subattachment a.5.1 cell 1 - energy.gov · intrawell shewhart-cusum control chart for total...

Subattachment A.5.1

Cell 1

This page intentionally left blank

U.S. Department of Energy Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental Report May 2018 Doc. No. S17983 Subattachment A.5.1, Page i

Contents Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. iii Measurement Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... iii A.5.1.1 Water Quality Monitoring Results ..............................................................................1 A.5.1.2 Control Charts .............................................................................................................2 A.5.1.3 Summary and Conclusions ..........................................................................................3 A.5.1.4 References ...................................................................................................................3

Table Table A.5.1-1. Summary Statistics for Cell 1 ................................................................................. 5

Figures Figure A.5.1-1. Monthly Accumulation Volumes for Cell 1 LCS ............................................. 7 Figure A.5.1-2. Monthly Accumulation Volumes for Cell 1 LDS ............................................. 7 Figure A.5.1-3. OSDF Horizontal Till Well 12338 (Cell 1) Water Yield .................................. 8 Figure A.5.1-4. Total Uranium Concentration and Groundwater Elevation Versus Time

Plot for Cell 1 Upgradient Monitoring Well 22201 .......................................... 9 Figure A.5.1-5. Total Uranium Concentration and Groundwater Elevation Versus Time

Plot for Cell 1 Downgradient Monitoring Well 22198 ..................................... 9 Figure A.5.1-6A. Cell 1 Total Uranium Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS,

and HTW ......................................................................................................... 10 Figure A.5.1-6B. Cell 1 Total Uranium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U

Well, and GMA-D Well .................................................................................. 10 Figure A.5.1-7A. Cell 1 Boron Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS, and HTW ...... 11 Figure A.5.1-7B. Cell 1 Boron Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ........................................................................................... 11 Figure A.5.1-8A. Cell 1 Sodium Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS, and HTW ... 12 Figure A.5.1-8B. Cell 1 Sodium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ........................................................................................... 12 Figure A.5.1-9A. Cell 1 Sulfate Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS, and HTW .... 13 Figure A.5.1-9B. Cell 1 Sulfate Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ........................................................................................... 13 Figure A.5.1-10. Cell 1 Calcium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ........................................................................................... 14 Figure A.5.1-11. Cell 1 Lithium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ........................................................................................... 14 Figure A.5.1-12. Cell 1 Magnesium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW,

GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ................................................................... 15 Figure A.5.1-13. Cell 1 Nitrate + Nitrite as Nitrogen Concentration Versus Time Plot

for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well .................................................. 15 Figure A.5.1-14. Cell 1 Potassium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW,

GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ................................................................... 16

Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental Report U.S. Department of Energy Doc. No. S17983 May 2018 Subattachment A.5.1, Page ii

Figure A.5.1-15. Cell 1 Selenium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ................................................................... 16

Figure A.5.1-16. Cell 1 Technetium-99 Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ................................................................... 17

Figure A.5.1-17. Cell 1 Total Dissolved Solids Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ........................................................ 17

Figure A.5.1-18. Cell 1 Total Organic Halogens Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ........................................................ 18

Figure A.5.1-19. Cell 1 Bivariate Plot for Uranium and Sodium ............................................... 18 Figure A.5.1-20. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Lithium in Monitoring

Well 22201 ...................................................................................................... 19 Figure A.5.1-21. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Magnesium in

Monitoring Well 22201................................................................................... 20 Figure A.5.1-22. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Magnesium in

Monitoring Well 22198................................................................................... 21 Figure A.5.1-23. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Total Dissolved Solids in

Monitoring Well 22198................................................................................... 22

U.S. Department of Energy Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental Report May 2018 Doc. No. S17983 Subattachment A.5.1, Page iii

Abbreviations AMSL above mean sea level

CUSUM Shewhart-cumulative sum

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GMA Great Miami Aquifer

GMA-D Great Miami Aquifer–downgradient

GMA-U Great Miami Aquifer–upgradient

HTW horizontal till well

LCS leachate collection system

LDS leak detection system

Ohio EPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

OSDF On-Site Disposal Facility

SCL Shewhart control limit

Measurement Abbreviations µg/L micrograms per liter

mg/L milligrams per liter

pCi/L picocuries per liter

Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental Report U.S. Department of Energy Doc. No. S17983 May 2018 Subattachment A.5.1, Page iv


U.S. Department of Energy Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental Report May 2018 Doc. No. S17983 Subattachment A.5.1, Page 1

This subattachment provides the following On-Site Disposal Facility (OSDF) Cell 1 information:

• Semiannual monitoring summary statistics (refer to Table A.5.1-1)

• Leachate Collection System (LCS) monthly accumulation volumes (refer to Figure A.5.1-1)

• Leak detection system (LDS) monthly accumulation volumes (refer to Figure A.5.1-2)

• OSDF horizontal till well (HTW) 12338 water yield (refer to Figure A.5.1-3)

• Great Miami Aquifer (GMA) water levels and total uranium concentration versus time (refer to Figures A.5.1-4 and A.5.1-5)

• Plots of concentration versus time (refer to Figures A.5.1-6A through A.5.1-18)

• A bivariate plot for total uranium–sodium (refer to Figure A.5.1-19)

• Control charts (refer to Figures A.5.1-20 through A.5.1-23) A.5.1.1 Water Quality Monitoring Results Water quality within the cell is sampled in the LCS and the LDS. Water quality beneath the cell is sampled in the HTW and GMA wells. Concentration-versus-time plots, bivariate plots, and control charts are used to help interpret and present the results. Until 2014, quarterly water quality monitoring occurred in the LCS, LDS, HTW, and GMA wells of each cell for the purpose of determining if the OSDF was operating as designed. With U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) concurrence, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) changed from a quarterly sampling frequency to a semiannual sampling frequency at the start of 2014. With EPA and Ohio EPA concurrence, DOE reduced the number of parameters sampled from 24 to 13 beginning in January 2017. All 13 parameters are sampled in the GMA wells; 4 of the 13 parameters (total uranium, boron, sodium, and sulfate) are sampled in the LCS, LDS, and HTW for each cell. The annual sampling in the LCS of each cell for the abbreviated list of Appendix I parameters and polychlorinated biphenyls listed in Ohio Administrative Code 3745-27-10 was also eliminated beginning in January 2017. The volume of water in the LDS tank of Cell 1 was insufficient to collect a sample in 2017. Summary statistics are provided in Table A.5.1-1. As shown in Table A.5.1-1 and summarized below, four parameters (total uranium, boron, nitrate + nitrite as nitrogen, and selenium) have upward trends in the HTW and/or the GMA wells based on the Mann-Kendall test for trend.

Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental Report U.S. Department of Energy Doc. No. S17983 May 2018 Subattachment A.5.1, Page 2

Parameters with Upward Concentration Trends in the HTW and GMA Wells of Cell 1

Parameter HTW

12338 GMA-Ua

22201 GMA-Da

22198 Total Uranium Up Up

Boron Up Nitrate + Nitrite as Nitrogen Up

Selenium Up a GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer, GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer. No entry indicates that the trend was not upward.

The total uranium–sodium bivariate plot for the Cell 1 LCS, LDS, and HTW is provided in Figure A.5.1-19. The plot shows that the chemical signatures for total uranium and sodium in the LCS, LDS, and HTW are separate and distinct, indicating that mixing between the horizons is not occurring. Therefore, upward concentration trends measured beneath Cell 1 (i.e., in the HTW or GMA wells) are attributed to fluctuating ambient concentrations beneath the cell that are not related to cell performance. A.5.1.2 Control Charts Intrawell control charts employ historical measurements from a compliance point as background. The Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities—Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) defines the process of creating a Shewhart-cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart. Appropriate background data are used to define a baseline for the well. The baseline parameters for the chart, estimates of the mean, and standard deviation are obtained from the background data. These baseline measurements characterize the expected background concentrations at the monitoring point. As future concentrations are measured, the baseline parameters are used to standardize the newly gathered data. After these measurements are standardized and plotted, a control chart is declared “not in control” if future concentrations exceed the baseline control limit. This is indicated on the control chart when either the Shewhart or CUSUM plot traces begin to exceed a control limit. The limit is based on the rationale that if the monitoring point remains unchanged from the baseline condition, new standardized observations should not deviate substantially from the baseline mean. If a change occurs, the standardized values will deviate significantly from the baseline and tend to exceed the control limit. Usually, two parameters are used to compute standardized limits; the decision value (h) and the Shewhart control limit (SCL). A minimum of eight samples are recommended for use in ChemStat software to define the baseline for a control chart. Therefore, only sample sets with greater than eight samples were selected for control charts. By default, the ChemStat software plots both a CUSUM control limit (h) and an SCL on the control chart. The software recommends a value of 5 for the CUSUM control limit and a value of 4.5 for the SCL. EPA Statistical Analysis Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) suggests that to simplify the interpretation of the control chart, an out-of-control condition should be based on the CUSUM (h) limit alone. Plotting the SCL is not needed. The ChemStat software though, by default, plots both the SCL and CUSUM control limit on the charts. To address this issue, the SCL was defined as 5 to equal the recommended CUSUM (h) limit. This combined limit is identified as hCL on the control charts. For interpretation purposes, the hCL value will be regarded as the CUSUM (h) limit.


As shown in Table A.5.1-1 in gray shading, three parameters in the HTW and GMA wells of Cell 1 meet the criteria for control charts (i.e., at least eight samples, normal or lognormal distribution, no trend, and no serial correlation), resulting in four control charts. These four control charts are presented in Figures A.5.1-20 through A.5.1-23. All of the control charts for Cell 1 indicate “in control” conditions.

Parameter Monitoring Pointa Well Number Assessment Figure Number

Lithium GMA-U 22201 In Control A.5.1-20 Magnesium GMA-U 22201 In Control A.5.1-21 Magnesium GMA-D 22198 In Control A.5.1-22

Total Dissolved Solids GMA-D 22198 In Control A.5.1-23 a GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer A.5.1.3 Summary and Conclusions • The volume of water in the LDS tank of Cell 1 was insufficient to collect a sample in 2017.

• Four parameters have an upward concentration trend beneath Cell 1 in the HTW and GMA wells: total uranium, boron, nitrate + nitrite as nitrogen, and selenium.

• Separate and distinct chemical signatures for total uranium and sodium in the LCS, LDS, and HTW of Cell 1 indicate that water is not mixing between the horizons. Therefore, upward concentration trends beneath Cell 1 (i.e., HTW and GMA wells) are attributed to fluctuating ambient concentrations beneath the cell and not to cell performance.

• Four control charts were constructed for Cell 1 parameters for monitoring horizons beneath the facility (HTW and GMA wells). All of the control charts exhibit “in control” conditions.

A.5.1.4 References EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities—Unified Guidance, EPA 530/R-09-007, March.


Table A.5.1-1. Summary Statistics for Cell 1

Parameter Horizona Location

Number of Detected Samples

Total Number of Samples

Percent Detects Minimumb Maximumb Averagec,d

Standard Deviationd

Distribution Typed,e Trendd,f

Serial Correlationd,g Outliersh,i

LCS 12338C 69 70 98.6 ND 206 84.9 36.8 Normal Up DetectedLDS 12338D 37 37 100 1.50 37.0 10.8 6.8 Undefined Up Detected

HTW 12338 66 68 97.0 ND 12.7 8.55 3.68 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-U 22201 71 75 94.7 ND 11.9 4.28 3.24 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-D 22198 79 79 100 0.574 15.2 4.99 2.63 Undefined None Detected

LCS 12338C 70 71 98.6 ND 2.81 0.986 0.490 Undefined Down DetectedLDS 12338D 37 38 97.4 0.169 0.345 0.243 0.0430 LogNormal None Not-Detected 0.001(Q3-00), 0.0296(Q1-98)

HTW 12338 48 51 94.1 ND 0.271 0.148 0.064 Normal None DetectedGMA-U 22201 73 75 97.3 ND 0.158 0.122 0.027 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-D 22198 70 74 94.6 ND 0.131 0.0560 0.0161 LogNormal None Detected

LCS 12338C 44 44 100 11.7 29.3 19.5 3.2 Undefined Up DetectedLDS 12338D 9 9 100 335 896 571 216 Normal Up Not-DetectedHTW 12338 36 36 100 10.2 23.8 13.5 3.6 Undefined Down Detected

GMA-U 22201 27 27 100 30.9 65.5 48.4 11.4 LogNormal Down DetectedGMA-D 22198 27 27 100 11.2 17.1 14.1 1.5 Normal Down Detected

LCS 12338C 56 56 100 707 2910 1900 680 Undefined Up DetectedLDS 12338D 19 19 100 675 3500 1850 780 LogNormal Up Detected

HTW 12338 46 46 100 484 907 651 117 LogNormal Down DetectedGMA-U 22201 51 51 100 91.8 699 252 137 LogNormal None Detected 1,980(Q4-04)GMA-D 22198 51 51 100 101 506 203 94 Undefined Down Not-DetectedGMA-U 22201 20 20 100 163 271 202 32 LogNormal Down Not-DetectedGMA-D 22198 20 20 100 137 192 158 14 Normal Down Not-DetectedGMA-U 22201 27 27 100 0.00723 0.0153 0.0106 0.0023 Normal None Not-DetectedGMA-D 22198 27 27 100 0.00624 0.0107 0.00909 0.00087 Undefined None Not-DetectedGMA-U 22201 20 20 100 36.1 65.3 47.2 7.0 Normal None Not-DetectedGMA-D 22198 20 20 100 36.2 47.8 41.3 3.1 Normal None Not-DetectedGMA-U 22201 16 20 80.0 ND 1.16 0.476 0.365 LogNormal Up Not-DetectedGMA-D 22198 9 40 22.5 ND 0.55 0.0248 0.191 Undefined Down DetectedGMA-U 22201 20 20 100 2.28 3.97 3.05 0.44 Normal Down Not-DetectedGMA-D 22198 20 20 100 1.40 2.07 1.73 0.19 Normal Down DetectedGMA-U 22201 0 27 0 ND NA Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient InsufficientGMA-D 22198 4 47 8.5 ND 0.00758 0.00250 0.00127 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-U 22201 1 24 4.2 ND 3.86 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not-DetectedGMA-D 22198 2 25 8.0 ND 8.30 Insufficient Insufficient LogNormal Insufficient Not-DetectedGMA-U 22201 27 27 100 703 1260 923 154 Normal Down DetectedGMA-D 22198 27 27 100 577 805 661 64 LogNormal None Not-DetectedGMA-U 22201 29 75 38.7 ND 0.0319 0.00634 0.00703 Undefined Down Not-Detected 0.078(Q1-97), 0.308(Q2-2000)GMA-D 22198 13 74 17.6 ND 0.0235 0.00166 0.00553 Undefined Down Detected 0.0473(Q2-98), 0.092(Q2-00), 0.100(Q2-2010)

Note 1: Shading identifies a horizontal till well or Great Miami Aquifer well, with at least eight samples, normal or lognormal distribution, no trend, and no serial correlation. These wells achieve control chart criteria.Note 2: Data used in this table has been standardized to quarterly.aLCS = leachate collection system; LDS = leak detection system; HTW = horizontal till well; GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer; and GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami AquiferbND = not detected; NA = not applicablecAverages were determined based on the distribution assumption.dInsufficient is used for Distribution Type, Trend, or Serial Correlation whenever there is not enough data to run the test.eData distribution based on the Shapiro-Wilk statistic. Normal: Normal assumption could not be rejected at the 5 percent level and has a higher probability value than the lognormal assumption. Lognormal: Lognormal assumption could not be rejected at the 5 percent level and has a higher probability value than the normal assumption. Undefined: Normal and Lognormal Distribution assumptiions are both rejected or there are less than 25% detected values. "Average" is defined as the Median of the data.fTrend based on nonparametric Mann-Kendall procedure.gSerial correlation based on Rank Von Neumann test.hOutliers determined by Rosner's (for sample sizes greater than 25) or Dixon procedure (for sample sizes less than or equal to 25).iQ = quarterly

Lithium (mg/L)

Boron (mg/L)

Total Uranium (µg/L)

Sodium (mg/L)

Sulfate (mg/L)

Calcium (mg/L)

Technetium-99

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)

Total Organic Halogens (mg/L)

Magnesium (mg/L)

Nitrate + Nitrite, as Nitrogen (mg/L)

Potassium (mg/L)

Selenium (mg/L)


Figure A.5.1-1. Monthly Accumulation Volumes for Cell 1 LCS

Figure A.5.1-2. Monthly Accumulation Volumes for Cell 1 LDS

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000G

allo

ns

Year

CELL 1 LCS

Bypasses under OSDF contingency plan February and March 2003.

Leachate valves closed from July 2016 toSeptember 2016 due to an unplannedpower outage.

Leachate valves closed from September 2017 through December 2017 due to CAWWT construction.

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 1 LDS

Valves closed July 2016 to September 2016 due to unplanned power outage and September 2017 through December 2017 due to CAWWT construction.

Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental R

eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.1, Page 8

Figure A.5.1-3. OSDF Horizontal Till Well 12338 (Cell 1) Water Yield

1,25

01,

360a

800a

150

560

260

250

650

375 79

0 1,02

51,

200

1,17

076

5 1,05

01,

035

1,03

591

51,

075

950

1,05

01,

010

1,05

087

51,

000

1,25

01,

200

975

1,05

01,

050

875

1,05

01,

050

1,05

01,

100

1,20

01,

050

1,05

01,

050

1,00

070

0 975

950

825

1,00

095

085

0

950

950

850

980

575 95

090

097

597

587

585

026

029

095

035

020

0 250

275 51

0

290

1,48

0

400

250 37

520

051

527

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000G

allo

ns P

umpe

d

Month/Year

12338 Purge InformationYear Total Volumes (gal.) Months Purged Avg. Monthly Purge (gal.)1999: 5655 n=9 628 2000: 6000 n=6 10002001: 4060 n=4 10152002: 4060 n=4 10152003: 4325 n=4 10812004: 3950 n=4 9882005: 4250 n=4 10632006: 4350 n=4 10882007: 3625 n=4 9062008: 3625 n=4 9062009: 2750 n=3 9172010: 3405 n=4 8512011: 3675 n=4 9192012: 1850 n=4 4632013: 1235 n=4 3092014b: 1770 n=2 8852015: 650 n=2 3252016: 575 n=2 2882017: 785 n=2 393Overall: 819

aMore than one purge of the well was completed during these months to help evaluate well yield.

bSampling schedule reduced to semiannual sampling in 2014.


Figure A.5.1-4. Total Uranium Concentration and Groundwater Elevation Versus Time Plot for Cell 1 Upgradient Monitoring Well 22201

Figure A.5.1-5. Total Uranium Concentration and Groundwater Elevation Versus Time Plot for Cell 1 Downgradient Monitoring Well 22198


Figure A.5.1-6A. Cell 1 Total Uranium Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS, and HTW

Figure A.5.1-6B. Cell 1 Total Uranium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well


Figure A.5.1-7A. Cell 1 Boron Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS, and HTW

Figure A.5.1-7B. Cell 1 Boron Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well


Figure A.5.1-8A. Cell 1 Sodium Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS, and HTW

Figure A.5.1-8B. Cell 1 Sodium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well


Figure A.5.1-9A. Cell 1 Sulfate Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS, and HTW

Figure A.5.1-9B. Cell 1 Sulfate Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well


Figure A.5.1-10. Cell 1 Calcium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well

Figure A.5.1-11. Cell 1 Lithium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well


Figure A.5.1-12. Cell 1 Magnesium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well

Figure A.5.1-13. Cell 1 Nitrate + Nitrite as Nitrogen Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well


Figure A.5.1-14. Cell 1 Potassium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well

Figure A.5.1-15. Cell 1 Selenium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well


Figure A.5.1-16. Cell 1 Technetium-99 Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well

Figure A.5.1-17. Cell 1 Total Dissolved Solids Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well


Figure A.5.1-18. Cell 1 Total Organic Halogens Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well

Figure A.5.1-19. Cell 1 Bivariate Plot for Uranium and Sodium

0

50

100

150

200

250

10000 100000 1000000

Ura

nium

(ug/

L)

Sodium (ug/L)

LCS-12338C

LDS-12338D

HTW-12338

CELL 1

8/08/0509/11/172/21/07

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environm

ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.1, Page 19

Figure A.5.1-20. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Lithium in Monitoring Well 22201


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.1, Page 20

Figure A.5.1-21. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Magnesium in Monitoring Well 22201

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.1, Page 21



eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.1, Page 22

Figure A.5.1-23. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Total Dissolved Solids in Monitoring Well 22198

Subattachment A.5.2

Cell 2














GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ................................................................... 15 Figure A.5.2-13. Cell 2 Nitrate + Nitrite as Nitrogen Concentration Versus Time Plot for

HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ........................................................ 15 Figure A.5.2-14. Cell 2 Potassium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ........................................................................................... 16


Figure A.5.2-15. Cell 2 Selenium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ........................................................................................... 16

Figure A.5.2-16. Cell 2 Technetium-99 Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well .................................................................................. 17

Figure A.5.2-17. Cell 2 Total Dissolved Solids Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ................................................................... 17

Figure A.5.2-18. Cell 2 Total Organic Halogen Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ................................................................... 18

Figure A.5.2-19. Cell 2 Bivariate Plot for Uranium and Sodium ............................................... 18 Figure A.5.2-20. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Magnesium in Monitoring

Well 22200 ...................................................................................................... 19 Figure A.5.2-21. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Potassium in Monitoring


Well 22199 ...................................................................................................... 21 Figure A.5.2-23. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Total Dissolved Solids in

Monitoring Well 22199................................................................................... 22




• Leachate collection system (LCS) monthly accumulation volumes (refer to Figure A.5.2-1)





• A bivariate plot for uranium–sodium (refer to Figure A.5.2-19)

• Control charts (refer to Figures A.5.2-20 through A.5.2-23) A.5.2.1 Water Quality Monitoring Results Water quality within the cell is sampled in the LCS and LDS. Water quality beneath the cell is sampled in the HTW and GMA wells. Concentration-versus-time plots, bivariate plots, and control charts are used to help interpret and present the results. Until 2014, quarterly water quality monitoring occurred in the LCS, LDS, HTW, and GMA wells of each cell for the purpose of determining if the OSDF is operating as designed. With U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) concurrence, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) changed from a quarterly sampling frequency to a semiannual sampling frequency at the start of 2014. With EPA and Ohio EPA concurrence, DOE reduced the number of parameters sampled from 24 to 13 beginning in January 2017. All 13 parameters are sampled in the GMA wells: 4 of the 13 parameters (total uranium, boron, sodium, and sulfate) are sampled in the LCS, LDS, and HTW for each cell. The annual sampling in the LCS of each cell for the abbreviated list of Appendix I parameters and polychlorinated biphenyls listed in Ohio Administrative Code 3745-27-10 was also eliminated beginning in January 2017. The volume of water in the LDS tank of Cell 2 was insufficient to collect a sample in 2017. Summary statistics are provided in Table A.5.2-1. As shown in Table A.5.2-1 and summarized below, three parameters (total uranium, boron, and magnesium) have upward trends in the HTW and/or the GMA wells based on the Mann-Kendall test for trend.



Parameter HTW

12339 GMA-Ua

22200 GMA-Da


Boron Up Up Up Magnesium Up

a GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer, GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer. No entry indicates that the trend was not up.

The uranium–sodium bivariate plot for the Cell 2 LCS, LDS, and HTW is provided in Figure A.5.2-19. The plot shows that the chemical signatures for uranium and sodium in the LCS, LDS, and HTW are separate and distinct, indicating that mixing between the horizons is not occurring. Therefore, upward concentration trends measured beneath Cell 2 (i.e., in the HTW or GMA wells) are attributed to fluctuating ambient concentrations beneath the cell that are not related to cell performance. A.5.2.2 Control Charts Intrawell control charts employ historical measurements from a compliance point as background. The Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities—Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) defines the process of creating a Shewhart-cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart. Appropriate background data are used to define a baseline for the well. The baseline parameters for the chart, estimates of the mean, and standard deviation are obtained from the background data. These baseline measurements characterize the expected background concentrations at the monitoring point. As future concentrations are measured, the baseline parameters are used to standardize the newly gathered data. After these measurements are standardized and plotted, a control chart is declared “not in control” if future concentrations exceed the baseline control limit. This is indicated on the control chart when either the Shewhart or CUSUM plot traces begin to exceed a control limit. The limit is based on the rationale that if the monitoring point remains unchanged from the baseline condition, new standardized observations should not deviate substantially from the baseline mean. If a change occurs, the standardized values will deviate significantly from the baseline and tend to exceed the control limit. Usually, two parameters are used to compute standardized limits—the decision value (h) and the Shewhart control limit (SCL). A minimum of eight samples are recommended for use in ChemStat software to define the baseline for a control chart. Therefore, only sample sets with greater than eight samples were selected for control charts. By default, the ChemStat software plots both a CUSUM control limit (h) and a SCL on the control chart. The software recommends a value of 5 for the CUSUM control limit and a value of 4.5 for the SCL. EPA Statistical Analysis Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) suggests that to simplify the interpretation of the control chart, an out-of-control condition should be based on the CUSUM (h) limit alone. Plotting the SCL is not needed. The ChemStat software though, by default, plots both the SCL and CUSUM control limit on the charts. To address this issue, the SCL was defined as 5 to equal the recommended CUSUM (h) limit. This combined limit is identified as hCL on the control charts. For interpretation purposes, the hCL value will be regarded as the CUSUM (h) limit.


As shown in Table A.5.2-1 in gray shading, three parameters in the HTW or GMA wells of Cell 2 meet the criteria for control charts (i.e., at least eight samples, normal or lognormal distribution, no trend, and no serial correlation), resulting in four control charts.

Parameter Monitoring Pointa Well Number Assessment Figure Number Magnesium GMA-U 22200 In Control A.5.2-20 Potassium GMA-U 22200 In Control A.5.2-21 Potassium GMA-D 22199 In Control A.5.2-22

Total dissolved solids GMA-D 22199 In Control A.5.2-23 a GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer These four control charts are presented in Figures A.5.2-20 through A.5.2-23. All control charts for Cell 2 indicate “in control” conditions. A.5.2.3 Summary and Conclusions • The volume of water in the LDS tank of Cell 2 was insufficient to collect a sample in 2017.

• Three parameters monitored semiannually have an upward concentration trend in the HTW or GMA wells of Cell 2: total uranium, boron, and magnesium.

• Separate and distinct chemical signatures for total uranium and sodium in the LCS, LDS, and HTW of Cell 2 indicate that water is not mixing between the horizons. Therefore, upward concentration trends beneath Cell 2 (i.e., HTW or GMA wells) are attributed to fluctuating ambient concentrations beneath the cell and not to cell performance.

• Four control charts were constructed for Cell 2 parameters. All of the control charts exhibit “in control” conditions.








Standard Deviationd



LCS 12339C 66 66 100 4.51 686 122 117 LogNormal Up DetectedLDS 12339D 35 35 100 4.08 71.0 14.5 13.2 Undefined None Detected

HTW 12339 67 68 98.5 ND 19.2 9.73 4.97 Normal Up Detected 36.9(Q2-09)GMA-U 22200 54 74 73.0 ND 1.93 0.296 0.308 Undefined Up Not DetectedGMA-D 22199 74 79 93.7 ND 12.1 0.68 2.31 Undefined Down Not Detected

LCS 12339C 67 67 100 0.207 4.78 2.57 1.07 Undefined Up DetectedLDS 12339D 35 35 100 0.289 2.22 0.422 0.371 Undefined Up Detected

HTW 12339 48 51 94.1 ND 0.213 0.0785 0.0566 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-U 22200 62 74 83.8 ND 0.105 0.0540 0.0232 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-D 22199 65 74 87.8 ND 0.0899 0.0510 0.0151 Normal Up Detected

LCS 12339C 43 43 100 3.32 42.8 20.4 7.2 Normal Up DetectedLDS 12339D 10 10 100 664 2450 1230 540 Normal Up DetectedHTW 12339 36 36 100 36.5 119 47.5 23.5 Undefined Down Detected

GMA-U 22200 27 27 100 20.4 32.9 27.5 3.3 Normal None DetectedGMA-D 22199 27 27 100 10.4 19.5 14.8 2.4 Normal Down Detected

LCS 12339C 55 55 100 155 1870 1600 330 Undefined Up DetectedLDS 12339D 18 18 100 2290 13,000 4800 2680 LogNormal Up Detected

HTW 12339 46 46 100 344 850 582 115 Normal Down DetectedGMA-U 22200 51 51 100 61.1 434 171 96 LogNormal Down DetectedGMA-D 22199 51 51 100 101 540 165 91 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-U 22200 20 20 100 121 205 138 23 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-D 22199 20 20 100 125 193 143 20 Undefined None DetectedGMA-U 22200 27 27 100 0.00345 0.00562 0.00417 0.00053 Normal Down DetectedGMA-D 22199 27 27 100 0.00650 0.00901 0.00747 0.00061 Normal None DetectedGMA-U 22200 20 20 100 33.1 50.7 39.8 3.9 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-D 22199 20 20 100 37.1 54.8 42.6 4.9 LogNormal Up DetectedGMA-U 22200 2 20 10 ND 0.106 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-D 22199 2 20 10 ND 0.0425 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-U 22200 20 20 100 1.5 2.14 1.80 0.19 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-D 22199 20 20 100 1.28 1.75 1.49 0.11 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-U 22200 2 27 7.4 ND 0.0114 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient DetectedGMA-D 22199 0 27 0 ND NA Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient InsufficientGMA-U 22200 0 23 0 ND NA Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient InsufficientGMA-D 22199 0 23 0 ND NA Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient InsufficientGMA-U 22200 27 27 100 536 857 609 93 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-D 22199 27 27 100 520 820 648 79 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-U 22200 25 74 33.8 ND 0.177 0.00437 0.0256 Undefined Down DetectedGMA-D 22199 15 74 20.3 ND 0.0775 0.00253 0.0122 Undefined Down Detected


Technitium-99



Magnesium (mg/L)


Potassium (mg/L)

Selenium (mg/L)

Lithium (mg/L)

Boron (mg/L)


Sodium (mg/L)

Sulfate (mg/L)

Calcium (mg/L)




1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 2 LCS

Bypasses under OSDF contingency plan February and March 2003.

Leachate valves closed from July 2016 to September 2016 due tounplanned power outage.

Leachate valves closed from September2017 through December 2017 due to CAWWTconstruction.

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 2 LDS

LDS valves closed July 2016 to September 2016 due to unplanned power outage and September 2017 through December 2017 due to CAWWT construction.


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.2, Page 8


1,00

098

595

0a 1,72

5a

270 45

034

577

51,

050

1,02

51,

025

875

1,00

084

074

086

595

090

090

095

087

590

090

085

072

075

085

080

082

082

587

580

077

582

582

577

575

085

080

080

087

582

570

080

072

5

725

850

825

800

800

800

875

850

825

750

775

810

750

825

725

775

725

625

820

845

760

700

750

750

785

810

790

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000G

allo

ns P

umpe

d

Month/Year

12339 Purge InformationYear Total Volumes (gal.) Months Purged Avg. Monthly Purge (gal.)1999a: 5725 n=7 818 2000: 5750 n=6 9582001: 3395 n=4 8492002: 3625 n=4 9062003: 3370 n=4 8432004: 3220 n=4 8052005: 3275 n=4 8192006: 3175 n=4 10882007: 3325 n=4 8312008: 3050 n=4 7632009: 2400 n=3 800 2010: 3275 n=4 8192011: 3200 n=4 8002012: 3110 n=4 7782013: 2945 n=4 7362014b: 1605 n=2 8032015: 1450 n=2 7252016: 1535 n=2 7682017: 1600 n=2 800Overall: 820




Figure A.5.2-18. Cell 2 Total Organic Halogen Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

10000 100000 1000000 10000000

Ura

nium

(ug/

L)

Sodium (ug/L)

LCS-12339C

LDS-12339D

HTW-12339

CELL 2

8/15/05

5/24/05 11/08/118/15/16

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.2, Page 19



eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.2, Page 20

Figure A.5.2-21. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Potassium in Monitoring Well 22200

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.2, Page 21



eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.2, Page 22


Subattachment A.5.3

Cell 3




Figures Figure A.5.3-1. Monthly Accumulation Volumes for Cell 3 LCS .............................................. 7 Figure A.5.3-2. Monthly Accumulation Volumes for Cell 3 LDS .............................................. 7 Figure A.5.3-3. OSDF Horizontal Till Well 12340 (Cell 3) Water Yield ................................... 8 Figure A.5.3-4. Total Uranium Concentration and Groundwater Elevation Versus Time Plot

for Cell 3 Upgradient Monitoring Well 22203 ................................................... 9 Figure A.5.3-5. Total Uranium Concentration and Groundwater Elevation Versus Time Plot

for Cell 3 Downgradient Monitoring Well 22204 .............................................. 9 Figure A.5.3-6A. Cell 3 Total Uranium Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS,

and HTW .......................................................................................................... 10 Figure A.5.3-6B. Cell 3 Total Uranium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U

Well, and GMA-D Well ................................................................................... 10 Figure A.5.3-7A. Cell 3 Boron Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS, and HTW ....... 11 Figure A.5.3-7B. Cell 3 Boron Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 11 Figure A.5.3-8A. Cell 3 Sodium Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS, and HTW ..... 12 Figure A.5.3-8B. Cell 3 Sodium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 12 Figure A.5.3-9A. Cell 3 Sulfate Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS, and HTW ...... 13 Figure A.5.3-9B. Cell 3 Sulfate Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 13 Figure A.5.3-10. Cell 3 Calcium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 14 Figure A.5.3-11. Cell 3 Lithium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW,GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 14 Figure A.5.3-12. Cell 3 Magnesium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW,

GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ..................................................................... 15 Figure A.5.3-13. Cell 3 Nitrate + Nitrate as Nitrogen Concentration Versus Time Plot for

HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ......................................................... 15 Figure A.5.3-14. Cell 3 Potassium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 16


Figure A.5.3-15. Cell 3 Selenium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 16

Figure A.5.3-16. Cell 3 Technetium-99 Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ..................................................................... 17

Figure A.5.3-17. Cell 3 Total Dissolved Solid Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ..................................................................... 17

Figure A.5.3-18. Cell 3 Total Organic Halogens Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ..................................................................... 18

Figure A.5.3-19. Cell 3 Bivariate Plot for Uranium and Sodium ................................................ 18 Figure A.5.3-20. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Calcium in Monitoring

Well 22203 ....................................................................................................... 19 Figure A.5.3-21. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Lithium in Monitoring

Well 22204 ....................................................................................................... 20 Figure A.5.3-22. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Magnesium in Monitoring

Well 22203 ....................................................................................................... 21 Figure A.5.3-23. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Magnesium in Monitoring

Well 22204 ....................................................................................................... 22 Figure A.5.3-24. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Potassium in Monitoring

Well 22203 ....................................................................................................... 23


Abbreviations CUSUM Shewhart-cumulative sum
























• Control charts (refer to Figures A.5.3-20 through A.5.3-24) A.5.3.1 Water Quality Monitoring Results Water quality within the cell is sampled in the LCS and LDS. Water quality beneath the cell is sampled in the HTW and GMA wells. Concentration-versus-time plots, bivariate plots, and control charts are used to help interpret and present the results. Until 2014, quarterly water quality monitoring occurred in the LCS, LDS, HTW, and GMA wells of each cell for the purpose of determining if the OSDF is operating as designed. With U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) concurrence, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) changed from a quarterly sampling frequency to a semiannual sampling frequency at the start of 2014. With EPA and Ohio EPA concurrence, DOE reduced the number of parameters sampled from 24 to 13 beginning in January 2017. All 13 parameters are sampled in the GMA wells; 4 of the 13 parameters (total uranium, boron, sodium, and sulfate) are sampled in the LCS, LDS, and HTW of each cell. The annual sampling in the LCS of each cell for the abbreviated list of Appendix I parameters and polychlorinated biphenyls listed in Ohio Administrative Code 3745-27-10 was also eliminated beginning in January 2017. Since 2007 the volume of water in the LDS tank of Cell 3 has been insufficient to collect a sample. Summary statistics are provided in Table A.5.3-1. As shown in Table A.5.3-1 and summarized below, three parameters (total uranium, boron, and lithium) have upward trends in the HTW and/or the GMA wells based on the Mann-Kendall test for trend.



Parameter HTW

12340 GMA-Ua

22203 GMA-Da

22204 Total Uranium Up Up Up

Boron Up Up Up Lithium Up

a GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer. No entry indicates that the trend was not up.

The uranium–sodium bivariate plot for the Cell 3 LCS, LDS, and HTW is provided in Figure A.5.3-19. The plot shows that the chemical signatures for uranium and sodium in the LCS, LDS, and HTW are separate and distinct, indicating that mixing between the horizons is not occurring. Therefore, upward concentration trends measured beneath Cell 3 (i.e., HTW or GMA wells) are attributed to fluctuating ambient concentrations beneath the cell that are not related to cell performance. A.5.3.2 Control Charts Intrawell control charts employ historical measurements from a compliance point as background. The Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities—Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) defines the process of creating a Shewhart-cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart. Appropriate background data are used to define a baseline for the well. The baseline parameters for the chart, estimates of the mean, and standard deviation are obtained from the background data. These baseline measurements characterize the expected background concentrations at the monitoring point. As future concentrations are measured, the baseline parameters are used to standardize the newly gathered data. After these measurements are standardized and plotted, a control chart is declared “not in control” if future concentrations exceed the baseline control limit. This is indicated on the control chart when either the Shewhart or CUSUM plot traces begin to exceed a control limit. The limit is based on the rationale that if the monitoring point remains unchanged from the baseline condition, new standardized observations should not deviate substantially from the baseline mean. If a change occurs, the standardized values will deviate significantly from the baseline and tend to exceed the control limit. A minimum of eight samples are recommended for use in ChemStat software to define the baseline for a control chart. Therefore, only sample sets with greater than eight samples were selected for control charts. By default, the ChemStat software plots both a CUSUM control limit (h) and a Shewhart control limit (SCL) on the control chart. The software recommends a value of 5 for the CUSUM control limit and a value of 4.5 for the SCL. EPA Statistical Analysis Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) suggests that to simplify the interpretation of the control chart, an out-of-control condition should be based on the CUSUM (h) limit alone. Plotting the SCL is not needed. The ChemStat software though, by default, plots both the SCL and CUSUM control limit on the charts. To address this issue, the SCL was defined as 5 to equal the recommended CUSUM (h) limit. This combined limit is identified as hCL on the control charts. For interpretation purposes, the hCL value will be regarded as the CUSUM (h) limit.


As shown in Table A.5.3-1 in gray shading, four parameters in the HTW and GMA wells of Cell 3 meet the criteria for control charts (i.e., at least eight samples, normal or lognormal distribution, no trend, and no serial correlation), resulting in five control charts. These five control charts are presented in Figures A.5.3-20 through A.5.3-24. All of the control charts for Cell 3 exhibit “in control” conditions.

Parameter Monitoring Pointa Well Number Assessment Figure Number Calcium GMA-U 22203 In Control A.5.3-20 Lithium GMA-D 22204 In Control A.5.3-21

Magnesium GMA-U 22203 In Control A.5.3-22 Magnesium GMA-D 22204 In Control A.5.3-23 Potassium GMA-U 22203 In Control A.5.3-24

a GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer A.5.3.3 Summary and Conclusions • The volume of water in the LDS tank of Cell 3 was insufficient to collect a sample in 2017.

• Three parameters monitored semiannually have an upward concentration trend in the HTW or GMA wells of Cell 3: total uranium, boron, and lithium.


• Five control charts were constructed for Cell 3 parameters. All of the control charts exhibit “in control” conditions.








Standard Deviationd



LCS 12340C 64 64 100 9.34 181 75.8 36.7 Undefined Up DetectedLDS 12340D 21 21 100 8.90 27.7 17.0 5.0 Normal Down Not Detected 72.4(Q4-04)

HTW 12340 67 67 100 3.89 29.3 19.5 6.2 Undefined Up Not Detected 58.5(Q3-09); 42.1(Q3-16)GMA-U 22203 66 69 95.7 ND 15.4 2.82 3.08 LogNormal Up DetectedGMA-D 22204 73 74 98.6 ND 22.9 4.15 4.98 Undefined Up Detected

LCS 12340C 64 65 98.5 ND 9.19 4.52 1.93 Undefined Up DetectedLDS 12340D 20 21 95.2 ND 0.557 0.128 0.149 Undefined Down Detected

HTW 12340 50 50 100 0.048 0.259 0.138 0.055 Undefined Up Detected 0.96(Q3-06)GMA-U 22203 58 69 84.1 ND 0.087 0.048 0.017 Normal Up DetectedGMA-D 22204 61 69 88.4 ND 0.089 0.046 0.016 Normal Up Detected

LCS 12340C 44 44 100 4.35 30.8 27.0 7.4 Undefined Up Not Detected 30.9(Q4-99); 49.9(Q3-05)LDS 12340D 9 9 100 263 344 315 27 Normal None Not DetectedHTW 12340 36 36 100 17.8 74.1 39.9 15.8 LogNormal Down Detected


LCS 12340C 56 56 100 26.1 2120 1800 540 Undefined Up Detected 1,790(Q4-99); 2,650(Q4-06)LDS 12340D 19 19 100 112 2510 1250 700 Undefined Down Not Detected

HTW 12340 46 46 100 352 958 659 152 Normal Down DetectedGMA-U 22203 51 51 100 64.2 735 231 138 LogNormal Down Detected 4,020(Q3-12)GMA-D 22204 51 51 100 232 779 467 142 Normal Down Not DetectedGMA-U 22203 20 20 100 135 264 172 35 LogNormal None Not DetectedGMA-D 22204 20 20 100 179 365 232 51 LogNormal Down Not DetectedGMA-U 22203 27 27 100 0.00577 0.0186 0.00828 0.00363 Undefined Up Not DetectedGMA-D 22204 27 27 100 0.00694 0.0102 0.00863 0.00096 LogNormal None Not DetectedGMA-U 22203 20 20 100 32.5 60.0 44.0 8.1 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-D 22204 20 20 100 40.4 66.4 52.4 7.2 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-U 22203 8 20 40.0 ND 0.273 0.0214 0.0775 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-D 22204 1 20 5.0 ND 0.0425 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-U 22203 20 20 100 2.07 3.50 2.62 0.39 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-D 22204 20 20 100 1.79 3.07 2.32 0.39 Normal Down Not DetectedGMA-U 22203 1 27 3.7 ND 0.00617 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-D 22204 2 27 7.4 ND 0.00921 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient DetectedGMA-U 22203 1 18 5.6 ND 8.44 Insufficient Insufficient LogNormal Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-D 22204 0 18 0 ND NA Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient InsufficientGMA-U 22203 27 27 100 524 1190 626 157 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-D 22204 27 27 100 487 1530 1010 220 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-U 22203 34 69 49.3 ND 0.213 0.00524 0.0266 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-D 22204 13 69 18.8 ND 0.0270 0.00271 0.00564 Undefined Down Detected 0.165(Q2-00)


Lithium (mg/L)

Boron (mg/L)


Sodium (mg/L)

Sulfate (mg/L)

Calcium (mg/L)

Technitium-99



Magnesium (mg/L)


Potassium (mg/L)

Selenium (mg/L)




1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 3 LCS

Leachate valves closed from July 2016 to September 2016 due to an unplanned power outage.

Leachate valves closed from September 2017 through December 2017 due to CAWWT construction.

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 3 LDS

LDS valves closed July 2016 through September 2016 due to unplanned power outage.and September 2017 through December 2017 due to CAWWT construction.


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.3, Page 8


775

800

700

400 70

5a

410a

150

435

175

175

155 20

018

520

018

012

5 200

225

225

250 35

030

030

030

030

037

545

0 535

410 67

577

585

057

5 800

850

800

880

840

775

800

700

750

675

770

700

800

725

725

625

700

625 775

700

675

650

625

675

725

600

600

700

625

625

200

825

650

625

625 770

685

700

350 67

577

077

565

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000G

allo

ns P

umpe

d

Month/Year

12340 Purge InformationYear Total Volumes (gal.) Months Purged Avg. Monthly Purge (gal.)1999: 4880 n=11 444 2000: 1090 n=6 1822001: 1050 n=4 2632002: 1200 n=4 3002003: 1770 n=4 443 2004: 2875 n=4 7192005: 3330 n=4 8332006: 3115 n=4 7792007: 2895 n=4 7242008: 2875 n=4 7192009: 2100 n=3 7002010: 2650 n=4 6632011: 2600 n=4 650 2012: 2150 n=4 5382013: 2725 n=4 6812014b: 1455 n=2 7282015: 1050 n=2 5252016: 1445 n=2 7232017: 1425 n=2 713Overall: 562





Figure A.5.3-11. Cell 3 Lithium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW,GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well



Figure A.5.3-13. Cell 3 Nitrate + Nitrate as Nitrogen Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well



Figure A.5.3-17. Cell 3 Total Dissolved Solid Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and

GMA-D Well




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

10000 100000 1000000

Ura

nium

(ug/

L)

Sodium (ug/L)

LCS-12340C

LDS-12340D

HTW-12340

CELL 3

5/16/05

11/06/068/25/068/15/16

8/14/2009

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.3, Page 19

Figure A.5.3-20. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Calcium in Monitoring Well 22203


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.3, Page 20


U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.3, Page 21



eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.3, Page 22


U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.3, Page 23


Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental Report U.S. Department of Energy Doc. No. S17983 May 2018 Sub-attachment A.5.3, Page 24


Subattachment A.5.4

Cell 4















HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ........................................................ 15 Figure A.5.4-14. Cell 4 Potassium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ........................................................................................... 16





Figure A.5.4-18. Cell 4 Total Organic Halogens Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ................................................................... 18

Figure A.5.4-19. Cell 4 Bivariate Plot for Uranium and Sodium ............................................... 18 Figure A.5.4-20. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Total Uranium in

Monitoring Well 22205................................................................................... 19 Figure A.5.4-21. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Sodium in Monitoring

Well 12341 ...................................................................................................... 20 Figure A.5.4-22. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Sulfate in Monitoring

Well 22205 ...................................................................................................... 21 Figure A.5.4-23. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Calcium in Monitoring

Well 22205 ...................................................................................................... 22 Figure A.5.4-24. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Magnesium in Monitoring



Monitoring Well 22205................................................................................... 25










• Control charts (refer to Figures A.5.4-20 through A.5.4-26) A.5.4.1 Water Quality Monitoring Results Water quality within the cell is sampled in the LCS and LDS. Water quality beneath the cell is sampled in the HTW and GMA wells. Concentration-versus-time plots, bivariate plots, and control charts are used to help interpret and present the results. Until 2014, quarterly water quality monitoring occurred in the LCS, LDS, HTW, and GMA wells of each cell for the purpose of determining if the OSDF is operating as designed. With U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) concurrence, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) changed from a quarterly sampling frequency to a semiannual sampling frequency at the start of 2014. With EPA and Ohio EPA concurrence, DOE reduced the number of parameters sampled from 24 to 13 beginning in January 2017. All 13 parameters are sampled in the GMA wells; 4 of the 13 parameters (total uranium, boron, sodium, and sulfate) are sampled in the LCS, LDS, and HTW of each cell. The annual sampling in the LCS of each cell for the abbreviated list of Appendix I parameters and polychlorinated biphenyls listed in Ohio Administrative Code 3745-27-10 was also eliminated beginning in January 2017. The volume of water in the LDS tank of Cell 4 was insufficient to collect a sample from 2012 to 2016. Enough water was present in the LDS tank of Cell 4 in 2017 to sample it twice. Summary statistics are provided in Table A.5.4-1. As shown in Table A.5.4-1 and summarized below, four parameters (total uranium, boron, sodium, and sulfate) have upward trends in the HTW and/or GMA wells based on the Mann-Kendall test for trend.



Parameter HTW

12341 GMA-Ua

22206 GMA-Da

22205 Total uranium Up

Boron Up Up Sodium Up Sulfate Up

a GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer No entry indicates that the trend was not up.

The uranium–sodium bivariate plot for the Cell 4 LCS, LDS, and HTW is provided in Figure A.5.4-19. The plot shows that the chemical signatures for uranium and sodium in the LCS, LDS, and HTW are separate and distinct, indicating that mixing between the horizons is not occurring. Therefore, upward concentration trends measured beneath Cell 4 (i.e., in the HTW or GMA wells) are attributed to fluctuating ambient concentrations beneath the cell that are not related to cell performance. A.5.4.2 Control Charts Intrawell control charts employ historical measurements from a compliance point as background. The Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities—Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) defines the process of creating a Shewhart-cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart. Appropriate background data are used to define a baseline for the well. The baseline parameters for the chart, estimates of the mean, and standard deviation are obtained from the background data. These baseline measurements characterize the expected background concentrations at the monitoring point. As future concentrations are measured, the baseline parameters are used to standardize the newly gathered data. After these measurements are standardized and plotted, a control chart is declared “not in control” if future concentrations exceed the baseline control limit. This is indicated on the control chart when either the Shewhart or CUSUM plot traces begin to exceed a control limit. The limit is based on the rationale that if the monitoring point remains unchanged from the baseline condition, new standardized observations should not deviate substantially from the baseline mean. If a change occurs, the standardized values will deviate significantly from the baseline and tend to exceed the control limit. A minimum of eight samples are recommended for use in ChemStat software to define the baseline for a control chart. Therefore, only sample sets with greater than eight samples were selected for control charts. By default, the ChemStat software plots both a CUSUM control limit (h) and Shewhart control limit (SCL) on the control chart. The software recommends a value of 5 for the CUSUM control limit and a value of 4.5 for the SCL. EPA Statistical Analysis Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) suggests that to simplify the interpretation of the control chart, an out-of-control condition should be based on the CUSUM (h) limit alone. Plotting the SCL is not needed. The ChemStat software though, by default, plots both the SCL and CUSUM control limit on the charts. To address this issue, the SCL was defined as 5 to equal the recommended CUSUM (h) limit. This combined limit is identified as hCL on the control charts. For interpretation purposes, the hCL value will be regarded as the CUSUM (h) limit.


As shown in Table A.5.4-1 in gray shading, seven parameters in the HTW or GMA wells of Cell 4 (total uranium, sodium, sulfate, calcium, magnesium, and total dissolved solids) meet the criteria for control charts (i.e., at least eight samples, normal or lognormal distribution, no trend, and no serial correlation), resulting in seven control charts. These seven control charts are presented in Figures A.5.4-20 through A.5.4-26. All of the control charts for Cell 4 exhibit “in control” conditions.

Parameter Monitoring Pointa Well Number Assessment Figure Number Uranium GMA-D 22205 In Control A.5.4-20 Sodium HTW 12341 In Control A.5.4-21 Sulfate GMA-D 22205 In Control A.5.4-22 Calcium GMA-D 22205 In Control A.5.4-23

Magnesium GMA-U 22206 In Control A.5.4-24 Magnesium GMA-D 22205 In Control A.5.4-25

Total dissolved solids GMA-D 22205 In Control A.5.4-26 a GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer, HTW = horizontal till well A.5.4.3 Summary and Conclusions • The LDS of Cell 4 was sampled twice in 2017.

• Four parameters monitored semiannually have an upward concentration in the HTW or GMA wells of Cell 4: total uranium, boron, sodium, and sulfate.


• Seven control charts were constructed for Cell 4 parameters. All of the control charts exhibit “in control” conditions.








Standard Deviationd



LCS 12341C 50 50 100 4.41 171 88.2 30.2 Undefined Down DetectedLDS 12341D 36 36 100 5.74 21.3 14.5 3.0 Normal None Detected

HTW 12341 55 55 100 4.26 7.89 5.64 0.86 LogNormal Down DetectedGMA-U 22206 52 56 92.9 ND 4.67 1.02 1.00 LogNormal Up Not DetectedGMA-D 22205 61 61 100 0.525 12.1 2.48 2.38 LogNormal None Not Detected

LCS 12341C 50 50 100 0.0626 1.93 0.864 0.287 Undefined Down DetectedLDS 12341D 36 36 100 0.415 1.81 0.728 0.303 LogNormal None Detected

HTW 12341 35 38 92.1 ND 1.24 0.112 0.226 Undefined Down DetectedGMA-U 22206 51 56 91.1 ND 0.0686 0.0424 0.0108 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-D 22205 49 56 87.5 ND 0.0807 0.0456 0.0149 Normal Up Detected

LCS 12341C 40 40 100 22.0 117 53.2 14.1 Undefined Up Not DetectedLDS 12341D 22 22 100 307 896 497 153 Normal Up DetectedHTW 12341 36 36 100 14.0 18.1 15.4 0.9 Normal None Not Detected

GMA-U 22206 27 27 100 12.3 22.3 17.8 3.4 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-D 22205 27 27 100 10.7 22.2 16.9 3.2 Normal Down Detected

LCS 12341C 50 50 100 140 3940 2740 820 Undefined Up DetectedLDS 12341D 36 36 100 1470 6300 2240 1180 Undefined Up Detected 7870(Q2-11)

HTW 12341 46 46 100 153 478 238 101 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-U 22206 51 51 100 90.4 559 256 111 LogNormal Down Detected 3720(Q3-12)GMA-D 22205 51 51 100 199 535 337 79 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-U 22206 20 20 100 141 217 149 25 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-D 22205 20 20 100 168 268 222 22 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-U 22206 27 27 100 0.00946 0.0175 0.0128 0.0022 Normal Down DetectedGMA-D 22205 27 27 100 0.00665 0.0167 0.00806 0.00184 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-U 22206 20 20 100 30.2 43.8 35.6 3.9 LogNormal None Not DetectedGMA-D 22205 20 20 100 40.1 63.2 52.1 5.4 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-U 22206 2 20 10.0 ND 0.0425 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-D 22205 3 20 15.0 ND 0.0425 0.0139 Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-U 22206 20 20 100 3.39 4.39 3.85 0.27 Normal Down DetectedGMA-D 22205 20 20 100 2.00 3.22 2.50 0.31 Normal Down DetectedGMA-U 22206 0 27 0 ND NA Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient InsufficientGMA-D 22205 1 27 3.7 ND 0.0122 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient DetectedGMA-U 22206 1 17 5.9 ND 8.54 Insufficient Insufficient LogNormal Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-D 22205 0 17 0 ND NA Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient InsufficientGMA-U 22206 27 27 100 551 877 628 87 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-D 22205 27 27 100 726 1180 938 109 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-U 22206 21 56 37.5 ND 0.064 0.00397 0.0101 Undefined Down DetectedGMA-D 22205 11 56 19.6 ND 0.0142 0.00166 0.00412 Undefined Down Detected 0.0340(Q2-13)


Lithium (mg/L)

Boron (mg/L)


Sodium (mg/L)

Sulfate (mg/L)

Calcium (mg/L)

Technitium-99



Magnesium (mg/L)


Potassium (mg/L)

Selenium (mg/L)




1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 4 LCS

Leachate valves closed from July 2016 to September 2016 due to anunplanned power outage.

Leachate valves closed from September 2017through December 2017 due to CAWWT

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 4 LDS

Gap in data due to malfunctioning transducer in 2007.

LDS valves closed July 2016 through September 2016 due to unplanned power outage and September 2017 through December 2017 due to CAWWT construction.


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.4, Page 8


925

1,02

51,

050

825

5,13

0a

5,08

0a

3,30

0a

3,40

0a

400 62

560

057

5 1,05

060

050

052

550

065

056

0 700

525

625

725

625

625

625

625

600

550

600

575 700

645

650

400 52

5 700

725

725

625

600

600 750

625

625

525

575

640

550

650

400 60

062

565

058

5

610

530

525

450

475

550

625

550

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000G

allo

ns P

umpe

d

Month/Year

12341 Purge InformationYear Total Volumes (gal.) Months Purged Avg. Monthly Purge (gal.)2002: 21115 n=9 23462003: 3950 n=6 6582004: 2935 n=5 5872005: 2500 n=4 6252006: 2475 n=4 6192007: 2425 n=4 6062008: 2220 n=4 5552009: 2150 n=3 7172010: 2575 n=4 6442011: 2350 n=4 5882012: 2240 n=4 560 2013: 2460 n=4 6152014a: 1140 n=2 5702015: 975 n=2 4882016: 1025 n=2 5132017: 1175 n=2 588Overall: 853

aMore than one purge of the well was completed during thesemonths to drain perched water and infiltrating surface waterso the compacted clay liner could be constructed.





0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

10000 100000 1000000

Ura

nium

(ug/

L)

Sodium (ug/L)

LCS-12341C

LDS-12341D

HTW-12341

CELL 4

11/21/05

8/13/10

5/23/06

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.4, Page 19

Figure A.5.4-20. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Total Uranium in Monitoring Well 22205


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.4, Page 20

Figure A.5.4-21. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Sodium in Monitoring Well 12341

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.4, Page 21

Figure A.5.4-22. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Sulfate in Monitoring Well 22205


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.4, Page 22


U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.4, Page 23



eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.4, Page 24


U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.4, Page 25


Subattachment A.5.5

Cell 5




Figures Figure A.5.5-1. Monthly Accumulation Volumes for Cell 5 LCS .............................................. 7 Figure A.5.5-2. Monthly Accumulation Volumes for Cell 5 LDS .............................................. 7 Figure A.5.5-3. OSDF Horizontal Till Well 12342 (Cell 5) Water Yield ................................... 8 Figure A.5.5-4. Total Uranium Concentration and Groundwater Elevation Versus Time Plot

for Cell 5 Upgradient Monitoring Well 22207 ................................................... 9 Figure A.5.5-5. Total Uranium Concentration and Groundwater Elevation Versus Time Plot

for Cell 5 Downgradient Monitoring Well 22208 .............................................. 9 Figure A.5.5-6A. Cell 5 Total Uranium Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS,

and HTW .......................................................................................................... 10 Figure A.5.5-6B. Cell 5 Total Uranium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U

Well, and GMA-D Well ................................................................................... 10 Figure A.5.5-7A. Cell 5 Boron Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS, and HTW ....... 11 Figure A.5.5-7B. Cell 5 Boron Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 11 Figure A.5.5-8A. Cell 5 Sodium Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS, and HTW ..... 12 Figure A.5.5-8B. Cell 5 Sodium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 12 Figure A.5.5-9A. Cell 5 Sulfate Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS, and HTW ...... 13 Figure A.5.5-9B. Cell 5 Sulfate Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 13 Figure A.5.5-10. Cell 5 Calcium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 14 Figure A.5.5-11. Cell 5 Lithium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 14 Figure A.5.5-12. Cell 5 Magnesium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 15 Figure A.5.5-13. Cell 5 Nitrate + Nitrate as Nitrogen Concentration Versus Time Plot for

HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ......................................................... 15 Figure A.5.5-14. Cell 5 Potassium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well,

and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 16


Figure A.5.5-15. Cell 5 Selenium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ............................................................................................. 16

Figure A.5.5-16. Cell 5 Technetium-99 Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ................................................................................... 17

Figure A.5.5-17. Cell 5 Total Dissolved Solids Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ..................................................................... 17

Figure A.5.5-18. Cell 5 Total Organic Halogens Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ..................................................................... 18

Figure A.5.5-19. Cell 5 Bivariate Plot for Uranium and Sodium ................................................ 18 Figure A.5.5-20. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Sodium in Monitoring

Well 22208 ....................................................................................................... 19 Figure A.5.5-21. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Calcium in Monitoring

Well 22208 ....................................................................................................... 20










• Control charts (refer to Figures A.5.5-20 through A.5.5-21) A.5.5.1 Water Quality Monitoring Results Water quality within the cell is sampled in the LCS and LDS. Water quality beneath the cell is sampled in the HTW and GMA wells. Concentration-versus-time plots, bivariate plots, and control charts are used to help interpret and present the results. Until 2014, quarterly water quality monitoring took place in the LCS, LDS, HTW, and GMA wells of each cell for the purpose of determining if the OSDF was operating as designed. With U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) concurrence, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) changed from a quarterly sampling frequency to a semiannual sampling frequency at the start of 2014. With EPA and Ohio EPA concurrence, DOE reduced the number of parameters sampled from 24 to 13 beginning in January 2017. All 13 parameters are sampled in the GMA wells; 4 of the 13 parameters (total uranium, boron, sodium, and sulfate) are sampled in the LCS, LDS, and HTW of each cell. The annual sampling in the LCS of each cell for the abbreviated list of Appendix I parameters and polychlorinated biphenyls listed in Ohio Administrative Code 3745-27-10 was also eliminated beginning in January 2017. The volume of water in the LDS tank of Cell 5 was insufficient to collect a sample in 2017. Summary statistics are provided in Table A.5.5-1. As shown in Table A.5.5-1, and summarized below, five parameters (boron, sodium, sulfate, lithium, and potassium) have upward trends in the HTW and/or GMA wells based on the Mann-Kendall test for trend.



Parameter HTW

12342 GMA-Ua

22207 GMA-Da

22208 Boron Up Up

Sodium Up Sulfate Up Lithium Up

Potassium Up a GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer. No entry indicates that the trend was not up.

The uranium–sodium bivariate plot for the Cell 5 LCS, LDS, and HTW is provided in Figure A.5.5-19. The plot shows that the chemical signatures for uranium and sodium in the LCS, LDS, and HTW are separate and distinct, indicating that mixing between the horizons is not occurring. Therefore, upward concentration trends measured beneath Cell 5 (i.e., in the HTW or GMA wells) are attributed to fluctuating ambient concentrations beneath the cell that are not related to cell performance. A.5.5.2 Control Charts Intrawell control charts employ historical measurements from a compliance point as background. The Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities—Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) defines the process of creating a Shewhart-cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart. Appropriate background data are used to define a baseline for the well. The baseline parameters for the chart, estimates of the mean, and standard deviation are obtained from the background data. These baseline measurements characterize the expected background concentrations at the monitoring point. As future concentrations are measured, the baseline parameters are used to standardize the newly gathered data. After these measurements are standardized and plotted, a control chart is declared “not in control” if future concentrations exceed the baseline control limit. This is indicated on the control chart when either the Shewhart or CUSUM plot traces begin to exceed a control limit. The limit is based on the rationale that if the monitoring point remains unchanged from the baseline condition, new standardized observations should not deviate substantially from the baseline mean. If a change occurs, the standardized values will deviate significantly from the baseline and tend to exceed the control limit. A minimum of eight samples are recommended for use in ChemStat software to define the baseline for a control chart. Therefore, only sample sets with greater than eight samples were selected for control charts. By default, the ChemStat software plots both a CUSUM control limit (h) and a Shewhart control limit (SCL) on the control chart. The software recommends a value of 5 for the CUSUM control limit and a value of 4.5 for the SCL. EPA Statistical Analysis Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) suggests that to simplify the interpretation of the control chart, an out-of-control condition should be based on the CUSUM (h) limit alone. Plotting the SCL is not needed. The ChemStat software though, by default, plots both the SCL and CUSUM control limit on the charts. To address this issue, the SCL was defined as 5 to equal the recommended CUSUM (h) limit. This combined limit is identified as hCL on the control charts. For interpretation purposes, the hCL value will be regarded as the CUSUM (h) limit.


As shown in Table A.5.5-1 in gray shading, two parameters in the HTW or GMA wells of Cell 5 meet the criteria for control charts (i.e., at least eight samples, normal or lognormal distribution, no trend, and no serial correlation), resulting in two control charts.

Parameter Monitoring Pointa Well Number Assessment Figure Number Sodium GMA-D 22208 In Control A.5.5-20 Calcium GMA-U 22207 In Control A.5.5-21

a GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer The two control charts are presented in Figures A.5.5-20 and A.5.5-21. Both exhibit “in control” conditions. A.5.5.3 Summary and Conclusions • The volume of water in the LDS tank of Cell 5 was insufficient to collect a sample in 2017.

• Five parameters monitored semiannually have an upward concentration trend in the HTW or GMA wells of Cell 5: boron, sodium, sulfate, lithium, and potassium.


• Two control charts were constructed for Cell 5 parameters. Both exhibit “in control” conditions.








Standard Deviationd



LCS 12342C 52 52 100 3.39 285 122 44 Undefined None DetectedLDS 12342D 40 40 100 2.93 27.1 15.6 5.2 Normal Down Detected

HTW 12342 55 55 100 7.45 19.2 9.21 2.22 Undefined Down DetectedGMA-U 22207 47 56 83.9 ND 0.631 0.316 0.130 LogNormal Down Not Detected 2.39(Q3-02)GMA-D 22208 50 61 82.0 ND 0.800 0.356 0.130 Undefined None Not Detected 2.10(Q2-04)

LCS 12342C 50 52 96.2 ND 1.59 0.757 0.282 Undefined None DetectedLDS 12342D 40 40 100 0.202 1.20 0.398 0.272 Undefined None Detected

HTW 12342 36 38 94.7 ND 0.221 0.108 0.046 LogNormal None DetectedGMA-U 22207 51 56 91.1 ND 0.0596 0.0402 0.0092 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-D 22208 50 56 89.3 ND 0.0544 0.0346 0.0108 Normal Up Detected

LCS 12342C 39 40 97.5 58.7 79.7 68.9 4.2 Normal None Detected 78.6(Q3-02), 16.4(Q2-03),19.7(Q2-04), 22.2(Q2-05), 108(Q3-05)LDS 12342D 27 27 100 84.6 808 432 137 Normal Up DetectedHTW 12342 36 36 100 17.0 33.6 26.4 4.4 Normal None Detected

GMA-U 22207 27 27 100 13.0 23.1 15.4 2.8 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-D 22208 27 27 100 13.1 17.9 15.9 1.4 Normal None Not Detected


HTW 12342 46 46 100 101 423 354 115 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-U 22207 51 51 100 97.8 770 228 129 LogNormal Down DetectedGMA-D 22208 51 51 100 98.1 671 376 101 Normal None DetectedGMA-U 22207 20 20 100 124 187 154 13 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-D 22208 20 20 100 107 285 228 38 Undefined Down DetectedGMA-U 22207 27 27 100 0.00642 0.0165 0.0137 0.0035 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-D 22208 27 27 100 0.00425 0.00932 0.00796 0.00094 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-U 22207 20 20 100 26.1 36.4 32.6 3.0 Normal None DetectedGMA-D 22208 20 20 100 24.3 66.4 55.2 9.2 Undefined Down DetectedGMA-U 22207 2 20 10.0 ND 0.0425 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-D 22208 2 20 10.0 ND 0.0500 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-U 22207 20 20 100 2.75 4.82 3.47 0.54 Normal Up DetectedGMA-D 22208 20 20 100 2.51 3.53 3.13 0.29 Normal Down DetectedGMA-U 22207 1 27 3.7 ND 0.0073 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient DetectedGMA-D 22208 2 27 7.4 ND 0.0107 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-U 22207 0 17 0 ND NA Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient InsufficientGMA-D 22208 1 17 5.9 ND 6.4 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-U 22207 27 27 100 552 770 635 54 Normal None Detected 987(Q4-09)GMA-D 22208 27 27 100 456 1290 990 158 Undefined None DetectedGMA-U 22207 18 56 32.1 ND 0.0150 0.00207 0.00451 Undefined Down Detected 0.0470(Q2-10), 0.0280(Q2-13)GMA-D 22208 15 56 26.8 ND 0.0260 0.00329 0.0548 Undefined Down Detected


Technitium-99



Magnesium (mg/L)


Potassium (mg/L)

Selenium (mg/L)

Lithium (mg/L)

Boron (mg/L)


Sodium (mg/L)

Sulfate (mg/L)

Calcium (mg/L)




1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 5 LCS

Low values indicate that the bypassed flow through the LCS valve house flow meter was too low to register

Values for high readings in 2005:January = 263,512 Gallons

July = 659,705 Gallons

Leachate valves closed from July 2016 to September 2016 due to unplanned outage.

Leachate valves closed from Septembe r2017 through December 2017 due to CAWWT construction.

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 5 LDS

LDS valves closed July 2016 through September 2016 due to unplanned power outage and September 2017 through December 2017 due to CAWWT construction.


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.5, Page 8


3,15

0a

1,12

51,

125

1,05

01,

050

11,7

75b

7,71

0b

4,23

0b

3,80

0b

800 1,

475

750 1,05

072

5 1,10

01,

100

1,07

51,

050

1,05

01,

100

1,15

01,

050

1,07

01,

050

1,10

01,

060

1,10

050

0 1,05

01,

050

1,05

01,

050

1,10

01,

050

1,07

51,

050

1,05

0

1,07

51,

100

1,05

01,

150

1,07

51,

050

1,05

01,

075

1,05

01,

050

1,05

01,

050

1,05

01,

050

1,05

01,

050

1,05

01,

050

1,05

0

1,05

01,

050

1,05

01,

050

1,05

01,

050

1,05

01,

050

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000G

allo

ns P

umpe

d

Month/YearaExcess water was pumped from this well in February 2002 for well development.

bMore than one purge of the well was completed during thesemonths to drain perched water and infiltrating surface waterso the compacted clay liner could be constructed.

cSampling schedule reduced to semiannual sampling in 2014.

12342 Purge InformationYear Total Volumes (gal.) Months Purged Avg. Monthly Purge (gal.)2002 35815 n=10 35822003: 6200 n=6 10332004: 5425 n=5 10852005: 4270 n=4 10682006: 3710 n=4 9282007: 4250 n=4 10632008: 4225 n=4 10562009: 3225 n=3 10752010: 4325 n=4 10812011: 4225 n=4 10562012: 4200 n=4 10502013: 4200 n=4 10502014a: 2100 n=2 10502015: 2100 n=2 10502016: 2100 n=2 10502017: 2100 n=2 1050 Overall: 1445



Figure A.5.5-13. Cell 5 Nitrate + Nitrate as Nitrogen Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well




0

50

100

150

200

250

300

10000 100000 1000000

Ura

nium

(ug/

L)

Sodium (ug/L)

LCS-12342C

LDS-12342D

HTW-12342

CELL 5

2/25/10

8/15/16

5/16/07

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.5, Page 19



eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Sub-attachment A

.5.5, Page 20


Subattachment A.5.6

Cell 6













and GMA-D Well ........................................................................................... 14 Figure A.5.6-12. Cell 6 Magnesium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U

Well, and GMA-D Well .................................................................................. 15 Figure A.5.6-13. Cell 6 Nitrate + Nitrite as Nitrogen Concentration Versus Time Plot for

HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ........................................................ 15 Figure A.5.6-14. Cell 6 Potassium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U

Well, and GMA-D Well .................................................................................. 16



Figure A.5.6-16. Cell 6 Technetium-99 Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well .................................................................................. 17


Figure A.5.6-18. Cell 6 Total Organic Halogens Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ................................................................... 18

Figure A.5.6-19. Cell 6 Bivariate Plot for Uranium and Sodium ............................................... 18 Figure A.5.6-20. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Total Uranium in

Monitoring Well 22210................................................................................... 19 Figure A.5.6-21. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Lithium in Monitoring



Monitoring Well 22209................................................................................... 22















TDS total dissolved solids













• Control charts (refer to Figures A.5.6-20 through A.5.6-23) A.5.6.1 Water Quality Monitoring Results Water quality within the cell is sampled in the LCS and LDS. Water quality beneath the cell is sampled in the HTW and GMA wells. Concentration-versus-time plots, bivariate plots, and control charts are used to help interpret and present the results. Until 2014, quarterly water quality monitoring occurred in the LCS, LDS, HTW, and GMA wells of each cell for the purpose of determining if the OSDF was operating as designed. With U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) concurrence, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) changed from a quarterly sampling frequency to a semiannual sampling frequency at the start of 2014. With EPA and Ohio EPA concurrence, DOE reduced the number of parameters sampled from 24 to 13 beginning in January 2017. All 13 parameters are sampled in the GMA wells; 4 of the 13 parameters (total uranium, boron, sodium, and sulfate) are sampled in the LCS, LDS, and HTW of each cell. The annual sampling in the LCS of each cell for the abbreviated list of Appendix I parameters and polychlorinated biphenyls listed in Ohio Administrative Code 3745-27-10 was also eliminated beginning in January 2017. Sufficient water was present in the LDS tank of Cell 6 to sample the tank twice in 2017. Summary statistics are provided in Table A.5.6-1. As shown in Table A.5.6-1, and summarized below, six parameters (total uranium, boron, sulfate, lithium, magnesium, and total dissolved solids [TDS]) have upward trends in the HTW and/or GMA wells based on the Mann-Kendall test for trend. The uranium–sodium bivariate plot for the Cell 6 LCS, LDS, and HTW is provided in Figure A.5.6-19. The plot shows that the chemical signatures for uranium and sodium in the LCS, LDS, and HTW are separate and distinct, indicating that mixing between the horizons is not occurring. Therefore, the increasing concentration trends measured beneath Cell 6 (i.e., HTW or GMA wells) are attributed to fluctuating ambient concentrations beneath the cell that are not related to cell performance.



Parameter HTW 12343

GMA-Ua 22209

GMA-Da 22210

Total Uranium Up Boron Up Up Sulfate Up Up Lithium Up

Magnesium Up Total dissolved solids Up

a GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer, GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer. No entry indicates that the trend was not up.

A.5.6.2 Control Charts Intrawell control charts employ historical measurements from a compliance point as background. The Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities—Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) defines the process of creating a Shewhart-cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart. Appropriate background data are used to define a baseline for the well. The baseline parameters for the chart, estimates of the mean, and standard deviation are obtained from the background data. These baseline measurements characterize the expected background concentrations at the monitoring point. As future concentrations are measured, the baseline parameters are used to standardize the newly gathered data. After these measurements are standardized and plotted, a control chart is declared “not in control” if future concentrations exceed the baseline control limit. This is indicated on the control chart when either the Shewhart or CUSUM plot traces begin to exceed a control limit. The limit is based on the rationale that if the monitoring point remains unchanged from the baseline condition, new standardized observations should not deviate substantially from the baseline mean. If a change occurs, the standardized values will deviate significantly from the baseline and tend to exceed the control limit. A minimum of eight samples are recommended for use in ChemStat software to define the baseline for a control chart. Therefore, only sample sets with greater than eight samples were selected for control charts. By default, the ChemStat software plots both a CUSUM control limit (h) and a Shewhart control limit (SCL) on the control chart. The software recommends a value of 5 for the CUSUM control limit and a value of 4.5 for the SCL. EPA Statistical Analysis Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) suggests that to simplify the interpretation of the control chart, an out-of-control condition should be based on the CUSUM (h) limit alone. Plotting the SCL is not needed. The ChemStat software though, by default, plots both the SCL and CUSUM control limit on the charts. To address this issue, the SCL was defined as 5 to equal the recommended CUSUM (h) limit. This combined limit is identified as hCL on the control charts. For interpretation purposes, the hCL value will be regarded as the CUSUM (h) limit. As shown in Table A.5.6-1 in gray shading, four parameters in the HTW or GMA wells of Cell 6 (total uranium, lithium, potassium, and TDS meet the criteria for control charts (i.e., at least eight samples, normal or lognormal distribution, no trend, and no serial correlation), resulting in four control charts.


Control charts are presented in Figures A.5.6-20 through A.5.6-23. All of the control charts exhibit “in control” conditions.

Parameter Monitoring Pointa Well Number Assessment Figure Number Total Uranium GMA-D 22210 In Control A.5.6-20

Lithium GMA-D 22210 In Control A.5.6-21 Potassium GMA-U 22209 In Control A.5.6-22

Total dissolved solids GMA-U 22209 In Control A.5.6-23 a GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer A.5.6.3 Summary and Conclusions • Sufficient water was present in the LDS tank of Cell 6 to sample the tank twice in 2017. • Six parameters monitored semiannually have an upward concentration trend in the HTW or

GMA wells of Cell 6: total uranium, boron, sulfate, lithium, magnesium, and TDS. • Separate and distinct chemical signatures for uranium and sodium in the LCS, LDS, and

HTW of Cell 6 indicate that water is not mixing between the horizons. Therefore, upward concentration trends beneath Cell 6 (i.e., HTW or GMA wells) are attributed to fluctuating ambient concentrations beneath the cell and not to cell performance.

• Four control charts were constructed for Cell 6 parameters. All of the control charts exhibit “in control” conditions.








Standard Deviationd



LCS 12343C 48 48 100 43.3 197 127 28 Normal Down DetectedLDS 12343D 48 48 100 3.10 70.8 26.2 12.9 Undefined Up Detected

HTW 12343 48 48 100 6.32 24.2 12.0 3.2 LogNormal Up DetectedGMA-U 22209 47 52 90.4 ND 0.928 0.491 0.152 Undefined Down Not Detected 0.0025(Q2-05), 2.43(Q2-06), 2.10(Q3-08), 1.64(Q3-11) GMA-D 22210 55 57 96.5 ND 0.994 0.664 0.164 LogNormal None Not Detected

LCS 12343C 48 48 100 0.0566 1.37 0.752 0.206 Undefined None DetectedLDS 12343D 48 48 100 0.289 1.22 0.411 0.145 Undefined None Detected 2.38(Q3-04)

HTW 12343 27 31 87.1 ND 0.124 0.0889 0.0205 Undefined None DetectedGMA-U 22209 47 52 90.4 ND 0.0484 0.0374 0.0076 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-D 22210 49 52 94.2 ND 0.0507 0.0361 0.0079 Undefined Up Detected

LCS 12343C 39 39 100 23.1 107 70.2 15.2 Undefined Up DetectedLDS 12343D 37 37 100 109 819 503 131 Normal Up DetectedHTW 12343 35 35 100 26.7 66.0 44.2 11.6 LogNormal Down Detected


LCS 12343C 48 48 100 491 4800 3070 1060 Undefined Up DetectedLDS 12343D 48 48 100 1300 5230 3080 1240 Undefined Up Detected

HTW 12343 42 43 97.7 ND 716 492 103 Normal Up DetectedGMA-U 22209 51 51 100 2.07 406 163 70 Undefined Down DetectedGMA-D 22210 51 51 100 127 392 300 75 Undefined Up Detected 578(Q2-07)GMA-U 22209 20 20 100 136 184 149 12 Undefined None Not Detected 242(Q3-11), 231(Q3-13)GMA-D 22210 20 20 100 181 239 217 15 Normal Down Not DetectedGMA-U 22209 27 27 100 0.00486 0.00786 0.00611 0.00076 Normal Up Not DetectedGMA-D 22210 27 27 100 0.00631 0.00865 0.00733 0.00057 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-U 22209 20 20 100 27.0 39.7 32.9 3.0 Normal Up Detected 55.4(Q3-13)GMA-D 22210 20 20 100 41.5 58.3 53.4 4.4 Undefined Down DetectedGMA-U 22209 2 21 9.5 ND 0.50 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-D 22210 1 20 5.0 ND 0.025 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-U 22209 20 20 100 3.00 3.78 3.30 0.20 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-D 22210 20 20 100 3.01 3.62 3.29 0.17 Normal Down DetectedGMA-U 22209 0 27 0 NA NA Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient InsufficientGMA-D 22210 2 27 7.4 ND 0.0077 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient DetectedGMA-U 22209 1 13 7.7 ND 8.61 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-D 22210 1 13 7.7 ND 6.61 Insufficient Insufficient LogNormal Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-U 22209 27 27 100 550 718 635 44 Normal None Not Detected 876(Q3-11)GMA-D 22210 27 27 100 827 1020 928 53 Normal Up DetectedGMA-U 22209 15 52 28.8 ND 0.0174 0.00166 0.00464 Undefined None Detected 0.0365(Q3-06), 0.0377(Q2-11), 0.0432(Q2-13)GMA-D 22210 13 52 25.0 ND 0.0230 0.00190 0.00483 Undefined None Detected 0.0590(Q2-10)


Technitium-99



Magnesium (mg/L)


Potassium (mg/L)

Selenium (mg/L)

Lithium (mg/L)

Boron (mg/L)


Sodium (mg/L)

Sulfate (mg/L)

Calcium (mg/L)




1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 6 LCS


Values for high readings in 2005:January = 1,877,259 GallonsFebruary = 539,243 Gallons

March = 848,614 GallonsApril = 635,839 GallonsMay = 719,850 GallonsJune = 308,605 Gallons

Leachate valves closed from July 2016 to September 2016 due to unplanned poweroutage.

Leachate valves closed from September 2017 through December 2017 due to CAWWT

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 6 LDS

Gap in data is due to malfunctioning transducer in 2007.

LDs valves closed July 2016 through September 2016 due to unplanned power outage and September 2017 through December 2017 due to CAWWT construction.


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.6, Page 8


1,40

0a 2,93

0b

2,42

0b

1,56

5b

875b

150

175 22

5

200

160

140

320

140

625

200

50 5014

015

015

012

512

580 10

050

110 15

0 200

50

200

175

175 22

5 300

260

150 20

0 400

300

275 39

032

525

010

040

032

517

5 230 275

200

525

200 35

025

0 375

345

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000G

allo

ns P

umpe

d

Month/YearaExcess water was pumped from this well in March 2003 for well development.

bMore than one purge of the well was completed during thesemonths to drain perched water and infiltrating surface waterso the compacted clay liner could be constructed.

cSampling schedule reduced to semiannual sampling in 2014.

12343 Purge InformationYear Total Volumes (gal.) Months Purged Avg. Monthly Purge (gal.)2003: 9940 n=10 9942004: 760 n= 6 1272005: 925 n=5 1852006: 565 n=4 1412007: 355 n=4 892008: 510 n=4 1282009: 550 n=3 1832010: 935 n=4 2342011: 1175 n=4 2942012: 1065 n=4 2662013: 1130 n=4 2832014a: 475 n=2 2382015: 725 n=2 3632016 600 n=2 3002017: 720 n=2 360 Overall: 341




0

50

100

150

200

250

10000 100000 1000000

Ura

nium

(ug/

L)

Sodium (ug/L)

LCS-12343C

LDS-12343D

HTW-12343

CELL 6

8/15/2012

11/04/09 11/02/06

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.6, Page 19



eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.6, Page 20


U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.6, Page 21



eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.6, Page 22


Subattachment A.5.7

Cell 7















HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ........................................................ 15 Figure A.5.7-14. Cell 7 Potassium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW,

GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ................................................................... 16


Figure A.5.7-15. Cell 7 Selenium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ................................................................... 16



Figure A.5.7-18. Cell 7 Total Organic Halogens Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U Well, and GMA-D Well ........................................................ 18

Figure A.5.7-19. Cell 7 Bivariate Plot for Uranium and Sodium ............................................... 18 Figure A.5.7-20. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Uranium in Monitoring

Well 22212 ...................................................................................................... 19 Figure A.5.7-21. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Boron in Monitoring

Well 12344 ...................................................................................................... 20 Figure A.5.7-22. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Sodium in Monitoring

Well 22211 ...................................................................................................... 21 Figure A.5.7-23. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Calcium in Monitoring

Well 22212 ...................................................................................................... 22 Figure A.5.7-24. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Lithium in Monitoring

Well 22212 ...................................................................................................... 23 Figure A.5.7-25. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Lithium in Monitoring





Well 22211 ...................................................................................................... 28










• Control charts (refer to Figures A.5.7-20 through A.5.7-29) A.5.7.1 Water Quality Monitoring Results Water quality within the cell is sampled in the LCS and LDS. Water quality beneath the cell is sampled in the HTW and GMA wells. Concentration-versus-time plots, bivariate plots, and control charts are used to help interpret and present the results. Until 2014, quarterly water quality monitoring occurred in the LCS, LDS, HTW, and GMA wells of each cell for the purpose of determining if the OSDF is operating as designed. With U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) concurrence, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) changed from a quarterly sampling frequency to a semiannual sampling frequency at the start of 2014. With EPA and Ohio EPA concurrence, DOE reduced the number of parameters sampled from 24 to 13 beginning in January 2017. All 13 parameters are sampled in the GMA wells; 4 of the 13 parameters (total uranium, boron, sodium, and sulfate) are sampled in the LCS, LDS, and HTW of each cell. The annual sampling in the LCS of each cell for the abbreviated list of Appendix I parameters and polychlorinated biphenyls listed in Ohio Administrative Code 3745-27-10 was also eliminated beginning in January 2017. The volume of water in the LDS tank of Cell 7 was insufficient to collect a sample in 2012 and 2013. Enough water was present to collect a sample in 2014 and 2015, but since 2015, the volume of water in the LDS tank of Cell 7 has been insufficient to collect a sample. Summary statistics are provided in Table A.5.7-1. As shown in Table A.5.7-1 and summarized below, four parameters (total uranium, boron, sodium, and sulfate) have upward concentration trends in the HTW and/or GMA wells based on the Mann-Kendall test for trend. The uranium–sodium bivariate plot for the Cell 7 LCS, LDS, and HTW is provided in Figure A.5.7-19. The plot shows that the chemical signatures for uranium and sodium in the LCS, LDS, and HTW are separate and distinct, indicating that mixing between the horizons is not occurring. Therefore, the increasing concentrations measured beneath Cell 7 (i.e., HTW or GMA wells) are attributed to fluctuating ambient concentrations beneath the cell that are not related to cell performance.



Parameter HTW

12344 GMA-Ua 22212

GMA-Da 22211

Total Uranium Up Boron Up Up

Sodium Up Sulfate Up

a GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer. No entry indicates that the trend was not up.

A.5.7.2 Control Charts Intrawell control charts employ historical measurements from a compliance point as background. The Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities—Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) defines the process of creating a Shewhart-cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart. Appropriate background data are used to define a baseline for the well. The baseline parameters for the chart, estimates of the mean, and standard deviation are obtained from the background data. These baseline measurements characterize the expected background concentrations at the monitoring point. As future concentrations are measured, the baseline parameters are used to standardize the newly gathered data. After these measurements are standardized and plotted, a control chart is declared “not in control” if future concentrations exceed the baseline control limit. This is indicated on the control chart when either the Shewhart or CUSUM plot traces begin to exceed a control limit. The limit is based on the rationale that if the monitoring point remains unchanged from the baseline condition, new standardized observations should not deviate substantially from the baseline mean. If a change occurs, the standardized values will deviate significantly from the baseline and tend to exceed the control limit. A minimum of eight samples are recommended for use in ChemStat software to define the baseline for a control chart. Therefore, only sample sets with greater than eight samples were selected for control charts. By default, the ChemStat software plots both a CUSUM control limit (h) and a Shewhart control limit (SCL) on the control chart. The software recommends a value of 5 for the CUSUM control limit and a value of 4.5 for the SCL. EPA Statistical Analysis Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) suggests that to simplify the interpretation of the control chart, an out-of-control condition should be based on the CUSUM (h) limit alone. Plotting the SCL is not needed. The ChemStat software though, by default, plots both the SCL and CUSUM control limit on the charts. To address this issue, the SCL was defined as 5 to equal the recommended CUSUM (h) limit. This combined limit is identified as hCL on the control charts. For interpretation purposes, the hCL value will be regarded as the CUSUM (h) limit. As shown in Table A.5.7-1 in gray shading, seven constituents in the HTW and GMA wells of Cell 7 (total uranium, boron, sodium, calcium, lithium, magnesium, and potassium) meet the criteria for control charts (i.e., at least eight samples, normal or lognormal distribution, no trend, and no serial correlation), resulting in 10 control charts.


Parameter Monitoring Pointa Monitoring Well Assessment Figure Number Total Uranium GMA-U 22212 In Control A.5.7-20

Boron HTW 12344 In Control A.5.7-21 Sodium GMA-D 22211 In Control A.5.7-22 Calcium GMA-U 22212 In Control A.5-7-23 Lithium GMA-U 22212 In Control A.5-7-24 Lithium GMA-D 22211 In Control A.5.7-25

Magnesium GMA-U 22212 In Control A.5.7-26 Magnesium GMA-D 22211 In Control A.5.7-27 Potassium GMA-U 22212 In Control A.5.7-28 Potassium GMA-D 22211 In Control A.5.7-29

a GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer The control charts are presented in Figures A.5.7-20 through A.5.7-29. All of the control charts exhibit “in control” conditions. A.5.7.3 Summary and Conclusions • The volume of water in the LDS tank of Cell 7 was insufficient to collect a sample in 2017.

• Four parameters monitored semiannually have an upward concentration trend in the HTW or GMA wells of Cell 7: total uranium, boron, sodium, and sulfate.

• Separate and distinct chemical signatures for total uranium and sodium in the LCS, LDS, and HTW of Cell 7 indicate that water is not mixing between the horizons. Therefore, upward concentration trends beneath Cell 7 (i.e., HTW and/or GMA wells) are attributed to fluctuating ambient concentrations beneath the cell, and not to cell performance.

• Ten control charts were constructed for Cell 7 parameters. All of the control charts exhibit “in control” conditions.








Standard Deviationd



LCS 12344C 45 45 100 68.4 264 166 36 Normal Down Not Detected 4.72(Q3-04), 355(Q3-07)LDS 12344D 31 31 100 12.2 37.6 25.7 6.5 Normal Up Detected 169(Q2-14)

HTW 12344 45 45 100 2.00 8.61 3.74 1.62 LogNormal Up Detected 12.1(Q4-13)GMA-U 22212 43 47 91.5 ND 0.634 0.438 0.101 Normal None Not Detected 1.644(Q2-04), 4.46(Q2-05), 1.7(Q2-07), 1.73(Q3-10), 5.53(Q3-11) GMA-D 22211 48 52 92.3 ND 4.06 0.334 0.723 Undefined None Not Detected

LCS 12344C 45 45 100 0.0625 1.35 1.13 0.31 Undefined None DetectedLDS 12344D 31 31 100 0.168 2.10 0.360 0.425 Undefined Up Detected

HTW 12344 21 29 72.4 ND 0.0750 0.0247 0.0132 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-U 22212 45 47 95.7 ND 0.0486 0.0367 0.0064 Normal Up DetectedGMA-D 22211 44 47 93.6 ND 0.476 0.0316 0.0075 Normal Up Detected

LCS 12344C 38 38 100 18.1 121 97.2 24.4 Undefined Up DetectedLDS 12344D 24 24 100 186 1590 587 374 Undefined Up DetectedHTW 12344 33 33 100 19.8 37.9 32.9 6.1 Undefined Up Detected

GMA-U 22212 27 27 100 15.5 27.0 20.1 3.3 Normal Down DetectedGMA-D 22211 27 27 100 11.1 19.2 15.1 2.3 Normal None Not Detected

LCS 12344C 45 45 100 122 5070 3410 1250 Undefined Up DetectedLDS 12344D 31 31 100 1280 7370 1770 1880 Undefined Up Detected

HTW 12344 40 40 100 80.4 765 314 257 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-U 22212 47 47 100 96.6 556 199 92 LogNormal None Detected 731(Q3-11)GMA-D 22211 47 47 100 136 572 318 117 LogNormal None Detected 3,640(Q3-12)GMA-U 22212 20 20 100 140 174 154 10 LogNormal None Not Detected 377(Q3-11)GMA-D 22211 20 20 100 136 263 198 37 Normal Down Not DetectedGMA-U 22212 27 27 100 0.00474 0.00892 0.00563 0.00096 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-D 22211 27 27 100 0.00555 0.00930 0.00697 0.00093 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-U 22212 20 20 100 28.6 41.5 34.6 2.6 Normal None Not Detected 54.6(Q3-11)GMA-D 22211 20 20 100 34.6 64.7 48.5 9.1 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-U 22212 2 20 10.0 ND 0.0425 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-D 22211 3 20 15.0 ND 0.0425 0.0085 Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-U 22212 20 20 100 3.05 3.81 3.47 0.20 Normal None Not Detected 4.81(Q3-11)GMA-D 22211 20 20 100 2.50 3.65 3.02 0.32 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-U 22212 3 27 11.1 ND 0.0114 0.00300 Insufficient Undefined Insufficient DetectedGMA-D 22211 1 27 3.7 ND 0.00786 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient DetectedGMA-U 22212 1 12 8.3 ND 11.0 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-D 22211 0 12 0 NA NA Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-U 22212 27 27 100 519 854 653 69 Normal Down Detected 1,130(Q2-10); 1,270(Q3-10); 1,510(Q3-11)GMA-D 22211 27 27 100 601 1350 940 212 Normal Down DetectedGMA-U 22212 17 47 36.2 ND 0.0125 0.00313 0.00292 Undefined None Not Detected 0.0500(Q2-10), 0.0190(Q2-13)GMA-D 22211 14 47 29.8 ND 0.0230 0.00166 0.00424 Undefined None Not Detected 0.0540(Q2-10)

Note 1: Shading identifies a horizontal till well or Great Miami Aquifer well, with at least eight samples, normal or lognormal distribution, no trend, and no serial correlation. These wells achieve control chart criteria.Note 2: Data used in this table has been standardized to quarterly.aLCS = leachate collection system; LDS = leak detection system; HTW = horizontal till well; GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer; and GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer bND = not detected; NA = not applicablecAverages were determined based on the distribution assumption.dInsufficient is used for Distribution Type, Trend, or Serial Correlation whenever there is not enough data to run the test.eData distribution based on the Shapiro-Wilk statistic. Normal: Normal assumption could not be rejected at the 5 percent level and has a higher probability value than the lognormal assumption. Lognormal: Lognormal assumption could not be rejected at the 5 percent level and has a higher probability value than the normal assumption. Undefined: Normal and Lognormal Distribution assumptiions are both rejected or there are less than 25% detected values. "Average" is defined as the Median of the data.fTrend based on nonparametric Mann-Kendall procedure.gSerial correlation based on Rank Von Neumann test.hOutliers determined by Rosner's (for sample sizes greater than 25) or Dixon procedure (for sample sizes less than or equal to 25).iQ = quarterly

Lithium (mg/L)

Boron (mg/L)


Sodium (mg/L)

Sulfate (mg/L)

Calcium (mg/L)

Technitium-99



Magnesium (mg/L)


Potassium (mg/L)

Selenium (mg/L)




1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 7 LCS


Values for high readings in 2005 are:January = 4,386,320 Gallons

May = 803,374 Gallons

Leachate valves closed from July 2016 to September 2016 due to an unplanned power outage.

Leachate valves closed fromSeptember 2017 throughDecember 2017 due to CAWWTconstruction.

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 7 LDS

LDS valves closed July 2016 through September 2016 due to unplanned power outage and from September 2017 through December 2017 due toCAWWT construction.


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.7, Page 8


710a

30 3538

0 200

200

160 30

0 525

530

220

175

600 95

095

090

030

022

517

5 225 35

0 550 90

01,

050

650

200 35

020

0 275

200

200

225

50

300

275

100

390

275

150

325 57

515

075

275

180 25

0 400

425

240 33

0 390

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000G

allo

ns P

umpe

d

Month/YearaMore than one purge of the well was completed during thismonth to drain perched water and infiltrating surface waterso the compacted clay liner could be constructed.


12344 Purge InformationYear Total Volumes (gal.) Months Purged Avg. Monthly Purge (gal.)2004: 2380 n=9 2642005: 2475 n=5 4952006: 2375 n=4 5942007: 1300 n=4 3252008: 2800 n=4 7002009: 825 n=3 2752010: 675 n=4 1692011: 675 n=4 1692012: 815 n=4 2042013: 1125 n=4 2812014b: 455 n=2 2282015: 650 n=2 3252016: 665 n=2 3332017: 720 n=2 360 Overall: 338




0

50

100

150

200

250

300

10000 100000 1000000 10000000

Ura

nium

(ug/

L)

Sodium (ug/L)

LCS-12344C

LDS-12344D

HTW-12344

CELL 7

8/23/05

11-16-05

5/31/05

9/9/14

12/2/106/16/09

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.7, Page 19

Figure A.5.7-20. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Uranium in Monitoring Well 22212


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.7, Page 20

Figure A.5.7-21. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Boron in Monitoring Well 12344

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.7, Page 21



eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.7, Page 22


U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.7, Page 23



eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.7, Page 24


U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.7, Page 25



eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.7, Page 26


U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.7, Page 27



eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.7, Page 28


Subattachment A.5.8

Cell 8




Figures Figure A.5.8-1. Monthly Accumulation Volumes for Cell 8 LCS .......................................... 7 Figure A.5.8-2. Monthly Accumulation Volumes for Cell 8 LDS .......................................... 7 Figure A.5.8-3. OSDF Horizontal Till Well 12345 (Cell 8) Water Yield ............................... 8 Figure A.5.8-4. Total Uranium Concentration and Groundwater Elevation Versus Time

Plot for Cell 8 Upgradient Monitoring Well 22213 ....................................... 9 Figure A.5.8-5. Total Uranium Concentration and Groundwater Elevation Versus Time

Plot for Cell 8 Downgradient Monitoring Well 22214 .................................. 9 Figure A.5.8-6. Total Uranium Concentration and Groundwater Elevation Versus Time

Plot for Cell 8 Downgradient Monitoring Well 22215 ................................ 10 Figure A.5.8-7. Total Uranium Concentration and Groundwater Elevation Versus Time

Plot for Cell 8 Downgradient Monitoring Well 22216/22217 ..................... 10 Figure A.5.8-8A. Cell 8 Total Uranium Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS,

and HTW ...................................................................................................... 11 Figure A.5.8-8B. Cell 8 Total Uranium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW,

GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells ................................... 11 Figure A.5.8-9A. Cell 8 Boron Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS, and HTW ... 12 Figure A.5.8-9B. Cell 8 Chloride Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U,

GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells ................................................... 12 Figure A.5.8-10A. Cell 8 Sodium Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS,

and HTW ...................................................................................................... 13 Figure A.5.8-10B. Cell 8 Magnesium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U,

GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells ................................................... 13 Figure A.5.8-11A. Cell 8 Sulfate Concentration Versus Time Plot for LCS, LDS,

and HTW ...................................................................................................... 14 Figure A.5.8-11B. Cell 8 Nitrate + Nitrite as Nitrogen Concentration Versus Time Plot for

HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells ........................ 14 Figure A.5.8-12. Cell 8 Calcium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U,

GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells ................................................... 15 Figure A.5.8-13. Cell 8 Lithium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U,

GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells ................................................... 15


Figure A.5.8-14. Cell 8 Magnesium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells ................................................... 16

Figure A.5.8-15. Cell 8 Nitrate + Nitrate as Nitrogen Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells ........................ 16

Figure A.5.8-16. Cell 8 Potassium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells ................................................... 17

Figure A.5.8-17. Cell 8 Selenium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells ................................................... 17

Figure A.5.8-18. Cell 8 Technetium-99 Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells ................................... 18

Figure A.5.8-19. Cell 8 Total Dissolved Solids Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells ........................ 18

Figure A.5.8-20. Cell 8 Total Organic Halogens Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells ........................ 19

Figure A.5.8-21. Cell 8 Bivariate Plot for Uranium and Sodium ............................................ 19 Figure A.5.8-22. Cell 8 Bivariate Plot for Uranium and Sulfate ............................................. 20 Figure A.5.8-23. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Total Uranium in

Monitoring Well 22217................................................................................ 21 Figure A.5.8-24. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Boron in Monitoring

Well 12345 ................................................................................................... 22 Figure A.5.8-25. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Boron in Monitoring

Well 22217 ................................................................................................... 23 Figure A.5.8-26. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Magnesium in

Monitoring Well 22215................................................................................ 24 Figure A.5.8-27. Intrawell Shewhart-CUSUM Control Chart for Total Dissolved Solids

in Monitoring Well 22214 ........................................................................... 25















TDS total dissolved solids










• Great Miami Aquifer (GMA) water levels and total uranium concentration versus time (refer to Figures A.5.8-4 through A.5.8-7)


• Bivariate plots for uranium–sodium and uranium–sulfate (refer to Figure A.5.8-21 and A.5.8-22)

• Control charts (refer to Figures A.5.8-23 through A.5.8-28) A.5.8.1 Water Quality Monitoring Results Water quality within the cell is sampled in the LCS and LDS. Water quality beneath the cell is sampled in the HTW and GMA wells. Concentration-versus-time plots, bivariate plots, and control charts are used to help interpret and present the results. Until 2014, quarterly water quality monitoring occurred in the LCS, LDS, HTW, and GMA wells of each cell for the purpose of determining if the OSDF is operating as designed. With U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) concurrence, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) changed from a quarterly sampling frequency to a semiannual sampling frequency at the start of 2014. With EPA and Ohio EPA concurrence, DOE reduced the number of parameters sampled from 24 to 13 beginning in January 2017. All 13 parameters are sampled in the GMA wells; 4 of the 13 parameters (total uranium, boron, sodium, and sulfate) are sampled in the LCS, LDS, and HTW of each cell. The annual sampling in the LCS of each cell for the abbreviated list of Appendix I parameters and polychlorinated biphenyls listed in Ohio Administrative Code 3745-27-10 was also eliminated beginning in January 2017. The Cell 8 HTW has been dry since the third quarter of 2008. Summary statistics are provided in Table A.5.8-1. As shown in Table A.5.8-1, and summarized below, five parameters (total uranium, boron, sodium, sulfate, and total dissolved solids [TDS]) have upward concentration trends in the HTW and/or GMA wells based on the Mann-Kendall test for trend. Cell 8 is unique in that it has four GMA wells (GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SW, and GMA-SE).



Parameter HTW

12345 GMA-Ua

22213 GMA-Da

22214 GMA-SWa

22215 GMA-SEa


Boron Up Up Sodium Up Up Sulfate Up Up Up

Total Dissolved Solids Up a GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer, GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-SW = southwest

Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-SE = southeast Great Miami Aquifer. No entry indicates that the trend was not up.

Two bivariate plots are used to illustrate that the LCS, LDS, and HTW of Cell 8 have separate and distinct chemical signatures. A uranium–sodium bivariate plot for the Cell 8 LCS, LDS, and HTW is provided in Figure A.5.8-19, and a uranium–sulfate bivariate plot for the Cell 8 LCS, LDS, and HTW is provided in Figure A.5.8-20. Both plots show that the chemical signatures for uranium and sodium and uranium and sulfate in the LCS are separate and distinct from the signatures seen in the LDS and HTW. The uranium–sulfate plot illustrates more clearly than the uranium–sodium plot that the chemical signatures in the LDS and HTW are also separate and distinct. Separate and distinct chemical signatures in the LCS, LDS, and HTW indicate that water is not mixing between the horizons. Therefore, the increasing concentrations measured beneath Cell 8 (i.e., HTW and GMA wells) are attributed to fluctuating ambient concentrations beneath the cell and are not related to cell performance. A.5.8.2 Control Charts Intrawell control charts employ historical measurements from a compliance point as background. The Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities – Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) defines the process of creating a Shewhart-cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart. Appropriate background data are used to define a baseline for the well. The baseline parameters for the chart, estimates of the mean, and standard deviation are obtained from the background data. These baseline measurements characterize the expected background concentrations at the monitoring point. As future concentrations are measured, the baseline parameters are used to standardize the newly gathered data. After these measurements are standardized and plotted, a control chart is declared “not in control” if future concentrations exceed the baseline control limit. This is indicated on the control chart when either the Shewhart or CUSUM plot traces begin to exceed a control limit. The limit is based on the rationale that if the monitoring point remains unchanged from the baseline condition, new standardized observations should not deviate substantially from the baseline mean. If a change occurs, the standardized values will deviate significantly from the baseline and tend to exceed the control limit. A minimum of eight samples are recommended for use in ChemStat software to define the baseline for a control chart. Therefore, only sample sets with greater than eight samples were selected for control charts. By default, the ChemStat software plots both a CUSUM control limit (h) and a Shewhart control limit (SCL) on the control chart. The software recommends a value of 5 for the CUSUM control limit and a value of 4.5 for the SCL.


EPA Statistical Analysis Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) suggests that to simplify the interpretation of the control chart, an out-of-control condition be based on the CUSUM (h) limit alone. Plotting the SCL is not needed. The ChemStat software though, by default, plots both the SCL and CUSUM control limit on the charts. To address this issue, the SCL was defined as 5 to equal the recommended CUSUM limit. This combined limit is identified as hCL on the control charts. For interpretation purposes, the hCL value will be regarded as the CUSUM (h) limit. As shown in Table A.5.8-1 in gray shading, four parameters in the HTW or GMA wells of Cell 8 (total uranium, boron, magnesium, and TDS) meet the criteria for control charts (i.e., at least eight samples, normal or lognormal distribution, no trend, and no serial correlation), resulting in five control charts.

Parameter Monitoring Pointa Monitoring Well Assessment Figure Number Total Uranium GMA-SE 22217 In Control A.5.8-23

Boron HTW 12345 In Control A.5.8-24 Boron GMA-SE 22217 In Control A.5.8-25

Magnesium GMA-SW 22215 In Control A.5.8-26 Total dissolved solids GMA-D 22214 In Control A.5.8-27

a GMA-D = downgradient Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-U = upgradient Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-SW = southwest Great Miami Aquifer; GMA-SE = southeast Great Miami Aquifer, HTW = horizontal till well.

The control charts are presented in Figures A.5.8-23 through A.5.8-27. All control charts exhibit “in control” conditions. A.5.8.3 Summary and Conclusions • The Cell 8 HTW has been dry since the third quarter of 2008.

• Five parameters monitored semiannually are increasing in either the HTW or GMA wells of Cell 8 (total uranium, boron, sodium, sulfate, and TDS).

• The chemical signatures for uranium–sodium and uranium–sulfate in the LCS of Cell 8 are separate and distinct from the signatures seen in the LDS and HTW. The signature for uranium–sodium in the HTW is also separate and distinct from the LDS signature, but low total uranium concentrations in both horizons have the clusters closer than what is seen in the other seven cells. The signature for uranium–sulfate in the HTW is separate and distinct from the LDS signature. Separate and distinct chemical signatures in the LCS, LDS, and HTW indicate that water is not mixing between the horizons. Concentration increases in the HTW and GMA wells of Cell 8 are attributed to fluctuating ambient concentrations beneath the cell and not to cell performance. The HTW of Cell 8 has been dry since the third quarter of 2008, providing additional evidence that the secondary liner is not leaking.

• Five control charts were constructed for Cell 8 parameters. All exhibit “in control” conditions.








Standard Deviationd



LCS 12345C 44 44 100 1.51 335 174 61 Normal None DetectedLDS 12345D 39 39 100 9.38 75.9 27.6 16.3 LogNormal Up Detected

HTW 12345 16 16 100 3.67 7.30 5.02 0.99 Normal Up Not DetectedGMA-U 22213 41 47 87.2 ND 0.717 0.396 0.124 Normal Up DetectedGMA-D 22214 49 52 94.2 ND 2.37 0.750 0.509 LogNormal Down Not Detected

GMA-SW 22215 38 41 92.7 ND 0.770 0.480 0.109 Undefined None Not Detected 16.4(Q2-11), 7.08(Q3-11)GMA-SE 22217 37 37 100 0.898 18.3 7.45 4.34 Normal None Not Detected

LCS 12345C 44 44 100 0.0681 0.776 0.622 0.179 Undefined None DetectedLDS 12345D 39 39 100 0.582 2.40 1.16 0.5200 Undefined Up Detected

HTW 12345 15 15 100 0.0683 0.0978 0.0834 0.0079 Normal None Not DetectedGMA-U 22213 44 47 93.6 ND 0.0463 0.0382 0.0067 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-D 22214 45 47 95.7 ND 0.0524 0.0290 0.0066 Undefined None Not Detected

GMA-SW 22215 39 41 95.1 ND 0.0409 0.0348 0.0059 Undefined Up Not Detected 0.0746(Q4-13)GMA-SE 22217 35 37 94.6 ND 0.0382 0.0273 0.0053 Normal None Not Detected

LCS 12345C 36 36 100 16.8 148 114 35 Undefined Up DetectedLDS 12345D 30 30 100 76.6 1200 551 308 Normal Up DetectedHTW 12345 7 7 100 277 385 334 45 Normal Down Not Detected

GMA-U 22213 27 27 100 18.3 30.3 22.7 3.9 Undefined Down DetectedGMA-D 22214 27 27 100 9.83 14.6 12.0 1.4 Normal Up Detected

GMA-SW 22215 27 27 100 13.5 26.0 18.5 2.8 Normal Up DetectedGMA-SE 22217 27 27 100 11.5 17.6 13.7 1.8 Undefined Down Detected


HTW 12345 15 15 100 95.5 152 116 18 Normal Up DetectedGMA-U 22213 47 47 100 90.2 284 195 57 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-D 22214 47 47 100 91.9 457 233 85 Normal Down Detected

GMA-SW 22215 40 41 97.6 ND 911 236 173 LogNormal Up DetectedGMA-SE 22217 37 37 100 163 1320 398 211 LogNormal None DetectedGMA-U 22213 20 20 100 142 186 160 11 Normal Down Not DetectedGMA-D 22214 20 20 100 104 230 152 40 Normal Down Not Detected

GMA-SW 22215 20 20 100 127 446 192 79 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-SE 22217 20 20 100 147 334 210 51 Normal Down DetectedGMA-U 22213 27 27 100 0.00434 0.00728 0.00533 0.00065 Normal Down DetectedGMA-D 22214 27 27 100 0.00372 0.00858 0.00515 0.00111 LogNormal Down Detected

GMA-SW 22215 27 27 100 0.00467 0.00828 0.00559 0.00079 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-SE 22217 27 27 100 0.00432 0.00799 0.00601 0.00101 Normal Down DetectedGMA-U 22213 20 20 100 31.7 42.0 36.2 2.4 Normal Down Not DetectedGMA-D 22214 20 20 100 24.2 53.2 35.5 8.6 Normal Down Not Detected

GMA-SW 22215 20 20 100 32.5 74.5 44.4 9.7 LogNormal None Not DetectedGMA-SE 22217 20 20 100 33.4 63.3 44.4 8.3 Normal Down DetectedGMA-U 22213 0 20 0 ND NA Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient InsufficientGMA-D 22214 1 20 5.0 ND 0.0500 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Detected

GMA-SW 22215 1 20 5.0 ND 0.0425 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Not DetectedGMA-SE 22217 4 20 20.0 ND 0.0850 0.0085 0.0200 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-U 22213 20 20 100 3.36 4.14 3.70 0.20 Normal Down DetectedGMA-D 22214 20 20 100 2.17 3.23 2.60 0.29 Normal Down Not Detected

GMA-SW 22215 20 20 100 2.30 5.01 3.54 0.54 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-SE 22217 20 20 100 2.50 4.09 3.04 0.43 Undefined None Not Detected

Lithium (mg/L)

Boron (mg/L)


Sodium (mg/L)

Sulfate (mg/L)

Calcium (mg/L)

Magnesium (mg/L)


Potassium (mg/L)


Table A.5.8-1 (continued). Summary Statistics for Cell 8





Standard Deviationd



GMA-U 22213 1 27 3.7 ND 0.00703 Insufficient Insufficient Undefined Insufficient DetectedGMA-D 22214 3 27 11.1 ND 0.0125 0.00300 Insufficient Undefined Insufficient Detected

GMA-SW 22215 3 27 11.1 ND 0.00980 0.00300 Insufficient Undefined Insufficient DetectedGMA-SE 22217 0 27 0 ND NA Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient InsufficientGMA-U 22213 6 38 15.8 ND 24.8 0.450 4.67 Undefined Down DetectedGMA-D 22214 4 38 10.5 ND 11.8 0.0150 2.61 Undefined None Not Detected

GMA-SW 22215 0 32 0 ND NA Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient InsufficientGMA-SE 22217 0 28 0 ND NA Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient InsufficientGMA-U 22213 27 27 100 429 843 697 92 Normal Down DetectedGMA-D 22214 27 27 100 427 1020 658 157 Normal None Not Detected

GMA-SW 22215 27 27 100 457 1800 779 290 Undefined Up DetectedGMA-SE 22217 27 27 100 599 1550 950 249 Normal Down DetectedGMA-U 22213 10 47 21.3 ND 0.0560 0.00166 0.00886 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-D 22214 9 47 19.2 ND 0.0590 0.00166 0.00947 Undefined None Not Detected

GMA-SW 22215 12 41 29.3 ND 0.0460 0.00166 0.00845 Undefined None Not DetectedGMA-SE 22217 12 37 32.4 ND 0.0730 0.00166 0.0122 Undefined None Not Detected


Technitium-99



Selenium (mg/L)




1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 8 LCS


Values for high readings in 2005 are:January = 4,439,477 Gallons

May = 1,280,305 Gallons

Leachate valves closed from July 2016to September 2016 due to an unplanned power outage.

Leacahte valves closed fromSeptember 2017 throughDecember 2017 due to CAWWT

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Gal

lons

Year

CELL 8 LDS

LDS valves closed July 2016 to September 2016 due to unplanned power outage and September 2017 through December 2017 due to CAWWT construction.


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

P Subattachment A

.5.8, Page 8


1,02

062

5 1,05

055

0 775

300

150

6030

260

250 37

595

01,

050

1,00

022

5 350

200

225

100

25

10

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000G

allo

ns P

umpe

d

Month/Year

12345 Purge InformationYear Total Volumes (gal.) Months Purged Avg. Monthly Purge (gal.)2004: 4020 n=5 8042005: 1050 n=6 1752006: 3375 n=4 8442007: 1000 n=4 2502008: 135 n=4 342009: 0 n=3 02010: 0 n=4 02011: 0 n=4 02012: 0 n=4 02013: 0 n=4 02014a: 0 n=2 02015: 0 n=2 02016: 0 n=2 02017: 0 n=2 0 Overall: 192

aSampling schedule reduced to semiannual sampling in 2014.



Figure A.5.8-7. Total Uranium Concentration and Groundwater Elevation Versus Time Plot for Cell 8 Downgradient Monitoring Well 22216/22217



Figure A.5.8-8B. Cell 8 Total Uranium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells



Figure A.5.8-9B. Cell 8 Boron Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells



Figure A.5.8-10B. Cell 8 Sodium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells



Figure A.5.8-11B. Cell 8 Sulfate Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells


Figure A.5.8-12. Cell 8 Calcium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and

GMA-SW Wells

Figure A.5.8-13. Cell 8 Lithium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and

GMA-SW Wells


Figure A.5.8-14. Cell 8 Magnesium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells

Figure A.5.8-15. Cell 8 Nitrate + Nitrate as Nitrogen Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells


Figure A.5.8-16. Cell 8 Potassium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE,

and GMA-SW Wells

Figure A.5.8-17. Cell 8 Selenium Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells


Figure A.5.8-18. Cell 8 Technetium-99 Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells

Figure A.5.8-19. Cell 8 Total Dissolved Solids Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D,

GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells


Figure A.5.8-20. Cell 8 Total Organic Halogens Concentration Versus Time Plot for HTW, GMA-U, GMA-D, GMA-SE, and GMA-SW Wells


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

10000 100000 1000000 10000000

Ura

nium

(ug/

L)

Sodium (ug/L)

LCS-12345C

LDS-12345D

HTW-12345

CELL 8

8/23/058/23/05

5/29/06

5/15/16

8/15/16


Figure A.5.8-22. Cell 8 Bivariate Plot for Uranium and Sulfate

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

10000 100000 1000000 10000000

Ura

nium

(ug/

L)

Sulfate (ug/L)

LCS-12345C

LDS-12345D

HTW-12345

11-16-20052-21-2006 8-23-2005

2-28-2007 5-30-2006

8/15/16

5/15/16

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.8, Page 21



eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.8, Page 22


U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.8, Page 23



eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Subattachment A

.5.8, Page 24


U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Subattachment A

.5.8, Page 25


subattachment a.5.1 cell 1 - energy.gov · intrawell shewhart-cusum control chart for total...

Documents