In Cooperation with the
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion
Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in
Volatile-Organic Compounds
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-196
WELL B95-13 COMPARISON OF TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
e.ooo
LJJ
§0
*3
o£
£ D-
9p
II
Ol
b
o
O
tD
0
A
A
O
A
o
A A
B
A
"
\
'
C
/
1
1
} Bladder |
V P(=>ric:talir-
| Diffusion
(§>
A 1
aump
ni imn
bag
^
b
o
O
CO
b
o
O
10
b
o
0
-
b
o
O
1O/17/97 O1725/98 05/O5/98 08/13/98 11/21/98 03/01/99 06/O9/99 09/17/99
DATE
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
-------
The graph on the cover shows that the concentration of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in
ground-water samples collected with a diffusion sampler are comparable to concentra-
tions in samples collected by other sampling devices.
-------
U.S. Department of the Interior ^50 R 01 003
U.S. Geological Survey
In Cooperation with the
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion
Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in
Volatile-Organic Compounds
By Philip T. Harte, Michael J. Brayton, Wayne Ives, Sharon Perkins, and
Carroll Brown Jr.
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-196
Pembroke, New Hampshire
2001
-------
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bruce Babbitt, Secretary
U.S. Geological Survey
Charles G. Groat, Director
The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes
only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.
For additional information write to:
District Chief
U.S. Geological Survey
New Hampshire/Vermont District
361 Commerce Way
Pembroke, NH 03275-3718
or through our website at
http://nh.water.usgs.gov
Copies of this report can be purchased from:
U.S. Geological Survey
Branch of Information Services
Box 25286
Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract 1
Introduction 2
Purpose and Scope 6
Description of Study Area 6
Previous Investigations of Diffusion Sampling 6
Acknowledgments 8
Hydrogeologic Setting 10
Geochemistry of Waters 10
Methods of Data Collection 17
Description of Chemical-Monitoring Program 17
Sampling Methods and Techniques 18
Quality Assurance and Control 20
Conceptualization of Contributing Area of Water Samples 22
Results of Testing 24
Comparison of Diffusion Samplers with Other Samplers 24
Vertical Variations 31
Comparison of Purge Samplers 34
Results of Application to Monitor Trends 38
Summary and Conclusions 47
Selected References 48
Appendices 1-6:
1. Procedures used in this study for Preparation, Installation, and Collection of Water-Diffusion Bag
Samples in Wells 50
2. Explanation of Abbreviations 52
2a. Sampling Information and Field Parameters, May 1997 to September 1999, Milford, New Hampshire 54
2b. Detected Ions and Compounds, May 1997 to September 1999 66
2c. Major Detected Volatile-organic Compounds (VOC's), May 1997 to September 1999 78
3. Comparison of Concentrations of Volatile-organic Compounds Tetrachloroethylene (PCE),
Trichloroethylene (TCE), and cw-l,2-dichloroethene (cw-l,2DCE) from Diffusion and Peristaltic-pump
Samples at Coincident Sampled Depth Intervals 87
4. Comparison of Concentrations of Volatile-organic Compounds Tetrachloroethylene (PCE),
Trichloroethylene (TCE), and cw-l,2-dichloroethene (cw-l,2DCE) from Diffusion and Bladder-pump
Samples at Coincident Sampled Depth Intervals 89
5. Relative Percent Difference (RPD) for Individual Well Comparison of Peristaltic Samples and Diffusion
Samples 90
6. Absolute Relative Percent Difference (ARPD) Information for Positive Detections in Duplicate Sample
Comparison , 91
FIGURES
1-3. Maps showing:
1. Location of the Milford-Souhegan Glacial-Drift aquifer, Milford, New Hampshire 3
2. Extent of contaminant plume of total volatile organics (A) and ground-water head contour map
(B) in the Milford-Souhegan Glacial-Drift aquifer 4
3. Remedial system, contaminant plume in source area, and monitoring wells at source area of the
Savage Superfund Well Site 5
4. Photograph of diffusion sampler (A) and well identifier (B) used to label wells 9
Contents III
-------
5-8. Graphs showing lithologic and borehole logs for wells in the source area along a:
5. North to south transect, including wells B95-15, B95-13, and B95-12 11
6. West to east transect, including wells B95-15, PW-12R, and PW-13D 12
7. West to east transect, including wells PW-2R, B95-13, and PW-14D 13
8. West to east transect, including wells B95-8, B95-12, and MW-16C 14
9. Maps showing water-table surface for pre-remedial construction (May 1997) (A) and post-remedial
construction (November 1998) (B) 15
10. Diagrams showing angular direction of maximum ground-water gradient from true north (A) and gradient
(B) computed from three-point planar solution from wells B95-12, B95-15, and B95-13 16
11. Conceptual diagram showing horizontal contributing areas to a well for various deployment time of
diffusion sampler (a) and for various purge rates (b) 23
12-14. Graphs showing:
12. Ground-water levels (A) and concentration of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in samples collected by
various methods (B) for well B95-13 27
13. Ground-water levels (A) and concentration of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in samples collected by
various methods (B) for well B95-15 28
14. Linear regression of concentrations from peristaltic and diffusion samples for tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
(A), trichloroethylene (TCE) (B), and cw-l,2-dichloroethene (cw-l,2DCE) (C) 30
15. Scatter plot showing comparison between deployment time of diffusion sampler and difference of measured
concentrations of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) from diffusion and peristaltic-pump samples (A) and comparison
of percent difference (B) 32
16-23. Graphs showing:
16. Concentrations of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) from tests comparing peristaltic and bladder pumps, for PCE
and volume purged (A), and PCE and purge rate (B), April 14, 1999 36
17-21. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) (tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE),
and cw-l,2-dichloroethene (cis-DCE), and total VOC's (total VOC) from diffusion samplers for wells:
17. B95-15 and B95-13 39
18. PW-12 cluster wells 40
19. PW-13 cluster wells 41
20. PW-14 cluster wells 42
21. MW-16 cluster wells 43
22. Concentrations of methane (CH4) and the ratio of cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2DCE) to tetrachloroethylene
(PCE) for wells B95-13 (A) and B95-15 (B) 45
23. Future time trends in concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) as a ratio of average initial
concentrations of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) (A) and total VOC's (B) 46
TABLES
1. Well screen data and geology for selected wells in the study area 7
2. Median concentrations of key geochemical parameters in uncontaminated and contaminated ground water
with volatile organic compounds from the study area 17
3. Instruments used, instrumentation method code, and method detection limits, for analyses of water samples 19
4. Volatile-organic compounds analyzed and detected in water samples collected by peristaltic pump and
diffusion samplers from wells in Milford, New Hampshire, from May 1998 to July 1999 25
5. Volatile-organic compounds analyzed and detected in water samples collected by bladder pump and
diffusion samplers from wells in Milford, New Hampshire, from May 1998 to April 1999 26
6. Statistical summary of concentrations of volatile-organic compounds from peristaltic and diffusion samples 31
7. Summary of absolute relative percent differences (ARPD) between laboratory duplicate samples and relative
percent difference (RPD) between peristaltic samples and diffusion samples 31
8. Variations in concentrations of PCE, TCE, and ci'j-l,2-DCE from vertical strings of diffusion samplers, in
July and October 1999 and from purge sample from well MW-16R in October 1999 33
9. Water-quality results from test comparing peristaltic and bladder pumps at well B95-13 (well number 408),
April 14, 1999 35
10. Summary statistics comparing concentrations of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE)
grouped by pump type from samples collected at well B95-13 (well number 408), April 14, 1999 37
IV Contents
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS, VERTICAL DATUM, AND ABBREVIATIONS
Multiply
inch (in.)
foot (ft)
mile (mi)
square mile (mi2)
cubic foot (ft3)
gallon (gal)
cubic feet per second (ft3/s)
gallon per minute (gal/min)
million gallons per day (Mgal/d)
million gallons per day (Mgal/d)
foot per day (ft/d)
By
Length
25.4
0.3048
1.609
Area
2.590
Volume
0.02832
3.785
Flow
0.02832
0.06308
0.04381
1.547
Hydraulic Conductivity
0.3048
To obtain
millimeter
meter
kilometer
square kilometer
cubic meter
liter
cubic meter per second
liter per second
cubic meter per second
cubic feet per second (cfs)
meter per day
Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) can be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:
°C = 5/9 (°F - 32).
Vertical Datum: In this report "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
(NGVD of 1929)a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of
both the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929.
Contents
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT:
VOC volatile organic compound
PCE tetrachloroethylene
TCE trichloroethylene
cis-1,2DCE cis-1,2-dichloroethene
ppm parts per million [In this report, ppm is equivalent to milligrams per liter]
ppb parts per billion [In this report, ppb is equivalent to micrograms per liter]
yr year
min minute
DNAPL'S dense non-aqueous phase liquids
VC vinyl chloride
TOC total organic carbon
PID photoionization detector
PVC polyvinyl chloride
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
ARPD absolute relative percent difference
RPD relative percent difference
MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether
Eh In this report Eh is field Eh or oxidation-reduction potential (orp)
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
L/min liters per minute
m meter
mm millimeter
mL milliliter
mg/L milligrams per liter
cm centimeter
NTU neophelometric turbidity units
R2 coefficient of determination
VI Contents
-------
Well identification
obswell observation well
airwell soil vapor extraction well
sparwell soil sparge well
injwell recharge well
extrawell extraction well
The following abbreviations are used in well names:
Suffix
SorA
MorB
shallow cluster well
medium cluster well
D or C deep cluster well
R
bedrock well
Lithology abbreviations
f fine
m medium
c coarse
Wx weathered
Prefix
SVE soil vapor extraction well
SP soil sparge well
IW interior wall extraction well
EW exterior wall extraction well
PW or B or MI or MW observation wells
RW recharge wells
P piezometer
Contents VII
-------
Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers
to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic
Compounds
By Philip T. Harte, Michael J. Brayton, Wayne Ives1, Sharon Perkins1, and Carroll Brown Jr.1
Abstract
Methods for ground-water sampling have evolved over time. This evolution has been driven by
changing theories on how to obtain representative aquifer water samples. Passive sampling is a fairly
recent method that relies on the natural flushing capacity of a well to obtain representative samples. The
use of water-diffusion samplers is one method of passive sampling that works well under certain
conditions.
As part of a 2-year study to determine the temporal variability and trends in concentrations of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from a primary source area of a large ground-water plume (0.5 mi2
area) in a glacial-drift aquifer, results of VOC analyses of samples collected with diffusion bag samplers
were compared with those collected with other types of samplers. Diffusion bag samplers, because of
their ease of use, offered a mechanism to help collect relatively inexpensive VOC samples and thus
aided in the temporal analysis of the plume within the source area. The primary source area is located
adjacent to a river that looses flow and recharges the aquifer. Here, ground-water flow is relatively rapid
(up to several feet per day) and responds quickly to recharge events.
A total of 20 coupled diffusion and peristaltic-pump samples were collected from 7 wells
completed in high-permeability glacial-drift. The concentrations of VOCs, primarily tetrachloroeth-
ylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and cw-l,2-dichloroethene'(cw-l,2DCE), in samples collected
with diffusion samplers show a strong positive linear correlation (root-mean square of 0.94 and above)
with concentrations from purged samples following low-flow sampling procedures. Sample results
from a peristaltic pump were used to validate sample results from diffusion samples because peristaltic
pumps had been used at the site by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, the state
agency responsible for remediation of the site. The accuracy of peristaltic pumps to collect VOC
samples at the site was evaluated as part of this study and the results are presented within this report.
The mean concentration of PCE in the diffusion samples was 1,152 parts per billion (ppb) and the
mean from the peristaltic-pump samples was 1,119 ppb. The standard deviations also were similar. The
mean concentrations of TCE were slightly higher in diffusion samples (89.2 ppb) than peristaltic-pump
samples (75.4 ppb). The mean concentration of cw-l,2DCE in diffusion samples (95.0 ppb) was
virtually identical to the mean in peristaltic-pump samples.
Although VOC concentrations changed dramatically at several wells over the sampled period,
trends in VOCs detected using diffusion samplers corresponded with trends in VOCs detected using
other low-flow sampling methods. For example, at two wells where coupled diffusion and peristaltic-
pump samples were collected, VOC concentrations varied by a half order of magnitude over a two-
month period. Although the diffusion sampler was installed and left in the well for the entire period,
VOC concentrations in the diffusion sampler at the time of retrieval generally matched samples
collected with the peristaltic pump on the same day as retrieval, suggesting relatively rapid equilibration
of the diffusion sampler to VOC concentrations in the well.
1 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. ' Abstract 1
-------
The use of diffusion samplers allowed for an improved understanding of contaminant transport
conditions at the study site because it allowed for an increase in the frequency of sampling without an
associated increase in labor cost. For example, spatially variable declines in PCE concentrations were
identified over the two-year study that are related to spatial variations in sediment lithology and the
location of the plume within the ground-water flow system. Wells screened in coarse-grained gravel
layers and located along the northern part of the plume, close to the river boundary, showed the largest
decline in concentrations of PCE. At several wells, concentrations of TCE and cw-l,2DCE increased,
suggesting that small scale biodegradation is occurring. Temporary increases in concentrations of the
primary VOCs followed several large recharge events, suggesting that VOCs are being desorbed from
the aquifer matrix.
INTRODUCTION
The Savage Well Superfund Site, named after the former Savage municipal water-supply well for the Town
of Milford, is underlain by a large (0.5 mi2) plume of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (figs. 1 and 2). The
area is underlain by a highly transmissive sand and gravel aquifer. A discontinued tool manufacturing facility, has
been identified as the primary source (HMM Associates Inc., 1989, 1991) of volatile organic compounds (mostly
tetrachloroethylene (PCE)) that led to contamination of the Savage well. The State of New Hampshire Depart-
ment of Environmental Services (NHDES) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have
constructed a remedial system for the primary source area (fig. 3). The remedial system includes a barrier wall,
which surrounds the highest concentrations of dissolved PCE and most likely some dense non-aqueous phase
liquids (DNAPL's), and various injection and extraction wells (vapor and water) to capture and treat the dissolved
contaminant plume. The barrier wall was constructed from July to November 1998. Remedial operations of wells
were tested between December 1998 to March 1999 but full operation started in May 1999.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with NHDES and USEPA Region 1, has established a
detailed monitoring system for the source area that includes (1) continuous observations of ground-water levels
and physical water properties, (2) manual measurements of ground-water levels to complement the continuous
network, and (3) a geochemical and water-quality sampling program. Furthermore, a solute-transport model of
the glacial-drift aquifer has been constructed and used to simulate the remedial system.
The main purpose of the geochemical and water-quality sampling program is to document the rate of clean-
up of the VOC plume. The sampling program began in May 1997, using low-flow sampling procedures
(described in a later section of this report). To facilitate the sampling program, passive diffusion sampling began
in 1998 when the frequency of sample collection was increased to coincide with the start of remedial operations.
Passive diffusion sampling, using the method described in U.S. Patent No. 5,804,743, is an easy and inexpensive
approach to sampling.
Passive diffusion sampling offers time-saving advantages over purged sampling following low-flow
procedures. During this study, diffusion sampling was conducted in l/5th the time of low-flow sampling;
therefore, in an equivalent amount of time, five times as many samples were collected with diffusion samplers
than with low-flow procedures. Previously, the frequency of VOC data collection in ground water was usually
low because of the labor-intensive nature of sampling. Ground-water-quality sampling is typically conducted on a
quarterly per annum time basis (Wiedemeier and others, 1998, p. 52) partly because of the expense of more
frequent sampling. A quarterly or longer sampling frequency, however, may be insufficient to characterize time
trends. For example, seasonal variability of ground-water flow can be a mechanism that increases the transverse
dispersion of contaminants in the aquifer and will complicate analysis of long-term trends. Furthermore, anthro-
pogenic factors in the study area, such as construction and operation of the remedial system, also cause short- and
long-term changes in VOC concentrations. The lower cost of diffusion sampling allows for more frequent
measurements thereby facilitating the identification of short- and long-term trends.
2 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
71°
Study area shown in detail in subsequent illustrations
44
43C
MASSACHUSETTS
0 10 20 MILES
0 10 20 KILOMETERS
EXPLANATION
AQUIFER BOUNDARY
(J) INACTIVE PUBLIC SUPPLY WELL
DIRECTION OF GROUND-WATER FLOW
CONTAMINANT SOURCE AREA
Figure 1. Location of the Milford-Souhegan Glacial-Drift aquifer, Milford, New Hampshire.
INTRODUCTION 3
-------
(A)
I\ / 0 0.1 0.2 OJ
» I I I 'l I1 I 'l
_ ' I 0 0.1 05 0.3 0.4 0.
Source of volatile Organic Compound data: HMM Associates, Inc., 1991)
Data collected between January 1989 and January 1990)
EXPLANATION
Boundary of aquifer
10 Line ot equal total
concentration ol volatile
parts per billion (ppb)
Well name and
number for
Inactive wells
Well name and
number for
withdrawal wells
Direction of
contaminant flow
Outcrop of Bedrock
(B)
42*50"
Tf 4?
71-4V
|Y~J 0 0.1 02 03
_ I I 0 0.1 0.2 OJ 0.4 0.
xi /~~\
0.3 0.4 0.5
MILE
1.5 KILOMETER
EXPLANATION
Culvert
Well name and
number In
unused vnlls
245 Contoutllneol
equal water-
taole eltitude
In teet abovo
mean aea levol;
Sfeet
Figure 2. Extent of contaminant plume of total volatile organic compounds (A) and ground-water head
contour map (B) in the Milford-Souhegan Glacial-Drift aquifer, Milford, New Hampshire.
4 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
974,000
974,500
975,000
975,500
125,500
_L
EXPLANATION
PCE Concentration (in ppb)
| | 10-100
| | 100-1000
: | Greater than 1000
- 1 Transect Line
Injection Wells
0 Extraction Wells
Air Sparge Wells
125,000
124,500
1995 Concentration Data
-Remedial system Installed 1998
-Operational In 1999
Approximate boundary
of source area
PW-13MXX .
PW-13DAX
P-2
Barrier Wall
Groundwater
Recharge Area
Observation Wells
Treatment building
and piping system
33
O
a
o
o
z
Planimetric base by EPARegionl from aerial photographs taken 1987
500-foot grid based on New Hampshire State Plane coordinate system
Horizontal Datum - North American Datum 1983
100
200
j
I
50
300
i
400 500 FEET
100 METERS
Figure 3. Remedial system, contaminant plume in source area, and monitoring wells at source area of the Savage Superfund Well Site, Milford,
New Hampshire. (See table 3 for well construction information; see abbreviations page for well type)
-------
Purpose and Scope
.' This report summarizes the results of a 2-year data collection effort (1997-99) to understand the temporal
variability of VOCs in ground water at an area previously identified as the primary source of a large VOC plume.
The report describes general geologic and geochemical characteristics of the source area, compares VOC concen-
trations in samples obtained by diffusion samplers and by other sampling methods, and presents an analysis of
time trends of VOC concentrations.
Comparisons of results of VOC concentration in samples from passive samplers and samples collected by
purged methods are presented for seven wells completed in unconsolidated, glacial drift. At two of the seven
wells, testing of diffusion sampling included comparisons with more than one purged water-sampling device on
more than one occasion. All purged water samples were collected following USEPA low-flow sampling
procedures.
Time trends in concentrations of VOCs from diffusion samplers are presented for 16 wells (14 glacial-drift
wells and two bedrock wells). Seven of the sixteen wells had diffusion-sampling results tested by comparing with
purged water-sampling results. At one other well, a bedrock well, diffusion-sampling results from a vertical string
of diffusion samplers were compared to one purged sample.
The primary VOCs detected in the study area include tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE),
and c«-l,2-dichloroethene (cw-l,2DCE). Other VOCs were detected but at levels insufficient for comparison.
Description of Study Area
The study area coincides with the area identified as the primary source area of VOCs (HMM Associates,
1989, 1991) to the Savage Well Superfund Site in Milford, New Hampshire (figs. 2 and 3). It is located in the
western part of the Savage Well Superfund Site. The source area was the site of a now discontinued tool company
where solvents were discharged into the subsurface for many years until the early 1980s. Although discharges
have ceased, the underlying contaminant-soaked sediments and immiscible solvents continued to contaminate
ground water flowing easterly underneath the site and created a large plume until a barrier wall was constructed.
This large plume continues to threaten existing ground-water usage at State and commercial fish hatcheries (fig. 2)
and restricts the full beneficial use of this resource.
The barrier wall is constructed of low permeability materials and is designed to contain the highest concen-
trations of contaminants. The barrier wall encircles 0.008 mi2 area. The wall fully penetrates the unconsolidated
glacial drift (both stratified drift and glacial till) and sits atop the bedrock. Various injection and extraction wells
(fig. 3 and table 1) were constructed to insure hydraulic isolation and reduce contaminant mass inside the barrier
wall and to capture and treat the contaminants outside the barrier wall. PCE is the primary contaminant and it's
maximum concentrations range from 100,000 parts per billion (ppb) inside the wall to 10,000 ppb outside the
wall. Secondary VOC contaminants (TCE and cw-l,2DCE) concentrations are typically 1-2 orders of magnitude
less than those of PCE.
The study area is underlain by up to 100 ft of sands and gravels, and a discontinuous till overlying a biotite
granite and gneiss bedrock. Ground-water flow is to the east at velocities of up to several feet per day in the
unconsolidated sediments. A partially penetrating river, the Souhegan River, bounds the northwestern part of the
source area. Here the river looses flow and recharges the aquifer on average of about 4 ft /s. The ground-water
flow system responds quickly to recharge from the river or infiltration from precipitation; therefore, the flow
system is highly transient.
Previous Investigations of Diffusion Sampling
Methods for ground-water sampling continue to evolve over time. This evolution is driven by advances in
understanding of ground-water flow and chemical transport in aquifers and wells, improvements in equipment,
6 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends In Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
Table 1. Well screen data and geology for selected wells in the study area
[All data in feet; altitude in feet above mean sea level, NGVD29; Aquifer code: S&G = sand and gravel, f-c= fine to coarse, G&S = gravel and sand,
rk=bedrock, --, no data available; site type names explained in abbreviation section of report; all wells shown in figure 3 except PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-8,
and PW-10 cluster wells]
Well
name
B95-09
B95-12
B95-13
B95-15
EW-1
EW-2
IW-1
IW-2
MI-32
MW-2A
MW-16A
MW-16B
MW-16C
MW-16R
P-l
P-2
PW-1D
PW-2R
PW-3S
PW-3D
PW-4M
PW-4D
PW-6S
PW-6M
PW-6D
PW-6R
PW-8M
PW-10M
PW-10D
PW-12S
PW-12M
PW-12D
PW-12R
PW-13S
PW-13M
PW-13D
PW-14S
PW-14M
PW-14D
RW-1
RW-2
RW-3
SP-1
SP-2
SVE-1
SVE-2
SVE-3
SVE-4
SVE-5
SVE-6
Well No.
404
407
408
409
565
566
567
568
46
310
233
321
344
345
335
336
531
535
536
537
538
539
543
544
545
546
549
551
552
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
Easting
975039.81
975343.81
975490.62
975254.0
975535.23
975492.89
975105.37
975037.83
975247.2
975148.9
975671.2
975671.0
975678.1
975670.8
974088.3
975100.9
975507.1
975254.74
975059.0
975059.1
974970.0
974970.1
975016.0
975016.1
975016.2
975016.3
974856.2
975152.0
975152.1
975432.0
975437.17
975432.20
975432.30
975682.00
975682.10
975682.20
975765.00
975765.10
975765.20
974751.80
974799.44
975168.45
974885.08
974910.85
974927.14
974946.49
974966.91
974828.74
974846.81
974870.28
Northing
124825.60
124724.70
125002.0
125149.40
125046.05
124936.25
124871.14
125068.37
124933.7
125591.3
124863.1
124868.6
124877.1
124875.2
124847.5
125281.9
125010.99
124973.56
125239.0
125239.1
124767.0
124767.0
124942.0
124942.1
124942.2
124942.3
125140.4
125127.0
125127.1
125281.0
125255.65
125281.20
125281.30
125294.00
125294.10
125294.20
125085.00
125085.10
125085.20
125000.52
124838.74
124805.82
124935.83
125063.90
124888.11
124988.03
125106.60
124901.85
125001.08
125128.88
*,,.,» ,«-- Tr.r.r
7r and surface .
surface
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
extrawell
extrawell
extrawell
extrawell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
obswell
injwell
injwell
injwell
Sparwell
Sparwell
airwell
airwell
airwell.
airwell
airwell
airwell
270.31
269.45
267.01
269.61
266.88
267.05
272.4
277.03
270.2
266.6
267.5
267.6
267.4
266.5
276.6
268.6
266.88
268.92
269.83
269.84
271.81
272.01
276.65
276.37
276.98
276.32
273.34
273.98
273.80
265.73
265.81
265.69
265.66
267.68
267.86
267.55
266.76
266.76
266.77
273.67
273.38
269.96
274.45
275.34
274.99
276.25
273.38
274.02
274.76
273.7
10.0
55.0
60.0
85.0
63.55
51.22
78.32
78.32
30.0
29.0
16.9
39.6
73.2
88.0
13.9
17.0
84.48
113.9
19.76
84.85
31.87
62.0
23.63
40.39
87.6
101.04
31.37
50.15
94.71
18.1
57.8
87.0
113.9
20.3
59.8
94.3
20.03
60.0
102.71
31.65
22.04
18.450
60.66
59.71
8.37
9.41
12.34
12.66
7.870
12.39
Bottom of _ . . .
Depth to bed- _
opening roHckbe|ow Screen
below land . . . material
surface '^d surface
20.0
60.0
65.0
95.0
93.55
81.22
108.32
108.32
75.0
39.0
26.9
49.6
83.2
138.0
14.9
18.0
94.48
133.93
29.76
94.85
41.87
72.0
33.63
50.39
97.6
111.04
41.37
60.15
104.71
28.1
68.0
97.0
134.0
30.3
70.0
104.35
30.03
70.0
112.71
41.65
32.04
28.450
65.66
64.71
23.36
24.41
27.34
27.66
23.87
27.39
76
90.5
96.5
81.5
108.3
95
-
87.5
87.5
94
102
94.5
70
94
95
100
103
111.5
--
66.8
~
--
S&G
G&S
S&G
G&S
S&G
S&G
Sand
S&G
S&G
S&G
S&G
Sand.f-c
S&G
rock
S&G
S&G
Till/rk
rock
S&G
S&G
S&G
S&G/rk
S&G
S&G
S&G/rk
rock
S&G
S&G
S&G
S&G
S&G
Sand
rock
S&G
S&G
Gravel/rk
S&G
Sand,c-f
Sand.c-f/rk
Gravel
S&G
Gravel
Sand
Sand
--
INTRODUCTION
-------
and efforts to reduce sampling costs. Water-quality data-collection practices at Superfund sites offer an example
of the evolution in ground-water sampling. Retrieval of ground-water samples have utilized decreasingly smaller
volumes and lower rates of pumpage since the advent of contaminant sampling. In the early to mid 1980s,
samples (for analysis) were commonly collected only after the purging of large volumes of water at high pumping
rates. Typically, a minimum of three casing volumes of water were extracted from the well prior to sampling as an
attempt to obtain representative water samples. High turbidity in the water samples, a common effect of large
volume pumping, was reduced by filtering. Continuing research in contaminant transport found that high rates
and volumes of pumping resulted in a number of undesirable effectssuch as problems in disposing of contami-
nated water, and mobilization of particulates surrounding the well as witnessed by high turbidity. The presence of
particulates in sampled water can elevate concentrations of contaminants even if filtration is used and potentially
leads to an exaggeration of the magnitude of contaminant transport because these particles are mobilized only
locally around a well under high pumping stresses.
With the advent of low-flow and low-volume sampling methods (Pohlmann and others, 1994; McFarlane,
1996), less stressful approaches have been developed that seek to minimize the mobilization and entrainment of
particulates suspended in the water sample. An extension of this low-flow, less stressful strategy is the passive (no
purge) sampling approach and specifically, diffusion sampling (Vroblesky and Hyde, 1997). Diffusion sampling
and(or) samplers, as the name implies, works on the principle of diffusion: the movement of chemical compounds
as a consequence of concentration gradients. Water-diffusion samplers consist of deionized, contaminant-free
water enclosed in polyethylene bags (fig. 4), which are suspended in wells in a mesh sleeve or section of slotted
pvc pipe. Contaminants in the well water, such as chlorinated VOCs and aromatic VOCs, are able to diffuse
through the polyethylene bag into the previously contaminant-free water until the concentrations in the bag water
and well water equilibrate.
Two types of passive-diffusion samplers have been used in previous studiesa vapor-diffusion sampler and
a water-diffusion sampler (used for this study). The vapor-diffusion sampler consists of a 40 mL glass vial
enclosed in a water-free scalable polyethylene bag. Concentrations of VOCs in the vapor phase can range from
0.27 to 27.3 times higher than in the water phase (Mullaney and others, 1999). Therefore, it is difficult to infer a
correlation between concentrations in vapor-diffusion samplers and water-diffusion samplers. For this reason,
vapor diffusion method should not be used to quantify water concentrations.
Vapor-diffusion samplers were used by Vroblesky and Robertson (1996) to collect time-series VOC data
and to monitor changes in VOC concentrations of ground water discharging to surface-water bodies. Previous
studies using water-diffusion samplers include work at several Air Force Bases [Hanscom Air Force Base in
Massachusetts (Forest Lyford, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 1999); and McClellan Air Force Base in
California (Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., 1999)]. In both those studies, VOC concentrations from diffusion
samplers compared favorably to VOC concentrations from purged water samples collected in accordance with
low-flow procedures. Vroblesky and Hyde (1997) found that the concentrations of VOCs (primarily PCE, TCE,
cw-l,2DCE, fran.y-l,2-dichloroethene (trans-\,2DCE), 151-DCA, and vinyl chloride (VC)) in water-diffusion
samples retrieved at five wells during one-round of sampling were within 10 percent of concentrations in samples
retrieved by submersible and bladder pumps and bailers.
Water-diffusion sampling may not be an effective sampling method for all VOCs. VOCs with low vapor
pressures and(or) extremely high solubilities may not reach equilibrium between the water column and the
contents of the sampler within a reasonable time frame (Paul Hare, General Electric Company, written commun.,
1999). For example, acetone was observed not to reach equilibrium after 10 days, while most of the chlorinated
solvents reached equilibrium within several days.
Acknowledgments
This study, conducted as part of the remedial effort for the Savage Well Superfund Site, is a collaborative
effort between Federal, State, and local governments, and private companies and individuals. The authors wish to
express thanks to Richard Goehlert, site remedial project manager of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
8 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
(A)
(B)
Figure 4. Diffusion sampler (A) and well identifier (B) used to label wells.
INTRODUCTION 9
-------
Region 1; Richard Willey, lead hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1; Thomas
Andrews of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services; and Joseph Newton of Camp, Dresser,
and McKee, Inc., for their cooperation and support. Methane data were analyzed by Cindy Mosedale and
Dean Moosavai of the University of New Hampshire. Total organic carbon data were analyzed by
Dr. William McDowell also of the University of New Hampshire. The majority of the VOC analyses and
geochemical analyses were done by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Laboratory.
Lou Barinelli of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services assisted in analysis of laboratory
precision levels. Scott Clifford of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, also performed additional
VOC analyses with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 Mobile Laboratory for a purge test in
April 1999.
HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
The unconsolidated sediments beneath the study site consist of up to 100-ft thick deposits of predominantly
sand and gravel. Borehole geophysical logs (natural gamma and electromagnetic conductivity) and lithologic logs
from wells along a north to south transect of the site (figs. 3 and 5) and west to east transect (figs. 6-8) show the
sand and gravel sequences are interspersed with discontinuous finer grained sands at depths of 40 ft and 70 ft.
Coarse-grained deposits (cobbles and gravels) occur at the uppermost layer near the water table (at a depth of
6-14 ft), at around 60 ft, and at the base of the unconsolidated sediments at 90 ft. Till, which discontinuously
mantles the bedrock, is thickest to the west (not shown on figures) and thins to the east.
The stratigraphy appears to be deposited by a sequence of multiple glacial advances. The deep, coarse-
grained deposits at 85-90 ft below land surface (figs. 5-8) suggest that subglacial meltwater may have contributed
to deep erosion into the bedrock from the glacier. The remaining deposits suggest meltwater deposition in the
form of deltas, outwash, and lastly a glacial outburst deposit as evidenced by the coarse cobble zone near the
uppermost sequence.
Ground water flows easterly through the study area and receives recharge from the Souhegan River, which
loses streamflow at an average rate of approximately 4 ft3/s to the aquifer. The proximity of the study area to the
Souhegan River causes transient variability in the ground-water-flow system (Harte and others, 1997). Water-
table maps from pre- and post-wall construction indicate that construction of the low-permeability barrier wall has
not impeded recharge from the Souhegan River (fig. 9). The direction and magnitude of maximum ground-water
gradients computed from a three-point planar solution (Johnston and Harte, 1998) for the downgradient side of the
site shows that completion of the barrier wall in November 1998, coupled with operation of extraction wells (EW1
and EW2, fig. 3) since mid-May 1999, have moderated variations in direction of gradients as the result of transient
hydrologic conditions (fig. lOa) and increased the maximum gradients (fig. lOb).
GEOCHEMISTRY OF WATERS
The geochemistry of ground water is an important factor in assessing the potential for biodegradation of
chlorinated aliphatic compounds like PCE and will therefore affect analysis of time trends. Processes such as
reductive dechlorination occur when electron donors are available and competing electron acceptors are
eliminated (Wiedemeier and others, 1998). The principal electron donor in the absence of anthropogenic sources
is organic carbon in the aquifer. Electron acceptors include oxygen, nitrate, iron, and sulfate.
The sampled waters at the site are characterized by low total organic carbon (TOC) (less than 2 mg/L). A
listing of median concentrations of key geochemical parameters, grouped by uncontaminated and contaminated
wells and by depth of well (shallow, medium, and deep) is given in table 2. TOC ranges from 0.83 to 1.67 mg/L.
Dissolved oxygen decreases with depth and is lower in contaminated wells than in uncontaminated wells.
Whereas oxygen levels appear to be reduced in the contaminated parts of the aquifer, other electron acceptors
show no appreciable difference between uncontaminated and contaminated wells. Chloride concentrations are
affected at the site by road-salting along the southern part of the plume, which skews comparisons between
10 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
o
m
o
o
m
55
3
I
tn
3)
V)
JUNE 1998
695-15(409)
LITHOLOGY
20
40
60
80
00
Sand, f-m
Cobbles,
gravel & sand
Sand & gravel
Sand, f-m
Sand & gravel
Gravel & sand
Sand & gravel
Cobbles
Sand & gravel
Gravel & sand
Bedrock
6
14
28
45
60
66
73
76
90
SCREEN
895-15(409
97
MAY 1998
PW-1D (531) AND B95-13 (408)
LITHOLOGY
100 200
300
Sand & graver
Sand, m,t
10
20
30
40
id 50
m
01
Q
100
60
70
80
90
100
NATURAL GAMMA
(COUNTS PER SECOND)
JUNE 1998
B95-12 (407)
LITHOLOGY
100 200
300
Sand,
cobbles
Sand&
gravel
SCREEN
395-12(407) Gravel
76 K
Wx rock
NATURAL GAMMA
(COUNTS PER SECOND)
vertical scale 0.06 inch = 1 foot
Figure 5. Lithologic and borehole logs for wells in the source area along a north to south transect, including wells B95-15, B95-13, and B95-12. (See abbreviations page)
-------
JUNE 1998
B95-15(409)
LITHOLOGY
(D
=>
3
ID
n>
3
O.
>
TJ.'
o"
c
Ul_
o
\
o
«
3
a
(D
3
O
a
o
a
(A
O
fl)
I
(3
D)
I
O
O
a
a
u>
20
40
60
80
100
Sand, f-m
Cobbles,
gravel & sand
Sand & gravel
Sand, f-m
Sand & gravel
Gravel & sand
Sand & gravel
Cobbles
Sand & gravel
Gravel & sand
Bedrock
6
14
28
45
60
66
73
76
90 SCREEN
895-15
(409)
97
JUNE 1998
PW-12R(558)
LITHOLOGY
100 200
JUNE 1998
PW-13D(561)
LITHOLOGY
SCREEN
PW-12R
(558)
(559)
13M (560)
(561)
vertical scale 0.043 inch = 1 foot
Figure 6. Lithologic and borehole logs for wells in the source area along a west to east transect, including wells B95-15, PW-12R, and PW-13D. (See abbreviations page)
NATURAL GAMMA
(COUNTS PER SECOND)
NATURAL GAMMA
(COUNTS PER SECOND)
-------
JUNE 1998
PW-2R (535)
LITHOLOGY
MAY 1998
PW-ID(561)ANDB95-13
LITHOLOGY
MAY 1998
PW-140(564)
LITHOLOGY
O
m
O
o
m
1
3
I
m
3D
W
10
60
80
100
120
Sand, c-f
Sand&
gravel
Gravel
Sand, c-f
Gravel
Sand, c-f
Gravel
Sand, c-f
Bedrock
SCREEN
a PW-14S
(562)
35
40
45
60
SCREEIV
PW-14M
(563)
80
SCREEr
PW-14D
(5641
vertical scale 0.043 inch = 1 foot
100 200 300 0 100 200
NATURAL GAMMA NATURAL GAMMA
(COUNTS PER SECOND) (COUNTS PER SECOND)
Figure 7. Lithologic and borehole logs for wells in the source area along a west to east transect, including wells PW-2R, B95-13, and PW-14D. (See abbreviations page)
-------
CO
0)
a
o
o
o"
~
o
o
g
tt>
o
0)
o.
(D
a
o
(D
o
O
3
a
a.
CO
5"
o.
i
9
O
CO
D>
O
O
a
o
c
3
a
CD
B95-8 (403)
LITHOLOGY
CONDUCTANCE
(MICROSIEMENS/METER)
20 40 60 80
100
30
50
-f 60
70
80
90
97.5
Gravel &
sand
Cobbles
Coarse
sand & gravel
Sand&
gravel
"Gravel"
zone
Silt
Sand&
gravel
"Cobble
layer"
Coarse gravel -
Sand
Sand & gravel
Silty sand
Bedrock
JUNE 1998
695-12(407)
LITHOLOGY
CONDUCTANCE
(MICROSIEMENS/METER)
20 40 60 80
100 200
NATURAL GAMMA
(COUNTS PER SECOND)
300
100
.Boulders,
cobble
Sand & gravel
JUNE 1998
MW-16C(344)
LITHOLOGY
CONDUCTANCE
(MICROSIEMENS/METER)
20 40 60 80
100
50 100 150
NATURAL GAMMA
(COUNTS PER SECOND)
200
100 200
NATURAL GAMMA
(COUNTS PER SECOND)
Figure 8. Lithologic and borehole logs for wells in the source area along a west to east transect, including wells B95-8, B95-12, and MW-16C. (See abbreviations page)
-------
(A)
mjxa FEET
snjaa FEET
12S.600
FEET
124.600
FEET
(B)
125,60
FEE
124,80
FEE
974.000 FEET
975,600 FEET
// November, 1998
/
14
PlanlmeWc base by EPA Region 1 from aerial pholgraphs taken 1987
Remedial consUuctton data from Camp, Dresset, and McKee Inc.. 1999
Figure 9. Water-table surface for pre-remedial construction (May 1997) (A) and post-remedial construction (November 1998) (B).
GEOCHEMISTRY OF WATERS 15
-------
(A)
Angular Direction of maximum gradient, from true north
Sep-99
Aug-99
Jul-99
Jun-99
May-99
Apr-99
May-97
Oct-97
Dec-97
Feb-98
May-98
Jul-98
Sep-98
Feb-99
(B)
Maximum gradient, ft/ft
May-97
Sep-99
Aug-99
Jul-99
Jun-99
May-99
Apr-99
Oct-97
Dec-97
Feb-98
May-98
Jul-98
Sep-98
Feb-99
Nov-98
Figure 10. Angular direction of maximum ground-water gradient from true north (A) and
gradient (B) computed from three-point planar solution from wells B95-12, B95-15, and B95-
13.(Well locations shown in figure 3)
16 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends In Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
Table 2. Median concentrations of key geochemical parameters in uncontaminated and contaminated ground water with
volatile organic compounds from the study area
[Deep wells greater than 80 feet; Medium wells from 40-80 feet; Shallow wells are from 0-40 feet below land surface; mg/L means milligram per liter; ppm
means part per million; < means less than; data from May 1997 to April 1999; pH, Eh, and water temperature measured from flowthrough cell; Dissolved
oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ferrous iron measured from chemical kits (see table 3) and sampled from purged water from discharge tube; All other constitu-
ents sampled from discharge tube and analyzed by methods described in table 3.]
Number of samples
PH
Eh
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)
Carbon dioxide (mg/L)
Water temperature (degrees Celsius)
Ferrous iron (mg/L)
Methane (ppm)
Total organic carbon (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)
Nitrate (mg/L)
Nitrate+nitrite (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Chloride (mg/L)
Deep wells
UnCna?edm'" Contaminated
5
6.3
214
0.4
15
11.5
0
3.5
0.83
17.5
<0.05
<0.05
9
9
10
7.11
0
0.55
18.8
13.6
0
3.0
0.94
58.4
0.32
0.72
12
29
Medium wells
Uncontami-
nated
17
5.83
279
3
20.5
12.1
0
1.79
1.13
9.2
0.34
1.3
13
13
Contaminated
12
5.86
292
0.7
25
11.1
0
3.15
0.86
14.8
0.55
0.55
10
21
Shallow wells
Uncontami-
nated
15
5.9
194
2
23.5
11
0
1.91
1.67
13.5
0.12
0.27
11
20.5
Contaminated
4
5.8
230
0.8
30
11.4
0
6.1
0.9
15
1.03 .
1.79
24.5
22.5
background and contaminated areas. In general, the geochemical data suggest that ground waters underneath the
site are not conducive to widespread biological degradation of PCE at rapid rates (such as with degradation half
lives of 1 year or less) over a large part of the source area.
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION
Well data are referenced by local name as assigned by driller or principal investigative party. Well data are
also referenced in several locations by a project number to allow for cross-referencing in this report, as well as
with previous reports of the area. For example, well B95-15 is the principal local name and well number 409 is
the number assigned by the project. Only the principal local name will be used in the report after the first cross
reference.
Description of Chemical-Monitoring Program
From May 1997 to April 1999, water samples were collected bimonthly at a minimum of 2 wells (B95-15
(well number 409) and B95-13 (well number 408) and a maximum of 6 wells (B95-15, B95-13, B95-12 (well
number 407), PW-13M (well number 560), PW-14M (well number 563)(fig. 3)). Samples were collected by
multiple methods including diffusion samplers and low-flow purged samplers: peristaltic, bladder, and Voss
pumps. Additional wells were sampled using low-flow sampling techniques on several occasions including
May 1997, June 1997, December 1997, May 1998, July 1998, September 1998, November and December 1998,
and April 1999. From May 1999 to September 1999 samples were collected with diffusion samplers.
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION 17
-------
A list of constituents analyzed, methods of analysis, and detection limits is provided in table 3. Measured
constituents are subdivided by field and laboratory methods. Samples for analysis of volatile organic compounds
were collected in 40 mL septum vials and analyzed within 2 weeks of sample collection by USEPA method 8260B
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996a). Samples were analyzed by State of New Hampshire Department
of Environmental Services Laboratory. During a detailed sampling test in April 1999, a USEPA, Region 1 mobile
laboratory was used to analyze samples. Aqueous samples were analyzed using USEPA, Region 1, standard
operating procedures for head-space screening for VOCs with a Shimadzu Gas Chromotogram 14A equipped with
a 30 m, 0.53 mm DBPS-624 column and a photoionization detector (PID). Concentrations were calculated using
the external standard technique (Clifford, Scott, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, written commun., 1999).
Sampling Methods and Techniques
Ground-water samples for VOC analysis were collected by four different sampling techniques: diffusion
sampler, peristaltic pump, Voss sampler, and bladder pump. Samples were collected at wells where validation of
sample methods were tested (seven wells in all) in order of increasing cumulative volume purged1 in the following
sequence: diffusion, Voss, peristaltic, and bladder. All samples, which were collected for the purpose of
comparing sampling methods, were extracted from the same interval in the well, typically at the mid-point of the
well opening or screen. The diffusion sampler, which was installed a minimum of 7 days prior to retrieval, was
retrieved first from the well. After diffusion sampler retrieval, a Voss pump (on one occasion) or a peristaltic tube
(on all occasions) was lowered into the well and its intake was set at the previous midpoint location of the
diffusion sampler. After sample collection from the Voss pump or peristaltic tube, the apparatus was retrieved
from the well. Finally, a bladder pump was lowered to the previously used midpoint location and samples were
collected. The bladder pump was then retrieved and a new diffusion sampler was installed for the next round of
sampling. For the peristaltic and bladder pumps, samples were collected according to USEPA, Region 1, Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) for low-flow purging and sampling (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996b).
Purged samples using pumps were collected on the same day immediately after diffusion samplers were retrieved
except for one purge sample (B95-13, April 1999) that was collected 7 days latter because of equipment installa-
tion problems. The specific methods of each technique are described below.
Diffusion-bags samples were created from a sealed polyethylene bag filled with VOC-free-deionized water.
Bags were enclosed in either a mesh screen or a short section of poly vinyl-chloride (PVC) screen arid suspended
in the well with teflon coated wire and a stainless steel weight. Diffusion-bag samples were placed at the
midpoint of a well screen from a typical period of 2 weeks to 2 months. After retrieval of the bags from the well,
a small hole is cut in the bag and contents are poured into a 40-mL septum vial. The steps involved in the prepara-
tion, installation, and retrieval of diffusion samplers are described in appendix 1.
A Voss sample was collected one time at one well. A Voss sampler is a modified bailer approach to
sampling. An inflatable bladder above the bailer separates the water in the well casing from the water in the well
screen. A pump inside the bailer extracts water from the volume below the bladder and discharges water above
the bladder. Bladder integrity can be monitored by the rise in water levels in the sealed water column above the
bladder. After extracting a minimum of one volume of water from the sample interval (the amount of water in the
well casing below the bladder seal), the pump is shut off and the bailer removed to the surface where water
samples are drawn from the bailer. For the well sampled, the top of the Voss sampler was lowered to 1.0 ft above
the top of the well screen. At this depth, the sampler intake is at the midpoint of the well screen and the bladder is
at 0.8 ft above the top of the screen. Purging lasted for 7 minutes at a rate of 0.71 L/min or 1.4 volumes of water
from the sample interval. Because no water discharges to the surface, no field parameters were monitored during
purging. The Voss sampler was then withdrawn and the contents of the sampler were poured into a 40-mL septum
vial.
'The effect of increases in volume of water purged from a well on concentrations of PCE and TCE from samples were evaluated in a
separate sample comparison test and is discussed under the section "Comparison of Purge Samplers."
18 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
Table 3. Instruments used, instrumentation method code, and method detection limits for analyses of water samples
[A complete listing of constituent names are provided in appendix 2; cm mean centimeter; mg/L means milligrams per liter; ppm means part per million;
NTU means neophelometric turbidity units; EPA means Environmental Protection Agency]
^lysis'* . Constit-nt lns
-------
A peristaltic pump was used to collect samples because it was being used for routine monitoring as the site
by New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Therefore, this method was employed to help
validate results of diffusion samplers. Peristaltic-pump samples were collected by inserting a dedicated 3/8-inch
polyethylene tube for each well at the midpoint of the well screen, attaching the tube to the pump, and purging
water following low-flow sampling procedures. Purge rates from the peristaltic pump ranged from 0.1 to
0.5 L/min. Field parameters including water level, pumping rate, specific conductance, pH, Eh, dissolved oxygen,
water temperature, and turbidity were monitored during purging. Most parameters, except turbidity, were
measured in a flow-through chamber (specific conductance, pH, Eh, dissolved oxygen, and water temperature).
Downhole measurements of dissolved oxygen and water-temperature were made at about 20 percent of the wells.
Downhole probes were placed directly below the purge intake for comparison with readings made at land surface
with the flow-through chamber (appendix 2a). Samples for VOC analysis were collected in 40-mL septum vials
after field parameters stabilized. Criteria for parameter stabilization followed USEPA (1996), Region 1 Standard
Operating Procedures.
Bladder-pump samples were collected on five dates by placing a bladder pump at the midpoint of the well
screen and withdrawing water through 1/4-inch copper tubes. Copper tubes were used because of their ability to
prevent degassing of chemicals, particularly chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), which were collected during this study
(but not included in this report). The bladder pump and lines were not dedicated to specific wells but were
cleaned before use at each well according to standard operating practices (Koterba and others, 1995), which
included using nutrient-free detergent, methanol, and deionized washes. Water was purged following low-flow
sampling procedures. Purge rates from bladder pumps ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 L/min. Samples were collected in
40-mL septum vials after field-parameter stabilization.
Quality Assurance and Control
Ground-water samples were collected in cooperation with NHDES. Selected constituents were analyzed at
the NHDES laboratory and at the USGS office in Pembroke, N.H. Field-parameter data were collected by
NHDES and USGS field personnel. Specific analytical methods used for particular constituents are listed in
table 3.
On all VOC sampling dates, a trip blank accompanied the sampling party to and from the collection site.
Samples were delivered to the NHDES laboratory and transferred with a chain of custody form after visual inspec-
tion by receiving laboratory personnel. Project method protocols included the use of method (equipment) blanks,
trip blanks, field duplicates, and split samples. Equipment blanks were collected for diffusion samplers by
methods described in appendix 1.
Equipment blanks were contaminated on four out of ten sample dates. This contamination could have
occurred during blank sample preparation and transport or during handling at the analyzing laboratory. Three of
the four equipment-blank samples showed detectable levels of acetone on September 30,1998, February 8,1999,
and April 15, 1999, but no detection of primary constituents (PCE, TCE, and cw-l,2DCE). Acetone was not
detected in ground-water samples for those dates. PCE was detected in one of the four equipment blanks on
February 19, 1998, but the concentration (3.5 ppb) was only marginally greater than the detection limit (2 ppb)
and was insignificant in relation to the PCE concentrations of ground-water samples (ranging from 830 to
4,100 ppb). No VOCs were detected in the trip blanks.
Differences between duplicates and split samples were evaluated by use of the Absolute Relative Percent
Difference (ARPD) formula:
\x, - jcJ
ARPD = LJ ilxlOO, (1)
20 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
where
xj is original sample, and
*2 is replicate sample.
Differences between samples collected by different methods (for example, low-flow and diffusion) were
evaluated by use of the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) formula:
RPD = fl ^ x 100 , (2)
Duplicate VOC field samples were analyzed by the NHDES Laboratory following USEPA schedule 8260B.
Laboratory standard-operating procedures included the use of the following steps: initial instrument calibration,
check sample, laboratory blanks, matrix spikes, matrix duplicates, and laboratory fortified blanks (which include
five of the primary expected VOC constituents). Approximately 3.5 percent of 350 total VOC samples were
analyzed as field duplicates. The mean ARPD of duplicates with positive detections was 4.5 percent for PCE,
4.8 percent for TCE, and 4.1 percent for cw-l,2DCE. Standard deviations of ARPD between duplicates were less
than 5 percent. The maximum ARPD of a duplicate was 10.9 percent and occurred for PCE and cw-l,2DCE
(appendix 6).
Chemical analyzes were done on nine matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates for five compounds
(1,1-dichloroethene, benzene, trichloroethylene, toluene, and chlorobenzene by the NHDES Laboratory
(Lou Barinelli, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, written commun., 2000). The average
ARPD ranged from 2.44 to 3.93 percent for the five compounds. All results were within control limits (three
standard deviations). Precision levels from matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates are comparable to precision
levels from the field duplicates and indicate that the average level of precision from the NHDES Laboratory is
within 5 percent.
Detailed testing of the effect of volume, flow rate, and pump type on PCE and TCE concentrations was
done at well B95-13 on April 14, 1999. Two pump types were used, bladder and peristaltic, in a sequentially
higher purge rate and volumetric order of sampling. The USEPA mobile laboratory was used to analyze results.
Two split samples were analyzed with the NHDES laboratory. One split sample was collected using a peristaltic
pump and yielded an 20.3 percent ARPD in PCE concentration and a 13.6 percent ARPD in TCE concentration.
The other split sample was collected with a bladder pump and yielded an 16.7 percent ARPD in PCE concentra-
tion and a 17.2 percent APRD in TCE concentration. Three sets of duplicate samples were analyzed by the
USEPA mobile lab for samples collected using a peristaltic (two sets) and a bladder pump (one set). In addition, a
laboratory duplicate was done on a peristaltic sample. The laboratory duplicate yielded a ARPD of 11.7 percent
for PCE and a ARPD of 4.9 percent for TCE. The peristaltic field duplicates had a ARPD of 13.3 and
14.3 percent for PCE and a 1 and 7 percent APRD for TCE. The bladder duplicate had a ARPD of 2 percent for
PCE and a ARPD of 13.8 for TCE. Averaging the above results, an average level of precision for the USEPA
mobile laboratory is 13 percent for PCE and 8.8 percent for TCE.
A split sample was shared with members of the USGS New England Coastal Basins National Water Quality
Assessment Program (NAWQA). Samples were sent for analyses to the USGS National Water-Quality Labora-
tory and NHDES laboratory and analyzed for major ions, metals, and VOCs (data are on file at the Pembroke,
N.H. office). The USGS national laboratory analyzes approximately 15 more VOC constituents than the NHDES
laboratory. Constituent concentrations of less than 15 percent ARPD resulted except for magnesium, which
varied by more than 50 percent. The only positive detection for VOCs occurred for methyl tert-butyl ether
(MTBE), which had a ARPD of 13 percent.
Field-parameter data collection by the USGS followed water-quality sampling methods and criteria in the
USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (U.S. Geological Survey, 1998). Field
techniques of USGS personnel trained to make water-quality measurements are verified annually by participation
in the National Field Quality Assurance Program, which sends unknown samples to participants to test parameters
such as pH, alkalinity, and specific conductance. Field probes and instruments are calibrated using known
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION 21
-------
standards. Laboratory analysis conducted by USGS include testing for bromide, alkalinity, and nitrate. Bromide
testing was conducted on approximately 160 samples from October 1997 to September 1999, using an ion-
specific probe. Ten percent of these samples were duplicate samples with matching concentrations of less than
15 percent ARPD. Alkalinity titrations were performed on 196 samples from May 1997 to September 1999,
following USGS national water-quality procedures (U.S. Geological Survey, 1998). Five percent of these samples
were duplicate samples with matching concentrations of less than 5 percent ARPD. Nitrate testing using colori-
metric kits in the laboratory was performed from November 1998 to September 1999 on 90 samples. Nine percent
of these samples were duplicate samples with generally less than 25 percent ARPD.
Additional field parameters tested for quality assurance and control included carbon dioxide, ferrous iron,
and dissolved oxygen. Field-testing equipment are listed in table 3. Approximately five to ten percent of
measurements were duplicates with generally less than 20 percent ARPD for carbon dioxide and ferrous iron and
less than 5 percent ARPD for dissolved oxygen.
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CONTRIBUTING AREA OF WATER SAMPLES
Understanding the differences in the volume of aquifer contributing to a specific water sample may help
explain variations in water-sample concentrations. Both passive (diffusion sampling) and low-flow sampling
methods sample water from a relatively small volume of the aquifer around the well opening. Although the zone
of aquifer interrogated is small for both methods, small variations in these zones can lead to differences in results
because the concentrations of VOCs can vary over short distances.
In diffusion sampling there is no drawdown and the sample represents an equilibrium condition between
water in the diffusion sampler and ground water flowing through the well under natural flow conditions.
Therefore, the natural flushing rate of the well is an important mechanism in collecting representative diffusion
samples. The natural flushing rate can be relatively large and approach rates of several liters per minute in
properly constructed wells tapping high-permeability aquifers.
Assuming that the natural flushing rate of the well is sufficient to allow ample flow into the well and that
circulation of water within the well allows enough water to come in contact with the diffusion sampler, the volume
of water in contact with the diffusion sampler will be controlled by the deployment time of the sampler, rates of
ground-water flow in the aquifer, and the variability of ground-water flow due to transient conditions. Figure lla
is a conceptual diagram showing horizontal contributing areas of water in contact with the diffusion sampler for
various deployment times. Theoretically, as the duration of deployment increases, the contributing area of water
also will increase. This is shown in figure lla as the near vertical lines delineating the outer extent for several
weeks of deployment. The lateral extent of the contributing area will be controlled by the angular variation of
flow due to transient conditions. A static or near steady-state-flow system will most likely have a narrower lateral
extent than a highly transient-flow system.
The water the sampler effectively samples also will be controlled by the rate of equilibration between the
sampler and the chemical compound in the well water. The equilibration time may actually constrain the contrib-
uting area so that the area that influences the concentration in the sampler is controlled by a combination of
deployment time and rate of equilibration. Therefore, there will be a difference between the contributing area of
the water in contact with the sampler and the contributing area of the water sampled with that sampler.
In low-flow sampling, water samples are collected in a relatively short amount of time (hours) compared to
diffusion sampling. The zone of aquifer sampled is largely dependent on drawdowns during purging and sample
collection. Drawdown can range from negligible amounts (less than 0.01 ft) to large amounts (more than 10 ft).
For the case of negligible drawdowns, the horizontal area contributing water is primarily upgradient from the well.
For large drawdowns, the horizontal contributing area also will encompass areas downgradient of the well if
drawdowns extend beyond the wellbore. Sampled waters also may include borehole water, as well as aquifer
water, if the aquifer is not transmissive enough to recharge the purged water. The effect of drawdown on the size
and configuration of the horizontal contributing area is shown in figure lib for a simplified case as semi-elliptical
areas around the well.
22 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
Ground-water-flow direction
o
i
o
c
>
o
o
X
09
H
O
3)
m
>
o
n
m
31
m
V)
(A)
Contributing area per
deployment time of diffusion
sampler
I
O
I
Well
Static flow system
Transient flow system
(B)
Contributing area for purge rate
with stabilized drawdown
tu
o
a
Well
Contributing areas for
various purge rates with negligible
drawdown (low-flow sampling)
Figure 11. Conceptual diagram showing horizontal contributing areas to a well for various
deployment time of diffusion sampler (a) and for various purge rates (b).
-------
The vertical contributing area also will affect the horizontal contributing area. Purged low-flow samples
may interrogate relatively short radial distances over the full screen length or large lateral distances for a fraction
of the screen length.
RESULTS OF TESTING
Testing of diffusion samplers involved comparing results of VOC analyses of samples collected from
diffusion samplers with those collected after purging operations. Similarity of results with standard low-flow
methods suggest that diffusion samplers are suitable for use in sampling ground water for VOCs. However,
differences in results between the two approaches also may suggest an acceptable validation test given the
potential differences in contributing areas associated with the two methods. For example, water samples from
purged methods may originate from a longer vertical length of the well opening than waters from diffusion
samples. Therefore, because of vertical heterogeneity of contaminant concentrations in the aquifer, variations in
contributing areas of waters will affect sample concentrations producing dissimilar results between diffusion and
purged methods. The fact that the results are different does not necessarily imply that diffusion sampling is less
reliable than purge sampling. Evaluation of diffusion sampling as a viable alternative sampling method must be
made in consideration of these inherent differences in the contributing area of the sample and on a well by well
basis.
Comparison of Diffusion Samplers with Other Samplers
The list of VOCs analyzed (USEPA schedule 8260B) and comparison of detections between peristaltic and
diffusion, and bladder and diffusion samples are given in tables 4 and 5. For the bladder and diffusion compar-
ison, which consist of only three samples, there is exact agreement of VOCs detected. For the peristaltic and
diffusion comparison, which consists of twenty samples, three compounds other than the primary VOCs (PCE,
TCE, and cw-l,2DCE) were detected. These compounds include 1,1,1-trichloroethylene and carbon disulfide,
which were detected in the peristaltic samples but not in the diffusion samples, and methylene chloride, which was
detected in the diffusion sample but not in the peristaltic sample. All VOCs detected by only one of the two
methods have relatively high vapor pressures (more than 100 mm of mercury at 25 degrees Celsius). Therefore,
differences in diffusion rates may not be the primary mechanism in causing positive detections in only one of the
methods. The primary mechanism is more likely analytical precision, because the detected concentrations were
all just slightly greater than the detection level (table 4).
PCE concentration results from the two primary wells in which multiple sample methods were utilized and
waters withdrawn for comparison (wells B95-13 and B95-15) are shown in figures 12 and 13. Diffusion samplers
provided results comparable to samples obtained with a peristaltic pump (see well B95-15 and B95-13 results in
appendix 3). VOC concentrations in samples obtained using bladder pumps were higher than concentrations in
samples from the diffusion bags and peristaltic pumps (see well B95-13 results in appendix 4). Differences in
VOC concentrations reported in appendix 4 between bladder and diffusion samples are attributed to variations in
contributing areas of sampled waters. Concentrations of VOCs from this well (B95-13) have a tendency to
increase with increasing purge rate (see fig. 15b) and the increasing purge rate probably induces flow into the
sample intake area from a different contributing area.
The repeated similarity between VOC concentrations in purged peristaltic samples and concentrations in
diffusion samples indicates that diffusion samples provide results effectively contemporaneous to the time of
retrieval. For example, diffusion samplers were installed at the end of the previous sampling round (anywhere
from 2 weeks to 2 months) yet, the concentrations of contaminants in the diffusion sampler reflect the concentra-
tion of the water passing through the well at the time of retrieval because VOC concentrations compare to VOC
concentrations in the purged samples collected within hours of diffusion bag retrieval. This point is illustrated by
the November 1998 sample at well B95-15 (fig. 13). Water collected from the diffusion sampler (which had been
24 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
Table 4. Volatile-organic compounds analyzed and detected in water samples collected by peristaltic pump and diffusion
samplers from wells in Milford, New Hampshire, from May 1998 to July 1999
[Detected compounds are in boldface type; ppb means parts per billion; RDL means reporting detection limit]
Compound name
Fraction of detects to
total number of samples
Peristaltic Diffusion
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroe thane
1,1 -Dichloroethy lene
1,1-dichloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1 -Dichloropropene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chlororpropane
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
1,2,3-Tricholoropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (cis-1,2DCE)
2-Butanone (MEK)
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK)
Acetone
Bromobenzene
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
n-Butylbenzene
O/ 20 07 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
I/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
0/20 0/20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
0/20 0/20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
20/20 20/20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
O/ 20 O/ 20
Compound name
Fraction of detects to
total number of samples
Peristaltic Diffusion
jec-Butylbenzene
rert-Butylbenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
2Carbon disulfide
o-Chlorotoluene
p-Chlorotoluene
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
Chloroform
Chlorobenzene
Dibromomethane
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Diethyl ether
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
Methyl-ter/-butyl ether (MTBE)
3Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Para-isopropyltoluene
/j-Propylbenzene
Styrene
TetrachJoroethylene (PCE)
Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
TrichJorofluoromethane
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes (total)
0/20
0/20
0/20
1/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
20/20
0/20
0/20
20/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
1/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
20/20
0/20
0/20
19/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
'Detected value 12 ppb (RDL 10 ppb).
2Detected value 2.7 ppb (RDL 2.0 ppb).
3Detected value 21 ppb (RDL 20 ppb).
RESULTS OF TESTING 25
-------
Table 5. Volatile-organic compounds analyzed and detected in water samples collected by bladder pump and diffusion
samplers from wells in Milford, New Hampshire, from May 1998 to April 1999
[Detected compounds are in boldface type]
Compound name
Fraction of detects to
total number of samples
Bladder
Diffusion
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0/3 0/3
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0/3 0/3
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0/3 . 0/3
1,1 -Dichloroethylene 0/3 0/3
1,1-dichloroethene 0/3 0/3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0/3 0/3
1,1-Dichloropropene 0/3 0/3
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0/3 0/3
1,3,3-Trimethylbenzene 0/3 0/3
1,2-Dibromo-3-chlororpropane 0/3 0/3
rra/is-l,2-Dichloroethene 0/3 0/3
rranj-l,3-Dichloropropene 0/3 0/3
1,2,3-Tricholoropropane 0/3 0/3
1,3-Dichloropropane 0/3 0/3
1,2-dichloroethene 0/3 0/3
1,2-Dichloropropane 0/3 0/3
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0/3 0/3
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0/3 0/3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0/3 0/3
2,2-Dichloropropane 0/3 0/3
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (cis-1,2DCE) 3/3 3/3
2-Butanone (MEK) 0/3 0/3
2-Hexanone 0/3 0/3
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) 0/3 0/3
Acetone 0/3 0/3
Bromobenzene 0/3 0/3
Benzene 0/3 0/3
Bromochloromethane 0/3 0/3
Bromoform 0/3 0/3
Bromomethane 0/3 0/3
n-Butylbenzene 0/3 0/3
jec-Butylbenzene 0/3 0/3
rert-Butylbenzene 0/3 0/3
Compound name
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon disulfide
o-Chlorotoluene
p-Chlorotoluene
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
Chloroform
Chlorobenzene
Dibromomethane
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Diethyl ether
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
Methyl-fert-butyl ether (MTBE)
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Para-isopropyltoluene
n-Propylbenzene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes (total)
Fraction of detects to
total number of samples
Bladder Diffusion
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
3/3
0/3
0/3
3/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
3/3
0/3
0/3
3/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
26 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
(A)
GROUND-WATER LEVEL
262
261.5
261
260.5
260
259.5
259
258.5
gj 258
257.5
+
*
*
k
* 1
A
i
>
>
+
i
4
»
*
4
*
*
-A.
Pre-wall period: .;::; : | IConstruction 1 1 ; : Post Cpm1ructioii;> 1 1 Pumping:
4/1/97 6/15/97 8/29/97 11/12/97 1/26/98 4/11/98 6/25/98 9/8/98 11/22/98 2/5/99 4/21/99 7/5/99 9/18/99
(B) 6,000
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
5,000
ill
LU
4,000
3,000
3
1
2,000
1,000
*
A
4
A
A
i
*
A
A
BLADDER
A PERISTALTIC
OVOSS
X PERI-DUPLICATE
DIFFUSION BAG
i
m \
Pre-wall period | (Construction ] |
L
1
t 4
f ^
F
.
A
\
Post Construction || jumping ,
4/1/97 6/15/97 8/29/97 11/12/97 1/26/98 4/11/98 6/25/98 9/8/98 11/22/98 2/5/99 4/21/99 7/5/99 9/18/99
Figure 12. Ground-water levels (A) and concentration of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in samples
collected by various methods (B) for well B95-13.
RESULTS OF TESTING 27
-------
(A)
GROUND-WATER LEVEL
d 262.5
$ 262
m 261.5
hj 261
z
cf 260-5
|D 260
UL
° 259.5
^ 259
95B *
^
^
*
*
*
*
<
>
4
A.
I . v
1
^
>'
^
»,
* 4
*
*
i ? :; 1 | > ?i i;vPre^wall ^penpd';-;- ;::':::;:; : ; ;; : v Construction Post Construction Pumping
4/1/97 6/15/97 8/29/97 11/12/97 1/26/98 4/11/98 6/25/98 9/8/98 11/22/98 2/5/99 4/21/99 7/5/99 9/18/99
(B)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
2,400
2,000
CD
a.
1,600
m
HI
tu 1.200
g
3
o
I 800
400
t
Pre-wall period
; A
A
A
A
A
Construction ::fQstConstoctiQni ^ Pumping
A
X
1
1
E
c
AF
XC
1
iLADDER
3IFFUSION
'ERISTALT
J.B.DUPLIC
':
BAG
1C
;ATE
*
4/1/97 6/15/97 8/29/97 11/12/97 1/26/98 4/11/98 6/25/98 9/8/98 11/22/98 2/5/99 4/21/99 7/5/99 9/18/99
Figure 13. Ground-water levels (A) and concentration of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in samples
collected by various methods (B) for well B95-15.
28 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
installed in September when PCE concentrations were 2,000 ppb) in November yielded a concentration of
500 ppb of PCE, a concentration comparable to the 375 ppb of PCE detected in the peristaltic sample also in
November.
Concentrations of VOCs in 20 samples collected by diffusion samples in 7 glacial-drift wells2 correlate welh
with concentrations from low-flow peristaltic samples from the same wells (fig. 14). The linear regressions
produce root-mean squares of 0.966 for PCE, 0.942 for TCE, and 0.979 for cw-l,2DCE. The PCE and cis-
1,2DCE regression lines are virtually identical to the 1:1 line. The TCE regression line shows that TCE concen-
trations for the diffusion samples are greater than concentrations for the peristaltic samples.
The mean PCE concentration for diffusion samples is 1,152 ppb and the mean from the peristaltic samples
is 1,119 ppb (table 6). The standard deviations also are similar. A two-tailed students t-test of equal variance
between the two data sets indicates a 96-percent probability that the means are from the same population.
Comparison of results for other VOCs also shows excellent agreement. The mean TCE concentration for
diffusion samples is slightly higher than the mean concentration for peristaltic samples, whereas, the means for
cw-l,2DCE are identical for both methods.
Relative Percent Differences (RPD) of VOC concentrations between peristaltic and diffusion samples
indicate that diffusion samples provide "on average" higher concentrations than peristaltic samples (table 7).
The mean RPD for PCE was -13.42 percent (negative concentration indicates concentration from diffusion
sample is greater than concentration from peristaltic sample), the RPD for TCE was -16.3 percent, and the RPD
for cw-l,2DCE was -3 percent. Compared to duplicate results that show much smaller differences (except for
cw-l,2DCE), diffusion sample results are larger than differences associated with analytical precision. This is an
important point and indicates that concentrations from diffusion samples had a tendency (although not statistically
proven) to provide higher concentrations than concentrations from peristaltic samples. Because of the potential
for VOCs to degas during peristaltic pump sampling (Imbrigiotta and others, 1988), it seems reasonable to expect
these differences. The accuracy of peristaltic pumps to collect representative samples is discussed in the section
"Comparison of Purge Samplers."
The effects of deployment time on VOC concentration from diffusion samplers were evaluated by plotting
the measured concentration differences between the diffusion samples and peristaltic samples against deployment
time of diffusion samplers. A plot of linear scatter (fig. 15a) of the data shows a wide spread of data relative to the
y-axis and thus a poor linear correlation (R2 of 0.15). The percent difference in differential concentrations also
were plotted (fig. 15b) and also shows a wide scatter of data. In figure 15b a linear regression also was fitted to
the data but a poor fit (R2 of 0.15) resulted as well. In both graphs, the effect of deployment time is not observable
and the wide scatter of data points suggest differences are caused by factors other than the time required for equili-
bration, such as differences in contributing areas of sampled water.
In the deployment time plot shown in figure 15a, as well as the linear regression plots shown in figure 14,
the largest difference in results between diffusion samplers and peristaltic samples occurred for sample B95-13 in
April 1999, which is the only comparison set that was not sampled on the same day (sample number 6 in
appendix 5). This suggest that the difference in sample time probably affected results of the validation and
emphasizes the importance of contemporaneous comparison of sample methods.
The evidence discussed in this section indicates that whereas diffusion samples provide VOC concentra-
tions that are slightly higher than concentrations from peristaltic samples, the differences are not statistically
different at a 96 percent probability. The mean concentration of VOCs, the RPD's, and graphical illustrations all
show a tendency for slightly higher concentrations from diffusion samples than peristaltic-pump samples. In
general, the diffusion samplers provided excellent results that were validated against purged-type sample
methods.
Results from bedrock wells were not corroborated against purged samples due to limitations on the scope of the project.
RESULTS OF TESTING 29
-------
(A)
Regression LJne
OS Percent Confidence Interval
1:1 LJne
.o t- o.B37a-» Reoreeelon Equation
na- o.ooa Root Moan Square
8OO 1 ZOO 16OO ZOOO 24OO 28OO
Concentration of tetraehloroethylene from peristaltic samples in (ppb)
(B) ,.
a.
.e 21 o
Regression LJne
85 Percent Confidence Interval
1:1 Line
.i3s*M Regression Equation
»42 Root Mean Square
4
Not purged on same day
eo eo 120 1 so i ao 210
Concentration of trichloroethytene from peristaltic samples in (ppb)
(C)
«H 75
s'
e " Regression Line
96 Percent Confidence Interval
1:1 Line
* 0.0762-x Regression Equation
- o.B7» Root Mean Square
If ot purged on same day
O 25 5O 76 10O 125 1 SO 176 2OO 225
Concentration of cls-1,2-dichloroethylene from peristaltic samples In (ppb)
Figure 14. Linear regression of concentrations from peristaltic and diffusion samples for tetraehloroethylene
(PCE) (A) , trichloroethylene (TCE) (B), and cis-l,2-dichloroethene (cw-l,2DCE) (C).
30 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
Table 6. Statistical summary of concentrations of volatile-organic compounds from peristaltic and diffusion samples
[ppb means part per billion]
Tetrachloroethylene
(PCE)
Peristaltic Diffusion
Number of samples
Mean, in ppb
Median, in ppb
Standard deviation of sample, in ppb
Maximum, in ppb
Minimum, in ppb
20 20
1,119.1 1,152.
890 975
1,048.4 1,000.3
3,400. 3,200.
78 110
Trichloroethylene
(TCE)
Peristaltic Diffusion
20 20
75.4 89.2
56 55.5
69.7 81.5
230 250
8.4 10
c/s-1 ,2-dichloroethene
(c/s-1 ,2DCE)
Peristaltic Diffusion
20 20
95.0 95.0
99 91.5
70.5 69.5
200 190.
4.2 5.2
Table 7. Summary of absolute relative percent differences (ARPD) between laboratory duplicate samples and relative percent
difference (RPD) between peristaltic samples and diffusion samples
[PCE, Tetrachloroethylene; TCE, Trichloroethylene; cis-l,2DCE, cw-l,2-dichloroethene; negative values indicate that sample concentrations from diffusion
sampler were greater than those from the perstaltic pump; % means percent; see appendix 5 for individual calculation of RPD; see appendix 6 for individual
calculation of ARPD; only duplicate results from NHDES laboratory which include all three primary constiuents (PCE, TCE, and cir-l,2DCE) are considered
for ARPD calculations]
Mean
Median
Standard deviation
Number of samples
Maximum
Minimum
Duplicate
samples
ARPD
PCE
4.50%
4.32%
4.04%
10
10.91%
0.00%
Method
samples
RPD
PCE
-13.42%
-15.38%
24.40%
20
38.30%
-79.07%
Duplicate
samples
ARPD
TCE
4.81%
4.20%
4.18%
6
10.91%
0.00%
Method
samples
RPD
TCE
-16.30%
-12.60%
18.49%
20
5.63%
-66.67%
Duplicate
samples
ARPD
c/s-1 ,2DCE
4.10%
4.30%
1.74%
5
5.41%
1.16%
Method
samples
RPD
c/s-1 ,2DCE
-3.00%
0.00%
12.53%
20
11.76%
-40.00%
Vertical Variations
Heterogeneity and stratification of chemical concentrations in aquifers and wells is common. Vertical
variations in concentrations of VOCs were detected in strings of diffusion samplers installed in two wells
(B95-13 and MW-16R (well number 345, table 8) in July 1999. The first string of samplers consisted of three
bags with a 2-ft spacing and installed in a 5-ft long, 2-inch-diameter screen (well B95-13) in sand and gravel. The
uppermost diffusion sampler was placed 1/2 ft below the top of screen and the lowermost sampler was 1/2 ft
above the bottom of screen. Concentrations of PCE were one-third lower in the sample from the uppermost
sampler, set near the top of the screen, than concentrations from the middle and lowermost samplers. The
uppermost sampler is adjacent to a slightly finer grained sand layer, whereas the middle and lowermost samplers
are adjacent to a coarser grained layer of sands and gravels. The variation in concentrations of TCE and
cis-\,2DCE was much smaller than the variation in concentrations of PCE.
The second string of samplers consisted of four bags with a 6-ft spacing installed in a 38-ft long,
6-inch-diameter open borehole in bedrock well MW-16R (well number 345). Two of the four samplers were
placed side by side at the midpoint between upper and lower samplers to test the effects of different enclosures
(mesh sleeve versus a pvc-slotted pipe) on water flow and diffusion to the diffusion bag. PCE concentrations
differ vertically and also between enclosure types. TCE concentrations show little difference vertically or
between types of enclosures. Cw-l,2DCE concentrations increase with depth and show little differences between
enclosure types.
RESULTS OF TESTING 31
-------
(A)
(B)
z
s-
TRACHLOROETH'
UJ
Z
TERENCE
u-
o
ouu
450
400
350
300
250
200
| 100
0 50
| -100
§ -150
° -200
-250
-300
-350
-400
-450
{
6 [Data labels cross referenced in appendix 5]
\ Sample #6 not purged
on same day
3
-
- - 020 «5 «1
---._. Root-mean square = 0.15
: , ;.':'-' :-'V/ ' i - 14: , 12 , ; ""---....
J^?'S'-"; ;-,;" " . .'' >'*
~ ~ "" ' ' " ^
- ,; -V-" .",.,.
' ' '4 '" rr'.' ' '" '-.' ' ''! j
J '. ! Sj, '" (
) 20 40 60 80 100 120
8-20
,/
'1,4!:
(
^ LU
£ O
-40
19..
5-eo (-.,'
DC
t
"~ -80 -'-
HO
12
6
&
20 40 60 80 100
DEPLOYMENT TIME OF DIFFUSION SAMPLER, IN DAYS
120
Figure 15. Comparison between deployment time of diffusion sampler and difference of measured
concentrations of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) from diffusion and peristaltic-pump samples (A) and
comparison of percent difference (B).
32 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
Table 8. Variations in concentrations of PCE, TCE, and c/s-1,2DCE in vertical strings of diffusion samplers, in July and
October 1999 and from purge sample from well MW-16R in October 1999
[Residence times for July sample was 14 days; residence times for October sample was 49 days; tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE); cw-1,2-
dichloroethene (ci'j-l,2DCE); ppb means parts per billion; mesh means polyethylene mesh holder; means no data; pvc means polyvinyl chloride holder]
Well name and
number
(«9. 3)
B95-13
(well number 408)
MW-16R
(well number 345)
Open
Interval,
In feet
below
land
surface
60-65
100-138
Location of
midpoint of
sampler, In
feet below
land surface
60.5
62.5
64.5
108.5
114.5
114.5
114.5
120.5
Type of -
sample
enclosure
or sample
mesh
mesh
mesh
pvc
pvc
mesh
peristaltic
pvc
PCE,
in ppb
290
590
590
78
180
110
-
110
July 30, 1999
TCE,
In ppb
40
40
40
25
32
29
--
49
c/s-1,2
DCE,
In ppb
100
100
110
32
35
38
-
110
October 28, 1999
PCE,
in ppb
-
-
270
340
310
260
630
TCE,
In ppb
-
37
83
66
56
98
C/S-1,2
DCE,
in ppb
-
43
110
98
140
190
The string-of-samplers test was repeated in bedrock well MW-16R in October 1999 because of the differ-
ences in PCE concentrations between enclosures in July. The results of the October test show a much smaller
difference in PCE concentrations between the enclosures, with a nine percent APRD as opposed to a 48 percent
APRD for the July test. Recall that the mean ARPD from duplicates is 4.5 percent for PCE (table 7) and that the
standard deviation is 4.0 percent. The upper control limits for analytical precision of a compound is typically
3 times the standard deviation and is, consequently, 12 percent for PCE (at the 99.9 percent confidence interval)
based on the analyses of duplicates. Therefore, concentrations of PCE from the different enclosures in the second
test are statistically similar.
Vertical variations in concentrations of PCE were larger in the October 1999 test than in the July test. PCE
concentrations differ by more than 100 percent and increase with depth in the October 1999 test. In addition,
vertical variations in concentrations also were measured for TCE and cw-l,2DCE in October, unlike July concen-
trations that indicated small differences except for cij-l,2DCE concentrations.
A single purge sample was taken in October 1999 at MW-16R to compare concentrations from diffusion
samples to purge samples. The tube intake for the peristaltic sample was set at the same vertical depth as the
middle horizon of the vertical string test (114.5 ft below land surface). PCE and TCE concentrations were lower
from the peristaltic sample than the two diffusion samples taken at the same depth. The RPD was -17.5 percent
and -16.6 percent (negative indicating diffusion sample concentration from mesh enclosure was higher than the
peristaltic sample concentration) for PCE and TCE, respectively. Concentration of cw-l,2DCE was higher from
the peristaltic sample than the two diffusion samples. The RPD was 35.3 percent for cw-l,2DCE (positive
indicating diffusion sample concentration from mesh enclosure was lower than the peristaltic sample concentra-
tion).
Pumpage of water in boreholes and wells induces vertical circulation of water. The large difference in
concentrations of cij-l,2DCE between peristaltic and diffusion samples for the middle interval could result from
the peristaltic sample inducing some water circulation from the lowermost sample interval where concentrations
in VOCs are greater than the upper sample intervals.
Results of the vertical string test show there are large vertical differences in concentrations of VOCs in the
two tested wells. Diffusion samplers were shown to have the ability to identify chemical stratification of VOCs in
the tested wells and thus the use of additional vertical-string tests would be useful to help identify the vertical
source of water from purged samples and whether additional vertical sampling is needed.
RESULTS OF TESTING 33
-------
Comparison of Purge Samplers
Because most of the diffusion-sample results were compared to results from samples collected with a
peristaltic pump, an additional test was performed at well B95-13 to evaluate differences in PCE and TCE concen-
trations between samples retrieved by bladder and peristaltic pumps. The test was designed not only to evaluate
differences in concentration of samples retrieved by these pumps, but also to investigate differences in concentra-
tions with changes in purge rates and volume. Nine samples were collected at ascending and then descending
purge rates (table 9). Samples are labeled in table 9 (column 1) by pump type, purge rate, and whether the samples
were collected during a forward sequence (ascending rate of purge) or reverse sequence (descending rate of
purge). For example, samples p.25f and p.48f denote samples collected with the peristaltic pump, during an
ascending purge rate, 0.25 and 0.48 L/min, respectively. Under all cases, drawdowns were negligible (less than
0.06 ft) during the test.
The pump test and sampling was designed to minimize differences between collection of samples with
peristaltic and bladder pumps. A 1/4-inch polyethylene tube (for use with a peristaltic pump) and a bladder pump
were lowered to the same interval, at the midpoint of the well screen, and set several days before the start of the
pump test to avoid disturbing the water column inside the well. A 1/4-inch copper3 tube was used to deliver water
from the bladder pump because this type of tube was used previously for other bladder-pump samples.
The sequence of pumping followed the listing of samples reported in table 9. First, the peristaltic pump was
operated at a rate of 0.25 L/min for 100 min and VOC samples were collected (sample p.25f). Next, the peristaltic
pump was operated at a rate of 0.48 L/min for 59 min and samples were collected at 159 min into the test (sample
p.48f). The peristaltic pump and the bladder pump were simultaneously turned off and on and the bladder pump
was operated at a rate of 0.45 L/min for 245 min and samples were collected at 404 min into the test (sample
b.45f). The bladder pump was increased to a rate of 0.97 L/min and operated for 76 min and samples were
collected at 480 min into the test (sample b.97f). The pump rate of the bladder was then decreased to 0.5 L/min
while simultaneously turning on the peristaltic pump and operating it at a rate of 0.5 L/min to yield a combined
rate of 1.0 L/min. Dual pumping occurred for 85 min. Samples from the peristaltic pump were collected at
65 min into the dual operation period (545 min into the test, sample p.l+) and samples from the bladder pump
were collected at 85 min into the dual operation period (565 min into the test, sample b.l+). The peristaltic pump
was shut off and the bladder pump continued to operate at it's same rate for another 17 min and samples were
collected 583 min into the test (sample b.5r2). The bladder pump and peristaltic pump were simultaneously
turned off and on and the peristaltic pump was operated for another 18 min and the sample collected at 595 min
into the test (sampled p. 49r2). Finally, the peristaltic pump rate was decreased to 0.33 L/min and samples were
collected at 625 min into the test (sample p.33r). This sequence of pumping allowed for continuous purging of the
well and evaluation of the effect of purge type, purge rate, and sequence of sampling on VOC concentrations.
Figure 16 shows the results from analyses of PCE concentration of samples. Precision (error) bars are
shown with results and span 13 percent of the reported PCE concentration. The 13 percent precision for PCE is
the average ARPD of splits, field duplicates, and lab duplicates from samples during this test and represents the
level of precision of reported concentrations for PCE. The average ARPD for TCE is 8.8 percent. Results from
quality assurance and control measurements are discussed in the preceding section of this report.
A sequential plot (fig. 16a) of PCE concentrations shows an increase in concentration during the ascending
rate of purging and a small decline during the descending rate of purging, which indicates that purge rates affect
PCE concentrations more than the cumulative volume purged. A plot of purge rate in relation to concentration
shows a moderate trend toward higher concentrations with higher purge rates (fig. 16b). The type of pump also
appears to effect the PCE concentration. Three of the four bladder samples had higher PCE concentrations than
the five peristaltic samples (table 9).
'Reynolds and others (1990) report that low-density polyethylene tubing may adsorb PCE more readily than rigid tubing such as
cooper tubing. They found that a diffusive transport model correctly represented loss of PCE from various tubing materials. Following this
approach, PCE concentrations in our case may decrease by as much as 2 percent when pulling water through the polyethylene tubing
compared to the cooper tubing.
34 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
Table 9. Water-quality results from test comparing peristaltic and bladder pumps at well B95-13, April 14,1999
[Elapsed time for an individual sample is the difference between the preceding cumulative time and the current cumulative time. min=minute, l=liters, ppb= part per billion, mg/L = milligrams per liter,
ppmv=parts per million, umhos/crh=micromhos per centimeter mv=millivolts, ntu=neophelometric turbidity units, means no data, >, greater than]
Pump type Time, in
Sample (p=peri- hours
name1 staltic, b= and min-
bladder) utes
p.25f
p.48f
b.45f
b.97f
p.l+
b.l+
b.5r2
p.49r2
p.33r
P
P
b
b
P
b
b
P
P
1326
1425
1611
1725
1830
1850
1908
1920
1950
Cumu-
lative
time,
in min-
utes
100
159
404
480
545
565
583
595
625
Purge
rate,
in
L/min
0.26
0.48
0.45
0.97
1.08
1.08
0.5
0.49
0.33
live vol- . chloroet-
water . ,
ume . hylene
purged2, . pur,9ed' (PCE),
. ... in volumes : '
in liters . . m ppb
of casing KK
26
54.32
87.17
151.19
221.39
243
252
257.9
267.8
0.7
1.5
2.4
4.2
6.1
6.7
6.9
7.1
7.4
1,685
1,717
2,010
2,006
1,877
2,032
1,738
1,841
1,783
Trichlo-
roethyl-
ene
(TCE),
in ppb
100
96
101
99
113
118
105
98
104
Dis-
solved
oxygen,
in mg/L
0.2
0.1
0.5
1.
0.7
0.2
--
0.6
0.4
Car-
bon
diox-
ide,
in mg/L
25
22
25
22
19
19
20
18
Meth-
ane,
in ppmv
-
14.36
14.84
13.18
15.49
14.28
~
--
--
Water
tempera- Total
ture, organic
p in carbon,
degrees in mg/L
Celsius
-
~
6.61
6.98
6.82
6.58
6.55
7.14
7.13
10.6
10.9 0.84
10.7 1.33
10.5
10.2
9.8
9.7
10
9.8
Specific
conduc- Field
tance, Eh,
in umhos/ in mv
cm
145
124
138
126
128
--
127
128
128
253
270
245
247
246
242
372
165
156
Turbidity,
in ntu
0.55
0.59
0.99
>10
2.2
0.36
-
1.88
0.97
'Sample names are denoted by pump type, purge rate, and whether sampled during an ascending purge rate sequence (f) or descending (r). The symbols + indicates that two pumps were actively
purging, in this case the peristaltic (p.l+) and bladder (b.l+). Therefore, the combined rate is listed in the purge rate.
Cumulative volume purged is computed as follows as shown for the value reported for p.48f (54.32 L): the differential in time between sample p.48f and the preceding sample b.45f is 159 min-
100 min = 59 min at purge rate of 0.48 L/min (purge rate for p.48f), which is equal to 28.32 L; this is combined with the volume from the preceding sample (p.25f), which is 100 min at 0.26 L/min or 26 L
to yield a cumulative volume of 54.32L (28.32+26).
3J
m
CO
I
m
v>
a
u
01
-------
5'
to
a>
3
a
I
o
0)
a
o
0)
8?
<
a
I
(A
O
I
a.
to
3
a.
5
1
re
a
HI
5'
o
-------
Table 10. Summary statistics comparing concentrations of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) grouped by
pump type from samples collected at well B95-13 (well number 408), April 14, 1999
[L/min means liter per minute; ppb means part per billion; % means percent; - means no data]
Number of samples
Mean purge rate, in L/min
Mean concentration of PCE, in ppb
Standard deviation of sample
95% confidence interval
p- value from students t-test (two-tailed)
Mean TCE, in ppb
Standard deviation of sample
All
Bladder
pump
4
0.75
1,947
139.5
2,065-1,829
0.06
105.8
7.4
samples
Peristaltic
pump
5
0.53
1,781
80.8
1,844-1,718
-
102.2
6.0
Comparable purge rates
(excluding b.97, p.25f, and p.33r samples; table 9)
Bladder
pump
3
0.68
1,927
163.8
2,078-1,776
0.34
108.
7.3
Peristaltic
pump
3
0.68
1,812
83.9
1,890-1,734
~
102.8
6.6
Sample statistics indicate that PCE concentrations of bladder-pump samples are generally greater than
concentrations from peristaltic-pump samples but not statistically different at the 95 percent confidence level
(table 10). The computed p-values from the students two tailed t-test are greater than the confidence level of
0.05 indicating that the bladder results are statistically similar to the peristaltic results. The difference in mean
concentrations between bladder and peristaltic results is larger, although not statistically different, when all
samples are analyzed then when only samples of similar purge rates are compared. The p-value from the student's
two-tailed t-test for all samples is much smaller (0.06) than the p-value for samples with similar purge rates
(0.34). This large difference suggests that purge rates affect PCE concentrations more than pump type. The mean
TCE concentrations also are generally greater for bladder-pump samples than peristaltic-pump samples (table 10)
but at the levels detected, differences are within the margin of analytical precision.
The effect of purge rate on PCE concentrations is a consequence of the physical and chemical heterogeneity
of the plume. Imbrigiotta and others (1988) reported similar results and hypothesized that sampled observation
wells, which showed increases in contaminants for high purge rates, were screened in low concentration zones
adjacent to high concentration zones. Therefore, during high purge rates, water was pulled from the high to low
concentration zones.
While PCE concentrations from bladder-pump samples are not statistically different than PCE concentra-
tions from peristaltic-pump samples, the observed PCE concentrations are higher from the bladder-pump samples
than the concentrations from peristaltic-pump samples. The chemical field parameters of waters withdrawn by
different types of pumps suggest that the higher PCE concentrations from bladder-pump samples are neither the
result of increased turbidity in the bladder samples, nor conversely, decreased concentrations of dissolved gases
like oxygen or carbon dioxide, but probably the result of degassing5 of samples collected with the peristaltic
pump. Turbidity concentrations from peristaltic samples were similar to bladder samples (except for sample b.l).
Dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations also were similar between peristaltic and bladder samples
regardless of purge rate. Values of pH, however, were high for peristaltic samples, and indicate some degassing
occurred with the peristaltic pump. This may explain the slightly lower VOC concentration in the peristaltic
sample compared to the bladder sample.
"^The p-value is also called the attained significance level (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992).
Degassing of constituents occurs when water samples are subjected to negative pressures, which can occur with use of peristaltic
pumps.
RESULTS OF TESTING 37
-------
The results of the detailed test comparing sampling with bladder and peristaltic pumps show that PCE and
TCE concentrations from samples collected with both pumps are statistically similar for the range in concentra-
tions tested (although concentrations of PCE and TCE from bladder-pump samples were higher than concentra-
tions from peristaltic-pump samples). The RPD of the mean concentration of PCE between bladder and peristaltic
samples for similar purge rates (bladder samples, 1,927 ppb, and peristaltic, 1,812 ppb, table 10) is 6.2 percent.
This RPD is one-half the RPD of the mean concentration of PCE between peristaltic and diffusion samples
(-13.42 percent, table 7). Therefore, because the difference in concentrations of PCE between bladder and
peristaltic samples is less than that of peristaltic and diffusion samples, peristaltic samples are considered to be
adequate for validation of diffusion sampler results at tested wells. Furthermore, the sequence of sampling at
wells where validation of diffusion samplers were tested, also appears not to have adversely affected the valida-
tion tests because the pump test at B95-13 showed that cumulative volume did not affect PCE concentrations
(fig. 16a). Recall that samples collected for validation were collected in the following sequence: diffusion, Voss,
peristaltic, and bladder (see section on Sampling Methods and Techniques).
RESULTS OF APPLICATION TO MONITOR TRENDS
The preceding sections document the evidence supporting the suitability of diffusion samplers in collecting
high-frequency time-series data on VOCs if a minimum deployment time of 1 week or more is used. The
following section discusses results of this high-frequency sampling, which occurred from November 1998 to
October 1999.
Fifteen wells were chosen to collect detailed time-series data of post-wall construction conditions. All of
the fifteen wells are located outside of the barrier wall (fig. 3). Trends were analyzed for the concentration of
individual primary detected VOCs (PCE, TCE, and cw-l,2DCE), the ratios between the concentration of these
compounds, and the total VOCs, which were determined by summing the concentration of the three detected
VOCs (PCE, TCE, and cw-l,2DCE). As in the testing phase, VOCs other than the primary compounds were
largely undetected.
PCE was the primary VOC detected prior to construction of the barrier wall. Concentrations of PCE show
declines of at least a half order of magnitude at 8 of the 15 wells sampled (figs. 17-21) since the start of barrier
wall construction in July 1998 (the barrier wall was constructed from July to November 1998, and remedial
operations of wells were tested between December 1998 to March 1999, but full operation started in May 1999).
These wells include PW-12M, PW-12D, PW-12R, MW-16R, B95-15, B95-13, PW-13M, and PW-13D. Wells
with the largest declines in PCE (PW-12M, B95-15, and PW-13D) are screened in coarse-grained gravel layers
and are along the northern flank of the plume where ground-water flow is rapid from recharge of the river. Several
wells where small declines in PCE have occurred are screened in slightly finer grained layers of sand, including
wells PW-14M and PW-14D, and MW-16B and MW-16C. These wells are in the central to southern flank of the
plume. At well B95-13, located adjacent to remedial extraction wells EW-1 and EW-2 (fig. 3), PCE declines
appear to have increased after remedial wells were placed into full operation in mid-May 1999.
Several short-term changes in PCE also are evident in addition to the gross overall declines measured over
the time of study. Transient declines and rises in concentration, including a sharp decline and rise in PCE at
well PW-12S were detected in June and July of 1999 (fig. 18). This well is near a recharge gallery (fig. 3) where
treated water is injected back into the aquifer at a rate of approximately 60 gal/min. Many wells show transient
rises in PCE in May and September of 1999, which are likely the result of large precipitation events during those
months. Large precipitation events, and subsequent recharge to ground water, may help desorb additional contam-
inants from the aquifer matrix and increase concentrations in the dissolved phase.
Time trends in concentrations of TCE and cw-l,2DCE at most of the sampled wells match the trends in
concentrations of PCE. At several wells that had large declines in PCE concentration, however, only small
declines occurred in TCE and(or) cis-l,2DCE concentrations. Furthermore, at three wells (wells PW-12M,
PW-12R, and PW-13D), concentrations of cw-l,2DCE increased while concentrations of PCE decreased.
Cw-l,2DCE is primarily formed from the degradation of PCE and TCE and increases in cw-l,2DCE at selected
38 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
(A)
10,000
1,000
m
a.
a.
LU
O
100
10
1
4/30/97
-+-PCE
--TCE
-A-CIS-DCE
-*-TOTAL VOC
Pre-wall period
B95-13
Construction Post construction Pumping
8/8/97
11/16/97 2/24/98
6/4/98
9/12/98
12/21/98
3/31/99
7/9/99
10/17/99
(B)
10,000
1,000
m
a.
a.
1
b
o
o
100
B95-15
Construction Post construction Pumping
4/30/97
8/8/97
11/16/97
2/24/98
6/4/98
9/12/98
12/21/98
3/31/99
7/9/99
10/17/99
Figure 17. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) (tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and
cw-l,2-dichloroethene (ciy-dce), and total VOC's (totalvoc) from diffusion samplers for wells B95-15 and B95-13.
(Well locations are shown in figure 3.)
RESULTS OF APPLICATION TO MONITOR TRENDS 39
-------
10,000
(A)
1,000
Pre-wall period Construction Post construction
Pumping
10,000
(B)
(D)
-P C E
-T C E
-C IS -0 C E
-TOTAL VOC
\\ //
\\ //
4/5/98 6/24/98 9/12/98 12/1/98 2/19/99 5/10/99 7/29/99 10/17/99
Figure 18. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) (tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and
cis-l,2-dichloroethene (CIS-DCE), and total VOC's (TOTAL VOC) from diffusion samplers for PW-12 cluster wells.
40 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
1 0,000
(A)
1 .000
1 00
1 0
Pre-wall period 'Construction Post construction
-PC E
-C IS-DC E
-TCE
-TOTAL VO C
IP W -1 3S
Pumping
PQ
1 0,000
(C)
1 ,000
1 00
1 0
1
4/5/98
6/24/98
9/12/98
12/1/98 2/19/99 5/10/99 7/29/99 10/17/99
Figure 19. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) (tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and
cw-l,2-dichloroethene (CIS-DCE), and total VOC's (TOTAL VOC) from diffusion samplers for PW-13 cluster wells.
RESULTS OF APPLICATION TO MONITOR TRENDS 41
-------
1 0,000
(A)
1 ,000
1 00
1 0
Pre-wall period Construction . Post construction
-»-PCE
-»-TCE
-A-C IS-DC E
-»«-TO TAL VO C
JPW -1 4S
Pumping
ffl
1 0,000
(B)
1 ,000
§
o
§ 100
K
1 0
-PC E
-TC E
-C IS-DC E
-TOTAL VOC
IPW -14M
1 0,000
(C)
1 ,000
1 00
1 0
1
P C E
-TC E
-C IS-D C E
TOTAL VOC
4/5/98
6/24/98
9/12/98
12/1/98
2/19/99
5/10/99
7/29/99
10/17/99
Figure 20. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) (tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and
c/j-l,2-dichloroethene (CIS-DCE), and total VOC's (TOTAL VOC) from diffusion samplers for PW-14 cluster wells.
42 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
10,000
(A)
Pre-wall period
P C E
-«»-T C E
->*-C IS -D C E
-
*
Construction
JM W 1 6 A [
=! -"=
Post construction
-
Pumping
10,000
(B)
1,000 =
fc
i
10,000
(C)
I
8
-P C E
-T C E
-C IS -0 C i
-TOTAL VOC
(D)
1,000
4/30/97 8/8/97 11/16/07 2/24/08 6/4/98 9/12/98 12/21/98 3/31/99 7/9/99 10/17/90
Figure 21. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) (tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and
cis-l,2-dichloroethene (CIS-DCE), and total VOC's (TOTAL VOC) from diffusion samplers for MW-16 cluster wells.
RESULTS OF APPLICATION TO MONITOR TRENDS 43
-------
wells suggest spatial and temporal variations in rates of biodegradation. Wells PW-12R and PW-13D are fully and
partially set in bedrock, respectively, and some bedrock waters show a tendency of higher daughter-to-parent
compound ratios than drift waters. In general, because most wells do not show increases in cw-l,2DCE, biodegra-
dation is evidently occurring only on a local scale. The increase in cw-l,2DCE at three wells since the construc-
tion of the barrier wall suggests that the source of PCE probably is isolated by the wall, otherwise PCE
concentrations would be higher relative to TCE and cw-l,2DCE concentrations.
At several wells where cw-l,2DCE has increased, sampled waters contain above-background concentra-
tions of methane. The median methane values for contaminated shallow, medium, and deep wells ranged from
3 to 6.1 ppm. Well PW-12M, which shows increases of more than 1 order of magnitude of cw-l,2DCE, had a
methane concentration of 9.0 and 7.7 ppm (appendix 2b).
Methane concentrations have increased over time and coincide with increases in cw-l,2DCE and TCE at
wells where high frequency collection of methane occurred (B95-13 and B95-15). The ratio of cw-l,2DCE to
PCE and methane (CH4) for wells B95-13 and B95-15 is shown in figure 22. Methane concentrations have
increased from 1997 to maximum levels in November 1998 when the barrier wall was completed. Increases in the
ratio of cw-l,2DCE to PCE correspond to increases in methane and suggest an increase in biologic activity and
methanogenesis in some zones of the aquifer.
VOC decreases in wells downgradient of the source area probably indicate the success of the barrier-wall
construction in preventing the migration of contaminants. The average concentration of PCE and total VOCs
(PCE, TCE, and cw-l,2DCE) have decreased since the completion of the barrier wall in November 1998. The
average concentration of PCE in wells at the farthest downgradient part of the source area (PW-13, PW-14, and
MW-16 clusters) declined by 23 percent from November 1998 to September 1999; whereas, total VOCs declined
by only 5 percent. The slow decline in total VOCs is the result of increases in TCE and cw-l,2DCE at several
wells.
A first-order exponential equation (Wiedemeier and others, 1998) was used to quantify observed concentra-
tion declines at the downgradient wells:
C = C0exp-*' (3)
where
C is concentration at t (time),
C0 is initial concentration at time = 0,
k is the first-order decay constant (1/yr), and
t is time (years).
The average concentration of PCE and total VOCs from sampling rounds in April through October 1999 for
wells PW-13, PW-14, and MW-16 clusters were divided by average concentrations from November 1998 (the
initial concentration, Co) and plotted on graphs (fig. 23). An exponential function was fitted by least squares
method and is shown as the regression line. The 95-percent confidence level was also plotted to bracket
trendlines. The results show that the computed exponential slopes for PCE are steeper than for total VOCs. The
computed decay constants (k) are 0.4304/yr for PCE and 0.3189/yr for total VOC. After 10 years, the range in
C/Co values for PCE is from 0.08 to virtually 0; the range in total VOCs is from 0.2 to 0. As additional data are
collected, the exponential trendlines may shift and residual errors also may be reduced, which would result in
more representative trends.
The ease of use of diffusion samplers and associated decrease in sampling time allowed for high frequency
sampling and detailed analyses of trends, but also allowed for a more instantaneous picture of the plume. For
example, depending on the number of wells, it may take 2-3 weeks to sample a round of wells at the site. During
that time, sample concentrations can vary because of short-term trends. VOC data collected on July 16, July 30,
and August 12, 1999, at well B95-13 (appendix 2c), all at 2-week intervals, show PCE concentrations of 850 ppb,
590 ppb, and 520 ppb. Thus, the analysis of plume concentrations are less likely to be influenced by errors associ-
ated with the length of time required to collect a complete round of data at a site.
44 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
(A)
B95-13
E 10.00
N OF METHANE, IN PF
g
O
8 0.10
n m
i 1
+ IUUOUI CIS- I
^
.2DCE/PCE
^^ /
^^
«^-
V*- "
>
/
S
~ -
/
y~
-=^
"
s
b=^
^^
, . Pre-wall period Construction
^
s \
X \
/ \
-
\
V-
^>*
Post construction
-I
-t
Pumping
(B)
4/1/97 6/20/97 9/8/97 11/27/97 2/15/98 5/6/98 7/25/98 10/13/98 1/1/99 3/22/99 6/10/99
B95-15
s 10.00
9-
CONCENTRATION OF METHANE, IN F
o ->
^-» b
o o
n nt
r
n
^
t *
3tioofcis-1.2
lethane
""^v^
DCE/ PCE
71
~**~^^ /
^B
_/
*
/
-------
(A)
fc
o
cc
o
PREDICTED PCE CONCENTRATIONS OVER TIME
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2O08 2O09
1.2
1.1
1.0
O.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
EXPONENTIAL REGRESSION LINE
95 Percent Confidence Interval
1 .oe-o(-o.43
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The concentrations of volatile-organic compounds (VOCs), principally tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichlo-
roethylene (TCE), and cis-l,2-dichloroethene (cis-l,2DCE), in ground-water samples collected with diffusion
samplers correlate well with concentrations in samples collected by low-flow purging procedures. Twenty
coupled diffusion and peristaltic-pump samples were collected from seven wells completed in glacial drift.
Sample results from peristaltic pumps were used to validate sample results from diffusion samples because
peristaltic pumps had been used at the site by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Linear
regressions of concentrations from diffusion and peristaltic-pump samples produced root-mean squares of 0.966
for PCE, 0.942 for TCE, and 0.979 for cis-l,2DCE. The PCE and cis-l,2DCE regression lines are essentially
identical to the 1:1 line. The TCE regression line shows that TCE concentrations in the diffusion samples tend to
be greater than concentrations in the peristaltic samples.
The mean concentration of PCE in diffusion samples was 1,152 parts-per-billion (ppb) and the mean from
the peristaltic samples was 1,119 ppb. The standard deviations also were similar. The mean TCE concentration
from diffusion samples (89.2 ppb) was slightly higher than the mean concentration from peristaltic samples
(75.4 ppb), whereas the means for cw-l,2DCE with both sample methods were identical. The Relative Percent
Differences (RPD) of PCE, TCE, and cw-l,2DCE concentrations between peristaltic-pump and diffusion samples
indicate that diffusion samples provide, on average, higher concentrations (3 to 16 percent) than peristaltic-pump
samples (although not statistically different). Compared to duplicate results, which show a small difference in
concentration (4 percent on average in samples with positive detects), the differences in concentrations between
samples collected by different methods are larger than differences in concentrations associated with analytical
inaccuracies.
Because of the inherent problems associated with sampling for VOCs with peristaltic pumps, an additional
sampling test was performed to evaluate the performance of peristaltic pumps in sampling for VOCs. Concentra-
tions from peristaltic-pump and bladder-pump samples were analyzed and showed a 6.2 percent RPD in concen-
trations of PCE between bladder-pump (high concentration) and peristaltic-pump samples (low concentrations).
The difference was not statistically different and less than the analytical precision level of 13 percent for the test.
Therefore, peristaltic-pump samples were considered adequate for the purpose of validating results from diffusion
samplers.
Trends in VOCs, which were corroborated by both diffusion samples and purged samples following low-
flow procedures, indicate that diffusion samplers equilibrate relatively quickly to concentrations of VOCs in the
well water at the time of bag retrieval. Declines in PCE concentration in diffusion samples of several hundred
parts-per-billion between consecutive coupled sampling periods matched declines in PCE in purged samples and
indicate that water concentrations inside the diffusion samplers were equivalent to concentrations in the purged
samples collected the same day as bag retrieval.
The use of diffusion samplers in this setting was a cost-effective alternative to more expensive sampling
procedures. Diffusion sampling costs less and can be done in one-fifth the time of low-flow sampling, allowing
for more frequent data collection, and resulting in a better understanding of several contaminant transport
conditions at the study site.
The most significant contaminant transport condition identified was the spatial variability in declines of
PCE at most wells, and the locally observed small increases in TCE and cis-l,2DCE at several wells since a
barrier wall was constructed. Rates of PCE decline at wells correspond with variations in sediment lithology at
the screen interval and location of the well within the plume. Wells screened in coarse-grained gravel layers along
the northern flank of the plume showed the largest declines in PCE. At several wells, concentrations of TCE and
cw-l,2DCE increased, whereas PCE decreased suggesting that small scale biodegradation is occurring. Most
wells that showed concentration increases of TCE or cw-l,2DCE are partially set in the bedrock. Increased
methane concentrations following wall construction point to a short-term increase in methanogenesis, which also
may help explain the small scale increases in TCE and cw-l,2DCE. Temporary increases in VOCs occurred
following recharge events on several occasions, suggesting desorbtion of VOCs from the aquifer matrix.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 47
-------
Vertical variations in VOCs were detected from strings of diffusion samplers installed in one short-screened
(5-ft long) well, screened in the glacial drift, and one open-hole (38-ft long) bedrock well. Variations in vertical
concentrations were as much as 100 percent, much larger than the maximum RPD between duplicates of 11
percent. Preliminary results indicate the technique may be applied as a screening tool to estimate vertical concen-
trations.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Federal Programs Corporation, 1995, Final report of vertical contaminant profiling, Savage
Municipal Supply Well, Superfund Site-OUl, Milford, New Hampshire: Boston, Mass., November 1995, 5 chaps.,
5 apps.
Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., 1996, Conceptual remedial design report, volume 1, for OK Tool Source Area, Savage
Municipal Supply Well, Superfund Site-OUl, Milford, New Hampshire: Cambridge, Mass., March 1996, 5 chaps.
Chapelle, F.H., 1993, Ground-water microbiology and geochemistry: New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 424 p.
Coakley, M.F., Keirstead, Chandlee, Brown, R.O., and Hilgendorf, G.S., 1997, Water Resources Data New Hampshire and
Vermont water year 1996: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NH-VT-96-1, 189 p.
Crill, P.M., Bartlett, K.B., Wilson, J.O., Sebacher, D.I., 1988, Tropospheric methane from an Amazonian floodplain lake:
Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 93, no. D2, p. 1564-1570.
Harte, P.T., Flynn, R.H., Kiah, R.G., Severance, Timothy, and Coakley, M.F., 1997, Information on hydrologic and physical
properties of water to assess transient hydrology of the Milford-Souhegan glacial-drift aquifer, Milford, New
Hampshire: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-414, 96 p.
Harte, P.T., and Mack, T.J., 1992, Geohydrology of, and simulation of ground-water flow in the Milford-Souhegan glacial-
drift aquifer, Milford, New Hampshire: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4177, 90 p.
Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1992, Statistical methods in water resources: Studies in Environmental Science 49,
New York, Elsevier Publishers, 522 p.
HMM Associates, Inc., 1989, Draft remedial investigation, Savage well site, Milford, New Hampshire: Concord, Mass.,
no. 2176 HAZ/2880, 218 p.
1991, Remedial investigation, Savage well site, Milford, New Hampshire: Concord, Mass., no. 2176 HAZ/4814,
- 800 p.
Imbrigiotta, T.E., Gibs, Jacob, Fusillo, TV., Kish, G.R., and Hochreiter, J.J., 1988, Field evaluation of seven sampling
devices for purgeable organic compounds in ground water; Collins, A.G., and Johnson, A.J., eds., in Ground-Water
Contamination Field Methods: American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, ASTM STP 963, p. 258-273.
Johnston, C.M., and Harte, P.T., 1998, Documentation and application example of a simple method to compute the maximum
slope and direction of hydraulic head: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4021, 25 p.
Koterba, M.T., Wilde, F.D., Lapham, W.W., 1995, Ground-water-data-collection protocols and procedures for the national
water-quality assessment program: collection and documentation of water-quality samples and related data:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-399, 113 p.
McAuliffe, C., 1971, Gas chromatographic determination of solutes by multiple phase equilibrium: Chemical Technology,
v.l, p. 46-51.
McFarlane, I.D., 1996, Low-flow ground-water sampling for manufactured gas plant sites, in Hydrology and Hydrogeology
of Urban and Urbanizing Areas, April 1996, Annual meeting, Boston, Mass.: Proceedings, American Institute of
Hydrology, p.GWQI23-GWQI24.
Mullaney, J.R., Mondazzi, R.A., and Stone, J.R., 1999, Johnston, C.M., and Harte, P.T., 1998, Hydrogeology and water
quality of the Nutmeg Valley Area, Wolcott and Waterbury, Connecticut: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 99-4081,90 p.
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., 1999, Technical report for the evaluation of groundwater diffusion samplers: Denver Air
Force Center for Environmental Excellence Technology Transfer Division, chaps. 7, appendices 4.
Pohlman, K.F., Icopini, G.A., McArthur, R.D., Rosal, C.G., 1994, Evaluation of sampling and field-filtration methods for the
analysis of trace metals in ground water: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 600/R-94/119, 79 p.
Reynolds, G.W., Holf, J.T., and Gilham, R.W., 1990, Sampling bias caused by materials used to monitor halocarbons in
groundwater: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 24, no. 1, p. 135-141.
48 Testing and Application of Water-Diffusion Samplers to Identify Temporal Trends in Volatile-Organic Compounds
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, RCRA Technical enforcement guidance document: Washington, D.C.,
Report OSWER-9950.1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996a, Test method for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical methods, SW-846:
Third edition, rev. 2, v. IB, chap. 4, Section 4.3.2, Final update III, December 1996, p. 1-86.
Region 1, 1996b, Low stress (low flow) purging and sampling procedure for the collection of ground water samples
from monitoring wells: Standard Operating Procedures no. GW0001, rev. 2, p. 13.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1998, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey
Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6, variously paginated.
Vroblesky, D.A., Hyde, W.T., 1997, Diffusion samplers as an inexpensive approach to monitoring VOCs in ground water:
Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Summer 1997, p. 177-184.
Vroblesky, D.A., Robertson, J.F., 1996, Temporal changes in VOC discharge to surface water from a fractured rock aquifer
during well installation and operation, Greenville, S.C.: Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Summer 1996,
p. 196-201.
Wiedemeier, T.H., Swanson, M.A., Moutoux, D.E., Gordon, E.K., Mass, P.E., Miller, R.N., Hansen, J.E., and Chapelle, F.H.,
1998, Technical protocol for evaluating natural attenuation of chlorinated solvents in ground water: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 600/R-99/128, 272 p.
SELECTED REFERENCES 49
-------
Appendix 1. Procedures used in this study for preparation, installation, and collection of -
water-diffusion bag samples in wells.
1) Get trip blank from analyzing laboratory. Trip blank water will remain in 40-ml septum
vial and will travel with samplers to the field. Septum viles should be stored in a clean
laboratory refrigerator and transported in a cooler with ice.
2) Ensure adequate supply and check quality of 40-ml septum vials to be used in the field.
3) Bag preparation: Bags should be constructed as close to the deployment time as pos-
sible and carefully transported to avoid contamination. Cut off a 13 in. length of 2-
in.wide, polyethylene 2-mil thick sleeves. When filled, sleeves (bags) are 1.5 in. diam-
eter. Seal one end of the sleeve multiple times with a heat-impulse sealer. The last seal
and first seal should be approximately 2 in. apart. Rinse the inside of the newly created
"bag" with VOC-free water several times. Pour VOC-free water into bag opening, fill-
ing to a length of 9 inches (approximately 260 mL). Seal open end of bag with heat
sealer multiple times with care to minimize air space in the tube. Ideally, the same
source of VOC-free water should be used for all blanks and the diffusion bags that will
be placed in wells.
4) Create laboratory environment blank bag. This bag will remain in the laboratory,
exposed to ambient laboratory conditions until the next sampling round (the next time
diffusion bags are created). Laboratory bags are used to identify potential contamina-
tion problems during construction of bags.
5) Create equipment blank. This diffusion bag will travel with samplers into the field and
represents a check of the sampling device as well as the working environment.
6) Create diffusion bags for the wells. Know in advance how many diffusion bags need to
be installed. Make two extra bags in case of accidental puncture.
First Time Installation
Enclosures and associated equipment for installing bags in wells should be assembled
and ready for use before the start of sampling. Enclosures are constructed only for the
first initial diffusion sampling round at a newly sampled well by this method. Subse-
quent diffusion sampling at the same well can reuse the enclosure.
Two types of diffusion bag enclosures (shrouds) can be used. Mesh enclosures are
ideal for cased and screened wells. PVC pipe enclosures are useful in open- walled
rock holes where bag puncture can be an issue. Mesh enclosures are thick netted flexi-
ble devices coated with polyethylene materials and of a minimum diameter of 1.5 in..
Diffusion bags will fit inside mesh enclosures. PVC pipe enclosures are 1 3/8 in. inner
diameter, and 1.5 in. outer diameter, slotted to allow water contact with bag, and pipe
material. Diffusion bags will also fit inside PVC pipe enclosures. Bottom of enclosures
should be fitted with a stainless steel weight. All materials should be properly decon-
taminated before usage.
Verify well depth by sounding with a measuring tape from known measurement point.
Take a water-level measurement from same measurement point and compute height of
water column above open interval and potential placement of bag inside well. It is
important to fully submerge diffusion bag in water so this step of verifying well
50
-------
construction and water levels must be done. For short screens or open holes (less
than 5 ft), diffusion bags are typically installed at the midpoint of well opening. For
long screens or open holes ( more than 5 ft), bags can be installed with several bags in
a vertical string (series) up and down opening or at designated locations such as frac-
tures.
Install bag inside enclosure. Tie a spool of teflon line to one end of holder and lower
inside the well to the desired depth. Cut off teflon line so as to set the midpoint of the
diffusion bag at desired depth and then secure top part of line to a fixed object such as
a padlock anchor.
7) Store all bags in a sealed container.
8) Collect laboratory environment sample from previous sampling period by cutting bag
open and filling two 40-ml septum vials. This sample has been equilibrating to ambi-
ent laboratory conditions for several weeks.
9) Transport all diffusion bags and blanks to the field.
10) Make a water-level measurement from a known point at monitoring wells.
11) Retrieve' samples from all wells by hoisting enclosures to the surface. Cut open the
top part of the diffusion bag with special care not to spill the bag, and fill two 40-ml
septum vial's. If field duplicates or matrix spike duplicates are needed, fill two addi-
tional vials or more with the remaining water. Otherwise, remaining water can be
poured into a small beaker for purposes of recording water temperature with a small
temperature probe. If preservatives are required by laboratory, add preservatives to
vial according to analyzing laboratory. USEPA Region 1 (USEPA, 1996b) provides
information on protocol to use for collection of VOC's samples.
12) Store collected samples in a cooler with ice.
13) Install newly created clean diffusion bags into enclosure and lower to designated posi-
tion in well.
14) After last bag is installed, cut open equipment blank diffusion bag and pour contents
into two 40-mL septum vials.
15) Fill out chain of custody form and make copies.
16) Transport and submit all samples and blanks to analyzing laboratory.
51
-------
Appendix 2. Explanation of abbreviations
Source of Data (Collecting Agency)
DES = New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
USGS = U.S. Geological Survey
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sample Collection Method
peri = peristaltic pump
GRAB = grab sample in surface water
BL = bladder pump
DB = passive diffusion bag sampler
VOSS = voss bailer pump
Units
mg/L = miligrams per liter
L = liters
min = minutes
ft = feet
cm = centimeter
mv = milivolts
°C = degrees celcius
NTU = neophlemetirc turbidity unit
Chemical Compounds
CO2 = carbon dioxide
Fe2+ = iron cation, plus two charge
S2" = sulfide anion
NH4+ = ammonium
Cl- = chloride anion
SO42" = sulfate
NO3" = nitrate
NO2" = nitrite
PO43~ = total phosphate
Ca2+ = calcium cation
Fe(total) = total iron
Mg2+ = magnesium cation
Mn2+ = manganese cation
K+ = potassium cation
Na+ = sodium cation
CH4 = methane
TOG = total organic carbon
Br- = bromide
CaCO3 = alkalinity, measured as total calcium carbonate
PCE = tetrachloroethene
52
-------
TCE = trichloroethene
CIS-DCE = cis-1,2 dichloroethene
111 -Tri = 1,1,1 -trichloroethene
MTBE= methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether
THF = tetrahydrofuran
Meth.Chl = methylene chloride
Other Explanations
# = number
- = no data
< less than
© = field colorimetric chemical test kit
SC = specific conductance
DO = dissolved oxygen
hole = downhole measuring device
flowthru = flow-through chamber
Temp = temperature
(d) = duplicate sample
SC-lab - specific conductance as measured from sample bottle in the lab
U "x"= undected at a limit of "x" ppb
equip blank (eq.) = equipment blank
lab blank = laboratory blank
umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter
Eh = redox potential measurement
river = river sample
53
-------
Appendix 2a. Sampling information and field parameters. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Well
Name
(DB blank)
(eq. blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12(d)
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
Well
n
407
407
407
407
407
407
407
407
407
408
408
408
408
408
Date
2/8/99
9/30/98
5/11/98
5/13/98
5/18/98
5/19/98
5/21/98
7/21/98
7/23/98
9/18/98
9/30/98
10/20/98
11/23/98
1 1 /30/98
12/1/98
12/3/98
12/7/98
12/8/98
12/8/98
2/8/99
5/28/97
10/28/97
12/15/97
2/19/98
5/18/98
7/22/98
12/2/98
4/13/99
5/28/97
5/28/97
10/28/97
10/28/97
2/20/98
2/20/98
Source
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS
DES
USGS
USGS
Pump
TYPE
DB
DB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
BL
peri
BL
peri
Pump
Rate
(L/min)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.11
0.5
0.44
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.198
0.198
0.11
0.09
0.45
0.49
0.67
0.52
Duration
(min)
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
105
100
62
61
153
20
50
112
105
72
-
78
75
56
Volume
Dumped
(L)
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.6
50.0
27.3
32.3
79.6
10.2
9.9
22.2
11.6
6.5
-
38.2
50.3
29.1
Drawdown
(ft)
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0.02
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0
0.02
-
0.02
0
0
SC
(nmhos/cm)
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
665
761
813
869
732
739
727
719
665
120
-
194
160
158
PH
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.66
5.31
5.2
5.57
5.6
5.73
5.62
5.58
5.66
5.53
-
5.55
5.73
5.77
DO
hole
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.8
5
-
-
-
-
-
1.2
-
1.45
DO
flowthru
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
\
-
-
--
-
-
11.89
-
4
-
-
-
4.9
5.23
--
0.09
-
-
-
--
Temp
hole
(°C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
11.8
11.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.2
Temp
flowthru
(°C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
-
13.28
-
9
-
-
-
12.8
11.5
-
14.84
-
-
-
-
DO©
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
3
4.2
3
3
5
--
4
4
3
1
-
0.5
--
0.7
COs©
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15
23
25
23
35
-
30
25
15
16
-
19
-
17
Fe2+©
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
0
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
-
0
Turbidity
(NTU)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
0.06
-
0.18
0.25
1.4
0.18
0.11
0.5
1.71
-
0.09
0.7
0.25
Obs.
Eh
(mv)
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
376
-
273
-
213
--
-
308
376
318
-
-
163
303
-------
Appendix 2a. Sampling information and field parameters, May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Well
Name
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
895-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13(d)
Well
#
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
Date
5/21 /98
5/21/98
5/21 /98
7/23/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
9/30/98
1 1 /23/9S
1 1 /24/9S
2/8/99
2/8/99
4/7/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
2/8/99
Source"
USGS
USGS
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS/EPA
USGS/DES
USGS/DES
USGS/EPA
USGS/EPA
USGS/EPA
USGS/EPA
USGS/EPA
USGS/EPA
USGS/EPA
USGS/EPA
USGS/EPA
USGS/EPA
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
Pump
TYPE
BI-
DS
peri
BL
DB
peri
peri
voss
DB
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
peri
peri
BL
BL
peri
BL
BL
peri
peri
BL
BL
BL
BL
DB
DB
peri
DB
DB
DB
peri
Pump
Rate
(L/min)
0.62
-
0.5
0.88
-
0.24
0.5
0.84
--
-
0.164
-
0.49
-
0.258
0.48
0.45
0.97
1.08
1.08
0.5
0.49
0.33
0.85
0.8
0.63
0.63
-
-
0.45
-
-
-
0.49
Duration
(min)
100
-
104
96
-
133
28
9
-
-
75
65
-
100
159
404
480
545
565
583
595
625
45
65
75
85
-
48
-
-
-
65
Volume
Pumped
(L)
62.0
-
52.0
84.5
-
31.9
14.0
7.6
-
-
12.3
-
31.9
-
26.0
54.0
87.0
151.0
221.0
243.0
252.0
258.0
268.0
38.0
54.0
61.0
67.0
-
21.6
-
-
-
31.9
Drawdown
(ft)
0
-
0.01
0.02
-
0.01
0.02
0
-
-
0
-
0.01
-
0
0.01
0.01
0
0.06
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.02
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
0.01
sc
Oimh os/cm)
154
-
151
185
-
181
181
178
-
-
132
-
127
-
145
124
138
127
128
128
127
128
128
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
127
pH
5.86
5.86
5.82
6.11
6.1
5.88
--
.
5.86
5.76
-
-
6.82
6.58
6.55
7.14
7.13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.76
DO
hole
(mg/l)
0.4
-
-
0.5
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DO
flowthru
(mg/l)
-
-
-
0.73
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Temp
hole
(°C)
-
-
11
-
11
11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
Temp
flowthru
(°C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.1
9.6
10.6
10.9
10.7
0
10.2
9.8
9.7
10
9.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DO©
(mg/l)
-
-
0.4
0.5
-
0.9
0.9
-
-
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
>1
0.7
0.2
0.6
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
COs©
(mg/l)
30
-
-
35
35
-
-
30
14.5
25
22
25
22
19
19
20
18
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14.5
Fe2+©
(mg/l)
-
-
0
-
-
0
0
-
-
0
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
Turbidity
(NTU)
1.21
-
0.24
4.39
-
3.11
1.69
0.18
-
0.53
0.55
0.59
0.99
>10
2.2
0.36
-
1.88
0.97
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
0.53
Obs.
Eh
(mv)
292
65
193
-
-
278
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
278
-------
Appendix 2a. Sampling information and field parameters. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Well
Name
B95-13(d)
B95-13(d)
B95-13(d)
B95-13(d)
B95-13(d)
B95-13(d)
B95-13-A
B95-13-B
B95-13-C
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15(d)
B95-3
B95-3
B95-3
Well
#
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
398
398
398
Date
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
7/30/99
7/30/99
7/30/99
5/28/97
10/30/97
10/30/97
2/20/98
5/18/98
5/18/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
9/30/98
11/23/98
11/24/98
2/8/99
2/8/99
4/7/99
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
9/10/99
9/10/99
9/30/98
5/29/97
6/17/97
12/16/97
Source
USGS/EPA
USGS/EPA
USGS/EPA
USGS/EPA
USGS/EPA
USGS/EPA
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
USGS
USGS
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
USGS
DES
Pump
TYPE
peri
peri
BL
peri
peri
BL
DB
DB
DB
peri
BL
peri
peri
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
DB
DB
peri
DB
peri
BL
peri
Pump
Rate
(L/min)
1.08
1.08
1.08
0.33
0.48
0.45
-
-
-
0.12
0.51
0.48
0.51
--
0.49
-
0.49
-
0.207
-
0.47
-
0.414
-
0.47
-
-
0.4
_
0.08
1.37
0.14
Duration
(min)
545
545
565
625
159
404
-
-
-
79
15
80
48
--
62
-
110
-
60
132
-
110
41
-
-
-
60
62
187
43
Volume
Pumped
(L)
221.0
221.0
243.0
268.0
54.0
87.0
-
-
-
9.5
7.7
38.4
24.5
-
30.4
-
53.9
-
12.4
-
62.0
-
45.5
-
19.3
-
-
-
24.0
-
5.0
256.2
6.0
Drawdown
(ft)
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
-
-
-
0.01
-
0
0
-
0
-
0
-
-
0
-
0.01
-
0
-
0.02
-
-
-
0.01
-
0
0.06
0
sc
(nmhos/cm)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
71
113
113
110
-
104
-
110
-
178
-
189
-
152
-
--
-
-
-
-
. -
95
102
89
pH
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.79
-
6.96
5.68
-
5.73
-
5.79
-
5.8
-
5.79
-
5.86
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
5.92
5.97
6.33
DO
hole
(mp/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
1
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DO
flowthru
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.44
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
-
0.9
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
0.5
Temp
hole
(°C)
-
-
-
10
-
9.9
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
Temp
flowthru
(°C)
-
-
-
-
-
11.21
--
--
-
-
-
-
-
10
-
9.2
-
10.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14.59
-
11
DO©
(mp/l)
-
-
-
-
-
<1
-
0.2
0.7
-
0.3
-
0.5
-
0.4
-
0.3
.
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
<0.5
0.5
CO2©
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.5
-
19
21
-
35
-
27
-
27
-
25
-
22
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
20
25
40
Fe2+©
(mg/l)
-
--
-
-
-
0
-
0
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.5
1.2
0.8
Turbidity
(NTU)
-
0.5
-
0.05
0.1
-
0.19
-
1.57
-
<1
-
0.12
--
0.17
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.21
-
<1
Obs.
Eh
(mv)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
291
-
298
244
-
-
-
300
-
-
-
-
302
-
281
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
250
183
231
-------
Appendix 2a. Sampling information and field parameters. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Well
Name
B95-3
B95-3
B95-3
B95-5
B95-5
B95-5
B95-5
B95-5
B95-6
B95-6
B95-6
B95-6
B95-6
B95-7
B95-7
B95-8
B95-8
B95-8
B95-8
B95-8
B95-9
B95-9
B95-9
B95-9
B95-9
B95-9(d)
B95-9(d)
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
Well
#
398
398
398
400
400
400
400
400
401
401
401
401
401
402
402
403
403
403
403
403
404
404
404
404
404
404
404
0
0
0
0
0
0
Date
5/12/98
12/3/98
4/20/99
6/2/97
12/17/97
5/12/98
12/2/98
4/21/99
6/16/97
12/17/97
5/12/98
12/2/98
4/21/99
12/17/97
1/12/98
6/16/97
12/16/97
5/12/98
12/7/98
4/22/99
5/29/97
12/16/97
5/12/98
12/3/98
4/22/99
12/16/97
5/12/98
2/19/98
4/15/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
7/30/99
8/13/99
Source
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
Pump
TYPE
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
BL
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
BL
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
NA
NA
DB
NA
DB
DB
Pump
Rate
(L/min)
0.18
0.206
0.218
0.1
0.17
0.17
0.168
0.19
1.23
0.13
0.15
0.202
0.214
0.16
0.3
1.43
0.13
0.16
0.21
0.234
0.09
0.12
0.17
0.208
0.232
0.12
0.17
_
--
Duration
(min)
50
^90
50
58
50
53
60
75
175
48
62
60
50
70
95
218
50
40
75
65
40
61
50
35
90
61
50
-
-
-
Volume
Pumped
(I)
9.0
18.5
10.9
5.8
8.5
9.0
10.1
14.3
215.3
6.2
9.3
12.1
10.7
11.2
28.5
311.7
6.5
6.4
15.8
15.2
3.6
7.3
8.5
7.3
20.9
7.3
8.5
-
-
-
Drawdown
(ft)
0
0.02
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
0.03
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
sc
(nmhos/cm)
98
91
98
88
71
96
65
71
326
111
180
103
104
385
454
550
466
470
491
482
647
595
514
366
295
-
-
-
-
PH
5.9
5.84
5.9
5.83
5.8
5.8
5.8
6.03
5.72
5.99
5.9
5.9
6
5.7
6
5.81
5.72
5.82
5.7
6
5.7
5.74
. 5.79
5.6
5.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
DO
hole
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
DO
ftowthru
(mg/l)
0.1
0.35
0.4
8.58
8
4.3
8.7
8.82
-
0.52
0.54
0.53
0.4
2.6
-
-
1.98
2.71
2.9
3.8
0.12
2.25
2.6
0.8
2.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
Temp
hole
(°C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Temp
flowthru
(°C)
11
12.3
11
10.79
11
10
13
10.9
0.9
12.2
12.1
11
11
_
0.3
12
16
12
14.94
10
11.5
13
10
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
DO©
(mg/l)
0.7
0.2
0.5
5.5
3
4
8
9
<0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
1.5
-
3
1.5
3
3
3
2
1
2
0.9
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CO;,©
(mg/l)
21
16
100
30
17
20
20
23
20
23
16
16
13
-
30
30
16
40
-
27
18
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fe2+©
(mg/l)
1
1.4
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
3.6
1
2.5
0.8
1.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Turbidity
(NTU)
<1
0.17
<1
0.4
<1
<1
<1
0.43
0.17
0.18
0.18
<1
<1
-
0.92
0.2
1
<1
0.17
0.17
0.21
<1
<1
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
Obs.
Eh
(mv)
-
124
230
-
357
139
204
-
-
96
-
243
209
-
-
-
220
292
-
-
-
203
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Appendix 2a. Sampling information and field parameters. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Well
Name
equip blank
EW-1
EW-1
EW-1
EW-2
EW-2
EW-2
EW-2dup
HM-1
HM-1
lab blank
lab blank
lab blank
lab blank
lab blank
lab blank
MI-19
MI-20
MI-20
MI-21
MI-21
MI-22
MI-22
MI-23
MI-23
MI-25
MI-25
MI-27
MI-27
MI-32
MI-32
MI-32
MI-32
MI-63
Well
#
0
565
565
565
566
566
566
566
299
299
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
31
31
33
33
35
35
37
37
40
40
42
42
46
46
46
46
203
Date
9/10/99
3/1/99
7/16/99
9/10/99
3/1/99
7/16/99
9/10/99
3/1/99
5/29/97
12/15/97
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/15/99
7/30/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/30/97
5/30/97
12/17/97
5/30/97
5/14/98
12/16/97
5/13/98
12/16/97
5/13/98
6/2/97
12/15/97
5/29/97
12/15/97
6/2/97
5/12/98
12/4/98
4/20/99
5/29/97
Source
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
Pump
TYPE
DB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
peri
peri
NA
DB
NA
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
Pump
Rate
(L/min)
-
-
--
-
-
--
--
-
0.09
0.13
--
-
-
-
--
-
0.07
0.08
0.11
0.03
0.13
0.05
0.06
0.13
0.18
0.05
0.02
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.15
0.17
0.194
0.12
Duration
(min)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
84
65
-
--
-
-
-
-
190
45
98
55
50
138
230
52
55
195
90
65
35
85
153 '
125
62
80
Volume
Pumped
(L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
7.6
8.5
-
--
-
-
-
-
13.3
3.6
10.8
1.7
6.5
6.9
13.8
6.8
9.9
9.8
1.8
7.8
3.9
9.4
23.0
21.3
12.0
9.6
Drawdown
(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.01
0.03
-
-
...
-
-
-
0.01
0
0
0.02
0
0
0.09
0
0.01
0.01
2.09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SC
(nmhos/cm)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
103
113
-
-
-
-
-
-
220
206
519
79
63
194
187
108
117
185
500
703
747
140
174
320
257
60
PH
-
-
-
-
-
5.59
5.95
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
5.47
5.35
5.6
5.9
7.3
6.92
5.5
5.57
7
6.27
5.71
5.52
5.57
5.7
5.7
5.61
5.76
DO
hole
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
DO
flowthru
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.02
0.4
-
-
-
0.65
2.59
1.78
1.02
2
1
1.02
2.4
0.82
1.03
1.59
0.14
4.9
4.2
0.7 .
1.3
0
0.23
Temp
hole
(°C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
Temp
flowthru
(°C)
--
-
-
-
--
12.22
7.8
-
-
-
-
14.89
13.11
1.8
16.46
1
9
12.1
9
9.4
13.75
6.3
15.4
-
11.56
11
13
11.9
11.78
DO©
(mg/l)
-
-
-
0.5
0.3
-
-
-
-
0.8
2.5
-
1
2
1
1
2
-
0.7
1
5
1.5
-
1
1.4
2
0.2
COs©
(mg/l)
-
-
_
-
-
-
18
>100
-
-
-
-
-
-
<10
16
-
100
-
15.5
20
-
100
-
16
30
-
-
30
35
16
Fe2+©
(mg/l)
-
_
0
.1
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0.8
0.6
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
Turbidity
(NTU)
-
-
0.65
0.45
-
-
-
-
99
<1
0.96
<1
<1
4
82.1
<1
0.48
147
2.25
0.28
<1
3
5
3
0.29
0.2
Obs.
Eh
(mv)
-
-
-
101
77
-
-
-
-
-
253
328
-
321
-
-
-
-
-
<90
156
387
-
257
-
-
286
310
-------
Appendix 2a. Sampling information and field parameters. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Well
Name
MI-63
MW-16A
MW-16A
MW-16A
MW-16A
MW-16A
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B(d)
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
Well
#
203
233
233
233
233
233
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
345
345
345
Date
12/15/97
5/27/97
12/19/97
5/13/98
1 1 /30/98
4/13/99
5/27/97
6/11/97
12/18/97
5/11/98
1 1 /30/98
4/13/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
4/13/99
5/27/97
6/12/97
12/15/97
5/11/98
5/21/98
11/30/98
4/13/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/27/97
12/18/97
5/13/98
Source
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
USGS
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
DES
Pump
TYPE
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
BL
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
peri
DB
DB
peri
peri
BL
peri
peri
peri
peri
perl
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
Pump
Rate
(L/min)
0.1
0.1
0.29
0.16
0.164
0.22
0.1
1.69
0.12
0.14
0.188
0.213
-
-
-
0.33
-
-
0.213
0.08
1.89
0.12
0.14
0.44
0.17
0.168
-
-
-
0.03
0.02
0.02
Duration
(min)
43
55
72
80
65
95
57
218
81
85
50
95
-
-
86
-
-
95
65
222
33
70
55
65
90
-
-
153
200
110
Volume
Pumped
(L)
4.3
5.5
20.9
12.8
10.7
20.9
5.7
368.4
9.7
11.9
9.4
20.2
-
-
-
28.4
-
-
20.2
5.2
419.6
4.0
9.8
24.2
11.1
15.1
-
-
-
4.6
4.0
2.2
Drawdown
(ft)
0
0.02
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0
0
0.01
-
-
-
0
-
-
0.01
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0.01
-
-
-
-
-
0
0.24
0.01
SC
Oimhos/cm)
113
407
636
609
559
477
239
340
386
404
428
372
-
-
-
372
447
547
370
394
384
313
317
-
-
-
~
-
196
197
212
PH
5.79
5.62
5.92
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.39
5.72
5.71
5.7
5.5
-
-
-
-
-
5.5
5.41
5.67
5.5
5.7
-
5.7
5.57
-
-
-
-
-
8.38
8.92
8.6
DO
hole
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DO
flowthru
(mg/l)
0.6
0.49
5.7
4.9
5.4
0.51
-
0.38
0.56
0.4
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
0.3
-
0.6
0.4
-
0.4
0.48
-
-
-
-
-
0.63
0.31
0.8
Temp
hole
(°C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
Temp
flowthru
(°C)
8
11.81
11
11
10
11.4
-
9.9
10.1
11
10
-
-
-
-
10
13.23
-
9
10
12
9.7
-
-
-
-
-
14.59
8.9
11
DO©
(mg/l)
0.7
6
1.5
6
5
5
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
-
-
0.5
1
0.9
0.3
0.3
~
0.5
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
0.9
0.9
CO2©
(mg/l)
19
35
16
~
23
25
19
14.5
27
-
21
20
-
-
-
-
20
14
-
-
30
20
-
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
-
Fe2+©
(mg/l)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
-
-
-
-
--
0
0
0
Turbidity
(NTU)
<1
0.53
<1
<1
<1
0.5
-
0.09
0.2
<1
<1
-
-
-
<1
0.03
-
<1
<1
-
<1
0.15
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
0.56
<1
Obs.
Eh
(mv)
-
359
166
-
211
262
309
289
-
147
-
-
-
-
-
-
147
299
205
-
-
311
-
175
-
-
-
-
-
157
10
-
-------
Appendix 2a. Sampling information and field parameters. May 1 997 to October 1 999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Well
Name
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R-A
MW-16R-B
MW-16R-C
MW-16R-D
MW-16R
MW-16R-A
MW-16R-B
MW-16R-C
MW-16R-D
MW-27
MW-27
MW-27 (d)
MW-2A
MW-2B
MW-2B(d)
MW-2R
P-2, river
P-2, river
P-2, river
P-2, river
P-2,River
P2-RIVER
PW-10D
PW-10D
PW-10D
PW-10M
PW-10M
PW-10M
Well
#
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
235
235
235
310
210
210
311
385
385
385
385
385
385
552
552
552
551
551
551
Date
11/30/98
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/30/99
7/30/99
7/30/99
7/30/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
12/2/98
4/21/99
12/2/98
9/30/98
9/30/98
9/30/98
9/30/98
5/28/97
12/18/97
5/13/98
12/9/98
4/19/99
4/21/99
5/20/98
12/7/98
4/19/99
5/20/98
12/7/98
4/19/99
Source
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS/EPA
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
Pump
TYPE
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
Pump
Rate
(L/min)
0.02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
0.028
-
--
-
-
0.136
0.216
0.136
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.024
-
-
-
-
-
0.16
0.218
0.19
0.16
0.226
0.19
Duration
(min)
125
-
--
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
75
--
-
-
-
100
55
100
55
155
155
230
-
-
-
190
110
185
125
61
75
Volume
Dumped
(L)
2.5
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.1
-
-
13.6
11.9
13.6
7.2
21.7
21.7
5.5
-
-
-
-
30.4
24.0
35.2
20.0
13.8
14.3
Drawdown
(ft)
0
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.19
-
-
-
-
0
0.9
0
0.01
0
0
0.03
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0.02
0
0.01
0.01
sc
(nmhos/crn)
185
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
224
-
-
-
-
120
141
120
60
82
82
151
62
90
58
98
-
-
539
256
345
103
145
174
PH
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.9
-
- '
-
6.2
6.3
6.2
6
6.3
6.3
8.75
-
6.42
6.21
6.67
-
-
11.5
10.68
11
5.9
5.6
5.75
DO
hole
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DO
flowthru
(mg/l)
1.7
-
--
-
0.8
-
-
-
.
0.5
0.6
-
0.6
0.4
-
1.41
-
-
-
--
-
-
0.6
0.32
0.3
6.2
0.38
7.24
Temp
hole
(°C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.2
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Temp
flowthru
(°C)
10
.
-
-
11
-
11
7
-
11
12
17.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
13.6
12
13
12.6
11.9
DO©
(mg/i)
2
-
-
-
-
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
1
9
14.7
-
-
-
--
0.6
0.2
0.5
6
0.4
0.6
COj©
(mg/l)
<10
-
-
23
19
23
12
15
15
11
<10
<10
-
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
-
40
53
Fe2+©
(mg/l)
0
-
_
4.2
2.8
4.2
0
0.8
0.8
-
0
0
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
Turbidity
(NTU)
<1
-
-
2
-
1
1
1
<1
6
6
10.8
0
-
-
-
-
-
4
0.59
<1
1
0.71
0.21
Obs.
Eh
(mv)
-
-
-151
-
-
22
-
-
-
-
-
353
122
-
--
-
-
-
-
60
-
-
221
-------
Appendix 2a. Sampling information and field parameters. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Well
Name
PW-11D
PW-11D
PW-11M
PW-1 1 M
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-12M
PW-1 2M
PW-1 2M
PW-1 2M
PW-12M
PW-12M
PW-1 2M
PW-12M
PW-12M
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
Well
#
554
554
553
553
557
557
557
557
557
557
557
557
556
556
556
556
556
556
556
556
556
558
558
558
558
558
558
558
558
555
555
555
555
555
Date
12/3/98
4/15/99
12/3/98
4/15/99
5/15/98
11/25/98
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/15/98
11/25/98
4/7/99
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/15/98
11/25/98
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/14/98
11/25/98
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
Source
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
USGS
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
DES
USGS
USGS
Pump
TYPE
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
DB
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
perl
peri
peri
DB
DB
Pump
Rate
(L/min)
0.208
0.212
0.214
0.22
0.19
0.19
0.212
-
-
-
-
-
0.21
0.206
-
0.22
-
-
-
-
0.14
0.13
0.125
-
-
-
-
-
0.16
0.164
0.142
-
Duration
(min)
75
90
35
55
82
85
74
-
-
-
-
-
60
45
-
80
-
-
-
245
115
95
-
-
-
265
55
115
-
Volume
Pumped
(I)
15.6
19.1
7.5
12.1
15.6
16.2
15.7
-
-
-
-
12.6
9.3
-
17.6
--
-
-
-
-
34.3
15.0
11.9
-
-
-
-
-
42.4
9.0
16.3
-
-
Drawdown
(ft)
0
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0.28
-
- .
-
-
-
0
0.01
0.03
-
-
sc
(nmhos/cm)
174
148
118
122
106
100
106
-
--
-
-
-
105
104
-
102
-
-
-
-
-
161
188
199
-
-
-
-
-
118
113
174
-
-
PH
5.7
5.6
5.8
5.7
5.87
5.81
5.77
-
-
-
-
-
5.87
5.8
-
5.8
-
-
-
- .
-
7.3
7.4
7.5
-
-
-
-
6.2
5.92
5.62
-
-
DO
hole
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DO
flowthru
(mg/l)
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.36
0.38
0.35
-
-
0.37
0.4
0.3
-
- .
-
0.3
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
-
0.4
0.34
2.96
-
-
Temp
hole
(°C)
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Temp
flowthru
(°C)
11
10
11
10
10.8
10.6
9.7
-
-
--
-
--
11.5
11
-
10
-
-
-
-
12
11
10
-
-
-
-
~
10
11.3
10.6
-
-
DO©
(mg/l)
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.35
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
0.5
-
-
-
0.3
0.4
0.6
-
-
-
-
0.4
0.1
3
-
-
CO2©
(mg/l)
21
17
21
19
30
55
-
-
25
22
-
-
-
-
<10
<10
-
-
-
-
-
25
24
-
-
Fe24©
(mg/l)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
-
0.7
-
-
0
1.1
1.1
-
-
-
-
4.7
2
1.4
-
-
Turbidity
(NTU)
<1
<1
<1
<1
0.33
1
0.1
-
-
-
0.35
<1
<1
-
-
15
<1
<1
-
-
-
-
-
1
0.1
0.75
-
-
Obs.
Eh
(mv)
-
141
-
163
-
-
185
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
76
-
-
-
-
-
-
-139
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
146
-
-
-------
Appendix 2a. Sampling information and field parameters, May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Well
Name
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-1 2S
PW-13D
PW-1 3D
PW-1 3D
PW-1 3D
PW-1 3D
PW-1 3D
PW-1 3D
PW-1 3D
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-14D
PW-14D
Well
#
555
555
555
561
561
561
561
561
561
561
561
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
559
559
559
559
559
559
559
559
559
564
564
Date
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/24/98
11/24/98
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/23/98
11/23/98
11/23/98
2/8/99
2/8/99
4/7/99
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/23/98
11/24/98
4/8/99
5/13/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/24/98
11/23/98
Source
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
Pump
TYPE
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
Pump
Rate
(L/min)
-
-
-
0.15
0.134
0.162
-
--
-
-
-
0.17
-
0.156
-
0.45
-
0.19
-
-
--
-
-
0.18
0.19
0.212
0.42
-
-
0.16
0.1
Duration
(min)
-
-
-
98
133
55
--
-
-
-
-
105
-
95
-
79
-
40
-
-
-
-
-
100
70
80
35
-
--
-
-
-
94
90
Volume
Pumped
(L)
-
-
-
14.7
17.8
8.9
-
-
-
-
-
17.9
-
14.8
-
35.6
-
7.6
-
-
-
-
18.0
13.3
17.0
14.7
-
-
-
-
-
15.0
9.0
Drawdown
(ft)
-
-
-
0.12
0.12
0.14
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
0
-
0.02
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
0.01
0
0.01
0.03
-
-
-
--
--
0.02
0
SC
(fimhos/cm)
--
173
130
129
-
-
-
-
-
89
-
91
-
95
97
-
-
-
-
-
79
78
84
-
-
-
-
-
-
226
255
PH
-
-
7.16
6.69
6.4
-
-
-
-
6.76
-
6
-
9.82
5.75
-
--
-
-
5
5.8
5.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.8
5.9
DO
hole
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DO
flowthru
(mg/l)
-
0.21
0.31
0.4
'-
-
0.44
-
0.5
-
0.7
-
0.46
-
-
-
-
7.71
1.9
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.4
0.5
Temp
hole
(°C)
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
Temp
flowthru
(°C)
-
--
13.6
10.5
11
-
-
13.5
11
-
8.4
-
10.1
-
--
-
- -
13.2
11
11
-
-
-
-
--
-
13
10
DO©
(mg/l)
-
--
0.6
0.1
0.4
-
-
0.6
0.6
-
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
7.
2
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
0.6
COj©
(mg/l)
13
17
18
-
27
20
-
13
32
-
-
-
-
-
27
19
18
-
-
-
-
-
-
35
21
Fe2+©
(mg/l)
-
0.8
2.9
3.2
0.6
0.5
-
0.6
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
0
Turbidity
(NTU)
-
6.57
0.73
<1
-
-
-
0.33
-
<1
-
0.55
-
0.24
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
<1
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
<1
<1
Obs.
Eh
(mv)
-
-19
-
-
-
-
-
-
140
-
134
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
128
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-------
Appendix 2a. Sampling information and field parameters, May 1 997 to October 1 999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Well
Name
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M(d)
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S(d)
PW-1D
PW-1D
PW-1D
PW-1S
PW-1S
PW-1S
Well
#
564
564
564
564
564
564
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
531
531
531
530
530
530
Date
4/7/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/23/98
11/23/98
11/23/98
2/8/99
4/7/99
4/7/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
2/8/99
7/23/98
11/23/98
4/7/99
5/13/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/23/98
5/14/98
12/1/98
4/9/99
5/14/98
12/1/98
4/9/99
Source
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
USGS
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES^
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
Pump
TYPE
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
Pump
Rate
(L/min)
0.182
-
-
--
-
-
0.16
-
0.17
--
-
-
-
-
-
0.16
0.172
0.166
0.43
-
-
-
-
0.16
0.16
0.168
0.204
0.16
0.19
0.194
Duration
(min)
130
-
-
-
-
110
-
60
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
115
98
195
36
-
115
72
65
75
120
70
92
Volume
Pumped
(L)
23.7
--
-
-
-
-
17.6
-
10.2
-
-
-
-
-
18.4
16.9
32.4
15.5
-
-
-
-
18.4
11.5
10.9
15.3
19.2
13.3
17.8
Drawdown
(ft)
0.01
-
-
-
-
0
--
0.02
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
-
-
. -
-
-
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
sc
(fimhos/cm)
212
-
-
-
102
-
97
-
-
-
-
178
173
138
-
-
-
178
186
164
143
144
131
119
PH
5.8
-
-
--
-
-
5.7
--
5.83
-
-
-
-
-
5.8
6
5.99
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.8
5.8
5.88
5.8
5.79
5.8
5.8
DO
hole
(mg/l)
-
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
--
DO
flowthru
(mg/l)
0.3
-
0.4
0.43
-
-
-
2.5
2.4
5.09
--
-
-
0.51
0.41
0.3
1.99
0.3
0.3
Temp
hole
(°C)
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
Temp
flowthru
(°C)
9
-
-
13
-
10.9
-
13
10.6
9
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
12.3
11.2
10
12.3
11
10
DO©
(mg/l)
0.5
-
-
_
0.6
0.6
-
-
2.5
2
5
-
-
-
--
2.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
2
0.4
0.4
COj©
(mg/l)
22
35
35
-
-
-
-
40
25
26
-
-
-
-
40
-
30
27
-
21
25
Fe24©
(mg/l)
0
-
-
0.5
-
0
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Turbidity
(NTU)
<1
-
-
<1
0.18
-
-
-
-
-
<1
0.1
0.59
-
-
-
-
-
-
<1
0.21
0.75
<1
0.25
<1
<1
Obs.
Eh
(mv)
158
-
-
-
-
-
-
208
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
162
-
-
148
-------
Appendix 2a. Sampling information and field parameters. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Well
Name
PW-2D
PW-2D
PW-2D
PW-2M
PW-2M
PW-2M
PW-2R
PW-2R
PW-2R
PW-2R
PW-2R
PW-2S
PW-2S
PW-2S
PW-3D
PW-3D
PW-3S
PW-3S
PW-4D
PW-4D
PW-4M
PW-4M
PW-4M (d)
PW-5D
PW-5D
PW-5M
PW-5M
PW-5R
PW-5R
PW-5R
PW-5R
PW-6D
PW-6D
PW-6D
Well
#
534
534
534
533
533
533
535
535
535
535
535
532
532
532
537
537
536
536
539
539
538
538
538
541
541
540
540
542
542
542
542
545
545
545
Date
5/18/98
12/4/98
4/14/99
5/20/98
12/4/98
4/14/99
5/20/98
12/4/98
5/13/99
6/10/99
9/10/99
5/18/98
12/4/98
4/14/99
12/3/98
4/14/99
12/3/98
4/14/99
12/7/98
4/22/99
12/7/98
4/22/99
12/7/98
12/7/98
4/19/99
12/8/98
4/19/99
12/8/98
5/13/99
6/10/99
9/10/99
5/21/98
12/10/98
4/21/99
Source
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
DES
Pump
TYPE
perl
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
Pump
Rate
(L/min)
0.17
0.21
0.204
0.19
0.212
0.23
0.03
0.02
-
-
-
0.19
0.196
0.197
0.218
0.202
0.22
0.215
0.206
0.216
0.226
0.224
0.226
0.208
0.2
0.2
0.176
0.02
-
-
-
0.17
0.416
0.192
Duration
(min)
87
83
70
75
61
95
192
65
-
-
-
123
68
202
45
60
30
45
55
65
85
60
85
65
90
50
60
170
-
--
-
230
232
240
Volume
Pumped
(L)
14.8
17.4
14.3
14.3
12.9
21.9
5.8
1.3
-
-
-
23.4
13.3
39.8
9.8
12.1
6.6
9.7
11.3
14.0
19.2
13.4
19.2
13.5
18.0
10.0
10.6
3.4
-
-
-
39.1
96.5
46.1
Drawdown
(ft)
0
0.01
0.01
0.02
0
0.01
0
0
-
-
-
0.01
0.01
0.02
0
0.01
0
0.01
0
0.06
0
0.03
0
0
0.03
0
0.03
0.07
-
-
-
0
1.66
0.1
SC
(limhos/cm)
595
282
294
146
298
260
208
232
-
-
119
194
665
105
84
111
125
462
512
442
415
442
305
201
122
121
2751
-
-
-
338
393
372
pH
5.6
5.98
5.7
6.2
5.7
5.6
9.91
10.1
-
-
-
5.87
6.06
5.92
6
6.01
5.8
6.7
6
5.93
5.9
5.98
5.9
5.73
5.8
5.72
5.72
12.5
-
-
--
8.5
8.58
8.7
DO
hole
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
DO
flowthru
(mg/l)
1.1
0.53
0.5
6.4
0.6
0.8
1.43
2
-
-
-
8.34
3.91
3.07
0.3
0.27
3.9
3.4
2.6
2.89
3.9
5.03
-
0.56
0.4
3.32
2.14
2.3
-
-
-
1.7
1.21
0.3
Temp
hole
(°C)
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Temp
flowthru
(°C)
12
12.9
11
11.6
12
11
-
17
-
11.2
12.7
9.7
11
8.4
11
6
14
11.5
15
11.7
-
11.1
12
10.6
11.5
6
-
-
-
13
10.5
12
DO©
(mq/l)
1
0.4
0.7
6
0.6
1
-
2
-
-
8
4
3
0.4
0.4
4
4
3
3
5
5
5
0.5
0.5
3.5
1.5
5
-
-
-
1.5
1
0.6
CDs©
(mg/l)
_
25
18
27
20
-
<10
-
-
-
-
30
40
20
18
12
11
21
22
30
25
30
20
23
23
26
<10
-
--
-
-
25
<10
Fe2+©
(mg/l)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
Turbidity
(NTU)
<1
0.19
<1
0.9
<1
<1
44.4
20
-
-
-
0.62
0.54
0.52
<1
0.12
<1
<1
<1
0.25
<1
0.35
<1
0.2
<1
0.47
0.13
<1
-
-
-
17
218
1
Obs.
Eh
(mv)
195
-
175
-
-
286
-
175
-
212
-
199
-
297
-
--
144
-
263
-
-
-
-
-
-
-158
-------
Appendix 2a. Sampling information and field parameters. May 1997 to October 1999. Milford, New Hampshire.
Well
Name
PW-6D(d)
PW-6M
PW-6M
PW-6M
PW-6R
PW-6R
PW-6R
PW-6R
PW-6S
PW-6S
PW-6S
PW-7M
PW-7M
PW-7S
PW-7S
PW-8M
PW-9M
PW-9M(d)
Trip blank
Trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
Well
#
545
544
544
544
546
546
546
546
543
543
543
548
548
547
547
549
550
550
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Date
5/21/98
5/21/98
12/10/98
4/21/99
12/10/98
5/13/99
6/10/99
9/10/99
5/21/98
12/10/98
4/21/99
12/9/98
4/15/99
12/9/98
4/15/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
2/19/98
3/1/99
4/7/99
4/8/99
4/12/99
4/14/99
4/19/99
4/21/99
5/12/99
6/10/99
7/14/99
7/27/99
8/10/99
9/9/99
Source
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS
USGS
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
DES
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
Pump
TYPE
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DB
DB
Pump
Rate
(L/min)
0.17
0.17
0.185
0.183
0.02
-
-
-
0.2
0.211
0.19
0.194
0.198
0.202
0.202
0.202
0.218
0.218
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Duration
(min)
230
90
65
47
180
--
-
-
174
165
70
55
103
50
60
90
95
95
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Volume
Pumped
(L)
39.1
15.3
12.0
8.6
3.6
-
-
-
34.8
34.8
13.3
10.7
20.4
10.1
12.1
18.2
20.7
20.7
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Drawdown
(ft)
0
0
0
0.02
0.39
-
-
-
0
0.02
0.01
0
0.19
0
0.02
0.01
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
sc
(nmhos/cm)
-
142
185
131
2189
-
-
143
226
250
138
130
150
116
259
213
213
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PH
-
5.8
5.8
5.96
12.3
-
-
-
5.78
5.6
5.76
6.4
6.48
6.2
6.32
6.76
5.5
5.5
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DO
hole
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DO
flowthru
(mg/l)
-
2.66
0.4
1.48
2.3
-
--
6.47
0.6
1.83
0.5
0.15
0.5
0.22
2.22
1.4
1.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Temp
hole
(°C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Temp
flowthru
(°C)
-
12.9
11
12.1
8
-
-
12.7
11
11.8
11
11.5
12
11.9
11.7
9
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
DO©
(mg/l)
2
0.5
1
3
7
0.6
1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
3
1.3
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CO2©
(mg/l)
-
25
25
<10
-
-
30
45
17
20
16
20
19
30
30
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
fe2*©
(mg/l)
0.6
0
0
0
-
0.2
0
0
0.5
0.04
1.4
1.1
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Turbidity
(NTU)
--
0.81
1
0.48
5
1.1
<1
0.26
1
0.61
<1
0.6
1.96
<1
<1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Obs.
Eh
(mv)
-
-
-
185
-
_
230
-
82
-
67
155
175
175
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Appendix 2b. Detected ions and compounds. May 1997 to October 1999. Milford, New Hampshire.
Mame
(DB blank)
(eq. blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12(d)
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
Well
#
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
407
407
407
407
407
407
407
407
407
408
408
408
408
408
408
Date
2/8/99
9/30/98
5/11/98
5/13/98
5/18/98
5/19/98
5/21/98
7/21/98
7/23/98
9/18/98
9/30/98
10/20/98
11/23/98
1 1 /30/98
12/1/98
12/3/98
12/7/98
12/8/98
1 2/8/98
2/8/99
5/28/97
10/28/97
12/15/97
2/19/98
5/18/98
7/22/98
12/2/98
4/13/99
5/28/97
5/28/97
10/28/97
10/28/97
2/20/98
2/20/98
5/21/98
NH/
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
<0.5
-
-
-
<0.25
<0.25
-
-
-
-
S2"
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
cr
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
185
-
230
-
205
200
205
190
40
-
-
-
-
-
S042'
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
14
14
9
-
-
-
-
NO3-&NO2-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.27
-
--
-
_
2.39
2.07
2.27
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
N03-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
2.36
-
-
1.03
0.75
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO2"
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.05
._
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
PO/
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
-
-
-
0.005
--
-
-
0.005
0.003
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ca2+
(mg/l)
-
-
-
- .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.2
-
13.5
-
12.7
-
13.3
11.5
12.2
11.5
-
--
-
-
-
Fe(total)
(mg/l)
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
<0.05
--
<0.05
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
-
-
-
Mg2+
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.01
-
2.2
-
2.03
-
2.27
1.96
2
2.26
-
-
-
-
-
Mn2+
(mg/l)
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
0.03
-
0.033
-
0.032
0.032
0.028
0.03
0.406
-
-
-
-
-
K+
(mg/l)
_
-
_
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
3.71
-
4.24
-
3.86
-
3.74
3.85
3.7
1.79
-
-
-
-
-
Na+
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100
-
123
-
117
-
114
111
98.9
17.3
-
-
-
-
-
CH4
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.151
<0.01
<0.01
0.009
1.75
1.86
1.887
-
0.209
1.335
-
0.39
-
1.16
5.12
TOC
(mg/l)
_
-
-
<2
-
<1
-
0.47
0.75
0.34
<2
<2
-
-
-
-
-
Br-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.65
1.67
1.38
1.72
1.91
2.01
1.57
-
-
-
<0.4
-
<0.2
-
SC-lab
(nmhos/cm)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
747
805
845
743
712
745
-
-
-
184
-
155
-
CaCO3
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
10.6
8.8
9
8.4
9
10.8
9.4
10.2
-
13.6
-
12.6
-
13.6
-
-------
Appendix 2b. Detected ions and compounds. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13(d)
B95-13(d)
B95-13(d)
Well
#
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
Date
5/21/98
5/21/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
9/30/98
11/23/98
11/24/98
2/8/99
2/8/99
4/7/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
2/8/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
NH4+
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
. -
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sj-
(mg/l)
- .
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
--
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
_
-
-
-
-
cr
(mg/l)
-
25
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
20
-
-
-
19
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
SCX,2'
(mg/l)
-
10
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
10
--
-
-
-
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO3-&NO2-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
0.48
-
-
-
--
0.48
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
NCV
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
0.28
-
0.29
-
-
0.17
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
0.26
-
-
NCV
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
pcx,3-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.004
-
-
-
-
0.003
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
Ca2+
(mg/l)
-
9.69
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.86
-
-
-
8.34
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fe(total)
(mg/l)
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
<0.05
-
-
-
--
<0.05
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mg2*
(mg/l)
-
1.92
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mn2+
(mg/l)
-
0.326
-
-
-
-
0.311
-
-
0.323
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
K+
(mg/l)
1.43
-
-
-
-
1.19
-
1.29
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
Na*
(mg/l)
13.2
-
-
-
-
10.9
-
-
9.43
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CH4
(mg/l)
-
4.36
6.34
-
6.29
6.45
-
66.63
10.519
-
-
14.36
14.84
13.18
15.49
14.28
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.19
-
-
TOC
(mp/l)
-
0.57
1.03
-
0.86
0.83
0.85
0.79
0.84
1.33
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.64
-
-
Br-
(mg/l)
-
0.368
0.156
-
0.059
0.077
0.089
-
0.3
0.389
-
-
-
0.242
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
0.351
-
-
SC-lab
(nmhos/cm)
-
151
184
180
180
178
146
132
-
-
124
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
130
-
--
CaCO3
(mg/l)
-
12.8
13.8
17.8
15.2
14.6
-
15.2
-
16
-
-
42.6
17.6
17.2
-
16.4
-
16.6
16.4
-.
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
--
16
-
--
-------
Appendix 2b. Detected ions and compounds. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
B95-13(d)
B95-13(d)
B95-13(d)
B95-13(d)
B95-13-A
B95-13-B
B95-13-C
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15(d)
B95-3
B95-3
B95-3 .
B95-3
B95-3
B95-3
Well
#
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
398
398
398
398
398
398
Date
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
7/30/99
7/30/99
7/30/99
5/28/97
10/30/97
10/30/97
2/20/98
5/18/98
5/18/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
9/30/98
11/23/98
11/24/98
2/8/99
2/8/99
4/7/99
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
9/10/99
9/10/99
9/30/98
5/29/97
6/17/97
12/16/97
5/12/98
12/3/98
4/20/99
NH4+
(mo/0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.25
_
-
s?-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
_
-
cr
(mg/l)
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
12
-
-
-
-
12
-
-
-
-
15
-
-
-
18
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11
-
13
-
12
17
SO42'
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13
--
-
-
-
12
-
-
-
38
24
-
-
9
-
8
_
9
8
NO3-&NO2-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.82
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
0.1
-
0.09
-
-
-
--
-
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
-
N03-
(mg/l)
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.07
0.01
0.09
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.05
0
<0.05
NO2-
(mg/l)
-
--
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
PO/
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.008
-
-
0.005
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.007
-
0.01
0.002
Ca2*
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
8.49
-
-
-
-
8.14
-
-
-
-
10.3
-
7.97
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
6.15
-
5.36
7.52
5.84
4.48
Fe(total)
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.05
-
-
-
<0.05
-
-
-
<0.05
-
-
-
<0.05
-
--
-
-
-
-
1.3
-
1.86
<0.05
1.28
0.511
Mg2+
(mg/l)
-
-
1.78
-
-
1.71
-
2.06
-
1.53
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.42
-
1.23
1.48
1.34
1.09
Mn2*
(mg/l)
-
-
-
0.134
-
-
-
-
0.119
-
-
-
0.198
-
0.248
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
0.323
-
0.241
<0.01
0.323
0.177
1C
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.44
-
-
1.37
-
2.02
-
1.87
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.95
--
1.13
4.41
1
1.3
Na+
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
6.79
-
7.27
-
19
-
-
14.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.7
-
7.12
4.06
6.64
10.11
CH4
(mg/l)
-
-
-
1.155
0.35
2.91
3.47
4.98
-
15.64
0.739
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.202
0.012
1.74
1.8
2.105
--
TOC
(mg/l)
-
<2
-
0.45
0.93
-
1.1
-
0.99
1.11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<2
-
1.1
1.54
0.92
-
Br-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
0.19
<0.2
-
0.259
0
-
0.27
-
0.428
0.149
0.149
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.4
-
0.14
0.119
SC-lab
(nmhos/cm)
-
-
-
Ill
114
107
107
-
-
195
-
188
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
--
-
89
-
91
-
CaCO3
(mg/l)
-
_
16.4
-
14
-
12.2
11.6
12.6
14
-
-
16.6
-
13.6
13.8
13.8
~
--
-
-
-
-
-
16.6
9.4
10.2
-
12.2
10.2
-------
Appendix 2b. Detected ions and compounds. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
B95-5
B95-5
B95-5
B95-5
B95-5
B95-6
B95-6
B95-6
B95-6
B95-6
B95-7
B95-7
B95-8
B95-8
B95-8
B95-8
B95-8
B95-9
B95-9
B95-9
B95-9
B95-9
B95-9(d)
B95-9(d)
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
EW-1
EW-1
EW-1
Well
#
400
400
400
400
400
401
401
401
401
401
402
402
403
403
403
403
403
404
404
404
404
404
404
404
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
565
565
565
Date
6/2/97
12/17/97
5/12/98
12/2/98
4/21/99
6/16/97
12/17/97
5/12/98
12/2/98
4/21/99
12/17/97
1/12/98
6/16/97
12/16/97
5/12/98
1 2/7/98
4/22/99
5/29/97
12/16/97
5/12/98
1 2/3/98
4/22/99
12/16/97
5/12/98
2/19/98
4/15/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
7/30/99
8/13/99
9/10/99
3/1/99
7/16/99
9/10/99
NH4+
(mg/l)
<0.25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
s*'
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
cr
(mg/l)
3
3
9
2
4
-
17
-
13
13
104
-
-
125
-
130
127
180
164
138
71
62
162
138
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
SO42'
(mg/l)
14
13
13
13
11
-
7
--
10
10
11
-
-
7
-
11
12
11
12
11
32
27
12
11
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
NO3-&NO2-
(mg/l)
1.3
-
-
0.69
-
-
--
--
0.08
-
-
-
--
-
--
1.26
0.99
1.2
-
-
2.3
1.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO3
(mg/l)
0.78
-
0.34
0.76
-
<0.05
-
0
<0.05
0.86
-
-
0.97
-
0.67
-
-
0.86
--
1.63
-
0.86
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO2"
(mg/l)
-
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
<0.05
-
-
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
PO43"
(mg/l)
0.004
-
0.005
0.002
-
0.004
-
0.006
<0.001
0.004
-
-
0.006
-
0.003
0.004
-
0.006
-
0.006
0.002
0.008
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ca2t
(mg/l)
6.56
5.66
-
4.98
5.7
-
3.86
-
4.87
4.26
11.6
-
20.8
16.7
21.8
13
12.4
12.2
15.8
13.6
12.3
12.2
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fe(total)
(mg/l)
<0.05
<0.05
-
<0.05
<0.05
-
1.49
-
0.684
1.71
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.081
<0.05
<0.05
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mg2+
(mg/l)
1.32
1.13
-
0.954
1.18
-
0.82
-
1.06
0.96
2.36
-
4.3
3.47
4.36
1.8
1.66
1.72
2.76
2.34
1.63
1.72
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
--
Mn2+
(mg/l)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
-
1.1
~
1.73
1.51
0.051
-
<0.01
<0.01
0.016
0.056
0.079
0.067
0.455
0.127
0.079
0.065
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
K*
(mg/l)
4.08
3.77
3.39
3.56
--
1.38
-
1.2
1.29
3.23
-
-
3.06
-
3.46
2.51
2.83
2.68
2.39
2.98
2.47
2.62
2.35
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Na*
(mg/l)
2.88
2.6
-
2.81
2.54
-
11.6
-
10.4
10.1
53
-
-
48.8
63.6
54
97.8
88.4
79.2
43.5
33.5
87.9
78.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CH4
(mg/l)
<0.01
0.02
1.79
1.819
3.035
50.22
31.06
3.014
-
0.02
<0.01
0.13
1.82
2.038
-
0.013
0.06
3.16
2.25
-
2.65
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOC
(mg/l)
<2
<1
0.55
0.43
-
1.6
0.86
1.13
-
<1
-
<1
0.46
0.49
-
<2
<1
0.76
1.99
-
<1
0.63
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.76
-
-
Br-
(mg/l)
<0.4
0.199
0
0.094
<0.4
0.14
0.195
0.86
0.99
0.94
1.54
1.29
-
1.16
1.23
0.75
3.44
1.33
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
0.502
-
-
SC-lab
(nmhos/cm)
71
98
69
Ill
112
385
447
108
502
-
595
516
376
-
-
519
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
128
-
-
CaCO3
(mg/l)
8.4
8.2
9
8.8
9.8
14
13.2
-
8.4
15.4
11.8
-
12.8
11.6
-
13.6
15.6
13.4
14.4
12.6
14
11.4
-
11.8
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
-
14.8
-
-
-------
Appendix 2b. Detected ions and compounds. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
EW-2
EW-2
EW-2
EW-2dup
HM-1
HM-1
lab blank
lab blank
lab blank
lab blank
lab blank
lab blank
MI-19
MI-20
MI-20
MI-21
MI-21
MI-22
MI-22
MI-23
MI-23
MI-25
MI-25
MI-27
MI-27
MI-32
MI-32
MI-32
MI-32
MI-63
MI-63
MW-16A
MW-16A
MW-16A
MW-16A
Well
#
566
566
566
566
299
299
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
31
31
33
33
35
35
37
37
40
40
42
42
46
46
46
46
203
203
233
233
233
233
Date
3/1/99
7/16/99
9/10/99
3/1/99
5/29/97
12/15/97
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/15/99
7/30/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/30/97
5/30/97
12/17/97
5/30/97
5/14/98
12/16/97
5/13/98
12/16/97
5/13/98
6/2/97
12/15/97
5/29/97
12/15/97
6/2/97
5/12/98
12/4/98
4/20/99
5/29/97
12/15/97
5/27/97
12/19/97
5/13/98
11/30/98
NH/
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
<0.25
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.25
<0.5
-
<0.25
-
-
-
-
<0.25
<0.25
<0.25
-
-
-
<0.5
<0.25
-
-
%'
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
cr
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
13
14
-
-
-
-
-
-
<2
51
142
14
8
13
18
130
205
220
29
-
80
55
16
16
140
-
-
150
S042-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
10
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
15
7
10
5
13
-
6
10
13
12
12
7
11
18
9
10
12
-
-
12
NO3-&NO2-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
0.32
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.05
0.2
0.08
-
0.11
1.67
1.22
-
1.02
-
0.5
-
1.57
-
-
1.48
NCV
(mg/l)
-
--
-
-
-
0.12
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.06
1.16
1.15
-
0.24
1.52
-
0.67
1.35
-
0.3
-
-
-
0.76
NO2'
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
<0.05
0.08
-
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
-
-
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
PO/
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
0.015
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.019
-
0.013
-
0.006
-
-
0.013
-
0.004
-
-
0.009
<0.001
-
0.004
-
-
-
0.004
Ca2+
(ma/1)
-
-
-
-
7.29
7.07
-
-
-
--
-
19.6
1.54
8.59
3.01
22.9
6.2
-
10.4
21
15.8
14.3
8.26
-
11.7
11.7
7.09
6.43
12.9
-
-
11.1
Fe(total)
(mg/l)
-
-
-
0.112
0.711
-
-
-
-
-
4.75
<0.05
0.808
0.054
-
0.144
-
<0.05
-
5.18
0.968
<0.05
<0.05
0.1
-
0.109
<0.05
0.062
0.322
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
Mg2+
(mg/l)
-
-
1.58
1.55
-
-
-
-
5.13
0.277
1.47
0.626
2.86
-
1.05
2.79
3.92
2.89
2.59
1.07
-
1.71
1.62
1.38
1.3
1.79
-
-
1.55
Mn2+
(mg/l)
-
-
-
0.524
0.501
-
...
-
-
0.143
0.016
0.06
0.018
-
0.026
<0.01
0.361
0.532
0.017
0.015
<0.01
-
0.077
0.028
0.745
0.73
0.021
-
-
0.021
K+
(mg/l)
-
1.32
1.26
-
-
-
-
2.45
0.658
1.79
0.832
0.99
1.61
2.31
2.83
4.64
4.51
1.78
-
2.96
2.24
1.07
1.09
2.68
-
-
2.58
Na+
(mg/l)
7.78
7.56
-
-
23.9
35.7
74.1
9.36
8.66
8.6
22
65.7
107
106.4
15.6
-
42.2
28.5
9.1
9.09
72.9
-
-
85.6
CH4
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
4.436
15.26
-
-
-
2.282
<0.01
-
0.06
1.8
0.49
<0.01
31.78
1.48
<0.01
-
0.396
1.83
1.983
-
2.91
3.28
0.261
0.172
-
2
TOC
(mg/l)
2.57
-
<2
1
-
<2
2.2
2.2
<2
3.06
<1
2.1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
0.71
0.61
-
<2
1.1
<2
-
0.7
0.52
Br-
(mg/l)
0
" -
<0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.5
-
<0.4
-
<0.4
-
0.92
-
1.67
-
-
0.83
0.641
-
<0.4
-
1.47
-
1.41
SC-lab
Gimhos/cm)
39
108
-
-
-
-
519
194
-
-
500
-
741
-
-
332
-
-
104
-
645
.
567
CaCO3
(mg/l)
9.8
-
-
14
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
98
11.8
6.6
7.4
-
58.4
-
12.2
-
41.2
33.4
12.2
9
11
-
10.8
12.2
14.4
12.6
12
9
-
9.6
-------
Appendix 2b. Detected ions and compounds. May 1997 to October 1999. Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
MW-16A
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B(d)
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
Well
#
233
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
Date
4/13/99
5/27/97
6/11/97
12/18/97
5/11/98
11/30/98
4/13/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
4/13/99
5/27/97
6/12/97
12/15/97
5/11/98
5/21/98
1 1 /30/98
4/13/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/27/97
12/18/97
5/13/98
11/30/98
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
NH/
(mg/l)
-
0.5
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
S*-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
cr
(mg/l)
131
72
-
94
-
108
102
-
-
-
-
-
101
138
-
86
101
74
80
-
27
24
-
21
-
S042'
(mg/l)
13
10
-
9
-
8
9
--
-
-
-
-
-
9
12
-
10
9
-
9
11
-
-
-
5
3
~
1
-
-
-
-
NO3-&NO2-
(mg/l)
1.74
1.75
-
-
-
1.25
1.32
-
-
-
-
-
1.34
1.11
-
-
-
-
1.09
1.03
-
-
<0.05
-
-
0.57
-
-
-
-
-
N03-
(mg/l)
0.67
-
-
1.58
-
0.47
0.36
-
-
-
- -
-
-
0.48
-
-
1.09
-
-
0.65
0.24
--
-
-
-
-
<0.05
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
NO2
(mg/l)
-
--
-
<0.05
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.05
--
-
-
-
-
-
--
PO43"
(mg/l)
0.004
--
-
0.004
--
0.006
0.006
-
-
--
-
-
0.005
-
-
0.005
--
-
0.005
0.005
-
-
--
-
-
0.027
-
0.049
-
-
-
-
-
Ca2+
(mg/l)
8.41
9
-
12
-
14.6
11.1
-
-
-
11.4
17.3
-
12.7
15.2
-
13.3
13.4
-
-
-
-
20.7
15.6
-
13.7
-
-
-
-
-
Fe(total)
(mg/l)
<0.05
<0.05
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
-
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
-
0.235
0.114
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
-
Mg2+
(mg/l)
1.2
1.21
-
1.65
-
2.02
1.6
-
-
-
-
1.61
3.04
-
2.27
2.69
-
2.38
2.48
-
-
-
-
-
2.62
1.98
-
1.69
-
-
-
-
-
Mn2+
(mg/l)
0.016
0.163
-
0.203
-
0.195
0.142
-
-
0.144
0.277
-
0.223
0.255
0.272
0.3
-
-
-
0.062
0.013
-
0.012
-
-
-
-
-
K+
(mg/l)
2.31
2.77
2.9
2.89
2.62
-
-
-
-
2.67
2.82
-
2.04
2.36
1.92
2.03
-
-
-
-
-
1.69
1.65
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
-
Na+
(mg/l)
72.6
41.2
49.3
-
58.5
48.1
-
-
-
-
-
49
64.8
-
42
50.4
38.8
37.5
-
-
-
-
-
17.5
18.2
-
20.7
-
-
-
--
-
CH4
(mg/l)
-
0.159
<0.01
0.68
1.96
2.21
-
-
-
-
0.495
<0.01
0.24
2
2.14
2.62
-
-
-
-
-
967.12
1147.61
29.86
1763.35
-
-
-
-
-
TOC
(mg/l)
-
<2
-
<1
0.67
0.54
-
-
-
-
-
<2
-
<1
0.58
0.43
-
-
--
-
<2
1.1
1.04
1.5
-
-
-
-
-
Br-
(mg/l)
1.07
-
1
1.75
0.821
0.896
_
-
0.54
1.05
1.02
0.78
0.658
-
-
--
-
-
<0.4
-
0.64
-
-
-
-
-
SC-lab
(nmhos/cm)
-
-
386
441
-
-
--
345
397
380
323
-
-
-
-
-
-
197
-
212
-
-
--
-
--
CaCO3
(mg/l)
10.8
13.2
11
11.2
-
10.6
11.2
-
-
-
-
-
13
11.6
12.4
11.6
9.8
10.6
11.2
12.8
-
-
-
-
-
58.6
54.4
-
54.8
-
-
--
-
-
-------
Appendix 2b. Detected ions and compounds. May 1997 to October 1999. Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
MW-16R-A
MW-16R-B
MW-16R-C
MW-16R-D
MW-16R
MW-16R-A
MW-16R-B
MW-16R-C
MW-16R-D
MW-27
MW-27
MW-27 (d)
MW-2A
MW-2B
MW-2B(d)
MW-2R
P-2. river
P-2, river
P-2, river
P-2. river
P-2. River
P2-RIVER
PW-10D
PW-10D
PW-10D
PW-10M
PW-10M
PW-10M
PW-11D
PW-11D
PW-11M
PW-11M
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-1 2D
Well
#
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
235
235
235
310
210
210
311
385
385
385
385
385
385
552
552
552
551
551
551
554
554
553
553
557
557
557
Date
7/30/99
7/30/99
7/30/99
7/30/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
12/2/98
4/21/99
12/2/98
9/30/98
9/30/98
9/30/98
9/30/98
5/28/97
12/18/97
5/13/98
12/9/98
4/19/99
4/21/99
5/20/98
12/7/98
4/19/99
5/20/98
12/7/98
4/19/99
12/3/98
4/15/99
12/3/98
4/15/99
5/15/98
11/25/98
4/8/99
NH4+
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.25
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
$2
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
cr
(mg/l)
--
-
-
--
-
--
-
~
-
18
26
18
7
9
9
3
13
-
10
16
17
-
37
15
-
16
17
17
14
19
16
19
14
13
14
so/
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
4
5
7.33
7.42
7.89
7.24
5
-
4
6
5
11
13
6
20
31
38
30
14
14
9
10
10
NO3-&N02-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.05
-
0.05
-
-
-
-
0.06
-
0.12
0.09
-
-
0.85
-
0.33
-
0.29
0.06
<0.05
0.18
-
<0.05
0.07
N03-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.03
0.06
0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
-
0.06
0.02
-
0.34
-
-
0.07
-
0.26
0
0.02
0.04
-
0.01
0.09
NO2-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PO/
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.007
0.002
0.008
<0.001
0.026
0.011
0.003
-
-
-
0.021
0.01
-
-
0.103
-
-
0.007
--
0.004
0.005
0.003
0.001
-
0.006
0.007
Ca2+
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
3.78
4.04
3.77
3.45
6.35
6.27
14.8
-
-
2.06
3.47
2.9
-
59
39.4
-
5.17
9.91
11.8
10.4
6.91
5.78
6.04
7.09
7.02
6.71
Fe(total)
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.36
7.04
6.35
<0.05
0.669
0.642
1.7
-
-
0.279
0.36
0.181
-
0.574
<0.05
-
0.072
<0.05
<0.05
0.106
0.118
<0.05
<0.05
0.1
<0.05
<0.05
Mg2+
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.926
1.17
0.904
0.824
1.41
1.38
2.12
-
-
0.476
0.79
0.67
-
0.993
1.34
-
0.952
1.79
2.2
2.13
1.44
1.07
1.25
1.56
1.54
1.53
Mn2*
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.544
0.497
0.543
0.025
0.466
0.459
0.065
-
-
0.039
0.021
0.023
-
0.044
<0.01
-
0.016
0.027
0.05
0.195
0.34
0.093
0.099
0.363
0.466
0.449
K+
(mg/l)
-
-
-
1.15
1.38
1.12
0.876
1.02
0.996
0.705
-
0.497
1.1
0.684
-
17.1
3.51
-
2.65
2.95
2.97
2.07
1.67
2.81
2.69
1.31
1.16
1.25
Na+
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.2
13.9
12
5.95
5.87
5.86
14.2
-
-
7.12
11.2
10.6
-
17.6
7.82
-
10.7
11.9
13.4
17.6
16.8
12.7
12.5
8.59
8.6
8.11
CH4
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
301.778
233.254
1.91
4.67
4.71
250.55
-
-
2.09
2.063
-
2.99
5.023
-
4.46
52.262
-
4.985
-
17.606
-
8.87
5.44
-
TOC
(mg/l)
-
_
-
-
1.58
1.27
1.75
0.75
0.76
0.76
3
-
3.8
3.43
-
1.85
0.91
-
1.57
1.97
-
0.98
-
1.24
-
0.98
0.94
0.73
Br-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
0.22
0.42
0.21
-
-
-
-
<0.4
0.21
0.28
-
0.457
0.61
0.079
0.309
0.33
0.086
0.16
0.381
0.19
0.228
0.288
0.3
0.117
SC-lab
(nmhos/cm)
-
-
-
-
-
"104
105
-
-
-
-
-
-
58
98
-
-
475
252
-
110
161
-
181
-
125
-
107
112
-
CaCO3
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
15.2
11.8
16
8.6
16
15.6
62
7.8
6
3.6
7.4
-
-
82.2
86.6
5.6
14
18.4
20
15.6
12.2
13.4
12.8
13
14
13
-------
Appendix 2b. Detected ions and compounds. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford. New Hampshire.
Name
PW-12D
PW-1 2D
PW-1 2D
PW-12D
PW-1 2D
PW-12M
PW-12M
PW-1 2M
PW-12M
PW-12M
PW-12M
PW-12M
PW-1 2M
PW-12M
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-1 2R
PW-1 2R
PW-12R
PW-1 2R
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-1 3D
PW-1 3D
PW-1 3D
PW-1 3D
PW-1 3D
Well
#
557
557
557
557
557
556
556
556
556
556
556
556
556
556
558
558
558
558
558
558
558
558
555
555
555
555
555
555
555
555
561
561
561
561
561
Date
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/15/98
11/25/98
4/7/99
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/15/98
11/25/98
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/14/98
11/25/98
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/24/98
1 1 /24/98
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
NH/
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
-
S2~
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
cr
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
14
13
-
13
-
-
-
-
-
12
12
12
-
-
-
-
17
16
35
-
-
12
13
13
-
so42-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
9
9
-
9
-
-
-
-
-
9
8
7
-
-
-
-
-
6
10
10
-
-
-
-
11
8
8
-
NO3-&NOr
(mg/l)
-
--
-
-
-
-
<0.05
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
-
-
-
--
<0.05
0.47
-
-
-
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
0.06
-
-
N03'
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.01
-
0.07
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.01
0.07
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.03
0.24
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.01
0.02
-
-
NO2"
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PO/-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.009
-
0.001
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.024
0.027
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.009
0.004
-
-
-
-
-
0.098
0.023
0.022
-
--
Ca2+
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
6.64
6.69
-
6.23
-
-
-
-
-
21.5
23.5
22.4
-
-
-
-
-
4.62
5.32
7.84
-
-
-
-
-
15.9
8.52
6.91
-
-
Fe(total)
(mg/l)
-
--
-
-
-
0.203
0.134
-
0.454
--
-
-
-
-
1.03
1.2
1.13
-
-
-
-
-
5.04
3.23
1.12
-
-
-
-
0.963
4.65
6.06
-
-
Mg2+
(mg/l)
-
-
-
--
1.46
1.43
-
1.39
-
-
-
2.24
2.31
2.31
-
-
--
--
0.924
1.05
1.32
-
-
-
-
1.33
1.44
1.41
-
-
Mn2+
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
0.296
0.386
0.433
-
-
-
-
0.316
0.425
0.383
-
-
-
0.661
0.671
0.432
-
-
-
-
0.205
0.569
0.59
-
-
K+
(mg/l)
-
.--
-
-
1.3
1.34
1.53
-
-
-
-
-
1.11
1.18
1.37
-
-
1.06
0.915
1.53
-
-
-
-
4.26
2.37
1.69
-
--
Na+
(mg/l)
-
9.78
8.4
8.26
-
-
-
-
8.07
:8.21
8.12
-
10.7
10.7
16.5
-
-
-
-
-
12.6
9.44
9.39
-
-
CH4
(mg/l)
-
9.02
7.69
-
-
-
4.2
6.62
-
-
-
2.29
2.26
-
-
-
-
6.09
3.9
-
-
--
TOC
(mg/l)
-
0.82
0.9
0.89
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.91
0.96
0.94
-
1.1
1.2
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
1.8
0.64
0.91
-
-
Br-
(mg/l)
-
0.315
0.25
0.058
0.058
0.285
0.33
0.104
-
-
-
-
0.35
0.3
0.283
-
-
-
-
0
0.21
0.181
-
--
SC-lab
(nmhos/cm)
106
111
-
169
207
-
-
108
119
-
-
-
-
-
170
118
-
-
-
CaCO3
(mg/l)
-
-
12.6
13.8
14
14
-
-
-
-
48.2
60.8
61
-
-
-
-
-
15.2
11.6
7.4
-
-
-
-
-
47.2
23.8
21.2
-
-
-------
Appendix 2b. Detected ions and compounds. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
PW-13D
PW-13D
PW-13D
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
Well
#
561
561
561
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
559
559
559
559
559
559
559
559
559
564
564
564
564
564
564
564
564
563
563
563
Date
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/23/98
11/23/98
11/23/98
2/8/99
2/8/99
4/7/99
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/23/98
1 1 /24/98
4/8/99
5/13/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/24/98
11/23/98
4/7/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/23/98
11/23/98
11/23/98
NH/
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
S2~
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
--
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
cr
(mg/l)
-
-
-
13
- '
13
-
-
-
13
-
-
--
-
-
10
10
10
-
--
-
50
56
40
-
-
-
-
15
-
14
SO42-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
7
-
7
-
-
-
7
-
-
-
-
-
6
6
6
-
-
-
11
11
11
-
-
-
7
-
7
NO3-&NO2-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
--
-
-
<0.05
--
-
-
--
-
0.23
0.35
0.49
-
-
-
-
-
0.89
0.82
0.58
-
-
-
-
-
0.06
-
<0.05
N03-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
0.02
-
0.01
--
0.03
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.17
0.21
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.74
0.29
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
0.02
NO2"
(mg/D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PO43-
(mg/l)
-
-
0.005
-
0.003
-
-
-
0.007
-
-
-
-
-
0.005
0.003
0.005
--
-
-
-
-
--
0.005
0.009
0.006
-
-
-
-
-
0.005
-
0.009
Ca2*
(mg/l)
-
5.14
-
5.54
-
-
-
5.27
--
-
5.3
5.32
5.47
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.1
15.9
11.6
-
-
-
-
-
6.59
-
6.47
Fe(total)
(mg/l)
-
-
0.272
-
0.408
-
-
-
0.401
--
-
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
-
-
-
0.374
0.08
<0.05
-
-
-
-
-
0.246
-
0.211
Mg2+
(mg/l)
-
-
1.12
-
1.12
-
-
-
1.08
-
-
-
-
0.767
0.845
0.834
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.9
3.11
2.31
-
-
-
--
-
1.43
-
1.44
Mn2+
(mg/l)
-
1.13
1.11
-
-
1.03
. --
-
-
-
<0.01
0.014
0.02
-
-
-
-
-
0.695
0.718
0.531
-
-
-
-
-
1.12
-
1.15
K*
(mg/l)
-
-
0.732
0.687
-
-
0.767
-
-
-
2.06
2.15
2.23
-
-
-
-
-
1.62
1.69
1.55
-
-
-
-
-
0.724
-
0.759
Na*
(mg/l)
-
-
7.86
-
8
-
-
-
7.9
-
-
-
6.62
6.67
6.72
-
-
-
-
-
20.1
23.3
19.6
-
-
-
-
-
7.82
-
8.24
CH,
(mg/l)
-
2.9
3.8
2.434
-
-
-
-
2.24
2.15
-
--
-
--
-
-
3.18
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.39
-
2.72
TOC
(mg/l)
-
-
1.31
-
0.78
-
1.03
0.86
-
-
-
0.91
0.94
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
0.96
0.42
0.92
-
-
-
-
-
0.92
-
0.74
Br-
(mg/l)
-
-
0
0.2
-
0.241
0.062
0.062
--
-
-
0
0.1
0.012
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.159
0.66
0.43
-
--
-
--
-
0
-
0.19
SC-lab
(nmhos/cm)
89
95
98
-
-
80
89
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
235
259
-
-
-
-
-
-
101
-
106
CaCO3
(mg/l)
-
-
10.2
11.6
-
14.4
11.2
11.2
-
-
11.6
11
12
-
-
-
-
-
-
18
16.2
17
-
-
-
-
-
13.2
-
12.6
-------
Appendix 2b. Detected ions and compounds. May 1 997 to October 1 999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M(d)
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S(d)
PW-1D
PW-1D
PW-1D
PW-1S
PW-1S
PW-1S
PW-2D
PW-2D
PW-2D
PW-2M
PW-2M
PW-2M
PW-2R
PW-2R
PW-2R
PW-2R
Well
#
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
531
531
531
530
530
530
534
534
534
533
533
533
535
535
535
535
Date
2/8/99
4/7/99
4/7/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
2/8/99
7/23/98
11/23/98
4/7/99
5/13/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/23/98
5/14/98
12/1/98
4/9/99
5/14/98
12/1/98
4/9/99
5/18/98
12/4/98
4/14/99
5/20/98
12/4/98
4/14/99
5/20/98
12/4/98
5/13/99
6/10/99
NH/
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sj-
(mg/l)
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
cr
(mg/l)
-
16
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24
23
18
-
-
-
-
24
36
29
20
24
20
17
160
65
74
21
69
54
25
8
-
SO/
(mg/l)
-
8
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
15
13
12
-
-
-
-
--
15
10
12
16
10
9
8
14
10
10
7
11
16
7
16
-
-
NO3-&NO2-
(mg/l)
-
0.09
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.5
1.51
1.08
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.47
0.52
0.19
0.55
0.553
-
0.91
1.22
0.97
1.24
-
0.07
-
-
NO3-
(mg/l)
-
0.12
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.94
0.46
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.24
0.06
0.25
0.19
-
0.44
0.32
-
0.64
0.49
.-
0.04
-
-
NO2-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
P043-
(mg/l)
-
0.018
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.005
0.005
0.004
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.007
0.004
0.007
-
0.004
0.002
-
0.004
0.005
-
0.005
0.005
-
0.109
-
-
Ca2+
(mg/l)
-
6.86
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.6
11.4
9.98
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.4
11.6
10.6
8.68
9.43
9.63
8.02
20.1
12.4
13.7
12.7
16.7
12
13
8.44
-
-
Fe(total)
(mg/l)
-
0.144
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.079
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
-
-
0.063
0.272
0.054
<0.05
0.058
0.103
<0.05
0.222
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
1.74
0.764
-
-
Mg2+
(mg/l)
-
1.44
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.41
2.59
2.12
-
-
-
-
3.34
2.3
2.11
1.81
1.81
1.82
1.59
3.65
2.01
2.25
1
1.92
1.46
2.3
1.66
-
-
Mn2+
(mg/l)
-
1.01
--
-
-
-
-
0.051
0.013
<0.01
-
-
--
-
0.044
0.371
0.33
0.27
0.055
0.257
0.287
0.075
0.036
0.063
<0.01
0.014
0.013
0.104
0.047
-
-
K*
(mg/l)
-
1.29
-
-
-
-
3.37
3.2
2.55
-
-
-
3.37
1.62
1.36
1.33
1.18
1.23
1.37
3.59
2.18
2.56
4.45
5.79
4.5
12.2
18.1
-
-
Na*
(mg/l)
8.36
-
-
-
13.5
13.3
10.3
-
-
-
13.4
17.4
16.2
13
12.5
11
9.12
83.3
34.5
35
13
30.1
29.6
21.3
24.9
--
-
CH,
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.97
2.15
-
-
-
--
2.19
3.06
6.05
-
4488.47
6.05
1.83
1.965
-
1.97
2.3
-
2.21
4.786
-
-
TOC
(mg/l)
-
0.84
-
0.82
0.59
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
1.02
0.84
0.58
-
0.9
0.8
-
0.55
0.69
-
1.02
0.99
-
0.88
0.98
--
-
Br-
(mg/l)
-
0.134
-
-
-
0
0.32
0.223
-
-
-
0
0.513
0.34
0.248
0.418
0.34
0.221
1.41
0.601
0.382
0.78
0.576
0.291
0.31
-
-
SC-lab
(nmhos/cm)
-
-
-
-
178
177
-
-
-
-
-
178
186
169
-
144
140
-
588
-
-
161
310
-
203
239
-
--
CaCO3
(mg/l)
-
15
-
-
-
-
-
-
23
21
20
-
-
-
-
-
--.
21.6
13
14.4
15
13
16
16.4
9.6
-
18
20
15.2
18.4
65
73.4
-
--
-------
Appendix 2b. Detected ions and compounds. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Mame
PW-2R
PW-2S
PW-2S
PW-2S
PW-3D
PW-3D
PW-3S
PW-3S
PW-4D
PW-4D
PW-4M
PW-4M
PW-4M (d)
PW-5D
PW-5D
PW-5M
PW-5M
PW-5R
PW-5R
PW-5R
PW-5R
PW-6D
PW-6D
PW-6D
PW-6D(d)
PW-6M
PW-6M
PW-6M
PW-6R
PW-6R
PW-6R
PW-6R
PW-6S
PW-6S
PW-6S
Well
#
535
532
532
532
537
537
536
536
539
539
538
538
538
541
541
540
540
542
542
542
542
545
545
545
545
544
544
544
546
546
546
546
543
543
543
Date
9/10/99
5/18/98
12/4/98
4/14/99
12/3/98
4/14/99
12/3/98
4/14/99
12/7/98
4/22/99
12/7/98
4/22/99
12/7/98
12/7/98
4/19/99
12/8/98
4/19/99
12/8/98
5/13/99
6/10/99
9/10/99
5/21/98
12/10/98
4/21/99
5/21/98
5/21/98
12/10/98
4/21/99
12/10/98
5/13/99
6/10/99
9/10/99
5/21/98
12/10/98
4/21/99
NH/
(mg/l)
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
_
~
%'
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
cr
(mg/l)
-
15
30
27
10
9
17
16
110
141
116
109
115
80
34
17
16
10
-
-
-
28
8
27
28
21
21
24
25
-
-
19
21
34
so42-
(mg/l)
-
11
12
200
13
9
14
22
12
12
17
12
17
9
20
8
8
11
-
39
76
44
38
10
21
6
20
-
10
39
47
NO3-&NO2-
(mg/l)
-
-
1.72
5.57
0.18
<0.05
0.24
0.29
1.16
0.74
1.17
1.1
1.15
0.93
1.14
-
0.64
-
0.26
-
-
-
1.26
-
0.31
-
-
-
-
3.03
-
N03-
(mg/l)
-
1.04
1.36
0.13
0
0.12
0.06
0.63
-
0.53
-
0.52
0.56
0.35
-
0.48
0.22
-
-
0.55
-
0.31
-
-
-
1.81
--
NO2"
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.05
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P043"
(mg/l)
-
-
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.004
0.003
-
0.006
-
0.009
-
-
-
0.351
-
-
-
0.002
-
0.021
-
-
-
-
0.006
-
Ca2*
(mp/l)
7.4
14.6
88.2
9.63
5.9
5.58
8.56
17.2
13.5
5.9
6.98
5.88
14.7
8.98
7.13
6.62
146
-
-
-
12.8
25.9
24.3
12.5
8.39
11.9
7.33
113
-
-
-
10.3
19.8
22.3
Fe(total)
(mg/l)
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.075
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
0.802
9.91
0.127
0.76
0.382
0.088
0.05
0.213
-
-
-
0.28
<0.05
<0.05
Mg2+
(mg/l)
0.912
1.15
8.19
1.89
1.17
1.07
1.37
3.06
2.56
0.92
1.09
0.915
2.99
1.66
1.06
1.01
<0.1
-
-
2.61
3.95
1.82
2.54
1.25
1.64
1.13
<0.1
-
-
-
1.47
1.95
2.49
Mn2*
(mg/l)
<0.01
<0.01
0.015
0.602
0.414
<0.01
<0.01
0.037
0.03
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.044
0.094
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
--
-
0.188
0.167
0.064
0.183
0.418
0.586
0.395
<0.01
-
-
-
0.395
0.271
0.366
K*
(mg/l)
-
2.09
3.52
5.36
1.61
1.28
1.22
1.2
3.53
3.67
2.6
2.44
2.55
2.32
1.91
2.6
2.49
35.9
-
-
38.4
5.29
7.43
37.9
3.48
3.2
2.18
87.5
-
-
-
3.17
3.57
3.36
Na+
(mg/l)
13.2
16.9
26.3
6.41
6.22
12.1
10.2
60
72
74.6
65.9
73.8
34
22.5
11.8
10.7
41.2
-
-
-
23
57.7
45
22.3
13.8
14.3
12.4
38.6
-
-
-
13
15.5
16.3
CH4
(mg/l)
2.07
1.983
1.933
1.909
2.476
5.191
-
1.85
1.941
-
1.973
7.493
-
-
2.32
2.418
-
2.3
2.5
3.383
-
6.427
-
-
-
2.45
3.752
--
TOC
(mg/l)
1.13
1.04
0.89
2.68
_
0.46
0.9
0.75
0.61
0.76
-
5.51
-
3.22
7.74
-
3.13
1.9
1.86
-
5.67
-
-
-
1.7
1.96
-
Br-
(mg/l)
0.281
0.73
0.171
0.27
0.115
0.25
0.175
1.25
1.37
1.2
1.32
1.19
0.65
0.25
0.5
0.103
1.03
-
-
-
0.399
0.28
0.445
0.386
0.328
0.27
0.381
1.47
-
-
-
0.321
0.44
0.154
SC-lab
Gimhos/cm)
126
207
_
117
96
478
454
-
459
317
248
-
2490
-
-
-
322
415
-
318
149
186
-
2030
-
-
-
144
235
-
CaCO3
(mg/l)
11
20.4
31.4
19
13
5.8
7.6
22.2
15.2
21.2
16.2
20.6
12.4
18
66.4
55.6
517
-
-
-
61.2
91.2
96.4
61.8
16.8
19
15.8
-400
-
-
-
16.8
15
15.4
-------
Appendix 2b. Detected ions and compounds. May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
PW-7M
PW-7M
PW-7S
PW-7S
PW-8M
PW-9M
PW-9M(d)
Trip blank
Trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
Well
#
548
548
547
547
549
550
550
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Date
1 2/9/98
4/15/99
12/9/98
4/15/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
2/19/98
3/1/99
4/7/99
4/8/99
4/12/99
4/14/99
4/19/99
4/21/99
5/12/99
6/10/99
7/14/99
7/27/99
8/10/99
9/9/99
NH/
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
82-
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
cr
(mg/D
9
10
14
9
9
13
23
-
-
-
-
-
-
so42-
(mg/l)
18
14
20
18
36
53
53
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO3-&NO2-
(mg/l)
0.09
-
<0.05
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO3-
(mg/l)
0.04
-
0.02
-
-
0.62
0.63
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
NO2"
(mg/l)
-
-
-
-
-
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PO43-
(mg/l)
0.011
-
0.007
-
-
0.001
0.002
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ca2+
(mg/l)
10.2
8.87
11.3
7.94
28.4
19.5
19.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
Fe(total)
(mg/l)
0.243
0.208
1.05
1.33
0.107
0.078
0.069
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mg2*
(mg/l)
2.83
2.53
2.68
1.97
3.14
2.78
2.84
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mn2*
(mg/l)
0.223
0.171
0.239
0.236
0.031
0.043
0.045
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
K*
(mg/l)
2.21
1.83
2.71
2.14
11
1.54
1.56
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Na+
(mg/l)
11
9.84
10.2
8.9
13.1
12.1
12.3
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CH,
(mg/l)
4.396
-
7.139
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOC
(mg/l)
0.64
-
5.47
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Br-
(mg/l)
0.1
0.239
0.23
0.017
0.147
0.184
0.147
-
-
-
-
-
-
SC-lab
Oimhos/cm)
144
-
156
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CaCO3
(mg/l)
31
29.6
22
25
76.4
16.4
16.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Appendix 2c. Major detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs), May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
(DB blank)
(eq. blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
(trip blank)
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12
B95-12(d)
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
895-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
Well
#
407
407
407
407
407
407
407
407
407
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
Date
2/8/99
9/30/98
5/11/98
5/13/98
5/18/98
5/19/98
5/21/98
7/21/98
7/23/98
9/29/98
10/20/98
11/23/98
11/30/98
12/1/98
12/3/98
1 2/7/98
12/8/98
12/8/98
2/8/99
5/28/97
10/28/97
12/15/97
2/19/98
5/18/98
7/22/98
12/2/98
4/13/99
5/28/97
5/28/97
10/28/97
10/28/97
2/20/98
2/20/98
5/21/98
5/21/98
5/21/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
9/30/98
1 1 /23/9S
11/24/98
2/8/99
2/8/99
4/7/99
4/14/99
Pump
TYPE
DB
DB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
BL
peri
BL
peri
BL
DB
peri
BL
DB
peri
peri
voss
DB
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
peri
PCE
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U0.5
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
-
U2
U2
U2
2000
-
3100
4100
3700
4100
3200
3300
3900
3100
2800
3400
3100
1900
1900
2100
1400
1500
950
1400
TCE
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U0.5
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
-
U2
U2
U2
180
-
270
290
280
270
250
230
230
220
190
210
200
170
170
130
130
97
200
110
CIS-DCE
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U0.5
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
-
U2
U2
U2
U2
-
U2
U2
-
-
-
150
150
150
160
150
160
150
150
140
150
140
140
140
140
170
180
160
180
111-Tri
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U0.5
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
-
U2
U2
U2
11
-
U40
U100
U100
U 100
U100
U40
U50
U50
U50
U50
U50
U50
U40
U40
U25
U40
U20
U20
MTBE
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U0.5
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
3.3
-
3.2
3.7
U2
U2
-
U40
U100
U100
U100
U100
U40
U50
U50
U50
U50
U50
U50
U40
U40
U25
U40
U20
U20
Acetone
52
60
U10
U10
U10
U10
U 10
U10
U 10
U10
U10
U10
U 10
U10
U 10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
-
U10
U10
12
U10
U200
U500
U500
U500
U500
U200
U250
U250
U250
U250
U250
U250
U200
U200
U125
U200
U100
U100
Vinyl
Chloride
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U0.5
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
-
U2
U2
U2
U2
U40
U100
U100
U 100
U 100
U40
U50
U50
U50
U50
U50
U50
U40
U40
U25
U40
U20
U20
Comments
(split with p.480
78
-------
Appendix 2c. Major detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs), May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13(d)
B95-13(d)
B95-13(d)
B95-13(d)
B95-13(d)
B95-13-A
B95-13-B
B95-13-C
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
Well
#
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
409
Date
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
2/8/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
4/14/99
7/30/99
7/30/99
7/30/99
5/28/97
10/30/97
10/30/97
2/20/98
5/18/98
5/18/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
9/30/98
11/23/98
11/24/98
2/8/99
2/8/99
4/7/99
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
9/10/99
Pump
TYPE
BL
peri
peri
BL
BL
peri
BL
BL
peri
peri
BL
BL
BL
BL
DB
DB
peri
DB
DB
DB
perl
peri
peri
BL
peri
DB
DB
DB
peri
BL
peri
peri
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
DB
DB
PCE
1700
1685
1717
2010
2006
1877
2032
1738
1841
1783
1608
1702
1750
1674
1700
1400
1200
850
520
690
1600
1945
1963
2052
2010
290
590
590
920
-
1200
830
1000
890
1400
1200
2000
480
350
350
310
210
91
160
93
110
89
86
TCE
120
100
96
101
99
113
118
105
98
104
86
91
92
89
97
92
85
51
35
30
100
101
103
116
99
40
40
40
22
-
24
32
28
27
42
39
38
29
26
26
27
28
14
19
13
17
14
12
CIS-DCE
190
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
190
180
170
110
95
71
190
-
-
-
--
100
100
100
-
--
33
47
43
45
63
68
48
37
36
22
22
22
22
26
14
21
14
9.6
111-Tri
U50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
U20
U20
U20
U20
U10
U10
U40
-
-
-
--
U5
U20
U20
U2
-
U20
U20
U20
U10
U20
U20
U50
U20
U20
U4
U4
U4
U2
U3.34
U2
U5
U2
U2
MTBE
U50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
U20
U20
U20
U20
U10
U10
U40
--
-
-
-
U5
U20
U20
U2
-
U20
U20
U20
U10
U20
U20
U50
U20
U20
U4
U4
U4
U2
U3.34
U2
U5
U2
U2
Acetone
U250
--
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
U100
U100
U100
U100
U50
U50
U200
-
-
-
-
U25
U100
U100
U10
-
U100
U100
U100
U50
U100
U100
U250
U100
U100
U20
U20
U20
U10
U16.7
U10
U25
U10
U10
Vinyl
Chloride
U50
--
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
U20
U20
U20
U20
U10
U10
U40
-
-
--
-
U5
U20
U20
U2
-
U20
U20
U20
U10
U20
U20
U50
U20
U20
U4
U4
U4
U2
U3.34
U2
U5
U2
U2
Comments
(split with b.45f)
name= p.25f
name= p.48f
name= b.45t
name= b.97f
name= p.l +
name= b.l +
name= b.5r2
name= p.49r2
name= p.33r
21,methylene chloride
(duplicate with p.25f)
(duplicate with p.48f)
(duplicate with b.45f)
(duplicate with p.49r2)
79
-------
Appendix 2c. Major detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs), May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
B95-15
B95-15W)
B95-3
B95-3
B95-3
B95-3
B95-3
B95-3
B95-5
B95-5
B95-5
B95-5
B95-5
B95-6
B95-6
B95-6
B95-6
B95-6
B95-7
B95-7
B95-8
B95-8
B95-8
B95-8
B95-8
B95-9
B95-9
B95-9
B95-9
B95-9
895-9(d)
B95-9(d)
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
equip blank
EW-1
EW-1
EW-1
EW-2
EW-2
EW-2
EW-2dup
HM-1
Well
#
409
409
398
398
398
398
398
398
400
400
400
400
400
401
401
401
401
401
402
402
403
403
403
403
403
404
404
404
404
404
404
404
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
565
565
565
566
566
566
566
299
Date
9/10/99
9/30/98
5/29/97
6/17/97
12/16/97
5/12/98
12/3/98
4/20/99
6/2/97
12/17/97
5/12/98
12/2/98
4/21/99
6/16/97
12/17/97
5/12/98
12/2/98
4/21/99
12/17/97
1/12/98
6/16/97
12/16/97
5/12/98
1 2/7/98
4/22/99
5/29/97
12/16/97
5/12/98
12/3/98
4/22/99
12/16/97
5/12/98
2/19/98
4/15/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
7/30/99
8/13/99
9/10/99
3/1/99
7/16/99
9/10/99
3/1/99
7/16/99
9/10/99
3/1/99
5/29/97
Pump
TYPE
peri
DB
peri
BL
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
BL
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
BL
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
NA
NA
DB
NA
DB
DB
DB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
peri
PCE
82
1900
U2
U2
U2
U2
2.1
20
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
15
-
9.3
240
34
65
79
52
140
120
610
440
140
120
3.5
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
2500
880
820
10
520
520
11
670
TCE
9.3
U50
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
7.2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
2.1
-
U2
2.6
2.5
U2
3.6
2.1
3.8
2.6
U6.6
U10
3.5
2.9
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
160
59
41
U2
89
44
U2
66
CIS-DCE
7.9
46
-
-
U2
U2
U2
6
-
U2
U2
U2
U2
-
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
-
-
6.4
3
U2
U2
-
U2
U2
U6.6
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U100
75
54
U2
54
77
U2
-
111-Tri
U2
U50
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
--
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U6.6
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U100
U20
U20
U2
8.7
U10
U2
U2
MTBE
U2
U50
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2^
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
3.8
-
2.5
2.4
8.2
5.2
7
17
6.5
4.4
U6.6
U10
6.5
5.2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U100
U20
U20
U2
U6.67
U10
U2
U2
Acetone
U10
U250
U10
U 10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U 10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
-
U 10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U33.3
U50
U10
U10
U10
25
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U500
U100
U100
34
U 33.33
U50
44
U10
Vinyl
Chloride
U2
U50
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U6.6
U 10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U100
U20
U20
U2
U6.67
U 10
U2
U2
Comments
80
-------
Appendix 2c. Major detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs), May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
HM-1
lab blank
lab blank
lab blank
lab blank
lab blank
lab blank
MI-19
MI-20
MI-20
MI-21
MI-21
MI-22
MI-22
MI-23
MI-23
MI-25
MI-25
MI-27
MI-27
MI-32
MI-32
MI-32
MI-32
MI-63
MI-63
MW-16A
MW-16A
MW-16A
MW-16A
MW-16A
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B
MW-16B(d)
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
Well
#
299
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
31
31
33
33
35
35
37
37
40
40
42
42
46
46
46
46
203
203
233
233
233
233
233
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
344
344
344
344
Date
12/15/97
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/15/99
7/30/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/30/97
5/30/97
12/17/97
5/30/97
5/14/98
12/16/97
5/13/98
12/16/97
5/13/98
6/2/97
12/15/97
5/29/97
12/15/97
6/2/97
5/12/98
12/4/98
4/20/99
5/29/97
12/15/97
5/27/97
12/19/97
5/13/98
1 1 /30/98
4/13/99
5/27/97
6/11/97
12/18/97
5/11/98
11/30/98
4/13/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
4/13/99
5/27/97
6/12/97
12/15/97
5/11/98
Pump
TYPE
_peri
NA
DB
NA
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
perl
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
BL
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
peri
DB
DB
peri
peri
BL
peri
peri
PCE
500
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
3400
2400
340
180
85
13
U2
U2
1000
1100
700
550
2100
1700
71
-
39
59
64
320
510
360
310
310
280
400
330
260
210
100
320
260
560
930
1200
1200
TCE
120
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
160
130
61
68
18
4.7
U2
U2
79
65
38
41
130
120
U2
-
U2
U2
U2
11
12
11
11
12
15
19
16
10
8.5
8.4
9.7
15
42
51
110
110
CIS-DCE
70
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
-
-
U2
-
U2
57
U40
320
140
-
6.2
-
U2
-
44
19
29
-
170
-
-
U2
U2
U2
-
-
U10
U5
U10
8.7
11
8.8
5.2
4.2
U5
4.1
8.6
-
-
79
75
111-Tri
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U50
U40
U6.66
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
59
39
17
21
2.7
U28.6
U2
-
U2
U2
U2
3.3
U2
U10
U5
U10
7.2
U5
U4
U5
U4
U5
U4
U4
5.5
U2
22
U20
MTBE
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U50
U40
U6.66
U2
U2
U2
U2
3.2
U2
U20
U10
U10
U2
U28.6
2.7
-
13
4
2.8
U2
U2
U10
U5
U10
U4
U5
U4
U5
U4
U5
U4
U4
2.2
U2
U10
U20
Acetone
U50
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U 10
U10
U10
U250
U200
U33.3
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
1110
U100
U50
U50
U10
U143
U10
U10
U 10
U10
U10
U10
U50
U25
U50
U20
U25
U20
U25
U20
U25
U20
U20
U10
U10
U50
U100
Vinyl
Chloride
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U50
U40
U6.66
U2
25
4.5
U2
U2
U2
U20
U10
U10
4.1
U28.6
U2
--
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U10
U5
U10
U4
U5
U4
U5
U4
U5
U4
U4
U2
U2
U10
U20
Comments
81
-------
Appendix 2c. Major detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs), May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16C
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R
MW-16R-A
MW-16R-B
MW-16R-C
MW-16R-D
MW-16R
MW-16R-A
MW-16R-B
MW-16R-C
MW-16R-D
MW-27
MW-27
MW-27 (d)
MW-2A
MW-2B
MW-2B(d)
MW-2R
P-2, river
P-2,river
D-2, river
D-2, river
P-2, River
P2-RIVER
PW-10D
PW-10D
PW-10D
PW-10M
PW-10M
PW-10M
PW-11D
PW-11D
PW-11M
Well
#
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
235
235
235
310
210
210
311
385
385
385
385
385
385
552
552
552
551
551
551
554
554
553
Date
5/21/98
11/30/98
4/13/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/27/97
12/18/97
5/13/98
11/30/98
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/30/99
7/30/99
7/30/99
7/30/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
12/2/98
4/21/99
12/2/98
9/30/98
9/30/98
9/30/98
9/30/98
5/28/97
12/18/97
5/13/98
12/9/98
4/19/99
4/21/99
5/20/98
12/7/98
4/19/99
5/20/98
12/7/98
4/19/99
1 2/3/98
4/15/99
1 2/3/98
Pump
TYPE
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
PCE
1600
1100
1300
1000
880
880
860
510
330
390
300
470
330
320
160
210
78
110
180
110
260
270
310
340
630
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
26
-
-
-
-
-
U0.2
2200
6300
1800
130
140
66
1200
330
45
TCE
_
130
110
110
78
60
56
45
53
41
48
34
61
55
44
33
36
25
29
32
49
56
37
66
83
98
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
5.9
-
-
-
-
-
U0.2
80
U100
62
30
32
22
44
41
13
CIS-DCE
_
85
81
97
63
43
41
38
-
43
48
44
56
51
38
38
41
32
38
35
110
140
43
98
110
190
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
-
-
-
-
-
U0.2
U40
U100
45
130
110
82
U20
20
26
111-Tri
23
U20
22
U20
U20
U20
U20
U2
U10
U10
U10
U5
U3.34
U4
U5
U2
U2
U5
U4
U5
U4
U2
U5
U5
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
-
-
-
-
-
U0.2
U40
U100
U40
U2
U2
U2
U20
U20
U2
MTBE
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
3.9
U10
U10
U10
U5
U3.34
U4
U5
U2
U2
U5
U4
U5
U4
U2
U5
U5
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
--
-
-
--
-
U0.2
U40
U100
U40
U2
U2
U2
U20
U20
U2
Acetone
-
U100
U100
U100
U100
U100
U100
U100
11
U50
U50
U50
U25
U 16.67
U20
U25
U10
U 10
U25
U20
U25
U20
U10
U25
U25
U50
U10
U10
U10
U 10
U10
U10
U10
-
-
--
-
-
Ul
U200
U500
U200
U10
U10
U10
U100
U100
U10
Vinyl
Chloride
_
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U2
U10
U10
U10
U5
U3.34
U4
U5
U2
U2
U5
U4
U5
U4
U2
U5
U5
U 10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
-
-
-
-
-
U0.2
U40
U100
U40
U2
3.3
2.3
U20
U20
U2
Comments
82
-------
Appendix 2c. Major detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs), May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
PW-11M
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-12D
PW-12M
PW-12M
PW-12M
PW-12M
PW-12M
PW-12M
PW-12M
PW-12M
PW-12M
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12R
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-12S
PW-13D
PW-13D
PW-13D
PW-13D
PW-13D
PW-13D
PW-13D
PW-13D
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
Well
#
553
557
557
557
557
557
557
557
557
556
556
556
556
556
556
556
556
556
558
558
558
558
558
558
558
558
555
555
555
555
555
555
555
555
561
561
561
561
561
561
561
561
560
560
560
560
560
560
Date
4/15/99
5/15/98
11/25/98
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/15/98
11/25/98
4/7/99
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/15/98
11/25/98
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
5/14/98
11/25/98
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/24/98
11/24/98
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/23/98
1 1 /23/9S
11/23/98
2/8/99
2/8/99
4/7/99
Pump
TYPE
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
DB
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
PCE
8.6
550
700
550
660
510
480
430
380
610
700
440
530
630
490
190
63
U4
1200
870
530
260
330
280
46
53
8.7
9.7
U2
36
3.3
170
62
21
1000
1100
760
720
810
650
35
69
400
630
490
140
120
270
TCE
3.2
52
43
33
35
36
32
65
41
53
41
62
42
170
78
71
41
5.3
89
340
380
480
680
560
490
760
U2
2.4
U2
3.9
U2
U2
U2
U2
54
63
55
54
92
140
110
160
25
30
26
10
9.4
23
CIS-DCE
3.8
87
56
28
30
35
28
71
53
85
57
30
46
69
41
93
58
380
110
120
130
350
210
280
570
490
U2
4.1
U2
8.7
U2
U2
U2
U2
85
100
92
96
110
130
780
1800
40
43
39
12
13
25
111-Tri
U2
U10
U2
U10
U10
U10
U10
U5
U5
U10
U2
U10
27
U10
U10
U10
U2
U4
U20
U2
U10
U20
U10
U10
U10
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U20
U20
U20
U20
U10
U10
U40
U2
U10
U10
U2
U2
U4
MTBE
U2
U10
U2
U10
U10
U10
U10
U5
U5
U10
U2
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U2
U4
U20
U2
U10
U20
U10
U10
U10
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U20
U20
U20
U20
^ U10
U10
U40
U2
U10
U10
U2
U2
U4
Acetone
U10
U50
U10
U50
1)50
U50
U50
U25
U25
U50
U10
U10
U50
U50
U50
U50
U10
U20
U100
U10
U50
U100
U50
U50
U50
U50
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U100
U 100
U100
U100
U50
U50
U200
U10
U50
U50
U10
U10
U20
Vinyl
Chloride
U2
U 10
U2
U10
U 10
U10
U10
U5
U5
U10
U2
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U2
U4
U20
U2
U10
U20
U10
U10
U10
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
2
U20
U20
U20
U20
U10
U10
U40
U2
U10
U10
U2
U2
U4
Comments
2.7,carbon disulfide
83
-------
Appendix 2c. Major detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs), May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-13S
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14D
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14M(d)
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S
PW-14S(d)
PW-1D
PW-1D
PW-1D
Well
#
560
560
560
560
560
560
559
559
559
559
559
559
559
559
559
564
564
564
564
564
564
564
564
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
562
531
531
531
Date
4/8/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/23/98
1 1 /24/98
4/8/99
5/13/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/24/98
11/23/98
4/7/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/23/98
11/23/98
11/23/98
2/8/99
4/7/99
4/7/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
2/8/99
7/23/98
11/23/98
4/7/99
5/13/99
5/13/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
8/12/99
9/10/99
7/23/98
5/14/98
12/1/98
4/9/99
Pump
TYPE
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
PCE
240
320
170
110
90
120
93
94
70
78
120
88
86
68
41
2500
1900
2300
2800
2900
2700
2500
2700
1300
1400
1200
1200
760
1100
1400
1400
940
940
1100
1200
840
990
620
890
790
610
520
560
640
870
2600
2400
940
TCE
18
22
13
10
8.5
8.6
8.4
9.6
9.8
8.4
U20
9.9
10
6.6
3.3
180
150
220
200
240
210
190
150
no
92
93
96
92
110
110
130
87
85
87
91
76
82
61
73
69
58
41
33
31
75
220
160
80
CIS-DCE
25
40
20
15
12
9.1
29
25
24
27
31
28
26
15
6.1
110
130
120
150
170
140
130
110
210
190
200
190
160
190
250
300
200
200
200
180
95
120
82
130
120
99
61
47
41
91
130
110
65
111-Tri
U4
U10
U4
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U20
U2
U2
U2
U2
8.4
U40
U40
' U40
U40
U40
U40
U40
5.5
U40
U40
U20
12
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
12
U20
U20
U20
U20
8.1
U10
U10
U10
12
U40
U40
U40
MTBE
U4
U 10
U4
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U20
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U40
U40
U40
U40
U40
U40
U40
U2
U40
U40
U20
U10
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U2
U20
U20
U20
U20
U6.66
U10
U10
U10
U2
U40
U40
U40
Acetone
U20
U50
U20
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U100
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U200
U200
U200
U200
U200
U200
U200
U10
U200
U200
U100
U50
U100
U100
U100
U100
U100
U100
U100
U10
U100
U100
U 100
U100
U 33.33
U50
U50
U50
U10
U200
U200
U200
Vinyl
Chloride
U4
U10
U4
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U20
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U40
U40
U40
U40
U40
U40
U40
2.8
U40
U40
U20
U10
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U2
U20
U20
U20
U20
U6.66
U10
U10
U10
U2
U40
U40
U40
Comments
21,methylene chloride
25,Meth.Chl;76.Benzene;200,THF
84
-------
Appendix 2c. Major detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs), May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
PW-1S
PW-1S
PW-1S
PW-2D
PW-2D
PW-2D
PW-2M
PW-2M
PW-2M
PW-2R
PW-2R
PW-2R
PW-2R
PW-2R
PW-2S
PW-2S
PW-2S
PW-3D
PW-3D
PW-3S
PW-3S
PW-4D
PW-4D
PW-4M
PW-4M
PW-4M (d)
PW-5D
PW-5D
PW-5M
PW-5M
PW-5R
PW-5R
PW-5R
PW-5R
PW-6D
PW-6D
PW-6D
PW-6D(d)
PW-6M
PW-6M
PW-6M
PW-6R
PW-6R
PW-6R
PW-6R
PW-6S
PW-6S
PW-6S
Well
#
530
530
530
534
534
534
533
533
533
535
535
535
535
535
532
532
532
537
537
536
536
539
539
538
538
538
541
541
540
540
542
542
542
542
545
545
545
545
544
544
544
546
546
546
546
543
543
543
Date
5/14/98
12/1/98
4/9/99
5/18/98
12/4/98
4/14/99
5/20/98
12/4/98
4/14/99
5/20/98
12/4/98
5/13/99
6/10/99
9/10/99
5/18/98
12/4/98
4/14/99
1 2/3/98
4/14/99
12/3/98
4/14/99
12/7/98
4/22/99
12/7/98
4/22/99
12/7/98
12/7/98
4/19/99
1 2/8/98
4/19/99
12/8/98
5/13/99
6/10/99
9/10/99
5/21/98
12/10/98
4/21/99
5/21/98
5/21/98
12/10/98
4/21/99
12/10/98
5/13/99
6/10/99
9/10/99
5/21/98
12/10/98
4/21/99
Pump
TYPE
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
DB
DB
peri
peri
peri
PCE
3400
3000
1200
170
1700
1000
1100
1600
950
36
20
29
28
38
830
1400
530
U2
U2
2.1
2
38
U2
2.1
U2
U2
1500
770
1400
520
95
170
170
190
4900
610
3600
4800
3300
3600
2300
940
1200
1600
2000
1700
3100
4000
TCE
250
170
87
9.4
170
140
190
130
110
6.2
3.6
4.4
5.1
4
120
140
73
U2
U2
U2
U2
5.9
U2
U2
U2
U2
190
100
160
98
14
21
24
22
U100
U10
U100
U 100
1300
1300
390
43
62
64
47
1400
1600
2000
CIS-DCE
160
190
200
4.7
91
88
180
68
89
2.1
U2
U2
U2
U2
110
110
63
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
100
97
120
150
9.6
15
16
13
U100
U10
U100
U100
800
650
240
U20
30
U20
U40
1100
850
1400
111-Tri
U50
U40
U40
U2
20
U20
120
23
26
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
43
65
27
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U20
U20
57
21
4.5
6.5
7
5.8
U100
U10
U 100
U100
U66
U40
U50
U20
U20
U20
U40
U50
U40
U50
MTBE
U50
LU40
U40
3.8
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U20
U20
U20
U2
U2
U2
U2
4.2
6.1
U2
U2
U2
U20
U20
U20
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U100
U10
U100
U100
U66
U40
U50
U20
U20
U20
U40
U50
U40
U50
Acetone
U250
U200
U200
U10
U100
U100
U100
U100
U100
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U100
U100
U100
U10
U10
U10
U10
U 10
U 10
U10
U10
U10
U100
U100
U100
U50
28
U10
U10
U 10
U500
U50
U500
U500
U330
U200
U250
U100
U100
U100
U200
U250
U200
U250
Vinyl
Chloride
U50
U40
U40
U2
U20
U20
U20
U20
U20
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U20
U20
U20
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U20
U20
U20
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U100
U10
U100
U100
U66
U40
U50
U20
U20
U20
U40
U50
U40
U50
Comments
27 THF, 5.1 Carbon disulfide
15JHF
11, THF
2.9 Toluene
3.9,Toluene
2.1,Xylene;4.3,Toluene
3.9 Toluene
85
-------
Appendix 2c. Major detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs), May 1997 to October 1999, Milford, New Hampshire.
Name
PW-7M
PW-7M
PW-7S
PW-7S
PW-8M
PW-9M
PW-9M(d)
Trip blank
Trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
trip blank
Well
#
548
548
547
547
549
550
550
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Date
12/9/98
4/15/99
12/9/98
4/15/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
2/19/98
3/1/99
A/7/99
4/8/99
4/12/99
4/14/99
4/19/99
4/21/99
5/12/99
6/10/99
7/14/99
7/27/99
8/10/99
9/9/99
Pump
TYPE
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DB
DB
PCE
12
5.8
40
8.5
540
2.9
2.6
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
TCE
2.3
U2
2.5
U2
12
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
CIS-DCE
U2
U2
U2
U2
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
111-Tri
U2
U2
U2
U2
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
MTBE
U2
U2
U2
U2
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
Acetone
U10
U10
U10
U10
U50
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
Vinyl
Chloride
U2
U2
U2
U2
U10
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
L_ u2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
U2
Comments
86
-------
Appendix S.Comparison of concentrations of volatile-organic compounds (tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and c/s-1,2,-
dichloroethene (c/s-1,2DCE) from diffusion and peristaltic-pump samples at coincident sampled depth intervals
[All units in part per billion (ppb)]
Well
name
B95-13
B.95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
MW-16B
PW-13S
Well
number
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
409
409
409
409
409
409
321
559
Retrieval
date
05/21/98
07/23/98
07/23/98
11/23/98
02/08/99
04/14/99
06/10/99
05/18/98
07/23/98
11/23/98
02/08/99
04/07/99
06/10/99
07/16/99
05/13/99
Peristaltic samples
Pump
rate
(liter/
minute)
0.5
0.5
0.24
0.16
0.49
0.48
0.45
0.49
0.49
0.21
0.47
0.41
0.47
0.33
0.42
Pumped
volume
(liters)
52.0
14.0
31.9
12.3
31.9
54.0
21.6
30.4
53.9
12.4
62.0
45.5
19.3
28.4
15.5
PCE
3300
3400
2800
2100
1500
1400
1200
890
1200
350
310
91
93
210
78
TCE
230
210
190
130
97
110
85
27
39
26
27
14
13
8.5
8.4
cis-
1.2DCE
160
150
140
140
180
180
170
45
68
36
22
22
14
4.2
27
Diffusion samples
Deployment
time
(days)
90
63
63
54
77
7
28
87
66
63
77
58
28
36
35
PCE
3200
3100
3100
1900
1400
950
1400
1000
1400
480
350
210
110
260
120
TCE
250
220
220
170
130
200
92
28
42
29
26
28
17
10
ho
cis-
1,2DCE
150
150
150
140
170
160
180
43
63
37
22
22
21
5.2
31
-------
Appendix S.Comparison of concentrations of volatile-organic compounds (tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and c/s-1,2,-
dichloroethene (c/s-1,2DCE) from diffusion and peristaltic-pump samples at coincident sampled depth intervals
[All units in part per billion (ppb)]
Well
name
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-14S
PW-14M
PW-14M
Well
number
560
560
562
563
563
Retrieval
date
11/23/98
02/08/99
05/13/99
11/23/98
04/07/99
Peristaltic samples
Pump
rate
(liter/
minute)
0.16
0.45
0.43
0.17
Pumped
volume
(liters)
14.8
35.6
15.5
10.2
PCE
490
120
890
1200
760
TCE
26
9.4
73
93
92
cis-
1,2DCE
39
13
130
200
160
Diffusion samples
Deployment
time
(days)
123
77
14
123
77
PCE
630
140
790
1400
1100
TCE
30
10
69
92
110
cis-
1,2DCE
43
12
120
190
190
o>
00
'Concentration estimated at one half of detection level.
-------
Appendix 4.Comparison of concentrations of volatile-organic compounds (tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and c/s-1,2,-
dichloroethene (c/s-1,2DCE) from diffusion and bladder-pump samples at coincident sampled depth intervals
[All units in parts per billion (ppb)]
Well
name
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
Well
number
408
408
408
Retrieval
date
05/21/98
07/23/98
04/14/99
Bladder samples
Pump rate
(liter/
minute)
0.62
0.88
0.45
Pumped
volume
(liters)
62.0
84.5
87.0
PCE
4100
3900
1700
TCE
270
230
120
cis-
1,2DCE
160
150
190
Diffusion samples
Deployment
time
(days)
90
63
7
PCE
3200
3100
950
TCE
250
220
200
cis-
1,2DCE
150
150
160
00
(O
-------
Appendix 5. Relative percent difference (RPD) for individual well comparison of peristaltic samples and diffusion samples.
(PCE, Tetrachloroethylene; TCE, Trichloroethylene; CIS-1,2DCE, cis,l,2-dichloroethylene; negative values indicate that sample
concentrations from diffusion sampler were greater than those from the perstaltic pump; % means percent; ppb, parts per billion)
Reference
Number
Fig. 15a&b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Well
Name
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-13
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
B95-15
MW-16B
PW-13M
PW-13M
PW-13S
PW-14M
PW-14M
PW-14S
USGS
Number
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
409
409
409
409
409
409
321
560
560
559
563
563
562
Peristaltic
Sample
Date
5/21/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
1 1 /23/98
2/8/99
4/14/99
6/10/99
5/18/98
7/23/98
1 1 /23/9S
2/8/99
4/7/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
1 1 /23/9S
2/8/99
5/13/99
11/23/98
4/7/99
5/13/99
PCE
(ppb)
3300
2800
3400
2100
1500
1400
1200
890
1200
350
310
91
93
210
490
120
78
1200
760
890
TCE
(ppb)
230
190
210
130
97
110
85
27
39
26
27
14
13
8.5
26
9.4
8.4
93
92
73
CIS-1.2DCE
(ppb)
160
140
150
140
180
180
170
45
68
36
22
22
14
4.2
39
13
27
200
160
130
Diffusion
Sample
Date
5/21/98
7/23/98
7/23/98
11/23/98
2/8/99
4/7/99
6/10/99
5/18/98
7/23/98
11/23/98
2/8/99
4/7/99
6/10/99
7/16/99
1 1 /23/9S
2/8/99
5/13/99
1 1 /23/98
A/7/99
5/13/99
PCE
(ppb)
3200
3100
3100
1900
1400
950
1400
1000
1400
480
350
210
110
260
630
140
120
1400
1100
790
TCE
(ppb)
250
220
220
170
130
200
92
28
42
29
26
28
17
10
30
10
10
92
110
69
CIS-1.2DCE
(ppb)
150
150
150
140
170
160
180
43
63
37
22
22
21
5.2
43
12
31
190
190
120
RPD
PCE
3.08%
-10.17%
9.23%
10.00%
6.90%
38.30%
-15.38%
-11.64%
-15.38%
-31.33%
-12.12%
-79.07%
-16.75%
-21.28%
-25.00%
-15.38%
-42.42%
-15.38%
-36.56%
1 1 .90%
RPD
TCE
-8.33%
-14.63%
-4.65%
-26.67%
-29.07%
-58.06%
-7.91%
-3.64%
-7.41%
-10.91%
3.77%
-66.67%
-26.67%
-16.22%
-14.29%
-6.19%
-17.39%
1.08%
-17.82%
5.63%
RPD
CIS
6.45%
-6.90%
0.00%
0.00%
5.71%
11.76%
-5.71%
4.55%
7.63%
-2.74%
0.00%
0.00%
-40.00%
-21.28%
-9.76%
8.00%
-13.79%
5.13%
-17.14%
8.00%
to
o
-------
Appendix 6. Absolute relative percent difference (ARPD) information for positive detections in duplicate sample comparison.
f'U", undetected at given level; -, not analyzed; PCE, Tetrachloroethylene; TCE, Trichloroethylene;CIS-l,2DCE, cis-1.2-dichloroethane;
ppb, parts per billion; % means percent; peri, peristaltic; DB, diffusion bag; NA, sample outflow of extraction well port)
Well
Name
B95-9
B95-9
B95-12
B95-13
B95-15
EW-2
MW-16B
PW-4M
PW-6D
PW-9M
PW-14S
PW-14M
USGS
Number
404
404
407
408
409
566
321
538
545
550
562
563
Sample
Date
12/16/97
5/12/98
5/28/97
2/8/99
9/30/98
3/1/99
4/13/99
12/7/98
5/21/98
4/20/99
7/23/98
2/8/99
Pump
Type
pen
peri
peri
peri
DB
NA
peri
peri
peri
peri
peri
DB
PCE TCE CIS-1.2DCE
(ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
140
120
U2
1500
2000
10
280
2.1
4900
2.9
840
1200
3.8
2.6
U2
97
38
U2
15
U2
U TOO
U2
76
96
U2
U2
180
48
U2
8.7
U2
U 100
U2
95
190
DUPLICATE
PCE TCE CIS-1.2DCE
(ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
140
120
U2
1600
1900
11
260
U2
4800
2.6
870
1200
3.5
2.9
U2
100
U50
U2
15
U2
U 100
U2
75
91
U2
U2
190
46
U2
8.6
U2
U 100
U2
91
180
ARPD ARPD ARPD
PCE TCE CIS-1.2DCE
0.00%
0.00%
6.45%
5.13%
9.52%
7.41%
2.06%
10.91%
3.51%
0.00%
8.22%
10.91%
3.05%
.
0.00%
1 .32%
5.35%
5.41%
4.26%
1.16%
-
-
4.30%
5.41%
------- |