purpose of statistical analysis summary report · executive summary in accordance with the united...

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

John E. Amos Plant

Winfield, 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 Amos 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 ................................................... 2-1

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

2.2.3 Certification by Qualified Professional Engineer ........................ 2-4

2.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 2-5

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


January 15, 2018

2017 CHA8423 20180115 Amos 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 Amos 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 Amos 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 John E. Amos Power Plant located in Winfield, 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 November 1 and 2, 2017 at the Landfill. The

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


January 15, 2018

2017 CHA8423 20180115 Amos 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. Barium, beryllium,

cobalt, and lead were found to be significantly decreasing at background well MW-7R. No other

significant increasing or decreasing trends were observed for other parameters or at other

monitoring wells.

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


January 15, 2018


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 six 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.

The reported selenium concentration of 0.05 mg/L for the June 20, 2017 sample collected at

downgradient well MW-4 was identified as a potential outlier. However, this value was estimated

(J-flagged) and was not removed from the dataset.

The reported chloride concentration of 4.94 mg/L for the June 21, 2017 sample collected at

downgradient well MW-1 was also identified as a potential outlier. This value was similar to

chloride concentrations observed at other downgradient wells. Also, because this value was the

most recent measurement, it may represent the beginning of a trend. For these reasons, the value

was not removed from the dataset. Its status as a potential outlier will be reevaluated once more

data are collected.

The reported arsenic and barium concentrations of 0.00657 mg/L and 0.0518 mg/L, respectively,

for the August 23, 2016 sample at downgradient well MW-2 were identified as potential outliers.

Additionally, the reported molybdenum and barium concentrations of 0.0004 mg/L and 0.121

mg/L, respectively, for the March 16, 2017 sampling event at downgradient well MW-5 were also

identified as outliers. All four of these values were anomalously high and were removed. Because

these values are associated with Appendix IV parameters at downgradient wells, their removal did

not affect the calculation of background values presented below.

2.2.2 Establishment of Background Levels

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

among the five background wells (Attachment A). Significant variation was observed for all

Appendix III parameters. Therefore, the appropriateness of using intrawell tests was evaluated for

the Appendix III parameters at the Amos Landfill.


January 15, 2018


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 the Appendix III

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

for boron, fluoride, and total dissolved solids (TDS); non-parametric tolerance limits were

calculated for calcium, chloride, pH, and sulfate, given the non-normal data distribution observed

for these four parameters. Confidence intervals were calculated for each Appendix III parameter

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 calcium, chloride, pH, sulfate, and TDS; elevated concentrations of

boron and fluoride were observed. (Non-parametric analyses also indicated no significant

exceedances for pH and elevated concentrations of boron and fluoride in downgradient wells.)

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

for calcium, chloride, pH, sulfate, and TDS. Parametric interwell tests were used to evaluate

potential SSIs for boron and fluoride.

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-

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 calcium, chloride, pH, sulfate, and TDS, a separate UPL was calculated for each

downgradient well for each of these parameters. To conduct the interwell tests for boron and

fluoride, a single prediction interval was calculated for each of these parameters using pooled data

from the five 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


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 six potential outliers, with four 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 boron and fluoride, whereas intrawell tests

were selected for calcium, chloride, pH, sulfate, and TDS.


January 15, 2018


SECTION 3

REFERENCES

American Electric Power (AEP). 2017. Statistical Analysis Plan – Amos 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

Amos - Landfill

Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

8/23/2016 10/18/2016 11/9/2016 12/13/2016 2/9/2017 3/16/2017 5/23/2017 6/21/2017 11/1/2017 8/23/2016 10/17/2016 11/8/2016 12/13/2016 2/8/2017 3/14/2017 5/23/2017 6/21/2017 11/1/2017

Detection Detection

Antimony µg/L 0.04J 0.04J 0.04J 0.05J 0.03J 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.03J 0.01J 0.01J 0.01J 0.05U 0.02J 0.03J 0.03J

Arsenic µg/L 0.27 0.62 0.44 1.09 0.37 0.67 0.4 0.43 6.57 3.94 3.54 4.36 4.09 3.72 3.59 3.8

Barium µg/L 207 206 210 232 184 200 211 200 51.8 25.7 23.7 27.1 25.5 31.9 27.2 27.7

Beryllium µg/L 0.024 0.05 0.036 0.1 0.026 0.057 0.032 0.031 0.129 0.04 0.02J 0.009J 0.032 0.071 0.043 0.028

Boron mg/L 0.044 0.06 0.076 0.065 0.05 0.046 0.123 0.037 0.047 0.201 0.198 0.216 0.217 0.19 0.184 0.187 0.189 0.202

Cadmium µg/L 0.02J 0.03 0.03 0.01J 0.02J 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.14 0.005J 0.02U 0.02U 0.005J 0.02 0.009J 0.01J

Calcium mg/L 31.1 29 29.9 29.3 26.8 28.4 30.2 28.1 28.7 1.99 1.53 1.46 1.65 1.56 1.81 1.42 1.56 1.88

Chloride mg/L 3.45 3.31 3.42 3.08 3.16 3.32 3.19 4.94 3.08 4 4.21 4.13 2.99 2.66 3.91 4.23 3.47 2.34

Chromium µg/L 0.3 0.627 0.564 2.16 0.401 0.993 0.555 0.547 1.3 0.592 0.295 0.952 0.571 1.01 0.605 0.49

Cobalt µg/L 0.097 0.306 0.2 0.613 0.174 0.393 0.292 0.289 1.02 0.29 0.107 0.075 0.287 0.573 0.341 0.234

Combined Radium pCi/L 0.0848 1.24 1.001 0.6701 0.836 0.73 3.243 1.379 0.904 0.208 0.8825 0.288 1.109 2.863 0.796 1.1188

Fluoride mg/L 0.09J 0.09 0.1 0.07J 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.1 1.34 1.26 1.3 1.19 1.33 1.2 1.17 1.19 1.46

Lead µg/L 0.186 0.567 0.45 1.45 0.34 1.03 0.697 0.753 1.24 0.258 0.077 0.068 0.279 0.651 0.333 0.229

Lithium mg/L 0.017 0.017 0.02 0.027 0.015 0.012 0.026 0.013 0.009 0.01 0.008 0.011 0.009 0.01 0.01 0.004

Mercury µg/L 0.005U 0.002J 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.003J 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.002J 0.005U 0.003J

Molybdenum µg/L 0.04J 0.08J 0.14 0.11 0.21 0.1 0.11 0.1 6.04 3.7 3.84 6.11 5.55 3.46 3.7 4.57

Selenium µg/L 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.2J 0.09J 0.05J 0.05J 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.08J

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 182 232 194 250 234 216 215 204 224 362 354 378 350 374 354 354 356 394

Sulfate mg/L 30.6 30.8 31.3 27.7 27.9 29.4 28.5 31.9 30.2 12 11.8 11.3 7.6 7.4 7.7 8.1 7.4 8.6

Thallium µg/L 0.01J 0.05J 0.088 0.02J 0.02J 0.02J 0.01J 0.02J 0.03J 0.067 0.05U 0.05U 0.02J 0.02J 0.05U 0.03J

pH SU 6.2 6.51 6.51 6.09 6.28 7.5 6.64 6.35 6.4 8.7 9.1 8.22 8.49 8.73 8.4 8.65 8.5 8.8

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

Parameter Unit

Background Background

LF-MW-1 LF-MW-2


Amos - Landfill


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 8/23/2016 10/18/2016 11/7/2016 12/13/2016 2/8/2017 3/14/2017 5/23/2017 6/20/2017 11/1/2017 8/23/2016 10/18/2016 11/8/2016 12/13/2016 2/8/2017 3/16/2017 5/23/2017 6/20/2017 11/1/2017

Detection Detection

0.01J 0.05U 0.05U 0.05U 0.05U 0.05U 0.02J 0.02J 0.04J 0.04J 0.04J 0.04J 0.02J 0.09 0.06 0.02J

9.61 8.81 9.07 9.44 8.78 10.1 8.96 9.15 0.47 0.34 0.49 0.51 0.3 2.32 0.21 0.25

24.1 20.2 21.5 22.4 19.2 20.4 21.1 21.8 93.3 82.5 80.1 80.9 70.2 121 77.7 80.6

0.02 0.02U 0.02U 0.02U 0.006J 0.005J 0.02U 0.004J 0.02J 0.02J 0.05 0.033 0.022 0.183 0.01J 0.01J

0.173 0.165 0.203 0.18 0.17 0.173 0.19 0.161 0.194 0.032 0.034 0.034 0.015 0.03 0.026 0.032 0.017 0.046

0.11 0.006J 0.02U 0.02U 0.02U 0.005J 0.02U 0.005J 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.02J 0.21 0.02 0.03

0.914 0.807 0.842 0.836 0.807 0.855 0.75 0.814 0.766 18.4 15.6 14.3 14.6 14.1 15.9 13.7 14.5 15.6

14.1 13.9 14.6 15.7 14.9 14.5 15.3 15.1 14.2 3.59 3.61 3.52 3.61 3.54 3.72 3.7 3.66 4.09

0.9 0.064 1.68 0.169 0.122 0.523 0.104 0.157 0.3 0.546 0.945 0.622 0.465 4.43 0.248 0.291

0.158 0.014 0.029 0.011 0.043 0.041 0.008J 0.037 0.188 0.198 0.446 0.339 0.217 2.92 0.072 0.092

0.444 0.152 1.56 0.16 0.567 1.456 0.872 0.905 1.025 0.353 1.847 1.18 0.5868 1.096 1.312 1.141

1.49 1.33 1.44 1.34 1.4 1.46 1.38 1.36 1.36 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09

0.371 0.021 0.007J 0.009J 0.064 0.114 0.01J 0.039 0.263 0.25 0.698 0.442 0.257 3.77 0.093 0.097

0.008 0.002 0.003 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.012 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.001U 0.01 0.005 0.002 0.011 0.001U

0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.008 0.005U 0.005U

8.82 8.01 8.14 8.94 8.15 9.7 8.21 7.86 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.14 0.4 0.14 0.09J

0.09J 0.1U 0.1U 0.1U 0.1U 0.1U 0.1U 0.05J 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.09J 0.09J

368 386 376 372 412 381 390 392 404 124 148 92 100 126 158 108 102 136

10.7 11.7 11.1 8 8 7.4 7.9 7.6 9.3 29.3 29.3 25.5 24.3 24 24.9 24.2 27.8 28.4

0.05U 0.03J 0.05U 0.02J 0.03J 0.05U 0.05U 0.05U 0.01J 0.03J 0.01J 0.07 0.02J 0.04J 0.05U 0.05U

9.9 9.77 9.51 8.95 9.31 8.8 9.2 9.05 9.4 9.9 6.39 6.3 8.23 6.4 7 6.25 6.03 6.1

Notes:




SU: standard unit



-: Not sampled

LF-MW-5


LF-MW-4


Amos - Landfill


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 8/24/2016 10/19/2016 11/7/2016 12/12/2016 2/7/2017 3/16/2017 5/22/2017 6/19/2017 11/2/2017 8/24/2016 10/18/2016 11/8/2016 12/14/2016 2/9/2017 3/14/2017 5/24/2017 6/21/2017 11/2/2017

Detection Detection

0.04J 0.02J 0.01J 0.01J 0.05U 0.03J 0.04J 0.03J 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.1 0.08

6.03 6.42 6.64 7.36 5.47 4.44 4.58 4.86 8.37 7.13 5.81 7.33 4.21 7.02 7.48 6.69

245 235 250 246 199 224 218 233 60.8 51.4 42.2 44.3 41.7 40.2 42 39.1

0.036 0.033 0.009J 0.006J 0.02J 0.02U 0.02J 0.01J 0.155 0.111 0.026 0.028 0.01J 0.01J 0.01J 0.006J

0.095 0.093 0.147 0.109 0.122 0.098 0.171 0.154 0.159 0.106 0.083 0.102 0.084 0.071 0.078 0.072 0.092 0.109

0.03 0.005J 0.02U 0.01J 0.02U 0.005J 0.009J 0.02U 0.04 0.01J 0.02 0.01J 0.01J 0.01J 0.01J 0.006J

40.7 39.8 42.7 44.4 36.7 37.1 33.7 37.2 41.3 31 30.9 33.5 32.2 37.7 33.6 30.4 32.5 31.7

7.78 7.67 7.76 8.17 7.2 7.09 6.89 7.01 7.77 4.13 3.86 3.78 3.94 3.45 3.79 3.8 3.6 3.59

0.5 0.413 0.16 0.104 0.207 0.498 0.175 0.274 1 0.76 2.82 1.73 0.217 0.234 0.242 0.154

0.183 0.148 0.023 0.02 0.073 0.028 0.063 0.051 0.368 0.279 0.084 0.103 0.065 0.064 0.08 0.043

2.318 0.697 2.7 1.878 1.151 1.844 2.4 1.617 1.043 0.959 1.895 0.962 0.0996 2.735 0.3888 1.497

0.26 0.23 0.25 0.2 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.36 0.32 0.31 0.26 0.22 0.3 0.29 0.26 0.28

0.461 0.381 0.053 0.039 0.16 0.048 0.117 0.136 1.52 0.961 0.261 0.249 0.156 0.154 0.171 0.064

0.015 0.015 0.011 0.023 0.013 0.009 0.019 0.011 0.016 0.012 0.013 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.016 0.01

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

0.77 0.36 0.36 0.39 0.44 0.53 0.5 0.44 25.7 23.2 17.5 24.6 11.7 24.6 25.7 22.9

0.09J 0.09J 0.1U 0.04J 0.05J 0.03J 0.04J 0.04J 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.08J 0.1 0.2 0.1

408 438 426 414 380 388 359 386 440 678 706 618 606 542 640 663 680 636

41.3 51.1 51.6 54 31.1 29.1 24.7 33.1 51.8 228 229 209 217 186 215 226 246 211

0.138 0.02J 0.05U 0.03J 0.01J 0.05U 0.01J 0.05U 0.061 0.03J 0.01J 0.02J 0.02J 0.02J 0.01J 0.01J

7.6 7.93 7.67 7.47 7.47 7.9 7.68 7.42 7.5 7.7 7.95 7 7.59 7.55 7.7 7.6 7.59 7.6

Notes:




SU: standard unit



-: Not sampled

LF-MW-6 LF-MW-7R



Amos - Landfill


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 8/24/2016 10/19/2016 11/9/2016 12/14/2016 2/8/2017 3/15/2017 5/24/2017 6/20/2017 11/2/2017 8/24/2016 10/19/2016 11/9/2016 12/13/2016 2/8/2017 3/15/2017 5/23/2017 6/20/2017 11/2/2017

Detection Detection

0.04J 0.03J 0.02J 0.03J 0.03J 0.05J 0.07 0.03J 0.07 0.04J 0.05J 0.04J 0.02J 0.04J 0.07 0.05J

0.41 0.35 0.25 0.32 0.37 1.44 0.47 0.35 1.45 3.75 1.12 1.23 1.78 4.4 0.96 1.35

221 195 209 212 192 270 201 182 443 441 491 497 388 603 425 441

0.021 0.01J 0.008J 0.008J 0.01J 0.069 0.02J 0.02J 0.025 0.025 0.02U 0.02U 0.02U 0.074 0.02U 0.02U

0.021 0.037 0.029 0.017 0.092 0.074 0.031 0.034 0.031 0.064 0.042 0.076 0.057 0.052 0.093 0.084 0.079 0.075

0.04 0.04 0.02U 0.008J 0.007J 0.02J 0.009J 0.007J 0.03 0.01J 0.02J 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02J 0.03

141 135 137 136 132 151 137 139 125 80.1 103 90.6 94.4 99 99.1 86.4 93.8 79.1

13.3 12.6 5.12 14.2 12.9 13.5 13.9 12.6 12.1 6.3 6.09 6.11 6.59 6.22 6.26 6.21 6.17 5.97

0.4 0.158 0.164 0.097 0.131 2.39 0.354 0.192 0.8 0.625 0.207 0.54 0.078 1.43 0.117 0.094

0.27 0.14 0.082 0.083 0.059 1.02 0.201 0.077 0.464 0.372 0.02 0.032 0.033 1.51 0.021 0.066

0.776 0.746 1.113 1.582 1.223 3.405 1.257 1.065 1.831 3.035 1.735 0.39 1.448 2.365 2.173 1.992

0.16 0.15 0.07 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.24 0.18 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.2

0.393 0.279 0.028 0.062 0.109 1.43 0.26 0.142 0.565 0.478 0.046 0.084 0.058 1.81 0.063 0.038

0.013 0.006 0.004 0.013 0.007 0.011 0.016 0.005 0.017 0.01 0.008 0.019 0.012 0.009 0.021 0.014

0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.003J 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.005U 0.002J 0.005U 0.005U

0.4 0.07J 0.08J 0.1 0.47 0.28 0.11 0.07J 0.48 0.27 0.41 0.56 0.27 0.37 0.37 0.33

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.07J

578 538 532 504 540 623 596 574 526 414 444 420 390 382 402 438 424 404

73.6 66.5 26.1 59.7 67.5 74.5 73.2 77.2 63.1 37.3 36.4 34.5 35.1 34.9 35.8 34.8 38.4 33.1

0.03J 0.02J 0.02J 0.02J 0.136 0.02J 0.01J 0.02J 0.03J 0.03J 0.03J 0.05U 0.02J 0.04J 0.02J 0.02J

7 7.17 6.94 6.82 6.88 7.2 6.84 6.85 6.8 7.3 7.45 7.19 7.06 7.09 7.4 7.13 7 7.1

Notes:




SU: standard unit



-: Not sampled


LF-MW-8 LF-MW-9


Amos - Landfill


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 8/24/2016 10/19/2016 11/9/2016 12/13/2016 2/8/2017 3/14/2017 5/24/2017 6/20/2017 11/2/2017

Detection

0.36 0.26 0.38 0.63 0.38 0.32 0.23 0.3

24.5 19.4 21.5 17.1 22.8 21.2 9.07 17.7

105 62.4 144 69.8 92.9 69 55.6 61.7

0.058 0.02J 0.264 0.029 0.124 0.039 0.022 0.025

0.087 0.081 0.118 0.076 0.113 0.125 0.081 0.078 0.095

0.26 0.01J 0.05 0.2 0.04 0.01J 0.02J 0.01J

1.68 1.09 2.31 1.24 1.37 1.18 1.16 1.04 1.12

5.54 4.49 5.46 4.15 4.24 4.6 4.19 4.11 5.08

0.5 0.373 3.96 1.63 2.28 0.965 0.5 0.577

0.367 0.102 1.66 0.212 0.85 0.28 0.151 0.17

0.769 0.0283 0.168 0.0992 0.14643 2.089 1.06 0.1376

0.89 0.72 0.92 0.38 0.57 0.5 0.43 0.44 0.55

1.11 0.357 3.41 0.895 1.89 0.635 0.469 0.448

0.01 0.008 0.007 0.019 0.008 0.01 0.011 0.004

0.003J 0.005U 0.004J 0.005U 0.003J 0.003J 0.005U 0.005U

3.08 2.58 2.53 2.79 2.76 3.38 3.52 2.4

0.5 0.4 1.1 0.7 1.9 2.3 0.5 1

512 504 546 482 504 499 467 492 508

19.1 18 16.9 14.1 14.4 13.3 14.3 14.9 17

0.01J 0.082 0.057 0.05U 0.071 0.02J 0.01J 0.01J

9 9.6 8.86 8.74 9.1 8.7 8.85 8.63 9.2

Notes:




SU: standard unit



-: Not sampled

Background

LF-MW-10

Table 2: Outlier Analysis SummaryAmos Plant - Landfill


Location Well ID Sample Date Parameter Reported Value Units Conclusions

Downgradient MW-2 8/23/2016 Arsenic 0.00657 mg/LThis value was removed from the dataset as an outlier. Its removal did not affect the calculated background values.

Downgradient MW-2 8/23/2016 Barium 0.0518 mg/LThis value was removed from the dataset as an outlier. Its removal did not affect the calculated background values.

Downgradient MW-5 3/16/2017 Barium 0.121 mg/LThis value was removed from the dataset as an outlier. Its removal did not affect the calculated background values.

Downgradient MW-1 6/21/2017 Chloride 4.94 mg/L

This value was not removed from the dataset as it was similar to values at other downgradient wells and it was the most recent measurement (and may indicate the beginning of a trend). Its outlier status will be reevaluated following the collection of subsequent data points.

Downgradient MW-5 3/16/2017 Molybdenum 0.0004 mg/LThis value was removed from the dataset as an outlier. Its removal did not affect the calculated background values.

Downgradient MW-4 6/20/2017 Selenium 0.05 J mg/L This value was estimated (J-flagged) and was not removed from the dataset.

Table 3: Background Level SummaryAmos Plant - Landfill


Parameter Units Description MW-1 MW-2 MW-4 MW-5Boron mg/L Interwell Background Value (UPL)

Calcium mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 32.62 2.122 0.9514 19.09Chloride mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 4.94 5.263 16.35 3.805Fluoride mg/L Interwell Background Value (UPL)

SU Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 7.658 9.288 10.33 10.57SU Intrawell Background Value (LPL) 5.362 7.91 8.289 3.55

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 274.5 387.3 421.1 181.7Sulfate mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 33.98 15.5 13.72 32.13

Notes:UPL: Upper prediction limitLPL: Lower prediction limit

0.1464

0.6664

pH

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 20180226 Amos LF Addendum Memo

M e mo r a n d u m

Date: February 26, 2018

To: David Miller (AEP)

Copies to: Benjamin Kepchar (AEP)

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

Subject: Evaluation of Detection Monitoring Data at Amos Plant’s Landfill (LF)

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 November 1, 2017 and January 8, 2018 at the Landfill (LF), an existing CCR unit at the Amos Power Plant located in Winfield, West Virginia.

Eight background monitoring events were conducted at the Amos LF 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.

• Boron concentrations exceeded the interwell UPL of 0.146 mg/L in both the initial (0.202 mg/L) and second (0.251 mg/L) samples collected at MW-2. Therefore, an SSI over background is concluded for boron at MW-2.

Table 1: Detection Monitoring Data EvaluationAmos Plant - Landfill


MW-111/1/2017 11/1/2017 1/8/2018 11/1/2017 1/8/2018 11/1/2017 1/8/2018

mg/L Interwell Background Value (UPL)mg/L Detection Monitoring Result 0.047 0.202 0.251 0.194 0.145 0.046 -mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 32.62mg/L Detection Monitoring Result 28.7 1.88 - 0.766 - 15.6 -mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 4.94mg/L Detection Monitoring Result 3.08 2.34 - 14.2 - 4.09 4.22mg/L Interwell Background Value (UPL)mg/L Detection Monitoring Result 0.1 1.46 1.07 1.36 1.37 0.09 -SU Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 7.66SU Intrawell Background Value (LPL) 5.36SU Detection Monitoring Result 6.4 8.8 8.4 9.4 3.3 6.1 6.7

mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 275mg/L Detection Monitoring Result 224 394 353 404 - 136 -mg/L Intrawell Background Value (UPL) 34.0mg/L Detection Monitoring Result 30.2 8.6 - 9.3 - 28.4 -

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

Total Dissolved Solids

Sulfate

pH

Fluoride

Chloride

MW-2 MW-4 MW-5

0.146

19.090.952.12

Parameter Units Description

Calcium

Boron

5.26

0.67

10.573.558.29

10.339.297.91

3.8116.35

387 421 182

32.113.715.5

ATTACHMENT BStatistical Analysis Output

Groundwater Stats Consulting www.groundwaterstats.com ● ph: 913.829.1470

-1-

GROUNDWATER STATS CONSULTING

December 4, 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 Amos 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 Amos 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 LF-MW-10, MF-MW-6, LF-MW-7R, LF-MW-8, and LF-MW-9; and downgradient wells LF-MW-1, LF-MW-2, LF-MW-4, and LF-MW-5. 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. 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

http://www.groundwaterstats.com


-2-

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 calcium, chloride, pH, sulfate, and TDS; and

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

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.

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 an outlier for chloride in well LF-MW-1 as may be seen on the Outlier Summary Table and accompanying graphs. This value, however, was not flagged as an outlier because the concentration is similar to those in neighboring wells. Additionally, it is the most recent value and more information would be needed as more data are collected to determine if that concentration is unlike the others. A handful of other outliers were noted and flagged for arsenic, barium, and molybdenum; and were flagged accordingly. The outlier identified for selenium in well LF-MW-4 was a trace value estimated between the Method Detection Limit and the Practical Quantitation Limit and, therefore, was not flagged. A substitution of the most recent reporting limit was applied when varying detection limits existed in data.



-3-

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. The results of the trend analyses showed Appendix III concentrations are stable over time with no statistically significant increasing trends. A few statistically significant decreasing trends were noted in upgradient well LF-MW-7R; however, these trends were relatively low in magnitude compared to average concentrations and required no adjustments at this time. A summary table of the trend test results accompanies the trend tests. Therefore, none of the data sets required any adjustments 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 variation for all Appendix III parameters. Therefore, all parameters 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.



-4-

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 the above parameters were found to be within their respective background limit for calcium, chloride, pH, sulfate, and TDS; while confidence intervals were above their respective background limits in at least one well for boron and fluoride. Therefore, intrawell methods are recommended for calcium, chloride, pH, sulfate and TDS; and interwell methods are initially recommended for boron and fluoride. As mentioned earlier, if a demonstration supports natural variation in groundwater, intrawell methods will be considered for all parameters. All available data through June 2017 at each well were used to establish intrawell background limits for the parameters identified above based on a 1-of-2 resample plan that will be used for future comparisons (Figure H). Interwell prediction limits, combined with a 1-of-2 resample plan, were constructed from upgradient wells for parameters eligible for interwell testing (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



-5-

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. 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, intrawell prediction limits combined with a 1-of-2 resample plan are recommended for calcium, chloride, pH, sulfate and TDS; and interwell prediction limits combined with a 1-of-2 resample plan are recommended for boron and fluoride. The statistical analyses will be constructed according to the USEPA Unified Guidance, based on seven Appendix III parameters and four downgradient wells.



-6-

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

Kristina L. Rayner Groundwater Statistician


0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.3

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17

LF-MW-10 (bg)

LF-MW-6 (bg)

LF-MW-7R (bg)

LF-MW-8 (bg)

LF-MW-9 (bg)

LF-MW-1

LF-MW-2

LF-MW-4

LF-MW-5

Time Series

Constituent: Boron, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:04 PM View: Descriptive

Amos Landfill Client: Geosyntec Data: Amos Landfill

Sanitas™ v.9.6.00 Groundwater Stats Consulting. UG

mg/

L

0

40

80

120

160

200

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17

LF-MW-10 (bg)

LF-MW-6 (bg)

LF-MW-7R (bg)

LF-MW-8 (bg)

LF-MW-9 (bg)

LF-MW-1

LF-MW-2

LF-MW-4

LF-MW-5

Time Series

Constituent: Calcium, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:04 PM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

4

8

12

16

20

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17

LF-MW-10 (bg)

LF-MW-6 (bg)

LF-MW-7R (bg)

LF-MW-8 (bg)

LF-MW-9 (bg)

LF-MW-1

LF-MW-2

LF-MW-4

LF-MW-5

Time Series

Constituent: Chloride, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:04 PM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17

LF-MW-10 (bg)

LF-MW-6 (bg)

LF-MW-7R (bg)

LF-MW-8 (bg)

LF-MW-9 (bg)

LF-MW-1

LF-MW-2

LF-MW-4

LF-MW-5

Time Series

Constituent: Fluoride, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:04 PM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17

LF-MW-10 (bg)

LF-MW-6 (bg)

LF-MW-7R (bg)

LF-MW-8 (bg)

LF-MW-9 (bg)

LF-MW-1

LF-MW-2

LF-MW-4

LF-MW-5

Time Series

Constituent: pH, field Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:04 PM View: Descriptive



SU

0

60

120

180

240

300

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17

LF-MW-10 (bg)

LF-MW-6 (bg)

LF-MW-7R (bg)

LF-MW-8 (bg)

LF-MW-9 (bg)

LF-MW-1

LF-MW-2

LF-MW-4

LF-MW-5

Time Series

Constituent: Sulfate, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:04 PM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

160

320

480

640

800

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17

LF-MW-10 (bg)

LF-MW-6 (bg)

LF-MW-7R (bg)

LF-MW-8 (bg)

LF-MW-9 (bg)

LF-MW-1

LF-MW-2

LF-MW-4

LF-MW-5

Time Series

Constituent: Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:04 PM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.3

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Boron, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:05 PM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

LF-MW-10 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-6 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-7R (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-8 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-9 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-1

n=8

______+

LF-MW-2

n=8

______+

LF-MW-4

n=8

______+

LF-MW-5

n=8

______+

0

40

80

120

160

200

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Calcium, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:05 PM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

LF-MW-10 (bg)

n=8

______+LF-MW

-6 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-7R (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-8 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-9 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-1

n=8

______+

LF-MW-2

n=8

______+LF-MW

-4

n=8

______+LF-MW

-5

n=8

______+

0

4

8

12

16

20

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Chloride, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:05 PM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

LF-MW-10 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-6 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-7R (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-8 (bg)

n=8

______

+

LF-MW-9 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-1

n=8

______+

LF-MW-2

n=8

______+

LF-MW-4

n=8

______+

LF-MW-5

n=8

______+

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Fluoride, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:05 PM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

LF-MW-10 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-6 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-7R (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-8 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-9 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-1

n=8

______+

LF-MW-2

n=8

______+

LF-MW-4

n=8

______+

LF-MW-5

n=8

______+

0

2

4

6

8

10

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: pH, field Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:05 PM View: Descriptive



SU

LF-MW-10 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-6 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-7R (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-8 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-9 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-1

n=8

______+

LF-MW-2

n=8

______+

LF-MW-4

n=8

______+

LF-MW-5

n=8

______+

0

60

120

180

240

300

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Sulfate, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:05 PM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

LF-MW-10 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-6 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-7R (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-8 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-9 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-1

n=8

______+

LF-MW-2

n=8

______+

LF-MW-4

n=8

______+

LF-MW-5

n=8

______+

0

160

320

480

640

800

Box & Whiskers Plot

Constituent: Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:05 PM View: Descriptive



mg/

L

LF-MW-10 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-6 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-7R (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-8 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-9 (bg)

n=8

______+

LF-MW-1

n=8

______+

LF-MW-2

n=8

______+

LF-MW-4

n=8

______+

LF-MW-5

n=8

______+

Outlier Summary TableAmos Landfill Client: Geosyntec Data: Amos Landfill Printed 12/22/2017, 12:01 PM

8/23/2016

3/16/2017

LF-MW-2 Arsenic, total (mg/L)

LF-MW-2 Barium, total (mg/L)

LF-MW-5 Barium, total (mg/L)

LF-MW-5 Molybdenum, total (mg/L)

0.00657 (o) 0.0518 (o)

0.121 (o) 0.0004 (o)

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

Antimony, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP (nrm) 40 0.1108 0.1373 unknown ShapiroWilk

Arsenic, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP (nrm) 40 6.828 7.025 unknown ShapiroWilk

Barium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP (nrm) 40 207.1 153.5 unknown ShapiroWilk

Beryllium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP (nrm) 40 0.03702 0.04922 unknown ShapiroWilk

Boron, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP 40 0.08295 0.03477 normal ShapiroWilk

Cadmium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP (nrm) 40 0.03015 0.04856 unknown ShapiroWilk

Calcium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP (nrm) 40 60.99 49.57 unknown ShapiroWilk

Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP (nrm) 40 6.869 3.284 unknown ShapiroWilk

Chromium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP 40 0.7013 0.8606 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Cobalt, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP 40 0.2479 0.3753 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Combined Radium (pCi/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP 40 1.37 0.8774 normal ShapiroWilk

Fluoride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP 40 0.291 0.192 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Lead, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP 40 0.4998 0.6847 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Lithium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP 40 0.01203 0.004543 sqrt(x) ShapiroWilk

Mercury, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP (nrm) 40 0.00455 0.0009044 unknown ShapiroWilk

Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP (nrm) 40 5.184 8.819 unknown ShapiroWilk

pH, field (SU) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP (nrm) 40 7.666 0.7233 unknown ShapiroWilk

Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP 40 0.3433 0.4762 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP (nrm) 40 75.06 75.7 unknown ShapiroWilk

Thallium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP (nrm) 40 0.03413 0.03008 unknown ShapiroWilk

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,... No n/a NP 40 503.4 97.41 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Outlier Analysis - Upgradient Wells All ResultsAmos Landfill Client: Geosyntec Data: Amos Landfill Printed 11/24/2017, 1:11 PM


Arsenic, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 Yes 6.57 NP 8 4.201 0.9943 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Barium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 Yes 51.8 NP 8 30.08 9.093 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Barium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-5 Yes 121 NP 8 85.79 15.58 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 Yes 4.94 NP 8 3.484 0.602 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-5 Yes 0.4 NP 8 0.1775 0.09392 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 Yes 0.05 NP (nrm) 8 0.0925 0.01753 unknown ShapiroWilk

Outlier Analysis - Downgradient Wells Significant ResultsAmos Landfill Client: Geosyntec Data: Amos Landfill Printed 11/24/2017, 1:05 PM


Antimony, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 0.05125 0.01727 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Antimony, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP 8 0.02375 0.01408 sqrt(x) ShapiroWilk

Antimony, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.0375 0.01753 unknown ShapiroWilk

Antimony, total (ug/L) LF-MW-5 No n/a NP 8 0.04375 0.02264 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Arsenic, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 0.5363 0.2589 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Arsenic, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 Yes 6.57 NP 8 4.201 0.9943 ln(x) ShapiroWilk



Barium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 206.3 13.49 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Barium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 Yes 51.8 NP 8 30.08 9.093 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Barium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 No n/a NP 8 21.34 1.502 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Barium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-5 Yes 121 NP 8 85.79 15.58 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Beryllium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 0.0445 0.02519 ln(x) ShapiroWilk


Beryllium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.01437 0.007782 unknown ShapiroWilk


Boron, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 0.06263 0.02745 ln(x) ShapiroWilk



Boron, total (mg/L) LF-MW-5 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.0275 0.007559 unknown ShapiroWilk

Cadmium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 0.035 0.01927 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk

Cadmium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP 8 0.02862 0.04548 ln(x) ShapiroWilk



Calcium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 29.1 1.346 x^4 ShapiroWilk

Calcium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP 8 1.623 0.1908 ln(x) ShapiroWilk



Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 Yes 4.94 NP 8 3.484 0.602 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP 8 3.7 0.5974 x^6 ShapiroWilk

Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-4 No n/a NP 8 14.76 0.607 normal ShapiroWilk

Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-5 No n/a NP 8 3.619 0.0712 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Chromium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 0.7684 0.5973 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Chromium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP 8 0.7269 0.3293 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk



Cobalt, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 0.2955 0.1576 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk

Cobalt, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP 8 0.3659 0.3053 ln(x) ShapiroWilk



Combined Radium (pCi/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 1.148 0.9338 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk

Combined Radium (pCi/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP 8 1.021 0.8187 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk

Combined Radium (pCi/L) LF-MW-4 No n/a NP 8 0.7645 0.5378 sqrt(x) ShapiroWilk

Combined Radium (pCi/L) LF-MW-5 No n/a NP 8 1.068 0.4519 normal ShapiroWilk

Fluoride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.0875 0.008864 unknown ShapiroWilk

Fluoride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP 8 1.248 0.06882 ln(x) ShapiroWilk



Lead, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 0.6841 0.4046 x^(1/3) ShapiroWilk

Lead, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP 8 0.3919 0.3875 ln(x) ShapiroWilk



Lithium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 0.01838 0.005605 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Lithium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP 8 0.008875 0.002167 x^4 ShapiroWilk

Lithium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-4 No n/a NP 8 0.006125 0.003091 sqrt(x) ShapiroWilk

Outlier Analysis - Downgradient WellsAmos Landfill Client: Geosyntec Data: Amos Landfill Printed 11/24/2017, 1:05 PM


Page 2

Lithium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-5 No n/a NP 8 0.005125 0.003834 sqrt(x) ShapiroWilk

Mercury, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.004375 0.001188 unknown ShapiroWilk


Mercury, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.005 0 unknown ShapiroWilk


Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 0.1113 0.04912 sqrt(x) ShapiroWilk

Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP 8 4.621 1.118 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 No n/a NP 8 8.479 0.6232 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-5 Yes 0.4 NP 8 0.1775 0.09392 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

pH, field (SU) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 6.51 0.4388 ln(x) ShapiroWilk




Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 1.288 0.2696 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP 8 0.1088 0.05963 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 Yes 0.05 NP (nrm) 8 0.0925 0.01753 unknown ShapiroWilk

Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-5 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.2225 0.2778 unknown ShapiroWilk

Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 29.76 1.611 x^6 ShapiroWilk

Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 9.163 2.121 unknown ShapiroWilk

Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-4 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 9.05 1.785 unknown ShapiroWilk

Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-5 No n/a NP 8 26.16 2.28 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Thallium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 0.02975 0.02663 ln(x) ShapiroWilk

Thallium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP 8 0.03963 0.01702 sqrt(x) ShapiroWilk

Thallium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 No n/a NP (nrm) 8 0.04125 0.01246 unknown ShapiroWilk

Thallium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-5 No n/a NP 8 0.035 0.02138 normal ShapiroWilk

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-1 No n/a NP 8 215.9 22.43 normal ShapiroWilk

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-2 No n/a NP 8 360.3 10.33 ln(x) ShapiroWilk



Outlier Analysis - Downgradient WellsAmos Landfill Client: Geosyntec Data: Amos Landfill Printed 11/24/2017, 1:05 PM

0

0.14

0.28

0.42

0.56

0.7

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17

Tukey's Outlier Screening, Pooled BackgroundLF-MW-10,LF-MW-6,LF-MW-7R,LF-MW-8,LF-...

Constituent: Antimony, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



ug/L

n = 40

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

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

High cutoff = 3, low cutoff= 0.0009487, based onIQR multiplier of 3.

0

6

12

18

24

30

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Arsenic, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



ug/L

n = 40


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

High cutoff = 93.38, lowcutoff = -3.362, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

140

280

420

560

700

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Barium, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



ug/L

n = 40



High cutoff = 2328, lowcutoff = -27.34, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.3

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Beryllium, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



ug/L

n = 40



High cutoff = 0.9158,low cutoff = 0.0003378,based on IQR multiplierof 3.

0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Boron, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 40

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

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

High cutoff = 0.1975,low cutoff = -0.03, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.3

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Cadmium, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



ug/L

n = 40



High cutoff = 0.81, lowcutoff = 0.0003704, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

40

80

120

160

200

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Calcium, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 40


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


0

4

8

12

16

20

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Chloride, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 40




0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Chromium, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



ug/L

n = 40




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Cobalt, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



ug/L

n = 40




0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Combined Radium Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



pCi/L

n = 40




0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Fluoride, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 40




0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Lead, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



ug/L

n = 40



High cutoff = 185, lowcutoff = 0.0002059, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

0.006

0.012

0.018

0.024

0.03

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Lithium, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 40




0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Mercury, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



ug/L

n = 40



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

0

6

12

18

24

30

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Molybdenum, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



ug/L

n = 40




0

2

4

6

8

10

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: pH, field Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



SU

n = 40




0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Selenium, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



ug/L

n = 40




0

60

120

180

240

300

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Sulfate, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



mg/

L

n = 40




0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Thallium, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screening



ug/L

n = 40




0

160

320

480

640

800

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] Analysis Run 11/24/2017 1:02 PM View: Tukey's Outlier Screeni



mg/

L

n = 40




0

0.016

0.032

0.048

0.064

0.08

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17

Tukey's Outlier ScreeningLF-MW-1




ug/L

n = 8




0

0.012

0.024

0.036

0.048

0.06

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8



High cutoff = 0.1543,low cutoff = -0.01431,based on IQR multiplierof 3.

0

0.012

0.024

0.036

0.048

0.06

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.018

0.036

0.054

0.072

0.09

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

1.4

2.8

4.2

5.6

7

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8

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



0

2.2

4.4

6.6

8.8

11

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

60

120

180

240

300

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

12

24

36

48

60

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

6

12

18

24

30

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

40

80

120

160

200

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.3

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





mg/

L

n = 8



High cutoff = 0.2837,low cutoff = 0.1381, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.3

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.008

0.016

0.024

0.032

0.04

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





mg/

L

n = 8


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


0

0.012

0.024

0.036

0.048

0.06

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.3

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

8

16

24

32

40

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





mg/

L

n = 8



High cutoff = 0.9861,low cutoff = 0.6943, basedon IQR multiplier of 3.

0

4

8

12

16

20

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

1

2

3

4

5

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

1

2

3

4

5

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

4

8

12

16

20

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





mg/

L

n = 8



High cutoff = 17.9, lowcutoff = 11.6, based onIQR multiplier of 3.

0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

1

2

3

4

5

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.14

0.28

0.42

0.56

0.7

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.22

0.44

0.66

0.88

1.1

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





pCi/L

n = 8




0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





pCi/L

n = 8




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





pCi/L

n = 8




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





pCi/L

n = 8




0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.08

0.16

0.24

0.32

0.4

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.006

0.012

0.018

0.024

0.03

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.016

0.02

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.22

0.44

0.66

0.88

1.1

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.0016

0.0032

0.0048

0.0064

0.008

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.3

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

1.4

2.8

4.2

5.6

7

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

2

4

6

8

10

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.08

0.16

0.24

0.32

0.4

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

1.6

3.2

4.8

6.4

8

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/19/17





SU

n = 8




0

2

4

6

8

10

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





SU

n = 8




0

2

4

6

8

10

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





SU

n = 8




0

2

4

6

8

10

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/19/17





SU

n = 8




0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.022

0.044

0.066

0.088

0.11

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8

Outlier is drawn as solid.Tukey's method used inlieu of parametric testbecause the Shapiro Wilknormality test failedat the 0.05 alpha level.



0

0.18

0.36

0.54

0.72

0.9

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

8

16

24

32

40

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

4

8

12

16

20

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

4

8

12

16

20

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

6

12

18

24

30

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

0.018

0.036

0.054

0.072

0.09

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.014

0.028

0.042

0.056

0.07

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.012

0.024

0.036

0.048

0.06

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

0.016

0.032

0.048

0.064

0.08

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





ug/L

n = 8




0

60

120

180

240

300

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





mg/

L

n = 8



High cutoff = 335, lowcutoff = 97, based onIQR multiplier of 3.

0

80

160

240

320

400

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

100

200

300

400

500

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





mg/

L

n = 8




0

40

80

120

160

200

8/23/16 10/22/16 12/21/16 2/19/17 4/20/17 6/20/17





mg/

L

n = 8




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

Barium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -16.64 -22 -21 Yes 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Beryllium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.09413 -23 -21 Yes 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cobalt, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.2883 -22 -21 Yes 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lead, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.9591 -24 -21 Yes 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Trend Tests Summary Table - Significant ResultsAmos Landfill Client: Geosyntec Data: Amos Landfill Printed 11/24/2017, 5:52 PM


Antimony, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -0.07374 -7 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Antimony, total (ug/L) LF-MW-6 (bg) 0.00751 3 21 No 8 12.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Antimony, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) 0 -1 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Antimony, total (ug/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) 0.008184 6 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Antimony, total (ug/L) LF-MW-9 (bg) 0 -1 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Antimony, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 0.04188 15 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Antimony, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 0.02682 8 21 No 8 12.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Antimony, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 0 -3 -21 No 8 62.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Antimony, total (ug/L) LF-MW-5 0 -1 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Arsenic, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -10.65 -12 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Arsenic, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -1.203 -6 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Arsenic, total (ug/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) 0.0727 5 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Arsenic, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 0.1144 2 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Arsenic, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 -0.5426 -3 -18 No 7 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Arsenic, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 0.01644 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Arsenic, total (ug/L) LF-MW-5 -0.1785 -6 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Barium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -42.34 -14 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Barium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -16.64 -22 -21 Yes 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Barium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 -7.489 -3 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Barium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 6.038 11 18 No 7 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Beryllium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -0.03724 -6 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Beryllium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-6 (bg) -0.02486 -9 -21 No 8 12.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Beryllium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.09413 -23 -21 Yes 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Beryllium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) 0.01053 5 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Beryllium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-9 (bg) 0 -7 -21 No 8 62.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Beryllium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 -0.001597 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Beryllium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 -0.02167 -4 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Boron, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -0.006255 -3 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Boron, total (mg/L) LF-MW-6 (bg) 0.07763 14 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Boron, total (mg/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.02177 -10 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Boron, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 -0.02024 -2 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP




Cadmium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -0.09988 -13 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cadmium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-6 (bg) -0.001134 -4 -21 No 8 37.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cadmium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.0129 -16 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cadmium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) -0.0408 -17 -21 No 8 12.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cadmium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-9 (bg) 0.008184 5 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cadmium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 0.04757 13 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cadmium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 -0.01772 -6 -21 No 8 25 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Calcium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -0.6844 -14 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Trend Tests Summary Table - All ResultsAmos Landfill Client: Geosyntec Data: Amos Landfill Printed 11/24/2017, 5:52 PM


Page 2

Calcium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-6 (bg) -7.701 -10 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Calcium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) 1.199 4 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Calcium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) 2.77 3 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Calcium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-9 (bg) 3.14 2 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Calcium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 -2.619 -10 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP




Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -1.39 -16 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.5248 -12 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) 0.5809 3 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 -0.05794 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-2 -0.6389 -4 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-4 1.35 12 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-5 0.1135 11 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Chromium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -0.4139 -1 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Chromium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -1.227 -14 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Chromium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) 0.04835 2 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Chromium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 0.1 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Chromium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 -0.3719 -6 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Cobalt, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -0.1984 -6 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Cobalt, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.2883 -22 -21 Yes 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Cobalt, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 0.1688 4 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Cobalt, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 -0.1141 -4 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Combined Radium (pCi/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) 0.233 4 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Combined Radium (pCi/L) LF-MW-6 (bg) -0.318 -2 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Combined Radium (pCi/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.1224 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Combined Radium (pCi/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) 0.5601 10 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Combined Radium (pCi/L) LF-MW-9 (bg) -0.1296 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Combined Radium (pCi/L) LF-MW-1 1.255 10 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP




Fluoride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -0.5182 -14 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Fluoride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.101 -17 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Fluoride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 0 -6 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Fluoride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-2 -0.1674 -15 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Lead, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -0.8552 -10 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP




Page 3

Lead, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.9591 -24 -21 Yes 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lead, total (ug/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) 0.02965 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Lead, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 0.5885 10 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lead, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 -0.06836 -2 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lead, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 -0.008118 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lead, total (ug/L) LF-MW-5 -0.2143 -6 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lithium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -0.002173 -2 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lithium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-6 (bg) -0.005207 -6 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lithium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.004916 -9 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lithium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) 0.0008184 1 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lithium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-9 (bg) 0.004951 4 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lithium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 -0.004564 -5 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

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

Lithium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-4 0.003857 3 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Lithium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-5 -0.002981 -4 -21 No 8 25 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Mercury, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) 0 5 21 No 8 50 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Mercury, total (ug/L) LF-MW-6 (bg) 0 -3 -21 No 8 87.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Mercury, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) 0 11 21 No 8 75 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Mercury, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 0 3 21 No 8 75 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Mercury, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 0 -9 -21 No 8 75 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Mercury, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 0 0 21 No 8 100 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Mercury, total (ug/L) LF-MW-5 0 3 21 No 8 87.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) 0.5643 2 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-6 (bg) 0.1253 6 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.2226 -2 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) -0.008184 -1 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-9 (bg) -0.1234 -6 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 0.04973 6 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 -0.8251 -5 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 -0.09211 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Molybdenum, total (ug/L) LF-MW-5 -0.06518 -12 -18 No 7 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

pH, field (SU) LF-MW-10 (bg) -0.5046 -16 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


pH, field (SU) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.1319 -4 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



pH, field (SU) LF-MW-1 0.2061 7 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

pH, field (SU) LF-MW-2 -0.2612 -4 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) 0.7776 9 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-6 (bg) -0.07122 -14 -21 No 8 12.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.3303 -16 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) 0 6 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-9 (bg) 0 -2 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 -0.08147 -1 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 0 -1 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 0 -1 -21 No 8 75 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Selenium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-5 -0.01275 -7 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -6.321 -14 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) 12.01 2 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Page 4

Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) 17.91 12 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 1.118 2 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-2 -6.077 -17 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP



Thallium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -0.07604 -11 -21 No 8 12.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Thallium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -0.03085 -16 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Thallium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) 0 -8 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


Thallium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-1 0 -5 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Thallium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-2 -0.01979 -7 -21 No 8 37.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Thallium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-4 0 5 21 No 8 62.5 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Thallium, total (ug/L) LF-MW-5 0.04409 14 21 No 8 25 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-10 (bg) -33.49 -15 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-6 (bg) -75.9 -16 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-7R (bg) -8.815 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-8 (bg) 42.97 6 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-9 (bg) -1.796 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-1 0.5179 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-2 -3.626 -3 -21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-4 26.01 14 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-5 -8.765 0 21 No 8 0 n/a n/a 0.01 NP


0

14

28

42

56

70

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17

Sen's Slope EstimatorLF-MW-7R (bg)

Constituent: Barium, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 5:43 PM View: Trend Tests



ug/L

n = 8

Slope = -16.64units per year.

Mann-Kendallstatistic = -22critical = -21

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

-0.03

0.016

0.062

0.108

0.154

0.2

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Beryllium, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 5:43 PM View: Trend Tests



ug/L

n = 8




-0.05

0.04

0.13

0.22

0.31

0.4

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Cobalt, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 5:44 PM View: Trend Tests



ug/L

n = 8




-0.3

0.16

0.62

1.08

1.54

2

8/24/16 10/23/16 12/22/16 2/20/17 4/21/17 6/21/17


Constituent: Lead, total Analysis Run 11/24/2017 5:44 PM View: Trend Tests



ug/L

n = 8




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

Boron, total (mg/L) n/a n/a n/a No Yes 14.83 0.05 Param.

Calcium, total (mg/L) n/a n/a n/a sqrt(x) Yes 1845 0.05 Param.

Chloride, total (mg/L) n/a n/a n/a No Yes 34.25 0.05 NP (normality)

Fluoride, total (mg/L) n/a n/a n/a No Yes 34.83 0.05 NP (eq. var.)

pH, field (SU) n/a n/a n/a No Yes 91.34 0.05 Param.

Sulfate, total (mg/L) n/a n/a n/a No Yes 33.27 0.05 NP (normality)

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) n/a n/a n/a No Yes 68.98 0.05 Param.

Analysis of VarianceAmos Landfill Client: Geosyntec Data: Amos Landfill Printed 11/19/2017, 12:55 PM


Parametric ANOVAConstituent: Boron, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 12:55 PM View: ANOVA


For observations made between 8/24/2016 and 6/21/2017 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 = 14.83

Tabulated F statistic = 2.65 with 4 and 35 degrees of freedom at the 5% significance level.

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean FVariation Squares Freedom Squares

Between 328424 4 82106 68.98Groups

Error Within 41660 35 1190Groups

Total 370084 39

The Shapiro Wilk normality test on the residuals passed on the raw data. Alpha = 0.01, calculated = 0.9272, critical = 0.919. Levene's Equality of Variancetest passed. Calculated = 2.303, tabulated = 2.65.


Parametric ANOVAConstituent: Calcium, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 12:55 PM View: ANOVA


For observations made between 8/24/2016 and 6/21/2017 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 = 1845



Between 328424 4 82106 68.98Groups


Total 370084 39

The Shapiro Wilk normality test on the residuals passed after square root transformation. Alpha = 0.01, calculated = 0.958, critical = 0.919. Levene'sEquality of Variance test passed. Calculated = 1.663, tabulated = 2.65.


Non-Parametric ANOVAConstituent: Chloride, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 12:55 PM View: ANOVA


For observations made between 8/24/2016 and 6/21/2017, the non-parametric analysis of variance test indicates a DIFFERENCE between the medians of the groupstested at the 5% significance level. Because the calculated Kruskal-Wallis statistic is greater than the Chi-squared value, we conclude that at least onegroup has a significantly different median concentration of this constituent when compared to another group.

Calculated Kruskal-Wallis statistic = 34.25

Tabulated Chi-Squared value = 9.488 with 4 degrees of freedom at the 5% significance level.

There were 1 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) = 34.25Adjusted Kruskal-Wallis statistic (H') = 34.25


Non-Parametric ANOVAConstituent: Fluoride, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 12:55 PM View: ANOVA





There were 8 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) = 34.74Adjusted Kruskal-Wallis statistic (H') = 34.83


Parametric ANOVAConstituent: pH, field Analysis Run 11/19/2017 12:55 PM View: ANOVA






Between 328424 4 82106 68.98Groups


Total 370084 39



Non-Parametric ANOVAConstituent: Sulfate, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 12:55 PM View: ANOVA





There were 0 groups of ties in the data, so no adjustment to the Kruskal-Wallis statistic (H) was necessary.


Parametric ANOVAConstituent: Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] Analysis Run 11/19/2017 12:55 PM View: ANOVA






Between 328424 4 82106 68.98Groups


Total 370084 39


Constituent Upper Lim. Lower Lim. Bg N Bg Mean Std. Dev. %NDs ND Adj. Transform Alpha Method

Boron, total (mg/L) 0.1652 n/a 40 0.08295 0.03477 0 None No 0.01 Inter

Calcium, total (mg/L) 151 n/a 40 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 0.1285 NP Inter(normality)

Chloride, total (mg/L) 14.2 n/a 40 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 0.1285 NP Inter(normality)

Fluoride, total (mg/L) 0.8912 n/a 40 -1.391 0.5394 0 None ln(x) 0.01 Inter

pH, field (SU) 9.6 6.82 40 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 0.3991 NP Inter(normality)

Sulfate, total (mg/L) 246 n/a 40 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 0.1285 NP Inter(normality)

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) 733.8 n/a 40 503.4 97.41 0 None No 0.01 Inter

Tolerance Limits - Appendix IIIAmos Landfill Client: Geosyntec Data: Amos Landfill Printed 11/19/2017, 12:55 PM

Constituent Well Upper Lim. Lower Lim. Compliance Sig. N Mean Std. Dev. %NDs ND Adj.Transform Alpha Method

Boron, total (mg/L) LF-MW-2 0.2114 0.1841 0.17 Yes 8 0.1978 0.01285 0 None No 0.01 Param.

Fluoride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-2 1.32 1.175 0.89 Yes 8 1.248 0.06882 0 None No 0.01 Param.


Confidence Interval Summary Table - Significant ResultsAmos Landfill Client: Geosyntec Data: Amos Landfill Printed 11/19/2017, 1:00 PM

Constituent Well Upper Lim. Lower Lim. Compliance Sig. N Mean Std. Dev. %NDs ND Adj.Transform Alpha Method

Boron, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 0.08939 0.03711 0.17 No 8 0.06263 0.02745 0 None sqrt(x) 0.01 Param.

Boron, total (mg/L) LF-MW-2 0.2114 0.1841 0.17 Yes 8 0.1978 0.01285 0 None No 0.01 Param.

Boron, total (mg/L) LF-MW-4 0.1915 0.1622 0.17 No 8 0.1769 0.01381 0 None No 0.01 Param.

Boron, total (mg/L) LF-MW-5 0.03418 0.02105 0.17 No 8 0.0275 0.007559 0 None x^3 0.01 Param.

Calcium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 30.53 27.67 151 No 8 29.1 1.346 0 None No 0.01 Param.



Calcium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-5 16.67 13.64 151 No 8 15.14 1.511 0 None ln(x) 0.01 Param.

Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 4.94 3.08 14.2 No 8 3.484 0.602 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-2 4.291 3.096 14.2 No 8 3.7 0.5974 0 None x^2 0.01 Param.

Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-4 15.41 14.12 14.2 No 8 14.76 0.607 0 None No 0.01 Param.

Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-5 3.694 3.543 14.2 No 8 3.619 0.0712 0 None No 0.01 Param.

Fluoride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 0.09601 0.07866 0.89 No 8 0.0875 0.008864 0 None x^4 0.01 Param.



Fluoride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-5 0.1231 0.07442 0.89 No 8 0.09875 0.02295 0 None No 0.01 Param.

pH, field (SU) LF-MW-1 7.5 6.09 9.6 No 8 6.51 0.4388 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

pH, field (SU) LF-MW-2 8.925 8.273 9.6 No 8 8.599 0.2635 0 None No 0.005 Param.

pH, field (SU) LF-MW-4 9.795 8.828 9.6 No 8 9.311 0.3908 0 None No 0.005 Param.

pH, field (SU) LF-MW-5 9.9 6.03 9.6 No 8 7.063 1.343 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 31.47 28.06 246 No 8 29.76 1.611 0 None No 0.01 Param.

Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-2 12 7.4 246 No 8 9.163 2.121 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-4 11.7 7.4 246 No 8 9.05 1.785 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-5 29.3 24 246 No 8 26.16 2.28 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-1 239.6 192.1 733.8 No 8 215.9 22.43 0 None No 0.01 Param.

Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-2 378 350 733.8 No 8 360.3 10.33 0 None No 0.004 NP (normality)



Confidence Interval Summary Table - All ResultsAmos Landfill Client: Geosyntec Data: Amos Landfill Printed 11/19/2017, 1:00 PM

0

0.08

0.16

0.24

0.32

0.4

Parametric Confidence IntervalCompliance limit is exceeded.* Per-well alpha = 0.01. Normality Test: Shapiro Wilk, alpha based on n.

Constituent: Boron, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 12:57 PM View: Confidence Intervals



mg/

L

LF-MW-1

n=8 sqrt(x)

n=8LF-MW

-4

n=8LF-MW

-5

n=8 x^3

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 0.17

0

40

80

120

160

200

Parametric Confidence IntervalCompliance Limit is not exceeded. Per-well alpha = 0.01. Normality Test: Shapiro Wilk, alpha based on n.

Constituent: Calcium, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 12:57 PM View: Confidence Intervals



mg/

L

LF-MW-1

n=8LF-MW

-2

n=8LF-MW

-4

n=8LF-MW

-5

n=8 ln(x)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 151

0

6

12

18

24

30

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: Chloride, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 12:57 PM View: Confidence Intervals



mg/

L

LF-MW-1

n=8 NP(normality) α=0.004

LF-MW-2

n=8 x^2

LF-MW-4

n=8LF-MW

-5

n=8

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 14.2

0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3

Parametric Confidence IntervalCompliance limit is exceeded.* Per-well alpha = 0.01. Normality Test: Shapiro Wilk, alpha based on n.

Constituent: Fluoride, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 12:57 PM View: Confidence Intervals



mg/

L

LF-MW-1

n=8 x^4

n=8n=8

LF-MW-5

n=8

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 0.89

0

3

6

9

12

15

Parametric and Non-Parametric (NP) Confidence IntervalCompliance Limit is not exceeded. Normality Test: Shapiro Wilk, alpha based on n.

Constituent: pH, field Analysis Run 11/19/2017 12:57 PM View: Confidence Intervals



SU

LF-MW-1

n=8 NP(normality) α=0.004/tail

LF-MW-2

n=8 α=0.005/tail

LF-MW-4

n=8 α=0.005/tail

LF-MW-5

n=8 NP(normality) α=0.004/tail

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 9.6

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 6.8

0

60

120

180

240

300


Constituent: Sulfate, total Analysis Run 11/19/2017 12:57 PM View: Confidence Intervals



mg/

L

LF-MW-1

n=8LF-MW

-2


LF-MW-4


LF-MW-5


————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 246

0

160

320

480

640

800


Constituent: Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] Analysis Run 11/19/2017 12:57 PM View: Confidence Intervals



mg/

L

LF-MW-1

n=8LF-MW

-2


LF-MW-4

n=8LF-MW

-5

n=8

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Limit = 733.8

Constituent Well Upper Lim. Lower Lim. Bg N Bg Mean Std. Dev. %NDs ND Adj. Transform Alpha Method

Calcium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10 2.495 n/a 8 1.384 0.4247 0 None No 0.00188 Param 1 of 2


Calcium, total (mg/L) LF-MW-7R 38.83 n/a 8 32.73 2.335 0 None No 0.00188 Param 1 of 2







Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10 6.121 n/a 8 4.598 0.5825 0 None No 0.00188 Param 1 of 2


Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-7R 4.331 n/a 8 3.794 0.2052 0 None No 0.00188 Param 1 of 2

Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-8 16.25 n/a 8 2080 845.4 0 None x^3 0.00188 Param 1 of 2


Chloride, total (mg/L) LF-MW-1 4.94 n/a 8 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 0.02144 NP (normality) 1 of 2




pH, field (SU) LF-MW-10 9.746 8.124 8 8.935 0.31 0 None No 0.0009398 Param 1 of 2


pH, field (SU) LF-MW-7R 8.287 6.883 8 7.585 0.2682 0 None No 0.0009398 Param 1 of 2







Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-10 21.12 n/a 8 15.63 2.099 0 None No 0.00188 Param 1 of 2


Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-7R 265.5 n/a 8 219.5 17.59 0 None No 0.00188 Param 1 of 2

Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-8 94.28 n/a 8 4439 1701 0 None x^2 0.00188 Param 1 of 2



Sulfate, total (mg/L) LF-MW-2 15.5 n/a 8 2.082 0.1572 0 None x^(1/3) 0.00188 Param 1 of 2



Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-10 561.4 n/a 8 500.8 23.19 0 None No 0.00188 Param 1 of 2


Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] (mg/L) LF-MW-7R 778.5 n/a 8 641.6 52.31 0 None No 0.00188 Param 1 of 2







Intrawell Prediction Limit Summary TableAmos Landfill Client: Geosyntec Data: Amos Landfill Printed 12/2/2017, 11:06 AM

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 1:09 PM View: PL's - Intrawell



Pow

er

Standard Deviations

Kappa = 2.616, based on 4 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

Boron, total (mg/L) 0.1464 n/a 40 0.08295 0.03477 0 None No 0.00188 Param 1 of 2

Fluoride, total (mg/L) 0.6664 n/a 40 -1.391 0.5394 0 None ln(x) 0.00188 Param 1 of 2

Interwell Prediction Limit Summary TableAmos Landfill Client: Geosyntec Data: Amos Landfill Printed 11/19/2017, 1:08 PM

0

25

50

75

100

0 1 2 3 4 5

Interwell Prediction Limit, n=40, '1of2'

EPA Reference Curve

Power Curve

Analysis Run 11/19/2017 1:08 PM View: PL's - Interwell



Pow

er

Standard Deviations

Kappa = 1.826, based on 4 compliance wells and 7 constituents, evaluated semi-annually (this report reflects annual total).

purpose of statistical analysis summary report · executive summary in accordance with the united...

Documents