Long-Term Groundwater
Monitoring Optimization
Newark, Muscoy, and Source
Operable Units
Newmark Superfund Sites
San Bernardino, California
-------
Solid Waste and EPA 542-R-07-015
Emergency Response September 2007
(5203P) www.epa.gov
Long-Term Groundwater
Monitoring Optimization
Newark, Muscoy, and Source
Operable Units
Newmark Superfund Sites
San Bernardino, California
-------
Notice and Disclaimer
Work described herein was performed by GSI Environmental, Inc. for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and has undergone technical review by
EPA. 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. 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 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.
-------
August 21, 2007
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Site Groundwater Monitoring Goals and Objectives
Project Goals and Objectives
Results
Recommendations
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Site Background 2
1.2 Geology and Hydrogeology 4
2.0 Analytical Approach 5
2.1 MAROS Method 5
2.2 Data Input, consolidation and Site Assumptions 9
2.3 Qualitative Evaluation 12
3.0 Site Results 14
3.1 Source OU 14
3.2NewmarkOU 17
S.SMuscoy OU 25
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 36
4.1 General Conclusions 36
4.2 Source OU 41
4.3 NewmarkOU 42
4.4 Muscoy OU 44
5.0 References Cited 47
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Tables
Table 1 Newmark Site Monitoring Locations
Table 2 Source and Newmark OU Annual Moment Estimates and Trends
Table 3 Lines of Evidence Summary Results: Source OU
Table 4 Lines of Evidence Summary Results: Newmark Shallow Zone
Table 5 Lines of Evidence Summary Results: Newmark Intermediate Zone
Table 6 Lines of Evidence Summary Results: Newmark Deep Zone
Table 7 Muscoy OU Recent Moment Estimates and Trends
Table 8 Lines of Evidence Summary Results: Muscoy Shallow Zone
Table 9 Lines of Evidence Summary Results: Muscoy Intermediate Zone
Table 10 Lines of Evidence Summary Results: Muscoy Deep Zone
Table 11 Final Monitoring Network Recommendations
Figures
Figure 1 Newmark Superfund Site, Operable Units and Monitoring Locations
Figure 2 Source OU PCE Average Concentrations, First Moments and Mann Kendall
Trends 1999-2007
Figure 3 Source OU Well Sufficiency Results PCE
Figure 4 Newmark OU Shallow Zone PCE Average Concentrations, First Moments
and Mann Kendall Trends 1999-2007
Figure 5 Newmark OU Shallow Zone Well Sufficiency Results PCE
Figure 6 Newmark OU Intermediate Zone PCE Average Concentrations, First
Moments and Mann Kendall Trends 1999-2007
Figure 7 Newmark OU Intermediate Zone Well Sufficiency Results PCE
Figure 8 Newmark OU Deep Zone PCE Average Concentrations, First Moments and
Mann Kendall Trends 1999-2007
Figure 9 Newmark OU Deep Zone Well Sufficiency Results PCE
Figure 10 Muscoy OU Shallow Zone PCE Average Concentrations, First Moments and
Mann Kendall Trends 1999-2007
Figure 11 Muscoy OU Shallow Zone Well Sufficiency Results PCE
Figure 12 Muscoy OU Intermediate Zone PCE Average Concentrations, First Moments
and Mann Kendall Trends 1999-2007
Figure 13 Muscoy OU Intermediate Zone Well Sufficiency Results PCE
Figure 14 Muscoy OU Deep Zone PCE Average Concentrations, First Moments and
Mann Kendall Trends 1999-2007.
Figure 15 Muscoy OU Deep Zone Well Sufficiency Results PCE
Appendix A: MAROS 2.2 Methodology
Appendix B: Supplemental Information and Result Tables
Appendix C: MAROS Reports
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
ABBREVIATIONS
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
AOC Area of Concern
BGS Below Ground Surface
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CES Cost Effective Sampling
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
COC Constituent of Concern
DCDFM Dichlorodifluoromethane
DHS California Department of Health Services
DISC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EDO Electronic Data Deliverable
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
ESD Explanation of Significant Differences
GIS Geographic Information System
HSCB Hypothetical Statistical Compliance Boundary
1C Institutional Control
LTM Long-Term Monitoring
LTMO Long-Term Monitoring Optimization
MAROS Monitoring and Remediation Optimization Software
MCES Modified Cost Effective Sampling
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MSL Mean Sea Level
NAPL Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
NPL National Priorities List
OU Operable Unit
PCE Tetrachloroethene (Perchloroethene)
PLSF Preliminary Location Sampling Frequency
PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal
PRP Potentially-Responsible Party
RI/FS Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
SBMWD San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
SF Slope Factor
TCE Trichloroethene
TCFM Trichlorofluoromethane
IDS Total Dissolved Solids
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
IV
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
NEWMARK, MUSCOY AND SOURCE OU
NEWMARK SUPERFUND SITE
EXECUTIVE SUM MARY
The following report contains a review of the groundwater monitoring network for
Newmark Superfund Site in San Bernardino, California (Newmark Site). The Site
consists of the Source, Newmark and Muscoy operable units (OUs). The current
groundwater monitoring network has been evaluated using a formal qualitative approach
as well as statistical tools found in the Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System
software (MAROS). Recommendations are made for groundwater sampling frequency
and location based on current hydrogeologic conditions and long-term monitoring goals
for the system. The report evaluates the monitoring system using analytical and
hydrogeologic data from sampling events conducted between May 1987 and January
2007.
Site Groundwater Monitoring Goals and Objectives
The primary groundwater monitoring goals for the Newmark Site include developing a
data set to 1) evaluate the efficacy of the chosen remedy to prevent downgradient
migration of the plume, 2) evaluate long-term reduction in contaminant mass and 3)
determine if basin activities such as artificial recharge or groundwater or natural
processes are exceeding the capacity of the pumping system to capture the plume.
Specifically, monitoring data will be used to delineate the extent of affected groundwater
in support of implementation of institutional controls on the plume. As part of the
institutional controls, Newmark Site monitoring data will be used to evaluate
concentration trends near the extraction front. A secondary objective of groundwater
monitoring at the Newmark Site is to provide data to support groundwater transport
modeling efforts.
Project Goals and Objectives
The goal of long-term monitoring optimization (LTMO) is to review the current
groundwater monitoring program and provide recommendations for improving the
efficiency and accuracy of the network in supporting site monitoring objectives.
Specifically, the LTMO process provides information on the site characterization, stability
of the plume, sufficiency and redundancy of monitoring locations and the appropriate
frequency of network sampling. Tasks involved in the LTMO process include:
Evaluate well locations and screened intervals within the context of the
hydrogeologic regime to determine if the site is well characterized;
Evaluate overall plume stability through trend and moment analysis;
Evaluate individual well concentration trends over time for target constituents of
concern (COCs);
Develop sampling location recommendations based on an analysis of spatial
uncertainty;
San Bernardino, California i Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Develop sampling frequency recommendations based on qualitative and
quantitative statistical analysis results;
Evaluate individual well analytical data for statistical sufficiency and identify
locations that have achieved clean-up goals.
The end product of the LTMO process at the Newmark Site is a recommendation for
specific sampling locations and frequencies that best address site monitoring goals and
objectives listed above.
The recommendations contained in this report are made on a technical basis and are
independent of the existing regulatory of enforcement requirements.
Site Assumptions
Affected groundwater at the Newmark Superfund Site covers an area of over 36 square
miles and roughly 1,200 feet in depth with very few major geologic discontinuities. In
order to evaluate the full extent of the plume, the dataset was divided into multiple
analysis groups. Monitoring locations were grouped according to operable unit and, in
the case of the Muscoy and Newmark OUs, analytical data were grouped by depth. The
depth intervals used in the following report include shallow, intermediate and deep
groups for the Muscoy and Newmark OUs, which do not necessarily correspond to
hydrogeologic strata defined for the modeling effort. The depth intervals represent 2-
dimensional 'slices' of the aquifer for the purpose of the analysis. Depth zones used in
this report are a simplification defined for the purpose of the LTMO analysis and do not
constitute an alteration of the conceptual site model.
The precise locations and mechanisms of entry of contaminants into Newmark Site
groundwater are not fully defined. For the purpose of the analysis, the site source was
assumed to be in the area of wells CJ-10 and CJ-17, locations with historically high
concentrations of site constituents. Aquifer properties such as seepage velocity and
porosity were estimated based on the predominant geologic matrix at the site.
Results
Statistical and qualitative evaluations of Newmark Site analytical data have been
conducted and the following general conclusions have been drawn based on the results
of these analyses:
• After a qualitative evaluation of well locations, screened intervals and
hydrogeologic characteristics, affected groundwater at the Newmark Site is
delineated to EPA MCLs for the compounds investigated. Groundwater areas
where concentrations routinely exceed MCLs are bounded by wells where results
are below MCLs. No major data gaps in site characterization were found.
• The groundwater plumes evaluated are largely stable, even though many
concentration trends (for both individual wells and plume moments) show no
statistical trend. Many "no trend' results are an artifact of censored data
(analytical results varying between no detections and low detections of COCs).
Another source of data variance includes concentrations that were increasing
before remedy start-up and have since reversed in trend.
San Bernardino, California ii Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
For 161 wells evaluated in all Newmark Site OUs for long-term PCE trends, the
majority of locations showed stable to decreasing trends or no detections (57%).
Increasing trends were calculated for 12% of locations. No statistically significant
trend was found at 29% of locations. Two locations had insufficient data to
perform the analysis.
Results from the spatial redundancy analysis indicate that several wells could be
considered for removal from routine monitoring, as they do not provide unique
information. Wells identified as redundant are listed in Tables 3-10. However,
due to the spatial extent of the plume, no wells are recommended for removal at
this time (see Recommendations below).
The spatial analysis identified one area of high concentration uncertainty that
may be a candidate location for a new well. The area of uncertainty is in the
southwest corner of the Newmark OU in the deeper groundwater zone near the
Muscoy Intermediate Zone.
The sampling frequency analysis recommended a reduced sampling frequency
for the majority of wells. Annual to biennial sampling frequencies were
recommended by the MAROS algorithm based on the rate of change and trend
of well concentrations.
95 of 160 locations (59%) evaluated were statistically below the MCL for PCE
using the sequential T-test. Approximately one-quarter (25%) of monitoring
locations had a sufficient data record at sufficiently low concentrations to have
'attained' clean-up goals with 80% or greater statistical power.
Recommendations
The following general recommendations are made based on the findings of the technical
analysis summarized above and those described in Section 3 below. More detailed
recommendations are presented for each of the OUs in Section 4.
• All locations within the monitoring network are recommended for inclusion in the
current monitoring program. While areas of statistical spatial redundancy were
identified, the depth heterogeneity and aerial extent of the plume provided
sufficient qualitative reasons for maintaining all sampling locations in the network.
Currently, all locations in the plume provide information on spatial distribution and
concentration trends of chemical constituents.
• Wells with non-detect results and the 59% of wells that are statistically below the
MCL for PCE should remain in the monitoring program as delineation locations
and as sentinel wells to detect increasing concentrations in largely 'clean' areas.
Examples of low-detection wells important to delineation include Source OU
locations CJ-2 and CJ-7.
• No new monitoring locations are recommended. One area of statistical spatial
uncertainty was identified in the deeper, southwestern area of the Newmark OU.
This area is very close to intermediate depths in the Muscoy OU. Continue
monitoring the area downgradient of the Shandin Hills, between the Newmark
Deep and Muscoy Intermediate zones and consider an additional well should
modeling or capture zone analysis indicate possible transport of COCs
downgradient.
San Bernardino, California iii Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Reduce the frequency of monitoring. The plumes are not changing rapidly.
Mass appears to be shifting downgradient towards the extraction wells, but not
extremely rapidly. Two levels of monitoring effort are recommended -
o Annual to biennial monitoring on a plume wide-level to delineate the
overall plume,
o Semi-annual monitoring for the plume-front and areas with high historic
concentrations to confirm that the plume does not expand past the current
position. (Specific monitoring recommendations are shown in Table 11.)
Continue evaluating concentration trends for monitoring locations at the
Newmark Site. Stakeholders should develop an agreement on a consistent
method by which to evaluate trends, including the time-frame over which to
evaluate the data. A nonparametric Mann-Kendall trend test like the one used in
the MAROS software is recommended. Recent trends (~2 years) should be
compared with trends calculated from the full dataset to better detect long-term
variations in analytical results. For locations in the plume-front region, the
statistical test should be conducted after each sampling event.
Continue refinement of the conceptual site model through modeling and
statistical analyses.
o Monitoring data at the Newmark Site show high variance relative to
concentrations (resulting in lack of statistical trends). In most cases,
variance in the data can be explained by site characteristics and
processes. Continue monitoring for concentration trends, with careful
consideration of factors that may contribute to underlying variance in the
data (i.e. large percentage of non-detect results, seasonal aquifer
changes, proximity to pumping wells).
o The challenge for the monitoring network at the Newmark Site is to
provide data for a large aerial extent (8 miles in length) and from great
depths. The current approach of combining an extensive monitoring
program with development of a site-wide database, groundwater transport
models and capture zone analysis is anticipated to provide
complementary information to support site management decisions.
Review the monitoring program again in 3-5 years. Wells installed recently
(2005-2007) will have a statistically significant data set, and the efficacy of the
remedial system will be better documented. If current groundwater conditions
and mass removal trends continue, reduced monitoring effort may be appropriate
in the future.
Continue development of the site-wide database available to all stakeholders.
The database should including monitoring location coordinates, analytical results
and results of hydrogeologic sampling.
San Bernardino, California iv Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Newmark Groundwater Contamination Site (Newmark Site) is a National Priorities
Listed (NPL) site being administered under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund). The site is located within the
broader Bunker Hill Basin near the city of San Bernardino, California (see Figure 1).
Groundwater resources in the area are the sole water-supply for approximately 500,000
basin residents (URS, 2006). Discovery of chlorinated compounds in the aquifer above
regulatory screening levels resulted in closure of a number of municipal water-supply
wells and represents an on-going public health concern. Remedial systems are
currently in place to control the spread of affected groundwater and assist in long-term
resource restoration.
Groundwater monitoring plays a critical role in long-term restoration of affected aquifers.
The purpose of the LTMO evaluation is to review the current groundwater monitoring
network and provide recommendations for improving the efficiency and accuracy of the
network for supporting site management decisions.
Monitoring goals define why and how data collected from the site will be used. The
primary groundwater monitoring goals for the Newmark Site include developing a data
set to 1) evaluate the efficacy of the chosen remedy to prevent downgradient migration
of the plume, 2) evaluate long-term reduction in contaminant mass and 3) determine if
basin activities such as groundwater artificial recharge or natural processes are affecting
the efficiency of the pumping system to capture the plume. Specifically, monitoring data
will be used to delineate the extent of affected groundwater in support of implementation
of institutional controls on the plume. Additionally, Newmark Site monitoring data will be
used to evaluate concentration trends near the extraction front. A secondary objective of
groundwater monitoring at the Newmark Site is to provide data to support groundwater
transport modeling efforts.
In order to recommend an optimized network that addresses the stated monitoring
objectives, spatial and analytical data from the site were analyzed using a series of
quantitative and qualitative tools. Tasks performed during LTMO analyses include:
Evaluate well locations and screened intervals within the context of the
hydrogeologic regime to determine if the site is well characterized;
Evaluate overall plume stability through trend and moment analysis;
Evaluate individual well concentration trends over time for target constituents of
concern (COCs);
Develop sampling location recommendations based on an analysis of spatial
uncertainty;
Develop sampling frequency recommendations based on both qualitative and
quantitative statistical analysis results;
Evaluate individual well analytical data for statistical sufficiency and identify
locations that have achieved clean-up goals.
San Bernardino, California 1 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
A discussion of site background and regulatory context for the Newmark Site is provided
in Section 1 below. Section 2 details the analytical and statistical approach taken during
the LTMO evaluation. Additional information on statistical techniques used in the
MAROS software is located in Appendix A. A detailed discussion of results for each OU
and depth monitoring network is provided in Section 3. Summary conclusions and
recommendations are presented in Section 4.0.
1.1 Site Background
1.1.1 Regulatory History
During a 1980 groundwater investigation by the California State Department of Health
Services - Department of Toxic Substances Control (DHS/DTSC), municipal water-
supply wells in the City of San Bernardino were found to contain chlorinated solvents in
excess of state drinking water action levels. Subsequent groundwater investigations
indicated a broad region of affected groundwater. Because of the extent of groundwater
contamination and the aquifer's critical role as a water supply, the site was added to the
NPL in March 1989 by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Newmark Site consists of three operable units (OUs). OUs were designated by
regulators to manage site assessment and restoration activities for smaller areas within
the overall Newmark Site. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) for the Newmark OU from 1990 to 1993
and issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in 1993 (EPA, 1993). The RI/FS for the Muscoy
OU was completed in 1994 (URS, 1994), with an Interim ROD issued in March, 1995.
A 1996 technical memorandum from EPA suggests that the primary source of
contamination for both the Muscoy and Newmark OUs may be the former San
Bernardino Army Depot north of the Shandin Hills (URS, 1996). The Army Depot served
several key functions during and immediately after World War II. Land leased by the
Department of Defense (DOD) from the Muscoy Water Company in the area served as a
storage depot, ammunition supply, dry cleaning facility, sewage spreading facility, tent
manufacturing, railcar degreasing and prisoner of war camp, among other activities,
between 1940 and 1948 (CA State Military Museum, 2007). The Source OU to the
north of the Newmark and Muscoy OUs was designated in 1993.
Outlines of the OUs are shown on Figure 1. A brief description of each OU is provided
below.
• Source OU\ The Source OU is located on the northern/northeastern edge of the
site, north of the Shandin Hills and covers approximately 6.3 square miles. The
OU is bounded on the west/southwest by Lytle Creek and on the east by
Highway 215. The Source OU contains both the Cajon Landfill and former Camp
Ono Army Supply Depot and represents the most upgradient area of affected
groundwater.
• Newmark OU\ The Newmark OU covers roughly 6.7 square miles north and east
of the Shandin Hills. The OU encompasses affected groundwater wrapping
San Bernardino, California 2 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
around the Shandin Hills and extends south to the plume-front south of Baseline
Road.
Muscoy OU: The Muscoy OU is located downgradient, south of the Source OU
and west of the Shandin Hills. The OU covers approximately 7.75 square miles.
1.1.2 Current Conditions
Because of the extent of affected groundwater, the relatively dilute concentrations and
the subsurface geochemistry, remedial options for the site are somewhat limited. The
primary interim remedy for the Newmark Site involves groundwater extraction,
subsequent treatment with conventional technologies to drinking water standards and
distribution of the water to municipal suppliers. The objectives of the interim remedy are
to capture the plume and prevent it from migrating to cleaner areas of the aquifer. The
remedy for the Newmark OU was completed in 1998 and the Muscoy OU remedy has
been in operation since 2005. Currently, groundwater at the Newmark Site is monitored
at over 160 locations.
In August 2004, the EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) to
supplement the interim ROD with an institutional controls (1C) program. The ESD
stipulates that any activities that may impact the barrier function of the pumping wells be
controlled through permitting or other mechanism. Activities such as installation of new
wells or operation of spreading basins (artificial recharge) must not degrade the capture
function of the remedy. The 1C is in the form of a local ordinance by the City of San
Bernardino. The 1C is crafted to ensure that the function of the pump and treat system
remains effective in meeting long-term risk-reduction objectives.
Currently, a dilute plume composed primarily of tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene
(TCE) dichlorodifluoromethane (DCDFM) and trichlorofluoromethane (TCFM) is
dispersed approximately 5 miles downgradient on the Newmark (east) side of the
Shandin Hills and 3 miles downgradient on the Muscoy (west) side. PCE is present in
the highest concentration relative to the applicable regulatory screening levels. Affected
groundwater is present in both the upper and lower aquifers and may extend to the
bedrock.
1.1.3 Area Groundwater Management
In addition to addressing site contamination, monitoring networks at the Newmark Site
provide critical information for area-wide groundwater management. The Newmark Site
is located in a geologically active zone beside the San Andreas Fault. Due to potential
seismic activity, groundwater management efforts in the Bunker Hill Basin must address
liquefaction hazards as well as municipal water supply, ecological and drainage issues.
Future basin-wide management efforts include attempts to stabilize aquifer water levels
by controlling and directing infiltration. Potential hazards involving groundwater must be
balanced through a comprehensive management strategy. Groundwater management
efforts for the Basin involve cooperation between a number of public stakeholders
including EPA, San Bernardino Municipal Water District (SBMWD), Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Toxic
San Bernardino, California 3 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Substances Control (DISC). Data from the Newmark Site network have been used in
developing and calibrating both a site-wide and basin-wide groundwater model.
1.2 Geology and Hydrogeology
The Newmark Site is located at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains between the
San Andreas and Loma Linda and San Jacinto faults. Area geology is characterized by
a series of confluent alluvial fans formed from major drainages descending from the San
Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north. The alluvial deposits form the
broad plain of the San Bernardino Valley. Alluvium in the Newmark Site area consists of
boulders, gravel, and sand with silt and clay lenses interspersed toward the central and
southern portions of the site. The Shandin and Wiggins Hills are bedrock protrusions
rising above the alluvial valley.
The aquifer underlying the Newmark Site consists of two units, an upper unconfined
aquifer composed of younger alluvium (the upper water bearing member (UWBM) and a
lower aquifer, confined by overlying silt and clay lenses (lower water bearing member
(LWBM). In the northern region of the Newmark Site near the base of the San
Bernardino Mountains the alluvial layer is primarily sand, gravel and boulders with little
clay. Alluvial thickness is approximately 400 ft in this area. Southward toward the Loma
Linda and San Jacinto faults, the alluvial thickness increases to 2,100 ft. The number
and thickness of silt and clay lenses increases from north to south across the site,
increasing the distinction between the upper and lower saturated units (URS, 2006).
Groundwater characterization and modeling efforts in the Newmark Site area have
resulted in the identification of various hydrostratigraphic zones in the Muscoy and
Newmark regions. Hydrostratigraphic zones were defined based on measured water
levels, responses to pumping and the conceptual hydrogeologic model (URS, 2006).
Modeling efforts are on-going and should provide more highly refined information on
subsurface strata and possible vertical gradients in the future. Current
hydrostratigraphic zone designations were considered along with relative well screen
depths to separate site data into two-dimensional aquifer 'slices' for the MAROS spatial
analysis. The 'slices' were defined for the purpose of the analysis and are not meant to
reflect a precise description of subsurface stratification.
The surface elevation across the Newmark Site drops from about 1,700 feet above
mean sea level (ft amsl) in the north/northwest to approximately 1,100 ft amsl at the
southern extent of the plume. Groundwater flow generally follows the surface elevation,
trending from northwest to south/southeast. Predominant groundwater flow directions
are indicated on Figure 1. Localized variations in groundwater flow occur around the
Shandin Hills. Outlines of the Newmark OU follow the flow of groundwater around the
Shandin Hills. Major faults in the region off-set the bedrock, acting as barriers to lateral
flow.
Recharge to the Newmark Site aquifers occurs as a result of surface runoff from the
surrounding mountains during storm periods. Surface runoff follows the canyons along
the valley perimeter and moves down alluvial fans, infiltrating into the permeable surface
layers. The magnitude of aquifer recharge is dependent on rainfall.
San Bernardino, California 4 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Aquifer physical parameters employed for the analyses are shown in Appendix B Tables
B.2a-c. A consensus seepage velocity was not available from the stakeholder group, so
a maximum seepage velocity was estimated for the area. The seepage velocity is used
in a qualitative manner to categorize the aquifer (fast, medium, slow, etc.).
2.0 ANALYTICAL APPROACH
Evaluation of the groundwater monitoring network in the vicinity of the Newmark Site
consisted of both quantitative and qualitative methods. A quantitative statistical
evaluation of the site was conducted using tools in the MAROS software. The qualitative
evaluation reviewed hydrogeologic conditions, well construction and placement. Both
quantitative statistical and qualitative evaluations were combined using a 'lines of
evidence' approach to recommend a final groundwater monitoring strategy to support
site monitoring objectives.
2.1 MAROS Method
The MAROS 2.2 software was used to evaluate the long-term monitoring (LTM) network
at the Newmark Site. 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 tool includes models, statistics, heuristic rules, and empirical
relationships to assist in optimizing a groundwater monitoring network system. Results
generated from the software tool can be used to develop lines of evidence, which, in
combination with professional judgment, can be used to inform regulatory decisions for
safe and economical long-term monitoring of groundwater plumes. A summary
description of each tool used in the analysis is provided in Appendix A of this report. 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 2Manual.pdf) and Aziz et al., 2003.
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 resulting in plume stability information; and 2) a more detailed statistical
optimization based on spatial and temporal redundancy reduction methods (see
Appendix A or the MAROS Users Manual (AFCEE, 2003)).
The approach used for the quantitative evaluation of the Newmark Site involved
analyzing each depth in each OU separately. Spatial analysis tools in MAROS are
designed for two-dimensional spatial analysis. Shallow, Intermediate and Deep
groundwater zones were defined for the Newmark and Muscoy OUs. Each zone was
evaluated for plume stability, spatial redundancy and sufficiency; optimal sampling
frequency and data sufficiency. The results of each of these analyses are presented in
Section 3.0 below. A brief summary of each of these methods is provided below.
2.1.1 Plume Stability
Within MAROS, historical analytical data are analyzed to develop a conclusion about
plume stability. If a plume is found to be stable, in many cases, the number of locations
San Bernardino, California 5 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
and monitoring frequency can be reduced without loss of information. Plume stability
results are assessed from time-series concentration data with the application of two
types of statistical tools: individual well concentration trend analyses and plume-wide
moment analysis.
Individual well concentrations are evaluated using both Mann-Kendall and Linear
Regression trend tools. The Mann-Kendall nonparametric evaluation is considered one
of the best methods to evaluate concentration trend as it does not assume the data fit a
particular distribution (Gilbert, 1987). For the Newmark site, concentration trends were
calculated for the four priority COCs for the time period 1999 to 2007. Individual well
Mann-Kendall trends were also used in the sampling frequency analysis, where trends
determined for the 2005 to 2007 interval were compared with trends calculated using the
entire dataset for each well. During the final 'lines of evidence' evaluation, individual
well concentration trends are considered along with summary statistics such as percent
detection and historic maximum concentration to prioritize wells in the network.
Moment analysis algorithms in MAROS are simple approximations of complex
calculations and are meant to estimate the total dissolved mass (zeroth moment), the
location of the center of mass (first moment) and spread of mass (second moment) for
each sample event. Temporal trends for each of these spatial metrics are determined
using the Mann-Kendall method. Results of the moment analyses provide a plume-wide
metric of plume stability.
The trend in the zeroth moment is determined from comparing the total mass estimates
for each sample event (or consolidated time period) over time. The trend indicates if
total mass within the network is increasing, decreasing or stable. (The zeroth moment
does not estimate the dissolved mass outside of the current network.) The first moment
tool estimates the X,Y coordinates of the center or mass of the plume for each sample
event. Trend evaluation indicates if the center of mass is getting father from the source
(increasing trend) or if the center is retreating toward the identified source (decreasing
trend). The trend in first moments reflects the change in the relative amount of mass in
the source area versus that in the downgradient tail region over time. For example, an
increasing trend may indicate decreases in mass in the source area or increasing
concentrations in downgradient wells. Decreasing trends in the first moment can
indicate degradation of constituents in the tail of the plume or continued input of
dissolved mass in the source area (i.e. 'uncontrolled' source).
Trends in the second moments indicate the relative spread or distribution of mass from
the center of the plume to the edges, both in the direction of groundwater flow (x-
direction) and perpendicular to groundwater flow (y-direction). An increasing second
moment indicates an increase in the amount of mass on the edge of the plume relative
to the center, as when an extraction well removes mass from the center of the plume.
The moment analysis module is sensitive to the number and arrangement of wells in
each sampling event, so data are sometimes consolidated (semi-annually or annually) to
ensure that the number and identity of wells during monitoring events are comparable.
For the Newmark site, moments were calculated using the annual average concentration
at each location. The trends for the moments estimated for PCE were used to evaluate
San Bernardino, California 6 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
plume stability over time. Results for the three other priority COCs were reviewed and
incorporated as part of the qualitative analysis, when necessary.
2.1.2 Well Redundancy and Sufficiency
Sample locations are evaluated in MAROS for their importance in providing information
to define concentrations within the groundwater plume. Wells identified as providing
information redundant with surrounding wells are recommended for elimination from the
program. (Note: elimination from the program does not necessarily mean plugging and
abandoning the well. See Section 2.3 below.) Well sufficiency is evaluated in MAROS
using the same spatial analysis as that for redundancy. Areas identified as having high
levels of concentration uncertainty are possible sites for additional monitoring locations.
The well redundancy and sufficiency analysis uses the Delaunay method and 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 importance of each sampling location is assessed by calculating a slope factor (SF)
and concentration and area ratios (CR and AR respectively). Sampling locations with a
high SF provide unique information and are retained in the network. Locations with low
SF are considered for removal. Areas defined by many wells with high SF may be
candidates for new wells. SF were calculated for all wells at the Newmark Site and the
results were used to determine the importance of the well in the network.
Spatial analysis modules in MAROS recommend elimination of sampling locations that
have little impact on the historical characterization of a contaminant plume while
identifying areas in the plume where additional data are needed. For details on the
redundancy and sufficiency analyses, see Appendix A or the MAROS Users Manual
(AFCEE, 2003).
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 based on a two-dimensional assumption.
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.
2.1.3 Sampling Frequency
MAROS uses a Modified Cost Effective Sampling (MCES) method to optimize sampling
frequency for each location based on the magnitude, direction, and uncertainty of its
concentration trends. The MCES method was developed on the basis of the Cost
Effective Sampling (CES) method developed by Ridley et al (1995). The MCES method
estimates a conservative lowest-frequency sampling schedule for a given groundwater
monitoring location that still provides needed information for regulatory and remedial
decision-making.
MAROS has recommended a preliminary location sampling frequency (PLSF) for each
monitoring location at the Newmark Site based on a combination of recent and long-term
trends and the magnitude and rate of concentration change. The PLSF has been
San Bernardino, California ^ Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
reviewed qualitatively and a final optimal sampling frequency has been recommended
consistent with monitoring objectives and regulatory requirements.
2.1.4 Data Sufficiency
The MAROS Data Sufficiency module employs simple statistical methods to evaluate
whether analytical data are adequate both in quantity and in quality for revealing
changes in constituent concentrations. Statistical tests for the MAROS module were
taken from the USEPA Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards
Volume 2: Groundwater statistical guidance document (EPA, 1992).
Two types of statistical analyses have been performed on analytical samples from each
individual well. First, hypothesis testing using a sequential T-test has been performed to
determine if groundwater concentration is statistically below the screening level for PCE
(screening levels were set to EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLS). The
sequential T-test indicates if the well has a sufficient number of samples at low enough
concentrations to be categorized as "statistically below the MCL". If measured
concentrations are high or there are an insufficient number of data points, then the well
is recommended for further sampling.
A statistical power analysis was also performed in the Data Sufficiency module to assess
the reliability of the hypothesis test and to suggest the number of additional samples that
may be required to reach statistical significance. The power analysis uses the number
of samples (n), the variance of the samples, the minimum detectible difference and the
significance (a) of the test to determine if the well is below the screening level with very
high confidence. The power analysis is a more stringent test than the sequential T-test
and provides a higher level of certainty that the well is not affected above risk-based
levels. Locations that pass the power test are considered "statistically clean".
Locations that monitor groundwater areas "statistically below MCL" or "statistically clean"
may be considered for reduced sampling frequency or elimination from the program.
These locations may also be retained in the program to help define the plume, set
institutional control boundaries or function as surrogate "point of exposure" locations.
2.2 Data Input, Consolidation and Site Assumptions
Groundwater analytical data from the Newmark Site area were supplied by URS (URS,
2006), supplemented with information from historic site reports and on-going modeling
efforts. Site reports were accessed from the Newmark Superfund Site website (EPA,
2007). Groundwater monitoring locations included in the evaluation are listed in Table 1,
with additional details provided in Appendix B Table B.1.
Chemical analytical data collected between May 1987 and January 2007 and well
information data were organized in a database, from which summary statistics were
calculated. In all, 160 sample locations were considered in the network evaluation for
the three OUs. Well locations are illustrated on Figures 1-14. Locations with no
geographic coordinates and those locations that have not been sampled since 2004
were considered to have insufficient data and were not included in the analysis.
San Bernardino, California 8 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
2.2.1 Saturated Intervals
In order to perform the analysis for the Newmark Site, the dataset was divided into
multiple analysis groups to create 2-dimensional 'slices' of the aquifer. Monitoring
locations were grouped according to operable unit and, in the case of the Muscoy and
Newmark OUs, data were grouped by depth. The depth intervals used for the analysis
include shallow, intermediate and deep groups, which do not necessarily correspond to
hydrogeologic strata. Depth zones used in this report are defined for the purpose of the
LTMO analysis and do not correspond with other zone classifications for site modeling.
Well screened intervals and hydrostratigraphic zones identified in the site database were
used to group sample locations into Shallow, Intermediate and Deep Zone monitoring
points for the Newmark and Muscoy OUs. Site wells were grouped to create layers for
the MAROS analysis as the spatial analysis component of MAROS is based on a two-
dimensional assumption. The designation of depth intervals was accomplished based
on the best information currently available. Site-wide and basin-wide groundwater
model development is on-going, and may improve and refine information on vertical
connection between groundwater zones in the future. The Source OU was analyzed as
one layer.
Analysis groups based on OU and depth interval are described briefly below. Wells in
each analysis group are listed in Appendix B Table B.1. Each of the MAROS analysis
groups was evaluated for plume stability, well sufficiency, well redundancy, monitoring
frequency and data sufficiency.
San Bernardino, California 9 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Source OU
Newmark OU
• Shallow Zone
• Intermediate Zone
• Deep Zone
Muscoy OU
• Shallow Zone
• Intermediate Zone
• Deep Zone
Wells in the Source OU were analyzed as a group in MAROS,
regardless of depth. Screened interval depth was considered in the
qualitative evaluation.
Area east of the Shandin Hills Wells listed in hydrostratigraphic zone 1,
generally locations with screened intervals above 400 ft bgs. (EW-
108PA considered for both Newmark and Muscoy OU shallow zones).
Data from the Source OU was added for the spatial analysis.
Area east of the Shandin Hills. Wells listed in hydrostratigraphic zone
2, generally locations with screened intervals between 300 and 700 ft
bgs. Source OU wells were included for the spatial analysis as source
zone wells.
Area east of the Shandin Hills. Wells listed in hydrostratigraphic zone
3 or the LWBM, generally locations with screened intervals between
500 and 1 ,100 ft bgs. Locations in the Newmark Intermediate Zone
were included as source wells for the spatial analysis and wells from
the Muscoy Intermediate Zone were included on the western edge of
the plume.
Area west of the Shandin Hills. Wells listed in hydrostratigraphic zone
1 , generally locations with screened intervals above 400 ft bgs. (EW-
108PA considered for both Newmark and Muscoy OU shallow zones).
Area west of the Shandin Hills. Wells listed in hydrostratigraphic
zones 1 .5 to 2, generally locations with screened intervals between
300 and 1 ,000 ft bgs. Source OU wells were included for the spatial
analysis as source zone wells.
Area west of the Shandin Hills. Wells listed in hydrostratigraphic zone
3, generally locations with screened intervals below 600 ft bgs.
Muscoy Intermediate Zone wells were included as source wells for the
spatial analysis. Two deep wells from the Newmark OU were included
on the eastern edge of the plume.
2.2.2 Time Interval and Data Consolidation
Typically, raw data from groundwater monitoring networks have been measured
irregularly in time or contain many non-detects, trace level results, and duplicates. In
some cases, specific locations are sampled much more frequently than the rest of the
network, for example locations where samples are used to characterize input to a
remedial system, or develop pump-test data. Therefore, before the data can be further
analyzed using MAROS, raw data are reviewed and, if necessary, filtered, consolidated,
transformed, and possibly smoothed to allow for a consistent dataset meeting the
minimum data requirements for statistical analysis.
Data prior to 1999 are available for a subset of Newmark Site wells, however, the
majority of wells in the network have been installed since 1996 with some as recently as
2006 (wells installed in 2007 are not considered in this report). In order to provide
reasonable consistency in statistical comparisons, analyses have been limited to certain
time-frames. Individual well trend evaluations were performed for data collected
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
10
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
between 1999 and 2007. The data represent a 10 year record for many wells, and
provide an indication of long-term trends in site constituent concentrations.
For sample locations with more than 40 sample events (n>40) (largely in the Source
OU), data were consolidated quarterly. That is, for locations with more than one sample
result for one calendar quarter (3 month period), the average concentration was used in
the statistical analysis. Duplicate samples were also averaged to develop one result for
each COC for each quarter.
The moment analysis is sensitive to the number and location of wells in the network. In
order to compare results for the moments over time and determine trends, moments had
to be calculated from the same set of wells. For the Newmark OU, where a longer data
record is available, annual average concentrations were found for each well for the years
1999 to 2006. The average annual concentration at each location was used to calculate
the total dissolved mass, center of mass and spread of mass plume-wide for each year.
Moments calculated annually were compared and a Mann-Kendall trend was evaluated.
For the Muscoy OU, where there is a shorter data record, data were consolidated semi-
annually for 2005 through 2006 (4 time periods).
For the sampling frequency analysis, the rate of concentration change for each location
has been determined for recent data and for the full set of data. The recent time-frame
was defined as April 2005 through January 2007. MAROS recommends a PLSF using
decision logic considering both recent and long-term rates of concentration change and
trends.
2.2.3 COC Choice
For groundwater networks with a single source, the optimization strategy usually
addresses one to three priority contaminants. MAROS includes a short module that
provides recommendations on prioritizing COCs based on toxicity, prevalence, and
mobility of the compound. Priority COCs have been defined as those compounds
exceeding regulatory screening levels (California Drinking water standards, MCLs or
Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG)) to the greatest extent across the widest
distribution and those with high mobility.
At the Newmark Site, PCE is the constituent found in the highest concentration above
regulatory screening levels at the greatest frequency. Dichlorodifluoromethane
(DCDFM) is perhaps more widely distributed across the Newmark Site (comparing the
number of non-detect results in the Mann-Kendall summaries). However, owing to
DCDFM's relatively high regulatory screening level (390 ug/L), it poses a significantly
lower risk. TCE and TCFM have also been detected in site wells, but at low
concentrations relative to the screening levels. Overall, the Newmark Site has very low
concentrations of contaminants. The majority of the analytical results show
concentrations below regulatory screening levels for all COCs. For the Newmark and
Muscoy OUs, the MAROS software did not identify any priority constituents. For the
Source OU, MAROS identified only PCE as being present above screening levels (see
Appendix C for COC prioritization report for Source OU). PCE was used as the priority
COC for all monitoring network analyses, with the other COCs considered as secondary
contaminants.
San Bernardino, California 11 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
2.3 Qualitative Evaluation
Multiple factors should be considered in developing recommendations for monitoring at
sites undergoing long-term groundwater restoration. The LTMO process for Newmark
includes developing a 'lines of evidence' approach, combining statistical analyses with
qualitative review to recommend an improved monitoring network. For the Newmark
Site, results from the statistical analyses in combination with a qualitative review were
used to determine continuation or cessation of monitoring at each well location along
with a proposed frequency of monitoring for those locations retained in the network.
The primary consideration in developing any monitoring network is to ensure that
information collected efficiently supports site management decisions. Site information
needs are reflected in the monitoring objectives for the network. For this reason, any
proposed changes to the network are reviewed to be consistent with and supportive of
the stated monitoring objectives. The qualitative review process starts with evaluating
each monitoring location for the role it plays supporting site monitoring objectives. For
example, a location may provide vertical or horizontal delineation of the plume or may
provide information on decay rates in the source area. Each well in the Newmark Site
network was evaluated for its contribution to site monitoring objectives. Qualitatively,
redundant locations are those where multiple wells address the same monitoring
objective in approximately the same location.
A recommendation to eliminate chemical analytical monitoring at a particular location
based on the data 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 some cases, stakeholders may pursue a comprehensive
monitoring event for all historic wells every five to ten years to provide a broad view of
plume changes over time. In general, continuation of water level measurements in all
site wells is recommended. Data on hydraulic gradients and potentiometric surfaces are
often relatively inexpensive to collect and can be used to support model development
and support resource planning.
Qualitative evaluation for sampling frequency recommendations includes looking at
factors such as the rate of change of concentrations, the groundwater flow velocity, and
the type and frequency of decisions that must be made about the site. Additionally,
consideration is given to the concentration at a particular location relative to the
regulatory screening level, the length of the monitoring history and the location relative to
potential receptors.
San Bernardino, California 12 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
A summary of the lines of evidence used to develop a final monitoring network
recommendation is presented below.
Key Point: Several lines of evidence were used to develop recommendations for the monitoring
network.
Lines of Evidence
• Individual well trend
• Plume-Wide Trends
• Well Redundancy and Sufficiency
• Sampling Frequency
• Data Sufficiency
• Qualitative Evaluation
Method
• Mann-Kendall (Linear regression)
• Moment Analysis: Total dissolved
mass, center of mass and spread of
mass trends.
• Delaunay triangulation and slope factor
calculation, along with area ratios and
concentration ratios.
• Modified Cost Effective Sampling
• Sequential T-Test and Power Analysis
• Consider hydrogeologic factors,
monitoring objectives, stakeholder
concerns and all statistical results to
develop final recommendation.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
13
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
3.0 SITE RESULTS
3.1 Source OU
Data from 25 monitoring wells at various depths were included in the quantitative
network analysis for the Source OU. Data from wells south of MW-127A and B were
included in the Muscoy OU and locations south of CJ-13 were included in the Newmark
OU. Source OU well locations are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. Average
concentrations for PCE in the Source OU are illustrated on Figure 2 (panel A). Areas of
historic high concentrations include wells CJ-17, CJ-16, CJ-10 and MWCOE004, with
CJ-6 and CJ-3, CJ-15 and MWCOE001B making up the higher concentration centerline
wells. The plume is well delineated upgradient, and cross-gradient by low-level and non-
detect wells.
3.1.1 Plume Stability
3.1.1.1 Concentration Trends
Individual well concentration trends using the Mann-Kendall method for data collected
between 1999 and 2007 are summarized in the table below with detailed results in
Appendix B Table B.3. Results of the individual well Mann-Kendall trends for PCE are
also illustrated in Figure 2 panel B. Detailed Mann-Kendall reports for each well in the
Source OU are located in Appendix C.
COG
PCE
TCE
DCDFM
TCFM
Total
Wells
25
25
25
25
Source OU Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
ND
2 (8%)
9 (36%)
1 (4%)
8 (32%)
PD, D
8 (32%)
4(16%)
2 (8%)
2 (8%)
S
5 (20%)
2 (8%)
6 (24%)
6 (24%)
I, PI
4(16%)
0
3(12%)
2 (8%)
N/A, NT
6 (24%)
10(40%)
13(52%)
7 (28%)
Note: Insufficient Data (N/A), Decreasing (D), Probably Decreasing (PD), Stable (S), Probably Increasing (PI), and
Increasing (I), No Trend (NT); and non-detect for all sample events (ND).
Relative to the entire Newmark Site, PCE is found in highest concentration across the
Source OU. Trend results for PCE indicate that the majority of wells have a decreasing
or probably decreasing trend (D or PD). Overall 60% of wells in the Source OU have
stable, decreasing or non-detect concentration status. Four locations showed an
increasing or probably increasing trend for PCE: CJ-2, CJ-6, CJ-7 and CJ-11.
Locations CJ-2, CJ-7 and CJ-11 moved from non-detect status to very low-level
detections for PCE during the time-interval investigated. These wells represent
horizontal delineation wells to the west (CJ-2 and CJ-7) and to the east, and may reflect
spreading due to dispersion from the center of the plume. Well CJ-6 is in the center of
the plume, and the probably increasing trend is fairly weak (confidence factor = 90.1%)
and the trend may represent a sampling artifact.
Roughly one quarter of wells showed no trend, or variability in PCE concentrations. The
percentage of no trend wells for other priority COCs is higher. A 'no trend' result can
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
14
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
occur when analytical results vacillate between non-detect and low-level detections (as
an example see Appendix C MAROS Reports for well MWCOE006) or when there is a
cyclical pattern (see MAROS Report for CJ-3). Some time versus concentration plots of
wells in the source area indicate an increasing trend that reverses to a decreasing trend
around 2002 (see MAROS Reports for CJ-14 and CJ-15). For wells with no trend, it is
important to understand the underlying reason for variability in the data.
For TCE and TCFM, the majority of trend results are either non-detect or show no trend
due to intermittent detections. No increasing trends for TCE were calculated. Results
for DCDFM show that only one well of the 25 has no detections of this compound.
DCDFM is widely distributed in the Source OU, and shows greater variance in
concentration results than other compounds (based on the number of no trend results).
However, DCDFM concentrations are largely below MCLs, and pose very low risk.
3.1.1.2 Moments
Moment analysis was used to estimate the dissolved mass (Zeroth Moment), center of
mass (First Moment) and spread or distribution of mass (Second Moment) for the plume
and the trend of these metrics over time. Estimates of the zeroth and first moments for
the Source and Newmark OUs are shown in Table 3. Moments for PCE and TCE in the
Source OU are summarized in the table below, and Source OU first moments are
illustrated on Figure 2 in panel B.
Moment
Type
Zeroth
First
Second
Moment Analysis
Source OU
PCE Trend
Decreasing
Probably
Increasing
No Trend
TCE Trend
Decreasing
Stable
No Trend/
Stable
Comment
The estimate of total dissolved mass of PCE and TCE within the
Source OU was decreasing between 1999 and 2006.
The distance of the plume center of mass from the source
shows a probably increasing trend for PCE between 1999 and
2006 and a stable trend for TCE. Relatively more mass of PCE
is detected downgradient in recent years.
The plume spread about the center of mass has No Trend in the
direction of groundwater flow as well as perpendicular to
groundwater flow for PCE indicating no clear redistribution of
mass from the center to the edge of the plume. TCE distribution
is Stable perpendicular to groundwater flow.
Between 1999 and 2007 the total dissolved mass in the Source OU showed a
decreasing trend for both PCE and TCE. A decreasing trend is consistent with the
finding that 32% of individual well concentration trends for PCE were decreasing. While
total mass is decreasing, the center of mass for PCE is probably increasing. These
results may indicate that some mass in the upper Source OU is decreasing faster than
mass downgradient or mass may be migrating toward the Muscoy and Newmark OUs;
but the trend is not strong.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
15
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
3.1.2 Redundancy and Sufficiency
The Source OU spatial redundancy analysis was performed for PCE using data
collected between 2000 and 2007. Summary results for the redundancy analysis are
presented on Table 3.
Four locations were identified as candidates for removal based on PCE data: CJ-6, CJ-
16, MWCOE001A and MWCOE007. Because wells screened at different depths were
included together in the Source OU analysis, wells such as MWCOE001A that are part
of a nested pair were identified for removal from the monitoring program. Based on a
qualitative review, all wells were recommended for retention in the monitoring network
for the immediate future; however, most locations were recommended for reduced
monitoring frequency.
The well sufficiency analysis for the Source OU is illustrated in Figure 3. MAROS uses
the Delaunay triangulation and SF calculations to identify areas with concentration
uncertainties. Figure 3 shows the polygons created by the triangulation method and
indicates areas of high uncertainty with an "L" or and "E" in the center of the triangle.
For the Source OU no areas of high concentration uncertainty were found, and no new
locations are recommended.
3.1.3 Sampling Frequency
Table 3 summarizes the results of the MAROS preliminary sampling frequency
recommendation, the qualitative evaluation of the well in the network and the final
sampling frequency recommendation for each sample location in the Source OU.
Detailed results of the trend and concentration rate of change analyses (including trends
determined for data 2005 - 2007) are shown in Appendix B Table B.11. For the majority
of Source OU wells, a reduced monitoring frequency was recommended.
The table below summarizes the current monitoring frequency for wells in the Source
OU and the sampling frequency recommended after the lines of evidence evaluation.
Monitoring Wells
Total Samples (average
per year)
Total Wells
Well Sampling Frequency Analysis Source OU
Sampling
Frequency
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Annual
Biennial
Current Sampling
Frequency
5
19
0
0
58
25
Sampling Frequency
Recommendation
0
8
7
10
28
25
The current sampling frequency is estimated from the sample dates in the site analytical database (URS, 2006).
All 25 wells are recommended for inclusion in the monitoring program, but most are
retained at a reduced sampling frequency. Because the well concentrations are not
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
16
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
changing rapidly, wells can be sampled less frequently without a loss of plume
information.
3.1.4 Data Sufficiency
Among Source OU wells, seven of 25 wells are statistically below the MCL for PCE
(0.005 mg/L) assuming a log-normal data distribution. Of these wells, three have data
with sufficient statistical power to say that they have reliably 'attained' clean-up goals.
The clean-up status of each well in the network is indicated in the 'lines of evidence'
summary Table 3. Wells labeled with N/C have insufficient number of samples to
provide statistical significance, even though their concentration may be quite low.
The statistically 'clean' wells are CJ-1, CJ-1A and CJ-8. These wells can be categorized
as statistically clean, in part, because they have been sampled many times and have
sufficiently high sample size (n) to provide statistical significance with high power.
Wells that are statistically clean and those that are statistically below the MCL can be
considered 'delineation wells'. Locations that monitor groundwater with concentrations
below regulatory screening levels were recommended for reduced sampling frequency,
and may be considered for elimination from the network in the future.
3.2 Newmark OU Results
3.2.1 Newmark Shallow Zone
The Shallow Zone analysis ground for the Newmark OU includes 26 wells (see Figure 4)
with sample collection dates between 1987 and 2007. The Newmark Shallow Zone was
evaluated for plume stability, redundancy and sufficiency as if it were an independent
groundwater unit. Figure 4 illustrates the average concentrations of PCE for locations
sampled between 1999 and 2007. Most locations show concentrations well below
screening levels with the exception of MW07A, EW-7, MW09A and MUNI-16. Higher
concentrations are found in the northern area of the Newmark OU, near the Source OU.
The Shallow Zone is well delineated by wells that exhibit no or very low concentrations
of COCs.
3.2.1.1 Plume Stability
Concentration Trends
Individual well trends for the Newmark Shallow Zone indicate that the majority of wells
have no distinct trend. In several locations COC concentrations in this groundwater
zone vary between non-detect and low level detections resulting in many wells with no
trend results. A summary of Mann-Kendall trends is provided in the table below and
detailed in Appendix B Table B.4. The spatial distribution of Mann-Kendall trends for
PCE is illustrated on Figure 4 panel B. Detailed MAROS reports on the Mann-Kendall
trends are located in Appendix C.
San Bernardino, California 17 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
coc
PCE
TCE
DCDFM
TCFM
Total
Wells
26
26
26
26
Newmark OU Shallow Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
ND
2 (7%)
6 (23%)
0
1 (4%)
PD, D
5 (20%)
4(15%)
3(12%)
4(15%)
S
5 (20%)
1 (4%)
2 (7%)
2 (7%)
I, PI
2 (7%)
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
N/A, NT
12 (46%)
14 (54%)
20 (77%)
18(70%)
Note: Insufficient Data (N/A), Decreasing (D), Probably Decreasing (PD), Stable (S), Probably Increasing (PI), and
Increasing (I), No Trend (NT); and non-detect for all sample events (ND).
Upgradient wells in the Newmark Shallow Zone show intermittent detections, with
several wells exhibiting only one detection 1999 - 2007 (MUNI07B, MUNI09B, MW04A,
and MW17A). Wells MW09A and MW07A and extraction well EW-7 are the only
locations where concentrations are routinely detected above the MCL. However,
MW07A and EW-7 demonstrate strongly decreasing concentration trends for PCE.
Relatively few monitoring locations exist in the center of the Newmark OU. Only one
location in the Shallow Zone, MUNI-16, demonstrates historic concentrations above the
MCL, however, concentrations at this location show a strongly decreasing trend, as well.
Only two wells in the Newmark OU Shallow Zone show increasing/probably increasing
concentration trends for PCE. Wells MW12A and EW-2PA in the plume-front area have
increasing trends with very low average concentrations. All other wells in the plume-
front area show variable PCE concentrations. Shallow wells in the plume-front showed
largely non-detect results until early 2001, when PCE concentrations spiked. Most wells
dropped below detection limits again in late 2004 (see Appendix C for concentration vs.
time plots). Variable results are consistent with the installation and operation of several
extraction wells in the area. Based on the trend results and the downgradient location of
wells in the plume-front continued monitoring in this area is recommended.
Moments
A summary of estimated zeroth and first moments is shown on Table 2 and first
moments over time are illustrated on Figure 4. The trend of total dissolved mass in the
Newmark OU Shallow Zone (Zeroth Moment) is increasing for both PCE and TCE. The
increasing result is probably influenced by the addition of wells to the network in 2002,
increasing the total mass estimate. Two Shallow Zone locations show increasing
individual concentration trends. Low concentrations and intermittent detections in other
parts of the zone increase the statistical effect of the wells. The increasing total mass
trend result is probably not an indication of export of mass from the source into the
Newmark OU, but may indicate movement of mass to downgradient monitoring locations
from the sparsely monitored center of the plume.
The center of mass for PCE shows a stable trend, indicating that even though the total
mass estimate is increasing, the distribution of mass between upgradient and
downgradient locations remains fairly constant. Upgradient concentrations are, in
general, much higher than concentrations at downgradient locations. High upgradient
concentrations control the first moment results.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
18
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
The trend in second moments reflects how COC mass on the edge of the plume is
changing relative to the center. For the Newmark OU Shallow Zone, the trend is stable
in the direction of groundwater flow and decreasing (less mass on the edges relative to
the center) perpendicular to groundwater flow. The decreasing trend may be due to
wells on the edge of the plume dropping below the detection limits.
Moment
Type
Zeroth
First
Second
Moment Analysis
Newmark OU Shallow
PCE Trend
Increasing
Stable
Stable/
Decreasing
TCE Trend
Increasing
No Trend
Stable/
Decreasing
Comment
The estimate of total dissolved mass of PCE and TCE is
Increasing between 1999 and 2007. This is most likely an
artifact of well additions and very low to non-detect
concentrations across the plume.
Center of mass is remaining relatively stable. No Trend in TCE
first moments may be due to intermittent detections at some
wells.
The plume spread about the center of mass is Stable for both
COCs in the direction of groundwater flow and Decreasing
perpendicular to groundwater flow indicating that mass is not
diffusing to the edges of the plume.
3.2.1.2 Redundancy and Sufficiency
Summary results for the Newmark OU Shallow Zone redundancy analysis (average SF
and redundant locations) are presented on Table 4. Three locations were identified as
candidates for removal based on PCE data: EW-4PA in the plume-front area and
MW02A and MW17A. in the upgradient area. Many locations in the Newmark OU
Shallow Zone have very low SF (<0.25) and there appears to be a good deal of
statistical redundancy among locations with non-detect and intermittent detection results
in the northern part of the plume. Based on a qualitative review, all wells were
recommended for retention in the monitoring network.
The well sufficiency analysis for the Newmark OU Shallow Zone is illustrated in Figure 5.
MAROS identifies areas of high uncertainty with an "L" or and "E" in the center of the
triangle. For the Newmark Shallow Zone no areas of high concentration uncertainty
were found, and no new locations are recommended.
3.2.1.3 Sampling Frequency
Table 4 summarizes the results of the MAROS preliminary sampling frequency
recommendation for the Newmark OU Shallow Zone. The final sampling frequency
recommendation is based on the quantitative statistical evaluation along with the
qualitative evaluation. Detailed results of the trend and concentration rate of change
analyses that are the basis of the Sampling Frequency evaluation are shown in
Appendix B Table B.12.
Current and proposed monitoring frequency for wells in the Newmark OU Shallow Zone
are summarized below. All 26 wells are recommended for inclusion in the monitoring
program, but several wells were recommended for reduced sampling frequency and
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
19
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
possible elimination in the future.
been reduced by 19 samples.
The annual number of samples for the network has
Monitoring Wells
Total Samples (average
per year)
Total Wells
Well Sampling Frequency Analysis Newmark OU Shallow
Sampling
Frequency
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Annual
Biennial
Current Sampling
frequency
1
25
0
0
54
26
Sampling frequency
Recommendation
0
12
8
6
35
26
The current sampling frequency is estimated from the sample dates in the site analytical database (URS, 2006). Wells
sampled through semi-annually through 2005, but with no data from 2006-2007 were included as 'semi-annual' frequency.
3.2.1.4 Data Sufficiency
Among the Newmark OU Shallow Zone wells, 21 of 26 wells monitor groundwater
statistically below the MCL for PCE (0.005 mg/L) assuming a log-normal data
distribution. Of these wells, 7 have data with sufficient statistical power to say that they
have reliably attained clean-up goals. Data sufficiency and clean-up status are
considered in the lines of evidence approach to recommend sample locations and
frequency. Results of the data sufficiency analysis each well are indicated in the lines of
evidence summary Table 4.
3.2.2 Newmark Intermediate Zone
The Intermediate Zone of the Newmark OU is defined by 27 wells for the MAROS
analysis. Locations are shown on Figure 6 along with average PCE concentrations 1999
- 2007. Well MUNI-11B had insufficient data to perform a statistical evaluation, so
results for this location are not shown in the result tables. Plume concentrations are
higher in the upgradient area of the plume, with wells MW08B, MW04B, MW05B,
MW16B and MW09B showing concentrations above the MCL. The Intermediate Zone
differs from the Shallow Zone in that shallower nested wells at these locations show
much lower concentrations than the Intermediate Zone. Plume-front monitoring wells
have very low concentrations. The Intermediate Zone is adequately delineated as areas
of high concentration are bounded down and cross gradient by locations below
regulatory standards.
3.2.2.7 Plume Stability
Concentration Trends
Mann-Kendall trend results for PCE 1999 - 2007 are shown on Figure 6 and are
summarized in the table below. Detailed results of the trend analyses can be found in
Appendix B Table B.5. As seen in the Shallow Zone, several wells show no trend for
COC concentrations, largely due to intermittent detections. The Intermediate
groundwater zone has a higher percentage of wells that show decreasing or probably
decreasing trends than the Shallow Zone. Two locations in the middle section of the
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
20
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
plume, MUNI-18 and MUNI-09C, show increasing PCE concentration trends.
Concentrations at these locations are currently below MCL, but should be monitored for
future changes.
coc
PCE
TCE
DCDFM
TCFM
Total
Wells
27
27
27
27
Newmark OU Intermediate Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
ND
5(19%)
6 (22%)
0
3(11%)
PD, D
9 (33%)
6 (22%)
6 (22%)
4(15%)
S
4(15%)
8 (30%)
4(15%)
8 (30%)
I, PI
2 (7%)
0
1 (4%)
0
N/A, NT
7 (26%)
7 (26%)
16(60%)
12(44%)
Note: Insufficient Data (N/A), Decreasing (D), Probably Decreasing (PD), Stable (S), Probably Increasing (PI), and
Increasing (I), No Trend (NT); and non-detect for all sample events (ND).
For PCE, the majority of well trends are stable, decreasing or non-detect, with close to
20% of wells with no detections. Several plume-front locations have no detections for
PCE. MW12B, MW13A and B, and MW 14B provide delineation for the plume in the
downgradient area of the Newmark OU.
Moments
Estimates of total dissolved mass and center of mass for the Newmark Intermediate
Zone are shown in Table 2 and the center of mass over time is illustrated on Figure 6.
Total dissolved mass is stable for both TCE and PCE indicating no large influx or
removal of mass from this layer. The center of mass shows No Trend for PCE and is
stable for TCE. The trend of second moments in the direction of groundwater flow (X
direction) is increasing indicating increasing mass on the edge of the plume relative to
the center of mass.
Moment
Type
Zeroth
First
Second
Moment Analysis
Newmark OU
Intermediate
PCE Trend
Stable
No Trend
Probably
Increasing/
No Trend
TCE Trend
Stable
Stable
Increasing/
No Trend
Comment
The estimate of total dissolved mass of PCE and TCE is Stable
between 1 999 and 2007. No major increase or decrease in
mass is detectible during this time frame.
Center of mass is remaining relatively stable to No Trend.
The plume spread about the center of mass is Increasing for
both COCs in the direction of groundwater flow, showing a shift
of mass from the center of the plume to the edge. No Trend is
present perpendicular to groundwater flow.
3.2.2.2 Redundancy and Sufficiency
Summary results for the Newmark OU Intermediate Zone redundancy analysis (average
SF) are presented on Table 5, along with a qualitative evaluation of the purpose of the
well in the network and other lines of evidence results. Eight locations were identified as
candidates for removal from the network based on PCE data: EW-1PA, MW03B,
MW07B, MW08B, MW11A, MW13A and B, and MW14B. As with the shallower zone,
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
21
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
many locations have very low SF (<0.25) due to the low concentrations spread across
the plume. Plume-front monitoring locations identified for possible removal were
retained in the proposed network to address the efficacy of the pumping network to
capture the plume.
The well sufficiency analysis for the Newmark OU Intermediate Zone is illustrated in
Figure 7. For the Intermediate Zone no areas of high concentration uncertainty were
found, and no new locations are recommended.
3.2.2.3 Sampling Frequency
Table 5 summarizes the specific results of the MAROS preliminary sampling frequency
recommendation for the Newmark Intermediate Zone as well as the qualitative
evaluation of the well in the network. Detailed results of the trend and concentration rate
of change analyses are shown in Appendix B Table B.13.
The table below summarizes the current and proposed monitoring frequency for wells in
the Newmark OU Intermediate zone. Twenty six wells are recommended for inclusion in
the monitoring program (excluding MUNI-11B, which has not been sampled recently).
The sampling frequency analysis indicates that many wells can be reduced to annual
frequency without loss of significant information. Several wells were recommended for
reduced sampling frequency and possible elimination in the future. The annual number
of samples for the network has been reduced by 16.5 samples.
Monitoring Wells
Total Samples (average
per year)
Total Wells
Well Sampling Frequency Analysis Newmark OU Intermediate
Sampling
Frequency
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Annual
Biennial
Current Sampling
frequency
5
25
1
0
51
26
Sampling frequency
Recommendation
0
10
13
3
34.5
26
The current sampling frequency is estimated from the sample dates in the site analytical database (URS, 2006). Wells
sampled semi-annually through 2005 were interpreted as having semi-annual sampling currently. Well MUNI-11B has
not been sampled recently and was excluded from consideration.
3.2.2.4 Data Sufficiency
Among the Newmark OU Intermediate Zone wells, 15 of 26 wells are statistically below
the MCL for PCE (0.005 mg/L) assuming a log-normal data distribution. Of these wells,
11 have data with sufficient statistical power to say that they have reliably attained clean-
up goals. Some wells that are statistically clean or statistically below the MCL were
recommended for reduced sampling frequency in the qualitative evaluation, and may be
considered for elimination from the network in the future. Plume-front wells were not
considered for a reduced frequency based on clean-up status. The clean-up status of
each well is indicated in the lines of evidence summary Table 5.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
22
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
3.2.3 Newmark Deep Zone
The Deep Zone of the Newmark OU is monitored at 23 locations (see Figure 8).
Average concentrations for PCE (Figure 8 panel A) in the network are low along the
plume-front with higher concentrations at wells MW10C, MUNI11C and MW11B.
3.2.3.1 Plume Stability
Concentration Trends
Well trend results are summarized in the table below on Figure 8 panel B. Detailed
trend results are listed in Appendix B Table B14. Unlike the Shallow and Intermediate
Zones, several plume-front wells in the Deep Zone show long-term increasing or
probably increasing trends. The PCE plume is fairly well delineated to the southeast by
non-detect wells MW13C, MW-15B and C. However, in the western part of the plume,
toward the Muscoy OU, results show increasing trends for PCE around EW-1, EW-2 and
EW-3.
Trends were calculated from data collected between 1999 and 2007, and, in some
cases, the trends may be leveling or reversing in the recent time-frame (see Appendix C,
time vs. concentration graphs for individual wells). Several plume-front wells showed
maximum concentrations in 2004 with recent results decreasing. Continued monitoring
in this area is highly recommended. Upgradient wells MW10C, MW11B and MUNI-11C
with historic high concentrations show decreasing trends.
COG
PCE
TCE
DCDFM
TCFM
Total
Wells
23
23
23
23
Newmark OU Deep Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
ND
3(13%)
3(13%)
0
2 (9%)
PD, D
5 (22%)
5 (22%)
5 (22%)
2 (9%)
S
6 (26%)
5 (22%)
6 (26%)
6 (26%)
I, PI
7 (30%)
7 (30%)
4(17%)
3(13%)
N/A, NT
2 (9%)
3(13%)
8 (35%)
10(43%)
Note: Insufficient Data (N/A), Decreasing (D), Probably Decreasing (PD), Stable (S), Probably Increasing (PI), and
Increasing (I), No Trend (NT); and non-detect for all sample events (ND).
Moments
Moment trends in the Newmark OU Deep Zone show largely stable to no trend results.
The estimate of total dissolved mass in the Deep Zone has remained stable between
1999 and 2007 for both PCE and TCE. First moments, illustrated on Figure 8 panel B,
show no trend, largely as a result of an outlying value in 2001. In 2001, only 14 of the 22
wells routinely included in the network were sampled. Results from this year are not
necessarily comparable with other years with near full complements of wells. Removing
2001 data from the first moment calculation results in an increasing first moment trend
for PCE. An increasing distance of the center of mass from the source is consistent with
increasing individual well trends along the plume-front. The spread of mass for PCE and
TCE shows no distinct trend.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
23
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Moment
Type
Zeroth
First
Second
Moment Analysis
Newmark OU Deep
PCE Trend
Stable
No Trend
Stable/No
Trend
TCE Trend
Stable
No Trend
No Trend/
No Trend
Comment
The estimate of total dissolved mass of PCE and TCE is Stable
between 1 999 and 2007. No major increase or decrease in
mass is detectible during this time frame.
Center of mass for PCE and TCE shows No Trend, indicating
variability in the distribution of mass in the plume.
The plume spread about the center of mass is Stable for PCE in
the direction of groundwater flow. There is No Trend for both
COCs perpendicular to groundwater flow and No Trend in the
direction of groundwater flow for TCE.
3.2.3.2 Redundancy and Sufficiency
Slope factor calculations and results for the redundancy analysis are presented on Table
6. Twelve of twenty-three locations were identified by MAROS as redundant based on
PCE data. MAROS identified a high degree of spatial redundancy in the plume-front
area, especially in the eastern part of the plume-front. High redundancy results are due
to the relatively low concentrations combined with the high density of extraction and
monitoring wells. While these wells are somewhat redundant, continued inclusion of
these wells is essential to fulfilling the monitoring goals of the network, particularly for
evaluating containment of the plume.
The well sufficiency analysis for the Newmark OU Deep Zone is illustrated in Figure 9.
For the Deep Zone one general area of high concentration uncertainty was found
between wells EW-108, EW-108PB, MW12C, EW-1, EW-1PB and MW13C. The region
includes the extraction wells EW-108 and EW-1 that have increasing concentration
trends and higher concentrations than adjacent locations EW-108PB and EW-1PB.
Because these locations have different screened intervals and have very different
functions, higher uncertainty in this area is not surprising. EW-108 and EW-1 are also
close to MW12C and MW13C, which show intermittent, low detections and non-detect
results, respectively. Increasing concentration trends adjacent to areas or no detections
are often identified as demonstrating high spatial uncertainty.
No new wells are recommended for this area (aside from the new well being installed
(2007) at EW-1085 in the Shallow Zone). The high spatial uncertainty can be explained
by concentration heterogeneity at different depths and by the inclusion of extraction
wells in the analysis.
3.2.3.3 Sampling Frequency
MAROS recommended preliminary sampling frequencies for the Newmark OU Deep
Zone are listed in Table 6 with details shown Appendix B Table B.14. The final sampling
frequency recommendation is based on the MAROS evaluation along with the qualitative
evaluation. Deep Zone plume-front wells serve an important delineation function at the
Newmark Site. Wells that provide data that strongly support the primary monitoring
objective have been prioritized in the network, and are included in the monitoring
program at high sampling frequency.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
24
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Monitoring Wells
Total Samples (average
per year)
Total Wells
Well Sampling Frequency Analysis Newmark OU Deep
Sampling
Frequency
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Annual
Biennial
Current Sampling
frequency
4
19
0
0
54
23
Sampling frequency
Recommendation
0
21
2
0
44
23
The current sampling frequency is estimated from the sample dates in the site analytical database (URS, 2006).
The table above summarizes the current and proposed monitoring frequency for wells in
the Newmark OU Deep Zone. All twenty three wells are recommended for inclusion in
the monitoring program. The majority of wells are recommended to remain at a semi-
annual sampling frequency. The annual number of samples for the network has been
reduced by 10 samples, largely by eliminating quarterly sampling.
3.2.3.4 Data Sufficiency
The Newmark OU Deep Zone is monitored by 23 locations, of which 17 have
concentrations statistically below the MCL for PCE. Five locations have data with
sufficient statistical power to say that they are statistically below MCL and have reliably
attained clean-up goals. Even though locations in the Deep Zone are below risk-based
screening levels, they fulfill monitoring goals associated with confirming that the remedy
is containing the plume. The clean-up status of each well is indicated in the lines of
evidence summary Table 6.
3.3 Muscoy OU Results
3.3.1 Muscoy Shallow Zone
The Muscoy OU Shallow Zone is defined by 23 locations south of Source OU locations
MWCOE001A and B. Average PCE concentrations for 1999-2007 in the Shallow Zone
are illustrated on Figure 10 panel A. The majority of locations have fairly low historic
concentrations. However, a line of wells on the eastern side of the OU near the Shandin
Hills demonstrates higher historic concentrations. MW-132A, MW-128A and EW110-
PZA define a center-line of high concentration extending downgradient from the Source
OU.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
25
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
3.3.1.1 Plume Stability
Concentration Trends
Results of individual well trend analysis for the Muscoy OU Shallow Zone are
summarized below with details provided in Appendix B Table B.7. Mann-Kendall trend
results are illustrated on Figure 10, panel B.
COG
PCE
TCE
DCDFM
TCFM
Total
Wells
23
23
23
23
Muscoy OU Shallow Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
ND
0
3(13%)
0
0
PD, D
7 (30%)
6 (26%)
4(17%)
2 (9%)
S
3(13%)
2 (9%)
2 (9%)
4(17%)
I, PI
2 (9%)
1 (4%)
3(13%)
6 (26%)
N/A, NT
1 1 (48%)
11 (48%)
13(57%)
1 1 (48%)
Note: Insufficient Data (N/A), Decreasing (D), Probably Decreasing (PD), Stable (S), Probably Increasing (PI), and
Increasing (I), No Trend (NT); and non-detect for all sample events (ND).
The Muscoy OU Shallow Zone is widely affected by low levels of COCs as evidenced by
the relative lack of unaffected wells (ND) in the zone. As with other areas across the
Newmark Site, a large percentage of locations have 'no trend' Mann-Kendall results.
Several locations with consistent detections show maximum concentrations in the first
quarter of 2006 with decreasing concentrations after this time resulting in high variance
or no trend. Concentrations at MW-128A show cyclic fluctuations that may indicate a
seasonal process causing variation in plume concentrations. Another category of wells
with no trend results includes those with intermittent low-level detections, such as MW-
134andMW-139A.
Only two locations show probably increasing trends for PCE: MW-135A and MW-133A.
MW-133A is slightly downgradient and to the west of high concentration well MW-132A.
MW-135A demonstrated higher concentrations in early 2006, but recent concentrations
have been decreasing. MW-135A represents a priority monitoring location as it is the
furthest downgradient delineation point in the Muscoy OU plume-front, monitoring the
area between the Muscoy and Newmark OUs. This area has already been identified as
an area of concentration uncertainty for the Newmark OU Deep Zone.
Moments
Results of the zeroth and first moment analyses are summarized below and in Table 7.
First moment (center or mass) locations are shown on Figure 10, panel B. Moments for
the Muscoy OU were calculated using data collected between 2005 and 2007, due to the
recent installation of several key monitoring locations (EW-109, EW-110, EW-111 and
MW-140 nested locations). Overall, the moments indicate a fairly stable plume for PCE
in the Shallow Zone, with stable trend results for total dissolved mass, and center of
mass. Decreasing trends were found for second moments (indicating dilution on the
edges of the plume).
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
26
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Moment
Type
Zeroth
First
Second
Moment Analysis
Muscoy OU Shallow
PCE Trend
Stable
Stable
Decreasing
TCE Trend
No Trend
Stable
Decreasing/
Stable
Comment
The estimate of total dissolved mass of PCE and TCE is Stable
and No Trend between 1999 and 2007. No major increase or
decrease in mass is detectible during this time frame.
Center of mass for PCE and TCE is Stable, indicating no major
movement of mass downgradient relative to the source.
The plume spread about the center of mass is Decreasing for
both COCs in the direction of groundwater flow, and Decreasing
and Stable perpendicular to groundwater flow, indicating dilution
of concentrations on the edges of the plume relative to the
center.
3.3.1.2 Redundancy and Sufficiency
Summary results for the redundancy analysis are presented on Table 8 other lines of
evidence results. Four locations in the Muscoy OU Shallow Zone were determined to be
redundant by the spatial analysis. Locations EW-109PZA, MW-130A, MW-133A and
MW138A were identified as providing little unique information. EW-109PZA, MW-130A
and MW-138A are part of the densely monitored plume-front network, and each location
is part of a nested group. As these wells provide important qualitative information on the
efficacy of plume capture, they are recommended for retention in the network. Location
MW-133A is an upgradient location that provides horizontal plume delineation in the
Source OU area. MW-133A is recommended for retention to confirm that the plume is
not spreading laterally near the Source OU. Based on a qualitative review, all wells
were recommended for retention in the monitoring network for the immediate future.
The well sufficiency analysis for the Muscoy OU Shallow Zone is illustrated in Figure 11.
No areas of high concentration uncertainty were found, and no new locations are
recommended.
3.3.7.3 Sampling Frequency
The table below summarizes the current monitoring frequency for wells in the Muscoy
OU Shallow Zone (and associated parts of the Source OU). Table 8 summarizes the
results of the MAROS preliminary sampling frequency recommendation, the qualitative
evaluation of the well in the network and the final sampling frequency recommendation.
Detailed results of the MCES analysis along with concentration rate of change analyses
are shown in Appendix B Table B.15.
All 23 locations in the Muscoy OU Shallow Zone network are recommended for inclusion
in the monitoring program. MUNI-109 and MUNI 104A have only been sampled
intermittently, recently, but are retained for biennial monitoring. Most wells are retained
at a reduced sampling frequency, particularly those plume-front wells that have been
sampled quarterly. Quarterly sampling is appropriate for newly installed wells, but most
locations currently have more than 8 sample events, providing a statistically significant
data set. Based on the rate of change at the wells, the historic sample record and the
trend evaluated at these locations, most plume-front wells have been retained in the
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
27
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
program at a semi-annual frequency.
number of annual samples by 38.
The proposed monitoring program reduces the
Monitoring Wells
Total Samples (average
per year)
Total Wells
Well Sampling Frequency Analysis Muscoy OU Shallow
Sampling
Frequency
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Annual
Biennial
Current Sampling
Frequency
14
6
3
0
71
23
Sampling Frequency
Recommendation
0
12
7
4
33
23
The current sampling frequency is estimated from the sample dates in the site analytical database (URS, 2006).
3.3.1.4 Data Sufficiency
Of 23 wells evaluated for data sufficiency, 12 have concentrations statistically below the
MCL for PCE. Four wells have insufficient data to perform the sequential T-test (with
data 1999-2007). No locations have sufficient data to perform the power analysis. Site
investigation activities at the Muscoy OU have been conducted relatively recently.
More monitoring data from wells in the Shallow Zone is required to develop a statistically
significant data set for power analysis.
3.3.2 Muscoy Intermediate Zone
The Muscoy OU Intermediate Zone analysis group includes 32 locations from the
Source OU downgradient to the plume-front. Average PCE concentrations at monitoring
locations (1999 - 2007) in the Intermediate Zone are illustrated on Figure 12 panel A.
High concentration wells in the Intermediate Zone include MW140B and C, MW-130B,
EW-111, EW-110PZCandEW-110PZD.
3.3.2.1 Plume Stability
Concentration Trends
Results of individual well trend analyses for the Muscoy OU Intermediate Zone are
summarized below with details provided in Appendix B Table B.8. Spatial location of
Mann-Kendall trend results are illustrated on Figure 12, panel B.
Muscoy OU nested wells MW-140 A-C were installed in 2006 and have a relatively short
data record. The well nest includes location MW-140A, which is screened between 300
and 400 ft bgs. Data collected from discreet intervals of MW-140A were analyzed
separately due to the fine resolution of depths sampled, with trend results shown in
Appendix B Table B.10. Locations MW-140B and C are included in the Muscoy OU
Intermediate Zone analysis. Trend results from all of the MW-140 depths are shown in
Appendix B Table B.10.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
28
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Mann-Kendall concentration trends across the Intermediate Zone show a high
percentage of no trend results, consistent with intermittent detections at some wells, and
fluctuating concentrations at others. Taken together, non-detect, stable and decreasing
trends characterize over 50% of PCE monitoring locations. Increasing trends are found
at four locations near extraction wells on the plume-front.
As illustrated on Figure 12 panel B, several locations with increasing concentrations
trends for PCE are arranged along a line from MW-129B to EW-108 across to EW-1PB
to MW11C in the Newmark OU. The locations include extraction wells and wells in close
proximity them. Increasing trends across this region most likely indicate proper
performance of the extraction remedy, by drawing in and removing contaminant mass,
Results from a line of wells to the south (downgradient) of the extraction and extraction
monitoring wells show no or intermittent detections, indicating that mass capture is
occurring.
COG
PCE
TCE
DCDFM
TCFM
Total
Wells
32
32
32
32
Muscoy OU Intermediate Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
ND
3(10%)
1 (3%)
0
2 (7%)
PD, D
7 (23%)
5(17%)
2 (7%)
2 (7%)
S
7 (23%)
4(13%)
7 (23%)
4(13%)
I, PI
4(13%)
2 (7%)
8 (27%)
5(17%)
N/A, NT
9 (30%)
18(60%)
13(43%)
17(57%)
Note: Insufficient Data (N/A), Decreasing (D), Probably Decreasing (PD), Stable (S), Probably Increasing (PI), and
Increasing (I), No Trend (NT); and non-detect for all sample events (ND).
Moments
Estimates of total dissolved mass and distance of the center of mass from the source
for the Muscoy Intermediate Zone are shown in Table 7. First moments are illustrated
on Figure 12, panel B. The zeroth moment, or total dissolved mass, exhibits no trend or
variation in total dissolved mass estimates during the time-frame evaluated. The
estimate of mass is most likely influenced by fluctuating concentrations at the small
number of higher concentration wells. The distance of the center of mass from the
source is increasing away from the source and toward the extraction system, which is
consistent with the increasing trends seen in wells monitoring the extraction area.
Moments for the Intermediate Zone of the Muscoy OU indicate the plume may be
shifting more rapidly than other areas of the plumes under the influence of the extraction
wells. Qualitative information from the multiple depths in the Intermediate Zone indicate
mass may be increasing more rapidly at certain depths, most likely due to subsurface
heterogeneities resulting in higher velocity groundwater influenced by downgradient
pumping.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
29
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Moment
Type
Zeroth
First
Second
Moment Analysis
Muscoy OU Intermediate
PCE Trend
No Trend
Increasing
Stable
TCE Trend
No Trend
Increasing
Stable /
Decreasing
Comment
The estimate of total dissolved mass of PCE and TCE is No
Trend between 1 999 and 2007. No major increase or decrease
in mass is detectible during this time frame.
Center of mass for PCE and TCE is Increasing, indicating
movement of mass downgradient relative to the source.
The plume spread about the center of mass is Stable for both
COCs in the direction of groundwater flow, and Decreasing
perpendicular to groundwater flow for TCE, indicating no
significant change in relative concentrations between the center
and edge of the plume.
The spread of mass shows a largely stable trend, indicating no major changes in the
ratio of mass in the center of the plume to that on the edges.
3.3.2.2 Redundancy and Sufficiency
Summary results for the redundancy analysis are presented on Table 9, along with other
lines of evidence results. MAROS identified 12 of 32 wells in the Intermediate Zone as
statistically redundant. The plume-front area has a large number of wells over a
relatively small aerial extent. Based on a qualitative review, including consideration of
remedial activity in the area and depth of the aquifer, all wells were recommended for
retention in the monitoring network for the immediate future.
The well sufficiency analysis for the Muscoy OU Intermediate Zone is illustrated in
Figure 13. Because most locations in the network show very low SF (<0.25), there is
little spatial uncertainty in the plume. For the Muscoy OU Intermediate Zone, no areas
of high concentration uncertainty were found, and no new locations are recommended.
However, groundwater in the Newmark OU adjacent to the Muscoy OU Intermediate
Zone was identified as a possible location for a new well.
3.3.2.3 Sampling Frequency
The table below summarizes the current monitoring frequency for wells in the Muscoy
OU Intermediate Zone and the recommended sampling frequency based on the lines of
evidence. Table 9 summarizes the results of the MAROS preliminary sampling
frequency recommendation and provides specific recommendations for each sample
location. Detailed results of the trend and concentration rate of change analyses are
shown in Appendix B Table B.16.
All 32 locations in the network are recommended for inclusion in the monitoring program,
including locations MW-131 B and C, which have not been sampled since 2004. Most
wells are retained at a reduced sampling frequency, particularly those plume-front wells
that have been sampled quarterly. Based on the rate of change at the wells, the historic
sample record and the trend evaluated at these locations, most plume-front wells have
been retained in the program at a semi-annual monitoring frequency.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
30
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
The proposed monitoring program reduces the number of annual samples in the
Intermediate Zone by roughly 50%.
Monitoring Wells
Total Samples (average
per year)
Total Wells
Well Sampling Frequency Analysis Muscoy OU Intermediate
Sampling
Frequency
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Annual
Biennial
Current Sampling
frequency
24
5
1
0
107
30
Sampling frequency
Recommendation
0
20
9
3
50.5
32
The current sampling frequency is estimated from the sample dates in the site analytical database (URS, 2006).
3.3.2.4 Data Sufficiency
Of 32 wells evaluated 17 have concentrations statistically below the MCL for PCE. Two
wells have insufficient data to perform the sequential T-test (with data 1999-2007). Data
for eight locations have sufficient statistical power to say that they have attained clean-
up goals.
3.3.3 Muscoy Deep Zone
The Deep Zone of the Muscoy OU has a limited number of monitoring points. Only one
location has exceeded the EPA MCL for PCE (EW-111PZD), the other 9 locations
included in this group were non-detect for PCE or display intermittent detections.
3.3.3.1 Plume Stability
Concentration Trends
Wells in the Deep Zone of the Muscoy OU are not highly affected by site COCs.
Summary results of the Mann-Kendall trend evaluation for PCE are shown in the table
below and illustrated on Figure 14 panel B, with detailed results in Appendix B Table
B.9. Well locations MW-135 B and C were included in the Muscoy OU Deep Zone as
well as the Newmark OU Deep Zone analysis, as these locations fall between the two
OUs. Trend summary result for MW-135 B and C are included below to provide more
information on the zone.
The majority of locations in the Deep Zone show only intermittent detections of
constituents. DCDFM and TCFM are found near detection limits at most locations,
which result in stable Mann-Kendall trends for these COCs. No locations show
increasing trends for any of the COCs. EW-111PZD is the most highly affected well in
the zone, but demonstrates decreasing trends for all COCs.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
31
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
coc
PCE
TCE
DCDFM
TCFM
Total
Wells
10
10
10
10
Muscoy OU Deep Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis
ND
3 (30%)
2 (20%)
0
0
PD, D
1 (10%)
1 (10%)
1 (10%)
0
s
3 (30%)
6 (60%)
7 (70%)
10(100%)
I, PI
0
0
0
0
N/A, NT
3 (30%)
1 (10%)
2 (20%)
0
Note: Insufficient Data (N/A), Decreasing (D), Probably Decreasing (PD), Stable (S), Probably Increasing (PI), and
Increasing (I), No Trend (NT); and non-detect for all sample events (ND).
Moments
Moment results for the Muscoy Deep Zone are shown in Table 7 and on Figure 14 panel
B. Due to the low COC concentrations in the Deep Zone and the relatively short
monitoring history, little change is seen in the amount and distribution of mass. The
plume is largely stable, with possible decreases in dissolved mass of TCE.
Moment
Type
Zeroth
First
Second
Moment Analysis
Muscoy OU Deep
PCE Trend
Stable
No Trend
No Trend
TCE Trend
Decreasing
No Trend
No Trend
Comment
The trend of the estimate for total dissolved mass of PCE is
stable and for TCE is No Trend between 1999 and 2007. No
major increase or decrease in mass is detectible during this time
frame.
There is no trend for center of mass for PCE and TCE.
The plume spread about the center of mass shows no trend for
both COCs in the direction of groundwater flow and
perpendicular to groundwater flow.
3.3.3.2 Well Redundancy and Sufficiency
Summary results for the Muscoy Deep Zone redundancy analysis are presented on
Table 10. Average slope factors for PCE in this groundwater zone are quite low,
indicating very low concentration uncertainty between monitoring locations. The
MAROS program identified 5 of the 10 locations for removal from the program.
While there is some redundancy in the network in the Deep Zone, no wells are
recommended for removal at this time. The Muscoy OU Deep Zone network delineates
both the horizontal and vertical extent of the Muscoy OU. A qualitative evaluation of the
wells indicates monitoring in this area should continue on a semi-annual basis. Should
concentrations stay below or at detection limits, then a reduced monitoring schedule
may be considered when a larger, more statistically significant, data set is collected.
Results of the well sufficiency analysis for PCE for the Deep Zone are illustrated in
Figure 15. For the Muscoy OU deep zone, no areas of high concentration uncertainty
were found, and no new locations are recommended. This result is consistent with the
very low average slope factors reported in Table 10.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
32
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
3.3.3.3 Sampling Frequency
The table below summarizes the current monitoring frequency for wells in the Muscoy
OU Deep Zone and the recommended sampling frequency. Table 10 summarizes the
results of the MAROS preliminary sampling frequency recommendation, along with other
lines of evidence. Detailed results of the trend and concentration rate of change
analyses are shown in Appendix B Table B.17. Two locations included for the spatial
analysis (MW-135B and C) are included in the Newmark OU Deep Zone
recommendations, and are not included below.
Monitoring Wells
Total Samples (average
per year)
Total Wells
Well Sampling Frequency Analysis Muscoy OU Deep
Sampling
Frequency
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Annual
Biennial
Current Sampling
frequency
8
0
0
0
32
8
Sampling frequency
Recommendation
0
8
0
0
16
8
The current sampling frequency is estimated from the sample dates in the site analytical database (URS, 2006). Wells
MW-135B and C were included in the Newmark OU Deep Zone recommendations, although the wells monitor both OUs.
All 8 unique locations in the deep network are recommended for inclusion in the
monitoring program at a semi-annual frequency. The locations are currently sampled on
a quarterly basis. The statistical and decision logic module in MAROS recommended
largely biennial sampling (once every two years) for the network, based on the
concentrations and rate of change. However, the network monitoring objectives in this
area require frequent evaluation of COC concentrations to ensure effective plume
capture.
3.3.3.4 Data Sufficiency
Nine of ten locations evaluated in the Muscoy OU Deep Zone are statistically below the
regulatory screening level (including MW-135 B and C). Six of the ten wells have a data
set sufficient to be statistically below the MCL with 80% or greater power. For the most
part, the Deep Zone is 'clean', and wells in this area define the clean edge of the
Muscoy OU plume.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
33
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Summary Results Table
MAROS Analysis
Group Name
Source OU
Result Summary
39% of wells Decreasing trend for PCE;
Decreasing trend for total dissolved mass;
Center of mass shows weak trend moving away from source;
4 wells found to be redundant, but justified for depth profiling;
No new wells recommended, area well delineated;
28 total samples recommended per year from 25 locations.
Newmark OU
• Shallow Zone
46% of wells No Trend for PCE due to intermittent detects;
40% wells have Stable to Decreasing trends, including highest
concentration wells;
Increasing trend for total dissolved mass - likely an artifact of
recent addition of wells;
Center of mass shows Stable distance from source;
No new wells recommended; Low spatial uncertainty in plume-
-keep all wells in network, but at reduced frequency;
12 wells recommended for semi-annual sampling, 8 for annual,
6 for biennial;
21 of 26 locations statistically below the MCL for PCE.
• Intermediate Zone
33% of wells Decreasing trend and 19% Non-detect for PCE;
Stable trend for total dissolved mass;
No trend in the distance of the center of mass from the source;
8 wells statistically redundant, all retained at reduced
frequency;
No new wells recommended;
10 wells recommended for semi-annual sampling, 13 for
annual, 3 for biennial; a total of 34.5 samples annually from 26
locations;
15 of 26 locations statistically below the MCL for PCE.
Deep Zone
30% of wells Increasing trends, mainly near extraction wells;
63% of wells Stable, Decreasing or ND;
Stable trend for total dissolved mass;
Center of mass shows no trend moving relative to source;
Low spatial uncertainty -12 wells statistically redundant, but
retained to evaluate performance of extraction wells;
No new wells recommended; however, southwest area of
plume shows higher spatial uncertainty, near wells with
increasing trends;
21 wells recommended for semi-annual sampling, 2 for annual;
a total of 44 samples annually from 23 locations.
17 of 23 locations statistically below the MCL for PCE.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
34
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Muscoy Oil
Shallow Zone
PCE detected at all wells; 48% show No Trend due to
intermittent detections and possible seasonal influence;
Stable trend for total dissolved mass;
Center of mass stable relative to source;
4 wells statistically redundant, retained to evaluate performance
of extraction wells;
No new wells recommended;
12 wells recommended for semi-annual sampling, 7 for annual,
4 for biennial; 33 samples annually from 23 locations;
12 of 23 locations statistically below the MCL for PCE.
Intermediate Zone
56% of wells Stable, Decreasing or ND trends;
30% of wells show No Trend due to intermittent detections and
possible seasonal influence;
Variable results for total dissolved mass;
Center of mass moving downgradient relative to source, mass
may be mobilizing under influence of pumping wells;
12 wells statistically redundant, retained to evaluate
performance of extraction wells;
No new wells recommended, little spatial uncertainty;
20 wells recommended for semi-annual sampling, 9 for annual,
3 for biennial; 50.5 samples annually from 32 locations;
17 of 32 locations statistically below the MCL for PCE.
Deep Zone
30% of wells Decreasing, 30% ND and 30% Increasing trend
for PCE;
Stable trend for total dissolved mass;
Center of mass shows no trend relative to source;
5 wells may be redundant, retained to evaluate performance of
extraction wells;
8 wells recommended for semi-annual sampling;
9 of 10 locations statistically below the MCL for PCE (2
locations also considered part of Newmark OU Deep Zone)
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
35
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 General Conclusions
The primary goal of developing an optimized monitoring strategy at the Newmark Site is
to create a dataset that fully supports site management decisions while minimizing time
and expense associated with collecting and interpreting the data. A summary of the final
recommended monitoring network is presented in Table 11. The recommended network
reduces monitoring effort and cost by reducing the frequency of groundwater sampling at
many locations without loss of critical temporal or spatial information.
Newmark Site groundwater is characterized by an extensive area of very low
concentrations of the major chlorinated constituents. This is illustrated by the finding
that 70% of wells in the Newmark OU and 63% or wells in the Muscoy OU monitor
groundwater statistically below the MCL for PCE. Analytical data for the site show a
high frequency of non-detects, making meaningful temporal trend evaluations difficult in
some areas. Low overall concentrations also result in low spatial uncertainty with
accompanying findings of spatial redundancy within the network of wells.
However, the extensive area of the plume (over 36 square miles), the depth of the
saturated units (-1200 ft) and the critical nature of the resource require the inclusion of
the maximum number of wells in the monitoring program. Non-detect wells and wells
monitoring groundwater below MCLs are valuable to delineate the plumes both
horizontally and vertically over the large affected area.
Monitoring goals at the Newmark Site include 1) evaluating the efficacy of the chosen
remedy to prevent downgradient migration of the plume, 2) evaluating long-term
reduction in contaminant mass and 3) determining if basin activities are exceeding the
capacity of the pumping system to capture the plume. Monitoring data from low and
non-detect wells are uniquely suited to delineate the extent of affected groundwater in
support of implementation of institutional controls on the plume, and are, therefore,
recommended for retention in the network in the near future. As concentrations are not
changing rapidly, in most areas, the frequency of sampling can be reduced while still
meeting site monitoring objectives.
Tasks identified in the Section 1 were performed for each of the OUs at several depths.
A summary of general results for each task is presented below:
• Evaluate well locations and screened intervals within the context of the
hydrogeologic regime to determine if the site is well characterized.
Result: Part of the network optimization process is to identify possible gaps in site
characterization that may require additional sampling locations or site investigation.
Based on well locations, screened intervals and hydrogeologic characteristics,
affected groundwater at the Newmark Site is delineated to EPA MCLs for the
compounds investigated. Groundwater areas where concentrations routinely exceed
MCLs are bounded by wells where results are below MCLs. The majority of wells in
San Bernardino, California 36 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
the network have a sufficiently large data set to perform statistical calculations. No
major data gaps were identified during the qualitative evaluation.
Recommendation: LTMO is appropriate for the site at this time. No additional
fundamental site investigation is recommended at this time.
Evaluate overall plume stability through trend and moment analysis.
Result: The groundwater plumes evaluated are largely stable, even though many
concentration trends (for both individual wells and plume moments) show no trend.
Many "no trend' results are an artifact of analytical results for a number of wells
varying between no detections and low detections of COCs. Another source of data
variance includes concentrations that were increasing before remedy start-up and
have since reversed in trend. Moment estimates for the Muscoy OU are based on a
short data history, and should be reevaluated, particularly for the Intermediate Zone
when a larger data set has been collected.
First moments for each of the data analysis groups are summarized below. Two well
groupings indicate increasing trends in the distance of the center of mass from the
source - the Source OU and the Intermediate Zone of the Muscoy OU.
nr.o.-oKioii.,:t nQr,*i, Well Screened First Moment Trend
Operable Unit Depth \nterva\s Results PCE
Source OU
Newmark OU
Muscoy OU
All
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
Shallow
Intermediate
Deep
77-438 ft bgs
1 1 5-660 ft bgs
243-700 ft bgs
240-1 190 ft bgs
60- 473 ft bgs
225-1 050 ft bgs
620-980 ft bgs
Probably Increasing
Stable
No Trend
No Trend
Stable
Increasing
No Trend
First moment trends represent the Mann-Kendall trend for the distance of the center of mass from the
source area for each year of data. The screened intervals represent the top of the shallowest screen in the group
to the deepest bottom of the top screen, as indicated in the site database. The screen depths do not account for
the change in elevation across the site.
Recommendation: Reduced monitoring effort is appropriate for stable plumes, and
plumes approaching clean-up goals. Monitoring frequency can be reduced for
plumes where groundwater concentrations are not changing rapidly. As a general
observation, groundwater concentrations are not changing rapidly at the Newmark
Site. Monitoring locations in groundwater that has attained clean-up goals can be
monitored at reduced frequency or excluded from the program in the future if current
trends continue. First moment results indicate that the shallow areas of the
Newmark and Muscoy OUs are statistically stable. First moment results are
illustrated on figures for each analysis group.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
37
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Evaluate individual well concentration trends over time for target constituents of
concern (COCs);
Result: For 161 wells evaluated in all Newmark Site OUs for long-term PCE trends,
the majority of locations showed stable to decreasing trends or no detections (57%).
Increasing trends were calculated for 12% of locations. No statistically significant
trend was found at 29% of locations. Two locations had insufficient data to perform
the analysis.
Recommendation: Individual well trend evaluations at the Newmark Site provide
support for the conclusion that the plumes are largely stable. Monitoring frequency
can be reduced for locations where concentrations are not changing rapidly.
Evaluation of concentration trends at individual wells also identified locations where
monitoring effort should not be reduced, such as the extraction well areas in the
southern part of the Newmark and Muscoy OUs, in the intermediate to deep
groundwater zones (see discussion below).
To assess the efficacy of the remedial system, wells downgradient of the extraction
well area should be monitored semi-annually for changes in short-term trends.
Several extraction wells (EW-1, EW-108, EW-2) and associated monitoring wells
(EW-1PA and B, EW-2PB, EW-3PB, MW-135A, MW-11C, EW-110PZC and D, MW-
129B, and EW-111C) in the downgradient portion of the plumes, demonstrate
increasing or probably increasing concentration trends. Increasing trends indicate
the extraction system is performing correctly by capturing mass from the plume for
treatment. However, as the extraction system is very close to the downgradient
boundary of the plume, increasing trends may be worrisome.
The extraction area of the plume should be prioritized for careful scrutiny of
monitoring results. Priority locations to monitor for containment of the plume include:
MW-139 A-C, MUNI-101, MW-138 A-C, MW-137 A-C, MW-136 A-C, MW-135A-C,
MW 12A-C, MW13A-C, MW14A-C and MW15A-C. Data from priority wells should
be carefully evaluated after every sampling event for trends or data outliers that may
signal a change in plume capture. Increasing trends at the above mentioned
downgradient delineation wells may indicate a modification in pumping effort should
be considered.
While a reduced monitoring frequency is recommended for wells that delineate the
plume in cross-gradient locations, trends should be carefully evaluated at these
locations as well. Increasing or probably increasing trends that indicate a possible
future exceedence of regulatory screening levels may require installation of new
delineation wells or expansion of institutional controls.
Develop sampling location recommendations based on an analysis of spatial
uncertainty;
Result: The spatial redundancy analysis indicated that several wells could be
removed from the routine monitoring program, as they do not provide unique
information. The area near the extraction wells for the Newmark and Muscoy OUs
has very high well density in an area of low concentrations.
San Bernardino, California 38 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
The spatial analysis identified one area of high spatial uncertainty that may be a
candidate location for a new well. The area of uncertainty is in the southwest corner
of the Newmark OU in the deeper groundwater zone near the Muscoy Intermediate
Zone
Recommendation: Despite the finding of spatial redundancy, all locations within the
current monitoring network are recommended for inclusion in the monitoring
program. The depth and aerial extent of the plume in addition to the stated
monitoring objectives for the network provide sufficient qualitative reasons for
including all locations. If future trends continue (generally stable plume and stable
extraction system performance) wells identified as redundant may be considered for
removal from the program.
No new monitoring locations are recommended. Continue monitoring the area
between the Newmark OU Deep and Muscoy OU Intermediate zones and consider
an additional well should modeling or capture zone analysis indicate possible
transport of COCs downgradient.
Develop sampling frequency recommendations based on both qualitative and
quantitative statistical analysis results;
Result: The sampling frequency analysis recommended a reduced sampling
frequency for the majority of wells. Largely annual to biennial sampling frequencies
were recommended by the algorithm based on the rate of change and trend of well
concentrations.
Recommendation: Reduce the frequency of monitoring. Wells along the plume-front
and in historic high concentration areas are recommended for semi-annual
monitoring. Wells that delineate the lateral and upgradient extent of the plume are
recommended for a combination of annual and biennial sampling. Specific sampling
frequency recommendations are listed in Table 11 and detailed in Tables 3-10.
Evaluate individual well analytical data for statistical sufficiency and identify locations
that have achieved clean-up goals.
Result: 95 of 160 locations evaluated were statistically below the MCL for PCE
using the sequential T-test. Approximately one-quarter of monitoring locations had a
sufficient data record at sufficiently low concentrations to have 'attained' clean-up
goals with 80% or greater statistical power. Over the majority of the OUs, the plume
has attained risk-based clean-up goals associated with the groundwater ingestion
exposure pathway.
Recommendation: Locations that monitor groundwater statistically below regulatory
screening levels can be considered for reduced monitoring effort. Clean locations
can be monitored less frequently or removed from the monitoring program if they do
not serve a specific function supporting monitoring objectives (i.e. delineates the
plume cross-gradient).
San Bernardino, California 39 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Additional Recommendations:
• Continue evaluating concentration trends for monitoring locations at the Newmark
Site. Stakeholders should develop an agreement on a consistent method by which to
evaluate trends, including the time-frame over which to evaluate the data. A
nonparametric Mann-Kendall trend test like the one used in the MAROS software is
recommended. Recent trends (~2 years) should be compared with trends calculated
from the full dataset to better detect long-term variations in analytical data. For
locations in the plume-front region, the statistical test should be conducted after each
sampling event.
• Monitoring data at the Newmark Site show high variance relative to concentrations
(resulting in no trend). In most cases, variance in the data can be explained by site
characteristics and processes. Continue monitoring for concentration trends, with
careful consideration of factors that may contribute to underlying variance in the data
(i.e. large percentage of non-detect results, seasonal aquifer changes, proximity to
pumping wells).
• The challenge for the monitoring network at the Newmark Site is to provide data for a
large aerial extent (8 miles in length) and from great depths. The current approach of
combining an extensive monitoring program with development of a site-wide
database, groundwater transport models and capture zone analysis is anticipated to
provide complementary information to support site management decisions.
o Continue development and updating of the comprehensive site database. Validated
analytical data for all wells in the area should be added to database within a
reasonable time after sampling. Each well should have a complete record of historic
sampling events. Continue confirmation of location coordinates of sampling locations.
o Continue development of a comprehensive site-wide transport model. Due to the size
and complexity of the site and the cost of monitoring locations, a site-wide model will
provide important predictive information for long-term plume management.
o Continue routine capture zone analysis for the plume-front area.
San Bernardino, California 40 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
4.2 Source OU
4.2.1 Summary Findings
The Source OU is the area of highest historic concentrations at the Newmark Site.
Monitoring objectives specific to the Source OU include providing data to delineate high
concentration areas, confirm the plume is not expanding into Newmark and Muscoy OUs
and to document attenuation of mass over time.
Based on individual well and moment trend analyses, the plume in the Source OU
shows largely stable to decreasing trends with several high concentration wells showing
strongly decreasing trends (CJ-8, CJ-16, MWCOE001B). The estimate of total dissolved
mass for both TCE and PCE shows decreasing trends over an eight year time-frame.
The probably increasing first moment for PCE may indicate some downgradient
movement of mass, but the trend is not strong.
Increasing concentration trends were found at some wells on the edge of the plume (CJ-
2, CJ-7 and CJ-11), suggesting there may be some spread of the plume perpendicular to
groundwater flow. Second moments in the Y direction show no trend, indicating that
possible plume spreading is not a strong trend. The edge locations do not exceed
regulatory screening levels, but require continued monitoring to document any possible
increase in groundwater area exceeding risk-based levels.
Based on the spatial analysis, several wells in the Source OU were identified as
'redundant' locations, or locations that do not provide unique information. While there
may be some redundancy in the network, the saturated thickness of the aquifer is
sufficient so that wells at varying well depths provide important information. Due to the
low-level concentrations and wells that delineate high concentration areas, no new well
locations are recommended.
The MAROS sampling frequency analysis indicated that most locations could be
sampled annually to biennially, without loss of critical information. Most locations in the
Source OU have a sufficiently long sampling history to perform statistical analyses with
fairly high power. Several locations were found to be statistically below screening levels,
with three having sufficient statistical power to have 'attained' clean-up goals, based on
EPA statistical guidelines (EPA, 1992).
4.2.2 Recommendations
Source OU
• Monitor 25 wells in the Source OU at semi-annual (8 locations), annual (7
locations) and biennial (10 locations) sample frequencies No new wells are
recommended at this time. The background well MUNI-112 can be monitored
annually to biennially to provide a baseline for groundwater quality.
• Priority monitoring locations in the Source OU include wells CJ-2 and CJ-7 to
monitor possible lateral plume spread. High concentration center-line wells CJ-
17, CJ-10, CJ-15, CJ-16, CJ-3, MWCOE004 and MWCOE001B should be
San Bernardino, California 41 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
monitored to evaluate export of mass from the source area to downgradient
locations.
Consider removing redundant wells (CJ-1A and MWCOE005 through
MWCOE009) from the routine monitoring if current trends continue
4.3 Newmark OU
4.3.1 Summary Findings
Statistical and qualitative results for the Newmark OU indicate widely distributed but very
low level concentrations of COCs. The data sufficiency analysis was performed to
identify wells that have statistically attained clean-up goals as described in EPA
guidance (EPA, 1992). In the Newmark OU, 70% of all sample locations are statistically
below the MCL for PCE while 30% of wells have sufficient statistical power to have
statistically attained clean-up goals. A summary of the data sufficiency results for the
Newmark OU as a whole is presented below.
Data sufficiency analysis provides information on attainment of risk-based goals as well
as determining when a sufficient number of samples has been collected to provide
statistical significance. These results not only identify and confirm areas with
concentrations below risk-based standards, but indicate that sampling effort can be
reduced as long as current conditions remain stable.
Groundwater
Zone
Shallow
Zone
Intermediate
Zone
Deep Zone
Total
Total Wells
26
26
23
75
Newmark OU Data Sufficiency for PCE
Wells Statistically
Below MCL
17(65%)
15(58%)
21 (91%)
53 (70%)
Wells Statistically "Attained"
Clean-up Goals
5(19%)
1 1 (42%)
7 (30%)
23 (30%)
Based on Mann-Kendall results, roughly half of the wells in each depth zone (shallow,
intermediate and deep) have stable to decreasing trends or are non-detect. The majority
of stable to decreasing locations for all depths are located in the northern section of the
plume. Decreasing trend results in this area indicate that COCs are not migrating out
of the source area to the Newmark OU in significant amounts. The northern part of the
plume is fairly stable and reduced monitoring effort may be appropriate in this area.
For the Newmark OU, the majority of "no trend" (NT) results at each depth result from
concentrations varying between detect and non-detect status. Many of the locations with
no trend results were identified as statistically below MCLs in the data sufficiency
analysis, providing support that sampling frequency can be reduced for these locations.
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
42
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Long-term increasing concentration trends were found most frequently in the Newmark
OU Deep Zone, near the extraction well front (see Figure 8). The Shallow Zone also
showed two locations with long-term increasing trends in the plume-front area. Recent
trends for these locations may be reversing, but continued monitoring in this area is a
priority. Two locations in the middle section of the Intermediate Zone, MUNI-18 and
MUNI-09C, show increasing PCE concentration trends. Concentrations at these
locations are currently below MCL, but should be monitored for future changes.
Trend estimates of total dissolved mass, center of mass and spread of mass (zeroth,
first, and second moments) for the Newmark OU are largely stable. No strong
increasing or decreasing trends in dissolved mass indicate that no strong influx of mass
is occurring from the Source OU and no dramatic reductions in mass are seen from the
pumping system, at this time. First moments were largely stable or displayed no trend
indicating that the extraction system has not shifted a large amount of mass
downgradient. The analysis of moments indicates that the Newmark OU plume has
been fairly stable over the 1999-2007 time-frame.
Due to overall low concentrations in the Newmark OU, several wells were identified as
candidates for elimination during the spatial analysis. The plume-front has a high
density of wells at very low concentrations, and this area was identified as having the
most redundant locations (with one exception discussed below). However, no locations
in the Newmark OU were recommended for removal from the program at this time.
Despite very low concentrations, the plume is very widely distributed and extends deep
into the aquifer and retaining all wells for spatial monitoring is appropriate.
During the spatial analysis, only one region was found to have a high degree of
concentration uncertainty. The western area of the Deep Zone was found to have high
variability between aerially adjacent locations. Individual well concentration trends in the
deeper plume-front region are also increasing. Locations EW-1, EW-2, EW-3, EW-108
and MW11C show long-term increasing trends for PCE. In the adjacent Muscoy OU
Intermediate Zone, increasing trends are found at locations along a line east to west in
the same approximate depth zone (EW-110PZD, EW-111PZC). The spatial uncertainty
result combined with the long-term trends indicates that this area should be prioritized in
terms of monitoring effort.
The high spatial uncertainty around well EW-108 can be explained to a large degree by
concentration heterogeneity at different depths and by the inclusion of extraction wells in
the analysis. Recent data indicate the concentration trends may be reversing. However,
continued semi-annual monitoring, particularly in the area between the Muscoy and
Newmark OUs is highly recommended. Data from these wells should be used in capture
zone analysis to evaluate the efficacy of the remedy.
Based on the statistical (MCES) analysis, other lines of evidence and a qualitative
evaluation of the network, sampling frequencies in the Newmark OU can be reduced
without loss of information to support management decisions.
The Newmark OU can be divided into two distinct areas in terms of monitoring effort:
upgradient and plume-front locations. Most upgradient wells can be reduced to annual
or biennial sampling due to the very low rate of concentrations change and the low risk
San Bernardino, California 43 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
posed by changes in concentration. While concentrations in the plume-front are not
changing rapidly, the monitoring system objective is to identify any migration of the
plume mass past the extraction wells. Due to this constraint, changes in concentration
trigger contingent responses in this area and must, therefore, be monitored frequently to
provide advance warning for any possible plume migration.
4.3.2 Recommendations
Newmark Oil
• Monitor 75 locations in the Newmark OU, representing shallow, intermediate and
deep groundwater zones.
• Biennial monitoring (once every two years) is recommended for nine (9) locations
in the upgradient area. Consider removing these locations from the routine
monitoring program, should current conditions continue.
• Twenty three (23) locations are recommended for annual sampling to support
horizontal and vertical delineation of the plume.
• Forty-three (43) wells are recommended for semi-annual sampling in priority
areas of the plume (plume-front, extraction well and historic high concentration
areas).
• The area around the EW-108 nested wells was identified as having higher spatial
uncertainty. While no new wells are recommended for this area at this time, the
area between Muscoy OU and Newmark OU should be monitored carefully for
changes in concentrations.
4.4 Muscoy OU
4.4.1 Summary Findings
The Muscoy OU analysis looked at 65 sample locations. Like the Newmark OU,
chlorinated constituents are distributed at very low levels across a large area. While
some areas of higher concentrations are present, the majority of the plume
concentrations are below regulatory screening levels.
While the Newmark OU can be divided into upgradient and plume-front areas in terms of
concentrations and trends, the Muscoy OU is more appropriately divided into central
high concentration areas and peripheral wells. More highly affected locations include
the center-line of wells MW-132A, MW-128A, MW-140A, B, C, MW-130B and EW-110 B,
C. Wells west and south of the center-line locations show low to non-detect
concentrations and delineate the plume.
The data sufficiency analysis identifies wells that have statistically attained clean-up
goals. In the Muscoy OU 63% of wells are statistically below screening levels. A
comparison of the two Newmark and Muscoy OUs indicates a similar distribution of
statistically clean locations even though the Muscoy OU has a shorter monitoring history
(a small data set).
San Bernardino, California 44 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
Ground water
Zone
Shallow
Zone
Intermediate
Zone
Deep Zone*
Total
Total Wells
23
32
10
65
Muscoy OU Data Sufficiency for PCE
Wells Statistically
Below MCL
12 (52%)
17(53%)
9 (90%)
41 (63%)
Wells Statistically "Attained"
Clean-up Goals
0
8 (25%)
6 (60%)
14(22%)
"Includes wells MW-135B and C and EW-108 also included in the Newmark OU Deep Zone analysis
The large percentage of locations where groundwater concentrations are below MCLs
indicates the plume is very dilute and close to achieving clean-up goals in many areas.
Reduced monitoring effort is appropriate for locations where groundwater has dropped
below risk-based concentration levels. A summary of the data sufficiency results for the
Muscoy OU as a whole is presented below.
Results for individual well trends contribute to the conclusion that Muscoy OU is a largely
stable to decreasing plume. Individual well trend evaluation for the Muscoy OU results
in a significant number of locations with no trend results for PCE (22 of 65). For slightly
over one-third of these locations (8), the detection frequency is below 50%. Overall,
locations with stable, decreasing or non-detect trends comprise over half of the
monitoring locations in the Muscoy OU. Wells with stable to decreasing concentration
trends can be considered for reduced monitoring frequency.
Concentrations at some levels of the MW-140 well group are high given the surrounding
well concentrations. The monitoring record at this location is short (quarterly samples for
1 year). The short term trends for concentrations measured at various depths are stable
to decreasing. The location provides unique information for vertical delineation in the
central area of the plume and trend evaluation should continue as a more statistically
significant data set is collected.
Another location that provides important information on the vertical distribution of mass
is MUNI-104B. The long screened interval of MUNI-104B provides information on the
vertical and horizontal distribution of mass in the western part of the Muscoy OU.
Routine semi-annual monitoring is recommended, but more extensive sampling may be
conducted on an annual basis to sample groundwater from discreet intervals. Interval
sampling may indicate areas of higher concentration or depths where higher
groundwater velocity affects the movement of constituent mass downgradient. Trends
for each interval can be developed and monitored over time.
One area of increasing trends was found in the Intermediate Zone plume-front region in
the area of MW-129B, EW-111PZC, EW-110PZD and EW-108. The locations are all
screened below approximately 500 ft bgs. When viewed with trend results from the
Newmark OU Deep Zone (see Figures 8 and 12), a line of increasing trends extends
from MW-129B in the west to EW-108 in the center to MW-11C in the east. Extraction
wells EW-108, EW-110, EW-111 EW-1, EW-2 and EW-3 are most likely contributing to
mass movement in the area, resulting in increasing trends for locations screened in
San Bernardino, California
Newmark Superfund Site
45
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
approximately the same interval. Increasing concentrations in the area defined by these
extraction wells and associated downgradient locations in the Muscoy and Newmark
OUs constitute a high-priority monitoring region for long-term management.
Well redundancy analysis for the Muscoy OU resulted in several locations identified for
possible removal from the network. Many of these locations were in the plume-front
area, where well density is high and concentrations are fairly low. Monitoring objectives
for the Newmark Site include documenting plume capture by the extraction system,.
Because there is a relatively short travel distance between the extraction wells and the
most downgradient monitoring locations, all wells were retained in the monitoring
program. Consistent with the finding that SF across the OU are fairly low, no new
monitoring locations are recommended for the Muscoy OU.
Sample frequencies for Muscoy OU wells were developed based on results of the MCES
analysis as well as well trends, redundancy evaluations and data sufficiency results.
Each well was reviewed qualitatively for its support of monitoring objectives. MCES
results recommended reduced monitoring frequency for most locations in the network.
4.4.2 Recommendations
• Monitor 65 locations in the Muscoy OU representing all depths.
• Biennial monitoring is recommended for seven (7) wells in the Shallow and
Intermediate Zones. Consider reducing frequencies or removing these locations
from routine monitoring if current trends continue.
• Sixteen (16) locations are recommended for annual sampling to provide
delineation of the plume. Annual sampling is appropriate for low to no-detection
locations that function as horizontal and vertical delineation points in a stable
plume.
• Forty-two wells (42), including all of the Deep Zone locations, are recommended
for semi-annual monitoring.
• The MW-140 nested wells have a limited sample record, with detections above
MCLs at some depths. Multiple screen depths at this location delineate the
vertical extent of contamination. Semi-annual sampling is recommended at MW-
140B and C, while annual sampling of all levels of MW-140A is recommended.
• No new wells are recommended for the network, at this time.
• The area of the plume-front, between the Muscoy and Newmark OUs has been
identified as an area of possible concentration uncertainty; however, the density
of wells in the current network is sufficient to accomplish monitoring goals.
Should capture zone analysis or groundwater modeling indicate possible by-pass
of delineation wells in this area, additional monitoring locations may be
considered.
• Careful monitoring of wells downgradient of the extraction wells will provide data
for delineation of affected groundwater and assessment of the efficacy of the
extraction system for both Newmark and Muscoy OUs. Semi-annual monitoring
is recommended in this zone Priority locations to address these objectives
include the following nested wells: MW-139 A-C, MW-138 A-C, MW-137 A-C,
MW-136 A-C, MW-135A-C, MW12A-C, MW13A-C, MW14A-C and MW15A-C.
San Bernardino, California 46 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
5.0 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.
California State Military Museum. (2007). http://www.militarvmuseum.org/CpOno.html.
Web site accessed May 25, 2007.
EPA. (2007). USEPA Region 9 Superfund Site overview web site.
http://vosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/560a2f570026781788256f0000092
948/329b7fc785ef492588257007005e9417!QpenDocument. Accessed 10/2006
through 5/2007.
EPA. (2004) Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site Explanation of
Significant Differences.
EPA. (1995). EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Newmark Ground Water
Contamination EPA ID: CAD981434517. EPA/ROD/R09-95/133.
EPA. (1993;. Newmark Operable Unit Record of Decision. August, 1993. USEPA
Region 9, San Francisco, California.
EPA (1992). Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards: Volume 2
Ground Water. Washington, D.C., United States Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation.
Gilbert, R. O. (1987). Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. New
York. Van Norstrand Reinhold.
URS. (2006a). Muscoy OU Remedial Action Installation of Extraction Wells EW-108
through EW-112 and Monitoring Wells MW-135 Through MW-140. Draft January,
2006. URS Group, Inc.
URS (2006b). Newmark Superfund Site-wide database. Received from URS March,
2006.
URS. (1996) Newmark Source Operable Unit Technical Memorandum. Newmark
Groundwater Contamination superfund Site. San Bernardino, California.
February, 1996. URS Consultants, Inc.
San Bernardino, California 47 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
August 21, 2007
URS. (1993). Newmark Operable Unit RI/FS Report. March, 1993. URS Consultants,
Inc.
San Bernardino, California 48 Groundwater Monitoring
Newmark Superfund Site Network Optimization
-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
NEWMARK, MUSCOY AND SOURCE OU
NEWMARK SUPERFUND SITE
San Bernardino, California
TABLES
Table 1 Newmark Site Monitoring Locations
Table 2 Source and Newmark OU Annual Moment Estimates and Trends
Table 3 Lines of Evidence Summary Results: Source OU
Table 4 Lines of Evidence Summary Results: Newmark Shallow Zone
Table 5 Lines of Evidence Summary Results: Newmark Intermediate Zone
Table 6 Lines of Evidence Summary Results: Newmark Deep Zone
Table 7 Muscoy OU Recent Moment Estimates and Trends
Table 8 Lines of Evidence Summary Results: Muscoy Shallow Zone
Table 9 Lines of Evidence Summary Results: Muscoy Intermediate Zone
Table 10 Lines of Evidence Summary Results: Muscoy Deep Zone
Table 11 Final Monitoring Network Recommendations
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 1
NEWMARK SITE MONITORING LOCATIONS
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Source OU
Wells
CJ-1
CJ-10
CJ-11
CJ-12
CJ-13
CJ-14
CJ-15
CJ-16
CJ-17
CJ-1A
CJ-2
CJ-3
CJ-6
CJ-7
CJ-8
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001B
MWCOE002
MWCOE003
MWCOE004
MWCOE005
MWCOE006
MWCOE007
MWCOE008
MWCOE009
-
Newmark OU
Shallow Zone
EW-108PA
EW-2PA
EW-3PA
EW-4PA
EW-5PA
EW-6
EW-6PA
EW-7
MUNI-01
MUNI-07B
MUNI-09B
MUNI-11A
MUNI-13
MUNI-16
MW02A
MW03A
MW04A
MW05A
MW06A
MW07A
MW08A
MW09A
MW12A
MW14A
MW16A
MW17A
Intermediate
Zone
EW-1 PA
EW-7PA
MUNI-07C
MUNI-09C
MUNI-14
MUNI-18
MUNI-22
MUNI-24
MW02B
MW03B
MW04B
MW05B
MW06B
MW07B
MW08B
MW09B
MW10A
MW10B
MW11A
MW12B
MW13A
MW13B
MW14B
MW15A
MW16B
MW17B
Deep Zone
EW-1
EW-1 08
EW-108PB
EW-1PB
EW-2
EW-2PB
EW-3
EW-3PB
EW-4
EW-4PB
EW-5
EW-5PB
MUNI-11C
MW10C
MW11B
MW11C
MW12C
MW-135B
MW-135C
MW13C
MW14C
MW15B
MW15C
-
MuscoyOU
Shallow Zone
EW-108PA
EW-109PZA
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZB
EW-1 1 1 PZA
EW-112PA
MUNI-102
MUNI-103
MUNI-104A
MUNI-109
MW-127A
MW-127B
MW-128A
MW-129A
MW-130A
MW-131A
MW-132A
MW-133A
MW-134
MW-135A
MW-137A
MW-138A
MW-139A
-
Intermediate
Zone
EW-1 08
EW-108PB
EW-1 09
EW-109PZB
EW-1 10
EW-110PZC
EW-110PZD
EW-1 11
EW-111PZB
EW-1 1 1 PZC
EW-1 12
EW-112PB
MUNI-101
MUNI-104B
MUNI-108
MUNI-116
MW-128B
MW-128C
MW-129B
MW-130B
MW-130C
MW-131B
MW-131C
MW-132B
MW-133B
MW-136A
MW-136B
MW-137B
MW-138B
MW-139B
MW-140B
MW-140C
Deep Zone
EW-109PZC
EW-110PZE
EW-111PZD
MW-129C
MW-136C
MW-137C
MW-138C
MW-139C
-
-
-
-
Notes:
1. More detailed information on the wells is provided in Appendix B Table B.1
2. Wells were grouped according to hydrostratigarphic zone and screened interval, based on database values (URS, 2006).
2. Wells not sampled since 2002, such as MW-01 were not considered as part of the current monitoring program.
Wells without location coordiantes were not included in the analysis.
3. Well MW-140A is sampled from multiple depths and is evaluated separately.
4. Certain wells are included in multiple analysis groups for spatial analysis, as they span different study areas.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 2
NEWMARK AND SOURCE OU ANNUAL MOMENT ESTIMATES AND TRENDS
SOURCE OU AND NEWMARK OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
coc
Effective Sample
Event Date
Number of
wells in
network
COC Mass Estimate
[Kg]
Source OU
PCE
TCE
7/1/1999
7/1/2000
7/1/2001
7/1/2002
7/1/2003
7/1/2004
7/1/2005
7/1/2006
23
19
16
15
13
17
25
25
PCE Trend
7/1/1999
7/1/2000
7/1/2001
7/1/2002
7/1/2003
7/1/2004
7/1/2005
7/1/2006
23
16
13
14
13
17
23
24
TCE Trend
96.05
92.59
111.69
93.01
99.17
91.76
83.63
63.15
D
13.75
9.45
23.13
10.11
9.35
6.74
7.71
8.15
D
Newmark OU Shallow Zone
PCE
TCE
7/1/1999
7/1/2000
7/1/2001
7/1/2002
7/1/2003
7/1/2004
7/1/2005
24
23
14
25
26
26
26
PCE Trend
7/1/1999
7/1/2000
7/1/2001
7/1/2002
7/1/2003
7/1/2004
7/1/2005
24
23
14
25
26
26
26
TCE Trend
345.84
364.08
446.98
277.60
452.85
545.21
546.74
I
100.22
118.43
171.68
110.36
186.65
212.80
288.20
I
Distance of Center of
Mass from Source [ft]
873
385
399
975
867
552
1,078
1,158
PI
787
317
508
786
325
361
668
621
S
25,711
25,820
26,044
25,269
25,181
25,695
25,964
S
25,219
25,728
25,541
25,453
25,411
25,525
26,595
NT
See notes end of table.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 2
NEWMARK AND SOURCE OU ANNUAL MOMENT ESTIMATES AND TRENDS
SOURCE OU AND NEWMARK OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
coc
Effective Sample
Event Date
Number of
wells in
network
COC Mass Estimate
[Kg]
Newmark Intermediate Zone
PCE
TCE
7/1/1999
7/1/2000
7/1/2001
7/1/2002
7/1/2003
7/1/2004
7/1/2005
30
29
16
27
28
27
27
PCE Trend
7/1/1999
7/1/2000
7/1/2001
7/1/2002
7/1/2003
7/1/2004
7/1/2005
30
29
16
27
28
27
27
TCE Trend
2599.75
2229.33
3224.84
1120.41
1131.50
1088.41
1427.50
S
851.57
790.68
1040.40
630.65
742.95
653.18
964.27
S
Newmark Deep Zone
PCE
TCE
7/1/1999
7/1/2000
7/1/2001*
7/1/2002
7/1/2003
7/1/2004
7/1/2005
19
19
14
22
22
22
22
PCE Trend
7/1/1999
7/1/2000
7/1/2001*
7/1/2002
7/1/2003
7/1/2004
7/1/2005
19
19
14
22
22
22
22
TCE Trend
3343.52
3001.48
311.75
1874.59
1875.64
1255.30
1606.42
S
752.47
695.69
156.80
627.86
654.96
414.98
442.05
S
Distance of Center of
Mass from Source [ft]
17,752
18,022
18,528
21,731
21,217
20,972
19,835
NT
19745.28
19807.31
19718.42
21430.90
21323.66
20386.91
23443.31
PI
12,576
12,638
16,957
13,528
13,503
13,878
13,279
NT
13,421
13,473
17,051
13,929
13,975
13,840
13,867
NT
Notes:
1. Input parameters for the moment analysis are listed in Appendix B Table B.2a-c.
2. Moments are based on annual averages of all wells sampled during the year of the effective date indicated.
3. Number of wells is the total number of locations sampled for the plume during the year indicated.
4. Estimated mass is the total dissolved mass (zeroth moment) of the indicated COC.
based on the average concentrations at wells sampled during the calendar year.
5. Trends are Mann Kendall trends on the moments, S=Stable, PI = Probably Increasing, NT = No Trend
D = Decreasing.
6. For the Newmark Deep Zone, extraction wells EW-1 -5 were removed from the moment analysis.
7. The Newmark Shallow Zone moments did not include the Source OU wells,
and represent shallow zone wells downgradient of the Source OU.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 3
LINES OF EVIDENCE SUMMARY RESULTS
SOURCE OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
Mann-Kendall
Trend PCE
1999-2007
Below
MCL?2
Below MCL
with High
Power3
Average
Slope
Factor PCE
MAROS
Recommends
for Removal
MAROS
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Qualitative Evaluation
Final Recommendation
Future
Consideration
CJ-1
CJ-10
CJ-11
CJ-1 2
CJ-1 3
CJ-1 4
CJ-1 5
CJ-1 6
CJ-1 7
CJ-1A
CJ-2
CJ-3
CJ-6
S
S
PI
D
NT
NT
NT
D
PD
ND
I
NT
PI
V
N/C
N/C
N/C
V
V
V
N/C
N/C
N/C
V
0.25
0.33
0.30
0.36
0.29
0.26
0.18
0.17
0.30
0.59
0.40
0.21
0.16
V
V
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
SemiAnnual
Upgradient source area well, historic exceedence
but currently statistically below MCL, Recent trends
stable to decreasing, very long sample record.
Source area of highest concentration, retain for
semi-annual monitoring
Source area centerline well shallow close to CJ12.
Recent trends stable to decreasing, Annual
monitoring
Source area centerline well deeper close to CJ1 1 .
Decreasing trend
Far eastern boundary well for source area,
intermittent detections delineating far eastern edge.
Western boundary well for source area, insufficient
data for statistical determination of below MCL.
Occasional sampling necessary to acquire
statistically significant data set.
Source area of highest concentration, recent
ncreasing overall trend, recent stable trends, retain
for semi-annual monitoring, deeper zone
Retain for source area monitoring in deeper area
nearMW17., High concentration but decreasing
trend
Source area of highest concentration, retain for
semi-annual monitoring, shallower than MW16.
Source area well, deeper area, recent non-detect,
attained clean-up level with high confidence
Western boundary well for source area, statistically
below MCL, but well went from ND to detect status
in 2005, resulting in a long-term increasing trend. If
well drops below detection, consider biennieal
sampling.
Source area well, deeper area, historic very high
concentration. Overall Decreasing concentration
trend, but recent variability
Historic high concentration, centerline well,
somewhat redundant with CJ-10 and CJ-3
Biennial
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Biennial
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Once every 5 years
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Annual
Exclude
Monitor for
increasing
concentrations
Annual
Annual
See notes end of table.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 3
LINES OF EVIDENCE SUMMARY RESULTS
SOURCE OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
Mann-Kendall
Trend PCE
1999-2007
Below
MCL?2
Below MCL
with High
Power3
Average
Slope
Factor PCE
MAROS
Recommends
for Removal
MAROS
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Qualitative Evaluation
Final Recommendation
Future
Consideration
CJ-7
CJ-8
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001B
MWCOE002
MWCOE003
MWCOE004
MWCOE005
MWCOE006
MWCOE007
MWCOE008
MWCOE009
I
D
S
D
ND
NT
S
D
NT
S
PD
PD
N/C
V
V
V
V
N/C
V
0.40
0.31
0.16
0.23
0.48
0.17
0.23
0.07
0.59
0.16
0.55
0.42
V
V
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Low concentration western boundary well for source
area, recent increasing trend, retain for horizontal
delineation.
Northern boundary well, similar to CJ-1 , statistically
below MCL with decreasing trend.
Downgradient centerline well, decreasing trends,
nested with MWCE001B, Recommended for
removal. Retain to monitor shallow area.
Downgradient centerline nested well, higher
concentrations deeper screen, retain to monitor
downgradient centerline.
Non-detect near centerline wells, retain for vertical
delineation. Insufficent data to statistically confirm
below MCL.
Centerline nested deep well, vertical delineation.
Low SF and recent detections. Insufficent data to
statistically confirm below MCL.
High concentration well near CJ-10, deep well
eastern boundary, stable trend
Northern boundary well, statistically below MCL but
lower power, decreasing trend and low slope factor.
Very shallow vertical delineation well, upgradient
northern boundary well, statistically below MCL, only
intermittent detections
Shallow upgradient well, stable trend,
recommended for removal, statistically below MCL.
Low concentration very shallow eastern boundary,
delineates both horizontaly and vertically
Very shallow eastern boundary well, near CJ-1 7
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Semi-annual
Biennial
Annual
Semi-annual
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Monitor for
increasing
concentrations
Biennial
Exclude
Annual
Exclude
Biennial
Annual
Exclude
Exclude
Exclude
Exclude
Exclude
Wofes;
1. Mann Kendall trend for PCE 1999-2007. D= Decreasing, PD = Probably Decreasing, S = Stable, NT= No Trend, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing, ND= Non-detect.
2. Well concentration is statistically below MCL for PCE (5 ppb) using the Sequential T-Test hypothesis testing algorithm assuming (log-normal distribution). NC = Insufficient data.
3. Power analysis with (y=0.8) indicates well concentration is concentration is statistically below MCL with very high confidence (assuming log-normal distribution).
Average Slope Factor (SF) for PCE 2000-2007. SF is a measure of the importance of a well in the network. LowSF wells are candidates for removal.
MAROS recommends wells for removal if the SF is below 0.25, the area ratio loss is below 80% and the concentration ratio loss is below 90%.
6. The MAROS Preliminary Sample Frequency is the sample frequency based on the rate of concentration change and the concentration trend at the well.
7. The qualitative review is based on an anlysis of non-statistical factors, such as monitoring objectives and hydrogeologic factors.
8. Exclude = remove from the program (do not plug). The Final Recommendation is based on a combination between the statistical results and the qualitative review.
9. Future Recommendations are possible changes to the monitoring program if trends continue as they are now. Consider reviewing the network after 2-3 years.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 4
LINES OF EVIDENCE SUMMARY RESULTS
NEWMARK OU SHALLOW ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
Mann-Kendall
Trend PCE
1999-2007
Below
MCL?2
Below MCL
with High
Power3
Average
Slope
Factor PCE
MAROS
Recommends
for Removal
MAROS
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Qualitative Evaluation
Final Recommendation
Future
Consideration
EW-2PA
EW-3PA
EW-4PA
EW-5PA
EW-6
EW-6PA
EW-7
MUNI-01
MUNI-07B
MUNI-09B
MUNI-11A
MUNI-13
MUNI-16
PI
NT
NT
NT
D
PD
D
NT
NT
NT
S
S
D
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
0.08
0.24
0.24
0.15
0.22
0.22
0.49
0.24
0.10
0.23
0.16
0.18
0.17
V
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
SemiAnnual
Plume front well, statistically below MCL but
possible increasing trend, retained to monitor
shallow depth at plume front extraction wells.
Plume front well, statistically below MCL,
intermittent deletions, retained to monitor shallow
depth at plume front extraction wells.
Plume front well, statistically below MCL, no
detections since 2003 retained to monitor shallow
depth at plume front extraction wells.
Plume front well, statistically below MCL,
intermittent deletions, retained to monitor shallow
depth at plume front extraction wells.
Uppergradient western plume extraction well,
statistically below MCL, decreasing trend retained to
monitor concentration of extracted water..
Upper western plume, statistically below MCL,
retained to monitor shallow depth near extraction
well.
Upper western plume, High concentration extraction
well, exceeds MCL
Upgradient northern boundary well, statistically
below MCL, biennial
Upgradient well, eastern edge near bend, deeper
shallow zone, statistically clean, single detection (?),
low SF.
Eastern boundary well, non-detect except for single
detection (?), statistically clean.
Shallow Centerline well, bend of plume, statistically
below MCL, low SF and stable trend.
Shallow Centerline well, bend of plume, statistically
clean, low SF and stable trend
Centerline well, higher concentrations with
decreasing trend, deeper well, retain to monitor
center of plume.
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Remove from
program after 8
consecutive ND
Semi-annual
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
See notes end of table.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 4
LINES OF EVIDENCE SUMMARY RESULTS
NEWMARK OU SHALLOW ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
Mann-Kendall
Trend PCE
1999-2007
Below
MCL?2
Below MCL
with High
Power3
Average
Slope
Factor PCE
MAROS
Recommends
for Removal
MAROS
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Qualitative Evaluation
Final Recommendation
Future
Consideration
MW02A
MW03A
MW04A
MW05A
MW06A
MW07A
MW08A
MW09A
MW12A
MW14A
MW16A
MW17A
EW-108PA
S
S
NT
ND
ND
D
S
NT
I
NT
NT
NT
NT
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
0.00
0.18
0.28
0.17
0.19
0.46
0.42
0.46
0.20
0.42
0.50
0.00
0.22
V
V
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Upgradient shallow well, statistically clean,
redundant with surrounding wells
Upgradient shallow well, statistically below MCL
with only two detections, low SF.
Upgradient shallow well, statistically below MCL
with one detection (?).
Upgradient shallow well, statistically clean, low SF
redundant with surrounding wells.
Upgradient shallow well, ND, low SF redundant with
surrounding wells.
Higher concentration centerline well, decreasing
trend with relatively rapid rate of change and high
SF
Most Upgradient location, Low concentration well
with intermittent detections, statisticlly clean
High concentration centerline well, with variable
PCE trend.
Increasing trend may be due to extraction wells,
currently statistically below MCL, plume front
location monitors possible migration of plume.
Plume front location, most downgradient well, high
detection rate, but statistically below MCL, part of
nested group, screened interval (270 to 300 ft bgs)
High SF indicates a priority location.
Upgradient location, statistically below MCL with
intermittent detections
Upgradient eastern edge delineation well,
statistically below MCL with one detection (?),
recommended for removal.
Plume front location, also monitors Muscoy OU as
part of a nested group, high variance in data.
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Semi-annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Biennial
Semi-annual
Eliminate
Eliminate
Eliminate
Eliminate
Eliminate
Semi-annual
Biennial
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Eliminate
Semi-annual
Wofes;
1. Mann Kendall trend for PCE 1999-2007. D = Decreasing, PD= Probably Decreasing, S = Stable, NT = No Trend, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing, ND = Non-detect.
2. Well concentration is statistically below MCL for PCE (5 ppb) using the Sequential T-Test hypothesis testing algorithm assuming (log-normal distribution). NC = Insufficient data.
3. Power analysis with (y=0.8) indicates well concentration is concentration is statistically below MCL with very high confidence (assuming log-normal distribution).
4. Average Slope Factor (SF) for PCE 2000-2007. SF is a measure of the importance of a well in the network. Low SF wells are candidates for removal.
5. MAROS recommends wells for removal if the SF is below 0.25, the area ratio loss is below 80% and the concentration ratio loss is below 90%.
6. The MAROS Preliminary Sample Frequency is the sample frequency based on the rate of concentration change and the concentration trend at the well.
7. The qualitative review is based on an anlysis of non-statistical factors, such as monitoring objectives and hydrogeologic factors.
8. The Final Recommendation is based on a combination between the statistical results and the qualitative review.
9. Future Recommendations are possible changes to the monitoring program if trends continue as they are now. Consider reviewing the network after 2-3 years.
-------
Issued: 21 -AUG-2007
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 5
LINES OF EVIDENCE SUMMARY RESULTS
NEWMARK INTERMEDIATE ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
EW-1 PA
EW-7PA
MUNI-07C
MUNI-09C
MUNI-14
MUNI-18
MUNI-22
MUNI-24
MWD2B
MWD3B
MWD4B
MWD5B
MWD6B
MW07B
MWD8B
Mann-Kendall
Trend PCE
1999-2007
NT
NT
S
,
D
,
NT
NT
PD
NT
D
D
ND
D
D
Below
MCL?2
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Below MCL
with High
Power3
V
V
V
V
Average
Slope
Factor PCE
0.04
0.57
0.53
0.40
0.35
0.26
0.66
0.41
0.23
0.13
0.27
0.23
0.20
0.34
0.08
MAROS
Recommends
for Removal
V
V
V
V
MAROS
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Qualitative Evaluation
Plume front well, statistically clean with only a
couple of low detections, retained to monitor the
plume front extraction wells.
Upgradient well, statistically below MCL,
intermittent non-detects, retained to monitor
upgradient extraction wells.
Upgradient well, eastern edge near bend,
statistically clean, two detections.
Eastern boundary well, increasing trend but average
concentration below MCL, nested below statistically
clean MUNI-09B.
Center of plume, average concentration above MCL
with decreasing trend; monitor as plume centerline
well.
Western delineation well, statistically below MCL,
but increasing trend
Centerline well south of MUNI-14, statistically below
MCL but high variability in data.
Downgradient eastern boundary of Newmark OU,
intermittent detections, statistically clean, eastern
delineation well.
Upgradient well, part of nested pair where upper
level is statistically clean, probably decreasing trend
with recent non-detcts.
Upgradient location, part of nester pair where upper
well is statistically below MCL, recent non-detects.
Recommended for elimination.
Upgradient location, part of nester pair where upper
well is statistically below MCL, historic highs with
decreasing trend with recent non-detect.
Upgradient location, part of nester pair where upper
well is ND, historic highs with decreasing trend.
Most upgradient location, NDwell, statistically
clean.
Upgradient location, part of nested pair where upper
well is high concentration, decreasing trend,
recommended for removal.
Upgradient location with historic highs, but
decreasing trend, part of nested pair where the
upper well is statistically clean.
Final Recommendation
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Future
Consideration
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Exclude
Exclude
Biennial
Biennial
Exclude
Biennial
Biennial
See notes end of table.
-------
Issued: 21 -AUG-2007
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 5
LINES OF EVIDENCE SUMMARY RESULTS
NEWMARK INTERMEDIATE ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
MWD9B
MW10A
MW10B
MW11A
MW12B
MW13A
MW13B
MW14B
MW15A
MW16B
MW17B
Mann-Kendall
Trend PCE
1999-2007
D
S
D
S
ND
ND
ND
ND
S
D
NT
Below
MCL?2
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Below MCL
with High
Power3
V
V
V
V
V
V
Average
Slope
Factor PCE
0.41
0.83
0.83
0.21
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.29
0.24
MAROS
Recommends
for Removal
V
V
V
V
MAROS
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Quarterly
Annual
Qualitative Evaluation
Upgradient location with historic highs but
decreasing trend, part of nested pair where shallow
well has high concentrations, increased frequency
to match MW09A.
Center of plume, statistically clean, one detection,
most shallow well of nest (screen 350-380 ft bgs).
Center of plume, statistically below MCL,
decreasing trend with recent low-level detections,
middle location of three nested wells (490-520 ft
bgs)..
Downgradient center of plume, statistically clean
with stable trend, recommended for elimination.
Location upgradient of plume-front is prioritized as
early warning for possible plume migration.
ND well on western plume-front boundary, near
Muscoy OU, part of nest with MW12A, which has
increasing trend. Retain to monitor plume-front.
ND well on plume-front, part of delineation of plume
in this zone.
ND well on plume-front, part of delineation of plume
in this zone.
ND well on plume-front, part of a nested group,
(screened 570 to 600 ft bgs), upper well high
detection rate, part of delineation of plume in this
zone.
Low concentration well on plume-front, delineates
end of plume to the east. Retain as part of
downgradient point of compliance nest of wells.
Upgradient locations with historic concentrations
above MCLs, decreasing trend, monitor as part of
centerline area of highest concentration.
Upgradient eastern edge delineation well, variable
trend, part of nested pair where shallow well is
below MCL.
Final Recommendation
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Future
Consideration
Semi-annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Notes:
1. Mann Kendall trend for PCE 1999-2007. D= Decreasing, PD = Probably Decreasing, S = Stable, NT = No Trend, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing, ND = Non-detect.
2. Well concentration is statistically below MCL for PCE (5 ppb) using the Sequential T-Test hypothesis testing algorithm assuming (log-normal distribution). NC = Insufficient data.
3. Power analysis with (y=0.8) indicates well concentration is concentration is statistically below MCL with very high confidence (assuming log-normal distribution).
4. Average Slope Factor (SF) for PCE 2000-2007. SF is a measure of the importance of a well in the network. Low SF wells are candidates for removal.
5. MAROS recommends wells for removal if the SF is below 0.25, the area ratio loss is below 80% and the concentration ratio loss is below 90%.
6. The MAROS Preliminary Sample Frequency is the sample frequency based on the rate of concentration change and the concentration trend at the well.
7. The qualitative review is based on an anlysis of non-statistical factors, such as monitoring objectives and hydrogeologic factors.
8. The Final Recommendation is based on a combination between the statistical results and the qualitative review.
9. Future Recommendations are possible changes to the monitoring program if trends continue as they are now. Consider reviewing the network after 2-3 years.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 6
LINES OF EVIDENCE SUMMARY RESULTS
NEWMARK DEEP ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
EW-1
EW-108
EW-108PB
EW-1 PB
EW-2
EW-2PB
EW-3
EW-3PB
EW-4
EW-4PB
EW-5
EW-5PB
Mann-Kendall
Trend PCE
1999-2007
I
I
S
I
I
I
S
I
S
NT
D
NT
Below
MCL?2
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Below MCL
with High
Power3
V
Average
Slope
Factor
PCE
0.39
0.74
0.74
0.39
0.17
0.17
0.07
0.07
0.31
0.31
0.00
0.00
MAROS
Recommends
for Removal
V
V
V
V
V
V
MAROS
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Quarterly
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Quarterly
SemiAnnual
SemiAnnual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Qualitative Evaluation
Dlume front extraction well, increasing trend,
consistent with movement of mass toward the
pumping well, .monitor as part of remedy
effectiveness determination.
Extraction well, west of Newmark OU, also part of
Vluscoy OU, part of nested group, increasing trend
monitor as part of remedy effectiveness
determination.
Western monitoring point, part of nested group,
stable trend statistically below MCL, monitor all
nested wells together.
Dlume front well monitors EW-1 extraction well,
increasing trend, but statistically below MCL.
Plume-front extraction well, increasing trend, low
SF, recommended for removal as spatially
redundant, rapid concentration change results in
quaeterly monitoring frequency, monitor as part of
remedy effectiveness determination.
Plume-front location monitoring extraction well, low
SF, recommended for removal as spatially
redundant, increasing trend, statistically below
MCL.
Dlume-front extraction well, stable trend, low SF,
recommended for removal as spatially redundant,
statistically clean location, monitor as part of
remedy effectiveness determination.
SF, recommended for removal as spatially
redundant, increasing trend, statistically below
MCL.
Plume-front extraction well, stable trend, statistical!)
Delow MCL, monitor as part of remedy
effectiveness determination.
Dlume-front location monitoring extraction well, no
:rend, statistically below MCL.
Plume-front extraction well, decreasing trend, low
SF, recommended for removal as spatially
redundant, statistically below MCL, monitor as part
of remedy effectiveness determination.
Dlume-front location monitoring extraction well, low
SF, recommended for removal as spatially
redundant, no trend, statistically below MCL.
Final
Recommendation
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Future
Consideration
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
See notes end of table.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 6
LINES OF EVIDENCE SUMMARY RESULTS
NEWMARK DEEP ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
MUNI-11C
MW10C
MW11B
MW11C
MW12C
MW-135B
MW-135C
MW13C
MW14C
MW15B
MW15C
Mann-Kendall
Trend PCE
1999-2007
D
D
D
I
S
ND*
ND*
ND
D
ND
ND
Below
MCL?2
^
^
v
^
Below MCL
with High
Power3
v
^
Average
Slope
Factor
PCE
0.11
0.49
0.16
0.16
0.73
0.00
0.00
0.71
0.01
0.51
0.00
MAROS
Recommends
for Removal
V
v
MAROS
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Qualitative Evaluation
Most upgradient location in the deep zone, historic
nighs but decreasing trend. Quarterly monitoring
result due to rapid concentration change.
Upgradient centerline location, part of nested group
where upper wells are statistically clean, historic
highs with decreasing trend.
Downagradient center location, part of a nested
group, middle level screen (770 to 800 ft bgs),
upper screened interval statistically clean,
decreasing trend, spatially redundant due to high
density of plume front wells..
Downgradient center of plume, statistically below
MCL but increasing trend, recommended for
elimination as spatially redundant, part of nested
group, deepest screen (1070-1 100 ft bgs).
Monitoring location downgradient, western edge of
\Jewmark OU, statistically below MCL, intermittent
detections. Retained as most downgradient point of
compliance location.
Downgradient western monitoring location near
vluscoy, only one detcetion, close to non-detect,
statistically clean, identified as spatially redundant.
Retained as downgradient point of compliance
location.
Downgradient western monitoring location near
Muscoy, only one detcetion, close to non-detect,
statistically clean, identified as spatially redundant.
Detained as downgradient point of compliance
location.
^JD well in center of plume-front boundary, part of
nest with MW13A,and B, also ND wells. Retain to
monitor plume-front.
Downgradient plume-front well, part of nested grouf
(1 060 -1 090 ft bgs) , decreasing trend, identified as
spatially redundant due to well density in plume-
Front area.
ND well on plume-front, part of delineation of plume
in this zone.
NJD well on plume-front, part of delineation of plume
in this zone.
Final
Recommendation
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Future
Consideration
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Notes:
1. Mann Kendall trend for PCE 1999-2007. D = Decreasing, PD = Probably Decreasing, S = Stable, NT = No Trend, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing, ND = Non-detect.
2. Well concentration is statistically below MCL for PCE (5 ppb) using the Sequential T-Test hypothesis testing algorithm assuming (log-normal distribution). NC = Insufficient data.
3. Power analysis with (y=0.8) indicates well concentration is concentration is statistically below MCL with very high confidence (assuming log-normal distribution).
4. Average Slope Factor (SF) for PCE 2000-2007. SF is a measure of the importance of a well in the network. Low SF wells are candidates for removal.
5. MAROS recommends wells for removal if the SF is below 0.25, the area ratio loss is below 80% and the concentration ratio loss is below 90%.
6. The MAROS Preliminary Sample Frequency is the sample frequency based on the rate of concentration change and the concentration trend at the well.
7. The qualitative review is based on an anlysis of non-statistical factors, such as monitoring objectives and hydrogeologic factors.
8. The Final Recommendation is based on a combination between the statistical results and the qualitative review.
9. Future Recommendations are possible changes to the monitoring program if trends continue as they are now. Consider reviewing the network after 2-3 years.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 7
MUSCOY OU RECENT MOMENT ESTIMATES AND TRENDS
MUSCOY OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
coc
Sample Event
Effective Date
Number of
wells in
network
COC Mass
Estimate [Kg]
Muscoy Shallow Zone
PCE
TCE
3/1/2005
9/1/2005
3/1/2006
9/1/2006
39
42
41
40
PCE Trend
3/1/2005
9/1/2005
3/1/2006
9/1/2006
37
40
40
40
TCE Trend
212.23
496.71
418.98
330.34
S
52.42
90.42
96.84
66.24
NT
Muscoy Intermediate Zone
PCE
TCE
3/1/2005
9/1/2005
3/1/2006
9/1/2006
32
33
32
33
PCE Trend
3/1/2005
9/1/2005
3/1/2006
9/1/2006
32
33
32
33
TCE Trend
297.76
320.63
383.12
334.16
NT
77.97
104.45
81.46
87.28
NT
Muscoy Deep Zone
PCE
TCE
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
1/15/2007
10
10
10
12
PCE Trend
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
1/15/2007
10
10
10
12
TCE Trend
181.47
226.47
192.32
180.52
S
92.38
91.75
91.29
85.20
D
Distance of Center
of Mass from Source
[ft]
18,514
17,269
18,181
16,932
S
20,283
20,399
19,861
19,060
S
16,811
17,363
18,440
19,281
I
19,081
19,500
20,804
21,586
I
5,518
5,795
5,729
5,815
NT
6,433
6,054
6,401
6,681
NT
Notes:
1. Input parameters for the moment analyses are listed in Appendix B Tables B.2a-c.
2. Sample event effective date is an average date during the time period of data consolidation.
Shallow and intermediate zones data are consolidated semi-annually 2005 -2006
Deep zone moments are from quarterly data 2006-2007.
3. The mass estimate is an estimate of the total dissolved mass in the plume area using
data from the wells sampled during the time interval.
4. Number of wells in the network includes some Source OU wells for the Muscoy shallow
and Intermediate zones. Some Muscoy OU deep wells are also in the Newmark OU.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 8
LINES OF EVIDENCE SUMMARY RESULTS: 1999-2007
MUSCOY OU SHALLOW ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
EW-108PA
EW-109PZA
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZB
EW-111PZA
EW-112PA
MUNI-102
MUNI-103
MUNI-104A
MUNI-109
MW-127A
MW-127B
Mann-Kendall
Trend PCE
1999-2007
NT
S
NT
NT
PD
PD
S
NT
N/A
D
D
NT
Below
MCL?2
N/C
N/C
N/C
V
-^
N/C
N/C
V
V
Below MCL
with High
Power3
Average
Slope
Factor PCE
0.29
0.17
0.23
0.23
0.25
0.28
0.37
0.38
0.37
0.24
0.24
MAROS
Recommends
for Removal
TJ
MAROS
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Qualitative Evaluation
Plume-front location, monitors extraction well, also
monitors western Newmark OU as part of a nested
group, high variance in data. Retain to monitor
plume-front and assess efficacy of remedy.
Monitors extraction well, eastern part of Muscoy OU,
part of nested group, stable trend, but insufficient
data for some statistics, recommended for removal
but retained to monitor remedy effectiveness.
Monitors extraction well, eastern part of Muscoy OU,
part of nested group, no trend, insufficient data for
some statistics, monitor as part of remedy
effectiveness determination.
Monitors extraction well, eastern part of Muscoy OU,
part of nested group, no trend, high rate of detection
and high concentrations, monitor as part of remedy
effectiveness determination.
Monitors extraction well upgradientfrom plume-front,
probably decreasing trend, but insufficient data for
attainment statistics. Part of nested group.
Plume-front location monitoring extraction well,
probably decreasing trend, retain as part of nested
group.
Western delineation well for shallow Muscoy OU,
statistically below MCL, 50% detection rate, stable
trend.
Western delineation well for shallow Muscoy OU,
statistically below MCL, slightly upgradientfrom
MUNI-102, only one detection.
Mid-gradient monitoring location, insufficient data to
determine a trend, sampled intermittently. Retain at
low sample frequency to delineate plume to west.
Not sampled since 2004. Retain to monitor
centerline of plume between areas of high
concentrations.
Upgradient well in Source OU, monitors possible
movement of constituents from source into Muscoy
OU. Decreasing trend, statistically below MCL, but
historic concentrations above MCL.
Upgradient well in Source OU, monitors possible
movement of constituents from source into Muscoy
OU. Nested with MW127A, no trend, statistically
below MCL, but historic concentrations above MCL.
Final Recommendation
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
SemiAnnual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Future
Consideration
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
See notes end of table
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 8
LINES OF EVIDENCE SUMMARY RESULTS: 1999-2007
MUSCOY OU SHALLOW ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
MW-128A
MW-129A
MW-130A
MW-131A
MW-132A
MW-133A
MW-134
MW-135A
MW-137A
MW-138A
MW-139A
Mann-Kendall
Trend PCE
1999-2007
NT
D
D
S
NT
PI
NT
PI
D
NT
NT
Below
MCL?2
V
TJ
TJ
TJ
V
TJ
TJ
V
Below MCL
with High
Power3
Average
Slope
Factor PCE
0.49
0.54
0.08
0.36
0.54
0.12
0.63
0.09
0.24
0.18
0.40
MAROS
Recommends
for Removal
V
TJ
TJ
MAROS
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Quarterly
Biennial
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Qualitative Evaluation
Historic high concentration well, concentrations
above MCL, possible seasonal variation in
concentrations producing NT. Nested group (410-
440 ft bgs) Center of plume, retain to monitor
centerline area of high concentration.
Delineates plume to the west, upgradient of plume-
front, decreasing trend, part of nested group (443-
473 ft bgs) statistically below MCL. Retain to monitor
shallow center of plume.
Delineates plume to the east, south of MW-128A.
Decreasing trend, statistically below MCL,
recommended or removal as redundant. Retain to
define plume to east.
Upgradient Source OU well, defines western edge of
plume, stable trend, statistically below MCL. Retain
to delineate plume.
Upgradient historic high concentration well in Source
OU, above MCL, monitors eastern edge of Source
OU and due north of Muscoy OU. Variable
concentration trend.
Upgradient historic low concentration well,
statistically below MCL, non-detect in 2000, but
probably increasing trend, recommended for
removal, retain to monitor possible spread of plume
to west from high concentration area at MW-132A.
Monitors border between Source OU and Muscoy
OU, downgradient of high concentration MW-132A,
but apparently not affected. Statistically below MCL
with only one detection (?). Retain at low sample
frequency to monitor possible spread of plume to
shallow area near Shandlin Hills.
Most downgradient location Muscoy OU, plume-front
well, statistically below MCL, but probably increasing
trend. Retain to monitor capture zone.
Downgradient plume-front well, decreasing trend,
retain to monitor center of Muscoy plume-front.
Downgradient plume-front well, no trend, retain to
monitor Muscoy plume-front.
Downgradient plume-front well, no trend, retain to
monitor Muscoy plume-front.
Final Recommendation
SemiAnnual
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Biennial
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Future
Consideration
Semi-annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Biennial
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Notes:
1. Mann Kendall trend for PCE 1999-2007. D = Decreasing, PD = Probably Decreasing, S = Stable, NT = No Trend, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing, ND = Non-detect.
2. Well concentration is statistically below MCL for PCE (5 ppb) using the Sequential T-Test hypothesis testing algorithm assuming (log-normal distribution). NC = Insufficient data.
3. Power analysis with (y=0.8) indicates well concentration is concentration is statistically below MCL with very high confidence (assuming log-normal distribution).
4. Average Slope Factor (SF) for PCE 2000-2007. SF is a measure of the importance of a well in the network. Low SF wells are candidates for removal.
5. MAROS recommends wells for removal if the SF is below 0.25, the area ratio loss is below 80% and the concentration ratio loss is below 90%.
6. The MAROS Preliminary Sample Frequency is the sample frequency based on the rate of concentration change and the concentration trend at the well.
7. The qualitative review is based on an anlysis of non-statistical factors, such as monitoring objectives and hydrogeologic factors.
8. The Final Recommendation is based on a combination between the statistical results and the qualitative review.
9. Future Recommendations are possible changes to the monitoring program if trends continue as they are now. Consider reviewing the network after 2-3 years.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 3
TABLE 9
LINES OF EVIDENCE SUMMARY RESULTS: 1999-2007
MUSCOY OU INTERMEDIATE ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
EW-108
EW-108PB
EW-109
EW-109PZB
EW-110
EW-110PZC
EW-110PZD
EW-111
EW-111PZB
EW-1 1 1 PZC
Mann-Kendall
Trend PCE
1999-2007
I
s
D
NT
D
NT
I
D
NT
I
Below
MCL?2
V
V
Below MCL
with High
Power3
Average
Slope
Factor PCE
0.12
0.57
0.24
0.24
0.13
0.13
0.07
0.12
0.08
0.12
MAROS
Recommends
for Removal
V
V
V
V
V
V
MAROS
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Qualitative Evaluation
Extraction well, west of Newmark OU, also part of
Muscoy OU, part of nested group, increasing trend,
monitor as part of remedy effectiveness
determination.
Monitors extraction well, eastern part of Muscoy
OU, deepest well in nested group, stable trend,
statistically below MCL, delineates depth and
eastern extent of Muscoy OU.
Extraction well, eastern part of Muscoy OU, part of
nested group, statistically below MCL, monitor as
part of remedy effectiveness determination.
Monitors extraction well, eastern part of Muscoy
OU, part of nested group (430-350 ft bgs), no trend,
monitor as part of remedy effectiveness
determination.
Extraction well on from plume-front, decreasing
trend, Part of nested group. Recommended for
removal, retained to monitor remedy effectiveness.
Monitors extraction well on from plume-front, no
trend, concentrations have what may be cyclic
pattern, historic high concentrations. Part of nested
group. Recommended for removal, retained to
monitor remedy effectiveness and possible
increasing trends in this area.
Monitors extraction well on from plume-front,
increasing overall trend, but possible recent
decreasing trend, historic high concentrations. Part
of nested group. Recommended for removal,
retained to monitor remedy effectiveness and
possible increasing trends in this area.
Extraction well in center of downgradient plume,
decreasing trend, recommended for removal, but
retained to monitor remedy effectiveness.
Monitors extraction well in center of downgradient
plume, no trend, part of nest (375 - 395 ft bgs)
where well below shows increasing trend,
recommended for removal, but retained to monitor
remedy effectiveness.
Monitors extraction well in center of downgradient
plume, strong increasing trend, part of nest (456 -
476 ft bgs), recommended for removal, but retained
to monitor remedy effectiveness.
Final Recommendation
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Future
Consideration
Semi-annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
See notes end of table.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 2 of 3
TABLE 9
LINES OF EVIDENCE SUMMARY RESULTS: 1999-2007
MUSCOY OU INTERMEDIATE ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
EW-112
EW-112PB
MUNI-101
MUNI-104B
MUNI-108
MUNI-116
MW-128B
MW-128C
MW-129B
MW-130B
Mann-Kendall
Trend PCE
1999-2007
D
PD
S
NT
ND*
NT
ND
S
I
D
Below
MCL?2
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Below MCL
with High
Power3
V
V
V
V
Average
Slope
Factor PCE
0.37
0.37
0.28
0.38
0.42
0.18
0.03
0.03
0.23
0.68
MAROS
Recommends
for Removal
V
V
MAROS
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Qualitative Evaluation
Extraction well western part of downgradient plume,
decreasing trend, statistically clean, but retained to
monitor remedy effectiveness and western extent of
plume.
Monitors extraction well western part of
downgradient plume, probably decreasing trend,
statistically below MCL, but retained to monitor
remedy effectiveness and western extent of plume.
Farthest downgradient well, statistically below MCL,
delineates southern extent of plume, stable trend.
Current annual monitoring. Retain to as delineation
well and to monitor effectiveness of capture zone.
Monitors center of plume, western edge, no trend,
occasional detections above MCL., retain to monitor
spread of plume on western edge.
Western delineation well, only one detection,
statistically clean, retain for delineation purposes.
Western delineation well, occasional detections,
statistically below MCL, retain for delineation
purposes.
Part of nested group (690-720 ft bgs), non-detect
location but high concentrations found in shallow
zone above. Recommended for removal, retain at
lower frequency to monitor possible vertical spread
of plume.
Part of nested group (860-890 ft bgs), non-detect
location but high concentrations found in shallow
zone above. Recommended for removal, retain at
lower frequency to monitor possible vertical spread
of plume.
Delineates plume to the west, upgradient of plume-
Front, increasing trend overall, but decreasing
recent trend, part of nested group (730-760 ft bgs).
Retain to monitor intermediate zone, center of
plume.
Eastern area, upgradient of plume-front.
Decreasing trend, part of nested group (550-580 ft
bgs).
Final Recommendation
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Future
Consideration
Annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
See notes end of table.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 3 of 3
TABLE 9
LINES OF EVIDENCE SUMMARY RESULTS: 1999-2007
MUSCOY OU INTERMEDIATE ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
MW-130C
MW-131B
MW-131C
MW-132B
MW-133B
MW-136A
MW-136B
MW-137B
MW-138B
MW-139B
MW-140B
MW-140C
Mann-Kendall
Trend PCE
1999-2007
ND*
PD
D
D
S
NT
NT
ND*
ND
ND
S
S
Below
MCL?2
V
NC
NC
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Below MCL
with High
Power3
V
NC
NC
V
V
V
Average
Slope
Factor PCE
0.68
0.07
0.07
0.23
0.29
0.03
0.02
0.48
0.36
0.45
0.20
0.10
MAROS
Recommends
for Removal
V
V
V
V
MAROS
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Qualitative Evaluation
Eastern area, upgradient of plume-front. One
detection, statistically clean, part of nested group
(890-920 ft bgs).
Upgradient location in Source OU, delineates
western edge, not sampled since 2004 and
recommended for removal. Sample periodically to
monitor edge of plume in Source OU.
Upgradient location in Source OU, delineates
western edge, not sampled since 2004 and
recommended for removal. Sample periodically to
monitor edge of plume in Source OU.
Upgradient location in Source OU, decreasing
trend, statistically below MCL.
Location at southern edge of Source OU, shallow
nested well has high concentrations, intermediate
depth shows intermittent detections, stable trend,
statistically below MCL. Monitoring consistent with
MW-133A to delineate vertically.
Delineates southern part of Muscoy OU, two
detections, statistically below MCL, recommended
For removal but retained to delineate plume and
monitor efficacy of remedy.
Delineates southern part of Muscoy OU, only two
PCE detections, statistically below MCL, retained to
delineate plume and monitor efficacy of remedy.
Farthest downgradient well, statistically clean,
delineates southern extent of plume, only one PCE
detection. Retain to as delineation well and to
monitor effectiveness of capture zone.
Southern delineation well, retain to confirm plume
containment.
Southern delineation well, retain to confirm plume
containment.
Plume centerline well, stable trend, hitoric high
concentrations. Part of nested group, monitor to
assess high concentration center area of plume.
Plume centerline well, stable trend, hitoric high
concentrations. Part of nested group, monitor to
assess high concentration center area of plume.
Final Recommendation
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Future
Consideration
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Wofes;
1. Mann Kendall trend for PCE 1999-2007. D = Decreasing, PD = Probably Decreasing, S = Stable, NT = No Trend, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing, ND = Non-detect, ND* = one detection.
2. Well concentration is statistically below MCL for PCE (5 ppb) using the Sequential T-Test hypothesis testing algorithm assuming (log-normal distribution). NC = Insufficient data.
3. Power analysis with (y=0.8) indicates well concentration is concentration is statistically below MCL with very high confidence (assuming log-normal distribution).
4. Average Slope Factor (SF) for PCE 2000-2007. SF is a measure of the importance of a well in the network. Low SF wells are candidates for removal.
5. MAROS recommends wells for removal if the SF is below 0.25, the area ratio loss is below 80% and the concentration ratio loss is below 90%.
6. The MAROS Preliminary Sample Frequency is the sample frequency based on the rate of concentration change and the concentration trend at the well.
7. The qualitative review is based on an analysis of non-statistical factors, such as monitoring objectives and hydrogeologic factors.
8. The Final Recommendation is based on a combination between the statistical results and the qualitative review.
9. Future Recommendations are possible changes to the monitoring program if trends continue as they are now. Consider reviewing the network after 2-3 years.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 10
LINES OF EVIDENCE SUMMARY RESULTS: 1999-2007
MUSCOY OU DEEP ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
EW-109PZC
EW-110PZE
EW-111PZD
MW-129C
MW-135B
MW-135C
MW-136C
MW-137C
MW-138C
MW-139C
Mann-Kendall
Trend PCE
1999-2007
NT
NT
D
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND
ND*
ND
ND
Below
MCL?2
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Below MCL
with High
Power3
V
V
V
V
V
V
Average
Slope
Factor
PCE
0.32
0.29
0.25
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.10
0.05
0.00
MAROS
Recommends
for Removal
V
V
V
V
V
MAROS
Preliminary
Sample
Frequency
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Qualitative Evaluation
Monitors extraction well, deep zone east Muscoy
OU, part of nested group, no trend with irrtermitterv
ND, statistically below MCL, monitor as part of
remedy effectiveness determination.
Monitors extraction well, deep zone Muscoy OU,
part of nested group, no trend with intermittent ND,
statistically clean, monitor as part of remedy
effectiveness determination.
Monitors extraction well, deep zone Muscoy OU,
part of nested group, decreasing trend with
intermittent ND, monitor as part of remedy
effectiveness determination.
Most upgradient deep zone well, single detection,
statistically below MCL, recommended for removal.
Retained to delineate vertical extent of affected
groundwater in deep zone.
Downgradient western monitoring location near
Muscoy, only one detcetion, close to non-detect,
statistically clean, identified as spatially redundant.
Retained as downgradient point of compliance
Downgradient western monitoring location near
Muscoy, only one detcetion, close to non-detect,
statistically clean, identified as spatially redundant.
Retained as downgradient point of compliance
location.
Delineation well (ND) in southern plume-front, deep
zone. Recommended for removal, retain as point
of compliance.
Delineation well (ND) in southern plume-front, deep
zone. Recommended for removal, retain as point
of compliance.
Delineation well (ND) in southern plume-front, deep
zone. Retain as point of compliance.
Delineation well (ND) in southern plume-front, deep
zone. Retain as point of compliance.
Final
Recommendation
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Future
Consideration
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Notes:
1. Mann Kendall trend for PCE 1999-2007. D = Decreasing, PD = Probably Decreasing, S= Stable, NT = No Trend, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing, ND = Non-detect, ND*= one detection.
2. Well concentration is statistically below MCL for PCE (5 ppb) using the Sequential T-Test hypothesis testing algorithm assuming (log-normal distribution). NC = Insufficient data.
3. Power analysis with (y=0.8) indicates well concentration is concentration is statistically below MCL with very high confidence (assuming log-normal distribution).
4. Average Slope Factor (SF) for PCE 2000-2007. SF is a measure of the importance of a well in the network. Low SF wells are candidates for removal.
5. MAROS recommends wells for removal if the SF is below 0.25, the area ratio loss is below 80% and the concentration ratio loss is below 90%.
6. The MAROS Preliminary Sample Frequency is the sample frequency based on the rate of concentration change and the concentration trend at the well.
7. The qualitative review is based on an analysis of non-statistical factors, such as monitoring objectives and hydrogeologic factors.
8. The Final Recommendation is based on a combination between the statistical results and the qualitative review.
9. Future Recommendations are possible changes to the monitoring program if trends continue as they are now. Consider reviewing the network after 2-3 years.
10. Wells MW-135 B and C are included in the Newmark OU Deep Zone analysis, as well.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 11
FINAL MONITORING NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Newmark Site, San Bernardino, California
Wells Recommended for Biennial Monitoring
Source OU
Newmark OU
Muscoy OU
All Depths
Shallow Zone
Intermediate Zone
Deep Zone
Shallow Zone
Intermediate Zone
Deep Zone
CJ-1
MWCOE002
MW02A
MW06B
(None)
MW-134
MW-131B
(None)
CJ-13
MWCOE005
MW03A
MW03B
MW-129A
MW-1 31 C
CJ-1 4
MWCOE007
MW04A
MW02B
MUNI-109
MW-132B
CJ-1A
MWCOE008
MW05A
MUNI-104A
MWCOE001A
MWCOE009
MW06A
MW17A
Wells Recommended for Annual Monitoring
Source OU
Newmark OU
Muscoy OU
All Depths
Shallow Zone
Intermediate Zone
Deep Zone
Shallow Zone
Intermediate Zone
Deep Zone
CJ-11
CJ-8
MW16A
MUNI-01
MW17B
MW05B
EW-7PA
MW-1 1 B
MW-133A
MUNI-102
MW-133B
MUNI-116
(None)
CJ-12
MWCOE003
MW08A
EW-6PA
MW11A
MW04B
MW-1 1 C
MW-1 31 A
MW-130C
MUNI-108
CJ-2
MWCOE006
MUNI-13
MW10B
MUNI-24
MW-130A
MW-1 SOB
MUNI-101
CJ-7
MUNI-11A
MW10A
MUNI-22
MW-127B
MW-129B
MUNI-09B
MW08B
MUNI-18
MW-127A
MW-128C
MUNI-07B
MW07B
MUNI-07C
MUNI-103
MW-128B
Wells Recommended for Semi-annual Monitoring
Source OU
Newmark OU
Muscoy OU
All Depths
Shallow Zone
Intermediate Zone
Deep Zone
Shallow Zone
Intermediate Zone
Deep Zone
CJ-10
MWCOE001 B
MW14A
EW-6
MW16B
MW09B
EW-5PB
EW-3
MUNI-11C
MW14C
MW-132A
EW-112PA
MUNI-104B
EW-1 1 1 PZB
MW-136B
EW-108PB
MW-129C
MW-136C
CJ-15
MWCOE004
MW12A
EW-5PA
MW15A
MUNI-14
EW-1 08
EW-3PB
MW10C
MW15B
MW-128A
EW-111PZA
EW-109PZB
EW-111PZC
MW-137B
EW-1 12
MW-135C
EW-111PZD
CJ-1 6
MW09A
EW-4PA
MW14B
MUNI-09C
EW-108PB
EW-4
MW12C
EW-4PB
MW-139A
EW-110PZB
EW-1 10
EW-1 09
MW-138B
MW-135B
EW-110PZE
CJ-1 7
MW07A
EW-3PA
MW13B
EW-1 PA
EW-1 PB
EW-1
MW-135B
MW-138A
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZC
EW-112PB
MW-139B
MW-139C
EW-109PZC
CJ-3
MUNI-16
EW-2PA
MW13A
EW-2
EW-5
MW-135C
MW-137A
EW-109PZA
EW-110PZD
MW-140C
MW-140B
MW-138C
CJ-6
EW-7
EW-108PA
MW12B
EW-2PB
MW15C
MW13C
MW-135A
EW-108PA
EW-1 1 1
MW-136A
EW-1 08
MW-137C
Notes: Lines of evidence supporting monitoring recommendations for each well are shown on Tables 3-6 and Tables 8-10.
-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
NEWMARK, MUSCOY AND SOURCE OU
NEWMARK SUPERFUND SITE
San Bernardino, California
FIGURES
Figure 1 Newmark Superfund Site, Operable Units and Monitoring Locations
Figure 2 Source OU PCE Average Concentrations, First Moments and Mann Kendall
Trends 1999-2007
Figure 3 Source OU Well Sufficiency Results PCE
Figure 4 Newmark OU Shallow Zone PCE Average Concentrations, First Moments and
Mann Kendall Trends 1999-2007
Figure 5 Newmark OU Shallow Zone Well Sufficiency Results PCE
Figure 6 Newmark OU Intermediate Zone PCE Average Concentrations, First Moments
and Mann Kendall Trends 1999-2007
Figure 7 Newmark OU Intermediate Zone Well Sufficiency Results PCE
Figure 8 Newmark OU Deep Zone PCE Average Concentrations, First Moments and
Mann Kendall Trends 1999-2007
Figure 9 Newmark OU Deep Zone Well Sufficiency Results PCE
Figure 10 Muscoy OU Shallow Zone PCE Average Concentrations, First Moments and
Mann Kendall Trends 1999-2007
Figure 11 Muscoy OU Shallow Zone Well Sufficiency Results PCE
Figure 12 Muscoy OU Intermediate Zone PCE Average Concentrations, First Moments
and Mann Kendall Trends 1999-2007
Figure 13 Muscoy OU Intermediate Zone Well Sufficiency Results PCE
Figure 14 Muscoy OU Deep Zone PCE Average Concentrations, First Moments and
Mann Kendall Trends 1999-2007
Figure 15 Muscoy OU Deep Zone Well Sufficiency Results PCE
-------
ss\ "' ''"' ' •••••• •'•"'"
MUNM112 \ .<;
^^^^ — ^b "' " '
^^^ '%^ P »« 1
" \ "" V
\ ™*,^™-™c 1 — MWCOE007
\ MWCOE005 — i \
\ i — CJ-1-7
\ CJ^O MWCOE006
; \ CJ-10 • * ' \ '
\ CJ-1A LMWCOE009\
\ CJ-90 • y" • MWCOE004jv
\ / CJ-1 0 » 0 MWCOE008V
\ CJ-16 — ' CJ-6^ ^>V
\ CJ-30 0CJ-11 X,
\ CJ-7 • m ^ *i MWCOE002.
\ * ^TM? • V, CJ'13
\ CJ-2 r ^V. A «
\ ,-,„,, ^ CJ-1 5 ^V. * MUNI-01 '
\ ' ^"X^ • ''r
t
"/H '''*
S
"
,— ' MW02A
MW02B
\ MWCOE003J MWCQE*A •/""* JX. :S-]rMW04A
\ MWCOE001B * ^ ^Sw ' MW04B
';" , ' " ' /d ,*?
,*'• •; '> ' - ~
, "' l ' '"* ... ' .,,''• !
"' " ' !l ' '
' ' ,1 ' 1 ~ '
' ' * !"t! ^f!<>, J . '
/ \ « *?; . , ' ,
"\ " ' ^
, 't •' », |'
- - ' '•• 'i ' '"" !'« \t".i*
• < ' i „,, ' ^^ ' ,' ' " ; ' , '/o
.'""'-'•' >', ' •'"
!- J '*' > » ' ' '' '( " ''
,">','. ""'-'' ' '
m\ " ' ',' ' . ' £' > '" J' *:' "
' , V' ' " ' • '
' ! ' ' 'Wl-( ^ V < , '*«
\ MW-1260 ^V MW06A_ I || r~ .MW05A__ ' " , ,,"
\ i " MW06B
\ MW-127A MW08A_
\ MW-131A A MW-127B MW08B»P ..,.,,,,.
\ MW-131B * SSlP
• 'in I MW05B "•
•Ir 1 1 IVIVWWLJ
'yWl-L MW17A '' -
^•••MW17B
• •" ' ;» ., - -
'" '" ' ,'," ''<;
'-, •' /'•i-' i
\ MW-131CA\ •, MW07B" EW-7p J-MW16A MUNI-07A
\ MW-132A EW-7PA- fl ™"|A MUNI-07B •• , . •„.,,-•
\ MW-132BA\ L-- .-' -, • „." MUNI-07CP , ,..,
\ /
\ MUNI-116 MW-133A MW-134
\ A " MW-133B A ^f
V ' * r ' v
, ' '
«•
rl_ "" MUNI-109
A
* MW-140A MW-128A-
MW-140B ..MW-128B
MW-140C A MW-128C
MUNI-108
A MUNI-107 A
/ \
MW-129A — i
MW-129B
MW-129C
MUNI-104A
MUNI-104B^
^K*
• • *, "" ^ .. MUNI-103 " ^
A ""
„ ' - ' A &
EW-112
" " * '" '- " . "" EW-112PA A
•M'm * ' ~ EW-112PB^
: -3," ,_•". MUNI-102 A ••
MW-139A ^
MW-139B "W-"
MW-139C MW-13
MW-13
f c " "•
MW-13
cuv-o
EW-6PA •MW09A
'-.-. , MW09B
'•',, ,'>' '' -, , .- '-•'
• , . "'** i- '
i' •.,''*
t < ;-
-i i — EW-111
EW-1 11 PZA
EW-111PZB
EW-111PZC
EW-111PZD
MUNI-18
IBl
•
• MUNI-09A
MUNI-09B
MUNI-09C
"" • , '" : •
MUNI-11A ' ! « . , ,""
.. • " JMUNI-HB , . ,;" .
Ml INI 11 P f ' '
IVIUIMI- I I W !: <
| .'
MUNI-16 I
MU!^14 ""uNI-13
• *• 1
1 "WAS
• • 1
i " * .1
MWniA M\M)1F 1
MUNI-20 ' _ MW01B MW01G
1 MIS « fl =§ :r; = ^
MW-130C MW-135A
A . MW-135B
MW-135C
EW-109 — i '•
EW-1 09PZA
EW-,1 09PZB EW-1 08
EW-109PZC EW-108PA
EW-108PB
& \ |
/4\ /5^ A EW-1
/__ ^l ~." "
EW-1 P
^ &. • ' r n EW-1 P
* ' f ^ '- L/l
3B MW-136A * HP
3C ' MW-136B MW12A
. .. ' . MW-136C M™ *£
IVIVV I£D ,
yA MW12C
-' - - KS- L^-no ' "•"•««
* IVIVV-l^/U c\A/iincv7A FW-9P1
™ - EW-1 1 0 PZA cvv. ^ r
fc' MiiMi^n^ * ** BA/-110PZB EW-2P
MUNI-101 — !, _ ^^^^^
«?( ' ^
f IB
' r 1-
'* 1 EW-110PZD MW
MW01E MW01J , ' », »
1
MW10A MUN|-22 .
MW10B •! ' ,- J-
MW10C MUNI-24
r
-------
\-" -JK v_^ '<*-• "Viw M!^^
V •"*-'""' 4""^^:<*/'
V.'1 • '• ••'.. ±m i'too
=B: r™V
-h-A A ^4fcoEoo\ 'Pl
=-h^^^WCOE00\
A ^^ /
CJ-1A ^A ^ A' \.
T^ / •: t+= -j— MWCOEOOS ^^
/c,,.U* /1?..-V \'
'.
Predominant Groundwater
Flow Direction
Wv~ Wi. ''•
-.'• ..-/•' •>-:. -• •••••wt-*.--srr^.:*pJSfr . ; i• ..
t> • ^ ^ • ••'L, • • ^^
*.. v ••*-.• - **tf/j--•.:• f .-••>i
^ "-f
^,:X :^/feB^.f,:|
••; • •? -v- >, ^jjieiF'jx
'V, -- *f
/' /I fi
u -•" -C-
;" ^^^H 7/v2oo^
^^^ ,?
5 ^^+-\ 7/1/2000
^^ \
^^ \ -I IM ll\f\f\ A
"r •••>,..
cj-8 k^1:^
oi
tS •»-! - - *" ••'
- ¥'
• ¥
j B---^1--
r
* "V
^1 I
MW-127A I 1 I | *
. 'I
\
: A r M
Predominant Groundwater MWISIA |—•
F/ow Direction .7-,- L .
"* - i ^':
- -'
I : i . .
•
\
\ - &&
\ '* '
\ ••••• \ j'rtj__i^^.. J
•
• a
Legend
Average PCE Concentration [mg/L]
A ND-0.001
A 0.001 - 0.005
A 0.005-0.01
A 0.01 - 0.02
A 0.02-0.0357
EPA MCL for PCE = 0.005 mg/L
Mann Kendall Trend PCE
• Decreasing
• Probably Decreasing
O Stable
• Probably Increasing
• Increasing
Non Detect (1999-2006)
No Trend
Insufficient Data
PCE First Moments
O First Moments PCE
(Effective Date of
Moment Indicated)
Notes:
1. Average PCE concentrations calculated
using lowest detection limit substituted
for ND values. Data 1999-2007.
2. First Moments a re the center of mass
for PCE using annually consolidated data.
3. Mann Kendall trends were determined
for PCE 1999-2007.
4. Some wells in the shallow Muscoy and
Newmark OUs are shown, as well.
Scale (ft)
^t±
0 1,200 2,400
SOURCE OU
PCE AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS,
FIRST MOMENTS AND
MANN-KENDALL TRENDS
1999-2007
San Bernadino, California
Coord Sys.
NAD 83 SP Cal. V
Drawn By:
COM
Chk'd By:
MV
Appv'd By:
21-AUG-07
Map ID:
FIGURE 2
-------
Issued: 28-AUG-07
Figure 3
Source OU
Well Sufficiency Results PCE
NORTH
1895000.0-
1894000.0-
1893000.0-
1892000.0-
1891000.0-
1890000.0-
1889000.0-
1888000.0-
1887000.0-
1886000.0-
1885000.0-
6750
^ jyiwcoEoos
JP"03"! N """"--t^.
M / SX i =• MWCOE006
/ ^(e-J-T "^ °y ^/\
// ^^_2^^r-crKMx
\ / XV^""^^\-.XcfioN^OE004
* M / \ ^X 1 "~"~ — ^\\
^^"Z. s S x^-^M ^(i MWCOEuD^C^T^
X ' "^ CJ-.2. X ^^feji-fl^X ^^
Sc^ui.^ s ^^^>\\x
^^-^ — — *!^^^\\
"^^^^ -^^X^I/COEOOIB
^^^•x ^X
^ NA\
^^ s \^\
"""-^ \
^^ N^x
""\\
"^ MW-127B
New Location
Analysis for
rETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Existing
Locations
Potential areas for
new locations are
indicated by triangles
with a high SF level.
Estimated SF Level:
S - Small
M - Moderate
L - Large
E- Extremely large
High SF-> high
estimation error ->
possible need for
new locations
Low SF -> low
estimation error ->
no need for new
locations
S N
Back to
Access
V J
EAST
DOO.O 6751000.0 6752000.0 6753000.0 6754000.0 6755000.0 6756000.0 6757000.0 6758000.0 6759000.0
-------
.••
Predominant Groundwater
. I— MWOSA •!; ,Jri, MWO-
M i .1 ,''i' '' •
•: (X1
s... • :irt ,; i v -"^
^;-.i-T^'^
^r*
- -•
. f,.. ,-.. •
• ' -
1.
t V
^ r
^
tfePffi '
"
\,
'i"* "*
. »
, ..
ll-; • ;,' i T:- ^v
SLW*fc--=5b3iHP'^ L
, - y 1- " — .-*•
,:, ,
VfL.I. --^^ = --*\*
'
..=
I ' „.
i ! -V-fr
. 4 ' ' • '-iiiri^
- : * . ( i-4 K
—__• -,,-. — .!
-—4- wr •
-
t4 ": !•• •"1-'(^ ;i
:-* —
J EW-4PA -
EW-2PA —i
T^EW,PA. v^IJ^^T
i^m-fo V:i j];^ -
4 A -..,"-
: i~^ - "j • \ • i i ..
li^ii!i*.4^ii
- t---
• ' 1 ljHr"i
11 H • . i
. • I pl - •.•!--
,,i_L_., j.v .
". •
'
H MW08A
{- life-'.-?:-: d>K HMW7
V_£: * J •• 1 «vi7A
MW07A u MW04A rf -"^H MW16A
"7"P7VH
y *
S1—| MW09A • j|J
.J
• ^-T-'r J
! ? ^"\.i^:
, ^-, :^-;fj
ift" :- M -7j I"' • J
VV
-I ft ,-' V
i7?r • »
s
>r
J-y ^
^ | ,-
«
HWl«i
™999
i— MUNI-16
)
•*•'••
Predominant Groundwater
Flow Direction
-^' - i
__ .___ " ,•", " I
;.%>V . ^ i^i't '(
^Vl '
-
.- - WT
H-| MUNI-13
. . _ - Ll!i _ ^J
" 'I "•••.-, ,--- FT -
c.
•- ;i^'-^^;-y:
r?lT..K:iWM •
;,4T ^
. '
-
: , .,,
>-,: •'
'.v;:
. -
Legend
Average PCE Concentration [mg/L]
A ND-0.001
A 0.001 - 0.005
A 0.005-0.01
A 0.01 - 0.02
A 0.02-0.0357
EPA MCL for PCE = 0.005 mg/L
Mann Kendall Trend PCE
• Decreasing
• Probably Decreasing
O Stable
• Probably Increasing
• Increasing
Non Detect (1999-2006)
No Trend
Insufficient Data
PCE First Moments
O First Moments PCE
(Effective Date of
Moment Indicated)
Notes:
1. Average PCE concentrations calculated
using lowest detection limit substituted
for ND values. Data 1999-2007.
2. First Moments are the center of mass
for PCE using annually consolidated data.
3. Mann Kendall trends were determined
for PCE 1999-2007.
Scale (ft)
^•=
0 1,600 3,200
NEWMARK OU SHALLOW ZONE
PCE AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS,
FIRST MOMENTS AND
MANN-KENDALL TRENDS
1999-2007
San Bernadino, California
Coord Sys.
NAD83SPCal. V FT
Drawn By:
COM
Chk'd By:
MV
Appv'd By:
21-AUG-07
Map ID:
FIGURE 4
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
Figure 5
Newmark OU Shallow Zone
Well Sufficiency Results PCE
NORTH
1890000.0-
1885000.0 -
1880000.0-
1875000.0-
1870000.0-
1865000.0-
1 Rfinnnn n -
X ~"~ ^Hf^M ~M __7_J~ "^^?S^"B MUNI-07B
^ \ ^-^r~~~~~~-— — l:x
X \ . --.», ~" — -^ MUNI-11A
X \ \ -^ M A
" \ \ ----,
\ \ "^--, '• V
\ \ \ /n~^i
sx N x M / >\ *
'' / \
\ X\ / / r
"- \N / \
\ \\ / M / /
SX \\ /' / M /
Xx\X / 1 '
X ""==:=:: = =:*l__ / 1
^"^. ~m~~"~ M~ —s'i_fi__™vi!p* cw°pA
New Location
Analysis for
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PC
Existing
Locations
Potential areas for
new locations are
indicated by triangles
w ith a high SF level.
Estimated SF Level:
S - Small
M - Moderate
L - Large
E - Extremely large
High SF-> high
estimation error ->
possible need for
new locations
Low SF -> low
estimation error ->
no need for new
locations
Back to
Access
V J
6762000.0 6764000.0 6766000.0 6768000.0 6770000.0 6772000.0 6774000.0 6776000.0 6778000.0 6780000.0 6782000.0
-------
I
MW06B |—|
~T
':A^FH-
r; f-•
MW07B
:•..
.
P*
.5^
.•
rfJ5
'•--
-
.,'
J
f+.
••li
•... . €.
J_dUP.
V
",-•.- .-.••
" i
:T
-.
"M
':;-V ;
"..
\ _
i
Predominant Groundwater
Flow Direction
•
•-•
' ..•'
. ;
•
f. • -M
IA
^ iH( • ::,'- "fr:- ^v
,. .--rr^S ' J ^-.-X*
JLuNI-18 ..
n-,->- S3 *• , ••'.'
% * r^.i
a • ' -..:.v--ji i;. -p : . i • -j.i"
j' MW10A
4r^i™rJ
MW10B I-
1
--• I
'
A
B, '• » !
-:"
"5-1 "ii -V1^.
•
"^^""'tP 1' i "• -Si-i ]
jNi-22_;.. ' ! ii"^ .1 !'
11-24 >i-«iiV> ,
;^ I • , ^ . j -
Effi
".i -£^: •" -q-
•
!-:
-
frjirjit • Lj?
il^.0:r/^*.<
,---^-"- !•- -
I. .
Predominant Groundwater
Flow Direction
h?*^
.- .l-|MW16B
SP
*111^*. Lj ,,wncm
. • y -.if-
• '
vm
•,. •• I • ._ . •
-•'V. ,'.-
j. i*. r.- _ -fT-f .• -i
-••
-II.; H
•T- • •' .
./
»-f • ••'~™tt
'.
*^* » i
i^I
"V^i'v?^1
k , ^w^'j j
"-
-
• i-S
i ... K
'•- ~
• v h
r^r*- ~^:-
"tfluBV
. -
^ '-.r;^,.
,
:
........ [ ., MWUB— = :
-VTu- '^TT^jy ^:,: ^ ; ' ' . ^
Legend
Average PCE Concentration [mg/L]
A ND-0.001
A 0.001 - 0.005
A 0.005-0.01
A 0.01 - 0.02
A 0.02-0.0357
EPA MCL for PCE = 0.005 mg/L
Mann Kendall Trend PCE
• Decreasing
• Probably Decreasing
O Stable
• Probably Increasing
• Increasing
Non Detect (1999-2006)
No Trend
Insufficient Data
PCE First Moments
O First Moments
(Effective Date of
Moment Indicated)
Notes:
1. Average PCE concentrations calculated
using lowest detection limit substituted
for ND values. Data 1999-2007.
2. First Moments are the center of mass
for PCE using annually consolidated data.
3. Mann Kendall trends were determined
for PCE 1999-2007.
Scale (ft)
^1=
0 1,600 3,200
NEWMARK OU INTERMEDIATE ZONE
PCE AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS,
FIRST MOMENTS
MANN-KENDALL TRENDS
1999-2007
San Bernadino, California
:oord.Sys. NAD 83 Sp Ca|. y FT
Drawn By:
COM
Chk'd By:
MV
Appv'd By:
21-AUG-07
Map ID:
FIGURE 6
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
NORTH
1895000.0
1890000.0-
1885000.0-
1880000.0-
1875000.0-
1870000.0-
1865000.0-
1860000.0
Figure 7
Newmark OU Intermediate Zone
Well Sufficiency Results PCE
'<*-.-..
»"• [y] ^_ ~ "• IVIUINI-U/^
'"^-Mwgggr — — M ^MUNl-09C
x \ ^
\ \ \ M "X » \\
\ ^ \ x \ it JVi
\ ^ \ Vi^-r-1*^
\ \ \ > high
estimation error ->
possible need for
new locations
Low SF -> low
estimation error ->
no need for new
locations
Back to
Access
6750000.0
6755000.0
6760000.0
6765000.0
6770000.0
6775000.0
6780000.0
EAST
6785000.0
-------
;--^.J :•€ XL
-^; ^r, •' ?K
Predominant Groundwater
Flow Direction
..--,-, V'p1
-
on
-^
._ , ..
.._ i* ..
-,' •.. • ;i ? 'I i !
.
£. '
i =!
I .\- •
:-••
'£.' ,•
- ,
• :v
.-i
~ ., •--"
'••-4li QJ. t . M »
'V/,-':
.
'
> 1 MW11B
VV^ 1 MW11C '
«^
•
'
_::-•. :.{t,l_Mt
n»4» ' ' i "
• . '
irrrj--;- -7*^".
EW-5PB ._. -
_ -.^:^. -^-! ' -Jr. . . .fa-^^T-'T -^•••1
i . -'"^ OJMWiVcp ',LJ MW15C
•™^L_V- ^ -r , P3MW14C "1 .-.-j
1 . "._-! ^1—>lf ' EW-4PB |—'U . J '. t_ 'i'i • • J ^P.^ .,
I*" '• t "" ' ."^1 "E '• t*i. . .'•. I V n i !• " •'! "'~.. . •". ._ . !'_'.'• ^ '•' •' - -
Predominant Groundwater
Flow Direction
r
i
; * -A
i.
;. .-
'
*c»*i
.!.:.• ' -.-,
.
»
'-
• ;..
:
.r
•
ii , ••
• ^TI
^TI
".* t ' . ! fr :
1 i . s.
EW-4
}-,.• IW--..J • f —|,MW15C
—TEW-4PB i--
^ •• M II ^^^^^•^••^ , ,, B jjj
/--i-r---tT-T^ gRi1^
' I. *. "'f ".. i . !
i ••'" — f:-i«' ' i |
' i •:----+ MW12C^
Ewi4=r-wr
Braty-fcS
EW 2PB |-
- _,
,\ ,v; • . A-' '-.
"• -*^t^— i' . V.™ - i -
• IL
—I MW13C
~t--- ..-..i-j^J -f-\ :\
Legend
Average PCE Concentration [mg/L]
A ND-0.001
A 0.001 - 0.005
A 0.005-0.01
A 0.01 - 0.02
A 0.02-0.0357
EPA MCL for PCE = 0.005 mg/L
Mann Kendall Trend PCE
• Decreasing
• Probably Decreasing
O Stable
• Probably Increasing
• Increasing
Non Detect (1999-2006)
No Trend
Insufficient Data
PCE First Moments
O First Moments
(Effective Date of
Moment Indicated)
Notes:
1. Average PCE concentrations calculated
using lowest detection limit substituted
for ND values. Data 1999-2007.
2. First Moments are the center of mass
for PCE using annually consolidated data.
3. Mann Kendall trends were determined
for PCE 1999-2007.
Scale (ft)
^t±
0 1,600 3,200
NEWMARK OU DEEP ZONE
PCE AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS,
FIRST MOMENTS AND
MANN-KENDALL TRENDS
1999-2007
San Bernadino, California
Coord Sys.
NAD83SPCal. V FT
Drawn By:
COM
Chk'd By:
MV
Appv'd By:
MV
21-AUG-07
Map ID:
FIGURE 8
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
Figure 9
Newmark OU Deep Zone
Well Sufficiency Results PCE
NORTH
1890000.0-
1885000.0-
1880000.0-
1875000.0-
1870000.0-
1865000.0 -
1 Rfinnnn n -
H
T» MW08B M _ MM1.|,w,«R
Nv — - _ f.mioMNU'iti
V — — -. M ^--i -•-,
V ~ — ~. x v» iwmsa
*\ """""— —-. N T """—-- ^ ~~ —->
^ "~~ "~ — -J^JLMW09B "~~~ — ~Cf~-~.
X\ \\ """"""""— -"-^-r^^ss-
N\ \\ ~~~^^
> \ » \ "~*'*»^1B MUNI-11C
\ \ 7
\\ \ ^ /\
\\ \ \ /
\ N \ Nx / \
\\ \ \ M /
XV \ \ N /I
\ \ \ \ / \
N \ V \ ' *
\ \ \ \ / *
\ sv \ \ /I
\ \ V \ ' l
\ \ N x. / \
\.\ \ , " \
\ \ \
\ \ \ N / »
X JI^-BAPISSPB M / /\V^ *
Area of greater spatial uncertainty. . ^^if^^/ll^^^
New Location
Analysis for
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Existing
Locations
Potential areas for
new locations are
indicated by triangles
w ith a high SF level.
Estimated SF Level:
S - Small
M - Moderate
L - Large
E- Extremely large
High SF -> high
estimation error ->
possible need for
new locations
Low SF -> low
estimation error ->
no need for new
locations
Back to
Access
V J
6762000.0 6764000.0 6766000.0 6768000.0 6770000.0 6772000.0 6774000.0 6776000.0 6778000.0 6780000.0 6782000.0
-------
\
\ •• v
'•
i ..!.• L • . -i— ——an | J tVi&r^ ^'-'.i \
• r *
.,-•' V \ j ;''l ? \
• • ,. 4. T ^^^
; .
T1 V 'Jr. MW „ jVt
— ,
MWCOE001B|-I
v *&'•-.
\<^?- 1 •, ; '
- TC ^ .*--:
> S\'
MWCOE001A \ ^SvS
\ ^S^'
'• m H«W-127AV S^_.
'•-. f
' i ' f
\ ^S^'
'• m H«W-127AV S^_. _
I — I MW-127B \_ ^^^_ J
r t: ^^
\ -tf^v- " ^^':-
1 i| MW,32A \
• •
I
-
•
,., .
-
I £ . j
f'-vP-.A ': •-• :
. ..„,„
Predominant Groundwater
Flow Direction
\ .m
V_ >_MUNI-104A|-| J.A J-JMW-130A ^
S:^''.j ^ :'j ^i:r "11.'' A
:• --f:-' ••..';. ...^ 2 I v-— ;-;^w.-
Groundwater A A: H B/VIKPA
'"I " H EW TJJ'F'ZA' • ~PST"1MPP
fv^nt-t-'0: '-•-.•••- , -"^ A fl "A A ^f" '•
r - ,£• ,^ • -Tj-,i.- * - n > --^ t^ • i. .^. T^g , gfegHH I r:L
MW-139AM" -WMW-I'SSA""
J EW-110PZA S.
;._MW_138Aj^ -.L)^,^.
JK: •-_ •-; J- MW-^A pi " ?-^.7^_
.- b" •• £ '/_
*%.
MWCOE003 I—I
MWCOE001A |—
MWCOE001B
' '
0.
MW-131A |—'
\ . •
\
X
> 7-± ^r-
*-^::K
- .:=v::;-.^
! -;\ .
i ::
-I MUNI-109
*LIU.M-.-« •
v
••• • tl
••
'•
.4
.•
_ ^. . MUNI-104A
8"-,u- i iA '
•"^ ..
• : -.
: r -.'- „- „. j.
'L- ^ - •-
Predominant Groundwater
m.
Legend
Average PCE Concentration [mg/L]
A ND-0.001
A 0.001 - 0.005
A 0.005-0.01
A 0.01 - 0.02
A 0.02-0.0357
EPA MCL for PCE = 0.005 mg/L
Mann Kendall PCE
Decreasing
Probably Decreasing
Stable
Probably Increasing
Increasing
Non Detect (1999-2006)
No Trend
Insufficient Data
PCE First Moments
O First Moments
(Effective Date of
Moment Indicated)
Notes:
1. Average PCE concentrations calculated
using lowest detection limit substituted
for ND values. Data 1999-2007.
2. First Moments are the center of mass
for PCE using annually consolidated data.
3. Mann Kendall trends were determined
for PCE 1999-2007.
Scale (ft)
^1=
0 1,800 3,600
MUSCOYOU SHALLOW ZONE
PCE AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS,
FIRST MOMENTS AND
MANN-KENDALL TRENDS
1999-2007
San Bernadino, California
Coord Sys.
NAD83SPCal. V FT
Drawn By:
COM
Chk'd By:
MV
Appv'd By:
21-AUG-07
Map ID:
FIGURE 10
-------
Issued 21-AUG-07
NORTH
1900000.0
1895000.0-
1890000.0-
1885000.0-
1880000.0-
1875000.0-
1870000.0-
1865000.0
Figure 11
Muscoy Shallow Zone
Well Sufficiency Results PCE
v q ^ vl V \ > N
•\b -%-JWAWak MW-134 M\ \ \
\ \\v \\\
\s \\\\\\\
\ I N \ \ \ \ \
% \ \ \ M \ \ \ X
V \ s\ \ \\ \ \
\ \ \\ \ ^
\ \ \\ .^-•r^T
\UN' J^*?^'' ^ Vxsv
New Location
I Analysis for
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Existing
Locations
Potential areas for
new locations are
indicated by triangles
with a high SF level.
Estimated SF Level:
S - Small
M - Moderate
L - Large
E - Extremely large
High SF-> high
estimation error ->
possible need for
new locations
Low SF -> low
estimation error ->
no need for new
locations
Back to
Access
6745000.0
6750000.0
6755000.0
6760000.0
6765000.0
6770000.0
6775000.0
EAST
6780000.0
-------
*
.
"• iS
?•••*. c-J- *^
.:*:r.
J*.
^•ff
—r?$3
'
*' "'2, 3
. ^
Tl
&
— MWCOE001A
H Mwc°E°°iB ^s.
,W-131B ,.
P^, : •..- ; " >\
; ""1C ••
' ^""^T'v-i^
• f -v, r .
-
.. ..." X"-:Ttirn=" 'H^A'/'f ''/*;$•: ; jnfj$
•"¥!?•-- Lrll'Mw-uoA
•.!>• f Uil
MUNM08 h /P
\ i'v - !-!SWT* •"•.'
A- - Vj MW-128B
. "
1!-.. b - Pfr
n MW-^8U
•1 H; _i
A |-* MW-130Bk-|
4,T_- ^NI-104Bh
EW-111PZB U. M "W-130C
l',-;™i * -' t:
EW,,U ' la?1"™"
MW-129B.^, H EW-110PZC .JVL •
• . ! X-''h. ! i—- / \ '
^-^.. .-^ EW-112PB|-^. I' I /^HEW-IOSPZB
,'ff- ! EW,12^ >'-'W^- MEW,OSPB
.. i jll-a-; v J i -W.- '- ,' - - ^.- r- —i^-iAS- #*l ^J10 M ^,08
i.
•^r-'i^-l1::^- -•• -" ;i:-
."f-;-:V>-j::-: f.:r-'^ • J, -.'.--^ i-i,:
'
r.
E
•
MWCOE001B
MW-131C
- - .• • -.,
\ '-••• h'-JT'H -M
•' ,_J MUNI-116 . V I
^
-
v_
'
'--ff.
-
^-r— .. -* J*TI-;fUl>lM!;--j • V^
: - H • ->il.K' i\W%ili
IV> - ••.-^ ..•^•..,^r__r^^-.3/V2005lTT. .\ jfc3?->'i "
:^ ^ vm*W . •-• \ . -.
l^«
.-_4__:. 9/^/2005^^0 ^
•T-' L^O
. 3/^2006 l-^7
9/1/2006 I—-^4) |. MW-140C \
9/1/2006 \- ^^ | MW-140C \
^.. ' H—. ui^ — --
JMUNI-108 |—f L—| MW-128C^
^Lk\ ._|ES|
•hi^'-Si^
' ~lii H MW-130C "
'; Ml ^ 1 ' >: T"1*- Ji^fH E -
• •' X '. ^--,,™-Ar1 !„ „_ • - H
W EW-111PZC ^-,-' |^
^iPZB-^1 HEW-.OPZC- fey
MW,29B^_ ' [HEW-HOPZO • >H.--1°9
-^ X_j „..,,.™,
. ^
^* r-"-*x
-, qlii.
v. rorrj
r^Tn
,
II-
J
•
h -'
_L
Jsfe
. J • -.
Legend
Average PCE Concentration [mg/L]
A ND-0.001
A 0.001 - 0.005
A 0.005-0.01
A 0.01 - 0.02
A 0.02-0.0357
EPA MCL for PCE = 0.005 mg/L
Mann Kendall PCE
Decreasing
Probably Decreasing
Stable
Probably Increasing
Increasing
Non Detect (1999-2006)
No Trend
Insufficient Data
PCE First Moments
O First Moments
(Effective Date of
Moment Indicated)
Notes:
1. Average PCE concentrations calculated
using lowest detection limit substituted
for ND values. Data 1999-2007.
2. First Moments are the center of mass
for PCE using annually consolidated data.
3. Mann Kendall trends were determined
for PCE 1999-2007. Newmark OU
Deep Zone trend results are shown.
Scale (ft)
^mm
0 1,800 3,600
MUSCOYOU INTERMEDIATE ZONE
PCE AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS,
FIRST MOMENTS AND
MANN-KENDALL TRENDS
1999-2007
San Bernadino, California
^oord. Sys.
NAD83SPCal. V FT
Drawn By:
COM
Chk'd By:
MV
Appv'd By:
21-AUG-07
Map ID:
FIGURE 12
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
NORTH
1895000.0!
1890000.0-
1885000.0-
1880000.0-
1875000.0-
1870000.0-
.0
Figure 13
Muscoy OU Intermediate Zone
Well Sufficiency Results PCE
New Location
Analysis for
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Existing
Locations
Potential areas for
new locations are
indicated by triangles
w ith a high SF level.
Estimated SF Level:
S - Srrell
M - Moderate
L - Large
E - Extremely large
High SF-> high
estimation error ->
possible need for
new locations
Low SF -> low
estimation error ->
no need for new
locations
Back to
Access
6750000.0
6755000.0
6760000.0
6765000.0
6770000.0
6775000.0
-------
I
' I
I ^i^F''^.'1 • • • "•,
i t.
Ib 1 «-LJ
ik. r - — -M • rm
Jm * mf t
r-
**fi
L. "iitn
-111PZD —I B/V-110PZE |—I EW-1C
. -]tl~
A
tfr -F3
Eid L 3
k
• r A
T^ "^J 4- ^A
MW-138C M^
1—| MW-137C I— MW-136C J '—^ MW-135C
?\ •-™'1!"" ^p^^/lj-BJ. j/S -:;,-"*"""'-J JJ •
^ ./ JV/V:T" 'TTi- 'Vs. J.J .J.-T^i ' w.E??1tT" ^
*'•£ -"ii^I^^!-_i^ii— ^ v-^
.-
-V~" '
-|i ^-.j- .^c-: ^-^_^.
A
,—j •*- -
Predominant Groundwater
Flow Direction
•"•..-
A; J?S
—| 5/15/2006
' 11/15/2006
8/15/2006
1/15/2007
-'
• — *• 'iptV'j1
|M MW-129C|^T"
fentp
•
• MW-139C — I
MW,33C HJ L^ MW,37C
. ; ^M -»c|
•• -... _J_ •• -
*":^ - - ^
• rfrrrd
n
HfcS^'iAljl^O"
5i
, . i
,_LJ MW.135C
;" . - .L J .H_-^
•! j.juTn
B.V,', -C, [4 i -•". •4~~!--X~.=•=•-"-= r =».. '-^-^1
-••'r 'it-^i "^r r^~ ~^ xi'-^^1-^ F"'
j " •~»VV'rl*V! y a %r "^fc ±i
ff. i .. ':' r '"^L '*'-nr •!•"£ ^« fifeTi.!
' ^:
-i-• i
Legend
Average PCE Concentration [mg/L]
A ND-0.001
A 0.001 - 0.005
A 0.005-0.01
A 0.01 - 0.02
A 0.02-0.0357
EPA MCL for PCE = 0.005 mg/L
Mann Kendall PCE
Decreasing
Probably Decreasing
Stable
Probably Increasing
Increasing
Non Detect (1999-2006)
No Trend
Insufficient Data
PCE First Moments
O First Moments
(Effective Date of
Moment Indicated)
Notes:
1. Average PCE concentrations calculated
using lowest detection limit substituted
for ND values. Data 1999-2007.
2. First Moments are the center of mass
for PCE using annually consolidated data.
3. Mann Kendall trends were determined
for PCE 1999-2007.
Scale (ft)
^•ZZ
0 900 1,800
MUSCOY OU DEEP ZONE
PCE AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS,
FIRST MOMENTS AND
MANN-KENDALL TRENDS
1999-2007
San Bernadino, California
^oord. Sys.
NAD83SPCal. V FT
Drawn By:
COM
Chk'd By:
MV
Appv'd By:
MV
21-AUG-07
Map ID:
FIGURE 14
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Figure 15
Muscoy OU Deep Zone
Well Sufficiency Results PCE
NORTH
1 Q~7Qnnn n
I O /OUUU.U ~
1876000.0-
1874000.0-
1872000.0-
1870000.0-
1868000.0-
1 Rfifinnn n
JJ^OC
\\ **** X.
\ * \
\\ ^x
\ \ ^
>\
\ \
\ v
\ x
\ \ ^.
\ \ x
\ \
\ \ x^
\ X M ^X
\ \
\ \
\ V >f MW-130B
i \ ^, — 7r\
\ \ - / V
\ s \ --" / ^>
> \ ,,--• / ^
\ \ -~"" / >^
\ \ -•- / \\
\ \ ^--' / N^
\ *^ X. / v\
\ 1 X ^x / \x
\ / \ ^x / M M \\
» I \ X ' v »
\ ; \ ^x ' \x
» / \ X / x \M
\ \ \ X / \ \
V i \ s ^iLB/y-iiiPZD ^
^ ' ^ /\"~"~----_ ^ 0U/-109PZC
\ . \ / \ "~~" j^-EW-TIOP^E "" / XN\
\ ' \ / \ s' \ s / Xsxv
\ 1 \ / s \ s' ^ / N \
\ , \ / \ /' s \ / s x\
V-»«£133D S ~3~~---_ \ / 3_ -^ MW-135B
***«-¥-M1An3B5
New Location
Analysis for
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PC
Existing
Locations
Potential areas for
new locations are
indicated by triangles
with a high SF level.
Estimated SF Level:
S - Small
M - Moderate
L - Large
E - Extremely large
High SF-> high
estimation error ->
possible need for
new locations
Low SF -> low
estimation error ->
no need for new
locations
Back to
Access
V J
6763000.0 6764000.0 6765000.0 6766000.0 6767000.0 6768000.0 6769000.0 6770000.0 6771000.0 6772000.0 6773000.0 6774000.0
-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
NEWMARK, MUSCOY AND SOURCE OU
NEWMARK SUPERFUND SITE
San Bernardino, California
APPENDIX A:
MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
APPENDIX A
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
-------
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.
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
Attachment A 7 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
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
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
Attachment A 2 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
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
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
Attachment A 3 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
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.
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 A 4 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
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).
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.
Attachment A 5 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
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
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
Attachment A 6 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
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
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.
Attachment A 7 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
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.
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.
Attachment A g MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
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
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
Attachment A g MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
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.
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.
Attachment A 70 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
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-
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).
Attachment A 77 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
Concentrations
projected to this
line
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 A
12
MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
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 A 73 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
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
-------
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
-------
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)
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
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
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)
-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
NEWMARK, MUSCOY AND SOURCE OU
NEWMARK SUPERFUND SITE
San Bernardino, California
APPENDIX B:
Table B.1 Groundwater Monitoring Locations Newmark Superfund Site
Table B.2a Aquifer Input Parameters: Source OU
Table B.2b Aquifer Input Parameters: Newmark OU
Table B.2c Aquifer Input Parameters: Muscoy OU
Table B.3 Well Trend Summary Results: Source OU
Table B.4 Well Trend Summary Results: Newmark OU Shallow Zone
Table B.5 Well Trend Summary Results: Newmark OU Intermediate Zone
Table B.6 Well Trend Summary Results: Newmark OU Deep Zone
Table B.7 Well Trend Summary Results: Muscoy OU Shallow Zone
Table B.8 Well Trend Summary Results: Muscoy OU Intermediate Zone
Table B.9 Well Trend Summary Results: Muscoy OU Deep Zone
Table B.10 Well Trend Summary Results: MW-140 Well Cluster
Table B.11 MCES Sampling Frequency Analysis Results: Source OU
Table B.12 MCES Sampling Frequency Analysis Results: Newmark OU Shallow Zone
Table B.13 MCES Sampling Frequency Analysis Results: Newmark OU Intermediate Zone
Table B.14 MCES Sampling Frequency Analysis Results: Newmark OU Deep Zone
Table B.15 MCES Sampling Frequency Analysis Results: Muscoy OU Shallow Zone
Table B.16 MCES Sampling Frequency Analysis Results: Muscoy OU Intermediate Zone
Table B.17 MCES Sampling Frequency Analysis Results: Muscoy OU Deep Zone
-------
Issued: 28-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 4
TABLE B.1
GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS NEWMARK SUPERFUND SITE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Type
Well Name
Elevation ft
msl
Top of Screen
[ft bgs]
Bottom of
Screen
[ft bgs]
Sample Date Range
Recent Sampling
Frequency
Source OU
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
CJ-1
CJ-10
CJ-11
CJ-1 2
CJ-1 3
CJ-1 4
CJ-1 5
CJ-1 6
CJ-1 7
CJ-1 A
CJ-2
CJ-3
CJ-6
CJ-7
CJ-8
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001 B
MWCOE002
MWCOE003
MWCOE004
MWCOE005
MWCOE006
MWCOE007
MWCOE008
MWCOE009
1757.8
1711.43
1676.07
1668.02
1666.77
1664.69
1667.88
1734.46
1738.81
1741.68
1689.45
1691.89
1696.6
1699.24
1768.31
1619.38
1619.25
1669.47
1667.23
1763.83
1745
1752.4
1781
276
135
179
246
245
245
355
250
139
311
278
289
240
278
234
289
345
330
418
100
140
98
125
77
77
316
145
189
256
255
255
378
270
159
351
320
330
280
318
244
309
365
350
438
120
160
118
145
97
97
12/1/1987
3/1/1995
3/1/1995
3/1/1995
3/1/1995
3/1/1995
3/1/1995
3/1/1996
5/1/1996
12/1/1987
12/1/1987
12/1/1987
6/1/1988
6/1/1988
3/1/1995
12/2/1996
12/2/1996
4/28/1999
4/28/1999
2/11/2004
9/24/1999
9/24/1999
9/23/1999
2/11/2004
2/16/2004
1/1/2006
10/17/2006
10/17/2006
10/17/2006
10/17/2006
10/17/2006
10/17/2006
10/17/2006
10/17/2006
1/1/2006
1/1/2006
10/17/2006
1/1/2006
7/1/2005
10/17/2006
10/12/2006
10/12/2006
10/4/2006
10/4/2006
10/4/2006
10/3/2006
10/3/2006
10/3/2006
10/4/2006
10/12/2006
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Semi-annual/Quarterly
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual/Quarterly
Semi-annual/Quarterly
Semi-annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Newmark OU Shallow Zone
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
EW-108PA**
EW-2PA
EW-3PA
EW-4PA
EW-5PA
EW-6
EW-6PA
EW-7
MUNI-01
MUNI-07B
MUNI-09B
MUNI-11A
MUNI-13
MUNI-16
MW02A
MW03A
MW04A
MW05A
MW06A
MW07A
MW08A
MW09A
MW12A
MW14A
MW16A
MW17A
1119.26
1091.7
1090.22
1086.27
1083.27
1530
1311.07
1307.84
1287.34
1244.4
1239.67
370
230
230
310
230
115
230
200
186
236
252
199
258
450
280
240
265
278
250
305
275
265
240
270
220
270
390
250
250
330
250
315
250
470
236
246
262
209
267
660
300
260
275
298
270
325
295
285
270
300
240
290
8/21/2002
7/30/1998
7/30/1998
7/30/1998
7/30/1998
7/28/1998
7/30/1998
7/28/1998
3/12/1992
12/27/1990
12/27/1990
3/25/1992
8/3/1987
7/6/1987
4/9/1992
4/6/1992
3/10/1992
3/24/1992
4/21/1992
6/28/1992
7/9/1992
12/13/1994
10/17/1997
7/29/1998
11/11/1997
10/29/1997
1/3/2007
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/10/2005
11/14/2005
11/10/2005
11/10/2005
11/10/2005
10/3/2006
10/16/2006
10/16/2006
10/16/2006
10/3/2006
10/3/2006
10/16/2006
10/12/2006
11/8/2005
10/16/2006
10/12/2006
11/8/2005
10/12/2006
11/8/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/8/2005
11/8/2005
Quarterly
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
See Notes end of Table
-------
Issued: 28-AUG-2007
Page 2 of 4
TABLE B.1
GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS NEWMARK SUPERFUND SITE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Type
Well Name
Elevation ft
msl
Top of Screen
[ft bgs]
Bottom of
Screen
[ft bgs]
Sample Date Range
Recent Sampling
Frequency
Newmark OU Intermediate Zone
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
EW-1 PA
EW-7PA
MUNI-07C
MUNI-09C
MUNI-14
MUNI-18
MUNI-22
MUNI-24
MW02B
MW03B
MW04B
MW05B
MW06B
MW07B
MW08B
MW09B
MW10A
MW10B
MW11A
MW12B
MW13A
MW13B
MW14B
MW15A
MW16B
MW17B
1093.9
1311.16
1307.51
1233.01
1184.07
1141.9
1123.33
380
320
389
418
325
243
494
480
370
340
385
432
317
486
470
345
350
490
500
670
365
525
570
520
430
400
400
340
399
428
553
259
571
603
390
360
395
452
337
506
490
365
380
520
530
700
395
555
600
550
450
420
7/30/1998
7/30/1998
12/27/1990
12/27/1990
10/15/1987
5/27/1987
3/11/1992
3/12/1992
4/7/1992
3/26/1992
3/12/1992
3/24/1992
4/20/1992
6/28/1992
7/9/1992
12/13/1994
11/15/1994
11/15/1994
11/16/1994
10/17/1997
9/26/1997
9/26/1997
7/29/1998
7/29/1998
11/11/1997
10/29/1997
11/8/2005
11/10/2005
10/16/2006
10/16/2006
5/9/2006
10/3/2006
10/3/2006
10/3/2006
10/16/2006
10/12/2006
11/8/2005
10/16/2006
10/12/2006
11/8/2005
10/12/2006
11/8/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
4/20/2005
11/8/2005
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Newmark OU Deep Zone
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
EW-1
EW-1 08**
EW-108PB**
EW-1 PB
EW-2
EW-2PB
EW-3
EW-3PB
EW-4
EW-4PB
EW-5
EW-5PB
MUNI-11C
MW10C
MW11B
MW11C
MW12C
MW-135B**
MW-135C**
MW13C
MW14C
MW15B
MW15C
1093.9
1119.26
1119.26
1093.9
1091.7
1091.7
1090.22
1090.22
1086.27
1086.27
1083.27
1083.27
1287.03
1111.28
1 1 1 1 .3
600
510
740
980
500
880
240
760
490
980
400
880
492
750
770
1070
1040
620
850
815
1060
690
1020
1190
590
760
1000
1070
900
200
780
1180
1000
1130
900
502
780
800
1100
1070
640
870
845
1090
720
1050
7/28/1998
5/7/2003
8/21/2002
7/30/1998
7/28/1998
7/30/1998
7/28/1998
7/30/1998
7/28/1998
7/30/1998
7/28/1998
7/30/1998
12/27/1990
11/16/1994
11/16/1994
12/12/1994
12/3/1997
8/22/2002
8/22/2002
9/26/1997
7/29/1998
7/29/1998
7/29/1998
11/8/2005
1/3/2007
1/3/2007
11/8/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/10/2005
11/10/2005
11/10/2005
11/10/2005
10/16/2006
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
1/23/2007
1/23/2007
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
11/9/2005
Semi-annual (2005)
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
See Notes end of Table
-------
Issued: 28-AUG-2007
Page 3 of 4
TABLE B.1
GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS NEWMARK SUPERFUND SITE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Type
Well Name
Elevation ft
msl
Top of Screen
[ft bgs]
Bottom of
Screen
[ft bgs]
Sample Date Range
Recent Sampling
Frequency
Muscoy Shallow
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
EW-108PA**
EW-109PZA
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZB
EW-1 1 1 PZA
EW-112PA
MUNI-102
MUNI-103
MUNI-104A
MUNI-109
MW-127A**
MW-127B**
MW-128A
MW-129A
MW-130A
MW-131A
MW-132A
MW-133A
MW-134
MW-135A
MW-137A
MW-138A
MW-139A
MW-140A*
1119.26
1137.0507
1145.5005
1145.5005
1165.6822
1181.79
1185.56
1214.58
1230.3
1328
1545.9
1545.9
1215.04
1199.32
1175.22
1546.75
1479.3
1435.39
1428.44
1111.28
1144.05
1156.87
1168.76
1304.4069
370
310
193.5
301.5
193.5
300
126
60
150
227
341
431
410
443
340
300
142
185
140
360
330
320
360
162
390
330
243.5
321.5
243.5
302
184
128
276
431
361
451
440
473
370
340
182
225
180
380
350
340
380
176
8/21/2002
4/13/2005
4/19/2005
1/7/2004
4/26/2005
8/21/2002
4/22/1993
5/4/1993
6/15/1987
5/6/1993
2/1/1995
2/1/1995
12/14/1994
9/12/1996
9/16/1996
9/13/2001
8/29/2000
8/28/2000
8/29/2000
8/22/2002
8/22/2002
8/22/2002
8/22/2002
5/3/2006
1/3/2007
1/24/2007
1/23/2007
1/23/2007
1/23/2007
1/24/2007
10/4/2006
11/11/2005
10/3/2006
2/18/2004
10/12/2006
10/12/2006
1/23/2007
1/24/2007
1/23/2007
4/18/2005
10/12/2006
10/12/2006
10/12/2006
1/23/2007
1/23/2007
1/24/2007
1/24/2007
10/11/2006
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Semi-annual (2005)
Annual
Annual (2004)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly (2006)
Muscoy Intermediate
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
EW-1 08**
EW-108PB**
EW-1 09
EW-109PZB
EW-1 10
EW-110PZC
EW-110PZD
EW-1 1 1
EW-1 1 1 PZB
EW-1 1 1 PZC
EW-1 12
EW-112PB
MUNI-101
MUNI-104B
MUNI-108
MUNI-116
MW-128B
MW-128C
MW-129B
MW-130B***
MW-130C
MW-131B
MW-131C
MW-132B
MW-133B
MW-136A
MW-136B
MW-137B
MW-138B
MW-139B
MW-140B
MW-140C***
1119.26
1119.26
1137.0507
1137.0507
1145.5005
1145.5005
1145.5005
1165.6822
1165.6822
1165.6822
1181.79
1181.79
1130
1236.25
1319
1475.33
1215.04
1215.04
1198.91
1174.58
1174.56
1546.75
1546.75
1478.94
1435.39
1121.67
1121.63
1144.1
1156.92
1168.71
1304.3882
1304.3947
510
740
260
430
225
411.5
491.5
235
375.5
456
280
660
350
470
350
690
860
730
550
890
435
515
370
280
420
500
520
550
540
243
312
590
760
330
450
270
431.5
511.5
265
395.5
476
740
680
1050
512
448
720
890
760
580
920
475
555
410
320
440
520
540
570
560
258
352
5/7/2003
8/21/2002
4/13/2005
4/13/2005
4/12/2005
4/19/2005
1/7/2004
4/26/2005
1/7/2004
1/7/2004
5/7/2003
8/21/2002
1/3/1991
6/15/1987
4/20/1993
2/2/1995
12/12/1994
12/12/1994
9/12/1996
9/14/1996
9/14/1996
9/13/2001
9/13/2001
8/29/2000
8/28/2000
8/22/2002
8/22/2002
8/22/2002
8/22/2002
8/22/2002
5/3/2006
5/3/2006
1/3/2007
1/3/2007
1/24/2007
1/24/2007
1/24/2007
1/23/2007
1/23/2007
1/24/2007
1/23/2007
1/23/2007
1/24/2007
1/24/2007
10/3/2006
5/9/2006
10/3/2006
10/4/2006
1/23/2007
1/23/2007
1/24/2007
1/23/2007
1/23/2007
11/15/2004
11/15/2004
10/12/2006
10/12/2006
1/3/2007
1/3/2007
1/23/2007
1/24/2007
1/24/2007
1/25/2007
1/25/2007
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
(NS 2004)
(NS 2004)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly (2006)
Quarterly (2006)
See Notes end of Table
-------
Issued: 28-AUG-2007
Page 4 of 4
TABLE B.1
GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS NEWMARK SUPERFUND SITE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Type
Well Name
Elevation ft
msl
Top of Screen
[ft bgs]
Bottom of
Screen
[ft bgs]
Sample Date Range
Recent Sampling
Frequency
Muscoy Deep
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
EW-109PZC
EW-110PZE
EW-1 1 1 PZD
MW-129C
MW-136C
MW-137C
MW-138C
MW-139C
1137.0507
1145.5005
1165.6822
1198.92
1121.61
1144.07
1156.99
1168.85
800
830
780
851
730
790
960
790
820
850
800
881
750
810
980
810
4/13/2005
4/12/2005
4/26/2005
9/12/1996
8/22/2002
8/22/2002
8/22/2002
8/22/2002
1/24/2007
1/24/2007
1/24/2007
1/24/2007
1/3/2007
1/23/2007
1/24/2007
1/24/2007
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Notes:
1. Well Type S = Source area; T = Tail area (designations for MAROS software).
2. Wells listed above had sufficient data to be included in both quantitative and qualitative evaluations.
Well locations are shown on Figure 1.
3. Well elevations and screened intervals from URS database, 2006. No value indicates there is no value is available from the database.
4. ft msl = feet above mean sea level; ft bgs = feet below ground surface.
5. Recent sampling frequency determined from approximate frequency of 2005-2006 sample events.
6. Wells are grouped according to aerial (X,Y coordinates) location in either the Muscoy, Newmark or Source
Operation Units, and by depth based on screened intervals.
7. No data were received for PZ-124, PZ-125 and CJ-9 in the Source OU, MUNI-09A, and MUNI-07A in the Newmark OU.
8. Wells not sampled since 2002, such as MW-01 were not considered as part of the current monitoring program.
Wells without location coordiantes were not included in the analysis.
9. * = Well MW-140A is sampled from multiple depths and is evaluated separately.
10. ** = Certain wells are included in multiple analysis groups for spatial analysis, as they span different study areas.
11.***= Upgradient wells used as 'source' to lower depth, downgradient network.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.2a
AQUIFER INPUT PARAMETERS: SOURCE OUs
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Newmark Superfund Site, San Bernardino, California
Parameter
Current Plume Length
Maximum Plume Length
PlumeWidth
SeepageVelocity (ft/yr)*
Distance to Receptors (Migration downgradient
GWFIuctuations
SourceTreatment
PlumeType
NAPL Present
Priority Constituents
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Parameter
Groundwater flow direction
Porosity
Source Location near Well
Source X-Coordinate
Source Y-Coordinate
Saturated Thickness UWBM
Value
22,000
22,000
8,000
640
1000
No
Pump and Treat
Chlorinated Solvent
No
Screening Levels
5
5
390
1,300
Value
E/SE
0.25
CJ-10
6753089
1892380
200
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft/yr
ft
~
~
-
~
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
315
-
~
ft
ft
ft
Notes:
1. Aquifer data from URS database (2007) and SECOR (2005).
2. Priority COCs defined by prevalence, toxicty and mobility.
Screening levels are USEPA MCLs.
3. Saturated thicknesses represent 2-D layers defined by well screened intervals.
5. ft = Coordinates in NAD 1983 State Plane California V feet.
6. Plume length estimated from Source OU to based of Newmark OU.
7. * = Maximum seepage velocity estimated from site data. See Attachment A.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.2b
AQUIFER INPUT PARAMETERS: NEWMARK OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Newmark Superfund Site, San Bernardino, California
Parameter
Current Plume Length (from Source)
Maximum Plume Length
PlumeWidth
SeepageVelocity (ft/yr)*
Distance to Receptors (Migration downgradient)
GWFIuctuations
Remedial Treatment
PlumeType
NAPL Present
Priority Constituents
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Parameter
Groundwater flow direction
Porosity
Source Location near Well
Shallow Zone
Intermediate Zone
Deep Zone
Saturated Thickness
Shallow Zone
Intermediate Zone
Deep Zone
Value
42,000
42,000
8,000
640
1000
No
Pump and Treat
Chlorinated Solvent
No
Screening Levels
5
5
390
1,300
Value
E/SE
0.25
CJ-10
CJ-10
MW-08B
200
400
400
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft/yr
ft
~
~
-
~
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
315°
-
~
ft
ft
ft
Notes:
1. Aquifer data from URS database (2007) and SECOR (2005).
2. Priority COCs defined by prevalence, toxicty and mobility.
Screening levels are USEPA MCLs.
3. Saturated thicknesses represent 2-D layers defined by well screened intervals.
5. ft = Coordinates in NAD 1983 State Plane California V feet.
6. Plume length estimated from Source OU to base of Newmark OU.
7. * = Maximum seepage velocity estimated from site data. See Attachment A.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.2c
AQUIFER INPUT PARAMETERS: MUSCOY OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Newmark Superfund Site, San Bernardino, California
Parameter
Current Plume Length
Maximum Plume Length
PlumeWidth
SeepageVelocity (ft/yr)*
Distance to Receptors (Migration downgradient
GWFIuctuations
SourceTreatment
PlumeType
NAPL Present
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Parameter
Groundwater flow direction
Porosity
Source Location near Well
Shallow Zone
Intermediate Zone
Deep Zone
Saturated Thickness
Shallow Zone
Intermediate Zone
Deep Zone
Value
34,000
34,000
7,000
640
1000
No
Pump and Treat
Chlorinated Solvent
No
Screening Levels
5
5
390
1,300
Value
S
0.25
CJ-10
CJ-10
MW-140
200
400
400
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft/yr
ft
~
~
-
~
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
300
-
~
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
Notes:
1. Aquifer data from URS database (2007) and SECOR (2005).
2. Priority COCs defined by prevalence, toxicty and mobility.
Screening levels are USEPA MCLs.
3. Saturated thicknesses represent 2-D layers defined by well screened intervals.
5. ft = Coordinates in NAD 1983 State Plane California V feet.
6. Plume length estimated from Source OU to based of Newmark OU.
7. * = Maximum seepage velocity estimated from site data. See Attachment A.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.3
WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 1999-2007
SOURCE OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
1999-2006
Maximum
Historic
Result
1987 - 2006
[ug/L]
Max Result
Above MCL?
Average
Result [ug/L]
Average
Result Above
MCL?
Mann
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Overall Trend
Result
Tetrachloroethene - Source OU
CJ-1
CJ-10
CJ-11
CJ-1 2
CJ-1 3
CJ-1 4
CJ-1 5
CJ-1 6
CJ-1 7
CJ-1A
CJ-2
CJ-3
CJ-6
CJ-7
CJ-8
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001B
MWCOE002
MWCOE003
MWCOE004
MWCOE005
MWCOE006
MWCOE007
MWCOE008
MWCOE009
29
14
18
5
5
5
18
29
14
19
15
15
29
13
13
6
13
5
5
6
13
12
13
6
6
24
13
15
4
2
3
18
29
14
0
4
15
28
5
13
6
12
0
3
6
13
2
13
4
6
83%
93%
83%
80%
40%
60%
100%
100%
100%
0%
27%
100%
97%
38%
100%
100%
92%
0%
60%
100%
100%
17%
100%
67%
100%
5
65.6
11
8.2
1.2
1.9
15
17
48.4
5.6
4
130
29
5.9
5.9
8
18
ND
1.3
25
4
0.5
6.4
0.43
1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
0.799
35.7
4.89
1.27
0.25
0.636
5.22
10.1
19.7
O.08
0.26
5.13
6.61
0.195
3.85
4.67
9.21
O.08
0.524
14.5
2.9
0.15
2.9
0.185
0.617
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
S
S
PI
D
NT
NT
NT
D
PD
-
I
NT
PI
I
D
S
D
-
NT
S
D
NT
S
PD
PD
I
NT
I
D
NT
NT
I
D
D
-
I
D
S
I
D
D
D
-
I
PD
D
NT
S
D
S
PI
S
PI
D
NT
NT
PI
D
D
ND
I
S
NT
I
D
PD
D
ND
PI
S
D
NT
S
D
S
Trichloroethene - Source OU
CJ-1
CJ-10
CJ-11
CJ-1 2
CJ-1 3
CJ-1 4
CJ-1 5
CJ-1 6
CJ-1 7
CJ-1A
CJ-2
CJ-3
CJ-6
CJ-7
CJ-8
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001B
MWCOE002
MWCOE003
MWCOE004
MWCOE005
MWCOE006
MWCOE007
MWCOE008
MWCOE009
29
14
18
5
5
5
18
29
14
2
7
15
29
3
13
6
13
5
5
6
13
12
13
6
6
0
14
2
0
0
1
12
29
14
0
1
8
28
0
2
0
9
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
0%
100%
11%
0%
0%
20%
67%
100%
100%
0%
14%
53%
97%
0%
15%
0%
69%
0%
0%
0%
15%
17%
8%
0%
0%
6.4
4.9
2.5
1.7
0.6
1
1
3.7
3.9
0
0.35
41
6.1
ND
0.5
0.2
1
ND
ND
ND
0.5
0.5
0.5
ND
ND
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
O.05
2.59
0.197
O.05
O.05
0.24
0.307
2.38
0.687
0
0.0929
0.624
2.34
0.05
0.119
O.05
0.524
0.05
0.05
O.05
0.119
0.125
0.0846
O.05
O.05
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
-
S
NT
-
-
NT
S
D
D
N/A
NT
NT
PD
N/A
NT
ND
D
ND
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
-
I
NT
-
-
NT
NT
D
D
N/A
NT
PD
D
N/A
NT
S
D
S
-
NT
NT
NT
-
-
ND
PI
NT
ND
ND
NT
S
D
D
ND
NT
S
D
ND
NT
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
NT
NT
NT
ND
ND
Notes:
1. Wells were grouped according to operation unit, hydrostratigrapic zone (1) and screened interval indicated on Table B1.
2. Data between January 1999 and January 2007 were included in the trend analyses. 'Number of Samples' indicates the number of quarters the well was sampled
for the indicated compound, and 'Number of Detections' indicates the number of quarters the compound was detected between 1999 and 2007.
3. Trends evaluated using the Mann-Kendall (MK) and Linear Regression (LR) methods are shown. Overall Trend is a combination of MK and LR results.
Trend results: I = Increasing, PI = Probably Increasing, S = Stable, PD = Probably Decreasing, D = Decreasing,
NT = No Trend, N/A = Insufficient data to determine trend, ND = Non-detectforall events.
4. Maximum Result is the maximum value for the entire data set (date range for each well indicated in Table 1).
Average Result is the average concentration at the monitoring location for all samples between 1999 and 2006.
5. Screening levels were set to the USEPA MCL for PCE and TCE = 0.005 mg/L.
"Above Screening Level" indicates locations where the average result is above the MCL.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.4
WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 1999-2007
SHALLOW ZONE NEWMARK OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
1999-2007
Maximum
Historic
Result
1987-2007
Max Result
Above MCL?
Average
Result [ug/L]
Average
Result Above
MCL?
Mann
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Overall Trend
Result
Tetrachloroethene - Shallow Zone Newmark OU
EW-108PA
EW-2PA
EW-3PA
EW-4PA
EW-5PA
EW-6
EW-6PA
EW-7
MUNI-01
MUNI-07B
MUNI-09B
MUNI-11A
MUNI-13
MUNI-16
MW02A
MW03A
MW04A
MW05A
MW06A
MW07A
MW08A
MW09A
MW12A
MW14A
MW16A
MW17A
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
11
13
13
13
6
13
12
15
12
12
13
11
13
12
13
13
12
10
13
9
7
5
4
4
13
13
11
3
1
1
6
12
12
3
2
1
0
0
13
3
13
5
10
3
1
82%
54%
38%
31%
31%
1 00%
1 00%
1 00%
23%
8%
8%
1 00%
92%
1 00%
20%
17%
8%
0%
0%
1 00%
25%
1 00%
38%
83%
30%
8%
12
2
0.93
0.5
0.5
5
3
8
0.5
0.5
27
32
27.6
57.3
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.6
ND
19
0.6
10
0.5
0.68
4.4
0.5
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
2.66
0.354
0.185
0.14
0.155
3.67
1.28
5.16
0.177
0.112
0.112
0.977
1.64
5.14
0.133
0.123
0.115
<0.08
<0.08
7.95
0.0975
5.98
0.155
0.386
0.546
0.112
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
NT
PI
NT
NT
NT
D
PD
D
NT
NT
NT
S
S
D
S
S
NT
-
-
D
S
NT
I
NT
NT
NT
NT
PI
NT
I
NT
D
S
D
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
PD
S
NT
I
-
-
PD
S
NT
PI
NT
NT
NT
NT
PI
NT
PI
NT
D
S
D
NT
NT
NT
S
S
D
S
S
PI
ND
ND
D
S
NT
PI
NT
NT
NT
Trichloroethene -- Shallow Zone Newmark OU
EW-108PA
EW-2PA
EW-3PA
EW-4PA
EW-5PA
EW-6
EW-6PA
EW-7
MUNI-01
MUNI-07B
MUNI-09B
MUNI-11A
MUNI-13
MUNI-16
MW02A
MW03A
MW04A
MW05A
MW06A
MW07A
MW08A
MW09A
MW12A
MW14A
MW16A
MW17A
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
11
13
13
13
6
13
12
15
12
12
13
11
13
12
13
13
12
10
13
6
5
2
3
2
13
11
11
2
1
1
5
9
12
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
13
9
6
6
1
55%
38%
15%
23%
15%
1 00%
85%
1 00%
15%
8%
8%
83%
69%
1 00%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
92%
0%
1 00%
69%
50%
60%
8%
3.3
0.8
0.5
1.2
0.5
0.9
0.6
1
1
0.5
6
7
8.3
13
ND
ND
0.3
0.2
ND
4
ND
2
0.77
0.22
3
0.5
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
0.895
0.2
0.119
0.208
0.119
0.738
0.276
0.728
0.119
0.0846
0.0846
0.468
0.868
1.77
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
1.51
<0.05
1.31
0.296
0.1
0.479
0.0846
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
D
NT
D
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
D
-
-
-
D
S
NT
I
S
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
PI
NT
D
NT
D
NT
NT
NT
PI
PI
D
-
-
-
S
S
NT
I
S
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
PI
NT
D
NT
D
NT
NT
NT
PI
PI
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PD
ND
NT
I
S
NT
NT
Notes:
1. Wells were grouped according to operation unit, hydrostratigrapic zone (1) and screened interval indicated on Table B1.
2. Data between January 1999 and January 2007 were included in the trend analyses. 'Number of Samples' indicates the number of quarters the well was sampled
for the indicated compound, and 'Number of Detections' indicates the number of quarters the compound was detected between 1999 and 2007.
3. Trends evaluated using the Mann-Kendall (MK) and Linear Regression (LR) methods are shown. Overall Trend is a combination of MK and LR results.
Trend results: I = Increasing, PI = Probably Increasing, S = Stable, PD = Probably Decreasing, D = Decreasing,
NT = No Trend, N/A = Insufficient data to determine trend, ND = Non-detect for all events.
4. Maximum Result is the maximum value for the entire data set (date range for each well indicated in Table B1).
Average Result is the average concentration at the monitoring location for all samples between 1999 and 2007.
5. Screening levels were set to the USEPA MCL for PCE and TCE = 0.005 mg/L.
"Above Screening Level" indicates locations where the indicated result is above the MCL.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.5
WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 1999-2007
INTERMEDIATE ZONE NEWMARK OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
1999-2006
Maximum
Historic
Result
1987-2006
[ug/L]
Max Result
Above MCL?
Average
Result [ug/L]
Average
Result Above
MCL?
Mann
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Overall
Trend Result
Tetrach/oroethene (PCE) - Newmark Intermediate Zone
EW-1PA
EW-7PA
MUNI-07C
MUNI-09C
MUNI-14
MUNI-18
MUNI-22
MUNI-24
MW02B
MW03B
MW04B
MW05B
MW06B
MW07B
MW08B
MW09B
MW10A
MW10B
MW11A
MW12B
MW13A
MW13B
MW14B
MW15A
MW16B
MW17B
13
11
13
10
13
13
13
11
15
13
13
13
11
12
12
14
12
12
14
13
12
13
13
12
10
11
4
7
2
7
12
13
10
5
11
6
12
13
0
11
11
13
1
9
1
0
0
0
0
2
9
11
31%
64%
15%
70%
92%
100%
77%
45%
73%
46%
92%
100%
0%
92%
92%
93%
8%
75%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
90%
100%
0.8
20
0.5
8.1
26.3
36.5
6
0.5
17
22
13
32
0.6
19
25
11
0.5
0.58
0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.1
16
17
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
0.481
1.71
0.47
2.14
6.11
1.17
0.748
0.445
3.77
2.23
5.92
5.08
<0.5
4.15
5.49
6.98
0.5
0.285
0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.425
8.69
4.23
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
NT
NT
S
I
D
I
NT
NT
PD
NT
D
D
D
D
D
S
D
S
S
D
NT
I
NT
S
I
PD
I
NT
S
D
D
D
D
D
D
PD
I
D
D
I
D
NT
PI
NT
S
I
D
I
NT
S
D
S
D
D
ND
D
D
D
PI
D
PD
ND
ND
ND
ND
PI
D
NT
Trich/oroethene (TCE) - Newmark Intermediate Zone
EW-1PA
EW-7PA
MUNI-07C
MUNI-09C
MUNI-14
MUNI-18
MUNI-22
MUNI-24
MW02B
MW03B
MW04B
MW05B
MW06B
MW07B
MW08B
MW09B
MW10A
MW10B
MW11A
MW12B
MW13A
MW13B
MW14B
MW15A
MW16B
MW17B
13
11
13
10
13
13
13
11
15
13
13
13
11
12
12
14
12
12
14
13
12
13
13
12
10
11
5
6
2
7
12
9
5
3
7
4
11
12
0
6
7
13
1
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
9
38%
55%
15%
70%
92%
69%
38%
27%
47%
31%
85%
92%
0%
50%
58%
93%
8%
33%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
82%
0.6
4
0.5
1.3
6.4
9.1
11
2.2
3
4
1
6
<0.5
3
3
3
0.5
0.52
1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
2
2
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
0.405
0.462
0.469
0.407
1.24
0.698
1.28
0.655
0.692
0.515
0.55
0.547
<0.5
0.656
0.562
1.91
0.5
0.431
0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.98
0.503
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
S
NT
S
NT
S
NT
NT
NT
PD
S
D
D
D
D
S
S
S
S
D
NT
S
NT
S
S
S
NT
NT
PI
PD
S
D
D
D
PD
S
I
S
D
D
NT
S
NT
S
S
S
NT
NT
PI
PD
S
D
D
ND
D
D
S
PI
S
PD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
NT
Wofes;
1. Source OU locations CJ-10 and CJ-17 were included as source wells in the spatial analysis of the intermediate zone.
Wells were grouped according to operation unit, hydrostratigrapic zone (2) and screened interval indicated on Table 1.
2. Data between January 1999 and January 2007 were included in the trend analyses. 'Number of Samples' indicates the number of quarters the well was sampled
for the indicated compound, and 'Number of Detections' indicates the number of quarters the compound was detected between 1999 and 2007.
3. Trends evaluated using the Mann-Kendall (MK) and Linear Regression (LR) methods are shown. Overall Trend is a combination of MK and LR results.
Trend results: I = Increasing, PI = Probably Increasing, S = Stable, PD = Probably Decreasing, D = Decreasing,
NT = No Trend, N/A = Insufficient data to determine trend, ND = Non-detect for all events.
4. Maximum Result is the maximum value for the entire data set (date range for each well indicated in Table B1).
Average Result is the average concentration at the monitoring location for all samples between 1999 and 2007.
5. Screening levels were set to the USEPA MCL for PCE and TCE = 0.005 mg/L.
"Above Screening Level" indicates locations where the indicated result is above the MCL.
-------
Issued: 28-AUG-07
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.6
WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 1999-2007
DEEP ZONE NEWMARK OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
1999-2006
Maximum
Historic
Result
1987-2006
[ug/L]
Max Result
Above MCL?
Average
Result [ug/L]
Average
Result
Above MCL?
Mann
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Overall
Trend
Result
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) - Newmark Deep Zone
EW-1
EW-108
EW-1 08PB
EW-1 PB
EW-2
EW-2PB
EW-3
EW-3PB
EW-4
EW-4PB
EW-5
EW-5PB
MUNI-11C
MW10C
MW11B
MW11C
MW12C
MW-135B
MW-135C
MW13C
MW14C
MW15B
MW15C
13
9
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
11
12
14
14
13
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
8
3
8
13
9
13
11
12
4
8
7
11
12
14
8
3
1
1
0
7
0
0
1 00%
89%
27%
62%
1 00%
69%
1 00%
85%
92%
31%
62%
54%
1 00%
100%
1 00%
57%
23%
8%
8%
0%
54%
0%
0%
7.5
2.9
0.5
4.6
8.2
3.7
5.2
5
2.5
1
0.5
0.5
38.5
24
25
2.3
0.5
0.5
0.7
1
2
0.1
<0.5
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
3.8
1.93
0.226
1.08
4.27
1.38
4.02
1.51
1.78
0.354
0.285
0.248
7.23
13.9
8.23
0.632
0.212
0.225
0.242
0.2
0.572
0.2
O.2
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
I
S
I
S
S
NT
D
NT
D
D
D
S
S
S
D
I
I
PD
I
I
I
S
I
D
NT
D
S
D
PD
D
I
S
S
D
D
I
I
S
I
I
I
S
I
PD
NT
D
S
D
D
D
I
S
ND*
ND*
ND
D
ND
ND
Trichloroethene (TCE) — Newmark Deep Zone
EW-1
EW-108
EW-1 08PB
EW-1 PB
EW-2
EW-2PB
EW-3
EW-3PB
EW-4
EW-4PB
EW-5
EW-5PB
MUNI-11C
MW10C
MW11B
MW11C
MW12C
MW-135B
MW-135C
MW13C
MW14C
MW15B
MW15C
13
9
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
11
12
14
14
13
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
7
2
8
13
9
13
9
12
5
4
5
11
12
11
8
1
1
1
0
11
0
0
100%
78%
18%
62%
100%
69%
100%
69%
92%
38%
31%
38%
100%
100%
79%
57%
8%
8%
8%
0%
85%
0%
0%
2.3
0.72
0.5
4.2
2.2
3
1.4
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
7.6
6
7
6.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.6
3
0.1
O.1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
1.36
0.489
0.236
0.888
1.32
0.589
1.02
0.376
0.752
0.369
0.223
0.244
1.26
3.91
1.71
1.98
0.223
0.225
0.208
0.2
0.845
0.2
O.2
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
I
NT
S
I
S
D
NT
PI
NT
D
D
D
S
S
S
D
I
NT
S
I
S
NT
D
NT
S
NT
D
D
D
S
S
D
D
I
NT
S
I
I
I
S
PI
D
NT
NT
NT
D
D
D
I
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND
D
ND
ND
Notes:
1. Newmark Intermediate wells MW04B, MW05B, MW08B and MW09B were included as source wells in the spatial analysis of the deep zone.
Wells were grouped according to operation unit, hydrostratigrapic zone (3) and screened interval indicated on Table 1.
2. Data between January 1999 and January 2007 were included in the trend analyses. 'Number of Samples' indicates the number of quarters the well was sampled
for the indicated compound, and 'Number of Detections' indicates the number of quarters the compound was detected between 1999 and 2007.
3. Trends evaluated using the Mann-Kendall (MK) and Linear Regression (LR) methods are shown. Overall Trend is a combination of MK and LR results.
Trend results: I = Increasing, PI = Probably Increasing, S = Stable, PD = Probably Decreasing, D = Decreasing,
NT = No Trend, N/A = Insufficient data to determine trend, ND = Non-detect for all events, ND* = only one detection.
4. Maximum Result is the maximum value for the entire data set (date range for each well indicated in Table B.1).
Average Result is the average concentration at the monitoring location for all samples between 1999 and 2007.
5. Screening levels were set to the USEPA MCL for PCE and TCE = 0.005 mg/L.
"Above Screening Level" indicates locations where the indicated result is above the MCL.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.7
WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 1999-2007
SHALLOW ZONE MUSCOY OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
1999-2007
Maximum
Historic
Result
1987-2007
[ug/L]
Max Result
Above MCL?
Average
Result [ug/L]
Average
Result Above
MCL?
Mann
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Overall
Trend Result
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) - Muscoy Shallow Zone
EW-108PA
EW-109PZA
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZB
EW-111PZA
EW-112PA
MUNI-102
MUNI-103
MUNI-104A
MUNI-109
MW-127A
MW-127B
MW-128A
MW-129A
MW-130A
MW-131A
MW-132A
MW-133A
MW-134
MW-135A
MW-137A
MW-138A
MW-139A
11
8
8
9
8
11
12
11
2
8
11
11
18
17
18
6
9
10
10
12
12
12
12
9
8
8
9
5
10
6
1
2
8
11
8
18
5
18
5
9
9
1
12
11
12
9
82%
100%
100%
100%
63%
91%
50%
9%
100%
100%
100%
73%
100%
29%
100%
83%
100%
90%
10%
100%
92%
100%
75%
12
13
3.6
18
6.9
3.7
0.5
0.5
6
10
5
26
30
0.9
6
0.5
25
1.7
0.5
6
10
4.2
0.58
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
2.66
9.38
2.44
11.3
2.58
1.96
0.17
0.118
2.8
1.67
0.819
0.453
12.6
0.255
2.8
0.203
16.9
0.899
0.122
3.37
4.08
2.31
0.263
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
S
NT
NT
PD
PD
S
NT
N/A
D
D
NT
NT
D
D
S
NT
PI
NT
PI
D
NT
NT
NT
S
NT
I
D
NT
S
NT
N/A
D
D
NT
S
D
D
S
S
I
NT
I
D
I
NT
NT
S
NT
PI
D
S
S
NT
N/A
D
D
NT
S
D
D
S
S
PI
NT
PI
D
PI
NT
Trichloroethene (TCE) - Muscoy Shallow Zone
EW-108PA
EW-109PZA
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZB
EW-111PZA
EW-112PA
MUNI-102
MUNI-103
MUNI-104A
MUNI-109
MW-127A
MW-127B
MW-128A
MW-129A
MW-130A
MW-131A
MW-132A
MW-133A
MW-134
MW-135A
MW-137A
MW-138A
MW-139A
11
8
8
9
8
11
12
11
2
8
11
11
18
17
18
6
9
10
10
12
12
12
12
6
8
8
9
4
5
2
1
0
4
0
0
18
2
16
2
9
7
1
12
10
10
0
55%
1 00%
1 00%
1 00%
50%
45%
17%
9%
0%
50%
0%
0%
1 00%
12%
89%
33%
1 00%
70%
10%
1 00%
83%
83%
0%
3.3
3.5
0.7
2.7
0.55
0.54
0.5
0.5
2.9
1
0.3
4
8
0.5
1.2
0.5
6.1
0.5
0.5
2.1
3
0.76
ND
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
0.895
2.4
0.489
1.94
0.233
0.153
0.125
0.0909
<0.05
0.225
<0.05
<0.05
4.76
0.0897
0.655
0.15
3.69
0.203
0.095
1.4
1.19
0.312
<0.05
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
D
NT
NT
S
D
NT
NT
N/A
PD
NT
NT
D
PD
NT
S
NT
I
D
NT
NT
D
NT
NT
S
PD
NT
NT
N/A
D
NT
NT
D
D
NT
S
NT
D
PI
NT
D
NT
NT
S
D
NT
NT
ND
D
ND
ND
NT
NT
D
D
NT
S
ND*
D
PI
ND
Notes:
1. Source OU locations were included as source wells in the spatial analysis of the shallow Muscoy OU. Trend results for Source OU are shown on the
Newmark Shallow Zone tables. Wells were grouped according to operation unit, hydrostratigrapic zone (1) and screened interval indicated on Table 1.
2. Data between January 1999 and January 2007 were included in the trend analyses. 'Number of Samples' indicates the number of quarters the well was sampled
for the indicated compound, and 'Number of Detections' indicates the number of quarters the compound was detected between 1999 and 2007.
3. Trends evaluated using the Mann-Kendall (MK) and Linear Regression (LR) methods are shown. Overall Trend is a combination of MK and LR results.
Trend results: I = Increasing, PI = Probably Increasing, S = Stable, PD = Probably Decreasing, D = Decreasing,
NT = No Trend, N/A = Insufficient data to determine trend, ND = Non-detectfor all events, ND*= Only one detection.
4. Maximum Result is the maximum value for the entire data set (date range for each well indicated in Table B1).
Average Result is the average concentration at the monitoring location for all samples between 1999 and 2007.
5. Screening levels were set to the USEPA MCL for PCE and TCE = 0.005 mg/L. (5ppb).
"Above Screening Level" indicates locations where the indicated result was above the MCL..
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.8
WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 1999-2007
INTERMEDIATE ZONE MUSCOY OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
WellName
Tetrachloroei
EW-108
EW-108PB
EW-109
EW-109PZB
EW-110
EW-110PZC
EW-110PZD
EW-1 1 1
EW-111PZB
EW-111PZC
EW-1 12
EW-112PB
MUNI-101
MUNI-104B
MUNI-108
MUNI-116
MW-128B
MW-128C
MW-129B
MW-130B
MW-130C
MW-131B
MW-131C
MW-132B
MW-133B
MW-136A
MW-136B
MW-137B
MW-138B
MW-139B
MW-140B
MW-140C
Number of
Samples
hene (PCE) -
9
11
8
8
8
8
9
8
9
9
9
11
12
12
13
12
16
14
17
18
18
5
5
10
10
12
12
12
12
12
4
4
Number of
Detects
Wuscoy Inte
8
3
8
8
8
8
9
8
9
9
9
8
9
11
1
5
0
2
14
18
1
2
3
9
7
2
2
1
0
0
4
4
Percent
Detection
1999-2007
rmediate Zon
88%
27%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
73%
75%
92%
8%
42%
0%
14%
82%
100%
6%
40%
60%
90%
70%
17%
17%
8%
0%
0%
100%
100%
Maximum
Historic
Result
1987-2006
[ug/L]
e
2.9
0.5
8.3
7
11
24
12
8.8
9.6
9.2
4.1
3.4
1.4
8.5
0.5
4.7
0.1
0.4
8.1
14
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
2.2
0.82
0.52
ND
ND
7.1
13
Max Result
Above MCL?
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Average
Result [ug/L]
1.9
0.22
3.82
1.68
4.91
15.3
6.62
5.01
4.53
4.85
2.47
0.674
0.553
4.07
0.112
0.573
<0.08
0.0936
2.64
8.05
0.103
0.188
0.212
0.367
0.185
0.263
0.177
0.0922
<0.08
<0.08
6.05
12
Average
Result Above
MCL?
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Mann
Kendall
Trend
I
S
D
NT
D
NT
I
D
NT
I
D
PD
S
NT
NT
NT
S
I
D
S
PD
D
D
S
NT
NT
NT
S
S
Linear
Regression
Trend
I
PD
D
NT
D
NT
I
D
NT
I
D
NT
S
NT
NT
NT
I
I
S
S
PD
D
D
S
NT
NT
NT
PD
S
Overall
Trend Result
I
S
D
NT
D
NT
I
D
NT
I
D
S
S
NT
ND*
NT
ND
PI
I
PD
ND*
PD
D
D
S
NT
NT
ND*
ND
ND
S
S
Trichloroethene (TCE) - Muscoy Intermediate Zone
EW-108
EW-108PB
EW-109
EW-109PZB
EW-110
EW-110PZC
EW-110PZD
EW-1 1 1
EW-111PZB
EW-111PZC
EW-1 12
EW-112PB
MUNI-101
MUNI-104B
MUNI-108
MUNI-116
MW-128B
MW-128C
MW-129B
MW-130B
MW-130C
MW-131B
MW-131C
MW-132B
MW-133B
MW-136A
MW-136B
MW-137B
MW-138B
MW-139B
MW-140B
MW-140C
9
11
8
8
8
8
9
8
9
9
9
11
12
12
13
12
16
14
17
18
18
5
5
10
10
12
12
12
12
12
4
4
7
2
8
5
8
8
9
8
9
8
6
3
5
7
2
4
0
1
10
18
1
2
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
77%
18%
100%
63%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
89%
67%
27%
42%
58%
15%
33%
0%
7%
59%
100%
6%
40%
20%
30%
30%
17%
17%
8%
8%
8%
100%
100%
0.7
0.5
1.8
1.4
1.6
5.3
7
1.2
1.9
3.2
0.4
0.5
0.5
2.1
0.5
0.5
ND
0.3
1.5
5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.16
0.15
0.12
1.5
2
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
0.4
0.2
0.988
0.257
0.973
3.83
3.58
0.797
0.906
1.04
0.182
0.15
0.168
0.343
0.119
0.2
<0.05
0.0577
0.414
2.9
0.0765
0.15
0.14
0.145
0.142
0.142
0.127
0.0533
0.053
0.0521
1.37
1.87
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
S
PD
NT
D
NT
NT
D
NT
I
S
PD
NT
I
NT
NT
S
NT
D
NT
PD
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
S
NT
NT
S
D
NT
PD
NT
I
D
S
I
S
D
NT
I
NT
D
D
PI
S
NT
PD
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
S
NT
NT
S
D
NT
D
NT
PI
D
S
I
S
D
NT
I
NT
S
ND
ND*
PI
PD
ND*
PD
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
ND*
ND*
ND*
S
NT
Notes:
1. Source OU locations were included as source wells in the spatial analysis of the intermediate Muscoy OU.
Wells were grouped according to operation unit, hydrostratigrapic zone (1) and screened interval indicated on Table 1.
2. Data between January 1999 and January 2007 were included in the trend analyses. 'Number of Samples' indicates the number of quarters the well was sampled
for the indicated compound, and 'Number of Detections' indicates the number of quarters the compound was detected between 1999 and 2007.
3. Trends evaluated using the Mann-Kendall (MK) and Linear Regression (LR) methods are shown. Overall Trend is a combination of MK and LR results.
Trend results: I = Increasing, PI = Probably Increasing, S = Stable, PD = Probably Decreasing, D = Decreasing,
NT = No Trend, N/A = Insufficient data to determine trend, ND = Non-detect for all events, ND*= Only one detection.
4. Maximum Result is the maximum value for the entire data set (date range for each well indicated in Table 1).
Average Result is the average concentration at the monitoring location for all samples between 1999 and 2007.
5. Screening levels were set to the USEPA MCL for PCE and TCE = 0.005 mg/L.
"Above Screening Level" indicates locations where the indicated result is above the MCL.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.9
WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 1999-2007
DEEP ZONE MUSCOY OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
Well Name
1999-2007
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
1999-2007
Maximum
Historic
Result
1987-2006
[ug/L]
Max Result
Above
MCL?
Average
Result [ug/L]
Average
Result
Above
MCL?
Mann
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Overall
Trend Result
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) - Muscoy Deep Zone
EW-109PZC
EW-110PZE
EW-1 1 1 PZD
MW-129C
MW-136C
MW-137C
MW-138C
MW-139C
6
8
8
18
12
12
12
12
4
4
7
1
0
1
0
0
67%
50%
88%
6%
0%
8%
0%
0%
0.67
0.86
11
2
ND
0.5
ND
ND
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
0.42
0.454
2.36
0.5
<0.5
0.5
<0.5
<0.5
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Trichloroethene (TCE) - Muscoy Deep Zone
EW-109PZC
EW-110PZE
EW-1 1 1 PZD
MW-129C
MW-136C
MW-137C
MW-138C
MW-139C
6
8
8
18
12
12
12
12
1
3
3
1
1
1
0
0
17%
38%
38%
6%
8%
8%
0%
0%
0.14
0.5
1.2
0.5
0.12
0.5
ND
ND
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
0.44
0.455
0.598
0.5
0.489
0.5
<0.5
<0.5
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
NT
D
S
NT
NT
NT
D
I
D
NT
NT
D
ND*
ND
ND*
ND
ND
S
PD
S
S
S
NT
S
S
PD
I
S
D
ND*
S
S
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND
ND
Notes:
1. Wells were grouped according to operation unit, hydrostratigrapic zone (3) and screened interval indicated on Table 1.
2. Data between January 1999 and January 2007 were included in the trend analyses. 'Number of Samples' indicates the number of quarters the well was sampled
for the indicated compound, and 'Number of Detections' indicates the number of quarters the compound was detected between 1999 and 2007.
3. Trends evaluated using the Mann-Kendall (MK) and Linear Regression (LR) methods are shown. Overall Trend is a combination of MK and LR results.
Trend results: I = Increasing, PI = Probably Increasing, S = Stable, PD = Probably Decreasing, D = Decreasing,
NT = No Trend, N/A = Insufficient data to determine trend, ND = Non-detect for all events; ND*= one detection early in the record.
4. Maximum Result is the maximum value for the entire data set (date range for each well indicated in Table B1).
Average Result is the average concentration at the monitoring location for all samples between 1999 and 2007.
5. Screening levels were set to the USEPA MCL for PCE and TCE = 0.005 mg/L.
"Above Screening Level" indicates locations where the indicated result is above the MCL.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-07
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.10
WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 2006-2007
MW-140 Well Cluster
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
San Bernardino, California
WellName
Screen
Depth [ft
bgs]
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
2006-2007
Maximum
Historic
Result
[ug/L]
Max Result
Above MCL?
Average
Result [ug/L]
Average
Result
Above
MCL?
Mann Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Overall
Trend
Result
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) - MW-140 Well Cluster
MW-140A330
MW-140A340
MW-140A350
MW-140A360
MW-140A370
MW-140A380
MW-140A390
MW-140B
MW-140C
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
243
312
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2.2
4.2
5.3
4.6
6.1
7.8
6.2
7
13
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2.2
3.88
3.45
3
5.15
6.48
4.83
6.05
12
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
N/A
NT
D
S
S
D
S
S
S
N/A
NT
PD
PD
S
D
S
PD
S
N/A
NT
PD
S
S
D
S
S
S
Trichloroethene (TCE) - MW-140 Well Cluster
MW-140A330
MW-140A340
MW-140A350
MW-140A360
MW-140A370
MW-140A380
MW-140A390
MW-140B
MW-140C
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
243
312
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ND
1
1.2
1.2
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
<0.5
0.805
0.963
1.01
1.45
1.21
1.16
1.17
1.83
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
NT
S
S
S
S
S
S
NT
N/A
NT
PD
S
S
S
S
S
NT
ND
NT
S
S
S
S
S
S
NT
Notes:
1. The MW-140 well cluster is located in the Muscoy OU.
2. Data between May 2006 and January 2007 were included in the trend analyses. 'Number of Samples' indicates the number of samples in the interval.
for the indicated compound, and 'Number of Detections' indicates the number of samples where the COC was detected.
3. Trends evaluated using the Mann-Kendall (MK) and Linear Regression (LR) methods are shown. Overall Trend is a combination of MK and LR results.
Trend results: I = Increasing, PI = Probably Increasing, S = Stable, PD = Probably Decreasing, D = Decreasing,
NT = No Trend, N/A = Insufficient data to determine trend, ND = Non-detect for all events.
4. Maximum Result is the maximum value for the entire data set (date range for each well indicated in Table B1).
Average Result is the average concentration at the monitoring location for all samples between 2006 and 2007.
5. Screening levels were set to the USEPA MCL for PCE and TCE = 0.005 mg/L.
"Above Screening Level" indicates locations where the average result is above the MCL.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.11
MCES SAMPLING FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS
SOURCE OU
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Newmark Superfund Site, San Bernardino, California
Well Name
Recent
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Recent MK
Trend
(2005-2007)
Frequency Based
on Recent Data
Overall
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Overall MK
Trend (1987
2007)
Frequency Based
on Overall Data
Final Result
Frequency
Current Sample
Frequency
Final
Recommended
Frequency
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) — Newmark Source Zone
CJ-1
CJ-10
CJ-11
CJ-1 2
CJ-1 3
CJ-1 4
CJ-1 5
CJ-1 6
CJ-1 7
CJ-1A
CJ-2
CJ-3
CJ-6
CJ-7
CJ-8
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001B
MWCOE002
MWCOE003
MWCOE004
MWCOE005
MWCOE006
MWCOE007
MWCOE008
MWCOE009
0
-8.25E-06
-1 .58E-05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.64E-07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
S
NT
N/A
N/A
N/A
S
NT
NT
S
D
NT
NT
N/A
NT
N/A
NT
N/A
N/A
NT
I
N/A
NT
S
S
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
-2.85E-07
-1.71E-06
1 .68E-06
7.53E-09
6.56E-08
1 .02E-07
1 .76E-06
-2.79E-08
-6.17E-06
-1 .38E-07
-1.12E-07
-8.69E-06
-3.35E-07
-4.17E-07
6.11E-07
-1.10E-06
-3.35E-06
O.OOE+00
2.79E-07
-1 .51 E-05
-7.70E-07
-2.65E-08
-3.76E-07
0
0
D
D
I
I
PI
NT
I
S
D
D
D
D
I
D
I
S
D
S
NT
S
D
NT
S
PD
PD
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Semi-annual/Quarterly
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual/Quarterly
Semi-annual/Quarterly
Semi-annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Biennial
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Biennial
Biennial
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Semi-annual
Biennial
Annual
Semi-annual
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Wotes:
1. 'Recent' concentration rate of change and MK trend is calculated from data collected Apr. 2005 - Jan. 2007.
2. D = Decreasing, PD = Probably Decreasing, S = Stable, NT = No Trend, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing, ND = Non-detect, N/A = insufficient data,"--" = no result.
3. Recent data frequency is the estimated sample frequency based on the recent trend.
4. Overall rate of change and MK trend are for the full data set (see Table B1) for each well.
5. The overall result is the estimated sample frequncy based on the full data record.
6. Final Result Frequency is the recommended frequency based on both recent and overall trends.
7. Current frequency is the approximate sample frequency currently implemented.
8. The final recommended sampling frequency is based on a combination of qualitative and statistical evaluations.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.12
MCES SAMPLING FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS
NEWMARK OU SHALLOW ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Newmark Superfund Site, San Bernardino, California
Well Name
Recent
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Recent MK
Trend
(2005-2007)
Frequency Based
on Recent Data
Overall
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Overall MK
Trend (1987
2007)
Frequency Based
on Overall Data
Final Result
Frequency
Current Sample
Frequency
Final
Recommended
Frequency
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) - Newmark Shallow Zone
EW-1 08PA
EW-2PA
EW-3PA
EW-4PA
EW-5PA
EW-6
EW-6PA
EW-7
MUNI-01
MUNI-07B
MUNI-09B
MUNI-11A
MUNI-13
MUNI-16
MW02A
MW03A
MW04A
MW05A
MW06A
MW07A
MW08A
MW09A
MW12A
MW14A
MW16A
MW17A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-6.03001E-07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S
N/A
S
S
N/A
S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
0
0
2.10E-08
6.07E-09
2.09E-08
-5.81909E-07
-1.50191E-07
-8.32241E-07
2.68273E-08
4.01995E-09
-2.79964E-06
-6.21716E-06
-2.15026E-06
-6.81402E-06
-6.40301E-09
3.48827E-09
-6.36251E-09
-5.18044E-08
2.3816E-39
-2.56685E-06
-5.68816E-08
1.3943E-07
5.26805E-08
6.24782E-08
3.28799E-07
-9.10897E-09
NT
I
NT
S
NT
D
S
D
NT
NT
D
NT
D
D
S
S
S
NT
S
D
D
NT
I
NT
NT
S
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
SemiAnnual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Semi-annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Biennial
Notes:
1. 'Recent' concentration rate of change and MK trend is calculated from data collected Apr. 2005 - Jan. 2007.
2. D = Decreasing, PD = Probably Decreasing, S = Stable, NT = No Trend, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing, ND = Non-detect, N/A = insufficient data, "--" = no result.
3. Recent data frequency is the estimated sample frequency based on the recent trend.
4. Overall rate of change and MK trend are for the full data set (see Table B1) for each well.
5. The overall result is the estimated sample frequncy based on the full data record.
6. Final Result Frequency is the recommended frequency based on both recent and overall trends.
7. Current frequency is the approximate sample frequency currently implemented.
8. The final recommended sampling frequency is based on a combination of qualitative and statistical evaluations.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.13
MCES SAMPLING FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS
NBA/MARK OU INTERMEDIATE ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Newmark Superfund Site, San Bernardino, California
Well Name
Recent
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Recent MK
Trend
(2005-2007)
Frequency Based
on Recent Data
Overall
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Overall MK
Trend
Frequency Based
on Overall Data
Final Result
Frequency
Current Frequency
Final
Recommended
Frequency
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) - Newmark Intermediate Zone
EW-1 PA
EW-7PA
MUNI-07C
MUNI-09C
MUNI-14
MUNI-18
MUNI-22
MUNI-24
MW02B
MW03B
MW04B
MW05B
MW06B
MW07B
MW08B
MW09B
MW10A
MW10B
MW11A
MW12B
MW13A
MW13B
MW14B
MW15A
MW16B
MW17B
-3.06E-08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1.34E-06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-3.87301E-07
S
N/A
NT
S
S
NT
S
N/A
NT
S
S
S
S
S
I
NT
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
N/A
S
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
5.81 E-09
-3.07E-07
-3.04E-08
1.43E-06
-1.41E-06
7.72E-07
-2.21 E-07
-2.70E-08
-2.96E-06
-2.39E-06
-3.82E-06
-5.08E-06
O.OOE+00
-4.16E-06
-6.79E-06
-1.64E-06
-1.57E-23
-1.28E-07
-6.06E-24
0
0
0
0
1.93E-09
-5.71E-06
-5.42E-07
NT
NT
S
I
D
I
NT
NT
PD
NT
D
D
S
D
D
D
S
D
S
S
S
S
S
S
D
NT
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Quarterly
Annual
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Notes:
1. 'Recent' concentration rate of change and MK trend is calculated from data collected Apr. 2005 - Jan. 2007.
2. D = Decreasing, PD = Probably Decreasing, S = Stable, NT = No Trend, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing, ND = Non-detect, N/A = insufficient data, "--'
3. Recent data frequency is the estimated sample frequency based on the recent trend.
4. Overall rate of change and MK trend are for the full data set (see Table B1) for each well.
5. The overall result is the estimated sample frequncy based on the full data record.
6. Final Result Frequency is the recommended frequency based on both recent and overall trends.
7. Current frequency is the approximate sample frequency currently implemented.
8. The final recommended sampling frequency is based on a combination of qualitative and statistical evaluations.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.14
MCES SAMPLING FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS
NBA/MARK OU DEEP ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Newmark Superfund Site, San Bernardino, California
Well Name
Recent
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Recent MK
Trend
(2005-2007)
Frequency Based
on Recent Data
Overall
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Overall MK
Trend
Frequency Based
on Overall Data
Final Result
Frequency
Current Frequency
Final
Recommended
Frequency
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) - Newmark Deep Zone
EW-1
EW-108
EW-1 08PB
EW-1 PB
EW-2
EW-2PB
EW-3
EW-3PB
EW-4
EW-4PB
EW-5
EW-5PB
MUNI-11C
MW04B
MW05B
MW08B
MW09B
MW10C
MW11B
MW11C
MW12C
MW-135B
MW-135C
MW13C
MW14C
MW15B
MW15C
MW16B
0
1.76E-06
1.31E-09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.08E-07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
PI
NT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S
S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
SemiAnnual
SemiAnnual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
2.26E-06
1.80E-06
-7.97E-08
1.01E-06
1.76E-06
1.36E-06
-1.65E-07
9.43E-07
-4.34E-07
1.73E-08
-9.91 E-08
4.92E-10
-3.37E-06
-3.86E-06
-5.08E-06
-6.77E-06
-1.75E-06
-4.21E-06
-9.10E-06
6.62E-07
-1.72E-08
-2.00E-08
-1.73E-07
0
-5.46E-07
0
0
-5.76E-06
I
S
I
S
S
NT
D
NT
D
D
D
PD
D
D
D
S
S
S
S
D
S
S
D
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
SemiAnnual
SemiAnnual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Quarterly
SemiAnnual
SemiAnnual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
SemiAnnual
Biennial
Annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Semi-annual (2005)
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Exclude
Notes:
1. Current concentration rate of change is the rate of concentration change Apr. 2005 - Jan. 2007.
2. Current MK trend is the Mann-Kendall trend between Apr. 2005 and Jan. 2007.
3. Current Result is the estimated sample frequency based on the recent trend.
4. Overall rate of change and MK trend are for the entire data set for each well.
5. The overall result is the estimated sample frequncy based on the full data record.
6. Final Result Frequency is the recommended frequency based on both recent and overall trends.
7. Current frequency is the sample frequency currently implemented.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 1
TABLEB.15
MCES SAMPLING FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS
MUSCOY OU SHALLOW ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Newmark Superfund Site, San Bernardino, California
Well Name
Recent
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Recent MK
Trend
(2005-2007)
Frequency
Based on
Recent Data
Overall
Concentration
Rate of
Change
[mg/yr]
Overall MK
Trend
Frequency
Based on
Overall Data
Final MAROS
Frequency
Current Frequency
Final
Recommended
Frequency
Muscoy Shallows Zone Wells
EW-108PA
EW-109PZA
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZB
EW-111PZA
EW-112PA
MUNI-102
MUNI-103
MUNI-104A
MW-127A
MW-127B
MW-128A
MW-129A
MW-130A
MW-131A
MW-132A
MW-133A
MW-134
MW-135A
MW-137A
MW-138A
MW-139A
-5.48E-06
-1.42E-06
1.02E-06
-2.42E-07
-6.86E-06
-3.35E-06
-
-
-
-
-
2.23E-05
-1.42E-07
-1 .57E-06
-
1 .97E-05
-5.07E-07
-
8.06E-07
-4.49E-06
-3.74E-07
-1.22E-07
NT
S
NT
S
PD
D
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
S
D
N/A
NT
S
S
S
S
S
S
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
2.42E-07
-1.43E-06
9.45E-07
4.11E-06
-6.71 E-06
-8.17E-08
-1.97E-08
-1.81E-08
-
-4.85E-07
1.71E-07
-5.27E-07
-2.68E-07
-9.42E-07
-1.72E-07
-9.39E-08
4.22E-07
-6.77E-08
1 .65E-06
-5.25E-06
1 .09E-06
8.26E-08
NT
S
NT
NT
PD
PD
S
NT
N/A
D
NT
NT
D
D
S
NT
PI
NT
PI
D
NT
NT
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Biennial
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Semi-annual (2005)
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annual (2005)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
SemiAnnual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
SemiAnnual
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Biennial
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Notes:
1. 'Recent' concentration rate of change and MK trend is calculated from data collected Apr. 2005 - Jan. 2007.
2. D = Decreasing, PD = Probably Decreasing, S = Stable, NT = No Trend, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing, ND = Non-detect, N/A = insufficient data, "--" = no result.
3. Recent data frequency is the estimated sample frequency based on the recent trend.
4. Overall rate of change and MK trend are for the full data set (see Table B1) for each well.
5. The overall result is the estimated sample frequncy based on the full data record.
6. Final Result Frequency is the recommended frequency based on both recent and overall trends.
7. Current frequency is the approximate sample frequency currently implemented.
8. The final recommended sampling frequency is based on a combination of qualitative and statistical evaluations.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.16
MCES SAMPLING FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS
MUSCOY OU INTERMEDIATE ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Newmark Superfund Site, San Bernardino, California
Well Name
Recent
Concentration
Rate of
Change [mg/yr]
Recent MK
Trend
(2005-2007)
Frequency Based
on Recent Data
Overall
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Overall MK
Trend
Frequency
Based on
Overall Data
Final Result
Frequency
Current
Frequency
Final
Recommended
Frequency
Tetrachloroethane - Muscoy Intermediate Zone Wells
EW-109
EW-109PZB
EW-110
EW-110PZC
EW-110PZD
EW-1 1 1
EW-111PZB
EW-111PZC
EW-1 12
EW-112PB
MUNI-101
MUNI-104B
MUNI-108
MUNI-116
MW-128B
MW-128C
MW-129B
MW-130B
MW-130C
MW-132B
MW-133B
MW-136A
MW-136B
MW-137B
MW-138B
MW-139B
MW-140B
MW-140C
-6.43E-06
2.30E-06
-7.93E-06
8.33E-07
8.22E-06
-6.88E-06
3.95E-06
1.58E-05
-3.18E-06
-2.29E-06
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
-6.67E-08
-7.16E-06
-4.81 E-06
O.OOE+00
-3.94E-07
-1.62E-08
2.96E-08
O.OOE+00
-5.86E-08
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
-1.15E-05
8.99E-07
D
NT
D
NT
PI
D
NT
I
D
D
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S
S
D
PD
S
S
S
NT
S
S
S
S
S
S
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
-6.23E-06
2.43E-06
-7.70E-06
7.62E-07
8.18E-06
-6.72E-06
2.99E-06
8.97E-06
-1.22933E-06
-2.71651 E-07
4.47764E-08
1.24261 E-06
7.79345E-09
-2.88788E-07
0
8.78249E-10
1.36647E-06
-1.25943E-06
-2.22632E-08
-1.50772E-07
-3.77618E-08
-1.31085E-07
-1.46135E-07
8.343E-09
-8.351 17E-39
-8.351 17E-39
-1.08696E-05
-2.45944E-22
D
NT
D
NT
I
D
NT
I
D
PD
S
NT
NT
NT
S
S
I
D
S
D
S
NT
NT
NT
S
S
S
S
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly (2006)
Quarterly (2006)
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Notes;
1. 'Recent' concentration rate of change and MK trend is calculated from data collected Apr. 2005 - Jan. 2007.
2. D = Decreasing, PD = Probably Decreasing, S = Stable, NT = No Trend, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing, ND = Non-detect, N/A = insufficient data, "--"
3. Recent data frequency is the estimated sample frequency based on the recent trend.
4. Overall rate of change and MK trend are for the full data set (see Table B1) for each well.
5. The overall result is the estimated sample frequncy based on the full data record.
6. Final Result Frequency is the recommended frequency based on both recent and overall trends.
7. Current frequency is the approximate sample frequency currently implemented.
8. The final recommended sampling frequency is based on a combination of qualitative and statistical evaluations.
9. Wells MW-131B and MW-131C had insufficient data for analysis.
-------
Issued: 21-AUG-2007
Page 1 of 1
TABLE B.17
MUSCOY OU MCES SAMPLING FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS: DEEP ZONE
MUSCOYOU DEEP ZONE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Newmark Superfund Site, San Bernardino, California
Well Name
Recent
Concentration
Rate of
Change
[mg/yr]
Recent MK
Trend
(2005-2007)
Frequency
Based on
Recent Data
Overall
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Overall MK
Trend
Frequency
Based on
Overall Data
Final Result
Frequency
Current
Frequency
Final
Recommended
Frequency
Tetrachloroethane - Muscoy Deep Zone Wells
EW-109PZC
EW-110PZE
EW-111PZD
MW-129C
MW-136C
MW-137C
MW-138C
MW-139C
4.83E-08
4.78E-07
-3.87E-06
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
-1.82E-22
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
S
NT
NT
ND
ND
S
ND
ND
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
3.59E-07
3.33E-07
-1.22E-05
-1.72E-23
O.OOE+00
6.17E-24
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
NT
NT
D
S
ND
NT
ND
ND
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Atofes:
1. 'Recent' concentration rate of change and MK trend is calculated from data collected Apr. 2005 - Jan. 2007.
2. D = Decreasing, PD = Probably Decreasing, S = Stable, NT = No Trend, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing, ND = Non-detect, N/A = insufficient data,"--" = no result.
3. Recent data frequency is the estimated sample frequency based on the recent trend.
4. Overall rate of change and MK trend are for the full data set (see Table B1) for each well.
5. The overall result is the estimated sample frequncy based on the full data record.
6. Final Result Frequency is the recommended frequency based on both recent and overall trends.
7. Current frequency is the approximate sample frequency currently implemented.
8. The final recommended sampling frequency is based on a combination of qualitative and statistical evaluations.
-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
NEWMARK, MUSCOY AND SOURCE OU
NEWMARK SUPERFUND SITE
San Bernardino, California
APPENDIX C:
MAROS Reports
Source OU
COC Assessment Report
Mann-Kendall Reports
Newmark OU:
Mann-Kendall Reports
Muscoy OU:
Mann-Kendall Reports
-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
NEWMARK, MUSCOY AND SOURCE OU
NEWMARK SUPERFUND SITE
San Bernardino, California
Source OU MAROS Reports
COC Assessment Report
Mann-Kendall Reports
-------
MAROS COC Assessment
Project: Newmark Source OU
Location: San Bernardino
Toxicitv:
Contaminant of Concern
User Name: MV
State: California
Representative
Concentration
(mg/L)
PRG
(mg/L)
Percent
Above
PRG
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
5.7E-03
5.0E-03
13.7%
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
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Class
ORG
Total
Wells
26
Total
Excedences
7
Percent
Excedences
26.9%
Total
detects
25
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
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
0.923
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)
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Project: Newmark Source OU
Location: San Bernardino
User Name: MV
State: California
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/1/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
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
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
CJ-1
CJ-10
CJ-11
CJ-1 2
CJ-1 4
CJ-1 5
CJ-1 6
CJ-1 7
CJ-1A
CJ-2
CJ-3
CJ-6
CJ-7
CJ-8
MW-127A
MW-127B
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001 B
MWCOE002
MWCOE003
MWCOE004
MWCOE005
MWCOE006
MWCOE007
MWCOE008
MWCOE009
s
s
s
T
T
T
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
s
s
s
s
29
14
18
5
5
18
29
14
19
15
15
29
13
13
11
11
6
13
5
5
6
13
12
13
6
6
11
13
17
4
3
17
29
14
4
4
12
28
2
11
8
4
6
12
0
1
4
13
6
11
5
3
3.1E-04
1.4E-02
1.9E-02
9.8E-04
5.6E-04
1.9E-03
6.1E-03
5.3E-03
3.0E-04
2.3E-04
2.0E-03
7.9E-03
1.2E-04
5.4E-04
4.1E-03
3.5E-03
1.7E-02
1.5E-02
8.0E-05
1.2E-04
4.5E-04
3.8E-03
4.1E-04
1.3E-03
1.4E-03
3.3E-04
8.0E-05
9.0E-03
1 .7E-02
1 .OE-03
8.0E-04
1 .2E-03
5.2E-03
4.5E-03
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
9.6E-04
7.2E-03
8.0E-05
5.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-05
1 .5E-02
1 .3E-02
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
2.6E-04
3.0E-03
1 .9E-04
8.3E-04
7.5E-04
2.5E-04
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
I
NT
NT
S
S
NT
S
S
PI
I
PD
D
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
S
NT
NT
NT
NT
S
NT
NT
I
s
i
s
PD
PI
S
S
I
I
D
D
NT
NT
NT
PI
D
NT
S
NT
PD
NT
NT
PD
NT
I
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
CJ-1
CJ-10
CJ-11
CJ-1 2
CJ-1 4
CJ-1 5
CJ-1 6
s
s
s
T
T
T
S
29
14
18
5
5
18
29
24
13
15
4
3
18
29
8.0E-04
3.6E-02
4.9E-03
1.3E-03
6.4E-04
5.2E-03
1.0E-02
7.5E-04
3.5E-02
6.0E-03
1.1E-03
5.2E-04
4.2E-03
9.7E-03
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
S
S
PI
D
NT
NT
D
I
NT
I
D
NT
I
D
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Page 1 of 3
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Source/
Well Tai,
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
CJ-17
CJ-1A
CJ-2
CJ-3
CJ-6
CJ-7
CJ-8
MW-127A
MW-127B
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001 B
MWCOE002
MWCOE003
MWCOE004
MWCOE005
MWCOE006
MWCOE007
MWCOE008
MWCOE009
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
CJ-1
CJ-10
CJ-11
CJ-1 2
CJ-1 4
CJ-1 5
CJ-1 6
CJ-17
CJ-1A
CJ-2
CJ-3
CJ-6
CJ-7
CJ-8
MW-127A
MW-127B
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001 B
MWCOE002
MWCOE003
MWCOE004
MWCOE005
MWCOE006
MWCOE007
MWCOE008
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
S
S
14
19
15
15
29
13
13
11
11
6
13
5
5
6
13
12
13
6
6
29
14
18
5
5
18
29
14
2
7
15
29
3
13
11
11
6
13
5
5
6
13
12
13
6
14
0
4
15
28
5
13
11
8
6
12
0
3
6
13
2
13
4
6
0
14
2
0
1
12
29
14
0
1
8
28
0
2
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
2.0E-02
8.0E-05
2.6E-04
5.1E-03
6.6E-03
2.0E-04
3.9E-03
8.2E-04
4.5E-04
4.7E-03
9.2E-03
8.0E-05
5.2E-04
1.5E-02
2.9E-03
1.5E-04
2.9E-03
1.9E-04
6.2E-04
5.0E-05
2.6E-03
2.0E-04
5.0E-05
2.4E-04
3.1E-04
2.4E-03
6.9E-04
5.0E-05
9.3E-05
6.2E-04
2.3E-03
5.0E-05
1.2E-04
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.2E-04
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
1.2E-04
1.3E-04
8.5E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E-02
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
2.7E-03
7.2E-03
8.0E-05
4.0E-03
6.0E-04
2.0E-04
4.5E-03
1 .2E-02
8.0E-05
5.6E-04
1 .2E-02
3.0E-03
8.0E-05
3.4E-03
1 .6E-04
6.2E-04
5.0E-05
2.7E-03
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
2.5E-04
2.3E-03
7.0E-04
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
1 .3E-04
2.4E-03
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
6.0E-04
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
PD
S
I
NT
PI
I
D
D
NT
S
D
S
NT
S
D
NT
S
PD
PD
S
S
NT
S
NT
S
D
D
N/A
NT
NT
PD
N/A
NT
S
S
S
D
S
S
S
NT
NT
NT
S
D
D
I
D
S
I
D
D
NT
D
D
S
I
PD
D
NT
S
D
S
S
I
NT
S
NT
NT
D
D
N/A
NT
PD
D
N/A
NT
S
S
S
D
S
S
S
NT
NT
NT
S
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Page 2 of 3
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Source/
Well Tai,
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
MWCOE009
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
CJ-1
CJ-10
CJ-11
CJ-1 2
CJ-1 4
CJ-1 5
CJ-1 6
CJ-1 7
CJ-1A
CJ-2
CJ-3
CJ-6
CJ-7
CJ-8
MW-127A
MW-127B
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001 B
MWCOE002
MWCOE003
MWCOE004
MWCOE005
MWCOE006
MWCOE007
MWCOE008
MWCOE009
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
S
S
S
6
29
14
18
5
5
18
29
14
19
15
15
29
13
13
11
11
6
13
5
5
6
13
12
13
6
6
0
10
14
15
0
0
12
29
14
0
0
6
28
0
5
3
2
6
11
0
0
5
12
9
2
1
2
5.0E-05
1.9E-04
3.1E-03
1.8E-03
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
3.2E-04
1.8E-03
6.7E-04
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
2.6E-04
1.7E-03
5.0E-05
1.4E-04
2.2E-04
1.3E-04
1.7E-03
1.1E-03
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
2.8E-04
7.2E-04
3.8E-04
1.2E-04
1.3E-04
6.5E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
3.0E-03
2.2E-03
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
2.6E-04
1 .8E-03
6.6E-04
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
1 .5E-03
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E-03
1 .OE-03
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
2.7E-04
7.3E-04
4.1E-04
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
S
PI
s
NT
S
S
S
PD
S
S
S
NT
D
S
NT
NT
PI
S
NT
S
S
S
S
I
NT
NT
NT
s
i
s
i
s
s
NT
S
D
S
S
NT
D
S
D
NT
PI
D
S
S
S
S
S
I
NT
PD
NT
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
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Page 3 of 3
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-1
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
2nc ni
.Ut-Uo -
1.8E-03-
^ 1.6E-03-
|" 1.4E-03-
r 1.2E-03-
o
s 1.0E-03 •
i 8.0E-04 •
| 6.0E-04 •
0 4.0E-04 •
2.0E-04 •
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
CJ-1 S
/vvv^
V* « •
*** **
* • ** *
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
//Vfe
^*
***
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.5E-04
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
6.0E-04
1.4E-03
1.9E-03
1.4E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
1.5E-03
9.7E-04
7.5E-04
8.6E-04
8.6E-04
7.8E-04
7.1E-04
8.0E-04
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ^26
P
Confidence in
Trend i
I 67.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.59
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
I S
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
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
1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
5/24/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well Well Type
CJ-1
CJ-1
CJ-1
CJ-1
CJ-1
CJ-1
CJ-1
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
8/15/2004
11/15/2004
2/15/2005
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
8.6E-04
7.5E-04
7.3E-04
6.9E-04
6.8E-04
6.6E-04
6.2E-04
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
5/24/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-1A
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1 nnR-nn
1 .UU^> UU
? 1.00E-01 •
O)
§ 1.00E-02-
^5
*-
| 1.00E-03-
c
O
° 1.00E-04-
1 nnp n<>
1 .UUC~U«I
Data Table:
V> & ^ ^
^ ^b ^ ^b
Effective
Well Well Type Date
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
CJ-1A
Note: Increasing (I);
S 2/15/1999
S 5/15/1999
S 8/15/1999
S 11/15/1999
S 2/15/2000
S 5/15/2000
S 8/15/2000
S 11/15/2000
S 2/15/2001
S 5/15/2001
S 8/15/2001
S 11/15/2001
S 2/15/2002
S 5/15/2002
S 8/15/2002
S 5/15/2005
S 8/15/2005
S 11/15/2005
S 2/15/2006
\ \
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
Decreasing (D); No
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Trend (NT);
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I °
p
Confidence in
Trend:
1 48.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 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
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
Not Applicable (N/A) -
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
5/24/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-2
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 nnFn-nn
1 .\J\JCr\J\J
? 1.00E-01 •
O)
§ 1.00E-02-
§ 1.00E-03-
o
° 1.00E-04-
1 nnp n<>
1 .UUC~U«I
Data Table:
Well W
CJ-2
CJ-2
CJ-2
CJ-2
CJ-2
CJ-2
CJ-2
CJ-2
CJ-2
CJ-2
CJ-2
CJ-2
CJ-2
CJ-2
CJ-2
[
^%*vvvv
1 1 1 1 1 1
Effective
fell Type Date
S 2/15/1999
S 5/15/1999
S 8/15/1999
S 11/15/1999
S 2/15/2000
S 5/15/2000
S 8/15/2000
S 11/15/2000
S 2/15/2001
S 5/15/2001
S 8/15/2001
S 5/15/2005
S 8/15/2005
S 11/15/2005
S 2/15/2006
late
X^^^l&l
•
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
V
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
1.5E-03
9.2E-04
2.1E-04
9.0E-05
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 38
1
Confidence in
Trend:
I 96.7%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 171
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
I '
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 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 2.1, 2004, AFCEE
3/30/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-3
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00E+00-
U
0) 1.00E-01 •
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
c
0 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04-
Data Table:
Q. ^^ ^^ (^^ ^ f
^t ^o^ to* ^v1^ ^ ^^
*******
Effective
Well Well Type Date
CJ-3
CJ-3
CJ-3
CJ-3
CJ-3
CJ-3
CJ-3
CJ-3
CJ-3
CJ-3
CJ-3
CJ-3
CJ-3
CJ-3
CJ-3
S 2/15/1999
S 5/15/1999
S 8/15/1999
S 11/15/1999
S 2/15/2000
S 5/15/2000
S 8/15/2000
S 11/15/2000
S 2/15/2001
S 5/15/2001
S 8/15/2001
S 11/15/2005
S 2/15/2006
S 5/15/2006
S 11/15/2006
&#$>$$$#
* * *
• »
* *
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
/
Result (mg/L) Flag
4.1E-03
2.7E-03
2.0E-03
1.8E-03
1.6E-03
4.8E-03
5.1E-03
1.3E-02
1.7E-02
1.3E-02
8.0E-03
6.5E-04
1.2E-04
1.4E-04
7.8E-04
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -15
Confidence in
Trend:
1 75.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1'07
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 2.1, 2004, AFCEE
3/30/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-6
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1nnd.nn
.UUb*-UU •
? 1.00E-01 •
O)
§ 1.00E-02-
£
§ 1.00E-03-
c
O
° 1.00E-04-
1 nnp n<>
1 .UUC~U«I
Data Table:
Well W
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
Di
^A^oA^X
*»**
Effective
fell Type Date
S 2/15/1999
S 5/15/1999
S 8/15/1999
S 11/15/1999
S 2/15/2000
S 5/15/2000
S 8/15/2000
S 11/15/2000
S 2/15/2001
S 5/15/2001
S 8/15/2001
S 11/15/2001
S 2/15/2002
S 5/15/2002
S 8/15/2002
S 11/15/2002
S 2/15/2003
S 5/15/2003
S 8/15/2003
S 11/15/2003
S 2/15/2004
S 5/15/2004
ite
A^/XV^/V
+
*»*
•
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
t
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well Well Type
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
CJ-6
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Effective
Date
8/15/2004
11/15/2004
2/15/2005
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
7.5E-03 1
7.4E-03 1
7.6E-03 1
8.0E-05 ND 1
6.5E-03 1
4.5E-03 1
5.8E-03 1
Number of
Detects
1
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 2.1, 2004, AFCEE
3/30/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-7
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00B-00
=d 1.00E-01 -
O)
§ 1.00E-02-
§ 1.00E-03-
o
° 1.00E-04H
1.00E-05
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 36
Confidence in
Trend:
I 98.5%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.90
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
CJ-7
CJ-7
CJ-7
CJ-7
CJ-7
CJ-7
CJ-7
CJ-7
CJ-7
CJ-7
CJ-7
CJ-7
CJ-7
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
11/15/1999
2/15/2000
5/15/2000
8/15/2000
11/15/2000
2/15/2001
5/15/2001
8/15/2001
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
2.6E-04
2.5E-04
2.7E-04
8.0E-05
2.5E-04
6.3E-04
Flag
ND
ND
ND
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
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 2.1, 2004, AFCEE
3/30/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-8
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00E+00-
j"
B>
•§- 1.00E-01 -
o
c
01
c 1.00E-02-
o
O
1.00E-03-
Data Table:
Q> Q> ^ ^ ^
••*..•
Effective
Well Well Type Date
CJ-8
CJ-8
CJ-8
CJ-8
CJ-8
CJ-8
CJ-8
CJ-8
CJ-8
CJ-8
CJ-8
CJ-8
CJ-8
S 8/15/1999
S 11/15/1999
S 5/15/2000
S 11/15/2000
S 8/15/2001
S 5/15/2002
S 5/15/2003
S 2/15/2004
S 11/15/2004
S 5/15/2005
S 11/15/2005
S 5/15/2006
S 11/15/2006
/>V>V>9X
• •
* * * *
/*
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
5.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
4.0E-03
2.0E-03
4.3E-03
4.3E-03
2.6E-03
2.3E-03
2.8E-03
2.9E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -31
Confidence in
Trend:
1 96.7%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.29
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
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 2.1, 2004, AFCEE
3/30/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-10
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00E+00-
? 1.00E-01 •
O)
§ 1.00E-02-
§ 1.00E-03-
o
° 1.00E-04-
1.00E-05-
Data Table:
X?4^04^*5
******
•
Effective
Well Well Type Date
CJ-10
CJ-10
CJ-10
CJ-10
CJ-10
CJ-10
CJ-10
CJ-10
CJ-10
CJ-10
CJ-10
CJ-10
CJ-10
CJ-10
S 8/15/1999
S 11/15/1999
S 5/15/2000
S 11/15/2000
S 8/15/2001
S 5/15/2002
S 8/15/2002
S 5/15/2003
S 2/15/2004
S 11/15/2004
S 5/15/2005
S 11/15/2005
S 5/15/2006
S 11/15/2006
fV V V V Q
* * * *
* * *
/
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
4.3E-02
4.3E-02
4.7E-02
3.2E-02
2.3E-02
1.7E-02
8.0E-05 ND
1.6E-02
5.3E-02
3.2E-02
4.3E-02
1.4E-02
3.4E-02
1.8E-02
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -21
Confidence in
Trend:
1 86.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °'52
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
I S
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
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 2.1, 2004, AFCEE
3/30/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-11
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Ioc no
.zt-Uz -
_ 1.0E-02-
~
E. 8.0E-03 •
o
s 6.0E-03 •
§ 4.0E-03 -
c
O
2.0E-03 •
Data Table:
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-12
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
.<*'
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
E
itration
Concer
3.0E-03 •
2.5E-03 •
2.0E-03 -
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 •
n np4-nn .
«
*
*
* *
Confidence in
Trend:
I 95.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.98
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
CJ-12
CJ-12
CJ-12
CJ-12
CJ-12
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/1999
11/15/1999
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.0E-03
3.0E-03
1.1E-03
1.6E-04
8.0E-05 ND
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
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
6/12/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-13
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_J
1
c
o
1
c
8
c
o
o
9.0E-04 •
8.0E-04 •
7.0E-04 -
6.0E-04 •
5.0E-04 •
4.0E-04 •
3.0E-04 •
2.0E-04 •
1.0E-04-
n np4-nn .
* * * *
Confidence in
Trend:
I 50.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.39
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
CJ-13
CJ-13
CJ-13
CJ-13
CJ-13
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/1999
11/15/1999
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.7E-04
1.4E-04
8.0E-05
Flag
ND
ND
ND
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 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
6/12/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-14
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
1.8E-03-
1.6E-03-
1.4E-03-
1.2E-03-
1.0E-03-
8.0E-04 •
6.0E-04 •
4.0E-04 •
2.0E-04 •
n np4-nn .
*
•
•
• *
Confidence in
Trend:
I 50.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.17
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
CJ-14
CJ-14
CJ-14
CJ-14
CJ-14
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/1999
11/15/1999
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
6.0E-04
1.9E-03
5.2E-04
8.0E-05
Flag
ND
ND
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 0
1 1
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
5/24/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-15
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/1/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
J? J$* J^ J?" 4J?* JS*1 4$^ j£ J^ Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Ice no
.bt-Uz -
1.4E-02 •
^ 1.2E-02-
~ 1.0E-02-
o
~ 8.0E-03 •
g 6.0E-03 -
o
o 4.0E-03 •
O
2.0E-03 -
00
Data Table:
V ^ V
+
» • * * *
Effective
Well Well Type Date
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
CJ-15 T
8/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
11/15/2003
2/15/2004
5/15/2004
8/15/2004
11/15/2004
2/15/2005
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
V^ V V V V V
•
^
•
^
^
* * *
*
* *
I 24
P
Confidence in
Trend:
1 80.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.83
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
I NT
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 9.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.4E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 7.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.5E-02
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.4E-02
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.0E-02
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.2E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 6.2E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 6.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.9E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 4.6E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 3.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 3.8E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 3.2E-03
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
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
6/12/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-16
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1nnd.nn
.UUb*-UU •
j"
O)
•§- 1.00E-01 -
o
c
01
c 1.00E-02-
o
O
1 nnp nt
1 .UUC'UO
Data Table:
Well W
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
Di
^A^oA^X
*«** ..
******* ••«
Effective
fell Type Date
S 2/15/1999
S 5/15/1999
S 8/15/1999
S 11/15/1999
S 2/15/2000
S 5/15/2000
S 8/15/2000
S 11/15/2000
S 2/15/2001
S 5/15/2001
S 8/15/2001
S 11/15/2001
S 2/15/2002
S 5/15/2002
S 8/15/2002
S 11/15/2002
S 2/15/2003
S 5/15/2003
S 8/15/2003
S 11/15/2003
S 2/15/2004
S 5/15/2004
ite
A^/XVX/^J
*»* *•**••••*•*
•
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
^C/
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.4E-02
1.3E-02
1.4E-02
1.1E-02
9.1E-03
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
8.9E-03
1.0E-02
9.7E-03
6.5E-03
8.9E-03
9.3E-03
9.0E-03
1.0E-02
8.6E-03
9.7E-03
6.7E-03
1.0E-02
9.8E-03
1.1E-02
1.0E-02
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ^92
I
Confidence in
Trend:
1 95.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °'17
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
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MAROS Version 2.1, 2004, AFCEE
3/30/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well Well Type
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
CJ-16
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Effective
Date
8/15/2004
11/15/2004
2/15/2005
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
9.6E-03
9.5E-03
9.2E-03
8.7E-03
9.7E-03
9.5E-03
1.2E-02
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 2.1, 2004, AFCEE
3/30/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: CJ-17
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/1/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
^J
B)
•— -
o
s
c
c
o
o
2.5E-02 -
2.0E-02 •
1.5E-02-
1.0E-02-
5.0E-03 -
n np4-nn .
•
A * * * . * *
* » *
» *
•
•
I ~28
Confidence in
Trend:
I 92.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.25
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ PD
Data Table:
Well
CJ-17
CJ-17
CJ-17
CJ-17
CJ-17
CJ-17
CJ-17
CJ-17
CJ-17
CJ-17
CJ-17
CJ-17
CJ-17
CJ-17
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
8/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.8E-02
2.8E-02
2.5E-02
1.6E-02
1.9E-02
1.9E-02
2.0E-02
1.7E-02
2.0E-02
1.9E-02
1.3E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-02
2.1E-02
Number of
Samples
1
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
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
6/12/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MWCOE001
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
5? 5?
1.00E+00
•=- 1.00E-01
o
13
c 1.00E-02
o
O
1.00E-03
j?>
f
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 70.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.63
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001A
MWCOE001A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L) Flag
4.0E-03
8.0E-03
5.0E-03
8.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.8E-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 2.1, 2004, AFCEE
4/3/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MWCOE001
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1 nnR-nn
1 .UU^> UU
? 1.00E-01 •
O)
§ 1.00E-02-
£
§ 1.00E-03-
o
° 1.00E-04-
1 nnp n<>
1 .UUC~U«I
Data Table:
oS> oS> cS cS c£
Jo Jo Jo )o )o
1 1 1 1 1
* * * * *
•
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MWCOE001B
MWCOE001B
MWCOE001B
MWCOE001B
MWCOE001B
MWCOE001B
MWCOE001B
MWCOE001B
MWCOE001B
MWCOE001B
MWCOE001B
MWCOE001B
MWCOE001B
T 5/15/1999
T 11/15/1999
T 5/15/2000
T 11/15/2000
T 8/15/2001
T 5/15/2002
T 8/15/2002
T 2/15/2004
T 11/15/2004
T 5/15/2005
T 11/15/2005
T 5/15/2006
T 11/15/2006
» "V "V &• *• <3 <3 fe
^V^^%°4\^V4V>^
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
* * *
•
^
•
<0
/*
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
1.6E-02
1.4E-02
1.3E-02
1.8E-02
7.0E-03
1.3E-02
1.2E-02
2.3E-03
8.0E-05 ND
1.3E-03
4.3E-03
6.4E-03
5.4E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 143
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.69
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 0
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 2.1, 2004, AFCEE
4/3/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MWCOE002
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
5?
&
^
f
f
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
2-
B)
E.
o
§
c
o
o
1 .UUEiruu -
1.00E-01 •
1.00E-02-
1.00E-03-
1.00E-04-
1 nnp.nt; .
*****
Confidence in
Trend:
I 40.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MWCOE002
MWCOE002
MWCOE002
MWCOE002
MWCOE002
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
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
5/24/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MWCOE003
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
.<*'
.<*'
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
'a
_§
o
1
§
c
o
o
1.2E-03-
1.0E-03-
8.0E-04 •
6.0E-04 •
4.0E-04 •
2.0E-04 •
n np4-nn .
*
* *
Confidence in
Trend:
I 82.1%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.96
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MWCOE003
MWCOE003
MWCOE003
MWCOE003
MWCOE003
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
1.3E-03
5.6E-04
6.0E-04
Flag
ND
ND
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 0
1 0
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
5/24/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MWCOE004
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
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
1.00E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 86.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.51
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MWCOE004
MWCOE004
MWCOE004
MWCOE004
MWCOE004
MWCOE004
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.5E-02
2.2E-02
1.1E-02
6.1E-03
1.0E-02
1.3E-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 2.1, 2004, AFCEE
4/3/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MWCOE005
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
A RE ni
*f.*JC-UO
4.0E-03 -
U 3.5E-03 -
B)
E. 3.0E-03 •
o 2.5E-03 •
2 2.0E-03 •
§ 1.5E-03-
c
£ 1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 -
Data Table:
*//vv
V * * V
^ ^
t
^ ^
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MWCOE005 S
MWCOE005 S
MWCOE005 S
MWCOE005 S
MWCOE005 S
MWCOE005 S
MWCOE005 S
MWCOE005 S
MWCOE005 S
MWCOE005 S
MWCOE005 S
MWCOE005 S
MWCOE005 S
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Date
VVVV*
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MWCOE006
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6nc r\A
.UE-U4 •
_ 5.0E-04 -
"3)
E. 4.0E-04 •
o
s 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
c
O
° 1.0E-04-
Data Table:
^VV%
^ ^ ^ ^
*
.
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MWCOE006 S
MWCOE006 S
MWCOE006 S
MWCOE006 S
MWCOE006 S
MWCOE006 S
MWCOE006 S
MWCOE006 S
MWCOE006 S
MWCOE006 S
MWCOE006 S
MWCOE006 S
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Date
^ /V' /* /*
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MWCOE007
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
7 OF 01
/ .uc-uo
6.0E-03 •
1 5.0E-03 •
§ 4.0E-03 -
S 3.0E-03 -
c
01
c 2.0E-03 -
o
O
1.0E-03-
Data Table:
*//vv
V * * V
•
• •
^
^
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MWCOE007 S
MWCOE007 S
MWCOE007 S
MWCOE007 S
MWCOE007 S
MWCOE007 S
MWCOE007 S
MWCOE007 S
MWCOE007 S
MWCOE007 S
MWCOE007 S
MWCOE007 S
MWCOE007 S
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Date
VVVV*
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MWCOE008
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
4.5E-04 -
4.0E-04 -
3.5E-04 -
3.0E-04 •
2.5E-04 •
2.0E-04 •
1.5E-04-
1.0E-04-
5.0E-05 •
n nF4-nn .
* •
^
• *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -9
Confidence in
Trend:
I 93.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.73
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
i PD
Data Table:
Well
MWCOE008
MWCOE008
MWCOE008
MWCOE008
MWCOE008
MWCOE008
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L) Flag
4.3E-04
2.1E-04
8.0E-05 ND
2.1E-04
1.0E-04
8.0E-05 ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
0
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
5/24/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MWCOE009
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
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 93.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.54
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ PD
Data Table:
Well
MWCOE009
MWCOE009
MWCOE009
MWCOE009
MWCOE009
MWCOE009
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03
9.0E-04
1.6E-04
8.0E-04
4.4E-04
4.0E-04
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
5/24/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
NEWMARK, MUSCOY AND SOURCE OU
NEWMARK SUPERFUND SITE
San Bernardino, California
Newmark OU MAROS Reports
Mann-Kendall Reports
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-108PA
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Concentration (mg/L)
Date
1 AC n? j • • • • ' • • ' • •
1.2E-02-
1.0E-02-
8.0E-03 •
6.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 •
*
* • »
$y Mann Kendall S Statistic:
r
Confiden
Trend:
-4
ce in
]~~ 59.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1'35
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
|
NT
Data Table:
Well
Well Type
Effective
Date
Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
ND
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
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
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
8.0E-05
4.0E-03
1.9E-03
2.4E-04
5.4E-03
3.5E-03
1.2E-02
2.9E-04
5.5E-04
1.3E-03
8.0E-05
ND
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-2PA
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
2.5E-03
2- 2.0E-03
B)
T 1.5E-03
o
1
•£ 1.0E-03
s
c
O 5.0E-04
O.OE+00
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
* * * *
I 27
Confidence in
Trend:
I 94.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.48
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ PI
Data Table:
Well
EW-2PA
EW-2PA
EW-2PA
EW-2PA
EW-2PA
EW-2PA
EW-2PA
EW-2PA
EW-2PA
EW-2PA
EW-2PA
EW-2PA
EW-2PA
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
5.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
5.0E-04
1.1E-04
2.0E-03
8.0E-05
2.1E-04
Flag
ND
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
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-3PA
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 OF ni
1 .UC-UO
9.0E-04 •
^ 8.0E-04 -
|" 7.0E-04 -
r 6.0E-04 •
o
s 5.0E-04 •
i 4.0E-04 •
| 3.0E-04 •
0 2.0E-04 •
1.0E-04-
Data Table:
/VVV
<: ^ V *
Date
vvvvvvvv*
***** ^ ^ ^
•
A
* * * ^ -. ~
Effective
Well Well Type Date
EW-3PA T
EW-3PA T
EW-3PA T
EW-3PA T
EW-3PA T
EW-3PA T
EW-3PA T
EW-3PA T
EW-3PA T
EW-3PA T
EW-3PA T
EW-3PA T
EW-3PA T
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 9
Confidence in
Trend i
I 68.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1.36
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 9.3E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.4E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-4PA
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6 OF (\A
• UC-U*t
_ 5.0E-04 -
B>
E. 4.0E-04 •
c
s 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
c
o
° 1.0E-04-
Oncu-nn
.uc^uu
Data Table:
/VVV
<: ^ ^ ^
Effective
Well Well Type Date
EW-4PA T
EW-4PA T
EW-4PA T
EW-4PA T
EW-4PA T
EW-4PA T
EW-4PA T
EW-4PA T
EW-4PA T
EW-4PA T
EW-4PA T
EW-4PA T
EW-4PA T
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Date
vvvvvvvv*
***** ^ ^ ^
•
• • •
• A A A
WWW
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 1
Confidence in
Trend:
I 50.0%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.86
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-5PA
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6 OF (\A
• UC-U*t
_ 5.0E-04 -
B>
E. 4.0E-04 •
c
s 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
c
o
° 1.0E-04-
Oncu-nn
.uc^uu
Data Table:
/VVV
<: ^ ^ ^
Effective
Well Well Type Date
EW-5PA T
EW-5PA T
EW-5PA T
EW-5PA T
EW-5PA T
EW-5PA T
EW-5PA T
EW-5PA T
EW-5PA T
EW-5PA T
EW-5PA T
EW-5PA T
EW-5PA T
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Date
vvvvvvvv*
***** ^ ^ ^
• »
•
* • • « •
V V V V
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 3
Confidence in
Trend:
I 54.8%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1.01
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-6
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
6.0E-03
_ 5.0E-03
_j
,§ 4.0E-03
| 3.0E-03
g 2.0E-03
o
0 1.0E-03-
0.
* *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ~53
Confidence in
Trend:
I 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.30
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
EW-6
EW-6
EW-6
EW-6
EW-6
EW-6
EW-6
EW-6
EW-6
EW-6
EW-6
EW-6
EW-6
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.7E-03
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
4.0E-03
4.5E-03
4.0E-03
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
3.8E-03
2.8E-03
2.7E-03
1.2E-03
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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-6PA
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
2.5E-03
2- 2.0E-03
E
c 1.5E-03
o
1
•£ 1.0E-03
c
O 5.0E-04
O.OE+00
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ~26
Confidence in
Trend:
I 93.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.46
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ PD
Data Table:
Well
EW-6PA
EW-6PA
EW-6PA
EW-6PA
EW-6PA
EW-6PA
EW-6PA
EW-6PA
EW-6PA
EW-6PA
EW-6PA
EW-6PA
EW-6PA
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.4E-03
2.0E-03
5.0E-04
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.1E-03
1.0E-03
8.0E-04
2.0E-03
1.5E-03
1.2E-03
6.7E-04
4.9E-04
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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-7
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_J
O)
E.
c
o
1
1
o
o
7.0E-03 -
6.0E-03 -
5.0E-03 -
4.0E-03 •
3.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 •
1.0E-03-
n np4-nn .
^ »
^
* * * • *
• » *
I ~28
Confidence in
Trend:
I 98.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.20
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
Well Type
Effective
Date
Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
EW-7 T 2/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 6.7E-03 1 1
EW-7 T 5/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 7.0E-03 1 1
EW-7 T 8/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 6.0E-03 1 1
EW-7 T 5/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-03 1 1
EW-7 T 11/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 4.0E-03 1 1
EW-7 T 5/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-03 1 1
EW-7 T 8/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-03 1 1
EW-7 T 5/15/2003 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-03 1 1
EW-7 T 2/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.2E-03 1 1
EW-7 T 5/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 3.9E-03 1 1
EW-7 T 11/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 4.0E-03 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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-01
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
+jS^
<&•
6.0E-04
_ 5.0E-04
,§ 4.0E-04
| 3.0E-04
g 2.0E-04
o
0 1.0E-04-
0.
* *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 52.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.04
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MUNI-01
MUNI-01
MUNI-01
MUNI-01
MUNI-01
MUNI-01
MUNI-01
MUNI-01
MUNI-01
MUNI-01
MUNI-01
MUNI-01
MUNI-01
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
5.0E-04
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
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
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-07B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E-04 •
_ 5.0E-04 -
,§ 4.0E-04 •
c
| 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
o
0 1.0E-04-
O.OE+00 •
Data Table:
X^V
•
» » » •
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MUNI-07B T
MUNI-07B T
MUNI-07B T
MUNI-07B T
MUNI-07B T
MUNI-07B T
MUNI-07B T
MUNI-07B T
MUNI-07B T
MUNI-07B T
MUNI-07B T
MUNI-07B T
MUNI-07B T
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
11/15/2006
Date
>v>vx/yx
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -4
Confidence in
Trend:
1 57.1%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 1.04
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-09B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E-04 •
_ 5.0E-04 -
,§ 4.0E-04 •
c
| 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
o
0 1.0E-04-
O.OE+00 •
Data Table:
X^V
•
» » » •
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MUNI-09B T
MUNI-09B T
MUNI-09B T
MUNI-09B T
MUNI-09B T
MUNI-09B T
MUNI-09B T
MUNI-09B T
MUNI-09B T
MUNI-09B T
MUNI-09B T
MUNI-09B T
MUNI-09B T
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
11/15/2006
Date
>v>vx/yx
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -4
Confidence in
Trend:
1 57.1%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 1.04
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-11A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
1.6E-03-
1.4E-03-
1.2E-03-
1.0E-03-
8.0E-04 •
6.0E-04 -
4.0E-04 -
2.0E-04 -
n np4-nn .
•
^
•
•
*
Confidence in
Trend:
I 50.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.46
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MUNI-11A
MUNI-11A
MUNI-11A
MUNI-11A
MUNI-11A
MUNI-11A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L) Flag
6.0E-04
1.2E-03
1.7E-03
4.4E-04
1.0E-03
9.2E-04
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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-13
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
_ 2.5E-03
_j
,§ 2.0E-03
o
~ 1.5E-03
g 1.0E-03
o
0 5.0E-04 -
0.
Date
.
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
» * »
Confidence in
Trend:
I 54.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.47
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MUNI-13
MUNI-13
MUNI-13
MUNI-13
MUNI-13
MUNI-13
MUNI-13
MUNI-13
MUNI-13
MUNI-13
MUNI-13
MUNI-13
MUNI-13
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.0E-05 ND
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.6E-03
1.0E-04
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.3E-03
2.0E-03
1.3E-03
1.4E-03
1.6E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-16
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 HP no
I .UC-U^ •
9.0E-03 -
^ 8.0E-03 -
|" 7.0E-03 -
r 6.0E-03 •
o
s 5.0E-03 •
i 4.0E-03 •
| 3.0E-03 •
0 2.0E-03 •
1.0E-03-
Data Table:
•^ 4' -^' 4
Date
** ,/ »
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW02A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6 OF (\A
• UC-U*t
_ 5.0E-04 -
B>
E. 4.0E-04 •
c
s 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
c
o
° 1.0E-04-
Oncu-nn
.uc^uu
Data Table:
$> <§> <§> <§>
Date
<$><£<#'<#'<$' c> <^<£<£<^
«» 4* ^V 4*W ^VV^ *°W 4*5
»
•
•
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW02A T
MW02A T
MW02A T
MW02A T
MW02A T
MW02A T
MW02A T
MW02A T
MW02A T
MW02A T
MW02A T
MW02A T
MW02A T
MW02A T
MW02A T
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
0 ^j Mann Kendall S Statistic1
I -13
Confidence in
Trend:
I 72.1%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.92
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 3.2E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.1E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW03A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6nc r\A
.UE-U4 •
_ 5.0E-04 -
B)
E. 4.0E-04 •
c
s 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
c
o
° 1.0E-04-
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
t£> <§> <$>
^vvv
Date
^ ^ <£ o*1 ^ <£ & &
* ^W^ ^%^^^«
•
•
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW03A T
MW03A T
MW03A T
MW03A T
MW03A T
MW03A T
MW03A T
MW03A T
MW03A T
MW03A T
MW03A T
MW03A T
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
^j Mann Kendall S Statistic1
I -1
Confidence in
Trend:
I 50.0%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.99
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.8E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW04A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6nc r\A
.UE-U4 •
_ 5.0E-04 -
"3)
E. 4.0E-04 •
o
s 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
c
O
° 1.0E-04-
Data Table:
//^/d
^ ^ <»
Date
^ / /V'1' /V*
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW05A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
2
# 4«P j? 4j? jP' ^ j? $*• 4j^ ^> 4j$> j*> 4ji
9.(
8.(
j 7.0E-05
,§ 6.0E-05
o 5.0E-05
4.0E-05
g 3.0E-05
2 2.0E-05 -
1.0E-05-
O.OE+00
• ••••••••••••
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 47.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW05A
MW05A
MW05A
MW05A
MW05A
MW05A
MW05A
MW05A
MW05A
MW05A
MW05A
MW05A
MW05A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
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
0
0
0
0
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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW06A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
~
O)
o
2
Concen
8np n<> .
7.0E-05 -
6.0E-05 •
5.0E-05 •
4.0E-05 •
3.0E-05 -
2.0E-05 -
1.0E-05-
n nF+nn .
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 46.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
Well Type
Effective
Date
Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
MW06A T 5/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
MW06A T 11/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
MW06A T 5/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
MW06A T 5/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
MW06A T 8/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
MW06A T 5/15/2003 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
MW06A T 2/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
MW06A T 11/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
MW06A T 5/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
MW06A T 11/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
MW06A T 11/15/2006 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW07A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 fiF 09
1 .QC~U£
1.4E-02-
^ 1.2E-02-
~ 1.0E-02-
o
s 8.0E-03 •
g 6.0E-03 -
o
o 4.0E-03 •
O
2.0E-03 -
Data Table:
/vv%
<: ^ V *
* * *
* '
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW07A T
MW07A T
MW07A T
MW07A T
MW07A T
MW07A T
MW07A T
MW07A T
MW07A T
MW07A T
MW07A T
MW07A T
MW07A T
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Date
-VVVVV/d
^*
»
^
• «
V
•
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
///
^ ^
^
•
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.2E-02
1.4E-02
1.2E-02
7.0E-04
7.0E-03
5.0E-03
4.0E-03
3.8E-03
6.4E-03
2.1E-03
8.0E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
j ^43
Confidence in
Trend:
1 99.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °'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
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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW08A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
2ec f\A
.OE-U4 •
^ 2.0E-04 -
E
c 1.5E-04-
o
1
•£ 1.0E-04-
c
0 5.0E-05 •
Oncu-nn
.uc^uu
Data Table:
<§> <§> <$>
Date
<£ <^ <^ ^ c?1 <&*• <^ <^
*** if «* «°4 «* ^ **» «* «0A *«* «?4 «
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW08A T
MW08A T
MW08A T
MW08A T
MW08A T
MW08A T
MW08A T
MW08A T
MW08A T
MW08A T
MW08A T
MW08A T
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
11/15/2006
J-j Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -11
Confidence in
Trend i
I 74.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.50
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-05 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW09A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.2E-02
_ 1.0E-02
,§ 8.0E-03
| 6.0E-03
g 4.0E-03
o
0 2.0E-03 -
0.
*
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
• •
I 13
Confidence in
Trend:
I 76.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.33
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW09A
MW09A
MW09A
MW09A
MW09A
MW09A
MW09A
MW09A
MW09A
MW09A
MW09A
MW09A
MW09A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L) Flag
4.7E-03
5.5E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
1.0E-02
6.0E-03
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
1.0E-02
5.1E-03
5.3E-03
4.9E-03
7.3E-03
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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW12A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
B)
c
Conce
5.0E-04 -
4.0E-04 •
3.0E-04 •
2.0E-04 -
1.0E-04-
n np4-nn .
•
•
•
•
* * * * * * * * •
I 28
Confidence in
Trend:
I 95.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.85
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
MW12A
MW12A
MW12A
MW12A
MW12A
MW12A
MW12A
MW12A
MW12A
MW12A
MW12A
MW12A
MW12A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
5.0E-04
8.0E-05
1.0E-04
8.0E-05
2.0E-04
2.5E-04
8.0E-05
3.2E-04
Flag
ND
ND
ND
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
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW14A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
8nP t\A
.UC-U4 •
7.0E-04 -
^ 6.0E-04 •
c
•=• 5.0E-04 -
o
s 4.0E-04 •
| 3.0E-04 -
o 2.0E-04 •
O
1.0E-04-
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
MW14A T
MW14A T
MW14A T
MW14A T
MW14A T
MW14A T
MW14A T
MW14A T
MW14A T
MW14A T
MW14A T
MW14A T
//*/*
^*
•
A
4
^
Effective
Pe Date
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Date
^VVVVV^
^* ^*
•
• »
• 4
^
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
**,/
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW16A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_J
B)
c
o
1
c
8
c
o
o
4.5E-03 -
4.0E-03 -
3.5E-03 -
3.0E-03 •
2.5E-03 •
2.0E-03 •
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 •
n np4-nn .
•
** + * ** ««
Confidence in
Trend:
I 53.5%
Coefficient of Variation:
2.48
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW16A
MW16A
MW16A
MW16A
MW16A
MW16A
MW16A
MW16A
MW16A
MW16A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
2.0E-04
8.0E-05
3.0E-04
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
4.4E-03
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW17A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6 OF f}A iii.
_ 5.0E-04 -
,§ 4.0E-04 •
c
| 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
o
0 1.0E-04- + + + + +
OnFtnn
Data Table:
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW17A T 2/15/1999
MW17A T 5/15/1999
MW17A T 11/15/1999
MW17A T 5/15/2000
MW17A T 11/15/2000
MW17A T 8/15/2001
MW17A T 5/15/2002
MW17A T 8/15/2002
MW17A T 5/15/2003
MW17A T 2/15/2004
MW17A T 11/15/2004
MW17A T 5/15/2005
MW17A T 11/15/2005
Date
^vvvvxxx
•
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -2
Confidence in
Trend:
1 52.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 1.04
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05 ND 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
6/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-1PA
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 nnFn-nn
1 .\J\JCr\J\J
j"
B) 1.00E-01 •
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
c
0 1.00E-03-
1 nnF n/i
1 .UUC'U^r
Data Table:
Well W
EW-1PA
EW-1PA
EW-1PA
EW-1PA
EW-1PA
EW-1PA
EW-1PA
EW-1PA
EW-1PA
EW-1PA
EW-1PA
EW-1PA
EW-1PA
DC
XVVVX*
1 1 1 1 1 1
Effective
fell Type Date
T 2/15/1999
T 5/15/1999
T 8/15/1999
T 5/15/2000
T 9/15/2000
T 8/15/2001
T 5/15/2002
T 8/15/2002
T 5/15/2003
T 2/15/2004
T 9/15/2004
T 5/15/2005
T 9/15/2005
ite
^Vl^VVX
1 1 1 1 1 1
*
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
£
~-° Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 9
p
Confidence in
Trend:
I 68.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °'13
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
_
Number of Number of
Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
5.0E-04 ND 3 0
5.0E-04 ND 1 0
5.0E-04 ND 1 0
5.0E-04 ND 1 0
5.0E-04 ND 1 0
5.0E-04 1 1
5.0E-04 ND 1 0
3.0E-04 1 1
5.0E-04 1 1
5.0E-04 ND 1 0
6.0E-04 1 1
5.0E-04 ND 1 0
5.0E-04 ND 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
3/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-7PA
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
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 -
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
c
O 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 85.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.34
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
EW-7PA
EW-7PA
EW-7PA
EW-7PA
EW-7PA
EW-7PA
EW-7PA
EW-7PA
EW-7PA
EW-7PA
EW-7PA
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
9/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
5/15/2005
9/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L)
3.9E-03
1.0E-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
2.0E-04
8.0E-03
2.0E-03
5.0E-04
1.7E-03
5.0E-04
4.2E-04
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
3
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
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
3/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-07C
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
5?
1.00B-00
o> 1.00E-01
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
c
O 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04
Date
J?
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 68.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.17
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MUNI-07C
MUNI-07C
MUNI-07C
MUNI-07C
MUNI-07C
MUNI-07C
MUNI-07C
MUNI-07C
MUNI-07C
MUNI-07C
MUNI-07C
MUNI-07C
MUNI-07C
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
9/15/1999
5/15/2000
9/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
9/15/2004
5/15/2005
9/15/2005
9/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L)
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
2.1E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
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
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
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
3/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-09C
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
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
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
c
O 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04
«e &
& cp
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 25
Confidence in
Trend:
I 98.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.79
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
MUNI-09C
MUNI-09C
MUNI-09C
MUNI-09C
MUNI-09C
MUNI-09C
MUNI-09C
MUNI-09C
MUNI-09C
MUNI-09C
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
9/15/1999
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
9/15/2004
5/15/2005
9/15/2005
9/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
5.0E-04 ND
5.0E-04 ND
5.0E-04 ND
8.0E-04
8.0E-04
4.4E-03
4.3E-03
2.6E-03
3.7E-03
3.3E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
0
0
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
3/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-11B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
B>
c
1
Concent
5.0E-04 -
4.0E-04 •
3.0E-04 •
2.0E-04 -
1.0E-04-
n np4-nn .
•
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 0.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ N/A
Data Table:
Well
Well Type
Effective
Date
Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
MUNI-11B
5/15/2003 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04
ND
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
6/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-14
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 nnFn-nn
1 .\J\JCr\J\J
j"
B) 1.00E-01 •
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
c
0 1.00E-03-
1 nnF n/i
1 .UUC'U^r
Data Table:
Well W
MUNI-14
MUNI-14
MUNI-14
MUNI-14
MUNI-14
MUNI-14
MUNI-14
MUNI-14
MUNI-14
MUNI-14
MUNI-14
MUNI-14
MUNI-14
DC
^ c§^ ^ ^j ^
••I ^ /iA ^ ^^ t
t^& ^j ^^ ^j ^^ v^
i i i i i i
Effective
fell Type Date
T 5/15/1999
T 9/15/1999
T 5/15/2000
T 9/15/2000
T 8/15/2001
T 5/15/2002
T 8/15/2002
T 5/15/2003
T 2/15/2004
T 9/15/2004
T 5/15/2005
T 9/15/2005
T 5/15/2006
ite
//vx^vx
1 1 1 1 1 1
•
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
&
Result (mg/L) Flag
9.0E-03
8.0E-03
8.0E-03
6.0E-03
5.7E-03
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
8.0E-03
9.0E-03
7.0E-03
5.2E-03
5.0E-04 ND
6.4E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_
I
Confidence in
Trend:
I 95.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.33
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 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
3/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-18
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
A RE ni
*f.*JC-UO
4.0E-03 -
U 3.5E-03 -
,§ 3.0E-03 •
o 2.5E-03 •
2 2.0E-03 •
§ 1.5E-03-
c
£ 1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 -
Data Table:
<£> <£> $$> $$
^ «?4 ^ *°4
• »
* » »
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MUNI-18 T
MUNI-18 T
MUNI-18 T
MUNI-18 T
MUNI-18 T
MUNI-18 T
MUNI-18 T
MUNI-18 T
MUNI-18 T
MUNI-18 T
MUNI-18 T
MUNI-18 T
MUNI-18 T
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
11/15/2006
Date
b £N & & & & &
^ ^ ^^ <& ^ ^
•
4
• * •
•
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
& & &
* *°4 *°4
*
*
Result (mg/L) Flag
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
7.0E-04
7.0E-04
7.0E-04
3.0E-03
8.0E-04
6.4E-04
2.5E-04
2.4E-03
1.1E-03
3.9E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
(
Confidence in
Trend:
I 97.9%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1.00
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
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 2.1, 2004, AFCEE
4/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-22
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.00E+00-
u
0) 1.00E-01 •
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
c
0 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04-
Data Table:
Date
x>vy/>vv>v*4<
•
* * * * * * * * , *
~£ Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -8
Confidence in
Trend:
1 66.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1'26
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
_
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
MUNI-22
MUNI-22
MUNI-22
MUNI-22
MUNI-22
MUNI-22
MUNI-22
MUNI-22
MUNI-22
MUNI-22
MUNI-22
MUNI-22
MUNI-22
T 5/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
T 9/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
T 5/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
T 9/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
T 8/15/2001 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
T 5/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
T 8/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
T 5/15/2003 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
T 2/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
T 9/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
T 5/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
T 9/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
T 9/15/2006 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5.0E-04 ND 1 0
5.0E-04 ND 1 0
5.0E-04 ND 1 0
3.0E-04 1 1
3.6E-03 1 1
4.0E-03 1 1
5.0E-04 1 1
5.0E-04 1 1
9.0E-04 1 1
5.2E-04 1 1
4.0E-04 1 1
2.8E-04 1 1
4.2E-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
3/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-24
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_J
E
tration
o
o
4.0E-04 •
3.0E-04 •
2.0E-04 -
1.0E-04-
n np4-nn .
Confidence in
Trend:
I 61.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.28
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
Well Type
Effective
Date
Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
MUNI-24 T 5/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
MUNI-24 T 11/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
MUNI-24 T 5/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
MUNI-24 T 11/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.5E-04 1 1
MUNI-24 T 8/15/2001 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
MUNI-24 T 5/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
MUNI-24 T 8/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
MUNI-24 T 5/15/2003 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
MUNI-24 T 2/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
MUNI-24 T 11/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
MUNI-24 T 11/15/2006 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.4E-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 2.1, 2004, AFCEE
4/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW02B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1nnd.nn
.UUt^UU •
j"
B) 1.00E-01 •
c
O
2 1.00E-02-
c
S
c
0 1.00E-03-
1 nnp n/i
1 mWCrWt
Data Table:
Well W
MW02B
MW02B
MW02B
MW02B
MW02B
MW02B
MW02B
MW02B
MW02B
MW02B
MW02B
MW02B
MW02B
MW02B
MW02B
D
&°> «£> <£> t£> j£ j$
• ^
* * *
w
« •
» *
Effective
fell Type Date
T 2/15/1999
T 5/15/1999
T 8/15/1999
T 9/15/1999
T 5/15/2000
T 9/15/2000
T 5/15/2002
T 8/15/2002
T 5/15/2003
T 2/15/2004
T 9/15/2004
T 5/15/2005
T 9/15/2005
T 5/15/2006
T 9/15/2006
ate
xx^t^t^
•
* *
•
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
«/
Result (mg/L) Flag
6.3E-04
9.0E-04
9.0E-03
1.1E-02
1.6E-02
1.2E-02
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.1E-04
1.3E-03
5.0E-04 ND
5.0E-04 ND
5.0E-04 ND
5.0E-04 ND
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ^38
1
Confidence in
Trend:
I 96.7%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1.40
'
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I °
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
3 2
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
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
3/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW03B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 fiF 09
1 .QC~U£
1.4E-02-
^ 1.2E-02-
~ 1.0E-02-
o
~ 8.0E-03 •
g 6.0E-03 -
o
o 4.0E-03 •
O
2.0E-03 -
Data Table:
/C//V
^ * ^ *
Date
vvvvvvvv*
^*
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW03B T
MW03B T
MW03B T
MW03B T
MW03B T
MW03B T
MW03B T
MW03B T
MW03B T
MW03B T
MW03B T
MW03B T
MW03B T
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
1 84.7%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 1.91
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.0E-03 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 9.0E-03 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.4E-02 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.0E-03 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.5E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 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 2.1, 2004, AFCEE
4/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW04B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
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-
U
0) 1.00E-01 •
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
c
0 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04-
Data Table:
cy* fy $> fy 5j
^ oA ^* ^j'
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW05B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00E+00
o> 1.00E-01
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
c
O 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04
*•
••
•.•
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -47
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
1'26
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW05B
MW05B
MW05B
MW05B
MW05B
MW05B
MW05B
MW05B
MW05B
MW05B
MW05B
MW05B
MW05B
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
9/15/1999
5/15/2000
9/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
9/15/2004
5/15/2005
9/15/2005
5/15/2006
9/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
6.0E-03
2.0E-02
1.5E-02
1.2E-02
2.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.9E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
1.5E-03
7.9E-04
1.5E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
3/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW07B
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
<>* <$r ^ o>® <$r ^
1 nnFffin • • • ' '
U
0) 1.00E-01 -
o
2 1.00E-02- ^ * * * *
§
c
0 1.00E-03- ^
1 nnF nji
Data Table:
Effective
Well Well Type Date
•^ <$* •*? -^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW08B
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
5?
o> 0.1
o
2 0.01 -
c
O 0.001
0.0001
• *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I "3°
Confidence in
Trend:
I 97.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.38
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW08B
MW08B
MW08B
MW08B
MW08B
MW08B
MW08B
MW08B
MW08B
MW08B
MW08B
MW08B
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
9/15/1999
5/15/2000
9/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
9/15/2004
5/15/2005
9/15/2005
9/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.0E-02
1.8E-02
1.5E-02
7.0E-03
7.0E-04
5.0E-04 ND
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
3.1E-04
8.2E-04
2.1E-03
1.2E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
0
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
3/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW09B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 nnFn-nn
1 .\J\JCr\J\J
j"
B) 1.00E-01 •
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
c
0 1.00E-03-
1 nnF n/i
1 .UUC'U^r
Data Table:
Well W
MW09B
MW09B
MW09B
MW09B
MW09B
MW09B
MW09B
MW09B
MW09B
MW09B
MW09B
MW09B
MW09B
MW09B
D
c£> <£> <£> <£> ^
• i i i i i
Effective
fell Type Date
T 2/15/1999
T 5/15/1999
T 8/15/1999
T 9/15/1999
T 5/15/2000
T 9/15/2000
T 8/15/2001
T 5/15/2002
T 8/15/2002
T 5/15/2003
T 2/15/2004
T 9/15/2004
T 5/15/2005
T 9/15/2005
ate
VX^t*VX
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
)/
Result (mg/L) Flag
7.3E-03
9.0E-03
8.0E-03
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
8.0E-03
9.3E-03
6.0E-03
5.0E-03
7.0E-03
5.0E-04 ND
7.3E-03
6.3E-03
6.6E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -37
p
Confidence in
Trend:
1 97.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.36
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I °
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
3 3
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
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
3/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW10A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E-04
_ 5.0E-04
,§ 4.0E-04
| 3.0E-04
g 2.0E-04
o
0 1.0E-04-
0.
Date
.
.
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 55.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW10A
MW10A
MW10A
MW10A
MW10A
MW10A
MW10A
MW10A
MW10A
MW10A
MW10A
MW10A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L)
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
0
0
0
1
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
6/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW10B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
^ jS* A ~^ ^ A <^ A ^ ~^ A ~^ Mann Kendall S Statistic:
1 nnFffin ... i i
j"
B) 1.00E-01 •
c
O
2 1.00E-02-
c
%
c
0 1.00E-03-
***«*..
* *
1 nnF nji
Data Table:
Effective
Well Well Type Date
)T7
Confidence in
Trend:
1 96.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.32
'
^ Mann Kendall
+ • + Concentration Trend
* * (See Note)
I °
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
MW10B T 5/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04 ND 1
MW10B T 9/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04 ND 1
MW10B T 5/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04 ND 1
MW10B T 9/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 4.0E-04 1
MW10B T 8/15/2001 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.8E-04 1
MW10B T 5/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 4.0E-04 1
MW10B T 8/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 1
MW10B T 5/15/2003 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 3.0E-04 1
MW10B T 2/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.5E-04 1
MW10B T 9/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 3.3E-04 1
MW10B T 5/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.3E-04 1
MW10B T 9/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 3.0E-04 1
0
0
0
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
3/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW11A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6flF f}A
mVCrWt
5nc njt
.Ut-U4 •
B)
E. 4.0E-04 •
c
s 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
c
o
1 .OE-04 •
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
/vvv*
* **
Date
/oA//VVVVV!
^*^*
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW11A T
MW11A T
MW11A T
MW11A T
MW11A T
MW11A T
MW11A T
MW11A T
MW11A T
MW11A T
MW11A T
MW11A T
MW11A T
MW11A T
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
1 ^Jj* Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -1
Confidence in
Trend"
I 50.0%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 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
6/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW12B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
/vvv
6 f)F flA iii.
B)
E. 4.0E-04 •
c
s 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
c
o
1 .OE-04 •
OnFtnn
Data Table:
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW12B T 2/15/1999
MW12B T 5/15/1999
MW12B T 8/15/1999
MW12B T 5/15/2000
MW12B T 11/15/2000
MW12B T 8/15/2001
MW12B T 5/15/2002
MW12B T 8/15/2002
MW12B T 5/15/2003
MW12B T 2/15/2004
MW12B T 11/15/2004
MW12B T 5/15/2005
MW12B T 11/15/2005
Date
vvvvvvvv*
***** ^ ^ ^
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I °
Confidence in
Trend"
I 47.6%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 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
6/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW13A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6nc r\A
.UE-U4 •
5nc t\A
.Ut-U4 •
,§ 4.0E-04 •
o
s 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
c
O
1 .OE-04 •
Data Table:
/vv%
^ ^ ^ <»
Date
^ ,/ /*/* /V*
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW13B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
/vvv
6 f)F flA iii.
B)
E. 4.0E-04 •
c
s 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
c
o
1 .OE-04 •
OnFtnn
Data Table:
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW13B T 2/15/1999
MW13B T 5/15/1999
MW13B T 8/15/1999
MW13B T 5/15/2000
MW13B T 11/15/2000
MW13B T 8/15/2001
MW13B T 5/15/2002
MW13B T 8/15/2002
MW13B T 5/15/2003
MW13B T 2/15/2004
MW13B T 11/15/2004
MW13B T 5/15/2005
MW13B T 11/15/2005
Date
vvvvvvvv*
***** ^ ^ ^
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I °
Confidence in
Trend"
I 47.6%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 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
6/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW14B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
/vvv
6 f)F flA iii.
B)
E. 4.0E-04 •
c
s 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
c
o
1 .OE-04 •
OnFtnn
Data Table:
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW14B T 2/15/1999
MW14B T 5/15/1999
MW14B T 8/15/1999
MW14B T 5/15/2000
MW14B T 11/15/2000
MW14B T 8/15/2001
MW14B T 5/15/2002
MW14B T 8/15/2002
MW14B T 5/15/2003
MW14B T 2/15/2004
MW14B T 11/15/2004
MW14B T 5/15/2005
MW14B T 11/15/2005
Date
vvvvvvvv*
***** ^ ^ ^
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I °
Confidence in
Trend"
I 47.6%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 ND 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
6/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW15A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 11/15/2006
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6nc r\A
.UE-U4 •
5nc t\A
.Ut-U4 •
,§ 4.0E-04 •
o
s 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
c
O
1 .OE-04 •
Data Table:
/vv%
^ ^ ^ <»
Date
^ ,/ /*/* /V*
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW16B
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
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
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
c
O 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.60
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
9/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
9/15/2004
5/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.6E-02
1.3E-02
1.6E-02
8.0E-03
7.0E-03
1.0E-02
8.0E-03
2.8E-03
5.0E-04 ND
5.6E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
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
3/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW17B
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 2/15/1999 to 9/15/2006
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
s& <&'
4. V
Date
^
1.00B-00
o> 1.00E-01
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
c
O 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04
» »
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 64.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.09
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW17B
MW17B
MW17B
MW17B
MW17B
MW17B
MW17B
MW17B
MW17B
MW17B
MW17B
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
9/15/1999
5/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
9/15/2004
5/15/2005
9/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.7E-03
6.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.7E-02
3.0E-03
7.0E-03
6.0E-03
2.2E-03
3.8E-03
2.4E-03
2.2E-03
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
3
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
3/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Project: Newmark Deep Zone
Location: San Bernardino
User Name: MV
State: California
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Source/ Number of
Well Tail Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples Concentration
"ND" ? Trend
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
MW04B
MW08B
MUNI-11C
MW09B
MW05B
MW11B
MW-135C
EW-3
EW-3PB
EW-1
MW12C
EW-4
EW-2PB
EW-4PB
MW-135B
EW-5
MW10C
EW-5PB
MW11C
MW16B
MW13C
MW15B
EW-1PB
MW15C
EW-1 08
EW-108PB
MW14C
EW-2
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
13
12
11
14
13
14
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
13
14
10
13
13
13
13
9
11
13
13
12
11
11
13
13
13
4
13
13
13
6
12
9
5
3
10
11
9
11
8
3
3
7
1
7
2
10
13
0.73
0.97
0.62
0.42
1.25
1.19
1.23
0.80
1.40
1.07
0.48
0.76
1.49
0.68
0.45
0.51
0.72
0.53
2.08
0.77
0.49
0.49
2.27
0.85
1.02
0.39
0.65
0.96
-35
-26
6
-34
-29
-69
-14
-9
-9
48
-4
-7
41
7
-7
-37
-51
-32
52
-26
8
16
20
-6
7
-3
-41
31
98.2%
95.7%
64.8%
96.5%
95.6%
100.0%
81 .0%
68.4%
68.4%
99.9%
57.1%
64.0%
99.4%
64.0%
65.6%
98.7%
100.0%
97.1%
99.8%
98.9%
66.2%
81 .6%
87.4%
61 .7%
72.8%
56.0%
99.4%
96.7%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
D
D
NT
D
D
D
NT
S
NT
I
S
S
I
NT
S
D
D
D
I
D
NT
NT
NT
S
NT
S
D
I
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
MUNI-11C
MW08B
MW05B
MW04B
MW09B
MW16B
EW-1
EW-5PB
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
11
12
13
13
14
10
13
13
11
11
13
12
13
9
13
7
0.56
1.39
1.26
0.72
0.37
0.61
0.58
0.47
-25
-24
-47
-43
-37
-31
57
9
97.0%
94.2%
99.9%
99.6%
97.6%
99.8%
100.0%
68.4%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
D
PD
D
D
D
D
I
NT
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Monday, June 04, 2007
Page 1 of 3
-------
Project: Newmark Deep Zone
Location: San Bernardino
User Name: MV
State: California
Well
Source/
Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
EW-108
MW15C
MW10C
EW-5
EW-1PB
MW13C
EW-2PB
MW-135C
EW-2
EW-3
MW11B
MW14C
EW-3PB
MW12C
EW-4
MW11C
MW15B
EW-108PB
EW-4PB
MW-135B
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
MUNI-11C
MW09B
MW05B
MW08B
MW04B
MW11C
MW15B
EW-3PB
MW12C
EW-108PB
EW-4
EW-2PB
EW-108
MW-135C
MW14C
EW-1PB
EW-2
MW13C
MW-135B
MW11B
MW16B
EW-4PB
MW15C
MW10C
EW-5
EW-3
EW-1
EW-5PB
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
(TCE)
s
s
s
s
s
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
g
13
12
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
14
13
13
13
13
14
13
11
13
12
11
14
13
12
13
14
13
13
13
11
13
13
9
12
13
13
13
13
12
14
10
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
8
0
12
8
8
0
9
1
13
13
14
7
11
3
12
8
0
3
4
1
11
13
12
7
11
8
0
9
1
2
12
g
7
1
11
8
13
0
1
11
10
5
0
12
4
13
13
5
0.43
0.00
0.44
0.43
1.27
0.00
o.g4
0.60
0.52
0.18
1.19
1.03
1.05
0.43
0.36
1.10
0.00
0.40
0.76
0.38
0.49
o.2g
0.84
0.81
0.57
1.24
0.00
0.65
0.37
0.39
0.31
0.72
0.44
0.14
0.98
1.31
0.39
0.00
0.38
1.29
o.eg
o.eg
0.00
0.41
0.37
0.15
0.43
0.53
21
0
-2g
-2g
4g
0
55
-11
45
-13
-72
-40
45
-13
-20
42
0
-7
3
-5
-32
-17
-61
-31
-46
eg
0
33
-2
-g
-54
60
13
-11
-58
38
30
0
-5
-76
-31
13
0
-32
27
-22
53
2
gs.3%
47.6%
g7.4%
95.6%
99.9%
47.6%
100.0%
74. 9%
gg.8%
76.4%
100.0%
gg.3%
gg.8%
76.4%
87.4%
gs.g%
47.6%
67.6%
54.8%
60.6%
gg.4%
80.6%
100.0%
98.1%
gg.8%
100.0%
47.6%
g7.s%
52.4%
72 .9%
100.0%
100.0%
sg.0%
74. 9%
100.0%
gs.g%
ge.2%
47.6%
60.6%
100.0%
gg.8%
76.4%
47.6%
gs.4%
g4.3%
sg.8%
100.0%
52.4%
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
I
s
D
D
I
S
I
S
I
S
D
D
I
S
S
I
S
S
NT
S
D
S
D
D
D
I
S
I
S
S
D
I
NT
S
D
I
I
S
S
D
D
NT
S
D
PI
S
I
NT
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Monday, June 04, 2007
Page 2 of 3
-------
Project: Newmark Deep Zone
Location: San Bernardino
User Name: MV
State: California
Source/
Well Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
MW04B
MUNI-11C
MW05B
MW08B
MW09B
MW14C
EW-108PB
EW-108
MW15C
MW15B
EW-1PB
EW-1
MW11C
MW16B
EW-5PB
EW-5
MW10C
EW-4PB
EW-3
EW-4
MW13C
EW-3PB
MW12C
MW-135B
EW-2PB
MW-135C
EW-2
MW11B
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
13
11
13
12
14
13
11
9
13
13
13
13
14
10
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
13
14
11
11
9
7
13
1
1
5
1
0
4
12
4
9
2
3
12
4
12
11
0
8
3
2
5
2
13
9
0.58
0.44
1.09
1.09
0.28
0.37
0.40
0.35
0.37
0.00
0.62
0.60
0.47
1.38
0.46
0.49
0.54
0.49
0.31
0.29
0.00
0.51
0.49
0.47
0.91
0.47
0.57
1.30
-47
-9
-55
-27
-5
6
-8
6
6
0
19
44
17
-25
2
12
-28
9
-5
-8
0
28
4
-10
15
-10
44
-57
99.9%
72.9%
100.0%
96.3%
58.5%
61.7%
70.3%
69.4%
61.7%
47.6%
86.1%
99.7%
80.6%
98.6%
52.4%
74.5%
96.9%
68.4%
59.4%
66.2%
47.6%
95.0%
57.1%
72.7%
79.9%
72.7%
99.7%
99.9%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
D
S
D
D
S
NT
S
NT
NT
S
NT
I
NT
D
NT
NT
D
NT
S
S
S
I
NT
S
NT
S
I
D
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); Source/Tail (S/T)
The Number of Samples and Number of Detects shown above are post-consolidation values.
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Monday, June 04, 2007
Page 3 of 3
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-1
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
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-
O.OE+00 J
Data Table:
Date
X/^VVX^V*
* •
• *
• * *
Effective
Well Wei I Type Date Constituent
EW-1 T
EW-1 T
EW-1 T
EW-1 T
EW-1 T
EW-1 T
EW-1 T
EW-1 T
EW-1 T
EW-1 T
EW-1 T
EW-1 T
EW-1 T
2/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
8/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
11/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
8/15/2001 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
8/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/2003 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
2/1 5/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
11/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
11/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
AVX
Result (mg/L) Flag
9.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
4.1E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
6.0E-03
7.5E-03
5.5E-03
5.0E-03
5.4E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 57
Confidence in
Trend:
1 100.0%
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
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-1PB
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
5 OF ni
.\JC.-\JiJ
4.5E-03 -
^ 4.0E-03 -
I" 3.5E-03 •
T 3.0E-03 •
o
s 2.5E-03 •
i 2.0E-03 •
| 1.5E-03-
0 1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 •
Data Table:
Date
/* **
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-2
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
9.0E-03 -
8.0E-03 •
j 7.0E-03 -
,§ 6.0E-03 •
o 5.0E-03 •
2 4.0E-03 •
§ 3.0E-03 -
2 2.0E-03 -
1.0E-03-
Data Table:
Date
X/^VVX^V*
• *
^ ^
• • * *
Effective
Well Wei I Type Date Constituent
EW-2 T
EW-2 T
EW-2 T
EW-2 T
EW-2 T
EW-2 T
EW-2 T
EW-2 T
EW-2 T
EW-2 T
EW-2 T
EW-2 T
EW-2 T
2/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
8/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
11/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
8/15/2001 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
8/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/2003 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
2/1 5/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
11/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
11/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
*w
•
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-04
4.0E-03
6.0E-03
7.0E-03
8.2E-03
6.2E-03
4.4E-03
5.2E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 45
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °'52
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
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-2PB
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
4.0E-03 -
3.5E-03 -
? 3.0E-03 -
~ 2.5E-03 -
| 2.0E-03 •
| 1.5E-03-
o 1.0E-03-
O
5.0E-04 -
O.OE+00 J
Data Table:
Date
X/^VVX^1*VX
*
• *
• • • • •
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_
Confidence in
Trend:
1 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.94
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I '
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
EW-2PB T
EW-2PB T
EW-2PB T
EW-2PB T
EW-2PB T
EW-2PB T
EW-2PB T
EW-2PB T
EW-2PB T
EW-2PB T
EW-2PB T
EW-2PB T
EW-2PB T
2/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.3E-04 1 1
5/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
8/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
5/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
11/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
8/15/2001 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 7.9E-04 1 1
5/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 1.0E-03 1 1
8/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 1.0E-03 1 1
5/15/2003 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-03 1 1
2/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 3.3E-03 1 1
11/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 3.7E-03 1 1
5/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.2E-03 1 1
11/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.9E-03 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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-3
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E-03 •
_ 5.0E-03 -
,§ 4.0E-03 •
| 3.0E-03 •
§ 2.0E-03 -
o
0 1.0E-03-
O.OE+00 J
Data Table:
«*vw
•
• • »
*
Effective
Well Well Type Date
EW-3 T
EW-3 T
EW-3 T
EW-3 T
EW-3 T
EW-3 T
EW-3 T
EW-3 T
EW-3 T
EW-3 T
EW-3 T
EW-3 T
EW-3 T
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Date
>v>vx*<<
* *
* * * .
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
*w
* *
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.0E-03
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.2E-03
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.1E-03
3.8E-03
2.9E-03
3.3E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -13
Confidence in
Trend:
1 76.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.18
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I S
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
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-3PB
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E-03 •
_ 5.0E-03 -
,§ 4.0E-03 •
| 3.0E-03 •
§ 2.0E-03 -
o
0 1.0E-03-
O.OE+00 •
Data Table:
Date
X/^VVX^V*
*
*
* * *
Effective
Well Wei I Type Date Constituent
EW-3PB T
EW-3PB T
EW-3PB T
EW-3PB T
EW-3PB T
EW-3PB T
EW-3PB T
EW-3PB T
EW-3PB T
EW-3PB T
EW-3PB T
EW-3PB T
EW-3PB T
2/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
8/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
11/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
8/15/2001 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
8/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/2003 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
2/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
11/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
5/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
11/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
*W
Result (mg/L) Flag
4.3E-04
1.0E-04
2.0E-04 ND
2.0E-04 ND
3.0E-04
8.5E-04
5.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-04
1.1E-03
2.0E-03
2.3E-03
2.6E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 45
Confidence in
Trend:
1 99.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1'°5
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I '
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 0
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-4
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
o OF ni
O.UC-UO
_ 2.5E-03 -
B>
_§ 2.0E-03 •
o
s 1.5E-03 •
§ 1.0E-03-
o
0 5.0E-04 -
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
EW-4 T
EW-4 T
EW-4 T
EW-4 T
EW-4 T
EW-4 T
EW-4 T
EW-4 T
EW-4 T
EW-4 T
EW-4 T
EW-4 T
EW-4 T
Date
/* **
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-4PB
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
B)
c
i
^
Concei
1.0E-03-
8.0E-04 •
6.0E-04 •
4.0E-04 -
2.0E-04 -
n np4-nn .
•
•
• »
• •••• ••••
Confidence in
Trend:
I 54.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.76
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
EW-4PB
EW-4PB
EW-4PB
EW-4PB
EW-4PB
EW-4PB
EW-4PB
EW-4PB
EW-4PB
EW-4PB
EW-4PB
EW-4PB
EW-4PB
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L)
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
5.0E-04
1.0E-03
8.0E-04
5.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I NT
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-5
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E-04 •
_ 5.0E-04 -
,§ 4.0E-04 •
c
| 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
o
0 1.0E-04-
O.OE+00 •
Data Table:
Date
X/^VVX^1*VX
• •
• »
•
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_
Confidence in
Trend:
1 95.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °'43
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
_
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
EW-5 T
EW-5 T
EW-5 T
EW-5 T
EW-5 T
EW-5 T
EW-5 T
EW-5 T
EW-5 T
EW-5 T
EW-5 T
EW-5 T
EW-5 T
2/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 4.0E-04 1 1
5/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04 1 1
8/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 4.0E-04 1 1
5/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
11/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 3.0E-04 1 1
8/15/2001 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04 1 1
5/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 1 1
8/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 1 1
5/15/2003 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
2/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 1 1
11/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
5/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
11/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-5PB
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E-04 •
_ 5.0E-04 -
,§ 4.0E-04 •
c
| 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
o
0 1.0E-04-
O.OE+00 •
Data Table:
Date
X/^VVX^1*VX
• »
•
•
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 9
Confidence in
Trend:
1 68.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °'47
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
_
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
EW-5PB T
EW-5PB T
EW-5PB T
EW-5PB T
EW-5PB T
EW-5PB T
EW-5PB T
EW-5PB T
EW-5PB T
EW-5PB T
EW-5PB T
EW-5PB T
EW-5PB T
2/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 1 1
5/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 1 1
8/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
5/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
11/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
8/15/2001 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04 1 1
5/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 3.0E-04 1 1
8/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 1 1
5/15/2003 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04 1 1
2/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 1.3E-04 1 1
11/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
5/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
11/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-108
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
J
B)
_§
o
1
c
S
c
o
o
3.0E-03 •
2.5E-03 •
2.0E-03 -
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 •
n np4-nn .
*
»
• •
*
4
*
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 21
Confidence in
Trend:
1 98.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
°'43
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
EW-108
EW-108
EW-108
EW-108
EW-108
EW-108
EW-108
EW-108
EW-108
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2003
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.0E-04 ND
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.2E-03
2.3E-03
2.1E-03
2.9E-03
2.6E-03
2.1E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-108PB
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
6.0E-04
5.0E-04
4.0E-04
= 3.0E-04
§ 2.0E-04
o
0 1.0E-04-
O.OE+00
,§
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 67.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.40
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L)
2.0E-04
5.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
1.8E-04
2.1E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-11C
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : 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 97.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.56
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MUNI-11C
MUNI-11C
MUNI-11C
MUNI-11C
MUNI-11C
MUNI-11C
MUNI-11C
MUNI-11C
MUNI-11C
MUNI-11C
MUNI-11C
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.2E-02
1.3E-02
1.4E-02
7.0E-03
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
1.9E-03
6.8E-03
2.7E-03
5.4E-03
6.7E-03
Number of
Samples
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
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW10C
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
3.i
_ 2.5E-02
_j
,§ 2.0E-02
o
~ 1.5E-02
§ 1.0E-02
c
0 5.0E-03 -
0.
& & & & & & & J? $>*• Jb*1 & ji
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
* •
I ~29
Confidence in
Trend:
I 97.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.44
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW10C
MW10C
MW10C
MW10C
MW10C
MW10C
MW10C
MW10C
MW10C
MW10C
MW10C
MW10C
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.2E-02
2.4E-02
2.0E-02
8.0E-03
6.2E-03
1.5E-02
1.7E-02
1.5E-02
5.3E-03
1.3E-02
9.7E-03
1.2E-02
Number of
Samples
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
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
6/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW11B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
o OF 09
o.uc~u&
_ 2.5E-02 -
,§ 2.0E-02 •
o
s 1.5E-02 •
§ 1.0E-02-
o
0 5.0E-03 -
Ond_nn
.U&-UU J
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
MW11B T
MW11B T
MW11B T
MW11B T
MW11B T
MW11B T
MW11B T
MW11B T
MW11B T
MW11B T
MW11B T
MW11B T
MW11B T
MW11B T
/vvv*
^ ^*
* . *
V
•
•
Effective
Pe Date
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Date
/oA/^VVV^c
*****
* *
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
^VV5
^ ^
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.0E-02
2.4E-02
2.3E-02
2.5E-02
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
4.1E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.6E-03
1.1E-03
8.2E-04
1.0E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -72
Confidence in
Trend:
1 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 1.19
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
6/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW11C
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
2tF ni
,iJC.-\JiJ
;;[• 2.0E-03 -
E
c 1.5E-03-
o
1
•£ 1.0E-03-
c
0 5.0E-04 •
Oncu-nn
.uc^uu
Data Table:
/vvv*
x ^? Y* ^r ^?
Date
/oA/^VVVVV!
^T Y* ^? Y* " X ^T^?^
•
*
+
•
4 «
^ ^ ^
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW11C T
MW11C T
MW11C T
MW11C T
MW11C T
MW11C T
MW11C T
MW11C T
MW11C T
MW11C T
MW11C T
MW11C T
MW11C T
MW11C T
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
1 ^Jj* Mann Kendall S Statistic:
(
Confidence in
Trend:
I 98.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1.10
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
I '
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 5.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.1E-03 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 1.9E-03 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 9.5E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.3E-03 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
6/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW12C
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
B>
c
1
Concent
5.0E-04 -
4.0E-04 •
3.0E-04 •
2.0E-04 -
1.0E-04-
n np4-nn .
•
• •••• » ••••
•
•
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 76.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.43
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW12C
MW12C
MW12C
MW12C
MW12C
MW12C
MW12C
MW12C
MW12C
MW12C
MW12C
MW12C
MW12C
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L)
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
5.0E-04
2.0E-04
1.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
1.5E-04
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
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
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
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
6/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW13C
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
/vvv
2^F 04 ' ' ' '
E
c 1.5E-04-
o
1
•£ 1.0E-04-
c
0 5.0E-05 •
Onp^nn
Data Table:
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW13C T 2/15/1999
MW13C T 5/15/1999
MW13C T 8/15/1999
MW13C T 5/15/2000
MW13C T 11/15/2000
MW13C T 8/15/2001
MW13C T 5/15/2002
MW13C T 8/15/2002
MW13C T 5/15/2003
MW13C T 2/15/2004
MW13C T 11/15/2004
MW13C T 5/15/2005
MW13C T 11/15/2005
Date
vvvvvvvv*
***** ^ ^ ^
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I °
Confidence in
Trend:
1 47.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 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
6/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW14C
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
2tF ni
,iJC.-\JiJ
;;[• 2.0E-03 -
E
c 1.5E-03-
o
1
•£ 1.0E-03-
c
0 5.0E-04 •
Oncu-nn
.uc^uu
Data Table:
/vvv
X ^? Y" ^?
•
•
• •
•
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW14C T
MW14C T
MW14C T
MW14C T
MW14C T
MW14C T
MW14C T
MW14C T
MW14C T
MW14C T
MW14C T
MW14C T
MW14C T
2/15/1999
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Date
V^VVVVVV*
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW15B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
/vvv
2^F 04 ' ' ' '
E
c 1.5E-04-
o
1
•£ 1.0E-04-
c
0 5.0E-05 •
Onp^nn
Data Table:
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW15B T 2/15/1999
MW15B T 5/15/1999
MW15B T 8/15/1999
MW15B T 5/15/2000
MW15B T 11/15/2000
MW15B T 8/15/2001
MW15B T 5/15/2002
MW15B T 8/15/2002
MW15B T 5/15/2003
MW15B T 2/15/2004
MW15B T 11/15/2004
MW15B T 5/15/2005
MW15B T 11/15/2005
Date
vvvvvvvv*
***** ^ ^ ^
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I °
Confidence in
Trend:
1 47.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 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
6/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW15C
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
/vvv
2^F 04 ' ' ' '
E
c 1.5E-04-
o
1
•£ 1.0E-04-
c
0 5.0E-05 •
Onp^nn
Data Table:
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW15C T 2/15/1999
MW15C T 5/15/1999
MW15C T 8/15/1999
MW15C T 5/15/2000
MW15C T 11/15/2000
MW15C T 8/15/2001
MW15C T 5/15/2002
MW15C T 8/15/2002
MW15C T 5/15/2003
MW15C T 2/15/2004
MW15C T 11/15/2004
MW15C T 5/15/2005
MW15C T 11/15/2005
Date
vvvvvvvv*
***** ^ ^ ^
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I °
Confidence in
Trend:
1 47.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 2.0E-04 ND 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
6/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW16B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_j
1
o
1
Concen
1.6E-02-
1.4E-02-
1.2E-02-
1.0E-02-
8.0E-03 •
6.0E-03 -
4.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 -
n np4-nn .
^ ^
*
«
• *
*
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.61
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
MW16B
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
8/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.6E-02
1.3E-02
1.6E-02
8.0E-03
7.0E-03
1.0E-02
8.0E-03
2.8E-03
2.0E-04 ND
5.6E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
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
6/2/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-135B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E-04 •
_ 5.0E-04 -
,§ 4.0E-04 •
| 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
o
0 1.0E-04-
O.OE+00 J
Data Table:
//vv
*
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Date
^/XXX/XX
$y Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -5
Confidence in
Trend:
1 60.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.38
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 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
5/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-135C
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
8.0E-04 •
7.0E-04 -
? 6.0E-04 -
~ 5.0E-04 -
| 4.0E-04 •
| 3.0E-04 -
o 2.0E-04 •
O
1.0E-04-
O.OE+00 J
Data Table:
/vvv
Date
^/XXX/XX
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
$y Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -11
Confidence in
Trend:
1 74.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.60
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 7.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 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
5/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
NEWMARK, MUSCOY AND SOURCE OU
NEWMARK SUPERFUND SITE
San Bernardino, California
Muscoy OU MAROS Reports
Mann-Kendall Reports
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Project: Muscoy Shallow
Location: San Bernardino
User Name: MV
State: California
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Source/
Well Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples Concentration
"ND" ? Trend
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
CJ-17
MWCOE003
MWCOE002
CJ-15
CJ-11
MWCOE004
CJ-1
CJ-16
CJ-8
CJ-7
CJ-6
CJ-1 4
CJ-1 3
MWCOE008
CJ-10
MWCOE007
MWCOE001B
CJ-3
CJ-1 2
CJ-1A
MWCOE005
CJ-2
MWCOE006
MWCOE009
MWCOE001A
MW-139A
MW-138A
MUNI-103
MW-128A
MW-137A
MUNI-104A
MW-135A
MUNI-109
MW-133A
MW-132A
MW-127A
MW-131A
MW-130A
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
14
5
5
18
18
6
29
29
13
13
29
5
5
6
14
13
13
15
5
19
13
15
12
6
6
12
12
11
18
12
2
12
8
10
9
11
6
18
14
1
0
17
17
4
11
29
11
2
28
3
4
5
13
11
12
12
4
4
13
4
6
3
6
10
11
3
18
12
2
11
5
5
7
8
5
15
0.63
0.69
0.00
1.09
0.90
1.21
1.11
0.42
0.62
0.87
0.67
0.79
0.76
1.29
0.83
0.80
1.16
1.02
0.95
2.48
0.45
1.21
1.17
0.87
0.59
1.58
0.69
1.07
0.64
0.47
0.00
1.20
1.46
1.42
1.04
1.67
1.69
1.41
-2
2
0
11
23
-8
98
-51
7
1
-173
-5
-6
-3
1
-22
-4
-33
-5
38
3
42
8
6
4
-3
24
4
30
-25
0
19
-10
1
16
-14
0
-37
52.2%
59.2%
40.8%
64.6%
79.5%
89.8%
96.6%
82.4%
64.0%
50.0%
100.0%
82.1%
88.3%
64.0%
50.0%
89.8%
57.1%
94.3%
82.1%
90.1%
54.8%
98.0%
68.1%
81 .5%
70.3%
55.4%
94.2%
59.0%
86.2%
95.0%
0.0%
88.9%
86.2%
50.0%
94.0%
84.0%
42.3%
91 .2%
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
S
NT
S
NT
NT
NT
I
S
NT
NT
D
S
S
NT
NT
S
NT
PD
S
PI
NT
I
NT
NT
NT
NT
PI
NT
NT
PD
N/A
NT
NT
NT
PI
NT
NT
PD
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Friday, April 20, 2007
Page 1 of 5
-------
Project: Muscoy Shallow
Location: San Bernardino
User Name: MV
State: California
Source/ Number of
Well Tail Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
MW-127B
MW-129A
MW-134
EW-110PZA
MUNI-102
EW-108PA
EW-110PZB
EW-111PZA
EW-112PA
EW-109PZA
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
11
17
10
8
12
11
9
8
11
8
4
8
1
8
2
6
9
5
11
8
3.11
1.42
1.09
0.71
1.09
1.49
0.48
1.03
1.16
0.26
14
-71
-7
12
-4
-17
-4
-19
-16
-6
84.0%
99.9%
70.0%
91.1%
58.0%
89.1%
61 .9%
98.9%
87.5%
72.6%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
D
NT
PI
NT
NT
S
D
NT
S
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
MWCOE008
CJ-8
CJ-16
CJ-6
CJ-10
MWCOE006
CJ-17
MWCOE005
CJ-3
CJ-1A
CJ-1
MWCOE009
CJ-2
MWCOE007
MWCOE001A
MWCOE004
CJ-1 5
MWCOE003
MWCOE001B
CJ-11
CJ-1 4
CJ-1 3
CJ-1 2
CJ-7
MWCOE002
MW-127A
MUNI-102
MW-127B
MUNI-103
MUNI-109
EW-110PZB
EW-109PZA
MUNI-104A
EW-108PA
EW-111PZA
EW-112PA
MW-138A
MW-139A
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
6
13
29
29
14
12
14
13
15
19
29
6
15
13
6
6
18
5
13
18
5
5
5
13
5
11
12
11
11
8
9
8
2
11
8
11
12
12
4
13
29
28
13
2
14
13
15
0
24
6
4
13
6
6
18
3
12
15
3
2
4
5
0
11
6
8
1
8
9
8
2
9
5
10
12
9
0.73
0.28
0.14
0.30
0.35
1.09
0.25
0.31
1.06
0.00
0.59
0.54
1.58
0.71
0.63
0.51
0.83
0.96
0.66
0.72
1.17
1.39
0.98
0.93
0.00
0.95
0.93
1.37
1.07
0.88
0.20
0.10
0.00
1.35
0.87
0.52
0.48
0.55
-9
-33
-90
70
-15
-4
-28
-45
-15
0
-26
-9
38
-11
-4
-7
24
5
-44
39
-1
1
-8
42
0
-30
-1
-7
-2
-18
7
-8
0
-4
-13
-22
19
10
93.2%
97.5%
95.2%
90.1%
77.5%
58.0%
92.9%
99.8%
75.2%
48.6%
67.9%
93.2%
96.7%
72.5%
70.3%
86.4%
80.6%
82.1%
99.7%
92.4%
50.0%
50.0%
95.8%
99.5%
40.8%
99.0%
50.0%
67.6%
53.0%
98.4%
72.8%
80.1%
0.0%
59.0%
92.9%
94.9%
88.9%
72.7%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
PD
D
D
PI
S
NT
PD
D
NT
S
S
PD
I
S
S
S
NT
NT
D
PI
NT
NT
D
I
S
D
S
NT
NT
D
NT
S
N/A
NT
PD
PD
NT
NT
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Friday, April 20, 2007
Page 2 of 5
-------
Project: Muscoy Shallow
Location: San Bernardino
User Name: MV
State: California
Well
Source/
Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
MW-137A
MW-135A
MW-134
MW-133A
EW-110PZA
MW-132A
MW-129A
MW-131A
MW-128A
MW-130A
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
MWCOE002
MWCOE003
MWCOE004
CJ-11
MWCOE005
MWCOE001A
MWCOE006
MWCOE007
CJ-1
MWCOE008
MWCOE009
CJ-10
CJ-1 3
MWCOE001 B
CJ-1 2
CJ-1 5
CJ-2
CJ-7
CJ-1 4
CJ-1A
CJ-3
CJ-6
CJ-1 7
CJ-1 6
CJ-8
EW-108PA
EW-109PZA
MUNI-102
MW-127A
MW-127B
MW-139A
MW-132A
MW-131A
MUNI-104A
MW-137A
MUNI-103
MW-138A
MW-135A
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
(TCE)
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
12
12
10
10
8
9
17
6
18
18
5
5
6
18
13
6
12
13
29
6
6
14
5
13
5
18
7
3
5
2
15
29
14
29
13
11
8
12
11
11
12
9
6
2
12
11
12
12
11
12
1
9
8
9
5
5
18
18
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
14
0
9
0
12
1
0
1
0
8
28
14
29
2
6
8
2
0
0
0
9
2
0
10
1
10
12
0.81
0.46
1.09
0.53
0.22
0.39
1.19
0.75
0.51
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.93
1.42
0.00
1.40
1.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.84
0.00
0.97
1.22
0.00
1.77
0.00
1.41
0.24
0.31
0.19
1.42
1.30
0.20
1.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.55
1.21
0.00
0.75
1.49
0.59
0.39
-40
25
-7
19
4
3
-54
-8
20
-90
0
0
0
-3
-6
0
-4
-6
0
0
0
-2
0
-42
0
-9
0
0
-4
0
-10
-79
-48
-129
-4
-11
-20
-4
0
0
0
6
-9
0
-43
-2
6
30
99.7%
95.0%
70.0%
94.6%
64.0%
58.0%
98.6%
89.8%
76.2%
100.0%
40.8%
40.8%
42.3%
53.0%
61.7%
42.3%
58.0%
61.7%
49.3%
42.3%
42.3%
52.2%
40.8%
99.5%
40.8%
61 .7%
43.7%
0.0%
75.8%
0.0%
66.9%
92.8%
99.6%
99.3%
57.1%
77.7%
99.3%
58.0%
46.9%
46.9%
47.3%
69.4%
93.2%
0.0%
99.9%
53.0%
63.1%
97.8%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
D
PI
NT
PI
NT
NT
D
S
NT
D
S
S
S
NT
NT
S
NT
NT
S
S
S
S
S
D
S
S
NT
N/A
NT
N/A
NT
PD
D
D
NT
NT
D
NT
S
S
S
NT
PD
N/A
D
NT
NT
I
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Friday, April 20, 2007
Page 3 of 5
-------
Project: Muscoy Shallow
Location: San Bernardino
User Name: MV
State: California
Source/ Number of
Well Tail Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
MUNI-109
MW-129A
EW-112PA
MW-134
EW-111PZA
MW-130A
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZB
MW-133A
MW-128A
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
8
17
11
10
8
18
8
9
10
18
4
2
5
1
4
16
8
9
7
18
1.01
1.33
1.06
1.50
0.87
0.49
0.18
0.15
0.88
0.42
-13
-7
-27
-7
-4
-80
10
5
-4
21
92.9%
59.6%
98.0%
70.0%
64.0%
99.9%
86.2%
65.7%
60.3%
77.3%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
PD
NT
D
NT
S
D
NT
NT
S
NT
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
CJ-14
CJ-13
CJ-15
CJ-12
CJ-11
MWCOE001 B
MWCOE002
MWCOE003
CJ-10
MWCOE004
MWCOE005
MWCOE006
CJ-1
MWCOE007
MWCOE008
MWCOE001A
CJ-1A
MWCOE009
CJ-1 6
CJ-6
CJ-1 7
CJ-2
CJ-8
CJ-3
CJ-7
MUNI-103
MW-139A
EW-112PA
EW-111PZA
EW-108PA
EW-110PZB
EW-110PZA
EW-109PZA
MUNI-102
MW-130A
MW-138A
MW-127A
MW-137A
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
5
5
18
5
18
13
5
5
14
6
13
12
29
13
6
6
19
6
29
29
14
15
13
15
13
11
12
11
8
11
9
8
8
12
18
12
11
12
0
0
12
0
15
11
0
0
14
5
12
9
10
2
1
6
0
2
29
28
14
0
5
6
0
4
4
10
3
3
9
5
8
6
11
12
3
10
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00
0.70
0.62
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.54
0.37
0.74
1.08
1.42
1.47
0.56
0.00
0.39
0.23
0.37
0.31
0.00
1.16
1.31
0.00
2.73
1.22
0.99
0.97
1.38
0.27
0.63
0.16
1.57
0.96
0.49
1.35
0.87
0
0
-21
0
7
4
0
0
-3
-5
-21
35
81
0
-5
-4
0
5
-71
-178
-24
0
1
-8
0
24
-19
35
-6
1
-8
0
-14
32
-25
21
1
-47
40.8%
40.8%
77.3%
40.8%
58.9%
57.1%
40.8%
40.8%
54.3%
76.5%
88.6%
99.2%
93.3%
47.6%
76.5%
70.3%
48.6%
76.5%
90.5%
100.0%
89.4%
48.0%
50.0%
63.3%
47.6%
96.4%
88.9%
99.7%
72.6%
50.0%
76.2%
45.2%
94.6%
98.4%
81 .6%
91 .3%
50.0%
100.0%
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
S
S
S
S
NT
NT
S
S
S
S
S
I
PI
NT
NT
S
S
NT
PD
D
S
S
NT
NT
S
I
NT
I
S
NT
S
S
PD
I
S
PI
NT
D
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Friday, April 20, 2007
Page 4 of 5
-------
Project: Muscoy Shallow
Location: San Bernardino
User Name: MV
State: California
Source/
Well Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
MW-127B
MW-135A
MW-128A
MW-134
MW-129A
MW-133A
MUNI-104A
MW-132A
MW-131A
MUNI-109
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
11
12
18
10
17
10
2
g
6
8
2
9
18
2
3
4
2
9
2
4
2.02
0.59
0.52
1.36
1.33
1.22
0.00
0.46
1.16
1.06
19
12
34
2
-10
5
0
18
-4
11
91 .8%
77.0%
89.3%
53.5%
64.2%
63.6%
0.0%
96.2%
70.3%
88.7%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
PI
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
N/A
I
NT
NT
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); Source/Tail (S/T)
The Number of Samples and Number of Detects shown above are post-consolidation values.
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Friday, April 20, 2007
Page 5 of 5
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-108PA
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
E
o
1
1
o
o
Date
1.4E-02-
1.2E-02-
1.0E-02-
8.0E-03 •
6.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 •
O.OE.OO J
/y>v>VA^v<<
•
*
* * * * *
$y Mann Kendall S
Statistic:
I -4
Confidence in
Trend:
1 59.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1'35
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I NT
Data Table:
Well
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
EW-108PA
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.0E-05 ND
4.0E-03
1.9E-03
2.4E-04
5.4E-03
3.5E-03
1.2E-02
2.9E-04
5.5E-04
1.3E-03
8.0E-05 ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
1
1
1
1
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-109PZA
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.2E-02
_ 1.0E-02
_j
,§ 8.0E-03
| 6.0E-03
§ 4.0E-03
o
0 2.0E-03 -
0.
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 80.1%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.10
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
EW-109PZA
EW-109PZA
EW-109PZA
EW-109PZA
EW-109PZA
EW-109PZA
EW-109PZA
EW-109PZA
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.2E-03
1.1E-02
9.8E-03
1.0E-02
9.8E-03
8.7E-03
9.2E-03
8.4E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-110PZA
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
_J
E
itration
Concer
3.0E-03 •
2.5E-03 •
2.0E-03 -
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 •
n np4-nn .
* *
*
* *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 64.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.22
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZA
EW-110PZA
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.8E-03
1.8E-03
2.5E-03
3.2E-03
2.6E-03
3.1E-03
2.4E-03
2.2E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-110PZB
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
_J
O)
• — '
c
o
1
c
1
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:
1 72.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.20
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
EW-110PZB
EW-110PZB
EW-110PZB
EW-110PZB
EW-110PZB
EW-110PZB
EW-110PZB
EW-110PZB
EW-110PZB
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
2/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
6.5E-03
1.2E-02
1.1E-02
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
1.0E-02
1.3E-02
1.2E-02
1.1E-02
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-111PZA
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
6.0E-03
_ 5.0E-03
_j
,§ 4.0E-03
| 3.0E-03
g 2.0E-03
o
0 1.0E-03-
0.
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 92.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.87
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ PD
Data Table:
Well
EW-111PZA
EW-111PZA
EW-111PZA
EW-111PZA
EW-111PZA
EW-111PZA
EW-111PZA
EW-111PZA
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.2E-03
5.1E-03
3.9E-03
4.7E-03
4.5E-03
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-112PA
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Concentration (mg/L)
Date
A OF m j • • • • ' • • ' • •
3.5E-03 -
3.0E-03 -
2.5E-03 -
2.0E-03 •
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 -
* *
» ^ •
Sy Mann Kendall S Statistic:
j ^22
Confidence in
Trend:
1 94.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °'52
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I PD
Data Table:
Well
EW-112PA
EW-112PA
EW-112PA
EW-112PA
EW-112PA
EW-112PA
EW-112PA
EW-112PA
EW-112PA
EW-112PA
EW-112PA
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.0E-05 ND
3.0E-03
2.6E-03
3.7E-03
2.9E-03
1.9E-03
1.7E-03
1.3E-03
1.5E-03
1.6E-03
1.3E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-102
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
6.0E-04
_ 5.0E-04
_j
,§ 4.0E-04
| 3.0E-04
§ 2.0E-04
o
0 1.0E-04-
0.
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 50.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.93
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MUNI-102
MUNI-102
MUNI-102
MUNI-102
MUNI-102
MUNI-102
MUNI-102
MUNI-102
MUNI-102
MUNI-102
MUNI-102
MUNI-102
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
5.0E-04
1.0E-04
2.0E-04
5.0E-04
1.6E-04
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
1.0E-04
8.0E-05
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-103
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E-04
_ 5.0E-04
,§ 4.0E-04
| 3.0E-04
g 2.0E-04
o
0 1.0E-04-
O.OE+00
Date
.
.
.
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 53.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.07
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MUNI-103
MUNI-103
MUNI-103
MUNI-103
MUNI-103
MUNI-103
MUNI-103
MUNI-103
MUNI-103
MUNI-103
MUNI-103
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
5.0E-04
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
0
0
0
1
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-109
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
_j
1
o
1
Concen
4.0E-03 -
3.5E-03 -
3.0E-03 •
2.5E-03 •
2.0E-03 •
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 -
n np4-nn .
, «
* * * *
«
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 98.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.88
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MUNI-109
MUNI-109
MUNI-109
MUNI-109
MUNI-109
MUNI-109
MUNI-109
MUNI-109
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.4E-03
8.0E-04
9.0E-04
1.0E-03
2.4E-04
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-127A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1
o
1
Concer
3.0E-03 •
2.5E-03 •
2.0E-03 -
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 •
n np4-nn .
.
* *
* » +
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I "3°
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.95
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-127A
MW-127A
MW-127A
MW-127A
MW-127A
MW-127A
MW-127A
MW-127A
MW-127A
MW-127A
MW-127A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.0E-03
1.0E-03
8.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.0E-04
4.2E-04
2.7E-04
2.2E-04
1.1E-03
Number of
Samples
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
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-127B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
2.5E-03
2- 2.0E-03
B)
r 1.5E-03
o
1
•£ 1.0E-03
s
c
O 5.0E-04
O.OE+00
• •
» » •
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 67.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.37
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
7.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-05 ND
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
3.0E-04
4.3E-04
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
1.1E-04
2.2E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-128A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_j
B>
o
1
Concer
3.5E-U2 -
3.0E-02 •
2.5E-02 •
2.0E-02 -
1.5E-02-
1.0E-02-
5.0E-03 •
n np4-nn .
«
» * *
* * *
* *
* *
I 2°
Confidence in
Trend:
I 76.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.51
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
MW-128A
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD);
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
I NT
Number of Number of
Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
1.5E-02 1
3.0E-02 1
1.1E-02 1
1.0E-02 1
5.1E-03 1
1.2E-02 1
1.5E-02 1
9.0E-03 1
6.8E-03 1
4.7E-03 1
3.6E-03 1
7.8E-03 1
1.1E-02 1
1.6E-02 1
1.8E-02 1
1.8E-02 1
1.7E-02 1
1.7E-02 1
Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-127B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
2.5E-03
2- 2.0E-03
B)
r 1.5E-03
o
1
•£ 1.0E-03
s
c
O 5.0E-04
O.OE+00
• •
» » •
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 67.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.37
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
MW-127B
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
7.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-05 ND
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
3.0E-04
4.3E-04
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
1.1E-04
2.2E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-129A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 np ni
1 .UC-UO •
9.0E-04 •
^ 8.0E-04 -
|" 7.0E-04 -
r 6.0E-04 •
o
~ 5.0E-04 •
i 4.0E-04 •
| 3.0E-04 •
0 2.0E-04 •
1.0E-04-
Data Table:
c/ c/ /
•$• •$• ^
4
+ »
*
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
MW-129A T
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Date
V /"
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-130A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
j"
B)
_§
c
o
1
§
c
o
o
7.UE-03 -
6.0E-03 •
5.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 -
3.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 -
1.0E-03-
n np4-nn .
»
^ ^
*****
* A * * *
~ A
* *
I "9°
Confidence in
Trend:
I 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.45
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
MW-130A
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD);
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
I °
Number of Number of
Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
4.0E-03 1
6.0E-03 1
3.0E-03 1
2.0E-03 1
3.5E-03 1
3.0E-03 1
4.0E-03 1
3.0E-03 1
4.4E-03 1
3.2E-03 1
1.8E-03 1
2.5E-03 1
2.2E-03 1
2.2E-03 1
1.1E-03 1
2.0E-03 1
1.6E-03 1
9.7E-04 1
Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-131A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
6.0E-04
_ 5.0E-04
_j
,§ 4.0E-04
| 3.0E-04
§ 2.0E-04
o
0 1.0E-04-
0.
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 89.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.75
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-131A
MW-131A
MW-131A
MW-131A
MW-131A
MW-131A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
5.0E-04
2.0E-04
1.0E-04
1.7E-04
8.0E-05 ND
1.7E-04
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
0
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-132A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
3.0E-02
_ 2.5E-02
_j
,§ 2.0E-02
o
~ 1.5E-02
§ 1.0E-02
o
0 5.0E-03 -
0.
Date
.
IT
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-133A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_j
1
o
1
Concen
1.6E-03-
1.4E-03-
1.2E-03-
1.0E-03-
8.0E-04 •
6.0E-04 -
4.0E-04 -
2.0E-04 -
n np4-nn .
*
•
* * ^
• •
.
I 19
Confidence in
Trend:
I 94.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.53
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ PI
Data Table:
Well
MW-133A
MW-133A
MW-133A
MW-133A
MW-133A
MW-133A
MW-133A
MW-133A
MW-133A
MW-133A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.0E-05 ND
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
7.0E-04
1.7E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
1.4E-03
9.8E-04
9.3E-04
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-134
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
6.0E-04
_ 5.0E-04
_j
,§ 4.0E-04
| 3.0E-04
§ 2.0E-04
o
0 1.0E-04-
0.
S? *N jP' & & & & & & &
Q) jO( _A JO) ^ -A _A -A _-«^ -A
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -7
Confidence in
Trend:
I 70.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.09
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW-134
MW-134
MW-134
MW-134
MW-134
MW-134
MW-134
MW-134
MW-134
MW-134
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
5.0E-04
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-135A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
7nc ni
.uc-uo •
6.0E-03 •
^j
1 5.0E-03 •
§ 4.0E-03 -
S 3.0E-03 -
c
01
c 2.0E-03 -
o
O
1.0E-03-
OOE+00
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
MW-135A T
MW-135A T
MW-135A T
MW-135A T
MW-135A T
MW-135A T
MW-135A T
MW-135A T
MW-135A T
MW-135A T
MW-135A T
MW-135A T
/VV%
V* v
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-137A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.2E-02
_ 1.0E-02
_j
,§ 8.0E-03
| 6.0E-03
§ 4.0E-03
o
0 2.0E-03 -
0.
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I "4°
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.7%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.81
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-137A
MW-137A
MW-137A
MW-137A
MW-137A
MW-137A
MW-137A
MW-137A
MW-137A
MW-137A
MW-137A
MW-137A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-02
6.5E-03
8.5E-03
4.5E-03
4.6E-03
1.5E-03
3.0E-03
6.6E-03
4.1E-04
1.5E-04
8.0E-05 ND
3.1E-03
Number of
Samples
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
0
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-138A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
A *\P ni
4.OE-UO •
4.0E-03 -
U 3.5E-03 -
,§ 3.0E-03 •
o 2.5E-03 •
2 2.0E-03 •
§ 1.5E-03-
c
£ 1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 -
Data Table:
Date
»
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-139A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
6.0E-04
_ 5.0E-04
_j
,§ 4.0E-04
| 3.0E-04
§ 2.0E-04
o
0 1.0E-04-
0.
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 72.7%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.55
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW-139A
MW-139A
MW-139A
MW-139A
MW-139A
MW-139A
MW-139A
MW-139A
MW-139A
MW-139A
MW-139A
MW-139A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.0E-04
8.0E-05 ND
2.0E-04
3.4E-04
8.0E-05 ND
4.1E-04
4.8E-04
4.6E-04
2.2E-04
3.3E-04
8.0E-05 ND
2.8E-04
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
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
4/20/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Project: Muscoy Intermediate
Location: San Bernardino
User Name: MV
State: California
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Source/
Well Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples Concentration
"ND" ? Trend
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
MUNI-116
CJ-10
CJ-6
CJ-3
CJ-17
MWCOE004
MW-136A
MUNI-104B
MUNI-108
MW-132B
EW-110PZD
EW-111PZB
MW-133B
EW-111PZC
EW-112
MW-129B
EW-112PB
MW-136B
MUNI-101
EW-1 1 1
MW-131B
MW-130C
MW-128B
MW-130B
MW-128C
MW-131C
MW-138B
EW-110PZC
MW-140B
MW-137B
EW-1 10
MW-139B
EW-109PZB
EW-108PB
MW-140C
EW-1 08
EW-1 09
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
12
14
29
15
14
6
12
12
13
10
9
9
10
9
9
17
11
12
12
8
5
18
16
18
14
5
12
8
4
12
8
12
8
11
4
9
8
3
13
28
12
14
4
9
12
3
3
9
9
9
9
9
14
8
5
10
7
4
4
2
18
3
4
2
8
4
10
7
3
6
2
4
7
6
2.71
0.83
0.67
1.02
0.63
1.21
1.62
0.90
1.04
1.04
1.02
0.70
1.34
0.74
0.47
1.44
2.15
0.87
0.99
0.83
1.02
1.04
0.60
0.70
1.45
0.49
1.09
0.38
0.62
1.46
0.79
1.07
0.81
0.99
0.61
1.06
0.95
3
1
-173
-33
-2
-8
-7
25
8
-3
24
0
21
17
-4
38
-14
-15
20
4
2
2
7
59
-10
-3
-16
15
-1
-25
-2
-25
1
-3
-4
7
1
55.4%
50.0%
100.0%
94.3%
52.2%
89.8%
65.6%
95.0%
66.2%
56.9%
99.4%
46.0%
96.4%
95.1%
61 .9%
93.6%
84.0%
82.8%
90.2%
64.0%
59.2%
51 .5%
60.5%
98.7%
68.6%
67.5%
84.5%
95.8%
50.0%
95.0%
54.8%
95.0%
50.0%
56.0%
83.3%
72.8%
50.0%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
NT
D
PD
S
NT
NT
PI
NT
NT
I
S
I
I
S
PI
NT
S
PI
NT
NT
NT
NT
I
NT
S
NT
I
S
PD
S
PD
NT
S
S
NT
NT
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Thursday, April 19,2007
Page 1 of 4
-------
Project: Muscoy Intermediate
Location: San Bernardino
User Name: MV
State: California
Source/
Well Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
CJ-6 S
CJ-3 S
CJ-17 S
MWCOE004 S
CJ-10 S
MUNI-116 S
MW-128B T
MUNI-108 T
MUNI-104B T
MW-128C T
MUNI-101 T
EW-110PZD T
EW-112PB T
EW-110PZC T
EW-112 T
EW-108PB T
EW-111PZC T
EW-109 T
EW-111PZB T
EW-1 1 1 T
EW-109PZB T
EW-1 10 T
EW-1 08 T
MW-130C T
MW-137B T
MW-129B T
MW-136B T
MW-138B T
MW-133B T
MW-140C T
MW-130B T
MW-132B T
MW-136A T
MW-139B T
MW-140B T
MW-131B T
MW-131C T
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
CJ-6 S
MUNI-116 S
CJ-3 S
CJ-17 S
CJ-10 S
MWCOE004 S
MUNI-108 T
EW-1 1 1 T
MW-133B T
29
15
14
6
14
12
16
13
12
14
12
9
11
8
9
11
9
8
9
8
8
8
9
18
12
17
12
12
10
4
18
10
12
12
4
5
5
29
12
15
14
14
6
13
8
10
28
15
14
6
13
5
0
1
11
2
9
9
8
8
9
3
9
8
9
8
8
8
8
1
1
14
2
0
7
4
18
9
2
0
4
2
3
28
4
8
14
14
0
2
8
3
0.30
1.06
0.25
0.51
0.35
2.29
0.00
1.04
0.59
0.38
0.73
0.52
1.31
0.17
0.35
0.92
0.74
0.50
0.61
0.32
0.91
0.41
0.45
0.96
0.46
0.93
1.33
0.00
0.91
0.10
0.39
0.45
2.33
0.00
0.24
0.97
0.81
0.24
1.11
1.41
0.31
0.17
0.00
1.42
0.33
1.33
70
-15
-28
-7
-15
-2
0
2
16
-7
0
20
-21
4
-19
1
28
-19
10
-23
4
-24
21
-9
1
52
-13
0
-4
0
-61
-28
1
0
-4
-7
-8
-79
0
-10
-48
-2
0
12
-24
-3
90.1%
75.2%
92.9%
86.4%
77.5%
52.7%
48.2%
52.4%
84.5%
62.6%
47.3%
97.8%
94.0%
64.0%
97.0%
50.0%
99.9%
98.9%
82.1%
99.9%
64.0%
99.9%
98.3%
61 .7%
50.0%
98.3%
79.0%
47.3%
60.3%
37.5%
98.9%
99.4%
50.0%
47.3%
83.3%
92.1%
95.8%
92.8%
47.3%
66.9%
99.6%
52.2%
42.3%
74.5%
99.9%
56.9%
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
PI
NT
PD
S
S
NT
S
NT
NT
S
S
I
PD
NT
D
NT
I
D
NT
D
NT
D
I
S
NT
I
NT
S
S
S
D
D
NT
S
S
PD
D
PD
NT
NT
D
S
S
NT
D
NT
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Thursday, April 19,2007
Page 2 of 4
-------
Project: Muscoy Intermediate
Location: San Bernardino
User Name: MV
State: California
Source/ Number of
Well Tail Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
MW-136A
EW-110PZC
MW-136B
EW-110PZD
EW-110
EW-109PZB
MW-137B
EW-109
EW-108PB
EW-108
MW-139B
MW-140B
MW-140C
MW-138B
EW-111PZC
EW-112PB
MUNI-101
EW-112
MW-130B
MUNI-104B
MW-128B
MW-131C
EW-111PZB
MW-132B
MW-130C
MW-129B
MW-128C
MW-131B
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
12
8
12
9
8
8
12
8
11
9
12
4
4
12
9
11
12
9
18
12
16
5
9
10
18
17
14
5
2
8
2
9
8
5
1
8
2
7
1
4
4
1
8
3
5
6
18
7
0
1
9
3
1
10
1
2
2.04
0.17
1.37
0.41
0.37
0.97
0.20
0.43
1.33
0.59
0.13
0.35
0.08
0.18
1.09
1.18
1.06
0.74
0.41
0.90
0.00
1.44
0.66
1.29
1.41
1.18
0.47
1.31
1
8
-11
13
-16
3
1
-14
-9
13
1
-3
1
1
30
-19
18
-9
-62
43
0
-4
4
-11
-9
13
-5
-7
50.0%
80.1%
74.9%
89.0%
96.9%
59.4%
50.0%
94.6%
72.9%
89.0%
50.0%
72.9%
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
91 .8%
87.5%
79.2%
99.0%
99.9%
48.2%
75.8%
61 .9%
81 .0%
61.7%
68.7%
58.5%
92.1%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
NT
NT
NT
D
NT
NT
PD
NT
NT
NT
S
NT
NT
I
PD
NT
S
D
I
S
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
S
PD
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
MWCOE004
CJ-6
MUNI-116
CJ-17
CJ-10
CJ-3
MW-140B
MW-130B
MUNI-108
MW-129B
MW-139B
MW-128B
MW-140C
EW-108
MUNI-104B
EW-110
EW-111PZB
MW-132B
EW-1 1 1
MW-133B
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
6
29
12
14
14
15
4
18
13
17
12
16
4
9
12
8
9
10
8
10
5
28
2
14
14
6
4
15
2
13
1
0
4
5
8
6
8
2
7
4
0.54
0.37
2.15
0.31
0.31
1.31
0.30
0.58
1.42
1.27
1.48
0.00
0.12
0.78
0.77
0.73
0.70
1.36
0.45
1.12
-5
-178
-5
-24
-3
-8
-2
79
10
23
-3
0
0
6
33
-15
8
-8
-10
-1
76.5%
100.0%
60.6%
89.4%
54.3%
63.3%
62.5%
99.9%
70.5%
81 .5%
55.4%
48.2%
37.5%
69.4%
98.7%
95.8%
76.2%
72.9%
86.2%
50.0%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
S
D
NT
S
S
NT
S
I
NT
NT
NT
S
S
NT
I
D
NT
NT
S
NT
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Thursday, April 19,2007
Page 3 of 4
-------
Project: Muscoy Intermediate
Location: San Bernardino
User Name: MV
State: California
Source/
Well Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
MW-128C
EW-111PZC
MW-131C
MW-136A
MW-130C
EW-112
MW-138B
MW-136B
EW-112PB
EW-109PZB
MW-131B
MW-137B
EW-109
MUNI-101
EW-110PZD
EW-108PB
EW-110PZC
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
14
9
5
12
18
9
12
12
11
8
5
12
8
12
9
11
8
0
9
2
3
1
9
2
2
3
3
1
4
6
4
8
1
8
0.00
0.70
1.07
1.75
1.41
0.47
1.32
1.40
1.15
1.07
1.44
1.19
0.82
1.14
0.77
1.49
0.23
0
24
-2
-15
-9
19
-5
-10
-17
-4
-4
-19
-17
11
26
-8
3
47.8%
99.4%
59.2%
82.8%
61.7%
97.0%
60.6%
72.7%
89.1%
64.0%
75.8%
88.9%
97.7%
74.9%
99.7%
70.3%
59.4%
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
s
i
NT
NT
NT
I
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
D
NT
I
NT
NT
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); Source/Tail (S/T)
The Number of Samples and Number of Detects shown above are post-consolidation values.
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Thursday, April 19,2007
Page 4 of 4
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-108
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
J
B)
_§
o
1
c
S
c
o
o
3.0E-03 •
2.5E-03 •
2.0E-03 -
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 •
n np4-nn .
*
»
• •
*
4
«
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 21
Confidence in
Trend:
1 98.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.45
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
EW-108
EW-108
EW-108
EW-108
EW-108
EW-108
EW-108
EW-108
EW-108
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2003
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.0E-05 ND
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.2E-03
2.3E-03
2.1E-03
2.9E-03
2.6E-03
2.1E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-108PB
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
6.0E-04
_ 5.0E-04
_j
,§ 4.0E-04
| 3.0E-04
§ 2.0E-04
o
0 1.0E-04-
0.
> c^
x
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 50.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.92
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
EW-108PB
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
5.0E-04
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
1.8E-04
2.1E-04
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-109
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
>
_J
1
o
1
Concent
8.0E-03 •
7.0E-03 -
6.0E-03 •
5.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 •
3.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 -
1.0E-03-
n np4-nn .
*
»
******
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 98.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.50
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
EW-109
EW-109
EW-109
EW-109
EW-109
EW-109
EW-109
EW-109
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.3E-03
4.3E-03
3.2E-03
3.1E-03
2.9E-03
3.5E-03
3.1E-03
2.2E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-109PZB
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
>
4.5E-03 -
4.0E-03 -
3.5E-03 -
3.0E-03 •
2.5E-03 •
2.0E-03 •
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 •
n np4-nn .
*
*
^
•
•
*
* *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 64.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.91
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
EW-109PZB
EW-109PZB
EW-109PZB
EW-109PZB
EW-109PZB
EW-109PZB
EW-109PZB
EW-109PZB
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.8E-04
2.3E-03
2.9E-03
1.3E-04
1.5E-03
1.3E-03
5.5E-04
4.6E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-110
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_J
1
c
o
1
c
S
c
o
O
9.0E-03 -
8.0E-03 -
7.0E-03 -
6.0E-03 •
5.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 •
3.0E-03 •
2.0E-03 •
1.0E-03-
n np4-nn .
•
+
^ *
*
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.41
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
EW-110
EW-110
EW-110
EW-110
EW-110
EW-110
EW-110
EW-110
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
9.2E-03
5.2E-03
6.0E-03
4.4E-03
3.9E-03
4.3E-03
3.6E-03
2.7E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-110PZC
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
2-
1
c
o
1
c
S
c
o
o
1.8E-02-
1.6E-02-
1.4E-02-
1.2E-02-
1.0E-02-
8.0E-03 •
6.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 •
2.0E-03 •
n np4-nn .
* *
*
* *
•
Confidence in
Trend:
I 64.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.17
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
EW-110PZC
EW-110PZC
EW-110PZC
EW-110PZC
EW-110PZC
EW-110PZC
EW-110PZC
EW-110PZC
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.2E-02
1.9E-02
1.4E-02
1.7E-02
1.4E-02
1.9E-02
1.3E-02
1.5E-02
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-110PZD
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
>
E
itration
Concer
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:
I 2°
Confidence in
Trend:
I 97.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.52
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
EW-110PZD
EW-110PZD
EW-110PZD
EW-110PZD
EW-110PZD
EW-110PZD
EW-110PZD
EW-110PZD
EW-110PZD
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
2/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.0E-04
2.7E-03
8.5E-03
5.4E-03
6.6E-03
6.2E-03
1.2E-02
1.0E-02
7.4E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-111
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_J
O)
£
c
O
1
1
O
O
7.0E-03 -
6.0E-03 -
5.0E-03 -
4.0E-03 •
3.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 •
1.0E-03-
n np4-nn .
«
•
V
^ ^
^ ^
*
I ~23
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.32
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
EW-1 1 1
EW-1 1 1
EW-1 1 1
EW-1 1 1
EW-1 1 1
EW-1 1 1
EW-1 1 1
EW-1 1 1
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
6.6E-03
7.0E-03
5.6E-03
6.2E-03
4.5E-03
4.5E-03
3.2E-03
2.6E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-111PZB
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
O)
c
^
Concent
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 82.1%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.61
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
EW-111PZB
EW-111PZB
EW-111PZB
EW-111PZB
EW-111PZB
EW-111PZB
EW-111PZB
EW-111PZB
EW-111PZB
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
2/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.8E-03
7.1E-03
3.6E-03
1.7E-03
1.7E-03
2.9E-03
6.9E-03
9.6E-03
4.5E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-111PZC
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
B)
c
Concent
1.0E-02-
8.0E-03 •
6.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 -
n np4-nn .
•
•
•
•
•
« * , *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 28
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.74
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
EW-111PZC
EW-111PZC
EW-111PZC
EW-111PZC
EW-111PZC
EW-111PZC
EW-111PZC
EW-111PZC
EW-111PZC
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
2/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.6E-03
2.1E-03
1.3E-03
1.4E-03
4.6E-03
5.7E-03
6.7E-03
9.2E-03
1.1E-02
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-112
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
_J
B)
E.
o
1
§
c
o
o
4.0E-03 -
3.5E-03 -
3.0E-03 •
2.5E-03 •
2.0E-03 •
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 -
n np4-nn .
»
4
•
* » * *
• *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -19
Confidence in
Trend:
1 97.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.35
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
EW-112
EW-112
EW-112
EW-112
EW-112
EW-112
EW-112
EW-112
EW-112
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2003
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.0E-03
3.5E-03
4.1E-03
2.2E-03
2.0E-03
1.6E-03
2.0E-03
2.1E-03
1.7E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-112PB
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
*
'a
_§
o
1
§
c
o
o
3.0E-03 •
2.5E-03 •
2.0E-03 -
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 •
n np4-nn .
»
^
^
* ^
» * »
• * *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 94.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.31
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ PD
Data Table:
Well
EW-112PB
EW-112PB
EW-112PB
EW-112PB
EW-112PB
EW-112PB
EW-112PB
EW-112PB
EW-112PB
EW-112PB
EW-112PB
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.0E-05 ND
9.0E-04
1.4E-03
2.7E-04
3.1E-03
5.3E-04
4.1E-04
3.5E-04
2.7E-04
8.0E-05 ND
8.0E-05 ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-101
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
_J
O)
• — '
c
o
1
1
o
o
1.6E-03 -
1.4E-03-
1.2E-03-
1.0E-03-
8.0E-04 •
6.0E-04 -
4.0E-04 •
2.0E-04 -
n np4-nn .
•
*
* * *
• *
* * *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 47.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.73
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MUNI-101
MUNI-101
MUNI-101
MUNI-101
MUNI-101
MUNI-101
MUNI-101
MUNI-101
MUNI-101
MUNI-101
MUNI-101
MUNI-101
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.0E-05 ND
6.0E-04
7.0E-04
5.0E-04
6.2E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
1.4E-03
6.7E-04
8.0E-05 ND
1.1E-03
8.0E-05 ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
1
1
1
1
1
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-104B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
9.UE-03 -
8.0E-03 •
7.0E-03 -
6.0E-03 •
5.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 •
3.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 -
1.0E-03-
n np4-nn .
* *
• *
• +
. . *
* * *
•
A
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 16
Confidence in
Trend:
I 84.5%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.59
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MUNI-104B
MUNI-104B
MUNI-104B
MUNI-104B
MUNI-104B
MUNI-104B
MUNI-104B
MUNI-104B
MUNI-104B
MUNI-104B
MUNI-104B
MUNI-104B
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
4.0E-03
2.0E-03
8.0E-05 ND
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
8.2E-03
3.9E-03
3.3E-03
2.8E-03
8.5E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
0
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-108
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E-04 •
_ 5.0E-04 -
,§ 4.0E-04 •
c
| 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
o
0 1.0E-04-
O.OE+00 •
Data Table:
Date
4^VV^VVX^«VX^
•
^J? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 2
Confidence in
Trend:
1 52.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 1.04
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
_
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
MUNI-108 T
MUNI-108 T
MUNI-108 T
MUNI-108 T
MUNI-108 T
MUNI-108 T
MUNI-108 T
MUNI-108 T
MUNI-108 T
MUNI-108 T
MUNI-108 T
MUNI-108 T
MUNI-108 T
5/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
11/15/1999 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
5/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
11/15/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
8/15/2001 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
5/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
8/15/2002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
5/15/2003 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04 1 1
2/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
11/15/2004 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
5/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
11/15/2005 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
11/15/2006 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MUNI-116
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
5.UE-03 -
4.5E-03 -
4.0E-03 -
3.5E-03 -
3.0E-03 •
2.5E-03 •
2.0E-03 •
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 •
n np4-nn .
*
» » *
*** *•** «
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 52.7%
Coefficient of Variation:
2.29
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MUNI-116
MUNI-116
MUNI-116
MUNI-116
MUNI-116
MUNI-116
MUNI-116
MUNI-116
MUNI-116
MUNI-116
MUNI-116
MUNI-116
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L)
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
4.7E-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
8.0E-05
1.1E-04
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
5.0E-04
8.0E-05
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-128B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Jr jr jy' £*• JS3 ^JS3 ST ^Jy> Mann Kendall S Statistic:
9np n<>
.UC~U«I
8np n<> .
.UC~U«I
U 7.0E-05 -
B)
E. 6.0E-05 •
o 5.0E-05 •
2 4.0E-05 •
c
g 3.0E-05 -
c
2 2.0E-05 -
1.0E-05-
Onp+nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
•Sf- -^- y-
x ^ v v v
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
MW-128B T
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
I °
Confidence in
Trend:
I 48.2%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.00
9
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
I S
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 8.0E-05
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND
= Non-detect
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
(D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
6/8/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-128C
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
2tF 04
• *JC-U*t
^ 2.0E-04 -
E
c 1.5E-04-
o
1
•£ 1.0E-04-
c
0 5.0E-05 •
Oncu-nn
m\ICr\I\I
Data Table:
/vv\/«
•
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-128C T
MW-128C T
MW-128C T
MW-128C T
MW-128C T
MW-128C T
MW-128C T
MW-128C T
MW-128C T
MW-128C T
MW-128C T
MW-128C T
MW-128C T
MW-128C T
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Date
/o^VVVVVVV
^* ^*
•
' ^ Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -7
Confidence in
Trend i
I 62.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.38
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 1.5E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05 ND 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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-129B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
8.0E-03 •
U 7.0E-03 -
,§ 6.0E-03 •
o 5.0E-03 •
2 4.0E-03 •
§ 3.0E-03 -
c
2 2.0E-03 -
1.0E-03-
Data Table:
/ / /
•$• •$• ^
+
* *
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
MW-129B T
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Date
V / c/
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-130B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 RP no
I .OC-U& •
1.4E-02 •
^ 1.2E-02-
~ 1.0E-02-
c
O
s 8.0E-03 •
g 6.0E-03 -
o
o 4.0E-03 •
O
2.0E-03 -
Data Table:
<£> J$> $
^ ^ ^>
i i i i i i
^
*
•
^ ^
»
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
MW-130B T
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Date
^ & & & & & J
V*^ <;® <^ ^> <^ ^P
i i i i i i i i i i i i
*
* *
« * * *
* * ^
*
y Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ~61
Confidence in
Trend:
1 98.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.39
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I °
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 1.2E-02
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 1.4E-02
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 1.0E-02
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 7.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 7.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 1.0E-02
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 1.2E-02
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.9E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 7.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 9.9E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.8E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.9E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.9E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.2E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 4.7E-03
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
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-130C
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6nc r\A
.UE-U4 •
_ 5.0E-04 -
"3)
E. 4.0E-04 •
o
s 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
c
O
° 1.0E-04-
Data Table:
,/ / /
<$><$> ^
Date
^ » ^ ^> ^
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
MW-130C T
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
y Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ^9
Confidence in
Trend:
I 61 .7%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.96
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I S
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-05
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
1 1
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-131B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
6.0E-04
_ 5.0E-04
_j
,§ 4.0E-04
| 3.0E-04
§ 2.0E-04
o
0 1.0E-04-
0.
J>N
&
^
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -7
Confidence in
Trend:
I 92.1%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.97
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ PD
Data Table:
Well
MW-131B
MW-131B
MW-131B
MW-131B
MW-131B
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L)
5.0E-04
2.0E-04
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
Flag
ND
ND
ND
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-131C
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
6.0E-04
_ 5.0E-04
_j
,§ 4.0E-04
| 3.0E-04
§ 2.0E-04
o
0 1.0E-04-
0.
J>N
&
^
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 95.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.81
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-131C
MW-131C
MW-131C
MW-131C
MW-131C
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L)
5.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
Flag
ND
ND
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-132B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
7.0E-04 -
6.0E-04 -
5.0E-04 -
4.0E-04 •
3.0E-04 -
2.0E-04 •
1.0E-04-
n np4-nn .
•
•
* * •
* * *
•
4
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ~28
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.45
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-132B
MW-132B
MW-132B
MW-132B
MW-132B
MW-132B
MW-132B
MW-132B
MW-132B
MW-132B
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
7.0E-04
5.0E-04
4.0E-04
2.0E-04
4.3E-04
3.8E-04
3.2E-04
3.3E-04
3.3E-04
8.0E-05 ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-133B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
6.0E-04
_ 5.0E-04
_j
,§ 4.0E-04
| 3.0E-04
§ 2.0E-04
o
0 1.0E-04-
0.
S? *N jP' & & & & & & &
Q) jO( _A JO) ^ -A _A -A _-«^ -A
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 60.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.91
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-133B
MW-133B
MW-133B
MW-133B
MW-133B
MW-133B
MW-133B
MW-133B
MW-133B
MW-133B
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
11/15/2005
5/15/2006
11/15/2006
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.0E-05 ND
5.0E-04
1.0E-04
1.0E-04
1.6E-04
5.0E-04
8.0E-05 ND
1.4E-04
1.1E-04
8.0E-05 ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-136A
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
2ep ni
.oc-uo •
;;[• 2.0E-03 -
E
c 1.5E-03-
o
1
•£ 1.0E-03-
c
0 5.0E-04 •
O.OE+00 •
Data Table:
/VV%
V* v
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-136B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
9nc r\A
.UE-U4 •
8.0E-04 •
U 7.0E-04 -
,§ 6.0E-04 •
o 5.0E-04 •
2 4.0E-04 •
c
g 3.0E-04 -
c
2 2.0E-04 -
1.0E-04-
Data Table:
/VV%
V* v
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-137B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
2ec f\A
.OE-U4 •
^ 2.0E-04 -
E
c 1.5E-04-
o
1
•£ 1.0E-04-
c
0 5.0E-05 •
Oncu-nn
.uc^uu
Data Table:
/VV%
V* v
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-138B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-139B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-140B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_J
O)
£
c
o
1
1
o
o
7.0E-03 -
6.0E-03 -
5.0E-03 -
4.0E-03 •
3.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 •
1.0E-03-
n np4-nn .
• *
«
*
Confidence in
Trend:
1 83.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
°'24
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-140B
MW-140B
MW-140B
MW-140B
Well Type
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
7.0E-03
7.1E-03
6.1E-03
4.0E-03
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-140C
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
f
Date
&
^
*s>
_§
o
1
§
c
o
o
1.3E-02 •
1.3E-02 •
1.2E-02 -
1.2E-02 -
1.1E-02-
1.1E-02-
* *
4 4
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 37.5%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.10
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW-140C
MW-140C
MW-140C
MW-140C
Well Type
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.1E-02
1.3E-02
1.3E-02
1.1E-02
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
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
4/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-109PZC
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.00E+00
1.00E-01 •
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
0 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04
Date
«#
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 70.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.41
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
EW-109PZC
EW-109PZC
EW-109PZC
EW-109PZC
EW-109PZC
EW-109PZC
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.2E-04
5.0E-04 ND
2.5E-04
6.7E-04
5.0E-04 ND
3.8E-04
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
0
1
1
0
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
5/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-110PZE
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00E+00
1.00E-01 •
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
0 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04
.$
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 80.1%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.48
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
EW-110PZE
EW-110PZE
EW-110PZE
EW-110PZE
EW-110PZE
EW-110PZE
EW-110PZE
EW-110PZE
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L)
2.9E-04
5.0E-04
3.7E-04
5.0E-04
1.1E-04
8.6E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
0
1
0
1
1
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
5/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-110PZE
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_J
1
c
o
1
§
c
o
o
9.0E-04 •
8.0E-04 •
7.0E-04 -
6.0E-04 •
5.0E-04 •
4.0E-04 •
3.0E-04 •
2.0E-04 •
1.0E-04-
n np4-nn .
* * * *
^ *
*
Confidence in
Trend:
I 80.1%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.48
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
EW-110PZE
EW-110PZE
EW-110PZE
EW-110PZE
EW-110PZE
EW-110PZE
EW-110PZE
EW-110PZE
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L)
2.9E-04
5.0E-04
3.7E-04
5.0E-04
1.1E-04
8.6E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
0
1
0
1
1
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
5/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-111PZD
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 6/1/2005 to 1/15/2007
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
2 1.00E-02-
8
0 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 93.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.06
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ PD
Data Table:
Well
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
1/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.0E-03
2.7E-03
3.6E-04
4.8E-04
4.5E-04
5.0E-04 ND
3.4E-04
Number of
Samples
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
2
3
1
1
1
0
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
5/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-111PZD
Well Type: T
COC: DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/30/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
6.(
_ 5.0E-03
,§ 4.0E-03
| 3.0E-03
g 2.0E-03
o
0 1.0E-03-
0.
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 92.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.14
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ PD
Data Table:
Well
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
5.2E-03
3.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.6E-04
3.1E-04
7.4E-04
5.0E-04 ND
5.0E-04 ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
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
6/8/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-135B
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E-04 •
_ 5.0E-04 -
,§ 4.0E-04 •
| 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
o
0 1.0E-04-
O.OE+00 J
Data Table:
//vv
*
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
MW-135B T
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Date
^/XXX/XX
$y Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -5
Confidence in
Trend:
1 60.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.38
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 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
5/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-135C
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
8.0E-04 •
7.0E-04 -
? 6.0E-04 -
~ 5.0E-04 -
| 4.0E-04 •
| 3.0E-04 -
o 2.0E-04 •
O
1.0E-04-
O.OE+00 J
Data Table:
/vvv
Date
^/XXX/XX
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
MW-135C T
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
$y Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -11
Confidence in
Trend:
1 74.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.60
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
_
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 7.0E-04 1 1
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 2.0E-04 ND 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
5/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: EW-111PZD
Well Type: T
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.2E-02
_ 1.0E-02
,§ 8.0E-03
| 6.0E-03
§ 4.0E-03
o
0 2.0E-03 -
0.
>
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 98.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.55
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
EW-111PZD
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Constituent
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.1E-02
3.0E-03
2.7E-03
3.6E-04
4.8E-04
4.5E-04
5.0E-04 ND
3.4E-04
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
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
5/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-129C
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
_J
,§ 4.0E-04 •
o
s 3.0E-04 •
§ 2.0E-04 -
c
O
1 .OE-04 •
00
Data Table:
,/ / /
<$><$> ^
Date
^ » ^ ^> ^
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
MW-129C S
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
y Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ^9
Confidence in
Trend "
I 61 .7%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I S
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
1 1
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 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
5/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-130B
Well Type: s
COC: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 1/15/2007
Consolidation Period: Quarterly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 RP no
I .OC-U& •
1.4E-02 •
^ 1.2E-02-
~ 1.0E-02-
c
O
s 8.0E-03 •
g 6.0E-03 -
o
o 4.0E-03 •
O
2.0E-03 -
Data Table:
<£> J$> $
^ ^ ^>
i i i i i i
^
*
•
^ ^
»
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
MW-130B S
5/15/1999
11/15/1999
5/15/2000
11/15/2000
8/15/2001
5/15/2002
8/15/2002
5/15/2003
2/15/2004
11/15/2004
5/15/2005
8/15/2005
11/15/2005
2/15/2006
5/15/2006
8/15/2006
11/15/2006
2/15/2007
Date
^ & & & & & J
V*^ <;® <^ ^> <^ ^P
i i i i i i i i i i i i
*
* *
« * * *
* * ^
*
y Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ~61
Confidence in
Trend:
1 98.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.39
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I °
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 1.2E-02
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 1.4E-02
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 1.0E-02
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 7.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-04
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 7.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 1.0E-02
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 1.2E-02
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.9E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 7.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 9.9E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.8E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.9E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.9E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 8.2E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 5.0E-03
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE 4.7E-03
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
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
5/1/2007
Page 1 of 1
------- |