NC0086606_Fact Sheet_20181029

FACT SHEET
FOR COMPLEXEXPEDITED - PERMIT RENEWAL
NPDES Permit NCO086606
Table 1-- Basic Information S
Permit Writer / Date
Permit Number
Permittee
Permittee's Consultant / Contact
Facility
Regional Office / Contact
Basin Name / Subbasin Number
Receiving Stream / Verified
Stream Classification in Permit / Verified
Does permit need Daily Max NH3 limits?
Does permit need TRC limits/lan a e?
Does permit have toxicity testing?
Does permit have Special Conditions? _
Does i)ermit have instream monitorin,=?_
Is the stream impaired [303(d) listed]?
Any obvious compliance concerns?
mods since last
Current expiration date
New expiration date
it?
BIMS Downloads and Review Summar,
Joe R. Corporon, L.G. — revised 290ct2018
ioe.co orona_ncdenr. ov 919-707-3617
NCO086606
Carolina Water Service [CWS], Inc.
PO Box 240908
Charlotte, NC 28224
Steve Bond, El (LandDesign) 707— 333-0325
CWS The Harbour — Well #4, Class 1
1540 Bradlev School Road
MRO / [Staff Report (?)]
Catawba / 03-08-32
UT Lake Norman (Catawba River) [segment 11-(75)
/ Yes (see BIMS Tracking Sheet).
WS-IV; B; CA
No
Yes, limit 17 L — updated TRC footnote
Yes — has WET test TGP3B in accord w/ IE WTP
Yes, see Section A. 3. re -opener clause
No, {removed last renewal at Permittee's
No
Yes — consistently fails WET test [sodium ion -exchange
(IE) treatment]. Zero -flow conditions at outfall (no credit
for dilution).
RPA — concludes metal limits equal to standards; to
receive dilution credit, the Permittee should consider
outfall extension into the lake; employ an effluent diffuser
w/ approved model — OR consider changing treatment
technology.
Renewal adds a "compliance period" of 5 years to
establish possible dilution and soluble -metals treatment.
No _
March 31, 2018
March 31, 2023
1. For renewal: Updated effluent page in accordance with Ion -Exchange (IE) WTP technology
guidelines (2009); updated permit template, facility location, facility description, and added 8 Digit
HUC to the map; Added parameter monitoring and limits based on zero flow conditions
(IWC=100%) using a Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA). The maximum monthly -average flow
rate for treated wastewater effluent occurred during Jun2016 at 0.0165 MGD; this figure was used in
the RPA analysis, per WTP Strategy 2009. The Permittee reported a maximum waste effluent now
of 0.200 MGD (Nov2016) assumed a reporting error [outlier not considered].
Page 11

1. Flow Monitoring — Reviewed flow data (by year) noting the monitoring frequency at 2/monthly;
footnote edited to require both flow rate and flow duration, log to be kept onsite for DWR review.
Based on a Permittee-corrected BIMS database, DWR has confirmed that this facility's average
monthly wasteflow is less than 30,000 gpd. Therefore, a composite sampler is not required.
2. Tom- The WTP failed 18 of 18 WET tests during the past 4 years.
3. CoMpliance — BIMs records indicates a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) for low pH in Feb2017, and an
NOV for failure to monitor Chloride (Jun2015.
4. CWS responded to previous Special Condition A. (3.) by providing a Discharge Alternatives
Evaluation (DAE) with its application to renew. The Division concurs that a surface -water discharge
is the best discharge alternative based on cost, however effluent conditions have changed for this
renewal may affect future costs analyses (see Effluent Data Concerns and RPA).
Table 2 — Wastewater Database (Jan2014 - Aug2018) - Compared to SWQ Standards
Parameter
Max Reported
Average Reported
Water Supply
(WS) Standard
Sample
Count (n)
Flow (MGD)
0.200
0.0044
Not limited
467
Total Chloride
13,000 mg/L
4,476 mg/L
250 mg/L
57
Total Copper
50 µg/L
17.1 µg/L
7.88 µg/L
19
Total Lead
500 µg/L
14.1 µg/L
25 µg/L
55
Total Manganese
4,100 µg/L
528 µg/L
200 µg/L
55
Salinity
103.2 ppth (?)
6.18 ppth
55
TDS
24,000 mg/L
8,143 mg/L
250 mg/L
110
TSS
31 mg/L
6.37 mg/L
110
Total Zinc
820 mg/L
118.7 µg/L
50 µg/L
20
Effluent Data Concerns — Data suggest that the current treatment system is not adequate to meet
NC Surface Water Quality Standards for metals, for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), and for Total
Chlorides considering a discharge under "zero -flow receiving -stream conditions to Class WS-IV;
B; CA [Water Supply; swimmable; habitat -critical area]. The Permittee is admonished to consider
applying a potable -water treatment technology other than sodium ion exchange (IE). Alternative:
consider extending discharge into the lake and employing an effluent diffuser. After modeling, this
pre -approved diffuser may allow dilution credit to be applied to parameter limits.
Self -monitoring databases contained reporting errors [now corrected by the Permittee for renewal].
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs/eDMRs) reported multiple parameters of concern (POCs)
with confused, inconsistent units of measure. In addition, the Permittee reported parameters as "not
detected" by submitting "0" instead of reporting the required laboratory minimum detection levels
(MDLs). These are permit violations.
Page 12

5. Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) — Per WTP permitting guidance, Total Iron is no longer
considered a POC, and monitoring is hereby discontinued. However, data for copper, zinc, lead,
chloride, manganese, Chloride and TDS continue to show reasonable potential to exceed their
respective surface water -quality standards. Considering a discharge under zero -flow conditions
[7Q10/30Q2 = 0.0 cfs], each metal requires a permit limit equal to its standard. In addition, future
soluble -fraction metals calculations require Total Hardness monitoring of the effluent [upstream also
recommended, but not possible under zero -flow receiving -stream conditions].
6. Revised Treatment R uired — Based on DWR/CWS discussions during pre -draft review, June
22, 2018, permit Special Condition A. (3.) details permit limits and compliance deadlines as:
• compliance to metals limits begins on -or -before the expiration date of this permit.
• compliance to Total Chloride limits begins on -or -before September 30, 2021.
DWR may reopen this permit to incorporate new data, as warranted [see A. (3)].
Table 3 -- Parameters of Concern - Renewal Summary 2018
Characteristic
DWQ Action
WET Testing
Continue WET testing (monitoring only) per WTP Policy
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Monitor 2/Month; Limit = 500 mg/L; no change
recommended
Monitor Monthly - to protect human health through water
Total Chloride
consumption and fish tissue consumption; Daily Max =
250 m L compliance begins on 3 OSep2O21
Ammonia [NH3 as N]
Monitoring not required; this facility does not add
ammonia as a disinfectant [deleted from draft].
All Metals
Based on RPA, metals limits are set equal to standards;
[see permit A. (1.)]
Monitor Monthly — to protect human health (HH) and
aquatic life (AL) considering Water Supply WS-IV; B; CA,
bathing, and consumption of fish tissue.
The Permittee has one (1) permit cycle to establish
See Special Condition A. (3.).
compliance with permit limits for soluble metals [on or
before the permit expiration date 31Mar2023].
Turbidity
Monitoring Monthly no limit — lake not impaired — no
changes recommended
Draft Permit to Public Notice: [estimate]
Permit Scheduled to Issue: [estimate]
September 19, 2018
November 1, 2018
Page 13

NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards - Freshwater
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft permits
out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as approved.
Table 4 - NC Dissolved Metals Water Qualift Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW,
µg/1
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW,
µg/1
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryllium
65
6.5
---
---
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
Chromium III
Calculation
Calculation
---
Chromium VI
16
11
1100
50
Copper
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
1.9
0.1
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness Dependent Standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life standards
for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to bioaccumulative
concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary to evaluate total
recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC 2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10
µg/1 for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at 1.8 mg/L for aquatic life
protection).
Table 5. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under 15A NCAC 02B
.0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, = 1
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.136672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} e^{0.9151 [In hardness]-3.1485)
Cadmium, Acute Trout waters
WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.041838)) a^{0.9151[ln hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
1 WER*{1.101672-[ln hardness](0.041838)} • e^{0.7998[ln hardness]-4.4451}
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0.316 a^{0.8190[ln hardness]+3.7256)
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 e^{0.8190[In hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0.960 e^{0.9422[ln hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 a^{0.8545[ln hardness]-1.7021
Lead, Acute
WER*{l.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)} • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[ln hardness](0.145712)) • e^{1.273[ln hardness]-4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+2.255}
Page 14

Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 • e^{0.8460[ln hardness]+0.05841
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 • e^{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 a^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.8841
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 a^{0.8473[ln hardness]+0.884)
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis RPA
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of the dissolved
and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration to establish the numeric standard for each metal of
concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream) hardness and so must
be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The discharge -
specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA calculations. We will generally
rely on default translator values developed for each metal (more on that below), but it is also possible to consider case -
specific translators developed in accordance with established methodology.
RPA Permitting GuidanceMO BELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern, based
on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable standards and
the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the discharge has
reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If monitoring for a particular
pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below detection level), then the Division may
remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
1. To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates the
1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs) 0.993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. To establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for each
individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream (upstream)
hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the hardness
value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
Page � 5

If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and upstream
hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Combined Hardness (chronic)
= (Permitted Flow. cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness. m,,IL x (s7410_ cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness. mu'L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the 1 Q 10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any have
been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the
value for dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal
at in -stream ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear
partition coefficients found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for
Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion
(EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the equation:
Cdiss = 1
Ctotal 1 + { [KPo] [SS(1+a)] [10-6] }
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L
used, and
Kpo and a = constants that express the equilibrium relationship between
dissolved and adsorbed forms of metals. A list of constants used for each
hardness -dependent metal can also be found in the RPA prosram under a
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or site -
specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (ie. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7010 + Qw) (Cwgs) — (s7Q10)(Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q10)
Page 16

s7Q10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human health
through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQ 10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water, fish,
and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern. Data
entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper concentration
of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total allowable
concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds the acute or
chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show reasonable potential to
violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable concentration) is included in
the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support Document for Water Quality -
Based Toxics Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance with
the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on 40 CFR
122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
8. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and hexavalent
chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data results may be
used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results based on chromium III
or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for total chromium will be
compared against water quality standards for chromium III and chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are inserted
into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the accuracy of the
permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments Data Source)
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
Total as, CaCO3 or Ca+M
25
Assumed — no data to date
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
Total as, CaCO3 or Ca+M
25
Assumed — no data to date
7Q 10 summer cfs
0.0
1 Q 10 cfs
0.0
Permitted Flow MGD)
Not limited
Permit A
Date: ACf0C (0O/ (!7-
Page 17

n

2
C
d
L
o !�
e co f-
t a
m am
t N
C3 f6
0
LL
MINGININICIN
1111111810
a)�
Z
m
J
N� 0) +0
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
!6
l6
W
W
A A W A
W W
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a a
a
a
a
a a
a a a a
a
coW
a a a a a
>_
Ln
1 1 1
I
�=•
cm
E
0of
CD
co
O
V
O
Q
ci
Q Q' J J
•O 0'
3e
_
�j
o
o
o
�O
o
,�
00
>
0
o
0
0
0
0 0
=IJ1 EI E
°D
a=
a
O
O
0
0
0 ci
N N
Y
m(0D
Z
Z
O
I N t I
1
d
Whe
N
0
0
i l i l
Na
.
11 1 1
I
5
1 1�1
1 1•�I m
I IL1�
uOl
I i�la
3
t H t y 1 q
y1�1c1�
0
cID1�l7E
f
~2
0 I I=
0
d a
z
a
;
0t
a
a
N_
Ci
_cE
>
2
E
a
w;
bl
CI m1 C I C
*51a
(% v
~
c
3
d
as
N
O
U'
=10
olo0iV
=
ti
Z
0
li
w
2
y
11
r
�,
Wj?i
00
G. W
(IS N
ras
E ccv
x O
0
O
a
d
U)
Q
a
d
m
a
D
N
O
.O
f0
2
U
O
co
O

c�
l e
I E
IE
I E
I
w
W
I
I
I D
I
1
Q
OD
p
a
l.2
I `o
to
cn
C
I O
I
II
w �a o
o
o
I
I0
I
I
3
z W 7 0 0
Q N 'n
w
2
1 a
t
I {a
l E
IT
I a
I n
EL
CY
a z� LL,m y
o
0
to
l 0
I N
11
w N 0m E
I m
I ,�
IC
1CIRL
1 3
W E
IU
N ¢ x x
1 3
1 3
13
I
t o
Ov v oy WE W
I K
I N
I Ix
l y
JCL
I N
I
I O
I
I
I
lotjt�
v,IIR
1On
0Ov00
I
I�
I
In 3d
U
1
I
3
o
IN c
I� p ,;
IN
�
I� a 0
o
IN
z
I c
I o
I
I o z
I
I
I
N
m
r
w•b
Igo 7
I
I
t o
c
V oOOooy
a
IU >�
IU �3
o 0 0 C. 0
arrrrr�
z
I
I
I
1• `"
I
~
u u u u n N
3
it
w+
ARpw
U o 0 o aO'U
a
U
C
W
o
-Miz
N
U
QCIL0r
R~i
n
.N
a
�
� � UUUUG
C 1L"
3k
v Z
W
o QA
q
h
N
0 1.r
v
r
h
v�
Q
c
s11Nn
a
0
p
U
�Dd
N �
S
Q
y
N
0
C
G
Ia
�
O'
�
l�
00
V
�
3
n
V
Q
w
d
a
o
�
a
€
I
0
r
z
d
Q
z
L
to O
r 0 0 O +'
0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0
U
2
U
cMv
0000
N
�O
cq
O
N
L
0 0 0 0 0 0
LL
II II II II II II 'E
2
gaza � cp
W
a
U
z
U
Z
U U
U
V�Vv�
Cn
z z z
cn 3 N OD
od.�
dddd0 3'y
0
N
a
L
I.-
W
w
'O
O
9 C
V
Q
d'
r
0.
O
U
L7
J R C
:e
IL
U
cc
0
V
♦�
VZ
l0 aD
E N
N O]
X G
N
n
am
U)
d
m
a
r
3
O
10
x
U
28
s

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
H1
H2
Lino ^PASTE SPECIAL
Uas PASTE SPECIA!
Effluent Hardness
Val use ttlen'c0Pr-
Upstream Hardness
Yalu"'• rh°" -c°Pr
m mimurn data
Maximum d611
{ral,ret = 58
points - SE
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1
25 Std Dev.
rd,A
1
25 25 Std Dev.
N/A
2
Mean
25.0000
2
Mean
25.0000
3
C.V.
0.0000
3
C.V.
0.0000
4
n
1
4
n
1
5
10th Per value
25.00 mg/L
5
10th Per value
25.00 mg/L
6
Average Value
25.00 mg/L
6
Average Value
25.00 mg/L
7
Max. Value
25.00 mg/L
7
Max. Value
25.00 mg/L
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
86606 CWS Harbor wells Updated RPA Sep2018.xlsm, data
- 1 - 9/5/2018

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par05
Chlorides
Ure -PASTE SPFCiAL•
vy1F°o, Tncn 'COPY-
Pal
M ax3mum datA pk1nS+ _
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
2014
11610
11610
Std Dev.
3379.:.
1
2
2014
7900
7900
Mean
4,638.7
2
3
2014
9900
9900
C.V.
0.7284
3
4
2014
11000
11000
n
55
4
5
2014
12000
12000
5
6
2014
9900
9900
Mult Factor =
1.0
6
7
2014
13000
13000
Max. Value
13000.0 mg/L
7
8
2014
9900
9900
Max. Pred Cw
13,130.0 mg/L
8
9
2014
7600
7600
9
10
2014
6400
6400
10
11
2014
4000
4000
11
12
2014
5900
5900
12
13
2015
550
550
13
14
2015
230
230
14
15
2015
860
860
15
16
2015
2200
2200
16
17
2015
470
470
17
18
2015
2300
2300
18
19
2015
3300
3300
19
20
2015
2900
2900
20
21
2015
1400
1400
21
22
2015
2300
2300
22
23
2015
1500
1500
23
24
2016
5700
5700
24
25
2016
8300
8300
25
26
2016
2800
2800
26
27
2016
4200
4200
27
28
2016
5800
5800
28
29
2016
6300
6300
29
30
2016
4600
4600
30
31
2016
7600
7600
31
32
2016
6300
6300
32
33
2016
6900
6900
33
34
2016
5400
5400
34
35
2016
5100
5100
35
36
2017
6200
6200
36
37
2017
4000
4000
37
38
2017
6900
6900
38
39
2017
2900
2900
39
40
2017
4900
4900
40
41
2017
0.0001
41
42
2017
^ ^^^'
42
43
2017
1700
1700
43
44
2017
4600
4600
44
45
2017
180
180
45
46
2017
1700
1700
46
47
2017
4000
4000
47
48
2017
790
790
48
49
2018
1000
1000
49
50
2018
1200
1200
50
51
2018
1000
1000
51
52
2018
2800
2800
52
53
2018
5200
5200
53
54
2018
140
140
54
55
100
100
55
56
4800
4800
56
57
4900
4900
57
58
58
ll+o ' PAS M SF
Copper
Vail . U" n
1444imm s
pdrW -4
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
2014
36
36
Std Dev.
13.441;:
2014
29
29
Mean
15.0000
2014
11
11
C.V.
0.8961
2014
38
38
n
19
2015
<
10
5
2016
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
1.57
2015
<
10
5
Max. Value
50.00
2015
12
12
Max. Fred Cw
78.50
2016
12
12
2016
10
5
2016
14
14
2016
18
18
2017
<
10
5
2017
50
50
2017
11
11
2017
14
14
2017
<
10
5
2018
<
10
5
2018
<
10
5
-2-
86606 CWS Harbor wells Updated RPA Sep2018.xlsm, data
9/5/2018

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Parl4
Par21
'ECWL
0" _PAM SPECKL
=QPY'
Lead
Valwte thtn "COPY"
Zinc
. raa,mum 0z2
6
points = 55
Date
BDL=112DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
2014
9
9
Std Dev.
66.9512
1
2014
670
670
Std Dev.
2
2014
<
5
2.5
Mean
13.0818
2
2014
45
45
Mean
3
2014
<
5
2.5
C.V.
5.1179
3
2014
310
310
C.V.
4
2014
<
5
2.6
n
55
4
2014
820
820
n
5
2014
<
5
2.5
5
2015
250
250
6
2014
<
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.05
6
2015
< 30
15
Mult Factor =
ug/L
7
2014
<
5
2.5
Max. Value
500.000 ug/L
7
2015
93
93
Max. Value
ug/L
8
2014
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
525.000 ug/L
8
2015
190
190
Max. Pred Cw
9
2014
<
5
2.5
9
2016
290
290
10
2014
5
5
10
2016
120
120
11
2014
<
5
2.5
11
2016
140
140
12
2014
<
5
2.5
12
2016
110
110
13
2015
<
5
2.5
13
2017
270
270
14
2015
<
5
2.5
14
2017
220
220
15
2015
5
5
15
2017
120
120
16
2015
<
5
2.5
16
2017
160
160
17
2015
<
5
2.5
17
2017
140
140
18
2015
<
5
2.5
18
2017
56
56
19
2015
<
5
2.5
19
2018
150
150
20
2015
<
5
2.5
20
2018
190
190
21
2015
<
5
2.5
21
22
2015
<
5
2.5
22
23
2016
<
5
2.5
23
24
2015
<
5
2.5
24
25
2016
<
5
2.5
25
26
2016
<
5
2.5
26
27
2016
<
5
2.5
27
28
2016
5
5
28
29
2016
500
500
29
30
2016
5
5
30
31
2016
5
5
31
32
2016
5
5
32
33
2016
5
5
33
34
2016
5
5
34
35
2016
5
5
35
36
2016
1
1
36
37
2017
5
5
37
38
2017
1
1
38
39
2017
25
25
39
40
2017
5
5
40
41
2017
5
5
41
42
2017
5
5
42
43
2017
5
5
43
44
2017
2.5
2.5
44
45
2017
5
5
45
46
2017
1
1
46
47
2017
5
5
47
48
2017
5
5
48
49
2018
5
5
49
50
2018
5
5
50
51
2018
5
5
51
52
2018
5
5
52
53
2018
5
5
53
54
2018
5
5
54
55
2018
5
5
55
f
56
56
57
I
57
58
58
Use 'PASTE SF
M�xlmum i
Points - a
217.9500
0.9114
20
1.55
820.0
1271.0
86606 CWS Harbor wells Updated RPA Sep2018.xlsm, data
-3- 9/5/2018

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Par22
Par23
Tuw.
U" "PASTE WECIAL
"Opy-
Manganese
"'Iv&2" °Tan "COPY"
Iron
MAXImum onto
K
ppin% - 69
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
2014
1380
1380
Std Dev.
668.8
1
< 100
50
Std Dev.
2
2014
410
410
Mean
520.8
2
< 100
50
Mean
3
2014
1500
1500
C.V.
1.3
3
120
120
C.V.
4
2014
650
650
n
56
4
100
100
n
5
2014
1300
1300
5
300
300
6
2014
520
520
Mult Factor =
1.02
6
330
330
Mult Factor =
ug/L
7
2014
890
890
Max. Value
4100.0 ug/L
7
r 100
50
Max. Value
ug/L
8
2014
490
490
Max. Pred Cw
4182.0 ug/L
8
620
620
Max. Pred Cw
9
2014
480
480
9
540
540
10
2014
540
540
10
260
260
11
2014
750
750
11
170
170
12
2014
1300
1300
12
120
120
13
2015
100
100
13
410
410
14
2015
37
37
14
500
500
15
2015
54
54
15
100
50
16
2015
83
83
16
160
160
17
2015
70
70
17
1100
1100
18
2015
47
47
18
19
2015
230
230
19
20
2015
370
370
20
21
2015
150
150
21
22
2015
59
59
22
23
2015
4100
4100
23
24
2015
110
110
24
25
2016
1500
1500
25
26
2016
1700
1700
26
27
2016
670
670
27
28
2016
880
880
28
29
2016
1200
1200
29
30
2016
860
860
30
31
2016
480
480
31
32
2016
790
790
32
33
2016
870
870
33
34
2016
920
920
34
35
2016
310
310
35
36
2016
290
290
36
37
2017
230
230
37
38
2017
81
81
38
39
2017
420
420
39
40
2017
60
60
40
41
2017
93
93
41
42
2017
62
62
42
43
2017
140
140
43
44
2017
75
75
44
45
2017
380
380
45
46
2017
93
93
46
47
2017
40
40
47
48
2017
55
55
48
49
2018
59
59
49
50
2018
140
140
50
51
2018
100
100
51
52
2018
730
730
52
53
2018
32
32
53
54
2018
86
86
54
55
2018
68
68
55
56
2018
130
130
56
57
57
58
58
86606 CWS Harbor wells Updated RPA Sep2018.xlsm, data
-4- 9/5/2018

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Ulm -PASTE $PEC1
vatu"- then "COP
Mgzimurn Bala
pvinln - 56
290.00
0.9616
17
1.70
1100 ug/L
1870 ug/L
Par24
Ulia 'PASTE SPECK
TDS
valuac' lnan "COP,
. Maximum dala
Wntx = 58
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
2016
540
540
Std Dev.
2
2016
820
820
Mean
5383.1373
3
2016
1600
1600
C.V.
0.5670
4
2016
2200
2200
n
51
5
2016
9000
9000
6
2016
11000
11000
Mult Factor =
1.03
7
2016
9500
9500
Max. Value
14000 mg/1
8
2016
9900
9900
Max. Pred Cw
14420 mg/L
9
2016
8900
8900
10
2016
6600
6600
11
2016
6900
6900
12
2016
7100
7100
13
2016
6100
6100
14
2016
5800
5800
15
2016
1300
1300
16
2016
3900
3900
17
2016
8000
8000
18
2016
5400
5400
19
2016
4900
4900
20
2016
6000
6000
21
2016
7500
7500
22
2016
6800
6800
23
2016
7400
7400
24
2016
920
920
25
2017
4000
4000
26
2017
2800
2800
27
2017
6500
6500
28
2017
880
880
29
2017
5700
5700
30
2017
5200
5200
31
2017
5000
5000
32
2017
3300
3300
33
2017
7500
7500
34
2017
2300
2300
35
2017
6900
6900
36
2017
5100
5100
37
2017
8200
8200
38
2017
6000
6000
39
2017
7000
7000
40
2017
6800
6800
41
2017
14000
14000
42
2017
9500
9500
43
2017
3700
3700
44
2017
3800
3800
45
2017
900
900
46
2017
800
800
47
2017
6300
6300
48
2018
7100
7100
49
2018
380
380
50
2018
3200
3200
51
2018
3600
3600
52
53
54
55
56
57
I
58
86606 CWS Harbor wells Updated RPA Sep2018.xlsm, data
-5-
9/5/2018