.6
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-32S
05/16/2017
Copper
3.2
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-32S
11/13/2017
Copper
6.2
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-32S
10/25/2018
Copper
7.3
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
01/26/2018
Fluoride
0.12
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30DA
02/05/2018
Fluoride
0.11
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24S
01/31/2018
Iron
5750
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
GWA-30S
06/22/2015
Iron
1000
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
GWA-30S
05/16/2017
Iron
1170
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
MW-30S
11/11/2015
Iron
1700
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
MW-30S
12/19/2016
Iron
1320
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
CCPMW-01 S
10/23/2013
Iron
404
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
4MM

Table 5
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Cliffside Steam Station
Duke Energy
Cliffside Steam Station
� „d
04ARCADIS bu;lt.:.,.:f
Well ID
CCPMW-01S
[ Sample
..
12/07/2015
Iron
670
pg/L
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample ..
Data Set
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCPMW-01S
10/12/2016
Iron
532
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
CCPMW-01S
04/27/2017
Iron
411
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-24D
08/01/2011
Iron
383
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-24D
12/05/2011
Iron
382
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-24D
04/02/2012
Iron
515
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-24D
06/30/2015
Iron
3200
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
MW-24D
06/27/2016
Iron
378
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-24D
12/07/2016
Iron
545
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
11/20/2017
Iron
1830
pg/L
Present with lower ORP
MW-30DA
1/26/2018
Iron
2320
µg/L
Present with lower ORP
MW-30DA
04/27/2018
Iron
1840
pg/L
Present with lower ORP
MW-30DA
07/31/2018
Iron
398
pg/L
Present with lower ORP
BG-01 S
03/28/2016
Lead
.13
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01S
06/21/2016
Lead
0.19
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01S
09/01/2016
Lead
0.11
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 S
12/19/2016
Lead
0.
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24S
01/20/2017
Lead
is
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24S
02/14/2017
Lead
0.22
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24S
09/05/2017
Lead
0.39
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24S
01/31/2018
Lead
0.36
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-25S
08/16/2017
Lead
0.11
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
06/13/2016
Lead
0.14
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
08/08/2016
Lead
0.23
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
09/02/2016
Lead
0.15
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
10/03/2016
Lead 0.19
Lead 0.36
Lead 0.11
Lead 0.15
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
12/19/2016
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
01/19/2017
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
05/11/2017
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
07/07/2017
Lead
0.12
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
11/20/2017
Lead
0.17
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
05/07/2018
Lead
0.2
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-32S
06/22/2016
Lead
0.14
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-32S
08/03/2017
Lead
0.16
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-32S
10/25/2018
Lead
0.12
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30D
04/30/2018
Lithium
11.6
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
07/31/2018
Lithium
10.1
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
10/25/2018
Lithium
10.4
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
01/26/2018
Lithium
13.4
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
02/05/2018
Lithium
11
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
04/27/2018
Lithium
9.4
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
05/07/2018
Lithium
8.9
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
07/31/2018
Lithium
10
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
10/25/2018
Lithium
10.6
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
10/25/2018
Lithium
9.1
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
11/20/2017
Magnesium
2.96
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
01/26/2018
Magnesium
2.86
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
02/05/2018
Magnesium
2.87
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
04/27/2018
Magnesium
3.04
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
05/07/2018
Magnesium
3.14
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
07/31/2018
Magnesium
2.95
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
10/25/2018
Magnesium
2.9
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
10/25/2018
Magnesium
3.11
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01S
02/10/2016
Manganese
327
pg/L
Present with higher cobalt concentration
GWA-24S
09/14/2015
Manganese
1000
pg/L
Present with higher cobalt concentration
4/7

Table 5
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Cliffside Steam Station
Duke Energy
Cliffside Steam Station
� „d
04ARCADIS bu;lt.:.,.:f
Well ID
GWA-25S
[ Sample
..
06/25/2015
Manganese 620
pg/L
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample ..
Data Set
Present with higher cobalt concentration
GWA-25S
09/08/2015
Manganese
630
pg/L
Present with higher cobalt concentration
GWA-25S
04/13/2016
Manganese
312
pg/L
Present with higher cobalt concentration
GWA-30S
05/16/2017
Manganese
969
pg/L
Present with higher cobalt concentration
BG-01 D
06/25/2015
Manganese
260
pg/L
Present with higher molybdenum concentration
MW-30DA
11/20/2017
Manganese
226
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
01/26/2018
Manganese
408
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
04/27/2018
Manganese
326
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
07/31/2018
Manganese
195
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
10/25/2018
Manganese
147
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
01/20/2017
Molybdenum
0.6
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
06/16/2015
Molybdenum
0.59
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-32S
09/16/2015
Molybdenum
0.85
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 D
06/25/2015
Molybdenum
2.8
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
MW-30D
05/16/2017
Molybdenum
3.1
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
08/09/2017
Molybdenum
2.9
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
04/30/2018
Molybdenum
2.9
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
07/31/2018
Molybdenum
2.5
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
10/25/2018
Molybdenum
2.7
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
11/20/2017
Molybdenum
5.6
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
01/26/2018
Molybdenum
3.6
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
02/05/2018
Molybdenum
2.7
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
04/27/2018
Molybdenum
1.4
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
07/31/2018
Molybdenum
3.8
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
10/25/2018
Molybdenum
2.6
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
10/25/2018
Molybdenum
1.
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-32D
12/07/2015
Molybdenum
1.9
pg/L
No laboratory or Feld errors identified
MW-32BR
06/16/2015
Molybdenum
5.1
pg/L
No laboratory or Feld errors identified
MW-32BR
07/31/2018
Molybdenum
2.8
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24S
09/14/2015
Nickel
12.5
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30S
05/16/2017
Nickel
10.2
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30S
11/14/2017
Nickel
11.3
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
06/16/2015
Nickel
16.7
pg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
MW-32S
09/16/2015
Nickel
19.4
pg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
CCPMW-01 D
12/07/2015
Nitrate + Nitrite
1.8
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
05/16/2017
Sodium
8.15
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
08/09/2017
Sodium
8.79
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
04/30/2018
Sodium
9.52
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
07/31/2018
Sodium
8.36
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
10/25/2018
Sodium
8.1
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
11/20/2017
Sodium
10.3
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
01/26/2018
Sodium
8.76
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
02/05/2018
Sodium
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
04/27/2018
Sodium
8.89
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
05/07/2018
Sodium
8.
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
07/31/2018
Sodium
8.17
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
10/25/2018
Sodium
8.1
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30DA
10/25/2018
Sodium
8.34
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
09/14/2015
Sulfate
5.5
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
06/13/2016
Sulfate
2.2
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
06/24/2016
Sulfate
4
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
08/10/2016
Sulfate
4.5
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
10/05/2016
Sulfate
3.7
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
11/29/2016
Sulfate
3.9
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
12/19/2016
Sulfate
3.9
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
Aim

Table 5
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Cliffside Steam Station
Duke Energy
Cliffside Steam Station
� „d
04ARCADIS bu;lt.:.,.:f
Well ID
GWA-24S
Sample
..
01/20/2017
Sulfate 5.1
mg/L
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample ..
Data Set
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
02/14/2017
Sulfate
3.8
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
03/17/2017
Sulfate
3.8
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
05/15/2017
Sulfate
2.4
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
05/17/2017
Sulfate
2.5
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
07/07/2017
Sulfate
3.4
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
08/10/2017
Sulfate
3
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
09/05/2017
Sulfate
2.9
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
11/20/2017
Sulfate
3.7
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
01/31/2018
Sulfate
3.1
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
01/31/2018
Sulfate
3.4
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
10/30/2018
Sulfate
2.5
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-24S
10/30/2018
Sulfate
2.6
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-22BR
12/22/2016
Sulfide
0.16
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-22BR
02/15/2017
Sulfide
0.17
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24S
02/14/2017
Thallium
0.31
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-30S
05/03/2018
Thallium
0.28
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-22BR
06/23/2016
Thallium
0.48
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01S
06/29/2015
Total Organic Carbon
8.4
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-32S
09/16/2015
Total Organic Carbon
7.4
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30DA
11/20/2017
Total Organic Carbon
1.5
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30DA
01/26/2018
Total Organic Carbon
1.7
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
CCPMW-01 D
12/07/2015
Total Organic Carbon
7.2
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-22BR
08/17/2017
Total Organic Carbon
1.5
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-24DR
03/30/2016
Total Organic Carbon
9.4
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24S
06/24/2016
Vanadium
1.9 j
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-24S
01/31/2018
Vanadium
1.2
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30S
11/11/2015
Vanadium
1.1
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
09/02/2016
Vanadium
0.72
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30S
01/31/2018
Vanadium
1.1
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-24D
06/27/2016
Vanadium
0.86
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-24D
12/07/2016
Vanadium
0.902
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-30D
05/16/2017
Vanadium
11.4
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
08/09/2017
Vanadium
12.2
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
04/30/2018
Vanadium
11
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
07/31/2018
Vanadium
9.8
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30D
10/25/2018
Vanadium
9.3
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-30BR
09/14/2015
Vanadium
0.67 j
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-22BR
11/17/2017
Vanadium
1.3
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-22BR
01/31/2018
Vanadium
1.5
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-22DR
08/03/2015
Vanadium
1.01
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-24DR
12/08/2015
Vanadium
1.2
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01S
11/12/2015
Zinc
38
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01S
12/08/2015
Zinc
50
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 D
11/09/2015
Zinc
38
36
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 D
11/12/2015
Zinc
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
CCPMW-01S
1 10/12/2016
Zinc
44.3
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
Notes:
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
M1 - Matrix spike recovery was high: the associated Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) was acceptable.
pg/L - micrograms per liter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter
6/7

Table 5
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Cliffside Steam Station
Duke Energy
Cliffside Steam Station
mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter
04ARCADIS built „d.:.,.:f
ORP - oxidation-reduction potential
0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTVs) because data validation and detailed
evaluation of Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error.
0 - Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BTVs.
7/7

Table 6
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Marshall Steam Station
Duke Energy
Marshall Steam Station
A RCA D I ©esi9n 6 ConstFlrancy
04 Sor rreturat end
huitr assMs
Well ID Sample Date Constituent
BG-02S 11113/2015 Alkalinity
Concentration
8.3
rReporting Unit
mg-CaCO3/L
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background
Groundwater Data Set
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
12/11/2015
Alkalinity
77.9
71.4
67.2
63.4
69.4
63.1
73.6
65.7
1870
2620
2020
180
250
213
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
03/28/2016
Alkalinity
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
06/23/2016
Alkalinity
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
09/27/2017
Alkalinity
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
12/05/2017
Alkalinity
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
09/27/2017
Alkalinity
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
12/05/2017
Alkalinity
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
02/09/2018
Alkalinity
mg-CaCO3/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
02/09/2018
Aluminum
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
BG-03S
12/05/2017
Aluminum
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
MW-04
06/22/2016
Aluminum
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
BG-01D
07/17/2015
Aluminum
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
BG-01D
11/11/2015
Aluminum
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
BG-01D
02/09/2018
Aluminum
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
GWA-04D
06/23/2016
Aluminum
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
BG-01 BRA
06/15/2017
Aluminum
601
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
BG-01 BRA
12/05/2017
Aluminum
348
1090
346
601
992
422
322
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
BG-01 BRA
02/09/2018
Aluminum
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
BG-01BRA
05/11/2018
Aluminum
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
BG-03BR
08/10/2018
Aluminum
pg/L
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
BG-03BR
11/08/2018
Aluminum
Present with higher iron concentration
GWA-12BR
06/02/2016
Aluminum
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
GWA-12BR
05/10/2018
Aluminum
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
MW-04D
10/06/2015
Aluminum
329
pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
MW-04D
06/22/2016
Aluminum
871 pg/L
0.79 pg/L
0.87 pg/L
1.12 pg/L
1.3 pg/L
0.62 pg/L
0.91 pg/L
1.2 pg/L
1.25 pg/L
1.7 pg/L
2.3 pg/L
336 pg/L
Present with higher iron concentration
GWA-06S
07/17/2015
Antimony
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-06S
04/12/2016
Antimony
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-04
10/06/2015
Antimony
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-04D
10/01/2015
Antimony
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-04D
04/12/2016
Antimony
No laboratory or Feld errors identified
GWA-04D
07/11/2016
Antimony
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 BRA
06/15/2017
Antimony
No laboratory or Feld errors identified
MW-04D
10/06/2015
Antimony
No laboratory or Feld errors identified
GWA-04S
11/07/2018
Arsenic
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-03D
12/05/2017
Arsenic
No laboratory or Feld errors identified
BG-02S
09/27/2017
Barium
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
12/05/2017
Barium
332
392
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
06/23/2016
Barium
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
06/15/2017
Barium
592
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
09/27/2017
Barium
580
730
605
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
12/05/2017
Barium
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
02/09/2018
Barium
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
11/08/2018
Barium
462
0.61
0.655 j
56.7
53.9
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-06S
04/12/2016
Beryllium
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MS-10
09/10/2018
Beryllium
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-04S
05/10/2018
Boron
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
MW-04
02/08/2011
Boron
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 BRA
06/15/2017
Cadmium
1.9
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02S
11/13/2015
Calcium
22.8
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
12/11/2015
Calcium
17.3
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
03/28/2016
Calcium
15.3
10.8
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
06/23/2016
Calcium
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
1/5

Table 6
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Marshall Steam Station
Duke Energy
Marshall Steam Station
A RCA D I Oesi9n 6 ConstFlfancy
04 Sor rreturat end
huitt assMs
Well ID Sample Date Constituent
BG-02S 03/14/2017 Calcium
Concentration Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background
Data Set
10.7 mg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
12/05/2017
Calcium
10.6
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
06/15/2017
Chromium
23.3
pg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
BG-03S
09/27/2017
Chromium
18.6 pg/L
16.8 pg/L
16.5 pg/L
39.2 pg/L
10.6 pg/L
24.2 pg/L
31 pg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
GWA-04S
09/30/2015
Chromium
Present with higher nickel concentration
GWA-06S
06/23/2016
Chromium
Present with higher nickel concentration
GWA-08S
06/16/2017
Chromium
Present with higher nickel concentration
GWA-04D
06/23/2016
Chromium
Present with higher nickel concentration
BG-03BR
09/27/2017
Chromium
Present with higher nickel concentration
GWA-06D
12/06/2016
Chromium
Present with higher nickel concentration
GWA-12S
06/01/2016
Cobalt
4.8
5.2
5.2
3.7
3.3
1.2
3.2
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
GWA-12S
09/16/2016
Cobalt
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
GWA-12S
12/06/2016
Cobalt
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
GWA-12S
03/14/2017
Cobalt
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
BG-01 D
07/17/2015
Cobalt
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
BG-01D
11/11/2015
Cobalt
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
BG-01 D
12/11/2015
Cobalt
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
BG-01 D
03/15/2016
Cobalt 1.8
Cobalt 1.1
Cobalt 3.9
Fluoride 0.32
Fluoride 0.46
Fluoride 0.45
Fluoride 0.41
Fluoride 0.65
Fluoride 0.48
Fluoride 0.44
Fluoride 0.51
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
BG-01 D
02/09/2018
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
GWA-06D
05/14/2018
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
BG-02S
02/09/2018
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
05/11/2018
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
08/10/2018
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
11/08/2018
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
02/09/2018
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
05/11/2018
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
08/10/2018
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
11/08/2018
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
12/05/2017
Iron
3440
pg/L
Preent with higher mangaense concentration
GWA-08S
07/21/2015
Iron
1500
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
MW-04
06/22/2016
Iron
2230
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
BG-01 D
07/17/2015
Iron
310
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
BG-01D
11/11/2015
Iron
350
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
GWA-04D
04/12/2016
Iron
147
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
GWA-04D
O6/23/2016
Iron
243
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
GWA-05D
07/19/2015
Iron
190
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-05D
O6/22/2016
Iron
170
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 BRA
02/09/2018
Iron 757
Iron 1530
Iron 788
Iron 578
Iron 1220
Iron 593
Iron 898
Lead 0.19
Lead 0.11
Lead 0.45
pg/L
Present with higher Aluminum concentration
GWA-12BR
06/02/2016
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
09/16/2016
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
12/06/2016
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
03/14/2017
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
02/08/2018
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
05/10/2018
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
07/17/2015
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 D
11/11/2015
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-04D
04/12/2016
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-04D
06/23/2016
Lead
0.19
0.12
0.15
0.11
0.13
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-04D
07/11/2016
Lead
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-04D
02/21/2017
Lead
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-04D
09/10/2018
Lead
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-05D
07/19/2015
Lead
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-05D
09/08/2016
Lead
0.15
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
2/5

Table 6
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Marshall Steam Station
Duke Energy
Marshall Steam Station
A RCA D I 0esi9n 6 ConstFlfancy
04 Sor rreturat end
huitt assMs
Well ID Sample Date Constituent
GWAEBRA12/02/2016 Lead
Concentration Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background
Groundwater Data Set
2.5 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
0.28 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
0.17 pg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA06/12/2017
Lead
GWA06/14/2017
Lead
BG-0106/15/2017
Lead
2.5
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-06/02/2016
Lead
1
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 D
02/09/2018
Lithium
10.9
10
9.6
9.6
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
05/11/2018
Lithium
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
08/10/2018
Lithium
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
11/08/2018
Lithium
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 S
07/17/2015
Manganese
160
130
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 S
09/29/2015
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-04S
09/30/2015
Manganese
390
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-04S
06/23/2016
Manganese
99
82
101
130
96.9
186
155
96.7
157
110
80.1
86.8
208
136
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-06S
07/17/2015
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-06S
04/12/2016
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-08S
07/21/2015
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12S
06/01/2016
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12S
09/16/2016
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12S
12/06/2016
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12S
03/14/2017
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03BR
04/13/2016
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-06D
04/12/2016
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-06D
06/23/2016
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-06D
09/16/2016
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-06D
05/14/2018
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
06/02/2016
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
09/16/2016
Manganese
361
330
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
12/06/2016
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
03/14/2017
Manganese
310
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
06/14/2017
Manganese
266
279
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
09/26/2017
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
12/06/2017
Manganese
232
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
02/08/2018
Manganese
279
275
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
05/10/2018
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
08/09/2018
Manganese
198
385
343
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-12BR
11/08/2018
Manganese
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03BR
04/13/2016
Methane
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-06D
03/14/2017
Methane
55.6
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02S
11/13/2015
Molybdenum
1.6
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-03S
06/15/2017
Nickel
21.9
pg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
BG-03S
09/27/2017
Nickel
19.7
pg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
BG-03S
12/05/2017
Nickel
19.6
21.5
20.8
22.8
pg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
GWA-08S
06/16/2017
Nickel
pg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
BG-03BR
09/27/2017
Nickel
pg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
GWA-06D
12/06/2016
Nickel
pg/L
Present with higher chromium concentration
BG-01S
11/11/2015
Nitrate + Nitrite
3.9
3.9
16.7
mg-N/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 S
03/15/2016
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg-N/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 S
02/09/2018
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg-N/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 S
05/11/2018
Nitrate + Nitrite
9.1
6.3
0.65
0.71
0.59
mg-N/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01S
11/08/2018
Nitrate + Nitrite
mg-N/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 D
07/17/2015
Selenium
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
09129/2015
Selenium
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01D
11/11/2015
Selenium
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
3/5

Table 6
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Marshall Steam Station
Duke Energy
Marshall Steam Station
A RCA D I 0esi9n 6 ConstFlfancy
04 Sor rreturat end
huitt assMs
Well ID Sample Date
BG-01 D 03/15/2016
Constituent
Selenium
Concentration Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background
Data Set
0.75 pg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
06/23/2016
Selenium
1.4 pg/L
2.7 pg/L
2.3 pg/L
2.1 pg/L
1 pg/L
2.4 pg/L
2.3 pg/L
2.9 pg/L
2.1 pg/L
2.2 pg/L
2.3 pg/L
0.53 pg/L
2.3 pg/L
14.3 mg/L
407 pg/L
12.6 mg/L
12.4 mg/L
12.8 mg/L
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
09/15/2016
Selenium
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
12/05/2016
Selenium
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
03/15/2017
Selenium
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
06/15/2017
Selenium
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
09/27/2017
Selenium
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
12/05/2017
Selenium
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
02/09/2018
Selenium
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
05/11/2018
Selenium
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
08/10/2018
Selenium
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
11/08/2018
Selenium
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-05D
06/12/2017
Selenium
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 BRA
06/15/2017
Selenium
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-06S
09/30/2015
Sodium
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-06D
04/12/2016
Strontium
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 S
09/27/2017
Sulfate
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
06/15/2017
Sulfate
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03S
09/27/2017
Sulfate
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02S
11/13/2015
Total Dissolved Solids
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 S
07/17/2015
Total Organic Carbon
4.8
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01S
11/11/2015
Total Organic Carbon
2.3
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01S
12/11/2015
Total Organic Carbon
1.6
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 S
02/09/2018
Total Organic Carbon
2.9
1.2
1.4
1.5
9.89
1.01
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01S
05/11/2018
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 S
08/10/2018
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 S
11/08/2018
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-04
08/09/2010
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-04
02/08/2011
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-04
12/11/2015
Total Organic Carbon
10.6
17.3
4.8
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 D
09/29/2015
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-04D
09/16/2016
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
GWA-04D
12/02/2016
Total Organic Carbon
BG-01 BRA
06/15/2017
Total Organic Carbon
1.7
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-03D
12/11/2015
Total Organic Carbon 20.7 mg/L
Total Organic Carbon 13.7 mg/L
Total Radium 5.333 pCi/L
Total Radium 3.129 pCi/L
Total Radium 6.73 pCi/L
Total Radium 11.14 pCi/L
Total Radium 3.917 pCi/L
Total Radium 5.66 pCi/L
Total Radium 4.645 pCi/L
Total Radium 6.334 pCi/L
Total Radium 5.413 pCi/L
Total Radium 5.45 pCi/L
Total Radium 7.43 pCi/L
Total Radium 4.819 pCi/L
Total Radium 5.13 pCi/L
Total Radium 5.16 pCi/L
Total Radium 6.43 pCi/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-04D
03/15/2016
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-01 S
07/17/2015
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02S
06/23/2016
No laboratory or field errors identified
MS-10
08/13/2018
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01 D
07/17/2015
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02BR
03/28/2016
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02BR
06/23/2016
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02BR
09/15/2016
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02BR
12/05/2016
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02BR
03/14/2017
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02BR
06/15/2017
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02BR
09/27/2017
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02BR
12/05/2017
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02BR
02/09/2018
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02BR
05/11/2018
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02BR
08/10/2018
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-02BR
11/08/2018
Total Radium
3.46
pCi/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-01S
07/17/2015
Total Uranium
0.00346
pg/mL
No laboratory or field errors identified
4/5

Table 6
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Marshall Steam Station
Duke Energy
Marshall Steam Station
A RCA D I Oesi9n 6 ConstFlfancy
04 Sor rreturat end
huitt assMs
BG-03S
Sample Date
06/15/2017
Constituent Concentration
I
Zinc 40.8 pg/L
Zinc 74.3 pg/L
Zinc 31.6 pg/L
Zinc 34.6 pg/L
Zinc 31 pg/L
Zinc 94.5 pg/L
Zinc 31.8 pg/L
Zinc 44 pg/L
Zinc 29.9 pg/L
Zinc 31.8 j pg/L
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background
Groundwater Data Set
No laboratory or field errors identified
No laboratory or field errors identified
No laboratory or field errors identified
No laboratory or Feld errors identified
No laboratory or field errors identified
No laboratory or Feld errors identified
BG-03S
09/27/2017
BG-03S
08/10/2018
GWA-05S
06/23/2016
GWA-06S
07/17/2015
GWA-06S
04/12/2016
GWA-08S
12/06/2016
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-04D
10/01/2015
No laboratory or field errors identified
GWA-05D
12/02/2016
No laboratory or field errors identified
BG-03BR
12/05/2016
No laboratory or Feld errors identified
Notes:
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
pg/L - micrograms per liter
pg/mL - micrograms per milliliter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter
mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter
0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTUs) because data validation and detailed
evaluation of Site -speck geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error.
0 - Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BNs.
5/5

Table 7
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Duke Energy
Mayo Steam Electric Plant
MW-12D
06/24/2015
Antimony
MW-12S
02/01/2017
Arsenic
MW-12S
02/01/2017
Arsenic
MW-12S
3/8/2017
Arsenic
MW-12S
10/02/2018
Arsenic
MW-14BR
09/09/2015
Arsenic
MW-14BR
09/09/2015
Boron
MW-13BR
06/23/2015
Chloride
MW-13BR
09/08/2015
Chloride
MW-13BR
12/02/2015
Chloride
MW-13BR
01/07/2016
Chloride
MW-13BR
04/0512016
Chloride
MW-13BR
07/11/2016
Chloride
MW-13BR
09/0612016
Chloride
MW-13BR
11/08/2016
Chloride
MW-13BR
02/02/2017
Chloride
MW-13BR
04105/2017
Chloride
MW-13BR
07/1112017
Chloride
MW-13BR
11107/2017
Chloride
MW-13BR
01/16/2018
Chloride
MW-13BR
04104/2018
Chloride
MW-13BR
11/08/2018
Chloride
MW-12S
09/10/2015
Chromium
MW-12S
12/02/2015
Chromium
BG-01
07/09/2012
Chromium
MW-13BR
12/02/2015
Chromium
MW-12D
06/24/2015
Cobalt
CCR-102BR-BG
08/16/2016
Cobalt
CCR-102BR-BG
10/19/2016
Cobalt
MW-13BR
06/23/2015
Cobalt
MW-13BR
04/0512016
Cobalt
MW-13BR
07/11/2016
Cobalt
MW-13BR
09/06/2016
Cobalt
MW-13BR
11/08/2016
Cobalt
MW-13BR
02/02/2017
Cobalt
MW-13BR
04/05/2017
Cobalt
MW-13BR
07/11/2017
Cobalt
MW-13BR
11107/2017
Cobalt
MW-13BR
01/16/2018
Cobalt
MW-13BR
04/04/2018
Cobalt
MW-13BR
11/08/2018
Cobalt
MW-14BR
09/09/2015
Cobalt
MW-14BR
11/08/2016
Cobalt
MW-14BR
11/07/2017
Cobalt
BG-02
01/15/2018
Fluoride
BG-02
04/03/2018
Fluoride
BG-02
07/17/2018
Fluoride
BG-02
11/06/2018
Fluoride
MW-13BR
01/07/2016
Iron
MW-13BR
09/06/2016
Iron
MW-13BR
02/02/2017
Iron
MW-13BR
04/05/2017
Iron
MW-14BR
09/09/2015
Iron
MW-12S
10/2/2018
Lead
■
BG-02
01/15/2018
Lithium
MW-12D
06/24/2015
Manganese
MW-12S
03/28/2017
Methane
MW-13BR
07/11/2016
Methane
1.61
1.75
1Ti
1.11
11.52
1.8
65
46
43
41
45
43
40
38
37
34
33
32
28
29
30
28
3.21
7.11
20
16.:
1Z
1.3E
1.2;
1.14
1.01
1.95
1.1 i
2.0,
2.91
3.0E
3.7-i
3.3E
6.52
4.71
4.61
'1.05
1.0
1.1
0.3�
0.31
0.2E
0.2E
2551
2521
2921
3261
2731
1.9E
6
683
273
54.E
CA ARCA DIS � d`
Rationale for Inclusion of Sample Data in Background U=-
µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
is
µg/L
Present with higher iron concentration and lower ORP
µg/L
Present with lower ORP
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
Consistent with other detected arsenic concentrations for this well
µg/L
Present with higher iron concentration and lower ORP
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
µg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
µg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
µg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
µg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Present with lower ORP
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Present with lower ORP
µg/L
Present with lower ORP
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
112

Table 7
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Duke Energy
Mayo Steam Electric Plant
MW-13BR
09/06/2016
Methane
MW-12S
12/7/2016
Molybdenum
MW-12S
12/7/2016
Molybdenum
MW-12S
02/01/2017
Molybdenum
MW-12S
02/01/2017
Molvbdenum
MW-12S
03/28/2017
Molybdenum
MW-12S
03/2812017
Molybdenum
MW-12D
06/24/2015
Molybdenum
MW-12D 1 12/06/2016 1 Molybdenum
MW-14BR
09/09/2015
Molybdenum
MW-12D
09/10/2015
Nitrate + Nitrite
CCR-102BR-BG
06/24/2016
Selenium
CCR-102BR-BG
08/16/2016
Selenium
CCR-102BR-BG
10119/2016
Selenium
CCR-102BR-BG
12/06/2016
Selenium
CCR-102BR-BG
01131/2017
Selenium
CCR-102BR-BG
03/28/2017
Selenium
CCR-102BR-BG
05/23/2017
Selenium
CCR-102BR-BG
07/11/2017
Selenium
CCR-102BR-BG
09/05/2017
Selenium
CCR-102BR-BG
01/16/2018
Selenium
CCR-102BR-BG
05/07/2018
Selenium
CCR-102BR-BG
06/24/2016
Sulfate
CCR-102BR-BG
08/16/2016
Sulfate
CCR-102BR-BG
10/19/2016
Sulfate
CCR-102BR-BG
12/06/2016
Sulfate
CCR-102BR-BG
01/31/2017
Sulfate
CCR-102BR-BG
03/28/2017
Sulfate
CCR-102BR-BG
05/23/2017
Sulfate
CCR-102BR-BG
07/11/2017
Sulfate
CCR-102BR-BG
09/05/2017
Sulfate
CCR-102BR-BG
01/16/2018
Sulfate
CCR-102BR-BG
05/07/2018
Sulfate
CCR-102BR-BG
10/02/2018
Sulfate
MW-13BR
06/23/2015
Sulfide
MW-13BR
11/08/2018
Sulfide
MW-13BR
09/08/2015
Thallium
MW-12D
08/17/2016
Total Radium
MW-12D
12106/2016
Total Radium
MW-12D
07/18/2018
Total Radium
MW-13BR
06123/2015
Zinc
MW-13BR
12/02/2015
Zinc
MW-13BR
01/07/2016
Zinc
MW-13BR
09/06/2016
Zinc
135
10.3
L 9.55
3.15
2.99
1.97
1.94
1.75
1.42
27.3
0.664
2.04
2.8
2.82
2.15
2.28
2.31
2.01
2.15
1.75
1.61
1.48
79
100
140
- 140
130
130
130
130
130
110
100
110
0.115
0.11
0.538
W 9.97
34.883
15.945
36
54
37
38
CA ARCA DIS � d`
µg/L Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L Present with higher manganese concentration and lower ORP
µg/L Present with lower ORP (manganese not measured on duplicate sample)
µg/L Present with higher manganese concentration and lower ORP
µg/L Present with lower ORP (manganese not measured on duplicate sample)
µg/L Present with higher manganese concentration and lower ORP
µg/L Present with lower ORP (manganese not measured on duplicate sample)
µg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration and lower ORP
mg-N/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pCVL
No laboratory or field errors identified
pCVL
No laboratory or field errors identified
pCVL
No laboratory or field errors identified
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
µg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
Notes:
pg/L - micrograms per liter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams calcium carbonate per liter
mg-N/L - milligrams nitrogen per liter
ORP - oxidation-reduction potential
pCi/L - picoCuries per liter
0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTVs) because data validation and detailed evaluation of
Site -specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error.
0 - Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BTVs.
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
2/2

Table 8
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identified as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
Duke Energy
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
P A RCAD I 'f7esl�n$Cnnwliancy
tarnatvritmd
hulltasseTs
MW-18D
11/14/2018
Alkalinity 149
Aluminum 1550
Arsenic 2.39
Arsenic 2.7
Arsenic 2.57
Arsenic 1.96
Arsenic 2.16
Arsenic 2.03
Arsenic 1.39
Arsenic 2.6
Arsenic 2.39
Arsenic 2.57
Arsenic 2.9
Arsenic 1.81
Arsenic 1.93
Arsenic 2.84
Arsenic 2.45
Arsenic 2.28
Arsenic 2.18
Arsenic 2.12
Arsenic 1.95
Arsenic 1.64
Arsenic 2.13
Arsenic 2.42
Arsenic 4.42
Arsenic 6.02
Arsenic 6.89
Arsenic 6.67
Arsenic 5.54
Arsenic 3.13
mg-CaCO3/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
Present with higher iron concentration
BG-01
04/07/2016
pg/L
BG-02BR
08/10/2017
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02BR
11/14/2017
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02BR
01/29/2018
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02BR
04/09/2018
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02BR
07/31/2018
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02BR
11/13/2018
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-19BRL
06/16/2016
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-19BRL
07/27/2016
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-19BRL
09/28/2016
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-19BRL
11/11/2016
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-19BRL
01/26/2017
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-19BRL
04/19/2017
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-19BRL
07/26/2017
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-19BRL
11/17/2017
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-19BRL
01/30/2018
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-19BRL
04/10/2018
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-19BRL
07/27/2018
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-19BRL
11/14/2018
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-26BR
09/28/2016
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-26BR
11/15/2016
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-26BR
01/26/2017
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-26BR
04/13/2017
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-26BR
07/26/2017
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-26BR
11/20/2017
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-26BR
01/30/2018
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-26BR
04/11/2018
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-26BR
07/26/2018
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-26BR
11/14/2018
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-29BR
07/20/2017
Arsenic
1.71
1.36
1.76
1.71
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-29BR
11/20/2017
Arsenic
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-29BR
01/29/2018
Arsenic
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-29BR
04/11/2018
Arsenic
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-29BR
07/25/2018
Arsenic
1.18
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30BR
07/20/2017
Arsenic
1.34
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30BR
11/20/2017
Arsenic
1.22
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30BR
01/30/2018
Arsenic
1.7
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30BR
04/11/2018
Arsenic
1.49
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30BR
07/26/2018
Arsenic
1.21
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-30BR
11/13/2018
Arsenic
1.17
149
14.5
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-18D
11/14/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
mg-CaC%/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
BG-02BR
11/13/2018
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
mg-CaCO3/L
Decreased due to higher pH value
BG-02BR
04/09/2018
Carbonate Alkalinity 35
Carbonate Alkalinity 179
Chloride 120
Chloride 130
Chloride 124
Chloride 120
Chloride 120
Chloride 130
Chloride 120
Chloride 120
Chloride 130
Chloride 140
mg-CaCO3/L
Present with more alkaline pH
BG-02BR
11/13/2018
mg-CaCO3/L
Present with more alkaline pH
MW-18BR
06/02/2015
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-18BR
09/14/2015
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-18BR
12/05/2015
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-18BR
01/05/2016
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-18BR
04/08/2016
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-18BR
05/19/2016
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-18BR
11/09/2016
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-18BR
11/09/2016
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-18BR
01/17/2017
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-18BR
01/25/2017
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
MW-18BR
03/14/2017
Chloride
130 B2
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
1/5

Table 8
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
Duke Energy
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
Well ID
MW-18BR
Sample Da Constituent
04/13/2017 Chloride
MW-18BR
05/01/2017
Chloride
MW-18BR
07/19/2017
Chloride
MW-18BR
07/19/2017
Chloride
MW-18BR
09/11/2017
Chloride
MW-18BR
11/16/2017
Chloride
MW-18BR
01/24/2018
Chloride
MW-18BR
01/24/2018
Chloride
MW-18BR
05/15/2018
Chloride
MW-18BR
07/30/2018
Chloride
MW-18BR
10/09/2018
Chloride
MW-18BR
11/14/2018
Chloride
BG-01
07/13/2011
Chromium
BG-01BR
01/05/2016
Chromium
BG-01BR
07/14/2016
Chromium
BG-01BR
09/08/2016
Chromium
BG-01BR
04/10/2017
Chromium
BG-01BR
07/17/2017
Chromium
BG-01BR
11/14/2017
Chromium
BG-01BR
01/29/2018
Chromium
BG-02BR
08/10/2017
Chromium
BG-02BR
11/14/2017
Chromium
BG-02BR
01/29/2018
Chromium
BG-02BR
04/09/2018
Chromium
MW-14BR
12/06/2015
Chromium
MW-14BR
01/06/2016
Chromium
MW-14BR
04/08/2016
Chromium
MW-14BR
09/08/2016
Chromium
MW-14BR
11/10/2016
Chromium
MW-14BR
07/20/2017
Chromium
MW-15BR
04/07/2016
Chromium
MW-15BR
09/08/2016
Chromium
MW-15BR
11/09/2016
Chromium
MW-15BR
11/09/2016
Chromium
MW-15BR
01/17/2017
Chromium
MW-15BR
01/25/2017
Chromium
MW-15BR
03/14/2017
Chromium
MW-15BR
04/13/2017
Chromium
MW-15BR
07/19/2017
Chromium
MW-15BR
07/19/2017
Chromium
MW-18BR
09/14/2015
Chromium
MW-18BR
01/05/2016
Chromium
MW-18BR
05/19/2016
Chromium
MW-18BR
11/14/2018
Chromium
MW-19BRL
11/11/2016
Chromium
MW-29BR
02/28/2017
Chromium
MW-29BR
07/20/2017
Chromium
MW-29BR
11/20/2017
Chromium
MW-30BR
02/28/2017
Chromium
MW-30BR
04/13/2017
Chromium
MW-30BR
07/20/2017
Chromium
MW-30BR
11/20/2017
Chromium
MW-30BR
01/30/2018
Chromium
MW-15BR
11/09/2016
Chromium (VI)
MW-15BR
04/13/2017
Chromium (VI)
MW-18BR
11/09/2016
Chromium (VI)
120
130
130
130
130
130
140
140
130
130
130
130
42.7
1.96
2.15
3.89
4.44
2.22
3.88
9.27
2.83
2.07
3.36
1.98
2.8
1.98
2.11
3.41
4.16
1.44
1.01
1.32
1.49
1.69
1.32
1.07
1.53
1.07
1.71
1.68
2.23
4.24
5.15
1.43 132
1.04
1.36
1.02
2.51
2.16
2.64
1.68
1.55
1.78
0.67
0.95
1.4
P A RCAD I [� E'W'It S'Pts Nancy
V1 larnaw-il and
hulltasseTs
mq/L INot identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Present with higher nickel concentration
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
2/5

Table 8
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
Duke Energy
MW-18BR
04/13/2017
Chromium (VI)
MW-19BRL
01/26/2017
Chromium (VI)
MW-19BRL
04/19/2017
Chromium (VI)
MW-19BRL
07/26/2017
Chromium (VI)
MW-26BR
11/15/2016
Chromium (VI)
MW-26BR
04/13/2017
Chromium (VI)
MW-26BR
07/26/2017
Chromium (VI)
MW-30BR
04/13/2017
Chromium (VI)
MW-30BR
07/20/2017
Chromium (VI)
BG-01
04/16/2015
Cobalt
BG-01
04/07/2016
Cobalt
MW-15D
05/30/2015
Cobalt
MW-15D
09/12/2015
Cobalt
MW-10BR
05/27/2015
Cobalt
MW-10BR
09/12/2015
Cobalt
MW-10BR
12/04/2015
Cobalt
MW-10BR
01/06/2016
Cobalt
MW-10BR
04/07/2016
Cobalt
MW-10BR
05/19/2016
Cobalt
MW-10BR
07/14/2016
Cobalt
MW-10BR
07/14/2016
Cobalt
MW-10BR
09/14/2016
Cobalt
MW-10BR
09/14/2016
Cobalt
MW-10BR
11/09/2016
Cobalt
MW-10BR
11/09/2016
Cobalt
MW-10BR
01/17/2017
Cobalt
MW-10BR
01/26/2017
Cobalt
MW-10BR
03/14/2017
Cobalt
MW-10BR
04/18/2017
Cobalt
MW-10BR
05/03/2017
Cobalt
MW-10BR
07/19/2017
Cobalt
MW-10BR
07/19/2017
Cobalt
MW-10BR
09/11/2017
Cobalt
MW-10BR
11/20/2017
Cobalt
MW-10BR
01/24/2018
Cobalt
MW-10BR
01/24/2018
Cobalt
MW-10BR
04/10/2018
Cobalt
MW-10BR
05/15/2018
Cobalt
MW-10BR
07/30/2018
Cobalt
MW-10BR
10/09/2018
Cobalt
MW-10BR
11/14/2018
Cobalt
BG-01BR
07/14/2016
Copper
BG-01BR
01/29/2018
Copper
BG-02BR
08/10/2017
Copper
BG-02BR
04/09/2018
Copper
MW-10BR
05/27/2015
Copper
MW-14BR
O6/10/2015
Copper
MW-14BR
12/06/2015
Copper
MW-14BR
01/06/2016
Copper
MW-14BR
09/08/2016
Copper
MW-19BRL
07/27/2016
Copper
MW-26BR
O6/17/2016
Copper
MW-26BR
07/28/2016
Copper
MW-26BR
09/28/2016
Copper
MW-30BR
07/20/2017
Copper
BG-01
04/07/2016
Iron
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
P A RCAD I [� E'W'It� S'Pts Nancy
V1 ra�eu�and
hulltasseTs
0.69
0.56
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
0.67
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.69
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.52
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.57
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.55
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.73
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
0.43
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
2.54
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
1.85
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
4.01
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
1.11
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
8.2
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
5.97
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
5.15
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
6.38
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
6.45
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
6.31
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
6.4
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
5.97
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
15.8
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
16.5
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
12.1
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
12.2
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
20.8
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
17.3
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
21.7
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
19.9
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
20.4
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
18.4
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
19.7
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
18
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
17.6
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
16.1
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
16.5
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
19.2
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
16.4
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
15.8
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
12.9
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
13.3
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
1.27
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
1.4
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
2.59
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
1.82
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
4.67
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
1.69
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
1.9
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
2.16
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
1.69
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
1.01
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
1.86
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
3.89
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
1.15
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
1.01
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
1760
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
3/5

Table 8
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
Duke Energy
MW-19BRL
09/28/2016
MW-19BRL
11/11/2016
MW-18BR
05/19/2016
MW-18D
12/06/2015
MW-18D
01/05/2016
MW-18D
06/23/2016
MW-18D
07/14/2016
MW-18D
09/13/2016
MW-18D
01/25/2017
MW-18D
04/13/2017
MW-18D
07/19/2017
BG-01BR
07/14/2016
BG-01BR
09/08/2016
MW-18BR
04/13/2017
MW-19BRL
06/16/2016
MW-19BRL
09/28/2016
MW-19BRL
04/19/2017
MW-18D
12/06/2015
MW-18D
05/19/2016
MW-18D
06/23/2016
MW-18D
01/17/2017
MW-18D
01/25/2017
BG-01
07/13/2011
BG-01BR
09/08/2016
BG-01BR
04/10/2017
BG-01BR
11/14/2017
BG-01BR
01/29/2018
BG-02BR
08/10/2017
MW-14BR
11/10/2016
BG-01BR
06/10/2015
BG-01BR
12/05/2015
BG-01BR
09/08/2016
BG-01BR
1 11/09/2016
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
Iron
6220
Iron
5720
Lithium
46
Manganese
820
Manganese
978
Manganese
1040
Manganese
632
Manganese
405
Manganese
305
Manganese
196
Manganese
260
Methane
1120
Methane
618
Methane
991
Methane
584
Methane
17200
Methane
18800
Molybdenum
8.1
Molybdenum
9.87
Molybdenum
7.03
Molybdenum
6.61
Molybdenum
14.9
Nickel
45.5 B
Nickel
3.15
Nickel
4.43
Nickel
3.55
Nickel
7.62
Nickel
4.39
Nickel
4.92
Nitrate + Nitrite
0.593
Nitrate + Nitrite
0.34
Nitrate + Nitrite
0.39
Nitrate + Nitrite
0.381
Nitrate +Nitrite
0.43
Nitrate +Nitrite
0.408
Nitrate +Nitrite
0.391
Potassium
20.9
Selenium
3.57
Selenium
1.44
Selenium
1.2
Selenium
1.01
Selenium
1.78
Selenium
2.2
Selenium
1.64
Selenium
1.95
Selenium
1.25
Selenium
1.19
Strontium
615
Sulfide
0.19
Sulfide
0.16
Sulfide
0.22
Total Organic Carbon
33.6
Total Organic Carbon
11
Total Organic Carbon
29
Total Organic Carbon
26
Total Organic Carbon
9.6
BG-01BR
01/25/2017
BG-01BR
04/10/2017
BG-01BR
01/29/2018
MW-18BR
5/19/2016
BG-01
04/16/2015
BG-01
09/16/2015
BG-01
12/05/2015
BG-01
01/05/2016
BG-01
04/07/2016
MW-18D
12/06/2015
MW-18D
01/05/2016
MW-18D
05/19/2016
MW-18D
06/23/2016
MW-30BR
02/28/2017
MW-18BR
11/14/2018
MW-18D
04/13/2017
MW-18D
11/16/2017
MW-18D
11/14/2018
BG-01BR
12/05/2015
MW-18BR
09/14/2015
MW-19BRL
06/16/2016
MW-19BRL
07/27/2016
MW-19BRL
09/28/2016
P A RCAD I [� E'W'It SCnnwliancy
V1 larnaw-il and
hulltasseTs
pg/L
Present with higher aluminum concentration
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Present with higher potassium and total dissolved solids concentration
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
Present with higher manganese concentration
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg-N/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
pg/L
Not identified as an outlier on individual well box -and -whisker plot
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
mg/L
No laboratory or field errors identified
4/5

Table 8
Rationale for Inclusion of Data Identifed as
Statistical Outliers into the Background Groundwater Data Set
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
Duke Energy
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
P A RCAD I ''E,'It n$Cnnwliancy
tarnatvritmd
hulltasseTs
Notes:
j - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
pg/L - micrograms per liter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
mg-CaCO3/L - milligrams as calcium carbonate per liter
mg-N/L - milligrams as nitrogen per liter
ORP - oxidation-reduction potential
0 - Concentration is an extreme statistical outlier. Concentration was included in the calculation of background threshold values (BTVs) because data validation and detailed evaluation of Site -
specific geochemical conditions indicated that the concentration was not a result of field error or laboratory analytical error.
0 - Sample collected less than 60 days from the previous sample. Sample results not included in calculation of BTVs
5/5

Attachment A
Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations
A ARGADIS
Oxidation
specific Specific H WH pH -Lab Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Bicarbonate Calcium Chloride Copper
Sampling p Reduction p Dissolved Water Turbidity Aluminum Aluminum Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Cadmium Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Chromium Copper pp
Cond., Cond., Field WH, Lab Total Total Dissolved Total Total Dissolved Total
Mte Depth Field Lab potential, Oxygen Temp. total Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved (mg/L as Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved
(standard (standard ug/L as ug/L as (mg/L as mg/L as mg/L as (mg/I as ug/L as
s/cm) (mg/L) (deg C) (NTU) (ug/I as Al) ug/L as Al (ug/I as As) (ug/I as Ba) HCO3) HCO3) (ug/I as Cd) ug/L as Cd g/I as Ca) Ca mg/L as CI (ug/I as Cr) ug/L as Cr (ug/I as Cu) Cu
-AEEEEI� EL IL
30,00ANIL AL
JEEN
0 24
Allison Woods
30002000011
11/28/2006
65
102
100
6.0
6.7
4.7
15.3
<1.0
<50
<5.0
36
38
38
<2.0
19
2.0
<25
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000011
3/5/2007
65
122
99
6.4
6.4
7.8
15.9
<1.0
<50
<5.0
95
41
41
<1.0
8.3
2.6
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000011
719/ 0007
65
86
85
6.3
6.3
na
16.1
<1.0
<50
<5.0
68
32
32
<1.0
6.9
2.2
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000011
11/5/2007
65
55
66
6.1
6.6
7.4
14.6
<1.0
na
na
na
23
23
na
na
2.9
na
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000011
5/27/2008
65
51
54
5.8
6.1
7.6
15.1
<1.0
na
<5.0
49
17
17
<1.0
4.5
2.8
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000011
3/16/2009
65
67
na
5.7
6.3
8.0
14.5
na
<50
<5.0
71
28
28
<1.0
6
1.7
<10
2.5
Allison Woods
3000200001D
11/28/2006
209
152
150
7.8
8.0
2.2
16.8
<1.0
<50
<5.0
52
66
66
<2.0
20
2.0
<25
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200001D
3/5/2007
209
128
150
8.1
8.0
0.8
16.6
<1.0
<50
<5.0
50
71
71
<1.0
21
1.4
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200001D
7/9/2007
209
157
150
8.1
7.9
0.7
17.5
<1.0
<50
<5.0
48
67
67
<1.0
20
1.3
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200001D
11/5/2007
209
158
150
8.1
8.0
0.4
16.8
<1.0
na
na
na
65
65
na
na
1.8
na
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200001D
5/27/2008
209
155
150
8.0
8.0
0.7
17.5
<1.0
<50
<5.0
49
63
63
<1.0
21
2.1
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200001D
3/16/2009
140
147
na
7.9
7.9
0.3
15.9
na
<50
<2.0
48
65
65
<1.0
20
1.1
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
300020000CH1
11/28/2006
67
144
150
6.9
7.2
3.9
15.1
27
<50
<5.0
74
60
60
<2.0
16
2.0
<25
14
Allison Woods
3000200002E
11/28/2006
33
27
18
5.3
5.5
6.0
14.8
<1.0
<50
<5.0
37
4.0
4.0
<2.0
0.47
1.0
<25
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200002E
3/5/2007
33
12
16
5.1
5.3
6.9
14.5
<1.0
<50
<5.0
34
3.0
3.0
<1.0
0.48
1.1
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200002E
7/10/2007
33
15
16
5.2
5.4
9.4
14.8
<1.0
<50
<5.0
35
1
4.8
4.8
<1.0
0.52
1.0
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200002E
11/5/2007
33
12
16
5.1
5.4
9.1
14.5
<1.0
<50
<5.0
37
3.3
3.3
<1.0
0.50
1.6
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200002E
5/27/2008
33
15
16
5.2
9.4
15.2
<1.0
<50
<5.0
35
<1.0
0.55
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200002E
3/17/2009
33
16
na
5.0
5.5
10.5
14.4
na
1 <50
<2.0
35
3.3
3.3
<1.0
0.50
<1.0
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000021
11/28/2006
62
137
160
6.6
7.4
1.7
15.6
6.4
<50
<5.0
58
72
72
<2.0
20
1.0
<25
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000021
3/5/2007
62
174
160
7.2
7.3
na
16.5
<1.0
<50
<5.0
59
79
79
1 <1.0
23
1.2
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000021
7/10/2007
62
151
150
7.0
7.1
1.9
16.2
1.7
<50
<5.0
58
60
60
<1.0
17
1.3
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000021
11/6/2007
62
136
140
6.9
7.1
na
14.6
1.2
na
<5.0
na
55
55
na
1.8
na
na
Allison Woods
30002000021
5/27/2008
62
na
140
na
na
na
13
<5.0
Allison Woods
30002000021
3/17/2009
62
140
na
7.2
7.5
3.8
14.5
na
<50
<2.0
64
58
58
<1.0
19
1.1
1 <10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200002D
11/28/2006
194
144
150
7.6
7.5
0.7
16.7
<1.0
<50
<5.0
1 91
<2.0
18
1.0
<25
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200002D
3/5/2007
194
117
140
7.4
7.3
1.1
16.6
<1.0
<50
<5.0
88
68
68
<1.0
17
1.2
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200002D
7/9/2007
194
125
130
7.2
7.4
2.2
1 15.8
<1.0
<50
<5.0
90
62
62
<1.0
16
1.2
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200002D
11/5/2007
194
136
130
7.4
7.4
na
16.5
<1.0
<50
<5.0
88
58
1 58
<1.0
17
1
1.6
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200002D
5/27/2008
194
131
130
7.1
7.2
1.8
16.1
<1.0
<50
<5.0
91
56
56
<1.0
17
1.8
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200002D
3/16/2009
140
126
na
7.0
7.2
1.0
15.4
na
<50
<2.0
89
52
52
<1.0
16
1.0
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200003E
11/29/2006
15
51
50
5.3
5.3
6.0
14.8
<1
<50
1 <5.0
19
12
12
<2.0
0.8
5.0
<25
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200003E
3/13/2007
15
43
51
5.2
5.5
2.8
12.7
3.2
<50
<5
45
16
16
<1.0
4.0
4.1
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200003E
7/11/2007
15
50
53
5.2
5.6
2.4
14.4
4.8
<50
<5.0
44
14
14
<1.0
4.1
4.0
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200003E
11/6/2007
15
59
55
5.7
5.6
na
15.2
8.3
<50
<5.0
49
13
13
<1.0
4.4
2.5
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200003E
5/28/2008
15
56
56
5.1
5.5
3.4
13.2
5.1
1 <50
<5.0
44
12
12
<1.0
4.2
4.5
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200003E
3/23/2009
15
53
na
4.9
5.2
5.3
12.5
na
<50
<2.0
41
8.5
8.5
<1.0
1 4.1
3.6
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000031
11/29/2006
34
83
83
6.0
6.0
5.1
14.3
<1
<50
<5.0
<10
25
1 25
<2.0
<0.10
1.0
<25
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000031
3/13/2007
34
66
78
6.2
6.2
4.6
14.6
<1
<50
<5.0
83
na
na
<1.0
6.5
3.3
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000031
7/11/2007
34
79
80
5.8
6.2
5.9
14.0
<1
<50
<5.0
77
24
24
<1.0
6.8
3.3
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002050031
11/6/2007
34
51
79
6.0
6.2
5.6
14.2
<1
<50
<5.0
78
23
23
<1.0
7.3
<1
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000031
5/28/2008
34
83
81
5.7
6.2
na
14.2
<1
<50
<5.0
77
23
23
<1.0
7.5
3.6
1 <10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000031
3/23/2009
34
82
na
5.6
6.0
5.1
14.4
na
<50
<2.0
69
1
22
22
<1.0
7.3
2.8
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200003D
11/29/2006
88
145
140
9.0
9.0
0.1
15.8
<1
<50
<5.0
94
52
52
<2.0
6.5
1.0
<25
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200003D
3/13/2007
88
125
150
8.7
8.2
0.5
15.2
1.7
<50
<5.0
17
34
34
<1.0
19
1.1
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200003D
7/11/2007
88
136
150
8.5
8.3
na
17.9
<1
<50
<5.0
39
70
70
<1.0
21
1.2
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200003D
11/6/2007
88
1 154
150
8.6
1 8.4
0.1
15.6
1.2
<50
<5.0
28
62
1 62
<1.0
21
1.4
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200003D
5/28/2008
88
153
150
8.5
8.3
0.2
16.5
2.0
<50
<5.0
27
64
64
<1.0
20
2.0
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200003D
3/23/2009
88
149
na
8.2
8.2
0.2
16.4
na
<50
<2.0
41
64
64
<1.0
22
1.1
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200004E
11/29/2006
22
19
22
4.8
5.8
2.6
15.5
1.0
<50
<5.0
25
6.0
6.0
<2.0
7.3
<1
<25
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200004E
3/6/2007
22
15
20
5.3
5.8
5.5
14.2
<1.0
<50
<5.0
17
2.0
2.0
<1.0
0.76
1.3
1 <10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200004E
7/10/2007
22
19
20
5.2
5.6
8.4
14.6
<1.0
<50
<5.0
16
5.9
5.9
<1.0
0.77
1.0
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200004E
11/6/2007
22
18
20
5.4
5.6
8.6
15.4
<1.0
<50
<5.0
18
5.3
5.3
<1.0
0.87
4.3
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200004E
5/28/2008
22
19
19
5.0
5.5
8.0
13.9
4.7
1 <50
<5.0
17
4.3
4.3
<1.0
1 0.75
1.6
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200004E
3/17/2009
22
19
na
4.9
5.7
8.0
14.0
na
<50
<2.0
17
5.8
5.8
<1.0
0.72
1.0
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000041
11/29/2006
39
1 65
67
6.1
6.7
na
14.4
<1.0
<50
<5.0
98
31
31
<2.0
8.3
1.0
<25
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000041
3/6/2007
39
1 58
58
6.0
6.6
8.6
14.3
<1.0
<50
<5.0
24
14
14
<1.0
6.0
1.2
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000041
7/10/2007
39
64
67
6.4
6.6
10.6
14.4
<1.0
<50
1 <5.0
23
31
31
<1.0
7.0
1.1
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000041
11/6/2007
39
73
75
6.5
6.7
7.5
14.4
<1.0
<50
<5.0
27
33
33
<1.0
9.0
1.3
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000041
5/28/2008
39
73
73
6.3
6.5
6.9
14.6
<1.0
<50
<5.0
25
31
31
<1.0
8.0
1.7
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
30002000041
3/17/2009
39
70
na
6.1
6.5
9.7
14.5
na
<50
<2.0
24
1
30
30
<1.0
7.5
1
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200004D
11/29/2006
121
134
140
8.4
8.0
0.1
16.4
<1.0
<50
<5.0
14
62
62
<2.0
15
1
3.0
<25
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200004D
3/6/2007
121
112
130
8.3
8.0
0.4
16.5
<1.0
<50
<5.0
37
31
31
<1.0
19
1.1
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200004D
7/10/2007
121
132
140
8.3
8.2
0.3
15.9
<1.0
<50
<5.0
39
61
61
<1.0
19
1.2
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200004D
11/6/2007
121
140
140
8.3
8.2
0.1
15.7
<1.0
<50
<5.0
42
61
61
<1.0
21
1.7
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200004D
5/28/2008
121
139
140
8.2
8.0
0.1
15.7
<1.0
<50
<5.0
42
57
57
<1.0
19
2.0
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200004D
3/17/2009
121
141
na
7.9
8.1
0.2
15.8
na
<50
<2.0
46
59
59
<1.0
19
1.0
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
AWCH-4
7/10/2007
88
143
140
8.0
8.1
2.6
1 15.4
<1.0
<50
<5.0
47
64
64
<1
20
1.2
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200001Y
316/20007
na
60
71
6.1
7.2
5.1
12.5
3.0
na
na
na
8
8
na
na
4.0
na
na
Allison Woods
3000200001Y
7/11/2007
na
59
57
6.1
6.4
7.2
17.4
24
<50
<5.0
39
21
21
<1.0
4.7
2.5
<10
<2.0
Allison Woods
3000200001Y
11/6/2007
na
55
53
6.7
6.8
7.7
12.2
<1.0
na
na
na
21
21
na
na
<1.0
na
na
Allison Woods
3000200001Y
5/27/2008
na
44
7.4
5.2
17.1
<50
<5.0
35
<1.0
4.9
1
<10
28
Allison Woods
3000200001Y
5/28/2008
na
55
na
6.6
na
7.2
15.5
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
2.9
na
na
Allison Woods
3000200001Y
3/23/2009
na
1 86
na
7.1
6.5
na
15.9
na
<50
<2.0
33
17
17
<1.0
5.2
2.9
<10
<2
Bent Creek
BC-3S
22-Apr-031
1 12
5.1
6.3
12.0
50.0
1300
<10
21
5
5
<2
0.8
<5
<25
2.3
Bent Creek
BC-3S
27-A r-04
27
15
5.8
6.7
11.9
12.0
<50
380
<10
<10
<10
12
<2
<2
0.8
0.6
<5
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-3S
2-Nov-04
27
18
5.4
4.2
14.4
1.8
<50
<5
<10
6
6
<2
0.7
<1
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-3S
27-Jun-OS
27
14
5.1
7.3
12.4
<2
<50
200
<5
<5
11
11
1.5
1.5
<2
<2
1.0
1.3
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-3S
13-Jun-O6
27
4.4
5.8
12.4
2.0
<50
71
<5
<5
11
12
5.5
5.5
<2
<2
0.8
0.8
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
1/12

Attachment A
Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations
A ARGADIS
Oxidation
S ecific Specific H WH pH -Lab
Sampling p Reduction p Dissolved Water
Cond., Cond., Field WH, Lab
Mte Depth Field Lab potential, (standard Oxyg am
(standard
BC-3i 22-A r-03 49 13 5.7 7.8 12.6
Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Bicarbonate Calcium Chloride Co
Turbidity Aluminum Aluminum Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Cadmium Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Chromium Copper pp
Total Total Dissolved Total Total Dissolved Total
otal Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved (mg/L as Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved
) (ug/I as Al) ug/L as AI (ug/I as As) ug/L as (ug/I as Be) ug/L as (mg/L as mg/L HCO3) (ug/I as Cd) u g/1 as Ca) mg/L as (mg/I as mg/L as CI (ug/I as Cr) s Cr (ug/I as Cu) ug/L a
JM". HCO3) + 4�
13.0 470 <10 16 7 7 <2 1.6 <5 <25 <2
<50 <10 <10 <2 1.0 <25 <2
<1 <50 <5 <10 7 7 <2 1.0 <1 <25 <2
Bent Creek
Bent Creek
BC-3i
27-A r-04
30
17
6.0
7.9
12.4
Bent Creek
BC-3i
2-Nov-04
45
19
5.8
7.3
13.2
Bent Creek
BC-3i
27-Jun-05
39
16
5.2
7.7
12.9
<1
<50
63
<5
<5
12
10
2
2
<2
<2
1.2
1.2
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-3i
13-Jun-06
45
18
4.6
8.0
12.2
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
11
13
5.5
5.5
<2
<2
1.0
1.1
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-3D
22-A r-03
240
135
8.5
0.1
14.4
19.0
180
<10
29
<2
18.0
<5
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-3D
27-A r-04
240
137
8.3
0.7
14.9
<50
<10
<10
<2
18.0
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-3D
1-Nov-04
240
128
8.5
1.0
15.0
4.4
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
58
58
<2
<2
21.0
21.0
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-3D
27-Jun-05
240
136
8.0
0.1
15.1
1.8
<50
<5
<10
29
29
<2
24.0
1.4
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-3D
13-Jun-06
148
150
7.2
0.2
14.6
7.6
<50
<50
<5
<5
10
13
57
57
<2
<2
23.0
24.0
1.2
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4S
22-A r-03
8
4.8
7.5
11.6
50.0
3900
<10
69
4
4
<2
0.50
<5
<25
8.1
Bent Creek
BC-4S
27-A r-04
11
5.1
7.9
11.5
<50
<10
12
<2
0.48
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4S
2-Nov-04
17
13
5.5
9.0
15.6
10.0
84
<5
14
5
5
<2
0.53
<1
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4S
27-Jun-05
17
14
5.5
8.4
12.3
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
14
14
<1
<1
<2
<2
0.61
0.61
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4S
13-Jun
17
14
5.8
7.8
12.1
1.7
85
<5
16
4
4
<2
0.61
<1
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4S
21-Au -07
19
15
218
6.1
12.0
14.1
2.0
<50
110
<5
<5
13
14
3.7
3.7
<1
<1
0.57
0.62
<1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4i
22-A r-03
6
5.5
9.0
13.2
<1
57
<10
14
4
4
<2
0.79
<5
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4i
27-A r-04
12
5.2
8.6
12.5
<50
<50
<10
<10
12
12
<2
<2
0.67
0.67
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4i
2-Nov-04
36
14
5.7
5.4
13.3
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
12
12
6
6
<2
<2
0.71
0.70
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4i
27Jun-Jun
11
5.6
9.1
12.8
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
13
13
<1
<1
<2
<2
0.78
0.78
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4i
13Jun-Jun
36
15
6.0
9.9
12.6
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
15
15
4.5
4.5
<2
<2
0.85
0.82
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4i
21-Au -07
37
16
210
4.2
8.9
12.8
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
13
13
3.7
3.7
<1
<1
0.73
0.76
<1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4D
22-A r-03
112
127
8.3
0.1
13.5
3.6
62
<10
13
48
48
<2
18.00
<5
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4D
27-A r-04
112
101
7.8
0.1
13.3
<50
<10
11
<2
17.00
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4D
2-Nov-04
115
128
8.2
0.2
14.2
<1
<50
<5
12
46
46
<2
18.00
<1
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4D
27Jun-Jun
115
104
170
7.7
0.1
14.6
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
12
12
41
41
<2
<2
17.0
18.00
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4D
13-Jun-06
115
119
7.9
0.2
13.3
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
14
12
45
45
<2
<2
18.0
18.00
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-4D
21-Au -07
105
125
7.8
0.2
12.8
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
17
16
46
46
<1
<1
19.0
18.00
<1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-5S
23-A r-03
20
6.7
3.8
10.7
3.2
170
<10
26
7
7
<2
1.30
<5
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-5S
28-A r-04
24
5.4
3.6
10.1
<50
<10
16
<2
0.92
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-5S
2-Nov-04
19
24
5.3
1.4
15.4
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
20
21
8
8
<2
<2
1.00
1.10
1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-5S
28-Jun-05
18
24
202
5.4
2.1
13.2
2.2
<50
<50
<5
<5
20
20
<1
<1
<2
<2
1.00
0.99
1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-5S
14-Jun-06
19
22
5.8
3.4
12.2
<1
<50
74
<5
<5
21
21
4
4
<2
<2
0.98
1.20
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-5i
23-A r-03
16
5.0
4.6
12.6
<1
<50
<10
11
7
7
<2
0.87
<5
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-5i
28-A r-04
20
5.1
5.4
12.6
<50
<10
<10
<2
0.66
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-5i
2-Nov-04
35
18
5.5
5.8
15.5
<1
<50
<5
<10
8
8
<2
0.73
<1
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-5i
28-Jun-05
35
20
243
5.6
6.1
13.2
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
10
10
3
3
<2
<2
0.78
0.80
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-5i
14-Jun-06
35
18
5.9
5.8
13.0
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
12
11
6
6
<2
<2
0.82
0.84
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-5D
23-A r-03
85
15
6.6
2.4
14.1
3.8
<50
<10
24
33
33
<2
7.90
<5
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-5D
28-A r-04
85
46
5.7
4.4
14.6
<50
<10
18
<2
3.40
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-5D
3-Nov-04
85
65
6.7
2.1
14.7
4.0
60
<5
16
22
22
<2
3.90
<1
<25
2.5
Bent Creek
BC-5D
28-Jun-05
85
50
6.2
4.2
14.5
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
22
16
19
19
<2
<2
5.80
4.60
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-5D
14-Jun-06
85
53
5.9
3.5
14.4
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
21
22
22
22
<2
<2
3.70
4.00
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-7S
23-A r-03
21
4.7
5.7
12.2
980
<10
31
7
7
<2
1.20
<5
<25
9.7
Bent Creek
BC-7S
28-A r-04
22
20
5.7
6.4
12.8
830
<10
19
<2
1.20
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-7S
3-Nov-04
20
14
6.1
15.3
80.0
180
<5
19
8
8
<2
0.71
1
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-7S
28Jun-Jun
20
18
5.1
5.4
14.0
3.7
<50
68
<5
<5
18
17
<1
<1
<2
<2
0.82
0.82
1.1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-7S
14Jun-Jun
20
18
4.5
6.7
13.4
8.6
<50
630
<5
<5
19
28
4
4
<2
<2
0.70
0.83
1.1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-7S
21-Au -07
20
10
463
5.9
11.9
17.2
300.0
<50
4700
<5
<5
13
46
3.7
3.7
<1
<1
0.54
0.64
<1
<10
<10
<2
10
Bent Creek
BC-7i
23-A r-03
12
5.2
6.9
13.7
3500
<10
84
5
5
<2
0.81
<5
<25
7.1
Bent Creek
BC-7i
28-A r-04
45
9
6.1
6.6
13.0
<50
<10
<10
<2
0.47
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-7i
3-Nov-04
40
11
6.6
9.0
14.0
15.0
160
<5
<10
6
6
<2
0.55
<1
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-7i
28-Jun-05
40
11
5.6
7.4
14.1
4.1
<50
70
<5
<5
<10
<10
1.5
1.5
<2
<2
0.50
0.64
1.1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-7i
14-Jun-06
40
14
4.4
7.5
14.7
7.2
<50
160
<5
<5
<10
<10
3
3
<2
<2
0.47
0.51
1.1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-Ti
21-Au -07
40
14
456
5.5
11.2
14.6
2.7
<50
90
<5
<5
<10
<10
3
3
<1
<1
0.40
0.41
<1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-7D
23-A r-03
140
213
8.6
0.2
15.3
7.8
110
<10
19
54
54
<2
20.00
<5
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-7D
28-A r-04
140
104
8.0
14.8
<50
<10
10
<2
14.00
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-7D
3-Nov-04
140
134
7.8
1.0
15.5
3.0
50
<5
15
53
53
<2
15.00
<1
<25
5.4
Bent Creek
BC-7D
28-Jun-05
140
139
7.6
0.3
14.5
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
16
16
56
56
<2
<2
19.00
19.00
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-7D
14-Jun-06
140
180
7.4
0.2
15.3
1.3
<50
57
<5
<5
21
22
71
71
<2
<2
23.00
23.00
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-7D
21-Au -07
140
209
103
8.4
0.6
15.5
1.7
<50
<50
<5
<5
21
21
78
78
<1
<1
27.00
26.00
<1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-1S
21-A r-03
14
10
5.3
6.0
11.8
2.3
100
100
<10
<10
<10
<10
6
6
<2
<2
0.80
0.80
<1
<25
<25
3
3
Bent Creek
BCAS
26-A r-04
14
15
5.8
5.8
11.2
<50
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
6.2
6.2
<2
<2
0.80
0.80
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BCAS
1-Nov-04
14
12
5.3
6.4
13.6
1.8
<50
51
<5
<5
<10
<10
6
6
<2
<2
0.81
0.78
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BCAS
27Jun-Jun
14
17
283
5.5
4.9
13.7
1.7
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
<1
<1
<2
<2
0.93
0.95
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BCAS
12Jun-Jun
14
16
4.8
5.0
13.6
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
2
2
<2
<2
0.83
1.90
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BCAS
20-Au -07
14
17
196
5.3
1.7
17.0
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
12
11
4
4
<1
<1
0.89
0.81
<1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-1i
21-A r-03
45
11
5.4
6.9
12.6
<1
<50
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
5
5
<2
<2
0.76
0.76
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-1i
27-A r-04
45
12
5.8
6.4
12.3
<1
<50
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<2
<2
0.73
0.73
<5
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-1i
1-Nov-04
42
14
3.9
9.4
12.2
<1
<50
89
<5
<5
<10
<10
7
7
<2
<2
1.00
1.10
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-1i
45
14
197
5.6
0.2
12.7
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
<1
<1
<2
<2
0.80
0.80
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-1i
12-Jun
40
16
5.1
9.7
12.8
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
4
4
<2
<2
0.82
0.80
<1
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-1i
-07
45
16
198
5.8
7.1
14.1
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
2.7
2.7
<1
<1
1.00
0.80
<1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-1
-03
141
69
7.1
0.1
13.7
1.2
<50
<10
<10
24
24
<2
7.10
1
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-1D
-04
141
55
6.6
0.3
14.6
<50
<10
<10
21
21
<2
6.50
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-1D
-04
141
69
7.0
0.1
14.5
1.0
<50
<5
<10
20
20
<2
6.50
1.1
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-1D
jun-Jun
-05
100
73
125
6.9
0.3
13.6
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
15
15
<2
<2
7.50
7.40
1.8
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-1D
-06
141
77
6.5
0.9
14.1
1.0
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
22
22
<2
<2
8.00
7.90
2.4
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-1D
-07
141
90
24
6.1
0.1
13.7
1.4
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
20
20
<1
<1
7.40
7.40
2
<10
<10
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-2i
r-03
215.3
5.0
12.4
<1
<50
<10
<10
8
8
<2
2.00
1
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-2i
r-04
19
24
5.7
6.2
12.4
<50
<10<10
62
6.2
<2
1.30
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-2i
-04
29
13.8
5.3
7.6
12.6
<1
<50
<5
<10
5
5
<2
1.10
<1
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-2i
29Jun-Jun
29
11
5.3
7.4
122
<1
55
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
1 8.6
8.6
<2
<2
0.46
4.70
1.6
<25
<25
<2
<2
2/12

Attachment A
Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations
A ARGADIS
Oxidation
specific Specific H WH pH -Lab
Sampling P Reduction P P Dissolved Water
Cond., Cond., Field WH, Lab
to Depth Field Lab Potential, Oxyg am
(standard (standard
BC-2i 12-Jun-06 30 24 5.8 5.8 12.4
Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Bicarbonate Calcium Chloride Co
Turbidity Aluminum Aluminum Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Cadmium Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Chromium Copper pP
Total Total Dissolved Total Total Dissolved Total
tall Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved (mg/L as Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved
TU) (ug/I as AI) adl&AI (ug/I as As) ug/L as (ug/I as Ba) ug/L as (mg/L as mg/L HCO3) (ug/I as Cd) u g/I as Ca) mg/L as (mg/I as mg/L as Cl (ug/1 s Cr (ug/I as Cu) ug/L a
HCO3)
<1 <50 <5 <10 6 6 <2 1.90 1 <25 <2
<1 <50 <50 <5 <5 <10 <10 1.7 1.7 <1 <1 0.89 0.92 <1 <10 <10 <2 <2
Bent Creek
Bent Creek
BC-2i
20-Au -07
29
17
510
5.8
5.8
12.6
Bent Creek
BC-2D
21-A r-03
245
314
8.7
0.1
14.3
20.0
250
<10
<10
32
32
<2
36.0
14
<25
2.5
Bent Creek
BC-2D
11-Feb-04
245
333
8.5
0.0
15.2
3.5
94
<10
<10
31.2
31.2
<2
38.0
16
<25
<2
Bent Creek
BC-2D
26-A r-04
150
278
8.6
14.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
39
39
<2
<2
30.0
30.0
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-2D
3-Nov-04
135
214
8.8
0.3
15.1
2.0
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
48
48
<2
<2
22.0
21.0
8.8
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-2D
29Jun-05
150
166
8.1
0.1
15.3
<1
61
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
51
51
<2
<2
18.0
18.0
5.7
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-2D
12Jun-06
100
174
8.3
0.1
14.2
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
<2
<2
18.0
18.0
6
<25
<25
<2
<2
Bent Creek
BC-2D
20-Au -07
150
1 174
88
8.9
0.1
14.8
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
63
63
<1
<1
17.0
17.0
4
<10
<10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-1S
21Jul-08
17
31
477
5.3
1.8
17.6
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
17
17
<1
<1
2.9
2.9
1.1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-1S
9-Feb-09
17
31
160
5.2
1.3
13.4
<1
<50
<50
<2
<2
18
18
13
13
<1
<1
3.1
3.1
<1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-11
21Jul-08
44
32
134
6.4
5.9
1 15.6
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
13
13
<1
<1
2.6
2.7
1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-11
9-Feb-09
44
30
-160
6.2
6.1
15.1
<1
<50
<50
<2
<2
<10
<10
14
14
<1
<1
2.6
2.4
<1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-1D
21-Jul-08
160
93
297
7.3
4.9
14.9
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
23
23
<1
<1
11.0
11.0
1.2
<10
<10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-1D
9-Feb-09
150
91
-91
7.2
4.6
14.6
<1
<50
<50
<2
<2
<10
<10
23
23
<1
<1
10.0
1 10.0
<1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-21
22-Jul-08
18
24
462
5.7
7.5
14.5
9.1
<50
<50
<5
<5
15
15
9
9
<1
1.4
1.4
1
<10
<2
Coweeta
CW-21
10-Feb-09
18
27
5.8
7.4
11.8
3.4
<50
140
<2
<2
15
17
10
10
<1
<1
1.5
2.3
<10
<10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-2D
22-Jul-08
90
24
374
6.1
5.3
13.2
3.7
<50
110
<5
<5
<10
<10
9
9
<1
<1
2.5
2.5
<1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-2D
10-Feb-09
90
22
5.2
7.3
12.8
12.0
<50
880
<2
<2
<10
<10
8.6
1 8.6
<1
<1
2.3
2.3
<1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-3PI
23-Jul-08
38
23
431
6.1
9.7
13.7
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
1 <10
<10
8
8
<1
<1
2.1
2.2
<1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-3PI
11-Feb-09
38
23
218
5.8
7.4
1 12.0
<1
<50
<50
<2
<2
<10
<10
9.9
9.9
<1
<1
2.1
2.2
<1
<10
I <10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-3D
23-Jul-08
75
40
346
6.9
5.9
13.1
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
16
16
<1
<1
3.8
3.8
<1
<10
<10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-3D
11-Feb-09
75
37
193
6.4
7.5
12.1
<1
<50
<50
<2
<2
<10
<10
17
17
<1
<1
3.7
3.7
<10
<10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-41
22-Jul-08
60
36
400
5.5
7.7
14.3
31
<50
670
<5
<5
<10
<10
12
12
<1
<1
1 3.3
3.2
1.4
<10
<10
<2
2.4
Coweeta
CW-41
8-Feb-09
60
37
226
5.3
8.0
12.6
13
<50
350
<2
<2
<10
<10
11
11
<1
<1
2.9
3.1
1.2
<10
<10
<2
<2
Coweeta
CW-4D
22-Jul-08
250
78
231
8.1
1.1
17.8
9.1
<50
260
<5
<5
<10
<10
29
29
<1
<1
9.4
9.6
1.2
<10
11
<2
2.6
Langtree Peninsula
MW-1
11/12/2003
53
43
5.1
5.7
6.4
18.9
100
2000*
<10*
24*
11
11
<2.0*
2.3*
2.0
<25*
8.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-1
6/15/2004
28
30
6.2
5.2
6.6
18.7
100
660
<10
16
1 7.2
7.2
1 <2.0
1.3
1.5
<25
1 <2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-11
8/28/2002
76
83
6.3
na
5.1
19.9
60
5600*
<10*
1 43*
33
33
<2.0*
6.3*
1.0
<25*
28*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-11
3/4/2003
84
81
6.8
na
5.0
15.5
25
1800*
<10*
60*
31
31
<2.0*
7.1*
<5
<25*
28*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-11
11/12/2003
93
79
6.7
6.5
4.5
17.7
37
1600*
<10*
12*
31
31
<2.0*
5.0*
1.7
<25*
4.3*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-11
6/15/2004
71
73
5.2
6.2
5.0
18.4
14
<50
<10
<10
31
31
<2.0
5.1
1.3
<25
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-11
4/14/2009
50
87
na
6.4
6.4
na
16.2
na
<50
<2.0
<10
39
39
<1.0
7.8
1.2
<10
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MWAD
8/27/2002
297
320
7.6
na
1.0
17.2
1.4
84*
<10*
<10*
69
69
<2.0*
46*
2.0
1
<25*
3.2*
Langtree Peninsula
MWAD
3/3/2003
168
180
7.5
na
2.1
17.4
<1.0
<50*
<10*
<10*
58
58
<2.0*
22*
<5
<25*
<2.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MWAD
11/12/2003
248
240
7.8
7.9
0.9
18.0
<1.0
<50*
<10*
<10*
68
68
<2.0*
36*
2.1
<25*
<2.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MWAD
6/15/2004
219
250
8.1
7.7
0.8
17.7
<1.0
<50
<10
<10
1 70
70
<2.0
38
1.8
<25
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MWAD
11/28/2007
118
211
na
8.0
8.0
0.7
17.6
na
<50
<2.0
<10
62
62
<1.0
34
2.4
1 <10
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MWAD
4/14/2009
118
209
na
7.8
8.0
0.8
17.0
na
<50
<2.0
<10
67
67
<1.0
35
1.6
<10
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2
8/28/2002
65
82
6.2
na
6.1
16.9
4.0
270*
<10*
<10*
28
28
<2.0*
6.1*
3.0
<25*
<2.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2
3/4/2003
76
80
6.3
na
6.9
16.8
9.1
87*
<10*
<10*
27
27
<2.0*
6.0*
<5.0
<25*
2.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2
8/14/2009
25
1 65
na
6.0
6.4
6.2
16.7
na
<50
<2.0
<10
28
28
<1.0
6.3
2.8
<10
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-21
8/28/2002
122
140
7.0
na
4.2
18.5
12
820*
<10*
28*
56
56
<2.0*
8.5*
2.0
<25*
3.9*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-21
3/4/2003
118
120
6.6
7.1
7.3
16.6
2.1
90*
<10*
18*
53
1 53
<2.0*
9.3*
<5.0
<25*
<2.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-21
11/17/2003
na
120
na
7.1
na
na
4
80*
<10*
18*
53
53
<2.0*
9.7*
<5.0
<25*
1
<2.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-21
6/15/2004
122
130
7.2
7.0
4.8
7.2
23
<50
<10
17
61
61
<2.0
9.5
1.8
<25
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-21
8/14/2009
45
104
na
6.8
7.0
5.0
17.3
na
<50
1 <2.0
19
49
49
<1.0
10.0
2.2
<10
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2D
8/28/2002
220
110
5.2
na
6.1
19.8
7.4
920*
<10*
<10*
1
1 43
43
<2.0*
11*
1.0
<25*
5.5*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2D
3/4/2003
95
100
6.9
na
4.8
17.6
<1.0
<50*
<10*
<10*
39
39
<2.0*
10*
<5.0
<25*
2.4*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2D
11/17/2003
96
97
6.8
7.3
10
17.9
1 1.6
<50*
<10*
<10*
42
42
1 <2.0*
10*
<5.0
<25*
<2.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2D
6/15/2004
100
1 100
7.2
7.1
4.7
17.9
3.0
<50
<10
<10
45
45
<2.0
12
1.3
<25
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2D
8/14/2009
140
103
na
6.85
7.2
4.19
17.3
na
<50
<2.0
<10
47
47
<1.0
13
1.3
<10
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-3
8/27/2002
na
38
na
na
na
na
60
1200*
<10*
<10*
7.0
7.0
<2.0*
0.77*
2.0
<25*
3.9*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-3
3/5/2003
85
91
6.0
na
6.3
6.0
140
560*
<10*
18*
25
25
<2.0*
2.7*
<5.0
<25*
3.3*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-3
11/13/2003
71
75
5.9
6.2
5.8
5.9
50
1400*
<10*
17*
26
26
<2.0*
2.1*
3.4
<25*
4.4*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-3
6/17/2004
69
75
6.3
6.2
na
6.3
50
60
1 <10
<10
26
26
<2.0
1.2
3.4
<25
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-3
4/20/2009
18
30
na
5.3
5.6
na
12.8
na
74
<2.0
<10
7.8
7.8
<1.0
1.4
1.9
<10
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-31
8/26/2002
na
80
na
na
na
na
13
1 1100*
<10*
31*
33
33
<2.0*
6.6*
2.0
<25*
6.4*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-31
3/4/2003
1 76
81
6.2
1 na
10.8
6.2
8.2
130*
<10*
26*
32
32
<2.0*
1
7.0*
<5.0
<25*
2.3*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-31
11/13/2003
79
84
6.1
6.4
na
6.1
6.5
430*
<10*
25*
37
37
<2.0*
7.0*
2.2
<25*
3.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-31
6/17/2004
91
82
6.3
6.1
na
6.3
2.2
<50
<10
23
36
36
<2.0
6.5
2.1
1 <25
1 <2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-31
4/20/2009
60
77
na
6.0
6.3
16.8
16.5
na
<50
<2.0
31
42
42
<1.0
8.1
2.1
<10
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-4
6/16/2004
57
60
3.9
6.2
6.3
16.9
9.2
<50
<10
<10
24
24
<2.0
4.1
1.8
<25
<2
Langtree Peninsula
MW-41
8/27/2002
101
110
6.8
na
8.7
17.8
55
3900*
<10*
21*
39
39
<2.0*
7.9*
1.0
<25*
22*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-41
3/3/2003
79
81
6.8
na
8.0
16.1
3.0
69*
1 <10*
<10*
28
28
<2.0*
5.7*
<5.0
<25*
2.8*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-41
11/12/2003
49
54
5.9
6.6
8.5
17.8
18
1500*
<10*
<10*
17
1 17
<2.0*
3.7*
1.5
<25*
7.4*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-41
6/16/2004
65
66
1
5.2
6.6
4.7
17.8
4.8
<50
<10
<10
25
25
<1.0
4.9
1.3
<25
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-41
4/20/2009
50
58
na
6.3
6.5
na
16.9
na
67
<2
<10
25
25
<1.0
1
4.7
1.5
<10
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-4D
8/27/2002
132
150
6.7
na
6.8
17.5
50
2300*
<10*
1 19*
1 30
30
<2.0*
20*
2.0
1
<25*
1
13*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-4D
3/3/2003
na
270
na
na
na
na
4.4
360*
<10*
12*
35
35
<2.0*
32*
<5.0
<25*
8 2*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-4D
11/12/2003
125
120
6.9
7.2
8.5
18.8
31
3100*
<10*
36*
31
31
<2.0*
18*
2.1
<25*
15*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-4D
6/16/2004
161
170
5.0
7.2
4.0
18.9
380
30000*
<10*
75*
41
41
<2.0*
34*
1.8
<25*
23*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-4D
4/20/2009
140
198
na
7.5
7.6
6.5
16.8
na
460
<2
<10
49
49
<1.0
1 35
1.7
<10
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-51
8/27/2002
NA
190
NA
NA
NA
NA
110
<10*
38*
52
52
<2.0*
16*
2.0
<10*
<2.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-51
3/3/2003
274
78
7.1
NA
1.3
16.1
150
<10*
30*
27
27
<2.0*
7.1*
<5.0
<10*
<2.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-51
11/13/2003
53
67
6.3
6.4
1.1
1 16.0
110
<10*
34*
22
22
<2.0*
6.2*
2.8
<10*
<2.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-51
6/16/2004
122
170
7.3
6.5
1.7
16.4
350
<10
42
41
41
<2.0
13
2.7
<10
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-51
4/20/2009
30
70
na
6.4
6.5
na
16.6
na
<50
<2.0
<10
1
1 36
36
<1.0
9.0
3.0
1
1 <10
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-5D
8/27/2002
NA
860
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1.0
<10*
<10*
33
33
<2.0*
150*
8.0
<10*
<2.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-5D
3/3/2003
1090
1100
7.5
NA
1.3
16.9
2.8
<10*
13*
28
28
<2.0*
240*
12
<10*
<2.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-SD
11/13/2003
1047
1000
7.5
7.7
1.1
16.7
<1.0
<10*
<10*
29
29
<2.0*
220*
12
<10*
<2.0*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-SD
6/16/2004
850
820
7.8
7.6
1.7
18.2
<1.0
<10
<10
36
36
<2.0
160
7.0
<10
<2.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-5D
4/20/2009
140
877
na
7.5
7.6
2.63
16.4
na
<50
<2.0
<10
44
44
<1.0
240
10 U, P
<10
<2.0
3/12

Attachment A
Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations
A ARGADIS
EEEM�
Oxidation
specific Specific H WH H-Lab
Sampling p pe Reduction p p Dissolved Water
Cond., Cond., Field WH, Lab
to Depth Field Lab potential, Oxyg am
(standard (standard
MW-6 8/26/2002 36 39 5.6 NA 5.5 5.6
Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Bicarbonate Calcium Chloride Co
Turbidity Aluminum Aluminum Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Cadmium Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Chromium Copper pp
Total Total Dissolved Total Total Dissolved Total
otal Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved (mg/L as Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved
ug/L as ug/L as (mg/L as mg/L mg/L as (mg/I as ug/L a
mg/L as CI (ug/I a Las Cr (ug/I as Cu)
Ca �
TU) (ug/I as AI) ug/L as AI s As) (ug/I as Ba) HCO3) (ug/I as Cd) ug/L as Cd��2.9*
L
18 500* <10* <10* 10 10 <2.0* 3.0 <25* 2.7"
50 520* <10* <10* 5.0 5.0 <2.0* <5.0 <25" 3.5"
2.1 52* <10* <10* 8.0 8.0 <2.0* 2.0* 2.6 <25* <2.0*
Lan tree Peninsula
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6
3/5/2003
30
29
6.0
NA
4.6
6.0
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6
11/13/2003
24
33
5.4
6.1
5.8
5.4
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6
6/17/2004
34
37
4.5
5.4
1.9
4.5
10
210
<10
<10
8.2
8.2
<2.0
3.2
2.6
<25
<2.0
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6
4/14/2009
15
47
na
5.1
5.6
4.1
15.2
na
<50
<2.0
11
12
12
<1.0
4.2
2.8
<10
<2.0
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-61
8/26/2002
53
56
6.0
NA
6.8
16.1
5.4
230*
<10*
<10*
20
20
<2.0*
5.2*
2.0
<25*
2 9*
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-61
3/5/2003
44
38
6.2
NA
6.9
16.8
1.6
<50*
<10*
<10*
15
15
<2.0*
4.0*
<5.0
<25"
2.7*
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-61
11/13/2003
33
38
4.0
5.8
4.8
16.5
1.2
<50*
<10*
<10*
14
14
<2.0*
3.3*
2.3
<25"
2.4*
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-61
6/17/2004
1 52
42
4.0
1 NA
4.8
1 19.7
<1.0
<50
<10
I <10
1 15
15
<2.0
4.0
1.9
<25
<2.0
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-61
4/14/2009
28
43
na
5.6
6.0
8.0
16.5
na
<50
<2.0
<10
17
17
<1.0
4.2
2.1
<10
<2.0
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6D
8/26/2002
53
1300
6.0
NA
6.8
16.0
<1.0
<50"
<10*
10*
29
29
<2.0*
260*
15
<25"
2.8"
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6D
3/5/2003
1617
1600
8.0
NA
0.12
16.8
<1.0
1 <50*
<10*
16*
22
22
1 <2.0*
1 380*
1 19
<25*
<2.0*
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6D
11/13/2003
2440
2800
8.1
8.1
1.1
16.5
1.1
160*
<10*
15*
16
16
<2.0*
550*
33
<25*
<2.0*
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6D
6/17/2004
2028
2000
6.1
7.7
0.14
17.6
<1.0
<50
<10
18
26
26
<2.0
440
22
<25
<2.0
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6D
4/14/2009
120
1374
na
7.7
7.8
0.36
16.5
na
<50
<2.0
11
37
37
<1.0
330
20 U, P
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
MW-1S
11/3/2008
34
na
na
6.1
6.6
0.4
16.3
1.5
<50
<5.0
<10
33
33
<1.0
17
3.7
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
MW-1S
1/26/2009
34
194
na
6.2
6.3
1.3
16.0
na
<50
2.4
<10
39
39
<1.0
14
7.9 J8
<10
1 <2.0
Morgan Mill
MW-1S
4/6/2009
34
141
na
6.0
6.2
0.5
16.3
na
<50
2.1
1 <10
35
35
<1.0
12
4.7
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
MW-1S
8/17/2009
34
138
na
5.7
6.4
0.5
16.1
na
<50
<2.0
<10
42
42
<1.0
14
11
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
CH-1
11/3/2008
40
na
na
7.4
7.6
0.2
16.1
2.4
<50
<5.0
<10
110
110
<1.0
40
15
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
CH-1
1/26/2009
40
301
na
7.4
7.6
0.4
15.8
na
1 <50
3.6
12
120
120
1 <1.0
1 40
1 16 J8
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
CH-1
4/6/2009
40
280
na
7.4
7.4
0.3
16.2
na
<50
4.1
10
120
120
<1.0
37
15
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
CH-1
8/17/2009
40
275
na
7.3
7.6
0.3
16.3
na
<50
4.0
<10
110
110
<1.0
41
17
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
MW-1D
11/3/2008
118
na
na
7.5
7.6
0.6
16.7
<1
<50
5.7
<10
110
110
<1.0
40
15
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
MW-1D
1/26/2009
118
292
na
7.5
7.7
0.4
16.8
na
<50
6.9
<10
120
120
<1.0
43
16 J8
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
MW-1D
4/6/2009
118
284
na
7.5
1 7.7
0.2
16.6
na
<50
1 7.4
<10
1 120
120
<1.0
40
15
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
MW-1D
5/11/2009
70
283
na
7.4
7.6
0.9
16.6
na
<50
7.0
1 <10
120
120
<1.0
41
18
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
MW-1D
8/17/2009
118
258
na
7.6
7.8
0.4
16.9
na
<50
7.5
<10
120
120
<1.0
42
18
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
MW-2D
11/12/2008
118
na
na
7.5
7.8
0.4
17.0
2.6
<50
2.2
34
120
120
<1.0
1
40
17
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
MW-2D
1/26/2009
118
na
na
7.7
7.7
0.2
16.8
na
1 <50
3.6
34
120
120
<1.0
40
1
17 J8
I
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
MW-2D
4/6/2009
118
292
na
7.7
7.6
0.2
16.7
na
<50
3.9
35
130
130
<1.0
43
17
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
MW-2D
5/12/2009
70
282
na
7.5
7.7
0.8
16.6
na
<50
3.9
32
130
130
<1.0
40
20
<10
<2.0
Morgan Mill
MW-2D
8/17/2009
118
191
na
7.6
7.9
0.2
16.9
na
<50
4.0
32
120
120
<1.0
44
19
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-1
12/15/2008
85
32
1 30
5.5
6.0
1 7.5
16.8
na
<50
<2.0
<10
11
11
<1.0
1.8
1.3
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-1
6/8/2009
85
29
na
5.6
5.9
8.0
16.7
na
<50
<2.0
<10
11
11
<1.0
1.7
1.3
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-2
12/15/2008
DRY
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
I na
3.8
3.8
na
na
na
na
na
Pasour Mountain
PM-2
6/22/2009
42
44
na
5.5
5.4
na
18.4
na
<50
<2.0
<10
<1.0
1.7
4.3
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-3
12/15/2008
110
25
25
5.4
5.8
8.0
16.6
na
<50
<2.0
<10
6.8
1 6.8
<1.0
1
1.3
1.4
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-3
6/8/2009
110
22
na
5.2
5.2
7.6
16.6
na
<50
<2.0
<10
5.2
5.2
<1.0
1.3
1 1.3
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-9
12/15/2008
90
22
21
4.9
4.8
7.6
15.9
na
<50
<2.0
15
<1
<1
<1.0
0.13
1.8
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-9
6/8/2009
90
20
na
4.5
4.3
8.9
16.5
na
<50
<2.0
14
<1
<1
<1.0
<0.10
1.6
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-6
1/22/2009
70
57
53
6.4
6.4
2.5
15.0
na
<50*
<2.0*
15*
26
26
<1.0*
4.8*
1.2
<10*
<2.0*
Pasour Mountain
PM-6
6/15/2009
130
1 58
1 na
6.1
6.5
1 7.2
16.4
na
<50
<2.0
<10
24
24
<1.0
6.1
1.2
<10
1
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-7
1/21/2009
70
18
21
5.4
5.5
9.0
15.1
na
2000*
<2.0*
25*
5.2
5.2
<1.0*
1.3*
<1.0
<10*
<2.0*
Pasour Mountain
PM-7
6/15/2009
70
14
na
4.9
5.2
9.2
16.6
na
580*
<2.0*
1 15*
1.8
1.8
<1.0*
0.24*
1.7
<10*
<2.0*
Pasour Mountain
PM-17
1/21/2009
28
100
92
6.1
6.4
5.2
14.4
na
68
<2.0
<10
42
42
<1.0
4.9
2.9
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-17
6/15/2009
30
92
na
6.1
6.3
9.5
15.0
na
<50
<2.0
<10
45
45
1 <1.0
5.1
2.5
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-18
1/21/2009
80
123
110
7.2
7.1
4.3
15.1
na
<50
3.0
<10
57
57
<1.0
12
1 1.3
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-18
6/15/2009
119
113
na
7.0
7.1
4.6
16.0
na
<50
3.9
<10
58
58
<1.0
12
1.3
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-22
12/15/2008
85
27
25
5.9
5.9
8.0
16.1
na
<50
1 <2.0
<10
8.8
8.8
<1.0
0.85
1.1
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-22
6/8/2009
87
18
na
5.4
5.5
8.4
16.6
na
<50
<2.0
<10
5.3
5.3
<1.0
0.69
1.3
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-25
12/15/2008
75
1 12.7
1 <14.9
4.4
1 4.9
1 8.9
16.3
na
<50
<2.0
<10
<1
<1
<1.0
0.19
1.2
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-25
6/8/2009
70
14
na
4.6
4.5
9.1
16.5
na
<50
<2.0
<10
<1
<1
<1.0
0.12
1.4
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-5
12/15/2008
60
16
16
4.7
5.4
na
15.4
na
<50
<2.0
<10
1
1 2.7
2.7
<1.0
0.46
1.4
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-5
6/22/2008
60
16
na
4.2
4.9
na
16.3
na
<50
<2.0
<10
1.0
1 1.0
<1.0
1
0.17
1.3
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-14
1/21/2009
45
14
13
5.1
5.1
8.8
14.4
na
<50
<2.0
<10
<1
<1
<1.0
0.19
1.2
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-14
6/22/2008
45
14
13
4.5
4.8
10.7
16.5
na
<50
<2.0
<10
<1
<1
<1.0
0.20
1.2
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-15
1/21/2009
48
17.3
18
5.2
na
15.6
na
<50
1
<2.0
<10
2.7
2.7
<1.0
0.44
1.4
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-15
6/22/2008
53
15
na
4.8
5.4
8.0
16.8
na
<50
<2.0
<10
2.8
2.8
<1.0
0.4
1.2
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-19
1/21/2009
47
107
99
5.6
5.9
0.5
15.2
na
<50
<2.0
<10
29
29
<1.0
3.2
8.4
<10
1 <2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-19
6/22/2008
1 50
95
1 na
5.5
5.8
1 0.7
15.8
1 na
<50
<2.0
<10
28.0
28.0
<1.0
3.2
5.8
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-0
1/22/2009
na*
157
150
7.9
7.8
0.27
17.3
na
<50
3.3
1 25
30
30
<1.0
22
1.3
<10
<2.0
Pasour Mountain
PM-0
6/22/2008
na
90
na
7.0
6.9
8.42
16.9
na
<50
<2.0
21
62
62
<1.0
19
1.2
<10
<2.0
Tater Hill
40004000001
10/2/2007
38
565
650
7.50
10.23
9.98
500.0
18000
<5
82
310
1 310
1 <1
46.0
9.3
20
410
Tater Hill
40004000001
4/2/2008
38
350
<50
11000
<5
<5
12
36
310
310
<1
<1
51.0
1 67.0
1 5.3
<10
17
32.0
150
Tater Hill
40004000001
7/9/2008
41
50
23.0
44000
<5
150
230
230
<1
87.0
<1
43
750
Tater Hill
40004000001
1/12/2009
41
540
600.0
<50
1 18000
<5
<5
<10
61
270
270
<1
<1
94.0
99.0
1.7
1 <10
27
7.1
250
Tater Hill
40004000002
10/2/2007
210
65
74
6.80
9.05
12.17
2.5
<50
150
<5
<5
<10
<10
30
30
<1
<1
11.0
11.0
1.3
<10
<10
2.0
5.0
Tater Hill
40004000002
4/1/2008
250
41
43
1 6.35
12.17
11.37
1.6
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
13
13
<1
<1
5.9
5.8
1.4
<10
<10
6.6
4.1
Tater Hill
40004000002
7/8/2008
250
1 48
1 50
6.68
1 9.52
12.63
<1
<50
62
<5
<5
<10
<10
16
16
<1
<1
7.5
7.3
1.2
<10
<10
2.1
3.4
Tater Hill
40004000002
1/12/2009
242
48
50
6.61
7.70
11.57
<1
<50
<50
<5
1 <5
<10
11 <10
17
17
<1
<1
6.8
6.7
<1
<10
<10
3.4
4.1
Tater Hill
40004000002
7/7/2009
245
52
50
6.56
8.69
13.15
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
20
20
<1
<1
7.0
7.0
<1
<10
<10
2.7
3.9
Tater Hill
40004000003
10/2/2007
245
86
94
7.69
1.88
11.75
<1
<50
100
<5
<5
<10
<10
35
35
1 <1
<1
1
1
1.2
<10
<10
<2
<2
Tater Hill
40004000003
4/2/2008
245
96
94
8.33
2.26
11.06
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
8.2
8.2
<1
<1
13.0
13.0
1.3
<10
<10
<2
<2
Tater Hill
40004000003
7/9/2008
285
30
99
8.44
1.54
11.21
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
34
34
<1
<1
14.0
13.0
1 1.2
<10
<10
<2
<2
Tater Hill
40004000003
1/13/2009
245
90
92
8.45
1.85
10.98
<1
<50
1 <50
<5
<5
<10
<10
36
36
<1
<1
14.0
14.0
<1
<10
I <10
<2
<2
Tater Hill
40004000003
1/13/2009**
90
92
8.45
1.85
10.98
<1
<50
<5
<10
37
37
<1
14.0
14.0
<1
<10
<2
Tater Hill
40004000003
7/7/2009
145
99
91
8.14
2.04
10.92
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
40
40
<1
<1
14.0
<1
<10
<10
1 <2
<2
Tater Hill
40004000003
7/7/2009**
1
1 99
1
8.14
1 2.04
10.92
<50
1 <5
<10
<1
13.0
13.0
<10
<2
Tater Hill
40004000004
10/2/2007
NA/SW
29
33
7.14
8.71
13.05
16.0
77
370
<5
<5
<10
<10
13
13
<1
<1
13.0
1.4
<10
<10
<2
Tater Hill
40004000004
4/2/2008
NA/SW
25
25
6.74
12.69
9.02
8.2
<50
380
<5
<5
<10
<10
8
8
<1
<1
3.1
3.2
1.2
<10
<10
<2
Tater Hill
40004000004
7/9/2008
NA/SW
30
30
7.33
8.19
16.01
20.0
96
500
<5
<5
<10
<10
11
11
<1
<1
2.5
2.5
1.2
<10
<10
<2
Tater Hill
40004000004
1/12/2009
NA/SW
21
19
7.06
10.69
3.53
3.3
<50
100
<5
<5
<10
<10
6.4
6.4
<1
<1
3.3
3.3
<1
<10
<10
<2
4/12

Attachment A
Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations
A ARGADIS
Tater Hill
Oxidation
S ecific Specific H WH pH -Lab
Sampling P Reduction P P Dissolved Water
Cond., Cond., Field WH, Lab
to Depth Field Lab Potential, Oxyg am
(standard (standard
40004000004 7/7/2009 NA/SW 29 27 7.44 8.71 14.90
40001000001 12/11/2002 14 150.0 5.91 3.60 14.96
Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Bicarbonate Calcium Chloride Co
Turbidity Aluminum Aluminum Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Cadmium Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Chromium Copper pP
Total Total Dissolved Total Total Dissolved Total
otal Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved (mg/L as Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved
TU) (ug/l as AI) ug/L as (ug/l as ug/L as (ug/1 as Ba) ug/L as (mg/L as mg/L HCO3) (ug/l a /1 as Ca) mg/L as (mg/I as mg/L as CI (ug/1 a Cr (ug/1 as Cu) ug/L a
L HCO3) + A
51 540 <5 <5 <10 <10 11 11 <1 <1 2.1 1.9 <1 <10 <10 <2
44 1700 <10 22 49 49 <2 15 3 <25 2.8
40 3400 <10 30 24 24 <2 7.8 4.2 <25 3.8
Upper Piedmont
Upper Piedmont
40001000001
6/11/2003
101.0
5.31
4.63
14.16
Upper Piedmont
40001000001
12/8/2003
14
101.6
5.64
1.25
16.20
53
4700
<10
41
40
40
<2
13
2.7
<25
6.3
Upper Piedmont
40001000001
7/26/2004
118.5
6.12
2.25
15.70
9.5
540
<10
24
43
43
<2
13
2.7
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000001
3/7/2005
17
131.0
6.38
2.59
12.80
220
<50
1800
<5
<5
11
27
38
38
<2
<2
9.1
9.4
3.4
<25
<25
<2
6.3
Upper Piedmont
40001000001
9/26/2006
136.0
5.22
4.49
17.03
22
580
<5
26
50
50
<2
14
2.9
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000001
9/18/2007
15
140.0
5.89
0.50
16.52
<1
<50
<5
13
49
49
<1
12
2.1
<10
<2
Upper Piedmont
1 40001000001
9/23/2008
15
140.0
6.23
1.51
16.85
1 3.6
1 <50
110
<5
<5
14
15
49
49
<1
<1
1 13
14
3.2
<10
<10
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
12/11/2002
35
416.0
1
6.70
2.20
14.80
2.2
69
<10
16
180
180
<2
16
9
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
6/11/2003
318.0
6.83
3.25
17.55
<1
65
<10
17
110
110
<2
14
10
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
12/8/2003
35
149.0
1.76
14.80
4.3
280
<10
11
78
78
<2
15
9
1 <25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
7/26/2004
68
184.1
6.81
2.85
16.40
3.4
270
<10
19
80
1 80
<2
15
9.9
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
3/7/2005
65
194.6
6.13
2.48
15.20
5
<50
210
<5
<5
12
13
78
78
<2
<2
17
16
9.9
<25
<25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
9/26/2006
163.0
6.04
2.77
15.38
26
1100
<5
22
70
70
<2
14
8.4
<25
2.5
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
9/18/2007
67
1 153.0
6.55
1.93
15.86
10
360
<5
12
64
64
<1
14
5.7
<10
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
9/23/2008
55
1 146.0
1 6.45
2.12
16.30
5.1
<50
210
<5
<5
<10
10
59
59
<1
I <1
13
13
5.3
<10
<10
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
12/11/2002
146
238.0
7.79
0.18
15.37
4.2
160
17
<10
110
110
<2
1 27
3
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
6/11/2003
241.0
7.31
0.07
16.50
<1
<50
17
<10
110
110
<2
27
1 2.5
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
12/8/2003
148
174.8
7.80
0.06
15.70
<1
57
17
<10
110
110
<2
27
2.7
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
7/26/2004
145
216.0
8.35
0.20
15.70
5.2
180
22
<10
1
120
120
<2
29
3.6
1 <25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
3/7/2005
150
249.5
7.91
0.25
15.30
<1
<50
<50
24
25
<10
<10
118
1 118
<2
<2
31
31
3.8
<25
<25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
9/26/2006
247.0
7.85
0.07
16.10
1.3
<50
18
<10
110
110
<2
29
4.3
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
9/18/2007
150
229.0
8.58
0.08
15.58
1.1
<50
22
<10
110
110
<1
31
3.7
<10
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
9/23/2008
151
248.0
7.65
0.09
15.82
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
110
110
<1
<1
32
31
4.7
<10
<10
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
12/11/2002
NA/SW
1 67.0
1 6.89
10.84
5.76
25
870
<10
25
18
18
1 <2
4.8
5
<25
2.5
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
6/11/2003
NA/SW
61.0
7.33
1 7.20
23.35
8.2
300
<10
24
19
19
<2
4.7
2.8
<25
1 <2
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
12/8/2003
NA/SW
50.0
10.80
8.40
4.8
87
<10
20
26
26
<2
5.5
1
1 3.8
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
7/26/2004
NA/SW
80.4
7.17
6.50
24.00
3.5
120
<10
19
35
35
<2
7.3
5
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
3/7/2005
NA/SW
79.2
7.87
11.02
9.70
8.7
510
<5
<5
1
22
1
26
26
<2
5.8
5.1
1
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
9/26/2006
NA/SW
69.0
7.16
7.11
19.50
6.9
170
<5
12
25
25
<2
5.6
4.1
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
9/18/2007
NA/SW
92.0
6.87
7.69
18.67
3.5
58
<5
28
34
34
<1
7.3
4.8
<10
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
9/23/2008
NA/SW
88.0
7.25
7.39
19.32
2.5
<50
<50
<5
<5
21
22
30
30
<1
<1
7.3
7.3
4.8
<10
<10
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000004
12/11/2002
10
120.0
1
5.45
6.20
10.96
55
2500
<10
83
59
59
<2
7.2
6
<25
3.4
Upper Piedmont
40001000004
6/11/2003
1
110
2900
<10
95
15
15
<2
5.8
5.1
<25
3.9
Upper Piedmont
40001000004
12/8/2003
92.3
5.38
0.04
13.30
1 60
3700
<10
77
22
22
1 <2
1 5.4
3.5
<25
1 3.7
Upper Piedmont
40001000004
7/26/2004
85.6
6.05
4.59
17.10
40
2100
<10
76
22
22
<2
5.4
4.4
<25
2.6
Upper Piedmont
40001000004
3/7/2005
58.0
5.83
5.80
9.90
31
<50
700
<5
<5
58
63
21
21
<2
<2
5.7
5.6
3.7
<25
1 <25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000004
9/26/2006
98.0
5.81
17.11
4.9
180
<5
86
28
1 28
<2
7
2.6
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000005
12/11/2002
38
192.0
6.35
0.27
13.94
<1
<50
<10
<10
92
92
<2
22
4
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000005
6/11/2003
176.0
7.01
3.49
14.00
<1
160
<10
12
85
85
<2
20
3.4
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000005
12/8/2003
38
180.5
6.43
0.05
13.60
<1
<50
1
<10
<10
83
83
<2
19
3.2
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000005
7/26/2004
42
186.6
6.70
1
0.65
13.90
<1
1
<50
<10
12
1
90
90
<2
20
4
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000005
7/26/2004**
186.6
1
0.65
<1
<50
<10
15
86
86
1
<2
21
4.6
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000005
3/7/2005
41
140.0
6.61
0.60
14.00
<1
<50
60
<5
<5
<10
<10
90
90
<2
<2
22
22
4.2
<25
<25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000005
9/26/2006
41
171.0
6.67
<1
50
<5
29
46
46
<2
20
4.4
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000006
12/11/2002
156
281.0
7.12
0.20
14.81
4.2
61
<10
<10
140
140
<2
35
4
1 <25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000006
6/11/2003
290.0
6.80
0.05
15.95
<1
<50
<10
10
130
130
<2
35
3.3
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000006
12/8/2003
156
223.5
6.82
0.02
15.70
1.4
<50
<10
I
<10
95
95
<2
25
2.5
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000006
7/26/2004
159
250.2
6.96
0.18
15.40
4
<50
<10
14
130
130
<2
28
3.7
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000006
3/7/2006
159
197.0
1 6.92
0.18
15.80
1 3.8
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
112
112
<2
<2
30
31
3.8
<25
<25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000006
9/26/2006
235.0
6.86
1
14.63
2.2
<50
<5
<10
150
150
<2
30
3.3
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000007
7/29/2004
340.9
1
6.89
2.08
16.20
140
2300
<10
62
110
1 110
<2
30
9.1
<25
7.8
Upper Piedmont
40001000008
12/12/2002
164
192.0
7.68
0.17
14.90
6.3
230
<10
<10
84
84
<2
22
3
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000008
6/9/2003
164
174.0
8.35
0.05
15.48
13
250
14
<10
74
74
<2
24
2.5
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000008
12/10/2003
164
135.0
7.97
14.00
2
<50
<10
<10
80
80
<2
23
2.8
1
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000008
7/29/2004
167
197.3
7.75
0.03
15.40
<1
<50
<50
10
10
<10
<10
89
89
<2
<2
28
24
3.2
<25
<25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000008
7/29/2004**
197.3
0.03
<1
<50
<50
10
10
<10
<10
83
83
<2
<2
27
28
3.3
<25
<25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000008
3/7/2005
167
198.0
1
7.83
0.33
15.47
<1
1
<50
12
<10
1
86
86
<2
24
3.1
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000008
9/28/2006
197.0
7.63
1
0.04
14.58
<1
<50
9.8
<10
33
33
1 <2
24
3.5
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
12/9/2002
65
183.0
6.35
3.50
15.59
4.6
110
<10
<10
38
38
<2
15
12
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
6/9/2003
65
135.0
5.75
1.80
16.75
<1
970
<10
<10
14
1 14
<2
11
10
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
12/9/2003
142.4
5.85
3.10
13.90
<1
1300
<10
<10
14
14
<2
11
9.8
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
7/29/2004
70
145.6
5.28
8.26
16.50
<1
220
220
<10
<10
15
19
6.2
6.2
<2
<2
10
11
14
<25
1 <25
5.7
5.6
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
3/8/2005
67
161.0
5.56
0.58
14.83
2.2
380
<5
<10
8
8
<2
12
13
<25
6
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
9/28/2006
143.0
5.22
9.10
17.70
<1
100
1
<5
29
4.5
4.5
<2
11
13
<25
4.7
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
9/28/2006**
110
<5
31
<2
12
<25
4.6
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
9/18/2007
67
145.0
1
5.48
8.07
15.61
<1
1
93
<5
32
1
4.1
4.1
<1
11
1
12
<10
3.8
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
9/24/2008
57
136.0
5.10
1
9.24
1 16.22
9.1
<50
140
<5
<5
25
24
4
4
<1
<1
11
11
12
<10
<10
3.5
2.5
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
12/9/2002
323
194.0
6.41
3.37
14.56
24
3300
<10
37
43
43
<2
7.5
11
<25
4.3
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
6/9/2003
185.0
6.43
3.80
16.66
22
810
<10
10
39
39
<2
7.1
13
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
12/9/2003
323
189.8
5.90
16.50
26
2000
<10
<10
38
38
<2
7.9
13
1
<25
3.1
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
7/29/2004
150
155.2
6.18
5.86
16.50
4.5
<50
190
<10
<10
<10
<10
31
31
<2
<2
7
7
14
<25
1 <25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
3/8/2005
185.0
5.91
5.13
15.39
1.5
1600
<5
<10
19
19
<2
8.7
13
<25
2.6
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
9/28/2006
164.0
5.92
8.02
17.14
9
1 740
<5
<10
22
22
<2
7.7
14
<25
1 <2
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
9/18/2007
175.0
6.34
4.30
15.95
120
4100
<5
29
27
27
<1
1 8.7
13
<10
4.9
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
9/24/2008
323
175.0
1
6.09
6.65
16.98
40
<50
1800
<5
1 <5
<10
<10
1
22
22
<1
<1
8.3
8.8
14
<10
<10
<2
2.4
Upper Piedmont
40001000011
12/10/2002
45
191.0
6.87
1
6.60
9.85
270
970
<10
63
23
23
<2
12
11
<25
5.3
Upper Piedmont
40001000011
6/9/2003
174.0
5.87
16.88
160
3100
<10
54
24
24
<2
11
10
<25
2.8
Upper Piedmont
40001000011
12/9/2003
45
160.0
5.45
7.30
17.80
3.1
120
<10
48
15
15
<2
13
12
<25
2.8
Upper Piedmont
40001000011
7/28/2004
48
138.1
5.82
6.68
17.50
50
<50
1100
<10
<10
39
49
16
16
<2
<2
10
10
9.6
<25
<25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000011
3/9/2005
47
136.7
5.86
15.20
13
460
<5
38
23
23
<2
9
6.9
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000011
9/28/2006
39
121.0
5.82
6.31
16.00
170
880
<5
41
23
23
<2
7.2
5.9
1
<25
1
<2
5/12

Attachment A
Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations
A ARGADIS
Oxidation
specific Specific H WH pH -Lab
Sampling P � Reduction P P Dissolved Water
Cond., Cond., Field WH, Lab
to Depth Field Lab Potential, (standard Oxyg am
(standard
12/9/2002 200 299.0 7.85 0.06 15.69
Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Bicarbonate Calcium Chloride Co
Turbidity Aluminum Aluminum Arsenic Barium Bicarbonate Cadmium Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Chromium Copper PP
Total Total Dissolved Total Total Dissolved Total
otal Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved (mg/L as Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved
as AI) AI (ug/I as As) ug/L as (ug/l as Ba) ug/L as (mg/L as mg/L HCO3) (ug/I as Cd) u 9/1 as Ca) mg/L as (mg/I as mg/L as Cl (ug/1 as Cr) Cr (ug/I as Cu) ug/L a
Iws HCO3) A 40L
1.8 100 _<10 12 93 93 <2 32 24 <25 <2
1.8 80 <10 16 87 87 <2 32 26 <25 <2
2.1 <50 <10 10 81 81 <2 32 25 <25 <2
Upper Piedmont
40001000012
Upper Piedmont
40001000012
6/9/2003
302.0
7.75
17.19
Upper Piedmont
40001000012
12/11/2003
145
305.0
7.67
0.56
16.70
Upper Piedmont
40001000012
7/28/2004
200
271.3
7.75
2.71
18.60
3.8
<50
130
<10
<10
10
17
85
85
<2
<2
36
33
28
<25
<25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000012
3/9/2005
200
319.7
7.72
17.00
<1
76
<5
18
93
93
<2
36
26
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000012
9/28/2006
145
314.0
8.71
2.38
17.20
1.5
<50
<5
19
45
45
<2
36
29
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000012
9/28/2006**
145
8.71
2.38
17.20
<2
20
27
<25
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
12/10/2002
36
124.0
6.03
7.20
15.25
350
1300
<10
94
17
17
<2
5.1
6
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
6/10/2003
128.9
5.00
5.70
15.92
16
770
<10
57
13
13
<2
5.4
6.7
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
12/10/2003
142.2
4.99
15.20
37
1300
<10
57
15
15
<2
5.7
7.6
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
7/27/2004
38
101.6
5.54
7.68
15.80
14
<50
820
<10
<10
57
60
17
17
<2
<2
6.3
7
7.4
<25
<25
<2
3.9
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
7/27/2004**
38
101.6
5.54
7.68
15.80
50
<50
1200
<10
<10
53
71
15
15
<2
<2
6.2
7
7.6
<25
<25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
3/8/2005
17
580
<5
57
18
18
<2
6.5
7.4
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
9/27/2006
144.0
4.49
6.37
15.20
110
620
<5
84
16
16
<2
7.3
9
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
9/19/2007
35
157.0
5.41
7.16
15.58
8.2
150
<5
62
14
14
<1
7.1
7.9
<10
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
9/25/2008
38
101.6
6.19
7.68
15.48
2.5
<50
120
<5
<5
68
65
14
14
<1
<1
7.9
7.5
8.3
<10
<10
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
12/10/2002
42
142.0
6.40
13.46
4.2
54
<10
40
20
20
<2
6.8
7
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
6/10/2003
161.2
5.43
5.35
16.00
1.3
<50
<10
53
19
19
<2
7.7
6.3
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
12/10/2003
163.0
5.22
15.30
1 1.3
1 <50
<10
49
18
18
<2
7.4
6.7
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
7/27/2004
55
134.4
5.60
8.79
16.00
1.3
<50
50
<10
<10
55
53
19
19
<2
<2
7.9
7.9
6.9
<25
<25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
3/8/2005
55
152.3
5.66
7.73
15.51
<1
55
<5
46
19
19
<2
7.8
7
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
9/27/2006
152.0
4.98
7.66
15.32
<1
<50
<5
55
22
22
<2
8.5
8.2
<25
1
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
9/19/2007
53
161.0
1
5.61
7.52
15.45
<1
<50
<5
52
17
17
<1
8.4
5.9
<10
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
9/25/2008
55
173.0
6.58
8.25
15.70
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
60
58
16
16
<1
<1
9.4
9.1
8.6
<10
<10
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
12/10/2002
66
119.0
5.66
8.01
15.49
100
300
<10
20
25
25
<2
6.3
7
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
6/10/2003
117.0
5.76
6.64
21.11
38
1100
<10
27
20
20
<2
6.6
5.2
<25
2.8
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
12/11/2003
1
60
2500
<10
38
20
20
<2
7.9
5.9
<25
6.2
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
7/27/2004
70
129.4
6.00
7.04
17.60
7.4
<50
230
<10
<10
26
29
24
24
<2
<2
8.2
7.8
6
<25
<25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
3/8/2005
145.0
5.52
7.41
15.51
1.5
120
<5
19
21
21
<2
7.9
6.4
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
9/27/2006
138.0
5.14
7.87
15.40
2.7
65
<5
22
23
23
1 <2
8.9
7.7
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
9/19/2007
70
145.0
5.53
8.22
15.40
1.3
<50
<5
20
21
1 21
<1
9
6.8
<10
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
9/19/2007**
70
145.0
1
5.53
8.22
15.40
5
53
<5
20
22
22
<1
9
6.8
<10
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
9/25/2008
70
164.0
6.22
8.55
15.73
26
<50
870
<5
<5
23
29
21
21
<1
<1
9.7
9.7
8.6
<10
<10
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
12/10/2002
164
164.0
6.33
5.25
15.63
1.3
<50
<10
<10
39
39
<2
12
3
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
6/10/2003
1
<1
<50
<10
<10
34
34
<2
10
5
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
12/10/2003
159
161.0
5.70
1 15.60
1.4
<50
<10
<10
31
31
<2
11
5.4
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
7/27/2004
162
164.3
6.43
5.87
17.00
<1
<50
<50
<10
<10
<10
<10
31
31
<2
<2
11
11
5.9
<25
<25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
3/8/2005
166.0
6.28
6.63
15.50
<1
<50
<5
<10
33
33
<2
12
1 5.8
1 <25
1 <2
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
3/8/2005**
166.0
6.28
6.63
15.50
<1
<50
<5
<10
1
32
32
1 <2
12
5.8
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
9/27/2006
178.0
5.49
5.80
16.48
2.3
<50
<5
<10
35
1 35
<2
13
7.7
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
9/18/2007
162
177.0
6.24
6.55
15.88
<1
<50
<5
<10
31
31
<1
<1
13
7
<10
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
9/25/2008
162
182.0
6.28
5.91
15.79
<1
<50
<50
<5
<5
<10
<10
29
29
14
14
8.8
<10
<10
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000017
12/10/2002
13
316
6.15
0.63
14.98
170
2100
<10
16
82
82
<2
31
19
<25
16
Upper Piedmont
40001000017
6/10/2003
332
6.37
1
4.45
14.37
180
6100
1
<10
26
84
84
<2
28
21
<25
14
Upper Piedmont
40001000017
12/9/2003
14
325
6.50
1 15.20
50
1
1900
<10
11
90
90
<2
31
<25
9.1
Upper Piedmont
40001000017
7/28/2004
316
6.72
0.42
16.80
12
<50
1100
<10
<10
1 14
15
90
90
<2
<2
36
36
18
<25
<25
<2
5
Upper Piedmont
40001000017
3/9/2005
201
6.76
0.50
10.10
13
710
<5
<10
91
91
<2
31
1 16
1 <25
4.2
Upper Piedmont
40001000017
3/9/2005**
1
6.76
13
570
<5
<10
1
90
90
1 <2
1 31
15
<25
3.1
Upper Piedmont
40001000017
9/28/2006
277
1
6.70
3.22
17.26
10
180
<5
13
89
1 89
<2
28
15
<25
2.3
Upper Piedmont
40001000018
12/10/2002
30
317
6.60
0.10
14.90
1.8
<50
<10
12
80
80
<2
34
15
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000018
6/10/2003
313
6.64
0.11
14.39
2.1
<50
<10
16
74
74
<2
31
17
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000018
12/9/2003
30
212
6.40
0.30
14.80
1.4
<50
<10
12
72
72
<2
32
17
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000018
7/28/2004
35
301
6.89
1
0.14
14.60
1.4
<50
<50
1 <10
<10
20
18
77
77
<2
<2
33
33
12
<25
<25
<2
1 <2
Upper Piedmont
40001000018
3/9/2005
35
239
6.87
0.50
1 14.10
1.3
1
<50
<5
13
78
78
<2
35
16
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000018
9/27/2006
277
6.70
3.22
17.26
<1
<50
<5
13
130
130
<2
33
16
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000019
12/10/2002
132
295
6.90
0.10
15.20
2.3
<50
<10
18
72
72
<2
38
14
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000019
6/10/2003
260
1
6.78
1.23
16.49
<1
<50
<10
1
25
1
64
64
1
<2
1
31
17
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000019
12/9/2003
132
202
6.40
0.06
15.50
<1
<50
<10
22
68
68
<2
33
17
<25
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000019
7/28/2004
135
310
7.06
0.13
15.50
1.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
28
27
71
71
<2
<2
38
42
13
<25
<25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000019
7/28/2004**
135
7.06
1.1
<50
<50
<10
<10
22
30
73
73
<2
<2
39
36
13
<25
<25
<2
<2
Upper Piedmont
40001000019
3/9/2005
135
230
6.77
0.20
15.20
1.1
<50
<5
25
70
70
<2
39
14
<25
<2
iedmont
40001000019
9/27/2006
302
6.85
0.36
15.00
<1
<50
<5
26
70
70
<2
44
13
<25
<2
iedmont
40001000021
12/10/2002
NA/SW
3.2
66
<10
50
38
38
<2
15
25
<25
<2
iedmont
40001000021
6/10/2003
NA/SW
128
7.14
7.39
21.77
7.3
210
<10
42
32
32
<2
10
7.3
<25
<2
iedmont
40001000021
12/9/2003
NA/SW
82.4
7.00
19.20
4.7
2.8
51
<10
40
35
35
<2
12
14
<25
<2
jUpper
iedmont
40001000021
7/28/2004
NA/SW
175.5
7.53
8.33
22.933
<50
710
<10
<10
55
57
32
32
<2
<2
16
198.8
<25
<25
<2
<2
iedmont
40001000021
3/9/2005
NA/SW
856.25
13.80
4.9
13
950
<5
35
33
33
<2
10
13
<25
<2
iedmont
40001000021
9/27/2006
NA/SW
149
7.23
10.04
15.4
4.7
92
<5
44
44
44
<2
14
11
<25
<2
Notes:
ND - not detected
Langtree
* Represents total analysis in unfiltered samples
Upper Piedmont and Tater Hill
* Below measure point
** Duplicate sample
Source: NCDEQ 2019
6/12

Attachment A
Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations
GO ARG'ADIS
e
Fluoride Fluoride Iron Iron Lead Lead Magnesium Magnesium Manganese Manganese Mercury Nickel Nickel NO2+ Potassium Potassium Selenium Selenium Mercury Nitrogen, Sodium Sodium Sulfate SulfatSulfide Total Total Zinc Zinc
TotalDissolved veota
ocation Station ID Sampling Date Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved Total NO3 diss. Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total
Nitrate a Dissolved Organic Dissolved
ua/L as .. ... .. .. Dis (mp/L ,,, ,,, ,. .. .. _ .. ,. (ma/1 as mp/L as (mg/I as mp/L as ,. _. Solids Carbon total (uq/I as ,. _
ed Conoontra= easured
�A�111,..nWo.ds 30002000011 11/28/2006 <0.40
18,000
<50
Hg ,_�.. __ _., _�._ __ ... as N) � __ � _ __ .. JALJ a) Na SO4) SO4 ._� _ __ _, (mg/L Zn)
33,000 ND 27 16 120millum. 72 mm�iiiiiiiiiiil� UAL
<10 2.9 17 <10 0.22 3.4 na 5.7 <2.0 <0.10 J 71 <2.0 12
Allison Woods
30002000011
3/5/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
3.2
190
<10
0.14
4.1
<5.0
8.0
6.4
<0.1
74
<2.0
20
Allison Woods
30002000011
7/9/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
2.9
97
<10
0.17
3.1
<5.0
6.6
4.7
<0.1
64
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
30002000011
11/5/2007
<0.40
<50
na
na
na
na
0.16
na
na
na
3.8
na
54
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
30002000011
5/27/2008
<0.40
<50
<10
2.4
33
<10
0.04
2.0
<5.0
2.5
2.0
na
48
<10
Allison Woods
30002000011
3/16/2009
<0.40
780
<10
2.6
49
<10
<0.02
3.2
<5.0
2.7
4.0
<0.1
58
na
10
Allison Woods
3000200001D
11/28/2006
<0.40
<50
<10
4.3
<10
<10
<0.02
4.5
na
5.2
8.0
<0.10 J
103 J
<2.0
97
Allison Woods
3000200001D
3/5/2007
<0.40
240
<10
4.4
<10
<10
<0.02
4.3
8.4
5.1
8.2
<0.1
108
<2.0
120
Allison Woods
3000200001D
7/9/2007
<0.40
58
<10
4.2
<10
<10
<0.02
4.3
5.0
4.9
7.8
<0.1
114
<2.0
110
Allison Woods
3000200001D
11/5/2007
1 <0.40
120
na
na
na
na
<0.02
na
na
na
6.4
na
109
<2.0
1306
Allison Woods
3000200001D
5/27/2008
<0.40
<50
<10
4.
<10
<10
<0.02
4.4
<5.0
5.2
8.2
na
118
na
120
Allison Woods
3000200001D
3/16/2009
<0.40
<50
<10
4.3
<10
<10
<0.02
4.4
<5.0
4.9
7.5
<0.1
104
na
84
Allison Woods
300020000CH1
11/28/2006
<0.40
3300
<10
4.9
31
<10
<0.02
3.6
na
6.4
10
<0.10 J
106 J
<2
14
Allison Woods
3000200002S
11/28/2006
<0.40
<50
<10
0.65
22
<10
<0.02
1.2
na
0.69
<2
<0.10 J
<10 J
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
3000200002S
3/5/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
0.63
16
<10
0.02
1.1
<5.0
0.66
<2
<0.10
22
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
3000200002S
7/1012007
<0.40
<50
<10
0.66
11
<10
0.03
1.2
<5.0
0.60
<2
<0.10 J
181
<2.0
12
Allison Woods
3000200002S
11/512007
<0.40
<50
<10
0.68
<10
<10
0.03
1.2
<5.0
0.67
6.3
na
14
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
3000200002S
5/2712008
<50
<10
0.66
<10
<10
0.02
1.2
<5.0
0.72
na
30
na
<10
Allison Woods
3000200002S
3/1712009
<0.40
<50
<10
0.61
<10
<10
0.02
1.2
<5.0
0.64
<2
<0.10
30
na
<10
Allison Woods
30002000021
11/28/2006
<0.40
<50
<10
4.1
150
<10
<0.02
5.4
na
5.8
9.0
<0.10
114 J
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
30002000021
3/5/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
4.3
160
<10
<0.02
5.5
<5.0
5.5
9.4
<0.10
122
<2.0
11
Allison Woods
30002000021
7/10/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
3.1
140
<10
<0.02
5.4
<5.0
4.1
8.3
<0.10
101
<2.0
26
Allison Woods
30002000021
11/6/2007
<0.40
na
na
na
na
0.05
na
7.7
na
99
<2.0
na
Allison Woods
30002000021
5/27/2008
1 0.02
na
110
na
Allison Woods
30002000021
3/17/2009
<0.40
<50
<10
3.1
350
<10
<0.02
5.9
<5.0
4.6
8.2
<0.1
102
na
<10
Allison Woods
3000200002D
11/28/2006
<0.40
<50
<10
4.6
10
<10
<0.02
5.0
na
5.0
7.0
<0.10
108 J
<2.0
65
Allison Woods
3000200002D
3/5/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
4.3
10
<10
<0.02
4.7
<5.0
4.6
8.0
<0.10
111
<2.0
100
Allison Woods
3000200002D
7/9/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
4.0
10
<10
<0.02
4.7
<5.0
4.3
6.5
<0.10
107
<2.0
53
Allison Woods
3000200002D
11/5/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
4.4
<10
<10
<0.02
4.9
<5.0
4.7
6.6
na
97
<2.0
91
Allison Woods
3000200002D
5/27/2008
<0.40
<50
<10
4.3
<10
<10
0.07
4.9
<5.0
4.6
7.6
na
98
na
78
Allison Woods
3000200002D
3/16/2009
<0.40
<10
<10
4.1
<10
<10
<0.02
4.8
<5.0
4.4
7.9
<0.10
57
na
130
Allison Woods
3000200003E
11/29/2006
<0.40
<50
<10
0.97
<10
<10
0.23
0.80
na
1.2
<2.0
<0.10
32
<2
<10
Allison Woods
3000200003E
3/13/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
2.6
16
<10
0.44
0.98
<5.0
1.9
<2.0
<0.1
44
<2
<10
Allison Woods
3000200003E
7/11/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
2.6
16
<10
0.69
1.0
<5.0
1.9
<2.0
na
55
<2
<10
Allison Woods
3000200003E
11/6/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
2.8
11
<10
0.83
1.2
<5.0
2.1
<2.0
<0.10J
50
<2
<10
Allison Woods
3000200003E
5/28/2008
<0.40
<50
<10
2.7
<10
<10
0.94
1.1
<5.0
1.9
1
<2.0
na
48
na
<10
Allison Woods
3000200003E
3/23/2009
<0.40
<50
<10
2.5
<10
<10
1.2
1.0
<5.0
1.8
<2.0
<0.1
42
na
<10
Allison Woods
30002000031
11/29/2006
1 <0.40
<50
<10
<0.10
<10
<10
2.1
<0.10
na
<0.10
7.0
<0.10
67
<2
<10
Allison Woods
30002000031
3/13/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
2.7
35
<10
2.1
3.0
<5.0
4.0
<2.0
<0.1
72
<2
<10
Allison Woods
30002000031
7/11/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
2.8
21
<10
2.3
2.5
<5.0
3.9
<2.0
<0.1Una
<10
Allison Woods
30002000031
11/6/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
3.0
11
<10
2.3
2.5
<5.0
4.0
<2.0
na
<10
Allison Woods
30002000031
5/28/2008
<0.40
<50
<10
3.1
<10
<10
2.4
2.3
<5.0
4.1
<2.0
na
<10
Allison Woods
30002000031
3/23/2009
<0.40
<50
<10
2.9
<10
<10
2.6
2.0
<5.0
3.7
<2.0
<0.1<10
Allison Woods
3000200003D
11/29/2006
<0.40
<50
<10
2.8
53
<10
<0.02
3.7
na
4.2
8.0
<0.10<10
Allison Woods
3000200003D
3/13/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
2.2
<10
<10
<0.02
4.6
<5.0
10
6.4
<0.142
Allison Woods
3000200003D
7/11/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
2.6
24
<10
<0.02
3.7
<5.0
7.8
6.3
<0.113
Allison Woods
3000200003D
11/6/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
2.5
12
<10
0.02
4.3
<5.0
9.4
<2.0
na
21
Allison Woods
3000200003D
5/28/2008
<0.40
<50
<10
2.4
11
<10
<0.02
4.1
<5.0
10
7.0
na
na
<10
Allison Woods
3000200003D
3/23/2009
<0.40
<50
<10
2.6
26
<10
<0.02
3.5
<5.0
7.7
6.2
<0.1
120
na
<10
Allison Woods
3000200004E
11/29/2006
<0.40
<50
<10
2.3
<10
<10
<0.02
1.5
na
3.6
<2.0
<0.1
18
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
3000200004E
3/6/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
0.93
<10
<10
<0.02
0.71
<5.0
1.1
<2.0
1
<0.1
27
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
3000200004S
7/1012007
<0.40
<50
<10
0.90
<10
<10
<0.02
0.72
<5.0
1.1
<2.0
<0.1
21
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
3000200004S
11/612007
<0.40
<50
<10
0.98
<10
<10
0.02
0.85
<5.0
1.3
1
<2.0
na
27
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
3000200004S
5/2812008
<0.40
<50
<10
0.95
<10
<10
<0.02
0.71
<5.0
1.2
<2.0
na
24
na
<10
Allison Woods
3000200004S
3/1712009
<0.40
<50
<10
0.89
<10
<10
<0.02
0.68
<5.0
1.2
<2.0
<0.1
20
na
<10
Allison Woods
30002000041
11/29/2006
<0.40
<50
<10
3.2
200
<10
<0.02
4.2
na
10
2.0
<0.1
60
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
30002000041
3/6/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
2.0
<10
<10
<0.02
1.4
<5.0
3.1
<2.0
<0.1
58
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
30002000041
7/10/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
2.2
<10
<10
<0.02
1 1.5
<5.0
3.4
<2.0
<0.1
62
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
30002000041
11/6/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
2.6
<10
<10
0.03
1.7
<5.0
4.0
<2.0
na
70
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
30002000041
5/28/2008
<0.40
<50
<10
2.4
<10
<10
0.09
1.5
<5.0
3.8
<2.0
na
68
na
<10
Allison Woods
30002000041
3/17/2009
<0.40
<50
<10
2.2
<10
<10
<0.02
1.5
<5.0
3.5
<2.0
<0.1
62
na
<10
Allison Woods
3000200004D
11/29/2006
<0.40
<50
<10
1.8
<10
<10
<0.02
5.3
na
14
9.0
<0.1
98
<2.0
15
Allison Woods
3000200004D
3/6/2007
<0.40
<50
<10
3.0
19
<10
<0.02
3.4
<5.0
5.5
7.0
<0.1
100
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
3000200004D
7/1012007
<0.40
<50
<10
3.1
22
<10
0.02
3.4
<5.0
5.4
6.9
<0.1
109
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
3000200004D
11/612007
<0.40
<50
<10
3.4
24
<10
<0.02
3.8
<5.0
5.7
<2.0
na
119
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
3000200004D
5/2812008
<0.40
<50
<10
3.2
25
<10
<0.02
3.5
<5.0
5.2
7.6
na
110
na
<10
Allison Woods
3000200004D
3/1712009
<0.40
<50
<10
3.3
26
<10
<0.02
3.7
<5.0
5.2
7.1
<0.1
270
na
<10
Allison Woods
AWCH-4
7/10/2007
<0.4
<50
<10
3.1
16
<10
0.02
3.5
<5.0
5.2
7.5
<0.1
105
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
3000200001Y
3/6/20007
<0.40
na
na
na
na
na
1.70
na
na
3.6
2.8
<0.1
73
<2.0
na
Allison Woods
3000200001Y
7/11/2007
<0.40
77
<10
2.4
100
<10
0.60
1.2
<5
2.8
<2.0
<0.1
55
<2.0
<10
Allison Woods
3000200001Y
11/6/2007
<0.40
na
na
na
na
na
0.25
na
na
2.9
<2.0
na
54
<2.0
na
Allison Woods
3000200001Y
5/27/2008
140
<10
2.5
37
<10
1.1
<5
na
na
20
Allison Woods
3000200001Y
5/28/2008
<0.40
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
2.8
<2.0
na
na
na
na
Allison Woods
3000200001Y
3/23/2009
<0.40
<50
<10
2.6
13
<10
0.95
1.7
<5
3.3
<2.0
<0.1
54
na
<10
Bent Creek
BC-3S
22-A r-03
<500
2300
<10
0.9
39
<10
<0.02
0.8
<5
1.5
<5
24
<5
13
Bent Creek
BC-3S
27-A r-04
<50
<50
800
<10
<10
0.5
0.6
11
20
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.44
0.5
<5
<5
1.10
1.0
<2
18
<5
18
<10
Bent Creek
BC-3S
2-Nov-04
<400
<50
<10
0.6
13
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.7
<5
1.4
<2
24
<5
<10
Bent Creek
BC-3S
27-Jun-05
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.7
0.7
10
11
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.62
0.6
<5
<5
1.50
1.4
<2
25
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-3S
13-Jun-06
<400
<50
140
<10
<10
0.7
0.7
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.63
0.7
<5
<5
1.40
1.4
<2
23
<10
<10
7/12

Attachment A
Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations
GO ARG'ADIS
Fluoride Fluoride Iron Iron Lead Lead Magnesium Magnesium Manganese Manganese Mercury Mercury Nickel Nickel Nitrogen, NO2+ Potassium Potassium Selenium Selenium Sodium Sodium Sulfate Sulfate Sulfide Total Total Zinc Zinc
Total Nitrate Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Organic Dissolved
Station ID Sampling Date Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved Total NO3 diss. Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Tot
ug/L as Dis (mg/L (mg/1 as mg/L as (mg/1 as mg/L as Solids Carbon total (ug/I as
M'� (mg/1 as F) mg/L as F (ug/I as Fe) ug/L as Fe ( Pb) ug/L as Pb (mg/I as Mg) g (ug/I n) ug/L as Mn Lug/I as Hg) H��ug/I as il -a� as N g/L as N) �mg/I as K) g/I as Se) Se a) � 04) J�O4 lug/L as S+ � Zn) ug/
Bent Creek BC-3i 22-Apr-03 <500 540 <10 0.8 16 <10 0.05 1.0 <5 1.2 <5 23 <5 <10
Bent Creek BC-3i 27-Apr-04 <50 <10 0.6 <10 <10 0.6 <5 0.9 <10
Bent Creek BC-3i 2-Nov-04 <400 <50 <10 0.6 <10 <10 0.06 0.06 0.8 <5 1.2 <2 26 <5 210
Bent Creek
BC-3i
27-Jun-05
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.6
0.6
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.77
0.8
<5
<5
1.40
1.4
<2
24
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-3i
13-Jun-06
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.6
0.7
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
0.05
0.05
0.73
0.8
<5
<5
1.20
1.3
<2
24
<2
<10
60
Bent Creek
BC-31)
22-A r-03
<500
350
<10
1.5
34
<10
<0.02
5.3
<5
6.0
10
340
<5
3800
Bent Creek
BC-31)
27-A r-04
85
<10
1.5
95
<10
3.0
<5
3.9
290
Bent Creek
BC-31)
1-Nov-04
<400
390
730
<10
<10
1.6
1.6
200
210
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
2.30
2.3
<5
<5
2.80
2.9
7.8
91
<5
460
190
Bent Creek
BC-31)
27-Jun-05
<400
230
<10
1.7
130
<200
<10
0.04
0.04
3.20
<5
4.30
13
102
<2
97
Bent Creek
BC-31)
13-Jun-06
<400
920
990
<10
<10
1.7
1.8
230
230
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
2.50
2.5
<5
<5
3.20
3.4
11
98
<2
66
110
Bent Creek
BC-4S
22-A r-03
<500
5400
<10
1.20
450
<10
<0.02
1.00
<5
0.68
<5
<10
<5
29
Bent Creek
BC-4S
27-A r-04
<50
<10
0.42
<10
<10
0.43
<5
0.53
<10
Bent Creek
BC-4S
2-Nov-04
<400
96
<10
0.45
14
<10
2.7
2.7
0.74
<5
0.85
<2
<10
<5
<10
Bent Creek
BC-4S
27-Jun-05
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.51
0.51
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.69
0.66
<5
<5
0.84
0.84
<2
19
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-4S
13-Jun-06
<400
91
<10
0.51
14
<200
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.66
<5
0.84
<2
15
<2
<10
Bent Creek
BC-4S
21-Au -07
<400
<50
110
<10
<10
0.45
0.46
<10
11
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.65
0.68
<5
<5
0.77
0.80
<2
<0.1
12
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-4i
22-A r-03
<500
<50
<10
0.46
<10
<10
<0.02
0.62
<5
0.87
<5
16
<5
<10
Bent Creek
BC-4i
27-A r-04
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.41
0.41
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.57
0.57
<5
<5
0.70
0.70
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-4i
2-Nov-04
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.45
0.44
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.76
0.76
<5
<5
0.85
0.89
<2
19
<5
<10
22
Bent Creek
BC-4i
27-Jun-05
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.47
0.48
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
0.06
0.06
0.78
0.78
<5
<5
0.96
1.00
<2
14
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-4i
13-Jun-06
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.50
0.49
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.83
0.80
<5
<5
0.95
0.95
<2
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-4i
21-Au -07
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.45
0.44
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.75
0.71
<5
<5
0.87
0.87
<2
<0.1
16
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-4D
22-A r-03
<500
210
<10
1.30
45
<10
<0.02
4.40
<5
3.90
12
86
<5
440
Bent Creek
BC-4D
27-A r-04
<50
<10
1.10
25
<10
3.30
<5
3.30
46
Bent Creek
BC-4D
2-Nov-04
<400
<50
<10
1.10
25
<10
<0.2
<0.02
3.80
<5
3.50
12
85
<5
120
Bent Creek
BC-4D
27-Jun-05
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
1.10
1.10
31
31
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
3.70
3.70
<5
<5
3.70
3.80
10
82
<2
130
140
Bent Creek
BC-4D
13-Jun-06
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
1.10
1.10
21
21
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
3.60
3.60
<5
<5
3.70
3.70
9.3
80
<2
140
150
Bent Creek
BC-4D
21-Au -07
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
1.10
1.10
20
20
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
3.90
3.80
<5
<5
3.40
3.40
10
<0.1
82
<2
210
230
Bent Creek
BC-5S
23-A r-03
<500
610
<10
1.10
47
<10
0.25
1.10
<5
1.60
<5
18
<5
<10
Bent Creek
BC-5S
28-A r-04
<50
<10
0.72
13
<10
0.57
<5
1.20
<10
Bent Creek
BC-5S
2-Nov-04
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.80
0.78
30
29
<10
<10
0.09
0.09
0.94
0.98
<5
<5
1.90
2.00
<2
27
<5
<10
390
Bent Creek
BC-5S
28-Jun-05
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.69
0.70
13
17
<200
<200
<10
<10
0.07
0.07
0.84
0.83
<5
<5
1.90
1.70
<2
22
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-5S
14-Jun-06
<400
<50
79
<10
<10
0.72
0.70
12
12
<200
<200
<10
<10
0.23
0.23
0.78
0.77
<5
<5
1.90
1.80
<2
22
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-5i
23-A r-03
<500
<50
<10
0.54
<10
<10
<0.02
0.59
<5
1.80
<5
<10
<5
<10
Bent Creek
BC-5i
28-A r-04
58
<10
0.46
<10
<10
0.44
<5
1.50
<10
Bent Creek
BC-5i
2-Nov-04
<400
<50
<10
0.56
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.61
<5
1.80
<2
26
<5
<10
Bent Creek
BC-5i
28-Jun-05
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.59
0.60
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.60
0.62
<5
<5
2.00
1.90
<2
15
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-5i
14-Jun-06
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.59
0.59
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.60
0.57
<5
<5
1.90
1.90
<2
26
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-5D
23-A r-03
<500
350
<10
1.50
190
<10
<0.02
3.00
<5
2.90
<5
47
<5
2600
Bent Creek
BC-5D
28-A r-04
58
<10
1.10
83
<10
1.50
<5
2.20
870
Bent Creek
BC-5D
3-Nov-04
<400
880
32
1.20
76
<10
<0.2
<0.02
1.70
<5
2.70
<2
41
<5
1400
Bent Creek
BC-5D
28-Jun-05
<400
86
82
<10
<10
1.50
1.50
86
47
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.2
<0.2
2.20
1.70
<5
<5
3.20
3.00
2.6
46
<2
1900
1000
Bent Creek
BC-5D
14-Jun-06
<400
52
92
<10
<10
1.30
1.40
64
68
<200
<200
<10
<10
0.03
0.03
1.70
1.80
<5
<5
2.70
2.90
2.8
40
<2
1700
1800
Bent Creek
BC-7S
23-A r-03
<500
3600
<10
0.97
35
<10
<0.02
1.50
<5
1.00
<5
16
<5
24
Bent Creek
BC-7S
28-A r-04
2900
<10
0.69
<10
<10
1.20
<5
0.73
<10
Bent Creek
BC-7S
3-Nov-04
<400
490
<10
0.65
<10
<10
<0.2
<0.02
1.40
<5
1.10
<2
16
<5
13
Bent Creek
BC-7S
28-Jun-05
<400
<50
75
<10
<10
0.71
0.71
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
0.07
0.07
1.40
1.40
<5
<5
0.97
0.92
<2
11
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-7S
14-Jun-06
<50
1400
<10
<10
0.74
0.83
<10
13
<200
<200
<10
<10
0.02
0.02
1.20
1.40
<5
<5
0.99
1.00
<2
16
<2
<10
14
Bent Creek
BC-7S
21-Au -07
<50
17000
<10
<10
0.62
1.40
<10
90
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
1.00
1.60
<5
<5
0.89
0.99
<2
<0.1
2.7
<10
21
Bent Creek
BC-71
23-A r-03
<500
9800
<10
1.70
580
<10
<0.02
1.40
<5
0.83
<5
12
<5
30
Bent Creek
BC-7i
28-A r-04
<50
<10
0.66
580
<10
0.50
<5
0.50
<10
Bent Creek
BC-7i
3-Nov-04
<400
460
<10
0.76
30
<10
<0.2
<0.02
0.72
<5
0.76
<2
16
<5
<10
Bent Creek
BC-7i
28-Jun-05
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.72
0.74
<10
18
<200
<200
<10
<10
0.1
<0.1
0.65
0.67
<5
<5
0.71
0.79
<2
10
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-7i
14-Jun-06
<400
<50
440
<10
<10
0.73
0.78
<10
26
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.64
0.70
<5
<5
0.68
0.71
<2
17
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-7i
21-Au -07
<400
<50
260
<10
<10
0.67
0.68
<10
15
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.58
0.63
<5
<5
0.61
0.64
<2
<0.1
14
<2
<10
<10
Bent Creek
BC-7D
23-A r-03
<500
250
<10
3.00
27
<10
<0.02
10.00
<5
14.00
38
110
<5
2600
Bent Creek
BC-7D
28-A r-04
380
<10
2.40
95
<10
2.30
<5
4.90
1000
Bent Creek
BC-7D
3-Nov-04
<400
140
<10
2.90
120
<10
<0.2
<0.02
3.00
<5
6.40
7.5
78
<5
1600
Bent Creek
BC-7D
28-Jun-05
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
3.10
3.00
<10
13
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
3.60
3.60
<5
<5
8.40
8.50
13
100
<2
650
700
Bent Creek
BC-7D
14-Jun-06
<400
<50
56
<10
<10
3.30
3.30
150
150
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
4.30
4.40
<5
<5
9.10
9.20
15
100
<2
820
900
Bent Creek
BC-7D
21-Au -07
<400
<50
150
<10
<10
3.50
3.40
17
32
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
4.80
4.70
<5
<5
8.70
8.40
15
<0.1
116
<2
610
730
Bent Creek
BC-1S
21-A r-03
<500
170
170
<10
<10
0.53
0.53
19
19
<10
<10
<0.02
0.26
0.26
<5
<5
0.99
0.99
<5
17
<5
27
Bent Creek
BC-1S
26-A r-04
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.51
0.51
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.22
0.22
<5
<5
0.99
0.99
<10
Bent Creek
BC-1S
1-Nov-04
<400
<50
68
<10
<10
0.57
0.55
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.02
0.02
0.33
0.33
<5
<5
1.20
1.10
<2
22
<5
<10
Bent Creek
BC-1S
27-Jun-05
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.61
0.62
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.37
0.35
<5
<5
1.40
1.50
<2
24
<2
10
Bent Creek
BC-1S
12-Jun-06
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.56
0.56
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.34
0.37
<5
<5
1.20
1.30
<2
14
<2
10
Bent Creek
BC-1S
20-Au -07
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.52
0.51
17
15
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.45
0.45
<5
<5
1.40
1.40
<2
<0.1
22
<2
<10
Bent Creek
BC-1i
21-A r-03
<500
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.48
0.48
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.02
0.24
0.24
<5
<5
1.10
1.10
<5
<10
<5
<10
Bent Creek
BC-1i
27-A r-04
<50
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.47
0.47
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.21
0.21
<5
<5
0.81
0.81
<2
10
<5
<10
Bent Creek
BC-1i
1-Nov-04
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.51
0.54
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.35
0.35
0.31
0.32
<5
<5
1.10
1.30
<2
25
<5
37
Bent Creek
BC-1i
27-Jun-05
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.53
0.53
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.30
0.31
<5
<5
1.10
1.10
<2
20
<2
<10
Bent Creek
BC-1i
12-Jun-06
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.56
0.54
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.30
0.30
<5
<5
1.10
1.10
<2
14
<2
<10
Bent Creek
BC-1i
20-Au -07
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.52
0.52
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
0.02
0.02
0.28
0.32
<5
<5
1.20
1.10
<2
<0.1
21
<2
<10
Bent Creek
BC-1D
21-A r-03
<500
390
<10
1.20
20
<10
<0.02
0.72
<5
4.70
6
64
<5
Bent Creek
BC-1D
26-A r-04
540
<10
1.10
18
<10
0.62
<5
3.60
Bent Creek
BC-1D
2-Nov-04
<400
1
580
<10
1.10
20
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.75
<5
4.40
1 8.1
64
<5
Bent Creek
BC-1D
27-Jun-05
<400
680
690
<10
<10
1.30
1.30
21
21
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.79
0.80
<5
<5
5.30
5.10
8.3
67
<2
130
Bent Creek
BC-1D
12-Jun-06
<400
840
820
<10
<10
1.40
1 1.30
1 23
23
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.85
0.86
<5
<5
5.60
5.60
8.9
64
<2
100
Bent Creek
BC-1D
20-Au -07
<400
910
910
<10
<10
1.20
1.20
23
23
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.80
0.85
<5
<5
5.80
5.20
7.3
<0.1
68
<2
97
Bent Creek
BC-2i
21-A r-03
<500
69
<10
1.10
11
<10
0.1
0.29
<5
0.9
<5
24
<5
<10
Bent Creek
BC-2i
26 -A r-04
<50
<10
0.80
<10
<10
0.24
<5
0.6
<10
Bent Creek
BC-2i
1-Nov-04
<400
<50
<10
0.78
<10
<10
<0.02
0.03
0.36
<5
0.8
<2
24
<5
<10
Bent Creek
BC-2i
29-Jun-05
<400
<50
<50
1 <10
<10
2.20
2.30
<10
<10
<200
<200
1 <10
<10
0.14
0.14
0.44
1 0.45
1 <5
1 <5
1 1.50
1.3
4.4
1 37
<2
<10
<10
8/12

Attachment A
Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations
GO ARG'ADIS
Mercury Nitrogen, Sodium Sodium Sulfate Sulfate Total Total Zinc
Fluoride Fluoride Iron Iron Lead Lead Magnesium Magnesium Manganese Manganese Mercury Nickel Nickel NO2+ Potassium Potassium Selenium Selenium Sulfide Zinc
Total Nitrate Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Organic Dissolved
Station ID Sampling Date Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved Total NO3 diss. Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Tot
ug/L as Di (mg/L (mg/1 as mg/L as (mg/1 as mg/L as Solids Carbon total (ug/I as
(mg/1 as F) mg/L as F (ug/I as Fe) ug/L /I as Pb) ug/L as Pb (mg/I as Mg) m Las Mg (ug/I as Mn) ug/L as Mn (ug/I as Hg) (ug/I a as Ni (mg/L as N) (mg as K) g/I as Se) O4) (ug/L as S) (m9/L ug/
�.
Bent Creek BC-2i 12-Jun-06 <400 <50 <10 1.10 <10 <200 <10 0.04 0.04 0.35 <5 1.0 2 18 <2 <10
Bent Creek BC-2i 20-Aug-07 <400 <50 <50 <10 <10 0.70 0.71 <10 <10 <200 <200 <10 <10 0.04 0.04 0.36 0.33 <5 <5 0.81 0.9 <2 <0.1 18 12 <10 <10
Bent Creek BC-2D 21-A r-03 1.2 420 <10 0.85 <10 <10 <0.02 2.20 <5 22.0 65 200 <5 910
Bent Creek
BC-2D
11-Feb-04
1
180
<10
0.80
<10
<10
<0.02
1.40
<5
19.0
72
190
<5
590
Bent Creek
BC-2D
26-A r-04
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.63
0.63
<10
<10
<10
<10
1.30
1.30
<5
<5
18.0
18.0
15
Bent Creek
BC-2D
3-Nov-04
1.3
<50
62
<10
<10
0.46
0.45
<10
160
<10
<10
<0.2
<0.02
1.10
1.10
<5
<5
22.0
21.0
34
140
<5
64
460
Bent Creek
BC-2D
29-Jun-05
<400
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.37
0.38
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
0.07
0.07
1.10
1.10
<5
<5
20.0
21.0
18
120
<2
72
110
Bent Creek
BC-2D
12-Jun-06
0.9
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.36
0.36
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.95
0.95
<5
<5
21.0
20.0
13
<2
22
49
Bent Creek
BC-2D
20-Au -07
1
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.35
0.35
<10
<10
<200
<200
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.91
0.97
<5
<5
19.0
19.0
11
<0.1
112
<2
<10
12
Coweeta
CWAS
21-Jul-08
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.84
0.8
39
40
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
0.02
0.02
0.9
0.8
<5
<5
2.5
2.4
<2
<0.1
58
<2
<10
<10
Coweeta
CWAS
9-Feb-09
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.9
0.91
130
130
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
0.08
0.08
0.7
0.7
<5
<5
2.1
2.2
<2
<0.1
32
<2
<10
Coweeta
CW-11
21-Jul-08
<0.4
<50
55
<10
<10
0.66
0.7
29
32
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
0.02
0.02
1
1.0
<5
<5
3.2
3.2
<2
<0.1
53
<2
240
220
Coweeta
CW-11
9-Feb-09
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.65
0.6
<10
<10
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
0.02
0.02
0.94
0.9
<5
<5
3.2
3.1
<2
<0.1
6
<2
210
200
Coweeta
CW-1D
21-Jul-08
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
1.3
1.2
<10
<10
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
0.02
0.02
1.8
1.8
<5
<5
7.4
7.1
16
<0.1
88
<2
150
170
Coweeta
CW-1D
9-Feb-09
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
1.2
1.2
<10
<10
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
0.02
0.02
1.6
1.6
<5
<5
7
7.1
19
<0.1
64
<2
180
180
Coweeta
CW-21
22-Jul-08
<0.4
<50
<10
<10
0.92
0.9
28
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
1.4
1.4
<5
<5
1.9
1.9
<2
<0.1
50
<2
<10
<10
Coweeta
CW-21
10-Feb-09
<0.4
<50
110
<10
<10
0.88
0.9
<10
13
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
1.1
1.2
<5
<5
2.7
2.7
2.4
<0.1
<12
<2
<10
<10
Coweeta
CW-2D
22-Jul-08
<0.4
<50
140
<10
<10
0.49
0.5
<10
<10
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.83
0.9
<5
<5
1.8
1.7
<2
<0.1
34
<2
49
50.0
Coweeta
CW-2D
10-Feb-09
<0.4
<50
820
<10
<10
0.5
0.71
<10
<10
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.8
0.92
<5
<5
1.7
<2
<0.1
30
<2
120
130
Coweeta
CW-3P1
23-Jul-08
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.63
0.7
<10
<10
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.74
0.8
<5
<5
2.1
2.2
<2
<0.1
38
<2
<10
<10
Coweeta
CW-3P1
11-Feb-09
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.64
0.6
<10
<10
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
0.76
0.8
<5
<5
2.2
2.2
<2
<0.1
33
<2
<10
<10
Coweeta
CW-3D
23-Jul-08
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.98
1.0
<10
<10
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
<0.02
<0.02
1
1.1
<5
<5
3.4
3.4
2
<0.1
52
<2
200
260
Coweeta
CW-3D
11-Feb-09
<50
<50
<10
<10
0.9
0.92
<10
<10
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
0.79
0.79
1.0
1.1
<5
<5
3.3
3.3
2.4
<0.1
<12
<2
380
430
Coweeta
CW-41
22-Jul-08
<0.4
<50
690
<10
<10
1.4
1.5
<10
12
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
0.31
0.32
0.8
0.9
<5
<5
2.1
2.1
<2
<0.1
56
<2
<10
<10
Coweeta
CW-41
8-Feb-09
<0.4
<50
370
<10
<10
1.2
1.2
<10
<10
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
0.32
0.32
0.71
0.7
<5
<5
2
2.1
<2
<0.1
69
<2
<10
<10
Coweeta
CW-4D
22-Jul-08
<50
990
<10
<10
0.88
1.0
<10
11
<0.2
<0.2
<10
<10
0.02
<0.02
1.7
1.7
<5
<5
6.2
6.3
4.9
<0.1
69
<2
66
110.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-1
11/12/2003
<0.5
1500*
<10*
1.9*
37*
na
<10*
na
0.74
0.37*
<5.0*
0.96*
3.8
na
24
<5.0
10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-1
6/15/2004
<0.1
270
<10
1.9
12
<0.2
<10
0.39
0.41
0.24
<5.0
1.1
<1.0
X2
38
<5.0
12
Langtree Peninsula
MW-11
8/28/2002
<0.5
4900*
<10*
4.4*
61*
na
10*
na
0.74
2.0*
<5.0*
3.5*
<5
na
76
<5.0
43*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-11
3/4/2003
<0.5
1600*
<10*
4.9*
78*
na
10*
na
1.00
2.0*
<5.0*
3.6*
<5
na
78
<5.0
49*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-11
11/12/2003
0.07
850*
<10*
3.3*
<10*
na
<10*
na
0.89
1.2*
<5.0*
5.1*
2.7
na
100
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-11
6/15/2004
<0.1
<50
<10
3.8
<10
<0.2
<10
0.83
0.83
0.92
<5.0
3.6
<1.0
X2
80
<5.0
22
Langtree Peninsula
MW-11
4/14/2009
1.2
<50
<10
5.1
<10
na
<10
na
1.00
1.5
4.0
<2.0
<0.1
68
na
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MWAD
8/27/2002
<0.5
120*
<10*
2.4*
<10*
na
<10*
na
0.05
2.3*
<5.0*
8.5*
80
na
220
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MWAD
3/3/2003
<0.5
<50*
<10*
2.7*
<10*
na
<10*
na
0.26
2.4*
<5.0*
6.5*
18
na
130
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MWAD
11/12/2003
0.07
<50*
<10*
1.9*
<10*
na
<10*
na
0.08
1.8*
<5.0*
7.9*
52
na
150
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MWAD
6/15/2004
<0.1
<50
<10
1.9
<10
<0.2
<10
0.7
0.07
1.9
<5.0
8.7
33
na
180
<5.0
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MWAD
11/28/2007
2.4
<50
<10
2.0
<10
na
<10
na
0.09
2.0
<5.0
9.0
35
na
138
na
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MWAD
4/14/2009
1.6
<50
<10
1.9
<10
na
<10
na
0.06
1.9
<5.0
9.1
38
<0.1
156
na
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2
8/28/2002
<0.5
180*
<10*
3.2*
<10*
na
<10*
0.78
0.53*
<5.0*
3.5*
<5.0
na
72
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2
3/4/2003
<0.5
51*
<10*
3.0*
<10*
na
<10*
1.40
0.58*
<5.0*
3.2*
<5.0
na
70
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2
8/14/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
3.2
<10
na
<10
0.62
0.49
<5.0
3.8
<2.0
na
62
na
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-21
8/28/2002
<0.5
590*
<10*
4.5*
15*
na
<10*
0.79
2.5*
<5.0*
6.0*
<5.0
na
96
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-21
3/4/2003
<0.5
75*
<10*
4.4*
<10*
na
<10*
0.92
2.0*
<5.0*
5.6*
<5.0
na
85
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-21
11/17/2003
<0.5
67*
<10*
4.6*
<10*
na
<10*
0.81
2.0*
<5.0*
5.9*
<5.0
na
82
<5.0
18*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-21
6/15/2004
0.2
<50
<10
4.8
<10
<0.2
<10
0.87
2.3
<5.0
6.1
2.0
X2
110
<5.0
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-21
8/14/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
5.0
<10
na
<10
1.10
2.2
<5.0
5.7
<2.0
na
88
na
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2D
8/28/2002
<0.5
840*
<10*
3.1*
20*
na
<10*
0.97
1.8*
<5.0*
4.7*
<5.0
na
98
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2D
3/4/2003
<0.5
<50*
<10*
2.7*
2.7*
na
<10*
1.30
1.8*
<5.0*
4.5*
<5.0
na
91
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2D
11/17/2003
<0.5
<50*
<10*
2.6*
<10*
na
<10*
0.77
1.7*
<5.0*
4.1*
<5.0
na
84
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2D
6/15/2004
<0.1
<50
<10
2.9
<10
<0.2
<10
1.30
1.9
<5.0
4.9
1.0
X2
100
<5.0
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-2D
8/14/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
3.3
<10
na
<10
1.50
2.1
<5.0
5.4
<2.0
na
96
na
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-3
8/27/2002
<0.5
1200*
<10*
0.81*
36*
<10*
na
0.04
0.47*
<5.0*
3.6*
<5.0
na
48
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-3
3/5/2003
<0.5
350*
<10*
1.0*
26*
<10*
na
0.05
0.63*
<5.0*
12*
5.0
na
140
<5.0
13*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-3
11/13/2003
0.05
3500*
<10*
1.1*
170*
<10*
na
<0.2
0.83*
<5.0*
9.6*
3.0
na
130
<5.0
15*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-3
6/17/2004
0.05
<50
<10
0.56
<10
<10
na
<0.2
0.97
<5.0
7.1
3.0
na
130
<5.0
12
Langtree Peninsula
MW-3
4/20/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
0.86
<10
<10
0.12
1.3
<5.0
3.0
<2.0
na
27
na
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-31
8/26/2002
<0.5
1200*
<10*
3.8*
20*
<10*
na
0.06
0.88*
<5.0*
2.1*
<5.0
na
50
<5.0
11*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-31
3/4/2003
<0.5
160*
<10*
3.9*
<10*
<10*
na
0.12
0.86*
<5.0*
2.1*
<5.0
na
70
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-31
11/13/2003
0.06
500*
<10*
3.6*
13*
<10*
na
0.27
0.89*
<5.0*
3.3*
1.2
na
72
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-31
6/17/2004
<0.1
161
<10
3.7
<10
<10
0.2
0.20
0.93
<5.0
3.0
1.0
na
74
<5.0
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-31
4/20/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
4.6
<10
<10
na
0.17
1.1
<5.0
2.8
<2.0
na
67
na
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-4
6/16/2004
<0.1
<50
<10
2.9
<10
<10
0.85
0.89
0.53
na
1.5
<1
na
56
<5.0
Langtree Peninsula
MW-41
8/27/2002
<0.5
2200
<10*
3.8*
48*
<10*
na
1.00
2.0*
<5.0*
7.5*
<5.0
na
79
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-41
3/3/2003
<0.5
<50
<10*
2.4*
<10*
<10*
na
1.50
1.3*
<5.0*
4.7*
<5.0
na
68
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-41
11/12/2003
0.07
540
<10*
2.5*
<10*
<10*
na
1.50
0.54*
<5.0*
1.2*
<2.0
na
44
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-41
6/16/2004
<0.1
<50
<10
2.1
<10
<10
1.3
1.30
1.0
<5.0
3.6
<1.0
60
<5.0
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-41
4/20/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
3.2
<10
<10
na
0.85
0.67
<5.0
2.0
<2.0
na
55
na
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-4D
8/27/2002
<0.5
1300*
<10*
2.0*
35*
<10*
na
0.55
2.0*
<5.0*
6.0
25
na
110
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-4D
3/3/2003
<0.5
360*
<10*
1.5*
11*
<10*
na
0.69
1.5*
<5.0*
6.7
62
na
190
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-4D
11/12/2003
0.08
1700*
<10*
2.1*
47*
<10*
na
0.93
2.1*
<5.0*
5.5
19
na
90
<5.0
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-4D
6/16/2004
<0.1
10000*
<10*
3.9*
79*
<10*
0.46
0.73
3.9*
<5.0*
10*
34
na
140
<5.0
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-4D
4/20/2009
<0.4
140
<10
1.9
<10
<10
na
0.59
1.60
<5.0
8.2
53
na
160
na
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-51
8/27/2002
<0.5
3200*
<10*
3.7*
370*
na
<10*
0.29
4.9*
<5.0*
6.7*
<5.0
na
98
NA
10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-51
3/3/2003
<0.5
2200*
<10*
2.4*
66*
na
<10*
1.10
1.6*
<5.0*
2.8*
<5.0
na
76
<5
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-51
11/13/2003
0.06
3000*
<10*
2.9*
33*
na
<10*
0.83
1.3*
<5.0*
2.1*
1.8
na
66
<5
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-51
6/16/2004
<0.1
200
<10
2.8
340
na
<10
0.47
2.8
na
4.9
1
10
na
200
<5
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-51
4/20/2009
<0.4
68
<10
3.1
57
na
<10
0.64
1.2
<5.0
3.0
<2.0
na
62
na
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-5D
8/27/2002
<0.5
<50*
<10*
1.7*
<10*
na
<10*
<0.02
3.3*
1 <5.0*
22*
370
na
680
<5
<10*
Langtree Peninsula
MW-5D
3/3/2003
<0.5
120*
<10*
1.9*
14*
na
<10*
0.04
4.1*
<5.0*
34*
540
na
930
<5
<10*
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-5D
11/13/2003
0.1
<50*
<10*
1.4*
<10*
na
<10*
0.11
3.2*
<5.0*
24*
580
na
830
<5
<10*
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-5D
6/16/2004
0.1
<50
<10
1.5
<10
na
<10
0.11
3.3
na
23
390
na
640
<5
<10
Langtree Peninsula
MW-5D
4/20/2009
4 U, P
<50
<10
2.0
<10
na
<10
0.19
2.9
<5.0
32
490
1 na
1 804
na
<10
9/12

Attachment A
Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations
GO ARG'ADIS
Fluoride Fluoride Iron Iron Lead Lead Magnesium Magnesium Manganese Manganese Mercury Mercury Nickel Nickel Nitrogen, NO2+ Potassium Potassium Selenium Selenium Sodium Sodium Sulfate Sulfate Sulfide Total Total Zinc Zinc
Station ID Sampling Date Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Nitrate NO3 diss. Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved Organic Dissolved Total
ug/L as Dis (mg/L (mg/1 as mg/L as (mg/I as mg/L as Solids Carbon total (ug/I as
(mg/1 as F) mg/L as F (ug/I as Fe) ug/L as Fe Pb) ug/L as Pb (mg/I as Mg) mg/L as Mg (ug/I as Mn) ug/L as Mn (ug/I as Hg) H (ug/I as Ni) ug/L as Ni (mg/L as N) (mg/I as K) mg/L as K /L as Se a SO4) 04 (ug/L as S) ug/L as Zn
JL J
Lan tree Peninsula MW-6 8/26/2002 <0.5 870* <10" 1.1* 21* <10* NA 0.15 0.51* <5.0* 1.4* <5.0 na 22 <5.0 <10*
Lan tree Peninsula MW-6 3/5/2003 <1 790* <10" 0.78* 48* <10* NA 0.09 0.49* <5.0* 1.2* _ <5.0 na 14 <5.0 15*
Lanqtree Peninsula MW-6 11/13/2003 <0.5 82* <10" 1.1* <10" <10" NA 0.55 0.38* <5.0" 0.87* 0.4 na 29 <5.0 22*
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6
6/17/2004
<0.1
<50
<10
1.2
<10
<10
0.24
0.24
0.52
<5.0
1.3
1.3
na
38
na
<10"
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6
4/14/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
1.9
35
<10
na
0.21
0.62
<5.0
2.0
5.1
na
32
na
<10
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-61
8/26/2002
<0.5
230*
<10*
1.6"
21*
<10"
na
0.35
0.64*
<5.0*
1.9*
<5.0
na
38
<5.0
<10*
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-61
3/5/2003
<0.5
<50"
<10"
1.5"
<10"
<10*
na
0.53
0.56*
<5.0*
1.7*
<5.0
na
41
<5.0
<10*
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-61
11/13/2003
0.04
<50"
<10*
1.2*
<10*
<10*
na
0.28
0.44*
<5.0*
1.4*
0.4
na
38
<5.0
<10*
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-61
6/17/2004
<0.1
<50
<10
1.4
<10
<10
na
0.33
0.54
<5.0
1.9
<1.0
na
54
na
25
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-61
4/14/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
2.0
<10
<10
na
0.33
0.63
<5.0
2.1
<2.0
na
36
na
<10
Lan tree Peninsula
I MW-6D
8/26/2002
<0.5
<50*
<10*
2.3*
12*
<10*
na
<0.02
3.9*
<5.0*
36*
740
na
1100
<5.0
<10*
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6D
3/5/2003
<0.5
<50*
<10*
2.2*
15*
<10*
na
<0.02
4.3*
<5.0*
42*
710
na
1400
<5.0
<10*
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6D
11/13/2003
0.1
110*
<10*
1.1*
22*
<10*
na
<0.02
4.2*
<5.0*
55*
1500
na
2500
<5.0
<10*
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6D
6/17/2004
0.1
<50
<10
2.2
21
<10
<0.02
<0.02
5.7
<5.0
55
1000
na
1700
na
13
Lan tree Peninsula
MW-6D
4/14/2009
8.0 U, P
<50
<10
1.9
25
<10
na
<0.02
2.5
<5.0
34
800
na
1224
na
<10
Morgan Mill
MW-1S
11/3/2008
<0.4
910
<10
8.7
350
15
<0.02
1.00
<5.0
14
55
152
<2
10
Morgan Mill
MW-1S
1/26/2009
<0.4 J8
1400
<10
7.0
280
<10
<0.02
0.78
<5.0
14
40 J8
<0.1
144
<2
17
Morgan Mill
MW-1S
4/6/2009
<0.4
1100
<10
6.8
220
<10
<0.02
0.83
<5.0
13
35
<0.1
135 J
na
14
Morgan Mill
MW-1S
8/17/2009
<0.4
2000
<10
6.6
310
<10
<0.02
0.72
<5.0
13
34
na
138
na
<10
Morgan Mill
CH-1
11/3/2008
<0.4
150
<10
5.1
180
<10
<0.02
0.85
<5.0
20
15
182
<2
<10
Morgan Mill
CH-1
1/26/2009
<0.4 J8
280
<10
5.1
150
<10
<0.02
0.57
<5.0
21
14 J8
<0.1
179
<2
<10
Morgan Mill
CH-1
4/6/2009
<0.4
1 250
<10
1
4.9
140
<10
1 <0.02
0.60
<5.0
21
13
<0.1
190 J
na
<10
Morgan Mill
CH-1
8/17/2009
<0.4
540
<10
4.7
140
<10
<0.02
0.52
<5.0
19
14
na
180
na
<10
Morgan Mill
MW-1D
11/3/2008
<0.4
<50
<10
4.6
33
<10
0.06
0.35
<5.0
20
11
178
<2
<10
Morgan Mill
MW-1D
1/26/2009
<0.4 J8
<50
<10
4.5
30
<10
0.03
0.39
<5.0
21
12 J8
<0.1
178
<2
<10
Morgan Mill
MW-1D
4/6/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
4.5
26
<10
0.02
0.40
<5.0
21
12
<0.1
193 J
na
<10
Morgan Mill
MW-1D
5/11/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
4.4
36
<10
<0.02
0.39
<5.0
21
14
190
na
<10
Morgan Mill
MW-1D
8/17/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
4.4
29
<10
0.03
0.34
<5.0
21
13
na
183
na
<10
Morgan Mill
MW-2D
11/12/2008
<0.4
120
<10
6.1
88
<10
<0.02
0.41
1
<5.0
23
13
193
<2
82
Morgan Mill
MW-2D
1/26/2009
<0.4 J8
170
<10
1 5.9
98
1
<10
<0.02
0.34
<5.0
22
13 J8
<0.1
186
<2
170
Morgan Mill
MW-2D
4/6/2009
<0.4
1 180
<10
6.1
98
<10
<0.02
0.40
<5.0
23
14
<0.1
202 J
na
32
Morgan Mill
MW-2D
5/12/2009
<0.4
220
<10
5.7
110
<10
<0.02
0.41
<5.0
21
15
206
na
40
Morgan Mill
MW-2D
8/17/2009
<0.4
150
<10
5.7
90
<10
<0.02
0.38
<5.0
21
15
na
184
na
27
Pasour Mountain
PM-1
12/15/2008
<0.4
110
<10
1.9
22
<10
0.12
0.51
<5.0
1.8
<2.0
<0.1J6
31
<2.0
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-1
6/8/2009
<0.4
71
<10
1.7
13
<10
0.12
0.43
<5.0
1.7
<2.0
na
29
na
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-2
12/15/2008
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Pasour Mountain
PM-2
6/22/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
1.7
130
1 <10
2.20
1 0.75
<5.0
3.3
<2.0
na
38
na
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-3
12/15/2008
<0.4
90
<10
1.1
1.1
<10
0.20
0.41
<5.0
1.8
<2.0
<0.1J6
1 26
<2.0
1 <10
Pasour Mountain
PM-3
6/8/2009
<0.4
87
<10
1 1.0
1.0
1
<10
0.21
0.38
<5.0
1.7
<2.0
na
24
na
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-9
12/15/2008
<0.4
1 <50
1 <10
0.32
51
<10
1.00
0.24
<5.0
2.3
<2.0
<0.1J6
23
<2.0
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-9
6/8/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
0.29
<10
0.98
0.24
<5.0
2.1
<2.0
na
20
na
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-6
1/22/2009
<0.4
18000*
<10*
0.57*
0.57*
<10*
<0.02
0.71*
<5.0*
7.2"
<2.0
<2.0
62
<2.0
<10*
Pasour Mountain
PM-6
6/15/2009
<0.4
76
<10
0.66
0.66
<10
<0.02
0.51
<5.0
7.0
<2.0
na
70
na
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-7
1/21/2009
<0.4
1200*
<10*
0.4*
180*
<10*
0.02
0.48*
<5.0*
4.5*
<2.0
<0.1
62
<2.0
12
Pasour Mountain
PM-7
6/15/2009
<0.4
540*
<10*
0.19*
100*
<10*
<0.02
0.16*
<5.0*
2*
<2.0
na
20
na
<10*
Pasour Mountain
PM-17
1/21/2009
<0.4
60
<10
6.1
12
<10
1
0.26
0.89
1
<5.0
8.7
<2.0
<0.1
43
<2.0
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-17
6/15/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
6.2
<10
<10
0.27
0.78
<5.0
1
6.8
<2.0
1
na
73
na
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-18
1/21/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
1 5.8
<10
I
<10
0.04
0.81
<5.0
7.2
3.8
<0.1
97
<2.0
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-18
6/15/2009
<0.4
<50
1 <10
5.4
<10
<10
0.05
0.79
<5.0
6.7
3.7
na
91
na
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-22
12/15/2008
<0.4
410
<10
1.0
21
<10
0.06
0.44
<5.0
1.3
<2.0
<0.1J6
25
<2.0
1600
Pasour Mountain
PM-22
6/8/2009
<0.4
130
<10
0.7
33
<10
0.11
0.34
<5.0
1.3
<2.0
na
20
na
640
Pasour Mountain
PM-25
12/15/2008
<0.4
<50
<10
0.27
32
<10
0.32
0.24
<5.0
1.2
<2.0
<0.1J6
20
<2.0
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-25
6/8/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
0.22
37
<10
0.36
0.18
<5.0
1.2
<2.0
na
18
na
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-5
12/15/2008
<0.4
<50
<10
0.19
49
<10
0.34
0.28
<5.0
1.6
<2.0
<0.1 J6
18
<2
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-5
6/22/2008
<0.4
<50
<10
0.16
35
<10
0.26
0.26
<5.0
1.7
<2.0
na
16
na
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-14
1/21/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
0.21
28
<10
0.42
0.19
<5.0
1
1.4
<2.0
1
<0.1
<12
<2
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-14
6/22/2008
<0.4
<50
<10
1 0.2
29
1
<10
0.18
<5.0
1.3
<2.0
na
14
na
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-15
1/21/2009
<0.4
<50
1 <10
0.79
18
<10
0.35
0.22
<5.0
1.3
<2.0
<0.1
<12
<2
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-15
6/22/2008
<0.4
<50
<10
0.73
18
<10
0.35
0.21
<5.0
1.2
<2.0
na
16
na
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-19
1/21/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
1.3
47
<10
1.80
0.97
<5.0
14
<2.0
<0.1
58
<2.0
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-19
6/22/2008
<0.4
<50
<10
1.2
50
<10
3.70
0.80
<5.0
13
<2.0
na
63
na
<10
Pasour Mountain
PM-O
1/22/2009
<0.4
<50
<10
4.4
<10
<10
<0.02
0.52
<5.0
8.9
<2.0
<0.1
126
<2.0
120
Pasour Mountain
PM-O
6/22/2008
<0.4
<50
<10
0.9
<10
<10
<0.02
0.61
<5.0
6.2
<2.0
na
100
na
1900
Tater Hill
40004000001
10/2/2007
<0.4
12000
<10
12.0
570
12
<0.02
3.20
<5
1 120.00
45
510
12.0
73
Tater Hill
40004000001
4/2/2008
<0.4
<50
9000
<10
<10
16.0
20.0
150
310
<10
<10
0.30
2.90
3.40
<5
<5
89.00
97.00
1 64
457
<10
1 39
Tater Hill
40004000001
7/9/2008
<0.4
33000
<10
1
30.0
1
940
27
0.26
3.30
<5
33.00
28
324
8.5
140
Tater Hill
40004000001
1/12/2009
<0.4
<50
13000
<10
<10
24.0
27.0
18
490
<10
14
0.20
2.70
3.20
<5
1 <5
16.00
17.00
48
350
5.4
<10
84
Tater Hill
40004000002
10/2/2007
<0.4
1 <50
130
<10
<10
1.5
1.6
30
32
<10
<10
0.05
1.40
1.40
<5
<5
1.60
1.70
3.9
54
<2
<10
<10
Tater Hill
40004000002
4/1/2008
<0.4
<50
77
<10
<10
1.2
1.2
<10
I <10
<10
<10
0.02
0.45
0.43
<5
<5
1.10
1.00
2.9
37
<2
17
20
Tater Hill
40004000002
7/8/2008
<0.4
<50
85
<10
<10
1.4
1.4
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.05
0.52
0.47
<5
<5
1.40
1.30
4
32
<2
19
23
Tater Hill
40004000002
1/12/2009
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
1.5
1.5
<10
<10
<10
<10
1 0.02
1 0.36
0.39
<5
<5
1.30
1.40
3.8
26
<2
19
16
Tater Hill
40004000002
7/7/2009
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
1.4
1.4
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.03
0.41
0.43
<5
<5
1.30
1.40
5
32
<10
13
Tater Hill
40004000003
10/2/2007
<0.4
<50
160
<10
<10
<10
<10
11
<10
<10
0.02
<5
<5
1
9.2
69
<2
<10
<10
Tater Hill
40004000003
4/2/2008
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
1.8
1.8
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.02
1.20
1.20
<5
<5
4.30
4.30
1
9.4
74
<2
<10
<10
Tater Hill
40004000003
7/9/2008
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
1.9
1 1.8
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.02
1.20
1.10
<5
<5
4.50
4.40
8.2
64
<2
<10
<10
Tater Hill
40004000003
1/13/2009
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
1.9
1.9
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.02
1.20
1.10
<5
1 <5
4.60
4.60
8.9
58
<2
<10
<10
Tater Hill
40004000003
1/13/2009**
<0.4
1
<50
<10
1.9
1.9
1
<10
<10
<0.02
1.20
1.20
<5
4.40
4.40
9.0
58
<2
<10
Tater Hill
40004000003
7/7/2009
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
1.7
1.8
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.02
1.20
<5
<5
4.40
9.5
66
<10
<10
Tater Hill
40004000003
7/7/2009**
<50
<10
1.7
1.7
<10
<10
1.10
1.10
<5
4.30
4.40
<10
Tater Hill
40004000004
10/2/2007
<0.4
980.00
2400
<10
<10
72
110
<10
<10
0.13
1.10
<5
<5
4.30
<2
33
2.8
<10
<10
Tater Hill
40004000004
4/2/2008
<0.4
230.00
840
<10
<10
1.6
1.7
30
42
<10
<10
.0.24
0.33
0.38
<5
<5
1.20
1.30
<2
30
2.0
<10
<10
Tater Hill
40004000004
7/9/2008
<0.4
620
1800
<10
<10
1.3
1.3
58
79
<10
<10
0.13
0.39
0.38
<5
<5
1.50
1.10
<2
32
3.0
<10
<10
Tater Hill
40004000004
1/12/2009
<0.4
140
270
<10
<10
1.7
1.7
17
16
<10
<10
0.24
0.37
0.34
<5
<5
1.20
1.20
<2
<12
2.2
<10
<10
10/12

Attachment A
Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations
GO ARG'ADIS
Fluoride Fluoride Iron Iron Lead Lead Magnesium Magnesium Manganese Manganese Mercury Mercury Nickel Nickel Nitrogen, NO2+ Potassium Potassium Selenium Selenium Sodium Sodium Sulfate Sulfate Sulfide Total Total Zinc Zinc
Total Nitrate Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Organic Dissolved
ug/L as Dis (mg/L (mg/1 as mg/L as (mg/I as mg/L as Solids Carbon total (ug/I as
(mg/1 as F) mg/L as F (ug/l as Fe) ug/L as Fe ug/1 as Pb) ug/L as Pb (mg/I as Mg) g (ug/1 as Mn) ug as Mn (ug/l as Hg) H ( as Ni (mg as N) (mg/I as K) OW O4) J� (ug/L as S) Zn) ug/L as Zn
Eb ".tali.nSampling Date Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved Total NO3 diss. Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total
Tater Hill 40004000004 7/7/2009 <0.4 310 1400 <10 <10 1.1 1.1 38 62 <10 <10 0.13 0.21 0.25 <5 <5 0.92 0.91 <2 29�_"7 <10 <10
Upper Piedmont 40001000001 12/11/2002 <0.5 2800 <10 6.8 79 <10 0.1 1.6 <5 4.5 13 120 <5
Upper Piedmont 40001000001 6/11/2003 <0.08 5600 <10 6.3 56 <10 0.02 0.63 <5 4.6 16 76 <5 28
Upper Piedmont
40001000001
12/8/2003
0.1
7900
<10
8.1
86
<10
0.09
1.6
<5
4.5
15
110
<5
13
Upper Piedmont
40001000001
7/26/2004
<0.2
680
<10
7.1
30
<10
0.05
1.3
<5
4.5
17
120
25
Upper Piedmont
40001000001
3/7/2005
<0.4
<50
1900
<10
<10
7.6
9
20
61
<10
<10
<0.02
0.61
0.65
<5
<5
7.6
7.5
22
110
3.2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000001
9/26/2006
<0.4
960
<10
8.1
24
<10
0.06
1.6
<5
4.9
17
114
<2
<10
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000001
9/18/2007
0.4
<50
<10
6.9
<10
<10
0.06
1.2
<5
5.5
12
108
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000001
9/23/2008
<0.4
<50
140
<10
<10
7.5
7.7
12
10
<10
<10
0.08
1.3
1.5
<5
<5
6.1
6.2
13
110
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
12/11/2002
<0.5
70
<10
7.6
67
<10
1
0.69
1
2
<5
64
1 17
280
<5
<10
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
6/11/2003
0.24
79
<10
6.8
17
<10
1.4
1.8
<5
31
7.4
180
<5
34
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
12/8/2003
0.16
280
<10
6.6
15
<10
2.4
1.8
<5
14
2.7
1 140
<5
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
7/26/2004
<0.2
160
<10
7.4
33
<10
2.2
1.8
<5
12
3.2
160
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
3/7/2005
<0.4
<50
140
<10
<10
7.9
7.9
31
44
<10
<10
2
1.7
1.7
<5
<5
15
15
3.5
140
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
9/26/2006
<0.4
1500
<10
7.4
87
<10
0.96
1.6
<5
12
5.4
132
<2
<10
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
9/18/2007
<0.4
490
<10
6.2
6
65
<10
0.47
1.7
<5
11
3.2
123
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000002
9/23/2008
<0.4
<50
280
<10
<10
24
44
<10
<10
0.19
1.7
1.7
1 <5
<5
1 11
11
4.6
118
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
12/11/2002
1.4
1
200
1
<10
1
4.8
11
<10
<0.02
0.89
<5
18
1
<5
140
<5
41
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
6/11/2003
1.4
<50
<10
4.8
<10
<10
1
<0.02
0.81
<5
15
5.7
140
<5
170
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
12/8/2003
1.2
63
<10
5.1
10
<10
<0.02
0.27
<5
14
5.5
140
<5
140
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
7/26/2004
1.2
240
<10
5.6
12
<10
NA
0.97
<5
15
6
1 170
54
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
3/7/2005
1.3
<50
54
<10
<10
5.7
5.7
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.02
0.83
0.84
<5
<5
19
19
6.2
150
<2
1
200
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
9/26/2006
1.2
<50
<10
5.6
<10
<10
<0.02
0.84
<5
18
6.9
150
<2
15
180
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
9/18/2007
1
<50
<10
5.7
<10
<10
<0.02
0.87
<5
17
5.9
154
<2
180
Upper Piedmont
40001000003
9/23/2008
1
<50
<50
<10
<10
6.1
5.8
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.05
0.89
0.86
<5
<5
19
19
8
148
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
12/11/2002
<0.5
1600
<10
2.6
120
1
1
<10
0.16
2.2
<5
3.5
<5
65
<5
<10
19
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
6/11/2003
0.11
1
1500
1
<10
1
2.3
150
<10
0.11
1.9
<5
1 2.9
1 4.2
54
<5
14
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
12/8/2003
0.1
1200
<10
2.8
1
71
<10
1
0.14
2
<5
3.8
3.2
56
<5
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
7/26/2004
<0.2
510
<10
3.4
200
<10
0.22
1.8
<5
5.1
2
70
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
3/7/2005
<0.4
1200
<10
3.1
89
<10
0.24
2.1
<5
5.3
4.4
1 60
2.4
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
9/26/2006
<0.4
1400
<10
2.8
130
<10
0.08
2.7
<5
3.8
3.3
68
4.5
1
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
9/18/2007
<0.4
590
<10
3.7
130
<10
0.31
2.3
<5
5.9
<2
72
3.5
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000020
9/23/2008
400
630
<10
<10
3.7
3.6
84
97
<10
<10
0.17
2.5
2.4
<5
1 <5
5.5
5.3
3
64
3
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000004
12/11/2002
<0.5
4600
<10
3.3
470
<10
0.81
3.9
<5
6.2
11
120
<5
35
Upper Piedmont
40001000004
6/11/2003
0.15
6700
11.00
2.5
320
<10
0.02
3.4
<5
4.9
15
85
<5
11
Upper Piedmont
40001000004
12/8/2003
0.09
1
3300
1
<10
2.4
350
<10
0.02
3.4
<5
1 4.9
8.8
86
<5
12
Upper Piedmont
40001000004
7/26/2004
<0.2
10000
1 <10
2.2
1
410
1
<10
1
<0.02
3.6
<5
5.8
8.2
76
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000004
3/7/2005
<0.4
760
1600
<10
<10
2.2
2.3
250
290
<10
<10
0.14
3.1
3.2
<5
<5
6.1
6.2
1 9.4
75
<2
<10
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000004
9/26/2006
<0.4
570
<10
2.7
170
<10
<0.02
4
<5
5.8
10
1 82
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000005
12/11/2002
<0.5
<50
<10
7.2
<10
<10
US
1.7
<5
6.9
<5
150
<5
23
Upper Piedmont
40001000005
6/11/2003
0.22
170
<10
7.1
41
<10
0.05
1.8
<5
6.5
2.2
120
1 <5
1 <10
Upper Piedmont
40001000005
12/8/2003
0.2
<50
<10
7.2
<10
<10
0.07
1.8
1 <5
6.5
2.6
110
<5
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000005
7/26/2004
0.2
<50
<10
7.6
<10
<10
0.07
1.9
<5
7
3
130
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000005
7/26/2004**
0.27
<50
<10
8.5
<10
<10
0.07
2
<5
1
7.7
3.9
150
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000005
3/7/2005
<0.4
1 <50
50
1 <10
<10
1 8.5
8.4
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.11
2
2
<5
<5
7.9
1 7.9
3.1
130
<2
<10
29
Upper Piedmont
40001000005
9/26/2006
<0.4
55
<10
7.6
1
<10
<10
I
NA
1.7
<5
6.8
3.4
126
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000006
12/11/2002
0.8
160
<10
7.1
340
1
<10
<0.02
2.4
<5
9
1 <5
170
<5
8900
Upper Piedmont
40001000006
6/11/2003
0.92
51
<10
6.6
410
<10
<0.02
3.6
<5
8.6
3.4
170
<5
6300
Upper Piedmont
40001000006
12/8/2003
1.2
120
<10
5.3
180
<10
0.05
1.3
<5
10
5.5
130
<5
740
Upper Piedmont
40001000006
7/26/2004
0.72
990
<10
7
1000
<10
<0.02
1.6
<5
9.6
4
160
3100
Upper Piedmont
40001000006
3/7/2005
0.8
420
580
<10
<10
7.5
7.7
830
880
<10
<10
0.03
1.6
1.6
<5
<5
11
11
5
140
<2
2000
2100
Upper Piedmont
40001000006
9/26/2006
1.5
330
<10
6.2
330
<10
0.02
1.5
1 <5
14
6.9
153
<2
790
Upper Piedmont
40001000007
7/29/2004
0.9
6200
<10
18
2800
<10
7.1
<5
26
52
200
86
Upper Piedmont
40001000008
12/12/2002
2.2
1
190
11
1
5
130
<10
<0.02
2.1
<5
1 8.9
7
140
<5
35
Upper Piedmont
40001000008
6/9/2003
1.9
200
<10
5
1
130
1
1
<10
1
<0.02
2.1
<5
9.7
10
120
<5
28
Upper Piedmont
40001000008
12/10/2003
1.7
<50
<10
5.5
140
<10
<0.02
2
<5
9.3
9.8
1
130
<5
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000008
7/29/2004
2
<50
<50
<10
<10
6
6.2
150
150
<10
<10
2.1
2.2
<5
<5
9.7
9.9
10
120
<10
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000008
7/29/2004**
2
<50
<50
<10
<10
6.2
6.2
150
150
<10
<10
2.2
2.2
<5
<5
10
10
10
140
<10
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000008
3/7/2005
1.8
<50
<10
6.4
160
<10
<0.02
2.1
<5
10
9.4
130
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000008
9/28/2006
1.8
<50
<10
6.3
140
<10
<0.02
2.1
<5
10
9.7
134
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
12/9/2002
1.6
660.00
<10
3.3
2500
<10
3.7
3.8
1 <5
11
12
120
5.4
30
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
6/9/2003
3.1
130
<10
2.8
1500
<10
2.7
4.4
<5
4.8
16
100
<5
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
12/9/2003
3.6
1
61
1
<10
1
3.8
880
12
3.1
4.2
<5
1
4.4
1
19
81
<5
23
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
7/29/2004
0.88
<50
<50
<10
<10
4.7
4.9
1 130
130
1 <10
<10
1
1 4.5
4.8
<5
<5
8.6
9.1
1 12
150
10
13
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
3/8/2005
1.3
190
<10
4.2
150
<10
7.9
4.3
<5
8.4
13
1 120
<2
1
36
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
9/28/2006
0.44
<50
<10
3.1
25
<10
7.5
3.3
<5
8.9
14
136
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
9/28/2006**
<50
<10
3.3
26
<10
7.4
3.6
<5
9A
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
9/18/2007
<0A
<50
<10
3
18
<10
7.1
3.2
<5
8.9
12
138
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000009
9/24/2008
0.4
<50
230
<10
<10
2.3
2.9
23
25
<10
<10
6
3A
3.2
<5
<5
9.2
9.2
16
120
<2
<10
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
12/9/2002
0.6
5400
14
8.3
120
<10
7.9
2.7
<5
13
<5
140
<5
1 13000
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
6/9/2003
0.45
2000
12
5.7
36
<10
7A
0.99
<5
1 11
4.6
140
<5
10000
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
12/9/2003
0.41
1
5100
1
<10
1
7
69
<10
7.8
1.2
1 <5
12
4.6
130
<5
11000
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
7/29/2004
0.54
<50
560
<10
<10
6.9
6.7
I <10
12
1
1 <10
<10
I
7.6
1 0.87
0.84
<5
<5
13
11
1 <5
150
3200
3100
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
3/8/2005
<0A
2400
<10
7.3
68
<10
9.3
1.1
<5
16
4.5
1 140
<2
7100
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
9/28/2006
<0A
1400
<10
7.3
33
<10
8.6
0.85
<5
15
5A
151
<2
1000
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
9/18/2007
<0A
18000
12
10
190
<10
7.5
2
<5
15
5
148
<2
1700
Upper Piedmont
40001000010
9/24/2008
0.4
<50
5800
<10
<10
7.4
8.9
12
61
<10
<10
8.g
0.89
1.1
<5
<5
16
17
8
156
<2
140
330
Upper Piedmont
40001000011
12/10/2002
<0.5
1600
<10
5.1
220
<10
10
1.8
<5
14
14
150
<5
1
92
Upper Piedmont
40001000011
6/9/2003
0.14
5300
<10
4.7
460
<10
5.1
2
<5
11
17
140
<5
66
Upper Piedmont
40001000011
12/9/2003
0.11
140
<10
4.8
25
<10
9.1
1.6
<5
10
17
120
<5
40
U er Piedmont
40001000011
7/28/2004
<0.2
<50
1200
<10
<10
4.4
4.6
36
77
<10
<10
6
1.6
1.6
<5
<5
9
9.2
16
120
24
51
Upper Piedmont
40001000011
3/9/2005
<0.4
350
<10
3.8
46
<10
3.1
1.6
<5
12
18
100
2.5
23
Upper Piedmont
40001000011
9/28/2006
<0A
690
<10
3.3
41
<10
14
16
<5
11
19
108
<2
27
11/12

Attachment A
Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater
at NCDEQ Groundwater Monitoring and Research Stations
GO ARG'ADIS
Fluoride Fluoride Iron Iron Lead Lead Magnesium Magnesium Manganese Manganese Mercury Mercury Nickel Nickel Nitrogen, NO2+ Potassium Potassium Selenium Selenium Sodium Sodium Sulfate Sulfate Sulfide Total Total Zinc Zinc
".tal,.nSampling Date Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Dissolved Total NO3 diss. Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total
ug/L as Dis (mg/L (mg/I as mg/L as (mg/I as mg/L as Solids Carbon total (ug/I as
Eb Total Nitrate Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Organic Dissolved
(mg/I as F) mg/L as F (ug/I as Fe) ug/ Pb) ug/L as Pb (mg/I as Mg) g (ug/I as Mn) ug/L as Mn (ug/I as Hg) HLug/I as as Ni as N (mg/L as N) �mg/I as K) (ug/I as Se) Se a) 04) SO4 lug/L as S� Zn) ug/L as Zn
11016
Upper Piedmont 40001000012 12/9/2002 3.2 230 <10 6.7 100 <10 0.23 5.5 <5 13 16 170 <5 4400
Upper Piedmont 40001000012 6/9/2003 3 160 <10 7.8 130 <10 0.23 5.5 <5 11 19 180 <5 610
Upper Piedmont 40001000012 12/11/2003 2.8 120 <10 8.6 200 <10 0.12 4.7 <5 12 22 160 <5 2'
Upper Piedmont
40001000012
7/28/2004
3.1
<50
330
<10
<10
10
10
210
220
<10
<10
<0.02
4.2
4.3
<5
<5
12
12
22
200
760
1000
Upper Piedmont
40001000012
3/9/2005
2.9
150
<10
10
230
<10
0.26
5.5
<5
14
21
190
<2
460
Upper Piedmont
40001000012
9/28/2006
2.8
140
<10
10
170
<10
0.32
5.6
<5
13
22
198
<2
270
Upper Piedmont
40001000012
9/28/2006**
2.8
21
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
12/10/2002
<0.5
1300
10
2.3
170
<10
8.1
2.1
<5
14
<5
120
<5
27
Upper Piedmont
1 40001000013
6/10/2003
0.07
1000
<10
1.9
58
<10
9.9
2.1
1
<5
12
<1
130
<5
11
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
12/10/2003
0.05
1000
<10
2
46
<10
9.6
2
<5
13
0.44
130
<5
18
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
7/27/2004
<0.2
<50
280
<10
<10
2
2.2
<10
16
<10
<10
9.4
2.3
2.4
<5
<5
14
15
2.3
170
41
1100
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
7/27/2004**
1
<0.2
1 <50
620
<10
<10
2
2.4
1 <10
65
<10
<10
11
2.2
2.4
<5
18
1 16
5.8
210
14
130
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
3/8/2005
<0.4
240
<10
2.2
12
<10
10
2.2
<5
19
1
<2
130
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
9/27/2006
0.4
650
<10
2.8
82
<10
9.9
2.4
<5
19
<2
151
<2
11
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
9/19/2007
<0.4
140
<10
2.3
<10
<10
11
2.2
<5
18
<2
152
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000013
9/25/2008
<0.4
<50
160
<10
<10
2.6
2.5
<10
<10
<10
<10
12
2.4
2.3
<5
<5
20
19
2
139
<2
<10
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
12/10/2002
<0.5
<50
<10
2.2
18
<10
9.7
1.7
<5
14
<5
120
<5
16
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
6/10/2003
0.06
<50
<10
2.4
<10
<10
9.6
1.9
<5
14
11
130
<5
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
12/10/2003
0.07
<50
<10
2.3
<10
<10
9
1.9
<5
15
10
140
<5
12
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
7/27/2004
<0.2
<50
<50
<10
<10
2.6
2.5
<10
<10
<10
<10
10
2.1
2.1
<5
<5
18
18
4.5
180
1 <10
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
3/8/2005
1
<0.4
1
<50
<10
2.5
1
<10
<10
10
1.9
<5
1 19
1 3.2
1 120
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
9/27/2006
<0.4
<50
<10
2.7
<10
<10
1
10
1.9
<5
19
<2
149
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
9/19/2007
<0.4
<50
<10
2.6
<10
<10
1 11
1.9
<5
18
<2
154
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000014
9/25/2008
<0.4
<50
<50
<10
<10
2.9
2.9
<10
<10
<10
<10
12
2.1
2.1
<5
<5
20
20
<2
144
<2
<10
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
12/10/2002
<0.5
460
<10
1
2.2
67
<10
7
1.1
1 <5
11
25
110
<5
28
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
6/10/2003
0.08
2200
<10
2.4
78
24
7.1
1.3
<5
10
<1
120
<5
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
12/11/2003
0.08
4700
<10
3.3
140
<10
7.6
1.6
<5
12
0.49
100
<5
54
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
7/27/2004
<0.2
<50
230
<10
<10
2.5
2.5
22
29
<10
<10
8
1.4
1.4
<5
<5
12
11
<2
160
<10
10
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
3/8/2005
<0.4
110
<10
2.6
15
<10
8.7
1.3
<5
1
15
1
<2
120
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
9/27/2006
1
<0.4
1
54
<10
1 2.9
<10
<10
9
1.4
<5
16
<2
143
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
9/19/2007
<0.4
54
<10
2.9
<10
<10
1
9.9
1.4
<5
15
<2
150
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
9/19/2007**
<0.4
58
<10
2.9
<10
I
I
<10
1 9.7
1.4
<5
15
<2
150
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000015
9/25/2008
<0.4
<50
1600
<10
<10
3.1
3.5
<10
42
<10
<10
10
1.5
1 1.6
<5
<5
17
16
<2
144
<2
<10
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
12/10/2002
<0.5
70
<10
4.1
<10
<10
8.5
0.87
<5
11
<5
130
<5
4000
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
6/10/2003
0.15
74
<10
4
<10
<10
8.6
0.85
<5
10
1.9
140
<5
1200
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
12/10/2003
0.14
<50
<10
4
<10
<10
8.8
0.84
<5
10
1.8
140
<5
1100
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
7/27/2004
<0.2
<50
<50
1 <10
<10
4.7
4.8
<10
<10
<10
<10
9.4
0.98
0.99
<5
<5
10
12
<2
210
780
800
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
3/8/2005
<0.4
<50
<10
5
1
<10
<10
9.8
0.98
<5
1
14
1
<2
150
<2
610
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
3/8/2005**
<0.4
1
<50
<10
5
<10
<10
9.8
0.98
<5
14
<2
150
<2
1 610
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
9/27/2006
<0.4
180
<10
5.4
<10
<10
1
9.7
1.2
<5
15
2.3
161
<2
750
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
9/18/2007
<0.4
85
<10
5.2
<10
<10
9.9
0.99
<5
13
<2
154
<2
610
Upper Piedmont
40001000016
9/25/2008
<0.4
<50
65
<10
I <10
5.8
5.7
<10
<10
<10
<10
11
1.2
1.1
<5
<5
15
15
3.4
166
<2
300
470
Upper Piedmont
40001000017
12/10/2002
<0.5
4800
13
18
620
<10
<0.02
2.3
<5
7.3
41
210
<5
46
Upper Piedmont
40001000017
6/10/2003
0.18
11000
<10
17
670
<10
<0.02
2.5
<5
8
43
240
<5
26
Upper Piedmont
40001000017
12/9/2003
3200
<10
16
570
<10
<0.02
2.5
<5
8.1
200
<5
16
Upper Piedmont
40001000017
7/28/2004
0.26
770
3200
1 <10
<10
1 18
19
690
780
<10
<10
NA
3
2.9
<5
1 <5
8
1 8.8
52
230
NA
<10
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000017
3/9/2005
<0.4
1600
<10
16
1
650
<10
<0.02
2.3
<5
7.6
39
190
2.5
1
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000017
3/9/2005**
<0.4
1300
<10
16
610
<10
<0.02
2.2
<5
7.6
39
200
2.5
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000017
9/28/2006
<0.4
1700
<10
15
740
1 <10
1
<0.02
2.5
<5
7.2
39
200
<2
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000018
12/10/2002
<0.5
830
<10
12
140
<10
1 0.68
1.9
<5
8.4
55
200
<5
360
Upper Piedmont
40001000018
6/10/2003
0.21
810
<10
12
160
<10
<0.02
1.9
<5
8.2
49
210
<5
1700
Upper Piedmont
40001000018
12/9/2003
0.2
790
<10
11
160
<10
<0.02
1.9
<5
8.6
53
170
<5
1600
Upper Piedmont
40001000018
7/28/2004
0.21
870
840
<10
<10
12
12
170
170
<10
<10
<0.02
2.4
2.3
<5
<5
8.1
8.2
42
210
1500
1600
Upper Piedmont
40001000018
3/9/2005
<0.4
920
<10
13
180
<10
<0.02
2
1
<5
9.6
52
190
<2
1900
Upper Piedmont
40001000018
9/27/2006
<0.4
800
<10
1
12
170
<10
<0.02
2
1 <5
1 9.3
51
211
<2
1100
Upper Piedmont
40001000019
12/10/2002
<0.5
260
<10
5.4
1
74
<10
<0.02
2.2
<5
11
1 51
200
<5
1300
Upper Piedmont
40001000019
6/10/2003
0.22
360
<10
6.4
84
<10
<0.02
2.7
<5
9.5
40
200
<5
730
Upper Piedmont
40001000019
12/9/2003
0.26
330
<10
6.8
88
1 <10
1
<0.02
2.7
<5
10
48
160
<5
470
560
Upper Piedmont
40001000019
7/28/2004
0.56
290
280
<10
<10
7.8
7.5
81
80
<10
<10
NA
3.1
2.9
<5
<5
12
12
58
210
470
490
Upper Piedmont
40001000019
7/28/2004**
0.55
270
280
<10
<10
7.2
7.4
84
80
<10
<10
NA
2.8
2.9
<5
<5
11
11
59
220
500
Upper Piedmont
40001000019
3/9/2005
0.4
320
<10
8
1 86
<10
<0.02
1
2.9
<5
13
61
200
2.3
550
Upper Piedmont
40001000019
9/27/2006
0.5
290
<10
7.1
76
<10
<0.02
2.8
<5
17
71
228
<2
380
Upper Piedmont
40001000021
12/10/2002
0.6
440
<10
4.8
130
<10
0.68
7.5
<5
12
<5
130
<5
24
Upper Piedmont
40001000021
6/10/2003
0.21
840
<10
1
3.5
97
<10
0.58
2.9
1 <5
6.3
12
96
<5
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000021
12/9/2003
1 0.18
1 380
<10
1 4
110
<10
0.9
3.4
<5
9.6
1
1 13
98
<5
<10
Upper Piedmont
40001000021
7/28/2004
1
0.47
<50
1 1100
1 <10
<10
5.2
5.2
54
110
<10
<10
0.2
6.6
6.4
<5
<5
9.9
9.3
33
130
<10
<10
Upper Piedmont
1 40001000021
3/9/2005
0.4
960
<10
4.2
100
1 <10
1
0.8
3
<5
11
11
90
4
<10
U er Piedmont
40001000021
9/27/2006
<0.4
630
<10
4.7
120
<10
0.42
11
<5
9.4
16
115
2.2
<10
Notes:
ND - not detected
Langtree
* Represents total analysis in unfiltered samples
Upper Piedmont and Tater Hill
* Below measure point
** Duplicate sample
Source: NCDEQ 2019
12/12

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
UPPER TOLERANCE LIMITS
(PROUCL OUTPUT
SynTerra

Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Normal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:10:30 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95
Coverage 95
Different or Future K Observations 1

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Barium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11
Minimum
8
Second Largest
17
Maximum
19
Mean
13.36
Coefficient of Variation
0.237
Mean of logged Data
2.566
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815
Number of Distinct Observations
8
Number of Missing Observations
1
First Quartile
12
Median
13
Third Quartile
15.5
SD
3.171
Skewness
0.191
SD of logged Data
0.246
d2max (for USL) 2.234
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.972
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.182
Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 22.29
90% Percentile (z) 17.43
95% UPL (t) 19.37
95% Percentile (z) 18.58
95% USL 20.45
99% Percentile (z) 20.74
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Chloride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11
Minimum
0.56
Second Largest
3.3
Maximum
3.3
Mean
2.26
Coefficient of Variation
0.418
Mean of logged Data
0.702
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815
Number of Distinct Observations 9
Number of Missing Observations 1
First Quartile
1.6
Median
2.4
Third Quartile
3.15
SD
0.946
Skewness
-0.486
SD of logged Data
0.555
d2max (for USL) 2.234
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.915 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.176 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 4.922 90% Percentile (z) 3.472
95% UPL (t) 4.05 95% Percentile (z) 3.815
95% USL 4.372 99% Percentile (z) 4.46
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Appendix A
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Cobalt
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
11
Number of Distinct Observations
8
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Detects
7
Number of Non -Detects
4
Number of Distinct Detects
7
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.667
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Detect
2.14
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Variance Detected
0.27
Percent Non -Detects
36.36%
Mean Detected
1.199
SD Detected
0.519
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.105
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.418
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 d2max (for USL) 2.234
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.908 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.803 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.229 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.304 Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 1.011 SD
0.457
95% UTL95% Coverage 2.298 95% KM UPL (t)
1.876
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 3.093 90% KM Percentile (z)
1.597
95% KM Percentile (z) 1.763 99% KM Percentile (z)
2.075
95% KM USL 2.032
DU2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.945 SD
0.535
95% UTL95 % Coverage 2.45 95% UPL (t)
1.957
90% Percentile (z) 1.63 95% Percentile (z)
1.825
99% Percentile (z) 2.189 95% USL
2.14
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Magnesium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11
Minimum
0.577
Second Largest
1.24
Maximum
1.25
Mean
0.832
Coefficient of Variation
0.283
Mean of logged Data
-0.218
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815
Number of Distinct Observations 11
Number of Missing Observations 1
First Quartile
0.66
Median
0.749
Third Quartile
0.938
SD
0.236
Skewness
0.991
SD of logged Data
0.265
d2max (for USL) 2.234
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.866 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.203 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1.495 90% Percentile (z) 1.134
95% UPL (t) 1.278 95% Percentile (z) 1.219
95% USL 1.358 99% Percentile (z) 1.38
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Potassium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11
Minimum
1.22
Second Largest
3.29
Maximum
4.6
Mean
2.198
Coefficient of Variation
0.466
Mean of logged Data
0.704
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815
Number of Distinct Observations 11
Number of Missing Observations 1
First Quartile
1.465
Median
1.98
Third Quartile
2.56
SD
1.023
Skewness
1.463
SD of logged Data
0.414
d2max (for USL) 2.234
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.855 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.19 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 5.079 90% Percentile (z) 3.51
95% UPL (t) 4.135 95% Percentile (z) 3.881
95% USL 4.484 99% Percentile (z) 4.579
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Sodium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11
Minimum
0.807
Second Largest
5.43
Maximum
5.49
Mean
3.773
Coefficient of Variation
0.424
Mean of logged Data
1.198
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815
Number of Distinct Observations 11
Number of Missing Observations 1
First Quartile
2.735
Median
4.11
Third Quartile
4.93
SD
1.598
Skewness
-0.785
SD of logged Data
0.608
d2max (for USL) 2.234
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.901
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.208
Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 8.273
90% Percentile (z) 5.822
95% UPL (t) 6.799
95% Percentile (z) 6.402
95% USL 7.344
99% Percentile (z) 7.492
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Sulfate
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11
Minimum
0.87
Second Largest
2.2
Maximum
2.3
Mean
1.484
Coefficient of Variation
0.319
Mean of logged Data
0.349
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815
Number of Distinct Observations 10
Number of Missing Observations 1
First Quartile
1.15
Median
1.4
Third Quartile
1.7
SD
0.473
Skewness
0.552
SD of logged Data
0.318
d2max (for USL) 2.234
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.942 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.85 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.13 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.251 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 2.815 90% Percentile (z) 2.09
95% UPL (t) 2.379 95% Percentile (z) 2.262
95% USL 2.54 99% Percentile (z) 2.584
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Two -Sided 95% Tolerance Intervals of pH
Percent of
Parametric
Parametric
Population
Lower
Upper
Between
Tolerance
Tolerance
Limits
Limit
Limit
95
4.867073
6.899594

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Gamma Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:11:47 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95
Coverage 95

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Calcium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11
Minimum
0.843
Second Largest
5.1
Maximum
8.1
Mean
2.989
Coefficient of Variation
0.739
Mean of logged Data
0.872
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Number of Missing Observations
1
First Quartile
1.56
Median
2.12
Third Quartile
4.24
SD
2.21
Skewness
1.396
SD of logged Data
0.691
d2max (for USL) 2.234
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.428 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.737 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.237 Kolmogorov-Smimov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.258 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
2.391
Theta hat (MLE)
1.25
nu hat (MLE)
52.59
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
2.989
k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.799
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 1.661
nu star (bias corrected) 39.58
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 2.229
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 7.85 90% Percentile
5.962
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 8.029 95% Percentile
7.335
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 11.98 99% Percentile
10.4
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 12.74
95% WH USL 9.241 95% HW USL
9.583
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Appendix A
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Chromium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
11
Number of Distinct Observations
8
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Detects
7
Number of Non -Detects
4
Number of Distinct Detects
7
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
0.851
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Detect
7.17
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Variance Detected
5.11
Percent Non -Detects
36.36%
Mean Detected
2.372
SD Detected
2.261
Mean of Detected Logged Data
0.58
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.75
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 d2max (for USL) 2.234
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.613 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.716 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.266 Kolmogorov-Smimov GOF
5% K-S Critical Value 0.315 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
KM Mean 1.819 KM SD
1.823
95% UTL95% Coverage 6.95 95% KM UPL (t)
5.269
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 10.12 90% KM Percentile (z)
4.155
95% KM Percentile (z) 4.817 99% KM Percentile (z)
6.059
95% KM USL 5.89
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.916 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.19
Theta hat (MLE) 1.238 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1.993
nu hat (MLE) 26.82 nu star (bias corrected)
16.66
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 2.372
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 2.174 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
6.709
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50 % NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01 Mean
1.524
Maximum 7.17 Median
1.06
SD 2.109 CV
1.384
k hat (MLE) 0.435 k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.377
Theta hat (MLE) 3.5 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
4.04
nu hat (MLE) 9.579 nu star (bias corrected)
8.3
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.524 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
2.481
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 3.199 90% Percentile
4.348
95% Percentile 6.461 99% Percentile
11.81
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 15.15 20.99 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 7.513
8.967
95% Gamma USL 9.928 12.55

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Chromium (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM) 1.819
SD (KM)
1.823
Variance (KM) 3.322
SE of Mean (KM)
0.594
k hat (KM) 0.996
k star (KM)
0.785
nu hat (KM) 21.9
nu star (KM)
21.9
theta hat (KM) 1.827
theta star (KM)
2.318
80% gamma percentile (KM) 2.975
90 % gamma percentile (KM)
4.443
95% gamma percentile (KM) 5.941
99% gamma percentile (KM)
9.484
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
WH HW
WH
HW
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 7.605 7.796 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 4.875
4.836
95% KM Gamma Percentile 4.272 4.208 95% Gamma USL 5.791
5.808
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
TDS
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11
Minimum
26
Second Largest
57
Maximum
110
Mean
48.64
Coefficient of Variation
0.48
Mean of logged Data
3.801
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Number of Missing Observations
1
First Quartile
32
Median
51
Third Quartile
53.5
SD
23.34
Skewness
1.948
SD of logged Data
0.412
d2max (for USL) 2.234
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.556 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.731 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance
Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.205 Kolmogorov-Smimov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.256 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance
Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 6.124 k star (bias corrected MLE)
4.514
Theta hat (MLE) 7.942 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
10.77
nu hat (MLE) 134.7 nu star (bias corrected)
99.32
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 48.64 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
22.89
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 94.61 90% Percentile
79.3
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 95.17 95% Percentile
91.36
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 127.4 99% Percentile
117
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 130.3
95% WH USL 106 95% HW USL
107.2
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Total Radium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 10
Minimum
0.332
Second Largest
0.845
Maximum
1.56
Mean
0.684
Coefficient of Variation
0.514
Mean of logged Data
-0.475
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.911
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Number of Missing Observations
2
First Quartile
0.518
Median
0.567
Third Quartile
0.804
SD
0.352
Skewness
1.91
SD of logged Data
0.441
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.397 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.729 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.169 Kolmogorov-Smimov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.267 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 5.414 k star (bias corrected MLE)
3.856
Theta hat (MLE) 0.126 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.177
nu hat (MILE) 108.3 nu star (bias corrected)
77.13
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.684 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.348
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 1.396 90% Percentile
1.151
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 1.407 95% Percentile
1.339
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1.949 99% Percentile
1.741
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 2.005
95% WH USL 1.527 95% HW USL
1.546
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Lognormal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:12:48 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95
Coverage 95
Different or Future K Observations 1
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Appendix A
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Alkalinity
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
11
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Detects
10
Number of Non -Detects
1
Number of Distinct Detects
8
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect
9.5
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Detect
26.4
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Variance Detected
29.31
Percent Non -Detects
9.091 %
Mean Detected
14.89
SD Detected
5.414
Mean of Detected Logged Data
2.65
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.321
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815 d2max (for USL) 2.234
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.882 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
0.842 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.262 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
0.262 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
13.99 SD
5.663
95% UTL95% Coverage
29.93 95% KM UPL (t)
24.71
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
39.77 90% KM Percentile (z)
21.25
95% KM Percentile (z)
23.31 99% KM Percentile (z)
27.16
95% KM USL
26.64
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale
14.14 Mean in Log Scale
2.581
SD in Original Scale
5.709 SD in Log Scale
0.381
95% UTL95% Coverage
38.64 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
26.4
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95% Coverage
26.4 95% UPL (t)
27.19
90% Percentile (z)
21.54 95% Percentile (z)
24.74
99% Percentile (z)
32.07 95% USL
30.96
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
2.556 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95% Coverage
41.68
KM SD of Logged Data
0.417 95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
28.37
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
25.58 95% KM USL (Lognormal)
32.71
Background DL/2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
13.76 Mean in Log Scale
2.493
SD in Original Scale
6.351 SD in Log Scale
0.605
95% UTL95% Coverage
66.44 95% UPL (t)
38.03
90% Percentile (z)
26.27 95% Percentile (z)
32.73
99% Percentile (z)
49.43 95% USL
46.74
DU2 is not a Recommended Method. DU2
provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:13:22 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95
Coverage 85
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Arsenic
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11
Minimum
0.52
Second Largest
1.11
Maximum
1.53
Mean
1.006
Coefficient of Variation
0.229
Mean of logged Data
-0.0201
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.891
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
5
Number of Missing Observations
1
First Quartile
1
Median
1
Third Quartile
1
SD
0.231
Skewness
0.289
SD of logged Data
0.25
d2max (for USL) 2.234
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
11
95% UTL with 85% Coverage
1.53
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.941
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.833
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
19
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage
1.53
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage
1.32
95% UPL
1.53
90% Percentile
1.11
90% Chebyshev UPL
1.729
95% Percentile
1.32
95% Chebyshev UPL
2.056
99% Percentile
1.488
95% USL
1.53
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Lead
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11
Minimum
0.383
Second Largest
1.42
Maximum
1.96
Mean
1.082
Coefficient of Variation
0.349
Mean of logged Data
0.0177
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.891
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
5
Number of Missing Observations
1
First Quartile
1
Median
1
Third Quartile
1.07
SD
0.377
Skewness
0.841
SD of logged Data
0.389
d2max (for USL) 2.234
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
11
95% UTL with 85% Coverage
1.96
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.941
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.833
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
19
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage
1.96
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage
1.96
95% UPL
1.96
90% Percentile
1.42
90% Chebyshev UPL
2.265
95% Percentile
1.69
95% Chebyshev UPL
2.8
99% Percentile
1.906
95% USL
1.96
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Appendix A
Molybdenum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 11
Minimum
0.205
Second Largest
1.97
Maximum
10.3
Mean
1.792
Coefficient of Variation
1.595
Mean of logged Data
0.02
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.891
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 6
Number of Missing Observations 1
First Quartile
0.951
Median
1
Third Quartile
1
SD
2.857
Skewness
3.172
SD of logged Data
0.981
d2max (for USL) 2.234
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
11
95% UTL with 85% Coverage
10.3
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.941
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.833
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
19
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage
10.3
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85% Coverage
6.135
95% UPL
10.3
90% Percentile
1.97
90% Chebyshev UPL
10.74
95% Percentile
6.135
95% Chebyshev UPL
14.8
99% Percentile
9.467
95% USL
10.3
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Normal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:31:27 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95
Coverage 95
Different or Future K Observations 1

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Chromium VI
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
15
Number of Missing Observations
25
Number of Detects
8
Number of Distinct Detects
8
Minimum Detect
0.055
Maximum Detect
0.96
Variance Detected
0.0746
Mean Detected
0.641
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-0.661
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.566
Number of Distinct Observations 10
Number of Non -Detects
7
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.025
Maximum Non -Detect
0.03
Percent Non -Detects
46.67 %
SD Detected
0.273
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.925
d2max (for USL) 2.409
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.88 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.204 Lilliefors GOF Test
5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.283 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.353 SD 0.359
95 % UTL95 % Coverage 1.275 95 % KM UPL (t) 1.007
95 % KM Chebyshev UPL 1.971 90 % KM Percentile (z) 0.814
95 % KM Percentile (z) 0.944 99 % KM Percentile (z) 1.189
95 % KM USL 1.219
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.348 SD 0.377
95 % UTL95 % Coverage 1.315 95 % UPL (t) 1.034
90 % Percentile (z) 0.831 95 % Percentile (z) 0.968
99 % Percentile (z) 1.225 95 % USL 1.256
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Methane
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
11
Number of Missing Observations
21
Number of Detects
7
Number of Distinct Detects
7
Minimum Detect
19.4
Maximum Detect
2260
Variance Detected
507098
Mean Detected
912.9
Mean of Detected Logged Data
6.273
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.815
Number of Distinct Observations 8
Number of Non -Detects
4
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
10
Maximum Non -Detect
10
Percent Non -Detects
36.36 %
SD Detected
712.1
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.553
d2max (for USL) 2.234
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.93 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.803 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.237 Lilliefors GOF Test
5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.304 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 584.6 SD 682.1
95 % UTL95 % Coverage 2505 95 % KM UPL (t) 1876
95 % KM Chebyshev UPL 3690 90 % KM Percentile (z) 1459
95 % KM Percentile (z) 1707 99 % KM Percentile (z) 2171
95% KM USL 2108
DU2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 582.8 SD 717
95 % UTL95 % Coverage 2601 95 % UPL (t) 1940
90 % Percentile (z) 1502 95 % Percentile (z) 1762
99 % Percentile (z) 2251 95 % USL 2184
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Gamma Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:32:09 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95
Coverage 95

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix A
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Aluminum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 35 Number of Distinct Observations
30
Number of Missing Observations 5
Number of Detects 33 Number of Non -Detects
2
Number of Distinct Detects 30 Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Detect 14 Minimum Non -Detect
100
Maximum Detect 678 Maximum Non -Detect
100
Variance Detected 25837 Percent Non -Detects
5.714 %
Mean Detected 184.7 SD Detected
160.7
Mean of Detected Logged Data 4.799 SD of Detected Logged Data
0.997
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.157 d2max (for USL)
2.812
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.547 Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5 % A-D Critical Value 0.769 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.153 Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5 % K-S Critical Value 0.157 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
KM Mean 177.1 KM SD
156.8
95% UTL95% Coverage 515.4 95% KM UPL (t)
446.1
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 870.4 90% KM Percentile (z)
378.1
95% KM Percentile (z) 435.1 99% KM Percentile (z)
541.9
95% KM USL 618.1
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.332 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.231
Theta hat (MLE) 138.6 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
150
nu hat (MLE) 87.93 nu star (bias corrected)
81.27
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 184.7
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 166.4 95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
6.86
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum 14 Mean
177.2
Maximum 678 Median
100
SD 159.1 CV
0.898
k hat (MLE) 1.3 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.208
Theta hat (MLE) 136.3 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
146.7
nu hat (MLE) 91.03 nu star (bias corrected)
84.56
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 177.2 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
161.2
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 6.775 90% Percentile
389.4
95% Percentile 496.9 99% Percentile
743.1
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROB 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 659.4 706 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 506.4
526.3
95% Gamma USL 938.2 1052

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Aluminum (Continued)
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
177.1
Variance (KM)
24591
k hat (KM)
1.276
nu hat (KM)
89.32
theta hat (KM)
138.8
80 % gamma percentile (KM)
280.8
95% gamma percentile (KM)
499.9
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
SD (KM)
156.8
SE of Mean (KM)
26.93
k star (KM)
1.186
nu star (KM)
89.32
theta star (KM)
149.4
90 % gamma percentile (KM)
391.1
99 % gamma percentile (KM)
749.6
WH HW WH
95% Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 647.9 692.4 95% Approx. Gamma UPL 498.7
95% KM Gamma Percentile 477.4 493.2 95% Gamma USL 919.4
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
HW
517.5
1028

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
I ron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 35
Minimum 48
Second Largest 1010
Maximum 1130
Mean 413.2
Coefficient of Variation 0.718
Mean of logged Data 5.751
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.157
Number of Distinct Observations
35
Number of Missing Observations
5
First Quartile
182
Median
326
Third Quartile
572
SD
296.5
Skewness
0.919
SD of logged Data
0.787
d2max (for USL) 2.812
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.354 Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5 % A-D Critical Value 0.76 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.109 Kolmogorov-Smimov Gamma GOF Test
5 % K-S Critical Value 0.151 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
1.982
Theta hat (MLE)
208.4
nu hat (MLE)
138.8
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
413.2
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 1027
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 1058
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1288
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1356
95% WH USL 1750
k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.832
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 225.6
nu star (bias corrected) 128.2
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 305.3
90 % Percentile 820.5
95% Percentile 1008
99 % Percentile 1426
95% HW USL 1907
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Manganese
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 35
Minimum 18
Second Largest 248
Maximum 683
Mean 131.7
Coefficient of Variation 0.902
Mean of logged Data 4.57
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.157
Number of Distinct Observations
32
Number of Missing Observations
5
First Quartile
63
Median
105
Third Quartile
178.5
SD
118.8
Skewness
3.057
SD of logged Data
0.825
d2max (for USL) 2.812
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.337
Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.763
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.0908
Kolmogorov-Smimov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.151
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at
5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 1.76
Theta hat (MLE) 74.84
nu hat (MLE) 123.2
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 131.7
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 337.4
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 345.9
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 427
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 447.6
95% WH USL 586.9
k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.628
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 80.9
nu star (bias corrected) 114
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 103.2
90% Percentile 269
95% Percentile 333.9
99 % Percentile 479.5
95% HW USL 637.5
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Appendix A
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Nitrate Nitrite
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 15
Number of Distinct Observations
13
Number of Missing Observations 25
Number of Detects 12
Number of Non -Detects
3
Number of Distinct Detects 12
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Detect 0.019
Minimum Non -Detect
0.01
Maximum Detect 0.664
Maximum Non -Detect
0.02
Variance Detected 0.0324
Percent Non -Detects
20 %
Mean Detected 0.168
SD Detected
0.18
Mean of Detected Logged Data -2.34
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.195
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.566
d2max (for USL)
2.409
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic 0.482
Anderson -Darling GOF Test
5 % A-D Critical Value 0.756 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance
Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.196
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF
5 % K-S Critical Value 0.252 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance
Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
KM Mean 0.137
KM SD
0.166
95% UTL95% Coverage 0.564
95% KM UPL (t)
0.44
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.886
90% KM Percentile (z)
0.35
95% KM Percentile (z) 0.411
99% KM Percentile (z)
0.524
95% KM USL 0.538
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE) 1.031
k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.829
Theta hat (MLE) 0.163
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.203
nu hat (MLE) 24.75
nu star (bias corrected)
19.89
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.168
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.185
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar)
5.31
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non -Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detects is small such as <1.0, especially when the sample size is small (e.g., <15-20)
For such situations, GROS method may yield incorrect values of UCLs and BTVs
This is especially true when the sample size is small.
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution
on KM estimates
Minimum 0.01
Mean
0.137
Maximum 0.664
Median
0.08
SD 0.172
CV
1.262
k hat (MLE) 0.747
k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.642
Theta hat (MLE) 0.183
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.213
nu hat (MLE) 22.4
nu star (bias corrected)
19.25
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.137
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
0.171
95% Percentile of Chisquare (2kstar) 4.507
90% Percentile
0.35
95% Percentile 0.48
99% Percentile
0.792

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Nitrate -Nitrite (Continued)
The following statistics are computed using Gamma ROS Statistics on Imputed Data
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW) Methods
WH
HW
WH
HW
95 % Approx. Gamma UTL with 95 % Coverage 0.867
1
95 % Approx. Gamma UPL 0.518
0.553
95%Gamma USL 0.783
0.89
Estimates of Gamma Parameters using KM Estimates
Mean (KM)
0.137
SD (KM)
0.166
Variance (KM)
0.0277
SE of Mean (KM)
0.0449
k hat (KM)
0.676
k star (KM)
0.585
nu hat (KM)
20.27
nu star (KM)
20.27
theta hat (KM)
0.202
theta star (KM)
0.234
80 % gamma percentile (KM)
0.225
90 % gamma percentile (KM)
0.358
95 % gamma percentile (KM)
0.497
99 % gamma percentile (KM)
0.834
The following statistics are computed using gamma distribution and KM estimates
Upper Limits using Wilson Hilferty (WH) and Hawkins Wixley (HW)
Methods
WH
HW
WH
HW
95 % Approx. Gamma UTL with 95 % Coverage 0.815
0.93
95 % Approx. Gamma UPL 0.492
0.522
95 % KM Gamma Percentile 0.432
0.45
95 % Gamma USL 0.738
0.829
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Lognormal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:32:50 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95
Coverage 95
Different or Future K Observations 1
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Total Radium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 17
Minimum
0.706
Second Largest
15.95
Maximum
34.88
Mean
5.912
Coefficient of Variation
1.395
Mean of logged Data
1.295
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.486
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Number of Missing Observations
23
First Quartile
2.19
Median
2.83
Third Quartile
4.93
SD
8.248
Skewness
3.126
SD of logged Data
0.907
d2max (for USL) 2.475
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.935 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.892 Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.142 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.207 Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95 % UTL with 95 % Coverage 34.79 90 % Percentile (z) 11.67
95 % UPL (t) 18.62 95 % Percentile (z) 16.22
95 % USL 34.44 99 % Percentile (z) 30.1
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:34:04 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95
Coverage 90
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Alkalinity
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 29
Minimum 38
Second Largest 302
Maximum 303
Mean 149.4
Coefficient of Variation 0.649
Mean of logged Data 4.744
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.788
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 27
Number of Missing Observations 11
First Quartile
53.8
Median
203
Third Quartile
228
SD
96.97
Skewness
0.0874
SD of logged Data
0.774
d2max (for USL) 2.73
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
28
95% UTL with 90% Coverage
302
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.556
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.801
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
46
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
302
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
302.2
95% UPL
302.5
90% Percentile
257.4
90% ChebyshevUPL
445.2
95% Percentile
284.8
95% ChebyshevUPL
579.3
99% Percentile
302.7
95% USL
303
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Appendix A
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Barium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
40
Number of Distinct Observations
29
Minimum
13
First Quartile
20
Second Largest
69
Median
42.5
Maximum
71
Third Quartile
60.4
Mean
41.82
SD
19.96
Coefficient of Variation
0.477
Skewness
-0.176
Mean of logged Data
3.588
SD of logged Data
0.583
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.69 d2max (for USL) 2.868
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
38
95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage
67.7
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.407
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.777
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
67.83
95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
67.83
95 % UPL
68.94
90 % Percentile
65.1
90 % Chebyshev UPL
102.4
95 % Percentile
67.77
95 % Chebyshev UPL
129.9
99 % Percentile
70.22
95 % USL
71
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Calcium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 29
Minimum
10.9
Second Largest
59.2
Maximum
59.9
Mean
33.19
Coefficient of Variation
0.637
Mean of logged Data
3.247
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.788
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 25
Number of Missing Observations 11
First Quartile
11.7
Median
49.1
Third Quartile
51.3
SD
21.16
Skewness
-0.0222
SD of logged Data
0.764
d2max (for USL) 2.73
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
28
95% UTL with 90% Coverage
59.2
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.556
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.801
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
46
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
59.34
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
59.34
95% UPL
59.55
90% Percentile
57.04
90% ChebyshevUPL
97.75
95% Percentile
58.4
95% ChebyshevUPL
127
99% Percentile
59.7
95% USL
59.9
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Appendix A
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Chloride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
40
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Minimum
3.4
First Quartile
4.4
Second Largest
39
Median
30
Maximum
42
Third Quartile
33.08
Mean
22.9
SD
14.21
Coefficient of Variation
0.621
Skewness
-0.487
Mean of logged Data
2.773
SD of logged Data
0.992
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.69 d2max (for USL) 2.868
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
38
95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage
39
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.407
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.777
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
39
95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
39
95 % UPL
39
90 % Percentile
37.2
90 % Chebyshev UPL
66.06
95 % Percentile
39
95 % Chebyshev UPL
85.61
99 % Percentile
40.83
95 % USL
42
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Appendix A
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Chromium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
40
Number of Distinct Observations
18
Minimum
0.5
First Quartile
1.028
Second Largest
7.5
Median
3.52
Maximum
10.2
Third Quartile
5
Mean
3.359
SD
2.331
Coefficient of Variation
0.694
Skewness
0.586
Mean of logged Data
0.918
SD of logged Data
0.826
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.69 d2max (for USL) 2.868
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
38
95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage
6
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.407
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.777
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
6.15
95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
6.06
95 % UPL
7.425
90 % Percentile
5.09
90 % Chebyshev UPL
10.44
95 % Percentile
6.075
95 % Chebyshev UPL
13.65
99 % Percentile
9.147
95 % USL
10.2
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Copper
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 35
Minimum
0.582
Second Largest
5
Maximum
5
Mean
3.225
Coefficient of Variation
0.618
Mean of logged Data
0.894
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.724
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
7
Number of Missing Observations
5
First Quartile
1
Median
5
Third Quartile
5
SD
1.991
Skewness
-0.249
SD of logged Data
0.825
d2max (for USL) 2.812
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
34
95% UTL with 90% Coverage
5
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.889
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.878
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
46
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
5
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
5
95% UPL
5
90% Percentile
5
90% ChebyshevUPL
9.284
95% Percentile
5
95% ChebyshevUPL
12.03
99% Percentile
5
95% USL
5
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Magnesium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 29
Minimum
3.02
Second Largest
13.5
Maximum
13.9
Mean
7.39
Coefficient of Variation
0.564
Mean of logged Data
1.817
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.788
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 23
Number of Missing Observations 11
First Quartile
3.28
Median
9.9
Third Quartile
10.8
SD
4.17
Skewness
0.0643
SD of logged Data
0.637
d2max (for USL) 2.73
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
28
95% UTL with 90% Coverage
13.5
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.556
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.801
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
46
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
13.5
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
13.5
95% UPL
13.7
90% Percentile
12.06
90% ChebyshevUPL
20.11
95% Percentile
13.02
95% ChebyshevUPL
25.88
99% Percentile
13.79
95% USL
13.9
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Appendix A
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Mercury
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
40
Number of Distinct Observations
8
Minimum
0.02
First Quartile
0.05
Second Largest
0.2
Median
0.05
Maximum
0.2
Third Quartile
0.065
Mean
0.0785
SD
0.0576
Coefficient of Variation
0.734
Skewness
1.533
Mean of logged Data
-2.74
SD of logged Data
0.592
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.69 d2max (for USL) 2.868
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
38
95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage
0.2
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.407
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.777
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
0.2
95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
0.2
95 % UPL
0.2
90 % Percentile
0.2
90 % Chebyshev UPL
0.253
95 % Percentile
0.2
95 % Chebyshev UPL
0.333
99 % Percentile
0.2
95 % USL
0.2
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Molybdenum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 29
Minimum
0.342
Second Largest
1.42
Maximum
1.75
Mean
0.954
Coefficient of Variation
0.285
Mean of logged Data
-0.0978
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.788
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
8
Number of Missing Observations
11
First Quartile
1
Median
1
Third Quartile
1
SD
0.272
Skewness
-0.0633
SD of logged Data
0.351
d2max (for USL) 2.73
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
28
95% UTL with 90% Coverage
1.42
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.556
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.801
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
46
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
1.42
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
1
95% UPL
1.585
90% Percentile
1
90% ChebyshevUPL
1.783
95% Percentile
1.252
95% ChebyshevUPL
2.159
99% Percentile
1.658
95% USL
1.75
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Nickel
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 35
Minimum
0.355
Second Largest
5.2
Maximum
9.4
Mean
3.44
Coefficient of Variation
0.633
Mean of logged Data
0.942
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.724
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
14
Number of Missing Observations
5
First Quartile
1
Median
5
Third Quartile
5
SD
2.179
Skewness
0.234
SD of logged Data
0.878
d2max (for USL) 2.812
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
34
95% UTL with 90% Coverage
5.2
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.889
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.878
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
46
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
5.2
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
5
95% UPL
6.04
90% Percentile
5
90% ChebyshevUPL
10.07
95% Percentile
5.06
95% ChebyshevUPL
13.07
99% Percentile
7.972
95% USL
9.4
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Potassium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 29
Minimum
1.33
Second Largest
3.61
Maximum
5
Mean
2.485
Coefficient of Variation
0.443
Mean of logged Data
0.809
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.788
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
24
Number of Missing Observations
11
First Quartile
1.41
Median
3.23
Third Quartile
3.36
SD
1.101
Skewness
0.255
SD of logged Data
0.465
d2max (for USL) 2.73
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
28
95% UTL with 90% Coverage
3.61
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.556
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.801
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
46
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
3.888
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
3.61
95% UPL
4.305
90% Percentile
3.496
90% ChebyshevUPL
5.844
95% Percentile
3.59
95% ChebyshevUPL
7.366
99% Percentile
4.611
95% USL
5
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Sodium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 29
Minimum
8.71
Second Largest
53.3
Maximum
56
Mean
28.7
Coefficient of Variation
0.679
Mean of logged Data
3.055
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.788
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 27
Number of Missing Observations 11
First Quartile
9.05
Median
42.6
Third Quartile
45.1
SD
19.48
Skewness
-0.0064
SD of logged Data
0.837
d2max (for USL) 2.73
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
28
95% UTL with 90% Coverage
53.3
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.556
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.801
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
46
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
53.84
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
53.84
95% UPL
54.65
90% Percentile
50.02
90% ChebyshevUPL
88.12
95% Percentile
52.5
95% ChebyshevUPL
115
99% Percentile
55.24
95% USL
56
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Appendix A
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Sulfate
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
40
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Minimum
0.96
First Quartile
1.1
Second Largest
7.7
Median
5.05
Maximum
8.3
Third Quartile
5.6
Mean
4.074
SD
2.371
Coefficient of Variation
0.582
Skewness
-0.253
Mean of logged Data
1.143
SD of logged Data
0.817
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.69 d2max (for USL) 2.868
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
38
95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage
7.5
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.407
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.777
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
7.52
95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
7.52
95 % UPL
7.69
90 % Percentile
6.93
90 % Chebyshev UPL
11.27
95 % Percentile
7.51
95 % Chebyshev UPL
14.54
99 % Percentile
8.066
95 % USL
8.3
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
TDS
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
40
Minimum
81
Second Largest
430
Maximum
450
Mean
264.5
Coefficient of Variation
0.488
Mean of logged Data
5.414
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.69
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
28
First Quartile
107.5
Median
312
Third Quartile
370
SD
129.2
Skewness
-0.379
SD of logged Data
0.629
d2max (for USL) 2.868
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
38
95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage
430
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.407
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.777
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
430
95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
430
95 % UPL
430
90 % Percentile
401.2
90 % Chebyshev UPL
656.7
95 % Percentile
430
95 % Chebyshev UPL
834.4
99 % Percentile
442.2
95 % USL
450
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Zinc
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 35
Minimum
1.962
Second Largest
15
Maximum
23
Mean
7.342
Coefficient of Variation
0.556
Mean of logged Data
1.877
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.724
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Number of Missing Observations
5
First Quartile
5
Median
5
Third Quartile
10
SD
4.081
Skewness
2.022
SD of logged Data
0.471
d2max (for USL) 2.812
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
34
95% UTL with 90% Coverage
15
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.889
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.878
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
46
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
14.6
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90% Coverage
14.6
95% UPL
16.6
90% Percentile
11.6
90% ChebyshevUPL
19.76
95% Percentile
14.3
95% ChebyshevUPL
25.38
99% Percentile
20.28
95% USL
23
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Two -Sided 95% Tolerance Intervals of pH
Percent of Nonparametri Nonparametric
Population
Lower
Upper
Between
Tolerance
Tolerance
Limits
Limit
Limit
90
5.6
6.6

Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:38:31 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95
Coverage
85
Number of Bootstrap Operations
2000

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Bicarbonate
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 24
Minimum
53
Second Largest
302
Maximum
303
Mean
170.3
Coefficient of Variation
0.55
Mean of logged Data
4.926
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.538
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Number of Missing Observations
16
First Quartile
56.53
Median
219
Third Quartile
237.5
SD
93.65
Skewness
-0.326
SD of logged Data
0.724
d2max (for USL) 2.644
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
23
95% UTL with 85 % Coverage
302
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
2.029
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.894
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
30
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
282.7
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
282.7
95% UPL
302.8
90% Percentile
258.4
90% ChebyshevUPL
457.1
95% Percentile
295.6
95% ChebyshevUPL
587
99% Percentile
302.8
95% USL
303
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Fluoride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 10
Minimum
0.0788
Second Largest
0.26
Maximum
0.34
Mean
0.138
Coefficient of Variation
0.636
Mean of logged Data
-2.108
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.956
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
4
Number of Missing Observations
30
First Quartile
0.1
Median
0.1
Third Quartile
0.1
SD
0.0877
Skewness
1.951
SD of logged Data
0.482
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
10
95% UTL with 85 % Coverage
0.34
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.765
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.803
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
19
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
0.34
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
0.312
95% UPL
0.34
90% Percentile
0.268
90% ChebyshevUPL
0.414
95% Percentile
0.304
95% ChebyshevUPL
0.539
99% Percentile
0.333
95% USL
0.34
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Lithium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 10
Minimum
2.955
Second Largest
5
Maximum
6
Mean
4.714
Coefficient of Variation
0.196
Mean of logged Data
1.53
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.956
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 4
Number of Missing Observations 30
First Quartile
5
Median
5
Third Quartile
5
SD
0.923
Skewness
-1.19
SD of logged Data
0.224
d2max (for USL) 2.176
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
10
95% UTL with 85 % Coverage
6
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.765
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.803
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
19
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
6
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
4.364
95% UPL
6
90% Percentile
5.1
90% ChebyshevUPL
7.617
95% Percentile
5.55
95% ChebyshevUPL
8.932
99% Percentile
5.91
95% USL
6
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Strontium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 22
Minimum
83
Second Largest
390
Maximum
391
Mean
222.3
Coefficient of Variation
0.531
Mean of logged Data
5.229
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.567
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
18
Number of Missing Observations
18
First Quartile
92
Median
288
Third Quartile
296
SD
118
Skewness
-0.146
SD of logged Data
0.641
d2max (for USL) 2.603
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
21
95% UTL with 85 % Coverage
390
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.853
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.863
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
30
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
387.6
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
387.6
95% UPL
390.9
90% Percentile
368.6
90% ChebyshevUPL
584.1
95% Percentile
389.2
95% ChebyshevUPL
748
99% Percentile
390.8
95% USL
391
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
TOC
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 18
Minimum
0.184
Second Largest
1.8
Maximum
2.1
Mean
1.049
Coefficient of Variation
0.601
Mean of logged Data
-0.212
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.64
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 14
Number of Missing Observations 22
First Quartile
0.335
Median
1.25
Third Quartile
1.475
SD
0.631
Skewness
-0.135
SD of logged Data
0.827
d2max (for USL) 2.504
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
17
95% UTL with 85 % Coverage
1.8
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.5
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.776
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
30
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
1.935
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
1.88
95% UPL
2.1
90% Percentile
1.73
90% ChebyshevUPL
2.994
95% Percentile
1.845
95% ChebyshevUPL
3.875
99% Percentile
2.049
95% USL
2.1
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Total Uranium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 13
Minimum 9.2800E-5
Second Largest 9.2600E-4
Maximum 0.00102
Mean 5.2606E-4
Coefficient of Variation 0.755
Mean of logged Data -7.974
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.791
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 13
Number of Missing Observations 27
First Quartile 1.0700E-4
Median 6.3900E-4
Third Quartile 8.9300E-4
SD 3.9700E-4
Skewness-0.0657
SD of logged Data 1.06
d2max (for USL) 2.331
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
13
95% UTL with 85 % Coverage
0.00102
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
2.294
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.879
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
19
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
0.00102
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
0.00102
95% UPL
0.00102
90% Percentile 9.2440E-4
90% Chebyshev UPL
0.00176
95% Percentile 9.6360E-4
95% Chebyshev UPL
0.00232
99% Percentile
0.00101
95% USL
0.00102
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Appendix A
Vanadium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 23
Minimum
0.637
Second Largest
5.8
Maximum
5.88
Mean
3.174
Coefficient of Variation
0.611
Mean of logged Data
0.872
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTUs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.552
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Number of Missing Observations
17
First Quartile
0.954
Median
3.87
Third Quartile
4.755
SD
1.94
Skewness
-0.256
SD of logged Data
0.857
d2max (for USL) 2.624
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
22
95% UTL with 85 % Coverage
5.8
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.941
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.88
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
30
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
5.572
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
5.572
95% UPL
5.864
90% Percentile
5.038
90% ChebyshevUPL
9.119
95% Percentile
5.724
95% ChebyshevUPL
11.81
99% Percentile
5.862
95% USL
5.88
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Normal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 11:24:22 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_b.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95
Coverage 95
Different or Future K Observations 1

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Fluoride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Missing Observations
37
Number of Detects
18
Number of Distinct Detects
15
Minimum Detect
0.0772
Maximum Detect
0.36
Variance Detected
0.00803
Mean Detected
0.215
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.639
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371
Number of Distinct Observations 16
Number of Non -Detects
3
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
0.1
Maximum Non -Detect
0.1
Percent Non -Detects
14.29%
SD Detected
0.0896
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.502
d2max (for USL) 2.58
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.933 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.897 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.15 Lilliefors GOF Test
5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.202 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level
Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.197 SD
0.093
95 % UTL95 % Coverage 0.417 95 % KM UPL (t)
0.361
95 % KM Chebyshev UPL 0.612 90 % KM Percentile (z)
0.316
95 % KM Percentile (z) 0.35 99 % KM Percentile (z)
0.413
95 % KM USL 0.437
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.192 SD
0.102
95 % UTL95 % Coverage 0.433 95 % UPL (t)
0.371
90 % Percentile (z) 0.322 95 % Percentile (z)
0.359
99 % Percentile (z) 0.428 95 % USL
0.454
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Lithium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
21
Number of Missing Observations
37
Number of Detects
16
Number of Distinct Detects
15
Minimum Detect
2.175
Maximum Detect
47
Variance Detected
220.1
Mean Detected
18.51
Mean of Detected Logged Data
2.491
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.371
Number of Distinct Observations 16
Number of Non -Detects
5
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
5
Percent Non -Detects
23.81 %
SD Detected
14.83
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.058
d2max (for USL) 2.58
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.89 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.194 Lilliefors GOF Test
5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.213 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 14.77 SD
14.22
95 % UTL95 % Coverage 48.47 95 % KM UPL (t)
39.86
95 % KM Chebyshev UPL 78.19 90 % KM Percentile (z)
32.99
95 % KM Percentile (z) 38.15 99 % KM Percentile (z)
47.84
95 % KM USL 51.45
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 14.7 SD
14.62
95 % UTL95 % Coverage 49.37 95 % UPL (t)
40.52
90 % Percentile (z) 33.44 95 % Percentile (z)
38.75
99 % Percentile (z) 48.72 95 % USL
52.44
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Nitrate Nitrite
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
27
Number of Missing Observations
31
Number of Detects
16
Number of Distinct Detects
16
Minimum Detect
0.011
Maximum Detect
0.92
Variance Detected
0.0832
Mean Detected
0.452
Mean of Detected Logged Data
-1.126
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.26
Number of Distinct Observations 18
Number of Non -Detects
11
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
0.01
Maximum Non -Detect
0.02
Percent Non -Detects
40.74 %
SD Detected
0.288
SD of Detected Logged Data
1.088
d2max (for USL) 2.698
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.915 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887 Detected Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.222 Lilliefors GOF Test
5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.213 Data Not Normal at 5 % Significance Level
Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.272 SD
0.306
95 % UTL95 % Coverage 0.962 95 % KM UPL (t)
0.803
95 % KM Chebyshev UPL 1.628 90 % KM Percentile (z)
0.663
95 % KM Percentile (z) 0.774 99 % KM Percentile (z)
0.983
95 % KM USL 1.096
DL/2 Substitution Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 0.27 SD
0.313
95 % UTL95 % Coverage 0.977 95 % UPL (t)
0.814
90 % Percentile (z) 0.671 95 % Percentile (z)
0.785
99 % Percentile (z) 0.998 95 % USL
1.114
DL/2 is not a recommended method. DL/2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
TOC
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 32
Minimum
0.458
Second Largest
1.2
Maximum
1.3
Mean
0.794
Coefficient of Variation
0.266
Mean of logged Data
-0.266
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.186
Number of Distinct Observations 30
Number of Missing Observations 26
First Quartile
0.594
Median
0.797
Third Quartile
0.88
SD
0.211
Skewness
0.364
SD of logged Data
0.273
d2max (for USL) 2.773
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.954 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.93 Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.109 Lilliefors GOF Test
5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.154 Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1.256 90% Percentile (z) 1.065
95% UPL (t) 1.158 95% Percentile (z) 1.141
95% USL 1.38 99% Percentile (z) 1.286
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Gamma Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 11:25:04 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_b.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95
Coverage 95

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Aluminum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 47
Minimum
10
Second Largest
478
Maximum
553
Mean
174.9
Coefficient of Variation
0.747
Mean of logged Data
4.859
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.074
Number of Distinct Observations
44
Number of Missing Observations
11
First Quartile
84
Median
141
Third Quartile
226
SD
130.7
Skewness
1.192
SD of logged Data
0.864
d2max (for USL) 2.933
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
0.182
Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5 % A-D Critical Value
0.764
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance
Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.0648
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5 % K-S Critical Value
0.131
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance
Level
Detected data appear Gamma
Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
1.789
k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.689
Theta hat (MLE)
97.74
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
103.5
nu hat (MLE)
168.2
nu star (bias corrected)
158.8
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
174.9
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
134.6
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma
Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
442.6
90 % Percentile
354.1
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
459.6
95% Percentile
438
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
541
99 % Percentile
626
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
573.7
95% WH USL
817.3
95% HW USL
911.5
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Iron
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 47
Minimum
11
Second Largest
2920
Maximum
3260
Mean
724.7
Coefficient of Variation
1.271
Mean of logged Data
5.605
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.074
Number of Distinct Observations 45
Number of Missing Observations 11
First Quartile
91.5
Median
290
Third Quartile
1095
SD
921.3
Skewness
1.413
SD of logged Data
1.579
d2max (for USL) 2.933
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
0.975
Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5 % A-D Critical Value
0.802
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.105
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5 % K-S Critical Value
0.135
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance
Level
Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution
at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
0.626
k star (bias corrected MLE)
0.6
Theta hat (MLE)
1157
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1207
nu hat (MLE)
58.85
nu star (bias corrected)
56.43
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
724.7
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
935.3
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 2546 90 % Percentile 1885
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 2696 95% Percentile 2607
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 3411 99 % Percentile 4355
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 3771
95% WH USL 6061 95% HW USL 7388
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Total Radium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 26
Minimum
0.247
Second Largest
3.34
Maximum
4.345
Mean
1.725
Coefficient of Variation
0.613
Mean of logged Data
0.347
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.275
Number of Distinct Observations
26
Number of Missing Observations
26
First Quartile
0.91
Median
1.313
Third Quartile
2.55
SD
1.058
Skewness
0.771
SD of logged Data
0.676
d2max (for USL) 2.681
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
0.426
Anderson -Darling Gamma GOF Test
5 % A-D Critical Value
0.753
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance
Level
K-S Test Statistic
0.141
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5 % K-S Critical Value
0.173
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5 % Significance
Level
Detected data appear Gamma
Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
2.675
k star (bias corrected MLE)
2.392
Theta hat (MLE)
0.645
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
0.721
nu hat (MLE)
139.1
nu star (bias corrected)
124.4
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
1.725
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.115
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma
Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL
3.965
90 % Percentile
3.219
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL
4.072
95% Percentile
3.87
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
5.051
99 % Percentile
5.301
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage
5.301
95% WH USL
5.997
95% HW USL
6.405
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Lognormal Background Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 11:26:13 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_b.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95
Coverage
95
Different or Future K Observations
1
Number of Bootstrap Operations
2000

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Molybdenum
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
48
Number of Missing Observations
10
Number of Detects
34
Number of Distinct Detects
31
Minimum Detect
2.02
Maximum Detect
27.3
Variance Detected
21.41
Mean Detected
5.641
Mean of Detected Logged Data
1.537
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.069
Number of Distinct Observations 32
Number of Non -Detects
14
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
1
Minimum Non -Detect
1
Maximum Non -Detect
1
Percent Non -Detects
29.17 %
SD Detected
4.627
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.585
d2max (for USL) 2.941
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.94
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
0.933 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.104
Lilliefors GOF Test
5 % Lilliefors Critical Value
0.15 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level
Detected Data appear Lognormal
at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
4.287
SD
4.378
95% UTL95 % Coverage
13.34
95% KM UPL (t)
11.71
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
23.57
90 % KM Percentile (z)
9.898
95% KM Percentile (z)
11.49
99 % KM Percentile (z)
14.47
95% KM USL
17.16
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming
Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed
Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale
4.354
Mean in Log Scale
1.131
SD in Original Scale
4.381
SD in Log Scale
0.83
95% UTL95 % Coverage
17.23
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
22.26
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95 % Coverage
22.26
95% UPL (t)
12.64
90 % Percentile (z)
8.969
95% Percentile (z)
12.12
99 % Percentile (z)
21.34
95% USL
35.53
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
1.088
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95 % Coverage
17.24
KM SD of Logged Data
0.85
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
12.55
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
12.02
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
36.19
Background DU2 Statistics
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
4.141
Mean in Log Scale
0.886
SD in Original Scale
4.54
SD in Log Scale
1.135
95% UTL95 % Coverage
25.4
95% UPL (t)
16.63
90 % Percentile (z)
10.39
95% Percentile (z)
15.7
99 % Percentile (z)
34.04
95% USL
68.4
DU2 is not a Recommended Method. DU2
provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Total Uranium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 16
Number of Missing Observations 36
Number of Detects 12
Number of Distinct Detects 12
Minimum Detect 1.2300E-4
Maximum Detect 0.00188
Variance Detected 2.9384E-7
Mean Detected 5.7475E-4
Mean of Detected Logged Data -7.786
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.524
Number of Distinct Observations 13
Number of Non -Detects 4
Number of Distinct Non -Detects 1
Minimum Non -Detect 2.0000E-4
Maximum Non -Detect 2.0000E-4
Percent Non -Detects 25 %
SD Detected 5.4207E-4
SD of Detected Logged Data 0.815
d2max (for USL) 2.443
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.941 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.193 Lilliefors GOF Test
5 % Lilliefors Critical Value 0.243 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level
Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean 4.6606E-4 SD 4.8736E-4
95% UTL95 % Coverage 0.0017 95% KM UPL (t) 0.00135
95% KM Chebyshev UPL 0.00266 90 % KM Percentile (z) 0.00109
95% KM Percentile (z) 0.00127 99 % KM Percentile (z) 0.0016
95% KM USL 0.00166
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale 4.6184E-4
Mean in Log Scale
-8.104
SD in Original Scale 5.0666E-4
SD in Log Scale
0.918
95% UTL95 % Coverage 0.00307 95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
0.00188
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95 % Coverage 0.00188
95% UPL (t)
0.00159
90 % Percentile (z) 9.8077E-4
95% Percentile (z)
0.00137
99 % Percentile (z) 0.00256
95% USL
0.00285
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data -8.06 95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95 % Coverage 0.00255
KM SD of Logged Data 0.828 95% KM UPL (Lognormal) 0.00141
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z) 0.00123 95% KM USL (Lognormal) 0.00239
Background DU2 Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale 4.5606E-4
Mean in Log Scale
-8.142
SD in Original Scale 5.1045E-4
SD in Log Scale
0.945
95% UTL95 % Coverage 0.00316
95% UPL (t)
0.00161
90 % Percentile (z) 9.7720E-4
95% Percentile (z)
0.00138
99 % Percentile (z) 0.00262
95% USL
0.00293
DU2 is not a Recommended Method. DU2 provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Zinc
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
46
Number of Missing Observations
12
Number of Detects
23
Number of Distinct Detects
19
Minimum Detect
2.407
Maximum Detect
54
Variance Detected
193.9
Mean Detected
15.07
Mean of Detected Logged Data
2.308
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.079
Number of Distinct Observations 20
Number of Non -Detects
23
Number of Distinct Non -Detects
2
Minimum Non -Detect
5
Maximum Non -Detect
10
Percent Non -Detects
50 %
SD Detected
13.92
SD of Detected Logged Data
0.931
d2max (for USL) 2.924
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.947
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5 % Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
0.914 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.133
Lilliefors GOF Test
5 % Lilliefors Critical Value
0.18 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5 % Significance Level
Detected Data appear Lognormal
at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan Meier (KM) Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
Mean
9.181
SD
11.3
95% UTL95 % Coverage
32.68
95% KM UPL (t)
28.37
95% KM Chebyshev UPL
58.98
90 % KM Percentile (z)
23.67
95% KM Percentile (z)
27.77
99 % KM Percentile (z)
35.48
95% KM USL
42.23
Background Lognormal ROS Statistics Assuming Lognormal Distribution Using Imputed
Non -Detects
Mean in Original Scale
9.137
Mean in Log Scale
1.655
SD in Original Scale
11.5
SD in Log Scale
1.025
95% UTL95 % Coverage
44.06
95% BCA UTL95% Coverage
49
95% Bootstrap (%) UTL95 % Coverage
49.5
95% UPL (t)
29.8
90 % Percentile (z)
19.46
95% Percentile (z)
28.23
99 % Percentile (z)
56.75
95% USL 104.7
Statistics using KM estimates on Logged Data and Assuming Lognormal Distribution
KM Mean of Logged Data
1.736
95% KM UTL (Lognormal)95 % Coverage
35.11
KM SD of Logged Data
0.876
95% KM UPL (Lognormal)
25.13
95% KM Percentile Lognormal (z)
23.99
95% KM USL (Lognormal)
73.62
Background DU2 Statistics
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
Mean in Original Scale
8.948
Mean in Log Scale
1.657
SD in Original Scale
11.55
SD in Log Scale
0.941
95% UTL95 % Coverage
37.09
95% UPL (t)
25.9
90 % Percentile (z)
17.51
95% Percentile (z)
24.65
99 % Percentile (z)
46.8
95% USL
82.11
DU2 is not a Recommended Method. DU2
provided for comparisons and historical reasons.
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 11:32:26 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_b.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95
Coverage
90
Number of Bootstrap Operations
2000

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Alkalinity
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 48
Minimum
49
Second Largest
248
Maximum
250
Mean
144.2
Coefficient of Variation
0.496
Mean of logged Data
4.819
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.648
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
43
Number of Missing Observations
10
First Quartile
58.18
Median
137
Third Quartile
211.5
SD
71.54
Skewness
-0.0613
SD of logged Data
0.594
d2max (for USL) 2.941
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
46
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
240
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.704
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.871
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
240
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
233
95% UPL
244.4
90% Percentile
230
90 % Chebyshev UPL
361.1
95% Percentile
236.5
95% Chebyshev UPL
459.3
99 % Percentile
249.1
95% USL
250
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Arsenic
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 54
Minimum
0.336
Second Largest
1
Maximum
1.8
Mean
0.972
Coefficient of Variation
0.186
Mean of logged Data
-0.0493
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.624
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
7
Number of Missing Observations
4
First Quartile
1
Median
1
Third Quartile
1
SD
0.181
Skewness
0.249
SD of logged Data
0.221
d2max (for USL) 2.987
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
52
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
1
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.926
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.917
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
1
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
1
95% UPL
1
90% Percentile
1
90 % Chebyshev UPL
1.519
95% Percentile
1
95% Chebyshev UPL
1.767
99 % Percentile
1.376
95% USL
1.8
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Barium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
58
Minimum
14
Second Largest
101
Maximum
101
Mean
52.51
Coefficient of Variation
0.63
Mean of logged Data
3.734
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.61
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
35
First Quartile
22
Median
35
Third Quartile
88
SD
33.1
Skewness
0.275
SD of logged Data
0.7
d2max (for USL) 3.014
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
55
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
97
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.528
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.844
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
75
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
97
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
97
95% UPL
97.2
90% Percentile
95
90 % Chebyshev UPL
152.7
95% Percentile
97
95% Chebyshev UPL
198
99 % Percentile
101
95% USL
101
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Bicarbonate
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 37
Minimum
49.8
Second Largest
221
Maximum
230
Mean
131.5
Coefficient of Variation
0.493
Mean of logged Data
4.738
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.709
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 36
Number of Missing Observations 21
First Quartile
57.2
Median
121
Third Quartile
202
SD
64.9
Skewness
0.0957
SD of logged Data
0.564
d2max (for USL) 2.835
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 36 95% UTL with 90 % Coverage 221
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 2 Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.896
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 46
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage 221
95% UPL 221.9
90 % Chebyshev UPL 328.8
95% Chebyshev UPL 418.2
95% USL 230
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
218.6
90% Percentile
211.8
95% Percentile
217.8
99% Percentile
226.8
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Calcium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 48
Minimum
11.9
Second Largest
73
Maximum
75.2
Mean
30.94
Coefficient of Variation
0.762
Mean of logged Data
3.174
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.648
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 42
Number of Missing Observations 10
First Quartile
12.98
Median
17.2
Third Quartile
61.55
SD
23.59
Skewness
0.926
SD of logged Data
0.702
d2max (for USL) 2.941
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
46
95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage
72.7
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.704
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.871
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
72.7
95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
72.79
95% UPL
72.87
90% Percentile
70.32
90 % Chebyshev UPL
102.4
95 % Percentile
72.04
95 % Chebyshev UPL
134.8
99 % Percentile
74.17
95 % USL
75.2
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Appendix A
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Chloride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
58
Number of Distinct Observations
21
Minimum
8.9
First Quartile
12
Second Largest
43
Median
13
Maximum
46
Third Quartile
14.23
Mean
17.45
SD
10.38
Coefficient of Variation
0.594
Skewness
1.593
Mean of logged Data
2.733
SD of logged Data
0.467
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.61 d2max (for USL) 3.014
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
55
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
41
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.528
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.844
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
75
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
41.6
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
41.6
95% UPL
43
90% Percentile
34.9
90 % Chebyshev UPL
48.85
95% Percentile
41.3
95% Chebyshev UPL
63.07
99 % Percentile
44.29
95% USL
46
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Appendix A
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Chromium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
58
Number of Distinct Observations
18
Minimum
0.703
First Quartile
1
Second Largest
16.3
Median
1
Maximum
20
Third Quartile
5
Mean
3.056
SD
3.549
Coefficient of Variation
1.161
Skewness
2.934
Mean of logged Data
0.676
SD of logged Data
0.889
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.61 d2max (for USL) 3.014
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
55
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
7
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.528
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.844
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
75
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
7.27
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
7
95% UPL
8.32
90% Percentile
5.21
90 % Chebyshev UPL
13.79
95% Percentile
7.135
95% Chebyshev UPL
18.66
99 % Percentile
17.89
95% USL
20
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Chromium VI
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 29
Minimum
0.025
Second Largest
0.36
Maximum
0.47
Mean
0.104
Coefficient of Variation
1.185
Mean of logged Data
-2.828
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.788
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Number of Missing Observations
29
First Quartile
0.025
Median
0.03
Third Quartile
0.18
SD
0.124
Skewness
1.62
SD of logged Data
1.022
d2max (for USL) 2.73
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
28
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
0.36
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.556
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.801
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
46
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
0.382
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
0.366
95% UPL
0.415
90% Percentile
0.276
90 % Chebyshev UPL
0.481
95% Percentile
0.352
95% Chebyshev UPL
0.652
99 % Percentile
0.439
95% USL
0.47
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Cobalt
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 47
Minimum
0.581
Second Largest
4.77
Maximum
6.53
Mean
1.521
Coefficient of Variation
0.806
Mean of logged Data
0.24
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.653
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
19
Number of Missing Observations
10
First Quartile
1
Median
1
Third Quartile
1.165
SD
1.225
Skewness
2.586
SD of logged Data
0.527
d2max (for USL) 2.933
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
45
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
4.67
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.667
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.862
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
4.67
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
4.67
95% UPL
4.73
90% Percentile
3.192
90 % Chebyshev UPL
5.237
95% Percentile
4.4
95% Chebyshev UPL
6.919
99 % Percentile
5.72
95% USL
6.53
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Copper
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 47
Minimum
0.635
Second Largest
5
Maximum
5
Mean
2.617
Coefficient of Variation
0.687
Mean of logged Data
0.712
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.653
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
19
Number of Missing Observations
11
First Quartile
1
Median
1.77
Third Quartile
5
SD
1.799
Skewness
0.493
SD of logged Data
0.723
d2max (for USL) 2.933
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
45
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
5
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.667
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.862
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
5
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
5
95% UPL
5
90% Percentile
5
90 % Chebyshev UPL
8.073
95% Percentile
5
95% Chebyshev UPL
10.54
99 % Percentile
5
95% USL
5
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Magnesium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 48
Minimum
2.36
Second Largest
16.2
Maximum
16.2
Mean
7.614
Coefficient of Variation
0.68
Mean of logged Data
1.763
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.648
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 35
Number of Missing Observations 10
First Quartile
3.06
Median
3.355
Third Quartile
12.9
SD
5.179
Skewness
0.254
SD of logged Data
0.757
d2max (for USL) 2.941
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
46
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
14.7
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.704
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.871
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
14.7
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
14.7
95% UPL
15.53
90% Percentile
13.36
90 % Chebyshev UPL
23.31
95% Percentile
14.49
95% Chebyshev UPL
30.42
99 % Percentile
16.2
95% USL
16.2
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Manganese
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 47
Minimum
5
Second Largest
630
Maximum
648
Mean
174.6
Coefficient of Variation
1.099
Mean of logged Data
4.196
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.653
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
42
Number of Missing Observations
11
First Quartile
14
Median
92
Third Quartile
298
SD
192
Skewness
0.956
SD of logged Data
1.633
d2max (for USL) 2.933
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
45
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
548
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.667
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.862
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
548
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
548
95% UPL
597.2
90% Percentile
472.2
90 % Chebyshev UPL
756.6
95% Percentile
527.9
95% Chebyshev UPL
1020
99 % Percentile
639.7
95% USL
648
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Nickel
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 47
Minimum
0.42
Second Largest
7.97
Maximum
9.4
Mean
2.841
Coefficient of Variation
0.783
Mean of logged Data
0.733
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.653
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
19
Number of Missing Observations
11
First Quartile
1
Median
1.39
Third Quartile
5
SD
2.225
Skewness
0.924
SD of logged Data
0.806
d2max (for USL) 2.933
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
45
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
6.2
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.667
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.862
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
6.2
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
5
95% UPL
7.262
90% Percentile
5
90 % Chebyshev UPL
9.586
95% Percentile
5.84
95% Chebyshev UPL
12.64
99 % Percentile
8.742
95% USL
9.4
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Potassium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 48
Minimum
1.23
Second Largest
11.4
Maximum
11.5
Mean
4.612
Coefficient of Variation
0.627
Mean of logged Data
1.304
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.648
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 41
Number of Missing Observations 10
First Quartile
1.398
Median
4.335
Third Quartile
5.67
SD
2.89
Skewness
0.73
SD of logged Data
0.72
d2max (for USL) 2.941
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
46
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
10.9
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.704
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.871
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
10.9
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
10.9
95% UPL
11.18
90% Percentile
8.681
90 % Chebyshev UPL
13.37
95% Percentile
10.36
95% Chebyshev UPL
17.34
99 % Percentile
11.45
95% USL
11.5
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Selenium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 54
Minimum
0.773
Second Largest
2.8
Maximum
2.82
Mean
1.139
Coefficient of Variation
0.369
Mean of logged Data
0.0881
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.624
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Number of Missing Observations
4
First Quartile
1
Median
1
Third Quartile
1
SD
0.421
Skewness
3.071
SD of logged Data
0.262
d2max (for USL) 2.987
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
52
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
2.28
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.926
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.917
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
2.199
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
2.199
95% UPL
2.41
90% Percentile
1.571
90 % Chebyshev UPL
2.413
95% Percentile
2.105
95% Chebyshev UPL
2.99
99 % Percentile
2.809
95% USL
2.82
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Sodium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 48
Minimum
11.2
Second Largest
117
Maximum
125
Mean
39.08
Coefficient of Variation
0.915
Mean of logged Data
3.32
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.648
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
40
Number of Missing Observations
10
First Quartile
12.33
Median
22.05
Third Quartile
48.2
SD
35.74
Skewness
1.416
SD of logged Data
0.81
d2max (for USL) 2.941
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
46
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
117
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.704
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.871
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
61
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
117
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
117
95% UPL
117
90% Percentile
114.3
90 % Chebyshev UPL
147.4
95% Percentile
116.7
95% Chebyshev UPL
196.5
99 % Percentile
121.2
95% USL
125
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Strontium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 36
Minimum
131
Second Largest
418
Maximum
430
Mean
236.4
Coefficient of Variation
0.432
Mean of logged Data
5.381
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.716
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
32
Number of Missing Observations
22
First Quartile
164
Median
175.5
Third Quartile
331.5
SD
102
Skewness
0.702
SD of logged Data
0.408
d2max (for USL) 2.824
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
35
95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage
418
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.944
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.887
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
46
95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
418
95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
417
95% UPL
419.8
90% Percentile
386.5
90 % Chebyshev UPL
546.7
95 % Percentile
416.5
95 % Chebyshev UPL
687.3
99 % Percentile
425.8
95 % USL
430
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Sulfate
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
58
Minimum
0.21
Second Largest
130
Maximum
140
Mean
22.65
Coefficient of Variation
1.752
Mean of logged Data
1.477
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.61
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
39
First Quartile
0.41
Median
9.35
Third Quartile
15.75
SD
39.69
Skewness
2.122
SD of logged Data
2.132
d2max (for USL) 3.014
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
55
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
130
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.528
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.844
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
75
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
130
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
130
95% UPL
130
90% Percentile
103
90 % Chebyshev UPL
142.7
95% Percentile
130
95% Chebyshev UPL
197.1
99 % Percentile
134.3
95% USL
140
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
TDS
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
58
Minimum
66
Second Largest
500
Maximum
510
Mean
226.2
Coefficient of Variation
0.536
Mean of logged Data
5.287
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.61
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
34
First Quartile
130
Median
200
Third Quartile
317.5
SD
121.2
Skewness
0.865
SD of logged Data
0.52
d2max (for USL) 3.014
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
55
95 % UTL with 90 % Coverage
470
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.528
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.844
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
75
95 % Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
473
95 % BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
473
95% UPL
481
90% Percentile
423
90 % Chebyshev UPL
592.8
95 % Percentile
471.5
95 % Chebyshev UPL
758.9
99 % Percentile
504.3
95 % USL
510
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Vanadium
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 36
Minimum
0.282
Second Largest
4.42
Maximum
4.58
Mean
2.04
Coefficient of Variation
0.722
Mean of logged Data
0.295
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.716
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations 31
Number of Missing Observations 22
First Quartile
0.408
Median
2.425
Third Quartile
3.443
SD
1.472
Skewness
0.0812
SD of logged Data
1.047
d2max (for USL) 2.824
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
35
95% UTL with 90 % Coverage
4.42
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.944
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.887
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
46
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
4.26
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 90 % Coverage
4.26
95% UPL
4.444
90% Percentile
3.89
90 % Chebyshev UPL
6.518
95% Percentile
4.06
95% Chebyshev UPL
8.546
99 % Percentile
4.524
95% USL
4.58
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Two -Sided 95% Tolerance Intervals of pH
Percent of Nonparametric Nonparametric
Population Lower Upper
Between Tolerance Tolerance
Limits Limit Limit
90

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Nonparametric Background Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 11:35:35 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_b.xls
Full Precision
OFF
Confidence Coefficient
95
Coverage
85
Number of Bootstrap Operations
2000

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Fluoride
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 21
Minimum
0.0772
Second Largest
0.32
Maximum
0.36
Mean
0.199
Coefficient of Variation
0.464
Mean of logged Data
-1.734
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.583
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 5 % Significance Level
Number of Distinct Observations
16
Number of Missing Observations
37
First Quartile
0.1
Median
0.21
Third Quartile
0.28
SD
0.0924
Skewness
0.0747
SD of logged Data
0.521
d2max (for USL) 2.58
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
20
95% UTL with 85 % Coverage
0.32
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.765
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.845
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
30
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
0.32
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
0.32
95% UPL
0.356
90% Percentile
0.3
90 % Chebyshev UPL
0.483
95% Percentile
0.32
95% Chebyshev UPL
0.611
99 % Percentile
0.352
95% USL
0.36
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix A
Methane
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 16
Minimum
10
Second Largest
41.8
Maximum
54.6
Mean
16.16
Coefficient of Variation
0.829
Mean of logged Data
2.589
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 1.69
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Number of Distinct Observations
6
Number of Missing Observations
36
First Quartile
10
Median
10
Third Quartile
12.4
SD
13.41
Skewness
2.285
SD of logged Data
0.56
d2max (for USL) 2.443
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r
15
95% UTL with 85 % Coverage
41.8
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC
1.324
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL
0.716
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC
30
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
47.7
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 85 % Coverage
41.8
95% UPL
54.6
90% Percentile
34.4
90 % Chebyshev UPL
57.62
95% Percentile
45
95% Chebyshev UPL
76.39
99 % Percentile
52.68
95% USL
54.6
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
/'TWO• -3
GOODNESS OF FIT TEST RESULTS
(PROUCL OUTPUT
SynTerra

Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:03:10 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data_No AC-Outliers.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 0.95

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
pH
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
12
Number of Distinct Observations
11
Minimum
5.23
Maximum
6.4
Mean of Raw Data
5.883
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.319
Khat
366.9
Theta hat
0.016
Kstar
275.2
Theta star
0.0214
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.771
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.0547
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.976
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.959
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.859
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.667
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.146
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.243
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.976
A-D Test Statistic
0.302
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.731
K-S Test Statistic
0.138
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.245
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.973
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.955
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.859
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.593
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.145
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.243
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Alkalinity
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 12 1 11 10 1 9.09%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1
5
5
5
5
N/A
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
10
9.5
26.4
14.89
13
5.414
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
11
5
26.4
13.99
13
5.939
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
11
2.5
26.4
13.76
13
6.351
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
11
2.628
26.4
13.78
13
6.329
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
11
4.464
26.4
13.94
13
6.022
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
11
6.628
26.4
14.14
13
5.709
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
10.11
7.146
1.472
2.65
0.321
0.121
Statistics (NDs = DL)
6.214
4.58
2.251
2.556
0.437
0.171
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
4.028
2.99
3.417
2.493
0.605
0.243
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
5.752
4.244
2.424
2.545
0.463
0.182
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
2.581
0.381
0.148
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.893 0.935 0.941 0.941
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.803
0.842
Data Not Normal
0.89
0.85
Data Appear Normal
0.906
0.85
Data Appear Normal
0.905
0.85
Data Appear Normal
0.321
0.262
Data Not Normal
0.277
0.251
Data Not Normal
0.266
0.251
Data Not Normal
0.266
0.251
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.934 0.959 0.95 0.959
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.732 0.725
0.283 0.267 Data Not Gamma Distributed
0.486 0.731
0.223 0.256 Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.69 0.733
0.207 0.256 Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.507 0.731
0.219 0.256 Data Appear Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Alkalinity (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.938 0.95 0.88 0.966
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.882 0.842 Data Appear Lognormal
0.923 0.85 Data Appear Lognormal
0.805 0.85 Data Not Lognormal
0.944 0.85 Data Appear Lognormal
0.262 0.262 Data Not Lognormal
0.206 0.251 Data Appear Lognormal
0.254 0.251 Data Not Lognormal
0.215 0.251 Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Barium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
11
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Distinct Observations
8
Minimum
8
Maximum
19
Mean of Raw Data
13.36
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
3.171
Khat
18.94
Theta hat
0.706
Kstar
13.83
Theta star
0.966
Mean of Log Transformed Data
2.566
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.246
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.984
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.972
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.88
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.182
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.986
A-D Test Statistic
0.245
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.729
K-S Test Statistic
0.169
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.255
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.979
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.965
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.775
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.189
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Calcium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
11
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Minimum
0.843
Maximum
8.1
Mean of Raw Data
2.989
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
2.21
Khat
2.391
Theta hat
1.25
Kstar
1.799
Theta star
1.661
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.872
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.691
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.915
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.841
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0314
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.283
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.982
A-D Test Statistic
0.428
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.737
K-S Test Statistic
0.237
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.258
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.981
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.957
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.765
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.195
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Chloride
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
11
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Minimum
0.56
Maximum
3.3
Mean of Raw Data
2.26
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.946
Khat
4.557
Theta hat
0.496
Kstar
3.375
Theta star
0.67
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.702
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.555
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.966
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.915
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.373
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.176
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.909
A-D Test Statistic
0.52
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.732
K-S Test Statistic
0.176
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.256
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.921
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.849
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0427
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.198
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data appear Approximate —Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Chromium
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 12 1 11 7 4 36.36%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
4
1
1
1
1
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
7
0.851
7.17
2.372
1.36
2.261
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
11
0.851
7.17
1.873
1.06
1.883
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
11
0.5
7.17
1.691
1.06
1.989
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
11
-2.201
7.17
1.204
1.06
2.458
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
11
0.01
7.17
1.524
1.06
2.109
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
11
0.315
7.17
1.713
1.06
1.978
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.916
1.19
1.238
0.58
0.75
1.292
Statistics (NDs = DL)
2.089
1.58
0.897
0.369
0.65
1.761
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.368
1.056
1.236
0.117
0.866
7.382
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.435
0.377
3.5
-1.07
2.466
-2.306
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.137
0.875
6.373
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.837
0.743
0.794
0.933
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Correlation Coefficient R
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)
0.716
0.803
Data Not Normal
0.575
0.85
Data Not Normal
0.65
0.85
Data Not Normal
0.893
0.85
Data Appear Normal
0.318
0.304
Data Not Normal
0.338
0.251
Data Not Normal
0.3
0.251
Data Not Normal
0.225
0.251
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
0.958
0.891
0.946 0.99
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.613
0.716
0.266
0.315
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
1.58
0.738
0.307
0.258
Data Not Gamma Distributed
0.801
0.745
0.209
0.26
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
0.488
0.794
0.204
0.271
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Chromium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.94 0.852 0.939 0.976
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.885 0.803 Data Appear Lognormal
0.738 0.85 Data Not Lognormal
0.874 0.85 Data Appear Lognormal
0.96 0.85 Data Appear Lognormal
0.216 0.304 Data Appear Lognormal
0.274 0.251 Data Not Lognormal
0.189 0.251 Data Appear Lognormal
0.15 0.251 Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Cobalt
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 12 1 11 7 4 36.36%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
4
1
1
1
1
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
7
0.667
2.14
1.199
1.1
0.519
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
11
0.667
2.14
1.127
1
0.415
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
11
0.5
2.14
0.945
0.695
0.535
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
11
0.238
2.14
0.973
0.87
0.531
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
11
0.326
2.14
0.977
0.829
0.52
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
11
0.49
2.14
1.006
0.84
0.49
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
6.726
3.939
0.178
0.105
0.418
3.976
Statistics (NDs = DL)
9.74
7.144
0.116
0.0669
0.328
4.904
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
4.058
3.012
0.233
-0.185
0.517
-2.792
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
4.212
3.124
0.232
-0.147
0.525
-3.578
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-0.0869
0.438
-5.043
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.954 0.889 0.915 0.96
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.908
0.803
Data Appear Normal
0.808
0.85
Data Not Normal
0.833
0.85
Data Not Normal
0.932
0.85
Data Appear Normal
0.229
0.304
Data Appear Normal
0.267
0.251
Data Not Normal
0.225
0.251
Data Appear Normal
0.167
0.251
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.985 0.931 0.974 0.989
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.269
0.709
0.179
0.313
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.754
0.729
0.219
0.255
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
0.594
0.733
0.208
0.256
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.202
0.732
0.144
0.256
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Cobalt (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.979 0.937 0.948 0.981
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05) Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.949 0.803 Data Appear Lognormal
0.89 0.85 Data Appear Lognormal
0.881 0.85 Data Appear Lognormal
0.961 0.85 Data Appear Lognormal
0.157 0.304 Data Appear Lognormal
0.237 0.251 Data Appear Lognormal
0.201 0.251 Data Appear Lognormal
0.156 0.251 Data Appear Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Magnesium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
11
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Distinct Observations
11
Minimum
0.577
Maximum
1.25
Mean of Raw Data
0.832
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.236
Khat
15.14
Theta hat
0.0549
Kstar
11.07
Theta star
0.0751
Mean of Log Transformed Data
-0.218
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.265
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.938
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.866
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0911
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.203
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.959
A-D Test Statistic
0.473
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.729
K-S Test Statistic
0.177
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.255
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.965
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.915
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.36
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.16
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Potassium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
11
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Distinct Observations
11
Minimum
1.22
Maximum
4.6
Mean of Raw Data
2.198
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
1.023
Khat
6.148
Theta hat
0.358
Kstar
4.532
Theta star
0.485
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.704
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.414
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.922
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.855
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0471
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.19
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.974
A-D Test Statistic
0.386
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.731
K-S Test Statistic
0.174
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.256
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.973
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.941
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.569
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.158
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Sodium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
11
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Distinct Observations
11
Minimum
0.807
Maximum
5.49
Mean of Raw Data
3.773
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
1.598
Khat
4.013
Theta hat
0.94
Kstar
2.979
Theta star
1.267
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.198
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.608
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.957
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.901
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.243
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.208
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.883
A-D Test Statistic
0.735
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.733
K-S Test Statistic
0.26
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.256
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.899
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.809
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0136
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.267
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Sulfate
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
11
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Minimum
0.87
Maximum
2.3
Mean of Raw Data
1.484
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.473
Khat
11.07
Theta hat
0.134
Kstar
8.11
Theta star
0.183
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.349
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.318
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.978
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.942
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.647
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.13
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.987
A-D Test Statistic
0.191
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.729
K-S Test Statistic
0.115
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.255
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.991
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.968
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.949
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.103
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
TDS
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
11
Number of Missing Observations
1
Number of Distinct Observations
9
Minimum
26
Maximum
110
Mean of Raw Data
48.64
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
23.34
Khat
6.124
Theta hat
7.942
Kstar
4.514
Theta star
10.77
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.801
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.412
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.873
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.782
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00465
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.269
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.925
A-D Test Statistic
0.556
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.731
K-S Test Statistic
0.205
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.256
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.95
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.91
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.85
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.211
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.187
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.251
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Upper Tolerance Limits (ProUCL Output)
Surficial Flow Zone
Thallium
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 12 1 11 1 10 90.91 %
Total Radium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
10
Number of Missing Observations
2
Number of Distinct Observations
10
Minimum
0.332
Maximum
1.56
Mean of Raw Data
0.684
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.352
Khat
5.414
Theta hat
0.126
Kstar
3.856
Theta star
0.177
Mean of Log Transformed Data
-0.475
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.441
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.888
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.809
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0129
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.223
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.946
A-D Test Statistic
0.397
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.729
K-S Test Statistic
0.169
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.267
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.969
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.949
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.842
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.56
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.144
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.262
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 10:26:26 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_a.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 0.95

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
pH
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
40
Number of Distinct Observations
16
Minimum
5.6
Maximum
6.6
Mean of Raw Data
6.256
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.208
Khat
902.5
Theta hat
0.00693
Kstar
834.8
Theta star
0.00749
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.833
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.034
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.943
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.896
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.94
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00117
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.215
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.139
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.94
A-D Test Statistic
1.7
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.747
K-S Test Statistic
0.219
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.139
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.936
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.885
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.94
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.5929E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.22
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.139
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Alkalinity
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
29
Number of Missing Observations
11
Number of Distinct Observations
27
Minimum
38
Maximum
303
Mean of Raw Data
149.4
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
96.97
Khat
2.061
Theta hat
72.48
Kstar
1.87
Theta star
79.85
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.744
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.774
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.898
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.785
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.926
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.0125E-5
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.299
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.161
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.875
A-D Test Statistic
3.202
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.757
K-S Test Statistic
0.287
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.165
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.889
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.769
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.926
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 9.2388E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.286
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.161
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Aluminum
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
40
5
35
33
2
5.71 %
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2
100
100
100
100
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
33
14
678
184.7
136
160.7
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
35
14
678
179.9
100
157.2
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
35
14
678
177
100
159.1
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
35
14
678
177.7
104
158.9
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
35
14
678
177.2
100
159.1
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
35
14
678
177.3
100
158.9
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.332
1.231
138.6
4.799
0.997
0.208
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.379
1.28
130.4
4.788
0.969
0.202
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.309
1.216
135.2
4.748
0.99
0.208
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.3
1.208
136.3
4.746
0.998
0.21
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
4.752
0.988
0.208
Normal
GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.934
0.929
0.924
0.929
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion
with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.871
0.931
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.863
0.934
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.853
0.934
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.863
0.934
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.193
0.152
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.209
0.148
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.21
0.148
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.193
0.148
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.991
0.993
0.991
0.991
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion
with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.547
0.769
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.153
0.157
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.489
0.769
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.144
0.152
Data Appear Gamma
Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.741
0.77
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.167
0.152
Detected Data appear
Approximate
Gamma Distribution
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.635
0.77
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.166
0.152
Detected Data appear
Approximate
Gamma Distribution

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Aluminum (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.984 0.988 0.983 0.985
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.958
0.931
0.968
0.934
0.957
0.934
0.959
0.934
0.139
0.152
0.119
0.148
0.131
0.148
0.129
0.148
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Barium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
40
Number of Distinct Observations
29
Minimum
13
Maximum
71
Mean of Raw Data
41.82
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
19.96
Khat
3.603
Theta hat
11.6
Kstar
3.35
Theta star
12.48
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.588
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.583
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.95
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.874
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.94
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.9792E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.165
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.139
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.911
A-D Test Statistic
2.152
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.753
K-S Test Statistic
0.181
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.14
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.928
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.836
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.94
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.0447E-5
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.21
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.139
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Bicarbonate
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
24
Number of Missing Observations
16
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Minimum
53
Maximum
303
Mean of Raw Data
170.3
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
93.65
Khat
2.519
Theta hat
67.64
Kstar
2.231
Theta star
76.34
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.926
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.724
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.902
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.794
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.916
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.3105E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.261
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.177
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.854
A-D Test Statistic
2.918
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.753
K-S Test Statistic
0.315
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.18
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.866
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.73
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.916
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 9.6004E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.329
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.177
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Calcium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
29
Number of Missing Observations
11
Number of Distinct Observations
25
Minimum
10.9
Maximum
59.9
Mean of Raw Data
33.19
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
21.16
Khat
2.106
Theta hat
15.76
Kstar
1.911
Theta star
17.37
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.247
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.764
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.864
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.722
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.926
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.0579E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.316
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.161
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.827
A-D Test Statistic
4.065
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.757
K-S Test Statistic
0.315
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.165
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.852
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.7
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.926
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.1822E-7
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.319
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.161
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Chloride
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
40
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Minimum
3.4
Maximum
42
Mean of Raw Data
22.9
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
14.21
Khat
1.543
Theta hat
14.85
Kstar
1.444
Theta star
15.86
Mean of Log Transformed Data
2.773
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.992
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.888
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.765
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.94
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 7.0196E-8
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.29
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.139
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.793
A-D Test Statistic
5.494
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.765
K-S Test Statistic
0.35
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.142
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.845
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.691
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.94
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.378E-10
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.363
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.139
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Chromium VI
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
40
25
15 8
7
46.67%
Number
Minimum
Maximum Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
7
0.025
0.03 0.0279
0.03
0.00267
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
8
0.055
0.96 0.641
0.7
0.273
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
15
0.025
0.96 0.355
0.055
0.371
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
15
0.0125
0.96 0.348
0.055
0.377
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
15
-0.295
0.96 0.322
0.168
0.418
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
15
0.055
0.96 0.418
0.267
0.318
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
15
0.0446
0.96 0.386
0.15
0.343
K hat
K Star
Theta hat Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2.477
1.632
0.259 -0.661
0.925
-1.4
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.622
0.542
0.57 -2.025
1.647
-0.813
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.492
0.438
0.707 -2.349
1.98
-0.843
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.434
1.191
0.292 -1.26
1.01
-0.802
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-1.494
1.171
-0.784
Normal
GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.927
0.893
0.893 0.969
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.88
0.818
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.775
0.881
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.775
0.881
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.921
0.881
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.204
0.283
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.324
0.22
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.315
0.22
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.177
0.22
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.823
0.856
0.834 0.933
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
1.151
0.723
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.335
0.297
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
1.796
0.784
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.291
0.232
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
1.759
0.795
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.298
0.234
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.54
0.755
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.175
0.226
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Chromium -VI (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.768 0.876 0.877 0.939
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.62
0.818
0.739
0.881
0.739
0.881
0.856
0.881
0.378
0.283
0.282
0.22
0.292
0.22
0.23
0.22
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Iron
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
35
Number of Missing Observations
5
Number of Distinct Observations
35
Minimum
48
Maximum
1130
Mean of Raw Data
413.2
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
296.5
Khat
1.982
Theta hat
208.4
Kstar
1.832
Theta star
225.6
Mean of Log Transformed Data
5.751
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.787
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.951
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.892
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.934
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00219
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.144
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.148
Data appear Approximate Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.985
A-D Test Statistic 0.354
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.76
K-S Test Statistic
0.109
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.151
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.989
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.969
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.934
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.492
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0884
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.148
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Magnesium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
29
Number of Missing Observations
11
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Minimum
3.02
Maximum
13.9
Mean of Raw Data
7.39
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
4.17
Khat
2.881
Theta hat
2.565
Kstar
2.606
Theta star
2.836
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.817
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.637
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.886
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.763
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.926
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.9622E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.311
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.161
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.874
A-D Test Statistic
3.598
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.753
K-S Test Statistic
0.31
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.164
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.87
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.732
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.926
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.6903E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.302
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.161
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Manganese
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
35
Number of Missing Observations
5
Number of Distinct Observations
32
Minimum
18
Maximum
683
Mean of Raw Data
131.7
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
118.8
Khat
1.76
Theta hat
74.84
Kstar
1.628
Theta star
80.9
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.57
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.825
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.833
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.724
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.934
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.9495E-8
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.175
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.148
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.926
A-D Test Statistic
0.337
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.763
K-S Test Statistic
0.0908
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.151
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.982
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.963
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.934
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.359
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.107
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.148
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Methane
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 32 21 11 7 4 36.36%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
4
10
10
10
10
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
7
19.4
2260
912.9
801
712.1
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
11
10
2260
584.6
400
715.4
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
11
5
2260
582.8
400
717
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
11
-1602
2260
225.6
400
1134
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
11
0.01
2260
580.9
400
718.6
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
11
5.69
2260
589.2
400
711.4
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.055
0.698
865.6
6.273
1.553
0.248
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.423
0.368
1382
4.829
2.337
0.484
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.372
0.331
1567
4.577
2.643
0.577
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.184
0.195
3155
2.317
5.618
2.425
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
5.034
2.154
0.428
Correlation Coefficient R
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Correlation Coefficient R
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.)
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
0.956
0.902
0.902 0.99
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.93
0.803
Data Appear Normal
0.813
0.85
Data Not Normal
0.814
0.85
Data Not Normal
0.979
0.85
Data Appear Normal
0.237
0.304
Data Appear Normal
0.24
0.251
Data Appear Normal
0.239
0.251
Data Appear Normal
0.122
0.251
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
0.966
0.963
0.958 0.921
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.445
0.727
0.222
0.319
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
0.901
0.796
0.27
0.272
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
0.878
0.806
0.236
0.273
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
1.166
0.876
0.272
0.283
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Methane (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.867 0.902 0.904 0.95
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.777
0.803
0.784
0.85
0.787
0.85
0.882
0.85
0.285
0.304
0.242
0.251
0.249
0.251
0.217
0.251
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Nitrate Nitrite
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
40
25
15 12
3
20.00%
Number
Minimum
Maximum Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
3
0.01
0.02 0.0133
0.01
0.00577
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
12
0.019
0.664 0.168
0.143
0.18
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
15
0.01
0.664 0.137
0.08
0.172
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
15
0.005
0.664 0.136
0.08
0.173
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
15
-0.267
0.664 0.094
0.08
0.223
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
15
0.01
0.664 0.137
0.08
0.172
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
15
0.00432
0.664 0.136
0.08
0.173
K hat
K Star
Theta hat Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.031
0.829
0.163 -2.34
1.195
-0.511
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.782
0.67
0.175 -2.747
1.362
-0.496
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.682
0.59
0.199 -2.886
1.556
-0.539
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.747
0.642
0.183 -2.793
1.415
-0.507
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-2.869
1.532
-0.534
Normal
GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.866
0.843
0.849 0.951
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.766
0.859
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.726
0.881
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.735
0.881
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.921
0.881
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.241
0.243
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.23
0.22
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.225
0.22
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.175
0.22
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.963
0.969
0.971 0.97
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.482
0.756
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.196
0.252
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.671
0.774
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.239
0.23
Detected Data appear Approximate
Gamma Distribution
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.477
0.78
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.205
0.231
Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.644
0.775
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.228
0.23
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Nitrate -Nitrite (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.953 0.959 0.97 0.973
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.894
0.859
0.904
0.881
0.926
0.881
0.935
0.881
0.204
0.243
0.213
0.22
0.188
0.22
0.187
0.22
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Potassium
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
40
11
29
28
1
3.45%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1
5
5
5
5
N/A
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
28
1.33
3.61
2.395
2.415
1.007
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
29
1.33
5
2.485
3.23
1.101
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
29
1.33
3.61
2.399
2.5
0.989
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
29
1.33
3.61
2.395
2.395
0.989
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
29
1.33
3.61
2.392
2.287
0.989
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
29
1.33
3.61
2.388
2.182
0.99
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
5.518
4.95
0.434
0.78
0.447
0.573
Statistics (NDs = DL)
5.084
4.581
0.489
0.809
0.465
0.575
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
5.707
5.14
0.42
0.785
0.44
0.56
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
5.707
5.139
0.419
0.782
0.439
0.562
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.78
0.439
0.563
Normal
GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.858
0.886
0.869
0.869
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.711
0.924
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.776
0.926
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.73
0.926
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.73
0.926
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.296
0.164
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.272
0.161
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.282
0.161
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.283
0.161
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.842
0.892
0.853
0.854
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
3.892
0.748
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.31
0.166
Data Not Gamma
Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
3.443
0.747
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.295
0.163
Data Not Gamma
Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
3.675
0.747
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.294
0.163
Data Not Gamma
Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
3.646
0.747
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.297
0.163
Data Not Gamma
Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Potassium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Log ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.856 0.879 0.866 0.868
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.708
0.924
0.755
0.926
0.725
0.926
0.727
0.926
0.31
0.164
0.3
0.161
0.294
0.161
0.297
0.161
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Appendix B
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Sodium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
29
Number of Missing Observations
11
Number of Distinct Observations
27
Minimum
8.71
Maximum
56
Mean of Raw Data
28.7
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
19.48
Khat
1.806
Theta hat
15.89
Kstar
1.642
Theta star
17.48
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.055
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.837
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.864
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.724
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.926
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.1572E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.322
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.161
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.828
A-D Test Statistic
4.234
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.759
K-S Test Statistic
0.324
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.165
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.845
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.689
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.926
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.6080E-7
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.318
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.161
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Strontium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
22
Number of Missing Observations
18
Number of Distinct Observations
18
Minimum
83
Maximum
391
Mean of Raw Data
222.3
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
118
Khat
3.018
Theta hat
73.66
Kstar
2.636
Theta star
84.31
Mean of Log Transformed Data
5.229
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.641
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.902
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.795
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.911
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.4085E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.269
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.184
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.874
A-D Test Statistic
2.562
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.749
K-S Test Statistic
0.31
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.187
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.877
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.749
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.911
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 3.8481
E-5
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.32
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.184
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Sulfate
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
40
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Minimum
0.96
Maximum
8.3
Mean of Raw Data
4.074
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
2.371
Khat
2.063
Theta hat
1.975
Kstar
1.925
Theta star
2.116
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.143
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.817
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.913
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.813
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.94
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.8710E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.27
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.139
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.866
A-D Test Statistic
4.716
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.759
K-S Test Statistic
0.332
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.141
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.865
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.725
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.94
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.2313E-9
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.349
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.139
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
TDS
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
40
Number of Distinct Observations
28
Minimum
81
Maximum
450
Mean of Raw Data
264.5
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
129.2
Khat
3.205
Theta hat
82.52
Kstar
2.981
Theta star
88.71
Mean of Log Transformed Data
5.414
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.629
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.923
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.826
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.94
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.1134E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.218
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.139
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.873
A-D Test Statistic
3.649
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.754
K-S Test Statistic
0.258
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.14
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.893
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.773
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.94
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.1690E-7
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.271
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.139
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
TOC
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
18
Number of Missing Observations
22
Number of Distinct Observations
14
Minimum
0.184
Maximum
2.1
Mean of Raw Data
1.049
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.631
Khat
2.07
Theta hat
0.507
Kstar
1.762
Theta star
0.596
Mean of Log Transformed Data
-0.212
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.827
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.954
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.894
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.897
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0543
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.211
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.202
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.908
A-D Test Statistic
1.193
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.752
K-S Test Statistic
0.247
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.206
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.925
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.84
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.897
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00594
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.256
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.202
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Total Radium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
17
Number of Missing Observations
23
Number of Distinct Observations
17
Minimum
0.706
Maximum
34.88
Mean of Raw Data
5.912
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
8.248
Khat
1.176
Theta hat
5.027
Kstar
1.008
Theta star
5.867
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.295
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.907
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.732
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.562
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.892
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 8.4228E-7
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.319
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.207
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.91
A-D Test Statistic
1.169
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.762
K-S Test Statistic
0.215
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.214
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.959
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.935
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.892
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.231
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.142
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.207
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Total Uranium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations 13
Number of Missing Observations 27
Number of Distinct Observations 13
Minimum 9.2800E-5
Maximum 0.00102
Mean of Raw Data 5.2606E-4
Standard Deviation of Raw Data 3.9700E-4
Khat 1.322
Theta hat 3.9791 E-4
Kstar 1.068
Theta star 4.9245E-4
Mean of Log Transformed Data -7.974
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data 1.06
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.9
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.782
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.866
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00561
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.246
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.234
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.832
A-D Test Statistic
1.436
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.753
K-S Test Statistic
0.268
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.242
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.888
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.759
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.866
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00291
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.261
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.234
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Transition Zone
Vanadium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
23
Number of Missing Observations
17
Number of Distinct Observations
23
Minimum
0.637
Maximum
5.88
Mean of Raw Data
3.174
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
1.94
Khat
1.918
Theta hat
1.655
Kstar
1.697
Theta star
1.871
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.872
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.857
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.928
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.84
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.914
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00131
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.202
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.18
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.864
A-D Test Statistic
2.018
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.756
K-S Test Statistic
0.275
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.184
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.9
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.79
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.914
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.4925E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.295
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.18
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Goodness -of -Fit Test Statistics for Data Sets with Non -Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/31/2019 11:20:15 AM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data —No AC-Outliers_b.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 0.95

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
pH
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
58
Number of Distinct Observations
28
Minimum
5.1
Maximum
7.2
Mean of Raw Data
6.208
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.65
Khat
91.47
Theta hat
0.0679
Kstar
86.75
Theta star
0.0716
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.82
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.106
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.944
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.865
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 6.7692E-7
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.204
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.116
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.939
A-D Test Statistic
2.985
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.748
K-S Test Statistic
0.204
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.116
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.942
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.863
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.2729E-7
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.201
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.116
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Alkalinity
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
48
Number of Missing Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
43
Minimum
49
Maximum
250
Mean of Raw Data
144.2
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
71.54
Khat
3.427
Theta hat
42.09
Kstar
3.226
Theta star
44.71
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.819
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.594
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.942
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.856
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.947
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.0230E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.186
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.127
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.907
A-D Test Statistic
2.485
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.755
K-S Test Statistic
0.2
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.129
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.927
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.829
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.947
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 3.8200E-7
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.2
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.127
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Aluminum
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
47
Number of Missing Observations
11
Number of Distinct Observations
44
Minimum
10
Maximum
553
Mean of Raw Data
174.9
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
130.7
Khat
1.789
Theta hat
97.74
Kstar
1.689
Theta star
103.5
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.859
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.864
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.944
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.883
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.946
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 8.6249E-5
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.144
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.128
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.991
A-D Test Statistic
0.182
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.764
K-S Test Statistic
0.0648
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.131
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.982
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.961
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.946
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.198
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0908
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.128
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Barium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
58
Number of Distinct Observations
35
Minimum
14
Maximum
101
Mean of Raw Data
52.51
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
33.1
Khat
2.36
Theta hat
22.25
Kstar
2.249
Theta star
23.35
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.734
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.7
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.903
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.784
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.377E-11
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.219
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.116
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.882
A-D Test Statistic
3.995
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.761
K-S Test Statistic
0.231
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.118
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.927
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.83
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 9.3298E-9
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.233
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.116
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Bicarbonate
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
37
Number of Missing Observations
21
Number of Distinct Observations
36
Minimum
49.8
Maximum
230
Mean of Raw Data
131.5
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
64.9
Khat
3.7
Theta hat
35.55
Kstar
3.418
Theta star
38.48
Mean of Log Transformed Data
4.738
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.564
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.943
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.862
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.936
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.6326E-4
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.168
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.144
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.922
A-D Test Statistic
1.708
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.753
K-S Test Statistic
0.18
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.146
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.935
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.845
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.936
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.2068E-5
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.18
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.144
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Calcium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
48
Number of Missing Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
42
Minimum
11.9
Maximum
75.2
Mean of Raw Data
30.94
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
23.59
Khat
2.087
Theta hat
14.83
Kstar
1.971
Theta star
15.7
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.174
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.702
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.863
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.721
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.947
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 3.363E-11
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.242
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.127
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.909
A-D Test Statistic
4.317
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.761
K-S Test Statistic
0.226
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.129
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.905
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.789
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.947
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.0287E-8
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.21
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.127
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Chloride
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
58
Number of Distinct Observations
21
Minimum
8.9
Maximum
46
Mean of Raw Data
17.45
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
10.38
Khat
4.106
Theta hat
4.251
Kstar
3.905
Theta star
4.47
Mean of Log Transformed Data
2.733
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.467
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.819
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.662
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.110E-16
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.384
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.116
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.898
A-D Test Statistic
7.694
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.754
K-S Test Statistic
0.349
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.117
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.868
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.74
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 3.029E-13
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.321
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.116
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Chromium VI
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
58
29
29
15
14
48.28%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
14
0.025
0.12
0.0339
0.0275
0.0249
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
15
0.025
0.47
0.17
0.18
0.143
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
29
0.025
0.47
0.104
0.03
0.124
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
29
0.0125
0.47
0.0961
0.028
0.128
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
29
-0.401
0.47
-0.00371
0.025
0.222
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
29
0.01
0.47
0.0927
0.025
0.13
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
29
0.00196
0.47
0.0933
0.0272
0.129
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.303
1.087
0.13
-2.203
1.033
-0.469
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.015
0.933
0.103
-2.828
1.022
-0.361
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.732
0.679
0.131
-3.163
1.278
-0.404
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.624
0.583
0.149
-3.362
1.423
-0.423
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-3.43
1.579
-0.46
Normal
GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.945
0.836
0.84
0.993
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.881
0.881
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.698
0.926
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.705
0.926
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.979
0.926
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.231
0.22
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.313
0.161
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.314
0.161
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.0994
0.161
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.969
0.969
0.973
0.971
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.647
0.757
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.195
0.226
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
3.06
0.774
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.291
0.167
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
2.346
0.786
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.235
0.169
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
2.699
0.798
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.281
0.171
Data Not Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Chromium -VI (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2
Correlation Coefficient R 0.958 0.893 0.922
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.896
0.881
0.78
0.926
0.829
0.926
0.952
0.926
0.215
0.22
0.278
0.161
0.24
0.161
0.137
0.161
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended.
Log ROS
0.984
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Cobalt
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 57 10 47 18 29 61.70%
Number
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
29
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
18
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
47
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
47
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
47
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
47
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
47
K hat
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2.3
Statistics (NDs = DL)
2.938
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.457
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.363
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
1
1
1
1
0
0.581
6.53
2.361
1.64
1.689
0.581
6.53
1.521
1
1.225
0.5
6.53
1.213
0.5
1.375
-4.079
6.53
0.419
0.56
2.155
0.01
6.53
1.014
0.432
1.503
0.103
6.53
1.236
0.768
1.381
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
1.953
1.027
0.626
0.703
1.123
2.765
0.518
0.24
0.527
2.196
1.379
0.832
-0.188
0.776
-4.133
0.354
2.794
-1.829
2.458
-1.344
-0.247
0.953
-3.854
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.93 0.733 0.769 0.985
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.863
0.897
Data Not Normal
0.554
0.946
Data Not Normal
0.601
0.946
Data Not Normal
0.974
0.946
Data Appear Normal
0.223
0.202
Data Not Normal
0.381
0.128
Data Not Normal
0.315
0.128
Data Not Normal
0.141
0.128
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.985 0.864 0.934 0.984
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)
0.607
0.751
0.204
0.206
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
8.693
0.756
0.357
0.13
Data Not Gamma Distributed
6.858
0.769
0.355
0.132
Data Not Gamma Distributed
2.551
0.847
0.259
0.139
Data Not Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Cobalt (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2
Correlation Coefficient R 0.978 0.804 0.837
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.947
0.897
0.656
0.946
0.69
0.946
0.977
0.946
0.175
0.202
0.35
0.128
0.359
0.128
0.104
0.128
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended.
Log ROS
0.992
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Fluoride
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
58
37
21 18
3
14.29%
Number
Minimum
Maximum Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
3
0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1
1.700E-17
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
18
0.0772
0.36 0.215
0.24
0.0896
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
21
0.0772
0.36 0.199
0.21
0.0924
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
21
0.05
0.36 0.192
0.21
0.102
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
21
0.0434
0.36 0.196
0.21
0.0964
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
21
0.0751
0.36 0.199
0.21
0.093
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
21
0.0754
0.36 0.198
0.21
0.0936
K hat
K Star
Theta hat Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
4.949
4.161
0.0435 -1.639
0.502
-0.306
Statistics (NDs = DL)
4.343
3.754
0.0458 -1.734
0.521
-0.3
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
2.903
2.52
0.0661 -1.833
0.672
-0.366
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
4.209
3.64
0.0472 -1.739
0.532
-0.306
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-1.745
0.537
-0.308
Normal
GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.974
0.962
0.968 0.973
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.933
0.897
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.91
0.908
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.921
0.908
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.934
0.908
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.15
0.202
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.185
0.188
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.145
0.188
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.167
0.188
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.942
0.949
0.932 0.95
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.743
0.743
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.187
0.204
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.894
0.747
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.171
0.19
Detected Data appear Approximate
Gamma Distribution
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
0.844
0.75
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.175
0.191
Detected Data appear Approximate
Gamma Distribution
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.807
0.747
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.171
0.19
Detected Data appear Approximate
Gamma Distribution

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Fluoride (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2
Correlation Coefficient R 0.947 0.954 0.945
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.881
0.897
0.893
0.908
0.877
0.908
0.893
0.908
0.193
0.202
0.177
0.188
0.182
0.188
0.176
0.188
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended.
Log ROS
0.954
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Iron
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
47
Number of Missing Observations
11
Number of Distinct Observations
45
Minimum
11
Maximum
3260
Mean of Raw Data
724.7
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
921.3
Khat
0.626
Theta hat
1157
Kstar
0.6
Theta star
1207
Mean of Log Transformed Data
5.605
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
1.579
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.87
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.746
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.946
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.337E-10
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.266
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.128
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.962
A-D Test Statistic
0.975
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.802
K-S Test Statistic
0.105
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.135
Data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.985
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.949
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.946
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0645
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.0866
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.128
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Lithium
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
58
37
21 16
5
23.81 %
Number
Minimum
Maximum Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
5
5
5 5
5
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
16
2.175
47 18.51
13
14.83
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
21
2.175
47 15.29
9
14.14
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
21
2.175
47 14.7
9
14.62
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
21
-10.21
47 14.08
9
15.53
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
21
0.01
47 14.77
9
14.61
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
21
1.428
47 14.9
9
14.47
K hat
K Star
Theta hat Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.313
1.108
14.1 2.491
1.058
0.425
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.261
1.113
12.12 2.281
0.994
0.436
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.009
0.897
14.57 2.116
1.145
0.541
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.722
0.651
20.45 1.859
1.89
1.017
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
2.162
1.122
0.519
Normal
GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.952
0.911
0.907 0.96
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.89
0.887
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.82
0.908
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.812
0.908
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.919
0.908
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.194
0.213
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.243
0.188
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.223
0.188
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.2
0.188
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.946
0.959
0.953 0.943
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.511
0.758
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.187
0.22
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
0.924
0.764
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.199
0.194
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
1.208
0.769
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.212
0.195
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.39
0.785
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.141
0.197
Data Appear Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Lithium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2
Correlation Coefficient R 0.963 0.968 0.938
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.906
0.887
0.922
0.908
0.859
0.908
0.928
0.908
0.18
0.213
0.179
0.188
0.194
0.188
0.151
0.188
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended.
Log ROS
0.971
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Magnesium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
48
Number of Missing Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
35
Minimum
2.36
Maximum
16.2
Mean of Raw Data
7.614
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
5.179
Khat
2.022
Theta hat
3.765
Kstar
1.91
Theta star
3.987
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.763
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.757
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.876
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.741
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.947
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.756E-10
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.335
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.127
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.866
A-D Test Statistic
5.677
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.762
K-S Test Statistic
0.321
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.129
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.879
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.745
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.947
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.385E-10
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.306
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.127
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Manganese
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
58
11
47
46
1
2.13%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1
5
5
5
5
N/A
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
46
5
648
178.3
94
192.4
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
47
5
648
174.6
92
192
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
47
2.5
648
174.6
92
192
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
47
-290.8
648
168.3
92
202.2
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
47
5
648
174.7
92
191.9
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
47
1.226
648
174.6
92
192
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
0.655
0.627
272.2
4.252
1.605
0.377
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.634
0.608
275.4
4.196
1.633
0.389
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.626
0.6
278.9
4.181
1.66
0.397
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.643
0.616
271.9
4.211
1.612
0.383
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
4.166
1.694
0.406
Normal
GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.919
0.915
0.915
0.941
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.825
0.945
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.819
0.946
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.82
0.946
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.886
0.946
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.214
0.129
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.219
0.128
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.219
0.128
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.198
0.128
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.946
0.946
0.945
0.947
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
1.345
0.799
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.142
0.137
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
1.412
0.802
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.147
0.135
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
1.316
0.802
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.144
0.135
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.466
0.801
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.15
0.135
Data Not Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Manganese (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2
Correlation Coefficient R 0.96 0.959 0.964
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.892
0.945
0.89
0.946
0.906
0.946
0.915
0.946
0.153
0.129
0.151
0.128
0.15
0.128
0.148
0.128
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended.
Log ROS
0.966
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Molybdenum
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
58
10
48
34
14
29.17%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
14
1
1
1
1
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
34
2.02
27.3
5.641
4.355
4.627
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
48
1
27.3
4.287
3.83
4.425
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
48
0.5
27.3
4.141
3.83
4.54
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
48
-9.232
27.3
2.882
3.83
5.977
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
48
0.01
27.3
4.003
3.83
4.657
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
48
0.521
27.3
4.354
3.83
4.381
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
2.741
2.519
2.058
1.537
0.585
0.38
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.507
1.426
2.845
1.088
0.859
0.789
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.071
1.018
3.867
0.886
1.135
1.281
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.416
0.404
9.612
-0.183
2.786
-15.24
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
1.131
0.83
0.734
Normal
GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.791
0.811
0.829
0.941
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.656
0.933
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.687
0.947
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.716
0.947
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.912
0.947
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.237
0.15
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.229
0.127
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.211
0.127
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.151
0.127
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.9
0.937
0.953
0.958
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
1.02
0.755
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.152
0.152
Detected Data appear Approximate
Gamma Distribution
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
1.292
0.767
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.166
0.13
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
1.552
0.777
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.19
0.131
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
4.02
0.834
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.263
0.137
Data Not Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Molybdenum (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2
Correlation Coefficient R 0.969 0.958 0.939
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.94
0.933
0.903
0.947
0.863
0.947
0.985
0.947
0.104
0.15
0.189
0.127
0.21
0.127
0.117
0.127
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended.
Log ROS
0.993
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Nitrate Nitrite
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
58
31
27 16
11
40.74%
Number
Minimum
Maximum Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
11
0.01
0.02 0.0118
0.01
0.00405
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
16
0.011
0.92 0.452
0.392
0.288
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
27
0.01
0.92 0.273
0.157
0.311
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
27
0.005
0.92 0.27
0.157
0.313
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
27
-0.702
0.92 0.151
0.157
0.449
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
27
0.01
0.92 0.278
0.157
0.307
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
27
0.00907
0.92 0.284
0.157
0.302
K hat
K Star
Theta hat Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.654
1.386
0.273 -1.126
1.088
-0.967
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.528
0.494
0.516 -2.492
1.879
-0.754
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.442
0.417
0.612 -2.775
2.195
-0.791
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.597
0.556
0.465 -2.316
1.754
-0.757
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-2.059
1.469
-0.714
Normal
GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.964
0.904
0.905 0.99
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.915
0.887
Data Appear Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.801
0.923
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.802
0.923
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.968
0.923
Data Appear Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.222
0.213
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.236
0.167
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.241
0.167
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.0841
0.167
Data Appear Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.936
0.921
0.907 0.932
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.528
0.753
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.163
0.219
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
1.826
0.805
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.245
0.178
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
1.919
0.821
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.254
0.179
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.098
0.798
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.178
0.177
Data Not Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Nitrate -Nitrite (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2
Correlation Coefficient R 0.876 0.904 0.899
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.786
0.887
0.792
0.923
0.783
0.923
0.925
0.923
0.211
0.213
0.229
0.167
0.23
0.167
0.159
0.167
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended.
Log ROS
0.972
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Potassium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
48
Number of Missing Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
41
Minimum
1.23
Maximum
11.5
Mean of Raw Data
4.612
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
2.89
Khat
2.378
Theta hat
1.94
Kstar
2.243
Theta star
2.056
Mean of Log Transformed Data
1.304
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.72
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.948
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.88
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.947
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 5.1564E-5
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.158
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.127
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.971
A-D Test Statistic
1.995
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.76
K-S Test Statistic
0.195
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.129
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.938
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.854
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.947
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.0446E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.231
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.127
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Sodium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
48
Number of Missing Observations
10
Number of Distinct Observations
40
Minimum
11.2
Maximum
125
Mean of Raw Data
39.08
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
35.74
Khat
1.593
Theta hat
24.54
Kstar
1.507
Theta star
25.93
Mean of Log Transformed Data
3.32
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.81
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.865
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.732
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.947
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 8.300E-11
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.218
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.127
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.946
A-D Test Statistic
2.62
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.766
K-S Test Statistic
0.182
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.13
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.942
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.86
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.947
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 7.1749E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.163
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.127
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Strontium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
36
Number of Missing Observations
22
Number of Distinct Observations
32
Minimum
131
Maximum
430
Mean of Raw Data
236.4
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
102
Khat
6.095
Theta hat
38.79
Kstar
5.605
Theta star
42.17
Mean of Log Transformed Data
5.381
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.408
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.904
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.795
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.935
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 2.7531
E-6
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.304
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.145
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.93
A-D Test Statistic
2.915
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.75
K-S Test Statistic
0.282
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.147
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.921
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.825
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.935
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.8446E-5
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.266
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.145
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Sulfate
Num Obs
Num Miss
Num Valid
Detects
NDs
% NDs
Raw Statistics
58
0
58
55
3
5.17%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
3
2
5
4
5
1.732
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
55
0.21
140
23.67
9.6
40.53
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
58
0.21
140
22.65
9.35
39.69
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
58
0.21
140
22.55
9.35
39.74
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
58
-12.98
140
22.18
9.35
39.99
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
58
0.01
140
22.45
9.35
39.8
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
58
0.21
140
22.48
9.35
39.78
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
0.393
0.384
60.18
1.486
2.188
1.472
Statistics (NDs = DL)
0.4
0.391
56.58
1.477
2.132
1.444
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
0.394
0.385
57.24
1.441
2.141
1.485
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.347
0.341
64.66
1.171
2.527
2.158
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
1.386
2.176
1.57
Normal
GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.762
0.754
0.754
0.768
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.575
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.564
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.564
0
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.588
0
Data Not Normal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.392
0.119
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.391
0.116
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.39
0.116
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.386
0.116
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.917
0.918
0.918
0.917
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
2.823
0.841
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.19
0.129
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
2.738
0.839
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.191
0.125
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
2.771
0.841
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.189
0.125
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
2.377
0.852
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.187
0.126
Data Not Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Sulfate (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2
Correlation Coefficient R 0.935 0.943 0.944
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Log ROS
0.938
Apr. Test
P Value
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.846
1.7895E-7
Data Not Lognormal
0.861
4.2042E-7
Data Not Lognormal
0.863
5.6032E-7
Data Not Lognormal
0.852
1.3349E-7
Data Not Lognormal
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.238
0.119
Data Not Lognormal
0.21
0.116
Data Not Lognormal
0.216
0.116
Data Not Lognormal
0.224
0.116
Data Not Lognormal
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended.
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
TDS
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
58
Number of Distinct Observations
34
Minimum
66
Maximum
510
Mean of Raw Data
226.2
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
121.2
Khat
3.882
Theta hat
58.27
Kstar
3.693
Theta star
61.25
Mean of Log Transformed Data
5.287
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.52
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R 0.941
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.868
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value 9.5924E-7
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.172
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value 0.116
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.975
A-D Test Statistic
1.658
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.754
K-S Test Statistic
0.157
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.117
Data not Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.972
Approximate Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.928
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.00229
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.152
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.116
Data not Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Non -parametric GOF Test Results
Data do not follow a discernible distribution at (0.05) Level of Significance
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
TOC
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
32
Number of Missing Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
30
Minimum
0.458
Maximum
1.3
Mean of Raw Data
0.794
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
0.211
Khat
14.34
Theta hat
0.0553
Kstar
13.02
Theta star
0.061
Mean of Log Transformed Data
-0.266
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.273
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.98
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.954
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.93
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.225
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.109
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.154
Data appear Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.986
A-D Test Statistic
0.554
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.746
K-S Test Statistic
0.136
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.155
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.98
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.951
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.93
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.182
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.154
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.154
Data appear Approximate —Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Total Radium
Raw Statistics
Number of Valid Observations
26
Number of Missing Observations
26
Number of Distinct Observations
26
Minimum
0.247
Maximum
4.345
Mean of Raw Data
1.725
Standard Deviation of Raw Data
1.058
Khat
2.675
Theta hat
0.645
Kstar
2.392
Theta star
0.721
Mean of Log Transformed Data
0.347
Standard Deviation of Log Transformed Data
0.676
Normal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.96
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.917
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.0409
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.179
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data not Normal at (0.05) Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.984
A-D Test Statistic
0.426
A-D Critical (0.05) Value
0.753
K-S Test Statistic
0.141
K-S Critical(0.05) Value
0.173
Data appear Gamma Distributed at (0.05) Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test Results
Correlation Coefficient R
0.979
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.96
Shapiro Wilk Critical (0.05) Value
0.92
Approximate Shapiro Wilk P Value
0.415
Lilliefors Test Statistic
0.109
Lilliefors Critical (0.05) Value
0.17
Data appear Lognormal at (0.05) Significance Level
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Total Uranium
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 52 36 16 12 4 25.00%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
4
2.0000E-4
2.0000E-4
2.0000E-4
2.0000E-4
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
12
1.2300E-4
0.00188
5.7475E-4
4.3750E-4
5.4207E-4
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
16
1.2300E-4
0.00188
4.8106E-4
3.1500E-4
4.9353E-4
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
16
1.0000E-4
0.00188
4.5606E-4
3.1500E-4
5.1045E-4
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
16
-4.425E-4
0.00188
3.9286E-4
3.1500E-4
5.7597E-4
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
16
1.2300E-4
0.01
0.00293
4.6400E-4
0.00424
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
16
7.0023E-5
0.00188
4.6184E-4
3.1500E-4
5.0666E-4
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.689
1.323
3.4020E-4
-7.786
0.815
-0.105
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.666
1.395
2.8872E-4
-7.969
0.771
-0.0967
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.254
1.06
3.6374E-4
-8.142
0.945
-0.116
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.542
0.482
0.00541
-6.991
1.584
-0.227
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
-8.104
0.918
-0.113
Normal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.853 0.809 0.83 0.918
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
0.735
0.859
Data Not Normal
0.666
0.887
Data Not Normal
0.696
0.887
Data Not Normal
0.857
0.887
Data Not Normal
0.329
0.243
Data Not Normal
0.324
0.213
Data Not Normal
0.304
0.213
Data Not Normal
0.261
0.213
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2 Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R 0.952 0.935 0.957 0.857
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)
0.615
0.744
0.249
0.249
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
1.117
0.753
0.224
0.219
Data Not Gamma Distributed
0.781
0.759
0.184
0.22
Detected Data appear Approximate Gamma Distribution
1.62
0.793
0.288
0.227
Data Not Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Total -Uranium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2
Correlation Coefficient R 0.972 0.946 0.958
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.941
0.859
0.894
0.887
0.904
0.887
0.956
0.887
0.193
0.243
0.189
0.213
0.131
0.213
0.13
0.213
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DL/2 are not recommended.
Log ROS
0.98
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Vanadium
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 58 22 36 32 4 11.11 %
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
32
0.282
4.58
2.257
2.465
1.417
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
36
0.282
4.58
2.04
2.425
1.472
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
36
0.15
4.58
2.023
2.425
1.493
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
36
-1.276
4.58
1.937
2.425
1.626
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
36
0.282
4.58
2.063
2.425
1.446
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
36
0.176
4.58
2.037
2.425
1.476
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.656
1.522
1.363
0.483
0.955
1.978
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.34
1.247
1.522
0.295
1.047
3.546
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.167
1.088
1.734
0.218
1.176
5.386
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.489
1.383
1.386
0.352
0.976
2.77
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
0.281
1.073
3.813
Normal
GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.955
0.942
0.948
0.972
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.889
0.93
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.863
0.935
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.874
0.935
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.928
0.935
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.178
0.154
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.218
0.145
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.212
0.145
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.178
0.145
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.894
0.896
0.886
0.905
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
2.208
0.763
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.227
0.158
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
2.486
0.77
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.216
0.15
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
2.123
0.773
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.219
0.151
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
2.275
0.767
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.206
0.15
Data Not Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Vanadium (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2
Correlation Coefficient R 0.905 0.91 0.922
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.799
0.93
0.802
0.935
0.827
0.935
0.827
0.935
0.257
0.154
0.243
0.145
0.251
0.145
0.245
0.145
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended.
Log ROS
0.921
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Appendix B

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix B
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Zinc
Num Obs Num Miss Num Valid Detects NDs % NDs
Raw Statistics 58 12 46 23 23 50.00%
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
SD
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
23
5
10
5.652
5
1.722
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
23
2.407
54
15.07
9
13.92
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL value)
46
2.407
54
10.36
5
10.9
Statistics (All: NDs treated as DL/2 value)
46
2.407
54
8.948
3.482
11.55
Statistics (Normal ROS Imputed Data)
46
-21.24
54
6.41
4.752
14.31
Statistics (Gamma ROS Imputed Data)
46
0.01
54
8.154
3.865
12.07
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Imputed Data)
46
0.651
54
9.137
4.716
11.5
K hat
K Star
Theta hat
Log Mean
Log Stdv
Log CV
Statistics (Non -Detects Only)
1.379
1.228
10.93
2.308
0.931
0.404
Statistics (NDs = DL)
1.644
1.551
6.303
2.004
0.739
0.369
Statistics (NDs = DL/2)
1.072
1.017
8.344
1.657
0.941
0.568
Statistics (Gamma ROS Estimates)
0.319
0.313
25.54
-0.0396
3.119
-78.72
Statistics (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
1.655
1.025
0.619
Normal
GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Normal ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.907
0.789
0.788
0.952
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
0.822
0.914
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
0.636
0.945
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
0.63
0.945
Data Not Normal
Shapiro -Wilk (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.918
0.945
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
0.239
0.18
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
0.295
0.129
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
0.306
0.129
Data Not Normal
Lilliefors (Normal ROS Estimates)
0.189
0.129
Data Not Normal
Gamma GOF Test Results
No NDs
NDs = DL
NDs = DL/2
Gamma ROS
Correlation Coefficient R
0.982
0.933
0.956
0.977
Test value
Crit. (0.05)
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Anderson -Darling (Detects Only)
0.719
0.762
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Detects Only)
0.169
0.185
Detected Data Appear Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL)
4.957
0.766
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL)
0.299
0.133
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (NDs = DL/2)
4.842
0.776
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (NDs = DL/2)
0.237
0.134
Data Not Gamma Distributed
Anderson -Darling (Gamma ROS Estimates)
1.736
0.857
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Gamma ROS Est.)
0.191
0.141
Data Not Gamma Distributed

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Goodness of Fit Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Zinc (Continued)
Lognormal GOF Test Results
No NDs NDs = DL NDs = DL/2
Correlation Coefficient R 0.98 0.907 0.891
Shapiro -Wilk (Detects Only)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL)
Shapiro -Wilk (NDs = DL/2)
Shapiro -Wilk (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Lilliefors (Detects Only)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL)
Lilliefors (NDs = DL/2)
Lilliefors (Lognormal ROS Estimates)
Test value Crit. (0.05)
0.947
0.914
0.82
0.945
0.778
0.945
0.96
0.945
0.133
0.18
0.29
0.129
0.244
0.129
0.127
0.129
Note: Substitution methods such as DL or DU2 are not recommended.
Log ROS
0.984
Conclusion with Alpha(0.05)
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Not Lognormal
Data Appear Lognormal
Appendix B

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
APPENDIX C
SCATTER PLOTS OF TIME VERSUS
CONCENTRATION
SynTerra

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S
6.5
6.0
Q 5.5
5.0
4.5
06/24115
34
33
32
31
30
23
28
06/24/15
25
20
>Z
E 15
H
10
5
06/24/15
04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17
Date
04/18/16 02/ 11 / 17 12/07/17
Date
04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17
Date
Appendix C
Well ID
• MW-12S
10/02/18
120
100
U Well ID
a 8o
V) • MW-12S
60
40
06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S
s
4
0 3
2
1
0
06/24/15
04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17
Date
Appendix C
200
150
0. 100 WeII ID
W 50
0 0 • MW-12S
-50
-100
06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
400
350
300 Well ID
L 250
W
200 • MW-12S
150
100
06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
10
WeII ID
6
L • MW-12S
I-- 4
2
06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S
30
25
Y
20
rn
R 15
Y 10
Q 5
0
06/24/15
800
600
400
200 W
0
06/24/15
04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17
Date
Appendix C
04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
to
0.6
O
0.6
Well ID
E
0.4
• MW-12S
Q
0.2
0.0
06/24/15
04/18/16 02/11/17
12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
2.0
1.5
Well ID
d
H
a`
to
• MW-12S
0.5
06/24/15
04/18/16 02/11/17
12/07/17 10/02/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S
20
15
Well ID
10
• MW-12S
5
06/24/15
04/18/16 02/11/17
12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
1.0
•
��• Nam• —:ram• •
• • • • •
0.8
0.6
Well ID
y
0.4
• MW-12S
m
0.2
0.0
06/24/15
04/18/16 02/11/17
12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
25
Gf
� 20
Well ID
M 15
L
a4 • MW-12S
V 10
m
5
06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
51.0
50.5
C
Well ID
2 50.0
C O •—• • Nam• • • • • • •
m • MW-12S
49.5
49.0
06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11 / 17 12/07/ 17 10/02/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S
Appendix C
to O
•—• • Nam• •
• • • • •
E
0.8
0.6
Well ID
E
R
0.4
• MW-12S
U
02
0.0
06/24/15
04/18/16 02/11/17
12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
10
8
6
Well ID
v
4
• MW-12S
2
0
06/24/15
04/18/16 02/11 / 17
12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
10
m s
o 8—
R7 • MW-12S
U 6
5
06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
4
y 3
0 2 Well ID
• MW-12S
U 1
0
06/24/15 04/18/16 02111117 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S
Appendix C
E 6
3
E 4 Well ID
O
• MW-12S
2
U
0
06124115 04/18/16 02/11117 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
6
>
5
EI
4
O
Well ID
3
LI.
O
L
2
• MW-12S
�
1
U
0
.
06/24/15
04/18/16 02/11/17
12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
2.5
2.0
Well ID
1.5
• MW-12S
1.0
0.5
06/24/15
04/18/16 02/11/17
12/07/17 10/02/18
10
8
ti.
N 6
1z
tZ
O 4
U
2
0
06/24/15
Date
04/18/16 02111117 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S
0.10
0.09
0.08
0 0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
06/24/15
8,000
6,000
c
0 4,000
2,000
0
06/24/ 15
04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17
Date
04/18/16 02/11 /17 12/07/17
Date
Appendix C
3.0
2.5
V 2.0 We11 1D
y 1.5
J 1.0 • MW-12S
0.5
0.0
06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
5.0
4.5
4.0
Well ID
3.5
3.0 • MW-12S
2.5
2.0
O6/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S
1.40
E 1.15
.N
= 0.90
0.65
0.40
06/24/15
400
N 300
d
c
200
c
100
0
06/24/15
0.050
0.045
0.040
7
L 0.035
N 0.030
0.025
0.020
06/24/ 15
04/18/16 02/11 / 17 12/07/17
Date
Appendix C
10/02/18
04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
04/18/16 02/11 /17 12/07/17
Date
WeII ID
• MW-12S
10/02/18
300
250
200 WeIIID
t 150
m 100 • MW-12S
50
0
06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S
15
7
C 10
d
T 5
O
2
0
06/24/15
6
5
4
Y 3
v
Z 2
1
0
06/24/15
0.8
d
r 0.6
Z
�I 0.4
R
r 02
Z
0.0
06/24/15
04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17
Date
04/18/16 02/11117 12/07/17
Date
04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17
Date
Appendix C
Well ID
• MW-12S
101021l 8
Well ID
• MW-12S
10/02/18
s
4
y 3 WeII ID
G • MW-12S
a 2
1
06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S
Appendix C
1.0 O •—• • N��• • • • • • •
£ 0.8
0.6 Well ID
d
0.4 • MW-12S
y 0.2
0.0
06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
6
5
3 4 Well ID
:a 3
G 2 • MW-12S
N
1
0
06/24/15 04/18/16 02111117 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
30
25
Well ID
20
• MW-12S
15
10
06/24/15 04/18/16 02111117 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
2.5
2.0
N
_ 1.5 Well ID
y to• MW-12S
0.5
06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S
to
0.8
m
'a 0.6
1�
7 0.4
02
0.0
06/24/15
120
100
80
F- 60
40
20
06/24/15
0.20
E 0.15
s 0.10
F-
0.05 J�—
06/24/15
04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17
Date
04/18/16
Appendix C
02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
04/18/16 02/11 / 17 12107/ 17 10/02/18
Date
04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Surficial Flow Zone Well: MW-12S
2.5
2.0
to
1.5 Well ID
I 1.0 • MW-12S
R
p 0.5
H
0.0
06/24/15 04/18/16 02/11/17 12/07/17 10/02/18
Date
0.00025
E
.E
0.00020
`
Well ID
0.00015
I
• MW-12S
0.00010
H
0.00005
06/24/15 04/18/16
02/11/17 12/07/17
10/02/18
Date
6
5
4
Well ID
3
2
• MW-12S
1
0
06/24/15 04/18/16
02/11/17 12/07/17
10/02/18
Date
300
250
200
WeIIID
150
N
100
• MW-12S
50
0
06/24/15 04/18/16
02/11/17 12/07/17
10/02/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D
Appendix C
7.0
6.5 Well ID
Q A o m 4 0 • BG-02
6.0 A p0 0 MW-12D
5.5
4
07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06117 11 /06/18
Date
38
36
34 0 0 0 Well ID
J
32 • BG-02
� pp
30
o MW-12D
28
07/11/11 051 9/13 03/09115 01/06/17 11106/18
Date
30
25
fl.. Well ID
20 0 • BG-02
15 AAA 0 MW-12D
0 0
10
07/11/11 051 9/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11106/18
Date
800
600
Well ID
U
d 400 • BG-02
200 0 MW-12D
A A m A AMM�&AAAAA A 0 AL A 0
0
07/11/ 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D
Appendix C
4 °
° ° Well ID
p 2 ZS • BG-02
1 o MW-12D
0
07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09115 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
400
300
a 200 ° ° ° Well ID
° ° °
0 100 °° . BG-02
0 MW-12D
-100
-200
07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18
Date
600
500
400 LIA
Well ID
°°
j 300 ° ° ° ° ° °° ° • BG-02
200 Q ° °
0 MW-12D
100
0
07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11106/18
Date
10 °
r 8 Q Q°��° °°
° ° Well ID
4 /� ° ° ° ° • BG-02
I— 2 ° 0 MW-12D
0
07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11 /06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D
Appendix C
r
C
R
Y
Q
400
300
200
100
0
07/11 / 11
05/09/13
A m 4 �AAAhA A A 4
03/09115 01 /06117 11 /06/18
Date
Well ID
• BG-02
A MW-12D
800
0
600
Well ID
400
p
• BG-02
200
0 MW-12D
Qp0
0
07/11 / 11
05/09/13
03/09/15 01 /06/17 11106/18
Date
2.0
=
1.5
Well ID
O
• BG-02
Q
1.0
II II /"tmIrk /}AIIAQII II6.II...2AO
o MW-12D
0.5
07/11 / 11
05/09/13
03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18
Date
5
4
Well ID
=
3
i
2
• BG-02
Q
A MW-12D
1
II II..II...1"If"8QAnAin .in InL.8 N
0
�^
07/11111
05/09/13
03/09/15 01 /06117 11 /06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D
Appendix C
60
60
Well ID
40
• BG-02
cc
20
p '�A 4
0 MW-12D
0
07/11 / 11
051 9/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06118
Date
1.0-
A..II. n..W,_a AD
0.6
Well ID
0.6
• BG-02
m 0.4
o MW-12D
0.2
07/11/11
05/09/13 03/09/15 0 C/06/17 11/06/18
Date
400
d
R 300
c
200
L
R
00V 100
0
07/11/11
Well ID
• BG-02
o MW-12D
4 4 A/, A AAA A A A 0 0 A
05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
51.0
50.5
c Well ID
C 50.0 a _m...n �rvrm^.&0Ala Aa II M 0 2. 4 • BG 02
m
49.5 o MW-12D
49.0
07/11/ 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06117 11/06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D
to
E 0.6
0.6 E
'a 0.4
R
L) 0.2
0.0
07/11/11
05/09/13 03/09/15
Date
Appendix C
n rn��QQana n m m ��
Well ID
• BG-02
MW-12D
01 /06117 11 /06/18
60
50
E Well ID
2 40
v 0 BG-02
30
U 20 0 MW-12D
10
07/11/11 051 9/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11106/18
Date
10 p
m s
8 Well ID
7 0 BG-02
C) 6
o MW-12D
5
07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
50
40
d
�O 30 Well ID
.L
� 20
• BG-02
U 10 0 MW-12D
0 A 4 ZIA 4 �AAAAA A 0 m 0 A
07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11 /06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D
12
£ 10
7 8
O 6
4-
2
0
07/11/11
05/09/13 03/09/15
Date
1.0
>I 0.8
0.6
E 0.4
t 0.2
U
0.0
07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15
Date
Appendix C
Well ID
• BG-02
p 0 MW-12D
01 /06/17 11 /06/18
01/06/17
0
Well ID
• BG-02
MW-12D
11 /06/18
1.40 4
1.15
well ID
cc
0.90 • BG-02
0.65 MW-12D
0.40
07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18
Date
s
4
L. 3 Well ID
O
O 2 • BG-02
U 1 4 4 4 A MW-12D
0
07111111 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D
0.4
y 0.3
C 02
0
LL- 0.1
0.0
07/11/11
1,500
1,000
C
O
500
0
07/11 /11
s
4
V 3
a4
J
1
0
07111111
6
5
7
4
w 3
J
2
1
07/11111
05/09/13
05/09/13
Appendix C
Well ID
• BG-02
04444A004 0 pp 0 0
A MW-12D
03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18
Date
p Well ID
- - • BG-02
p A MW-12D
� fl
03/09/15 01 /06/ 17 11 /06/18
Date
05/09/13 03/09/15
Date
05/09/13 03/09/15
Date
Well ID
• BG-02
II l/%IYVmIIQAIIAII II DN; II-/G0
MW-12D
01 /06/17 11 /06/18
440��4400
Well ID
p�
• BG-02
A MW-12D
01 /06/17 11 /06/18

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D
Appendix C
15
.N
10
Well ID
d
_
• BG-02
�1
5
A
0 MW-12D
0
07/11 / 11
05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06118
Date
800
d
o
d
600
WeIIID
c
400
• BG-02
C
200
o MW-12D
0
07/11 / 11
05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18
Date
0.20
0.15
7
i 0.10
d
0.05
0.00
07/11/11
3, 000
2,500
2,000
� 1,500
1,000
500
0
07/11 /11
05/09/13 03/09/15
Date
05/09/13 03/09/15
Date
Well ID
• BG-02
II...LB��IIIIDIIDIIII..m.�
o MW-12D
01 /06117 11 /06/18
01 /06117
Well ID
• BG-02
o MW-12D
11 /06/18

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D
Appendix C
2.0
E
°
=
1.5
°
WeIIID
d
1.0
• �4
4 , <M; ^�Q°4° II it
• BG-02
T
0
0.5
0
MW-12D
° °
0.0
07/11 / 11
05/09/13 03/09/15
01 /06117 11 /06/18
Date
10
8
.he6 Well ID
4
• BG-02
Z °
2 ° 0 MW-12D
0
07111111 05/09/13 03109/15 01/06/17 11 /06/18
Date
0.$
d
'r °
0.6 Well ID
Z
�I 0.4 • BG-02
y_ 0.2 ° °°° °° A MW-12D
L\AZ °
0.0
07/11 / 11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18
Date
5 /
4 �( WeIIID
3 •••ii�--_ ��_
• BG-02
y
a
2 A MW-12D
° ° ° °fig°°Q° ° ° m ° °
1
07/11111 05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D
10
05/09/13 03/09/15
Date
Appendix C
Well ID
• BG-02
0 MW-12D
B IN. 8.1Y,-.6 d
01/06/17 11/06/13
60
50
E 40 Well ID
0 30 0 BG-02
20
U) 0 MW-12D
10 A 0 4L A �4AAA A A A m A L
0
07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11 /06/18
Date
400
300
200
100
0
07/11/11
Well ID
0 BG-02
0 A AL 4 04A 04 4 A 4 4 A o MW-12D
05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17 11 /06/18
Date
10
8
m
6
w
7 4-
2
0 pp A& 4 MMMAAAAAApAL\A44
07/11/11 051 9/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11 /06/13
Date
Well ID
• BG-02
o MW-12D

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D
Appendix C
10
0.s
4)
Well ID
a3
0.6
�
0.4
• BG-02
A MW-12D
0.2
0.0
07/11/11
05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06117
11 /06/18
Date
500
400
Well ID
300
200
• BG-02
100
A A0 A Z��M'nA' 60A
AA 0 Op A
4
o MW-12D
0
07/11/11
05/09/13 03/09/15 01 /06/17
11 /06/18
Date
0.20
E 0.15
s 0.10
F-
0.05
07/11/11
well ID
i
• BG-02
A MW-12D
05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11 /06/18
Date
2.5
2.0
U 1.5 Well ID
0 1.0 • BG-02
0.5 0 o MW-12D
0.0
07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Transition Zone Wells: BG-02 and MW-12D
40
E
3 30
�c
R
� zo
I
w 10
H
0
07/11/11
0.0012
E
0.000�
o.000
I
0.000
H
0.000
111/11
30
25
20
V
15
IV 10
5
0
07/11/11
05/09/13 03109/15
Date
05/09/ 13 03/09/ 15
Date
05/09/13
0
IGYILII:3itl
Appendix C
Well ID
• BG-02
0 MW-12D
11 /06118
Well ID
A • BG-02
A MW-12D
AAA AA AA A A
4
01 /06/17 11 /06/18
Well ID
• BG-02
0 MW-12D
04 A 4 A 00 0 0'L0 4
03/09M 5 01 /06/17 11 /06/18
Date
A Q--4II.II....8Q....II....
05/09/13 03109/15 01/06/17
Date
Well ID
• BG-02
0 MW-12D
11106/18

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR
a.o
7.5
7.0 ■ l W.-M U ■... ■_ Well ID
65 -
a v A • BG-01 ■ MW-136R
6.0- ♦ CCR-102BR-BG V MW-14BR
5.5
5.0
07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/C6/17 11/06/18
Date
40
35
30 Well ID
25 w v 0 0 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
20 v vv vv v "�'- ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
1s v
10
07/11/11 O5/09/1� 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Data
2s
M' v
20 Well ID
a Q
-\ p-i
75 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
' ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
10
07/11/11 05/09/1� 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
1,000
B00 AAAADOA 0
iS 60D F ■ �. -in■ ■ 4 0 4 WeII ID
d F' ■--.F..i...f_IF..._..._.
v) 400 v • BG-01 ■ MW-136R
2W VV v �� v v v v v ♦ CCR-102BR-BG V MW-14BR
N
0
07/11/11 05109/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
10
6
Well ID
s-
o 4 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
2 v 4 a - ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR
600
400
Well ID
0.
200
p frn
D
\Q v j 0
v
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
E- f ■r ■ ■
♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
20D
r
-400
07/11/11 05/09/13
03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
BOO
600
Well ID
t
400
v - ,,-
W
200
I■ V,
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
0
r,r
-200
07/11/11 05/09/13
03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
19
Q A \x
Well ID
0
6
i v n V
..Q�
4
j
0 BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
F
2
F ; p
♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
D
07/11/11 05/09/11
03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/13
Date
300
250
Q QQ A
200
or r1�0��.�
Well ID
150
v pp7 v v
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
m
10
-
`b v
a
♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
5o
s
D
07/11/11 05/09/1
03/09/1 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
boa
500
E
3
400
Well ID
c
300
/
\
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
_3
Q
200
100
■ ■ _�
♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
■ v-
Int ° 8
D
07/11/11 05/09/1
D3/09/1 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR
1.0-❑-i3S7IIII->?Q-CF �� M
GD.6 ; // Well ID
£ 0.6 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
_ i.
0.4 A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
0.2
07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
s
4
Well ID
E 3
d • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
2
Q 1 o CCR-102BR-BG 7 MW-14BR
ffXII�IISiIIQ4Q Q� 17 �•
D
07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
12a
100
£ so Well ID
60 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
m 40 r "�
y, o CCR-102BR-BG 7 MW-14BR
20 70 p�� D p 0
D
07/11/11 05/09/1 03/09/1 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
1.0-Q-II><IIIil-II?JUi21 a no
E 0.s
� Well ID
0.6 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
m 0.4 A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
0.z
07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
250
C 150 '7 ... Well D
.Ea100 p0 p 7�7 V V 7, X�V- F-_ • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
0 50 • CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
0
07/11/11 051 9/1 D3/09/1 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR
ss p
c g0 Well ID
O
O • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
CO 55
o CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
50
07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
1.0-Q-ffia13GO I-I!�-Q iY IM a d
E 0.s
3 0.6 Well ID
E
-O 0.4 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
U 0.2
• CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
0.0
07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
80
■
E 6D F.�..i..f■..F..Iwlr ..y i..,..._.. _... Well ID
'v 40 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
U 20 p � AAA A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
0
07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
10 IF ❑
d 9
e a `I Well ID
a7 I • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
V 6 % ♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
5
07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
50
W.
40- Wf—■—
v ~; ■. ■ Well ID
O 20 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
s
C) 70 - A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
0
07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR
20
3 15 Well ID
G 10
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
U 5 I R o CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
0
07/11/11 05/09/1� 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
_ 0.s
�I 0.a
0.3 WeII ID
E 0.2 �: • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
t01 /' a CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
U Fes` _.
0.0
07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
s
Well ID
p
4 -■—• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
U r�
z A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
�7-i7ffi57IIffi
0
07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
s
4
L
3 Well ID
0.
0 2 v
8 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
A CCR-1026R-BG ♦ MW-146R
0
07/11/11 05/09/13 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
0.4
v
N 0.3 ° ° v ° ° Well ID
p 0.2 ° °°° • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
LL o.1 • CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
0.0
07/11/11 05/09/11 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR
4,00D
3,000
C
O 2.000
1,000
0
07/11/11
50
4D
7 30
20
J
10
0
07/11/11
20
E15
afe+ 10
C
CI
� 5
0
07/11/11
Boo
p ■��
WeIIID
/ -■ / \■-t...
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
IN ��
• CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
05/09/13 03/09/15
01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
Well ID
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
-V AUUMVGIIfv14II U ❑1 V no
CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
05/09/13 03/09/15
01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
v
A04 p A
Well ID
A A
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
AA A
A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
v
05/09/11 03/09/15
01/06/17 11106118
Date
05/09/11
4 �
■ �..i �■ �� A. Well ID
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
* CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
D3/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
y 600 r--
N
M 400
e v io �_..II .■
_.._
zoo v p 0 v -
0
07/11/11 05/09/13 1)3/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
Well ID
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
• CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR
0,20
0,15 Well ID
7
0,10 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
0.05- ]aGnO-aIIII 4 o CCR-102BR-BG v MW-14BR
0.00
07/11/11 D5/09/1 03/09/1 01/0^oi17 11/06/18
Date
150
100
I ,
Well ID
/
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
d
g
50
f�
A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
F�-II-II�II�
0
07/11/11 05/09/1
03/09/1 01/06/17
11/06/18
Date
30
E
25
c
20
Well ID
�Q
V
15
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
T
10
v00 0
0�2 O
♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
5
f.�ii..� 17p p
0 0
0
07/11/11 D5/09/1�
03/09/15 01/06/17
Data
11/06/13
10
8 �
Well ID
v 4 • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
Z ■ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
2
0 F U 0 0 -
07/11/11 O5/09/1� D3/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
1.0
d
i 0.8
Z 0.6 WeII ID
RI 0.4 -_ - V, F _ • BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
Z - ,-F-.� - ` A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
!_ 0.2
0.0
07/11/11 OS/09/1� 03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR
15
E
0AAA�p
1p
Well ID
w
AAA S
.�
5
F
0
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
ILE-
o CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
0
07/11/11 05/09/1�
03/09/15
01/06/17 11/06/18
Data
10
a
Well ID
6
4
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
2
00 A�ppp0p
A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
p
-Q i7Q0QQ•IIfII if �ii II Q�
0
D7/11/11 05/09/11
03/09/15
01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
150
p
4A4pp p
E
1o0
A
Well ID
A
'B
o
v
p
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
W
so
v vvv vv ✓ - V,V_ V
0 CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
F Svv
0
07/"/ 11 05/09/1
03/09/1
01 /06/17 11/06/18
Date
500
�a00
■
4 -■
Well ID
�.�
M.—U45-M._...
C
o
300
_...
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
y
200
• CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
v v
100
07/11/11 O5/09/1�
03/09/15
01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
150
0000000
d
100
0 o A
Well ID
w
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
y
50
A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
0
-
07/11/11 05/09/1
D3/09/1
01/06/17 11/06/18
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR
0,20
0.18
:2 0,16
3 0.14
to
0,12
0,10
07/11/11
600
500
400
p 300
~ 200
100
D
07/11/11
D5/09/1 03/09/1
Date
Well ID
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
0 CCR-102BR-BG v MW-14BR
01/06/17 11/06/18
Q� AAAAAA p Q 0
■ ■ .� ♦ i�.F.rF♦..�..■..�.._..._.
v
vv°p ov 17'71717
0 /09/1 03/09/1 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
Well ID
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
0,60
0,45
\.
Well ID
0,30
/ \
�\
• BG-01 ■ MW-136R
0.15
'II->1I7�IIII-4II
CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW14BR
0.00
07/11/11 05/0911
03/09/1
CVO^oil,'
11/06/18
Date
1.40
v
1.15
Well ID
0.90
W.
0
0 17 V p
'
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
0.65,�
♦ CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
...\
.,■. ...i
0.40
07/11/11 D5/09/1
03/09/1
01/06/17
11/06/18
Date
80
E 6D
-O I1 Well ID
W 40
• 8G-01 ■ MW-13BR
:° 20A CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR
F j I
0
07/11/11 O5
/09/1� D3/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/13
Date

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix C
Scatter Plots of Time versus Concentration
Bedrock Flow Zone Wells: BG-01, CCR-102BR-BG, MW-13BR, and MW-14BR
0.002U
s
3 0.0015
'c
R
:3 0.0010
_I
R 0.0005
o.0000
07/11/11
s
E 4
C5
3
R 2
c
S 1
0
07/11/11
1oa
so
C 60
N 40
20
0
07/11/11
05/09/13
05109/13
05/09/14
/ 1
or
03/09/15
Date
01/06/17 11/06/18
v ° v° v° v v°° v
v °
03/09/15 01/06/17 11/06/18
Date
03/09/1
Date
r
01/06/17 11/06/18
Well ID
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
0 CCR-102BR-13G v MW-14BR
Well ID
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
o CCR-102BR-BG v MW-14BR
Well ID
• BG-01 ■ MW-13BR
o CCR-102BR-BG ♦ MW-14BR

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
SynTerra
BOX -AND -WHISKER PLOTS - COMPARISON OF
CONCENTRATIONS AMONG BACKGROUND WELLS

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells
Transition Zone
7.0
6.5
2
6.0
5.5
BG-02 MW-12D
400
300
c
200
Y
a loll]
0
800
E 600
3
c
E 400
3
Q 200
0
BG-02
BG-02
T
MW-12D
MW-12D
2.0
1.5
E
Q
1.0
0.5
BG-02
5 �k
4
v
'E
3
d
2
a
1
0
BG-02
80
60
40
20
0
BG-02
MW-12D
MW-12D
T
MW-12D
Appendix D
1.0
E 0.8
0.6
N
m 0.4
0.2
BG-02 MW-12D
H&
+' 300
R T
c 4
Q 200
R
100
CO
0
BG-02 MW-12D
51.0
50.5
c
O 50.0
O
m
49.5
49.0
BG-02 MW-12D

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells
Transition Zone
1.0
0.8
E
0.6
E
ca
0.4
U 0.2
0.0
BG-02 MW-12D
50
50
40
30
U
20
10
BG-02
10
�k
d
9
�
8
O
7
to
U
6
5
BG-02
MW-12D
y
MW-12D
50
40
d
30
O
:E 20
U
10
0
BG-02
T
MW-12D
12
10
�_ 8
E 6
O
4
U 2
0
BG-02 MW-12D
1.0
>� 0.8
E 0.6
EO 0.4
V 0.2
0.0
BG-02
MW-12D
Appendix D
1.40
1.15
<o
0.90
U
0.65
0.40
BG-02 MW-12D
5
4
3
U 2
1 O
0
BG-02 MW-12D
0.4
N 0.3
0 0.2
u- 0.1
0.0
BG-02 MW-12D

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells
Transition Zone
1500
1000
C
O
L
500
0
BG-02
5
4
3
2
1
0
BG-02
7
T
MW-12D
MW-12D
11
N 600
m
c
a1 400
c
� 200
0
6
0.20
5
0.15
4
v
0.10
J
0.05
2 *
1
0.00
BG-02 MW-12D
BG-02
BG-02
BG-02
T
MW-12D
MW-12D
MW-12D
3000
2500
2000
1500
.F+
v 1000
500
0
BG-02
Appendix D
MW-12D
2.0
E
1.5
,g
c
m
�
1.0
O
0.5
0.0
BG-02
MW-12D
10
6
� 4
Z
2
0
BG-02
T
MW-12D

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells
Transition Zone
0.8
41
0.6
Z
�I 0.4
t6
r 0.2
Z
0.0
BG-02
MW-12D
E 4
N 3
O
a 2
1
BG-02
y
MW-12D
10
8
E
6
d 4
d
N 2
0
BG-02
MW-12D
60
50
E 40
3
30
20
10
0
BG-02
400
E 300
200
0
Vi 100
T
MW-12D
0
BG-02 MW-12D
10
8
6
4
2
0
BG-02
T
MW-12D
Appendix D
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
BG-02 MW-12D
500
400
v} 300
F- 200
100
0
BG-02 MW-12D
0.20
E 0.15
3
R
H 0.10
0.05
BG-02 MW-12D

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations among Background Wells
Transition Zone
2.5
2.0
V 1.5
O
1.0
0.5
0.0
W
E
= 30
20
I
10
H
0
0.0012
0.0009
C
to
0.0006
I
r 0.0003
O
H
0.0000
BG-02 MW-12D
BG-02 MW-12D
BG-02
T
MW-12D
E4
�a
3
2
1
0
30
25
20
15
N 10
5
0
BG-02 MW-12D
BG-02 MW-12D
Appendix D

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells
Bedrock Flow Zone
8.0
7.5
7.0 * ��
Q- 6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0 7
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR
300
250
200
c
150
Y 100
Q
600
500
400
c
300
200
Q 100
0
1.0
T
BG-01
CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
MW-14BR
T
MW-14BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells
Bedrock Flow Zone
5
4
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1.0
B 0.8
x
300
250
zoo
Q 150
v 10o
m 50
0
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
T
MW-14BR
77
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR
�r
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
MW-14BR

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells
Bedrock Flow Zone
65
r 60
M.,
1.0
0.8
E
2 0.6
E
'0 0.4
U 0.2
0.0
80
E 60
3
v 40
R
U 20
0
U.
U 2
0
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
MW-14BR
T
MW-14BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells
Bedrock Flow Zone
50
40
O
30
O
s 20
U
10
0
41
0
0.5
>. 0.4
E 0.3
E 0.2
L
U 0.1
0.0
s
6
R
O 4
O
U
2
0
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
T
BG-01
CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
MW-14BR
T
MW-14BR
i
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
T
MW-14BR

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells
Bedrock Flow Zone
5
4
0.4
IL 0.1
0.0
4000
3000
O 2000
L
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
MW-14BR
MW-14BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR
1 7-
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
T
MW-14BR

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells
Bedrock Flow Zone
50
40
E 30
20
J
20
E 15
800
N 600
m
c
400
c
200
0
0.20
0.15
L 0.10
N
0.05
� 0
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR
E
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
T
MW-14BR
6
T
MW-14BR
T
MW-14BR

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells
Bedrock Flow Zone
150
100
tg
50
0
30
E 25
20
O
M 15
10
O
2 5
0
10
s
1.0
BG-01
BG-01
T
BG-01
CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
T
MW-14BR
T
MW-14BR
i i i
CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells
Bedrock Flow Zone
15
= 10
O
O 5
(L
0
10
8
a
6
d 4
d
N 2
0
150
E 100
U) 50
0
500
E 400
300
200
100
0
mag
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
T
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
0
MW-14BR
T
MW-14BR
i
MW-14BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells
Bedrock Flow Zone
150
100
50
0
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
600
500
400
p 300
F-
200
100
0
0.60
E 0.45
3
R
0.30
0.15
0.00
;M;
Ep-
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR
giTla mii=
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
MW-14BR
MW-14BR

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells
Bedrock Flow Zone
1.5
1.0
U
O
0.5
0.0
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR
80
E
60
:a
40
I
O 20
H
0
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR
0.0020
E
0.0015
�c
ca
0.0010
I
Q 0.0005
0.0000
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR
5
E 4
3
'a
C 2
1
,Ic
0
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR
MW-14BR

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix D
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Comparison of Concentrations Among Background Wells
Bedrock Flow Zone
too
ao
c3 K
c
N 40
20
n
BG-01 CCR-102BR-BG MW-13BR MW-14BR

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
APPENDIX E
BOX -AND -WHISKER PLOTS - POOLED
BACKGROUND DATAS ETS
SynTerra

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled background Dataset (MW-12S)
Surficial Flow Zone
6.5 77
6.0
Q. 5.5
5.0
4.5
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
30
25
:! 20
C
15
10
Q
5
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
80o
E 600
c
E 400
O
Q 200
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
1.0
0.8
c
O 0.6
E
+� 0.4
c
Q 0.2
0.0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
2.0
1.5
c
m
Q 1.0
0.5 1 If
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
pill
15
10-
5
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
Appendix E
1.0
0.8
E
0.6
0.4
N
m 0.2
0.0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
25
- 20
tQ
C
Q 15
O 10
m
5
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
51.0
50.5
c
O 50.0
O
m
49.5
49.0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled background Dataset (MW-12S)
Surficial Flow Zone
1.0
0.8
E
0.6
E
-0 0.4
U 0.2
0.0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
10
8
E 6
� 4
U
2
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
d
c
O
10
9
8
7
6
5
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
4
O 3
O 2
LY
U 1
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
a
E 6
E0 4
L
,yy
T
U 2
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
6
5
I �k
E 4
E3
O 2
•� 1
U
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
Appendix E
2.5
2.0
is
�O 1.5
U
1.0
0.5
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
10
8
d 6
Q
U 4
2 W=
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
0.10
0.09
0.08
`p 0.07
0.06
LL
0.05
0.04
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled background Dataset (MW-12S)
Surficial Flow Zone
8000
6000
c
O 4000
`4111I1"
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
3.0
2.5
2.0 �c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
5.0
4.5
E 4.0
3.5
J 3.0
2.5
2.0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
1.40
E 1.15
0.90
0.65
0.40
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
HO]
y 300
d
C
200
c
100
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
0.050
0.045
0.040
LU 0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
Appendix E
300
250
200
150
d 100
50
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
E
W
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
6
5
4
Y 3 77
c�
Z 2
1
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled background Dataset (MW-12S)
Surficial Flow Zone
0.8
0.0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
5
E 4
3
3
ca
O 2
0.
1
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
1.0
0.8
E
0.6
C
7'DFD 0.4
N 0.2
0.0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
6
5
E 4
3
O 2
1
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
30
E 25
20
O
N 15
10
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
Appendix E
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
120
100
�} 80
F- 60
40
20
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
MWO
E 0.15
3
ca
H 0.10
0.05
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled background Dataset (MW-12S)
Surficial Flow Zone
15
10
(U
O
5
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
2.5
E 2.0
1.5
I 1.0
r
0.5
0.0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
0.00025
E
0.00020 C
cv
0.00015
I
r 0.00010
O
H
0.00005
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
6
5
E 4
�a
3
2
1 T
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
300
250
200
Cs
150
N 100
50
0
Surficial Flow Zone (MW-12S)
Appendix E

Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots — Pooled Background Datasets
Transition Zone
We,
6.5
2
6.0
09
400
>, 300
C
200
Y
Q 100
0
800
E 600
3
c
E 400
3
Q 200
0
Transition Zone
-U
Transition Zone
Transition Zone
rM
w
5
4
is
C 3
W
i 2
Q
1
0
Transition Zone
I&
Transition Zone
E 0.8
0.6
N
m 0.4
W
400
+' 300
ca
c
Q 200
c`a
v 100
m
X
80
51.0
60
50.5
c
40
0
50.0
m
20
49.5
0
49.0
Transition Zone
Appendix E
Transition Zone
Transition Zone
Transition Zone

Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots — Pooled Background Datasets
Transition Zone
1.0
0.8
E
0.6
E
ca
0.4
U 0.2
we
Transition Zone
60
50
40
.0
30
U
20
10
Transition Zone
T
d 9
8
0
t6
U 6
5
Transition Zone
50
40
d
30
O
20
U
10
0
Transition Zone
12
10
�_ 8
E 6
a
4
U 2
0
Transition Zone
1.0
0.8
E 0.6
EO 0.4
U 0.2
not
Transition Zone
1.40
1.15
io
0.90
tU
0.65
0.40
5
4
3
Q
Q
0 2
U
1
0
0.4
N 0.3
0 0.2
u. 0.1
not
Appendix E
Transition Zone
Transition Zone
Transition Zone

Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots — Pooled Background Datasets
Transition Zone
1500
1000
C
O
i
500
0
5
4
3
Ct
1
0
6
5
4
r 3
J
Transition Zone
I&
Transition Zone
Transition Zone
15
E
10
0
Soo
N 600
d
c
M 400
c
200
0
0.20
0.15
LU 0.10
N
0.05
Transition Zone
Transition Zone
Transition Zone
3000
2500
2000
1500
O 1000
500
0
O
got
10
8
Y 6
O 4
Z
is
Appendix E
Transition Zone
Transition Zone
Transition Zone

Duke Energy Progress, LLC — Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots — Pooled Background Datasets
Transition Zone
0.8
Z
0.0
5
E 4
N 3
N
2
O 2
a
1
10
8
6
C
d
4
2
0
Transition Zone
60
1.0
50
0.8
40
3
0.6
30
20
0.4
10
0.2
0
0.0
Transition Zone
Appendix E
Transition Zone
400 500
300 400
300
200 p
I- 200
100 100
0 0
Transition Zone Transition Zone Transition Zone
dL
Transition Zone
10
0.20
8
E
0.15
6
4.
0.10
2
0L
0.05
Transition Zone
Transition Zone

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets
Transition Zone
2.5
6
2.0
5
E
V 1.5
4
O
3
t— 1.0
2
;
0.5
1
0.0
0
40
E
0 30
'a3
20
O10
H
0
0.0012
0.0009
to
0.0006
I
r 0.0003
O
H
0.0000
Transition Zone
Transition Zone
Transition Zone
Transition Zone
30
25
20
Cs
15
N 10
5
0
Transition Zone
Appendix E

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets
Bedrock Flow Zone
8.0
7.5
7.0
Q 6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
Bedrock Flow Zone
300
250
:t 200
c
150
Y 100
Q
50
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
600
500
400
c
300
200
Q
100
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
U
Bedrock Flow Zone
5
4
.E 3
d
Q2
1
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix E
1.0
E
0.8
0.6
N
m
0.4
0.2
Bedrock Flow Zone
250
+; 200
ca
0 150
100
c�
m 50
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
65
r 60
O
O
m 55
.L
50
Bedrock Flow Zone

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets
Bedrock Flow Zone
1.0
0.8
E
0.6
E
0
0.4
U
0.2
0.0
Bedrock Flow Zone
s0
E 60
v 40
U 20
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
0
t6
's
10
9
8
6
5
Bedrock Flow Zone
50
40
d
30
O
20
U
10
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
20 y
E 15
2
10
a
�
U 5
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
0.5
>� 0.4
E 0.3
EO 0.2
V 0.1
0.0
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix E
8
6
io �M
O 4
U
2
4-
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
5
4
3
O.
Q
0 2
U
1
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
0.4
N 0.3
0 0.2
LL 0.1
0.0
Bedrock Flow Zone

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets
Bedrock Flow Zone
4000
3000
C
0 2000
1000
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
5
4
3
Ct
1
0
dr
Bedrock Flow Zone
50
40
E 30
ate-+ 20
J
10
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
20
E 15
O
.y
10
rn
5
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
lli
N 600
a�
c
400
c
200
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
0.20
0.15
i
0.10
N
0.05
0.00
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix E
150
O 100
c
�k
R
50
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
30
E 25
2 5
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
10
8
Y 6
O 4
Z
2
0
Bedrock Flow Zone

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets
Bedrock Flow Zone
U
0.8
L
Z 0.6
1
++ 0.4
Z 0.2
'fit
Bedrock Flow Zone
15
3 10
�a
O 5
LOW
Bedrock Flow Zone
10
8
6
4
d
� 2
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
E 100
2
50
0 71
Bedrock Flow Zone
500
400
300
200
100
Bedrock Flow Zone
150
100
50
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix E
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
Bedrock Flow Zone
600
500
400
p 300
F-
200
100
1 in
Bedrock Flow Zone
0.60
E 0.45
3
= 0.30
R
0.15
0.00
Bedrock Flow Zone

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Box -and -Whisker Plots - Pooled Background Datasets
Bedrock Flow Zone
1.40
1.15
V
p 0.90
F-
0.65
0.40
Bedrock Flow Zone
so
E
= 60
40
O 20 T
H
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
0.0020
E
0.0015
�c
to
0.0010
I
0 0.0005
H
0.0000
Bedrock Flow Zone
5
4
3 3
'a
c 2
1
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
c
N
100 �c
80
60
40 �y
20
0
Bedrock Flow Zone
Appendix E

Updated Background Threshold Values for Constituent Concentrations in Groundwater June 2019
Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant
APPENDIX F
QUANTITATIVE OUTLIER TEST RESULTS
(PROUCL OUTPUT
SynTerra

Duke Energy Progress, LLC - Mayo Steam Electric Plant Appendix F
Quantitative Outlier Test Results (ProUCL Output)
Bedrock Flow Zone
Outlier Tests for Selected Uncensored Variables
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.15/22/2019 3:13:12 PM
From File Mayo_BG GW Data -Raw File_b.xls
Full Precision OFF
Rosner's Outlier Test for Total Radium
Mean
4.097
Standard Deviation
10.03
Number of data
48
Number of suspected outliers
10
Potential
Obs.
Test
Critical
Critical
#
Mean sd
outlier Number
value
value (5%)
value (1%)
1
4.097 9.924
67.2
40
6.359
3.11
3.46
2
2.754 3.789
26.5
2
6.267
3.1
3.46
3
2.238 1.369
6.24
7
2.924
3.09
3.45
4
2.149 1.242
5.39
17
2.609
3.09
3.44
5
2.075 1.153
5.12
8
2.641
3.08
3.43
6
2.004 1.065
4.345
20
2.197
3.07
3.418
7
1.949 1.013
4.224
19
2.246
3.06
3.406
8
1.893 0.959
3.876
5
2.068
3.05
3.394
9
1.844 0.916
0.247
9
1.743
3.04
3.382
10
1.884 0.89
3.39
11
1.691
3.03
3.37
For 5% significance level, there are 2 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
67.2, 26.5
For 1 % Significance Level, there are 2 Potential Outliers
Potential outliers are:
67.2, 26.5