The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDRC-2012-002047 - 0901a068803141f2DRC-2C12-002047 October 10,2012 SENT VIA PDF AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Mr. Rusty Lundberg Division of Radiaticm Control Utah Department of Enviionmental Quality 195 North 1950 West P.O. Box 144850 Sah Lake City, UT 84114-4820 Re; Tnmsmittii] of Source Assessment Report for Dual Exceedances of Groundwater Compliance Limits (**GWCL»s'0, White Mesa Mill Utah Ground Water Quality Dischai^e Permit UGW370004 Stipulated Consent Agreement C*SCA"), Docket No. UGW11-02 Dear Mr. Lundberg: Enclosed are two copies of Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.'s ("EFRI's") Source Assessment Report (the "Report") for constituents in groundwater monitonng wells at the White Mesa Mill which have exj^rienced two consecutive exceedances of their respective GWCLs, as required by the above-named Stipulated Consent Agreement, dated July 12,2012 This Report addresses: • All activities outlined in the EFRI June 13,2011 Plan and Tmie Schedule, • All activities outlined in the EFRI September 7,2011 Plan and Tune Schedule, and • One additional constituent (TDS in MW-31) not identified m either of the above Plans and Tune Schedules. This transmittal also includes two CDs each containing a word searchable electronic copy in pdf format of the report. If you should have any questions regarding this report please contact me. Yours very truly, . ^ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) iNa Jo Ann Tischler Director, Compliance Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc Lakewood, CO 80228 225 Union Boulevard, Suite 600 Phone 303-974-2140 cc* David C Frydenlund Harold R. Roberts David E Turk K[atfaenneA Weinel Central Files DENISOl MINES SOU WH Blan Prepa Energ 225 U Lakew Prepa 6000 U Albuq Octo URCE ITE ME nding, U ared for: gy Fuels Re Union Boul wood, CO 8 ared by: Uptown Bo querque, N ober 10 ASSE ESA U Utah esources (U evard, Suit 80228 oulevard N ew Mexico 0, 2012 SSME URANIU USA) Inc. te 600 NE, Suite 2 o 87110 NT RE UM MIL 220 EPORT LL T Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah ES-i October 10, 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is an assessment of the sources, extent, and potential dispersion of the specific constituents which have exhibited two consecutive exceedances of their respective Groundwater Compliance Limits (“GWCLs”), and an evaluation of potential remedial action to restore and maintain groundwater quality to assure that Goundwater Discharge Permit (“GWDP”) limits will not be exceeded at the compliance monitoring point and that, to the extend applicable, discharge minimization technology and best available technology will be reestablished. Given the recent analyses in the Background Reports and other recent analyses and investigations at the site, Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (“EFRI”) believes that all of the consecutive exceedances addressed in this report, other than the exceedances in MW-27, MW- 30, and MW-31, are likely due to background influences, including a natural decreasing trend in pH across the site and other factors. Exceedances in MW-27, MW-30, and MW-31 are likely due to the proximity of these wells to the existing nitrate/chloride plume and not to any potential tailings seepage. Any potential increases in concentrations in these wells are already being addressed by the corrective action being implemented for the nitrate/chloride plume. MW-35 has also had some consecutive exceedances. However, MW-35 is a newly installed well for which background concentrations have not been established, and the interim GWCLs have been set at a fraction of the Groundwater Quality Standards (“GWQSs”). The Background Report for MW-35 will be submitted under separate cover after eight quarters of data are available for each constituent in that well. As the results of the geochemical and mass balance analysis will demonstrate, each exceedance can be attributed to natural background and site-wide influences (decreasing pH) or to impacts at the site that are already being addressed with corrective action. Therefore, revised GWCLs have been proposed in this report. EFRI maintains that GWCLs for constituents in wells with significantly increasing trends that are the result of background influences should be revised regularly, as is recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Unified Guidance (USEPA, 2009), to account for the trends and to minimize unwarranted out-of- compliance status in such wells. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah i October 10, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... i LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ ii LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. ii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................... iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Source Assessment Report Layout ......................................................................... 3 2.0 CONSTITUENTS AND WELLS SUBJECT TO THIS REPORT .............................. 5 3.0 CATEGORIES AND APPROACH FOR ANALYSIS .................................................. 7 3.1 Approach for Analysis ............................................................................................ 7 3.1.1 Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends .............. 8 3.1.2 Constituents in Pumping Wells ................................................................. 9 3.1.3 Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site ............................................................................................................. 9 3.1.4 Newly Installed Wells with Interim GWCLs .......................................... 11 3.1.5 Other Constituents and Wells .................................................................. 11 3.2 Approach for Setting Revised GWCLs ................................................................. 12 3.3 University of Utah Study ...................................................................................... 13 4.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS............................................................................................. 16 4.1 Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends .......................... 16 4.1.1 Manganese ............................................................................................... 16 4.1.2 Selenium .................................................................................................. 17 4.1.3 Thallium .................................................................................................. 19 4.1.4 Uranium ................................................................................................... 20 4.2 Constituents in Pumping Wells ............................................................................. 21 4.3 Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site ..... 22 4.3.1 Cadmium ................................................................................................. 22 4.3.2 Manganese ............................................................................................... 23 4.3.3 Selenium .................................................................................................. 24 4.3.4 Thallium .................................................................................................. 26 4.3.5 Uranium ................................................................................................... 27 4.4 Newly Installed Wells with Interim GWCLs........................................................ 30 4.5 Other Constituents and Wells ............................................................................... 31 4.5.1 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) ................................................................. 31 4.5.2 Sulfate ...................................................................................................... 34 4.5.3 Fluoride ................................................................................................... 36 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 37 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 40 Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah ii October 10, 2012 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Constituents and Wells Subject to This Source Assessment Report ..................... 5 Table 2 Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends ........................... 8 Table 3 Out-of-Compliance Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site ..................................................................................................... 10 Table 4 Other Constituents and Wells .............................................................................. 11 Table 5 Extreme Outliers Identified and Omitted from Geochemical Analysis ............... 29 Table 6 Exploratory Statistics Performed on Uranium in MW-5 ..................................... 29 Table 7 Sulfate Concentration Ranges in Monitor Wells near MW-32 ............................ 35 Table 8 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 37 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Location of White Mesa Mill Site Figure 2 Groundwater Monitoring Wells Showing Constituents with GWCL Exceedances Figure 3 Nitrate/Chloride Plume LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Exceedance Notice Table Appendix B Geochemical Analysis for Wells and Constituents with Consecutive Exceedances B-1 Geochemical Analysis Summary Table B-2 Comparison of Calculated and Measured TDS for Samples with Complete Major Ions B-3 Charge Balance Calculations for Wells with Exceedances B-4 Descriptive Statistics of Wells and Constituents with Exceedances B-5 Data Omitted from Statistical Analysis B-6 Box Plots for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances B-8 Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents B-9 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Appendix C Geochemical Analysis for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Consecutive Exceedances C-1 Indicator Parameter Analysis Summary Table C-2 Descriptive Statistics of Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances C-3 Data Omitted from Statistical Analysis C-4 Box Plots for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah iii October 10, 2012 C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Appendix D pH Analysis D-1 pH Analysis Summary Table D-2 Box Plots for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances D-3 Histograms for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances D-4 Linear Regressions for pH in all Wells with Exceedances D-5 Mann-Kendall Analysis for pH in Wells that are not Normally or Lognormally Distributed Appendix E Time Concentration Plots for Parameters with Consecutive Exceedances E-1 Linear Regression for All Constituents with Exceedances Compared to Linear Regressions from Background Reports E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Appendix F Flowsheet (Groundwater Data Preparation and Statistical Process Flow for Calculating Groundwater Protection Standards, White Mesa Mill Site (INTERA, 2007)) Appendix G Input and Output Files (Electronic Only) Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah iv October 10, 2012 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CFCs chlorofluorocarbons CIR Contaminant Investigation Report Director Director of the Division of Radiation Control DRC State of Utah Division of Radiation Control EFRI Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. GWCL Groundwater Compliance Limit GWDP State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit UGW370004 GWQS Groundwater Quality Standard mean + 2σ mean plus two sigma µg/L micrograms per liter mg/L milligrams per liter Mill White Mesa Uranium Mill Notice Notice of Violation and Compliance Order, Docket No.UGWll-02 Q/A quality assurance RL reporting limit SAR Source Assessment Report TDS Total Dissolved Solids UDEQ State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 1 October 10, 2012 1.0 INTRODUCTION Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (“EFRI”) (formerly named Denison Mines (USA) Corp.) operates the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the “Mill”), located near Blanding, Utah (Figure 1), under State of Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit UGW370004 (the “GWDP”). This is the Source Assessment Report (“SAR”) required under Part I.G.4 of the GWDP relating to violations of Part I.G.2 of the GWDP. Part I.G.2 of the GWDP provides that out-of-compliance status exists when the concentration of a constituent in two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeds a groundwater compliance limit (“GWCL”) in Table 2 of the GWDP. The GWDP was originally issued in March 2005, at which time GWCLs were set on an interim basis, based on fractions of State of Utah Ground Water Quality Standards (“GWQSs”) or the equivalent, without reference to natural background at the Mill site. The GWDP also required that EFRI prepare a background groundwater quality report to evaluate all historical data for the purposes of establishing background groundwater quality at the site and developing GWCLs under the GWDP. As required by then Part I.H.3 of the GWDP, EFRI submitted the following to the Director (the “Director”) of the Utah Division of Radiation Control (“DRC”) (the Director was formerly the Executive Secretary of the Utah Radiation Control Board and the Co-Executive Secretary of the Utah Water Quality Board):  A Revised Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells for Denison Mines (USA) Corp.’s Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, October 2007, prepared by INTERA, Inc. (the “Existing Wells Background Report”).  A Revised Addendum: Evaluation of Available Pre-Operational and Regional Background Data, Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells for Denison Mines (USA) Corp.’s Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, November 16, 2007, prepared by INTERA, Inc. (the “Regional Background Report”).  A Revised Addendum: Background Groundwater Quality Report: New Wells for Denison Mines (USA) Corp.’s Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, April 30, 2008, prepared by INTERA, Inc. (the “New Wells Background Report,” and together with the “Existing Wells Background Report” and the “Regional Background Report,” the “Background Reports”). Based on a review of the Background Reports and other information and analyses, the Director re-opened the GWDP and modified the GWCLs to be equal to the mean concentration plus two standard deviations or the equivalent. The modified GWCLs became effective on January 20, 2010. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 2 October 10, 2012 The Director issued a Notice of Violation and Compliance Order, Docket No.UGWll-02 (the “Notice”), dated May 9, 2011, based on the DRC findings from the review of the Mill’s first, second, and third quarter 2010 Groundwater Monitoring Reports. The Notice cited five violations of the GWDP, including a violation under the Utah Water Quality Act (UC 19-5-107) and Part I.C.1 of the GWDP, in that six contaminants have exceeded their respective GWCLs, as defined in Table 2 of the GWDP, for two consecutive sampling events. Section E.4 of the Notice ordered EFRI to prepare and submit, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the Notice, a written plan and time schedule for Director approval to fully comply with the requirements of Part I.G.4(c) of the GWDP, including, but not limited to: (i) Submittal of a written assessment of the source(s) of the six contaminants and multiple wells listed in Table 3 of the Notice, including: cadmium, manganese, selenium, thallium, uranium, and total dissolved solids (“TDS”). (ii) Submittal of a written evaluation of the extent and potential dispersion of said groundwater contamination. (iii) Submittal of a written evaluation of any and all potential remedial actions to restore and maintain groundwater quality at the facility, for the point-of-compliance wells and contaminants in question, to ensure that: 1) shallow groundwater quality at the facility will be restored, and 2) the contaminant concentrations in said point-of-compliance wells will be returned to and maintained in compliance with their respective GWCLs. On February 14, 2011, EFRI submitted a notice (the “4th Quarter 2010 Exceedance Notice”) to the Director under Part I.G.1(a) of the GWDP providing notice that the concentrations of specific constituents in the monitoring wells at the Mill exceeded their respective GWCLs for the fourth quarter of 2010 and indicating which of those constituents had two consecutive exceedances during that quarter. On May 13, 2011, EFRI submitted a notice (the “1st Quarter 2011 Exceedance Notice”) to the Director under Part I.G.1 (a) of the GWDP providing notice that the concentrations of specific constituents in the monitoring wells at the Mill exceeded their respective GWCLs for the first quarter of 2011 and indicating which of those constituents had two consecutive exceedances during that quarter. Some constituents had two consecutive exceedances during the first quarter of 2011 that had not already been properly identified as having had two consecutive exceedances in the first, second, or third quarters of 2010, as identified in the Notice, or in the fourth quarter of 2010, as identified in the 4th Quarter 2010 Exceedance Notice. In response to the Notice, EFRI submitted the Plan and Time Schedule Under Part I.G.4(d) for Violations of Part I.G.2 for Constituents in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Quarters of 2010 and First Quarter of 2011 dated June 13, 2011 (“Initial Plan and Schedule”). Although not subject to the Notice, the Initial Plan and Schedule also covered the constituents in violation of Part I.G.2 of the GWDP that were identified as being in violation in Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 3 October 10, 2012 the 4th Quarter 2010 Exceedance Notice and/or the 1st Quarter 2011 Exceedance Notice. On August 8, 2011, EFRI submitted a notice (the “2nd Quarter 2011 Exceedance Notice”) to the Director under Part I.G.1(a) of the GWDP providing notice that the concentrations of specific constituents in the monitoring wells at the Mill exceeded their respective GWCLs for the second quarter of 2011 and indicating which of those constituents had two consecutive exceedances during that quarter. On September 7, 2011, EFRI submitted the Plan and Time Schedule Under Part I.G.4(d) for Violations of Part I.G.2 for Constituents in the Second Quarter of 2011 dated September 7, 2011 (“Q2 2011 Plan and Schedule”). The Q2 2011 Plan and Schedule covered the constituents in violation of Part I.G.2 of the GWDP that were identified as being in violation in the Second Quarter 2011 Exceedance Notice. Subsequent to the February 14, 2011, May 13, 2011, and August 8, 2011 Exceedance Notices, EFRI submitted the following Exceedance Notices (the “Exceedance Notices”):  November 3, 2011 for Q3 2011  February 15, 2012 for Q4 2011  May 11, 2012 for Q1 2012  July 27, 2012 for Q2 2012 In the four subsequent Exceedance Notices listed above, only one additional well was identified as having consecutive exceedances of the respective GWCLs. The additional exceedance, TDS in MW-31, was identified in the First Quarter 2012 Exceedance Notice dated May 11, 2012. EFRI requested that no additional plan and time schedule be prepared and that this exceedance be addressed in conjunction with the sulfate exceedances as described in the June 13, 2011, Initial Plan and Time Schedule. DRC agreed with this request in correspondence dated August 1, 2012. This SAR covers the constituents in violation of Part I.G.2 of the GWDP that were identified as being in violation during all four quarters of 2010 and 2011 and the first and second quarters of 2012 pursuant to the foregoing Exceedance Notices. The constituents covered by this SAR are listed below in Table 1. 1.1 Source Assessment Report Layout An overview of Sections 2.0 through 6.0 and the appendices included with this Report is provided below. Constituents and wells subject to this Report are discussed in Section 2.0. A description of the approach used for analysis is provided in Section 3.0, and the results of analysis are presented in Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 4 October 10, 2012 Section 4.0. Conclusions and recommendations are reviewed in Section 5.0, and references are included in Section 6.0. The appendices are comprised of the analyses performed for this Report and are organized in the following manner: Appendix A contains a table showing exceedances. Appendix B contains the geochemical analysis performed on the constituents in wells with exceedances. Appendix C contains the indicator parameter analysis performed on wells with consecutive exceedances. Appendix D contains the pH analysis performed on wells that have exceedances of constituents that are sensitive to low pH. Appendix E contains data plots for all of the constituents with exceedances using all available data to date, compared to the data plots from the Background Reports, as well as current data plots of all indicator parameters and plots of indicator parameters from the Background Reports. Appendix F contains the Flowsheet developed based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“USEPA”) Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Unified Guidance (USEPA, 2009), and was approved by DRC prior to completion of the Background Reports. Appendix G is included on the compact disc that accompanies this Report and contains the electronic input and output files used for statistical analysis. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 5 October 10, 2012 2.0 CONSTITUENTS AND WELLS SUBJECT TO THIS REPORT The following consecutive exceedances have been identified in the Exceedance Notices as being out of compliance under Part I.G.2 of the GWDP in all four quarters of 2010 and 2011, and in the first and second quarters of 2012. These constituents and wells are also displayed on Figure 2 and listed in Appendix A. Table 1 Constituents and Wells Subject to This Source Assessment Report Constituents POC Well Cadmium MW-24 Manganese MW-11 MW-35* Selenium MW-12 MW-30 MW-3 MW-3A MW-35* Thallium MW-18 MW-24 MW-35* Uranium MW-26 MW-5 MW-25 MW-35* TDS MW-18 MW-27 MW-31 Sulfate MW-31 MW-3A Fluoride MW-3 Gross Alpha MW-35* * Background groundwater sampling and analysis is being completed, and EFRI will submit a background report for Director approval after at least eight quarters of data are available for each constituent in MW-35. It should be noted that the Notice and the Exceedance Notices identify a number of wells with consecutive exceedances of nitrate + nitrite and/or chloride, chloroform and dichloromethane, and pH (less than the respective GWCLs for pH in a number of wells). However, none of those constituents are included in this SAR for the reasons stated in the Notice. That is, chloroform and dichloromethane are associated with the existing chloroform plume at the Mill, as Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 6 October 10, 2012 contemplated in the August 23, 1999, DRC Notice of Violation and Groundwater Corrective Action Order. Nitrate + nitrite and chloride are associated with the nitrate/chloride plume, addressed by the Draft Corrective Action Plan, dated May 2012. With respect to pH, a separate Plan and Time Schedule submitted April 13, 2012, was accepted by DRC as specified in a Stipulated Consent Agreement dated July 12, 2012. PH will be addressed in a separate report submitted under separate cover as specified in the July 12, 2012, Stipulated Consent Agreement. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 7 October 10, 2012 3.0 CATEGORIES AND APPROACH FOR ANALYSIS The out-of-compliance constituents and wells can be grouped into five categories: 1. Constituents in wells with previously identified rising trends. 2. Constituents in pumping wells. 3. Constituents potentially impacted by decreasing trends in pH across the site. 4. Newly installed wells with interim GWCLs. 5. Other constituents and wells. 3.1 Approach for Analysis The first step in the analysis is to perform an assessment of the potential sources for each exceedance to determine whether the exceedance is due to background influences or Mill activities. If an exceedance is determined to be caused by background influences, then it is not necessary to perform any further evaluations on the extent and potential dispersion of the contamination or to perform an evaluation of potential remedial actions. Monitoring will continue, and where appropriate, revised GWCLs are proposed to reflect changes in background conditions at the site. The assessment for potential sources for each exceedance was accomplished by performing a geochemical analysis to evaluate the behavior of the constituents in the well in question to determine if there have been any changes in the behavior of indicator parameters, such as chloride, sulfate, fluoride, and uranium, since the date of the Background Reports that may suggest a change in the behavior of that well. As discussed in detail in Section 9.0 of the Existing Wells Background Report, chloride is the best indicator of potential tailings cell leakage, followed by fluoride, then sulfate (due to mobility and abundance in tailings). Uranium is probably the most mobile of trace (metal) elements and is the best indicator parameter for metals and radionuclides. Any potential seepage from tailings impoundments would be expected to exhibit rising concentrations of chloride and possibly fluoride, sulfate, and uranium. However, while uranium may be the most mobile of trace (metal) elements, it is typically retarded behind chloride and would likely not be expressed in groundwater until sometime after chloride concentrations had begun to rise. This is because uranium is a metal cation and behaves as other metals with respect to pH. It is important to note, however, that while a lack of a rising trend in chloride would indicate that there has been no impact from tailings, a rising trend in chloride could also be due to some natural influences (see Section 12.0 of the Existing Wells Background Report). Therefore, in situations where there is a Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 8 October 10, 2012 significant rising trend in chloride, other evaluations would need to be performed, such as a determination as to whether any other indicator parameters have demonstrated a significant rising trend and whether or not the concentrations and mass balance indicate a potential tailings cell leak. The geochemical analysis was supported by a statistical analysis that followed the process outlined in the Groundwater Data Preparation and Statistical Process Flow for Calculating Groundwater Protection Standards, White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah (Flowsheet) (INTERA, 2007), a copy of which is attached as Appendix F. The Flowsheet was designed based on USEPA’s Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Unified Guidance (USEPA, 2009), and was approved by DRC prior to completion of the Background Reports. If it was determined through the geochemical analysis of the indicator parameters that the behavior of a particular well has changed since the Background Reports, a mass balance analysis was performed to evaluate the observed concentrations of the constituent in light of the concentrations in Mill tailings and the presence or absence of any mounding at the location of the well in question. In any case where the well in question (any well that was determined to have changed behavior since the Background Reports) is distant from the Mill’s tailings cells, a hydrogeologic analysis was performed to determine the plausibility of impact from Mill tailings. If significant changes were identified that could not be attributed to background influences, then further analysis was proposed to identify the source, extent, and potential dispersion of the contamination, as well as to identify potential remedial actions. Additional analysis specific to each category is described below. 3.1.1 Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends The following out-of-compliance constituents were identified in the Background Reports as having statistically significant rising trends due to natural background influences: Table 2 Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends Constituent Well Reference Manganese MW-11 Table 16, Existing Wells Background Report Selenium MW-12 Table 16, Existing Wells Background Report MW-3 Table 16, Existing Wells Background Report Thallium MW-18 Table 16, Existing Wells Background Report Uranium MW-26 Table 16, Existing Wells Background Report Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 9 October 10, 2012 For constituents in wells with previously identified rising trends, the approach for analysis began as described in Section 3.1 above. If no significant changes were identified, that would suggest that the previous analysis conducted in the Background Reports for the constituents in question has not changed. Revised GWCLs, using all available data and following the Flowsheet (INTERA, 2007), are proposed to better reflect background concentrations at the site. As recommended by USEPA’s Unified Guidance (USEPA, 2009), GWCLs for constituents in wells with significantly increasing trends should be revised regularly to account for the trends and to minimize unwarranted out-of-compliance status in such wells. 3.1.2 Constituents in Pumping Wells Of the constituents listed in Table 1 above, uranium in MW-26 is the only out-of-compliance constituent in a pumping well. MW-26 is included in Table 1 because of consecutive exceedances of the GWCL for uranium in the first and second quarters of 2010. Subsequent data show that the concentrations of uranium in MW-26 in the sampling events in 2010 and through the second quarter of 2012 range from 18.2 to 72.7 micrograms per liter (µg/L), with 12 of the 28 sample results being less than the GWCL of 41.8 µg/L. The most recent result was 18.2 µg/L for the May 2012 monthly sampling event. This erratic behavior is not unexpected for a pumping well such as MW-26, and is not inconsistent with natural background. The primary focus of this source assessment for uranium in MW-26 is to determine whether or not there is any new information that would suggest that the previous analysis conducted in the Existing Wells Background Report has changed since the date of that report. This analysis included a geochemical analysis that evaluated the behavior of all of the constituents in MW- 26 to determine if there were any changes in the behavior of indicator parameters, such as chloride, sulfate, fluoride, and uranium, since the date of the Existing Wells Background Report that may suggest a change in the behavior of that well since the date of that report. MW-26 was also included in the category of constituents that may be impacted by a significantly decreasing trend in pH. Additional analysis was performed with respect to pH in MW-26. Those analyses are described in more detail in Section 3.1.3 below. 3.1.3 Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site EFRI has observed a decreasing trend in pH in almost every groundwater monitoring well across the Mill site, including the ones that are upgradient and far downgradient. The mobility in groundwater of the following out-of-compliance constituents is sensitive to decreases in pH: Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 10 October 10, 2012 Table 3 Out-of-Compliance Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site Constituent Well Cadmium MW-24 Manganese MW-11 Selenium MW-12 MW-3 MW-30 MW-3A Thallium MW-18 MW-24 Uranium MW-5 MW-25 MW-26 Note: A number of the constituents listed in Table 3 are also found in MW-35 and would similarly be impacted by decreasing pH trends across the site. However, MW-35 is a newly installed well and is discussed separately in Section 3.1.4 below. The first step for this category was to perform a geochemical analysis evaluating the behavior of all the constituents in the well in question to determine if there have been any changes in the behavior of indicator parameters, such as chloride, sulfate, fluoride, and uranium, since the date of the Background Reports that may suggest a change in the behavior of that well since the dates of those reports. If it was determined through the geochemical analysis of the indicator parameters that the behavior of a particular well has changed since the Background Reports, a mass balance analysis was performed to evaluate the observed concentrations of the constituent in light of the concentrations in Mill tailings and the presence or absence of any mounding at the location of the well in question. In cases where the wells in question (wells that were determined to have changed behavior since the Background Reports) are distant from the Mill’s tailings cells, a hydrogeologic analysis was performed to determine the plausibility of any potential impact from Mill tailings. In addition to the aforementioned approach, a pH analysis was performed for each well that contains constituents that may be influenced by a decreasing pH trend. This analysis reviewed the behavior of pH in the well in question to determine if there has been a significant decrease in pH in the well. If there was a significant decreasing trend in pH in that well, the impact from any such decrease on the constituent in question was also analyzed. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 11 October 10, 2012 3.1.4 Newly Installed Wells with Interim GWCLs MW-35 was installed in August and September of 2010 as required by the GWDP. Sampling commenced in the fourth quarter of 2010. Eight consecutive quarters of groundwater sampling and analysis have been completed as of the third quarter 2012; however, because some data has been rejected as a result of the quality assurance (Q/A) analysis required by the Flowsheet, one or more additional quarters of sampling are required. Upon receipt of at least eight quarters of data for each constituent in MW-35, EFRI will submit a background report for Director approval. As an interim measure, GWCLs were set by the Director at one-quarter of the State GWQSs. Manganese, uranium, gross alpha, selenium, and thallium exceeded the interim GWCLs in MW-35. However, since background has not been established in MW-35, the exceedances of these interim GWCLs do not represent exceedances of background values or impacts to groundwater from Mill activities. EFRI is preparing a Background Report for MW-35 where all available data will be used to calculate proposed GWCLs using the Flowsheet. The results of analysis from the GWDP constituents will be presented in the MW-35 Background Report, which is currently expected to be submitted during the first quarter 2013. 3.1.5 Other Constituents and Wells The out-of-compliance constituents listed in Table 4 do not fall into one of the previous categories: Table 4 Other Constituents and Wells Constituent Well TDS MW-18 MW-27 MW-31 Sulfate MW-3A MW-31 Fluoride MW-3 Although these constituents do not fall into one of the previous categories, the primary focus for the source assessment for these wells is the same as in the previous categories: to determine whether or not there is any new information that would suggest that the previous analysis conducted in the Background Reports has changed since the dates of those reports. The first step for this category was to perform a geochemical analysis evaluating the behavior of all the constituents in the well in question to determine if there have been any changes in the behavior of indicator parameters, such as chloride, sulfate, fluoride, and uranium, since the dates Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 12 October 10, 2012 of the Background Reports that may suggest a change in the behavior of that well since the dates of those reports. If it was determined through the geochemical analysis of the indicator parameters that the behavior of a particular well has changed since the Background Reports, a mass balance analysis was performed to evaluate the observed concentrations of the constituent in light of the concentrations in Mill tailings and the presence or absence of any mounding at the location of the well in question. In cases where the wells in question (wells that were determined to have changed behavior since the Background Reports) are distant from the Mill’s tailings cells, a hydrogeologic analysis was performed to determine the plausibility of impact from Mill tailings. 3.2 Approach for Setting Revised GWCLs If the foregoing approaches result in the conclusion that the previous analysis in the Background Reports has not changed and that the out-of-compliance status of a constituent in a well is due to natural influences, then, except in those cases specified below, a proposed new GWCL was proposed for the constituent. In proposing revised GWCLs, we have adopted the approach in the Flowsheet. For some constituents, most notably uranium in MW-5, manganese in MW-11, and TDS in MW- 31, the revised GWCLs from the application of the Flowsheet will not be set high enough to avoid renewed out-of-compliance status in the near future. For those constituents, we propose that DRC and EFRI enter into discussions to determine if there are any other approaches that will allow the GWCLs to be set in a manner that better reflects changing background conditions and avoids unwarranted out-of-compliance situations. With respect to uranium in MW-5, we also propose that further study be undertaken to better understand the recent increase in variability, as discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.5 below. In addition, as will be discussed in more detail below, we have proposed continued sampling in pumping well MW-26 and upgradient wells MW-1, MW-18, and MW-19 for information purposes only, and to eliminate the GWCLs for those wells. As a pumping well, MW-26 is being manipulated, and the impact on the quality of the water in that well from the pumping is unclear and cannot be predicted with enough certainty to establish compliance standards under the GWDP. MW-1, MW-18, and MW-19 are far upgradient from the Mill site and cannot be impacted by Mill activities. It is therefore not appropriate to establish compliance standards under the GWDP for those wells. However, although EFRI proposes that the GWCLs in those wells be eliminated, EFRI proposes to continue monitoring those wells at their normal, un- accelerated frequency for informational purposes only, and to help define background conditions at the site. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 13 October 10, 2012 Appendix B-1 summarizes the GWCLs for all out-of-compliance constituents listed in Table 1 based on an application of the Flowsheet. Revised GWCLs for MW-26 and MW-18 are included on that table for completeness and to show recalculated GWCLs based on the Flowsheet. Those would be the appropriate revised GWCLs, if revised GWCLs were for those wells. However, EFRI is not proposing that GWCLs be set in those wells. It is assumed that once revised GWCLs are set for the various constituents, accelerated monitoring for those constituents will cease. 3.3 University of Utah Study At the request of DRC, T. Grant Hurst and D. Kip Solomon of the Department of Geology and Geophysics of the University of Utah performed a groundwater study (the “University of Utah Study”) at the Mill site in July 2007 to characterize groundwater flow, chemical composition, noble gas composition, and age (Hurst and Solomon, 2008), to determine whether or not the increasing and elevated trace metal concentrations in monitoring wells at the Mill site, all of which were identified in the Background Reports, may indicate that potential leakage from tailings cells is occurring. In order to evaluate sources of solute concentrations at the Mill site, low-flow groundwater sampling was implemented in 15 monitoring wells. In addition, surface water samples were collected from tailings cells 1, 3, and 4A, and two wildlife ponds. Passive diffusion samplers were also deployed and collected in order to characterize the dissolved gas composition of groundwater at different depths within the wells. Samples were collected and analyzed for the following: tritium, nitrate, sulfate, deuterium and oxygen-18 of water, sulfur-34 and oxygen-18 of sulfate, trace metals (uranium, manganese, and selenium), and chlorofluorocarbons (“CFCs”). The 15 wells sampled included the following seven wells listed on Table 1 above: MW-3, MW-3A, MW-5, MW-11, MW-18, MW-27, MW-30, and MW-31. Hurst and Solomon concluded generally that “[t]he data show that groundwater at the Mill is largely older than 50 years, based on apparent recharge dates from chlorofluorocarbons and tritium concentrations. Wells exhibiting groundwater that has recharged within the last 50 years appears to be a result of recharge from wildlife ponds near the site. Stable isotope fingerprints do not suggest contamination of groundwater by tailings cell leakage, evidence that is corroborated by trace metal concentrations similar to historically-observed observations.” (Hurst and Solomon, 2008, page iii) Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 14 October 10, 2012 More specific observations relative to the seven wells included in Table 1 are as follows: With respect to CFC age dating, MW-3, MW-5, MW-11, MW-18, and MW-31 were found to exhibit CFC recharge dates of the 1960s and 1970s, indicating that the water in those wells predated construction of the Mill in 1980. Data was not available for MW-30. MW-3A exhibited recharge dates of the late 1980s, but Solomon and Hurst concluded that MW-3A was “pumped dry . . . because of low-yielding characteristics, and well MW-3A was subsequently sampled using [EFRI] dedicated bladder pumps. Potential CFC contamination could have occurred in these wells, as well as MW-3, because of exposure to atmosphere after pumping the boreholes dry.” (Hurst and Solomon, 2008, page 23) Tritium concentrations in MW-3, MW-3A, MW-5, MW-18, MW-30, and MW-31 were found to be non-detect, indicating that impacts from wide-scale atmospheric injection of tritium during above-ground thermonuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s, expected to be found in surface waters such as Mill tailings, were not observed in those wells. Concentrations in MW-11 were non-detect on first sampling and very low at 0.16 TU on a repeat sample. MW-27 displayed the highest tritium concentration on-site at 8.67 TU. With respect to this result for MW-27, Hurst and Solomon noted that “[t]he fact that significant and measurable quantities of tritium are present in MW-27, MW-19 and the wildlife ponds, indicates recharge to the aquifer from the wildlife ponds is occurring.” (Hurst and Solomon, 2008, page 27) With respect to dissolved gas composition of groundwater, Hurst and Solomon noted that “some samples near the wildlife ponds have helium isotope values that are consistent with transport of young water being recharged at the ponds [eg., MW-27 (shallow and deep) and MW-30 (shallow)” (Hurst and Solomon, 2008, page 33) and that “[s]amples from MW-11 . . . contain the largest amounts of terrigenic helium and thus contain the largest components of old water.” (Hurst and Solomon, 2008, page 37) With respect to deuterium and oxygen-18 ratios in water, Hurst and Solomon concluded that “MW-11 does not show an evaporated signal suggesting that neither pond water or leakage from tailing cells is present at this well today” (Hurst and Solomon, 2008, page 44) and “[m]onitoring wells MW-3, MW-3A, . . . MW-18, . . . have more depleted ð18O. These wells have elevated uranium concentrations, but as they do not bear an evaporated stable isotope signal it does not appear that the elevated uranium values are the result of leakage from tailing cells (or wildlife ponds.).” (Hurst and Solomon, 2008, page 44) With respect to isotope ratios of 34S/32S and 18O/16O as sulfur-34 and oxygen-18 in the dissolved sulfate molecule, Hurst and Solomon observed that “MW-27 is also similar in isotopic composition to the surface water sites. This suggests groundwater there has been influenced by Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 15 October 10, 2012 the wildlife ponds found directly upgradient” (Hurst and Solomon, 2008, page 47), and “[w]ells MW-3 . . . and MW-18 . . . exhibited elevated concentrations of uranium but are isotopically distinct from the surface water sites” (Hurst and Solomon, 2008, page 48), and “MW-27 exhibits an isotopic fingerprint very similar to that of the wildlife ponds, as well as similar sulfate concentrations.” (Hurst and Solomon, 2008, page 50) Hurst and Solomon also observed that “[b]ecause of the consistent similarities in ð34 values, ð18O values, and sulfate concentrations between MW-27 and the wildlife ponds, it is likely that water in MW-27 has its origin in the wildlife ponds” (Hurst and Solomon, 2008, page 53), and “[w]hen compared with isotope fingerprints observed in the tailings cells, fingerprints of monitoring wells exhibit strong differences, with the exception of MW-27. This suggests that elevated concentrations of trace metals seen in wells down-gradient of the facility are not being caused by tailings cell leakage.” (Hurst and Solomon, 2008, page 52) Hurst and Solomon (2008) conclude that, “[i]n general, the data collected in this study do not provide evidence that tailings cell leakage is leading to contamination of groundwater in the area around the White Mesa Mill. Evidence of old water in the majority of wells, and significantly different isotopic fingerprints between wells with the highest concentrations of trace metals and surface water sites, supports this conclusion. The only evidence linking surface waters to recharging groundwater is seen in MW-27 and MW-19. Measurable tritium and CFC concentrations indicate relatively young water, with low concentrations of selenium, manganese, and uranium. Furthermore, stable isotope fingerprints of ðD and ð18O suggest mixing between wildlife pond recharge and older groundwater in MW-19 and MW-27. D34S-SO4 and ð18O-SO4 fingerprints closely relate MW-27 to wildlife pond water, while the exceptionally low concentration of sulfate in MW-27, the only groundwater site to exhibit sulfate levels below 100 mg/L, suggest no leachate from the tailings cells has reached the well.” It should be further noted that, subsequent to the University of Utah Study, EFRI submitted a Contaminant Investigation Report, White Mesa Uranium Mill Site, Blanding Utah, dated December 30, 2009, as amended (“CIR”) in connection with the nitrate/chloride plume at the Mill site. In the CIR, EFRI observed that a historical pond had existed for many years at a location upgradient from MW-27 and much closer to MW-27 than the wildlife ponds. This historical pond could also have been a contributor of surface water to MW-27. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 16 October 10, 2012 4.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS This section describes the results of the analysis, a summary of which is displayed in Appendix B-1, Appendix C-1, Appendix D-1, and Appendices E-1 through E-3. 4.1 Constituents in Wells with Previously Identified Rising Trends Constituents with previously identified rising trends, as shown in Table 2, were subjected to a geochemical analysis that compared current data and analysis to the results of analysis at the time of the Background Reports to determine if the behavior of the well had changed since the dates of those reports. 4.1.1 Manganese Manganese in MW-11 was found to have a significantly increasing trend at the time of the Background Report, as indicated in Appendix E-1. At the time of the Existing Wells Background Report, concentrations of manganese were below the GWQS of 800 µg/L and also below the average concentrations of manganese found in other wells at the site, which ranged from non- detect to over 5,000 µg/L (see Table 16 of the Existing Wells Background Report and Table 10 of the New Wells Background Report). The mean manganese concentration in MW-11 at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report was 87.75 µg/L, and the GWCL was set at 131.29 µg/L. As indicated in Appendix E-1, manganese continues to demonstrate a significantly increasing trend. The mean concentration of manganese in MW-11 at the time of this SAR is now 104.89 µg/L (Appendix B-1), which is still well below the GWQS of 800 µg/L. Regression plots for the indicator parameters chloride, sulfate, fluoride, and uranium at the time of this SAR and the time of the Existing Wells Background Report are provided in Appendices E-2 and E-3, respectively. A review of these regression plots shows that the well is not behaving differently now than it was at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report. Sulfate concentrations in MW-11 are significantly increasing, as they were at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report. In Section 11.2 of the Existing Wells Background Report, we noted that a number of wells, including MW-11, had significantly increasing trends in sulfate, but that the most significant increasing trend, which represented the highest percentage increase in sulfate, was in upgradient well MW-18. This fact, and the fact that none of the wells with increasing trends in sulfate had significant increasing trends in chloride, led to the conclusion in the Background Reports that the increasing trends in sulfate at the Mill site were due to natural causes. Chloride concentrations in MW-11 are now significantly decreasing, whereas at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report they were not trending at all, and fluoride and uranium Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 17 October 10, 2012 continue to not demonstrate a significantly increasing trend. In fact, uranium is trending (albeit not significantly) downwards. Further, as noted in Section 3.3 above, MW-11 was included in the University of Utah Study, where Hurst and Solomon concluded that “[s]table isotope fingerprints do not suggest contamination of groundwater by tailings cell leakage, evidence that is corroborated by trace metal concentrations similar to historically-observed observations.” With regard to MW-11, specifically, Hurst and Solomon concluded that “[s]amples from MW-11 . . . contained the largest amounts of terrigenic helium and thus contain the largest components of old water,” and “MW-11 does not show an evaporated signal suggesting that neither pond water or leakage from tailing cells is present at this well today.” As a result of the foregoing, no significant changes were identified that would suggest that the previous analysis conducted in the Existing Wells Background Report for Manganese in MW-11 has changed. We have therefore concluded that the increasing trend in Manganese in MW-11 continues to be caused by natural influences and that the resulting exceedances are due to natural influences. The GWCL for manganese in MW-11 should therefore be changed to reflect these influences. As a result, we propose a new GWCL for manganese in MW-11 of 164.67 µg/L, which, in accordance with the Flow Sheet, is based on mean + 2σ, based on all data available to date (Appendix B-1). 4.1.2 Selenium Concentrations of selenium in MW-12 and in far downgradient well MW-3 were each identified as having a significantly increasing trend at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report. Significantly increasing trends of selenium concentrations were also identified in upgradient well MW-19 at that time and as of the date of this SAR (see Appendix E-1). Indicator parameter uranium in MW-12 is showing a significantly increasing trend, which was also identified at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report. Other indicator parameters in MW-12 are not showing significantly increasing trends. See Appendices E-2 and E-3 for indicator parameter regression plots at the time of this SAR and the time of the Existing Wells Background Report, respectively. Indicator parameters fluoride, sulfate, and uranium in MW-3 are showing statistically significant trends at the time of this SAR (see Appendix E-2). Sulfate and uranium were also trending upward significantly at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report (see Appendix E-3), while the statistically significant increasing trend in fluoride in MW-3 is a newly identified trend. However, chloride in MW-3 is not trending upward significantly today nor was it trending upward significantly at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report (see Appendices E-2 Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 18 October 10, 2012 and E-3). Although fluoride is an indicator parameter and has recently demonstrated an upward trend, MW-3 is approximately 2,000 feet downgradient from the Mill’s tailings cells, and it is extremely unlikely that any potential tailings cell leakage could reach MW-3 during the 30 years that the Mill has been in operation. As indicated in Section 4.2 of HGC (2012b), the estimated average travel time for a conservative solute, assuming no hydrodynamic dispersion, from tailings cell 4B to Ruin Spring along a path that crosses near MW-3, is 0.90 feet/year. It would therefore be expected to take over 2,000 years for any potential tailings solutions from the tailings cells to reach MW-3. Further, and more importantly, it is inconceivable that, even if any potential tailings cell leakage could have reached MW-3 in the 30 years of Mill operations, a rising trend in fluoride would be observed without an equal or more pronounced rising trend in chloride. We can therefore conclude that the rising trend in fluoride in MW-3, like the rising trends in sulfate and uranium, has not been caused by Mill operations, and is the result of natural influences. Further, as noted in Section 3.3 above, MW-3 was included in the University of Utah Study, where Hurst and Solomon concluded that “[s]table isotope fingerprints do not suggest contamination of groundwater by tailings cell leakage, evidence that is corroborated by trace metal concentrations similar to historically-observed observations.” With regard to MW-3, specifically, Hurst and Solomon (2008) concluded that “[m]onitoring wells MW-3, MW-3A, . . . MW-18, . . . have more depleted ð18O. These wells have elevated uranium concentrations, but as they do not bear an evaporated stable isotope signal it does not appear that the elevated uranium values are the result of leakage from tailing cells (or wildlife ponds).” Because selenium has been identified as having significantly increasing trends in upgradient (MW-19) and far downgradient wells at the site, and because the wells in question (MW-12 and MW-3) do not show a significant change in behavior, in the case of MW-12, or a change in behavior that could conceivably be caused by Mill operations in the case of MW-3, selenium in these wells can be attributed to natural causes. The GWCLs for selenium in MW-12 and MW-3 should therefore be changed to reflect these natural influences. The current GWCLs for selenium in MW-12 and MW-3 are 25 µg/L and 37 µg/L, respectively, which were both below the GWQS of 50 µg/L. The newly proposed GWCLs for selenium in MW-12 and MW-3 are 39 µg/L and 52.8 µg/L, respectively (Appendix B-1). In accordance with the Flowsheet, these proposed GWCLs represent the highest historical value of selenium in each of the wells. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 19 October 10, 2012 4.1.3 Thallium A statistically significant increasing trend in thallium was identified in MW-18 at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report (see Appendix E-1). The results of the geochemical analysis show that thallium concentrations in MW-18 continue to exhibit a statistically significant increasing trend (see Appendix E-1). As indicated in Appendix E-2, indicator parameters chloride, sulfate, and uranium are showing significantly increasing trends. Sulfate and uranium were identified as having significantly increasing trends at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report (see Appendix E-3). An increasing trend in chloride was observed in MW-18 at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report, although it was not statistically significant at that time (see Appendix E-3 and Section 12 of the Existing Wells Background Report). This increasing trend in chloride is now significant. However, MW-18 is located so far upgradient from the Mill site that these trends could not possibly be impacted by Mill activities. In addition, as discussed in more detail in Section 3.3 above, MW-18 was included in the University of Utah Study in which Hurst and Solomon concluded that “stable isotope fingerprints do not suggest contamination of groundwater by tailings cell leakage, evidence that is corroborated by trace metal concentrations similar to historically-observed concentrations.” Hurst and Solomon made this conclusion in light of the documented trends in thallium, sulfate, and uranium in MW-18 at that time. A possible explanation for the increasing trend in chloride in MW-18, along with increasing trends in uranium and chloride in nearby upgradient well MW-19, was discussed in detail in Section 12 of the Existing Wells Background Report, where it was posited that the increasing trends in uranium and chloride in those wells could be attributed to the rise in water levels seen in the wells since 1993 that have resulted from the periodic recharge of the upper wildlife pond at the Mill site. Another possible explanation for the increasing trend in chloride in MW-18 is influence from the nitrate/chloride plume, which has been observed at locations upgradient of the Mill site. Therefore the now-significant increasing trend in chloride in MW-18 is not unexpected and is consistent with the previous observations in the Existing Wells Background Report. In any event, given the location of MW-18, the increasing trends in the constituents in MW-18, including the increasing trends in the indicator parameters, cannot possibly be due to Mill influences. Therefore, we have concluded that the behavior of constituents in MW-18 has not changed significantly since the time of the Background Reports. The trend in thallium concentrations in MW-18 is therefore the result of natural background influences. The current GWCL for thallium in MW-18 is 1.95 mg/L, which is below the GWQS of 2.0 mg/L. Appendix B-1 sets out a revised GWCL for thallium in MW-18 of 4.0 mg/L based on the highest historic value, in accordance with the Flowsheet. That would be the appropriate GWCL, Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 20 October 10, 2012 were a revised GWCL to be adopted. However, for the reasons discussed in Section 3.2 above, EFRI is not proposing that such a revised GWCL be adopted for MW-18. Rather, as discussed in Section 3.2 above, EFRI proposes that the GWDP be amended to remove all GWCLs from MW-18 and upgradient wells MW-1 and MW-19. 4.1.4 Uranium Uranium in MW-26 was identified as having a statistically significant increasing trend at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report and continues to have a significant increasing trend today (see Appendix E-1). Since MW-26 is a pumping well associated with the existing chloroform plume at the Mill site, there are many factors at play, which are discussed in more detail in Section 4.2 below. The geochemical analysis of uranium and other indicator parameters in MW-26 shows that the behavior in the well, while inconsistent and erratic, has not changed significantly since the time of the Existing Wells Background Report. As mentioned above, uranium concentrations in MW-26 continue to show a significantly increasing trend. A newly identified significantly increasing trend in chloride was identified, which could represent water drawn into the well from the nitrate/chloride plume and/or the chloroform plume (which is also associated with relatively high concentrations of chloride). Other indicator parameters, namely fluoride and sulfate, were not found to have significantly increasing trends at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report or at the time of this SAR. See Appendices E-2 and E-3 for regression plots for these indicator parameters at the time of this SAR and the Existing Wells Background Report, respectively. Because MW-26 continues to demonstrate erratic behavior consistent with its behavior at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report, and for the reasons discussed in more detail in Section 4.2 below relating to pumping wells generally, we have concluded that the behavior of the constituents in MW-26 has not changed significantly since the Existing Wells Background Report. The current GWCL for uranium in MW-26 is 41.85 µg/L, which is above the GWQS of 30 µg/L. Appendix B-1 sets out a revised GWCL for uranium in MW-26 of 79.57 µg/L, based on mean + 2 σ using all available data, in accordance with the Flowsheet. That would be the appropriate GWCL, were a revised GWCL to be adopted. However, as discussed in the July 13, 2011 Initial Plan and Time Schedule and in Sections 3.2 and 4.2 of this report, since GWCLs for pumping wells have no meaning, EFRI does not propose that a revised GWCL for uranium in MW-26 be adopted. Instead, EFRI proposes that all GWCLs in MW-26 be eliminated. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 21 October 10, 2012 4.2 Constituents in Pumping Wells The geochemical analysis of uranium in MW-26 included identifying extreme values (of which there were none) (see Appendix B-6). The Shapiro-Wilk normality test was used to determine that the data were not normally or lognormally distributed (see Appendices B-1 and B-7). Trend tests were conducted using Mann-Kendall, and uranium showed a significantly increasing trend (see Appendices B-1, B-9, and E-1), which had been identified at the time of the Background Report (see Appendix E-1). Indicator parameters were analyzed using box plots to identify and omit extreme outliers, and the Shapiro-Wilk normality test was used to determine the distribution of each constituent’s data set (see Appendices C-4 and C-5). Trend tests were conducted using either least squared regressions if the data were lognormally or normally distributed, or Mann-Kendall if the data were not lognormally or normally distributed (see Appendices C-1, C-6, and C-7). Chloride is the only indicator parameter which shows a significantly increasing trend, which was not previously identified at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report (see Appendices E-2 and E-3 for regression plots for the indicator constituents at the time of this SAR and the time of the Existing Wells Background Report). Fluoride is showing a significantly decreasing trend today, and there is no significant trend of sulfate in MW-26. Neither fluoride nor sulfate showed a significant trend, either increasing or decreasing, at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report. Field measurements of pH in MW-26 were also analyzed using the same methods described above. Field pH was not lognormally or normally distributed, and the Mann-Kendall trend test showed that there was not a significantly increasing or decreasing trend in pH (see Appendices D-1 and D-5). In fact, MW-26 is one of the few wells that does not have any trend in pH. MW-26 is being manipulated, and the impact on the quality of the water in that well from the pumping is unclear and cannot be predicted with enough certainty to establish compliance standards under the GWDP. For example, pumping wells are intended to pull water in from areas of the perched aquifer that would normally flow into other wells. In fact, the pumping wells are having the effect of drawing down water levels in other wells (e.g., see Appendix D, Figure 2, in the second quarter 2007 Chloroform Monitoring report). This water may be associated with its own background quality that will impact the water quality in the pumping well. Any increasing or decreasing trends in constituents in pumping wells, such as MW-26, are therefore not unexpected and should be given little, if any, weight in analyzing potential impacts to groundwater from Mill activities. As stated in the September 2009 Statement of Basis (page 23) in support of the January 20, 2010, revisions to the GWDP, “[i]t should be noted that, because MW-26 is a pumping well for chloroform removal, concentrations of all constituents in that well are subject to potential Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 22 October 10, 2012 variation over time as a result of the pumping activity. This will be taken into account by the Executive Secretary in determining compliance for this well.” For informational purposes, an updated GWCL for uranium in MW-26 of 79.57 µg/L, based on mean + 2σ using all of the available data to date, has been calculated in accordance with the Flowsheet (Appendix B-1). That would be the appropriate GWCL, were a revised GWCL to be adopted. However, as discussed above, since GWCLs for pumping wells have no meaning, EFRI does not propose that a revised GWCL for uranium in MW-26 be adopted. Further, EFRI proposes that the Mill will continue to pump and monitor MW-26, but that the GWDP be amended to remove all GWCLs for all constituents in MW-26. 4.3 Constituents Potentially Impacted by Decreasing pH Trends Across the Site A pH analysis was performed in addition to the geochemical analysis for the wells/constituents in this category (see Appendix D-1). The pH analysis included using box plots to identify and omit extreme outliers, performing the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality, and then testing for trends using either the least squares regression or the Mann-Kendall method (see Appendices D-2 through D-5). The trend analysis will determine whether the decreasing trends in pH that are apparent in almost every groundwater well across the site are statistically significant or not. The decreasing trend in pH across the site is the subject of another report that EFRI is working on concurrently with this SAR (HGC, 2012a). 4.3.1 Cadmium Cadmium in MW-24 may potentially be impacted by decreasing pH in that well. Results of the geochemical analysis of cadmium concentrations in MW-24 show that there is a significantly increasing trend, which did not exist at the time of the New Wells Background Report (see Appendix E-1). However, early data show that cadmium was reported as non- detected at a Reporting Limit (“RL”) of 0.5 µg/L almost exclusively from 2005-2007. These non-detected values are partially responsible for the increasing trend. More importantly, however, indicator parameters in MW-24 do not exhibit any significantly increasing trends now or at the time of the Background Report (see Appendices E-2 and E-3, respectively). For this reason, we have concluded that MW-24 is not being impacted by any potential tailings seepage. The pH analysis in MW-24 indicates a significantly decreasing trend in pH (see Appendices D-1 and D-4). The cause of the decreasing trend in pH in MW-24, and in most other monitor wells at the site, including upgradient and far downgradient wells, is being investigated and will be the subject of a separate report (see HGC, 2012a). However, in the absence of increasing trends in Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 23 October 10, 2012 any of the indicator parameters of chloride, sulfate, fluoride, and uranium, and most particularly chloride, in MW-24, we have ruled out any potential seepage from the tailings cells as being the cause of the decreasing trend in pH in MW-24. This is because chloride moves in groundwater at the speed of water, whereas pH moves by chemical reaction. Carbonate in the subsurface formations will neutralize the pH in any potential tailings seepage, thereby increasing the pH in the seepage as it is carried by the water through the formations. As a result, any low pH associated with potential tailings seepage cannot be detected any faster than the water in the formation, and will neutralize as it flows through carbonatious formations, becoming less detectable (effectively diluted) as it travels. Since chloride moves with the speed of the water in the formation, any influence of pH cannot be detected any faster than chloride. Therefore, it is not possible to see a significant impact in the form of a declining trend in pH caused by any potential tailings seepage without also seeing a significant increase in chloride. However, the decreasing trend in pH in MW-24 is the likely cause of the increasing trend in cadmium in that well. The dominant cadmium species in groundwater below pH values of 8.2 is Cd2+ (Rai and Zachara, 1984). At low pH (greater abundance of H30+ ions) there is greater competition for negative adsorption sites that might remove Cd2+ ions from solution. Therefore, Cd2+ concentrations are expected to increase in groundwater as pH falls. The mobility of cadmium is therefore increased in groundwater with low pH, and since the increasing trend in cadmium cannot be correlated with a significantly increasing trend in any of the indicator parameters, the concentration of cadmium in MW-24 can be attributed to natural background and site-wide influences. The GWCL for cadmium in MW-24 should therefore be changed to reflect these natural influences. The current GWCL for cadmium in MW-24 is 2.5 µg/L, which is below the GWQS of 5.0 µg/L. In accordance with the Flowsheet, we propose a revised GWCL for cadmium in MW-24 of 4.28 µg/L (Appendix B-1), which is the highest historical value of cadmium in MW-24. 4.3.2 Manganese Manganese in MW-11 may potentially be impacted by decreasing pH in that well. Results of the geochemical analysis for manganese in MW-11 are presented above in Section 4.1.1, in which we conclude that no significant changes were identified that would suggest that the previous analysis conducted in the Existing Wells Background Report for manganese in MW-11 has changed. As a result, we have concluded that the increasing trend in manganese in MW-11 continues to be caused by natural influences and that the resulting exceedances are due to natural influences. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 24 October 10, 2012 In addition to having a previously identified increasing trend, manganese in MW-11 could also be impacted by the decreasing trend in pH across the site. An analysis performed on the field measurements for pH in MW-11 shows a significantly decreasing trend in pH (see Appendices D-1 and D-4). The cause of the decreasing trend in pH in MW-11, and in most other monitor wells at the site, including upgradient and far downgradient wells, is being investigated and will be the subject of a separate report (see HGC, 2012a). However, in the absence of increasing trends in MW-11 in any of the indicator parameters of chloride, fluoride, and uranium, and most particularly chloride, which is significantly decreasing, we have ruled out any potential seepage from the tailings cells as being the cause of the decreasing trend in pH in MW-11 for the reasons stated in Section 4.3.1 above. MW-11 has a previously identified increasing trend in sulfate, but this has been determined to be the result of natural influences (see Section 4.1.1, above). However, the decreasing trend in pH in MW-11 is a likely cause of or contributor to the increasing trend in manganese in that well. Manganese can exist in +2, +3, +4, and +7 oxidation states. Under the reducing conditions that exist in groundwater at the Mill site, the dominant form of manganese in solution is the cation Mn2+. At low pH (greater abundance of H30+ ions) there is greater competition for negative adsorption sites that might remove Mn2+ ions from solution. Therefore, Mn2+ concentrations are expected to increase in groundwater as pH falls. The mobility of manganese is therefore increased in groundwater with low pH, and since the increasing trend in manganese cannot be correlated with a significantly increasing trend of any of the indicator parameters other than the previously identified increasing trend in sulfate, the concentration of manganese in MW-11 can be attributed to natural background and site-wide influences. The GWCL for manganese in MW-11 should therefore be changed to reflect these natural influences. As discussed in Section 4.1.1 above, we propose that the GWCL for manganese in MW-11 be changed to 164.67 µg/L. 4.3.3 Selenium Selenium in MW-3, MW-3A, MW-12, and MW-30 may potentially be impacted by decreasing pH in those wells. Results of the geochemical analysis for selenium in MW-3 and MW-12, presented in Section 4.1.2, indicate that MW-12 and MW-3 do not show a significant change in behavior, in the case of MW-12, or a change in behavior that could conceivably be caused by Mill operations in the case of MW-3, and that selenium in these wells can therefore be attributed to natural causes. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 25 October 10, 2012 Geochemical analysis for selenium in MW-3A shows that while selenium concentrations have a significantly increasing trend today, they did not have a significantly increasing trend at the time of the New Wells Background Report (see Appendix E-1). None of the indicator parameters in MW-3A are showing significantly increasing trends today or at the time of the New Wells Background Report (see Appendices E-2 and E-3, respectively). It is also worth noting that MW- 3, which neighbors MW-3A, has a significantly increasing trend in selenium and had a significantly increasing trend at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report (see Appendix E-1), which has been attributed to natural causes (see Section 4.1.2 above). Selenium concentrations in MW-30 are showing a significantly increasing trend (see Appendix E-1). Chloride concentrations in MW-30 are also exhibiting a statistically significant increasing trend (see Appendix E-2). MW-30 is located at the margins of the nitrate/chloride plume (Figure 3), and it is likely that groundwater in this well is being impacted by that plume. As discussed in Section 5.0, the nitrate/chloride plume is already being addressed by separate corrective actions. Sulfate is showing a significant decreasing trend in MW-30, and fluoride is also showing a decreasing trend (although not statistically significant), while uranium is relatively low for the site but is showing an upward trend that is not statistically significant. Selenium concentrations in MW-12, MW-30, and far downgradient wells MW-3 and MW-3A may be impacted by decreasing trends in pH across the site. Each of these wells has a significantly decreasing trend in pH (Appendices D-1 and D-4). Native selenium is stable in mildly oxidizing to extremely reducing conditions (Brookins, 1988). Decreasing pH may increase the solubility of native selenium (Mayland et al., 1991), which could be the cause of or contribute to the increasing trends in selenium in those wells. For the reasons discussed in Section 4.1.2 above, we have concluded that MW-3 and MW-12 are not being impacted by any potential tailings cell seepage. For the same reasons as for MW-3, and including the fact that there are no increasing trends in any of the indicator parameters in MW-3A, we have concluded that any potential tailings cell seepage could not have impacted MW-3A, which is located right next to MW-3. As a result, decreasing trends in pH in those wells cannot be attributed to any potential tailings cell seepage. With the exception of chloride, which is associated with the nitrate/chloride plume, none of the other indicator parameters in MW-30 have exhibited increasing trends (see Appendix E-2). Further, as noted in Section 3.3 above, MW-3, MW-3A and MW-30 were included in the University of Utah Study, where Hurst and Solomon concluded that “[s]table isotope fingerprints do not suggest contamination of groundwater by tailings cell leakage, evidence that is corroborated by trace metal concentrations similar to historically-observed observations.” With regard to MW-3 and MW-3A, specifically, Hurst and Solomon concluded, as noted above, that Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 26 October 10, 2012 “[m]onitoring wells MW-3, MW-3A, . . . MW-18, . . . have more depleted ð18O. These wells have elevated uranium concentrations, but as they do not bear an evaporated stable isotope signal it does not appear that the elevated uranium values are the result of leakage from tailing cells (or wildlife ponds).” For these reasons, selenium concentrations in MW-3, MW-3A, MW-12, and MW-30 are the result of background and/or site-wide influences, such as the decreasing trends in pH. New GWCLs for selenium are therefore proposed as follows:  MW-3: The current GWCL is 37 µg/L, which is lower than the GWQS of 50 µg/L. In accordance with the Flowsheet, the proposed revised GWCL is 52.8 µg/L, which is the highest historical value.  MW-3A: The current GWCL is 89 µg/L, which exceeds the GWQS of 50 µg/L. In accordance with the Flowsheet, the proposed revised GWCL is 109.58 µg/L, which is mean + 2σ, based on all data available to date.  MW-12: The current GWCL is 25 µg/L, which is lower than the GWQS of 50 µg/L. In accordance with the Flowsheet, the proposed revised GWCL is 39 µg/L, which is the highest historical value.  MW-30: The current GWCL is 34 µg/L, which is lower than the GWQS of 50 µg/L. In accordance with the Flowsheet, the proposed revised GWCL is 47.2 µg/L, which is the highest historical value. 4.3.4 Thallium Thallium in MW-18 and MW-24 may potentially be impacted by decreasing pH in those wells. Both MW-18 and MW-24 have significantly decreasing trends in pH (see Appendices D-1 and D-4). The results from the geochemical analysis of thallium in upgradient well MW-18 are presented in Section 4.1.3 above, because thallium in MW-18 was also identified as having an increasing trend at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report. In that analysis, we concluded that the behavior of constituents in MW-18 has not changed significantly since the time of the Existing Wells Background Report, and that the trend in thallium concentrations in MW-18 is therefore the result of natural background influences. Geochemical analysis of thallium in MW-24 showed a significantly increasing trend at the time of this SAR, but not at the time of the New Wells Background Report (see Appendix E-1). This increasing trend could be partially related to the early non-detected data (Appendix E-1), or to the decreasing trend in pH. Indicator parameters chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and uranium in MW-24 Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 27 October 10, 2012 do not show any significantly increasing trends at the time of the New Wells Background Report or at the time of this SAR (see Appendices E-2 and E-3, respectively). For the reasons discussed in Sections 4.1.3 and 4.3.1 above, we have concluded that potential tailings cell seepage is not impacting MW-18 or MW-24. In particular, there are no increasing trends in any of the indicator parameters in MW-24, and MW-18 is located far upgradient from the Mill site. As a result, decreasing trends in pH in those wells cannot be attributed to any potential tailings cell seepage. However, the decreasing trends in pH in MW-18 and MW-24 are a likely cause of or contributor to the increasing trends in thallium in those wells. Under the reducing conditions that exist in groundwater at the Mill site, the dominant form of thallium in solution is the cation Tl+. At low pH (greater abundance of H30+ ions) there is greater competition for negative adsorption sites that might remove Tl+ ions from solution. Therefore, Tl+ concentrations are expected to increase in groundwater as pH falls. The mobility of thallium may therefore be increased in groundwater with a low pH. For these reasons, thallium concentrations in MW-18 and MW-24 are considered to be the result of background and site-wide influences. The GWCL for thallium in MW-24 should therefore be changed to reflect these natural influences. The current GWCL for thallium in MW-24 is 1 µg/L, which is lower than the GWQS of 2 µg/L. The proposed GWCL for thallium in MW-24 is 1.57 µg/L, which, in accordance with the Flowsheet, is the highest historical value, based on the high number of non-detected values in that data set (50 percent). If a revised GWCL were to be set for thallium in MW-18, it would be 1.57 µg/L, in accordance with the Flowsheet (Appendix B-1). However, as discussed in Sections 3.2 and 4.1.3 above, we do not believe GWCLs should be set for MW-18 and upgradient wells MW-1 and MW-19, and EFRI proposes that the GWDP be amended to remove all GWCLs from those wells. 4.3.5 Uranium Uranium in MW-5, MW-25, and MW-26 may potentially be impacted by decreasing pH. As discussed below, uranium is potentially impacted by decreases in pH. Four wells have exceedances in uranium: MW-26, MW-25, MW-5, and MW-35. MW-35 is a new well for which background is currently being established, and is addressed in Section 4.4, below. Uranium in MW-26, MW-25 and MW-5 is addressed below. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 28 October 10, 2012 The geochemical results and circumstances surrounding the concentrations of uranium in pumping well MW-26 have been discussed in Sections 4.1.4 and 4.2, above. As mentioned in Section 4.2, above, pH is not showing a decreasing trend in MW-26. However, for the reasons discussed in Sections 4.1.4 and 4.2, MW-26 is being manipulated, and the impact on the quality of the water in that well from the pumping is unclear and cannot be predicted with enough certainty to establish compliance standards under the GWDP. Therefore, since GWCLs for pumping wells have no meaning, EFRI does not intend to propose revised GWCLs for MW-26 (although the revised GWCL that would be established by application of the Flowsheet is set out in Section 4.1.4 above). The geochemical analysis of uranium in MW-25 shows a significantly increasing trend at the time of this SAR, but not at the time of the New Wells Background Report (see Appendix E-1). However, other indicator parameters (chloride, fluoride, and sulfate) do not exhibit statistically significant increasing trends at this time or at the time of the New Wells Background Report (see Appendices E-2 and E-3). In fact, chloride, fluoride, and sulfate are trending downward. The pH analysis showed that pH in MW-25 is significantly decreasing (see Appendices D-1 and D-4). For the reasons discussed in Section 4.3.1 above, decreasing pH without increasing chloride is not indicative of any potential tailings cell leakage. We have therefore concluded that potential tailings cell seepage is not impacting MW-25. In particular, there are no increasing trends in any of the indicator parameters in MW-25 other than uranium. It is extremely unlikely that any potential tailings cell seepage could be impacting MW-25 without an increasing trend in chloride and the other indicator parameters. As a result, neither the decreasing trend in pH nor the increasing trend in uranium in MW-25 can be attributed to any potential tailings cell seepage. MW-5 is one of the original monitoring wells at the Mill site. The time versus concentration plot for the second quarter of 2012 (DUSA, 2012), a copy of which is included in Appendix E-1, shows that since the end of 2010, concentrations of uranium in MW-5 have been erratic and have included some values that are an order of magnitude higher than the mean. Two of these values, the 11/11/2010 value of 11.6 µg/L, and the 02/14/2011 value of 29.5 µg/L, have caused the exceedances that have led to MW-5 being listed on Table 1. Since then, an additional elevated value of 18.6 µg/L was reported during the first quarter of 2012. These concentrations are unusually high for this well. Geochemical analysis of uranium in MW-5 requires identification and omission of extreme outliers (any value over three times the standard deviation on either side of the mean) (see the Flowsheet, Appendix F). After the extreme outliers were identified and omitted (Appendix B-2), there were no longer any values that were out of compliance. The five values that were identified and omitted are listed in Table 5: Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 29 October 10, 2012 Table 5 Extreme Outliers Identified and Omitted from Geochemical Analysis Date Uranium (µg/L) 11/11/2010 11.60 02/14/2011 29.50 04/12/2011 7.16 10/10/2011 4.52 02/28/2012 18.60 After these values were omitted, the test for normality showed that the data set was neither normal nor lognormal, therefore subjecting these data to Mann-Kendall trend analysis. The trend analysis performed on the data with extreme outliers removed, as required by the Flowsheet, shows a significantly decreasing trend at this time (see Appendix E-1). This decreasing trend, although not significant, was also identified at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report (see Appendix E-1). Chloride and sulfate concentrations are not significantly increasing at this time or at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report (see Appendices E-2 and E-3). Concentrations of fluoride in MW-5 are significantly increasing, and this trend was also identified at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report (see Appendices E-2 and E-3). However, fluoride concentrations in MW-5 appear to be decreasing since 2008. Exploratory statistics were also performed on the uranium data set from MW-5. The same steps of the geochemical analysis were performed on the data while including the identified extreme outliers in the data set. The results of these exploratory statistics are displayed in Table 6 below. The data are still not normal or lognormal, requiring the trend analysis to be done using Mann- Kendall. The Mann-Kendall trend test did not identify a statistically significant increasing trend in the uranium data from MW-5 with the extreme outliers included. Table 6 Exploratory Statistics Performed on Uranium in MW-5 Data N Mean SD W p S p Significant Trend Mean + 2 σ Without Extremes 87 0.95 0.69 0.943681 0.000878 -917 3.75E-04 decreasing 2.3218 With Extremes 92 1.674 3.76 0.3348 0 -484 0.0511 none 9.185232 Note: Acronyms for Table 6 are defined in Appendix B-1. It is extremely unlikely that any potential uranium from mill tailings would travel to MW-5 faster than chloride or sulfate. The results of the geochemical analysis on indicator parameters Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 30 October 10, 2012 show a significantly decreasing trend in chloride in MW-5, and a decreasing trend in sulfate, although that trend is not statistically significant. Further, as noted in Section 3.3 above, MW-5 was included in the University of Utah Study, where Hurst and Solomon concluded that “[s]table isotope fingerprints do not suggest contamination of groundwater by tailings cell leakage, evidence that is corroborated by trace metal concentrations similar to historically-observed observations.” These observations were made in light of the documented rising trend in fluoride in MW-5 at that time. Uranium oxides are stable mineral phases at mildly to strongly reducing conditions such as those found in groundwater at White Mesa (Brookins, 1988). A decrease in pH increases the solubility of uranium oxides, causing concentrations of uranium to increase in groundwater. The mobility of uranium in groundwater may therefore be increased in groundwater with a low pH. The pH analysis shows pH is significantly decreasing in MW-25 and it is decreasing in MW-5, although not statistically significantly in MW-5 (see Appendices D-1 and D-4). For the reasons described above, uranium in MW-5, MW-25, and MW-26 can be attributed to natural background and site-wide influences. The GWCL for uranium in MW-25 should therefore be changed to reflect these natural influences. The current GWCL for uranium in MW-25 is 6.5 µg/L, which is lower than the GWQS of 30 µg/L. In accordance with the Flowsheet, the proposed GWCL for uranium in MW-25 is 7.25 µg/L, which is mean + 2σ, based on all data available to date. The current GWCL for uranium in MW-5 is 7.5 µg/L, based on the Fractional Approach, which is lower than the GWQS of 30 µg/L. In accordance with the Flowsheet, the proposed GWCL for uranium in MW-5 would remain at 7.5 µg/L, based on the Fractional Approach. The application of the Flowsheet would therefore result in no change to the GWCL for MW-5 in light of natural increases in background. EFRI therefore proposes that the current GWCL for uranium in MW-5 of 7.5 µg/L be retained at this time, as required by the flowsheet, and that EFRI and DRC discuss further study for uranium in MW-5 to determine the recent variability in uranium in that well. Possible avenues for further study include taking split samples from the well to rule out laboratory error, and an evaluation of the integrity of the well. 4.4 Newly Installed Wells with Interim GWCLs As described in Section 3.1.4, MW-35 is a newly installed well that had GWCLs set by the Director as an interim measure. A background report for all GWDP constituents in MW-35 is being prepared by EFRI concurrently with this SAR. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 31 October 10, 2012 For completeness, a geochemical analysis for the indicator parameters (chloride, sulfate, and fluoride) has been performed. The results of the geochemical analysis show that none of the aforementioned constituents have a statistically significant increasing trend (see Appendix E-2). The concentrations of all constituents in MW-35 are likely to be consistent with background. 4.5 Other Constituents and Wells The wells and constituents in this category were subjected to the same geochemical analysis as the categories above. The primary focus of this analysis was to determine whether or not there is any new information that would suggest that the previous analysis conducted in the Background Reports has changed since the dates of those reports. 4.5.1 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) The concentration of TDS has been out of compliance in MW-18, MW-27, and MW-31, as indicated in Table 1 above. The results of the geochemical analysis of TDS in MW-18 show that concentrations are significantly trending upwards (see Appendices B-1 and E-1). As discussed in Section 4.1.3 above, indicator parameters chloride, sulfate, and uranium are showing significantly increasing trends in MW-18 at the time of this SAR (see Appendix E-2). Sulfate and uranium were identified as having significantly increasing trends at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report (see Appendix E-3). The significantly increasing trend in chloride is a newly identified trend, but was contemplated at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report (see the discussion in Section 4.1.3 above). MW-18 is located upgradient of the Mill site, and cannot be impacted by Mill site activities. The behavior of constituents analyzed in this study (thallium, TDS, and indicator parameters) in this well has not changed significantly since the time of the Existing Wells Background Report. In addition, MW-18 was included in the University of Utah Study, in which Hurst and Solomon (2008) concluded that “stable isotope fingerprints do not suggest contamination of groundwater by tailings cell leakage, evidence that is corroborated by trace metal concentrations similar to historically-observed concentrations.” These conclusions were made in light of the increasing trends in thallium, sulfate and uranium in MW-18 at that time. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in detail in Section 4.1.3 above, MW-18 is not being impacted by Mill activities, and the increasing trend in TDS concentrations in MW-18 is therefore the result of natural background influences. The geochemical evaluation of TDS in MW-27 and MW-31 shows that TDS concentrations in these wells are exhibiting statistically significant increasing trends at this time, although not at the time of the New Wells Background Report (see Appendix E-1). Indicator parameters chloride and sulfate are also showing significantly increasing trends in these wells today, but not at the Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 32 October 10, 2012 time of the New Wells Background Report, although fluoride and uranium are currently showing significant downward trends in MW-27, fluoride is showing a significantly decreasing trend and uranium is trending downward in MW-31 (see Appendices E-2 and E-3). The location of these two wells is important when determining potential sources of contamination. Both MW-27 and MW-31 are located at the margin of the nitrate/chloride plume (Figure 3), which has been the subject of many studies that are described in detail in the following reports:  Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report (INTERA, 2009)  Quarterly Nitrate Reports (EFRI, 2009–2012) A mass balance was performed and presented in the December 30, 2009, Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report, where one of the suggested possibilities was a groundwater mound from the tailings cells that might cause elevated nitrate and chloride concentrations upgradient in the area of the nitrate/chloride plume. The nitrate/chloride plume with associated sulfate in groundwater is the cause of the increase in TDS observed in monitor wells MW-27 and MW-31 located at the margins of the plume in areas where increases would be expected. A calculation for nitrate to evaluate this possibility (a calculation for chloride would be similar) suggests that on the order of 11 percent tailings solution (assuming the highest recently observed nitrate concentration in the tailings of 290 mg/L) would have to mix with unimpacted groundwater (assuming 1 mg/L) to account for the observed mass of nitrate in groundwater, assuming an average nitrate concentration in the plume above the 20 mg/L isopleth of 30 mg/L. The size of the nitrate plume above 20 mg/L is approximately 40 acres, or 1,800,000 square feet in map area. Assuming 45 feet of saturation (INTERA, 2009) and a porosity of 0.2, there are 16,200,000 cubic feet or 121,176,000 gallons of groundwater in that area. Eleven percent of that is 13,329,360 gallons (approximately 41 acre feet), which is a conservative estimate of the volume of tailings solution that would have to be mixed with groundwater to account for the mass of nitrate in the portion of the plume above 20 mg/L nitrate. Assume:  Nitrate concentration in tailings solution 290 mg/L  Nitrate concentration in un-impacted groundwater 1 mg/L  Average plume concentration 30 mg/L Mixing equation: Ct*Vt + Cg*Vg = Cm*Vm (eq 1) Where: Ct = Concentration of nitrate in tailings solutions Vt = Volume of tailings solutions Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 33 October 10, 2012 Cg = Concentration of nitrate in unimpacted groundwater Vg = Volume of unimpacted groundwater Cm = Concentration of nitrate in mixture of groundwater and tailings solutions Vm = Volume of mixture of groundwater and tailings solutions Another equation: Vt + Vg = Vm (eq 2) Substituting eq2 in eq1: Ct*Vt + Cg*Vg = Cm* (Vt + Vg) (eq 3) Substitute nitrate concentrations in eq 3: 290*Vt + 1*Vg = 30*(Vt + Vg) 290*Vt + 1*Vg = 30*Vt + 30*Vg 260*Vt = 29*Vg Vt = 29/260*Vg = 0.11*Vg The volume of tailings solution would have to be 11 percent of the volume of un-impacted groundwater in the mixture. That theoretical volume of potential seepage from the tailings cells would certainly generate a detectable groundwater mound. Such a mound would have to be on the order of 5 feet on average over the entire 40 acres, but would likely be much higher than that at the centroid of the theoretical plume (beneath the tailings cells) and would taper off toward the edges of the plume. However, no such mounding exists under the tailings cells. While groundwater mounding can be observed towards the eastern portion of the site, away from the tailings cells, it is clearly related to the wildlife ponds and not the tailings cells. Equally as important, if the concentration of nitrate in tailings documented in the Statement of Basis for the 2005 GWDP (24 mg/L) or as documented in the annual tailings sampling and analysis, were used in the calculation, no amount of tailings solution would bring the plume concentration to 30 mg/L. It is also important to note that, as discussed in more detail in Section 3.3 above, MW-27 and MW-31 were included in the University of Utah Study, in which Hurst and Solomon concluded that “stable isotope fingerprints do not suggest contamination of groundwater by tailings cell leakage, evidence that is corroborated by trace metal concentrations similar to historically- observed concentrations.” With respect to MW-27, specifically, Hurst and Solomon noted that “D34S-SO4 and ð18O-SO4 fingerprints closely relate MW-27 to wildlife pond water, while the exceptionally low concentration of sulfate in MW-27, the only groundwater site to exhibit sulfate levels below 100 mg/L, suggest no leachate from the tailings cells has reached the well.” Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 34 October 10, 2012 We therefore conclude that the increased nitrate and chloride concentrations around MW-27 and MW-31 are not caused by any potential tailings cell seepage. Since nitrate and chloride form a substantial part of TDS, it is expected that increases in nitrate and chloride in MW-27 and MW-31 would lead to corresponding increases in TDS in those wells. As a result, the out-of-compliance status of TDS in MW-27 and MW-31 is likely due to the impacted groundwater of the nitrate/chloride plume. Since the nitrate/chloride plume is being addressed separately, we propose that the GWCLs in MW-27 and MW-31 be adjusted to take the nitrate/chloride plume into account. The current GWCLs for TDS in MW-27 and MW-31 are 1,075 and 1,320 mg/L, respectively. The newly calculated proposed GWCLs for TDS in MW-27 and MW-31 are 1,185.72, and 1,410.57 mg/L, respectively, which were calculated in accordance with the Flowsheet as the mean + 2σ, based on all data available to date. For the reasons discussed in Section 3.2 above, EFRI proposes that the GWCL for TDS in MW-18 be eliminated. However, Appendix B-1 sets out a revised GWCL for TDS in MW-18 of 3,280 mg/L were such a GWCL to be adopted. 4.5.2 Sulfate Sulfate concentrations have been out-of-compliance in MW-31 and far downgradient well MW-3A. The geochemical analysis of sulfate in MW-3A shows that there is not a statistically significant increasing trend at the time of this SAR or at the time of the New Wells Background Report (see Appendix E-1). Other indicator parameters (chloride, fluoride, and uranium) do not exhibit significantly increasing trends at the time of this SAR or at the time of the Background Report (see Appendices E-2 and E-3). Although sulfate is an indicator parameter, it is not demonstrating an upward trend. Further, MW-3A is approximately 2,000 feet downgradient from the Mill’s tailings cells, and it is extremely unlikely that any potential tailings cells leakage could reach MW-3A during the 30 years that the Mill has been in operation. As indicated in Section 4.2 of HGC (2012b), travel times in the perched aquifer at the Mill are estimated to be 0.9 feet per year in the area between the Mill’s tailings cells and MW-3A, resulting in a travel time of over 2,000 years from the tailings cells to MW-3A. Further, and more importantly, even if any potential tailings cell leakage could have reached MW-3A in the 30 years of Mill operations, a rising trend in chloride would be observed before any other individual constituents would be impacted in that well. We can therefore conclude that the sulfate in MW-3A has not been caused by Mill operations and is the result of natural influences. As discussed in Section 4.5.1 above, MW-31 is located on the downgradient margin of the nitrate/chloride plume (Figure 3). Sulfate in MW-31 has a significantly increasing trend (see Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 35 October 10, 2012 Appendix E-2). This trend was not apparent at the time of the Background Report (see Appendix E-3). TDS and indicator parameter chloride are also showing significantly increasing trends (see Appendices E-1 and E-2), although fluoride is showing a significantly decreasing trend and uranium is trending downward in MW-31. As discussed above, MW-3A and MW-31 were included in the University of Utah Study, where Hurst and Solomon concluded that “[s]table isotope fingerprints do not suggest contamination of groundwater by tailings cell leakage, evidence that is corroborated by trace metal concentrations similar to historically-observed observations.” However, groundwater in MW-31 is being impacted by the nitrate/ chloride plume. Current sulfate concentrations in MW-31 are among the lowest at the Site. Other monitor wells show sulfate concentrations that are three to seven times higher than those in MW-31. A mass balance for sulfate would therefore be unlikely to be useful in identifying a potential tailings seepage source given that nearby wells all show significantly higher sulfate concentrations, which have previously been determined to represent background. Table 7 gives the range of sulfate concentrations in nearby wells. Table 7 Sulfate Concentration Ranges in Monitor Wells near MW-32 Monitor Well Sulfate Concentration Range (mg/L) MW-31 436-552 MW-25 1520-2160 MW-11 895-1507 MW-29 2600-2980 MW-30 696-977 Further, the highest value (552 mg/L sulfate in November 2011) is only 7 percent higher than the average concentration of 517 mg/L, which is close to the 5 percent error for acceptable laboratory performance. Thus, the increasing sulfate trend in MW-31 is unlikely to be the result of any potential tailings seepage, and should be attributable to natural causes. The current GWCLs for sulfate in MW-3A and MW-31 are 3,640 and 532 mg/L, respectively. Proposed GWCLs for sulfate in MW-3A and MW-31 are 3,949.27 and 552 mg/L, respectively. Both values were calculated following the Flowsheet using the updated mean + 2σ, taking into account all available data at the time of this SAR for MW-3A and the highest historical value for MW-31. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 36 October 10, 2012 4.5.3 Fluoride Fluoride concentrations in far downgradient well MW-3 have been out of compliance as shown in Table 1. Results of the geochemical analysis show that concentrations of fluoride are showing a statistically significant increasing trend at this time, but did not exhibit such a trend at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report (see Appendix E-1). Indicator parameters sulfate and uranium are also showing significantly increasing trends at this time, which were identified at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report; however, chloride is not demonstrating an increasing trend at this time, nor did it demonstrate an increasing trend at the time of the Existing Wells Background Report (see Appendices E-2 and E-3). As discussed in Section 4.1.2 above, although fluoride is an indicator parameter and has recently demonstrated an upward trend, MW-3 is approximately 2,000 feet downgradient from the Mill’s tailings cells, and it is extremely unlikely that any potential tailings cell leakage could reach MW-3 during the 30 years that the Mill has been in operation. As indicated in Section 4.2 of HGC (2012b), travel times in the perched aquifer at the Mill are estimated to be 0.90 feet per year in the area between the Mill’s tailings cells and MW-3, resulting in a travel time of over 2,000 years from the tailings cells to MW-3. Further, and more importantly, it is inconceivable that, even if any potential tailings cell leakage could have reached MW-3 in the 30 years of Mill operations, a rising trend in fluoride would be observed without an equal or more pronounced rising trend in chloride. We can therefore conclude that the rising trend in fluoride in MW-3, like the rising trends in sulfate and uranium, has not been caused by Mill operations, and is the result of natural influences. Further, as noted above, MW-3 was included in the University of Utah Study, where Hurst and Solomon concluded that “[s]table isotope fingerprints do not suggest contamination of groundwater by tailings cell leakage, evidence that is corroborated by trace metal concentrations similar to historically-observed observations,” and that MW-3, along with MW-3A and MW-18 “have elevated uranium concentrations, but as they do not bear an evaporated stable isotope signal it does not appear that the elevated uranium values are the result of leakage from tailing cells (or wildlife ponds.).” As a result, the GWCL for fluoride in MW-3 should be revised to reflect these natural influences. The current GWCL for fluoride in MW-3 is 0.68 mg/L, which is below the GWQS of 4 mg/L. We propose that the GWCL be updated to 2.0 mg/L for fluoride in MW-3, which was calculated following the Flowsheet using the Fractional Approach. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 37 October 10, 2012 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Background at the Mill site was recently thoroughly studied in the Background Reports and in the University of Utah Study. Both the Background Reports and the University of Utah Study concluded that groundwater at the site has not been impacted by Mill operations. Both of those studies also acknowledged that there are natural influences at play at the site that have given rise to increasing water trends and general variability of background groundwater at the site. The focus of this SAR was therefore to identify any changes in the circumstances identified in those studies. A geochemical analysis for the indicator parameters for each of the wells (other than MW-35) in question was performed. For newly installed monitoring well MW-35, background has not yet been established, and revised GWCLs for MW-35 will be established in a separate background groundwater quality report for that well. As identified at the time of the Background Reports, evidence of a site-wide decline in pH can be observed when plotting field measurements against time. A secondary pH analysis was performed on wells with constituents whose mobility may be affected by groundwater with low pH. The results of the analyses show that there has not been a significant change in the behavior of most of the wells and constituents in question. This means that the exceedances observed at the Mill site in these wells are the result of natural background influences, which may include the decreasing pH across the Site. Table 8 Summary of Findings Well Out-of- Compliance Constituent Summary Path Forward MW-03 Fluoride Far downgradient. No significantly increasing trend in chloride. Consistent with background conditions. Revise GWCL MW-03 Selenium Far downgradient. No significantly increasing trend in chloride. Previously identified increasing trend. Consistent with background conditions. Revise GWCL MW-03A Selenium Far downgradient. No significantly increasing trends in indicator parameters. Previously identified increasing trend in neighboring well MW-3. Consistent with background conditions. Revise GWCL MW-03A Sulfate No significantly increasing trend in sulfate or any indicator parameters. Far downgradient. Consistent with background conditions. Revise GWCL Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 38 October 10, 2012 Well Out-of- Compliance Constituent Summary Path Forward MW-05 Uranium U and Cl in MW-5 are showing a significantly decreasing trend. Fluoride is the only significantly increasing indicator parameter. Fluoride in MW-5 was significantly increasing at the time of the background report. No exceedances after performing Flowsheet statistical analysis. Maintain Existing GWCL, and further study MW-11 Manganese Previously identified increasing trend. Consistent with background conditions. Only significantly increasing indicator parameter is SO4, which was showing a significant increasing trend at the time of the background report. Revise GWCL MW-12 Selenium Previously identified increasing trend. Consistent with background conditions. Only significantly increasing indicator parameter is U, which was showing a significantly increasing trend at the time of the background report. Revise GWCL MW-18 TDS @ 180 Far upgradient. Consistent with background conditions. Eliminate GWCL MW-18 Thallium Far upgradient. Previously identified increasing trend. Consistent with background conditions. Eliminate GWCL MW-24 Cadmium No significantly increasing trends in indicator parameters. Natural background influences. Revise GWCL MW-24 Thallium No significantly increasing trends in indicator parameters. Natural background influences. Revise GWCL MW-25 Uranium No significantly increasing trends in (other) indicator parameters. Revise GWCL MW-26 Uranium Pumping well. Previously identified increasing trend. Pumping Well, eliminate GWCL MW-27 TDS @ 180 SO4, TDS, and Cl are showing a newly identified significantly increasing trend. MW-27 is located at the margin of the nitrate/chloride plume. Revise GWCL, continue remedial action on the nitrate/chloride plume MW-30 Selenium Cl is showing a newly identified significantly increasing trend. No significantly increasing trends in other indicator parameters. MW-31 is located at the margin of the nitrate/chloride plume. Revise GWCL, continue remedial action on the nitrate/chloride plume MW-31 Sulfate SO4, TDS, and Cl are showing a newly identified significantly increasing trend. MW-31 is located at the margin of the nitrate/chloride plume. Revise GWCL, continue remedial action on the nitrate/chloride plume MW-31 TDS @ 180 SO4, TDS, and Cl are showing a newly identified significantly increasing trend. MW-31 is located at the margin of the nitrate/chloride plume. Revise GWCL, continue remedial action on the nitrate/chloride plume Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 39 October 10, 2012 Well Out-of- Compliance Constituent Summary Path Forward MW-35 Manganese No significantly increasing trend in any indicator parameters. Likely background conditions for new well MW-35. Submit Background Report for MW-35 MW-35 Uranium No significantly increasing trend in any indicator parameters. Likely background conditions for new well MW-35. Submit Background Report for MW-35 MW-35 Gross Alpha No significantly increasing trend in any indicator parameters. Likely background conditions for new well MW-35. Submit Background Report for MW-35 Increasing TDS in monitor wells MW-27 and MW-31 and increasing chloride in MW-30 are related to the nitrate/chloride plume and not to any potential tailings seepage. These wells are at the margin of the plume at locations that might be expected to see minor changes in TDS. Any potential increases in concentrations in these wells are already being addressed by the corrective action being implanted for the nitrate/chloride plume. The slight increase in sulfate in monitor well MW-31 will also be addressed by that corrective action. However, it is unlikely that the sulfate increase in MW-31 is due to any Mill-related source, given that sulfate concentrations in that well are substantially lower than any sulfate concentrations in any nearby wells. With respect to the second quarter 2011 consecutive exceedances observed at MW-35, background has not yet been set for that well. The exceedances therefore do not represent exceedances of natural background at the site or an impact to groundwater due to Mill activities. With respect to MW-18, which is far upgradient of the Mill site, the second quarter 2011 consecutive exceedance of TDS should be considered to represent natural variation in background, without further assessment. Rising trends in other constituents in MW-18, including sulfate, which is a component of TDS, have already been analyzed in the Background Reports and University of Utah Study, and have been determined to be the result of natural background influences. As the results of the geochemical and mass balance analysis demonstrate, each exceedance can be attributed to natural background and site-wide influences (decreasing pH) or to impacts at the Mill site that are already being addressed with corrective action. Revised GWCLs have been proposed, as appropriate. EFRI maintains that GWCLs for constituents in wells with significantly increasing trends should be revised regularly, as is recommended by the USEPA’s Unified Guidance (USEPA, 2009), to account for the trends and to minimize unwarranted out-of- compliance status in such wells. Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah 40 October 10, 2012 6.0 REFERENCES Brookins, D.G., 1988. Eh-pH Diagrams for Geochemistry. Springer-Verlag, New York, 176 pp. Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA), 2012 2Q 2012 Groundwater Monitoring Report. White Mesa Uranium Mill Nitrate Monitoring Reports, 2009-2012 Hydro Geo Chem (HGC), 2012a. Plan to Investigate pH Exceedences in Perched Groundwater Monitoring Wells White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah. ______ 2012b. Site Hydrology and Estimation of Groundwater Travel Times in the Perched Zone, White Mesa Uranium Mill Site Near Blanding, Utah, prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp. by Hydro Geo Chem Inc., July 10, 2012. ––––––. 2007. Preliminary Contaminant Investigation Report, White Mesa Uranium Mill Near Blanding Utah. Prepared for Denison Mines, Inc., by Hydro Geo Chem, November 20, 2007. Hurst, T.G., and Solomon, D.K., 2008. Summary of Work Completed, Data Results, Interpretations and Recommendations for the July 2007 Sampling Event at the Denison Mines, USA, White Mesa Uranium Mill Near Blanding Utah. Prepared by Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah. INTERA Incorporated, 2007. Revised Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells for Dension Mines (USA) Corp.’s White Mesa Uranium Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah. ––––––. 2009. Nitrate Contamination Investigation Report White Mesa Uranium Mill Site, Blanding, Utah. Mayland, H.F., Gough, L.P., and Stewart, K.C., 1991. Selenium Mobility in Soils and Its Absorption, Translocation, and Metabolism in Plants, in Proceedings, Symposium on Selenium, Western U.S., http://eprints.nwisrl.ars.usda.gov/909/1/744.pdf. Rai, D., and Zachara, J.M., 1984. Chemical Attenuation Rates, Coefficients, and Constants in Leachate Migration. Volume I: A Critical Review. EPRI, EA-3356, Research Project 2188-1. Shapiro, S.S., and Wilk, M.B., 1965. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika 52:591-611. USEPA, 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities EPA 530/R-09-007 FIGURES Cell No. 1 Cell No. 2 Cell No. 3 Cell No. 4A WildlifePond WildlifePond Mill Site Cell No. 4B MW-37 MW-36 MW-35 MW-34MW-33 MW-32MW-31MW-30 MW-29 MW-28 MW-27 MW-26 MW-25 MW-24 MW-23 MW-22 MW-21 MW-20 MW-19 MW-18 MW-17 MW-15 MW-14 MW-12 MW-11 MW-05 MW-04 MW-03 MW-02 MW-01 MW-03A S:\Projects\IUC-001-01-001 Denison Mines\GIS\mapdocs\Task_4_NOV\Fig01_LocationMap.mxd Date: 9/14/2012 Figure 1Location of White Mesa Mill SiteWhite Mesa Uranium Mill 1,000 0 1,000500 Feet Source(s): Aerial – NAIP Utah 2011;Wells – HGC, Inc., May 2008 report. Legend Groundwater Monitoring Wells U T A HUTAH White MesaUranium Mill Cell No. 1 Cell No. 2 Cell No. 3 Cell No. 4A WildlifePond WildlifePond Mill Site Cell No. 4B MW-37 MW-36 MW-34MW-33 MW-32 MW-31 MW-30 MW-29 MW-28 MW-27 MW-26 MW-25 MW-24 MW-23 MW-18 MW-17 MW-15 MW-14 MW-12 MW-11 MW-05 MW-04 MW-03 MW-02 MW-03A MW-35 * S:\Projects\IUC-001-01-001 Denison Mines\GIS\mapdocs\Task_4_NOV\Fig02_Constituents.mxd Date: 10/10/2012 Figure 2Wells with GWCL exceedences during 2010, 2011, and 1Q and 2Q 2012White Mesa Uranium Mill 500 0 500250 Feet Source(s): Aerial – NAIP Utah 2011;Wells – HGC, Inc., May 2008 report; Legend Monitoring WellsConstituentCadmium Fluoride Manganese Selenium Sulfate Thallium Uranium TDS * MW-35 is a new well for which background has not yet been established. Interim GWCLs were set at a Fraction of the GWQS. Manganese, selenium, thallium, uranium, and gross alphaconcentrations have exceeded the interim GWCLs. A Background Report for MW-35 will be submitted to the Utah DRC after eight quarters of data are available for the constituents in that well. Cell No. 1 Cell No. 2 Cell No. 3 Cell No. 4A WildlifePond WildlifePond Mill Site Cell No. 4B 5 5 5 5 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 MW-37 MW-36 MW-34MW-33 MW-32MW-31MW-30 MW-29 MW-28 MW-27 MW-26 MW-25 MW-24 MW-23 MW-22 MW-21 MW-20 MW-19 MW-18 MW-17 MW-15 MW-14 MW-12 MW-11 MW-05 MW-04 MW-03 MW-02 MW-01 MW-03A MW-35 * S:\Projects\IUC-001-01-001 Denison Mines\GIS\mapdocs\Task_4_NOV\Fig03_Plumes.mxd Date: 10/10/2012 Figure 3Nitrate/Chloride Plumeand GWCL ExceedancesWhite Mesa Uranium Mill 1,000 0 1,000500 Feet Source(s): Aerial – NAIP Utah 2011;Wells – HGC, Inc., May 2008 report;Nitrate and chloride data collected June 2012. Legend Monitoring WellsConstituentCadmium Fluoride Manganese Selenium Sulfate Thallium Uranium TDS Chloride 100 mg/L Nitrate 5 mg/L * See Note Figure 2 APPENDIX A Exceedance Notice Table Monitoring Well (Water Class) Constituent Exceeding GWCL GWCL in July 14, 2011 GWDP Q1 2010 Sample Date Q1 2010 Result Q2 2010 Sample Date Q2 2010 Result May 2010 Monthly Sample Date May 2010 Monthly Result June 2010 Monthly Sample Date June 2010 Monthly Result July 2010 Monthly Sample Date July 2010 Monthly Result August 2010 Monthly Sample Date August 2010 Monthly Result Q3 2010 Sample Date Q3 2010 Result October 2010 Monthly Sample Date October 2010 Monthly Result Q4 2010 Sample Date Q4 2010 Result December 2010 Monthly Sample Date December 2010 Monthly Result Manganese (ug/L) 131.29 2/10/10 134 4/28/10 137 5/24/10 122 6/16/10 99 7/20/10 123 8/25/10 138 9/8/10 128 141 133 158 Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) 11.5 2/10/10 12 4/28/10 5.2 5/24/10 <1.0 6/16/10 <1.0 7/27/10 2.17 8/25/10 <1.0 9/8/10 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Manganese (ug/L) 2230.30 2060 2070 NA NA NA NA 1920 NA 1980 NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.45 6.29 6.36 6.45 7.19 6.48 6.51 6.60 6.37 6.47 Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.53 7.2 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.58 NS NA 6.36 NS NA Uranium 6.5 5.93 6.43 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.57 NS NA 5.89 NS NA Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)0.62 1.3 2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.4 Uranium (ug/L) 41.8 58.7 66.7 37.4 36.6 34.4 71.8 72.7 37.5 30.4 29.6 Chloroform (ug/L) 70 700 1700 800 940 900 2800 2100 1000 1900 1400 Chloride (mg/L) 58.31 72 57 80 47 52 49 64 52 48 52 Field pH (S.U.) 6.74 - 8.5 6.59 7.18 6.36 6.98 6.45 6.39 6.60 6.61 6.49 6.45 Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) (ug/L) 519.9 NR 2.2 12 24 45 5.5 16 1.2 TDS (mg/L) 3284.19 3100 3280 NS NS NS NS 3440 NS 3140 NS Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)4.69 2.4 0.6 NS NS NS NS 2.5 NS 6.4 NS Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)2.5 16.1 15.8 17 15.3 7/21/10 16 8/24/10 16 15 15 15 16 Chloride (mg/L) 128 127 97 NS NS NS NS NS NS 111 NS 126 NS Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.81 6.55 6.62 7.47 7/21/2010 6.82 8/24/10 6.73 6.80 6.77 6.75 6.65 Uranium (ug/L) 8.32 6.82 6.82 NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.10 NS 6.64 NS Selenium (ug/L) 34 32 35.3 NS NS 7/27/10 33.5 8/24/10 35.6 32.6 32.4 32.2 30.5 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)5 21.7 22.5 5/21/10 23 6/15/10 21.1 7/21/10 20 8/24/10 22 21 10/19/10 20 20 20 TDS (mg/L) 1320 1150 1220 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 1330 NS NA 1320 NS Chloride (mg/L) 143 128 128 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 139 NS NA 138 NS Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.96 7.38 5/21/10 6.95 6/15/10 7.01 7/21/10 7.8 8/24/10 7.1 7.66 10/19/10 6.92 6.98 6.95 Sulfate (mg/L) 532 507 522 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 527 NS NA 539 NS Manganese (ug/L) 200 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 698 NS NA Thallium (ug/l) 0.5 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 1.14 NS NA Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)3.75 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 2.6 NS NA Selenium (ug/L) 12.5 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA ND NS NA Uranium (ug/L) 7.5 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 27.2 NS NA MW-2 (Class III) Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)3.2 NS NA 1.2 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 3.5 NS NA Selenium (ug/L) 37 NS NA 37.2 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 35.5 NS NA 38.8 NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 6.14 (6.25)NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.39 NS NA 6.35 NS NA Fluoride (Mg/L) 0.68 NS NA 0.71 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 0.63 NS NA 0.77 NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 6.23 (6.24)NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.42 NS NA 6.21 NS NA Sulfate (mg/L) 3640 NS NA 3680 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 3630 NS NA 3850 NS NA TDS (mg/L) 5805 NS NA 5860 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 5470 NS NA 5330 NS NA Selenium (ug/L) 89 NS NA 81.4 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NS NA 94.8 NS NA MW-5 (Class II)Uranium (ug/L) 7.5 NS NA 4/26/10 0.39 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 11/11/10 11.6 NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 7.16 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.62 NS NA 6.47 NS NA Selenium (ug/L) 25 NS NA 25.7 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 31.9 NS NA 27.6 NS NA Selenium (ug/L) 128.7 NS NA 100 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NA NS NA 99.5 NS NA Iron (ug/L) 81.7 NS NA ND NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NA NS NA ND NS NA Thallium (ug/l) 1.95 NS NA 3.73 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 3.64 NS NA 3.57 NS NA Sulfate (mg/L) 1938.9 NS NA 1950 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 1930 NS NA 1910 NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.25-8.5 NS NA 6.2 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 7.23 NS NA 6.37 NS NA TDS (mg/L) 3198.77 NS NA 3280 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 3190 NS NA 3030 NS NA 11/10/10 12/15/10 MW-15 (Class III)4/21/10 NS 11/11/10 MW-14 (Class III)2/2/10 4/21/10 5/21/10 6/16/10 7/20/10 8/25/10 9/8/10 10/20/10 MW-18 (Class III)5/4/10 9/15/10 11/18/10 MW-12 (Class III)4/27/10 9/20/10 11/19/10 MW-3A (Class III)5/4/10 9/21/10 11/22/10 Required Semi-Annual Sampling Wells MW-3 (Class III)5/3/10 9/20/10 11/19/10 MW-35 (Class II)11/30/10 MW-31 (Class III) 2/9/10 4/20/10 9/13/10 11/9/10 12/14/10 10/19/10 11/9/10 12/14/10 MW-30 (Class II)2/9/10 4/27/10 5/21/10 6/15/10 9/14/10 11/15/10 12/15/10 MW-26 (Class III)2/2/10 4/22/10 5/21/10 6/16/10 7/21/10 8/16/10 9/26/10 10/20/10 MW-25 (Class III) 2/26/2010 4/28/2010 9/8/2010 11/10/10 MW-11 (Class II)10/20/10 11/11/10 12/15/10 Required Quarterly Sampling Wells Appendix A – GWCL Exceedances Second Quarter 2012 under the July 14, 2011 GWDP Q1 2010 Results Q2 2010 Results Q3 2010 Results Q4 2010 Results Monitoring Well (Water Class) Constituent Exceeding GWCL GWCL in July 14, 2011 GWDP Q1 2010 Sample Date Q1 2010 Result Q2 2010 Sample Date Q2 2010 Result May 2010 Monthly Sample Date May 2010 Monthly Result June 2010 Monthly Sample Date June 2010 Monthly Result July 2010 Monthly Sample Date July 2010 Monthly Result August 2010 Monthly Sample Date August 2010 Monthly Result Q3 2010 Sample Date Q3 2010 Result October 2010 Monthly Sample Date October 2010 Monthly Result Q4 2010 Sample Date Q4 2010 Result December 2010 Monthly Sample Date December 2010 Monthly Result Required Quarterly Sampling Wells Appendix A – GWCL Exceedances Second Quarter 2012 under the July 14, 2011 GWDP Q1 2010 Results Q2 2010 Results Q3 2010 Results Q4 2010 Results Field pH (S.U.) 6.78-8.5 NS NA 6.61 (6.66)NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.93 NS NA 6.8 NS NA Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)2.83 NS NA 2.6 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NA 2.4 NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 6.18 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 7.05 NS NA 6.44 NS NA Manganese (ug/L) 550 NS NA 184 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NS NA 65 NS NA Cadmium (ug/L) 2.5 NS NA 4.28 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 5.06 NS NA 3.22 NS NA Thallium (ug/L) 1 NS NA 1.3 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 1.57 NS NA 1.09 NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 5.91 (5.78)NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.64 NS NA 6.1 NS NA Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)5.6 NS NA 5.8 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 5.9 NS NA 5.7 NS NA Chloride (mg/L) 38 NS NA 42 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 42 NS NA 45 NS NA Sulfate (mg/L) 462 NS NA 469 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 461 NS NA 452 NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.5-8.5 NS NA 6.78 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 7.68 NS NA 6.89 NS NA TDS (mg/L) 1075 NS NA 1160 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 1060 NS NA 1110 NS NA Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)2 NS NA 1.6 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NA NS NA 2.4 NS NA Chloride (mg/L) 105 NS NA 108 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 106 NS NA 107 NS NA Manganese (ug/L) 1837 NS NA 1550 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NA NS NA 1510 NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.1 - 8.5 NS NA 5.67 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 5.91 NS NA 5.72 NS NA Iron (ug/L) 1869 NS NA 1630 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 1490 NS NA Manganese (ug/L) 5624 NS NA 4820 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 4890 NS NA TDS (mg/L) 4400 NS NA 4400 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 4390 NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.46 - 8.5 NS NA 6.82 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.17 NS NA Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)3.33 NS NA 4.5 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 2.9 NS NA 8.8 NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.4 - 8.5 NS NA 6.03 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.33 NS NA 6.05 NS NA Notes: Values in () parentheses are the field pH measurements for the resampled analyses. Pursuant to the October 26, 2011 DRC letter gross alpha monitoring in MW-26 returned to the routine frquency of quarterly. These samples were inadvertantly collected and are for information only. NA = Not Applicable GWCL values are taken from February 15, 2011 version of GWDP. MW-32 (Class III)4/20/10 9/13/10 11/10/10 Exceedances are shown in yellow NS = Not Required and Not Sampled NR = Required and Not Reported MW-29 (Class III)4/27/10 NS NA 11/9/10 MW-28 (Class III)4/19/10 9/14/10 11/12/10 MW-27 (Class III)5/3/10 9/14/10 11/12/10 MW-24 (Class III)5/6/10 9/21/10 11/17/10 MW-23 (Class III)4/22/10 9/14/10 11/22/10 MW-19 (Class III)5/4/10 9/15/10 11/18/10 Monitoring Well (Water Class) Constituent Exceeding GWCL GWCL in July 14, 2011 GWDP January 2011 Monthly Sample Date January 2011 Monthly Sample Result Q1 2011 Sample Date Q1 2011 Result March 2011 Monthly Sample Date March 2011 Monthly Result Q2 2011 Sample Date Q2 2011 Result May 2011 Monthly Sample Date May 2011 Monthly Result June 2011 Monthly Sample Date June 2011 Monthly Result July 2011 Monthly Sample Date July 2011 Monthly Result Q3 2011 Sample Date Q3 2011 Result September 2011 Monthly Sample Date September 2011 Monthly Result Q4 2011 Sample Date Q4 2011 Result November 2011 Monthly Sample Date November 2011 Monthly Result December 2011 Monthly Sample Date December 2011 Monthly Result Manganese (ug/L) 131.29 121 145 68 148 170 6/15/2011 121 151 118 106 112 105 100 Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L) 11.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 6/20/2011 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Manganese (ug/L) 2230.30 NA 2020 NA 2140 NA NA NA 1990 NA 1960 NA NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.37 6.22 6.76 6.63 6.37 5.83 6.4 6.23 (6.41)6.50 6.71 (6.82) 6.63 6.84 Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.44 6.66 6.79 6.7 6.1 5.77 6.29 8/3/2011 8/30/11 6.42 (6.54)6.54 6.6 6.51 6.87 Uranium 6.5 7.02 4.77 6.8 5.56 6.72 7.06 6.74 8/3/2011 6.37 5.96 5.27 6.56 6.1 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)0.62 0.2 0.25 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.6 2.4 0.9 1.3 2.3 Uranium (ug/L) 41.8 32 69.3 31.8 60.2 57.4 18.5 57.1 19.0 56.1 58.9 55.6 57 Chloroform (ug/L) 70 800 730 1200 390 1900 730 300 1000 1300 440 1200 1400 Chloride (mg/L) 58.31 52 59 64 64 54 39 64 60 66 61 55 62 Field pH (S.U.) 6.74 - 8.5 6.83 6.06 6.89 6.22 6.43 6.52 6.35 6.07 (6.58)6.71 6.82 6.75 7.1 Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) (ug/L) 5 <1.0 10 14 3.1 20 7 2.4 10 7.9 2.6 8.9 11 TDS (mg/L) 3284.19 3100 3270 3140 3310 3140 3020 3270 3190 3200 3190 3220 3160 Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)4.69 NS 3 2.7 3.3 3.9 4.3 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.2 NS NS Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)2.5 15 16 17 16 16 17 17 14 16 16 16 16 Chloride (mg/L) 128 NS 134 NS 134 128 127 127 126 145 129 122 124 Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.65 6.96 7.10 6.83 6.7 5.66 6.65 6.61 6.80 6.96 (6.73) 6.83 7.14 Uranium (ug/L) 8.32 NS 5.97 NS 6.49 NS NS NS 8 NS 9.83 NS NS Selenium (ug/L) 34 36.2 34.7 34 44.4 38.3 38.7 32.4 39.7 32.4 36.6 36.8 38 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)5 19 21 22 21 20 22 22 20 21 21 21 21 TDS (mg/L) 1320 1240 1220 1250 1370 1290 1330 1280 1300 1300 1320 1290 1330 Chloride (mg/L) 143 NS 145 NS 143 143 145 148 148 148 145 145 148 Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.65 7.21 7.43 7.01 6.73 6.16 6.64 6.67 7.03 7.28 (7.34) 7.01 7.46 Sulfate (mg/L) 532 NS 538 531 503 512 540 532 537 541 539 552 530 Manganese (ug/L) 200 NS NA 248 NS NA 369 NS NA NS NA 348 267 270 271 283 247 Thallium (ug/l) 0.5 NS NA < 0.50 NS NA < 0.50 NS NA NS NA NS 0.52 NS 0.57 < 0.50 0.63 Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)3.75 NS NA 2.6 NS NA 3.7 NS NA NS NA NS 4.5 NS 4.4 4.7 4.2 Selenium (ug/L) 12.5 NS NA ND NS NA ND NS NA NS NA NA 9.3 NA 10.5 NA NA Uranium (ug/L) 7.5 NS NA 12.7 NS NA 21.7 NS NA NS NA 24.2 18.3 22.3 20.1 24 23.6 MW-2 (Class III) Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)3.2 NS NA 1.1 NS NA 4/12/2011 1.2 NS NA NS NA NS NA 8/8/2011 0.5 NS NA 10/5/2011 1.3 NS NA NS NA Selenium (ug/L) 37 NS NA 40.5 NS NA 45.4 NS NA NS NA NS NA 46 NS NA 46.7 NS NA NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 6.09 NS NA 6.46 NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.32 NS NA 6.53 (6.83) NS NA NS NA Fluoride (Mg/L) 0.68 NS NA 0.69 NS NA 0.68 NS NA NS NA NS NA 0.96 NS NA 0.91 NS NA NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 6.05 NS NA 6.58 NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.19 NS NA 6.5 (6.92) NS NA NS NA Sulfate (mg/L) 3640 NS NA 3730 NS NA 3350 NS NA NS NA NS NA 3560 NS NA 3750 NS NA NS NA TDS (mg/L) 5805 NS NA 5770 NS NA 5720 NS NA NS NA NS NA 5810 NS NA 5630 NS NA NS NA Selenium (ug/L) 89 NS NA 99 NS NA 85.8 NS NA NS NA NS NA 88.5 NS NA 95 NS NA NS NA MW-5 (Class II)Uranium (ug/L) 7.5 NS NA 2/14/11 29.5 NS NA 4/12/2011 7.16 NS NA NS NA NS NA 8/9/2011 0.5 NS NA 10/10/2011 4.52 NS NA NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 6.43 NS NA 6.67 NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.13 NS NA 6.7 (6.97) NS NA NS NA Selenium (ug/L) 25 NS NA 39 NS NA 21.7 NS NA NS NA NS NA 25.4 NS NA 35.4 NS NA NS NA Selenium (ug/L) 128.7 NS NA NA NS NA 116 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 112 NS NA NS NA Iron (ug/L) 81.7 NS NA NA NS NA <0.50 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NA 137 NS NA NS NA Thallium (ug/l) 1.95 NS NA 3.49 NS NA 3.74 NS NA NS NA NS NA 4.0 3.39 NS NA 3.83 NS NA NS NA Sulfate (mg/L) 1938.9 NS NA 1770 NS NA 1780 NS NA NS NA NS NA 1910 NS NA 2020 NS NA NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.25-8.5 NS NA 6.27 NS NA 6.71 NS NA NS NA NS NA 5.95 (6.30)NS NA 6.55 (6.63) NS NA NS NA TDS (mg/L) 3198.77 NS NA 3250 NS NA 3250 NS NA NS NA NS NA 3190 NS NA 3220 NS NA NS NA MW-15 (Class III)NS 4/12/2011 10/10/2011 12/12/2011 2/15/11 4/5/2011 11/9/2011MW-14 (Class III)1/11/11 2/7/11 3/14/11 4/4/2011 5/10/2011 6/15/2011 7/5/2011 8/3/2011 9/8/2011 10/4/2011 8/9/2011 4/6/2011 8/10/2011 9/21/11 10/11/2011 MW-18 (Class III)2/15/11 4/13/2011 8/11/2011 10/11/2011 MW-12 (Class III) MW-3A (Class III)2/16/11 10/6/2011 Required Semi-Annual Sampling Wells MW-3 (Class III) 9/7/11 10/3/11 11/8/2011 12/14/11 2/15/11 4/13/2011 8/10/2011 10/10/2011 MW-35 (Class II)2/15/11 6/7/2011 7/20/11 8/30/2011 8/2/2011 9/6/2011 10/3/2011 11/8/2011 12/12/20112/1/11 3/14/11 4/1/2011 5/10/2011 6/20/2011 7/5/2011 MW-31 (Class III) 1/10/11 9/7/2011 10/4/2011 11/8/2011 12/12/20113/14/11 4/11/2011 5/10/2011 6/20/2011 7/5/2011 8/3/2011 MW-30 (Class II)1/10/11 2/1/11 10/12/2011 11/9/2011 12/14/20114/1/2011 5/10/2011 6/20/2011 7/6/2011 8/3/2011 8/30/11 9/7/2011MW-26 (Class III)1/12/11 2/16/11 3/15/11 10/4/2011 11/9/2011 1212/20113/15/11 4/4/2011 5/11/2011 6/20/2011 7/6/2011 9/7/2011 MW-25 (Class III) 1/11/11 2/2/11 9/7/2011 10/4/2011 11/9/2011 12/14/20112/2/11 3/15/11 4/4/2011 5/10/2011 7/6/2011 8/3/2011 8/30/11 MW-11 (Class II)1/11/11 Q3 2011 Results Q4 2011 Results Required Quarterly Sampling Wells Q1 2011 Results Q2 2011 Results Appendix A – GWCL Exceedances for Second Quarter 2012 under the July 14, 2011 GWDP Monitoring Well (Water Class) Constituent Exceeding GWCL GWCL in July 14, 2011 GWDP January 2011 Monthly Sample Date January 2011 Monthly Sample Result Q1 2011 Sample Date Q1 2011 Result March 2011 Monthly Sample Date March 2011 Monthly Result Q2 2011 Sample Date Q2 2011 Result May 2011 Monthly Sample Date May 2011 Monthly Result June 2011 Monthly Sample Date June 2011 Monthly Result July 2011 Monthly Sample Date July 2011 Monthly Result Q3 2011 Sample Date Q3 2011 Result September 2011 Monthly Sample Date September 2011 Monthly Result Q4 2011 Sample Date Q4 2011 Result November 2011 Monthly Sample Date November 2011 Monthly Result December 2011 Monthly Sample Date December 2011 Monthly Result Q3 2011 Results Q4 2011 Results Required Quarterly Sampling Wells Q1 2011 Results Q2 2011 Results Appendix A – GWCL Exceedances for Second Quarter 2012 under the July 14, 2011 GWDP Field pH (S.U.) 6.78-8.5 NS NA 6.78 NS NA 7.03 NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.65 NS NA 6.88 (7.02) NS NA NS NA Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)2.83 NS NA NS NS NA 2.6 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NS NA 4.0 NS NA NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 6.13 NS NA 7.14 NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.38 NS NA 6.56 (6.77) NS NA NS NA Manganese (ug/L) 550 NS NA NS NS NA 32 NS NA NS NA NS NA NS NS NA 551 NS NA NS NA Cadmium (ug/L) 2.5 NS NA 2.78 NS NA 2.61 NS NA NS NA NS NA 1.46 NS NA 1.78 NS NA NS NA Thallium (ug/L) 1 NS NA 1.42 NS NA 1.07 NS NA NS NA NS NA <0.50 NS NA 0.62 NS NA NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 5.73 NS NA 6.12 NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.45 NS NA 6.44 NS NA NS NA Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)5.6 NS NA 6 NS NA 6.4 NS NA NS NA NS NA 6 NS NA 6.3 NS NA NS NA Chloride (mg/L) 38 NS NA 46 NS NA 43 NS NA NS NA NS NA 43 NS NA 44 NS NA NS NA Sulfate (mg/L) 462 NS NA 455 NS NA 442 NS NA NS NA NS NA 424 NS NA 456 NS NA NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.5-8.5 NS NA 6.71 NS NA 6.79 NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.39 NS NA 7.17 (7.24) NS NA NS NA TDS (mg/L) 1075 NS NA 1090 NS NA 1190 NS NA NS NA NS NA 1090 NS NA 1110 NS NA NS NA Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)2 NS NA 0.7 NS NA 1.1 NS NA NS NA NS NA 0.8 NS NA 1.5 NS NA NS NA Chloride (mg/L) 105 NS NA 114 NS NA 109 NS NA NS NA NS NA 105 NS NA 143 NS NA NS NA Manganese (ug/L) 1837 NS NA NA NS NA 1690 NS NA NS NA NS NA NA NS NA 1540 NS NA NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.1 - 8.5 NS NA 5.69 NS NA 6.01 NS NA NS NA NS NA 5.78 NS NA 6.07(6.11) NS NA NS NA Iron (ug/L) 1869 NS NA NS NA NS NA 3010 NS NA NS NA NS NA 1080 NS NA 1220 NS NA NS NA Manganese (ug/L) 5624 NS NA NS NA NS NA 4900 NS NA NS NA NS NA NA NS NA 4800 NS NA NS NA TDS (mg/L) 4400 NS NA NS NA NS NA 4080 NS NA NS NA NS NA NA NS NA 4280 NS NA NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.46 - 8.5 NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.45 NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.20 NS NA 6.52 NS NA NS NA Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)3.33 NS NA 1.5 NS NA 4.6 NS NA NS NA NS NA 1.9 NS NA 3.7 NS NA NS NA Field pH (S.U.) 6.4 - 8.5 NS NA 5.99 NS NA 6.14 NS NA NS NA NS NA 6.10 (6.20)NS NA 6.35 NS NA NS NA Notes: Values in () parentheses are the field pH measurements for the resampled analyses. 2/10/2011 2/9/2011 4/5/2011 8/4/2011 10/6/2011 8/8/2011 10/5/2011 4/5/2011 8/4/2011 10/11/2011 Pursuant to the October 26, 2011 DRC letter gross alpha monitoring in MW-26 returned to the routine frquency of quarterly. These samples were inadvertantly collected and are for information only. MW-29 (Class III)4/18/2011 8/9/2011 10/5/2011 4/11/2011 8/8/2011 10/5/2011 MW-28 (Class III)2/14/2011 2/9/2011 4/5/2011 NA = Not Applicable 4/1/2011 8/2/2011 8/30/11 10/3/2011 GWCL values are taken from July 14, 2011 version of GWDP. MW-32 (Class III)2/9/2011 Exceedances are shown in yellow NS = Not Required and Not Sampled NR = Required and Not Reported MW-27 (Class III) MW-24 (Class III) 4/5/2011 7/20/3011 10/12/20112/21/2011 MW-23 (Class III) MW-19 (Class III) Monitoring Well (Water Class) Constituent Exceeding GWCL GWCL in July 14, 2011 GWDP January 2012 Monthly Sample Date January 2012 Monthly Result Q1 2012 Sample Date Q1 2012 Result March 2012 Monthly Sample Date March 2012 Monthly Result April 2012 Monthly Sample Date April 2012 Monthly Result Q2 2012 Sample Date Q2 2012 Result June 2012 Monthly Sample Date June 2012 Monthly Result Sample Frequency Manganese (ug/L) 131.29 102 154 121 132 127 122 Quarterly Tetrahydrofuran (ug/L)11.5 <1.0 2.51 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NA Quarterly Manganese (ug/L) 2230.30 NA 1790 NA NA 2360 NA Quarterly Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.36 6.57 6.51 6.97 6.73 6.90 Quarterly Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.63 6.83 6.55 6.58 6.73 6.99 Quarterly Uranium 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.93 6.52 5.90 7.6 Quarterly Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)0.62 1.9 2/15/2012 1.2 3 3.4 2.9 2.3 Quarterly Uranium (ug/L) 41.8 64.6 2/21/2012 59.4 31.2 42.2 18.2 66.0 Quarterly Chloroform (ug/L) 70 1900 3300 2900 2900 1700 2400 Quarterly Chloride (mg/L) 58.31 68 40 74 82 74 85 Quarterly Field pH (S.U.) 6.74 - 8.5 6.59 2/15/2012 2/21/2012 3/8/2012 6.72 (6.91) (6.71)6.39 6.88 7.00 (7.01) 7.00 Quarterly Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) (ug/L) 5 13 24 27 20 10 16 Quarterly TDS (mg/L) 3284.19 3250 3150 3220 3140 3240 3200 Quarterly Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)4.69 NS NA 2/21/2012 1.5 4 2.3 3.1 NA Quarterly Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)2.5 17 17 18 17 16 15.0 Quarterly Chloride (mg/L) 128 124 126 128 128 124 131 Quarterly Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.52 7.12 6.86 7.66 6.95 7.10 Quarterly Uranium (ug/L) 8.32 NS NA 7.42 8.38 7.84 6.81 7.8 Quarterly Selenium (ug/L) 34 1/24/2012 33.3 35 39.5 39.1 32.3 37 Quarterly Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)5 21 21 22 21 20 21.6 Quarterly TDS (mg/L) 1320 1360 1240 1400 1380 1410 1460 Quarterly Chloride (mg/L) 143 155 150 152 160 151 138 Quarterly Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.78 7.37 7.13 7.14 7.19 7.28 7.63 Quarterly Sulfate (mg/L) 532 539 538 517 547 532 497 Quarterly Manganese (ug/L) 200 264 253 269 277 258 304 Quarterly Thallium (ug/l) 0.5 < 0.50 0.65 0.71 0.59 0.66 < 0.50 Quarterly Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)3.75 6.5 4.1 6.2 4.1 4.5 4.9 Quarterly Selenium (ug/L) 12.5 NS NA 19.7 NS NA NS 11.4 7.0 Quarterly Uranium (ug/L) 7.5 1/24/2012 16.1 24.7 3/13/12 24.9 22.4 22.2 22.5 Quarterly MW-2 (Class III)Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)3.2 NS NA 2/22/2012 0.6 NS NA NS NA 5/9/2012 0.6 NS NA Semi-Annually Selenium (ug/L) 37 NS NA 43.1 NS NA NS NA 52.8 NS NA Semi-Annually Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 6.63 NS NA NS NA 6.67 NS NA Semi-Annually Fluoride (Mg/L) 0.68 NS NA 0.86 NS NA NS NA 1.04 NS NA Semi-Annually Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 6.46 NS NA NS NA 6.68 NS NA Semi-Annually Sulfate (mg/L) 3640 NS NA 3020 NS NA NS NA 3220 NS NA Semi-Annually TDS (mg/L) 5805 NS NA 5690 NS NA NS NA 5730 NS NA Semi-Annually Selenium (ug/L) 89 NS NA 65.8 NS NA NS NA 85.1 NS NA Semi-Annually MW-5 (Class II) Uranium (ug/L) 7.5 NS NA 2/28/2012 18.6 NS NA NS NA 5/9/2012 1.23 NS NA Semi-Annually Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 6.81 NS NA NS NA 6.91 NS NA Semi-Annually Selenium (ug/L) 25 NS NA 27.2 NS NA NS NA 19.6 NS NA Semi-Annually Selenium (ug/L) 128.7 NS NA NA NS NA NS NA 152 NS NA Semi-Annually Iron (ug/L) 81.7 NS NA < 30 NS NA NS NA < 30 NS NA Semi-Annually Thallium (ug/l) 1.95 NS NA 3.63 NS NA NS NA 3.51 NS NA Semi-Annually Sulfate (mg/L) 1938.9 NS NA 1920 NS NA NS NA 1790 NS NA Semi-Annually Field pH (S.U.) 6.25-8.5 NS NA 6.6 NS NA NS NA 6.59 NS NA Semi-Annually TDS (mg/L) 3198.77 NS NA 3230 NS NA NS NA 3280 NS NA Semi-Annually 6/19/2012 6/19/2012 6/18/2012 6/19/2012 6/18/2012 6/18/2012 6/29/2012 6/19/2012 MW-15 (Class III)2/22/2012 1/24/2012 2/21/2012 3/14/2012 4/12/2012 5/9/2012MW-14 (Class III) 5/2/2012 5/8/2012 5/2/2012 5/7/2012 6/26/2012 5/2/2012 5/2/2012 5/9/2012 4/9/2012 4/10/2012 5/14/2012 5/15/2012 5/10/2012 4/30/2012 4/10/2012 4/9/2012 4/11/2012 4/10/2012 MW-18 (Class III)2/27/2012 MW-3A (Class III)3/1/2012 MW-3 (Class III)2/29/2012 2/14/12 3/13/12 MW-35 (Class II) 1/24/2012 Required Semi-Annual Sampling Wells MW-12 (Class III)2/29/2012 1/24/2012 2/13/2012 3/13/2012MW-31 (Class III) 2/14/2012 3/14/2012MW-30 (Class II) 1/24/2012 MW-26 (Class III) 1/25/2012 3/14/2012 2/15/2012 2/15/2012 3/14/2012MW-25 (Class III) 1/25/2012 2/14/2012 2/13/2012 3/13/2012MW-11 (Class II) 1/26/2012 Q1 2012 Results Q2 2012 Results Required Quarterly Sampling Wells Appendix A – GWCL Exceedances for Second Quarter 2012 under the July 14, 2011 GWDP Monitoring Well (Water Class) Constituent Exceeding GWCL GWCL in July 14, 2011 GWDP January 2012 Monthly Sample Date January 2012 Monthly Result Q1 2012 Sample Date Q1 2012 Result March 2012 Monthly Sample Date March 2012 Monthly Result April 2012 Monthly Sample Date April 2012 Monthly Result Q2 2012 Sample Date Q2 2012 Result June 2012 Monthly Sample Date June 2012 Monthly Result Sample Frequency Q1 2012 Results Q2 2012 Results Required Quarterly Sampling Wells Appendix A – GWCL Exceedances for Second Quarter 2012 under the July 14, 2011 GWDP Field pH (S.U.) 6.78-8.5 NS NA 6.83 NS NA NS NA 6.86 NS NA Semi-Annually Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)2.83 NS NA 3.9 NS NA NS NA 3.7 NS NA Semi-Annually Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 6.61 NS NA NS NA 6.74 NS NA Semi-Annually Manganese (ug/L) 550 NS NA 51 NS NA NS NA 49 NS NA Semi-Annually Cadmium (ug/L) 2.5 NS NA 2.25 NS NA NS NA 2.01 NS NA Semi-Annually Thallium (ug/L) 1 NS NA 0.96 NS NA NS NA 0.74 NS NA Semi-Annually Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 NS NA 6.03 NS NA NS NA 6.21 NS NA Semi-Annually Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) (mg/L)5.6 NS NA 6.4 NS NA NS NA 6.2 NS NA Semi-Annually Chloride (mg/L) 38 NS NA 45 NS NA NS NA 46 NS NA Semi-Annually Sulfate (mg/L) 462 NS NA 451 NS NA NS NA 446 NS NA Semi-Annually Field pH (S.U.) 6.5-8.5 NS NA 7.24 NS NA NS NA 7.03 NS NA Semi-Annually TDS (mg/L) 1075 NS NA 1140 NS NA NS NA 1170 NS NA Semi-Annually Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)2NSNA 2.3 NS NA NS NA 0.8 NS NA Semi-Annually Chloride (mg/L) 105 NS NA 109 NS NA NS NA 114 NS NA Semi-Annually Manganese (ug/L) 1837 NS NA NA NS NA NS NA 1850 NS NA Semi-Annually Field pH (S.U.) 6.1 - 8.5 NS NA 6.22 NS NA NS NA 6.15 NS NA Semi-Annually Iron (ug/L) 1869 NS NA 1310 NS NA NS NA 1400 NS NA Semi-Annually Manganese (ug/L) 5624 NS NA NA NS NA NS NA 6140 NS NA Semi-Annually TDS (mg/L) 4400 NS NA NA NS NA NS NA 4600 NS NA Semi-Annually Field pH (S.U.) 6.46 - 8.5 NS NA 7.12 NS NA NS NA 6.47 NS NA Semi-Annually Gross Alpha minus Rn & U (pCi/L)3.33 NS NA 1.8 NS NA NS NA 2.4 NS NA Semi-Annually Field pH (S.U.) 6.4 - 8.5 NS NA 6.57 NS NA NS NA 6.40 NS NA Semi-Annually Notes: Values in () parentheses are the field pH measurements for the resampled analyses. Pursuant to the October 26, 2011 DRC letter, gross alpha monitoring in MW-26 returned to the routine frquency of quarterly. These samples were inadvertantly collected and are for information only. NA = Pursuant to the April 16, 2012 DRC letter, THF monitoring in MW-11 returned to the routine frequency of quarterly. MW-27 (Class III)2/28/2012 MW-24 (Class III)2/23/2012 5/10/2012 5/1/2012 5/8/2012 5/8/2012 4/30/2012 5/16/2012 5/16/2012 MW-29 (Class III)2/22/2012 MW-28 (Class III)2/28/2012 NA = Not Applicable MW-32 (Class III)2/21/2012 GWCL values are taken from February 15, 2011 version of GWDP. Exceedances are shown in yellow NS = Not Required and Not Sampled NR = Required and Not Reported MW-23 (Class III)2/20/2012 MW-19 (Class III)2/28/2012 APPENDIX B Geochemical Analysis for Wells and Constituents with Consecutive Exceedances B-1 Geochemical Analysis Summary Table Appendix B‐1 Summary of Geochemical Analysis for Constituents and Wells with Out‐of‐Compliance Status Wp Normally or Lognormally distributed?r2 pSp Flowsheet GWCL Rationale MW-03 Fluoride 44 1 0.54 0.22 0.895028 0.000768 No 486 4.26E-07 increasing No Yes 1.04 0.97 2 0.68 0.68 2 Fractional Approach GWCL MW-03 Selenium 85 31 13.27 13.78 0.931482 0.000221 No 2209 0 increasing Yes Yes 52.80 40.83 25 37 37 52.8 HHV MW-03A Selenium 22 0 83.09 13.25 0.967852 0.661372 Yes 0.213411 0.030429 increasing No Yes 107.00 109.58 25 89 89 109.58 Mean + 2σ MW-03A Sulfate 23 0 3583.48 182.90 0.968435 0.651605 Yes 0.067465 0.231354 none No Yes 3870.00 3949.27 NA 3640 3640 3949.27 Mean + 2σ MW-5 Uranium 87 17 0.95 0.69 0.943681 0.000878 No -917 3.75E-04 decreasing No (decreasing) No 3.40 2.32 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 Fractional Approach GWCL MW-11 Manganese 53 0 104.89 29.89 0.961043 0.081636 Yes 0.311211 0.000014 increasing Yes Yes 170.00 164.67 200 200 131.29 164.67 Mean + 2σ MW-12 Selenium 55 36 9.57 10.26 0.906000 0.000405 No 937 3.46E-12 increasing Yes Yes 39.00 30.08 25 25 25 39 HHV MW-18 TDS @ 180 23 0 3033.91 241.88 0.762690 0.000103 No 144 7.82E-05 increasing No Yes 3280.00 3517.68 NA 3198 3198 3280 HHV MW-18 Thallium 26 0 2.30 1.19 0.874748 0.004468 No 225 3.96E-07 increasing Yes Yes 4.00 4.68 0.5 1.95 1.95 4.00 HHV MW-24 Cadmium 27 44 1.28 1.06 0.803511 0.000158 No 197 8.97E-06 increasing No Yes 4.28 3.39 2.5 2.5 2.5 4.28 HHV MW-24 Thallium 28 50 0.71 0.31 0.756784 0.000020 No 182 6.27E-05 increasing No Yes 1.57 1.33 1 1 1 1.57 HHV MW-25 Uranium 41 0 6.14 0.55 0.982722 0.777429 Yes 0.167702 0.007842 increasing No Yes 7.06 7.25 7.5 6.5 6.5 7.25 Mean + 2σ MW-26 Uranium 83 0 38.86 20.36 0.961779 0.014478 No 1436 8.33E-09 increasing Yes No 119.00 79.57 15 NA 41.85 119 HHV MW-27 TDS @ 180 36 0 1075.39 55.16 0.979069 0.713951 Yes 0.503853 0.000001 increasing No No 1190.00 1185.72 NA 1075 1075 1185.72 Mean + 2σ MW-30 Selenium 44 0 34.13 4.08 0.928738 0.009438 No 450 2.73E-06 increasing No Yes 47.20 42.29 12.5 34 34 47.2 HHV MW-31 Sulfate 39 0 517.33 24.15 0.883904 0.000787 No 274 4.73E-04 increasing No No 552.00 565.63 NA 532 532 552 HHV MW-31 TDS @ 180 51 0 1257.65 76.46 0.985350 0.777020 Yes 0.130100 0.009317 increasing No No 1460.00 1410.57 NA 1320 1320 1410.57 Mean + 2σ Notes: σ = sigma N = number of valid data points r2 = The measure of how well the trendline fits the data where r2=1 represents a perfect fit. %ND = percent of non-detected values N/A = not applicable S = MannKendall statistic µg/L = micrograms per liter p = probability S.U. = standard units mg/L = milligrams per liter W = Shapiro Wilk test value a = The Shapiro-Wilk Distribution test was performed on data with % Detect > 50%. For % Detect > 85%, 1/2 the detection limit was substituted for non-detected values, and for % Detect > 50% and < 85% the test was done on detected values only b = A regression test was performed on data that was determined to have either a normal or log-normal distribution and % Detect > 50%. 1/2 of the detection limit was used for non-detected values c = The Mann-Kendall test was performed on data with either a non-parametric distribution or with % Detect < 50%, it was not performed on constituents where N < 8 Distribution = Distribution as determined by the Shapiro-Wilk distribution test for constituents with % Detect > 50% and N>8 Regression Trend = The result of the linear regression test analysis using 1/2 of the detection limit for values reported as "not detected" Mann-Kendall Trend = The result of the Mann-Kendall test for non-parametric distributions and for % Detect < 50% Mean = The arithmatic, Cohen, or Aitchison mean as determined for normally or log-normally distributed constituents with % Detect > 50% Standard Deviation = The standard deviation as determined for normally or log-normally distributed constituents with % Detect > 85% Highest Observed Value = The highest observed value for constituents with % Detect < 50% Fractional Approach GWCL = 1/4 of the GWQS for Class II water; 1/2 of the GWQS for Class III water. Flowsheet GWCL = The Groundwater Compliance Limit as determined by the Flow Sheet for calculating the GWCL based on the % Detect Flowsheet GWCL are included for MW-18 and MW-26,. However , as discussed in Section 3.2, EFRI is not proposing revised GWCLs for these wells, but instead proposes that GWCLs for these wells be eliminated together with all GWCLs for all constituetns in MW-1 and MW-19. Previously Identified Increasing Trend? Significantly Decreasing pH trend? Flowsheet GWCL Standard Deviation Shapiro-Wilks Test for Normalitya Well Constituent N % Non- Detected Values Mean Highest Historical Value (HHV) Mean + 2σ Fractional Approach GWCL BKG Rpt Proposed GWCL Current GWCL Least Squares Regression Trend Analysisb Mann-Kendall Trend Analysisc Significant Trend Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 B-2 Comparison of Calculated and Measured TDS for Samples with Complete Major Ions Appendix B-2 Comparison of Calculated and Measured TDS for Samples with Complete Major Ions Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 1 of 6 Well Sample Date CO3+HCO3 as Alkalinity (mg/L) Calcium (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Potassium (mg/L) Magnesium (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Measured TDS (mg/L) Calculated TDS (mg/L)Ratio MW-11 12/16/1982 399 36 24.4 5.7 8.8 550 926 1812 1949.9 107.61% MW-11 5/24/1983 363 31 26.8 4.7 7.7 530 943 1728 1906.2 110.31% MW-11 10/26/1983 402 28 26 5 6.7 540 922 1697 1929.7 113.71% MW-11 11/27/2000 382 94 37.3 7.6 30.6 487 1140 2130 2178.5 102.28% MW-11 11/6/2001 375 82.9 42.4 7 25.4 574 1150 2100 2256.7 107.46% MW-11 9/10/2002 372 95.6 33.8 7.38 30 540 1220 2118 2298.8 108.54% MW-11 6/21/2005 364 58.7 31 6.3 18.2 544 1090 1950 2112.2 108.32% MW-11 9/22/2005 378 50.7 33 6.3 15.3 551 968 1930 2002.3 103.75% MW-11 12/13/2005 375 61.2 36 6.8 19.3 544 1070 1930 2112.3 109.45% MW-11 3/21/2006 381 55.2 33 6.2 16.8 551 1120 1920 2163.2 112.67% MW-11 6/20/2006 374 62.1 31 7.3 20.1 554 1150 2000 2198.5 109.93% MW-11 9/13/2006 380 51.1 29 6.7 14.9 558 1060 1910 2099.7 109.93% MW-11 10/25/2006 378 67.9 32 7.2 21.7 559 1200 1860 2265.8 121.82% MW-11 3/15/2007 375 69.2 31 7.6 22.1 571 1120 2040 2195.9 107.64% MW-11 8/21/2007 383 39.2 30 6.2 10.9 668 1060 1800 2197.3 122.07% MW-11 10/30/2007 378 40.3 29 7.5 11.1 580 1020 1890 2065.9 109.31% MW-11 3/18/2008 380 38.1 29 6 10 606 1040 1750 2109.1 120.52% MW-11 6/16/2008 356 40.8 30 6.1 10.7 632 1050 1790 2125.6 118.75% MW-11 8/5/2008 380 40.6 29 6 10.6 631 1060 1780 2157.2 121.19% MW-11 11/10/2008 351 42.4 30 6.2 11 655 1100 1830 2195.6 119.98% MW-11 2/16/2009 356 44.4 29 6.33 12.4 581 977 1910 2006.1 105.03% MW-11 5/17/2009 366 36 26 5.9 10 548 1060 1850 2051.9 110.91% MW-11 8/31/2009 374 41.9 26 6.1 11.2 602 1090 1840 2151.2 116.91% MW-11 10/19/2009 389 41.8 30 6 11.4 641 1040 1830 2159.2 117.99% MW-11 2/10/2010 410 67 33 6.8 19.7 567 1140 2040 2243.5 109.98% MW-11 4/28/2010 387 75.9 32 7.13 23.1 642 1150 2140 2317.1 108.28% MW-11 9/8/2010 410 70 31 7.02 20.9 614 1140 1960 2292.9 116.99% MW-11 11/11/2010 387 68 34 6.9 20.1 573 1180 2080 2269.0 109.09% MW-11 2/2/2011 385 70.6 32 6.83 21.2 601 1190 2130 2306.6 108.29% MW-11 4/4/2011 387 78.2 31 7.3 23.4 622 1140 2100 2288.9 109.00% MW-11 8/3/2011 347 59.4 31 6.6 17.3 628 1090 1940 2179.3 112.34% MW-11 10/4/2011 363 59.4 28 6.5 17.3 580 1140 1930 2194.2 113.69% MW-11 2/13/2012 360 75 31 6.9 22.9 626 1160 2090 2281.8 109.18% MW-11 5/8/2012 376 63.7 30 7 19.3 517 1090 2040 2103.0 103.09% MW-12 5/4/1983 507 530 80.5 12 270 310 2420 4026 4129.5 102.57% MW-12 10/27/1983 529 530 53.9 13 210 290 2338 3922 3963.9 101.07% MW-12 11/28/2000 422 499 57 11.8 216 248 2000 3860 3453.8 89.48% MW-12 9/10/2002 418 473 61.6 12.2 212 311 2250 3914 3737.8 95.50% MW-12 6/22/2005 402 466 55 11.4 203 262 2120 3680 3519.4 95.64% MW-12 12/13/2005 439 544 53 12.8 228 271 2210 3750 3757.8 100.21% MW-12 6/22/2006 422 522 61 14.9 220 318 2270 3860 3827.9 99.17% MW-12 10/30/2006 390 521 61 13.4 224 313 2390 3740 3912.4 104.61% MW-12 10/23/2007 439 524 58 13.2 224 282 2290 3630 3830.2 105.52% MW-12 6/17/2008 399 525 54 13 207 300 2270 3530 3768.0 106.74% MW-12 11/11/2008 430 544 56 12.9 219 308 2340 3800 3909.9 102.89% MW-12 5/16/2009 445 448 51 12.8 190 273 2350 3820 3769.8 98.69% MW-12 10/13/2009 443 506 67 12.9 213 307 2550 3830 4098.9 107.02% MW-12 4/27/2010 442 522 64 12.7 215 317 2390 3780 3962.7 104.83% MW-12 11/19/2010 421 510 63 12.7 214 306 2480 3830 4006.7 104.61% MW-12 4/5/2011 419 520 64 13 217 324 2220 3600 3777.0 104.92% MW-12 10/6/2011 381 505 61 12.4 210 276 2430 3860 3875.4 100.40% MW-12 5/10/2012 420 523 63 14.9 223 299 2320 3980 3862.9 97.06% MW-18 12/1/2000 411 467 47.3 7 88.3 180 1600 2770 2800.6 101.10% MW-18 11/6/2001 380 432 47.6 7.8 73.8 155 1380 2460 2476.2 100.66% MW-18 9/9/2002 410 453 40.6 7.51 93.2 192 1940 2846 3136.3 110.20% MW-18 6/21/2006 439 534 50 10 121 176 1700 3030 3030.0 100.00% MW-18 10/26/2006 419 515 50 8.6 117 179 1870 2940 3158.6 107.44% MW-18 10/30/2007 429 501 48 9.5 104 196 1700 2780 2987.5 107.46% MW-18 6/4/2008 423 546 55 9.6 126 193 1870 3100 3222.6 103.95% MW-18 11/4/2008 436 578 42 9.47 132 197 1880 3110 3274.5 105.29% Appendix B-2 Comparison of Calculated and Measured TDS for Samples with Complete Major Ions Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 2 of 6 Well Sample Date CO3+HCO3 as Alkalinity (mg/L) Calcium (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Potassium (mg/L) Magnesium (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Measured TDS (mg/L) Calculated TDS (mg/L)Ratio MW-18 5/27/2009 449 543 68 8.7 129 188 1930 3200 3315.7 103.62% MW-18 10/21/2009 468 549 58 8.9 128 179 1900 3150 3290.9 104.47% MW-18 11/18/2010 469 564 52 9.6 126 174 1910 3090 3304.6 106.94% MW-18 4/6/2011 473 566 46 9.6 130 187 1780 2970 3191.6 107.46% MW-18 10/11/2011 435 586 53 9 132 161 2020 3220 3396.0 105.47% MW-18 4/30/2012 471 562 55 11.6 131 155 1790 3280 3175.6 96.82% MW-24 6/23/2005 628 634 71 23.2 186 449 2450 4200 4441.2 105.74% MW-24 9/25/2005 421 513 52 50.5 190 454 2850 4340 4530.5 104.39% MW-24 12/14/2005 253 512 45 13.6 194 454 2680 4170 4151.6 99.56% MW-24 3/27/2006 451 353 47 10 135 309 2470 2910 3775.0 129.73% MW-24 6/22/2006 626 454 30 15.6 173 478 2580 3980 4356.6 109.46% MW-24 9/15/2006 436 492 62 14.5 176 461 2290 3890 3931.5 101.07% MW-24 10/24/2006 399 489 46 14.3 176 458 2680 3820 4262.3 111.58% MW-24 3/16/2007 387 478 45 13.6 178 425 2520 4140 4046.6 97.74% MW-24 6/20/2007 295 496 44 14.8 181 454 2680 4160 4164.8 100.12% MW-24 8/28/2007 311 504 45 12.6 187 427 2720 4280 4206.6 98.29% MW-24 10/23/2007 300 509 45 14.5 183 495 2620 4030 4166.5 103.39% MW-24 3/12/2008 520 462 44 12.9 167 469 2560 4090 4234.9 103.54% MW-24 5/29/2008 188 500 45 12.7 186 502 2770 4030 4203.7 104.31% MW-24 8/7/2008 270 492 39 13 181 514 2730 4270 4239.0 99.27% MW-24 11/11/2008 225 494 43 13.2 182 517 2800 4170 4274.2 102.50% MW-24 2/5/2009 231 466 44 14 164 538 2630 4310 4087.0 94.83% MW-24 5/30/2009 233 441 44 12.2 164 489 2670 4220 4053.2 96.05% MW-24 8/24/2009 142 503 37 13.1 177 518 2740 4210 4130.1 98.10% MW-24 10/28/2009 257 488 46 12.6 177 488 2950 4120 4418.6 107.25% MW-24 1/19/2010 270 492 46 13 175 500 2740 4080 4236.0 103.82% MW-24 5/6/2010 306 485 46 12.5 178 510 2560 3960 4097.5 103.47% MW-24 11/17/2010 197 478 48 12.8 173 475 2760 4070 4143.8 101.81% MW-24 4/5/2011 173 474 45 12.5 169 508 2560 3870 3941.5 101.85% MW-24 10/11/2011 327 488 39 9.3 120 356 2500 3740 3839.3 102.66% MW-24 5/10/2012 222 507 42 13.7 171 474 2490 4170 3919.7 94.00% MW-25 6/23/2005 392 358 34 9.1 128 282 1600 2860 2803.1 98.01% MW-25 9/22/2005 403 376 34 9.6 135 285 1670 2890 2912.6 100.78% MW-25 12/13/2005 396 386 33 10 139 290 1860 2850 3114.0 109.26% MW-25 3/22/2006 406 347 32 9.7 122 291 1710 2850 2917.7 102.38% MW-25 6/20/2006 409 378 32 10.2 138 284 1680 2850 2931.2 102.85% MW-25 9/12/2006 398 385 30 10.8 135 287 1570 2800 2815.8 100.56% MW-25 10/24/2006 405 400 33 10 138 295 1880 2740 3161.0 115.36% MW-25 3/16/2007 390 386 32 10.1 135 289 1750 2970 2992.1 100.74% MW-25 6/20/2007 403 395 31 9.9 140 269 1740 2900 2987.9 103.03% MW-25 8/27/2007 412 390 33 9.52 136 274 1850 2810 3104.5 110.48% MW-25 10/25/2007 410 392 32 10.1 115 272 1710 2740 2941.1 107.34% MW-25 3/18/2008 415 353 32 9.8 120 306 1750 2710 2985.8 110.18% MW-25 6/12/2008 381 383 25 9.48 130 306 1610 2770 2844.5 102.69% MW-25 8/4/2008 400 391 28 10 134 310 1710 2700 2983.0 110.48% MW-25 11/10/2008 392 383 30 9.8 129 321 1800 2870 3064.8 106.79% MW-25 2/3/2009 392 331 31 8.4 116 255 1630 2750 2763.4 100.49% MW-25 5/13/2009 399 333 30 8.5 116 279 1690 2710 2855.5 105.37% MW-25 8/24/2009 418 361 30 9.9 121 310 1580 2740 2829.9 103.28% MW-25 10/13/2009 412 352 34 9.78 116 296 1650 2690 2869.8 106.68% MW-25 2/3/2010 432 351 31 9.5 116 300 1630 2670 2869.5 107.47% MW-25 4/28/2010 424 368 31 9.74 122 317 1660 2730 2931.7 107.39% MW-25 9/8/2010 435 367 31 9.6 125 306 1760 2790 3033.6 108.73% MW-25 11/10/2010 413 354 31 9.3 116 277 1650 2800 2850.3 101.80% MW-25 2/2/2011 405 358 30 9.26 119 298 1690 2720 2909.3 106.96% MW-25 4/4/2011 408 354 31 9.7 117 310 1620 2660 2849.7 107.13% MW-25 10/4/2011 387 354 32 9.2 120 276 1680 2700 2858.2 105.86% MW-25 2/14/2012 404 371 30 9.6 123 314 1630 2770 2881.6 104.03% MW-25 5/2/2012 410 351 30 11.9 118 269 1670 2850 2859.9 100.35% MW-26 6/21/2005 411 424 52 10.1 154 234 1880 3200 3165.1 98.91% Appendix B-2 Comparison of Calculated and Measured TDS for Samples with Complete Major Ions Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 3 of 6 Well Sample Date CO3+HCO3 as Alkalinity (mg/L) Calcium (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Potassium (mg/L) Magnesium (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Measured TDS (mg/L) Calculated TDS (mg/L)Ratio MW-26 9/22/2005 409 481 53 10.3 165 213 1850 3160 3181.3 100.67% MW-26 12/14/2005 409 496 53 10.5 170 220 1890 3240 3248.5 100.26% MW-26 3/22/2006 412 499 51 10.5 168 211 1920 3150 3271.5 103.86% MW-26 6/20/2006 406 478 52 11.2 168 194 1830 3130 3139.2 100.29% MW-26 9/12/2006 396 488 49 11 162 197 1770 3090 3073.0 99.45% MW-26 10/24/2006 415 531 57 11 171 194 2100 3080 3479.0 112.95% MW-26 3/16/2007 395 508 58 10.5 175 170 1980 3250 3296.5 101.43% MW-26 6/20/2007 410 508 54 11.8 177 207 1940 3250 3307.8 101.78% MW-26 8/21/2007 412 501 60 10.3 176 208 1920 3200 3287.3 102.73% MW-26 10/23/2007 411 508 55 10.2 179 162 1930 3060 3255.2 106.38% MW-26 3/12/2008 390 492 69 11.1 154 194 1850 3110 3160.1 101.61% MW-26 5/27/2008 380 488 56 10.4 166 228 2010 1630 3338.4 204.81% MW-26 8/12/2008 388 522 50 10.3 169 220 2020 3170 3379.3 106.60% MW-26 11/13/2008 388 511 59 9.6 179 164 2160 3170 3470.6 109.48% MW-26 2/2/2009 392 484 49 9.8 162 177 1880 3260 3153.8 96.74% MW-26 5/18/2009 400 448 58 10 152 202 1910 3340 3180.0 95.21% MW-26 8/19/2009 387 487 63 9.7 131 176 1520 3010 2773.7 92.15% MW-26 10/13/2009 415 502 58 11.2 157 212 1890 3140 3245.2 103.35% MW-26 2/2/2010 417 495 72 10.6 165 173 1840 3100 3172.6 102.34% MW-26 4/22/2010 419 501 57 10.9 158 169 1960 3080 3274.9 106.33% MW-26 9/16/2010 436 506 64 11 166 178 2010 3440 3371.0 97.99% MW-26 11/15/2010 414 474 48 11 153 213 1880 3000 3193.0 106.43% MW-26 2/16/2011 418 511 59 11.2 168 174 1780 2930 3121.2 106.53% MW-26 4/1/2011 414 519 64 11.6 163 200 1850 3030 3221.6 106.32% MW-26 10/12/2011 376 519 61 10.9 165 169 2070 3190 3370.9 105.67% MW-26 5/7/2012 398 449 74 11.3 153 195 1930 3240 3210.3 99.08% MW-27 6/23/2005 419 151 34 3.9 66.4 72.7 402 1050 1149.0 109.43% MW-27 9/22/2005 430 156 35 4 69.3 73.2 403 1010 1170.5 115.89% MW-27 12/14/2005 439 161 33 4.2 70.8 75.2 398 1020 1181.2 115.80% MW-27 3/21/2006 439 152 34 3.9 67.6 71.8 362 1010 1130.3 111.91% MW-27 6/22/2006 436 147 32 5 66.3 79.5 360 954 1125.8 118.01% MW-27 9/12/2006 423 168 34 4.4 72.3 77.6 417 1020 1196.3 117.28% MW-27 10/24/2006 446 174 37 4.4 74.6 80.2 432 1030 1248.2 121.18% MW-27 3/14/2007 429 168 36 4.5 73.3 78.9 420 1050 1209.7 115.21% MW-27 8/28/2007 450 176 35 4.36 76 74.5 452 1040 1267.9 121.91% MW-27 10/22/2007 448 170 37 4.3 73.2 74.1 406 1020 1212.6 118.88% MW-27 3/17/2008 456 156 37 4.6 66.7 71 428 1050 1219.3 116.12% MW-27 6/2/2008 424 177 39 4.36 77.3 75.5 453 1030 1250.2 121.37% MW-27 8/6/2008 440 186 40 4.52 81.2 77.9 456 1100 1285.6 116.87% MW-27 11/4/2008 434 184 28 4.39 79.9 77.1 461 1120 1268.4 113.25% MW-27 2/16/2009 436 181 41 4.82 82.2 77.9 442 1150 1264.9 109.99% MW-27 5/29/2009 446 155 42 4 71.2 74.1 414 1130 1206.3 106.75% MW-27 8/18/2009 439 170 40 4.3 73.3 70.3 480 1100 1276.9 116.08% MW-27 10/12/2009 456 169 44 4.45 73.5 70.7 456 1030 1273.7 123.66% MW-27 5/3/2010 466 173 42 4.14 75.8 71.9 469 1110 1301.8 117.28% MW-27 11/12/2010 459 167 45 4.3 72.1 65.8 452 1080 1265.2 117.15% MW-27 4/5/2011 461 173 43 4.1 74.9 71.7 442 1080 1269.7 117.56% MW-27 10/5/2011 424 177 44 4 76.7 61.5 456 1110 1243.2 112.00% MW-27 5/1/2012 449 177 46 5.4 77.3 61.6 446 1170 1262.3 107.89% MW-3 10/31/1979 278 243 12.6 16.7 75 282 930 2102 1837.3 87.41% MW-3 1/31/1980 356 365 25 16 91 345 2100 2530 3298.0 130.36% MW-3 4/30/1980 415 410 30 18 110 405 1900 3254 3288.0 101.04% MW-3 5/19/1980 451 401 50 18 171 575 2430 4362 4096.0 93.90% MW-3 6/16/1980 451 489 51 23 132 642 2625 4716 4413.0 93.58% MW-3 7/16/1980 464 461 62 38 203 442 2450 4024 4120.0 102.39% MW-3 8/19/1980 372 473 65 37 198 653 2975 4908 4773.0 97.25% MW-3 9/1/1980 451 469 62 44 210 586 2800 4593 4622.0 100.63% MW-3 10/1/1980 415 481 65 46 205 677 3050 4828 4939.0 102.30% MW-3 11/11/1980 458 479 64 26 210 567 2750 4522 4554.0 100.71% MW-3 12/10/1980 476 489 65 32 222 699 3060 4982 5043.0 101.22% Appendix B-2 Comparison of Calculated and Measured TDS for Samples with Complete Major Ions Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 4 of 6 Well Sample Date CO3+HCO3 as Alkalinity (mg/L) Calcium (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Potassium (mg/L) Magnesium (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Measured TDS (mg/L) Calculated TDS (mg/L)Ratio MW-3 1/22/1981 476 457 71 42 195 756 3012 5053 5009.0 99.13% MW-3 2/12/1981 451 457 65 27 154 704 2780 4804 4638.0 96.54% MW-3 3/18/1981 464 473 66 30 229 745 3150 5122 5157.0 100.68% MW-3 4/13/1981 439 473 66 16 224 703 3030 5130 4951.0 96.51% MW-3 6/24/1981 464 505 69 38 210 685 3040 5387 5011.0 93.02% MW-3 9/1/1981 229 38 3 5 19 27 42 256 363.0 141.80% MW-3 1/27/1982 464 481 64 58 229 757 3100 4990 5153.0 103.27% MW-3 12/13/1982 463 480 53 16 185 810 3259 5366 5266.0 98.14% MW-3 4/21/1983 444 470 66.5 22 260 770 3226 4880 5258.5 107.76% MW-3 10/26/1983 524 450 56.6 21 210 800 3226 5127 5287.6 103.13% MW-3 11/30/2000 598 434 62 19.9 218 807 2920 5320 5058.9 95.09% MW-3 11/6/2001 537 470 82.5 20.2 244 882 3230 5380 5465.7 101.59% MW-3 9/12/2002 543 443 65.1 21.7 226 813 3500 5394 5611.8 104.04% MW-3 9/23/2005 433 441 65 22.6 226 760 3330 5360 5277.6 98.46% MW-3 12/13/2005 403 475 65 23.3 252 752 3300 5180 5270.3 101.74% MW-3 6/25/2006 354 415 63 26.5 234 678 4030 5050 5800.5 114.86% MW-3 9/14/2006 447 454 63 23.4 228 731 3150 5090 5096.4 100.13% MW-3 10/27/2006 357 447 63 23.7 240 706 3490 5100 5326.7 104.45% MW-3 10/31/2007 516 482 63 23.3 246 804 3120 5010 5254.3 104.88% MW-3 5/28/2008 364 488 64 22.2 247 846 3340 4800 5371.2 111.90% MW-3 11/3/2008 311 484 59 23 249 836 3340 5220 5302.0 101.57% MW-3 5/28/2009 302 462 68 23.1 243 780 3420 5250 5298.1 100.92% MW-3 10/26/2009 233 445 46 24 237 748 3730 5100 5463.0 107.12% MW-3 11/19/2010 234 468 63 24.8 248 780 3430 5150 5247.8 101.90% MW-3 4/13/2011 246 448 64 24 238 760 3060 4730 4840.0 102.33% MW-3 10/10/2011 204 451 63 24.2 245 692 3470 5120 5149.2 100.57% MW-30 6/22/2005 215 302 125 8.9 83.7 113 977 1940 1824.6 94.05% MW-30 9/22/2005 207 304 125 8.7 84.8 103 822 1780 1654.5 92.95% MW-30 12/14/2005 195 316 128 8.5 84.5 102 904 1800 1738.0 96.56% MW-30 3/22/2006 195 312 125 8.3 82.4 111 911 1740 1744.7 100.27% MW-30 6/21/2006 201 324 124 179 76.5 106 876 1700 1886.5 110.97% MW-30 9/13/2006 209 307 118 8.5 76 110 910 1790 1738.5 97.12% MW-30 10/25/2006 203 301 124 8.5 78.6 114 871 1650 1700.1 103.04% MW-30 3/15/2007 190 288 125 8.2 73.7 102 838 1690 1624.9 96.15% MW-30 8/22/2007 193 286 126 7.3 72.3 108 852 1700 1644.6 96.74% MW-30 10/24/2007 197 294 122 8.1 72.9 110 871 1650 1675.0 101.52% MW-30 3/19/2008 197 270 118 7.8 68.9 108 853 1610 1622.7 100.79% MW-30 6/3/2008 180 278 125 7.29 71.3 109 842 1500 1612.6 107.51% MW-30 8/4/2008 190 297 121 7.64 75.8 115 831 1640 1637.4 99.84% MW-30 11/5/2008 179 287 162 7.43 73.3 111 799 1610 1618.7 100.54% MW-30 2/3/2009 185 268 113 6.9 67.3 99.7 795 1640 1534.9 93.59% MW-30 5/13/2009 186 245 122 6.5 65.1 104 808 1560 1536.6 98.50% MW-30 8/24/2009 192 278 118 7.4 69.1 111 781 1530 1556.5 101.73% MW-30 10/14/2009 190 269 129 7.44 68.5 109 769 1620 1541.9 95.18% MW-30 1/20/2010 196 258 106 6.85 68 101 722 1540 1457.9 94.67% MW-30 2/9/2010 198 251 127 6.9 65.1 103 767 1510 1518.0 100.53% MW-30 4/27/2010 196 278 97 7.14 71.5 111 798 1480 1558.6 105.31% MW-30 9/14/2010 200 262 111 6.88 67 106 756 1700 1508.9 88.76% MW-30 11/9/2010 190 251 126 6.9 64.1 94.7 720 1700 1452.7 85.45% MW-30 2/1/2011 185 263 134 6.56 67.5 102 796 1550 1554.1 100.26% MW-30 4/11/2011 187 269 134 7.2 67.9 107 746 1520 1518.1 99.88% MW-30 8/3/2011 176 263 126 6.8 66.7 102 768 1550 1508.5 97.32% MW-30 10/4/2011 175 266 129 6.7 68.3 93.1 759 1550 1497.1 96.59% MW-30 2/14/2012 178 272 126 6.6 70 102 728 1550 1482.6 95.65% MW-30 5/2/2012 185 269 124 7.7 69.3 87.9 696 1600 1438.9 89.93% MW-31 6/22/2005 206 156 139 5.6 78.6 90.3 504 1290 1179.5 91.43% MW-31 9/22/2005 204 166 136 5.8 82.3 93.2 436 1280 1123.3 87.76% MW-31 12/14/2005 198 179 135 6 86.6 96.1 509 1290 1209.7 93.78% MW-31 3/22/2006 207 174 133 6.1 87.9 88.4 485 1280 1181.4 92.30% MW-31 6/21/2006 207 186 138 6.5 87.3 97.6 522 1300 1244.4 95.72% Appendix B-2 Comparison of Calculated and Measured TDS for Samples with Complete Major Ions Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 5 of 6 Well Sample Date CO3+HCO3 as Alkalinity (mg/L) Calcium (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Potassium (mg/L) Magnesium (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Measured TDS (mg/L) Calculated TDS (mg/L)Ratio MW-31 9/13/2006 211 175 131 6.1 82.5 96.1 516 1320 1217.7 92.25% MW-31 10/25/2006 204 175 127 6.1 85.3 98.7 526 1220 1222.1 100.17% MW-31 3/15/2007 210 171 132 6.6 86.1 94.6 516 1280 1216.3 95.02% MW-31 8/27/2007 210 178 136 6.23 85.8 93.1 532 1240 1241.1 100.09% MW-31 10/24/2007 209 172 122 6.4 83.8 93.3 497 1200 1183.5 98.63% MW-31 3/19/2008 212 161 124 6.2 78.2 91 521 1220 1193.4 97.82% MW-31 6/3/2008 197 163 128 5.96 80.8 93.7 514 1180 1182.5 100.21% MW-31 8/4/2008 210 180 124 6.07 88.3 94.4 499 1240 1201.8 96.92% MW-31 11/11/2008 205 180 119 6.2 84.9 97 541 1220 1233.1 101.07% MW-31 2/3/2009 205 169 115 5.4 80.1 82.8 488 1210 1145.3 94.65% MW-31 5/13/2009 209 146 124 5.1 72.7 84 493 1230 1133.8 92.18% MW-31 8/24/2009 215 169 122 6 79.4 92.7 460 1230 1144.1 93.02% MW-31 10/14/2009 214 170 138 6.09 78.5 93.6 497 1200 1197.2 99.77% MW-31 2/9/2010 224 170 128 6.2 80.2 92.2 507 1150 1207.6 105.01% MW-31 4/20/2010 220 162 128 5.8 79.4 91.3 522 1110 1208.5 108.87% MW-31 9/13/2010 226 164 139 5.74 78.1 91 527 1330 1230.8 92.54% MW-31 11/9/2010 216 166 138 5.9 77.8 85.4 539 1320 1228.1 93.04% MW-31 2/1/2011 211 168 145 5.75 79.6 91.6 538 1240 1239.0 99.92% MW-31 4/1/2011 213 172 143 6.1 80.1 95 503 1210 1212.2 100.18% MW-31 8/2/2011 0.8 172 148 5.7 81.2 95.3 537 1300 1040.0 80.00% MW-31 10/3/2011 202 177 145 5.9 83.3 85.5 539 1320 1237.7 93.77% MW-31 2/13/2012 203 190 150 6 87.9 97.2 538 1240 1272.1 102.59% MW-31 5/2/2012 208 187 151 7 88 87.9 532 1410 1260.9 89.43% MW-35 12/1/2010 412 490 69 11.7 142 379 2310 3620 3813.7 105.35% MW-35 2/15/2011 266 289 41 7.7 86.6 227 1140 1940 2057.3 106.05% MW-35 4/12/2011 410 522 64 11.8 150 425 2190 3580 3772.8 105.39% MW-35 10/3/2011 385 502 61 11 149 352 2400 3750 3860.0 102.93% MW-35 2/14/2012 398 532 59 11.5 159 414 2330 3840 3903.5 101.65% MW-35 5/2/2012 407 502 59 12.2 151 342 2240 3960 3713.2 93.77% MW-3A 6/23/2005 170 441 63 26.4 284 698 3380 5540 5062.4 91.38% MW-3A 9/25/2005 342 471 64 26.6 298 715 3560 5560 5476.6 98.50% MW-3A 12/14/2005 302 482 60 26.6 314 707 3520 5360 5411.6 100.96% MW-3A 3/27/2006 323 480 56 26.7 318 706 3490 5410 5399.7 99.81% MW-3A 6/25/2006 375 443 61 30.2 282 679 3510 5700 5380.2 94.39% MW-3A 9/19/2006 356 467 70 27.7 293 722 3440 5580 5375.7 96.34% MW-3A 10/26/2006 409 460 57 26.8 288 737 3270 5520 5247.8 95.07% MW-3A 3/14/2007 381 478 62 26.9 309 754 3810 5770 5820.9 100.88% MW-3A 10/31/2007 324 479 60 29.3 310 741 3470 5270 5413.3 102.72% MW-3A 5/28/2008 384 496 61 28.6 306 827 3550 5070 5652.6 111.49% MW-3A 11/3/2008 287 498 56 28.6 310 811 3570 5600 5560.6 99.30% MW-3A 2/9/2009 265 481 49 28.6 320 761 3730 5690 5634.6 99.03% MW-3A 5/28/2009 306 436 60 28.1 303 674 3640 5660 5447.1 96.24% MW-3A 8/18/2009 305 486 57 28.6 308 764 3840 5760 5788.6 100.50% MW-3A 10/28/2009 424 478 42 28 298 773 3870 5570 5913.0 106.16% MW-3A 11/22/2010 346 463 59 27.8 312 754 3850 5660 5811.8 102.68% MW-3A 4/13/2011 375 473 65 28.6 295 814 3350 5240 5400.6 103.06% MW-3A 10/11/2011 376 474 59 27.3 301 708 3750 5630 5695.3 101.16% MW-5 5/19/1980 403 192 60 18 49 478 1290 2392 2490.0 104.10% MW-5 6/16/1980 390 152 57 14 54 462 1200 2300 2329.0 101.26% MW-5 7/16/1980 403 160 60 23 49 435 1100 2060 2230.0 108.25% MW-5 8/19/1980 390 152 60 20 46 465 1150 2218 2283.0 102.93% MW-5 9/1/1980 708 156 51 15 41 500 960 2172 2431.0 111.92% MW-5 10/1/1980 415 152 55 20 42 443 1060 2096 2187.0 104.34% MW-5 11/11/1980 366 152 49 10 29 428 1050 1960 2084.0 106.33% MW-5 12/9/1980 390 176 52 13 27 460 1150 2105 2268.0 107.74% MW-5 1/22/1981 378 161 53 13 30 467 1140 2072 2242.0 108.20% MW-5 2/11/1981 360 176 54 10 37 487 1260 2192 2384.0 108.76% MW-5 3/17/1981 378 168 55 13 51 473 1210 2256 2348.0 104.08% MW-5 4/21/1981 390 176 53 13 46 467 1220 2309 2365.0 102.43% MW-5 6/18/1981 403 168 53 12 41 437 1105 2114 2219.0 104.97% Appendix B-2 Comparison of Calculated and Measured TDS for Samples with Complete Major Ions Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 6 of 6 Well Sample Date CO3+HCO3 as Alkalinity (mg/L) Calcium (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Potassium (mg/L) Magnesium (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Measured TDS (mg/L) Calculated TDS (mg/L)Ratio MW-5 8/18/1981 415 168 52 12 48 426 1115 2119 2236.0 105.52% MW-5 9/1/1981 215 28 4 4 12 38 28 229 329.0 143.67% MW-5 1/26/1982 354 200 51 22 83 490 1260 2273 2460.0 108.23% MW-5 12/13/1982 377 143 47.1 7.4 40 431 1182 2180 2227.5 102.18% MW-5 5/24/1983 372 150 48.1 6.5 42 460 1228 2236 2306.6 103.16% MW-5 10/27/1983 396 150 46.8 7 41 480 1183 2093 2303.8 110.07% MW-5 11/28/2000 381 142 57.4 7.6 40.6 440 1140 2160 2208.6 102.25% MW-5 11/6/2001 374 135 67.9 7.1 37.7 388 1090 2030 2099.7 103.43% MW-5 9/10/2002 388 122 55.8 7.73 43.4 488 1470 2212 2574.9 116.41% MW-5 6/21/2005 369 122 48 6.9 35.8 442 1070 1950 2093.7 107.37% MW-5 12/13/2005 384 134 51 7.6 39.9 462 1130 2020 2208.5 109.33% MW-5 3/23/2006 384 142 51 7.7 43.5 456 1130 2080 2214.2 106.45% MW-5 6/23/2006 387 148 50 9.2 41.6 524 1090 2020 2249.8 111.38% MW-5 10/27/2006 375 141 52 7.9 41.3 454 1200 2000 2271.2 113.56% MW-5 10/29/2007 378 138 50 8.4 39.3 476 1130 2040 2219.7 108.81% MW-5 6/18/2008 357 135 50 7.5 38 503 1090 1900 2180.5 114.76% MW-5 11/11/2008 368 143 47 7.7 39.2 521 1170 1980 2295.9 115.95% MW-5 5/16/2009 383 130 44 7 38 467 1130 2000 2199.0 109.95% MW-5 10/12/2009 393 139 51 7.77 39.4 531 1140 2000 2301.2 115.06% MW-5 4/26/2010 399 140 52 7.66 39.9 519 1160 2130 2317.6 108.81% MW-5 11/11/2010 390 146 52 9.2 40.6 487 1260 2200 2384.8 108.40% MW-5 4/12/2011 395 164 54 9.2 44.2 535 1250 2260 2451.4 108.47% MW-5 10/10/2011 361 151 50 8 41.4 470 1240 2110 2321.4 110.02% Notes: CO3= Carbonate HCO3= Bicarbonate TDS= Total Dissolved Solids Bold values are not internally consistent and have been removed from the dataset prior to statistical analysis. Ratio= Difference between measured and calculated values B-3 Charge Balance Calculations for Wells with Exceedances Appendix B-3 Charge Balance Calculations for Wells with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 1 of 3 Well Date Ca Na Mg K Total Cation Charge HCO3 Cl SO4 Total Anion Charge Percent Difference MW-11 12/16/1982 1.80 23.92 0.72 0.15 26.59 -6.54 -0.69 -19.28 -26.51 0.31% MW-11 5/24/1983 1.55 23.05 0.63 0.12 25.35 -5.95 -0.76 -19.63 -26.34 -3.88% MW-11 10/26/1983 1.40 23.49 0.55 0.13 25.56 -6.59 -0.73 -19.20 -26.52 -3.73% MW-11 5/11/1999 2.18 23.05 1.06 0.15 26.45 -6.18 -0.93 -19.67 -26.78 -1.25% MW-11 11/27/2000 4.69 21.18 2.52 0.19 28.59 -6.26 -1.05 -23.73 -31.05 -8.61% MW-11 11/6/2001 4.14 24.97 2.09 0.18 31.37 -6.15 -1.20 -23.94 -31.28 0.28% MW-11 9/10/2002 4.77 23.49 2.47 0.19 30.92 -6.10 -0.95 -25.40 -32.45 -4.96% MW-11 6/21/2005 2.93 23.66 1.50 0.16 28.25 -5.97 -0.87 -22.69 -29.53 -4.54% MW-11 9/22/2005 2.53 23.97 1.26 0.16 27.92 -6.19 -0.93 -20.15 -27.28 2.29% MW-11 12/13/2005 3.05 23.66 1.59 0.17 28.48 -6.15 -1.02 -22.28 -29.44 -3.37% MW-11 3/21/2006 2.75 23.97 1.38 0.16 28.26 -6.24 -0.93 -23.32 -30.49 -7.89% MW-11 6/20/2006 3.10 24.10 1.65 0.19 29.04 -6.13 -0.87 -23.94 -30.95 -6.58% MW-11 9/13/2006 2.55 24.27 1.23 0.17 28.22 -6.23 -0.82 -22.07 -29.11 -3.17% MW-11 10/25/2006 3.39 24.31 1.79 0.18 29.67 -6.19 -0.90 -24.98 -32.08 -8.11% MW-11 3/15/2007 3.45 24.84 1.82 0.19 30.30 -6.15 -0.87 -23.32 -30.34 -0.12% MW-11 8/21/2007 1.96 29.06 0.90 0.16 32.07 -6.28 -0.85 -22.07 -29.19 8.97% MW-11 10/30/2007 2.01 25.23 0.91 0.19 28.34 -6.19 -0.82 -21.24 -28.25 0.34% MW-11 3/18/2008 1.90 26.36 0.82 0.15 29.24 -6.23 -0.82 -21.65 -28.70 1.84% MW-11 6/16/2008 2.04 27.49 0.88 0.16 30.56 -5.83 -0.85 -21.86 -28.54 6.61% MW-11 8/5/2008 2.03 27.45 0.87 0.15 30.50 -6.23 -0.82 -22.07 -29.11 4.54% MW-11 11/10/2008 2.12 28.49 0.91 0.16 31.67 -5.75 -0.85 -22.90 -29.50 6.85% MW-11 2/16/2009 2.22 25.27 1.02 0.16 28.67 -5.83 -0.82 -20.34 -26.99 5.85% MW-11 5/17/2009 1.80 23.84 0.82 0.15 26.61 -6.00 -0.73 -22.07 -28.80 -8.24% MW-11 8/31/2009 2.09 26.19 0.92 0.16 29.35 -6.13 -0.73 -22.69 -29.56 -0.69% MW-11 10/19/2009 2.09 27.88 0.94 0.15 31.06 -6.38 -0.85 -21.65 -28.87 7.04% MW-11 2/10/2010 3.34 24.66 1.62 0.17 29.80 -6.72 -0.93 -23.73 -31.38 -5.31% MW-11 4/28/2010 3.79 27.93 1.90 0.18 33.80 -6.34 -0.90 -23.94 -31.19 7.72% MW-11 9/8/2010 3.49 26.71 1.72 0.18 32.10 -6.72 -0.87 -23.73 -31.33 2.40% MW-11 11/11/2010 3.39 24.92 1.65 0.18 30.15 -6.34 -0.96 -24.57 -31.87 -5.71% MW-11 2/2/2011 3.52 26.14 1.74 0.17 31.58 -6.31 -0.90 -24.78 -31.99 -1.28% MW-11 4/4/2011 3.90 27.06 1.93 0.19 33.07 -6.34 -0.87 -23.73 -30.95 6.41% MW-11 8/3/2011 2.96 27.32 1.42 0.17 31.87 -5.69 -0.87 -22.69 -29.25 8.21% MW-11 10/4/2011 2.96 25.23 1.42 0.17 29.78 -5.95 -0.79 -23.73 -30.47 -2.32% MW-11 2/13/2012 3.74 27.23 1.88 0.18 33.03 -5.90 -0.87 -24.15 -30.93 6.38%MW-11 5/8/2012 3.18 22.49 1.59 0.18 27.43 -6.16 -0.85 -22.69 -29.70 -8.27% MW-12 5/4/1983 26.45 13.48 22.22 0.31 62.46 -8.31 -2.27 -50.38 -60.96 2.39% MW-12 10/27/1983 26.45 12.61 17.28 0.33 56.68 -8.67 -1.52 -48.68 -58.87 -3.87% MW-12 5/12/1999 23.65 12.05 17.77 0.31 53.79 -6.82 -1.66 -43.51 -51.99 3.35% MW-12 11/28/2000 24.90 10.79 17.77 0.30 53.76 -6.92 -1.61 -41.64 -50.16 6.70% MW-12 9/10/2002 23.60 13.53 17.44 0.31 54.89 -6.85 -1.74 -46.84 -55.43 -0.99% MW-12 6/22/2005 23.25 11.40 16.70 0.29 51.65 -6.59 -1.55 -44.14 -52.28 -1.22% MW-12 12/13/2005 27.15 11.79 18.76 0.33 58.02 -7.19 -1.49 -46.01 -54.70 5.73% MW-12 6/22/2006 26.05 13.83 18.10 0.38 58.37 -6.92 -1.72 -47.26 -55.90 4.23% MW-12 10/30/2006 26.00 13.61 18.43 0.34 58.39 -6.39 -1.72 -49.76 -57.87 0.89% MW-12 10/23/2007 26.15 12.27 18.43 0.34 57.19 -7.19 -1.64 -47.68 -56.51 1.19% MW-12 6/17/2008 26.20 13.05 17.03 0.33 56.61 -6.54 -1.52 -47.26 -55.32 2.28% MW-12 11/11/2008 27.15 13.40 18.02 0.33 58.90 -7.05 -1.58 -48.72 -57.34 2.63% MW-12 5/16/2009 22.36 11.87 15.63 0.33 50.19 -7.29 -1.44 -48.93 -57.66 -14.87% MW-12 10/13/2009 25.25 13.35 17.53 0.33 56.46 -7.26 -1.89 -53.09 -62.24 -10.23% MW-12 4/27/2010 26.05 13.79 17.69 0.32 57.85 -7.24 -1.81 -49.76 -58.81 -1.65% MW-12 11/19/2010 25.45 13.31 17.61 0.32 56.69 -6.90 -1.78 -51.63 -60.31 -6.38% MW-12 4/5/2011 25.95 14.09 17.86 0.33 58.23 -6.87 -1.81 -46.22 -54.89 5.74% MW-12 10/6/2011 25.20 12.01 17.28 0.32 54.80 -6.24 -1.72 -50.59 -58.56 -6.85%MW-12 5/10/2012 26.10 13.01 18.35 0.38 57.84 -6.88 -1.78 -48.30 -56.96 1.51% MW-18 5/12/1999 21.01 8.00 6.67 0.16 35.84 -6.52 -0.99 -27.90 -35.41 1.21% MW-18 12/1/2000 23.30 7.83 7.27 0.18 38.58 -6.74 -1.33 -33.31 -41.38 -7.26% MW-18 11/6/2001 21.56 6.74 6.07 0.20 34.57 -6.23 -1.34 -28.73 -36.30 -5.00% MW-18 9/9/2002 22.61 8.35 7.67 0.19 38.82 -6.72 -1.15 -40.39 -48.25 -24.31% MW-18 6/21/2006 26.65 7.66 9.96 0.26 44.52 -7.19 -1.41 -35.39 -44.00 1.16% MW-18 10/26/2006 25.70 7.79 9.63 0.22 43.33 -6.87 -1.41 -38.93 -47.21 -8.95% MW-18 10/30/2007 25.00 8.53 8.56 0.24 42.33 -7.03 -1.35 -35.39 -43.78 -3.43% MW-18 6/4/2008 27.25 8.39 10.37 0.25 46.26 -6.93 -1.55 -38.93 -47.42 -2.51% MW-18 11/4/2008 28.84 8.57 10.86 0.24 48.52 -7.15 -1.18 -39.14 -47.47 2.16% MW-18 5/27/2009 27.10 8.18 10.62 0.22 46.11 -7.36 -1.92 -40.18 -49.46 -7.26% MW-18 10/21/2009 27.40 7.79 10.53 0.23 45.94 -7.67 -1.64 -39.56 -48.86 -6.36% MW-18 11/18/2010 28.15 7.57 10.37 0.25 46.33 -7.69 -1.47 -39.77 -48.92 -5.59% MW-18 4/6/2011 28.24 8.13 10.70 0.25 47.32 -7.75 -1.30 -37.06 -46.11 2.56% MW-18 10/11/2011 29.24 7.00 10.86 0.23 47.34 -7.13 -1.49 -42.06 -50.68 -7.06% Appendix B-3 Charge Balance Calculations for Wells with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Well Date Ca Na Mg K Total Cation Charge HCO3 Cl SO4 Total Anion Charge Percent Difference MW-18 4/30/2012 28.05 6.74 10.78 0.30 45.86 -7.72 -1.55 -37.27 -46.54 -1.47% MW-24 6/23/2005 31.64 19.53 15.31 0.59 67.07 -10.29 -2.00 -51.01 -63.30 5.61% MW-24 9/25/2005 25.60 19.75 15.63 1.29 62.27 -6.90 -1.47 -59.34 -67.70 -8.72% MW-24 12/14/2005 25.55 19.75 15.96 0.35 61.61 -4.15 -1.27 -55.80 -61.21 0.65% MW-24 3/27/2006 17.62 13.44 11.11 0.26 42.42 -7.39 -1.33 -51.42 -60.14 -41.77% MW-24 6/22/2006 22.66 20.79 14.24 0.40 58.08 -10.26 -0.85 -53.71 -64.82 -11.60% MW-24 9/15/2006 24.55 20.05 14.48 0.37 59.46 -7.15 -1.75 -47.68 -56.57 4.86% MW-24 10/24/2006 24.40 19.92 14.48 0.37 59.17 -6.54 -1.30 -55.80 -63.63 -7.54% MW-24 3/16/2007 23.85 18.49 14.65 0.35 57.33 -6.34 -1.27 -52.47 -60.08 -4.78% MW-24 6/20/2007 24.75 19.75 14.89 0.38 59.77 -4.83 -1.24 -55.80 -61.87 -3.51% MW-24 8/28/2007 25.15 18.57 15.39 0.32 59.43 -5.10 -1.27 -56.63 -63.00 -5.99% MW-24 10/23/2007 25.40 21.53 15.06 0.37 62.36 -4.92 -1.27 -54.55 -60.73 2.61% MW-24 3/12/2008 23.06 20.40 13.74 0.33 57.53 -8.52 -1.24 -53.30 -63.06 -9.62% MW-24 5/29/2008 24.95 21.84 15.31 0.32 62.42 -3.08 -1.27 -57.67 -62.02 0.64% MW-24 8/7/2008 24.55 22.36 14.89 0.33 62.14 -4.42 -1.10 -56.84 -62.36 -0.36% MW-24 11/11/2008 24.65 22.49 14.98 0.34 62.45 -3.69 -1.21 -58.29 -63.20 -1.19% MW-24 2/5/2009 23.25 23.40 13.50 0.36 60.51 -3.79 -1.24 -54.76 -59.78 1.20% MW-24 5/30/2009 22.01 21.27 13.50 0.31 57.08 -3.82 -1.24 -55.59 -60.65 -6.24% MW-24 8/24/2009 25.10 22.53 14.56 0.34 62.53 -2.33 -1.04 -57.05 -60.42 3.38% MW-24 10/28/2009 24.35 21.23 14.56 0.32 60.47 -4.21 -1.30 -61.42 -66.93 -10.68% MW-24 1/19/2010 24.55 21.75 14.40 0.33 61.03 -4.42 -1.30 -57.05 -62.77 -2.84% MW-24 5/6/2010 24.20 22.18 14.65 0.32 61.35 -5.01 -1.30 -53.30 -59.61 2.84% MW-24 11/17/2010 23.85 20.66 14.24 0.33 59.08 -3.23 -1.35 -57.46 -62.04 -5.02% MW-24 4/5/2011 23.65 22.10 13.91 0.32 59.98 -2.84 -1.27 -53.30 -57.40 4.29% MW-24 10/11/2011 24.35 15.48 9.87 0.24 49.95 -5.36 -1.10 -52.05 -58.51 -17.13% MW-24 5/10/2012 25.30 20.62 14.07 0.35 60.34 -3.64 -1.18 -51.84 -56.66 6.09% MW-25 6/23/2005 17.87 12.27 10.53 0.23 40.90 -6.42 -0.96 -33.31 -40.69 0.49% MW-25 9/22/2005 18.76 12.40 11.11 0.25 42.51 -6.60 -0.96 -34.77 -42.33 0.43% MW-25 12/13/2005 19.26 12.61 11.44 0.26 43.57 -6.49 -0.93 -38.72 -46.15 -5.91% MW-25 3/22/2006 17.32 12.66 10.04 0.25 40.26 -6.65 -0.90 -35.60 -43.16 -7.20% MW-25 6/20/2006 18.86 12.35 11.36 0.26 42.83 -6.70 -0.90 -34.98 -42.58 0.58% MW-25 9/12/2006 19.21 12.48 11.11 0.28 43.08 -6.52 -0.85 -32.69 -40.06 7.02% MW-25 10/24/2006 19.96 12.83 11.36 0.26 44.40 -6.64 -0.93 -39.14 -46.71 -5.19%MW-25 3/16/2007 19.26 12.57 11.11 0.26 43.20 -6.39 -0.90 -36.43 -43.73 -1.22% MW-25 6/20/2007 19.71 11.70 11.52 0.25 43.19 -6.60 -0.87 -36.23 -43.71 -1.20% MW-25 8/27/2007 19.46 11.92 11.19 0.24 42.81 -6.75 -0.93 -38.52 -46.20 -7.90% MW-25 10/25/2007 19.56 11.83 9.46 0.26 41.11 -6.72 -0.90 -35.60 -43.22 -5.13% MW-25 3/18/2008 17.62 13.31 9.87 0.25 41.05 -6.80 -0.90 -36.43 -44.14 -7.52% MW-25 6/12/2008 19.11 13.31 10.70 0.24 43.36 -6.24 -0.71 -33.52 -40.47 6.67% MW-25 8/4/2008 19.51 13.48 11.03 0.26 44.28 -6.56 -0.79 -35.60 -42.95 3.01% MW-25 11/10/2008 19.11 13.96 10.62 0.25 43.94 -6.42 -0.85 -37.48 -44.75 -1.83% MW-25 2/3/2009 16.52 11.09 9.55 0.21 37.37 -6.42 -0.87 -33.94 -41.23 -10.34% MW-25 5/13/2009 16.62 12.14 9.55 0.22 38.52 -6.54 -0.85 -35.19 -42.57 -10.53% MW-25 8/24/2009 18.01 13.48 9.96 0.25 41.71 -6.85 -0.85 -32.89 -40.59 2.68% MW-25 10/13/2009 17.57 12.88 9.55 0.25 40.24 -6.75 -0.96 -34.35 -42.06 -4.54% MW-25 2/3/2010 17.52 13.05 9.55 0.24 40.35 -7.08 -0.87 -33.94 -41.89 -3.81% MW-25 4/28/2010 18.36 13.79 10.04 0.25 42.44 -6.95 -0.87 -34.56 -42.38 0.13% MW-25 9/8/2010 18.31 13.31 10.29 0.25 42.16 -7.13 -0.87 -36.64 -44.65 -5.91% MW-25 11/10/2010 17.67 12.05 9.55 0.24 39.50 -6.77 -0.87 -34.35 -42.00 -6.32% MW-25 2/2/2011 17.87 12.96 9.79 0.24 40.86 -6.64 -0.85 -35.19 -42.67 -4.44% MW-25 4/4/2011 17.67 13.48 9.63 0.25 41.03 -6.69 -0.87 -33.73 -41.29 -0.64% MW-25 10/4/2011 17.67 12.01 9.87 0.24 39.78 -6.34 -0.90 -34.98 -42.22 -6.14% MW-25 2/14/2012 18.51 13.66 10.12 0.25 42.54 -6.62 -0.85 -33.94 -41.40 2.67%MW-25 5/2/2012 17.52 11.70 9.71 0.30 39.23 -6.72 -0.85 -34.77 -42.33 -7.91% MW-26 6/21/2005 21.16 10.18 12.67 0.26 44.27 -6.74 -1.47 -39.14 -47.34 -6.95% MW-26 9/22/2005 24.00 9.26 13.58 0.26 47.11 -6.70 -1.49 -38.52 -46.71 0.84% MW-26 12/14/2005 24.75 9.57 13.99 0.27 48.58 -6.70 -1.49 -39.35 -47.55 2.12% MW-26 3/22/2006 24.90 9.18 13.82 0.27 48.17 -6.75 -1.44 -39.97 -48.16 0.02% MW-26 6/20/2006 23.85 8.44 13.82 0.29 46.40 -6.65 -1.47 -38.10 -46.22 0.39% MW-26 9/12/2006 24.35 8.57 13.33 0.28 46.53 -6.49 -1.38 -36.85 -44.72 3.89% MW-26 10/24/2006 26.50 8.44 14.07 0.28 49.29 -6.80 -1.61 -43.72 -52.13 -5.76% MW-26 3/16/2007 25.35 7.39 14.40 0.27 47.41 -6.47 -1.64 -41.22 -49.33 -4.05% MW-26 6/20/2007 25.35 9.00 14.56 0.30 49.22 -6.72 -1.52 -40.39 -48.63 1.20% MW-26 8/21/2007 25.00 9.05 14.48 0.26 48.79 -6.75 -1.69 -39.97 -48.42 0.77% MW-26 10/23/2007 25.35 7.05 14.73 0.26 47.39 -6.74 -1.55 -40.18 -48.47 -2.28% MW-26 3/12/2008 24.55 8.44 12.67 0.28 45.95 -6.39 -1.95 -38.52 -46.85 -1.97% MW-26 5/27/2008 24.35 9.92 13.66 0.27 48.20 -6.23 -1.58 -41.85 -49.65 -3.03% MW-26 8/12/2008 26.05 9.57 13.91 0.26 49.79 -6.36 -1.41 -42.06 -49.82 -0.07% Appendix B-3 Charge Balance Calculations for Wells with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 3 of 3 Well Date Ca Na Mg K Total Cation Charge HCO3 Cl SO4 Total Anion Charge Percent Difference MW-26 11/13/2008 25.50 7.13 14.73 0.25 47.61 -6.36 -1.66 -44.97 -52.99 -11.31% MW-26 2/2/2009 24.15 7.70 13.33 0.25 45.43 -6.42 -1.38 -39.14 -46.95 -3.33% MW-26 5/18/2009 22.36 8.79 12.51 0.26 43.91 -6.56 -1.64 -39.77 -47.96 -9.23% MW-26 8/19/2009 24.30 7.66 10.78 0.25 42.99 -6.34 -1.78 -31.65 -39.77 7.49% MW-26 10/13/2009 25.05 9.22 12.92 0.29 47.48 -6.80 -1.64 -39.35 -47.79 -0.65% MW-26 2/2/2010 24.70 7.53 13.58 0.27 46.08 -6.83 -2.03 -38.31 -47.17 -2.38% MW-26 4/22/2010 25.00 7.35 13.00 0.28 45.63 -6.87 -1.61 -40.81 -49.28 -8.00% MW-26 9/16/2010 25.25 7.74 13.66 0.28 46.93 -7.15 -1.81 -41.85 -50.80 -8.23% MW-26 11/15/2010 23.65 9.26 12.59 0.28 45.79 -6.78 -1.35 -39.14 -47.28 -3.25% MW-26 2/16/2011 25.50 7.57 13.82 0.29 47.18 -6.85 -1.66 -37.06 -45.57 3.40% MW-26 4/1/2011 25.90 8.70 13.41 0.30 48.31 -6.78 -1.81 -38.52 -47.11 2.49% MW-26 10/12/2011 25.90 7.35 13.58 0.28 47.11 -6.16 -1.72 -43.10 -50.98 -8.22%MW-26 5/7/2012 22.41 8.48 12.59 0.29 43.77 -6.52 -2.09 -40.18 -48.79 -11.48% MW-27 6/23/2005 7.54 3.16 5.46 0.10 16.26 -6.87 -0.96 -8.37 -16.20 0.40% MW-27 9/22/2005 7.78 3.18 5.70 0.10 16.77 -7.05 -0.99 -8.39 -16.42 2.08% MW-27 12/14/2005 8.03 3.27 5.83 0.11 17.24 -7.19 -0.93 -8.29 -16.41 4.80% MW-27 3/21/2006 7.59 3.12 5.56 0.10 16.37 -7.19 -0.96 -7.54 -15.69 4.16% MW-27 6/22/2006 7.34 3.46 5.46 0.13 16.38 -7.15 -0.90 -7.50 -15.54 5.09% MW-27 9/12/2006 8.38 3.38 5.95 0.11 17.82 -6.93 -0.96 -8.68 -16.57 7.00% MW-27 10/24/2006 8.68 3.49 6.14 0.11 18.42 -7.31 -1.04 -8.99 -17.35 5.84% MW-27 3/14/2007 8.38 3.43 6.03 0.12 17.96 -7.03 -1.02 -8.74 -16.79 6.52% MW-27 8/28/2007 8.78 3.24 6.25 0.11 18.39 -7.37 -0.99 -9.41 -17.77 3.35% MW-27 10/22/2007 8.48 3.22 6.02 0.11 17.84 -7.34 -1.04 -8.45 -16.84 5.61% MW-27 3/17/2008 7.78 3.09 5.49 0.12 16.48 -7.47 -1.04 -8.91 -17.43 -5.75% MW-27 6/2/2008 8.83 3.28 6.36 0.11 18.59 -6.95 -1.10 -9.43 -17.48 5.97% MW-27 8/6/2008 9.28 3.39 6.68 0.12 19.47 -7.21 -1.13 -9.49 -17.83 8.40% MW-27 11/4/2008 9.18 3.35 6.57 0.11 19.22 -7.11 -0.79 -9.60 -17.50 8.96% MW-27 2/16/2009 9.03 3.39 6.76 0.12 19.31 -7.15 -1.16 -9.20 -17.50 9.34% MW-27 5/29/2009 7.73 3.22 5.86 0.10 16.92 -7.31 -1.18 -8.62 -17.11 -1.15% MW-27 8/18/2009 8.48 3.06 6.03 0.11 17.68 -7.19 -1.13 -9.99 -18.32 -3.58% MW-27 10/12/2009 8.43 3.08 6.05 0.11 17.67 -7.47 -1.24 -9.49 -18.21 -3.04% MW-27 1/18/2010 8.78 3.06 6.20 0.11 18.15 -7.87 -1.04 -9.33 -18.24 -0.48% MW-27 5/3/2010 8.63 3.13 6.24 0.11 18.10 -7.64 -1.18 -9.76 -18.59 -2.66% MW-27 11/12/2010 8.33 2.86 5.93 0.11 17.24 -7.52 -1.27 -9.41 -18.20 -5.59% MW-27 4/5/2011 8.63 3.12 6.16 0.10 18.02 -7.56 -1.21 -9.20 -17.97 0.28% MW-27 10/5/2011 8.83 2.68 6.31 0.10 17.92 -6.95 -1.24 -9.49 -17.68 1.33%MW-27 5/1/2012 8.83 2.68 6.36 0.14 18.01 -7.36 -1.30 -9.29 -17.94 0.39% MW-3 10/31/1979 12.13 12.27 6.17 0.43 30.99 -4.56 -0.36 -19.36 -24.27 21.68% MW-3 1/31/1980 18.21 15.01 7.49 0.41 41.12 -5.83 -0.71 -43.72 -50.26 -22.23% MW-3 4/30/1980 20.46 17.62 9.05 0.46 47.59 -6.80 -0.85 -39.56 -47.20 0.81% MW-3 5/19/1980 20.01 25.01 14.07 0.46 59.55 -7.39 -1.41 -50.59 -59.39 0.27% MW-3 6/16/1980 24.40 27.93 10.86 0.59 63.78 -7.39 -1.44 -54.65 -63.48 0.47% MW-3 7/16/1980 23.01 19.23 16.70 0.97 59.91 -7.60 -1.75 -51.01 -60.36 -0.76% MW-3 8/19/1980 23.60 28.40 16.29 0.95 69.25 -6.10 -1.83 -61.94 -69.87 -0.90% MW-3 9/1/1980 23.40 25.49 17.28 1.13 67.30 -7.39 -1.75 -58.29 -67.43 -0.20% MW-3 10/1/1980 24.00 29.45 16.87 1.18 71.50 -6.80 -1.83 -63.50 -72.13 -0.89% MW-3 11/11/1980 23.90 24.66 17.28 0.66 66.51 -7.51 -1.81 -57.25 -66.57 -0.08% MW-3 12/10/1980 24.40 30.40 18.27 0.82 73.89 -7.80 -1.83 -63.71 -73.34 0.75% MW-3 1/22/1981 22.81 32.88 16.05 1.07 72.81 -7.80 -2.00 -62.71 -72.51 0.41% MW-3 2/12/1981 22.81 30.62 12.67 0.69 66.79 -7.39 -1.83 -57.88 -67.10 -0.47% MW-3 3/18/1981 23.60 32.41 18.84 0.77 75.62 -7.60 -1.86 -65.58 -75.05 0.76% MW-3 4/13/1981 23.60 30.58 18.43 0.41 73.02 -7.19 -1.86 -63.08 -72.14 1.21% MW-3 6/24/1981 25.20 29.80 17.28 0.97 73.25 -7.60 -1.95 -63.29 -72.84 0.56% MW-3 9/1/1981 1.90 1.17 1.56 0.13 4.76 -3.75 -0.08 -0.87 -4.71 1.05% MW-3 1/27/1982 24.00 32.93 18.84 1.48 77.26 -7.60 -1.81 -64.54 -73.95 4.28% MW-3 12/13/1982 23.95 35.23 15.22 0.41 74.82 -7.59 -1.49 -67.85 -76.93 -2.83% MW-3 4/21/1983 23.45 33.49 21.39 0.56 78.90 -7.28 -1.88 -67.16 -76.32 3.28% MW-3 10/26/1983 22.46 34.80 17.28 0.54 75.07 -8.59 -1.60 -67.16 -77.35 -3.03% MW-3 5/11/1999 21.71 32.88 19.75 0.55 74.89 -8.05 -1.71 -67.66 -77.42 -3.38% MW-3 11/30/2000 21.66 35.10 17.94 0.51 75.21 -9.80 -1.75 -60.79 -72.34 3.81% MW-3 11/6/2001 23.45 38.36 20.08 0.52 82.41 -8.80 -2.33 -67.25 -78.37 4.90% MW-3 9/12/2002 22.11 35.36 18.60 0.56 76.62 -8.90 -1.84 -72.87 -83.60 -9.11% MW-3 9/23/2005 22.01 33.06 18.60 0.58 74.24 -7.10 -1.83 -69.33 -78.26 -5.41% MW-3 12/13/2005 23.70 32.71 20.74 0.60 77.75 -6.60 -1.83 -68.70 -77.14 0.78% MW-3 6/25/2006 20.71 29.49 19.26 0.68 70.13 -5.80 -1.78 -83.90 -91.48 -30.44% B-4 Descriptive Statistics of Wells and Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Well Analyte Units Non-Detects N %Non-Detects Mean Geometric Mean Std. Dev.Q25 Median Q75 Min. Conc.Max. Conc.Range Skewness MW-11 Manganese ug/L 0 53 0 104.89 100.48 29.89 79.00 102.00 128.00 40.00 170.00 130.00 0.12 MW-12 Selenium ug/L 20 55 36 9.55 4.91 10.27 2.00 4.00 17.00 1.00 39.00 38.00 1.21 MW-18 TDS @ 180 mg/L 0 23 0 3033.91 3023.72 241.88 2970.00 3100.00 3200.00 2350.00 3280.00 930.00 -1.81 MW-18 Thallium ug/L 2 28 7 2.17 1.80 1.24 1.06 1.69 3.54 0.50 4.00 3.50 0.25 MW-24 Cadmium ug/L 12 27 44 1.28 0.96 1.06 0.50 0.59 2.01 0.50 4.28 3.78 1.32 MW-24 Thallium ug/L 14 28 50 0.71 0.66 0.31 0.50 0.52 0.83 0.50 1.57 1.07 1.56 MW-25 Uranium ug/L 0 40 0 6.11 6.09 0.51 5.87 6.02 6.51 4.77 7.06 2.29 -0.18 MW-26 Uranium ug/L 0 82 0 38.52 33.33 20.26 22.60 33.10 57.00 9.48 119.00 109.52 0.90 MW-27 TDS @ 180 mg/L 0 36 0 1075.39 1074.01 55.16 1030.00 1080.00 1110.00 954.00 1190.00 236.00 -0.04 MW-3 Fluoride mg/L 1 42 2 0.52 0.48 0.21 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.07 1.04 0.97 0.67 MW-3 Selenium ug/L 26 84 31 13.43 6.84 13.79 2.00 8.95 20.40 1.00 52.80 51.80 1.14 MW-30 Selenium ug/L 0 44 0 34.13 33.91 4.08 31.25 32.50 36.40 29.00 47.20 18.20 1.22 MW-31 Sulfate mg/L 0 39 0 517.33 516.76 24.15 503.00 522.00 538.00 436.00 552.00 116.00 -1.30 MW-31 TDS @ 180 mg/L 0 51 0 1257.65 1255.39 76.46 1210.00 1240.00 1300.00 1110.00 1460.00 350.00 0.34 MW-3A Selenium ug/L 0 22 0 83.09 82.03 13.25 73.90 83.90 94.30 54.40 107.00 52.60 -0.23 MW-3A Sulfate mg/L 0 22 0 3579.09 3574.45 185.96 3470.00 3560.00 3730.00 3220.00 3870.00 650.00 -0.12 MW-5 Uranium ug/L 15 87 17 0.92 0.66 0.71 0.40 0.79 1.19 0.04 3.40 3.36 1.32 Appendix B-4: Descriptive Statistics of Wells and Constituents with Exceedances B-5 Data Omitted from Statistical Analysis Appendix B-5 Data Omitted from Statistical Analysis Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Reason Well Sample Date Report/ Reviewed Chemical Result Qual Detection Limit Units Insensitive detection limit MW-03 12/28/1981 Selenium 0.01 U 0.01 mg/L Insensitive detection limit MW-03 4/21/1983 Selenium 0.01 U 0.01 mg/L Zero value MW-03 6/15/1984 Selenium 0 0 mg/L Zero value MW-03 3/27/1986 Selenium 0 U 0 mg/L Zero value MW-03 9/4/1986 Selenium 0 0 mg/L Insensitive detection limit MW-03A 12/14/2005 9/14/2007 Selenium 5 U 5 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-05 12/9/1980 9/7/2007 Uranium 1 U 1 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-05 2/11/1981 9/13/2007 Uranium 1 U 1 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-05 9/1/1981 9/13/2007 Uranium 1 U 1 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-05 1/26/1982 Uranium 1 U 1 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-05 8/3/1982 Uranium 1 U 1 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-05 12/13/1982 Uranium 1 U 1 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-05 5/24/1983 9/1/2007 Uranium 1 U 1 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-05 9/24/2003 9/13/2007 Uranium 1 U 1 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-05 3/19/2004 9/13/2007 Uranium 1 U 1 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-05 5/27/2004 9/13/2007 Uranium 1 U 1 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-05 9/14/2004 9/13/2007 Uranium 1 U 1 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-05 11/9/2004 9/13/2007 Uranium 1 U 1 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-05 11/11/2010 C10110584 Uranium 11.6 0.3 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-05 2/14/2011 C11020544 Uranium 29.5 0.3 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-05 4/12/2011 C11040506 -005 Uranium 7.16 0.3 ug/L Zero value MW-11 6/12/1984 Manganese 0 0 mg/L Insensitive detection limit MW-12 5/4/1983 Sept 2007 Selenium 0.01 U 0.01 mg/L Zero value MW-12 9/4/1986 Selenium 0 0 mg/L Insensitive detection limit MW-12 6/27/1995 8/31/2007 Selenium 0.01 U 0.01 mg/L Insensitive detection limit MW-12 12/13/2005 9/14/2007 Selenium 5 U 5 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-12 3/27/2006 9/17/2007 Selenium 5 U 5 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-12 10/30/2006 9/18/2007 Selenium 23.8 U 23.8 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-18 5/12/1999 9/6/2007 Thallium 0.001 U 0.001 mg/L Insensitive detection limit MW-18 12/1/2000 9/6/2007 Thallium 0.001 U 0.001 mg/L Insensitive detection limit MW-18 11/6/2001 9/10/2007 Thallium 0.01 U 0.01 mg/L Insensitive detection limit MW-18 9/9/2002 9/11/2007 Thallium 1 U 1 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-18 9/9/2002 9/20/2007 Thallium 0.01 U 0.01 mg/L Insensitive detection limit MW-24 6/23/2005 Cadmium 1 U 1 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-24 6/23/2005 Thallium 1 U 1 ug/L Insensitive detection limit MW-24 7/26/2005 9/13/2007 Cadmium 0.71 D U 0.71 ug/L Zero value MW-24 8/4/2011 C11080269- 001A Thallium 0 U 0 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-05 10/10/2011 C11100567 -004 Uranium 4.52 0.3 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-05 2/28/2012 C12030065 -003A Uranium 18.6 0.3 ug/L B-6 Box Plots for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances Box Plot of Cadmium Median 25%-75% 1%-99% Outliers ExtremesMW-240.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Ca d m i u m ( u g / L ) Appendix B-6 Box Plots for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer PaJe of Box Plot of Fluoride Median 25%-75% 1%-99% Outliers ExtremesMW-30.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix B-6 Box Plots for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer PaJe of Box Plot of Manganese Median 25%-75% 1%-99% Outliers ExtremesMW-11 MW-35-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Ma n g a n e s e ( u g / L ) Appendix B-6 Box Plots for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer PaJe of Box Plot of Selenium Median 25%-75% 1%-99% Outliers ExtremesMW-3 MW-11 MW-35 MW-12 MW-30 MW-3A -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Se l e n i u m ( u g / L ) Appendix B-6 Box Plots for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer PaJe of Box Plot of Sulfate Median 25%-75% 1%-99% Outliers ExtremesMW-3A MW-310 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Appendix B-6 Box Plots for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer PaJe of Box Plot of TDS Median 25%-75% 1%-99% Outliers ExtremesMW-31 MW-18 MW-27800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 TD S ( m g / L ) Appendix B-6 Box Plots for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer PaJe 6 of Box Plot of Thallium Median 25%-75% 1%-99% Outliers ExtremesMW-24 MW-3 MW-11 MW-35 MW-12 MW-30 MW-3A MW-31 MW-18 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Th a l l i u m ( u g / L ) Appendix B-6 Box Plots for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer PaJe of Box Plot of Uranium Median 25%-75% 1%-99% Outliers ExtremesMW-35 MW-12 MW-30 MW-3A MW-31 MW-18 MW-27 MW-25 MW-26 MW-5 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Appendix B-6 Box Plots for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer PaJe of B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances Histogram of logtransformed Fluoride in MW-3 SW-W = 0.895, p = 0.0008 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Fluoride (mg/L) in MW-3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed Selenium in MW-3 SW-W = 0.9315, p = 0.0002 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Selenium (ug/L) in MW-3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed Selenium in MW-3A SW-W = 0.9679, p = 0.6614 1.70 1.75 1.80 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.05 2.10 Selenium (ug/L) in MW-3A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-3A SW-W = 0.9684, p = 0.6516 3.49 3.50 3.51 3.52 3.53 3.54 3.55 3.56 3.57 3.58 3.59 3.60 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-3A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-5 SW-W = 0.9437, p = 0.0009 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed Manganese in MW-11 SW-W = 0.961, p = 0.0816 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Manganese (ug/L) in MW-11 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed Selenium in MW-12 SW-W = 0.906, p = 0.0004 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Selenium (ug/L) in MW-12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age 7 of Histogram of logtransformed Thallium in MW-18 SW-W = 0.8747, p = 0.0045 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Thallium (ug/L) in MW-18 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed TDS @ 180C in MW-18 SW-W = 0.7627, p = 0.0001 3.34 3.36 3.38 3.40 3.42 3.44 3.46 3.48 3.50 3.52 3.54 TDS (mg/L) @ 180C in MW-18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed Cadmium in MW-24 SW-W = 0.8035, p = 0.0002 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Cadmium (ug/L) in MW-24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed Thallium in MW-24 SW-W = 0.7568, p = 0.00002 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Thallium (ug/L) in MW-24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-25 SW-W = 0.9827, p = 0.7774 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-26 SW-W = 0.9618, p = 0.0145 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed TDS @ 180C in MW-27 SW-W = 0.9791, p = 0.7140 2.96 2.97 2.98 2.99 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 TDS (mg/L) @ 180C in MW-27 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed Selenium in MW-30 SW-W = 0.9287, p = 0.0094 1.44 1.46 1.48 1.50 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.58 1.60 1.62 1.64 1.66 1.68 1.70 Selenium (ug/L) in MW-30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-31 SW-W = 0.8839, p = 0.0008 2.62 2.63 2.64 2.65 2.66 2.67 2.68 2.69 2.70 2.71 2.72 2.73 2.74 2.75 2.76 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-31 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed TDS @ 180C in MW-31 SW-W = 0.9854, p = 0.7770 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 TDS (mg/L) @ 180C in MW-31 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age 7 of Histogram of logtransformed Manganese in MW-35 SW-W = 0.952, p = 0.6700 2.38 2.39 2.40 2.41 2.42 2.43 2.44 2.45 2.46 Manganese (ug/L) in MW-35 0 1 2 3 4 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-35 SW-W = 0.8383, p = 0.0119 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-35 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No o f o b s Appendix B-7 Histograms for Constituents and Wells with Consecutive Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of B-8 Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents Linear Regression Selenium in MW-3A p = 0.0304; r2 = 0.2134 2/ 1 7 / 2 0 0 5 9/ 5 / 2 0 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 2 0 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 2 0 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 2 0 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 7 6/ 1 / 2 0 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 8 7/ 6 / 2 0 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 4/ 1 / 2 0 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 2 SDATE 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Se ( u g / L ) Appendix B-8 Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Sulfate in MW-3A p = 0.2314; r2 = 0.0675 2/ 1 7 / 2 0 0 5 9/ 5 / 2 0 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 2 0 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 2 0 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 2 0 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 7 6/ 1 / 2 0 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 8 7/ 6 / 2 0 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 4/ 1 / 2 0 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 2 SDATE 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 SO 4 ( m g / L ) Appendix B-8 Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Manganese in MW-11 p = 0.00001; r2 = 0.3112 2/18/1982 8/11/1987 1/31/1993 7/24/1998 1/14/2004 7/6/2009 12/27/2014 SDATE 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Mn ( u g / L ) Appendix B-8 Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Uranium in MW-25 p = 0.0078; r2 = 0.1677 2/ 1 7 / 2 0 0 5 9/ 5 / 2 0 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 2 0 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 2 0 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 2 0 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 7 6/ 1 / 2 0 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 8 7/ 6 / 2 0 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 4/ 1 / 2 0 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 2 SDATE 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 U ( u g / L ) Appendix B-8 Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression TDS in MW-27 p = 0.00000; r2 = 0.5039 2/ 1 7 / 2 0 0 5 9/ 5 / 2 0 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 2 0 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 2 0 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 2 0 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 7 6/ 1 / 2 0 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 8 7/ 6 / 2 0 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 4/ 1 / 2 0 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 2 SDATE 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 TD S ( m g / L ) Appendix B-8 Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression TDS in MW-31 p = 0.0093; r2 = 0.1301 2/ 1 7 / 2 0 0 5 9/ 5 / 2 0 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 2 0 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 2 0 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 2 0 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 7 6/ 1 / 2 0 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 8 7/ 6 / 2 0 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 4/ 1 / 2 0 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 2 SDATE 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 TD S ( m g / L ) Appendix B-8 Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Manganese in MW-35 p = 0.5192; r2 = 0.0476 1/7/20112/26/20114/17/20116/6/20117/26/20119/14/201111/3/201112/23/20112/11/20124/1/20125/21/2012 SDATE 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 Mn ( u g / L ) Appendix B-8 Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of B-9 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents Not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Appendix B-9 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 1 of 11 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis 9/13/2012 9:07:26 PM Cadmium.wst OFF 0.95 0.05 User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation General Statistics From File Full Precision Confidence Coefficient Level of Significance Cadmium ug/L-mw-24 Number of Values 27 Minimum 0.5 Maximum 4.28 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 1.277 Geometric Mean 0.957 Median 0.59 Standard Deviation 1.057 SEM 0.203 Test Value (S)197 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 45.7 trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S 4.289 Approximate p-value 8.9739E-06 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Appendix B-9 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 2 of 11 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis 9/13/2012 9:08:24 PM Fluoride.wst OFF 0.95 0.05 User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation General Statistics From File Full Precision Confidence Coefficient Level of Significance Fluoride mg/L-mw-3 Number of Values 44 Minimum 0.074 Maximum 1.04 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.545 Geometric Mean 0.501 Median 0.5 Standard Deviation 0.211 SEM 0.0318 Test Value (S)486 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 98.52 trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S 4.923 Approximate p-value 4.2634E-07 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Appendix B-9 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 3 of 11 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis 9/13/2012 9:10:13 PM Selenium.wst OFF 0.95 0.05 From File Full Precision Confidence Coefficient User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation Number of Values 55 Minimum 0.001 Maximum 39 Level of Significance Selenium ug/L-mw-12 General Statistics Standard Deviation 11.02 SEM 1.486 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 6.429 Geometric Mean 0.0426 Median 0.004 Standardized Value of S 6.859 Approximate p-value 3.456E-12 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)937 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 136.5 Minimum 0.001 Maximum 52.8 Mean 8.337 trend at the specified level of significance. Selenium ug/L-mw-3 General Statistics Number of Values 84 SEM 1.6 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)2209 Geometric Mean 0.0534 Median 0.0095 Standard Deviation 14.66 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 257.8 Standardized Value of S 8.566 Appendix B-9 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 4 of 11 Approximate p-value 0 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Selenium ug/L-mw-30 Maximum 47.2 Mean 34.13 Geometric Mean 33.91 General Statistics Number of Values 44 Minimum 29 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)450 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 32.5 Standard Deviation 4.083 SEM 0.616 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Standard Deviation of S 98.76 Standardized Value of S 4.546 Approximate p-value 2.7303E-06 Appendix B-9 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 5 of 11 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis 9/13/2012 9:18:09 PM Sulfate.wst OFF 0.95 0.05 User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation General Statistics From File Full Precision Confidence Coefficient Level of Significance Sulfate mg/L-mw-31 Number of Values 39 Minimum 436 Maximum 552 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 517.3 Geometric Mean 516.8 Median 522 Standard Deviation 24.15 SEM 3.867 Test Value (S)274 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 82.58 trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S 3.306 Approximate p-value 0.00047306 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Appendix B-9 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 6 of 11 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis 9/13/2012 9:15:46 PM TDS.wst OFF 0.95 0.05 User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation General Statistics From File Full Precision Confidence Coefficient Level of Significance TDS mg/L-mw-18 Number of Values 23 Minimum 2350 Maximum 3280 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 3034 Geometric Mean 3024 Median 3100 Standard Deviation 241.9 SEM 50.44 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)144 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 37.82 Standardized Value of S 3.781 Approximate p-value 7.8209E-05 trend at the specified level of significance. TDS mg/L-mw-31 General Statistics Number of Values 51 Minimum 1110 Maximum 1460 Mean 1258 Geometric Mean 1255 Median 1240 Standard Deviation 76.46 SEM 10.71 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)396 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 122.8 Standardized Value of S 3.218 Appendix B-9 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 7 of 11 Approximate p-value 0.00064636 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Appendix B-9 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 8 of 11 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis 9/13/2012 9:16:54 PM Thallium.wst OFF 0.95 0.05 User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation General Statistics From File Full Precision Confidence Coefficient Level of Significance Thallium-mw-18 Number of Values 26 Minimum 0.83 Maximum 4 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 2.302 Geometric Mean 1.992 Median 1.99 Standard Deviation 1.187 SEM 0.233 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)225 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 45.37 Standardized Value of S 4.937 Approximate p-value 3.9604E-07 trend at the specified level of significance. Thallium-mw-24 General Statistics Number of Values 28 Minimum 0.5 Maximum 1.57 Mean 0.706 Geometric Mean 0.656 Median 0.515 Standard Deviation 0.313 SEM 0.0592 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)182 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 47.19 Standardized Value of S 3.835 Appendix B-9 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 9 of 11 Approximate p-value 6.2736E-05 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Appendix B-9 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 10 of 11 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis 9/14/2012 3:51:05 PM Uranium.wst OFF 0.95 0.05 Tabulated p-value 0.313 Standard Deviation of S 20.21 Standardized Value of S 0.495 SEM 0.958 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)11 Geometric Mean 21.45 Median 22.4 Standard Deviation 3.71 Minimum 12.7 Maximum 27.2 Mean 21.79 trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium ug/L-mw-35 General Statistics Number of Values 15 Standardized Value of S 5.644 Approximate p-value 8.3278E-09 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)1436 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 254.3 Standard Deviation 20.36 SEM 2.235 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 38.86 Geometric Mean 33.61 Median 33.6 Number of Values 83 Minimum 9.48 Maximum 119 Level of Significance Uranium ug/L-mw-26 General Statistics From File Full Precision Confidence Coefficient User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation Appendix B-9 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 11 of 11 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Standard Deviation of S 271.7 Standardized Value of S -3.371 Approximate p-value 0.00037481 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-917 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Median 0.791 Standard Deviation 0.686 SEM 0.0735 Maximum 3.4 Mean 0.95 Geometric Mean 0.743 General Statistics Number of Values 87 Minimum 0.04 Approximate p-value 0.31 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium ug/L-mw-5 APPENDIX C Geochemical Analysis for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Consecutive Exceedances C-1 Indicator Parameter Analysis Summary Table Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 1 of 3 W P Normally or Lognormally Distributed?R2 p S p MW-03 Chloride 84 64.78 0.951985 0.003627 No -642 0.00565 Decreasing MW-03 Fluoride 44 0.54 0.878543 0.000254 No 497 2.57E-07 Increasing MW-03 Sulfate 90 3091.67 0.8724 0 No 1055 0.00011941 Increasing MW-03 Uranium 85 22.93 0.914540 0.000032 No 708 7.54E-04 Increasing MW-03A Chloride 19 59.16 0.831107 0.003356 No -28 0.171 None MW-03A Fluoride 19 1.24 0.9505 0.4022 Yes 0.095334 0.198376 None MW-03A Sulfate 23 3583.48 0.956940 0.404451 Yes 0.075173 0.205511 None MW-03A Uranium 19 20.53 0.9358 0.2449 Yes 0.235296 0.035283 Decreasing MW-05 Chloride 123 52.49 0.973761 0.016807 No -1344 0.00164 Decreasing MW-05 Fluoride 44 0.88 0.8447 0.00003 No 280 0.00235 Increasing MW-05 Sulfate 90 1133.28 0.9761 0.0956 Yes 0.008872 0.377201 Decreasing MW-05 Uranium 87 0.95 0.931516 0.000186 No -865 3.75E-04 Decreasing MW-11 Chloride 121 32.37 0.157212 0.000000 No -801 0.0362 Decreasing MW-11 Fluoride 35 0.54 0.911485 0.008169 No -98 0.0833 None MW-11 Sulfate 87 1038.97 0.9666 0.0238 No 2015 7.516E-14 Increasing MW-11 Uranium 104 0.74 0.586407 0.000000 No -174 0.303 None MW-12 Chloride 100 59.49 0.904525 0.000003 No -1321 3.25E-05 Decreasing MW-12 Fluoride 20 0.28 0.924357 0.120215 Yes 0.179192 0.062920 Decreasing MW-12 Sulfate 71 2320.23 0.9551 0.0126 No -539 0.00378 Decreasing MW-12 Uranium 97 15.49 0.7322 0 No 2066 5.952E-11 Increasing MW-18 Chloride 27 46.87 0.937094 0.103303 Yes 0.191858 0.022304 Increasing MW-18 Fluoride 20 0.25 0.504478 0.000000 No -122 3.6062E-05 Decreasing MW-18 Sulfate 30 1668.47 0.8998 0.0083 No 255 2.8869E-06 Increasing MW-18 Uranium 33 33.23 0.704 0 No 292 3.2586E-06 Increasing Appendix C-1 Indicator Parameter Analysis Summary Table Significant TrendNMeanParameterWell Shapiro Wilks Test for Normalitya Least Squares Regression Trend Analysisb Mann-Kendall Trend Analysisc Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 2 of 3 W P Normally or Lognormally Distributed?R2 p S p Appendix C-1 Indicator Parameter Analysis Summary Table Significant TrendNMeanParameterWell Shapiro Wilks Test for Normalitya Least Squares Regression Trend Analysisb Mann-Kendall Trend Analysisc MW-24 Chloride 22 44.82 0.891355 0.020038 No -39 0.137 None MW-24 Fluoride 26 0.18 0.9512 0.2477 Yes 0.100989 0.113641 Decreasing MW-24 Sulfate 26 2651.92 0.9787 0.845 Yes 0.020837 0.481722 None MW-24 Uranium 24 2.97 0.9153 0.046 No -77 0.0297 Decreasing MW-25 Chloride 28 31.21 0.861340 0.001597 No -117 0.0094 Decreasing MW-25 Fluoride 29 0.33 0.9462 0.1459 Yes 0.076238 0.147097 None MW-25 Sulfate 29 1692.76 0.9471 0.1535 Yes 0.093612 0.106494 None MW-25 Uranium 41 6.11 0.982722 0.777429 Yes 0.167711 0.007840 Increasing MW-26 Chloride 49 57.77 0.969850 0.238862 Yes 0.124006 0.013086 Increasing MW-26 Fluoride 29 0.28 0.9391 0.0952 Yes 0.202891 0.014205 Decreasing MW-26 Sulfate 31 1903.87 0.9056 0.01 No 41 0.248 None MW-26 Uranium 83 38.52 0.961779 0.014478 No 1436 8.33E-09 Increasing MW-27 Chloride 27 39.37 0.936008 0.097123 Yes 0.856640 0.000000 Increasing MW-27 Fluoride 25 0.72 0.9785 0.8543 Yes 0.350983 0.001806 Decreasing MW-27 Sulfate 27 432.78 0.8964 0.0111 No 154 0.00070277 Increasing MW-27 Uranium 23 30.59 0.9757 0.8214 Yes 0.412236 0.000957 Decreasing MW-30 Chloride 37 124.56 0.907222 0.004708 No 137 0.0368 Increasing MW-30 Fluoride 29 0.36 0.9431 0.1206 Yes 0.026177 0.401753 None MW-30 Sulfate 29 812.62 0.9846 0.937 Yes 0.799048 0.000000 Decreasing MW-30 Uranium 31 6.99 0.935229 0.060949 Yes 0.094116 0.093219 None MW-31 Chloride 37 137.50 0.970404 0.419417 Yes 0.367596 0.000070 Increasing MW-31 Fluoride 27 0.88 0.9816 0.8971 Yes 0.228389 0.011696 Decreasing MW-31 Sulfate 39 517.33 0.883904 0.000787 No 274 4.73E-04 Increasing MW-31 Uranium 28 7.26 0.9494 0.1919 Yes 0.021673 0.454716 None Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 3 of 3 W P Normally or Lognormally Distributed?R2 p S p Appendix C-1 Indicator Parameter Analysis Summary Table Significant TrendNMeanParameterWell Shapiro Wilks Test for Normalitya Least Squares Regression Trend Analysisb Mann-Kendall Trend Analysisc MW-35 Chloride 7 61.571 0.779212 0.025361 No 0.040405 0.633134 None MW-35 Fluoride 8 0.370 0.959394 0.804309 Yes 0.249516 0.253704 None MW-35 Sulfate 7 2307.143 0.918085 0.454660 Yes -4 0.319 None MW-35 Uranium 17 22.829 0.897873 0.062587 Yes 0.000012 0.989343 None Notes: σ = sigma N = number of valid data points S = MannKendall statistic µg/L = micrograms per liter N/A = not applicable S.U. = standard units mg/L = milligrams per liter p = probability W = Shapiro Wilk test value R2 = The measure of how well the trendline fits the data where r2=1 represents a perfect fit. c = The Mann-Kendall test was performed on data with either a non-parametric distribution or with % Detect < 50% Distribution = Distribution as determined by the Shapiro-Wilk distribution test for constituents with % Detect > 50% Regression Trend = The result of the linear regression test analysis using 1/2 of the detection limit for values reported as "not detected" Mann-Kendall Trend = The result of the Mann-Kendall test for non-parametric distributions and for % Detect < 50% Mean = The arithmatic, Cohen, or Aitchison mean as determined for normally or log-normally distributed constituents with % Detect > 50% a = The Shapiro-Wilk Distribution test was performed on data with % Detect > 50%. For % Detect > 85%, 1/2 the detection limit was substituted for non-detected values, and for % Detect > 50% and < 85% the test was done on detected values only b = A regression test was performed on data that was determined to have either a normal or log-normal distribution and % Detect > 50%. 1/2 of the detection limit was used for non-detected values C-2 Descriptive Statistics of Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 1 of 2 Well Chemical Units N Mean Std.Dev.Geometric Mean Q25 Median Q75 Minimum Maximum Range Skewness MW-11 Chloride mg/L 120 32.371 3.1762 32.219 30.850 32.000 34.000 24.400 43.200 18.800 0.55959 MW-11 Fluoride mg/L 35 0.541 0.0582 0.538 0.500 0.540 0.560 0.440 0.705 0.265 1.36437 MW-11 Sulfate mg/L 87 1038.966 90.7839 1035.166 968.000 1023.000 1090.000 895.000 1309.000 414.000 0.69692 MW-11 Uranium µg/L 104 0.788 0.5850 0.481 0.300 0.746 1.017 0.000 3.030 3.030 1.56474 MW-12 Chloride mg/L 100 59.485 6.0627 59.159 56.050 60.150 63.000 37.600 80.500 42.900 -0.51853 MW-12 Fluoride mg/L 20 0.282 0.0428 0.278 0.255 0.300 0.310 0.186 0.350 0.164 -0.56084 MW-12 Sulfate mg/L 71 2320.225 140.8901 2315.873 2240.000 2338.000 2430.000 1850.000 2560.000 710.000 -0.65857 MW-12 Uranium µg/L 97 15.487 4.0309 14.703 14.179 16.000 18.000 3.000 23.500 20.500 -1.14186 MW-18 Chloride mg/L 27 46.870 12.6399 45.153 35.000 47.600 53.000 19.900 75.000 55.100 0.29082 MW-18 Fluoride mg/L 20 0.246 0.0847 0.212 0.210 0.220 0.300 0.009 0.400 0.391 -0.54295 MW-18 Sulfate mg/L 30 1668.467 249.1623 1649.304 1446.000 1720.000 1910.000 1069.000 2020.000 951.000 -0.46360 MW-18 Uranium µg/L 33 33.226 14.3669 27.742 18.209 40.300 42.700 2.687 49.000 46.313 -0.97195 MW-2 Chloride mg/L 94 8.276 3.6748 7.640 6.000 7.000 10.000 2.700 20.000 17.300 1.56646 MW-2 Fluoride mg/L 37 0.314 0.0524 0.310 0.290 0.300 0.330 0.214 0.450 0.236 0.38685 MW-2 Sulfate mg/L 87 1825.391 197.6087 1813.253 1788.000 1864.000 1970.000 1075.000 2147.000 1072.000 -1.55666 MW-2 Uranium µg/L 80 9.477 4.2428 7.969 6.559 10.175 12.269 0.703 18.000 17.297 -0.35943 MW-24 Chloride mg/L 22 44.818 2.7192 44.739 44.000 45.000 46.000 39.000 52.000 13.000 -0.00827 MW-24 Fluoride mg/L 26 0.181 0.0722 0.170 0.130 0.163 0.220 0.100 0.360 0.260 1.16884 MW-24 Sulfate mg/L 26 2651.923 154.5320 2647.567 2560.000 2675.000 2740.000 2290.000 2950.000 660.000 -0.06258 MW-24 Uranium µg/L 24 2.969 3.1294 1.962 1.035 1.560 2.930 0.500 10.400 9.900 1.63900 MW-25 Chloride mg/L 28 31.214 1.8926 31.156 30.000 31.000 32.000 25.000 34.000 9.000 -1.17933 MW-25 Fluoride mg/L 29 0.326 0.0208 0.326 0.310 0.321 0.340 0.280 0.375 0.095 -0.11361 MW-25 Sulfate mg/L 29 1692.759 80.3962 1690.955 1630.000 1680.000 1740.000 1570.000 1880.000 310.000 0.82188 MW-25 Uranium µg/L 40 6.108 0.5057 6.087 5.870 6.020 6.510 4.770 7.060 2.290 -0.18200 MW-26 Chloride mg/L 48 57.771 9.0981 57.092 52.000 56.500 63.500 39.000 82.000 43.000 0.64686 MW-26 Fluoride mg/L 29 0.284 0.0378 0.282 0.260 0.280 0.290 0.210 0.400 0.190 1.19637 MW-26 Sulfate mg/L 31 1903.871 116.2089 1900.311 1850.000 1890.000 1960.000 1520.000 2160.000 640.000 -0.70410 MW-26 Uranium µg/L 82 38.524 20.2576 33.332 22.600 33.100 57.000 9.480 119.000 109.520 0.89575 MW-27 Chloride mg/L 27 39.370 4.3778 39.134 35.000 40.000 43.000 32.000 46.000 14.000 -0.04408 MW-27 Fluoride mg/L 25 0.723 0.0505 0.721 0.700 0.720 0.749 0.610 0.824 0.214 0.03361 MW-27 Sulfate mg/L 27 432.778 30.0248 431.727 414.000 442.000 455.000 360.000 480.000 120.000 -0.93690 MW-27 Uranium µg/L 23 30.587 1.4477 30.554 29.500 30.700 31.800 27.700 33.100 5.400 -0.29327 MW-3 Chloride mg/L 84 64.783 3.2254 64.704 63.000 65.000 66.050 56.000 76.000 20.000 0.17801 MW-3 Fluoride mg/L 44 0.543 0.2061 0.501 0.400 0.505 0.640 0.074 1.040 0.966 0.59349 MW-3 Sulfate mg/L 90 3091.667 418.0796 3060.274 2920.000 3201.500 3381.000 1890.000 4030.000 2140.000 -0.97033 MW-3 Uranium µg/L 87 22.931 11.0063 19.651 15.000 21.940 30.200 1.000 67.164 66.164 0.69939 MW-30 Chloride mg/L 36 124.556 6.6222 124.383 122.000 125.000 127.500 106.000 145.000 39.000 -0.07691 MW-30 Fluoride mg/L 29 0.361 0.0238 0.360 0.349 0.360 0.370 0.300 0.423 0.123 0.17838 MW-30 Sulfate mg/L 29 812.621 67.2237 809.974 767.000 799.000 853.000 696.000 977.000 281.000 0.40812 MW-30 Uranium µg/L 29 6.988 0.5963 6.964 6.670 6.880 7.250 5.790 8.380 2.590 0.42210 Appendix C-2 Descriptive Statistics of Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Well Chemical Units N Mean Std.Dev.Geometric Mean Q25 Median Q75 Minimum Maximum Range Skewness Appendix C-2 Descriptive Statistics of Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances MW-31 Chloride mg/L 36 137.500 11.2415 137.048 128.000 138.000 146.500 115.000 160.000 45.000 -0.12349 MW-31 Fluoride mg/L 27 0.876 0.0480 0.875 0.840 0.880 0.910 0.780 0.989 0.209 0.25119 MW-31 Sulfate mg/L 38 517.868 24.2389 517.291 504.000 522.000 538.000 436.000 552.000 116.000 -1.37715 MW-31 Uranium µg/L 28 7.260 0.7254 7.226 6.790 7.150 7.640 5.770 9.320 3.550 0.96898 MW-3A Chloride mg/L 19 59.158 5.9466 58.844 57.000 60.000 62.000 42.000 70.000 28.000 -1.31589 MW-3A Fluoride mg/L 19 1.238 0.2014 1.223 1.060 1.177 1.400 0.940 1.600 0.660 0.30560 MW-3A Sulfate mg/L 23 3596.522 192.3446 3591.556 3470.000 3560.000 3750.000 3220.000 3870.000 650.000 -0.21868 MW-3A Uranium µg/L 18 20.533 3.0978 20.327 19.000 19.600 22.400 16.500 28.200 11.700 1.02078 MW-5 Chloride mg/L 123 52.491 4.6723 52.288 49.900 52.000 55.000 37.500 69.700 32.200 0.57027 MW-5 Fluoride mg/L 44 0.885 0.1899 0.860 0.765 0.920 0.980 0.330 1.300 0.970 -0.65166 MW-5 Sulfate mg/L 90 1133.278 105.1179 1128.602 1055.000 1130.000 1200.000 860.000 1518.000 658.000 0.76178 MW-5 Uranium µg/L 101 0.960 0.6483 0.770 0.448 0.980 1.045 0.040 3.400 3.360 1.50046 C-3 Data Omitted from Statistical Analysis Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 1 of 2 Reason Well Sample Date Reviewed/ Report Chemical Result Units Qualifier Extreme Outlier MW-11 12/15/1985 8/30/2007 Chloride 71 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-11 6/26/1986 Chloride 70 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-11 3/15/2007 9/20/2007 Chloride 0.031 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-24 6/23/2005 9/24/2007 Chloride 71 mg/L D Extreme Outlier MW-24 6/22/2006 9/18/2007 Chloride 30 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-24 9/15/2006 9/17/2007 Chloride 62 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-24 8/24/2009 C09081027-005 Chloride 37 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-25 6/20/2007 9/18/2007 Chloride 0.031 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-3 10/31/1979 8/30/2007 Chloride 12.6 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-3 1/31/1980 8/31/2007 Chloride 25 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-3 4/30/1980 8/31/2007 Chloride 30 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-3 5/19/1980 9/4/2007 Chloride 50 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-3 6/16/1980 9/4/2007 Chloride 51 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-3 9/1/1981 9/13/2007 Chloride 3 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-3 12/13/1982 Chloride 53 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-3 9/30/1985 8/30/2007 Chloride 78 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-3 12/15/1985 8/30/2007 Chloride 35 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-3 6/26/1986 Chloride 140 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-3 11/6/2001 9/10/2007 Chloride 82.5 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-3 10/26/2009 C09101105-001 Chloride 46 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-30 11/5/2008 C08110279-003 Chloride 162 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-30 4/27/2010 C10041010 Chloride 97 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-31 3/15/2007 9/20/2007 Chloride 0.132 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-5 9/1/1981 9/13/2007 Chloride 4 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-5 12/28/1981 Chloride 20 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-5 12/15/1985 8/30/2007 Chloride 71 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-5 6/26/1986 Chloride 130 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-25 6/22/2007 C07061184 Fluoride 0.432766 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-26 4/1/2005 C05040027 Fluoride 0.93 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-26 6/23/2005 C05060997 Fluoride 0.42 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-26 5/7/2012 C12050272-003 Fluoride 0.54 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-30 6/24/2005 C05061037 Fluoride 0.46 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-30 10/27/2006 C06101300 Fluoride 0.492675 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-31 10/27/2006 C06101300 Fluoride 1.183244 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-31 11/14/2008 C08110568 Fluoride 0.32 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-3A 9/14/2006 C06090583 Fluoride 0.020307 mg/L U Extreme Outlier MW-5 9/1/1980 9/6/2007 Fluoride 1.68 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-11 2/15/1984 9/23/2007 Sulfate 2250 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-11 12/15/1985 8/30/2007 Sulfate 79 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-11 11/12/1992 9/5/2007 Sulfate 1507 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-3 10/31/1979 8/30/2007 Sulfate 930 mg/L Appendix C-3 Data Omitted from Statistical Analysis Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Reason Well Sample Date Reviewed/ Report Chemical Result Units Qualifier Appendix C-3 Data Omitted from Statistical Analysis Extreme Outlier MW-3 9/1/1981 9/13/2007 Sulfate 42 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-5 9/1/1981 9/13/2007 Sulfate 28 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-5 12/15/1985 8/30/2007 Sulfate 7820 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-5 6/26/1986 Sulfate 1890 mg/L Extreme Outlier MW-11 6/10/1993 9/6/2007 Uranium 4 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-24 6/23/2005 9/24/2007 Uranium 46 ug/L D Extreme Outlier MW-24 7/26/2005 9/13/2007 Uranium 126 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-24 9/25/2005 9/14/2007 Uranium 223 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-30 8/4/2008 C08080344 Uranium 11 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-30 10/4/2011 C11100300-010 Uranium 9.83 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-3A 6/23/2005 9/24/2007 Uranium 35.2 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-3A 12/14/2005 9/14/2007 Uranium 0.3 ug/L U Extreme Outlier MW-3A 5/15/2012 C12050723-002 Uranium 100 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-5 9/19/1995 8/31/2007 Uranium 4.7 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-5 11/11/2010 C10110584 Uranium 11.6 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-5 2/14/2011 C11020544 Uranium 29.5 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-5 4/12/2011 C11040506-005 Uranium 7.16 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-5 10/10/2011 C11100567-004 Uranium 4.52 ug/L Extreme Outlier MW-5 2/28/2012 C12030065-003A Uranium 18.6 ug/L C-4 Box Plots for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Chloride Box Plots Median 25%-75% 1%-99% Outliers Extremes MW-11 MW-12 MW-18 MW-24 MW-25 MW-26 MW-27 MW-3 MW-30 MW-31 MW-35 MW-3A MW-5 Well -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix C-4 Box Plots for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer PaJe of 4 Fluoride Box Plots Median 25%-75% 1%-99% Outliers Extremes MW-11 MW-12 MW-18 MW-24 MW-25 MW-26 MW-27 MW-3 MW-30 MW-31 MW-35 MW-3A MW-5 Well -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix C-4 Box Plots for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer PaJe of 4 Sulfate Box Plots Median 25%-75% 1%-99% Outliers Extremes MW-11 MW-12 MW-18 MW-24 MW-25 MW-26 MW-27 MW-3 MW-30 MW-31 MW-35 MW-3A MW-5 Well -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Appendix C-4 Box Plots for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer PaJe of 4 Uranium Box Plots Median 25%-75% 1%-99% Outliers Extremes MW-11MW-12MW-18MW-24MW-25MW-26MW-27MW-3MW-30MW-31MW-35MW-3AMW-5 Well -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Appendix C-4 Box Plots for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer PaJe 4 of 4 C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Histogram of logtransformed Chloride in MW-3 SW-W = 0.952, p = 0.0036 1.73 1.74 1.75 1.76 1.77 1.78 1.79 1.80 1.81 1.82 1.83 1.84 1.85 1.86 1.87 1.88 Chloride (mg/L) in MW-3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Fluoride in MW-3 SW-W = 0.8785, p = 0.0003 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Fluoride (mg/L) in MW-3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-3 SW-W = 0.8724, p = 0.00000 3.20 3.25 3.30 3.35 3.40 3.45 3.50 3.55 3.60 3.65 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-3 SW-W = 0.9145, p = 0.00003 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Chloride in MW-3A SW-W = 0.8311, p = 0.0034 1.60 1.62 1.64 1.66 1.68 1.70 1.72 1.74 1.76 1.78 1.80 1.82 1.84 1.86 1.88 Chloride (mg/L) in MW-3A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page 5 of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Fluoride in MW-3A SW-W = 0.9505, p = 0.4022 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 Fluoride (mg/L) in MW-3A 0 1 2 3 4 5 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-3A SW-W = 0.9569, p = 0.4045 3.49 3.50 3.51 3.52 3.53 3.54 3.55 3.56 3.57 3.58 3.59 3.60 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-3A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-3A SW-W = 0.9477, p = 0.3607 1.18 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.38 1.40 1.42 1.44 1.46 1.48 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-3A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Chloride in MW-5 SW-W = 0.9738, p = 0.0168 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75 1.80 1.85 1.90 Chloride (mg/L) in MW-5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Fluoride in MW-5 SW-W = 0.8447, p = 0.00003 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Fluoride (mg/L) in MW-5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-5 SW-W = 0.9761, p = 0.0956 2.90 2.92 2.94 2.96 2.98 3.00 3.02 3.04 3.06 3.08 3.10 3.12 3.14 3.16 3.18 3.20 3.22 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-5 SW-W = 0.9442, p = 0.0009 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Chloride in MW-11 SW-W = 0.1572, p = 0.0000 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Chloride (mg/L) in MW-11 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Fluoride in MW-11 SW-W = 0.9115, p = 0.0082 -0.38 -0.36 -0.34 -0.32 -0.30 -0.28 -0.26 -0.24 -0.22 -0.20 -0.18 -0.16 -0.14 -0.12 Fluoride (mg/L) in MW-11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-11 SW-W = 0.9666, p = 0.0238 2.92 2.94 2.96 2.98 3.00 3.02 3.04 3.06 3.08 3.10 3.12 3.14 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-11 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page 5 of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-11 SW-W = 0.5864, p = 0.0000 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-11 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Chloride in MW-12 SW-W = 0.9045, p = 0.00000 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75 1.80 1.85 1.90 1.95 Chloride (mg/L) in MW-12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Fluoride in MW-12 SW-W = 0.9244, p = 0.1202 -0.80 -0.75 -0.70 -0.65 -0.60 -0.55 -0.50 -0.45 -0.40 Fluoride (mg/L) in MW-12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-12 SW-W = 0.9551, p = 0.0126 3.24 3.26 3.28 3.30 3.32 3.34 3.36 3.38 3.40 3.42 3.44 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-12 SW-W = 0.7322, p = 0.0000 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Chloride in MW-18 SW-W = 0.9371, p = 0.1033 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 Chloride (mg/L) in MW-18 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Fluoride in MW-18 SW-W = 0.5045, p = 0.00000 -2.4 -2.2 -2.0 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 Fluoride (mg/L) in MW-18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-18 SW-W = 0.8998, p = 0.0083 3.00 3.05 3.10 3.15 3.20 3.25 3.30 3.35 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-18 SW-W = 0.704, p = 0.00000 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Chloride in MW-24 SW-W = 0.8914, p = 0.0200 1.57 1.58 1.59 1.60 1.61 1.62 1.63 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.67 1.68 1.69 1.70 1.71 1.72 1.73 Chloride (mg/L) in MW-24 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page 5 of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Fluoride in MW-24 SW-W = 0.9512, p = 0.2477 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 Fluoride (mg/L) in MW-24 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-24 SW-W = 0.9787, p = 0.8450 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 3.38 3.39 3.40 3.41 3.42 3.43 3.44 3.45 3.46 3.47 3.48 3.49 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-24 0 1 2 3 4 5 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-24 SW-W = 0.9153, p = 0.0460 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-24 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Chloride in MW-25 SW-W = 0.8613, p = 0.0016 1.38 1.40 1.42 1.44 1.46 1.48 1.50 1.52 1.54 1.56 Chloride (mg/L) in MW-25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Fluoride in MW-25 SW-W = 0.9462, p = 0.1459 -0.58 -0.56 -0.54 -0.52 -0.50 -0.48 -0.46 -0.44 -0.42 -0.40 Fluoride (mg/L) in MW-25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-25 SW-W = 0.9471, p = 0.1535 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28 3.29 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-25 SW-W = 0.9827, p = 0.7774 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Chloride in MW-26 SW-W = 0.9699, p = 0.2389 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75 1.80 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00 Chloride (mg/L) in MW-26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Fluoride in MW-26 SW-W = 0.9391, p = 0.0952 -0.75 -0.70 -0.65 -0.60 -0.55 -0.50 -0.45 -0.40 -0.35 Fluoride (mg/L) in MW-26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-26 SW-W = 0.9056, p = 0.0100 3.16 3.18 3.20 3.22 3.24 3.26 3.28 3.30 3.32 3.34 3.36 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page 5 of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-26 SW-W = 0.9618, p = 0.0145 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Chloride in MW-27 SW-W = 0.936, p = 0.0971 1.48 1.50 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.58 1.60 1.62 1.64 1.66 1.68 Chloride (mg/L) in MW-27 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Fluoride in MW-27 SW-W = 0.9785, p = 0.8543 -0.24 -0.22 -0.20 -0.18 -0.16 -0.14 -0.12 -0.10 -0.08 -0.06 Fluoride (mg/L) in MW-27 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-27 SW-W = 0.8964, p = 0.0111 2.54 2.55 2.56 2.57 2.58 2.59 2.60 2.61 2.62 2.63 2.64 2.65 2.66 2.67 2.68 2.69 2.70 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-27 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-27 SW-W = 0.9757, p = 0.8214 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46 1.47 1.48 1.49 1.50 1.51 1.52 1.53 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-27 0 1 2 3 4 5 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Chloride in MW-30 SW-W = 0.9072, p = 0.0047 2.00 2.02 2.04 2.06 2.08 2.10 2.12 2.14 2.16 2.18 Chloride (mg/L) in MW-30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Fluoride in MW-30 SW-W = 0.9431, p = 0.1206 -0.54 -0.52 -0.50 -0.48 -0.46 -0.44 -0.42 -0.40 -0.38 -0.36 -0.34 Fluoride (mg/L) in MW-30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-30 SW-W = 0.9846, p = 0.9370 2.82 2.84 2.86 2.88 2.90 2.92 2.94 2.96 2.98 3.00 3.02 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-30 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-30 SW-W = 0.9352, p = 0.0609 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Chloride in MW-31 SW-W = 0.9704, p = 0.4194 2.04 2.06 2.08 2.10 2.12 2.14 2.16 2.18 2.20 2.22 Chloride (mg/L) in MW-31 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page 5 of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Fluoride in MW-31 SW-W = 0.9816, p = 0.8971 -0.12 -0.11 -0.10 -0.09 -0.08 -0.07 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 Fluoride (mg/L) in MW-31 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-31 SW-W = 0.8839, p = 0.0008 2.62 2.63 2.64 2.65 2.66 2.67 2.68 2.69 2.70 2.71 2.72 2.73 2.74 2.75 2.76 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-31 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-31 SW-W = 0.9494, p = 0.1919 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-31 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Chloride in MW-35 SW-W = 0.7713, p = 0.0463 1.768 1.770 1.772 1.774 1.776 1.778 1.780 1.782 1.784 1.786 1.788 Chloride (mg/L) in MW-35 0 1 2 3 4 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Fluoride in MW-35 SW-W = 0.918, p = 0.4543 -0.51 -0.50 -0.49 -0.48 -0.47 -0.46 -0.45 -0.44 -0.43 -0.42 -0.41 -0.40 -0.39 -0.38 -0.37 Fluoride (mg/L) in MW-35 0 1 2 3 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page 5 of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Sulfate in MW-35 SW-W = 0.9207, p = 0.5106 3.345 3.350 3.355 3.360 3.365 3.370 3.375 3.380 3.385 Sulfate (mg/L) in MW-35 0 1 2 3 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page 5 of 5 Histogram of logtransformed Uranium in MW-35 SW-W = 0.8383, p = 0.0119 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 Uranium (ug/L) in MW-35 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No o f o b s Appendix C-5 Histograms for Indicator Parameters in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer Page 5 of 5 C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents Linear Regression Fluoride in MW-3A p = 0.1984; r2 = 0.0953 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 F- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Sulfate in MW-3A p = 0.2055; r2 = 0.0752 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 SO 42- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Uranium in MW-3A p = 0.0353; r2 = 0.2353 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 U ( u g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Sulfate in MW-5 p = 0.3772; r2 = 0.0089 8/ 2 8 / 7 6 2/ 1 8 / 8 2 8/ 1 1 / 8 7 1/ 3 1 / 9 3 7/ 2 4 / 9 8 1/ 1 4 / 0 4 7/ 6 / 0 9 12 / 2 7 / 1 4 SDATE 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 SO 42- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Chloride in MW-11 p = 0.0860; r2 = 0.0246 8/ 2 8 / 7 6 2/ 1 8 / 8 2 8/ 1 1 / 8 7 1/ 3 1 / 9 3 7/ 2 4 / 9 8 1/ 1 4 / 0 4 7/ 6 / 0 9 12 / 2 7 / 1 4 SDATE -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Cl - ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Fluoride in MW-12 p = 0.0629; r2 = 0.1792 2/ 1 8 / 8 2 8/ 1 1 / 8 7 1/ 3 1 / 9 3 7/ 2 4 / 9 8 1/ 1 4 / 0 4 7/ 6 / 0 9 12 / 2 7 / 1 4 SDATE 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 F- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age 6 of Linear Regression Chloride in MW-18 p = 0.0223; r2 = 0.1919 5/ 7 / 9 0 1/ 3 1 / 9 3 10 / 2 8 / 9 5 7/ 2 4 / 9 8 4/ 1 9 / 0 1 1/ 1 4 / 0 4 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 7/ 6 / 0 9 4/ 1 / 1 2 12 / 2 7 / 1 4 SDATE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cl - ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Fluoride in MW-24 p = 0.1136; r2 = 0.1010 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 F- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Sulfate in MW-24 p = 0.4817; r2 = 0.0208 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 SO 42- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Fluoride in MW-25 p = 0.1471; r2 = 0.0762 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 F- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Sulfate in MW-25 p = 0.1065; r2 = 0.0936 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 SO 42- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Uranium in MW-25 p = 0.0078; r2 = 0.1677 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 U ( u g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Chloride in MW-26 p = 0.0131; r2 = 0.1240 4/ 1 9 / 0 1 9/ 1 / 0 2 1/ 1 4 / 0 4 5/ 2 8 / 0 5 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 2/ 2 2 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 11 / 1 8 / 1 0 4/ 1 / 1 2 8/ 1 4 / 1 3 SDATE 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Cl - ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Fluoride in MW-26 p = 0.0142; r2 = 0.2029 4/ 1 9 / 0 1 9/ 1 / 0 2 1/ 1 4 / 0 4 5/ 2 8 / 0 5 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 2/ 2 2 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 11 / 1 8 / 1 0 4/ 1 / 1 2 8/ 1 4 / 1 3 SDATE 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 F- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Chloride in MW-27 p = 0.0000; r2 = 0.8566 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Cl - ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Fluoride in MW-27 p = 0.0018; r2 = 0.3510 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 F- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age 6 of Linear Regression Uranium in MW-27 p = 0.0010; r2 = 0.4122 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 U ( u g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Fluoride in MW-30 p = 0.4018; r2 = 0.0262 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 F- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Sulfate in MW-30 p = 0.0000; r2 = 0.7990 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 SO 42- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Uranium in MW-30 p = 0.0932; r2 = 0.0941 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 U ( u g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Chloride in MW-31 p = 0.00007; r2 = 0.3676 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 Cl - ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Fluoride in MW-31 p = 0.0117; r2 = 0.2284 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 F- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Uranium in MW-31 p = 0.4547; r2 = 0.0217 2/ 1 7 / 0 5 9/ 5 / 0 5 3/ 2 4 / 0 6 10 / 1 0 / 0 6 4/ 2 8 / 0 7 11 / 1 4 / 0 7 6/ 1 / 0 8 12 / 1 8 / 0 8 7/ 6 / 0 9 1/ 2 2 / 1 0 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 10 / 1 8 / 1 2 SDATE 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 U ( u g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Fluoride in MW-35 p = 0.9206; r2 = 0.0022 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 11 / 1 8 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 6/ 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 12 / 2 3 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 7/ 1 0 / 1 2 SDATE 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 F- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of Linear Regression Sulfate in MW-35 p = 0.6304; r2 = 0.0634 8/ 1 0 / 1 0 11 / 1 8 / 1 0 2/ 2 6 / 1 1 6/ 6 / 1 1 9/ 1 4 / 1 1 12 / 2 3 / 1 1 4/ 1 / 1 2 7/ 1 0 / 1 2 SDATE 2220 2240 2260 2280 2300 2320 2340 2360 2380 2400 2420 SO 42- ( m g / L ) Appendix C-6 Linear Regressions for Lognormally or Normally Distributed Constituents 6ourFe Assessment Report 2Ftober 3age of C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents Not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 1 of 28 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis 9/14/2012 5:10:08 PM Chloride.wst OFF 0.95 0.05 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 330.5 Standardized Value of S -3.994 SEM 0.612 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-1321 Geometric Mean 59.16 Median 60.3 Standard Deviation 6.093 Minimum 37.6 Maximum 80.5 Mean 59.49 trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-12 General Statistics Number of Values 99 Standardized Value of S -1.796 Approximate p-value 0.0362 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Test Value (S)-801 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 445.4 Standard Deviation 4.318 SEM 0.393 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 32.1 Geometric Mean 30.42 Median 32 Number of Values 121 Minimum 0.031 Maximum 43.2 Level of Significance Chloride (mg/L)-mw-11 General Statistics From File Full Precision Confidence Coefficient User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 2 of 28 trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S -1.096 Approximate p-value 0.137 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant Test Value (S)-39 Tabulated p-value 0.144 Standard Deviation of S 34.68 Standard Deviation 2.719 SEM 0.58 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 44.82 Geometric Mean 44.74 Median 45 Number of Values 22 Minimum 39 Maximum 52 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-24 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 47.85 Standardized Value of S 3.448 Approximate p-value 0.00028186 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)166 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 47.6 Standard Deviation 12.64 SEM 2.433 Maximum 75 Mean 46.87 Geometric Mean 45.15 General Statistics Number of Values 27 Minimum 19.9 Approximate p-value 3.2505E-05 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-18 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 3 of 28 Number of Values 27 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-27 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 115.7 Standardized Value of S 3.033 Approximate p-value 0.00121 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)352 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 57 Standard Deviation 9.807 SEM 1.401 Maximum 85 Mean 58.33 Geometric Mean 57.56 General Statistics Number of Values 49 Minimum 39 Approximate p-value 0.0094 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-26 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 49.37 Standardized Value of S -2.349 SEM 0.358 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-117 Geometric Mean 31.16 Median 31 Standard Deviation 1.893 Minimum 25 Maximum 34 Mean 31.21 Chloride (mg/L)-mw-25 General Statistics Number of Values 28 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 4 of 28 Maximum 145 Mean 124.7 Geometric Mean 124.6 General Statistics Number of Values 37 Minimum 106 Approximate p-value 0.00565 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-30 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 253 Standardized Value of S -2.533 SEM 0.329 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-642 Geometric Mean 64.58 Median 65 Standard Deviation 2.996 Minimum 56 Maximum 73 Mean 64.65 trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-3 General Statistics Number of Values 83 Standardized Value of S 5.698 Approximate p-value 6.073E-09 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)273 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 47.74 Standard Deviation 4.378 SEM 0.843 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 39.37 Geometric Mean 39.13 Median 40 Minimum 32 Maximum 46 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 5 of 28 SEM 0.4 Geometric Mean 59.59 Median 59 Standard Deviation 0.894 Minimum 59 Maximum 61 Mean 59.6 trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-35 General Statistics Number of Values 5 Standardized Value of S 4.5 Approximate p-value 3.3905E-06 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)344 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 76.21 Standard Deviation 11.08 SEM 1.822 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 137.5 Geometric Mean 137.1 Median 138 Number of Values 37 Minimum 115 Maximum 160 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-31 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 76.04 Standardized Value of S 1.788 Approximate p-value 0.0368 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)137 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 125 Standard Deviation 6.615 SEM 1.087 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 6 of 28 Test Value (S)-1344 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 456.7 Standard Deviation 4.672 SEM 0.421 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 52.49 Geometric Mean 52.29 Median 52 Number of Values 123 Minimum 37.5 Maximum 69.7 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-5 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 28.4 Standardized Value of S -0.951 Approximate p-value 0.171 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-28 Tabulated p-value 0.166 Median 60 Standard Deviation 5.947 SEM 1.364 Maximum 70 Mean 59.16 Geometric Mean 58.84 General Statistics Number of Values 19 Minimum 42 Approximate p-value 0.29 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-3a Tabulated p-value 0.408 Standard Deviation of S 3.606 Standardized Value of S -0.555 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-3 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 7 of 28 trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S -2.941 Approximate p-value 0.00164 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 8 of 28 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis 9/14/2012 5:12:31 PM Fluoride.wst OFF 0.95 0.05 Tabulated p-value 0.003 Standard Deviation of S 30.46 Standardized Value of S -2.758 SEM 0.00957 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-85 Geometric Mean 0.278 Median 0.3 Standard Deviation 0.0428 Minimum 0.186 Maximum 0.35 Mean 0.282 trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-12 General Statistics Number of Values 20 Standardized Value of S -1.383 Approximate p-value 0.0833 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant Test Value (S)-98 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 70.11 Standard Deviation 0.0582 SEM 0.00984 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.541 Geometric Mean 0.538 Median 0.54 Number of Values 35 Minimum 0.44 Maximum 0.705 Level of Significance Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-11 General Statistics From File Full Precision Confidence Coefficient User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 9 of 28 trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S -2.143 Approximate p-value 0.0161 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Test Value (S)-98 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 45.26 Standard Deviation 0.0722 SEM 0.0141 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.181 Geometric Mean 0.17 Median 0.163 Number of Values 26 Minimum 0.1 Maximum 0.36 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-24 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 30.48 Standardized Value of S -3.969 Approximate p-value 3.6062E-05 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-122 Tabulated p-value 0 Median 0.22 Standard Deviation 0.0847 SEM 0.0189 Maximum 0.4 Mean 0.246 Geometric Mean 0.212 General Statistics Number of Values 20 Minimum 0.0089 Approximate p-value 0.00291 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-18 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 10 of 28 Number of Values 25 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-27 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 52.82 Standardized Value of S -1.742 Approximate p-value 0.0408 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-93 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Median 0.28 Standard Deviation 0.0378 SEM 0.00702 Maximum 0.4 Mean 0.284 Geometric Mean 0.282 General Statistics Number of Values 29 Minimum 0.21 Approximate p-value 0.051 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-26 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 52.6 Standardized Value of S -1.635 SEM 0.00387 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-87 Geometric Mean 0.326 Median 0.321 Standard Deviation 0.0208 Minimum 0.28 Maximum 0.375 Mean 0.326 Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-25 General Statistics Number of Values 29 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 11 of 28 Maximum 0.423 Mean 0.361 Geometric Mean 0.36 General Statistics Number of Values 29 Minimum 0.3 Approximate p-value 2.5719E-07 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-30 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 98.79 Standardized Value of S 5.021 SEM 0.0311 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)497 Geometric Mean 0.501 Median 0.505 Standard Deviation 0.206 Minimum 0.074 Maximum 1.04 Mean 0.543 trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-3 General Statistics Number of Values 44 Standardized Value of S -3.116 Approximate p-value 0.00091706 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Test Value (S)-134 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 42.68 Standard Deviation 0.0505 SEM 0.0101 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.723 Geometric Mean 0.721 Median 0.72 Minimum 0.61 Maximum 0.824 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 12 of 28 SEM 0.0108 Geometric Mean 0.372 Median 0.37 Standard Deviation 0.0287 Minimum 0.32 Maximum 0.41 Mean 0.373 trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-35 General Statistics Number of Values 7 Standardized Value of S -3.056 Approximate p-value 0.00112 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Test Value (S)-147 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 47.77 Standard Deviation 0.048 SEM 0.00924 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.876 Geometric Mean 0.875 Median 0.88 Number of Values 27 Minimum 0.78 Maximum 0.989 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-31 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 52.15 Standardized Value of S -1.246 Approximate p-value 0.106 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-66 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Median 0.36 Standard Deviation 0.0238 SEM 0.00442 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 13 of 28 Test Value (S)280 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 98.69 Standard Deviation 0.19 SEM 0.0286 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.885 Geometric Mean 0.86 Median 0.92 Number of Values 44 Minimum 0.33 Maximum 1.3 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-5 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 28.53 Standardized Value of S -1.297 Approximate p-value 0.0973 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-38 Tabulated p-value 0.093 Median 1.177 Standard Deviation 0.201 SEM 0.0462 Maximum 1.6 Mean 1.238 Geometric Mean 1.223 General Statistics Number of Values 19 Minimum 0.94 Approximate p-value 0.269 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-3a Tabulated p-value 0.281 Standard Deviation of S 6.506 Standardized Value of S -0.615 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-5 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 14 of 28 trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S 2.827 Approximate p-value 0.00235 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 15 of 28 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis 9/14/2012 5:14:25 PM Sulfate.wst OFF 0.95 0.05 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 201.4 Standardized Value of S -2.671 SEM 16.72 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-539 Geometric Mean 2316 Median 2338 Standard Deviation 140.9 Minimum 1850 Maximum 2560 Mean 2320 trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-12 General Statistics Number of Values 71 Standardized Value of S 7.387 Approximate p-value 7.516E-14 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)2015 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 272.6 Standard Deviation 90.78 SEM 9.733 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 1039 Geometric Mean 1035 Median 1023 Number of Values 87 Minimum 895 Maximum 1309 Level of Significance Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-11 General Statistics From File Full Precision Confidence Coefficient User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 16 of 28 trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S 0.884 Approximate p-value 0.188 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant Test Value (S)41 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 45.27 Standard Deviation 154.5 SEM 30.31 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 2652 Geometric Mean 2648 Median 2675 Number of Values 26 Minimum 2290 Maximum 2950 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-24 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 56.01 Standardized Value of S 4.535 Approximate p-value 2.8869E-06 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)255 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 1720 Standard Deviation 249.2 SEM 45.49 Maximum 2020 Mean 1668 Geometric Mean 1649 General Statistics Number of Values 30 Minimum 1069 Approximate p-value 0.00378 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-18 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 17 of 28 Number of Values 27 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-27 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 58.7 Standardized Value of S 0.681 Approximate p-value 0.248 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)41 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 1890 Standard Deviation 116.2 SEM 20.87 Maximum 2160 Mean 1904 Geometric Mean 1900 General Statistics Number of Values 31 Minimum 1520 Approximate p-value 0.0909 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-26 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 53.19 Standardized Value of S -1.335 SEM 14.93 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-72 Geometric Mean 1691 Median 1680 Standard Deviation 80.4 Minimum 1570 Maximum 1880 Mean 1693 Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-25 General Statistics Number of Values 29 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 18 of 28 Maximum 977 Mean 812.6 Geometric Mean 810 General Statistics Number of Values 29 Minimum 696 Approximate p-value 0.00011941 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-30 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 286.9 Standardized Value of S 3.674 SEM 44.07 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)1055 Geometric Mean 3060 Median 3202 Standard Deviation 418.1 Minimum 1890 Maximum 4030 Mean 3092 trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-3 General Statistics Number of Values 90 Standardized Value of S 3.194 Approximate p-value 0.00070277 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)154 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 47.91 Standard Deviation 30.02 SEM 5.778 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 432.8 Geometric Mean 431.7 Median 442 Minimum 360 Maximum 480 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 19 of 28 SEM 20.98 Geometric Mean 2320 Median 2320 Standard Deviation 51.38 Minimum 2240 Maximum 2400 Mean 2320 trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-35 General Statistics Number of Values 6 Standardized Value of S 3.306 Approximate p-value 0.00047306 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)274 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 82.58 Standard Deviation 24.15 SEM 3.867 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 517.3 Geometric Mean 516.8 Median 522 Number of Values 39 Minimum 436 Maximum 552 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-31 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 53.3 Standardized Value of S -5.741 Approximate p-value 4.7066E-09 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-307 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Median 799 Standard Deviation 67.22 SEM 12.48 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 20 of 28 Test Value (S)-619 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 286.8 Standard Deviation 105.1 SEM 11.08 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 1133 Geometric Mean 1129 Median 1130 Number of Values 90 Minimum 860 Maximum 1518 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-5 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 37.82 Standardized Value of S 1.348 Approximate p-value 0.0888 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)52 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 3560 Standard Deviation 192.3 SEM 40.11 Maximum 3870 Mean 3597 Geometric Mean 3592 General Statistics Number of Values 23 Minimum 3220 Approximate p-value 0.5 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-3a Tabulated p-value 0.5 Standard Deviation of S 5.132 Standardized Value of S 0 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)1 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 21 of 28 trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S -2.155 Approximate p-value 0.0156 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 22 of 28 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis 9/14/2012 5:17:42 PM Uranium.wst OFF 0.95 0.05 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 320.6 Standardized Value of S 6.441 SEM 0.409 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)2066 Geometric Mean 14.7 Median 16 Standard Deviation 4.031 Minimum 3 Maximum 23.5 Mean 15.49 trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-12 General Statistics Number of Values 97 Standardized Value of S -0.516 Approximate p-value 0.303 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant Test Value (S)-174 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 335.2 Standard Deviation 0.625 SEM 0.0625 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.747 Geometric Mean 0.396 Median 0.723 Number of Values 100 Minimum 0.00015 Maximum 3.03 Level of Significance Uranium (ug/L)-mw-11 General Statistics From File Full Precision Confidence Coefficient User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 23 of 28 trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S -1.886 Approximate p-value 0.0297 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Test Value (S)-77 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 40.3 Standard Deviation 3.129 SEM 0.639 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 2.969 Geometric Mean 1.962 Median 1.56 Number of Values 24 Minimum 0.5 Maximum 10.4 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-24 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 64.54 Standardized Value of S 4.509 Approximate p-value 3.2586E-06 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)292 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 40.3 Standard Deviation 14.37 SEM 2.501 Maximum 49 Mean 33.23 Geometric Mean 27.74 General Statistics Number of Values 33 Minimum 2.687 Approximate p-value 5.952E-11 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-18 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 24 of 28 Number of Values 23 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-27 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 254.3 Standardized Value of S 5.644 Approximate p-value 8.3278E-09 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)1436 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 33.6 Standard Deviation 20.36 SEM 2.235 Maximum 119 Mean 38.86 Geometric Mean 33.61 General Statistics Number of Values 83 Minimum 9.48 Approximate p-value 0.00258 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-26 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 89.01 Standardized Value of S 2.797 SEM 0.0861 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)250 Geometric Mean 6.12 Median 6.02 Standard Deviation 0.551 Minimum 4.77 Maximum 7.6 Mean 6.144 Uranium (ug/L)-mw-25 General Statistics Number of Values 41 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 25 of 28 Maximum 9.83 Mean 7.106 Geometric Mean 7.068 General Statistics Number of Values 31 Minimum 5.79 Approximate p-value 0.00364 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-30 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 263.4 Standardized Value of S 2.684 SEM 1.179 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)708 Geometric Mean 20.32 Median 21.94 Standard Deviation 10.87 Minimum 3 Maximum 67.16 Mean 23.2 trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-3 General Statistics Number of Values 85 Standardized Value of S -2.749 Approximate p-value 0.00299 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Test Value (S)-105 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 37.84 Standard Deviation 1.448 SEM 0.302 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 30.59 Geometric Mean 30.55 Median 30.7 Minimum 27.7 Maximum 33.1 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 26 of 28 SEM 0.958 Geometric Mean 21.45 Median 22.4 Standard Deviation 3.71 Minimum 12.7 Maximum 27.2 Mean 21.79 trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-35 General Statistics Number of Values 15 Standardized Value of S -1.107 Approximate p-value 0.134 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant Test Value (S)-57 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 50.61 Standard Deviation 0.725 SEM 0.137 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 7.26 Geometric Mean 7.226 Median 7.15 Number of Values 28 Minimum 5.77 Maximum 9.32 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-31 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 58.81 Standardized Value of S 0.799 Approximate p-value 0.212 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)48 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 6.9 Standard Deviation 0.78 SEM 0.14 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 27 of 28 Test Value (S)-865 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 272.3 Standard Deviation 0.713 SEM 0.0764 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.924 Geometric Mean 0.659 Median 0.791 Number of Values 87 Minimum 0.04 Maximum 3.4 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-5 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 28.48 Standardized Value of S -1.79 Approximate p-value 0.0367 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-52 Tabulated p-value 0.034 Median 19.7 Standard Deviation 3.032 SEM 0.696 Maximum 28.2 Mean 20.62 Geometric Mean 20.42 General Statistics Number of Values 19 Minimum 16.5 Approximate p-value 0.31 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-3a Tabulated p-value 0.313 Standard Deviation of S 20.21 Standardized Value of S 0.495 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)11 Appendix C-7 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 28 of 28 trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S -3.173 Approximate p-value 0.00075379 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing APPENDIX D pH Analysis D-1 pH Analysis Summary Table Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 W p Normally or Lognormally Distributed?r2 p S p MW-03 45 6.58 5.95 7.11 0.27 0.983963 0.780179 Yes 0.280593 0.000183 Yes MW-03A 28 6.53 5.90 7.62 0.35 0.938171 0.099306 Yes 0.182652 0.023303 Yes MW-05 63 7.52 7.00 8.10 0.24 0.987479 0.772470 Yes 0.044041 0.098781 No MW-11 91 7.68 6.25 9.00 0.39 0.971125 0.040562 No -924 7.76E-04 Yes MW-12 65 6.87 5.86 7.90 0.33 0.961503 0.041082 No -631 1.79E-04 Yes MW-18 38 6.65 5.82 7.38 0.39 0.971791 0.442039 Yes 0.327534 0.000174 Yes MW-24 25 6.50 5.73 7.54 0.48 0.965518 0.534824 Yes 0.448802 0.000249 yes MW-25 41 6.64 5.77 7.25 0.26 0.934116 0.019825 No -180 0.0221 yes MW-26 86 6.64 5.61 7.88 0.36 0.967922 0.030927 No 160 0.277 No MW-27 31 7.06 6.39 7.68 0.30 0.955437 0.220044 Yes 0.059184 0.187248 No MW-30 48 6.88 6.52 7.47 0.20 0.977907 0.494726 Yes 0.107125 0.023161 Yes MW-31 48 7.13 6.16 7.80 0.28 0.953423 0.054804 Yes 0.066966 0.075734 No MW-35 16 6.70 6.25 7.46 0.33 0.940310 0.352828 Yes 0.229342 0.060555 No σ = sigma S = MannKendall statistic W = Shapiro Wilk test value N/A = not applicable S.U. = standard units p = probability N = number of valid data points R2 = The measure of how well the trendline fits the data where r2=1 represents a perfect fit. a = The Shapiro-Wilk Distribution test was performed on data with % Detect > 50%. For % Detect > 85%, 1/2 the detection limit was substituted for non-detected values, and for % Detect > 50% and < 85% the test was done on detected values only c = The Mann-Kendall test was performed on data with either a non-parametric distribution or with % Detect < 50%, it was not performed on constituents where N < 8 Distribution = Distribution as determined by the Shapiro-Wilk distribution test for constituents with % Detect > 50% and N>8 Regression Trend = The result of the linear regression test analysis using 1/2 of the detection limit for values reported as "not detected" Mann-Kendall Trend = The result of the Mann-Kendall test for non-parametric distributions and for % Detect < 50% b = A regression test was performed on data that was determined to have either a normal or log-normal distribution and % Detect > 50%. 1/2 of the detection limit was used for non-detected values Appendix D-1 pH Analysis Summary Shapiro-Wilks Test for Normalitya Least Squares Regression Trend Analysisb Mann-Kendall Trend Analysisc Significantly Decreasing Trend?Well N Mean (s.u.)Minimum (s.u.)Maximum (s.u.) Standard Deviation (s.u.) D-2 Box Plots for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Field pH in MW-3 Median = 6.63 25%-75% = (6.35, 6.74) Non-Outlier Range = (5.95, 7.11) Outliers Extremes5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-2 Box Plots for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer 22 PaJe of Field pH in MW-3A Median = 6.54 25%-75% = (6.255, 6.675) Non-Outlier Range = (5.9, 7.11) Outliers Extremes5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-2 Box Plots for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer 22 PaJe 2 of Field pH in MW-5 Median = 7.525 25%-75% = (7.36, 7.66) Non-Outlier Range = (7, 8.11) Outliers Extremes5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-2 Box Plots for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer 22 PaJe of Field pH in MW-11 Median = 7.71 25%-75% = (7.45, 7.91) Non-Outlier Range = (6.81, 8.4) Outliers Extremes6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-2 Box Plots for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer 22 PaJe of Field pH in MW-18 Median = 6.615 25%-75% = (6.34, 6.99) Non-Outlier Range = (5.82, 7.38) Outliers Extremes5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-2 Box Plots for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer 22 PaJe of Field pH in MW-24 Median = 6.445 25%-75% = (6.12, 6.8) Non-Outlier Range = (5.73, 7.54) Outliers Extremes5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-2 Box Plots for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer 22 PaJe of Field pH in MW-25 Median = 6.63 25%-75% = (6.52, 6.77) Non-Outlier Range = (6.29, 6.95) Outliers Extremes5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-2 Box Plots for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer 22 PaJe of Field pH in MW-26 Median = 6.64 25%-75% = (6.45, 6.87) Non-Outlier Range = (5.93, 7.34) Outliers Extremes5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-2 Box Plots for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer 22 PaJe of Field pH in MW-27 Median = 7.11 25%-75% = (6.83, 7.24) Non-Outlier Range = (6.39, 7.68) Outliers Extremes6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-2 Box Plots for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer 22 PaJe of Field pH in MW-30 Median = 6.83 25%-75% = (6.73, 7.03) Non-Outlier Range = (6.52, 7.47) Outliers Extremes5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-2 Box Plots for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer 22 PaJe of Field pH in MW-31 Median = 7.16 25%-75% = (6.975, 7.305) Non-Outlier Range = (6.64, 7.8) Outliers Extremes6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-2 Box Plots for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource AssessPent 5eport 2ctoEer 22 PaJe of D-3 Histograms for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Field pH MW-3 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Field Measurement 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No o f o b s Appendix D-3 Histograms for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Field pH MW-3 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 Field Measurement 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No o f o b s Appendix D-3 Histograms for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Field pH MW-5 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Field Measurement 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 No o f o b s Appendix D-3 Histograms for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age 3 of Field pH MW-11 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 Field Measurement 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 No o f o b s Appendix D-3 Histograms for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Field pH MW-18 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 Field Measurement 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No o f o b s Appendix D-3 Histograms for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Field pH MW-24 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 Field Measurement 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No o f o b s Appendix D-3 Histograms for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Field pH MW-25 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 Field Measurement 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 No o f o b s Appendix D-3 Histograms for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Field pH MW-26 SW-W = 0.9679, p = 0.0309 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 Field Measurement 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 No o f o b s Appendix D-3 Histograms for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Field pH MW-27 SW-W = 0.9554, p = 0.2200 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 Field Measurement 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No o f o b s Appendix D-3 Histograms for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Field pH MW-30 SW-W = 0.9779, p = 0.4947 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Field Measurement 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 No o f o b s Appendix D-3 Histograms for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of Field pH MW-31 Field Measurement: SW-W = 0.9534, p = 0.0548 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 Field Measurement 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 No o f o b s Appendix D-3 Histograms for pH in Wells with Constituents with Exceedances 6ource Assessment 5eport 2ctoEer 3age of D-4 Linear Regressions for pH in all Wells with Exceedances Linear Regression for Field pH in MW-3 p = 0.0002; r2 = 0.2806 8/28/1976 2/18/1982 8/11/1987 1/31/1993 7/24/1998 1/14/2004 7/6/2009 12/27/2014 Date Measured 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 Fie l d M e a s u r e m e n t Linear Regression for Field pH in MW-3A p = 0.0233; r2 = 0.1827 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Date Measured 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 Fie l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-4 Linear Regressions for pH in all Wells with Exceedances 6oXrce AssessPent Report 2ctoEer 3age of Linear Regression for Field pH in MW-5 p = 0.0988; r2 = 0.0440 11/14/1984 5/7/1990 10/28/1995 4/19/2001 10/10/2006 4/1/2012 Date Measured 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 Fie l d M e a s u r e m e n t Linear Regression for Field pHMW-11 p = 0.0238; r2 = 0.0561 11/14/1984 5/7/1990 10/28/1995 4/19/2001 10/10/2006 4/1/2012 Date Measured 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-4 Linear Regressions for pH in all Wells with Exceedances 6oXrce AssessPent Report 2ctoEer 3age of Linear Regression for Field pH in MW-12 p = 0.0022; r2 = 0.1395 11/14/1984 5/7/1990 10/28/1995 4/19/2001 10/10/2006 4/1/2012 Date Measured 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Linear Regression for Field pH in MW-18 p = 0.0002; r2 = 0.3275 1/31/1993 10/28/1995 7/24/1998 4/19/2001 1/14/2004 10/10/2006 7/6/2009 4/1/2012 12/27/2014 Date Measured 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 Fie l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-4 Linear Regressions for pH in all Wells with Exceedances 6oXrce AssessPent Report 2ctoEer 3age of Linear Regression for Field pH in MW-24 p = 0.0002; r2 = 0.4488 9/5/2005 10/10/2006 11/14/2007 12/18/2008 1/22/2010 2/26/2011 4/1/2012 Date Measured 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Linear Regression for Field pH in MW-25 p = 0.0287; r2 = 0.1169 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Date Measured 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-4 Linear Regressions for pH in all Wells with Exceedances 6oXrce AssessPent Report 2ctoEer 3age 4 of Linear Regression for Field pH in MW-26 p = 0.9077; r2 = 0.0002 8/1/2004 9/5/2005 10/10/2006 11/14/2007 12/18/2008 1/22/2010 2/26/2011 4/1/2012 Date Measured 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 Fie l d M e a s u r e m e n t Linear Regression for Field pH in MW-27 p = 0.1872; r2 = 0.0592 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Date Measured 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-4 Linear Regressions for pH in all Wells with Exceedances 6oXrce AssessPent Report 2ctoEer 3age of Linear Regression for Field pH in MW-30 p = 0.0232; r2 = 0.1071 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Date Measured 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Linear Regression for Field pH in MW-31 p = 0.0757; r2 = 0.0670 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Date Measured 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 Fi e l d M e a s u r e m e n t Appendix D-4 Linear Regressions for pH in all Wells with Exceedances 6oXrce AssessPent Report 2ctoEer 3age of D-5 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Appendix D-5 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 1 of 2 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis 9/9/2012 3:32:28 PM Sheet1.wst OFF 0.95 0.05 User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation From File Full Precision Confidence Coefficient pH-mw-11 General Statistics Level of Significance Number of Values 91 Minimum 6.25 Maximum 9 Mean 7.679 Geometric Mean 7.669 Median 7.71 Standard Deviation 0.39 SEM 0.0409 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-924 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 291.7 Standardized Value of S -3.165 Approximate p-value 0.0007762 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. pH-mw-12 General Statistics Number of Values 65 Minimum 5.86 Maximum 7.9 Mean 6.869 Geometric Mean 6.861 Median 6.82 Standard Deviation 0.331 SEM 0.0411 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-631 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 176.5 Standardized Value of S -3.569 Appendix D-5 Mann-Kendall Analysis for Constituents not Lognormally or Normally Distributed Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 2 of 2 pH-mw-25 Approximate p-value 0.0001792 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. General Statistics Number of Values 41 Minimum 5.77 Maximum 7.25 Mean 6.641 Geometric Mean 6.636 Median 6.63 Standard Deviation 0.257 SEM 0.0401 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-180 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 88.96 Standardized Value of S -2.012 Approximate p-value 0.0221 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. pH-mw-26 General Statistics Number of Values 86 Minimum 5.61 Maximum 7.88 Mean 6.643 Geometric Mean 6.633 Median 6.64 Standard Deviation 0.361 SEM 0.0389 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)160 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 268 trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S 0.593 Approximate p-value 0.277 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant APPENDIX E Time Concentration Plots for Parameters with Consecutive Exceedances E-1 Linear Regression for All Constituents with Exceedances Compared to Linear Regressions from Background Reports SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-3 (99% Detected Values) p = 0.00002; r2 = 0.3517 8/28/1976 2/18/1982 8/11/1987 1/31/1993 7/24/1998 1/14/2004 7/6/2009 12/27/2014 Sample Date 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-3100% Detected r2 = 0.0704; r = 0.2653, p = 0.1643 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Selenium in MW-3(69% Detected Values) p = 0.0000; r2 = 0.5912 8/28/1976 2/18/1982 8/11/1987 1/31/1993 7/24/1998 1/14/2004 7/6/2009 12/27/2014 Sample Date -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Se l e n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Selenium in MW-3 60.6% Detected r2 = 0.3798; r = 0.6163, p = 0.00000004 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Se l e n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Selenium in MW-3A(100% Detected Values) p = 0.0304; r2 = 0.2134 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Sample Date 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Se l e n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Selenium in MW-3A(100% Detected ) r2 = 0.0067; r = -0.0818, p = 0.8472 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Se l e n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI Current Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Selenium in MW-1977.8% Detected r2 = 0.3665; r = 0.6054, p = 0.0078 5/7/90 1/31/93 10/28/95 7/24/98 4/19/01 1/14/04 10/10/06 7/6/09 Date 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Se l e n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Selenium in MW-19 p = 0.0150; r2 = 0.1816 5/7/90 1/31/93 10/28/95 7/24/98 4/19/01 1/14/04 10/10/06 7/6/09 4/1/12 12/27/14 Sample Date 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Se l e n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-3A (100% Detected Values) p = 0.2314; r2 = 0.0675 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Sample Date 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-3A(100% Detected) r2 = 0.0366; r = -0.1913, p = 0.6501 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Stat Results Non-Detected Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-5(83% Detected Values) p = 0.0069; r2 = 0.0828 8/28/1976 2/18/1982 8/11/1987 1/31/1993 7/24/1998 1/14/2004 7/6/2009 12/27/2014 Sample Date -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-5 74% Detected r2 = 0.0125; r = -0.1118, p = 0.2783 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI Second Quarter Time Concentration Plot for Uranium in MW‐5. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Ur a n i u m (µ g / L ) Sample Date Uranium in MW‐5 $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Manganese in MW-11(100% Detected Values) p = 0.00001; r2 = 0.3112 2/18/1982 8/11/1987 1/31/1993 7/24/1998 1/14/2004 7/6/2009 12/27/2014 Sample Date 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Ma n g a n e s e ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Manganese in MW-11100% Detected r2 = 0.5115; r = 0.7152, p = 0.0018 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Ma n g a n e s e ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Selenium in MW-12(64% Detected Values) p = 0.0000; r2 = 0.6070 2/18/1982 8/11/1987 1/31/1993 7/24/1998 1/14/2004 7/6/2009 12/27/2014 Sample Date -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Se l e n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Selenium in MW-1246.5% Detected r2 = 0.2116; r = 0.4600, p = 0.0019 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Se l e n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for TDS in MW-18(100% Detected Values) p = 0.00000; r2 = 0.7353 4/19/2001 9/1/2002 1/14/20045/28/200510/10/20062/22/2008 7/6/200911/18/20104/1/2012 8/14/2013 Sample Date 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 TD S ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for TDS @ 180C in MW-18 100% Detected r2 = 0.1843; r = 0.4293, p = 0.0755 5/7/90 1/31/93 10/28/95 7/24/98 4/19/01 1/14/04 10/10/06 7/6/09 Date 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 T D S @ 1 8 0 C ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Thallium in MW-18(100% Detected Values) p = 0.0000; r2 = 0.8046 9/5/2005 10/10/2006 11/14/2007 12/18/2008 1/22/2010 2/26/2011 4/1/2012 Sample Date 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Th a l l i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Thallium MW-1866.7% Detected r2 = 0.5873; r = 0.7664, p = 0.0160 7/24/98 12/6/99 4/19/01 9/1/02 1/14/04 5/28/05 10/10/06 2/22/08 Date 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Th a l l i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Cadmium in MW-24(66% Detected Values) p = 0.00002; r2 = 0.5284 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Sample Date 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Ca d m i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Cadmium in MW-24(11.11% Detected ) r2 = 0.1586; r = -0.3982, p = 0.2884 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Ca d m i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Thallium in MW-24(50% Detected Values) p = 0.0007; r2 = 0.3622 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Sample Date 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Th a l l i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Thallium in MW-24(0% Detected ) 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Th a l l i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-25(100% Detected Values) p = 0.0078; r2 = 0.1677 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Sample Date 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-25(100% Detected ) r2 = 0.0414; r = 0.2036, p = 0.5483 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-26(100% Detected Values) p = 0.00000; r2 = 0.2532 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Sample Date 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-26100% Detected r2 = 0.3765; r = 0.6136, p = 0.0011 2/17/05 5/28/05 9/5/05 12/14/05 3/24/06 7/2/06 10/10/06 1/18/07 4/28/07 8/6/07 Date 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for TDS in MW-27(100% Detected Values) p = 0.00000; r2 = 0.5039 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Sample Date 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 TD S ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for TDS in MW-27(100% Detected ) r2 = 0.0069; r = 0.0831, p = 0.8195 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 TD S ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Selenium in MW-30(100% Detected Values) p = 0.0006; r2 = 0.2485 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Sample Date 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Se l e n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Selenium in MW-30(100% Detected ) r2 = 0.0515; r = 0.2270, p = 0.5282 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Se l e n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-31(100% Detected Values) p = 0.0009; r2 = 0.2587 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Sample Date 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-31(100% Detected ) r2 = 0.2331; r = 0.4828, p = 0.1575 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI SAR Trend Plot Background Report Trend Plot Linear Regression for TDS in MW-31(100% Detected Values) p = 0.0093; r2 = 0.1301 2/17/2005 3/24/2006 4/28/2007 6/1/2008 7/6/2009 8/10/2010 9/14/2011 10/18/2012 Sample Date 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 TD S ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for TDS in MW-31(100% Detected) r2 = 0.4224; r = -0.6499, p = 0.0419 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 1240 1260 1280 1300 1320 1340 TD S ( m g / L ) Stat Results Non-Detected Values $SSHQGL[ ( /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU $OO &RQVWLWXHQWV ZLWK ([FHHGDQFHV &RPSDUHG WR /LQHDU 5HJUHVVLRQV IURP %DFNJURXQG 5HSRUWV 6RXUFH $VVHVVPHQW 5HSRUW 2FWREHU 3DJH RI E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 1 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-11 p = 0.0860; r2 = 0.0246 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 12/27/14 Sample Date -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-11 p = 0.9456; r2 = 0.0001 2/18/82 1/31/93 1/14/04 12/27/14 Sample Date 0.42 0.46 0.50 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.70 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 2 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-11 p = 0.0000; r2 = 0.4025 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 12/27/14 Sample Date 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-11 p = 0.2926; r2 = 0.0113 2/18/82 1/31/93 1/14/04 12/27/14 Sample Date -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 3 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-12 p = 0.0015; r2 = 0.0996 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 12/27/14 Sample Date 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-12 p = 0.0629; r2 = 0.1792 2/18/82 1/31/93 1/14/04 12/27/14 Sample Date 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 4 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-12 p = 0.1088; r2 = 0.0369 2/18/82 1/31/93 1/14/04 12/27/14 Sample Date 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-12 p = 0.0000; r2 = 0.3313 2/18/82 1/31/93 1/14/04 12/27/14 Sample Date 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 5 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-18 p = 0.0223; r2 = 0.1919 5/7/90 1/31/93 10/28/95 7/24/98 4/19/01 1/14/04 10/10/06 7/6/09 4/1/12 12/27/14 Sample Date 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-18 p = 0.0002; r2 = 0.5441 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 12/27/14 Sample Date -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 6 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-18 p = 0.0000; r2 = 0.7550 5/7/90 10/28/95 4/19/01 10/10/06 4/1/12 Sample Date 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-18 p = 0.0000; r2 = 0.8829 5/7/90 10/28/95 4/19/01 10/10/06 4/1/12 Sample Date 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 7 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-24 p = 0.0576; r2 = 0.1687 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-24 p = 0.1136; r2 = 0.1010 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 8 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-24 p = 0.4817; r2 = 0.0208 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-24 p = 0.0285; r2 = 0.1998 9/5/05 10/10/06 11/14/07 12/18/08 1/22/10 2/26/11 4/1/12 Sample Date 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 9 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-25 p = 0.0714; r2 = 0.1196 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-25 p = 0.1471; r2 = 0.0762 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 10 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-25 p = 0.1065; r2 = 0.0936 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-25 p = 0.0078; r2 = 0.1677 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 11 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-26 p = 0.0131; r2 = 0.1240 4/19/01 1/14/04 10/10/06 7/6/09 4/1/12 Sample Date 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-26 p = 0.0142; r2 = 0.2029 4/19/01 1/14/04 10/10/06 7/6/09 4/1/12 Sample Date 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 12 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-26 p = 0.5849; r2 = 0.0104 4/19/01 1/14/04 10/10/06 7/6/09 4/1/12 Sample Date 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-26 p = 0.00000; r2 = 0.2532 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 13 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-27 p = 0.0000; r2 = 0.8566 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-27 p = 0.0018; r2 = 0.3510 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 14 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-27 p = 0.00009; r2 = 0.4659 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-27 p = 0.0010; r2 = 0.4122 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 15 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-3 p = 0.0602; r2 = 0.0429 8/28/76 8/11/87 7/24/98 7/6/09 Sample Date 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-3 p = 0.00001; r2 = 0.3918 8/28/76 8/11/87 7/24/98 7/6/09 Sample Date 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 16 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-3 p = 0.0009; r2 = 0.1181 8/28/76 8/11/87 7/24/98 7/6/09 Sample Date 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-3 p = 0.0157; r2 = 0.0683 8/28/76 8/11/87 7/24/98 7/6/09 Sample Date 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 17 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-30 p = 0.1375; r2 = 0.0619 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-30 p = 0.4018; r2 = 0.0262 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 18 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-30 p = 0.0000; r2 = 0.7990 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-30 p = 0.0932; r2 = 0.0941 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 19 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-31 p = 0.00007; r2 = 0.3676 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-31 p = 0.0117; r2 = 0.2284 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 20 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-31 p = 0.0009; r2 = 0.2587 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-31 p = 0.4547; r2 = 0.0217 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 21 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-3A p = 0.3637; r2 = 0.0487 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-3A p = 0.1984; r2 = 0.0953 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 22 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-3A p = 0.2055; r2 = 0.0752 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-3A p = 0.0353; r2 = 0.2353 2/17/05 3/24/06 4/28/07 6/1/08 7/6/09 8/10/10 9/14/11 10/18/12 Sample Date 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Ur a n i u m ( u g / ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 23 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-5 p = 0.0463; r2 = 0.0324 8/28/76 8/11/87 7/24/98 7/6/09 Sample Date 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-5 p = 0.0002; r2 = 0.2901 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 12/27/14 Sample Date 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 24 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-5 p = 0.3772; r2 = 0.0089 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 12/27/14 Sample Date 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-5 p = 0.0060; r2 = 0.0856 8/28/76 8/11/87 7/24/98 7/6/09 Sample Date -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 25 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-35 p = 0.2914; r2 = 0.2175 8/10/2010 11/18/2010 2/26/2011 6/6/2011 9/14/2011 12/23/2011 4/1/2012 7/10/2012 10/18/2012 Sample Date 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-35 p = 0.6331; r2 = 0.0404 8/10/2010 11/18/2010 2/26/2011 6/6/2011 9/14/2011 12/23/2011 4/1/2012 7/10/2012 10/18/2012 Sample Date 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Appendix E-2 Linear Regressions for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 26 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-35 p = 0.2537; r2 = 0.2495 8/10/2010 11/18/2010 2/26/2011 6/6/2011 9/14/2011 12/23/2011 4/1/2012 7/10/2012 10/18/2012 Sample Date 2220 2240 2260 2280 2300 2320 2340 2360 2380 2400 2420 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-35 p = 0.9893; r2 = 0.0000 8/10/2010 11/18/2010 2/26/2011 6/6/2011 9/14/2011 12/23/2011 4/1/2012 7/10/2012 10/18/2012 Sample Date 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 1 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-3 100% Detected r2 = 0.0287; r = -0.1694, p = 0.1282 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-3 100% Detected r2 = 0.0704; r = 0.2653, p = 0.1643 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 2 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-3 100% Detected r2 = 0.0081; r = 0.0898, p = 0.4167 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-3 98.7% Detected r2 = 0.2362; r = 0.4860, p = 0.000010 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 3 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-3A (100% Detected) r2 = 0.0096; r = -0.0981, p = 0.8017 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-3A (100% Detected) r2 = 0.1170; r = -0.3421, p = 0.3675 5/28/05 9/5/05 12/14/05 3/24/06 7/2/06 10/10/06 1/18/07 4/28/07 Date -0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 4 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-3A (100% Detected) r2 = 0.0366; r = -0.1913, p = 0.6501 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Stat Results Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-3A (100% Detected) r2 = 0.1354; r = -0.3680, p = 0.3697 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 5 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-5 100% Detected r2 = 0.0654; r = -0.2557, p = 0.0052 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-5 100% Detected r2 = 0.1359; r = 0.3686, p = 0.0450 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 6 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-5 100% Detected r2 = 0.1622; r = -0.4027, p = 0.0001 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-5 74% Detected r2 = 0.0125; r = -0.1118, p = 0.2783 8/28/76 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 7 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-11 100% Detected r2 = 0.0340; r = 0.1844, p = 0.0609 5/25/79 11/14/84 5/7/90 10/28/95 4/19/01 10/10/06 Date 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-11 100% Detected r2 = 0.1692; r = 0.4114, p = 0.1439 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.72 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 8 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-11 100% Detected r2 = 0.2855; r = 0.5343, p = 0.000002 5/25/79 11/14/84 5/7/90 10/28/95 4/19/01 10/10/06 Date 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-11 76.7% Detected r2 = 0.0011; r = 0.0335, p = 0.7597 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 9 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-12 100% Detected r2 = 0.1890; r = -0.4347, p = 0.00001 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-12 100% Detected r2 = 0.0573; r = 0.2393, p = 0.5681 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 10 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-12 100% Detected r2 = 0.1870; r = -0.4324, p = 0.0003 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-12 100% Detected r2 = 0.2119; r = 0.4603, p = 0.000009 2/18/82 8/11/87 1/31/93 7/24/98 1/14/04 7/6/09 Date -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 11 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-18 100% Detected r2 = 0.0625; r = 0.2500, p = 0.3019 5/7/90 1/31/93 10/28/95 7/24/98 4/19/01 1/14/04 10/10/06 7/6/09 Date 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-18 100% Detected r2 = 0.7038; r = -0.8389, p = 0.0183 7/24/98 12/6/99 4/19/01 9/1/02 1/14/04 5/28/05 10/10/06 2/22/08 Date 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 12 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-18 100% Detected r2 = 0.4924; r = 0.7017, p = 0.0008 5/7/90 1/31/93 10/28/95 7/24/98 4/19/01 1/14/04 10/10/06 7/6/09 Date 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-18 100% Detected r2 = 0.8939; r = 0.9454, p = 0.000000003 5/7/90 1/31/93 10/28/95 7/24/98 4/19/01 1/14/04 10/10/06 7/6/09 Date 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 13 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride MW-19 100% Detected r2 = 0.2078; r = -0.4558, p = 0.0330 5/7/90 1/31/93 10/28/95 7/24/98 4/19/01 1/14/04 10/10/06 7/6/09 Date 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-19 100% Detected 7/24/98 12/6/99 4/19/01 9/1/02 1/14/04 5/28/05 10/10/06 2/22/08 Date 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 14 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-19 100% Detected r2 = 0.2545; r = -0.5044, p = 0.0197 5/7/90 1/31/93 10/28/95 7/24/98 4/19/01 1/14/04 10/10/06 7/6/09 Date 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-19 100% Detected r2 = 0.0000; r = 0.0054, p = 0.9825 5/7/90 1/31/93 10/28/95 7/24/98 4/19/01 1/14/04 10/10/06 7/6/09 Date 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 15 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-24 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.3498; r = -0.5914, p = 0.0717 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-24 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.2373; r = -0.4872, p = 0.1285 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.34 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 16 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-24 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.0083; r = 0.0909, p = 0.7903 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-24 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.5830; r = -0.7636, p = 0.0102 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 17 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-25 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.2482; r = -0.4982, p = 0.1188 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0 31.5 32.0 32.5 33.0 33.5 34.0 34.5 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-25 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.0473; r = 0.2174, p = 0.5207 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 0.26 0.30 0.34 0.38 0.42 0.46 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 18 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-25 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.1101; r = 0.3319, p = 0.3188 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-25 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.0414; r = 0.2036, p = 0.5483 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 19 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-26 100% Detected r2 = 0.0230; r = 0.1515, p = 0.6566 5/24/02 12/10/02 6/28/03 1/14/04 8/1/04 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-26 100% Detected r2 = 0.1759; r = -0.4194, p = 0.2277 5/24/02 12/10/02 6/28/03 1/14/04 8/1/04 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 20 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-26 100% Detected r2 = 0.2884; r = 0.5370, p = 0.0885 5/24/02 6/28/03 8/1/04 9/5/05 10/10/06 11/14/07 Date 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detect Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-26 100% Detected r2 = 0.3765; r = 0.6136, p = 0.0011 2/17/05 5/28/05 9/5/05 12/14/05 3/24/06 7/2/06 10/10/06 1/18/07 4/28/07 8/6/07 Date 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 21 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-27 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.3162; r = 0.5623, p = 0.0907 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-27 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.0990; r = 0.3147, p = 0.3758 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 0.68 0.72 0.76 0.80 0.84 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 22 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-27 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.2393; r = 0.4892, p = 0.1513 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-27 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.0159; r = 0.1260, p = 0.7286 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0 31.5 32.0 32.5 33.0 33.5 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 23 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-30 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.1846; r = -0.4296, p = 0.2485 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-30 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.0331; r = -0.1820, p = 0.6149 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.44 0.48 0.52 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 24 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-30 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.2244; r = -0.4737, p = 0.1666 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 940 960 980 1000 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-30 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.0703; r = 0.2652, p = 0.4590 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 25 of 26 Linear Regression for Chloride in MW-31 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.4054; r = -0.6367, p = 0.0478 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 120 124 128 132 136 140 Ch l o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Fluoride in MW-31 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.0977; r = 0.3126, p = 0.3792 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 Fl u o r i d e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Appendix E-3 Linear Regressions from the Background Reports for All Indicator Parameters of Wells with Constituents with Exceedances Source Assessment Report October 9, 2012 Page 26 of 26 Linear Regression for Sulfate in MW-31 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.2331; r = 0.4828, p = 0.1575 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 Su l f a t e ( m g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values Linear Regression for Uranium in MW-31 (100% Detected) r2 = 0.0070; r = 0.0834, p = 0.8188 2/17/05 9/5/05 3/24/06 10/10/06 4/28/07 11/14/07 Date 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 Ur a n i u m ( u g / L ) Detected Values Non-Detected Values APPENDIX F Flowsheet (Groundwater Data Preparation and Statistical Process Flow for Calculating Groundwater Protection Standards, White Mesa Mill Site (INTERA, 2007)) Negative Value? Zero Value? Truncated Value? Duplicate Value? Units Consistant? Non-detects Exceeding Criteria Specified by URS Memo* Analysis Internally Consistent?(TDS and Charge Balance Check) YesNo No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Radionuclide? Yes Remove from DatasetDetection Limit and U-Flag Data Qualifier NoNo Review for Units Remove from Dataset If chloride, sulfate, or TDS, Remove from Dataset Correct Value Confirmed? Remove from Dataset Remove from Dataset Determine Percentage Non-Detects in Remaining Data Plot Data Sets as Box Plots to Identify Extreme Values As Specified in Background Report. Extreme Value? No Remove from Dataset Yes At Least 8 Data Points Remaining? Defer Analysis Until Eight Data Points Avalible 0-15 Percent Non-Detects >15-50 Percent Non-Detects >90 Percent Non-Detects No Yes No Substitute One Half of Detection Limit Log Transform Data Use Probability Plots to Determine if Cohen’s or Aitchison’s Method Calculate Descriptive Statistics (Redo Tables In Background Report) Screen for Trends Using Least Squares Regression. Calculate GWCL (Mean +2Sigma) Calculate Descriptive Statistics (Redo Tables In Background Report) Yes No Calculate GWCL (Mean +2Sigma) Calculate GWCL Using Greater of Fraction Approach under UAC R317-6-4-4.5(B)(2) or 4.6(B)(2) or Poisson Prediction Limit Yes No >50-90 Percent Non-Detects Calculate Upper Prediction Limit (Highest Historical Value) Calculate GWCL Using Greater of Fraction Approach under UAC R317-6-4-4.5(B)(2) or 4.6(B)(2) or the Highest Historic Value Estimate Mean and Standard Deviation Screen for Trends Using Mann-Kendall Screen for Trends Using Mann-Kendall Yes Use Non-Parametric StatisticsNo Screen for Trends Using Least Squares Regression Monday, September 24, 2012 Groundwater Data Preparation and Statistical Process Flow for Calculating Groundwater Protection Standards, White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah Upward Trend?Upward Trend? No No Yes Consider Modified Approch to GWCL Upward Trend?Upward Trend? No No Yes Consider Modified Approch to GWCL Log Transform Data Log-Normal or Normal?Shapiro WilkProbability PlotsHistograms Log-Normal or Normal?Shapiro WilkProbability PlotsHistograms *A non-detect considered “insensitive” will be the maximum reporting limit in a dataset and will exceed other non-detects by, for example, an order of magnitude (e.g., <10 versus <1.0 µg/L). In some cases, insensitive non-detects may also exceed detectable values in a dataset (e.g., <10 versus 3.5 µg/L). Figure 1Groundwater Data Preparation and Statistical Process Flow for Calculating Ground Water Compliance Limits, White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah. Database of Wells and Analytes Listed in the Statement of Basis APPENDIX G Input and Output Files (Electronic Only) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 A B C D E F G H I J K L trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S 4.289 Approximate p-value 8.974E-06 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)197 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 45.7 Standard Deviation 1.057 SEM 0.203 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 1.277 Geometric Mean 0.957 Median 0.59 Number of Values 27 Minimum 0.5 Maximum 4.28 Level of Significance 0.05 Cadmium ug/L-mw-24 General Statistics From File Cadmium.wst Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 9/13/2012 9:07:26 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 A B C D E F G H I J K L trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S 4.923 Approximate p-value 4.263E-07 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)486 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 98.52 Standard Deviation 0.211 SEM 0.0318 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.545 Geometric Mean 0.501 Median 0.5 Number of Values 44 Minimum 0.074 Maximum 1.04 Level of Significance 0.05 Fluoride mg/L-mw-3 General Statistics From File Fluoride.wst Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 9/13/2012 9:08:24 PM PT_NAME SDATE Uranium ug/L D_Uranium MW-26 6/21/2005 9.48 1 MW-26 7/26/2005 12.6 1 MW-26 8/24/2005 26 1 MW-26 9/22/2005 17.4 1 MW-26 10/26/2005 22.7 1 MW-26 11/15/2005 12.1 1 MW-26 12/14/2005 12.3 1 MW-26 1/25/2006 10.7 1 MW-26 2/21/2006 9.9 1 MW-26 3/22/2006 17.9 1 MW-26 4/25/2006 14 1 MW-26 5/26/2006 23.8 1 MW-26 6/20/2006 24.6 1 MW-26 7/11/2006 17.6 1 MW-26 8/16/2006 10.5 1 MW-26 9/12/2006 23 1 MW-26 10/24/2006 34.7 1 MW-26 11/14/2006 32.6 1 MW-26 12/13/2006 20.9 1 MW-26 1/23/2007 22.6 1 MW-26 2/8/2007 44.2 1 MW-26 3/16/2007 42.8 1 MW-26 4/24/2007 36.4 1 MW-26 5/22/2007 119 1 MW-26 6/20/2007 24.5 1 MW-26 7/24/2007 38.6 1 MW-26 7/24/2007 28.2 1 MW-26 8/21/2007 21.4 1 MW-26 8/21/2007 21.2 1 MW-26 9/25/2007 33.6 1 MW-26 9/25/2007 22.3 1 MW-26 10/23/2007 47 1 MW-26 1/29/2008 20.1 1 MW-26 2/20/2008 59.2 1 MW-26 3/12/2008 46.3 1 MW-26 5/27/2008 21.7 1 MW-26 7/9/2008 23.4 1 MW-26 8/12/2008 27.1 1 MW-26 9/8/2008 29.4 1 MW-26 10/13/2008 60.4 1 MW-26 11/13/2008 54 1 MW-26 12/9/2008 62.1 1 MW-26 1/20/2009 52.6 1 MW-26 2/2/2009 43 1 MW-26 3/18/2009 58.3 1 MW-26 4/22/2009 27.4 1 MW-26 5/18/2009 32.1 1 MW-26 6/17/2009 54.3 1 MW-26 7/29/2009 28.9 1 MW-26 8/19/2009 58.3 1 MW-26 9/9/2009 72.5 1 MW-26 10/13/2009 29.6 1 MW-26 11/17/2009 54.3 1 MW-26 12/1/2009 66.5 1 MW-26 1/12/2010 58.6 1 MW-26 2/2/2010 58.7 1 MW-26 4/22/2010 66.7 1 MW-26 5/21/2010 37.4 1 MW-26 6/16/2010 36.6 1 MW-26 7/21/2010 34.4 1 MW-26 8/16/2010 71.8 1 MW-26 9/16/2010 72.7 1 MW-26 10/20/2010 37.5 1 MW-26 11/15/2010 30.4 1 MW-26 12/15/2010 29.6 1 MW-26 1/12/2011 32 1 MW-26 2/16/2011 69.3 1 MW-26 3/15/2011 31.8 1 MW-26 4/1/2011 60.2 1 MW-26 5/10/2011 57.4 1 MW-26 6/20/2011 18.5 1 MW-26 7/6/2011 57.1 1 MW-26 8/30/2011 19 1 MW-26 9/7/2011 56.1 1 MW-26 10/12/2011 58.9 1 MW-26 11/9/2011 55.6 1 MW-26 12/14/2011 57 1 MW-26 1/25/2012 64.6 1 MW-26 2/21/2012 59.4 1 MW-26 3/14/2012 31.2 1 MW-26 4/11/2012 42.2 1 MW-26 5/7/2012 18.2 1 MW-26 6/19/2012 66 1 MW-35 12/1/2010 27.2 1 MW-35 2/15/2011 12.7 1 MW-35 6/7/2011 21.7 1 MW-35 7/20/2011 24.2 1 MW-35 8/30/2011 18.3 1 MW-35 9/7/2011 22.3 1 MW-35 10/3/2011 20.1 1 MW-35 11/8/2011 24 1 MW-35 12/14/2011 23.6 1 MW-35 1/24/2012 16.1 1 MW-35 2/14/2012 24.7 1 MW-35 3/13/2012 24.9 1 MW-35 4/10/2012 22.4 1 MW-35 5/2/2012 22.2 1 MW-35 6/19/2012 22.5 1 MW-5 11/11/1980 1 1 MW-5 1/26/1982 1 1 MW-5 2/11/1982 1 1 MW-5 10/27/1983 1 1 MW-5 2/15/1984 2 1 MW-5 12/4/1984 0.702985075 0 MW-5 12/15/1985 0.746268657 0 MW-5 12/10/1986 0.3 0 MW-5 2/20/1987 0.3 0 MW-5 4/29/1987 0.9 1 MW-5 8/19/1987 3.134328358 1 MW-5 1/27/1988 1.492537313 1 MW-5 6/1/1988 1.343283582 1 MW-5 8/23/1988 1.791044776 1 MW-5 11/4/1988 1.6 1 MW-5 3/9/1989 2.23880597 1 MW-5 6/22/1989 0.895522388 1 MW-5 8/25/1989 1.641791045 1 MW-5 10/31/1989 0.447761194 1 MW-5 11/16/1989 0.597014925 1 MW-5 11/29/1989 0.597014925 1 MW-5 12/15/1989 1.044776119 1 MW-5 1/24/1990 1.044776119 1 MW-5 2/20/1990 1.044776119 1 MW-5 5/9/1990 1.044776119 1 MW-5 8/7/1990 0.895522388 1 MW-5 11/13/1990 0.447761194 1 MW-5 2/28/1991 0.402985075 1 MW-5 5/21/1991 1.641791045 1 MW-5 9/24/1991 1.194029851 1 MW-5 12/4/1991 0.791044776 1 MW-5 3/18/1992 2.388059701 1 MW-5 6/12/1992 0.3 0 MW-5 11/17/1992 1.010447761 1 MW-5 12/9/1992 0.302985075 1 MW-5 3/30/1993 2.014925373 1 MW-5 6/10/1993 3 1 MW-5 9/29/1993 2.014925373 1 MW-5 12/15/1993 0.3 0 MW-5 6/20/1994 0.3 0 MW-5 8/24/1994 0.707462687 1 MW-5 8/24/1994 1.014925373 1 MW-5 12/7/1994 2 1 MW-5 12/7/1994 2.014925373 1 MW-5 6/27/1995 0.3 0 MW-5 9/19/1995 0.3 0 MW-5 3/27/1996 0.3 0 MW-5 6/6/1996 0.5 1 MW-5 9/12/1996 1 1 MW-5 11/22/1996 0.3 0 MW-5 3/19/1997 1 1 MW-5 6/11/1997 1 1 MW-5 9/30/1997 1 1 MW-5 1/8/1998 0.7 1 MW-5 3/16/1998 0.6 1 MW-5 5/12/1998 1.2 1 MW-5 9/24/1998 1.9 1 MW-5 11/3/1998 0.7 1 MW-5 5/12/1999 0.4 1 MW-5 9/30/1999 0.8 1 MW-5 12/9/1999 1 1 MW-5 3/17/2000 0.8 1 MW-5 6/6/2000 0.4 1 MW-5 9/3/2000 0.7 1 MW-5 11/28/2000 1.5 1 MW-5 3/24/2001 0.5 1 MW-5 6/13/2001 0.7 1 MW-5 9/7/2001 0.98 1 MW-5 3/15/2002 3.4 1 MW-5 5/20/2002 0.7 1 MW-5 11/21/2002 0.04 1 MW-5 3/20/2003 0.4 1 MW-5 6/27/2003 0.4 1 MW-5 11/23/2003 0.4 1 MW-5 6/21/2005 0.3 0 MW-5 12/13/2005 0.3 0 MW-5 3/23/2006 1.27 1 MW-5 6/23/2006 0.71 1 MW-5 10/27/2006 0.6 1 MW-5 10/29/2007 0.61 1 MW-5 6/18/2008 0.3 0 MW-5 11/11/2008 0.3 0 MW-5 5/16/2009 0.3 0 MW-5 10/12/2009 0.3 0 MW-5 4/26/2010 0.39 1 MW-5 8/9/2011 0.5 1 MW-5 5/9/2012 1.23 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 A B C D E F G H I J K L Approximate p-value 0 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 257.8 Standardized Value of S 8.566 SEM 1.6 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)2209 Geometric Mean 0.0534 Median 0.0095 Standard Deviation 14.66 Minimum 0.001 Maximum 52.8 Mean 8.337 trend at the specified level of significance. Selenium ug/L-mw-3 General Statistics Number of Values 84 Standardized Value of S 6.859 Approximate p-value 3.456E-12 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)937 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 136.5 Standard Deviation 11.02 SEM 1.486 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 6.429 Geometric Mean 0.0426 Median 0.004 Number of Values 55 Minimum 0.001 Maximum 39 Level of Significance 0.05 Selenium ug/L-mw-12 General Statistics From File Selenium.wst Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 9/13/2012 9:10:13 PM 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 A B C D E F G H I J K L Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Standard Deviation of S 98.76 Standardized Value of S 4.546 Approximate p-value 2.73E-06 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)450 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 32.5 Standard Deviation 4.083 SEM 0.616 Maximum 47.2 Mean 34.13 Geometric Mean 33.91 General Statistics Number of Values 44 Minimum 29 Selenium ug/L-mw-30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 A B C D E F G H I J K L trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S 3.306 Approximate p-value 0.0004731 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)274 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 82.58 Standard Deviation 24.15 SEM 3.867 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 517.3 Geometric Mean 516.8 Median 522 Number of Values 39 Minimum 436 Maximum 552 Level of Significance 0.05 Sulfate mg/L-mw-31 General Statistics From File Sulfate.wst Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 9/13/2012 9:18:09 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 A B C D E F G H I J K L Approximate p-value 0.0006464 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 122.8 Standardized Value of S 3.218 SEM 10.71 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)396 Geometric Mean 1255 Median 1240 Standard Deviation 76.46 Minimum 1110 Maximum 1460 Mean 1258 trend at the specified level of significance. TDS mg/L-mw-31 General Statistics Number of Values 51 Standardized Value of S 3.781 Approximate p-value 7.821E-05 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)144 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 37.82 Standard Deviation 241.9 SEM 50.44 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 3034 Geometric Mean 3024 Median 3100 Number of Values 23 Minimum 2350 Maximum 3280 Level of Significance 0.05 TDS mg/L-mw-18 General Statistics From File TDS.wst Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 9/13/2012 9:15:46 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 A B C D E F G H I J K L Approximate p-value 6.274E-05 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 47.19 Standardized Value of S 3.835 SEM 0.0592 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)182 Geometric Mean 0.656 Median 0.515 Standard Deviation 0.313 Minimum 0.5 Maximum 1.57 Mean 0.706 trend at the specified level of significance. Thallium-mw-24 General Statistics Number of Values 28 Standardized Value of S 4.937 Approximate p-value 3.96E-07 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)225 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 45.37 Standard Deviation 1.187 SEM 0.233 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 2.302 Geometric Mean 1.992 Median 1.99 Number of Values 26 Minimum 0.83 Maximum 4 Level of Significance 0.05 Thallium-mw-18 General Statistics From File Thallium.wst Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 9/13/2012 9:16:54 PM From File Uranium.wst Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 9/14/2012 3:51:05 PM Number of Values 83 Minimum 9.48 Maximum 119 Level of Significance 0.05 Uranium ug/L-mw-26 General Statistics Standard Deviation 20.36 SEM 2.235 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 38.86 Geometric Mean 33.61 Median 33.6 Standardized Value of S 5.644 Approximate p-value 8.328E-09 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)1436 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 254.3 Minimum 12.7 Maximum 27.2 Mean 21.79 trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium ug/L-mw-35 General Statistics Number of Values 15 SEM 0.958 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)11 Geometric Mean 21.45 Median 22.4 Standard Deviation 3.71 Tabulated p-value 0.313 Approximate p-value 0.31 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium ug/L-mw-5 Standard Deviation of S 20.21 Standardized Value of S 0.495 Maximum 3.4 Mean 0.95 Geometric Mean 0.743 General Statistics Number of Values 87 Minimum 0.04 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-917 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Median 0.791 Standard Deviation 0.686 SEM 0.0735 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Standard Deviation of S 271.7 Standardized Value of S -3.371 Approximate p-value 0.0003748 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 A B C D E F G H I J K L Approximate p-value 3.251E-05 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 330.5 Standardized Value of S -3.994 SEM 0.612 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-1321 Geometric Mean 59.16 Median 60.3 Standard Deviation 6.093 Minimum 37.6 Maximum 80.5 Mean 59.49 trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-12 General Statistics Number of Values 99 Standardized Value of S -1.796 Approximate p-value 0.0362 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Test Value (S)-801 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 445.4 Standard Deviation 4.318 SEM 0.393 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 32.1 Geometric Mean 30.42 Median 32 Number of Values 121 Minimum 0.031 Maximum 43.2 Level of Significance 0.05 Chloride (mg/L)-mw-11 General Statistics From File Chloride.wst Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 9/14/2012 5:10:08 PM 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 A B C D E F G H I J K L Geometric Mean 31.16 Minimum 25 Maximum 34 Mean 31.21 trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-25 General Statistics Number of Values 28 Standardized Value of S -1.096 Approximate p-value 0.137 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant Test Value (S)-39 Tabulated p-value 0.144 Standard Deviation of S 34.68 Standard Deviation 2.719 SEM 0.58 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 44.82 Geometric Mean 44.74 Median 45 Number of Values 22 Minimum 39 Maximum 52 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-24 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 47.85 Standardized Value of S 3.448 Approximate p-value 0.0002819 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)166 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 47.6 Standard Deviation 12.64 SEM 2.433 Maximum 75 Mean 46.87 Geometric Mean 45.15 General Statistics Number of Values 27 Minimum 19.9 Chloride (mg/L)-mw-18 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 A B C D E F G H I J K L Test Value (S)273 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 47.74 Standard Deviation 4.378 SEM 0.843 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 39.37 Geometric Mean 39.13 Median 40 Number of Values 27 Minimum 32 Maximum 46 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-27 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 115.7 Standardized Value of S 3.033 Approximate p-value 0.00121 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)352 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 57 Standard Deviation 9.807 SEM 1.401 Maximum 85 Mean 58.33 Geometric Mean 57.56 General Statistics Number of Values 49 Minimum 39 Approximate p-value 0.0094 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-26 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 49.37 Standardized Value of S -2.349 SEM 0.358 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-117 Median 31 Standard Deviation 1.893 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 A B C D E F G H I J K L Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-31 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 76.04 Standardized Value of S 1.788 Approximate p-value 0.0368 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)137 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 125 Standard Deviation 6.615 SEM 1.087 Maximum 145 Mean 124.7 Geometric Mean 124.6 General Statistics Number of Values 37 Minimum 106 Approximate p-value 0.00565 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-30 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 253 Standardized Value of S -2.533 SEM 0.329 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-642 Geometric Mean 64.58 Median 65 Standard Deviation 2.996 Minimum 56 Maximum 73 Mean 64.65 trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-3 General Statistics Number of Values 83 Standardized Value of S 5.698 Approximate p-value 6.073E-09 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 A B C D E F G H I J K L Median 60 Standard Deviation 5.947 SEM 1.364 Maximum 70 Mean 59.16 Geometric Mean 58.84 General Statistics Number of Values 19 Minimum 42 Approximate p-value 0.29 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-3a Tabulated p-value 0.408 Standard Deviation of S 3.606 Standardized Value of S -0.555 SEM 0.4 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-3 Geometric Mean 59.59 Median 59 Standard Deviation 0.894 Minimum 59 Maximum 61 Mean 59.6 trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-35 General Statistics Number of Values 5 Standardized Value of S 4.5 Approximate p-value 3.391E-06 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)344 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 76.21 Standard Deviation 11.08 SEM 1.822 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 137.5 Geometric Mean 137.1 Median 138 Number of Values 37 Minimum 115 Maximum 160 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 A B C D E F G H I J K L trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S -2.941 Approximate p-value 0.00164 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Test Value (S)-1344 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 456.7 Standard Deviation 4.672 SEM 0.421 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 52.49 Geometric Mean 52.29 Median 52 Number of Values 123 Minimum 37.5 Maximum 69.7 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Chloride (mg/L)-mw-5 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 28.4 Standardized Value of S -0.951 Approximate p-value 0.171 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-28 Tabulated p-value 0.166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 A B C D E F G H I J K L Approximate p-value 0.00291 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Tabulated p-value 0.003 Standard Deviation of S 30.46 Standardized Value of S -2.758 SEM 0.00957 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-85 Geometric Mean 0.278 Median 0.3 Standard Deviation 0.0428 Minimum 0.186 Maximum 0.35 Mean 0.282 trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-12 General Statistics Number of Values 20 Standardized Value of S -1.383 Approximate p-value 0.0833 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant Test Value (S)-98 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 70.11 Standard Deviation 0.0582 SEM 0.00984 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.541 Geometric Mean 0.538 Median 0.54 Number of Values 35 Minimum 0.44 Maximum 0.705 Level of Significance 0.05 Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-11 General Statistics From File Fluoride.wst Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 9/14/2012 5:12:31 PM 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 A B C D E F G H I J K L Geometric Mean 0.326 Minimum 0.28 Maximum 0.375 Mean 0.326 trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-25 General Statistics Number of Values 29 Standardized Value of S -2.143 Approximate p-value 0.0161 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Test Value (S)-98 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 45.26 Standard Deviation 0.0722 SEM 0.0141 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.181 Geometric Mean 0.17 Median 0.163 Number of Values 26 Minimum 0.1 Maximum 0.36 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-24 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 30.48 Standardized Value of S -3.969 Approximate p-value 3.606E-05 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-122 Tabulated p-value 0 Median 0.22 Standard Deviation 0.0847 SEM 0.0189 Maximum 0.4 Mean 0.246 Geometric Mean 0.212 General Statistics Number of Values 20 Minimum 0.0089 Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-18 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 A B C D E F G H I J K L Test Value (S)-134 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 42.68 Standard Deviation 0.0505 SEM 0.0101 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.723 Geometric Mean 0.721 Median 0.72 Number of Values 25 Minimum 0.61 Maximum 0.824 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-27 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 52.82 Standardized Value of S -1.742 Approximate p-value 0.0408 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-93 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Median 0.28 Standard Deviation 0.0378 SEM 0.00702 Maximum 0.4 Mean 0.284 Geometric Mean 0.282 General Statistics Number of Values 29 Minimum 0.21 Approximate p-value 0.051 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-26 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 52.6 Standardized Value of S -1.635 SEM 0.00387 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-87 Median 0.321 Standard Deviation 0.0208 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 A B C D E F G H I J K L Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-31 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 52.15 Standardized Value of S -1.246 Approximate p-value 0.106 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-66 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Median 0.36 Standard Deviation 0.0238 SEM 0.00442 Maximum 0.423 Mean 0.361 Geometric Mean 0.36 General Statistics Number of Values 29 Minimum 0.3 Approximate p-value 2.572E-07 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-30 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 98.79 Standardized Value of S 5.021 SEM 0.0311 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)497 Geometric Mean 0.501 Median 0.505 Standard Deviation 0.206 Minimum 0.074 Maximum 1.04 Mean 0.543 trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-3 General Statistics Number of Values 44 Standardized Value of S -3.116 Approximate p-value 0.0009171 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 A B C D E F G H I J K L Median 1.177 Standard Deviation 0.201 SEM 0.0462 Maximum 1.6 Mean 1.238 Geometric Mean 1.223 General Statistics Number of Values 19 Minimum 0.94 Approximate p-value 0.269 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-3a Tabulated p-value 0.281 Standard Deviation of S 6.506 Standardized Value of S -0.615 SEM 0.0108 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-5 Geometric Mean 0.372 Median 0.37 Standard Deviation 0.0287 Minimum 0.32 Maximum 0.41 Mean 0.373 trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-35 General Statistics Number of Values 7 Standardized Value of S -3.056 Approximate p-value 0.00112 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Test Value (S)-147 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 47.77 Standard Deviation 0.048 SEM 0.00924 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.876 Geometric Mean 0.875 Median 0.88 Number of Values 27 Minimum 0.78 Maximum 0.989 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 A B C D E F G H I J K L trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S 2.827 Approximate p-value 0.00235 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)280 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 98.69 Standard Deviation 0.19 SEM 0.0286 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.885 Geometric Mean 0.86 Median 0.92 Number of Values 44 Minimum 0.33 Maximum 1.3 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Fluoride (mg/L)-mw-5 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 28.53 Standardized Value of S -1.297 Approximate p-value 0.0973 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-38 Tabulated p-value 0.093 Well SDATE Uranium (ug/L) D_Uranium MW-11 12/15/1985 0.746268657 1 MW-11 12/10/1986 0.149253731 0 MW-11 2/20/1987 0.149253731 0 MW-11 4/29/1987 0.3 1 MW-11 8/19/1987 1.044776119 1 MW-11 1/27/1988 0.149253731 0 MW-11 6/1/1988 0.746268657 1 MW-11 8/24/1988 0.746268657 1 MW-11 11/2/1988 0.4 1 MW-11 3/9/1989 1.343283582 1 MW-11 6/22/1989 1.194029851 1 MW-11 8/25/1989 2.388059701 1 MW-11 10/31/1989 1.044776119 1 MW-11 11/17/1989 0.895522388 1 MW-11 11/29/1989 0.895522388 1 MW-11 12/15/1989 0.746268657 1 MW-11 1/24/1990 1.044776119 1 MW-11 2/20/1990 1.044776119 1 MW-11 5/8/1990 1.194029851 1 MW-11 8/7/1990 0.697014925 1 MW-11 11/13/1990 0.895522388 1 MW-11 2/28/1991 0.149253731 0 MW-11 5/22/1991 0.343283582 1 MW-11 9/24/1991 1.104477612 1 MW-11 12/4/1991 0.358208955 1 MW-11 6/12/1992 0.149253731 0 MW-11 3/30/1993 3.029850746 1 MW-11 9/29/1993 2.014925373 1 MW-11 12/15/1993 0.149253731 0 MW-11 6/20/1994 1.208955224 1 MW-11 8/23/1994 1.014925373 1 MW-11 8/23/1994 1.52238806 1 MW-11 12/7/1994 0.149253731 0 MW-11 12/7/1994 1 1 MW-11 3/14/1995 0.149253731 0 MW-11 6/27/1995 0.149253731 0 MW-11 6/27/1995 0.8 1 MW-11 9/15/1995 0.149253731 0 MW-11 9/15/1995 1.4 1 MW-11 12/7/1995 0.15 0 MW-11 3/27/1996 0.4 1 MW-11 6/6/1996 0.5 1 MW-11 9/12/1996 1.1 1 MW-11 11/22/1996 1.8 1 MW-11 3/19/1997 0.15 0 MW-11 6/11/1997 1 1 MW-11 9/30/1997 0.4 1 MW-11 1/8/1998 0.00015 0 MW-11 3/16/1998 0.0003 1 MW-11 5/12/1998 0.0011 1 MW-11 9/24/1998 0.0031 1 MW-11 11/3/1998 0.00015 0 MW-11 2/18/1999 0.4 1 MW-11 5/11/1999 0.7 1 MW-11 9/30/1999 0.5 1 MW-11 12/9/1999 0.4 1 MW-11 3/17/2000 0.3 1 MW-11 6/6/2000 0.15 0 MW-11 9/3/2000 0.6 1 MW-11 11/27/2000 2.2 1 MW-11 3/23/2001 2.9 1 MW-11 6/12/2001 2.5 1 MW-11 9/4/2001 1.3 1 MW-11 11/6/2001 1.5 1 MW-11 5/20/2002 1 1 MW-11 11/21/2002 1 1 MW-11 3/20/2003 0.8 1 MW-11 6/27/2003 1.6 1 MW-11 9/24/2003 1 1 MW-11 11/24/2003 0.15 0 MW-11 3/19/2004 1 1 MW-11 6/21/2005 0.76 1 MW-11 9/22/2005 0.63 1 MW-11 12/13/2005 0.83 1 MW-11 3/21/2006 0.81 1 MW-11 6/20/2006 1.02 1 MW-11 9/13/2006 0.62 1 MW-11 10/25/2006 1.04 1 MW-11 3/15/2007 1.04 1 MW-11 8/21/2007 0.15 0 MW-11 10/30/2007 0.15 0 MW-11 3/18/2008 0.15 0 MW-11 6/16/2008 0.15 0 MW-11 8/5/2008 0.15 0 MW-11 11/10/2008 0.15 0 MW-11 2/16/2009 0.15 0 MW-11 5/17/2009 0.15 0 MW-11 8/31/2009 0.33 1 MW-11 8/31/2009 0.33 1 MW-11 10/19/2009 0.31 1 MW-11 2/10/2010 0.92 1 MW-11 4/28/2010 0.96 1 MW-11 9/8/2010 1.06 1 MW-11 11/11/2010 0.87 1 MW-11 2/2/2011 0.42 1 MW-11 4/4/2011 0.96 1 MW-11 8/3/2011 0.48 1 MW-11 10/4/2011 0.47 1 MW-11 2/13/2012 0.85 1 MW-11 5/8/2012 0.62 1 MW-12 5/4/1983 3 1 MW-12 2/15/1984 4.328358209 1 MW-12 12/4/1984 4.208955224 1 MW-12 9/27/1985 7.462686567 1 MW-12 12/15/1985 9.850746269 1 MW-12 4/8/1986 10.29850746 1 MW-12 12/10/1986 19.25373134 1 MW-12 2/20/1987 13.58208955 1 MW-12 4/29/1987 10.5 1 MW-12 8/19/1987 13.43283582 1 MW-12 1/27/1988 13.28358209 1 MW-12 6/1/1988 18.35820896 1 MW-12 8/24/1988 14.92537313 1 MW-12 3/9/1989 14.92537313 1 MW-12 6/22/1989 16.41791045 1 MW-12 8/24/1989 16.41791045 1 MW-12 10/31/1989 14.17910448 1 MW-12 11/16/1989 8.358208955 1 MW-12 11/29/1989 8.358208955 1 MW-12 12/18/1989 17.91044776 1 MW-12 1/24/1990 17.91044776 1 MW-12 2/20/1990 13.13432836 1 MW-12 5/9/1990 14.92537313 1 MW-12 8/8/1990 15.97014925 1 MW-12 11/13/1990 14.92537313 1 MW-12 2/28/1991 13.13432836 1 MW-12 5/22/1991 14.92537313 1 MW-12 9/24/1991 16.41791045 1 MW-12 12/4/1991 10.14925373 1 MW-12 3/18/1992 15.07462687 1 MW-12 6/12/1992 8.208955224 1 MW-12 9/15/1992 19.25373134 1 MW-12 12/9/1992 20.74626866 1 MW-12 3/31/1993 15.2238806 1 MW-12 6/10/1993 13 1 MW-12 9/29/1993 9.089552239 1 MW-12 12/16/1993 14.14925373 1 MW-12 6/20/1994 3.28358209 1 MW-12 8/24/1994 14.17910448 1 MW-12 8/24/1994 14.92537313 1 MW-12 12/8/1994 20 1 MW-12 3/15/1995 13.53731343 1 MW-12 6/27/1995 16.7 1 MW-12 9/19/1995 18 1 MW-12 12/8/1995 15 1 MW-12 3/27/1996 17 1 MW-12 6/6/1996 19 1 MW-12 9/12/1996 15 1 MW-12 11/22/1996 15 1 MW-12 3/19/1997 15 1 MW-12 6/11/1997 15 1 MW-12 9/30/1997 13 1 MW-12 1/8/1998 16 1 MW-12 3/17/1998 16 1 MW-12 5/12/1998 17.3 1 MW-12 9/24/1998 16 1 MW-12 11/3/1998 19.3 1 MW-12 2/18/1999 15 1 MW-12 9/30/1999 17.7 1 MW-12 3/17/2000 15.9 1 MW-12 6/6/2000 17.4 1 MW-12 9/3/2000 15.8 1 MW-12 11/28/2000 21 1 MW-12 3/24/2001 17 1 MW-12 6/13/2001 18.4 1 MW-12 9/7/2001 20 1 MW-12 5/20/2002 19.8 1 MW-12 11/21/2002 19.9 1 MW-12 3/20/2003 15.1 1 MW-12 6/27/2003 16.8 1 MW-12 9/24/2003 15 1 MW-12 11/23/2003 17.8 1 MW-12 3/19/2004 16 1 MW-12 5/27/2004 15 1 MW-12 9/14/2004 16 1 MW-12 11/9/2004 16 1 MW-12 6/22/2005 15.3 1 MW-12 12/13/2005 16.5 1 MW-12 6/22/2006 20.9 1 MW-12 9/15/2006 23.5 1 MW-12 10/30/2006 19.8 1 MW-12 3/16/2007 19.4 1 MW-12 8/28/2007 8.68 1 MW-12 10/23/2007 19.2 1 MW-12 3/18/2008 16.8 1 MW-12 6/17/2008 16.7 1 MW-12 8/11/2008 17.8 1 MW-12 11/11/2008 16.9 1 MW-12 2/4/2009 18 1 MW-12 5/16/2009 16.7 1 MW-12 8/17/2009 17.2 1 MW-12 10/13/2009 20.8 1 MW-12 4/27/2010 19.8 1 MW-12 11/19/2010 18 1 MW-12 4/5/2011 20 1 MW-12 10/6/2011 20.5 1 MW-12 5/10/2012 19.6 1 MW-18 3/24/1993 18.20895522 1 MW-18 6/9/1993 14 1 MW-18 9/22/1993 12.11940299 1 MW-18 12/14/1993 16.11940299 1 MW-18 6/16/1994 2.686567164 1 MW-18 8/19/1994 13.13432836 1 MW-18 8/19/1994 14.34328358 1 MW-18 12/14/1994 9 1 MW-18 12/14/1994 3.432835821 1 MW-18 5/12/1999 26.1 1 MW-18 12/1/2000 34 1 MW-18 12/14/2005 39 1 MW-18 3/21/2006 42.6 1 MW-18 6/21/2006 42.8 1 MW-18 9/13/2006 39.6 1 MW-18 10/26/2006 42.2 1 MW-18 3/16/2007 46.9 1 MW-18 8/29/2007 36.5 1 MW-18 10/30/2007 39.2 1 MW-18 3/11/2008 42.4 1 MW-18 6/4/2008 44.8 1 MW-18 8/12/2008 41.4 1 MW-18 2/11/2009 39.4 1 MW-18 5/27/2009 41.2 1 MW-18 8/25/2009 41.6 1 MW-18 10/21/2009 44.1 1 MW-18 1/27/2010 47.2 1 MW-18 3/22/2010 49 1 MW-18 5/4/2010 44.3 1 MW-18 11/18/2010 42.7 1 MW-18 4/6/2011 45.4 1 MW-18 10/11/2011 40.3 1 MW-18 4/30/2012 40.7 1 MW-24 12/14/2005 9.72 1 MW-24 3/27/2006 10.4 1 MW-24 6/22/2006 7.31 1 MW-24 9/15/2006 5.53 1 MW-24 10/24/2006 3.24 1 MW-24 3/16/2007 2.13 1 MW-24 6/20/2007 1.46 1 MW-24 8/28/2007 2.11 1 MW-24 10/23/2007 1.78 1 MW-24 3/12/2008 0.84 1 MW-24 5/29/2008 0.77 1 MW-24 8/7/2008 0.67 1 MW-24 11/11/2008 0.5 1 MW-24 2/5/2009 1.07 1 MW-24 5/30/2009 1.04 1 MW-24 8/24/2009 1.03 1 MW-24 10/28/2009 1.56 1 MW-24 10/28/2009 1.56 1 MW-24 1/19/2010 9.94 1 MW-24 5/6/2010 1.02 1 MW-24 11/17/2010 1.44 1 MW-24 4/5/2011 1.4 1 MW-24 10/11/2011 2.62 1 MW-24 5/10/2012 2.12 1 MW-25 6/23/2005 5.87 1 MW-25 9/22/2005 6.04 1 MW-25 12/13/2005 5.99 1 MW-25 3/22/2006 5.42 1 MW-25 6/20/2006 6.36 1 MW-25 9/12/2006 5.9 1 MW-25 10/24/2006 5.57 1 MW-25 3/16/2007 6.01 1 MW-25 6/20/2007 5.86 1 MW-25 8/27/2007 6.27 1 MW-25 10/25/2007 6.02 1 MW-25 3/18/2008 5.94 1 MW-25 6/12/2008 6.08 1 MW-25 8/4/2008 5.56 1 MW-25 11/10/2008 5.35 1 MW-25 2/3/2009 5.87 1 MW-25 5/13/2009 5.7 1 MW-25 8/24/2009 6.02 1 MW-25 10/13/2009 6.28 1 MW-25 2/3/2010 5.93 1 MW-25 4/28/2010 6.43 1 MW-25 9/8/2010 6.57 1 MW-25 11/10/2010 5.89 1 MW-25 1/11/2011 7.02 1 MW-25 2/2/2011 4.77 1 MW-25 3/15/2011 6.8 1 MW-25 4/4/2011 5.56 1 MW-25 5/11/2011 6.72 1 MW-25 6/20/2011 7.06 1 MW-25 7/6/2011 6.74 1 MW-25 8/30/2011 6.37 1 MW-25 9/7/2011 5.96 1 MW-25 10/4/2011 5.27 1 MW-25 11/9/2011 6.56 1 MW-25 12/12/2011 6.1 1 MW-25 1/25/2012 6.6 1 MW-25 2/14/2012 6.5 1 MW-25 3/14/2012 6.93 1 MW-25 4/9/2012 6.52 1 MW-25 5/2/2012 5.9 1 MW-25 6/18/2012 7.6 1 MW-26 6/21/2005 9.48 1 MW-26 7/26/2005 12.6 1 MW-26 8/24/2005 26 1 MW-26 9/22/2005 17.4 1 MW-26 10/26/2005 22.7 1 MW-26 11/15/2005 12.1 1 MW-26 12/14/2005 12.3 1 MW-26 1/25/2006 10.7 1 MW-26 2/21/2006 9.9 1 MW-26 3/22/2006 17.9 1 MW-26 4/25/2006 14 1 MW-26 5/26/2006 23.8 1 MW-26 6/20/2006 24.6 1 MW-26 7/11/2006 17.6 1 MW-26 8/16/2006 10.5 1 MW-26 9/12/2006 23 1 MW-26 10/24/2006 34.7 1 MW-26 11/14/2006 32.6 1 MW-26 12/13/2006 20.9 1 MW-26 1/23/2007 22.6 1 MW-26 2/8/2007 44.2 1 MW-26 3/16/2007 42.8 1 MW-26 4/24/2007 36.4 1 MW-26 5/22/2007 119 1 MW-26 6/20/2007 24.5 1 MW-26 7/24/2007 38.6 1 MW-26 7/24/2007 28.2 1 MW-26 8/21/2007 21.4 1 MW-26 8/21/2007 21.2 1 MW-26 9/25/2007 33.6 1 MW-26 9/25/2007 22.3 1 MW-26 10/23/2007 47 1 MW-26 1/29/2008 20.1 1 MW-26 2/20/2008 59.2 1 MW-26 3/12/2008 46.3 1 MW-26 5/27/2008 21.7 1 MW-26 7/9/2008 23.4 1 MW-26 8/12/2008 27.1 1 MW-26 9/8/2008 29.4 1 MW-26 10/13/2008 60.4 1 MW-26 11/13/2008 54 1 MW-26 12/9/2008 62.1 1 MW-26 1/20/2009 52.6 1 MW-26 2/2/2009 43 1 MW-26 3/18/2009 58.3 1 MW-26 4/22/2009 27.4 1 MW-26 5/18/2009 32.1 1 MW-26 6/17/2009 54.3 1 MW-26 7/29/2009 28.9 1 MW-26 8/19/2009 58.3 1 MW-26 9/9/2009 72.5 1 MW-26 10/13/2009 29.6 1 MW-26 11/17/2009 54.3 1 MW-26 12/1/2009 66.5 1 MW-26 1/12/2010 58.6 1 MW-26 2/2/2010 58.7 1 MW-26 4/22/2010 66.7 1 MW-26 5/21/2010 37.4 1 MW-26 6/16/2010 36.6 1 MW-26 7/21/2010 34.4 1 MW-26 8/16/2010 71.8 1 MW-26 9/16/2010 72.7 1 MW-26 10/20/2010 37.5 1 MW-26 11/15/2010 30.4 1 MW-26 12/15/2010 29.6 1 MW-26 1/12/2011 32 1 MW-26 2/16/2011 69.3 1 MW-26 3/15/2011 31.8 1 MW-26 4/1/2011 60.2 1 MW-26 5/10/2011 57.4 1 MW-26 6/20/2011 18.5 1 MW-26 7/6/2011 57.1 1 MW-26 8/30/2011 19 1 MW-26 9/7/2011 56.1 1 MW-26 10/12/2011 58.9 1 MW-26 11/9/2011 55.6 1 MW-26 12/14/2011 57 1 MW-26 1/25/2012 64.6 1 MW-26 2/21/2012 59.4 1 MW-26 3/14/2012 31.2 1 MW-26 4/11/2012 42.2 1 MW-26 5/7/2012 18.2 1 MW-26 6/19/2012 66 1 MW-27 6/23/2005 30.7 1 MW-27 9/22/2005 33.1 1 MW-27 12/14/2005 30.1 1 MW-27 3/21/2006 31.3 1 MW-27 6/22/2006 30.7 1 MW-27 9/12/2006 31.8 1 MW-27 10/24/2006 32.6 1 MW-27 3/14/2007 29.5 1 MW-27 8/28/2007 32 1 MW-27 10/22/2007 32.2 1 MW-27 3/17/2008 30.2 1 MW-27 6/2/2008 31.2 1 MW-27 8/6/2008 31.5 1 MW-27 2/16/2009 30.9 1 MW-27 5/29/2009 31.1 1 MW-27 8/18/2009 29.2 1 MW-27 10/12/2009 32.1 1 MW-27 1/18/2010 29.8 1 MW-27 5/3/2010 28.9 1 MW-27 11/12/2010 27.7 1 MW-27 4/5/2011 30.1 1 MW-27 10/5/2011 28.7 1 MW-27 5/1/2012 28.1 1 MW-3 10/31/1979 14 1 MW-3 1/31/1980 19.7 1 MW-3 4/30/1980 21.9 1 MW-3 5/19/1980 15 1 MW-3 6/16/1980 18 1 MW-3 7/16/1980 21 1 MW-3 8/19/1980 4 1 MW-3 9/1/1980 21 1 MW-3 10/1/1980 3 1 MW-3 11/11/1980 9 1 MW-3 12/10/1980 23 1 MW-3 1/22/1981 13 1 MW-3 2/12/1981 7 1 MW-3 4/13/1981 15 1 MW-3 6/24/1981 14 1 MW-3 2/11/1982 10 1 MW-3 2/29/1984 22 1 MW-3 12/4/1984 3.865671642 1 MW-3 9/30/1985 67.1641791 1 MW-3 12/15/1985 31.34328358 1 MW-3 4/8/1986 10.29850746 1 MW-3 12/10/1986 18.05970149 1 MW-3 2/20/1987 16.41791045 1 MW-3 4/29/1987 12.6 1 MW-3 8/19/1987 34.32835821 1 MW-3 1/27/1988 29.85074627 1 MW-3 6/1/1988 27.46268657 1 MW-3 8/24/1988 22.3880597 1 MW-3 3/9/1989 32.8358209 1 MW-3 6/22/1989 34.32835821 1 MW-3 9/8/1989 32.8358209 1 MW-3 11/28/1989 28.35820896 1 MW-3 2/21/1990 20.89552239 1 MW-3 5/9/1990 34.32835821 1 MW-3 8/9/1990 24.92537313 1 MW-3 11/13/1990 23.88059701 1 MW-3 3/5/1991 11.94029851 1 MW-3 5/23/1991 19.40298507 1 MW-3 9/24/1991 32.8358209 1 MW-3 12/5/1991 12.08955224 1 MW-3 3/19/1992 6.76119403 1 MW-3 6/16/1992 13.58208955 1 MW-3 9/16/1992 28.35820896 1 MW-3 11/16/1992 16.71641791 1 MW-3 3/31/1993 21.19402985 1 MW-3 6/14/1993 21 1 MW-3 9/30/1993 18.20895522 1 MW-3 6/21/1994 4.179104478 1 MW-3 8/18/1994 21.94029851 1 MW-3 8/18/1994 23.88059701 1 MW-3 12/13/1994 35 1 MW-3 12/13/1994 19.10447761 1 MW-3 3/16/1995 18.05970149 1 MW-3 6/28/1995 27.8 1 MW-3 6/28/1995 41.79104478 1 MW-3 9/20/1995 39.1 1 MW-3 12/11/1995 27 1 MW-3 3/28/1996 27 1 MW-3 6/5/1996 36 1 MW-3 9/16/1996 22 1 MW-3 3/20/1997 27 1 MW-3 5/11/1999 41.3 1 MW-3 11/30/2000 46 1 MW-3 9/23/2005 35.9 1 MW-3 12/13/2005 30.9 1 MW-3 3/23/2006 39.1 1 MW-3 6/25/2006 27.6 1 MW-3 9/14/2006 32 1 MW-3 10/27/2006 28.2 1 MW-3 3/16/2007 30.2 1 MW-3 8/29/2007 17.4 1 MW-3 10/31/2007 39.4 1 MW-3 3/19/2008 35.6 1 MW-3 5/28/2008 31.3 1 MW-3 8/12/2008 28.5 1 MW-3 2/9/2009 27.7 1 MW-3 5/28/2009 18.6 1 MW-3 8/18/2009 22.2 1 MW-3 10/26/2009 13.9 1 MW-3 10/26/2009 13.9 1 MW-3 5/3/2010 18.6 1 MW-3 11/19/2010 16.9 1 MW-3 4/13/2011 16.6 1 MW-3 10/10/2011 13.3 1 MW-3 5/14/2012 18.2 1 MW-30 6/22/2005 5.79 1 MW-30 9/22/2005 6.87 1 MW-30 12/14/2005 7.79 1 MW-30 3/22/2006 6.36 1 MW-30 6/21/2006 8 1 MW-30 9/13/2006 7.26 1 MW-30 10/25/2006 7.25 1 MW-30 3/15/2007 6.99 1 MW-30 8/22/2007 7.19 1 MW-30 10/24/2007 6.88 1 MW-30 3/19/2008 6.79 1 MW-30 6/3/2008 6.86 1 MW-30 11/5/2008 6.29 1 MW-30 2/3/2009 6.67 1 MW-30 5/13/2009 6.52 1 MW-30 8/24/2009 6.97 1 MW-30 10/14/2009 6.9 1 MW-30 1/20/2010 6.99 1 MW-30 2/9/2010 6.82 1 MW-30 4/27/2010 6.82 1 MW-30 9/14/2010 7.1 1 MW-30 11/9/2010 6.64 1 MW-30 2/1/2011 5.97 1 MW-30 4/11/2011 6.49 1 MW-30 8/3/2011 8 1 MW-30 10/4/2011 9.83 1 MW-30 2/14/2012 7.42 1 MW-30 3/14/2012 8.38 1 MW-30 4/10/2012 7.84 1 MW-30 5/2/2012 6.81 1 MW-30 6/18/2012 7.8 1 MW-31 6/22/2005 6.56 1 MW-31 9/22/2005 7.25 1 MW-31 12/14/2005 7.27 1 MW-31 3/22/2006 8.04 1 MW-31 6/21/2006 9.32 1 MW-31 9/13/2006 8.03 1 MW-31 10/25/2006 7.71 1 MW-31 3/15/2007 7.6 1 MW-31 8/27/2007 7.18 1 MW-31 10/24/2007 7.2 1 MW-31 3/19/2008 7.02 1 MW-31 6/3/2008 6.95 1 MW-31 8/4/2008 6.77 1 MW-31 11/11/2008 6.35 1 MW-31 2/3/2009 7.08 1 MW-31 5/13/2009 6.76 1 MW-31 8/24/2009 6.97 1 MW-31 10/14/2009 6.97 1 MW-31 2/9/2010 7.12 1 MW-31 4/20/2010 6.74 1 MW-31 9/13/2010 7.23 1 MW-31 11/9/2010 6.72 1 MW-31 2/1/2011 5.77 1 MW-31 4/1/2011 6.81 1 MW-31 8/2/2011 7.68 1 MW-31 10/3/2011 8.87 1 MW-31 2/13/2012 7.96 1 MW-31 5/2/2012 7.34 1 MW-35 12/1/2010 27.2 1 MW-35 2/15/2011 12.7 1 MW-35 6/7/2011 21.7 1 MW-35 7/20/2011 24.2 1 MW-35 8/30/2011 18.3 1 MW-35 9/7/2011 22.3 1 MW-35 10/3/2011 20.1 1 MW-35 11/8/2011 24 1 MW-35 12/14/2011 23.6 1 MW-35 1/24/2012 16.1 1 MW-35 2/14/2012 24.7 1 MW-35 3/13/2012 24.9 1 MW-35 4/10/2012 22.4 1 MW-35 5/2/2012 22.2 1 MW-35 6/19/2012 22.5 1 MW-3A 9/25/2005 19.7 1 MW-3A 3/27/2006 19.9 1 MW-3A 6/25/2006 28.2 1 MW-3A 9/19/2006 25.4 1 MW-3A 10/26/2006 24.2 1 MW-3A 3/14/2007 21.9 1 MW-3A 10/31/2007 22.9 1 MW-3A 5/28/2008 22.4 1 MW-3A 8/12/2008 19 1 MW-3A 2/9/2009 16.5 1 MW-3A 5/28/2009 17 1 MW-3A 8/18/2009 17 1 MW-3A 10/28/2009 19.5 1 MW-3A 10/28/2009 19.5 1 MW-3A 5/4/2010 19.5 1 MW-3A 11/22/2010 19.2 1 MW-3A 4/13/2011 19.7 1 MW-3A 10/11/2011 18.1 1 MW-3A 5/15/2012 22.1 1 MW-5 11/11/1980 1 1 MW-5 1/26/1982 1 1 MW-5 2/11/1982 1 1 MW-5 10/27/1983 1 1 MW-5 2/15/1984 2 1 MW-5 12/4/1984 0.702985075 1 MW-5 12/15/1985 0.746268657 1 MW-5 12/10/1986 0.149253731 0 MW-5 2/20/1987 0.149253731 0 MW-5 4/29/1987 0.9 1 MW-5 8/19/1987 3.134328358 1 MW-5 1/27/1988 1.492537313 1 MW-5 6/1/1988 1.343283582 1 MW-5 8/23/1988 1.791044776 1 MW-5 11/4/1988 1.6 1 MW-5 3/9/1989 2.23880597 1 MW-5 6/22/1989 0.895522388 1 MW-5 8/25/1989 1.641791045 1 MW-5 10/31/1989 0.447761194 1 MW-5 11/16/1989 0.597014925 1 MW-5 11/29/1989 0.597014925 1 MW-5 12/15/1989 1.044776119 1 MW-5 1/24/1990 1.044776119 1 MW-5 2/20/1990 1.044776119 1 MW-5 5/9/1990 1.044776119 1 MW-5 8/7/1990 0.895522388 1 MW-5 11/13/1990 0.447761194 1 MW-5 2/28/1991 0.402985075 1 MW-5 5/21/1991 1.641791045 1 MW-5 9/24/1991 1.194029851 1 MW-5 12/4/1991 0.791044776 1 MW-5 3/18/1992 2.388059701 1 MW-5 6/12/1992 0.149253731 0 MW-5 11/17/1992 1.010447761 1 MW-5 12/9/1992 0.302985075 1 MW-5 3/30/1993 2.014925373 1 MW-5 6/10/1993 3 1 MW-5 9/29/1993 2.014925373 1 MW-5 12/15/1993 0.149253731 0 MW-5 6/20/1994 0.149253731 0 MW-5 8/24/1994 0.707462687 1 MW-5 8/24/1994 1.014925373 1 MW-5 12/7/1994 2 1 MW-5 12/7/1994 2.014925373 1 MW-5 6/27/1995 0.15 0 MW-5 9/19/1995 0.149253731 0 MW-5 3/27/1996 0.15 0 MW-5 6/6/1996 0.5 1 MW-5 9/12/1996 1 1 MW-5 11/22/1996 0.15 0 MW-5 3/19/1997 1 1 MW-5 6/11/1997 1 1 MW-5 9/30/1997 1 1 MW-5 1/8/1998 0.7 1 MW-5 3/16/1998 0.6 1 MW-5 5/12/1998 1.2 1 MW-5 9/24/1998 1.9 1 MW-5 11/3/1998 0.7 1 MW-5 5/12/1999 0.4 1 MW-5 9/30/1999 0.8 1 MW-5 12/9/1999 1 1 MW-5 3/17/2000 0.8 1 MW-5 6/6/2000 0.4 1 MW-5 9/3/2000 0.7 1 MW-5 11/28/2000 1.5 1 MW-5 3/24/2001 0.5 1 MW-5 6/13/2001 0.7 1 MW-5 9/7/2001 0.98 1 MW-5 3/15/2002 3.4 1 MW-5 5/20/2002 0.7 1 MW-5 11/21/2002 0.04 1 MW-5 3/20/2003 0.4 1 MW-5 6/27/2003 0.4 1 MW-5 11/23/2003 0.4 1 MW-5 6/21/2005 0.15 0 MW-5 12/13/2005 0.15 0 MW-5 3/23/2006 1.27 1 MW-5 6/23/2006 0.71 1 MW-5 10/27/2006 0.6 1 MW-5 10/29/2007 0.61 1 MW-5 6/18/2008 0.15 0 MW-5 11/11/2008 0.15 0 MW-5 5/16/2009 0.15 0 MW-5 10/12/2009 0.15 0 MW-5 4/26/2010 0.39 1 MW-5 8/9/2011 0.5 1 MW-5 5/9/2012 1.23 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 A B C D E F G H I J K L Approximate p-value 0.00378 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 201.4 Standardized Value of S -2.671 SEM 16.72 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-539 Geometric Mean 2316 Median 2338 Standard Deviation 140.9 Minimum 1850 Maximum 2560 Mean 2320 trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-12 General Statistics Number of Values 71 Standardized Value of S 7.387 Approximate p-value 7.516E-14 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)2015 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 272.6 Standard Deviation 90.78 SEM 9.733 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 1039 Geometric Mean 1035 Median 1023 Number of Values 87 Minimum 895 Maximum 1309 Level of Significance 0.05 Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-11 General Statistics From File Sulfate.wst Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 9/14/2012 5:14:25 PM 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 A B C D E F G H I J K L Geometric Mean 1691 Minimum 1570 Maximum 1880 Mean 1693 trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-25 General Statistics Number of Values 29 Standardized Value of S 0.884 Approximate p-value 0.188 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant Test Value (S)41 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 45.27 Standard Deviation 154.5 SEM 30.31 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 2652 Geometric Mean 2648 Median 2675 Number of Values 26 Minimum 2290 Maximum 2950 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-24 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 56.01 Standardized Value of S 4.535 Approximate p-value 2.887E-06 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)255 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 1720 Standard Deviation 249.2 SEM 45.49 Maximum 2020 Mean 1668 Geometric Mean 1649 General Statistics Number of Values 30 Minimum 1069 Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-18 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 A B C D E F G H I J K L Test Value (S)154 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 47.91 Standard Deviation 30.02 SEM 5.778 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 432.8 Geometric Mean 431.7 Median 442 Number of Values 27 Minimum 360 Maximum 480 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-27 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 58.7 Standardized Value of S 0.681 Approximate p-value 0.248 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)41 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 1890 Standard Deviation 116.2 SEM 20.87 Maximum 2160 Mean 1904 Geometric Mean 1900 General Statistics Number of Values 31 Minimum 1520 Approximate p-value 0.0909 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-26 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 53.19 Standardized Value of S -1.335 SEM 14.93 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-72 Median 1680 Standard Deviation 80.4 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 A B C D E F G H I J K L Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-31 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 53.3 Standardized Value of S -5.741 Approximate p-value 4.707E-09 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-307 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Median 799 Standard Deviation 67.22 SEM 12.48 Maximum 977 Mean 812.6 Geometric Mean 810 General Statistics Number of Values 29 Minimum 696 Approximate p-value 0.0001194 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-30 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 286.9 Standardized Value of S 3.674 SEM 44.07 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)1055 Geometric Mean 3060 Median 3202 Standard Deviation 418.1 Minimum 1890 Maximum 4030 Mean 3092 trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-3 General Statistics Number of Values 90 Standardized Value of S 3.194 Approximate p-value 0.0007028 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 A B C D E F G H I J K L Median 3560 Standard Deviation 192.3 SEM 40.11 Maximum 3870 Mean 3597 Geometric Mean 3592 General Statistics Number of Values 23 Minimum 3220 Approximate p-value 0.5 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-3a Tabulated p-value 0.5 Standard Deviation of S 5.132 Standardized Value of S 0 SEM 20.98 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)1 Geometric Mean 2320 Median 2320 Standard Deviation 51.38 Minimum 2240 Maximum 2400 Mean 2320 trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-35 General Statistics Number of Values 6 Standardized Value of S 3.306 Approximate p-value 0.0004731 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing Test Value (S)274 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 82.58 Standard Deviation 24.15 SEM 3.867 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 517.3 Geometric Mean 516.8 Median 522 Number of Values 39 Minimum 436 Maximum 552 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 A B C D E F G H I J K L trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S -2.155 Approximate p-value 0.0156 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Test Value (S)-619 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 286.8 Standard Deviation 105.1 SEM 11.08 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 1133 Geometric Mean 1129 Median 1130 Number of Values 90 Minimum 860 Maximum 1518 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Sulfate (mg/L)-mw-5 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 37.82 Standardized Value of S 1.348 Approximate p-value 0.0888 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)52 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 A B C D E F G H I J K L Approximate p-value 5.952E-11 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 320.6 Standardized Value of S 6.441 SEM 0.409 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)2066 Geometric Mean 14.7 Median 16 Standard Deviation 4.031 Minimum 3 Maximum 23.5 Mean 15.49 trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-12 General Statistics Number of Values 97 Standardized Value of S -0.516 Approximate p-value 0.303 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant Test Value (S)-174 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 335.2 Standard Deviation 0.625 SEM 0.0625 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.747 Geometric Mean 0.396 Median 0.723 Number of Values 100 Minimum 0.00015 Maximum 3.03 Level of Significance 0.05 Uranium (ug/L)-mw-11 General Statistics From File Uranium.wst Full Precision OFF Confidence Coefficient 0.95 Mann-Kendall Trend Test Analysis User Selected Options Date/Time of Computation 9/14/2012 5:17:42 PM 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 A B C D E F G H I J K L Geometric Mean 6.12 Minimum 4.77 Maximum 7.6 Mean 6.144 trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-25 General Statistics Number of Values 41 Standardized Value of S -1.886 Approximate p-value 0.0297 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Test Value (S)-77 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 40.3 Standard Deviation 3.129 SEM 0.639 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 2.969 Geometric Mean 1.962 Median 1.56 Number of Values 24 Minimum 0.5 Maximum 10.4 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-24 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 64.54 Standardized Value of S 4.509 Approximate p-value 3.259E-06 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)292 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 40.3 Standard Deviation 14.37 SEM 2.501 Maximum 49 Mean 33.23 Geometric Mean 27.74 General Statistics Number of Values 33 Minimum 2.687 Uranium (ug/L)-mw-18 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 A B C D E F G H I J K L Test Value (S)-105 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 37.84 Standard Deviation 1.448 SEM 0.302 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 30.59 Geometric Mean 30.55 Median 30.7 Number of Values 23 Minimum 27.7 Maximum 33.1 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-27 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 254.3 Standardized Value of S 5.644 Approximate p-value 8.328E-09 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)1436 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 33.6 Standard Deviation 20.36 SEM 2.235 Maximum 119 Mean 38.86 Geometric Mean 33.61 General Statistics Number of Values 83 Minimum 9.48 Approximate p-value 0.00258 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-26 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 89.01 Standardized Value of S 2.797 SEM 0.0861 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)250 Median 6.02 Standard Deviation 0.551 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 A B C D E F G H I J K L Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-31 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 58.81 Standardized Value of S 0.799 Approximate p-value 0.212 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)48 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Median 6.9 Standard Deviation 0.78 SEM 0.14 Maximum 9.83 Mean 7.106 Geometric Mean 7.068 General Statistics Number of Values 31 Minimum 5.79 Approximate p-value 0.00364 Statistically significant evidence of an increasing trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-30 Critical Value (0.05)1.645 Standard Deviation of S 263.4 Standardized Value of S 2.684 SEM 1.179 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)708 Geometric Mean 20.32 Median 21.94 Standard Deviation 10.87 Minimum 3 Maximum 67.16 Mean 23.2 trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-3 General Statistics Number of Values 85 Standardized Value of S -2.749 Approximate p-value 0.00299 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 A B C D E F G H I J K L Median 19.7 Standard Deviation 3.032 SEM 0.696 Maximum 28.2 Mean 20.62 Geometric Mean 20.42 General Statistics Number of Values 19 Minimum 16.5 Approximate p-value 0.31 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-3a Tabulated p-value 0.313 Standard Deviation of S 20.21 Standardized Value of S 0.495 SEM 0.958 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)11 Geometric Mean 21.45 Median 22.4 Standard Deviation 3.71 Minimum 12.7 Maximum 27.2 Mean 21.79 trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-35 General Statistics Number of Values 15 Standardized Value of S -1.107 Approximate p-value 0.134 Insufficient evidence to identify a significant Test Value (S)-57 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 50.61 Standard Deviation 0.725 SEM 0.137 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 7.26 Geometric Mean 7.226 Median 7.15 Number of Values 28 Minimum 5.77 Maximum 9.32 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 A B C D E F G H I J K L trend at the specified level of significance. Standardized Value of S -3.173 Approximate p-value 0.0007538 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing Test Value (S)-865 Critical Value (0.05)-1.645 Standard Deviation of S 272.3 Standard Deviation 0.713 SEM 0.0764 Mann-Kendall Test Mean 0.924 Geometric Mean 0.659 Median 0.791 Number of Values 87 Minimum 0.04 Maximum 3.4 Statistically significant evidence of a decreasing trend at the specified level of significance. Uranium (ug/L)-mw-5 General Statistics Standard Deviation of S 28.48 Standardized Value of S -1.79 Approximate p-value 0.0367 Mann-Kendall Test Test Value (S)-52 Tabulated p-value 0.034