# Appendix E

Mirant Mid

- Atlantic, LLC’s Dickerson Generating Station

## Section 1

CWA 308 Monitoring Letter and Instructions

### Enclosure 1

Instructions for Sample Collection, Packaging, and Shipment

EPA Sampling Program

The samples you will be collecting are very important. The samples will be used by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for revising th e effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for the Steam Electric Power Gen erating Industry.

These instructions are being provided to Miran Mid-Atlantic, LLC’s Dickerson

Generating Station to aid in collecting, packaging, and shippi ng samples for this sampling

program.

The plant must collect grab samples for all analytes a t the influent to the FGD wastewater

treatment sampling point and 24-hour composite samples for all analytes except mercury

and cyanide at the influent to the SBR and effluent from th e SBR sampling points. At the

influent to the SBR and effluent from the SBR, the plan t must collect cyanide as a single

grab sample and mercury must be collected as four individua l grab samples over the 24-

hour period (i.e., a grab sample collected every six ho urs).

Samples will be collected once a month for four month s. The samples should be

collected and shipped to the laboratories according to the schedule provided in the cover

letter of this request. If the plant has any questions re garding the timeline or the steps

provided, please contact Mr. Ronald Jordan at (202) 566-1003 or j ordan.ronald@epa.gov.

Equipment Needed

The plant will need to obtain the following equipment to collect, pack, and ship the

samples to the laboratories:

• Sample bottles, composite containers, and tubing sets (spe cially-cleaned

according to EPA Method 1669);

• Automatic compositor;

• Powder-free gloves;

• Tyvek® coveralls or suitable alternative;

• Dust masks (for use while collecting mercury samples)

• Labels (for sample bottles and shipping samples to labora tories);

• Preservation supplies (see the “Sample Bottles and Pr eservation” Section);

• Coolers;

• Garbage bags;

• Packing material;

• Strapping tape; and

• Traffic Report (will be provided by ERG).

### Sampling Points

The plant must collect samples once per month for four months, based on the schedule

specified in the letter. Samples are to be collected fr om each of the three sampling points

included in the EPA’s sampling episode. Figure 1 identifies e ach of the sampling points

for this sampling program. The following is a description o f the three sampling points:

• 

### FGD wastewater treatment influent (FGD scrubber purge) (SP-1) : This

sampling point shall represent the FGD purge stream (e.g., hydroclone overflow)

transferred to the FGD wastewater treatment system pri or to any commingling

with other wastewaters or treatment system recycle s treams. This sample should

be collected from the sample tap located on the drain o f the pump that transfers

the FGD wastewater from the purge tank to the equalizatio n tank.

• 

### FGD influent to SBR system (SP-2) : This sampling point shall represent the

effluent from the chemical precipitation system and the influent to the biological

treatment system (prior to nutrient addition). This samp ling point should be

collected from the sample tap located at the heat exch anger tank pump discharge,

which is downstream of the hydrochloric acid addition, but upstream of the heat

exchanger and SBR influent equalization tank.

• 

### FGD effluent from SBR system (SP-3) : This sampling point shall represent the

effluent from the biological treatment system, prior to mixing with dilution water

or other streams. This sampling point should be collected from the sample tap

that is located on the wastewater piping downstream of the tertiary continuous

backwash gravity filters.

Analytes

The analytes included in this sampling program include all ana lytes from EPA’s sampling

program, except for the dissolved metals analyses (which includes hexavalent

chromium). Table 1 contains the listing of all the an alytes included in the monitoring

program, as well as the analytical methods that will be used to analyze the samples.

### Table 1. Analytes and Analytical Methods Included in the Moni toring Program

Parameter Method Number

Classicals

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 ) SM 5210 B

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) EPA 410.4

Total suspended solids (TSS) SM 2540 D

Total dissolved solids (TDS) SM 2540 C

Sulfate EPA 300.0

Chloride EPA 300.0

Ammonia as nitrogen EPA 350.1

Nitrate/nitrate as nitrogen EPA 353.2

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) EPA 351.2

Total phosphorus EPA 365.1

Total cyanide SM 4500 CN E

Total Metals

Total mercury EPA 1631E

Antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,

selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc EPA 200.8 with collision

cell

Aluminum, barium, beryllium, boron, calcium, cobalt, ir on,

magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, sodium, tin, and titani um EPA 200.7Figure 1. Dickerson FGD Wastewater Treatment System Monitoring Program Sampling Points

### Sample Bottles and Preservation

Table 2 identifies the sample bottles that are needed fo r collecting samples. The table

also identifies the on-site preservation that is requi red for the samples. Please note that

the number of sample bottles listed in Table 2 refers t o the number of bottles that will

need to be collected from each sampling point for each of the four sets of samples. For

the Group II samples, the plant can either preserve the samples with sulfuric acid after

sample collection, or the plant can order pre-preserv ed sample bottles.

For the total cyanide samples, the plant should test the wastewater from the sampling

points with lead acetate paper (turns black in the presence of sulfide) and potassium

iodide starch paper (turns blue/violet in the presence of chl orine). If sulfide is present,

the plant will need to dilute the sample with blank water until the sulfide is not detected

by the lead acetate paper. If chlorine is present, then t he plant will need to add sodium

arsenite until the chlorine is not detected by the potass ium iodide starch paper. After any

dilution and/or sodium arsenite is added to the sample, the plant will need to preserve the

sample with sodium hydroxide until the sample reaches a pH of 10 S.U. Please see

ASTM Method D 7365-09a for more details on the preservation requirements for total

cyanide.

Table 2. Summary of Sample Container and Planned Preservation

Parameter Sample Container

and Volume On-Site Preservation

BOD 5 One 1-L HDPE

bottle ≤ 6 ° C

Group I a One 1-L HDPE

bottle ≤ 6 ° C

Group II b Two 1-L HDPE

bottles H 2 SO 4 to pH <2, ≤ 6 ° C

Total cyanide One 1-L HDPE

bottle Dilution until sulfide is not detected,

NaAsO 2 until total chlorine is not

present, NaOH to pH >10, ≤ 6 ° C

Total metals (EPA Method 200.8 with

collision cell) One 500-mL HDPE

bottle None

(acid preserve at laboratory)

Total metals (EPA Method 200.7) One 500-mL HDPE

bottle None

(acid preserve at laboratory)

Total mercury:

Laboratory composite grab samples at

influent to SBR and effluent from SBR Four 125-mL glass

bottles

Influent samples and field blank samples Two 250-mL glass

bottles None

(acid preserve at laboratory)

(a) Group I includes TSS, TDS, sulfate, and chloride.

(b) Group II includes ammonia as nitrogen, COD, nitrate/nit rite as nitrogen, TKN, and total phosphorus.

NOTE: The number of sample bottles refers to the number of sample bottles needed for each sampling point for each of

the four sets of samples.

### Sample Labeling

Label each bottle prior to collecting the sample so i t can be identified by the laboratory.

Each self-adhesive label must be completed in indelible ink and must contain the

following information:

• Sample number (see Table 3);

• Sampling episode number (see Table 3);

• Sampling point/description (see Table 3);

• Date of sample collection;

• Analysis to be performed;

• Sample bottle type; and

• Required on-site preservation.

If any of the information is incorrect, the plant must revise the label using indelible ink.

Once applied to the sample container, the plant must co ver the labels with clear tape to

prevent tampering, abrasion, smearing, or loss during trans it. For metal and mercury

samples, do not place labels directly on the sample bot tles because of the potential for

contamination. Instead, place the label on the outer pl astic bag of the sample bottle. To

ensure that the sample label does not become separated from the bottle, the doublebagged sample bottle should be placed in an additional Zi ploc bag after collection.

Table 3 provides the sampling point descriptions, sample numbe rs, and sampling episode

number for the plant for this monitoring program. The info rmation in the table should be

provided on the sample bottle labels for the appropriate bottles. The “analysis to be

performed” should be shown on the label as the followi ng, depending on the specific

analysis:

• BOD;

• Group I;

• Group II;

• Total Cyanide;

• Total Metals – 200.8 w/ CC;

• Total Metals – 200.7;

• Total Mercury (for influent and field blank samples);

• Total Mercury – Grab 1 (for influent to SBR and effluent fr om SBR

laboratory composite samples. The bottles should be l abeled as Grab 1,

Grab 2, Grab 3, and Grab 4 for the four respective collec tion times).

The “sample bottle type” should be shown on the label t he same as the “Sample

Container and Volume” column in Table 2, except that the quantity should not be

included. For example, for total mercury, the “sample bo ttle type” should be “250-mL

glass bottle.” The “required on-site preservation” sh ould be shown on the label the same

as the “On-Site Preservation” column in Table 2, exce pt that “(acid preserve at

laboratory)” does not need to be included for the total me tals and total mercury sample

bottles.

### Table 3. Sampling Point Descriptions and Sample Numbers for Monitoring

Program

Sampling Point Description Sample Number Sampling Episode Number

FGD Wastewater Treatment Influent – Set 1 72191 6569

FGD Wastewater Treatment Influent – Set 2 72192 6569

FGD Wastewater Treatment Influent – Set 3 72193 6569

FGD Wastewater Treatment Influent – Set 4 72194 6569

Influent to SBR System - Set 1 72195 6569

Influent to SBR System - Set 2 72196 6569

Influent to SBR System - Set 3 72197 6569

Influent to SBR System - Set 4 72198 6569

Effluent from SBR System - Set 1 72199 6569

Effluent from SBR System - Set 2 72200 6569

Effluent from SBR System - Set 3 72201 6569

Effluent from SBR System - Set 4 72202 6569

FGD Wastewater Treatment Influent Field Blank 72203 6569

Influent to SBR System Field Blank - Set 1 72204 6569

Influent to SBR System Field Blank - Set 2 72205 6569

Influent to SBR System Field Blank - Set 3 72206 6569

Influent to SBR System Field Blank - Set 4 72207 6569

Effluent from SBR System Field Blank - Set 1 72208 6569

Effluent from SBR System Field Blank - Set 2 72209 6569

Effluent from SBR System Field Blank - Set 3 72210 6569

Effluent from SBR System Field Blank - Set 4 72211 6569



### QC Samples

The plant is required to collect field blank samples as part of the sampling program. The

field blank samples should be collected at the frequency specified in Table 4.

Table 4. Field Blank Collection Frequency

Sampling Point Total Mercury Total Metals (200.8

and 200.7) Classicals 1



### FGD Wastewater

Treatment Influent Collected during one

of the four sets Collected during one

of the four sets No field blanks

required

Influent to SBR System Collected during all

four sets Collected during all

four sets No field blanks

required

Effluent from SBR

System Collected during all

four sets Collected during all

four sets No field blanks

required

1 Classicals includes the analyses for BOD, Group I, Group II, and total cyanide.

### The laboratory will perform MS/MSD analyses on the total metals and total mercury

analyses; however, no additional sample volume is requi red.

Sample Collection

The plant must use clean sampling techniques when collecti ng the total metals and total

mercury samples; therefore, the sampling team should fo llow the clean hands/dirty hands

sampling techniques outlined in EPA Method 1669. Additionally, t he plant must try to

avoid significant contamination during sample collection, especially from sources such as

airborne particles, dirt, and corrosion particulates fr om piping, railing, etc.

The plant must collect grab samples for all analytes a t the influent to the FGD wastewater

treatment system. The plant must collect 24-hour compo site samples for all analytes

except cyanide and mercury at the influent to the SBR and ef fluent from the SBR

sampling points. The 24-hour composites must be set up to col lect equal sample aliquots

every hour over the 24-hour period. For mercury at the inf luent to the SBR and effluent

from the SBR sampling points, the plant must collect f our individual grab samples over

the 24-hour period (i.e., one mercury grab collected every six hours). For cyanide at the

influent to the SBR and effluent from the SBR sampling po ints, the plant must collect a

single grab sample after the one of the mercury grab s amples.

If the plant collects the samples from the same taps that will be used for the collection of

samples during the EPA sampling episode, the plant can fo llow the instructions included

in the sampling plan drafted for the EPA sampling episode to collect the field blank

samples, set up the composite containers, and perform th e composite pump-off procedures

for the influent to the SBR and effluent from the SBR sampling points. The following

instructions can be used to collect the grab samples at the influent to the FGD wastewater

treatment system sampling point and for the mercury and cyanide grab samples at the

influent to the SBR and effluent from the SBR sampling po ints: (NOTE: If a sample tap

or valve is not available to collect these samples or if the influent to the SBR and effluent

from the SBR sampling points have intermittent flows w hich may interfere with the

automatic composite collection, please contact TJ Fins eth, (703) 633-1698 to discuss

possible alternatives.)

1. Arrive at the sampling point location and prepare supplies and bottles for

the sample collection.

2. Clean hands and dirty hands put on Tyvek® suits, masks, and powder-free

gloves.

3. Dirty hands gets a clear plastic bag and opens it slightl y (touching only the

outer part of the bag) so that clean hands can place h ands in the bag and

open the bag completely.

4. Clean hands then uses the plastic bag to shroud the samp le tap (note that

there should be no flow through the sample tap at this t ime). Clean hands

will need to puncture a small hole in the bag using the ta p and dirty hands

can cable tie the bag to the tap to prevent it from fall ing during sample

collection.

### 5. Dirty hands opens the outer bags of the field blank wat er and total mercury

and total metals field blank sample bottles. Clean hand s opens the inner

bag of the field blank water and unscrews the lid. Clean h ands then opens

the inner bag of the total mercury and total metals field bl ank sample

bottles. Clean hands pours the blank water into the fi eld blank sample

bottles under the shrouding, caps the bottles, and closes the inner bags.

Clean hands then places the total mercury and total met als bottles in the

outer bags and dirty hands closes the outer bag.

6. Dirty hands then opens the valve to the sample tap and pur ges the tap for at

least two minutes, then keeps the valve open until all sam ples have been

collected.

7. Dirty hands opens the outer bag for the total mercury s ample bottle. Clean

hands takes the sample bottle and inner bag and holds the m under the

shroud. Clean hands then opens the inner bag, opens the l id of the bottle

and fills the total mercury sample bottle. Clean hands caps the sample

bottle, closes the inner bag, and places the sample bo ttle in the outer bag.

Dirty hands closes the outer bag. The samplers repea t this procedure for

the collection of the total metals samples (both EPA 200.8 with collision

cell and EPA 200.7), unless the plant is collecting the met als samples as

composite samples.

8. The samplers then collect the BOD, Group I, Group II, and total cyanide

samples. NOTE: the samplers can collect these samp les using the same

technique as the mercury and metals samples, or they can remove the

plastic bag shrouding and collect directly from the tap.

9. The Group II and total cyanide samples must be preserved prio r to

shipment to the laboratories. Use the information provide d in the “Sample

Bottle and Preservation” section of these instruction f or the preservation

steps. Additionally, the BOD, Group I, Group II, and tota l cyanide samples

should be placed on ice immediately after sample coll ection/preservation.

Sample Packing and Shipment

The following steps should be used when packing and shipping the s amples to the

laboratories.

1. Make sure that each sample bottle has a label, and tha t the label correctly

specifies the sample point.

2. Tighten the lid on each filled sample bottle, being car eful not to

overtighten the lid. If bottle threads are dirty to w here the lid is impeded

from closing, clean the threads on the bottle being caref ul to not introduce

contamination into the sample. Clean the sample bottl e with a cloth rag or

paper towel.

3. Prior to packaging, place each sample bottle requiring ≤ 6°C preservation

into an ice chest with wet ice to cool.

4. When each sample requiring ≤ 6°C preservation has reached the desired

temperature, wrap each glass sample bottle with two layers of “bubble

### wrap” (or place bottle in two “bubble bags”). The bubble wr ap must fit

snugly and completely cover the sample bottle. Enclose each “bubblewrapped” container and plastic container in an individual sealable plastic

freezer bag.

5. Place two garbage bags inside each other in each of the coolers used to

ship samples to the laboratories.

6. Place the classicals samples in the garbage bags in th e coolers with proper

end up, close the interior garbage bag by tying, or with a tw ist-tie.

7. Add ice to the cooler to keep samples cold during shipment. Ar range blue

ice or sealed plastic freezer bags filled with wet ice on top of the sample

bottles (if samples require ≤ 6°C preservation). If using wet ice, place the

ice inside two one-gallon sealable freezer bags. Put at l east 4 × 1⁄2 gallons

of ice (4 × 2.5 pounds of ice) in each large cooler and 2 × 1⁄2 gallons of ice

(2 × 2.5 pounds of ice) in each small cooler. Use more ice when ambient

temperatures are very high. Place the ice inside the sec ond garbage bag.

8. Close the second garbage bag by tying, or with a twist-tie

. 9. Place the metals samples in the garbage bags in a diff erent cooler with

proper end up, close the interior garbage bag by tying or wit h a twist-tie.

Close the second garbage bag by tying, or with a twist-tie . NOTE: the

metals samples are not required to be cooled; however, because the metals

and classicals are being analyzed by the same laboratory, the metals can

be shipped with the classicals, but the metals samples w ould need to be

chilled prior to packing them in the cooler with the clas sicals and ice

would need to be added to the cooler between the interior a nd outer

garbage bags to keep the samples cold.

10. Fill in any free space around the bottles in the metals and classicals

coolers with additional cushioning material. Sufficient pac king material

should be used so that the sample containers will not shi ft during

shipment.

11. Fill out and print a traffic report form for the classi cals and metals samples

(provided electronically by ERG). Seal the last two pages o f the traffic

report form(s) in a plastic envelope secured to the insid e of the top of the

cooler(s). NOTE: the top page of the traffic report mus t be sent to ERG at

the following address:

Eastern Research Group

14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200

Chantilly, VA 20151

Attn: TJ Finseth

(703) 633-1698

12. Close the cooler(s).

13. Place a completed laboratory address label on the lid o f the cooler(s). The

classicals and metals samples should be shipped to TestAme rica as

follows:

### TestAmerica

4955 Yarrow Street

Arvada, CO 80002

Attn: Elizabeth Eichelberger

(303) 736-0100

14. Make several wraps with strapping tape around the cooler pe rpendicular to

the seal to ensure that the lid will remain closed if t he latch is accidentally

released or damaged.

15. Place the mercury samples in the garbage bags in a separ ate cooler with

proper end up, close the interior garbage bag by tying, or with a twist-tie.

16. Do not add ice to the mercury cooler, simply close the second garbage bag

by tying, or with a twist-tie.

17. Fill in any free space around the bottles with additional cushioning

material. Sufficient packing material should be used so that the sample

containers will not shift during shipment.

18. Fill out and print a traffic report form for the mercury samples (provided

electronically by ERG). Seal the last two pages of the traffic report form

in a plastic envelope secured to the inside of the top o f the cooler. NOTE:

the top page of the traffic report must be sent to ERG a t the same address

provided in step 11:

19. Close the cooler.

20. Place a completed laboratory address label on the lid o f the cooler. The

mercury samples should be shipped to Frontier as follows:

Frontier GeoSciences

414 Pontius Ave. North

Seattle, WA 98109

Attn: Patrick Garcia-Strickland

(206) 957-1428

21. Make several wraps with strapping tape around the cooler pe rpendicular to

the seal to ensure that the lid will remain closed if t he latch is accidentally

released or damaged.

22. Fill out the necessary paperwork for FedEx or UPS to prepa re the

shipment for pick up or drop off. NOTE: the samples must b e shipped

priority overnight to arrive at the laboratories the following morning. Ship

the coolers to the laboratories.

23. After the coolers have been dropped off (or picked up), pleas e contact TJ

Finseth at (703) 633-1698, to notify him that the samples have b een

shipped to the laboratories.

Traffic Reports

An example traffic report will be provided to the plant by ERG for the first sample

collection event. The plant will need to make changes t o the traffic report electronically

### for the other three sample collection events. Some information, such as the date and

sample collection times must be entered by the plant after the sample collection and

therefore, will not be included in the example provided by ERG.

After the traffic report is completed by the plant, th e plant must print the four pages in the

file. The last two pages in the file must be placed in t he cooler for shipment to the

laboratories and the first page must be sent to ERG. The plant can keep the second page

of the traffic report.

Engineering Data

The plant must provide engineering data regarding the operatio n of the plant and FGD

systems during the sample collection period. Additionall y, the plant must make some

field measurements when samples are collected, including pH , temperature, and visual

observations, and provide the data to EPA after the sample collection period. The

engineering data and field measurement data requirements are in an Excel® spreadsheet

titled “Monitoring Program Engineering Data Tables,” which w ill be provided by ERG.

The tables are also included at the end of this enclosure. The plant must complete the

engineering data sheets and field measurement sheets in th e Excel® file and e-mail the

completed forms to TJ Finseth at thomas.finseth@erg.com

.

Certification Statement

The individual responsible for directing and supervising the s ample collection and the

engineering data preparation must sign the certification statement (provided in Enclosure

4) and submit it upon the completion of the sampling program . The signed certification

statement should be scanned and e-mailed to TJ Finseth at thomas.finseth@erg.com , at

the same time the engineering data is submitted.Complete the following tables for each sampling pointPlant NameSampleCollectionNumberDate of SampleCollectionSample CollectionTime Temperature (°C)pH(S.U.)Set 1Set 2Set 3Set 4Plant NameSampleCollectionNumberInfluent SamplesCollected asGrabs(Yes or No)Mercury and CyanideSamples Collected asGrabs(Yes or No)Bioreactor Influentand BioreactorEffluent SamplesCollected as 24-HourComposites(Yes or No)Tyvek Suitsused(Yes or No)Dust MasksUsed forMercury(Yes or No)Clean Hands/DirtyHands SamplingTechniques Used(Yes or No)Description of SampleCollection Technique (ifdifferent thaninstructions)Description of AbnormalConditions in FGD Systemor FGD WastewaterTreatment System that MayImpact ConcentrationsSet 1Set 2Set 3Set 4Complete the following tables based on the plant operating characteristics during each set of samplescollectedUnits OperatingDuring SamplingDayUnits Off-lineEntireSampling DaySCRs/SNCRsOperating onUnitsSet 1Set 2Set 3Set 4Flow Rate (gpm) DurationSet 1Set 2Set 3Set 4Lime Usage(tons)Ferric ChlorideUsage(Liters/day)Organosulfide Usage(Liters/day)Polymer Usage(Liters/day)Acid Usage(Liters/day)ChemicalPrecipitationSystem EffluentFlow Rate (gpd)Dilution WaterAddition Priorto BiologicalTreatmentSystem(gpd)BiologicalTreatmentSystem EffluentFlow Rate (gpd)Set 1Set 2Set 3Set 4Percent HydrocloneOverflow RecycledBack to ScrubberPlant NameSampleCollectionNumberDate of SampleCollectionScrubber Slurry Blowdown FlowRateScrubber SlurryPercent SolidsPlant Operation During Sample CollectionFGD Wastewater Treatment Operation During Sample CollectionPlant NameDate of SampleCollectionSampleCollectionNumberScrubber PurgeFlow Rate DuringInfluent SampleCollection(gpm)Plant NameDate of SampleCollectionSampleCollectionNumberPlant Operation During Sample CollectionUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Daily Power Generation (MW-hrs)

Plant Name Date Provide the daily power generation for each scrubbe d unit starting two weeks prior to the first

set of samples through the last set of samplesChemical

Precipitation

Effluent Dilution Water

Addition Prior to

Biological

Treatment

System Biological Treatment

System Effluent Plant Name Date FGD Wastewater Treatment System Flow Rates

(gpd) Provide the average flow rate in the FGD wastewater treatment system for each stream included in the

table starting two weeks prior to the first set of samples through the last set of samples

### Enclosure 2

Authority

This request for information is made under authority provided by Section 308 of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 USC 1318. Secti on 308 provides that, "Whenever

required to carry out the objective of this Act, includi ng but not limited to . . . developing or

assisting in the development of any effluent limitation . . . pretreatment standard, or standard of

performance under this Act," the Administrator shall requ ire the owner or operator of any point

source to "establish and maintain such records, . . make s uch reports, . . install, use, and maintain

such monitoring equipment . . . sample such effluent . . . and provide such other information as

he may reasonably require."

Confidentiality

A business ("you") may not withhold information from EPA on the grounds that it is

confidential. You may, however, if you desire, assert a business confidentiality claim covering

part or all of the information that you furnish to EPA.

EPA regulations concerning confidential business informatio n are contained in 40 CFR Part 2,

Subpart B. The manner of asserting such a claim is speci fied in 40 CFR 2.203(b). Information

covered by such a claim will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent, and by means of the

procedures, set forth in Subpart B.

If you wish to claim as confidential any of the informat ion covered by the enclosed request, you

must do so at the time you submit the information to EPA. If no such claim accompanies the

information when EPA receives it, EPA may make the inf ormation available to the public

without further notice to you.

EPA will notify you in the event that a request is made for release of information that you have

claimed to be confidential or EPA otherwise decides to ma ke a determination as to whether or

not such information is entitled to confidential treatm ent. At that time, EPA will request that you

substantiate any claim you have made that information is c onfidential. Therefore, we encourage

you to consult 40 CFR Part 2, and to claim as confidential only those items that you truly believe

satisfy the criteria for confidentiality.

Note that effluent data are not eligible for confidential t reatment (see 40 CFR 2.302).

### Enclosure 3

Notice of Intent to Transfer Confidential Information to Sel ected EPA Contractors

EPA intends to grant access to confidential information collected under the sampling program to

selected EPA contractors.

In accordance with 40 CFR Sections 2.301(h)(2-3), 2.302(h)(2-3), a nd 2.305(h)(2-3), EPA may

allow those contractors identified below access to all data (including data claimed to be

confidential) collected as part of the follow-on sampli ng program. Transfer of this information

to these contractors is necessary in order for the cont ractors to assist EPA in performing

technical, statistical, and environmental analyses to support the development of effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for the Steam Electri c Power Generating industry.

The contractors and subcontractors that will be providi ng support to EPA during the

development of these regulations are listed below:

EPA Office

Receiving

Support Contractor Name EPA Contract

No. Type of Support

Eastern Research Group, Inc. 68-C-02-095 Engineering analysi s Office of Water/

Office of

Science &

Technology/

Engineering &

Analysis

Division Westat EP-C-10-023 Statistical analysis

EPA has determined that it is necessary to transfer the information described above to the

designated contractors and subcontractors in order that they may carry out the work required by

their contracts. The contracts contain all provisions necessary to implement the confidentiality

regulations (see 40 CFR 2.301(h)(2), 2.302(h)(2), and 2.305(h)(2)).

In accordance with these confidentiality regulations, yo u are entitled to provide comments to

EPA regarding this notice of contemplated disclosure. Any such comments must be received by

EPA in writing within 10 days of your receipt of this noti ce. Please send such comments to:

Ronald Jordan

USEPA Headquarters

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Mail Code: 4303T

Washington, DC 20460

jordan.ronald@epa.gov

### Enclosure 4

Certification Statement

The individual responsible for directing or supervising the sample collection and engineering

data preparation for the sampling program must read and sig n the Certification Statement listed

below. The certifying official must be a responsible co rporate official or his/her authorized

representative.

Certification Statement

I certify under penalty of law that the samples collected for the sampling program were collected

under my direction or supervision, that qualified personnel collected the samples following the

procedures described in the instructions (including the use of clean hands/di rty hands sampling

techniques described in EPA Method 1669), that qualified personnel gathered t he engineering

data required, and that the sampling and engineering data provided are complete and ref lect

normal operations for this plant. The engineering data submitted are, to the best of my

knowledge and belief, accurate and complete. In those cases where we di d not possess direct

measurement, we provided best estimates. We have to the best of our ability indicated what we

believe to be company confidential business information as defined under 40 CFR Part 2,

Subpart B. We understand that we may be required at a later time to jus tify our claim in detail

with respect to each item claimed confidential. I am aware that there are significant penalties

for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment as explained

in Section 308 of the Clean Water Act.

Signature of Certifying Official Date



### ( )

Printed Name of Certifying Official Telephone Numbe r of Certifying Official

Title of Certifying Official

Company Name

## Section 2

On

- Site Audit Memorandum

### An on

- site audit was not performed at the Dickerson Generating Station

.

## Section 3

Signed Certification Statement

## Section 4

Engineering DataTable E 4

- 1. Field Measurement s for Sample Collection at the Influent to FGD Wastewater Treatment System, Dickerson

Episode Number Sample Collection

Number Date of Sample

Collection Sample Collection

Time Temperature

(°C) pH

(S.U.)

6569 Set 1

- Grab 1 9/29/2010 0945 35 6.9

6569 Set 2

- Grab 1 12/8/2010 1034 29 6

6569 Set 3

- Grab 1 1/12/2011 0806 36 6.5

6569 Set 4

- Grab 1 2/9/2011 0904 33 6.5Table E 4

- 2. Field Measurement s for Sample Collection at the Influent to the SBR System, Dickerson

Episode Number Sample Collection

Number Date of Sample

Collection Sample Collection

Time Temperature

(°C) pH

(S.U.)

6569 Set 1

- Grab 1 9/28/2010 1355 35.0 6.9

6569 Set 1

- Grab 2 9/28/2010 1955 33.0 7.01

6569 Set 1

- Grab 3 9/29/2010 0155 31.9 6.88

6569 Set 1

- Grab 4 9/29/2010 0753 31.1 6.7

6569 Set 2

- Grab 1 12/7/2010 1205 14 6.0

6569 Set 2

- Grab 2 12/7/2010 1 803 14 7.0

6569 Set 2

- Grab 3 12/8/2010 0007 14 6.0

6569 Set 2

- Grab 4 12/8/2010 0638 13 7.0

6569 Set 3

- Grab 1 1/11/2011 1 111 22 6.9

6569 Set 3

- Grab 2 1/11/2011 1 713 23 7.1

6569 Set 3

- Grab 3 1/11 /2011 231 0 16 6.8

6569 Set 3

- Grab 4 1/12/2011 0512 19 7.0

6569 Set 4

- Grab 1 2/8/2011 10 31 21 6.6

6569 Set 4

- Grab 2 2/8/2011 16 29 25 6.0

6569 Set 4

- Grab 3 2/8/2011 22 30 22 6.0

6569 Set 4

- Grab 4 2/9/2011 04 32 23 6.0Table E 4

- 3. Field Measurement s for Sample Collection at the Effluent from the SBR System, Dickerson

Episode Number Sample Collection

Number Date of Sample

Collection Sample Collection

Time Temperature

(°C) pH

(S.U.)

6569 Set 1

- Grab 1 9/28/2010 1 325 28.7 7.0

6569 Set 1

- Grab 2 9/28/2010 1 925 29.6 7.05

6569 Set 1

- Grab 3 9/29/2010 0125 27.4 7.16

6569 Set 1

- Grab 4 9/29/2010 0733 27.2 7.05

6569 Set 2

- Grab 1 12/7/2010 1 120 10 6.3

6569 Set 2

- Grab 2 12/7/2010 1 713 16 NR

6569 Set 2

- Grab 3 12/7 /2010 2 3 0 8 17 6.3

6569 Set 2

- Grab 4 12/8/2010 0510 16 6.0

6569 Set 3

- Grab 1 1/11/2011 0 9 51 23 7.2

6569 Set 3

- Grab 2 1/11/2011 15 52 24 7.3

6569 Set 3

- Grab 3 1/11 /2011 21 58 22 7.4

6569 Set 3

- Grab 4 1/12/2011 03 58 17 7.3

6569 Set 4

- Grab 1 2/8/2011 09 11 26 7.5

6569 Set 4

- Grab 2 2/8/2011 15 0 5 26 7.5

6569 Set 4

- Grab 3 2/8/2011 21 15 22 7.0

6569 Set 4

- Grab 4 2/9/2011 0 3 09 22 7.0

NR

– Not reported.Table E 4

- 4. Sample Collection Procedures Used during the Sampling Episode

Episode

Number Sample

Collection

Number Influent

Samples

Collected as

Grabs

(Yes or No) Mercury

and Cyanide

Samples

Collected as

Grabs

(Yes or No) Bioreactor Influent

and Bioreactor

Effluent Samples

Collected as 24

- Hour Composites

(Yes or No) Clean

Hands/Dirty

Hands Sampling

Techniques Used

(Yes or No) * Description of

Sample

Collection

Technique (if

different than

instructions) Description of Abnormal

Condition s in FGD

System or FGD

Wastewater Treatment

System that May Impact

Concentrations

6569 Set 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes None None

6569 Set 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes None None

6569 Set 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Note 1 None

6569 Set 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes None None

* Includes the use of tyveks suits during all sampling events and dust masks during the collection of mercury samples.

Note 1: The compositor effluent tube for the effluent from the SBR system froze during sample collection causing the sample t ap to blow off the bottle.

Approximately one hour lapsed from the schedule before sampling resumed.Table E 4

- 5. Generating Unit Operation at Time of Sampling, Dickerson

Episode Number Sample Collection

Number Date of Sample

Collection Plant Operation During Sample Collection

Units Operating

During Sampling

Day Units Off

- line Entire

Sampling Day SCRs/SNCRs

Operating on

Units

6569 Set 1 9 / 28 /10

- 9 / 29 /10 Units 1,2,3 None No

6569 Set 2 1 2 / 7 /10

- 1 2 / 8 /10 Units 1,2,3 None No

6569 Set 3 1/ 11 /1 1

- 1/ 12 /1 1 Units 2,3 Unit 1 No

6569 Set 4 2 / 8 /11

- 2 / 9 /11 Units 1,2,3 None NoTable E 4

- 6. FGD Scrubber Slurry Information at Time of Sampling, Dickerson

Episode

Number Sample

Collection

Number Date of Sample

Collection Plant Operation During Sample Collection

Scrubber Slurry Blowdown

Flow Rate Scrubber

Slurry

Percent

Solids

(%) Percent

Hydroclone

Overflow Recycled

Back to Scrubber

(%) Flow Rate

(gpm) Duration

(Hours)

6569 Set 1 9/28/ 20 10 889 8.00 19.94 2.30

6569 Set 1 9/29/ 20 10 721 4.58 19.90 5.04

6569 Set 2 12/7/ 20 10 650 3.87 19.98 6.63

6569 Set 2 12/8/ 20 10 572 6.40 19.93 4.55

6569 Set 3 1/11/ 20 11 788 6.95 20.09 3.04

6569 Set 3 1/12/ 20 11 744 5.82 19.70 3.85

6569 Set 4 2/8/ 20 11 816 7.10 18.63 2.88

6569 Set 4 2/9/ 20 11 452 3.30 19.15 1.24Table E 4

- 7. FGD Wastewater Treatment System Operation Information, Dickerson

Episode

Number Sample

Collection

Number Date of Sample

Collection FGD Wastewater Treatment Operation During Sample Collection

Lime Usage

(tons) Ferric Chloride

Usage

(Liters/day) Organosulfide

Usage

(Liters/day) Polymer Usage

(Liters/day) Acid Usage

(Liters/day)

6569 Set 1 09/28/2010 3.05 27.25 NOT USED 2.61 43.6

6569 Set 1 09/29/2010 2.9 28.16 NOT USED 3.14 472.37

6569 Set 2 12/07/2010 2.3 19.98 54.5 4.24 254.35

6569 Set 2 12/08/2010 2.9 27.25 54.5 5.22 218.02

6569 Set 3 01/11/2011 5.8 27.25 49.96 5.22 263.44

6569 Set 3 01/12/2011 3.85 27.25 54.5 3.86 327.02

6569 Set 4 02/08/2011 5.3 27.25 31.79 4.81 635.88

6569 Set 4 02/09/2011 4.73 27.25 36.34 4.54 690.38Table E 4

- 8. Daily Power Generation During Sampling Period, Dickerson

Episode Number Date Daily Power Generation

(MW

- hrs)

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

6569 9/14/2010 2,686 2,196 2,590

6569 9/15/2010 2,592 1,999 2,599

6569 9/16/2010 3,020 2,875 3,155

6569 9/17/2010 3,110 2,883 3,143

6569 9/18/2010 2,100 229 2,139

6569 9/19/2010 2,403 2,727 2,199

6569 9/20/2010 2,831 2,843 2,327

6569 9/21/2010 2,287 2,351 2,131

6569 9/22/2010 3,079 3,179 3,007

6569 9/23/2010 3,381 3,195 3,493

6569 9/24/2010 3,465 3,507 3,483

6569 9/25/2010 3,597 3,669 3,677

6569 9/26/2010 2,683 2,781 2,387

6569 9/27/2010 3,484 3,426 3,737

6569 9/28/2010 3,313 2,984 3,463

6569 9/29/2010 2,830 2,524 2,706

6569 9/30/2010 3,397 3,394 1,203

6569 10/1/2010 3,305 3,368 1,465

6569 10/2/2010 1,901 1,897 1,902

6569 10/3/2010 1,927 1,920 1,949

6569 10/4/2010 1,959 1,963 1,951

6569 10/5/2010 2,020 1,985 2,067

6569 10/6/2010 1,898 110 1,880

6569 10/7/2010 169 0 57

6569 10/8/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/9/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/10/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/11/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/12/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/13/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/14/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/15/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/16/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/17/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/18/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/19/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/20/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/21/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/22/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/23/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/24/2010 0 0 0Table E 4

- 8. Daily Power Generation During Sampling Period, Dickerson

Episode Number Date Daily Power Generation

(MW

- hrs)

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

6569 10/25/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/26/2010 0 1,678 793

6569 10/27/2010 0 3,160 2,413

6569 10/28/2010 0 2,433 2,339

6569 10/29/2010 0 100 117

6569 10/30/2010 0 0 0

6569 10/31/2010 0 0 0

6569 11/1/2010 865 746 865

6569 11/2/2010 2,400 2,641 2,400

6569 11/3/2010 2,199 2,271 2,199

6569 11/4/2010 2,274 2,261 2,274

6569 11/5/2010 103 2,141 103

6569 11/6/2010 0 2,558 0

6569 11/7/2010 0 2,075 0

6569 11/8/2010 0 2,145 0

6569 11/9/2010 0 2,048 0

6569 11/10/2010 0 1,908 0

6569 11/11/2010 0 2,159 0

6569 11/12/2010 0 2,186 0

6569 11/13/2010 0 1,940 0

6569 11/14/2010 0 2,011 0

6569 11/15/2010 0 2,022 0

6569 11/16/2010 0 2,378 0

6569 11/17/2010 0 2,492 0

6569 11/18/2010 0 2,319 0

6569 11/19/2010 500 1,903 500

6569 11/20/2010 0 1,836 0

6569 11/21/2010 0 28 0

6569 11/22/2010 0 0 0

6569 11/23/2010 0 0 0

6569 11/24/2010 0 0 0

6569 11/25/2010 0 0 0

6569 11/26/2010 0 0 0

6569 11/27/2010 0 0 0

6569 11/28/2010 0 0 0

6569 11/29/2010 1,814 0 1,814

6569 11/30/2010 2,038 0 2,038

6569 12/1/2010 3,040 1 15

6569 12/2/2010 2,624 2,543 2,293

6569 12/3/2010 2,805 3,330 3,482

6569 12/4/2010 2,087 2,112 2,112

6569 12/5/2010 2,307 2,367 2,349

6569 12/6/2010 3,315 3,042 2,800Table E 4

- 8. Daily Power Generation During Sampling Period, Dickerson

Episode Number Date Daily Power Generation

(MW

- hrs)

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

6569 12/7/2010 2,972 3,076 3,009

6569 12/8/2010 3,070 3,137 3,251

6569 12/9/2010 4,171 4,115 4,243

6569 12/10/2010 4,340 4,370 3,615

6569 12/11/2010 4,004 4,007 3,877

6569 12/12/2010 2,896 2,989 2,119

6569 12/13/2010 3,362 3,516 3,495

6569 12/14/2010 4,392 4,447 4,499

6569 12/15/2010 4,184 4,233 4,219

6569 12/16/2010 4,385 4,387 4,465

6569 12/17/2010 4,443 4,432 2,769

6569 12/18/2010 4,039 4,147 0

6569 12/19/2010 2,364 2,962 0

6569 12/20/2010 1,267 4,306 2,682

6569 12/21/2010 0 3,101 3,106

6569 12/22/2010 5 3,243 3,241

6569 12/23/2010 2,440 2,892 2,850

6569 12/24/2010 2,519 2,615 2,604

6569 12/25/2010 2,913 2,904 2,951

6569 12/26/2010 3,396 3,752 3,807

6569 12/27/2010 3,864 4,154 2,885

6569 12/28/2010 2,894 2,908 810

6569 12/29/2010 2,922 2,908 0

6569 12/30/2010 2,362 2,800 0

6569 12/31/2010 78 2,211 0

6569 1/1/2011 0 1,954 0

6569 1/2/2011 0 2,040 0

6569 1/3/2011 880 2,993 1,159

6569 1/4/2011 3,272 3,223 3,327

6569 1/5/2011 3,094 3,100 3,126

6569 1/6/2011 3,056 2,820 2,815

6569 1/7/2011 3,469 2,353 2,304

6569 1/8/2011 128 3,436 3,449

6569 1/9/2011 0 4,191 4,110

6569 1/10/2011 0 3,307 3,365

6569 1/11/2011 0 3,519 3,517

6569 1/12/2011 0 3,930 3,935

6569 1/13/2011 2,821 4,183 4,186

6569 1/14/2011 3,759 3,862 3,571

6569 1/15/2011 2,789 2,961 2,905

6569 1/16/2011 1,942 1,941 1,979

6569 1/17/2011 3,308 3,242 2,126

6569 1/18/2011 3,112 3,093 3,056Table E 4

- 8. Daily Power Generation During Sampling Period, Dickerson

Episode Number Date Daily Power Generation

(MW

- hrs)

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

6569 1/19/2011 2,298 2,288 2,305

6569 1/20/2011 2,248 2,244 2,303

6569 1/21/2011 1,621 3,495 3,472

6569 1/22/2011 0 3,924 4,260

6569 1/23/2011 0 4,174 4,156

6569 1/24/2011 2,623 4,036 4,031

6569 1/25/2011 3,049 3,092 3,051

6569 1/26/2011 3,193 3,197 3,186

6569 1/27/2011 3,048 2,979 3,012

6569 1/28/2011 2,972 2,684 2,943

6569 1/29/2011 2,997 2,797 2,870

6569 1/30/2011 2,089 2,063 2,006

6569 1/31/2011 3,061 2,972 3,052

6569 2/1/2011 3,142 3,022 3,046

6569 2/2/2011 2,801 2,654 2,730

6569 2/3/2011 2,905 2,874 2,985

6569 2/4/2011 3,120 3,099 3,208

6569 2/5/2011 3,031 2,930 3,019

6569 2/6/2011 1,945 1,934 1,942

6569 2/7/2011 2,340 2,265 2,255

6569 2/8/2011 2,456 2,420 2,431

6569 2/9/2011 4,224 4,114 4,368Table E 4

- 9. FGD Wastewater Treatment System Flow Rate during Sampling Period, Dickerson

Episode

Number Date FGD Wastewater Treatment System Flow Rates

(gpd)

Chemical

Precipitation

Effluent Dilution Water

Addition Prior to

Biological Treatment

System Biological

Treatment System

Effluent

6569 9/14/2010 64,817 0 91,590

6569 9/15/2010 95,944 0 82,017

6569 9/16/2010 80,067 0 68,457

6569 9/17/2010 88,304 0 91,408

6569 9/18/2010 89,547 0 81,408

6569 9/19/2010 85,794 0 84,852

6569 9/20/2010 96,836 0 90,936

6569 9/21/2010 108,965 0 83,712

6569 9/22/2010 125,312 0 105,928

6569 9/23/2010 130,480 0 101,155

6569 9/24/2010 123,776 0 115,187

6569 9/25/2010 108,573 0 108,160

6569 9/26/2010 349 0 77,313

6569 9/27/2010 89,888 0 84,783

6569 9/28/2010 84,038 0 91,930

6569 9/29/2010 84,296 0 71,893

6569 9/30/2010 88,951 0 89,912

6569 10/1/10 93,184 0 56,775

6569 10/2/10 88,897 0 84,881

6569 10/3/10 87,742 0 81,744

6569 10/4/10 88,433 0 83,043

6569 10/5/10 98,028 0 90,106

6569 10/6/10 101,384 0 92,489

6569 10/7/10 86,140 0 97,559

6569 10/8/10 85,046 0 66,037

6569 10/9/10 87,950 0 69,826

6569 10/10/10 85,096 0 75,475

6569 10/11/10 87,184 0 60,686

6569 10/12/10 86,494 0 60,567

6569 10/13/10 86,412 0 73,958

6569 10/14/10 86,369 0 52,155

6569 10/15/10 86,233 0 96,234

6569 10/16/10 83,281 0 67,099

6569 10/17/10 87,052 0 69,942

6569 10/18/10 85,344 0 74,270

6569 10/19/10 86,021 0 55,319

6569 10/20/10 83,884 0 15,640

6569 10/21/10 86,479 0 22,461Table E 4

- 9. FGD Wastewater Treatment System Flow Rate during Sampling Period, Dickerson

Episode

Number Date FGD Wastewater Treatment System Flow Rates

(gpd)

Chemical

Precipitation

Effluent Dilution Water

Addition Prior to

Biological Treatment

System Biological

Treatment System

Effluent

6569 10/22/10 0 0 14,228

6569 10/23/10 0 0 0

6569 10/24/10 0 0 0

6569 10/25/10 0 0 0

6569 10/26/10 0 0 0

6569 10/27/10 0 0 0

6569 10/28/10 0 0 0

6569 10/29/10 0 0 0

6569 10/30/10 0 0 0

6569 10/31/10 0 0 0

6569 11/1/10 0 0 0

6569 11/2/10 0 0 0

6569 11/3/10 0 0 0

6569 11/4/10 0 0 0

6569 11/5/10 * 0 0

6569 11/6/10 * 0 0

6569 11/7/10 * 0 31,923

6569 11/8/10 80,507 0 75,197

6569 11/9/10 79,102 0 61,198

6569 11/10/10 79,869 0 37,511

6569 11/11/10 80,183 0 62,691

6569 11/12/10 79,962 0 76,753

6569 11/13/10 80,914 0 58,442

6569 11/14/10 79,445 0 56,313

6569 11/15/10 78,779 0 48,774

6569 11/16/10 79,533 0 59,596

6569 11/17/10 80,076 0 61,447

6569 11/18/10 81,532 0 68,221

6569 11/19/10 160,636 0 58,316

6569 11/20/10 * 0 37,679

6569 11/21/10 * 0 60,585

6569 11/22/10 79,099 0 77,756

6569 11/23/10 79,905 0 63,420

6569 11/24/10 75,069 0 41,205

6569 11/25/10 79,326 0 49,730

6569 11/26/10 81,199 0 46,487

6569 11/27/10 76,173 0 46,843

6569 11/28/10 77,610 0 42,596

6569 11/29/10 76,061 0 16,458

6569 11/30/10 77,321 0 0Table E 4

- 9. FGD Wastewater Treatment System Flow Rate during Sampling Period, Dickerson

Episode

Number Date FGD Wastewater Treatment System Flow Rates

(gpd)

Chemical

Precipitation

Effluent Dilution Water

Addition Prior to

Biological Treatment

System Biological

Treatment System

Effluent

6569 12/1/10 80,450 0 55,184

6569 12/2/10 77,860 0 *

6569 12/3/10 78,525 0 *

6569 12/4/10 78,971 0 38,519

6569 12/5/10 77,623 0 40,032

6569 12/6/10 80,170 0 *

6569 12/7/10 77,766 0 68,048

6569 12/8/10 79,627 0 42,024

6569 12/9/10 79,525 0 46,836

6569 12/10/10 90,845 0 72,164

6569 12/11/10 97,928 0 93,946

6569 12/12/10 96,248 0 82,078

6569 12/13/10 103,831 0 58,670

6569 12/14/10 115,731 0 102,291

6569 12/15/10 119,194 0 125,522

6569 12/16/10 131,236 0 111,103

6569 12/17/10 143,028 0 105,932

6569 12/18/10 143,124 0 122,269

6569 12/19/10 140,686 0 125,456

6569 12/20/10 146,051 0 111,126

6569 12/21/10 151,506 0 129,959

6569 12/22/10 147,581 0 123,339

6569 12/23/10 145,040 0 119,704

6569 12/24/10 132,887 0 131,357

6569 12/25/10 130,977 0 130,101

6569 12/26/10 130,908 0 126,660

6569 12/27/10 130,001 0 107,832

6569 12/28/10 128,746 0 116,087

6569 12/29/10 122,104 0 115,750

6569 12/30/10 107,461 0 77,954

6569 12/31/10 104,195 0 96,515

6569 1/1/11 108,050 0 89,267

6569 1/2/11 106,746 0 82,695

6569 1/3/11 91,481 0 91,270

6569 1/4/11 86,329 0 77,309

6569 1/5/11 87,258 0 74,804

6569 1/6/11 98,259 0 59,826

6569 1/7/11 96,989 0 90,105

6569 1/8/11 93,850 0 95,492

6569 1/9/11 87,237 0 88,360Table E 4

- 9. FGD Wastewater Treatment System Flow Rate during Sampling Period, Dickerson

Episode

Number Date FGD Wastewater Treatment System Flow Rates

(gpd)

Chemical

Precipitation

Effluent Dilution Water

Addition Prior to

Biological Treatment

System Biological

Treatment System

Effluent

6569 1/10/11 90,516 0 73,861

6569 1/11/11 84,640 0 86,543

6569 1/12/11 85,048 0 72,430

6569 1/13/11 88,955 0 69,931

6569 1/14/11 89,601 0 81,500

6569 1/15/11 102,333 0 91,380

6569 1/16/11 106,732 0 89,591

6569 1/17/11 106,966 0 108,218

6569 1/18/11 114,950 0 97,875

6569 1/19/11 121,130 0 81,948

6569 1/20/11 69,087 0 64,822

6569 1/21/11 116,450 0 116,730

6569 1/22/11 126,527 0 114,143

6569 1/23/11 130,219 0 109,878

6569 1/24/11 113,871 0 91,443

6569 1/25/11 98,485 0 94,663

6569 1/26/11 109,031 0 113,100

6569 1/27/11 99,320 0 81,873

6569 1/28/11 90,893 0 97,304

6569 1/29/11 89,532 0 93,304

6569 1/30/11 87,329 0 104,292

6569 1/31/11 114,960 0 108,963

6569 2/1/11 120,610 0 102,346

6569 2/2/11 128,402 0 77,660

6569 2/3/11 127,802 0 129,681

6569 2/4/11 121,765 0 104,942

6569 2/5/11 129,773 0 101,354

6569 2/6/11 129,287 0 100,741

6569 2/7/11 131,251 0 114,879

6569 2/8/11 126,259 0 103,253

6569 2/9/11 130,857 0 129,053

## Section 5

Analytical Data< - Average result includes at least one value measured below the quantitation limit. (Calculation uses 1⁄2 the quantitation limit for values below the quantitation limit).ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).NQ – Analyte was measured above the method detection limit, but below the quantitation limit (number shown in parentheses is the quantitation limit). The analytical result ispresented in Tables E5-7 through E5-22 with a J flag designation. A “NQ” for the 3-set average result indicates that all results were below the quantitation limit, but at least oneresult is a J-value.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.Min – Minimum value.s – Seed correction blank recovery low.Table E5-1. Influent to FGD Wastewater Treatment System, DickersonAnalyteUnitsMethodInfluent to FGD Wastewater Treatment System (SP-1)Set 1Set 2Set 33-SetAverageClassicalsAmmoniamg/L 350.1 3.90 3.80 6.70 4.80Nitrate Nitrite as Nmg/L 353.2 83.0 94.0 94.0 90.3Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 351.2 23.0 B, Min 17.0 15.0 18.3Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 5210B NQ (2.50) s 40.0 26.0 < 22.4Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 410.4 260 450 310 340Chloridemg/L 300.0 9,900 9,800 9,800 9,830Sulfatemg/L 300.0 1,600 1,500 1,500 1,530Cyanide, Totalmg/L 4500 CN E 0.540 1.10 3.10 F 1.58Total Dissolved Solidsmg/L 2540C 23,000 B 15,000 20,000 19,300Total Suspended Solids mg/L 2540D 4,100 4,200 5,600 4,630Phosphorus, Totalmg/L 365.1 1.90 1.20 B 2.50 B1.87Total MetalsAluminumug/L 200.7 120,000 69,000 77,000 B88,700Antimonyug/L 200.8 21.0 14.0 10.0 15.0Arsenicug/L 200.8 170 120 92.0 127Bariumug/L 200.7 4,000 1,700 1,600 2,430Berylliumug/L 200.7 13.0 8.60 5.60 9.07Boronug/L 200.7 220,000 B 170,000 B 190,000 B193,000Cadmiumug/L 200.8 19.0 15.0 24.0 19.3< - Average result includes at least one value measured below the quantitation limit. (Calculation uses 1⁄2 the quantitation limit for values below the quantitation limit).ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).NQ – Analyte was measured above the method detection limit, but below the quantitation limit (number shown in parentheses is the quantitation limit). The analytical result ispresented in Tables E5-7 through E5-22 with a J flag designation. A “NQ” for the 3-set average result indicates that all results were below the quantitation limit, but at least oneresult is a J-value.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.Min – Minimum value.s – Seed correction blank recovery low.Table E5-1. Influent to FGD Wastewater Treatment System, DickersonAnalyteUnitsMethodInfluent to FGD Wastewater Treatment System (SP-1)Set 1Set 2Set 33-SetAverageCalciumug/L 200.7 3,600,000 3,700,000 B 3,900,000 B3,730,000Chromiumug/L 200.8 610 350 310 423Cobaltug/L 200.7 100 99.0 100 99.7Copperug/L 200.8 650 540 600 597Ironug/L 200.7 150,000 95,000 88,000 111,000Leadug/L 200.8 160 110 98.0 123Magnesiumug/L 200.7 2,000,000 B 1,600,000 B 1,800,000 B1,800,000Manganeseug/L 200.7 12,000 B 11,000 B 10,000 B11,000Mercuryng/L 1631E 81,400 31,300 30,100 47,600Molybdenumug/L 200.7 320 140 320 260Nickelug/L 200.8 600 560 510 557Seleniumug/L 200.8 2,800 2,400 1,300 2,170Silverug/L 200.8 ND (2.00) ND (2.00) ND (2.00) ND (2.00)Sodiumug/L 200.7 300,000 B 180,000 210,000 B230,000Thalliumug/L 200.8 2.70 4.40 4.20 3.77Tinug/L 200.7 NQ (200) NQ (200) NQ (200) NQ (200)Titaniumug/L 200.7 5,200 2,400 2,600 3,400Vanadiumug/L 200.8 410 230 200 280Zincug/L 200.7 1,300 1,200 2,500 1,670< - Average result includes at least one value measured below the quantitation limit. (Calculation uses 1⁄2 the quantitation limit for values below the quantitation limit).ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).NQ – Analyte was measured above the method detection limit, but below the quantitation limit (number shown in parentheses is the quantitation limit). The analytical result ispresented in Tables E5-7 through E5-22 with a J flag designation. A “NQ” for the 3-set average result indicates that all results were below the quantitation limit, but at least oneresult is a J-value.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.Min – Minimum value.s – Seed correction blank recovery low.[QUESTION FOR DICKERSON: Please provide the split sampling mercury results associated with Sets 1, 2, and 3 of the Influent toFGD Wastewater Treatment System.]< - Average result includes at least one value measured below the quantitation limit. (Calculation uses 1⁄2 the quantitation limit for values below the quantitation limit).ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).NQ – Analyte was measured above the method detection limit, but below the quantitation limit (number shown in parentheses is the quantitation limit). The analytical result ispresented in Tables E5-7 through E5-22 with a J flag designation. A “NQ” for the 3-set average result indicates that all results were below the quantitation limit, but at least oneresult is a J-value.4 – MS and/or MSD did not meet laboratory criteria, but sample concentration is four times greater than the matrix spike amount, so control limits are not applicable.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.E – MS and/or MSD exceeded the calibration range.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.Min – Minimum value.S – Seed correction blank recovery low.Table E5-2. Influent to SBR System, DickersonAnalyteUnitsMethodInfluent to SBR System (SP-2)Set 1Set 2Set 33-SetAverageClassicalsAmmoniamg/L 350.1 3.20 2.30 4.00 3.17Nitrate Nitrite as Nmg/L 353.2 61.0 11.0 57.0 43.0Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 351.2 12.0 B, Min 8.80 3.50 8.10Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 5210B 5.80 s 61.0 17.0 27.9Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 410.4 220 260 E,F100 193Chloridemg/L 300.0 9,100 6,300 7,800 7,730Sulfatemg/L 300.0 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,500Cyanide, Totalmg/L 4500 CN E NQ (0.100) NQ (0.100) F 0.570 < 0.223Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 2540C 20,000 B 13,000 14,000 15,700Total Suspended Solids mg/L 2540D 29.0 56.0 17.0 34.0Phosphorus, Totalmg/L 365.1 NQ (0.0500) 0.110 B NQ (0.0500) B< 0.0533Total MetalsAluminumug/L 200.7 580 450 320 B450Antimonyug/L 200.8 4.70 2.70 3.20 3.53Arsenicug/L 200.8 NQ (4.00) NQ (4.00) NQ (4.00) NQ (4.00)Bariumug/L 200.7 350 230 320 300Berylliumug/L 200.7 ND (2.00) ND (2.00) ND (2.00) ND (2.00)< - Average result includes at least one value measured below the quantitation limit. (Calculation uses 1⁄2 the quantitation limit for values below the quantitation limit).ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).NQ – Analyte was measured above the method detection limit, but below the quantitation limit (number shown in parentheses is the quantitation limit). The analytical result ispresented in Tables E5-7 through E5-22 with a J flag designation. A “NQ” for the 3-set average result indicates that all results were below the quantitation limit, but at least oneresult is a J-value.4 – MS and/or MSD did not meet laboratory criteria, but sample concentration is four times greater than the matrix spike amount, so control limits are not applicable.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.E – MS and/or MSD exceeded the calibration range.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.Min – Minimum value.S – Seed correction blank recovery low.Table E5-2. Influent to SBR System, DickersonAnalyteUnitsMethodInfluent to SBR System (SP-2)Set 1Set 2Set 33-SetAverageBoronug/L 200.7 170,000 B 110,000 B,4130,000 B137,000Cadmiumug/L 200.8 NQ (4.00) ND (4.00) ND (4.00) NQ (4.00)Calciumug/L 200.7 3,300,000 2,300,000 B,43,100,000 B2,900,000Chromiumug/L 200.8 NQ (8.00) ND (8.00) ND (8.00) NQ (8.00)Cobaltug/L 200.7 NQ (20.0) NQ (20.0) NQ (20.0) NQ (20.0)Copperug/L 200.8 130 6.50 16.0 50.8Ironug/L 200.7 1,000 1,200 430 877Leadug/L 200.8 5.60 NQ (2.00) NQ (2.00) < 2.53Magnesiumug/L 200.7 1,700,000 B 970,000 B,41,100,000 B1,260,000Manganeseug/L 200.7 98.0 B 1,300 B 230 B543Mercuryng/L 1631E 667 910 270 616Molybdenumug/L 200.7 220 70.0 200 163Nickelug/L 200.8 71.0 79.0 22.0 57.3Seleniumug/L 200.8 190 370 4 170 243Silverug/L 200.8 ND (2.00) ND (2.00) F ND (2.00) ND (2.00)Sodiumug/L 200.7 300,000 B 170,000 180,000 B217,000Thalliumug/L 200.8 NQ (2.00) ND (2.00) ND (2.00) NQ (2.00)Tinug/L 200.7 ND (200) ND (200) ND (200) ND (200)< - Average result includes at least one value measured below the quantitation limit. (Calculation uses 1⁄2 the quantitation limit for values below the quantitation limit).ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).NQ – Analyte was measured above the method detection limit, but below the quantitation limit (number shown in parentheses is the quantitation limit). The analytical result ispresented in Tables E5-7 through E5-22 with a J flag designation. A “NQ” for the 3-set average result indicates that all results were below the quantitation limit, but at least oneresult is a J-value.4 – MS and/or MSD did not meet laboratory criteria, but sample concentration is four times greater than the matrix spike amount, so control limits are not applicable.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.E – MS and/or MSD exceeded the calibration range.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.Min – Minimum value.S – Seed correction blank recovery low.Table E5-2. Influent to SBR System, DickersonAnalyteUnitsMethodInfluent to SBR System (SP-2)Set 1Set 2Set 33-SetAverageTitaniumug/L 200.7 43.0 27.0 29.0 33.0Vanadiumug/L 200.8 NQ (10.0) NQ (10.0) NQ (10.0) NQ (10.0)Zincug/L 200.7 44.0 NQ (40.0) 47.0 < 37.0[QUESTION FOR DICKERSON: Please provide the split sampling mercury results associated with Sets 1, 2, and 3 of the Influent toSBR System.]< - Average result includes at least one value measured below the quantitation limit. (Calculation uses 1⁄2 the quantitation limit for values below the quantitation limit).ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).NQ – Analyte was measured above the method detection limit, but below the quantitation limit (number shown in parentheses is the quantitation limit). The analytical result ispresented in Tables E5-7 through E5-22 with a J flag designation. A “NQ” for the 3-set average result indicates that all results were below the quantitation limit, but at least oneresult is a J-value.4 – MS and/or MSD did not meet laboratory criteria, but sample concentration is four times greater than the matrix spike amount, so control limits are not applicable.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.E – MS and/or MSD exceeded the calibration range.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.Min – Minimum value.S – Seed correction blank recovery low.Table E5-3. Effluent from SBR System, DickersonAnalyteUnitsMethodEffluent from the SBR System (SP-3)Set 1Set 2Set 33-SetAverageClassicalsAmmoniamg/L 350.1 NQ (1.00) NQ (1.00) NQ (1.00) NQ (1.00)Nitrate Nitrite as Nmg/L 353.2 0.130 0.140 ND (1.00) < 0.257Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 351.2 16.0 B, Min24.0 3.80 F 14.6Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 5210B 6.20 s ND (2.00) 5.90 < 4.37Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 410.4 210 630 230 357Chloridemg/L 300.0 8,600 5,900 8,300 7,600Sulfatemg/L 300.0 1,700 1,600 1,500 1,600Cyanide, Totalmg/L 4500 CN E NQ (0.100) NQ (0.100) NQ (0.100) NQ (0.100)Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 2540C 18,000 B 11,000 17,000 15,300Total Suspended Solids mg/L 2540D 14.0 62.0 6.00 27.3Phosphorus, Totalmg/L 365.1 NQ (0.0500) 0.200 BNQ (0.0500) B < 0.0833Total MetalsAluminumug/L 200.7 1,400 1,200 430 B 1,010Antimonyug/L 200.8 4.30 NQ (2.00) 3.30 < 2.87Arsenicug/L 200.8 NQ (4.00) 5.20 NQ (4.00) < 3.07Bariumug/L 200.7 280 160 320 253< - Average result includes at least one value measured below the quantitation limit. (Calculation uses 1⁄2 the quantitation limit for values below the quantitation limit).ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).NQ – Analyte was measured above the method detection limit, but below the quantitation limit (number shown in parentheses is the quantitation limit). The analytical result ispresented in Tables E5-7 through E5-22 with a J flag designation. A “NQ” for the 3-set average result indicates that all results were below the quantitation limit, but at least oneresult is a J-value.4 – MS and/or MSD did not meet laboratory criteria, but sample concentration is four times greater than the matrix spike amount, so control limits are not applicable.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.E – MS and/or MSD exceeded the calibration range.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.Min – Minimum value.S – Seed correction blank recovery low.Table E5-3. Effluent from SBR System, DickersonAnalyteUnitsMethodEffluent from the SBR System (SP-3)Set 1Set 2Set 33-SetAverageBerylliumug/L 200.7 ND (2.00) ND (2.00) ND (2.00) ND (2.00)Boronug/L 200.7 180,000 B 100,000 B120,000 B,4133,000Cadmiumug/L 200.8 ND (4.00) ND (4.00) ND (4.00) ND (4.00)Calciumug/L 200.7 3,000,000 2,100,000 B3,100,000 B,42,730,000Chromiumug/L 200.8 ND (8.00) ND (8.00) ND (8.00) ND (8.00)Cobaltug/L 200.7 NQ (20.0) NQ (20.0) NQ (20.0) NQ (20.0)Copperug/L 200.8 51.0 NQ (4.00) 9.60 < 20.9Ironug/L 200.7 NQ (200) 480 NQ (200) < 227Leadug/L 200.8 NQ (2.00) ND (2.00) ND (2.00) NQ (2.00)Magnesiumug/L 200.7 1,500,000 B 910,000 B1,100,000 B,41,170,000Manganeseug/L 200.7 73.0 B 1,100 B220 B 464Mercuryng/L 1631E 52.5 68.4 8.07 43.0Molybdenumug/L 200.7 230 68.0 200 166Nickelug/L 200.8 89.0 70.0 17.0 58.7Seleniumug/L 200.8 110 51.0 110 90.3Silverug/L 200.8 ND (2.00) ND (2.00) ND (2.00) F ND (2.00)Sodiumug/L 200.7 300,000 B 190,000 200,000 B 230,000Thalliumug/L 200.8 NQ (2.00) ND (2.00) ND (2.00) NQ (2.00)< - Average result includes at least one value measured below the quantitation limit. (Calculation uses 1⁄2 the quantitation limit for values below the quantitation limit).ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).NQ – Analyte was measured above the method detection limit, but below the quantitation limit (number shown in parentheses is the quantitation limit). The analytical result ispresented in Tables E5-7 through E5-22 with a J flag designation. A “NQ” for the 3-set average result indicates that all results were below the quantitation limit, but at least oneresult is a J-value.4 – MS and/or MSD did not meet laboratory criteria, but sample concentration is four times greater than the matrix spike amount, so control limits are not applicable.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.E – MS and/or MSD exceeded the calibration range.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.Min – Minimum value.S – Seed correction blank recovery low.Table E5-3. Effluent from SBR System, DickersonAnalyteUnitsMethodEffluent from the SBR System (SP-3)Set 1Set 2Set 33-SetAverageTinug/L 200.7 ND (200) ND (200) ND (200) ND (200)Titaniumug/L 200.7 ND (20.0) NQ (20.0) NQ (20.0) NQ (20.0)Vanadiumug/L 200.8 NQ (10.0) NQ (10.0) NQ (10.0) NQ (10.0)Zincug/L 200.7 NQ (40.0) NQ (40.0) NQ (40.0) NQ (40.0)[QUESTION FOR DICKERSON: Please provide the split sampling mercury results associated with Sets 1, 2, and 3 of the Effluentfrom SBR System.]< - Average result includes at least one value measured below the quantitation limit. (Calculation uses 1⁄2 the quantitation limit for values below the quantitation limit).NQ – Analyte was measured above the method detection limit,but below the quantitation limit (number shown in parenthesesis the quantitation limit). The analytical result ispresented in Tables E5-7 through E5-22 with a J flag designation. A “NQ” for the 3-set average result indicates that all results were below the quantitation limit, but at least oneresult is a J-value.Table E5-4. Classical Pollutants 3-Set Average Data Summary forFGD Wastewater Treatment System, DickersonAnalyteUnitMethodInfluent to FGDWastewater TreatmentSystem (SP-1)3-Set AverageInfluent to SBRSystem (SP-2)3-Set AverageEffluent from SBRSystem (SP-3)3-Set AverageClassicalsAmmonia mg/L350.1 4.80 3.17 NQ (1.00)Nitrate Nitrite as N mg/L353.2 90.3 43.0 < 0.257Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L351.2 18.3 8.10 14.6Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L5210B < 22.4 27.9 < 4.37Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L410.4 340 193 357Chloride mg/L300.0 9,830 7,730 7,600Sulfate mg/L300.0 1,530 1,500 1,600Cyanide, Total mg/L4500 CN E 1.58 < 0.223 NQ (0.100)Total Dissolved Solids mg/L2540C 19,300 15,700 15,300Total Suspended Solids mg/L2540D 4,630 34.0 27.3Phosphorus, Total mg/L365.1 1.87 < 0.0533 < 0.0833< - Average result includes at least one value measured below the quantitation limit. (Calculation uses 1⁄2 the quantitation limit for values below the quantitation limit).ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).NQ – Analyte was measured above the method detection limit,but below the quantitation limit (number shown in parenthesesis the quantitation limit). The analytical result ispresented in Tables E5-7 through E5-22 with a J flag designation. A “NQ” for the 3-set average result indicates that all results were below the quantitation limit, but at least oneresult is a J-value.Table E5-5. Metal Pollutants 3-Set Average Data Summary for FGDWastewater Treatment System, DickersonAnalyteUnitMethodInfluent to FGDWastewater TreatmentSystem (SP-1)3-Set AverageInfluent to SBR System(SP-2)3-Set AverageEffluent from SBRSystem (SP-3)3-Set AverageTotal MetalsAluminum ug/L 200.7 88,700 450 1,010Antimony ug/L 200.8 15.0 3.53 < 2.87Arsenic ug/L 200.8 127 NQ (4.00) < 3.07Barium ug/L 200.7 2,430 300 253Beryllium ug/L 200.7 9.07 ND (2.00) ND (2.00)Boron ug/L 200.7 193,000 137,000 133,000Cadmium ug/L 200.8 19.3 NQ (4.00) ND (4.00)Calcium ug/L 200.7 3,730,000 2,900,000 2,730,000Chromium ug/L 200.8 423 NQ (8.00) ND (8.00)Cobalt ug/L 200.7 99.7 NQ (20.0) NQ (20.0)Copper ug/L 200.8 597 50.8 < 20.9Iron ug/L 200.7 111,000 877 < 227Lead ug/L 200.8 123 < 2.53 NQ (2.00)Magnesium ug/L 200.7 1,800,000 1,260,000 1,170,000Manganese ug/L 200.7 11,000 543 464Mercury ng/L 1631E 47,600 616 43.0Molybdenum ug/L 200.7 260 163 166Nickel ug/L 200.8 557 57.3 58.7Selenium ug/L 200.8 2,170 243 90.3Silver ug/L 200.8 ND (2.00) ND (2.00) ND (2.00)< - Average result includes at least one value measured below the quantitation limit. (Calculation uses 1⁄2 the quantitation limit for values below the quantitation limit).ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).NQ – Analyte was measured above the method detection limit,but below the quantitation limit (number shown in parenthesesis the quantitation limit). The analytical result ispresented in Tables E5-7 through E5-22 with a J flag designation. A “NQ” for the 3-set average result indicates that all results were below the quantitation limit, but at least oneresult is a J-value.Table E5-5. Metal Pollutants 3-Set Average Data Summary for FGDWastewater Treatment System, DickersonAnalyteUnitMethodInfluent to FGDWastewater TreatmentSystem (SP-1)3-Set AverageInfluent to SBR System(SP-2)3-Set AverageEffluent from SBRSystem (SP-3)3-Set AverageSodium ug/L 200.7 230,000 217,000 230,000Thallium ug/L 200.8 3.77 NQ (2.00) NQ (2.00)Tin ug/L 200.7 NQ (200) ND (200) ND (200)Titanium ug/L 200.7 3,400 33.0 NQ (20.0)Vanadium ug/L 200.8 280 NQ (10.0) NQ (10.0)Zinc ug/L 200.7 1,670 < 37.0 NQ (40.0)

### Table E5-6. Field Blank Analytical Results, Dickerson

Analyte Sample Point Method Unit Concentration

Total Metals

Boron Effluent from SBR System

Field Blank - Set 1 200.7 ug/L 200

Mercury Effluent from SBR System

Field Blank - Set 2 1631E ng/L 0.730ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.Min – Minimum value.s – Seed correction blank recovery low.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-7. Influent to FGD Wastewater Treatment System, Set 1 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationClassicalsAmmonia 350.1 mg/L 1 0.055 1 3.9Nitrate Nitrite as N 353.2 mg/L 10 0.19 1 83Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 351.2 mg/L 1 0.38 5 23 B, MinBiochemical Oxygen Demand5210B mg/L 1 0.3 2.5 2.4 J, sChemical Oxygen Demand 410.4 mg/L 5 20 100 260Chloride 300.0 mg/L 500 130 1,500 9,900Sulfate 300.0 mg/L 50 12 250 1,600Cyanide, Total 4500 CN E mg/L 1 0.02 0.1 0.54Total Dissolved Solids 2540C mg/L 1 47 100 23,000 BTotal Suspended Solids 2540D mg/L 1 92 330 4,100Phosphorus, Total 365.1 mg/L 5 0.025 0.25 1.9Total MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 120,000Antimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 21Arsenic 200.8 ug/L 10 6.1 20 170Barium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 4,000Beryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 13Boron 200.7 ug/L 250 830 25,000 220,000 BCadmium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 19Calcium 200.7 ug/L 50 1,700 10,000 3,600,000Chromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 610ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.Min – Minimum value.s – Seed correction blank recovery low.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-7. Influent to FGD Wastewater Treatment System, Set 1 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationCobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 100Copper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 650Iron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 150,000Lead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 160Magnesium 200.7 ug/L 50 540 10,000 2,000,000 BManganese 200.7 ug/L 2 0.51 20 12,000 BMercury 1631E ng/L 100,000 24,800 52,000 81,400Molybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 320Nickel 200.8 ug/L 2 0.89 4 600Selenium 200.8 ug/L 10 3.1 20 2,800Silver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) USodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 300,000 BThallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 2.7Tin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 29 JTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 5,200Vanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 410Zinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 1,300ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-8. Influent to FGD Wastewater Treatment System, Set 2 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationClassicalsAmmonia 350.1 mg/L 1 0.055 1 3.8Nitrate Nitrite as N 353.2 mg/L 10 0.19 1 94Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 351.2 mg/L 2 0.15 2 17Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5210B mg/L 1 2.8 24 40Chemical Oxygen Demand 410.4 mg/L 5 20 100 450Chloride 300.0 mg/L 500 130 1,500 9,800Sulfate 300.0 mg/L 100 23 500 1,500Cyanide, Total 4500 CN E mg/L 1 0.02 0.1 1.1Total Dissolved Solids 2540C mg/L 1 94 200 15,000Total Suspended Solids 2540D mg/L 1 28 100 4,200Phosphorus, Total 365.1 mg/L 5 0.025 0.25 1.2 BTotal MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 69,000Antimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 14Arsenic 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 120Barium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 1,700Beryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 8.6Boron 200.7 ug/L 50 170 5,000 170,000 BCadmium 200.8 ug/L 5 2.9 10 15Calcium 200.7 ug/L 50 1,700 10,000 3,700,000 BChromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 350Cobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 99ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-8. Influent to FGD Wastewater Treatment System, Set 2 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationCopper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 540Iron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 95,000Lead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 110Magnesium 200.7 ug/L 50 540 10,000 1,600,000 BManganese 200.7 ug/L 50 13 500 11,000 BMercury 1631E ng/L 4,000 994 2,080 31,300Molybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 140Nickel 200.8 ug/L 2 0.89 4 560Selenium 200.8 ug/L 5 1.6 10 2,400Silver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) USodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 180,000Thallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 4.4Tin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 18 JTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 2,400Vanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 230Zinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 1,200ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-9. Influent to FGD Wastewater Treatment System, Set 3 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationClassicalsAmmonia 350.1 mg/L 1 0.055 1 6.7Nitrate Nitrite as N 353.2 mg/L 10 0.19 1 94Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 351.2 mg/L 5 0.38 5 15Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5210B mg/L 1 1.2 10 26Chemical Oxygen Demand 410.4 mg/L 5 20 100 310Chloride 300.0 mg/L 500 130 1,500 9,800Sulfate 300.0 mg/L 50 12 250 1,500Cyanide, Total 4500 CN E mg/L 1 0.02 0.1 3.1 FTotal Dissolved Solids 2540C mg/L 1 94 200 20,000Total Suspended Solids 2540D mg/L 1 55 200 5,600Phosphorus, Total 365.1 mg/L 5 0.025 0.25 2.5 BTotal MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 77,000 BAntimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 10Arsenic 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 92Barium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 1,600Beryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 5.6Boron 200.7 ug/L 50 170 5,000 190,000 BCadmium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 24Calcium 200.7 ug/L 50 1,700 10,000 3,900,000 BChromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 310Cobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 100ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-9. Influent to FGD Wastewater Treatment System, Set 3 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationCopper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 600Iron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 88,000Lead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 98Magnesium 200.7 ug/L 50 540 10,000 1,800,000 BManganese 200.7 ug/L 2 0.51 20 10,000 BMercury 1631E ng/L 20,000 4,970 10,400 30,100Molybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 320Nickel 200.8 ug/L 2 0.89 4 510Selenium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.62 4 1,300Silver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) USodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 210,000 BThallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 4.2Tin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 14 JTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 2,600Vanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 200Zinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 2,500ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.Min – Minimum value.s – Seed correction blank recovery low.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-10. Influent to SBR System, Set 1 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationClassicalsAmmonia 350.1 mg/L 1 0.055 1 3.2Nitrate Nitrite as N 353.2 mg/L 10 0.19 1 61Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 351.2 mg/L 2 0.15 2 12 B, MinBiochemical OxygenDemand 5210B mg/L 1 0.3 2.5 5.8 sChemical Oxygen Demand 410.4 mg/L 2 8.1 40 220Chloride 300.0 mg/L 500 130 1,500 9,100Sulfate 300.0 mg/L 50 12 250 1,600Cyanide, Total 4500 CN E mg/L 1 0.02 0.1 0.051 JTotal Dissolved Solids 2540C mg/L 1 47 100 20,000 BTotal Suspended Solids 2540D mg/L 1 1.1 4 29Phosphorus, Total 365.1 mg/L 1 0.005 0.05 0.041 JTotal MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 580Antimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 4.7Arsenic 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 3.9 JBarium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 350Beryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 ND (2) UBoron 200.7 ug/L 250 830 25,000 170,000 BCadmium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 1.7 JCalcium 200.7 ug/L 50 1,700 10,000 3,300,000ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.Min – Minimum value.s – Seed correction blank recovery low.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-10. Influent to SBR System, Set 1 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationChromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 4.1 JCobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 2 JCopper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 130Iron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 1,000Lead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 5.6Magnesium 200.7 ug/L 50 540 10,000 1,700,000 BManganese 200.7 ug/L 2 0.51 20 98 BMercury 1631E ng/L 200 48.3 101 667Molybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 220Nickel 200.8 ug/L 2 0.89 4 71Selenium 200.8 ug/L 5 1.6 10 190Silver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) USodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 300,000 BThallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 1.5 JTin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 ND (200) UTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 43Vanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 5.9 JZinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 44.ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).4 – MS and/or MSD did not meet laboratory criteria, but sample concentration is four times greater than the matrix spike amount, so control limits are not applicable.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.E – MS and/or MSD exceeded the calibration range.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-11. Influent to SBR System, Set 2 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationClassicalsAmmonia 350.1 mg/L1 0.055 1 2.3Nitrate Nitrite as N 353.2 mg/L2 0.038 0.2 11Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 351.2 mg/L2 0.15 2 8.8Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5210B mg/L1 2.8 24 61Chemical Oxygen Demand 410.4 mg/L2 8.1 40 260 E,FChloride 300.0 mg/L200 51 600 6,300Sulfate 300.0 mg/L100 23 500 1,500Cyanide, Total 4500 CN E mg/L1 0.02 0.1 0.082 J,FTotal Dissolved Solids 2540C mg/L1 47 100 13,000Total Suspended Solids 2540D mg/L1 1.1 4 56Phosphorus, Total 365.1 mg/L1 0.005 0.05 0.11 BTotal MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 450Antimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 2.7Arsenic 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 3.9 JBarium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 230Beryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 ND (2) UBoron 200.7 ug/L 50 170 5,000 110,000 B,4Cadmium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UCalcium 200.7 ug/L 50 1,700 10,000 2,300,000 B,4ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).4 – MS and/or MSD did not meet laboratory criteria, but sample concentration is four times greater than the matrix spike amount, so control limits are not applicable.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.E – MS and/or MSD exceeded the calibration range.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-11. Influent to SBR System, Set 2 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationChromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 ND (8) UCobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 5 JCopper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 6.5Iron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 1,200Lead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 0.88 JMagnesium 200.7 ug/L 50 540 10,000 970,000 B,4Manganese 200.7 ug/L 2 0.51 20 1,300 BMercury 1631E ng/L 100 24.8 52 910Molybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 70Nickel 200.8 ug/L 5 2.2 10 79Selenium 200.8 ug/L 5 1.6 10 370 4Silver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) U,FSodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 170,000Thallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 ND (2) UTin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 ND (200) UTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 27Vanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 3 JZinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 18 JND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-12. Influent to SBR System, Set 3 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationClassicalsAmmonia 350.1 mg/L 1 0.055 1 4Nitrate Nitrite as N 353.2 mg/L 10 0.19 1 57Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 351.2 mg/L 1 0.077 1 3.5Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5210B mg/L 1 0.59 5 17Chemical Oxygen Demand 410.4 mg/L 1 4.1 20 100Chloride 300.0 mg/L 200 51 600 7,800Sulfate 300.0 mg/L 50 12 250 1,400Cyanide, Total 4500 CN E mg/L 1 0.02 0.1 0.57Total Dissolved Solids 2540C mg/L 1 94 200 14,000Total Suspended Solids 2540D mg/L 1 1.1 4 17Phosphorus, Total 365.1 mg/L 1 0.005 0.05 0.037 J,BTotal MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 320 BAntimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 3.2Arsenic 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 2.4 JBarium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 320Beryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 ND (2) UBoron 200.7 ug/L 50 170 5,000 130,000 BCadmium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UCalcium 200.7 ug/L 50 1,700 10,000 3,100,000BChromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 ND (8) UCobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 4 JND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-12. Influent to SBR System, Set 3 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationCopper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 16Iron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 430Lead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 0.98 JMagnesium 200.7 ug/L 50 540 10,000 1,100,000BManganese 200.7 ug/L 2 0.51 20 230 BMercury 1631E ng/L 100 24.1 50.5 270Molybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 200Nickel 200.8 ug/L 2 0.89 4 22Selenium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.62 4 170Silver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) USodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 180,000 BThallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 ND (2) UTin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 ND (200) UTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 29Vanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 5.5 JZinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 47ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.Min – Minimum value.s – Seed correction blank recovery low.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-13. Effluent from SBR System, Set 1 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationClassicalsAmmonia350.1mg/L10.05510.36JNitrate Nitrite as N353.2mg/L10.0190.10.13Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl351.2mg/L20.15216B, MinBiochemical Oxygen Demand5210Bmg/L10.32.56.2sChemical Oxygen Demand410.4mg/L28.140210Chloride300.0mg/L5001301,5008,600Sulfate300.0mg/L50122501,700Cyanide, Total4500 CN Emg/L10.020.10.082JTotal Dissolved Solids2540Cmg/L14710018,000BTotal Suspended Solids2540Dmg/L11.1414Phosphorus, Total365.1mg/L10.0050.050.037JTotal MetalsAluminum200.7ug/L29.42001,400Antimony200.8ug/L20.7224.3Arsenic200.8ug/L21.242.7JBarium200.7ug/L22.520280Beryllium200.7ug/L20.712ND (2)UBoron200.7ug/L25083025,000180,000BCadmium200.8ug/L21.24ND (4)UCalcium200.7ug/L501,70010,0003,000,000Chromium200.8ug/L23.38ND (8)UCobalt200.7ug/L21.1202.9JCopper200.8ug/L20.96451ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.Min – Minimum value.s – Seed correction blank recovery low.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-13. Effluent from SBR System, Set 1 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationIron200.7ug/L232200100JLead200.8ug/L20.7321.4JMagnesium200.7ug/L5054010,0001,500,000BManganese200.7ug/L20.512073BMercury1631Eng/L204.8310.152.5Molybdenum200.7ug/L21.640230Nickel200.8ug/L20.89489Selenium200.8ug/L20.624110Silver200.8ug/L20.592ND (2)USodium200.7ug/L218010,000300,000BThallium200.8ug/L20.4721.3JTin200.7ug/L24.8200ND (200)UTitanium200.7ug/L21.620ND (20)UVanadium200.8ug/L21.7103.5JZinc200.7ug/L29.14022J.ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-14. Effluent from SBR System, Set 2 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationClassicalsAmmonia 350.1 mg/L 1 0.055 1 0.77 JNitrate Nitrite as N 353.2 mg/L 1 0.019 0.1 0.14Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 351.2 mg/L 5 0.38 5 24Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5210B mg/L 1 0.24 2 ND (2) UChemical Oxygen Demand 410.4 mg/L 5 20 100 630Chloride 300.0 mg/L 200 51 600 5,900Sulfate 300.0 mg/L 100 23 500 1,600Cyanide, Total 4500 CN E mg/L 1 0.02 0.1 0.03 JTotal Dissolved Solids 2540C mg/L 1 47 100 11,000Total Suspended Solids 2540D mg/L 1 2.8 10 62Phosphorus, Total 365.1 mg/L 1 0.005 0.05 0.2 BTotal MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 1,200Antimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 1.8 JArsenic 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 5.2Barium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 160Beryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 ND (2) UBoron 200.7 ug/L 50 170 5,000 100,000 BCadmium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UCalcium 200.7 ug/L 50 1,700 10,000 2,100,000 BChromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 ND (8) UCobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 4.7 JND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-14. Effluent from SBR System, Set 2 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationCopper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 2.7 JIron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 480Lead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 ND (2) UMagnesium 200.7 ug/L 50 540 10,000 910,000 BManganese 200.7 ug/L 2 0.51 20 1,100 BMercury 1631E ng/L 20 4.83 10.1 68.4Molybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 68Nickel 200.8 ug/L 2 0.89 4 70Selenium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.62 4 51Silver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) USodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 190,000Thallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 ND (2) UTin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 ND (200) UTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 4.2 JVanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 2.6 JZinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 10 JND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).4 – MS and/or MSD did not meet laboratory criteria, but sample concentration is four times greater than the matrix spike amount, so control limits are not applicable.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-15. Effluent from SBR System, Set 3 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationClassicalsAmmonia 350.1 mg/L 1 0.055 1 0.41 JNitrate Nitrite as N 353.2 mg/L 10 0.19 1 ND (1) UNitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 351.2 mg/L 1 0.077 1 3.8 FBiochemical Oxygen Demand 5210B mg/L 1 0.3 2.5 5.9Chemical Oxygen Demand 410.4 mg/L 2 8.1 40 230Chloride 300.0 mg/L 200 51 600 8,300Sulfate 300.0 mg/L 50 12 250 1,500Cyanide, Total 4500 CN E mg/L 1 0.02 0.1 0.095 JTotal Dissolved Solids 2540C mg/L 1 94 200 17,000Total Suspended Solids 2540D mg/L 1 1.1 4 6Phosphorus, Total 365.1 mg/L 1 0.005 0.05 0.039 J,BTotal MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 430 BAntimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 3.3Arsenic 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 2.6 JBarium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 320Beryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 ND (2) UBoron 200.7 ug/L 50 170 5,000 120,000 B,4Cadmium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UCalcium 200.7 ug/L 50 1,700 10,000 3,100,000B,4Chromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 ND (8) UND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).4 – MS and/or MSD did not meet laboratory criteria, but sample concentration is four times greater than the matrix spike amount, so control limits are not applicable.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.F – MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-15. Effluent from SBR System, Set 3 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationCobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 2.2 JCopper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 9.6Iron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 87 JLead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 ND (2) UMagnesium 200.7 ug/L 50 540 10,000 1,100,000B,4Manganese 200.7 ug/L 2 0.51 20 220 BMercury 1631E ng/L 1 0.24 0.5 8.07Molybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 200Nickel 200.8 ug/L 2 0.89 4 17Selenium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.62 4 110Silver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) U,FSodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 200,000 BThallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 ND (2) UTin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 ND (200) UTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 8.4 JVanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 3.9 JZinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 32 JND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).^ - ICV, CCV, ICB, CCB, ISA, ISB, CRI, or MRL standard: Instrument related QC exceeds the control limits.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-16. Influent to FGD Wastewater Treatment System Field Blank, Set 1 Analytical Results,DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationTotal MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 13 J,^Antimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 ND (2) UArsenic 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UBarium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 ND (20) UBeryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 ND (2) UBoron 200.7 ug/L 2 6.7 200 21 J,BCadmium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UCalcium 200.7 ug/L 2 69 400 ND (400)UChromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 ND (8) UCobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 ND (20) UCopper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 ND (4) UIron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 ND (200)ULead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 ND (2) UMagnesium 200.7 ug/L 2 21 400 25 J,BManganese 200.7 ug/L 2 0.51 20 2 J,BMercury 1631E ng/L 1 0.24 0.5 ND (0.5) UMolybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 ND (40) UNickel 200.8 ug/L 2 0.89 4 ND (4) USelenium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.62 4 ND (4) USilver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) USodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 320 J,BND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).^ - ICV, CCV, ICB, CCB, ISA, ISB, CRI, or MRL standard: Instrument related QC exceeds the control limits.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-16. Influent to FGD Wastewater Treatment System Field Blank, Set 1 Analytical Results,DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationThallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 ND (2) UTin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 ND (200)UTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 ND (20) UVanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 ND (10) UZinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 ND (40) UND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).^ - ICV, CCV, ICB, CCB, ISA, ISB, CRI, or MRL standard: Instrument related QC exceeds the control limits.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-17. Influent to SBR System Field Blank, Set 1 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationTotal MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 ND (200) U,^Antimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 ND (2) UArsenic 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UBarium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 ND (20) UBeryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 ND (2) UBoron 200.7 ug/L 2 6.7 200 31 J,BCadmium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UCalcium 200.7 ug/L 2 69 400 230 JChromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 ND (8) UCobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 ND (20) UCopper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 ND (4) UIron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 ND (200) ULead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 ND (2) UMagnesium 200.7 ug/L 2 21 400 110 J,BManganese 200.7 ug/L 2 0.51 20 ND (20) UMercury 1631E ng/L 1 0.24 0.5 ND (0.5) UMolybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 ND (40) UNickel 200.8 ug/L 2 0.89 4 ND (4) USelenium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.62 4 ND (4) USilver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) USodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 290 J,BThallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 ND (2) UND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).^ - ICV, CCV, ICB, CCB, ISA, ISB, CRI, or MRL standard: Instrument related QC exceeds the control limits.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-17. Influent to SBR System Field Blank, Set 1 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationTin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 ND (200) UTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 ND (20) UVanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 ND (10) UZinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 ND (40) UND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-18. Influent to SBR System Field Blank, Set 2 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationTotal MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 10 JAntimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 ND (2) UArsenic 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UBarium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 ND (20) UBeryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 ND (2) UBoron 200.7 ug/L 2 6.7 200 92 J,BCadmium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UCalcium 200.7 ug/L 2 69 400 330 J,BChromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 ND (8) UCobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 ND (20) UCopper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 ND (4) UIron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 33 JLead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 ND (2) UMagnesium 200.7 ug/L 2 21 400 240 J,BManganese 200.7 ug/L 2 0.51 20 7.8 J,BMercury 1631E ng/L 1 0.24 0.5 ND (0.5) UMolybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 ND (40) UNickel 200.8 ug/L 2 0.89 4 ND (4) USelenium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.62 4 ND (4) USilver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) USodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 290 JThallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 ND (2) UND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-18. Influent to SBR System Field Blank, Set 2 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationTin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 ND (200) UTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 ND (20) UVanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 2.5 JZinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 ND (40) UND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-19. Influent to SBR System Field Blank, Set 3 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationTotal MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 ND (200) UAntimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 ND (2) UArsenic 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UBarium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 ND (20) UBeryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 ND (2) UBoron 200.7 ug/L 2 6.7 200 34 J,BCadmium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UCalcium 200.7 ug/L 2 69 400 ND (400) UChromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 ND (8) UCobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 ND (20) UCopper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 ND (4) UIron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 ND (200) ULead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 ND (2) UMagnesium 200.7 ug/L 2 21 400 ND (400) UManganese 200.7 ug/L 2 0.51 20 ND (20) UMercury 1631E ng/L 1 0.24 0.5 ND (0.5) UMolybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 ND (40) UNickel 200.8 ug/L 2 0.89 4 ND (4) USelenium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.62 4 ND (4) USilver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) USodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 ND (10,000) UThallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 ND (2) UND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-19. Influent to SBR System Field Blank, Set 3 Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationTin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 ND (200) UTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 ND (20) UVanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 ND (10) UZinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 ND (40) UND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).^ - ICV, CCV, ICB, CCB, ISA, ISB, CRI, or MRL standard: Instrument related QC exceeds the control limits.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-20. Effluent from SBR System Field Blank, Set 1Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationTotal MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 ND (200) U,^Antimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 ND (2) UArsenic 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UBarium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 ND (20) UBeryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 ND (2) UBoron 200.7 ug/L 2 6.7 200 200 BCadmium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UCalcium 200.7 ug/L 2 69 400 ND (400) UChromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 ND (8) UCobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 ND (20) UCopper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 1 JIron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 ND (200) ULead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 ND (2) UMagnesium 200.7 ug/L 2 21 400 39 J,BManganese 200.7 ug/L 2 0.51 20 0.6 J,BMercury 1631E ng/L 1 0.24 0.5 ND (0.5) UMolybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 ND (40) UNickel 200.8 ug/L 2 0.89 4 ND (4) USelenium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.62 4 0.8 JSilver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) USodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 ND (10,000) UThallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 ND (2) UND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).^ - ICV, CCV, ICB, CCB, ISA, ISB, CRI, or MRL standard: Instrument related QC exceeds the control limits.B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-20. Effluent from SBR System Field Blank, Set 1Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationTin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 ND (200) UTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 ND (20) UVanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 ND (10) UZinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 ND (40) UND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-21. Effluent from SBR System Field Blank, Set 2Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationTotal MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 ND (200) UAntimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 ND (2) UArsenic 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UBarium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 ND (20) UBeryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 ND (2) UBoron 200.7 ug/L 2 6.7 200 66 J,BCadmium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UCalcium 200.7 ug/L 2 69 400 ND (400) UChromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 ND (8) UCobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 ND (20) UCopper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 ND (4) UIron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 ND (200) ULead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 ND (2) UMagnesium 200.7 ug/L 2 21 400 25 J,BManganese 200.7 ug/L 2 0.51 20 ND (20) UMercury 1631E ng/L 1 0.24 0.5 0.73Molybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 ND (40) UNickel 200.8 ug/L 2 0.89 4 ND (4) USelenium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.62 4 ND (4) USilver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) USodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 210 JThallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 ND (2) UND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-21. Effluent from SBR System Field Blank, Set 2Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationTin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 ND (200) UTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 ND (20) UVanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 ND (10) UZinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 ND (40) UND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-22. Effluent from SBR System Field Blank, Set 3Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationTotal MetalsAluminum 200.7 ug/L 2 9.4 200 46 J,BAntimony 200.8 ug/L 2 0.72 2 ND (2) UArsenic 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UBarium 200.7 ug/L 2 2.5 20 ND (20) UBeryllium 200.7 ug/L 2 0.71 2 ND (2) UBoron 200.7 ug/L 2 6.7 200 93 J,BCadmium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.2 4 ND (4) UCalcium 200.7 ug/L 2 69 400 ND (400) UChromium 200.8 ug/L 2 3.3 8 ND (8) UCobalt 200.7 ug/L 2 1.1 20 ND (20) UCopper 200.8 ug/L 2 0.96 4 ND (4) UIron 200.7 ug/L 2 32 200 56 JLead 200.8 ug/L 2 0.73 2 ND (2) UMagnesium 200.7 ug/L 2 21 400 380 J,BManganese 200.7 ug/L 2 0.51 20 7.5 J,BMercury 1631E ng/L 1 0.24 0.5 ND (0.5) UMolybdenum 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 40 ND (40) UNickel 200.8 ug/L 2 0.89 4 ND (4) USelenium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.62 4 ND (4) USilver 200.8 ug/L 2 0.59 2 ND (2) USodium 200.7 ug/L 2 180 10,000 ND (10,000) UThallium 200.8 ug/L 2 0.47 2 ND (2) UND – Not detected (number in parentheses is the quantitation limit).B – Analyte was found in the blank and sample.J – Result measured above the MDL, but less than the quantitation limit.U – Result below the MDL. (Number shown in parentheses isthe quantitation limit).Table E5-22. Effluent from SBR System Field Blank, Set 3Analytical Results, DickersonAnalyteMethodUnitDilutionFactorSampleSpecific MDLSample-Specific QLConcentrationTin 200.7 ug/L 2 4.8 200 ND (200) UTitanium 200.7 ug/L 2 1.6 20 1.9 JVanadium 200.8 ug/L 2 1.7 10 ND (10) UZinc 200.7 ug/L 2 9.1 40 11 J

## Section 6

Data Review Narratives

[A concentration noted as “XXX” indicates that the sample result applies to a different power plant and has been

removed.]

### 1



## MEMORANDUM

To: Ron Jordan, Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

CC: Jezebele Alicea, Alternate Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

Deb Bartram, ERG

TJ Finseth, ERG

From: Donna Tedder, ERG

Date: 2/9/2012

Subject: FGS Data Review Narrative for Total Mercury – Long-Term M onitoring:

Month 1 (Part 1)

Frontier Global Sciences (FGS) generated analytical data for total mercury. FGS

analyzed the samples according to EPA Method 1631E for merc ury by Cold Vapor

Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry (CVAFS) analysis.

Table 1 summarizes the 14 samples (excluding laboratory pre p blanks) FGS extracted

and analyzed for total mercury.

Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 1 (Part 1) Mercury – Sample Identification

EPA

Sample # Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sample Description Sampling

Date

72041 1010010-01 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 1 9/30/2010

72045 1010010-02 Aqueous FGD Effluent, Set 1 9/30/2010

72049 1010010-04 Aqueous FGD Influent Field Blank 9/30/2010

72050 1010010-03 Aqueous FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 1 9/30/2010

72091 1009237-07 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 1 9/28/2010

72095 1009237-08 Aqueous FGD Effluent, Set 1 9/28/2010

72099 1009237-10 Aqueous FGD Influent Field Blank 9/28/2010

72100 1009237-09 Aqueous FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 1 9/27/2010

72191 1009237-01 Aqueous FGD Influent Set 1 9/29/2010

72195 1009237-02 Aqueous FGD SBR Influent, Set 1 9/29/2010

72199 1009237-03 Aqueous FGD SBR Effluent, Set 1 9/29/2010

72203 1009237-06 Aqueous FGD Influent Field Blank 9/29/2010

72204 1009237-04 Aqueous FGD SBR Influent Field Blank, Set 1 9/28/2010

72208 1009237-05 Aqueous FGD SBR Effluent Field Blank, Set 1 9/28/2010



### SUMMARY

The samples were prepared according to EPA Method 1631E to be analyzed by CVAFS.

### 2

There were no findings from the data review that required a dditional qualifiers in this

dataset.

SAMPLE RECEIPT, HANDLING, AND STORAGE ISSUES

There were no sample receipt issues in this data package.

INITIAL CALIBRATION

FGS performed the initial calibrations on each analysi s day. The initial calibration for

the CVAFS analysis consisted of a blank and five calibrat ion standards with a correlation

coefficient ≥ 0.995. All method-specified criteria were met.

INITIAL AND CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATIONS

All initial and continuing calibration verifications (I CVs, CCVs) met method-specified

criteria.

BLANKS

All the preparation blanks or laboratory reagent blanks (L RBs) and the continuing

calibration blanks (CCBs) met method-specified criteria. Some preparation blanks had

mercury levels greater than the MDL (0.24 ng/L), but less t han the RL associated with

each individual blank (different RLs based on preparation) . Because all of the blank

results were less than the RL, no samples were quali fied based on these preparation blank

results.

DUPLICATES

No field duplicate samples were collected with these sa mpling episodes. Two samples

were analyzed in duplicate at the laboratory, samples 72095 a nd 72195. The relative

percent difference (RPD) for samples 72095 and 72195 were 2.45% an d 3.32%,

respectively. The laboratory’s RPD criteria between an alytical duplicates is 24%.

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES

All laboratory control samples were within FGS’s contr ol limits of 80-120% recovery

and 24% RPD.

MATRIX SPIKE AND MATIX SPIKE DUPLICATES

Matrix spikes (MS) and matrix spike duplicates (MSD) we re performed on samples

72095, 72199, and 72195 for the total mercury analyses. All aqueous MS/M SD

recoveries were within method specifications of 71-125%. All RPDs met methodspecified criteria.

### 3

DETECTION LIMITS

The laboratory MDL in the synthetic matrix was 0.239 ng/ L. Results below this MDL

were reported as not detected (ND).

### 1



## MEMORANDUM

To: Ron Jordan, Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

CC: Jezebele Alicea, Alternate Work Assignment Manager, EP A EAD

Deb Bartram, ERG

TJ Finseth, ERG

From: Randy Mercurio, ERG

Date: 2/9/2012

Subject: TestAmerica Data Review Narrative for Total Metals by 200.8 – Long-Term

Monitoring: Month 1 (Part 1)

TestAmerica generated analytical data for total metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium,

chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium , and vanadium) for these longterm monitoring samples. The samples were analyzed accor ding to EPA Method 200.8.

Table 1 summarizes the samples TestAmerica extracted a nd analyzed for total metals by

EPA Method 200.8.

Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 1 (Part 1) Total Metals – Sample Identification

EPA

Sample # EPA Sample Description Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sampling

Date Receipt

Date

72041 FGD Influent, Set 1 280

- 7918

- 1 Aqueous 9/30/2010 10/1/2010

72045 FGD Effluent, Set 1 280

- 7918

- 2 Aqueous 9/30/2010 10/1/2010

72049 FGD Influent Field Blank 280

- 7918

- 4 Aqueous 9/30/2010 10/1/2010

72050 FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 1 280

- 7918

- 3 Aqueous 9/30/2010 10/1/2010

72091 FGD Influent, Set 1 280

- 7817

- 1 Aqueous 9/28/2010 9/29/2010

72095 FGD Effluent, Set 1 280

- 7817

- 2 Aqueous 9/28/2010 9/29/2010

72099 FGD Influent Field Blank, Set 1 280

- 7817

- 4 Aqueous 9/28/2010 9/29/2010

72100 FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 1 280

- 7817

- 3 Aqueous 9/28/2010 9/29/2010

72191 FGD Influent, Set 1 280

- 7870

- 1 Aqueous 9/29/2010 9/30/2010

72195 FGD SBR Influent, Set 1 280

- 7870

- 2 Aqueous 9/29/2010 9/30/2010

72199 FGD SBR Effluent, Set 1 280

- 7870

- 3 Aqueous 9/29/2010 9/30/2010

72203 FGD Influent Field Blank 280

- 7870

- 6 Aqueous 9/29/2010 9/30/2010

72204 FGD SBR Influent Field Blank,

Set 1 280

- 7870

- 4 Aqueous 9/29/2010 9/30/2010

72208 FGD SBR Effluent Field Blank,

Set 2 280

- 7870

- 5 Aqueous 9/29/2010 9/30/2010

### 2

SUMMARY

The samples were prepared for total metals analysis accor ding to TestAmerica’s “FGD

ICP/MS SOP: Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry for Trace Elements

Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewaters,” date d October 6, 2010, based on

EPA Method 200.8, by ICP/MS analysis.

Any significant findings are summarized below. No addition al data qualifiers were

required.

• The matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) rec overies for total

silver for samples 72045 and 72095 failed the EPA Method 200.8 contr ol limits of

70–130%.

• The MS/MSD relative percent difference (RPD) for tota l silver for sample 72095

failed the FGD ICP/MS SOP control limits of ±20%.

• The post digestion spike (PDS) recoveries for the follo wing analytes failed

TestAmerica’s control limits of 85–115%: arsenic, chromium , selenium, silver,

and vanadium.

INTERNAL STANDARDIZATION

All internal standards used by TestAmerica were within th e method criteria.

INITIAL CALIBRATION

TestAmerica performed the initial calibrations on each analysis day. The initial

calibration for the ICP-MS analysis consisted of a bla nk and four calibration standards.

INITIAL AND CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION (IC V/CCV)

The initial calibration verifications (ICV) and continu ing calibration verifications (CCV)

performed by TestAmerica all had recoveries within the m ethod criteria.

METHOD/INSTRUMENT BLANKS

All the method blanks were less than the reporting limit (RL); however, some elements

were above the MDL and flagged with a “J” qualifier. No additional qualifiers were

required for method blanks.

All instrument blanks (initial calibration blank (ICB) and continuing calibration blank

(CCB)) were less than the RL; however, some element s were above the MDL and

flagged with a “J” qualifier. No additional qualifiers were required for instrument blanks.

### 3

REPORTING LIMIT VERIFICATION STANDARD (CRI)

All CRI samples passed TestAmerica’s SOP control limi ts of 50–150% recovery.

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES (LCS)

All LCS samples passed the method QC limits of 85–115% recov ery.

SYNTHETIC FGD INTERFERENCE CHECK SOLUTION

Based on TestAmerica’s SOP, all interference check sa mple A (ICSA) results had

analytes of interest with concentrations less than the RL or less than five times the RL

when known inherent contaminants are present in the stock solution used to make the

ICS.

All interference check sample B (ICSAB) synthetic sp ikes recovered within

TestAmerica’s SOP criteria of 70–130% of the true value.

SERIAL DILUTION

The serial dilution performed on sample 72095 passed TestAmer ica’s criteria of ±10%

difference.

FIELD DUPLICATES

No field duplicate samples were collected with these sa mpling episodes.

MATRIX SPIKE AND MATIX SPIKE DUPLICATES

MS and MSD were performed on samples 72045 and 72095. The total se lenium results in

the MS and MSD samples for sample 72045 and the MS sample for sample 72095 failed

the 70-130% recovery method control limits and were flagged w ith a “4” qualifier

indicating concentrations in the parent samples were grea ter than four times the spike

amounts. These data were considered acceptable based on th e LCS passing the method

control limits.

The total silver results in the MS and MSD samples for b oth samples 72045 and 72095

failed the 70-130% method control limits with low recoveri es and were flagged with an

“F” qualifier. Additionally, the RPD for silver betwee n the MS and MSD for sample

72095 failed the ICP/MS SOP ±20% control limits. The poor r ecoveries and RPD of

silver are probably due to high sulfates in this episode’s samples capable of forming

insoluble silver sulfide and/or silver sulfate.

### 4

Otherwise, all MS/MSD spike recoveries were within th e method control limits of 70-

130% and the RPD for the MS/MSDs were within the FGD ICP /MS SOP control limits

of ±20 percent. No additional data qualifiers were required.

POST DIGESTION SPIKES

The PDS performed on sample 72095 passed TestAmerica’s cont rol limits of 85–115%

recovery for all analytes, except for arsenic, chromium , selenium, silver, and vanadium,

which were all flagged with a “W” qualifier. No additional data qualifiers were required

for PDS samples.

DETECTION LIMITS

The laboratory performed an MDL study in the synthetic F GD wastewater matrix, instead

of reagent water.

### 1



## MEMORANDUM

To: Ron Jordan, Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

CC: Jezebele Alicea, Alternate Work Assignment Manager, EP A EAD

Deb Bartram, ERG

TJ Finseth, ERG

From: Randy Mercurio, ERG

Date: 2/9/2012

Subject: TestAmerica Data Review Narrative for Total Metals by 200.7 – Long-Term

Monitoring: Month 1 (Part 1)

TestAmerica generated analytical data for total metals (aluminum, boron, barium,

beryllium, calcium, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese , molybdenum, sodium, tin,

titanium, and zinc) for these long-term monitoring samples . The samples were analyzed

according to EPA Method 200.7.

Table 1 summarizes the samples TestAmerica extracted a nd analyzed for total metals by

EPA Method 200.7.

Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 1 (Part 1) Total Metals – Sample

Identification

EPA

Sample # EPA Sample Description Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sampling

Date Receipt

Date

72041 FGD Influent, Set 1 280

- 7918

- 1 Aqueous 9/30/2010 10/1/2010

72045 FGD Effluent, Set 1 280

- 7918

- 2 Aqueous 9/30/2010 10/1/2010

72049 FGD Influent Field Blank 280

- 7918

- 4 Aqueous 9/30/2010 10/1/2010

72050 FGD Effluent Field Blank,

Set 1 280

- 7918

- 3 Aqueous 9/30/2010 10/1/2010

72091 FGD Influent, Set 1 280

- 7817

- 1 Aqueous 9/28 /2010 9/29 /2010

7 2095 FGD Effluent, Set 1 280

- 7817

- 2 Aqueous 9/28 /2010 9/29 /2010

7 2099 FGD Influent Field Blank,

Set 1 280

- 7817

- 4 Aqueous 9/28 /2010 9/29 /2010

7 2100 FGD Ef

fluent Field Blank

, Set 1 280

- 7817

- 3 Aqueous 9/28 /2010 9/29 /2010

72191 FGD Influent, Set 1 280

- 7870

- 1 Aqueous 9/29/2010 9/30/2010

72195 FGD SBR Influent, Set 1 280

- 7870

- 2 Aqueous 9/29/2010 9/30/2010

72199 FGD SBR Effluent, Set 1 280

- 7870

- 3 Aqueous 9/29/2010 9/30/2010

72203 FGD Influent Field Blank 280

- 7870

- 6 Aqueous 9/29/2010 9/30/2010

72204 FGD SBR Influent Field

Blank, Set 1 280

- 7870

- 4 Aqueous 9/29/2010 9/30/2010

72208 FGD SBR Effluent Field

Blank, Set 2 280

- 7870

- 5 Aqueous 9/29/2010 9/30/2010

### 2

SUMMARY

The samples were prepared for total metals analysis acc ording to TestAmerica’s SOP for

ICP Analysis for Trace Metals by Method 200.7. Any signific ant findings are

summarized below. No additional data qualifiers were requir ed.

• The matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) rec overies for total

barium for sample 72095 failed the EPA Method 200.7 control li mits of 70–

130%.

• The MS/MSD relative percent difference (RPD) for total magnesium for sample

72095 failed TestAmerica’s SOP control limits of ±20%.

• The post digestion spike (PDS) for titanium for sample 72095 failed

TestAmerica’s control limits of 85–115% recovery.

SAMPLE RECEIPT, HANDLING AND STORAGE ISSUES

There were no sample receipt issues in this data package.

INTERNAL STANDARDIZATION

While the internal standard (ISTD) yttrium was used for these analyses, no checks for the

ISTD recoveries within the ±30% criterion of the calibra tion blank as per Section 9.11 of

the SOP were seen. All ISTD were within the control limits.

INITIAL CALIBRATION

TestAmerica performed the initial calibrations on each analysis day. The initial

calibration for the ICP analysis consisted of a blank an d one calibration standard.

INITIAL AND CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATIONS

The initial calibration verifications (ICV) and continu ing calibration verifications (CCV)

performed by TestAmerica all had recoveries within the m ethod criteria.

METHOD/INSTRUMENT BLANKS

All the method blanks were less than the reporting limit (RL); however, some elements

were above the method detection limit (MDL) and were f lagged with the “J” qualifier.

All instrument blanks (initial calibration blank (ICB) and continuing calibration blank

(CCB)) were less than the RL; however, some element s were above the MDL and were

flagged with the “J” qualifier.

### 3

REPORTING LIMIT VERIFICATION STANDARD (CRI)

All CRI samples passed TestAmerica’s SOP control limi ts of 50–150% recovery.

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES (LCS)

All LCSs passed the method control limits of 85–115% recover y.

INTERFERENCE CHECK SOLUTIONS

Interference checks were performed using the synthetic ma trix as the check solution. All

data quality objectives met TestAmerica’s SOP criteria.

SERIAL DILUTION (SRD)

Serial dilutions were performed for each batch of total samples. All serial dilution percent

differences were less than 10% as required by TestAmerica ’s SOP.

FIELD DUPLICATES

No field duplicate samples were collected with these sa mpling episodes.

MATRIX SPIKE AND MATIX SPIKE DUPLICATES (MS/MSD)

MS and MSDs were performed on the total samples of 72095 and 72045. Some elements

with high concentrations failed the EPA 200.7 Method spike recovery control limits of

70–130% but were flagged with a “4” qualifier indicating that the c oncentration in the

parent sample was greater than 4 times the spike and co uld not be reliably calculated.

These data were considered acceptable based on the LCS pas sing the method control

limits. Otherwise, all MS/MSD spike recoveries were within the method control criteria

of 70-130%, except for barium for sample 72095, which had a reco very of 65% and was

qualified with an “F”. The RPD for all MS/MSDs were wi thin TestAmerica’s ± 20%

requirement, except for magnesium for sample 72095. No add itional data qualifiers were

needed.

POST DIGESTION SPIKE (PDS)

The PDS performed on sample 72095 passed TestAmerica’s cont rol limits of 85–115%

recovery for all analytes except titanium, which was qual ified with a “W”. No additional

data qualifiers were required.

DETECTION LIMITS

The laboratory performed an MDL study in the synthetic F GD wastewater matrix, instead

of reagent water.

### 1



## MEMORANDUM

To: Ron Jordan, Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

CC: Jezebele Alicea, Alternate Work Assignment Manager, EP A EAD

Deb Bartram, ERG

TJ Finseth, ERG

From: Donna Tedder, ERG

Date: 2/9/2012

Subject: TestAmerica Data Review Narrative for Classicals Ana lyses – Long-Term

Monitoring: Month 1 (Part 1)

TestAmerica Denver Laboratory generated analytical data for classical wet chemistry

analyses for these long-term monitoring samples. All s amples were tested for the

following analytes:

• Ammonia by EPA method 350.1,

• Biochemical Oxygen Demand – 5 day (BOD 5 

### ) by SM 5210B,

• Chloride and Sulfate by EPA method 300.0,

• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) by EPA method 410.4,

• Cyanide (total) by SM 4500 CN

- 

### E,

• Nitrate/Nitrite by EPA method 353.2,

• Phosphorus (total) by EPA method 365.1,

• Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) by SM 2540C,

• Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) by EPA method 351.2, and

• Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM 2540D.

Table 1 summarizes the seven samples that TestAmerica analyzed for the above analytes.

Table 1. Long-Term Monitoring Month 1 (Part 1) Classical Analytes – Sample

Identification

EPA

Sample # Sample

Matrix Sample Description Sampling

Date

72041 Water FGD Influent, Set 1 9/30/10

72045 Water FGD Effluent, Set 1 9/30/10

72091 Water FGD Influent, Set 1 9/28/10

72095 Water FGD Effluent, Set 1 9/28/10

72191 Water FGD Influent, Set 1 9/29/10

72195 Water FGD SBR Influent, Set 1 9/29/10

72199 Water FGD SBR Effluent, Set 1 9/29/10

### 2

SUMMARY

All samples were analyzed within the holding time specif ied in 40 CFR 136 Table II. All

samples were preserved appropriately unless otherwise speci fied below.

Field duplicate samples were not collected for these ep isodes. Depending on the method,

a laboratory duplicate was analyzed, instead. The Relati ve Percent Difference (RPD)

between the sample and its duplicate was less than 20% unl ess otherwise noted below.

If applicable, the appropriate number of standards was used to create a calibration curve.

If sample results were above the highest standard used t o create the curve, the sample was

diluted and reanalyzed. All sample results were between the lowest and highest standards

unless noted below. Additionally, unless otherwise noted, a ll calibration blanks and

calibration verification samples met the criteria sp ecified in the method.

If required by the method, the quality control sample (QC S), a secondary source standard

used to verify calibration, was always within the cont rol limits specified by the method.

As described below, the analyte of interest was detecte d above the method detection limit

(MDL) in some laboratory reagent blanks (LRB). However , the analyte of interest was

never detected above the reporting limit (RL) in the LRBs . If required by the method, all

laboratory fortified blanks (LFB) met the criteria spec ified in the method unless specified

below.

If required by the method, a matrix spike (MS) sample wa s analyzed on sample 72045 for

each analyte to check for matrix interferences. For so me analytes, TestAmerica spiked

more samples than required. All MS samples analyzed met the criteria specified in the

method unless described below.

DATA NOTES/ISSUES

Ammonia

No issues were identified by the data reviewer.

BOD 5



### TestAmerica analyzed five dilutions, but no dilutions had a dissolved oxygen (DO)

depletion greater than 2.0 mg/L for sample 72041 and 72091. Theref ore, BOD 5 

### was

reported as not detected for these samples. The rest of the samples had at least one

dilution with a DO depletion greater than 2.0 mg/L. As requ ired in the method, the final

result was calculated by taking the average of the resul ts for all dilutions with a DO

depletion greater than 2.0 mg/L and a final DO greater than 1.0 mg/L.

BOD was not detected above the RL in any method blanks. Ho wever, for one batch, the

results for the three water/unseeded blanks were 0.22 mg/L , 0.14 mg/L, and 0.16 mg/L.

### 3

One of these water blanks was above the method contro l criteria of 0.20 mg/L. However,

all samples contained in this batch (samples 72041 and 72045) we re either qualified with

a “J” meaning that the sample result was an estimated v alue because it was below the RL

or BOD was not detected in the sample, so no further qual ification was necessary.

One of the three batches had a seed correction factor lower than 0.6 mg/L. The seed

correction factors were 0.6267 mg/L, 0.5776 mg/L, and 0.6384 mg/L for b atches 33523,

33769, and 33938, respectively. Unlike previous episodes, TestAmeric a did not flag

samples in batch 33769 with an “s” indicating the seed corre ction blank (SCB) recovery

was low. This low seed correction factor suggests that s amples 72191, 72195, and 72199

may be biased low. Therefore, these samples were also flagged with an “s”. Sample

72191 was already flagged by TestAmerica with a “J” meaning tha t the sample result was

an estimated value because it was below the RL, so no fur ther qualification was

necessary. However, samples 72195 and 72199 were flagged as minim um values. Due to

the short holding time for the analysis, the samples could not be reanalyzed.

All glucose-glutamic acid standards and laboratory duplicat es were analyzed

appropriately and met the criteria specified in SM 5210B.

Chloride and Sulfate

The MS and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) results for sam ple 72045 for sulfate and

chloride were above the calibration curve. TestAmerica did not reanalyze the samples

with a higher dilution factor because the percent recov eries were within EPA method

300.0 control limits. If reported, these MS/MSD results w ill be qualified as estimated

values. The LFB associated with this sample met the me thod criteria. The analyzed result

for sample 72045 was within the calibration curve, so there was no need to qualify this

sample.

COD

The percent recovery for the MSD analyses for sample 72045 was below the control

limits of 90-110% required by EPA method 410.4. The percent recov eries for the MS and

MSD analyses for this sample were 109% and 87%, respective ly. Because the MS

percent recovery met the method criteria and an MSD is not required by the method,

sample 72045 was not qualified. The LFB percent recoveries a ssociated with sample

72045 met the method criteria.

Cyanide

Samples 72041 and 72045 were received by the laboratory at neutra l pH. The lab added

more NaOH to increase the pH to greater than 10 S.U. These samples are qualified as

estimated values.

Results for the following samples were less than the l owest calibration standard (0.01

mg/L): 72095, 72195, and 72199. Because all of these samples were a lready flagged by

### 4

TestAmerica with a “J”, meaning the sample result was an estimated value because it was

below the RL, no further qualification was necessary.

The percent recoveries for the MS and MSD analyses o f sample 72045 were both 85%,

which is outside of the laboratory control criteria of 90-110%. However, because there

are no criteria for MS/MSD analyses specified in SM 4500 CN

- 

### E, no further

qualification was necessary.

Nitrate/Nitrite

No issues were identified by the data reviewer.

Phosphorus

The percent recoveries for the MS/MSD analysis of sam ple 72045 were not within the

control limits of 90-110% specified in EPA Method 365.1 or within the laboratory

control limits of 71-128%. The percent recoveries of the MS and MSD samples were

19% and 21%, respectively. The result for sample 72045 was only slightly above the RL.

This low sample result could have caused the low percen t recovery. Nevertheless, sample

72045 was qualified as a minimum value. The LFB percent recov ery met the method

criteria.

TDS

Constant weight was not achieved after 3 drying cycles fo r all samples. It should be noted

that the weight increased from the first weighing to the second weighing for all samples.

Method 2540C warns that samples which contain high levels o f calcium, magnesium,

chloride, and sulfate may be hygroscopic meaning they abso rb moisture from the air.

FGD wastewater contains high concentrations of all o f these species. This was likely the

cause for the inconsistent weight calculations. The sam ples were not qualified, but results

may be biased high.

The RPDs for laboratory duplicates from samples 72045 and 72191 w ere less than 10%

as required by SM 2540C. However, the RPD for sample 72091 was 14%. Because the

RPD was greater than the method control limits, sampl e 72091 was qualified as an

estimated value.

TDS was detected at 6.0 mg/L in the method blank associa ted with samples 72191,

72195, and 72199. The method blank result was greater than the MDL (4.7 mg/L), but

less than the RL (10 mg/L). No qualification was necessar y because the blank result was

less than the RL.

TKN

The percent recovery for the LFB associated with sampl es 72041, 72045, 72091, 72095,

72191, 72195, and 72199 was not within the method control limits of 90-11 0%, but was

### 5

within the laboratory control limits of 77-115%. The percen t recoveries for the LFB and

LFBD were 84% and 86%, respectively. Because the percent r ecovery of the LFB was

below the method criteria, samples 72041, 72045, 72091, 72095, 72191, 72195, and

72199 were qualified as minimum values.

TestAmerica performed MS/MSD analysis on sample 72045. The percent recoveries for

the MS and MSD samples were 77% and 93%, respectively. The MS sample did not meet

the method control limits of 90-110%, but did meet the labo ratory control limits of 54-

131%. The LFB associated with this batch was also not wit hin the laboratory control

limits, so this may have caused the low MS percent reco very. Also, the sample

concentration was greater than 4 times the spike amoun t in the MS and MSD samples, so

TestAmerica stated that the percent recoveries and RP Ds could not be reliably calculated.

Therefore, sample 72045 was not additionally qualified based on the MS failure because

it is not possible to determine if the MS failure was a result of matrix interferences or the

low spiking level.

TKN was detected at 0.133 mg/L in the LRB associated with samples 72041, 72045,

72091, 72095, 72191, 72195, and 72199. The blank result was greater than the MD L

(0.077 mg/L), but less than the RL (1.0 mg/L). Because the bla nk result was less than the

RL, no samples were qualified based on the LRB result.

TSS

The RPD for the laboratory duplicate of sample 72045 was 13%. This RPD was greater

than the method control criteria of 10%. Sample 72045 and its duplicate were already

qualified by TestAmerica with a “J” meaning that the resul t is an estimated value because

the result is below the RL, so no further qualificatio n was necessary.

Table 2. Data Review Summary Table

Sample Analyte Qualifier/Ac

tion Reason Level Detected

72191 BOD s SCB Recovery Low 2.4 mg/L

72195 BOD s, Minimum

Value SCB Recovery Low 5.8 mg/L

72199 BOD s, Minimum

Value SCB Recovery Low 6.2 mg/L

72041 Cyanide Estimated

Value Sample pH < 10 S.U.

at receipt XXX mg/L

72045 Cyanide Estimated

Value Sample pH < 10 S.U.

at receipt XXX mg/L

72045 Phosphorus Minimum

Value MS % recovery <

method-specified

criteria XXX mg/L

### 6 Table 2. Data Review Summary Table

Sample Analyte Qualifier/Ac

tion Reason Level Detected

72091 TDS Estimated

Value Lab duplicate RPD >

method-specified

criteria XXX mg/L

72041 TKN Minimum

Value LFB% recovery <

method-specified

criteria XXX mg/L

72045 TKN Minimum

Value LFB% recovery <

method-specified

criteria XXX mg/L

72091 TKN Minimum

Value LFB% recovery <

method-specified

criteria XXX mg/L

72095 TKN Minimum

Value LFB% recovery <

method-specified

criteria XXX mg/L

72191 TKN Minimum

Value LFB% recovery <

method-specified

criteria 23 mg/L

72195 TKN Minimum

Value LFB% recovery <

method-specified

criteria 12 mg/L

72199 TKN Minimum

Value LFB% recovery <

method-specified

criteria 16 mg/L

### 1



## MEMORANDUM

To: Ron Jordan, Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

CC: Jezebele Alicea, Alternate Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

Deb Bartram, ERG

TJ Finseth, ERG

From: Donna Tedder, ERG

Date: 2/9/2012

Subject: FGS Data Review Narrative for Total Mercury – Long-Term M onitoring:

Month 3

Frontier Global Sciences (FGS) generated analytical data for total mercury. FGS

analyzed the samples according to EPA Method 1631E for merc ury by Cold Vapor

Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry (CVAFS) analysis.

Table 1 summarizes the 24 samples (excluding laboratory pre p blanks) FGS extracted

and analyzed for total mercury.

Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 3 Mercury – Sample Identification

EPA

Sample # Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sample Description Sampling

Date

71993 1012119-01 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 3 12/8/2010

71997 1012119-06 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 3 12/8/2010

72001 1012119-11 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 3 12/8/2010

72006 1012119-12 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Influent Field Blank, Set 3 12/ 8/2010

72010 1012119-13 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Effluent Field Blank, Set 3 12/8 /2010

72043 1012094-01 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 3 12/8/2010

72047 1012094-02 Aqueous FGD Effluent, Set 3 12/7/2010

72052 1012094-03 Aqueous FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 3 12/7/2010

72093 1012077-01 Aqueous FGD Influent Set 3 12/7/2010

72097 1012077-02 Aqueous FGD Effluent, Set 3 12/7/2010

72102 1012077-03 Aqueous FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 3 12/7/2010

72143 1012080-01 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 3 12/6/2010

72147 1012080-06 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 3 12/6/2010

72151 1012080-11 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 3 12/6/2010

72156 1012080-12 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Influent Field Blank, Set 3 12/ 6/2010

72160 1012080-13 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Effluent Field Blank, Set 3 12/6/2010

72192 1012105-01 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 1 12/8/2010

72196 1012105-02 Aqueous FGD SBR Influent, Set 1 12/8/2010

72200 1012105-03 Aqueous FGD SBR Effluent, Set 1 12/8/2010

### 2 Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 3 Mercury – Sample Identification

EPA

Sample # Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sample Description Sampling

Date

72205 1012105-04 Aqueous FGD SBR Influent Field Blank, Set 1 12/8/2010

72209 1012105-05 Aqueous FGD SBR Effluent Field Blank, Set 1 12/8/2010

72243 1012117-01 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 3 12/9/2010

72247 1012117-06 Aqueous FGD Effluent, Set 3 12/9/2010

72252 1012117-07 Aqueous FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 3 12/8/2010



### SUMMARY

The samples were prepared according to EPA Method 1631E to be analyzed by CVAFS.

There were no findings from the data review that required a dditional qualifiers in this

dataset.

SAMPLE RECEIPT, HANDLING, AND STORAGE ISSUES

There were no sample receipt issues in this data package.

INITIAL CALIBRATION

FGS performed the initial calibrations on each analysi s day. The initial calibration for

the CVAFS analysis consisted of a blank and five calibrat ion standards with a correlation

coefficient ≥ 0.995. All method-specified criteria were met.

INITIAL AND CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATIONS

All initial and continuing calibration verifications (I CVs, CCVs) met method-specified

criteria.

BLANKS

All the preparation blanks or laboratory reagent blanks (L RBs) and the continuing

calibration blanks (CCBs) met method-specified criteria. Some preparation blanks had

mercury levels greater than the MDL (0.24 ng/L), but less t han the RL associated with

each individual blank (different RLs based on preparation) . Because all of the blank

results were less than the RL, no samples were quali fied based on these preparation blank

results.

DUPLICATES

No field duplicate samples were collected with these sa mpling episodes. Three samples

were analyzed in duplicate at the laboratory, Bioreacto r Influent sample 72147, SBR

Influent sample 72196, and Effluent sample 72247. The relative pe rcent difference (RPD)

### 3

for samples 72147, 72196, and 72247 were 9.74%, 4.36%, and 9.10%, respectiv ely. A

sample from another work order was analyzed in duplica te with these batches that

resulted in an RPD of 79.7%, which is outside of the laborat ory’s criteria. The

laboratory’s RPD criteria between analytical duplicates is 24%. No sample qualifications

were needed based on these analytical duplicate results.

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES

All laboratory control samples were within FGS’s contr ol limits of 80-120% recovery

and 24% RPD.

MATRIX SPIKE AND MATIX SPIKE DUPLICATES (MS/MSD)

Matrix spikes (MS) and matrix spike duplicates (MSD) we re performed on samples

72097, 72147, and 72196. Additionally, an MS/MSD was performed on samp le 72296,

which was a rerun from the long-term monitoring, month 2 set of samples. All aqueous

MS/MSD recoveries were within method specifications of 71-125%. All RPDs met

method-specified criteria.

DETECTION LIMITS

The laboratory MDL in the synthetic matrix was 0.239 ng/ L. Results below this MDL

were reported as not detected (ND).

### 1



## MEMORANDUM

To: Ron Jordan, Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

CC: Jezebele Alicea, Alternate Work Assignment Manager, EP A EAD

Deb Bartram, ERG

TJ Finseth, ERG

From: Randy Mercurio, ERG

Date: 2/9/2012

Subject: TestAmerica Data Review Narrative for Total Metals by 200.8 – Long-Term

Monitoring: Month 3

TestAmerica generated analytical data for total metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium,

chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, thalliumand vanadium) for these longterm monitoring samples. The samples were analyzed accor ding to EPA Method 200.8.

Table 1 summarizes the samples TestAmerica extracted a nd analyzed for total metals by

EPA method 200.8.

Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 3 Total Metals – Sample Identification

EPA

Sample # EPA Sample Description Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sampling

Date Receipt

Date

71993 FGD Influent, Set 3 280

- 10586

- 1 Aqueous 12/08/2010 12/09/2010

71997 FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 3 280

- 10586

- 2 Aqueous 12/08/2010 12/09/2010

71997 FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 3 280

- 10654

- 1 Aqueous 12/09/2010 12/10/2010

72001 FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 3 280

- 10654

- 2 Aqueous 12/09/2010 12/10/2010

72006 FGD Bioreactor Influent Field

Blank, Set 3 280

- 10654

- 3 Aqueous 12/09/2010 12/10/2010

72010 FGD Bioreactor Effluent Field

Blank, Set 3 280

- 10654

- 4 Aqueous 12/09/2010 12/10/2010

72043 FGD Influent, Set 3 280

- 10584

- 1 Aqueous 12/08/2010 12/09/2010

72047 FGD Effluent, Set 3 280

- 10584

- 2 Aqueous 12/08/2010 12/09/2010

72052 FGD Bioreactor Effluent Field

Blank, Set 3 280

- 10584

- 3 Aqueous 12/08/2010 12/09/2010

72093 FGD Influent, Set 3 280

- 10515

- 1 Aqueous 12/07/2010 12/08/2010

72097 FGD Effluent, Set 3 280

- 10515

- 2 Aqueous 12/07/2010 12/08/2010

72102 FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 3 280

- 10515

- 3 Aqueous 12/07/2010 12/08/2010

72143 FGD Influent, Set 3 280

- 10455

- 1 Aqueous 12/06/2010 12/07/2010

72147 FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 3 280

- 10517

- 1 Aqueous 12/07/2010 12/08/2010

72151 FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 3 280

- 10517

- 2 Aqueous 12/07/2010 12/08/2010

72156 FGD Bioreactor Influent Field

Blank, Set 3 280

- 10517

- 3 Aqueous 12/07/2010 12/08/2010

72160 FGD Bioreactor Effluent Field 280

- 10517

- 4 Aqueous 12/07/2010 12/08/2010

### 2

Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 3 Total Metals – Sample Identification

EPA

Sample # EPA Sample Description Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sampling

Date Receipt

Date

Blank, Set 3

72192 FGD Influent, Set 1 280

- 10585

- 1 Aqueous 12/08/2010 12/09/2010

72196 FGD SBR Influent, Set 1 280

- 10585

- 2 Aqueous 12/08/2010 12/09/2010

72200 FGD SBR Effluent, Set 1 280

- 10585

- 3 Aqueous 12/08/2010 12/09/2010

72205 FGD SBR Influent Field Blank,

Set 1 280

- 10585

- 4 Aqueous 12/08/2010 12/09/2010

72209 FGD SBR Effluent Field Blank,

Set 1 280

- 10585

- 5 Aqueous 12/08/2010 12/09/2010

72243 FGD Influent, Set 3 280

- 10655

- 1 Aqueous 12/09/2010 12/10/2010

72247 FGD Effluent, Set 3 280

- 10655

- 2 Aqueous 12/09/2010 12/10/2010

72252 FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 3 280

- 10655

- 3 Aqueous 12/09/2010 12/10/2010



### SUMMARY

The samples were prepared for total metals analysis accor ding to TestAmerica’s “FGD

ICP/MS SOP: Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry for Trace Elements

Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewaters,” date d October 6, 2010, based on

EPA Method 200.8, by ICP/MS analysis.

Any significant findings are summarized below. No addition al data qualifiers were

required.

• One of the continuing calibration verifications (CCV) per formed on 12/21/2010

failed the method criteria for selenium.

• The matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) rec overies for total

silver for sample 72196 failed the EPA Method 200.8 control lim its of 70-130%.

The MSD recovery for total silver for sample 72147 also fa iled the method

control limits.

• The MS/MSD relative percent difference (RPD) for tota l silver for samples 72147

and 72196 failed the FGD ICP/MS SOP control limits of ±20%.

• The post digestion spike (PDS) recoveries for copper, nic kel, and silver for

sample 72147 failed TestAmerica’s control limits of 85–115%. The PDS

recovery for silver for sample 71997 also failed TestAmeri ca’s control limits.

INTERNAL STANDARDIZATION

All internal standards used by TestAmerica were within th e method criteria.

### 3

INITIAL CALIBRATION

TestAmerica performed the initial calibrations on each analysis day. The initial

calibration for the ICP-MS analysis consisted of a bla nk and four calibration standards.

INITIAL AND CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION (IC V/CCV)

The initial calibration verifications (ICV) and CCV perf ormed by TestAmerica all had

recoveries within the method criteria, except for seleniu m for one CCV on 12/21/2010.

Samples associated with this CCV that had selenium value s less than the reporting limit

were reported. Any samples with selenium values above the reporting limit were

reanalyzed.

METHOD/INSTRUMENT BLANKS

All the method blanks were less than the reporting limit (RL); however, some elements

were above the MDL and flagged with a “J” qualifier. No additional qualifiers were

required for method blanks.

All instrument blanks (initial calibration blank (ICB) and continuing calibration blank

(CCB)) were less than the RL; however, some element s were above the MDL and

flagged with a “J” qualifier. No additional qualifiers were required for instrument blanks.

REPORTING LIMIT VERIFICATION STANDARD (CRI)

All CRI samples passed TestAmerica’s SOP control limi ts of 50–150% recovery.

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES (LCS)

All LCS samples passed the method QC limits of 85–115% recov ery.

SYNTHETIC FGD INTERFERENCE CHECK SOLUTION

Based on TestAmerica’s SOP, all interference check sa mple A (ICSA) results had

analytes of interest with concentrations less than the RL or less than five times the RL

when known inherent contaminants are present in the stock solution used to make the

ICS.

All interference check sample B (ICSAB) synthetic sp ikes recovered within

TestAmerica’s SOP criteria of 70–130% of the true value.

SERIAL DILUTION

The serial dilution performed on samples 72147 and 72196 passed Te stAmerica’s criteria

of ±10% difference.

### 4

FIELD DUPLICATES

No field duplicate samples were collected with these sa mpling episodes.

MATRIX SPIKE AND MATIX SPIKE DUPLICATES (MS/MSD)

MS and MSD were performed on samples of 72147, 72196, and 71997. The M SD of

sample 72147 failed the method control limits of 70–130% recover y for silver at 69%,

which was flagged with an “F” qualifier. The MS/MSD of sam ple 72196 failed the

method control limits of 70–130% recovery for silver, which was flagged with an “F”

qualifier. These silver failures are likely due to matrix interference from the high

concentration of sulfates, which can form insoluble si lver sulfide and/or silver sulfate.

The silver recoveries in the associated LCS/LCSDs were acceptable. The RPD for the

MS/MSDs for samples 72147 and 72196 failed the FGD ICP/MS SOP ± 20% control

limits for silver.

Otherwise, all MS/MSD spike recoveries were within th e method control limits of 70-

130% and the RPD for the MS/MSDs were within the FGD ICP /MS SOP control limits

of ±20 percent. No additional data qualifiers were required.

POST DIGESTION SPIKES (PDS)

The PDS performed on samples 72147 and 71997 passed TestAmerica’s control limits of

85–115% recovery for all analytes, except for copper, nickel, and silver for PDS sample

72147 and silver for PDS sample 71997, which were flagged with a “W ” qualifier. No

additional data qualifiers were required.

DETECTION LIMITS

The laboratory performed an MDL study in the synthetic F GD wastewater matrix, instead

of reagent water.

### 1



## MEMORANDUM

To: Ron Jordan, Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

CC: Jezebele Alicea, Alternate Work Assignment Manager, EP A EAD

Deb Bartram, ERG

TJ Finseth, ERG

From: Randy Mercurio, ERG

Date: 2/9/2012

Subject: TestAmerica Data Review Narrative for Total Metals by 200.7 – Long-Term

Monitoring: Month 3

TestAmerica generated analytical data for total metals (aluminum, boron, barium,

beryllium, calcium, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese , molybdenum, sodium, tin,

titanium and zinc). The samples were analyzed according t o EPA Method 200.7.

Table 1 summarizes the samples TestAmerica extracted a nd analyzed for total metals by

EPA Method 200.7

Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 3 Total Metals – Sample Identification

EPA

Sample # EPA Sample Description Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sampling

Date Receipt

Date

71993 FGD Influent , Set 3 280

- 10586

- 1 Aqueous 12/08 /2010 12/09 /2010

71997 FGD Bioreactor Influent , Set 3 280

- 10654

- 1 Aqueous 12/09 /2010 12/10 /2010

72001 FGD Bioreactor Effluent , Set 3 280

- 10654

- 2 Aqueous 12/09 /2010 12/10 /2010

72006 FGD Bioreactor Influent Field

Blank, Set 3 280

- 10654

- 3 Aqueous 12/09 /2010 12/10 /2010

72010 FGD Bioreactor Effluent Field

Blank, Set 3 280

- 10654

- 4 Aqueous 12/09 /2010 12/10 /2010

7 2043 FGD Influent, Set 3 280

- 10584

- 1 Aqueous 12/08 /2010 12/09 /2010

7 2047 FGD Effluent, Set 3 280

- 10584

- 2 Aqueous 12/08 /2010 12/09 /2010

72052 FGD Bioreactor Effluent Field

Blank, Set 3 280

- 10584

- 3 Aqueous 12/08 /2010 12/09 /2010

7 2093 FGD Influent, Set 3 280

- 10515

- 1 Aqueous 12/07 /2010 12/08 /2010

7 2097 FGD Ef fluent, Set 3 280

- 10515

- 2 Aqueous 12/07 /2010 12/08 /2010

72 102 FGD Ef

fluent Field Blank , Set 3 280

- 10515

- 3 Aqueous 12/07 /2010 12/08 /2010

72143 FGD Influent, Set 3 280

- 10455

- 1 Aqueous 12/06 /2010 12/07 /2010

7 2147 FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 3 280

- 10517

- 1 Aqueous 12/07 /2010 12/08 /2010

7 2151 FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 3 280

- 10517

- 2 Aqueous 12/07 /2010 12/08 /2010

7 2156 FGD Bioreactor In fluent Field

Blank, Set 3 280

- 10517

- 3 Aqueous 12/07 /2010 12/08 /2010

7 2160 FGD Bioreactor Ef fluent Field

Blank, Set 3 2 80

- 10517

- 4 Aqueous 12/07 /2010 12/08 /2010

7 2192 FGD Influent, Set 1 280

- 10585

- 1 Aqueous 12/08 /2010 12/09 /2010

### 2 Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 3 Total Metals – Sample Identification

EPA

Sample # EPA Sample Description Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sampling

Date Receipt

Date

72196 FGD SBR Influent, Set 1 280

- 10585

- 2 Aqueous 12/08 /2010 12/09 /2010

72200 FGD SBR Effluent, Set 1 280

- 10585

- 3 Aqueous 12/08 /2010 12/09 /2010

72205 FGD SBR Influent Field Blank

, Set 1 280

- 10585

- 4 Aqueous 12/08 /2010 12/09 /2010

72209 FGD SBR Effluent Field Blank

, Set 1 280

- 10585

- 5 Aqueous 12/08 /2010 12/09 /2010

72243 FGD Influent, Set 3 280

- 10655

- 1 Aqueous 12/09 /2010 12/10 /2010

72247 FGD Effluent, Set 3 280

- 10655

- 2 Aqueous 12/09 /2010 12/10 /2010

72252 FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 3 280

- 10655

- 3 Aqueous 12/09 /2010 12/10 /2010



### SUMMARY

The samples were prepared for total metals analysis acc ording to TestAmerica’s SOP for

ICP Analysis for Trace Metals by Method 200.7. Any signific ant findings are

summarized below. Additional data qualifiers were require d (see Table 2).

• The serial dilution for cobalt, iron, and zinc for sa mple 72143 failed

TestAmerica’s SOP control limit of percent differenc es less than 10%.

• The post digestion spike (PDS) for calcium, iron, magn esium, and zinc for sample

72143 failed TestAmerica’s control limits of 85–115% recovery.

• The PDS for manganese for sample 72147 failed TestAmerica ’s control limits of

85–115% recovery.

SAMPLE RECEIPT, HANDLING AND STORAGE ISSUES

The samples associated with Episode 6569 (72192, 72196, 72200, 72205, and 72209) did

not have a sample date or time on the traffic report.

INTERNAL STANDARDIZATION

While the internal standard (ISTD) yttrium was used for these analyses, no checks for the

ISTD recoveries within the ±30% criterion of the calibra tion blank as per Section 9.11 of

the SOP were seen. All ISTD were within the control limits.

INITIAL CALIBRATION

TestAmerica performed the initial calibrations on each analysis day. The initial

calibration for the ICP analysis consisted of a blank an d one calibration standard.

### 3

INITIAL AND CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATIONS

The initial calibration verifications (ICV) and continu ing calibration verifications (CCV)

performed by TestAmerica all had recoveries within the m ethod criteria.

METHOD/INSTRUMENT BLANKS

All the method blanks were less than the reporting limit (RL); however, some elements

were above the method detection limit (MDL) and were f lagged with the “J” qualifier.

All instrument blanks (initial calibration blank (ICB) and continuing calibration blank

(CCB)) were less than the RL; however, some element s were above the MDL and were

flagged with the “J” qualifier.

REPORTING LIMIT VERIFICATION STANDARD (CRI)

All CRI samples passed TestAmerica’s SOP control limi ts of 50–150% recovery.

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES (LCS)

All LCSs passed the method control limits of 85–115% recover y.

INTERFERENCE CHECK SOLUTIONS

Interference checks were performed using the synthetic m atrix as the check solution. All

data quality objectives met TestAmerica’s SOP criteria.

SERIAL DILUTION (SRD)

Serial dilutions were performed for each batch of total samples. All serial dilution percent

differences were less than 10% as required by TestAmeric a’s SOP, except for cobalt,

iron, and zinc for sample 72143, which were flagged with a “ V” qualifier.

FIELD DUPLICATES

No field duplicate samples were collected with these sa mpling episodes.

MATRIX SPIKE AND MATIX SPIKE DUPLICATES (MS/MSD)

Matrix spikes (MS) and matrix spike duplicates (MSD) w ere performed on the total

samples of 72143, 72147, and 72196. Some elements with high concent rations failed the

EPA 200.7 Method spike recovery control limits of 70–130% but w ere flagged with a “4”

qualifier indicating that the concentration in the paren t sample was greater than 4 times

the spike and could not be reliably calculated. These data were considered acceptable

based on the LCS passing the method control limits. Othe rwise, all MS/MSD spike

recoveries were within the method control criteria of 70-130%. The RPD for all

### 4

MS/MSDs were within TestAmerica’s ± 20% requirement. No additional data qualifiers

were needed.

POST DIGESTION SPIKE (PDS)

The PDS performed on sample 72143 passed TestAmerica’s cont rol limits of 85–115%

recovery for all analytes except aluminum, boron, calc ium, iron, magnesium, titanium,

and zinc. Calcium, magnesium, and zinc were qualified with a “W”. Calcium and

magnesium did pass in the matrix spike for this sample. Aluminum, boron, iron and

titanium failed the PDS; however, the percent recoveri es were not calculated by the

laboratory because their concentrations were greater than 4 times the PDS spike level.

Aluminum, boron, and titanium passed TestAmerica’s requir ement of percent differences

less than 10% for the serial dilution for this sample demo nstrating that there were no

significant matrix interference with these elements. Iron and zinc failed TestAmerica’s

requirements for the serial dilution; therefore, based on these cumulative results, iron and

zinc are being qualified as suspect due to matrix interfere nce. These additional qualifiers

appear in Table 2.

The PDS performed on sample 72147 passed TestAmerica’s cont rol limits of 85–115%

recovery for all analytes except boron and manganese. Manganese was qualified with a

“W”. Boron failed the PDS; however, the percent recov ery was not calculated by the

laboratory because its concentration was greater the 4 times the PDS spike level. Both

boron and manganese passed TestAmerica’s requirement of percent differences less than

10% for the serial dilution for sample 72147 demonstrating th at there were no significant

matrix interferences. No additional qualifier is requir ed due to this PDS.

The PDS performed on sample 72196 passed TestAmerica’s cont rol limits of 85–115%

recovery for all analytes except boron and manganese; however, the percent recoveries

were not calculated by the laboratory because their co ncentrations were greater than 4

times the PDS spike level. Both boron and manganese passed TestAmerica’s requirement

of percent differences less than 10% for the serial dil ution for sample 72196

demonstrating that there were no significant matrix int erferences. No additional qualifier

is required due to this PDS.

DETECTION LIMITS

The laboratory performed an MDL study in the synthetic F GD wastewater matrix, instead

of reagent water.

Table 2. Data Review Summary

Sample Analyte Qualifier/Action Reason Level Detected

72143 Iron (total) Matrix

Interference PDS and SD Failed XXX μ g/L

72143 Zinc (total) Matrix

Interference PDS and SD Failed XXX ug/L

### 1



## MEMORANDUM

To: Ron Jordan, Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

CC: Deb Bartram, ERG

TJ Finseth, ERG

From: Jennifer Colby, ERG

Date: 2/9/2012

Subject: TestAmerica Data Review Narrative for Classicals Ana lyses – Long-Term

Monitoring: Month 3

TestAmerica Denver Laboratory generated analytical data f or classical wet chemistry

analyses for these long-term monitoring samples. All s amples were tested for the

following analytes:

• Ammonia by EPA method 350.1,

• Biochemical Oxygen Demand – 5 day (BOD 5 

### ) by SM 5210B,

• Chloride and Sulfate by EPA method 300.0,

• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) by EPA method 410.4,

• Cyanide (total) by SM 4500 CN

- 

### E,

• Nitrate/Nitrite by EPA method 353.2

• Phosphorus (total) by EPA method 365.1,

• Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) by SM 2540C,

• Total Kjeldakl Nitrogen (TKN) by EPA method 351.2, and

• Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM 2540D.

Table 1 summarizes the 15 samples that TestAmerica anal yzed for the above analytes.

Table 1. Long-Term Monitoring Month 3 Classical Analytes – Sample

Identification

EPA

Sample # Sample

Matrix Sample Description Sampling

Date

71993 Water FGD Influent, Set 3 12/08/2010

71997 Water FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 3 12/09/2010

72001 Water FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 3 12/09/2010

72043 Water FGD Influent, Set 3 12/08/2010

72047 Water FGD Effluent, Set 3 12/08/2010

72093 Water FGD Influent, Set 3 12/07/2010

72097 Water FGD Effluent, Set 3 12/07/2010

72143 Water FGD Influent, Set 3 12/06/2010

72147 Water FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 3 12/07/2010

### 2 Table 1. Long-Term Monitoring Month 3 Classical Analytes – Sample

Identification

EPA

Sample # Sample

Matrix Sample Description Sampling

Date

72151 Water FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 3 12/07/2010

72192 Water FGD Influent, Set 1 12/08/2010

72196 Water FGD SBR Influent, Set 1 12/08/2010

72200 Water FGD SBR Effluent, Set 1 12/08/2010

72243 Water FGD Influent, Set 3 12/09/2010

72247 Water FGD Effluent, Set 3 12/09/2010

SUMMARY

All samples were analyzed within the holding time specif ied in 40 CFR 136 Table II

unless otherwise noted below. All samples were preserve d appropriately unless

otherwise specified below. Samples 72192, 72196, and 72200 had no colle ction dates or

times listed on the traffic report, and were given the date of relinquishment. Many of the

traffic reports did not have receipt temperatures.

Field duplicate samples were not collected for this epis ode. Depending on the method, a

laboratory duplicate was analyzed instead. The Relative Percent Difference (RPD)

between the sample and its duplicate was less than 20% unl ess otherwise noted below.

If applicable, the appropriate number of standards was used to create a calibration curve.

If sample results were above the highest standard used t o create the curve, the sample was

diluted and reanalyzed. All sample results were between the lowest and highest standards

unless noted below. Additionally, unless otherwise noted, a ll calibration blanks and

calibration verification samples met the criteria sp ecified in the method.

If required by the method, the quality control sample (QC S), a secondary source standard

used to verify calibration, was always within the cont rol limits specified by the method.

As described below, the analyte of interest was detecte d above the method detection limit

(MDL) in some laboratory reagent blanks (LRB). However , the analyte of interest was

never detected above the reporting limit (RL) in the LRBs . If required by the method, all

laboratory fortified blanks (LFB) met the criteria spec ified in the method unless specified

below.

If required by the method, a matrix spike (MS) analysis was run on sample 72147 and

sample 72196 for each analyte to check for matrix interfe rences. All MS samples

analyzed met the criteria specified in the method unless described below.

### 3

DATA NOTES/ISSUES

Ammonia

The result for the method blank associated with one of the batches was greater than the

MDL. All associated samples were flagged with a “B” qualif ier. This affects samples

72147, 72143, 72093, 72097, and 72151. No further action is required.

The percent recoveries for the MS and matrix spike dupli cate (MSD) for sample 72147

were 93% and 102%, respectively, which is within the method co ntrol criteria; however,

the results exceeded the calibration range. These MS a nd MSD and results were flagged

with an “E” qualifier.

BOD 5



### TestAmerica analyzed five dilutions, but no dilutions had a dissolved oxygen (DO)

depletion greater than 2.0 mg/L for samples 72143, 72151, 72043, 71993, a nd 72247.

Therefore, BOD 5 

### was reported as not detected for these samples. Additiona lly, for sample

72200, the dilutions did not have a residual DO criteria of gre ater than 1.0 mg/L;

therefore, BOD 5 

### was reported as not detected for this sample. The rest of the samples had

at least one dilution with a DO depletion greater than 2.0 mg/L. As required in the

method, the final result was calculated by taking the av erage of the results for all

dilutions with a DO depletion greater than 2.0 mg/L and a final DO greater than 1.0

mg/L.

Chloride and Sulfate

MS and MSD were performed on samples 72147 and 72196. The MS/MS D recoveries

for both samples were within the method control for both chloride and sulfate; however,

the MS and MSD results for chloride exceeded the calibra tion range. Both sets of

MS/MSD results were flagged with “E” qualifiers.

COD

MS and MSD were performed on samples 72147 and 72196. The MS a nd MSD

recoveries for sample 72147 were 66% and 71%, respectively, w hich is outside the

method control criteria. These MS/MSD results were flagged with an “F” qualifier. The

MS and MSD recoveries for sample 72196 were 72% and 70%, respec tively, which is

outside the method control criteria. These MS/MSD re sults were flagged with an “F”

qualifier.

Cyanide

Because of the nature of the sample matrix, all of th e samples in this sampling episode

used a lower volume, which resulted in elevated RLs being ca lculated and reported by

TestAmerica with the sample results.

### 4

MS and MSD were performed on samples 72147 and 72196. The MS a nd MSD

recoveries for sample 72147 were 76% and 75%, respectively. T he MS and MSD

recoveries for sample 72196 were 59% and 57%, respectively. Th e LCS/LCSD

recoveries associated with these batches were acceptabl e, which indicates the analytical

system was operating within control. Additionally, ther e is no method requirement for the

analysis of a MS/MSD and therefore, no corrective ac tion is necessary.

Nitrate/Nitrite

No MS/MSD data was reported for batch 45200 in the sample a nd QC sample report

summary. The method requires that a known amount of ana lyte be added to 10% of

samples per batch. The general chemistry worksheet indi cates that MS samples were

performed on a sample outside of these episodes, but no spiking concentrations or percent

recoveries are indicated. The MS/MSD recoveries for the other batches were within

control limits.

Phosphorus

The results for the method blanks associated with two of the batches was greater than the

MDL, but less than the RL. The blank results were flagge d with a “J” qualifier. All

associated samples were qualified with a “B” flag. No additional corrective action is

necessary.

MS and MSD were performed on sample 72001, 72147 and 72196. The percen t

recoveries for the MS and MSD for sample 72147 were 69% an d 70%, respectively,

which is outside the method control criteria. These MS /MSD results were flagged with

an “F” qualifier. The LCS/LCSD recoveries for this ba tch were acceptable and indicate

that the analytical system was operating within control . The percent recoveries for the

MS and MSD for sample 72196 were 91% and 85%, respectively. The MSD recovery is

outside the method control criteria, but within the labor atory criteria and therefore, was

not flagged. If reported, the MSD result should be flagge d with an “F” qualifier. The

LCS/LCSD recoveries for this batch were acceptable and ind icate that the analytical

system was operating within control. Additionally, the MS/MSD performed on sample

72001 was in the same batch as the MS/MSD for 72196 and the pe rcent recoveries for the

MS and MSD were 96% and 97%, respectively, with are within th e method control

criteria.

TDS

TA reports that constant weight was not achieved after 3 drying cycles for the following

samples: 72097, 72143, 72147, 72151, 71993, 72196, 72200, 71997, 72004, and 72243.

Review of the general chemistry worksheets indicates th at constant weight was achieved

for all samples. No further action was necessary.

### 5

Because of the nature of the sample matrix, some of t he samples in this sampling episode

used a lower volume, which resulted in elevated RLs being ca lculated and reported by

TestAmerica with the sample results.

The analytical duplicate associated with sample 72143 excee ded the recovery criteria.

The duplicate result was qualified with an “F” flag. Beca use an analytical duplicate was

not required by the method, no further corrective action i s necessary.

TKN

MS and MSD were performed on samples 72147 and 72196. The MS a nd MSD

recoveries for sample 72147 were 76% and 57%, respectively. The concentration in the

original sample was greater than four times the spike a mount; therefore, the recoveries

cannot be reliably calculated and the results were flagge d with a “4” qualifier. The MS

and MSD recoveries for sample 72196 were 81% and 78%, respecti vely, which do not

meet the method control criteria, but do meet the labo ratory control criteria and therefore,

these results were not flagged by the laboratory. If r eported, the MS and MSD results

should be flagged with “F” qualifiers. The LCS/LCSD reco veries associated with these

batches were acceptable, which indicates the analytical system was operating within

control.

TSS

Because of the nature of the sample matrix, some of t he samples in this sampling episode

used a lower volume, which resulted in elevated RLs being ca lculated and reported by

TestAmerica with the sample results.

### 1



## MEMORANDUM

To: Ron Jordan, Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

CC: Jezebele Alicea, Alternate Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

Deb Bartram, ERG

TJ Finseth, ERG

From: Donna Tedder, ERG

Date: 2/9/2012

Subject: FGS Data Review Narrative for Total Mercury – Long-Term M onitoring:

Month 4 and 5

Frontier Global Sciences (FGS) generated analytical da ta for total mercury. FGS

analyzed the samples according to EPA Method 1631E for merc ury by Cold Vapor

Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry (CVAFS) analysis.

Table 1 summarizes the 30 samples (excluding laboratory pre p blanks) FGS extracted

and analyzed for total mercury.

Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 4 and 5 Mercury – Sample Identification

EPA

Sample # Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sample Description Sampling

Date

71994 1101223-48 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 4 1/17/2011

71998 1101223-53 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 4 1/17/2011

72002 1101223-58 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 4 1/17/2011

72007 1101223-59 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Influent Field Blank, Set 4 1/17/2011

72011 1101223-60 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Effluent Field Blank, Set 4 1/17/2011

72044 1101308-01 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 4 1/26/2011

72048 1101308-06 Aqueous FGD Effluent, Set 4 1/25/2011

72053 1101308-07 Aqueous FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 4 1/25/2011

72094 1101223-41 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 4 1/14/2011

72098 1101223-46 Aqueous FGD Effluent, Set 4 1/14/2011

72103 1101223-47 Aqueous FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 4 1/13/2011

72144 1101223-21 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 4 1/12/2011

72148 1101223-26 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 4 1/12/2011

72152 1101223-31 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 4 1/12/2011

72157 1101223-32 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Influent Field Blank, Set 4 1/12/2011

72161 1101223-33 Aqueous FGD Bioreactor Effluent Field Blank, Set 4 1/12/2011

72193 1101223-08 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 3 1/12/2011

72197 1101223-13 Aqueous FGD SBR Influent, Set 3 1/12/2011

72201 1101223-18 Aqueous FGD SBR Effluent, Set 3 1/12/2011

### 2

Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 4 and 5 Mercury – Sample Identification

EPA

Sample # Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sample Description Sampling

Date

72206 1101223-19 Aqueous FGD SBR Influent Field Blank, Set 3 1/12/2011

72210 1101223-20 Aqueous FGD SBR Effluent Field Blank, Set 3 1/12/2011

72244 1101223-34 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 4 1/12/2011

72248 1101223-39 Aqueous FGD Effluent, Set 4 1/13/2011

72253 1101223-40 Aqueous FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 4 1/12/2011

72293 1101223-01 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 3 1/12/2011

72297 1101223-06 Aqueous FGD Effluent, Set 3 1/12/2011

72302 1101223-07 Aqueous FGD Effluent, Field Blank, Set 3 1/12/2011

72294 1102108-01 Aqueous FGD Influent, Set 4 2/9/2011

72298 1102108-06 Aqueous FGD Effluent, Set 4 2/9/2011

72303 1102108-07 Aqueous FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 4 2/9/2011



### SUMMARY

The samples were prepared according to EPA Method 1631E to be analyzed by CVAFS.

There were no findings from the data review that required a dditional qualifiers in this

dataset. The following summarizes the findings from the data review:

• The sample number for Sample 72157 was labeled incorrectly o n the traffic

report.

• The sample description for Sample 72148 was entered incorrec tly by FGS at the

time of sample receipt.

• Two laboratory duplicates were out of the method-suggested relative percent

difference (RPD) criteria.

SAMPLE RECEIPT, HANDLING, AND STORAGE ISSUES

Sample 72157 was labeled incorrectly as Sample 721557 in the tra ffic report submitted to

the laboratory. The error was identified and correct ed during the data review based on

the sample description. FGS incorrectly labeled Sampl e 72148 as the FGD Bioreactor

Effluent, Set 4, when the correct sample description is FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 4.

This error was identified and corrected during the data review and confirmed based on

the traffic report.

### 3

INITIAL CALIBRATION

FGS performed the initial calibrations on each analysi s day. The initial calibration for

the CVAFS analysis consisted of a blank and five calibrat ion standards with a correlation

coefficient ≥ 0.995. All method-specified criteria were met.

INITIAL AND CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATIONS

All initial and continuing calibration verifications (I CVs, CCVs) met method-specified

criteria.

BLANKS

All the preparation blanks or laboratory reagent blanks (L RBs) and the continuing

calibration blanks (CCBs) met the method-specified crite ria. Because all of the blank

results were less than the RL, no samples were quali fied based on these preparation blank

results.

DUPLICATES

No field duplicate samples were collected with these sa mpling episodes. Four samples

were analyzed in duplicate at the laboratory, Influent s amples 72144 and 71994 and

Effluent samples 72048 and 72298. The relative percent differenc e (RPD) for samples

72144, 71994, 72048, and 72298 were 30.6%, 7.66%, 19.4% and 43.9%, respectively.

Two of these RPDs were outside of laboratory criteria . The samples from another

sampling episode were also analyzed in duplicate with RPD s of 13.3%, 22.4%, and

3.03%. The laboratory’s RPD criteria between analytica l duplicates is 24%. Analytical

duplicates are not a method requirement; therefore, no samples were qualified based on

analytical duplicates.

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES

All laboratory control samples were within Frontier’s control limits of 80-120% recovery

and 24% RPD.

MATRIX SPIKE AND MATIX SPIKE DUPLICATES (MS/MSD)

Matrix spikes (MS) and matrix spike duplicates (MSD) were performed on Influent

sample 72144 and Effluent samples 72048 and 72298. MS/MSDs were also performed

on samples from another sampling episode. All aqueous MS /MSD recoveries were

within method specifications of 71-125%. All RPDs met metho d-specifiec criteria.

DETECTION LIMITS

The laboratory MDL in the synthetic matrix was 0.239 ng/ L. Results below this MDL

were reported as not detected (ND).

### 1



## MEMORANDUM

To: Ron Jordan, Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

CC: Jezebele Alicea, Alternate Work Assignment Manager, EP A EAD

Deb Bartram, ERG

TJ Finseth, ERG

From: Randy Mercurio, ERG

Date: 2/9/2012

Subject: TestAmerica Data Review Narrative for Total Metals by 200.8 – Long-Term

Monitoring: Month 4

TestAmerica generated analytical data for total metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium,

chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, thalliumand vanadium) for these longterm monitoring samples. The samples were analyzed accor ding to EPA Method 200.8.

Table 1 summarizes the samples TestAmerica extracted a nd analyzed for total metals by

EPA Method 200.8.

Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 4 Total Metals – Sample Identification

EPA

Sample # EPA Sample Description Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sampling

Date Receipt

Date

71994 FGD Influent, Set 4 280

- 11658

- 1 Aqueous 1/17/2011 1/18/2011

71998 FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 4 280

- 11690

- 1 Aqueous 1/18/2011 1/19/2011

72002 FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 4 280

- 11690

- 2 Aqueous 1/18/2011 1/19/2011

72007 FGD Bioreactor Influent Field

Blank, Set 4 280

- 11690

- 3 Aqueous 1/18/2011 1/19/2011

72011 FGD Bioreactor Effluent Field

Blank, Set 4 280

- 11690

- 4 Aqueous 1/18/2011 1/19/2011

72094 FGD Influent, Set 4 280

- 11635

- 1 Aqueous 1/14/2011 1/15/2011

72098 FGD Effluent, Set 4 280

- 11635

- 2 Aqueous 1/14/2011 1/15/2011

72103 FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 4 280

- 11635

- 3 Aqueous 1/14/2011 1/15/2011

72144 FGD Influent, Set 4 280

- 11555

- 1 Aqueous 1/12/2011 1/13/2011

72148 FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 4 280

- 11597

- 1 Aqueous 1/13/2011 1/14/2011

72152 FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 4 280

- 11597

- 2 Aqueous 1/13/2011 1/14/2011

72157 FGD Bioreactor Influent Field

Blank, Set 4 280

- 11597

- 3 Aqueous 1/13/2011 1/14/2011

72161 FGD Bioreactor Effluent Field

Blank, Set 4 280

- 11597

- 4 Aqueous 1/13/2011 1/14/2011

72193 FGD Influent, Set 3 280

- 11552

- 1 Aqueous 1/12/2011 1/13/2011

72197 FGD SBR Influent, Set 3 280

- 11552

- 2 Aqueous 1/12/2011 1/13/2011

72201 FGD SBR Effluent, Set 3 280

- 11552

- 3 Aqueous 1/12/2011 1/13/2011

### 2

Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 4 Total Metals – Sample Identification

EPA

Sample # EPA Sample Description Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sampling

Date Receipt

Date

72206 FGD SBR Influent Field Blank,

Set 3 280

- 11552

- 4 Aqueous 1/12/2011 1/13/2011

72210 FGD SBR Effluent Field Blank,

Set 3 280

- 11552

- 5 Aqueous 1/12/2011 1/13/2011

72244 FGD Influent, Set 4 280

- 11598

- 1 Aqueous 1/13/2011 1/14/2011

72248 FGD Effluent, Set 4 280

- 11598

- 2 Aqueous 1/13/2011 1/14/2011

72253 FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 4 280

- 11598

- 3 Aqueous 1/13/2011 1/14/2011

72293 FGD Influent, Set 3 280

- 11553

- 1 Aqueous 1/12/2011 1/13/2011

72297 FGD Effluent, Set 3 280

- 11553

- 3 Aqueous 1/12/2011 1/13/2011

72302 FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 3 280

- 11553

- 4 Aqueous 1/12/2011 1/13/2011



### SUMMARY

The samples were prepared for total metals analysis accor ding to TestAmerica’s “FGD

ICP/MS SOP: Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry for Trace Elements

Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewaters,” date d October 6, 2010, based on

EPA Method 200.8, by ICP/MS analysis.

Any significant findings are summarized below. No addition al data qualifiers were

required.

• The sample for FGD Effluent, Set 3 associated with Epi sode 6571 was incorrectly

labeled as sample 72295 on the traffic report. The correc t sample number (72297)

was found on the sample bottle label and confirmed with E RG prior to analysis.

• The matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) rec overies for total

silver for sample 72248 failed the EPA Method 200.8 control lim its of 70-130%.

The MSD recovery for total silver for sample 72201 also fa iled the method

control limits.

• The MS/MSD relative percent difference (RPD) for tota l silver for samples 72201

and 72248 failed the FGD ICP/MS SOP control limits of ±20%.

• The post digestion spike (PDS) recoveries for silver for samples 72201 and 72002

failed TestAmerica’s control limits of 85–115%.

INTERNAL STANDARDIZATION

All internal standards used by TestAmerica were within th e method criteria.

### 3

INITIAL CALIBRATION

TestAmerica performed the initial calibrations on each analysis day. The initial

calibration for the ICP-MS analysis consisted of a bla nk and four calibration standards.

INITIAL AND CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION (IC V/CCV)

The initial calibration verifications (ICV) and continu ing calibration verifications (CCV)

performed by TestAmerica all had recoveries within the m ethod criteria.

METHOD/INSTRUMENT BLANKS

All the method blanks were less than the reporting limit (RL); however, some elements

were above the MDL and flagged with a “J” qualifier. No additional qualifiers were

required for method blanks.

All instrument blanks (initial calibration blank (ICB) and continuing calibration blank

(CCB)) were less than the RL; however, some element s were above the MDL and

flagged with a “J” qualifier. No additional qualifiers were required for instrument blanks.

REPORTING LIMIT VERIFICATION STANDARD (CRI)

All CRI samples passed TestAmerica’s SOP control limi ts of 50–150% recovery.

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES (LCS)

All LCS samples passed the method QC limits of 85–115% recov ery.

SYNTHETIC FGD INTERFERENCE CHECK SOLUTION

Based on TestAmerica’s SOP, all interference check sa mple A (ICSA) results had

analytes of interest with concentrations less than the RL or less than five times the RL

when known inherent contaminants are present in the stock solution used to make the

ICS.

All interference check sample B (ICSAB) synthetic sp ikes recovered within

TestAmerica’s SOP criteria of 70–130% of the true value.

SERIAL DILUTION

The serial dilution performed on samples 72201 and 72002 passed Te stAmerica’s criteria

of ±10% difference.

FIELD DUPLICATES

No field duplicate samples were collected with these sa mpling episodes.

### 4

MATRIX SPIKE AND MATIX SPIKE DUPLICATES (MS/MSD)

MS and MSD were performed on samples of 72201, 72248, and 72002. The MSD of

sample 72201 failed the method control limits of 70–130% recover y for silver at 61%,

which was flagged with an “F” qualifier. The MS/MSD of sam ple 72248 failed the

method control limits of 70–130% recovery for silver at 66% a nd 45% respectively,

which were flagged with an “F” qualifier. These silver fa ilures are likely due to matrix

interference from the high concentration of sulfates , which can form insoluble silver

sulfide and/or silver sulfate. The silver recoveries in the associated LCS/LCSDs were

acceptable. The RPD for the MS/MSDs for samples 72201 and 72248 failed the FGD

ICP/MS SOP ±20% control limits for silver.

Otherwise, all MS/MSD spike recoveries were within th e method control limits of 70-

130% and the RPD for the MS/MSDs were within the FGD ICP /MS SOP control limits

of ±20 percent. No additional data qualifiers were required.

POST DIGESTION SPIKES (PDS)

The PDS performed on samples 72201 and 72002 passed TestAmerica’s control limits of

85–115% recovery for all analytes, except for silver for b oth PDS samples, which were

flagged with a “W” qualifier. Additional data qualifiers wo uld be required; however

silver was not detected in these samples.

DETECTION LIMITS

The laboratory performed an MDL study in the synthetic F GD wastewater matrix, instead

of reagent water.

### 1



## MEMORANDUM

To: Ron Jordan, Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

CC: Jezebele Alicea, Alternate Work Assignment Manager, EP A EAD

Deb Bartram, ERG

TJ Finseth, ERG

From: Randy Mercurio, ERG

Date: 2/9/2012

Subject: TestAmerica Data Review Narrative for Total Metals by 200.7 – Long-Term

Monitoring: Month 4

TestAmerica generated analytical data for total metals (aluminum, boron, barium,

beryllium, calcium, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese , molybdenum, sodium, tin,

titanium and zinc) for these long-term monitoring samples. The samples were analyzed

according to EPA Method 200.7.

Table 1 summarizes the samples TestAmerica extracted a nd analyzed for total metals by

EPA Method 200.7.

Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 4 Total Metals – Sample Identification

EPA

Sample # EPA Sample Description Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sampling

Date Receipt

Date

71994 FGD Influent, Set 4 280

- 11658

- 1 Aqueous 1/17/2011 1/18/2011

71998 FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 4 280

- 11690

- 1 Aqueous 1/18/2011 1/19/2011

72002 FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 4 280

- 11690

- 2 Aqueous 1/18/2011 1/19/2011

72007 FGD Bioreactor Influent Field

Blank, Set 4 280

- 11690

- 3 Aqueous 1/18/2011 1/19/2011

72011 FGD Bioreactor Effluent Field

Blank, Set 4 280

- 11690

- 4 Aqueous 1/18/2011 1/19/2011

72094 FGD Influent , Set 4 280

- 11635

- 1 Aqueous 1/14/2011 1/15 /201 1

72098 FGD Effluent , Set 4 280

- 11635

- 2 Aqueous 1/14/2011 1/15 /201 1

72103 FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 4 280

- 11635

- 3 Aqueous 1/14/2011 1/15 /201 1

7 2144 FGD Influent, Set 4 280

- 11555

- 1 Aqueous 1/12 /201 1 1/13 /201 1

7 2148 FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 4 280

- 11597

- 1 Aqueous 1/13/2011 1/14/2011

72152 FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 4 280

- 11597

- 2 Aqueous 1/13/2011 1/14/2011

72157 FGD Bioreactor Influent Field

Blank, Set 4 280

- 11597

- 3 Aqueous 1/13/2011 1/14/2011

72161 FGD Bioreactor Effluent Field

Blank, Set 4 280

- 11597

- 4 Aqueous 1/13/2011 1/14/2011

72193 FGD Influent, Set 3 280

- 11552

- 1 Aqueous 1/12 /201 1 1/13 /201 1

7 2197 FGD SBR Influent, Set 3 280

- 11552

- 2 Aqueous 1/12 /201 1 1/13 /201 1

7 2201 FGD SBR Effluent, Set 3 280

- 11552

- 3 Aqueous 1/12 /201 1 1/13 /201 1

### 2 Table 1. 

### Long-Term Monitoring Month 4 Total Metals – Sample Identification

EPA

Sample # EPA Sample Description Lab Sample

ID # Sample

Matrix Sampling

Date Receipt

Date

72 206 FGD SBR Influent Field Blank,

Set 3 280

- 11552

- 4 Aqueous 1/12 /201 1 1/13 /201 1

7 2210 FGD SBR Effluent Field Blank,

Set 3 280

- 11552

- 5 Aqueous 1/12 /201 1 1/13 /201 1

72244 FGD Influent, Set 4 280

- 11598

- 1 Aqueous 1/13/2011 1/14/2011

72248 FGD Effluent , Set 4 280

- 11598

- 2 Aqueous 1/13/2011 1/14/2011

72253 FGD Effluent Field Blank, Set 4 280

- 11598

- 3 Aqueous 1/13/2011 1/14/2011

7 2293 FGD Influent, Set 3 280

- 11553

- 1 Aqueous 1/12 /201 1 1/13 /201 1

7 2297 FGD Effluent, Set 3 280

- 11553

- 3 Aqueous 1/12 /201 1 1/13 /201 1

7 2302 FGD Ef

fluent Field Blank, Set 3 2 80

- 11553

- 4 Aqueous 1/12 /201 1 1/13 /201 1



### SUMMARY

The samples were prepared for total metals analysis acc ording to TestAmerica’s SOP for

ICP Analysis for Trace Metals by Method 200.7. Any signific ant findings are

summarized below. No additional data qualifiers were require d for this set of data.

• Several samples did not have the date and time of sampl e collection listed on the

traffic reports.

• One sample was listed with the wrong sample number on the traffic report.

• The post digestion spike (PDS) for sodium for sample 72002 fai led

TestAmerica’s control limits of 85–115% recovery.

SAMPLE RECEIPT, HANDLING AND STORAGE ISSUES

Samples associated with Episode 6569 (72193, 72197, 72201, 72206, and 72210) did n ot

have a sample date or time on the traffic report or s ample labels.

Samples associated with Episode 6571 (72293, 72297, and 72302) did not hav e a sample

date or time on the traffic report or sample labels. Add itionally, a field sampler name was

not present on the traffic report. The sample FGD Ef fluent, Set3 was listed on the traffic

report as sample 72295, which is incorrect; however, the sam ple bottle was labeled

correctly as sample 72297. TestAmerica used 72297 for processing the sample.

Samples of 72144 FGD Influent, Set 4 did not have a sample dat e or time listed on the

sample bottles.

### 3

INTERNAL STANDARDIZATION

While the internal standard (ISTD) yttrium was used for these analyses, no checks for the

ISTD recoveries within the ±30% criterion of the calibra tion blank as per Section 9.11 of

the SOP were seen. All ISTD were within the control limits.

INITIAL CALIBRATION

TestAmerica performed the initial calibrations on each analysis day. The initial

calibration for the ICP analysis consisted of a blank an d one calibration standard.

INITIAL AND CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATIONS

The initial calibration verifications (ICV) and continu ing calibration verifications (CCV)

performed by TestAmerica all had recoveries within the m ethod criteria.

METHOD/INSTRUMENT BLANKS

All the method blanks were less than the reporting limit (RL); however, some elements

were above the method detection limit (MDL) and were f lagged with the “J” qualifier.

All instrument blanks (initial calibration blank (ICB) and continuing calibration blank

(CCB)) were less than the RL; however, some element s were above the MDL and were

flagged with the “J” qualifier.

REPORTING LIMIT VERIFICATION STANDARD (CRI)

All CRI samples passed TestAmerica’s SOP control limi ts of 50–150% recovery.

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES (LCS)

All LCSs passed the method control limits of 85–115% recover y.

INTERFERENCE CHECK SOLUTIONS

Interference checks were performed using the synthetic m atrix as the check solution. All

data quality objectives met TestAmerica’s SOP criteria.

SERIAL DILUTION (SRD)

Serial dilutions were performed for each batch of total samples. All serial dilution percent

differences were less than 10% as required by TestAmerica ’s SOP.

FIELD DUPLICATES

No field duplicate samples were collected with these sa mpling episodes.

### 4

MATRIX SPIKE AND MATIX SPIKE DUPLICATES (MS/MSD)

Matrix spikes (MS) and matrix spike duplicates (MSD) w ere performed on the total

samples of 72201, 72248, and 72002. Some elements with high concent rations failed the

EPA 200.7 Method spike recovery control limits of 70–130% but w ere flagged with a “4”

qualifier indicating that the concentration in the paren t sample was greater than 4 times

the spike and could not be reliably calculated. These data were considered acceptable

based on the LCS passing the method control limits. Othe rwise, all MS/MSD spike

recoveries were within the method control criteria of 70-130%. The relative percent

difference (RPD) for all MS/MSDs were within TestAme rica’s ± 20% requirement,

except for magnesium for sample 72095. No additional data quali fiers were needed.

POST DIGESTION SPIKE (PDS)

The PDS performed on sample 72201 failed the method criteria of 85–115% recovery for

boron; however, the result was not qualified with a “ W” because the sample

concentration was greater than 4 times the spike amoun t.

The PDS performed on sample 72002 failed the method criteria of 85–115% recovery for

boron, magnesium and manganese; however, these result s were not qualified with a “W”

because their sample concentrations were greater than 4 times the spike amount. Sodium

also failed the method criteria and was flagged with a “W ” qualifier. All elements passed

the serial dilution for this sample demonstrating that there were no significant matrix

interferences. No additional data qualifiers are required.

DETECTION LIMITS

The laboratory performed an MDL study in the synthetic F GD wastewater matrix, instead

of reagent water.

### 1



## MEMORANDUM

To: Ron Jordan, Work Assignment Manager, EPA EAD

CC: Jezebele Alicea, Alternate Work Assignment Manager, EP A EAD

Deb Bartram, ERG

TJ Finseth, ERG

From: Jennifer Colby, ERG

Donna Tedder, ERG

Date: 2/9/2012

Subject: TestAmerica Data Review Narrative for Classicals Ana lyses – Long-Term

Monitoring: Month 4

TestAmerica Denver Laboratory generated analytical data f or classical wet chemistry

analyses for these long-term monitoring samples. All s amples were tested for the

following analytes:

• Ammonia by EPA method 350.1,

• Biochemical Oxygen Demand – 5 day (BOD 5 

### ) by SM 5210B,

• Chloride and Sulfate by EPA method 300.0,

• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) by EPA method 410.4,

• Cyanide (total) by SM 4500 CN

- 

### E,

• Nitrate/Nitrite by EPA method 353.2

• Phosphorus (total) by EPA method 365.1,

• Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) by SM 2540C,

• Total Kjeldakl Nitrogen (TKN) by EPA method 351.2, and

• Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM 2540D.

Table 1 summarizes the 15 samples that TestAmerica anal yzed for the above analytes.

Table 1. Long-Term Monitoring Month 4 Classical Analytes – Sample

Identification

EPA

Sample # Sample

Matrix Sample Description Sampling

Date

71994 Water FGD Influent, Set 4 1/21/2011

71998 Water FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 4 1/21/2011

72002 Water FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 4 1/21/2011

72094 Water FGD Influent, Set 4 1/18/2011

72098 Water FGD Effluent, Set 4 1/18/2011

72144 Water FGD Influent, Set 4 1/14/2011

72148 Water FGD Bioreactor Influent, Set 4 1/17/2011

### 2 Table 1. Long-Term Monitoring Month 4 Classical Analytes – Sample

Identification

EPA

Sample # Sample

Matrix Sample Description Sampling

Date

72152 Water FGD Bioreactor Effluent, Set 4 1/17/2011

72193 Water FGD Influent, Set 3 1/14/2011

72197 Water FGD SBR Influent, Set 3 1/14/2011

72201 Water FGD SBR Effluent, Set 3 1/14/2011

72244 Water FGD Influent, Set 4 1/17/2011

72248 Water FGD Effluent, Set 4 1/17/2011

72293 Water FGD Influent, Set 3 1/14/2011

72297 Water FGD Effluent, Set 3 1/14/2011

SUMMARY

All samples were analyzed within the holding time specif ied in 40 CFR 136 Table II

unless otherwise noted below. All samples were preserve d appropriately unless

otherwise specified. Group II samples 72293 and 72297 were receiv ed at the laboratory

at a neutral pH. The laboratory preserved the volume and proceeded with the requested

analyses.

Field duplicate samples were not collected for this epis ode. Depending on the method, a

laboratory duplicate was analyzed instead. The Relative Percent Difference (RPD)

between the sample and its duplicate was less than 20% unl ess otherwise noted below.

If applicable, the appropriate number of standards was used to create a calibration curve.

If sample results were above the highest standard used t o create the curve, the sample was

diluted and reanalyzed. All sample results were between the lowest and highest standards

unless noted below. Additionally, unless otherwise noted, a ll calibration blanks and

calibration verification samples met the criteria sp ecified in the method.

If required by the method, the quality control sample (QC S), a secondary source standard

used to verify calibration, was always within the cont rol limits specified by the method.

As described below, the analyte of interest was detecte d above the method detection limit

(MDL) in some laboratory reagent blanks (LRB). However , the analyte of interest was

never detected above the reporting limit (RL) in the LRBs . If required by the method, all

laboratory fortified blanks (LFB) met the criteria spec ified in the method unless specified

below.

If required by the method, a matrix spike (MS) analysis was run on samples 72002,

72094, 72193, 72201, 72244, and 72297 for each analyte to check for matrix

interferences. All MS samples analyzed met the crite ria specified in the method unless

described below.

### 3

DATA NOTES/ISSUES

Ammonia

Samples 72293 and 72297 were received by the laboratory at a neutra l pH. Sample

72293 was qualified as an estimated, as shown in Table 2. Samp le 72297 had a result

greater than the MDL, but less than the RL, so the re sult was already flagged with a ”J”

qualifier, so further qualification was not necessary.

The percent recoveries for the MS and MSD performed on sample 72094 were 77% and

76%, respectively, which is outside of method control cri teria. Additionally, the MS and

MSD results exceeded the calibration range. The MS/MSD results for sample 72094 were

flagged with “E” and “F” qualifiers. No further qualificatio n is needed.

BOD 5



### No issues were identified by the data reviewer.

Chloride and Sulfate

MS and MSD were performed on samples 72002, 72094, and 72201. The perce nt

recoveries for the MS and MSD for all chloride and sul fate results were within the

method control criteria; however, all the MS and MSD results exceeded the exceeded the

calibration range, except for the MSD sulfate result f or sample 72002. All these chloride

and sulfate MS and MSD results were qualified with “E” qualifiers, except for the MSD

sulfate result for sample 72002.

COD

Samples 72293 and 72297 were received by the laboratory at neutral pH. These results

were qualified as estimated values, as shown in Table 2.

MS and MSD were performed on samples 72002 and 72098. The percent recoveries for

the MS and MSD for sample 72002 were 91% and 87%, respectively. The percent

recoveries for the MS and MSD for sample 72098 were 90% an d 88%, respectively.

Both the MSD results are outside the method control c riteria. These MSD results were

flagged with “F” qualifiers.

Cyanide

MS and MSD were performed on samples 72193 and 72002. The percent recoveries for

the MS and MSD for sample 72193 were 74% and 78%, respectively . The percent

recoveries for the MS and MSD for sample 72002 were both 88%. The LCS/LCSD

recoveries were acceptable, indicating that the analyti cal system was operating within

control. Additionally, there is no method requirement f or the analysis of a MS/MSD and

no corrective action is necessary.

### 4

Nitrate/Nitrite

Samples 72293 and 72297 were received by the laboratory at neutral pH. These results

were qualified as estimated values, as shown in Table 2.

Phosphorus

Samples 72293 and 72297 were received by the laboratory at neutral pH. These results

were qualified as estimated values, as shown in Table 2.

The method blank associated with two of the batches detec ted phosphorus at levels

greater than the MDL, but less than the RL. All affec ted samples were flagged with a “B”

qualifier. No additional corrective action is necessary

.

MS and MSD were performed on samples 72002 and 72297. The percent recoveries for

the MS and MSD for sample 72002 were 72% and 56%, respectively, which are outside

the method control criteria. The MS result was withi n the laboratory control criteria and

therefore, was not flagged by the laboratory; however, the MSD result was outside the

laboratory control criteria and was flagged with an “F” qualifier. The LCS/LCSD

recoveries for this batch were acceptable, indicating the analytical system was operating

within control. If reported, the MS result should be fl agged with an “F” qualifier.

The percent recoveries for the MS and MSD for sample 72297 were 66% and 58%,

respectively, which are outside the method control crite ria. There results were flagged

with “F” qualifiers. The LCS/LCSD recoveries for this batch were acceptable, indicating

the analytical system was operating within control.

TDS

TA reports that constant weight was not achieved after 3 drying cycles for the following

samples: 72293, 72244, 71994, 72152, and 72248. Review of the general chemist ry

worksheets indicates that constant weight was achieve d for all. No further action was

necessary.

The analytical duplicate performed on sample 72002 exceeded t he recovery criteria. The

duplicate result was flagged with an “F” qualifier. Becaus e an analytical duplicate was

not required by the method, no further corrective action i s necessary.

TKN

Samples 72293 and 72297 were received by the laboratory at neutral pH. These results

were qualified as estimated values, as shown in Table 2.

MS and MSD were performed on samples 72001 and 72002. The percent recoveries for

the MS and MSD for sample 72002 were both 93%, which is withi n the method control

### 5

criteria. The percent recoveries for the MS and MSD for sample 72001 were 48% and

46%, respectively, which are outside the method control cri teria. There results were

flagged with “F” qualifiers. The LCS/LCSD recoveries fo r this batch were acceptable,

indicating that the analytical system was operating wit hin control.

TSS

Because of the nature of the sample matrix, some of t he samples in this sampling episode

used a lower volume, which resulted in elevated RLs being c alculated and reported by

TestAmerica with the sample results.

The analytical duplicate performed on sample 72248 exceeded t he recovery criteria.

Because the sample result is below the RL, further qual ification was not necessary.

Table 2. Data Review Summary Table

Sample Analyte Qualifier/Ac

tion Reason Level Detected

72293 Ammonia Estimated

Value Received at neutral pH XXX mg/L

72293 COD Estimated

Value Received at neutral pH XXX mg/L

72297 COD Estimated

Value Received at neutral pH XXX mg/L

72293 Nitrate/Nitrite Estimated

Value Received at neutral pH XXX mg/L

72297 Nitrate/Nitrite Estimated

Value Received at neutral pH XXX mg/L

72293 Phosphorus Estimated

Value Received at neutral pH XXX mg/L

72297 Phosphorus Estimated

Value Received at neutral pH XXX mg/L

72293 TKN Estimated

Value Received at neutral pH XXX mg/L



### 72297 TKN Estimated

Value Received at neutral pH XXX mg/L