Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report"

Elvin Dixon
5 years ago
Views:

1 nnual Monitoring Report ppalachian Power Company John E. mos Plant Landfill CCR Management Unit Winfield, West Virginia January 218 Prepared by: merican Electric Power Service Corporation 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, Ohio 43215

2 Table of Contents Page I. Overview... 1 II. Monitoring Well Locations and Identification Numbers... 3 III. Monitoring Wells Installed or Decommissioned... 4 IV. Quality Data and Static Water Elevation Data, With Flow Rate and Direction... 4 V. Discussion bout Transition Between Monitoring Requirements or lternate Monitoring Frequency... 4 VI. Other Information Required... 4 VII. Description of ny Problems Encountered in 217 and ctions Taken... 5 VIII. Projection of Key ctivities for the Upcoming Year... 5 ppendix I ppendix II i

3 I. Overview This nnual Monitoring Report (Report) has been prepared to report the status of activities for the preceding year for an existing Landfill CCR unit at ppalachian Power Company s, a wholly-owned subsidiary of merican Electric Power Company (EP), John E. mos Power Plant. The USEP s CCR rules require that the nnual Monitoring and Corrective ction Report be posted to the operating record for the preceding year no later than January 31, 218. In general, the following activities were completed: Monitoring wells that were previously installed and developed were certified as the groundwater monitoring system around the CCR unit, in accordance with the requirements of 4 CFR pursuant to EP s Monitoring Network Evaluation Report (March 217); samples were collected and analyzed for ppendix III and ppendix IV constituents, as specified in 4 CFR et seq. and EP s Sampling and nalysis Plan (July 216); data underwent various validation tests, including tests for completeness, valid values, transcription errors, and consistent units; Background data for each ppendix III and ppendix IV constituent were established; Detection Monitoring sampling was initiated; and EP s Statistical nalysis Plan (pril 217) was prepared, certified, and posted to EP s CCR website in pril 217. The Statistical nalysis Plan (pril 217) is a statistical process in accordance with 4 CFR to evaluate groundwater data. The statistical process was guided by USEP s Statistical nalysis of Monitoring Data at RCR Facilities, Unified Guidance ( Unified Guidance, USEP, 29). Data evaluation is under way. The major components of this annual report as specified in 4 CFR 257.9, to the extent applicable at this time, are presented in sections that follow: figure showing the CCR management unit(s), all groundwater monitoring wells and monitoring well identification numbers; Identification of any monitoring wells that were installed or decommissioned during the preceding year, along with a statement as to why that happened; ll of the monitoring data collected, including the rate and direction of groundwater flow, plus a summary showing the number of samples collected per monitoring well, the dates the samples were collected and whether the sample was collected as part of detection monitoring or assessment monitoring programs (ttached as ppendix I); 1

4 summary of any transition between monitoring programs or an alternate monitoring frequency, for example the date and circumstances for transitioning from detection monitoring to assessment monitoring, in addition to identifying the constituents detected at a statistically significant increase over background concentrations (ttached as ppendix II, where applicable); and Other information required to be included in the annual report such as alternate source demonstration or assessment of corrective measures, if applicable. In addition, this report summarizes key actions completed, and where applicable, describes any problems encountered and actions taken to resolve those problems. The report includes a projection of key activities for the upcoming year. 2

5 II. Monitoring Well Locations and Identification Numbers The figure that follows depicts the PE-certified groundwater monitoring network, the monitoring well locations, and their corresponding identification numbers. The groundwater quality monitoring network includes five upgradient wells (MW-6, MW-7R, MW-8, MW-9, and MW- 1) and four downgradient wells (MW-1, MW-2, MW-4, and MW-5). The monitoring well distribution adequately covers downgradient and upgradient areas as detailed in the Monitoring Network Evaluation Report that was placed in the merican Electric Power CCR public internet site on March 9,

6 MW-1 ³ MW-9 MW-5 MW-4 MW-8 MW-6 MW-7R MW-1 MW-2 Legend Upgradient Sampling Location Downgradient Sampling Location FGD Landfill Notes - Monitoring well coordinates provided by EP Site Layout FGD Landfill 7 Feet EP mos Generating Plant Winfield, West Virginia Figure Columbus, Ohio P:\Projects\EP\ Statistical Evaluation - CH8423\ Mapping\GIS Files\MXD\mos\EP-mos_Landfill_Site_Layout.mxd. CGregory. 1/26/218. CH8423/4/8. 218/1/26 1

7 III. Monitoring Wells Installed or Decommissioned There were no monitoring wells installed or decommissioned in 217. The network design, as summarized in the Monitoring Network Evaluation Report (March 217) and as posted at the CCR web site for John E. mos Plant, did not change. That design report, viewable on the EP CCR web site, discusses the facility location, the hydrogeological setting, the hydrostratigraphic units, the uppermost aquifer, and the design of the groundwater monitoring well network including down gradient and up gradient monitoring well locations. IV. Quality Data and Static Water Elevation Data, With Flow Rate and Direction ppendix I contains tables showing the groundwater quality data collected during the establishment of background quality and the first detection monitoring event. Static water elevation data from each monitoring event also are shown in ppendix I, along with the groundwater velocity determinations, groundwater flow direction and potentiometric maps developed after each sampling event. V. Discussion bout Transition Between Monitoring Requirements or lternate Monitoring Frequency s of this first annual groundwater report date there has been no transition between detection monitoring and assessment monitoring. Detection monitoring will continue in 218. The sampling frequency of twice per year will be maintained for the ppendix III parameters (boron, calcium, chloride, fluoride, ph, sulfate and total dissolved solids). Regarding defining an alternate monitoring frequency, the groundwater velocity and monitoring well production is high enough at this facility that no modification of the twice-per-year detection monitoring effort is needed. VI. Other Information Required t the appropriate time, the geochemical analyses coupled with the statistical analyses of the groundwater quality data will determine whether an alternate source or alternate sources are affecting groundwater chemistry. In those cases where an alternative source(s) demonstration is made, those analyses and supporting information will be presented as well. 4

8 VII. VIII. Description of ny Problems Encountered in 217 and ctions Taken No significant problems were encountered. The low-flow sampling effort went smoothly and the schedule was met to support this first annual groundwater report preparation. Projection of Key ctivities for the Upcoming Year Key activities for 218 include: Detection monitoring on a twice per year schedule; Evaluation of the first detection monitoring results from a statistical analysis viewpoint, looking for any statistically significant increases, or decreases when ph is considered; Responding to any new data received in light of what the CCR rule requires; and Preparation of the second annual groundwater report. 5

9 PPENDIX I ppendix I contains Table 1 displaying a summary of the groundwater monitoring data collected, Table 2 displaying the velocity of groundwater flow, and Figures 1-9 depicting the direction of groundwater flow as potentiometric surface map. The dates that the samples were collected also is shown. Since this is the first annual groundwater report, which summarizes only the 217 activities, there is no need to state whether each sample was collected as part of a detection monitoring or an assessment monitoring program. 6

10 PPENDIX I.1 Table 1 nalysis Results Summary

11 Table 1: Data Summary mos Plant - Landfill LF-MW-1 LF-MW-2 Parameter Unit 8/23/216 1/18/216 11/9/216 12/13/216 2/9/217 3/16/217 5/23/217 6/21/217 11/1/217 8/23/216 1/17/216 11/8/216 12/13/216 2/8/217 3/14/217 5/23/217 6/21/217 11/1/217 Background Detection Background Detection ntimony µg/l.4 J.4 J.4 J.5 J.3 J J.1 J.1 J.1 J <.1 U.2 J.3 J.3 J - rsenic µg/l Barium µg/l Beryllium µg/l J.9 J Boron mg/l Cadmium µg/l.2 J J.2 J J <.4 U <.4 U.5 J.2.9 J.1 J - Calcium mg/l Chloride mg/l Chromium µg/l Cobalt µg/l Combined Radium pci/l Fluoride mg/l.9 J J Lead µg/l Lithium mg/l Mercury µg/l <.2 U.2 J <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U.3 J <.2 U <.2 U - <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U.2 J <.2 U.3 J - Molybdenum µg/l.4 J.8 J Selenium µg/l J.9 J.5 J.5 J J - Total Dissolved Solids mg/l Sulfate mg/l Thallium µg/l.1 J.5 J.88.2 J.2 J.2 J.1 J.2 J -.3 J.67 <.1 U <.1 U.2 J.2 J <.1 U.3 J - ph SU Notes: µg/l: micrograms per liter mg/l: milligrams per liter pci/l: picocuries per liter SU: standard unit U: Non-detect value. Parameters which were not detected are shown as less than the method detection limit (MDL). J: Estimated value. Parameter was detected in concentrations below the reporting limit. -: Not sampled For statistical analysis, parameters which were not detected were replaced with the reporting limit. Page 1 of 5

12 Table 1: Data Summary mos Plant - Landfill LF-MW-4 LF-MW-5 Parameter Unit 8/23/216 1/18/216 11/7/216 12/13/216 2/8/217 3/14/217 5/23/217 6/2/217 11/1/217 8/23/216 1/18/216 11/8/216 12/13/216 2/8/217 3/16/217 5/23/217 6/2/217 11/1/217 Background Detection Background Detection ntimony µg/l.1 J <.1 U <.1 U <.1 U <.1 U <.1 U.2 J.2 J -.4 J.4 J.4 J.4 J.2 J J - rsenic µg/l Barium µg/l Beryllium µg/l.2 <.5 U <.5 U <.5 U.6 J.5 J <.4 U.4 J -.2 J.2 J J.1 J - Boron mg/l Cadmium µg/l.11.6 J <.4 U <.4 U <.4 U.5 J <.5 U.5 J J Calcium mg/l Chloride mg/l Chromium µg/l Cobalt µg/l J Combined Radium pci/l Fluoride mg/l Lead µg/l J.9 J J Lithium mg/l <.2 U <.2 U - Mercury µg/l <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U - <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U.8 <.2 U <.2 U - Molybdenum µg/l J - Selenium µg/l.9 J <.3 U <.3 U <.3 U <.3 U <.3 U <.3 U.5 J J.9 J - Total Dissolved Solids mg/l Sulfate mg/l Thallium µg/l <.1 U.3 J <.1 U.2 J.3 J <.1 U <.1 U <.1 U -.1 J.3 J.1 J.7.2 J.4 J <.1 U <.1 U - ph SU Notes: µg/l: micrograms per liter mg/l: milligrams per liter pci/l: picocuries per liter SU: standard unit U: Non-detect value. Parameters which were not detected are shown as less than the method detection limit (MDL). J: Estimated value. Parameter was detected in concentrations below the reporting limit. -: Not sampled For statistical analysis, parameters which were not detected were replaced with the reporting limit. Page 2 of 5

13 Table 1: Data Summary mos Plant - Landfill LF-MW-6 LF-MW-7R Parameter Unit 8/24/216 1/19/216 11/7/216 12/12/216 2/7/217 3/16/217 5/22/217 6/19/217 11/2/217 8/24/216 1/18/216 11/8/216 12/14/216 2/9/217 3/14/217 5/24/217 6/21/217 11/2/217 Background Detection Background Detection ntimony µg/l.4 J.2 J.1 J.1 J <.1 U.3 J.4 J.3 J rsenic µg/l Barium µg/l Beryllium µg/l J.6 J.2 J <.5 U.2 J.1 J J.1 J.1 J.6 J - Boron mg/l Cadmium µg/l.3.5 J <.4 U.1 J <.4 U.5 J.9 J <.5 U J.2.1 J.1 J.1 J.1 J.6 J - Calcium mg/l Chloride mg/l Chromium µg/l Cobalt µg/l Combined Radium pci/l Fluoride mg/l Lead µg/l Lithium mg/l Mercury µg/l <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U.3 J <.2 U <.2 U -.4 J.2 J <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U - Molybdenum µg/l Selenium µg/l.9 J.9 J <.3 U.4 J.5 J.3 J.4 J.4 J J Total Dissolved Solids mg/l Sulfate mg/l Thallium µg/l J <.1 U.3 J.1 J <.1 U.1 J <.1 U J.1 J.2 J.2 J.2 J.1 J.1 J - ph SU Notes: µg/l: micrograms per liter mg/l: milligrams per liter pci/l: picocuries per liter SU: standard unit U: Non-detect value. Parameters which were not detected are shown as less than the method detection limit (MDL). J: Estimated value. Parameter was detected in concentrations below the reporting limit. -: Not sampled For statistical analysis, parameters which were not detected were replaced with the reporting limit. Page 3 of 5

14 Table 1: Data Summary mos Plant - Landfill LF-MW-8 LF-MW-9 Parameter Unit 8/24/216 1/19/216 11/9/216 12/14/216 2/8/217 3/15/217 5/24/217 6/2/217 11/2/217 8/24/216 1/19/216 11/9/216 12/13/216 2/8/217 3/15/217 5/23/217 6/2/217 11/2/217 Background Detection Background Detection ntimony µg/l.4 J.3 J.2 J.3 J.3 J.5 J.7.3 J J.5 J.4 J.2 J.4 J.7.5 J - rsenic µg/l Barium µg/l Beryllium µg/l.21.1 J.8 J.8 J.1 J.69.2 J.2 J <.5 U <.5 U <.5 U.74 <.4 U <.4 U - Boron mg/l Cadmium µg/l.4.4 <.4 U.8 J.7 J.2 J.9 J.7 J J.2 J J.3 - Calcium mg/l Chloride mg/l Chromium µg/l Cobalt µg/l Combined Radium pci/l Fluoride mg/l Lead µg/l Lithium mg/l Mercury µg/l <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U.3 J <.2 U <.2 U - <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U <.2 U.2 J <.2 U <.2 U - Molybdenum µg/l.4.7 J.8 J J Selenium µg/l J - Total Dissolved Solids mg/l Sulfate mg/l Thallium µg/l.3 J.2 J.2 J.2 J J.1 J.2 J -.3 J.3 J.3 J <.1 U.2 J.4 J.2 J.2 J - ph SU Notes: µg/l: micrograms per liter mg/l: milligrams per liter pci/l: picocuries per liter SU: standard unit U: Non-detect value. Parameters which were not detected are shown as less than the method detection limit (MDL). J: Estimated value. Parameter was detected in concentrations below the reporting limit. -: Not sampled For statistical analysis, parameters which were not detected were replaced with the reporting limit. Page 4 of 5

15 Table 1: Data Summary mos Plant - Landfill LF-MW-1 Parameter Unit 8/24/216 1/19/216 11/9/216 12/13/216 2/8/217 3/14/217 5/24/217 6/2/217 11/2/217 Background Detection ntimony µg/l rsenic µg/l Barium µg/l Beryllium µg/l.58.2 J Boron mg/l Cadmium µg/l.26.1 J J.2 J.1 J - Calcium mg/l Chloride mg/l Chromium µg/l Cobalt µg/l Combined Radium pci/l Fluoride mg/l Lead µg/l Lithium mg/l Mercury µg/l.3 J <.2 U.4 J <.2 U.3 J.3 J <.2 U <.2 U - Molybdenum µg/l Selenium µg/l Total Dissolved Solids mg/l Sulfate mg/l Thallium µg/l.1 J..57 <.1 U.71.2 J.1 J.1 J - ph SU Notes: µg/l: micrograms per liter mg/l: milligrams per liter pci/l: picocuries per liter SU: standard unit U: Non-detect value. Parameters which were not detected are shown as less than the method detection limit (MDL). J: Estimated value. Parameter was detected in concentrations below the reporting limit. -: Not sampled For statistical analysis, parameters which were not detected were replaced with the reporting limit. Page 5 of 5

16 PPENDIX I.2 Table 2 Velocity and Residence Time Determination

17 Table 2: Residence Time Calculation Summary - Landfill mos Landfill Geosyntec Consultants, Inc CCR Management Unit Monitoring Well Well Diameter (inches) Velocity (ft/year) Residence Time (days) Velocity (ft/year) Residence Time (days) Velocity (ft/year) Residence Time (days) Velocity (ft/year) Residence Time (days) Landfill MW-1 [2] MW-2 [2] MW-4 [2] MW-5 [2] MW-6 [1] MW-7R [1][3] MW-8 [1] MW-9 [1] MW-1 [1] CCR Management Unit Landfill Monitoring Well Well Diameter (inches) Velocity (ft/year) Residence Time (days) Velocity (ft/year) Residence Time (days) Velocity (ft/year) Residence Time (days) Velocity (ft/year) Residence Time (days) Velocity (ft/year) MW-1 [2] MW-2 [2] MW-4 [2] MW-5 [2] MW-6 [1] MW-7R [1][3] MW-8 [1] Residence Time (days) MW-9 [1] MW-1 [1] Notes: [1] - Background Well [2] - Downgradient Well [3] - Survey data and boring log not available, coordinates estimated based on EP DWG. No E, well diameter estimated from surrounding wells

18 PPENDIX I.3 Potentiometric Figures

19 MW ³ MW MW MW MW MW MW MW Legend Monitoring Well Piezometer Flow Direction Elevation Contour 7 74 MW-7R Notes - Monitoring well coordinates and water level data (collected on ugust 22, 216) provided by EP. - Potentiometric surface contour interval is 4 feet. - Topography and drainage system basemap from EP Drawing No (topographic contour interval: 1 feet). - elevation units are feet above mean sea level Feet Potentiometric Surface Map - Uppermost quifer ugust 216 EP mos Generating Plant Winfield, West Virginia Figure Columbus, Ohio P:\Projects\EP\ Statistical Evaluation - CH8423\ Mapping\GIS Files\MXD\mos\EP-mos_Landfill_GW_216-8_ug_21712.mxd. CGregory. 12/29/217. CH8423/4/8. 217/12/29 1

20 MW MW MW MW MW Monitoring Well Piezometer Flow Direction Elevation Contour MW Legend ³ MW MW MW-7R Notes - Monitoring well coordinates and water level data (collected on October 17, 216) provided by EP. - Potentiometric surface contour interval is 4 feet. - Topography and drainage system basemap from EP Drawing No (topographic contour interval: 1 feet). - elevation units are feet above mean sea level Feet Potentiometric Surface Map - Uppermost quifer October 216 EP mos Generating Plant Winfield, West Virginia Figure Columbus, Ohio P:\Projects\EP\ Statistical Evaluation - CH8423\ Mapping\GIS Files\MXD\mos\EP-mos_Landfill_GW_216-1.mxd. CGregory. 12/29/217. CH8423/4/8. 217/12/29 2

21 MW ³ MW MW MW MW MW MW MW Legend Monitoring Well Piezometer Flow Direction Elevation Contour 7 78 MW-7R Notes - Monitoring well coordinates and water level data (collected on November 7, 216) provided by EP. - Potentiometric surface contour interval is 4 feet. - Topography and drainage system basemap from EP Drawing No (topographic contour interval: 1 feet). - elevation units are feet above mean sea level Feet Potentiometric Surface Map - Uppermost quifer November 216 EP mos Generating Plant Winfield, West Virginia Figure Columbus, Ohio P:\Projects\EP\ Statistical Evaluation - CH8423\ Mapping\GIS Files\MXD\mos\EP-mos_Landfill_GW_ mxd. CGregory. 12/29/217. CH8423/4/8. 217/12/29 3

22 MW ³ MW MW MW MW MW-6 1. MW MW Legend Monitoring Well Piezometer Flow Direction Elevation Contour MW-7R Notes - Monitoring well coordinates and water level data (collected on December 12, 216) provided by EP. - Potentiometric surface contour interval is 4 feet. - Topography and drainage system basemap from EP Drawing No (topographic contour interval: 1 feet). - elevation units are feet above mean sea level Feet Potentiometric Surface Map - Uppermost quifer December 216 EP mos Generating Plant Winfield, West Virginia Figure Columbus, Ohio P:\Projects\EP\ Statistical Evaluation - CH8423\ Mapping\GIS Files\MXD\mos\EP-mos_Landfill_GW_ mxd. CGregory. 12/29/217. CH8423/4/8. 217/12/29 4

23 MW ³ MW MW MW MW MW Legend Monitoring Well Piezometer Flow Direction Elevation Contour MW MW MW-7R Notes - Monitoring well coordinates and water level data (collected on February 7, 217) provided by EP. - Potentiometric surface contour interval is 4 feet. - Topography and drainage system basemap from EP Drawing No (topographic contour interval: 1 feet). - elevation units are feet above mean sea level Feet Potentiometric Surface Map - Uppermost quifer February 217 EP mos Generating Plant Winfield, West Virginia Figure Columbus, Ohio P:\Projects\EP\ Statistical Evaluation - CH8423\ Mapping\GIS Files\MXD\mos\EP-mos_Landfill_GW_217-2.mxd. CGregory. 12/29/217. CH8423/4/8. 217/12/29 5

24 MW ³ MW MW MW MW MW MW MW Legend Monitoring Well Piezometer Flow Direction Elevation Contour 7 MW-7R Notes - Monitoring well coordinates and water level data (collected on March 13, 217) provided by EP. - Potentiometric surface contour interval is 4 feet. - Topography and drainage system basemap from EP Drawing No (topographic contour interval: 1 feet). - elevation units are feet above mean sea level Feet Potentiometric Surface Map - Uppermost quifer March 217 EP mos Generating Plant Winfield, West Virginia Figure Columbus, Ohio P:\Projects\EP\ Statistical Evaluation - CH8423\ Mapping\GIS Files\MXD\mos\EP-mos_Landfill_GW_217-3.mxd. CGregory. 12/29/217. CH8423/4/8. 217/12/29 6

25 MW ³ MW MW MW MW MW MW Legend Monitoring Well Piezometer Flow Direction Elevation Contour MW-7R MW Notes - Monitoring well coordinates and water level data (collected on May 22, 217) provided by EP. - Potentiometric surface contour interval is 4 feet. - Topography and drainage system basemap from EP Drawing No (topographic contour interval: 1 feet). - elevation units are feet above mean sea level Feet Potentiometric Surface Map - Uppermost quifer May 217 EP mos Generating Plant Winfield, West Virginia Figure Columbus, Ohio P:\Projects\EP\ Statistical Evaluation - CH8423\ Mapping\GIS Files\MXD\mos\EP-mos_Landfill_GW_217-5.mxd. CGregory. 12/29/217. CH8423/4/8. 217/12/29 7

26 MW ³ MW MW MW MW MW MW MW Legend Monitoring Well Piezometer Flow Direction Elevation Contour MW-7R Notes - Monitoring well coordinates and water level data (collected on June 19, 217) provided by EP. - Potentiometric surface contour interval is 4 feet. - Topography and drainage system basemap from EP Drawing No (topographic contour interval: 1 feet). - elevation units are feet above mean sea level Feet Potentiometric Surface Map - Uppermost quifer June 217 EP mos Generating Plant Winfield, West Virginia Figure Columbus, Ohio P:\Projects\EP\ Statistical Evaluation - CH8423\ Mapping\GIS Files\MXD\mos\EP-mos_Landfill_GW_217-6.mxd. CGregory. 12/29/217. CH8423/4/8. 217/12/29 8

27 MW MW MW MW ³ MW MW MW Legend Monitoring Well Piezometer Flow Direction Elevation Contour MW MW-7R Notes - Monitoring well coordinates and water level data (collected on November 1, 217) provided by EP. - Potentiometric surface contour interval is 4 feet. - Topography and drainage system basemap from EP Drawing No (topographic contour interval: 1 feet). - elevation units are feet above mean sea level Feet Potentiometric Surface Map - Uppermost quifer November 217 EP mos Generating Plant Winfield, West Virginia Figure Columbus, Ohio P:\Projects\EP\ Statistical Evaluation - CH8423\ Mapping\GIS Files\MXD\mos\EP-mos_Landfill_GW_ mxd. CGregory. 1/29/218. CH8423/4/8. 218/1/29 9

28 PPENDIX II Not pplicable. 7

Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report nnual Monitoring Report Cardinal Operating Company Cardinal Plant Bottom sh Brilliant, OH January 218 Prepared by: merican Electric Power Service Corporation 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, Ohio 43215 Table