Attachment1:UWAGBottomAshTransportWaterDataPlantCompanySize(MW)CoalTypeSamplingDateSampleType UnitsSilver,AgppbU< 0.019 U<0.019 U< 0.019 J 0.022 J 0.022 U< 0.019 U<0.012J 0.029 U< 0.012Aluminum,Al ppb282 1770 95.7 6470 6850 222 607 5540 1290Arsenic,As ppbJ 0.83J 0.81J 0.31 1.66 8.91 J 0.99J 0.880 5.36 2.17Boron,B ppbJ 26.6 J 34.1 J 30.9J 34.4 J 79.2 185 J 40 J 65 J 47Barium,Ba ppb40.5 61.0 40.6 81.5 70.7 43.8 47.1 424 91.4Beryllium,Be ppbU< 0.038J 0.168 U<0.038J 0.276J 0.494 J 0.044 J 0.081 1.96 J 0.143Calcium,Ca ppb28900 29400 27600 26800 27500 43800 38100 38500 38400Cadmium,Cd ppbJ 0.042J 0.042 U< 0.037 J 0.088 J 0.126 J 0.042 U<0.057 J 0.067J 0.095Cobalt,Co ppb1.35 1.47 J 0.312 2.31 3.90J 1.14 J 0.352 6.00 J 0.919Chromium,CrppbU<0.68 4.20 U<0.68 5.46 13.2 U<0.68 U< 0.85 18.1 J 0.85Copper,Cu ppb1.29 1.84 U<0.11 4.80 6.18 J 0.49 1.89 16.0 4.48Iron,Fe ppb589 2140 86.5 4270 8240 485 514 2190 839Magnesium,Mgppb7560 7880 7330 7860 7410 9580 12800 12600 12900Manganese,Mn ppb147 135 7.80 174 114 86.6 48.1 49.2 46.7Molybdenum,MoppbJ 1.12J 1.18J 0.839J 0.812 3.12 3.22 1.82 6.73 2.48Sodium,Na ppb23100 23900 21300 18600 19500 28000 18100 18400 17600Nickel,Ni ppb3.74 5.55 3.21 6.54 14.6 8.01J 1.37 14.8J 2.59Lead,Pb ppbJ 0.888J 0.812 J 0.053 3.13 3.37 J 0.227J 0.557 5.16 3.97Antimony,Sb ppbU<0.057 U<0.057 U<0.057J 0.096 J 0.114J 0.086 J 0.165 J 0.873 J 0.313Selenium,SeppbU<0.25 U< 0.25J 0.29 U<0.25 J 0.86 J 0.36J 0.58 1.20J 1.04Tin,Sn ppbU<0.30 U<0.30 U<0.30 J 0.51 J 0.34 U< 0.30 U< 0.28 J 0.82 J 0.35Titanium,Ti ppb4.19 83.1 5.25 77.3 243 6.26 9.0 496 42.8Thallium,Tl ppbU<0.017 J 0.037 U<0.017 J 0.058 J 0.499 J 0.293 J 0.020 J 0.224 J 0.086Vanadium,V ppbU<0.55 4.05 U< 0.55 8.61 12.0 J 0.81 1.30 25.9 4.20Zinc,Zn ppbJ 8.9 J 9.2 U< 2.4 J 20.1 J 14.8J 2.6 J 3.1 J 10.2 J 18.4Mercury,Hgppb0.00401 0.005740.00121 0.00899 0.00655 0.001600.00198 0.00331 R(1) 0.00784Ammonia,asN ppm0.18 0.15J 0.04 0.12 0.07 J 0.04 0.13 0.09 0.16Nitrate/Nitrite,asN ppm0.84 0.86 0.96 0.83 0.80 0.84 1.36 1.38 1.22Nitrogen,Kjeldahl,TKNasN ppmJ 0.4 0.53J 0.2 J 0.4 0.62 J 0.3 J 0.4 J 0.2J 0.2Chloride ppm35.2 34.6 30.7 28.0 27.8 36.2 26.3 26.0 24.7Sulfate ppm55.0 58.4 54.1 46.2 69.0 118 45.7 46.1 45.5TotalDissolvedSolids ppm193 195 184 205 191 277 241 234 231TotalSuspendedSolidsppm16 21 U< 2 79 94 J 4 J 8 148 40Nitrogen,Total ppm1.28 1.39 1.13 1.23 1.42 1.11 1.81 1.53 1.45Phosphorus ppmJ 0.03 0.06 U<0.01 J 0.04 0.07 U<0.01 0.07 0.07 0.06J‐SampleconcentrationisbetweentheMethodDetectionLimitandtheReportingLimitU‐SampleconcentrationislessthantheMethodDetectionLimit.ValuelistedisMDLR‐SampleresultdidnotmeetQCcriteria.SeeNote(1)andNote(2).Note(1)‐TannersCreekSP‐3HgresultisRflaggedduetoelevatedHgfieldblankresults.FBresultwas0.00776ppbcomparedto0.00784ppbforthesampleresult.Note(2)‐StantonTSSresultsRflaggedduetoexceedingmethodholdtime.Methodholdtime7days,actualholdtime9days.Bituminous BituminousKammer KygerCreek TannersCreek630(3Units) 1085(5Units) 995(4Units)AEP OVEC IndianaMichiganPowerBituminousBAPond‐NearEffluent SourceWater SettledBASluiceBAPond‐NearEffluent04/02/2014 04/02/2014 06/04/2014SourceWater SettledBASluiceBAPond‐NearEffluent SourceWater SettledBASluiceAttachment1:UWAGBottomAshTransportWaterDataPlantCompanySize(MW)CoalTypeSamplingDateSampleType UnitsSilver,AgppbAluminum,Al ppbArsenic,As ppbBoron,B ppbBarium,Ba ppbBeryllium,Be ppbCalcium,Ca ppbCadmium,Cd ppbCobalt,Co ppbChromium,CrppbCopper,Cu ppbIron,Fe ppbMagnesium,MgppbManganese,Mn ppbMolybdenum,MoppbSodium,Na ppbNickel,Ni ppbLead,Pb ppbAntimony,Sb ppbSelenium,SeppbTin,Sn ppbTitanium,Ti ppbThallium,Tl ppbVanadium,V ppbZinc,Zn ppbMercury,HgppbAmmonia,asN ppmNitrate/Nitrite,asN ppmNitrogen,Kjeldahl,TKNasN ppmChloride ppmSulfate ppmTotalDissolvedSolids ppmTotalSuspendedSolidsppmNitrogen,Total ppmPhosphorus ppmJ 0.028 J 0.019 U< 0.012 J 0.014 J 0.024 U< 0.010 J 0.051 U< 0.044 U< 0.044872 2340 873 943 6150 3080 6010 1860 2224.84 5.97 5.05 2.15 9.79 6.31 2.97 24.1 39.11930 1850 1940 168 289 394 166 1450 1960185 341 185 65.7 993 391 100 77.8 41.4J 0.050 J 0.099 J 0.052 U< 0.057 J 0.094 U< 0.057 J 0.240 J 0.463 J 0.05522200 27000 22100 63300 85100 69900 55500 73800 101000J 0.013 J 0.076 J 0.021 J 0.042 J 0.152 J 0.055 J 0.096 J 0.125 U< 0.059J 0.142 J 0.299 J 0.085 J 0.313 J 0.595 J 0.126 2.05 2.40 J 0.397J 1.79 4.08 J 1.95 J 1.13 5.18 3.27 7.23 3.27 J 0.412.29 26.0 1.47 2.27 6.84 1.68 172 1.82 J 0.477166 574 170 738 1190 48.2 5080 1600 3263000 3020 3040 30900 28500 23500 17900 19800 184003.10 8.32 3.34 49.7 31.0 4.19 192 302 45.246.6 41.3 46.5 2.84 21.2 21.0 5.16 64.0 14.645200 42200 45700 96700 11500012500032900 29800 30100J 0.46 J 1.42 J 0.68 J 2.58 J 2.88 J 1.64 17.6 12.2 6.13J 0.238 J 0.899 J 0.336 J 0.471 J 1.17 J 0.117 31.7 4.80 J 0.207J 0.611 J 0.606 J 0.618 J 0.404 J 0.800 J 0.637 J 0.695 5.54 J 0.2911.39 1.34 1.46 J 0.738 1.71 1.48 J 0.84 J 1.14 1.31U< 0.10 U<0.10 U< 0.10 U<0.11 J 0.19 U< 0.11 5.89 J 0.113 U< 0.03916.2 97.9 13.9 21.5 172 4.5 94.4 97.6 5.3U<0.051 U<0.051 U< 0.051 U< 0.040 J 0.176 J 0.086 J 0.081 J 0.347 J 0.06118.9 29.0 19.0 3.18 39.5 42.4 12.3 9.18 J 0.705J 2.4 J 2.7 J 1.9 U<7.1 J 8.4 U< 7.1 J 29.0 J 9.6 J 2.80.00137 0.00189 0.00155 0.002200.00163 0.00408 0.00977 0.002800.00082U< 0.05 U< 0.05 U< 0.05 U< 0.10 U< 0.10 U< 0.10 U< 0.035 0.468 U< 0.035U< 0.20 U< 0.20 U< 0.20 0.13 0.14 U< 0.10 1.08 0.699 0.0660.20 0.23 U< 0.10 U< 5.0 U< 5.0 U< 5.0 3.60 1.80 1.0014.4 13.6 14.4 10.2 10.4 11.6 41.7 40.8 42.348.0 52.0 48.1 274 368 369 49.3 115 321223 243 218 R(2) 617 R(2) 757 R(2) 732 350 600 5604 28 4 17.8 42.0 3.4 147 41.0 U< 1.00.34 0.29 0.333.60 2.27 1.000.213 0.249 0.198 U< 0.10 0.10 U< 0.10 0.330 0.030 U< 0.004J‐SampleconcentrationisbetweentheMethodDetectionLimitandtheReportingLimitU‐SampleconcentrationislessthantheMethodDetectionLimit.ValuelistedisMDLR‐SampleresultdidnotmeetQCcriteria.SeeNote(1)andNote(2).Note(1)‐TannersCreekSP‐3HgresultisRflaggedduetoelevatedHgfieldblankresults.FBresultwas0.00776ppbcomparedto0.00784ppbforthesampleresult.Note(2)‐StantonTSSresultsRflaggedduetoexceedingmethodholdtime.Methodholdtime7days,actualholdtime9days.RattsDaniel Stanton1000(2Units) 204.5(2Units) 255(2units)MississippiPower GreatRiverEnergy HoosierEnergyBituminous/Subbituminous PRB08/27/2014BAPond‐NearEffluentSourceWater SettledBASluiceBAPond‐NearEffluent SourceWater SettledBASluiceBituminous07/31/2014 08/05/2014BAPond‐NearEffluent SourceWater SettledBASluiceAttachment1:UWAGBottomAshTransportWaterDataPlantCompanySize(MW)CoalTypeSamplingDateSampleType UnitsSilver,AgppbAluminum,Al ppbArsenic,As ppbBoron,B ppbBarium,Ba ppbBeryllium,Be ppbCalcium,Ca ppbCadmium,Cd ppbCobalt,Co ppbChromium,CrppbCopper,Cu ppbIron,Fe ppbMagnesium,MgppbManganese,Mn ppbMolybdenum,MoppbSodium,Na ppbNickel,Ni ppbLead,Pb ppbAntimony,Sb ppbSelenium,SeppbTin,Sn ppbTitanium,Ti ppbThallium,Tl ppbVanadium,V ppbZinc,Zn ppbMercury,HgppbAmmonia,asN ppmNitrate/Nitrite,asN ppmNitrogen,Kjeldahl,TKNasN ppmChloride ppmSulfate ppmTotalDissolvedSolids ppmTotalSuspendedSolidsppmNitrogen,Total ppmPhosphorus ppmMedian Median Median0.0205 0.023 0.016907.5 3940 547.51.905 7.44 3.61103 184.1 289.573.6 209.4 67.60.069 0.3155 0.053533500 33950 411000.0495 0.1005 0.04850.851 1.935 0.35451.46 4.69 0.7652.28 6.51 0.98663.5 1870 24810330 10240 1124098.35 81.6 26.52.33 13.965 8.9128000 26850 290503.16 8.875 2.90.7225 2.27 0.2170.2845 0.703 0.3020.659 1.17 1.1750.29 0.245 0.20518.85 134.95 5.780.0455 0.2 0.07355.895 18.95 2.5058 9.4 2.70.003105 0.003055 0.0015750.11 0.095 0.0450.835 0.7495 0.520.4 0.575 0.2527.15 26.9 27.748.65 63.7 86.05232 238.5 25416.9 41.5 3.71.28 1.42 1.110.085 0.07 0.035SourceWaterSettledBASluiceBAPond‐NearEffluent

# UWAG Bottom Ash Pond Sampling Events

Certificates of Analysis

### 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/Stan ton Conventionals ............................................................................. 86

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

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

### April 18, 2014

Donna B. Hill Utility Water Ac t Group (UWAG) (205 ) 257-5234

Project: Kammer and Kyger Cree k

Dear Ms. Hill,

Attached is the report associated with ten ( 10 ) aq ueous 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 w as 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

### 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

T en (1 0 ) aq ueous 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 temper ature, as recorded on the enclosed chain of custody (COC)

forms.

Each sample w as received in a laminar flow clean hood, void of trace metals contamination and ultra-violet radiation, and a ssigned 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% HNO 3 

### (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.

### 3. Sample Analysis

All sample analysis is pre ceded 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 introduc ed 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 ga ss es 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 de tection 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

ad dition, 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, LLCSample 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, 2014Sample 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, LLCQuality 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 WozniakQuality 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, LLCQuality 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 WozniakQuality 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, LLCSample 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, 2014Quality 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 WozniakQuality 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, LLCQuality 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 WozniakQuality 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, LLCDolan 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kammer Plant, 141131 1 of 2Location: 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 2Dolan 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyger Creek - OVEC, 141130 1 of 2Location: 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

### 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 w as 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

### 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 th e enclosed chain of custody (COC) form.

Each sample w as received in a laminar flow clean hood, void of trace metals contamination and ultra-violet radiation, and assi gned 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% HNO 3 

### (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.

### 3. Sample Analysis

All sample analysis is pre ceded 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 a re 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.

### 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, LLCSample 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, 2014Sample 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, 2014Quality 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 WozniakQuality 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, LLCQuality 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 WozniakQuality 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, 2014Sample 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, 2014Quality 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 WozniakQuality 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, LLCQuality 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 WozniakQuality 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, LLCDolan 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sample Number: 142023-002 Date Collected: 06/04/2014 12:24 Date Received: 6/4/2014 SP2 TC 325/326 Composite Sample

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sample Number: 142023-003 Date Collected: 06/04/2014 11:38 Date Received: 6/4/2014 SP3 TC 336/337 Grab Sample

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tanners Creek Plant, 142023 1 of 2Location: 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

### August 21, 2014

Donna B. Hill Utility Water Act Gro up (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 we re received in acceptable condition on August 1, 2014 in a sealed container at ambient temperature. Total recoverable metals quantitation w as 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

### Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC

Report prepared for:

Donna B. Hill Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) (205) 257-5234

Project: MPCD

August 2 1 , 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 a t ambient temperature, as recorde d on the enclosed chain of custody (COC) form.

Each sample w as received in a laminar flow clean hood, void of trace metals contamination and ultra-violet radiation, and assi gned 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% HNO 3 

### (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 trac e 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.

### 3. Sample Analysis

All sample analysis is pre ceded 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.

Pr ior 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 11 th 

### -12 th 

### and August 15 th



### . 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

### 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, LLCSample 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, 2014Sample 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, 2014Quality 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 WozniakQuality 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, LLCQuality 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 WozniakQuality 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, 2014Sample 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, 2014Quality 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 WozniakQuality 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, LLCQuality 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 WozniakQuality 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

### 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 w as 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

### 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 wer e submitted for total mercury quantitation on August 5

, 2014. The samples were rece ived in acceptable condition on August 7, 2014 in a sealed container at ambient temperature, as rec orded on the enclosed chain of custody (COC) form.

Each sample w as received in a laminar flow clean hood, void of trace metals contamination and ultra-violet radiation, and assi gned 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% HNO 3 

### (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

sa mple 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.

### 3. Sample Analysis

All sample analysis is pre ceded 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 11 th 

### -12 th



### , August 15 th 

### , and August

19 th 

### . A liquots 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 encounter ed 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

### 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, LLCSample 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, 2014Sample 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, 2014Quality 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 WozniakQuality 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, LLCQuality 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 WozniakQuality 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, 2014Sample 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, 2014Quality 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 WozniakQuality 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, LLCQuality 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 WozniakQuality 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

# MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LABORATORIES, INC

.

112 6 Nort h Fro nt St.

- New Ulm, MN 56073- 800-782-3557

- Fax 507-359-2890
2616 East Broadway A ve.

- Bismarck, ND 58501

- 800-279-6885

- Fax 701

- 258 -9 724
1 201 Lincoln Hwy
.- N e vada

, IA 50201

- 800-362-0855 -F ax 515-382-3885

www

. mv tl.com

Page: 1 of 1

Report Date : 19 Aug 1 4

Lab Number: 14-D1984

Work Or der #: 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 2 74 mg/1 5.00 ASTM 0516-07

Chloride 10

. 2 mg/1 1

. 0 SM4500

- Cl-E

Nitrate -Nitr ite as N 0

. 13 mg/l 0.10 EPA 353.2

Ammonia-N i trogen as N < 0 .1 mg/l 0.10 EPA 350.1 Phosphorus as P

- T o ta l < 0

. 1 mg/1 0.10 EPA 365

. 1

Total Kjeldahl N itr o gen < 5 mg/1 5

. 0 PAI-DK01

Total D issolved Sol i ds * 617 mg/ 1 5 11750-85

* Holding time exceeded

All m ethods used for the s e analyses are compl iant with 40CFR Part 136 or Region 8 EPA app rove d gu i d ance.

Approved by :

Claudette K. Carroll, Environmental Laboratory Supervisor

, Bismarck, ND

RL = Method Reporting Li m it

The reporting limit w as elevated fo r any anal yte requiring a dilution as cod ed below:

® = Due to s amp l e matr ix # Due t o c oncentrat i on of ot her analytes

! • Due to sample quantity + • oue t o i nternal s t anda rd resp onse 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 gu arantee s l h e at.·cumcy of t h e R•,alys i s done on th e san 1 p l c**subn~ iltcd**  fo r le s t in g. I t i s not possible for MVTL l o gurua nt ce tha t a ICS I r es u ll ob tai ned o n a p ar licular sam p le will be the snmc o n any o l her samp l e unless

aU condi tio11S a ff ecting, t h e sample nrc l he snmc, inc l udi n g sampl i ng by MVfL. As a mulutd p t OICGtion to cl i ents, th e p u b l ic and o u rselve

- s, a H repo rt s are s u b m ifte d as the confid e nti al property of clients. nn d anthorizalion for publ i c:1tion of s t:1 tc:me nt s, co n c lu sions or exlracts frorn o r regurding our reporas is rc sel'vcd pendiilg our w ri tt en ap proval.

# 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

m

g /1

mg /1 Method Method

RL Reference

5

. 00 ASTM D516-07

l.O SM4500-Cl-E

0.10 EPA 353.2

0 .1 0 EPA 350.1

0 .1 0 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

R L : Method Report i ng Limit

The report ing l imit was elevated for any an alyte requiring a dilution as coded below:

@ = Due to sample matrix**~** = Due to concentra t ion of other analytes

!**~** Due to sampl e quantity +**~** Due to internal st andard response CE RT IFICA TION ' 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 te sti ng

. It is not po ss ible for MVT L to g uarantee that a test result obtained on a particular sample will be the same on any o ther sample unless

a ll conditions affecting th e sa mple are the same, i ncluding samp ling by MVTL

. As a mutual protection to c li enls, the public and ourselves. a ll reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients. and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our r eports is r ese rved pending our written approval.

## 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**Fa x**  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: 1 2 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 - T o tal

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

Total Diss o lved Solids

* Holding time exce eded 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 -DK 01

5 117 50

- 85

All methods used for these analyses are compliant with 40CFR Part 136 or Region 8 EPA approved guidan ce.

Approved by :

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

RL • Method Reporting Limit

The reporting lim it was el evated for any analyte requiri ng a dilution a s coded bel ow: 3**~** Due to sample matrix U
= Due to concentration of other analytes

J = Due to sample quantity + = Due to internal standard resp onse

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

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 t h e accuracy of the ana l ysis done on th e sam pl e s ubm i tt ed for testing

. It is not possible for MVTL to guarant ee that a te s t re s ult obtained on a particular sample will be the same on a n y other s ample unless

a ll conditions affectin g the sample are th e same , including sam pling by MVTL. As a mutual protec tion to clients, the public and o ur selv e s, all report s a re submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or r egar ding our r eports is reserved pending our written a pproval.

## LAB ORA TORIES, In c

. 2616 East Broadway Avenue
Bismarck, ND 58501 

# Chain of Custody Record- Chemistry

Form # 1 0-90009-0 

### P age o f

__ _

Phone: (701) 258-9720 

### Work Order# 

# fd-d073 To ll Fr ee: (800 ) 279-6885 Fax: ( 7 01) 258-9724 Lab Use Only 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.o f Sa mpl e r: E-mail: 

# D Billing Address (indicate if different from above):

## r~A) 

# If! " · Fo r e- m a il r epo rt check box Quofe Number oate submittee

.


## ·**-1~-~~ufL** Project Name/Number: Purchase Order #:



### Sample Information Bottle Type Analysis Filtered Y or N

L ab**~** U se 

## ""'**~** 0 0 

## ""' J: (3 

### :::""'**~** C') 0 0 0 t/) J: :r: O nl y 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, D a t e Time Cll 111.:.:. 0 

### g ..0 ..0 0

### ~**~** 0 Cll 'E g 0 0 0 E E 0 0 .c Number SampleiD Etc. ) Sa mpl ed Sa mpl e d 0 0 II) 0 

### 5 An a ly s i s Re q u i red :;:) t/) II) ,.. 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

(( 

### , 

## .J. 

# 7DS**$q/h~** I

,



### I• I '**~**

## CA/P,-.;ti~

# Mi~~~**~** 

# I O\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 )(

## ~ 

# 1 0f 13 \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 wit h your samples. We will return the completed origina l wi t h your results.

KEMSKE. NEW ULM

, M N 1800) 7 82-3532 N115 7

· 3 

### ie

## ~

### September 15, 2014

Donna B. Hill Utility Water Act Gro up (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 w as 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

### 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, a s recorded on the enclosed chain of custody (COC) form.

Each sample w as received in a laminar flow clean hood, void of trace metals contamination and ultra-violet radiation, and assi gned 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% HNO 3 

### (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.

### 3. Sample Analysis

All sample analysis is pre ceded 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 5 th 

### and September 11 th



### . 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

### 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, LLCSample 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, 2014Sample 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, 2014Quality 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 WozniakQuality 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, LLCQuality 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 WozniakQuality 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, 2014Sample 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, 2014Quality 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 WozniakQuality 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, LLCQuality 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 WozniakQuality 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, LLC1 1422 North US Highway 41

P.O. Box 569
Farmersburg, IN 47850--0569

P: (812) 696.5076
www.eclabs.org 

# Environmental Certification Labs

**Su b**  **sidia r**  **y of McC o**  **y &**  **McC o**  **y Labo r**  **a t**  **ories** , Inc.



### ANA L YTICA L RESU L

TS 6825 N. Blackburn Rd., P.O. Box 126
Petersburg, IN 47567

Project Name:

W ork Order : 4080927 09/19/2014

PO Number: Hoosier Energy - Petersburg

APE Mr . John Humes

AMENDED REPORT

W ork 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: EC L Sample ID : R-15-16

John Humes Sampled By: Cust Sample Desc: River W ater

8/27/2014 10:42 Sample Collected: W astewater Sample Matrix:

8/28/2014 10:21 Sample Received: Sample T

ype : Grab 4080927-01

General Chemistry

Analyte Re ult Analyst Analyzed Method MDL MRL Unit Flag

D 41.7 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 9/8/2014 1 1 41 DMH

mg/L Chloride 0.350 0.125

0.843 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 8/28/2014 15:55 KF

mg/L Nitrate 0.050 0.017

0.237 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 8/28/2014 15:55 KF

mg/L Nitrite 0.060 0.010

3.60 [CALC] 9/4/2014 08:48 DB

mg/L T otal Nitrogen 0.630 0.105

D 49.3 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 9/8/2014 1 1:41 DMH

mg/L Sulfate 1.50 0.165

W et Chemi try by Standard Method 20th Ed

Analyte Result Analyst Analyzed Method MDL MRL Units Flags

ND 4500-NH3 D-1997 9/3/2014 16:33 DB

mg/L Ammonia as N 0.200 0.035 U

0.330 4500- P E-1997 9/2/2014 15:08 DB

mg/L Phosphorus 0.010 0.004

350 2540 C-1997 9/2/2014 16:50 DB

mg/L T otal Dissolved Solids 10.0 1.0

3.60 SM 4500-NORG 9/4/2014 08:48 DB

mg/L T otal Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.630 0.105

147 2540 D-1997 8/29/2014 15 46 DB

mg/L T otal Suspended Solids 4.0 1.0

Customer Sample ID: EC L Sample ID : R-35-36

John Humes Sampled By: Cust Sample Desc: Bottom Ash Pond E f fluent

8/27/2014 1 1:32

Sample Collected: W astewater Sample Matrix:

8/28/2014 10:21 Sample Received: Sample T

ype : Grab 4080927-02

1 of 31 1422 North US Highway 41

P.O. Box 569
Farmersburg, IN 47850--0569

P: (812) 696.5076
www.eclabs.org 

# Environmental Certification Labs

**Su b**  **sidia r**  **y of McC o**  **y &**  **McC o**  **y Labo r**  **a t**  **ories** , Inc.

Customer Sample ID: EC L Sample ID : R 35 36

John Humes Sampled By: Cust Sample Desc: Bottom Ash Pond E f fluent

8/27/2014 1 1:32

Sample Collected: W a tewater Sample Matrix:

8/28/2014 10:21 Sample Received: Sample T

ype : Grab 4080927 02

General Chemistry

Analyte Result Analyst Analyzed Method MDL MRL Units Flags

D 42.3 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 9/8/2014 14:59 DMH

mg/L Chloride 0.350 0.125

0.066 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 8/28/2014 15:55 KF

mg/L Nitrate 0.050 0.017

ND EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 8/28/2014 15:55 KF

mg/L Nitrite 0.060 0.010 U

1.00 [CALC] 9/4/2014 08:48 DB

mg/L T otal Nitrogen 0.630 0.105

D 321 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 9/8/2014 14:59 DMH

mg/L Sulfate 1.50 0.165

W et Chemistry by Standard Methods 20th Ed

Analyte Result Analyst Analyzed Method MDL MRL Units Flags

ND 4500-NH3 D-1997 9/3/2014 16:33 DB

mg/L Ammonia as N 0.200 0.035 U

ND 4500- P E-1997 9/2/2014 15:08 DB

mg/L Phosphorus 0.010 0.004 U

560 2540 C-1997 9/2/2014 16:50 DB

mg/L T otal Dissolved Solids 10.0 1.0

1.00 SM 4500-NORG 9/4/2014 08:48 DB

mg/L T otal Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.630 0.105

ND 2540 D-1997 8/29/2014 15:46 DB

mg/L T otal Suspended Solids 4.0 1.0 U

Customer Sample ID: EC L Sample ID : R-24-25

John Humes Sampled By: Cust Sample Desc: Bottom Ash Sluice W ater

8/27/2014 12:13 Sample Collected: W astewater Sample Matrix:

8/28/2014 10:21 Sample Received: Sample T

ype : Grab 4080927-03

General Chemistry

Analyte Result Analyst Analyzed Method MDL MRL Units Flags

D 40.8 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 9/8/2014 13:33 DMH

mg/L Chloride 0.350 0.125

0.597 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 8/28/2014 15:55 KF

mg/L Nitrate 0.050 0.017

0.102 EPA 300.0 REV 2.1 8/28/2014 15:55 KF

mg/L Nitrite 0.060 0.010

2.27 [CALC] 9/4/2014 08:48 DB

mg/L T otal Nitrogen 0.630 0.105

D 115 EP A 300.0 REV 2.1 9/8/2014 13:33 DMH mg/L Sulfate 1.50 0.165

W et Chemistry by Standard Methods 20th Ed

Analyte Result Analyst Analyzed Method MDL MRL Units Flags

0.468 4500-NH3 D-1997 9/3/2014 16:33 DB

mg/L Ammonia as N 0.200 0.035

0.030 4500- P E-1997 9/2/2014 15:08 DB

mg/L Pho phoru 0.010 0.004

600 2540 C-1997 9/2/2014 16:50 DB

mg/L T otal Dissolved Solids 10.0 1.0

1.80 SM 4500-NORG 9/4/2014 08:48 DB

mg/L T otal Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.630 0.105

41.0 2540 D-1997 8/29/2014 15:46 DB

mg/L T otal Suspended Solids 4.0 1.0

2 of 31 1422 North US Highway 41

P.O. Box 569
Farmersburg, IN 47850--0569

P: (812) 696.5076
www.eclabs.org 

# Environmental Certification Labs

**Su b**  **sidia r**  **y of McC o**  **y &**  **McC o**  **y Labo r**  **a t**  **ories** , Inc.



### FLAGS & DEFINITIONS

In reference to work order 4080927

- All W aste W ater and Drinking W ater 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

Sample results reported on a dry weight basis DR Y Not Reported NR Analyte NO T DETECTED at or above the reporting limit ND Analyte DETECTED

Method Reporting Limit MRL

Method Detection Limit MDL

3 of 3

Project Manager Darren SluderPlantInformationPlantName Company State RiverName CoalType#ofUnitsCapacity(CoalMW)ICRPlantIDBAPondAvgDepth(ft)BAPondMaxDepth(ft)BAPondVolume(ft3)Kammer AEP WV OhioRiver Bituminous363021491.173.0 10,950SourceWaterDoesPlantRecycleProcessWaterforBASluice?SamplingDateDescriptionofSamplingMethodandLocationSamplingLocationSourceWater‐TreatmentAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingpHTemp Conductivity DO SulfideNo 4/2/2014GrabsamplewascollectedatriverintakeinfrontoftrashrackIntakeNoneNone7.647.3C 344μs/cm 12.58mg/L ND<0.2ppmBottomAshSluiceSamplingDateBATW‐CompositeorGrabBA‐SolidsSeparationProcessAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingChemicalsAddedUpstreamofSampleLocationTreatmentlocationinrelationtosamplinglocationBASluiceAnnualAverageFlowRate(MGY)pHTemp Conductivity DO Sulfide4/2/2014Composite PondNoneNochemicalsareaddedtothesourcewaterbeforebeingusedinthesluicesystemUpstreamofBAPond1576.86.69 15.0C 352μs/cm 9.92mg/L ND<0.2ppmBottomAshPond‐NearEffluentICRPondSPD#SamplingDateCompositeorGrabBA‐SolidsSeparationProcessAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingChemicalsAddedUpstreamofSampleLocationTreatmentlocationinrelationtosamplinglocationBAPondEffluentAnnualAverageFlowRate(MGY)pH Temp Conductivity DO SulfideSPD‐1 4/2/2014grabPondNoneNochemicalsareaddedtothesourcewaterbeforebeingusedinthesluicesystemDownstreamofBAPond1576.87.22 14.9 377μs/cm 10.26mg/LND<0.2ppmBottomAshSluiceSourceWater(Noteifanyprocesswaterisused.)RiverWaterDescriptionofSamplingMethodandlocationSamplesoftheBASwerecollectedfromthesluicepipebeforesluiceenteredpond.Collected8grabsofapproximately1L.Grabswerecollected3‐4minutesapart.BAsluicecyclewasshorterthanexpected,flowceasedaftercollectionof4thgrab.Collected4additionalgrabsduringanothersluicecycle2hoursafterthefirstgrabwascollected.Compositedgrabsina10LCarboyandallowedtosettlefor1hourafterthelastgrabwascollected.Pouredoffsupernatantfromcarboyforsamplecollection.DescriptionofSamplingMethodBAPondResidenceTime(days)0.08OtherWastewatersEnteringPondandFlowRate(MGY)CollectedgrabsamplesnearoverflowweirattheeffluentoftheBASpond.NonePlantInformationPlantName Company State RiverName CoalType#ofUnitsCapacity(CoalMW)ICRPlantIDBAPondAvgDepth(ft)BAPondMaxDepth(ft)BAPondVolume(ft3)KygerCreekOhioValleyElectricCorp.OH OhioRiver Bituminous510857717113,515,200fortheentirebottomashpondcomplex(bottomashpond+clearwaterpond.)1,301,130forbottomashpondonly.SourceWaterDoesPlantRecycleProcessWaterforBASluice?SamplingDateDescriptionofSamplingMethodandLocationSamplingLocationSourceWater‐TreatmentAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingpHTemp Conductivity DO SulfideNo 4/2/2014GrabsamplewascollectedatriverintakeinfrontoftrashrackIntakeNoneNoatypicaloperatingconditionsatthetimeofsampling.7.619.6C 306μs/cm 12.05mg/LND<0.2ppmBottomAshSluiceSamplingDateBATW‐CompositeorGrabBA‐SolidsSeparationProcessAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingChemicalsAddedUpstreamofSampleLocationTreatmentlocationinrelationtosamplinglocationBASluiceAnnualAverageFlowRate(MGY)pHTemp Conductivity DOSulfide4/2/2014Composite PondNoatypicaloperatingconditionsatthetimeofsampling.None UpstreamofBAPond 901.66.68 18.6C 1360μs/cm 9.36mg/L ND<0.2ppmBottomAshPond‐NearEffluentICRPondSPD#SamplingDateCompositeorGrabBA‐SolidsSeparationProcessAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingChemicalsAddedUpstreamofSampleLocationTreatmentlocationinrelationtosamplinglocationBAPondEffluentAnnualAverageFlowRate(MGY)pHTempConductivity DO SulfideSPD‐1 4/2/2014grabPondNoatypicaloperatingconditionsatthetimeofsampling.SulfuricAcidaddedforpHcontrolbetweenthebottomashpondandclearwaterpond.DownstreamofBAPond907.87.5518.1C 457μs/cm 10.10mg/LND<0.2ppmCollectedgrabsamplesnearoverflowweirattheeffluentoftheBASpond.Rainfall(45.3MGY)MillRejectsBAPondResidenceTime(days)15.29forentirecomplex,3.94daysforthebottomashpondonly.BottomAshSluiceSourceWater(Noteifanyprocesswaterisused.)RiverWaterDescriptionofSamplingMethodandlocationSamplesoftheBASwerecollectedfromthesluicepipebeforesluiceenteredpond.Collected12grabsofapproximately800mlevery2‐3minutesduring25minutesluiceperiod.Compositedgrabsina10LCarboyandallowedtosettlefor1.5hours.Pouredoffsupernatantfromcarboyforsamplecollection.DescriptionofSamplingMethodOtherWastewatersEnteringPondandFlowRate(MGY)PlantInformationPlantName Company State RiverName CoalType#ofUnitsCapacity(CoalMW)ICRPlantIDBAPondAvgDepth(ft)BAPondMaxDepth(ft)BAPondVolume(ft3)TannerCreekIndianaMichiganPowerIN OhioRiver Bituminous49955872520 5,000,000(est)SourceWaterDoesPlantRecycleProcessWaterforBASluice?SamplingDateDescriptionofSamplingMethodandLocationSamplingLocationSourceWater‐TreatmentAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingpHTemp Conductivity DO SulfideNo 6/4/2014GrabsamplewascollectedatriverintakeinfrontoftrashrackIntakeNoneheavyrainfall7.6521.95C 352μs/cm 7.02mg/L ND<0.2ppmBottomAshSluiceSamplingDateBATW‐CompositeorGrabBA‐SolidsSeparationProcessAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingChemicalsAddedUpstreamofSampleLocationTreatmentlocationinrelationtosamplinglocationBASluiceAnnualAverageFlowRate(MGY)pHTemp Conductivity DO Sulfide6/4/2014Composite PondheavyrainfallNone UpstreamofBAPond 1569.57.55 22.3C 362μs/cm 7.2mg/L ND<0.2ppmBottomAshPond‐NearEffluentICRPondSPD#SamplingDateCompositeorGrabBA‐SolidsSeparationProcessAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingChemicalsAddedUpstreamofSampleLocationTreatmentlocationinrelationtosamplinglocationBAPondEffluentAnnualAverageFlowRate(MGY)pH TempConductivityDO SulfideSPD‐3 6/4/2014grabPondheavyrainfallNoneDownstreamofBAPond1569.57.16 22.8C 348μs/cm 6.91mg/LND<0.2ppmCollectedgrabsamplesnearoverflowweiroftheBASpond.MillRejectsBAPondResidenceTime(days)0.667BottomAshSluiceSourceWater(Noteifanyprocesswaterisused.)RiverWaterDescriptionofSamplingMethodandlocationSamplesoftheBASwerecollectedfromthesluicepipebeforesluiceenteredpond.1unitwasonlineattimeofsampling.Collected15grabsofapproximately700mlduring15minutesluiceperiod.Compositedgrabsina10LCarboyandallowedtosettlefor1.5hours.Pouredoffsupernatantfromcarboyforsamplecollection.DescriptionofSamplingMethodOtherWastewatersEnteringPondandFlowRate(MGY)PlantInformationPlantName Company State RiverName CoalType#ofUnitsCapacity(CoalMW)ICRPlantIDBAPondAvgDepth(ft)BAPondMaxDepth(ft)BAPondVolume(ft3)VictorDanielMPCMS Pascagoula Bit/SubBit2100024822028 10,962,000SourceWaterDoesPlantRecycleProcessWaterforBASluice?SamplingDateDescriptionofSamplingMethodandLocationSamplingLocationSourceWater‐TreatmentAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingpHTemp Conductivity DO SulfideYes 7/31/2014 GrabfromTapTaponBADischarge/RecyclelineSettlinginBAPond none8.7130.3C 360μs/cm 7.56mg/LND<0.2mg/LBottomAshSluiceSamplingDateBATW‐CompositeorGrabBA‐SolidsSeparationProcessAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingChemicalsAddedUpstreamofSampleLocationTreatmentlocationinrelationtosamplinglocationBASluiceAnnualAverageFlowRate(MGY)pHTemp Conductivity DO Sulfide7/31/2014Composite PondNoneNoneDownstream2417.48 31.8C377μs/cm 7.47mg/L ND<0.2mg/LBottomAshPond‐NearEffluentICRPondSPD#SamplingDateCompositeorGrabBA‐SolidsSeparationProcessAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingChemicalsAddedUpstreamofSampleLocationTreatmentlocationinrelationtosamplinglocationBAPondEffluentAnnualAverageFlowRate(MGY)pH TempConductivity DO SulfideSPD1 7/31/2014GrabPondNoneNoneUpstream6418.73 30.7C 355μs/cm 7.47mg/LND<0.2mg/LBottomAshSluiceSourceWater(Noteifanyprocesswaterisused.)BAPRecycleDescriptionofSamplingMethodandlocationCollected15grabsofapproximately500mlinpondinfluentstreamduringsluicecycle.Compositedgrabsandallowedtosettleforapprox.1.5hours.Pouredoffsupernatantforsamplecollection.DescriptionofSamplingMethodOtherWastewatersEnteringPondandFlowRate(MGY)GrabfromTapStormwater‐51CoalPileRunoff‐126AshLandfillSW‐155BoilerTubeCleanWW‐1.6IonExWW‐13CCWW‐32CCOil/WaterSep.WW‐28YardDrainWW‐11BoilerBlowdown‐42SewageTreatment‐0.18MillRejectsBAPondResidenceTime(days)1PlantInformationPlantName Company State RiverName CoalType#ofUnitsCapacity(CoalMW)ICRPlantIDBAPondAvgDepth(ft)BAPondMaxDepth(ft)BAPondVolume(ft3)StantonStation GreatRiverEnergy ND MissouriRiver PRB2204.586591214 3,348,000PondC+BSourceWaterDoesPlantRecycleProcessWaterforBASluice?SamplingDateDescriptionofSamplingMethodandLocationSamplingLocationSourceWater‐TreatmentAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingpHTemp Conductivity DO SulfideNo 8/5/2014 GrabBoatLanding100yardsupstreamofplantintake.NoneNone8.2315.2C 885μs/cm 8.32mg/LND<0.2mg/LBottomAshSluiceSamplingDateBATW‐CompositeorGrabBA‐SolidsSeparationProcessAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingChemicalsAddedUpstreamofSampleLocationTreatmentlocationinrelationtosamplinglocationBASluiceAnnualAverageFlowRate(MGY)pHTemp Conductivity DO Sulfide8/5/2014Composite SettlingPondNoneNone UpstreamofBApond. 1158.49 20.2C 1065μs/cm 9.00mg/L ND<0.2mg/LBottomAshPond‐NearEffluentICRPondSPD#SamplingDateCompositeorGrabBA‐SolidsSeparationProcessAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingChemicalsAddedUpstreamofSampleLocationTreatmentlocationinrelationtosamplinglocationBAPondEffluentAnnualAverageFlowRate(MGY)pH TempConductivityDO SulfideSPD‐2 8/5/2014GrabSettlingPondnoneNoneSamplecollectedaftersettlinginBApond.1658.78 22.1C 1083μs/cm 8.43mg/L ND<0.2mg/LBottomAshSluiceSourceWater(Noteifanyprocesswaterisused.)MissouriRiverDescriptionofSamplingMethodandlocationCollectedapprox.800mlgrabsofEconAshSluiceandBottomAshsluiceatendofpipe.3grabsofESand9grabsofBASwerecollectedduring40minutesluiceperiod.Compositesamplewasallowtosettlefor1hourand15minutes.Supernatantwaspouredoffforsamplecollection.DescriptionofSamplingMethodOtherWastewatersEnteringPondandFlowRate(MGY)GrabsampleswerecollectedinBApondneareffluent.BoilerBlowdown‐7.0FilterBackwash‐3.95MillRejectSluice‐0.46Ionexww‐0.36BoilerSealWW‐32.8CoalPilerunoff‐0.78SWRunoff‐1.38BAPondResidenceTime(days)PlantInformationPlantNameCompany State RiverName CoalType#ofUnitsCapacity(CoalMW)ICRPlantIDBAPondAvgDepth(ft)BAPondMaxDepth(ft)BAPondVolume(ft3)FrankE.Ratts HoosierEnergy IN White Bituminous22552314812 2265120SourceWaterDoesPlantRecycleProcessWaterforBASluice?SamplingDateDescriptionofSamplingMethodandLocationSamplingLocationSourceWater‐TreatmentAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingpHTemp Conductivity DO SulfideNo 8/27/2014Grabsamplecollectedfromtap.Riverwaterpumpsinbasementnonenone6.9430.5C 567μs/cm 5.29mg/L ND<0.2mg/LBottomAshSluiceSamplingDateBATW‐CompositeorGrabBA‐SolidsSeparationProcessAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingChemicalsAddedUpstreamofSampleLocationTreatmentlocationinrelationtosamplinglocationBASluiceAnnualAverageFlowRate(MGY)pHTemp Conductivity DO Sulfide8/27/2014Composite SettlingPondnonenone UpstreamofBApond. 143.087.02 28.9C 662μs/cm 2.57mg/L ND<0.2mg/LBottomAshPond‐NearEffluentICRPondSPD#SamplingDateCompositeorGrabBA‐SolidsSeparationProcessAtypicalOperationsatTimeofSamplingChemicalsAddedUpstreamofSampleLocationTreatmentlocationinrelationtosamplinglocationBAPondEffluentAnnualAverageFlowRate(MGY)pH Temp Conductivity DO SulfideSPD18/27/2014GrabSettlingPondnonenoneDownstreamofBApond.151.4757.58 29.7C 791μs/cm 8.44mg/LND<0.2mg/LBottomAshSluiceSourceWater(Noteifanyprocesswaterisused.)WhiteRiverDescriptionofSamplingMethodandlocationCompositesampleconsistingof13grabsamplestakenover50minutesluicecycleatbottomashsluicewaterdischargepipe.Compositesamplewasallowtosettlefor2hours.Supernatantwaspouredoffforsamplecollection.DescriptionofSamplingMethodOtherWastewatersEnteringPondandFlowRate(MGY)GrabsamplenearBApondoutfall.Coalpilerunoff,8.395MGYBAPondResidenceTime(days)43

## 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 onl y

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.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 Esti mates for Bottom Ash Controls



### This memorandum provides an update of some results from a NERA Economic Consulting (NERA) September 2013 study of the cost-effec tiveness of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed effluent lim itations guidelines for electric power plants (Harrison et al 2013). 1 

### In particular, this memo provides updated results for the co st 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 al ternative technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the steam electric power genera tion point source category. 78 Fed. Reg. 34,432 (June 7, 2013). The proposed re gulations seek to re duce pollutant discharges from fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, fl ue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, and

other wastewaters.

In September 2013, NERA prepared a cost-effectiven ess analysis of alternative effluent control technologies and EPA’s proposed regulatory opti ons on behalf of the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG). The NERA study used cost and eff ectiveness equations and other information developed by UWAG industry experts based upon power company responses to EPA’s Information Collection Request (ICR). These eq uations 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 fi ve 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 UW AG experts on the effectiveness of bottom ash

controls. As described in Ha rrison et al (2013, p. 11), the TW PE 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 info rmation, UWAG experts have estimated that the coefficient in that equation is 1.31 including the TWPE contribution of so urce water, or 0.47 if

1 Harrison, David et al, Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of E PA’s Proposed Effluent Li mitations Guidelines and Standards for Steam

Electric Power Plants . Boston, MA: NERA Economic Consulting, Se ptember 2013 (submitted as Attachment 14 to UWAG’s September 20, 2013 comments on EPA’s proposed revisions to the stea m electric effluent guidelines).Page 2

NERA Economic Consulting 

### source water pollutants are excluded (see UWAG le tter 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 conven ience the table includes the results from the September 2013 study.

2 As explained in UWAG’s letter to Ron Jordan, EPA, date d November 25, 2014, UWAG colle cted additiona l bottom ash transport water samples in 2014 and expa nded its original compilation of 21 bo ttom 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 b y Unit Size Based on Industr y 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 2014 Update

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