Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report - AEP.com · Chloride mg/L - 6.04 5.97 1.69 1.52 253 247 -...

Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

Appalachian Power Company Mountaineer Plant

Landfill CCR Management Unit Letart, WV

January 2019

Prepared by: American Electric Power Service Corporation

1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, Ohio 43215

i

Table of Contents

I. Overview 2

II. Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations and Identification Numbers 3

III. Monitoring Wells Installed or Decommissioned 5

IV. Groundwater Quality Data and Static Water Elevation Data, With Flow Rate and Directionand Discussion 5

V. Groundwater Quality Data Statistical Analysis 5

VI. Alternative Source Demonstrations 5

VII. Discussion About Transition Between Monitoring Requirements or Alternate MonitoringFrequency 5

VIII. Description of Any Problems Encountered in 2018 and Actions Taken 6

IX. A Projection of Key Activities for the Upcoming Year 6

Appendix 1 – Groundwater Data Tables and Figures

Appendix 2 – Statistical Analyses

Appendix 3 – Alternative Source Demonstrations

Appendix 4 – Notices for Monitoring Program Transitions

Appendix 5 – Well Installation/Decommissioning Logs

I. OverviewThis Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report (Report) has been prepared to report the status of activities for the preceding year for the landfill CCR unit at Appalachian Power Company’s, a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Electric Power Company (AEP), Mountaineer Power Plant. The USEPA’s CCR rules require that the Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report be posted to the operating record for the preceding year no later than January 31st.

In general, the following activities were completed in 2018:

• Groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for Appendix III constituents, as specified in 40 CFR 257.94 et seq. and AEP’s Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan (2016);

• Groundwater data underwent various validation tests, including tests for completeness, valid values, transcription errors, and consistent units;

• Appendix III constituents were compared to prediction intervals established from background data established previously;

• Statistically significant increases (SSIs) over background concentrations were observed, however, alternative source demonstrations were successful in showing that the observed increases were due to natural variation.

The major components of this annual report, to the extent applicable at this time, are presented in sections that follow:

• A map, aerial photograph or a drawing showing the CCR management unit(s), all groundwater monitoring wells and monitoring well identification numbers;

• All of the monitoring data collected, including the rate and direction of groundwater flow, plus a summary showing the number of samples collected per monitoring well, the dates the samples were collected and whether the sample was collected as part of detection monitoring or assessment monitoring programs (Attached as Appendix 1);

• Statistical comparison of monitoring data to determine if there have been significant increase over background concentrations (Attached as Appendix 2, where applicable);

• A discussion of whether any alternate source demonstrations were performed, and the conclusions (Attached as Appendix 3, where applicable);

• A summary of any transition between monitoring programs, for example the date and circumstances for transitioning from detection monitoring to assessment monitoring (Notice attached as Appendix 4, where applicable);

• Identification of any monitoring wells that were installed or decommissioned during the preceding year, along with a statement as to why that happened (Attached as Appendix 5, where applicable); and

• Other information required to be included in the annual report such as an alternatemonitoring frequency, or assessment of corrective measures, if applicable.

In addition, this report summarizes key actions completed, and where applicable, describes any problems encountered and actions taken to resolve those problems. The report includes a projection of key activities for the upcoming year.

II. Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations and Identification NumbersThe figure that follows depicts the PE-certified groundwater monitoring network, the monitoringwell locations and their corresponding identification.

!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

MW-38

MW-26MW-27

MW-30

MW-39

MW-1611

MW-1612

P:\Projects\AEP\Groundwater Statistical Evaluation - CHA8423\Groundwater Mapping\GIS Files\MXD\Mountaineer\AEP-Mountaineer_LF_Site_Layout.mxd. ARevezzo. 1/26/2018. CHA8423/07/08.

AEP Mountaineer Generating PlantLetart, West Virginia

Site LayoutCCR Landfill

³

Figure1Columbus, Ohio 2018/01/26

Monitoring Well Network!A Downgradient Sampling Location!A Background Sampling Location

Landfill

Notes- Monitoring well coordinates provided by AEP.- Site features based on information available in Little Broad Run Landfill-CCRGroundwater Monitoring Well Network Evaluation (Arcadis, 2016) provided by AEP.

750 0 750375Feet

III. Monitoring Wells Installed or DecommissionedThere were no monitoring wells installed or decommissioned in 2018. The network design, assummarized in the Groundwater Monitoring Network Design Report (2016) and as posted at theCCR web site for Mountaineer Plant, did not change. That design report, viewable on the AEPCCR web site, discusses the facility location, the hydrogeological setting, the hydrostratigraphicunits, the uppermost aquifer, downgradient monitoring well locations and the upgradientmonitoring well locations.

IV. Groundwater Quality Data and Static Water Elevation Data, With Flow Rate andDirection and Discussion

Appendix 1 contains tables showing the groundwater quality data collected during 2018. Static water elevation data from each monitoring event also are shown in Appendix 1, along with the groundwater velocity calculations, groundwater flow direction and potentiometric maps developed after each sampling event.

V. Groundwater Quality Data Statistical AnalysisStatistical analysis of the first detection monitoring samples taken in October 2017 was completedon January 15, 2018, which is available on the CCR Rule Compliance Data and InformationWebsite: https://www.aep.com/Assets/docs/requiredpostings/ccr/2018/CCR-Mar2/MT-LF-AnnGWMonStatRpt-011518.pdf, and is attached in Appendix 2.

There were statistically significant increases (SSIs) observed in the Appendix III parameters calcium and pH; however, an alternative source demonstration successfully showed that the concentrations were due to natural variation, and detection monitoring continued on a semi-annual basis in 2018.

The first and second semi-annual sampling events for 2018 were completed in September and November, respectively. The data are currently being evaluated, and therefore will be included in next year’s annual report.

VI. Alternative Source DemonstrationsSSIs over background for the first detection monitoring events necessitated alternative source demonstrations as mentioned above. The demonstration was certified by a professional engineer and is included in Appendix 3.

VII. Discussion About Transition Between Monitoring Requirements or Alternate Monitoring Frequency There has been no transition between detection monitoring and assessment monitoring at Mountaineer Plant’s Landfill. Detection monitoring will continue in 2019. The sampling frequency of twice per year will be maintained for the Appendix III parameters (boron, calcium, chloride, fluoride, pH, sulfate and total dissolved solids).

https://www.aep.com/Assets/docs/requiredpostings/ccr/2018/CCR-Mar2/MT-LF-AnnGWMonStatRpt-011518.pdf

https://www.aep.com/Assets/docs/requiredpostings/ccr/2018/CCR-Mar2/MT-LF-AnnGWMonStatRpt-011518.pdf

Regarding defining an alternate monitoring frequency, the groundwater velocity and monitoring well production is high enough at this facility that no modification of the twice-per-year monitoring effort is needed at this time.

VIII. Description of Any Problems Encountered in 2018 and Actions TakenNo significant problems were encountered. The low flow sampling effort went smoothly and the schedule was met to support this annual groundwater report preparation.

IX. A Projection of Key Activities for the Upcoming YearKey activities for 2019 include:

• Detection monitoring on a twice per year schedule;

• Evaluation of the detection monitoring results from a statistical analysis viewpoint, looking for any statistically significant increases, or decreases when pH is considered;

• Responding to any new data received in light of what the CCR rule requires; and

• Preparation of the next annual groundwater report.

APPENDIX 1 - Groundwater Data Tables and Figures

Tables follow, showing the groundwater monitoring data collected and the rate and direction of groundwater flow. The dates that the samples were collected also is shown.

Groundwater Data Tables

Table 1 – Groundwater Data SummaryMountaineer – Landfill

Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

1/22/2018 9/20/2018 11/26/2018 9/20/2018 11/26/2018 9/20/2018 11/27/2018 1/22/2018 9/20/2018 11/26/2018 9/20/2018 11/26/2018 1/22/2018 9/20/2018 11/26/2018 9/20/2018 11/26/2018D-V1 2018-D1 2018-D2 2018-D1 2018-D2 2018-D1 2018-D2 D-V1 2018-D1 2018-D2 2018-D1 2018-D2 D-V1 2018-D1 2018-D2 2018-D1 2018-D2

Boron mg/L - 0.214 0.182 0.357 0.292 0.315 0.344 - 0.0680 0.0800 0.182 0.167 - 0.258 0.147 0.543 0.413Calcium mg/L 55.7 49.4 53.6 1.14 1.20 4.69 3.16 53.8 51.2 48.2 6.43 6.33 22.6 23.2 21.9 4.50 4.25Chloride mg/L - 6.04 5.97 1.69 1.52 253 247 - 7.31 7.06 2.99 2.93 - 9.48 9.57 14.6 11.5Fluoride mg/L - 0.160 0.140 2.41 2.37 3.36 3.40 - 0.360 0.340 0.800 0.800 - 0.610 0.620 3.78 3.91

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L - 344 364 550 522 1230 1240 419 441 415 369 380 376 416 387 835 764Sulfate mg/L - 6.30 7.20 4.40 3.60 13.0 11.7 - 31.5 35.2 0.100 J 0.0700 - 19.0 18.5 63.9 49.2

pH SU 7.30 8.00 7.42 9.10 8.97 8.60 8.35 6.70 7.40 6.97 8.54 8.29 7.50 7.80 7.7 8.44 7.99Notes:mg/L: milligrams per literSU: standard unitJ: Estimated value. Parameter was detected in concentrations below the reporting limit-: Not analyzedD-V1: Verification sampling, initial detection monitoring event2018-D1: First semi-annual detection monitoring event, initial sampling event2018-D2-V1: Second semi-annual detection monitoring event

Parameter UnitMW-1612MW-1611MW-39MW-38MW-30MW-27MW-26

Groundwater Flow Direction Maps

@?

@?

@?

@?

@?

@?@?

@?

@?@?

@?

@?

MW-25606.21

MW-27648.34

MW-39624.93

MW-1611642.77

MW-2688.79

MW-12727.35

MW-34678.70

MW-37689.21

MW-26670.78

MW-30700.09

MW-1612733.75

MW-38623.96

720

710

700

690

680

730

710

644

642640

638636

634632

630628

646

P:\Projects\AEP\Groundwater Statistical Evaluation - CHA8423\Groundwater Mapping\GIS Files\MXD\Mountaineer\2018\AEP-Mountaineer_LF_GW_2018-05.mxd. ARevezzo. 1/22/2019. CHA8423/07/08.

AEP Mountaineer Generating Plant - CCR LandfillNew Haven, West Virginia

Potentiometric Surface Map - Uppermost Aquifer September 2018

³


LegendMonitoring Wells@? Alluvium@? Hydrologic Unit 3@? Hydrologic Unit 4

Groundwater Elevation ContoursApproximate Groundwater Flow Direction (Unit 3)Hydrologic Unit 3Hydraulic Unit 3 (Inferred)Approximate Groundwater Flow Direction (Unit 4)Hydrologic Unit 4

Notes- Monitoring well coordinates and water level data (collected on September20, 2018) provided by AEP.- Site features based on information available in Little Broad Run Landfill-CCRGroundwater Monitoring Well Network Evaluation (Arcadis, 2016) provided by AEP.- Water level measurements from MW-25 (screened in shale below Unit 4), MW-37 (hydraulically disconnected from the rest of Unit 3) and MW-38 (screened inalluvium) were not used in groundwater contouring.- Groundwater elevation units are feet above mean sea level.

750 0 750375Feet

Broad Run Road

Conveyor

Stackout Pad

WV-62Graham Station Road

626624

@?

@?

@?

@?

@?

@?@?

@?

@?@?

@?

@?

MW-25

MW-27648.99

MW-39625.62

MW-1611643.12

MW-2689.3

MW-12726.71

MW-34679.93

MW-37689.22

MW-26670.56

MW-30698.71

MW-1612734.34

MW-38625.65

680

720

710

710700

700

690

730

638636

634632

630

648646644642640

P:\Projects\AEP\Groundwater Statistical Evaluation - CHA8423\Groundwater Mapping\GIS Files\MXD\Mountaineer\2018\AEP-Mountaineer_LF_GW_2018-11.mxd. ARevezzo. 1/22/2019. CHA8423/07/08.

AEP Mountaineer Generating Plant - CCR LandfillNew Haven, West Virginia

Potentiometric Surface Map - Uppermost AquiferNovember 2018

³


LegendMonitoring Wells@? Alluvium@? Hydrologic Unit 3@? Hydrologic Unit 4

Groundwater Elevation ContoursApproximate Groundwater Flow Direction (Unit 3)Hydrologic Unit 3Hydraulic Unit 3 (Inferred)Approximate Groundwater Flow Direction (Unit 4)Hydrologic Unit 4

Notes- Monitoring well coordinates and water level data (collected on November 26,2018) provided by AEP.- Site features based on information available in Little Broad Run Landfill-CCRGroundwater Monitoring Well Network Evaluation (Arcadis, 2016) provided by AEP.- Water level measurements were not collected from MW-25.- Groundwater elevation units are feet above mean sea level.

750 0 750375Feet

Broad Run Road

Conveyor

Stackout Pad

WV-62Graham Station Road

626624

Groundwater Flow Velocity Calculations

Table 2: Residence Time Calculation Summary Mountaineer Landfill


CCRManagement

Unit

MonitoringWell

Well Diameter (inches)

Groundwater Velocity (ft/year)

Groundwater Residence

Time (days)

Groundwater Velocity (ft/year)

Groundwater Residence

Time (days)

MW-26 [2] 2.0 1.6 37.8 1.9 32.8MW-27 [2] 2.0 18.8 3.2 17.3 3.5MW-30 [1] 2.0 4.3 14.2 4.9 12.3MW-38 [2] 2.0 NC NC NC NCMW-39 [2] 2.0 16.0 3.8 17.3 3.5

MW-1611 [2] 2.0 8.6 7.1 13.6 4.5MW-1612 [1] 2.0 16.2 3.8 17.9 3.4

Notes:[1] - Background Well[2] - Downgradient WellNC - Not Calculated. Groundwater residence time for MW-38 could not be calculated, as it is the

only monitoring well for its lithologic unit (valley alluvium) within the monitoring network.

2018-09 2018-11

Landfill

APPENDIX 2 - Statistical Analyses

Memoranda follow summarizing the statistical analysis of Appendix III parameters.

Purpose of Statistical Analysis Summary Report

During the initial phase of ground water monitoring, the CCR rule requires AEP to collect at

least eight independent samples from at least one up-gradient and three downgradient wells for

21 substances listed in the CCR rule. The CCR rule also requires us to select a statistical method

that will be used to evaluate the samples in the later phases of the ground water monitoring

program. The Statistical Plan, which has been posted to AEP’s CCR website, describes the

methods selected by AEP. See AEP’s Statistical Analysis Plans.

Each Statistical Analysis Summary Report is based on the results of the 8 independent samples

that were collected by October 17, 2017, and reported in the Annual Groundwater Monitoring

Report. Using the statistical methods chosen by AEP, the samples were evaluated to eliminate

outliers, determine variability and general trends in the data, and establish background values

for: boron, calcium chloride, fluoride, pH, sulfate, and total dissolved solids. Appendix IV

substances were evaluated for purposes of identifying outliers and understanding data trends.

A subsequent sample taken during the first detection monitoring sampling event was also

compared using the proper statistical methods to the background values that were established for

these seven substances from the eight independent samples. A second or third re-sampling

event occurred, and the results compared using the same methods. This work is reported in the

memorandum included in attachment A. If confirmed, AEP will be required to enter the next

phase of monitoring. The results of future sampling will be further analyzed to target any

specific substances for which ongoing monitoring or potential corrective action is required.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY

LANDFILL

Mountaineer Plant

New Haven, West Virginia

Submitted to

1 Riverside Plaza

Columbus, Ohio 43215-2372

Submitted by

150 East Wilson Bridge Road

Suite 232

Worthington, Ohio 43085

January 15, 2018

CHA8423

Statistical Analysis

January 15, 2018

2017 CHA8423 20180115 Mountaineer LF Report i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................... ES-1

SECTION 2 Landfill Evaluation ................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Data Validation & QA/QC ....................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Statistical Analysis .................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Background Outlier Evaluation ................................................... 2-2

2.2.2 Establishment of Background Levels .......................................... 2-3

2.2.3 Certification by Qualified Professional Engineer ........................ 2-5

2.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 2-6

SECTION 3 References ................................................................................................. 3-1


January 15, 2018

2017 CHA8423 20180115 Mountaineer LF Report ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Groundwater Data Summary

Table 2 Outlier Analysis Summary

Table 3 Background Level Summary

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A Evaluation of Detection Monitoring Data

Attachment B Statistical Analysis Output


January 15, 2018

2017 CHA8423 20180115 Mountaineer LF Report iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEP American Electric Power

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

BAPs Bottom Ash Ponds

CCR Coal Combustion Residuals

CCV Continuing Calibration Value

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

LFB Laboratory Fortified Blanks

LPL Lower Prediction Limit

LRB Laboratory Reagent Blanks

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

PQL Practical Quantitation Limit

QA Quality Assurance

QC Quality Control

SSI Statistically Significant Increase

SWFPR Site-Wide False-Positive Rate

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

UPL Upper Prediction Limit

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency


January 15, 2018

2017 CHA8423 20180115 Mountaineer LF Report ES-1

SECTION 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) regulations

regarding the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) in landfills and surface impoundments

(40 CFR 257.90-257.98, “CCR rule”), groundwater monitoring has been conducted at the Landfill,

an existing CCR unit at the Mountaineer Power Plant located in New Haven, West Virginia.

Eight monitoring events were completed prior to October 17, 2017 to establish background

concentrations for Appendix III and Appendix IV parameters under the CCR rule. Groundwater

data underwent several validation tests, including those for completeness, sample tracking

accuracy, transcription errors, and consistent use of measurement units. No data quality issues

were identified which would impact the usability of the data.

The monitoring data were submitted to Groundwater Stats Consulting, LLC for statistical analysis.

The background data were reviewed for outliers, which were removed (when appropriate) prior to

calculating upper prediction limits (UPLs) for each Appendix III parameter to represent

background values. Oversight on the use of statistical calculations was provided by Dr. Kirk

Cameron of MacStat Consulting, Ltd.

A detection monitoring event was completed on October 30 and 31, 2017 at the Landfill. The

results of this detection monitoring event are included in this report.


January 15, 2018

2017 CHA8423 20180115 Mountaineer LF Report 2-1

SECTION 2

LANDFILL EVALUATION

2.1 Data Validation & QA/QC

During the background monitoring program, eight sets of samples were collected for analysis from

each background and downgradient well. A summary of data collected during background and

detection monitoring sampling may be found in Table 1.

Chemical analysis was completed by an analytical laboratory certified by the National

Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP). Quality assurance and quality

control (QA/QC) samples completed by the analytical laboratory included the use of laboratory

reagent blanks (LRBs), continuing calibration verification (CCV) samples, and laboratory fortified

blanks (LFBs).

The analytical data were imported into a Microsoft Access database, where checks were completed

to assess the accuracy of sample location identification and analyte identification. Where

necessary, unit conversions were applied to standardize reported units across all sampling events.

Exported data files were created for use with the Sanitas™ v.9.5.32 statistics software. The export

was checked against the analytical data for transcription errors and completeness. No QA/QC

issues were noted which would impact data usability.

2.2 Statistical Analysis

The background data used to conduct the statistical analyses and the detection monitoring data are

summarized in Table 1. Statistical analyses for the Landfill were conducted in accordance with

the January 2017 Statistical Analysis Plan (AEP, 2017), except where noted below. Results for

all completed statistical tests are provided in Attachment A.

Time series plots of Appendix III and IV parameters are included in Attachment A. Mann-Kendall

analyses (α = 0.01) were conducted to evaluate trends in the background data. The following

statistically significant trends were observed:

• Chromium was found to be significantly decreasing at downgradient well MW-39.

• Combined radium 226 + 228 was found to be significantly decreasing at downgradient well

MW-27.

• Lead was found to be significantly decreasing at downgradient well MW-39.

No other significant increasing or decreasing trends were observed for other parameters or at other

monitoring wells.


January 15, 2018


2.2.1 Background Outlier Evaluation

Potential outliers were identified using Tukey’s outlier test; i.e., data points were considered

potential outliers if they met one of the following criteria:

𝑥𝑖 < �̃�0.25 − 3 × 𝐼𝑄𝑅 (1)

or

𝑥𝑖 > �̃�0.75 + 3 × 𝐼𝑄𝑅 (2)

where:

𝑥𝑖 = individual data point

�̃�0.25 = first quartile

�̃�0.75 = third quartile

𝐼𝑄𝑅 = the interquartile range = �̃�0.75 − �̃�0.25

Background well data were first pooled, and Tukey’s outlier test was performed on the pooled

dataset. For the downgradient wells, Tukey’s outlier test was applied individually to each

downgradient well.

Data that were evaluated as potential outliers are summarized in Attachment A. Tukey’s outlier

test indicated fifteen potential outliers, which are summarized in Table 2. Next, the data were

reviewed to identify possible sources of errors or discrepancies, including data recording errors,

unusual sampling conditions, laboratory quality, or inconsistent sample turbidity. The findings of

this data review are summarized below.

Potential outliers for arsenic, barium, cadmium, calcium, and selenium were identified for the

September 27, 2016 sample collected at downgradient well MW-27. The field parameters

indicated that the sample had high turbidity, suggesting that sampling error may have contributed

to the elevated reported values. These values were removed from the dataset. Their removal did

not have an effect on the calculation of background levels shown below.

Potential outliers were also identified for the reported antimony concentration of 0.005 mg/L for

the March 28, 2017 sampling event at downgradient well MW-26 and for the reported arsenic

concentration of 0.0048 mg/L for the September 26, 2016 sampling event at downgradient well

MW-39. Because these values were anomalously high, these outliers were removed as outliers;

their removal did not affect the calculation of background levels below.

The reported pH values for downgradient wells MW-1611, MW-26, and MW-27 during the May

2017 sampling event were identified as potential outliers. These wells were sampled sequentially,

suggesting possible field instrumentation error, and the values were removed from the dataset.

The removal of these pH values did not affect the calculated background values described below.

The reported pH value at MW-1611 during the June 2017 sampling event was also identified as a


January 15, 2018


potential outlier; however, it was retained in the dataset as no other wells had anomalously high

pH results and there was no evidence of sampling or instrumentation error.

Potential outliers were identified for the reported boron concentrations of 0.219 mg/L and 0.387

mg/L for the December 21, 2016 and March 28, 2017 sampling events at downgradient well

MW-27. These values were not removed from the dataset, as the boron concentrations were only

slightly outside the Tukey’s test cutoff and were similar to neighboring wells. Additionally, the

reported calcium concentration of 25 mg/L for the September 26, 2016 sampling event and the

reported total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of 326 mg/L for the March 28, 2017 sampling

event at MW-1611 were both identified as potential outliers but were not removed from the dataset

due to their similarity to neighboring wells.

2.2.2 Establishment of Background Levels

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine whether spatial variation was present

between the two background wells (Attachment A). ANOVA indicated no significant variation

between the two background wells for calcium, fluoride, and pH. Consequently, interwell tests

were used for these parameters. Significant variation was observed for boron, chloride, sulfate,

and TDS. Therefore, the appropriateness of using intrawell tests was evaluated for these

parameters at the Mountaineer Landfill.

Intrawell tests presume that the groundwater quality in the downgradient wells was not initially

impacted by the CCR unit. To test this presumption, the data from the background wells were

pooled, and the data from each downgradient well were compared to a pooled background value.

Tolerance limits were calculated using the pooled background data for boron, chloride, sulfate,

and TDS. Parametric tolerance limits with 99% confidence and 95% coverage were calculated for

boron, sulfate, and TDS; a non-parametric tolerance limit was calculated for chloride, given the

greater spatial variability observed for this parameter. Confidence intervals were calculated for

each of these four parameters at each downgradient monitoring well. If the lower confidence limit

from a downgradient well exceeded the upper tolerance limit for the pooled background data, it

was concluded that downgradient groundwater concentrations were above background

concentrations. In these instances, intrawell tests would not be appropriate. However, these

analyses indicated no significant exceedances for boron, chloride, sulfate, and TDS. (Non-

parametric analyses also indicated no significant exceedances for boron, sulfate, and TDS.)

Therefore, intrawell tests were used to evaluate potential statistically significant increases (SSIs)

for boron, chloride, sulfate, and TDS. Interwell tests were used to evaluate potential SSIs for

calcium, fluoride, and pH.

After equality of variance was tested and identified outliers were removed (where appropriate), a

parametric or non-parametric analysis was selected based on the distribution of the data and the

frequency of non-detect data. Estimated results less than the practical quantitation limit (PQL) –

i.e., “J-flagged” data – were considered detections and the estimated results were used in the

statistical analyses. Non-parametric analyses were selected for datasets with at least 50% non-


January 15, 2018


detect data or datasets that could not be normalized. Parametric analyses were selected for datasets

(either transformed or untransformed) that passed the Shapiro-Wilk / Shapiro-Francía test for

normality. The Kaplan-Meier non-detect adjustment was applied to datasets with between 15%

and 50% non-detect data. For datasets with fewer than 15% non-detect data, non-detect data were

replaced with one half of the PQL. The selected analysis (i.e., parametric or non-parametric) and

transformation (where applicable) for each background dataset are shown in Attachment A.

Upper prediction limits (UPLs) were calculated for each Appendix III parameter to represent

background values. A lower prediction limit (LPL) was also calculated for pH. To conduct the

intrawell tests for boron, chloride, sulfate, and TDS, a separate UPL was calculated for each

downgradient well for each of these parameters. To conduct the interwell tests for calcium,

fluoride, and pH, a single prediction interval was calculated for each of these parameters using

pooled data from the two background wells. The background data used for the UPL calculations

are summarized in Table 1; the calculated UPLs are summarized in Table 3.

UPLs were calculated for a one-of-two retesting procedure; i.e., if at least one sample in a series

of two does not exceed the UPL, then it can be concluded that an SSI has not occurred. In practice,

where initial results did not exceed the UPL, a second sample was not collected. The one-of-two

retesting procedure allowed achieving an acceptably high statistical power while maintaining a

site-wide false-positive rate (SWFPR) of 10% per year or less. Power curves were constructed for

the interwell and intrawell parametric tests and are compared with the EPA Reference Power Curve

in Attachment A. The power curve associated with the interwell statistical tests for the Landfill

exceeds the EPA Reference Power Curve at 3 and 4 standard deviations; this is considered a

“good” level of statistical power according to USEPA’s Unified Guidance (USEPA, 2009). The

power curve associated with the intrawell statistical tests for the Landfill exceeds the EPA

Reference Power Curve at 4 standard deviations; this is considered an “acceptable” level of

statistical power according to USEPA’s Unified Guidance (USEPA, 2009).


January 15, 2018


2.3 Conclusions

Eight background monitoring events and one detection monitoring event were completed in

accordance with the CCR Rule. The laboratory and field data were reviewed prior to statistical

analysis, with no QA/QC issues identified that impacted data usability. A review of outliers

identified fifteen potential outliers, with ten values removed from the dataset without replacement.

Prediction intervals were constructed based on the remaining background data and a one-of-two

retesting procedure. Interwell tests were selected for calcium, fluoride, and pH, whereas intrawell

tests were selected for boron, chloride, sulfate, and TDS.


January 15, 2018


SECTION 3

REFERENCES

American Electric Power (AEP). 2017. Statistical Analysis Plan – Mountaineer Plant. January

2017.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Statistical Analysis of

Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities – Unified Guidance. EPA 530/R-09-007. March

2009.

TABLES

Table 1: Groundwater Data Summary

Mountaineer Plant - Landfill


9/27/2016 11/1/2016 12/21/2016 2/22/2017 3/28/2017 4/17/2017 5/17/2017 6/13/2017 10/31/2017 9/27/2016 11/1/2016 12/21/2016 2/22/2017 3/28/2017 4/17/2017 5/17/2017 6/13/2017 10/31/2017

Detection Detection

Antimony µg/L 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.5 0.09 0.06 0.1 0.39 0.26 0.23 0.06 0.08 0.15 0.11 0.18

Arsenic µg/L 3.57 4.06 4.51 4.11 3.95 3.6 4.01 3.45 8.05 5.42 4.26 3.76 4.45 4.54 4.54 4.55

Barium µg/L 917 871 872 717 886 802 869 905 326 151 113 94.8 105 108 94.6 102

Beryllium µg/L 0.02U 0.02U 0.01J 0.01J 0.028 0.007J 0.02U 0.008J 0.654 0.158 0.093 0.054 0.062 0.085 0.052 0.082

Boron mg/L 0.097 0.117 0.074 0.145 0.222 0.169 0.161 0.121 0.165 0.276 0.288 0.219 0.282 0.387 0.312 0.29 0.293 0.275

Cadmium µg/L 0.01J 0.005J 0.006J 0.01J 0.01J 0.007J 0.007J 0.008J 0.11 0.02 0.01J 0.009J 0.008J 0.01J 0.005J 0.01J

Calcium mg/L 61.5 50.5 48.6 56.2 52.9 57.1 58.6 53.7 54.7 18.9 1.57 1.39 1.42 1.26 1.65 1.48 1.77 1.33

Chloride mg/L 5.57 5.17 5.21 5.35 6.25 5.73 5.87 5 5.48 1.82 1.86 1.69 1.48 1.59 1.56 1.59 1.64 1.63

Chromium µg/L 0.4 0.3 1.27 0.731 1.43 0.328 0.238 0.405 11.6 5 2.94 1.95 1.69 2.36 1.33 2.25

Cobalt µg/L 0.214 0.22 0.329 0.345 0.532 0.299 0.251 0.325 4.95 0.817 0.502 0.32 0.319 0.511 0.335 0.6

Combined Radium pCi/L 3.25 3.57 3.15 3.6 2.88 1.967 3.22 3.28 2.565 2.003 1.489 1.419 0.888 0.486 0.20279 0.797

Fluoride mg/L 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.13 2.23 2.38 2.44 2.27 2.32 2.3 2.38 2.33 2.38

Lead µg/L 0.165 0.043 0.167 0.244 0.517 0.164 0.09 0.252 17.3 4 8.87 1.28 1.06 1.45 0.971 1.39

Lithium mg/L 0.01 0.006 0.004 0.012 0.014 0.009 0.007 0.018 0.016 0.007 0.001 0.012 0.016 0.005 0.015 0.015

Mercury µg/L 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.004J 0.005U 0.005U 0.002J 0.005U 0.002J 0.005U 0.005U

Molybdenum µg/L 1.88 3.07 3.52 2.53 1.18 1.08 3.99 1.23 24.2 35.6 34.6 32.1 31.5 32 31.6 30.6

Selenium µg/L 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1J 0.1 0.1 2.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 322 270 316 325 334 320 343 324 346 618 558 528 531 508 536 539 526 544

Sulfate mg/L 9.6 10.6 10.2 6.5 7.3 6.7 6.5 5.3 5.8 4.9 7.2 7.3 4.3 4.7 5 4.8 4.5 4.2

Thallium µg/L 0.03J 0.02J 0.062 0.04J 0.03J 0.01J 0.01J 0.01J 0.1J 0.03J 0.04J 0.03J 0.02J 0.02J 0.01J 0.02J

pH SU 7.5 7.39 7.6 7.4 7.4 7.3 8.09 7.4 7.5 9.2 9.06 9.2 9.1 9.3 9 11.1 9.4 9.2

Notes:

mg/L: milligrams per liter

µg/L: micrograms per liter

pCi/L: picocuries per liter

SU: standard unit

U: Component was not present in concentrations above method detection limit and is reported as the reporting limit

J: Estimated value. Component was detected in concentrations below the reporting limit

-: Not sampled

Background Background

Parameter Unit

MW-26 MW-27




Antimony µg/L

Arsenic µg/L

Barium µg/L

Beryllium µg/L

Boron mg/L

Cadmium µg/L

Calcium mg/L

Chloride mg/L

Chromium µg/L

Cobalt µg/L

Combined Radium pCi/L

Fluoride mg/L

Lead µg/L

Lithium mg/L

Mercury µg/L

Molybdenum µg/L

Selenium µg/L

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L

Sulfate mg/L

Thallium µg/L

pH SU

Parameter Unit 10/26/2016 11/2/2016 12/28/2016 2/22/2017 3/29/2017 4/19/2017 5/17/2017 6/13/2017 10/30/2017 9/27/2016 11/2/2016 12/21/2016 2/22/2017 3/28/2017 4/18/2017 5/16/2017 6/13/2017 10/31/2017

Detection Detection

0.36 0.26 0.91 0.52 0.66 1.55 0.75 2.74 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03J 0.05J 0.04J 0.06 0.06

7.38 7.54 6.87 4.65 5.45 5.8 6.9 6.86 9.82 8.15 6.62 5.74 11.5 6.34 5.09 8.09

567 576 360 223 243 246 241 251 221 179 162 141 184 179 186 187

0.692 0.63 0.502 0.082 0.149 0.14 0.12 0.197 0.023 0.02U 0.02U 0.02U 0.02U 0.02U 0.02U 0.02U

0.239 0.24 0.25 0.257 0.344 0.296 0.269 0.283 0.315 0.024 0.04 0.019 0.028 0.07 0.038 0.027 0.093 0.045

0.1 0.09 0.08 0.008J 0.007J 0.01J 0.02U 0.02J 0.03 0.02J 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

16.6 10.9 9.91 2.76 2.54 2.91 2.97 4.06 3.27 55.7 46.3 48.2 47.2 50 52.5 54.5 51.4 56.1

250 257 250 246 242 247 247 255 257 7.12 7.27 7.43 7.21 7.08 7.22 7.41 7.01 7.59

13.1 11.7 18.1 3.24 6.13 5.76 3.99 6.83 1 0.4 1.67 0.526 0.197 0.111 0.093 0.13

33.8 33.3 15.9 2.4 4.24 3.91 3.63 5.35 2.72 0.855 0.655 0.949 0.916 2.87 3.66 2.53

2.588 1.404 2.725 2.418 1.204 3.83 2.395 3.45 2.229 1.744 2.06 1 0.548 0.494 0.536 1.268

3.42 3.41 3.43 3.18 3.31 3.28 1.34 3.28 3.3 0.32 0.32 0.35 0.29 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.28 0.38

33.2 30.9 13.8 1.68 3.62 3.49 3.41 4.8 0.442 0.113 0.082 0.039 0.073 0.02J 0.01J 0.056

0.034 0.026 0.024 0.022 0.027 0.019 0.027 0.027 0.002 0.0009J 0.001U 0.004 0.006 0.003 0.004 0.013

0.054 0.016 0.026 0.004J 0.003J 0.061 0.004J 0.005J 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U

68.7 73.7 107 125 120 123 128 118 2.76 2.1 2.5 3.37 2.47 2.3 3.76 2.67

3.8 2.7 2.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.04J 0.06J 0.03J 0.06J 0.1U 0.1U 0.04J

1350 1280 1220 1270 1210 1290 1170 1210 410 358 404 409 390 422 421 406 460

31.5 19.6 19.1 11.5 0.1J 11.2 4.4 10.8 11.4 28.1 36.6 35.8 31.7 30.1 30.6 32.5 31 28.7

0.724 0.654 0.35 0.258 0.381 0.365 0.287 0.366 0.103 0.04J 0.082 0.04J 0.05J 0.068 0.062 0.056

8.74 8.55 8 8.6 8.7 8.5 10.1 8.9 8.5 7.1 7.04 7.37 7 7 7 7.6 7 6.98

Notes:




SU: standard unit



-: Not sampled


MW-30 MW-38




Antimony µg/L

Arsenic µg/L

Barium µg/L

Beryllium µg/L

Boron mg/L

Cadmium µg/L

Calcium mg/L

Chloride mg/L

Chromium µg/L

Cobalt µg/L


Fluoride mg/L

Lead µg/L

Lithium mg/L

Mercury µg/L

Molybdenum µg/L

Selenium µg/L


Sulfate mg/L

Thallium µg/L

pH SU

Parameter Unit 9/26/2016 11/2/2016 12/21/2016 2/22/2017 3/28/2017 4/18/2017 5/16/2017 6/14/2017 10/31/2017 9/26/2016 11/2/2016 12/20/2016 2/22/2017 3/28/2017 4/18/2017 5/16/2017 6/12/2017 10/31/2017

Detection Detection

0.06 0.04J 0.08 0.03J 0.02J 0.01J 0.01J 0.02J 0.03J 0.03J 0.05U 0.05U 0.01J 0.01J 0.03J 0.03J

4.8 3.89 3.95 3.91 3.58 3.7 3.88 3.76 1.01 0.97 0.74 0.75 0.6 0.69 0.75 0.76

264 276 296 243 241 244 244 247 165 156 140 135 166 155 145 148

0.095 0.068 0.202 0.041 0.01J 0.007J 0.004J 0.008J 0.046 0.03 0.02U 0.007J 0.01J 0.01J 0.008J 0.007J

0.143 0.134 0.122 0.134 0.202 0.156 0.139 0.179 0.171 0.136 0.14 0.124 0.175 0.21 0.155 0.19 0.158 0.152

0.01J 0.02U 0.006J 0.01J 0.02U 0.02U 0.02 0.02U 0.02 0.01J 0.02U 0.006J 0.005J 0.006J 0.02U 0.02U

12.4 7.88 10.5 7.65 5.95 6.48 6.74 6.15 7.25 25 22.8 22.2 22.5 22.3 22.8 23.1 22.4 24

3 3.05 3.07 2.98 2.95 2.91 2.98 2.92 3.05 8.72 9.36 9.39 9.1 8.04 8.59 9.14 9.29 9.8

2.2 3.2 6.32 1.41 0.56 0.243 0.221 0.203 1.4 0.9 2.1 0.209 0.426 0.337 0.661 0.138

1.43 0.615 2.34 0.539 0.206 0.188 0.174 0.209 0.37 0.245 0.092 0.096 0.108 0.104 0.101 0.092

1.142 1.941 1.311 1.162 0.793 0.1602 0.611 0.47 1.258 2.888 0.772 0.5828 0.645 0.487 2.534 0.508

0.77 0.83 0.86 0.8 0.78 0.78 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.56 0.61 0.64 0.57 0.5 0.56 0.6 0.57 0.61

2.21 0.532 1.79 0.467 0.176 0.113 0.073 0.092 0.482 0.31 0.023 0.055 0.195 0.133 0.119 0.058

0.016 0.011 0.008 0.012 0.015 0.009 0.017 0.028 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.007 0.011 0.003 0.006 0.018

0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.002J 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.002J 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U

8.51 9.54 8.03 9.23 8.5 8.65 9.39 9.06 6.97 5.83 5.46 5.36 7.26 6.01 5.49 5.39

0.3 0.09J 0.6 0.1 0.06J 0.04J 0.04J 0.06J 0.07J 0.06J 0.1U 0.04J 0.07J 0.1U 0.04J 0.03J

350 344 450 374 310 344 367 340 385 382 388 380 381 326 388 392 384 402

0.1U 0.1U 0.1U 0.1U 0.1J 0.1U 1.5 0.1 0.2 17.3 22.7 21.8 18 15.7 17.7 18.7 19.4 18.9

0.04J 0.03J 0.07 0.03J 0.02J 0.05U 0.05U 0.05U 0.088 0.03J 0.05U 0.208 0.02J 0.05U 0.02J 0.05U

8.4 8.35 8.81 8.4 8.4 8.3 9.5 8.5 8.3 7.8 7.79 7.74 7.67 7.8 7.7 8.3 7.2 7.8

Notes:




SU: standard unit



-: Not sampled


MW-39 MW-1611




Antimony µg/L

Arsenic µg/L

Barium µg/L

Beryllium µg/L

Boron mg/L

Cadmium µg/L

Calcium mg/L

Chloride mg/L

Chromium µg/L

Cobalt µg/L


Fluoride mg/L

Lead µg/L

Lithium mg/L

Mercury µg/L

Molybdenum µg/L

Selenium µg/L


Sulfate mg/L

Thallium µg/L

pH SU

Parameter Unit 10/26/2016 11/2/2016 12/21/2016 2/22/2017 3/29/2017 4/19/2017 5/16/2017 6/13/2017 10/30/2017

Detection

0.31 0.35 0.13 0.31 0.77 0.82 0.15 0.15

12.4 16.8 14.9 14.4 12.4 10.7 10.4 10.7

66.2 80.4 62.1 72.4 141 233 77.1 59.6

0.033 0.009J 0.007J 0.058 0.29 0.551 0.02J 0.006J

0.637 0.629 0.501 0.473 0.673 0.589 0.565 0.532 0.457

0.007J 0.02U 0.02U 0.02U 0.01J 0.2U 0.02U 0.02U

9.47 8.48 8.96 7.9 7.1 8.61 12.5 8.09 7.22

38.1 33.4 36.1 35.6 23.7 22.4 27.8 27.4 20.2

1.63 0.6 0.913 2.13 3.19 15.5 0.445 0.227

0.367 0.197 0.111 0.7 2.6 3.94 0.231 0.101

2.765 0.973 0.947 1.084 0.86 0.425 2.744 0.824

3.02 3.23 3.33 2.95 3.5 3.26 2.88 2.98 3.53

0.391 0.168 0.121 0.64 1.37 4.1 0.21 0.023

0.018 0.014 0.011 0.018 0.02 0.019 0.022 0.028

0.005U 0.002J 0.002J 0.003J 0.014 0.004J 0.005U 0.005U

62.1 67.6 52.2 38.5 45.9 58 43.1 34.3

0.2 0.08J 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.2 0.1 0.06J

850 966 1090 1240 1040 1150 1130 914

272 238 271 288 190 226 346 334 147

0.03J 0.087 0.05U 0.04J 0.03J 0.2J 0.02J 0.05U

8.27 8.33 8.1 8.4 8.7 8.4 8.8 8.2 8.2

Notes:




SU: standard unit



-: Not sampled

MW-1612

Background

Table 2: Outlier Analysis Summary



Location Well ID Sample Date Parameter Reported Value Units Conclusions

Downgradient MW-26 3/28/2017 Antimony 0.0005 mg/LThis value was removed as an outlier. Its removal

did not affect the calculated background values.

Downgradient MW-27 9/27/2016 Arsenic 0.00805 mg/L

This value was removed from the dataset. The field

notes indicated the sample had high turbidity and

multiple parameters for this sample were identified

as possible outliers, suggesting possible sampling

error.

Downgradient MW-39 9/26/2016 Arsenic 0.0048 mg/LThis value was removed as an outlier. Its removal

did not affect the calculated background values.

Downgradient MW-27 9/27/2016 Barium 0.326 mg/L





error.

Downgradient MW-27 12/21/2016 Boron 0.219 mg/L

This value was not removed as an outlier as it was

only slightly outside the Tukey's test cutoff and was

similar in concentration to neighboring wells.

Downgradient MW-27 3/28/2017 Boron 0.387 mg/L




Downgradient MW-27 9/27/2016 Cadmium 0.00011 mg/L





error.

Downgradient MW-1611 9/26/2016 Calcium 25 mg/L




Downgradient MW-27 9/27/2016 Calcium 18.9 mg/L





error.

Downgradient MW-1611 5/16/2017 pH 8.3 SU

This value was removed from the dataset. Multiple

wells which were sampled sequentially were

identified with pH outliers for this event, suggesting

possible field instrumentation error.

Downgradient MW-1611 6/12/2017 pH 7.2 SUThis value was not removed as an outlier as the

measured value was similar to neighboring wells.











Downgradient MW-27 9/27/2016 Selenium 0.0022 mg/L





error.

Downgradient MW-1611 3/28/2017Total Dissolved

Solids326 mg/L


similar to neighboring wells.

Table 3: Background Level Summary



Parameter Units Description MW-26 MW-27 MW-38 MW-39 MW-1611

Boron mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 0.2655 0.4207 0.1132 0.2246 0.2407

Calcium mg/L Interwell Background Value (UPL)

Chloride mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 6.663 2.011 7.628 3.139 10.24

Fluoride mg/L Interwell Background Value (UPL)

SU Interwell Background Value (UPL)

SU Interwell Background Value (LPL)

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 378.6 634.5 459 472.6 392

Sulfate mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 13.31 8.878 39.92 1.5 25.31

Notes:

UPL: Upper prediction limit

LPL: Lower prediction limit

pH

16.17

3.671

10.1

8

ATTACHMENT A Evaluation of Detection Monitoring Data

150 E.Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 232 Columbus, Ohio 43085

PH 614.468.0415 FAX 614.468.0416

www.geosyntec.com

CHA8423 20180227 Mountaineer LF Addendum Memo

M e mo r a n d u m

Date: February 27, 2018

To: David Miller (AEP)

Copies to: Matt Powell (AEP)

From: Allison Kreinberg and Bruce Sass, Ph.D. (Geosyntec)

Subject: Evaluation of Detection Monitoring Data at Mountaineer Plant’s Landfill

In accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) regulations regarding the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) in landfills and surface impoundments (40 CFR 257.90-257.98, “CCR rule”), detection monitoring events were completed on October 31, 2017 and January 22, 2018 at the Landfill, an existing CCR unit at the Mountaineer Power Plant located in New Haven, West Virginia.

Eight background monitoring events were conducted at the Mountaineer Landfill prior to these detection monitoring events, and upper prediction limits (UPLs) were calculated for each Appendix III parameter to represent background values. A lower prediction limit (LPL) was also calculated for pH. Details on the calculation of these background values are described in Geosyntec’s Statistical Analysis Summary report, dated January 15, 2018.

To achieve an acceptably high statistical power while maintaining a site-wide false-positive rate (SWFPR) of 10% per year or less, prediction limits were calculated based on a one-of-two retesting procedure. With this procedure, a statistically significant increase (SSI) is only concluded if both samples in a series of two exceeds the UPL. In practice, if the initial result did not exceed the UPL, a second sample was not collected or analyzed.

Detection monitoring results and the relevant background values are summarized in Table 1.

• Calcium concentrations exceeded the interwell UPL of 16.2 mg/L in both the initial (54.7 mg/L) and second (55.7 mg/L) samples collected at MW-26, in both the initial (56.1 mg/L) and second (53.8 mg/L) samples collected at MW-38, and in both the initial (24 mg/L) and

Table 1: Detection Monitoring Data EvaluationMountaineer Plant - Landfill


MW-27 MW-3910/31/2017 1/22/2018 10/31/2017 10/31/2017 1/22/2018 10/31/2017 10/31/2017 1/22/2018

mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 0.421 0.225mg/L Detection Monitoring Result 0.165 - 0.275 0.045 - 0.171 0.152 -mg/L Interwell Background Value (UPL)mg/L Detection Monitoring Result 54.7 55.7 1.33 56.1 53.8 7.25 24 22.6mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 2.01 3.14mg/L Detection Monitoring Result 5.48 - 1.63 7.59 - 3.05 9.8 -mg/L Interwell Background Value (UPL)mg/L Detection Monitoring Result 0.13 - 2.38 0.38 - 0.78 0.61 -SU Interwell Background Value (UPL)SU Interwell Background Value (LPL)SU Detection Monitoring Result 7.5 7.3 9.2 6.98 6.7 8.3 7.8 7.5

mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 635 473mg/L Detection Monitoring Result 346 - 544 460 419 385 402 376mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 8.9 1.5mg/L Detection Monitoring Result 5.8 - 4.2 28.7 - 0.2 18.9 -

Notes:UPL: Upper prediction limitLPL: Lower prediction limit-: Not SampledBold values exceed the background value.Background values are shaded gray.

MW-26 MW-38 MW-1611Parameter Units Description

Calcium

Boron

Sulfate

Total Dissolved Solids

pH

Fluoride

Chloride

13.3 39.9

0.241

16.2

10.24

3.67

10.108.00

392

25.3

459379

0.266 0.113

6.66 7.63

ATTACHMENT BStatistical Analysis Output

Groundwater Stats Consulting ● www.groundwaterstats.com ● 913.829.1470

1

GROUNDWATER STATS CONSULTING

December 27, 2017 Geosyntec Consultants Attn: Mr. Bruce Sass 150 E. Wilson Bridge Rd., #232 Worthington, OH 43085 Dear Mr. Sass, Groundwater Stats Consulting, formerly the statistical consulting division of Sanitas Technologies, is pleased to provide the screening and statistical analysis of background groundwater data for American Electric Power’s Mountaineer Landfill. The analysis complies with the federal rule for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities (CCR Rule, 2015) as well as with the USEPA Unified Guidance (2009). Sampling began at Mountaineer Landfill for the CCR program in 2016, and 8 background samples have been collected at each of the groundwater monitoring wells. The monitoring well network, as provided by Geosyntec Consultants, consists of the following: upgradient wells MW-1612 and MW-30; and downgradient wells MW-1611, MW-26, MW-27, MW-38, and MW-39. Data were sent electronically to Groundwater Stats Consulting, and the statistical analysis was reviewed by Dr. Kirk Cameron, PhD Statistician with MacStat Consulting, primary author of the USEPA Unified Guidance, and Senior Advisor to Groundwater Stats Consulting. The following constituents were evaluated: Appendix III parameters – boron, calcium, chloride, fluoride, pH, sulfate, and TDS; and Appendix IV parameters - antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, combined radium 226 & 228, fluoride, lead, lithium, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, and thallium.

http://www.groundwaterstats.com


2

Time series plots for Appendix III and IV parameters at all wells are provided for the purpose of screening data at these wells (Figure A). Additionally, box plots are included for all constituents at upgradient and downgradient wells (Figure B). The time series plots are used to initially screen for suspected outliers and trends, while the box plots provide visual representation of variation within individual wells and between all wells. Data at all wells were evaluated for the following: 1) outliers; 2) trends; 3) most appropriate statistical method for Appendix III parameters based on site characteristics of groundwater data upgradient of the facility; and 4) eligibility of downgradient wells when intrawell statistical methods are recommended. Power curves are provided to demonstrate that the selected statistical methods for Appendix III parameters comply with the USEPA Unified Guidance recommendations as discussed below. Summary of Statistical Method:

1) Intrawell prediction limits, combined with a 1-of-2 resample plan for boron, chloride, sulfate, and TDS; and

2) Interwell prediction limits combined with a 1-of-2 resample plan for calcium, fluoride, and pH.

Parametric prediction limits are utilized when the screened historical data follow a normal or transformed-normal distribution. When data cannot be normalized or the majority of data are nondetects, a nonparametric test is utilized. The distribution of data is tested using the Shapiro-Wilk/Shapiro-Francia test for normality. After testing for normality and performing any adjustments as discussed below (US EPA, 2009), data are analyzed using either parametric or non-parametric prediction limits.

• No statistical analyses are required on wells and analytes containing 100% nondetects (USEPA Unified Guidance, 2009, Chapter 6).

• When data contain <15% nondetects in background, simple substitution of one-half the reporting limit is utilized in the statistical analysis. The reporting limit utilized for nondetects is the practical quantification limit (PQL) as reported by the laboratory.

• When data contain between 15-50% nondetects, the Kaplan-Meier nondetect adjustment is applied to the background data. This technique adjusts the mean and standard deviation of the historical concentrations to account for concentrations below the reporting limit.

• Nonparametric prediction limits are used on data containing greater than 50% nondetects.



3

Background Screening Outlier Evaluation Time series plots are used to identify suspected outliers, or extreme values that would result in limits that are not conservative from a regulatory perspective, in proposed background data. Suspected outliers at all wells for Appendix III and Appendix IV parameters were formally tested using Tukey’s box plot method and, when identified, flagged in the computer database with “o” and deselected prior to construction of statistical limits (Figure C). Tukey’s outlier test noted a few outliers as may be seen on the Outlier Summary Table and accompanying graphs. Any values flagged as outliers are plotted in a lighter font on the time series graph. The pH values reported during the May 2017 sample event were, reportedly, due to instrumentation error. The test identified two outliers for boron in well MW-27; an outlier for calcium in well MW-1611; a low outlier for pH in well MW-1611; and an outlier for TDS in well MW-1611. However, these values were not flagged due to all concentrations being consistent over time and similar to concentrations in neighboring wells. A substitution of the most recent reporting limit was applied when varying detection limits existed in data. No true seasonal patterns were observed on the time series plots for any of the detected data; therefore, no deseasonalizing adjustments were made to the data. When seasonal patterns are observed, data may be deseasonalized so that the resulting limits will correctly account for the seasonality as a predictable pattern rather than random variation or a release. While trends may be visual, a quantification of the trend and its significance is needed. The Sen’s Slope/Mann Kendall trend test was used to evaluate all data at each well to identify statistically significant increasing or decreasing trends (Figure D). In the absence of suspected contamination, significant trending data are typically not included as part of the background data used for construction of prediction limits. This step serves to eliminate the trend and, thus, reduce variation in background. When statistically significant decreasing trends are present, earlier data are evaluated to determine whether earlier concentration levels are significantly different than current reported concentrations and will be deselected as necessary. When the historical records of data are truncated for the reasons above, a summary report will be provided to show the date ranges used in construction of the statistical limits.



4

The results of the trend analyses showed all data are consistent over time with no statistically significant increasing trends. A few statistically significant decreasing trends were noted; however, the magnitudes of the trends were low relative to the average concentrations, as may be seen on the Trend Test Summary table (Figure D). It was noted that boron, sulfate, and TDS concentrations are found to have the highest concentrations in the upgradient wells. No adjustments to any data sets were required at this time. Appendix III – Determination of Spatial Variation The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to statistically evaluate differences in average concentrations among upgradient wells, which assists in identifying the most appropriate statistical approach (Figure E). Interwell tests, which compare downgradient well data to statistical limits constructed from pooled upgradient well data, are appropriate when average concentrations are similar across upgradient wells. Intrawell tests, which compare compliance data from a single well to screened historical data within the same well, are appropriate when upgradient wells exhibit spatial variation; when statistical limits constructed from upgradient wells would not be conservative from a regulatory perspective; and when downgradient water quality is unimpacted compared to upgradient water quality for the same parameter. The ANOVA identified no variation for calcium, fluoride, or pH making these parameters eligible for interwell prediction limits. Variation was identified for boron, chloride, sulfate, and TDS suggesting an intrawell approach for these parameters. Data were further evaluated as described for the appropriateness of intrawell testing to accommodate the groundwater quality. A summary table of the ANOVA results is included with the reports. Appendix III - Statistical Limits Intrawell limits constructed from carefully screened background data from within each well serve to provide statistical limits that are conservative (i.e. lower) from a regulatory perspective, and that will rapidly identify a change in more recent compliance data from within a given well. This statistical method removes the element of variation from across wells and eliminates the chance of mistaking natural spatial variation for a release from the facility. Prior to performing intrawell prediction limits, several steps are required to reasonably demonstrate downgradient water quality does not have existing impacts from the practices of the facility.



5

Exploratory data analysis was used as a general comparison of concentrations in downgradient wells for all Appendix III parameters recommended for intrawell analyses to concentrations reported in upgradient wells. Upper tolerance limits are used in conjunction with confidence intervals to determine whether the estimated averages in downgradient wells are higher than observed levels upgradient of the facility. The upper tolerance limits were constructed to represent the extreme upper range of possible background levels at the site. In cases where downgradient average concentrations are higher than observed concentrations upgradient for a given constituent, an independent study and hydrogeological investigation would be required to identify local geochemical conditions and expected groundwater quality for the region to justify an intrawell approach. Such an assessment is beyond the scope of services provided by Groundwater Stats Consulting. When there is not an obvious explanation for observed concentration differences in downgradient wells relative to reported concentrations in upgradient wells, interwell prediction limits will initially be selected for the statistical method until further evidence shows that concentrations are due to natural variation rather than a result of the facility. Parametric tolerance limits were constructed with a target of 99% confidence and 95% coverage using pooled upgradient well data for each of the Appendix III parameters (Figure F). The confidence and coverage levels for nonparametric tolerance limits are dependent upon the number of background samples. As more data are collected, the background population is better represented and the confidence and coverage levels increase. Confidence intervals were constructed on downgradient wells for each of the Appendix III parameters, using the tolerance limits discussed above, to determine intrawell eligibility (Figure G). When the entire confidence interval is above a background standard for a given parameter, interwell methods are initially recommended as the statistical method. Therefore, only parameters with confidence intervals which did not exceed background standards are eligible for intrawell prediction limits. Confidence intervals for boron, chloride, sulfate and TDS were found were found to be within their respective background limits and are, therefore, eligible for intrawell prediction limits. Interwell prediction limits are recommended for calcium, fluoride and pH. As mentioned earlier, if a demonstration supports natural variation in groundwater, intrawell methods will be considered for all parameters.



6

All available data through June 2017, for parameters mentioned above, at each well were used to establish intrawell background limits based on a 1-of-2 resample plan that will be used for future comparisons (Figure H). Interwell prediction limits for parameters described above, combined with a 1-of-2 resample plan, were constructed from upgradient wells (Figure I). Downgradient measurements will be compared to these background limits during each subsequent semi-annual sampling event. Natural systems continuously evolve due to physical changes made to the environment. Examples include capping a landfill, paving areas near a well, or lining a drainage channel to prevent erosion. Periodic updating of background statistical limits will be necessary to accommodate these types of changes In the interwell case, newer data will be included in background when a minimum of 2 new samples are available. In the intrawell case, data for all wells and constituents are re-evaluated when a minimum of 4 new data points are available to determine whether earlier concentrations are representative of present-day groundwater quality. In some cases, the earlier portion of data are deselected prior to construction of limits in order to provide sensitive limits that will rapidly detect changes in groundwater quality. Even though the data are excluded from the calculation, the values will continue to be reported and shown in tables and graphs. In the event of an initial exceedance of compliance well data, the 1-of-2 resample plan allows for collection of an additional sample to determine whether the initial exceedance is confirmed. When the resample confirms the initial exceedance, a statistically significant increase (SSI) is identified and further research would be required to identify the cause of the exceedance (i.e. impact from the site, natural variation, or an off-site source). If the resample falls within the statistical limit, the initial exceedance is considered to be a false positive result and, therefore, no further action is necessary. A summary table of the background prediction limits follows this letter. Appendix IV – Assessment Monitoring Program During an Assessment Monitoring program confidence intervals are constructed at all wells for detected Appendix IV parameters. A minimum of 4 samples is required to construct confidence intervals; however, 8 samples are generally recommended for better representation of the true average population. Established Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are used as the GWPS comparisons, unless background limits are higher as discussed below. Parametric confidence intervals are constructed with 99% confidence when data follow a normal or transformed-normal distribution.



7

For all other cases, nonparametric confidence intervals are constructed, with the confidence level based on the number of samples available. The GWPS is exceeded only when the entire confidence interval exceeds its respective GWPS. Background limits are established for the Appendix IV parameters using upper tolerance limits constructed with 95% confidence/95% coverage using pooled upgradient well data, for comparison against established MCLs. When background limits, or Alternate Contaminant Levels (ACLs), are higher than established MCLs, the CCR Rule recommends using these ACLs as the GWPS for the confidence interval comparisons. Additionally, tolerance limits are also recommended to establish ACLs for Appendix IV parameters, cobalt, lithium, and molybdenum, which do not have established MCLs. Since the scope of this project included screening and development of background limits for Appendix III Detection Monitoring statistics, comparison of the Appendix IV parameters with confidence intervals was not included in this report. Recommendations

In summary, as a result of the background screening described in this letter, interwell prediction limits combined with a 1-of-2 resample plan are recommended for calcium, fluoride, and pH; and intrawell prediction limits combined with a 1-of-2 resample plan are recommended for boron, chloride, sulfate and TDS. The statistical analyses will be constructed according to the USEPA Unified Guidance, based on seven Appendix III parameters and five downgradient wells.

Thank you for the opportunity to assist you in the statistical analysis of groundwater quality for the Mountaineer Landfill. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. For Groundwater Stats Consulting,

Kristina L. Rayner Groundwater Statistician


0

0.0006

0.0012

0.0018

0.0024

0.003

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Antimony, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive

Mountaineer LF Client: Geosyntec Data: Mountaineer Landfill

Sanitas™ v.9.6.00 Groundwater Stats Consulting. UG

mg/

L

Hollow symbols indicate censored values.

0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Arsenic, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Barium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

0.00014

0.00028

0.00042

0.00056

0.0007

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Beryllium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L


0

0.14

0.28

0.42

0.56

0.7

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Boron, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

0.00004

0.00008

0.00012

0.00016

0.0002

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Cadmium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L


0

14

28

42

56

70

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Calcium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

60

120

180

240

300

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Chloride, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Chromium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

0.008

0.016

0.024

0.032

0.04

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Cobalt, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Combined Radium Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



pCi/L

0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Fluoride, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

0.008

0.016

0.024

0.032

0.04

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Lead, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

0.008

0.016

0.024

0.032

0.04

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Lithium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L


0

0.000014

0.000028

0.000042

0.000056

0.00007

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Mercury, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L


0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Molybdenum, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

4

8

12

16

20

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: pH, field Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



SU

0

0.0008

0.0016

0.0024

0.0032

0.004

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Selenium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L


0

80

160

240

320

400

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Sulfate, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L


0

0.00016

0.00032

0.00048

0.00064

0.0008

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Thallium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L


0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

MW-1612 (bg)

MW-30 (bg)

MW-1611

MW-26

MW-27

MW-38

MW-39

Time Series

Constituent: Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:05 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

0.0006

0.0012

0.0018

0.0024

0.003

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Antimony, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______

+

MW-1611

n=8 25%nds

______+MW

-26

n=7

______+

MW-27

n=8

______+

MW-38

n=8

______+MW

-39

n=8

______+ 0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Arsenic, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-1611

n=8

______+

MW-26

n=8

______+

MW-27

n=7

______+

MW-38

n=8

______+

MW-39

n=7

______+

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Barium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______

+

MW-1611

n=8

______+

MW-26

n=8

______+

MW-27

n=7

______+

MW-38

n=8

______+

MW-39

n=8

______+

0

0.00014

0.00028

0.00042

0.00056

0.0007

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Beryllium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______

+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______

+

MW-1611

n=8 12%nds

______+

MW-26

n=8 37%nds

______+

MW-27

n=8

______

+

MW-38

n=8 87%nds

______+

MW-39

n=8

______+

0

0.14

0.28

0.42

0.56

0.7

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Boron, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-1611

n=8

______+

MW-26

n=8

______+

MW-27

n=8

______+

MW-38

n=8

______+

MW-39

n=8

______+

0

0.00002

0.00004

0.00006

0.00008

0.0001

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Cadmium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8 75%nds

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8 12%nds

______

+

MW-1611

n=8 37%nds

______+

MW-26

n=8

______+

MW-27

n=7

______+

MW-38

n=8

______+

MW-39

n=8 50%nds

______

+

0

14

28

42

56

70

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Calcium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-1611

n=8

______+

MW-26

n=8

______+

MW-27

n=7

______+MW

-38

n=8

______+

MW-39

n=8

______+

0

60

120

180

240

300

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Chloride, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-1611

n=8

______+

MW-26

n=8

______+MW

-27

n=8

______+MW

-38

n=8

______+

MW-39

n=8

______+

0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Chromium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______

+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______

+

MW-1611

n=8

______+

MW-26

n=8

______+

MW-27

n=8

______+

MW-38

n=8

______+

MW-39

n=8

______+

0

0.008

0.016

0.024

0.032

0.04

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Cobalt, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______

+

MW-1611

n=8

______+MW

-26

n=8

______+MW

-27

n=8

______+

MW-38

n=8

______+

MW-39

n=8

______+

0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Combined Radium Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



pCi/L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______

+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-1611

n=8

______

+

MW-26

n=8

______+

MW-27

n=8

______+

MW-38

n=8

______+

MW-39

n=8

______+

0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Fluoride, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______

+

MW-1611

n=8

______+

MW-26

n=8

______+

MW-27

n=8

______+

MW-38

n=8

______+

MW-39

n=8

______+

0

0.008

0.016

0.024

0.032

0.04

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Lead, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______

+

MW-1611

n=8

______+MW

-26

n=8

______+MW

-27

n=8

______+

MW-38

n=8

______+MW

-39

n=8

______+ 0

0.008

0.016

0.024

0.032

0.04

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Lithium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-1611

n=8

______+

MW-26

n=8

______+

MW-27

n=8

______

+

MW-38

n=8 12%nds

______+

MW-39

n=8

______+

0

0.000014

0.000028

0.000042

0.000056

0.00007

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Mercury, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8 37%nds

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______

+

MW-1611

n=8 87%nds

______+

MW-26

n=8 100%nds

______+

MW-27

n=8 62%nds

______+

MW-38

n=8 100%nds

______+

MW-39

n=8 87%nds

______+

0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Molybdenum, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______

+

MW-1611

n=8

______+

MW-26

n=8

______+MW

-27

n=8

______+

MW-38

n=8

______+MW

-39

n=8

______+

0

2.2

4.4

6.6

8.8

11

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: pH, field Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



SU

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-1611

n=7

______+

MW-26

n=7

______+

MW-27

n=7

______+

MW-38

n=8

______+

MW-39

n=8

______+

0

0.0008

0.0016

0.0024

0.0032

0.004

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Selenium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______

+

MW-1611

n=8 25%nds

______+MW

-26

n=8

______+

MW-27

n=7

______+

MW-38

n=8 25%nds

______+MW

-39

n=8

______+

0

80

160

240

320

400

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Sulfate, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-1611

n=8

______+

MW-26

n=8

______+MW

-27

n=8

______+MW

-38

n=8

______+

MW-39

n=8 62%nds

______+ 0

0.00016

0.00032

0.00048

0.00064

0.0008

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Thallium, total Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=8 25%nds

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=8

______+

MW-1611

n=8 37%nds

______+

MW-26

n=8

______+

MW-27

n=8

______+

MW-38

n=8

______+

MW-39

n=8 37%nds

______+

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] Analysis Run 12/27/2017 9:06 AM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

MW-1612 (bg)

n=7

______+

MW-30 (bg)

n=7

______+

MW-1611

n=8

______+

MW-26

n=8

______+

MW-27

n=8

______+

MW-38

n=8

______+

MW-39

n=8

______+

Outlier Summary TableMountaineer LF Client: Geosyntec Data: Mountaineer Landfill Printed 12/27/2017, 9:01 AM

9/26/2016

9/27/2016

3/28/2017

5/16/2017

5/17/2017

MW-26 Antimony, total (mg/L)

MW-27 Arsenic, total (mg/L)

MW-39 Arsenic, total (mg/L)

MW-27 Barium, total (mg/L)

MW-27 Cadmium, total (mg/L)

MW-27 Calcium, total (mg/L)

MW-1611 pH, field (SU)



MW-27 Selenium, total (mg/L)

0.0005 (o)

0.00805 (o)

0.0048 (o)

0.326 (o) 0.00011 (o) 18.9 (o)

8.3 (o)

8.09 (o) 11.1 (o)

0.0022 (o)

Constituent Well Outlier Value(s) Method N Mean Std. Dev. Distribution Normality Test

Antimony, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 0.0006713 0.0006652 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Arsenic, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 0.009634 0.003735 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Barium, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 0.2187 0.1657 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Beryllium, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 0.0002179 0.0002398 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk

Boron, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP (nrm) 16 0.4236 0.1652 unknown ShapiroWilk

Cadmium, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP (nrm) 16 0.0000295 0.0000307 unknown ShapiroWilk

Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 7.735 3.947 normal ShapiroWilk

Chloride, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP (nrm) 16 139.9 113.1 unknown ShapiroWilk

Chromium, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 0.005843 0.005732 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk

Cobalt, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 0.006924 0.01108 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Combined Radium (pCi/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 1.915 1.059 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk

Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 3.113 0.5076 x^6 ShapiroWilk

Lead, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 0.00637 0.01058 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Lithium, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 0.02225 0.005848 normal ShapiroWilk

Mercury, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP (nrm) 16 0.00001331 0.00001845 unknown ShapiroWilk

Molybdenum, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 0.07907 0.0348 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

pH, field (SU) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 8.581 0.4801 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Selenium, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 0.00094 0.00112 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP (nrm) 16 142.1 137.8 unknown ShapiroWilk

Thallium, total (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 16 0.0002432 0.0002229 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-1612,MW-30 No n/a NP 14 1161 137.6 x^5 ShapiroWilk

Outlier Analysis - Upgradient WellsMountaineer LF Client: Geosyntec Data: Mountaineer Landfill Printed 11/25/2017, 11:58 AM

Constituent Well Outlier Value(s) Method N Mean Std. Dev. DistributionNormality Test

Antimony, total (mg/L) MW-26 Yes 0.0005 NP 8 0.00015 0.000143 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Arsenic, total (mg/L) MW-27 Yes 0.00805 NP 8 0.004946 0.001335 ln(x) ShapiroWilk


Barium, total (mg/L) MW-27 Yes 0.326 NP 8 0.1368 0.07852 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Boron, total (mg/L) MW-27 Yes 0.219,0.387 NP 8 0.2934 0.04647 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Cadmium, total (mg/L) MW-27 Yes 0.00011 NP 8 0.00002275 0.00003552 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 Yes 25 NP 8 22.89 0.9047 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-27 Yes 18.9 NP 8 3.68 6.152 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

pH, field (SU) MW-1611 Yes 8.3,7.2 NP 8 7.75 0.2978 normal ShapiroWilk

pH, field (SU) MW-26 Yes 8.09 NP 8 7.51 0.2505 ln(x) ShapiroWilk


Selenium, total (mg/L) MW-27 Yes 0.0022 NP 8 0.000475 0.0007025 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-1611 Yes 326 NP 8 377.6 21.26 x^6 ShapiroWilk

Outlier Analysis - Significant Downgradient WellsMountaineer LF Client: Geosyntec Data: Mountaineer Landfill Printed 12/27/2017, 8:52 AM


Antimony, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP 8 0.00003 0.00001512 normal ShapiroWilk

Antimony, total (mg/L) MW-26 Yes 0.0005 NP 8 0.00015 0.000143 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Antimony, total (mg/L) MW-27 No n/a NP 8 0.0001825 0.000109 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk

Antimony, total (mg/L) MW-38 No n/a NP 8 0.00005625 0.00001847 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk

Antimony, total (mg/L) MW-39 No n/a NP 8 0.00003375 0.00002504 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Arsenic, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP 8 0.0007838 0.0001379 ln(x) ShapiroWilk





Barium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP 8 0.1513 0.01123 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Barium, total (mg/L) MW-26 No n/a NP 8 0.8549 0.06535 x^6 ShapiroWilk

Barium, total (mg/L) MW-27 Yes 0.326 NP 8 0.1368 0.07852 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Barium, total (mg/L) MW-38 No n/a NP 8 0.1799 0.02277 sqrt(x) ShapiroWilk

Barium, total (mg/L) MW-39 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.2569 0.02007 unknown ShapiroWilk

Beryllium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP 8 0.00001725 0.00001413 ln(x) ShapiroWilk



Beryllium, total (mg/L) MW-38 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.00002037 0.000001061 unknown ShapiroWilk


Boron, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP 8 0.161 0.02908 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Boron, total (mg/L) MW-26 No n/a NP 8 0.1383 0.04645 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk

Boron, total (mg/L) MW-27 Yes 0.219,0.387 NP 8 0.2934 0.04647 ln(x) ShapiroWilk



Cadmium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.00001337 0.00000723 unknown ShapiroWilk

Cadmium, total (mg/L) MW-26 No n/a NP 8 0.000007875 0.000001959 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Cadmium, total (mg/L) MW-27 Yes 0.00011 NP 8 0.00002275 0.00003552 ln(x) ShapiroWilk



Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 Yes 25 NP 8 22.89 0.9047 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-26 No n/a NP 8 54.89 4.281 normal ShapiroWilk

Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-27 Yes 18.9 NP 8 3.68 6.152 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-38 No n/a NP 8 50.73 3.412 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-39 No n/a NP 8 7.969 2.307 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Chloride, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP 8 8.954 0.47 x^6 ShapiroWilk

Chloride, total (mg/L) MW-26 No n/a NP 8 5.519 0.4175 ln(x) ShapiroWilk




Chromium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP 8 0.0007714 0.0006777 ln(x) ShapiroWilk





Cobalt, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.000151 0.0001024 unknown ShapiroWilk

Cobalt, total (mg/L) MW-26 No n/a NP 8 0.0003144 0.0001013 ln(x) ShapiroWilk


Cobalt, total (mg/L) MW-38 No n/a NP 8 0.001894 0.001172 normal ShapiroWilk


Combined Radium (pCi/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP 8 1.209 0.963 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Combined Radium (pCi/L) MW-26 No n/a NP 8 3.115 0.5173 x^5 ShapiroWilk

Combined Radium (pCi/L) MW-27 No n/a NP 8 1.231 0.7924 sqrt(x) ShapiroWilk



Outlier Analysis - All Downgradient WellsMountaineer LF Client: Geosyntec Data: Mountaineer Landfill Printed 12/27/2017, 8:52 AM


Page 2

Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP 8 0.5763 0.04173 x^3 ShapiroWilk

Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-26 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.1275 0.004629 unknown ShapiroWilk

Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-27 No n/a NP 8 2.331 0.06728 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-38 No n/a NP 8 0.3175 0.02252 x^5 ShapiroWilk

Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-39 No n/a NP 8 0.7988 0.03091 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Lead, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP 8 0.0001719 0.0001553 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Lead, total (mg/L) MW-26 No n/a NP 8 0.0002053 0.0001441 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk




Lithium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP 8 0.006875 0.005303 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Lithium, total (mg/L) MW-26 No n/a NP 8 0.01 0.004567 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk

Lithium, total (mg/L) MW-27 No n/a NP 8 0.01088 0.005793 normal ShapiroWilk



Mercury, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.000004625 0.000001061 unknown ShapiroWilk

Mercury, total (mg/L) MW-26 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.000005 0 unknown ShapiroWilk


Mercury, total (mg/L) MW-38 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.000005 0 unknown ShapiroWilk


Molybdenum, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.005971 0.0007449 unknown ShapiroWilk

Molybdenum, total (mg/L) MW-26 No n/a NP 8 0.00231 0.001137 normal ShapiroWilk

Molybdenum, total (mg/L) MW-27 No n/a NP 8 0.03153 0.003405 x^5 ShapiroWilk

Molybdenum, total (mg/L) MW-38 No n/a NP 8 0.002741 0.0005576 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Molybdenum, total (mg/L) MW-39 No n/a NP 8 0.008864 0.0005217 x^3 ShapiroWilk

pH, field (SU) MW-1611 Yes 8.3,7.2 NP 8 7.75 0.2978 normal ShapiroWilk



pH, field (SU) MW-38 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 7.139 0.225 unknown ShapiroWilk

pH, field (SU) MW-39 No n/a NP 8 8.583 0.4025 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Selenium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP 8 0.00006375 0.00002669 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Selenium, total (mg/L) MW-26 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.000125 0.00004629 unknown ShapiroWilk

Selenium, total (mg/L) MW-27 Yes 0.0022 NP 8 0.000475 0.0007025 ln(x) ShapiroWilk



Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP 8 18.91 2.336 ln(x) ShapiroWilk


Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-27 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 5.338 1.201 unknown ShapiroWilk


Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-39 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.275 0.495 unknown ShapiroWilk

Thallium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 No n/a NP 8 0.0000645 0.00006202 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Thallium, total (mg/L) MW-26 No n/a NP 8 0.0000265 0.00001823 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk



Thallium, total (mg/L) MW-39 No n/a NP 8 0.0000425 0.00001581 sqrt(x) ShapiroWilk

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-1611 Yes 326 NP 8 377.6 21.26 x^6 ShapiroWilk

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-26 No n/a NP 8 319.3 21.65 x^6 ShapiroWilk

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-27 No n/a NP 8 543 33.38 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-38 No n/a NP 8 402.5 20.61 x^6 ShapiroWilk

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-39 No n/a NP 8 359.9 41.16 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Outlier Analysis - All Downgradient WellsMountaineer LF Client: Geosyntec Data: Mountaineer Landfill Printed 12/27/2017, 8:52 AM

0

0.0006

0.0012

0.0018

0.0024

0.003

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17

Tukey's Outlier Screening, Pooled BackgroundMW-1612,MW-30

Constituent: Antimony, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:49 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16

No outliers found.Tukey's method select-ed by user.

Data were natural logtransformed to achievebest W statistic (graphshown in original units).

High cutoff = 0.01742,low cutoff = 0.00001295,based on IQR multiplierof 3.

0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Arsenic, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:49 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16




0

0.12

0.24

0.36

0.48

0.6

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Barium, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:49 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16



High cutoff = 9.142, lowcutoff = 0.002031, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

0.00014

0.00028

0.00042

0.00056

0.0007

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Beryllium, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:49 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16


Data were cube root trans-formed to achieve bestW statistic (graph shownin original units).

High cutoff = 0.008304,low cutoff = -0.001002,based on IQR multiplierof 3.

0

0.14

0.28

0.42

0.56

0.7

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Boron, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:49 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16

No outliers found.Tukey's method used inlieu of parametric testbecause the Shapiro Wilknormality test failedat the 0.05 alpha level.

Ladder of Powers trans-formations did not im-prove normality; analy-sis run on raw data.

High cutoff = 1.519, lowcutoff = -0.679, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

0.00002

0.00004

0.00006

0.00008

0.0001

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Cadmium, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:49 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16




0

4

8

12

16

20

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Calcium, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:49 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16




0

60

120

180

240

300

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Chloride, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:49 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16


Data were x^6 transform-ed to achieve best W stat-istic (graph shown inoriginal units).


0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Chromium, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:49 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16




0

0.008

0.016

0.024

0.032

0.04

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Cobalt, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:50 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16



High cutoff = 20.85, lowcutoff = 6.7e-8, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Combined Radium Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:50 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



pCi/L

n = 16




0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Fluoride, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:50 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16




0

0.008

0.016

0.024

0.032

0.04

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Lead, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:50 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16




0

0.008

0.016

0.024

0.032

0.04

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Lithium, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:50 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16



High cutoff = 0.0525,low cutoff = -0.007, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

0.000014

0.000028

0.000042

0.000056

0.00007

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Mercury, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:50 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16



High cutoff = 0.001207,low cutoff = 4.3e-8, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Molybdenum, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:50 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16




0

2.2

4.4

6.6

8.8

11

10/25/16 12/10/16 1/25/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/14/17


Constituent: pH, field Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:50 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



SU

n = 16




0

0.0008

0.0016

0.0024

0.0032

0.004

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Selenium, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:50 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16




0

80

160

240

320

400

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Sulfate, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:50 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16



High cutoff = 7033, lowcutoff = -1137, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

0.00016

0.00032

0.00048

0.00064

0.0008

10/26/16 12/11/16 1/26/17 3/13/17 4/28/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Thallium, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:50 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 16




0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

11/2/16 12/16/16 1/30/17 3/15/17 4/29/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] Analysis Run 11/25/2017 11:50 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Scree



mg/

L

n = 14



High cutoff = 1564, lowcutoff = -1357, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

0.00001

0.00002

0.00003

0.00004

0.00005

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17

Tukey's Outlier ScreeningMW-1611




mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0001

0.0002

0.0003

0.0004

0.0005

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8

Outlier is drawn as solid.Tukey's method select-ed by user.



0

0.00008

0.00016

0.00024

0.00032

0.0004

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8



High cutoff = 0.001469,low cutoff = -1.8e-7,based on IQR multiplierof 3.

0

0.000018

0.000036

0.000054

0.000072

0.00009

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.000016

0.000032

0.000048

0.000064

0.00008

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.00022

0.00044

0.00066

0.00088

0.0011

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0018

0.0036

0.0054

0.0072

0.009

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.08

0.16

0.24

0.32

0.4

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.3

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8


Data were square roottransformed to achievebest W statistic (graphshown in original units).

High cutoff = 0.2392,low cutoff = 0.1264, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.3

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.00001

0.00002

0.00003

0.00004

0.00005

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.000006

0.000012

0.000018

0.000024

0.00003

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.00014

0.00028

0.00042

0.00056

0.0007

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.000006

0.000012

0.000018

0.000024

0.00003

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8



The results were invalid-ated, because the lowerand upper quartiles areequal.

0

0.00006

0.00012

0.00018

0.00024

0.0003

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.3

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.3

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.08

0.16

0.24

0.32

0.4

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8

Outliers are drawn assolid.Tukey's method select-ed by user.



0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.3

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.000004

0.000008

0.000012

0.000016

0.00002

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0000022

0.0000044

0.0000066

0.0000088

0.000011

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.00004

0.00008

0.00012

0.00016

0.0002

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.000006

0.000012

0.000018

0.000024

0.00003

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8


Data were square trans-formed to achieve bestW statistic (graph shownin original units).


0

0.000004

0.000008

0.000012

0.000016

0.00002

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

6

12

18

24

30

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

14

28

42

56

70

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

4

8

12

16

20

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

12

24

36

48

60

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

4

8

12

16

20

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8



High cutoff = 27.21, lowcutoff = 2.11, based onIQR multiplier of 3.

0

2

4

6

8

10

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

1.4

2.8

4.2

5.6

7

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

1.6

3.2

4.8

6.4

8

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0006

0.0012

0.0018

0.0024

0.003

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0004

0.0008

0.0012

0.0016

0.002

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0004

0.0008

0.0012

0.0016

0.002

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0014

0.0028

0.0042

0.0056

0.007

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.00008

0.00016

0.00024

0.00032

0.0004

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.00012

0.00024

0.00036

0.00048

0.0006

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0008

0.0016

0.0024

0.0032

0.004

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0006

0.0012

0.0018

0.0024

0.003

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





pCi/L

n = 8




0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





pCi/L

n = 8




0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





pCi/L

n = 8




0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





pCi/L

n = 8




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





pCi/L

n = 8




0

0.14

0.28

0.42

0.56

0.7

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8


Data were cube transform-ed to achieve best W stat-istic (graph shown inoriginal units).


0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.08

0.16

0.24

0.32

0.4

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.18

0.36

0.54

0.72

0.9

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0001

0.0002

0.0003

0.0004

0.0005

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.00012

0.00024

0.00036

0.00048

0.0006

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0001

0.0002

0.0003

0.0004

0.0005

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0006

0.0012

0.0018

0.0024

0.003

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.006

0.012

0.018

0.024

0.03

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.000001

0.000002

0.000003

0.000004

0.000005

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.22

0.44

0.66

0.88

1.1

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.000001

0.000002

0.000003

0.000004

0.000005

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8



The results were invalid-ated, because both thelower and upper quartilesrepresent reporting limits.

0

0.22

0.44

0.66

0.88

1.1

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.000001

0.000002

0.000003

0.000004

0.000005

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0016

0.0032

0.0048

0.0064

0.008

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0008

0.0016

0.0024

0.0032

0.004

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.008

0.016

0.024

0.032

0.04

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0008

0.0016

0.0024

0.0032

0.004

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

1.8

3.6

5.4

7.2

9

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





SU

n = 8

Outliers are drawn assolid.Tukey's method select-ed by user.


High cutoff = 8.145, lowcutoff = 7.34, based onIQR multiplier of 3.

0

1.8

3.6

5.4

7.2

9

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





SU

n = 8




0

4

8

12

16

20

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





SU

n = 8




0

1.6

3.2

4.8

6.4

8

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





SU

n = 8




0

2

4

6

8

10

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





SU

n = 8




0

0.00002

0.00004

0.00006

0.00008

0.0001

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.00004

0.00008

0.00012

0.00016

0.0002

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.0006

0.0012

0.0018

0.0024

0.003

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.00004

0.00008

0.00012

0.00016

0.0002

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.00012

0.00024

0.00036

0.00048

0.0006

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

6

12

18

24

30

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

4

8

12

16

20

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

1.6

3.2

4.8

6.4

8

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

8

16

24

32

40

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8



The results were invalid-ated, because both thelower and upper quartilesrepresent reporting limits.

0

0.00006

0.00012

0.00018

0.00024

0.0003

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.000014

0.000028

0.000042

0.000056

0.00007

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.00002

0.00004

0.00006

0.00008

0.0001

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.000022

0.000044

0.000066

0.000088

0.00011

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.000014

0.000028

0.000042

0.000056

0.00007

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

80

160

240

320

400

9/26/16 11/16/16 1/7/17 2/28/17 4/21/17 6/12/17


Constituent: Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] Analysis Run 12/27/2017 8:51 AM View: Tukey's Outlier Screeni



mg/

L

n = 8



High cutoff = 407, lowcutoff = 352.1, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

80

160

240

320

400

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

140

280

420

560

700

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8



High cutoff = 618, lowcutoff = 467.6, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

100

200

300

400

500

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

100

200

300

400

500

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17





mg/

L

n = 8



High cutoff = 471, lowcutoff = 269, based onIQR multiplier of 3.

Constituent Well Slope Calc. Critical Sig. N %NDs Normality Xform Alpha Method

Chromium, total (mg/L) MW-39 -0.004409 -22 -21 Yes 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Combined Radium (pCi/L) MW-27 -3.255 -24 -21 Yes 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lead, total (mg/L) MW-39 -0.001758 -24 -21 Yes 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Trend Tests Summary Table - Significant ResultsMountaineer LF Client: Geosyntec Data: Mountaineer Landfill Printed 11/25/2017, 12:14 PM


Antimony, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) 0 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Antimony, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) 0.001773 18 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Antimony, total (mg/L) MW-1611 0 -4 -21 No 8 25 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Antimony, total (mg/L) MW-26 -0.0000646 -12 -18 No 7 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP




Arsenic, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) -0.009061 -18 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Arsenic, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -0.0008441 -6 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Arsenic, total (mg/L) MW-1611 -0.0003735 -7 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Arsenic, total (mg/L) MW-27 0.000474 6 18 No 7 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Barium, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) 0.01936 2 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Barium, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -0.4204 -10 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Barium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 -0.01924 -6 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Barium, total (mg/L) MW-38 0.01306 5 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Beryllium, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) 0.000009246 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Beryllium, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -0.000892 -14 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Beryllium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 -0.00003753 -20 -21 No 8 12.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Beryllium, total (mg/L) MW-26 -0.000007968 -8 -21 No 8 37.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Beryllium, total (mg/L) MW-27 -0.0001417 -16 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Beryllium, total (mg/L) MW-38 0 -7 -21 No 8 87.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Beryllium, total (mg/L) MW-39 -0.0001328 -20 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Boron, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) -0.1444 -8 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Boron, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) 0.06445 18 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Boron, total (mg/L) MW-1611 0.05271 12 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP





Cadmium, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) 0 7 21 No 8 75 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cadmium, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -0.0001287 -11 -21 No 8 12.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cadmium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 -3.6e-13 -1 -21 No 8 37.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cadmium, total (mg/L) MW-26 0 2 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cadmium, total (mg/L) MW-27 -0.00001074 -8 -18 No 7 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cadmium, total (mg/L) MW-38 0 9 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cadmium, total (mg/L) MW-39 0.000006992 11 21 No 8 50 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) -1.434 -4 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -16.06 -10 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 -0.4947 -3 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-26 5.587 4 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-39 -7.595 -18 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Chloride, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) -18.43 -16 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Chloride, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -4.334 -4 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Chloride, total (mg/L) MW-1611 0.03041 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Chloride, total (mg/L) MW-26 0.382 4 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Chloride, total (mg/L) MW-27 -0.3602 -9 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Trend Tests Summary Table - All ResultsMountaineer LF Client: Geosyntec Data: Mountaineer Landfill Printed 11/25/2017, 12:14 PM


Page 2


Chromium, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) -0.0004503 -2 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Chromium, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -0.01409 -10 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Chromium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 -0.001352 -14 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP




Chromium, total (mg/L) MW-39 -0.004409 -22 -21 Yes 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cobalt, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) 0.00002133 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cobalt, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -0.04211 -14 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cobalt, total (mg/L) MW-1611 -0.0001007 -13 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cobalt, total (mg/L) MW-26 0.0001231 8 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Cobalt, total (mg/L) MW-38 0.001594 10 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Combined Radium (pCi/L) MW-1612 (bg) -0.3023 -12 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Combined Radium (pCi/L) MW-30 (bg) 1.476 4 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Combined Radium (pCi/L) MW-1611 -0.7684 -12 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Combined Radium (pCi/L) MW-27 -3.255 -24 -21 Yes 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) -0.2147 -4 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -0.3099 -15 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-1611 -0.009359 -2 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-26 0 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-27 0.1126 5 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-38 0 -2 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-39 -0.05458 -5 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lead, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) -0.00006348 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lead, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -0.04178 -14 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lead, total (mg/L) MW-1611 -0.000456 -10 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lead, total (mg/L) MW-26 0.0001048 6 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Lead, total (mg/L) MW-39 -0.001758 -24 -21 Yes 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lithium, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) 0.01554 19 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lithium, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -0.005554 -3 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lithium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 0.009854 11 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Lithium, total (mg/L) MW-38 0.007761 17 21 No 8 12.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Mercury, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) 0.000005263 10 21 No 8 37.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Mercury, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -0.00002731 -7 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Mercury, total (mg/L) MW-1611 0 1 21 No 8 87.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Mercury, total (mg/L) MW-26 0 0 21 No 8 100 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Mercury, total (mg/L) MW-38 0 0 21 No 8 100 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Molybdenum, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) -0.03797 -16 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Molybdenum, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) 0.06884 16 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Molybdenum, total (mg/L) MW-1611 -0.001038 -8 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP





Page 3

Molybdenum, total (mg/L) MW-38 0.0006811 4 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Molybdenum, total (mg/L) MW-39 0.0007364 4 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

pH, field (SU) MW-1612 (bg) 0.3342 9 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

pH, field (SU) MW-30 (bg) 0.7592 8 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

pH, field (SU) MW-1611 -0.1878 -7 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

pH, field (SU) MW-26 0 -1 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

pH, field (SU) MW-27 0.3979 9 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

pH, field (SU) MW-38 -0.03274 -6 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

pH, field (SU) MW-39 0.1324 5 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Selenium, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) 0 -1 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Selenium, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -0.00414 -11 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Selenium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 -0.00004826 -9 -21 No 8 25 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Selenium, total (mg/L) MW-26 0 -2 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Selenium, total (mg/L) MW-38 0 -1 -21 No 8 25 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) 115.3 6 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -29.58 -20 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-1611 -0.6376 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-26 -7.621 -19 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-39 0 5 21 No 8 62.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Thallium, total (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) -0.000009035 -2 -21 No 8 25 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Thallium, total (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -0.0005839 -10 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Thallium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 -0.00002186 -6 -21 No 8 37.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Thallium, total (mg/L) MW-26 -0.0000338 -14 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Thallium, total (mg/L) MW-39 0.000006992 4 21 No 8 37.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-1612 (bg) 458.3 11 18 No 7 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-30 (bg) -228.1 -11 -18 No 7 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-1611 6.595 5 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-27 -58.09 -10 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-39 -19.8 -7 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


-0.0002

0.00124

0.00268

0.00412

0.00556

0.007

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17

Sen's Slope EstimatorMW-39

Constituent: Chromium, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 12:12 PM View: Trend Testing



mg/

L

n = 8

Slope = -0.004409units per year.

Mann-Kendallstatistic = -22critical = -21

Decreasing trendsignificant at 99%confidence level(α = 0.005 pertail).

0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3

9/27/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/13/17


Constituent: Combined Radium Analysis Run 11/25/2017 12:12 PM View: Trend Testing



pCi/L

n = 8




0

0.0018

0.0036

0.0054

0.0072

0.009

9/26/16 11/17/16 1/8/17 3/1/17 4/22/17 6/14/17


Constituent: Lead, total Analysis Run 11/25/2017 12:12 PM View: Trend Testing



mg/

L

n = 8




Constituent Crit. Sig. Alpha Transform ANOVA Sig. Calc. Alpha Method

Boron, total (mg/L) n/a n/a n/a sqrt(x) Yes 137.4 0.05 Param.

Calcium, total (mg/L) n/a n/a n/a No No 1.103 0.05 NP (eq. var.)

Chloride, total (mg/L) n/a n/a n/a No Yes 6380 0.05 Param.

Fluoride, total (mg/L) n/a n/a n/a x^5 No 0.369 0.05 Param.

pH, field (SU) n/a n/a n/a No No 2.658 0.05 NP (normality)

Sulfate, total (mg/L) n/a n/a n/a sqrt(x) Yes 260.6 0.05 Param.

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) n/a n/a n/a No Yes 12.43 0.05 Param.

Analysis of VarianceMountaineer LF Client: Geosyntec Data: Mountaineer Landfill Printed 1/15/2018, 5:41 PM


Parametric ANOVAConstituent: Boron, total Analysis Run 1/15/2018 5:40 PM View: ANOVA


For observations made between 10/26/2016 and 6/13/2017 the parametric analysis of variance test (after square root transformation) indicates VARIATIONat the 5% significance level. Because the calculated F statistic is greater than the tabulated F statistic, the hypothesis of a single homogeneous populationis rejected.

Calculated F statistic = 137.4

Tabulated F statistic = 4.6 with 1 and 14 degrees of freedom at the 5% significance level.

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean FVariation Squares Freedom Squares

Between 0.223 1 0.223 137.4Groups

Error Within 0.02271 14 0.001622Groups

Total 0.2457 15

The Shapiro Wilk normality test on the residuals passed after square root transformation. Alpha = 0.05, calculated = 0.974, critical = 0.887. Levene'sEquality of Variance test passed. Calculated = 1.464, tabulated = 4.6.


Non-Parametric ANOVAConstituent: Calcium, total Analysis Run 1/15/2018 5:40 PM View: ANOVA


For observations made between 10/26/2016 and 6/13/2017, the non-parametric analysis of variance test indicates NO DIFFERENCE between the medians of thegroups tested at the 5% significance level. Because the calculated Kruskal-Wallis statistic is less than or equal to the Chi-squared value, we concludethat no group has a significantly different median concentration of this constituent when compared to another group.

Calculated Kruskal-Wallis statistic = 1.103

Tabulated Chi-Squared value = 3.841 with 1 degree of freedom at the 5% significance level.

There were 0 groups of ties in the data, so no adjustment to the Kruskal-Wallis statistic (H) was necessary.


Parametric ANOVAConstituent: Chloride, total Analysis Run 1/15/2018 5:40 PM View: ANOVA


For observations made between 10/26/2016 and 6/13/2017 the parametric analysis of variance test indicates VARIATION at the 5% significance level. Becausethe calculated F statistic is greater than the tabulated F statistic, the hypothesis of a single homogeneous population is rejected.

Calculated F statistic = 6380



Between 191297 1 191297 6380Groups


Total 191717 15

The Shapiro Wilk normality test on the residuals passed on the raw data. Alpha = 0.05, calculated = 0.9321, critical = 0.887. Levene's Equality of Variancetest passed. Calculated = 1.411, tabulated = 4.6.


Parametric ANOVAConstituent: Fluoride, total Analysis Run 1/15/2018 5:41 PM View: ANOVA


For observations made between 10/26/2016 and 6/13/2017 the parametric analysis of variance test (after x^5 transformation) indicates NO VARIATION at the5% significance level. Because the calculated F statistic is less than or equal to the tabulated F statistic, the hypothesis of a single homogeneous populationis accepted.




Between 6707 1 6707 0.369Groups

Error Within 254469 14 18176Groups

Total 261176 15

The Shapiro Wilk normality test on the residuals passed after x^5 transformation. Alpha = 0.05, calculated = 0.9109, critical = 0.887. Levene's Equalityof Variance test passed. Calculated = 0.01249, tabulated = 4.6.


Non-Parametric ANOVAConstituent: pH, field Analysis Run 1/15/2018 5:41 PM View: ANOVA


For observations made between 10/25/2016 and 6/14/2017, the non-parametric analysis of variance test indicates NO DIFFERENCE between the medians of thegroups tested at the 5% significance level. Because the calculated Kruskal-Wallis statistic is less than or equal to the Chi-squared value, we concludethat no group has a significantly different median concentration of this constituent when compared to another group.

Calculated Kruskal-Wallis statistic = 2.658

Tabulated Chi-Squared value = 3.841 with 1 degree of freedom at the 5% significance level.

There were 2 groups of ties in the data, consequently the Kruskal-Wallis statistic (H) was adjusted. The adjusted statistic (H') was utilized to determineif the medians were equal.Kruskal-Wallis statistic (H) = 2.65Adjusted Kruskal-Wallis statistic (H') = 2.658


Parametric ANOVAConstituent: Sulfate, total Analysis Run 1/15/2018 5:41 PM View: ANOVA


For observations made between 10/26/2016 and 6/13/2017 the parametric analysis of variance test (after square root transformation) indicates VARIATIONat the 5% significance level. Because the calculated F statistic is greater than the tabulated F statistic, the hypothesis of a single homogeneous populationis rejected.




Between 678.6 1 678.6 260.6Groups


Total 715 15

The Shapiro Wilk normality test on the residuals passed after square root transformation. Alpha = 0.05, calculated = 0.9519, critical = 0.887. Levene'sEquality of Variance test passed. Calculated = 0.06376, tabulated = 4.6.


Parametric ANOVAConstituent: Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] Analysis Run 1/15/2018 5:41 PM View: ANOVA


For observations made between 11/2/2016 and 6/13/2017 the parametric analysis of variance test indicates VARIATION at the 5% significance level. Becausethe calculated F statistic is greater than the tabulated F statistic, the hypothesis of a single homogeneous population is rejected.




Between 125213 1 125213 12.43Groups

Error Within 120905 12 10075Groups

Total 246118 13

The Shapiro Wilk normality test on the residuals passed on the raw data. Alpha = 0.05, calculated = 0.9749, critical = 0.874. Levene's Equality of Variancetest passed. Calculated = 2.856, tabulated = 4.75.

Constituent Upper Lim. Lower Lim. Bg N Bg Mean Std. Dev. %NDs ND Adj. Transform Alpha Method

Boron, total (mg/L) 0.9238 n/a 16 0.4236 0.1652 0 None No 0.01 Inter

Calcium, total (mg/L) 19.69 n/a 16 7.735 3.947 0 None No 0.01 Inter

Chloride, total (mg/L) 257 n/a 16 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 0.4401 NP Inter(normality)

Fluoride, total (mg/L) 3.824 n/a 16 104.3 36.16 0 None x^4 0.01 Inter

pH, field (SU) 10.1 8 16 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 0.8108 NP Inter(normality)

Sulfate, total (mg/L) 1428 n/a 16 4.305 2.297 0 None x^(1/3) 0.01 Inter

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) 1600 n/a 14 1161 137.6 0 None No 0.01 Inter

Tolerance Limits - Appendix IIIMountaineer LF Client: Geosyntec Data: Mountaineer Landfill Printed 11/19/2017, 10:11 AM

Constituent Well Upper Lim. Lower Lim. Compliance Sig. N Mean Std. Dev. %NDs ND Adj.Transform Alpha Method

Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 25 22.2 19.69 Yes 8 22.89 0.9047 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-26 59.42 50.35 19.69 Yes 8 54.89 4.281 0 None No 0.01 Param.


pH, field (SU) MW-38 7.6 7 10.1 Yes 8 7.139 0.225 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

Confidence Interval Summary Table - Significant ResultsMountaineer LF Client: Geosyntec Data: Mountaineer Landfill Printed 11/19/2017, 10:14 AM

Constituent Well Upper Lim. Lower Lim. Compliance Sig. N Mean Std. Dev. %NDs ND Adj.Transform Alpha Method

Boron, total (mg/L) MW-1611 0.1918 0.1302 0.92 No 8 0.161 0.02908 0 None No 0.01 Param.



Boron, total (mg/L) MW-38 0.06757 0.01885 0.92 No 8 0.04238 0.02585 0 None sqrt(x) 0.01 Param.


Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-1611 25 22.2 19.69 Yes 8 22.89 0.9047 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)


Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-27 1.709 1.302 19.69 No 7 1.506 0.1715 0 None No 0.01 Param.


Calcium, total (mg/L) MW-39 10.31 5.703 19.69 No 8 7.969 2.307 0 None sqrt(x) 0.01 Param.

Chloride, total (mg/L) MW-1611 9.452 8.456 257 No 8 8.954 0.47 0 None No 0.01 Param.





Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-1611 0.6205 0.532 3.82 No 8 0.5763 0.04173 0 None No 0.01 Param.

Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-26 0.13 0.12 3.82 No 8 0.1275 0.004629 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)



Fluoride, total (mg/L) MW-39 0.86 0.77 3.82 No 8 0.7988 0.03091 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

pH, field (SU) MW-1611 8.118 7.382 10.1 No 8 7.75 0.2978 0 None No 0.005 Param.

pH, field (SU) MW-26 8.09 7.3 10.1 No 8 7.51 0.2505 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

pH, field (SU) MW-27 11.1 9 10.1 No 8 9.42 0.691 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

pH, field (SU) MW-38 7.6 7 10.1 Yes 8 7.139 0.225 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

pH, field (SU) MW-39 9.5 8.3 10.1 No 8 8.583 0.4025 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-1611 21.39 16.44 1428 No 8 18.91 2.336 0 None No 0.01 Param.


Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-27 7.3 4.3 1428 No 8 5.338 1.201 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)


Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-39 1.5 0.1 1428 No 8 0.275 0.495 62.5 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-1611 392 326 1600 No 8 377.6 21.26 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-26 339.2 299.1 1600 No 8 319.3 21.65 0 None x^4 0.01 Param.

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-27 618 508 1600 No 8 543 33.38 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-38 422.9 381.8 1600 No 8 402.5 20.61 0 None x^3 0.01 Param.

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-39 402.4 317.9 1600 No 8 359.9 41.16 0 None sqrt(x) 0.01 Param.

Confidence Interval Summary Table - All ResultsMountaineer LF Client: Geosyntec Data: Mountaineer Landfill Printed 11/19/2017, 10:14 AM

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Parametric Confidence IntervalCompliance Limit is not exceeded. Per-well alpha = 0.01. Normality Test: Shapiro Wilk, alpha based on n.

Constituent: Boron, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 10:13 AM View: Confidence Intervals



mg/

L

MW-1611

n=8MW

-26

n=8MW

-27

n=8MW

-38n=8 sqrt(x)

MW-39

n=8

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 0.92

0

14

28

42

56

70

Parametric and Non-Parametric (NP) Confidence IntervalCompliance limit is exceeded.* Per-well alpha = 0.01 except as noted. Normality Test: Shapiro Wilk, alpha based on n.

Constituent: Calcium, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 10:13 AM View: Confidence Intervals



mg/

L

n=8 NP(normality) α=0.004

n=8MW

-27

n=7n=8

MW-39

n=8 sqrt(x)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 19.69

0

60

120

180

240

300

Parametric Confidence IntervalCompliance Limit is not exceeded. Per-well alpha = 0.01. Normality Test: Shapiro Wilk, alpha based on n.

Constituent: Chloride, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 10:13 AM View: Confidence Intervals



mg/

L

MW-1611

n=8MW

-26

n=8MW

-27

n=8MW

-38

n=8MW

-39

n=8

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 257

0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

Parametric and Non-Parametric (NP) Confidence IntervalCompliance Limit is not exceeded. Per-well alpha = 0.01 except as noted. Normality Test: Shapiro Wilk, alpha based on n.

Constituent: Fluoride, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 10:13 AM View: Confidence Intervals



mg/

L

MW-1611

n=8MW

-26n=8 NP(normality) α=0.004

MW-27

n=8MW

-38

n=8MW


————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 3.82

0

6

12

18

24

30

Parametric and Non-Parametric (NP) Confidence IntervalCompliance limit is exceeded.* Normality Test: Shapiro Wilk, alpha based on n.

Constituent: pH, field Analysis Run 11/19/2017 10:13 AM View: Confidence Intervals



SU

MW-1611

n=8 α=0.005/tail

MW-26

n=8 NP(normality) α=0.004/tail

MW-27



MW-39


————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 10.1

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 8

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000


Constituent: Sulfate, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 10:13 AM View: Confidence Intervals



mg/

L

MW-1611

n=8MW

-26

n=8MW


MW-38

n=8MW


————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 1428

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000


Constituent: Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] Analysis Run 11/19/2017 10:13 AM View: Confidence Intervals



mg/

L

MW-1611


MW-26

n=8 x^4

MW-27


MW-38

n=8 x^3

MW-39

n=8 sqrt(x)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 1600

Constituent Well Upper Lim. Lower Lim. Bg N Bg Mean Std. Dev. %NDs ND Adj. Transform Alpha Method

Boron, total (mg/L) MW-1612 0.7669 n/a 8 0.5749 0.07009 0 None No 0.001504 Param 1 of 2







Chloride, total (mg/L) MW-1612 47.01 n/a 8 30.56 6.003 0 None No 0.001504 Param 1 of 2







Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-1612 415.5 n/a 8 270.6 52.86 0 None No 0.001504 Param 1 of 2




Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-27 8.878 n/a 8 2.299 0.2485 0 None sqrt(x) 0.001504 Param 1 of 2


Sulfate, total (mg/L) MW-39 1.5 n/a 8 n/a n/a 62.5 n/a n/a 0.02144 NP (NDs) 1 of 2

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-1612 1456 n/a 7 1067 128.7 0 None No 0.001504 Param 1 of 2

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-30 1437 n/a 7 1256 59.96 0 None No 0.001504 Param 1 of 2

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-1611 392 n/a 8 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 0.02144 NP (normality) 1 of 2

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-26 378.6 n/a 8 319.3 21.65 0 None No 0.001504 Param 1 of 2

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-27 634.5 n/a 8 543 33.38 0 None No 0.001504 Param 1 of 2

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-38 459 n/a 8 402.5 20.61 0 None No 0.001504 Param 1 of 2

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) MW-39 472.6 n/a 8 359.9 41.16 0 None No 0.001504 Param 1 of 2

Intrawell Prediction Limit Summary TableMountaineer LF Client: Geosyntec Data: Mountaineer Landfill Printed 12/3/2017, 4:04 PM

0

25

50

75

100

0 1 2 3 4 5

Intrawell Prediction Limit, n=8, '1of2'

EPA Reference Curve

Power Curve

Analysis Run 11/19/2017 10:34 AM View: PL's - Intrawell



Pow

er

Standard Deviations

Kappa = 2.74, based on 5 compliance wells and 7 constituents, evaluated semi-annually (this report reflects annual total).

Constituent Upper Lim. Lower Lim. Bg N Bg Mean Std. Dev. %NDs ND Adj. Transform Alpha Method

Calcium, total (mg/L) 16.17 n/a 16 7.735 3.947 0 None No 0.001504 Param 1 of 2

Fluoride, total (mg/L) 3.671 n/a 16 104.3 36.16 0 None x^4 0.001504 Param 1 of 2

pH, field (SU) 10.1 8 16 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 0.0118 NP (normality) 1 of 2

Interwell Prediction Limit Summary TableMountaineer LF Client: Geosyntec Data: Mountaineer Landfill Printed 11/19/2017, 10:29 AM

0

25

50

75

100

0 1 2 3 4 5

Interwell Prediction Limit, n=16, '1of2'

EPA Reference Curve

Power Curve

Analysis Run 11/19/2017 10:33 AM View: PL's - Interwell



Pow

er

Standard Deviations

Kappa = 2.136, based on 5 compliance wells and 7 constituents, evaluated semi-annually (this report reflects annual total).

APPENDIX 3 – Alternative Source Demonstrations

The certified alternative source demonstration for Appendix III parameters from the first detection monitoring event follows.

20180413 MTR LF ASD

ALTERNATIVE SOURCE

DEMONSTRATION REPORT

FEDERAL CCR RULE

Mountaineer Plant Landfill

New Haven, West Virginia

Submitted to

AMERICAN lllCTRIC l'OWIR·

1 Riverside Plaza

Columbus, Ohio 43215-2372

Submitted by

Geosyntec C>consultants

engineers I scientists I innovators

150 East Wilson Bridge Road Suite 232

Worthington, Ohio 43085

April 13, 2018

CHA8462

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Alternative Source Demonstration

April 13,2018

SECTION 1 Introduction and Summary ........................................................................ 1-1

1.1 CCR Rule Requirements ........................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Demonstration of Alternative Sources ...................................................... 1-2

SECTION 2 Alternative Source Demonstration ............................................................ 2-1

2.1 Proposed Alternative Source .................................................................... 2-l

2.2 Sampling Requirements ............................................................................ 2-3

2.3 Certification by a Qualified Professional Engineer .................................. 2-3

SECTION 3 Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................... 3-1

SECTION 4 References ................................................................................................. 4-l

Table 1 Table 2

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5

LIST OF TABLES

Detection Monitoring Data Evaluation Calculated Calcite and Dolomite Saturation Indices

LIST OF FIGURES

Site Layout Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Time Series Graph Schoeller Diagram Sodium and Calcium Concentration vs. Distance Observed Concentration vs. Model Output

20180413 MTR LF ASD ii

AEP

ASD

CCR

CFR

EPA

LPL

QA

QC

SSI

TDS

UPL

USEPA


April 13, 2018

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

American Electric Power


Coal Combustion Residuals

Code of Federal Regulations

Environmental Protection Agency

Lower Prediction Limit

Quality Assurance

Quality Control

Statistically Significant Increase

Total Dissolved Solids

Upper Prediction Limit

United States Environmental Protection Agency

20180413 MTR LF ASD Ill

Monitoring Wells Groundwater Elevation Contours $ Alluvium --Hydrdogic Unit 3 • HydroSogic Unit 3 -... Approximate Groundwater Flow Direction (Unit 3) • Hydrologic Unit 4 --Hydrdogic Unit 4

� Approximate Groundwater Flow Direction (Unit 4)

,..-.,..-.,_t11w.�s--l......._.V,:.,.,J'!Gf......, .. w�s-,....-,;a,-.:�;.�_11

Notes • Monitoring well coordinates and water level data (collected on February 20, 2017) provided by AEP. - Site reatures based on information available in little Broad Run landfill-CCR Groundwater Monitoring Well Network Evaluation (Arcadis, 2016) provided by AEP. - Water level measurements from MW-25 (screened in shak! below Unit 4), MW-37 (hydraulically disconnected from the rest of Unit 3) and MW-38 (saecned in allrvUm) were not used in groundwater contouring. - Groundwater elevation units are feet above mean sea level.

....

AEP Mountaineer Generating Plant - CCR landfill Letart,_We_st_V_ia.!Oi�

Geosyntect>

consultants

Columbus, Ohio 2018/01/03

Figure

4

APPENDIX 4 - Notices for Monitoring Program Transitions

Not applicable at this time.

APPENDIX 5 - Well Installation/Decommissioning Logs

Not applicable at this time.

Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report - AEP.com · Chloride mg/L - 6.04 5.97 1.69 1.52 253 247 -...

Documents

Transcript of Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report - AEP.com · Chloride mg/L - 6.04 5.97 1.69 1.52 253 247 -...