-
1
Tuter, Patrick
From: Sage Kiyonaga Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 2:43 PMTo:
Tuter, PatrickCc: Elaine Baker; Michael KehanoSubject: RE: CMLF
Follow-up (PART 3)Attachments: DOH GW Modifications to Date
(signed).pdf
Categories: Permit Questions
Hi Patrick, Attached is a copy of the summary of all changes to
the Groundwater Monitoring Plan occurring since the Plan was
issued. The original was sent via fedex to you today. Let me know
if you need anything else and thanks, Sage >>> "Tuter,
Patrick" 5/17/2017 1:47 PM >>>
Sage, Thanks for incorporating the changes. One last thing – I was told that you might be able to include all of the GW correspondence that you have on record in an appendix at the end of the GW plan. If you can do this I think it would be very beneficial so that we can compare with our records to make sure that we do not miss anything. Thanks again for your help. Patrick
From: Sage Kiyonaga [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:30 AM To: Tuter, Patrick Cc: [email protected]; Michael Kehano ; Paul Barany ; Robert Schmidt Subject: RE: CMLF Follow‐up (PART 3) Hi
Patrick, Per your request, I have clarified the special waste
section as discussed. Like yesterdays update, I included 2 copies
of the update one final, and one with changes in red. Should you
have any additional comments, please feel free to call or email me.
Thanks, Sage >>> "Tuter, Patrick" 5/16/2017 4:00 PM
>>>
-
2
Sage, I spoke with Lene. She said that she spoke with you, but I have a couple of things for follow‐up. She said that you spoke about the Entrance Facility Operations Plan and that would be making some tweaks to the plan. ‐Can you specify that a lock will be placed on the lead acid battery area to prevent commercial loads from disposing there? ‐How commercial vehicles will be prevented from disposing UMO. ‐‐From what I understand it will be monitored by the attendant. ‐Would you be able to change the vocabulary for commercial vehicles to limit which vehicles are allowed. I understand that only small commercial pickup trucks are allowed and non‐hydraulic trucks are not. Currently it says that ‘non‐self‐unloading vehicles’ which could be interpreted in different ways by different people. If you could add something like ‘and non‐hydraulic vehicles’ that would eliminate any confusion. Patrick
From: Sage Kiyonaga [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 1:08 PM To: Tuter, Patrick Cc: [email protected]; Michael Kehano ; Paul Barany ; Robert Schmidt ; Virgilio Viernes ; Garbeil, Dawn Subject: Re: CMLF Follow‐up (PART 3) Hi
Patrick, Per my previous email, attached is the updated CML
Entrance Facility Ops Plan (one final, one with changes indicated
in red) with the addition of Figure 2A as requested. Should you
have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to call
or email me. Thanks, Sage >>> Sage Kiyonaga 5/16/2017 7:37
AM >>> Patrick, Per your request, attached are GW
Monitoring Plan Figures 1-16. Regarding waste acceptance at the
Entrance Facility, commercial solid waste disposal is allowed at
Station 2. The appropriate sections will be clarified. We are
currently working on the requested drawing for the Entrance
Facility and will submit it to you shortly. As for your previous
question regarding the Phase IVA leachate wet well HDPE tank
compliance limit, we agree that it is reasonable to set the
compliance limit to 207' MSL (approximate elevation for top of HDPE
tank). We will not be specifying a dedicated asbestos disposal area
at this time, however in accordance with your recommendations we
will be looking into making this change in the future. Thank you
again for all your help Patrick (and Dawn) and please let me know
if you have any additional questions or comments.
-
3
Sage Sage Kiyonaga Solid Waste Engineer County of Maui Solid
Waste Division 2200 Main Street, Suite 225 Wailuku, HI 96793 Ph:
(808) 270-7941 >>> "Tuter, Patrick" 5/15/2017 2:00 PM
>>>
Sage, I am leaving for vacation starting May 18. In order to expedite the GW plan review, please also Cc Dawn Garbeil when you send the list of figures from the plan. Patrick
From: Tuter, Patrick Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 1:43 PM To: 'Sage Kiyonaga' Subject: RE: CMLF Follow‐up (PART 3) Sage, I have reviewed the entrance facility operations plan and have some comments/questions. ‐Section 3.1 states “The CML Entrance Facility transfer station is permitted to receive household and commercial waste”. However in the types of wastes not allowed below that it says, “Loads containing more than 50% green waste” 11‐58.1‐65 states that 50% of green waste is allowed in residential loads and 25% in commercial loads. Based on what is specified, we will have to restrict the collection at the entrance facility to residential loads only. Are you/county okay with this change? ‐Do you have drawings for the entrance facility that show the leachate collection system and/or storm water drainage system? Section 4 makes reference to this system but a drawing is not included. ‐Do you have a detailed site drawing that shows the exact layout of each special waste, UMO, Battery, ect… The site plan attached is very broad since it shows the entire landfill. See the attachment for reference to a drawing of the entrance facility from the early 2000s. ‐Station 2 shows five drop‐off points for residential waste disposal. The operations plan states that there is storage capacity for eight 20CY roll‐offs for this location. Where would the three other containers be stored? ***Also we are reviewing the 2012 GW plan from A‐Mehr Inc.
-
4
*We are missing the figures that are supposed to be in this plan. Figures 1‐16. Do you have a copy of these that you can forward to us? Thanks, Patrick Tuter Environmental Engineer Hawaii Department of Health Solid Waste Branch 919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Rm 212 Honolulu, HI 96814 (808) 586 4226 [email protected]
From: Sage Kiyonaga [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 1:10 PM To: Tuter, Patrick Cc: [email protected]; Michael Kehano ; Paul Barany ; Virgilio Viernes Subject: RE: CMLF Follow‐up (PART 3) Hi
Patrick, Per your request, attached is the updated Entrance
Facility Operations Plan and supporting information for the
stormwater basin on Phase VBE. Please note that we will be mailing
the Entrance Facility Permit Application next week Monday. As
previously requested, I will include an electronic copy with the
filing. Thanks Patrick and have a great weekend, Sage >>>
"Tuter, Patrick" 5/10/2017 4:05 PM >>>
Sage, Thanks for these drawings. Do you have calculations that show that the stormwater basin on Phase‐VBE will be able to handle the volume of water from a 25 yr 24 hr storm event and prevent flow onto the active portion during peak discharge from a 25 year storm? I will let you know if there are any other questions after reviewing these documents. Thanks, Patrick
-
5
From: Sage Kiyonaga [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 3:58 PM To: Tuter, Patrick Subject: RE: CMLF Follow‐up (PART 3) Continued...
Attachments: 1) CML Ph VBext Misc Updates (Part 3 of 3) -
Additional information for southeastern berm and maximum finish
grade elevation. >>> Sage Kiyonaga 5/9/2017 3:55 PM
>>> Continued... Attachments: 1) CML Ph VBext Misc Updates
(Part 2 of 3) - Additional information for southeastern berm and
maximum finish grade elevation. >>> Sage Kiyonaga 5/9/2017
3:51 PM >>> Hi Patrick, I appreciate your honesty and all
your hard work in reviewing our CML permit application. I concur in
keeping the transfer station as part of the permit so please let me
know if there is anything else I can do to help. That being said, I
will be sending you the discussed updated documents, analyses, and
draft Entrance Facility Operations Plan in the next few emails.
Please be advised that the updated Entrance Facility Operations
Plan covers the same activities and requirements specified in our
previous permit less the HHW collection events. When you have
completed your review of the updated documents please feel free to
call me to discuss. Thanks, Sage Attachments: 1) CML ET Closure Cap
Design Analysis - Analysis comparing the proposed alternative final
cover with the prescribed final cover with infiltration layer
permeablity of 1x10-7 cm/sec. The analysis shows no flow at the
bottom of the foundation layer at -0.0007 cm/yr for the alternative
final cover and -0.00046 cm/yr for the prescribed final cover (note
that calculated flow are negative numbers/essentially zero) 2) CML
Ph VBext Misc Updates (Part 1 of 3) - Additional information for
southeastern berm and maximum finish grade elevation. >>>
"Tuter, Patrick" 5/9/2017 10:54 AM >>>
Sage, I want to inform you that with the additional information (transfer station and questions from last week) that was requested for this permit application, it is likely that the approval date will have to be pushed back from the original goal of end of August. It will take additional time for us to review the transfer station permit application, and this will likely push back our original goal of having a draft permit available to you by the end of this month for comments. I understand that you are working hard to update and get this to us. However the sooner that we can get it, the faster we can get a draft permit back to you. I think it is better that the transfer station is included with this permit to avoid having to go through a permit modification in the future. It will not be permitted if it is not included in this permit. The schedule: We will need 30 days for public notice and an additional 30 days for a public hearing and then all comments will need to be addressed afterwards. Based on the public’s reaction of CMLF, do you expect significant comments/issues with
-
6
the public? It is possible that we can proceed with public notice and public hearing at the same time if comments are expected to be minimal. This may save some time if we proceed with this route. But we will still need the time to respond to comments and then process the final permit. Patrick
From: Tuter, Patrick Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:16 AM To: Sage Kiyonaga ([email protected]) Subject: CMLF Follow‐up Sage, Thanks again for meeting with me this morning. It was helpful. However I have some follow‐up comments on a couple of topics after reviewing further. ‐For the transfer station that you are working on: To be an official submittal so that we can include this in the permit this area, we will need a formal transfer station application (http://health.hawaii.gov/shwb/files/2013/06/2GENAPP‐transferstation‐all‐2008.pdf ) with updated P1‐P6 and standard application form that includes a filing fee and updates that are applicable to the transfer station. Most of P1‐P6s submitted with the landfill application may still be applicable for use with the transfer station application. ‐I have looked into the Final Grades for CML. I think that it would be best to stay within the 390 feet and say that it is the final cover grade, not final refuse grade. Changing the height will require a new permit modification which would take considerably more time to review/process/approve. To keep within the already slim timeframe I would recommend that it stays within 390’. Call if you have any questions. Thanks, Patrick Tuter Environmental Engineer Hawaii Department of Health Solid Waste Branch 919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Rm 212 Honolulu, HI 96814 (808) 586 4226 [email protected]
-
ALAN M. ARAKAWA Mayor
STEWART STANT Director
MICHAEL M. MIYAMOTO Deputy Director
COUNTY OF MAUI
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
2050 MAIN STREET, SUITE 2B WAILUKU, MAUI, HAWAII 96793
May 31, 2017
MICHAEL RATTE Solid Waste Division
ERIC NAKAGAWA, P.E. Wastewater Reclamation Division
Mr. Steven Y. K. Chang, Chief Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch
State of Hawaii Department of Health 919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room
212 Honolulu, HI 96814 Dear Mr. Chang: SUBJECT: CENTRAL MAUI
LANDFILL (PERMIT NO. LF-0089-08) CENTRAL MAUI LANDFILL
TRANSMITTAL:
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN MODIFICATIONS TO DATE Per your
request, the County of Maui (County) submits herewith a summary of
updates to the 2012 Central Maui Landfill (CML) Groundwater
Monitoring Plan (Plan) that has been requested or concurred by
Department of Health (DOH) since the 2012 Plan was submitted to
DOH.
The proposed updates to the current plan are summarized in the
enclosed Attachment A and are generally as follows:
1. Groundwater Sampling Frequency 2. Groundwater Sampling
Procedures 3. Control Limits – See attachment A 4. Installation of
an additional Groundwater Monitoring Well – MW-7 to be located
between
MW-5 and New Production Well (PW)
The requirement for quarterly groundwater monitoring is as
specified in the current CML Solid Waste Facility Permit. The
County will continuing monitoring groundwater on a quarterly basis
unless otherwise authorized by the Department of Health.
Micro-purge groundwater sampling has generally been proved to
yield better data with minimum
well drawdown. This method allows for groundwater quality
indicator parameters to stabilize prior to sampling.
Since 2012, our understanding of the hydrogeology below CML has
greatly improved. The
County will continue to evaluate groundwater conditions below
CML and advise the DOH accordingly.
-
Attachment A
Main Revisions to Groundwater Monitoring Plan
GROUNDWATER MONITORING FREQUENCY
Previous Plan Proposed Revision
Rationale for the Change
Quarterly Detection Monitoring
Semi-annual Detection Monitoring
Rationale for reducing the monitoring frequency is based on the
following lines of evidence: 1) Statistical evaluation of
groundwater sampling results for 13 quarterly events from 2014
through 2017 have consistently shown no indications of significant
changes in groundwater chemistry indicative of a release. 2)
Groundwater flow characteristics for the site indicate that the
groundwater monitoring frequency can be reduced. The site-specific
hydraulic conductivity (K) of the shallow aquifer at CMLF has been
calculated based on aquifer slug tests (average K = 140 feet/day)
conducted at the site monitoring wells in the past and based on
constant rate pumping test conducted at the production well during
installation (K = 1,500 feet/day). Hydraulic conductivities
estimated using slug tests tend to underestimate K values because
they test a small aquifer volume in the immediate vicinity of the
well tested. Even if using the higher K value estimated at the
production well, and considering the hydraulic gradients estimated
for the site based on the 71-hour mean groundwater elevations and
an effective porosity of 0.15, the average groundwater flow
velocity for the site is calculated to be approximately 400
feet/year (120 meters/year). This means that, in the event of a
release, it would take approximately 15 months for a potentially
contaminated groundwater plume to travel the distance (150 meters
or 492 feet) from the downgradient edge of the northernmost solid
waste management units (SWMUs) to the line of compliance. Although
the landfill permit currently requires quarterly sampling, based on
available information semi-annual groundwater detection monitoring
(2 sampling events per year, one every 6 months) is believed to be
adequate and it is consistent with what is required in 40 CFR
258.54(b).
county employeeText BoxDRAFT
-
ANALYTICAL PLAN
Previous Plan Proposed Revision Rationale for the Change The
groundwater samples are currently analyzed for the monitoring
constituents specified under Appendix I to 40 CFR 258 (Constituents
for Detection Monitoring), leachate indicator parameters, and
supplemental monitoring parameters (including other previously
detected constituents that have been baselined and added to the
Detection Monitoring Program).
Analyze groundwater samples for a short list of constituents
based on actual site conditions. This short list would include only
the constituents specified in Appendix I to 40 CFR 258 Appendix I,
leachate indicator parameters, and supplemental monitoring
parameters that are also detected in landfill leachate (based on
results from the past 5 years). Furthermore, this short list will
be re-evaluated after a minimum of four independent samples are
available for each monitoring well (including the new well proposed
to be installed downgradient of SWMUs IV-A and IV-B). This further
evaluation will be based on a detailed analysis of site-specific
data concerning leachate composition, groundwater analytical
results, and groundwater geochemistry.
A short list of monitoring constituents should aim at maximizing
the ability to detect leachate impacts at the earliest possible
time and decrease the number of false-positive results, while
reducing the overall monitoring costs (HDOH SHWB, September 2002).
The short list of indicator constituents will aim at including only
those constituents (including biodegradation by-products of VOCs
present in leachate) that are routinely detected in leachate at
CMLF. Typical laboratory contaminants (e.g., methylene chloride)
will also be removed from the analytical plan, unless they are
present at very high concentrations in leachate. Proposed
additional evaluation will further analyze site-specific leachate
and groundwater data to focus the short list only on general
groundwater quality parameters that are present in leachate at
concentrations that are significantly higher than in groundwater.
Generally, effective inorganic monitoring parameters should have
concentrations in leachate that are at least 2 times higher than in
groundwater (HDOH SHWB, September 2002). The resulting list of
monitoring parameters may then be reduced further by identifying
and removing parameters that provide substantially redundant
coverage (e.g., monitoring for both electrical conductivity and
total dissolved solids) and parameters that are less mobile than
others already included in the analytical plan. For facilities with
sufficient leachate data, a carefully selected short list
containing between 3 and 7 inorganic parameters utilized in
conjunction with the short list of VOCs will typically provide
adequate monitoring coverage while still controlling the site-wide
false positive rate at an acceptable rate (HDOH SHWB, September
2002).
-
MONITORING NETWORK
Monitoring Well Previous Plan Proposed Revision Rationale for
the Change MW-1 Sampled and gauged
(groundwater level) during quarterly groundwater detection
monitoring.
Retain as background upgradient well in the detection monitoring
well network. Sample and gauge (groundwater level) at same
frequency proposed for downgradient wells (semi-annual).
Use the well to collect background data and perform interwell
(between-well) evaluation of UPL exceedances potentially identified
using the intrawell statistical assessments.
MW-2 Sampled and gauged (groundwater level) during quarterly
groundwater detection monitoring.
Retain as compliance monitoring well in the detection monitoring
well network at the downgradient boundary of the site. Sample and
gauge (groundwater level) at semi-annual frequency.
Well MW-2 is located upgradient of the line of compliance and
would be used to detect potential releases from closed SWMUs I and
II, and the Phase III cell (which is not currently used as a SWMU,
but may be in the future).
MW-3 Sampled and gauged (groundwater level) during quarterly
groundwater detection monitoring.
Retain as crossgradient well in the detection monitoring well
network. Sample and gauge (groundwater level) at same frequency
proposed for downgradient wells (semi-annual).
Use as crossgradient (of SWMUs IV and V) and downgradient (of
closed SWMUs I and II) well to perform interwell (between-well)
evaluation of UPL exceedances potentially identified using the
intrawell statistical assessments. This well can also be used for
early detection of potential release from closed SWMUs I and
II.
-
Monitoring Well Previous Plan Proposed Revision Rationale for
the Change MW-4 Sampled and gauged
(groundwater level) during quarterly groundwater detection
monitoring.
Remove from the detection monitoring well network, but retain it
for semi-annual water level gauging.
This well is located immediately outside, and crossgradient, of
SWMUs I and II (which closed more than 10 years ago). Based on the
current understanding of groundwater flow characteristics at the
site, it is unlikely that a potential release within SWMUs I and II
would be detected at well MW-4. Monitoring well MW-3 serves as an
early detection monitoring well for potential releases from SWMUs I
and II. Although well MW-4 could be used to collect background
data, well MW-1 also serves this purpose and is believed to be a
better background well because it is positioned along the
upgradient groundwater flow path beneath the CMLF.
MW-5 Sampled and gauged (groundwater level) during quarterly
groundwater detection monitoring.
Retain as compliance monitoring well in the detection monitoring
well network at the downgradient boundary of the site. Sample and
gauge (groundwater level) at semi-annual frequency.
Well MW-5 is located upgradient of the line of compliance.
Although well MW-5 is not within the advective flow zones
identified by groundwater flow modeling, this well is positioned
within range of groundwater flow directions (north to northwest)
exiting the CLMF SWMUs and it should be retained to address
potential uncertainties.
MW-6 Sampled and gauged (groundwater level) during quarterly
groundwater detection monitoring.
Remove from the detection monitoring well network, but retain it
for semi-annual water level gauging.
This well is located immediately outside, and upgradient, of
Phase VI cell (which is not currently used and uncertainties exist
on its future use as a SWMU). Although well MW-6 could be used to
collect background data, well MW-1 also serves this purpose and is
believed to be a better background well because it is positioned
along the upgradient groundwater flow path beneath the CMLF.
Furthermore, well MW-6 is located close to the edge of a vertical
cliff and constitutes a potential safety hazard for the sampling
field crew.
PW Gauged (groundwater level) during quarterly groundwater
detection monitoring.
Evaluate whether to retain this well for semi-annual water level
gauging after the new proposed downgradient compliance monitoring
well (MW-7) is installed.
This well can be used for gauging groundwater levels only, and
should be re-evaluated in the future for complete removal from the
groundwater detection monitoring network because it is screened
approximately 20 feet below the water table and therefore may not
effectively detect releases in the upper 20 feet of the water table
aquifer. After the new monitoring well (MW-7) is installed and it
is confirmed to provide good coverage for groundwater level
gauging, well PW should be removed from the monitoring network and
be used only as production well to provide water for landfill
operations.
-
Monitoring Well Previous Plan Proposed Revision Rationale for
the Change MW-7 NA Install well MW-7 and
add it to the detection monitoring well network as a compliance
monitoring well at the downgradient boundary of the site. Sample
and gauge (groundwater level) at semi-annual frequency.
Given the current understanding of groundwater flow at the site,
and given that the well PW is screened approximately 20 feet below
the water table, an additional monitoring well is believed to be
necessary to effectively detect potential releases from SWMUs IV
and V. Based on groundwater modeling output, which simulated the
groundwater advective flow affecting fate and transport of a
potential release from SWMUs IV and V, the proposed location would
be in the area where the two groundwater advective flow zones
overlap. The proposed location is also downgradient of SWMU IV-B
and within the line of compliance. The proposed location is also
the best option considering access constraint, as the area
downgradient of SWMU IV-B has many limitations due to the presence
of current structures and access roads with heavy traffic.
-
TABLE 1Intrawell UPL Summary Statistics Calculation of Upper Prediction Limits, Central Maui Landfil
Well Parameter Number of Detects
Number of Analyses
Percent Detects
Units Minimum
Detected Value Maximum
Detected Value
Minimum DL for Non‐detects
Maximum DL for Non‐detects
Calculated UPL Distributional Assumption
MW‐1 Alkalinity 12 12 100
mg/L 44 240 NA NA 550
Default from Nonparametric to Normal MW‐2
Alkalinity 13 13 100 mg/L 42 240
NA NA 501
Default from Nonparametric to Normal MW‐3
Alkalinity 13 13 100 mg/L 44 256
NA NA 560
Default from Nonparametric to Normal MW‐4
Alkalinity 13 13 100 mg/L 44 230
NA NA 485
Default from Nonparametric to Normal MW‐5
Alkalinity 13 13 100 mg/L 42 250
NA NA 557
Default from Nonparametric to Normal MW‐6
Alkalinity 13 13 100 mg/L 50 270
NA NA 595
Default from Nonparametric to Normal MW‐1
Calcium 12 12 100 mg/L 19 23.5
NA NA 29.5 Normal MW‐2
Calcium 13 13 100 mg/L 21 28.3
NA NA 38.6 Normal MW‐3
Calcium 13 13 100 mg/L 21.7 24.4
NA NA 27.7 Normal MW‐4
Calcium 13 13 100 mg/L 20 23.5
NA NA 29.3 Normal MW‐5
Calcium 13 13 100 mg/L 21 23.6
NA NA 27.9 Normal MW‐6
Calcium 13 13 100 mg/L 16.8 21
NA NA 26.1 Normal MW‐1
Chloride 15 15 100 mg/L 190 230
NA NA 287 Normal MW‐2
Chloride 15 15 100 mg/L 250 350
NA NA 505 Normal MW‐3
Chloride 15 15 100 mg/L 190 230
NA NA 282 Normal MW‐4
Chloride 16 16 100 mg/L 200 250
NA NA 318
Default from Nonparametric to Normal MW‐5
Chloride 16 16 100 mg/L 190 240
NA NA 304 Normal MW‐6
Chloride 15 15 100 mg/L 160 190
NA NA 216
Default from Nonparametric to Normal MW‐1
Iron 1 13 8 mg/L 0.118 0.118 0.04 0.1 NA
Only a Single Detection MW‐2
Iron 3 14 21 mg/L 0.015 0.11 0.04 0.1 0.215
Normal MW‐3 Iron 1 14 7 mg/L
0.09 0.09 0.04 0.1 NA
Only a Single Detection MW‐4
Iron 2 14 14 mg/L 0.058 0.098 0.1 0.1 0.126
Default from Nonparametric to Normal MW‐5
Iron 4 14 29 mg/L 0.143 0.53 0.1 0.1 0.959
Normal MW‐6 Iron 4 14 29 mg/L
0.05 0.393 0.04 0.1 0.73 Normal MW‐1
Magnesium 14 14 100 mg/L 30.6 37.7
NA NA 47.6 Normal MW‐2
Magnesium 14 14 100 mg/L 34.9 50.3
NA NA 72.9 Normal MW‐3
Magnesium 14 14 100 mg/L 30.9 35.2
NA NA 40.7 Normal MW‐4
Magnesium 14 14 100 mg/L 30.4 38.8
NA NA 48.6 Normal MW‐5
Magnesium 14 14 100 mg/L 30.7 35.2
NA NA 42 Normal MW‐6
Magnesium 14 14 100 mg/L 25.7 33.8
NA NA 43.8 Normal MW‐4
Manganese 5 13 38 mg/L 0.00633 0.0109 0.005
0.04 0.0249 Normal MW‐5 Manganese 5 13 38
mg/L 0.00506 0.0129 0.005 0.02 0.0239
Normal MW‐6 Manganese 4 13 31
mg/L 0.00587 0.0156 0.005 0.02 0.0329
Normal MW‐2 Nickel 2 7 * 29
mg/L 0.006 0.011 0.01 0.1 0.0298
Default from Nonparametric to Normal MW‐4
Nickel 7 7 * 100 mg/L 0.163 0.217
NA NA 0.367 Normal MW‐5
Nickel 7 7 * 100 mg/L 0.0522 0.103
NA NA 0.246 Normal MW‐6
Nickel 7 7 * 100 mg/L 0.043 0.0719
NA NA 0.148 Normal MW‐1
Nitrate‐N 11 12 92 mg/L 4.2 5.8 5.3 5.3
10.2 Normal MW‐2 Nitrate‐N 12 13 92
mg/L 6.9 15 12 12 25.9 Normal MW‐3
Nitrate‐N 12 13 92 mg/L 4.3 5.88 5.6 5.6
10.3 Normal MW‐4 Nitrate‐N 12 13 92
mg/L 3.6 5.5 4.8 4.8 9.35 Normal MW‐5
Nitrate‐N 12 13 92 mg/L 3.5 5.7 5 5 10.4
Normal MW‐6 Nitrate‐N 12 13 92
mg/L 3.3 5.4 5.1 5.1 9.56 Normal MW‐1
Potassium 12 12 100 mg/L 13.3 17.1
NA NA 20.9 Normal MW‐2
Potassium 13 13 100 mg/L 14.5 19
NA NA 25.1 Normal MW‐3
Potassium 13 13 100 mg/L 13 15.8
NA NA 18.5 Normal MW‐4
Potassium 13 13 100 mg/L 13.3 15.6
NA NA 18.8 Normal MW‐5
Potassium 13 13 100 mg/L 13.5 15.7
NA NA 18.3 Normal
EN1003161112HNL 5
-
TABLE 1Intrawell UPL Summary Statistics Calculation of Upper Prediction Limits, Central Maui Landfil
Well Parameter Number of Detects
Number of Analyses
Percent Detects
Units Minimum
Detected Value Maximum
Detected Value
Minimum DL for Non‐detects
Maximum DL for Non‐detects
Calculated UPL Distributional Assumption
MW‐6 Potassium 13 13 100
mg/L 12.6 16.8 NA NA 20.8
Normal MW‐1 Sodium 12 12 100
mg/L 170 205 NA NA 242
Normal MW‐2 Sodium 13 13 100
mg/L 212 280 NA NA 379
Normal MW‐3 Sodium 13 13 100
mg/L 166 188 NA NA 217
Normal MW‐4 Sodium 13 13 100
mg/L 170 196 NA NA 239
Normal MW‐5 Sodium 13 13 100
mg/L 168 191 NA NA 219
Normal MW‐6 Sodium 13 13 100
mg/L 155 186 NA NA 221
Normal MW‐1 Sulfate 12 12 100
mg/L 13 46 NA NA 74.1
Default from Nonparametric to Normal MW‐2
Sulfate 13 13 100 mg/L 35 190
NA NA 300
Default from Nonparametric to Normal MW‐3
Sulfate 13 13 100 mg/L 15 48 NA
NA 75.3 Normal MW‐4 Sulfate 13 13 100
mg/L 19 65 NA NA 96.6
Default from Lognormal to Normal MW‐5
Sulfate 13 13 100 mg/L 17 49 NA
NA 75.2 Normal MW‐6 Sulfate 13 13 100
mg/L 14 46 NA NA 69
Default from Lognormal to Normal MW‐1
TDS 12 12 100 mg/L 605 755 NA
NA 975 Normal MW‐2 TDS 13 13 100
mg/L 765 1030 NA NA 1400
Normal MW‐3 TDS 13 13 100 mg/L
475 750 NA NA 1080 Normal MW‐4
TDS 13 13 100 mg/L 500 770 NA
NA 1080 Normal MW‐5 TDS 13 13 100
mg/L 555 755 NA NA 1050
Normal MW‐6 TDS 13 13 100 mg/L
475 660 NA NA 945
Default from Nonparametric to Normal MW‐1
TOC 12 15 80 mg/L 1 30 1 1 76.3
Normal MW‐2 TOC 13 15 87 mg/L
1.8 30 1 25 69.3 Normal MW‐3 TOC 10 14 71
mg/L 1 31 1 25 76 Normal MW‐4
TOC 10 14 71 mg/L 0.97 30 1 25 67.4
Normal MW‐5 TOC 13 16 81 mg/L 1
31 1 1 76.3 Normal MW‐6 TOC 12 15 80
mg/L 1 32 1 1 80.6 Normal MW‐1
Vanadium 6 6 * 100 mg/L 0.0191 0.022
NA NA 0.0349 Normal MW‐2
Vanadium 7 7 * 100 mg/L 0.0172 0.022
NA NA 0.0349 Normal MW‐3
Vanadium 7 7 * 100 mg/L 0.0187 0.021
NA NA 0.0291 Normal MW‐4
Vanadium 7 7 * 100 mg/L 0.0173 0.0212
NA NA 0.0329 Normal MW‐5
Vanadium 7 7 * 100 mg/L 0.0166 0.019
NA NA 0.0266 Normal MW‐6
Vanadium 7 7 * 100 mg/L 0.0216 0.025
NA NA 0.0363 Normal MW‐1
Zinc 2 6 * 33 mg/L 0.0153 0.0231 0.01
0.01 0.0983
Default from Nonparametric to Normal MW‐2
Zinc 5 7 * 71 mg/L 0.0118 0.0512 0.01
0.01 0.184 Normal MW‐3 Zinc 5 7 * 71
mg/L 0.0106 0.0688 0.01 0.01 0.239
Normal MW‐4 Zinc 4 7 * 57
mg/L 0.0127 0.0589 0.01 0.01 0.196
Normal MW‐5 Zinc 5 7 * 71
mg/L 0.0113 0.0407 0.01 0.01 0.162
Normal MW‐6 Zinc 5 7 * 71
mg/L 0.0107 0.0209 0.01 0.01 0.0769 Normal
Note:* These cases have low sample counts, so their statistics are not considered as reliable as the others.
UPLs were calculated using data from 2011 through first quarter of 2016.
DL = detection limitmg/L = milligram per literNA = not availableTDS = total dissolved solidsTOC = total organic carbonUPL = upper predictive limit
6 EN1003161112HNL
Final GWMP Updates to DOH.pdfFinal Table GWMP
Revisions.pdfGroundwater Monitoring FrequencyAnalytical
PlanMonitoring Network
