Attachment 1: UWAG Bottom Ash Transport Water Data

PlantCompanySize (MW)Coal TypeSampling Date

Sample Type Units

Silver, Ag ppb U< 0.019 U< 0.019 U< 0.019 J 0.022 J 0.022 U< 0.019 U< 0.012 

Aluminum, Al ppb 282 1770 95.7 6470 6850 222 607 

Arsenic, As ppb J 0.83 J 0.81 J 0.31 1.66 8.91 J 0.99 J 0.880 

Boron, B ppb J 26.6 J 34.1 J 30.9 J 34.4 J 79.2 185 J 40 Barium, Ba ppb 40.5 61.0 40.6 81.5 70.7 43.8 47.1 

Beryllium, Be ppb U< 0.038 J 0.168 U< 0.038 J 0.276 J 0.494 J 0.044 J 0.081 

Calcium, Ca ppb 28900 29400 27600 26800 27500 43800 38100 

Cadmium, Cd ppb J 0.042 J 0.042 U< 0.037 J 0.088 J 0.126 J 0.042 U< 0.057 

Cobalt, Co ppb 1.35 1.47 J 0.312 2.31 3.90 J 1.14 J 0.352 

Chromium, Cr ppb U< 0.68 4.20 U< 0.68 5.46 13.2 U< 0.68 U< 0.85 

Copper, Cu ppb 1.29 1.84 U< 0.11 4.80 6.18 J 0.49 1.89 

Iron, Fe ppb 589 2140 86.5 4270 8240 485 514 

Magnesium, Mg ppb 7560 7880 7330 7860 7410 9580 12800 

Manganese, Mn ppb 147 135 7.80 174 114 86.6 48.1 

Molybdenum, Mo ppb J 1.12 J 1.18 J 0.839 J 0.812 3.12 3.22 1.82 

Sodium, Na ppb 23100 23900 21300 18600 19500 28000 18100 

Nickel, Ni ppb 3.74 5.55 3.21 6.54 14.6 8.01 J 1.37 

Lead, Pb ppb J 0.888 J 0.812 J 0.053 3.13 3.37 J 0.227 J 0.557 

Antimony, Sb ppb U< 0.057 U< 0.057 U< 0.057 J 0.096 J 0.114 J 0.086 J 0.165 

Selenium, Se ppb U< 0.25 U< 0.25 J 0.29 U< 0.25 J 0.86 J 0.36 J 0.58 

Tin, Sn ppb U< 0.30 U< 0.30 U< 0.30 J 0.51 J 0.34 U< 0.30 U< 0.28 

Titanium, Ti ppb 4.19 83.1 5.25 77.3 243 6.26 9.0 Thallium, Tl ppb U< 0.017 J 0.037 U< 0.017 J 0.058 J 0.499 J 0.293 J 0.020 

Vanadium, V ppb U< 0.55 4.05 U< 0.55 8.61 12.0 J 0.81 1.30 

Zinc, Zn ppb J 8.9 J 9.2 U< 2.4 J 20.1 J 14.8 J 2.6 J 3.1 

Mercury, Hg ppb 0.00401 0.00574 0.00121 0.00899 0.00655 0.00160 0.00198 

Ammonia, as N ppm 0.18 0.15 J 0.04 0.12 0.07 J 0.04 0.13 

Nitrate/Nitrite, as N ppm 0.84 0.86 0.96 0.83 0.80 0.84 1.36 

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, TKN as N ppm J 0.4 0.53 J 0.2 J 0.4 0.62 J 0.3 J 0.4 

Chloride ppm 35.2 34.6 30.7 28.0 27.8 36.2 26.3 Sulfate ppm 55.0 58.4 54.1 46.2 69.0 118 45.7 Total Dissolved Solids ppm 193 195 184 205 191 277 241 

Total Suspended Solids ppm 16 21 U < 2 79 94 J 4 J 8 

Nitrogen, Total ppm 1.28 1.39 1.13 1.23 1.42 1.11 1.81 

Phosphorus ppm J 0.03 0.06 U< 0.01 J 0.04 0.07 U < 0.01 0.07 

J ‐ Sample concentration is between the Method Detection Limit and the Reporting Limit

U ‐ Sample concentration is less than the Method Detection Limit. Value listed is MDL

R ‐ Sample result did not meet QC criteria. See Note (1) and Note (2).

Note (1) ‐ Tanners Creek SP‐3 Hg result is R flagged due to elevated Hg field blank results. FB result was 0.00776 ppb compared to 0.00784 ppb f

Note (2) ‐ Stanton TSS results R flagged due to exceeding method hold time. Method hold time 7 days, actual hold time 9 days.

Bituminous Bituminous

Kammer Kyger Creek 

630 (3 Units) 1085 (5 Units) 

AEP OVEC 

BA Pond ‐  Near Effluent Source Water 

04/02/2014 04/02/2014 

Source Water Settled BA Sluice BA Pond ‐  Near Effluent Source Water Settled BA Sluice
Attachment 1: UWAG Bottom Ash Transport Water Data

PlantCompanySize (MW)Coal TypeSampling Date

Sample Type Units

Silver, Ag ppb

Aluminum, Al ppbArsenic, As ppb

Boron, B ppbBarium, Ba ppbBeryllium, Be ppbCalcium, Ca ppb

Cadmium, Cd ppb

Cobalt, Co ppb

Chromium, Cr ppb

Copper, Cu ppbIron, Fe ppbMagnesium, Mg ppbManganese, Mn ppb

Molybdenum, Mo ppb

Sodium, Na ppbNickel, Ni ppb

Lead, Pb ppb

Antimony, Sb ppb

Selenium, Se ppb

Tin, Sn ppb

Titanium, Ti ppbThallium, Tl ppbVanadium, V ppb

Zinc, Zn ppbMercury, Hg ppb

Ammonia, as N ppm

Nitrate/Nitrite, as N ppmNitrogen, Kjeldahl, TKN as N ppm

Chloride ppmSulfate ppmTotal Dissolved Solids ppm

Total Suspended Solids ppm

Nitrogen, Total ppm

Phosphorus ppm

J 0.028 J 0.019 U< 0.012 J 0.014 J 0.024 U< 0.010 J 0.051 

872 2340 873 943 6150 3080 6010 4.84 5.97 5.05 2.15 9.79 6.31 2.97 1930 1850 1940 168 289 394 166 185 341 185 65.7 993 391 100 

J 0.050 J 0.099 J 0.052 U< 0.057 J 0.094 U< 0.057 J 0.240 

22200 27000 22100 63300 85100 69900 55500 

J 0.013 J 0.076 J 0.021 J 0.042 J 0.152 J 0.055 J 0.096 J 0.142 J 0.299 J 0.085 J 0.313 J 0.595 J 0.126 2.05 J 1.79 4.08 J 1.95 J 1.13 5.18 3.27 7.23 

2.29 26.0 1.47 2.27 6.84 1.68 172 166 574 170 738 1190 48.2 5080 3000 3020 3040 30900 28500 23500 17900 3.10 8.32 3.34 49.7 31.0 4.19 192 46.6 41.3 46.5 2.84 21.2 21.0 5.16 45200 42200 45700 96700 115000 125000 32900 

J 0.46 J 1.42 J 0.68 J 2.58 J 2.88 J 1.64 17.6 J 0.238 J 0.899 J 0.336 J 0.471 J 1.17 J 0.117 31.7 J 0.611 J 0.606 J 0.618 J 0.404 J 0.800 J 0.637 J 0.695 

1.39 1.34 1.46 J 0.738 1.71 1.48 J 0.84 

U< 0.10 U< 0.10 U< 0.10 U< 0.11 J 0.19 U< 0.11 5.89 

16.2 97.9 13.9 21.5 172 4.5 94.4 

U< 0.051 U< 0.051 U< 0.051 U< 0.040 J 0.176 J 0.086 J 0.081 

18.9 29.0 19.0 3.18 39.5 42.4 12.3 

J 2.4 J 2.7 J 1.9 U< 7.1 J 8.4 U< 7.1 J 29.0 

0.00137 0.00189 0.00155 0.00220 0.00163 0.00408 0.0097

U< 0.05 U< 0.05 U< 0.05 U< 0.10 U< 0.10 U< 0.10 U< 0.035 U< 0.20 U< 0.20 U< 0.20 0.13 0.14 U< 0.10 1.08 

0.20 0.23 U< 0.10 U< 5.0 U< 5.0 U< 5.0 3.60 14.4 13.6 14.4 10.2 10.4 11.6 41.7 48.0 52.0 48.1 274 368 369 49.3 223 243 218 R (2) 617 R (2) 757 R (2) 732 350 

4 28 4 17.8 42.0 3.4 147 0.34 0.29 0.33 3.60 0.213 0.249 0.198 U< 0.10 0.10 U< 0.10 0.330 

J ‐ Sample concentration is between the Method Detection Limit and the Reporting Limit

U ‐ Sample concentration is less than the Method Detection Limit. Value listed is MDL

R ‐ Sample result did not meet QC criteria. See Note (1) and Note (2).

Note (1) ‐ Tanners Creek SP‐3 Hg result is R flagged due to elevated Hg field blank results. FB result was 0.00776 ppb compared to 0

Note (2) ‐ Stanton TSS results R flagged due to exceeding method hold time. Method hold time 7 days, actual hold time 9 days.

Daniel Stanton 

1000 (2 Units) 204.5 (2 Units) 

Mississippi Power Great River Energy 

Bituminous/Subbituminous PRB

Source Water Settled BA Sluice BA Pond ‐  Near Effluent Source Water Settled BA Sluice 

07/31/2014 08/05/2014

BA Pond ‐  Near Effluent Source Wate
Attachment 1: UWAG Bottom Ash Transport Water Data

PlantCompanySize (MW)Coal TypeSampling Date

Sample Type Units

Silver, Ag ppb

Aluminum, Al ppbArsenic, As ppb

Boron, B ppbBarium, Ba ppbBeryllium, Be ppbCalcium, Ca ppb

Cadmium, Cd ppb

Cobalt, Co ppb

Chromium, Cr ppb

Copper, Cu ppbIron, Fe ppbMagnesium, Mg ppbManganese, Mn ppb

Molybdenum, Mo ppb

Sodium, Na ppbNickel, Ni ppb

Lead, Pb ppb

Antimony, Sb ppb

Selenium, Se ppb

Tin, Sn ppb

Titanium, Ti ppbThallium, Tl ppbVanadium, V ppb

Zinc, Zn ppbMercury, Hg ppb

Ammonia, as N ppm

Nitrate/Nitrite, as N ppmNitrogen, Kjeldahl, TKN as N ppm

Chloride ppmSulfate ppmTotal Dissolved Solids ppm

Total Suspended Solids ppm

Nitrogen, Total ppm

Phosphorus ppm

Median Median Median

0.0205 0.023 0.016

907.5 3940 547.51.905 7.44 3.61

103 184.1 289.5

73.6 209.4 67.6

0.069 0.3155 0.0535

33500 33950 41100

0.0495 0.1005 0.0485

0.851 1.935 0.3545

1.46 4.69 0.7652.28 6.51 0.98

663.5 1870 248

10330 10240 11240

98.35 81.6 26.5

2.33 13.965 8.91

28000 26850 29050

3.16 8.875 2.9

0.7225 2.27 0.2170.2845 0.703 0.302

0.659 1.17 1.175

0.29 0.245 0.205

18.85 134.95 5.78

0.0455 0.2 0.0735

5.895 18.95 2.505

8 9.4 2.7

0.003105 0.003055 0.001575

0.11 0.095 0.045

0.835 0.7495 0.52

0.4 0.575 0.25

27.15 26.9 27.748.65 63.7 86.05

232 238.5 254

16.9 41.5 3.71.28 1.42 1.11

0.085 0.07 0.035

Source

Water

Settled BA

Sluice

BA Pond ‐   

Near Effluent
UWAG Bottom Ash Pond Sampling Events 

Certificates of Analysis 

Page 1 of 109
Attachment 2 

Table of Contents 

Page No. 

AEP/Kammer and OVEC/Kyger Metals and Mercury ............................................................... 3 

AEP/Kammer Conventionals ................................................................................................... 20

OVEC/Kyger Conventionals ................................................................................................... 22

Indiana Michigan Power/Tanner’s Creek Metals and Mercury ............................................... 24 

Indiana Michigan Power/Tanner’s Creek Conventionals ........................................................ 40 

Mississippi Power/Daniel Metals and Mercury ....................................................................... 42 

Mississippi Power/Daniel Conventionals ................................................................................ 58 

Great River Energy/Stanton Metals and Mercury ................................................................... 70 

Great River Energy/Stanton Conventionals ............................................................................. 86 

Hoosier Energy/Ratts Metals and Mercury .............................................................................. 90 

Hoosier Energy/Ratts Conventionals ...................................................................................... 106 
 

 April 18, 2014 

Donna B. Hill 

Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) 

(205) 257-5234 

Project: Kammer and Kyger Creek 

Dear Ms. Hill, 

Attached is the report associated with ten (10) aqueous samples submitted for total recoverable 

metals (Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Ti, 

Tl, V, and Zn) quantitation and twelve (12) aqueous samples submitted for total mercury 

quantitation on April 2, 2014. The samples were received in acceptable condition on April 4, 

2014 in a sealed container at ambient temperature. Total recoverable metals quantitation was

performed via inductively coupled plasma triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS). 

Total mercury quantitation was subcontracted for performance via EPA Method 1631E. Any 

issues associated with the analyses are addressed in the following report. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Ben Wozniak 

 Project Manager 

 Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC 

Cc : Elizabeth Aldridge

Page 3 of 109
 

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC 

Report prepared for: 

Donna B. Hill 

Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) 

 (205) 257-5234 

Projects: Kammer and Kyger Creek

April 18, 2014

1. Sample Reception 

Ten (10) aqueous samples were submitted for total recoverable metals (Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, 

Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Ti, Tl, V, and Zn) 

quantitation and twelve (12) aqueous samples were submitted for total mercury quantitation 

on April 2, 2014. The samples were received in acceptable condition on April 4, 2014 in a 

sealed container at ambient temperature, as recorded on the enclosed chain of custody (COC) 

forms. 

Each sample was received in a laminar flow clean hood, void of trace metals contamination 

and ultra-violet radiation, and assigned a discrete sample identifier. Each sample submitted 

in a 125mL HDPE bottle for total recoverable metals quantitation was preserved to a pH < 2 

with 1% HNO3 (v/v) and then stored in a secure, polyethylene container (known to be free 

from trace metals contamination) until digestion and analysis could be performed. Each 

sample submitted for total mercury quantitation was subcontracted to CEBAM Analytical for 

analysis via EPA Method 1631E. 

2. Sample Preparation 

All sample preparation is performed in laminar flow clean hoods known to be free from trace 

metals contamination. All applied water for dilutions and sample preservatives are 

monitored for contamination to account for any biases associated with the sample results. 

Total Recoverable Metals Quantification by ICP-QQQ-MS Aliquots of each acid-preserved 

sample were placed into Teflon bombs, followed by aliquots of concentrated nitric and 

hydrochloric acids. All Teflon bombs were sealed and placed in a convection oven 

(maintained at a temperature of 105°C) for a minimum of four hours. All resulting sample 

digests were then analyzed via a modified EPA Method 200.8, employing inductively 

coupled plasma triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS). 

Total Mercury Quantitation by EPA Method 1631E All samples were preserved with 

bromine monochloride (BrCl) solution prior to analysis in accordance with the referenced 

promulgated method. 

Page 4 of 109
 

3. Sample Analysis 

All sample analysis is preceded by a minimum of a five-point calibration curve spanning the 

entire concentration range of interest. All calibration curves, associated with each species of 

interest, are standardized by linear regression resulting in a response factor. All sample 

results are instrument blank corrected to account for any operational biases associated with 

the analytical platform. 

Prior to sample analysis, all calibration curves are verified using second source standards 

which are identified as initial calibration verification standards (ICV). 

Ongoing instrument performance is identified by the analysis of continuing calibration 

verification standards (CCV) and continuing calibration blanks (CCB) at a minimum interval 

of every ten analytical runs. 

Total Recoverable Metals Quantitation by ICP-QQQ-MS All samples submitted for total 

recoverable metals quantitation were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma triple 

quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS) on April 15, 2014. Aliquots of each sample 

digest are introduced into a radio frequency (RF) plasma where energy-transfer processes 

cause desolvation, atomization, and ionization. The ions are extracted from the plasma 

through a differentially-pumped vacuum interface and travel through an initial quadrupole 

(Q1), which filters the target masses prior to their entrance into a second chamber, which 

contains either reactive gasses or collision gasses that preferentially react with interfering 

ions of the same target mass to charge ratios (m/z). The ions then exit the collision/reaction 

chamber into the mass analyzer (Q2). A solid-state detector detects ions transmitted through 

the mass analyzer, on the basis of their mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), and the resulting current 

is processed by a data handling system. 

Total Mercury Quantitation by EPA Method 1631E All samples were analyzed in accordance 

with EPA Method 1631E by CEBAM Analytical. 

4. Analytical Issues 

No significant issues were encountered with the requested analyses. All quality control 

parameters associated with these samples were within acceptance limits. 

It should be noted that the estimated method detection limits (eMDLs) for total recoverable 

metals have been calculated using the standard deviation of the preparation blanks digested 

concurrently with each batch of submitted samples. 

Page 5 of 109
 

I certify that this data package is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract, 

both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions detailed above. In 

addition, I certify, that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the data as reported are true 

and accurate. Release of the data contained in this data package has been authorized by the 

Laboratory Manager or his designee, as verified by the following signature. 

Sincerely, 

Ben Wozniak 

Project Manager 

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC 

Page 6 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Ag Al As B Ba Be Ca Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Mg

KM 112 μg/L < 0.019 U 12.5 J < 0.15 U < 5.2 U 0.26 J < 0.038 U < 19 U 0.044 J 0.106 J < 0.68 U < 0.11 U < 7.3 U 3.7 J

KM 114 μg/L < 0.019 U 282 0.83 J 26.6 J 40.5 < 0.038 U 28900 0.042 J 1.35 < 0.68 U 1.29 589 7560

KM 123 μg/L < 0.019 U 1770 0.81 J 34.1 J 61.0 0.168 J 29400 0.042 J 1.47 4.20 1.84 2140 7880

KM 132 μg/L < 0.019 U 14.6 J < 0.15 U < 5.2 U < 0.18 U < 0.038 U 33 J 0.065 J < 0.067 U < 0.68 U < 0.11 U < 7.3 U 4.0 J

KM 134 μg/L < 0.019 U 95.7 0.31 J 30.9 J 40.6 < 0.038 U 27600 < 0.037 U 0.312 J < 0.68 U < 0.11 U 86.5 7330

KC 212 μg/L < 0.019 U 14.3 J < 0.15 U < 5.2 U < 0.18 U 0.052 J 94 J < 0.037 U < 0.067 U < 0.68 U < 0.11 U < 7.3 U < 3.3 U

KC 214 μg/L 0.022 J 6470 1.66 34.4 J 81.5 0.276 J 26800 0.088 J 2.31 5.46 4.80 4270 7860

KC 223 μg/L 0.022 J 6850 8.91 79.2 J 70.7 0.494 J 27500 0.126 J 3.90 13.2 6.18 8240 7410

KC 232 μg/L < 0.019 U 19.9 J < 0.15 U < 5.2 U < 0.18 U < 0.038 U < 19 U < 0.037 U < 0.067 U < 0.68 U < 0.11 U 128 < 3.3 U

KC 234 μg/L < 0.019 U 222 0.99 J 185 43.8 0.044 J 43800 0.042 J 1.14 J < 0.68 U 0.49 J 485 9580

All results reflect the applied dilution and are reported in μg/L

U = Sample concentration is less than the estimated Method Detection Limit (eMDL)

J = Sample concentration is between the eMDL and the Reporting Limit (RL)

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: Kammer and Kyger Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: April 18, 2014

Page 7 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Mn Mo Na Ni Pb Sb Se Sn Ti Tl V Zn

KM 112 μg/L < 0.089 U 0.097 J < 35 U 0.29 J < 0.041 U < 0.057 U < 0.25 U < 0.30 U < 0.90 U 0.017 J < 0.55 U < 2.4 U

KM 114 μg/L 147 1.12 J 23100 3.74 0.888 J < 0.057 U < 0.25 U < 0.30 U 4.19 < 0.017 U < 0.55 U 8.9 J

KM 123 μg/L 135 1.18 J 23900 5.55 0.812 J < 0.057 U < 0.25 U < 0.30 U 83.1 0.037 J 4.05 9.2 J

KM 132 μg/L < 0.089 U < 0.078 U < 35 U < 0.13 U < 0.041 U < 0.057 U < 0.25 U < 0.30 U < 0.90 U < 0.017 U < 0.55 U < 2.4 U

KM 134 μg/L 7.80 0.839 J 21300 3.21 0.053 J < 0.057 U 0.29 J < 0.30 U 5.25 < 0.017 U < 0.55 U < 2.4 U

KC 212 μg/L 0.100 J < 0.078 U < 35 U < 0.13 U < 0.041 U < 0.057 U < 0.25 U < 0.30 U < 0.90 U < 0.017 U < 0.55 U < 2.4 U

KC 214 μg/L 174 0.812 J 18600 6.54 3.13 0.096 J < 0.25 U 0.51 J 77.3 0.058 J 8.61 20.1 J

KC 223 μg/L 114 3.12 19500 14.6 3.37 0.114 J 0.86 J 0.34 J 243 0.499 J 12.0 14.8 J

KC 232 μg/L 0.196 J < 0.078 U < 35 U 0.39 J 0.084 J < 0.057 U < 0.25 U < 0.30 U < 0.90 U < 0.017 U < 0.55 U < 2.4 U

KC 234 μg/L 86.6 3.22 28000 8.01 0.227 J 0.086 J 0.36 J < 0.30 U 6.26 0.293 J 0.81 J 2.6 J

All results reflect the applied dilution and are reported in μg/L

U = Sample concentration is less than the estimated Method Detection Limit (eMDL)

J = Sample concentration is between the eMDL and the Reporting Limit (RL)

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: Kammer and Kyger Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: April 18, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 8 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Preparation Blank Summary

Analyte Units PBW1 PBW2 PBW3 PBW4 Mean StdDev

eMDL* at 

25x

RL at 

25x

Ag μg/L 0.002 -0.012 -0.002 0.000 -0.003 0.006 0.019 1.2

Al μg/L 14.3 12.7 12.5 12.9 13.1 0.8 2.5 30

As μg/L 0.04 -0.04 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.15 1.2

B μg/L -4.0 -5.3 -7.2 -7.7 -6.0 1.7 5.2 120

Ba μg/L -0.13 -0.19 -0.26 -0.26 -0.21 0.06 0.18 1.2

Be μg/L 0.042 0.036 0.020 0.016 0.029 0.013 0.038 1.2

Ca μg/L -10 4 3 -1 -1 6 19 120

Cd μg/L 0.022 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.012 0.037 1.2

Co μg/L 0.035 -0.006 -0.017 0.011 0.006 0.022 0.067 1.2

Cr μg/L 0.06 -0.26 0.29 -0.04 0.01 0.23 0.68 3.0

Cu μg/L -0.28 -0.25 -0.27 -0.33 -0.28 0.04 0.11 1.2

Fe μg/L -1.3 -0.3 4.2 1.0 0.9 2.4 7.3 30

Mg μg/L 0.9 -1.0 0.4 1.6 0.5 1.1 3.3 120

Mn μg/L 0.053 0.019 0.047 -0.012 0.027 0.030 0.089 1.2

Mo μg/L -0.036 -0.072 -0.084 -0.096 -0.072 0.026 0.078 1.2

Na μg/L 7 1 -1 25 8 12 35 120

Ni μg/L 0.00 -0.10 -0.02 -0.05 -0.04 0.04 0.13 3.0

Pb μg/L 0.016 0.002 0.023 0.035 0.019 0.014 0.041 1.2

Sb μg/L -0.018 -0.053 -0.044 -0.062 -0.044 0.019 0.057 1.2

Se μg/L 0.00 -0.08 0.11 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.25 1.2

Sn μg/L 0.18 0.00 -0.03 -0.04 0.03 0.10 0.30 1.2

Ti μg/L 0.50 -0.22 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.30 0.90 3.0

Tl μg/L -0.019 -0.029 -0.029 -0.019 -0.024 0.006 0.017 1.2

V μg/L -0.01 0.42 0.28 0.16 0.21 0.18 0.55 1.2

Zn μg/L 2.2 0.5 1.0 0.7 1.1 0.8 2.4 30

eMDL = Estimated Method Detection Limit; RL = Reporting Limit

*Please see narrative regarding eMDL calculations

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: Kammer and Kyger Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: April 18, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 9 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Certified Reference Materials

Analyte Units CRM True Value Result Recovery

Ag μg/L TMDA-70 10.9 11.02 101.1

Al μg/L TMDA-70 415 421.8 101.6

As μg/L TMDA-70 40.7 40.18 98.7

B μg/L LCS 200.0 184.1 92.0

Ba μg/L TMDA-70 309 296.6 96.0

Be μg/L TMDA-70 15.2 14.99 98.6

Ca μg/L LCS 20000 19940 99.7

Cd μg/L TMDA-70 145 140.5 96.9

Co μg/L TMDA-70 285 280.7 98.5

Cr μg/L TMDA-70 389 385.0 99.0

Cu μg/L TMDA-70 399 401.8 100.7

Fe μg/L TMDA-70 369 373.3 101.2

Mg μg/L LCS 20000 19840 99.2

Mn μg/L TMDA-70 302 297.0 98.3

Mo μg/L TMDA-70 258 253.3 98.2

Na μg/L LCS 20000 20390 102.0

Ni μg/L TMDA-70 328 324.9 99.0

Pb μg/L TMDA-70 444 458.1 103.2

Sb μg/L TMDA-70 21.7 21.51 99.1

Se μg/L TMDA-70 25.9 22.68 87.6

Sn μg/L TMDA-70 19.6 19.71 100.6

Ti μg/L LCS 200.0 198.8 99.4

Tl μg/L TMDA-70 20.1 20.38 101.4

V μg/L TMDA-70 312 300.5 96.3

Zn μg/L TMDA-70 480 517.3 107.8

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: Kammer and Kyger Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: April 18, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 10 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Duplicates

Analyte Units Sample ID Rep 1 Rep 2 Mean RPD

Ag μg/L KC 223 0.022 < 0.019 U NC NC

Al μg/L KC 223 6852 6432 6642 6.3

As μg/L KC 223 8.91 9.50 9.21 6.3

B μg/L KC 223 79.2 83.5 81.4 5.3

Ba μg/L KC 223 70.73 70.86 70.79 0.2

Be μg/L KC 223 0.494 0.499 0.497 1.0

Ca μg/L KC 223 27490 28030 27760 1.9

Cd μg/L KC 223 0.126 0.172 0.149 30.6*

Co μg/L KC 223 3.901 3.940 3.920 1.0

Cr μg/L KC 223 13.18 13.59 13.38 3.1

Cu μg/L KC 223 6.18 6.11 6.14 1.0

Fe μg/L KC 223 8238 8570 8404 4.0

Mg μg/L KC 223 7412 7691 7551 3.7

Mn μg/L KC 223 113.5 117.2 115.4 3.2

Mo μg/L KC 223 3.124 2.624 2.874 17.4

Na μg/L KC 223 19500 19890 19700 2.0

Ni μg/L KC 223 14.57 13.85 14.21 5.1

Pb μg/L KC 223 3.372 3.250 3.311 3.7

Sb μg/L KC 223 0.114 0.199 0.157 54.4*

Se μg/L KC 223 0.86 0.87 0.87 1.1

Sn μg/L KC 223 0.34 0.47 0.40 32.7*

Ti μg/L KC 223 243.2 246.3 244.7 1.3

Tl μg/L KC 223 0.499 0.516 0.508 3.3

V μg/L KC 223 12.02 13.85 12.93 14.2

Zn μg/L KC 223 14.8 13.1 13.9 12.7

NC = Value was not calculated due to one or more concentrations below the eMDL

* Sample concentrations are less than the RL

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: Kammer and Kyger Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: April 18, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 11 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate

Analyte Units Sample ID

Ambient 

Conc

MS Spike 

Conc

MS 

Result

MS 

Recovery

MSD Spike 

Conc

MSD 

Result

MSD 

Recovery RPD

Ag μg/L KC 223 NC 20.00 19.23 96.2 20.00 19.77 98.9 2.8

Al μg/L KC 223 6642 20000 27797 105.8 20000 27280 103.2 1.9

As μg/L KC 223 9.21 200.0 202.1 96.5 200.0 205.0 97.9 1.4

B μg/L KC 223 81.4 200.0 271.3 95.0 200.0 279.4 99.0 3.0

Ba μg/L KC 223 70.79 200.0 268.4 98.8 200.0 282.0 105.6 4.9

Be μg/L KC 223 0.497 200.0 196.1 97.8 200.0 193.4 96.4 1.4

Ca μg/L KC 223 27760 20000 48380 103.1 20000 49027 106.3 1.3

Cd μg/L KC 223 0.149 20.00 20.39 101.2 20.00 19.15 95.0 6.3

Co μg/L KC 223 3.920 200.0 197.0 96.5 200.0 195.3 95.7 0.8

Cr μg/L KC 223 13.38 200.0 209.3 98.0 200.0 211.9 99.2 1.2

Cu μg/L KC 223 6.14 200.0 203.5 98.7 200.0 203.9 98.9 0.2

Fe μg/L KC 223 8404 20000 28554 100.8 20000 29037 103.2 1.7

Mg μg/L KC 223 7551 20000 27228 98.4 20000 27618 100.3 1.4

Mn μg/L KC 223 115.4 200.0 316.3 100.4 200.0 315.4 100.0 0.3

Mo μg/L KC 223 2.874 20.00 22.71 99.2 20.00 22.90 100.1 0.8

Na μg/L KC 223 19700 20000 39478 98.9 20000 39555 99.3 0.2

Ni μg/L KC 223 14.21 200.0 208.7 97.2 200.0 207.9 96.8 0.4

Pb μg/L KC 223 3.311 20.00 24.06 103.8 20.00 24.10 103.9 0.1

Sb μg/L KC 223 0.157 20.00 19.90 98.7 20.00 19.90 98.7 0.0

Se μg/L KC 223 0.87 200.0 196.7 97.9 200.0 194.6 96.9 1.1

Sn μg/L KC 223 0.40 20.00 18.97 92.8 20.00 20.93 102.6 9.8

Ti μg/L KC 223 244.7 200.0 456.1 105.7 200.0 471.3 113.3 3.3

Tl μg/L KC 223 0.508 20.00 20.24 98.7 20.00 20.37 99.3 0.6

V μg/L KC 223 12.93 200.0 207.4 97.2 200.0 211.5 99.3 2.0

Zn μg/L KC 223 13.9 200.0 203.3 94.7 200.0 204.1 95.1 0.4

NC = Value was not calculated due to one or more concentrations below the eMDL

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: Kammer and Kyger Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: April 18, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 12 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Hg

KM 111 ng/L 0.37

KM 113 ng/L 4.01

KM 121 ng/L 0.58

KM 122 ng/L 5.74

KM 131 ng/L 0.45

KM 133 ng/L 1.21

KC 211 ng/L 0.61

KC 213 ng/L 8.99

KC 221 ng/L 0.45

KC 222 ng/L 6.55

KC 231 ng/L 0.70

KC 233 ng/L 1.60

All results reflect the applied dilution and are 

reported in ng/L

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Names: Kammer and Kyger Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: April 18, 2014

Page 13 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Preparation Blank Summary

Analyte Units PBW1 PBW2 PBW3 Mean MDL

Hg ng/L <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2

MDL = Method Detection Limit

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Names: Kammer and Kyger Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: April 18, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 14 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Certified Reference Materials

Analyte Units CRM True Value Result Recovery RPD

Hg ng/L MaW29 10400 9756 93.8 -

Hg ng/L MaW29 Dup 10400 10237 98.4 4.8

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Names: Kammer and Kyger Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: April 18, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 15 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Duplicates

Analyte Units Sample ID Rep 1 Rep 2 Mean RPD

Hg ng/L KC 213 8.99 8.46 8.73 6.1

Hg ng/L KC 222 6.55 6.30 6.43 4.0

Hg ng/L KC 233 1.60 1.51 1.55 5.7

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Names: Kammer and Kyger Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: April 18, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 16 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate

Analyte Units Sample ID

Ambient 

Conc

MS Spike 

Conc

MS 

Result

MS 

Recovery

Hg ng/L KM 113 4.01 10.00 13.71 97.0

Hg ng/L KC 222 6.55 10.00 16.95 104.0

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Names: Kammer and Kyger Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: April 18, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 17 of 109
Page 18 of 109
Page 19 of 109
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Form REP-703

Rev. 1, 11/2013

Location: Kammer Plant Report Date: 4/15/2014

Sample Number: 141131-001 Date Collected: 04/02/2014 09:43 Date Received: 4/3/2014

 River Intake

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Ammonia, NH3, as N 0.18 mg/L 0.05 0.02 DMM 04/10/2014 EPA 350.1-1993, Rev. 2.0

Chloride, Cl 35.2 mg/L 0.2 0.05 TJK 04/03/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N 0.4 mg/L J 0.5 0.1 DMM 04/08/2014 EPA 351.2-1993, Rev. 2.0

Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2, as N 0.84 mg/L 0.1 0.02 DMM 04/09/2014 SM 4500NO3 H-2000

Phosphorus, Total, P 0.03 mg/L J 0.05 0.01 DMM 04/08/2014 EPA 365.4-1974

Residue, Filterable, TDS 193 mg/L 20 6 MSO 04/04/2014 SM 2540C-1997

Residue, Non-Filterable, TSS 16 mg/L 10 2 MSO 04/04/2014 SM 2540D-1997

Sulfate, SO4 55.0 mg/L 0.5 0.1 TJK 04/03/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Nitrogen, N 1.28 mg/L 0.5 0.1 DMM 04/09/2014 Calculation

Sample Number: 141131-002 Date Collected: 04/02/2014 11:35 Date Received: 4/3/2014

 Bottom Ash Influent

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Ammonia, NH3, as N 0.15 mg/L 0.05 0.02 DMM 04/10/2014 EPA 350.1-1993, Rev. 2.0

Chloride, Cl 34.6 mg/L 0.2 0.05 TJK 04/03/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N 0.53 mg/L 0.5 0.1 DMM 04/08/2014 EPA 351.2-1993, Rev. 2.0

Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2, as N 0.86 mg/L 0.1 0.02 DMM 04/09/2014 SM 4500NO3 H-2000

Phosphorus, Total, P 0.06 mg/L 0.05 0.01 DMM 04/08/2014 EPA 365.4-1974

Residue, Filterable, TDS 195 mg/L 20 6 MSO 04/04/2014 SM 2540C-1997

Residue, Non-Filterable, TSS 21 mg/L 10 2 MSO 04/04/2014 SM 2540D-1997

Sulfate, SO4 58.4 mg/L 0.5 0.1 TJK 04/03/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Nitrogen, N 1.39 mg/L 0.5 0.1 DMM 04/09/2014 Calculation

Sample Number: 141131-003 Date Collected: 04/02/2014 09:04 Date Received: 4/3/2014

 Bottom Ash Effluent

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Ammonia, NH3, as N 0.04 mg/L J 0.05 0.02 DMM 04/10/2014 EPA 350.1-1993, Rev. 2.0

Chloride, Cl 30.7 mg/L 0.5 0.1 TJK 04/03/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N 0.2 mg/L J 0.5 0.1 DMM 04/08/2014 EPA 351.2-1993, Rev. 2.0

Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2, as N 0.96 mg/L 0.1 0.02 DMM 04/09/2014 SM 4500NO3 H-2000

Phosphorus, Total, P < 0.01 mg/L U 0.05 0.01 DMM 04/08/2014 EPA 365.4-1974

Residue, Filterable, TDS 184 mg/L 20 6 MSO 04/04/2014 SM 2540C-1997

Residue, Non-Filterable, TSS < 2 mg/L U 10 2 MSO 04/04/2014 SM 2540D-1997

Sulfate, SO4 54.1 mg/L 1 0.2 TJK 04/03/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Nitrogen, N 1.13 mg/L 0.5 0.1 DMM 04/09/2014 Calculation

Kammer Plant, 141131 1 of 2

Page 20 of 109
Location: Kammer Plant Report Date: 4/15/2014

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit

J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Kammer Plant, 141131 2 of 2

Page 21 of 109
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Form REP-703

Rev. 1, 11/2013

Location: Kyger Creek - OVEC Report Date: 4/15/2014

Sample Number: 141130-001 Date Collected: 04/02/2014 16:02 Date Received: 4/3/2014

 River Intake

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Ammonia, NH3, as N 0.12 mg/L 0.05 0.02 DMM 04/10/2014 EPA 350.1-1993, Rev. 2.0

Chloride, Cl 28.0 mg/L 0.2 0.05 TJK 04/03/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N 0.4 mg/L J 0.5 0.1 DMM 04/08/2014 EPA 351.2-1993, Rev. 2.0

Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2, as N 0.83 mg/L 0.1 0.02 DMM 04/09/2014 SM 4500NO3 H-2000

Phosphorus, Total, P 0.04 mg/L J 0.05 0.01 DMM 04/08/2014 EPA 365.4-1974

Residue, Filterable, TDS 205 mg/L 20 6 MSO 04/03/2014 SM 2540C-1997

Residue, Non-Filterable, TSS 79 mg/L 10 2 MSO 04/03/2014 SM 2540D-1997

Sulfate, SO4 46.2 mg/L 0.5 0.1 TJK 04/03/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Nitrogen, N 1.23 mg/L 0.5 0.1 DMM 04/09/2014 Calculation

Sample Number: 141130-002 Date Collected: 04/02/2014 17:04 Date Received: 4/3/2014

 Bottom Ash Influent

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Ammonia, NH3, as N 0.07 mg/L 0.05 0.02 DMM 04/10/2014 EPA 350.1-1993, Rev. 2.0

Chloride, Cl 27.8 mg/L 0.2 0.05 TJK 04/03/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N 0.62 mg/L 0.5 0.1 DMM 04/08/2014 EPA 351.2-1993, Rev. 2.0

Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2, as N 0.80 mg/L 0.1 0.02 DMM 04/09/2014 SM 4500NO3 H-2000

Phosphorus, Total, P 0.07 mg/L 0.05 0.01 DMM 04/08/2014 EPA 365.4-1974

Residue, Filterable, TDS 191 mg/L 20 6 MSO 04/04/2014 SM 2540C-1997

Residue, Non-Filterable, TSS 94 mg/L 10 2 MSO 04/04/2014 SM 2540D-1997

Sulfate, SO4 69.0 mg/L 0.5 0.1 TJK 04/03/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Nitrogen, N 1.42 mg/L 0.5 0.1 DMM 04/09/2014 Calculation

Sample Number: 141130-003 Date Collected: 04/02/2014 15:29 Date Received: 4/3/2014

 Bottom Ash Effluent

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Ammonia, NH3, as N 0.04 mg/L J 0.05 0.02 DMM 04/10/2014 EPA 350.1-1993, Rev. 2.0

Chloride, Cl 36.2 mg/L 0.2 0.05 TJK 04/03/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N 0.3 mg/L J 0.5 0.1 DMM 04/08/2014 EPA 351.2-1993, Rev. 2.0

Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2, as N 0.84 mg/L 0.1 0.02 DMM 04/09/2014 SM 4500NO3 H-2000

Phosphorus, Total, P < 0.01 mg/L U 0.05 0.01 DMM 04/08/2014 EPA 365.4-1974

Residue, Filterable, TDS 277 mg/L 20 6 MSO 04/04/2014 SM 2540C-1997

Residue, Non-Filterable, TSS 4 mg/L J 10 2 MSO 04/04/2014 SM 2540D-1997

Sulfate, SO4 118 mg/L 0.5 0.1 TJK 04/03/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Nitrogen, N 1.11 mg/L 0.5 0.1 DMM 04/09/2014 Calculation

Kyger Creek - OVEC, 141130 1 of 2

Page 22 of 109
Location: Kyger Creek - OVEC Report Date: 4/15/2014

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit

J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Kyger Creek - OVEC, 141130 2 of 2

Page 23 of 109
 

 June 23, 2014 

Donna B. Hill 

Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) 

(205) 257-5234 

Project: Tanners Creek 

Dear Ms. Hill, 

Attached is the report associated with five (5) aqueous samples submitted for total recoverable 

metals (Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Ti, 

Tl, V, and Zn) quantitation and six (6) aqueous samples submitted for total mercury quantitation 

on June 4, 2014. The samples were received in acceptable condition on June 6, 2014 in a sealed 

container at ambient temperature. Total recoverable metals quantitation was performed via 

inductively coupled plasma triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS). Total 

mercury quantitation was subcontracted for performance via EPA Method 1631E. Any issues 

associated with the analyses are addressed in the following report. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Ben Wozniak 

 Project Manager 

 Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC 

Cc : Elizabeth Aldridge

Page 24 of 109
 

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC 

Report prepared for: 

Donna B. Hill 

Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) 

(205) 257-5234 

Project: Tanners Creek 

June 23, 2014 

1. Sample Reception 

Five (5) aqueous samples were submitted for total recoverable metals (Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, 

Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Ti, Tl, V, and Zn) quantitation 

and six (6) aqueous samples were submitted for total mercury quantitation on June 4, 2014. 

The samples were received in acceptable condition on June 6, 2014 in a sealed container at 

ambient temperature, as recorded on the enclosed chain of custody (COC) form. 

Each sample was received in a laminar flow clean hood, void of trace metals contamination 

and ultra-violet radiation, and assigned a discrete sample identifier. Each sample submitted 

in a 125mL HDPE bottle for total recoverable metals quantitation was preserved to a pH < 2 

with 1% HNO3 (v/v) and then stored in a secure, polyethylene container (known to be free 

from trace metals contamination) until digestion and analysis could be performed. Each 

sample submitted for total mercury quantitation was subcontracted to CEBAM Analytical for 

analysis via EPA Method 1631E. 

2. Sample Preparation 

All sample preparation is performed in laminar flow clean hoods known to be free from trace 

metals contamination. All applied water for dilutions and sample preservatives are 

monitored for contamination to account for any biases associated with the sample results. 

Total Recoverable Metals Quantification by ICP-QQQ-MS Aliquots of each acid-preserved 

sample were placed into Teflon bombs, followed by aliquots of concentrated nitric and 

hydrochloric acids. All Teflon bombs were sealed and placed in a convection oven 

(maintained at a temperature of 105°C) for a minimum of four hours. All resulting sample 

digests were then analyzed via a modified EPA Method 200.8, employing inductively 

coupled plasma triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS). 

Total Mercury Quantitation by EPA Method 1631E All samples were preserved with 

bromine monochloride (BrCl) solution prior to analysis in accordance with the referenced 

promulgated method. 

Page 25 of 109
 

3. Sample Analysis 

All sample analysis is preceded by a minimum of a five-point calibration curve spanning the 

entire concentration range of interest. All calibration curves, associated with each species of 

interest, are standardized by linear regression resulting in a response factor. All sample 

results are instrument blank corrected to account for any operational biases associated with 

the analytical platform. 

Prior to sample analysis, all calibration curves are verified using second source standards 

which are identified as initial calibration verification standards (ICV). 

Ongoing instrument performance is identified by the analysis of continuing calibration 

verification standards (CCV) and continuing calibration blanks (CCB) at a minimum interval 

of every ten analytical runs. 

Total Recoverable Metals Quantitation by ICP-QQQ-MS All samples submitted for total 

recoverable metals quantitation were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma triple 

quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS) on June 12 and June 19, 2014. Aliquots of 

each sample digest are introduced into a radio frequency (RF) plasma where energy-transfer 

processes cause desolvation, atomization, and ionization. The ions are extracted from the 

plasma through a differentially-pumped vacuum interface and travel through an initial 

quadrupole (Q1), which filters the target masses prior to their entrance into a second 

chamber. The second chamber contains specific reactive gasses or collision gasses that 

preferentially react either with interfering ions of the same target mass to charge ratios (m/z) 

or with the target analyte, producing an entirely different mass to charge ratio (m/z) which 

can then be differentiated from the initial interferences. The ions then exit the 

collision/reaction chamber into the mass analyzer (Q2). A solid-state detector detects ions 

transmitted through the mass analyzer, on the basis of their mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), and 

the resulting current is processed by a data handling system. 

Total Mercury Quantitation by EPA Method 1631E All samples were analyzed in accordance 

with EPA Method 1631E by CEBAM Analytical. 

4. Analytical Issues 

No significant issues were encountered with the requested analyses. All quality control 

parameters associated with these samples were within acceptance limits with the following 

exceptions: 

One of the preparation blanks associated with the total recoverable metals digestion, 

identified as PBW1, was determined to be an outlier for Ca and Mo upon application of the 

Grubbs test. This preparation blank has been excluded from all calculations for Ca and Mo 

since it is deemed to be unrepresentative of the preparation blanks and the submitted 

samples. 

Page 26 of 109
 

It should be noted that the estimated method detection limits (eMDLs) for total recoverable 

metals have been calculated using the standard deviation of the preparation blanks digested 

concurrently with each batch of submitted samples. 

I certify that this data package is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract, 

both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions detailed above. In 

addition, I certify, that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the data as reported are true 

and accurate. Release of the data contained in this data package has been authorized by the 

Laboratory Manager or his designee, as verified by the following signature. 

Sincerely, 

Ben Wozniak 

Project Manager 

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC 

Page 27 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Ag Al As B Ba Be Ca Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Mg

TC 312 μg/L < 0.012 U < 14 U < 0.050 U < 17 U < 0.026 U 0.071 J < 35 U < 0.057 U 0.081 J < 0.85 U < 0.36 U < 8.5 U < 5.3 U

TC 314 μg/L < 0.012 U 607 0.880 J 40 J 47.1 0.081 J 38100 < 0.057 U 0.352 J < 0.85 U 1.89 514 12800

TC 323 μg/L 0.029 J 5540 5.36 65 J 424 1.96 38500 0.067 J 6.00 18.1 16.0 2190 12600

TC 332 μg/L < 0.012 U < 14 U < 0.050 U < 17 U < 0.026 U < 0.062 U < 35 U < 0.057 U 0.016 J < 0.85 U < 0.36 U < 8.5 U < 5.3 U

TC 334 μg/L < 0.012 U 1290 2.17 47 J 91.4 0.143 J 38400 0.095 J 0.919 J 0.85 J 4.48 839 12900

All results reflect the applied dilution and are reported in μg/L

U = Sample concentration is less than the estimated Method Detection Limit (eMDL)

J = Sample concentration is between the eMDL and the Reporting Limit (RL)

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: Tanners Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: June 23, 2014

Page 28 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Mn Mo Na Ni Pb Sb Se Sn Ti Tl V Zn

TC 312 μg/L < 0.24 U < 0.23 U < 26 U < 0.24 U < 0.079 U < 0.026 U < 0.10 U < 0.28 U < 1.4 U 0.059 J < 0.11 U < 2.9 U

TC 314 μg/L 48.1 1.82 18100 1.37 J 0.557 J 0.165 J 0.58 J < 0.28 U 9.0 0.020 J 1.30 3.1 J

TC 323 μg/L 49.2 6.73 18400 14.8 5.16 0.873 J 1.20 0.82 J 496 0.224 J 25.9 10.2 J

TC 332 μg/L < 0.24 U < 0.23 U < 26 U < 0.24 U < 0.079 U 0.029 J < 0.10 U < 0.28 U < 1.4 U 0.020 J < 0.11 U < 2.9 U

TC 334 μg/L 46.7 2.48 17600 2.59 J 3.97 0.313 J 1.04 J 0.35 J 42.8 0.086 J 4.20 18.4 J

All results reflect the applied dilution and are reported in μg/L

U = Sample concentration is less than the estimated Method Detection Limit (eMDL)

J = Sample concentration is between the eMDL and the Reporting Limit (RL)

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: Tanners Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: June 23, 2014

Page 29 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Preparation Blank Summary

Analyte Units PBW1 PBW2 PBW3 PBW4 Mean StdDev

eMDL* at 

25x

RL at 

25x

Ag μg/L 0.000 -0.006 0.003 -0.004 -0.002 0.004 0.012 1.2

Al μg/L 13 4 2 5 6 5 14 30

As μg/L 0.017 -0.023 0.000 -0.007 -0.003 0.017 0.050 1.2

B μg/L 12 5 1 -2 4 6 17 120

Ba μg/L -0.035 -0.016 -0.034 -0.033 -0.029 0.009 0.026 1.2

Be μg/L 0.061 0.034 0.011 0.041 0.037 0.021 0.062 1.2

Ca μg/L 108** -35 -29 -51 -38 12 35 120

Cd μg/L -0.007 0.036 -0.002 0.006 0.008 0.019 0.057 1.2

Co μg/L 0.025 0.024 0.017 0.021 0.022 0.004 0.011 1.2

Cr μg/L 0.13 -0.14 -0.56 -0.13 -0.18 0.28 0.85 3.0

Cu μg/L 0.12 0.01 -0.09 -0.16 -0.03 0.12 0.36 1.2

Fe μg/L 2.8 -3.2 -3.0 -2.4 -1.5 2.8 8.5 30

Mg μg/L -24.7 -25.4 -26.1 -28.7 -26.2 1.8 5.3 120

Mn μg/L 0.13 -0.04 -0.01 -0.04 0.01 0.08 0.24 1.2

Mo μg/L 0.95** 0.15 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.23 1.2

Na μg/L 4 -7 -6 -18 -7 9 26 120

Ni μg/L -0.29 -0.48 -0.38 -0.40 -0.39 0.08 0.24 3.0

Pb μg/L 0.054 0.019 -0.003 0.000 0.018 0.026 0.079 1.2

Sb μg/L 0.012 0.030 0.011 0.015 0.017 0.009 0.026 1.2

Se μg/L -0.01 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.10 1.2

Sn μg/L 0.32 0.10 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.09 0.28 1.2

Ti μg/L 0.7 0.0 -0.1 -0.4 0.0 0.5 1.4 3.0

Tl μg/L 0.027 0.027 0.015 0.022 0.023 0.006 0.017 1.2

V μg/L -0.17 -0.20 -0.20 -0.25 -0.20 0.04 0.11 1.2

Zn μg/L 1.5 0.1 -0.1 -0.8 0.2 1.0 2.9 30

eMDL = Estimated Method Detection Limit; RL = Reporting Limit

*Please see narrative regarding eMDL calculations

** This preparation blank is identified as an outlier using the Grubbs test and has been excluded 

 from all calculations

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: Tanners Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: June 23, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 30 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Certified Reference Materials

Analyte Units CRM True Value Result Recovery

Ag μg/L TMDA-70 10.9 11.27 103.4

Al μg/L TMDA-70 415 407.2 98.1

As μg/L TMDA-70 40.7 38.97 95.7

B μg/L LCS 200.0 184.1 92.0

Ba μg/L TMDA-70 309 306.7 99.3

Be μg/L TMDA-70 15.2 14.44 95.0

Ca μg/L LCS 20000 19466 97.3

Cd μg/L TMDA-70 145 140.7 97.1

Co μg/L TMDA-70 285 278.3 97.7

Cr μg/L TMDA-70 389 381.5 98.1

Cu μg/L TMDA-70 399 410.4 102.9

Fe μg/L TMDA-70 369 356.0 96.5

Mg μg/L LCS 20000 19541 97.7

Mn μg/L TMDA-70 302 302.6 100.2

Mo μg/L TMDA-70 258 257.3 99.7

Na μg/L LCS 20000 20016 100.1

Ni μg/L TMDA-70 328 336.3 102.5

Pb μg/L TMDA-70 444 448.1 100.9

Sb μg/L TMDA-70 21.7 20.53 94.6

Se μg/L TMDA-70 25.9 28.04 108.2

Sn μg/L TMDA-70 19.6 20.56 104.9

Ti μg/L LCS 200 183.6 91.8

Tl μg/L TMDA-70 20.1 19.81 98.6

V μg/L TMDA-70 312 311.4 99.8

Zn μg/L TMDA-70 480 466.8 97.3

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: Tanners Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: June 23, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 31 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Duplicates

Analyte Units Sample ID Rep 1 Rep 2 Mean RPD

Ag μg/L TC 323 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.9

Al μg/L TC 323 5543 5311 5427 4.3

As μg/L TC 323 5.357 5.098 5.227 5.0

B μg/L TC 323 65 67 66 2.7

Ba μg/L TC 323 424.4 425.0 424.7 0.1

Be μg/L TC 323 1.963 1.838 1.901 6.6

Ca μg/L TC 323 38520 38450 38490 0.2

Cd μg/L TC 323 0.067 0.060 0.064 11.8

Co μg/L TC 323 5.996 5.716 5.856 4.8

Cr μg/L TC 323 18.06 16.08 17.07 11.6

Cu μg/L TC 323 16.03 15.38 15.70 4.1

Fe μg/L TC 323 2188 2051 2119 6.4

Mg μg/L TC 323 12580 13230 12910 5.0

Mn μg/L TC 323 49.19 49.38 49.28 0.4

Mo μg/L TC 323 6.73 6.00 6.36 11.6

Na μg/L TC 323 18410 18160 18280 1.4

Ni μg/L TC 323 14.78 14.08 14.43 4.9

Pb μg/L TC 323 5.161 5.192 5.176 0.6

Sb μg/L TC 323 0.873 0.774 0.824 12.0

Se μg/L TC 323 1.20 0.99 1.09 19.8

Sn μg/L TC 323 0.82 0.79 0.80 3.9

Ti μg/L TC 323 496.3 444.6 470.5 11.0

Tl μg/L TC 323 0.224 0.194 0.209 14.4

V μg/L TC 323 25.91 25.24 25.57 2.6

Zn μg/L TC 323 10.2 9.7 9.9 4.4

NC = Value was not calculated due to one or more concentrations below the eMDL

* Sample concentrations are less than the RL

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: Tanners Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: June 23, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 32 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate

Analyte Units Sample ID

Ambient 

Conc

MS Spike 

Conc

MS 

Result

MS 

Recovery

MSD Spike 

Conc

MSD 

Result

MSD 

Recovery RPD

Ag μg/L TC 323 0.029 20.00 19.99 99.8 20.00 20.13 100.5 0.7

Al μg/L TC 323 5427 20000 26930 107.5 20000 27200 108.9 1.0

As μg/L TC 323 5.227 200.0 201.6 98.2 200.0 202.1 98.4 0.2

B μg/L TC 323 66 200 253 93.1 200 255 94.5 1.1

Ba μg/L TC 323 424.7 200.0 643.9 109.6 200.0 637.9 106.6 0.9

Be μg/L TC 323 1.901 200.0 187.9 93.0 200.0 189.0 93.5 0.6

Ca μg/L TC 323 38490 20000 58520 100.2 20000 58060 97.9 0.8

Cd μg/L TC 323 0.064 20.00 19.57 97.5 20.00 19.18 95.6 2.0

Co μg/L TC 323 5.856 200.0 192.0 93.1 200.0 194.3 94.2 1.2

Cr μg/L TC 323 17.07 200.0 210.2 96.5 200.0 212.3 97.6 1.0

Cu μg/L TC 323 15.70 200.0 213.8 99.1 200.0 218.6 101.5 2.2

Fe μg/L TC 323 2119 20000 22020 99.5 20000 21440 96.6 2.7

Mg μg/L TC 323 12910 20000 32930 100.1 20000 31660 93.8 3.9

Mn μg/L TC 323 49.28 200.0 250.9 100.8 200.0 251.3 101.0 0.2

Mo μg/L TC 323 6.36 20.00 26.94 102.9 20.00 26.19 99.1 2.8

Na μg/L TC 323 18280 20000 37930 98.3 20000 37590 96.6 0.9

Ni μg/L TC 323 14.43 200.0 216.2 100.9 200.0 219.6 102.6 1.5

Pb μg/L TC 323 5.176 20.00 25.85 103.4 20.00 25.88 103.5 0.1

Sb μg/L TC 323 0.824 20.00 19.54 93.6 20.00 20.06 96.2 2.6

Se μg/L TC 323 1.09 200.0 219.7 109.3 200.0 222.6 110.8 1.3

Sn μg/L TC 323 0.80 20.00 20.73 99.6 20.00 19.15 91.7 8.0

Ti μg/L TC 323 470.5 200.0 732.9 131.2* 200.0 729.0 129.3* 0.5

Tl μg/L TC 323 0.209 20.00 20.18 99.9 20.00 19.82 98.0 1.8

V μg/L TC 323 25.57 200.0 228.2 101.3 200.0 228.6 101.5 0.1

Zn μg/L TC 323 9.9 200.0 208.9 99.5 200.0 205.0 97.6 1.9

NC = Value was not calculated due to one or more concentrations below the eMDL

* The spike concentration is less than one-half the native sample concentration

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: Tanners Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: June 23, 2014

Page 33 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Hg

TC 311 ng/L 0.75

TC 313 ng/L 1.98

TC 321 ng/L 0.92

TC 322 ng/L 3.31

TC 331 ng/L 7.76

TC 333 ng/L 7.84

All results reflect the applied dilution and are 

reported in ng/L

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Names: Tanners Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: June 23, 2014

Page 34 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Preparation Blank Summary

Analyte Units PBW1 PBW2 PBW3 Mean MDL

Hg ng/L <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2

MDL = Method Detection Limit

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Names: Tanners Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: June 23, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 35 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Certified Reference Materials

Analyte Units CRM True Value Result Recovery

Hg ng/L MaW29 10400 10425 100.2

Hg ng/L OPR1 5.00 5.11 102.3

Hg ng/L OPR2 5.00 5.08 101.7

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Names: Tanners Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: June 23, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 36 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Duplicates

Analyte Units Sample ID Rep 1 Rep 2 Mean RPD

Hg ng/L TC 331 7.76 7.57 7.67 2.5

Hg ng/L TC 333 7.84 7.41 7.62 5.6

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Names: Tanners Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: June 23, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 37 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate

Analyte Units Sample ID

Ambient 

Conc

MS Spike 

Conc

MS 

Result

MS 

Recovery

Hg ng/L Batch QC 1 2.41 66.67 64.43 93.0

Hg ng/L Batch QC 2 4.47 20.00 23.61 95.7

Hg ng/L Batch QC 3 1.24 20.00 18.34 85.5

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Names: Tanners Creek

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: June 23, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 38 of 109

Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Form REP-703

Rev. 1, 11/2013

Location: Tanners Creek Plant Report Date: 6/16/2014

Sample Number: 142023-001 Date Collected: 06/04/2014 11:07 Date Received: 6/4/2014

 SP1 TC 316/317 Grab Sample

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Ammonia, NH3, as N 0.13 mg/L 0.05 0.01 DMM 06/12/2014 EPA 350.1-1993, Rev. 2.0

Chloride, Cl 26.3 mg/L 0.1 0.02 CRJ 06/06/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N 0.4 mg/L J 0.5 0.1 DMM 06/10/2014 EPA 351.2-1993, Rev. 2.0

Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2, as N 1.36 mg/L 0.1 0.02 DMM 06/09/2014 SM 4500NO3 H-2000

Phosphorus, Total, P 0.07 mg/L 0.05 0.01 DMM 06/10/2014 EPA 365.4-1974

Residue, Filterable, TDS 241 mg/L 20 5 MSO 06/09/2014 SM 2540C-1997

Residue, Non-Filterable, TSS 8 mg/L J 10 2 MSO 06/10/2014 SM 2540D-1997

Sulfate, SO4 45.7 mg/L 0.2 0.06 CRJ 06/06/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Nitrogen, N 1.81 mg/L 1 0.2 DMM 06/10/2014 Calculation

Sample Number: 142023-002 Date Collected: 06/04/2014 12:24 Date Received: 6/4/2014

 SP2 TC 325/326 Composite Sample

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Ammonia, NH3, as N 0.09 mg/L 0.05 0.01 DMM 06/12/2014 EPA 350.1-1993, Rev. 2.0

Chloride, Cl 26.0 mg/L 0.1 0.02 CRJ 06/06/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N 0.2 mg/L J 0.5 0.1 DMM 06/10/2014 EPA 351.2-1993, Rev. 2.0

Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2, as N 1.38 mg/L 0.1 0.02 DMM 06/09/2014 SM 4500NO3 H-2000

Phosphorus, Total, P 0.07 mg/L 0.05 0.01 DMM 06/10/2014 EPA 365.4-1974

Residue, Filterable, TDS 234 mg/L 20 5 MSO 06/09/2014 SM 2540C-1997

Residue, Non-Filterable, TSS 148 mg/L 10 2 MSO 06/10/2014 SM 2540D-1997

Sulfate, SO4 46.1 mg/L 0.2 0.06 CRJ 06/06/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Nitrogen, N 1.53 mg/L 1 0.2 DMM 06/10/2014 Calculation

Sample Number: 142023-003 Date Collected: 06/04/2014 11:38 Date Received: 6/4/2014

 SP3 TC 336/337 Grab Sample

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Ammonia, NH3, as N 0.16 mg/L 0.05 0.01 DMM 06/12/2014 EPA 350.1-1993, Rev. 2.0

Chloride, Cl 24.7 mg/L 0.1 0.02 CRJ 06/06/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N 0.2 mg/L J 0.5 0.1 DMM 06/10/2014 EPA 351.2-1993, Rev. 2.0

Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2, as N 1.22 mg/L 0.1 0.02 DMM 06/09/2014 SM 4500NO3 H-2000

Phosphorus, Total, P 0.06 mg/L 0.05 0.01 DMM 06/10/2014 EPA 365.4-1974

Residue, Filterable, TDS 231 mg/L 20 5 MSO 06/09/2014 SM 2540C-1997

Residue, Non-Filterable, TSS 40 mg/L 10 2 MSO 06/10/2014 SM 2540D-1997

Sulfate, SO4 45.5 mg/L 0.2 0.06 CRJ 06/06/2014 EPA 300.1-1997, Rev. 1.0

Total Nitrogen, N 1.45 mg/L 1 0.2 DMM 06/10/2014 Calculation

Tanners Creek Plant, 142023 1 of 2

Page 40 of 109
Location: Tanners Creek Plant Report Date: 6/16/2014

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit

J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit.

Bottom Ash Pond Sampling

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Tanners Creek Plant, 142023 2 of 2

Page 41 of 109
 

 August 21, 2014 

Donna B. Hill 

Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) 

(205) 257-5234 

Project: MPCD 

Dear Ms. Hill, 

Attached is the report associated with five (5) aqueous samples submitted for total recoverable 

metals (Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Ti, 

Tl, V, and Zn) quantitation and six (6) aqueous samples submitted for total mercury quantitation 

on July 31, 2014. The samples were received in acceptable condition on August 1, 2014 in a 

sealed container at ambient temperature. Total recoverable metals quantitation was performed 

via inductively coupled plasma triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS). Total 

mercury quantitation was subcontracted for performance via EPA Method 1631E. Any issues 

associated with the analyses are addressed in the following report. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Ben Wozniak 

 Project Manager 

 Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC 

Cc : Elizabeth Aldridge

Page 42 of 109
 

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Report prepared for: 

Donna B. Hill 

Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) 

 (205) 257-5234 

Project: MPCD

August 21, 2014 

1. Sample Reception 

Five (5) aqueous samples were submitted for total recoverable metals (Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, 

Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Ti, Tl, V, and Zn) quantitation 

and six (6) aqueous samples were submitted for total mercury quantitation on July 31, 2014. 

The samples were received in acceptable condition on August 1, 2014 in a sealed container at 

ambient temperature, as recorded on the enclosed chain of custody (COC) form. 

Each sample was received in a laminar flow clean hood, void of trace metals contamination 

and ultra-violet radiation, and assigned a discrete sample identifier. Each sample submitted 

in a 125mL HDPE bottle for total recoverable metals quantitation was preserved to a pH < 2 

with 1% HNO3 (v/v) and then stored in a secure, polyethylene container (known to be free 

from trace metals contamination) until digestion and analysis could be performed. Each 

sample submitted for total mercury quantitation was subcontracted to CEBAM Analytical for 

analysis via EPA Method 1631E. 

2. Sample Preparation 

All sample preparation is performed in laminar flow clean hoods known to be free from trace 

metals contamination. All applied water for dilutions and sample preservatives are 

monitored for contamination to account for any biases associated with the sample results. 

Total Recoverable Metals Quantification by ICP-QQQ-MS Aliquots of each acid-preserved 

sample were placed into Teflon bombs, followed by aliquots of concentrated nitric and 

hydrochloric acids. All Teflon bombs were sealed and placed in a convection oven 

(maintained at a temperature of 105°C) for a minimum of four hours. All resulting sample 

digests were then analyzed via a modified EPA Method 200.8, employing inductively 

coupled plasma triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS). 

Total Mercury Quantitation by EPA Method 1631E All samples were preserved with 

bromine monochloride (BrCl) solution prior to analysis in accordance with the referenced 

promulgated method. 

Page 43 of 109
 

3. Sample Analysis 

All sample analysis is preceded by a minimum of a five-point calibration curve spanning the 

entire concentration range of interest. All calibration curves, associated with each species of 

interest, are standardized by linear regression resulting in a response factor. All sample 

results are instrument blank corrected to account for any operational biases associated with 

the analytical platform. 

Prior to sample analysis, all calibration curves are verified using second source standards 

which are identified as initial calibration verification standards (ICV). 

Ongoing instrument performance is identified by the analysis of continuing calibration 

verification standards (CCV) and continuing calibration blanks (CCB) at a minimum interval 

of every ten analytical runs. 

Total Recoverable Metals Quantitation by ICP-QQQ-MS All samples submitted for total 

recoverable metals quantitation were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma triple 

quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS) on August 11th-12th and August 15th. 

Aliquots of each sample digest are introduced into a radio frequency (RF) plasma where 

energy-transfer processes cause desolvation, atomization, and ionization. The ions are 

extracted from the plasma through a differentially-pumped vacuum interface and travel 

through an initial quadrupole (Q1), which filters the target masses prior to their entrance into 

a second chamber. The second chamber contains specific reactive gasses or collision gasses 

that preferentially react either with interfering ions of the same target mass to charge ratios 

(m/z) or with the target analyte, producing an entirely different mass to charge ratio (m/z) 

which can then be differentiated from the initial interferences. The ions then exit the 

collision/reaction chamber into the mass analyzer (Q2). A solid-state detector detects ions 

transmitted through the mass analyzer, on the basis of their mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), and 

the resulting current is processed by a data handling system. 

Total Mercury Quantitation by EPA Method 1631E All samples were analyzed in accordance 

with EPA Method 1631E by CEBAM Analytical. 

4. Analytical Issues 

No significant issues were encountered with the requested analyses. All quality control 

parameters associated with these samples were within acceptance limits. 

It should be noted that the estimated method detection limits (eMDLs) for total recoverable 

metals have been calculated using the standard deviation of the preparation blanks digested 

concurrently with each batch of submitted samples. 

I certify that this data package is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract, 

both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions detailed above. In 

addition, I certify, that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the data as reported are true 

Page 44 of 109
 

and accurate. Release of the data contained in this data package has been authorized by the 

Laboratory Manager or his designee, as verified by the following signature. 

Sincerely, 

Ben Wozniak 

Project Manager 

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC 

Page 45 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Ag Al As B Ba Be Ca Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Mg

D12 μg/L < 0.012 U < 3.7 U 0.069 J < 4.5 U 0.104 J 0.069 J < 45 U 0.031 J < 0.044 U < 0.13 U 0.298 J 10.4 J < 17 U

D14 μg/L 0.028 J 872 4.84 1930 185 0.050 J 22200 0.013 J 0.142 J 1.79 J 2.29 166 3000

D23 μg/L 0.019 J 2340 5.97 1850 341 0.099 J 27000 0.076 J 0.299 J 4.08 26.0 574 3020

D32 μg/L < 0.012 U < 3.7 U < 0.022 U 22.7 J < 0.057 U < 0.043 U < 45 U < 0.010 U < 0.044 U < 0.13 U 0.078 J < 2.3 U < 17 U

D34 μg/L < 0.012 U 873 5.05 1940 185 0.052 J 22100 0.021 J 0.085 J 1.95 J 1.47 170 3040

All results reflect the applied dilution and are reported in μg/L

U = Sample concentration is less than the estimated Method Detection Limit (eMDL)

J = Sample concentration is between the eMDL and the Reporting Limit (RL)

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: MPCD

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Page 46 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Mn Mo Na Ni Pb Sb Se Sn Ti Tl V Zn

D12 μg/L < 0.19 U < 0.081 U 18 J 0.55 J 0.103 J < 0.025 U < 0.18 U < 0.10 U < 1.1 U 0.058 J < 0.050 U 13.3 J

D14 μg/L 3.10 46.6 45200 0.46 J 0.238 J 0.611 J 1.39 < 0.10 U 16.2 < 0.051 U 18.9 2.4 J

D23 μg/L 8.32 41.3 42200 1.42 J 0.899 J 0.606 J 1.34 < 0.10 U 97.9 < 0.051 U 29.0 2.7 J

D32 μg/L < 0.19 U < 0.081 U < 13 U < 0.18 U 0.037 J < 0.025 U < 0.18 U < 0.10 U < 1.1 U < 0.051 U < 0.050 U < 1.8 U

D34 μg/L 3.34 46.5 45700 0.68 J 0.336 J 0.618 J 1.46 < 0.10 U 13.9 < 0.051 U 19.0 1.9 J

All results reflect the applied dilution and are reported in μg/L

U = Sample concentration is less than the estimated Method Detection Limit (eMDL)

J = Sample concentration is between the eMDL and the Reporting Limit (RL)

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: MPCD

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Page 47 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Preparation Blank Summary

Analyte Units PBW1 PBW2 PBW3 PBW4 Mean StdDev

eMDL* at 

25x

RL at 

25x

Ag μg/L 0.011 0.002 0.006 0.008 0.007 0.004 0.012 1.2

Al μg/L 1.7 2.5 3.7 0.8 2.2 1.2 3.7 30

As μg/L 0.021 0.011 0.027 0.028 0.022 0.007 0.022 1.2

B μg/L -0.1 2.0 -1.6 0.8 0.3 1.5 4.5 120

Ba μg/L -0.006 0.020 -0.006 0.033 0.010 0.019 0.057 1.2

Be μg/L 0.060 0.031 0.030 0.034 0.039 0.014 0.043 1.2

Ca μg/L 27 35 3 8 18 15 45 120

Cd μg/L 0.004 0.008 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.003 0.010 1.2

Co μg/L 0.008 0.039 0.012 0.008 0.017 0.015 0.044 1.2

Cr μg/L 0.00 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.13 3.0

Cu μg/L 0.084 0.068 0.034 0.068 0.064 0.021 0.063 1.2

Fe μg/L 0.8 2.0 2.4 1.0 1.6 0.8 2.3 30

Mg μg/L 7 2 8 -4 3 6 17 120

Mn μg/L 0.07 -0.03 -0.08 0.00 -0.01 0.06 0.19 1.2

Mo μg/L 0.051 0.066 0.003 0.039 0.040 0.027 0.081 1.2

Na μg/L -19 -24 -18 -28 -22 4 13 120

Ni μg/L -0.19 -0.27 -0.19 -0.12 -0.19 0.06 0.18 3.0

Pb μg/L 0.012 0.005 0.005 -0.006 0.004 0.007 0.022 1.2

Sb μg/L 0.012 -0.006 -0.004 0.006 0.002 0.008 0.025 1.2

Se μg/L 0.09 0.02 -0.05 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.18 1.2

Sn μg/L 0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.06 -0.01 0.03 0.10 1.2

Ti μg/L -0.1 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.1 3.0

Tl μg/L 0.029 0.037 0.009 0.000 0.019 0.017 0.051 1.2

V μg/L -0.048 -0.053 -0.021 -0.024 -0.036 0.017 0.050 1.2

Zn μg/L 0.1 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.8 30

eMDL = Estimated Method Detection Limit; RL = Reporting Limit

*Please see narrative regarding eMDL calculations

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: MPCD

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 48 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Certified Reference Materials

Analyte Units CRM True Value Result Recovery

Ag μg/L TMDA-70 10.9 11.78 108.1

Al μg/L TMDA-70 415 395.8 95.4

As μg/L TMDA-70 40.7 41.90 102.9

B μg/L LCS 200.0 194.4 97.2

Ba μg/L TMDA-70 309 308.3 99.8

Be μg/L TMDA-70 15.2 14.27 93.9

Ca μg/L LCS 20000 20290 101.5

Cd μg/L TMDA-70 145 144.7 99.8

Co μg/L TMDA-70 285 286.4 100.5

Cr μg/L TMDA-70 389 387.8 99.7

Cu μg/L TMDA-70 399 402.5 100.9

Fe μg/L TMDA-70 369 400.4 108.5

Mg μg/L LCS 20000 20770 103.9

Mn μg/L TMDA-70 302 294.3 97.5

Mo μg/L TMDA-70 258 261.3 101.3

Na μg/L LCS 20000 20210 101.1

Ni μg/L TMDA-70 328 327.6 99.9

Pb μg/L TMDA-70 444 447.1 100.7

Sb μg/L TMDA-70 21.7 21.00 96.8

Se μg/L TMDA-70 25.9 24.51 94.6

Sn μg/L TMDA-70 19.6 19.48 99.4

Ti μg/L LCS 200 196.3 98.1

Tl μg/L TMDA-70 20.1 20.92 104.1

V μg/L TMDA-70 312 341.7 109.5

Zn μg/L TMDA-70 480 449.1 93.6

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: MPCD

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 49 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Duplicates

Analyte Units Sample ID Rep 1 Rep 2 Mean RPD

Ag μg/L D34 < 0.012 U < 0.012 U NC NC

Al μg/L D34 873.2 855.7 864.4 2.0

As μg/L D34 5.048 4.779 4.913 5.5

B μg/L D34 1943 1994 1968 2.6

Ba μg/L D34 184.7 181.2 183.0 1.9

Be μg/L D34 0.052 0.043 0.048 20.4

Ca μg/L D34 22140 22600 22370 2.1

Cd μg/L D34 0.021 < 0.010 U NC NC

Co μg/L D34 0.085 0.123 0.104 36.3*

Cr μg/L D34 1.95 1.66 1.81 16.3

Cu μg/L D34 1.473 1.343 1.408 9.2

Fe μg/L D34 169.9 161.8 165.9 4.9

Mg μg/L D34 3036 2952 2990 2.8

Mn μg/L D34 3.34 3.03 3.18 9.8

Mo μg/L D34 46.53 45.25 45.89 2.8

Na μg/L D34 45700 44540 45120 2.6

Ni μg/L D34 0.68 0.29 0.49 79.5*

Pb μg/L D34 0.336 0.287 0.312 15.6

Sb μg/L D34 0.618 0.522 0.570 16.8

Se μg/L D34 1.46 1.52 1.49 4.3

Sn μg/L D34 < 0.10 U < 0.10 U NC NC

Ti μg/L D34 13.9 16.3 15.1 15.7

Tl μg/L D34 < 0.051 U < 0.051 U NC NC

V μg/L D34 19.01 19.04 19.02 0.2

Zn μg/L D34 1.9 < 1.8 U NC NC

NC = Value was not calculated due to one or more concentrations below the eMDL

* Sample concentrations are less than the RL

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: MPCD

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 50 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate

Analyte Units Sample ID

Ambient 

Conc

MS Spike 

Conc

MS 

Result

MS 

Recovery

MSD Spike 

Conc

MSD 

Result

MSD 

Recovery RPD

Ag μg/L D34 NC 20.00 21.39 106.9 20.00 20.16 100.8 5.9

Al μg/L D34 864.4 20000 20800 99.7 20000 19700 94.2 5.4

As μg/L D34 4.913 200.0 202.6 98.8 200.0 198.1 96.6 2.2

B μg/L D34 1968 200.0 2179 105.5 200.0 2194 113.0 0.7

Ba μg/L D34 183.0 200.0 388.9 103.0 200.0 378.6 97.8 2.7

Be μg/L D34 0.048 200.0 176.7 88.3 200.0 192.0 96.0 8.3

Ca μg/L D34 22370 20000 42830 102.3 20000 43050 103.4 0.5

Cd μg/L D34 NC 20.00 20.43 102.1 20.00 19.13 95.6 6.6

Co μg/L D34 0.104 200.0 202.6 101.3 200.0 189.4 94.6 6.7

Cr μg/L D34 1.81 200.0 198.3 98.2 200.0 192.0 95.1 3.2

Cu μg/L D34 1.408 200.0 198.4 98.5 200.0 195.5 97.0 1.5

Fe μg/L D34 165.9 20000 19910 98.7 20000 19000 94.2 4.7

Mg μg/L D34 2990 20000 23730 103.7 20000 25000 110.1 5.2

Mn μg/L D34 3.18 200.0 197.8 97.3 200.0 197.1 96.9 0.4

Mo μg/L D34 45.89 20.00 67.70 109.0 20.00 66.58 103.5 1.7

Na μg/L D34 45120 20000 66760 108.2 20000 66680 107.8 0.1

Ni μg/L D34 0.49 200.0 198.3 98.9 200.0 184.7 92.1 7.1

Pb μg/L D34 0.312 20.00 20.86 102.7 20.00 20.03 98.6 4.1

Sb μg/L D34 0.570 20.00 20.66 100.4 20.00 20.13 97.8 2.6

Se μg/L D34 1.49 200.0 199.7 99.1 200.0 200.4 99.5 0.3

Sn μg/L D34 NC 20.00 20.52 102.6 20.00 18.81 94.0 8.7

Ti μg/L D34 15.1 200.0 217.7 101.3 200.0 220.5 102.7 1.3

Tl μg/L D34 NC 20.00 20.59 103.0 20.00 19.44 97.2 5.8

V μg/L D34 19.02 200.0 237.1 109.0 200.0 234.4 107.7 1.1

Zn μg/L D34 NC 200.0 190.3 95.2 200.0 185.8 92.9 2.4

NC = Value was not calculated due to one or more concentrations below the eMDL

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: MPCD

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Page 51 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Hg

D11 ng/L 0.21

D13 ng/L 1.37

D21 ng/L 0.17

D22 ng/L 1.89

D31 ng/L 0.22

D33 ng/L 1.55

All results reflect the applied dilution and are 

reported in ng/L

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: MPCD

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Page 52 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Preparation Blank Summary

Analyte Units PBW1 PBW2 PBW3 Mean MDL

Hg ng/L <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2

MDL = Method Detection Limit

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: MPCD

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 53 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Certified Reference Materials

Analyte Units CRM True Value Result Recovery

Hg ng/L MaW29 10400 10310 99.1

Hg ng/L OPR1 5.00 4.67 93.5

Hg ng/L OPR2 5.00 5.20 104.0

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: MPCD

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 54 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Duplicates

Analyte Units Sample ID Rep 1 Rep 2 Mean RPD

Hg ng/L D22 1.89 2.04 1.96 7.4

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: MPCD

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 55 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate

Analyte Units Sample ID

Ambient 

Conc

MS Spike 

Conc

MS 

Result

MS 

Recovery

Hg ng/L D33 1.55 10.00 12.24 106.9

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: MPCD

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 56 of 109

Page 58 of 109
Page 59 of 109
Page 60 of 109
Page 61 of 109
Page 62 of 109
Page 63 of 109
Page 64 of 109
Page 65 of 109
Page 66 of 109
Page 67 of 109
Page 68 of 109
Page 69 of 109
 

 August 21, 2014 

Donna B. Hill 

Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) 

(205) 257-5234 

Project: ST

Dear Ms. Hill, 

Attached is the report associated with five (5) aqueous samples submitted for total recoverable 

metals (Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Ti, 

Tl, V, and Zn) quantitation and six (6) aqueous samples submitted for total mercury quantitation 

on August 5, 2014. The samples were received in acceptable condition on August 7, 2014 in a 

sealed container at ambient temperature. Total recoverable metals quantitation was performed 

via inductively coupled plasma triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS). Total 

mercury quantitation was subcontracted for performance via EPA Method 1631E. Any issues 

associated with the analyses are addressed in the following report. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Ben Wozniak 

 Project Manager 

 Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC 

Cc : Elizabeth Aldridge

Page 70 of 109
 

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC 

Report prepared for: 

Donna B. Hill 

Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) 

 (205) 257-5234 

Project: ST

August 21, 2014 

1. Sample Reception 

Five (5) aqueous samples were submitted for total recoverable metals (Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, 

Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Ti, Tl, V, and Zn) quantitation 

and six (6) aqueous samples were submitted for total mercury quantitation on August 5, 

2014. The samples were received in acceptable condition on August 7, 2014 in a sealed 

container at ambient temperature, as recorded on the enclosed chain of custody (COC) form. 

Each sample was received in a laminar flow clean hood, void of trace metals contamination 

and ultra-violet radiation, and assigned a discrete sample identifier. Each sample submitted 

in a 125mL HDPE bottle for total recoverable metals quantitation was preserved to a pH < 2 

with 1% HNO3 (v/v) and then stored in a secure, polyethylene container (known to be free 

from trace metals contamination) until digestion and analysis could be performed. Each 

sample submitted for total mercury quantitation was subcontracted to CEBAM Analytical for 

analysis via EPA Method 1631E. 

2. Sample Preparation 

All sample preparation is performed in laminar flow clean hoods known to be free from trace 

metals contamination. All applied water for dilutions and sample preservatives are 

monitored for contamination to account for any biases associated with the sample results. 

Total Recoverable Metals Quantification by ICP-QQQ-MS Aliquots of each acid-preserved 

sample were placed into Teflon bombs, followed by aliquots of concentrated nitric and 

hydrochloric acids. All Teflon bombs were sealed and placed in a convection oven 

(maintained at a temperature of 105°C) for a minimum of four hours. All resulting sample 

digests were then analyzed via a modified EPA Method 200.8, employing inductively 

coupled plasma triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS). 

Total Mercury Quantitation by EPA Method 1631E All samples were preserved with 

bromine monochloride (BrCl) solution prior to analysis in accordance with the referenced 

promulgated method. 

Page 71 of 109
 

3. Sample Analysis 

All sample analysis is preceded by a minimum of a five-point calibration curve spanning the 

entire concentration range of interest. All calibration curves, associated with each species of 

interest, are standardized by linear regression resulting in a response factor. All sample 

results are instrument blank corrected to account for any operational biases associated with 

the analytical platform. 

Prior to sample analysis, all calibration curves are verified using second source standards 

which are identified as initial calibration verification standards (ICV). 

Ongoing instrument performance is identified by the analysis of continuing calibration 

verification standards (CCV) and continuing calibration blanks (CCB) at a minimum interval 

of every ten analytical runs. 

Total Recoverable Metals Quantitation by ICP-QQQ-MS All samples submitted for total 

recoverable metals quantitation were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma triple 

quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS) on August 11th-12th, August 15th, and August 

19th. Aliquots of each sample digest are introduced into a radio frequency (RF) plasma 

where energy-transfer processes cause desolvation, atomization, and ionization. The ions are 

extracted from the plasma through a differentially-pumped vacuum interface and travel 

through an initial quadrupole (Q1), which filters the target masses prior to their entrance into 

a second chamber. The second chamber contains specific reactive gasses or collision gasses 

that preferentially react either with interfering ions of the same target mass to charge ratios 

(m/z) or with the target analyte, producing an entirely different mass to charge ratio (m/z) 

which can then be differentiated from the initial interferences. The ions then exit the 

collision/reaction chamber into the mass analyzer (Q2). A solid-state detector detects ions 

transmitted through the mass analyzer, on the basis of their mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), and 

the resulting current is processed by a data handling system. 

Total Mercury Quantitation by EPA Method 1631E All samples were analyzed in accordance 

with EPA Method 1631E by CEBAM Analytical. 

4. Analytical Issues 

No significant issues were encountered with the requested analyses. All quality control 

parameters associated with these samples were within acceptance limits. 

It should be noted that the estimated method detection limits (eMDLs) for total recoverable 

metals have been calculated using the standard deviation of the preparation blanks digested 

concurrently with each batch of submitted samples. 

I certify that this data package is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract, 

both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions detailed above. In 

addition, I certify, that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the data as reported are true 

Page 72 of 109
 

and accurate. Release of the data contained in this data package has been authorized by the 

Laboratory Manager or his designee, as verified by the following signature. 

Sincerely, 

Ben Wozniak 

Project Manager 

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC 

Page 73 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Ag Al As B Ba Be Ca Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Mg

ST 12 μg/L < 0.010 U 2.3 J 0.057 J < 16 U < 0.057 U 0.059 J < 20 U 0.036 J < 0.023 U < 0.12 U < 0.18 U 1.1 J < 15 U

ST 14 μg/L 0.014 J 943 2.15 168 65.7 < 0.057 U 63300 0.042 J 0.313 J 1.13 J 2.27 738 30900

ST 23 μg/L 0.024 J 6150 9.79 289 993 0.094 J 85100 0.152 J 0.595 J 5.18 6.84 1190 28500

ST 32 μg/L < 0.010 U 2.1 J 0.031 J < 16 U 0.224 J 0.061 J < 20 U < 0.012 U 0.030 J < 0.12 U < 0.18 U 1.3 J < 15 U

ST 34 μg/L < 0.010 U 3080 6.31 394 391 < 0.057 U 69900 0.055 J 0.126 J 3.27 1.68 48.2 23500

All results reflect the applied dilution and are reported in μg/L

U = Sample concentration is less than the estimated Method Detection Limit (eMDL)

J = Sample concentration is between the eMDL and the Reporting Limit (RL)

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: ST

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Page 74 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Mn Mo Na Ni Pb Sb Se Sn Ti Tl V Zn

ST 12 μg/L 0.37 J < 0.080 U 37 J < 0.21 U 0.145 J < 0.010 U < 0.075 U < 0.11 U < 1.1 U < 0.040 U < 0.070 U < 7.1 U

ST 14 μg/L 49.7 2.84 96700 2.58 J 0.471 J 0.404 J 0.738 J < 0.11 U 21.5 < 0.040 U 3.18 < 7.1 U

ST 23 μg/L 31.0 21.2 115000 2.88 J 1.17 J 0.800 J 1.71 0.19 J 172 0.176 J 39.5 8.4 J

ST 32 μg/L 0.34 J < 0.080 U 28 J < 0.21 U < 0.068 U 0.023 J < 0.075 U < 0.11 U < 1.1 U < 0.040 U < 0.070 U 7.6 J

ST 34 μg/L 4.19 21.0 125000 1.64 J 0.117 J 0.637 J 1.48 < 0.11 U 4.5 0.086 J 42.4 < 7.1 U

All results reflect the applied dilution and are reported in μg/L

U = Sample concentration is less than the estimated Method Detection Limit (eMDL)

J = Sample concentration is between the eMDL and the Reporting Limit (RL)

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: ST

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Page 75 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Preparation Blank Summary

Analyte Units PBW1 PBW2 PBW3 PBW4 Mean StdDev

eMDL* at 

25x

RL at 

25x

Ag μg/L 0.008 0.000 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.003 0.010 1.2

Al μg/L 1.4 2.0 1.8 3.0 2.0 0.7 2.1 30

As μg/L 0.021 0.036 0.021 0.016 0.024 0.009 0.026 1.2

B μg/L 17 16 7 9 12 5 16 120

Ba μg/L 0.066 0.052 0.020 0.045 0.046 0.019 0.057 1.2

Be μg/L 0.035 0.058 0.077 0.040 0.052 0.019 0.057 1.2

Ca μg/L -26 -13 -26 -27 -23 7 20 120

Cd μg/L 0.018 0.013 0.017 0.009 0.014 0.004 0.012 1.2

Co μg/L 0.015 0.031 0.015 0.015 0.019 0.008 0.023 1.2

Cr μg/L 0.02 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.12 3.0

Cu μg/L 0.04 -0.02 -0.05 -0.10 -0.03 0.06 0.18 1.2

Fe μg/L 0.7 1.6 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.4 1.1 30

Mg μg/L 9 3 10 15 9 5 15 120

Mn μg/L 0.11 0.08 0.12 -0.02 0.07 0.06 0.19 1.2

Mo μg/L 0.028 -0.037 -0.013 -0.005 -0.007 0.027 0.080 1.2

Na μg/L 1 6 -9 -7 -2 7 21 120

Ni μg/L 0.04 -0.11 -0.11 -0.03 -0.05 0.07 0.21 3.0

Pb μg/L 0.034 0.023 0.009 0.062 0.032 0.023 0.068 1.2

Sb μg/L -0.001 0.005 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.010 1.2

Se μg/L -0.060 -0.059 -0.066 -0.012 -0.049 0.025 0.075 1.2

Sn μg/L 0.01 0.02 0.02 -0.06 0.00 0.04 0.11 1.2

Ti μg/L 0.8 -0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.1 3.0

Tl μg/L 0.035 0.018 0.004 0.009 0.016 0.013 0.040 1.2

V μg/L -0.041 -0.002 0.000 0.013 -0.008 0.023 0.070 1.2

Zn μg/L 3.3 4.1 3.4 8.3 4.8 2.4 7.1 30

eMDL = Estimated Method Detection Limit; RL = Reporting Limit

*Please see narrative regarding eMDL calculations

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: ST

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 76 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Certified Reference Materials

Analyte Units CRM True Value Result Recovery

Ag μg/L TMDA-70 10.9 11.29 103.6

Al μg/L TMDA-70 415 388.3 93.6

As μg/L TMDA-70 40.7 41.72 102.5

B μg/L LCS 200.0 190.0 95.0

Ba μg/L TMDA-70 309 309.1 100.0

Be μg/L TMDA-70 15.2 14.62 96.2

Ca μg/L LCS 20000 19910 99.6

Cd μg/L TMDA-70 145 145.9 100.6

Co μg/L TMDA-70 285 280.3 98.4

Cr μg/L TMDA-70 389 384.2 98.8

Cu μg/L TMDA-70 399 407.0 102.0

Fe μg/L TMDA-70 369 378.7 102.6

Mg μg/L LCS 20000 20950 104.8

Mn μg/L TMDA-70 302 300.5 99.5

Mo μg/L TMDA-70 258 267.3 103.6

Na μg/L LCS 20000 19190 96.0

Ni μg/L TMDA-70 328 317.9 96.9

Pb μg/L TMDA-70 444 459.9 103.6

Sb μg/L TMDA-70 21.7 20.52 94.6

Se μg/L TMDA-70 25.9 24.98 96.4

Sn μg/L TMDA-70 19.6 19.97 101.9

Ti μg/L LCS 200 187.2 93.6

Tl μg/L TMDA-70 20.1 21.70 108.0

V μg/L TMDA-70 312 339.7 108.9

Zn μg/L TMDA-70 480 478.2 99.6

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: ST

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 77 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Duplicates

Analyte Units Sample ID Rep 1 Rep 2 Mean RPD

Ag μg/L ST 23 0.024 0.028 0.026 11.7

Al μg/L ST 23 6148 6245 6197 1.6

As μg/L ST 23 9.791 10.32 10.05 5.2

B μg/L ST 23 289 307 298 6.1

Ba μg/L ST 23 993.2 1019 1006 2.5

Be μg/L ST 23 0.094 0.109 0.101 14.8

Ca μg/L ST 23 85100 86050 85580 1.1

Cd μg/L ST 23 0.152 0.191 0.172 23.1

Co μg/L ST 23 0.595 0.585 0.590 1.6

Cr μg/L ST 23 5.18 5.28 5.23 1.9

Cu μg/L ST 23 6.84 6.53 6.68 4.7

Fe μg/L ST 23 1190 1222 1206 2.7

Mg μg/L ST 23 28510 28510 28510 0.0

Mn μg/L ST 23 30.98 32.38 31.68 4.4

Mo μg/L ST 23 21.20 21.76 21.48 2.6

Na μg/L ST 23 115400 120000 117700 3.9

Ni μg/L ST 23 2.88 3.09 2.98 7.2

Pb μg/L ST 23 1.167 1.177 1.172 0.9

Sb μg/L ST 23 0.800 0.693 0.746 14.4

Se μg/L ST 23 1.712 1.650 1.681 3.7

Sn μg/L ST 23 0.19 0.26 0.22 32.1*

Ti μg/L ST 23 172.2 177.8 175.0 3.2

Tl μg/L ST 23 0.176 0.161 0.168 8.6

V μg/L ST 23 39.51 40.28 39.90 1.9

Zn μg/L ST 23 8.4 9.6 9.0 13.4

NC = Value was not calculated due to one or more concentrations below the eMDL

* Sample concentrations are less than the RL

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: ST

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 78 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate

Analyte Units Sample ID

Ambient 

Conc

MS Spike 

Conc

MS 

Result

MS 

Recovery

MSD Spike 

Conc

MSD 

Result

MSD 

Recovery RPD

Ag μg/L ST 23 0.026 20.00 19.97 99.8 20.00 19.87 99.4 0.5

Al μg/L ST 23 6197 20000 23870 88.4 20000 24310 90.6 1.8

As μg/L ST 23 10.05 200.0 201.6 95.8 200.0 203.8 96.9 1.1

B μg/L ST 23 298 200 474 88.1 200 477 89.4 0.5

Ba μg/L ST 23 1006 200.0 1175 84.7 200.0 1201 97.8 2.2

Be μg/L ST 23 0.101 200.0 168.8 84.4 200.0 172.9 86.4 2.4

Ca μg/L ST 23 85580 20000 103400 89.1 20000 106500 104.6 3.0

Cd μg/L ST 23 0.172 20.00 20.23 101.1 20.00 20.26 101.3 0.1

Co μg/L ST 23 0.590 200.0 187.4 93.4 200.0 187.2 93.3 0.1

Cr μg/L ST 23 5.23 200.0 190.0 92.4 200.0 193.2 94.0 1.7

Cu μg/L ST 23 6.68 200.0 197.2 95.3 200.0 203.4 98.4 3.1

Fe μg/L ST 23 1206 20000 20710 97.5 20000 20970 98.8 1.2

Mg μg/L ST 23 28510 20000 47360 94.3 20000 47600 95.5 0.5

Mn μg/L ST 23 31.68 200.0 224.0 96.2 200.0 228.1 98.2 1.8

Mo μg/L ST 23 21.48 20.00 40.35 94.4 20.00 41.33 99.3 2.4

Na μg/L ST 23 117700 20000 134900 86.0 20000 138200 102.5 2.4

Ni μg/L ST 23 2.98 200.0 189.1 93.1 200.0 186.0 91.5 1.7

Pb μg/L ST 23 1.172 20.00 20.63 97.3 20.00 20.78 98.0 0.7

Sb μg/L ST 23 0.746 20.00 20.38 98.2 20.00 20.60 99.3 1.1

Se μg/L ST 23 1.681 200.0 191.7 95.0 200.0 196.8 97.5 2.6

Sn μg/L ST 23 0.22 20.00 19.07 95.3 20.00 19.88 99.4 4.2

Ti μg/L ST 23 175.0 200.0 371.1 98.0 200.0 372.6 98.8 0.4

Tl μg/L ST 23 0.168 20.00 20.63 103.1 20.00 21.06 105.3 2.1

V μg/L ST 23 39.90 200.0 247.3 103.7 200.0 256.7 108.4 3.7

Zn μg/L ST 23 9.0 200.0 204.0 102.0 200.0 202.2 101.1 0.9

NC = Value was not calculated due to one or more concentrations below the eMDL

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Names: ST

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Page 79 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Hg

ST 11 ng/L 0.50

ST 13 ng/L 2.20

ST 21 ng/L 0.97

ST 22 ng/L 1.63

ST 31 ng/L 0.60

ST 33 ng/L 4.08

All results reflect the applied dilution and are 

reported in ng/L

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: ST

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Page 80 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Preparation Blank Summary

Analyte Units PBW1 PBW2 PBW3 Mean MDL

Hg ng/L <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2

MDL = Method Detection Limit

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: ST

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 81 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Certified Reference Materials

Analyte Units CRM True Value Result Recovery

Hg ng/L MaW29 10400 9899 95.2

Hg ng/L OPR1 5.00 5.10 102.0

Hg ng/L OPR2 5.00 4.90 98.0

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: ST

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 82 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Duplicates

Analyte Units Sample ID Rep 1 Rep 2 Mean RPD

Hg ng/L ST 21 0.97 1.11 1.04 13.7

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: ST

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 83 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate

Analyte Units Sample ID

Ambient 

Conc

MS Spike 

Conc

MS 

Result

MS 

Recovery

Hg ng/L ST 22 1.63 10.00 11.65 100.2

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: ST

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: August 21, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 84 of 109

MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. 1126 North Front St. - New Ulm, MN 56073- 800-782-3557 - Fax 507-359-2890 

2616 East Broadway Ave. - Bismarck, ND 58501 - 800-279-6885 - Fax 701 -258-9724 

1201 Lincoln Hwy.- Nevada, IA 50201 - 800-362-0855 -Fax 515-382-3885 www.mvtl.com 

Page: 1 of 1 

Report Date : 19 Aug 1 4 

Lab Number: 14-D1984 

Work Order #: 82- 20 73 

Account #: 005109 

MEMBER r••• 

Jennifer Charles 

Great River Energy 

4001 Highway 200A 

Stanton ND 58571 Date Sampled: 5 Aug 14 8:46 

Date Received: 12 Aug 14 12:10 

Sampled By: Client 

PO #: 6127084 

Sample Description: Bottom Ash Sampling (River) 

Temp at Receipt: 0.8C 

As Recei '.'~d Method Method 

Result RL Reference 

Sulfate 274 mg/1 5.00 ASTM 0516-07 

Chloride 10 . 2 mg/1 1 . 0 SM4500 - Cl-E 

Nitrate -Nitrite as N 0 . 13 mg/l 0.10 EPA 353.2 

Ammonia-Ni trogen as N < 0 .1 mg/l 0.10 EPA 350.1 

Phosphorus as P - To tal < 0 . 1 mg/1 0.10 EPA 365 . 1 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen < 5 mg/1 5 . 0 PAI-DK01 

Total Dissolved Soli ds * 617 mg/ 1 5 11750-85 

* Holding time exceeded 

All methods used for thes e analyses are compliant with 40CFR Part 136 or 

Region 8 EPA approved gui dance. 

Approved by: 

Claudette K. Carroll, Environmental Laboratory Supervisor, Bismarck, ND 

RL = Method Reporting Limit 

The reporting limit was elevated for any analyte requiring a dilution as coded below: 

® = Due to s ampl e matrix # Due t o concentrati on of other analytes ! • Due to sample quantity + • oue t o i nternal s t andard response 

CERTIFICATION: ND # ND-00016 

Date 

Analyzed 

15 Aug 14 

14 Aug 14 

13 Aug 14 

18 Aug 14 

19 Aug 14 

13 Aug 14 

14 Aug 14 

Analyst 

13:21 ERD 

15:16 ERD 

16:16 ERD 

14 : 2 8 ERD 

15:53 ERD 

8:14 EMS 

13:00 ML 

MVTL guarantees lhe at.·cumcy of the R•,alysis done on the san1plc subn~ iltcd for lest in g. It is not possible for MVTL lo guruantce that a ICSI resull obtained o n a parlicular sample will be the snmc on any olher sample unless 

aU conditio11S a ffecting, the sample nrc lhe snmc, includi ng sampling by MVfL. As a mulutd ptOICGtion to clients, the public and ourselve-s, aH reports are submifted as the confidential property of clients. nnd anthorizalion for 

public:1tion of st:1tc:ments, conclusions or exlracts frorn or regurding our reporas is rcsel'vcd pendiilg our written approval. 

Page 86 of 109
MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LA BORA TORIES, INC. 

1126 North Front St.- New Ulm, MN 56073 - 800-782-3557- Fax 507-359-2890 

2616 East Broadway Ave.- Bismarck, ND 58501 - 800-279-6885- Fax 701-258-9724 

1201 Lincoln Hwy.- Nevada, IA 50201- 800-362-0855- Fax 515-382-3885 

www.mvtl.com 

Page: 1 of 1 

Report Date: 19 Aug 14 

Lab Number: 14-D1985 

Work Order #: 82-2073 

Account #: 005109 

MEMBER 

nWII 

Jennifer Charles 

Great River Energy 

4001 Highway 200A 

Stanton ND 58571 Date Sampled: 5 Aug 14 9:10 

Date Received: 1 2 Aug 14 12:10 

Sampled By: Client 

PO #: 6127084 

Sample Description: Bottom Ash Eff (Near 002) 

Temp at Receipt: 0.8C 

Sulfate 

Chloride 

Nitrate - Nitrite as N 

Ammonia-Nitrogen as N 

Phosphorus as P - Total 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 

Total Dissolved Solids 

* Holding time exceeded 

As Received 

Result 

369 

11.6 

< 0. 1 

< 0 . 1 

< 0 . 1 

< 5 

* 732 

mg/1 

mg /1 

mg/ 1 

mg/1 

mg /1 

mg /1 

mg/1 

Method Method 

RL Reference 

5 . 00 ASTM D516-07 

l.O SM4500-Cl-E 

0.10 EPA 353.2 

0 .10 EPA 350.1 

0 .10 EPA 365.1 

5.0 PAI-DK01 

5 Il750-85 

All methods used for these analyses are compliant with 40CFR Part 136 or 

Region 8 EPA approved guidance. 

Approved by: 

Claudette K. Carroll, Environmental Laboratory Supervisor, Bismarck, NO 

RL : Method Report i ng Limit 

The reporting l imit was elevated for any analyte requiring a dilution as coded below: @ = Due to sample matrix ~ = Due to concentrat ion of other analytes ! ~ Due to sampl e quantity + ~ Due to internal standard response 

CERTIFICATION ' NO U ND- 00016 

Date 

Analyzed 

1 5 Aug l4 

l4 Aug l4 

l3 Aug l4 

1 8 Aug 14 

1 9 Aug l4 

l3 Aug 14 

1 4 Aug 14 

Analyst 

13:21 ERD 

15:16 ERD 

16:16 ERD 

14:28 ERD 

15:53 ERD 

8:14 EMS 

13:00 ML 

MVTL guarantees the accuracy of the analysis done on the sample submitted for testing. It is not possible for MVTL to guarantee that a test result obtained on a particular sample will be the same on any other sample unless 

all conditions affecting the sample are the same, including sampling by MVTL. As a mutual protection to clienls, the public and ourselves. all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients. and authorization for 

publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval. 

Page 87 of 109
MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. 

1126 North Front St. New Ulm, MN 56073 ~ 800-782-3557 ~Fax 507-359-2890 

2616 East Broadway Ave. ~Bismarck, ND 58501 ~ 800-279-6885 ~Fax 701-258-9724 

1201 Lincoln Hwy. ~Nevada, IA 50201 ~ 800-362-0855 Fax 515-382-3885 

www.mvtl.com 

Page: 1 of 1 

Report Date: 1 9 Aug 14 

Lab Number: 14-D1986 

Work Order #: 82-2073 

Account #: 005109 

MEMBER 

~-·· 

Jennifer Charles 

Great River Energy 

4001 Highway 200A 

Stanton ND 58571 Date Sampled: 5 Aug 14 11:58 

Date Received: 12 Aug 14 12:10 

Sampled By: Client 

PO #: 6127084 

Sample Description: Bottom Ash Sluice Sample 

Temp at Receipt: O.BC 

Sulfate 

Chloride 

Nitrate-Nitrite as N 

Ammonia - Nitrogen as N 

Phosphorus as P - To tal 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 

Total Dissolved Solids 

* Holding time exceeded 

As Received 

Result 

3 68 mg/1 

10.4 mg/ 1 

0.14 mg/1 

< 0 .1 mg/1 

0 . 10 mg/1 

< 5 mg/ 1 

* 7 5 7 mg /1 

Method Method 

RL Reference 

5.00 ASTM D516-07 

1 .0 SM4500-Cl-E 

0.10 EPA 353.2 

0.10 EPA 350.1 

0.10 EPA 365.1 

5. 0 PAI-DK01 

5 11750 - 85 

All methods used for these analyses are compliant with 40CFR Part 136 or 

Region 8 EPA approved guidance. 

Approved by: 

Claudette K. Carroll, Environmental Laboratory Supervisor, Bismarck, ND 

RL • Method Reporting Limit 

The reporting limit was elevated for any analyte requiring a dilution as coded below: 3 ~ Due to sample matrix U = Due to concentration of other analytes 

J = Due to sample quantity + = Due to internal standard response 

CERTIFICATION: NO # ND-00016 

Date 

Analyzed 

15 Aug 14 

14 Aug 14 

13 Aug 14 

18 Aug 14 

1 9 Aug 14 

1 3 Aug 14 

14 Aug 14 

Analyst 

13:21 ERD 

15:16 ERD 

16:16 ERD 

14 : 28 ERD 

15:53 ERD 

8:14 EMS 

13:00 ML 

MVTL guarantees the accuracy of the ana lysis done on the sample submitted for testing. It is not possible for MVTL to guarantee that a test result obtained on a particular sample will be the same on any other sample unless 

all conditions affecting the sample are the same, including sampling by MVTL. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for 

publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval. 

Page 88 of 109
LAB ORA TORIES, Inc. 

2616 East Broadway Avenue 

Bismarck, ND 58501 

Chain of Custody Record- Chemistry 

Form # 1 0-90009-0 Page of __ _ 

Phone: (701) 258-9720 Work Order# 

Toll Free: (800) 279-6885 Fax: (701) 258-9724 Lab Use Only fd-d073 

Company Name and Address: Account#: Phone#: 

~tVJ-r /fJII/U.. ~~y 7t?I-7¢'-Y ~e7 

#DD/ /Mt c:re.act: ~~J C/wv.leJ. Fax#: 7PE- 7¥5':. 5~/t:J 'r. e /JI!-4- ,... For faxed report check box 

57/bvll'P, A)!) !!1?!>71 x.of Sampler: E-mail: 

Billing Address (indicate if different from above): r~A) D If!"

· For e-mail report check box 

Quofe Number oate submittee. 

· -1~-~~ufL 

Project Name/Number: Purchase Order #: 

Sample Information Bottle Type Analysis Filtered Y or N 

Lab ~ 

Use ""' ~ 0 

0 ""' J: (3 :::""' C') 0 ~ 0 0 t/) O J: :r: nly N t/) ftS (3 Q. eo 'C z J: N z r::: Ill ... t/) Ill 

Sample Type 

~ J: e X: e X: :;:) iij ftSN iij 

~ e e ... 4; > Zx: > ;.: 

Lab (Soil, Water, Date Time Cll 111.:.:. 0 g ..0 ..0 0 ~ ~ 0 Cll 

'E g 0 0 0 E E 0 0 .c 

Number SampleiD Etc.) Sampled Sampled 0 0 II) 0 :;:) t/) II) 5 Analysis Required ,.. N ,.. <t <t > C-'Z > 

O\Ci Y i!() ~, ~ S~r~IJIP ,".v. (l!i; Vr'\) UJ0t:r p ... s~y; n&>.c.V_ X 

(( 

, I , .J. 7DS $q/h~ 

I• I ' ~ CA/P,-.;ti~ Mi~~~ ~ 

IO\ctXS a~ 11s"' f(t.. :~ tb ~) wJu- 0-tr!l-' ~10 X 7/t",</ fiji/~/ Af· 

I t ,, r~~~-& ~ ) ~ )G .A?I~1/Q ; ?t~~-L - ltti ,, I I )( 

~ 

10f13 \o p.l.L - /lsJ, Sl u.-ce ~/' · L. , 

/, ~~ _..., rJ. 8-6--/1) ///Sf X . ,, ,, X: 

,, I ' X 

Comments: 

Date: I Time: I Samole Condition: 

1. 

2. 

Please submit the top two copies with your samples. We will return the completed original with your results. 

KEMSKE. NEW ULM, M N 1800) 782-3532 N1157·3 

ie ~ 

Page 89 of 109
 

 September 15, 2014 

Donna B. Hill 

Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) 

(205) 257-5234 

Project: UWAG Bottom Ash 

Dear Ms. Hill,

Attached is the report associated with five (5) aqueous samples submitted for total recoverable 

metals (Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Ti, 

Tl, V, and Zn) quantitation and six (6) aqueous samples submitted for total mercury quantitation 

on August 27, 2014. The samples were received in acceptable condition on August 28, 2014 in a 

sealed container at ambient temperature. Total recoverable metals quantitation was performed 

via inductively coupled plasma triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS). Total 

mercury quantitation was subcontracted for performance via EPA Method 1631E. Any issues 

associated with the analyses are addressed in the following report. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Ben Wozniak 

 Project Manager 

 Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC 

Cc : Elizabeth Aldridge

Page 90 of 109
 

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC 

Report prepared for: 

Donna B. Hill 

Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) 

(205) 257-5234 

Project: UWAG Bottom Ash 

September 15, 2014 

1. Sample Reception 

Five (5) aqueous samples were submitted for total recoverable metals (Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, 

Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Ti, Tl, V, and Zn) quantitation 

and six (6) aqueous samples were submitted for total mercury quantitation on August 27, 

2014. The samples were received in acceptable condition on August 28, 2014 in a sealed 

container at ambient temperature, as recorded on the enclosed chain of custody (COC) form. 

Each sample was received in a laminar flow clean hood, void of trace metals contamination 

and ultra-violet radiation, and assigned a discrete sample identifier. Each sample submitted 

in a 125mL HDPE bottle for total recoverable metals quantitation was preserved to a pH < 2 

with 1% HNO3 (v/v) and then stored in a secure, polyethylene container (known to be free 

from trace metals contamination) until digestion and analysis could be performed. Each 

sample submitted for total mercury quantitation was subcontracted to CEBAM Analytical for 

analysis via EPA Method 1631E. 

2. Sample Preparation 

All sample preparation is performed in laminar flow clean hoods known to be free from trace 

metals contamination. All applied water for dilutions and sample preservatives are 

monitored for contamination to account for any biases associated with the sample results. 

Total Recoverable Metals Quantification by ICP-QQQ-MS Aliquots of each acid-preserved 

sample were placed into Teflon bombs, followed by aliquots of concentrated nitric and 

hydrochloric acids. All Teflon bombs were sealed and placed in a convection oven 

(maintained at a temperature of 105°C) for a minimum of four hours. All resulting sample 

digests were then analyzed via a modified EPA Method 200.8, employing inductively 

coupled plasma triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS). 

Total Mercury Quantitation by EPA Method 1631E All samples were preserved with 

bromine monochloride (BrCl) solution prior to analysis in accordance with the referenced 

promulgated method. 

Page 91 of 109
 

3. Sample Analysis 

All sample analysis is preceded by a minimum of a five-point calibration curve spanning the 

entire concentration range of interest. All calibration curves, associated with each species of 

interest, are standardized by linear regression resulting in a response factor. All sample 

results are instrument blank corrected to account for any operational biases associated with 

the analytical platform. 

Prior to sample analysis, all calibration curves are verified using second source standards 

which are identified as initial calibration verification standards (ICV). 

Ongoing instrument performance is identified by the analysis of continuing calibration 

verification standards (CCV) and continuing calibration blanks (CCB) at a minimum interval 

of every ten analytical runs. 

Total Recoverable Metals Quantitation by ICP-QQQ-MS All samples submitted for total 

recoverable metals quantitation were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma triple 

quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS) on September 5th and September 11th. 

Aliquots of each sample digest are introduced into a radio frequency (RF) plasma where 

energy-transfer processes cause desolvation, atomization, and ionization. The ions are 

extracted from the plasma through a differentially-pumped vacuum interface and travel 

through an initial quadrupole (Q1), which filters the target masses prior to their entrance into 

a second chamber. The second chamber contains specific reactive gasses or collision gasses 

that preferentially react either with interfering ions of the same target mass to charge ratios 

(m/z) or with the target analyte, producing an entirely different mass to charge ratio (m/z) 

which can then be differentiated from the initial interferences. The ions then exit the 

collision/reaction chamber into the mass analyzer (Q2). A solid-state detector detects ions 

transmitted through the mass analyzer, on the basis of their mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), and 

the resulting current is processed by a data handling system. 

Total Mercury Quantitation by EPA Method 1631E All samples were analyzed in accordance 

with EPA Method 1631E by CEBAM Analytical. 

4. Analytical Issues 

No significant issues were encountered with the requested analyses. All quality control 

parameters associated with these samples were within acceptance limits. 

It should be noted that the estimated method detection limits (eMDLs) for total recoverable 

metals have been calculated using the standard deviation of the preparation blanks digested 

concurrently with each batch of submitted samples. 

I certify that this data package is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract, 

both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions detailed above. In 

addition, I certify, that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the data as reported are true 

Page 92 of 109
 

and accurate. Release of the data contained in this data package has been authorized by the 

Laboratory Manager or his designee, as verified by the following signature. 

Sincerely, 

Ben Wozniak 

Project Manager 

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC 

Page 93 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Ag Al As B Ba Be Ca Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Mg

R12 μg/L < 0.044 U < 6.5 U < 0.042 U < 1.7 U < 0.11 U < 0.020 U < 35 U < 0.059 U < 0.023 U 0.15 J < 0.051 U < 16 U < 9.4 U

R14 μg/L 0.051 J 6010 2.97 166 100 0.240 J 55500 0.096 J 2.05 7.23 172 5080 17900

R23 μg/L < 0.044 U 1860 24.1 1450 77.8 0.463 J 73800 0.125 J 2.40 3.27 1.82 1600 19800

R32 μg/L < 0.044 U < 6.5 U < 0.042 U < 1.7 U < 0.11 U 0.045 J 63 J < 0.059 U < 0.023 U < 0.10 U 0.063 J < 16 U < 9.4 U

R34 μg/L < 0.044 U 222 39.1 1960 41.4 0.055 J 101000 < 0.059 U 0.397 J 0.41 J 0.477 J 326 18400

All results reflect the applied dilution and are reported in μg/L

U = Sample concentration is less than the estimated Method Detection Limit (eMDL)

J = Sample concentration is between the eMDL and the Reporting Limit (RL)

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Name: UWAG Bottom Ash

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: September 15, 2014

Page 94 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Mn Mo Na Ni Pb Sb Se Sn Ti Tl V Zn

R12 μg/L < 0.085 U < 0.025 U < 90 U < 0.52 U < 0.089 U < 0.040 U < 0.24 U < 0.039 U < 1.0 U < 0.039 U 0.065 J < 2.3 U

R14 μg/L 192 5.16 32900 17.6 31.7 0.695 J 0.84 J 5.89 94.4 0.081 J 12.3 29.0 J

R23 μg/L 302 64.0 29800 12.2 4.80 5.54 1.14 J 0.113 J 97.6 0.347 J 9.18 9.6 J

R32 μg/L 0.088 J 0.051 J < 90 U < 0.52 U < 0.089 U < 0.040 U 0.29 J < 0.039 U < 1.0 U < 0.039 U 0.111 J < 2.3 U

R34 μg/L 45.2 14.6 30100 6.13 0.207 J 0.291 J 1.31 < 0.039 U 5.3 0.061 J 0.705 J 2.8 J

All results reflect the applied dilution and are reported in μg/L

U = Sample concentration is less than the estimated Method Detection Limit (eMDL)

J = Sample concentration is between the eMDL and the Reporting Limit (RL)

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Name: UWAG Bottom Ash

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: September 15, 2014

Page 95 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Preparation Blank Summary

Analyte Units PBW1 PBW2 PBW3 PBW4 Mean StdDev

eMDL* at 

25x

RL at 

25x

Ag μg/L 0.032 0.009 0.006 -0.003 0.011 0.015 0.044 1.2

Al μg/L 1.5 4.7 6.7 3.5 4.1 2.2 6.5 30

As μg/L 0.033 0.007 0.005 0.027 0.018 0.014 0.042 1.2

B μg/L -1.9 -2.6 -2.7 -3.2 -2.6 0.6 1.7 120

Ba μg/L -0.03 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.11 1.2

Be μg/L 0.051 0.043 0.059 0.053 0.052 0.007 0.020 1.2

Ca μg/L 28 28 10 7 18 12 35 120

Cd μg/L -0.008 0.022 -0.026 -0.010 -0.006 0.020 0.059 1.2

Co μg/L 0.000 0.016 0.006 0.015 0.009 0.008 0.023 1.2

Cr μg/L 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.10 3.0

Cu μg/L -0.054 -0.062 -0.055 -0.024 -0.049 0.017 0.051 1.2

Fe μg/L 14 2 7 3 7 5 16 30

Mg μg/L 7.9 1.6 3.8 1.0 3.5 3.1 9.4 120

Mn μg/L 0.147 0.168 0.179 0.114 0.152 0.028 0.085 1.2

Mo μg/L 0.038 0.034 0.038 0.020 0.032 0.008 0.025 1.2

Na μg/L 11 23 37 80 38 30 90 120

Ni μg/L 0.00 0.01 -0.29 0.12 -0.04 0.17 0.52 3.0

Pb μg/L 0.007 0.039 -0.021 0.042 0.017 0.030 0.089 1.2

Sb μg/L -0.008 0.002 -0.025 0.004 -0.007 0.013 0.040 1.2

Se μg/L 0.28 0.39 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.08 0.24 1.2

Sn μg/L -0.023 -0.016 -0.046 -0.032 -0.030 0.013 0.039 1.2

Ti μg/L 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.0 3.0

Tl μg/L 0.045 0.021 0.021 0.018 0.026 0.013 0.039 1.2

V μg/L 0.080 0.038 0.040 0.050 0.052 0.019 0.058 1.2

Zn μg/L -0.2 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.4 0.8 2.3 30

eMDL = Estimated Method Detection Limit; RL = Reporting Limit

*Please see narrative regarding eMDL calculations

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Name: UWAG Bottom Ash

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: September 15, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 96 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Certified Reference Materials

Analyte Units CRM True Value Result Recovery

Ag μg/L TMDA-70 10.9 11.56 106.1

Al μg/L TMDA-70 415 417.7 100.7

As μg/L TMDA-70 40.7 39.84 97.9

B μg/L LCS 200.0 192.2 96.1

Ba μg/L TMDA-70 309 303.9 98.3

Be μg/L TMDA-70 15.2 15.28 100.5

Ca μg/L LCS 20000 19340 96.7

Cd μg/L TMDA-70 145 146.2 100.8

Co μg/L TMDA-70 285 279.4 98.0

Cr μg/L TMDA-70 389 388.0 99.8

Cu μg/L TMDA-70 399 403.2 101.0

Fe μg/L TMDA-70 369 366.2 99.2

Mg μg/L LCS 20000 19480 97.4

Mn μg/L TMDA-70 302 295.2 97.8

Mo μg/L TMDA-70 258 256.2 99.3

Na μg/L LCS 20000 19410 97.1

Ni μg/L TMDA-70 328 335.1 102.2

Pb μg/L TMDA-70 444 438.9 98.9

Sb μg/L TMDA-70 21.7 20.43 94.1

Se μg/L TMDA-70 25.9 23.60 91.1

Sn μg/L TMDA-70 19.6 19.56 99.8

Ti μg/L LCS 200 211.5 105.8

Tl μg/L TMDA-70 20.1 19.29 96.0

V μg/L TMDA-70 312 303.3 97.2

Zn μg/L TMDA-70 480 455.0 94.8

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Name: UWAG Bottom Ash

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: September 15, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 97 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Duplicates

Analyte Units Sample ID Rep 1 Rep 2 Mean RPD

Ag μg/L R23 < 0.044 U < 0.044 U NC NC

Al μg/L R23 1856 1783 1819 4.0

As μg/L R23 24.12 23.60 23.86 2.2

B μg/L R23 1455 1418 1436 2.6

Ba μg/L R23 77.78 72.67 75.22 6.8

Be μg/L R23 0.463 0.477 0.470 2.9

Ca μg/L R23 73790 71510 72650 3.1

Cd μg/L R23 0.125 0.112 0.118 11.2

Co μg/L R23 2.395 2.276 2.336 5.1

Cr μg/L R23 3.27 3.24 3.26 1.1

Cu μg/L R23 1.818 2.011 1.914 10.0

Fe μg/L R23 1601 1575 1588 1.6

Mg μg/L R23 19800 19490 19650 1.6

Mn μg/L R23 301.8 294.7 298.2 2.4

Mo μg/L R23 64.01 60.29 62.15 6.0

Na μg/L R23 29840 28530 29180 4.5

Ni μg/L R23 12.19 12.67 12.43 3.9

Pb μg/L R23 4.803 4.526 4.664 5.9

Sb μg/L R23 5.544 5.277 5.411 4.9

Se μg/L R23 1.14 1.01 1.08 11.9

Sn μg/L R23 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.1

Ti μg/L R23 97.6 92.0 94.8 5.9

Tl μg/L R23 0.347 0.253 0.300 31.0*

V μg/L R23 9.184 9.000 9.092 2.0

Zn μg/L R23 9.6 11.2 10.4 15.2

NC = Value was not calculated due to one or more concentrations below the eMDL

* Sample concentrations are less than the RL

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Name: UWAG Bottom Ash

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: September 15, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 98 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate

Analyte Units Sample ID

Ambient 

Conc

MS Spike 

Conc

MS 

Result

MS 

Recovery

MSD Spike 

Conc

MSD 

Result

MSD 

Recovery RPD

Ag μg/L R23 NC 20.00 21.17 105.8 20.00 20.40 102.0 3.7

Al μg/L R23 1819 20000 21240 97.1 20000 21340 97.6 0.5

As μg/L R23 23.86 200.0 213.0 94.6 200.0 216.7 96.4 1.7

B μg/L R23 1436 200.0 1653 108.4 200.0 1698 131.0* 2.7

Ba μg/L R23 75.22 200.0 278.0 101.4 200.0 279.8 102.3 0.7

Be μg/L R23 0.470 200.0 198.0 98.8 200.0 198.3 98.9 0.1

Ca μg/L R23 72650 20000 91840 96.0 20000 93200 102.8 1.5

Cd μg/L R23 0.118 20.00 19.96 99.2 20.00 20.57 102.3 3.0

Co μg/L R23 2.336 200.0 192.3 95.0 200.0 192.4 95.0 0.0

Cr μg/L R23 3.26 200.0 205.1 100.9 200.0 202.3 99.5 1.4

Cu μg/L R23 1.914 200.0 196.6 97.3 200.0 196.1 97.1 0.2

Fe μg/L R23 1588 20000 21230 98.2 20000 21450 99.3 1.0

Mg μg/L R23 19650 20000 39320 98.4 20000 39690 100.2 0.9

Mn μg/L R23 298.2 200.0 490.2 96.0 200.0 492.0 96.9 0.4

Mo μg/L R23 62.15 20.00 78.95 84.0 20.00 81.73 97.9 3.5

Na μg/L R23 29180 20000 47850 93.4 20000 48020 94.2 0.4

Ni μg/L R23 12.43 200.0 213.7 100.7 200.0 212.1 99.8 0.8

Pb μg/L R23 4.664 20.00 25.06 102.0 20.00 25.79 105.7 2.9

Sb μg/L R23 5.411 20.00 25.60 100.9 20.00 26.42 105.1 3.2

Se μg/L R23 1.08 200.0 199.6 99.3 200.0 199.2 99.1 0.2

Sn μg/L R23 0.113 20.00 20.30 101.0 20.00 20.04 99.6 1.3

Ti μg/L R23 94.8 200.0 316.4 110.8 200.0 321.3 113.3 1.5

Tl μg/L R23 0.300 20.00 19.63 96.6 20.00 19.80 97.5 0.9

V μg/L R23 9.092 200.0 201.2 96.0 200.0 203.6 97.3 1.2

Zn μg/L R23 10.4 200.0 201.8 95.7 200.0 213.4 101.5 5.6

NC = Value was not calculated due to one or more concentrations below the eMDL

* The spike concentration is less than one-half the native sample concentration

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Trace Metals Results for UWAG

Project Name: UWAG Bottom Ash

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: September 15, 2014

Page 99 of 109
Sample Results

Sample ID Units Hg

R11 ng/L 0.51

R13 ng/L 9.77

R21 ng/L 0.44

R22 ng/L 2.80

R31 ng/L 0.35

R33 ng/L 0.82

All results reflect the applied dilution and are 

reported in ng/L

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: UWAG Bottom Ash

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: September 15, 2014

Page 100 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Preparation Blank Summary

Analyte Units PBW1 PBW2 PBW3 Mean MDL

Hg ng/L <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2

MDL = Method Detection Limit

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: UWAG Bottom Ash

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: September 15, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 101 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Certified Reference Materials

Analyte Units CRM True Value Result Recovery

Hg ng/L MaW29 10400 10269 98.7

Hg ng/L OPR1 5.00 4.59 91.9

Hg ng/L OPR2 5.00 5.05 101.0

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: UWAG Bottom Ash

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: September 15, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 102 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Duplicates

Analyte Units Sample ID Rep 1 Rep 2 Mean RPD

Hg ng/L R13 9.77 10.11 9.94 3.4

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: UWAG Bottom Ash

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: September 15, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Page 103 of 109
Quality Control Summary - Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate

Analyte Units Sample ID

Ambient 

Conc

MS Spike 

Conc

MS 

Result

MS 

Recovery

Hg ng/L R33 0.82 10.00 10.01 91.9

Total Mercury Results for UWAG

Project Name: UWAG Bottom Ash

Contact: Donna Hill

Report Date: September 15, 2014

Report Generated by: Ben Wozniak

Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Page 104 of 109

11422 North US Highway 41

P.O. Box 569

Farmersburg, IN 47850--0569

P: (812) 696.5076

www.eclabs.org

Environmental Certification Labs

Subsidiary of McCoy & McCoy Laboratories , Inc.

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

6825 N. Blackburn Rd., P.O. Box 126

Petersburg, IN 47567

Project Name:

Work Order: 4080927

09/19/2014

PO Number:

Hoosier Energy - Petersburg

APE

Mr. John Humes

AMENDED REPORT

Work Order 4080927 , sampled 8/27/2014 10:42:00 AM, 8/27/2014 11:32:00 AM, 8/27/2014 12:13:00 PM was Amended to correct

sample description per Client.

Customer Sample ID: R-15-16 ECL Sample ID:

Cust Sample Desc: River Water Sampled By: John Humes

Sample Matrix: Wastewater Sample Collected: 8/27/2014 10:42

Sample Type: Grab Sample Received: 8/28/2014 10:21

4080927-01

General Chemistry

Analyte Re ult Flag Unit MRL MDL Method Analyzed Analyst

Chloride 41.7 D mg/L 0.350 0.125 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 9/8/2014 11 41 DMH

Nitrate 0.843 mg/L 0.050 0.017 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 8/28/2014 15:55 KF

Nitrite 0.237 mg/L 0.060 0.010 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 8/28/2014 15:55 KF

Total Nitrogen 3.60 mg/L 0.630 0.105 [CALC] 9/4/2014 08:48 DB

Sulfate 49.3 D mg/L 1.50 0.165 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 9/8/2014 11:41 DMH

Wet Chemi try by Standard Method 20th Ed

Analyte Result Flags Units MRL MDL Method Analyzed Analyst

Ammonia as N ND U mg/L 0.200 0.035 4500-NH3 D-1997 9/3/2014 16:33 DB

Phosphorus 0.330 mg/L 0.010 0.004 4500-P E-1997 9/2/2014 15:08 DB

Total Dissolved Solids 350 mg/L 10.0 1.0 2540 C-1997 9/2/2014 16:50 DB

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 3.60 mg/L 0.630 0.105 SM 4500-NORG 9/4/2014 08:48 DB

Total Suspended Solids 147 mg/L 4.0 1.0 2540 D-1997 8/29/2014 15 46 DB

Customer Sample ID: R-35-36 ECL Sample ID:

Cust Sample Desc: Bottom Ash Pond Effluent Sampled By: John Humes

Sample Matrix: Wastewater Sample Collected: 8/27/2014 11:32

Sample Type: Grab Sample Received: 8/28/2014 10:21

4080927-02

1 of 3

Page 106 of 109
11422 North US Highway 41

P.O. Box 569

Farmersburg, IN 47850--0569

P: (812) 696.5076

www.eclabs.org

Environmental Certification Labs

Subsidiary of McCoy & McCoy Laboratories , Inc.

Customer Sample ID: R 35 36 ECL Sample ID:

Cust Sample Desc: Bottom Ash Pond Effluent Sampled By: John Humes

Sample Matrix: Wa tewater Sample Collected: 8/27/2014 11:32

Sample Type: Grab Sample Received: 8/28/2014 10:21

4080927 02

General Chemistry

Analyte Result Flags Units MRL MDL Method Analyzed Analyst

Chloride 42.3 D mg/L 0.350 0.125 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 9/8/2014 14:59 DMH

Nitrate 0.066 mg/L 0.050 0.017 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 8/28/2014 15:55 KF

Nitrite ND U mg/L 0.060 0.010 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 8/28/2014 15:55 KF

Total Nitrogen 1.00 mg/L 0.630 0.105 [CALC] 9/4/2014 08:48 DB

Sulfate 321 D mg/L 1.50 0.165 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 9/8/2014 14:59 DMH

Wet Chemistry by Standard Methods 20th Ed

Analyte Result Flags Units MRL MDL Method Analyzed Analyst

Ammonia as N ND U mg/L 0.200 0.035 4500-NH3 D-1997 9/3/2014 16:33 DB

Phosphorus ND U mg/L 0.010 0.004 4500-P E-1997 9/2/2014 15:08 DB

Total Dissolved Solids 560 mg/L 10.0 1.0 2540 C-1997 9/2/2014 16:50 DB

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.00 mg/L 0.630 0.105 SM 4500-NORG 9/4/2014 08:48 DB

Total Suspended Solids ND U mg/L 4.0 1.0 2540 D-1997 8/29/2014 15:46 DB

Customer Sample ID: R-24-25 ECL Sample ID:

Cust Sample Desc: Bottom Ash Sluice Water Sampled By: John Humes

Sample Matrix: Wastewater Sample Collected: 8/27/2014 12:13

Sample Type: Grab Sample Received: 8/28/2014 10:21

4080927-03

General Chemistry

Analyte Result Flags Units MRL MDL Method Analyzed Analyst

Chloride 40.8 D mg/L 0.350 0.125 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 9/8/2014 13:33 DMH

Nitrate 0.597 mg/L 0.050 0.017 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 8/28/2014 15:55 KF

Nitrite 0.102 mg/L 0.060 0.010 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 8/28/2014 15:55 KF

Total Nitrogen 2.27 mg/L 0.630 0.105 [CALC] 9/4/2014 08:48 DB

Sulfate 115 D mg/L 1.50 0.165 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 9/8/2014 13:33 DMH

Wet Chemistry by Standard Methods 20th Ed

Analyte Result Flags Units MRL MDL Method Analyzed Analyst

Ammonia as N 0.468 mg/L 0.200 0.035 4500-NH3 D-1997 9/3/2014 16:33 DB

Pho phoru 0.030 mg/L 0.010 0.004 4500-P E-1997 9/2/2014 15:08 DB

Total Dissolved Solids 600 mg/L 10.0 1.0 2540 C-1997 9/2/2014 16:50 DB

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.80 mg/L 0.630 0.105 SM 4500-NORG 9/4/2014 08:48 DB

Total Suspended Solids 41.0 mg/L 4.0 1.0 2540 D-1997 8/29/2014 15:46 DB

2 of 3

Page 107 of 109
11422 North US Highway 41

P.O. Box 569

Farmersburg, IN 47850--0569

P: (812) 696.5076

www.eclabs.org

Environmental Certification Labs

Subsidiary of McCoy & McCoy Laboratories , Inc.

FLAGS & DEFINITIONS

In reference to work order 4080927

- All Waste Water and Drinking Water analyses comply with methodology requirements of 40 CFR Part 136 and 40 CFR Part 141 respectively.

- Unless otherwise noted, all quantitative results for soils are reported on a dry weight basis.

D Data reported from a dilution

U Compound was a target analyte, but was below detection limit.

DET

DRY Sample results reported on a dry weight basis

NR Not Reported

ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit

Analyte DETECTED

MRL Method Reporting Limit

MDL Method Detection Limit

3 of 3

Project Manager

Darren Sluder

Page 108 of 109

Plant Information

Plant Name Company State River Name Coal Type # of Units Capacity (Coal MW) ICR Plant ID BA Pond Avg Depth (ft) BA Pond Max Depth (ft) BA Pond Volume (ft3)

Kammer AEP WV Ohio River Bituminous 3 630 2149 1.17 3.0 10,950

Source Water

Does Plant

Recycle Process

Water for BA

Sluice?

Sampling Date

Description of

Sampling Method

and Location

Sampling Location Source Water ‐  Treatment Atypical Operations at Time of Sampling pH Temp Conductivity DO Sulfide

No 4/2/2014

Grab sample was

collected at river

intake in front of

trash rack

Intake None None 7.64 7.3 C 344 μs/cm 12.58 mg/L ND <0.2ppm

Bottom Ash Sluice

Sampling Date

BATW ‐ 

Composite or

Grab

BA ‐ Solids

Separation

Process

Atypical Operations at

Time of Sampling

Chemicals Added

Upstream of

Sample Location

Treatment location in

relation to sampling

location

BA Sluice

Annual Average Flow

Rate

(MGY)

pH Temp Conductivity DO 

4/2/2014 Composite Pond None

No chemicals areadded to thesource waterbefore being usedin the sluice system

Upstream of BA Pond 1576.8 6.69 15.0 C 352 μs/cm 9.92 mg/L N

Bottom Ash Pond ‐ Near EffluentICR Pond SPD # Sampling Date Composite or Grab BA ‐ Solids Separation Process Atypical Operations at Time of Sampling Chemicals Added Upstream of Sample Location Treatment location in relation to sampling location

BA Pond

Effluent

Annual Average

Flow Rate

(MGY)

pH 

SPD‐1 4/2/2014 grab Pond None

No chemicals are addedto the source waterbefore being used in the

sluice system

Downstream of BAPond 1576.8 7.22 

Bottom Ash Sluice

Source Water

(Note if any process water is

used.)

River Water

Description of Sampling Method

and location

Samples of the BAS were collectedfrom the sluice pipe before sluice

entered pond. Collected 8 grabs ofapproximately 1L. Grabs were

collected 3‐4 minutes apart. BAsluice cycle was shorter than

expected, flow ceased aftercollection of 4th grab. Collected 4additional grabs during anothersluice cycle 2 hours after the firstgrab was collected. Compositedgrabs in a 10L Carboy and allowedto settle for 1 hour after the lastgrab was collected. Poured offsupernatant from carboy for

sample collection.

Description of Sampling Method

BA Pond Residence Time

(days)

0.08

Other Wastewaters Entering

Pond and Flow Rate (MGY)

Collected grab samples nearoverflow weir at the effluent of the

BAS pond.

None

Attachment 3: Plant Information and Field Measurements
Plant Information

Plant Name Company State River Name Coal Type # of Units Capacity (Coal MW) ICR Plant ID BA Pond Avg Depth (ft) BA Pond Max Depth (ft) BA Pond Volume (ft3)Kyger Creek Ohio Valley Electric Corp. OH Ohio River Bituminous 5 1085 771 7 11

3,515,200 for the

entire bottom ash

pond complex

(bottom ash pond

+ clearwater

pond.) 1,301,130

for bottom ash

pond only.

Source Water

Does Plant

Recycle

Process Water

for BA Sluice?

Sampling Date

Description of

Sampling Method

and Location

Sampling Location Source Water ‐  Treatment Atypical Operations at Time of Sampling pH Temp Conductivity DO Sulfide

No 4/2/2014

Grab sample was

collected at river

intake in front of

trash rack

Intake None

No atypical operating

conditions at the timeof sampling.

7.61 9.6 C 306 μs/cm 12.05 mg/L ND <0.2ppm

Bottom Ash Sluice

Sampling Date

BATW ‐ 

Composite or

Grab

BA ‐ Solids

Separation

Process

Atypical Operations at

Time of Sampling

Chemicals Added

Upstream of

Sample Location

Treatment location in

relation to sampling

location

BA Sluice

Annual Average Flow

Rate

(MGY)

pH Temp Conductivity DO 

4/2/2014 Composite Pond

No atypical operatingconditions at the time ofsampling.

None Upstream of BA Pond 901.6 6.68 18.6 C 1360 μs/cm 9.36 mg/L N

Bottom Ash Pond ‐ Near Effluent

ICR Pond SPD # Sampling Date Composite or Grab BA ‐ Solids Separation Process Atypical Operations at Time of Sampling Chemicals Added Upstream of Sample Location Treatment location in relation to sampling location

BA Pond

Effluent

Annual Average

Flow Rate

(MGY)

pH 

SPD‐1 4/2/2014 grab Pond

No atypical

operatingconditions at thetime of sampling.

Sulfuric Acid added forpH control between the

bottom ash pond andclearwater pond.

Downstream of BAPond 907.8 7.55 

Collected grab samples nearoverflow weir at the effluent of

the BAS pond.

Rainfall (45.3 MGY)

Mill Rejects

BA Pond Residence Time (days)

15.29 for entire complex, 3.94 days

for the bottom ash pond only.

Bottom Ash Sluice

Source Water

(Note if any process water is

used.)

River Water

Description of Sampling

Method and location

Samples of the BAS werecollected from the sluice pipe

before sluice entered pond.Collected 12 grabs ofapproximately 800 ml every 2‐3

minutes during 25 minute

sluice period. Compositedgrabs in a 10L Carboy and

allowed to settle for 1.5 hours.Poured off supernatant fromcarboy for sample collection.

Description of Sampling

Method

Other Wastewaters Entering

Pond and Flow Rate (MGY)

Attachment 3: Plant Information and Field Measurements
Plant Information

Plant Name Company State River Name Coal Type # of Units Capacity (Coal MW) ICR Plant ID BA Pond Avg Depth (ft) BA Pond Max Depth (ft) BA Pond Volume (ft3)

Tanner Creek Indiana Michigan

Power

IN Ohio River Bituminous 4 995 5872 5 20 5,000,000 (est)

Source Water

Does Plant

Recycle

Process Water

for BA Sluice?

Sampling Date

Description of

Sampling Method

and Location

Sampling Location Source Water ‐  Treatment Atypical Operations at Time of Sampling pH Temp Conductivity DO Sulfide

No 6/4/2014

Grab sample was

collected at river

intake in front of

trash rack

Intake None heavy rainfall 7.65 21.95 C 352 μs/cm 7.02 mg/L ND <0.2ppm

Bottom Ash Sluice

Sampling Date

BATW ‐ 

Composite or

Grab

BA ‐ Solids

Separation

Process

Atypical Operations at

Time of Sampling

Chemicals Added

Upstream of

Sample Location

Treatment location in

relation to sampling

location

BA Sluice

Annual Average Flow

Rate

(MGY)

pH Temp Conductivity DO 

6/4/2014 Composite Pond heavy rainfall None Upstream of BA Pond 1569.5 7.55 22.3 C 362 μs/cm 7.2 mg/L ND 

Bottom Ash Pond ‐ Near EffluentICR Pond SPD # Sampling Date Composite or Grab BA ‐ Solids Separation Process Atypical Operations at Time of Sampling Chemicals Added Upstream of Sample Location Treatment location in relation to sampling location

BA Pond

Effluent

Annual Average

Flow Rate

(MGY)

pH 

SPD‐3 6/4/2014 grab Pond heavy rainfall None Downstream of BA Pond 1569.5 7.16 

Collected grab samples near overflow weir of the BAS pond. Mill Rejects

BA Pond Residence Time

(days)

0.667

Bottom Ash Sluice

Source Water

(Note if any process water is

used.)

River Water

Description of Sampling Method

and location

Samples of the BAS werecollected from the sluice pipe

before sluice entered pond. 1 unitwas online at time of sampling.

Collected 15 grabs ofapproximately 700ml during 15minute sluice period. Composited

grabs in a 10L Carboy and allowedto settle for 1.5 hours. Poured offsupernatant from carboy forsample collection.

Description of Sampling

Method

Other Wastewaters Entering

Pond and Flow Rate (MGY)

Attachment 3: Plant Information and Field Measurements
Plant Information

Plant Name Company State River Name Coal Type # of Units Capacity (Coal MW) ICR Plant ID BA Pond Avg Depth (ft) BA Pond Max Depth (ft) BA Pond Volume (ft3)

Victor Daniel MPC MS Pascagoula Bit/Sub Bit 2 1000 2482 20 28 10,962,000

Source Water

Does Plant

Recycle

Process Water

for BA Sluice?

Sampling Date

Description of

Sampling Method

and Location

Sampling Location Source Water ‐  Treatment Atypical Operations at Time of Sampling pH Temp Conductivity DO Sulfide

Yes 7/31/2014 Grab from Tap Tap on BA Discharge/ Recycle line Settling in BA Pond none 8.71 30.3 C 360 μs/cm 7.56 mg/L ND <0.2 mg/L

Bottom Ash Sluice

Sampling Date

BATW ‐ 

Composite or

Grab

BA ‐ Solids

Separation

Process

Atypical Operations at Time of

Sampling

Chemicals Added

Upstream of

Sample Location

Treatment location in

relation to sampling

location

BA Sluice

Annual Average Flow

Rate

(MGY)

pH Temp Conductivity DO 

7/31/2014 Composite Pond None None Downstream 241 7.48 31.8 C 377 μs/cm 7.47 mg/

Bottom Ash Pond ‐ Near Effluent

ICR Pond SPD # Sampling Date Composite or Grab BA ‐ Solids Separation Process Atypical Operations at Time of Sampling Chemicals Added Upstream of Sample Location Treatment location in relation to sampling location

BA Pond

Effluent

Annual Average

Flow Rate

(MGY)

pH 

SPD1 7/31/2014 Grab Pond None None Upstream 641 8.73 

Bottom Ash Sluice

Source Water

(Note if any process water is used.)

BAP Recycle

Description of Sampling

Method and location

Collected 15 grabs ofapproximately 500ml in pond

influent stream during sluice

cycle. Composited grabs andallowed to settle for approx. 1.5hours. Poured off supernatant

for sample collection.

Description of Sampling

Method

Other Wastewaters Entering

Pond and Flow Rate (MGY)

Grab from Tap

Stormwater ‐ 51

Coal Pile Runoff ‐ 126

Ash Landfill SW ‐ 155

Boiler Tube Clean WW ‐ 1.6

Ion Ex WW ‐ 13

CC WW ‐ 32

CC Oil/Water Sep. WW ‐ 28

Yard Drain WW ‐ 11

Boiler Blowdown ‐ 42

Sewage Treatment ‐ 0.18

Mill Rejects

BA Pond Residence Time

(days)

1

Attachment 3: Plant Information and Field Measurements
Plant Information

Plant Name Company State River Name Coal Type # of Units Capacity (Coal MW) ICR Plant ID BA Pond Avg Depth (ft) BA Pond Max Depth (ft) BA Pond Volume (ft3)

Stanton Station Great River Energy ND Missouri River PRB 2 204.5 8659 12 14 3,348,000

Pond C+B

Source Water

Does Plant

Recycle

Process

Water for BA

Sluice?

Sampling Date

Description of

Sampling Method

and Location

Sampling Location Source Water ‐  Treatment Atypical Operations at Time of Sampling pH Temp Conductivity DO Sulfide

No 8/5/2014 Grab Boat Landing 100 yards upstream of plant intake. None None 8.23 15.2 C 885 μs/cm 8.32 mg/L ND<0.2 mg/L

Bottom Ash Sluice

Sampling Date

BATW ‐ 

Composite or

Grab

BA ‐ Solids

Separation

Process

Atypical Operations at

Time of Sampling

Chemicals Added

Upstream of

Sample Location

Treatment location in

relation to sampling

location

BA Sluice

Annual Average

Flow Rate

(MGY)

pH Temp Conductivity DO Sulfide

8/5/2014 Composite Settling Pond None None Upstream of BA pond. 115 8.49 20.2 C 1065 μs/cm 9.00 mg/L ND<0.2 mg

Bottom Ash Pond ‐ Near Effluent

ICR Pond SPD # Sampling Date Composite or Grab BA ‐ Solids Separation Process Atypical Operations at Time of Sampling Chemicals Added Upstream of Sample Location Treatment location in relation to sampling location

BA Pond

Effluent

Annual Average

Flow Rate

(MGY)

pH Temp 

SPD‐2 8/5/2014 Grab Settling Pond none None

Sample collectedafter settling in BApond.

165 8.78 22.1 C 

Bottom Ash Sluice

Source Water

(Note if any process water is used.)

Missouri River

Description of Sampling Method

and location

Collected approx. 800 ml grabs ofEcon Ash Sluice and Bottom Ash

sluice at end of pipe. 3 grabs of ES

and 9 grabs of BAS were collectedduring 40 minute sluice period.Composite sample was allow tosettle for 1 hour and 15 minutes.

Supernatant was poured off forsample collection.

Description of Sampling

Method

Other Wastewaters Entering

Pond and Flow Rate (MGY)

Grab samples were collected

in BA pond near effluent.

Boiler Blowdown ‐ 7.0

Filter Backwash ‐ 3.95

Mill Reject Sluice ‐ 0.46

Ion ex ww ‐ 0.36

Boiler Seal WW ‐ 32.8

Coal Pile runoff ‐ 0.78

SW Runoff ‐ 1.38

BA Pond Residence Time

(days)

Attachment 3: Plant Information and Field Measurements
Plant Information

Plant Name Company State River Name Coal Type # of Units Capacity (Coal MW) ICR Plant ID BA Pond Avg Depth (ft) BA Pond Max Depth (ft) BA Pond Volume (ft3)

Frank E. Ratts Hoosier Energy IN White Bituminous 2 255 2314 8 12 2265120

Source Water

Does Plant

Recycle

Process Water

for BA Sluice?

Sampling Date

Description of

Sampling Method

and Location

Sampling Location Source Water ‐  Treatment Atypical Operations at Time of Sampling pH Temp Conductivity DO Sulfide

No 8/27/2014

Grab sample

collected from

tap.

River water pumps in

basement none none 6.94 30.5 C 567 μs/cm 5.29 mg/L ND<0.2 mg

Bottom Ash Sluice

Sampling Date

BATW ‐ 

Composite or

Grab

BA ‐ Solids

Separation

Process

Atypical Operations at

Time of Sampling

Chemicals Added

Upstream of

Sample Location

Treatment location in

relation to sampling

location

BA Sluice

Annual Average Flow

Rate

(MGY)

pH Temp Conductivity DO 

8/27/2014 Composite Settling Pond none none Upstream of BA pond. 143.08 7.02 28.9 C 662 μs/cm 2.57 mg/

Bottom Ash Pond ‐ Near Effluent

ICR Pond SPD # Sampling Date Composite or Grab BA ‐ Solids Separation Process Atypical Operations at Time of Sampling Chemicals Added Upstream of Sample Location Treatment location in relation to sampling location

BA Pond

Effluent

Annual Average

Flow Rate

(MGY)

pH 

SPD 1 8/27/2014 Grab Settling Pond none none Downstream of BA pond. 151.475 7.58 

Bottom Ash Sluice

Source Water

(Note if any process water is used.)

White River

Description of Sampling Method

and location

Composite sample consisting of 13

grab samples taken over 50 minute

sluice cycle at bottom ash sluice

water discharge pipe. Compositesample was allow to settle for 2hours. Supernatant was pouredoff for sample collection.

Description of Sampling

Method

Other Wastewaters Entering

Pond and Flow Rate (MGY)

Grab sample near BA pondoutfall. Coal pile runoff, 8.395 MGY

BA Pond Residence Time (da

43

Attachment 3: Plant Information and Field Measurements
Pollutant Reduction and Costs for Bottom Ash Retrofit to Dry or Closed Loop System

Median concentrations from Updated, 25 Plant, UWAG Bottom Ash database

Table 1

Bottom ash sluice concentrations only

Capacity

BAS Flow

(Mgal/year)

TWPE/Year

Removed

Annualized

Capital (M$)

2012 $

$/TWPE

Removed

2012 $

Annualized

Capital (M$)

1981$

$/TWPE

Removed

1981$

<50 9.4 12 0.71 $57,246 0.27 $21,753

50‐100 30.2 40 0.77 $19,428 0.29 $7,383

100‐150 63.8 84 0.90 $10,782 0.34 $4,097

150‐200 110 145 1.03 $7,137 0.39 $2,712

200‐300 152 199 1.23 $6,178 0.47 $2,348

300‐400 200 263 1.49 $5,676 0.57 $2,157

400‐500 197 259 1.76 $6,782 0.67 $2,577

500‐700 278 366 2.15 $5,879 0.82 $2,234

700‐900 308 405 2.67 $6,601 1.02 $2,508

>900 223 293 3.20 $10,920 1.22 $4,149

Table 2

Bottom ash sluice less source water concentrations

Capacity

BAS Flow

(Mgal/year)

TWPE/Year

Removed

Annualized

Capital (M$)

2012 $

$/TWPE

Removed

2012 $

Annualized

Capital (M$)

1981$

$/TWPE

Removed

1981$

<50 9.4 4 0.71 $160,035 0.27 $60,813

50‐100 30.2 14 0.77 $54,314 0.29 $20,639

100‐150 63.8 30 0.90 $30,143 0.34 $11,454

150‐200 110 52 1.03 $19,951 0.39 $7,581

200‐300 152 71 1.23 $17,272 0.47 $6,564

300‐400 200 94 1.49 $15,868 0.57 $6,030

400‐500 197 93 1.76 $18,960 0.67 $7,205

500‐700 278 131 2.15 $16,435 0.82 $6,245

700‐900 308 145 2.67 $18,453 1.02 $7,012

>900 223 105 3.20 $30,526 1.22 $11,600

Capacity ‐ Nameplate MW of Model plants

BAS Flow (Mgal/year) ‐ Million gallons per year of bottom ash sluice flow.  Median plant flows from  ICR

Database for each size unit.

TWPE/Year ‐ Toxic Weighted Pound Equivalents per Year.  Calculations based on Median plant flows and

Median concentration of Bottom Ash Sluice Water only and median net difference of BA and source water

results for each plant.

Annualized Capital M$ ‐ Annual Capital cost based on 15 year life at 7% interest.  Curve was developed based

on total costs obtained from UWAG BA survey. Total costs do not include O&M, transportation, and disposal

costs.

$/TWPE ‐ Cost in dollars per Toxic Weighted Pound Equivalents removed if unit is converted to dry or closed‐

loop bottom ash handling.

Attachment 4: TWPEs and $/TWPE for Updated 25-Plant UWAG Database
NERA Economic Consulting 

11th Floor, 200 Clarendon Street 

Boston, Massachusetts 02116 

Tel: 617-927-4512 Fax: 617-927-4501 

Mobile: 914-450-8654 

David.harrison@NERA.com 

www.nera.com 

 

MEMO 

TO: Utility Water Act Group 

DATE: November 25, 2014 

FROM: NERA 

SUBJECT: Update on Cost-Effectiveness Estimates for Bottom Ash Controls 

This memorandum provides an update of some results from a NERA Economic Consulting 

(NERA) September 2013 study of the cost-effectiveness of U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposed effluent limitations guidelines for electric power plants (Harrison et al 

2013).1

 In particular, this memo provides updated results for the cost per ton (in 1981 dollars) of 

controls to reduce bottom ash transport water based upon updated industry information on the 

effectiveness of the controls. 

A. Background and Objective 

In June 2013, the EPA proposed alternative technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and 

standards for the steam electric power generation point source category. 78 Fed. Reg. 34,432 

(June 7, 2013). The proposed regulations seek to reduce pollutant discharges from fly ash 

transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, and 

other wastewaters. 

In September 2013, NERA prepared a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative effluent control 

technologies and EPA’s proposed regulatory options on behalf of the Utility Water Act Group 

(UWAG). The NERA study used cost and effectiveness equations and other information 

developed by UWAG industry experts based upon power company responses to EPA’s 

Information Collection Request (ICR). These equations were applied to each of the roughly 

1,000 coal units in the ICR database to estimate the total annualized costs and annual pollution 

removals (measured in TWPE) of five potential technology requirements. 

The objective of this memo is to revise NERA’s cost-effectiveness estimates for bottom ash 

controls based on updated information from UWAG experts on the effectiveness of bottom ash 

controls. As described in Harrison et al (2013, p. 11), the TWPE removal effectiveness of 

bottom ash controls in the NERA report was equal to 1.73 multiplied by the annual flow of 

bottom ash transport water. Using updated information, UWAG experts have estimated that the 

coefficient in that equation is 1.31 including the TWPE contribution of source water, or 0.47 if 

 

1

 Harrison, David et al, Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of EPA’s Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Steam 

Electric Power Plants. Boston, MA: NERA Economic Consulting, September 2013 (submitted as Attachment 14 to 

UWAG’s September 20, 2013 comments on EPA’s proposed revisions to the steam electric effluent guidelines). 
Page 2 

 

 

NERA Economic Consulting 

source water pollutants are excluded (see UWAG letter of November 25, 2014 to Ron Jordan of 

EPA).2 This memo uses the same methodology and data as Harrison et al (2013) with the 

exception of the coefficient in the bottom ash TWPE removal equation. 

B. Updated Results 

Table 1 summarizes the updated results. For convenience the table includes the results from the 

September 2013 study. 

 

2

 As explained in UWAG’s letter to Ron Jordan, EPA, dated November 25, 2014, UWAG collected additional bottom ash 

transport water samples in 2014 and expanded its original compilation of 21 bottom ash transport water samples to 25 

samples. The new TWPE removal coefficients are based on the new set of 25 samples. 

Table 1. Bottom Ash Control Cost-Effectiveness Estimates by Unit Size Based on Industry

Information 

Source: Harrison et al (2013) p. 11, Table 4, and Table 7; UWAG’s letter of November 25, 2014 to Ron Jordan, 

EPA; and NERA calculations. 

Annualized

Cost

Annual

Removal

Cost‐

Effectiveness

(million 1981$) (million TWPE) (1981$/TWPE)

NERA Sep 2013 Report

Small Units (≤ 400MW) X 1.73 $278 0.156 $1,783

Large Units (> 400MW) X 1.73 $354 0.167 $2,124

All Units X 1.73 $632 0.323 $1,959

Oct 2014Update

Including Source Water

Small Units (≤ 400MW) X 1.31 $278 0.118 $2,355

Large Units (> 400MW) X 1.31 $354 0.126 $2,805

All Units X 1.31 $632 0.244 $2,588

Excluding Source Water

Small Units (≤ 400MW) 0.47 $278 0.042 $6,563

Large Units (> 400MW) 0.47 $354 0.045 $7,819

All Units 0.47 $632 0.088 $7,212

TWPE

Removal

Coefficient

Source Water

Pollutants

Included