Long-Term Groundwater
Monitoring Optimization
Taylor Road Landfill Superfund Site
Seffner, Hillsborough County, Florida
-------
Solid Waste and EPA542-R-07-016
Emergency Response September 2007
(5203P) www.epa.gov
Long-Term Groundwater
Monitoring Optimization
Taylor Road Landfill Superfund Site
Seffner, Hillsborough County, Florida
-------
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.
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Site Background and Conceptual Model 2
1.2 Geology and Hydrogeology 3
2.0 Analytical Approach 4
2.1 MAROS Method 4
2.2 Data Input, consolidation and Site Assumptions 7
2.3 Qualitative Evaluation 8
3.0 Results 10
3.1 Plume Stability 10
3.2 Redundancy and Sufficiency 12
3.3 Sampling Frequency 12
3.4 Data Sufficiency 13
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 14
5.0 References Cited 18
Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Taylor Road Landfill Site Monitoring Locations
Aquifer Input Parameters: Taylor Road Landfill Site
Well Trend Summary Results: 1999-2007
Well Redundancy Analysis Summary Results
Sampling Frequency Analysis Results Vinyl Chloride
Final Recommended Groundwater Monitoring Network Taylor Road Landfill
Taylor Road Superfund Site Monitoring Locations
Taylor Road Landfill Mann-Kendall Trends and First Moments Vinyl Chloride
Taylor Road Landfill Spatial Uncertainty Analysis
Taylor Road Landfill Well Clean-up Status Vinyl Chloride
Taylor Road Landfill Recommended Monitoring Network
Appendices
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
MAROS 2.2 Methodology
MAROS Reports
Hillsborough County, Florida
Taylor Road Landfill Site
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
AOC Area of Concern
AR Area Ratio
ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
BGS Below Ground Surface
CES Cost Effective Sampling
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
COPC Constituent of Potential Concern
CUO Clean-up Objective
CR Concentration Ratio
11DCE 1,1-Dichloroethene
cDCE c/s-1,2-Dichloroethene
EDO Electronic Data Deliverable
ESD Explanation of Significant Difference
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FOOT Florida Department of Transportation
GCTL Florida Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels
GIS Geographic Information System
HCSWMD Hillsborough County Solid Waste Management Department
HSCB Hypothetical Statistical Compliance Boundary
LFG Landfill Gas
LTM Long-Term Monitoring
LTMO Long-Term Monitoring Optimization
MAROS Monitoring and Remediation Optimization Software
Hillsborough County, Florida
Taylor Road Landfill Site
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
MCES Modified Cost Effective Sampling
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
Mn Manganese
MSL Mean Sea Level
NAPL Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OU Operable Unit
PCE Tetrachloroethene (Perchloroethene)
PDWS Primary Drinking Water Standard
PLSF Preliminary Location Sampling Frequency
POC Point of Compliance
PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal
PRP Potentially-Responsible Party
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Rl Remedial Investigation
ROD Record of Decision
SF Slope Factor
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SOWS Secondary Drinking Water Standard
TCE Trichloroethene
IDS Total Dissolved Solids
TRLF Taylor Road Landfill Site
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
Hillsborough County, Florida
Taylor Road Landfill Site
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
VC Vinyl chloride
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
Hillsborough County, Florida jv Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
EXECUTIVE SUM MARY
The following report reviews and provides recommendations for improving the
groundwater monitoring network for Taylor Road Landfill Superfund Site in Seffner,
Hillsborough County, Florida (Taylor Road Site). The Taylor Road Site consists of three,
adjacent, closed, solid-waste disposal facilities. Only one of the three landfills (Taylor
Road Landfill) is listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). Leachate from the unlined
Taylor Road Landfill has affected groundwater in an area with residential, agricultural
and industrial land-uses including individual water-supply wells.
The current groundwater monitoring network has been evaluated using a formal
qualitative approach as well as using 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 (LTM) goals for the system. The recommendations presented
below are based on a technical review; balancing both the statistical results with goals of
the monitoring system and site management decisions. The recommendations may not
reflect the current regulatory requirements. The following report evaluates the
monitoring system using analytical and hydrogeologic data from sampling events
conducted between January 1995 and April 2007.
Site Groundwater Monitoring Goals and Objectives
The primary groundwater monitoring goal for the Taylor Road Site is to "define and
enclose" groundwater exceeding applicable regulatory standards (USEPA, 1995).
Currently, the area of affected groundwater is contained within a ring of compliance wells
surrounded by a 270 foot setback. All homes or businesses within the setback must be
connected to the county water supply. Well construction is restricted within 500 feet of
the county property line, so installation of drinking water wells is prohibited in the area of
the Taylor Road Site. Additionally, the site Record of Decision (ROD, USEPA, 1995)
stipulates that residents in the area of contaminated groundwater must be connected to
a public water supply. Monitoring data from the site network are used to support
institutional controls by identifying and delineating areas of affected groundwater and
areas that must be connected to the public supply. An additional objective of
groundwater monitoring is to document natural attenuation of chemical constituents.
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:
Hillsborough County, Florida i Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
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 chemicals of
potential concern (COPCs);
Develop sampling location recommendations based on an analysis of spatial
uncertainty;
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 Taylor Road Site is a recommendation for
specific sampling locations and frequencies that best address site monitoring goals and
objectives listed above.
Results
Statistical and qualitative evaluations of Taylor Road 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 Taylor Road Site is delineated to USEPA
MCLs for the compounds investigated. Groundwater areas where concentrations
routinely exceed MCLs are bounded by wells where results are below MCLs
downgradient. Existing background concentrations for manganese (Mn) may be
above the USEPA secondary drinking water standard (SOWS) and the Florida GCTL
(50 ug/L).
Vinyl chloride (VC) was identified as the highest priority constituent among site
constituents of potential concern (COPC) based on its prevalence, concentration
relative to risk-based screening levels and its mobility. Trichloroethene (TCE) and
benzene were also considered in the network recommendations.
The groundwater plume at the Taylor Road Site is largely stable to decreasing in
concentration. The majority of individual well trends for VC and TCE indicate
decreasing, probably decreasing or non-detect status. One well, 24-D, shows an
increasing trend for VC, while 7 wells indicate increasing trends for TCE (18-D, 24-D,
31-D, 32-D, C-6, F-2, F-15).
The estimation of moments indicates that total dissolved masses for VC, TCE and
manganese are decreasing. Some shift in the center of mass of the plumes may be
occurring as the source area concentrations decrease (i.e. TR-4D) and tail wells in
the west/northwest of the plume show increases in concentration (i.e. 24-D for VC
and 18-D, 31-D, 32-D and F-2 for TCE ).
Sampling frequency analysis indicates that well sampling frequency can be reduced
without loss of spatial or temporal information necessary to support site management
decisions.
Spatial redundancy analysis indicates that three wells may provide redundant
information in the network: F-4A, C-5 and TR-1D. F-4A has already been plugged
Hillsborough County, Florida ii Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
and abandoned. Other wells provided significant information for delineating and
monitoring affected groundwater.
Spatial uncertainty analysis indicates uncertainty between interior locations with
higher concentrations and unaffected ring wells nearby. However, no new
monitoring locations are recommended for the network.
16 of 27 monitoring locations are statistically below the regulatory screening levels
for VC. 13 of 14 compliance ring wells have sufficient statistical power to show they
have attained the cleanup standard.
Recommendations
The following general recommendations are made based on the findings summarized
above and those described in Section 3 below. General recommendations for
monitoring are based on a combination of statistical results for VC and TCE and a
consideration of qualitative issues such as hydrogeology, potential receptors and
monitoring goals. Detailed recommendations are presented in Section 4.
LTMO is appropriate for the site at this time. No additional fundamental site
investigation is recommended for USEPA regulated constituents at this time. Further
site characterization may be considered to explain the distribution of inorganic
constituents and chemicals with secondary standards in area groundwater.
Because the groundwater plume at the Taylor Road Site is largely stable to
decreasing in concentration and the rate of change of concentrations at individual
wells is slow, decreased monitoring effort may be appropriate at this time.
Reduce monitoring frequency to semi-annual at 18 compliance ring wells and high
concentration locations. Reduce monitoring effort to annual sampling at 7 interior
locations and biennial monitoring at 2 wells. On average, 44 total analytical samples
are recommended each year for the Taylor Road Superfund Site.
o Semi-annual Sampling: 18-D, 24-D, 30-D, 31-D, 32-D, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-
7, C-8, C-9, C-10
o Annual Sampling: 28-D, C-6, F-1A, F-2, NE-23, TR-1D, TR-3D
o Biennial Sampling: F-12, C-5
All 27 locations within the current monitoring network are recommended for inclusion
in the monitoring program, but many are recommended for reduced sampling
frequency. Removal of wells F-2 and 28-D has been recommended by the
potentially responsible party (PRP); however, based on the results of the analysis,
the recommendation is to include these locations in the routine monitoring network at
a reduced sampling frequency.
No new monitoring locations are recommended at this time. However, careful
monitoring of VC concentrations at 24-D and TCE concentrations at the seven
locations with apparently increasing concentrations (18-D, 24-D, 31-D, 32-D, C-6, F-
2, F-15) is highly recommended to determine if the trends represent mobilization of
the plume. Particular attention should be paid to the ring wells on the western side
of the Taylor Road Superfund Site.
Hillsborough County, Florida iii Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Taylor Road Landfill Superfund Site is a National Priorities Listed (NPL) site
administered under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA, Superfund). The site is located approximately 7 miles east of
Tampa, Florida in Hillsborough County (see Figure 1) in US Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Region IV. The Taylor Road Landfill is a 42-acre historic solid waste
disposal facility, originally built without a liner or leachate control system and operated
between 1976 and 1980. Two additional landfills were constructed adjacent to the
Taylor Road Landfill, and fall within a 252 acre "Study Area" that comprises the Taylor
Road Site area of concern and is considered as a single operable unit (OU). The site is
an enforcement-lead site with Hillsborough County Solid Waste Management
Department (HCSWMD) as the lead responsible party.
Groundwater monitoring plays a critical role in long-term restoration of the Taylor Road
Site. The purpose of the following 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.
At the Taylor Road Site, monitoring goals define why data are collected and how data
from the site will be used. The primary groundwater monitoring goal for the site is to
"define and enclose" groundwater exceeding relevant drinking water standards (USEPA,
1995). Monitoring data from the site network are used to support institutional controls,
by identifying areas of affected groundwater and to document natural attenuation of
constituents. A ring of monitoring locations has been installed around the landfill area to
delineate affected groundwater.
In order to recommend an optimized network that addresses the stated monitoring
objective, 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 (COPCs);
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.
A discussion of site background and regulatory context for the Taylor Road Site is
provided in Section 1 below. Section 2 details the analytical and statistical approach
taken during the LTMO evaluation. A detailed discussion of results is provided in
Section 3. Summary conclusions and recommendations are presented in Section 4.0.
Hillsborough County, Florida 1 Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
1.1 Site Background and Regulatory History
The Taylor Road Landfill was permitted as a solid waste landfill in 1975. The landfill
operated from 1976 to 1980 as a disposal facility for residential, commercial and
industrial waste, receiving an unknown quantity of hazardous as well as medical waste.
The landfill was constructed without a liner or leachate collection system. In 1980, the
Taylor Road Landfill reached capacity. A second landfill, the Florida Department of
Transportation (FOOT) Borrow Pit (10.6 acres) was opened to accept waste diverted
from the Taylor Road landfill. The FOOT landfill was constructed with a liner and
leachate collection system and operated as a temporary waste disposal site for less than
one year. The 64-acre Hillsborough Heights Landfill was constructed north and west of
the two smaller landfills and operated between 1980 and 1984 (see Figure 1).
The 42-acre Taylor Road Landfill is the only NPL listed location among the three historic
landfills. However, as affected groundwater extends beneath the other locations, a 252-
acre region, known as the Study Area, has been identified as the site area of concern.
In addition to the three landfills, the Study Area contains five stormwater-retention
basins, County maintenance facilities and a recycling collection center. Adjacent land-
use is a mixture of residential, commercial and agricultural properties.
During a nationwide program of groundwater sampling during the late 1970's, monitoring
and water-supply wells in the vicinity of the Taylor Road site were found to be affected
by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals. Groundwater investigations
revealed that a plume of affected groundwater with several constituents exceeding
standards established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) had migrated off-site
into residential areas. In 1980, the EPA filed suit against Hillsborough County (the
County) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the SDWA.
Because of plume impacts on residential wells, the Taylor Road Landfill was added to
the NPL in October 1981.
EPA pursued cleanup of the Site under both RCRA and Superfund. In a Consent
Decree signed in September 1983 the USEPA, the state of Florida and the County
agreed to a 30-year maintenance and environmental monitoring program for the Taylor
Road Study Area. Site maintenance included installation of a cap, cover and drainage
ditch and gas control systems for fugitive methane. A water supply system was
extended to area residents to replace affected groundwater supply wells. The County
was identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) in 1987, and remains the primary
PRP in a group of 19 PRPs.
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Taylor Road Landfill was issued in September of
1995. The ROD identified a single OU that includes groundwater beneath and
contiguous with the Study Area. The remedy chosen for the site includes institutional
controls prohibiting installation of water-supply wells in areas of affected groundwater,
extension of public water-supply lines to residents and businesses with groundwater
wells, and a monitored natural attenuation program. The ROD identifies the point of
compliance POC) as a ring of monitoring wells around the Study Area. Compliance
Hillsborough County, Florida 2 Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
monitoring wells have been installed at the site between 1995 and 2001. Well
information is listed on Table 1. Quarterly monitoring of point of compliance (POC) wells
is specifically described in the ROD as part of the remedy. In the event that
concentrations of constituents exceed the regulatory screening levels at the compliance-
ring points, a pump and treat contingent remedy will be considered. Groundwater
monitoring data are to be evaluated annually by USEPA and Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) for concentration trends of major regulated
constituents. Construction related to the remedial system was completed in 1999.
Operation and maintenance (O & M) of the closed landfills is regulated under the FDEP
RCRA program. The closed landfills have low-permeability caps, cover systems and
engineered stormwater control systems that contribute to the overall remedial process.
An extensive landfill gas (LFG) collection system has been installed in the area to collect
and flare landfill-generated methane. The O&M program includes monitoring of
groundwater, surface water and landfill gas. Site inspections, facility repair including
monitoring wells, landfill cover maintenance, gas monitoring and recovery systems,
notification, record keeping and reporting are also included in the O&M program.
USEPA issued an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) in August 2000 to set
regulatory screening levels to the Florida Primary Drinking Water Standards or Minimum
Criteria. The FDEP maintained that federally-enforceable applicable, or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) for the site should include the Florida Secondary
Drinking Water Standards. As Secondary Standards address aesthetic issues rather
than health threats, the USEPA has determined these standards are not federally-
enforceable.
1.2 Geology and Hydrogeology
The Taylor Road Landfill Study Area is located in the Brandon Karst Terrain, an
internally drained portion of the Polk Upland karst escarpment characterized by
sinkholes and hills formed by marine and coastal sands (USEPA, 2003). Subsurface
hydrology is characterized by an ephemeral surficial aquifer underlain by a leaky
confining unit consisting of Hawthorn Group clays. The surficial aquifer in the Study Area
is largely absent. The Hawthorn group consists of blocky and discontinuous clays and
sandy clays, with pipes and limestone pinnacles interconnected with the underlying
Floridan aquifer. No intermediate aquifer system is present. Based on water table data,
the surficial and intermediate units present in the area surrounding the Site are not
considered significant in the Taylor Road Landfill Study Area.
The Floridan aquifer consists of the Tampa Member and underlying limestones. The
aquifer in the Study Area is unconfined and characterized by both intergranular and
moldic porosity with dominant flow controlled by fractures, caverns, and bedding planes.
Flow through the pores is slow with transmissivities for the aquifer in the region of the
Study Area reported between 7.4 X 103 and 2.05 x 105 ft2/d (ERM, 1995). Porosity is
estimated at 0.05 and the saturated thickness at approximately 400 ft. Aquifer
parameters used in the MAROS analysis are listed in Table 2.
Hillsborough County, Florida 3 Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
Regional groundwater flow is west/southwest, but there is a recharge mound under the
Study Area which results in a range of flow directions across the site. Flow in the vicinity
of the Taylor Road and FOOT borrow pit is to the south/southeast, while flows around
the Hillsborough Heights Landfill are to the west/southwest. Based on water table data,
the aquifer may show some seasonal variation in flow direction.
2.0 ANALYTICAL APPROACH
Evaluation of the groundwater monitoring network in the vicinity of the Taylor Road
Landfill 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 LTM network at the Taylor Road
Landfill 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 User Manual (AFCEE, 2003) or 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)).
2.1.1 COPC Choice
The karst terrain, varying groundwater flow directions and complex source cause
widespread spatial heterogeneity in constituent concentrations at the Taylor Road Site.
Because of deviations from diffuse flow, each monitoring location was evaluated
individually for priority constituents of potential concern (COPCs). To identify priority
COPCs, the average concentration calculated for a constituent at each well between
1999 and 2007 was divided by the Florida Groundwater Cleanup Target Level (GCTLs).
COPC concentrations that exceeded the GCTL by the highest ratio were identified as
Hillsborough County, Florida 4 Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
priority COPCs for the individual well. Priority COPCs determined for each monitoring
location are listed in Table 1.
The COPC most often identified as a priority was vinyl chloride. Manganese (Mn)
frequently exceeds secondary drinking water standards at the Taylor Road Site. As Mn
does not have a primary drinking water standard and the secondary standard was
exceeded at the background location (F-12), as well, the constituent was not considered
to be a risk-driver for the analysis.
MAROS includes a short module that provides recommendations on prioritizing COPCs
for the entire plume based on toxicity, prevalence, and mobility of the compound (see
Appendix A for details). The module identified vinyl chloride as the only plume-wide
priority COPC, with Mn identified as exceeding secondary standards. The MAROS
spatial and temporal analyses were performed for vinyl chloride.
2.1.2 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
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 trends as it does not assume the data fit a
particular distribution (Gilbert, 1987). Individual well concentration trends were
calculated for priority COPCs 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 2004 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 recommend sampling frequencies for
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), center
of mass (first moment) and spread of mass (second moment) in the plume and the trend
for each of these estimates over time. Trends for the first moment indicate the relative
amount of mass upgradient vs. downgradient and the change in the distance of the
center of mass from the source over time. Trends in the second moment indicate the
relative distribution of mass between the center of the plume and the edge.
Hillsborough County, Florida 5 Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
2.1.3 Well Redundancy and Sufficiency
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).
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 unacceptably high or unexplained levels of
concentration uncertainty are recommended 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 well locations. SF's were calculated for all wells at the Taylor Road
Site and the results were used to determine the importance of each well in the network
for defining vinyl chloride concentrations.
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.
2.1.4 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.
Hillsborough County, Florida 6 Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
MAROS has recommended a preliminary location sampling frequency (PLSF) for each
monitoring location at the Taylor Road Study Area based on a combination of recent and
long-term trends and the magnitude and rate of concentration change. The PLSF has
been reviewed qualitatively and a final optimal sampling frequency has been
recommended consistent with monitoring objectives and regulatory requirements.
2.1.5 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 (USEPA, 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 VC
(screening levels were set to applicable federal and state Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLS) including the Florida GCTLs). 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".
At the Taylor Road Landfill Site, interior locations that monitor groundwater areas
"statistically below MCL" or "statistically clean" may be considered for reduced sampling
frequency or elimination from the program. Statistically 'clean' ring locations should 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 Taylor Road Landfill Site area were supplied by
SCS (SCS, 2006b), supplemented with information from historic site reports.
Groundwater monitoring locations included in the evaluation are listed in Table 1, with
additional details provided in Table 2.
Chemical analytical data collected between January 1995 and April 2007 and well
information data were organized in a database, from which summary statistics were
Hillsborough County, Florida ^ Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
calculated. In all, 28 sample locations were considered in the network evaluation for the
Taylor Road Site. Monitoring well F-4A was plugged and abandoned in 2006, due to
damage sustained from agricultural activity at the site. The well was included in the
analysis to ensure that a replacement well was not needed. Well locations are
illustrated on Figures 1.
2.2. 1 Time Interval and Data Consolidation
Data prior to 1999 are available for a subset of Taylor Road Site wells, however, the
majority of wells in the network have been installed since 1996 with some as recently as
2001. 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 between 1999 and 2007. The data represent an 8 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), 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 COPC for each
quarter.
To ensure a consistent number and identity of wells for the moment analysis, site data
were consolidated annually for this analysis. An average concentration for each well for
each year was calculated by the software. Estimates of total dissolved mass, center of
mass and spread of mass were calculated for each year 1999 - 2007 based on the
average concentration at each monitoring point. Trends for each of the moments are
based on the Mann-Kendall evaluation of each moment calculated for each year 1999 -
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 the Taylor
Road Landfill Site includes developing a 'lines of evidence' approach, combining
statistical analyses with qualitative review to recommend an improved monitoring
network. 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
Hillsborough County, Florida 8 Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
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 Taylor Road 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. 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 or hydrogeologic measurements at 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
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.
Hillsborough County, Florida 9 Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
3.0 RESULTS
Data from 28 monitoring wells at various depths were included in the network analysis
for the Taylor Road Site. Monitoring locations are listed in Table 1 with the size of the
data set for each well, the hydrogeologic unit monitored, major COPC's detected and a
brief description of the location and function of the well.
3.1 Plume Stability
3.1.1 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 shown
in Table 3. Results of the individual well Mann-Kendall trends for VC are also illustrated
on Figure 2. Detailed Mann-Kendall reports for major COPCs for each well in the
network are located in Appendix B.
COPC
Vinyl chloride
TCE
Total
Wells
28
28
Taylor Road Landfill
Mann-Kendall Trend Results by Number of Wells
Nondetect
13(46%)
10(35%)
Decreasing
or Probably
Decreasing
1 1 (39%)
8 (28%)
Stable
0
0
Increasing or
Probably
Increasing
1 (4%)
7 (25%)
No Trend or
Insufficient
Data
3(11%)
3(11%)
For the major organic COPCs, the majority of wells show no detections (ND) or
decreasing (D or PD) trends. Because of the design of the monitoring network,
including the ring of delineation wells, it is appropriate that a large number of wells have
no detections of major COPCs. For wells where constituents have been detected, the
majority of wells show decreasing concentration trends. Decreasing trends for VC are
found at interior wells with historic high concentrations such as C-2, C-5, C-6 and TR-
4D. Source area well TR-4D shows decreasing trends for VC, TCE, 11DCE and
benzene. Analytical results for some wells show intermittent detections, varying
between around the detection limit, resulting in a No Trend (NT) result. Examples of
wells with No Trend for VC resulting from censored data include 28-D and TR-2D.
The only well showing an increasing concentration trend for VC is interior location 24-D.
VC is detected at 24-D in 55% of the samples, with the detection rate increasing
somewhat since mid-2003. 24-D also shows increasing concentration trends for TCE,
PCE, benzene, and Mn with these constituents following roughly the same temporal
pattern as that of VC.
TCE concentrations are statistically increasing at seven locations in the network.
However, TCE is found at significantly lower concentrations relative to the screening
level, and the trends appear to reflect intermittent detections at wells with concentrations
near the analytical detection limit. For example, TCE has been detected more frequently
Hillsborough County, Florida
Taylor Road Landfill Site
10
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
at wells 18-D and 24-D since 2002, but average concentrations are below the screening
level (3 ug/L). Of the 7 wells with increasing trends 1999-2007, only one location, 31-D
has an increasing recent trend (2004-2007). Concentrations at 31-D are still below the
screening levels, but, as this location is part of the compliance ring, future results should
be carefully monitored for continued increasing trend.
One unusual trend result was found at background well F-12. The statistical trend for
Mn is strongly decreasing between 1999 and 2007. F-12 is a background well for the
purpose of determining chemical concentrations in an area of the aquifer that is
unaffected by the landfills. Concentrations of naturally occurring inorganic constituents
are normally stable at background locations, so the trend in Mn is an interesting result.
3.1.2 Moments
Moment analysis was used to estimate the dissolved mass (zeroth moment), center of
mass (first moment) and distribution of mass (second moment) for the plume and the
trend for these metrics over time. In order to ensure a consistent number and identity of
wells for each moment estimate, an annual average concentration for each well was
calculated. Trends of moments were evaluated for annually consolidated data 1999-
2007. Estimates of the zeroth and first moments for the Taylor Road Site are shown in
the table below, and first moments for VC are illustrated on Figure 2.
Moment
Type
Zeroth
First
Second
Moment Analysis
Source OU
VC Trend
Decreasing
Probably
Increasing
Increasing/
No Trend
TCE Trend
Decreasing
Increasing
Increasing
Comment
The estimate of total dissolved mass of VC and TCE within the
Study Area was decreasing between 1999 and 2007.
The distance of the plume center of mass from the source
shows a probably increasing trend for VC and an increasing
trend for TCE. The center of mass is shifting slightly to the
northwest.
The plume spread about the center of mass is increasing in the
direction of groundwater flow for both VC and TCE. VC shows
No Trend in the Y direction.
Between 1999 and 2007 the total dissolved mass in the Study Area shows a decreasing
trend for both VC and TCE (see Appendix B MAROS reports for Zeroth Moments). A
decreasing trend is consistent with the finding that 39% of individual well concentration
trends for VC were decreasing with only one well showing an increasing trend. A
decreasing trend for TCE indicates that the wells with the highest concentrations are
decreasing in concentration while the 7 wells with increasing trends do not contribute
significantly to the estimate of total mass in the plume. The total dissolved mass for Mn
also shows a decreasing trend.
The center of mass for VC shows a probably increasing trend. First moments are
illustrated on Figure 2, and indicate that while the VC center of mass is moving slightly
away from the Taylor Road Landfill (TR-4D source well), the increase is not large.
Within the size of the Study Area, the movement of the center of mass is not particularly
Hillsborough County, Florida
Taylor Road Landfill Site
11
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
significant in the direction of groundwater flow, but appears to shift to the
west/northwest. This shift may be due to the increasing concentrations detected at well
24-D. First moments for TCE are also shifting toward the west, in the direction of 24-D
and C-6, which shows increasing trends for TCE.
3.2 Redundancy and Sufficiency
The spatial redundancy analysis was performed for the network using VC as the priority
COPC. Data collected between 2004 and 2007 were used in the spatial optimization.
Summary results for the redundancy analysis are presented on Table 4 and include
average slope factors (the estimate of uncertainty surrounding the well) for each
location.
For VC, three locations were identified by the software as candidates for removal based
on analytical data: C-5, F-4A and TR-1D. Well F-4A has been plugged and abandoned
due to damage sustained from agricultural land use. Redundancy analysis indicates that
data from F-4A can be successfully replaced by data from F-15 and C-3. Based on a
qualitative review and regulatory requirements, all other wells were recommended for
retention in the monitoring network, although at a reduced sampling frequency.
The well sufficiency analysis for vinyl chloride concentrations is illustrated in Figure 3.
MAROS uses the Delaunay triangulation and SF calculations to identify areas with high
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 Taylor Road network, areas of high concentration uncertainty exist
between interior compliance wells with high concentrations and the unaffected ring
wells. Spatial uncertainty within the network is satisfactorily explained by the geology
and wells locations, and no new wells are recommended for the network at this time.
3.3 Sampling Frequency
Table 5 summarizes the results of the MAROS preliminary sampling frequency analysis.
Recent (2004-2007) and overall trends for VC were determined along with the recent
and overall Mann-Kendall trends. The software recommends a preliminary sampling
frequency based on the recent and overall trends. Detailed results of the recent and
overall trends and concentration rates of change are shown in Table 5. The sampling
frequency suggested by the software (MAROS Recommended Frequency) was
compared against the current frequency and a final recommended frequency was
determined based on both quantitative and qualitative analyses.
Based on the rate of change of concentrations, MAROS recommends an annual to
biennial (every two years) sampling frequency for the majority of wells. The current
network is sampled quarterly, with this frequency identified as part of the remedy. In
order to reconcile the sampling frequency based on rate of change with that of the
regulatory requirements a semi-annual sampling frequency is recommended for the ring
or delineation wells. Interior monitoring locations with historic high concentrations or
increasing trends are also recommended for semi-annual monitoring. Interior locations
Hillsborough County, Florida 12 Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
with low concentrations or decreasing trends are retained at an annual monitoring
frequency. Background well F-12 and redundant location C-5 are recommended for
sampling every two years.
All 27 wells are recommended for inclusion in the monitoring program, but most are
retained at a reduced sampling frequency. The combination of annual and semi-annual
frequencies will ensure temporal coverage to "define and enclose" the plume as well as
providing a record of attenuation of high concentrations in the interior of the Study Area.
The table below summarizes the current monitoring frequency for wells in the network
and the sampling frequency recommended after the lines of evidence evaluation.
Monitoring Wells
Total Samples (average
per year)
Total Wells
Recommended Well Sampling Frequency
Sampling
Frequency
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Annual
Biennial
Current Sampling
Frequency
27
0
0
0
108
27
Sampling Frequency
Recommendation
0
18
7
2
44
27
The current sampling frequency is estimated from the sample dates in the site analytical database (SCS, 2006). Well F-
4A was abandoned prior to the analysis due to issues with placement.
3.4 Data Sufficiency
Among Study Area wells, 16 of 27 wells are statistically below the screening level for VC
(0.001 mg/L) assuming a log-normal data distribution. Of these wells, fourteen have
data with sufficient statistical power to say that they have reliably 'attained' clean-up
goals and are statistically clean. The clean-up status of each well in the network is
indicated in the 'lines of evidence' summary Table 6 and illustrated on Figure 4.
All ring wells with the exception of F-1A and TR-2D are statistically clean for VC. Well
TR-2D is currently statistically below the screening level for VC and statistically clean for
TCE. Well F-1A is currently statistically below the screening level for TCE, but remains
above the screening level for VC.
Hillsborough County, Florida
Taylor Road Landfill Site
13
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
-------
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary goal of developing an optimized monitoring strategy at the Taylor Road
Landfill Study Area is to create a dataset that fully supports site management decisions
and risk reduction goals while minimizing time and expense associated with collecting
and interpreting analytical data. A summary of the final recommended monitoring
network is presented in Table 6 and illustrated on Figure 5. The recommended network
reduces monitoring effort and cost by reducing the frequency of groundwater sampling at
many locations while meeting the monitoring goal of defining and enclosing the plume.
Tasks identified in the Section 1 were performed for current network. 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 Taylor Road Site is delineated to USEPA 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 the network have a sufficiently large data set to perform statistical
calculations. No major data gaps were identified during the qualitative evaluation.
One area that may require additional study is the evaluation of inorganic
constituents such as Mn and nitrate in both background and affected wells.
Elevated concentrations of Mn are seen at interior wells (TR-3D and 18D);
however, background well F-12 measures Mn concentrations significantly above
the GCTL (50 ug/L).
Recommendation: LTMO is appropriate for the site at this time. No additional
fundamental site investigation is recommended for USEPA regulated constituents
at this time. Further statistical or conceptual site characterization may be
considered to explain the distribution of inorganic constituents and chemicals with
secondary standards in area groundwater.
Evaluate overall plume stability through trend and moment analysis. Evaluate
individual well concentration trends over time for target chemicals of potential
concern (COPCs);
Result: The groundwater plume evaluated is largely stable to decreasing. The
majority of individual well trends for VC and TCE indicate decreasing, probably
decreasing or non-detect status for well concentrations. For 28 wells evaluated at
the Taylor Road Site, the majority of locations show stable to decreasing trends or
no detections (-86%) for VC. An increasing trend was calculated at only one
location for VC and at 7 locations for TCE.
Hillsborough County, Florida 14 Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
Monitoring locations with the highest VC concentrations, TR-4D, 18-D, F-14, C-5
and C-6, show strongly decreasing trends. Wells with high TCE concentrations,
including TR-4D, C-5 and C-2 also show decreasing trends. The moment analysis
indicates that total dissolved mass for VC, TCE and Mn is decreasing. Some shift
in the center of mass may be occurring as the source area concentrations
decrease (TR-4D) and tail wells in the west/northwest of the plume show minor
increases in concentration (i.e. 24-D). Changes in the center of mass over time for
VC are shown on Figure 2.
Recommendation: Reduced monitoring effort is appropriate for stable or
decreasing plumes. 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 Taylor Road Site, but
there is evidence for steady decrease in concentrations particularly in the source
area.
Low concentrations of chemicals may be diffusing to western monitoring locations
(24-D for VC and TCE, F-2, 18-D, 31-D and 32-D for TCE). However,
concentrations at western monitoring locations are below screening levels at this
time. Continued semi-annual monitoring and annual evaluation of concentration
trends in the area west of the Hillsborough Heights landfill is highly recommended.
Well F-2 is recommended for continued sampling for TCE as concentrations are
increasing at this location as well as neighboring wells 31-D, 32-D and 18-D.
Develop sampling location recommendations based on an analysis of spatial
uncertainty;
Result: The spatial redundancy analysis indicated that three wells, F-4A, C-5 and
TR-1D, could be removed from the routine monitoring program, as they do not
provide unique information. One location (F-4A) has already been plugged and
abandoned.
The spatial analysis identified areas of high concentrations uncertainty between
locations with high concentrations and non-detect ring wells around the perimeter
of the site. Some additional uncertainty was identified in the interior of landfill
units. Areas of higher spatial uncertainty are illustrated on Figure 3.
Recommendation: Despite the finding of spatial redundancy for wells C-5 and TR-
1D, all 27 locations within the current monitoring network are recommended for
inclusion in the monitoring program. Well C-5 was retained at a reduced sampling
frequency to monitor the area of between higher concentrations at well C-6 and
upgradient delineation wells C-8 and F-1A. Well TR-1D was retained at a reduced
frequency to monitor higher concentrations southwest of the FOOT and Taylor
Road Landfills. Groundwater flow in this area is toward the southwest and there is
a relatively short distance between TR-1D and the compliance ring. Both C-5 and
TR-1D can contribute data supporting attenuation of priority constituents site-wide.
Hillsborough County, Florida 15 Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
Hillsborough County has recommended removing wells 28-D, F-2, NE-23 and TR-
3D from routine monitoring (SCS, 2006). Based on the above analysis, the
recommendation is to include these locations in the routine monitoring network at
an annual sampling frequency.
Well 28-D is located upgradient of the source areas, but shows intermittent
detections (18% for VC) of site COPCs, with historic exceedances of VC detected
as recently as 2004. Spatial uncertainty analysis calculates a high average slope
factor (0.83) for 28-D, indicating that concentrations at 28-D cannot be estimated
from the surrounding network (see Figure 3). Including 28-D in the network at an
annual frequency will provide information on overall attenuation of mass at the site
and will provide early warning of any shift in mass toward the compliance ring to
the east. Future monitoring frequency may be reduced should decreasing to non-
detect trends develop.
Groundwater at location F-2 shows historic exceedances for both VC and TCE,
and currently indicates an increasing trend for TCE. As this location is immediately
upgradient of the compliance ring near residential development, the well should be
maintained in the network.
Location NE-23 monitors the region immediately upgradient of the Taylor Road
Landfill and areas of highest concentrations site-wide. Data at NE-23 indicate
historic exceedance of MCLs for VC and TCE, but show largely decreasing trends
for both compounds. The proximity of NE-23 to the compliance ring provides
information for the delineation of the plume in addition to confirming attenuation of
site constituents.
While TR-3D has a relatively low average slope factor (0.32), the location monitors
groundwater that currently exceeds the screening level for VC. If current trends
continue, the concentration at TR-3D will drop below MCLs. Continued monitoring
at a reduced frequency will provide a statistically significant dataset to demonstrate
successful attenuation in this area. Should decreasing concentration trends
continue, consider reducing the monitoring frequency for TR-3D to biennial.
No new monitoring locations are recommended.
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. Compliance ring locations
and interior wells in historic high concentration areas are recommended for semi-
Hillsborough County, Florida 16 Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
annual monitoring. 18 of 27 wells are recommended for semi-annual monitoring; 7
are recommended for annual sampling, and 2 for biennial sampling. A total of 44
groundwater samples are recommended annually to support site management
decisions.
Upgradient well F-1A is recommended for annual sampling. Groundwater at F-1A
shows exceedances of VC and historic exceedance of arsenic standards, but is
bounded both up and downgradient by non-detect wells C-8 and C-10. Detected
concentrations at F-1A show high variability and may result from its proximity to the
Hillsborough Heights landfill leachate collection system.
Interior locations in low concentration areas or areas with higher well density are
recommended for a combination of annual and biennial sampling. Background
well F-12 is recommended for biennial monitoring. Specific sampling frequency
recommendations are listed in Table 6 and illustrated on Figure 5.
Evaluate individual well analytical data for statistical sufficiency and identify
locations that have achieved clean-up goals.
Result: 16 of 27 wells are statistically below the screening level for VC (0.001
mg/L), and 14 of 27 have data with sufficient statistical power to say that they have
reliably 'attained' clean-up goals and are statistically clean. Compliance ring well
F-1A is not statistically below the GCTL for VC, while ring well C-2 has insufficient
data to confirm attainment of the cleanup standard. Data for well F-12 indicate that
background concentrations of Mn in area groundwater exceed the GCTL. The
clean-up status of each well in the network is indicated in the 'lines of evidence'
summary Table 6 and illustrated on Figure 4.
Recommendation: The majority of the compliance ring wells are statistically clean,
and, therefore, are suited to delineate the extent of affected groundwater.
Continue sampling interior wells to confirm attenuation of site COPCs.
Additional Recommendations
Groundwater monitoring data as well as well construction and location information
should be managed in a site-wide relational database available to all stakeholders.
Analytical data are available in electronic format for most laboratories and can be
appended to the database after every monitoring event. Management of analytical
data in a database will streamline the statistical and trend analysis.
The list of analytes analyzed during each monitoring event can be reduced. The
recommended reduction in analytes described in Taylor Road Landfill Superfund
Site Groundwater Quality Statistical Evaluation (SCS, 2006) is appropriate.
Hillsborough County, Florida 17 Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
5.0 CITED REFERENCES
AFCEE. (2003). Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System (MAROS) 2.2
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.
ERM. (1995). Final Remedial Investigation Report Taylor Road Landfill Study Area
Hillsborough County, Florida. ERM-South, Inc. May 1995.
HCSWMD. (2006). Taylor Road Landfill Superfund Site Updated Groundwater
Monitoring Plan 2006. Hillsborough County Solid Waste Management
Department. May 15, 2006.
SCS. (2006a). Taylor Road Landfill Superfund Site Groundwater Quality Statistical
Evaluation. SCS Engineers. August 25, 2006.
SCS. (2006b). Taylor Road Landfill Superfund Site analytical database received October
2006, updated July 2007. SCS Engineers.
USEPA. (2003). Five-Year Review Report for Taylor Road Landfill Seffner Hillsborough
County Florida. USEPA Region 4. September 24, 2003.
USEPA. (1995) Taylor Road Landfill Superfund Site Record of Decision. USEPA Region
IV. September, 1995.
USEPA (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.
Ridley, M.N., Johnson, V. M and Tuckfield, R. C.(1995). Cost-Effective Sampling of
Ground Water Monitoring Wells. HAZMACON. San Jose, California.
Hillsborough County, Florida 18 Groundwater Monitoring
Taylor Road Landfill Site Network Optimization
-------
August 15, 2007
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
Hillsborough County, Florida
TABLES
Table 1 Taylor Road Landfill Site Monitoring Locations
Table 2 Aquifer Input Parameters: Taylor Road Landfill Site
Table 3 Well Trend Summary Results: 1999-2007
Table 4 Well Redundancy Analysis Summary Results
Table 5 Sampling Frequency Analysis Results Vinyl Chloride
Table 6 Final Recommended Groundwater Monitoring Network Taylor Road Landfill
-------
Issued: 15-Aug-2007
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 1
TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE MONITORING LOCATIONS
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Well Name
Hydrologic
Unit
Well Type
Source or
Tail (for
MAROS)
Minimum
Sample Date
Maximum
Sample Date
Number of
Samples
(1995-2007)
Current
Sampling
Frequency
Priority COPC at Well
Well Function and Rationale
18-D
24-D
28-D
30-D
31 -D
32-D
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
F-1A
F-2
F-3
F-4A
F-12
F-14
F-15
NE-23
TR-1D
TR-2D
TR-3D
TR-4D
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Florid ian
Deep Floridian
Deep Floridian
Floridian
Floridian
Floridian
Deep Floridian
Floridian
Floridian
Floridian
Floridian
Floridian
Interior
Interior
Interior
Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
Interior
Ring
Ring
Interior
Interior
Ring
Ring
Ring
Ring
Interior
Interior
Ring
Ring
Background
Interior
Ring
Interior
Interior
Ring
Interior
Interior
S
s
S
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
S
S
1/17/1995
4/14/1999
1/18/1995
1/17/1995
1/17/1995
1/17/1995
4/14/1999
4/12/1999
4/13/1999
4/13/1999
4/14/1999
10/20/1999
10/20/1999
4/17/2000
4/18/2000
4/23/2001
4/14/1999
1/17/1995
4/13/1999
4/13/1999
4/11/1995
1/18/1995
1/18/1995
1/17/1995
1/17/1995
1/17/1995
1/17/1995
1/17/1995
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
10/25/2005
4/9/2007
4/12/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
4/9/2007
50
33
50
50
51
50
32
34
33
33
34
31
32
29
29
25
36
49
33
27
41
50
51
50
49
50
49
50
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Vinyl Chloride, TCE,
Benzene
Vinyl Chloride, TCE,
Benzene
Vinyl Chloride
None
Vinyl Chloride
Mercury
Manganese*
Vinyl Chloride
Vanadium
None
Vinyl Chloride, TCE and
Benzene
Vinyl Chloride, TCE,
PCE, Benzene, Mercury
None
None
None
None
Vinyl Chloride, Arsenic
Vinyl Chloride
None
Nitrate
Manganese*
Vinyl Chloride, TCE
None
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Chloride,
Manganese*
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Chloride,
Manganese*
Vinyl Chloride, 11DCE,
TCE
Monitors interior of site, south of the Hillsborough Heights Landfill and
west of the Taylor Road site.
Monitors area west of HH landfill interior to compliance ring.
Proposed for abandonment GWMP (May, 2006). Monitors interior of
compliance ring east of HH landfill.
Compliance ring location, low to non-detect results.
Compliance ring location, intermittent detections of COCs.
Compliance ring location, low to non-detect results, historic mercury
detections.
Compliance ring location, west of landfill, low detections of inorganic
constituents.
nterior location south of Hillsborough Heights Landfill, immediately
southwest of FOOT and Taylor Road landfills.
Compliance ring location south and downgradient of landfills,
southernmost point in current network.
Eastern compliance ring location, no exceedances of COCs.
nterior location north of Hillsborough Heights Landfill.
Interior well monitors area north of Hillsborough Heights Landfill. Historic
concentrations exceed screening levels for several COCs.
Compliance ring location south and downgradient of landfills. Largely
unaffected.
Compliance ring location north of Hillsborough Heights Landifll,
northernmost compliance monitoring point. Largely unaffected.
Compliance ring location, one oulying detection of Vanadium, other
COCs non-detect.
Compliance ring location, west of landfill. No detections of VOCs.
Compliance ring location northeast of Hillsborough Heights landfill.
Historic exceedances for vinyl chloride and arsenic.
Interior location southeast of Hillsborough Heights landfill. Proposed for
abandonment GWMP (May, 2006)
Compliance ring location south of FOOT landfill. Some historic
exceedances for metals, not repeated.
Proposed for abandonment GWMP (May, 2006), and abandoned 2006.
Background well location; exceeds screening level for Manganese.
nterior well south of Taylor Road Landfill, monitors source area.
Eastern compliance ring location, no exceedances of COCs 1 999-2007.
nterior compliance location east of Taylor Road landfill.
nterior well southwest of FOOT Landfill, between landfill and well C-2.
Compliance ring location southwest of FOOT landfill. Intermittent
detections of site COCs.
nterior compliance location due west of FOOT landfill.
nterior well between FOOT and Taylor Road Landfill. Monitors source
area, historic high concentrations for many COCs.
Notes:
1) Wells listed are in current monitoring program.
2) Data from TRLF database received July, 2007.
3) * = Manganese does not have a primary USEPA MCL, and is considered a secondary contaminant. Background concentrations of inorganics should be confirmed.
4) Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) at each well is the constituent/s detected at the highest amount above the GCTL or USEPA MCLs.
5) Interior and ring wells described in GWMP (SCS, 2006a) and GW statistical evaluation (SCS, 2006b).
6) TCE = Trichloroethene, PCE = tetrachloroethene, 11DCE = 1,1-Dichloroethene.
-------
Issued 15-Aug-2007
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 2
AQUIFER INPUT PARAMETERS: TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL SITE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Parameter
Current Plume Length
Maximum Plume Length
PlumeWidth
SeepageVelocity (ft/yr)*
Distance to Receptors (TR-4D to F-3)
GWFIuctuations
SourceTreatment
PlumeType
NAPLPresent
Priority Constituents
Vinyl Chloride
Benzene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Manganese (secondary standard)
Parameter
Groundwater flow direction
Porosity
Source Location near Well
Source X-Coordinate
Source Y-Coordinate
Coordinate System
Saturated Thickness Floridian Zone
Value
3500
3500
3500
68*
300
No
Natural Attenuation/Landfill gas
collection, cap and cover
Metals
No
Cleanup Goals
1
1
3
50
Value
S/SW and S/SE
0.05
TR-4D
561225
1 336686
NAD 83 SP Florida West
400
Units
ft
ft
ft
ft/yr
ft
-
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
200-270 degrees
ft
ft
ft
Notes:
1. Aquifer data from Final Remedial Investigation Report (ERM, 1995) and TRLF (2006).
2. Priority COCs defined by prevalence, toxicty and mobility.
3. Saturated thickness represents the span of the clay to the Floridan limestone
4. * = a wide range of transmissivites are present in the aquifer, and groundwater velocity
calculations result in a wide range,, with 68 being the best estimate.
5. Cleanup objectives are GCTL = Florida Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels
promulgated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
-------
Issued 15-Aug-2007
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 3
WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 1999-2007
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
Maximum
Result [ug/L]
Max Result
Above
Standard?
Average
Result [ug/L]
Average
Result Above
Standard?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Overall
Trend
Result
Vinyl Chloride
18-D
24-D
28-D
30-D
31-D
32-D
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
F-1A
F-2
F-3
F-4A
F-12
F-14
F-15
NE-23
TR-1D
TR-2D
TR-3D
TR-4D
34
33
34
34
34
33
31
33
33
33
33
30
31
29
29
25
33
32
33
27
33
34
34
34
33
33
33
34
32
18
6
0
4
0
0
33
0
0
32
30
0
0
0
0
23
25
0
0
0
33
0
22
32
2
22
33
94%
55%
18%
0%
12%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
97%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
70%
78%
0%
0%
0%
97%
0%
65%
97%
6%
67%
97%
100
25
33
ND
2
ND
ND
9
ND
ND
33
27
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.6
6
ND
ND
ND
33
7
7
38
13
6
97
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
20.0
2.5
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
4.3
0.1
0.1
11.4
16.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.1
1.1
0.1
ND
ND
14.1
0.1
0.8
4.1
0.5
1.5
35.0
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
D
NT
ND
PD
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
D
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
D
D
NT
D
D
D
D
ND
D
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
S
ND
ND
ND
PD
ND
D
D
NT
PD
NT
D
S
ND
D
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
PD
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
D
D
NT
D
S
Trichloroethene
18-D
24-D
28-D
30-D
31-D
32-D
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
F-1A
F-2
F-3
F-4A
F-12
F-14
F-15
NE-23
TR-1D
TR-2D
TR-3D
TR-4D
34
33
34
34
34
33
31
33
33
33
33
30
31
29
29
25
33
32
32
27
33
34
34
34
33
33
33
34
18
16
1
0
18
7
0
33
0
0
31
28
0
2
0
0
17
13
0
0
0
31
8
31
33
3
23
33
53%
48%
3%
0%
53%
21%
0%
100%
0%
0%
94%
93%
0%
7%
0%
0%
52%
41%
0%
0%
0%
91%
24%
91%
100%
9%
70%
97%
10
4.2
1.2
ND
1.2
1
ND
6
ND
ND
8
8.5
ND
0.48
ND
ND
1.1
27
ND
ND
ND
6
5
4
5
2
3
75
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
0.87
0.83
0.18
0.15
0.44
0.21
0.15
3
0.15
0.15
2.8
6.1
0.15
0.17
0.15
0.15
0.39
0.36
0.15
0.15
ND
1.9
0.21
1.3
1.8
0.16
0.8
21
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
No
No
Yes
PI
NT
ND
PI
ND
D
ND
ND
D
ND
NT
ND
ND
PD
I
ND
ND
ND
D
PI
D
D
NT
D
D
NT
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
S
ND
NT
ND
ND
PD
I
ND
ND
ND
D
I
NT
D
NT
D
D
PI
NT
ND
PI
ND
D
ND
ND
PD
ND
NT
ND
ND
PD
I
ND
ND
ND
D
PI
S
D
NT
D
D
Notes
1. Trends were evaluated for data collected between 1/1/1999 and 4/10/2007.
2. Number of Samples is the number of samples for the compound at this location.
Number of Detects is the number of times the compound has been detected for data at this location.
3. Maximum Result is the maximum concentration for the COG analyzed between 1999 and 2007.
4. Screening level from Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Vinyl chloride = 1 ug/L; TCE = 3 ug/L
6. D = Decreasing; PD = Probably Decreasing; S = Stable; PI = Probably Increasing; I = Increasing; N/A = Insufficient Data to determine trend;
NT = No Trend; ND = well has all non-detect results for COG; ND* = Non-detect except for one trace value.
7. Mann-Kendall trend results are illustrated on Figure 2.
-------
Issued: 15-Aug-2007
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 4
WELL REDUNDANCY ANALYSIS SUMMARY RESULTS
TAYLOR ROAD SUPERFUND SITE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
WellName
VC Average
Slope Factor
VC Minimum Slope
Factor
VC Maximum
Slope Factor
Preliminary
Statistical Result
Recommendation After
Qualitative Review
18-D
24-D
28-D
30-D
31-D
32-D
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
F-1A
F-2
F-3
F-4A
F-12
F-14
F-15
NE-23
TR-1D
TR-2D
TR-3D
TR-4D
0.62
0.62
0.83
0.75
0.68
0.55
0.70
0.45
0.72
0.33
0.13
0.51
0.77
0.88
0.45
0.76
0.32
0.49
0.87
0.00
0.05
0.66
0.85
0.51
0.07
0.78
0.32
0.56
0.51
0.47
0.19
0.61
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.44
0.71
0.85
0.00
0.58
0.08
0.29
0.73
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.77
0.07
0.00
0.61
0.02
0.45
0.88
0.81
0.89
0.78
0.78
0.76
0.89
0.53
0.83
0.81
0.27
0.61
0.87
0.90
0.77
0.89
0.84
0.75
0.89
0.00
0.07
0.80
0.88
0.78
0.23
0.86
0.87
0.73
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Exclude
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Exclude
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Exclude
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain as an attenuation
monitoring point for
concentrations between HH
Landfill and compliance
wells.
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Abandoned
Background
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain as an attenuation
monitoring point for higher
concentrations between
FOOT Landfill and
compliance well.
Retain
Retain
Retain
Notes:
1. Slope Factor is the difference between the actual concentration and the concentration estimated from nearest
neighbors normalized by the actual concentration. Slope factors close to 1 show the concentrations cannot be
estimated from the nearest neighbors, and the well is important in the network.
2. Slope factors were calculated using data between January 2004 and May 2007.
3. Locations with slope factors below 0.3 and area ratios below 0.8 were considered for elimination.
-------
Issued: 15-Aug-2007
! 1 Of 1
TABLE 5
SAMPLING FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS VINYL CHLORIDE
TAYLOR ROAD SUPERFUND SITE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Well Name
Recent
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Recent MK
Trend (2004-
2006)
Frequency
Based on
Recent Data
(2004-2006)
Overall
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Overall MK
Trend
(1995-2007)
Frequency
Based on
Overall Data
(1995-2007)
MAROS
Recommended
Frequency
Current
Sampling
Frequency
Final
Recommended
Frequency
Vinyl Chloride
18-D
24-D
28-D
30-D
31 -D
32-D
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
F-1A
F-2
F-3
F-4A
F-12
F-14
F-15
NE-23
TR-1D
TR-2D
TR-3D
TR-4D
2.13E-06
-8.96E-06
-5.55E-07
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
-1 .05E-06
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
4.17E-07
-2.26E-06
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
-2.02E-06
5.04E-08
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
-3.67E-06
O.OOE+00
-8.13E-07
-7.99E-07
-2.81 E-06
-5.85E-07
5.22E-06
S
NT
NT
S
S
S
S
PD
S
S
S
PD
S
S
S
S
D
NT
S
S
S
D
S
D
PD
NT
S
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
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
-6.07E-06
1 .48E-06
-2.20E-07
1 .99E-38
-1 .86E-07
-7.24E-39
-4.77E-38
-1 .35E-06
-4.55E-38
-4.55E-38
-6.36E-06
-4.10E-06
-7.17E-39
-4.38E-38
-4.38E-38
-3.25E-38
-6.43E-08
-3.16E-07
-4.55E-38
3.59E-38
O.OOE+00
-1 .07E-06
1 .99E-38
-4.09E-07
-1 .85E-06
2.41 E-07
-6.75E-07
-3.25E-06
D
I
NT
S
PD
S
S
D
S
S
D
D
S
S
S
S
NT
D
S
S
S
D
S
D
D
NT
D
D
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
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Biennial
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Abandoned
Biennial
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Wotes:
1. 'Recent' concentration rate of change and MK trends are calculated from data collected 2004 - 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 (1995-2007) for each well. The overall result is the estimated sample frequncy based on the full data record.
6. Final Result Frequency is the recommended frequency from MAROS 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: 15-Aug-2007
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6
FINAL RECOMMENDED MONITORING NETWORK TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL
TAYLOR ROAD SUPERFUND SITE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
WellName
18-D
24-D
28-D
30-D
31-D
32-D
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
F-1A
F-2
F-3
F-4A
F-12
F-14
F-15
NE-23
TR-1D
TR-2D
TR-3D
TR-4D
Vinyl Chloride
Percent
Detection
Statistically
Below
Standard?
Statistically
Attained Cleanup
Goal?
Mann Kendall
Trend
94%
55%
18%
0%
12%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
97%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
70%
78%
0%
0%
0%
97%
0%
65%
97%
6%
67%
97%
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
No
Continue Sampling
Continue Sampling
Attained
Attained
Attained
Attained
No
Attained
Attained
No
No
Attained
Attained
Attained
Attained
Continue Sampling
Continue Sampling
Attained
Attained
Attained
No
Attained
Continue Sampling
Not Attained
Continue Sampling
Continue Sampling
Not Attained
D
I
NT
ND
PD
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
D
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
D
D
NT
D
D
MAROS
Redundancy
Determination
Vinyl Chloride
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Exclude
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Exclude
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Exclude
Retain
Retain
Retain
Manganese
Average
Manganese
Concentration
Above GCTL?
Mann Kendall
Trend
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NT
I
D
I
I
D
D
D
D
NT
D
I
NT
D
S
NT
S
D
NT
NT
D
I
NT
D
D
NT
D
D
All COCs
Final Recommended
Frequency
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Biennial
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Abandoned
Biennial
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Notes:
1. Cleanup status of wells illustrated on Figure 5.
2. D = Decreasing; PD = Probably Decreasing; S = Stable; PI = Probably Increasing; I = Increasing; N/A = Insufficient Data to determine trend;
NT = No Trend; ND = well has all non-detect results for COG; ND* = Non-detect except for one trace value.
3. Mann-Kendall trends 1999 - 2007 are shown.
4. Statistically below standard based on sequential t-test; statistically attained cleanup goal determined at statistical power =0.8 for GCTL cleanup standard.
-------
August 15, 2007
FIGURES
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
Hillsborough County, Florida
Figure 1 Taylor Road Superfund Site Monitoring Locations
Figure 2 Taylor Road Landfill Mann-Kendall Trends and First Moments Vinyl Chloride
Figure 3 Taylor Road Landfill Spatial Uncertainty Analysis
Figure 4 Taylor Road Landfill Well Clean-up Status Vinyl Chloride
Figure 5 Taylor Road Landfill Recommended Monitoring Network
-------
*
11. ^ - 1
'. :" - -ik_ ii'.i \
m \
Hillsborough Heights
Taylor Road
Landfill
LEGEND
Monitoring Locations
Landfill Boundaries
Compliance Ring
Setback (270 ft)
Approximate Groundwater
Flow Direction
Notes:
1. Well locations from SCS database, 2006.
Map in NAD 83 State Plane Florida West, ft.
2. Well F-12isthe background well, F-4A has
been abandoned.
3. Landfill boundaries are approximate.
TAYLOR ROAD SUPERFUND SITE
MONITORING LOCATIONS
Taylor Road Landfill Site
Hillsborough County, Florida
NADSSSPFIa. W. FT.
Drawn By: QDM
Chk'dBy:
Appv'd By:
15-AUG-07
Map ID:
FIGURE 1
-------
'* ' \ *
30-D
t u
'if ""*
'i 7F-2DV-!
-. . -r ..-- -v - -
LEGEND
rt First Moments Vinyl Chloride
° 1999-2007
(Center of mass estimate)
Mann-Kendall Trends for Vinyl Chloride
Decreasing
O Probably Decreasing
O Stable
O Probably Increasing
Increasing
No Trend
Non-Detect
| | Landfill Boundaries (Approximate)
1 Area of Concern
Notes:
1. Well locations from site database, 2006.
Map in NAD 83 State Plane Florida West, ft.
2. Trends determined from data 1999-2007.
3. First moments (plume center of mass) were
calcualted using average annual concentrations
for each monitoring location 1999 - 2007.
Scale (ft)
^=
0 300 600
TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL
MANN-KENDALL TRENDS AND
FIRST MOMENTS VINYL CHLORIDE
Taylor Road Landfill Site
Hillsborough County, Florida
Coord NAD83SPFIa. W. FT.
Drawn By:
Chk'd By:
Appv'd By:
COM
MV
MV
15-AUG-07
Revised:
Map ID:
FIGURE 2
-------
NORTH
1 ^41 nnn n -,
1340000.0-
1339000.0-
1338000.0-
1337000.0-
1336000.0-
1335000.0-
1 T^zinnn n -
Figure 3. Taylor Road Landfill
Spatial Uncertainty Analysis
r" '"'''TVx
fl\^ I ***+ .. ~~" " m,C-6 , X
M\ M! --^ ^X \x X
M \ | M ^-^\ X \ ^x
I \ ^ 1 ,-'-f-^5 ^x \ Xx
/ L* Xl^'""" / "-JX\ >
I/''*' \ " / """^ X"X-
1/s' / M ^^t-eao x
/i ~~"~-- \ / -~"^ / ^ T^
. L "~ -- \ / / \ M //
' ' ""--. \ / --" / \ ft
1 Br-34-D ^ O^l ----"" I / \ / ,*
/ /r \ jr-f"1?^ ,x L ^ / "
>!\ \ M ^-- j ^-^^ / _\^E|
^^^~--^^T^^ L/''» II
Larger uncertainty between areas witl
detections and non-detect wells.
New Location
Analysis for
VINYL CHLORIDE
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
EAST
558000.0 558500.0 559000.0 559500.0 560000.0 560500.0 561000.0 561500.0 562000.0 562500.0 563000.0 563500.0
-------
LEGEND
Statistically Clean
Statistically below GCTL
Approaching GCTL
Not Attained Clean-up Standard
Landfill boundaries
270' Setback from
Compliance Ring
Notes:
1. GCTL = Florida Groundwater Clean up
Target Level (VC = 1 ug/L).
2. Wells statistically clean at 80% Power,
and statistically below the GCTL.
3. Wells statistically below GCTL based on
sequentialT-test.
4. Wells approaching GCTL may be close
to compliance but require a larger dataset.
Scale (ft)
^=
0 280 560
TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL
WELL CLEAN-UP STATUS
VINYL CHLORIDE
Taylor Road Landfill Site
Hillsborough County, Florida
NADSSSPFIa.W. FT.
Drawn By:
COM
Chk'd By:
MV
Appv'd By:
15-AUG-07
Map ID:
FIGURE 4
-------
LEGEND
Recommended Well
Sample Frequency
D Semi-annual
A Annual
Biennial
0 Abandoned
] Landfill boundaries
270' Setback from
Compliance Ring
Notes:
1. Wells statistically attain clean up at 80%
Power, below the GCTL standard for
vinyl chloride.
2. Wells statistically below GCTL after
sequential T-test.
3. Wells approaching GCTL may be close
to compliance but require a largerdataset.
Scale (ft)
^=
0 340 680
TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL
RECOMMENDED GROUNDWATER
MONITORING NETWORK
Taylor Road Landfill Site
Hillsborough County, Florida
Coo rd. NAD 83 S P Fla. W. FT.
Drawn By:
COM
Chk'd By:
MV
Appv'd By:
MV
15-AUG-07
Map ID:
FIGURES
-------
August 15, 2007
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
Hillsborough County, Florida
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
Appendix 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.
Appendix A 2 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
4.0 Constituent Selection
A database with multiple COCs can be entered into the MAROS software. MAROS
allows the analysis of up to 5 COCs concurrently and users can pick COCs from a list of
compounds existing in the monitoring data. MAROS runs separate optimizations for
each compound. For sites with a single source, the suggested strategy is to choose one
to three priority COCs for the optimization. If, for example, the site contains multiple
chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the standard sample chemical analysis
will evaluate all VOCs, so the sample locations and frequency should based on the
concentration trends of the most prevalent, toxic or mobile compounds. If different
chemical classes are present, such as metals and chlorinated VOCs, choose and
evaluate the priority constituent in each chemical class.
MAROS includes a short module that provides recommendations on prioritizing COCs
based on toxicity, prevalence, and mobility of the compound. The toxicity ranking is
determined by examining a representative concentration for each compound for the
entire site. The representative concentration is then compared to the screening level
(PRG or MCL) for that compound and the COCs are ranked according to the
representative concentrations percent exceedence of the screening level. The
evaluation of prevalence is performed by determining a representative concentration for
each well location and evaluating the total exceedences (values above screening levels)
compared to the total number of wells. Compounds found over screening levels are
ranked for mobility based on Kd (sorption partition coefficient). The MAROS COC
assessment provides the relative ranking of each COC, but the user must choose which
COCs are included in the analysis.
5.0 Data Consolidation
Typically, raw data from long-term monitoring have been measured irregularly in time or
contain many non-detects, trace level results, and duplicates. Therefore, before the data
can be further analyzed, raw data are filtered, consolidated, transformed, and possibly
smoothed to allow for a consistent dataset meeting the minimum data requirements for
statistical analysis mentioned previously.
MAROS allows users to specify the period of interest in which data will be consolidated
(i.e., monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, yearly, or a biennial basis). In
computing the representative value when consolidating, one of four statistics can be
used: median, geometric mean, mean, and maximum. Non-detects can be transformed
to one half the reporting or method detection limit (DL), the DL, or a fraction of the DL.
Trace level results can be represented by their actual values, one half of the DL, the DL,
or a fraction of their actual values. Duplicates are reduced in MAROS by one of three
ways: assigning the average, maximum, or first value. The reduced data for each COC
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
Appendix A 3 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
historical monitoring data. Plume stability results are assessed from time-series
concentration data with the application of three statistical tools: Mann-Kendall Trend
analysis, linear regression trend analysis and moment analysis. The two trend methods
are used to estimate the concentration trend for each well and each COC based on a
statistical trend analysis of concentrations versus time at each well. These trend
analyses are then consolidated to give the user a general plume stability estimate and
general monitoring frequency and density recommendations (see Figures A.1 through
A.3 for further step-by-step details). Both qualitative and quantitative plume information
can be gained by these evaluations of monitoring network historical data trends both
spatially and temporally. The MAROS Overview Statistics are the foundation the user
needs to make informed optimization decisions at the site. The Overview Statistics are
designed to allow site personnel to develop a better understanding of the plume
behavior over time and understand how the individual well concentration trends are
spatially distributed within the plume. This step allows the user to gain information that
will support a more informed decision to be made in the next level or detailed statistics
optimization analysis.
6.1 Mann-Kendall Analysis
The Mann-Kendall test is a statistical procedure that is well suited for analyzing trends in
data over time. The Mann-Kendall test can be viewed as a non-parametric test for zero
slope of the first-order regression of time-ordered concentration data versus time. One
advantage of the Mann-Kendall test is that it does not require any assumptions as to the
statistical distribution of the data (e.g. normal, lognormal, etc.) and can be used with data
sets which include irregular sampling intervals and missing data. The Mann-Kendall test
is designed for analyzing a single groundwater constituent, multiple constituents are
analyzed separately. The Mann-Kendall S statistic measures the trend in the data:
positive values indicate an increase in concentrations over time and negative values
indicate a decrease in concentrations over time. The strength of the trend is proportional
to the magnitude of the Mann-Kendall statistic (i.e., a large value indicates a strong
trend). The confidence in the trend is determined by consulting the S statistic and the
sample size, n, in a Kendall probability table such as the one reported in Hollander and
Wolfe (1973).
The concentration trend is determined for each well and each COC based on results of
the S statistic, the confidence in the trend, and the Coefficient of Variation (COV). The
decision matrix for this evaluation is shown in Table 3. A Mann-Kendall statistic that is
greater than 0 combined with a confidence of greater than 95% is categorized as an
Increasing trend while a Mann-Kendall statistic of less than 0 with a confidence between
90% and 95% is defined as a probably Increasing trend, and so on.
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).
Appendix 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.
Appendix 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
Appendix 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.
Appendix 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.
Appendix 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
Appendix 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.
Appendix 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).
Appendix 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.
Appendix 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.
Appendix 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
-------
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)
-------
August 15, 2007
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
Hillsborough County, Florida
APPENDIX B:
MAROS Reports
COC Assessment Report
Mann-Kendall Reports
Zeroth Moment Reports
-------
MAROS COC Assessment
Project: Taylor Road
Location: Hillsborough County
Toxicitv:
User Name: MV
State: Florida
Contaminant of Concern
MANGANESE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Representative
Concentration
(mg/L)
3.3E-01
4.5E-03
PRG
(mg/L)
5.0E-02
1.0E-03
Percent
Above
PRG
557.1%
345.6%
Note: Top COCs by toxicity were determined by examining a representative concentration for each compound over the entire site. The
compound representative concentrations are then compared with the chosen PRG for that compound, with the percentage excedence from
the PRG determining the compound's toxicity. All compounds above exceed the PRG.
Prevalence:
Contaminant of Concern
VINYL CHLORIDE
MANGANESE
Class
ORG
MET
Total
Wells
27
27
Total
Excedences
12
10
Percent
Excedences
44.4%
37.0%
Total
detects
15
27
Note: Top COCs by prevalence were determined by examining a representative concentration for each well location at the site. The
total excedences (values above the chosen PRGs) are compared to the total number of wells to determine the prevalence of the
compound.
Mobility:
Contaminant of Concern
Kd
VINYL CHLORIDE
MANGANESE
0.042
50.1
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)
1,1 -DICHLOROETHENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
MANGANESE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Friday, December 15, 2006
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Project: Taylor Road Landfill
Location: Hillsborough County
User Name: MV
State: F|orida
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/10/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Well
Source/
Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples Concentration
"ND" ? Trend
BENZENE
NE-23
F-2
18-D
C-6
C-5
C-2
TR-1D
TR-3D
24-D
TR-4D
28-D
C-3
F-1A
C-9
C-8
F-3
C-4
F-4A
F-15
C-7
C-10
30-D
C-1
31-D
32-D
TR-2D
MANGANESE
C-5
28-D
18-D
F-2
C-6
TR-4D
24-D
NE-23
TR-3D
C-2
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
34
32
34
30
33
33
32
33
33
34
34
33
33
29
29
33
33
27
34
31
25
34
31
34
33
33
33
33
33
31
30
33
33
33
32
33
2
0
31
29
19
4
2
1
7
33
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
32
32
31
31
30
32
33
33
31
33
1.17
0.00
0.43
0.47
1.08
0.43
0.35
0.64
1.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
1.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.80
0.69
1.12
0.31
0.59
0.70
0.21
0.82
0.38
0.97
0.33
21
0
-54
-217
-19
29
21
10
111
-222
0
0
79
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
-115
-156
40
-139
274
-132
306
-429
-289
-179
61 .6%
49.4%
78.3%
100.0%
60.9%
66.7%
62.6%
55.5%
95.6%
100.0%
49.4%
49.4%
88.6%
49.3%
49.3%
49.4%
49.4%
49.2%
49.4%
49.4%
49.1%
49.4%
49.4%
49.4%
49.4%
55.5%
96.2%
99.2%
72.6%
99.1%
100.0%
97.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.8%
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
S
S
D
NT
NT
NT
NT
I
D
S
S
NT
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
NT
D
D
NT
D
I
D
I
D
D
D
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Page 1 of 4
-------
Project: Taylor Road Landfill
Location: Hillsborough County
User Name: MV
State: Florida
Well
Source/
Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
MANGANESE
TR-1D
F-14
C-9
C-10
C-8
31-D
C-7
C-4
32-D
C-3
C-1
30-D
TR-2D
F-15
F-3
F-4A
F-1A
NITRATE
NE-23
C-5
TR-1D
C-6
F-2
C-2
28-D
TR-4D
TR-3D
18-D
24-D
C-3
F-4A
F-15
C-7
C-4
C-10
F-3
31-D
C-1
C-8
32-D
C-9
TR-2D
30-D
F-1A
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
18-D
TR-1D
TR-4D
s
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
(TCE)
S
s
s
32
33
29
25
29
33
31
33
32
33
31
33
33
33
33
27
33
30
29
29
26
27
29
30
29
28
30
29
29
27
30
27
29
21
29
30
27
25
29
25
29
30
29
34
33
34
32
33
29
5
27
11
9
12
31
23
30
11
6
9
19
16
33
28
10
7
26
27
10
20
2
18
3
26
29
27
30
27
29
20
29
29
27
25
29
1
29
30
22
18
33
33
0.34
0.13
0.18
3.56
0.66
1.13
2.66
1.67
0.41
2.32
1.09
1.31
1.43
2.20
1.97
1.24
0.21
0.39
3.81
3.00
0.80
0.35
1.97
1.00
5.00
2.38
0.85
0.63
0.28
0.40
0.29
0.19
0.16
0.24
0.15
0.24
0.16
0.17
0.08
4.70
0.30
0.11
1.71
1.05
0.48
1.05
-236
192
-41
-22
-139
143
10
-20
-266
-268
-246
151
34
78
-59
43
-5
288
-10
52
95
40
16
172
25
103
20
-164
1
221
133
194
2
70
-38
89
25
-6
121
10
-112
133
-110
91
-326
-375
100.0%
99.9%
77.2%
68.6%
99.6%
98.7%
56.1%
61 .5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.1%
69.4%
88.3%
81 .4%
80.8%
52.5%
100.0%
56.6%
82.9%
98.1%
79.0%
61 .0%
99.9%
67.3%
97.8%
63.2%
99.9%
50.0%
100.0%
99.1%
100.0%
50.7%
98.2%
75.4%
94.1%
69.0%
54.6%
98.9%
58.2%
98.2%
99.1%
98.0%
90.8%
100.0%
100.0%
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
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
D
I
S
NT
D
I
NT
NT
D
D
D
I
NT
NT
NT
NT
S
I
NT
NT
I
NT
NT
I
NT
I
NT
D
NT
I
I
I
NT
I
S
PI
NT
S
I
NT
D
I
D
PI
D
D
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Page 2 of 4
-------
Project: Taylor Road Landfill
Location: Hillsborough County
User Name: MV
State: Florida
Well
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
24-D
TR-3D
C-2
28-D
NE-23
C-6
F-2
C-5
C-8
C-3
30-D
32-D
C-7
TR-2D
F-4A
C-1
31-D
C-4
C-10
C-9
F-3
F-15
F-14
F-1A
VINYL CHLORIDE
24-D
28-D
TR-3D
18-D
TR-4D
C-2
TR-1D
F-2
NE-23
C-5
C-6
C-1
F-14
C-3
F-3
C-9
F-4A
C-10
F-15
F-1A
C-8
C-7
TR-2D
32-D
Source/
Tail
(TCE)
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Number of
Samples
33
33
33
34
34
30
32
33
29
33
34
33
31
33
27
31
34
33
25
29
32
34
34
33
33
34
33
34
34
33
33
32
34
33
30
31
34
33
33
29
27
25
34
33
29
31
33
33
Number of
Detects
16
23
33
1
31
28
13
31
2
0
0
7
0
3
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
8
31
17
18
6
22
32
33
33
32
25
22
32
30
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
2
0
Coefficient
of Variation
1.26
0.81
0.43
1.00
0.37
0.31
0.73
0.53
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.74
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.44
0.79
2.13
1.51
1.00
0.49
0.35
0.33
0.59
0.71
0.83
0.61
0.28
0.00
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.09
0.00
0.00
4.20
0.00
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
216
-178
-323
9
-212
96
239
-216
9
0
0
91
0
28
0
0
129
0
0
0
0
92
-356
-92
181
-85
-115
-244
-169
-345
-292
-120
-246
-330
-246
0
-115
0
0
0
0
0
0
-82
0
0
19
0
Confidence
in Trend
100.0%
99.7%
100.0%
54.7%
99.9%
95.5%
100.0%
100.0%
55.9%
49.4%
49.4%
91 .8%
49.4%
66.1%
49.2%
49.4%
97.1%
49.4%
49.1%
49.3%
49.4%
91.1%
100.0%
92.0%
99.8%
89.3%
96.2%
100.0%
99.4%
100.0%
100.0%
97.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
49.4%
95.4%
49.4%
49.4%
49.3%
49.2%
49.1%
49.4%
89.4%
49.3%
49.4%
60.9%
49.4%
All
Samples
"ND" ?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Concentration
Trend
I
D
D
NT
D
I
I
D
NT
S
S
PI
S
NT
S
S
I
S
S
S
S
PI
D
PD
I
NT
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
S
D
S
S
S
S
S
S
NT
S
S
NT
S
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Page 3 of 4
-------
Project: Taylor Road Landfill
Location: Hillsborough County
User Name: MV
State: Florida
All
Well
Source/
Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
VINYL CHLORIDE
30-D
31-D
C-4
T
T
T
34
34
33
0
4
0
0.00
1.46
0.00
0
-96
0
49.4%
92.0%
49.4%
Yes
No
Yes
s
PD
S
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
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Page 4 of 4
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 18-D
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.00B-00
o
1.00E-01 -
1.00E-02-
Ol
o
c
O 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04
Date
**
*** ****
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ~244
Confidence in
Trend:
I 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.49
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
1/19/1999
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
7/15/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/19/2004
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
2.7E-02 1
3.5E-02 1
3.2E-02 1
2.4E-02 1
2.7E-02 1
3.3E-02 1
1.5E-02 1
2.3E-02 1
2.7E-02 1
4.4E-02 1
1.6E-02 1
2.1E-02 1
1.6E-02 1
2.6E-02 1
1.2E-02 1
1.9E-02 1
1.6E-02 1
2.7E-02 1
2.1E-02 1
2.8E-02 1
2.5E-02 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/12/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
7/26/2004
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.4E-04 ND
8.6E-03
1.4E-02
1.6E-02
1.4E-02
3.5E-02
1.8E-02
1.5E-02
1.3E-02
1.2E-02
7.6E-03
1.2E-02
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
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
8/12/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 18-D
Well Type: s
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/10/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
_J
B)
c
o
8
c
o
o
Date
4.0E-03
3.5E-03 -
3.0E-03
2.5E-03 -
2.0E-03
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 -
o.o&ooJ
Data Table
Well
<£> <£> <$> <^ & & <§>&&& &
^ 0<5" ^ ^ ^ Qc!" ^ ^ ^ 0<5" ^
*
* * *
* * *
» ** » *
*»
» » «
^ Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 91
Confidence in
Trend:
1 90.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1'°5
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
Note)
I Pl
.
(See
Effective Number of Number of
Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
1/19/1999
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
7/15/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/19/2004
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
1.5E-04
1.0E-03
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
2.2E-03
1.5E-04
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
2.2E-03
1.2E-03
2.2E-03
1.6E-03
1.3E-03
8.4E-04
ND 1
1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
1
ND 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/15/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well Well Type
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
18-D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Effective
Date
7/26/2004
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
1.3E-03 1
3.7E-03 1
2.9E-03 1
1.0E-03 1
1.2E-03 1
1.1E-03 1
5.7E-04 1
5.0E-04 1
1.5E-04 ND 1
1.5E-04 ND 1
1.5E-04 ND 1
1.5E-04 ND 1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
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
8/15/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 24-D
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
u
0) 1.00E-01
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
c
0 1.00E-03-
1 nnF-04 .
Date
/ ^ 0* ^ / ^ 0&^ ^ / ^ 0*
»»
* . . . .* * /**.**
* Mann
Kendall S Statistic:
I
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
I Z13
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
7/15/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/19/2004
7/26/2004
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
2.0E-03
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
2.0E-03
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.3E-03
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.5E-03
1.4E-04
1.5E-03
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.3E-03
2.3E-03
2.5E-02
2.0E-02
1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
1
ND 1
ND 1
1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
1
ND 1
1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/12/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/17/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.4E-04 ND
1.8E-03
3.5E-03
1.4E-04 ND
1.1E-03
3.0E-03
3.4E-03
2.5E-03
1.5E-03
3.4E-03
3.2E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
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
8/12/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 24-D
Well Type: s
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/10/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
& & <$>
j$' ^ rV J
^ V O V^
4.0E-03 -
U 3.5E-03 -
^)
E. 3.0E-03 -
§ 2.5E-03
2 2.0E-03
§ 1.5E-03-
c
o 1.0E-03-*
5.0E-04 -
n nc_i_nn ^ ^ V V V ^ V V V ^
Data Table:
Effective
Well Well Type Date
24-D S 4/12/1999
24-D S 7/12/1999
24-D S 10/18/1999
24-D S 1/10/2000
24-D S 4/1 7/2000
24-D S 7/1 7/2000
24-D S 10/16/2000
24-D S 1/16/2001
24-D S 4/23/2001
24-D S 7/16/2001
24-D S 10/23/2001
24-D S 1/16/2002
24-D S 4/8/2002
24-D S 7/15/2002
24-D S 10/14/2002
24-D S 1/13/2003
24-D S 4/14/2003
24-D S 7/14/2003
24-D S 10/15/2003
24-D S 1/26/2004
24-D S 4/19/2004
24-D S 7/26/2004
Date
<£> (^ <£ <£ <$ <£ <£> <
*' ^ ^ 0*5" -s^ ^ ^ o*5"
»
*
^
^
»
^ ^
^ »
** *»
»
£ Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 216
1
Confidence in
Trend:
I 100.0%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1'26
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
I '
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.0E-03
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.5E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 6.9E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 5.2E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.6E-03
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 1.4E-03
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 8.4E-04
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 5.7E-04
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
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/15/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well Well Type
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
24-D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Effective
Date
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
4.7E-04 1
3.9E-03 1
2.3E-03 1
1.5E-04 ND 1
2.0E-03 1
4.2E-03 1
1.9E-03 1
1.2E-03 1
1.5E-04 ND 1
1.0E-03 1
1.2E-03 1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
0
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
8/15/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 28-D
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.00B-00
o
1.00E-01 -
1.00E-02-
Ol
o
c
O 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04
Date
*» *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I "85
Confidence in
Trend:
I 89.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.51
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
1/19/1999
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
7/15/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/19/2004
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.1E-03
1.4E-03
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.1E-03
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
2.2E-03
1
1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
1
1
ND 1
ND 1
1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/12/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
28-D
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
7/26/2004
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L)
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
Flag
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
Number of
Detects
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
8/12/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 31-D
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.00B-00
o
1.00E-01 -
1.00E-02-
01
o
c
O 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ~96
Confidence in
Trend:
I 92.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.46
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ PD
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
1/19/1999
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
7/15/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/19/2004
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1.4E-04
2.0E-03
1.4E-04
1.0E-03
9.2E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.1E-03
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
ND 1
1
ND 1
1
2
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/12/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
7/26/2004
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L)
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
Flag
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
Number of
Detects
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
8/12/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 31-D
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/10/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
S& -& . S? .& & -S3 s? .Si Si _Si C?9 .Si Mann Kendall S Statistic:
j"
B>
c
o
^5
4->
c
0
c
o
O
.4t-Uo
1.2E-03-
1.0E-03-
8.0E-04
6.0E-04 -
4.0E-04
2.0E-04
n nd.nn
*
* * *
% »
* * * »*
* »»*
»
» » » »»»»»»***» »»»
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well Well Type
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
31-D
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
7/26/2004
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
1.5E-04 ND 1
1.5E-04 ND 1
5.5E-04 1
5.7E-04 1
5.5E-04 1
7.3E-04 1
6.5E-04 1
1.2E-03 1
6.4E-04 1
5.4E-04 1
6.6E-04 1
6.3E-04 1
Number of
Detects
0
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
8/15/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: 32-D
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/10/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
9nc t\A
.Ut-U4 -
8.0E-04
U 7.0E-04 -
^)
E. 6.0E-04 -
§ 5.0E-04
2 4.0E-04
§ 3.0E-04 -
c
o 2.0E-04 -
1.0E-04-
Data Table:
<£> <§> <§>
^' o*' ^' ^
Date
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well Well Type
32-D
32-D
32-D
32-D
32-D
32-D
32-D
32-D
32-D
32-D
32-D
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent Result (mg/L)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
3.3E-04
1.5E-04
3.7E-04
3.1E-04
1.5E-04
2.8E-04
8.1E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
Number of
Flag Samples
1
ND 1
1
1
ND 1
1
1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
Number of
Detects
1
0
1
1
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
8/15/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: C-2
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00E+00
O)
§- 1.00E-01 H
o
O
o
1.00E-02-
1.00E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
********* *»%*
I ~345
Confidence in
Trend:
I 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.33
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
7/15/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/19/2004
7/26/2004
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
5.0E-03
6.5E-03
6.0E-03
6.3E-03
7.0E-03
5.4E-03
5.9E-03
4.9E-03
5.1E-03
3.6E-03
5.6E-03
5.7E-03
6.0E-03
4.7E-03
5.5E-03
4.1E-03
4.4E-03
4.6E-03
3.5E-03
4.2E-03
3.8E-03
3.6E-03
1 1
2 2
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 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/12/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.7E-03
2.4E-03
4.4E-03
3.1E-03
4.7E-03
2.9E-03
2.5E-03
2.9E-03
2.7E-03
1.9E-03
2.6E-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
8/12/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: C-5
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
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 -330
Confidence in
Trend:
I 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.61
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
7/15/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/19/2004
7/26/2004
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
3.0E-02 1
2.5E-02 2
1.6E-02 1
2.3E-02 1
2.0E-02 1
1.8E-02 1
2.2E-02 1
1.5E-02 1
1.7E-02 1
1.7E-02 1
5.0E-03 1
1.2E-02 1
1.2E-02 1
1.1E-02 1
1.4E-02 1
1.2E-02 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
1.1E-02 1
7.5E-03 1
7.3E-03 1
6.9E-03 1
6.6E-03 1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/12/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
5.6E-03
3.9E-03
6.5E-03
7.7E-03
5.4E-03
5.4E-03
6.2E-03
6.8E-03
1.0E-02
8.1E-03
4.1E-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
8/12/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: C-5
Well Type: s
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/10/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
_J
B)
c
1
1
O
O
Data Table
Well
Date
^ ^ C? V^ ^ ^ C? ^ ^ ^ C?
7.0E-03 -
6.0E-03 -
5.0E-03 -
4.0E-03
3.0E-03 -
2.0E-03
1.0E-03-
«
*
* »
* * ******
» ** *
* *
£ Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_
Confidence in
Trend:
1 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.53
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
Note)
(See
I °
Effective Number of Number of
Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
7/15/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/1 9/2004
7/26/2004
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
7.0E-03 1
4.1E-03 2
3.0E-03 1
5.1E-03 1
1.5E-04 ND 1
5.2E-03 1
3.8E-03 1
3.2E-03 1
4.6E-03 1
4.5E-03 1
1.5E-04 ND 1
2.6E-03 1
3.6E-03 1
3.2E-03 1
3.1E-03 1
2.0E-03 1
1.3E-03 1
2.3E-03 1
2.8E-03 1
2.7E-03 1
2.7E-03 1
2.9E-03 1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/15/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
C-5
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
1.6E-03
1.4E-03
2.8E-03
2.2E-03
8.9E-04
1.8E-03
1.9E-03
2.0E-03
4.6E-03
1.9E-03
1.4E-03
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
8/15/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: C-6
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
3.0E-02 -
__ 2.5E-02 -
_j
g 2.0E-02 -
c
£ 1.5E-02-
S
§ 1.0E-02-
o
0 5.0E-03 -
o.o&ooJ
Data Table:
o° ^ o° v^ o°
4
»*** * *
* *
Effective
Well Well Type Date
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
C-6 S
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/19/2004
7/26/2004
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
Date
»$ ^y ^> ^y ^> ^y ^> ^y ^> ^!
**
* ** »
Constituent Result
$v Mann Kendall S Statistic:
S>
_
Confidence in
Trend:
1 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.28
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
I °
Number of Number of
(mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
VINYL CHLORIDE 1.5E-02 2 2
VINYL CHLORIDE 1.8E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 2.0E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 2.0E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 2.2E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 2.1E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 2.7E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 1.7E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 2.3E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 2.5E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 2.0E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 2.0E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 2.0E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 1.5E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 1.8E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 1.9E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 1.5E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 1.5E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 1.3E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 1.1E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 1.1E-02 1 1
VINYL CHLORIDE 1.3E-02 1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/12/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/17/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.2E-02
1.7E-02
1.2E-02
1.3E-02
1.1E-02
1.0E-02
1.4E-02
9.7E-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
8/12/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: C-6
Well Type: s
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/10/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
_J
1
o
1
1
o
o
Data Table
Well
Date
.Ut-UO -
8.0E-03 -
7.0E-03 -
6.0E-03
5.0E-03
4.0E-03
3.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 -
1.0E-03-
»» *
** *** * ««
.* ** * /*. **»
^ Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_
Confidence in
Trend:
1 95.5%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °'31
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
Note)
(See
Effective Number of Number of
Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/19/2004
7/26/2004
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
3.0E-03 2
4.9E-03 1
1.5E-04 ND 1
1.5E-04 ND 1
5.4E-03 1
6.2E-03 1
7.0E-03 1
7.0E-03 1
6.5E-03 1
6.6E-03 1
7.5E-03 1
7.6E-03 1
6.9E-03 1
7.0E-03 1
7.1E-03 1
7.5E-03 1
6.2E-03 1
7.2E-03 1
6.9E-03 1
5.4E-03 1
6.1E-03 1
6.5E-03 1
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/14/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
C-6
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
5.5E-03
6.8E-03
6.8E-03
6.1E-03
6.5E-03
5.8E-03
7.8E-03
8.5E-03
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
8/14/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: F-1A
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_J
B)
o
1
Concer
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
* *
* * * * * *
I ~82
Confidence in
Trend:
I 89.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.09
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
7/15/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/1 9/2004
7/26/2004
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
2.0E-03
1.4E-04 ND
1.0E-03
1.3E-03
1.0E-03
1.5E-03
1.4E-03
1.7E-03
1.4E-04 ND
1.3E-03
1.4E-04 ND
1.8E-03
1.4E-04 ND
1.4E-04 ND
1.4E-04 ND
1.3E-03
1.4E-04 ND
2.4E-03
1.5E-03
1.3E-03
1.1E-03
6.6E-03
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
2
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/12/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
F-1A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/17/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
9.9E-04
6.4E-04
2.4E-03
8.2E-04
1.4E-04 ND
7.0E-04
7.7E-04
1.4E-04 ND
6.1E-04
8.0E-04
1.4E-04 ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
0
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
8/12/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: F-2
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
E
c
o
Concent
3.UE-U3
2.5E-03 -
2.0E-03 -
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 -
n np4-nn .
^
» » »*»^
*
*» »*
*** * *
»» » * » »
I "12°
Confidence in
Trend:
I 97.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.71
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
1/19/1999
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
7/15/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/1 9/2004
7/26/2004
10/11/2004
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1.4E-04 ND 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
1.0E-03 1
2.0E-03 1
1.5E-03 2
2.0E-03 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
2.0E-03 1
2.2E-03 1
2.0E-03 1
1.9E-03 1
2.4E-03 1
2.5E-03 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
1.6E-03 1
1.7E-03 1
1.4E-03 1
1.5E-03 1
8.1E-04 1
7.6E-04 1
5.8E-04 1
4.7E-04 1
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/12/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L)
4.3E-04
1.4E-04
5.5E-04
1.2E-03
1.4E-04
6.1E-04
8.2E-04
9.0E-04
1.4E-04
9.5E-04
Flag
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
0
1
1
0
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
8/12/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: F-2
Well Type: s
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/10/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
_J
B)
c
o
'JB
+»
8
c
o
o
Data Table
Well
Date
& <£> <$ ^ <^ & & & & &
S (/ / /' ^ (/ S (/ / <* *
8.0E-04
7.0E-04 -
6.0E-04
5.0E-04
4.0E-04
3.0E-04 -
2.0E-04 -
1.0E-04-
Oncu-nn .
.'* /
» *
5^ Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_
Confidence in
Trend:
1 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °73
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Effective Number of Number of
Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
1/19/1999
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
7/15/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/1 9/2004
7/26/2004
10/11/2004
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
6.4E-04
5.6E-04
5.7E-04
5.6E-04
7.4E-04
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 2
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/15/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-2
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
1.5E-04 ND 1
5.6E-04 1
7.2E-04 1
7.6E-04 1
7.8E-04 1
5.5E-04 1
1.5E-04 ND 1
5.7E-04 1
7.1E-04 1
8.4E-04 1
Number of
Detects
0
1
1
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 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/15/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: F-12
Well Type: T
COC: MANGANESE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/10/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
*
-.<5-'
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
9.0E-02
8.0E-02
7.0E-02 -
6.0E-02
5.0E-02
4.0E-02
3.0E-02 -
2.0E-02 -
1.0E-02-
n np4-nn .
« ** * * A A *
* * * * ^.*» * * * *
* * * * * »»*
» »
I ~165
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.5%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.34
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
7/15/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/1 9/2004
7/26/2004
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
7.7E-02
6.9E-02
6.0E-02
6.3E-02
6.1E-02
6.5E-02
6.4E-02
5.9E-02
6.6E-02
6.0E-02
4.6E-02
5.8E-02
6.1E-02
6.0E-02
5.5E-02
1.9E-02
6.3E-02
3.3E-02
2.0E-02
6.2E-02
5.5E-02
6.2E-02
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 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/13/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
F-12
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
Result (mg/L) Flag
9.6E-03
4.9E-03
4.8E-02
5.7E-02
1.8E-02
6.3E-02
6.1E-02
6.4E-02
5.7E-02
5.5E-02
5.9E-02
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
8/13/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: F-14
Well Type: T
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
$> $> ^ ^ & & & & $> $> g> $
? 0° ^' / ^ 0° ^' / ^ 0° V^ /
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_J
1
c
ncentral
o
o
3.5E-U2
3.0E-02
2.5E-02 -
2.0E-02 -
1.5E-02-
1.0E-02-
5.0E-03
n np4-nn .
4
*
* A
** * *
* /* *\ * ****** ** . **
^ * * * * ***
*
I ~115
Confidence in
Trend:
I 95.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.34
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
1/19/1999
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
7/15/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/19/2004
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1.0E-02
1.4E-02
1.8E-02
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
1.3E-02
1.1E-02
1.5E-02
1.4E-02
1.5E-02
1.2E-02
3.3E-02
1.5E-02
1.6E-02
1.4E-02
1.7E-02
1.6E-02
1.4E-02
1.5E-02
1.3E-02
1.4E-02
1.3E-02
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 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/12/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
7/26/2004
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/17/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.1E-02
1.4E-02
1.3E-02
2.4E-02
1.2E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.4E-04 ND
1.3E-02
1.3E-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
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
8/12/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: F-15
Well Type: T
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/10/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
S& -& . S? .& & -S3 s? .Si Si _Si C?9 .Si Mann Kendall S Statistic:
j"
B>
c
o
^5
4->
c
8
c
o
O
.Ut-U4
7.0E-04 -
6.0E-04
5.0E-04 -
4.0E-04
3.0E-04 -
2.0E-04
1.0E-04-
n nd.nn
^
^ ^
*
^
****************** ** * ****
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well Well Type
F-15
F-15
F-15
F-15
F-15
F-15
F-15
F-15
F-15
F-15
F-15
F-15
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
7/26/2004
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent Result (mg/L)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
6.9E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
3.0E-04
1.5E-04
4.1E-04
1.5E-04
3.4E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
Number of
Flag Samples
1
ND 1
ND 1
1
ND 1
1
ND 1
1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
ND 1
Number of
Detects
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
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
8/14/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: NE-23
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
2.5E-03
2- 2.0E-03
E
T 1.5E-03
o
^5
£ 1.0E-03
8
c
O 5.0E-04
0.
» * * * *
?
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
»»»»»»*
I ~246
Confidence in
Trend:
I 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.83
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
1/19/1999
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
7/15/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/19/2004
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1.0E-03 1
2.0E-03 1
2.0E-03 1
2.0E-03 1
1.5E-03 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
1.0E-03 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
1.3E-03 1
1.2E-03 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
2.2E-03 1
1.1E-03 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
1.2E-03 1
1.3E-03 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
9.2E-04 1
9.1E-04 1
6.8E-04 1
8.8E-04 1
6.4E-04 1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/12/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
NE-23
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
7/26/2004
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L)
1.0E-03
5.0E-04
4.8E-04
2.2E-03
3.2E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
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
1
1
1
1
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
8/12/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: TR-1D
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.2E-02-
__ 1.0E-02-
_j
g 8.0E-03 -
c
£ 6.0E-03
S
§ 4.0E-03 -
o
0 2.0E-03 -
O.OE+00
Data Table:
-^' r£ N' i
£ Q" $? ^i
**
* *
»»
Effective
Well Well Type Date
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
TR-1D S
1/19/1999
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/1 9/2004
7/26/2004
Date
^ -^ ^^ cj» ^ *^ ^^ fj»
<
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
TR-1D
TR-1D
TR-1D
TR-1D
TR-1D
TR-1D
TR-1D
TR-1D
TR-1D
TR-1D
TR-1D
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/17/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.4E-03
3.7E-03
3.1E-03
2.1E-03
3.6E-03
2.8E-03
2.1E-03
2.7E-03
2.1E-03
1.7E-03
2.2E-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
8/12/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: TR-3D
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
O)
o
1
I
o
O
*
°
0°
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
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 ~115
Confidence in
Trend:
I 96.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.00
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
1/19/1999
4/12/1999
7/12/1999
10/18/1999
1/10/2000
4/1 7/2000
7/1 7/2000
10/16/2000
1/16/2001
4/23/2001
7/16/2001
10/23/2001
1/16/2002
4/8/2002
10/14/2002
1/13/2003
4/14/2003
7/14/2003
10/15/2003
1/26/2004
4/1 9/2004
7/26/2004
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1.0E-03 1
3.0E-03 1
6.0E-03 1
2.0E-03 1
1.4E-03 1
4.0E-03 1
4.0E-03 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
1.8E-03 1
3.6E-03 1
1.9E-03 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
2.0E-03 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
1.4E-04 ND 1
2.9E-03 1
1.1E-03 1
5.5E-04 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/12/2007
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
TR-3D
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/17/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.4E-04 ND
1.4E-04 ND
3.1E-03
1.2E-03
9.7E-04
1.7E-03
1.3E-03
1.6E-03
5.4E-04
1.4E-04 ND
9.5E-04
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
0
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
8/12/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: TR-4D
Well Type: s
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Time Period: 1/1/1999 to 4/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Geometric Mean
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
8nc no
.Ut-Uz
7.0E-02 -
~ 6.0E-02
O)
~ 5.0E-02 -
c
s 4.0E-02
| 3.0E-02 -
o 2.0E-02
O
1.0E-02-
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
TR-4D S
^> o
* . *
»* ****
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
.-£' Q
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
TR-4D
TR-4D
TR-4D
TR-4D
TR-4D
TR-4D
TR-4D
TR-4D
TR-4D
TR-4D
TR-4D
TR-4D
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
7/26/2004
10/11/2004
1/10/2005
4/18/2005
7/26/2005
10/25/2005
1/9/2006
4/1 7/2006
7/10/2006
10/10/2006
1/10/2007
4/10/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
2.0E-02
2.9E-02
3.4E-02
4.6E-02
2.8E-02
2.8E-02
3.0E-02
2.8E-02
3.8E-02
3.4E-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
8/12/2007
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Zeroth Moment Analysis
Project: Taylor Road
Location: Hillsborough County
User Name: MV
State: Florida
COC: VINYL CHLORIDE
Change in Dissolved Mass Over Time
Date
O)
in
as
3.5&-01 -
3.0&-01 -
2.5&-01 -
2.0&-01 -
1.5&-01 -
1.0&-01 -
5.0&-00 -
n np4-nn -
4
******
Porosity: 0.05
Saturated Thickness:
Uniform: 400 ft
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
-24
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.27
Zeroth Moment
Trend:
Data Table:
Effective Date
7/1/1999
7/1/2000
7/1/2001
7/1/2002
7/1/2003
7/1/2004
7/1/2005
7/1/2006
7/1/2007
Constituent
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
VINYL CHLORIDE
Estimated
Mass (Kg)
3.4E+01
2.8E+01
3.0E+01
2.0E+01
1.8E+01
1.9E+01
2.0E+01
1.9E+01
1.7E+01
Number of Wells
24
26
27
27
27
27
27
26
26
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. Moments are not calculated for sample events with less than 6 wells.
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/13/2007
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Zeroth Moment Analysis
Project:
Location:
User Name:
State:
COC: TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Change in Dissolved Mass Over Time
v V
Date
9.0E+00 -
8.0E+00 -
7.0&-00 -
ra 6.0&-00 -
~Z 5.0&-00 -
f 4.0&-00 -
3.0&-00 -
2.0&-00 -
1.0&-00 -
0.0&-00
* * *
Porosity: 0.00
Saturated Thickness:
Variable
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
-16
Confidence in
Trend:
I 94.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.28
Zeroth Moment
Trend:
PD
Data Table:
Effective Date
7/1/1999
7/1/2000
7/1/2001
7/1/2002
7/1/2003
7/1/2004
7/1/2005
7/1/2006
7/1/2007
Constituent
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
Estimated
Mass (Kg)
9.4E+00
9.4E+00
7.9E+00
7.4E+00
7.4E+00
7.3E+00
6.7E+00
5.5E+00
4.4E+00
Number of Wells
24
26
27
27
27
27
27
26
26
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. Moments are not calculated for sample events with less than 6 wells.
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
8/13/2007
Page 1 of 1
------- |