# Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking

Prepared for:



## U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Engineering and Analysis Division
Office of Water 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460

Prepared by:



### Eastern Research Group, Inc. 14555 Avion Parkway
Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151

Original prepared September 25, 2009 Revision 1 prepared March 22, 2010 Revision 2 prepared April 6, 2010 Revision 3 prepared October 26, 2010 Revision 4 prepared April 5, 2013

EPA Contract No. EP-C-12-021 Work Assignment 0-29History of QAPP for Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking

Revision 0 Revision 1 Revision 2/3 Revision 4

Delivery Date 9/25/2009 3/12/2010 4/6/2010; 10/26/2010 4/5/2013

Contract/Work Assignment 68-C-02-095

WA 6-22 68-C-02-095

WA 7-29 68-C-02-095 WA 7-29, 8-29 EP-C-12-021

WA 0-29

Scope Site visits, sampling, long-term monitoring program, questionnaire

data collection and

management, secondary data Updated details of sampling program and added analytical data

review Updated details of ICR development and added survey implementation and review (Rev 2) and updated details of industry monitoring program and survey

review activities and

added EA and cost model development (Rev 3) Made changes throughout to make tense consistent, update references to new contract, and add

additional details of ICR survey review Updated description of subcontractor roles, project management and organization, and

validation/verification

methods used.

Comments

Received 11/11/2009 3/22/2010 11/2/2010; 12/1/2010 4/16/2013

Comments

Addressed 11/12/2009 3/22/2010 12/1/2010 4/16/2013

Approval 11/24/2009 3/23/2010 11/30/2010 4/19/2013i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 I NTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 P ROJECT M ANAGEMENT E LEMENTS ..................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Element A.3: Distribution List ................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Element A.4: Project Organization .......................................................... 2-1

2.3 Element A.5: Problem Definition/Background ........................................ 2-3

2.3.1 Background .................................................................................. 2-3

2.3.2 Statement of Key Questions and Project Outcome ...................... 2-4

2.4 Element A.6: Project/Task Description ................................................... 2-6

2.4.1 Steam Electric Plant Visits and Sampling ................................... 2-6

2.4.2 Industry Self-Monitoring Program .............................................. 2-8

2.4.3 Questionnaire for the Steam Elect ric Power Generating Effluent

Guidelines .................................................................................... 2-9

2.4.4 Candidate Technology Options .................................................... 2-9

2.4.5 Pollutant Discharge Estimates ................................................... 2-10

2.4.6 Costs and Pollutant Reductions Estimates ................................. 2-10

2.4.7 Environmental Assessment Analysis ......................................... 2-10

2.5 Element A.7: Quality Objectives and Acceptance Criteria ................... 2-11

2.5.1 Field Sampling Data .................................................................. 2-11

2.5.2 Data Collected through the Questio nnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines ...................................... 2-19

2.5.3 Pollution Control Technology Costs .......................................... 2-20

2.5.4 Pollution Control Technology Cost Estimates ........................... 2-21

2.5.5 Secondary Data .......................................................................... 2-22

2.6 Element A.8: Special Trai ning/Certification ......................................... 2-25

2.7 Element A.9: Documents and Records .................................................. 2-26

3.0 D ATA G ENERATION AND A CQUISITION ................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Steam Electric Site Visits a nd Sampling and Analysis ............................ 3-1

3.1.1 Element B.1 - Sampling Process Design ..................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Element B.2 - Sampling Methods ................................................ 3-2

3.1.3 Element B.3 - Sample Handling and Custody ............................. 3-4

3.1.4 Element B.4 - Analytical Methods............................................... 3-6

3.1.5 Element B.5 - Sampling Quality Control ..................................... 3-6

3.1.6 Element B.6 - Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and

Maintenance ............................................................................... 3-12

3.1.7 Element B.7 - Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency ................................................................................... 3-12

3.1.8 Element B.8 - Inspection/Accepta nce Criteria for Supplies and

Consumables .............................................................................. 3-13

3.1.9 Element B.9 - Non-Direct Measurements .................................. 3-14

3.1.10 Element B.10 - Data Management ............................................. 3-14

3.2 Industry Self-Monitoring Program ........................................................ 3-18

3.2.1 Element B.1 - Sampling Process Design ................................... 3-18TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

ii 3.2.2 Element B.2 - Sampling Methods .............................................. 3-19

3.2.3 Element B.3 - Sample Handling and Custody ........................... 3-21

3.2.4 Element B.4 - Analytical Methods............................................. 3-22

3.2.5 Element B.5 - Sampling Quality Control ................................... 3-23

3.2.6 Element B.6 - Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and

Maintenance ............................................................................... 3-24

3.2.7 Element B.7 - Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency ................................................................................... 3-24

3.2.8 Element B.8 - Inspection/Accepta nce Criteria for Supplies and

Consumables .............................................................................. 3-25

3.2.9 Element B.9 - Non-Direct Measurements .................................. 3-25

3.2.10 Element B.10 - Data Management ............................................. 3-25

3.3 Questionnaire for the Steam Elect ric Power Generating Effluent

Guidelines .............................................................................................. 3-25

3.3.1 Element B.1 - Questionnaire Sampling (Data Collection) Process Design ........................................................................... 3-25

3.3.2 Element B.2 - Questionnaire Sampling (Data Collection)

Methods...................................................................................... 3-26

3.3.3 Element B.3 - Questionnaire Sample (Data) Handling and Custody ...................................................................................... 3-28

3.3.4 Element B.5 - Questionnaire Quality Control............................ 3-28

3.3.5 Element B.9 – Questionnaire N on-Direct Measurements .......... 3-32

3.3.6 Element B.10 - Questionnaire Data Management ..................... 3-32

3.4 Technology Option Costs and Po llutant Reductions ............................. 3-35

3.4.1 B.9: Non-Direct Measurements ................................................. 3-35

3.4.2 B.10: Data Management ............................................................ 3-37

3.5 Environmental Assessment Analysis ..................................................... 3-38

3.5.1 B.9: Non-Direct Measurements ................................................. 3-38

3.5.2 B.10: Data Management ............................................................ 3-39

4.0 A SSESSMENT A ND O VERSIGHT E LEMENTS ........................................................... 4-1

4.1 Element C.1: Assessments and Response Actions .................................. 4-1

4.1.1 Technical Support ........................................................................ 4-1

4.1.2 Industry Self-Monitoring On-Site Audits .................................... 4-1

4.1.3 Sampling and Analysis ................................................................ 4-2

4.1.4 Corrective Actions ....................................................................... 4-2

4.2 Element C.2: Reports to Management ..................................................... 4-3

5.0 D ATA V ALIDATION AND U SABILITY E LEMENT ..................................................... 5-1

5.1 Elements D.1 and D.2: Data Review , Verification, and Validation; and

Validation Methods .................................................................................. 5-1

5.1.1 Site Visits, Sampling, Industry Monitoring, and Analysis .......... 5-1

5.1.2 Questionnaire for the Steam Elect ric Power Generating Effluent

Guidelines .................................................................................... 5-7

5.1.3 Technology Option Costs and Po llutant Reductions ................... 5-8

5.1.4 Environmental Assessment Analysis ........................................... 5-9

5.2 Element D.3: Reconciliation with User Requirements .......................... 5-10TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

iii 6.0 R EFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 6-1

Appendix A: LIST OF SITE VISIT OBJECTIVES

Appendix B: GENERIC SAMPLING AND ANAL YSIS PLAN FOR COAL-FIRED STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS [FEB RUARY 24, 2010 VERSION]

Appendix C: INFORMATION COLLECTI ON REQUEST FOR TH E STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATING INDUSTRY [FINAL VERSION]

Appendix D: ANALYTICAL DATA REVIEW CHECKLISTS

Appendix E: DATA REVIEW GUIDELINES

Appendix F: COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST

Appendix G: ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLI NG SUPPLY PRODUCT DOCUMENTATION

Appendix H: INDUSTRY SELF-MONIT ORING ON-SITE AUDI T CHECKLISTSiv LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2-1. Sampling Data Quality Review Criteria ................................................................... 2-14

Table 2-2. Steam Electric Questionnaire Data Acceptance Criteria .......................................... 2-19

Table 2-3. Pollution Control Technology Co st Data Acceptance Criteria ................................ 2-21

Table 2-4. Cost Estimate Quality Specifications ....................................................................... 2-21

Table 2-5. Secondary Data Acceptance Criteria ........................................................................ 2-27

Table 3-1. Field Quality Control Samples ................................................................................... 3- 8

Table 3-2. Data Quality Qualifie rs for Sampling Program ........................................................ 3-17

Table 3-3. Typical Analytical Database Structure ..................................................................... 3-18

Table 3-4. Analytes and Anal ytical Methods Included in the Industry Self-Monitoring Program .............................................................................................................. 3-23

Table 5-1. Data Package Detail Expect ed for Project Categories ............................................... 5-2

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2-1. Project-Level QA Or ganization for ERG’s Support for the Steam Electric Rulemaking .......................................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 3-1. Telephone Contact Report Form ............................................................................. 3-36Section No. 1

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 1 of 2

1.0 I NTRODUCTION

ERG is providing technical support to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for development of effluent limitations gu idelines and standards (effluent guidelines) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry. Th e Steam Electric Power Generating effluent guidelines apply to a subset of the electric pow er industry, namely those plants “primarily engaged in the generation of elect ricity for distribution and sale which results primarily from a process utilizing fossil-type fuel (coal, oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunction with a thermal cycle employing the steam water system as the thermodynamic medium.” The effluent guidelines are codified in th e Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 423 (40 CFR Part 423). EPA’s most recent revisi ons to the effluent guidelines for this industry sector were promulgated in 1982 (see 47 Fed. Reg. 52290; November 19, 1982).

EPA is required by section 304 of the Cl ean Water Act (CWA) to periodically review all effluent guidelines to determine whet her revisions are warranted. EPA first identified this industry for study during th e 2005 annual review of efflue nt guidelines. At that time, publicly available data reported through the Nati onal Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) indicate d that this industry ranked high in discharges of t oxic and nonconventional pollutants 1 . Because of these findings, EPA studied this industry and concluded that the existing effluent guidelines for water discharges from steam electric pow er plants should be revised. In support of the development of revised effluent guidelines, EPA is carrying out an Information Collection Request (ICR), site visits and sampling, secondary data review, and modeling.

EPA is collecting information and data re garding the sources and characteristics of wastewater discharges from steam elect ric power generating operations, including

wastewaters associated with th e following processes and byproduc ts: flue gas desulfurization (FGD), fly ash, bottom ash, flue gas mercury contro l, combustion residual leachate from landfills and surface impoundments, nonchemical metal cleaning wastes, and gasification of fuels such as coal and petroleum coke. EPA is also collecti ng information on the technologies and practices available to control the pollutant s responsible for the majority of the toxic-weighted loads from steam electric power generating facilities. Data sources include both secondary data (e.g., literature and publicly available sources of info rmation and data) and primary data collection, including plant visits, wastewat er sampling, and an ICR sent to selected power generating facilities. This plan addresses the primary and secondary data s ources, as well as all technical analyses that EPA is conducting for this rulemaking.

As directed by EPA, ERG prepared this detailed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). It is responsive to all a pplicable elements specified in EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (1)

. This QAPP is a project-specific supplement to ERG’s Quality Management Plan for Technical Support for the St rategy for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations

, June 2002 (QMP) (2a), prepared for C ontract 68-C-02-095, as well as ERG’s Environmental Engineering Support for Clean Water Regulations Q uality Management Plan

, January 2013 (2b), prepared for Contract EP-C-1 2-021. Both QMPs were prepared in accordance

1 EPA’s 2005 Annual Screening Level Analysis can be accessed at www.regulations.gov , Document EPA-HQ-OW2004-0032-0901.Section No. 1

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 2 of 2

with EPA Requirements for Qual ity Management Plans (3)

. ERG’s QMP details the responsibilities of the ERG Quality Assurance ( QA) coordinators and Project Management Team and describes procedures used to plan, implem ent, and assess project quality. These procedures, tailored to the needs of the tasked activities, wi ll be used on ERG’s work assignments associated with this program.

References are presented in Section 6.0. Throughout this document, each time a reference is cited, a number corresponding to th e Section 6.0 listing is shown in parentheses.Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 1 of 28

2.0 P ROJECT M ANAGEMENT E LEMENTS

This section addresses project mana gement, including project history and objectives, roles and responsibilities, and projec t goals. In addition, this section presents the mechanisms ERG is using to ensure that all part icipants understand the go als and the approaches used for the steam electric rulemaking project.

EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (1) identifies nine

elements to be discussed in this section. El ement A.1, Title and Approval Sheet, and Element A.2, Table of Contents, have been provided earlie r in this document. The remaining elements are presented below.

2.1 Element A.3: Distribution List

This QAPP is distributed to the EPA Work Assignment Manager (WAM), Task Managers, Project Officer, and QA Coordinator, to all ERG staff providing support on the project, and to the laboratories se lected to perform analysis of the wastewater samples collected as part of the sampling program. The ERG distri bution list for the QAPP is company privileged and confidential and will be provided to EP A in the final CBI version of the QAPP.

2.2 Element A.4: Project Organization

Project Organization for ERG’s support of the Steam Electric Rulemaking is depicted in Figure 2-1. The ERG Program Ma nager is responsible for management and administrative aspects of the work performe d. The ERG Work Assignment Manager (WAM) is responsible for ensuring that th e quality of work, schedule, an d budget meet the requirements of the EPA effluent guidelines program. The ERG WA M provides technical direction to ERG staff, is responsible for the daily activities on the proj ect, and obtains appropriate technical review of

all deliverables. The ERG WAM ensures delive rables conform to EPA’s technical review requirements. The ERG WAM is the principal contact for the EPA WA M on project issues, deliverables, and schedule. The ERG WAM also keeps the Project QA Coordinator and the Project Manager advised of any quality problems that arise.

The Project QA Coordinator is responsibl e for the development and execution of QA activities throughout the course of the proj ect, including work plan development and execution, data analysis, and data reporting. The Project QA Coordi nator also ensures that the ERG WAM is obtaining appropriate technical review of all de liverables. The ERG Program Manager and WAM provide senior technical sup port for the rulemaking activities (see Section 2.3.2) and the ERG project st aff support all tasks.

ERG is supported by two subcontractors, TestAmerica, Inc. and Frontier Global Sciences, Inc., to perform the an alyses of the wastewater samp les collected during the sampling program. ERG is responsible for scheduling an d tracking analytical samples and reviewing analytical data quality for all analyses. ERG re ports measures of data quality to the EPA WAM via episode-specific data review narratives. ERG is also supported by Avanti Corporation for the technical review of the ICR responses.Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 2 of 28

Contract QA

Coordinator

Project QA

Coordinator

Technical Reviewers To be assigned Program Manager

ERG Work Assignment Managers

Project Staff EPA Work Assignment Manager

EAD QA Coordinator Subcontractors

Lines of communication

Reporting and authority

Figure 2-1. Project-Level QA Organization for ERG’s Support for the Steam Electric Rulemaking

ERG’s subcontractors function within ERG’s quality system, and ERG is responsible for the quality of their work. ERG’s subcontractors are respon sible for following the specifications contained in their subcontracts with ERG. The subcontractor s are also responsible for following the applicable procedures noted in this QAPP and all instructions and performance requirements in the analytical method. The analytic al laboratories were provided with a copy of this QAPP. For ICR review, Avanti staff worked on site at ERG under direct supervision of the

ERG WAM. The ERG WAM comm unicated the QA/QC requirements of the task to the

subcontractor staff at the start of the work and provided all data review guidelines and QA/QC documentation directly to the staff. The ERG WAM is responsible for verifying that the subcontractors’ quality-related procedures are adequate and executed. The ERG WAM reviews subcontractors’ performance and does not approv e the payment of invoices unless subcontractor performance meets contract requirements. If ER G identifies any quality issues while working with a subcontractor, ERG’s Program and Work Assignment Managers and the subcontractor’s Program and Work Assignment Manager’s meet and identify any necessary corrective actions.Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 3 of 28

In conducting the sampling analyses, th e subcontractors used for analytical laboratory services are responsible for:

 Following the applicable procedures noted in this QAPP and the specifications contained in th eir subcontracts with ERG;

 Following their laboratory QA program to ensure all data meet EPA requirements;

 Providing qualified laboratory anal ysts (i.e., education and bench experience with the target analytes);

 Contacting ERG, as appropriate, when performance criteria or data quality objectives are not met so that appr opriate corrective actions may be implemented;

 Providing analytical data in the fo rmat specified by ERG within the prescribed turnaround times; and

 Providing all other necessary quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)

documentation as described in this QAPP and their subcontracts with

ERG.

ERG is responsible for scheduling a nd tracking the samples analyzed by the analytical laboratories, reso lving any analytical problems and implementing any necessary corrective actions, reviewing anal ytical data quality, and creating and providing to EPA an electronic or hard-copy data packag e with a written stat ement of data quality and an electronic analytical database suitable for the steam electric rulemaking sampling program.

In conducting ICR review, Avanti sta ff are responsible for following ERG’s technical review procedures, completing the techni cal review checklists, and resolving questions with ERG staff and ICR respondents. ERG is re sponsible for ensuring the technical reviews completed by Avanti staff are complete and reas onable, communicating any corrective actions to them for future reviews, and assisting with resolution of issues with ICR respondents.

2.3 Element A.5: Problem Definition/Background

This section explains the purpose of th e Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking. It also presents a brief overview of the backgro und of the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category and a summary of EPA’s review of the existing effluent guidelines.

2.3.1 Background

EPA identified the need for detailed st udy of the Steam Electric Industry in 2005 during its annual review of discharges from categ ories with existing regu lations. At that time, publically available data reported through the Na tional Pollutant Discharg e Elimination SystemSection No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 4 of 28

(NPDES) permit program and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) indicate d that this industry ranked high in discharges of toxic and nonconven tional pollutants. From these findings, EPA

decided to initiate a more de tailed study of this category.

During the detailed study, EPA performed an in-depth analysis of the reported pollutant discharges, and reviewed technology innovation and process changes. Additionally, EPA evaluated certain electric power and steam generating activities that are similar to the processes regulated for the Steam Electric Po wer Generating Point S ource Category (“steam electric”), but that are not cu rrently subject to ELGs. EPA f ound that the existing data were insufficient to fully evaluate the industry’s disc harges and the potential for further control of those discharges. In order to obtain these missing data, EPA collected information on the

wastewater characteristics a nd treatment technologies used at steam electric plants. EPA collected information through plan t site visits, water sampling, a questionnaire sent to the industry, and various secondary data sources.

The information obtained from the site visits, water sampling, questionnaire, and secondary data sources suggest that the curren t effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) do not adequately control pollutant di scharges from the Steam Electric Point Source Category. EPA concluded that current regulations, which were issued in 1982, have not kept pace with changes that have occurred in the el ectric power industry over the last three decades,

and should be revised.

2.3.2 Statement of Key Questi ons and Project Outcome

ERG is supporting EPA in developing an updated industry profile. The steam electric rulemaking affects over 1,200 fossil- an d nuclear-fueled power pl ants regulated by the

current steam electric ELGs. These steam electri c power plants are providing a major source of information through an ICR, site visits, a nd sampling episodes. The main focus of the

information collection is coal-fir ed facilities, as it was during the detailed study. The results of this information may result in the developmen t of industry groupings for the steam electric

ELGs.

The rulemaking activities concentrate on identifying the best technologies available for controlling pollutant discharges from the steam electric power industry and evaluating the performance, economic achievab ility, and non-water quality impacts of these technologies. EPA is using these evaluations to develop proposed revisions of the current ELGs. ERG is providing technical support to EPA in conducting an industry information collection program, including a questionnaire and site visi t and sampling program. This QAPP addresses technical tasks required to ensure these activities produce reliable da ta that can be used to meet the project's overall objectives a nd goals. These tasks include:

 Conducting site visits to steam electric power generating plants to evaluate process wastewater generation, wastew ater characteristics (i.e., flow rates/volumes, pollutant concentrati ons), and the wastewater handling, treatment, and pollution prevention/r ecycle practices of the industry;Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 5 of 28

 Conducting wastewater sampling episodes at coal-fired power plants to

obtain wastewater characterization data and wastewater treatment technology performance data;

 Collecting data from steam electric power plants through a questionnaire sent to fossil- and nuclear-fueled po wer plants regulated by steam electric ELGs;

 Compiling existing information on polluta nt discharges, pollutant controls, and the costs and benefits of pollutant controls for the steam electric industry;

 Performing analyses of available data to calculate pollutant discharges, develop candidate technology options, and estimate costs and pollutant reductions of specific options;

 Using available data to model the pote ntial effects of po llutant reduction from specific technology options on water quality, ecosystems, and human health; and

 Preparing documentation of EPA’s rulemaking activities that will support

the revision of the current steam electric ELGs.

Primary Objectives/Key Questions

The rulemaking addresses all nuclear- and fossil-fueled power plants, but will place substantial emphasis on certain discharges from coal-fired power plants. Further, the rulemaking concentrates on a subset of plants that are believed to be responsible for a disproportionately large sh are of the toxic-weighted pollutant loading released in wastewater discharges from the steam electric power genera ting industry. EPA’s past study efforts indicate

that a substantial fraction of th e toxic-weighted loadings are a ssociated with wet ash handling and wet FGD systems present at coal-fired plants. As such, ERG is supporting EPA with collecting information to charac terize ash transport wastewater , untreated FGD scrubber purge wastewater, and treated FGD wast ewater from chemical precipit ation, biological treatment, and vapor-compression evaporation FGD wastewater treatment systems. ERG is also supporting the evaluation of other wastewaters, including those associated with flue gas mercury control,

combustion residual leachate from landfills and surface impoundments, nonchemical metal cleaning wastes, and gasification of fuel s such as coal and petroleum coke.

ERG is supporting EPA in answeri ng the following key questions:

1. What are the primary sources of wast ewater within steam electric power plants? What are the characteristics of the raw wastewaters (i.e., pollutants, concentrations, flow rate/volume)?Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 6 of 28

2. What pollutants are discharged in the fi nal effluent from steam electric plant operations? What pollutant discharges require additional control? That is, what are the pollutants of concern?

3. What are the concentrations and load ings of pollutants currently being discharged (i.e., “baseline” con centration) between 2009 and 2010?

4. What are the best available tec hnologies for pollution prevention and

wastewater treatment that reduce disc harges of pollutants of concern?

5. How will industry discharges change if plants control pollutants using these technologies?

6. What are the capital and operati ng costs of the best available technologies/practices? Are the costs economically achievable?

7. What are the non-water quality environm ental impacts of the best available technologies?

8. What are the predicted environmenta l and human health benefits of implementing the best available technology options under consideration?

2.4 Element A.6: Project/Task Description

This section provides a management le vel overview of the work performed by ERG to support EPA’s revision of the steam elec tric ELGs, as well as ERG’s approach to accomplishing the project objectives and the project schedule. ERG is using existing information and data provided by other EPA programs (e .g., OAR, ORD, OSWER); industry groups (e.g., UWAG, EPRI); data obtained from existing da tabases (e.g., ICIS-NPDES , PCS, TRI, U.S. DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) da tabase); other existing data sources; new information and data collected by EPA for th is rulemaking; and existing monitoring data collected by plants. The acceptance criteria ERG is using to identify information and data that can be used to accomplish the project objectives are detailed in Section 2.5.

2.4.1 Steam Electric Plant Visits and Sampling

Site Visits . ERG is supporting EPA in planni ng and conducting visits to steam electric plants to gather data and information to answer the key questions listed in Section 2.3.2, including information about plan t operations, process wastewater generation and management practices, and wastewater treatment systems. ERG is supporting EPA in identifying plants to

visit that have some or all of the following characteristics:

 Use fossil or nuclear fuels;

 Manage ponds/impoundments and/or landfills for coal combustion residue;

 Operate integrated gasificati on combined cycle (IGCC) units;

 Operate combined cycle units;Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 7 of 28

 Operate carbon capture technology;

 Operate or are planning to install wet FGD systems;

 Operate wet ash handling systems or have installed dry ash handling

systems;

 Operate flue gas mercury control systems; and

 Operate a leachate collecti on and treatment system.

The primary purpose of these site visits is to evaluate candidate best available technologies and best available demonstrated co ntrol technologies, the changes necessary to implement new processes or technologies, and eval uate plants for potential inclusion in EPA’s field sampling program. ERG is assisting EP A in using information provided by UWAG, responses from the detailed study data request, industry survey data, and information learned from contacts with industry represen tatives to identify site visit candidates. The visits also help EPA select plants for sampling and to plan fo r subsequent sampling act ivities. ERG is supporting EPA in identifying plants for pre-sampling vis its that have some or all of the following

characteristics:

 Use coal as a fuel source;

 Operate a wet FGD system, depending on the type and age of the system and whether additives are used;

 Operate a FGD wastewater treatment system, depending on the type and age of the system; and

 Operate NOx controls.

Facilities may be prioritized for visits based on the use of multiple types of coal, use of a flue gas mercury control system, type of boiler, age of boiler and FGD unit, source of lime/limestone used in wet FGD system, and plant location.

ERG is collecting detailed information from the plants visited, such as the operations associated with wastewater generatio n, in-process treatment and recycling systems, end-of-pipe treatment technologies, and, if the plant is a candidate for sampling, the logistics of collecting samples. EPA also is collecting in formation regarding ze ro discharge options associated with the various operations and how the plants could potentially achieve zero discharge for some or all of these operations. ER G is collecting information on the coal pile, ash handling systems, process equipment cleani ng, and air pollution controls (e.g., flue gas scrubbers), and the wastewaters generated by these processes. In addition to these internal waste streams, ERG is evaluating the wastewater treatment systems with a focus on chemical precipitation, biological treatme nt, and vapor-compression eva poration. Appendix A includes a detailed list of questions to gui de each plant visit. ERG is usi ng the information collected during these plant visits to recommend plants to be sampled and to develop plant-specific sampling plans for those plants that will be sampled. ERG also used the information collected during the plant visits to develop the questionnaire for steam electric f acilities (see below).

Wastewater Sampling . ERG is supporting EPA in planning and conducting sampling at steam electric plants. In general, EP A used the following criteria to identify the plants included in the sampling program:Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 8 of 28

 The plant performs steam elect ric power generation activities representative of steam electric power plants (i .e., the plant’s operations are typical of operations observed at other power pl ants, and therefore, are representative of more than just itself);

 The plant uses coal and/or petroleum coke (the wastestreams of interest and pollutants of concern are primarily associated with plants using these types of fuels); and

 The plant has the wastestreams or tr eatment technologies of interest.

The sampling efforts focus on characterizing wast ewaters from plants operating candidate best available treatment technologies. Ultimately, EPA pl ans to use these data to establish effluent limitations for FGD waste streams, and potentially other waste streams associated with steam electric power plant operations. ERG developed a generic sampling plan based on the sampling episodes conducted during the detailed study, which is included as Appendix B of this QAPP.

As part of the wastewater sampling pr ogram, ERG is subcontracting the analysis of the samples to the analytical laboratories. ERG is responsible for ensuring that the laboratories analyze the samples using the correct methods as specified in their subc ontracts and that they following all QA/QC procedures. ERG is also pe rforming the review of the analytical data generated by the laboratories. ERG is reviewing all analytical data generated from the sampling program, generating data review summa ries, and providing them to EPA.

Information and data from the plant visi ts and sampling are documented in site visit reports and sampling episode reports (SERs), which are used by EPA and ERG in conducting additional technical analyses to inves tigate best available t echnologies for reducing pollutant discharges, particularly from FGD scrubber purge wastewater.

2.4.2 Industry Self-Monitoring Program

ERG is supporting EPA in planning a nd implementing an industry selfmonitoring program to collect data from a subset of steam electric power plants. EPA is using the industry self-monitoring data to supplement EPA-collected sampling data. This program includes the plants selected fo r the sampling program so EPA can conduct further evaluation of the variability associated with the FGD wast ewaters and the performa nce of the treatment systems operated. The program also includes data collection for other industry wastewaters, including, but not limited to, coal or petroleum coke gasification wastewaters, distillate from vapor-compression evaporation systems, and untr eated and treated carbon capture wastewater. Ultimately, EPA plans to use these data to estab lish effluent limitations guidelines for the FGD waste stream, and the other waste streams incl uded as part of the industry self-monitoring

program.

The plants EPA selects for this program are responsible for obtaining necessary supplies, collecting samples, and shipping the samples to the appropriate laboratories for analysis. ERG is prepares sample collection and sample shipment instructions for each plant. Self-monitoring plants ship their samples to the same laboratories ERG has contracted to analyze EPA-collected samples. ERG is responsible for en suring that the contract ed laboratories analyze the samples using the correct methods and that they follow all QA/QC procedures. ERG reviewsSection No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 9 of 28

all analytical data generated from the industry self-monitoring program, generates data review summaries, and provides them to EPA.

As part of this industry self-monito ring program, ERG also supports EPA in identifying appropriate field measurements and e ngineering data that EPA requires each plant to provide. ERG is responsible for obtaining the fiel d measurement and engineering data from the plants once the program is complete. The field measurement and engineering data are documented in the public record and are used by EPA and ERG in conducting additional technical analyses to investigat e best available technologies fo r reducing pollutant discharges and assessing the variability of the treatment system operations.

ERG is supporting EPA in performing on- site audits of self-monitoring plant sample collection activities. ERG uses the results of the audits to verify that the plant personnel are using the sampling techniques that comply with this project QAPP.

2.4.3 Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Po wer Generating Effluent Guidelines

ERG is supporting EPA in developing, admi nistering, and analyzing results of an electronic questionnaire that was sent to steam electric power generati ng facilities regulated by

the steam electric ELGs codified at 40 CFR Part 423. The questionnaire consists of nine parts (Parts A through I) with the various parts targeting certain types of power plants or power plant operations. EPA distributed the qu estionnaire to all coal - and petroleum coke-fired power plants and a statistically sampled subset of the rest of the steam electr ic industry, including oil-fired, gas-fired, and nuclear power plan ts. ERG assisted EPA in defi ning the sample frame based on publicly available data and da ta collected during the deta iled study and rulemaking. EPA’s statistics team selected the sample populati ons, and ERG developed the questionnaire mailing

list to be used for distributi ng the questionnaire. A ppendix C includes the final version of the Steam Electric Questionnaire. ERG developed mail out and helpline proce dures to appropriately distribute the questionnaire and da ta review procedures and guid elines to appropriately handle responses, review, and follow-up. ERG compiles the responses into a questi onnaire database for use in technical analyses to answer key questions presented in Section 2.3.2.

2.4.4 Candidate Technology Options

ERG is supporting EPA by developi ng candidate technology options. EPA evaluates these options to determine which (if any) represent Be st Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) or best dem onstrated technology. Specific options that EPA is currently researching for the coal-fired power plants include chemical, biological, and thermal treatment technologies.

In conducting this task, ERG uses exis ting data sources, incl uding data from other EPA program offices, industry groups, treatment e quipment vendors, and other sources identified through literature and internet s earches. ERG also uses primary data and information collected through site visits, sampli ng, and the questionnaire.Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 10 of 28

2.4.5 Pollutant Discharge Estimates

ERG is supporting EPA by developing estim ates of wastewater generation and pollutant discharge. ERG characterizes sources of wastewater in terms of flow, frequency of discharge, the types and amounts of pollutant cons tituents, and the total po llutant discharge load.

ERG uses data collected from th e questionnaire, site visits, samp ling efforts, and secondary data to characterize wastewater generation and polluta nt loads. ERG also uses existing data sources including 2009 PCS, ICIS-NPD ES, and TRI discharge data.

2.4.6 Costs and Pollutant Reductions Estimates

ERG is supporting EPA by developing a methodology to estimate candidate technology costs, pollutant reduc tions, and non-water quality envir onmental impacts (such as air pollution, solid waste, and energy use). ERG esti mates the costs, pollutant reductions, and nonwater quality environmental impacts associated w ith each candidate technology option. The cost estimates consider elements such as equipment, installation, indirect costs (e.g., spare parts, engineering, construction, and contractor fees), contingenc y, and annual costs (e.g., labor, maintenance, chemicals, energy, disposal of residuals, monitoring). ERG compares the estimated costs to the estimated reductions and provides preliminary summaries of cost per toxic pound removed for each option considered.

ERG’s estimated technology option costs are used by EPA and its economics

contractor to evaluate the economic achievab ility and cost-effectiven ess of the regulatory options.

In conducting this task, ERG uses the ex isting and primary data sources described previously in Section 2.4.4 for the Candidate Technology Options. Refer also to Section 2.4.5 for a description of ERG’s activities in estimating pollutant discharges.

2.4.7 Environmental Assessment Analysis

ERG is supporting EPA by developing a methodology to qualitatively and quantitatively predict the environmental and human health benefits from estimated pollutant reductions under different regulatory options. As part of the environmental assessment analysis, ERG is conducting a literature sear ch to collect peer-reviewed jour nal articles, ac ademic reports,

and state and federal documents that document and describe environmental impacts caused by steam electric discharges. For the quantitative analyses, ERG estimates the changes in water quality and wildlife impacts asso ciated with baseline conditions and each regulatory option using environmental models. The water quality analysis considers elements such as type of receiving water, predicted receiving water flow or volum e, plant-specific tota l pollutant loads and discharge flows entering a given water body to estimate receiving water concentrations. The wildlife impacts analysis uses estimated water bo dy concentrations, bioacc umulation factors, and reference species to predict fish and wildlife ti ssue concentrations. ERG compares the estimated water body concentration values and wildlife tiss ue concentrations to known environmental threshold values (e.g., national recommended water quality criteria, drinking water standards, and fish consumption advisory levels) to determine the number of water body exceedances under baseline and regulatory options.Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 11 of 28

ERG’s estimated changes in environmental threshold exceedances are used by

EPA and its economics contractor to evaluate the environmental benefits from changes in discharged pollutant loads unde r different regulatory options.

In conducting this task, ERG uses prim ary data and information collected through the site visits, sampling, and the questionnaire, as well as the data pr eviously described in Section 2.4.6. In addition, ERG uses secondary da ta collected from peer-reviewed journals, academic, state, and federal sources.

2.5 Element A.7: Quality Object ives and Acceptance Criteria

This QAPP is intended to ensure that data collected for the Steam Electric Rulemaking are of the quality necessary to s upport EPA in revising the existing ELGs for this category. The main sources of data for the rulemaking are EPA/ERG sampling and analysis, monitoring data collected by the industry, the industry questionnaire, and secondary data.

ERG is evaluating the quality of collected data using the criteria described below. Final reports to EPA include the results of this evaluation. Factors ERG considers in reviewing data quality include completeness, sensitivity, representativeness, precision, sample contamination, accuracy, and comparability.

All project deliverables will meet EPA’s standards of transparency, objectivity, integrity, and utility as specified in EPA’s Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency , EPA/260R-02-008, October 2002 (4). This is accomplished by preparing documentation for the work presented in deliverables that identi fies the sources of data, assumptions made, and calculations used in their development with suffi cient detail that the work can be reproduced by qualified third parties.

2.5.1 Field Sampling Data

ERG is supporting EPA in designing sample plans, collecting samples, shipping samples to the laboratories, and analyzing the samples. ERG is collecting engineering data during the sampling episodes to characterize pro duction and flow during sample collection. ERG reviews these data for completeness (i.e., that da ta are collected for each day and each sample point) and comparability (i.e., that data compare to production a nd flow data reported in the plant’s questionnaire and other plant-specifi c documentation). ERG also supports EPA in designing the industry self-monitoring program, en suring the samples are collected properly, shipped to the laboratories, arrive at the la boratories on time and in good condition, and are analyzed. ERG also ensures that the plants provide engineering data associated with the industry self-monitoring program. ERG reviews these engineering data for completeness and comparability.

ERG subcontracts the anal ysis of the EPA- and industry-collected samples to analytical laboratories. To be considered for use under this project, pa rticipating laboratories must have an acceptable QA program in place to en sure that all data meet EPA requirements.Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 12 of 28

The laboratory’s standard opera ting procedures (SOPs) must ensure that method performance meets or exceeds the requirements specified in th e analytical method and in the subcontract with ERG. The following are the QA/QC requirements th at the laboratories must follow during the sampling program:

 The laboratory must have a compre hensive laboratory QA program in place and operating at all times during the performance of tasks supporting this study. The laboratory must adhere closely to all QA/QC requirements in this QAPP, which is in conformance with EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans 2 . The laboratory may perform additional QC to assure the validity and reliability of results and a description of any additional QC must be provided in the data package submitted to ERG.

 The laboratory must have a comprehens ive data management plan that is consistent with the principles set forth in EPA 2185 – Good Automated Laboratory Practices

, EPA Office of Administration and Resources Management, August 10, 1995. This data management plan must be in place and in use at all times during the performance of tasks for this project.

 The laboratory must maintain internal records in an organized manner to document adherence to the ERG subcontract, and these records must be available for review upon request.

 The laboratory must perform all necessary QA/QC requirements specified in the analytical methods (or the SOP developed by EPA for EPA Method 200.8 in conjunction with collision cell).

 The laboratory shall perform method de tection limit (MDL) studies for all analytes based on the analytical method that will be used for the sampling program. The procedures and calculati ons for performing the MDL studies are specified in 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B. Subsequently, the laboratory must also determine a quant itation limit (QL) for all analytes. For laboratories that are analyzing meta ls, the laboratory must perform the MDL study using a synthetic FGD matrix specified by the SOP developed by EPA for EPA Method 200.8 in conjunc tion with a collision cell. For laboratories that are analyzing the cl assical analytes, the laboratory may provide historical MDL and quantit ation limit data generated by the methods to be used if they are le ss than one year old; however, the laboratory must additionally perfor m a matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) analysis on the s ynthetic FGD matrix with a spiking level of five times the MDL for the target analytes.

2 EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans

, EPA QA/R-5, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Staff, March 2001 (Reissued May 2006).Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 13 of 28

 The laboratory must perform the MS/MSD analyses on the samples specified by EPA and EPA samples must be run in the same batch as the EPA MS/MSD samples. Additionally, the laboratory must spike the samples within the spiking range sp ecified by the analytical method or SOP. If a MS or MSD fails to meet the method specified criteria, the laboratory must communicate the failu re to ERG and work on resolving the issue (e.g., attempt to rerun the an alysis with a highe r dilution). If the MS or MSD analysis cannot be met using procedures described in the method (e.g., dilutions), then the labora tory must perform a post digestion spike on the parent sample after digestion to verify that the MS/MSD

failure is due to matrix interferences.

 For samples that require dilutions to reduce the TDS concentration to less than 0.2%, the laboratory must dilute th e sample to a TDS concentration in the range of 0.15 and 0.2% to pr event over-diluting the sample.

Section 3.1.5 describes the sampling and anal ysis quality control measures for this program. In general, data quality issues are identified and correct ed via frequent communications with the analytical laboratories. In cases where a quality control fa ilure is not the result of matrix failures or other sample-specific analytical issu es, ERG requires the laborat ories to reanalyze the sample where appropriate. As a result of these measures, analytical data are typically excluded only in cases of grossly defi cient quality control data (e .g., laboratory documentation is inadequate to evaluate quality control measur es, or quality control sample results differ significantly from method requirements).

Following the laboratory’s determination that the method QC specifications have been met, ERG reviews the laboratory results, documents the findings of the quality control review in data review narratives, and describes the limitations of th e data, if any. Prior to use in the SER and technical analyses, ERG reviews the re sults of chemical analyses of the wastewater samples for completeness, comparability, precision, accuracy, and sensitivity as described below.

The analytical laboratories deliver electronic data packages consisting of Microsoft® Excel spreadsheets containing the an alytical results and do cumentation packages consisting of traffic reports and sample recei pt information, laborator y analysis sheets and checklists, instrument data, and analyte chro matograms, where applicable. ERG developed method-specific checklists that are used to revi ew, verify, and validate the chemical analysis results and the supporting docum entation provided by the laborat ory. Appendix D contains the method-specific checklists developed by ERG. Th e checklists provide the method-specific QC objectives for each parameter in the review (e.g., acceptable instru ment signal to noise ratio, use of correct spiking concentrati on, acceptable recovery ranges). Each checklist contains the following standard sections listi ng the detailed criteria ERG uses to verify and validate the results of chemical analyses:

 General Review of Sample Identity and Handling – ERG verifies sample identity and traceability. ERG confirms that all data required for the data review, verification, and va lidation are contained in the laboratory dataSection No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 14 of 28

package and reviews information in the data package to verify that the laboratory identified and ha ndled samples properly;

 Review of General QC Requirement s – ERG evaluates the common QC requirements in all methods which include sample preparation and extraction procedures; and

 Detailed Review of Method-Specific Parameters – ERG performs methodspecific QC validation which includes reviewing the primary instrument calibrations and performance evaluation samples.

ERG includes the completed checklists in the final analytical data review, verification, and validation package, which are provided to EPA. ERG also provides a data

review narrative that summarizes the results doc umented in the checklist for each group of compounds analyzed. The data review narratives are included in the publi c docket for the steam electric rulemaking.

ERG reviews the data against the specifi cations listed in Table 2-1 and reports the results to EPA. EPA considers the completene ss, sensitivity, represen tativeness, precision, sample contamination, accuracy, and comparability of the EPA sampling data in determining their use in the rulemaking. The methods by whic h these factors are measured are described

further in the sections below.

Table 2-1. Sampling Data Quality Review Criteria

Data Quality

Review Criterion: Sampling Description/Definition Sampling Techniques to Control this Quality

Criterion How this Quality

Criterion will be

Measured Goal for this

Measurement

Completeness The degree to which the planned sampling program yields usable

results  Use method-specified preservation and type of

bottles

 Shipping – meets hold

time

 Packing/shipping – no breakage

 Sample collection – no breakage or missed samples

 Sample collection, shipping and storage – meets method-specified

temperature requirements % of planned samples for which lab provides usable

results 100% complete

Sensitivity Degree to which a signal (measurement) can be distinguished from background Collect method-specified volume (insufficient volume can result in high detection limits) Laboratory reported

detection limits Meet method specificationsSection No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 15 of 28

Table 2-1. Sampling Data Quality Review Criteria

Data Quality

Review Criterion: Sampling Description/Definition Sampling Techniques to Control this Quality

Criterion How this Quality

Criterion will be

Measured Goal for this

Measurement

Precision (reproducibility) Degree to which repeated measurements give the same results Use standard operating procedures Collect duplicates of

not less than 10% of study samples and

calculate relative percent difference (RPD) All duplicates

have a RPD ≤

20%

Representativeness The degree to which the sample has the same properties as the population as a whole  Select appropriate sampling point

 Use appropriate sample techniques Can’t measure directly. Poor comparison of duplicates will indicate if samples may not be representative All duplicates

have a RPD ≤

20%

Sample

Contamination Difference between the

measured value and the

true value Techniques to control

contamination:

 New sample tubing at each sampling point

 Use of clean gloves at each sampling point

 Conformance to clean hands/dirty hands collection methods, where necessary Blank samples (equipment blanks, trip blanks, lab blanks) will be used

to measure
contamination No target analytes detectable (i.e.,

above the detection limit)

Accuracy How close the measured

value is to the true value Results can be inaccurate if the target analyte is lost or degraded during sample collection and handling. Techniques to control loss of sample:

 Use method-specified sample containers, hold times, sample collection procedures

 Use method-specified preservation, including chilling samples as required during shipment and storage Accuracy can’t be measured directly. Lab spike recovery will provide some insight Recovery of all compounds (native and labeled) in lab spike within

methodspecified QC

limitsSection No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 16 of 28

Table 2-1. Sampling Data Quality Review Criteria

Data Quality

Review Criterion: Sampling Description/Definition Sampling Techniques to Control this Quality

Criterion How this Quality

Criterion will be

Measured Goal for this

Measurement

Comparability High comparability

means that the data can

be combined for decision making

purposes  Use standard analytical methods, conducted using standard procedures.

 Use standard criteria for selecting sampling points and collecting samples Compare analytical

methods and the detection limits they

achieve Analytical

methods are approved

methods with

MDLs that are

sufficient for expected pollutant

concentrations

and matrix

Sampling points are equivalent

Completeness

Completeness is defined in terms of the pe rcentage of data planned to be collected that are 1) collected and 2) for which the la boratory provides results that meet method QC specifications or are otherwise determined acceptabl e for use. Completeness is assessed in three

different areas and is defined as follows:

 Sampling completeness is the number of valid sa mples collected relative to the number of samples planned for collection;

 Analytical completeness is the number of valid sample measurements relative to the number of valid samples collected; and

 Overall completeness is the number of valid samples measurements

relative to the numbe r of samples planned for collection.

ERG assesses the sampling, analytical, a nd overall completeness for the program. ERG documents sampling completeness in the SERs.

Sensitivity

Sensitivity is the degree to which a m easurement can be distinguished from background and is measured by the sample detec tion limit. ERG reports the sample detection limits, relative to method detection limits, in its SERs.Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 17 of 28

Precision

Precision is a measure of the agreement among repeated measurements. To evaluate precision, the laborat ories calculate the relative pe rcent difference (RPD) among the results from one or more types of “duplic ate” analyses using th e following equation.



##   100

D S 2 1 D

- S RPD 

 

where: S = First sample result; and D = Duplicate sample result.

Laboratories often use matrix spike (MS)/matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples to evaluate both precision and accuracy. The prec ision of the analytical procedure is assessed by calculating the RPD between the results of the MS and MSD samples. ERG evaluates the RPD

and documents this evaluation in the data review narratives.

The analysis of field duplicate samples pr ovides data to measure the precision of the entire sample collection, handling, preparation, and analys is process. EPA anticipates collecting one field duplicate sample for every 10 samples collected at a site

. The results of the RPD analysis and the context are examined to determine the precision of the data.

Representativeness

Representativeness is the degree to whic h the sample has the same properties as the population as a whole. Representativeness cannot be measured directly; however, ERG evaluates the field duplicate results to indicate if the samples are representative of the sampled material. If the RPD between the original sa mple and the duplicate are outside the methodspecified criteria, then the samples may not be representative of the wa stewater samples. ERG

evaluates the RPD and documents this evaluation in the data review narratives. ERG controlled the representativeness of the samples by choosin g appropriate sampling points for each waste stream and using appropri ate analytical methods.

Sample Contamination

Sample contamination causes a differen ce between the measured value and the true value. Blank samples (e.g., equipment blan ks and laboratory bla nks) are collected and analyzed to estimate if there is sample contamin ation. For this program, th e goal is that no target analytes are detected in blanks. The impact of any detected contamina tion on interpretation of sample measurements is determined on a sample -by-sample basis and discussed in the data

review narratives and in ERG’s SERs.Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 18 of 28

Accuracy

Accuracy is a measure of the agreement between a measured value and a

reference of “true” value. Because the “true” c oncentration of an analyte in a field sample is never known, spiked samples (e.g., a matrix spik e (MS)) are used to evaluate accuracy. Laboratories prepare an MS by adding known amounts of the compounds of interest to the field sample. The spiked samples receive the same ha ndling, extraction, cleanup, and analysis steps as the field samples. The laboratories then perf orm a percent recovery (%R) calculation to determine their accuracy:

100 SA ) SR SSR ( %R  



where: SSR = Spiked sample result; SR = Sample result; and SA = Spike added.

The successful evaluation of accuracy hinges on the choice of spiking concentration. To determine the appropriate sp iking concentration for the MS sample, the laboratory must first analyze the or iginal sample. In general, the sp iking concentration must be at least twice the concentration of the analyte presen t in the original sample, and ideally, should be

no more than 10 times that concentration.

The QC limits for the recovery of spiked analytes for most of the analytical methods used in the sampling program serves as the data quality objectives for this project. These limits are based primarily on method valid ation studies using treated effluents from wastewater treatment plants. If the method doe s not specify percent r ecovery, it should be between 50 and 150 percent. This is not intended to be a required precisio n, but to be a target. The results of the percent recovery analysis and the context are examined to determine the accuracy of the data. If recoveries are outside the method-specified range requirements, the laboratory must try to identify the interferences and notify ERG. MS failures are handled on a case-by-case basis. When an MS failure is due to a matrix problem, the sample is diluted and reanalyzed. If the MS analys is cannot meet the method-spec ified range requirements using procedures described in the method (e.g., dilutions ), ERG requires the laboratory to perform a post digestion spike on the parent sa mple after digestion to verify that the MS/MSD failure is due

to matrix interferences.

The percent recovery is evaluated duri ng the laboratory data review. The results

of this evaluation are documented in the data review narratives.

Comparability

Comparability is a qualitative measure of the confidence with which data sets can be compared. This project achieves data comparability by following approved, standard analytical procedures and by reporti ng the results in the standard uni ts of measure required in theSection No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 19 of 28

methods (analytes measured, procedures used, and detection limits achie ved). In addition, the equivalence of sampling locations and ope rating characteristics are evaluated.

ERG reviews the data generated from the EPA sampling program and the data generated from the industry self-monitoring program to evaluate the comparability of the data for each sampling point over the course of the sample collection time period.

2.5.2 Data Collected through the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines

This task involves the colle ction and use of data gather ed via a questionnaire sent to steam electric power generating facilities. ERG is assisting EPA in the review of all submitted questionnaires. ERG developed the Data Revi ew Guidelines (see Appendix E) to review questionnaires using several methods to improve completeness, consistency, and reasonableness of questionnaire responses, as described in Section 3.3.4. ERG developed the completeness checklist (see Appendix F) to assess the percenta ge of the questionnaires returned that included all applicable parts and attachme nts. ERG also assesses the accu racy and comparability of the survey data by conducting a quest ion-by-question engineering revi ew of all survey responses using the technical checklists (s ee Appendix E) that define th e data acceptance criteria. ERG updated the checklists periodically as the ques tionnaire review process proceeded to reflect known areas where respondents had diffi culty completing th e questionnaire.

The criteria ERG uses to evaluate th e quality of the data collected in the questionnaire are presented in Table 2-2, along with acceptable values for each criterion. ERG follows the procedures outlined in the data re view guidelines, further discussed in Section 3.3.4, for any questionnaire responses that do not meet the following acceptance criteria.

Table 2-2. Steam Electric Questionnaire Data Acceptance Criteria

Acceptance Criterion:

Questionnaire Data Description/Definition Specification

Unambiguous For an individual response, can the response to the question be interpreted without confusion? Units of measure are identified. Responses to open-ended questions are clear. The question was interpreted consistently by multiple respondents.

Internal consistency For an individual response, are the answers to one question consistent with answers to other questions? Responses follow questionnaire skip patterns. Responses to multiple questions asking for similar or related information are comparable.

Completeness For a plant’s response, were all questions answered? For each question, was it answered by all respondents? A plant’s response must include answers to the majority of the questions. Each question must be answered by all respondents to which it applies.Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 20 of 28

Table 2-2. Steam Electric Questionnaire Data Acceptance Criteria

Acceptance Criterion:

Questionnaire Data Description/Definition Specification

Reasonableness For an individual response, are reported values consistent with operating procedures at steam electric power plants? A plant’s response will be checked against logical responses provided in the data review checklist. ERG will follow up with any plant whose responses appear to be outliers. For example, ERG will follow up on any plant’s response for scrubber purge flow rate that falls outside the typical range in the data

review checklist.

Representativeness Did EPA receive sufficient response to the questionnaire to reflect the population of steam electric power plants? EPA’s goal is to receive at least 90% response rate in each sample frame. EPA’s statistical support will

determine if the number of responses received represent each sample frame.

Comparability Is the information provided in response to the questionnaire consistent with facility descriptions available from EIA, detailed study, and site visit data? Are unit operations reported the same as data collected in the study, and are questionnaire reported scrubber and discharge flows not more than 50% different to the information provided in

EIA or other available data.

EPA expects 100 percent completeness of returned questi onnaire responses, because the questionnaire is conducted under aut hority of section 308 of the Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1318) and response is mandatory. ERG determines completeness by tracking when, and how many, questionnaire re sponses are reported in the Steam Electric Tracking Database. In ad dition, ERG reports to EPA any instances of completeness less than 100 percen t and follows up with respondent s to ensure responses by all plants. ERG also documents any respondents who ar e not required to complete the questionnaire due to their current operating conditions.

2.5.3 Pollution Control Technology Costs

ERG will collect information about the co sts for steam electric power plants to install and operate wastewater pollution cont rol technologies, includi ng transportation and disposal costs. In addition to information reported in the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines , ERG will obtain current (e.g., 2000 - 2010) cost

information from FGD wastewater tr eatment and ash handling vendors.

The criteria ERG will use to evaluate the quality of pollution control technology

cost information are summarized in Table 2-3 along with acceptable values for each criterion. ERG will only use sources that meet these criteria will to develop or evaluate control options.Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 21 of 28

Table 2-3. Pollution Control Technology Cost Data Acceptance Criteria

Acceptance Criterion:

Cost Data Description/Definition Specification

Currency (up to date) Does the information reflect current systems? Costs are current (e.g., 2000 – 2010).

Technology Does the information reported

reflect an area relevant to the study? Costs reflect systems that se rve as the technology basis for steam electric regulatory options.

Accuracy/Reliability Is the information reported

true? Obtained from a vendor who does business with steam electric power plants.

Comparability Are the costs comparable to costs provided by sources that meet these acceptance

criteria? Comparable to other sources, such as the Steam Electric Questionnaire.

2.5.4 Pollution Control Technology Cost Estimates

ERG will use primary and secondary data to estimate costs for the affected steam electric power plants to manage and dispose of their wastes. The criteria that ERG will use to

determine if the estimated costs are of the quality needed to support EPA’s rulemaking are summarized in Table 2-4, along with acceptable values for each criterion.

Table 2-4. Cost Estimate Quality Specifications

Acceptance Criterion:

Cost Estimates Specification

Meet requirements for economic analysis  Include one-time costs for equipment purchase and installation.

 Include one-time costs for treatability and optimization studies, as appropriate.

 Include on-going operating and maintenance costs (annual costs).

 Include periodic operating and main tenance costs, as appropriate.

Appropriate for actual plant

locations  Equipment costs, including transportation and installation, reflect the costs for supplies and labor at steam electric power plant locations.

 Operating costs (electricity, diesel fuel, labor, chemicals, etc.) reflect the costs at steam electric power plant locations.

Unit costs are on specified, standard year basis  Input costs escalated to 2010, using RS Means Construction Index or other

standard cost index.

Complete  Include costs for all elements necessary to implement the waste management option.

Accurate (model input)  Model inputs reflect design assumptions agreed on with project team.

 Model inputs reflect baseline conditions at each facility.

Accurate (calculations)  Model calculations are correct.

 Unit conversions are correct.

Reasonable  Order-of-magnitude of costs is comparable to costs for similar installations at similar plants.

 Cost trends follow the design basis trends (i.e., costs for large plants are greater than the costs for small plants).Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 22 of 28

2.5.5 Secondary Data

This section presents how ERG evaluate s the secondary data collected for this project and the criteria used to determine the accep tability of these data. Acceptance criteria and required quality depends on use. Secondary data may be used for the following analyses:

 Industry profile;

 Characterization of in-process waste;

 Characterization of wastew ater treatment system pe rformance/efficiency;

 Estimation of baseline pollutant discharges;

 Estimation of cost of treatment; and

 Environmental assessment analysis.

2.5.5.1 Secondary Data Used for Industry Profile, Characterization of In-Process Waste and Wastewater Treatment System Performance; and Estimation of Baseline Pollutant Discharges and Treatment Costs

Table 2-5, located at the end of this sec tion, lists the secondary data acceptance criteria by type of use in rela tionship to the type of data. S econdary data sources reviewed include monitoring data, other monitoring data (e .g., 308 Letter), articles and technical papers, industry/vendor telephone query da ta, and internet information. Table 2-5 provides the specific circumstances that define when data meets accep tance criteria or when data are unusable.

When secondary data are received, ERG uses the criteria in Table 2-5 to identify

if the data are usable. In addition to the cr iteria listed in Table 2-5, ERG evaluates the reasonableness of secondary data. For example, pollu tant identities must be reasonably related to the process or waste stream fr om which they were discharged . ERG may flag data sets as questionable and subject to further investigation if a chemical is de tected that is not expected in the waste stream or if an expected chemi cal is missing. ERG communicates to the EPA WAM whether reported or calculated po llutant loads, plant wastewater flows, or other secondary data reflect the range of expected values for specifi c steam electric power plants within the steam electric industry. In addition, if the data provided by a data so urce are repeatedly found to be unreasonable, ERG communicates these quality issu es to EPA and waits for further direction

from the EPA WAM.

ERG does not review the quality of ex isting data contained in EPA databases (e.g., PCS, TRI, ICIS-NPDES) or other databases pr ovided by federal or state agencies or trade organizations (e.g., UWAG, EPRI) . In this case, because the data have been certified by the facility, EPA assumes it is of acceptable quality unless EPA has information clearly demonstrating the data are not of acceptable quality. In such cases, ERG will document these

known limitations. If ERG identifie s limitations in the quality of the data from published

literature or federal/stat e generated databases that may imp act decisions regarding the overall

direction of further data colle ction efforts or the quality of deliverables, ERG communicates

these issues to the EPA WAM. Data limitation disc ussions identify where data gaps exist (e.g., in PCS, major facilities are required to submit data, but PCS data may not represent all facilities in a given geographic region because minor discharger s often are not included) and a description of data reporting requirements (e.g., TRI does not require facilities to sample and analyze wasteSection No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 23 of 28

streams to determine the quantities of toxic chemi cals released, so the data included in TRI may

be estimates of releases based on mass balance calculations, published emission factors, sitespecific emission factors, or other approaches).

2.5.5.2 Secondary Data Used for Environmental Assessment Analysis

In addition to the analyses listed in Table 2-5, ERG uses secondary data to support qualitative and quantitative assessmen ts (e.g., environmental modeling to predict receiving water concentrations a nd fish and wildlife tissue concentrations) of the impact of steam electric discharges on the environment.

Qualitative Analyses.

Qualitative impact analyses rely primarily on secondary data collected as part of a literature review to supp ort the environmental assessment analysis. The criteria that ERG uses to evaluate the quality of literat ure sources used for qualitative analyses are 1) accuracy, 2) reliability, and 3) representativeness.

Accuracy . ERG assumes that the underlying da ta and information contained in state and federal reports and p eer-reviewed journal articles are accurate. ERG assumes that data from these sources are of sufficient quality to identify potential environmen tal impacts associated with steam electric discharges. ERG presents da ta that are outliers (e .g., data that are not consistent with the body of information collected from the literature review) to EPA for further direction on how to incorporate or ex clude the data in the analysis.

Reliability. During the course of the literature search, ERG may encounter sources

that contain limited documentation of the enviro nmental impact claim (e.g., unidentified speaker at a stakeholder meeting or a local resident commenting in a newspaper article). These data sources represent a lower level of reliability than peer-reviewed literature, but may provide useful information for capturing the full range of environmental impacts associated with steam electric discharges. If ERG identifies limitations in the quality of information taken from other secondary data sources (e.g., web sites, ne wspapers, and stakeholder meetings), ERG communicates these data quality issues to EPA. ERG also evaluates secondary data for use in qualitative analyses for reliability based on the following factors:

 The scientific work is clearly writ ten, so that all assumptions and methodologies can be identified;

 The variability and uncertainty (qua ntitative and qualitative) in the information or in the procedures, measures, methods, or models are evaluated and characterized; and

 The assumptions and methodologies ar e consistently applied throughout the analysis as reported in the source.

Representativeness. ERG evaluates secondary data fo r use in qualitative analyses for representativeness based on whether they represent:Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 24 of 28

1) The types of environmental impact s caused by wastewater discharges from steam electric power plants. 2) The range of concentrations observe d in steam electric discharges. 3) The environments affected by steam electric discharges. (e.g., rivers, lakes, and wetlands).

Information on environmental impacts in all envi ronments may not be readily available in the published literature. When a subpopulation is sel ected for analysis (e.g., lakes and reservoirs), ERG clearly describes the subpopulation and resu lting limitations of the analysis to EPA.

Quantitative Assessments

.

ERG may also use secondary data to support quantitative as sessments of the environmental impacts of steam electric discha rges through the use of environmental models. ERG limits national-scale modeling analyses to screening-level steady state water quality and

wildlife assessment models. The screening-level wate r quality model estimates receiving water concentrations within the immediate vicinity of steam electric discharge points on an average

annual basis. The wildlife assessment model estima tes pollutant concentrations in fish tissue exposed to steam electric wastewater discharges within the immediate vici nity of the discharge point and downstream. This model also assesses the impacts to aquatic organisms from contact with sediment contaminated by the evaluated wa ste streams and impacts to piscivorous wildlife (i.e., wildlife that habitually feeds on fish) from consuming fish impacted by the evaluated waste

streams. Both the water quality and wildlife mode ls focus on simulating the movement of bioaccumulative metals (i.e., mercury, selenium, arsenic) through the environment. Input values

for the environmental models include:

 Pollutant loadings from steam electric waste streams of interest;

 Discharge flow from steam electric power plants;

 Average annual receiving water stream flow;

 Partition coefficients for metals of interest;

 Bioaccumulation factors for metals of interest for different trophic levels of fish;

 Average weight for wildlife species of interest;

 Average water ingestion rate for wildlife species of interest; and

 Food ingestion rate of prey in each fish trophic level for wildlife species of

interest.

ERG obtains input values and parameteri zes the environmental models based on data from secondary da ta sources including:

 Peer-reviewed literature;

 Government documents;

 Academic reports;Section No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 25 of 28

 Publically available geographic inform ation system (GIS) data sets from government organizations (e.g., NHD Plus); and

 Databases provided by federal or st ate agencies (e.g., USGS stream monitoring data).

ERG does not review the quality of exis ting data contained in government GIS systems or databases, but describes known limitati ons of the data in reports on which they are based. If ERG identifies limitations in the quality of the data from published literature or federal/state generated GIS or databases that may impact mode l predictions, ERG communicates

these issues to the EPA WAM. In addition to the quality criteria described for the qualitative environmental assessment analyses, ERG also us es the following acceptance criteria to evaluate use of secondary data for environmental modeling analyses:

 The data are from a peer-reviewed, government, or academic source;

 The geographical area of which the data are collected are representative of the goal of the modeling analysis;

 The exposure scenarios and concentrati ons are either directly from coalfired power plants or are representa tive of the types of waste streams

under consideration for the steam elect ric effluent guideline rulemaking;

 The data sets are representative and reflect the ecological or human population of interest;

 The scientific and technical proce dures, measures, methods, or models employed to generate the information are well documented and reasonable for, and consistent with, the intended application within the environmental model; and

 The data are comparable to other sources.

2.6 Element A.8: Special Training/Certification

Confidential Business Information . Information and data collected through EPA site visit, sampling, and questi onnaire activities may be claime d as CBI by the steam electric facilities. Therefore, project staff are trained in CBI handling procedures as outlined in ERG’s CBI security plan entitled Security Plan for Handling Confid ential Business Information Under

the Clean Water Act , dated September 25, 2008 and a pproved by Ahmar Siddiqui, EPA’s

Document Control Officer for this contract, on March 12, 2009 (5a), and its successor dated November 9, 2012 and approved January 9, 2013 (5b). Only staff demonstrating their understanding of CBI handling procedures by passi ng a written test are permitted to access CBI on this project.

Sample Collection Training. All ERG staff supporting the steam electric sampling program are trained in general wastewater samp le collection techniques and ERG’s standardSection No. 2

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 26 of 28

operating procedures (SOPs) for sampling (6, 7, 8). ERG staff attend internal sampling training to review sample preparation, collection, and pa ckaging procedures, where staff attendance is documented by the ERG Program Manager. Sampli ng crew chiefs attend additional training in crew chief responsibilities. ERG also trains st aff supporting the steam electric sampling program in the clean hands/dirty hands sample collection techniques (9) for low-level metals analyses (total and dissolved metals). All sampling staff receive any required on-site training by the site.

Health and Safety Training . ERG determines if additional health and safety training is required for ERG steam electric sampli ng staff after sites have been selected and sampling and safety considerations have been discussed with the site . All ERG sampling staff who support the steam electric sampling program receive annual health and safety training, documented by the ERG Chantilly office health and safety coordinator.

2.7 Element A.9: Documents and Records

ERG has developed and instituted docume nt control mechanisms for the review, revision, and distribution of QAPPs. Each QAPP ha s a signed approval form, title page, table of contents, and EPA-approved document control form at (shown below) that appears in the upper right-hand corner of each page:

Section No.

Revision No.

Date

During the course of the pr oject, any revision to the QAPP is circulated to the project distribution list.

Standard controls for project-related data , documents, and records are presented in Section 5 of ERG’s 2002 and 2013 QMPs (2a, 2b). ERG’s WAM is responsible for designating an individual to maintain all project files. S/he is also responsible for en suring that project team members use ERG SOPs, including documenting all data sources us ed. All engineering information collected, generated, and analyzed on the project is handl ed and stored in a centralized record, as described in the Steam Electric Power Generating Project File Management Plan , dated September 25, 2009 (10). This centr alized record contains all data

collected or accessed from other sources, and documents analyses of data collected (e.g., site visit reports, memoranda, industry profiles). The contents of the record are indexed using a MS

AccessTM database.

Management of project data is specif ically described in Element B.10, Data Management (Sections 3.1.10, 3.3.6, and 3.4.2) of this QAPP.Section No. 2Revision No. 2Date: April 6, 2010Page 27 of 28Table 2-5. Secondary Data Acceptance CriteriaType of DataData Not UsableData Usablefor ProfileData Usable toCharacterize InProcess WasteData Usable toDemonstrate SystemPerformance/EfficiencyData Usable toEstimate BaselineDischargesData Usable toEstimate Cost ofTreatmentMonitoring Data(e.g., NPDESpermit, DMRs)(1) The plant hassince changedoperations (e.g.,installed a newtreatment system)since the data werecollected.(2) Data collectedduring upsetconditions.Waste streamidentified andanalytesidentified.Waste streamidentified andanalytes, units,and detectionlimits identified.(1) Represent full-scalesystem operated atapplicable steam electricpower plant.(2) Influent and effluentdata or percent removalidentified.(3) Analytes identifiedand units included.Identified asdischarge, analytesidentified and unitsprovided, approvedanalytical methodused, representcurrent treatmentoperations.Data not typically usedfor this purpose.OtherMonitoring Data(e.g., 308 Letter,Questionnaire,EPRI, In-Plant)(1) Data collected byan unknown methodor units undefined.(2) Data collectedduring upsetconditions.(3) Represents aprocess that is not ofinterest (e.g., sanitarywastewater).Waste streamidentified andanalytesidentified.Waste streamidentified andanalytes, units,and detectionlimits identified.(1) Represents full-scalesystem operated atapplicable steam electricpower plant.(2) Influent and effluentdata shows that treatmentsystem is well-designedand operated.(3) Analytes identifiedand units included.Identified asdischarge, analytesidentified and unitsprovided, approvedanalytical methodused, representcurrent treatmentoperations.Cost components fullydefined and identified(e.g., direct andindirect capital, annualoperating andmaintenance), cost yearidentified.Articles/Technical PapersInformation does notaddress key questionsDocumentedand reputablesources foundthroughliteraturesearches (e.g.,peer-reviewedjournals andgovernmentpublications).Waste streamidentified andanalytes, units,and detectionlimits identified.(1) Represents full-scalesystem operated atapplicable steam electricpower plant.(2) Influent and effluentdata shows that treatmentsystem is well-designedand operated.(3) Data do not representupset conditions.(4) Analytes identifiedand units and detectionlimits included.Identified asdischarge, analytesidentified and unitsprovided, approvedanalytical methodused, representtreatment operations.Cost components fullydefined and identified(e.g., direct andindirect capital, annualoperating andmaintenance), cost yearidentified.Section No. 2Revision No. 4Date: April 5, 2013Page 28 of 28Type of DataData Not UsableData Usablefor ProfileData Usable toCharacterize InProcess WasteData Usable toDemonstrate SystemPerformance/EfficiencyData Usable toEstimate BaselineDischargesData Usable toEstimate Cost ofTreatmentIndustry/ VendorTelephoneQueriesInformation does notaddress keyquestions.These data aregenerallyacceptable forrelevantsources.Data not typicallyused for thispurpose.(1) Represents full-scalesystem operated atapplicable steam electricpower plant.(2) Influent and effluentdata shows that treatmentsystem is well-designedand operated.(3) Data do not representupset conditions.(4) Analytes identifiedand units and detectionlimits included.Data not typicallyused for this purpose.Cost components fullydefined and identified(e.g., direct andindirect capital, annualoperating andmaintenance), cost yearidentified.InternetInformation (notpublishedarticles ortechnical papers)Information does notaddress keyquestions.These data aregenerallyacceptable forrelevantsources.Data not typicallyused for thispurpose.Data not typically usedfor this purpose.Data not typicallyused for this purpose.Data not typically usedfor this purpose.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 1 of 40

3.0 D ATA G ENERATION AND A CQUISITION

This section addresses how ERG plans to ensure that appropriate methods for data collection, generation, and acquisition are employed and documented. ERG has identified

ten elements to be discussed in this section including:

 B.1: Sampling process design;

 B.2: Sampling methods;

 B.3: Sample handling and custody;

 B.4: Analytical methods;

 B.5: Quality control;

 B.6: Instrument/equipment tes ting, inspection and maintenance;

 B.7: Instrument/equipment calibration and frequency;

 B.8: Inspection/acceptance of supplies and consumables;

 B.9: Non-direct measurements; and

 B.10: Data management.

Elements B.9 and B.10 are appropriate fo r collection and analysis of secondary data and are, therefore, appli cable to the updated industry profile and estimation of plant-level candidate option costs and pollutant reductions. A ll elements are appropriate for the information request and sampling and analysis porti ons of the Steam Electric Rulemaking.

3.1 Steam Electric Site Visits and Sampling and Analysis

This section provides detailed descripti ons of the methods ERG uses to support EPA’s steam electric power plant visits and sa mpling and analysis programs. All ten data generation and acquisiti on elements apply.

3.1.1 Element B.1 - Sampling Process Design

ERG is assisting EPA in conducti ng multiple-day sampling episodes and obtaining monitoring data from steam electric power plants. ERG supports EPA in selecting plants for site visits based on geographic vari ability, different coal types (i.e., bituminous, subbituminous, coal blends), and different operati ng practices (e.g., baseload vs cycling), as well as other of the plant’s specific operating character istics. Other operating characteristics that are considered for selecting plants for sampling are operation of a wet FGD system, type and age of FGD wastewater treatment system type and age of FGD system, NOx contro ls, use of a flue gas mercury control system, type of boiler, and age of boiler. ERG also supports EPA in selecting plants for sampling based on the informa tion collected during the site visits.

The generic sampling plan describes the planned sampling approach, including sampling point selection; analyte selection; samp le fractions, bottle sets, and sample collection procedures; sample collection methodology; sample preservation, shipping, and analysis; field measurements and engineering data collection; sample labeling; traffic reports; Quality Assurance/Quality Control that describes tech niques to reduce sample contamination; and sample splitting. Prior to sampling a steam electri c plant, ERG prepares a site-specific sampling plan that will detail: plant selection, locati on, planned sampling points, methodology, equipment,Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 2 of 40

frequency of collection, total sample volume, an d list of analyses. The site-specific sampling plan also provides a plan for protecting the health and safety of the sampling crew.

The site-specific sampling plans clearl y identify the sampling points and the corresponding list of analytes fo r each plant sampled. EPA has id entified the following potential sampling points and analytes:

Selected Sampling Points: Selected Analytes: – FGD scrubber purge (i.e.,

influent to FGD wastewater treatment system) – Intermediate point of FGD

wastewater treatment system
– Effluent from FGD wastewater

treatment – Total and dissolved metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, hexavalent chromium (dissolved only), iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, tin, titanium, vanadium, and zinc) – Classical parameters (biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), sulfate, chloride, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus, and total cyanide)

Also critical to this program is the collection of process information, including process wastewater flow rates, chemical add itions, and routine monitoring data. Collection of engineering data is described in Section 2.6 of the generic sampling plan and is detailed in the site-specific sampling plans.

Modifications to Sampling Process Design . Site-specific conditions may result in modifications to the planned sampling methodology. For example, if samples collected from the influent to the FGD wastewater treatment syst em are still reacting (e .g., fizzing, bubbling) after sample collection, it may be necessary to leav e the bottles uncapped until the reaction is complete. All deviations from the site-speci fic sampling plan are approved by the onsite EPA representative at the sampling episode and documented in bot h the samplers’ field notes and in site-specific SERs that document the informa tion and data collected during sampling episodes.

3.1.2 Element B.2 - Sampling Methods

Site-Specific Sampling Plans . The generic sampling plan describes the planned field sampling methodology for collecting samples from the various sample points. Prior to sampling a coal-fired plant, ERG prepares a si te-specific sampling plan that describes the specific sampling methodology for each sampling point in detail. Each site-specific sampling plan contains the following information:

 Name and location of site being sampled;

 Description of the plant operations;

 Sampling points;

 Analytes and analytical methods;

 Quality assurance and quality control procedures and samples;Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 3 of 40

 Sampling procedures;

 Analytical laboratory contact information; and

 Health and safety precautions.

Training Staff in Sample Collection Methods . Site-specific pre-sampling training is provided to the sampling team. The training includes:

 Review of ERG’s site-specific health and safety requirements including personal protective equipment and procedures.

 Site-specific health and safety tr aining, as required by the plant.

 Sampling procedures training for all crew members, including:

— Sampling preparation;

— Sample collection (techniques for collecting samples to be analyzed, including trace metals);

— Preservation (chemicals, ice);

— Shipping and packing, especially procedures for labeling and preparing bottles and packing coolers; and

— Field tests, including temperature and pH, sulfide, aldehydes, and

oxidants.

 Sampling crew chief training to expa nd on topics discussed in general sampling training.

Methods for Identifying Upset Conditions Requiring Suspension of Sample

Collection . This sampling program is intended to ch aracterize FGD wastewater generation and treatment during normal plant operations. Thus, if electricity generation or wastewater treatment equipment goes down during sample collection, and the upset is considered within the plant’s range of normal operations, ERG continues the sa mple collection. If a process upset occurs during sampling, the sampling crew chief records the times and date s that the events occur for future reference during the data analysis phase . A member of the sampling crew asks plant personnel for information regarding the upset and r ecords this information in the field notes. In the event of an extended upset (i.e., outside of the plant’s normal range of operations), the samplers will stop sample collection. Samp le collection will not recommence until normal operations resume. The ERG crew chief, in c onsultation with the onsit e EPA representative, considers plant personnel’s judgment as to whether a particular upset is within the plant’s normal range of operations.

Methods for Minimizing Sample Contamination . ERG conducts all sampling activities in a manner to minimize potential cont amination and cross-contamination of samples. If samples are collected with a peristaltic pump, ERG installs new tubing for each sampling point at the beginning of the episode. ERG samplers us e non-contaminating pH indicator paper or a pH meter during field tests and preservation. A separate one-liter glass jar is filled during collection of each grab sample set and used for field measurements to ensure that thermometers and testSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 4 of 40

kits do not contaminate the samples intended for chemical analysis. The generic sampling plan describes the procedures for field measurements in more detail.

All ERG personnel who collect samples wear new nitrile gloves at each sampling point to avoid exposure to polluta nts and other chemical, physical, and biological hazards, and to prevent cross-contamination of samples. Sample rs use a new pair of gloves at each sampling point each time they collect a grab or compos ite sample. Samplers use care not to touch the insides of bottles or lids/caps during sampling. In addition, the collection of low-level trace metals requires special sample collection tec hniques. The generic sampling plan describes sample collection techniques that will be used for the collection of low-level metal samples.

Sampling Equipment and Decontamination . For each sampling episode, ERG determines the number of sample bottles, tubing c onfigurations, bottles of blank water, zip lock bags, trash bags, automatic compositors, and other miscellaneous supplies needed for the episode. Typical field sampling equipment that ma y be used for the sampling program includes: precleaned sample bottles for chemical analyses, pH indicator paper, pH probes, thermometers, chlorine test kits, and sampling collection device s such as peristaltic pumps or bottle dippers. ERG follows method specifica tions for the proper size and type of bottle to use for each sample. ERG determines the specific field sampling de vices used on a given sampling episode based on the specific sampling location logistics and descri bes these devices in the site-specific sampling plans. ERG orders excess sampling equipment as a contingency against breakage, malfunction,

or loss.

ERG purchases other certified clean sampli ng equipment that directly contacts the samples, such as precleaned sample bottles. Equi pment is either dedicated to each sample point (preferable), or decontaminated before reuse.

ERG collects equipment blanks when necessary to verify adequate decontamination procedures. The generic samp ling plan describes the sample collection techniques that will be used for the collection of required blanks.

Engineering Data : During each sampling episode, ERG/EPA collects engineering information with regard to design and operation of the plant being sampled. For example, this information may include coal usage, plant cap acity, wastewater flow rates, sludge generation rates (if applicable), and retention times in wast ewater treatment process stages. Engineering data collection sheets are completed for each plant sample d. This information is used to determine if the specific design or operationa l criteria of the steam electric ope rations affect the wastewater

characteristics.

3.1.3 Element B.3 - Sample Handling and Custody

This section describes the procedures for sample handling and sample custody. The generic sampling plan also contains inform ation describing the sample handling and sample custody. Each site-specific sampling plan disc usses proper sample handling in the field including:Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 5 of 40

 Sample collection;

 Sample preservation and shipping;

 Sample labeling;

 Sample set preparation; and

 Sample packing.

Sampling data EPA uses to support re gulatory development programs must be legally defensible. Therefore, the sample mu st be tracked from sample collection through analysis. ERG creates sample labels to identify and track all samples. In addition, ERG uses field logs to document that samples were collected as described in the site -specific sampling plan.

ERG uses a traffic report to maintain a record of sample collection, sample transfer between personnel, sample shipme nt, and sample receipt by the laboratory. The sampling crew completes a traffic report for each c ooler or box that is shipped to a laboratory. Each traffic report contains the following information:

 Sampling episode number for each plant sampled;

 Number of containers of each sample in shipment;

 For each sample in the shipment:

 Sample number;

 Collection date and time;

 Preservation (yes or no) a nd pH after preservation;

 Sample description (environmental matrix);

 Analyses required;

 Shipment or airbill number;

 Date and method of shipment; and

 The name of the person shipping the samples.

The sampling crew chief or his/her de signee is responsible for completing the traffic reports, including refere ncing all applicable blank and QC samples, signing the traffic reports, and noting the date and tim e of shipment. This individual al so inspects the traffic reports for completeness and accuracy. Any person who makes changes to the form initials the changes made. The sampling crew chief retains one copy of the traffic report and two copies accompany the sample shipment.

ERG does not anticipate shipping samp les collected during this project as dangerous goods. All samples coll ected during this proj ect are expected to be shipped under the exclusion allowed for transporting laborat ory samples in 40 CFR 261.4(d) and under the definition and exception in CFR 49 Part 173.134. For any samples that do not qualify for this exclusion, the field sampling crew packages and labels samples for shipment in compliance with current U.S. Department of Transportation and International Air Transport Association dangerous goods regulations.

When the laboratory receives the samples, the laboratory sample custodian checks all bottles against the Tr affic Reports, records the condition of the samples, and signs, dates, and marks the time of receipt on the Traffic Reports . The laboratory sample custodian immediatelySection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 6 of 40

reports any discrepancies or problems to ERG. ERG verifies the receipt and condition of all samples.

The laboratory must have a SOP for sa mple custody within the laboratory. The laboratory logs all samples into a sample rece ipt logbook or computerized laboratory information system and documents the following information:

 Date and time of sample receipt;

 Project number and name;

 Field sample number;

 Laboratory sample number;

 Sample matrix;

 Analytical parameters;

 Storage location; and

 Log-in person’s initials.

All information relevant to the samples is secu red at the end of each business day. All samples are stored in a designated storage re frigerator with restricted access.

ERG uses an electronic sample tracking system to track the last date samples associated with each episode are received at the laboratory and the date of receipt of analytical

data from the laboratories.

3.1.4 Element B.4 - Analytical Methods

The generic sampling plan identifies the analytes that will be measured and the anticipated analytical methods that EPA w ill use for the steam electric power generating sampling episodes. Laboratories are allowed to identify their preferred method for analysis of certain analytes at the time they submit their bid response package. The site-specific sampling plans contain the specific list of analytical methods that will be used for that sampling episode. The site-specific sampling plans also identify th e sample volume to be collected, the QC sample volume to be collected, the sample container type, and typical preservation required for each parameter. The additional volume collected for QC is used to perform matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) analyses and serial dilutions.

ERG uses information described above in combination with the site-specific sample conditions to select the proper sample volumes, bottle types, and preservation methods for each sample collected. Section 5.1 of this QAPP addresses the proce dures for laboratory and data quality review.

3.1.5 Element B.5 - Sampling Quality Control

The steam electric sampling program in cludes the collection of field quality control samples. Sampling QC activities are desi gned to measure or estimate the effect of sampling error such as contamination, matrix e ffects, and imprecision. Th e site-specific sampling plans specify the quantities and t ypes of blank and duplicate sample s to be collected during each episode. The analytical laboratories specify th e actual quantity and t ypes of laboratory QCSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 7 of 40

samples that are used; these requirements are sp ecified “per sample set. ” EPA defines a sample set as a group of not more than 20 samples prepar ed at the same time on the same day during the same shift by the same analyst. The following subs ections describe the ro utine QC measures the laboratories conduct and the types of blank and duplicate samples the sampling crew collect during the project.

ERG verifies that the analytical labo ratories’ performance is acceptable by comparing the QC sample results to met hod requirements. Based on these findings, ERG evaluates the usability of the data in cons ultation with the EPA WAM. ERG may require laboratories to re-analyze the wastewater samples if the analytical performance does not meet the method requirements. After an analytical data p ackage has been reviewed and after all problems that can be corrected have been resolved, the ER G data review chemist prepares a written data review narrative and hard-copy a nd electronic data package and submits it to the EPA WAM.

ERG also verifies that the analytical laboratories have a comprehensive laboratory QA program in place and operating at all times during the performance of tasks supporting this study. The laboratories adhere closel y to all QA/QC requirements in EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans 3

. The laboratories include a QA statement in the data package submitted to ERG, which aids ERG in determining if the laboratories meet the QC requirements. The laboratories may perform additional QC to assure the validity and reliability of results.

ERG confirms that the laboratories also have a comprehensive data management plan that is consistent with the principles set forth in EPA 2185 – Good Automated Laboratory

Practices , EPA Office of Administration and Re sources Management, August 10, 1995. The

laboratories must have this data management plan in place and in use at all times. In addition, the

laboratories must maintain internal records in an organized manner to document adherence to requirements, and these records must be available for review upon request.

3.1.5.1 Field QC Measures

Field quality control samples for this project include bottle blanks, field blanks, equipment blanks, and duplicate samples. Table 3- 1 presents a list of th e field quality control samples, the analytes analyzed, the purpose, a nd the frequency. Note th at not all analytical methods require all of the QC measures listed. The site-s pecific sampling plans discuss collection of these samples in greater detail. Th is section describes each of the field quality control samples that are collected for the sampling program.

3 See EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (March 2001), available online at http://www.epa.gov/QUALITY/qs-docs/r5-final.pdf.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 8 of 40

Table 3-1. Field Quality Control Samples

Field Quality

Control Analytes Purpose Frequency

Bottle Blank Total and dissolved metals, low-level total

and dissolved metals To monitor the pre-cleaned bottles

for metals contamination For low-level metals, one for each method at each sampling episode. For routine metals, one for each method for the sampling program.

Field blank Total and dissolved metals, low-level total

and dissolved metals To monitor potential contamination from sampling techniques (equipment used or ambient conditions) For routine total and dissolved metals, one blank will be collected for each type of sampling technique or special equipment used. At a minimum, one blank per episode will be collected.

Field blanks will be collected for

low-level total and dissolved metals at each sampling location

and for each method. For hexavalent chromium, one blank will be collected for each sample point. For mercury, one blank will be collected for each sample point. Equipment

blank Low-level total and

dissolved metals To document adequate decontamination of sampling equipment before use by the sampling crew Once per lot of equipment cleaned (for each method).

Field Duplicates All analytes except

HEM/SGT-HEM To evaluate total measurement precision and assess potential sources of data variability, including sample collection, handling, preparation, and analysis One sample point per episode

Bottle Blank

For routine metals, the sampling crew prep ares a bottle blank for one episode in ERG’s sample room before the start of the sa mpling episode. The bottle blank samples are an analyte-free matrix (ASTM Type 1 water) poured into the appropriate sample bottles (e.g., 250- mL plastic bottle for total metals) and stored for several days prior to sh ipment to the laboratory. Additionally, the supplier of the cleaned sample bottles an alyzes bottle blanks for each lot (according to EPA Method 1669) and provides a re port that certifies the bottles as clean.

Purpose: To monitor the pre-cleaned bottles for metals

contamination.

Recommended Frequency: One bottle blank for each sampling episode.

Field Blanks

The sampling crew collects field blanks for all sampling techniques used by the sampling staff and for special equipment used during the sample collect ion, such as coolingSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 9 of 40

coils, tubing, etc. The field blank evaluates potential contamination of the sample from either the equipment used or ambient conditions. To co llect field blanks, ERG pours or pumps ASTM Type 1 water through all equipment used for the sample collection at the sampling location and into sample bottles. Multiple field blanks may be required if different sampling techniques are

used or if ambient conditions ar e expected to vary from samp le point to sample point. ERG assists EPA in selecting analyses for the fiel d blank using requirements of the analytical methods. The laboratories analyze the field blank for the specified analytes. The site-specific sampling plans list the field blanks to be collected at each site.

Purpose: To monitor potential contamination from sampling techniques (equipment used or ambient conditions).

Recommended Frequency: For all the metals samples, one field blank at each sampling point for one day of the sampling episode.

Equipment Blanks

The analytical method being used for the analysis of me rcury (EPA Method 1631E) requires specially cleaned sample collection equipment. EPA Method 1669 details the cleaning method required for t ubing and other equipment. The suppliers of this equipment perform equipment blanks and provide a repo rt certifying the equipment as cleaned.

Purpose: To document adequate decontamination of sampling equipment before the use by the sampling crew.

Recommended Frequency: Once per lot of equipment cleaned. The equipment blank will be analyzed for metals.

Field Duplicates

Each site-specific sampling plan specif ies sample points for collection of field duplicates. ERG assists EPA in se lecting duplicate points based on information from each site and the goals of the project. EPA collects one dup licate sample for every ten samples collected at a sampling event, excluding field blank samples. For example, EPA anticipates collecting four samples from each sampling point selected at a pl ant; therefore, if EPA collects samples from two sample points at a plant (total of 8 sample s), only one duplicate sample will be collected. However, if EPA collects samples from three sample points at a plant (total of 12 samples), then two duplicate samples will be collected. The field blank samples associated with the sampling points are not included in the count of the to tal samples collected. Results of the duplicate analyses are used to evaluate precision, incl uding variability in sa mple collection, handling, preparation, and analysis.

Purpose: To evaluate total measurement precision and assess potential sources of data va riability, including sample collection, handling, preparation, and analysis.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 10 of 40

Recommended Frequency: One field duplicate sample for every 10 samples collected

at a site.

3.1.5.2 Analytical QC Measures

The following are the analytical QC measur es that are used for chemical analyses for the steam electric sampling program. Note that not all QC measures listed are required for all

methods.

Method Detection Limits

A MDL is defined as the minimum con centration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero. For metals analytical methods, laboratories are required to perform MDL studies for each instrument on which analyses will be performed and any time a modification is made that will

affect the MDL. Laboratories must demonstrate that they obtain a MDL value that is less than or equal to either (1) the MDL (if listed in the met hod), or (2) one-third the minimum level (ML, if listed in the method). Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 136 describes the EPA procedure used for establishing MDLs. This procedure requires the labor atory to analyze at le ast seven aliquots of a standard spiked at three to five times an esti mated MDL. The laboratory processes the aliquots through all of the steps of the analytical met hod, and calculates the MDL as approximately three

times the standard deviation of the mean for the analyses. The number of aliquots analyzed determines the multiplier of the standard deviation.

Aqueous Performance Standard

The laboratory prepares an aqueous performance sta ndard (ongoing precision and recovery (OPR)) sample by adding k nown amounts of the analytes of interest to a matrix with known characteristics. Reagent water will usually be used as the reference matrix. The standard is processed through all sample preparation and an alysis steps. Analyte re coveries are evaluated against method specific limits.

Purpose: To assess laboratory performance and to evaluate error sources in the laboratory.

Recommended Frequency: Once per sample set.

Calibration Check Standard

The laboratory performs a calibration ch eck standard by adding analytes of interest to a laboratory reagent blank. Analyte re coveries are evaluated using limits specified in the applicable method.

Purpose: To ensure that the instrument calibration remains in

control.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 11 of 40

Recommended Frequency: Every 10 analytical runs, or every 8 to 24 hours, as specified in the method.

ICP Interference Ch eck Samples (ICS)

The laboratory analyzes inductively c oupled plasma (ICP) interference check samples (also known as spectral in terference check samples) by anal yzing a solution of selected method analytes at known higher concentrations. An alyte recoveries should be with 20 percent

of the known value.

Purpose: To evaluate the proce dural routine fo r correcting known inter-element spectral interferences.

Recommended Frequency: At the beginning and end of each analytical sequence (for EPA Method 200.7). At the beginning of each analytical sequence (for EPA Method 200.8).

ICP Serial Dilution Analysis

The laboratory analyzes ICP serial dilu tions, which consists of reanalyzing a sample after performing a five-fold dilution.

Purpose: To determine whether significant physical or chemical interferences exist due to the sample matrix.

Recommended Frequency: Performed on all MS/MSD samples for EPA method 200.7 analyses.

Laboratory Blanks

The laboratory analyzes a laboratory blank, which consis ts of reagent water or

“clean matrix” material which does not contain the analytes of in terest or interfering compounds. EPA requires the laboratory to analyze a laborato ry blank so that any sample contamination originating at the laborat ory can be identified.

Purpose: To ensure that the an alysis system is free from

interferences and contamination.

Recommended Frequency: Per method and subcontract requirements, which specify either a per batch preparation frequency or an 8 to 12 hour per analysis frequency.

Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates

The laboratory must perform the MS/MSD analysis for all samples designated by EPA on the accompanying traffic reports. The MS/MSD test is used to assess method performance in the sample matrix. The MS a nd MSD samples are prepared and/or analyzedSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 12 of 40

exactly like the field sample. Th e laboratory attempts to produ ce analytical results where the recoveries are within criteria, and the OPR r ecoveries are within cr iteria. The ERG sampling team is responsible for collecting, labeling, a nd shipping the laboratory QC volumes. Laboratory QC volumes are collected as duplicate samples co llected immediately after the original sample aliquot. For metals analyses, EPA collects one QC sample volume (i.e., MS/MSD sample) for every ten samples collected at a sampling event, excluding field blank samples. For example, EPA anticipates collecting four samples from each sampling point selected at a plant; therefore, if EPA collects samples from two sample points at a plant (total of 8 samples), only one QC sample volume will be collected. However, if EPA collects samples from three sample points at a plant (total of 12 samples), then two QC sa mple volumes will be collected. The field blank samples associated with the sampling points are not included in the count of the total samples collected. For classicals analyses, EPA collect s one QC sample volume at the FGD effluent sample point at each episode.

Purpose: To assess matrix eff ects on analytical performance.

Recommended Frequency: For all the metals samples, one field blank at each sampling point for one day of the sample episode.

For classicals samples, one QC sample volume at the FGD effluent sample point each episode.

3.1.6 Element B.6 - Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance

ERG inspects all sampling and field test de vices prior to use to ensure that they are working properly. Section 2.6 of the generic sa mpling plan describes the field test equipment ERG expects to use during the sampling program. ERG follows the manufacturer’s instructions in operating this equipment.

ERG confirms that the laboratories selected to analyze samples have a comprehensive laboratory QA program in place that requires the laboratories perform preventive maintenance on all of their analytical equipment.

3.1.7 Element B.7 - Instrument/Equipm ent Calibration and Frequency

This section provides information on th e calibration procedures and preventive

maintenance to be conducted on all field and an alytical equipment used in the steam electric sampling program.

ERG confirms that laboratories selected to analyze samples are responsible for performing all required instrument calibrations . Instrument calibration procedures, including frequency specifications and maintenance requirem ents, are specified in the analytical methods. Whenever changes are made to a system or a method, the laboratory must ensure that its equipment is operating properly by performing the a ppropriate QC tests. Analytical instruments requiring calibration must be uniquely identified to allow proper asso ciation of calibration

records. To ensure that the calib ration standard is met, the labora tory must analyze test samplesSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 13 of 40

that are either certified as to purity, concentratio n, and authenticity, or prepared from materials of known purity and composition.

3.1.7.1 Field Equipment

To control sampling errors, the site-sp ecific sampling plans contain specifications for sampling equipment and instructions for use (e.g., peristaltic pumps, field meters, and test kits). Sampling crew chiefs are responsible for ensuring that all equipment is maintained in good working condition and that decontamination proc edures are properly followed. Prior to each sampling episode, ERG calibrates the field te st equipment following the manufacturer’s

instructions. All variations from the manufacturer’s instructions are fully documented in field logs.

The automatic sampling machines are rented. The rental company cleans the automatic sampling machines between uses using a household detergent. Prior to each rental, the rental company runs a set of diagnostic tests on the sampling machines and installs new internal tubing on the sampling pump. The sampling crew inst alls new tubing to be used for the sample collection and the sampling crew collects a field blank prior to the start of sampling during one day of the episode. Each automatic sampling mach ine is dedicated to a specific sampling point for the duration of the sampling episode.

3.1.7.2 Analytical Equipment

The laboratories selected to analyze sa mples are responsible for performing all required instrument calibrations. Instrument calibration procedures, including frequency specifications and maintenance requirements, are specified in the analyt ical methods. Whenever changes are made to a system or a method, the la boratory must ensure that their equipment is operating properly by performing the appropriate QC tests. These may include IPR or MDL studies. Analytical instruments requiring calibration must be unique ly identified to allow proper

association of ca libration records.

To ensure that the calibration standard is met, the laboratory must analyze test samples that are either certifie d as to purity, concentr ation, and authenticity, or prepared from materials of known purity and composition. ERG ve rifies that calibration measurements are performed and/or verified with calibrate d systems at the specified frequencies.

The laboratories must perform preventive maintenance on all of their analytical equipment. Equipment maintenance log books mu st contain records of equipment usage, maintenance, modifications, calibrations, and repairs.

3.1.8 Element B.8 - Inspection/Acceptance Cr iteria for Supplies and Consumables

Critical supplies and consumables are thos e that come in contact with samples. These include sample bottles, preservation chem icals, and sampling equipment. Sampling crew chiefs are responsible for the purchase of required materials a nd the inspection of materials upon receipt to ensure they are usable for this project (e.g., no observable breakage, evidence of tampering or contamination). With the exception of bottles for metals samples, discussed below,Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 14 of 40

ERG purchases all sample bottles from Envi ronmental Sampling Supply (ESS). Appendix G of this QAPP includes relevant information from ESS on the following:

 Sample bottle preparation/cleaning procedures;

 Sample bottle certification/quality control;

 Preservation chemical preparation; and

 Blank water specifications.

Sample bottles for metals are cleaned by a laboratory according to EPA Method 1669. The laboratory preparing the bottles and as sociated sample collection tubing provides bottle and equipment blanks that ERG uses to demonstrate that the s upplies have not been contaminated. The laboratory preserves the equipmen t using procedures that meet the criteria of

EPA Method 1669.

3.1.9 Element B.9 - Non-Direct Measurements

EPA’s steam electric sampling program is augmented and complemented by the following types of data generate d and provided by the plants:

 Process flow diagrams;

 Daily electricity generation data;

 Daily wastewater flow rates th rough the treatment systems;

 Coal type and rates of use (e.g., tons/day);

 Treatment chemical rates of use (e.g., L/min); and

 Sludge generation (tons/day).

ERG also obtains additional relevant information on treatment techniques specific to the particular waste stream being sampled, such as retention time through the system and design and operating characteristi cs. ERG develops site-specific data sheets for the engineering data to be collected during the sampling episode. Th e crew chief is responsible for using the data sheets and ensuring that the sp ecified data are collected.

3.1.10 Element B.10 - Data Management

Documentation, data reduc tion, data validation, and data reporting procedures for the steam electric project are followed during fi eld data collection opera tions as well as during laboratory analyses.

Documentation

Field documentation tools for this project include sample labels , field logs, traffic reports, and flow and process data recorded on st andard data collection sheets completed by the samplers. The sampling crew chief reviews all fi eld documentation and ensures that all records are legible and complete. During the sampling ep isode or shortly thereafter, EPA requests any needed operating data from the plant engineers. ERG confirms that all requested data are

collected. ERG handles all documentation related to sample tracking, sample analysis, data reporting, and data validation.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 15 of 40

Data Reduction

Each laboratory assigned to analyze wa stewater samples on this project ensures accurate and contract-compliant data prior to release of the data. The laboratory cross-references all of its data to appropriate trip blank, field blank, equipment bl ank, method blank, field duplicate, MS, and MSD. All dates pertinent to the project (e.g., dates on which each sample is collected, shipped, received by the laboratory, prep ared, and analyzed) are referenced to the appropriate analytical holding times.

The analytical laboratories and ERG each perform the analytical data reduction. The laboratories monitor data reduction using th e results produced for internal standards, surrogates, duplicates, and spikes.

The laboratories perform quantitation according to protocols specified in laboratory subcontracts in one of the following ways:

 By using the isotope dilution technique;

 By using the internal standard technique;

 By using the external standard technique;

 By using known response factor s specified in the methods;

 By comparing the instrument response to a built-in scale;

 By titration to a reaction-defined endpoint;

 By comparing instrument response from a treated sample to a calibration curve generated from known con centration standards instrument

responses; or

 By using the sum of extracted ion curre nt profile (EICP) areas relative to

the sum of EICP areas of the ne arest eluting internal standard.

Results are reported in micrograms per liter ( μ g/L) or in other units, as specified by the method or ERG subcontract. ERG monitors all specifications for all samples.

ERG controls analytical data reduction by cross checki ng the data received with the data in the final database (final database described in this secti on under Data Reporting). Each time a change is made to the computer pr ograms used for data re duction, ERG ensures that the change does not alter the final results.

ERG will perform quality control for data reduction and database development as outlined in ERG’s 2002 and 2013 QMPs (2a, 2b).

Data Validation

To efficiently validate the quality of anal ytical data received for this project, ERG requires the laboratories to submit a complete record of all analytical information associated with each sampling episode. The laboratories provide this information in a designated written and/orSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 16 of 40

electronic format. Written formats must include the use of specific data reporting forms, detailed narratives describing problems encountered during an alysis, and all associat ed QC and raw data.

ERG subjects all data to a multi-stage revi ew process to ensure that the data are properly formatted, complete, cont ract-compliant, and usable. The review process is based on the analytical data review checkli sts prepared for each analytical method used for the sampling program (see Section 5.1.1.1 for more details). ERG pe rforms this review to ensure data quality, to note deficiencies, and, where appropriate, to initiate corrective actions with the laboratories. Prompt initiation of corrective actions maximizes the amount of usable data generated from each sampling episode.

After an analytical data package has been reviewed and after all problems that can be corrected have been resolved, ERG prepares a written data review narrative. ERG submits the data review narratives, along with a hard-copy su mmary data package, to EPA. The purpose of the narrative is to document the samples and analyses that were reviewed, to summarize the criteria by which they were reviewed, to note a ny deficiencies in the da ta, and to provide the EPA WAM with recommendations concerning the data usability. ERG uses standard language to communicate problems and recommendations. Table 3-2 lists the potential data limitations and associated qualifiers that may be used in this program. Any data qualifiers are fully described in the final laboratory packages and in the data re view narratives. A listing of the specific data qualifiers included in the analytical database is included in Section 5.1.1.

Data Reporting

Upon completion of the data reduction a nd validation procedures for all samples and analytes included in a sampling episode on this project, ERG prepares a database that summarizes the analytical results. ERG follows ERG’s SOPs for Databa ses in developing the database (11, 12). EPA’s WAM reviewed ERG’s SOPs and determined they are acceptable for meeting the objectives of this project. To incr ease efficiency among data users, ERG uses a standard database format for all industry studi es. Table 3-3 shows the t ypical structure of the

database files and the source of data. The struct ure of the database files may be reviewed and changed as appropriate for this program. ERG co nfirms the accuracy of the database by spotchecking at least 10% of results th at were downloaded directly from the analytical instrument in the laboratories and by performing a 100% check of manually entered data. The analytical database is stored on ERG’s project se rver and shared with EPA as updated.

ERG retains all sample collection records in the files for this project. These records include site-specific sampling plans, field sampling log sheets, field data sheets, preservation log sheets, and traffi c report forms. Copies of these records are provided to EPA as requested.

ERG prepares a final SER for each steam electric power plant sampling episode. The report provides descriptions of the plant sampled, wastewater sources, wastewater treatment, sampling points and sample collection, and devi ations from the site-specific and generic sampling plans. The report also presents the in-field measurement data. The analytical results are

included in the record for the Steam Electric Powe r Generating Effluent Guid elines Rulemaking.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 17 of 40

Table 3-2. Data Quality Qualifiers for Sampling Program

Potential Data Limitations Associated Qualifiers

 OPR, MS/MSD, or surrogate recoveries below performance specifications.

 Sample results greater than five times but less than ten times

the blank result.

 GGA percent recovery below method-specified criteria.

 See correction blank recovery low.

 Holding time exceeded (for analytes subject to loss or degradation). Data are of acceptable quality but may reflect

minimum values.

 OPR, MS/MSD, or surrogate recoveries above performance specifications. Data are of acceptable quality but may reflect

maximum values.

 Sample result greater than upper end of the calibration range. Include the value corresponding to the upper limit of the calibration range in the database with a “>” sign.

 Sample result less than five times the blank result.

 Sample result greater than the MDL, but less than the RL. Include the value in the database as not detected at the adjusted method detection

limit.

 Holding time exceeded (for analyt es expected to fluctuate in concentration).

 Sample pH not at method requirements.

 Duplicate or MS/MSD relative pe rcent difference greater than specified limit.

 Instrument related QC exceeds the control limits.

 LSC or LCSD is outside of laboratory control limits.

 MS and/or MSD did not meet laboratory criteria, but sample concentration is four times greater than spike amount.

 Method of standard addition correlation coefficient below specified limit. Data provided represent the best obtainable

data.

 Grossly deficient quality control data. Exclude data from the database (with EPA WAM concurrence).

As directed by EPA, ERG will develop a sampling program database to analyze the analytical data. ERG follow ERG’s SOPs fo r Databases in developing the database (11,12). This database includes all the analytical data from the sampling program. These data and the database are added to the project file according to the Steam Electric Power Generating Project File Management Plan (10).

Information collected through the sampli ng episodes claimed as CBI by the steam electric facilities are handled according to the pr ocedures as outlined in ERG’s CBI security plan

entitled Security Plan for Handling Confidential Bu siness Information Under the Clean Water

Act , dated September 25, 2008 and approved by Ah mar Siddiqui, EPA’s Document Control Officer for this contract, on March 12, 2009, a nd it’s successor plan (5a, 5b). Only staff demonstrating their understanding of CBI handli ng procedures by passing a written test are permitted to access CBI on this project.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 18 of 40

Table 3-3. Typical Analytic al Database Structure

Field Description Field Name Field Length Source of Data Analyte Concentration AMOUNT 16 Laboratory Analyte Name ANALYTE 75 Laboratory CAS Registry Number CAS_NO 10 Laboratory Calculated Detection Limit MDL 8 Laboratory Calculated Reporting Limit RL 8 Laboratory Dilution Factor DILUTION 8 Laboratory Episode Number EPISODE 4 Upper right corner of traffic report Laboratory Name LABNAME 5 Laboratory Column or Extraction Type PROCEDURE 10 Laboratory Sample Number SAMPLE 5 Left column of traffic report Data Qualifier QUALIFIERS 11 Laboratory/ERG data review Reason for Qualification REASON 60 Laboratory Concentration Units UNITS 7 Laboratory Laboratory Method Used METHOD 12 Laboratory

3.2 Industry Self-Monitoring Program

This section provides detailed descripti ons of the methods ERG uses to support EPA for the industry self-monitoring program. All ten data generation and acquisition elements apply.

3.2.1 Element B.1 - Sampling Process Design

ERG is assisting EPA in designing and coordinating the indus try self-monitoring program. The industry self-monitoring program in cludes all the plants selected for the EPA sampling program, as well as severa l plants selected for specific operating characteristics. These specific operating characteristics include the operation of an in tegrated gasification combined cycle system, operation of a vapor compressi on evaporation system, and operation of carbon capture technology.

ERG is also supporting EPA in iden tifying the planned sampling approach, including sampling point selection; analyte selection; sample fr actions, bottle sets, and sample collection procedures; sample collection methodology; sample preservation, shipping, and analysis; field measurements and engineering data collection; sample labeling; traffic reports; and Quality Assurance/Quality Control that describes techniques to reduce sample contamination. ERG is supporting EPA in devel oping instructions for the sampling approach, which will be provided to the selected plants prior to the scheduled sampling event(s).

EPA is planning to have the plants that are selected for the EPA sampling program also participate in the industry self-monitoring program. These plants, referred to as “sampled plants,” are required to collect sample s from the same sampling points that are sampled during the EPA sampling episodes one day per month for four months. The other plants selected for the industry self-monitoring program, referred to as “non-sampled plants,” are required to collect samples from the selected sampling points for four consecutive days, similar to the EPA sampling program.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 19 of 40

The instructions clearly identify the sa mpling points and the corresponding list of analytes for each plant sampled. EPA has identif ied the following potential sampling points and analytes:

Selected Sampling Points: Selected Analytes: – FGD scrubber purge (i.e., influent to FGD wastewater treatment system) – Intermediate point of FGD

wastewater treatment system
– Effluent from FGD wastewater

treatment – Untreated gasification wastewater

streams – Distillate from evaporation systems – Untreated carbon capture wastewater – Treated carbon capture wastewater – Total metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, tin, titanium, vanadium, and zinc) – Classical parameters (biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), sulfate, chloride, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus, a nd total cyanide)

Also critical to this program is the collection of process information, including process wastewater flow rates, chemical ad ditions, and routine monitoring data. ERG is supporting EPA in identifying the a ppropriate engineering data to collect from each type of plant. ERG includes engineering data collecti on requirements in the in structions that are provided to the plants.

Modifications to Sampling Process Design . Site-specific conditions may result in modifications to the planned sampling methodology. For example, if samples collected from the influent to the FGD wastewater treatment syst em are still reacting (e .g., fizzing, bubbling) after sample collection, industry samplers may need to leave the bottles uncappe d until the reaction is complete. Industry samplers are required to take notes of any such modifications to the planned sampling methodology and provide the notes to EPA/ERG after the completion of sample

collection.

3.2.2 Element B.2 - Sampling Methods

Site-Specific Sampling Instructions . Prior to the plants collecting the samples, ERG prepares site-specific instructions for each plant that describe the specific sampling methodology for each sampling point. Each set of instructions contains the following

information:

 Name and location of site being sampled;

 Equipment required;

 Sampling points;

 Analytes and analytical methods;

 Quality assurance and quality control samples;

 Sampling procedures; andSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 20 of 40

 Sample packing and shipping procedur es (including analytical laboratory contact information).

As part of the industry self-monitori ng program, the individual responsible for directing or supervising the samp le collection and the engineering data submission is required to complete and sign a statement certifying that the samples were collected according to the instructions provided by EPA. Additionally, ERG and/or EPA are auditing the sample collection procedures during one of the sampling sets for a majority of the plants participating in the

program.

Methods for Identifying Upset Conditions Requiring Suspension of Sample

Collection . This sampling program is intended to characterize wastewater generation and treatment during normal plant operations. Therefore, site-specific instructions require the plants to notify EPA/ERG if there are upset conditions at the plant prior to or during sample collection. For example, if electricity generation units or wastewater treatment equipment go down during sample collection, the plant is instructed to cont act EPA or ERG. If the plants contact ERG to identify the upset condition, ERG discusses th e condition with the plant personnel and then contacts EPA to discuss the potential options fo r the sample collection. ERG, in consultation with EPA, considers plant personnel’s judgment as to whether a particular upset is within the plant’s normal range of operations, or whether th e sample collection should be postponed until a

later time.

Methods for Minimizing Sample Contamination . As part of this industry selfmonitoring program, the plants are required to collect the wastewater samples following EPA Method 1669 protocols, to minimize potential contamination and cross-contamination of samples. As part of the EPA Method 1669 protocols, all plant sampling staff are required to wear gloves at each sampling point to avoid cross-cont amination of samples. Samplers also use a new pair of gloves at each sampling point, each time they collect a gr ab or composite sample.

Sampling Equipment and Decontamination . Each plant selected for the industry self-monitoring program is responsible for obtai ning the necessary supp lies to collect the required wastewater samples. For equipment that comes in direct contact with the samples (e.g., sample bottles, tubing sets), the plants are requi red to obtain equipment th at has been certified clean according to EPA Method 166 9 standards. This equipment is dedicated to each sample point.

Other sampling equipment that the plan ts may use during the sample collection includes: pH indicator paper, pH probes, thermometers, chlo rine test kits, and sampling collection devices such as perist altic pumps or bottle dippers. ER G uses method specifications to identify for the plant the proper size and type of bottle to use for each sample.

ERG is supporting EPA in confirming that the proper sampling equipment and proper sampling techniques are used during the sample collection activities during the on-site audits performed at each of the plants selected to participate in th e industry self-monitoring

program.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 21 of 40

Engineering Data : Each plant is required to coll ect engineering information with regard to design and operation of the plant as part of the self-monitoring program. ERG is supporting EPA in identifying the specific informa tion that each plant should collect. ERG is responsible for ensuring that the plants provide the information required, such as coal usage, plant capacity, wastewater flow rates, sludge gene ration rates (if applicable ), and retention times in wastewater treatment process stages. Engine ering data collection sheets are completed for each plant sampled. This information is used to determine if the specif ic design or operating criteria of the steam electric operations affect the wastewater characteristics.

3.2.3 Element B.3 - Sample Handling and Custody

This section describes the procedures for sample handling and sample custody. ERG prepares site-specific instructions for each plant that will include proper sample handling in the field including:

 Sample collection;

 Sample preservation and shipping;

 Sample labeling;

 Sample set preparation; and

 Sample packing.

Sampling data EPA uses to support re gulatory development programs must be legally defensible. Therefore, the sample mu st be tracked from sample collection through analysis. ERG provides the plants with the info rmation that must be included on the sample labels, including the appropriate sampling episod e numbers and sample numbers. The plants are required to create the sample labels and place them on the sample bottles. In addition, the plants are required to document that the samples were collected as specified in the site-specific instructions and complete and sign a certification statement.

ERG provides the plants with template traffic reports to maintain a record of sample collection, sample transfer between pers onnel, sample shipment, and sample receipt by the laboratory. The plant sampling personnel complete the traffic re port for each cooler that is shipped to a laboratory. Each traffic re port contains the following information:

 Sampling episode number for each plant sampled;

 Number of containers of each sample in shipment;

 For each sample in the shipment:

 Sample number;

 Collection date and time;

 Preservation (yes or no) a nd pH after preservation;

 Sample description (environmental matrix);

 Analyses required;

 Shipment or airbill number;

 Date and method of shipment; and

 The name of the person shipping the samples.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 22 of 40

The plant personnel collecti ng the samples completes th e traffic reports, including referencing all applicable blank and QC samples, signing the traffi c reports, and noting the date and time of shipment. This individual also in spects the traffic reports for completeness and accuracy. Any person who makes changes to the form initials the changes made. The plant personnel retain one copy of the traffic report, two copies acco mpany the sample shipment, and one copy is sent to ERG.

ERG does not anticipate that any samples collected during this program will be shipped as dangerous goods. All samples collected during this projec t are expected to be shipped

under the exclusion allowed for transporting laboratory samp les in 40 CFR 261.4(d) and under the definition and exception in CFR 49 Part 173.134. For any samples that do not qualify for this exclusion, the plant personnel package and label samples for shipment in compliance with current U.S. Department of Transportation and International Air Transport Association dangerous goods regulations.

When the laboratory receives the samples, the laboratory sample custodian checks all bottles against the Tr affic Reports, records the condition of the samples, and signs, dates, and marks the time of receipt on the Traffic Reports . The laboratory sample custodian immediately reports any discrepancies or problems to ERG. ERG verifies the receipt and condition of all samples.

The laboratory must have a SOP for sa mple custody within the laboratory. The laboratory logs all samples into a sample rece ipt logbook or computerized laboratory information system and documents the following information:

 Date and time of sample receipt;

 Project number and name;

 Field sample number;

 Laboratory sample number;

 Sample matrix;

 Analytical parameters;

 Storage location; and

 Log-in person’s initials.

All information relevant to the samples is secu red at the end of each business day. All samples are stored in a designated storage re frigerator with restricted access.

ERG uses an electronic sample tracking system to track the last date samples associated with each episode were received at th e laboratory and the date of receipt of analytical

data from the laboratories.

3.2.4 Element B.4 - Analytical Methods

Table 3-4 identifies the analytes that are measured and the analytical methods that EPA uses for the industry self-mon itoring program. The site-specific instructions provided to the plants contain the specific list of analytical methods that will be used for that sampling episode. The site-specific instructions also identify the sample volume to be collected, the QC sampleSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 23 of 40

volume to be collected, the sample container type, and typical preservation required for each parameter. The additional volume collected for QC is used to perform matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) analyses and serial dilutions.

ERG uses information described above in combination with the site-specific sample conditions to select the proper sample volumes, bottle types, and preservation methods for each sample collected. Section 5.1 of this QAPP addresses the proce dures for laboratory and data quality review.

Table 3-4. Analytes and Analytical Methods Included in the Industry Self-Monitoring 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, ch romium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and vanadium EPA 200.8 with collision

cell Aluminum, barium, beryllium, boron, calcium, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, sodium, tin, titanium and

zinc EPA 200.7

3.2.5 Element B.5 - Sampling Quality Control

The industry self-monitoring program in cludes the collection of field quality control samples. Sampling QC activities are desi gned to measure or estimate the effect of sampling error such as contamination, matrix effects, and imprecision. The site-specific instructions specify the quantities and types of blank and duplicate samples to be collected during each episode. The analytical laboratorie s specify the actual quantity and types of laboratory QC samples that will be used; these requirements are specified “per sample set.” EPA defines a sample set as a group of not more th an 20 samples prepared at the same time on the same day during the same shift by the same anal yst. The following subsections describe the routine QC measures the laborat ories conduct and the types of blank and duplicate samples the sampling crew collect during the project.

For the industry self-monitoring program, ERG verifies that th e laboratories have the appropriate QA programs and data management programs in place and verifies that the laboratories performance is acceptable, as discussed in Section 3.1.5 of this QAPP.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 24 of 40

3.2.5.1 Field QC Measures

Field quality control samples for this project include field blank samples. Table 3- 1 presents a list of the field qua lity control samples, the analytes analyzed, the purpose, and the frequency. Note that not all analytical methods re quire all of the QC meas ures listed. The sitespecific instructions discuss coll ection of these samples in greater detail. This section describes the field blank samples that are collected for the sampling program.

Field Blanks

The plant sampling personnel collect field blanks for all sampling techniques used by the sampling staff and for special equipment used during the sample collection, such as cooling coils, tubing, etc. The field blank evalua tes potential contaminati on of the sample from either the equipment used or ambient conditions . To collect field blanks, the sampling personnel pour or pump ASTM Type 1 water through all equi pment used for the sample collection at the sampling location and into sample bottles. Multip le field blanks may be required if different sampling techniques are used or if ambient conditions are expected to vary from sample point to sample point. ERG assists EPA in selecting analyses for the field blank using requirements of the analytical methods. The laboratorie s analyze the field blank for th e specified analytes. The sitespecific instructions lists the field bl anks to be collected at each site.

Purpose: To monitor potential contamination from sampling techniques (equipment used or ambient conditions).

Recommended Frequency: For all the metals and mercury samples, one field blank at each sampling point for at le ast one set of the sampling episode.

3.2.5.2 Analytical QC Measures

ERG ensures that all the analytical QC measures described in Section 3.1.5.2 are also performed by the laboratory for the industry self-monitoring program.

3.2.6 Element B.6 - Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance

ERG confirms that the laboratories selected to analyze samples have a comprehensive laboratory QA program in place that requires the laboratories perform preventive maintenance on all of their analytical equipment.

3.2.7 Element B.7 - Instrument/Equipm ent Calibration and Frequency

ERG confirms that laboratories selected to analyze samples perform all required instrument calibration requirements, as de scribed in Section 3.1.7.2 of this QAPP.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 25 of 40

3.2.8 Element B.8 - Inspection/Acceptance Cr iteria for Supplies and Consumables

The individual plants are responsible to obtaining all the required supplies and consumables for the sample collection, including sample bottles, preservation chemicals, and sampling equipment. ERG includes the specifica tion for the equipment in the site-specific instructions that are provided to each plant. ER G also verifies during the on-site audits that the plants are using the appropriate supplies for sample collection.

3.2.9 Element B.9 - Non-Direct Measurements

The industry self-monitoring program is augmented and complemented by the same types of information as the EPA sampling program, which is described in Section 3.1.9 of this QAPP.

3.2.10 Element B.10 - Data Management

ERG uses the same documentation, data reduction, data validation, and data reporting procedures for the industry self-mon itoring program as the EPA sampling program,

which is described in Se ction 3.1.10 of this QAPP.

3.3 Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines

This section describes data ge neration and acquisition via the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Generating Effluent Guidelines , which is referred to as the “questionnaire” throughout the remainder of this section (s ee Appendix C for the final version of the questionnaire). This questionnair e task includes colle cting and reviewing data obtained from electric power generating plants; therefore, th is section discusses the following five elements:

 B.1: Sampling (data collection) process design;

 B.2: Sampling (data collection) methods;

 B.3: Sample (data) handling and custody;

 B.5: Quality control;

 B.9: Non-direct measurements; and

 B.10: Data management.

3.3.1 Element B.1 - Questionnaire Sampling (Data Collection) Process Design

EPA collected data from steam electric power generating plants regulated by the

steam electric ELGs codified at 40 CFR Part 423. Th e electronic questionnai re consists of nine parts. EPA distributed four vers ions of the questionnaire. EPA distributed one version of the questionnaire to all coal-fired power plants and distributed th e remaining versions of the questionnaire, discussed in Secti on 3.3.2, to a statistical subset ofcoal-, nuclear-, oil-, and gasfueled steam electric power plants. ERG provide d EPA with information about the entire steam electric population using existing data source s, including information from the DOE’s EIA

databases. EIA collects information on existi ng electric generating plants and associated equipment to evaluate the current status and potential trends in the industry. ERG used the

information available from the 2007 Elect ric Generator Report (Form EIA-860), andSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 26 of 40

supplemented it with information found in Fo rm EIA-923 and a survey conducted by EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER ), to create a listing of plants that have steam electric power generating activities believed to be subject to the existing Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines. EPA shared the initial list of r ecipients to industry

stakeholders and interested environmental or ganizations. EPA used feedback on the list to

correct inaccurate addresses as well as identify plants that were not included or plants that were no longer in operation. EPA’s statistics team used the information from the revised list to identify the sample population to receive the questionnaire.

In addition to engineering and othe r technical data, the questionnaire was designed to obtain financial and economic inform ation that will be used by EPA’s financial contractor for this rulemaking. At the reque st of EPA, ERG transferred all financial questionnaire sections to the economics contra ctor. Any financial info rmation designated CBI will be handled by ERG according to ERG’s CBI security plan entitled Security Plan for Handling Confidential Business Inform ation Under the Clean Water Act , dated September 25, 2008 and approved by Ahmar Siddiqui, EPA’s Docume nt Control Officer for this contract, on March 12, 2009, or its successor plan (5a, 5b).

ERG supported EPA in determining the tota l number of plants and identifying the subset populations to receive the questionnaire. ERG mailed an electronic MS Excel and PDF version of the questionnaire via CD to the selected plants. The information collected is aiding EPA in developing revised ELGs. See the Steam Electric ICR Supporting Statement (EPA-HQOW-2009-0819-0044 ) to identify the technical informa tion that EPA collected from steam electric plants.

3.3.2 Element B.2 - Questionnaire Samp ling (Data Collection) Methods

The questionnaire consists of nine part s and covers the following topics: general plant information, FGD systems, ash handling, wastewater treatment, process equipment cleaning wastes, landfill/pond operations, nuclear generating units, and economic/financial information. ERG assured the quality of the questions in these parts, except for the economical/financial data (to be reviewed by the economics contractor), by researching the industry and performing multiple re views of the responses. ERG assisted EPA in developing the questions using secondary data sources and inform ation from site visits conducted in support of EPA’s detailed study of the steam electric cate gory. Several EPA offices, states, environmental groups, industry, and trade associ ations reviewed draft versions of the questionnaire, and the questions were made publicly available for i ndustry comment. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also completed a thorough review of the questionnaire. EPA revised the questions based on all comments received to make sure they would capture the specific information that is required for this rulemaking.

The questionnaire (informa tion collection) was conducted under authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act (Federal Wa ter Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1318). All steam electric power generating plants th at received the questionnaire must respond to it. The questionnaire was mailed to steam elect ric plants identified by ERG through publicly available information. This plant list was revi ewed by the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) andSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 27 of 40

made available for public comment in order to en sure all plants covered by the steam electric ELGs were included and that appropriate plant addresses/cont acts were listed.

All responses must include a certifica tion statement signed by a responsible corporate official or his/her authorized re presentative. EPA ensures compliance with the information request by using a variety of means, including, as necessary, follow-up phone calls and letters, and appropriate sanctions, as pr ovided by law. ERG is supporting EPA with followup phone calls and letters.

Four versions of the questionnaire were delivered to the steam electric power plants in the industry. Respondents are required to answer only t hose parts applicable to their plant. EPA distributed the questionnaire versions to the following plants in each designated fuel

classification:

 Version 1 (Parts A through I): Coal-f ired power plants included in the statistical subset;

 Version 2 (Parts A through D, H, I): Co al-fired power plants not included in the statistical subset;

 Version 3 (Parts A through E, H, I): Oil-fired and combination power plants;

and

 Version 4 (Parts A, E, H, I): Ga s- and nuclear-fired power plants.

The four versions of the questionnaire were printed on individuals CDs at the EPA printing office. The CDs were clearly labeled w ith the title and version of the questionnaire.

ERG followed specific procedures to ensu re each facility receives the correct version of the questionnaire. ERG used the Mailout Quality Assura nce (QA) Checklist to document that the assembly of each mailout package is correct and complete. ERG also documented which package was sent to each plant. ERG used the Steam Electric Tracking Database to document questionnaire delivery. This database is also intended to aid ERG in keeping track of questionnaire re view, discussed in Section 3.3.4. QC activities associated with the mailout procedures include the following:

 Checking each printed mail ing label against the finalized mailing list and “checking off” the appropriate colu mn on the Mailout QA Checklist;

 Checking 10 percent of the CDs contai ning the questionnaire after receipt

from EPA to make sure that all of the files required for the version are present and readable;

 Assembling the mailout package, incl uding the questionnaire cover letter and enclosures, the appropriate questionnaire version, and mailing label, and “checking off” on the Mailout QA Checklist that all Plant IDs match on all mailout documents;Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 28 of 40

 Performing a second check that the assembled package includes the correct cover letter, en closures, questionnaire, and return label;

 Tracking all questionnaire deliverie s through Federal Express tracking mechanisms to confirm that the questionnaire was delivered and electronically transferring FedEx in formation into the Steam Electric Tracking Database;

 Tracking all returned questi onnaires to identify plants that did not respond or that provided incomplete responses; and

 Initial follow-up via phone and writ ten communications with plants providing incomplete responses.

ERG coordinated with EPA on further communication for non-responsive plants.

These communications included a series of late letters or follow-up cal ls/letters from EPA, requesting the completion and return of the su rvey or any further follow-up necessary for questionnaire review.

All plants have the option to identify the information or part of the information submitted as CBI. A “CBI” checkbox appears next to each question on the survey so that the plant has complete control over which questions will be handled as CBI. See Section 3.3.3, for handling procedures of completed questi onnaires, including those marked CBI.

3.3.3 Element B.3 - Questionnaire Samp le (Data) Handling and Custody

Completed questionnaires were mailed to ERG, where they were logged into the steam electric tracking database and transferred into the steam electric questionnaire database. See Section 3.3.6 for a discussion of the ques tionnaire database. Original completed questionnaires were logged into ERG’s Steam Elect ric Project File Index and stored as CBI in the electronic project file. EPA requested that all plants retu rn an electronic copy of the questionnaire. In order to ensure data quality, ERG did not change original responses of the questionnaire during review and follow-up. ERG created working copies to complete these changes. See Section 3.3.4 for further discussion of questionnaire receip t. Any paper copies received were stored and only used as a reference to the original data submitted by the plant. ERG’s standard controls for project-related da ta, documents, and record s are presented in the Steam Electric Power Generating Project File Management Plan (10).

3.3.4 Element B.5 - Questionnaire Quality Control

Helpline. ERG operated a steam electric questionnaire helpline to offer assistance to the plants responding to the questionnaire. Pl ant personnel were able to call in or e-mail specific questions regarding the questionnaire, receive guidance on how to respond, or receive technical assistance in using the electronic fo rmat. Helpline contact information was provided with the questionnaire instructions. ERG operated the helpline to ensure quality and completeness of questionnaire responses. ERG deve loped helpline guidelines so that informationSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 29 of 40

provided via the helpline was correct and consis tent. The helpline gui delines also provided

instructions for correc tly documenting any helpline communica tion with a plant. The helpline guidelines also included:

 Requirements for determining if a plant needs to complete a part or certain sections;

 Instructions/clarification on how to co mplete any part, section, question, or table;

 Checklists for all required information for block/water balance diagrams;

 Acceptable units of measure for specific questions; and

 A log of responses to all issues enco untered by plants during questionnaire completion.

Both a telephone line and e-mail helpline were provided for respondents to use to receive help in completing the questionnaire. Th e helpline log containe d two logs, one for the telephone helpline and one for th e e-mail helpline. Any phone or e-mail communications with facilities were documented in the helpline log. Each phone or e-mail message was represented by one line in the helpline log. Each message was identified by Plant ID, da te, time, and assisting helpline personnel. This helpline log assisted ERG in quickly searching past questions and responses while operating the helpline. The helplin e log also served as a template to develop a frequently asked questions (FAQ) document that was placed on EPA’s website and periodically updated to assist plants while completing the questionnaire. The final FAQ document is located in the public docket for the steam electric rulemaking.

Data Receipt. ERG used a procedure to ensure the proper handling and storage of questionnaire responses. This procedure helped ensure that all questionnaire responses were received, tracked, saved, and copied to ER G’s CBI network. The process ERG followed upon initial receipt of the questionnaires included:

1. Update the Survey Tracking table in the Survey Tracking database with the date ERG received the returned questionnaire.

2. Perform a completeness check according to the checklist (see Appendix F) to ensure that all applicable files are returned and completed.

3. Report to EPA the number of questi onnaire responses that have been received to date (weekly).

4. Create a working folder for each plant that has submitted a questionnaire response. Save a working copy of ques tionnaire responses and attachments in the working folder fo r questionnaire review.

5. Save all data review and follow-up documentation in the working folder for each plant.

6. Periodically deliver batches of the ec onomic and financial part (Part I) of the questionnaire to EPA’s financia l contractor, as questionnaires are

received.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 30 of 40

7. For each Part I delivered, extract raw data, including identifier information from Part A, for EPA’s financial co ntractor. Perform a QA review of 10 percent of the extracted raw data fo r each delivery and deliver according to CBI handling procedures.

8. Store the returned CD and any pa per documents in the ERG project archive as original files. These files will not be altered or changed, regardless of any issues fl agged during data review.

Data Review. ERG uses Data Review Guidelines (see Appendix E) to ensure the quality and completeness of the questionnaire responses. The data review guidelines include the data review procedure, the technical checklists, and the documentation re quired for questionnaire review and any resulting plant follow-up. Th e checklist includes electronic checks, reasonableness checks, and checks for technical content.

Electronic Checks

ERG performs electronic checks on each surv ey response to ensure that all data can be successfully extracted into the Questi onnaire Database. These el ectronic checks include the following:

 Confirming that original and copi ed tab names are named correctly;

 Clearing radio button responses as instru cted by plants in the survey part

comments 4 ;

 Identifying true zero responses (“0” ) and replacing those responses with the code “-555”;

 Identifying missing data 5 and replacing those fields with the code “-111”;

and

 Performing a check on modified files (i.e., electronic survey files that required modification to allow a resp ondent to provide information on all operations) to confirm that all fields and electronic mapping were correct

after the modifications.

Reasonableness and Technical Checks for Version 3 and 4 Survey Responses

ERG completes reasonableness and technical content checks for different sections of the survey based on the plant fuel type to pr ioritize the review of information received. These

reasonable and technical checks include:

 Confirming that any plants that “kicked out” of the survey truly are kick outs and do not need to provide respons es to the remaining survey parts;

4 The Steam Electric Survey contains several questions that have radio button response fields. Once a radio button is selected, the plants are unable to remove their response . In cases where the radio button was mistakenly selected, respondents used the comment fields to notify EPA that the radio button should be left blank.

5 In order to track missing data in the database, ERG uses the code “-111” to identify those responses that are left blank, but should have been completed based on other responses in the survey.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 31 of 40

 Confirming that responses to ques tions in different survey parts correspond to the responses provided in other survey parts (for example, the number of ponds reported in Part A matches the number of impoundments reported in Part D);

 Based on survey responses in Part A (general technical information and system operations), checking that the pl ant reported all requested data; and

 Confirming that responses for amount s, such as BTU generated by fuel type, are correct given the specified units in the survey.

For all Version 3 and 4 plants (non coal- or petroleum coke-f ired plants), ERG performs the completeness and electronic checks de scribed above. After these checks, all of the surveys are extracted into the technical data base. After extraction, ERG checks reasonableness and completeness for the Version 3 and 4 surveys using queries on the extracted data set. The specific reasonableness and technical checks fo r the Version 3 and 4 surveys include:

 Confirming that all kick out responses are accurate;

 Confirming that all Version 3 and 4 plants only report steam electric generating units burning fuel other than coal and/or petroleum coke; and

 Correctly identifying gas powered co mbined cycle units and making the appropriate corrections to the data to accurately represent the industry.

Reasonableness and Technical Checks for Version 1 and 2 Survey Responses

ERG performs the same completeness a nd electronic checks on the Version 1 and 2 survey responses as were completed for the Version 3 and 4 survey responses. However, because EPA’s proposed rulemaking focuses on wast e streams generated at coal- and petroleum coke-fired plants, particularly FGD wastewater , ash transport water, and combustion residual landfill leachate, ERG performs additional technical review checks and follow-up contacts for the Version 1 and 2 survey responses (i.e., coal- and petroleum c oke-fired plants).

For a maximum of 50 percent of the Version 1 and 2 survey responses, ERG performs a technical review focusing on wet FGD scrubber data and treatment (Part B, Sections 1, 4, 5, and 7), wet fly ash handling (Part C, Sections 2.1 through 2.5), wet bottom ash handling (Part C, Sections 3.1 through 3.5), and wastewat er treatment/impoundment systems (Part D, Sections 3.1 and 3.2). ERG identifies missing data , develops a list of follow-up questions, and delivers these questions to the de signated plant technical contact via telephone or e-mail. As plant responses are received, ERG updates the plant-level survey responses located in the plant working folders. ERG senior personnel perf orm second-level reviews on a minimum of 50 percent of these survey responses to confirm that all surveys ar e reviewed appropriately. These

second-level reviews include a review of the data reported in the survey and also all of the proposed changes identified by the first reviewer.

For a minimum of 50 percent of the Version 1 and 2 survey responses, ERG performs a more detailed review. For these surv ey responses, ERG reviews the entire survey for completeness, reasonableness, and technical cont ent. ERG performs follow-up calls and e-mails to obtain missing data or confirm specific data elements. As plant responses are received, ERGSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 32 of 40

updates the plant-level survey responses located in the plant working folders. The Version 1 and 2 responses that receive this mo re detailed review are selected based on the type of treatment systems operating at the plant (ide ntified from previous site vi sits) or are randomly selected. Similar to the other Version 1 and 2 reviews, ERG senior personnel perform a second-level review on a minimum of 50 percent of these su rvey responses to conf irm that surveys are reviewed appropriately.

Resolution of Technical Review Issues

Any outstanding issues noted on the tec hnical checklist are documented in the working file for each plant. Outstanding issues that require plant follow-up are documented according to the data review guidelines and saved in the working file for each plant. Every telephone call and e-mail contact with the plant is documented in the Follow-Up Questions tab in the technical checklist. If a plan t requests follow-up conversations in writing, ERG prepares and documents all follow-up letters and responses. On ce all issues are reso lved, ERG corrects the working copy of the questionnaire.

During the review and follow-up process, ERG makes changes to the working copy of the questionnaire. The first reviewer documents every potential change to the questionnaire that results from questionnaire review and plant follow-up in the Change Form tab

of the technical checklist. This documentation includes the question number, cell reference (in the MS Excel questionnaire), a comment explaini ng the change, the date changed, and the initials of the reviewer that changed the document. During the QA review , the second reviewer confirms these changes to ensure that they are complete and appropriate. Once the second review is complete, the first reviewer makes changes to the working copy of the questionnaire. ERG makes changes to the working copies of the questionnaire to minimize the amount of changes

made to the data once extracted into the data base. All technical check lists are saved in the working folders of each plant a nd are located in the confidentia l portion of the steam electric rulemaking record.

3.3.5 Element B.9 – Questionnaire Non-Direct Measurements

While preparing the questionnaire fo r mailout, ERG acquired, organized, and analyzed secondary data to ch aracterize plants for selection of the statistical subset. ERG compiled this secondary information into a samp le frame database that includes all plants potentially in the scope of this questionnaire. The sample frame database was developed using data reported to DOE’s EIA in 2007. ERG suppl emented the EIA data with primary data collected by EPA through site visits. Specifical ly, ERG reviewed 2007 data from Form EIA-860 to characterize plants based on the reported NAICS code, type of fuel used, and prime mover. ERG further reviewed data reported to Forms EIA-860 and EIA-923 to identify plant characteristics such as the number of units, ponds/impoundments, and landfills to the sample

frame database.

3.3.6 Element B.10 - Questionnaire Data Management

Based on industry feedback during public review of the Steam Electric ICR, ERG concluded that respondents are familiar and co mfortable with using an MS Excel electronicSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 33 of 40

information request tool (electronic questi onnaire). The electroni c questionnaire allows respondents to record their res ponses in a computer file and submit them to EPA on a CD.

Upon receipt of the CD, ERG follows pr ocedures outlined in the data review guidelines for handling the completed questionnai re, previously discusse d in Section 3.3.4. ERG reviews responses, completes any necessary follow -up with facilities, and finalizes outstanding documentation regarding plant review and follow-up. Following review and follow up, ERG transfers the data from the completed questionnai re to the MS AccessTM que stionnaire database.

ERG transfers all questionnaire response s (CBI and nonCBI) received into one questionnaire database. The questionnaire database as a whole is handled as CBI until such later time as a sanitization plan is made to create a nonCBI version for the public docket. The database is stored electronically on ERG’s CBI server. ERG is preparing a data element dictionary to

document the CBI and non-CBI database structure a nd to serve as a guide for database users.

In order to transfer responses into the questionnaire database, ERG uses a program that references mapped answer cells fr om the MS Excel versi on of the questionnaire and transfers them into specific locations/tables in the database . ERG maps every worksheet of the electronic questionnaire and thoroughly checks all mapped references in each worksheet.

ERG performs several small “test runs” that pull different parts of the questionnaire into the database. ER G performs these “test runs” until all data are entered into the database without error. ERG then pulls in a comp lete “mock-up” questionnaire to check that all mapping references and data correctly transfer in to the database. ERG checks the resultant test

database to ensure correct data transfer.

ERG also completes a 100 percent check of the transfer of data from the first questionnaire response received for each versio n of the questionnaire. ERG notifies the EPA

WAM of the results of the transf er. If mapping errors are detect ed (e.g., information is populated in the wrong fields or incorrect tables), ERG documents the error, corrects it, and continues to perform 100 percent checks on a dditional questionnaire responses unt il all data are transferred correctly. If data transfer errors are detected (e.g., data type mi smatch, incorrect file name), ERG documents the error, corrects it, and re -extracts the data from that file.

ERG developed the following aspects of th e data transfer program to efficiently

extract data and minimize back end work in the database.

Survey Review Table. The survey review table is a table in the database that includes a listing of all plant IDs and the status of their completeness check and

review. The table includes several fields that are utilized to document complete

and successful data transfer. The first fi eld, marked by the survey reviewer, flags the reviewed questionnaires that are ready for data extraction. After a successful data extraction, the program removes the flag that marks the questionnaire as ready and the date and time of transfer are recorded in another field. However, if

the data transfer is not su ccessful, the flag that marks the questionnaire as ready is not removed, and another flag is added indicating an error.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 34 of 40

Error Log. The error log is a table in the da tabase that automatically updates during data transfer. If a ny transfer errors occur (i .e., data type mismatch, incorrect file name), the error log popul ates the Plant ID, table name, and field

name where the error has occurred.

True Zero Values. Due to the nature of the questionnaire, all blank text and

numeric fields are stored as “0”. ERG de veloped a process to distinguish between the blank data and true zero values entered by the respondent. Because both

values are entered as zero into the data base, ERG developed the transfer program to import “0” and “-999.” In order to avoi d importing true zero values as “-999,” survey reviewers enter “-555” during tec hnical review. After data extraction is complete, blank fields show as “-999 ” and zero fields show as “-555.” The transfer program then automatically upda tes all “-555” values to zero. This process represents the actual data entered into th e questionnaire.

Blank Tables. There are certain aspects of the qu estionnaire that inevitably result in blank responses. These aspects incl ude skip patterns and tables where respondents only answer the number of ro ws applicable. In order to avoid a database full of blank data, ERG developed the program to skip these rows of

blank data. This results in a database populated with only the information from plants that have responded to a specific part, section, or subset of questions (depending on the skip patterns throughout the questionnaire).

To ensure that the database accurate ly reflects responses, ERG performs a 100 percent comparison of the information transferred into the database to information recorded in the MS Excel file, for the first 5 percent of responses. This comparison also checks that the survey review and error log tables accurately refl ect the results in the database. This QA review

includes checks that blank data are recorded as “-999”, true zero response s are recorded as zero in the database, and that blank rows/tables of in formation not required (e.g., due to skip patterns)

are not transferred in to the database.

Following technical review and follow- up of the questionnaire responses, ERG transfers data into the questionnaire database. ERG does not expect to ke y enter any data, as a

result of the electronic data tr ansfer. However, in the event an y data do require key entry, ERG performs a 20 percent check to ensure it ha s been accurately transcribed from hard copy.

Documentation for the questionnaire in cludes the questionnaire responses on CD or DVD, revisions or edits made by the res ponse reviewer in the working copy of the questionnaire, the completed questionnaire review checklist, and documentation of communications with steam electric plant contacts via the helpline or follow-up contacts. These documents, except for the original CD/DVD response, are stored in a working file specific to each plant on ERG’s CBI network. The original CD/DVD responses are st ored in the ERG CBI project archive. The questionna ire review task leader or his/her designe e inspects the questionnaire review documentation to ensure th at all records are legi ble and complete. ERG logs these records into the project file and c opies of these records are provided to EPA as requested. ERG’s standard controls for projec t-related data, documents, and records are presented in Section 5 of the 2002 and 2013 QMPs (2a, 2b).Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 35 of 40

ERG uses standardized practices for database queries ( 12) and database development (11) while executing the work de scribed in this plan. The SOPs present requirements for identification and control of diff erent versions of the database and its tables. These requirements include:

 Assigning a unique name and number to the revised version of any database tables where revisions have taken place and maintaining a log of

database table revisions.

 Assigning a unique name and number to versions of the database. Also, maintaining a log that identifies database revisions and describes the changes made to the different versions.

ERG uses data in the steam electric ques tionnaire database to perform specific analyses. ERG constructs database queries to perform these analyses, following SOP for database queries (12).

Information collected through the ques tionnaire claimed as CBI by the steam electric facilities is handled according to the pr ocedures as outlined in ERG’s CBI security plan

entitled Security Plan for Handling Confidential Bu siness Information Under the Clean Water

Act , dated September 25, 2008 and approved by Ah mar Siddiqui, EPA’s Document Control Officer for this contract, on March 12, 2009, and its successor plan (5a, 5b). Only staff demonstrating their understanding of CBI handli ng procedures by passing a written test are permitted to access CBI on this project.

3.4 Technology Option Costs and Pollutant Reductions

This section describes how ERG ensure s that appropriate methods for data collection, generation, and acquis ition are employed and documented to support the development of the industry profile, option costs, and estima tes of pollutant reductions and non-water quality impacts. In addition to collecting and review ing sampling and questionnaire data, described earlier, ERG collects and reviews secondary data , such as monitoring data and literature information, from a number of sources. Theref ore, this section disc usses the remaining two

elements:

 B.9: Non-direct measurements; and

 B.10: Data management.

3.4.1 B.9: Non-Direct Measurements

ERG uses secondary data to supplemen t the primary data collected for this rulemaking. These data, their intended use, and the decisions they support are described in Section 2.4 of this QAPP. Table 2-5 describes the acceptance criteria for using industry/vendor telephone queries as a source for estimating co st of treatment data. Sections 2.5.4, 2.5.4, and 2.5.5 describe the acceptance criteria for using s econdary data as a source for estimating costs and pollutant reductions for steam electric power plants.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 36 of 40

As EPA directs ERG to collect and/or analyze secondary data, ERG identifies possible data sources already in the project file, through a new literatu re search, and/or by contacting vendors and other researchers. ERG eval uates the collected data using the criteria listed in Table 2-5 and records the findings in a fo rmat appropriate for the data collection task (a memo, checklist, or other format). Data sources th at meet Table 2-5 quality criteria are used for the purposes outlined in Table 2-5.

A standardized telephone record form is used by ERG researchers collecting information by phone from other researchers, or the EPA regional or state environmental agencies. This form, provided as Figure 3-1, en sures each person collects and records complete information about the contact (e.g., person called, telephone number, date, subject, etc) in a

documented record that can be referred to during data analysis. ERG will conduct, as a minimum, a 10 percent review of all telephone records to ve rify the completeness of the collected information. Telephone record forms ar e submitted to the docket for the rulemaking.

The documentation of work presented to EPA identifies the sources of data, documents the assumptions made, and provides the equations and methods used for calculations to ensure the reproducibility of the work by qualif ied third parties. All project deliverables must meet EPA’s standards of transpar ency, objectivity, inte grity, and utility as specified in EPA’s Information Quality Guidelines (4).

Project No.: DISTRIBUTION

Page 1 of 1

Project Name:

TELEPHONE CALL

RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: Time:

Company Name: Contact Name:

Phone No.:

Name:

GENERAL SUBJECT :

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

Figure 3-1. Telephone Contact Report FormSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 37 of 40

3.4.2 B.10: Data Management

ERG’s standard controls for project- related data, documents, and records are presented in the Steam Electric Power Generating Project File Management Plan (10). Standard controls for project-related da ta, documents, and records are al so presented in Section 5 of ERG’s 2002 and 2013 QMPs (2a, 2b). This QMP pres ents detailed procedures that are used for managing any data collected for estimating t echnology option costs and pollutant reductions. ERG uses a database to keep track of all inform ation collected for determining cost estimates and the processes used to esti mate pollutant reductions.

Any secondary information claimed as CBI by the steam electric facilities or treatment vendors will be handled according to th e procedures outlined in ERG’s CBI security plan entitled Security Plan for Handling Confidential Business Information Under the Clean

Water Act , dated September 25, 2008 and approved by Ahmar Siddiqui, EPA’s Document Control Officer for this contract, on March 12, 2 009, and its successor plan (5a, 5b). Only staff demonstrating their understanding of CBI handli ng procedures by passing a written test are permitted to access CBI on this project.

In support of compliance cost and polluta nt reduction modeling analyses, ERG is developing an MS Access TM database and writing module c ode and queries to develop a national-scale compliance modeling tool for es timating the cost to comply with proposed regulatory options, as well as to estimate exp ected pollutant reductions and non-water quality impacts. ERG follows ERG’s SOPs for Database s in developing the database (11, 12). ERG is documenting the following elements of the comp liance cost and pollutant reduction modeling activities in a methodology report:

 Model description;

 Flow charts (if necessary);

 Database description;

 Data sources;

 Documentation of assumptions;

 Discussion of any boundary or limiting conditions;

 Documentation of default paramete r values and their sources; and

 Documentation of all equa tions (and sources, if applicable) used by the model to generate output.

ERG documents database code development and modifications for each version of the model. Specific documentation that is kept in th e project file for each version include:

 Any code modules or database querie s created to manipul ate data includes either inline programmer comments or is documented in a separate file describing the purpose and equations used in the query;

 A table is maintained (either in the database, as a tab in the spreadsheet, or as a separate file) that documents/tracks significant changes made to the model; andSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 38 of 40

 Errors identified and subsequent re solution are tracked either in the database, as a tab in the spreadsheet, or as a separate file.

ERG tests each version of the model prio r to delivery to EPA. Test cases are

created for each version of the model and consist of a pred etermined sequence of steps to be executed and the expected output or results. ER G establishes the specific test case criteria and testing sequences in consultation with the EP A WAM. ERG executes and documents the test

cases once the test case criteria are established.

3.5 Environmental Assessment Analysis

This section addresses how ERG ensure s that appropriate methods for data collection, generation, and acqui sition are employed and documen ted to support qualitative and quantitative environmental assessment analyses . Activities include co llecting and reviewing secondary data, such as monitoring data and lit erature information from a number of sources. Therefore, this section discu sses the remaining two elements:

 B.9: Non-direct measurements; and

 B.10: Data management.

Elements B.9 and B.10 are appropriate fo r collection and analysis of secondary data and are, therefore, appli cable for qualitative literature review activities and quantitative environmental modeling analyses ba sed on secondary data sources.

3.5.1 B.9: Non-Direct Measurements

ERG uses secondary data to supplement the primary data collected for this rulemaking. These data, their intended use, and the decisions they support are described in Section 2.4.7 of this QAPP. Sec tion 2.5.5 describes the acceptance criteria for using secondary data as a source for qualitative and quantitative e nvironmental assessment analyses to predict the environmental impacts from steam electric power plants.

As discussed in Section 2.4.7, ERG conducts a literature sear ch using publicly

available databases to document environmental impacts from steam electric discharges and to parameterize models for predicting changes in environmental impact s under varying technology option scenarios. ERG collects full bibliographi c information on all rele vant publications and

tracks the information in the steam electric enviro nmental assessment literature search database.

ERG prepares reports summarizing the re sults of the literature search and modeling results in formats directed by the EPA WAM. Formats could include annotated spreadsheets, designed to summari ze monitoring data provided in the cited references. ERG may also prepare technical memoranda , including tables of findings a nd bibliographic citations. The documentation of the work presented in these deliverables identifies the sources of data, assumptions made, and calculations used in thei r development with sufficient transparency to ensure the reproducibility of the work by qualified third parties. All project deliverables mustSection No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 39 of 40

meet EPA’s standards of transpar ency, objectivity, inte grity, and utility as specified in EPA’s Information Quality Guidelines (4).

3.5.2 B.10: Data Management

ERG’s standard controls for project- related data, documents, and records are presented in the Steam Electric Power Generating Project File Management Plan (10). Standard controls for project-related da ta, documents, and records are al so presented in Section 5 of ERG’s 2002 and 2013 QMPs (2a, 2b). This QMP pres ents detailed procedures that are used for managing any data collected for the envir onmental assessment analysis. ERG uses the

environmental assessment literature review data base to document, track, classify, and summarize the environmental impact information collected during the literature s earch. The steam electric

literature review database include s parallel columns to the steam project file database to allow information to be easily transferred between th e two tracking systems to avoid duplicating work.

In support of environmental modeling analyses, ERG is developing an MS

Access TM database and writing module code and queri es to develop a nati onal-scale screeninglevel environmental modeling tool for estimati ng receiving water concentrations and wildlife tissue values required to meet the project objec tives outlined in Section 2.5. ERG follows ERG’s SOPs for Databases in developi ng the database (11, 12). ERG documents the following elements of the screening-level water qua lity and wildlife environmenta l models in a methodology report

for the environmental assessment:

 Model description;

 Flow charts (if necessary);

 Database description;

 Data sources;

 Documentation of assumptions;

 Discussion of any boundary or limiting conditions;

 Documentation of default paramete r values and their sources; and

 Documentation of all equa tions (and sources, if applicable) used by the model to generate output.

ERG documents database code development and m odifications to code for each version of the model. Specific documentation that is kept for each version includes:

 Any code modules or database querie s created to manipulate data include either inline programmer comments or ar e documented in a separate file describing the purpose and equations used in the query;

 A table is maintained (either in the database, as a tab in the spreadsheet, or as a separate file) that documents/tracks significant changes made to the model; and

 Errors identified and subsequent re solution are tracked either in the database, as a tab in the spreadsheet, or as a separate file.Section No. 3

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 40 of 40

ERG tests each version of the model prio r to delivery to EPA. Test cases are

created for each version of the model and consist of a pred etermined sequence of steps to be executed and the expected output or results. ER G establishes the specific test case criteria and testing sequences in consultation with the EP A WAM. ERG executes and documents the test

cases once the test case criteria are established.Section No. 4

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 1 of 4

4.0 A SSESSMENT A ND O VERSIGHT E LEMENTS

This section describes the methods ERG uses to assess the quality of the work conducted for the Steam Electric Rulemaking and th at this QAPP is implemented as prescribed.

4.1 Element C.1: Assessments and Response Actions

This section describes the technical revi ew, audits, and corrective actions that are performed by ERG in support of the steam electric rulemaking to ensure the QAPP is implemented as approved.

4.1.1 Technical Support

All work conducted by ERG in support of the Steam Electric Rulemaking is subject to technical review. This review is conducted by Deb Bartram, ERG’s Program Manager for this contract, or Thomas Finseth, ERG’s Wo rk Assignment Manager. For sampling plans and SERs, the review is conducted by the applic able crew chief and ERG Work Assignment Manager. Review of project deliverables are docum ented in the project file. All deliverables are subsequently reviewed by EPA’s St eam Electric Rulemaking staff.

Betsy Bicknell will serve as the Project QA Coordinator. She uses the following tools to assess the implementation of QA/QC procedures on this project:

 Review of the QAPP (this document) for completeness and applicability.

 Audit of project files to ensure project staff have developed QC procedures, these procedures are use d, and that the deliverable review process is documented.

At any time or at the end of the proj ect or work assignment, the Contract QA Manager, Mary Willett, or her designee, may inspect the project QA files.

4.1.2 Industry Self-Monitor ing On-Site Audits

ERG supports EPA in auditing the sa mple collection conducted by industry personnel for some of the plants selected to participate in the self-monitoring program. ERG/EPA conducts these on-site audits to verify that the samples are collected in accordance with the site-specific instructions provided to each plant. ERG/EPA is auditing the “sampled plants” during the second month of the samp le collection because experienced industry representatives that participated in EPA’s samp ling episodes are scheduled to help the plants collect the samples during the fi rst month. ERG/EPA is auditing th e “non-sampled” plants during the first two days of the samp le collection period. Sampling pro cedure checklists are used to document the findings of the audits. Appendix H includes the sampling procedure checklists developed by ERG.Section No. 4

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 2 of 4

After the completion of each on-site audit, ERG prepares a memorandum describing the findings from the audit. These memoranda are provided to the EPA WAM, along

with recommendations for corrective actions.

4.1.3 Sampling and Analysis

At the completion of each sampling epis ode, the ERG crew chief or her designee

reviews records of field activities and evaluates the following elements:

 Overall level of organiza tion and professionalism;

 Compliance of all activities with the site-specific sampling plan and the Health and Safety Plan;

 Compliance with procedures outlined in this QAPP; and

 Completeness of field documentation (i .e., field logs, tr affic reports, and data collection sheets).

Any issues that are identified are co mmunicated to the ERG Work Assignment Manager and the Project QA Coordinator, who disc uss any deficiencies with the sampling team and identify any necessary corrective actions for future sampling. If any of these deficiencies may potentially affect the integrity of the samples being collected, the ERG Project QA Coordinator immediately informs the sampling team and EPA WAM, so that any corrective actions can be taken. The findings of this review are also summarized in the quality assurance updates provided to the EPA WAM (see Section 4.2).

4.1.4 Corrective Actions

The site-specific sampling plans guide all field activities conducted by the sampling crew during each sampling episode conducted under the Steam Electric Rulemaking sampling program. If deviations from the planne d sampling and sample preservation protocols are required, these deviations are first approved by the onsite EPA represen tative at the sampling episode and then described in the crew chief’s field notes. Deviations from standard sample preservation protocols are noted on the comment s ection of the traffic report. All field sampling

deviations are also described a nd explained in the site-specifi c SER along with a discussion of their potential impact on the sample results. If changes to establis hed sampling collection, packaging, or shipping protocols are deemed nece ssary, they are discussed with the plant and industry representatives, approved by the EPA representative, and documented in writing as part of the sampling plans where they are implemented.

The site-specific instructions prepared fo r each plant that is participating in the industry self-monitoring program guide the sampli ng activities conducted by the plant staff. If deviations from the planned sampling and sample preservation protocols ar e required, the plant notifies ERG to discuss the proposed deviations . ERG immediately notifies EPA of the proposed deviations to receive EPA approva l prior to directing the plant personnel on how to proceed with sample collection. The plant pers onnel are required to note all deviations in the sampling notesSection No. 4

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 3 of 4

and engineering data sheets that are provided to ERG after the completion of the monitoring

program.

ERG also supports EPA in conducting on- site audits at some of the plants participating in the industry self-monitoring program. Based on the results of the audits, ERG/EPA may direct the plants to deviate from standard sample collection procedures based on the specific layouts at the plants. All deviations are discussed with EPA and noted on the sample

note sheets.

ERG reviews all laboratory data gene rated from sampling episodes and the industry self-monitoring program for accuracy and precision, completeness, and comparability to ensure that the quality objectiv es and criteria discussed in Section 2.5 of this QAPP for these objectives have been met. Laboratory data valida tion procedures are provid ed in the analytical data review checklists. The data validation pr ocess encompasses five stages of review, as

follows:

 Data completeness evaluation;

 Instrument performance check;

 Laboratory performance check;

 Method/matrix performance check; and

 Data quality assessment.

Laboratory data that fail to meet the qua lity objectives and criteria are subject to corrective actions, such as reanalysis of the samples. ERG determines the corrective action required based on discussions with the analytical laboratory.

ERG reviews data generated from sa mpling episodes for precision of field duplicate results, sampling completeness, and representativeness. These analyses are documented in the site-specific sampling plan and SER.

4.2 Element C.2: Reports to Management

ERG describes QA activities conducted fo r major deliverables, such as summary memoranda, when such documents are delivered to EPA. These descriptions may be included in the document or in the transmittal email, as di rected by EPA. Additionally, ERG provides the EPA WAM with monthly reports on the status of quality assuran ce (QA) activities. These reports are incorporated into ERG’s monthly technical progress reports which are supplemented to include the following:

 Quality assurance activities performed during the reporting period as part of the implementation of the work assignment;

 Identification of any problems encountered;

 Identification of any deviat ions from the QAPP; and

 Identification of problem resolution and/or corrective act ions taken during the reporting pe riod, if any.Section No. 4

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 4 of 4

In addition, any quality defici encies detected by technical reviewers or the Project QA Coordinator are communicated, in writing, to the ERG WAM. Th e ERG WAM is responsible for ensuring that appropriate correc tive action is taken and reported to the Project QA Coordinator.Section No. 5

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 1 of 11

5.0 D ATA V ALIDATION AND U SABILITY E LEMENT

This section describes data review, veri fication, and validation. It also discusses

how validated data are evaluated to determine if they adequately answer the questions posed in Section 2.3.2 and meet the quality objectives stated in Section 2.5.

5.1 Elements D.1 and D.2: Data Review , Verification, and Validation; and

Validation Methods

This section discusses how ERG checks information collected during the site visit, sampling and analysis, and questionnaire portions of this proj ect to support EPA in assessing how they may be used.

5.1.1 Site Visits, Sampling, Industr y Monitoring, and Analysis

EPA, supported by ERG, is conducting an overall engineering assessment of the sampling and process data. This review consid ers the detected and non-detected pollutants, pollutant concentrations, laborator y quality control issues describe d in the data review narratives, traffic reports, method-specific information, and da ta variability in rela tion to the wastewater samples collected. Data are also reviewed to identify any calculation er rors. ERG reports these measures of quality to the EPA WAM.

This section discusses th e following elements that pe rtain to ERG’s review of results of laboratory analysis of samples co llected during the EPA/ERG sampling program and the industry self-monitoring program. The review covers the following elements:

 B.3: Sample handling and custody;

 B.4: Analytical methods;

 B.5: Quality control;

 B.6: Instrument/equipment tes ting, inspection, an d maintenance;

 B.7: Instrument/equipment cal ibration and frequency; and

 B.10: Project data management.

Laboratory reports of analyt ical results include: an analytical narrative discussing exceptions or QC irregularities, a list of the samples, the traffic reports for the samples, and method-specific information such as initial met hod calibration, continuing quality control results, other quality control measures, sample results, and raw instrument data. Table 5-1 outlines the plans for reviewing the packages received for the steam electric rulemaking project from the laboratories to ensure they are of sufficient quality for use in sampling program technical analyses.Section No. 5

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 2 of 11

Table 5-1. Data Package Detail Expected for Project Categories

Quality Review

Procedure Category 1 Projects Category 2 Projects Category 3 Projects Category 4 Projects

Screening Level Data

Review: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation    

Level 2 Data Review: Screening level review plus a review of sample QA/QC results   

Level 3 Data Review: Level 2 review plus

review of instrument performance  

Level 4 Data Review: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument output 

ERG uses standard review procedures and detailed method-speci fic checklists to review laboratory data packages. A detailed, me thod-specific checklist is completed for each sample set and provides specific information for i ndividual samples, as needed. For example, all samples analyzed by the laboratory for a single calibration in a valid sequence that includes calibration and sample results are reviewed. Each da ta review consists of the stages described in the following subsections.

EPA plans to use the analytical data fr om the sampling program to the maximum extent possible; however, the data need to be of the quality necessary to respond to the key questions in Section 2.3.2, as we ll as support the potential devel opment of ELGs for the industry. To ensure the quality of the analytical data us ed in support of this pr ogram is of sufficient quality, the following questions are answered:

1. Did the analytical laboratory document the sample receipt and receipt conditions properly?

2. Did the analytical laboratory follow the sample handling and preparation procedures specified in the method (e.g., holding times)?

3. Did the laboratory follow met hod-specific QC requirements (e.g., instrument performance and calibra tion, method blanks, recovery of labeled compounds)?

4. Should any data qualifiers be added to the analytical database prior to using the results in technical analyses?Section No. 5

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 3 of 11

5.1.1.1 Sample Handling and Custody

During the data review, ERG review s documentation of laboratory sample handling to determine if all method requirements ar e met. ERG developed data review checklists that comport with the analytical methods used for the project (see Appendix D for the methodspecific checklists). The checklists include item s pertaining to storage requirements and sample hold time requirements to verify the labor atory’s sample handling procedures and

documentation.

Sections A, B, C, and D of the revi ew checklists evaluate the common sample handling and custody requirements of all analyti cal methods. Sections A and B are fundamental to the identity and traceability of the sa mple. Additionally, Sections C and D include specifications for sample hold time and preparati on/extraction of samples. These sections are

described below:

 SECTION A: Data Package Contents and Sample Identifiers. Each sampling episode data package need s to identify samples and include

sufficient data for the data review to ensure the quality of the results can be determined. Items for this part of the check list include laboratory name, EPA project name, sampling epis ode number, sample identification number (SCC number), data review er signature, and date. The data reviewer performs an initial check to confirm that all the data required for the review are in the data package.

 SECTION B: Traffic reports . Traffic reports are the link between the field sampling information and the laboratory analysis. Traffic report forms are generated with every set of samples sent to a laboratory for analysis. The traffic report is the source of the data identifiers necessary to track the origin of the samples. ERG reviewers determine completeness of the sample receipt records, receipt date, sample identification numbers, sample receipt temperature, and condition.

 SECTION C: Sample Handling Information. Sample shipments received by a laboratory are checke d for proper container material, preservation, and hold time. The initial hold time check determines if samples were not held in the field past their expiration date making the analysis results invalid. Hold time prio r to extraction is determined from the day of collection to the day sa mples are processed by extraction. ERG reviewers determine if sample results are invalid due to improper preservation or excessive hol d time prior to extraction.

 SECTION D: Sample Preparation and Extract Handling Information

. Data reviewers determine if laboratories reported if samples were stored at the appropriate temperature as spec ified by the method. Data reviewers also check the validity of the analys is hold time to method requirements. The analysis hold time is measured from the time of preparation/extraction of the samples by the laboratory to the time of sample analysis.Section No. 5

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 4 of 11

5.1.1.2 Analytical Methods

The sampling plans list the analytical me thods that EPA is using during the steam electric rulemaking project. ERG determines if the laboratory followed all method-specified requirements and documents the findings in the method-sp ecific checklists.

Method-specific QC involves reviewing the primary instrument calibration and performance measures. At a minimum, these revi ews typically include verification of equipment calibration, blank prepara tion, spiking procedures, and assessm ent of field QA samples from the sampling episode. Classical parameters, such as total suspended solids (TSS), are measured following simple calibration, blank, and spike pr ocedures, and typically require only the minimum review components. Reviews for higher le vel instrumental techni ques, such as those used to measure toxic metals concentrations, t ypically involve evaluation of the response and recovery of unique and/or labeled analytes as a key indicator of method performance. Several methods also require laboratories to provide da ta on initial precision and accuracy to demonstrate their ability to perform the requested analysis on a sample in a “clean” matrix. ERG verifies that the laboratory followed all method-specific re quirements and documents the findings in the method-specific checklists.

5.1.1.3 Quality Control

EPA’s Office of Research and Develo pment (ORD) specifies project categories

based on the intended end use of the data collected 6 . This categorization is used to determine the level of review required, as discussed in Section 5.1.1.6. The following describes typical QC requirements:

 Category 1: Projects defined as a study to generate data used for enforcement activities, litigation, or some research projects involving human subjects. The QAPP for categor y 1 projects must address all

elements listed in EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project

Plans

. 7

 Category 2: Project defined as a study to ge nerate data used in support of the development of environmental regul ations or standards. The QAPP for category 2 must address all elements listed in EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans 8

.

 Category 3: An applied research project defined as a study to generate data to demonstrate the performance of accepted processes or technologies

under defined conditions. These studies are often pilot- or field-scale.

6 See http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/q a/guide/qadocsformsplanning.htm.

7 See EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (March 2001), available online at http://www.epa.gov/QUALITY/qs-docs/r5-final.pdf.

8 See EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (March 2001), available online at http://www.epa.gov/QUALITY/qs-docs/r5-final.pdf.Section No. 5

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 5 of 11

 Category 4: A basic research project define d as a study to generate data used to evaluate unproven theories, processes, or technologies. These

studies are often bench-scale.

QA/QC data supporting each of these categ ories is provided with different levels of detail. The steam electric pow er generating analytical data is classified as Category 2 data since EPA may use the data to develop regulatio ns or characterize the performance of various treatment technologies.

ERG documents information and data collected during the steam electric rulemaking project in SERs, which are used by EPA and ERG in conducting additional technical analyses. Prior to using the data in the SER and technical analyses, the analytical data received from the laboratories must undergo a QC revi ew to ensure the completeness, sensitivity, representativeness, precision, absence of sample contamination, accuracy, and comparability of the laboratory results.

For the data review, ERG reviews the laboratory data packages to ensure that proper laboratory quality control procedures were followed. ERG documents the results of the laboratory QC review in the method-specific ch ecklists and final data review summary. The primary objective of this data review is to assess whether the results from chemical analyses for sampling episodes are of the quality necessary for use in developing effluent guidelines for this industry.

5.1.1.4 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance

ERG reviews the laboratory data packages to determine if the laboratories used the appropriate equipment, preparation material, columns (if applicable), and detectors during the analysis of each sample.

The laboratories selected to analyze samples must perform preventive maintenance on all of their analytical equi pment. Equipment maintenance log books must contain records of equipment usage, maintena nce, modifications, calib rations, and repairs.

5.1.1.5 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency

The laboratories selected to analyze sa mples are responsible for performing all required instrument calibrations. Instrument calibration procedures, including frequency specifications and maintenance requirements, ar e specified in the an alytical methods. ERG

verifies that calibration measurem ents were performed and/or veri fied with calibrated systems at the specified frequencies by revi ewing the criteria listed in Sec tion E of the method-specific

checklists.

5.1.1.6 Analytical Data Review Results

For each sampling episode and each analyt e group (classicals, metals), the data package contains a standard electronic format including the chemical analysis results and a portable document format (PDF) file containi ng the supporting laboratory documentation (e.g.,Section No. 5

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 6 of 11

traffic reports, laboratory ch ecklists, instrument calibrati on information). ERG uses the electronic data package to conduc t the analytical data review, verification, and validation.

ERG documents the results of the analytical data re view using method-specific checklists and a data review summary for each sampling episode as follows:

 Method-specific checklists – ERG pr ovides a completed method-specific checklist for each sample number or range of sample numbers for each analyte; and

 Data review summary – ERG provides a data review summary for each analyte group, which summarizes th e results of the data review, verification, and validation. The data review summary also includes a discussion of any data qualifiers and the reason for the qualifier. The level

of detail for the data review summar ies is described further below.

The level of detail for the data quality review should also be based on a graded approach that varies according to the intended end use of the da ta. The amount and sophistication of data review should depend on the data available and the category of the project. In the case of the steam electric rulemaking project, ERG expect s that all data will undergo a Level 3 data review. If the data qualifiers fa il at any stage of the data re view, the reviewer may recommend not proceeding with the next stage of data revi ew. The levels of data review are summarized below. As shown in Table 6-1, the steam electri c project is a Category 2 project and Levels 1 through 3 are required. ERG starts with the Le vel 1 review and works through to Level 3.

 Level 1 – Perform Screening Re view of Sample Receipt and

Condition. This level of review is applicab le for data that are intended for screening purposes (e.g., determining th e presence or abse nce of a target or surrogate).

 Level 2 – Evaluate Sample Receip t and Condition Plus Basic QA/QC

Review. This level of review is appli cable to data that are used to characterize process performance and is used to determine if the data adequately represent the process. Ba sic QC at Level 2 includes findings about sample condition on receipt, stor age, stabilization, preparation and QC spiking requirements.

 Level 3 – Evaluate Instrument Performance and Ongoing QC. This level of review is applicable for data that are intended for use in regulatory development or complian ce certification. Level 3 re view includes review of the data for compliance with a ll sections of the method-specific

checklist except raw data review.

The data review summaries include a narrative summary and fi ndings of all areas where the QC does not meet the QAPP or met hod requirements. Each data review summarySection No. 5

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 7 of 11

describes QC results so EPA can determine how the data can be used for the steam electric rulemaking project, as descri bed in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.

Data review findings that indicate no ncompliance with method requirements (i.e.,

a check list “No” is indicated ) are supported by comments regard ing use of the data and the appropriate flag that should be entered into the corresponding data base. The following flags are used in the steam electric sampling program:

 * LCS or LCSD is outside of laboratory control limits;

 ^ ICV, CCV, ICB, CCB, ISA, ISB, CRI, CRA, DLCK or MRL standard: Instrument related QC exceeds the control limits;

 4 MS and/or MSD did not meet lab criteria, but sample concentration is four times greater than the matrix spike amount, so control limits are not applicable;

 B Compound was found in the blank and sample;

 D Lab duplicate RPD greater than method-specified criteria;

 E Sample analyzed outside holding time;

 F MS and/or MSD not within laboratory control limits.

 H Sample was prepped/analyzed beyond the specified holding time;

 J Result measured above the method detection limit, but below the report limit;

 L LFB (LCS) % recovery not with in method-specified criteria, but is within laboratory- specified criteria (L)

 ND Sample result less than 5x laboratory blank result;

 O OPR percent recovery outside method acceptance criteria;

 P Sample not preserved dir ectly following collection;

 R MS/MSD percent recovery outsi de method acceptance criteria;

 s Seed correction blank recovery low;

 T Receipt temperature above method requirements;

 U Result below the MDL; and

 Matrix PDS, MS/MSD failed recovery.

EPA reviews the data collected as part of the EPA sampling program against the data quality review criteria in Table 2- 1 to evaluate whether it is of sufficient quality for use in the rulemaking. Based on the review of the analy tical data, EPA makes data point-specific

determinations as to whether the data shoul d be included in the rulemaking analysis.

5.1.2 Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Po wer Generating Effluent Guidelines

ERG reviews the questionnaire database to ensure that data have been recorded, transferred, and processed correct ly; for example, by checking for transcription and calculation errors. ERG’s questionnaire data handling, custo dy, and review procedures ensure the quality and completeness of questionnaire respons es and are described in Section 3.3.

Section 3.3.6 describes ERG’s data manage ment procedures developed to verify transcription of questionnaire data. ERG uses pr ocedures appropriate to the data source andSection No. 5

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 8 of 11

transfer procedures to verify that data obtaine d from existing databases have been transcribed accurately. Specifically, any data transcribed from paper copies undergoes a 20 percent check to ensure it has been accurately entered. In order to ensure as little transcri ption error as possible, EPA requires plants to respond to the questionnai re electronically. Data are also reviewed to identify calculation errors. ERG resolves all transcription errors identified.

See Sections 2.5.2 and 3.3.4 for more information regarding checks that ERG uses to determine the internal consistency, completeness, and reasonableness of the questionnaire data as discussed in the Table 2-2 acceptance criteria, including ERG’s data review guidelines and technical review checklists. ERG reports thes e measures of quality to the EPA WAM.

5.1.3 Technology Option Costs and Pollutant Reductions

See Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.4 for more in formation regarding data acceptance criteria (Table 2-3) and quality specifications (Table 2-4) that ERG uses to assess cost data. ERG reports these measures of quality to the EPA WAM.

To ensure the accuracy of secondary data transmitted either through paper copy or electronically, ERG follows ERG’ s SOPs for Spreadsheets and Databases (11, 12, 14), including documenting all data sources used. ERG follows a ll data management procedures outlined in Element B.10, Data Management (Sections 3.1.1 0, 3.3.6, and 3.4.2 of this QAPP). To verify the accuracy of data entered from paper copy documen ts into electronic format, 10 percent of all paper copy data arecompared with the data in the database. If errors are detected, ERG documents and corrects the errors, and additiona l checks of paper copy data are performed.

For modeling tools developed by ERG in MS Access TM , ERG assigns a technical reviewer to review and verify module code and query code to check th e correctness and accuracy of the governing equations and to assure that the da tabase code is fully operational. ERG verifies the input files and changes to model input pa rameters are correct us ing ERG’s established technical review process as out lined in Section 4.1.1. Specifica lly, the model out puts receive

several reviews:

 A project engineer checks that the calculations reflect the planned methodologies

. Where the calculations and assumptions documentation do not agree, ERG determines if the do cumentation or calculations require

corrections and ensures the corrections are made.

 An engineer involved in the models development checks the accuracy of

the calculations in the models code/queries by performing hand calculations and comparing the result s to the model outputs. Where the

model and hand calculations result in a discrepancy, the model is corrected

and re-checked to ensure the correct calculations are being executed by the

model.

 An engineer provides independent tec hnical review of the model outputs. The outputs are checked to ensure the expected number of records (i.e., the number of known plants incurring costs/discharging). Specifically for the cost model, the engineer confirms that the individual cost elements sum to the calculated total for each category of costs presented in theSection No. 5

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 9 of 11

output (e.g., the sum of all individual capital cost elements equals the calculated total capital cost). The engineer also checks that the cost model output calculates the total annualized costs appropriately by calculating the plant-specific values in Excel and comparing them to annualized costs presented in the output.

 After each model run, an engineer anal yzes the specific model outputs for the expected changes based on industry profile changes or changes to the model equations and/or inputs. The e ngineer performs the following types

of checks:

o Confirms that plants removed fr om the industry profile no longer have compliance costs or pollutant loadings in all outputs (e.g., FGD biological treatment, fly ash, bottom ash);

o Confirms that plants identified as incurring compliance costs/discharging wastewater are included in all applicable cost and loadings outputs;

o Confirms that plants incurring compliance costs also have a calculated pollutant loadi ng, where appropriate; and

o Confirms that changes to models an d/or model inputs, such as flow rates, factors, or equations, resu lt in the expected change in the specific cost elements/loadings in the model outputs.

 The engineer notes issues or disc repancies and the model outputs are corrected. The engineer re-checks the new outputs for all issues identified.

 A senior engineer reviews the co sts and loadings by comparing the estimates for each plant and technology, and evaluating whether the trends in costs/loadings reflect the amount of wastewater treated or ash handled and the baseline waste management strategies.

ERG defines model calibration as the pr ocess of adjusting model parameters within physically defensible ranges until the re sulting predictions give the best possible or desired degree of fit to the observed data. ERG defines model verification as the comparison of predictions between a calibrated model and availa ble data that were not used in the model development and calibration. ERG uses cost data fo r specific plants to cali brate and verify model estimates are reasonable. EPA sought costs for pl ants through the Steam Electric Survey but obtained only limited or incomplete information. EPA also compares summary statistics for cost model outputs to survey responses for total capital, pur chased equipment, installation, buildings, and site preparation, as well as indirect costs su ch as engineering and c onstruction expenses. In certain cases, where cost data may be unavailab le from plants in operation, EPA relies on the cost data provided by the vendors. EPA comp ares the vendor data for consistency and

reasonableness.

5.1.4 Environmental Assessment Analysis

To ensure the accuracy of secondary data used in the environmental assessment analysis, ERG follows the same procedures outlined in Section 5.1.3. For modeling tools developed by ERG in MS Access TM , ERG assigns a technical revi ewer to review and verify module code and query code to check the correc tness and accuracy of the governing equations

and to assure that the database code is fully operational. ERG veri fies the input files and changesSection No. 5

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 10 of 11

to model input parameters are correct using ER G’s established technical review process as

outlined in Section 4.1.1.

ERG defines model calibration as the pr ocess of adjusting model parameters within physically defensible ranges until the re sulting predictions give the best possible or desired degree of fit to the observed data. ERG defines model verification as the comparison of predictions between a calibrated model and availa ble data that were not used in the model development and calibration. ERG uses available st ream monitoring data at select sites from secondary sources to calibrate and verify model estimates of receiving wa ter concentrations are

reasonable. ERG also evaluates the fish tissue co ncentrations calculated by the wildlife model, and sets calibration factors for the mercury fish tissue concentrations and subsequent human exposure doses from fish consumption.

5.2 Element D.3: Reconciliation with User Requirements

Completed questionnaires and sampling da ta are primary data sources that ERG uses to assist EPA in answering, at least in pa rt, each of the key quest ions posed in Section 2.3.2. Questionnaire responses provide detailed descriptions of plan t characteristics, manufacturing operations, wastewater generati on, pollutant presence, and treat ment technologies in use. Questionnaire data, in combination with other data sources such as sampling and secondary data, are used in a variety of calculations and anal yses throughout the rulemaking. All primary data calculations and analyses are thoroughly documented for the pr oject file in spreadsheets, databases, calculations, database programs and queries, and technical memoranda and documents. Only acceptable questionnaire data are used in calculations and analyses, and any data limitations or assumptions ar e clearly described to the user.

The data collected during the steam electr ic rulemaking can be used to answer the questions posed in Section 2.3.2 by clearly identifying the presence (concentrations of pollutants above the analytical method mini mum level) or non-presence (con centrations of pollutants below the analytical method detection le vel) of analytes in the sample d wastewater, and best available technologies to control wastewater generated in this industry. The samp ling data collected under the steam electric rulemaking project are consider ed sufficient for identifying best available technologies, because the plants chosen for the sample collection operate the state-of-the-art technologies, the samples are collected under the specified pr ocedures to minimize sample contamination, the analytical laboratory docum ent the sample receipt and receipt conditions properly, the analytical laborat ory follow the sample handling and preparation procedures specified in the method (e.g., sample hold times), the laboratory follows method-specific QC requirements (e.g., instrument performance and ca libration, method blanks, recovery of labeled compounds), and any data qualifiers are added to the analytical data base prior to us ing the results in technical analyses.

ERG clearly identifies the sources of secondary data collect ed in all project deliverables, as well as the limitations of the data. ERG thoroughly documents all calculations and analyses for the project file in spreadsheets , databases, calculations , database programs and queries, technical memoranda, and documents. On ly reviewed and accepted data are used in calculations and analyses, and any data limitations or assumptions are clearly described to theSection No. 5

Revision No. 4 Date: April 5, 2013 Page 11 of 11

user. Data produced or developed under this work assignment are reconciled with project goals during the technical review proce ss as described in Section 4.1.Section No. 6

Revision No. 2 Date: April 6, 2010 Page 1 of 2

6.0 R EFERENCES

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans QA/R-5 , EPA/240/B-01/003, Office of Environmental Information.

March 2001.

2. a. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Quality Management Pl an for Technical Support for the Strategy for National Cl ean Water Industrial Regulations

, June 2002.

b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Environmental Engineering Support for Clean Water Regulations Quality Management Plan , January 2013.

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans QA/R-2 , EPA/240/B-01/002, Office of Environmental

Information. 2001.

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Inte grity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency , EPA/260R-02-008, October 2002.

5. a. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Security Plan for Handling Confidential Business

Information Under the Clean Water Act . September 25, 2008.

b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Security Plan for Handling Confidential Business

Information Under the Clean Water Act . November 9, 2012.

6. Eastern Research Group, Inc., Standard Operating Procedure for Wastewater Sample Packing and Shipping , SOP No: ERG-CHA-007, 30 April 2007.

7. Eastern Research Group, Inc., Standard Operating Procedure for Wastewater Sample Preservation , SOP No: ERG-CHA-011, 30 April 2007.

8. Eastern Research Group, Inc., Draft Sta ndard Operating Procedure for Collection of Samples for Analysis of Lo w Level Metals by EPA Method 1669 , SOP No: ERG-CHA-016, 30 April 2007.

9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Method 1669: Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels . July 1996.

10. Eastern Research Group, Inc., Steam Electric Power Generating Project File Management Plan . September 25, 2009.

11. Eastern Research Group, Inc., Standard Operating Procedure for Databases: Developing, Documenting, and Evaluating Accuracy , SOP No.: ERG-CHA-003, Revision 1, 22 June 2006.Section No. 6

Revision No. 2 Date: April 6, 2010 Page 2 of 2

12. Eastern Research Group, Inc., Standard Operating Procedure for Database Queries: Developing, Documenting, and Evaluating Accuracy , SOP No.: ERGCHA-004, Revision 1, 22 June 2006.

13. Eastern Research Group, Inc., Standard Operating Procedure for Deliverable Review Sign-Off Sheets , SOP No: ERG-CHA-001, 10 December 2002.

14. Eastern Research Group, Inc., Standard Operating Procedure for Developing, Documenting, and Evaluating the Accuracy of Spreadsheet Data , SOP No: ERGCHA-002, December 10, 2002.Appendix A

LIST OF SITE VISIT OBJECTIVESA-1 

### List of Site Visit Objectives

EPA is interested in observing and documen ting all sources of wastewater generated
within the steam electric process, but is particularly interested in observing the following:

 Coal pile, wet ash handling, and air pollution controls ( e.g., FGD systems) and the
wastewaters generated by these processes.

 Wastewater treatment systems and final outfa ll/discharge points fr om the facility.

General

 At what points in the process does the f acility collect samples for compliance or
other monitoring? How are the samp les collected (e.g., grab samples vs.
composites)? What is the frequency of this sampling? How does the variability in
the wastewater at these points determine when and how the sampling is
performed?

 What type(s) of coal is used at the facil ity? What is the source (i.e., from which
mine or geographic area does it come)? Does the facility blend two or more
different types of coal together? If so, wh at percentage of each type of coal is

used? What are the characteristics of the coal (e.g., sulfur, ash, mercury, and other
metals content)?

Sampling Questions
The following questions apply for each of th e waste streams that are potential sampling
points:

 Where does the facility collect sample s of the waste stream? How does the
facility collect samples of the waste str eam? Are there any issues/problems with
collecting samples of the waste stream?

 Where is the best place to collect the sample? Consider what the waste stream
represents at the point of collection. Is the waste st ream segregated at the
collection point?

 Is the waste stream discharged continuously ? If not, are there certain times of
day/year that the stream is discharged ? If the waste stream is discharged
intermittently, can the facility control th e time of discharge for EPA to collect
samples?

 What is the best way to collect the sa mple? Peristaltic pump and tubing, bottle
dipper, have the facility install a temporary tap.

 What are the characteristics of the waste stream?

o pH

o Temperature

o Pressure

o Buffered solution

o Solids ContentA-2  What hazards are associated with colle cting a sample from the waste stream?

o Splash hazards

o Confined space

 When is a good time to sample represen tative operations? Are there outages
during certain times of the year? When are SCRs operating? Are there any times
of the year when the wastewater disc harges are uncharacteristic of typical
discharges?

Waste Stream Specific Questions
The following general questions apply to ea ch of the waste streams generated by the
steam electric process:

o What is the source of the wastewater?

o How is the wastewater treated prior to discharge?

o With which other process waste stre ams is the wastewater commingled?

o What is the frequency of the discharge (i.e., intermittent, regular/irregular,
or continuous).

o What is the typical flow rate for the waste stream?

o How is the flow rate for the waste stream monitored?

o What is the variability of the waste stream?

 How does the discharge frequency vary?

 How does the flow rate vary?

 How do the pollutant concentrations vary?

o What are the factors that impact the variability of the wastewater?

Source Water, Coal Pile, & Boilers

 Where does the facility collect its intake water? Are there other points where
process system influent waters may be sampled (e.g., following pretreatment)?

 Is there runoff generated from the coal pile (i.e., is it uncovered)? If so, where is
the coal pile runoff collected and has th e waste stream ever been sampled?

 If the plant uses pulveri zed coal, is there wastewater generated from the
pulverizers (e.g., wash water)?

 How frequently does the facility clean th e boilers? How often does the facility
generate chemical cleaning wastewaters?

 How frequently does the facility discha rge boiler blowdown? How is the boiler

blowdown controlled? What wastewater discharges are generated from the boiler
feedwater treatment system?

Air Pollution Control Wastes

 What type of fly ash handling system does the facility have? If it is a wet system,
how frequently does the sluicing occur? How much water is used for each
sluicing? Source of sluice wate r and degree of recycle?A-3  What type of bottom ash handling system does the facility have? If it is a wet
system, how frequently does the sluicing occur? How much water is used for
each sluicing? Source of sluice wa ter and degree of recycle?

 What type of FGD system does the facility have? What type of sorbent is used in
the system? Does the facility oxidize the FGD waste to produce gypsum? If so,
what type of washing is performed on the gypsum prior to sending it off-site, and

how are wastewaters from th e washing process handled?

 How is the FGD system operated? What parameters are used to control the
system? How are the parameters measured?

 Does the facility have a selective cataly tic reduction (SCR) system or a selective
non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) system? If so, what wastewater discharges are
directly associated with th e system? What wash waters are generated that may be
contaminated with pollutants a ssociated with the system?

 Does the facility have an advanced merc ury control system? If so, what type of
system? What wastewater discharges are directly associated with the system?

Cooling Water

 What type of cooling system does the facility use ( i.e., once-through or
recirculating)? What type of biocide does the facility use? How frequently does
the facility use the biocide for biofouli ng control? What biocide management
practices does the facility use? Does th e facility have a dechlorination system?
How variable are the facility’s chlorine di scharges from the cooling system? Data

recorded? Seasonal effects due to cha nging organic content of intake water?

Treatment Technology Questions

 Which waste streams are treated as segreg ated streams (i.e., treated as generated,
prior to commingling with other process wastewaters)? What type of treatment
system is used to treat the waste streams? What are the pollutant removals that
are achieved by the system?

 What type of end-of-pipe treatment syst em does the facility have? What waste
streams are treated by the system? What pe rcentage of the total system flow rate
and mass loading is contributed by each i ndividual waste stream? What are the
pollutant removals that are achieved by the system?Appendix B

GENERIC SAMPLING PLAN FOR COAL-FIRED STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS [FEBRUARY 24, 2010 VERSION]DRAFT 

# Generic Sampling and Analysis Plan for
Steam Electric Power Plants

Prepared for:



## U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Engineering and Analysis Division
Office of Water 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460

Prepared by:



### Eastern Research Group, Inc. 14555 Avion Parkway
Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151

February 24, 2010

EPA Contract No. 68-C-02-095 Work Assignment 7-29DRAFT i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 I NTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Objectives and Scope ............................................................................................ 1-2

1.3 Plant Selection ...................................................................................................... 1-3

2.0 S AMPLING P ROCEDURES .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Sampling Point Selection ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 FGD Scrubber Purge .............................................................................. 2-1

2.1.2 Mid-Point of FGD Wastewater Treatment ............................................. 2-3

2.1.3 Effluent from FGD Wast ewater Treatment ............................................ 2-3 2.2 Analyte Selection .................................................................................................. 2-4 2.3 Sample Fractions, Bottle Sets, and Sample Collection ......................................... 2-5 2.4 Sample Collection Methodology .......................................................................... 2-5 2.4.1 Composite Sample Collection ................................................................ 2-7 2.4.2 Grab Sample Collection ....................................................................... 2-13 2.4.2.1 Grab Sample Collection from Tap ....................................................... 2-13 2.4.2.2 Grab Sample Collection from Basin (or Tank) .................................... 2-18 2.5 Preservation, Shipping, and Analysis ................................................................. 2-21 2.6 Field Measurements and Engineering Data Collection ...................................... 2-22 2.7 Sample Labeling ................................................................................................. 2-23 2.8 Traffic Reports .................................................................................................... 2-24 2.9 Quality Assurance/Quality Control .................................................................... 2-24 2.10 Sample Splitting .................................................................................................. 2-26

3.0 S AMPLING A CTIVITIES ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Sampling Team Organization ............................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Pre-Sampling Preparation ..................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Field Sampling Activities ..................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Standard Logistics ................................................................................................. 3-3

3.4.1 Plant Contacts ......................................................................................... 3-3

3.4.2 EPA Contacts .......................................................................................... 3-3 3.4.3 Analytical Laboratories .......................................................................... 3-4

3.4.4 ERG Contacts ......................................................................................... 3-4 3.4.5 Freight Forwarders ................................................................................. 3-4

4.0 S AMPLE S HIPMENT .......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Sample Set Preparation ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Sample Packing ..................................................................................................... 4-2

5.0 R EFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 5-1DRAFT ii LIST OF TABLES

Page

2-1 Sample Collection at St eam Electric Plants ....................................................................... 2-27

2-3 Summary of Sample Container and Planned Preservation ................................................ 2-29

2-4 Sampling Point Field Measurements ................................................................................. 2-30DRAFT iii LIST OF FIGURES

Page

2-1 Sample Preservation Log Sheet ......................................................................................... 2-3 1

2-2 Field Sampling Log Sheet .................................................................................................. 2-32

2-3 Engineering Data Collection Sheet (Page 1 of 3) .............................................................. 2-33

2-4 Engineering Data Collection Sheet (Page 2 of 2) .............................................................. 2-34

2-5 Engineering Data Collection Sheet (Page 3 of 3) .............................................................. 2-35

2-6 Example SCC Traffic Report ............................................................................................. 2- 36DRAFT 1-1 

### 1.0 I NTRODUCTION

The Engineering and Analysis Divisi on (EAD) of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to conduc t a sampling program of up to seven steam

electric power plants to 1) obt ain wastewater characterization data and 2) obt ain wastewater

treatment technology performance data. EPA will use these data in combination with other

industry-supplied data to evaluate wastewater di scharges resulting from steam electric generating

plants and to evaluate technology options for the handling and trea tment of these wastewaters.

This “generic” sampling plan provides general sampling procedures and methods to be followed

when conducting sampling activities. Sampling will be performed eith er by EPA’s technical

contractor, Eastern Research Gr oup, Inc. (ERG) or by industry re presentatives. This document,

in combination with plant-specific sampling plans, is intended to serve as a guide to the field

sampling crew. The plan also provides a review mechanism for EPA personnel, and a source of

procedural information for plant personnel.

1.1 Background

During EPA’s recently completed detailed study of the steam electric industry,

EPA identified metals and certain other constituen ts present in the wastewater discharges from

steam electric power plants are c ontributing the majority of the t oxic loadings for the industry.

Additionally, EPA determined that one of the wa ste streams contributing the majority of these

toxic loadings are associated with wet flue ga s desulfurization (FGD) systems present at coalfired power plants.

This sampling and analysis plan (SAP) will focus on characterizing treatment

system discharges from coal-fired steam electric power plants. For a description of the steam

electric process and the wastewat ers generated during the operation of a coal-fired steam electric

power plant, see Chapters 3 and 4 of the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source

Category: Final Detailed Study Report [1].DRAFT 1-2 1.2 Objectives and Scope

EPA is preparing to collect and analy ze samples to characterize wastewater

streams generated at coal-fired steam electric power plants. This SAP describes the approach

EPA will use to collect and analyze samples to characterize untreated FGD scrubber purge and

treated FGD wastewater from the following t ypes of FGD wastewater treatment systems:

 Chemical precipitation: Physical/che mical precipitation for heavy metals removal using hydroxide or a combination of hydroxide and sulfide precipitation; and

 Biological: Biological treatment specifi cally designed for metals removal.

Generally, the analytical results colle cted during this sampling program will support EPA in answering the following key questions:

 What are the characteristics (i.e ., pollutants present, pollutant concentrations, flow rate/volume) of untreated FGD scrubber purge

wastewater?

 What is the performance (e.g., efflue nt pollutant concentrations) of technologies for the treatment of FGD scrubber purge wastewater?

 What are the average effluent concen trations for pollutants present in

treated FGD wastewater?

 What are the pollutant loadings a ssociated with discharges of FGD wastewater following treatment?

EPA will conduct one-day pre-sampling site visits at the plants selected for the

sampling program; however, if EPA previously visi ted the plant as part of the detailed study, a

site visit may not be necessary. The objectiv es of the pre-sampling site visits are to:

 Gather general information about the plant’s operations, including exisiting sampling data and results;

 Gather process-specific information;

 Gather information on polluti on prevention and wastewater treatment/operations;

 Gather plant-specific information to tailor sampling plans; and

 Select and evaluate pot ential sampling points.DRAFT 1-3 The sampling program will consist of four-day sampling episodes at up to seven

selected plants. The sampling will characterize the wastewaters generated by wet FGD scrubbers

and the treatment performance of the systems used to treat the FGD scrubber purge wastewaters.

EPA will also collect field quality control (QC) samples consisting of bottle blanks, field blanks,

equipment blanks, and duplicate samples, a nd laboratory QC samples used for matrix

spike/matrix spike duplicate analyses.

EPA’s sampling program will provide data to perform an engineering assessment

of the design, operation, and perf ormance of treatment systems at steam electric power plants.

Specifically, EPA will collect information regardi ng system design and day-to-day operation.

1.3 Plant Selection

EPA expects to select up to seven coal-f ired steam electric plants for wastewater sampling. EPA will base the plant selection on the process configur ations and characteristics of the plants. The following primary criteria will be used to select the plants for the sampling

program:

 Coal-fired power plant : EPA expects that all of the plants selected for the sampling program will be coal-fired pl ants because the waste streams of interest for the sampling program data objectives are associated with coalfired power plants.

 Wet FGD system : EPA will evaluate wastewaters generated from wet FGD systems and the treatment of thes e wastewaters. EPA will consider the following selection criteria regarding FGD systems:

o Type of FGD wastewater treatment system : The primary factor for selection is the type of wastewat er treatment system being operated

for the treatment of FGD wastewater . EPA plans to select plants operating the following types of wa stewater treatment systems:

 Chemical precipitation – EPA will sample up to five plants operating chemical precipitation systems.

 Biological – EPA will sample up to two plants operating biological systems that use an anaerobic/anoxic biological system specifically designed for the treatment of nitrates

and selenium.DRAFT 1-4 o Age of FGD wastewater treatment system : EPA does not intend to collect samples from a wastewater treatment system that has not reached steady state operation be cause the performance of the system may not be optimized. Generally, EPA plans to sample
FGD wastewater treatment systems that have been operating for at
least six months, or where data ha ve shown the system to be at steady state.

o Type of FGD system : EPA will consider the type of FGD system operated by the plant (e.g., lim estone forced oxidation, lime inhibited oxidation) when selecting plants for sampling. Although EPA may sample different types of FGD systems, the plants operating the types of FGD wast ewater treatment system of interest for the rulemaking are like ly to operate limestone forced oxidation systems. The limestone forced oxidation system has the capability of producing wallboard-grade gypsum, but it typically requires a purge stream that needs to be treated prior to discharge. Plants operating most other types of FGD systems either reuse the

FGD water stream or treat it in a settling pond (often commingled with other plant wastewaters, such as ash sluice water).

 NO

x controls : EPA will consider whether the plants operate a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system or a selective non- catalytic reduction (SNCR) system when selecting pl ants for sampling. Although these NO

x control systems do not generate a specific wastewater stream, their operation can impact the FGD wastew ater characteristics.

 Power load cycling : EPA will consider a plant’s load cycling (i.e., baseload, cycling, peaking). EPA expect s that most of the plants selected for sampling will be baseload plants; however, EPA will consider sampling a cycling plant. EPA does not believe that there are any coalfired peaking plants.

 Type of Coal: EPA will consider the type of coal that the plant burns. EPA plans to select plants that burn different types of coal. EPA expects to sample at least two different types of coal.

EPA will consider the following charact eristics as secondary factors to be considered in the selection of plants. Although th ese are not primary criter ia for plant selection, these characteristics may be used as a determining factor where warranted.

 Continuous versus batch operation of FGD wastewater treatment system (e.g., five days per week vers us seven days per week);DRAFT 1-5  Use of advanced mercury control system and configuration;

 Type of boiler;

 Age of boiler and FGD unit (i.e., time of last upgrade);

 Source of lime/limestone used in wet FGD system;

 Plant location; and

 Other plant conditions that may aff ect wastewater characteristics or sample collection, such as whether targ et waste streams are segregated or commingled.DRAFT 2-1 

### 2.0 S AMPLING 

### P ROCEDURES

This section discusses th e general sampling procedures to be followed during all

sampling activities. This section also provides th e necessary information to plan for the logistics

of potential sampling activities.

2.1 Sampling Point Selection

In general, EPA plans to collect representa tive samples at the influent and effluent

of the FGD wastewater treatment system that is operating und er steady-state conditions. In

addition, EPA may collect samples at a mid-point of the FGD treatment system (e.g., effluent

from chemical precipitation system prior to biol ogical treatment). EPA plans to collect 24-hour

composite samples at the mid-point and effluent sampling points and grab samples at the influent

sampling points of the wastewater treatment syst em. The proposed sampling points were selected

by EPA to answer the questions that are th e objective of the sampling program, which are

presented in Section 1.2. The specific sampli ng points and locations, samples, and list of

parameters selected for each plant will be desc ribed in the plant-specific sampling plans.

2.1.1 FGD Scrubber Purge

EPA plans to collect samples of untreat ed FGD scrubber purge wastewater. The

scrubber blowdown generated directly from the FGD system is expected to contain large

amounts of solids (i.e., calcium sulfite or calcium sulfate (gypsum)); therefore, EPA will collect

the FGD wastewater after initial solids removal, which represents the FGD scrubber purge waste

stream.

Many of the FGD wastewater treatment systems that EPA has observed thus far

contain a surge tank (or equalizati on tank) prior to the wastewater entering the treatment system.

For some of these treatm ent systems, FGD scrubber purge is the only waste stream that enters

the surge tank; however, for other systems, th e FGD scrubber purge may be combined with

recycle streams from the treatment system (e .g., filter backwash) within the surge tank. EPA

will collect the FGD scrubber purge from the following locations depending on the set up of the

influent to the FGD wastewater treatment system:DRAFT 2-2  No surge tank prior to treatment system: EPA will collect a sample of the FGD scrubber purge stream prior to it entering the fi rst-stage of the

treatment system;

 Surge tank with only FGD scrubber purge prior to treatment system: EPA will collect a sample of the FGD scr ubber purge either directly from the surge tank or from the effluent stream leaving the surge tank; and

 Surge tank with other recycle streams prior to treatment system: EPA will collect a sample of the FGD scrubber purge prior to it entering the surge

tank.

EPA will collect grab samples of th e FGD scrubber purge. Because of the

intermittent nature of the FGD scrubber purge waste stream, EPA anticipates working closely

with the plants to determine the expected dura tion and frequency of purging the FGD wastewater

to the treatment system. Based on this informa tion, EPA will determine when to collect the grab

samples.

EPA expects that the wastewater enteri ng the FGD treatment system will contain

high concentrations of certain pa rameters, including suspended a nd dissolved solids, chlorides,

sulfates, and various cations. The high solids co ntent of the samples may make it difficult to

filter the samples for the dissolved metals analyses ; therefore, EPA plans to allow the sample to

settle for one hour prior to running the sample through the filter.

Due to the high suspended solids content (on the order of 1-5 percent) of the

samples collected at the influent to the FGD wa stewater treatment syst em, EPA may analyze the

samples as bi-phasic samples. If the suspended solids content of the sample is greater than one

percent, then the laboratory will separate the aqueous portion of the sample from the solid

portion of the sample and analyze both for the an alyte of interest. In this instance, Group I

(chloride and sulfate only), Group II (ammonia as n itrogen, nitrate/nitrite as nitrogen, and total

phosphorus only), and total metals (including merc ury, but not hexavalent chromium because it

is filtered in the field during sample collection) samples will be analyzed as bi-phasic samples.

Group I (TSS and TDS only), Group II (COD only), BOD 5 , hexavalent chromium, and dissolved

metals (including mercury) samples will not be analyzed as bi-phasic samples. Scrubber purgeDRAFT 2-3 samples with less than one percent suspended so lids will not require bi -phasic separation and

analysis.

2.1.2 Intermediate Point of FGD Wastewater Treatment

EPA may collect samples at an interm ediate point of the FGD wastewater

treatment system. EPA expects to collect this samp le after some initial treatment steps that could

represent a wastewater treatment system of intere st for the program. For example, some plants

operate a chemical precipitation sy stem followed by a biological trea tment system. For this type

of treatment system, EPA may consider collec ting a sample after the chemical precipitation

system to represent the effec tiveness of the chemical precip itation portion of the system.

EPA expects that these samples will be coll ected either after a clarification step or

after a filtration system, and will be collected from the effluent stream leaving the particular

system before it enters the next stage of the treatment process. EPA will collect 24-hour

composite samples of the intermediate point of the FGD wastewater treatment system, preferably

using an automatic compositor.

EPA expects that the wastewater at an intermediate point in the FGD treatment

system will contain high concentrations of certain parameters, such as chlorides, sulfates, and

various cations. The suspended solids content of th e sample is expected to be lower than at the

influent; however, it may still be difficult to filter the samples for the dissolved metals analyses.

2.1.3 Effluent from FGD Wastewater Treatment

EPA plans to collect samples of the effl uent from the FGD wa stewater treatment

system. EPA expects to collect this sample fr om the waste stream that exits the wastewater

treatment system; however, if EPA is unable to co llect the sample from this location, then EPA

will select a point within the syst em to represent the effluent. For example, if the wastewater is

collected in an effluent tank pr ior to being transferred to addi tional treatment (e.g., an ash pond)

and a sample cannot be collected from the wastew ater piping leading to the additional treatment

system, then it may be necessary to collect an e ffluent sample directly from the effluent tank.DRAFT 2-4 EPA does not expect to collect the infl uent and effluent samples from the FGD

treatment system as “paired” samples because th e primary objective of the sampling program is

to collect effluent data to esta blish effluent limitations for the waste stream. Additionally, these

treatment systems can have long residence times and therefore, could ex tend the amount of time

required for EPA to be on site, which is a burde n for the plant and unnecessary to achieve the

sampling objectives.

EPA expects that the wastewater at the effluent from the FGD treatment system

will still contain high concentrations of certain parameters, such as chlorides, sulfates, and

various cations. The suspended solids content of the sample should be minimal (less than 0.01

percent) and should not present any issues for filtering the sample fo r dissolved metals analyses.

2.2 Analyte Selection

Analytes that will be included in this EPA/EAD sampling program include those

in the following classes of pollutants:

 Classicals:

— Biochemical oxygen demand, 5-day (BOD 5 ),

— Chemical oxygen demand (COD)

— Total suspended solids (TSS),

— Total dissolved solids (TDS),

— Sulfate,

— Chloride,

— Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN),

— Ammonia as nitrogen,

— Nitrate/nitrite as nitrogen,

— Total phosphorus,

— Total cyanide;

 Total metals:

— Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, tin, titanium, vanadium, and zinc.

 Dissolved metals

— Same parameters as listed for total metals, plus hexavalent

chromium.DRAFT 2-5 The analytes selected for analysis refl ect the current understanding of coal-fired

power plant FGD wastewaters, in cluding contributions from coal , scrubber sorb ents, treatment

chemicals, and other sources. Table 2-1 lists th e potential analytes for each sampling point and

Table 2-2 lists the analytical methods that will be used. In addition to these analytes, the

sampling crew will conduct field measurements at all sampling points (see Section 2.6). The

plant-specific sampling plans will specify the list of parameters and collection frequency for each

sampling point.

2.3 Sample Fractions, Bottle Sets, and Sample Collection

Samples are collected as a se ries of “fractions” or bottles designated for particular

analyses requiring the same preservation. A t ypical, comprehensive sample set consists of

sample fractions for all pollutant classes listed in Section 2.2. Note that some sample fractions

will be collected in the same sa mple bottle, such as Group I (TSS, TDS, sulfate, and chloride)

and Group II (ammonia as nitrogen, COD, nitrate/nitrite, TKN, a nd total phosphorus). Table 2-3

presents a summary of the parameters, bottle types, sample volume, and planned on-site

preservation requirements.

Sample containers and bottles will be purchased pre-cleaned and certified and will

not require rinsing with sample. The sample bo ttles for the metals analyses will be cleaned

according to EPA Method 1669.

2.4 Sample Collection Methodology

To characterize the various waste streams expected to be sampled during the

sampling program, the samplers may employ varying methods of sample collection depending

on the sampling point, pollutant parameters, and th e nature of the sample flow and composition

at each sampling point. This se ction provides a general descrip tion of the anticipated sample

collection techniques. Plant-specific sampling pl ans will contain detailed information regarding

specific sampling points and locations, sa mpling methodologies, and analytes.DRAFT 2-6 In general, samplers will work in team s of at least two to ensure that proper

sampling techniques are followed and adequate notes are taken at each sampling location.

Samplers will wear disposable gloves, Tyve k® suits, masks (when sampling for mercury by

EPA Method 1631E), steel-toed boots, and safety eyewear, and will observe precautions while

collecting samples, remaining awar e of his/her surroundings. Note that the use of masks is to

prevent contamination of the mercury samples and not for respiratory protection. The plantspecific sampling plans will identify any sampli ng points that require additional precautions.

Samplers will take care not to touch the insides of bottles or lids/caps during

sampling. Samples that require cooling to ≤ 6  C for preservation will be cooled immediately in

an ice-water bath to ≤ 6  C and then placed into coolers containing bagged ice to maintain a

sample temperature of ≤ 6  C throughout sample storage, shipment , and receipt at the analytical

laboratories.

Discharge practices vary from plant to pl ant and process to process. For example,

some processes may generate wastewater co ntinuously, while others may only generate

wastewater when parameters reach a certain predetermined threshold and require blowdown

from the process. Thus, the plant-specific sa mpling plan will outline the sample collection

methodology that EPA plans to implement at ea ch sampling point at a particular plant.

EPA will collect 24-hour composite samples at the intermediate point and effluent

of the FGD wastewater treatment system sampling points and grab samples at the influent

sampling point during the sampling episodes. Additionally, EPA will collect samples over four

consecutive 24-hour periods. Each sampling point will be collected each day; therefore, EPA

will collect four samples for each sampling point . ERG will follow protocols described in EPA

Method 1669 to collect metal sample fractions . All sampling equipment (e.g., tubing) and

sample bottles will be cleaned according to the procedures described in EPA Method 1669.

Samplers will use “clean hands / dirty hands” sa mple collection techniques when collecting

metal sample fractions, as described in EP A Method 1669. In addition to the differences

between collecting grab or composite samples, ERG will also use two different techniques to

collect samples from steam electric plants based on the location of the sampling point: collectionDRAFT 2-7 from a tank or basin and collection from a sample tap. Specific instructions for the potential

sampling techniques are described below.

2.4.1 Composite Sample Collection

The preferred approach for collecting the composite samples will use two

automatic compositors which will be programmed to collect individual sample volumes into two

large containers (e.g., two 20-liter HPDE containers). To collect sufficient sample volume, ERG

will calculate the total volume required for ERG sample collection as well as plant split sample

collection and also add additional volume for pu rging tubing and contingencies. The volume

will then be programmed to be collected in one-hour intervals during the 24-hour composite

period. Following the composite period, ERG will pour and/or pump-off the specific sample

volumes into the individual sample containers.

ERG will use one automatic compositor to collect sample volume for the metals

analyses and another automatic compositor to co llect sample volume for all classical analytes

(i.e., BOD 5 , Group I, and Group II).

ERG’s preferred approach is to collect sample volume from a basin (or tank),

where the composite samplers will be located outsi de, positioned near the edge of the basin. If

the collection point is a sample tap, the compos ite samplers may be outside, depending on the

location of the tap, and will be near wastewat er piping and equipment. ERG may have to

engineer a basin that draws a slip stream from a sample tap if the collection point is located at

pressurized piping. This basin would be level controlled and would draw volume continuously

into the basin, with the overflow entering the plan ts sumps. In this case, ERG would set up the

composite samplers to draw volume from the engineered basin. The field sampling personnel

will use care when setting up the sample poi nt to avoid any contamination from the

surroundings. The sampling equipment will consist of the following:

 Colorless, electronic-gr ade, non-nitrile gloves;

 Peristaltic pump (automatic compositor – battery powered);

 Large composite containers (e.g., 20-liter containers);

 Funnel;DRAFT 2-8  “Y” splitter;

 Teflon® tubing;

 Silicone tubing;

 0.45 um filter;

 Cleanbox;

 Tyvek® suits (for metals samples);

 Masks (for mercury samples); and

 Sample containers.

All metals sampling equipment will be specially-cleaned according to the

procedures described in EPA Method 1669. ER G will follow protocols described in EPA

Method 1669 to collect metal sample fractions. Two or more ERG samplers (“clean hands” and

“dirty hands”) will follow the pr otocols described in the steps be low to set up the sampling point,

collect the field blank samples, a nd collect wastewater samples. Th is section describes the set up

of the sample point and collection of the EPA samples 1

.

1. Samplers remove the bags containing th e gloves and HDPE plastic wrap from the coolers or storage containers in which th ey are packed. Samplers identify which coolers or boxes contain the double-bagge d composite contai ners, pre-cleaned tubing, blank water, and cleanbox.

2. Both samplers put on Tyvek® suits, mask s, and gloves. “Dirty hands” covers work surfaces (ground or table) with HDPE plastic wrap and places the doublebagged composite containers within easy access on the covered surface.

3. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of the cleanbox and “clean hands” opens the clear inner bag. “Clean hands” places the cleanbox at the point of sample collection. “Clean hands” opens the cl eanbox and secures it ope n with the clips

located inside the box.

4. “Dirty hands” opens up the peristaltic pump portion of the automatic compositor so the tubing can be added. “Dirty hands ” opens the outer bag containing a length of pre-cleaned Teflon® tubing attached to a 4-foot length of pre-cleaned silicone tubing, if sampling from a ba sin (or a length of pre-cl eaned silicone tubing if sampling from a sample tap). “Clean ha nds” takes the inner bag containing the tubing and moves it into th e cleanbox. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag and removes the tubing. “Clean hands” places a clean plastic bag over the end of the Teflon® and silicone tubing.

1 For the sample collection, EPA assumes that samples will be split with the plant (or the plant’s representative) and therefore, the sample set-up describes equipment needed fo r split samples. However, EPA is not responsible for the collection of the split samples collected by the plant and therefore, the collection of their samples is not described.DRAFT 2-9 5. “Dirty hands” threads the silicone tubing through the peristaltic pump portion of the automatic compositor.

6. Both samplers change gloves.

7. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of th e mercury and metals field blank water and the field blank composite container. “Clean hands ” opens the inner bag for the field blank water, unscrews the lid and places it in the inner bag. “Clean hands” then places the Teflon® end of the tubing into the blank water. “Clean hands” also opens the inner bag for th e field blank composite container and

loosens the lid. “Clean hands” holds th e silicone tubing with the plastic bag covering the end out of the cleanbox and ove r a bucket and “dirty hands” operates the pump to pump blank water through th e tubing. After the tubing has been purged with sufficient volume, “clean ha nds” holds the silicone tubing at the mouth of the field blank composite container and fills the composite container with enough field blank water for the colle ction of the total and dissolved mercury and metals field blank samples collected for the specific sampling point. “Dirty hands” stops the pump. “Clean hands” plac es the plastic bag over the end of the silicone tubing, replaces the lid on the fiel d blank composite container, places the silicone tubing back in the cleanbox, and closes the inner ba g on the field blank composite container. “Dirty hands” cl oses the outer bag of the field blank composite container.

8. Both samplers work together to move the sampling tubing, automatic compositor, and composite containers into position for the sample collection. Samplers will ensure that the tubing will stay in pl ace during the 24-hour sample collection period.

9. “Dirty hands” changes gloves.

10. “Clean hands” holds the e nd of the silicone tubing outside the cleanbox over a bucket, with the plastic bag still covering the end of the tubing . “Dirty hands” operates the pump to purge the tu bing for a minimu m of 2 minutes.

11. Samplers fill a 1-L jar for the field measur ements. The samplers will give the jar to another sampling team member to measure the temperature and pH.

12. “Dirty hands” programs the automatic co mpositor to collect the 20 liters of sample over a 24-hour time period in one- hour intervals (i.e., collect 800 mL of sample every hour). “Dirty hands” calib rates the compositor to ensure that 800 mL is being collected for each individual grab.

13. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of th e large composite container. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag and connects the silicone tubing to the port on the composite container, securing the connec tion with a cable tie. “Clean hands” closes the inner bag around the composite bottle, and “dirty hands” closes the outer bag.DRAFT 2-10 14. Samplers repeat steps 1-13 to set up the automatic compositor for the conventional analyses (skipping step 7). Samplers will use another composite container. The samplers will put the classi cals composite container in ice to keep the samples cold during compositing time period.

15. Samplers collect a total cyanide grab sa mple using a bottle dipper. NOTE: if sample collection is from a tap, the samplers will need a third tap to allow for the collection of total cyanide and field meas urements. The samplers will attach the bottle to the bottle dipper a nd dip the bottle directly into the tank or basin.

16. The samplers will collect field measurements and total cyanide samples every six hours during the compositing time period, which will result in a total of four total cyanide samples for each day of sampling. The four grab samples will be composited by the laboratory.

17. At the end of the sampling period, “dirty hands” stops each of the automatic compositors and opens the outer bag of each composite container. For each container, “clean hands” detaches the us ed tubing from the composite container and covers the port with a lid or small pl astic bag. Then samplers transport each of the composite containers, including the field blank composite container, to the pump–off area to pump off the sample s into the specified containers.

18. The samplers then repeat steps 1 through 17 to set up th e composite containers for the next day of sample collection.

After the composite samples have been collected, the sampling team then needs to

transfer the sample into the individual samp le containers. EPA will use a sample pump-off

approach to transfer the sample volume to indi vidual sample containers at the pump-off area.

For this sample pump-off procedure, the dissolved metals samples will be collected before the

total metals and classical samples to prevent cr oss-contamination within the tubing which could

lead to greater concentrations in the dissolved metals fractions.

Sample Pump–Off Procedure

19. Samplers remove the bags containing th e gloves and HDPE plastic wrap from the coolers or storage containers in which th ey are packed. Samplers identify which coolers or boxes contain the double-bagge d sample bottles, pre-cleaned tubing,

and cleanbox.

20. Both samplers put on Tyvek® suits and gloves. “Dirty hands” covers work surfaces with HDPE plastic wrap and pl aces the double-bagged sample bottles and pre-cleaned tubing within ea sy access on the covered surface.DRAFT 2-11 21. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of the cleanbox and “clean hands” opens the clear inner bag. “Clean hands” places the cleanbox at the point of sample collection. “Clean hands” opens the cl eanbox and secures it ope n with the clips

located inside the box.

22. “Dirty hands” opens the opening on the peri staltic pump head so the tubing can be placed in the pump head. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag containing a length of pre-cleaned Teflon® tubing connected to a length of pre-cleaned silicone tubing, a “Y” splitter, and two additional pi eces of silicone t ubing. “Clean hands” moves the tubing into the cleanbox and opens the inner bag and removes the tubing. “Clean hands” places a clean plas tic bag over the end of the Teflon® and silicone tubing.

23. “Dirty hands” threads the silicone tu bing into the peristaltic pump head.

24. Both samplers change gloves.

25. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of the field blank composite container and total metals field blank sample bottle. “Clean hands” removes the total metals field blank sample bottle and places it in the cl eanbox. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag of the field blank composite containe r. “Clean hands” removes the lid from the field blank composite container and places the end of the Teflon® tubing in

the blank water. “Clean hands” holds th e end of the silicone tubing outside the cleanbox over a bucket, with the plastic bag still cove ring the end of the tubing and “dirty hands” operates the pump to pump about 750 mL of blank water from the field blank composite container. “Clean hands” places the end of the silicone tubing in the cleanbox, opens the inner bag of the total metals field blank sample bottle, and removes the lid. “Dirty hands ” operates the pump to collect the total metals field blank sample. “Dirty hands ” stops the pump. “Clean hands” closes the lid on the sample bottle and closes the inner bag. “Clean hands” places the inner bag and bottle in the outer bag and “dirty hands” closes the outer bag. The samplers repeat this procedure for the remaining total metals field blank samples (i.e., total metals and total mercury field blank samples).

26. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of a capsule filter. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag and removes the capsule filter. “Clean hands” attaches the capsule filter to the silicone tubing just before the “Y” splitter.

27. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of th e dissolved metals field blank sample

bottle. “Clean hands” rem oves the dissolved metals field blank sample bottle and places it in the cleanbox. “Clean hands” holds the end of the silicone tubing outside the cleanbox over a bucket, with th e plastic bag still covering the end of the tubing and “dirty hands” operates th e pump to pump about 750 mL of blank water from the field blank composite cont ainer. “Clean hands” places the end of the silicone tubing in the cleanbox, opens the inner bag of the dissolved metals field blank sample bottle, and removes the lid. “Dirty hands” operates the pumpDRAFT 2-12 to collect the dissolved metals field bl ank sample. “Dirty hands” stops the pump. “Clean hands” closes the lid on the sample bottle and closes the inner bag. “Clean hands” places the inner bag and bottle in the outer bag and “dirty hands” closes the outer bag. The samplers repeat this procedure for the remaining dissolved metals field blank samples (i.e., dissolve d metals and hexavalent chromium field blank samples) 2 . “Clean hands” closes the inner bag of the field blank composite container and “dirty hands” closes the outer bag. Note: 750 mL of blank water does not need to be purged for each sample, just at the beginning of each new filter. If a new filter is needed, “clean hands” removes the used filter and samplers follow step 25 to replace the filter.

28. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of the large composite container for the metals samples and “clean hands” opens the inne r bag. “Clean hands” transfers the Teflon® tubing from the field blank com posite container to the metals sample composite container. “Clean hands” holds the end of the silicone tubing outside the cleanbox over a bucket, with the plas tic bag still coveri ng the end of the tubing and “dirty hands” operates the pump to pump about one liter of sample through the tubing and filter. “Dirty hands” stops the pump.

29. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of the dissolved metals sample bottle. “Clean hands” removes the inner bag and bottle and places it in the cleanbox. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag and removes th e lid. “Dirty hand s” operates the pump to collect the dissolved metals sample. “Dirty hands” stops the pump. “Clean hands” closes the lid on the sample bottle and closes the inner bag. “Clean hands” places the inner bag and bottle in the outer bag and “dirty hands” closes the outer bag. The samplers repeat this procedure for the dissolved metals and hexavalent chromium samples. During one day of the sampling episode, the samplers will collect additional sample volume for th e duplicate samples and laboratory QC analyses.

30. “Clean hands” removes the capsule filter from the sample tubing configuration and reconnects the two pieces of tubing together.

31. “Clean hands” holds the silicone tubi ng outside the cleanbox over a bucket, with the plastic bag covering the end of th e tubing. “Dirty hands” pumps about one liter of sample through the tubing. “Dirty hands” stops the pump. “Clean hands” places the end of the silicone tubing back in the cleanbox.

32. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of th e total mercury sample bottle. “Clean hands” removes the inner bag and bottle and places it in the cleanbox. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag and removes th e lid. “Dirty hand s” operates the pump to collect the total mercury sample. “D irty hands” stops the pump. “Clean

2 ERG only plans to collect field blan k samples at each sampling point for one day of sampling ep isode. ERG will collect the dissolved mercury sample using the same technique as the total mercury sample, but the dissolved sample will be filtered at the laboratory. A dissolved mercury field blank will be performed by the laboratory to assess any mercury contamination from the filtering performed at the laboratory. Therefore, ERG does not need to collect a dissolved mercury field blank sample in the field.DRAFT 2-13 hands” closes the lid on the sample bottle and closes the inner bag. “Clean hands” places the inner bag and bottle in the outer bag and “dirty hands” closes the outer bag. The samplers repeat this procedur e for the dissolved mercury and total metals samples. During one day of the sa mpling episode, the samplers will collect additional sample volume for the duplicate samples and laboratory QC analyses.

33. “Dirty hands” places an ERG label on the outer bags of the sample bottles.

34. “Dirty hands” shakes the large composite containers for the classical analytes to mix the sample. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag for the composite container. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag and transfers the Teflon® tubing from the metals composite container to the compos ite container for the classical analytes.

35. “Clean hands” holds the silicone tubi ng outside the cleanbox over a bucket, with the plastic bag covering the end of th e tubing. “Dirty hands” pumps about one liter of sample through the tubing. “Dirty hands” stops the pump.

36. Both samplers collect the BOD 5 , Group I, and Group II samples. During one day of the sampling episode, the samplers will collect additional sample volume for the duplicate samples and laboratory QC analyses.

2.4.2 Grab Sample Collection

ERG will collect the grab samples from the FGD scrubber purge, which is

expected to contain a significan t amount of suspended solids. ER G will collect samples directly

into individual sample containers for all samples that are not required to be filtered in the field.

For the samples that will to be filtered in the field, ERG will collect a large volume of sample

into a large container (e.g., 10- L HDPE container) and then pump off the specific sample

volumes into the individual sample containers.

The grab sample collection technique can vary significantly depending on the

specific sampling point location (e .g., collection from a basin (or tank) compared to collection

from a sample tap. The following two subsectio ns describe the specifi c collection techniques

that will be used to collect grab sample s from the differing sampling point locations.

2.4.2.1 Grab Sample Collection from Tap

For grab samples that are collected from a sample tap, ERG will set up the

sampling equipment near the sample tap that re presents the FGD scrubber purge sample. TheDRAFT 2-14 field sampling personnel will use care when setting up the sample point to avoid any

contamination from the surroundings. The sampling equipment will consist of the following:

 Colorless, electronic-gr ade, non-nitrile gloves;

 Silicone tubing with “Y” splitter;

 10-L containers;

 Teflon® tubing;

 Silicone tubing;

 0.45 um filter;

 Funnel;

 Peristaltic pump;

 Small table;

 Cleanbox;

 Tyvek® suits (for metals samples);

 Masks (for mercury samples); and

 Sample containers.

All metals sampling equipment will be specially-cleaned according to the

procedures described in EPA Method 1669. ER G will follow protocols described in EPA

Method 1669 to collect metal sample fractions. Two or more ERG samplers (“clean hands” and

“dirty hands”) will follow the pr otocols described in the steps be low to set up the sampling point,

collect the field blank samples, a nd collect wastewater samples. Th is section describes the set up

of the sample point and collection of the EPA samples 3

.

1. Samplers remove the bags containing th e gloves and HDPE plastic wrap from the coolers or storage containers in which th ey are packed. Samplers identify which coolers or boxes contain the double-bagge d sample bottles, pre-cleaned tubing, blank water, and cleanbox. Depending on the condition of the sample tap, it may be necessary to wipe the tap with a cl ean paper towel to remove any build up on the tap that could potentially fall in the sample bottles during sample collection.

2. Both samplers put on Tyvek® suits, ma sks, and gloves. “Dirty hands” covers work surfaces (ground or table) with HDPE plastic wrap and places the doublebagged sample bottles within easy access on the covered surface.

3. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of the cleanbox and “clean hands” opens the inner bag. “Clean hands” places the clea nbox at the point of sample collection. “Clean hands” opens the cleanbox and s ecures it open with the clips located

inside the box.

3 For the sample collection, EPA assumes that samples will be split with the plant (or the plant’s representative) and therefore, the sample set-up describes equipment needed fo r split samples. However, EPA is not responsible for the collection of the split samples collected by the plant and therefore, the collection of their samples is not described.DRAFT 2-15 4. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag cont aining a length of pre-cleaned silicone tubing. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag inside of the cleanbox and removes the tubing. “Clean hands” places clean plastic bags over the ends of the silicone tubing.

5. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of the funnel and “clean hands” opens the inner bag inside of the cleanbox. “Clean hands ” attaches the funne l to the tubing.

6. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bags of the mercury field blank water and total mercury field blank sample bottles. “Cl ean hands” opens the inner bag for the field blank water, unscrews the lid and places it in the inner bag. “Clean hands” passes the funnel end of the tubing with a plastic bag shrouding the funnel to another “clean hands” person to hold outside the cleanbox. “Clean hands” removes the inner bag for the total mercur y field blank sample bottle and places it

in the cleanbox. “Clean hands” holds the end of the silicone tubing outside the cleanbox over a bucket, with the plastic bag still cove ring the end of the tubing. “Dirty hands” pours field blank water through the funnel and tubing. After the tubing has been purged with sufficient vol ume, “clean hands” places the silicone tubing back in the cleanbox. Worki ng inside the cleanbox, “clean hands” unscrews the lid of the field blank samp le bottle, removes the tubing from the plastic bag, and prepares to fill the field blank sample bottle. “Dirty hands” pours

field blank water into the funnel and t ubing, and “clean hands” fills the total mercury field blank sample bottle. “Clean hands” places the e nd of the silicone tubing into the plastic bag, replaces the lid on the sample bottle, and closes the inner bag. “Clean hands” removes the bottle from the cleanbox and places it in the outer bag. “Dirty hands” clos es the outer bag. The sample rs repeat this procedure for the total metals field blank samples 4

.

7. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag for a pre-cleaned 10-L container. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag and loosens the lid. “Clean hands” holds the end of the silicone tubing at the m outh of the 10-L container a nd removes the lid. “Dirty hands” pours field blank water through th e funnel and tubing, and “clean hands” fills the 10-L container with enough fiel d blank water to collect the dissolved metals field blank samples. “Clean hands” places the lid back on the 10-L container, places the plastic bag over the end of the silicone tubing, and places the tubing in the cleanbox. “Clean hands” scre ws the lid on the 10-L container and closes the inner bag. “Dirty hands” clos es the outer bag of the 10-L container.

8. After collecting the field blank samples, “clean hands” removes the funnel from the tubing. “Clean hands” and “dirty hands” wo rk to attach the e nd of the silicone tubing to the sample tap.

4 ERG only plans to collect field blan k samples at each sampling point for one day of sampling ep isode. ERG will collect the dissolved mercury sample using the same technique as the total mercury sample, but the dissolved sample will be filtered at the laboratory. A dissolved mercury field blank will be performed by the laboratory to assess any mercury contamination from the filtering performed at the laboratory. Therefore, ERG does not need to collect a dissolved mercury field blank sample in the field.DRAFT 2-16 9. “Clean hands” holds the opposite end of the silicone tubing outside the cleanbox over a bucket, with the plas tic bag covering the end of the tubing. “Dirty hands” opens the valve to the sample tap to pur ge the piping for a minimum of 2 minutes. “Clean hands” places the end of the silicone tubing back in the cleanbox.

10. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag for a pre-cleaned 10-L container. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag and loosens the lid. “Clean hands” holds the end of the silicone tubing at the mouth of the 10-L container and removes the lid. “Dirty hands” opens the sample valve to allow sample to flow into the 10-L container. Samplers fill the 10-L container for the collection of dissolved metals and hexavalent chromium, which are all required to be filtered. The samplers will

allow the solids to settle for one hour while collecting the remaining samples. “Clean hands” places the lid back on th e 10-L container, places the plastic bag over the end of the silicone tubing, a nd places the tubing into the cleanbox.

”Clean hands” screws the lid on the 10-L container a nd closes the inner bag. “Dirty hands” closes the outer bag of the 10-Liter container. Both samplers change their gloves.

11. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag for the total mercury sample bottle. “Clean hands” removes the inner bag and bottle and places it in the cleanbox. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag and bottle lid. “Clean hands” removes the plastic bag from the tubing and fills the sample bottl e. “Clean hands” places the tubing back in the plastic bag, replaces the lid on the sample bottle and closes the inner bag. “Clean hands” removes the sample bottl e from the cleanbox and places it in the outer bag. “Dirty hands” clos es the outer bag. The sample rs repeat this procedure for the dissolved mercury and total metals samples.

12. “Dirty hands” places an ERG label on the outer bags of the sample bottles.

13. Samplers fill a 1-L jar for the field meas urements. The samplers will give the jar to another sampling team member to measure the temperature and pH.

14. Both samplers collect the BOD 5 , Group I, Group II, and total cyanide samples from the sample location.

Dissolved Metals Sample Collection

15. Samplers allow the 10-L sample container to continue to settle if one hour has not elapsed since the collection of the sample.

16. “Dirty hands” covers the work surfaces (ground or table) with HDPE plastic wrap and places the double-bagged sample bottl es within easy access on the covered

surface.

17. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of th e clean box and “Clean hands” opens the inner bag. “Clean hands” places the clea nbox at the point of sample collection.DRAFT 2-17 “Clean hands” opens the cleanbox and s ecures it open with the clips located

inside the box.

18. “Dirty hands” opens the opening on the peri staltic pump head so the tubing can be placed in the pump head. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag containing a length of pre-cleaned Teflon® tubing attached to a 5-foot length of pre-cleaned silicone tubing, a “Y” splitter, and two additional pieces of pre-clea ned silicone tubing. “Clean hands” moves the tubing into the cleanbox, opens the inner bag, and removes the tubing. “Clean hands” places a clean plastic bag over the end of the Teflon® and silicone tubing.

19. “Dirty hands” threads the silicone tu bing into the peristaltic pump head.

20. Both samplers change gloves.

21. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of a capsule filter. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag and removes the capsule filter. “C lean hands” attaches the capsule filter to the silicone tubing just before the “Y” splitter.

22. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of the 10-L container that wa s used to collect

the field blank water for the dissolved me tals fractions. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag of the 10-L container. “Clean hands” removes the Teflon® tubing from the cleanbox, opens the lid of the 10-L plastic container, removes the plastic bag from the Teflon® tubing, and places the Te flon® into the 10-L container. “Dirty hands” opens the dissolved metals fiel d blank sample bottle. “Clean hands”

removes the dissolved metals field bla nk sample bottle and places it in the

cleanbox. “Clean hands” holds the end of the silicone tubing outside the cleanbox over a bucket, with the plas tic bag still covering the e nd of the tubing and “dirty hands” operates the pump to pump about 750 mL of blank water from the field blank water bottle. “Clean hands” places the end of the silicone tubing in the cleanbox, opens the inner bag of the dissolv ed metals field blank sample bottle, and removes the lid. “Dirty hands” operat es the pump to collect the dissolved metals field blank sample. “Dirty hands” stops the pump. The samplers repeat the procedure for the dissolved metals and hexa valent chromium field blank samples. If a new filter is needed, “clean hands” removes the used filter and samplers following step 22 to replace the filter.

23. Both samplers change gloves.

24. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of one of the 10-L containers. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag, removes the lid, a nd places the end of the Teflon® tubing

into the container. “Clean hands” holds th e end of the silicone tubing outside the cleanbox, with the plastic bag still coveri ng the end of the tubing. “Dirty hands” starts the pump and passes approximately 750 mL through the tubing and filter. “Dirty hands” stops the pump.DRAFT 2-18 25. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of the dissolved metals sample bottle. “Clean hands” removes the inner bag and bottle and places it in the cleanbox. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag and removes the lid. “Dirty hands ” operates the pump to collect the dissolved metals sample . “Dirty hands” stops the pump. “Clean hands” closes the lid on the sample bottle and closes the inner bag. “Clean hands” places the inner bag and bottle in the outer bag and “dirty hands” closes the outer bag. The samplers repeat this procedure for the dissolved metals and hexavalent chromium samples.

26. “Dirty hands” places an ERG label on the outer bags of the sample bottles.

2.4.2.2 Grab Sample Collection from Basin (or Tank)

For grab samples that are collected fr om a basin (or tank), ERG will set up the

sampling equipment near the basin that represen ts the FGD scrubber purge sample. The field

sampling personnel will use care when setting up the sample point to avoid any contamination

from the surroundings. The sampling equipm ent will consist of the following:

 Peristalic pump;

 Colorless, electronic-gr ade, non-nitrile gloves;

 PVC piping;

 0.45 um filter;

 Teflon® tubing;

 Silicone tubing;

 “Y” splitter;

 Small table;

 Cleanbox;

 Tyvek® suits (for metals samples);

 Masks (for mercury samples); and

 Sample containers.

All metals sampling equipment will be specially-cleaned according to the

procedures described in EPA Method 1669. ER G will follow protocols described in EPA

Method 1669 to collect metal sample fractions. Two or more ERG samplers (“clean hands” and

“dirty hands”) will follow the pr otocols described in the steps be low to set up the sampling point,

collect the field blank samples, a nd collect wastewater samples. Th is section describes the set up

of the sample point and collection of the EPA samples 5

.

5 For the sample collection, EPA assumes that samples will be split with the plant (or the plant’s representative) and therefore, the sample set-up describes equipment needed fo r split samples. However, EPA is not responsible for the collection of the split samples collected by the plant and therefore, the collection of their samples is not described.DRAFT 2-19 1. Samplers remove the bags containing th e gloves and HDPE plastic wrap from the coolers or storage containers in which th ey are packed. Samplers identify which coolers or boxes contain the double-bagge d sample bottles, pre-cleaned tubing,

and cleanbox.

2. Both samplers put on Tyvek® suits, glove s, and masks. “Dirty hands” covers work surfaces (tables and platform) w ith HDPE plastic wrap and places the double-bagged sample bottles and Teflon® tubing within easy access on the

covered surface.

3. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of the cleanbox and “clean hands” opens the inner bag. “Clean hands” places the clea nbox at the point of sample collection. “Clean hands” opens the cleanbox and s ecures it open with the clips located

inside the box.

4. “Dirty hands” opens the opening on the peri staltic pump head so the tubing can be placed in the pump head. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag containing a length of pre-cleaned Teflon® tubing attached to a 5-foot length of pre-cleaned silicone tubing with a “Y” splitter and two separate pieces of silicone tubing attached to the “Y” splitter. “Clean hands” moves the tubing into the cleanbox, opens the inner bag, and removes the tubing. “Clean hands” places a clean plastic bag over the end of the Teflon® and silicone tubing and places the end of the tubing in the

cleanbox.

5. “Dirty hands” threads the silicone tubing into the pe ristaltic pump head.

6. Both samplers change gloves.

7. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bags of the mercury field blank water and total mercury field blank sample bottles. “Cl ean hands” opens the inner bag for the field blank water, unscrews the lid and pl aces it in the inner bag. “Clean hands” then places the Teflon® end of the tubi ng into the blank water. “Clean hands” moves the total mercury sample bottle in to the cleanbox and opens the inner bag. Working inside the cleanbox, “clean hands” unscrews the lid. “Clean hands” holds the end of the silicone tubing ou tside the cleanbox over a bucket, with the plastic bag still covering th e end of the tubing. “Dir ty hands” operates the pump to pump blank water through the tubing. After the tubing has been purged with sufficient volume, “clean hands” places th e silicone tubing back in the cleanbox, removes the plastic bag, and fills the total mercury field blank sample bottle. “Dirty hands” stops the pump. “Clean hands” places the plastic bag over the end of the silicone tubing, replaces the lid on the sample bottle, and closes the inner bag. “Clean hands” removes the bottle from the cleanbox and places it in the outer bag. “Dirty hands” clos es the outer bag. The sample rs repeat this procedure for the total metals field blank samples 6

.

6 ERG only plans to collect field blan k samples at each sampling point for one day of sampling ep isode. ERG will collect the dissolved mercury sample using the same technique as the total mercury sample, but the dissolved sample will be filtered at the laboratory. A dissolved mercury field blank will be performed by the laboratory to assess anyDRAFT 2-20 8. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of a capsule filter. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag and removes the capsule filter. “Clean hands” attaches the capsule filter

to the end of the silicone tubi ng, prior to the “Y” splitter.

9. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of th e dissolved metals field blank water and dissolved metals by field blank sample bottle. “Clean hands” moves the dissolved metals field blank sample bottle to the cleanbox. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag of the field blank water. “Clean hands” removes the lid from the dissolved metals field blank water, places it in th e inner bag, and places the end of the Teflon® tubing in the blank water. “Cl ean hands” holds the end of the silicone tubing outside the cleanbox over a bucket, w ith the plastic bag still covering the end of the tubing and “dirty hands” operat es the pump to purge about 750 mL of

blank water from the field blank water bot tle through the tubing and filter. “Clean hands” places the end of the silicone t ubing in the cleanbox, opens the inner bag of the dissolved metals field blank samp le bottle, and removes the lid. “Clean hands” holds the silicone tubing over th e bottle and “dirty hands” operates the pump to collect the dissolved metals fiel d blank sample. “Dirty hands” stops the pump. “Clean hands” closes the lid on the sample bottle and closes the inner bag. “Clean hands” places the inner bag and bottle in the outer bag and “dirty hands” closes the outer bag. The samplers repeat this procedure for the dissolved metals

and hexavalent chromium field blank sa mples. Note: 750 mL of blank water does not need to be purged into the wa ste bottle for each sample, just at the beginning of each new filter. If a new filter is needed, “clean hands” removes the used filter and samplers follow step 8 to replace the filter.

10. Both samplers change gloves.

11. After collecting all of the total and dissolved metals field blank samples, “clean hands” and “dirty hands” work together to place the Teflon® end of the tubing into the sample water, taking care that the end of the tubing does not touch anything other than the sample water. The samplers will secure the Teflon® tubing to a piece of PVC piping so the samp lers can easily control the position of the tubing in the basin/tank.

12. “Clean hands” holds the e nd of the silicone tubing outside the cleanbox over a bucket, with the plastic bag still covering the end of the tubing and “dirty hands” operates the pump to purge the tubing for a minimum of 2 minutes. After the tubing is purged, “Dirty hands” turns off th e pump. “Clean hands” places the end of the silicone tubing back in the cleanbox. .

13. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag of the dissolved metals sample bottle. “Clean hands” removes the inner bag and bottle and places it in the cleanbox. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag and removes the lid. “Clean hands” holds the silicone

mercury contamination from the filtering performed at the laboratory. Therefore, ERG does not need to collect a dissolved mercury field blank sample in the field.DRAFT 2-21 tubing over the bottle and “dirty hands” ope rates the pump to collect the dissolved metals sample. “Clean hands” closes the lid on the sample bottle and closes the inner bag. “Clean hands” places the inne r bag and bottle in the outer bag and “dirty hands” closes the outer bag. The samplers repeat this procedure for the dissolved metals and hexavalent chromium samples.

14. Both samplers change gloves.

15. “Clean hands” removes the capsule filter from the silicone tubing and reattaches the tubing to the “Y” splitter.

16. “Clean hands” holds the e nd of the silicone tubing outside the cleanbox over a bucket, with the plastic bag still covering the end of the tubing . “Dirty hands” operates the pump to purge the tu bing for at least 2 minutes.

17. “Dirty hands” opens the outer bag for th e total mercury sample bottle. “Clean hands” removes the inner bag and bottle and places it in the cleanbox. “Clean hands” opens the inner bag and bottle lid. “Clean hands” removes the plastic bag from the tubing and fills the sample bottle. “Clean hands” places the tubing back in the plastic bag, replaces the lid on the sample bottle and closes the inner bag. “Clean hands” removes the sample bottl e from the cleanbox and places it in the outer bag. “Dirty hands” clos es the outer bag. The samplers repeat this for the dissolved mercury and total metals samples.

18. “Dirty hands” places an ERG label on the outer bags of the sample bottles.

19. Samplers fill a 1-L jar for the field measur ements. The samplers will give the jar to another sampling team member to measure the temperature and pH.

20. Both samplers collect the BOD 5 , Group I, Group II, and total cyanide samples from the sample location. Samples will be pumped directly into sample bottles.

2.5 Preservation, Shipping, and Analysis

All samples will be maintained on ic e immediately upon collection (except the

total and dissolved metals and the total and di ssolved mercury samples, which do not require

cooling). In addition, all samples will follow the on-site preservation requirements specified in

40 CFR 136 method-specified protoc ols, including hexavalent chromium. The dissolved metals

(not including mercury) and hexavalent chromium samples will be filtered in the field. The

dissolved mercury samples will be filtered upon r eceipt at the laboratory. Samplers will filter

samples within 15 minutes of the completion of the compositing period (or as soon thereafter as

possible). For the FGD influent, filtration of dissolved samples will occur approximately one

hour after the compositing period (o r after the large sample volume is collected during the grabDRAFT 2-22 sample collection) to allow for solids settling be cause it has a high suspen ded solids content that

would clog the filter.

The total cyanide samples will be pres erved according to the method-specific

protocols. The samplers will first adjust the pH of the sample to >10 S.U. using sodium

hydroxide. The samplers will then test the sample for the presence of sulf ide using lead acetate

test strips. If sulfide is present, the samplers will dilute the sample by pouring some of the

sample into another sample bottle containing a measured amount of bl ank reagent water (e.g.,

add 50 mL of sample to 200 mL of blank reagent wa ter). The samplers will then test the diluted

sample for the presence of sulfide. If sulfide is still present, the samplers will create a more

diluted sample and retest for sulfide until sulfide is not present in the sample. The samplers will

then test the sample for the presence of total ch lorine using potassium-iodide starch paper. If

total chlorine is present, the samplers will add sodium arsenite in small increments until total

chlorine is no longer present in the sample. The samplers will then readjust the pH to >10 S.U.

using sodium hydroxide, if necessa ry, and place the sample on ice.

Table 2-3 lists the parameters, required sample and QC volume, bottle types, and

on-site preservation requirements for each type of analysis. The type and amount of preservation

used will be recorded on sample preservation log sheets (Figure 2-1). Preservation will be

discontinued and noted on the tra ffic report if 10 percent of the sample volume is added and the

required pH is not achieved. The wastewater samples, except certain metals samples, will be

packed in ice chests with a sufficient quant ity of ice to maintain a temperature of ≤ 6  C. All

samples will be prepared for overnight ship ment via Federal Expr ess to laboratories.

2.6 Field Measurements and Engineering Data Collection

Temperature and pH will be measured and recorded by the sampling crew at each

sampling point when the automatic composite samp lers are set up (and ever y six hours after the

composite set up) or during the grab sample collec tion. A 1-liter glass jar will be filled prior to

connecting the sample tubing to the composite co ntainers for field measurements. Temperature

and pH will be measured immediately after the collection of the field measurement aliquot.

Table 2-4 summarizes the field measurements, the method to be used for the measurement, andDRAFT 2-23 the detection range of each field test instrument. In addition, EPA will collect flow rate data for

all waste streams.

Field sampling log sheets (Figure 2-2) w ill be completed at each sampling point.

This sheet will record the sampling methodology, na mes of the samplers, sample collection time,

field measurements, and any notes and observations.

During each sampling episode, engineeri ng information will be collected with

regard to design and operation of the plant bei ng sampled. For example, information such as

coal usage, plant capacity, wast ewater flow rates, sludge genera tion rates (if applicable), and

retention times in wastewater treatment proce ss stages. Engineering data collection sheets

(Figures 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5) will be completed for each plant. This information will be used to

determine if the specific design or operational criteria of the st eam electric operations affect the

wastewater characteristics.

2.7 Sample Labeling

Each sample will be coded with a unique sample number and labeled at the time

of collection. Typically, labels are printed prior to arrival in the field, though they may also be

completed by hand. Each self-adhesive label is completed in indelible ink and contains the

following information:

 Sample number;

 Sampling episode number;

 Sampling point/description;

 Date of sample collection;

 Analysis to be performed;

 Sample bottle type; and

 Required preservation.

If any of the pre-printed inform ation is incorrect, it will be re vised using indelible ink. In

particular, if a required preservation is not used, it will be marked out (additional preservation

details will be noted on the tra ffic report). Once applied to the sample container, labels are

covered with clear tape to pr event tampering, abrasion, smeari ng, or loss during transit.DRAFT 2-24 2.8 Traffic Reports

To maintain a record of sample collec tion, transfer between personnel, shipment,

and receipt by the laboratory, a traffic report is completed for each sample set at each sampling

location. These forms are used to document sa mple custody transfer from the field to the

laboratory. Traffic report forms are completed for all samples sent to all laboratories. Figure 2-6

includes an example traffic report. At the time of sample shipment , a copy of the traffic report is

sent to ERG, another copy is kept by sampling personnel, and two copies are transmitted with the

samples to the analytical laboratory.

In addition to the transfer of custody, th e traffic report provides information to the

analytical laboratory on the sample number, type of water sample (in- line process, untreated

wastewater, treated effluent), sa mple description, whether the sa mple is preserved, pH of the

sample after preservation, type of sample (grab, composite), sample collection date and time, and

the analyses requested. The comment section is used to provide special notes or instructions to

the laboratory, such as how to composite separate samples prior to analysis. The sampling team

will also comment if sample bottles are not comple tely filled (i.e., less than 75 percent full). In

addition, the comments section will be used to note deviations from sta ndard sampling protocols

(for example, if a sample could not be acid- preserved because of excessive buffering).

2.9 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures applicable to this project

are outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan for th e Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines

Rulemaking [2]. The QA/QC program for sample collec tion at steam electric plants will include

the following:

 Documentation for samples thr ough laboratory traffic reports;

 Collection of duplicate samples;

 Collection of field blank(s) for total metals, dissolved metals, total mercury, dissolved mercury, and hexavalent chromium samples.

 Analysis of bottle blank(s) for me tals by the clean-equipment supplier;DRAFT 2-25  Analysis of equipment blank(s) for metals by the clean-equipment supplier;

 Collection of laboratory QC sample s for matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate analyses.

Duplicate sample sets will be collected as part of the quality assurance program

for sampling. Duplicate samples ar e collected as separate aliquots in the field. EPA will collect

one duplicate sample for every ten samples collec ted at a sampling event, excluding field blank

samples. For example, EPA will collect four samples from each sampling point selected at a

plant; therefore, if the EPA collects samples fr om two sample points at a plant (total of 8

samples), only one duplicate sample will be collected, but if EPA collects samples from three

sample points at a plant (total of 12 samples), then two duplicate samples will be collected. The

field blank samples associated with the sampling poi nts will not be included in the count of the

total samples collected. Results of the duplicate analyses will be used to evaluate precision,

including variability in sample collec tion, handling, prepara tion, and analysis.

Bottle blanks are used to evaluate possible contamination from the sample bottles.

The bottle blank will consist of an analyte- free matrix (Ultra Pure Blank Water DI+ TM ) poured

into the appropriate sample bottle s (250-mL plastic bottle for meta ls by) and stored for several

days prior to shipment to the la boratory. The supplier of the cl eaned metals bottles will prepare

and analyze the bottle blanks prior to shipping the equipm ent to the sampling episode.

Field blanks will be used to evaluate possible contamination caused by sampling

equipment or by sampling equipment decontamina tion procedures. Fi eld blanks will be

prepared in the field prior to sample collecti on and analyzed for all sampling equipment, other

than sample bottles, that come into direct contact with samples. Examples of sampling

equipment are:

 On-site sampling devices or piping in stalled for sample collection; and

 Pumps, tubing, bottle dippers, buckets, and other equipment used to collect samples from less accessible sampling locations.DRAFT 2-26 For all metals samples (i.e., total mercury, total and dissolved metals, and

hexavalent chromium), EPA will prepare a field blank at each sampling point for one day of the

sample episode 7

.

Equipment blanks will be used to ev aluate possible contamination of metals

caused by the sampling equipment. The supplier of the equipment used for metals sample

collection will prepare and analyze the equipment blanks for metals.

As part of standard laboratory quality control, matrix effects on analytical

performance are assessed through the analysis of matrix spikes and laboratory duplicates.

Consequently, additional sample volume must be collected for these QC analyses. The ERG

sampling team will be responsible for collect ing, labeling, and shipping the laboratory QC

volumes. Laboratory QC volumes will be collect ed as duplicate samples collected immediately

after the original sample aliquot. For metals and classical analyses, EPA will collect one QC

sample volume (i.e., MS/MSD sample) for every ten samples collected at a sampling event,

excluding field blank samples. For example, EP A will collect four samples from each sampling

point selected at a plant; theref ore, if EPA collects samples from two sample points at a plant

(total of 8 samples), only one QC sample volum e will be collected, but if EPA collects samples

from three sample points at a plant (total of 12 samples), then two QC sample volumes will be

collected. The field blank samples associated with the sampling points will not be included in

the count of the total samp les collected.

2.10 Sample Splitting

The plant being sampled has the option to collect split or duplicate samples at

each of the sampling points. If this option is exer cised, the plant will supply all of the personnel,

equipment, glassware, and reagents required to collect the samples and to coordinate the analysis

of samples.

7 ERG will collect the dissolved mercury sample using the same technique as the total mercury sample, but the dissolved sample will be filtered at the laboratory. A dissolved mercury field blank will be performed by the laboratory to assess any mercury contamination from the f iltering performed at the laboratory. Therefore, ERG does not need to collect a dissolved mercury field blank sample in the field.DRAFT 2-27 Table 2-1. Sample Collection at Steam Electric Plants

Analytical Parameter Influent to FGD

Wastewater

Treatment Intermediate Point

in FGD Wastewater

Treatment Effluent from FGD

Wastewater

Treatment

BOD 5 X X X

Total Cyanide X X X

Group I (a) X X X

Group II (b) X X X

Total Metals X X X

Dissolved Metals X X X

Total Mercury X X X

Dissolved Mercury X X X

Hexavalent Chromium X X X

(a) Group I includes TSS, TDS, sulfate, and chloride. (b) Group II includes ammonia as nitrogen, COD, nitr ate/nitrite as nitrogen, TKN, and total phosphorus. (c) Actual sample location and specific pollutants will be defined in the plant-specific sampling plan.DRAFT 2-28 Table 2-2. Analytical Methods

Parameter Method Number

Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) SM 5210 B (or other 40 CFR Part 136-approved method Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) EPA 410.3 (or other 40 CFR Part 136-approved method) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) SM 2540 D (or other 40 CFR Part 136-approved method) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) SM 2540 C (or other 40 CFR Part 136-approved method) Sulfate ASTM D516-90 (or other 40 CFR Part 136-approved method) Chloride SM 4500–Cl–C (or other 40 CFR Part 136-approved method) Ammonia as Nitrogen SM 4500—NH 3 B, F (or other 40 CFR Part 136-approved method)

Nitrate/Nitrate as Nitrogen SM 4500—NO 3 -H (or other 40 CFR Part 136-approved method) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) SM 4500—NH 3 B or C, F (or other 40 CFR Part 136- approved method) Total Phosphorus EPA 365.3 (or other 40 CFR Part 136-approved method) Total Cyanide EPA 335.4 (or other 40 CFR Part 136-approved method)

Total and Dissolved Metals Mercury EPA 1631E Hexavalent Chromium (dissolved only) EPA 218.6 (or other 40 CFR Part 136-approved method)

Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, tin, titanium, vanadium, and zinc EPA 200.7, EPA 200.8 (Note: EPA 200.8 may include the use of collision cell or dynamic reaction cell

instrumentation for se lected analytes.)DRAFT 2-29 Table 2-3. Summary of Sample Co ntainer and Planned Preservation

Parameter Sample

Container and

Volume QC Sample

Container and

Volume On-Site Preservation

Classicals

BOD 5 One 1-L plastic

bottle One 1-L plastic

bottle ≤ 6  C

Group I a Two 1-L plastic

bottle Two 1-L plastic

bottle ≤ 6  C

Group II b Two 1-L plastic

bottle Three 1-L plastic bottle H 2 SO 4 to pH <2, ≤ 6  C

Total cyanide One 1-L plastic

bottle Two 1-L plastic

bottle NaOH to pH >10, dilution until sulfide is not present, NaAsO 2 until total chlorine is not present, ≤ 6  C

Metals

Total metals (except mercury) One 250-mL plastic bottle One 250-mL plastic bottle None (acid preserve at laboratory)

Dissolved metals (except mercury and hexavalent chromium) One 250-mL plastic bottle One 250-mL plastic bottle 0.45 μm filter (performed in field) (acid preserve at laboratory)

Total mercury One 250-mL glass (ultraclean), fluoropolymer lined caps One 250-mL glass (ultraclean), fluoropolymer lined caps None (acid preserve at laboratory)

Dissolved mercury Two 250-mL glass (ultraclean), fluoropolymer lined caps Two 250-mL glass (ultraclean), fluoropolymer lined caps None (filter and acid preserve at laboratory)

Hexavalent chromium One 250-mL plastic bottle One 250-mL plastic bottle 0.45 μm filter (performed in field)

Ammonium sulfate buffer to pH 9.3 – 9.7, ≤ 6 o C

(a) Group I includes TSS, TDS, sulfate, and chloride. (b) Group II includes ammonia as nitrogen, COD, nitr ate/nitrite as nitrogen, TKN, and total phosphorus.DRAFT 2-30 Table 2-4. Sampling Point Field Measurements

Field Measurements Method Detection Range (or Gradation of Scale)

Temperature Thermometer -20 to 150 ± 1 o C

pH (Standard Units) Four color indicator strip

pH meter 0 to 12 ± 1 pH S.U.

-1.0 to 15.0 ± 0.1 pH S.U.DRAFT 2-31 Sampling Episode

________

Preservation Chemicals - List St rength of Solution from Bottle

H 2 SO 4 ______________________ NH 4 SO 4 ____________________

NaOH ______________________

Sample

Number Analysis Date Name Chemical Initial pH Final pH Number of Drops

Figure 2-1. Sample Preservation Log SheetDRAFT 2-32 Sampling Episode: _________________________________

Sampling Point: ___________________________________

Sample Numbers: __________________________________

Date: ____________________________________________

Manual Composite 

# □ Grab 

# □

Automatic Composite 

# □

Time of Sample Collection:

Start Time 

# □ AM 

# □ PM

End Time 

# □ AM 

# □ PM

Equipment Used: _________________________________________________

Samplers’ Names: ________________________________________________

Sample

Point Time Temp

°C

Thermometer / Meter pH

(S.U.)

Meter / Strips Waste Stream

Flow Rate

(GPM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Notes: (include observations of odor and color of each aliquot, take pi ctures if necessary)

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ Figure 2-2. Field Sampling Log Sheet2-33DRAFTPlant Name: ____________________________________________________________________________Plant Contact: ____________________________________________________________________________Dates of Sample Collection: ___________________________________________________________________Data Collectedby: __________________________________________________________________________Instructions: In the tables below, fill out information on the generating units and FGD systems operating at the plant based onall four days of the samplingepisode. Note any changes in operation that occur during the four-day period. Provide actual data if possible. If actual data are not available, provide estimatesfor the specific information. Some of the data requested may not be susceptible to estimation. Enter “URE” for “unable to reasonably estimate.” Otherwise,specify whether data provided are actual or estimated by writing in “ACT” or EST” wherever appropriate.Generating Unit Operating Characteristics During Sample CollectionUnitIDBoiler TypeCapacity(MW)ElectricityProduction(or PercentCapacity)SCR(No, On,Off)ParticulateControl System(HS/CS ESP, orBH)FGD System Operating Characteristics During Sample CollectionUnitIDWet FGDSystem(Yes/No)Type ofScrubberForcedOxidation(Yes/No)SorbentAdditives(DBA, formicacid, etc.)FGD Makeup WaterSourceSO2RemovalPercentageType ofSolidsSeparationNote changes in operation over the past month (e.g., turned off SCRs on October 1 or burned 5% petroleum coke previous week):Figure 2-3. Engineering Data Collection Sheet (Page 1 of 3)DRAFT 2-34 Plant Name: ____________________________________________________________________________ Plant Contact: ____________________________________________________________________________ Dates of Sample Collection: ___________________________________________________________________

Data Collected by: __________________________________________________________________________

Instructions: In the tables below, provide information on the coal burned and FGD scrubber slurry at the plant for each day of the sampling episode. Provide actual data if po ssible. If actual data are not available, provide estimates for the specific information. Some of the data requested may not be susceptible to estimation. Enter “URE” for “unable to reasonably estimate.” Otherw ise, specify whether data provided are actual or estimated by writing in “ACT” or EST” wherever appropriate.

Coal Information

Day of Sampling Unit ID Coal Type Amount of

Coal Used

During Day of Sampling Source of Coal (Coal

Region

and/or State) Percent

Sulfur in

Coal Chlorine

Content of

Coal

1

2

3

4

Note changes in operation over the past month (e.g., turned off SCRs on October 1 or burned 5% petroleum coke previous week) as well as conditions and changes during the sampling episode:

Scrubber Slurry Information

Day of Sampling FGD System ID Associated

Unit IDs Scrubber Slurry

Blowdown Flow Rate Scrubber Slurry

Percent

Solids Time of Dewatering

During Sampling Day Percent

Filtrate Recycled

Back to

Scrubber Flow Rate

(gpm) Duration

1

2

3

4

Figure 2-4. Engineering Data Co llection Sheet (Page 2 of 2)DRAFT2-35Plant Name: ____________________________________________________________________________Plant Contact: ____________________________________________________________________________Dates of SampleCollection: ___________________________________________________________________Data Collectedby: __________________________________________________________________________Instructions: In the table below, provideinformation on the FGD wastewater treatment system for each day of the sampling episode and the volumes of the FGDwastewater treatment system tanks and reactors. If possible, provide the name of the acid and polymer used during the samplingepisode. Provide actual data ifpossible. If actual data are not available, provide estimates for the specific information. Some of the data requested may notbe susceptible to estimation. Enter“URE” for “unable to reasonably estimate.”Otherwise, specify whether data providedare actual or estimated by writing in “ACT” or EST” whereverappropriate.FGD Wastewater Treatment System Operation InformationDay ofSamplingScrubber PurgeChemical Usage(specify units)Flow Rate(gpm)DurationLimeFerricChlorideOrgano-sulfide_________(specify type)Polymer:_________(specify type)Acid:_________(specify type)1234Volume of equalization tank ________________Volume of reaction tanks: 1) ________________ 2) ________________ 3) ________________Volume of clarifiers 1) ________________ 2) ________________Volume of first-stage bioreactors ________________Volume of second-stage bioreactors ________________Figure 2-5. Engineering Data Collection Sheet (Page 3 of 3)DRAFT 2-36 Figure 2-6. Example Traffic Report EPISODE NO:

RANGE OF SAMPLE NOS:

Return completed form to:

FOR LAB USE ONLY

NAME: SHIP TO: DATE REC'D:

CITY: ATTN: REC'D BY:

STATE: CARRIER: SAMPLE CONDITION ON RECEIPT:

INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY: AIRBILL:

DATE SHIPPED:

CONFIDENTIAL (Y/N): SAMPLING OFFICE/SAMPLER:

SAMPLE

NUMBER S O U R C E W A T E R

( c i t y , r i v e r , w e l l )

I N L I N E P R O C E S S

U N R E A T E D E F F L U E N T

( r a w w a s t e w a t e r )

T R E A T E D E F F L U E N T

O T H E R

( s p e c i f y ) ADDITIONAL

SAMPLE

DESCRIPTION P H L E V E L

P R E S E R V E D ( Y / N )

G = G R A B / C = C O M P O S I T E

S A M P L E C O L L E C T I O N

T I M E / D A T E

Comments:

EPA Form 7500-50 (Rev 6-94) Previous editions are obselete. Page 1: SCC Copy Page 2: Lab Copy Copy of Page 1: Sampler Copy Copy of Page 2: Lab Copy for return to SCC United States


# EPA Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460

TRAFFIC REPORT P.O. BOX 1407

USEPA ENGINEERING AND ANALYSIS DIVISION ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313

SAMPLE CONTROL CENTER (703) 519-1140

INDUSTRIAL FIRM SAMPLED SHIPPING & INFORMATION

SAMPLE POINT DESCRIPTION SAMPLE ANALYSESDRAFT 3-1 

### 3.0 S AMPLING 

### A CTIVITIES

This section discusses the sampling team organization, site visit preparation, and

sampling activities.

3.1 Sampling Team Organization

The sampling crew will consist of a cr ew chief from ERG, crew members from

ERG, and EPA representative(s). The actual number of ERG crew members will be determined

based on the number of sampling poi nts at the plant. The crew ch ief will be responsible for all

health and safety, sample collection, preser vation, and shipping activities on site. After

completion of the visit, the analytical results from each laboratory will be collated. This

information will be summarized and transmitted in a trip report to EPA. After EPA review, the

report will be forwarded to the plant for their review.

3.2 Pre-Sampling Preparation

EPA will conduct a pre-sampling site vi sit at each selected plant prior to

sampling, unless EPA has already visited the plant pr eviously. The site vi sits will provide EPA

with site-specific process information such as:

 Types of wastewater streams genera ted by the steam electric operations;

 Feasibility of sampling FGD wastewat er streams prior to commingling with other wastewater;

 Locations of potential sampling points;

 Conditions at potential sampling point s (e.g. temperature and pH); and

 Type of discharge at each sampling poi nt (e.g. continuous or intermittent);

and

 Health and safety concerns at each potential sampling point.DRAFT 3-2 EPA will use this information to sele ct sampling points and plan the sampling

episode. Prior to the sampling episode, the ERG crew chief will prepare a plant-specific

sampling plan outlining the descriptions of sa mpling points (including any information on flow

rate, temperature, solids content, and pollutant concentrations pr ovided by the facility contact),

equipment needed (e.g., bottle clamp, dipper, and pole), anticipated health and safety

requirements and procedures, the sample team organization, plant names and contacts, location

of the local Federal Express office, and the names and addresses of analytical laboratories. The

ERG Health and Safety Coordinato r (HSC), Kevin Sikora, will iden tify the plant-specific health

and safety requirements.

The ERG crew chief will distribute the pl ant-specific sampling plan to each team

member and make sure they are completely fam iliar with the plant-specific health and safety

requirements. Plant personnel will be given copi es of the generic sampling plan, generic health

and safety plan, and plant-specific samp ling plan prior to the start of sampling.

The ERG crew chief will also coordina te the procurement and shipment of all

necessary sampling and health and safety equipment.

3.3 Field Sampling Activities

At each site, the ERG crew chief, in conjunction with the EPA Work Assignment

Manager (WAM), will meet with plant personnel to determine whether samples can be collected

at each of the planned sampling points. Upon ma king the decision to collect samples, the ERG

crew chief will update the descriptions of th e proposed sampling points, if necessary, in

consultation with EPA and plant personnel. If necessary, additional equipment and glassware

will be obtained. The revised description shall include:

 A sample point description and co llection procedure for each sample point;

 A list of the sample fractions to be collected at each point;

 A list of potential physical hazards (such as pH, temperature, and potentially hazardous equipment);DRAFT 3-3  A list of potential chemical hazards associated with each sample point;

and

 A list of proposed health and safety procedures.

Prior to sampling, the ERG crew chie f will also notify the ERG HSC of any

revised sampling activity descrip tions along with recommended revisions to the proposed health

and safety procedures. Together, the crew ch ief and HSC will review the proposed health and

safety procedures. The crew chief will incorpor ate any plant-specific changes indicated by the

HSC, and gain approval for sampling from the HSC before proceeding with sampling activities.

All sample bottles will be labeled, co llected, and preserved, according to method

protocols. Sample fractions requiring ≤ 6  C preservation will be placed on ice until desired

temperature is reached. Sample fractions will then be sealed, and placed in coolers for shipment

to the laboratory. The Traffic Report forms will be completed and placed in plastic sleeves

inside the coolers. The cooler s will then be taken to the nearest Federal Express office and

shipped to the analytical laboratories. At th e conclusion of the sampling episode, the sampling

equipment will be prepared for return shipping.

3.4 Standard Logistics

This section of the sampling plan summari zes plant contacts, analytical laboratory

contacts and addresses, and sampling team personnel and support functions.

3.4.1 Plant Contacts

To be determined prior to sampling.

3.4.2 EPA Contacts

Ron Jordan Engineering and Analysis Division U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyDRAFT 3-4 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4303T) Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 566-1003

Jezebele Alicea Engineering and Analysis Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4303T) Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 566-1755

3.4.3 Analytical Laboratories

To be determined prior to sampling.

3.4.4 ERG Contacts

Deb Bartram (ERG Work Assignment Manager) Eastern Research Group, Inc. 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151 (703) 633-1669

TJ Finseth (Sampling Program Lead) Eastern Research Group, Inc. 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151 (703) 633-1698

3.4.5 Freight Forwarders

Federal Express General Information (800) 463-3339

Specific location to be determined for each sampling trip.DRAFT 4-1 

### 4.0 S AMPLE 

### S HIPMENT

All sample containers will be labeled with ERG's standard address labels. All

samples will be tracked using Traffic Report fo rms. Custody will be maintained by the sampling

crew chief from sample collection until samples are delivered to Federal Express.

All samples will be packaged and sh ipped in accordance with DOT or IATA

regulations. The general IATA packaging requirements for air shipment are as follows:

 “Inner packaging must be so packed, secu red or cushioned as to prevent their breakage or leakage and so as to cont rol their movement within the outer packaging during normal conditions of tran sport. Cushioning material must not react dangerously with the contents of the inner pack aging. Any leakage of the contents must not substantially impair th e protective propertie s of the cushioning material. Unless otherwise provided in this paragraph or in the Packing Instructions, liquids in Classe s, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 8 of Packing Gr oups I or II in glass or earthenware inner packaging, must be packaged using material capable of absorbing the liquid. Absorbent material must not react dangerously with the liquid. Absorbent material is not required...” (IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations, 5.0.16).

 “When filling receptacles for liquids, sufficient ullage (outage) must be left to ensure that neither leakage nor permanent distortion of the receptacle will occur as a result of an expansion of the liquid caused by temperatures likely to prevail during transport. Liquids must not complete ly fill a receptacle at a temperature of 55°C (130°F).” (IATA Danger ous Goods Regulations, 5.0.12).

The packing and labeling procedures in the following subsections may be used for

nonhazardous samples. Hazardous samples will be identified based on consultation with the

hazardous shipments contact, and appropriate ha zardous shipping procedures will be followed.

Based on process considerations, sa mples collected are not expected to be classified as IATA

dangerous goods.

4.1 Sample Set Preparation

Samples are collected as a series of “fractions,” or bottles designated for

particular analyses requiring the same preser vation. The comprehensive water sample set

consists of sample fractions for all polluta nts listed in Section 2.2, collected as 24-hour

composite samples and transferred in to the individual sample bottles.DRAFT 4-2 4.2 Sample Packing

All dilute samples from the plant will be packed according to the following

guidelines (there is no limit on the amount of liquid each sample container may contain):

1. Label each sample bottle. If a required preservation is not used, cross it off with

indelible ink. Cover the label with clear tape to protect this information. Metals sample bottles will not be labeled; inst ead, the outer plastic bag for each bottle

will be labeled.

2. Tighten the lid on each filled sample bottle, being careful not to overtighten the lid. If bottle threads are dirty to where th e lid is impeded from closing, clean the threads on the bottle being careful to not introduce contamination into the sample. Clean the sample bottle with a cloth rag or paper towel. The bottle threads will not be cleaned for the mercury sample bottles.

3. Place each sample bottle requiring ≤ 6  C preservation into an ice chest with wet ice prior to packaging to cool.

4. When each sample requiring ≤ 6  C preservation has reached the desired temperature, wrap each glass sample bottle with two la yers of “bubble wrap” (or place bottle in two “bubble bags”). The bubble wrap must fit snugly and completely cover the sample bottle. Each “bubble-wrapped” c ontainer and plastic

container must then be enclosed in an individual sealable plastic freezer bag.

5. Place two garbage bags inside each other in the cooler.

6. Place sample bottles in garbage bags in the cooler with proper end up, close the interior garbage bag by tying, or with a twist-tie.

7. Add ice to cooler to keep samples cold during shipment. Arrange blue ice or sealed plastic freezer bags filled with we t ice on top of the sample bottles (if samples require ≤ 6  C preservation). If using wet i ce, place the ice inside two onegallon sealable freezer bags. Put at least 4 × 1⁄2 gallons of ice (4 × 2.5 lbs of ice) in each large cooler and 2 × 1⁄2 ga llons of ice (2 × 2.5 lbs of ice) in each small cooler.

More ice should be used when ambient te mperatures are very high. The ice should be placed inside the second garbage bag. Close the second garbage bag with a

twist-tie.

8. Fill in around the bottles and any free sp ace with additional cushioning material. Sufficient packing material should be used so that the sample containers will not shift during shipment.

9. Seal the Traffic Report form in a plastic zip-lock bag and tape securely to the

inside of the cooler lid.DRAFT 4-3 10. Place a "Return to ..." label on th e inside of the cooler lid.

11. Close cooler.

12. Make several wraps with ta pe around the cooler perpendicular to the seal to

ensure that the lid will remain closed if the latch is accidentally released or damaged.

13. Tape the cooler drain plug so it will not open.

14. Place a completed address label on the lid of the cooler including name, address, and telephone number of the receiving laboratory and the return address and telephone number of the shipper.DRAFT 5-1 

### 5.0 R EFERENCES

U.S. EPA. 2009. Steam Electric Power Generating Point So urce Category: Final Detailed Study Report . EPA 821-R-09-008. Washington, DC. (October). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/guide/steam/finalreport.pdf . DCN SE00003.

Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2009. Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking . (September). DCN SE00058.Appendix C

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQU EST FOR THE STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATING INDUSTRY [FINAL VERSION]

(SEE http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam-electric/questionnaire.cfm )Appendix D

ANALYTICAL DATA REVIEW CHECKLISTSFinal Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist Metals and Trace Elements Analysis in Water and Waste s EPA Method 200.7 ( 1994 ) ( Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Num bers or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Instructions: Complete this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Asses sment” section for each criterion not (“N”) met. Note: Requirements with a * are project requirements not specific to EPA Method

200.7.



### SECTION A

- 2 . OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex Airbills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a page copied from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and

Blank 1, 2, 3

Method Detection Limit Study 3

Initial Calibration Data 3

Initial Calibration Verification 3

I nitial Calibration Blank 3

Laboratory Reagent Blank (LRB) Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Blank Results 2, 3

Instrument Performance Check (IPC)

Solution Results 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elemen t s Analysis in Wa ters and Wastes EPA Method 200.7 (1994) Page 2 of 7

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### SECTION A

- 2 . OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Continuing Calibration Blank 3

Quality Control Sample Results 2, 3

Sp ectral Interference Check (SIC) Solution

Results 3

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFM)/ Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix Duplicate (LFMD) Results 2, 3

Analyte Addition Test Results 3

Dilution Test Results 3

Method of standard additions a nd/or Internal Standards Technique Results (if necessary) 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Continuing Calibration Verification Results 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1 : Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or pr imary instrument outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elemen t s Analysis in Wa ters and Wastes EPA Method 200.7 (1994) Page 3 of 7

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METHOD 200.7 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION B . SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Preservations? Volume ?

• Any anomalies reported ?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record :

• Date received?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

numbers?

• Preservation checked by lab? Volume?

• Sample conditions

• Sample hold time

• Any anomalies reported by lab?


### SECTION C . SAMPLE PRE PARATION/EXTRACT HANDLING

INFORMATION

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

• Standard expiration date:

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample extraction date :

• Sample process or run date :
3. *Field Duplicates: Was a f ield duplicate collecte d and analyzed as part of the sampling episode ? Indicate the relative percent difference.



### SECTION D

- 1. QC INFORMATION

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: Were calibrations, QC samples and samples included in a batch of 20 samples?

2. Method Detection Limit Study (MDL): Were seven samples prepared and analyzed according to Section 9.2.4 of Method 200.7? Was the study conducted before samples were analyzed and annually? (200.7/9.2.4)

What were the MDLs re ported by the lab?Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elemen t s Analysis in Wa ters and Wastes EPA Method 200.7 (1994) Page 4 of 7

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METHOD 200.7 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION D

- 2 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Calibration

1. Initial Calibration Blank: Was a calibration blank analyzed following the daily calibration?

Were the a nalytes less than the Reporting Limit (RL) ? (200.7/7.10.1 /9.3.4 /11.4.4)

I ndicate the concentration of the analyte in the

calibration blank and the RL.

2. Mixed Calibration Standard Solutions: Were mixed calibration standard solutions prepared and analyzed after the calibration blank? (200.7/7.9/11.4.4)

What were the true and a nalyzed concentration s of

the calibration standards used by the lab?

Did the calibration standard solution results confirm that the instrument was correctly

calibrated 1 ?


### SECTION D

- 3 . QC INFORMATION

– Blanks

1. Laboratory Reagent Blank ( LRB ) : Was a blank containing all reagents prepared with each batch of 20 or fewer samples and used to evaluate contaminants in reagents? Were analyte levels in the blank less than 10% of

the analyte level in the sample or less than 2.2 times the analyte MDL (whichever is greater)? (200.7/7.10.2/9.3.1) Note any contamination reported.

2. Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB): Was a blank containing all analytes of interest prepared and analyzed? Was the percent recovery for all analytes within

the control limits of 85

- 115%? (200.7/7.10.3/ 9.3.2)

What were the true and analyzed concentrations of all analytes in the LFB reported by the lab?

What were the % recoveries of all the analytes?

1 Note: T here is no specific requirement to confirm calibration specified in the method. The labs can use what they consider appropriate

.Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elemen t s Analysis in Wa ters and Wastes EPA Method 200.7 (1994) Page 5 of 7

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METHOD 200.7 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION D

- 4 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Performance Checks

3. Instrument Performance Check (IPC) Solution:

Was the IPC solution analyzed after calibration, every 10 samples, and at the end of the sample

run?

Did the IPC solution confirm that the instrument was within ±5% of calibration directly after

calibration and within ±10% of calibration for all

other times? (200.7/7.11 /9.3.4 ) What were results reported for the IPC and the

percent recovery ?

4. Continuing Calibration Blank: Was a continuing

calibration blank analyzed after every 10 samples and at the end of every run? Were the analytes less

than the RL ? (200.7/9.3.4) Indicate the concentration of the analyte in the

calibration blank and the RL.

5. Quality Control Sample (QCS) data enclosed? :
W as a seco ndary source QCS prepared and analyzed to confirm instrument performance?

Was the average concentration from the analysis of three QCS samples within ±5% of the true value? (200.7/7.12 /9.2.3 )

I ndicate the true value of the QCS, the QCS value reported by t he labs , and the percent recovery

. 6. Spectral Interference Check (SIC) Solutions: Were SIC solutions used to confirm any interelement corrections applied to the data? (200.7/7.13 /9.3.5 )Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elemen t s Analysis in Wa ters and Wastes EPA Method 200.7 (1994) Page 6 of 7

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METHOD 200.7 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

7. *Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFM)/Laboratory Fortified S ample Matrix Duplicate (LFMD): Was an LFM and * LFMD analyzed at a frequency of 10% of samples?

Was a LFM and * LFMD sample analyzed for each midpoint and effluent point in a sampling episode? Was the percent recovery of the LFM/ * LFMD for all analytes wi thin the control limits of 70

- 130%? The RPD between LFM and LFMD is suggested to be less than 20%. (200.7/9.4) What were the % recoveries for all analytes? What were the RPDs reported by the lab ?

Note: If recoveries do not meet criteria and the system is otherwise in control, the problem may be matrix related. If an analyte recovery in the

LFM/LFMD failed

, was the associated data for that analyte flagged as suspect due to matrix effect? (200.7/ 9.4)

8. Analyte Addition Test: Was a standard added to
at least one of the samples in the batch to produce

a concentration of 20

- 100 times the MDL and was the percent recovery within 85

- 115% of the true

value (or the associated data flagged as suspect due to matrix effect) ? (200.7/9.5 .1 ) What were the % recoveries for all analytes?

9. Dilution Test: W as at least one of the samples in

the batch diluted 5 fold and if the original

concentration wa s > 50 times t he Instrument Detection Limit ( ID L), was the percent recovery

within ±10 % of the original concentration? (200.7/9.5.2) What were the % recoveries for all analytes? What was the original concentration in the sample?

10. Method of Standa rd Additions/ Internal

Standards Technique : If either the analyte
addition test or dilution test failed as stated above,

was the method of standard additions and/or the

internal standards technique used to correct for

interferences ? (200.7/9.5 /11.5 )Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elemen t s Analysis in Wa ters and Wastes EPA Method 200.7 (1994) Page 7 of 7

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METHOD 200.7 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SEC TION E . DETAILED SAMPLE RAW DATA REVIEW

1. Sample Results Reporting: Were results reported

in units of milligrams per liter ( m g/L) for samples?

Were an alyte concentrations below the I DL not reported? (200.7/12.1)

2. Dilution: If the analyte concentration was ≥ 90% of the upper limit of the LDR, was the sample diluted and reanalyzed? (200.7/11.4.7 /12.3 )Final Notes July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes Metals and Trace Elements Analysis in Water and Waste s EPA Method 200.7 ( 1994 ) ( Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry )

1. * If reported

, note the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of the samples afte r dilution. If diluted appropriately, samples should have a TDS concentration of 0.15

- 0.2% (200.7/1.3/4.2)

.

2. For the determination of d issolved elements, samples should be filtered through a 0.45 um pore membrane filter soon after collection. The filtrate should be acidified at the laboratory with 1 to 1 nitric acid to a pH less than 2 with in two weeks of collection (200.7/8.2)

.

3. Prior to the analysis of dissolved elements, samples should be acidified with nitric acid and if a precipitate forms samples shou ld be digested using the proc edure specified in

Section 11.2 (200.7/11.1.1)

. If reported, indicate the amount of nitric acid used in the digestion and list a ny deviations noted in the lab’s digestion procedures

.

4. For the determination of total or total rec overable elements, samples should be acidified with 1 to 1 nitric acid to a pH less than 2 within two weeks of collection (200.7/8.3)

. After acidification, the sample should be mixed and allowed to sit for 16 hours, and then

con firmed to have a pH less tha n 2. If the pH was greater than or equal to 2 the sample

should be acidified, mixed, held for 16 hours, and tested again (200.7/8.3)

.

5. Prior to the analysis of total or total recoverable elements, a well mixed volume of the sample should be digested with ni tric acid and hydrochloric acid and if necessary filtered prior to analysis (200.7/11.2)

. *For FGD influent samples that contain greate r than 1% suspended solids, the laboratory should separate the solid and liquid portions of the sample and analyze each p ortion separately. If reported, indicate the amount of nitric and hydrochloric acids used in digestion and any deviations noted in the lab’s digestion procedures

.

6. A rinse blank should be used to flush the system between all solution changes

. If reported, i ndicate how many rinse blanks were run and note a ny contamination reported.

7. For aqueous samples, a field blank should be prepared and analyzed at each sample point during one of the four days of sample collection. If the analyte concentration was greater

t han the MDL, indicate the concentration. (200.7/8.5)

8. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank, the result should be reported as a nondetect. List all affected samples.

9. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank, the result should reported as an

estimated value. List all affected samples.Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry for Trace Element Analysis in Flue Gas

Desulfurization Wastewaters

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode : Sample Numbers or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Instructions: Complete this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overa ll Assessment”

section for each criterion not (“N”) met. Note: Requirements with a * are project requirements not specific to The Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry for Trace Element Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Wastewaters (FGD SOP).

Note: The FGD SOP is based on EPA Method 200.8 and 1638, but optimized for FGD wastewater. Some r equirements listed in 200.8 are still required even if they are not explicitly stated in the FGD

SOP. These requirements are indicated with a **

.



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Require d Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex Airbills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a page copied

from S OW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and Blank 1, 2, 3

Method Detection Limit Study 3Steam Study Data Review C hecklist Standard Operating Procedures for Trace Element Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewaters Page 2 of 9

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Require d Present Comments

Instrument Detection Limit Study 3

Linear Range Study Results (if reported) 3

Initial and On

- going Demonstration of Capability 3

Instrument Tuning Res ults ( including mass calibration and mass resolution checks) 3

Mass 75 Interference Check Results 3

Initial Calibration Results 3

Initial Calibration Verification 3

Initial Calibration Blank 3

Reporting Limit Verification Standard Results 3

Laboratory Reagent Blank (LRB) Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Blank Results 2, 3

Individual Interference Check Solution Results (if reported) 2, 3

Synthetic FGD Interference Check Solution 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Synthetic FGD Solution 2, 3

Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Results 2, 3

Internal Standardization Results 2, 3

Continuing Calibration Verification Standard

Results 3

Continuing Calibration Blank (CCB) Results 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Data for all Mass es Monitored (e.g. all relevant isotopes) (if reported) 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1 : Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 re view plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument

outputSteam Study Data Review C hecklist Standard Operating Procedures for Trace Element Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewaters Page 3 of 9

Final Checklist July 9, 2010



### FGD SOP / EPA METH OD 200.8 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Cr iterion

met

Y N


### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Preservations? pH? Volume?

• Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record :

• Date received?

• Lab ID number c hecked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

• Preservation checked by lab? pH? Temp?

Volume?

• Sample c onditions

• Sample hold time

• Any anomalies reported by lab ?


### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATION/EXTRACT HANDLING

INFORMATION

1. Reviewed Standard Pre lo gs:

• Standard expiration date:

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample extraction date :

• Sample process or run date:

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected and analyzed as part of the sampling episode?

Indicate the re lative percent difference.Steam Study Data Review C hecklist Standard Operating Procedures for Trace Element Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewaters Page 4 of 9

Final Checklist July 9, 2010



### FGD SOP / EPA METH OD 200.8 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Cr iterion

met

Y N


### SECTION D

- 1. QC INFORMATION

– Method Performance

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: Were calibrations, QC samples and samples included in a batch of 20 samples?

2. Method Detect ion Limit Study (MDL): For each analyte of interest, were seven samples containing a

concentration of 3

- 5 times the MDL prepared using the synthetic FGD wastewater matrix and analyzed according to the methods in Section 10 of the FGD

SOP? Was an MDL study conducted before samples were analyzed, and repeated every year? (FGD SOP/12.1) What were the MDLs reported by the lab?

3. Instrument Detection Limit Study: For each mass used during the analysis, was an IDL study conducted q uarterly? During the IDL study was the analysis of 10 blanks run on three non

- consecutive days used to calculate the IDL? (FGD SOP/12.3) What were the IDLs reported?

4. Demon stration of Capabilities: Was an initial demonstration of proficiency (IDOC) performed prior to analysis of samples and was on

- going proficiency demonstrated annually? (FGD SOP/12.5) What were IDOCs reported by the lab?

Date IDOCs were done?


### SECTION D

- 2. QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Calibration

1. Instrument: Was an Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometer (ICP/MS) capable of providing th e resolution characteristics specified in Section 6.1 of the FGD SOP used for analysis? Was the ICP/MS used in the analysis equipped with a collision cell, a discrete sample introduction system, and an autosampler? (FGD SOP/6.1)Steam Study Data Review C hecklist Standard Operating Procedures for Trace Element Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewaters Page 5 of 9

Final Checklist July 9, 2010



### FGD SOP / EPA METH OD 200.8 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Cr iterion

met

Y N

2. Instrument Tuning/Mass Calibration: Was the instrument tuned using a solution containing elements that represented all mass regions of

interest? Was the tuning solution used to run mass calibration and mass resolution checks at the beginning of every day?

Were the relative stan dard deviations less than 5% for at least four integrations of the tuning solution? (FGD SOP/10.3.2)

Were the mass calibration check results within 0.1 amu of the true value? (FGD SOP/10.3.2)

Were the mass resolution check results less than 0.9

amu full w idth at 10% peak height? (FGD SOP/10.3.2)

What were the elements and concentration of the tuning solution? If reported where was it p urchased

from? What were the reported results for instrument tuning? What was the lab’s reported results for mass

calibration check and mass resolution check?

3. Mass 75 Interference check: Were the counts per

second for mass 75 less than 10 when the blank matrix was infused? (FGD SOP/10.3.3)

4. Initial Calibration: Was the ICP/MS calibrated daily with a calibration blank and 3 calibration standards? (FGD SOP/10.3.4)

Indicate the true and analyzed concentration s of the

3 calibration standards us ed by lab

. If reported, w hat type of curve fit was used?Steam Study Data Review C hecklist Standard Operating Procedures for Trace Element Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewaters Page 6 of 9

Final Checklist July 9, 2010



### FGD SOP / EPA METH OD 200.8 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Cr iterion

met

Y N

5. Initial Calibration Verification (ICV): Was an ICV standard (i.e., a standard from a different

vendor than the calibration stand ards) analyzed after

initial calibration? Was the percent recovery of the ICV sample within

90

- 110%? (FGD SOP/10.3.5) Note: The ICV standard satisfies the Quality Check Standard (QCS) requirement in 200.8.

What was the true concentration of the ICV

stand ard?

What w ere the reported results and % recovery ? If reported, indicate w here the ICV was purchased

from and the date purchased?

6. Initial Calibration Blank (ICB): After the ICV, was the ICB analyzed and were the results less than

the reporting limit (RL)? (FGD SOP/10.3.6) Indicate the concentration in the ICB, the RL, and

note any contamination reported by the lab.

7. Reporting Limit Verification Standard: After the ICB, was a RL verification standard analyzed and

were the resu lts within 50% of the expected value? If not, was the associated data qualified? (FGD SOP/10.3.7)

What was the result of the RL verification standard analyzed?

What was the percent recovery of the RL ?


### SECTION D

- 3 . QC INFORMATION

– Blanks

1. Method Blank/Laboratory Reagent Blank (MB/LRB): Was a MB/LRB containing reagent water processed in the same way as the samples and analyzed wit h each batch of 20 samples ? For all analytes of interest, was the concentration in

the blank < RL ? (FGD SOP/ 9.6) Indicate the concentration in the MB/LRB, the RL,

and note a ny contamination reported by the lab

.Steam Study Data Review C hecklist Standard Operating Procedures for Trace Element Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewaters Page 7 of 9

Final Checklist July 9, 2010



### FGD SOP / EPA METH OD 200.8 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Cr iterion

met

Y N

2. Laboratory Control Sample/Laboratory Fortified Blank (LCS/LFB): Was a LCS/LFB containing all analytes of interest analyzed with each batch and was the percent recovery for all analytes within the

control limits of 85

- 115%? (FGD SOP/ 9.7) (200.8/7.9/9.3. 2)

What were the concentrations of all analytes in the LCS reported by the lab?

What were the % recover ies of all the analytes?


### SECTION D

- 4 . QC INFORMATION

- Instrument Per formance Checks

1. Synthetic FGD Interference Check Solution: Before initiating analysis and immediately after

calibration , was the synthetic FGD matrix solution specified in Section 7.2.7 of the FGD SOP analyzed?

Were all results for elements of interest < the RL unless the presence of an element can be confirmed

and in this case was the result < 5 times the RL? If dilution was required to analyze the synthetic

FGD solution , were all samples and QC samples diluted by the same factor? (FGD SOP/ 9.4)

2. Lab oratory Fortified Synthetic FGD Solution: Following the analysis of the synthetic FGD matrix, was a synthetic FGD solution spiked with each analyte of interest analyzed? Was the percent recovery between 70

– 130% of the

true value? Indicate the percent re covery for all analytes. If dilution was required to analyze the laboratory fortified synthetic FGD solution, were all samples and QC samples diluted by the same factor? (FGD

SOP/ 9.4 .1 )

3. Analytical Run Sequence: Was the following analytical run sequenc e used: instrument
initialization, warm

- up, instrument tuning, mass calibration check, mass resolution check, tuning
criteria validation, calibration blank, calibration
standard, ICV, ICB, RL verification standard, CCV, CCB, 10 samples, CCV, and CCB. (FGD SOP/10.4.5)Steam Study Data Review C hecklist Standard Operating Procedures for Trace Element Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewaters Page 8 of 9

Final Checklist July 9, 2010



### FGD SOP / EPA METH OD 200.8 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Cr iterion

met

Y N

4. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate/Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix /Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix Duplicate (MS/MSD/LFM/LFMD): Was one MS/MSD pair analyzed for every 10 samples? (FGD SOP/ 9.8) *Was a MS/MSD sample analyzed for ea ch midpoint and effluent point in a sampling episode? Was the percent recovery of the MS/MSD for all analytes within the control limits of 70

- 130% and

was the RPD ≤ 20%? (FGD SOP/9.8)

What were the % recover ies for all analytes? What were the RPDs reported by the lab?

5. Internal Standardization: Were responses from internal standards evaluated throughout each set of samples? (200.8/9.4.5)

Were results for all internal standards within 60

- 125% of the intensity in the calibration blank and if not, was the calibration blank reanalyzed? If the

results for the second calibration blank met the required QC criteria, was the sample diluted by a factor of 2 and rerun? (FGD SOP/ 9.9)

6. Continuing Calib ration Verification (CCV)

Standard: Was a 50 μg/L CCV standard tested at the beginning and end of each run and after the analysis of 10 samples and was the percent recovery

within 85

- 11 5 %? (FGD SOP/10.3.8) What were results reported fo r the CCV and the

percent recovery ?

7. Continuing Calibration Blank (CCB): Was a CCB analyzed after each CCV and were results less than the RL? (FGD SOP/10.3.6) Indicate the result for the CCB, the RL, and any contamination noted by the lab.


### SECTION E

. DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Calculations: Were all percent recoveries and relative percent differences for QC samples calculated according to the formulas presented in

Section 11.0 in the FGD SOP. Was the final concentration of an aqueous and digested solid sample calculated based on the formulas presented in Section 11.5 and 11.6 respectively of the FGD SOP?Steam Study Data Review C hecklist Standard Operating Procedures for Trace Element Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewaters Page 9 of 9

Final Checklist July 9, 2010



### FGD SOP / EPA METH OD 200.8 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Cr iterion

met

Y N

2. Sample Results Reporting: For each field and QC sample analyzed, was the average of at least three integrations reported? (FGD SOP/10.4.1)

**W ere results reported in units of mic rograms per liter (μg/L)? **Were analyte concentrations below the MDL not reported? (200.8/12.1)

3. Dilutions: If the concentration of an analyte was above the linear range, was the sample diluted and reanalyzed? Was dilution not used for samples contai ning an analyte concentration < 5 times the RL? (FGD SOP/10.4.4)

4. Analysis of Interferences: Were interferences not removed by the collision cell evaluated? Were corrections applied to the data and if problems remained were they flagged? Were the

recomm ended elemental equations in Attachment 1

of the FGD SOP used and was internal standardization implemented to correct for both positive and negative interferences caused by the sample matrix? (FGD SOP/2.4/4.0)Final Notes July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry for Trace Element Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization

Wastewaters

1. For the determinatio n of total elements

, the sample should acidified at t he laboratory with 1 to 1 nitric acid to a pH less than 2 within two weeks of collection (200.8/8.3)

.

2. After acidification, the sample should be mixed and allowed to sit for 16 hours, and then

con firmed to have a pH less than 2. If the pH was greater than o r equal to 2 the sample

should be acidified, mixed, held for 16 hours, and tested again (200.8/8.3)

.

3. A n aliquot of all samples should be acidified with nitric acid and hydrochloric acid and digested using the closed vessel digestion techniques outlined in Section 10.2 of the FGD

SOP

. If reported, indicate the amount of nitric and hydrochloric acids used in digestion

and note a ny deviations reported in the lab’s digestion procedures . Note: The lab should

use 0.5 mL of concentrated nitric acid and 0.25 mL of hydrochloric acid.

4. *For FGD influent samples that contain great er than 1% suspended solids, the laboratory

should separate the solid and liquid portions of the sample and analyze each portion separately

.

5. Before initiating analysis and every year thereafte r, the linear range for each analyte of

interest should be established. If reported, note if the results of the analysis were within

10% of the actual value (FGD SOP/9.5) . If reported, indicate the LDRs reported by the

lab and the d ate the LDRs were done

.

6. Before initiating analy sis and at least every 3 months all individual interference check solutions specified in Section 7.2.6 of the FGD SOP should be analyzed. If reported, w ere all results for elements of interest < the RL unless the presence of an elem ent can be confirmed and in this case was the result < 5 times the RL? (FGD SOP/ 9.3)

7. The system should be washed with a rinse blank for ≥ 30 seconds between the analys is of every sample and standard (FGD SOP/10.4.2) . If reported, indicate h ow many rinse

blank s were r u n and a ny contamination noted

.

8. * For aqueous samples, a field blank should be prepared and anal yzed at each sample point during one of the four days of sample collection . If the analyte concentration was greater than the MDL, indicate the concentration.

9. A ll masses that could influence results should be monitored for each run and this

information sho uld be used by the laboratory to correct data for interferences (FGD SOP/10.4.3)

.Steam Study Data Review Notes Standard Operating Procedures for Trace Element Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewaters Page 2 of 2

Final Notes July 9, 2010 10. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 5 times the analyte concentration

in th e laboratory reagent blank, the result should be reported as a nondetect. List all affected samples:

11. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times the analyte concentration in th e laboratory reagent blank, the result should be reported as an estimated value. List all affected samples:Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium EPA Method 218.6 ( 1994 ) Ion chromatography

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Number s or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Instructions : Complete this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment” section for each criterion not (“N”) met. Note: Requirement s with a * are project requirements not specific to

EPA Method 218.6

. Note: Requirements with a ** are requirements specific to 200.8 and

were added to this checklist because Frontier desires to use an

ICP

- MS detector rather than a UV detector after ion

ch romatography. Note: Requirements with a *** are changes to method 218.6 the laboratory had to make because they are using an ICP

- MS

detector rather than a UV detector.



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex Airbills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a page copied from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and

Blank 1, 2, 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium EPA Method 218.6 ( 1994 ) Page 2 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Quality Control Sample Results 2, 3

Calibration Curve Results 3

Initial Calibration Verification Results 3

Continuing Calibration Verification

Results 3

Laboratory Reagent Blank Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Blank Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix/Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix Duplica te Results 2, 3

Data for All Masses Monitored (if reported) 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work

Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist

Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium EPA Method 218.6 ( 1994 ) Page 3 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METH OD 218.6 R EQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Preservations? pH? Volume?

• Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record :

• Date received?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

• Preservation checked by lab? pH? Temp?

Volume?

• Sample c onditions ?

• Sample hold time ?

• Any anomalies reported by lab ?


### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATION/EXTRACT HANDLING

INFO RMATION

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

• Standard expiration date:

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample extraction date :

• Sample process or run date:

Note: Sample Analysis: Were samples analyzed as soon as possible after sample co llection? How much time had elapsed between sample collection and analysis? Note: It is recommended that samples be analyzed within 24 hours of collection although it is only required for samples to be analyzed within 28 days. (218.6/8.3) (40 CFR 136 Tab le II)

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected and analyzed as part of the sampling episode? Indicate the relative percent difference.Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium EPA Method 218.6 ( 1994 ) Page 4 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METH OD 218.6 R EQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION D

- 1 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Calibration

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: Were calibrations, QC samples and samples included in a batch of 20 samples?

2. *** Calibration curve : Were at least three

calibration standards used to create a calibration curve with a coefficient of correlation (r) ≥ 0. 99 5 ? (218.6/11.4)

What were the concentration s of the 3 calibration standards used by lab?

3. **Initial Calibration Verification: Was an Instrument Performance Check (IPC) solution (midpoint calibration standard) and an initial

calibration blank (ICB) analyzed immediately after

calibration ?

Did the IPC solution differ from the true value by

more than ± 10 % ?

What was the true IPC solution concentration and reported result? Was the concentration of Cr(VI) in the initial

calibration blank less than the MDL? (218.6/9.3.4) Was any contamination noted in the ICB?


### SECTION D

- 2 . QC INFORMATION

– Blanks

1. Laboratory Reagent Blank : Wa s at least one

l aboratory reagent blank prepare d and analyzed with

each set of samples ?

Did the laboratory reagent blank contain Cr(VI) at a

concentration less than the MDL ? ( 218.6 /9. 3 .1 ) Note any contamination reported.

2. Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB) : Was at least

one LFB prepared and analyzed with each set of samples?

*** Was the percent recovery of the laboratory reagent blank within 80

- 12 0 % ? (218.6/9. 3 .3 )

What were the concentrations of all analytes in the

L FB reported by the lab?

What were the % recover ies of all the analytes?Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium EPA Method 218.6 ( 1994 ) Page 5 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METH OD 218.6 R EQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### Se ction D

- 3. QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Performance

1. Quality Control Sample (QCS) data enclosed? :
Was a secondary source QCS analyzed and was the concentration within ±10% of the QCS value? (218.6/9.3.5)

I ndicate the true and reported value of the QCS

, and the percent recovery

. 2. Continuing Calibration Verification: Was an Instrument Performance Check (IPC) solution (midpoint calibration standard) and a continuing

calibration blank (CCB) analyzed after every 10 samples?

*** Did the values differ from the t rue value by more

than ± 10%? What were results reported for CCV? Was the concentration of Cr(VI) in the continuing calibration blank less than the MDL? (218.6/9.3.4) Note any contamination reported.

3. *** Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFM) :
Was a known amount of analyte added to at least 10% of samples and was the percent recovery within

80

- 12 0 % ? (218.6/9.4) What were the % recoveries for all analytes?

4. **Laboratory Fortified Sample M atrix Duplicate (LFMD): Was an LFMD analyzed at a frequency of 10% of samples? Was the percent recovery within 80

- 120%? What was the percent recovery?

Was the RPD less than 2 5 %? (200.8/9.4.2

- 9.4.4) What was the RPD for all analytes?

5. **Interferences : Was the mass to charge ratio of 48 (32S160+), 81Br

- , and 35Cl

- monitored to identify possible spectral or chromatographic interferences? To avoid spectral interferences was the appropriate reaction gas utilized in the dynamic reaction cell?


### SECTION E . DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Dilution : If th e concentration of Cr(VI) in a sample

was above the range of the calibration curve

, was the sample diluted and reanalyzed? ( 218.6/11.5 ) Were samples with concentrations above or equal to 90% of the upper limi t of the LDR diluted and reanalyzed? (218.6/9.2.3)Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium EPA Method 218.6 ( 1994 ) Page 6 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METH OD 218.6 R EQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

2. Sample Reporting: Was the sample concentration calculated from the calibration curve and reported in μg/L?Final Notes July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes

Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium EPA Method 218.6 ( 1994 ) Ion chromatography

1. If the laboratory judges that the influent samples contained sulfate and chloride concentrations that were high enoug h to cause column overload, the af fected samples should be diluted by the laboratory (218.6/4.1.3)

. If reported, not e if the laboratory diluted samples to prevent column overload.

2. S amples should be adjusted to roo m temperature prior to analysis (218.6/11.1)

.

3. A rinse blank should be used to flush the system between all solution changes and

suitable rinse times should be determined and used to prevent memory interferences (200.8/4.1.5) . If reported, indicate h ow many rinse blank s were r un and state any

contamination noted.

4. For aqueous sample s, a field blank should be prepared and analyzed at each sample point during one of the four days of sample collecti on. If the analyte concentration was greater
than the MDL, indicate the concentration.

5. **B oth masses 52 and 53 should be analyzed and mass 5 2 used to determine the

concent ration of Cr(VI) in the samples (200.8/11.4.4/Table 4)

.

6. Results should be corrected based on Cr(VI) contamination found in the LRB . Indicate whether the laboratory automatically made these corrections.

7. *If the analyte concen tration in a sample was less than 5 times the analyte c oncentration in the laboratory/method blank, the result should be reported as a nondetect. List all affected samples.

8. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory/method blank, the result should reported as an estimated value. List all affected samples.Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300 .0 ( Ion Chromatography )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Numbers or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Instructions: Complete thi s checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment” section for each criterion not (“N”) met. Note: Requirements with a * are project requirements not specific to

EPA Method 300.0.



### SECTION A

- 2 . OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex Airbills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a page

cop ied from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and Blank 1, 2, 3

Quality Control Sample Results 3

Laboratory Reagent Blank Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Blank Results 2, 3

Instrument Performance Check Solution

Results 3

Laboratory Fortified Matrix (LFM) Results 2, 3

Standard Curve Results 3

Continuing Calibration Data 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300.0 (1993) Page 2 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### SECTION A

- 2 . OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Chromatograms for Each Sample, Blank, and

Standard 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus ana lysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300.0 (1993) Page 3 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METHOD 300 .0 REQUIREMENT Reviewer

Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION B . SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Preservations? Temp? Volume?

• Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record:

• Date received?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

numbers?

• Preservation checked by lab? Temp? Volume?

• Sample conditions ?

• Sample hold tim e ?

• Any anomalies reported by lab?


### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATION

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

• Standard expiration date:

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample process or run date:

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate col lected and analyzed as part of the sampling episode? Indicate the relative percent difference.


### SECTION D

- 1 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Calibration

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: Were calibrations, QC samples

, and samples included in a

batc h of 20 samples?

2. Standard Curve: Were at least three standards within the standard range and one blank used to create a calibration curve? (300.0/10.2)

What were the concentrations of the three calibration

standar ds used by lab?Steam Study Data Review Checklist Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300.0 (1993) Page 4 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METHOD 300 .0 REQUIREMENT Reviewer

Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION D

- 2 . QC INFORMATION

– Blanks /Duplicates

1. Laboratory Reagent Blank : Was a laboratory

reagent blank analyzed with each batch of samples ?

Were all of the target compounds or interfering compounds < Reporting Limit (RL)? 1

Note any contamina tion reported. If no , was analysis st o p p ed and contamination

eliminated? (300.0/9.3.1)

2. Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB): Was an LFB analyzed with every sample batch and was the percent recovery of all analytes within 90

- 110% ? Were replicate LFBs analyzed at least quarterly to determine precision? (300 .0/9.3.2 /9.4.8 )

What were the concentrations of all analytes in the LFB reported by the lab?

What were the % recoveries of all the analytes?


### SECTION D

- 3 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Performance

1. Ion Chromatographic Parameters: Were parameters equal to those presented in Tables 1A and

1B of EPA Method 300.0 established for the ion chromatography column? (300.0/10.1)

2. Initial Demonstration of Performance, Quality Control Sample (QCS) data enclosed? : W as a QCS sample analyzed and w as the percent recovery within ± 10% of the stated values? (300.0/9.2.3)

I ndicate the true and reported value s of the QCS an d the percent recovery.

1 Note: EPA method 300.0 requires that the LRB be less than the Method Detection Limit (MDL). However, this method is written for drinking water analysis. Because chloride and sulfide levels in FGD

wastewater will be appreciably higher than in drinking water, TestAmerica will only consider the LRB contaminated if analytes are higher than the reporting limit.Steam Study Data Review Checklist Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300.0 (1993) Page 5 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METHOD 300 .0 REQUIREMENT Reviewer

Comment Criterion

met

Y N

3. Instrument Performance Check Solution: Was an instrument performance check solution (IPC) and calibration blank analyzed immediately after daily calibration, following every ten samples, and at the

concl usion of the sample run?

Did all results for the IPC solution and calibration blank verify that the instrument was within ±10% of calibration? (300.0/9.3.4) What were results reported for the IPC and the

percent recovery ?

4. Laboratory Fortified Sample Ma trix (LFM) : Was a known amount of analyte ( ≥4 times MDL) added to at least 10% of samples and was the percent recovery

within 80

- 120% (Method A) or 75

- 125% (Method B) ? (300.0/9.4) What were the % recoveries for all analytes?

5. Continuing Calibration Verification : W as the calibration curve verified at the beginning of each day, after every 20 samples

, and whenever the anion eluent was changed? Was the retention time or response for each analyte

within ± 10 % of the expected value ?

Note: If the above criteria fail , the continuing calibration verification analysis can be repeated using

fresh standards and if these results are within ± 10% of the expected value it is not necessary to recreate

the calibration cu rve. (300 .0 / 10 .4)

What were the results reported for the CCV and what was the percent recovery ?


### SECTION E . DETAILED RAW DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Calculation : Was the concentration in samples determined using the standard curve and were values

rep orted in mg/L? (300.0/12.0)

2. Dilution: If a result was greater than the highest
standard used to calculate the calibration curve, was the sample diluted and reanalyzed? (300.0/12.2)

3. Sample Results Reporting: Were only results

between the lowest and highest standards reported? ( 300.0 /12.2)Final Notes July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes

Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300 .0 ( Ion Chromatography )

1. If residual chlorine dio xide is suspected in sample, the sample should be purged with an

iner t gas for at least five minutes (300.0/4.8)

.

2. S amples containing particle s larger than 0.45 μm and reagents containing particles larger than 0.2 μm should be filtered prior to analysis (300.0/4.4)

.

3. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 5 times the analyte concentration

in t he laboratory reagent blank, the resu lt should be reported as a nondetect . List all affected samples:

4. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank, the result should be reported as

an estima ted value. List all affected samples:Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ammonia EPA Method 350.1 ( 1993 ) ( Semi

- Automated Colorimetry )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Number s or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Instructions: Complete th is checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment” section for each criterion not (“N”) met.

No te: Requirements with a * ar e project requirements not specific to

EPA Method 350.1

.



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex Airbills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a page

co pied from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and

Blank 1, 2, 3

Laboratory Reagent Blank Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Blank Results 2, 3

Standard Curve and Quality Control Sample Results 3

Instrument Performance Check Solution

Result s 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ammonia EPA Method 350.1 (1993 ) Page 2 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments
Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix

Results 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work

Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample prepa ration

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist

Ammonia EPA Method 350.1 (1993 ) Page 3 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010



### EPA Method 350.1 Requirement R eviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Preservations? pH? Temp? Volume

• Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record :

• Date re ceived?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

• Preservation checked by lab? pH? Temp?

Volume?

• Sample c onditions ?

• Sample hold time ?

• Any anomalies reported by lab ?


### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATION

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

• Standard expiration date:

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample extraction date :

• Sample process or run date :
3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected and analyzed as part of the sampling episode?

Indicate the relat ive percent difference.


### SECTION D

- 1 . QC INFORMATION

– Calibration

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: Were calibrations, QC samples and samples included in a batch of 20 samples?

2. Standard Curve: Were at least three standards within the standard range and one blank used to create a calibration curve? (350.1/10.1)

What were the concentration s of the three calibration standards used by lab?Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ammonia EPA Method 350.1 (1993 ) Page 4 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010



### EPA Method 350.1 Requirement R eviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

3. Quality Control Sample (QCS) data enclosed? : Was a QCS used to verify the calibration (i.e., were results within ±10% of QCS true value) ? (350.1/ 9.2.3/ 10.7) What was the true value of the QCS? What was the QC S value reported by the labs ? What was the percent recovery?



### SECTION D

- 2 . QC INFORMATION

– Blanks/Duplicates

1. Laboratory Reagent Blank: Was a laboratory reagent blank analyzed with each batch of samples and were the results always less than the Method

Detection Limit (MDL)? (350.1/9.3.1) Note any contamination reported.

2. Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB) : Was a LFB analyzed with each batch of samples and was the percent recovery of a ll analytes within 90

- 110%? (350.1 /9.3.2)

What were the concentration s of all analytes in the

LFB reported by the lab?

What were the % recoveries of all the analytes?


### SECTION D

- 3 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Performance Checks

1. Instrument Performance Check Solution (IPC) : Was an IPC and calibration blank analyz ed immediately after daily calibration, following every ten samples, and at the conclusion of the sample

run? Did all results for the IPC solution and calibration blank verify that the instrument was within ±10% of calibration? (350.1/9.3.4)

What were res ults reported for the IPC and calibration blank and what were the percent

recoveries ?

2. Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFM) : Was a known amount of analyte ( ≥4 times MDL) added to at least 10% of samples and was the percent recovery within 90

- 110%? (350.1/9.4) What were the % recoveries for all analytes?


### SECTION F

. DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Calculation: Was the concentration in samples determined using the standard curve and were values reported in mg NH 3 - N/L? (350.1/12.0)Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ammonia EPA Method 350.1 (1993 ) Page 5 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010



### EPA Method 350.1 Requirement R eviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

2. Dilution: If a result was greater than the highest

standard used to calculate the cali bration curve, was the sample diluted and reanalyzed? (350.1/12.2)

3. Sample Results Reporting: Were only results between the lowest and highest standards reported? (350.1/12.2)Final Notes July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes

Ammonia EPA Method 350.1 ( 1993 ) ( Semi

- Automated Colorimetry )

1. Prior to analysis, the distillation apparatus should be steame d out until ammonia i s no longer detected in the distillate (350.1/11.1)

.

2. The samples should be checke d for residual chlorine and if necessary sodium

thiosulfate or sodium sulfite should be add ed to dechlorinate the samples (350.1/4.2/7.5)

.

3. T he pH of the sample should be adjusted to 9.5 prior to distillation (350.1/4.1/11.2) . T he pH of the wash water and s tandard ammonia solutions

should be adjusted to match the pH in the samples (350.1/11.4)

.

4. A utomated continuous flow analysis equipment should be used to analyze samples (350.1/6.4)

.

5. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 5 times the analyt e concentration in the laboratory reagent blank, the result should be reported as a

nondetect . List all affected samples:

6. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank, the result should

be reported as an estimated value . List all affected samples:Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA Method 351.2 (1993 ) ( Semi

- Automated Colorimetry )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Numbers or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Instructi ons: Complete this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment” section for each criterion not (“N”) met. Note: Requirem ents with a * are project requirements not specific to

EPA Method 351.2

.



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents ( Fed

- Ex Airbills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usuall y just a page copied from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and

Blank 1, 2, 3

Laboratory Reagent Blank Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Blank Results 2, 3

Standard Curve and Quality Control Sample Results 3

Instrument Performance Check Solution

Results 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA Method 351.2 Page 2 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments
Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix

Results 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work

Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and pro per sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA Method 351.2 Page 3 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA Method 351.2 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Preservations? pH? Temp? Volume ?

• Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record :

• Date received?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

• Preservation checked by lab? pH? Temp?

Volume?

• Sample c onditions ?

• Sample hold time ?

• Any anomalies reported by lab ?


### SECTION D. SAMPLE PREPARATION

– Digestion/ Distillation

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

• Standard expiration date:

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample extraction date :

• Sample process or run date :
3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected and analyzed as part of the sampling episode? Indicate the relative percent difference.Steam Study Data Review Checklist Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA Method 351.2 Page 4 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA Method 351.2 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION E

- 1 . QC INFORMATION

– Calibration

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: Were calibrations, QC samples and samples included in a batch of 20 samples?

2. Standard Curve: Were at least three standards within the standard range and one blank used to create a calibration curve? (351.2/10.1)

What were the concentration s of the three calibration standards used by lab?

3. Quality Control Sample (QCS) data enclosed? : Was a QCS used to verify the calibration (i.e., were results within ±10% of QCS true value) ? (351.2/ 9.2.3/ 10.7) What was the true value of the QCS? What was the QCS value reported by the labs ? What was the percent recovery?



### SECTION E

- 2 . QC INFORMATION

– Blanks/Duplicates

1. Laboratory Reagent Blank: Was a laboratory reagent blank analyzed with each batch of samples

and were the results always less than the Method

D etection Limit (MDL)? (351.2/9.3.1) Note any contamination reported.

2. Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB) : Was a LFB analyzed with each batch of samples and was the percent recovery of all analytes within 90

- 110%? (351.2/9.3.2)

What were the concentrations of all analytes in the

LFB reported by the lab?

What were the % recoveries of all the analytes?Steam Study Data Review Checklist Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA Method 351.2 Page 5 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA Method 351.2 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION E

- 3 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Performance Checks

1. Instrument Performance Check Solution (IPC) : Was an IPC and calibration blank analyzed immediately after daily calibration, following every ten samples, and at the conclusion of the sample

run?

Did all results for the IPC solution and calibration blank verify that the instrument was within ±10% of calibration? (351.2/9.3.4) What were results reported for the IPC and calibration blank and what were the percent

recoveries ?

2. Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFM) : Was

a known amount of analyte ( ≥4 times MDL) added to at least 10% of samples and was the percent recovery within 90

- 110%? (351.2/9.4) What were the % recoveries for all analytes?


### SECTION F

. DATA REVIE W

– Sample Results

1. Calculation: Was the concentration in samples determined using the standard curve a nd were values reported in mg N/L? ( 351.2/12.0 )

2. Dilution: If a result was greater than the highest
standard used to calculate the calibration curve, was the sample diluted and reanalyzed? (351.2/12.2)

3. Sample Results Reporting: Were only results between the lowest and highest standards reported? (351.2/12.2)Final Notes July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA Method 351.2 (1993 ) ( Semi

- Automated Colorimetry )

1. If the sample was suspected to have nitrate concentrations greater than or equal to 10
times the TKN concentration, the sample should be diluted and reanalyzed

.

2. S amples should be placed in a digestor at 1 4 0°C for at least one hour, the temperature
should be reset to 380°C to heat for 1.5 hours, and 380°C should be maintained for 30 minutes (351.2/11.5)

. 1

3. A utomated continuous flow analysis equipment should be used to analyze samples (351.2/6.4)

. Indicate any deviations noted in the lab’s dig estion procedures.

4. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank, report the result as a nondetect. List all affected samples:

5. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank, report the result as an estimated value . List all affected samples:

1 Note: TestAmerica found that digesting initially at 140°C rather than 160°C as EPA method 351.2 requires produced better results by reducing splattering and overheating. The time increment was increased to ensure complete evaporation of water before in creasing the temperature to 380°C.Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Nitrate/Nitrite EPA Method 353.2 (1993) ( Automated Colorimetry )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Number s or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Instructions: Complet e this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overa ll Assessment”

section for each criterion not (“N”) met. Note: Requirements with a * are project requirements not specific to

EPA Method 353.2



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex

Airbil ls) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a page copied from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and Blank 1, 2, 3

Standard Curve and Quality Control Sample

Results 3

Laboratory Reagent Blank Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Blank Results 2, 3

Instrument Performance Check Solution

Resul ts 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Nitrate/Nitrite EPA Method 353.2 (1993) Page 2 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments
Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix Results 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample prep aration

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist

Nitrate/Nitrite EPA Method 353.2 (1993) Page 3 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA Method 353.2 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Preservations? pH? Temp? Volume ?

• Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record :

• Date received?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

• Preservation checked by lab? pH? Temp?

Volume?

• Sample c onditions ?

• Sample hold time ?

• Any anomalies reported by lab ?


### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATION

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs :

• Standard expiration date:

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample process or run date :
3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected and analyzed as part of the sampling episode? Indicate the relative percent difference.



### SECTION D

- 1 . QC INFORMATION

– Calibration

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: Were calibrations, QC samples and samples included in a batch of 20 samples?

2. Standard Curve: Were at least three nitrate

standards and one blank used to create a calibration

curve? Was at least one nitrite standard analyzed to verify the reduction capability of the copper

- cadmium column? (353.2/10.1)

What were the concentration s of the calibration standards used by lab?


### Section D

- 2. QC INFORMATION

– Blanks /DuplicatesSteam Study Data Review Checklist

Nitrate/Nitrite EPA Method 353.2 (1993) Page 4 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA Method 353.2 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

1. Laboratory Reagent Blank: Was a laboratory reagent blank analyzed with each batch of samples and were the results always less than the Method

D etection Limit (MDL)? ( 353.2 /9.3.1) Note any contamination reported by the lab.

2. Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB) : Was a LFB analyzed with each batch of samples and was the percent recovery of all analytes within 90

- 110%? ( 353.2 /9.3.2)

What were the concentrations of all analytes in the

LFB reported by the lab?

What were the % recoveries of all the analytes?


### Section D

- 3. QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Performance Results

1. Quality Control Sample (QCS) data enclosed? : Was a QCS used t o verify the calibration (i.e., were results within ±10% of QCS true value) ? (353.2/9.2.3/10.7) What was the true value of the QCS? What was the QCS value reported by the labs ? What was the percent recovery?

2. Instrument Perfor mance Check Solution: Was an instrument performance check solution (IPC) and calibration blank analyzed immediately after daily calibration, following every ten samples, and at the conclusion of the sample run?

Did all results for the IPC solution and cali bration blank verify that the instrument was within ±10% of calibration? (353.2/9.3.4) What were results reported for the IPC and calibration blank and what were the percent

recoveries ?

3. Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFM) : Was

a known amount of an alyte ( ≥4 times MDL) added to at least 10% of samples and was the percent recovery within 90

- 110%? (353.2/9.4) What were the % recoveries for all analytes?


### SECTION E

. DATA REVIEW

– Sample Re sults

1. Calculation: Was the standard curve used to

calculate the concentration of nitrate/nitrite in the sample? (353.2/12.1)Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Nitrate/Nitrite EPA Method 353.2 (1993) Page 5 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA Method 353.2 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

2. Dilution: If a result was greater than the highest
standard used to calculate the calibration curve, was the sample diluted an d reanalyzed? (353.2/12.2)

3. Sample Results Reporting: Were only results between the lowest and highest standards reported? (353.2/12.2) Were results reported in mg/L as nitrogen? (353.2/12.3)Final Notes July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes

Nitrate/Nitrite EPA Method 353.2 (1993) ( Automated Colorimetry )

1. S ample s that contain a high co ncentration of suspended solids should be filtered (353.2/4.1)

.

2. EDTA should be added to samples that contained high concentrations of ir on, copper, and/or other metals (353.2/4.2)

.

3. If reported, indicate whether samples were checked for residual chlorine and i f samples
contained chlorine, indicate if sodium thiosulfate or an other chemical was added to

dechlorinat e the samples (353.2/4. 3)

.

4. Prior to analysis, the pH of the sample should be adjusted to between 5 and 9 using HCl

or NH 4 OH. If reported, state the pH of the samples prior to analysis.

5. A utomated continuous flow analysis equipment should be used to analyze the samples (353.2/6.3)

.

6. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank, report the result as a nondetect . List all affected samples:

7. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but g reater than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank, report the result as an estimated

value . List all affected samples:Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist Total Phosphorus EPA Method 365.1 (19 93 ) ( Semi

- Automated Colorimetry )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Number s or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Instructions: C omplete this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment” section for each criterion not (“N”) met. Note: Requirements w ith a * are project requirements not specific to

EPA Method 365. 1

.



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex Airbills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a page copied from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and

Blank 1, 2, 3

Laboratory Reagent Blank Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Blank Results 2, 3

Standard Curve and Quality Control Sample Results 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist Total Phosphorus EPA Method 365. 1 (1993 ) Page 2 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Instrument Performance Check Solut ion

Results 3

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix

Results 2, 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Standard Curve Results 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work

Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist Total Phosphorus EPA Method 365. 1 (1993 ) Page 3 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METH OD 365. 1 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Preservations? pH? Temp? Volume ?

• Any anomalies reported?

2. R eviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record :

• Date received?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

• Preservation checked by lab? pH? Temp?

Volume?

• Sample c onditions ?

• Sample hold time ?

• Any anomalies reported by lab ?


### SECTION C . SAMPL E PREPARATION/EXTRACT HANDLING

INFORMATION

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

• Standard expiration date:

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample extraction date :

• Sample process or run date:

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate coll ected and analyzed as part of the sampling episode? Indicate the relative percent difference.


### SECTION D

- 1 . QC INFORMATION

- Calibration

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: Were calibrations, QC samples and samples included in a batch of 20 sampl es?

2. Standard Curve: Were at least three standards and

one blank used to create a calibration curve? (Suggested ranges 0

- 0.10 mg/L or 0.2

- 1.0 mg/L) (365. 1/10

. 0 )

What were the concentrations of the three calibration standards used by lab?Steam Study Data Review Checklist Total Phosphorus EPA Method 365. 1 (1993 ) Page 4 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METH OD 365. 1 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

3. Quality Control Sample (QCS) data enclosed? : Was a QCS used to verify the calibration (i.e., were results within ±10% of QCS true value) ? (365.1 / 9.2.3/ 10.7) What was the true value of the QCS? What was the QCS value reported by the labs ? What was the percent recovery?



### SECTION D

- 2 . QC INFORMATION

– Blanks/Duplicates

1. Laboratory Reagent Blank: Was a laboratory

reagent blank analyzed with each batch of samples

and were the resul ts always less than the Method

D etection Limit (MDL)? (365.1/9.3.1) Note any contamination report ed by the lab.

2. Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB) : Was a LFB analyzed with each batch of samples and was the percent recovery of all analytes within 90

- 110%? (365.1/9.3.2)

What were the concentrations of all analytes in the

LFB reported by the lab?

What were the % recoveries of all the analytes?


### SECTION D

- 3 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Pe rformance Checks

1. Instrument Performance Check Solution: Was an instrument performance check solution (IPC) and calibration blank analyzed immediately after daily calibration, following every ten samples, and at the conclusion of the sample run?

Did all re sults for the IPC solution and calibration blank verify that the instrument was within ±10% of calibration? (365.1/9.3.4) What were results reported for the IPC and calibration blank and what were the percent

recoveries ?

2. Laboratory Fortified Sample Mat rix (LFM) : Was a known amount of analyte ( ≥4 times MDL) added to at least 10% of samples and was the percent recovery within 90

- 110%? (365.1/9.4) What were the % recoveries for all analytes?


### SECTION E

. DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Calculation: Was the total phosphorus calculated from the standard curve? (365. 1 / 12.1 )Steam Study Data Review Checklist Total Phosphorus EPA Method 365. 1 (1993 ) Page 5 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METH OD 365. 1 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

2. Dilution: If a result was greater than the highest
standard used to calculate the calibration curve, was the sample diluted and reanalyzed? (365.1/12.2)

3. Sample Results Reporting: Was total phosphorus reported in milligrams per litter (mg/L)? (365.1/12.3) Were only results between the lowest and highest standards reported? (365 .1/12.2)Final Notes July 9 , 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes Total Phosphorus EPA Method 365.1 (19 93 ) ( Semi

- Automated Colorimetry )

1. H igh iron concentrations can cause phosphorus to precipitate (365.1/4.1)

.

2. A rsenate can interfere when it is present at concen trations higher than phospho rus. (365.1/4.3)

3. If sample color was reported indicate if the color absorbs in the photome tric range used during analysis. If so, designate the affected samples, the color, and the magnitude of the

color.

4. S ample should be digested using persulfate (365.1/1 1.1.2) . If reported, indicate the

amount of persulfate used in the digestion and state any deviations noted in the lab’s digestion procedures

.

5. If the sample was not clear after digestion, the sample should be filtered (365.1/11.1.4)

. Note: Samples intended for total or total hydrolyzable phosphorus analysis should on ly be filtered after digestion (365.1/4.4)

.

6. A utomated continuous flow analysis equipment should be used to analyze the samples (365.1/6.4)

.

7. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less tha n 5 times the analyte concentration

in t he laboratory reagent blank, report the result as a nondetect. List all affected samples:

8. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times the analyte concentration in the lab oratory reagent blank, report the result as an estimated value. List all affected samples:Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) EPA Method 410.4 ( 1993 ) ( Semi

- Automated Colorimetry )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Number s or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Ins tructions: Complete this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment” section for each criterion not (“N”) met.

Note: Re quirements with a * are project requirements not specific to

EPA Method 410.4

.



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Docum ents (Fed

- Ex Airbills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation ( usually just a page copied from SOW) 3

Results Su mmary for Each Sample and

Blank 1, 2, 3

Results for Laboratory Reagent Blank 2, 3

Results for Laboratory Fortified Blank 2, 3

Standard Curve and Quality Control Sample Results 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ch emical Oxyg en Demand (COD) EPA Method 410.4 (1993 ) Page 2 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Instrument Per formance Check Solution

Results 3

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix

Results 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work

Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample han dling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist

Ch emical Oxyg en Demand (COD) EPA Method 410.4 (1993 ) Page 3 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### E PA METH OD 410.4 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Preservations? pH? Temp? Volume ?

• Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record :

• Date received?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

• Preservation checked by lab? pH? Temp?

Volume?

• Sample c onditions ?

• Sample hold time ?

• Any anomalies reported by lab ?


### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATIO N

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

• Standard expiration date:

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample extraction date :

• Sample process or run date:

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected and analyzed as part of the sampli ng episode? Indicate the relative percent difference.


### SECTION D

- 1 . QC INFORMATION

– Calibration

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: Were calibrations, QC samples and samples included in a batch of 20 samples?

2. Standard Curve : Were at least three standards and

one blank used to create a calibration curve? (410.4/10. 0 )

What were the concentrations of the three calibration standards used by lab?Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ch emical Oxyg en Demand (COD) EPA Method 410.4 (1993 ) Page 4 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### E PA METH OD 410.4 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

3. Quality Control Sample (QCS) data enclosed? : Was QCS used to verify the calibration (i.e., were results within ±10% of QCS true value) ? (410.4/ 9.2.3/ 10.7) What was the true value of the QCS?

What was t he QCS value reported by the labs ? What was the percent recovery?



### SECTION D

- 2 . QC INFORMATION

– Blanks /Duplicates

1. Laboratory Reagent Blank: Was a laboratory

reagent blank analyzed with each batch of samples

and were the resul ts always less than the Me thod

D etection Limit (MDL)? (410.4/9.3.1 ) Note any contamination reported by the laboratory.

2. Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB) : Was a laboratory fortified blank analyzed with each batch of samples and was the percent recovery of all analytes within 90

- 1 10%? (410.4/9.3.2)

What were the concentrations of all analytes in the

LFB reported by the lab?

What were the % recoveries of all the analytes?


### SECTION D

- 3 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Performance Checks

1. Instrument Performance Check Solution: Was an instrument performance check solution (IPC) and calibration blank analyzed immediately after daily calibration, following every ten samples, and at the conclusion of the sample run?

Did all results for the IPC solution and calibration blank verify that the instrument was within ±10% of calibration? (410.4/9.3.4) What were results reported for the IPC and calibration blank and what were the percent

recoveries ?

2. Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFM) : Was a known amount of analyte ( ≥4 times MDL) added to at least 10% of samples and was the percent recovery within 90

- 110%? (410.4/9.4) What were the % recoveries for all analytes?


### SECTION E

. DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Calculation : Was the standard curve used to calculate the concentration of COD in the sample? (410.4/12.1)Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ch emical Oxyg en Demand (COD) EPA Method 410.4 (1993 ) Page 5 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### E PA METH OD 410.4 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

2. Dilution: If a result was greater than the highest
standard used to calculate the calibration curve, was the sampl e diluted and reanalyzed? (410.4/12.2)

3. Sample Results Reporting : Were only results between the lowest and highest standards reported? (410.4/12.2) Were results reported in mg/L? (410.4/12.3)Final Notes July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) EPA Method 410.4 ( 1993 ) ( Semi

- Automated Colorimetry )

1. If chlorides were present, mercuric sulfate should be added to the digestion tubes (410.4/4.1)

.

2. S amples should be digested at 150°C for two hou rs. (410.4/11.0) Indicate a ny deviations

noted in the lab’s digestion procedures.

3. A utomated continuous flow analysis equipment should be used to analyze samples (410.4/6.6 ).

4. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 5 times the analyte concen tration in the laboratory reagent blank, report the result as a nondetect. List all affected samples:

5. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank, repor t the result as an estimated value. List all affected samples:Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002) ( Oxidation, Purge and Trap, and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Numbers or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Instructions: Complete this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment” section for each criterion not (“N”) met. Note: Requirements with a * are project requirements not specific to

EPA Method 1631E

.



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level

R equired Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex Airbills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a page copied from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and

Blank 1, 2, 3

Initial Precision and Recovery (IPR)

Results 3

Quality Control Sample 1, 2, 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002)

P age 2 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level

R equired Present Comments

Initial Calibration Data (blanks and calibration points) 3

Reagent, Method, Field, Equipment,
Bottle, and Filter Blank Results 2, 3

Matrix Spike (MS)/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Results 1, 2, 3

Ongoing Precision and Recovery (OPR) 3

Field Duplicate Results 1, 2, 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work

Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plu s review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002)

P age 3 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA 1631 REVISION E REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Co llection Record:

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Preservations? pH? Temp? Volume ?

• Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Recor d :

• Date received?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

• Pre servation checked by lab ? pH? Temp?

Volume?

• Sample c onditions ?

• Sample hold time ?

• Any anomalies reported by lab ?


### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATION/EXTRACT HANDLING

INFORMATION

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs :

• Standard expiration date :

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample extraction date :

• Sample process or run date :
3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected and analyzed as part of the sampling episode? Indicate the relative percent difference. (1631E/9.7)Steam Study Data Review Checklist Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002)

P age 4 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA 1631 REVISION E REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### Section D

- 1. QC INFORMATION

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: Were calibrations, QC samples and samples included in a batch of 20 samples?

2. Method Detection Limit data enclosed? : Does the laboratory have the capability to detect Hg less than or equal to either the MDL for this method (0.2 ng/L) or 1/3 the regulatory compliance limit? (1631E/9.2.1) What was the MDL reported by the lab?

3. Initial Precision and Recovery (IPR) data

enclosed? : Were four replicates of the IPR solution analyzed? Was the average percent recov ery within 79

- 121%

and was the Relative Standard D eviation (RSD) less than or equal to 21%? (1631E/9.2.2) What was the IRP spiked at?

What w as the % recovery of the IPR?

What was the RSD of the IPR?

4. Quality Control Sample (QCS ) data enclosed ? : Was a secondary source calibration sample prepared with a known amount of mercury and analyzed to determine the system performance ? What was the true value of the QCS? What was the QCS value reported by the labs ? What was the percent recovery?



### SECTION D

- 2. QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Calibration

1. Bubbler blank: Were at minimum three bubbler

blank s analyzed at calibration and during each

batch ? D id all bubbler blanks contain less than 50 pg of Hg?

Was the mean for all bubbler blanks less than 25 pg Hg and the standard deviation less than 10 pg Hg? (1631E/9.4.1)

2. System Blank: Were at minimum th ree system blanks analyzed at calibration and during each batch and did all system blanks contain less than 0.50 ng/L Hg? Was the mean for all system blanks less than 0.5 ng/L Hg and the standard deviat ion less than 0.1 ng/L Hg? (1631 E/9.4.2)Steam Study Data Review Checklist Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002)

P age 5 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA 1631 REVISION E REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

3. Calibrati on Points: Were a minimum of five non

zero calibration points tested and was the lowest calibration point at the ML (0.5 ng/L)?

What were the c oncentrations of the 5 calibration points?

Was the RSD of the calibration factor (CF

m ) less than or equal to 15% and was the percent recovery

of the CF

m within 75

- 125% for both the bubbler and

flow

- injection systems ? (1631E/10.2 /10.3 )

What was the RSD and percent recovery of the CF

m ?


### SECTION D

- 3. QC INFORMATION

– Blanks

1. Reagent Blank: Were reagent blanks prepared and used to confirm that each new batch of reagents had less than 0.2 ng/L Hg? (1631E/9.4.3) Note any contamination reported by the laboratory.

2. Method Blank: Were at least three method blanks prepared and analyzed with each batch for the

bubbler and flow

- injection systems? Did all method blanks contain less than 0.5 ng/L Hg? (1631E/9.4.4) Note any contamination reported by the laboratory.

3. Additional Method Blanks: If a sample required additional reagent (e.g. BrCl), was a corresponding

method bla nk containing an identical amount of reagent analyzed? (1631/12.4.2)

4. Field Blank : Was a field blank analyzed for each set of samples (i.e. up to 10 samples collected and shipped at the same time and place)?

* Was a field blank analyzed for every point i n a sampling episode?

Wa s the concentration of Hg in all field blank s less than the ML ( 0.5 ng/L ) or less than 1/5 the level in the related sample? (1631E/9.4.5) Note any contamination reported by the laboratory.

5. Filter Blank: Was a filter blank prepar ed and analyzed under the same conditions as the sample? (1631E/8.4) Note any contamination reported by the laboratory.Steam Study Data Review Checklist Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002)

P age 6 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA 1631 REVISION E REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION E

. INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE CHECKS

1. Matrix Spike (MS)/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD): Was a known amount of Hg added , in duplica te, to whichever is greater one sample or at least 10% of the samples from each site ? Was the percent recovery for Hg in all MS and MSD samples within 71

- 125% and was the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) between duplicate

concentrations ≤ to 24%? (1631E / 9.3) What was the % recovery of MS/MSD? Calculation of % recovery checked? What was the RPD calculated and reported for

MS/MSD?

Calculation of RPD checked?

2. Ongoing Pre cision and Recovery (OPR): Was an

OPR solution containing 5 ng/L Hg analyzed before

each batch and at the end of a batch/at the end of

each 12

- hour shift? Was the percent recovery within 77

- 123% (1631E/7.11 /9.5) What was the % recovery of the OPR?


### SECT ION F

. DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Sample Reporting: Were results above or at the ML reported in units of nanograms per liter (ng/L) with three significant figures and were results below the ML reported as <0.5 ng/L? (1631E/12.5.1)

2. Reagent/Method/Fie ld Blank Reporting: Were all reagent and field blanks with concentrations greater than or equal to the ML reported with three significant figures in ng/L?Final Notes July 9 , 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002) ( Oxidation, Purge and Trap, and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry )

1. For th e determination of total Hg, the sample s should be preserved by adding 5 ml/L of

BrCl solution in a mercury

- free clean area in the laboratory within 48 hours of collection

. (1631E/8.5) . If reported, indicate the elapsed time between sample collection and preservation and list any samples that were not preserved in time.

2. For dissolved Hg, the sampl es should be filtered before preservation using a 0.45 μm capsule filter in a mercury

- free clean area in the laboratory within 48 hours of collection. Immediately after filtration, the samples should be preserved with 5 ml/L of BrCl solution (1631E/6.1.3/8 .4). If reported indicate the elapsed time between sample collection, filtration, and preservation and list any samples that were not filtered or preserved in time.

3. S ample bottles should be stored in new pol yethylene bags until analysis i s completed.

4. Becau se of the presence o f sulfides and organic matter, sample may req uire the addition

of more BrCl. Enough BrCl should be added to the samples to m aint ain a yellow color

for 12 hours (1631E/11.1.1)

.

5. To prevent carryover samples should be run in the following order: FGD effluent and

FGD influent

.

6. A ll samples should be analyzed consistently with one system either the bubbler system or the flow injection system

.

7. MS/MSD sample s should be analyzed for each midpoint and effluent point in a sampling episode . T he con centration of Hg added to the MS/MSD samples should be either 1

- 5 times the ML (0.5 ng/L) or 1

- 5 times the background concentration whichever is greater

.

8. The concentration of Hg in the bubbler blank or system blank should be used to calculate Hg concentrat ion as designated in the formu las in Method 1631E. Note whether the lab has automatically incorporated the bubbler blank or system blank into the data results (1631E/12.2.2/12.3.2)

.

9. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 5 times the analyt e concentration

in the method blank, report the result as a nondetect . List all affected samples:

10. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times the analyte concentration in the method blank, report the result as an estimated value . List all affected samples:Steam Study Data Review Notes Mercury in Water Method 1631 Revision E (2002) Page 2 of 2

Final Notes July 9, 2010 11. R eagent, method, and field blanks with concentrations below the ML, but above or at the

MDL should be reported in ng/L with two significant figures . Note whether the lab automatically reported the data in this way.

12. R eagent, method, and field blanks with concentrations below the MDL should be reported as <0.2 ng/L (1631E/12.5) . Note whether the lab automatically reported the data in this way.

13. If reported, note if positive hits were checked for contamination and/or carryover?Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Total Dissolved Solids Standard Method 2540C (1991) ( Dried at 180 °C )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Number s or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Instructions: Co mplete this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment” section for each criterion not (“N”) met.

Note: Requirements wi th a * are project requirements not specific to SM

2540C.



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex Airbills ) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a page c opied from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and Blank 1, 2, 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist Total Dissolved Solids Standard Method 2540C (1991) Page 2 of 2

Final Ch ecklist July 9, 2010 

### SM 2540C REQ UIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Preservations? Temp? Volume ?

• Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record :

• Date received?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

• Preservation checked by lab? Temp?

Volume?

• Sample c onditions ?

• Sample hold time ?

• Any anomalies reported by lab ?


### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATION

- Filtration and Drying Inf ormation

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

• Standard expiration date:

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample process or run date:

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected and analyzed as part of the sampling episode?

Indic ate the relative percent difference.



### SECTION D . QC INFORMATION

1. Was the tare weight of the evaporating dish reported?

2. Was the sample volume recorded in milliliters (mL)?

3. Were the oven

- drying times reported?


### SECTION E

. DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Calculation: Was the total dissolved solids calculated by the formula in Section 4 of SM

2540C ?Final Notes July 9 , 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes

Total Dissolved Solids Standard Method 2540C (1991) ( Dried at 180 °C )

1. T he sample should be brought to room temperature before analysis

.

2. S ample volumes should be selected so that 10

- 200 mg of dry residue would be acquired

. If t he filtrati on took longer than 10 minutes, the filter size should be increased or the sample volume decreased (2540C/3c) . T he sample size should be decreased if evaporation of the filtrate resulted in more than 200 mg of residue (2540C/1b)

.

3. After filtratio n, at least three aliquots of 10 ml of reagent

- grade water should be ad ded to the sample/filter and suction contin ued for 3 minutes after washing (2540C/3d)

.

4. T he filtrate and all washings should be transferred to the evaporating dish and dried with

a steam bath or drying oven? The e vaporated sample should be further dried in an oven for 1 hour at 180 ± 2°C, cooled in a desiccator, and weighed . T he above process should

be rep eated until the weight change i s less than 4% of the previous weight or 0.5 mg (whic hever is less)

.

5. If laboratory duplicates were run, duplicate weights should be within 5% of their average

. If applicable, indicate whether this criteria was met and specify the average and percent recovery from the average for each of the samples.

6. Samples may contain calcium, magnesium, chloride and/or sulfate. Such species ma y make the sample hygroscopic. T he following procedures should be done in order to prevent errors: drying time increased, proper dessication procedures us ed, and samples weighed rapidl y (2540C/ 1b)

.

7. T he oven thermometer should be immersed in a sand bath or other suitable thermal mass

.

8. T he desiccator should have a good seal (vacuum or grease)

.

9. D esiccant should be kept inside the balance to maintain humidity control in the balance

.

10. T he o ven temperature should be checked for proper setting and stability and the temperature recorded . If reported, indicate the oven temperature.

11. T he balance should be checked with “S” class weights (100 mg, 1 g, and 100 g)

.

12. T he analytical balance should have b een serviced and calibrated within the last year . If provided, indicate the last date of service.Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist Total Suspended Solids Standard Method 2540D (1991) ( Dried at 103

- 105°C )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Number s or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Instructions : Complete this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment” section for each criterion not (“N”) met. Note: Requiremen t s with a * are project requirements not specific to SM

2540D.



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex

Airb ills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a pa ge copied from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and Blank 1, 2, 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist Total Suspended Solids Standard Method 2540D (1991) Page 2 of 2

Final Checkl ist July 9, 2010 

### SM 2540D REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Preservations? Temp? Volume ?

• Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Rec ord :

• Date received?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

• Preservation checked by lab? Temp?

Volume?

• Sample c onditions ?

• Sample hold time ?

• Any anomalies reported by lab ?


### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATION

- Filtration and Drying Information

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

• Standard expiration date:

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample process or run date:

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected and analyzed as part of the sampling episode?

I ndicate the relative percent difference.



### SECTION D . QC INFORMATION

1. Was the tare weight of the drying dish reported?

2. Was the sample volume recorded in milliliters (mL)?

3. Were the oven

- drying times reported?


### SECTION E

. DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Calculation: Was the total suspended solids calculated by the formula in Section 4 of SM

2540D?Final Notes July 9 , 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes

Total Dissolved Solids Standard Method 2540C (1991) ( Dried at 180 °C )

1. T he sample should be brought to room temperature before analysis

.

2. S ample volumes should be selected so that 10

- 200 mg of dry residue would be acquired

. If t he filtrati on took longer than 10 minutes, the filter size should be increased or the sample volume decreased (2540C/3c) . T he sample size should be decreased if evaporation of the filtrate resulted in more than 200 mg of residue (2540C/1b)

.

3. After filtratio n, at least three aliquots of 10 ml of reagent

- grade water should be ad ded to the sample/filter and suction contin ued for 3 minutes after washing (2540C/3d)

.

4. T he filtrate and all washings should be transferred to the evaporating dish and dried with

a steam bath or drying oven? The e vaporated sample should be further dried in an oven for 1 hour at 180 ± 2°C, cooled in a desiccator, and weighed . T he above process should

be rep eated until the weight change i s less than 4% of the previous weight or 0.5 mg (whic hever is less)

.

5. If laboratory duplicates were run, duplicate weights should be within 5% of their average

. If applicable, indicate whether this criteria was met and specify the average and percent recovery from the average for each of the samples.

6. Samples may contain calcium, magnesium, chloride and/or sulfate. Such species ma y make the sample hygroscopic. T he following procedures should be done in order to prevent errors: drying time increased, proper dessication procedures us ed, and samples weighed rapidl y (2540C/ 1b)

.

7. T he oven thermometer should be immersed in a sand bath or other suitable thermal mass

.

8. T he desiccator should have a good seal (vacuum or grease)

.

9. D esiccant should be kept inside the balance to maintain humidity control in the balance

.

10. T he o ven temperature should be checked for proper setting and stability and the temperature recorded . If reported, indicate the oven temperature.

11. T he balance should be checked with “S” class weights (100 mg, 1 g, and 100 g)

.

12. T he analytical balance should have b een serviced and calibrated within the last year . If provided, indicate the last date of service.Final Ch ecklist July 9 , 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist Cyanide Standard Method 4500 CN

- 

### E (1990) ( Colorimetric Method )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Numbers or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Instructions: Complete this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overa ll Assessment” section for

each criterion not (“N”) met. Note: Requirements with a * are project requirements not specific to SM

4500 CN - E

.



### SECTION A

- 2 . OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

Ex Airbills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No., and Analytical

Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a

page co pied from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample

and Blank 1, 2, 3

Calibration Curve Results 3

Calibration Curve V erification 3

Laboratory Blank Results 2, 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist Cyanide SM 4500 CN
- E Page 2 of 4

Final Checklist July 9 , 2010 

### SECTION A

- 2 . OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparati on Work

Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist Cyanide SM 4500 CN
- E Page 3 of 4

Final Checklist July 9 , 2010 

### SM 4500 CN

- 

### E REQUIREMENT Reviewer

Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION B . SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID num bers checked?

• Preservations? Temp? pH? Volume?

• Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record:

• Date received?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

numbers?

• Preservation checked by lab? pH? Temp?

Volume?

• Sample condi tions ?

• Sample hold time ?

• Any anomalies reported by lab?


### SECTION C

. SAMPLE PREPARATION/EXTRACT HANDLING

INFORMATION

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

• Standard expiration date:

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample extraction date:

• S ample process or run date:

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected and analyzed as part of the sampling episode? Indicate the relative percent difference.Steam Study Data Review Checklist Cyanide SM 4500 CN
- E Page 4 of 4

Final Checklist July 9 , 2010 

### SM 4500 CN

- 

### E REQUIREMENT Reviewer

Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION D

- 1 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Calibration

1. Calibration Curve: Were a s eries of standards within the standard range and one blank used to create a calibration curve? (4500 CN E/4a)

What were the concentrations of the calibration standards used by lab?

2. Calibration Curve Verification (CCV) : Was the calibration curve checked periodically including every time the lab prepared a new reagent? (4500 CN E/4a) If provided, w hat were results reported for the

CCV?


### SECTION D

- 2 . QC INFORMATION

– Blan ks /Duplicates

1. Laboratory Blank: Was a blank (0.0 mg CN - /L) prepared and analyzed containing NaOH dilution solution and all solutions added to the samples?

Note a ny contamination reported by the laboratory.



### SECTION E . DETAILED RAW DATA REVIEW

– Sampl e Results

1. Calculation: Was the concentration in samples determined using the standard curve and were values reported in mg/L? (4500 CN E/5)

2. Dilution: Were only results between 5 and 20 ug/L reported and if a result was ≥ 20 ug/L, was the sample diluted and reanalyzed? (4500 CN A 3a)Final Notes July 9 , 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes Cyanide Standard Method 4500 CN

- 

### E (1990) ( Colorimetric Method )

1. T he sample should be diluted if necessary so that the aliquot used in the distillation step

contains ≤ 10 mg CN - /L

.

2. If S 2

- was detected, it should be removed t o undetect ed levels prior to distillation. If reported, indicate whether S 2

- was detected and note the removal method (4500 CN C/4a)

.

3. T he sample should be acidified prior to distillation . T he sample should be refluxed for ≥ 1 hour and after refluxing the heat should be discontinued, but air flow continued for ≥ 15

minutes (4500 CN C/4d)

.

4. After the addition of chloramine

- T solution and acetate buffer, the sample should be allowed to stand for exactly 2 minutes

. After the addition of pyridine

- barbituric acid reagent, the color should be a llowed to develop for 8 minutes (4500 CN E/4b)

.

5. A spectrophotometer with the capability of taking measurements at 578 nm or a filter photometer having a maximum transmittance from 570 to 580 nm should be used in the analysis (4500 CN E/2)

.

6. Distillation s tandards should be periodically used to verify the accuracy of the apparatus,

r eagents, and/or other variables. (For example, it is recommended that a standard containing 1mg CN - /L should have a percent recovery of 96

- 104%) ( 4500 CN C/4g) . If provided, what were the concentrations and percent recoveries of these standards?

7. * If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank ( if reported 1 )

, report the result as a nondetect. List all affected samples:

8. * If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank ( if reported 1 ) , was the result reported as an estimated value? List all affected samples.

1 Note: It is optional for the laboratory to analyze a separate blank other than the blank used to create the calibration

curve

.Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist

BOD Standard Method 5210 B (1992) (5

- day Test)

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Number or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Instructions: Complete this checklist el ectronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment” section for each criterion not (“N”) met.

Note: R equirements denoted with a * are proje ct requirements that are not specific to SM 5210B

.



### SECTION A

- 2 . OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex Airbills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a page copied f rom SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and

Blank 1, 2, 3

Field and Laboratory Duplicate Results 2, 3

Water Blank Results 2, 3

Glucose

- G lutamic Acid Standard

Results 2, 3

Calibration Check Data 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist BOD Standard Method 5210B (1992) Page 2 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### SECTION A

- 2 . OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level Required Present Comments

Copies of Sample Preparation Work

Shee ts 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review pl us analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist BOD Standard Method 5210B (1992) Page 3 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### STANDARD METHOD 5210 B Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

SECTION B . SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Pr eservations? Temp? Volume?

• Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record:

• Date received?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

numbers?

• Preservation checked by lab? Temp?

Volume?

• Sample conditions

• Sample hold time

• A ny anomalies reported by lab?


### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATION/EXTRACT HANDLING

INFORMATION

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

• Standard expiration date:

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample process or run date:

• # of hours between coll ection and start of analysis: Note: Samples should be analyzed within 24 hours of collection. (5210B/1b)

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected and analyzed as part of the sampling episode? Indicate the relative percent difference.


### SEC TION D

- 1. QC INFORMATION

– Method Performance

1. Nitrification Inhibitor: For CBOD 5 analysis, w as nitrification inhibitor added to all samples and

controls? If applicable, what nitrification inhibitor was used?

2. Seeding: Were all samples, seed contro ls, and glucose

- glutamic acid ( GGA ) for CBOD seeded?Steam Study Data Review Checklist BOD Standard Method 5210B (1992) Page 4 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### STANDARD METHOD 5210 B Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

3. Initial Dissolved Oxygen: Was initial DO measured (within 30 min) of sample dilution preparation? (5210B/4g) If reported, what was the initial DO measurement?

4. Dilution: If necessary, were enough dilutions prepared so that the final result had a residua l DO ≥ 1 mg/L and a DO uptake ≥ 2 mg/L after 5 days of incubation? (5210B/4f) Note: If there are multiple dilutions that fit the above criteria, the average should be used as the final result (5210 B/5).

5. Are any final DO measurements below 1.0 mg/L ? If so, specify the final DO measurement:

6. Have all samples shown a DO depletion of at least 2.0 mg/L? If not, specify the DO depletion:

7. Incubation: Are samples incubated for 5 days ± 6

hours? If reported, indicate the incubation time?

8. Seed Correction: Were seed corrections properly subtracted from seeded samples?


### SECTION D

- 2. QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Calibration

1. Calibration Checks : Was the calibration of the probe checked prior to a nalysis , after every 9 samples, and at the end of the run ?

W as the result within 2% of the true value ? If not, was the probe recalibrated?

What were the result s of the probe checks and the percent recovery?


### SECTION D

- 3. QC INFORMATION

– Reagent Blanks

1. Water Quality : Was water type or quality documented? Is water aged before use, if so how long?

2. Was water allowed to come to room temperature before usage?

3. Were nutrient and phosphate buffer prepared or purchased?

4. Was reagent quality verified and documented?

5. Phosphate Buffer pH: Was this buffer pH= 7.2? If not, specify the buffer pH:Steam Study Data Review Checklist BOD Standard Method 5210B (1992) Page 5 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### STANDARD METHOD 5210 B Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

6. Water Blank: Was a water blank analyzed in each analysis batch? Was it ≤ 0.20 mg/L? (5210B/4h) Indicate the water blank reading and a ny contamination no ted by the laboratory.

7. Glucose

- G lutamic Acid Standards : Was a glucose

- glutamic acid standard analyzed with each analysis batch?

Were results within 198 ± 30.5 mg/L (85

- 115%) ? What was the percent recovery?


### SECTION E

. Method QC

1. Laboratory Duplica tes: Were duplicates run at every 20 samples? (5%) Was the relative percent

difference less than 2 0%?

Indicate the result s of the sample and the sample duplicate and the relative percent difference?


### SECTION F

. DATA REVIEW

1. Calculations: Was BOD 5 calcu lated using the appropriate formula below and reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L)?

For non

- seeded samples: P D D 2

1

−

For seeded samples: P f B B D D ) 2 1 ( ) 2 1 (

− − −

W here: D1 = I nitial diluted sample DO (mg/L) D2 = Final diluted sample DO (mg/L) P = Volumetric fraction of sample used B1 = Initial seed control DO (mg/L) B2 = Final seed control DO (mg/L)

f = R atio of seed in diluted sample to seed

in seed controlFinal Notes July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes

BOD Standard Method 5210 B (1992) (5

- day Test)

1. If reported, indicate how samples are checked and treated for chlorine (5210B/4e)

.

2. If reported, indicate if the pH was adjusted prior to analysis. It is suggested that the pH of

s amples be between 6.5

– 7.5 S.U. (5210B/4e)

.

3. If reported, indicate if hydrogen peroxide is present in the samples and if relevant indicate how the lab treated the samples for hydrogen peroxide.

4. If reported, indicate the temperature that samples were equili brated to prior to analysis. It is suggested samples be equilibrated to 20 °C

.

5. If reported, indicate the incubator or water bath temperature. It is suggested that the temperature be maintained between 19 and 21 °C during the entire analysis

. (5210B/2b)

6. If re ported, indicate if it was necessary for s amples to be seeded and state the material used to seed the samples. Note: t he seed correction should be calculated based on average seed control sample results (5210B/4d)

.

7. The DO uptake of seeded dilution water sh ould be between 0.6

- 1.0 mg/L (5210B/4d) . If reported, indicate if the above criteria were met.

8. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank (if reported 1

9. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank (if reported )

, report the result as a nondetect. List any affected samples:

1 )

, rep ort the result as

an estimated value . List any affected samples:

1 Note: It is optional for the laboratory to analyze a laboratory reagent blank

.Appendix E

DATA REVIEW GUIDELINESU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water



### Q UESTIONNAIRE FOR THE 

### S TEAM 

### E LECTRIC 

### P OWER 

### G ENERATING 

### E FFLUENT 

### G UIDELINES



### C ODING AND 

### R EVIEW 

### G UIDE FOR


### T ECHNICAL 

### Q UESTIONS

August 27, 2010TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 B ACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Goals of the Project .................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Description of Recipients ......................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Description of the Questionnaire ............................................................. 1-1

2.0 Q UESTIONNAIRE R EVIEW AND C ODING P ROCEDURES ........................................... 2-1 2.1 Receipt of Questionnaires ........................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Overview of Technical Review Procedure .............................................. 2-2 2.3 General Survey Checks ............................................................................ 2-3 2.4 Conducting Follow-Up Activities ............................................................ 2-5 2.5 Review QA Procedures ............................................................................ 2-6

Attachment A TECHNICAL QUESTIONNAIRE CHECKLIST

Attachment B FOLLOW-UP PHONE CALL AND EMAIL INSTRUCTIONS1-1 1.0 

### B ACKGROUND

1.1 Goals of the Project

EPA’s Office of Water (OW) will use the information gathered from the steam electric questionnaire (survey) a nd EPA sampling data to review a nd revise effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry (40 CFR Part 423).

EPA will use the technical data collected in the questionnaire to gain knowledge on the processes and wastewaters ge nerated from those processes at steam electric facilities. EPA

will review wastewaters associated with flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and ash handling systems, as well as other wastewaters generated at the facility. To assess economic impacts and benefits associated with any revised limitations considered, EPA will use the technical data together with financial data collected in the economic sections of the questionnaire.

1.2 Description of Recipients

EPA distributed the questionnaire to 733 fo ssil- and nuclear-fueled steam electric power plants that are potentially regulated by the steam electric effluent guidelines.

1.3 Description of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire is divided into the following parts:

PART A: STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANT OPERATIONS; PART B: FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION (FGD) SYSTEMS;
PART C: ASH HANDLING;

PART D: POND/IMPOUNDMEN T SYSTEMS AND OTHER
WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPERATIONS;

PART E: WASTES FROM CL EANING METAL PROCESS EQUIPMENT;

PART F: MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR PONDS/IMPOUNDMENTS
AND LANDFILLS;

PART G: LEACHATE SAMPLING DATA FOR PONDS/
IMPOUNDMENTS AND LANDFILLS;

PART H: NUCLEAR PO WER GENERATION; AND

PART I: ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL DATA.

The questionnaire consists of multiple part s which have been tailored to address specific processes, specific data needs, or type s of power plants. Part A of the questionnaire collects general plant information and selected technical information about the plant processes and the electric generating units. Additional part s of the questionnaire ar e designed to collect

economic data and to collect technical info rmation on flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, ash handling, metal cleaning ope rations, wastewater treatment, surface impoundment and landfill operations, and nuclear operations. One part of the questionnaire1-2 requires certain power plants to collect and analyze samples of leachate from surface impoundments and landfills containing coal combustion residues.

Parts A, H, and I of the questionnaire were provided to all questionnaire recipients; the remaining parts were sent to di screte subpopulations of qu estionnaire recipients: coal-fired, petroleum coke-fired, oil-fired, gas-fired, and nuclear plants, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Distribution of Questionnaire Parts

Questionnaire

Part Type of Plant

Coal Subset (Version 1) Other Coal (Version 2) Oil/Combination (Version 3) Gas/Nuclear (Version 4)

A X X X X

B X X X

C X X X

D X X X

E X X X

F X

G X

H X X X X

I X X X X2-1 2.0 

### Q UESTIONNAIRE 

### R EVIEW AND 

### C ODING 

### P ROCEDURES

This section presents the review and codi ng procedures to be used for the steam electric questionnaires responses. All responses are expected to be received electronically, as directed by the survey instructions. Upon receip t, ERG will make an el ectronic working copy of each survey and store this working copy on the Steam Electric CBI project area on ERG’s CBI server (P:\Steam Electric\Rulemaking\Survey\Sur vey Working Copies\). ERG will manage all survey responses on the CBI server in the e xpectation that some CBI will be claimed by respondents. In this way, all ma terials related to survey review and resolution will reside in the

same network area.

Each questionnaire response will undergo an initial review for completeness, followed by a technical review of the responses, using an electronic technical review checklist. The checklist templates are located in the CBI survey project area, and are also found in Attachments 1 and 2 to these guidelines. There is a template for Version 1 and 2 surveys, and a separate template for Version 3 and 4 surveys. Th e initial reviewer will create and save in the specific plant/questionnaire elec tronic folder a blank copy of the checklist template workbook. The Excel workbook containing the checklist template also contains a blan k contact form. All contacts to the plant must be documented in a contact form. Reviewers will create a worksheet

in the review checklist workbook for each contact completed, and name the worksheet with the Plant ID and date (e.g., 12345_Contact_082510). A mo re detailed descript ion of the review process is described in this section.

2.1 Receipt of Questionnaires

Upon receipt of a questionnaire response, Marla will transfer questionnaire packages to Teresa, who will note the date received on the package. Teresa or her designee will conduct the initial completeness checklist, foll owing the checklist form titled “Completeness.” This completeness review in cludes the following steps:

• Enter name of the person completing th e checklist, along with the plant ID and questionnaire version number.

• Check to ensure returned packages contain a CD/DVD and certification statement. If an electronic copy of the que stionnaire or the cer tification statement is missing, contact the pl ant to request a copy.

• Immediately log the date of receipt of th e questionnaire response into the Survey Tracking database “Survey Tracking” table (located on the CBI server at P:\Steam Electric\Rulemaking\Survey\), along with any pertinent notes on status.

• Enter survey information and complete ness checks into the “Survey Review”

table.

• Place a pre-populated label on the CD. Ente r the date uploaded, your initials, and

the Plant ID on the label.

• Check CD for content. Check that all requi red parts are returned and all files can be opened and read electronically. (See Tabl e 1 for a list of parts required for each version of the questionnaire)

• Upload the files to the CBI server (P :\Steam Electric\Rulemaking\Survey\Survey Working Copies\ ).2-2  Create an electronic folder for each plant ID (e.g., 12345).

 Upload the questionnaire response files from the CD to the working copy folder and rename the questionnaire pa rt files with the Plant ID and Part designated (e.g., 12345_PartA.xls).

 Create a subfolder called “Supporting Documentation” if needed and upload supporting files to this folder.

 Create a log of all hard copy docum ents submitted by the respondent and where they are stored. Name the log with the Plant ID (e.g., 12345_HardcopyLog.doc)

 For Hardcopies submitted, scan documents into PDF and save on the CBI

network wherever feasible.

 Save a copy of the Survey Review check list to the plant folder and update as completeness checks are finished.

• Create a physical file folder and place a pre-populated label on the folder – Plant ID, Version, and Plant Name. Place the CD and any hardcopy documents

received in the folder and store the fold er in the CBI archive room by Plant ID

order.

• Conduct initial check of th e questionnaire response:

 Determine if the plant kicked out of the questionnaire in Part A through evaluation of Q A1-6, 1-7, 1-8, and 1-11. 1

 Determine if the plant kicked out of any remaining questionnaire parts.

 Determine if all necessary parts are present and the survey is ready for

technical review.

• Once the initial checks are co mplete and the questionnair e is ready for technical
review, move the Part I questionnaire file to the “Part I Deliveries” folder.

• Complete the information on the checklist and in the “Survey Review” table to note that the survey is re ady for technical review.

2.2 Overview of Technical Review Procedure

Once a questionnaire is ready for techni cal review, Deb or her designee will assign it to a project team member for technica l review and any correctio ns to the electronic responses. In general, reviewers will follow this 8-step process:

1. Enter your name and review start da te to the Survey Tracking database (Survey Review table), located at P: \Steam Electric\Rulemaking\Survey\. 2. Access the working copy of the questionnaire on the CBI server at P:\Steam Electric\Rulemaking\Su rvey\Survey Working Copies\. 3. Complete the technical review follo wing the technical review checklist for your version of the questionnaire (h ide any unnecessary tabs), and if necessary prepare a list of follow-up que stions/issues to discuss with the respondent. (An electronic copy of the checklist s hould already be located in the working copy folder). 4. Contact respondent and reso lve follow-up questions/issues.

1 Please note that if the plant answers Questions A8-2 and A8-3 “No” for all steam electric generating units at the plant, they do not need to complete the remainder of th e questionnaire. However, these responses will still require

technical review.2-3 5. Make necessary changes to the elec tronic responses in the working copy files and document changes on the change form in the electronic checklist

file. 6. Notify Deb or her designee that the survey is ready for 2 nd review, and update information in the Survey Tracking database (Survey Review table). 7. Following 2 nd review, finish resolution of any remaining issues. 8. Move reviewed survey files to the P:\Steam Electric\Rulemaking\Survey\Extraction folder and update the Survey Tracking database (Sur vey Review table).

2.3 General Survey Checks

Be sure to incorporate into your review the following general survey checks for each respondent:

 Before reviewing/coding, skim through the survey files to become familiar with the inserts and attachments provided. If you are reviewing a Version 1 or 2 survey, you may find it helpful to review any helpline entries related to this respondent ( P:\Steam\Survey\Helpline\Helpline Log.xls).

 Note if a required attachment is not in cluded in the survey files or hard copy

folder.

 For multiple copies of the same question or section, check that copy numbering of

the workbook tabs is correct.

 Check the comments as you review a secti on to see if there are explanations for missing or incomplete information.

 If any question is marked as CBI, ensure that the survey is noted as “CBI” in the Survey Tracking database.

 Calculations

–

- If you need to calculate a value, doc ument the calculation on a calculation sheet ( P:\Steam\Survey\Review and Followup\Blank Calc Sheet.doc ).

- Show each calculation step with e xplanation and have each calculation checked and signed by another team member.

- Save all calculations for one plant in one file in the Survey Working Copies plant folder with the pl ant ID and “calc” (e.g., 12345_calc).2-4  Missing/Incomplete

–

- If a required response is missing or incomplete, check the Comments page to see if there is an explanation. No te: Be aware of ski pping patterns. For questions allowed to be blank with no skipping patterns, leave blank.

- Note any missing, incomplete, inconsiste nt, etc. information on your list of Follow-Up Questions so that all required in formation can be obtained and/or clarified during the follow-up call.

- It may be necessary to send blank/add itional tables or pages to the contact for completion. Please coordinate these activities with Liz Sabol.

 Follow the general coding guidelines in Table 2.2-5 Table 2. G ENERAL C ODING G UIDELINES

Category Coding Guidelines

General Document all changes to the electronic files in the Change Form worksheet in the electronic checklist.

Any changes made by someone other than the initial reviewer must be initialed in the Change Form.

Grey out any portions of the revi ew checklist that are not applicab le to the respondent (i.e., they appropriately skipped).

Comments should only be on the comments page and every comment should have a question number

associated with it.

Electronic

Checks/ Copies/ Copy

Buttons If a question should not have a response (i.e., sk ipped question), but the re spondent accidently hit a radio button response which could not be cleared, check the comments for the question and clear the response from the file.

Ensure that no tabs were delete d from each questionnaire response.

Check that tab names were not changed (including copied tabs). Rename them to the original nomenclature if they were changed.

If the plant created new tabs where no copy button existed (e.g., Part A, Section 7), check the file to see if they reported multiple units/systems with the same IDs (that is, was the same ID used for more than one unit/system).

Coordinate with Liz Sabol or her designee to ensure that new copies are correctly mapped before finishing review.

Units When unit dropdown boxes are presented, only the units in the dropdown box may be used. Similarly, if units are specified in the questions (e.g., in the column headings of tables), only the units specified may be used. If the company/plant reported other units, do a calculation to convert the value and enter the new value on the form.

Numeric

Fields Leave numbers as sh own; do not round.

Numeric field can contain only numbers.

- If the field contains a text entry in addition to a number (such as average, estimate, unknown, per

year, <, or >), remove the text entry. Do not remove the number. Add a comment to the comments page describing the text (e.g., “The value wa s an average/estimate/per year/less than/greater than...”).

- If the numeric field contains a unit, remove the unit and reenter the number. For example, if the

company/plant reports “10K”, reen ter it as “10,000”; If the company reports “7.5 million”, reenter it as “7,500,000”.)

- If the field contains a number as text, remove the text and reenter the number. For example, if the

company/plant reports “ten”, rem ove “ten”, and enter “10”).

- If a field that should be completed is missing a value, enter “ -111 ” into the data field. Add a

comment (with question number) describing the entr y. Follow up with plant to try and resolve missing data.

2.4 Conducting Follow-Up Activities

Once a questionnaire has been reviewed, resolve outstanding issues through contacts to the respondent:

 Using the Follow Up Questions document, have all questi ons ready to be asked.

 Coordinate with the Task Leader, Deb or her designee, prior to communicating

with the contact.2-6  If you plan to send the Follow Up Questions to the contact beforehand, telephone the contact and email or fax the questi ons, and set a schedule to discuss the questions in another call.

 See Attachment 3 for a phone script and email template.

 At the end of the phone call, ask if any of the discussion is CBI. Note: Survey questions checked as CBI are assumed as such, and the CBI status of the discussion and the data reque st question must match.

 Using your notes from the phone call, complete the Follow Up Question document, describing and summarizing what was discussed and the final resolution of the flagged item(s). The Follow Up Question document will also

serve as the contact record.

 If you exchanged email with the company/pl ant, create a Word document with the email and save it in the Survey Working C opies plant folder in a subfolder named “Email Contacts.” Name the document: Plant ID_Email_date (e.g., 12345_Email_083107).

 All correspondence ( Follow Up Questions and email) should be stored to the Survey Working Copies plant folder.

 When follow-up is completed, enter the date follow up is completed in the Survey Tracking database (Sur vey Review table).

2.5 Review QA Procedures

Once the first technical review is comp leted, a second team member will conduct a QA review of the response.

 The purpose of review QA is to ensure th at review and coding procedures were performed following the review guidelines . The QA reviewer will check that:

- Data were inserted or corrected where appropriate;

- Calculations are correct;

- Missing/inconsistent information is appropriately flagged; and

- The basis of assumptions is appropriate.

 The QA reviewer will mark revisions in th e questionnaire checklist. If changes to the questionnaire response files are n ecessary, the reviewer will document any further changes in the Change Form. Th e QA reviewer will discuss any changes

or comments with the data re quest reviewer first.Attachment 1

T ECHNICAL Q UESTIONNAIRE C HECKLIST

– V ERSION 1/2Part A NameDate(s)ReviewedReviewer No.1Reviewer No.2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/QuestionNumberCopy Number Related Section Type of Information Coding and Review ActivityFirstReviewerCommentsSecondReviewerComments Complete?Part A Steam Electric Plant OperationsTOCEnsure that plant name and ID have been populated in the TOC pageNoSection 1 Plant Contact InformationA1.1- A1.5 Information for Primary and SecondaryTechnical and Economical ContactsMake sure all data is provided for Primary and Seconday Contacts for both Technicaland Economical ContactsNoSection 1.2 General Plant Operating CharacteristicsA1-6 Plant retired If YES, respondent should not have completed questionnaire; check comments.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part A; technical review is complete.]NoA1-7 Generation of electricity via steam electricgenerating unit.If NO, respondent should not have completed questionnaire; check comments.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part A; technical review is complete.]NoA1-8 Table A-11 Type of fossil fuel used If NONE, respondent should not have completed questionnaire; check comments.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part A; technical review is complete.]If a positive reply, confirm Question A1-8 and Table A-11 are consistent.NoA1-9 Electricityuses/handlingEnsure answers = 100%NoA1-10 NAICS CodeEnsure at least aprimaryNAICS code is identifiedNoA1-11 Primary Purpose If NO, check to be sure reason given is reasonable. If so, respondent should not havefinished questionnaire; check comments.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part A; technical review is complete.]NoA1-12 Steam UsageEnsure answers = 100%NoTable A-1 Net and Gross Electrical Generation 2007-2009Ensure net generation is less than gross generation.NoSection 2.1 Plant Identification, Permits, StudiesA2-1 - A2-2 Indentification codeEnsure fields are complete(EIA IDs can be 1 to 5 digits longNoA2-3 Table A-2 EA or EIS If NO skipto A2-4 and Table A2NoTable A-2 Permit Information Check comments carefully to be sure stormwater permits are properly classified(individual permits listed under NPDES, general permits listed under Stormwater)NoSection 2.2 Outfall Information May have multiple copies to account for multiple outfallsLatitude/Longitude Ensure lat/long coordinates are provided indegrees. If not, calculate the lat/long inthese units.NoDi h FlE d l If h l d fl i l i l l b hA2-5Discharge FlowEnsure data are complete. If the plant reported flow in multiple columns, be sure thedata are consistent.NoA2-6 Section 3 Internal or Final Outfall If INTERNAL outfall, skip to Section 3 for specific outfall information (remember theremaybe multiple outfalls)NoA2-7 Discharge canalAnswer YES or NONoA2-8 ReceivingwaterEnsure all data are completedNoA2-9 MixingzoneAnswer YES or NONoA2-10/Table A-3 Percent contribution of wasterwater Answers should = 100%. Note if emergency outfall box is checked.NoSection 3 Ponds or ImpoundmentsEntire SectionPart D, F, & G (ifrequired)Ensure ponds reported in Parts D, F, & G are reported consistently with Table A-4NoA3-1 Section4Ponds or ImpoundmentsIf NO, skipto Section4NoPond identificationEnsure all data are completeNoLatitude/Longitude Ensure lat/long coordinates are provided indegrees. If not, calculate the lat/long inthese units.NoA3-3 and Table A5Table A-4 Pond wastewater identification Ensure data are provided for each pond identified in Table A-4NoSection 4 LandfillsEntire SectionParts F & G (ifrequired)Ensure landfills reported in Parts F & G are reported consistently with Table A-6NoA4-1 Section 5 LandfillsIf NO, skipto Section5NoLandfill identificationEnsure all data are completeNoLatitude/Longitude Ensure lat/long coordinates are provided indegrees. If not, calculate the lat/long inthese units.NoA4-3 and Table A7Table A-6 Landfill wastestream identification Ensure data are provided for each landfill identified in Table A-6NoSection 5 Plant Property and Water BalanceA4-2 and Table A6Table A-5Table A-7A3-2 and Table A4Entire Section Section 4 Ensure that all ponds/impoundments and landfills entered in Tables A-4 and A-6 arereferenced hereNoLocation of plant If a nuclear unit is present, ensure box is checked and coordinates are not provided.NoLatitude/Longitude Ensure lat/long coordinates are provided indegrees. If not, calculate the lat/long inthese units.NoEnsure map has been provided and covers buildings, ponds/impoundments, landfills andany significant features. NOTE: if one or more nuclear units are on-site, no map isrequired.NoCheck that mapfile hasplant ID in nameNoIf a hard copy map is provided, ensure plant ID is on every page in upper right corner.NoEnsure diagram has been provided and covers water balance diagram number, plant idinfo, all SEGUs designated in Table A-8, all wastewater treatment systems anddischargepts,and flow ratesNoCheck that mapfile hasplant ID in nameNoIf a hard copy diagram is provided, ensure plant ID is on every page in upper rightcorner.NoSection 6Steam Electric Generating UnitInformationA6-1 and Table A8Table A-1 SEGU information Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. Check thatthe sum of Total Unit Electric Generation for all rows in Table A-8 is less than or equalto the Gross Electrical Generation in Table A-1 for 2009NoA6-2 and Table A9Question A1-13 SEGU information Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate.NoSection 7 Condenser Cooling Water SystemsEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoEnsure that a coolingwater system is reported for all SEUs listed in Tables A-8 andANoA7-2 Demonstrate complianceEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriate.NoA7-3 POTW Effluent Ensure question is answered.NoSection 8 Fuel Usage May have multiple copies to account for multiple SEGUsEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoCheck that a copyof Table A-11 exists for each SEGU listed in Table A-8NoCheck that the total BTUs generated equals the total fossil/nuclear BTUs + total "other"BTUs.NoCheck that the BTU Generated by Gas is approximately nine orders of magnitudegreater than the sum of the Amount(Million ft3)of Gas valuesNoCheck that the BTU Generated by Coal and/or Petroleum Coke is approximately sevenorders of magnitude greater than the sum of the Amount (tons) of Coal and PetroleumCoke values.NoCheck that the BTU Generated byOil is approximatelysix orders of magnitudegreaterNoEnsure that units are specified for other fuels.NoTypes and amounts of fuel usedA8-1 and Table A-11Table A-8Aerial MapA5-2Condenser cooling water systemsA5-3 Table A-8, D-1,D-2Water balance diagramA7-1 and Table 7-10Tables A-8/A-9A5-1NoCheck that the value for Amount (Million ft3) for gas is approximately three orders ofmagnitude less than the order of magnitude of the Quantity of Fuel Burned in Table I-22for the FY 2009 row that lists the same gas as the Primary Energy Source for the givenSE Unit ID. Note that Part I is located on the CBI network in the "Part I Deliveries"folder. Do not make any changes to Part I for discrepancies; instead, flag for follow upwith the plant.Following contact with the plant, if the Part I information is determined to be incorrect,add the correction to the "Abt Part I Corrections.xls" file, located in the Part I DeliveriesfolderNoDetermine if SEGU is an "Other EGU"NoIf ALL SEGUs in Table A-8 are classified as 'Other EGUs,' respondent does not need tocomplete remainder of questionnaire.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part A; technical review is complete.]NoSection 9 NOx Control SystemsA9-1 NOx Control SystemsIf NO, skipto Section 10NoTable A-12 Table A-8 and A9Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. Confirm SEUnit IDs reported here are also reported in Tables A-8 or A-9NoA9-2 Table A-12 Offsite Regeneration If offsite SCR catalyst regeneration reported in Table A-12, Table A-13 should becompleted;otherwise,checkbox above Table A-13 should be checkedNoA9-3 Onsite Catalyst RegenerationIf NO or NA, skiptoQuestion A9-7NoA9-4 Regeneration wastewaterEnsure all data are complete and inproper unitsNoA9-5 Regeneration wastewater comminglingEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoA9-6 Section 2.2 Regeneration wastewater destination Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. ConfirmNPDES outfall number(s)in Section 2.2NoA8-2 and A8-3 BTU by percent fossil/nuclear fuelsPredominance of fossil/nuclear fuelsA9-7 Catalyst washIf NO, skipto Section 10NoA9-8 Catalyst wash wastewaterIf NO, skipto Section 10NoA9-9 Catalyst wash wastewater volumeEnsure all data are complete and inproper unitsNoA9-10 Catalyst wash wastewater comminglingEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoA9-11 Catalyst wash wastewater destination Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. ConfirmNPDES outfall number(s)in Section 2.2NoSection 10 Flue Gas Mercury Control SystemsEntire Section Section 8, TableA-8,Table A-9Flue gas mercury control systems This section should only report on fossil-fueled EGU; see Section A-8 for classification.NoA10-1 Fluegas mercurycontrol systemsIf NO, skiptoQuestion A10-3NoTable A-14 Table A-8, TableA-9Flue gas mercury control systems Ensure all data are complete. Confirm SE Unit IDs reported here are also reported inTables A-8 or A-9.NoA10-3 Pilot-scale systemsIf NO, skipto Section 11NoA10-4 WastewaterIf NO, skipto Section 11NoA10-5 Technology Ensure all data are complete, if DID NOT ATTACH confirm there is a reason why not.NoSection 11 Carbon Capture SystemsEntire Section Section 8, TableA-8,Table A-9Carbon capture systems This section should only report on fossil-fueled EGU; see Section A-8 for classification.NoA11-1 Carbon capture systemsIf NO, skipto Section 12NoTable A-15 Table A-8, TableA-9Carbon capture systems Ensure all data are complete. Confirm SE Unit IDs reported here are also reported inTables A-8 or A-9.NoA11-3 Pilot-scale systemsIf NO, skipto Section 12NoA11-4 Technology Ensure all data are complete, if DID NOT ATTACH confirm there is a reason why not.NoA11-5 WastewaterEnsure all data are completeNoA11-6 Wastewater If NO, skip to Section 12; if YES, ensure analytical results are attached or a reasongiven whynot.NoSection 12 Wet Electrostatic Precipitator SystemsEntire Section Section 8, TableA-8,Table A-9Wet electrostatic precipitator systems This section should only report on fossil-fueled EGU; see Section A-8 for classification.NoA12-1 Wet electrostaticprecipitator systemsIf NO, skipto Section 13NoTable A-15 Table A-8, TableA-9Wet electrostatic precipitator systems Ensure all data are complete. Confirm SE Unit IDs reported here are also reported inTables A-8 or A-9.NoA12-2 Flow rate, duration, and frequencyEnsure all data are completeNoA12-3 Water sourceEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoA12-4 Water criteriaEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoA12-5 Section 2.2 Wastewater destinations Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. If wastewateis discharged to surface water, confirm NPDES outfall number(s) in Section 2.2.NoA12-6 Pilot-scale systemsIf NO, skipto Section 13.NoA12-7 Technology Ensure all data are complete, if DID NOT ATTACH confirm there is a reason why not.NoA12-8 Characterization samples If NO, skip to Section 13; if YES ensure analytical results are attached or a reason givenwhynot.NoSection 13 Coal Storage and ProcessingA13-1 Coal storage andprocessingIf NO, skiptoQuestion A13-16.NoA13-2 DischargeEnsure number of days is <= 365 daysNoIf NO, skiptoQuestion A13-4; if YES ensure all data are completeNoEnsurepH values are between zero and 14NoA13-4 Table A-4 Pond/ImpoundmentIf YES, confirm that IDs were reported in Table A-4NoA13-5 Wastewater destinations Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. If wastewateis discharged to surface water, confirm NPDES outfall number(s) in Section 2.2.Confirm thatpond IDs are reported in Table A-4NoA13-6 Coal washingIf NO, skiptoQuestion A13-8; if YES, ensure all data are completeNoA13-7 Coal wash water destinations Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. If wastewateis discharged to surface water, confirm NPDES outfall number(s) in Section 2.2.Confirm thatpond IDs are reported in Table A-4NoA13-8 Coal blendingIf NO, skiptoQuestion A13-10NoA13-9 Coal blendingprocess wastewaterIf YES, ensure all data are complete. Check that number of days is <=365 daysNoA13-10 CoalpulverizingIf NO, skiptoQuestion A13-16NoA13-11 Coal pulverizing process wastewater If NO, skip to Question A13-12; if YES, ensure all data are complete. Check thatnumber of days is <=365 days.NoA13-12 Coal pulverizing process wastewater If NO, skip to Question A13-14; if YES, ensure all data are complete. Check thatnumber of days is <=365 days.NoA13-13 and 14 SluicingandpyriticsEnsure data are completeNoA13-15 Disposal of mill rejects Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. Confirm thatpond IDs are reported in Table A-4 and landfill IDs are reported in Table A-6.NoA13-3 pHA13-16 and 17 IGCC generating unit Ensure data are completeNoCommentsEntire SectionCheck that all comments have a question number identified and the comment isunderstandable.NoEntire SectionResolve comments that indicate a change must be made to any electronic response.NoPart B NameDate(s)ReviewedReviewer No.1Reviewer No. 2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/QuestionNumberCopy Number Related Section Type of Information Coding and Review ActivityFirstReviewerCommentsSecondReviewerComments Complete?Part B FGD SystemsTOCEnsure that plant name and ID have been populated in the TOC pageNoSection 1 General FGD System InformationB1-1.If NO was selected check that the plant did not complete the remainder of Part B.NoTables A-8 and A9FGD System ID For FGD that range from FGD 1-6 (FGD systems currently operating), check againstdate system brought online, and the SE Unit selected (SE 1-10 would be selected).NoTables A-8 and A9FGD System ID For FGD that range from FGD A-C (FGD systems planned to operate), check againstdate system brought online, and the SE Unit selected (SE A-D would be selected).NoFGD System ID Confirm that the plant selected a unique FGD system ID for each completed row inTable B-1.NoSteam Electric Units Check that the plant has provided information in Tables A-8 and A-9 for all steamelectric units checked.NoType of Oxidation... AND Does (or Will)the System Generate a FGD SlurryBlowdownCheck that if the plant selected “Not Applicable” in the “Type of Oxidation...” columnthat the plant also selected “No” in the “Does (or Will) the System Generate a FGDSlurryBlowdown” columnNoType of FGD System AND/OR Type ofSorbentConfirm that if the plant selected "Other," it is specified in the appropriate cell.NoSulfur Dioxide Removal Efficiency Check that the value is reasonable. Typically, these SO2 removal efficiencies are 95%orgreater.NoSection 2 Planned FGD System InformationB2-1 FGD System ID Confirm that the plant included a row for all FGD systems in Table B-1 whose plannedonline date was after 12/31/2020 (Table B-1, column 2) and who answered yes thesystem generates FGD slurry blowdown (Table B-1, column 4).NoPlanned Solids Handling... AND Type ofWastewater Treatment System...In the “Planned Solids Handling...” and “Type of Wastewater Treatment System...”columns: Check that the codes provided match with codes provided in the Code TablesTab and that multiple entries are separated bycommasNoDesign Flow Rate If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified in the table, perform acalculation to convert the value into the specified units (see the General CodingGuidelines)NoEstimated DateCheck that the date is in the appropriate form(i.e., mm/yyyy)NoTable B-1 FGD System ID Confirm that the plant has selected each of the FGD systems designated FGD A-CONLY listed in Table B-1 in at least one of the rowsNoSection 3 FGD AdditiveFGD System ID Confirm that the plant has provided information in Table B-1 for the FGD Systemschecked.NoPurpose of Additive Confirm that if the plant selected "Other," it is specified in the appropriate cell.NoSection 4 Wet FGD System Information May have multiple copies to account for multiple wet FGD systems.B4-1 Table B-1 If NO is selected in question B4-1, check that the plant did not complete the remainderof Section 4.NoAll CopiedSection 4 TabsConfirm that the plant completed Section 4 for all wet FGD systems reported in TableB1 (i.e., the plant checked yes in the “Does (or Will) the System Generate a FGD SlurryBlowdown...” column). Confirm that the plant wrote the appropriate FGD System ID inthe proper form (i.e., FGD-#) at the top of each copied Section 4 tab.NoB4-2 Operatingconcentration of chloridesThe chloride operatingconcentration range should be 2,000 - 40,000ppmNoFGD system max. design chlorides concThe chloride operatingconcentration should be no larger than____ppmNoFGD equipment that determines max. designconc.Confirm that if the plant selected "Other," it is specified in the appropriate cell.NoFor each box that was selected, check that the plant provided the appropriateinformation.NoIf the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoFor each box that was selected, check that the plant provided the appropriateinformation.NoB4-5 Water sourcesB1-2./Table B-1FGD system parametersB4-4B2-1/Table B-2B4-3B3-1/Table B-3 Table B-1If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoB4-6 Flow rate/duration/frequency If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines).NoB4-7 Flow rate/duration/frequency If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines).NoB4-8 Flow rate/duration/frequency If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines).NoB4-9 Flow rate/duration/frequency If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines).NoB4-10 Mist eliminator If "Other" is selected in the "Process Wastewater" dropdown box or if the “Other,explain” checkbox was selected confirm that a description was provided in theappropriate cell.NoB4-11 FGD reagent prepartation water If "Other" is selected in the "Process Wastewater" dropdown box or if the “Other,explain” checkbox was selected confirm that a description was provided in theappropriate cell.NoB4-12 Absorber make-up water If "Other" is selected in the "Process Wastewater" dropdown box or if the “Other,explain” checkbox was selected confirm that a description was provided in theappropriate cell.No% FGD Solids Check that the percentage of FGD solids generated is provided for all checkboxesselected and that thispercentage sums to 100%NoOtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoB4-14If NO is selected, check that theplant skipped toQuestion B4-16NoB4-16 OtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoB4-17 OtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoB4-18 Concentrations If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoFor each box that was selected, check that the plant provided the appropriateinformation.NoConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoIf the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoSection 4, Tables Wet FGD System Information -- TABLES May have multiple copies to account for multiple wet FGD systems.Amount Disposed (tons) If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoAll Except for the “Other, explain” rows if there is no description provided, all rows shouldbe fully completed. Where appropriate, fill all empty cells in these rows with a zero.NoTons/Gross Revenue Generated ($) If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoAll All rows the plant selected a destination for should be fully completed. Whereappropriate,all emptycells in these rows should be filled in with a zeroNoTotal Confirm that the sum of the partial costs add up to the total cost for 2005, 2007, and2009.NoOther Confirm that if the plant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cell.NoSection 5 FGD Wastewater GenerationFGD System ID Information provided only for operational wet FGD systems (FGD 1-10 that alsoselected "Yes" in the “Does (or Will) the System Generate a FGD Slurry Blowdown...”cells in table B-1).NoPercent and Flow Rate If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoPercentFor each FGD system confirm that thepercentages sum to 100%NoFGD System ID Information provided only for operational wet FGD systems (FGD 1-10 that alsoselected "Yes" in the “Does (or Will) the System Generate a FGD Slurry Blowdown...”cells in table B-1).NoAll If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoB5-2/Table B-8 Table B-1B5-1/Table B-7 Table B-1B4-21/Table B-5B4-22/Table B-6ParametersB4-20/Table B-4 Table A-4B4-13B4-19Chlorides and TSS concentrationsForpollutants checked, confirm that theppm wasprovidedNoppm If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoSection 6 FGD Monitoring Data Instructions May have multiple copies to account for multiple FGD scrubber purge streams.B6-1If NO is checked,question Section 6 should be skippedNoAny information provided should be for (some/all/none) wet FGD systems reported inTable B-1 (i.e., the plant checked yes in the “Does (or Will) the System Generate a FGDSlurryBlowdown...” column).NoCheck that the plant has provided information in Table B-1 (FGD 1-10) or in Table A-8for all checked FGD systems and all checked steam electric unitsNoMeasured Value, Method Detection,Reporting Limit, Flow RateIf the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoCAS Number Check that the CAS number has no more than 10 digits and is seperated into 3 parts byhypens.NoMeasured Value including Units ANDMethod Detection LimitCheck that the measured value entered is a number greater than or equal to the methoddetection limit. If the measured value is less than the method detection limit, the methoddetection limit value preceded by a less than (<) symbol (i.e., <#) should be entered intothe“Measured Value Including Units”column.NoDate Sample CollectedCheck that the date isprovided in the appropriate form(i.e., mm/dd/yyyy)NoFlow Rate of... Check to see that this flow rate is reasonable by comparing it to the flow rate providedin Table B-8 for the appropriate FGD systems.NoAnalyzed as Total... Check to make sure one is selected only if a metal analyte is listed.NoSection 7 FGD Wastewater TreatmentB7-1 Table B-1 If NO is checked, the nextquestion answered should be B7-4NoB7-2 OtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoB7-3 OtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoB7-4 OtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoRecycled back Description provided on how it is reused.NoDischarged NPDES permitted outfall numberNoConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoIf NO is checked, the remainder of Section 7 should be skippedNoIf YES is checked, the volume and frequenceyshould be enteredNoReused in other processes Description provided on how it is reused.NoTransferredChecked all that applyand if "Other, explain" is selected, there is an explinatioNoDischargedNPDESpermitted outfall numberNoOther Confirm that if the plant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cell.NoSection 8 Dry FGD System May have multiple copies to account for multiple dry FGD systems.B8-1 Table B-1 If NO is checked, the remainder of Part B should not be completedNoAll CopiedSection 8 TabsConfirm that the plant completed Section 8 for all dry FGD systems reported in Table B1 (i.e., the plant checked no in the “Does (or Will) the System Generate a FGD SlurryBlowdown...” column). Confirm that the plant wrote the appropriate FGD System ID inthe proper form (i.e., FGD-#) at the top of each copied Section 8 tab.NoB8-2 OtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoChlorides conc. and solids % For each box that was selected, check that the plant provided the appropriateinformation.Noppm or % If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoOtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoB8-5 gpm/hpd/dpy If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoB8-6 Other If "Other" is selected in the "Process Wastewater" dropdown box or if the “Other,explain” checkbox was selected confirm that a description was provided in theappropriate cell.NoB8-7If NO is checked, the nextquestion answered should be B8-9NoReused in other processes Description provided on how it is reused.NoTransferredChecked all that applyand if "Other, explain" is selected, there is an explinatioNoDischarged NPDES permitted outfall numberNoOtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoIf NO is selected, the nextquestion answered should be B8-11NoIf YES is checked, the volume and frequenceyshould be enteredNoB8-8 Part A, Section2.2B8-9B7-7 Part A, Section2.2B8-4B7-6B6-2, Table B-9 Tables A-8 and B1B7-5 Part A, Section2.2B5-3Reused in other processes Description provided on how it is reused.NoTransferredChecked all that applyand if "Other, explain" is selected, there is an explinatioNoDischarged NPDES permitted outfall numberNoOtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoParametersForparameters checked, confirm that theppm wasprovidedNoOtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoAmount Disposed (tons) If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoAll All rows the plant selected a destination for should be fully completed. Whereappropriate,all emptycells in these rows should be filled in with a zeroNoOther Checked all that apply and if "Other, explain" is selected, there is an explinationNoTotal Confirm that the sum of the partial costs add up to the total cost for 2005, 2007, and2009.NoOther Confirm that if the plant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cell.NoTotal Confirm that the sum of the partial costs add up to the total cost for 2005, 2007, and2009.NoOther Confirm that if the plant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cell.NoCommentsEntire SectionCheck that all comments have a question number identified and the comment isunderstandable.NoEntire SectionResolve comments that indicate a change must be made to any electronic response.NoB8-13/Table B11B8-14/Table B12B8-11B8-12/Table B10B8-10 Part A, Section2.2Part C NameDate(s)ReviewedReviewer No.1Reviewer No.2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/QuestionNumberCopy Number Related Section Type of Information Coding and Review ActivityFirstReviewerCommentsSecondReviewerComments Complete?Part C Ash Handling SystemsTOCEnsure that plant name and ID have been populated in the TOC pageNoSection 1 Ash GenerationIf NO, check that the plant did not check “Fly ash” or “Bottom ash” for any ponds inTable A-5NoIf NO, check that the plant did not check “Fly ash” or “Bottom ash” for any landfills inTable A-7NoIf NO, the remainder of Part C should not be completed; check comments[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part CNoC1-2 Plant acreage Make sure the Total Plant Area acreage is equal to the sum of all the other acreagesprovided in Table C-1.NoIf NO, check that the plant did not check “Fly ash” for any ponds in Table A-5NoIf NO, check that the plant did not check “Fly ash” for any landfills in Table A-7NoIf NO is checked for question C1-3, the remainder of Part C, Section 2 should not becompleted.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part C,Section2NoSection 2.1 Fly Ash Handling – System LevelInformationMay have multiple copies to account for multiple steam electric generating units.General Table A-8 Number of Copies Check that there is a copy of section 2.1 for each steam electric generating unit operatedat any time in 2009 as reported in Table A-8. For each copy of section 2.1 that therespondent creates, copy and paste all the checklist questions for section 2.1 and labelthe Copy Number appropriately.Note that section 2.1 will not need to be completed for gas or nuclear units and only fora portion of the oil units. If a unit listed in Table A-8 doesn't have an associatedworksheet for Section 2.1, check the fuel usage from Table A-11 to make sure that it isagas nuclear or oil fired unitNoOnly applicable rows need to be completed for the Type of Fly Ash Collection and Typeof Fly Ash Handling (i.e., there may be empty rows in these columns). Ensure all otherdata are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoC1-1C1-3Table C-2 Fly ash handling systems operated in 2009.Generation of ash in any fossil-fueled steamelectric generations units located at the plant.Generation of fly ash in any fossil-fueledsteam electric generations units located at theplant.Table A-5Table A-7Table A-5Table A-7dataarecompleteincludingOTHERinformationifappropriateIf “Wet scrubber(s) (only) is selected, the remainder of Part C, Section 2 should not becompleted.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part C,Section2NoCheck that the “typical amount of fly ash produced in 2009” is less than or equal to the“design ash handling rate” (both tpd and dpy).NoC2-2 Wet fly ash handling C2-3 through C2-5 should only be answered if C2-2 is answered "Yes". If "Yes ismarked,all fields should bepopulatedNoEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoCheck that "Percent Contribution of Source to Sluice Water Flow" values sum to 100%NoC2-3 Maximum Chloride Concentration andMaximum Solids PercentageCheck that corresponding fields are completed for each box checked.NoC2-4 POTW Check that if "Yes" is selected, a description is provided.NoC2-5 POTW Ensure an answer is selected.NoC2-6 Wet Vacuum System (pneumatic) Check that if "Yes" is selected, questions C2-7 and C2-8 are answered, otherwise ensurerespondent skipped to C2-9.NoCheck that correspondingfields are completed for each box checkedNoIf respondent checks "Discharged to surface water", check that NPDES permitted outfalnumber provided matches one of the copies of Part A section 2.2NoCheck that corresponding fields are completed for each Storage Destination selected.NoCheck that "Percent of Dry Conveyed Fly Ash to this Destination" values sum to 100%NoCheck that "Percent of Wet Conveyed Fly Ash to this Destination" values sum to 100%NoProcess Wastewater Generated from Wet FlyAsh Handling in 2009Table C-4 Storage Destinations that Receive Fly AshC2-8 Wet Vacuum System (pneumatic)Table C-3C2-10 Fly ash handled by both wet and dry fly ashhandlingsystems.Check that if "Yes" is selected, questions C2-11 and C2-12 are answered. Otherwiserespondent should skipto C2-13.NoFor each reason that is checked, make sure the number of days isprovidedNoCheck that the sum of the "days" fields do not sum togreater than 365NoIf “Design/develop new infrastructure...” is selected, make sure that the respondentspecifies the new infrastructure neededNoIf “other” is selected, make sure that the respondentprovides an explanationNoIf “Decreased use...” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides the expectedoperatingdays.NoIf “End use...” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides the expected enddate.NoIf “other” is selected, make sure that the respondentprovides an explanationNoIf either "NA" or "No" is selected, make sure that the respondent skips to question C2-17.NoIf "Yes" is selected, make sure that the respondent has answered the remainder ofquestion C2-14 and C2-15.NoIf “The retrofit was made to an existing dry system” is checked for question C2-15,respondent should continue answeringquestions startingwith C2-23NoIf “A dry fly ash handling system was installed (for operation in addition to the wet flyash handling system)” or “The retrofit was a complete conversion from a wet to dry flyash handling system” is checked for question C2-15, question C2-16 should becompleted.NoC2-16 Changes required for installed retrofit Check that corresponding fields, where applicable, are completed for each checkboxthais selected.NoIf "Yes" is selected, make sure that the respondent has entered a value for "Estimatedshutdown time (days) required to bring dry fly ash handling system online" and skippedtoQuestion C2-19.NoIf "No" is selected, make sure that the respondent continued toQuestion C2-18NoIf "Yes" is selected, make sure that the respondent has entered a value for "Estimatedshutdown time (days) required to bring dry fly ash handling system online" andcontinued toQuestion C2-19.NoIf "No" is selected, make sure that the respondent skipped toQuestion C2-22NoIf YES is checked and “I have attached...” are checked, make sure thedocumentation/costs areprovidedNoIf YES is checked and “I did not attach...” are checked, make sure that the respondentprovides an explanation.NoIf NO is checked, the remainder of Question C2-19 should be blank and the respondentshould skiptoQuestion C2-22NoC2-20 Changes that will be required for plannedretrofitCheck that corresponding fields, where applicable, are completed for each checkbox thais selected.NoIf “Marketed, sold...” and “If other, specify” are selected, make sure treatment system iidentified.NoMake sure that the “% of the dry fly ash” is provided for each dropdown completed andhb l dNoC2-15 Fly ash handling installed as retrofit.C2-17 In the process of installing dry fly ashhandlingC2-18 Plan to install dry fly ash handling byDecember 31, 2020.C2-19 Provide cost estimates forconversion/installationC2-21 Expected destinations for dry fly ashChanges in fly ash handling expected.C2-14 Fly ash handling installed as retrofit.C2-13Reason fly ash was handled wet and dry.C2-12 Modifications required to handle all ash dry.C2-11each box selected.NoIf “Other” is selected, make sure that the respondentprovides an explanationNoIf YES is checked and “I have attached...” are checked, make sure thedocumentation/costs areprovidedNoMake sure that if YES is checked and “I did not attach...” are checked, make sure thatthe respondentprovides an explanationNoIf NO is checked, the remainder ofQuestion C2-22 should be blankNoIf NO is checked for question C2-23, Table C-5 should be blank. Respondent shouldcontinue answeringquestions startingwith C2-25NoIf YES is checked forquestion C2-29, Table C-5 should be complete.NoC2-24 Unscheduled generating unit outages due tothe wet fly ash handling systems in the last 5years.Check that any row that has a value listed for the "Total Days of Outage" hasexplanations for the "Reason(s) for outage(s)" and "Method(s) Used to ResolveOutage(s)" fields.NoSection 2.2 Fly Ash Handling – Storage and Use DataCheck that Table C-6 has destination information for each storage destination listed inTable C-4. Check all copies of Table C-4.NoIf Table C-4 contains only destinations marked “intermediate” and Table C-6 does notcontain any other destinations, follow up is required.NoIf Table C-6 does not contain “final” destinations (i.e., ponds, landfills in Table A-6,landfills not in Table A-6, marketed, or other with description of a final destination)follow upis required.NoOnly applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., Storage Destination 2 row may beempty).NoUnscheduled generating unit outages due tothe wet fly ash handling systems in the last 5years.C2-22 Consideration of dry fly ash system.C2-23 Table C-5Table C-6 Table C-4 Dry fly ash storage destination information.Check that the sum of Wet & Dry Conveyed tpd multiplied by the dpy, from all thecopies of Table C-2, is generally less than or equal to the sum of the Tons of Fly AshTransported to Destination in 2009 in Table C-6.NoIf “other” is selected in any of the dropdowns in the “Type of destination” column, maksure that the respondent provides an explanation for each “other” option selected.NoIf NO is checked for question C2-26, Table C-7 should be blank. Respondent shouldcontinue answeringquestions startingwith C2-28NoIf YES is checked forquestion C2-26, Table C-7 should be complete.NoConfirm that Table C-7 contains all destinations required in Table C-4.NoCheck that if the box next to either of the process wastewaters dropdowns is checked,the appropriate dropdown is completed.NoIf “Other” is selected in either dropdown, make sure that the respondent provides anexplanation in the appropriate free response box.NoIf chlorides concentration is selected, makes sure a ppm value is provided.NoIf Solids percentage is selected, makes sure a percentage is provided.NoIf “Other” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides an explanation.NoC2-27 Criteria for water used to moisten ash Check that the respondent properly defined the criteria used to determine if a watersource is unacceptable for use to moisten ashNoIf NO is checked for question C2-28, Table C-8 should be blank. Respondent shouldcontinue answeringquestions startingwith C2-29NoIf YES is checked forquestion C2-28, Table C-8 should be complete.NoTable C-8 Marketing of fly ash from dry ash handlingsystemOnly applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., some rows may be empty). Ensure thatif C2-27 is YES,respondent hasprovided at least one row of dataNoIf NO is checked for question C2-29, Table C-9 should be blank. Respondent shouldskipto Section 2.3.NoIf YES is checked forquestion C2-29, Table C-9 should be complete.NoTable C-9 Marketing of fly ash from wet ash handlingsystemOnly applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., some rows may be empty). Ensure thatif C2-29 is YES, respondent hasprovided at least one row of dataNoSection 2.3 Fly Ash Cost Information – Conveyance May have multiple copies to account for multiple fly ash handling systems.Despite no specific kickout question, this section will be blank for the majority ofplants because their conveyance system did not "begin operating or was convertedafter January 1, 2000."General C2-17C2-18Installing or planning to install dry fly ashhandling systemFor each copy of questions C2-17 or C2-18 that are answered "Yes", check that one ofthe copies of section 2.3 has the checkbox associated with "Planned" marked and theappropriate fields populatedNoC2-29 Marketing of fly ash from wet ash handlingsystemIs water used to moisten the fly ash?C2-26 Table C-4Marketing of fly ash from dry ash handlingsystemTable C-7 Table C-4 Fly ash handling systems operated in 2009.C2-28appropriatefieldspopulated.General Comments Multiple units using the same fly ashhandling systemCheck the comments section related to section 2.3 to see if the plant has multiple unitsutilizing the same ash handling system. If that is the case, flag for follow-up to ensurethat the situation is properly represented in our database for modeling purposes.Additionally, ensure that the respondent only listed the shared components on one copyof Section 2.3NoIf “Other” is selected for Type of Component, make sure that the respondent providesan explanation.NoIf “Other” is selected for the units for Total System Capacity of Component, make surethat the respondent provides an explanation.NoCheck that there is a value for Number of Components in the System and Total SystemCapacity of Component for each Type of Component specified.NoC2-31 Fly ash handlingdiagramattachmentFly ash handling diagram attachment If YES is checked and “I have attached...” are checked, make sure thedocumentation/costs are provided.NoCheck that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all values makelogical sense (i.e. the year on which the modification cost is based is >= 2000)NoCheck that if components are listed in C2-32 or C2-33 that "Other Contractor's Fees" or"EngineeringCosts" have valuesgreater than $0NoC2-35 Major conveyance components If "No" is checked, make sure the respondent provided explanations of what systemcomponents are and are not includedNoTable C-12 O&M Cost for Conveyance of Fly AshHandlingfor 2009Check that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all values makelogical senseNoTable C-10 Table C-4 Fly ash system components - conveyanceCapital cost for conveyance of fly ashhandlingTable C-11 C2-32C2-33Section 2.4 Fly Ash Cost Information – IntermediateStorageMay have multiple copies to account for intermediate fly ash storage systems.Despite no specific kickout question, this section will be blank for the majority ofplants because their intermediate fly ash storage systems did not "begin operatingor was modified after January 1, 2000."General C2-17C2-18Installing or planning to install dry fly ashhandling systemCheck that if questions C2-17 or C2-18 are answered "Yes", check that one of thecopies of section 2.4 has the checkbox associated with "Planned" marked and theappropriate fieldspopulated.NoC2-37 Bottom and fly ash shared storage If "Yes" is checked, verify the unit IDs are populated and consistent with Table A-8NoIf YES is checked for question C2-38, Table C-13 should be blank. Respondent shouldskipto Section 2.5.NoIf “Yes”, confirm that the storage ID is for a pond/impoundment listed in Table A-4.NoIf NO is checked forquestion C2-38, Table C-13 should be complete.NoIf “Other” is selected for Type of Component, make sure that the respondent providesan explanation.NoIf “Other” is selected for the units for Total System Capacity of Component, make surethat the respondent provides an explanation.NoCheck that there is a value for Number of Components in the System and Total SystemCapacity of Component for each Type of Component specified.NoCheck that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all values makelogical sense (i.e. the year on which the modification cost is based is >= 2000)NoCheck that if components are listed in C2-40 or C2-41 that "Other Contractor's Fees" or"EngineeringCosts" have valuesgreater than $0NoC2-43 Major intermediate storage components If "No" is checked, make sure the respondent provided explanations of what systemcomponents are and are not includedNoTable C-15 O&M Cost for Intermediate Storage of FlyAsh Handlingfor 2009Check that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all values makelogical senseNoSection 2.5 Fly Ash Cost Information – Transportand DisposalDespite no specific kickout question, this section will be blank for the majority ofplants because their transport/disposal systems did not "begin operating or wasmodified after January1,2000."C2-45 Bottom and fly ash shared transport anddisposalIf "Yes" is checked, verify the unit IDs are populated and consistent with Table A-8NoIf YES is checked for question C2-46, confirm that a pond/impoundment is included inTable C-6. The remainder of section 2.5 should be blank. Respondent should skip toSection 3.1.NoIf NO is checked forquestion C2-46, respondent shouldproceed to C2-47.NoCheck that the respondent has identified at least one method of transportationNoCheck that the respondent has identified the number of units for each method oftransportation selected.NoC2-47 Method of transportation to final destinationC2-38 Table A-4 Storage destination pond/impoundment?Table C-13 Fly ash system components - intermediatestorageTable C-14 C2-40C2-41Capital cost for intermediate storage of flyash handlingC2-46 Table C-6 Is a pond/impoundment the final destination?transportationselected.Check that the respondent has identified whether the units are bought, leased, orcontracted out for each method of transportation selectedNoCheck that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all values makelogical sense (i.e. the year on which the modification cost is based is >= 2000)NoCheck that if components are listed in C2-48 or C2-49 that "Other Contractor's Fees" or"EngineeringCosts" have valuesgreater than $0NoC2-51 Major transportation components If "No" is checked, make sure the respondent provided explanations of what systemcomponents are and are not includedNoTable C-17 O&M Cost for Transportation of Fly Ashcollection for 2009Check that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all values makelogical senseNoSection 3.1 Bottom Ash Handling – Generating UnitLevel InformationMay have multiple copies to account for multiple steam electric generating units.General Table A-8 Number of Copies Check that there is a copy of section 3.1 for each steam electric generating unit operatedat any time in 2009 as reported in Table A-8. For each copy of section 3.1 that therespondent creates, copy and paste all the checklist questions for section 3.1 and labelthe Copy Number appropriatelyNoIf NO is checked for question C3-1, check that the plant did not check “Bottom ash” foanyponds in Table A-5NoIf NO is checked for question C3-1, check that the plant did not check “Bottom ash” foanylandfills in Table A-7NoIf NO is checked for question C3-1, the remainder of Part C, Section 3 should not becompleted.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part C,Section 3NoC3-1 Table A-5Table A-7Generation of bottom ash in any fossil-fueledsteam electric generations units located at theplant.C2-48C2-49Capital cost for transportation of fly ashcollectionTable C-16Only applicable rows need to be completed for the Type of Fly Ash Collection and Typeof Fly Ash Handling (i.e., there may be empty rows in these columns). Ensure that therespondent has selected at least one "Type of Bottom Ash Handling System" and allother data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate.NoCheck that the “typical amount of fly ash produced in 2009” is less than or equal to the“design ash handling rate” (both tpd and dpy).NoIf NO is checked for question C3-3, confirm that “wet sluicing” was not selected inTable C-18.NoIf NO is checked for question C3-3, the respondent should skip to C3-11.NoIf YES is checked for question C3-3, the respondent should complete Table C-19.NoCheck that the respondent entered values for the "Average Sluice Water Flow Rate" and"Typical Duration AND Frequencyof Sluicing"NoEach "Source of Sluice Water" selected should have an associated value in the "PercentContribution of Source to Sluice Water Flow" columnNoCheck that "Percent Contribution of Source to Sluice Water Flow" values sum to 100%NoC3-4 Maximum Chloride Concentration andMaximum Solids PercentageCheck that corresponding fields are completed for each box checked.NoC3-5 Wet bottom ash sluice immediately recycled?If YES is checked for question C3-5, the respondent should enter a description of howthe wet bottom ash sluice is usedNoC3-6 POTW Check that the respondent selected YES or NONoIf NO is checked for question C3-7, the respondent should skip to C3-11.NoIf YES is checked for question C3-7, the respondent should complete Table C-20.NoCheck that the respondent checked at least one box for the "Solids Removal" and"Bottom Ash Disposal".NoCheck that a description is provided if the respondent checks "other" for the "SolidsRemoval" and "Bottom Ash Disposal"NoCheck that "Amount of Solids Disposed" and "Typical Percent Moisture of Bottom AshDisposed" values have been entered for each "Bottom Ash Disposal" destinationselected.NoC3-9 Amount of water overflow from solidremovalCheck that value is entered by respondentNoC3-10 Destination of waste water overflow fromsolid removalIf respondent checks "Discharged to surface water", check that NPDES permitted outfalnumber provided matches one of the copies of Part A section 2.2NoIf NO is checked for question C3-11, the respondent should skip to C3-15.NoIf YES is checked for question C3 11 check that the respondent provided a descriptionTable C-18 Bottom ash handling systems operated in2009 by generating unit.C3-3 Wet sluicing used to collect bottom ash?Table C-19 Process Wastewater Generated from Wet FlyAsh Handling in 2009C3-7 Solid removal occur at the plant?Table C-20 Wet ash sluice systemsC3-11 Mechanical drag system?IfYESis checkedfor questionC3-11, checkthatthe respondentprovidedadescriptionof theprocess.NoC3-12 Mechanical drag system? If NO is checked for question C3-12, the respondent should skip to C3-15.NoC3-13 Amount of water overflow from mechanicaldragsystemCheck that value is entered by respondentNoC3-14 Destination of waste water overflow frommechanical drag systemIf respondent checks "Discharged to surface water", check that NPDES permitted outfalnumber provided matches one of the copies of Part A section 2.2NoCheck that corresponding fields are completed for each Storage Destination selected.NoCheck that "Percent of Dry Conveyed FlyAsh to this Destination" values sum to 100%NoCheck that "Percent of Wet Conveyed FlyAsh to this Destination" values sum to 100%NoC3-16 Bottom ash handled by both wet and dry flyash handlingsystems.Check that if "Yes" is selected, questions C3-17 and C3-18 are answered.NoFor each reason that is checked, make sure the number of days isprovidedNoCheck that the sum of the "days" fields do not sum togreater than 365NoIf “Design/develop new infrastructure...” is selected, make sure that the respondentspecifies the new infrastructure neededNoIf “other” is selected, make sure that the respondentprovides an explanationNoIf “Decreased use...” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides the expectedoperatingdays.NoIf “End use...” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides the expected enddate.NoIf “other” is selected, make sure that the respondentprovides an explanationNoTable C-21 Storage Destinations that Receive Fly AshC3-17 Reason bottom ash was handled wet and dry.C3-18 Modifications required to handle all bottomash dry.C3-19 Changes in bottom ash handling expected.If either "NA" or "No" is selected, make sure that the respondent skips to question C3-24.NoIf "Yes" is selected, make sure that the respondent has answered the remainder ofquestion C3-20 and continues to C3-21.NoIf “The retrofit was made to an existing dry system” is checked for question C3-29,respondent should continue answeringquestions startingwith C2-23NoIf “A dry fly ash handling system was installed (for operation in addition to the wet flyash handling system)” or “The retrofit was a complete conversion from a wet to dry flyash handling system” is checked for question C3-21, respondent should continue to C3-22.NoC3-22 Changes required for installed retrofit Check that corresponding fields, where applicable, are completed for each checkboxthais selected.NoC3-23 Dry bottom ashhandling retrofitdiagramattachmentDry bottom ash handling retrofit diagramattachmentIf “Diagram attached” is checked, make sure the documentation/costs are provided.NoIf "Yes" is selected, make sure that the respondent has entered a value for "Estimatedshutdown time (days) required to bring dry fly ash handling system online" and skippedtoQuestion C3-26.NoIf “Yes” to C3-24 confirm that Section 3.3 and 3.4 are completed for the SE Unit.NoIf "No" is selected, make sure that the respondent continued toQuestion C3-25NoIf "Yes" is selected, make sure that the respondent has entered a value for "Estimatedshutdown time (days) required to bring dry bottom ash handling system online" andcontinued toQuestion C3-26.NoIf “Yes” to C3-25 confirm that Section 3.3 and 3.4 are completed for the SE Unit.NoIf "No" is selected, make sure that the respondent skipped toQuestion C3-29NoIf YES is checked and “I have attached...” are checked, make sure thedocumentation/costs areprovidedNoIf YES is checked and “I did not attach...” are checked, make sure that the respondentprovides an explanation.NoIf NO is checked, the remainder of Question C3-26 should be blank and the respondentshould skiptoQuestion C3-29.NoC3-27 Changes required for installed retrofit Check that corresponding fields, where applicable, are completed for each checkboxthais selected.NoIf “Marketed, sold...” and “If other, specify” are selected, make sure treatment system iidentified.NoMake sure that the “% of the dry bottom ash” is provided for each dropdown completedand each box selected.NoIf “Other” is selected, make sure that the respondentprovides an explanationNoIf YES is checked and “I have attached...” are checked, make sure thedocumentation/costs are providedNoC3-20 Bottom ash handling installed as retrofit.C3-21 Bottom ash handling installed as retrofit.C3-24 In the process of installing dry bottom ashhandlingC3-25 Plan to install dry bottom ash handling.C3-28 Expected destinations for dry bottom ashC3-26 Provide cost estimates forconversion/installationC3-29 Consideration of dry bottom ash system.documentation/costsareprovidedMake sure that if YES is checked and “I did not attach...” are checked, make sure thatthe respondentprovides an explanationNoIf NO is checked, the remainder ofQuestion C3-29 should be blankNoIf NO is checked for question C3-30, Table C-22 should be blank. Respondent shouldskipto section 3.2.NoIf YES is checked forquestion C3-30, Table C-22 should be complete.NoTable C-22 Unscheduled generating unit outages due tothe wet bottom ash handling systems in thelast 5years.Check that any row that has a value listed for the "Total Days of Outage" hasexplanations for the "Reason(s) for outage(s)" and "Method(s) Used to ResolveOutage(s)" fields.NoSection 3.2 Bottom Ash Handling - Storing and UseDataConfirm that Table C-23 contains ALL storage destinations and not just the initialstorage destinations listed in Table C-21. Check all copies of Table C-21.NoIf Table C-21 contains only destinations marked “intermediate” and Table C-23 doesnot contain any other destinations, follow up is required.NoIf Table C-23 does not contain “final” destinations (i.e., ponds, landfills in Table A-6,landfills not in Table A-6, marketed, or other with description of a final destination)follow upis required.NoOnly applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., Storage Destination 2 row may beempty).NoCheck that the sum of Wet & Dry Conveyed tpd multiplied by the dpy, from all thecopies of Table C-18, is less than or equal to the sum of the Tons of Bottom AshTransported to Destination in 2009 in Table C-23.NoIf “other” is selected in any of the dropdowns in the “Type of destination” column, maksure that the respondent provides an explanation for each “other” option selected.NoC3-30 Table C-5 Unscheduled generating unit outages due tothe wet bottom ash handling systems in thelast 5years.Table C-23 Table C-18Table C-21Bottom ash storage destination information.If NO is checked for question C3-33, Table C-24 should be blank. Respondent shouldcontinue answeringquestions startingwith C3-34NoIf YES is checked forquestion C3-33, Table C-24 should be complete.NoTable C-24 Marketingof bottom ash from dryash Onlyapplicable rows need to be completed(i.e., some rows maybe emptyNoIf NO is checked for question C3-34, Table C-25 should be blank. Respondent shouldskipto section 3.3.NoIf YES is checked forquestion C3-34, Table C-25 should be complete.NoTable C-25 Marketing of bottom ash from wet ashhandlingsystemOnly applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., some rows may be empty). Ensure thatif C3-34 is YES, respondent hasprovided at least one row of dataNoSection 3.3 Bottom Ash Handling - Conveyance May have multiple copies to account for multiple bottom ash handling systems.Despite no specific kickout question, this section will be blank for the majority ofplants because their conveyance system did not "begin operating or was convertedafter January 1, 2000."General C3-24C2-25Installing or planning to install dry bottomash handling systemFor each copy of questions C3-24 or C3-25 that are answered "Yes", check that one ofthe copies of section 3.3 has the checkbox associated with "Planned" marked and theappropriate fieldspopulated.NoGeneral Comments Multiple units using the same bottom ashhandling systemCheck the comments section related to section 3.3 to see if the plant has multiple unitsutilizing the same bottom ash handling system. If that is the case, flag for follow-up toensure that the situation is properly represented in our database for modeling purposes.Additionally, ensure that the respondent only listed the shared components on one copyof Section 3.3NoIf “Other” is selected for Type of Component, make sure that the respondent providesan explanation.NoIf “Other” is selected for the units for Total System Capacity of Component, make surethat the respondent provides an explanation.NoCheck that there is a value for Number of Components in the System and Total SystemCapacity of Component for each Type of Component specified.NoC3-36 Bottom ashhandling diagramattachmentBottom ash handling diagram attachment If “Diagram attached” is checked, make sure the document is provided.NoCheck that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all values makelogical sense (i.e. the year on which the modification cost is based is >= 2000)NoCheck that if components are listed in C3-37 or C3-38 that "Other Contractor's Fees" or"EngineeringCosts" have valuesgreater than $0NoC3-40 Major conveyance components If "No" is checked, make sure the respondent provided explanations of what systemcomponents are and are not includedNoTable C-28 O&M Cost for Conveyance of Bottom AshHandlingfor 2009Check that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all values makelogical senseNoSection 3.4 Bottom Ash Handling- Intermediate Mayhave multiple copies to account for intermediate bottom ash storage systems.C3-33 Marketing of bottom ash from dry ashhandling systemC3-34 Marketing of bottom ash from wet ashhandling systemTable C-26 Table C-4 Bottom ash system components - conveyanceTable C-27 C3-37C3-38Capital cost for conveyance of bottom ashhandlingSection3.4BottomAshHandlingIntermediateStorageMayhavemultiplecopiestoaccountforintermediatebottomashstoragesystems.Despite no specific kickout question, this section will be blank for the majority ofplants because their intermediate fly ash storage systems did not "begin operatingor was modified after January 1, 2000."General C3-24C2-25Installing or planning to install dry bottomash handling systemFor each copy of questions C3-24 or C3-25 that are answered "Yes", check that one ofthe copies of section 3.4 has the checkbox associated with "Planned" marked and theappropriate fieldspopulated.NoC3-42 Table A-8Part C, Section2.4Bottom and fly ash shared storage If “Yes” to C3-42, verify the unit IDs are populated and consistent with Table A-8 andconfirm that Section 2.4 was completed for the same Storage ID. The respondent shouldthen skipto section 3.5.NoIf YES is checked for question C3-43, Table C-29 should be blank. Respondent shouldskipto Section 4.NoIf “Yes”, confirm that the storage ID is for a pond/impoundment listed in Table A-4.NoIf NO is checked forquestion C3-43, Table C-29 should be complete.NoIf “Other” is selected for Type of Component, make sure that the respondent providesan explanation.NoIf “Other” is selected for the units for Total System Capacity of Component, make surethat the respondent provides an explanation.NoCheck that there is a value for Number of Components in the System and Total SystemCapacity of Component for each Type of Component specified.NoCheck that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all values makelogical sense (i.e. the year on which the modification cost is based is >= 2000)NoC3-43 Table A-4 Storage destination pond/impoundment?Table C-29 Bottom ash system components -intermediate storageTable C-30 C3-45C3-46Capital cost for intermediate storage ofbottom ash handlingCheck that if components are listed in C3-45 or C3-46 that "Other Contractor's Fees" or"EngineeringCosts" have valuesgreater than $0NoC3-48 Major intermediate storage components If "No" is checked, make sure the respondent provided explanations of what systemcomponents are and are not includedNoTable C-31 O&M Cost for Intermediate Storage ofBottom Ash Handlingfor 2009Check that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all values makelogical senseNoSection 3.5 Bottom Ash Handling -Transport/DisposalDespite no specific kickout question, this section will be blank for the majority ofplants because their transport/disposal systems did not "begin operating or wasmodified after January1,2000."C3-50 Bottom and fly ash shared transport anddisposalIf "Yes" is checked, verify the unit IDs are populated and consistent with Table A-8.Also check that the respondent checked "Yes" forquestion C2-45NoIf YES, confirm that a pond/impoundment is included in Table C-23. The remainder ofsection 3.5 should be blank. Respondent should skipto Section4NoIf NO, respondent shouldproceed to C3-52.NoCheck that the respondent has identified at least one method of transportationNoCheck that the respondent has identified the number of units for each method oftransportation selected.NoCheck that the respondent has identified whether the units are bought, leased, orcontracted out for each method of transportation selectedNoCheck that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all values makelogical sense (i.e. the year on which the modification cost is based is >= 2000)NoCheck that if components are listed in C3-53 or C3-54 that "Other Contractor's Fees" or"EngineeringCosts" have valuesgreater than $0NoC3-56 Major transportation components If "No" is checked, make sure the respondent provided explanations of what systemcomponents are and are not includedNoTable C-33 O&M Cost for Transportation of BottomAsh collection for 2009Check that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all values makelogical senseNoSection 4 Economizer Ash HandlingGeneral Table A-8 Verify the unit IDs are populated and consistent with Table A-8 for each copy of section4.NoC4-1 Part C, Section 5 Economizer has collected with air heaterash?If “No” to C4-1, confirm that Section 5 is completed. If not, review comments todetermine if follow upis requiredNoC4-2 Method of handling economizer ash If "Segregated from fly and bottom ash" is selected, check that description is providedand C4-3 is blank.NoC4-3 Method of combining economizer ash withflyand bottom ashCheck that "Combined with fly and bottom ash" is selected in C4-2 and that adescription isprovided if "other" is selectedNoC4-4 Amount of economizer ashproducedCheck that respondent has entered reasonable valuesNoC4-5 Process wastewater generated fromeconomizer ash handlingIf “No” to C4-5, confirm that question C4-6 was completed. If not, follow up may berequired.NoCheck that apercent value is entered for each final destination selectedNoCheck that "% of economizer ash" values sum to 100%NoSection 5 Economizer Ash HandlingFinal destination of economizer ashC3-51 Table C-23 Is a pond/impoundment the final destination?C3-52 Method of transportation to final destinationTable C-32 C3-53C3-54Capital cost for transportation of bottom ashcollectionC4-6gGeneral Table A-8 Verify the unit IDs are populated and consistent with Table A-8 for each copy of section5.NoC5-1 Method of handling air heater ash If "Segregated from fly and bottom ash" is selected, check that description is providedand C5-2 is blank.NoC5-2 Method of combining air heater ash with flyand bottom ashCheck that "Combined with fly and bottom ash" is selected in C5-1 and that adescription isprovided if "other" is selectedNoC5-3 Amount of air heater ashproducedCheck that respondent has entered reasonable valuesNoC5-4 Process wastewater generated from air heaterash handlingIf “No” to C5-4, confirm that question C5-5 was not completed. If not, follow up maybe required.NoCheck that apercent value is entered for each final destination selectedNoCheck that "% of air heater ash" values sum to 100%NoCommentsEntire SectionCheck that all comments have a question number identified and the comment isunderstandable.NoEntire SectionResolve comments that indicate a change must be made to any electronic response.NoC5-5 Final destination of air heater ashPart D NameDate(s)ReviewedReviewer No. 1Reviewer No.2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/QuestionNumberCopy Number Related Section Type of Information Coding and Review ActivityFirstReviewerCommentsSecondReviewerComments Complete?Part D Steam Electric Plant OperationsTOCEnsure that plant name and ID have been populated in the TOC pageNoSection 1Plant Pond/Impoundment Systems andWastewater Treatment SystemsD1-1 and D1-2 Pond/impoundment systems and wastewatertreatment systems located at the plant.If YES to at least one question, respondent should have completed the remainder ofPart D.If NO for both questions, respondent should not have completed Part D of thequestionnaire.Ensure no other answers are completed in Part D; technical review iscomplete.If NO to D1-1, confirm that respondent answered "No" to A3-1.NoSection 2 Pond/Impoundment System andWastewater Treatment SystemIdentificationD2-1 Plant involvement with ash or FGDwastewater treatment full- or pilot-scalestudies.If NO, questions D2-2 and D2-3 should be skipped. Question D2-4 should beanswered.NoD2-3 Plant involvement with ash or FGDwastewater treatment full- or pilot-scalestudies.If YES, make sure a copy of the summary/report is attached. Make sure thatdescriptions cover ash or FGD wastewater treatment technologies.Flag any potentially interesting studies.If NO, make sure an explanation of the study is provided in the free response cell.Make sure that descriptions only cover ash or FGD wastewater treatment technologies.NoD2-4 Plant involvement with ash or FGDwastewater treatment studies, includingbench-scale.Make sure that the response to question D2-4 only covers studies not accounted for inprevious questions and that the technologies listed are for ash or FGD wastewatertreatment.NoIf YES, both or one of Tables D-1 and D-2 should be completed. Respondent shouldalso complete Section 3.If NO, the remainder of Section 2 and all of Section 3 should not be completed. Therespondent should skip to Section 4.1.Ensure no answers are provided in Part DSections 2 and 3.Confirm that D1-2 is "NO".NoIf there are ponds/impoundments listed in Table A-4 that contain coal combustion byproducts,respondents should answer "YES" to thisquestionNoIf the respondent indicates that the FGD scrubber purge or gypsum wastewater is sentto a settling pond in Part B Section 7 or Question B4-16, respondents should answer"YES" to thisquestion and include thoseponds in Table D-1NoD2-6 Table A-4 Plant Pond/Impoundment SystemIdentificationIf YES, Table D-1 should be complete. Check that the “IndividualPonds/Impoundments” column matches the information provided in Table A-4.If NO, Table D-1 should be blank.[Table D-1. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be empty rowsin Table D-1).]NoD2-5 Table A-4; Part BQuestion 4-16;Part B Section 7(QB7-1 throughB7-3)Plant operation of any systems for thetreatment of process wastewaters from ashhandling or FGD operations.If YES, Table D-2 should be complete. Check that the information provided matchesany footprints or diagrams the plant provides along with the questionnaire.If NO, Table D-2 should be blank and Table D-1 should be complete. Confirm that D1-2 is "NO".[Table D-2. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be empty rowsin Table D-2).]NoIf the respondent indicates that the FGD scrubber purge or gypsum wastewater is sentto a wastewater treatment system in Part B Section 7 or Question B4-16, respondentsshould answer "YES" to this question and include those systems in Table D-2.NoSection 3.1Wastewater Treatment DiagramMay have multiple copies to account for multiple pond/impoundment system orwastewater treatment system IDs.Check that the plant attached a block diagram(s). Note that there may be multiplediagrams. If not,check comments tab for explanationNoCheck that the diagram(s) includes all information identified in the “Block DiagramChecklist” onpages D-7 through D-10NoTables D-1/D-2 Check that the diagram(s) includes all pond/impoundment systems and wastewatertreatment systems identified in Table D-1 and/or Table D-2NoTables A-4/B-1/B2Check that the diagram(s) use EPA-assigned numbers from Part A or B (e.g., FGD-1)and that theyare used correctly,if applicable.NoTables D-3/D-4 Check that the flow rates provided in the diagram(s) match those provided in Tables D3 and D-4 within a reasonable amount.NoTable D-11 Check that the diagram(s) includes all wastewater treatment units identified in Table D11.NoCodes Tables Check that the diagram(s) identifies process operations and wastewater treatmentsystems usingappropriate codes.NoTables A-5/C-3/C19/B-8Check that the flow rates provided in the diagram(s) are balanced and generally makesense. Bottom ash, fly ash, and scrubber purge influent flow rates can be checked inTables C-3, C-19, and B-8. Also check against Table A-5 for process wastewatersenteringthepond/impoundmentNoSection 3.2 Wastewater Treatment WastewaterFlowsMay have multiple copies to account for multiple pond/impoundment system orwastewater treatment system IDs.Check that all influents in Table D-3 correspond to block diagram(s) with the sameSystem ID submitted bytheplantNoCheck that onlyinfluents are included in Table D-3NoTable D-4 Check that the influents correspond to the same System ID effluents in Table D-4.NoCheck that the influent flow rates provided generally make sense. For example,corresponding gpm, hpd, and dpy values match the information provided in thediagram(s). Bottom ash, fly ash, and scrubber purge influent flow rates can be checkein Tables C-3,C-19,and B-8.NoCheck that the plants properly identify the process or treated wastewater and thatinfluents correspond to diagram attached in D3-1NoTable D-3. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be empty rowsin Table D-3).NoCheck that all effluents in Table D-4 correspond to block diagram(s) with the sameSystem ID submitted bytheplantNoCheck that onlyeffluents are included in Table D-4NoTable D-3 Check that the effluents correspond to the same System ID influents in Table D-3.NoCheck that units are selected for the amount of solids/sludge, if applicablNoCheck that the effluent flow rates provided generally make sense. For example,corresponding gpm, hpd, and dpy values match the information provided in thediagram(s)submitted bytheplantNoCheck that the plants properly identified the treated wastewater and final destinationand that effluents correspond to diagram attached in D3-1NoTable D-4. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be empty rowsin Table D-4).NoSection 4.1Active/Inactive/Open and PlannedPond/Impoundment Unit InformationMay have multiple copies to account for multiple pond(s)/impoundment(s)reported in Table A-4.Diagram RequestPond/impoundment system or wastewatertreatment system influent flowsD3-2Pond/impoundment system or wastewatertreatment system effluent flowsD3-3D3-1D2-7 Plant Wastewater Treatment SystemIdentificationQuestion B4-16;Part B Section 7D4-1 Table A-4 The use or planned use of anyactive/inactive/open ponds/impoundmentsfor the storage, treatment, and/or disposal ofprocess wastewater, residues or by-productsfrom the combustion of coal, pet-coke, oroil.Question D4-1 should be answered regardless of the response to question D2-5.If YES, Section 4.1 should be completed for every active/inactive/openpond/impoundment unit identified in Table A-4.If NO, Section 4.1 should be skipped. Check to make sure no ponds are listed in TableA-4.Ensure no answers are provided for Part D Section 4.2.NoD4-2 Residence time, life, and number of cells ofthepond/impoundment uniMake sure that the number of cells for the pond/impoundment unit matches the blockdiagram(s)submitted bytheplant,if applicable.NoD4-3 Volume, surface area, bottom and topelevation, freeboard height, maximum heighof the berms/dams, total amount of solidsplaced, and expected year ofclosure/retirement of the pond/impoundmentunit when it was originally built, at itscurrent status, and at its expected end of life.Make sure that responses logically make sense. For example, all height and elevationresponses should correspond to one another; total solids placed in the pond shouldincrease from current to end of life status.Reminder: Operating capacity = Free water + Added solidsNoD4-4 Does the pond/impoundment unit have aliner?If YES, Table D-6 should be complete.If NO, skip to question D4-5. Table D-6 should not be completed.If NA, skip to question D4-10.[Table D-6. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be empty rowsin Table D-6).]NoD4-5 Has the pond/impoundment unit ever beendredged?If YES, the following fill in the blanks should be complete.If NO, skip to question D4-7.If NA, skip to question D4-10.Make sure that answers logically make sense. For example, if the last year of dredgingwas 2000, no answers should be provided for the responses required for the last 5years.NoD4-6 Transfer location of dredged solidsIf “other” is checked, make sure that the respondentprovides an explanationNoD4-7 Pond/Impoundment unit expansion. If YES, questions D4-8 and D4-9 should be completed.If NO, skip to question D4-10.If NA, skip to question D4-10.NoD4-9 Description of pond/impoundmentexpansions.Make sure that plant provides starting/ending dimensions and total cost associated withthe expansion.NoD4-10NoD4-11NoIf YES, Table D-7 should be completed.If NO, skip to Section 4.2.Ensure that no answers are provided for Part D Section 4.1.If NA, Table D-7 should be completed to the extent possible.NoMake sure that units are selected for in the “Average Addition Rate” column and makesure that the units selected make logical sense for the chemical liquid/solid addition.NoSection 4.2 Closed Pond/Impoundment UnitInformationMay have multiple copies to account for multiple pond(s)/impoundment(s)reported in Table A-4.Pollutants targeted for removal other than“solely settling”.If “other” is checked, make sure that the respondent provides an answer.Based on pollutants listed in D4-11, make sure the appropriate pollutant categories areselected in D4-10.Make sure any limitations provided have corresponding units selected.D4-12 Chemical addition to pond/impoundmentunit in 2009.D4-13 Table A-4 Closed pond/impoundments. If YES, Section 4.2 should be completed.If NO, skip to Section 5.1. Check to make sure there are no closed ponds listed in TablA-4.Ensure no answers are provided for Part D Section 4.2.This section should only contain ponds closed on or after January 1, 2000 identified inTable A-4.NoD4-14 Date closed, life, and number of cells in theclosepond/impoundmentMake sure that the number of cells in the pond match the block diagram(s) submittedbythe facility,if applicableNoD4-15 Volume, surface area, bottom and topelevation, freeboard height, max height ofdams/berms, and total solids in the closedpond/impoundmentMake sure that responses logically make sense. For example, all height and elevationresponses should correspond to one another; total solids placed in the pond shouldincrease from current to end of life status.NoD4-16 Does the pond/impoundment unit have aliner?If YES is checked, Table D-9 should be complete.If NO is checked, skip to question D4-17. Table D-9 should not be completed.Make sure that the thickness and permeability entries are in the correct units.[Table D-9. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be empty rowsin Table D-9).]NoD4-17 Does the pond/impoundment unit have acap/cover?If YES is checked, Table D-10 should be complete.If NO is checked, skip to question D4-18. Table D-10 should not be completed.Make sure that the thickness and permeability entries are in the correct units.[Table D-10. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be emptyrows in Table D-10).]NoIf YES, all questions should be completed.If NO,skiptoquestion D4-21NoMake sure that plant provides starting/ending dimensions and total cost associated withthe expansion.NoD4-21 and D4-22 Closure plan/process for thepond/impoundment unit.If YES, make sure that a copy of the closure plan is attached.Check to make sure that closure plan is attached and contains all necessary informationif there is not answer provided for question D4-22.NoD4-23 Has the plant built any structures on top ofthe closed pond/impoundment unit?If YES, make sure that a description of the structures is provided.If NO, skip to question D4-24.NoD4-24 Long-term groundwater, soil, or overflowmonitoring of the closed pond/impoundmentunit.If YES, make sure that a description of the monitoring plan is provided.NoSection 5.1 Wastewater Treatment Unit Information– System LevelMay have multiple copies to account for multiple wastewater treatment IDsreported in Table D-5.D5-1 Table D-2 Identification of wastewater treatmentsystems in Table D-2.If YES, Section 5.1 should be completed for each wastewater treatment systemidentified in Table D-2.If NO, skip to Section 6.1. Make sure no wastewater treatment systems were identifiedin Table D-2.Ensure that no answers are provided in Part D Sections 5.1 and 5.2.NoCheck to make sure the wastewater treatment IDs match the block diagram(s)submitted by the facility.[Table D-11. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be emptyrows in Table D-11).]NoTable A-4 If a pond/impoundment is selected, check to make sure that the ID listed matches TableA-4 and block diagram(s) submitted by the facility.NoD5-2 Wastewater Treatment UnitsD4-18 throughD4-20Expansions of pond/impoundment unitCheck that the respondents identify wastewater treatment units using appropriate codeRequest new codes if necessary.NoTable D-2 Check to make sure that the surface area of the WWT Unit makes sense/corresponds tothe surface area submitted for the entire treatment system (Table D-2).NoD5-3 Flow rates, duration, and frequency for thewastewater treatment system.Check to make sure the flow rates, duration, and frequency logically make sense andmatch block flow diagram attached in D3-1.NoD5-4 and D5-5 Pollutants targeted for removal other than“solely settling”.Note D5-6 through D5-9 only needcompleteness checks.If “other”, make sure that the respondent provides an answer.Based on pollutants listed in D5-5, make sure the appropriate pollutant categories areselected in D5-4.Make sure any limitations provided have corresponding units selected.NoD5-10 Planned improvements to existingwastewater treatment systemsMake sure that bid proposals are attached or that an explanation is provided.NoD5-11 Planned improvements to existingwastewater treatment systems.Make sure that all wastewater treatment unit IDs correspond to units entered in TableD-11.[Table D-12. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be emptyrows in Table D-12).]NoD5-12 Table D-11 Planned improvements based on potentiallimit changes in the future.If YES, no explanation is necessary.If NO, make sure that the respondentprovides an explanationNoSection 5.2 Wastewater Treatment System ChemicalAdditionMay have multiple copies to account for multiple wastewater treatment IDsreported in Table D-5.If YES, Table D-13 should be completed for every wastewater treatment systemidentified in Table D-2.If NO is checked, skip to Section 6.1. Make sure there are no wastewater treatmentsystems identified in Table D-2.Ensure that no answers are provided for Part DSection 2.If NA is checked, Table D-13 should be completed until the extent possible.[Table D-13. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be emptyrows in Table D-13).]NoMake sure that units are selected for in the “Average Addition Rate” column.Make sure that the units selected make logical sense for the chemical liquid/solidaddition.NoSection 6.1 Pond/Impoundment System andWastewater Treatment System CostsMay have multiple copies to account for multiple pond/impoundment system orwastewater treatment system IDs that began operating on or after January 1,2000.If YES, Sections 6.1 and 6.2 should be completed for each pond/impoundment systemor wastewater treatment system identified in Tables D-1/D-2.If NO, respondents are instructed to skip to the next Part. Make sure there are nopond/impoundment or wastewater treatment systems identified in Tables D-1/D-2.Ensure no answers are provided in Part D Sections 6.1 and 6.2.NoCheck to make sure that all pond/impoundment or wastewater treatment systemsidentified in Tables D-1 and D-2 as being installed on or after January 1, 2000, have acompleted copy of Sections 6.1 and 6.2NoMake sure that Table D-14 is complete. If not, follow-up with the plant may benecessary.Information may not be provided in Table D-14 if the pond/poundment or wastewatertreatment system was not operated in 2009.NoMake sure that the individual O&M costs match the total provided at the end of thetable.NoD6-2 O&M costs for the pond/impoundmentsystem or the wastewater treatment systemoperated in 2009.D5-13 Chemical addition to wastewater treatmentunits.6.1 Tables D-1/D-2 Pond/impoundment systems and/orwastewater treatment systems identified inTables D-1 or D-2 installed after January 1,2000.D6-3 Capital costs for the pond/impoundmentsystem or the wastewater treatment system.Make sure that Table D-15 is complete. If not, follow-up with the plant may benecessary.Make sure that there are no discrepancies between the individual indirect/direct costs,the indirect/direct totals, and the total capital cost provided at the end of the table.Information may not be provided in Table D-15 if the pond/poundment or wastewatertreatment system was not operated in 2009.NoD6-4 Capital costs for the pond/impoundmentsystem or the wastewater treatment system.D6-5 and D6-6 – only need to be checkedfor completeness.If NO, make sure that a list of key components not included is included in theexplanation.NoD6-7 Tables D-1/D-2 Ancillary equipment of thepond/impoundment system or wastewatertreatment system.Check to make sure that all systems identified in Tables D-1 and D-2 as being installedon or after January 1, 2000, have a completed copy of Section 6.2.[Table D-16. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be emptyrows in Table D-16).]NoCommentsEntire SectionCheck that all comments have a question number identified and the comment isunderstandable.NoEntire SectionResolve comments that indicate a change must be made to any electronic response.NoPart E NameDate(s)ReviewedReviewer No.1Reviewer No.2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/QuestionNumberCopy Number Related Section Type of Information Coding and Review ActivityFirstReviewerCommentsSecondReviewerComments Complete?Part E WASTES FROM CLEANING METALPROCESS EQUIPMENTTOCEnsure that plant name and ID have been populated in the TOC pageNoUniversalAll questions are answered except for those that can be skipped.NoSection 1 Metal Cleaning OperationsE1-1 N/A If "No" is selected for either Question, Part E should not have been completed.NoSection 2 Generating Unit Cleaning Data May have multiple copies to account for multiple SEGUsEach SEGU Id reported should match an ID in Table A-8NoIf "yes" to specific cleaning method are all necessary data fields complete including'Other' specific data.NoCheck comments to be sure dose concentration and chemical added are in proper units.If not,calculatetheproper value.NoCheck frequencyreported to determine if understandableNoEach SEGU Id reported should match an ID in Table A-8NoIf "yes" to specific cleaning method are all necessary data fields complete including'Other' specific data.NoIf plant reports no metal cleaning waste generated, check comments to determine why(typically,theyhave used steam and there is no residual waste)NoCheck frequency reported to determine if understandable.NoSection 3 Cleaning Operation Data May have multiple copies to account for multiple SEGUsE3 Table E-1/E-2 All For each type of cleaningfor each unitidentified in Tables E-1/E-2, there should be acompleted Section 3.NoE3 Table E-1/E-2 All If the cleaning operating is selected as "Other" in Table E-1/E-2: make sure that theMetal Cleaning Operation ID is as follows:Table E-1, First Other Option is selected: Chem_Other1Table E-1, Second Other Option is selected: Chem_Other2Table E-2, First Other Option is selected: No_Chem_Other 1Table E 2 Second Other Option is selected: No Chem Other 2E3-1 Cleaning Operation Data Description must include: Type of Equipment, Type of Metal Cleaned, ChemicalPreparation Steps,Short DescriptionNoE3-2 CleaningOperation DataAnswer "yes" or "no"NoE3-3 Cleaning Operation Data Ensure all data are complete. Check that reported NPDES outfall number(s) match PartA,Section 2.2.NoE3-4 CleaningOperation DataAnswer "yes" continue on. "No" SkipouNoE3-5 Cleaning Operation Data Answer ALWAYS or SOMETIME HAZARDOUS continue on. Answer ALWAYSNON-HAZARDOUS OR UNKNOWNjumpto E3-7NoE3-6 CleaningOperation DataAnswered onlyif ALWAYS or SOMETIME HAZARDOUS in E3-5NoE3-7 CleaningOperation DataEnsure all data is complete including"expanded infoNoE3-8 Cleaning Operation Data If 'yes" ensure all data is complete including "expanded info"NoCommentsEntire SectionCheck that all comments have a question number identified and the comment isunderstandable.NoEntire SectionResolve comments that indicate a change must be made to any electronic response.NoE2-2./Table E-2E2-1/Table E-1Non-Chemical Method/Water Source UsedSpecific Chemical/Water Source UsedTable A-8Table A-8Part F NameDate(s)ReviewedReviewer No.1Reviewer No.2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/QuestionNumberCopy Number Related Section Type of Information Coding and Review ActivityFirstReviewerCommentsSecondReviewerComments Complete?Part F Management Practices ForPonds/Impoundments And LandfillsTOCEnsure that plant name and ID have been populated in the TOC pageNoSection 1 Pond/Impoundment and Landfill UseIf NO, confirm that the plant did not included any ponds in Table A-4/Table A-5 orlandfills in Table A-6/Table A-7 that contain process wastewaters, residues, or byproducts from the combustion of coal or petroleum coke (e.g., bottom ash sluice, fly ashsluice, FGD scrubber purge, gypsum wash water, bottom ash, fly ash, gypsum, and/orcalcium sulfite). Review of the water balance diagram in Part A may be helpful.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part F; technical review is complete.]NoIf YES is checked for question F1-1, the remainder of Part F should be completed.NoSection 2 Pond/Impoundment ManagementPracticesMay have multiple copies to account for multiple pond/impoundmentsGeneral Table A-4Table A-5Number of Copies Check that there is a copy of section 2 for each active/inactive/open or retired/closedpond/impoundment unit in Table A-4/Table A-5 that contains process wastewaters,residues, or by-products from the combustion of coal or petroleum coke (e.g., bottomash sluice, fly ash sluice, FGD scrubber purge, gypsum wash water, bottom ash, fly ash,gypsum, and/or calcium sulfite).This section should include leachate ponds and allponds reported in Part D. It should not include coal pile runoff ponds.Confirm thatthe Pond ID provided is reported in Table A-4.NoF2-1 Hydrologic design criteria of thepond/impoundment unitEnsure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate.NoIf NO, skiptoQuestion F2-4NoIf YES, check that the respondent provided when the overflow occurred and the causefor the overflow.NoIf NO, skiptoquestion F2-9.NoIf YES, ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate.Confirm at least one box is checkedNoF2-5 Volume of leachate collected in 2009 (gpdand gpy) and the frequency of wastewatergeneration(days).Ensure all data are complete and in the correct units. Compare data to the water balancediagram in Part A.NoF2-7 Table A-4Table D-2Table F-5Part A Section 2.2All intermediate and final destinations of theleachate.Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. If transferredto pond/impoundment(s), confirm that pond IDs are reported in Table A-4. If transferredto onsite treatment system, verify that this system was reported in Table D-2 or section4 of Part F was completed for this treatment system. If wastewater is discharged tosurface water, confirm NPDES outfall number(s) in Part A Section 2.2.NoNoNoIf NO, skipto Section 3.NoIf YES, continue.NoF2-10 Monitoring measures or inspectionsperformed on the impoundment unit by theplant.Check that corresponding fields are completed for each box checked. Ensure all data arecomplete including OTHER information if appropriate.NoSection 3.1 Landfill Management Practices May have multiple copies to account for multiple landfillsGeneral Table A-6 Number of Copies Check that there is a copy of section 3 for each active/inactive/open or retired/closedlandfill in Table A-6/Table A-7 that contains process wastewaters, residues, or byproducts from the combustion of coal or petroleum coke (e.g., bottom ash sluice, fly ashsluice, FGD scrubber purge, gypsum wash water, bottom ash, fly ash, gypsum, and/orcalcium sulfite). Confirm that the Landfill ID provided is reported in Table A-6.NoF2-9 Regular Monitoring of the structural integrityof thepond/impoundment unitNoF2-8 Chemicals used to treat leachate which issent to apond or storage tankIf YES, ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. Note:At least one box should be checkedIf YES, ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. Note:At least one box should be checkedNoF2-4 System to collect leachate forpond/impoundment unitsF2-6F2-2 Overflow or other type of release,excludingroutine permitted discharges, since January1,1995 from thepond/impoundment unitCollection and Identification of stormwater,rainfall,orprocess wastewaters and theirF2-3 Non-permitted pond/impoundment overflowor other type of release to a recevingwaterF1-1 A3-1 throughA4-3Use of one or more active/inactive/open orretired/closed pond/impoundment units orlandfill used for the storage, treatment,and/or disposal of process wastewater,residues, or by-products from thecombustion of coal or petroleumcoke,including, but not limited to fly ash,bottom ash, boiler slag, or flue gas emissioncontrol residuesIf YES, check that the name of the receiving water is specified.F3-1 Landfill's surface area, approved/licensedvolume capacity and height when it was builtand the date on which it was builtEnsure all fields are complete and data is provided in the correct units.NoF3-2 Landfill's current surface area, volume andheight above the original elevation of thestored materialsEnsure all fields are complete and data is provided in the correct units.NoIf NO, confirm expected end date, surface area, volume, and height are provided.Confirm data isprovided in the correct unitsNoIf YES , confirm date closed is specifiedNoIf NO, skiptoQuestion F3-8NoIf YES, continue.NoF3-5 Type of expansion of the landfillEnsureplant selected onlyone answerNoF3-6 Description of the landfill expansion sinceJanuary 1, 2000Check that the starting and ending dimensions (surface area, volume of stored materialsand height) and the date(s) of expansion are provided. Confirm plant specified units forall numbers provided. The end dimension should be larger than the starting dimension.It's possible for this question to be blank if no expansions occurred since January1, 2000. If completed, Q F3-7 should be completed.NoF3-7 Total Cost of expansion(s) since January1,2000Make sure a value is entered for the total cost.It's possible for this question to beblank if no expansions occurred since January 1, 2000. Should be completed if F3-6isanswered.NoIf NO, skiptoquestion F3-9.NoIf YES, ensure that corresponding fields are completed for each box checked in Table F1. Note: There may be empty rows in Table F-1, but at least one row should becompleted.NoIf NO, skiptoquestion F3-10.NoIf YES, ensure that corresponding fields are completed for each box checked in Table F2. Note: There may be empty rows in Table F-2, but at least one row should becompleted.NoIf NO or NA, skiptoquestion F3-11.NoIf YES, make sure that a description of the structure(s) and/or challenges the plant facedwhile buildingon topof the landfill areprovidedNoIf NO, skips toquestion F3-16.NoIf YES, ensure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoF3-12 F2-5 Volume of leachate collected in 2009 (gpdand gpy) and the frequency of processwastewatergeneration(days)Ensure all fields are complete and data is provided in the correct units. Make sure that adescription of the estimation method is provided. Using the water balance diagram, andanswers to F2-5,ensure that all leachate is accounted forNoF3-14 Table A-4Table D-2Table F-5Part A Section 2.2All intermediate and final destinations of theleachate.Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. If transferredto pond/impoundment(s), confirm that pond IDs are reported in Table A-4. If transferredto onsite treatment system, verify that this system was reported in Table D-2 or section4 of Part F was completed for this treatment system. If wastewater is discharged tosurface water, confirm NPDES outfall number(s) in Part A Section 2.2.NoF3-15 Chemicals used to treat leachate which issent to apond or storage tankIf YES, ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate.Confirm at least one box is checkedNoF3-16 Combining the conveyed stormwater runoffthat has contacted uncapped portion of thelandfill with leachateAnswer YES or NONoF13-17 Table A-4Table D-2Part A Section 2.2All intermediate and final destinations of theconveyed stormwater runoff that hascontacted uncapped portion of the landfill.Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. If transferredto pond/impoundment(s), confirm that pond IDs are reported in Table A-4. If transferredto onsite treatment system, verify that this system was reported in Table D-2 or the planentered NA and indicated the type. If wastewater is discharged to surface water, confirmNPDES outfall number(s) in Part A Section 2.2.NoF3-18 Combining the conveyed stormwater runoffthat has contacted capped portion of thelandfill with leachateAnswer YES or NONoF3-19 Table A-4Table D-2Part A Section 2.2All intermediate and final destinations of theconveyed stormwater runoff that hascontacted capped portion of the landfill.Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. If transferredto pond/impoundment(s), confirm that pond IDs are reported in Table A-4. If transferredto onsite treatment system, verify that this system was reported in Table D-2 or the planentered NA and indicated the type. If wastewater is discharged to surface water, confirmNPDES outfall number(s) in Part A Section 2.2.NoSection 3.2 Landfill Costs May have multiple copies to account for multiple landfills. Please be aware thatthis section may be blank if their landfill did not "begin operating on or afterJanuary1,2000."NoIf YES, ensure that corresponding fields are completed for each box checked and that atleast one box is checked. If OTHER is selected,make sure that the type ofprocessF3-13 Collection and Identification of stormwater,rainfall,orprocess wastewaters and theirF3-3 Is landfill closed?F3-10 Structures on top of landfillF3-11 System to collect leachate for landfillF3-9 Cap/Cover for the landfillF3-8 Liner for the landfillF3-4 Expansion of the landfillGeneral Number of Copies Check that there is a copy of section 3.2 for each landfill provided in section 3.1 thatbegan operating on or after January 1, 2000 based on F3-1. Ensure that the landfill IDsfor the same landfill are written identically in section 3.1 and 3.2. Note: Even an extraspace will disrupt linking in Access, so make sure these fields are truly identical.NoF3-20Table F-32009 O&M cost data for landfills Check the comments section to see whether actual data or an estimate is used. If anestimate is provided, make sure that the methods used are listed in the commentssection. Ensure all fields are complete including OTHER information if appropriate.Confirm the data is provided in the correct units and units are specified if requested.Ensure that the Total O&M cost is the sum of all the subcosts.NoF3-21Table F-4Capital cost data for landfills Check the comments section to see whether actual data or an estimate is used. If anestimate is provided, make sure that the methods used are listed in the commentssection. Ensure all fields are complete. Ensure that the total direct cost, total indirectcost, and total cost were correctly reported (i.e., sum of respective subcosts). Follow upwith the respondent to check that the capital costs for the planned LTSs are not includedin Table F-3.NoSection 4.1 Leachate Treatment System(LTS) Design Only one copy at the plant level.General Table D-2 Leachate treatment system design Confirm that Section 4.1 is completed for all leachate treatment systems specified in F2-7 and F3-14. Make sure that treatment systems listed in Table D-2 are not included.NoEnsure all data are complete and provided in the correct units. Only applicable rowsneed to be completed (i.e., some rows may be completely empty, but no rows should bepartially completed). Confirm NPDES outfall number(s) are in Part A Section 2.2.NoCheck that an estimate of the expected average annual flow rate of the effluent isprovided for the planned leachate treatment systems (LTSs).Please note that we askfor this in the directions, but not in the table. Because we ask for influent flow inSection 4.2, we do not need to capture the average annual flow in this question.Therefore, ensure that the flow is reported for planned systems in Table F-6. If theplant entered it only as a comment, add it to Table F-6.NoConfirm that F4-2 is checked and that the documentation is provided. If not, review thecomments to determine whether follow upis requiredNoCheck that the block diagrams are numbered and the plant name, plant ID, and LTS IDareprovided in the upper corner of the diagramNoCheck that all the influent and effluent streams from the units and LTSs are labeledusingthe Code table.NoMake sure that a description of the source or destination and the block diagram numberare provided when the source or destinations are not shown the diagram.NoCheck that the point of chemical addition is identified. Make sure that the chemicalsindicated correspond to the chemicals listed in Table F-9NoCheck that the final destination of the treated leachate is identified and make sure thatwhen appropriate, details of reuse or recycling of leachate within the plant are provided.NoCheck that the average annual (2009) flow rates for influent and effluent are includedand make sure that these are the same flow rates entered into Table F-6. Check thecomments to see if the flow rate is arrived at by dividing the annual flow by 365 days.NoCheck that NPDES permit outfall numbers are included when applicable and are alsoreported in Part A section 2.2NoSection 4.2 Leachate Treatment System Flows May have multiple copies to account for multiple leachate treatment systemsGeneral Table F-5 Number of Copies Check that there is a copy of section 4.2 for each leachate treatment system identified inTable F-5. Make sure that LTS ID assigned in Table F-5 is entered correctly for eachcopy.NoTable F-6 Table A-4 TableA-6LTS Flows in 2009 Confirm that the pond and landfill IDs are reported in Table A-4 or Table A-6respectively. Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate.Check data are provided in correct units. Only applicable rows need to be completed(i.e., some rows may be completely empty, but no rows should be partially completed).Note: Plant can provide gpm, hpd, and dpy OR gpd and dpy. If plant provides both,make sure gpm x hpd x 60 = gpd and that dpy = dpy.NoSection 4.3 Leachate Treatment System Units May have multiple copies to account for multiple leachate treatment systemsGeneral Table F-5 Number of Copies Check that there is a copy of section 4.3 for each LTS identified in Table F-5. Make surthat the LTS ID assigned in Table F-5 is entered correctly for each copy.NoTable F-5 Table D-2Part A Section 2.2Plant Leachate Treatment systemsF4-2 F4-1Table F-9Part A Section 2.2Block Diagram for Leachate TreatmentSystemTable F-7 Table A-4 Leachate Treatment units Ensure all data are complete including OTHER and POND ID information ifappropriate. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., some rows may becompletely empty). If a pond/impoundment unit is included as part of the leachatetreatment system, check that the pond ID is reported in Table A-4.Please note that weask for the date added to the WWT system in the instructions but they did notneed to provide that (it was deleted from the table). If the information is providedin comments you can leave themNoTable F-8 Table A-4 Planned Improvements to the LTSs. Ensure all data are complete including OTHER and POND ID information ifappropriate. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., some rows may becompletely empty). If a pond/impoundment unit is included as part of the leachatetreatment system, check that the pond ID is reported in Table A-4.NoIf NO, skiptoquestion F4-7.NoIf YES, make sure that the targetedpollutants and/or limits are specifiedNoF4-7 Flow rate data for LTS in 2009 Make sure that all the fields are populated and that data is provided in the correct units.For planned LTS, check that the design flow rate is provided and N/A is entered in allother the fieldsNoSection 4.4 Leachate Treatment Unit (LTU)InformationMay have multiple copies to account for multiple leachate treatment systems andmultiple leachate treatment system unitsGeneral Table F-5 TableF-7Number of Copies Check that there is a copy of section 4.4 for each LTU in Table F-7. Remember thatthere is a Table F-7 for each LTS identified in Table F-5. Thus, if you had 2 LTSs eachwith 3 LTUs you should have 6 copies of section 4.4. Make sure that the LTS IDassigned in Table F-5 and LTU ID assigned in Table F-7 are entered correctly for eachcopy.NoF4-8 Volume of the LTU Ensure that the volume field is always completed and in the case of a wetland cell thatwater depth(ft)is alsoprovided.NoF4-9 Footprint/Surface area of the LTUData isprovided and in correct unitsNoF4-10 Residence time(hours) of leachate within theLTUData is provided and in correct units.NoF4-11 Types of Materials of construction of theLTUEnsure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. At least onebox should be selected. If selected "Stainless steel" make sure that plant also providedthe type of stainless steel.NoF4-12 Pollutants targeted for removal by LTUusingtechnologies other than settlingEnsure all data are complete including OTHER and METALS information ifappropriate. At least one box should be selectedNoF4-13 F4-12 Pollutants and effluent Limitationscontrolling the LTU operationMake sure that limitations and units are provided for each listed pollutant. Ensure thatno polutants are provided that were not previously provided in question F4-12.NoIf YES, make sure that Table F-9 is completed. Check that corresponding fields arecompleted for all the chemicals listed. Confirm plant provided answers in correct units.Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., some rows may be completely empty,but no rows should be partially completed)NoIf NO, skipto F4-15NoIf NA, make sure that Table F-8 is completed for this LTU and skipto F4-15NoIf YES, make sure that Table F-10 is complete. Check that corresponding fields arecompleted for all the plant species listed. Only applicable rows need to be completed(i.e., some rows may be completely empty, but no rows should be partially completed).NoIf NO, skipto Section 4.5NoIf NA, make sure that Table F-8 is completed for this LTU and skip to section 4.5.NoSection 4.5 Leachate Treatment System (LTS) Costs May have multiple copies to account for multiple leachate treatment systems.Please be aware that this section may be blank if their LTS did not "beginoperatingon or after January1,2000."General Table F-5 Number of Copies Check that there is a copy of section 4.5 for each leachate treatment system identified inTable F-5 that began operating on or after January 1, 2000. Make sure that LTS IDassigned in Table F-5 is entered correctlyfor each copyNoF4-16Table F-112009 O&M cost data for leachate treatmentsystemsCheck the comments section to see whether actual data or an estimate is used. If anestimate is provided, make sure that the methods used are listed in the commentssection. Ensure all fields are complete including OTHER information if appropriate.Confirm the data is provided in the correct units and units are specified if requested.Ensure that the Total O&M cost is the sum of all the subcosts.NoIf this table was not completed, check the comments page and make sure plant providedan explanation for whyrecords were not availableNoCheck the comments section to see whether actual data or an estimate is used. If anestimate is provided, make sure that the methods used are listed in the commentssection. Ensure all fields are complete. Ensure that the total direct cost, total indirectcost, and total cost were correctly reported (i.e., sum of respective subcosts).NoF4-17Table F-12Capital cost data for leachate treatmentsystemsF4-6 Planned improvements in preparation forpotential limit changesF4-15 Table F-8 Plant species in LTUF4-14 Table F-8 Chemicals added to LTU unit in 2009Section 4.6 Leachate Treatment System Equipment May have multiple copies to account for multiple leachate treatment systems.Please be aware that this section may be blank if their LTS did not "beginoperatingon or after January1,2000."General Table F-5 TableF-7Number of copies Check that there is a copy of section 4.6 for each leachate treatment system provided insection 4.5. Ensure that the leachate treatment system IDs for the same landfill arewritten identicallyin section 4.5 and 4.6.NoF4-18Table F-13Leachate treatment system equipment Confirm all data are complete. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., somerows may be completely empty, but no rows should be partially completed).NoSection 5 Groundwater Monitoring Practices May have multiple copies to account for multiple pond/impoundments andlandfillsGeneral Number of copies Check that there is a copy of section 5 for each pond/impoundment provided in section2and a copy of section 5 for each landfill provided in section 3.1. Ensure that the pondIDs and landfill IDs for the same pond/impoundment or landfill are written identicallybetween the sections.NoIf NO, respondent should skip to next questionnaire part.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part F;technical review is completeNoIf Yes, ensure all data are complete and in correct unitsNoIf YES, continue.NoIf NO, skiptoquestion F5-4.NoF5-3 Pollutants that exceeded primary orsecondaryMCL or state criteriaEnsure that the plant provided a list of pollutants.NoIf YES, continue.NoIf NO, skiptoquestion F5-6.NoF5-5 Pollutants that exceeded backgroundconcentrationsEnsure that the plant provided a list of pollutants.NoConfirm that box is checked and that the diagram is provided. Ensure that the locationsof the monitoring wells are labeled on the diagram using the same IDs provided in TableF-14.NoCheck that corresponding fields are completed for all monitoring wells listed. Confirmplant provided answers in correct units. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e.,some rows may be completely empty, but no rows should be partially completed).NoCommentsEntire SectionCheck that all comments have a question number identified and the comment isunderstandable.NoEntire SectionResolve comments that indicate a change must be made to any electronic response.NoF5-6Table F-14Monitoring well informationPlant measured pollutant concentrations ingroundwater that exceed aprimaryorF5-4 Measured pollutant concentrations in groundwater that do not exceed aprimaryorF5-2F5-1 Preform groundwater monitoringPart G NameDate(s)ReviewedReviewer No.1Reviewer No.2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/QuestionNumberCopy Number Related Section Type of Information Coding and Review ActivityFirstReviewerCommentsSecondReviewerComments Complete?Part G Leachate Sampling Data forPonds/Impoundments and LandfillsTOCEnsure that plant name and ID have been populated in the TOC pageNoSection 1 Leachate CollectionIf "no" is checked for question G1-1, the remainder of Part G should not be completed.NoCheck for consistency in answer to G1-1 and whether leachate was reported to becollected for anyponds/landfills listed in Tables A-4 and A-6NoIf "yes," confirm respondant completed appropriate questions in Part F (F2-4, F3-11,Table F-5).NoSection 2Leachate Generated fromPond/Impoundments and LandfillsMay have mutiple copies for each pond/landfill where leachate is collected.Eachpond/landfill ID should match an ID in Tables A-4 or A-6NoIf "no" is checked forquestion G2-1, skipto Section 5.NoIf "no" is checked for question G2-1, confirm respondant answered “No” to question F2-4 and/or F3-11 for the samepond/landfill ID.NoIf "yes" skip to Section 3, andensurereported data is ONLY untreated leachate.See Figure G-1 for samplingrequirementsNoIf "yes" confirmquestions F2-7 and/or F3-14 are answered consistentlyNoIf "no" skip to Section 3, andensurereported data is ONLY untreated leachate.NoIf "yes" confirmquestions F2-7 and/or F3-14 are answered consistentlyNoIf "yes" confirm that Part F Section 4 was completedNoConfirm thatquestions F2-6, F3-13, F3-16, and F3-18 are answered consistentlyNoIf "yes" to 'only runoff or other stormwater'ensure reported data is for both treatedeffluent and untreated leachate.NoIf "yes" to 'with process wasterwater other than runoff/stormwater'ensurereporteddata is for untreated leachate.NoIf "no"ensure reported data is for both treated effluent and untreated leachate.NoSection 3 Leachate Sample CollectionG3-1 G2-1 - G2-4;Table G-4 forresultsSampling Check comments regarding any possible EPA plant sample exemption (as of 9/17/10,EPA had not granted any exemptions).NoG3-2Confirm that aerial mapisprovidedNoG3-3 F4-2 and G3-1 Confirm sampling locations are marked in the diagram from question F4-2. Confirmthat sampling locations are appropriate (untreated is within the leachate collectionsystem and the treated sample is from effluent of the leachate treatment system).NoSection 4 Sample Collection InformationConfirm each pond/impoundment and/or landfill identified in Section 2 are listed inTable G-1. Pond/impoundment and/or landfill IDs are found in Tables A-4 and A-6.NoUsing questions G2-1 through G2-4, determine if the correct type of samples (untreatedand/or treated) were reported in Table G-1. There should be FOUR SAMPLE DATESor SETS OF ANALYSIS per type of leachate (untreated and/or treated) for EACH pondor landfill identified in Section 2NoSample dates should be once a week (minimum of 5 days between samples, prefer 7days) for 4 weeks. For low flows, sample as soon as collectable but with a minimum of5 days between samples.NoIf leachate is treated ensure the treatment system is identified in Part F Table F-5 andthere is a Section 4.2 completed in Part FNoG4-2 Rain event Confirm plant provided rainfall data starting two weeks prior to the collection of thefirst leachate sample through the last dayof sample collectionNoSection 5 Waste InformationConfirm each pond/impoundment and/or landfill identified in Section 2 are listed inTable G-3. Pond/impoundment and/or landfill IDs are found in Tables A-4 and A-6.NoCompare reported wastes with those listed in Table A-7 for consistency.NoG1-1 Part A Tables A-4and A- 6; Part FSections 2, 3, and4Collection of leachateG2-1 Part F Section 2& 3Leachate generated frompond/impoundments and landfillsG2-2 Part F Section 2& 3Leachate destinationG2-3 Part F Section 2,3 & 4Leachate treatmentG2-4 Part F Section 2,3 & 4 See FigureG-1 for samplingreq'mentsCombined waste streamsSampling locationsG4-1 Table A-4 and A6; Part F Section4 Table F-5Sample collection informationG5-1 Table A-4 and A6; G2, Table G-1Waste informationLab Results Laboratory Analytical Data Form Will have mutiple copies for each pond/landfill and leachate collection location.Ensure the plant reported results for each entry in Table G-1. There should be FOURCOPIES OF TABLE G-4 per type of leachate (untreated and/or treated) for EACHpond or landfill identified in Section2NoEnsure a laboratoryand a sample description isprovided for each copyNoConfirm analytical methods are specified for each reported resultNoConfirm that the MDL is <= to the ReporingLimitNoConfirm analytical results are complete and that the non-detect indicator is selected ifthe result is < the numerial value for the MDL or comments are provided.NoIf the analytical result is < ReportingLimit, ensure that aqualifier isprovidedNoEnsure a data review summaryis attachedNoDo a spot check to confirm concentrations are reported correctly from the data reviewsummaryand are inμg/L.NoTable G-4 Table A-4 and A6; G2, Table G-1;Part F Question 4-2Laboratory analytical dataPart H NameDate(s)ReviewedReviewer No.1Reviewer No.2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/QuestionNumberCopy Number Related Section Type of Information Coding and Review ActivityFirstReviewerCommentsSecondReviewerComments Complete?Part H NUCLEAR POWER GENERATIONTOCEnsure thatplant name and ID have beenpopulated in the TOCpageNoUniversalAll questions are answered except for those that can be skipped.NoSection 1 Nuclear Generating Unit DataH1-1 and H1-2If "No" is selected for eitherQuestion, Part H should not have been completedNoEnsure data are complete. If "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is specified.NoEnsure there is a Section 2 for each wastewater reported.NoH1-3/Table H-1 Part H, Section 3 Nonradioactive/Radioactive Is selected, check to ensure that QH3-1 in Section 3 for systems thattreat thiswastewater are marked as radioactive.NoH1-3/Table H-1 Table A-8 Nuclear Unit(s) If "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is specified. Confirm that SE Unit IDs match thosereported in Table A-8.NoN/A Part H, Section 1,Table H-1Process wastewater code Code identified needs to match the process wastewater code indicated in H1-3/Table H1.NoN/A N/A Process wastewater code Different wastewater code name for each new Tab created by user.NoSection 2 Process Wastewater Generation May have multiple copies to account for multiple wastewatersCheck that typcial duration does not exceed 24 hrs/dayor 365 days/yNoEnsure that typical frequencyis understandableNoRecycled process wastewater If "Immediately recycled back..." is selected, ensure a process description is selected. If"Other" is selected,ensure that "Other" is specifiedNoDischarged to surface water and treated If "Discharged to surface water following on-site treatment..." is selected, ensure theNPDES permit outfall number is provided and is reported in Part A, Section 2.2.NoDischarged to surface water untreated If "Discharged to surface water untreated..." is selected, ensure the NPDES outfallnumber isprovided and is reported in Part A,Section 2.2NoOther If "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is explained.NoSection 3 Wastewater Treatment Systems May have multiple copies to account for multiple treatment systemsEntire Section Wastewater Treatment System Name Ensure the plant used a different Treatment System Name for each new copy createdbyuser.NoH3-1 Table H-1 Nonradioactive/Radioactive Check if radioactive process wastewaters reported in table H-1 are treated in thissystem,that "Radioactive" is selectedNoH3-2 Table H-1 All Ensure that all process wastewater codes identified for each wastewater treatmentsystem is also reported in H1-3/Table H-1.NoCheck that maximum flow rate is >= typical flow rateNoCheck that days/yr is <=365 days and hrs/dayis <=24 hrs/dayNoWastewater Treatment Technology If "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is specified.NoIf "Metals" is selected, ensure "Metals" are specifiedNoIf "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is specifiedNoUnitSelected and matches valueNoWastewater Treatment TechnologyIf "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is specifiedNoIf "Metals" is selected, ensure "Metals" are specifiedNoIf "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is specifiedNoH3-7 Recycled process wastewater If "Immediately recycled back..." is selected, ensure a process description is selected. If"Other" is selected,ensure that "Other" is specifiedNoDischarged to surface water and treated If "Discharged to surface water following on-site treatment..." is selected, ensure theNPDES permit outfall number is provided and is reported in Part A, Section 2.2.NoDischarged to surface water untreated If "Discharged to surface water untreated..." is selected, ensure the NPDES outfallnumber isprovided and is reported in Part A,Section 2.2NoN/A Other If "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is explainedNoIf "Recycled back..." is selected in H3-6, make surequestion is answeredNoCheck that maximum flow rate is >= typical flow rateNoCheck that days/yr is <=365 days and hrs/day is <=24 hrs/day.NoH1-3/Table H-1 Part H, Section 2 Process WastewaterH2-1/Table H-2 Process Wastewater FlowsH2-2Part A, Section2.2H3-3 AllH3-4/Table H-3Pollutants Targeted for Removal...H3-5/Table H-4Pollutants Targeted for Removal...AllH3-6Part A, Section2.2H3-7 H3-6CommentsEntire SectionCheck that all comments have a question number identified and the comment isunderstandable.NoEntire SectionResolve comments that indicate a change must be made to any electronic response.NoProject Name: Steam Electric Project No: 0172.07.029.022 (non-coal)
0172.07.029.025 (coal)

CBI = Yes (Y) Questionnaire

Part Question
Number Copy # Question/Answer

Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A: Type of Contact (Email/Tele): Company Name:

Plant Name:

Point of Contact:

Contact Phone Number:

Date: Contact Email Address:
ERG Staff (or ERG Rep) Name: Company Affiliation:

This document contains CBI:

General Subject: Steam Electric Questionnaire Assistance / Follow-Up Steam Electric Questionnaire Follow-Up Questions

yes/noProject No.: 0172.07.029.022 (non-coal)
Project No.: 0172.07.029.025 (coal)

Contact Phone No.:

Contact Email Address:

Date:

Time: __ AM ___ PM

Type of Contact (Email/Telephone):

CBI = Question

Yes (Y) No. Project Name: Steam Electric

Plant ID:

Plant Name:

Contact Name:

ERG Staff Name:

This document contains CBI (yes/no):

General Subject:

QUESTIONNAIRE ASSISTANCE / FOLLOW-UP:

Topics Discussed 

### Steam Questionnaire Contact RecordReviewer:Date Completed:QuestionnairePartSection &Question #Copy # (ifnecessary) Description of ChangeSource for Change(list telecon or othersource)Approved/Rejected Date CommentsSteam Electric Questionnaire - Change FormInstructions:1) Include as much identifying information as possible in the "Description of Change" column to document the change made (e.g.,if the information is about a specific boiler/unit, include theboiler/unit ID).2) Include a source/reference for the change, such as a specific telecon where the change was discussed with the point of contact.ERG QA ReviewPart A Name Date(s) ReviewedReviewer No. 1Reviewer No. 2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/Question NumberType of Information Coding and Review Activity Notes for Copy Buttons First Reviewer Comments Second Reviewer Comments Complete?All General InstructionsUnlocking Tabs Must unlock each tab separately.Password: FinalSteamLocked0510Note that the password for Part A Sections2.2 and 8 is different. Password: steamSelect Tools > Protection > Unprotect Sheet > Copyand past passwordNAClear Radio Buttons Clear if respondent accidentally selected aradio button.Unlock tabRight click on the radio button > Format Control >Select "Control" Tab > UncheckedNACheck Modified Files All Check to make sure that the plant is not on the"modified files" list (See Modified Files tab).If Yes - Thoroughly check the mapping for the changedtabs. Note that some of the infromation will not beautomatically uploaded and will have to hand enterthat data. Highlight additional rows in green that arenot programmed to bring to our attention.Also note that in some cases there may be tabs that arecopied that did not originally have a copy button. Thatis OK for these files.NoSteps to ThoroughlyCheck Mapping1. Unlock tab2. Unhide mapping rows at the bottom (Row 300)3. Check to make sure that the answers in the mapmatch the answers selected above on the copied taband that no linking is present between the original taband the copied tab.4. Check the offset functions (mostly the drop downs)to see if they reference the previous tab.5. If they do reference the original tab; do a find andreplace on the previous tab name for a space (“ “).NoAll General InstructionsCheck for True Zeroes All number fields Review each questionnaire part for answers where therespondent entered "0". If the answer is truly zero,delete the "0" and enter "-555" into the field.NACheck for Missing Data All fields Review each section for missing data. If there arequestions in tab that don't have answers, but should beanswered, enter "-111". All "-111" entries should beremoved after plant follow-up, but incase they are not,this will designate missing data in the database.NAPart A Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part A Section 2.2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per outfall ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoPart A Section 1.1Part A Section 1.2Part A Section 2.1Part A Section 2.2Part A Section 3Check Tab NamesCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part A Section 8 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart B Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copies in tandem with "Part B Section 4 Tables".Make sure that there is a "Part B Section 4 Tables"copy for every copy of Part B Section 4.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part B Section 4 Copy (#). Note that original tab nameshould NOT change or contain the word "copy".Copy button for multiple wet FGD systems. Make surethat the same FGD System ID is on the correspondingPart B Section 4 Tables copy. Make sure there are nottwo or more sets of copies with the same ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copies in tandem with "Part B Section 4". Makesure that there is a "Part B Section 4" copy for everycopy of Part B Section 4 Tables.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part B Section 4 Tables Cop (#). Note that original tabname should NOT change or contain the word "copy"and that the word "Copy" maycut off.Copy button for multiple wet FGD systems. Make surethat the same FGD System ID is on the correspondingPart B Section 4 copy. Make sure there are not two ormore sets of copies with the same ID.NoPart A Section 4Part A Section 5Part A Section 6Part A Section 7Part A Section 8Part A Section 9Part A Section 10Part A Section 11Part A Section 12Part A Section 13Part A CommentsCheck Tab NamesPart B Section 4Part B Section 3Part B Section 2Part B Section 1Part B Section 4 TablesCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copy button is actually on tab Part B Section 6. Ifcopied, confirm that tab names follow the format: PartB Section 6 Table Copy (#). Note that original tabname should NOT change or contain the word "copy".Copy button for provided incase respondent needsmore space. In this case, copies can refer to the samedata set.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copies in tandem with "Part B Section 8 Tables".Make sure that there is a "Part B Section 8 Tables"copy for every copy of Part B Section 8.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part B Section 8 Copy (#). Note that original tab nameshould NOT change or contain the word "copy".Copy button for multiple dry FGD systems. Make surethat the same FGD System ID is on the correspondingPart B Section 8 Tables copy. Make sure there are nottwo or more sets of copies with the same ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copies in tandem with "Part B Section 8". Makesure that there is a "Part B Section 8" copy for everycopy of Part B Section 8 Tables.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part B Section 8 Tables Cop (#). Note that original tabname should NOT change or contain the word "copy"and that the word "Copy" maycut off.Copy button for multiple dry FGD systems. Make surethat the same FGD System ID is on the correspondingPart B Section 8 copy. Make sure there are not two ormore sets of copies with the same ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart C Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section 2.1 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section 2.3 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section 2.4 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per Storage ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section 3.1 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoPart C Section 2.1Part C Section 2.4Part C Section 2.3Part C Section 2.2Part C Section 1Check Tab NamesPart C Section 2.5Part C Section 3.2Part C Section 3.1Part B CommentsPart B Section 8 TablesPart B Section 8Part B Section 7Part B Section 6 TablePart B Section 6Part B Section 5Check to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section3.3 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section 3.4 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per Storage ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section 4 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section 5 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart D Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part D Section 3.1 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment System or Wastewater TreatmentSystem ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part D Section 3.2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment System or Wastewater TreatmentSystem ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part D Section 4.1 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part D Section 4.2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part D Section 5.1 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per WastewaterTreatment System ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part D Section 5.2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per WastewaterTreatment System ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoPart D Section 5.1Part D Section 5.2Part D Section 6.1Part C Section 3.4Part D Section 1Part D Section 2Part D Section 3.1Part D Section 3.2Part D Section 4.1Part D Section 4.2Part C CommentsPart C Section 5Part C Section 4Part C Section 3.5Part C Section 3.3Tab copies in tandem with "Part D Section 6.2". Makesure that there is a "Part D Section 6.2" copy for everycopy of Part D Section 6.1.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part D Section 6.1 Copy (#). Note that original tabname should NOT change or contain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment System or Wastewater TreatmentSystem ID. Make sure that the same ID is on thecorresponding Part D Section 6.1 copy.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copies in tandem with "Part D Section 6.1". Makesure that there is a "Part D Section 6.1" copy for everycopy of Part D Section 6.2 Tables.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part D Section 6.2 Copy (#). Note that original tabname should NOT change or contain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment System or Wastewater TreatmentSystem ID. Make sure that the same ID is on thecorresponding Part D Section 6.2 copy.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart E Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part E Section 2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part E Section 3 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per MetalCleaning Operatoin ID, note that there may bemultiple copies with the same SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart F Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part F Section 2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part F Section 3.1 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per Landfill ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part F Section 3.2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per Landfill ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part F Section 4.2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per LeachateTreatment System ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part F Section 4.3 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per LeachateTreatment System ID.NoPart D CommentsPart D Section 6.2Check Tab Names Part F Section 1Part F Section 2Part F Section 3.1Part F Section 3.2Part F Section 4.1Part F Section 4.2Part F Section 4.3Check Tab Names Part E Section 1Part E Section 2Part E Section 3Part E CommentsCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part F Section 4.4 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per LeachateTreatment Unit ID. Note that there may be multpilecopies with the same Leachate Treatment System ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copies in tandem with "Part F Section 4.6". Makesure that there is a "Part F Section 4.6" copy for everycopy of Part F Section 4.5.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part F Section 4.5 Copy (#). Note that original tabname should NOT change or contain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per LeachateTreatment System ID. Make sure that the same ID ison the corresponding Part F Section 4.5 copy.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copies in tandem with "Part F Section 4.5". Makesure that there is a "Part F Section 4.5" copy for everycopy of Part F Section 4.6.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part F Section 4.6 Copy (#). Note that original tabname should NOT change or contain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per LeachateTreatment System ID. Make sure that the same ID ison the corresponding Part F Section 4.6 copy.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part F Section 5 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment ID or Landfill ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart G Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part G Section 2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment ID or Landfill ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part G Section 5 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Copy button for provided incase respondent needsmore space. In this case, copies can refer to the samedata set.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part G Sampling Results Cop(#). Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy" and that the word "Copy" maycut off.Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment ID or Landfill ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart H Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck Tab Names Part H Section 1Part H Section 2Part F Section 4.6Part F Section 5Part F CommentsPart F Section 4.4Part F Section 4.5Check Tab Names Part G Section 1Part G Section 2Part G Section 3Part G Section 4Part G Section 5Part G Sampling ResultsPart G CommentsTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part H Section 2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per ProcessWastewater Code.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part H Section 3 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per wastewatertreatment system name.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart H Section 3Part H CommentsAttachment 2

T ECHNICAL Q UESTIONNAIRE C HECKLIST

– V ERSION 3/4Part A NameDate(s)ReviewedReviewer No.1Reviewer No.2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/QuestionNumberCopy NumberRelatedSection/PartType of Information Coding and Review ActivityFirstReviewerCommentsSecondReviewerComments Complete?Part A Steam Electric Plant OperationsTOCEnsure that plant name and ID have been populated in the TOC pageNoSection 1 Plant Contact InformationA1.1- A1.5 Information for Primary and SecondaryTechnical and Economical ContactsMake sure all data is provided for Primary and Seconday Contacts for both Technicaland Economical ContactsNoSection 1.2 General Plant Operating CharacteristicsA1-6 Plant retired If YES, respondent should not have completed questionnaire; check comments.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part A; technical review is complete.]NoA1-7 Generation of electricity via steam electricgenerating unit.If NO, respondent should not have completed questionnaire; check comments.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part A; technical review is complete.]NoA1-8 Table A-11 Type of fossil fuel used If NONE, respondent should not have completed questionnaire; check comments.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part A; technical review is complete.]If a positive reply, confirm Question A1-8 and Table A-11 are consistent.NoA1-9 Electricityuses/handlingEnsure answers = 100%NoA1-10 NAICS CodeEnsure at least aprimaryNAICS code is identifiedNoA1-11 Primary Purpose If NO, check to be sure reason given is reasonable. If so, respondent should not havefinished questionnaire; check comments.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part A; technical review is complete.]NoA1-12 Steam UsageEnsure answers = 100%NoTable A-1 Net and Gross Electrical Generation 2007-2009Ensure net generation is less than gross generation.NoSection 2.1 Plant Identification, Permits, StudiesA2-1 - A2-2 Indentification codeEnsure fields are complete(EIA IDs can be 1 to 5 digits longNoA2-3 Table A-2 EA or EIS If NO skipto A2-4 and Table A2NoTable A-2 Permit Information Check comments carefully to be sure stormwater permits are properly classified(individual permits listed under NPDES, general permits listed under Stormwater)NoSection 2.2 Outfall Information May have multiple copies to account for multiple outfallsA2-5 Latitude/Longitude Ensure lat/long coordinates are provided indegrees. If not, calculate the lat/long inthese units.NoA2 5Di h FlE d l If h l d fl i l i l l b h- Discharge FlowEnsure data are complete. If the plant reported flow in multiple columns, be sure thedata are consistent.NoA2-6 Section 3 Internal or Final Outfall If INTERNAL outfall, skip to Section 3 for specific outfall information (remember theremaybe multiple outfalls)NoA2-7 Discharge canalAnswer YES or NONoA2-8 ReceivingwaterEnsure all data are completedNoA2-9 MixingzoneAnswer YES or NONoA2-10/Table A-3 Percent contribution of wasterwater Answers should = 100%. Note if emergency outfall box is checked.NoSection 3 Ponds or ImpoundmentsEntire SectionPart D, F, & G (ifrequired)Ensure ponds reported in Parts D, F, & G are reported consistently with Table A-4NoA3-1 Section4Ponds or ImpoundmentsIf NO, skipto Section4NoPond identificationEnsure all data are completeNoLatitude/Longitude Ensure lat/long coordinates are provided indegrees. If not, calculate the lat/long inthese units.NoA3-3 and Table A5Table A-4 Pond wastewater identification Ensure data are provided for each pond identified in Table A-4NoSection 4 LandfillsEntire SectionParts F & G (ifrequired)Ensure landfills reported in Parts F & G are reported consistently with Table A-6NoA4-1 Section 5 LandfillsIf NO, skipto Section5NoLandfill identificationEnsure all data are completeNoLatitude/Longitude Ensure lat/long coordinates are provided indegrees. If not, calculate the lat/long inthese units.NoA4-3 and Table A7Table A-6 Landfill wastestream identification Ensure data are provided for each landfill identified in Table A-6NoSection 5 Plant Property and Water BalanceA3-2 and Table A4Table A-5Table A-7A4-2 and Table A-6Entire Section Section 4 Ensure that all ponds/impoundments and landfills entered in Tables A-4 and A-6 arereferenced hereNoLocation of plant If a nuclear unit is present, ensure box is checked and coordinates are not provided.NoLatitude/Longitude Ensure lat/long coordinates are provided indegrees. If not, calculate the lat/long inthese units.NoEnsure map has been provided and covers buildings, ponds/impoundments, landfills andany significant features. NOTE: if one or more nuclear units are on-site, no map isrequired.NoCheck that mapfile hasplant ID in nameNoIf a hard copy map is provided, ensure plant ID is on every page in upper right corner.NoEnsure diagram has been provided and covers water balance diagram number, plant idinfo, all SEGUs designated in Table A-8, all wastewater treatment systems anddischargepts,and flow ratesNoCheck that mapfile hasplant ID in nameNoIf a hard copy diagram is provided, ensure plant ID is on every page in upper rightcorner.NoSection 6Steam Electric Generating UnitInformationA6-1 and Table A8Table A-1 SEGU information Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. Check thatthe sum of Total Unit Electric Generation for all rows in Table A-8 is less than or equalto the Gross Electrical Generation in Table A-1 for 2009NoA6-2 and Table A9Question A1-13 SEGU information Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate.NoSection 7 Condenser Cooling Water SystemsEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoEnsure that a cooling water system is reported for all SEUs listed in Tables A-8 and A9.NoA7-2 Demonstrate complianceEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriate.NoA7-3 POTW Effluent Ensure question is answered.NoSection 8 Fuel Usage May have multiple copies to account for multiple SEGUsEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoCheck that a copyof Table A-11 exists for each SEGU listed in Table A-8NoCheck that the total BTUs generated equals the total fossil/nuclear BTUs + total "other"BTUs.NoCheck that the BTU Generated by Gas is approximately nine orders of magnitudegreater than the sum of the Amount(Million ft3)of Gas valuesNoCheck that the BTU Generated by Coal and/or Petroleum Coke is approximately sevenorders of magnitude greater than the sum of the Amount (tons) of Coal and PetroleumCoke values.NoCheck that the BTU Generated by Oil is approximately six orders of magnitude greaterthan the sum of the Amount(barrels)of Oil valuesNoTypes and amounts of fuel usedTable A-8, D-1,D-2Water balance diagramA8-1 and Table A11Table A-8Aerial MapA5-2Condenser cooling water systemsTables A-8/A-9A7-1 and Table 7-10A5-3A5-1( )Ensure that units are specified for other fuelsNoCheck that the value for Amount (Million ft3) for gas is approximately three orders ofmagnitude less than the order of magnitude of the Quantity of Fuel Burned in Table I-22for the FY 2009 row that lists the same gas as the Primary Energy Source for the givenSE Unit ID. Note that Part I is located on the CBI network in the "Part I Deliveries"folder. Do not make any changes to Part I for discrepancies; instead, flag for follow upwith the plant.Following contact with the plant, if the Part I information is determined to be incorrect,add the correction to the "Abt Part I Corrections.xls" file, located in the Part I DeliveriesfolderNoDetermine if SEGU is an "Other EGU"NoIf ALL SEGUs in Table A-8 are classified as 'Other EGUs,' respondent does not need tocomplete remainder of questionnaire.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part A; technical review is complete.]NoSection 9 NOx Control SystemsA9-1 NOx Control SystemsIf NO, skipto Section 10NoTable A-12 Table A-8 and A9Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. Confirm SEUnit IDs reported here are also reported in Tables A-8 or A-9NoA9-2 Table A-12 Offsite Regeneration If offsite SCR catalyst regeneration reported in Table A-12, Table A-13 should becompleted;otherwise,checkbox above Table A-13 should be checkedNoA9-3 Onsite Catalyst RegenerationIf NO or NA, skiptoQuestion A9-7NoA9-4 Regeneration wastewaterEnsure all data are complete and inproper unitsNoA9-5 Regeneration wastewater comminglingEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoA9-6 Section 2.2 Regeneration wastewater destination Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. ConfirmNPDES outfall number(s)in Section 2.2NoA9-7 Catalyst washIf NO, skipto Section 10NoA8-2 and A8-3 BTU by percent fossil/nuclear fuelsPredominance of fossil/nuclear fuelsA9-8 Catalyst wash wastewaterIf NO, skipto Section 10NoA9-9 Catalyst wash wastewater volumeEnsure all data are complete and inproper unitsNoA9-10 Catalyst wash wastewater comminglingEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoA9-11 Catalyst wash wastewater destination Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. ConfirmNPDES outfall number(s)in Section 2.2NoSection 10 Flue Gas Mercury Control SystemsEntire Section Section 8, TableA-8,Table A-9Flue gas mercury control systems This section should only report on fossil-fueled EGU; see Section A-8 for classification.NoA10-1 Fluegas mercurycontrol systemsIf NO, skiptoQuestion A10-3NoTable A-14 Table A-8, TableA-9Flue gas mercury control systems Ensure all data are complete. Confirm SE Unit IDs reported here are also reported inTables A-8 or A-9.NoA10-3 Pilot-scale systemsIf NO, skipto Section 11NoA10-4 WastewaterIf NO, skipto Section 11NoA10-5 Technology Ensure all data are complete, if DID NOT ATTACH confirm there is a reason why not.NoSection 11 Carbon Capture SystemsEntire Section Section 8, TableA-8,Table A-9Carbon capture systems This section should only report on fossil-fueled EGU; see Section A-8 for classification.NoA11-1 Carbon capture systemsIf NO, skipto Section 12NoTable A-15 Table A-8, TableA-9Carbon capture systems Ensure all data are complete. Confirm SE Unit IDs reported here are also reported inTables A-8 or A-9.NoA11-3 Pilot-scale systemsIf NO, skipto Section 12NoA11-4 Technology Ensure all data are complete, if DID NOT ATTACH confirm there is a reason why not.NoA11-5 WastewaterEnsure all data are completeNoA11-6 Wastewater If NO, skip to Section 12; if YES, ensure analytical results are attached or a reasongiven whynot.NoSection 12 Wet Electrostatic Precipitator SystemsEntire Section Section 8, TableA-8,Table A-9Wet electrostatic precipitator systems This section should only report on fossil-fueled EGU; see Section A-8 for classification.NoA12-1 Wet electrostaticprecipitator systemsIf NO, skipto Section 13NoTable A-15 Table A-8, TableA-9Wet electrostatic precipitator systems Ensure all data are complete. Confirm SE Unit IDs reported here are also reported inTables A-8 or A-9.NoA12-2 Flow rate, duration, and frequencyEnsure all data are completeNoA12-3 Water sourceEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoA12-4 Water criteriaEnsure all data are complete includingOTHER information if appropriateNoA12-5 Section 2.2 Wastewater destinations Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. If wastewateis discharged to surface water, confirm NPDES outfall number(s) in Section 2.2.NoA12-6 Pilot-scale systemsIf NO, skipto Section 13.NoA12-7 Technology Ensure all data are complete, if DID NOT ATTACH confirm there is a reason why not.NoA12-8 Characterization samples If NO, skip to Section 13; if YES ensure analytical results are attached or a reason givenNop,p ; y gwhynot.NoSection 13 Coal Storage and ProcessingA13-1 Coal storage andprocessingIf NO, skiptoQuestion A13-16.NoA13-2 DischargeEnsure number of days is <= 365 daysNoIf NO, skiptoQuestion A13-4; if YES ensure all data are completeNoEnsurepH values are between zero and 14NoA13-4 Table A-4 Pond/ImpoundmentIf YES, confirm that IDs were reported in Table A-4NoA13-5 Wastewater destinations Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. If wastewateis discharged to surface water, confirm NPDES outfall number(s) in Section 2.2.Confirm thatpond IDs are reported in Table A-4NoA13-6 Coal washingIf NO, skiptoQuestion A13-8; if YES, ensure all data are completeNoA13-7 Coal wash water destinations Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. If wastewateis discharged to surface water, confirm NPDES outfall number(s) in Section 2.2.Confirm thatpond IDs are reported in Table A-4NoA13-8 Coal blendingIf NO, skiptoQuestion A13-10NoA13-9 Coal blendingprocess wastewaterIf YES, ensure all data are complete. Check that number of days is <=365 daysNoA13-10 CoalpulverizingIf NO, skiptoQuestion A13-16NoA13-11 Coal pulverizing process wastewater If NO, skip to Question A13-12; if YES, ensure all data are complete. Check thatnumber of days is <=365 days.NoA13-12 Coal pulverizing process wastewater If NO, skip to Question A13-14; if YES, ensure all data are complete. Check thatnumber of days is <=365 days.NoA13-13 and 14 SluicingandpyriticsEnsure data are completeNoA13-15 Disposal of mill rejects Ensure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate. Confirm thatpond IDs are reported in Table A-4 and landfill IDs are reported in Table A-6.NoA13-16 and 17 IGCC generating unit Ensure data are completeNoCommentspHA13-3Entire SectionCheck that all comments have a question number identified and the comment isunderstandable.NoEntire SectionResolve comments that indicate a change must be made to any electronic response.NoPart B NameDate(s)ReviewedReviewer No.1Reviewer No. 2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/QuestionNumberCopy Number Related Section Type of Information Coding and Review ActivityFirstReviewerCommentsSecondReviewerComments Complete?Part B FGD SystemsTOCEnsure that plant name and ID have been populated in the TOC pageNoSection 1 General FGD System InformationB1-1.If NO was selected check that the plant did not complete the remainder of Part B.NoTables A-8 and A9FGD System ID For FGD that range from FGD 1-6 (FGD systems currently operating), check againstdate system brought online, and the SE Unit selected (SE 1-10 would be selected).NoTables A-8 and A9FGD System ID For FGD that range from FGD A-C (FGD systems planned to operate), check againstdate system brought online, and the SE Unit selected (SE A-D would be selected).NoFGD System ID Confirm that the plant selected a unique FGD system ID for each completed row inTable B-1.NoSteam Electric Units Check that the plant has provided information in Tables A-8 and A-9 for all steamelectric units checked.NoType of Oxidation... AND Does (or Will)the System Generate a FGD SlurryBlowdownCheck that if the plant selected “Not Applicable” in the “Type of Oxidation...” columnthat the plant also selected “No” in the “Does (or Will) the System Generate a FGDSlurryBlowdown” columnNoType of FGD System AND/OR Type ofSorbentConfirm that if the plant selected "Other," it is specified in the appropriate cell.NoSulfur Dioxide Removal Efficiency Check that the value is reasonable. Typically, these SO2 removal efficiencies are 95%orgreater.NoSection 2 Planned FGD System InformationB2-1 FGD System ID Confirm that the plant included a row for all FGD systems in Table B-1 whose plannedonline date was after 12/31/2020 (Table B-1, column 2) and who answered yes thesystem generates FGD slurry blowdown (Table B-1, column 4).NoPlanned Solids Handling... AND Type ofWastewater Treatment System...In the “Planned Solids Handling...” and “Type of Wastewater Treatment System...”columns: Check that the codes provided match with codes provided in the Code TablesTab and that multiple entries are separated bycommasNoDesign Flow Rate If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified in the table, perform acalculation to convert the value into the specified units (see the General CodingGuidelines)NoEstimated DateCheck that the date is in the appropriate form(i.e., mm/yyyy)NoTable B-1 FGD System ID Confirm that the plant has selected each of the FGD systems designated FGD A-CONLY listed in Table B-1 in at least one of the rowsNoSection 3 FGD AdditiveFGD System ID Confirm that the plant has provided information in Table B-1 for the FGD Systemschecked.NoPurpose of Additive Confirm that if the plant selected "Other," it is specified in the appropriate cell.NoSection 4 Wet FGD System Information May have multiple copies to account for multiple wet FGD systems.B4-1 Table B-1 If NO is selected in question B4-1, check that the plant did not complete the remainderof Section 4.NoAll CopiedSection 4 TabsConfirm that the plant completed Section 4 for all wet FGD systems reported in TableB1 (i.e., the plant checked yes in the “Does (or Will) the System Generate a FGD SlurryBlowdown...” column). Confirm that the plant wrote the appropriate FGD System ID inthe proper form (i.e., FGD-#) at the top of each copied Section 4 tab.NoB4-2 Operatingconcentration of chloridesThe chloride operatingconcentration range should be 2,000 - 40,000ppmNoFGD system max. design chlorides concThe chloride operatingconcentration should be no larger than____ppmNoFGD equipment that determines max. designconc.Confirm that if the plant selected "Other," it is specified in the appropriate cell.NoFor each box that was selected, check that the plant provided the appropriateinformation.NoIf the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoFor each box that was selected, check that the plant provided the appropriateinformation.NoB4-5 Water sourcesB1-2./Table B-1FGD system parametersB4-4B2-1/Table B-2B4-3B3-1/Table B-3 Table B-1If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoB4-6 Flow rate/duration/frequency If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines).NoB4-7 Flow rate/duration/frequency If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines).NoB4-8 Flow rate/duration/frequency If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines).NoB4-9 Flow rate/duration/frequency If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines).NoB4-10 Mist eliminator If "Other" is selected in the "Process Wastewater" dropdown box or if the “Other,explain” checkbox was selected confirm that a description was provided in theappropriate cell.NoB4-11 FGD reagent prepartation water If "Other" is selected in the "Process Wastewater" dropdown box or if the “Other,explain” checkbox was selected confirm that a description was provided in theappropriate cell.NoB4-12 Absorber make-up water If "Other" is selected in the "Process Wastewater" dropdown box or if the “Other,explain” checkbox was selected confirm that a description was provided in theappropriate cell.No% FGD Solids Check that the percentage of FGD solids generated is provided for all checkboxesselected and that thispercentage sums to 100%NoOtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoB4-14If NO is selected, check that theplant skipped toQuestion B4-16NoB4-16 OtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoB4-17 OtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoB4-18 Concentrations If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoFor each box that was selected, check that the plant provided the appropriateinformation.NoConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoIf the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoSection 4, Tables Wet FGD System Information -- TABLES May have multiple copies to account for multiple wet FGD systems.Amount Disposed (tons) If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoAll Except for the “Other, explain” rows if there is no description provided, all rows shouldbe fully completed. Where appropriate, fill all empty cells in these rows with a zero.NoTons/Gross Revenue Generated ($) If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoAll All rows the plant selected a destination for should be fully completed. Whereappropriate,all emptycells in these rows should be filled in with a zeroNoTotal Confirm that the sum of the partial costs add up to the total cost for 2005, 2007, and2009.NoOther Confirm that if the plant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cell.NoSection 5 FGD Wastewater GenerationFGD System ID Information provided only for operational wet FGD systems (FGD 1-10 that alsoselected "Yes" in the “Does (or Will) the System Generate a FGD Slurry Blowdown...”cells in table B-1).NoPercent and Flow Rate If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoPercentFor each FGD system confirm that thepercentages sum to 100%NoFGD System ID Information provided only for operational wet FGD systems (FGD 1-10 that alsoselected "Yes" in the “Does (or Will) the System Generate a FGD Slurry Blowdown...”cells in table B-1).NoAll If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoB5-2/Table B-8 Table B-1B5-1/Table B-7 Table B-1B4-21/Table B-5B4-22/Table B-6ParametersB4-20/Table B-4 Table A-4B4-13B4-19Chlorides and TSS concentrationsForpollutants checked, confirm that theppm wasprovidedNoppm If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoSection 6 FGD Monitoring Data Instructions May have multiple copies to account for multiple FGD scrubber purge streams.B6-1If NO is checked,question Section 6 should be skippedNoAny information provided should be for (some/all/none) wet FGD systems reported inTable B-1 (i.e., the plant checked yes in the “Does (or Will) the System Generate a FGDSlurryBlowdown...” column).NoCheck that the plant has provided information in Table B-1 (FGD 1-10) or in Table A-8for all checked FGD systems and all checked steam electric unitsNoMeasured Value, Method Detection,Reporting Limit, Flow RateIf the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoCAS Number Check that the CAS number has no more than 10 digits and is seperated into 3 parts byhypens.NoMeasured Value including Units ANDMethod Detection LimitCheck that the measured value entered is a number greater than or equal to the methoddetection limit. If the measured value is less than the method detection limit, the methoddetection limit value preceded by a less than (<) symbol (i.e., <#) should be entered intothe“Measured Value Including Units”column.NoDate Sample CollectedCheck that the date isprovided in the appropriate form(i.e., mm/dd/yyyy)NoFlow Rate of... Check to see that this flow rate is reasonable by comparing it to the flow rate providedin Table B-8 for the appropriate FGD systems.NoAnalyzed as Total... Check to make sure one is selected only if a metal analyte is listed.NoSection 7 FGD Wastewater TreatmentB7-1 Table B-1 If NO is checked, the nextquestion answered should be B7-4NoB7-2 OtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoB7-3 OtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoB7-4 OtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoRecycled back Description provided on how it is reused.NoDischarged NPDES permitted outfall numberNoConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoIf NO is checked, the remainder of Section 7 should be skippedNoIf YES is checked, the volume and frequenceyshould be enteredNoReused in other processes Description provided on how it is reused.NoTransferredChecked all that applyand if "Other, explain" is selected, there is an explinatioNoDischargedNPDESpermitted outfall numberNoOther Confirm that if the plant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cell.NoSection 8 Dry FGD System May have multiple copies to account for multiple dry FGD systems.B8-1 Table B-1 If NO is checked, the remainder of Part B should not be completedNoAll CopiedSection 8 TabsConfirm that the plant completed Section 8 for all dry FGD systems reported in Table B1 (i.e., the plant checked no in the “Does (or Will) the System Generate a FGD SlurryBlowdown...” column). Confirm that the plant wrote the appropriate FGD System ID inthe proper form (i.e., FGD-#) at the top of each copied Section 8 tab.NoB8-2 OtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoChlorides conc. and solids % For each box that was selected, check that the plant provided the appropriateinformation.Noppm or % If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoOtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoB8-5 gpm/hpd/dpy If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoB8-6 Other If "Other" is selected in the "Process Wastewater" dropdown box or if the “Other,explain” checkbox was selected confirm that a description was provided in theappropriate cell.NoB8-7If NO is checked, the nextquestion answered should be B8-9NoReused in other processes Description provided on how it is reused.NoTransferredChecked all that applyand if "Other, explain" is selected, there is an explinatioNoDischarged NPDES permitted outfall numberNoOtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoIf NO is selected, the nextquestion answered should be B8-11NoIf YES is checked, the volume and frequenceyshould be enteredNoB8-8 Part A, Section2.2B8-9B7-7 Part A, Section2.2B8-4B7-6B6-2, Table B-9 Tables A-8 and B1B7-5 Part A, Section2.2B5-3Reused in other processes Description provided on how it is reused.NoTransferredChecked all that applyand if "Other, explain" is selected, there is an explinatioNoDischarged NPDES permitted outfall numberNoOtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoParametersForparameters checked, confirm that theppm wasprovidedNoOtherConfirm that if theplant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cellNoAmount Disposed (tons) If the plant provided responses in units other than those specified, perform a calculationto convert the value into the specified units (see the General Coding Guidelines)NoAll All rows the plant selected a destination for should be fully completed. Whereappropriate,all emptycells in these rows should be filled in with a zeroNoOther Checked all that apply and if "Other, explain" is selected, there is an explinationNoTotal Confirm that the sum of the partial costs add up to the total cost for 2005, 2007, and2009.NoOther Confirm that if the plant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cell.NoTotal Confirm that the sum of the partial costs add up to the total cost for 2005, 2007, and2009.NoOther Confirm that if the plant selected "Other," it is explained in the appropriate cell.NoCommentsEntire SectionCheck that all comments have a question number identified and the comment isunderstandable.NoEntire SectionResolve comments that indicate a change must be made to any electronic response.NoB8-13/Table B11B8-14/Table B12B8-11B8-12/Table B10B8-10 Part A, Section2.2Section C NameDate(s)ReviewedReviewer No. 1Reviewer No. 2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/QuestionNumberCopy NumberRelatedSectionType of Information Coding and Review ActivityFirstReviewerCommentsSecondReviewerComments Complete?Part C Ash Handling SystemsTOCEnsure that plant name and ID have been populated in the TOC pageNoSection 1 Ash GenerationIf NO, check that the plant did not check “Fly ash” or “Bottom ash” for any ponds inTable A-5NoIf NO, check that the plant did not check “Fly ash” or “Bottom ash” for any landfillsin Table A-7NoIf NO, the remainder of Part C should not be completed; check comments[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part C]NoC1-2 Plant acreage Make sure the Total Plant Area acreage is equal to the sum of all the other acreagesprovided in Table C-1.NoIf NO, check that the plant did not check “Fly ash” for any ponds in Table A-5NoIf NO, check that the plant did not check “Fly ash” for any landfills in Table A-7NoIf NO is checked for question C1-3, the remainder of Part C, Section 2 should not becompleted.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part C, Section 2]NoSection 2.1 Fly Ash Handling – System LevelInformationMay have multiple copies to account for multiple steam electric generating units.General Table A-8 Number of Copies Check that there is a copy of section 2.1 for each steam electric generating unitoperated at any time in 2009 as reported in Table A-8. For each copy of section 2.1that the respondent creates, copy and paste all the checklist questions for section 2.1and label the Copy Number appropriately.Note that section 2.1 will not need to be completed for gas or nuclear units and onlyfor a portion of the oil units. If a unit listed in Table A-8 doesn't have an associatedNoGeneration of ash in any fossil-fueled steamelectric generations units located at theplant.Generation of fly ash in any fossil-fueledsteam electric generations units located atthe plant.Table A-5Table A-7Table A-5Table A-7C1-1C1-3worksheet for Section 2.1, check the fuel usage from Table A-11 to make sure that itis a gas, nuclear, or oil fired unit.Only applicable rows need to be completed for the Type of Fly Ash Collection andType of Fly Ash Handling (i.e., there may be empty rows in these columns). Ensureall other data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate.NoIf “Wet scrubber(s) (only) is selected, the remainder of Part C, Section 2 should notbe completed.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part C, Section 2]NoCheck that the “typical amount of fly ash produced in 2009” is less than or equal tothe “design ash handling rate” (both tpd and dpy).NoC2-2 Wet fly ash handling C2-3 through C2-5 should only be answered if C2-2 is answered "Yes". If "Yes ismarked, all fields should be populated.NoEnsure all data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate.NoCheck that "Percent Contribution of Source to Sluice Water Flow" values sum to100%NoC2-3 Maximum Chloride Concentration andMaximum Solids Percentage.Check that corresponding fields are completed for each box checked.NoC2-4 POTW Check that if "Yes" is selected, a description is provided.NoC2-5 POTW Ensure an answer is selected.NoC2-6 Wet Vacuum System (pneumatic) Check that if "Yes" is selected, questions C2-7 and C2-8 are answered, otherwiseensure respondent skipped to C2-9.NoCheck that corresponding fields are completed for each box checked.NoFly ash handling systems operated in 2009.Process Wastewater Generated from WetFly Ash Handling in 2009C2-8 Wet Vacuum System (pneumatic)Table C-3Table C-2If respondent checks "Discharged to surface water", check that NPDES permittedoutfall number provided matches one of the copies of Part A section 2.2NoCheck that corresponding fields are completed for each Storage Destination selected.NoCheck that "Percent of Dry Conveyed Fly Ash to this Destination" values sum to100%NoCheck that "Percent of Wet Conveyed Fly Ash to this Destination" values sum to100%NoC2-10 Fly ash handled by both wet and dry fly ashhandling systems.Check that if "Yes" is selected, questions C2-11 and C2-12 are answered. Otherwiserespondent should skip to C2-13.NoFor each reason that is checked, make sure the number of days is provided.NoCheck that the sum of the "days" fields do not sum to greater than 365.NoIf “Design/develop new infrastructure...” is selected, make sure that the respondentspecifies the new infrastructure needed.NoIf “other” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides an explanation.NoIf “Decreased use...” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides the expectedoperating days.NoIf “End use...” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides the expected enddate.NoIf “other” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides an explanation.NoIf either "NA" or "No" is selected, make sure that the respondent skips to question C2-17.NoIf "Yes" is selected, make sure that the respondent has answered the remainder ofquestion C2-14 and C2-15.NoIf “The retrofit was made to an existing dry system” is checked for question C2-15,respondent should continue answering questions starting with C2-23.NoIf “A dry fly ash handling system was installed (for operation in addition to the wet flyash handling system)” or “The retrofit was a complete conversion from a wet to dryfly ash handling system” is checked for question C2-15, question C2-16 should becompleted.NoC2-16 Changes required for installed retrofit Check that corresponding fields, where applicable, are completed for each checkboxthat is selected.NoIf "Yes" is selected, make sure that the respondent has entered a value for "Estimatedshutdown time (days) required to bring dry fly ash handling system online" andskipped to Question C2-19.NoIf "No" is selected, make sure that the respondent continued to Question C2-18.NoIf "Yes" is selected, make sure that the respondent has entered a value for "Estimatedshutdown time (days) required to bring dry fly ash handling system online"andNoTable C-4 Storage Destinations that Receive Fly AshReason fly ash was handled wet and dry.C2-12 Modifications required to handle all ashdry.C2-11Changes in fly ash handling expected.C2-14 Fly ash handling installed as retrofit.C2-13Plan to install dry fly ash handling byDecember 31 2020C2-17 In the process of installing dry fly ashhandlingC2-15 Fly ash handling installed as retrofit.C2-18shutdowntime(days)requiredtobringdryfly ashhandling system online"andcontinued to Question C2-19.NoIf "No" is selected, make sure that the respondent skipped to Question C2-22.NoIf YES is checked and “I have attached...” are checked, make sure thedocumentation/costs are provided.NoIf YES is checked and “I did not attach...” are checked, make sure that the respondentprovides an explanation.NoIf NO is checked, the remainder of Question C2-19 should be blank and therespondent should skip to Question C2-22NoC2-20 Changes that will be required for plannedretrofitCheck that corresponding fields, where applicable, are completed for each checkboxthat is selected.NoIf “Marketed, sold...” and “If other, specify” are selected, make sure treatment systemis identified.NoMake sure that the “% of the dry fly ash” is provided for each dropdown completedand each box selected.NoIf “Other” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides an explanation.NoIf YES is checked and “I have attached...” are checked, make sure thedocumentation/costs are provided.NoMake sure that if YES is checked and “I did not attach...” are checked, make sure thatthe respondent provides an explanation.NoIf NO is checked, the remainder of Question C2-22 should be blank.NoIf NO is checked for question C2-23, Table C-5 should be blank. Respondent shouldcontinue answering questions starting with C2-25.NoIf YES is checked for question C2-29, Table C-5 should be complete.NoUnscheduled generating unit outages due tothe wet fly ash handling systems in the last5 years.C2-22 Consideration of dry fly ash system.C2-23 Table C-5C2-21 Expected destinations for dry fly ashC2-19 Provide cost estimates forconversion/installationDecember31,2020.C2-24 Unscheduled generating unit outages due tothe wet fly ash handling systems in the last5 years.Check that any row that has a value listed for the "Total Days of Outage" hasexplanations for the "Reason(s) for outage(s)" and "Method(s) Used to ResolveOutage(s)" fields.NoSection 2.2 Fly Ash Handling – Storage and Use DataCheck that Table C-6 has destination information for each storage destination listed inTable C-4. Check all copies of Table C-4.NoIf Table C-4 contains only destinations marked “intermediate” and Table C-6 doesnot contain any other destinations, follow up is required.NoIf Table C-6 does not contain “final” destinations (i.e., ponds, landfills in Table A-6,landfills not in Table A-6, marketed, or other with description of a final destination)follow up is required.NoOnly applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., Storage Destination 2 row may beempty).NoCheck that the sum of Wet & Dry Conveyed tpd multiplied by the dpy, from all thecopies of Table C-2, is generally less than or equal to the sum of the Tons of Fly AshTransported to Destination in 2009 in Table C-6.NoIf “other” is selected in any of the dropdowns in the “Type of destination” column,make sure that the respondent provides an explanation for each “other” optionselected.NoIf NO is checked for question C2-26, Table C-7 should be blank. Respondent shouldcontinue answering questions starting with C2-28.NoIf YES is checked for question C2-26, Table C-7 should be complete.NoConfirm that Table C-7 contains all destinations required in Table C-4.NoCheck that if the box next to either of the process wastewaters dropdowns is checked,the appropriate dropdown is completed.NoIf “Other” is selected in either dropdown, make sure that the respondent provides anexplanation in the appropriate free response box.NoIf chlorides concentration is selected, makes sure a ppm value is provided.NoIf Solids percentage is selected, makes sure a percentage is provided.NoIf “Other” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides an explanation.NoTable C-7 Table C-4 Fly ash handling systems operated in 2009.Is water used to moisten the fly ash?Table C-6 Table C-4 Dry fly ash storage destination information.C2-26 Table C-4C2-27 Criteria for water used to moisten ash Check that the respondent properly defined the criteria used to determine if a watersource is unacceptable for use to moisten ash.NoIf NO is checked for question C2-28, Table C-8 should be blank. Respondent shouldcontinue answering questions starting with C2-29.NoIf YES is checked for question C2-28, Table C-8 should be complete.NoTable C-8 Marketing of fly ash from dry ash handlingsystemOnly applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., some rows may be empty). Ensurethat if C2-27 is YES, respondent has provided at least one row of data.NoIf NO is checked for question C2-29, Table C-9 should be blank. Respondent shouldskip to Section 2.3.NoIf YES is checked for question C2-29, Table C-9 should be complete.NoTable C-9 Marketing of fly ash from wet ash handlingsystemOnly applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., some rows may be empty). Ensurethat if C2-29 is YES, respondent has provided at least one row of data.NoSection 2.3 Fly Ash Cost Information – Conveyance May have multiple copies to account for multiple fly ash handling systems.Despite no specific kickout question, this section will be blank for the majority ofplants because their conveyance system did not "begin operating or wasconverted after January 1, 2000."General C2-17C2-18Installing or planning to install dry fly ashhandling systemFor each copy of questions C2-17 or C2-18 that are answered "Yes", check that one ofthe copies of section 2.3 has the checkbox associated with "Planned" marked and theappropriate fields populated.NoMarketing of fly ash from dry ash handlingsystemC2-28C2-29 Marketing of fly ash from wet ash handlingsystemGeneral Comments Multiple units using the same fly ashhandling systemCheck the comments section related to section 2.3 to see if the plant has multipleunits utilizing the same ash handling system. If that is the case, flag for follow-up toensure that the situation is properly represented in our database for modelingpurposes. Additionally, ensure that the respondent only listed the shared componentson one copy of Section 2.3NoIf “Other” is selected for Type of Component, make sure that the respondent providesan explanation.NoIf “Other” is selected for the units for Total System Capacity of Component, makesure that the respondent provides an explanation.NoCheck that there is a value for Number of Components in the System and TotalSystem Capacity of Component for each Type of Component specified.NoC2-31 Fly ashhandlingdiagramattachmentFly ash handling diagram attachment If YES is checked and “I have attached...” are checked, make sure thedocumentation/costs are provided.NoCheck that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all valuesmake logical sense (i.e. the year on which the modification cost is based is >= 2000)NoCheck that if components are listed in C2-32 or C2-33 that "Other Contractor's Fees"or "Engineering Costs" have values greater than $0.NoC2-35 Major conveyance components If "No" is checked, make sure the respondent provided explanations of what systemcomponents are and are not included.NoTable C-12 O&M Cost for Conveyance of Fly AshHandling for 2009Check that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all valuesmake logical senseNoSection 2.4 Fly Ash Cost Information – IntermediateStorageMay have multiple copies to account for intermediate fly ash storage systems.Despite no specific kickout question, this section will be blank for the majority ofplants because their intermediate fly ash storage systems did not "beginoperating or was modified after January 1, 2000."General C2-17C2-18Installing or planning to install dry fly ashhandling systemCheck that if questions C2-17 or C2-18 are answered "Yes", check that one of thecopies of section 2.4 has the checkbox associated with "Planned" marked and theappropriate fields populated.NoC2-37 Bottom and fly ash shared storage If "Yes" is checked, verify the unit IDs are populated and consistent with Table A-8NoIf YES is checked for question C2-38, Table C-13 should be blank. Respondentshould skip to Section 2.5.NoCapital cost for conveyance of fly ashhandlingC2-38 Table A-4 Storage destination pond/impoundment?Table C-11Table C-10 Table C-4 Fly ash system components - conveyanceC2-32C2-33If “Yes”, confirm that the storage ID is for a pond/impoundment listed in Table A-4.NoIf NO is checked for question C2-38, Table C-13 should be complete.NoIf “Other” is selected for Type of Component, make sure that the respondent providesan explanation.NoIf “Other” is selected for the units for Total System Capacity of Component, makesure that the respondent provides an explanation.NoCheck that there is a value for Number of Components in the System and TotalSystem Capacity of Component for each Type of Component specified.NoCheck that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all valuesmake logical sense (i.e. the year on which the modification cost is based is >= 2000)NoCheck that if components are listed in C2-40 or C2-41 that "Other Contractor's Fees"or "Engineering Costs" have values greater than $0.NoC2-43 Major intermediate storage components If "No" is checked, make sure the respondent provided explanations of what systemcomponents are and are not included.NoTable C-15 O&M Cost for Intermediate Storage of FlyAsh Handling for 2009Check that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all valuesmake logical senseNoSection 2.5 Fly Ash Cost Information – Transportand DisposalDespite no specific kickout question, this section will be blank for the majority ofplants because their transport/disposal systems did not "begin operating or wasmodified after January 1, 2000."C2-45 Bottom and fly ash shared transport anddisposalIf "Yes" is checked, verify the unit IDs are populated and consistent with Table A-8NoTable C-14 C2-40C2-41Capital cost for intermediate storage of flyash handlingTable C-13 Fly ash system components - intermediatestorageIf YES is checked for question C2-46, confirm that a pond/impoundment is includedin Table C-6. The remainder of section 2.5 should be blank. Respondent should skipto Section 3.1.NoIf NO is checked for question C2-46, respondent should proceed to C2-47.NoCheck that the respondent has identified at least one method of transportation.NoCheck that the respondent has identified the number of units for each method oftransportation selected.NoCheck that the respondent has identified whether the units are bought, leased, orcontracted out for each method of transportation selected.NoCheck that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all valuesmake logical sense (i.e. the year on which the modification cost is based is >= 2000)NoCheck that if components are listed in C2-48 or C2-49 that "Other Contractor's Fees"or "Engineering Costs" have values greater than $0.NoC2-51 Major transportation components If "No" is checked, make sure the respondent provided explanations of what systemcomponents are and are not included.NoTable C-17 O&M Cost for Transportation of Fly Ashcollection for 2009Check that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all valuesmake logical senseNoSection 3.1 Bottom Ash Handling – Generating UnitLevel InformationMay have multiple copies to account for multiple steam electric generating units.General Table A-8 Number of Copies Check that there is a copy of section 3.1 for each steam electric generating unitoperated at any time in 2009 as reported in Table A-8. For each copy of section 3.1that the respondent creates, copy and paste all the checklist questions for section 3.1and label the Copy Number appropriatelyNoIf NO is checked for question C3-1, check that the plant did not check “Bottom ash”for any ponds in Table A-5NoIf NO is checked for question C3-1, check that the plant did not check “Bottom ash”for any landfills in Table A-7NoIf NO is checked for question C3-1, the remainder of Part C, Section 3 should not becompleted.[Ensure no other answers are completed in Part C, Section 3]NoOnly applicable rows need to be completed for the Type of Fly Ash Collection andType of Fly Ash Handling (i.e., there may be empty rows in these columns). Ensurethat the respondent has selected at least one "Type of Bottom Ash Handling System"and all other data are complete including OTHER information if appropriate.NoCheck that the “typical amount of fly ash produced in 2009” is less than or equal tothe “design ash handling rate” (both tpd and dpy).NoC2-46 Table C-6 Is a pond/impoundment the finaldestination?C2-47 Method of transportation to finaldestinationTable C-16 C2-48C2-49Capital cost for transportation of fly ashcollectionBottom ash handling systems operated in2009 by generating unit.C3-1 Table A-5Table A-7Generation of bottom ash in any fossilfueled steam electric generations unitslocated at the plant.Table C-18If NO is checked for question C3-3, confirm that “wet sluicing” was not selected inTable C-18.NoIf NO is checked for question C3-3, the respondent should skip to C3-11.NoIf YES is checked for question C3-3, the respondent should complete Table C-19.NoCheck that the respondent entered values for the "Average Sluice Water Flow Rate"and "Typical Duration AND Frequency of Sluicing".NoEach "Source of Sluice Water" selected should have an associated value in the"Percent Contribution of Source to Sluice Water Flow" column.NoCheck that "Percent Contribution of Source to Sluice Water Flow" values sum to100%NoC3-4 Maximum Chloride Concentration andMaximum Solids Percentage.Check that corresponding fields are completed for each box checked.NoC3-5 Wet bottom ash sluice immediatelyrecycled?If YES is checked for question C3-5, the respondent should enter a description ofhow the wet bottom ash sluice is used.NoC3-6 POTW Check that the respondent selected YES or NO.NoIf NO is checked for question C3-7, the respondent should skip to C3-11.NoIf YES is checked for question C3-7, the respondent should complete Table C-20.NoCheck that the respondent checked at least one box for the "Solids Removal" and"Bottom Ash Disposal".NoTable C-20 Wet ash sluice systemsC3-7 Solid removal occur at the plant?Table C-19 Process Wastewater Generated from WetFly Ash Handling in 2009C3-3 Wet sluicing used to collect bottom ash?Check that a description is provided if the respondent checks "other" for the "SolidsRemoval" and "Bottom Ash Disposal".NoCheck that "Amount of Solids Disposed" and "Typical Percent Moisture of BottomAsh Disposed" values have been entered for each "Bottom Ash Disposal" destinationselected.NoC3-9 Amount of water overflow from solidremovalCheck that value is entered by respondentNoC3-10 Destination of waste water overflow fromsolid removalIf respondent checks "Discharged to surface water", check that NPDES permittedoutfall number provided matches one of the copies of Part A section 2.2NoIf NO is checked for question C3-11, the respondent should skip to C3-15.NoIf YES is checked for question C3-11, check that the respondent provided adescription of the process.NoC3-12 Mechanical drag system? If NO is checked for question C3-12, the respondent should skip to C3-15.NoC3-13 Amount of water overflow from mechanicaldrag systemCheck that value is entered by respondentNoC3-14 Destination of waste water overflow frommechanical drag systemIf respondent checks "Discharged to surface water", check that NPDES permittedoutfall number provided matches one of the copies of Part A section 2.2NoCheck that corresponding fields are completed for each Storage Destination selected.NoCheck that "Percent of Dry Conveyed FlyAsh to this Destination" values sum to 100%NoCheck that "Percent of Wet Conveyed FlyAsh to this Destination" values sum to 100%NoC3-16 Bottom ash handled by both wet and dry flyash handling systems.Check that if "Yes" is selected, questions C3-17 and C3-18 are answered.NoFor each reason that is checked, make sure the number of days is provided.NoCheck that the sum of the "days" fields do not sum to greater than 365.NoIf “Design/develop new infrastructure...” is selected, make sure that the respondentspecifies the new infrastructure needed.NoIf “other” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides an explanation.NoIf “Decreased use...” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides the expectedoperating days.NoIf “End use...” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides the expected enddate.NoIf“other”is selected make sure that the respondent provides an explanationNoC3-19 Changes in bottom ash handling expected.C3-18 Modifications required to handle all bottomash dry.C3-17 Reason bottom ash was handled wet anddry.Table C-21 Storage Destinations that Receive Fly AshC3-11 Mechanical drag system?If“other”is selected, make surethatthe respondentprovides an explanation.NoIf either "NA" or "No" is selected, make sure that the respondent skips to question C3-24.NoIf "Yes" is selected, make sure that the respondent has answered the remainder ofquestion C3-20 and continues to C3-21.NoIf “The retrofit was made to an existing dry system” is checked for question C3-29,respondent should continue answering questions starting with C2-23.NoIf “A dry fly ash handling system was installed (for operation in addition to the wet flyash handling system)” or “The retrofit was a complete conversion from a wet to dryfly ash handling system” is checked for question C3-21, respondent should continueto C3-22.NoC3-22 Changes required for installed retrofit Check that corresponding fields, where applicable, are completed for each checkboxthat is selected.NoC3-23 Dry bottomashhandlingretrofitdiagramattachmentDry bottom ash handling retrofit diagramattachmentIf “Diagram attached” is checked, make sure the documentation/costs are provided.NoIf "Yes" is selected, make sure that the respondent has entered a value for "Estimatedshutdown time (days) required to bring dry fly ash handling system online" andskipped to Question C3-26.NoIf “Yes” to C3-24 confirm that Section 3.3 and 3.4 are completed for the SE Unit.NoIf "No" is selected, make sure that the respondent continued to Question C3-25.NoC3-24 In the process of installing dry bottom ashhandlingC3-21 Bottom ash handling installed as retrofit.C3-20 Bottom ash handling installed as retrofit.If "Yes" is selected, make sure that the respondent has entered a value for "Estimatedshutdown time (days) required to bring dry bottom ash handling system online" andcontinued to Question C3-26.NoIf “Yes” to C3-25 confirm that Section 3.3 and 3.4 are completed for the SE Unit.NoIf "No" is selected, make sure that the respondent skipped to Question C3-29.NoIf YES is checked and “I have attached...” are checked, make sure thedocumentation/costs are provided.NoIf YES is checked and “I did not attach...” are checked, make sure that the respondentprovides an explanation.NoIf NO is checked, the remainder of Question C3-26 should be blank and therespondent should skip to Question C3-29.NoC3-27 Changes required for installed retrofit Check that corresponding fields, where applicable, are completed for each checkboxthat is selected.NoIf “Marketed, sold...” and “If other, specify” are selected, make sure treatment systemis identified.NoMake sure that the “% of the dry bottom ash” is provided for each dropdowncompleted and each box selected.NoIf “Other” is selected, make sure that the respondent provides an explanation.NoIf YES is checked and “I have attached...” are checked, make sure thedocumentation/costs are provided.NoMake sure that if YES is checked and “I did not attach...” are checked, make sure thatthe respondent provides an explanation.NoIf NO is checked, the remainder of Question C3-29 should be blank.NoIf NO is checked for question C3-30, Table C-22 should be blank. Respondent shouldskip to section 3.2.NoIf YES is checked for question C3-30, Table C-22 should be complete.NoTable C-22 Unscheduled generating unit outages due tothe wet bottom ash handling systems in thelast 5 years.Check that any row that has a value listed for the "Total Days of Outage" hasexplanations for the "Reason(s) for outage(s)" and "Method(s) Used to ResolveOutage(s)" fields.NoSection 3.2 Bottom Ash Handling - Storing and UseDataConfirm that Table C-23 contains ALL storage destinations and not just the initialstorage destinations listed in Table C-21. Check all copies of Table C-21.NoIf Table C-21 contains only destinations marked “intermediate” and Table C-23 doesnot contain any other destinations, follow up is required.NoIf Table C-23 does not contain “final” destinations (i.e., ponds, landfills in Table A-6,landfills not in Table A-6, marketed, or other with description of a final destination)follow upis required.NoTable C-23 Table C-18Table C-21Bottom ash storage destination information.C3-30 Table C-5 Unscheduled generating unit outages due tothe wet bottom ash handling systems in thelast 5 years.C3-29 Consideration of dry bottom ash system.C3-26 Provide cost estimates forconversion/installationC3-28 Expected destinations for dry bottom ashC3-25 Plan to install dry bottom ash handling.followupisrequired.Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., Storage Destination 2 row may beempty).NoCheck that the sum of Wet & Dry Conveyed tpd multiplied by the dpy, from all thecopies of Table C-18, is less than or equal to the sum of the Tons of Bottom AshTransported to Destination in 2009 in Table C-23.NoIf “other” is selected in any of the dropdowns in the “Type of destination” column,make sure that the respondent provides an explanation for each “other” optionselected.NoIf NO is checked for question C3-33, Table C-24 should be blank. Respondent shouldcontinue answering questions starting with C3-34.NoIf YES is checked for question C3-33, Table C-24 should be complete.NoTable C-24 Marketing of bottom ash from dry ash Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., some rows may be empty).NoIf NO is checked for question C3-34, Table C-25 should be blank. Respondent shouldskip to section 3.3.NoIf YES is checked for question C3-34, Table C-25 should be complete.NoTable C-25 Marketing of bottom ash from wet ashhandling systemOnly applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., some rows may be empty). Ensurethat if C3-34 is YES, respondent has provided at least one row of data.NoSection 3.3 Bottom Ash Handling - Conveyance May have multiple copies to account for multiple bottom ash handling systems.Despite no specific kickout question, this section will be blank for the majority ofplants because their conveyance system did not "begin operating or wasconverted after January 1, 2000."C3-34 Marketing of bottom ash from wet ashhandling systemC3-33 Marketing of bottom ash from dry ashhandling systemGeneral C3-24C2-25Installing or planning to install dry bottomash handling systemFor each copy of questions C3-24 or C3-25 that are answered "Yes", check that one ofthe copies of section 3.3 has the checkbox associated with "Planned" marked and theappropriate fields populated.NoGeneral Comments Multiple units using the same bottom ashhandling systemCheck the comments section related to section 3.3 to see if the plant has multipleunits utilizing the same bottom ash handling system. If that is the case, flag for followup to ensure that the situation is properly represented in our database for modelingpurposes. Additionally, ensure that the respondent only listed the shared componentson one copy of Section 3.3NoIf “Other” is selected for Type of Component, make sure that the respondent providesan explanation.NoIf “Other” is selected for the units for Total System Capacity of Component, makesure that the respondent provides an explanation.NoCheck that there is a value for Number of Components in the System and TotalSystem Capacity of Component for each Type of Component specified.NoC3-36 Bottom ashhandlingdiagramattachmentBottom ash handling diagram attachment If “Diagram attached” is checked, make sure the document is provided.NoCheck that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all valuesmake logical sense (i.e. the year on which the modification cost is based is >= 2000)NoCheck that if components are listed in C3-37 or C3-38 that "Other Contractor's Fees"or "Engineering Costs" have values greater than $0.NoC3-40 Major conveyance components If "No" is checked, make sure the respondent provided explanations of what systemcomponents are and are not included.NoTable C-28 O&M Cost for Conveyance of Bottom AshHandling for 2009Check that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all valuesmake logical senseNoSection 3.4 Bottom Ash Handling - IntermediateStorageMay have multiple copies to account for intermediate bottom ash storagesystems.Despite no specific kickout question, this section will be blank for the majority ofplants because their intermediate fly ash storage systems did not "beginoperating or was modified after January 1, 2000."General C3-24C2-25Installing or planning to install dry bottomash handling systemFor each copy of questions C3-24 or C3-25 that are answered "Yes", check that one ofthe copies of section 3.4 has the checkbox associated with "Planned" marked and theNoTable C-27 C3-37C3-38Capital cost for conveyance of bottom ashhandlingTable C-26 Table C-4 Bottom ash system components -conveyanceappropriate fields populated.C3-42 Table A-8Part C,Section 2.4Bottom and fly ash shared storage If “Yes” to C3-42, verify the unit IDs are populated and consistent with Table A-8 andconfirm that Section 2.4 was completed for the same Storage ID. The respondentshould then skip to section 3.5.NoIf YES is checked for question C3-43, Table C-29 should be blank. Respondentshould skip to Section 4.NoIf “Yes”, confirm that the storage ID is for a pond/impoundment listed in Table A-4.NoIf NO is checked for question C3-43, Table C-29 should be complete.NoIf “Other” is selected for Type of Component, make sure that the respondent providesan explanation.NoIf “Other” is selected for the units for Total System Capacity of Component, makesure that the respondent provides an explanation.NoCheck that there is a value for Number of Components in the System and TotalSystem Capacity of Component for each Type of Component specified.NoCheck that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all valuesmake logical sense (i.e. the year on which the modification cost is based is >= 2000)NoCheck that if components are listed in C3-45 or C3-46 that "Other Contractor's Fees"or "Engineering Costs" have values greater than $0.NoC3-48 Major intermediate storage components If "No" is checked, make sure the respondent provided explanations of what systemcomponents are and are not included.NoTable C-30 C3-45C3-46Capital cost for intermediate storage ofbottom ash handlingTable C-29 Bottom ash system components -intermediate storageC3-43 Table A-4 Storage destination pond/impoundment?Table C-31 O&M Cost for Intermediate Storage ofBottom Ash Handling for 2009Check that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all valuesmake logical senseNoSection 3.5 Bottom Ash Handling -Transport/DisposalDespite no specific kickout question, this section will be blank for the majority ofplants because their transport/disposal systems did not "begin operating or wasmodified after January 1, 2000."C3-50 Bottom and fly ash shared transport anddisposalIf "Yes" is checked, verify the unit IDs are populated and consistent with Table A-8.Also check that the respondent checked "Yes" for question C2-45.NoIf YES, confirm that a pond/impoundment is included in Table C-23. The remainderof section 3.5 should be blank. Respondent should skip to Section 4.NoIf NO, respondent should proceed to C3-52.NoCheck that the respondent has identified at least one method of transportation.NoCheck that the respondent has identified the number of units for each method oftransportation selected.NoCheck that the respondent has identified whether the units are bought, leased, orcontracted out for each method of transportation selected.NoCheck that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all valuesmake logical sense (i.e. the year on which the modification cost is based is >= 2000)NoCheck that if components are listed in C3-53 or C3-54 that "Other Contractor's Fees"or "Engineering Costs" have values greater than $0.NoC3-56 Major transportation components If "No" is checked, make sure the respondent provided explanations of what systemcomponents are and are not included.NoTable C-33 O&M Cost for Transportation of BottomAsh collection for 2009Check that all fields have a value (some may be $0) and make sure that all valuesmake logical senseNoSection 4 Economizer Ash HandlingGeneral Table A-8 Verify the unit IDs are populated and consistent with Table A-8 for each copy ofsection 4.NoC4-1 Part C,Section 5Economizer has collected with air heaterash?If “No” to C4-1, confirm that Section 5 is completed. If not, review comments todetermine if follow up is required.NoC4-2 Method of handling economizer ash If "Segregated from fly and bottom ash" is selected, check that description is providedand C4-3 is blank.NoC4-3 Method of combining economizer ash withfly and bottom ashCheck that "Combined with fly and bottom ash" is selected in C4-2 and that adescription is provided if "other" is selected.NoC4-4 Amount of economizer ash produced Check that respondent has entered reasonable values.NoC4-5 Process wastewater generated fromeconomizer ash handlingIf “No” to C4-5, confirm that question C4-6 was completed. If not, follow up may berequired.NoCheck that a percent value is entered for each final destination selected.NoCheck that "% of economizer ash" values sum to 100%NoC4-6 Final destination of economizer ashTable C-32 C3-53C3-54Capital cost for transportation of bottomash collectionC3-52 Method of transportation to finaldestinationC3-51 Table C-23 Is a pond/impoundment the finaldestination?Section 5 Economizer Ash HandlingGeneral Table A-8 Verify the unit IDs are populated and consistent with Table A-8 for each copy ofsection 5.NoC5-1 Method of handling air heater ash If "Segregated from fly and bottom ash" is selected, check that description is providedand C5-2 is blank.NoC5-2 Method of combining air heater ash with flyand bottom ashCheck that "Combined with fly and bottom ash" is selected in C5-1 and that adescription is provided if "other" is selected.NoC5-3 Amount of air heater ash produced Check that respondent has entered reasonable values.NoC5-4 Process wastewater generated from airheater ash handlingIf “No” to C5-4, confirm that question C5-5 was not completed. If not, follow up maybe required.NoCheck that a percent value is entered for each final destination selected.NoCheck that "% of air heater ash" values sum to 100%NoCommentsEntire Section Check that all comments have a question number identified and the comment isunderstandable.NoEntire Section Resolve comments that indicate a change must be made to any electronic response.NoC5-5 Final destination of air heater ashPart D NameDate(s)ReviewedReviewer No. 1Reviewer No.2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/QuestionNumberCopy Number Related Section Type of Information Coding and Review ActivityFirstReviewerCommentsSecondReviewerComments Complete?Part D Steam Electric Plant OperationsTOCEnsure that plant name and ID have been populated in the TOC pageNoSection 1Plant Pond/Impoundment Systems andWastewater Treatment SystemsD1-1 and D1-2 Pond/impoundment systems and wastewatertreatment systems located at the plant.If YES to at least one question, respondent should have completed the remainder ofPart D.If NO for both questions, respondent should not have completed Part D of thequestionnaire.Ensure no other answers are completed in Part D; technical review iscomplete.If NO to D1-1, confirm that respondent answered "No" to A3-1.NoSection 2 Pond/Impoundment System andWastewater Treatment SystemIdentificationD2-1 Plant involvement with ash or FGDwastewater treatment full- or pilot-scalestudies.If NO, questions D2-2 and D2-3 should be skipped. Question D2-4 should beanswered.NoD2-3 Plant involvement with ash or FGDwastewater treatment full- or pilot-scalestudies.If YES, make sure a copy of the summary/report is attached. Make sure thatdescriptions cover ash or FGD wastewater treatment technologies.Flag any potentially interesting studies.If NO, make sure an explanation of the study is provided in the free response cell.Make sure that descriptions only cover ash or FGD wastewater treatment technologies.NoD2-4 Plant involvement with ash or FGDwastewater treatment studies, includingbench-scale.Make sure that the response to question D2-4 only covers studies not accounted for inprevious questions and that the technologies listed are for ash or FGD wastewatertreatment.NoIf YES, both or one of Tables D-1 and D-2 should be completed. Respondent shouldalso complete Section 3.If NO, the remainder of Section 2 and all of Section 3 should not be completed. Therespondent should skip to Section 4.1.Ensure no answers are provided in Part DSections 2 and 3.Confirm that D1-2 is "NO".NoIf there are ponds/impoundments listed in Table A-4 that contain coal combustion byproducts,respondents should answer "YES" to thisquestionNoIf the respondent indicates that the FGD scrubber purge or gypsum wastewater is sentto a settling pond in Part B Section 7 or Question B4-16, respondents should answer"YES" to thisquestion and include thoseponds in Table D-1NoD2-6 Table A-4 Plant Pond/Impoundment SystemIdentificationIf YES, Table D-1 should be complete. Check that the “IndividualPonds/Impoundments” column matches the information provided in Table A-4.If NO, Table D-1 should be blank.[Table D-1. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be empty rowsin Table D-1).]NoD2-5 Table A-4; Part BQuestion 4-16;Part B Section 7(QB7-1 throughB7-3)Plant operation of any systems for thetreatment of process wastewaters from ashhandling or FGD operations.If YES, Table D-2 should be complete. Check that the information provided matchesany footprints or diagrams the plant provides along with the questionnaire.If NO, Table D-2 should be blank and Table D-1 should be complete. Confirm that D1-2 is "NO".[Table D-2. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be empty rowsin Table D-2).]NoIf the respondent indicates that the FGD scrubber purge or gypsum wastewater is sentto a wastewater treatment system in Part B Section 7 or Question B4-16, respondentsshould answer "YES" to this question and include those systems in Table D-2.NoSection 3.1Wastewater Treatment DiagramMay have multiple copies to account for multiple pond/impoundment system orwastewater treatment system IDs.Check that the plant attached a block diagram(s). Note that there may be multiplediagrams. If not,check comments tab for explanationNoCheck that the diagram(s) includes all information identified in the “Block DiagramChecklist” onpages D-7 through D-10NoTables D-1/D-2 Check that the diagram(s) includes all pond/impoundment systems and wastewatertreatment systems identified in Table D-1 and/or Table D-2NoTables A-4/B-1/B2Check that the diagram(s) use EPA-assigned numbers from Part A or B (e.g., FGD-1)and that theyare used correctly,if applicable.NoTables D-3/D-4 Check that the flow rates provided in the diagram(s) match those provided in Tables D3 and D-4 within a reasonable amount.NoTable D-11 Check that the diagram(s) includes all wastewater treatment units identified in Table D11.NoCodes Tables Check that the diagram(s) identifies process operations and wastewater treatmentsystems usingappropriate codes.NoTables A-5/C-3/C19/B-8Check that the flow rates provided in the diagram(s) are balanced and generally makesense. Bottom ash, fly ash, and scrubber purge influent flow rates can be checked inTables C-3, C-19, and B-8. Also check against Table A-5 for process wastewatersenteringthepond/impoundmentNoSection 3.2 Wastewater Treatment WastewaterFlowsMay have multiple copies to account for multiple pond/impoundment system orwastewater treatment system IDs.Check that all influents in Table D-3 correspond to block diagram(s) with the sameSystem ID submitted bytheplantNoCheck that onlyinfluents are included in Table D-3NoTable D-4 Check that the influents correspond to the same System ID effluents in Table D-4.NoCheck that the influent flow rates provided generally make sense. For example,corresponding gpm, hpd, and dpy values match the information provided in thediagram(s). Bottom ash, fly ash, and scrubber purge influent flow rates can be checkein Tables C-3,C-19,and B-8.NoCheck that the plants properly identify the process or treated wastewater and thatinfluents correspond to diagram attached in D3-1NoTable D-3. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be empty rowsin Table D-3).NoCheck that all effluents in Table D-4 correspond to block diagram(s) with the sameSystem ID submitted bytheplantNoCheck that onlyeffluents are included in Table D-4NoTable D-3 Check that the effluents correspond to the same System ID influents in Table D-3.NoCheck that units are selected for the amount of solids/sludge, if applicablNoCheck that the effluent flow rates provided generally make sense. For example,corresponding gpm, hpd, and dpy values match the information provided in thediagram(s)submitted bytheplantNoCheck that the plants properly identified the treated wastewater and final destinationand that effluents correspond to diagram attached in D3-1NoTable D-4. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be empty rowsin Table D-4).NoSection 4.1Active/Inactive/Open and PlannedPond/Impoundment Unit InformationMay have multiple copies to account for multiple pond(s)/impoundment(s)reported in Table A-4.Diagram RequestPond/impoundment system or wastewatertreatment system influent flowsD3-2Pond/impoundment system or wastewatertreatment system effluent flowsD3-3D3-1D2-7 Plant Wastewater Treatment SystemIdentificationQuestion B4-16;Part B Section 7D4-1 Table A-4 The use or planned use of anyactive/inactive/open ponds/impoundmentsfor the storage, treatment, and/or disposal ofprocess wastewater, residues or by-productsfrom the combustion of coal, pet-coke, oroil.Question D4-1 should be answered regardless of the response to question D2-5.If YES, Section 4.1 should be completed for every active/inactive/openpond/impoundment unit identified in Table A-4.If NO, Section 4.1 should be skipped. Check to make sure no ponds are listed in TableA-4.Ensure no answers are provided for Part D Section 4.2.NoD4-2 Residence time, life, and number of cells ofthepond/impoundment uniMake sure that the number of cells for the pond/impoundment unit matches the blockdiagram(s)submitted bytheplant,if applicable.NoD4-3 Volume, surface area, bottom and topelevation, freeboard height, maximum heighof the berms/dams, total amount of solidsplaced, and expected year ofclosure/retirement of the pond/impoundmentunit when it was originally built, at itscurrent status, and at its expected end of life.Make sure that responses logically make sense. For example, all height and elevationresponses should correspond to one another; total solids placed in the pond shouldincrease from current to end of life status.Reminder: Operating capacity = Free water + Added solidsNoD4-4 Does the pond/impoundment unit have aliner?If YES, Table D-6 should be complete.If NO, skip to question D4-5. Table D-6 should not be completed.If NA, skip to question D4-10.[Table D-6. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be empty rowsin Table D-6).]NoD4-5 Has the pond/impoundment unit ever beendredged?If YES, the following fill in the blanks should be complete.If NO, skip to question D4-7.If NA, skip to question D4-10.Make sure that answers logically make sense. For example, if the last year of dredgingwas 2000, no answers should be provided for the responses required for the last 5years.NoD4-6 Transfer location of dredged solidsIf “other” is checked, make sure that the respondentprovides an explanationNoD4-7 Pond/Impoundment unit expansion. If YES, questions D4-8 and D4-9 should be completed.If NO, skip to question D4-10.If NA, skip to question D4-10.NoD4-9 Description of pond/impoundmentexpansions.Make sure that plant provides starting/ending dimensions and total cost associated withthe expansion.NoD4-10NoD4-11NoIf YES, Table D-7 should be completed.If NO, skip to Section 4.2.Ensure that no answers are provided for Part D Section 4.1.If NA, Table D-7 should be completed to the extent possible.NoMake sure that units are selected for in the “Average Addition Rate” column and makesure that the units selected make logical sense for the chemical liquid/solid addition.NoSection 4.2 Closed Pond/Impoundment UnitInformationMay have multiple copies to account for multiple pond(s)/impoundment(s)reported in Table A-4.Pollutants targeted for removal other than“solely settling”.If “other” is checked, make sure that the respondent provides an answer.Based on pollutants listed in D4-11, make sure the appropriate pollutant categories areselected in D4-10.Make sure any limitations provided have corresponding units selected.D4-12 Chemical addition to pond/impoundmentunit in 2009.D4-13 Table A-4 Closed pond/impoundments. If YES, Section 4.2 should be completed.If NO, skip to Section 5.1. Check to make sure there are no closed ponds listed in TablA-4.Ensure no answers are provided for Part D Section 4.2.This section should only contain ponds closed on or after January 1, 2000 identified inTable A-4.NoD4-14 Date closed, life, and number of cells in theclosepond/impoundmentMake sure that the number of cells in the pond match the block diagram(s) submittedbythe facility,if applicableNoD4-15 Volume, surface area, bottom and topelevation, freeboard height, max height ofdams/berms, and total solids in the closedpond/impoundmentMake sure that responses logically make sense. For example, all height and elevationresponses should correspond to one another; total solids placed in the pond shouldincrease from current to end of life status.NoD4-16 Does the pond/impoundment unit have aliner?If YES is checked, Table D-9 should be complete.If NO is checked, skip to question D4-17. Table D-9 should not be completed.Make sure that the thickness and permeability entries are in the correct units.[Table D-9. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be empty rowsin Table D-9).]NoD4-17 Does the pond/impoundment unit have acap/cover?If YES is checked, Table D-10 should be complete.If NO is checked, skip to question D4-18. Table D-10 should not be completed.Make sure that the thickness and permeability entries are in the correct units.[Table D-10. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be emptyrows in Table D-10).]NoIf YES, all questions should be completed.If NO,skiptoquestion D4-21NoMake sure that plant provides starting/ending dimensions and total cost associated withthe expansion.NoD4-21 and D4-22 Closure plan/process for thepond/impoundment unit.If YES, make sure that a copy of the closure plan is attached.Check to make sure that closure plan is attached and contains all necessary informationif there is not answer provided for question D4-22.NoD4-23 Has the plant built any structures on top ofthe closed pond/impoundment unit?If YES, make sure that a description of the structures is provided.If NO, skip to question D4-24.NoD4-24 Long-term groundwater, soil, or overflowmonitoring of the closed pond/impoundmentunit.If YES, make sure that a description of the monitoring plan is provided.NoSection 5.1 Wastewater Treatment Unit Information– System LevelMay have multiple copies to account for multiple wastewater treatment IDsreported in Table D-5.D5-1 Table D-2 Identification of wastewater treatmentsystems in Table D-2.If YES, Section 5.1 should be completed for each wastewater treatment systemidentified in Table D-2.If NO, skip to Section 6.1. Make sure no wastewater treatment systems were identifiedin Table D-2.Ensure that no answers are provided in Part D Sections 5.1 and 5.2.NoCheck to make sure the wastewater treatment IDs match the block diagram(s)submitted by the facility.[Table D-11. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be emptyrows in Table D-11).]NoTable A-4 If a pond/impoundment is selected, check to make sure that the ID listed matches TableA-4 and block diagram(s) submitted by the facility.NoD5-2 Wastewater Treatment UnitsD4-18 throughD4-20Expansions of pond/impoundment unitCheck that the respondents identify wastewater treatment units using appropriate codeRequest new codes if necessary.NoTable D-2 Check to make sure that the surface area of the WWT Unit makes sense/corresponds tothe surface area submitted for the entire treatment system (Table D-2).NoD5-3 Flow rates, duration, and frequency for thewastewater treatment system.Check to make sure the flow rates, duration, and frequency logically make sense andmatch block flow diagram attached in D3-1.NoD5-4 and D5-5 Pollutants targeted for removal other than“solely settling”.Note D5-6 through D5-9 only needcompleteness checks.If “other”, make sure that the respondent provides an answer.Based on pollutants listed in D5-5, make sure the appropriate pollutant categories areselected in D5-4.Make sure any limitations provided have corresponding units selected.NoD5-10 Planned improvements to existingwastewater treatment systemsMake sure that bid proposals are attached or that an explanation is provided.NoD5-11 Planned improvements to existingwastewater treatment systems.Make sure that all wastewater treatment unit IDs correspond to units entered in TableD-11.[Table D-12. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be emptyrows in Table D-12).]NoD5-12 Table D-11 Planned improvements based on potentiallimit changes in the future.If YES, no explanation is necessary.If NO, make sure that the respondentprovides an explanationNoSection 5.2 Wastewater Treatment System ChemicalAdditionMay have multiple copies to account for multiple wastewater treatment IDsreported in Table D-5.If YES, Table D-13 should be completed for every wastewater treatment systemidentified in Table D-2.If NO is checked, skip to Section 6.1. Make sure there are no wastewater treatmentsystems identified in Table D-2.Ensure that no answers are provided for Part DSection 2.If NA is checked, Table D-13 should be completed until the extent possible.[Table D-13. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be emptyrows in Table D-13).]NoMake sure that units are selected for in the “Average Addition Rate” column.Make sure that the units selected make logical sense for the chemical liquid/solidaddition.NoSection 6.1 Pond/Impoundment System andWastewater Treatment System CostsMay have multiple copies to account for multiple pond/impoundment system orwastewater treatment system IDs that began operating on or after January 1,2000.If YES, Sections 6.1 and 6.2 should be completed for each pond/impoundment systemor wastewater treatment system identified in Tables D-1/D-2.If NO, respondents are instructed to skip to the next Part. Make sure there are nopond/impoundment or wastewater treatment systems identified in Tables D-1/D-2.Ensure no answers are provided in Part D Sections 6.1 and 6.2.NoCheck to make sure that all pond/impoundment or wastewater treatment systemsidentified in Tables D-1 and D-2 as being installed on or after January 1, 2000, have acompleted copy of Sections 6.1 and 6.2NoMake sure that Table D-14 is complete. If not, follow-up with the plant may benecessary.Information may not be provided in Table D-14 if the pond/poundment or wastewatertreatment system was not operated in 2009.NoMake sure that the individual O&M costs match the total provided at the end of thetable.NoD6-2 O&M costs for the pond/impoundmentsystem or the wastewater treatment systemoperated in 2009.D5-13 Chemical addition to wastewater treatmentunits.6.1 Tables D-1/D-2 Pond/impoundment systems and/orwastewater treatment systems identified inTables D-1 or D-2 installed after January 1,2000.D6-3 Capital costs for the pond/impoundmentsystem or the wastewater treatment system.Make sure that Table D-15 is complete. If not, follow-up with the plant may benecessary.Make sure that there are no discrepancies between the individual indirect/direct costs,the indirect/direct totals, and the total capital cost provided at the end of the table.Information may not be provided in Table D-15 if the pond/poundment or wastewatertreatment system was not operated in 2009.NoD6-4 Capital costs for the pond/impoundmentsystem or the wastewater treatment system.D6-5 and D6-6 – only need to be checkedfor completeness.If NO, make sure that a list of key components not included is included in theexplanation.NoD6-7 Tables D-1/D-2 Ancillary equipment of thepond/impoundment system or wastewatertreatment system.Check to make sure that all systems identified in Tables D-1 and D-2 as being installedon or after January 1, 2000, have a completed copy of Section 6.2.[Table D-16. Only applicable rows need to be completed (i.e., there may be emptyrows in Table D-16).]NoCommentsEntire SectionCheck that all comments have a question number identified and the comment isunderstandable.NoEntire SectionResolve comments that indicate a change must be made to any electronic response.NoPart E NameDate(s)ReviewedReviewer No. 1Reviewer No. 2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/QuestionNumberCopy NumberRelatedSectionType of Information Coding and Review ActivityFirstReviewerCommentsSecondReviewerComments Complete?Part E WASTES FROM CLEANING METALPROCESS EQUIPMENTTOCEnsure that plant name and ID have been populated in the TOC pageNoUniversalAll questions are answered except for those that can be skipped.NoSection 1 Metal Cleaning OperationsE1-1 N/A If "No" is selected for either Question, Part E should not have been completed.NoSection 2 Generating Unit Cleaning Data May have multiple copies to account for multiple SEGUsEach SEGU Id reported should match an ID in Table A-8.NoIf "yes" to specific cleaning method are all necessary data fields complete including'Other' specific data.NoCheck comments to be sure dose concentration and chemical added are in properunits. If not,calculatethe proper value.NoCheck frequency reported to determine if understandable.NoEach SEGU Id reported should match an ID in Table A-8.NoIf "yes" to specific cleaning method are all necessary data fields complete including'Other' specific data.NoIf plant reports no metal cleaning waste generated, check comments to determine why(typically, they have used steam and there is no residual waste).NoCheck frequency reported to determine if understandable.NoSection 3 Cleaning Operation Data May have multiple copies to account for multiple SEGUsE3 Table E1/E-2All For each type of cleaningfor each unitidentified in Tables E-1/E-2, there should be acompleted Section 3.NoE3 Table E1/E-2All If "Other" is selected for Tables E-1 or E-2; be sure that the Metal Cleaning OperationID is listed as follows:Table E-1, First Other Option is selected: Chem_Other1Table E-1, Second Other Option is selected: Chem_Other2Table E-2, First Other Option is selected: No_Chem_Other 1Table E-2, Second Other Option is selected: No_Chem_Other 2E3-1 Cleaning Operation Data Description must include: Type of Equipment, Type of Metal Cleaned, ChemicalPreparation Steps, Short DescriptionNoE3-2 Cleaning Operation Data Answer "yes" or "no"NoE3-3 Cleaning Operation Data Ensure all data are complete. Check that reported NPDES outfall number(s) matchPart A, Section 2.2.NoE3-4 Cleaning Operation Data Answer "yes" continue on. "No" Skip outNoE3-5 Cleaning Operation Data Answer ALWAYS or SOMETIME HAZARDOUS continue on. Answer ALWAYSNON-HAZARDOUS OR UNKNOWN jump to E3-7NoE3-6 Cleaning Operation Data Answered only if ALWAYS or SOMETIME HAZARDOUS in E3-5NoE3-7 Cleaning Operation Data Ensure all data is complete including "expanded info"NoE3-8 Cleaning Operation Data If 'yes" ensure all data is complete including "expanded info"NoCommentsEntire Section Check that all comments have a question number identified and the comment isunderstandable.NoEntire Section Resolve comments that indicate a change must be made to any electronic response.NoE2-2./Table E-2E2-1/Table E-1Non-Chemical Method/Water Source UsedSpecific Chemical/Water Source UsedTable A-8Table A-8Part H NameDate(s)ReviewedReviewer No. 1Reviewer No. 2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/QuestionNumberCopy NumberRelatedSectionType of Information Coding and Review ActivityFirstReviewerCommentsSecondReviewerComments Complete?Part H NUCLEAR POWER GENERATIONTOCEnsure that plant name and ID have been populated in the TOC pageNoUniversalAll questions are answered except for those that can be skipped.NoSection 1 Nuclear Generating Unit DataH1-1 and H1-2 If "No" is selected for either Question, Part H should not have been completed.NoEnsure data are complete. If "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is specified.NoEnsure there is a Section 2 for each wastewater reported.NoH1-3/Table H-1 Part H,Section 3Nonradioactive/Radioactive Is selected, check to ensure that QH3-1 in Section 3 for systems that treat thiswastewater are marked as radioactive.NoH1-3/Table H-1 Table A-8 Nuclear Unit(s) If "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is specified. Confirm that SE Unit IDs matchthose reported in Table A-8.NoN/A Part H,Section 1,Table H-1Process wastewater code Code identified needs to match the process wastewater code indicated in H1-3/TableH-1.NoN/A N/A Process wastewater code Different wastewater code name for each new Tab created by user.NoSection 2 Process Wastewater Generation May have multiple copies to account for multiple wastewatersCheck that typcial duration does not exceed 24 hrs/day or 365 days/yrNoEnsure that typical frequency is understandable.NoRecycled process wastewater If "Immediately recycled back..." is selected, ensure a process description is selected.If "Other" is selected, ensure that "Other" is specified.NoDischarged to surface water and treated If "Discharged to surface water following on-site treatment..." is selected, ensure theNPDES permit outfall number is provided and is reported in Part A, Section 2.2.NoDischarged to surface water untreated If "Discharged to surface water untreated..." is selected, ensure the NPDES outfallnumber is provided and is reported in Part A, Section 2.2.NoOther If "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is explained.NoSection 3 Wastewater Treatment Systems May have multiple copies to account for multiple treatment systemsEntire Section Wastewater Treatment System Name Ensure the plant used a different Treatment System Name for each new copy createdby user.NoH3-1 Table H-1 Nonradioactive/Radioactive Check if radioactive process wastewaters reported in table H-1 are treated in thissystem, that "Radioactive" is selected.NoH3-2 Table H-1 All Ensure that all process wastewater codes identified for each wastewater treatmentsystem is also reported in H1-3/Table H-1.NoCheck that maximum flow rate is >= typical flow rate.NoCheck that days/yr is <=365 days and hrs/day is <=24 hrs/day.NoWastewater Treatment Technology If "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is specified.NoIf "Metals" is selected, ensure "Metals" are specified.NoIf "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is specified.NoUnit Selected and matches valueNoWastewater Treatment Technology If "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is specified.NoIf "Metals" is selected, ensure "Metals" are specified.NoIf "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is specified.NoH3-7 Recycled process wastewater If "Immediately recycled back..." is selected, ensure a process description is selected.If "Other" is selected, ensure that "Other" is specified.NoDischarged to surface water and treated If "Discharged to surface water following on-site treatment..." is selected, ensure theNPDES permit outfall number is provided and is reported in Part A, Section 2.2.NoDischarged to surface water untreated If "Discharged to surface water untreated..." is selected, ensure the NPDES outfallnumber is provided and is reported in Part A, Section 2.2.NoN/A Other If "Other" is selected, ensure "Other" is explained.NoIf "Recycled back..." is selected in H3-6, make sure question is answered.NoCheck that maximum flow rate is >= typical flow rate.NoH3-6 AllPart A,Section 2.2H3-6H3-7Pollutants Targeted for Removal...AllH3-4/Table H-3Pollutants Targeted for Removal...H2-1/Table H-2H3-5/Table H-4H1-3/Table H-1 Part H,Section 2Process WastewaterPart A,Section 2.2H2-2H3-3Process Wastewater FlowsCheck that days/yr is <=365 days and hrs/day is <=24 hrs/day.NoCommentsEntire Section Check that all comments have a question number identified and the comment isunderstandable.NoEntire Section Resolve comments that indicate a change must be made to any electronic response.NoProject Name: Steam Electric Project No: 0172.07.029.022 (non-coal)
0172.07.029.025 (coal)

CBI = Yes (Y) Questionnaire

Part Question
Number Copy # Question/Answer

Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A:
Q:

A: Steam Electric Questionnaire Follow-Up Questions

Date:
yes/no This document contains CBI:

General Subject: Steam Electric Questionnaire Assistance / Follow-Up Contact Email Address:
ERG Staff (or ERG Rep) Name: Company Affiliation: Type of Contact (Email/Tele): Company Name:

Plant Name:

Point of Contact:

Contact Phone Number:Project No.: 0172.07.029.022 (non-coal)
Project No.: 0172.07.029.025 (coal)

Contact Phone No.:

Contact Email Address:

Date:

Time: __ AM ___ PM

Type of Contact (Email/Telephone):

CBI = Question

Yes (Y) No. 

### Steam Questionnaire Contact Record

General Subject:

QUESTIONNAIRE ASSISTANCE / FOLLOW-UP:

Topics Discussed Contact Name:

ERG Staff Name:

This document contains CBI (yes/no): Project Name: Steam Electric

Plant ID:

Plant Name:Reviewer:Date Completed:QuestionnairePartSection &Question #Copy # (ifnecessary) Description of ChangeSource for Change(list telecon or othersource)Approved/Rejected Date CommentsSteam Electric Questionnaire - Change FormInstructions:1) Include as much identifying information as possible in the "Description of Change" column to document the change made (e.g.,if the information is about a specific boiler/unit, include theboiler/unit ID).2) Include a source/reference for the change, such as a specific telecon where the change was discussed with the point of contact.ERG QA ReviewPart A Name Date(s) ReviewedReviewer No. 1Reviewer No. 2Status of ReviewQuestionnairePart/Section/Question NumberType of Information Coding and Review Activity Notes for Copy Buttons First Reviewer Comments Second Reviewer Comments Complete?All General InstructionsUnlocking Tabs Must unlock each tab separately.Password: FinalSteamLocked0510Note that the copies of tabs Part A Section 2.2and 8 do not have the same password.Password: steamSelect Tools > Protection > Unprotect Sheet > Copyand past passwordNAClear Radio Buttons Clear if respondent accidentally selected aradio button.Unlock tabRight click on the radio button > Format Control >Select "Control" Tab > UncheckedNACheck Modified Files All Check to make sure that the plant is not on the"modified files" list (See Modified Files tab).If Yes - Thoroughly check the mapping for the changedtabs. Note that some of the infromation will not beautomatically uploaded and will have to hand enterthat data. Highlight additional rows in green that arenot programmed to bring to our attention.Also note that in some cases there may be tabs that arecopied that did not originally have a copy button. Thatis OK for these files.NoSteps to ThoroughlyCheck Mapping1. Unlock tab2. Unhide mapping rows at the bottom (Row 300)3. Check to make sure that the answers in the mapmatch the answers selected above on the copied taband that no linking is present between the original taband the copied tab.4. Check the offset functions (mostly the drop downs)to see if they reference the previous tab.5. If they do reference the original tab; do a find andreplace on the previous tab name for a space (“ “).NoAll General InstructionsCheck for True Zeroes All number fields Review each questionnaire part for answers where therespondent entered "0". If the answer is truly zero,delete the "0" and enter "-555" into the field.NACheck for Missing Data All fields Review each section for missing data. If there arequestions in tab that don't have answers, but should beanswered, enter "-111". All "-111" entries should beremoved after plant follow-up, but incase they are not,this will designate missing data in the database.NAPart A Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part A Section 2.2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per outfall ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart A Section 1.1Part A Section 1.2Part A Section 2.1Part A Section 2.2Part A Section 3Check Tab NamesCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part A Section 8 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart B Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copies in tandem with "Part B Section 4 Tables".Make sure that there is a "Part B Section 4 Tables"copy for every copy of Part B Section 4.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part B Section 4 Copy (#). Note that original tab nameshould NOT change or contain the word "copy".Copy button for multiple wet FGD systems. Make surethat the same FGD System ID is on the correspondingPart B Section 4 Tables copy. Make sure there are nottwo or more sets of copies with the same ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copies in tandem with "Part B Section 4". Makesure that there is a "Part B Section 4" copy for everycopy of Part B Section 4 Tables.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part B Section 4 Tables Cop (#). Note that original tabname should NOT change or contain the word "copy"and that the word "Copy" maycut off.Copy button for multiple wet FGD systems. Make surethat the same FGD System ID is on the correspondingPart B Section 4 copy. Make sure there are not two ormore sets of copies with the same ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoPart A Section 4Part A Section 5Part A Section 6Part A Section 7Part A Section 8Part A Section 9Part A Section 10Part A Section 11Part A Section 12Part A Section 13Part A CommentsPart B Section 5Check Tab NamesPart B Section 4Part B Section 3Part B Section 2Part B Section 1Part B Section 4 TablesCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copy button is actually on tab Part B Section 6. Ifcopied, confirm that tab names follow the format: PartB Section 6 Table Copy (#). Note that original tabname should NOT change or contain the word "copy".Copy button for provided incase respondent needsmore space. In this case, copies can refer to the samedata set.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copies in tandem with "Part B Section 8 Tables".Make sure that there is a "Part B Section 8 Tables"copy for every copy of Part B Section 8.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part B Section 8 Copy (#). Note that original tab nameshould NOT change or contain the word "copy".Copy button for multiple dry FGD systems. Make surethat the same FGD System ID is on the correspondingPart B Section 8 Tables copy. Make sure there are nottwo or more sets of copies with the same ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copies in tandem with "Part B Section 8". Makesure that there is a "Part B Section 8" copy for everycopy of Part B Section 8 Tables.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part B Section 8 Tables Cop (#). Note that original tabname should NOT change or contain the word "copy"and that the word "Copy" maycut off.Copy button for multiple dry FGD systems. Make surethat the same FGD System ID is on the correspondingPart B Section 8 copy. Make sure there are not two ormore sets of copies with the same ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart C Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section 2.1 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section 2.3 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section 2.4 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per Storage ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section 3.1 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart C Section 2.1Part C Section 2.4Part C Section 2.3Part C Section 2.2Part C Section 1Check Tab NamesPart C Section 2.5Part C Section 3.2Part C Section 3.1Part B CommentsPart B Section 8 TablesPart B Section 8Part B Section 7Part B Section 6 TablePart B Section 6Check to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section3.3 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section 3.4 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per Storage ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section 4 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part C Section 5 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart D Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part D Section 3.1 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment System or Wastewater TreatmentSystem ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part D Section 3.2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment System or Wastewater TreatmentSystem ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part D Section 4.1 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part D Section 4.2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part D Section 5.1 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per WastewaterTreatment System ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part D Section 5.2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per WastewaterTreatment System ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoPart D Section 5.1Part D Section 5.2Part D Section 6.1Part C Section 3.4Part D Section 1Part D Section 2Part D Section 3.1Part D Section 3.2Part D Section 4.1Part D Section 4.2Part C CommentsPart C Section 5Part C Section 4Part C Section 3.5Part C Section 3.3Tab copies in tandem with "Part D Section 6.2". Makesure that there is a "Part D Section 6.2" copy for everycopy of Part D Section 6.1.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part D Section 6.1 Copy (#). Note that original tabname should NOT change or contain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment System or Wastewater TreatmentSystem ID. Make sure that the same ID is on thecorresponding Part D Section 6.1 copy.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copies in tandem with "Part D Section 6.1". Makesure that there is a "Part D Section 6.1" copy for everycopy of Part D Section 6.2 Tables.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part D Section 6.2 Copy (#). Note that original tabname should NOT change or contain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment System or Wastewater TreatmentSystem ID. Make sure that the same ID is on thecorresponding Part D Section 6.2 copy.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart E Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part E Section 2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part E Section 3 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per MetalCleaning Operatoin ID, note that there may bemultiple copies with the same SE Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart F Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part F Section 2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment Unit ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part F Section 3.1 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per Landfill ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part F Section 3.2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per Landfill ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part F Section 4.2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per LeachateTreatment System ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part F Section 4.3 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per LeachateTreatment System ID.NoPart D CommentsPart D Section 6.2Check Tab Names Part F Section 1Part F Section 2Part F Section 3.1Part F Section 3.2Part F Section 4.1Part F Section 4.2Part F Section 4.3Check Tab Names Part E Section 1Part E Section 2Part E Section 3Part E CommentsCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part F Section 4.4 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per LeachateTreatment Unit ID. Note that there may be multpilecopies with the same Leachate Treatment System ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copies in tandem with "Part F Section 4.6". Makesure that there is a "Part F Section 4.6" copy for everycopy of Part F Section 4.5.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part F Section 4.5 Copy (#). Note that original tabname should NOT change or contain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per LeachateTreatment System ID. Make sure that the same ID ison the corresponding Part F Section 4.5 copy.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab copies in tandem with "Part F Section 4.5". Makesure that there is a "Part F Section 4.5" copy for everycopy of Part F Section 4.6.If copied, confirm that tab names follow the format:Part F Section 4.6 Copy (#). Note that original tabname should NOT change or contain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per LeachateTreatment System ID. Make sure that the same ID ison the corresponding Part F Section 4.6 copy.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part F Section 5 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment ID or Landfill ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart G Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part G Section 2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment ID or Landfill ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part G Section 5 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Copy button for provided incase respondent needsmore space. In this case, copies can refer to the samedata set.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part G Sampling Results Cop(#). Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy" and that the word "Copy" maycut off.Make sure that there is only one copy perPond/Impoundment ID or Landfill ID.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart H Tab NameCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck Tab Names Part H Section 1Part H Section 2Part F Section 4.6Part F Section 5Part F CommentsPart F Section 4.4Part F Section 4.5Check Tab Names Part G Section 1Part G Section 2Part G Section 3Part G Section 4Part G Section 5Part G Sampling ResultsPart G CommentsTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part H Section 2 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per ProcessWastewater Code.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoTab has a copy button. If copied, confirm that tabnames follow the format: Part H Section 3 Copy (#).Note that original tab name should NOT change orcontain the word "copy".Make sure that there is only one copy per wastewatertreatment system name.NoCheck to make sure that tab name is not changed orthat tab is deleted.NoCheck to make sure that there are no copies of the tab.NoPart H Section 3Part H CommentsAttachment 3

F OLLOW -U P P HONE C ALL AND E MAIL I NSTRUCTIONSPhone Call Script

 “Hello, Mr/Ms [name], my name is [name] and I’m a contractor for the U.S. EPA for the Steam Electric Questionnaire. I have reviewed your survey and have a few questions on some of the information you provided. Do you have time to discuss these questions?” [If No, schedule a day and time to call back]. “Do you have your copy of the completed su rvey for this plant available?”

 If you faxed or emailed review questions prior to the call, ask “Do you have a copy of your completed survey for this pl ant and the review questions I sent to you on [date]?”

 Ask questions, note responses.

 “Would you like to consider any of this information as confidential business

information?” If Yes, have the contact identi fy CBI questions and mark on the telecon form or review question document . NOTE: If any questions were already marked CBI, they remain CBI for the tele con. If CBI is claimed for new questions, verify that they want to change the CBI status for the question.

 “These are all the questions I have at this time. If I have any additional questions, I will contact you again. Thank you for your time.”

Email or Faxed Review Example

Dear [Contact Name]:

Per our discussion on [mm/dd/yy], attached ar e follow-up questions to clarify survey responses for [company name/plant name]. As discussed on [mm/ dd/yy], I will call you on (day, date, and time) to discuss these questions.

These are all the questions I have at this time. If I have any additional questions, I will contact you again. Thank you in advance for your time.

[Name and phone number], [Company Affiliation]Appendix F

COMPLETENESS CHECKLISTCompleteness Checker:Plant ID:Questionnaire Version #:Survey Ready for Review:Status of ReviewComplete? Action Notes/IssuesQuestionnaire package received from MarlaNote date received on packageLog in questionnaireEnter date received intoSurvey Trackingdatabase table on CBI serverEnter response data into theSurvey Reviewdatabase table on CBI serverPlace a pre-populated label on the CDFill out label with date uploaded to Network, Your Initials, and Plant IDCheck that all required parts are present & can be opened/read electronicallyCertification statementABCDEFGHIOther files/documentsCopy files to CBI network (P:\Steam Electric\Rulemaking\Survey\Survey Working Copies\ )Create a folder for the plant ID (e.g., 12345)Copy files to folder and rename with ID (e.g., 12345_PartA.xls)Create log of hard copy docs submitted and where stored(e.g., 12345_HardcopyLog.doc)Scan hardcopy docs into PDF where feasibleSet up physical plant folderCreate a file folder with label (Plant ID/Plant Name/Version #)Include any hard copy documents received in the folderStore the folder in the CBI archive room in Plant ID orderInitial check of questionnaireDid plant "kick out" of questionnaire?(A1-6=YES, A1-7=NO, A1-8=NONE, OR A1-11=NO)Did plant "kick out" of Part B (answer B1-1 = "NO")?Did plant "kick out" of Part C (answer C1-1 = "NO")?Did plant "kick out" of Part D (answer D1-1 AND D1-2 = "NO")?Did plant "kick out" of Part E (answer E1-1 = "NO")?Did plant "kick out" of Part F (answer F1-1 = "NO")?Did plant "kick out" of Part G (answer G1-1 = "NO")?Did plant "kick out" of Part H (answer H1-1OR H1-2 = "NO")?Prepare Part I for deliveryMove (don't copy) the Part I file to the "Part I Deliveries" folderIs survey ready for technical review?Completeness CheckIf any part is missing, if thequestionnaire parts are notsubmitted electronically, orif the electronic files(s)cannot be read, contactplant immediately forresolution.If you can tell that therespondent kicked out of thesurvey or any partinappropriately, discuss withDeb/TJ and contact plantimmediately for resolution.Appendix G

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING SU PPLY PRODUCT DOCUMENTATIONESS - Preparation and Cleaning Procedures Page 1 of 1



## Technical Background



# -

Certificationl
Qualitv Control



## - 

# PREPARATION/CLEANING

PROCEDURESPreDaration & Cleanil}g
Procedures PROCEDURE 1
Container preparation includes nonphosphate detergent washing, multiple tap water and ASTM Type I deionized water rinses, and

1:I HN03 (Nitric Acid) and solvent rinses. Containers are oven

dried. ODerational

Advallt9-9~.

Recommended for extractable organic, semivolatile and pesticide analysis.

PROCEDURE 2

Container preparation includes nonphosphate detergent washing, multiple tap water and ASTM Type I deionized water rinses.
Containers are oven dlied. All PC Class

containers from ESS

come with a

kel1~at~.oJ
GQffiPlig!1_ce,

Recommended for purgeable volatile organic analysis.

PROCEDURE 3
Container preparation includes nonphosphate detergent washing, multiple tap water and

ASTM Type I deionized water rinses, and 1:1HN03 (Nitric Acid) rinses. Containers are
oven dried.

Recommended for metal, cyanide, sulfide and fluoride analysis.

PROCEDURE 4

Container preparation includes nonphosphate detergent washing, multiple tap water and

ASTM Type I deionized water rinses, and 1:] H2S04 (SulfUlic Acid) rinses. Containers

are oven dtied.

Recommended for nitrate/nitrite analysis.

ESS CUSTOM
Containers are prepared per customer specifications to meet unique project needs.

Recommended for your special projects.

Home I Technical Backaround I Comoanv Ba_c15g[QIJ!1Q I E'£Qduq$ I S;;ont§!~.J>~ I Whql's New

ESS. WeSell Experience With Every Container.

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING SUPPLY

Oakland, CA

. info@essviaU;olJ1

. 1-800-233-8425

http://www.essvial.com/prep_cleaning.html 1/23/04

- --- -ESS



## - Certification and Quality Control Page 1 of 1



## Tech nkal Background

Certification!

Qualitv Control 

## CERTIFICATION/QUALITY CONTROL

Automation

Lower detection limits: ESS was the
first and is the ONLY container
supplier to test below drinking water levels, providing the lowest detection limits for organic and inorganic parameters. Preparation & ~Ieaning
Procedures Independent certification: ESS was the first sample container company to have independent certified laboratories analyze Ouality CertifiedTM Class and
PreCleaned CertifiedTM Class

containers, and ESS is the ONLY
company to provide actual test results with each case of QC Class product. If litigation is a concern, ESS QC Class containers give the ultimate certification, keeping your company one step ahead of the competition. Operational

!'.dvantaQes

Direct Trace@: ONLY ESS can trace QC Class containers two ways: (1) The QC lot number can trace containers to independent QC analytical reports (included in each case of QC Class containers) which are backed up with standard laboratOlYaudit procedures; and (2) the ability to trace QC Class containers to their exact destination of purchase. ESS is the ONLY container company to offer this "cradle to grave" feature. Direct Trace@is based on the original U.S. EPA Superfund container tracking requirements.

Direct distribution and dedicated warehouses: ONLY ESS sample containers are

stored in ESS warehouses. ESS does not store its containers with thousands of other

laboratory items such as chemicals, solvents or fuels. With our direct distribution there is only one step in the chain of custody that has to be accounted for: shipment from ESS to your facility. There is no tighter or more sensitive chain of custody in the industry.

EP Acertification: ESS PC Class containers are provided with certification that exceeds U.S. EPA standards for precleaned containers.

Experience: The ESS staff has more experience in the precleaned sample container field than any company in the industIy.

QAProgram: In the precIeaned sample container industI.y,ESS is the ONLY company to offer a distinctive Quality Assurance Program. For a copy of our Quality Assurance Manual, call 1-800-233-8425.

ESS' cleaning procedures are based on the U.S. EP A "Specifications and Guidance for Contaminant-Free Sample Containers"

fj.Qfl1Jz I TechnicaLfJ?#.c:;M[OJlnq I C;Ofl1P?#.l1Y,fJar:;kmQ(I!Jq I Prqq(iGt$ I C;ql1taGt~~~ I What'sJ'feyv
ESS. We Sell Experience With Every Container.

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING SUPPLY

Qaklancl, CA

. !I]tq@~§~yi~f&om. 1-IJIJIJ-2JJ-1J420

http://www.essvial.com/quality .html 1/23/04

-- --- - --

## Technical Background

IIIIh , A

Certificationl
Qualitv Control 

## - ESS CONTAINER CLASS DEFINITIONS

Automation

Preparation & g~<ill!ng Procedures liC CLASS

UnCertifiedTM containers with Teflon@-lined* closures attached.

PC CLASS

PreCleaned CertifiedTM containers with Teflon@-lined*closures attached. Certification is provided with each case. Operational

Advantagm>

QC CLASS Quality CertifiedTM precleaned containers with Teflon@-lined*closures attached are analyzed by independent, certified laboratories. Analytical test results are provided with each case of QC Class containers, which are excellent for use in litigation applications.

* Not all HDPE/LDPE products are available with Teflon@-linedclosures.

Home I Technical Backaround I Company Backaround I Products I Contact ESS I What's New

ESS. We Sell Experiellce With Evel)' Contailler.

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING SUPPLY

Oakland. CA. info@essvial.com

. 1-800-233-8425

http://www.essvial.comldefinitions.html 1/23/04



### Ihttp://essvial.com/images/ certificate. gif Page 1 of1

1/23/04

### --- --- - .-- .- -----

~J!Rt~JiQjtl~_~_i'!nJj

GI~~~ Vi~l~

GI~~~ Wide Mouth

HDPE Narrow Mouth

1j!1<LLDPE Cubitainers

HDPE Wide Mouth

!:i.alg§!l?_~ HQPI; Wide Mouth and

Narrow Mouth

PrePreserved
$S!mpJ~~Q!1ti'!ineI Info

PLQP!Jle 1M Bottles and EasvPourTM

Vials

Chemical

PLe~~Natives

Ultra Pure~ank
WaterTM

jgJ~tj.J~9ttle~jm<tAlr: Samolina Baas

Cold Ice@

Refriaerant and
FoamPaj::-'~

5035
PrePreJ>~rved@Vials and Samplina Tool~

Analvtical Reference

Materials

Polvethvlene and
J~llQn@ ..~<ille.L~

"'-_@el~_<ill.~<::-1!stodv Seals ..----.......--



## - PrePreserved@ CONTAINERSDropuleTM Field Preservative Dropper Bottles

TIle 15 mL DropuleTlIfwith the leak-proof cap dispenses .05 mL of preservative per drop, which is ideal for preserving containers in the field. TIle 15 mL DropuleTl\f; . has a hinged cap for one-hand operation



## . is security sealed



## . has color-coded closures for easy chemical identification

. is washed to ESS'):}!"9ceJiure 2



## . is filled with J. T. Baker or Mallinckrodt analytical grade chemicals



## . fits perfectly in a Tuff-Tainer@polypropylene box for field kits

15 mL of Ascorbic

Acid ] Closure Product Number I Per Case II Price Per Case Color

I White IIpCOOI5-ASCB 1~1$18.60 I

EJlpCOOI5-HCL 1~1$]8.60 I



### I::::J PCOOI5-HN03~1$18.60

I

I White IIpCOOI5-PHOS1~1$32.36

I

I White

I PC0015-NAOH ~1$18.60 I

I Orange IlpC0015-S0TH 1~1$18.60 I

IYellOW IlpCOOI5-SULF 1~1$18.60 I 15 mL of
Hydrochloric Acid

15 mL of Nitric

Acid

15 mL of
Phosphoric Acid

15 mL of Sodium
Hydroxide

15 mL of Sodium

Thiosulfate

15 mL of Sulfuric

Acid

- - http://www.essvial.com/products/ containerspecs.html 1/23/04ESS Products - PrePreserved Containers



### Tuff Tainer@

Easy PourTM Field Preservatives

ESS offers vials of premeasured chemicals in amounts up to 10 111Lfor easy
preservation while in the field. The Easy PourTM Field Preservative Vial:

. has a screw threaded cap for resealing

. is washed to ESS' Procedure 2

. is filled with J.T. Baker or Mallinckrodt analytical grade chemicals

Home I Technical Backaround I Company Backaround I Products I Contal2t~:'i IWflgf§JY(~llt

ESS. We Sell Experience Witlt Every Container.

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING SUPPLY

Oakland. CA. info@('issvia/.com. 1-800-233-8425

http://www.essvial.comlproducts/ containerspecs.html Page 2 of2

1/23104 15 mL of Zinc 

### ItJlpCOOI5-ZINC 

### ItJl$18.60 I Acetate

15mLof Sodium

I Greon I PCOO15-ZNSH 

# []LJ Hydroxide/Zinc Acetate mixture

I Description II ProductNumber II Quantity 

### I

Tuff-Tainer@polypropylene

IUCOOI5-TUFF 

# IDE] carrying case for 15 mL DropuleTM

I Type II Product Number II Quantity II Price I

10mLclearborosilicateglass PCOOI0-0311 

# DLJ vial with 15 mm-425 white

polypropy lene/F217 -lined closed-top closure.Gall tSUU-~;:s;:s-tS4~:>to oraer

A;!I

$epl<!J'!Qlttes_<!Dd Glass Vials

Glass Wide Moultl

HOPE Narrow Moulh aJl(LlQ~E Cubilainers

HOPE Wide Moulh

N<!lgefl~~.i:H;JEI:: Wide Mouth and

Narrow Mouth

PrePreserved

Samp.!!t~...Qn1<!jl1~[ Info

OroDule TM Bottle~
and EasyPourTM Vials

Chemical
Preservatives

Ultra p..Qr.eBlank

WaterTh'

Bac!L6.otUes a.l1t:LAir

SamDlina Baas

Cold Ice@

RefriQerant and.
FoamPa_c!~.

5035

PrePreserved~ Vials and Sam[1JjngJ::_QQlli

Analytical Reference

Matj3ri<!J?

Polyethylene and

LE!.floo.~J~<!i!~rs

.kabels and CI,g;lQQY ~als

Qtbex 

## - PRESERVATIVES/LABELS -

Chemical Preservatives

[TYPe

Liquid I [ Assay ] I Concentration % 10 mL to

15mL

Ammonium.

1 

### [99.6%110 g/IOOO~f$03Ol~ Chloride(NH4CI)~ mL 

# L--JL-JL-J

Ascorbic Acid

I 

### r99.7%IlO g/IOOO~f$03Ol~ (C6H806) ~ mL 

# L--JL-JL-J

Hexane

I 

## r99.l%I1100% l~f$03Ol~ (CH3(CH2)4CH3)~ 

# L--JL-JL-J

~~)chloricAcid1136.5-38%111:1 IEJEJEJ

MercuricChloride [99.5%110 g/IOOO f$035If$OA5l~ (HgCI2) ~ mL 

# L--JL-JL-J

I Nitric Acid (HN03) 1170-71% 111:1 11$0.20 11$0.30 11$0.40 1

Phosphoric Acid 175-78% III: I I 

## f$0.5OIf$0.75l~ (H3P04) 

# L--JL-JL-J

Sodium Bisulfate

I 

### G5.4%IIOg/IOOO ~f$03Ol~ (NaHS04H20)~ mL 

# L--JL-JL-J

~~~~~HYdrOXide1c:=J1100% IEJEJEJ 

# DDLJLJLJ

r::=]1:g/IOOO



## ~l:g/IOOO

195-98% 111:1



### r:=]1:g/IOOO

II Assay II Concentration % Sodium

Hydroxide/Zinc
Acetate

Sodium Sulfite

(Na2S03)

Sodium Thiosulfate

(Na2S203)

Sulfuric Acid

(H2S04)

Zinc Acetate (Zn
. (CH2COO)2) 

# E

Dry

Ammonium

Chloride (NH4CI) 50.0mg to 99.99mg

199.6% 11100% 

# IE:JEJEJ

http://www.essvial.com/products/ chemical.html 

### 1/23/04

-----

1ESS Product~



## - Preservatives, Labels Page 2 of3



### Lust Preservative (GRO/DRO)

Preservative Dot Labels

These are the same color-coded dot labels with the chemical description that accompany our PrePreserved@containers.The dot labels are

PrePreserved@containersare custom orders. Please allow additional lead time.
Chemicals are mixed with ESS Ultra Pure Blank WaterTM.Other preservatives available upon request and may require a lead time 0[2 to 3 weeks.

http://www.essvial.com/products/ chemical.html 1/23/04

-- 

### 1 Ascorbic Acid 

## llOO% 

# IEJE:Jt:J (C6H806)

Mercuric Chloride 

## 1100% 

# 11$0.55 IE] (HgCI2)

Potassium 

# LJLJEJLJEJ

Dichromate (K2Cr207)

SodiumBisulfate 

## IIOO% 

# IEJE:JEJ (NaHS04H20)

SodiumSulfite 

## EJllOO% 

# IEJE:JEJ (Na2S03)

Sodium Thiosulfate 

## EJllOO% 

# IEJE:JEJ (Na2S203)

Zinc Acetate (Zn 

## EJllOO% 

# IEJE:JEJ (CH2COO)2)

I Type IEJlconc.% 110-4mL115-9011.1114 1115-19mL1120-24011.IIL30 I

Other Chemicals

1999tO1o 11$050 11$060 1[$080 ILJLJI$L40 I Methanol

(CH30H)

I Type II Assay II Cone. % 110-1 011. 111-2 011. 112-3 mL 113-401L 114-5 mL I

Monochloroacetic Acid 

# DDDDDDD (C2H3CI02,C2H3K02) Chloroacetic

AcidJPotassium Acetate

Buffer

I Type II Product II Quantity II Price I

25 mL purge and trap grade

I PC 0040-0490 

# 1r=JE:J

Methanol in 40 mL amber CT vial

I Type II Product II Quantity II Price I

Preservative dot label (please specify

I PRES-LBLS Ilooo/labels I $45.00 I chemical)ESS Products



## - Blank Water, Trip Blanks



### Products

Call 800-233-8425 to order

I~ ,,3

SeRt"LSp!!l~~-,;,)JlQ Glass Vials

§Iass Wi<J~ Moutl}

HOPE Narrow Mouth

al1<J.J,O PJ; Cubitainers

HOPE Wide Mouth

~a!.g~.D..E;J~J::tQJ:..1;. Wide Mouth and

Narrow Mouth

PrePreserved

s9m.QL~~9ntainE;JS
Lnfo

.Prop_ul~_T"J20t!1~..S and EasyPour TM yjals.

Chemic_ai

E'LE;J'§!'1rYativ~

Ultra Pure Blank

WaterTM

125!.G.tLE\pttJes _aOd AiL Samolina Baas

Cold Ice~ Refriqerant am)

E.QErnPQC_~':'. 

# - BLANK WATER/TRIP BLANKS



# -

Ultra Pure Blank Water TM

~A§ PrePreserved@Vials

and5.aJIlPliillLiooLs 

### PrePreserved@ Trip Blanks

Analytical Reference

Matesii'!ls

Polyethylene and

Lefloo~J~i'!!lE;JLS

!"aP!!1s...i'lH9J::;J!sto_QY
Seals.

Qt[ler . Applications: Ideal for organic, inorganic or HPLC applications



## . Convenience: Superb quality for both field and lab applications

.Packaging: UPBW is packaged into ESS PreCleaned CertifiedTM containers for added integlity; Teflon@silicone closures prevent leakage

. Certification: Analyzed to drinking water levels for both volatile organic and inorganic parameters

http://essvial.comlproducts/blankwater .html 

# I Page I of2

1/23/04 I Part II Part Number Price Per Case

I

IBW 1000-0150 III L bottles 4/case $28.00

I

I BW 4000-0250 114 L bottles 4/case $50.00

1

1 BW 0005-1035 1120 L LDPE cube lIcase $30.00

1

I Part II Per Case II Price Per Case I

1 TB 7240-0300 1140mL vial/septa 72/case II $151.20

I

1 TB 1240-0300 1140 mL vial/septa l2/case 11$27.60 IAppendix H

INDUSTRY SELF-MONITORING ON-SITE AUDIT CHECKLISTSEffluent/Midpoint Composite Setu p/Breakdown – Sampling Checklist

Plant Name: Sampling Point Description:

Set Number:

Date of Audit:

Auditor:

Plant must collect a 24-hour composite sa mple at the efflue nt and midpoint (if applicable). The compositor should collect 1 sample, every hour, for a 24-hour period. Complete the following checklist for the composite setup. Use the space below each check to record notes on setup procedures.

Set-Up Portion of Composite Collection

Samplers set up compositor at correct sample location/tap.

Samplers used clean hands/dirty hands techniques.

Designated “clean hands” (onl y handles inner, “clean” bags). Designated “dirty hands” ( only handles outer, “dirty” bags). All samplers wore tyvek® coveralls (or equivalent). All samplers wore gloves.

Samplers covered all supporting tables.

All equipment used was previously cleaned and double bagged according to EPA

instructions.

Dirty hands set up clean box and T-sp litter tubing for clean hands (e.g., removed “dirty” bags).

New tubing was used for each different day of sampling. If new tubing was not used, describe how the samplers kept the tubing from becoming contaminated between breaking down and setting up the new compositor.

Clean hands removed T-splitter tubing from “clean” bag in clean box and covered ends for protection (i.e., us ed Ziploc baggies to avoi d “clean” tubing ends from becoming “dirty”).Dirty hands/clean hands set up the ISCO.

Samplers were able to remove ISCO pump cover and “lay” sample tubing into the pump versus threadi ng tubing through the ISCO.

If samplers threaded tubing thr ough the ISCO, were the ends covered the entire time? What precautions were taken to keep the tubing “clean”?

Dirty hands/clean hands set up the double bagged 20 L field blank carboy using appropriate clean hands/dirt y hands techniques (i.e., dirt y hands only handles outer bag, clean hands only handles inner ba g, clean hands handles clean caps).

Clean hands removed 20 L carboy cap, and replaced with double bagged, “clean”

vent cap.

Samplers double bagged (or single ba gged) original (closed) carboy cap to keep “clean” during of the field blank collection.

Clean hands attached the clean tubing to the clean vent cap for field blank samples.

Clean hands placed the end of the t ubing into the reagent grade blank water and dirty hands operated the pump to collect the field blank sample.

Clean hands removed vented cap a nd tubing from the field blank 20 L carboy and replaced with original “clean” cap.

Clean hands recovered the end of the T- splitter tubing and bagged the vented cap to keep “clean” during 20 L composite carboy setup.

Samplers iced 20 L fiel d blank carboy (to fluid level).

Samplers covered 20 L field blank carboy (e.g., with tr ash bag, tarp, trash can lid).

Dirty hands attached tubing to correct sample tap, used zip-tie to secure, and purged

the line for 2 minutes.Dirty hands/clean hands calibrated th e ISCO by volume, not flow rate (record volumes below).

Samplers checked the ISCO calibrati on to ensure the volu me of wastewater delivered by the pump is correct.

Dirty hands/clean hands set up the double bagged 20 L composite carboy using appropriate clean hands/dirt y hands techniques (i.e., dirt y hands only handles outer bag, clean hands only handles inner ba g, clean hands handles clean caps).

Clean hands removed the cap and replaced with the vented cap used during the field blank sample.

Samplers double bagged original ca rboy cap to keep “cl ean” for duration of compositing period.

Clean hands attached the “clean” end of the T-splitter tubing to the vented cap and used a zip-tie to secure tubing.

Samplers programmed the ISCO to ta ke 24 equal aliquots, every hour for a 24 hour period (by volume, not flow rate).

Samplers started the program (Time: ________ am / pm).

Samplers iced 20 L carboy (to fluid level).

Samplers covered 20 L carboy (e.g., with trash bag, tar p, trash can lid).

Icing/Water Pump Out Portio n of Composite Collection

Samplers put additional ice on the co mpositors to keep them cold during the 24- hour composite period, ensuring that th ere was always ice surrounding the carboy and that the carboy was not just sitting in water.Samplers pumped water out of the composite trash can, as needed.

During icing and water pump-out times , the samplers took precautions to ensure they didn’t touch the tubing, th e inner bag, and the carboy/caps.

Samplers did NOT ice or pump out water while a composite aliquot was being

collected.

Break-Down Portion of Composite Collection

REVIEWER CHECK: Prior to the sa mplers breaking down the compositors, check

that the ISCO does not have an asterisk on the screen, which c ould indicate that one of the samples was missed.

REVIEWER CHECK: Check the ice level of the compositors to see if the samples

ice is at least to the s houlder of the 20 L carboy.

Samplers used clean hands/dirty hands techniques.

Designated “clean hands” (only handles inner bags). Designated “dirty hands” (only handles outer bags). All samplers wore tyvek® coveralls (or equivalent). All samplers wore gloves.

Samplers got the “clean” original car boy cap ready to place on the carboy prior to removing the tubing and vented cap. The transition from the vented cap to the closed cap was done as quickly as possible to minimize contamination.

Clean hands closed the inner bag ar ound the 20 L carboy and clean hands or dirty hands closed the outer bag.

The field blank and sample 20 L carboys were transported to the pump-off location

in the trash cans.Effluent/Midpoint Composite Pump Off – Sampling Checklist

Plant Name: Sampling Point Description:

Set Number:

Date of Audit:

Auditor:

Plant must pump off the effluent/midpoint co mposite samples after the 24-hour collection period. Complete the following checklist for midpoint/effluent pump off. Use the space below each check to record notes on pump-off procedures.

Samplers used clean hands/dirty hands techniques.

Designated “clean hands” (only handles inner bags). Designated “dirty hands” (only handles outer bags). All samplers wore tyvek® coveralls (or equivalent). All samplers wore gloves.

Samplers covered all supporting tables.

All equipment used was previously cleaned and double bagged according to EPA

instructions.

Dirty hands set up clean box and pump off tubing for clean hands (e.g., removed outer bags).

Dirty hands shook 20 L field blank carboy to mix volume prior to pump off and removed outer bag.

Clean hands removed clean pump off tubing from inner bag inside the clean box and covered ends for protection (i.e., used Ziploc baggies to avoid “clean” tubing ends from becoming “dirty”).

Clean hands untied the inner bag of the 20 L field blank carboy.

Samplers got the pump-off cap ready to place on the carboy prior to removing the closed cap. The transition from the cl osed cap to the pump-off cap was done as quickly as possible to minimize contamination.Clean hands inserted the clean, Teflon end of the pump off tubing into the 20 L field blank carboy.

Dirty hands set up the ISCO for pump off.

Samplers were able to remove ISCO pump cover and “lay” sample tubing into the pump versus threadi ng tubing through the ISCO.

If samplers threaded tubing thr ough the ISCO, were the ends covered the entire time? What precautions were taken to keep the tubing “clean”?

Samplers recorded the volume of the 20 L field blank carboy and purged 1-2 L prior to sample collection.

Clean hands filled metals field blank bottles in the clean box using appropriate clean hands/dirty hands techniques (i.e., dirty ha nds only handles outer bag, clean hands only handles inner bag, clean ha nds opens/closes bottles a nd inner bags inside clean box).

Dirty hands shook 20 L composite carboy to mix volume prior to pump off and removed outer bag.

Clean hands untied the inne r bag of the 20 L composite carboy.

Clean hands removed pump off cap, along with attached tubing, from the field blank carboy and transferred it to the co mposite carboy as quickly as possible to

minimize contamination.

Samplers recorded the volume of the 20 L composite carboy and purged 2 L prior to sample collection.

Clean hands handled the tubing insi de the clean box during sample collection.

If clean hands removed sample t ubing from the clean box (i.e., during purge or in between bottle changes), end of tubing was covered with plastic bag.Samplers used correct bottles for metals and classicals collection.

Metals – 500 mL plastic bottles.

Classicals – 1 L plastic bottles.

Metals bottles were double-bagged.

Bottle labels were on the outer bag, not on the inner bag, unless labeled prior in “clean” laboratory (not applicable for classicals).

Dirty hands opened the outer bag(s).

Clean hands opened the inner bag( s) and bottle(s) insi de the clean box.

Clean hands filled the bottle(s) with the sample.

Clean hands closed the inner bag(s) in the clean box and placed in the outer bag.

Dirty hands clos ed the outer bag(s).

All metals samples were collected in clean box (clean hands sampling does not apply to the classical samples).

Classical samples were preserved 15 minutes after collection (see Preservation Checklist for further notes).

Field test jar was collected and temper ature was measured within 5 minutes of grab to make sure samples were at ≤ 6 °C in the carboy.Effluent/Midpoint Mercury Grab – Sampling Checklist

Plant Name: Sampling Point Description:

Set Number:

Date of Audit:

Auditor:

Plant must collect 4 mercury grab sample s over a 24-hour period (1 sample, every 6 hours). Complete the following checklist for each grab sample taken by the plant in the designated 24-hour period. Use the space be low each check to record notes on the sampling procedure. NOTE: Reviewers are no t expected to observe all four mercury grabs; however, they should observe at l east two, or preferably three, grabs. Additionally, the reviewers should observe th e first grab to note the field blank

collection.

G1: ________ am / pm G2: ________ am / pm G3: ________ am / pm G4: ________ am / pm

G1 G2 G3 G4 Samplers collected sample from correct sample location/tap.

Samplers used clean hands/dirty hands techniques.

G1 G2 G3 G4 Designated “clean hands” (only handles inner bags). Designated “dirty hands” (only handles outer bags). All samplers wore tyvek® coveralls (or equivalent). All samplers wore gloves. All samplers wore dust masks.

Samplers shrouded the sample tap with a clean shroud (i.e., clear plastic bag).

NA NA NA Samplers collected the field bl anks under the shr oud using appropriate clean hands/dirty hands techniques (i .e., dirty hands only handles outer bag, clean hands only handles inne r bag, clean hands opens/closes bottles and inner bags inside shroud).G1 G2 G3 G4

NA NA NA Samplers used reagent grade bl ank water for field blank collection.

Samplers purged sample tap fo r 2 minutes prior to sample collection.

Samplers used correct bottles for mercury collection.

G1 G2 G3 G4

NA NA NA Total Hg V1 (Field Bl ank) – 250 mL glass bottle.

NA NA NA Total Hg V2 (Field Bl ank) – 250 mL glass bottle. Total Mercury Grab – 125 mL glass bottle.

Bottles were double-bagged.

Bottle labels were on the outer bag, not on the inner bag, unless labeled prior in “clean” laboratory.

Dirty hands opened the outer bag.

Clean hands opened the inne r bag and bottle underneath the shroud.

Clean hands filled the bottle with the sample.

Clean hands closed the inner bag and bottle underneath the shroud and placed it back in the outer bag.

Dirty hands closed the outer bag.

Field test jar was collected and pH/temp was me asured within 5 minutes of grab collection.

Clean hands collected CN sample.

CN sample was preserved 15 minut es after collection (see Preservation Checklist for further notes).Influent Grab – Sampling Checklist

Plant Name: Sampling Point Description:

Set Number:

Date of Audit:

Auditor:

Plant must collect a grab sample from the FGD Wastewater Treatment influent. Complete the following checklist for the influent gr ab collection. Use the space below each check to record notes on sampling procedures.

There are two different versions for the infl uent checklist: one for collection using tubing along with a clean box and one for collection directly from the sample tap under a shroud. If split samples are being collected, the samplers should be using the tubing set and clean box. Otherwise, the samplers will probably collect dire ctly from the tap.

Sample Tap/Shroud Collection Checklist:

Samplers set up at correct sample location/tap.

Samplers used clean hands/dirty hands techniques.

Designated “clean hands” (only handles inner bags). Designated “dirty hands” (only handles outer bags). All samplers wore tyvek® coveralls (or equivalent). All samplers wore gloves. All samplers wore dust masks until mercury samples complete.

Samplers covered all supporting tables.

All equipment used was previously cleaned and double bagged according to EPA

instructions.

Samplers shrouded the sample tap w ith a clean shroud (i.e ., clear plastic bag).Samplers collected the field bla nks under the shroud using appropriate clean hands/dirty hands techniques (i.e., dirty ha nds only handles outer bag, clean hands only handles inner bag, clean hands opens/ closes bottles and inner bags inside shroud).

Samplers used reagent grade blank water for mercury and metals field blank

collection.

Dirty hands turned sample tap on and purged the line for 10 minutes prior to sample collection (Note: If influent purge does not last long, purge at least 2 minutes).

Influent flow was continuous for entire influent grab sample.

Bottles were double-bagged.

Bottle labels were on the outer bag, not on the inner bag, unless labeled prior in “clean” laboratory (not applicable for classicals).

Dirty hands opened the outer bag(s).

Clean hands opened the inner bag( s) and bottle(s) undern eath the shroud.

Clean hands filled the bottle(s) with the sample.

Clean hands closed the bottle(s) and inner bag(s) underneath the shroud and placed it back in the outer bag.

Dirty hands clos ed the outer bag(s).

All mercury and metal samples were co llected in clean box (clean hands sampling does not apply to the classical samples).

Samplers used correct bottles fo r mercury, metals, classicals, and cyanide

collection.Mercury (including field blanks) – 250 mL glass bottles. Metals – 500 mL plastic bottles.

Classicals – 1 L plastic bottles. Cyanide – 1 L plastic bottle.

Classical samples were preserved 15 minutes after collection (see Preservation Checklist for further notes).

CN sample was preserved 15 minute s after collection (see Preservation Checklist for further notes).

Field test jar was collected and pH/t emp was measured within 5 minutes of grab.Influent Grab – Sampling Checklist

Plant Name: Sampling Point Description:

Set Number:

Date of Audit:

Auditor:

Plant must collect a grab sample from the FGD Wastewater Treatment influent. Complete the following checklist for the influent gr ab collection. Use the space below each check to record notes on sampling procedures.

There are two different versions for the infl uent checklist: one for collection using tubing along with a clean box and one for collection directly from the sample tap under a shroud. If split samples are being collected, the samplers should be using the tubing set and clean box. Otherwise, the samplers will probably collect dire ctly from the tap.

Sample Tubing/Clean Box Collection Checklist:

Samplers set up at correct sample location/tap.

Samplers used clean hands/dirty hands techniques.

Designated “clean hands” (only handles inner bags). Designated “dirty hands” (only handles outer bags). All samplers wore tyvek® coveralls (or equivalent). All samplers wore gloves. All samplers wore dust masks until mercury samples complete.

Samplers covered all supporting tables.

All equipment used was previously cleaned and double bagged according to EPA

instructions.

Dirty hands set up clean box and sample tubing for clean hands (e.g., removed outer bags).

Clean hands removed clean sample tubi ng from inner bag in clean box and covered ends for protection (i.e., us ed Ziploc baggies to avoi d “clean” tubing ends from becoming “dirty”).Clean hands connected the “clean” sa mple tubing and the “clean”, double bagged funnel using the inner bag as a shroud.

Clean hands poured reagent grade bla nk water through the funne l (covered with the clean shroud) to fill mercury and metals field blanks.

Clean hands filled field blank bottles in the clean box using appropriate clean hands/dirty hands technique (i.e., dirty hands only handles outer bag, clean hands only handles inner bag, clean ha nds opens/closes bottles a nd inner bags inside clean box).

Dirty hands attached tubing to the sample tap and used zip-tie to secure.

Dirty hands turned sample tap on and purged the line for 10 minutes prior to sample collection (Note: If influent purge does not last long, purge at least 2 minutes).

Influent flow was continuous for entire influent grab sample.

Clean hands handled the tubing in side the clean box during grab samples.

If clean hands removed sample tap from clean box (i.e., during purge or in between bottle changes), end of tubi ng was covered with plastic bag.

All mercury and metal samples were co llected in clean box (clean hands sampling does not apply to the classical samples).

Samplers used correct bottles fo r mercury, metals, classicals, and cyanide

collection.

Mercury (including field blanks) – 250 mL glass bottles. Metals – 500 mL plastic bottles.

Classicals – 1 L plastic bottles. Cyanide – 1 L plastic bottle.Bottles were double-bagged.

Bottle labels were on the outer bag, not on the inner bag, unless labeled prior in “clean” laboratory (not applicable for classicals).

Dirty hands opened the outer bag(s).

Clean hands opened the inner bag(s) and bottle(s) in the clean box.

Clean hands filled the bottle(s) with the sample.

Clean hands closed the inner bag(s) in the clean box and placed it back in the outer bag.

Dirty hands clos ed the outer bag(s).

Classical samples were preserved 15 minutes after collection (see Preservation Checklist for further notes).

CN sample was preserved 15 minute s after collection (see Preservation Checklist for further notes).

Field test jar was collected and pH/t emp was measured within 5 minutes of grab.Preservation Checklist

Plant Name: Sampling Point Description:

Set Number:

Date of Audit:

Auditor:

Plant must preserve all classicals and cyan ide samples according to the instructions provided by EPA in Table 2 of Enclosure 1 of the 308 Monitoring Letter received by the plant. Use the following table to mark the sa mple collection time, preservation time, and any notes regarding the preservation for th e effluent, midpoint, and influent samples.

Parameter On-site Preservation Sample

Collection

Time Preservation

Time Notes

BOD 5 ≤ 6°C

Group I ≤ 6°C

Group II H 2 SO 4 to pH <2, ≤ 6°C

Total Cyanide Dilution until sulfide is not detected, NaAsO 2 until total chlorine is not present, NaOH to pH >10, ≤ 6°C