W. Quentin Best, QSTI

Senior Professional

KLEINFELDER

6200 Harris Technology Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28269 

Dear Mr. Best,

204 Technology Park Lane

Email: rkeeney@aura-scientific.com

Fuquay-Varina, NC 27527

Direct: (919) 346-5740 

Cell: (919) 265-4721

Fax: (919) 346-5744

Attached are the results of the recent testing your company performed for TECO Polk Station Unit 1. The analytical results 

were obtained using the thermal desorption technique with an Ohio Lumex RA 915+ with the M324 thermal attachment. 

The run 1 and field blank samples were analyzed on the same day. The run 2 and 3 samples were analyzed on a separate 

day. The trip blank samples were analyzed separately on a third day. If you have any questions or concerns please do not 

hesitate to call me or contact me by e-mail.

Robert Keeney

President

Aura-Scientific, LLC

Sincerely,
Slope: 9.60E-04 MDL (ng) 0.4

Temp. 

Profile # 1 Response Factor 0.00148

Intercept: 0.46

Air Flow 

(l/min) 1.2

R

2

: 0.9998

Client

Station TECO-Polk

Unit (s)

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

1 1.01 680 1.1 110.2%

2 2.02 1,650 2.0 101.3%

3 4.03 3,850 4.2 103.0%

4 6.05 5,900 6.1 101.2%

5 8.06 8,320 8.4 104.7%

6 10.09 10,100 10.1 100.6%

7 20.17 19,430 19.1 94.7%

8 40.35 42,700 41.4 102.7%

9 60.52 61,000 59.0 97.5%

10 80.70 83,000 80.1 99.3%

11 100.71 106,430 102.6 101.9%

12 201.42 209,000 201.0 99.8%

13 500.00 540,000 518.6 103.7%

14 1000.00 1,100,000 1056.0 105.6%

Calibration Curve - Run 1

Kleinfelder

1

Analysis # Trap # Fraction Known ng Peak Area ng % 

Recovery

Lumex Hg Calibration y = 0.001x + 2.773

R

2

1.000 = 

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

0.0E+00 2.0E+05 4.0E+05 6.0E+05 8.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.2E+06

Peak Area

ng
Client Spike Level (ng) 603 CCV 

Station TECO-Polk Unit (s)

Facility ID Sample #

15 ICV 500.62 563,000 540.7 108.0%

16 CCV 500.00 523,000 502.3 100.5%17 TECO-Polk Unit 1 1-A AU 007951 Section 1 28,000 27.318 Section 2 200 0.319 TECO-Polk Unit 1 1-B AU 007970 Section 1 664,000 637.620 Section 2 600 0.921 CCV 500.00 528,000 507.1 101.4%22 TECO-Polk Unit 1 Field Blank AU 007873 Section 1 240 0.723 Section 2 0 0.024 TECO-Polk Unit 1 Field Spike AU 007871 Section 1 611,000 586.725 Section 2 320 0.526 CCV 500.00 530,000 503.9 100.8%

Analyst: Robert Keeney Date 4/9/2010

Kleinfelder1

4/8/2010 4/9/2010

0.00 NA

603.00 97.4%

Unit/Stack #

Peak 

Area

Trap # Fraction ng

4/8/2010 4/9/2010

% Recove

Sampling 

Date

Analysis 

Date

Analysis 

#

Sample ID Known 

ng
Slope: 9.50E-04 MDL (ng) 0.4

Temp. 

Profile # 1 Response Factor 0.00140

Intercept: 0.25

Air Flow 

(l/min) 1.2

R

2

: 0.9999

Client

Station TECO-Polk

Unit (s)

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

1 1.01 720 0.9 92.4%

2 2.02 1,720 1.9 93.3%

3 4.03 3,900 4.0 98.0%

4 6.05 6,000 5.9 98.4%

5 8.06 8,420 8.2 102.3%

6 10.09 10,200 9.9 98.5%

7 20.17 20,100 19.3 95.9%

8 40.35 43,200 41.3 102.4%

9 60.52 62,400 59.5 98.4%

10 80.70 85,300 81.3 100.7%

11 100.71 107,000 101.9 101.2%

12 201.42 211,000 200.7 99.7%

13 500.00 545,000 518.1 103.6%

14 1000.00 1,120,000 1064.5 106.4%

Calibration Curve - Runs 2 and 3

Kleinfelder

1

Analysis # Trap # Fraction Known ng Peak Area ng % 

Recovery

Lumex Hg Calibration y = 0.001x + 3.002

R

2

1.000 = 

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

0.0E+00 2.0E+05 4.0E+05 6.0E+05 8.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.2E+06

Peak Area

ng
Client Spike Level (ng) 603 CCV min 

Station TECO-Polk max Unit (s)

Facility ID Sample #

15 ICV 500.62 525,000 499.1 99.7%

16 CCV 500.00 534,000 507.7 101.5%17 TECO-Polk Unit 1 2-A AU 007864 Section 1 34,600 33.118 Section 2 540 0.819 TECO-Polk Unit 1 2-B AU 007962 Section 1 674,000 640.720 Section 2 600 0.821 CCV 500.00 526,000 500.1 100.0%22 TECO-Polk Unit 1 3-A AU 007869 Section 1 25,800 24.823 Section 2 200 0.324 TECO-Polk Unit 1 3-B AU 007856 Section 1 663,000 630.225 Section 2 620 0.926 CCV 500.00 531,000 504.8 101.0%

Analyst: Robert Keeney Date 4/13/2010

4/12/2010 4/13/2010

4/9/2010 4/13/2010

25.0 

631

Sampling 

Date

Analysis 

Date

Analysis 

#

Sample ID % Recovery Tra

Total 

Trap # Fraction Known 

ng

Peak 

Unit/Stack # Area

33.9 

641

Kleinfelder1

ng
Slope: 9.55E-04 MDL (ng) 0.4

Temp. 

Profile # 1 Response Factor 0.00146

Intercept: 0.19

Air Flow 

(l/min) 1.2

R

2

: 0.9995

Client

Station TECO-Polk

Unit (s)

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

1 1.01 690 0.9 84.6%

2 2.02 1,820 1.9 95.9%

3 4.03 4,000 4.0 99.6%

4 6.05 6,050 6.0 98.8%

5 8.06 8,510 8.3 103.2%

6 10.09 10,200 9.9 98.5%

7 20.17 20,300 19.6 97.1%

8 40.35 44,500 42.7 105.8%

9 60.52 61,200 58.7 96.9%

10 80.70 86,300 82.6 102.4%

11 100.71 103,000 98.6 97.9%

12 201.42 211,000 201.8 100.2%

13 500.00 540,000 516.1 103.2%

14 1000.00 1,100,000 1051.0 105.1%

Calibration Curve - Trip Blanks

Kleinfelder

1

Analysis # Trap # Fraction Known ng Peak Area ng % 

Recovery

Lumex Hg Calibration y = 0.001x + 2.366

R

2

1.000 = 

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

0.0E+00 2.0E+05 4.0E+05 6.0E+05 8.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.2E+06

Peak Area

ng
Client Spike Level (ng) 603 CCV min 

Station TECO-Polk max Unit (s)

Facility ID Sample #

15 ICV 500.62 520,000 496.9 99.3%

16 CCV 500.00 530,000 506.5 101.3%27 TECO-Polk Unit 1 Trip Blank AU 007943 Section 1 240 0.428 Section 2 0 0.029 TECO-Polk Unit 1 Trip Spike AU 007945 Section 1 611,000 583.930 Section 2 320 0.531 CCV 500.00 528,000 504.6 100.9%

Analyst: Robert Keeney Date 4/19/2010

4/14/2010 4/19/2010

0.00 NA

603.00 96.9%

Kleinfelder1

0.4 

584

Unit/Stack #

% Recovery Tra

Total 

Trap # Fraction Known 

ng

Peak Area

Sampling ng

Date

Analysis 

Date

Analysis 

#

Sample ID
Pre-Test Sorbent Tube QA/QC

% Recovery

106.4%

101.4%

97.6%

99.4%

99.6%

101.8%

98.6%

102.3%

104.6%

99.8%

105.8%

103.7%

% Recovery

103.1%

95.1%

101.1%

101.5%

99.9%

100.3%

101.0%

100.4%

101.7%

100.5%

99.3%

100.7%

2021.43 2030.76

2000 ng Sample 2 2021.43 2007.89

1000 ng Sample 2 1013.86 1017.93

2000 ng Sample 3 2021.43 2035.94

1000 ng Sample 3 1013.86 1030.61

2000 ng Sample 1

1000 ng Sample 1 1013.86 1023.72

10 ng Sample 1

Laboratory Spike Recovery Assays

2000 ng Sample 1 2003.47 1998.76

Hg° Spike Recovery Results

1047.29

10.78

10.27

987.69

1024.56

2119.6

10.36

2003.47

2003.47

10.89 11.23

2076.65

In accordance with Method 30B Section 8.2.3.1.2, an Hg+2 analytical bias test was performed prior to field 

deployment to confirm that the analytical system results were within ±10% of the target value. The table 

below shows the results of the Hg+2 analytical bias tests. All samples at four different spike levels passed the 

±10% spike recovery criteria.

Sample Identification

Calculated 

Mass of Hg 

(ng)

9.89

300.78

301.23

307.89

302.45

300 ng Sample 1 305.21 309.86

2000 ng Sample 2

2000 ng Sample 3

10 ng Sample 3 10.89 11.01

1001.38

302.45

1000 ng Sample 3

300 ng Sample 2 305.21

1001.38

10 ng Sample 2 10.89

1001.38

HgCl2 Spike Recovery Results

Theoretical 

Mass of Hg 

(ng)

300 ng Sample 1

300 ng Sample 2

300 ng Sample 3

306.1

304.89

1000 ng Sample 1

1000 ng Sample 2

300 ng Sample 3 305.21

302.45

10 ng Sample 1

10 ng Sample 2

10 ng Sample 3

In accordance with Method 30B Section 8.2.3.1.1, an Hgo analytical bias test was performed prior to field 

deployment to confirm that the analytical system results were within ±10% of the target value. The table 

below shows the results of the Hgo analytical bias test. All samples at four different spike levels passed the 

±10% spike recovery criteria.

Sample Identification

Theoretical 

Mass of Hg 

(ng)

Calculated 

Mass of Hg 

(ng)

10.13

10.13

10.13