### 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. T he analytical results were obtained using the thermal desorption techniqu e 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 analyze d on a separate day. The trip blank samples were analyzed separatel y on a third day. If you have any questions or con cerns 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 AreangClientSpike Level (ng) 603 CCV min 97.4%StationTECO-Polkmax 101.4%Unit (s)Facility ID Sample #15ICV 500.62 563,000 540.7108.0%16CCV 500.00 523,000 502.3100.5%17 TECO-Polk Unit 1 1-A AU 007951 Section 1 28,000 27.318Section 2 200 0.319 TECO-Polk Unit 1 1-B AU 007970 Section 1 664,000 637.620Section 2 600 0.921CCV 500.00 528,000 507.1101.4%22 TECO-Polk Unit 1 Field Blank AU 007873 Section 1 240 0.723Section 2 0 0.024 TECO-Polk Unit 1 Field Spike AU 007871 Section 1 611,000 586.725Section 2 320 0.526CCV 500.00 530,000 503.9100.8%Analyst:Robert KeeneyDate 4/9/2010Kleinfelder14/8/2010 4/9/20100.00 NA603.0097.4%0.70.0%587.20.1%638.50.1%27.61.1%Unit/Stack #% BreakthroughPeakAreangTrap # Fraction4/8/2010 4/9/2010% Recovery TrapTotal ngSamplingDateAnalysisDateAnalysis#Sample IDKnownngSlope: 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 AreangClientSpike Level (ng) 603 CCV min 100.0%StationTECO-Polkmax 101.5%Unit (s)Facility ID Sample #15ICV 500.62 525,000 499.199.7%16CCV 500.00 534,000 507.7101.5%17 TECO-Polk Unit 1 2-A AU 007864 Section 1 34,600 33.118Section 2 540 0.819 TECO-Polk Unit 1 2-B AU 007962 Section 1 674,000 640.720Section 2 600 0.821CCV 500.00 526,000 500.1100.0%22 TECO-Polk Unit 1 3-A AU 007869 Section 1 25,800 24.823Section 2 200 0.324 TECO-Polk Unit 1 3-B AU 007856 Section 1 663,000 630.225Section 2 620 0.926CCV 500.00 531,000 504.8101.0%Analyst:Robert KeeneyDate 4/13/20104/12/2010 4/13/20104/9/2010 4/13/201025.01.1%631.10.1%SamplingDateAnalysisDateAnalysis#Sample ID% Recovery TrapTotal ng% BreakthroughTrap # Fraction KnownngPeakAreaUnit/Stack #33.92.3%641.50.1%Kleinfelder1ngSlope: 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 AreangClientSpike Level (ng) 603 CCV min 96.9%StationTECO-Polkmax 101.3%Unit (s)Facility ID Sample #15ICV 500.62 520,000 496.999.3%16CCV 500.00 530,000 506.5101.3%27 TECO-Polk Unit 1 Trip Blank AU 007943 Section 1 240 0.428Section 2 0 0.029 TECO-Polk Unit 1 Trip Spike AU 007945 Section 1 611,000 583.930Section 2 320 0.531CCV 500.00 528,000 504.6100.9%Analyst:Robert KeeneyDate 4/19/20104/14/2010 4/19/2010NA0.00603.0096.9%Kleinfelder10.40.0%584.30.1%Unit/Stack #% Recovery TrapTotal ng% BreakthroughTrap # Fraction KnownngPeakAreangSamplingDateAnalysisDateAnalysis#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 re sults were within ±10% of the target value. The tab le below shows the results of the Hg +2 

### analytical bias tests. All samples at four differe nt 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



### HgCl 2 

### 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 Hg o 

### analytical bias test was performed prior to field deployment to confirm that the analytical system re sults were within ±10% of the target value. The tab le below shows the results of the Hg o 

### analytical bias test. All samples at four differen t 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