Long-Term Groundwater
Monitoring Optimization
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
Permeable Reactive Barrier and
Soil Remedy Areas
Clare, Michigan
-------
Solid and EPA 542-R-07-010
Emergency Response August 2007
(5203P) www.epa.gov
Long-Term
Supply
-------
Notice and Disclaimer
Work described herein was performed by GSI Environmental, Inc., Houston, TX, for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and Parsons, Inc., Denver CO, for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). It has undergone technical review by EPA and
USAGE. Work conducted by GSI Environmental, Inc., including preparation of this
report, was performed under EPA contract 68-W-03-038 to Environmental Management
Support, Inc., Silver Spring. Maryland. Work conducted by Parsons, Inc., was performed
under USAGE Purchase Order W9128F-05-P-0041. Reference to any trade names,
commercial products, process, or service does not constitute or imply endorsement,
recommendation for use, or favoring by the U. S. EPA, USAGE, or any other agency of
the United States Government. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein
do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency
thereof. For further information, contact
Kathy Yager Kirby Biggs
U.S. EPA/OSRTI EPA/OSRTI
617-918-8362 703-299-3438
yager.kathleen@epa.gov biggs.kirby@epa.gov.
A PDF version of this report is available for viewing or downloading from EPA's
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (Clu-In) website at http://clu-in.org/optimization
by clicking on "Application" and then "Long-Term Monitoring." PDF copies also are
available on the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable website at
http://www.frtr.gov/optimization/monitoring.htm.
-------
March 22, 2007
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Objectives 1
2.0 Site Background Information 2
2.1 PRBArea 2
2.2 Soil Remedy Area 3
3.0 Methods 4
3.1 Qualitative Evaluation 4
3.2 MAROS Statistical Methods 5
3.3 Data Input, Consolidation, and Site Assumptions 5
4.0 PRBArea Results 6
4.1 Qualitative Reviewforthe PRBArea 6
4.2 MAROS Statistical Reviewforthe PRBArea 10
4.3 Recommendations for the PRBArea 11
5.0 Soil Remedy Area Results 12
5.1 Qualitative Reviewforthe Soil Remedy Area 12
5.2 MAROS Statistical Review for the Soil Remedy Area 14
5.3 Recommendations for the Soil Remedy Area 15
6.0 Long-Term Monitoring Program Flexibility 16
7.0 References Cited 16
Tables
Table 1 Summary of Site-Wide Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan
Table 2 Aquifer Input Parameters
Table 3 Qualitative Evaluation of PRB Area Groundwater Monitoring Network
Table 4 Well Trend Summary Results For PRB Area: 1999-2006
Table 5 Well Redundancy Analysis Summary Results For PRB Area
Table 6 Final Recommended Groundwater Monitoring Network For PRB Area
Table 7 Qualitative Evaluation of Soil Remedy Area Groundwater Monitoring Network
Table 8 Well Trend Summary Results For Soil Remedy Area: 1999-2006
Table 9 Final Recommended Groundwater Monitoring Network For Soil Remedy Area
Figures
Figure 1 Groundwater Monitoring Locations: PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Figure 2a Approximate Well Screen Intervals for PRB Area
Figure 2b Approximate Well Screen Intervals for Soil Remedy Area
Figure 3 Qualitative Evaluation Results for PRB Area
Figure 4 Temporal Trend Results: Vinyl Chloride PRB Area
Figure 5 Well Sufficiency Vinyl Chloride PRB Area
Figure 6 Final Recommended Monitoring Network PRB Area
Figure 7 Qualitative Evaluation Results for Soil Remedy Area
Figure 8 Temporal Trend Results: TCE Soil Remedy Area
Figure 9 Final Recommended Monitoring Network Soil Remedy Area
Attachments
A: Geologic Cross-Sections
B: MAROS 2.2 Methodology
C: MAROS Reports
D: Electronic Database (on CD)
E: Selected November 2006 Data
F: Review Comments and Responses
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page i
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
|jg/L microgram(s) per liter
bgs below ground surface
c/s-1,2-DCE c/s-1,2-dichloroethene
cm/sec centimeters per second
COCs constituents of concern
CUO cleanup objective
DCE dichloroethene
DO dissolved oxygen
DPE dual-phase extraction
FS Feasibility Study
ft amsl feet above mean sea level
ft/day feet per day
GSI Groundwater Services, Inc.
LTM long-term monitoring
MAROS Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System software
MCES Modified Cost Effective Sampling
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
mg/L milligram(s) per liter
MNA monitored natural attenuation
MNO monitoring network optimization
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
Parsons Parsons Infrastructure and Technology Group, Inc.
PCE tetrachloroethene
PRB Permeable Reactive Barrier
Progressive Progressive Engineering & Construction, Inc.
Rl Remedial Investigation
ROD Record of Decision
TAL target analyte list
TCE trichloroethene
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VC vinyl chloride
VOCs volatile organic compounds
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
The following memorandum contains a review of the long-term groundwater monitoring
network for the Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) and Soil Remedy Areas at the Clare
Water Supply Superfund Site in Clare, Michigan. The review was a joint effort
performed by Groundwater Services, Inc. (GSI) of Houston, Texas and Parsons
Infrastructure and Technology Group, Inc. (Parsons) of Denver, Colorado. The current
monitoring network in each area was evaluated using a formal qualitative approach
(performed by Parsons) and statistical tools found in the Monitoring and Remediation
Optimization System software (MAROS) (performed by GSI). Following performance of
the qualitative and quantitative evaluations, Parsons and GSI collaborated to derive final
recommendations for the groundwater monitoring networks using the results of the
qualitative and quantitative evaluations.
Recommendations are made for groundwater sampling frequency and location based on
available data pertaining to current hydrogeologic and contaminant conditions. The
report evaluates the PRB Area and Soil Remedy Area monitoring networks using
analytical data obtained from Progressive Engineering & Construction, Inc.
(Progressive). PRB Area data extended from March 1994 to May 2006, although most
wells only had data extending from May 2005 to May 2006. Soil Remedy Area data
extended from June 1988 to May 2006, although most wells only had data for the period
from March 1999 to May 2006. Additional data for the PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
collected in November 2006 were received after the monitoring network optimization
(MNO) evaluation had been completed. These data were qualitatively reviewed to
assess any impacts on MNO recommendations, but were not formally incorporated into
the complete evaluation described in this report. The November 2006 sampling results
are provided in Attachment E.
1.0 Project Objectives
The goal of the monitoring network optimization (MNO) evaluation for the PRB and Soil
Remedy Areas is to design monitoring programs that are cost and time efficient as well
as protective of potential receptors. The monitoring program should provide sufficient
data to support site management decisions. The evaluation focuses on the following
objectives:
• Evaluate well locations and screened intervals within the context of the
hydrogeologic regime to determine if they meet site characterization and decision
support objectives. Identify possible data gaps.
• Evaluate overall plume stability qualitatively and through trend and moment
analysis.
• Evaluate individual well concentration trends over time for target constituents of
concern (COCs) both qualitatively and statistically.
• Develop sampling location and frequency recommendations based on both
qualitative and quantitative statistical analysis results.
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page 1
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
2.0 Site Background Information
Site background information was primarily obtained from 1) the 2005 Annual Monitoring
Report for the Clare Water Supply Superfund Site (Progressive, 2006), 2) personal
communications with Progressive personnel, and 3) the draft five-year review report
prepared in 2006 (USEPA, 2006). The five-year review report states that the site soils
create two different hydrologic regimes within the investigation area. The first hydraulic
regime consists of a perched water zone created by the low-permeability clay/till unit(s)
in the western half of the site (where the PRB and Soil Remedy Areas are located). The
second is created by aquifer sand underlying till. The aquifer is 20 to 40 feet thick in a
sand unit beginning at 30 to 40 feet below the ground surface. In the western,
industrialized portion of the site, 30 to 40 feet of clay and glacial till overlie the aquifer.
The inferred goals of the groundwater monitoring program at these two areas are to:
• Determine the combined impact of engineered remedial measures and natural
attenuation on concentrations of priority chlorinated constituents dissolved in
groundwater; and
• Ensure that groundwater contamination is not posing unacceptable risks to
potential receptors.
2.1 PRB Area
The PRB groundwater remedy consists of two PRBs in sequence that were installed to a
depth of 17 feet below ground surface (bgs) along the property boundary of the former
Mitchell source area in December 2004 (see Figure 1). The PRBs are designed to treat
shallow groundwater contaminated with chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
as it migrates through the treatment walls. They are reportedly filled with iron-encrusted
foundry sand.
The uppermost 8 to 23 feet of the soil column in the vicinity of the PRBs consists of sand
backfill material (filling a former contaminated soil excavation) having a hydraulic
conductivity of approximately 1 x 10"4 centimeters per second (cm/sec). The water table
is present within 5 feet of the ground surface. The sand is underlain and encased
laterally by low-permeability native material having a hydraulic conductivity of
approximately 1 x 10"7 to 5 x 10"7 cm/sec (see cross sections from Progressive in
Attachment A). The shallow groundwater flow direction is inferred to be south to
southeast, across the PRBs, based on hydraulic potential data. The groundwater flow
direction in the deep zone appears to range from north to east in the vicinity of the PRB
Area, based on potentiometric surface maps contained in the 2005 Annual Monitoring
Report (Progressive, 2006). A representative groundwater seepage velocity for the site
provided by Progressive is 0.27 foot per day (ft/day) based on data contained in a Secor
(November 2004) design report. According to Progressive, this seepage velocity is more
representative of the sand backfill than of the surrounding native materials, which have a
relatively low permeability.
According to Progressive, the recent and historical hydraulic data suggest a perched
water table in the vicinity of the PRB and Soil Remedy Areas. The remedial
investigation (Rl) and feasibility study (FS) concluded that lateral flow in the perched
water-bearing zone is possible in some areas, but is likely limited due to seasonal water
table changes, and vertical flow is possible through assumed (but not verified)
desiccation cracks in the glacial till.
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page 2
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
A drainage channel (the U.S. 10 Drainage Ditch) is located immediately south
(downgradient) of the PRB Area. The drainage ditch empties into a small wetlands area
which directly recharges the aquifer in the vicinity of water supply wells MW2 and MW5
(USEPA, 2006). According to Lithologic Cross Section A-A', transmitted by Progressive
and contained in Attachment A, this ditch is approximately 7 to 8 feet deep with a bottom
elevation of approximately 835 to 836 feet above mean sea level (ft amsl). However, a
review comment for the draft report submitted by Progressive indicates that the ditch is
only 2 to 3 feet deep with a bottom elevation of approximately 840 ft amsl. Assuming
that Progressive is referring to the same ditch, this discrepancy should be reviewed and
the actual depth of the ditch should be confirmed. Given the shallow depth to
groundwater in the perched zone, it is possible that some groundwater discharge to this
ditch occurs if it is indeed 7 to 8 feet deep. Progressive reports that the channel is only
seasonally wetted, with minimal flow, and even if PRB Area groundwater discharges to
the swale, sampling data indicate that it poses no unacceptable risk to the downstream
wetland area or to the water supply wells themselves. Therefore, Progressive reports
that there are no significant receptor impacts related to PRB Area groundwater. The
clean-up objective (CUO) for this area is the Michigan ground to surface water criterion
for VC (15 micrograms per liter [ug/L]), as opposed to the US Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 2 ug/L. However, if groundwater
in the vicinity of the PRB is found to be in communication with the deeper aquifer used
for municipal water supplies, the MCL would apply.
2.2 So/7 Remedy Area
Soil from the former Mitchell and ExCello properties was placed on the existing land
surface beneath an engineered cap within the former ExCello property. A slurry wall
was installed around the cap, and a dual-phase extraction (DPE) system was installed to
treat vapor and groundwater removed from the contained area. The soil remedy was
constructed in 1999, and the DPE system began operating in April 1999. The DPE
system continues to operate on a cyclic basis, with treated water discharged to the local
wastewater treatment plant.
The area on which the excavated soils were stockpiled was not excavated, but did
contain soils with high concentrations of contaminants to depths up to about 15 to 28
feet bgs. No liner exists beneath the emplaced soils. The cap overlying the emplaced
soils (from surface downward) consists of 1) vegetative cover, 2) a geonet underlain by a
minimum 2-foot-thick soil cover, and 3) a low-density polyethylene 40-mil membrane
liner. The native soils at the original land surface consist of silty sand underlain by low
permeability clay and then low permeability till at varying depths. Geologic cross-
sections created by Secor in 2005 and transmitted by Progressive are contained in
Attachment A. The DPE wells are 30 feet deep and extend to beneath the silty
sand/clay interface. The water table in the shallow wells installed north of the soil
remedy cell (DMW-1S, -2S, and -3S) in May and November 2005 ranged from
approximately 8 to 13 feet bgs, a few feet below the bottom of the emplaced soils and
near the top of the native clay and glacial till.
The slurry wall surrounds the entire cap and reportedly varies in depth from about 14 to
22 feet bgs (deeper to the north); it extends a minimum of two feet beneath the clay/till
interface. The permeability of the slurry wall (per the design) was to be less than 1x10"7
cm/sec. Per the Rl report the average hydraulic conductivities are as follows: till 10"7
cm/sec, clay 10"7 cm/sec, silty sand 10"3 cm/sec, and clayey sand 10"5 cm/sec. The
cap/slurry wall does not contain all of the area of soil impacts originally defined at Ex-
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page 3
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
Cello; the area north of the cap close to US10 could not be excavated due to
utilities/sewers and right of way issues - some impacts remained in place near DMW-
1S, 2S, and 3S. Also, one of the DPE wells (EW-13) is located outside the slurry wall to
the south, potentially due to the presence of impacted soils that were left in place,
although the reason is not known with certainty. According to Progressive, there are no
potential receptors for the Soil Remedy Area groundwater.
The groundwater seepage velocity outside of the soil treatment cell, obtained from
Progressive, is 2.9 x 10"5 foot per day (0.01 foot per year). This velocity is based on the
calculated seepage velocity for the vicinity of groundwater extraction well PRP-1 using a
hydraulic conductivity of 2.67 x 10"7 cm/sec reported in the Rl report (Dames & Moore,
1990). Based on the author's professional judgment and experience, this velocity is
likely biased low, and the actual average seepage velocity at the site is likely
substantially higher.
3.0 Methods
Evaluation of the groundwater monitoring networks in the vicinity of the PRB and Soil
Remedy Areas consisted of both qualitative evaluation of site analytical data and
hydrogeologic conditions and a quantitative, statistical evaluation of site analytical data.
These two methods were combined to recommend a final groundwater monitoring
strategy to support site monitoring objectives.
3.1 Qualitative Evaluation
Multiple factors were considered in developing recommendations for continuation or
cessation of groundwater monitoring at each well. In some cases, a recommendation
was made to continue monitoring a particular well, but at a reduced frequency. A
recommendation to discontinue groundwater quality monitoring at a particular well based
on the information reviewed does not necessarily constitute a recommendation to
physically abandon the well. A change in site conditions might warrant resumption of
monitoring at some time in the future at wells that are not currently recommended for
continued sampling. In general, continuation of water level measurements in all site
wells to facilitate groundwater flow direction and hydraulic gradient evaluation is
recommended. Typical factors considered in developing recommendations to retain a
well in, or remove a well from, a long-term monitoring (LTM) program are summarized in
the table below.
REASONS FOR RETAINING A WELL IN
MONITORING NETWORK
Well is needed to further characterize the site
or monitor changes in contaminant
concentrations through time
Well is important for defining the lateral or
vertical extent of contaminants
Well is needed to monitor water quality at a
compliance or receptor exposure point (e.g.,
water supply well)
Well is important for defining background
water quality
REASONS FOR REMOVING A WELL FROM
MONITORING NETWORK
Well provides spatially redundant information with
a neighboring well (e.g., same constituents,
and/or short distance between wells)
Well has been dry for more than two years3'
Contaminant concentrations are consistently
below laboratory detection limits or cleanup goals
Well is completed in same water-bearing zone as
nearby well(s)
a/ Periodic water-level monitoring should be performed in dry wells to confirm that the upper boundary of the
saturated zone remains below the well screen. If the well becomes re-wetted, then its inclusion in
the monitoring program should be evaluated.
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
Page 4
-------
March 22, 2007
Once the decision has been made to retain a well in the network, data are reviewed to
determine a sampling frequency supportive of site monitoring objectives. Typical
factors considered in developing recommendations for monitoring frequency are
summarized below.
REASONS FOR INCREASING
SAMPLING FREQUENCY
Groundwater velocity is high
Change in contaminant concentration would
significantly alter a decision or course of action
Well is necessary to monitor source area or
operating remedial system
Cannot predict if concentrations will change
significantly overtime, or recent significant
increasing trend in contaminant concentrations
at a monitoring location resulting in
concentrations approaching or exceeding a
cleanup goal, possibly indicating plume
expansion
REASONS FOR DECREASING
SAMPLING FREQUENCY
Groundwater velocity is low
Change in contaminant concentration would
not significantly alter a decision or course of
action
Well is distal from source area and remedial
system
Concentrations are not expected to change
significantly overtime, or contaminant levels
have been below groundwater cleanup
objectives for some prescribed period of time
3.2
MAROS Statistical Methods
Statistical methods in the MAROS 2.2 software were used along with the qualitative
evaluation of the network to evaluate concentration trends, concentration stability, and
spatial uncertainty in the PRB and Soil Remedy Areas. MAROS is a collection of tools in
one software package that is used in an explanatory, non-linear but linked fashion to
statistically evaluate groundwater monitoring programs. The software includes individual
well trend and plume stability analysis tools, spatial statistics, and empirical relationships
to assist the user in improving a groundwater monitoring network system. Results
generated from the software tool were used to develop lines of evidence, which, in
combination with results of the qualitative analysis, were used to recommend an
optimized monitoring network for the PRB and Soil Remedy Areas. A description of
each tool used in the MAROS software is provided as Attachment B. For a detailed
description of the structure of the software and further utilities, refer to the MAROS 2.2
Manual (AFCEE, 2003; http://www.gsi-net.com/software/maros/Maros.htm) and Aziz et
al., 2003.
3.3 Data Input, Consolidation, and Site Assumptions
Data for the PRB and Soil Remedy Areas were supplied by Progressive, supplemented
with information from historic site reports. Chemical analytical data were organized by
Progressive in a database, from which summary statistics were calculated. It should be
noted that the dataset transmitted by Progressive was not complete in that not all
historical analytical data collected for site wells were included. A complete set of
historical analytical results was not available to Progressive when they assumed
responsibility for site monitoring. Specifically, data for VC and tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
Page 5
-------
March 22, 2007
collected prior to May 2005 were not included for most wells. This evaluation assumed
that the missing data were generally non-detect; however, this should be confirmed to
the extent practical and feasible before final changes to the LTM program are made.
Wells and sampling frequencies in the current groundwater monitoring program are
shown in Table 1. Each of the wells listed in Table 1 was considered in the qualitative
evaluation. Data for 18 wells at the PRB Area (all wells listed in Table 1 except SW-11)
and 9 wells at the Soil Remedy Area (all wells listed in Table 1 except EW-series wells)
were used in the quantitative (MAROS) analysis.
The monitoring wells in each area are grouped into shallow, intermediate, and deep
categories based on their screen intervals in the underlying aquifer. Screened intervals
for wells at the PRB and Soil Remedy Areas are illustrated on Figures 2 and 3,
respectively. All but four of the wells at the PRB area are screened in the shallow zone
near the water table, with the remaining wells assigned to the intermediate (1 well) and
deep (3 wells) zones. In the Soil Remedy Area, the monitoring wells are primarily
shallow (4 wells) or deep (4 wells), while the dual-phase extraction wells are classified
as intermediate-depth. For both the PRB and Soil Remedy Areas shallow and
intermediate groundwater zones were considered together as one two-dimensional slice
for the quantitative evaluation (MAROS). The deep zone was considered separate from
the shallow/intermediate zone. For the qualitative evaluation, the zones were viewed as
largely independent.
A list of aquifer physical parameters assumed for the analysis is shown in Table 2. Two
screening levels were identified for concentrations of VC in groundwater at the PRB
Area. The draft 5-year review report for the Clare Superfund Site prepared by the
USEPA (2006) states that The goal of the PRB installation "was to degrade Vinyl
Chloride within the groundwater to levels below the Michigan Part 201 Ground
Water/Surface Water Interface (GSI) standards or below 15 pg/l before it discharged into
the drainage ditch or otherwise migrates off the former Mitchell facility property and
enters the water supply aquifer." Therefore, a CUO for VC of 0.015 milligrams per liter
(mg/L) was assumed, while the USEPA MCL for VC of 0.002 mg/L was used as a
general screening level for water quality in the aquifer. The USEPA MCL for
trichloroethene (TCE) of 0.005 mg/L was used as a general screening level for water
quality in the Soil Remedy Area, where TCE is the primary COC. Groundwater seepage
velocities obtained from Progressive and discussed in Section 2.0 were used.
Groundwater flow directions were inferred from potentiometric surface elevation data
contained in the 2005 annual monitoring report (Progressive, 2006).
4.0 PRB Area Results
The qualitative and quantitative evaluation results are discussed in the following
subsections.
4.1 Qualitative Review for the PRB Area
• Details of the qualitative evaluation are shown on Figure 4 and Table 3. Wells
recommended to be retained in the monitoring program were those that best
defined the magnitude and extent of the plume and indicated the VOC removal
effectiveness of the PRBs.
• Most of the monitoring wells present at the PRB Area were sampled quarterly
from May 2005 to May 2006 (total of five events). After May 2006, the sampling
frequency for these wells was reduced to semiannual, with the next event
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page 6
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
occurring in November 2006. These wells include 300A and MW-301 through
MW-313. Wells 220, 300B, and 300C have been sampled semiannually and were
not sampled quarterly from May 2006 to May 2006.
• A total of five wells were recommended for exclusion from the monitoring program
because the qualitative evaluation determined that additional sampling would not
provide useful information. A reduction in the sampling frequency was
recommended for an additional two wells (MW-312 and MW-313). The rationale
for the sampling frequency reductions is provided on a well-specific basis in Table
3.
• In general, a semiannual sampling frequency for most wells is recommended
because 1) at least six monitoring events have been performed at each well as of
November 2006, including five quarterly sampling events for the most recently
installed wells (MW-301 through MW-313), providing a baseline to assess
temporal trends and observe any seasonal variations in concentrations; 2)
increasing concentration trends were not observed for most wells; 3) reducing
sampling frequency would not endanger potential receptors based on available
information; and 4) semiannual monitoring will still provide sufficient data to
assess the effectiveness of the PRBs and determine temporal trends qualitatively
and/or statistically.
• The available data indicate a high degree of vertical variation in contaminant
concentrations over short distances at some locations, even within what is
identified as sand backfill material on Cross-Sections A-A' and B-B' provided by
Progressive (see Attachment A). For example, total combined concentrations of
TCE+c/s-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE)+VC at vertical profiling borehole VAS-301
(Figure 3) varied from 2 ug/L at 8 to 10.5 feet bgs to 2,040 ug/L at 10.5 to 13 feet
bgs, a total vertical distance of only five feet. Similarly, VC concentrations at
VAS-302 decreased by an order of magnitude from 870 ug/L from 7.5 to 10 feet
bgs to 90 ug/L from 10 to 12.5 feet bgs. It appears that the vertical profiling data
were used to select well screen intervals. However, the groundwater quality data
obtained from the subsequently-installed wells at the same location sometimes
vary significantly in magnitude from the vertical profiling data. For example, the
VC concentration in MW-302 in May 2005 was 99 ug/L, compared to vertical
profiling concentrations in the same depth interval of 1,010 to 1,700 ug/L in VAS-
301 (January 2005). Therefore, the wells may not always be accurate indicators
of maximum VOC concentrations present in the shallow aquifer. The only way to
achieve better resolution would be to have multiple short, discrete screens at
various depths at a given location.
• The target analyte list (TAL) for the PRB area includes VOCs (SW8260B) and
selected field parameters (pH, conductivity, temperature, turbidity, dissolved
oxygen [DO], oxidation-reduction potential [ORP], and ferrous iron). In addition,
samples from six wells are analyzed for Michigan 10 metals. Wth the exception
of Michigan 10 metals and ferrous iron, this TAL is reasonably optimized.
However, the following recommendations are offered:
o Discuss optimizing the target VOC list to a short-list of key contaminants of
concern (e.g., chlorinated ethenes) with the analytical laboratory. Potential
advantages include lower laboratory analytical costs and lower data
management/validation/reporting costs. However, all constituents targeted for
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page 7
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
analysis should be entered into the site database for each sampling event.
Data gaps in the current database create uncertainty in the evaluation of lower
priority constituents.
o Continued analysis for ferrous iron during every sampling event is not
necessary. Groundwater from wells MW-301 through MW-313 was analyzed
for ferrous iron three times in 2005. Ferrous iron concentrations provide an
indication of whether iron-reducing conditions are present, which facilitates an
evaluation of whether certain chlorinated VOCs can be readily degraded.
However, once ferrous iron conditions are established, the sampling
frequency can be reduced substantially to at least biennial (every other year)
to allow periodic remedy evaluations.
o Delete Michigan 10 metals analysis based on the August 2005 metals data.
There was only one very slight exceedance of an MCL (arsenic of 0.011 mg/L
at MW-311 compared to MCL of 0.01 mg/L).
• In general, hydraulic monitoring for all wells located within the area of interest and
screened within the depth zones of interest is recommended to maximize the
accuracy of potentiometric surface maps. This recommendation is based on the
observation that measurement of water levels in monitoring wells is generally
relatively fast and inexpensive relative to water quality monitoring, and provides
very important site characterization information. However, if multiple wells
screened at similar depths are clustered in a small area and have similar
groundwater elevations, one or more could be considered for removal from the
hydraulic monitoring program unless more detailed delineation of local
groundwater flow patterns is desired. At least two years of quarterly hydraulic
monitoring is recommended to determine seasonal impacts on the potentiometric
surface in the vicinity of the PRB Area. After that, semiannual hydraulic
monitoring during relatively wet and dry times (e.g., spring and fall, concurrent
with the groundwater sampling events) should be sufficient unless the quarterly
monitoring results indicate significant seasonal variability that needs to be
monitored more frequently. Hydraulic monitoring of all wells at the PRB area is
recommended.
• The following potential data gaps were noted during performance of the
qualitative evaluation for the PRB Area. They should be reviewed with the
objective of verifying whether or not the current level of plume definition is
acceptable in terms of 1) risks posed to potential receptors and 2) estimating the
time and cost to achieve CUOs in groundwater.
o The downgradient extent of the VOC plume is not well defined. VC
concentrations in the most downgradient wells in May 2006 ranged up to 58
ug/L (well MW-308); in November 2006 the VC concentration in this well had
decreased to 20 ug/L. VC concentrations that exceed the cleanup goal
appear to be bypassing the PRBs in the shallow zone, as indicated by VC
concentrations detected at MW-310 (21 to 27 ug/L in May and November
2006). There are no wells installed that could be used to define the
downgradient extent of the contamination detected at MW-310 based on
inferred groundwater flow directions for the shallow zone. A surface water
drainage channel borders the site on the south side. Given the shallow depth
to the water table at the site (within approximately 2 feet of the ground surface
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page 8
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
at MW-308) and the assumed depth of the adjacent drainage channel
(approximately 7-8 feet based on Lithologic Cross Section A-A' in Attachment
A), it appears likely that some discharge of contaminated groundwater to the
surface water drainage occurs. However, information obtained from
Progressive indicates that surface water and other sampling has indicated that
this potential exposure pathway is not of concern (Personal communication
from Bridget Morello, 23 October 2006).
o Appropriate sampling should continue to be performed to confirm that surface
water is not an exposure/migration pathway of concern that will result in
unacceptable levels of risk to human or ecological receptors.
An aerial photograph of the site obtained from the USEPA indicates that an
areally extensive, undeveloped, partially forested area is located on the
downgradient (south) side of the drainage channel. Any contaminants that
underflow the drainage channel would migrate beneath this area. The
boundary of the Clare Water Supply Superfund Site is located approximately
400 feet south of the PRBs. The stakeholders should verify that the current
level of plume definition is acceptable in terms of risks posed to potential
receptors.
o Intermediate-depth well 300B contained 200 ug/L of VC in May 2006 and 140
ug/L in November 2006. This is the only intermediate-depth well at the site
and is screened from approximately 3 to 13 feet below the bottom of the
PRBs. Therefore, the detected contamination is likely not treated by the
PRBs. The areal extent and magnitude of contamination in the intermediate
depth zone is not defined. Similarly, groundwater quality in the deep zone is
not well defined, given that there are only three wells screened in this zone at
the site, one of which is cross-gradient of the plume (well 220) and one which
is south of the drainage channel (MW-312). Therefore, the vertical extent of
groundwater contamination is not well delineated. There are no deep wells
installed at the PRB Area downgradient of 300C, which has had recent
exceedances of the CUO for VC. In addition, well 300C may be screened in a
more permeable sand aquifer underlying the till based on geologic information
presented in Section 2.0. As stated above, the stakeholders should verify that
the current level of plume definition is acceptable in terms of risks posed to
potential receptors and that sufficient data are available to properly estimate
the time and cost required to achieve CUOs and site closure.
o Although monitored natural attenuation (MNA) is not part of the remedy
specified in the Record of Decision (ROD; USEPA, 1992), the degree to which
natural attenuation processes are reducing dissolved contaminant
concentrations at the PRB Area is of interest because VC concentrations
exceeding CUOs are migrating downgradient from the PRBs, and the PRBs
are not deep enough to treat all of the CUO exceedances (i.e., at well 300B).
Therefore, it is desirable to determine the effectiveness of MNA at treating the
residual contamination in order to assess the time and cost required to
achieve CUOs and whether they can be achieved within a reasonable
timeframe. Some important natural attenuation indicator parameters that can
provide insight into the ability of the groundwater system to degrade the COCs
are already measured (i.e., DO and ORP). It should be noted however, that
the biogeochemical nature of the shallow groundwater environment
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page 9
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
immediately downgradient of the PRBs is impacted by the PRBs, and may not
be representative of the groundwater environment farther downgradient. The
Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents
in Ground Water (EPA/600/R-98/128, 1998) provides guidance on evaluating
the site-specific effectiveness of MNA for chlorinated VOCs.
4.2 MAROS Statistical Review for the PRB Area
• The MAROS COC Assessment ranked VC as the priority constituent for the PRB
area. VC was, therefore, chosen as the target monitoring constituent for the
MAROS evaluation. Qualitative consideration was given to cis-1,2-DCE and the
less frequent detections of TCE and PCE.
• Individual well trend analyses for VC were determined in MAROS using analytical
data collected between 1999 and 2006. Results are illustrated in Table 4 and
Figure 5. The majority of wells have a relatively short monitoring record of
quarterly samples between May 2005 and May 2006. Among the 12 wells
recently installed in the shallow zone, roughly half show a stable concentration
trend. One well, MW-306, shows a decreasing trend, while the others show
variation in VC concentrations over the recent time frame. Older wells 300-A,
300-B and 300-C show increasing concentration trends.
• The total dissolved mass estimate (zeroth moment) for VC showed a
"Decreasing" trend between 1999 and 2006 for the shallow groundwater zone.
Recent estimates of total dissolved mass in the shallow zone range between 0.3
kilograms (Kg) in 2005 dropping to 0.2 Kg in 2006. First moments (center of
mass) in the PRB area are very stable over the 2005 to 2006 time-frame, as mass
stays centered on higher concentration wells near 300A. However, this time-
frame is very short. Moments should be reevaluated after a longer data set has
been collected (4 years of data). Moments for the deep zone could not be
evaluated due to the small number of monitoring locations.
• Spatial analysis of the VC plume using Delaunay triangulation and slope factor
calculations indicate that the interior of the plume is well characterized by the
existing well network and no new wells are recommended inside the network.
However, a qualitative evaluation of the plume shows that the downgradient area
to the south is not delineated to the CUO. Redundancy analysis indicates that
locations MW-301, MW-304 and MW-305 may be removed from the network
without loss of information. The results of the spatial analysis were considered in
a final qualitative review, and wells MW-304 and MW-305 were retained in the
program at a reduced sample frequency.
• Results of the MAROS well sampling frequency tool (the Modified Cost Effective
Sampling [MCES] method) indicate that sampling frequency for the majority of
wells in the PRB area can maintained at semiannual. Results of the MCES are
shown in Table 5. Most of the monitoring well network was sampled quarterly
from May 2005 to May 2006; since then, the sampling frequency has been
decreased to semiannual.
Based on current trends, the MCES results for the majority of wells indicate that
Annual sampling would be adequate to monitor changes in the plume. Wells
300A and 300B were recommended for Quarterly sampling based on a recent
increasing concentration trend; however, due to the length of the monitoring
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page 10
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
record and the location of these wells, a semiannual monitoring frequency is
recommended after the qualitative evaluation. A Quarterly result was also
returned for well MW-305, based on an order of magnitude concentration increase
between November 2005 and March 2006. The increase may be a transient
phenomenon, but after the qualitative evaluation, the well is recommended for
retention in the monitoring program at a semiannual frequency.
Final recommendations for sampling frequency were determined after a review of
both qualitative and quantitative information.
4.3 Recommendations for the PRB Area
Recommendations for the PRB Area are summarized in Table 6 and described below.
• Continued sampling of 15 monitoring wells at the PRB Area is recommended.
Continuation of a semiannual monitoring frequency for most wells is deemed
appropriate assuming that future monitoring results do not indicate increasing
trends that should be monitored more closely. Continued sampling of two lower-
priority wells (MW-313 and MW-312) at an annual frequency is recommended.
MW-313 is located cross-gradient of the VOC plume and MW-312 is screened in
a relatively deep interval.
• Exclusion of four wells from the monitoring program at the PRB Area is
recommended for the reasons identified in Tables 3 and 6. In general, these
wells are not providing data of sufficient usefulness to justify continued sampling.
• The potential data gaps identified in Section 4.1 should be carefully considered,
and additional sampling/characterization should be performed if appropriate to
ensure that 1) the plume is adequately characterized to determine risks to
potential receptors, 2) potential receptors are not being impacted by site-related
contamination to an unacceptable degree, and 3) the appropriate data are
collected to evaluate the effectiveness of MNA and properly estimate the time and
cost required to achieve CUOs. Detailed site characterization information for the
PRB area is not currently available in site documents provided to the authors.
The lack of clarity in determining the depth of the drainage ditch near the PRB is
indicative of challenges in information management associated with this area of
concern. The majority of wells in the PRB area were drilled after the RODs were
issued (1990, 1992, and 1997) and current information on the specific source of
contamination and area hydrogeology are not included in these documents. The
recommendation for the PRB area includes development of a Site Conceptual
Model document to guide management decisions for this area of concern.
• Development of a comprehensive site-wide database should continue. Current
and future analytical results should be available from laboratories in electronic
data deliverable (EDO) format, which should simplify the validation and
importation process. Results of historical analyses should be added to the
database where possible, particularly when these data are used to support
management decisions. The site-wide database should be made available to all
stakeholders.
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page 11
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
5.0 Soil Remedy Area Results
5.1 Qualitative Review for the Soil Remedy Area
• Details of the qualitative evaluation for the Soil Remedy Area are summarized in
Table 7 and depicted on Figure 7. All wells that are part of the current monitoring
program for this site are recommended for retention. However, a reduction in the
sampling frequency is recommended for at least seven of the nine monitoring
wells listed in Table 7. In general, the frequency reductions were recommended
because 1) existing monitoring wells have been sampled at least 16 times over a
period of at least 7 years, and, with few exceptions, increasing trends are not
evident (based on statistical trend analysis results through May 2006); 2) the
reported low groundwater flow velocity and presence of a slurry wall surrounding
the soil remedy cell should prevent rapid changes in dissolved contaminant
concentrations and preclude the need for more frequent monitoring; 3) operation
of the DPE system within/beneath the soil remedy cell is apparently removing
VOC mass and reducing VOC concentrations in the vadose and saturated zones
over time; and 4) available information indicates that there are no nearby
receptors. Continued semi-annual monitoring of two wells DMW-3S and DMW-
3D is recommended due the magnitude of recent COC detections. Continuation
of this frequency is contingent on future analytical results.
• The TAL for the Soil Remedy Area includes VOCs (SW8260B) and selected field
parameters (pH, conductivity, temperature, turbidity, DO, and ORP). This TAL is
reasonably optimized. However, discussion with the analytical laboratory
regarding optimization of the target VOC list to a short-list of key COCs (e.g.,
chlorinated ethenes) is recommended. Potential advantages include lower
laboratory analytical costs and lower data management/validation/reporting costs.
• The hydraulic monitoring recommendations made for the PRB Area (Section 4.1)
are also applicable to the Soil Remedy Area.
• The following potential data gaps were noted during performance of the MNO
evaluation for the Soil Remedy Area. They should be reviewed with the objective
of verifying whether or not the current level of plume definition is acceptable in
terms of 1) risks posed to potential receptors and 2) estimating the time and cost
to achieve CUOs in groundwater.
o The downgradient extent of the VOC plume in the shallow zone is not well
defined. The TCE concentration measured in well DMW-3S in May 2006 was
23 ug/L compared to a CUO of 5 ug/L, and there are no shallow wells installed
farther downgradient. The DO and ORP values measured at this well in
November 2005 (8.8 mg/L and 94 millivolts, respectively) indicate that the
shallow saturated zone is aerobic and oxidizing in this area, and the TCE will
not readily degrade. This observation is supported by the relative lack of
reductive dechlorination daughter products at DMW-3S (i.e., DCE and VC).
However, information obtained from Progressive indicates that there are no
receptors in the vicinity of the Soil Remedy Area (Personal communication
from Bridget Morello, 26 October 2006). The northern boundary of the Clare
Water Supply Superfund Site appears to be located approximately 200 feet
north of the Soil Remedy Area, and institutional controls that preclude
exposure to groundwater may not be in place north of this boundary. The
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page 12
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
stakeholders should verify that the current level of plume definition is
acceptable in terms of characterizing risks posed to potential receptors.
o The intermediate zone is the first water-bearing zone below the bottom of the
slurry wall. There is only one well screened in this zone (215), and it is
located approximately 165 feet north of the soil remedy cell. Therefore, the
existing monitoring network would likely not detect contaminant migration from
beneath the soil cell in the intermediate zone. Installation of three
intermediate-zone wells along the northern (presumed downgradient) edge of
the soil cell (at or near shallow wells DMW-1S, -2S, and -3S, Figure 7) should
be considered. The intermediate-zone well control in this area appears to be
sparse, and inferred groundwater flow directions in the intermediate zone are
therefore somewhat speculative. Installation of new wells in this zone would
help establish the groundwater flow direction in the intermediate zone (i.e., via
triangulation between well 215 and the new wells). If the groundwater flow
direction in the intermediate zone is actually more directly eastward as
suggested by a more recent potentiometric surface map transmitted by
Progressive (that was contoured without using anomalous data from well
300B), then consideration should be given to focusing installation of new
intermediate wells on the east side of the soil remedy cell as indicated in the
response to Progressive comment #16 (Attachment F). Two intermediate
wells could be installed along the east side and a third on the north side to
determine the vertical extent of identified contamination given the presence of
a continuing source in that area.
o Groundwater elevation data collected in 2005 indicate a northerly to
northwesterly groundwater flow direction in the shallow zone at the Soil
Remedy Area. Well DMW-1S is located approximately 70 feet east of the
northwestern corner of the soil cell. Therefore, dissolved contaminants
migrating from beneath the western portion of the soil cell may not be
detected by the existing shallow well network. Installation of an additional
shallow well along the southern edge of US Highway 10 approximately 70 feet
west of DMW-1S should be considered (Figure 7). It appears that the
contouring of shallow groundwater elevation data for the Soil Remedy Area on
Figures 7 and 10 of the 2005 Annual Monitoring Report may not be completely
correct. For example, the elevation for DMW-2S measured in May 2005
(838.23) is incorrectly located between the 836 and 838 elevation contours.
o Groundwater elevation data collected in 2005 indicate groundwater flow in the
deep zone toward the east to east-northeast. However, it appears that the
well control in this area is sparse, and inferred flow directions in the deep zone
are somewhat speculative. Given the potential for migration toward the east-
northeast, installation of one additional deep zone well northwest of DMW-3S
(Figure 7) should be considered to detect any contaminant migration in the
deep zone from beneath the northern portion of the soil cell. Installing a deep
zone well near DMW-3S would have the added benefit of allowing
assessment of vertical hydraulic gradients between the shallow, intermediate,
and deep zones (assuming an intermediate well is also installed as discussed
above), and also would help determine the groundwater flow direction with a
higher degree of certainty (via triangulation with existing deep wells).
Installation of one additional deep zone well could be made conditional on
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page 13
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
sampling results for new intermediate zone wells. If the intermediate zone
wells do not contain COCs at concentrations of concern, indicating a lack of
significant vertical migration of COCs, then installation of a new deep well
would not be necessary or recommended.
o As described in Section 2.2, it appears that the estimated groundwater
velocity for the native materials at the Soil Remedy Area may be based on a
single hydraulic conductivity measurement made elsewhere on the Clare
Superfund Site. Therefore, there appears to be a fairly high degree of
uncertainty regarding the groundwater seepage velocity at the Soil Remedy
Area. Refinement/confirmation of the magnitude of this variable via
performance of slug and/or pumping tests in selected site wells should be
considered given that it is an important variable in assessing contaminant fate
and transport and determining optimal monitoring locations and frequencies.
o The contaminant conditions required to trigger a reexamination of the
monitoring program (i.e. monitoring objectives) do not appear to be well
defined. Currently there is a CUO exceedance at well DMW-3S. However,
this TCE detection does not appear to be of concern given the reported lack of
nearby receptors. Is there a threshold value above which additional plume
characterization would be determined to be advisable? Some thought should
be given to articulating what contaminant concentrations are considered to be
significant.
o There are 13 DPE wells at the Soil Remedy Area, all of which are assumed to
be operating on at least an intermittent basis. However, these wells are not
sampled (or at least sample results are not reported in the database) so it is
not possible to determine if one or more of the wells can be shut down
because it is no longer removing significant VOC mass. This situation is
economical from a monitoring perspective, but may not be economical from
the standpoint of energy usage, costs for treatment of extracted water, and
system operation and maintenance. Consideration should be given to
whether the economic benefits of occasional sampling of the DPE wells would
outweigh the added cost.
5.2 MAROS Statistical Review for the Soil Remedy Area
The Soil Remedy Area has a limited number of wells screened in both the shallow and
deep intervals. Because fewer that six locations are monitored in each zone, the spatial
statistical evaluation of the Soil Remedy area was limited in scope.
• The COC Assessment module in MAROS identified VC as the only priority
constituent in the Soil Remedy area, based on its low MCL and historic
concentrations at some locations; however the data set did not have a complete
record for VC. TCE was chosen as the guiding constituent for the network
evaluation based on its more extensive record.
• The majority of wells in the Soil Remedy Area have limited detections of TCE.
Mann-Kendall concentration trend results are illustrated on Figure 9. Locations
UMW-1S, DMW-2D, and UMW-1D had non-detect results for all sample events,
while locations DMW-1D, and DMW-3D had single detections that were not
confirmed in later sampling. The deep zone of the aquifer to the east of the Soil
Remedy area is largely unaffected by COCs.
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page 14
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
Concentrations for shallow zone wells DMW 1 through 3 all showed strongly
decreasing trends for TCE, while location 215 showed sporadic detections
resulting in No Trend (NT), or high variability for TCE. Strongly decreasing
trends at downgradient shallow zone locations indicate that the combined slurry
wall and DPE remediation systems are functioning to reduce concentrations in
this area.
• Preliminary sample frequency results from the MCES tool indicate that the
frequency of well sampling could be reduced from semiannual to largely annual
without loss of significant information. For the deep zone wells, preliminary
results indicate that a biennial (every two year) sampling frequency would be
adequate to characterize the change in concentration at these locations. In order
to determine the final sampling frequency, the results of both the qualitative and
statistical analyses were combined. Final recommendations are presented in
Table 9 and are illustrated on Figure 10.
• The number of wells in the Soil Remedy Area in each groundwater zone (<6)
were insufficient to perform moment analysis and formal spatial analysis for well
redundancy and sufficiency. Well redundancy and sufficiency recommendations
are based on the qualitative evaluation detailed above.
5.3 Recommendations for the Soil Remedy Area
Recommendations for the Soil Remedy Area are summarized in Table 9 and described
below.
• Nine monitoring wells currently included in the monitoring program should be
retained for continued sampling as described in Tables 7 and 9; however,
sampling frequencies for at least seven of the wells could be reduced to annual
(five wells) or biennial (every other year) (two wells). The current semiannual
frequency for the remaining two wells (DMW-3S and DMW-3D) should be
retained due to potentially increasing concentrations. Concentration trends can
be evaluated at these locations after another one to two additional semi-annual
monitoring events are performed, and the sample frequency adjusted to annual if
concentrations are stable to decreasing.
• Shallow well SW-5 can be excluded from the Soil Remedy Area monitoring
program as described in Tables 7 and 9. However, if this well is considered
useful for site-wide monitoring or for monitoring another nearby site, then it should
be retained for those purposes.
• The potential data gaps identified in Section 5.1 should be carefully considered,
and additional sampling/characterization should be performed as appropriate to
ensure that 1) the plume is adequately characterized to determine risks to
potential receptors, 2) potential receptors are not being impacted by site-related
contamination to an unacceptable degree, and 2) the appropriate data are
collected to properly estimate the time and cost required to achieve CUOs for
groundwater. As with the PRB area, a Site Conceptual Model document including
detailed descriptions of area hydrogeology may be valuable in organizing site
information and providing management decision support.
• At a minimum, installation of one shallow well and three intermediate-depth wells
is recommended to more fully characterize the quality of groundwater migrating
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page 15
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
March 22, 2007
downgradient from beneath the soil remedy cell and to better define groundwater
flow directions in the intermediate zones. In addition, installation of one deep well
should be considered if sampling results for new intermediate-depth wells indicate
the presence of COCs at concentrations of concern in intermediate groundwater
as described in Section 5.1.
• Development of a comprehensive site-wide database should continue. Current
and future analytical results should be available from laboratories in electronic
data deliverable (EDO) format, which should simplify the validation and
importation process. Results of historical analyses should be added to the
database where possible, particularly when these data are used to support
management decisions. The site-wide database should be made available to all
stakeholders.
6.0 Long-Term Monitoring Program Flexibility
The long-term monitoring (LTM) program recommendations described above are based
on available data regarding current (and expected future) site conditions. Changing site
conditions, such as changes in hydraulic (pumping-related) stresses or remedial system
operation, could affect contaminant fate and transport. Therefore, the LTM program
should be reviewed if site conditions change significantly, and revised as necessary to
adequately track changes in the magnitude and extent of COCs in groundwater over
time.
7.0 References Cited
AFCEE. (1997). Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, AFCEE Long-Term
Monitoring Optimization Guide, http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil.
AFCEE. (2003). Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System (MAROS) 2.1
Software Users Guide. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence.
http://www.gsi-net.com/software/MAROS V2 1Manual.pdf
Aziz, J. A., C. J. Newell, M. Ling, H. S. Rifai and J. R. Gonzales (2003). "MAROS: A
Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans." Ground Water 41(3):
355-367.
Progressive Environmental and Construction, Inc. (2006). 2005 Annual Monitoring
Report, Clare Water Supply Superfund Site, Clare Michigan. Prepared for Clare
PRP Group. February 21. Tampa, Florida.
USEPA (1992). EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Clare Water Supply, EPA ID
MID980002273, OU 02, Clare, Ml. EPA/ROD/R05-92/209. September 16.
USEPA (1998). Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated
Solvents in Ground Water. EPA/600/R-98/128. Office of Research and
Development. September.
USEPA (2006). Draft Second Five-Year Review Report for Clare Water Supply, City of
Clare, Clare County, Michigan. Prepared by USEPA Region 5, Chicago, Illinois.
September.
Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization Page 16
PRB and Soil Remedy Areas
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
-------
Tables
-------
TABLE 1
Summary of Site-Wide Long
Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site, Michigan
Well
PRB Monitoring
220
300A
300B
300C
MW-301
MW-302
MW-303
MW-304
MW-305
MW-306
MW-307
MW-308
MW-309
MW-310
MW-31 1
MW-312
MW-31 3
SW-11
SW-12
General Well
Depth
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Deep
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Soil Remedy Monitoring
DMW-1 D
DMW-1S
DMW-2D
DMW-2S
DMW-3D
DMW-3S
EW-1
EW-2
EW-3
EW-4
EW-5
EW-6
EW-7
EW-8
EW-9
EW-10
EW-11
EW-1 2
EW-1 3
SW-5
UMW-1D
UMW-1S
Deep
Shallow
Deep
Shallow
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Shallow
Deep
Shallow
Well Depth
(BGS)
60.5
17
30
80
17
15
15
15
12
17
17
12
17
17
10
70
17
5.5
11.5
75
17
75
11
75
10
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
6
55
9
Top of
Screen
(BGS)
55.5
12
20
60
12
10
10
10
7
12
12
7
12
12
5
65
12
2
8
70
12
70
6
70
5
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
3
50
4
Screen
Length
5
5
10
20
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
Hydraulic Monitoring
Current Frequency
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Water Quality Monitoring
Current Frequency
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Not Sampled
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Semi Annual
Method
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B, Ml 10 Metals
VOCs - 8260B, Ml 10 Metals
VOCs - 8260B, Ml 10 Metals
VOCs - 8260B, Ml 10 Metals
VOCs - 8260B, Ml 10 Metals
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B, Ml 10 Metals
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
-
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
VOCs - 8260B
Notes:
Monthly hydraulic monitoring ended in May 2006; next hydraulic monitoring event was November 2006.
BGS = feet below ground surface.
\proj\clare\EPA GIS\files to Parsons\PRB & Soil Remedy Tables_rev2.xls
-------
GSI Job No. G-3138-105
Issued 03/22/2007
Page 1 of 1
GROUNDWATER
SERVICES, INC.
TABLE 2
AQUIFER INPUT PARAMETERS FOR MAROS
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE, MICHIGAN
Parameter
Current Plume Length
Maximum Plume Length
PlumeWidth
SeepageVelocity Intermediate (ft/yr)*
Distance to Receptors (Source to MW-5)
GWFIuctuations
SourceTreatment
PlumeType
NAPL Present
Vinyl Chloride
Cleanup Objective
MCL
Parameter
Groundwater flow direction
Porosity
Source Location near Well
Source X-Coordinate
Source Y-Coordinate
Saturated Thickness
PRB
Value
380
380
380
98
1200
No
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Chlorinated Solvent
No
Screening Levels
0.015
0.002
Value
South
0.38
300A*
13014379.33
845654.49
30
Soil Remedy
Value
350
350
350
0.005
2000
No
Cap, slurry wall and DPE
Chlorinated Solvent
No
Trichloroethene
0.005
Value
North
0.39
Soil Remedy Cell
13014044.21
846239.92
15 (Shallow)
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft/yr
ft
-
mg/L
mg/L
ft
ft
ft
Notes:
1. Aquifer data from Progressive database (2006).
2. Priority COCs defined by prevalence, toxicty and mobility.
3. Saturated thickness represents the span of the shallow to intermediate aquifer.
5. ft = Coordinates in NAD 1983 State Plane Michigan Central feet.
6. Cleanup Objective from Michigan Part 201 Ground Water /Surface Water Interface standard for PRB area.
MCL = USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level for drinking water.
7. * = For the purpose of the spatial analysis, a point north of the
barrier wall was chosen as the 'source' area.
-------
TABLE 3
QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF PRB AREA GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE, MICHIGAN
PARSONS
Well Name
220
300A
300B
300C
MW-301
MW-302
MW-303
MW-304
MW-305
MW-306
MW-307
MW-308
MW-309
Hydrologic Unit
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Current
Sampling
Frequency
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Qualitative Analysis
Exclude
X
X
X
Retain
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Monitoring Frequency
Recommendation
NA
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual*
NA
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
NA
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Rationale
VOCs trace-level to non-detect during 43 sampling events over 12 years (1994-2006) with no cleanup objective (CUO) exceedances. No reason to believe
that this will change in the future. Continued monitoring of this deep zone well that is screened below the primary contaminated interval would not provide
useful information.
Provides upgradient data to evaluate VOC removal effectiveness of southern PRB. 17 sampling events from Dec '99 to Nov '06 provide sufficient baseline
data to evaluate seasonal removal effectiveness; semiannual monitoring frequency should allow sufficient data to be collected to permit evaluation of PRB
performance over time.
Screened in Gray Till below bottom of PRBs that is not well-monitored; contains elevated VC levels that appear to be increasing with time; results indicative
of underflow of VOCs beneath PRB; retain to continue monitoring groundwater quality in deeper zone.
Screened approx 44 to 64 ft below bottom of PRBs; only 3 deep wells present at site. Increasing VC trend between April '03 and Nov '05. Retain at
moderate frequency to monitor trend. Consider reducing frequency to annual if increasing trend ceases.
Results of 5 sampling events in 2005-2006 indicate occasional presence of very low VOC levels < CUO; no apparent increasing or decreasing trends.
However, this well does not serve to bound plume on west side or accurately indicate VOC mass migrating around PRBs given higher COC detections in
MW3 10, which is screened in same interval and located futher west. Therefore, MW30 1 not providing useful data.
Measures water quality upgradient of PRBs in MW302-303 -304/3 1 1 transect. COC concentrations over 5 quarterly events ending in May 06 consistently
increased from MW302 to MW303; therefore, contrast between MW3 02 andMW303 did not appear to be a good indicator of PRB removal efficiency.
Potential explanations include: 1) PRB is not effective at this location, 2) MW302 is not screened in primary contaminant flowpath, 3) groundwater does not
migrate from MW302 to MW303, or 4) there is a source of VOCs between MW302 and MW303 . However, trend reversed in Nov 06 (VC higher at
MW302 than at MW303), potentially indicating PRB effects. Maintain semiannual monitoring frequency to assess future trends and PRB impacts. Note that
COC concentrations in MW302 are much lower than detected in adjacent vertical profiling samples from VAS-301, indicating that data for MW302 are not
representative of maximum COC concentrations in groundwater at this location.
Measures elevated COC levels in this area, and provides useful upgradient data to evaluate VOC removal efficiency of southern PRB. Concentration
decrease from Aug to Nov 05 appears to indicate effect of northern PRB installation. Semi-annual monitoring frequency should yield sufficient data over
time regarding PRB effectiveness.
Provides useful data regarding VOC removal efficiency of southern PRB near base of shallow zone. Semiannual monitoring frequency should yield
sufficient data over time regarding PRB effectiveness. Note that vertical profiling data for adjacent VAS-304 indicate that MW-304 may be screened beneath
highest VOC concentrations present in aquifer at this location.
Measures water quality upgradient of PRBs in MW305-300A-307/308 transect. COC concentrations over 5 quarterly events consistently increased from
MW305 to MW300A; therefore, contrast between these two wells does not appear to be a good indicator of northern PRB removal efficiency. Same trend
observed in Nov 06. Potential explanations include: 1) PRB is not effective at this location, 2) MW305 is not screened in primary contaminant flowpath, 3)
groundwater does not migrate from MW305 to MW300A, or 4) there is a source of VOCs between MW305 and MW300A. Note that COC concentrations
in MW305 are much lower than detected in adjacent vertical profiling samples from VAS-302, indicating that data for MW305 are not representative of
maximum COC concentrations in groundwater at this location. Continued monitoring of MW305 does not provide useful information regarding COC
concentrations entering northern PRB and PRB effectiveness.
Provides useful data regarding combined VOC removal efficiency of northern and southern PRBs and concentrations exiting PRB area. Semi-annual
monitoring frequency should yield sufficient data over time regarding PRB effectiveness.
Provides useful data regarding VOC removal efficiency of southern PRB and concentrations exiting PRB area near base of shallow zone. Semi-annual
monitoring frequency should yield sufficient data over time regarding PRB effectiveness.
Provides useful data regarding VOC removal efficiency of southern PRB and concentrations exiting PRB area in middle portion of shallow zone. Semi-
annual monitoring frequency should yield sufficient data over time regarding PRB effectiveness.
Monitors untreated VOC concentrations migrating past east end of PRBs. Data suggest possible increasing trend from Aug '05 to May '06, with lower VC
concentration in Nov 06. Semi-annual monitoring frequency should yield sufficient data over time regarding PRB effectiveness unless increasing trend
continues in the future.
-------
TABLE 3
QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF PRB AREA GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE, MICHIGAN
PARSONS
Well Name
MW-310
MW-311
MW-312
MW-313
SW-11
SW-12
Hydrologic Unit
Shallow
Shallow
Deep
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Current
Sampling
Frequency
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Not Sampled
Semi-Annual
Qualitative Analysis
Exclude
X
X
Retain
X
X
X
X
Monitoring Frequency
Recommendation
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Annual
Every other year
NA
NA
Rationale
Monitors untreated VOC concentrations migrating past west end of PRBs. Stable VC trend indicated as of Nov 06; semi-annual monitoring frequency should
yield sufficient data over time regarding COC concentrations in this area.
Provides useful data regarding VOC removal efficiency of southern PRB and concentations exiting PRB area in middle to upper portion of shallow zone.
COC concentrations generally similar to slightly higher than in paired well MW304, consistent with vertical profiling results from VAS-305 (maximum
concentrations at 8.5' bis). Semi-annual monitoring frequency should yield sufficient data over time regarding PRB effectiveness.
Retain as deep zone sentry well in downgradient direction due to increasing trends in well 300C, which is screened at similar depth interval. Relatively low
frequency justified by lack of COC detections through Nov 06 and reported lack of receptors. If rapid plume expansion at this depth was going to occur it
would likely have already impacted this well.
Well appears to be cross-gradient of VOC plume; only 2 trace-level chlorinated ethene detections in 6 monitoring events (up to Nov 06). Retain at low
frequency to monitor eastern extent of plume over time.
Nov 06 sampling event first since 1999. No COC detections over 1 1 events from 1994 to 1999, and only 1 trace-level toluene detection in Nov 06 (possible
lab contaminant). Distant and upgradient from PRBs. Other wells installed closer to PRBs provide better site-specific upgradient data.
Well is cross-gradient of VOC plume; only 1 trace-level chlorinated ethene detection in 14 monitoring events. Continued low-frequency monitoring of
MW3 13 would facilitate assessment of eastern plume extent over time.
NA = not applicable.
* = conditional recommendation; see comments.
-------
GSI Job No. G-3138-105
Issued 03/22/2007
Page 1 of 1
GROUNDWATER
SERVICES, INC
TABLE 4
WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS FOR PRB AREA: 1999-2006
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE, MICHIGAN
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Maximum
Result [mg/L]
Max Result
Above CUO?
Average
Result [mg/L]
Average
Result Above
MCL?
Mann Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Overall Trend
Result
Vinyl Chloride Shallow and Intermediate Zone
300A
300B
MW-301
MW-302
MW-303
MW-304
MW-305
MW-306
MW-307
MW-308
MW-309
MW-31 0
MW-31 1
MW-31 3
SW-12
15
13
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
15
13
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
1
1
5.2
0.2
0.0015
0.099
1.6
0.041
0.24
0.015
0.033
0.058
0.048
0.027
0.069
0.00073
0.0016
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
0.925
0.0546
0.0013
0.059
0.604
0.0231
0.152
0.00518
0.012
0.0414
0.0242
0.0167
0.0312
0.000946
0.00105
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
I
I
S
S
NT
S
S
D
NT
NT
NT
NT
S
ND*
ND*
I
I
S
D
D
S
NT
D
NT
NT
S
NT
S
ND*
ND*
I
I
S
PD
S
S
S
D
NT
NT
S
NT
S
ND*
ND*
Vinyl Chloride Deep Zone
220
300C
MW-31 2
15
13
5
1
8
0
0.00031
0.027
0.001
No
Yes
No
0.000954
0.0076
0.001
No
Yes
No
S
I
-
S
I
-
S
I
ND
Wofes
1. Trends were evaluated for data collected between 1/1/1999 and 5/30/2006. Trends including new data from 11/2006 are shown in Attachment C.
2. Shallow and Intermediate zone is approximately between 7 and 40ftbgs (847 and 817ft AMSL). Deep zone is below 40 ft bgs (below 817 ft AMSL).
3. Number of Samples is the number of samples for the compound at this location.
Number of Detects is the number of times the compound has been detected at this location.
4. Maximum Result is the maximum concentration for the COC indicated between 1999 and 2006.
5. CUO = Clean-up Objective, 0.015 mg/L. MCL = 0.002 mg/L for vinyl chloride. 'Above MCL' indicates that the result value is above the screening level'.
6. D = Decreasing; PD = Probably Decreasing; S = Stable; PI = Probably Increasing; I = Increasing; N/A = Insufficient Data to determine trend;
NT = No Trend; ND = well has all non-detect results for COC; ND* = Non-detect except for one trace value.
7. Mann-Kendall trend results are illustrated on Figure 4.
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
Issued 03/22/2007
Page 1 of 1
GROUND WATER
SERVICES, INC.
TABLE 5
WELL REDUNDANCY ANALYSIS SUMMARY RESULTS FOR PRB AREA
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE, MICHIGAN
WellName
Vinyl Chloride
Average Slope
Factor
Vinyl Chloride
Minimum Slope
Factor
Vinyl Chloride
Maximum Slope
Factor
Preliminary
Statistical Result
Preliminary Sample
Frequency
Shallow and Intermediate Zone Wells
300A
300B
MW-301
MW-302
MW-303
MW-304
MW-305
MW-306
Mw-307
MW-308
MW-309
MW-310
MW-311
MW-313
SW-12
0.47
0.39
0.87
0.11
0.35
0.13
0.19
0.60
0.54
0.24
0.20
0.32
0.13
0.90
0.88
0.28
0.15
0.59
0.02
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.16
0.00
0.13
0.03
0.01
0.55
0.65
0.72
0.54
1.00
0.28
0.50
0.27
0.49
0.80
1.00
0.53
0.31
0.70
0.25
1.00
1.00
Retain
Retain
Retain
Exclude
Retain
Exclude
Exclude
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Quarterly
Quarterly
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Deep Zone Wells
220
300C
MW-312
Insufficient well locations in deep zone for spatial analysis
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Notes:
1. Slope Factor is the difference between the actual concentration and the concentration estimated from nearest
neighbors normalized by the actual concentration. Slope factors close to 1 show the concentrations cannot be
estimated from the nearest neighbors, and the well is important in the network.
2. Slope factors were calculated using data between January 2002 and May 2006.
3. Locations with slope factors below 0.3 were considered for elimination.
4. Preliminary Sample Frequency is the result from the MCES analysis, 1999-2006.
-------
TABLE 6
FINAL RECOMMENDED GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK FOR PRB AREA
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE, MICHIGAN
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Average
Result [mg/L]
Average
Result Above
CUO?
VC Mann
Kendall
Trend
VC Linear
Regression
Trend
VC Overall
Trend Result
Recommendation /
Quantitat
Sample Locations
Mter Qualitative and
ve Review
Sample Frequency
Rationale
Shallow and Intermediate Zone
300A
300B
MW-301
MW-302
MW-303
MW-304
MW-305
MW-306
MW-307
MW-308
MW-309
MW-310
MW-311
MW-313
SW-12
SW-11
15
13
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
2
15
13
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
1
1
0
0.925
0.055
0.001
0.059
0.604
0.023
0.152
0.005
0.012
0.041
0.024
0.017
0.031
0.001
0.001
0.001
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
I
I
S
S
NT
S
S
D
NT
NT
NT
NT
S
ND*
ND*
ND
I
I
S
D
D
S
NT
D
NT
NT
S
NT
S
ND*
ND*
ND
I
I
S
PD
S
S
S
D
NT
NT
S
NT
S
ND*
ND*
ND
Retain
Retain
Exclude
Retain
Retain
Retain*
Retain*
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Exclude
Exclude
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Annual
Monitors high concentrations
between PRB, efficacy of
southern PRB.
Monitors Intermediate
groundwater zone, not
treated by PRB
Low concentration to non-
detect, redundant with MW-
310.
Upgradient, low
concentrations, outside of
main plume
Monitors efficacy of PRB
Monitors efficacy of PRB in
ower Shallow Zone,
companion well to MW311
Monitors upgradientof PRB
n Shallow Zone
Monitors immediately
downgradient of eastern
PRB in Shallow Zone
Monitors efficacy of PRB in
ower Shallow Zone,
companion well to MW-308
Monitors efficacy of PRB in
mid-upper Shallow Zone
Monitors eastern edge of
PRB for possible routing of
plume around PRB
Monitors western Shallow
Zone, outside of PRB
remedy.
Monitors efficacy of PRB in
mid-upper Shallow Zone
Sentry well cross-gradient
shallow eastern edge of
plume
Cross-gradient, not in main
plume.
Upgradient, not in plume
Deep Zone
220
300C
MW-312
15
13
5
1
8
0
0.000954
0.0076
0.001
No
No
No
S
I
-
S
I
-
S
I
ND
Exclude
Retain
Retain
Semiannual
Annual
Largely non-detect, not
representative of plume or
source.
Monitors Upgradient Deep
Zone
Deep Zone sentry well
Wofes
1. Shallow and Intermediate zone is approximately between 7 to 37 ft bgs (847 and 817ft AMSL). Deep zone is below 40 ft bgs (below 817ft AMSL).
2. Number of Samples is the number of samples during the recent time-frame for the compound at this location.
Number of Detects is the number of times the compound has been detected for data consolidated by quarter at this location.
3. Average Result is the average concentration for TCE between 1999 and 2006.
4. CUO = Clean-up Objective, 0.005 mg/L. 'Above CUO' indicates that the result value is above the objective standard.
5. D = Decreasing; PD = Probably Decreasing; S = Stable; PI = Probably Increasing; I = Increasing; N/A = Insufficient Data to determine trend;
NT = No Trend; ND = well has all non-detect results for COC; ND* = Non-detect except for one trace value.
6. All recommendations are contingent upon stable plume status under current conditions.
Changes in groundwater flow velocity or head may require increasing or decreasing sample locations and frequency.
7. Sample locations are illustrated on Figure 7.
8. * = Recommended for exclusion by either qualitative or quantitative analysis, but retained after final evaluation.
-------
PARSONS
TABLE 7
QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF SOIL REMEDY AREA GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE, MICHIGAN
Well Name
DMW-1D
DMW-1S
DMW-2D
DMW-2S
DMW-3D
DMW-3S
SW-5
UMW-1D
UMW-1S
EW-1
EW-2
EW-3
EW-4
EW-5
EW-6
EW-7
EW-8
EW-9
EW-10
EW-11
EW-1 2
EW-1 3
215
Hydrologic Unit
Deep
Shallow
Deep
Shallow
Deep
Shallow
Shallow
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Current
Sampling
Frequency
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Semi-Annual
Qualitative Analysis
Exclude
X
Retain
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Monitoring Frequency
Recommendation
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-Annual*
Semi-Annual*
--
every other year
every other year
Annual
Rationale
1 6 sampling events from 3/99 to 1 1/06. Missing PCE and VC data from 3/99 to 5/04. COCs non-detect in almost every case but increased cis-DCE in
1 1/06 (unvali dated data). Retain as deep sentry well downgradient of soil remedy cell. Frequency reduction justified based on historical monitoring
results (primarily non-detect), assumed low groundwater flow velocity, presence of low-permeability sediments below soil cell and slurry wall around it,
and deep screen interval (significant impacts at 70 ft bgs less likely).
1 6 sampling events from 3/99 to 1 1/06. Missing PCE and VC data from 3/99 to 5/04. Retain as downgradient shallow sentry well. TCE exhibits
decreasing trend while cis-DCE exhibits no trend and variable concentrations with occasional cleanup goal exceedances. Reduce frequency to annual
given assumed low groundwater flow velocity, lack of receptors, and lack of recent CUO exceedances (only 2 in previous 8 events up to 11/06) unless
risks to potential receptors are perceived, justifying additional remedial action and/or sampling.
SameasDMW-lD.
No CUO exceedances since 1 999. Retain as downgradient shallow sentry well. Frequency reduction justified based on historical monitoring results (trace-
level to non-detect), assumed low groundwater flow velocity, lack of receptors, and presence of slurry wall restricting migration of contaminants from soil
cell into downgradient shallow zone groundwater.
Same as DMW-1D. However, data for 2005-2006 suggest possible increasing trend in chlorinated VOC concentrations; therefore, retain current sampling
frequency to assess temporal trend. Consider frequency reduction to annual if future data demonstrate that concentrations are not increasing.
1 6 sampling events from 3/99 to 1 1/06. Missing PCE and VC data from 3/99 to 5/04. TCE exceeded cleanup goals in most recent events. Overall
decreasing trend, but November 05 and May 06 data suggest possible rebound. Retain as downgradient shallow sentry well. If results of one additional
semi-annual event indicates resumption of either stable or decreasing trend, then reduce frequency to annual.
30 sampling events since 12/94; no cleanup goal exceedances since 1998. Upgradientto cross-gradient from Soil Remedy Cell; additional sampling would
not provide useful data regarding Soil Remedy Area.
Retain as upgradient deep zone well; low monitoring frequency justified by upgradient location and lack of historical COC detections over 16 monitoring
events since 1999.
Retain as upgradient shallow zone well; frequency reduction justified by upgradient location and lack of historical COC detections over 1 6 monitoring
events since 1999.
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
Sampled 36 times from 3/94 to 1 1 706 with only scattered low-level detections and no CUO exceedances. Retain as downgradient intermediate- zone sentry
well. Frequency reduction justified by monitoring history, distance from source area, assumed low groundwater flow velocity, lack of receptors, potential
for DMW-1S/2S/3S to provide early warning of contaminant migration toward 21 5.
* = conditional recommendation; see comments.
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
Issued 03/22/2007
Page 1 of 1
GROUNDWATER
SERVICES, INC,
TABLE 8
WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS SOIL REMEDY AREA: 1999-2006
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE, MICHIGAN
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Maximum
Result [mg/L]
Max Result
Above MCL?
Average
Result [mg/L]
Average
Result Above
MCL?
Mann Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Overall Trend
Result
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Trichloroethene Shallow Zone
DMW-1S
DMW-2S
DMW-3S
UMW-1S
SW-5
15
14
15
15
13
Trichloroethene Chloride Dee
DMW-1D
DMW-2D
DMW-3D
UMW-1D
15
15
15
15
15
7
15
0
0
0.099
0.048
0.007
0.001
0.001
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
0.017
0.0019
0.021
0.001
0.001
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
D
D
D
—
—
D
D
D
—
—
D
D
D
ND
ND
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
p Zone
1
0
1
0
0.001
0.001
0.0016
0.001
No
No
No
No
0.001
0.001
0.00104
0.001
No
No
No
No
—
—
NT
-
—
—
NT
-
ND*
ND
NT
ND
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Notes
1. Trends were evaluated for data collected between 1/1/1999 and 5/30/2006.
2. Shallow and Intermediate zone is approximately between 0 and 17 ft bgs. Deep zone is below 50 ft bgs.
3. Number of Samples is the number of samples for the compound at this location.
Number of Detects is the number of times the compound has been detected at this location.
4. Maximum Result is the maximum concentration for the COC indicated between 1999 and 2006.
5. CUO = Clean-up Objective, 0.015 mg/L. MCL = 0.005 mg/L for TCE. 'Above MCL' indicates that the result value is above the screening level'.
6. D = Decreasing; PD = Probably Decreasing; S = Stable; PI = Probably Increasing; I = Increasing; N/A = Insufficient Data to determine trend;
NT = No Trend; ND = well has all non-detect results for COC; ND* = Non-detect except for one trace value.
7. Mann-Kendall trend results are illustrated on Figure 4.
8. LOE = Lines of Evidence. The LOE trend is a combination of the Mann-Kendall and Linear Regression trends.
9. Average Result is the average concentration at the monitoring location for all samples between 1999 and 2006.
10. The Sampling Frequency is a preliminary result from the software algorithm. A final frequency should be determined after a qualitative evaluation of all site data.
11* Location DMW-1D had only one detection of TCE and DCE in June 2000. The detection was not repeated in subsequent sample events.
-------
TABLE 9
FINAL RECOMMENDED MONITORING NETWORK SOIL REMEDY AREA
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE, MICHIGAN
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Average
Result [mg/L]
Average
Result Above
CUO?
TCE Mann
Kendall
Trend
TCE Linear
Regression
Trend
TCE Overall
Trend Result
Recommendation 1
Quantltat
Sample Locations
\fter Qualitative and
ve Review
Sample Frequency
Rationale
Shallow and Intermediate Zone
DMW-1S
DMW-2S
DMW-3S
UMW-1S
215
SW-5
15
14
15
15
15
13
15
7
15
0
3
0
0.017
0.002
0.021
0.001
0.001
0.001
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
D
D
D
NT
ND
D
D
D
NT
ND
D
D
D
ND
NT
ND
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Exclude
Annual
Annual
Semiannual*
Biennial
Annual
Downgradient shallow sentry
well
Downgradient shallow sentry
well
Consider changing frequency
to Annual if concentrations
stable to decreasing over 2-3
sample events
Monitors shallow zone
upgradientof soil remedy.
Sentry well for downgradient
intermediate groundwater
zone.
Cross-gradient of Soil Remedy
Cell and not providing useful
data.
Deep Zone
DMW-1D
DMW-2D
DMW-3D
UMW-1D
15
15
15
15
1
0
1
0
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
No
No
No
No
NT
NT
ND*
ND
NT
ND
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Annual
Annual
Semiannual*
Biennial
Monitors for contaminant
migration in deep zone
Monitors for contaminant
migration in deep zone
Consider changing frequency
to Annual if concentrations
stable to decreasing over 2-3
sample events
Monitors deep groundwater
zone upgradient of soil remedy
Notes
1. Shallow and Intermediate zone is approximately between 7 to 37 ft bgs (847 and 817ft AMSL). Deep zone is below 40 ft bgs (below 817 ft AMSL).
2. Number of Samples is the number of samples during the recent time-frame for the compound at this location.
Number of Detects is the number of times the compound has been detected for data consolidated by quarter at this location.
3. Average Result is the average concentration for TCE between 1999 and 2006.
4. CUO = Clean-up Objective is equal to MCL, 0.005 mg/L. 'Above CUO' indicates that the result value is above the objective standard.
5. D = Decreasing; PD = Probably Decreasing; S = Stable; PI = Probably Increasing; I = Increasing; N/A = Insufficient Data to determine trend;
NT = No Trend; ND = well has all non-detect results for COC; ND* = Non-detect except for one trace value.
6. All recommendations are contingent upon stable plume status under current conditions.
Changes in groundwater flow velocity or head may require increasing or decreasing sample locations and frequency.
7. Sample locations are illustrated on Figure 9.
8. * = Consider reducing frequency to Annual if concentration trends stable to decreasing.
9. SW-5 may provide useful information for the Site-Wide groundwater monitoring network, which was not evaluated here.
-------
Figures
-------
Permeable Reative
Barrier Area (PRB)
220
—| MW-303
i—| MW-305
300A
MW-301
. MW-311
MW-304
MW-307
MW-308
• MW-306
Legend
Soil Remedy
H Area Wells
H PRB Area Wells
Well Depth
0 Deep
A Intermediate
H Shallow
Permeable
^^^~ Reactive Barrier
Notes:
1. Shallow zone is between 5 and
20 FT bgs. Intermediate zone is
between 20 and 50 FT bgs. Deep
zone is between 50 and 80 FT bgs.
2. Data source Progressive Environmental
and Construction, August 2006.
140
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
LOCATIONS: PRB AND
SOIL REMEDY AREAS
Clare \Afeter Treatment Site
Clare, Michigan
G-3138-105
03/22/2007
Figure 1
MV
MV
MV
-------
Draft
PARSONS
FIGURE 2A
APPROXIMATE WELL SCREEN INTERVALS FOR PRB AREA
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION EVALUATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE, MICHIGAN
Approx Water Table
Bottom of PRBs (826-827)
Approx Top of Intermediate Zone
823
821
819
817
815
813
811
809
807
805
803
801
799
797
795
Approx Top of Deep Zone
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
•
-------
Draft
FIGURE 2B
PROXIMATE WELL SCREEN INTERVALS FOR SOIL REMEDY AREA
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION EVALUATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE, MICHIGAN
PARSONS
0>
I
o'
Zone
845
843
841
839
°9
Approx Water Table (836-844)
Base of Slurry Wall
Approx Top of Intermediate Zone
827
825
823
821
819
817
815
813
811
809
807
805
789
787
785
783
781
779
777
775
773
771
769
767
765
763
761
759
757
755
753
751
749
747
Approx Top of Deep Zone
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
-------
© ND
(1999)
220
ND
VAS-301
1700
VAS-ETI-1
14
VAS-ETI-3
..... „_
MW-310
27
MW-311
96
26
MW-308
58
/ \ X
/ \ X
/ \
18
-306
2.1
MW-307
10
VAS-305
119
o
°
ND
.MW-312
ND
LEGEND
RECOMMENDED SAMPLE FREQUENCY
MW-302 O SHALLOW MONITORING WELL
300B D INTERMEDIATE MONITORING WELL
220-^- DEEP MONITORING WELL
VAS-302 A VERTICAL PROFILING BOREHOLE
ND = NOT DETECTED
* = CONDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION,
SEE COMMENTS IN TABLE 3
-^— INFERRED GROUNDWATER
FLOW DIRECTION
r-,
SEMIANNUAL
ANNUAL
EVERY OTHER YEAR
EXCLUDE
NOTE:
VINYL CHLORIDE (VC) CONCENTRATIONS
POSTED FOR MONITORING WELLS ARE FOR
Q6_ yc CONCENTRAT|QNS pQSTED
FOR VAS~ SERIES BOREHOLES ARE
MAXIMUM DETECTED IN JANUARY 05.
SCALE: 1"=60'
FIGURE 3
QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
RESULTS FOR PRB AREA
Long-Term Monitoring Network Optimization
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
PARSONS
Denver, Colorado
-------
Legend
Permeable
^^^^ Reactive Barrier
Groundwater Flow
Direction
MannKendall Trend Vinyl Chloride
® Decreasing
O Probably Decreasing
O Stable
• Increasing
• No Trend
• Non Detect
Notes:
1. Concentration trends were determined
for vinyl chloride data between 1999
and November 2006.
2. All wells screened in shallow zone
of aquifer except locations indicated.
3. Data source Progressive Environmental
and Construction, August 2006.
Scale (ft)
^•=
0 30 60
TEMPORAL TREND
RESULTS: VINYL CHLORIDE
PRB AREA
Clare Water Treatment Site
Clare, Michigan
Figure 4
-------
\
Area South of PRB
Not Delineated to CUO
for Shallow GW
MW-312
(Deep)
Legend
Average Concentration
Vinyl Chloride
+ 0.000946-0.001 mg/L
O 0.001-0.002 mg/L
O 0.002-0.01 mg/L
• 0.01-0.015 mg/L
• 0.015-0.925 mg/L
Permeable
^^^^ Reactive Barrier
Notes:
1. Average concentrations for wells
1999-2006.
2. CUO = 0.015 mg/L;
MCL = 0.002 mg/L.
3. All wells screened in shallow zone
of aquifer except locations indicated.
4. Data source Progressive Environmental
and Construction, August 2006.
(IIKH'NOWAIFR
WELL SUFFICIENCY
VINYL CHLORIDE
PRB AREA
Clare Water Treatment Site
Clare, Michigan
Figure 5
-------
Legend
Recommended Sample
Frequency
D Semiannual
• Annual
D Biennial
@ Exclude
Permeable
^~^~ Reactive Barrier
Notes:
1. Analysis was conducted for vinyl
chloride data between 1999 and 2006.
2. All wells screened in shallow zone
of aquifer except locations indicated.
3. Data source Progressive Environmental
and Construction, August 2006.
Scale (ft)
0 30 60
FINAL RECOMMENDED
MONITORING NETWORK
PRB AREA
Clare Water Treatment Site
Clare, Michigan
G-3138-105
03/22/2007
Figure 6
MV
MV
-------
215
D ND
O
Do DMW-1S
2.9
UMW-1D
ND
O SW-2
NO DATA
NX/
V
SHALLOW ®
®
®
O
DMW-2S
0.79
DMW-3S*
O 23
D
®
216
NO DATA
INTERMEDIATE
DMW-1D
ND
®
DEEP
DMW-2D
ND
I
5
Q_
O
ro
LEGEND
DMW-1SO SHALLOW MONITORING WELL
215 n INTERMEDIATE MONITORING WELL
DMW-1D-^- DEEP MONITORING WELL
® PASSIVE SOIL VENT
© DUAL PHASE EXTRACTION WELL
ND = NOT DETECTED
* = CONDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION,
SEE COMMENTS IN TABLE 7
LEGEND
O POTENTIAL NEW SHALLOW MONITORING WELL
D POTENTIAL NEW INTERMEDIATE MONITORING WELL
-^- POTENTIAL NEW DEEP MONITORING WELL
-^— INFERRED GROUNDWATER
FLOW DIRECTION
NOTE:
VALUES POSTED AT EACH WELL LOCATION
ARE MAY 2006 TCE CONCENTRATIONS (pg/L)
UMW-1S
O ND
RECOMMENDED SAMPLE FREQUENCY
fj SEMIANNUAL
Ll ANNUAL
D EVERY OTHER YEAR
D EXCLUDE
T
DMW-3D'
SW-5
ND
0' 30' 60'
SCALE: 1"=60'
FIGURE 7
QUALITATIVE EVALUATION RESULTS
FOR SOIL REMEDY AREA
Long-Term Monitoring Network Optimization
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
Denver, Colorado
-------
104
(Intermediate)
(Insufficient Data)
Legend
Mann-Kendall Trend
Trichloroethene
• Decreasing
O Probably Decreasing
O Stable
O Probably Increasing
• Increasing
• No Trend
• Non detect
Notes:
1. Trends were determined for
trichloroethene data between 1999
and 2006.
2. All wells screened in shallow zone
of aquifer except locations indicated.
3. Data source Progressive Environmental
and Construction, August 2006.
4. 'Well DMW-1D had one detection of
TCE that was not reproduced - well
may be non-detect for TCE.
60
120
TEMPORAL TREND
RESULTS: TCE
SOIL REMEDY AREA
Clare Water Supply
Clare, Michigan
03/22/2007
Figure 8
MV
MV
-------
Area of potential
new shallow well
215
UMW-1D
(Deep) ;
Shallow Flow
SOU Remedy Cell Intermediate Flow
Deep Flow
UMW-1S
t
I—|
Area of potential
news Intermediate wells
(nested with shallow wells)
Area of potential
new Deep well
DMW-1D
(Deep)
DMW-2D
L, (Deep)
DMW-3D
(Deep)
SW-5
/"""•.„
"If
104
(Intermediate)
(Insufficient Data)
SW-9 -
Legend
Recommended
Sampling Frequency
D Semiannual
• Annual
D Biennial
• Not Analyzed
® Exclude
Notes:
1. Results represent a combination
of qualitative and quantitative
methods. See text for details.
2. Analysis was conducted for
trichloroethene data between 1999
and 2006.
3. Data source Progressive Environmental
and Construction, August 2006.
120
FINAL RECOMMENDED
MONITORING NETWORK
SOIL REMEDY AREA
Clare Water Supply
Clare, Michigan
G-3138-105
Figure 9
MV
MV
MV
-------
Attachment A
Geologic Cross-Sections
-------
O
m
O
I
r-o
PRB WALL
K-2.3E-2GM/SEC
LEGEND
20 TCE (UG/L)
1950 CIS-1.2-DCE (UG/L)
200 VC (UG/L)
SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1" = 10'
VERTICAL : 1" = 5'
NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS AND THICKNESSES
ARE APPROXIMATE.
SURFACE ELEVATION
BORING/SAMPLE LOCATION
SAND (BACKFILL)
NATIVE MATERIAL
NOTES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
GEO DATA FROM JULY/AUGUST 2000
VAS DATA FROM JANUARY 2005.
SW SAMPLE FROM MAY 2000.
BORING/SAMPLE LOCATIONS ARE
APPROXIMATE, NOT SURVEYED.
/Tfcf* /^Vx~^ T"» T"l O (~1 ~I"¥ 7T~l
-------
0
I
GJ
CD
0
°§
OO >•
5>
CO
I
OJ
o
en
o
m
0
o
m
0
— '
(D
850
850
845
840 , '
835
M^-v^-T^--^- 835
845
840
830
825
820
NOTES:
1. GEO DATA FROM JULY/AUGUST 2000.
2. VAS DATA FROM JANUARY 2005.
3. BORING/SAMPLE LOCATIONS ARE
APPROXIMATE, NOT SURVEYED.
SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1" = 20'
VERTICAL : 1" = 5'
NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS AND THICKNESSES
ARE APPROXIMATE.
LEGEND
20 TCE (UG/L)
1950 CIS-1.2-DCE (UG/L)
200 VC (UG/L)
LAND SURFACE ELEVATION
BORING/SAMPLE LOCATION
PRB WALL
GRAY TILL
SAND (BACKFILL)
NATIVE MATERIAL
T» T"l O r^ T"¥ TT""
RESSIVE
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
3912 W. Humphrey Str««t
Tampa. Florida 33814
LITHOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B'
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
CLARE, MICHIGAN
DRAWN
MPG
DATE
4/20/05
REV. DATE
DESCRIPTION
RLE:
CRDSSBBLITH.DWG
PROJECT MANAGER
BSM
DEPARTMENT MANAGER
BSM
LEAD DESIGN PROF.
VT
PROJECT NUMBER
:HECKED
BSM
DRAWING NUMBER
-------
FILCON FACILITY
(FORMERLY MITCHELL)
SW-1
B
MW-31 0
Q_
VAS-301
--«
-302
VAS-ETI-1,
MW-J
MW-303
"5
E)VAS-ETI-3
^AS-30a^MW-305
300C
AS-CONSTRUCTED
-PERMEABLE REACTIVE
BARRIER (ICS MATERIAL)
300B
®,
VAS-303
MS-3W
SW-12
GEO — 74- GEOPROBE SAMPLE LOCATION (JULY/AUGL
VAS-ETI-3© VAS SAMPLE LOCATION (JANUARY 2005)
MW-308 O PROPOSED MONITORING WELL
PER PRB MONITORING WORKPLAN
300A^ EXISTING MONITORING WELL
X SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION
(MAY 2000)
30 0 30
SCALE: 1" = 30'
jf ^** 3912 W. Humphrey Sliest
^v ^^ Fax:(813)930-9809
N^/ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC.
^-^^^^-^y Mw-31 if\^^^vA^*eg2L^ ^^O /-^-/ y^~^~~^^ $
c-r r>r,r,n\ ^~"""~--^ ^~~~~~~~*~^~~^H&. r^SH/A^^B^iS^^™^^^^^^^^^^^^—- •— ^^^^^^^^ / ~~f 1
b> zOOO) ^^ ~^^_ ^ — —_A_>i*yMO JU°/^~--^ ' ^* — 7 yw— "^ns o / /
^\ UPSTREAMXWW^BW-308/ ^c^^T^VAS,r306 / 6 F^i ' / /
>2^_ (300A) SW ^^^i^/ ^ --— _ M A 4——^
^r\ ^^rsvr^^^^^^^ — -77 — '
* ^\\ A ? P3°0W0^^^^!2^-^^7e / /
PROPOSED MW SCREEN INTERVAL (FT BLS) G^v^-c'A ~~~~~~~~~~-------.r~~~~^^
MW-301 SCREEN AT HIGHEST VAS ^ 7 o~~~~~-----^ ~~ ^X
CONCENTRATION INTERVAL < ^~~~-~^_^ SW-1 ^~~~~— — .
MW-302 10-15 ^~~~-—^..^ ^ ^~~~— • — -_____^
MW-303 10-15 G^VT* — -. . ~~— --—__.
MW-304 10-15 7^ ^
uw ~^ns 719 -^
B
^^^
MW-300A 1 2- 1 7 (EXISTING) --^_^ — -~____^
MW-306 12-17 ^~~-~~~^^ ^~~— — -____^
MW-307 12-17 ^~~--~^_^ ^~~~— — __
MW-308 7-12 NOTE. ^----^
MW-309 SCREEN AT HIGHEST VAS 5?^ir/qAMPi F i nrATinMq ARF
CONCENTRATION INTERVAL BORING/SAMPLE LOCATIONS ARE
MW-31 0 SAME AS MW 301 APPROXIMATE, NOT SURVEYED
MW-31 1 5-10 (ACTUAL LOCATION WILL BE
209 SCREEN AT HIGHEST VAS 209 APPRnYIMATFI Y 9D' nilF
CONCENTRATION INTERVAL ^ J^™™ ^HOWN)
DRAWN DATE
MPG 4/21/05
CROSS SECTION LAYOUT REV DATE
C.\ ARF WATFR Rl IPPI Y RITF
CLARE, MICHIGAN FILE:
CrossSections.dv
PROJECT MANAGER DEPARTMENT MANAGER
GJR BSM
CRIPTION LEAD DESIGN PROF. CHECKED
USM titiM
PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER
PO1 Ifi "1
-£. \ \ D 1
"9
-------
OCTOBER, 2004
SLURRY WALL-
EW-13
EW-11
EV-10
-GROUND SURFACE
-LINER Ey_g
+ +
+ +
+ +
b c
J D
IMPERMEABLE LINER
SHALLOW GRDUNDWATER
VEGETATIVE CDVER
MITCHELL SDILS
NATIVE SAND
NATIVE CLAY
GLACIAL TILL
25
25
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 25'
VERTICAL SCALE: EXAGERATED 3 X
DRAWN BY: DRM
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DATE:
2/7/05
JOB No.: 24UN.20015.0002
CAD FILE: PRBBASE
PREPARED BY:
S E C O R
2321 CLUB MERIDIAN DR., SUITE E
OKEMOS, MICHIGAN
PREPARED FOR:
CLARE PRP GROUP
PIONEER PARKWAY
CLARE, Ml
FIGURE 6
SOIL REMEDY
GROUNDWATER LEVEL
CROSS-SECTION A-A'
-------
OCTOBER, 2004
EW-3
•GROUND SURFACE
SLURRY WALL-
EW-9
F
-^ .-, i—j
J U L
IMPERMEABLE LINER
SHALLOW GRDUNDWATER
VEGETATIVE CDVER
MITCHELL SDILS
NATIVE SAND
NATIVE CLAY
GLACIAL TILL
25
25
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 25'
VERTICAL SCALE: EXAGERATED 3 X
DRAWN BY: DRM
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DATE:
2/7/05
JOB No.: 24UN.20015.0002
CAD FILE: PRBBASE
PREPARED BY:
S E C O R
2321 CLUB MERIDIAN DR., SUITE E
OKEMOS, MICHIGAN
PREPARED FOR:
CLARE PRP GROUP
PIONEER PARKWAY
CLARE, Ml
FIGURE 7
SOIL REMEDY
GROUNDWATER LEVEL
CROSS-SECTION B-B'
-------
Attachment B
MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
ATTACHMENT B
MAROS 2.2 METHODOLOGY
Contents
1.0 MAROS Conceptual Model 1
2.0 Data Management 2
3.0 Site Details 2
4.0 Constituent Selection 3
5.0 Data Consolidation 3
6.0 Overview Statistics: Plume Trend Analysis 3
6.1 Mann-Kendall Analysis 4
6.2 Linear Regression Analysis 4
6.3 Overall Plume Analysis 5
6.4 Moment Analysis 6
7.0 Detailed Statistics: Optimization Analysis 8
7.1 Well Redundancy Analysis- Delaunay Method 8
7.2 Well Sufficiency Analysis - Delaunay Method 9
7.3 Sampling Frequency - Modified CES Method 10
7.4 Data Sufficiency- Power Analysis 11
Cited References
Tables
Table 1 Mann-Kendall Analysis Decision Matrix
Table 2 Linear Regression Analysis Decision Matrix
Figures
Figure 1 MAROS Decision Support Tool Flowchart
Figure 2 MAROS Overview Statistics Trend Analysis Methodology
Figure 3 Decision Matrix for Determining Provisional Frequency
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
November 8, 2006
MAROS METHODOLOGY
MAROS is a collection of tools in one software package that is used in an explanatory,
non-linear but linked fashion. The tool includes models, statistics, heuristic rules, and
empirical relationships to assist the user in optimizing a groundwater monitoring network
system. The final optimized network maintains adequate delineation while providing
information on plume dynamics over time. Results generated from the software tool can
be used to develop lines of evidence, which, in combination with expert opinion, can be
used to inform regulatory decisions for safe and economical long-term monitoring of
groundwater plumes. For a detailed description of the structure of the software and
further utilities, refer to the MAROS 2.2 Manual (AFCEE, 2003; http://www.gsi-
net.com/software/MAROS V2 1Manual.pdf) and Aziz et al., 2003.
1.0 MAROS Conceptual Model
In MAROS 2.2, two levels of analysis are used for optimizing long-term monitoring plans:
1) an overview statistical evaluation with interpretive trend analysis based on temporal
trend analysis and plume stability information; and 2) a more detailed statistical
optimization based on spatial and temporal redundancy reduction methods (see Figures
A.1 and A.2 for further details). In general, the MAROS method applies to 2-D aquifers
that have relatively simple site hydrogeology. However, for a multi-aquifer (3-D) system,
the user has the option to apply the statistical analysis layer-by-layer.
The overview statistics or interpretive trend analysis assesses the general monitoring
system category by considering individual well concentration trends, overall plume
stability, hydrogeologic factors (e.g., seepage velocity, and current plume length), and
the location of potential receptors (e.g., property boundaries or drinking water wells). The
method relies on temporal trend analysis to assess plume stability, which is then used to
determine the general monitoring system category. Since the monitoring system
category is evaluated for both source and tail regions of the plume, the site wells are
divided into two different zones: the source zone and the tail zone.
Source zone monitoring wells could include areas with non-aqueous phase liquids
(NAPLs), contaminated vadose zone soils, and areas where aqueous-phase releases
have been introduced into ground water. The source zone generally contains locations
with historical high ground water concentrations of the COCs. The tail zone is usually the
area downgradient of the contaminant source zone. Although this classification is a
simplification of the plume conceptual model, this broadness makes the user aware on
an individual well basis that the concentration trend results can have a different
interpretation depending on the well location in and around the plume. The location and
type of the individual wells allows further interpretation of the trend results, depending on
what type of well is being analyzed (e.g., remediation well, leading plume edge well, or
monitoring well). General recommendations for the monitoring network frequency and
density are suggested based on heuristic rules applied to the source and tail trend
results.
Attachment B f MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
November 8, 2006
The detailed statistics level of analysis or sampling optimization consists of well
redundancy and well sufficiency analyses using the Delaunay method, a sampling
frequency analysis using the Modified Cost Effective Sampling (MCES) method and a
data sufficiency analysis including statistical power analysis. The well redundancy
analysis is designed to minimize monitoring locations and the Modified CES method is
designed to minimize the frequency of sampling. The data sufficiency analysis uses
simple statistical methods to assess the sampling record to determine if groundwater
concentrations are statistically below target levels and if the current monitoring network
and record is sufficient in terms of evaluating concentrations at downgradient locations.
2.0 Data Management
In MAROS, ground water monitoring data can be imported from simple database-format
Microsoft® Excel spreadsheets, Microsoft Access tables, previously created MAROS
database archive files, or entered manually. Monitoring data interpretation in MAROS is
based on historical analytical data from a consistent set of wells over a series of
sampling events. The analytical data is composed of the well name, coordinate location,
constituent, result, detection limit and associated data qualifiers. Statistical validity of the
concentration trend analysis requires constraints on the minimum data input of at least
four wells (ASTM 1998) in which COCs have been detected. Individual sampling
locations need to include data from at least six most-recent sampling events. To ensure
a meaningful comparison of COC concentrations over time and space, both data quality
and data quantity need to be considered. Prior to statistical analysis, the user can
consolidate irregularly sampled data or smooth data that might result from seasonal
fluctuations or a change in site conditions. Because MAROS is a terminal analytical tool
designed for long-term planning, impacts of seasonal variation in the water unit are
treated on a broad scale, as they relate to multi-year trends.
Imported ground water monitoring data and the site-specific information entered in Site
Details can be archived and exported as MAROS archive files. These archive files can
be appended as new monitoring data becomes available, resulting in a dynamic long-
term monitoring database that reflects the changing conditions at the site (i.e.
biodegradation, compliance attainment, completion of remediation phase, etc.). For
wells with a limited monitoring history, addition of information as it becomes available
can change the frequency or identity of wells in the network.
3.0 Site Details
Information needed for the MAROS analysis includes site-specific parameters such as
seepage velocity and current plume length and width. Information on the location of
potential receptors relative to the source and tail regions of the plume is entered at this
point. Part of the trend analysis methodology applied in MAROS focuses on where the
monitoring well is located, therefore the user needs to divide site wells into two different
zones: the source zone or the tail zone. Although this classification is a simplification of
the well function, this broadness makes the user aware on an individual well basis that
the concentration trend results can have a different interpretation depending on the well
location in and around the plume. It is up to the user to make further interpretation of the
Attachment B 2 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
November 8, 2006
trend results, depending on what type of well is being analyzed (e.g., remediation well,
leading plume edge well, or monitoring well). The Site Details section of MAROS
contains a preliminary map of well locations to confirm well coordinates.
4.0 Constituent Selection
A database with multiple COCs can be entered into the MAROS software. MAROS
allows the analysis of up to 5 COCs concurrently and users can pick COCs from a list of
compounds existing in the monitoring data. MAROS runs separate optimizations for
each compound. For sites with a single source, the suggested strategy is to choose one
to three priority COCs for the optimization. If, for example, the site contains multiple
chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the standard sample chemical analysis
will evaluate all VOCs, so the sample locations and frequency should based on the
concentration trends of the most prevalent, toxic or mobile compounds. If different
chemical classes are present, such as metals and chlorinated VOCs, choose and
evaluate the priority constituent in each chemical class.
MAROS includes a short module that provides recommendations on prioritizing COCs
based on toxicity, prevalence, and mobility of the compound. The toxicity ranking is
determined by examining a representative concentration for each compound for the
entire site. The representative concentration is then compared to the screening level
(PRG or MCL) for that compound and the COCs are ranked according to the
representative concentrations percent exceedence of the screening level. The
evaluation of prevalence is performed by determining a representative concentration for
each well location and evaluating the total exceedences (values above screening levels)
compared to the total number of wells. Compounds found over screening levels are
ranked for mobility based on Kd (sorption partition coefficient). The MAROS COC
assessment provides the relative ranking of each COC, but the user must choose which
COCs are included in the analysis.
5.0 Data Consolidation
Typically, raw data from long-term monitoring have been measured irregularly in time or
contain many non-detects, trace level results, and duplicates. Therefore, before the data
can be further analyzed, raw data are filtered, consolidated, transformed, and possibly
smoothed to allow for a consistent dataset meeting the minimum data requirements for
statistical analysis mentioned previously.
MAROS allows users to specify the period of interest in which data will be consolidated
(i.e., monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, yearly, or a biennial basis). In
computing the representative value when consolidating, one of four statistics can be
used: median, geometric mean, mean, and maximum. Non-detects can be transformed
to one half the reporting or method detection limit (DL), the DL, or a fraction of the DL.
Trace level results can be represented by their actual values, one half of the DL, the DL,
or a fraction of their actual values. Duplicates are reduced in MAROS by one of three
ways: assigning the average, maximum, or first value. The reduced data for each COC
Attachment B 3 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
November 8, 2006
and each well can be viewed as a time series in a graphical form on a linear or semi-log
plot generated by the software.
6.0 Overview Statistics: Plume Trend Analysis
Within the MAROS software there are historical data analyses that support a conclusion
about plume stability (e.g., increasing plume, etc.) through statistical trend analysis of
historical monitoring data. Plume stability results are assessed from time-series
concentration data with the application of three statistical tools: Mann-Kendall Trend
analysis, linear regression trend analysis and moment analysis. The two trend methods
are used to estimate the concentration trend for each well and each COC based on a
statistical trend analysis of concentrations versus time at each well. These trend
analyses are then consolidated to give the user a general plume stability estimate and
general monitoring frequency and density recommendations (see Figures A.1 through
A.3 for further step-by-step details). Both qualitative and quantitative plume information
can be gained by these evaluations of monitoring network historical data trends both
spatially and temporally. The MAROS Overview Statistics are the foundation the user
needs to make informed optimization decisions at the site. The Overview Statistics are
designed to allow site personnel to develop a better understanding of the plume
behavior over time and understand how the individual well concentration trends are
spatially distributed within the plume. This step allows the user to gain information that
will support a more informed decision to be made in the next level or detailed statistics
optimization analysis.
6.1 Mann-Kendall Analysis
The Mann-Kendall test is a statistical procedure that is well suited for analyzing trends in
data over time. The Mann-Kendall test can be viewed as a non-parametric test for zero
slope of the first-order regression of time-ordered concentration data versus time. One
advantage of the Mann-Kendall test is that it does not require any assumptions as to the
statistical distribution of the data (e.g. normal, lognormal, etc.) and can be used with data
sets which include irregular sampling intervals and missing data. The Mann-Kendall test
is designed for analyzing a single groundwater constituent, multiple constituents are
analyzed separately. The Mann-Kendall S statistic measures the trend in the data:
positive values indicate an increase in concentrations over time and negative values
indicate a decrease in concentrations over time. The strength of the trend is proportional
to the magnitude of the Mann-Kendall statistic (i.e., a large value indicates a strong
trend). The confidence in the trend is determined by consulting the S statistic and the
sample size, n, in a Kendall probability table such as the one reported in Hollander and
Wolfe (1973).
The concentration trend is determined for each well and each COC based on results of
the S statistic, the confidence in the trend, and the Coefficient of Variation (COV). The
decision matrix for this evaluation is shown in Table 3. A Mann-Kendall statistic that is
greater than 0 combined with a confidence of greater than 95% is categorized as an
Increasing trend while a Mann-Kendall statistic of less than 0 with a confidence between
90% and 95% is defined as a probably Increasing trend, and so on.
Attachment B 4 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
November 8, 2006
Depending on statistical indicators, the concentration trend is classified into six
categories:
Decreasing (D),
Probably Decreasing (PD),
Stable (S),
No Trend (NT),
Probably Increasing (PI)
Increasing (I).
These trend estimates are then analyzed to identify the source and tail region overall
stability category (see Figure 2 for further details).
6.2 Linear Regression Analysis
Linear Regression is a parametric statistical procedure that is typically used for
analyzing trends in data over time. Using this type of analysis, a higher degree of
scatter simply corresponds to a wider confidence interval about the average log-slope.
Assuming the sign (i.e., positive or negative) of the estimated log-slope is correct, a level
of confidence that the slope is not zero can be easily determined. Thus, despite a poor
goodness of fit, the overall trend in the data may still be ascertained, where low levels of
confidence correspond to "Stable" or "No Trend" conditions (depending on the degree of
scatter) and higher levels of confidence indicate the stronger likelihood of a trend. The
linear regression analysis is based on the first-order linear regression of the log-
transformed concentration data versus time. The slope obtained from this log-
transformed regression, the confidence level for this log-slope, and the COV of the
untransformed data are used to determine the concentration trend. The decision matrix
for this evaluation is shown in Table 4.
To estimate the confidence in the log-slope, the standard error of the log-slope is
calculated. The coefficient of variation, defined as the standard deviation divided by the
average, is used as a secondary measure of scatter to distinguish between "Stable" or
"No Trend" conditions for negative slopes. The Linear Regression Analysis is designed
for analyzing a single groundwater constituent; multiple constituents are analyzed
separately, (up to five COCs simultaneously). For this evaluation, a decision matrix
developed by Groundwater Services, Inc. is also used to determine the "Concentration
Trend" category (plume stability) for each well.
Depending on statistical indicators, the concentration trend is classified into six
categories:
Decreasing (D),
Probably Decreasing (PD),
Stable (S),
No Trend (NT),
Probably Increasing (PI)
Increasing (I).
Attachment B 5 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
November 8, 2006
The resulting confidence in the trend, together with the log-slope and the COV of the
untransformed data, are used in the linear regression analysis decision matrix to
determine the concentration trend. For example, a positive log-slope with a confidence
of less than 90% is categorized as having No Trend whereas a negative log-slope is
considered Stable if the COV is less than 1 and categorized as No Trend if the COV is
greater than 1.
6.3 Overall Plume Analysis
General recommendations for the monitoring network frequency and density are
suggested based on heuristic rules applied to the source and tail trend results.
Individual well trend results are consolidated and weighted by the MAROS according to
user input, and the direction and strength of contaminant concentration trends in the
source zone and tail zone for each COC are determined. Based on
i) the consolidated trend analysis,
ii) hydrogeologic factors (e.g., seepage velocity), and
iii) location of potential receptors (e.g., wells, discharge points, or property
boundaries),
the software suggests a general optimization plan for the current monitoring system in
order to efficiently but effectively monitor groundwater in the future. A flow chart utilizing
the trend analysis results and other site-specific parameters to form a general sampling
frequency and well density recommendation is outlined in Figure 2. For example, a
generic plan for a shrinking petroleum hydrocarbon plume (BTEX) in a slow
hydrogeologic environment (silt) with no nearby receptors would entail minimal, low
frequency sampling of just a few indicators. On the other hand, the generic plan for a
chlorinated solvent plume in a fast hydrogeologic environment that is expanding but has
very erratic concentrations over time would entail more extensive, higher frequency
sampling. The generic plan is based on a heuristically derived algorithm for assessing
future sampling duration, location and density that takes into consideration plume
stability. For a detailed description of the heuristic rules used in the MAROS software,
refer to the MAROS 2.2Manual (AFCEE, 2003).
6.4 Moment Analysis
An analysis of moments can help resolve plume trends, where the zeroth moment shows
change in dissolved mass vs. time, the first moment shows the center of mass location
vs. time, and the second moment shows the spread of the plume vs. time. Moment
calculations can predict how the plume will change in the future if further statistical
analysis is applied to the moments to identify a trend (in this case, Mann Kendall Trend
Analysis is applied). The trend analysis of moments can be summarized as:
• Zeroth Moment: An estimate of the total mass of the constituent for each sample
event
• First Moment: An estimate of the center of mass for each sample event
• Second Moment: An estimate of the spread of the plume around the center of
mass
Attachment B 6 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
November 8, 2006
The role of moment analysis in MAROS is to provide a relative estimate of plume
stability and condition within the context of results from other MAROS modules. The
Moment analysis algorithms in MAROS are simple approximations of complex
calculations and are meant to estimate changes in total mass, center of mass and
spread of mass for complex well networks. The Moment Analysis module is sensitive to
the number and arrangement of wells in each sampling event, so, changes in the
number and identity of wells during monitoring events, and the parameters chosen for
data consolidation can cause changes in the estimated moments.
Plume stability may vary by constituent, therefore the MAROS Moment analysis can be
used to evaluate multiple COCs simultaneously which can be used to provide a quick
way of comparing individual plume parameters to determine the size and movement of
constituents relative to one another. Moment analysis in the MAROS software can also
be used to assist the user in evaluating the impact on plume delineation in future
sampling events by removing identified "redundant" wells from a long-term monitoring
program (this analysis was not performed as part of this study, for more details on this
application of moment analysis refer to the MAROS Users Manual (AFCEE, 2003)).
The zeroth moment is the sum of concentrations for all monitoring wells and is a mass
estimate. The zeroth moment calculation can show high variability over time, largely due
to the fluctuating concentrations at the most contaminated wells as well as varying
monitoring well network. Plume analysis and delineation based exclusively on
concentration can exhibit fluctuating temporal and spatial values. The mass estimate is
also sensitive to the extent of the site monitoring well network over time. The zeroth
moment trend over time is determined by using the Mann-Kendall Trend Methodology.
The zeroth Moment trend test allows the user to understand how the plume mass has
changed over time. Results for the trend include: Increasing, probably Increasing, no
trend, stable, probably decreasing, decreasing or not applicable (N/A) (Insufficient Data).
When considering the results of the zeroth moment trend, the following factors should be
considered which could effect the calculation and interpretation of the plume mass over
time: 1) Change in the spatial distribution of the wells sampled historically 2) Different
wells sampled within the well network over time (addition and subtraction of well within
the network). 3) Adequate versus inadequate delineation of the plume over time
The first moment estimates the center of mass, coordinates (Xc and Yc) for each
sample event and COC. The changing center of mass locations indicate the movement
of the center of mass over time. Whereas, the distance from the original source location
to the center of mass locations indicate the movement of the center of mass over time
relative to the original source. Calculation of the first moment normalizes the spread by
the concentration indicating the center of mass. The first moment trend of the distance to
the center of mass over time shows movement of the plume in relation to the original
source location over time. Analysis of the movement of mass should be viewed as it
relates to 1) the original source location of contamination 2) the direction of groundwater
flow and/or 3) source removal or remediation. Spatial and temporal trends in the center
of mass can indicate spreading or shrinking or transient movement based on season
variation in rainfall or other hydraulic considerations. No appreciable movement or a
neutral trend in the center of mass would indicate plume stability. However, changes in
Attachment B 7 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
November 8, 2006
the first moment over time do not necessarily completely characterize the changes in the
concentration distribution (and the mass) over time. Therefore, in order to fully
characterize the plume the First Moment trend should be compared to the zeroth
moment trend (mass change over time).
The second moment indicates the spread of the contaminant about the center of mass
(Sxx and Syy), or the distance of contamination from the center of mass for a particular
COC and sample event. The Second Moment represents the spread of the plume over
time in both the x and y directions. The Second Moment trend indicates the spread of
the plume about the center of mass. Analysis of the spread of the plume should be
viewed as it relates to the direction of groundwater flow. An Increasing trend in the
second moment indicates an expanding plume, whereas a declining trend in the second
moment indicates a shrinking plume. No appreciable movement or a neutral trend in the
center of mass would indicate plume stability. The second moment provides a measure
of the spread of the concentration distribution about the plume's center of mass.
However, changes in the second moment over time do not necessarily completely
characterize the changes in the concentration distribution (and the mass) over time.
Therefore, in order to fully characterize the plume the Second Moment trend should be
compared to the zeroth moment trend (mass change over time).
7.0 Detailed Statistics: Optimization Analysis
Although the overall plume analysis shows a general recommendation regarding
sampling frequency reduction and a general sampling density, a more detailed analysis
is also available with the MAROS 2.2 software in order to allow for further reductions on
a well-by-well basis for frequency, well redundancy, well sufficiency and sampling
sufficiency. The MAROS Detailed Statistics allows for a quantitative analysis for spatial
and temporal optimization of the well network on a well-by-well basis. The results from
the Overview Statistics should be considered along with the MAROS optimization
recommendations gained from the Detailed Statistical Analysis described previously.
The MAROS Detailed Statistics results should be reassessed in view of site knowledge
and regulatory requirements as well as in consideration of the Overview Statistics
(Figure 2).
The Detailed Statistics or Sampling Optimization MAROS modules can be used to
determine the minimal number of sampling locations and the lowest frequency of
sampling that can still meet the requirements of sampling spatially and temporally for an
existing monitoring program. It also provides an analysis of the sufficiency of data for
the monitoring program.
Sampling optimization in MAROS consists of four parts:
• Well redundancy analysis using the Delaunay method
• Well sufficiency analysis using the Delaunay method
• Sampling frequency determination using the Modified CES method
• Data sufficiency analysis using statistical power analysis.
Attachment B g MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
November 8, 2006
The well redundancy analysis using the Delaunay method identifies and eliminates
redundant locations from the monitoring network. The well sufficiency analysis can
determine the areas where new sampling locations might be needed. The Modified CES
method determines the optimal sampling frequency for a sampling location based on the
direction, magnitude, and uncertainty in its concentration trend. The data sufficiency
analysis examines the risk-based site cleanup status and power and expected sample
size associated with the cleanup status evaluation.
7.1 Well Redundancy Analysis - Delaunay Method
The well redundancy analysis using the Delaunay method is designed to select the
minimum number of sampling locations based on the spatial analysis of the relative
importance of each sampling location in the monitoring network. The approach allows
elimination of sampling locations that have little impact on the historical characterization
of a contaminant plume. An extended method or wells sufficiency analysis, based on
the Delaunay method, can also be used for recommending new sampling locations.
Details about the Delaunay method can be found in Appendix A.2 of the MAROS Manual
(AFCEE, 2003).
Sampling Location determination uses the Delaunay triangulation method to determine
the significance of the current sampling locations relative to the overall monitoring
network. The Delaunay method calculates the network Area and Average concentration
of the plume using data from multiple monitoring wells. A slope factor (SF) is calculated
for each well to indicate the significance of this well in the system (i.e. how removing a
well changes the average concentration.)
The Sampling Location optimization process is performed in a stepwise fashion. Step
one involves assessing the significance of the well in the system, if a well has a small SF
(little significance to the network), the well may be removed from the monitoring network.
Step two involves evaluating the information loss of removing a well from the network. If
one well has a small SF, it may or may not be eliminated depending on whether the
information loss is significant. If the information loss is not significant, the well can be
eliminated from the monitoring network and the process of optimization continues with
fewer wells. However if the well information loss is significant then the optimization
terminates. This sampling optimization process allows the user to assess "redundant"
wells that will not incur significant information loss on a constituent-by-constituent basis
for individual sampling events.
7.2 Well Sufficiency Analysis - Delaunay Method
The well sufficiency analysis, using the Delaunay method, is designed to recommend
new sampling locations in areas within the existing monitoring network where there is a
high level of uncertainty in contaminant concentration. Details about the well sufficiency
analysis can be found in Appendix A.2 of the MAROS Manual (AFCEE, 2003).
In many cases, new sampling locations need to be added to the existing network to
enhance the spatial plume characterization. If the MAROS algorithm calculates a high
Attachment B g MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
November 8, 2006
level of uncertainty in predicting the constituent concentration for a particular area, a new
sampling location is recommended. The Slope Factor (SF) values obtained from the
redundancy evaluation described above are used to calculate the concentration
estimation error for each triangle area formed in the Delaunay triangulation. The
estimated SF value for each area is then classified into four levels: Small, Moderate,
Large, or Extremely large (S, M, L, E) because the larger the estimated SF value, the
higher the estimation error at this area. Therefore, the triangular areas with the
estimated SF value at the Extremely large or Large level can be candidate regions for
new sampling locations.
The results from the Delaunay method and the method for determining new sampling
locations are derived solely from the spatial configuration of the monitoring network and
the spatial pattern of the contaminant plume. No parameters such as the hydrogeologic
conditions are considered in the analysis. Therefore, professional judgment and
regulatory considerations must be used to make final decisions.
7.3 Sampling Frequency Determination - Modified CES Method
The Modified CES method optimizes sampling frequency for each sampling location
based on the magnitude, direction, and uncertainty of its concentration trend derived
from its recent and historical monitoring records. The Modified Cost Effective Sampling
(MCES) estimates a conservative lowest-frequency sampling schedule for a given
groundwater monitoring location that still provides needed information for regulatory and
remedial decision-making. The MCES method was developed on the basis of the Cost
Effective Sampling (CES) method developed by Ridley et al (1995). Details about the
MCES method can be found in Appendix A.9 of the MAROS Manual (AFCEE, 2003).
In order to estimate the least frequent sampling schedule for a monitoring location that
still provides enough information for regulatory and remedial decision-making, MCES
employs three steps to determine the sampling frequency. The first step involves
analyzing frequency based on recent trends. A preliminary location sampling frequency
(PLSF) is developed based on the rate of change of well concentrations calculated by
linear regression along with the Mann-Kendall trend analysis of the most recent
monitoring data (see Figure 3). The variability within the sequential sampling data is
accounted for by the Mann-Kendall analysis. The rate of change vs. trend result matrix
categorizes wells as requiring annual, semi-annual or quarterly sampling. The PLSF is
then reevaluated and adjusted based on overall trends. If the long-term history of
change is significantly greater than the recent trend, the frequency may be reduced by
one level.
The final step in the analysis involves reducing frequency based on risk, site-specific
conditions, regulatory requirements or other external issues. Since not all compounds in
the target being assessed are equally harmful, frequency is reduced by one level if
recent maximum concentration for a compound of high risk is less than 1/2 of the
Maximum Concentration Limit (MCL). The result of applying this method is a suggested
sampling frequency based on recent sampling data trends and overall sampling data
trends and expert judgment.
Attachment B fQ MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
November 8, 2006
The final sampling frequency determined from the MCES method can be Quarterly,
Semiannual, Annual, or Biennial. Users can further reduce the sampling frequency to,
for example, once every three years, if the trend estimated from Biennial data (i.e., data
drawn once every two years from the original data) is the same as that estimated from
the original data.
7.4 Data Sufficiency Analysis - Power Analysis
The MAROS Data Sufficiency module employs simple statistical methods to evaluate
whether the collected data are adequate both in quantity and in quality for revealing
changes in constituent concentrations. The first section of the module evaluates
individual well concentrations to determine if they are statistically below a target
screening level. The second section includes a simple calculation for estimating
projected groundwater concentrations at a specified point downgradient of the plume. A
statistical Power analysis is then applied to the projected concentrations to determine if
the downgradient concentrations are statistically below the cleanup standard. If the
number of projected concentrations is below the level to provide statistical significance,
then the number of sample events required to statistically confirm concentrations below
standards is estimated from the Power analysis.
Before testing the cleanup status for individual wells, the stability or trend of the
contaminant plume should be evaluated. Only after the plume has reached stability or is
reliably diminishing can we conduct a test to examine the cleanup status of wells.
Applying the analysis to wells in an expanding plume may cause incorrect conclusions
and is less meaningful.
Statistical power analysis is a technique for interpreting the results of statistical tests.
The Power of a statistical test is a measure of the ability of the test to detect an effect
given that the effect actually exists. The method provides additional information about a
statistical test: 1) the power of the statistical test, i.e., the probability of finding a
difference in the variable of interest when a difference truly exists; and 2) the expected
sample size of a future sampling plan given the minimum detectable difference it is
supposed to detect. For example, if the mean concentration is lower than the cleanup
goal but a statistical test cannot prove this, the power and expected sample size can tell
the reason and how many more samples are needed to result in a significant test. The
additional samples can be obtained by a longer period of sampling or an increased
sampling frequency. Details about the data sufficiency analysis can be found in
Appendix A.6 of the MAROS Manual (AFCEE, 2003).
When applying the MAROS power analysis method, a hypothetical statistical compliance
boundary (HSCB) is assigned to be a line perpendicular to the groundwater flow
direction (see figure below). Monitoring well concentrations are projected onto the
HSCB using the distance from each well to the compliance boundary along with a decay
coefficient. The projected concentrations from each well and each sampling event are
then used in the risk-based power analysis. Since there may be more than one sampling
event selected by the user, the risk-based power analysis results are given on an event-
Attachment B 77 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
November 8, 2006
by-event basis. This power analysis can then indicate if target are statistically achieved
at the HSCB. For instance, at a site where the historical monitoring record is short with
few wells, the HSCB would be distant; whereas, at a site with longer duration of
sampling with many wells, the HSCB would be close. Ultimately, at a site the goal would
be to have the HSCB coincide with or be within the actual compliance boundary
(typically the site property line).
"HSCB"
Concentrations
projected to this
-"line
e>
The nearest
downgradient
receptor
Groundwater flow direction
In order to perform a risk-based cleanup status evaluation for the whole site, a strategy
was developed as follows.
• Estimate concentration versus distance decay coefficient from plume centerline
wells.
• Extrapolate concentration versus distance for each well using this decay
coefficient.
• Comparing the extrapolated concentrations with the compliance concentration
using power analysis.
Results from this analysis can be Attained or Not Attained, providing a statistical
interpretation of whether the cleanup goal has been met on the site-scale from the risk-
based point of view. The results as a function of time can be used to evaluate if the
monitoring system has enough power at each step in the sampling record to indicate
certainty of compliance by the plume location and condition relative to the compliance
boundary. For example, if results are Not Attained at early sampling events but are
Attained in recent sampling events, it indicates that the recent sampling record provides
a powerful enough result to indicate compliance of the plume relative to the location of
the receptor or compliance boundary.
Attachment B
12
MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
GSIJobNo. G-3138-105
November 8, 2006
CITED REFERENCES
AFCEE 2003. Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System (MAROS) 2.1 Software
Users Guide. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, http://www.gsi-
net.com/software/MAROS V2 1Manual.pdf
AFCEE. 1997. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, AFCEE Long-Term
Monitoring Optimization Guide, http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil.
Aziz, J. A., C. J. Newell, M. Ling, H. S. Rifai and J. R. Gonzales (2003). "MAROS: A
Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans." Ground Water 41(3): 355-
367.
Gilbert, R. O., 1987, Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, ISBN 0-442-23050-8.
Hollander, M. and Wolfe, D. A. (1973). Nonparametric Statistical Methods, Wiley, New
York, NY.
Ridley, M.N. et al., 1995. Cost-Effective Sampling of Groundwater Monitoring Wells, the
Regents of UC/LLNL, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992. Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of
Cleanup Standards Volume 2: Ground Water.
Weight, W. D. and J. L. Sonderegger (2001). Manual of Applied Field Hydrogeology.
New York, NY, McGraw-Hill.
Attachment B 73 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
If
GROUNDWATER
SERVICES, INC.
Mann-Kendall
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
S>0
S>0
S>0
S<0
S<0
S<0
S<0
TABLE 1
Analysis Decision Matrix
Confidence in the
Trend
> 95%
90 - 95%
< 90%
< 90% and COV > 1
< 90% and COV < 1
90 - 95%
> 95%
(Aziz, et. al., 2003)
Concentration Trend
Increasing
Probably Increasing
No Trend
No Trend
Stable
Probably Decreasing
Decreasing
Linear Regression
Confidence in the
Trend
< 90%
90 - 95%
> 95%
TABLE 2
Analysis Decision Matrix (Aziz, et. al., 2003)
Log-slope
Positive Negative
COV < 1 Stable
No Trend
COV > 1 No Trend
Probably Increasing Probably Decreasing
Increasing Decreasing
-------
If
GROUNDWATER
SERVICES, INC.
MAROS: Decision Support Tool
MAROS is a collection of tools in one software package that is used in an explanatory, non-linear fashion. The tool
includes models, geostatistics, heuristic rules, and empirical relationships to assist the user in optimizing a
groundwater monitoring network system while maintaining adequate delineation of the plume as well as knowledge
of the plume state over time. Different users utilize the tool in different ways and interpret the results from a different
viewpoint.
T
Overview Statistics
What it is: Simple, qualitative and quantitative plume information can be gained through evaluation of monitoring
network historical data trends both spatially and temporally. The MAROS Overview Statistics are the foundation the
user needs to make informed optimization decisions at the site.
What it does: The Overview Statistics are designed to allow site personnel to develop a better understanding of the
plume behavior over time and understand how the individual well concentration trends are spatially distributed within
the plume. This step allows the user to gain information that will support a more informed decision to be made in the
next level of optimization analysis.
What are the tools: Overview Statistics includes two analytical tools:
1) Trend Analysis: includes Mann-Kendall and Linear Regression statistics for individual wells and results in
general heuristically-derived monitoring categories with a suggested sampling density and monitoring
frequency.
2) Moment Analysis: includes dissolved mass estimation (0th Moment), center of mass (1st Moment), and
plume spread (2nd Moment) over time. Trends of these moments show the user another piece of
information about the plume stability overtime.
What is the product: A first-cut blueprint for a future long-term monitoring program that is intended to be a
foundation for more detailed statistical analysis.
T
Detailed Statistics
What it is: The MAROS Detailed Statistics allows for a quantitative analysis for spatial and temporal optimization of
the well network on a well-by-well basis.
What it does: The results from the Overview Statistics should be considered along side the MAROS optimization
recommendations gained from the Detailed Statistical Analysis. The MAROS Detailed Statistics results should be
reassessed in view of site knowledge and regulatory requirements as well as the Overview Statistics.
What are the tools: Detailed Statistics includes four analytical tools:
1) Sampling Frequency Optimization: uses the Modified CES method to establish a recommended future
sampling frequency.
2) Well Redundancy Analysis: uses the Delaunay Method to evaluate if any wells within the monitoring
network are redundant and can be eliminated without any significant loss of plume information.
3) Well Sufficiency Analysis: uses the Delaunay Method to evaluate areas where new wells are
recommended within the monitoring network due to high levels of concentration uncertainty.
4) Data Sufficiency Analysis: uses Power Analysis to assess if the historical monitoring data record has
sufficient power to accurately reflect the location of the plume relative to the nearest receptor or
compliance point.
What is the product: List of wells to remove from the monitoring program, locations where monitoring wells may
need to be added, recommended frequency of sampling for each well, analysis if the overall system is statistically
powerful to monitor the plume.
Figure 1. MAROS Decision Support Tool Flow Chart
-------
GROUNDWATER
SERVICES, INC.
Select Representative Wells in "Source" and "Plume" Zone
Source Zone i Tail Zone
Identify Site Constituents of Concern (COCs).
(Assistance provided by software.)
Analyze Lines of Evidence (LOEs)
for Plume Stability (by well and by COC)
Categorize concentrations of COC in each well as:
• Increasing (I)
• Probably Increasing (PI)
• No Trend (NT)
• Stable (S)
• Probably Decreasing (PD)
• Decreasing (D)
Determine General Trend
for Each Well Based On All
LOE's
SOURCE PLUME
"Lump Lines of Evidence"
Determine General Trend for Source and
Tail Zones
Increasing (I)
Probably Increasing (PI)
No Trend (NT)
Stable (S)
Probably Decreasing (PD)
Decreasing (D)
"Lump Wells" in Source and Tail Zone
Determine
LTMP
Monitoring
Category
for COC By
Source / Tail
-------
GROUNDWATER
SERVICES, INC.
Sampling
Frequency
Q: Quarterly
S: SemiAimual
A: Annual
0>
CE3
T3
I
PI
Rate of Change (Linear Regression)
High MH Medium LM Low
Figure 3. Decision Matrix for Determining Provisional Frequency (Figure A.3.1 of the
MAROS Manual (AFCEE 2003)
-------
Attachment C
MAROS Reports
-------
March 22, 2007
ATTACHMENT C:
LONG-TERM
MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
Clare, Michigan
MAROS Reports
PRB Area:
COC Assessment Report
Mann-Kendall Reports Selected Wells
(Including data from November 2006 monitoring event)
So/7 Remedy Area:
COC Assessment Report
Mann-Kendall Reports Selected Wells
-------
MAROS COC Assessment
Project: Clare Water Supply
Location: Clare
Toxicitv:
User Name: MV
State: Michigan
Contaminant of Concern
VINYL CHLORIDE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Representative
Concentration
(mg/L)
1.2E-01
6.9E-02
PRG
(mg/L)
1.5E-02
6.1E-02
Percent
Above
PRG
713.2%
12.9%
Note: Top COCs by toxicity were determined by examining a representative concentration for each compound over the entire site. The
compound representative concentrations are then compared with the chosen PRG for that compound, with the percentage excedence from
the PRG determining the compound's toxicity. All compounds above exceed the PRG.
Prevalence:
Contaminant of Concern
VINYL CHLORIDE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Class
ORG
ORG
Total
Wells
16
16
Total
Excedences
10
3
Percent
Excedences
62.5%
18.8%
Total
detects
15
13
Note: Top COCs by prevalence were determined by examining a representative concentration for each well location at the site. The
total excedences (values above the chosen PRGs) are compared to the total number of wells to determine the prevalence of the
compound.
Mobility:
Contaminant of Concern
Kd
VINYL CHLORIDE
cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
0.042
0.0724
Note: Top COCs by mobility were determined by examining each detected compound in the dataset and comparing their
mobilities (Koc's for organics, assume foe = 0.001, and Kd's for metals).
Contaminants of Concern (COC's)
VINYL CHLORIDE
cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Project: Clare
Location: Clare
User Name: MV
State: Michigan
Time Period: 3/23/1994 to 11/10/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Well
Source/
Tail
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
220
300A
300B
300C
MW-301
MW-302
MW-303
MW-304
MW-305
MW-306
Mw-307
MW-308
Mw-309
MW-310
MW-311
MW-312
MW-313
SW-11
SW-12
VINYL CHLORIDE
220
300A
300B
300C
MW-301
MW-302
MW-303
MW-304
MW-305
MW-306
Mw-307
MW-308
Mw-309
MW-310
T
S
s
S
T
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
T
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
31
15
13
13
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
12
35
16
14
14
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
15
13
2
3
4
5
5
5
2
0
5
5
1
5
1
1
0
0
1
16
14
9
5
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
1.3E-03
4.1E-01
5.6E-03
5.8E-04
8.8E-04
4.0E-02
4.9E-01
4.8E-03
1.2E-01
1.2E-03
5.0E-04
8.4E-03
3.3E-03
6.6E-04
2.0E-02
5.4E-04
6.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
9.8E-04
8.8E-01
6.1E-02
8.0E-03
1.2E-03
6.8E-02
5.2E-01
2.0E-02
1.5E-01
4.5E-03
1.1E-02
3.8E-02
2.1E-02
1.7E-02
5.0E-04
2.7E-01
5.5E-03
5.0E-04
7.3E-04
3.1E-02
6.1E-02
4.6E-03
1.1E-01
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.8E-03
2.4E-03
5.0E-04
8.9E-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
1 .OE-03
7.2E-01
3.6E-02
1 .3E-03
1 .3E-03
5.7E-02
1.2E-01
1 .9E-02
1.5E-01
2.3E-03
9.1E-03
3.6E-02
1 JE-02
2.0E-02
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
S
I
S
S
D
NT
S
S
NT
S
S
NT
S
NT
S
NT
S
S
S
I
I
I
S
S
D
PD
S
D
S
S
S
NT
NT
NT
I
S
S
PD
D
S
S
NT
I
S
S
S
NT
S
NT
D
D
PD
PI
I
I
D
NT
D
D
NT
D
S
S
D
NT
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Monday, December 18, 2006
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Source/
Well Tai,
Number
of
Samples
Number
of
Detects
Average
Cone.
(mg/L)
Median
Cone.
(mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
VINYL CHLORIDE
MW-311
MW-312
MW-313
SW-11
SW-12
T
T
T
T
T
6
6
6
12
14
6
0
1
0
1
2.8E-02
1.0E-03
9.6E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.2E-02
1.0E-03
1 .OE-03
1.0E-03
1 .OE-03
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
S
S
NT
S
S
PD
S
NT
S
D
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable
(N/A); Not Applicable (N/A) - Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); No Detectable Concentration (NDC)
The Number of Samples and Number of Detects shown above are post-consolidation values.
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Monday, December 18, 2006
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 300A
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: to
Consolidation Period: Other
Consolidation Type: Maximum
Duplicate Consolidation: First
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Fraction of Actual Value
3.0E+00 •
|) 2.5E+00 •
§ 2.0E+00 -
S 1.5E+00 -
c
01
c 1.0E+00 -
o
O
5.0E-01 •
Data Table:
^> ^ <^
• • *
* * *
Effective
Well Well Type Date
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
12/12/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/29/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/27/2004
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Date
^f ^f ^ ^P4 ^
•
^ *
* * * *
• »
•
0 Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 41
Confidence in
Trend:
1 96.5%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °75
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I '
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
VINYL CHLORIDE 2.9E-01
VINYL CHLORIDE 3.3E-01
VINYL CHLORIDE 6.6E-01
VINYL CHLORIDE 3.9E-01
VINYL CHLORIDE 7.0E-01
VINYL CHLORIDE 7.3E-01
VINYL CHLORIDE 9.8E-01
VINYL CHLORIDE 9.0E-01
VINYL CHLORIDE 9.4E-01
VINYL CHLORIDE 9.4E-01
VINYL CHLORIDE 1.4E+00
VINYL CHLORIDE 1.5E+00
VINYL CHLORIDE 3.0E+00
VINYL CHLORIDE 5.5E-01
VINYL CHLORIDE 6.1E-01
VINYL CHLORIDE 2.2E-01
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
3/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 300B
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: to
Consolidation Period: Other
Consolidation Type: Maximum
Duplicate Consolidation: First
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Fraction of Actual Value
2tF 01
.%)C~U 1
^ 2.0E-01 -
E
c 1.5E-01 •
o
1
•£ 1.0E-01 •
8
c
0 5.0E-02 •
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
300B S
300B S
300B S
300B S
300B S
300B S
300B S
300B S
300B S
300B S
300B S
300B S
300B S
300B S
Date
0°° v^ oo& eft" «$?^ eft" $ r&" $ eft"
^ ^ ^
•
.•...'••'*
Effective
pe Date Constituent
12/12/1999 VINYL CHLORIDE
6/28/2000 VINYL CHLORIDE
12/6/2000 VINYL CHLORIDE
10/30/2001 VINYL CHLORIDE
5/1/2002 VINYL CHLORIDE
10/29/2002 VINYL CHLORIDE
4/22/2003 VINYL CHLORIDE
10/21/2003 VINYL CHLORIDE
4/27/2004 VINYL CHLORIDE
10/27/2004 VINYL CHLORIDE
5/24/2005 VINYL CHLORIDE
11/9/2005 VINYL CHLORIDE
5/15/2006 VINYL CHLORIDE
11/15/2006 VINYL CHLORIDE
^ .o4 ^j& .vj*
*• «• ^
•
• *
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.4E-02
2.0E-02
7.2E-03
3.6E-03
1.0E-02
2.4E-02
3.4E-02
3.7E-02
6.2E-02
4.8E-02
1.1E-01
1.4E-01
2.0E-01
1.4E-01
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 71
Confidence in
Trend:
1 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1'02
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I '
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
3/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 300C
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: to
Consolidation Period: Other
Consolidation Type: Maximum
Duplicate Consolidation: First
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Fraction of Actual Value
3.0E-02 -
__ 2.5E-02 -
_j
,§ 2.0E-02 •
c
| 1.5E-02-
§ 1.0E-02-
o
0 5.0E-03 -
O.OE+00 •
Data Table:
Date
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-303
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: to
Consolidation Period: Other
Consolidation Type: Maximum
Duplicate Consolidation: First
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Fraction of Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
1.6E+00 -
1.4E+00 -
1.2E+00 •
1.0E+00 •
8.0E-01 •
6.0E-01 -
4.0E-01 -
2.0E-01 -
n np4-nn .
/ / / / / /
»
*
* * * •
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 97.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.29
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-303
MW-303
MW-303
MW-303
MW-303
MW-303
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.6E+00
1.1E+00
9.1E-02
1.2E-01
1.1E-01
7.6E-02
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
3/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-304
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: to
Consolidation Period: Other
Consolidation Type: Maximum
Duplicate Consolidation: First
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Fraction of Actual Value
Date
_j
1
o
1
Concen
4.0E-02 -
3.5E-02 -
3.0E-02 •
2.5E-02 •
2.0E-02 •
1.5E-02-
1.0E-02-
5.0E-03 -
n np4-nn .
•
*
•
*
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 93.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.68
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ PD
Data Table:
Well
MW-304
MW-304
MW-304
MW-304
MW-304
MW-304
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
4.1E-02
2.8E-02
8.5E-03
1.8E-02
2.0E-02
3.7E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
3/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-305
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
O)
o
2 0.1 -
o
O
0.01
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 57.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.63
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-305
MW-305
MW-305
MW-305
MW-305
MW-305
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.4E-01
6.8E-02
2.3E-02
2.4E-01
1.9E-01
1.1E-01
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
3/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-306
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: to
Consolidation Period: Other
Consolidation Type: Maximum
Duplicate Consolidation: First
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Fraction of Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
1.4E-02-
1.2E-02-
1.0E-02-
8.0E-03 •
6.0E-03 -
4.0E-03 •
2.0E-03 -
n np4-nn .
/ / / / / /
*
*
* * *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.17
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-306
MW-306
MW-306
MW-306
MW-306
MW-306
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.5E-02
4.4E-03
2.4E-03
2.0E-03
2.1E-03
1.1E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
3/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: Mw-307
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: to
Consolidation Period: Other
Consolidation Type: Maximum
Duplicate Consolidation: First
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Fraction of Actual Value
Date
A'
.<*'
_J
E
itration
Concer
3.0E-02 •
2.5E-02 •
2.0E-02 -
1.5E-02-
1.0E-02-
5.0E-03 •
n np4-nn .
*
* *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 76.5%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.99
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
Mw-307
Mw-307
Mw-307
Mw-307
Mw-307
Mw-307
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.3E-02
1.1E-02
1.0E-03 ND
5.0E-03
1.0E-02
8.1E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
0
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
3/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-308
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: to
Consolidation Period: Other
Consolidation Type: Maximum
Duplicate Consolidation: First
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Fraction of Actual Value
Date
^
_J
E
itration
Concer
6.0E-02 •
5.0E-02 •
4.0E-02 -
3.0E-02 -
2.0E-02 -
1.0E-02-
n np4-nn .
* *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 64.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.45
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-308
MW-308
MW-308
MW-308
MW-308
MW-308
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
5.5E-02
2.6E-02
2.3E-02
4.5E-02
5.8E-02
2.0E-02
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
3/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: Mw-309
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: to
Consolidation Period: Other
Consolidation Type: Maximum
Duplicate Consolidation: First
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Fraction of Actual Value
Date
6.0E-02
_ 5.0E-02
_j
,§ 4.0E-02
| 3.0E-02
g 2.0E-02
o
0 1.0E-02-
0.
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 64.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.75
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
Mw-309
Mw-309
Mw-309
Mw-309
Mw-309
Mw-309
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
4.8E-02
1.4E-02
1.6E-02
1.8E-02
2.5E-02
2.2E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
3/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS COC Assessment
Project: Soil Remedy
Location: Clare
Toxicitv:
Contaminant of Concern
User Name: MV
State: Michigan
Representative
Concentration
(mg/L)
PRG
(mg/L)
Percent
Above
PRG
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
5.3E-03
5.0E-03
6.9%
Note: Top COCs by toxicity were determined by examining a representative concentration for each compound over the entire site. The
compound representative concentrations are then compared with the chosen PRG for that compound, with the percentage excedence from
the PRG determining the compound's toxicity. All compounds above exceed the PRG.
Prevalence:
Contaminant of Concern
Class
Total
Wells
Total
Excedences
Percent
Excedences
Total
detects
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
ORG
8
25.0%
Note: Top COCs by prevalence were determined by examining a representative concentration for each well location at the site. The
total excedences (values above the chosen PRGs) are compared to the total number of wells to determine the prevalence of the
compound.
Mobility:
Contaminant of Concern
Kd
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
0.297
Note: Top COCs by mobility were determined by examining each detected compound in the dataset and comparing their
mobilities (Koc's for organics, assume foe = 0.001, and Kd's for metals).
Contaminants of Concern (COC's)
VINYL CHLORIDE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: UMW-1S
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/18/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 op ni
1 .^C-UO •
Inc ni
.Ut-Uo -
£ 8.0E-04 -
c
s 6.0E-04 •
§ 4.0E-04 -
o
0 2.0E-04 -
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
«S?^ v^o^'v^o^
^ > ^r ^3>
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I °
Confidence in
Trend"
I 48.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I S
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DMW-1S
Well Type: s
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 3/24/1999 to 5/16/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 op m
I .^C-U I •
_ 1.0E-01 -
£ 8.0E-02 -
c
s 6.0E-02 •
§ 4.0E-02 -
o
0 2.0E-02 -
O.OE+00 •
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
«S?^ ^^o^'^^o12
^ > V > V
•
•
* * *
Effective
Pe Date
3/24/1999
6/23/1999
12/21/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/28/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/26/2004
5/20/2005
11/8/2005
5/16/2006
Date
/*s£' Wv^ XX^' ^f XX^' ^f S^*1
^ 7* V*
Constituent
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
.J^jvO ^j^
^3> ^r ^3>
Result (mg/L) Flag
9.9E-02
6.7E-02
1.4E-02
1.3E-02
1.0E-02
9.0E-03
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
9.0E-03
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
3.2E-03
2.9E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_
Confidence in
Trend:
1 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1'61
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I °
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/28/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DMW-1S
Well Type: s
COC: cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Time Period: 3/24/1999 to 5/16/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
2nc ni
.UE-U I •
1.8E-01 -
;;[• 1.6E-01 -
|" 1.4E-01 -
r 1.2E-01 •
o
s 1.0E-01 •
i 8.0E-02 •
| 6.0E-02 •
0 4.0E-02 •
2.0E-02 •
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
«S?^ v^o^'v^o^
^ >
•
Constituent
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
.J^jvO ^j^
^3> ^r ^3>
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.4E-02
8.0E-03
4.0E-03
3.0E-03
2.3E-02
6.7E-02
6.0E-03
1.8E-01
2.0E-02
9.0E-03
5.0E-03
9.3E-02
5.9E-03
5.5E-03
2.9E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ^?9
Confidence in
Trend:
1 81 .0%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1'62
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I NT
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/28/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DMW-2S
Well Type: s
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 3/24/1999 to 5/16/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
8.0E-03 •
7.0E-03 -
? 6.0E-03 -
~ 5.0E-03 -
| 4.0E-03 •
g 3.0E-03 -
o
o 2.0E-03 •
O
1.0E-03-
Data Table:
Date
^ ^ ^ ^ o* o* ^ 0* / 0* / 0* ^ 4
*
* * *
^ Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
1 99.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.95
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
_
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
3/24/1999 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 5.0E-03 1 1
6/23/1999 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 7.0E-03 1 1
12/21/1999 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 2.0E-03 1 1
6/28/2000 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 ND 1 0
12/6/2000 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 ND 1 0
10/30/2001 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 2.0E-03 1 1
5/1/2002 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 1 1
10/28/2002 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 2.0E-03 1 1
4/22/2003 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 ND 1 0
10/21/2003 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 ND 1 0
4/27/2004 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 ND 1 0
10/26/2004 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 ND 1 0
5/20/2005 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 ND 1 0
5/16/2006 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 7.9E-04 1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/28/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DMW-3S
Well Type: s
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 3/24/1999 to 5/16/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6nc n9
.UE-U^ •
_ 5.0E-02 -
^j
£ 4.0E-02 -
c
s 3.0E-02 •
§ 2.0E-02 -
o
0 1.0E-02-
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
«S?^ v^o^'v^o
^ > ^r ^3>
* *
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.1E-02
4.8E-02
1.5E-02
3.0E-02
2.1E-02
3.1E-02
3.6E-02
6.0E-03
2.3E-02
8.0E-03
1.2E-02
1.0E-02
4.5E-03
2.2E-02
2.3E-02
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_
Confidence in
Trend:
1 95.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.58
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I °
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/28/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DMW-1D
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/18/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 op ni
1 .^C-UO •
Inc ni
.Ut-Uo -
£ 8.0E-04 -
c
s 6.0E-04 •
§ 4.0E-04 -
o
0 2.0E-04 -
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
«S?^ ^^o^'^^o12
^ > V > V
Effective
Pe Date
3/24/1999
6/23/1999
12/21/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/28/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/26/2004
5/20/2005
11/8/2005
5/16/2006
Date
/*s£' Wv^ XX^' ^f /*s£' ^f S^*1
^ 7* V*
Constituent
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
.J^jvO ^j^
^3> ^r ^3>
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 8
Confidence in
Trend"
I 63.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I NT
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: UMW-1D
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/18/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 op ni
1 .^C-UO •
Inc ni
.Ut-Uo -
£ 8.0E-04 -
c
s 6.0E-04 •
§ 4.0E-04 -
o
0 2.0E-04 -
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
«S?^ ^^o^'^^o12
^ > V > V
Effective
Pe Date
3/24/1999
6/23/1999
12/21/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/28/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/26/2004
5/20/2005
11/8/2005
5/16/2006
Date
/*s£' Wv^ XX^' ^f /*s£' ^f S^*1
^ 7* V*
Constituent
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
.J^jvO ^j^
^3> ^r ^3>
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I °
Confidence in
Trend"
I 48.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I S
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DMW-2D
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/18/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 op ni
1 .^C-UO •
Inc ni
.Ut-Uo -
£ 8.0E-04 -
c
s 6.0E-04 •
§ 4.0E-04 -
o
0 2.0E-04 -
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
«S?^ ^^o^'^^o12
^ > V > V
Effective
Pe Date
3/24/1999
6/23/1999
12/21/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/28/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/26/2004
5/20/2005
11/8/2005
5/16/2006
Date
/*s£' Wv^ XX^' ^f /*s£' ^f S^*1
^ 7* V*
Constituent
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
.J^jvO ^j^
^3> ^r ^3>
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I °
Confidence in
Trend"
I 48.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I S
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DMW-3D
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/18/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 op ni
1 .OC-UO •
1.6E-03-
U 1.4E-03 -
,§ 1.2E-03-
5 1 OF ni .
O 1 .UC~UO
2 8.0E-04 •
c
g 6.0E-04 -
c
2 4.0E-04 -
2.0E-04 -
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
£> j£> <£> 5^
«S?^ ^^o^'^^o12
^ > V > V
Effective
Pe Date
3/24/1999
6/23/1999
12/21/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/28/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/26/2004
5/20/2005
11/8/2005
5/16/2006
Date
<£ (^ & & <£ <£ (^
XX^' W^^ XX^' ^f XX^' ^f XX^'
^ 7* V*
4
Constituent
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
5,*- <£ <£ <£>
.J^jvO ^j^
^y \* \y
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.6E-03
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 10
Confidence in
Trend:
I 66.9%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.15
9
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I NT
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 215
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 6/1/1988 to 5/16/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
2K.C ni
.Ot-Uo -
^ 2.0E-03 -
E
c 1.5E-03-
o
1
•£ 1.0E-03-
c
0 5.0E-04 •
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
«$^ OO&' 6$*' ^^
^ O
•
^ ^
» » ••••• •
•
Effective
Pe Date
3/21/1994
6/28/1994
9/21/1994
12/19/1994
3/21/1995
6/27/1995
9/19/1995
12/19/1995
3/26/1996
6/19/1996
9/17/1996
12/17/1996
3/25/1997
6/24/1997
9/23/1997
12/16/1997
3/24/1998
6/17/1998
10/1/1998
3/24/1999
6/23/1999
12/21/1999
Date
*^ .o.®0 rt<^ .o.®0 rt<^ •Q
x^ ^5 O ^? O i^
^
•
•
Constituent
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
^ rt<^ *^
O x^
>••••
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03
2.1E-03
1.0E-03 ND
1.3E-03
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.3E-03
7.4E-04
1.0E-03 ND
5.5E-04
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
4.0E-04
4.4E-04
3.8E-04
2.9E-04
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ^61
P
Confidence in
Trend:
I 81 .2%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °'37
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I S
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
2 2
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
2 2
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 0
1 0
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/30/2006
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well Well Type
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/28/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/26/2004
5/20/2005
11/8/2005
5/16/2006
Constituent Result (mg/L)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
1.0E-03
6.5E-04
1.0E-03
1.4E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
Number of
Flag Samples
ND 1
2
ND 1
1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
Number of
Detects
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/30/2006
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: SW-9
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 6/1/1988 to 5/16/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
IA c no
.4t-Uz -
1.2E-02-
^j
|> 1.0E-02-
§ 8.0E-03 -
£ 6.0E-03 -
c
01
c 4.0E-03 -
o
O
2.0E-03 •
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
^ ^ <>5> o
V^ V^ «&sr ^\®
i i X' ^^
* »*
* *
* * »<
Effective
Pe Date
6/1/1988
6/1/1989
3/21/1994
6/28/1994
9/21/1994
12/19/1994
3/21/1995
6/27/1995
9/19/1995
12/19/1995
3/26/1996
6/19/1996
9/17/1996
12/17/1996
3/25/1997
6/24/1997
9/23/1997
12/16/1997
3/24/1998
6/17/1998
10/1/1998
3/24/1999
Date
** o//^ / //* -/
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well Well Type
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
6/23/1999
12/21/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/28/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/26/2004
5/20/2005
11/8/2005
5/16/2006
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
9.2E-03
1.2E-02
1.1E-02
7.0E-03
4.4E-03
4.8E-03
6.1E-03
6.4E-03
2.0E-03
1.5E-03
2.7E-03
1.8E-03
1.7E-03
1.3E-03
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/30/2006
Page 2 of 2
-------
November 7. 2006
LONG-TERM
MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS
Clare Water Supply Superfund Site
Clare, Michigan
APPENDIX B:
MAROS Reports
PRB Area:
COC Assessment Report
Mann-Kendall Reports Selected Wells
So/7 Remedy Area:
COC Assessment Report
Mann-Kendall Reports Selected Wells
-------
MAROS COC Assessment
Project: Clare Water Supply
Location: Clare
Toxicitv:
User Name: MV
State: Michigan
Contaminant of Concern
VINYL CHLORIDE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Representative
Concentration
(mg/L)
1.2E-01
6.9E-02
PRG
(mg/L)
1.5E-02
6.1E-02
Percent
Above
PRG
713.2%
12.9%
Note: Top COCs by toxicity were determined by examining a representative concentration for each compound over the entire site. The
compound representative concentrations are then compared with the chosen PRG for that compound, with the percentage excedence from
the PRG determining the compound's toxicity. All compounds above exceed the PRG.
Prevalence:
Contaminant of Concern
VINYL CHLORIDE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Class
ORG
ORG
Total
Wells
16
16
Total
Excedences
10
3
Percent
Excedences
62.5%
18.8%
Total
detects
15
13
Note: Top COCs by prevalence were determined by examining a representative concentration for each well location at the site. The
total excedences (values above the chosen PRGs) are compared to the total number of wells to determine the prevalence of the
compound.
Mobility:
Contaminant of Concern
Kd
VINYL CHLORIDE
cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
0.042
0.0724
Note: Top COCs by mobility were determined by examining each detected compound in the dataset and comparing their
mobilities (Koc's for organics, assume foe = 0.001, and Kd's for metals).
Contaminants of Concern (COC's)
VINYL CHLORIDE
cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-301
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/17/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1 .UUCTTUU '
•§- 1.00E-01 -
c
O
c
Ol
c 1.00E-02-
o
O
1 nnp.n.i .
*
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 67.5%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.18
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-301
MW-301
MW-301
MW-301
MW-301
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
1.0E-03 ND
1.1E-03
1.4E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
0
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-302
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/17/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00B-00
O)
o
£ 1.00E-01 -
I
o
O
1.00E-02
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 88.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.41
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-302
MW-302
MW-302
MW-302
MW-302
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
9.9E-02
5.0E-02
5.9E-02
5.4E-02
3.3E-02
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-303
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/17/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
10
I 1
o
1 0.1
o
O
0.01
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 88.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.16
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW-303
MW-303
MW-303
MW-303
MW-303
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.6E+00
1.1E+00
9.1E-02
1.2E-01
1.1E-01
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-304
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/17/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00E+00
•=- 1.00E-01
o
c 1.00E-02
o
O
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 75.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.53
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-304
MW-304
MW-304
MW-304
MW-304
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
4.1E-02
2.8E-02
8.5E-03
1.8E-02
2.0E-02
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-305
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/17/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
O)
o
2 0.1 -
o
O
0.01
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 50.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.66
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-305
MW-305
MW-305
MW-305
MW-305
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.4E-01
6.8E-02
2.3E-02
2.4E-01
1.9E-01
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-306
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/17/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00E+00
•=- 1.00E-01
o
c 1.00E-02
o
O
,i'
**&*
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 95.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.08
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-306
MW-306
MW-306
MW-306
MW-306
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.5E-02
4.4E-03
2.4E-03
2.0E-03
2.1E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: Mw-307
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/17/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00E+00-
•§- 1.00E-01 -
o
c
Ol
c 1.00E-02-
o
O
1 nnp.n.i .
^ 6C -A < ^
*.^l O>^ vO tk^r ^fff^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
* •
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 75.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.03
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
Mw-307
Mw-307
Mw-307
Mw-307
Mw-307
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.3E-02
1.1E-02
1.0E-03 ND
5.0E-03
1.0E-02
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
0
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-308
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/17/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00B-00
O)
o
£ 1.00E-01 -
I
o
O
1.00E-02
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 59.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.39
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW-308
MW-308
MW-308
MW-308
MW-308
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
5.5E-02
2.6E-02
2.3E-02
4.5E-02
5.8E-02
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: Mw-309
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/17/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00B-00
O)
o
£ 1.00E-01 -
I
o
O
1.00E-02
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 59.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.58
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
Mw-309
Mw-309
Mw-309
Mw-309
Mw-309
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
4.8E-02
1.4E-02
1.6E-02
1.8E-02
2.5E-02
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-310
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/17/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00E+00
•=- 1.00E-01 H
o
c 1.00E-02H
o
O
1.00E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 88.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.60
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW-310
MW-310
MW-310
MW-310
MW-310
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
7.1E-03
1.9E-02
5.2E-03
2.5E-02
2.7E-02
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-311
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/17/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00B-00
O)
o
£ 1.00E-01 -
I
o
O
1.00E-02
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 59.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.70
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-31 1
MW-31 1
MW-31 1
MW-31 1
MW-31 1
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.9E-02
6.9E-02
1.5E-02
1.7E-02
2.6E-02
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-312
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/18/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.2E-03
_ 1.0E-03
_j
£ 8.0E-04
| 6.0E-04
§ 4.0E-04
o
0 2.0E-04 -
0.
&
>
&
#
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 40.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-312
MW-312
MW-312
MW-312
MW-312
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L)
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
0
0
0
0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-313
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/18/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
&
.&
&
1 .UUCTTUU '
o) 1.00E-01 •
E.
c
o
2 1.00E-02-
§
c
0 1.00E-03-
1 nnp.n/i .
^ » • • »
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 75.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.13
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW-313
MW-313
MW-313
MW-313
MW-313
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/24/2005
8/11/2005
11/9/2005
3/15/2006
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L)
7.3E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
0
0
0
0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 300A
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/17/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
10 .ii
j"
B)
o
!
§ * *
0 «, »
01
Data Table:
Well Well Type
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
300A S
Date
>V>V>V>V>V>1
•
* » » »
* *
Effective
Date Constituent
12/12/1999 VINYL CHLORIDE
6/28/2000 VINYL CHLORIDE
12/6/2000 VINYL CHLORIDE
10/30/2001 VINYL CHLORIDE
5/1/2002 VINYL CHLORIDE
10/29/2002 VINYL CHLORIDE
4/22/2003 VINYL CHLORIDE
10/21/2003 VINYL CHLORIDE
4/27/2004 VINYL CHLORIDE
10/27/2004 VINYL CHLORIDE
5/24/2005 VINYL CHLORIDE
8/11/2005 VINYL CHLORIDE
11/9/2005 VINYL CHLORIDE
3/15/2006 VINYL CHLORIDE
5/17/2006 VINYL CHLORIDE
6)
j^ Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_
Confidence in
Trend:
1 99.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °72
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I '
Number of Number of
Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
2.9E-01 2 2
3.3E-01 1 1
6.6E-01 1 1
3.9E-01 1 1
7.0E-01 2 2
7.3E-01 1 1
9.8E-01 1 1
9.0E-01 1 1
9.4E-01 1 1
9.4E-01 1 1
1.4E+00 1 1
1.5E+00 1 1
3.0E+00 2 2
5.5E-01 1 1
6.1E-01 1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 300B
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/17/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00B-00
O)
•§- 1.00E-01 H
o
c 1.00E-02H
o
O
1.00E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 62
Confidence in
Trend:
I 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.10
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
300B
300B
300B
300B
300B
300B
300B
300B
300B
300B
300B
300B
300B
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
12/12/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/29/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/27/2004
5/24/2005
11/9/2005
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.4E-02
2.0E-02
7.2E-03
3.6E-03
1.0E-02
2.4E-02
3.4E-02
3.7E-02
6.2E-02
4.8E-02
1.1E-01
1.4E-01
2.0E-01
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 300C
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/18/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
3.0E-02
__ 2.5E-02 -
_j
B)
_§ 2.0E-02
c
| 1.5E-02
§ 1.0E-02
o
0 5.0E-03 -
O.OE+00
» » »
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 43
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.38
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
300C
300C
300C
300C
300C
300C
300C
300C
300C
300C
300C
300C
300C
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
12/12/1999
7/21/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/29/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/27/2004
5/24/2005
11/9/2005
5/1 7/2006
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L)
1.0E-03
7.3E-04
2.9E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
3.2E-03
1.0E-03
1.3E-02
1.6E-03
2.4E-02
2.4E-02
2.7E-02
1.0E-03
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 220
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/18/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 op ni
1 .^C-UO •
Inc ni
.Ut-Uo -
£ 8.0E-04 -
c
s 6.0E-04 •
§ 4.0E-04 -
o
0 2.0E-04 -
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
220 T
220 T
220 T
220 T
220 T
220 T
220 T
220 T
220 T
220 T
220 T
220 T
220 T
220 T
220 T
«S?^ ^^o^'^^o12
^ > V > V
Effective
Pe Date
3/24/1999
6/23/1999
12/12/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/29/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/27/2004
5/24/2005
11/9/2005
5/1 7/2006
Date
•> <$• ^j& fr <$• <$• ^
^ 7* V*
•
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
^^ .Q4^^
^ •
-------
MAROS COC Assessment
Project: Soil Remedy
Location: Clare
Toxicitv:
Contaminant of Concern
User Name: MV
State: Michigan
Representative
Concentration
(mg/L)
PRG
(mg/L)
Percent
Above
PRG
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
5.3E-03
5.0E-03
6.9%
Note: Top COCs by toxicity were determined by examining a representative concentration for each compound over the entire site. The
compound representative concentrations are then compared with the chosen PRG for that compound, with the percentage excedence from
the PRG determining the compound's toxicity. All compounds above exceed the PRG.
Prevalence:
Contaminant of Concern
Class
Total
Wells
Total
Excedences
Percent
Excedences
Total
detects
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
ORG
8
25.0%
Note: Top COCs by prevalence were determined by examining a representative concentration for each well location at the site. The
total excedences (values above the chosen PRGs) are compared to the total number of wells to determine the prevalence of the
compound.
Mobility:
Contaminant of Concern
Kd
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
0.297
Note: Top COCs by mobility were determined by examining each detected compound in the dataset and comparing their
mobilities (Koc's for organics, assume foe = 0.001, and Kd's for metals).
Contaminants of Concern (COC's)
VINYL CHLORIDE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: UMW-1S
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/18/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 op ni
1 .^C-UO •
Inc ni
.Ut-Uo -
£ 8.0E-04 -
c
s 6.0E-04 •
§ 4.0E-04 -
o
0 2.0E-04 -
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
UMW-1S T
«S?^ v^o^'v^o^
^ > ^r ^3>
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I °
Confidence in
Trend"
I 48.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I S
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DMW-1S
Well Type: s
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 3/24/1999 to 5/16/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 op m
I .^C-U I •
_ 1.0E-01 -
£ 8.0E-02 -
c
s 6.0E-02 •
§ 4.0E-02 -
o
0 2.0E-02 -
O.OE+00 •
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
«S?^ ^^o^'^^o12
^ > V > V
•
•
* * *
Effective
Pe Date
3/24/1999
6/23/1999
12/21/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/28/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/26/2004
5/20/2005
11/8/2005
5/16/2006
Date
/*s£' Wv^ XX^' ^f XX^' ^f S^*1
^ 7* V*
Constituent
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
.J^jvO ^j^
^3> ^r ^3>
Result (mg/L) Flag
9.9E-02
6.7E-02
1.4E-02
1.3E-02
1.0E-02
9.0E-03
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
9.0E-03
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
3.2E-03
2.9E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_
Confidence in
Trend:
1 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1'61
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I °
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/28/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DMW-1S
Well Type: s
COC: cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Time Period: 3/24/1999 to 5/16/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
2nc ni
.UE-U I •
1.8E-01 -
;;[• 1.6E-01 -
|" 1.4E-01 -
r 1.2E-01 •
o
s 1.0E-01 •
i 8.0E-02 •
| 6.0E-02 •
0 4.0E-02 •
2.0E-02 •
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
DMW-1S S
«S?^ v^o^'v^o^
^ >
•
Constituent
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
cis-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
.J^jvO ^j^
^3> ^r ^3>
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.4E-02
8.0E-03
4.0E-03
3.0E-03
2.3E-02
6.7E-02
6.0E-03
1.8E-01
2.0E-02
9.0E-03
5.0E-03
9.3E-02
5.9E-03
5.5E-03
2.9E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ^?9
Confidence in
Trend:
1 81 .0%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1'62
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I NT
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/28/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DMW-2S
Well Type: s
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 3/24/1999 to 5/16/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
8.0E-03 •
7.0E-03 -
? 6.0E-03 -
~ 5.0E-03 -
| 4.0E-03 •
g 3.0E-03 -
o
o 2.0E-03 •
O
1.0E-03-
Data Table:
Date
^ ^ ^ ^ o* o* ^ 0* / 0* / 0* ^ 4
*
* * *
^ Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
1 99.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.95
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
_
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
DMW-2S S
3/24/1999 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 5.0E-03 1 1
6/23/1999 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 7.0E-03 1 1
12/21/1999 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 2.0E-03 1 1
6/28/2000 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 ND 1 0
12/6/2000 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 ND 1 0
10/30/2001 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 2.0E-03 1 1
5/1/2002 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 1 1
10/28/2002 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 2.0E-03 1 1
4/22/2003 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 ND 1 0
10/21/2003 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 ND 1 0
4/27/2004 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 ND 1 0
10/26/2004 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 ND 1 0
5/20/2005 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03 ND 1 0
5/16/2006 TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 7.9E-04 1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/28/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DMW-3S
Well Type: s
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 3/24/1999 to 5/16/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6nc n9
.UE-U^ •
_ 5.0E-02 -
^j
£ 4.0E-02 -
c
s 3.0E-02 •
§ 2.0E-02 -
o
0 1.0E-02-
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
DMW-3S S
«S?^ v^o^'v^o
^ > ^r ^3>
* *
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.1E-02
4.8E-02
1.5E-02
3.0E-02
2.1E-02
3.1E-02
3.6E-02
6.0E-03
2.3E-02
8.0E-03
1.2E-02
1.0E-02
4.5E-03
2.2E-02
2.3E-02
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_
Confidence in
Trend:
1 95.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.58
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I °
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/28/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DMW-1D
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/18/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 op ni
1 .^C-UO •
Inc ni
.Ut-Uo -
£ 8.0E-04 -
c
s 6.0E-04 •
§ 4.0E-04 -
o
0 2.0E-04 -
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
DMW-1D T
«S?^ ^^o^'^^o12
^ > V > V
Effective
Pe Date
3/24/1999
6/23/1999
12/21/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/28/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/26/2004
5/20/2005
11/8/2005
5/16/2006
Date
/*s£' Wv^ XX^' ^f /*s£' ^f S^*1
^ 7* V*
Constituent
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
.J^jvO ^j^
^3> ^r ^3>
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 8
Confidence in
Trend"
I 63.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I NT
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: UMW-1D
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/18/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 op ni
1 .^C-UO •
Inc ni
.Ut-Uo -
£ 8.0E-04 -
c
s 6.0E-04 •
§ 4.0E-04 -
o
0 2.0E-04 -
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
UMW-1D T
«S?^ ^^o^'^^o12
^ > V > V
Effective
Pe Date
3/24/1999
6/23/1999
12/21/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/28/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/26/2004
5/20/2005
11/8/2005
5/16/2006
Date
/*s£' Wv^ XX^' ^f /*s£' ^f S^*1
^ 7* V*
Constituent
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
.J^jvO ^j^
^3> ^r ^3>
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I °
Confidence in
Trend"
I 48.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I S
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DMW-2D
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/18/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 op ni
1 .^C-UO •
Inc ni
.Ut-Uo -
£ 8.0E-04 -
c
s 6.0E-04 •
§ 4.0E-04 -
o
0 2.0E-04 -
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
DMW-2D T
«S?^ ^^o^'^^o12
^ > V > V
Effective
Pe Date
3/24/1999
6/23/1999
12/21/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/28/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/26/2004
5/20/2005
11/8/2005
5/16/2006
Date
/*s£' Wv^ XX^' ^f /*s£' ^f S^*1
^ 7* V*
Constituent
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
.J^jvO ^j^
^3> ^r ^3>
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I °
Confidence in
Trend"
I 48.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I S
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DMW-3D
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 5/18/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 op ni
1 .OC-UO •
1.6E-03-
U 1.4E-03 -
,§ 1.2E-03-
5 1 OF ni .
O 1 .UC~UO
2 8.0E-04 •
c
g 6.0E-04 -
c
2 4.0E-04 -
2.0E-04 -
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
DMW-3D T
£> j£> <£> 5^
«S?^ ^^o^'^^o12
^ > V > V
Effective
Pe Date
3/24/1999
6/23/1999
12/21/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/28/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/26/2004
5/20/2005
11/8/2005
5/16/2006
Date
<£ (^ & & <£ <£ (^
XX^' W^^ XX^' ^f XX^' ^f XX^'
^ 7* V*
4
Constituent
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
5,*- <£ <£ <£>
.J^jvO ^j^
^y \* \y
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.6E-03
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 10
Confidence in
Trend:
I 66.9%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.15
9
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I NT
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 215
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 6/1/1988 to 5/16/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
2K.C ni
.Ot-Uo -
^ 2.0E-03 -
E
c 1.5E-03-
o
1
•£ 1.0E-03-
c
0 5.0E-04 •
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
215 T
«$^ OO&' 6$*' ^^
^ O
•
^ ^
» » ••••• •
•
Effective
Pe Date
3/21/1994
6/28/1994
9/21/1994
12/19/1994
3/21/1995
6/27/1995
9/19/1995
12/19/1995
3/26/1996
6/19/1996
9/17/1996
12/17/1996
3/25/1997
6/24/1997
9/23/1997
12/16/1997
3/24/1998
6/17/1998
10/1/1998
3/24/1999
6/23/1999
12/21/1999
Date
*^ .o.®0 rt<^ .o.®0 rt<^ •Q
x^ ^5 O ^? O i^
^
•
•
Constituent
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
^ rt<^ *^
O x^
>••••
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03
2.1E-03
1.0E-03 ND
1.3E-03
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.3E-03
7.4E-04
1.0E-03 ND
5.5E-04
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
4.0E-04
4.4E-04
3.8E-04
2.9E-04
1.0E-03 ND
1.0E-03 ND
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ^61
P
Confidence in
Trend:
I 81 .2%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °'37
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I S
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
2 2
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
2 2
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 0
1 0
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/30/2006
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well Well Type
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/28/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/26/2004
5/20/2005
11/8/2005
5/16/2006
Constituent Result (mg/L)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
1.0E-03
6.5E-04
1.0E-03
1.4E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
Number of
Flag Samples
ND 1
2
ND 1
1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
Number of
Detects
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/30/2006
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: SW-9
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 6/1/1988 to 5/16/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
IA c no
.4t-Uz -
1.2E-02-
^j
|> 1.0E-02-
§ 8.0E-03 -
£ 6.0E-03 -
c
01
c 4.0E-03 -
o
O
2.0E-03 •
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
SW-9 T
^ ^ <>5> o
V^ V^ «&sr ^\®
i i X' ^^
* »*
* *
* * »<
Effective
Pe Date
6/1/1988
6/1/1989
3/21/1994
6/28/1994
9/21/1994
12/19/1994
3/21/1995
6/27/1995
9/19/1995
12/19/1995
3/26/1996
6/19/1996
9/17/1996
12/17/1996
3/25/1997
6/24/1997
9/23/1997
12/16/1997
3/24/1998
6/17/1998
10/1/1998
3/24/1999
Date
** o//^ / //* -/
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well Well Type
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
SW-9
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
6/23/1999
12/21/1999
6/28/2000
12/6/2000
10/30/2001
5/1/2002
10/28/2002
4/22/2003
10/21/2003
4/27/2004
10/26/2004
5/20/2005
11/8/2005
5/16/2006
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
9.2E-03
1.2E-02
1.1E-02
7.0E-03
4.4E-03
4.8E-03
6.1E-03
6.4E-03
2.0E-03
1.5E-03
2.7E-03
1.8E-03
1.7E-03
1.3E-03
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/30/2006
Page 2 of 2
-------
Attachment D
Electronic Database
(provided on CD in hardcopy report)
-------
Attachment E
Selected November 2006 Data
-------
FILCON FACILITY
(FORMERLY MITCHELL)
/
MW-3C
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
-ye
1,1^00
5/05
1.8
0.9J
1.9
1.5
- ^0.98J
8/05
<1
<1
1.5
<1
11/05
<1
<1
<1
<1
3/06
<1
0.77J
1.1
0.36J
5/06
0.73J
1.4
<1
11/06
<1
0.5J
0.5J
0.55J
MW-302
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
<1
1.0
110D
99D
88D
8/05
<1
<1
31
50
97
11/05
<1
<1
33
59
85
3/06
<1
0.52J
27
54
120D
5/06
<1
<1
<1
33
92
11/06
<1
0.46J
44
110
190
MW-310
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
<1
<1
1.3
7.1
<1
8/05
<1
<1
<1
19
<1
11/05
<1
<1
<1
5.2
<1
\
3/06
<1
<1
<1
\2b
V1
5/06
<1
<1
<1
27
<1
11/06
<1
<1
<1
21
<1
300C
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
<1
<1
<1
24
4.9
11/05
<1
<1
<1
27
7.5
5/06
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
11/06
<1
<1
<1
13
2.7
MW-303
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
0.68J
20
1,4000
1,6000
500D
8/06
<1N
20 /
8801?
1.1QOJZ
35pj2
11/05
<1
8.4
410
9TD-—
130D
3/06
<1
2.2
61
-1200
J95D
5/06
<1
2.2
52
1100
93D
11/06
<1
0.86J
16
76
91
V-301
QMW-302
V-303
MW-305
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
0.73J
33
240D
240D
80
8/05
<1
7.4
69
68
33
11/05,
<1 /
1.7 /
17 ^
23
ie ,
3/06
<10
<10
^l 40
/240
78
5/06
<1
1.5
110D
190D
96
11/06
<1
0.58J
34
110
73
300B
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
<1
<1
6.8
110
1.2
11/05
<1
<1
7.7
1400
1.4
5/06
<1
<1
10
200D
2.7
11/0>
<1
<1
8.7
140
2.3
o
300B
QMW-305
Q300A
MW-309
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
0.63J
6.8
48
1
8/05
<1
1.7
14
<1
11/05
<1
1.7
16
<1
3/06
<1
2.4
18
0.54J
5/06
<1
3.7
25
0.88J
11/06
<1
0.44J
2.2
<1
PRB
PRB
-JO
MW-309I
^SW-12
LEGEND
MW-308 O MONITORING
^
PCE-
TCE-
CIS-1
^M^^M PRB
SW-12
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
GSI
45
200
620
15
740
5/05
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
WELL
2 - CIS-1.2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
VC - VINYL CHLORIDE
1.1-DCA-1.1 DICHLOROETHANE
GSI - GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER
INTERFACE CRITERIA & RBSLS
MW-304
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
<1
<1
6.8
41
7.2
8/05
<1
<1
4.6
28
5.3
11/05
<1
<1
2.7
8.5
4.7
3/06
<1
<1
3
18
5.5
5/06
<1
<1
6.9
20
22
11/06
<1
<1
<1
3.7
7.1
rfW-307
MW-
SW-12
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
11/05
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
5/06
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
11/06
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
306
MW-311
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
<1
8.8
20
29
13
8/05
<1
10
58
69
20
11/05
<1
2.4
6.9
15
11
3/06
<1
2.9
6.3
17
7.6
5/06
<1
4.9
8.9
26
10
11/06
<1
0.53J
3.1
10
5.3
MW-313
O
MW-313
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
<1
<1
<1
0.73J
8/05
<1
<1
<1
11/05
<1
<1
<1
3/06
<1
<1
<1
5/06
<1
<1
1
11/06
<1
<1
<1
MW-308
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
<1
8.6
19
55
18
8/05
<1
2.0
5.8
26
8.4
11/05
<1
1.7
5.2
23
9.6
3/06
<1
1.6
5.7
45
13
5/06
<1
2.1
6.5
58
15
11/06
<1
1.4
3.5
20
9.7
MW-307
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
<1
<1
<1
33
6
8/05
<1
<1
<1
11
2.2
11/05
<1
<1
<1
<1
1.2
3/06
<1
<1
<1
5
1.5
5/06
<1
<1
<1
10
7.4
11/06
<1
<1
<1
8.1
8.1
300A
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
<1
0.72J
430D
1,4000
1.300D
8/05
<1
<1
5100
1,5000
1.500D
12/05
<1
<1
190D
7200
950D
3/06
<1
<1
210D
5500
890D
5/06
<1
<1
190D
6100
890D
11/06
<1
<1
89
220
590
MW-306
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
<1
<1
3.8
15
1.8
8/05
<1
<1
<1
4.4
<1
11/05
<1
<1
<1
2.4
<1
3/06
<1
<1
<1
2
<1
5/06
<1
<1
0.81J
2.1
<1
11/06
<1
<1
<1
1.1
<1
MW-312
PCE
TCE
CIS-1,2
VC
1,1 -DCA
5/05
0.81J
<1
0.70J
<1
<1
8/05
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
11/05
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
3/06
1
1
1
1
1
5/06
1
1
1
1
1
11/06
O
MW-312
NOTES:
1. NOVEMBER 2005 SAMPLE RESULTS FOR 300A UNUSABLE PER DATA
VALIDATION; LOCATION WAS RESAMPLED IN DECEMBER 2005.
0 , 3? 6? 2- NOVEMBER 2006 SAMPLE RESULTS ARE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY
^ — — ^^^H^^^^ AS DATA VALIDATION HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED AS OF THE ISSUANCE OF
SCALE' 1' - 30'
PROGRESSIVE
^\ / ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC.
\/ Phone:(813)930-0669 Fax:(813)930-9809
3912 W. Humphrey Street Tampa, Florida 33614
E-mail: infb@progressiveec.com
Website: http://www.progressiveec.com
NO.
A
/?\
A
A
A
REVISION DETAILS
ADDED 1,1-DCA RESULTS
ADD NOV 2006 DATA
DATE
8/2/06
12/6/06
FILE PATH: PROJECTS\CLARE\Drawings\2005\Annual Report Figs\22 - Summary of VOCs In PRB GW.dwg | SCALE: 1" = 30'
SUMMARY OF VOCS IN
PRB AREA GROUNDWATER
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
CLARE, MICHIGAN
DATE: 12/14/05
DRAWN: BER
APPROVED: GJR
DRAWING NUMBER:
FIGURE 22
SHEET 22 OF 25
-------
Summary of Groundwater Quality Data for November 2006
Clare Water Supply Site
Clare, Michigan
Page 1 of 7
CONSTrrUENTT:
COCs
Benzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (total)
TDL
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
SFTE:
LAB ID:
DATE:
CUO
5
880
5
70
100
700
5
100
5
1000
200
5
5
2
100000
103 104
A751880 A752317
11/7/2006 11/8/2006
109
A751893
11/8/2006
110
A751892
11/8/2006
111
A752288
11/8/2006
210D 210S
A752291 A752293
11/8/2006 11/8/2006
211
A751895
11/8/2006
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1
<1 <1
4.1 <1
<1 <1
<1
0.45J
200
3
<1
0.6J
<1
<1
<1
<1
4.2
1.1
<1 14
<1 <1
<1 0.48J
<1 <1
2.1
<1
3.7
<1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<2 <2
<2
<2
<2
<2 <2
<2
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
0.81J 0.64J
1.1
2
<1
0.6J 0.65J
0.53J
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
3.2 <1
2.2
<1
3.1
<1 <1
<1
<1 <1 100 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<3 <3
<3
<3
<3
<3 <3
<3
Notes on last page.
Clare\EPAGISData\FilestoParsons\Nov2006 GWQual.xls
-------
Summary of Groundwater Quality Data for November 2006
Clare Water Supply Site
Clare, Michigan
Page 2 of 7
CONSTITUENT:
COCs
Benzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (total)
TDL
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
SITE:
LAB ID:
DATE:
CUO
5
880
5
70
100
700
5
100
5
1000
200
5
5
2
100000
215 220
A751874 A752297
11/7/2006 11/9/2006
300A
A752313
11/10/2006
300B
A752311
11/10/2006
300C
A752310
11/10/2006
D-106
A752292
11/8/2006
D-107 DMW-1D
A751894 A751876
11/8/2006 11/7/2006
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 3.1
590
2.3
2.7
<1
<1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1
89
8.7
<1
1.9
<1 20
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<2 <2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2 <2
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
1.5 1.5
<1
0.89J
1.3
<1
1.3 0.95J
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2.5 <1 <1
<1 <1
<3 <3
220
<3
140
<3
13
<3
<1
<3
<1 <1
<3 <3
Notes on last page.
Clare\EPAGISData\FilestoParsons\Nov2006 GWQual.xls
-------
Summary of Groundwater Quality Data for November 2006
Clare Water Supply Site
Clare, Michigan
Page 3 of 7
CONSTITUENT:
COCs
Benzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (total)
TDL
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
SFTE:
LAB ID:
DATE:
CUO
5
880
5
70
100
700
5
100
5
1000
200
5
5
2
100000
DMW-1S
A751873
11/7/2006
DMW-2D
A751882
11/7/2006
DMW-2S DMW-3D DMW-3S
A751872 A751877 A751879
11/7/2006 11/7/2006 11/7/2006
MW-301
A752299
11/9/2006
MW-302
A752305
11/9/2006
MW-303
A752306
11/9/2006
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1
<1
<1 <1 <1
0.55J
190
91
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
49
1.2
<1 <1 0.52J
0.5J
44
16
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<2
<2
<2 <2 <2
<2
<2
<2
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
2.1
1.2
<1 1.4 1.3
0.42J
0.98J
0.89J
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1.9 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
5.1
<1
<3
<1
<1
<3
1 <1 13
<1 <1 <1
<3 <3 <3
<1
0.5J
<3
0.46J
110
<3
0.86J
76
<3
Notes on last page.
Clare\EPAGISData\FilestoParsons\Nov2006 GWQual.xls
-------
Summary of Groundwater Quality Data for November 2006
Clare Water Supply Site
Clare, Michigan
Page 4 of 7
CONSTITUENT:
COCs
Benzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (total)
TDL
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
SITE:
LAB ID:
DATE:
CUO
5
880
5
70
100
700
5
100
5
1000
200
5
5
2
100000
MW-304
A752300
11/9/2006
MW-305
A752314
11/10/2006
MW-306 MW-307
A752312 A752307
11/10/2006 11/10/2006
MW-308
A752308
11/10/2006
MW-309
A752309
11/10/2006
MW-310
A752304
11/9/2006
MW-31 1
A752303
11/9/2006
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
7.1
73
<1 8.1
9.7
<1
<1
5.3
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1
34
<1 <1
3.5
0.44J
<1
3.1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<2
<2
<2 <2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1
<1
<1 <1
0.54J
<1
1.2
0.44J
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1
3.7
<3
0.58J
110
<3
<1 <1
1.1 8.1
<3 <3
1.4
20
<3
<1
2.2
<3
<1
21
<3
0.53J
10
<3
Notes on last page.
Clare\EPAGISData\FilestoParsons\Nov2006 GWQual.xls
-------
Summary of Groundwater Quality Data for November 2006
Clare Water Supply Site
Clare, Michigan
Page 5 of 7
CONSTITUENT:
COCs
Benzene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroetnane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (total)
TDL
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
SITE:
LAB ID:
DATE:
CUO
5
880
5
70
100
700
5
100
5
1000
200
5
5
2
100000
MW-312 MW-313 MW-5
A752296 A752301 A751889
11/9/2006 11/9/2006 11/7/2006
MW-6 MW-7 MW-8
A751871 A751870 A751890
1 1 17/2006 1 1 /7/2006 1 1 /8/2006
P-202
A752294
11/8/2006
SW-11
A752298
11/9/2006
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 0.63J
<1 <1 0.43J
<1
<1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 6.9
<1 <1 0.47J
<1 <1 29
<1 <1 1.3
1.5
<1
<1
<1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<2 <2 <2
<2 <2 <2
<2
<2
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 0.9J 1.2
1.2 1.2 1.2
1.3
1.2
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 5.7
<1 <1 0.56J
9.4
<1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 0.79J <1 <1
<3 <3 <3
<3 <3 <3
<3
<3
Notes on last page.
Clare\EPAGISData\FilestoParsons\Nov2006 GWQual.xls
-------
Summary of Groundwater Quality Data for November 2006
Clare Water Supply Site
Clare, Michigan
Page 6 of 7
CONSTITUENT:
COCs
Benzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (total)
TDL
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
SFTE:
LAB ID:
DATE:
CUO
5
880
5
70
100
700
5
100
5
1000
200
5
5
2
100000
SW-12 SW-5
A752302 A751886
11/9/2006 11/7/2006
SW-9 UMW-1D
A751878 A751875
11/7/2006 11/7/2006
UMW-1S W-6 W-9
A751887 A751891 A752318
11/7/2006 11/8/2006 11/8/2006
WD-10
A751881
11/7/2006
<1 8.4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 1.5
1.8 <1
<1 <1 <1
<1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 21 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<2 <2
<2 <2
<2 <2 <2
<2
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 7.7 <1
0.66J 2.6
1.4 1.1
1.8 1.1 0.74J
1.5
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1 1.1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
<1 1.2
<3 <3
5.7 <1
<3 <3
<1 <1 <1
<3 <3 <3
<1
<3
Notes on last page.
Clare\EPAGISData\FilestoParsons\Nov2006 GWQual.xls
-------
Summary of Groundwater Quality Data for November 2006
Clare Water Supply Site
Clare, Michigan
Page 7 of 7
CONSTITUENT:
COCs
Benzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (total)
TDL
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
SITE:
LAB ID:
DATE:
CUO
5
880
5
70
100
700
5
100
5
1000
200
5
5
2
100000
WD-8
A751888
11/7/2006
WS-10
A751883
11/7/2006
WS-5
A751902
11/8/2006
<1 <1 <1
<1 <1 11
<1 <1 <1
130
9.7
1.3
<1
150
4.6
<1 <1 <1
<2
<2
<2
<1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1
1.5
1.7
0.5J
<1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1
8.7
0.84J
<3
5
<1
<3
14
0.95J
<3
Not analyzed.
NA Not applicable.
J Estimated value; analyte was observed at a value less than the detection limit.
< Analyte was not detected; result is reported as less than the detection limit.
CUO - Clean up objective as specified in ROD.
BOLD indicates detected value is above the CUO.
Known Contaminant of Concern - as listed in ROD.
ug/L Micrograms per liter.
Note: Toluene results are a laboratory artifact (for most samples).
Toluene was present in all samples, trip blanks and equipment blanks.
Data validation has not yet been completed.
Clare\EPAGISData\FilestoParsons\Nov2006 GWQual.xls
-------
Attachment F
Review Comments and Responses
-------
RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC.'s COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2006
Item
No.
Section
Page/Line/
Para
Comment
Response
1
Section
2.1
Pg2,4
paragraph
Report references the drainage swale in the vicinity of the
PRB as having a depth of 7-8 feet below land surface (ft
bis). Survey data for the swale ranges from 840.49 to
840.15 feet above mean sea level (ft amsl) from west to
east along the proximity of the PRB remedy compared to
the top-of-ground data for the monitor wells nearest the
swale (MW-308 and MW-311) of 843.3 and 842.4 ft
amsl, respectively. Therefore, survey data indicate that
the swale, in the vicinity of the PRB, is approximately 2-
3 ft. deep.
The depth of 7-8 feet was taken from Lithologic
Cross Section A-A' obtained from Progressive. If
the cross section is incorrect, then the text will be
revised to indicate a 2-3 foot depth. This shallow
depth may explain why there is so little flow in the
swale—it may receive very little to no groundwater
discharge.
Section
2.2
Pg3,4
paragraph
Text should clarify who's professional judgment is being
referenced here. Also, Progressive offers the following
additional information regarding seepage velocities in the
proximity of the soil remedy which may/may not impact
the implication made in this paragraph: laboratory
permeameter tests conducted by Dames and Moore (in
1990) on cores from borings SW-12 (4'-6'), SW-28 (8'-
10') and B-29 (6'-8') yielded an average-hydraulic
conductivity for the clay layer of 4. 3x 10 cm/sec;
laboratory tests on cores from borings 208, 212 and B-29
yielded an average hydraulic conductivity Jbr the
underlying glacial till in the range of 1x10 cm/sec; and
based upon the November 2006 hydraulic data, this
would put groundwater seepage velocity in the range of
2.3E-5 ft/day and 3.5E-5 ft/day for the clay and
underlying glacial till layers, respectively.
Text regarding professional judgment will be
clarified. Laboratory permeability tests on discrete
soil samples may not provide an accurate
representation of the hydraulic conductivity of the
larger in situ water-bearing zone. For example, flow
may occur through fracture networks that are not
well-represented in the tested soil samples.
Groundwater velocity estimates should be derived
using hydraulic conductivity data from site-specific
field tests (i.e., slug tests, pumping tests, tracer
tests).
Section
3.3
Pg5, 1
paragraph
Recommend that the final sentence of this paragraph be
moved (and reworded as appropriate) to after the third
sentence of same paragraph.
Change will be made.
Progressive comments_responses final, doc
Page 1 of 12
-------
RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC.'s COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2006
(Continued)
Item
No.
Section
Page/Line/
Para
Comment
Response
Section
4.0
Groundwater quality data collected in November 2006
are available and attached for inclusion in the evaluation.
The November data demonstrate significant
concentration decreases for the overwhelming majority
of the monitoring network.
The November 2006 data can be used by interested
parties to evaluate the conclusions and
recommendations made in the LTMO report. There
is insufficient budget remaining to fully incorporate
the new data into the evaluation and revise the report
accordingly. However, the data will be reviewed
qualitatively to determine the impact, if any, on the
recommendations made. In addition, the data will
be included in the final report as an attachment.
Section
4.1
Pg7, 1
bullet
It should be noted that quarterly data were collected for a
duration of 1 year, not two years as indicated, the
frequency was then changed to semiannual.
Text and tables will be revised.
nd
Section
4.1
Pg7,2
bullet
Progressive would like to clarify that vertical aquifer
sampling (VAS) was performed just subsequent to the
PRB installation by Secor. The resultant data was used
by Progressive prior to installation of the new PRB
monitor wells (MW-301 to MW-313) to identify which
borings should undergo VAS during monitor well
installation for purposes of selecting the proper screened
intervals. During the installation of MW-301 to MW-
313, Progressive performed VAS at select locations and
placed well screens within the vertical zone exhibiting
the highest concentrations of contaminants of concern.
Due to the VAS performed during the monitor well
installation activities and given that the water table in this
area has exhibited seasonal fluctuations of up to 5 ft at
some locations, the 5-ft screens used are of an
appropriate length to best monitor water quality in this
area.
Comment noted. The referenced text in the 2n
bullet still appears to be accurate and appropriate
and no changes are proposed.
Progressive comments_responses final, doc
Page 2 of 12
-------
RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC.'s COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2006
(Continued)
Item
No.
Section
Page/Line/
Para
Comment
Response
Section
4.1
Pg7,5
bullet aijd
Pg8,l
bullet
Progressive agrees with elimination of monitoring for MI
10 metals and reducing the frequency of monitoring for
ferrous iron.
Comment noted.
Section
4.1
pg 8, 3h
and 4
bullets
As stated above, the reference to the drainage swale
depth being 7-8 ft is erroneous; actual depth is 2-3 ft
based upon survey data. In addition, the swale is
typically dry, and has only been observed to contain
flowing water immediately subsequent to precipitation
events and during periods of snow melt. Regarding the
extent of definition of downgradient VOCs, Progressive
asserts that as long as the concentrations exhibited in the
monitor wells located south of the PRB continue to
decline, monitoring further downgradient is unnecessary.
Also, there is no need to monitor the area south of the
swale due to existing MW-312 and SW-23. As of
November 2006 analytical data for all wells south of the
PRB exhibited VC concentrations less than the GSI
criteria, with one exception, MW-3 08 which had a VC
concentration of 20 ug/L, just 5 parts per billion above
the GSI criteria. For these reasons, Progressive continues
to maintain that the PRB area shallow groundwater
monitor well network, installed pursuant to the Final
PRB Monitoring Work Plan (dated 5/2/05) as approved
with comments by USEPA (letter dated 5/11/05), is
sufficient to provide the data necessary to monitor the
performance of the PRB remedy. As decreasing
concentrations have been the norm at all downgradient
monitor locations, and there are no possible receptors in
the near vicinity, there is no basis to support expansion of
the shallow monitor network at this time.
Depth of swale will be corrected if necessary as
described in response to comment #1.
The report did not contain definite recommendations
for downgradient monitoring. The extent of
definition of downgradient VOCs was presented as a
potential data gap for stakeholder consideration. We
agree that the November 2006 results are promising.
However, some VC that exceeds the cleanup goal is
bypassing the PRBs in the shallow zone, especially
at MW-310 (21 to 27 (ig/L in May and November
2006). There are no wells installed that could be
used to define the downgradient extent of this
contamination based on inferred groundwater flow
directions for the shallow zone. It is likely that
concentrations of concern are not migrating to the
Clare site boundary to the south given the low
magnitude of the concentrations and the fact the VC
can degrade under a variety of geochemical
conditions.
Typically, the downgradient extent of contaminant
concentrations exceeding cleanup goals is defined
upfront during the site characterization stage, so that
informed remedial decisions can be made based on
knowledge of the plume extent and plume dynamics
(i.e., is plume expanding, stable, or decreasing?).
Progressive comments_responses final, doc
Page 3 of 12
-------
RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC.'s COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2006
(Continued)
Item
No.
Section
Page/Line/
Para
Comment
Response
Section
4.1
Pg8,5
bullet
The PRB was not designed to treat water in the
intermediate and/or deep aquifers; references to the
likeliness of the PRB treating these deeper aquifers are,
therefore, not applicable. With regard to the extent of
delineation of the intermediate and deep aquifers, it
should be noted that historical data provides additional
useful information for these aquifers. Monitor well 207
(located in the source area upgradient of the PRB and
screened from 57-62 ft bis) exhibited non-detect results
when it was last sampled in March 1994. Also, well W-4
(located approximately 400 ft downgradient of the PRB
area and screened from 45-50 ft bis) exhibited
concentrations all below 1 ppb when it was last sampled
in June 1998. For your use, the coordinates of wells W-4
and 207 were 678713.39, 4854167.96 and 678562.58,
4854213.37, respectively. If installation of any additional
wells were to be considered in this area, they would be
installed for MNA use only.
Whether or not the PRB was designed to treat water
in the intermediate or deep aquifers is not the point
of this text. The text simply presents an observation
that is relevant to the LTMO evaluation—namely
that contaminants detected in the intermediate zone
at 300B are not treated.
Regarding the extent of delineation in the
intermediate and deep zones, here are some relevant
observations:
-200 (ig/L of VC was detected in well 300B in May
2006 (140 (ig/L in November 2006), in groundwater
that is not treated by the PRB. VC concentrations at
this well were found to be statistically increasing
based on data collected through November 2006.
—Potentiometric maps in the 2005 Annual Report
show this well to be located near the center of a
potentiometric high, with flow occurring radially
outwards in all directions from this area. Therefore,
the flow direction in the intermediate zone at well
300B is not known with certainty. These maps
indicate that there is not sufficient well control to
confidently delineate the groundwater flow direction
in the intermediate zone in this area.
—There is not sufficient well control to confidently
delineate the migration direction and extent of VC in
the intermediate zone in this area.
--VC is a relatively volatile and toxic compound that
can pose an inhalation risk to occupants of overlying
structures in some situations.
-Therefore, the situation is that there is a VC plume
containing concentrations that substantially exceed
the CUO that is of unknown extent and migration
Progressive comments_responses final, doc
Page 4 of 12
-------
RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC.'s COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2006
(Continued)
Item
No.
Section
Page/Line/
Para
Comment
Response
direction. Whether these information gaps are
significant is a question for the stakeholders to
determine based on risk analysis. Could these
concentrations pose an inhalation risk to any
potential indoor air receptors? Can this question be
answered given the current level of characterization?
These are the types of questions that need to be
considered. It is our opinion that the historical data
for wells 207 and W-4 do not provide definitive
answers to these questions.
10
Section
4.2
pg 9 aad
10,4
bullet
Progressive maintains that there is no need to delineate
south of the PRB pefthe afeove comments regarding
Section 4.1, pg 8, 3 and 4 bullets. Progressive also
reiterates that monitoring of the PRB area was performed
on a quarterly basis for only one year, not two.
See responses to comments 5 and 8. The sampling
frequency was corrected in the text and tables.
11
Section
4.3
pg 10, J,
and 2
bullets
Progressive agrees with the proposed semiannual
sampling frequency, and we are also willing to perform
semi-annual sampling at the wells (MW-312 and MW-
313) where an annual frequency was recommended.
Progressive agrees with the recommendations to
eliminate MI 10 metals sampling and reduce the ferrous
iron sampling frequency. The recent data (attached
hereto) continue to demonstrate decreasing concentration
trends at most PRB area wells; the inclusion of this data
in your evaluation should alleviate the concern you
identified of possible increasing concentration trends at
MW-309 and MW-310. Progressive believes that
performing hydraulic monitoring on a semi-annual basis
should be sufficient for this area, and is interested to see
the results of the GSI/Parsons evaluation of the hydraulic
data (sent on 12/6/06 and attached to this memo for
reference) to see which, if any, locations are identified
Evaluation of the hydraulic data submitted by
Progressive is beyond the scope of what Parsons and
GSI are budgeted to perform. In general, hydraulic
monitoring for all wells located within the area of
interest and screened within the depth zones of
interest is recommended to maximize the accuracy
of potentiometric surface maps. This
recommendation is based on the observation that
measurement of water levels in monitoring wells is
generally relatively fast and inexpensive relative to
water quality monitoring, and provides very
important site characterization information.
However, if multiple wells screened at similar
depths are clustered in a small area and have similar
groundwater elevations, one or more could be
considered for removal from the hydraulic
monitoring program unless more detailed
Progressive comments_responses final, doc
Page 5 of 12
-------
RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC.'s COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2006
(Continued)
Item
No.
Section
Page/Line/
Para
Comment
Response
for omission from the current hydraulic monitoring list
due to redundancy.
delineation of local groundwater flow patterns is
desired. At least two years of quarterly hydraulic
monitoring is recommended to determine seasonal
impacts on the potentiometric surface. After that,
semiannual hydraulic monitoring during relatively
wet and dry times (e.g., spring and fall) should be
sufficient unless the quarterly monitoring results
indicate significant seasonal variability that needs to
be monitored more frequently. Hydraulic
monitoring of all wells at the PRB and Soil Remedy
areas is recommended. Text regarding hydraulic
monitoring recommendations will be added to the
LTMO report.
See responses to previous comments that pertain
this issue.
12
Section
4.3
rd
pg 10, 3
bullet
Again, for the reasons stated above (see comments
regarding: Section 3^3, pg 5, 1 paragraph; Section 4.0;th
Section 4.1, pg 7, 2 bullet; Secjion 4.1, pg 8, 3 and 4
bullets; and Section 4.1, pg 8, 5 bullet) Progressive
disagrees that any further action is needed at the PRB
area. However, we are prepared to reassess the adequacy
of the program after two additional years (4 semi-annual
events) of monitoring are performed in this area.
to
13
Section
5.0
As previously mentioned, the groundwater analytical data
generated from November 2006 sampling are now
available and are attached for your use and/or inclusion
in your evaluation.
See response to comment #4.
14
Section
5.1
pg 10 api
11,1
bullet
Progressive agrees that a reduction in the monitoring
frequency at the identified locations is prudent.
Comment noted.
15
Section
rd
It should be noted that residual impacts were left in place
outside of the slurry wall/cap when it was installed.
The report did not contain definite recommendations
for additional monitoring downgradient of the
Progressive comments_responses final, doc
6 of 12
-------
RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC.'s COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2006
(Continued)
Item
No.
Section
Page/Line/
Para
Comment
Response
5.1
bullet
Placement of the slurry wall was restricted due to the
presence of existing utilities and, therefore, containment
of impacted soil and groundwater north of the remedy
wasn't possible. Due to the lack of receptors in the
vicinity, and the results of the most recent groundwater
sampling event (November 2006) which exhibit stable to
decreasing concentrations within the shallow aquifer,
Progressive asserts that the monitor wells immediately
outside the containment cell are sufficient to evaluate the
performance of the remedy; and, if groundwater
concentrations at these wells do not remain stable to
decreasing further sampling/wells may be considered.
existing shallow well network. The extent of
definition of downgradient VOCs was presented as a
potential data gap for stakeholder consideration.
The proximity of the Soil Remedy Area to the site
boundary to the north makes it more important to
confirm that TCE concentrations of concern are not
migrating out of the area of institutional controls. In
addition, there appear to be buildings across
Highway 10 to the north; could there be vapor
intrusion concerns that need to be considered given
the presence of TCE north of the slurry wall? Stable
TCE concentrations could indicate the presence of a
continuing source that could potentially be feeding
an expanding TCE plume. This is all conjecture of
course but there are no downgradient data to either
support or refute this observation.
Progressive comments_responses final, doc
Page 7 of 12
-------
RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC.'s COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2006
(Continued)
Item
No.
Section
Page/Line/
Para
Comment
Response
16
Section
5.1
pgll,4
bullet
Progressive agrees with the contention that the current
number of intermediate wells in this vicinity lends to
somewhat speculative hydraulic data evaluation.
However, based upon the non-detect concentrations in
downgradient intermediate wells 104 and 215 indicating
no significant impacts in the intermediate aquifer, the
deeps wells DMW-1D, DMW-2D, DMW-3D and UMW-
1D all exhibiting concentrations below cleanup
objectives, the lack of risk to receptors from possible
impacts to the intermediate aquifer and the fact that
additional water quality data from this area would not
change the operation of the remedy, Progressive does not
believe that additional characterization is necessary in
this aquifer. Progressive would also like to note that the
interpretation of the regional groundwater flow direction
in this area may be skewed by the seemingly anomalous
hydraulic data from 300B located at the PRB area. A
depiction of the intermediate aquifer potentiometric
surface that was generated with omission of data from
300B is attached for your consideration (we also attached
a map depicting the potentiometric surface with 300B
included for reference). This interpretation suggests that
installation of three intermediate monitor wells along the
north side of the containment cell (where the aquifer is
currently monitored by intermediate wells 215 and to
some extent 104) would not be helpful. However,
Progressive is willing to install one intermediate well for
hydraulic monitoring purposes in the area adjacent to the
southeast corner of the soil remedy building.
Parsons does not agree that data for wells 104 and
215 lead to the conclusion that there are no
significant impacts to the intermediate aquifer.
These wells are approximately 440 ft apart, and they
are screened at differing elevations (25 to 30 feet
bgs for 215 and 42.6 to 47.6 ft bgs for 104). If a
CAH plume in the intermediate zone was emanating
from the soil remedy area it would not necessarily
be detected in these wells.
The alternate interpretation of the intermediate
groundwater potentiometric surface provided by
Progressive suggests that wells 215 and 104 may not
be useful in determining impacts to intermediate
zone groundwater quality. If this alternate
interpretation is correct, then installation of two
intermediate wells east (downgradient) of the soil
remedy cell should be considered. In addition,
installation of at least one intermediate well on the
north side still seems reasonable to determine the
vertical extent of identified contamination given the
presence of a continuing source in that area.
The reason for recommending one additional deep
well was to allow monitoring of groundwater quality
in the full range of potential groundwater flow
directions from the soil remedy cell and to help
confirm groundwater flow directions in the deep
zone. Any additional wells could potentially be
installed as temporary wells to allow collection of a
groundwater sample and a water level elevation;
they could then be abandoned if the results did not
indicate cause for concern.
Progressive comments_responses final, doc
Page 8 of 12
-------
RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC.'s COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2006
(Continued)
Item
No.
Section
Page/Line/
Para
Comment
Response
17
Section
5.1
Pg 12, 1
bullet
This bullet discusses shallow groundwater migration out
of the soil cell based on 2005 groundwater level data.
Please note that Progressive has since identified a flaw in
the collection process of the hydraulic data within the
containment cell that renders the soil remedy area
shallow aquifer potentiometric contours suspect; i.e.,
field personnel were not allowing proper time for water
levels to stabilize after breaking the vacuum seal of the
extraction wells. Progressive has included the most
recent (properly collected) hydraulic data contours for
your use/information, and that map depicts a significant
inward hydraulic gradient around the entire containment
cell. Therefore, based upon the historically consistent
operation of the soil remedy (lack of [unplanned]
downtime), historical groundwater level data, the most
recently collected shallow groundwater data, and the fact
that the slurry wall is keyed into the clay, Progressive
believes that this inward gradient has likely been
maintained since installation of the remedy and seepage
out of the cell in the shallow aquifer is unlikely. As such,
there is no need to install another shallow well NW of the
containment cell, and continued monitoring of existing
wells DMW-1S, DMW-2S and DMW-3S will provide
sufficient detail regarding the fate of residual impacts
outside the cell.
Given the current operational schedule of 1 month
on/5 months off and the inferred regional shallow
groundwater flow direction toward the north-
northwest, installation of one additional shallow
well as indicated in the LTMO report does not
appear unreasonable or excessive to confirm that the
remedy is remaining protective overtime.
Progressive comments_responses final, doc
9 of 12
-------
RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC.'s COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2006
(Continued)
Item
No.
Section
Page/Line/
Para
Comment
Response
nod
18
Section
5.1
Pgl2,2
bullet
Progressive agrees that the current number of deep wells
in this vicinity lends to somewhat speculative hydraulic
data evaluation, however, since there is no evidence that
any significant impacts (above cleanup objectives) have
migrated into the deep aquifer as exemplified by the
historic concentrations exhibited at wells BMW-ID,
DMW-2D, DMW-3D, UMW-1D, and the same can be
said for the intermediate aquifer in this vicinity given the
historic results for 104 and 215, there does not appear to
be any justification for additional characterization of this
aquifer.
Data for wells 104 and 215 may not be relevant for
determining impacts to the intermediate zone given
the alternate potentiometric surface map prepared by
Progressive (showing a hydraulic gradient to the
east). See also response to comment #16. The
objective of the additional well installations
recommended for consideration was simply to more
fully cover the range of potential flow directions
indicated by the available data. The justifications
for addition of another deep well are stated in the
report and include: 1) more accurate and site-
specific determination of groundwater flow direction
and vertical hydraulic gradient, and 2) obtaining
groundwater quality data along a potential flowline
from the soil remedy cell that is not currently
monitored. How can we be sure that the existing
deep wells are properly positioned if the hydraulic
data are sparse and the potentiometric surface
interpretation is somewhat speculative as a result?
19
Section
5.1
pg 12, 3
bullet
Based upon the most recent groundwater elevation data
showing an inward hydraulic gradient around the
containment cell in the shallow aquifer, it is likely that
seepage out of the containment cell in the shallow aquifer
is insignificant. Per the additional information provided
above (see comment on Section 2.2), the groundwater
seepage velocity is likely in the range of 2.3E-5 ft/day
and 3.5E-5 ft/day for the clay and underlying glacial till
layers, respectively. Impacts detected in groundwater
outside of the containment cell are likely from residual
source material that was left in place as previously
discussed.
See response to comment #2.
Progressive comments_responses final, doc
Page 10 of 12
-------
RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC.'s COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2006
(Continued)
Item
No.
Section
Page/Line/
Para
Comment
Response
20
Section
5.1
pg 12, 4
bullet
There is no threshold value or trigger concentration for
additional assessment. So long as routine monitoring
results continue to exhibit stable or non-increasing trends
(below the pre-startup levels), there is no reason for
additional assessment.
Comment noted.
21
Section
5.1
Pg 13, 1
bullet
It should be noted that the operating frequency of the soil
remedy has been reduced to 1-month on / 5-months off
(as of November 2006, per EPA approval). Should
sample results indicate that influent concentrations have
significantly rebounded when the system is restarted in
May 2007, Progressive will sample the individual
extraction wells to assist with further optimization of the
remedy.
Comment noted.
22
Section
5.3
pg 14, 1
bullet
Progressive agrees with the recommended sampling
frequencies. Progressive believes that performing
hydraulic monitoring on a semiannual basis should
provide sufficient hydraulic information for this area, and
is interested to see the results of the GSI/Parsons
evaluation of the hydraulic data (sent on 12/6/06 and
attached to this memo for reference) to see which, if any,
locations are identified for omission from the current
hydraulic monitoring list due to redundancy.
See response to comment #11. Given the already
sparse density of water level measurements in this
area and resulting uncertainty regarding
groundwater flow directions, particularly in deeper
zones, periodic collection of water level
measurements in all wells associated with the soil
remedy area and all nearby wells is recommended.
Progressive comments_responses final, doc
Page 11 of 12
-------
RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC.'s COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE PRB AND SOIL REMEDY AREAS, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2006
(Continued)
Item
No.
Section
Page/Line/
Para
Comment
Response
nd
23
Section
5.3
pg 14, 2,
and 3
bullet
Progressive does not agree that further characterization of
the shallow aquifer is warranted based upon the hydraulic
performance of the remedy (as demonstrated for
November 2006 in the attached figure), the stable to
decreasing concentrations exhibited by the shallow
aquifer monitoring and the lack of risk to receptors.
Progressive does not agree that further characterization of
the intermediate aquifer is necessary based upon the non-
detect concentrations in downgradient intermediate wells
104 and 215 indicating no significant impacts in the
intermediate aquifer, the concentrations all below
cleanup objectives exhibited by deep wells BMW-ID,
DMW-2D, DMW-3D and UMW-1D, the lack of risk to
receptors from possible impacts to the intermediate
aquifer and the fact that additional water quality data
from this area would not change the operation of the
remedy. However, Progressive will agree to install one
new intermediate monitor well for hydraulic monitoring
purposes, and suggests locating that well adjacent to the
southeast side of the soil remedy building to improve the
hydraulic monitoring network in that area.
See above responses to comments pertaining to
these issues.
24
General
Progressive does not agree that further characterization of the deep
aquifer is necessary since there is no evidence that any significant
impacts (above cleanup objectives) have migrated into the deep
aquifer as exemplified by the historic concentrations exhibited at wells
DMW-1D, DMW-2D, DMW-3D, UMW-1D, and the same can be said
for the intermediate aquifer in this vicinity given the historic results
for 104 and 215.
See above responses to comments pertaining to
these issues.
Progressive comments_responses final, doc
Page 12 of 12
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
Comments on the preliminary Long-Term Monitoring Optimization memoranda for the Stageright, PRB and Soil Remedy areas of the
Clare Water Supply Superfund site were received from three parties at MDEQ: Barbara Vetort, Mark Henry and John Spielberg.
The comments are addressed below, with comments grouped according to similar topic areas.
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
JS
Comment 1a
BV
Comment 4
(page 2
paragraph 3)
General
(JS) The agencies and the PRPs would really benefit from
having data in electronic format all in one place. The data
should include all the source areas: Mitchell, Ex-Cell-O,
StageRight, American Dry Cleaners, Stanley Oil, Standard
Oil, MOOT bulk storage, etc. The data should be raw data
as reported by the laboratories, including detection limits
and qualifiers. CAS numbers for the parameters tested is
also a good idea. Most laboratories can provide data in
electronic, database format.
(BV) The recommendation to combine groundwater
elevation data collected from Stageright wells with data
collected from the rest of the site wells to facilitate a more
complete picture of groundwater hydraulics east of
Stageright should be implemented. The current level of
plume definition is not acceptable in the Stageright area.
The authors agree that all site analytical data should
be maintained in an electronic database, accessible
to all stakeholders. Proper data management is
central to all site optimization efforts. Progressive
Engineering is maintaining a site-wide electronic
database, and they have done an excellent job
under the circumstances. The Progressive
database contains both analytical and hydraulic
monitoring data for the entire site. The authors
suggest that the site database be made available to
all stakeholders. An updated database should be
distributed to stakeholders after the results of each
sample event are added.
Inclusion of validated data in the database as
opposed to raw data (assuming that data validation
is performed) is recommended.
The database used for the LTMO efforts will be
included on CD in the final report.
As a general observation, the addition of current and
future monitoring data to the database is a fairly
simple matter as data are now delivered in
electronic format from most labs.
The addition of historic information to the electronic
database is more problematic. Often, these data
are only available in hard-copy and must be added
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 1 of21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
manually. Frequently, data are missing detection
limits, method names or data flags. Manual addition
of data is an expensive process and the opportunity
for introducing transcription errors is extremely high.
Specific elements of the historic data set should be
prioritized and added to the database as time and
budgets permit. Priority data include concentrations
of constituents that exceed screening levels and
detected compounds.
The authors would also suggest that a sample
location table be maintained in the site database.
Sample locations tables generally include
information such as the well name (and any historic
names), the depth, top of casing, screened intervals,
geographic coordinates, and date of installation. A
location table can be useful for documenting details
such as VAS. A table with groundwater parameters
such as K values would be extremely helpful for a
site this complex.
JS
Comment 2a
Stage right
The MDEQ believes this area is the highest priority area
at the site to be dealt with
The authors agree.
JS
Comment 2b
Stage right
The MDEQ supports the objective of determining whether
this area was characterized sufficiently. One way this
can be evaluated is by finding out which wells were
vertically sampled prior to setting the well screens. If
vertical aquifer sampling (VAS) was insufficient, then this
may need to be completed prior to implementing an
LTMO in this area, or in conjunction with the LTMO.
Generally speaking, characterization of the vertical
extent of contamination is desirable. Vertical
sampling is generally part of site characterization.
The authors were not provided with VAS
information.
Some sites benefit from a formal conceptual site
model document detailing well installation details,
groundwater parameters, source areas, transport
mechanisms, geotechnical evaluations, receptors
etc. It can be very useful to put all of the site data in
one location for all stakeholders.
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 2 of21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
In most cases, consensus on site characterization
and site conceptual model should be largely
complete before monitoring networks are optimized.
As a general rule, the LTMO scope of work is limited
to determining if a sufficient number of wells exist
spatially to achieve monitoring objectives. The
authors are not funded or scoped to performed a
detailed review of the site investigation as part of the
LTMO evaluation.
JS
Comment 2c
Stage right
The MDEQ agrees that the shallow zone has not been
well characterized. This zone needs better definition.
The shallow water-bearing zone and the vadose zone
above it may potentially contain a smear zone containing
a continuing source of TCE and other contaminants.
Past contamination near the water table could have
moved up and down with rising and falling water levels,
thus causing the vertical smearing of contamination in
this zone.
See comment 2b above. A 'smear zone' is typically
present at sites that have had floating free product
(e.g., petroleum product), whereas TCE does not
float on the groundwater surface. Continuing
sources of contamination would be an element
included in a conceptual site model.
JS
Comment 2d
Stage right
Any new wells installed should be completed with the benefit of
VAS to determine the zones of highest contamination
Comment noted. The authors agree that long-term
monitoring wells should be screened within the zone
containing the highest dissolved contaminant
concentrations to the extent practical.
JS
Comment 2e
Stage right
MDEQ agrees that chloride, alkalinity and TDS sampling
and analysis can be reduced
Comment noted.
JS
Comment 2f
and BV
Stage right
(JS) Would be best to have the complete data set for this
area rather than just summaries that show exceedances
of cleanup objectives. Electronic format data in
spreadsheets would be better than hard copy.
See comment 1a, above.
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 3 of21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
Comment
(page 1
paragraph 3)
(BV) The MDEQ Superfund staff has not received the
majority of the necessary TCRA data to include the
boring logs and analytical data. Therefore, the MDEQ
Superfund staff cannot verify the technical information
used for the optimization.
JS
Comment 2f
And BV
Comment 2
(page 2,
paragraph 1)
Stage right
(JS) An assumption was made by the optimizers that
missing data meant that concentrations were non-detect.
MDEQ agrees that evaluating this assumption with more
complete historical data is a good idea.
(BV) This report states that Progressive Engineering
provided the data for optimization. Progressive
Engineering is not the Stageright TCRA consultant. This
report states that not all the data collected by the
Stageright consultant, MACTEC, was included, therefore
the Optimizers assumed the results were non-detect.
The Optimizers state that historical constituent
concentrations should be confirmed before the Long-
Term Monitoring Program is finalized. The Agencies
need to confirm that all the Stageright data and well logs
are comprehensive and accurate.
Many times it is difficult to track historic data from
former or uncooperative consultants and to translate
it from hard-copy to electronic data. (See comment
1a above).
The authors were told by Progressive that 'missing
data' were assumed to be non-detect results. The
authors did not have access to hard-copy data from
previous site investigations to verify concentrations
and detection limits, so, had to accept the dataset as
delivered.
As a general note, most LTM networks are
optimized for one to two major contaminants of
concern (COCs), when the less prevalent
contaminants are contained within the plume of the
priority COCs. In the case of Stageright, TCE is the
parent compound, and appears to be most
widespread with the most exceedances. Data for
TCE in the Stageright area are recorded in the site
database, and include non-detect results. For this
reason, the authors proceeded with the analysis.
The optimization was performed for TCE with other
compounds considered qualitatively to evaluate and
confirm recommendations.
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 4 of21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
JS
Comment 2g
AndBV
Comment 3
(page 2,
paragraph 2)
Stage right
(JS): Exclusion of site-wide monitoring wells in this area
(e.g., 211, D-106, D-107, WD-10) should not be assumed
to mean they should be excluded from site-wide
monitoring.
(BV): I agree with the majority of recommendations that
are outlined on pages eight and nine. One exception, the
recommendations include excluding wells that are not
associated with the Stageright TCRA. Therefore,
excluding wells 211,0106, D107, and WD10 is not
appropriate for the well field remedial action.
One of the central activities of LTMO is to determine
to what extent an individual monitoring location
provides unique information in support of site
monitoring objectives.
A major issue of the Clare Water Supply ROD and
associated documents is that groundwater
monitoring objectives are not explicitly defined.
Without explicit monitoring objectives the goal and
significance of monitoring any individual location can
be interpreted differently by each stakeholder.
Based on qualitative and statistical evaluation, the
deep wells recommended for removal from routine
monitoring did not provide unique information
significant to Stageright site management decisions.
However, as MDEQ has expressed concern over
removal of these locations, their contribution and
suggested sample frequency will be revisited and
any recommendations will be better explained in the
final report. Even if these wells are not
recommended for further sampling connected to the
Stageright site, they could be retained for the site-
wide monitoring program, which was not evaluated.
JS
Comment 2h
Stageright
Deep zone well P-202 is too close to municipal well MW-
5 to be useful as a sentinel well. The optimizers say this
area is not well monitored. Therefore, better
characterization of this zone is needed. Another deep
zone well should be installed near the east edge of the
StageRight parking lot, just south of MW-8-97.
Given an estimated deep aquifer seepage velocity of
approximately 18 ft/d, all current wells are too close
to MW-5 to function as sentinel wells in the short
term. Well MW-10-97 is approximately 2 weeks
travel time to MW-5. Most analytical samples
require at least 2 weeks to process. Data review is
usually much slower than analysis, and action,
slower, yet.
With these limitations, sampling P-202 provides a
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 5 of21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
long-term, well-documented metric of plume
stability. The well shows decreasing trends.
Installation of another deep zone well should be
accompanied by an explicit monitoring objective the
well will fulfill and, if necessary, expedited chemical
analysis to achieve the objective.
JS
Comment 2i
MDEQ would like an explanation of how the average
TCE concentration reported in Tables 4 and 7 is used. Is
it used in any other calculation or statistic? Or, is it just a
benchmark to compare against the CUO and MCL?
Average TCE concentration is a simple statistical
benchmark used in a general way to identify high,
medium and low concentration wells relative to the
regulatory screening levels.
Taken together with the maximum concentration,
sample size, and concentration trend, the average
concentration provides a summary of information
relevant to defining the area of regulatory concern
and the function of the location in the monitoring
network.
JS
Comment 2j
and 3a
The new municipal well, MW-8, was not mentioned. It
should be noted on the site maps, and considered in the
LTMO evaluation. Even though this well is outside the
StageRight area, it is a potential receptor of contaminants
from StageRight. Because of this, it should be
considered in the evaluation.
The new municipal well was installed as we finished
the draft report. The authors were not informed of
its construction until after the analysis was
performed.
We do not have the coordinates for the well or any
information on its screened interval, pumping rate or
preliminary concentrations of priority COCs.
Because this well was installed near an existing
contaminant plume, it should be sampled
periodically same as other nearby active water
supply wells.
BV
Comment 1
(page 1,
Stage right
General
There is no site conceptual model presented to provide
the basis for the optimization effort. Were the remedial
design MODFLOW files used for this project? Since they
As far as the authors know, there is no single
document describing a consensus site conceptual
model for the areas of concern. (For further
discussion of site conceptual model and site
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 6 of21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
paragraph 2)
were not cited, we assume these files were not used.
characterization, see Comment 2b)
The site conceptual model was not detailed in the
draft memorandum for the Stageright Area (or
PRB/Soil Remedy). A brief summary of relevant
conceptual model information provided to the
authors will be included in the final memorandum.
The authors reviewed the data received, which
included the RODs, 5-year review, potentiometric
surface maps, cross-sections and analytical
database. Supplemental data on seepage velocity,
porosity, groundwaterflow direction, etc. were
supplied by Progressive.
LTMO is not generally a groundwater flow modeling
effort. MODFLOW files were neither requested nor
made available to us, nor were the results of site
modeling made available.
BV
Comment 4
(page 2,
paragraph 4)
Stageright
The Long-Term Monitoring Optimization (LTMO) states
that a change in site conditions might warrant resumption
of monitoring at some time in the future at wells that are
not currently recommended for continued sampling. A
contingency plan specifying this should be a part of any
changes to the groundwater monitoring program. In
addition, every five years a complete round of analytical
sampling for all wells should be performed to verify that
the LTMO remains effective. This comprehensive
monitoring was stated as a requirement by the former
Potentially Responsible Party's consultant in the 1994
Remedial Design Remedial Action Work Plan.
The authors agree.
Contingency plans should be related to the stated
monitoring objectives. Both should be published in
a site management document.
BV
Comment 5
PRB Area
I am concerned that the MDEQ technical support staff
was not given adequate input on the site conceptual
CSM information was provided to the authors by
Progressive and the USEPA, and is summarized in
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 7 of21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
(page 2
paragraph 5)
model used as the basis for the LTMO.
Section 2 of the LTMO report. Groundwater input
parameters are listed in Table 2 of the LTMO report.
BV
Comment 6
(page 2
paragraph 6)
PRB Area
For example, in Section 2.1 PRB area, it states that the
shallow groundwaterflow direction is south-to-southeast
across the PRBs. This has not been verified by existing
site data. The remedial investigation reports the shallow
aquifer permeabilities range from 10~3 to 10~5, rather than
10'7.
Existing potentiometric surface data indicate that the
groundwater flow direction is roughly S/SE in the
vicinity of the PRB; however, the authors concur that
the site is not fully characterized as detailed in
Section 4.1 of the LTMO report. The hydraulic
gradient information derived from water level
measurements was used to infer the groundwater
flow direction; this is the standard practice at a
majority of contaminated sites.
It appears that a range of aquifer hydraulic
conductivities have been reported for various
geologic units; consensus values should be
determined as part of the CSM review. At least
some of the K values reported in the Rl report
appear to have been derived from laboratory tests of
soil samples, and may not accurately represent
field-scale K values. The range of 1E-07 to 5E-07
cm/sec given in the text of the report was derived
from lithologic cross-sections provided by
Progressive and contained in Attachment A of the
report. The Dames & Moore Rl report states that
the till has a hydraulic conductivity on the order of
10"7 cm/sec.
BV
Comment 7
(page 3
paragraph 1)
PRB Area
The PRB remedial action area is still completing the first
two years of remedial action monitoring. The MDEQ
Superfund staff has stated that the PRB should not be
optimized until the remedy is demonstrated to be
operating effectively. It is premature to optimize the
monitoring program at the PRB area. The current level of
plume definition is not acceptable in this area.
Comment noted. The authors concur, for the most
part. Concrete metrics should be developed for
determining if the remedy is operating effectively.
As a general note, given a sufficiently long sample
record, recommendations for current sampling
locations and frequency can be made while site
characterization efforts are on-going. While areas of
site characterization uncertainty can be identified
during LTMO, specific actions to address site
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 8 of21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
characterization must be based on stakeholder
consensus. The authors believe that the LTMO
recommendations made in the report are
reasonable; however, they should be reassessed as
noew data are obtained.
BV
Comment 8
(page 3
paragraph 3
Soil
Remedy
The last sentence in the second paragraph states that
the groundwater monitoring wells DMW1S, DMW2S, and
DMW3S, in May and November 2005 ranged from 8 to
13 feet bgs. The report states this is a few feet below the
bottom of the emplaced soils and near the top of the till.
The emplaced soils (soil from Mitchell area) are
essentially at the former ground surface, the till is below
the upper aquifer. Please clarify this sentence.
A reference to cross-sections drawn by Secor and
contained in Appendix A will be added to this text.
These cross-sections show the water table being
present a few feet below the bottom of the emplaced
'Mitchell' soils.
BV
Comment 9
(page 3
paragraph 4)
Soil
Remedy
The receptors for the upper aquifer are the municipal well
field. The seepage velocities for this area are too low.
The Dames & Moore Remedial Investigation (Rl) reports
the upper aquifer to be 10~5.
Seepage velocities appear to vary across the site.
Consensus representative velocities are needed for
LTMO, and should be supplied by the stakeholders.
As stated in Section 2.2 of the report, we agree that
the seepage velocity obtained from Progressive for
the area outside the soil treatment cell is too low.
BV
Comment 10
(page 3
paragraph 5)
Soil
Remedy
The Optimizers state that they did not have a complete
data set for Vinyl Chloride for this area. The soil remedy
area should have a complete data set for the wells
discussed, back to their installation date, which is the
same as the soil remedy completion date, circa 1999. Rl
wells are present around the soil remedy area, were their
data sets complete? Some of the issues with the data
set are related to Quality Assurance/Quality Control
problems that were experienced during the groundwater
monitoring sampling events.
For wells DMW1S-3S and 1D-3D, the site database
contains vinyl chloride results from 2005 - 2006.
TCE data are recorded from 1999 -2006. (See
Comment 1a). Other wells in the area have a more
complete data set for vinyl chloride, with results for
SW-9 extending to 1988. These wells are not
closely associated with the soil remedy area.
BV
Comment 11
(page 3
paragraph 6)
Soil
Remedy
I agree with the recommendations for the Soil Remedy
Area. However, I recommend annual rather than biennial
sampling forUMWID and UMW1S.
This evaluation does not look at any data older than
1999. There is data for many of the existing wells that
Annual sampling for UMW1D and UMW1S to
address 'background' water quality or to determine if
constituents from outside the soil remedy area are
migrating toward it is potentially reasonable.
However, if the groundwater flow velocity in this
area is indeed very low, then annual sampling may
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 9 of21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
goes back to the 1980s. Why isn't this data evaluated for
at least some key wells? The current level of plume
definition seems adequate in this area.
be overkill because abrupt changes in upgradient
groundwater quality that could impact the soil
remedy area would be unlikely.
For LTMO, 'recent' analytical data are given higher
priority as historic data may have been collected
under different sampling or analysis protocols.
Often historic data have higher detection limits, and
outliers that can skew statistics. Recent data are
more likely to be comparable. Of the wells
evaluated, only well 215 had data collected prior to
1999; these data were used in the qualitative
evaluation of this well.
MH
Comment 1
Stage right
General
Comment
1) From the information provided is seems that there
are very few shallow monitoring wells associated with
the part of the site. Has the shallow of the aquifer
been shown to be clean? The data indicates that a
rather substantial source of contamination exists at
the site. If this source material is in the vadose zone,
then there would be substantial contamination in the
shallow portion of the aquifer which could discharge
to the nearby wetlands.
Comment noted, see Comment 2b on site
characterization.
MH
Comment 2
Stage right
General
Comment
2) Since this document deals with optimization of the
monitoring well network, it would be best if the
Agencies took into account whether or not the
individual monitoring well locations had been
characterized using vertical aquifer sampling (VAS)
techniques. More weight should placed on the value
of the data from a particular part of the sight where
VAS has been used to define the vertical and
horizontal extent of contamination. MACTEC should
be able to provide this information.
Comment noted, see Comment 2b on site
characterization.
Well weighting is possible for both qualitative and
MAROS evaluations.
MH
Comment 3
Stage right
3) There is a column in Table 4 that indicates the
average concentrations found in the individual wells.
I'm not sure that the average concentrations are very
Comment noted. See comment response 2i above.
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 10 of 21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
General
Comment
appropriate for decision making purposes unless the
geochemistry at that location is at steady-state.
MH
Comment 4
Stage right
General
Comment
4) The documentation for the MAROS software
package (Appendix B) that was used for the
evaluation does not speak to the basic assumption
that the site is well characterized and that the
existing monitoring well network actually represents
the plume. This presumed assumption has been
violated at each of the 3 source areas (Stageright,
Mitchell and ExCello). At each of these areas there
exists groundwater contamination that has not been
delineated in magnitude or area. Integral to a
"moment analysis" would be a thorough
understanding of the distribution of that mass. The
MAROS evaluations of these areas identified these
deficiencies. The MAROS evaluations reinforce the
fact that these sources are not fully defined -
especially in the deeper portions of the aquifer. The
lack of definition of the individual sources precludes
an understanding of the interactions between them,
or the cumulative effects of the three.
Comment noted, see Comment 2b on site
characterization and BV Comment 7.
While the extent of all identified groundwater
contamination has not been fully delineated (based
on data supplied to the authors) sufficient data are
available for a subset of wells to optimize the
monitoring approach in limited areas.
Collecting more data than is needed in one area
does not help the lack of data in another. The
authors maintain that some current locations can be
monitored at a reduced frequency while the site
undergoes further characterization.
MH
Comment 5
Stageright
General
Comment
5) There has been no discussion of the capture zone of
the municipal wells in the vicinity of the site. I suspect
that all parts of the site are within the capture zone of
the municipal system.
No data were provided on the pumping rate and
capture zone of the public supply wells. The authors
assumed (based on gw flow velocity and
potentiometric surface) that the capture zone
extended across the entire Stageright area. It was
also assumed that the Stageright plume does not
extend east of the municipal well MW-2.
MH
Comment 6
Stageright
General
Comment
6) This optimization process should be repeated once
the site-wide data gaps have been filled and we have
a better understanding of the contaminant
distributions and transport pathways.
Comment noted; the authors concur with this
comment. Optimization should be a dynamic
process and LTMO conclusions and
recommendations should be reassessed as new
data are obtained.
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 11 of 21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
MH Specific
Comment 1
Stage right
Specific
Comment
1) Page 4, pp 1; The documents states that there was
an assumption made that all the missing data are
non-detect. This should be checked into, and if found
not to be true, the entire process should be
re evaluated.
Comment noted. The authors do not have access
to the missing data, which may be in hard copy
form.
MH Specific
Comment 2
Stage right
Specific
Comment
2) Page 4, pp 3; The end of the paragraph states that
the number of wells screened in the shallow zone
was insufficient to perform a statistical analysis. From
this one could conclude that the contamination in the
shallow zones cannot be statistically evaluated using
the software employed.
The number of wells screened in the shallow zone
was insufficient to perform a spatial statistical
analysis using MAROS. Concentration trends at
individual well locations could be evaluated if there
were sufficient sample events, but these wells have
not been sampled regularly.
Is there a reason these wells are not sampled? Dry?
MH Specific
Comment 3
Stage right
Specific
Comment
3) Page 5, pp 1; This paragraph discusses the
recommendations being based on the assumption
that the "relatively rapid [groundwater] velocity will
continue in the future". I also suggest that the In this
part of the facility, the groundwater velocity is high
because of its proximity to municipal production
wells. A new production well has been installed in a
near proximity to the Stageright facility. If the new
well is not pumping at the same rate or from the
same vertical interval as the pumping parameters
used in the assumptions of the optimization model,
the model may have to be reevaluated.
The authors agree. The new well was added,
unknown to the authors, near the end of the
analysis.
However, the groundwater velocity in this area most
likely will not decrease significantly due to
installation of a new extraction well.
MH Specific
Comment 4
Stageright
Specific
Comment
4) Page 5, pp 3; This paragraph suggests that the site
characterization should be performed and suggests
an additional monitoring well pair be installed. Any
site wells should be installed using VAS techniques.
Beyond just installing two additional wells additional
characterization should be undertaken to determine
the distribution and magnitude of the source.
Comment noted.
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 12 of 21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
MH Specific
Comment 5
Stage right
Specific
Comment
5) Page 5, last paragraph; The document suggests that
fewer contaminants could be analyzed during
sampling events. If the Agencies agree that this is
the best approach, then I suggest that periodically
the entire list of contaminants included in an EPA
Method 8260B analysis be evaluated
The rationale for this approach should be clearly
identified. Once COCs are identified, analysis for
other contaminants should not be necessary unless
new releases occur or hydraulic conditions change.
However, given that the cost of a full 8260 analysis
is not likely to be substantially more expensive than
an abbreviated analysis, periodic analysis for a full
analyte list should not have significant cost impacts.
MH Specific
Comment 6
Stage right
Specific
Comment
6) Page 6, pp 2; I would agree, continuing to monitor
the groundwater for chloride, TDS and alkalinity on a
regular basis is not providing information that cannot
be gained on a much less frequent basis.
Comment noted.
MH Specific
Comment 7
Stage right
Specific
Comment
7) Page 7, pp 3; The recommendation is made to
exclude MW-2-99 and MW-6-97 from the monitoring
program, yet in the first paragraph of the following
page the statement is made that near MW-6-97 the
aquifer is "not well defined". This is counterintuitive.
Groundwater flow and contaminant transport in the
Stageright area appears to be heterogeneous and
channelized, with high concentrations (MW-1-02)
adjacent to low concentrations (MW-6-97). The
nature of the hydrogeology at and between the six
points identified in Figure 6 should be clarified as
part of a consensus conceptual site model.
This said, MW-2-99 and MW-6-97 do not help
characterize the contaminated part of the aquifer.
They probably identify an area with lower flow
velocity or some sort of hydrogeological
discontinuity. Because they do not characterize the
contaminated zone very well, they do not provide
significant information to support management
decisions. Routine monitoring of these wells is not
particularly efficient.
MH Specific
Comment 8
Stageright
Specific
Comment
8) Page 8, pp 1; The document states the intermediate
groundwater zone to the east of MW1 -02 and MW-6-
97 is not well defined. I suggest that VAS be
performed and/or a monitoring well cluster be
installed in this area.
The groundwater quality is not delineated to the east
of wells MW-1-02, MW-6-97 and MW-8-97. Plume
delineation efforts are recommended for this area.
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 13 of 21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
MH Specific
Comment 9
Stage right
Specific
Comment
9) Page 8, pp 2; The document points out that the
groundwater velocity near MW-5 is extremely rapid
and that concentrations are largely stable or
decreasing. This indicates to me that that there is a
moderately large source of parent contaminant at the
site that may exist as a non-aqueous phase liquid.
Decisions on source area treatment can be
complicated. The reference in footnote 4 below may
be of help.
This is outside the scope of LTMO. All we can say
now is that under current conditions, the plume
appears to be stable. The magnitudes of dissolved
contaminant concentrations are not indicative of the
presence of significant NAPL. It is possible that
sorbed contaminants are continually 'bleeding' into
the groundwater in the source area.
MH Specific
Comment 10
Stage right
Specific
Comment
10) Page 8, pp 5; This paragraph in the
recommendations suggests additional monitoring is
needed east of MW-6-97. This should include VAS.
See response to Comment 8
MHPRB
Comment 1
PRB
General
Comment
1) The document does not discuss any data gaps
surrounding the permeable reactive barrier (PRB)
wall.
Data gaps for the PRB area are discussed in
Section 4.1 of the report.
MHPRB
Comment 2
PRB
General
Comment
2) Are there institutional controls in place for all parts of
the site to which contamination exists or could
migrate to?
We have been told that institutional controls cover
the entire Clare Water Supply site. However, the
exact nature and extent of the institutional controls
are unknown to us.
MH PRB
Comment 3
PRB
General
Comment
3) How much sensitivity analysis was performed for the
models and statistical software packages to bracket
the range of values used in their assumptions?
None. We requested values for the input
parameters from Progressive, and received, what
should be, the consensus values established after a
thorough site investigation. The LTMO analysis was
not a modeling effort.
However, as part of the qualitative evaluation,
groundwater potentiometric surface maps, reports
and analytical data were reviewed. The memoranda
indicate cases where the data reviewed did not
mesh with input parameters supplied.
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 14 of 21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
MH PRB
Comment 4
PRB
General
Comment
4) The hydrogeology of the entire site should be looked
at as a whole. Isopotential maps should include all
parts of the site and should be updated following
each monitoring event.
Comment noted.
MH PRB
Comment 1
PRB
Specific
Comment
1) Page 2, pp 1; The document describes the surficial
unconfined aquifer as perched water. "Perched"
suggests that the aquifer rests above some dry
vadose soils. This is not the case. This unconfined
portion of the aquifer becomes continuous with the
main (deeper) aquifer to the east of the PRB.
Perched aquifers are aquifers that have a relatively
low-permeability confining layer (aquiclude) below
the groundwater, and sit above the main water table.
Information supplied to the authors suggests that the
surficial aquifer is perched above a relatively low-
permeability till unit in the area of the PRB.
Perched water is usually more susceptible to
fluctuations caused by seasonal influences. While
the perched water may discharge to the main
aquifer to the east or to the ditch to the south, in the
area of the PRB, the surficial unit is technically
perched.
MHPRB
Comment 2
PRB
Specific
Comment
2) Page 2 bullet 1; To the best of my knowledge,
monitored natural attenuation (MNA) is not part of the
ROD remedy. In this bulleted section, one of the
goals should be to effect reliable source control
measures.
In order to collect data in support of monitoring
objectives, it is good to have monitoring objectives.
As there are no explicitly defined monitoring goals
for the PRB area, the authors created some. The
first bullet includes evaluating the effectiveness of
source control measures, which is essential in
implementing 'reliable source control measures' as
stated in the comment.
Under monitoring goals for the PRB, the authors do
not mention monitored natural attenuation (MNA) as
a remedy strategy. However, the authors do
acknowledge the existence of natural attenuation
processes. Vinyl chloride is biodegraded aerobically
(see reference Note 5), and physical processes
such as dilution and dispersion contribute to
reduced concentrations downgradient from a
source. Collectively, these processes are known as
'natural attenuation', and this is what was meant in
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 15 of 21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
MH PRB
Area
PRB
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
3) Page 2, Section 2.1 , pp 2; The statement is made
that the shallow groundwater direction is south to
Response
the statement.
Although MNA is not a formal part of the remedy
identified in the ROD, in reality it is part of the
remedy that is being relied upon because there are
VOC concentrations that exceed cleanup goals that
are not being treated by the PRB. This should not
be ignored, regardless of whether or not MNA is
included in the ROD.
The combined influence of the PRB and natural
attenuation processes limit the extent of
groundwater affected with constituents above
regulatory limits. The goal of the monitoring
program should be to evaluate the extent of
groundwater above regulatory screening levels.
Later in the report, the authors point out that MNA
appears to be a tacit remedy for intermediate and
deep groundwater in the PRB area, as the PRB's do
not extend to deeper areas of contamination. This
comment will be edited, as it is misleading.
The authors did not include confirmation of source
control as a monitoring objective, as no source of
constituents was identified to us. However, the
authors would support monitoring of the source
area, once it is identified. The ROD (1992) states
that "a source removal action was undertaken by
one of the PRPs in this area under an order from the
MDNR", but it is not clear if this was the source of
vinyl chloride in the PRB area.
In the future, identification of the source of vinyl
chloride and a complete statement of monitoring
objectives may be included as part of a Site
Conceptual Model.
Comment noted. The groundwater flow direction
was inferred from the measured hydraulic potentials,
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 16 of 21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
Comment 3
Specific
Comment
southeast, across the PRB. Simply demonstrating a
hydraulic potential across the PRB (4 times per year)
is not equivalent to demonstrating flow through the
PRB.
which is a typical practice. The authors agree that
the flow direction is inferred, and not specifically
demonstrated. The text will be revised to better
indicate this.
MH PRB
Comment 4
PRB
Specific
Comment
4) Page 2, Section 2.1, pp 4; The document states that
the wetlands area directly recharges the aquifer. Is
this known or assumed?
The ROD (1992) states "The drainage ditch empties
into a small wetlands area which directly recharges
the aquifer in the vicinity of the two contaminated
wells." Both the ROD and the maps received are
not clear in distinguishing the various ditches across
the site. The ROD statement was assumed to apply
to the ditch south of the PRB which appears to flow
to the east.
Clarifying the interaction between area surface
water and groundwater may be a goal of a site
conceptual model.
MHPRB
Comment 5
PRB
Specific
Comment
5) Page 3, Section 2.2, pp 3; The authors state that at
the ExCello site, that some impacts" remained in
place near DMW1S, 2S, and 3S. This area should be
defined and the impacts monitored.
Comment noted.
MHPRB
Comment 6
PRB
Specific
Comment
6) Page 3, Section 2.2, pp 4; I would like to know how
much water PRP-1 is pumping and at what rate in a
10~7 cm/sec formation. Does PRP-1 even pump
water? If the MAROS software(s) used this hydraulic
conductivity, then a sensitivity analysis should be
performed or pneumatic slug testing of the existing
site monitoring wells.
PRP-1 is approximately 400 ft W/SWof the Ex-Cello
area. The PRP-1 area was not analyzed as part of
the LTMO evaluation, and the authors do not have
any details about this well. Hydraulic conductivity in
this area may be different from the soil cell as the
clay/till unit disappears to the east.
For the Ex-Cello/Soil Remedy area, seepage
velocity was used as a qualitative metric of the
propensity for the groundwater plume to expand.
The combination of low groundwater velocity and
decreasing to non-detect concentrations indicates
the plume does not require an extensive monitoring
effort. The authors do recommend further
groundwater testing to delineate the groundwater
quality north and east of the soil cell as described in
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 17 of 21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
MH PRB
Comment 7
MHPRB
Comment 8
MHPRB
Comment 9
MH PRB
Comment 10
MH PRB
Comment 11
MH PRB
Comment 12
Area
PRB
Specific
Comment
PRB
Specific
Comment
PRB
Specific
Comment
PRB
Specific
Comment
PRB
Specific
Comment
PRB
Specific
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
7) Page 5, Section 3.3; The statement is made that the
"Dataset transmitted by Progressive was not
complete...". This should be looked into. If the
MAROS evaluation can be influenced by data that
was omitted, that data should be provided and
reevaluated. I would like to know why "data for vinyl
chloride and tetrachloroethylene collected prior to
2005 were not included for most wells
8) Page 6, Section 3.3, pp 3; The dynamics of the
groundwaterflow at the site should be evaluated and
should include the entire range of groundwater
directions that would result from seasonal variation.
9) Page 8, pp 3; The last sentence in this bullet
indicates that surface water exposure pathway is not
a concern. This should be discussed among the
agencies. If this result influences the MAROS data
evaluation, the site should be reevaluated.
10) Page 8, pp 4; The contamination in the intermediate
and deeper portions of the aquifer should be defined
and monitored.
1 1) Page 8, last paragraph; MNA is not part of the ROD
remedy.
12) Page 9, Section 4.2, bullet 3; I have to raise the
question of how can one reliably estimate the center
of mass if that mass has not been defined and is not
monitored?
Response
Section 5.1 of the report.
This statement will be corrected. The data set for
the PRB provides what appears to be a full set of
data for PCE, TCE, cDCE and VC.
The soil remedy data set does not have results for
PCE and VC prior to 2005 for many wells.
See Comment 1a on historic data.
Comment noted.
The potential for groundwater to discharge to the
ditch is of concern to the authors.
The LTMO analysis indicates that the southerly
(inferred downgradient) extent of the VOC plume is
not well defined. south of the PRBs.
Unless additional sample data are available for
shallow groundwater and the groundwater/surface
water interface, the LTMO evaluation will not
change.
Comment noted.
Comment noted. MNA was not considered as a
remedial alternative in the ROD (1992). This will be
edited.
The center of mass is calculated only for the area
covered by the wells. Mass outside of the well
network is not considered.
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 18 of 21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
MH PRB
Comment 13
MHPRB
Comment 14
MH PRB
Comment 15
MH PRB
Area
Comment
PRB
Specific
Comment
PRB
Specific
Comment
Soil
Remedy
Specific
Comment
Soil
Remedy
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
13) Page 10, pp 2; This paragraph describes an order of
magnitude change in concentration over the course
of the past year yet earlier in this document the
authors recommend that this well no longer be
monitored due to its redundancy. This would seem to
be a valuable well, why would we not monitor it?
14) Page 10, Section 4.3, bullet 3; Once again, MNA is
not part of the ROD remedy.
15) Page 1 1 , pp 3; Before the "risks to receptors" is
evaluated, shouldn't we define the limits of the
groundwater and soil contamination?
1 6) Page 1 1 , pp 4; As Parsons points out, the
institutional controls should be evaluated in light of
where contamination is and can potentially migrate
Response
The authors state that well MW-305 "is
recommended tor retention in the monitoring
program at a semiannual frequency".
The initial statistical evaluation found this well to be
redundant because, over the length of the
monitoring record, the concentration at MW-305
could be estimated from surrounding wells.
Statistically, the well was not unique. However, the
well was retained in the network after the qualitative
evaluation (see Table 6) because of reasons laid out
in Table 3.
The preliminary frequency analysis indicated that
MW-305 should be sampled Quarterly, because of
the jump in concentration. However, after the
qualitative evaluation the recommendation was
made for semi-annual sampling.
MW-305 is a good example of why all statistical
evaluations should be reviewed qualitatively.
Comment noted. See response to MH PRB
comment 2.
Comment noted. Definition of extent of
contamination is typically performed prior to
completion of risk analysis.
Comment noted.
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 19 of 21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Commenter
Area
Page/Lin
e/Para
Comment
Response
Comment 16
Specific
Comment
to.
MH PRB
Comment 17
Soil
Remedy
Specific
Comment
17) Page 11, Last paragraph; This paragraph details a
data gap in the current monitoring well network. This
data gap should be filled with a VAS investigation
and an appropriate monitoring well or two.
Comment noted.
MH PRB
Comment 18
Soil
Remedy
Specific
Comment
18) Page 12, pp 2; This paragraph correctly reiterates
the need for additional characterization and some
additional monitoring to demonstrate that the ExCello
remedy is working effectively.
Comment noted.
MH PRB
Comment 19
Soil
Remedy
Specific
Comment
19) Page 12, pp 4; Hydraulic conductivity measurements
in a distribution of site monitoring wells should be
measured to resolve this data gap. I suggest
pneumatic slug testing as it is fairly inexpensive and
easy to perform.
Comment noted.
MH PRB
Comment 20
Soil
Remedy
Specific
Comment
20) Page 12, last paragraph; The statement is made that
"this TCE detection does not appear to be of concern
given the lack of nearby receptors." This should be
looked at in light of the 10-year capture zone for the
municipal well system, ARAR's, and the availability of
adequate institutional controls.
A formal site conceptual model may be a good place
to evaluate these issues.
MHPRB
Comment 21
Soil
Remedy
Specific
Comment
21) Page 13, pp 1; Perhaps the ExCello remedy needs to
be reevaluated. Since water is being pumped from
within the enclosure, even after years of operation, it
may be that the cap, sidewalls or floor may be
leaking. Is it time to sample the soil within the
enclosure (I did not see any soil gas probes) to
determine if the treatment objectives have been met?
How do the soil/groundwater concentrations outside
the cell compare to those media within the cell?
The authors do not have access to sampling data
within the cell.
MDEQcomments_responses final.doc
Page 20 of 21
-------
RESPONSE TO MDEQ's COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
CLARE WATER SUPPLY SUPERFUND SITE
(Continued)
Notes:
1. JS = Comment received from John Spielberg MDEQ
2. BV = Comment received from Barbara Vetorts MDEQ.
3. MH = Comment received from Mark Henry.
4. DNAPL References: Kavanaugh et al. (2003) The DNAPL Remediation Challenge: Is there a case for source depletion. USEPA
EPA/600/R-03/143.
5. Bradley, P.M. and F.H. Chapelle, Effect of Contaminant Concentration on Aerobic Microbial Mineralization of DCE and VC in Stream-Bed
Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 1998. 32(5): p. 553-557.
MDEQcomments_responsesfinal.doc Page 21 of 21
------- |