Final Report:
Technical Assistance for
the Somersworth Sanitary
Landfill Superfund Site
Somers worth, New Hampshire
EPA Region 1
-------
Solid Waste and EPA-542-R-09-010
Emergency Response July 2009
(5203P) www.epa.gov
Final Report:
Technical Assistance for
the Somersworth Sanitary
Landfill Superfund Site
Somers worth, New Hampshire
EPA Region 1
-------
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 EP-W-07-037 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
Kirby Biggs Kathy Yager
U. S. EPA/OSRTI U. S. EPA/OSRTI
703-299-3438 617-918-8362
biggs.kirby@epa.gov yager.kathleen@epa.gov
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND 2
3.0 REGULATORY STATUS AND REMEDY 3
4.0 SOMERSWORTH SITE MONITORTING OBJECTIVES 4
5.0 GEOSYNTEC RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5
6.0 REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS 6
6.1 QUALITATIVE REVIEW AND INPUT FILES 6
6.2 COC PRIORITIZATION 6
6.3 TREND ANALYSIS 7
6.4 MOMENT ANALYSIS 8
6.5 WELL SUFFICIENCY/REDUNDANCY 9
6.6 SAMPLING FREQUENCY 10
7.0 CONCLUSIONS 11
8.0 OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11
9.0 REFERENCES 13
TABLES
1. Somersworth Landfill Monitoring Well Network Summary
2. Well Trend Summary Results and Average Concentration
MACROS REPORTS
ACRONYMS GUIDE
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Somersworth Sanitary Landfill Site (Somersworth site) is a former landfill in
southern New Hampshire that is on the National Priorities List (NPL). The landfill was
closed in 1981 and has had a groundwater monitoring network since the 1980s.
Groundwater remedies were installed by 2001, and the site is currently in the long-term
monitoring phase of operation and maintenance (O&M).
U.S. EPA Region 1 requested GSI Environmental (GSI), under contract to EMS, Inc., to
review the Somersworth site groundwater monitoring plan outlined in the Annual
Monitoring and Demonstration of Compliance Report for 2007 (Annual Report,
Geosyntec, 2008) and the Addendum to the Annual Monitoring and Demonstration of
Compliance Report (Addendum, Geosyntec, 2009). Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.
(Geosyntec) reviewed site monitoring data and performed statistical and heuristic
evaluations using the Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System software
(MAROS) in 2007. GSI was asked to review Geosyntec's inputs, results and
recommendations for the groundwater monitoring network, including the results based on
the MAROS analysis. The following tasks have been performed:
» Review monitoring objectives in the context of site history and overall remedial
goals, and qualitatively evaluate the ability of the monitoring network to achieve
the stated goals and objectives.
» Evaluate analytical data sufficiency and data quality; determine if data are
adequate in both quality and quantity to conduct the analysis.
» Evaluate input files, input parameters and results from the MAROS software
analysis by Geosyntec for consistency with site conditions.
» Determine if recommendations for future monitoring are consistent with the
monitoring objectives and results of the statistical and qualitative analyses.
» Review the conceptual site model to determine if any of the recommendations are
counter-indicated by site conditions.
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND
The Town of Somersworth operated a waste-burning facility on the current landfill
property as early as the 1930s with official waste disposal dating to 1945. By 1958, the
property was converted to a landfill for disposal of household trash and business and
industrial wastes. Landfill activities pre-dated requirements for liners and leachate
recovery systems. Soil excavated from the landfill was used to cover the waste. Disposal
operations continued expanding westward until 1981 when the landfill was closed and
groundwater monitoring wells installed. The final landfill extends over 26 acres. The
landfill was covered with a layer of sand and a thin layer of topsoil, with areas along the
northern edge covered with sandy, silt clay. Ten acres in the eastern portion of the site
were reclaimed for recreational use in 1981.
-------
The Somersworth site is located in a topographically flat area. Quarrying activities
immediately to the north have resulted in a 15 - 20 ft vertical escarpment running parallel
to the northern edge of the landfill. The western edge of the site is bounded by Peter's
Marsh Brook and associated wetlands. Surface drainage is westerly toward the wetland
and brook area. The brook flows northwesterly into Tate's Brook, which flows into the
Salmon Falls River, one mile east of the site.
Two water-bearing zones have been identified beneath the site. The overburden aquifer is
an unconfined sand and gravel unit ranging from about 15 to 75 feet thick. Groundwater
flow in the overburden is northwesterly. Fractured metamorphic bedrock underlies the
upper unit. Groundwater flow in the shallow bedrock is largely west/northwest but may
be influenced by the size and orientation of fractures locally. Discharge from both the
overburden and bedrock zones is thought to impact Peters Marsh Brook and the wetlands
to the west/northwest.
3.0 REGULATORY STATUS AND REMEDY
Groundwater sampling conducted after cessation of landfill activities indicated the
presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including chlorinated ethenes (CEs) in
the subsurface aquifers. The Somersworth site was placed on the NPL in 1983. Remedial
investigation activities were conducted between 1985 and 1992, and the Record of
Decision (ROD) was signed in 1994. The ROD established interim cleanup levels (ICLs)
for eight VOCs in groundwater, including the six priority CEs (trichloroethene (TCE),
tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,1-dichloroethene (11-DCE), c/s-l,2-dichloroethene (cDCE),
trans-1,2-dichloroethene (tDCE) and vinyl chloride (VC)), as well as benzene and
dichloromethane (DCM). The ROD also specified the preferred remedial action (PRA)
for site groundwater, the goals of which are to 1) provide source control; 2) manage
migration of contaminants; 3) establish institutional controls to prevent exposure of
potential receptors to affected groundwater and 4) monitor the progress of groundwater
toward cleanup goals.
The PRA for source control includes a zero-valent iron (ZVI) permeable reactive barrier,
referred to as the chemical treatment wall (CTW) installed at the downgradient edge of
the waste management area of the landfill. The source remedy also includes a permeable
landfill cover (PLC) over the waste management area. The CTW was installed in 2000 -
2001. The point of compliance for groundwater exiting the landfill area is downgradient
of the CTW. Several groundwater monitoring wells in both the overburden and bedrock
aquifers have been identified as point of compliance (POC) wells (see Table 1).
The PRA to manage migration of constituents included installation of a groundwater
extraction well completed in the bedrock, just south of the waste area (BRW-1).
Groundwater from the pumping well is discharged through an infiltration gallery located
on top of the landfill. Natural attenuation is also a component of constituent migration
management, and monitoring for natural attenuation (NA) parameters is part of the
overall groundwater monitoring program.
-------
Institutional controls have been implemented at the site to prevent exposure of potential
receptors to affected groundwater and to ensure that the hydrology, protective cap and
remaining waste are not disrupted by drilling. Institutional controls consist of fencing and
other physical barriers as well as a Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) established
by legislative enactment to control access to site groundwater.
The groundwater monitoring program was established to document the progress of
overburden and bedrock aquifers toward achieving ICLs and to evaluate the efficacy of
the PRAs. Remedial activities are required until groundwater concentrations meet ICLs at
and beyond the POCs designated for the site. The 2007 monitoring program included
sampling of wells listed in Table 1 three times annually to evaluate the efficacy of the
CTW and pumping remedies to meet remedial objectives. Sampling proposed for 2008
included bi-annual (semi-annual or twice yearly) analytical samples for most wells. Some
wells are sampled annually to evaluate NA processes beyond the POC and to evaluate the
background conditions at the site. A thorough list of the wells, parameters sampled and
sampling frequency is provided in tables in the Annual Report.
4.0 SOMERSWORTH SITE MONITORTING OBJECTIVES
The Somersworth site has a well-developed list of groundwater monitoring objectives
that are coordinated with specific wells in the network. Results from each sample fit into
a framework for supporting site decision-making. The monitoring objectives are
developed in a Site Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) and modified based on evolving
conditions. Based on the information listed in the Annual Report, the current site
monitoring objectives include:
* Objective 1 Evaluate whether the remedy (CTW) is meeting performance standards.
» Objective 1A: Assess groundwater passing through the CTW to determine if
groundwater meets regulatory standards for CEs.
» Objective IB: Assess whether substantial amounts of overburden groundwater
containing concentrations above regulatory limits of CEs are migrating from the
landfill to areas beyond the POC, bypassing the CTW. Evaluate possible flow
around or beneath the CTW. (Water level measurements and hydrogeologic
evaluations address this objective.)
* Objective 2: Evaluate whether the groundwater migrating from the landfill to areas
beyond the POC meets standards for benzene and DCM.
* Objective 3: Evaluate whether there is a need for bedrock groundwater extraction in
addition to extraction conducted at well BRW-1.
* Objective 4: Evaluate whether NA processes are continuing to reduce the
concentrations of VOCs at the site. (Analyses for NA indicators, such as dissolved
oxygen, nitrate, sulfate, and iron address this objective.)
* Objective 5: Evaluate whether the groundwater in the area at and beyond the POC
complies with ICLs for a period of three consecutive years.
* Objective 6: Evaluate whether the landfill continues to act as a source of constituents
affecting groundwater above standards.
-------
Objective 7: Evaluate the CTW performance at suspect panels (areas where remedy
performance may have been compromised or may be questionable).
Objective 8: Evaluate the CTW performance at the CTW-20 transect. Some
intermittent high concentrations of CEs have been observed downgradient of the
CTW at Transect 20. Additional wells were installed in 2005 to monitor this area of
the CTW.
5.0 GEOSYNTEC RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Somersworth site groundwater monitoring program was evaluated by Geosyntec in
2007 using the MAROS software. Geosyntec assembled input files from groundwater
monitoring data collected between 1985 and 2007 for the CEs PCE, TCE, cDCE, and
VC. (Benzene and DCM were not included in the input data as these COCs have fallen
below detection limits at most locations of interest (Geosyntec, 2008)). Separate input
files for the overburden and bedrock aquifers were developed by Geosyntec. Aquifer
input parameters were determined from previous site characterization efforts and are
summarized in the Annual Report (Table 2.19) and Addendum Report (Table 1). In the
Geosyntec MAROS analysis, the time frame for statistical analysis of groundwater data
was between 1989 and 2007 with data consolidation before 1999 and no consolidation of
data after 1999. Non-detect results were handled by substitution with half of the
associated detection limit. ICLs were used as the regulatory screening levels.
Lines of evidence from the MAROS analysis were used to recommend an updated
sampling frequency for wells in the network. The MAROS software was not used to
recommend removal of wells or addition of new wells (see discussion below under
Review of Recommendations). Geosyntec's recommendations for updating the monitoring
frequency are presented on Table 2.20 in the Annual Report, and a comprehensive
recommendation for groundwater sampling from 2008 to 2010 is presented on
replacement Table 1 of the Addendum Report.
Based on the monitoring network analysis using both the MAROS software and
qualitative considerations, Geosyntec recommends the following updates to the SAP and
monitoring program:
» Annual groundwater sampling is recommended for CTW transect wells (CTW-
20; CTW-30; CTW-40; CTW-60). (Semi-annual sampling was recommended for
2008). CTW hydraulic testing is recommended on a biennial (once every two
years) basis.
» Annual groundwater analytical sampling is recommended for other wells in the
network including overburden monitoring wells at or beyond the POC, bedrock
monitoring wells, and the extraction well BRW-1.
» For wells where concentrations have been below ICLs or non-detect for three
consecutive years, a biennial sampling frequency is recommended (e.g. FS-4, OB-
4U/4R, OB-6R). Background wells (OB-7U and OB-7R) are also recommended
for biennial sampling.
-------
6.0 REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS
A review of the Somersworth data input, assumptions, and subsequent MAROS analyses
was conducted in order to evaluate the recommendations for the Somersworth site
monitoring network. As part of the review, the data input files were reviewed using the
MAROS software to determine the sensitivity of the results to input assumptions such as
the time interval of the statistical analyses. A summary of steps in the review process is
provided below.
6.1 QUALITATIVE REVIEW AND INPUT FILES
In the Annual Monitoring Report and Addendum, the monitoring objectives for the
network are well articulated and are connected to observable metrics and specific well
locations (see Table 1, this report). The locations, boring logs and screened intervals for
all wells are available in the Annual Report. Plumes in both aquifers have been delineated
to ICLs.
The input files and parameters used for each groundwater unit were reviewed. The files
appeared accurate and complete. Data management is well executed and no problems
were encountered recreating outputs generated by Geosyntec. The assembled data were
sufficient in quantity and quality for statistical analyses. Some detection limits for
analytical data were high (i.e., greater than ICLs), particularly in the bedrock aquifer data.
High detection limits may be a result of multiple analyses of dilutions of samples. The
high detection limits do not limit the use of the data, and are not considered to change the
interpretation of results. Overall, the site information available was complete and of good
quality, and the Somersworth site is an appropriate candidate for monitoring
optimization.
The monitoring program for the Somersworth site includes measurements for assessing
the hydrology, biofouling and NA of constituents of concern (COC) at the site. The
MAROS software evaluates only the chemical analytical data, and therefore, the
monitoring program recommendations for other parameters were evaluated qualitatively.
6.2 COC PRIORITIZATION
The MAROS COC prioritization module was not reported in the Geosyntec results and
recommendations. The COC prioritization module ranks the constituents according to
toxicity, prevalence and mobility, and can be very helpful in directing and interpreting
the optimization analyses toward the most significant contaminants. MAROS reports
from the COC prioritization module for the overburden and bedrock networks (time
frame 1989 - 2007) are located in the Appendix to this memorandum.
Based on the evaluation, VC is the priority COC in the overburden aquifer, exceeding
regulatory standards by the greatest amount at the most number of monitoring locations.
VC is the late-stage degradation product of the other CEs, and it is logical that it would
be the priority constituent for a site as old as Somersworth. VC concentrations are very
-------
likely to increase transiently in the near term, as other constituents degrade. Therefore,
the overburden monitoring network should focus on characterizing the extent of VC,
which, in most cases will encompass the remainder of other constituents. TCE and PCE
are of lesser concern, and concentrations of cDCE in the overburden do not exceed
regulatory standards on a plume-wide basis (Note: cDCE is of interest at individual
locations in the overburden, such as POC wells B-8L and OB-4U).
By contrast, the priority COC in the bedrock aquifer is TCE, followed by VC, cDCE and
PCE respectively. A high concentration area of TCE is located just south of the landfill
near well B-12R, and tends to dominate the risk profile for this unit. PCE is not-detected
at most locations, so it is not a major concern in either the overburden or bedrock
aquifers. Based on the results of the COC prioritization, statistical results for VC in the
overburden and TCE and VC in the bedrock aquifer should be more heavily weighted in
forming the final monitoring recommendations.
6.3 TREND ANALYSIS
The Geosyntec reports did not highlight individual well trend analyses, although the
results were presented in Appendix G of the Annual Monitoring Report. In the Geosyntec
evaluation, the trend analyses were performed for data collected 1989 through 2007 with
some data consolidation for samples prior to 1999.
The CTW remedy was installed in 2001. While there are no specific rules on the
appropriate time frame over which to conduct trend analyses, the time frame of the trend
should reflect the type of question the analysis is intended to address. For example, if the
objective is to determine how the remedy has functioned since installation, the trend
should be evaluated using data collected since installation. However, if the goal is to
determine how the groundwater concentrations have changed since closure of landfill
operations, looking at the full dataset is appropriate.
In the case of the Somersworth site, installation of the remedy created significant changes
in the flow regime and fate of site contaminants. In order to ensure comparability in site
conditions and to evaluate the impact of the remedy on concentrations, the years 2002 to
2007 were chosen as the most significant time frame over which to evaluate the
monitoring network for this memorandum.
Additionally, individual well trends were determined for the 1989 - 2007, 1989 - 2001,
and the 2002 - 2007 time frames in order to evaluate the sensitivity of the results to the
time interval examined. By comparing results for different time frames, the effects of
remedy installation on concentrations trends can be assessed. Individual well trends were
also determined for annually consolidated data 2002 to 2007 in order to simulate how
annual data might impact the statistical results and interpretation of trends relative to the
denser dataset. Trends for the 1989 - 2007 time period are reported in the Geosyntec
Report (2009) and are not repeated here. The results of the other Mann-Kendall (MK)
trend evaluations are shown in Table 2 with selected summaries in the Appendix. Results
for VC in the overburden and TCE in the bedrock are shown. Average concentrations for
-------
the datasets 2002 - 2007 and 1989 - 2001 are shown to illustrate the effect of the remedy
on concentrations at various locations. Constituent detection rates are shown for the full
dataset 2002 - 2007. Detection rates are significant to trend evaluations because locations
with a less than 30% detection frequency may not provide useful trend information.
A comparison of trends for various time frames does not indicate any results outside of
those expected from the current conceptual model. Based on the comparison of trends
for each time interval, an annual sampling frequency will capture trends for wells with
high detection frequencies. Consequently, the recommended annual sampling frequency
will most likely be adequate to reveal trends in contaminant concentrations. Sample trend
reports for wells using various time frames are located in the Appendix to this
memorandum.
For both the overburden and bedrock aquifers, the majority of concentration trends are
stable to decreasing. Non-detect results for PCE are increasingly common for recent
samples, and TCE concentrations are decreasing across the plumes. The few increasing
concentration trends are found for the degradation products VC and DCE indicating the
success of NA processes. Overall, trend results are supportive of a decrease in monitoring
effort at the site.
6.4 MOMENT ANALYSIS
Results of the MAROS moment analysis module can be used to evaluate plume stability.
A reduction in monitoring effort is reasonable under stable plume conditions. In the
Geosyntec report, moment results were reported for all data collected 1989 through 2007.
The moment analysis is fairly sensitive to the number and identity of wells sampled
during each event. For this review, the moment analyses were re-run with annually
consolidated (averaged) data limited to 2002 - 2007, in order to have a more consistent
number of wells per sampling event.
Results of the zeroth moment analyses (estimate of total dissolved mass in the plume) for
the overburden indicate stable to slightly decreasing trends for the four major
constituents. Stable to decreasing trends for total dissolved mass indicate a slowly
changing plume where the remedies are controlling or reducing mass. Decreasing total
mass trends are consistent with reduced monitoring effort. Geosyntec's results show more
increasing trends for the total dissolved mass, but this is most likely due to the statistical
artifact of additional wells installed after 1989.
First moments are estimates of the distance of the center of mass from the source area.
Because the Somersworth site monitoring network and landfill monitoring networks, in
general, do not have many wells in the center of the plume, first moments calculated for
these sites may not provide a precise picture of distribution of constituents in the plumes.
For this reason, the Mann-Kendall trend of the first moment is reported, giving a relative
metric of the change in center of mass over time.
-------
For the overburden aquifer, the 'source' was estimated to be near well OB-7U/R, a point
just east of the landfill area. Overall, first moments are increasing in the overburden as
concentrations decrease within the upgradient section of the landfill and are stable to
increasing in the downgradient section (notably, degradation products VC and cDCE
concentrations are increasing at some downgradient locations). Bedrock results also
show increasing first moments. In this case, results most likely indicate reduced source
strength, which is consistent with both the age of the plumes and the goals of the PRA.
Increasing first moments are not inconsistent with reduced sampling frequency and can
be consistent with reduced sampling effort in the source zone.
6.5 WELL SUFFICIENCY/REDUNDANCY
The redundancy and sufficiency spatial location analysis tools in MAROS are best
applied at sites where subsurface conditions are fairly homogeneous. Flow in fractured
bedrock, in particular, is dominated by the largest fractures and is difficult to model with
geostatistical methods. Landfills present special challenges for spatial analysis as drilling
through historic waste areas can be hazardous and monitoring wells are restricted to the
fringe of the waste areas. Additionally, CE compounds, with their cascade of degradation
products, present challenges for the well redundancy evaluation. Frequently, high-priority
locations for monitoring parent compounds are not important for monitoring daughter
products and vice versa. Results of the Geosyntec evaluation recognize and account for
these issues. While several wells were identified as being redundant for individual COCs,
no one well was identified as redundant for all COCs.
A brief review of the well sufficiency module indicates some spatial uncertainty in the
center of the former landfill for the overburden and bedrock aquifers, as anticipated.
Waste is most likely distributed unevenly within the landfill, but installation of wells
through the buried waste is problematic. No new wells were recommended for this plume
based on the MAROS spatial analysis.
Due to the complications applying MAROS' spatial analysis, the number and location of
wells in the Somersworth monitoring program are best evaluated qualitatively. Geosyntec
provides a very good qualitative evaluation of the position of monitoring locations in
their discussion of how the results of the monitoring program address each monitoring
objective in Section 2 of the Annual Monitoring Report. Each of the monitoring
objectives appears to have the appropriate number and distribution of monitoring
locations to satisfy the management questions the objectives address.
POC wells at Somersworth generally define the edges of the plume above ICLs,
effectively delineating the area of affected groundwater. Recently, wells OB-101U/R
have been installed at the northern extent of the GMZ to monitor the northernmost
boundary of the institutional control. One area that is not clearly bounded by identified
POC wells is south of the groundwater extraction well BRW-1. The purpose of
groundwater extraction from BRW-1 is to hydraulically contain an area of high TCE
concentrations centered around B-12R and OB-24R in the fractured bedrock aquifer. B-
12R and OB-24 R averaged 3010 and 688 ug/L respectively for samples collected 2002 -
-------
2007. The extraction well appears to be operating to control the spread of constituents in
this area, with concentrations at nearby well OB-23R dropping below detection limits in
recent years.
Groundwater flow in the bedrock aquifer is roughly west/northwest. Downgradient from
the landfill, wells OB-4R and OB-6R are currently below all ICLs, and location B-13R is
below all ICLs, except for vinyl chloride. However, there are no POC wells present
between the area of high TCE concentrations at B-12R and the southern extent of the
GMZ. Recently, wells OB-101U/R have been installed at the northern extent of the GMZ
to monitor the boundary of the institutional control to the north.
Locations OB-23R and OB-9R are south and southeast of BRW-1 and recent samples
indicate that concentrations in these areas are below detection limits. Wells OB-23R and
OB-9 are recommended as POC wells, defining the southern boundary of the affected
bedrock aquifer, to be used as surrogates to monitor the GMZ boundary south of the
landfill. Alternately, a new POC well may be installed south of OB-23R to confirm
containment of VOCs by the extraction well, in case there is concern that OB-23R is too
close to the extraction well and may rebound if changes occur in the extraction system.
OB-23R and OB-9R are recommended for annual sampling provided that BRW-1
continues to function at the current level of efficiency.
No other new wells are recommended based on the data reviewed.
6.6 SAMPLING FREQUENCY
The results of the MAROS sampling frequency module indicate that the majority of wells
can be sampled annually without loss of significant information. Wells with a limited
number of sampling results are assigned more frequent sampling recommendations by
default in the software. Wells such as OB-101, with limited sampling results, were
recommended by the software for more frequent sampling, but based on a qualitative
review of monitoring objectives, quarterly sampling frequency is not required at these
locations.
The sampling frequency module does indicate that more frequent sampling may be
appropriate for locations where concentrations of VC are increasing, such as B-8L, B-6R
and FS-7. The software algorithm recommends more frequent sampling for wells with
increasing trends. However, the rate of increase in concentrations at these wells is
relatively slow, the wells are within the GMZ, and production of VC is an indication of
successful degradation of parent CEs. For these reasons, annual sampling frequency is
still appropriate for wells in the network. More frequent sampling would be appropriate
only if VC concentrations are approaching a limit that would require installation of a
contingent remedy (such as one that would address a vapor/inhalation exposure pathway,
which does not appear to be the case).
10
-------
Overall, Geosyntec's recommendation for reduced sampling frequency appears to be
supported by the data and site monitoring objectives. Geosyntec's logic for interpreting
the results of the MAROS analysis is appropriate.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on a review of the data inputs, MAROS results and interpretation, the Geosyntec
recommendations for the Somersworth site are appropriate. The recommended updates to
the SAP are consistent with long-term monitoring optimization (LTMO) data analysis
practices, the conceptual site model and the stated monitoring objectives. The proposed
monitoring plan updates should provide data to achieve the stated goals and objectives
and support site management decisions.
The following conclusions were made based on the review:
» Groundwater monitoring objectives are clearly articulated and linked to specific
data collected from the network.
» The analytical data were sufficient in both quality and quantity to perform the
analyses, and are adequate to support the derived conclusions.
» The input files and input parameters for the MAROS software are complete and
consistent with the conceptual site model. Results from the MAROS software and
interpretation of results are consistent with LTMO practice.
» Groundwater monitoring recommendations are consistent with site monitoring
objectives and results of the statistical and qualitative analyses. The
recommendations for monitoring potentiometric surfaces, hydraulic characteristics
and NA parameters are also consistent with the site data, conditions and
monitoring objectives.
» None of the recommendations are counter-indicated by other site conditions.
8.0 OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While Geosyntec's recommended modifications to the SAP are reasonable, the following
observations and recommendations are provided to streamline future data analyses and
prevent minor complications that may arise after making the proposed changes to the
monitoring network.
» In the recent program, wells are sampled three times per year, and the averaged
results are compared with ICLs. By moving to an annual sampling frequency,
individual results will be compared with ICLs, which increases the impact of
individual outlying or anomalous results. The move to a lower sampling
frequency should be accompanied by higher data quality standards, as site
management decisions are based on a smaller dataset. Contingency or
confirmatory sampling should be performed when analytical results are outside of
the 95% upper confidence level (UCL) based on the historic concentrations for
that location. Preliminary analytical results should be screened for outliers and
11
-------
confirmatory sampling should be scheduled as soon after discovery of the outlier
as possible, preferably within three months. Several software packages including
the EPA supported ProUCL software package (Singh, Maichle et al. 2007) can be
used to identify outlier data points and 95% UCLs.
Contingency sampling may also be necessary after extreme weather events,
visible damage to the remedy or other conditions where increased density of
sampling data is necessary to support site decision making. Contingency sampling
should be considered if the extraction well, BRW-1, declines in pumping
efficiency or needs to be shut down for maintenance. Increased sampling
frequency of bedrock wells OB-23R, OB-9R, B-12R, OB-22R, and OB24R is
recommended if changes are made to the groundwater extraction remedy.
Confirm data quality objectives for analytical detection limits. Laboratory
detection limits should be set below regulatory screening levels for samples,
unless dilution is necessary for accurate quantitation.
Concentration trends for VC, and to a lesser extent cDCE, may demonstrate
statistically significant increasing trends in the near-term as a result of the success
of parent compound degradation processes. While groundwater passing through
the CTW may meet ICLs, residual sorbed parent compounds outside the CTW
may still be generating daughter products. Because the VC ICL and detection
limits are very low, small variations in sampling and analysis results can have
greater impact on the interpretation of VC concentration trends. Consider
including flexibility to handle transient increasing concentrations of daughter
products at downgradient locations into the language of compliance metrics to
account for variable concentrations or increasing trends in CE daughter products.
Data collected prior to the scheduled five-year reviews (2010, 2015) will be used
to make a determination of the protectiveness of the remedy and progress toward
remedial goals. An appropriate time frame over which to evaluate efficacy of the
remedy is from the time of remedy installation (late 2001) to the present.
Concentration trends should be determined for the time frame after installation of
the remedy to the most current sampling event (roughly from 2002). Average
concentrations and trends for priority COCs for the time from 1985 - 2001 are
summarize in Table 2 and listed in detail in the Appendix as a baseline for future
reference and comparison. Future concentrations and trends can be compared to
the baseline, pre-remedy data to evaluate changes over time.
With annual sampling, a sufficient number of data points will be available for
evaluation of a recent, five-year concentration trend for each five-year review.
(The minimum number of data points to evaluate a trend is 4.) Results of trend
analysis since the last five-year review can be used to detect recent changes in
direction and magnitude of concentration changes.
12
-------
9.0 REFERENCES
Geosyntec. (2008). Annual Monitoring and Demonstration of Compliance Report for
2007 Draft. Somersworth Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site Somersworth, New
Hampshire. March 31, 2008.
Geosyntec. (2009). Addendum to the Annual Monitoring and Demonstration of
Compliance Report for 2007. Somersworth Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site
Somersworth, New Hampshire. February 11, 2009.
Singh, A., R. Maichle, A. K. Singh and S. E. Lee (2007). ProUCL 4.0 Statistical
Software. Las Vegas, Nevada, US Environmental Protection Agency, National
Exposure Research Lab. 2007: statistical software.
USEPA (2005) First Five-Year Review Report for the Somersworth Sanitary Landfill
Superfund Site, Somersworth, New Hampshire, September 2005, USEPA Region 1,
Boston, MA.
13
-------
GROUND WATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION REVIEW
SOMERSWORTH LANDFILL SITE
Somersworth, New Hampshire
TABLES
Table 1 Somersworth Landfill Monitoring Well Network Summary
Table 2 Well Trend Summary Results and Average Concentrations
14
-------
Issued: 10-JUL-09
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 1
SOMERSWORTH LANDFILL MONITORING WELL NETWORK SUMMARY
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION REVIEW
Somersworth Landfill Superfund Site, Somerworth, New Hampshire
Well Name
Minimum
Sample Date
Maximum
Sample Date
Number of
Samples in
Dataset
Monitoring Rationale
Overburden
B-13WT
B-2L
B-8L
CTW-10U
CTW-1 DU
CTW-21U
CTW-22L
CTW-22U
CTW-23L
CTW-23U
CTW-24U
CTW-2DU
CTW-31U
CTW-32U
CTW-33L
CTW-33U
CTW-41U
CTW-42U
CTW-43L
CTW-43U
CTW-50U
CTW-61U
CTW-63U
FS-1
FS-11
FS-1 2
FS-4
FS-7
FS-9
FS-9A
OB-101U
OB-16U
OB-17U
OB-4U
OB-5U
OB-6U
OB-7U
4/8/1996
3/3/1 998
11/16/1989
1/29/2001
11/13/2001
2/15/2001
1 0/20/2004
4/20/2004
3/28/2001
3/28/2001
8/22/2005
11/14/2001
2/15/2001
4/20/2004
3/28/2001
3/28/2001
2/15/2001
4/20/2004
3/28/2001
3/28/2001
1/29/2001
8/22/2005
8/22/2005
5/2/1 996
4/6/1 996
4/6/1 996
4/30/1996
4/5/1 996
4/6/1 996
6/6/2001
4/26/2007
1/24/1992
1/24/1992
11/13/1989
11/13/1989
11/16/1989
11/13/1989
10/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/26/2007
1 0/1 8/2004
1 0/23/2007
5/17/2005
1 0/23/2007
1 0/23/2007
1 0/23/2007
1 0/23/2007
10/18/2004
10/23/2007
10/23/2007
10/23/2007
10/23/2007
10/25/2007
10/25/2007
10/25/2007
10/25/2007
10/24/2007
1 0/25/2007
1 0/25/2007
10/24/2007
1 0/1 8/2004
1 0/1 8/2004
10/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
12/8/1999
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/22/2007
1 0/22/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
18
26
27
24
5
26
2
7
22
24
8
5
23
6
23
24
24
5
26
23
24
9
9
30
5
6
29
38
5
21
5
22
26
20
30
34
21
Objective 5, POC
Objective 5, Objective 2, Objective 1 B, , POC
Objective 5, POC
Objective 5, Objective 2, Objective 1 B, POC
Evaluate GWflow near CTW, not sampled currently
Objective 2, Objective 1A
Not sampled currently
Objective 1A
Objective 5, Objective 2, Objective 1A, POC
Objective 5, Objective 2, Objective 1A, POC
Objective 2, Objective 1A
Evaluate GWflow near CTW, not sampled currently
Objective 1A
Objective 1A
Objective 5, Objective 2, Objective 1A, POC
Objective 5, Objective 2, Objective 1A, POC
Objective 1A
Objective 1A
Objective 5, Objective 2, Objective 1A, POC
Objective 5, Objective 2, Objective 1A, POC
Objective 5, Objective 2, Objective 1 B, POC
Objective 1A*
Objective 1A
Up and cross-gradient
Upgradient of CTW, not sampled currently
Upgradient of CTW, not sampled currently
Objective 5, Objective 1 B, POC
Objective 5, Objective 1 B, POC
Objective 1B, Not sampled currently
Objective 5, Objective 2, POC
Delineation - farthest downgradient monitoring locations
Objective 6
Objective 6, Objective 2
Objective 5
Objective 5, POC
Objective 5, POC
Objective 5, Background POC
See notes end of table
-------
Issued: 10-JUL-09
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 1
SOMERSWORTH LANDFILL MONITORING WELL NETWORK SUMMARY
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION REVIEW
Somersworth Landfill Superfund Site, Somerworth, New Hampshire
Well Name
Minimum
Sample Date
Maximum
Sample Date
Number of
Samples in
Dataset
Monitoring Rationale
Bedrock
B-12R
B-13R
B-6R
B-8R
B-9R
BRW-1
CTW-1 DR
CTW-2DR
OB-101R
OB-15R
OB-16R
OB-21 RA
OB-22R
OB-23R
OB-24R
OB-4R
OB-5R
OB-6R
OB-7R
OB-9R
PS-1R
11/14/1989
11/14/1989
11/17/1989
11/16/1989
11/15/1989
3/18/1997
4/26/2002
4/26/2002
4/26/2007
1/24/1992
1/24/1992
8/7/2001
2/2/2001
1/29/2001
1/29/2001
11/13/1989
11/11/1989
11/16/1989
11/7/1990
11/8/1990
5/2/1 996
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/22/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/25/2007
10/14/2002
10/14/2002
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/22/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
1 0/24/2007
37
30
32
33
32
21
3
3
3
32
30
20
23
26
25
21
31
26
20
23
28
Objective 3
Objective 5, POC
Objective 5, Objective 3, POC
Objective 5, Objective 3, POC
Objective 5, Objective 3, POC
Objective 3; Extraction Well
Evaluate GWflow near CTW, not sampled currently
Evaluate GWflow near CTW, not sampled currently
Delineation - farthest downgradient monitoring locations
Upgradient of CTW
Objective 6*
Upgradient of CTW
Objective 3
Objective 3
Objective 3
Objective 5, POC
Objective 5, POC
Objective 5, POC
Objective 5, Background, POC
Objective 3
Objective 5, Objective 3, Objective 2, POC
Notes/
1. Wells listed were in MAROS input files. Data from Geosyntec, 2009.
2. Monitoring objectives for each well are from Annual Report (Geosyntec, 2008).
* = indicates objective not listed in Annual Report, but assumed based on location of the well.
3. POC = Point of Compliance
4. Number of Samples = total number of analytical sample events from Geosyntec input files.
Does not include hydrologic or natural attenuation parameter sampling.
5. Minimum sample date is the earliest record in the MAROS input file for the specified well. Maximum sample date
is the most recent date for an analytical result in the input file.
-------
Issued: 10-JUL-2009
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 2
WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS AND AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION REVIEW
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill, New Hampshire
Well Name
2002 - 2007
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
Average
Concentration
1985-2000
[ug/L]
Average
Concentration
2002 - 2007
[ug/L]
MK Result
1985-2001
MK Result
2002 - 2007
MK Result
Annually
Consolidated
2002 - 2007
Overburden Vinyl Chloride
B-13WT
B-2L
B-8L
CTW-10U
CTW-1DU
CTW-21U
CTW-22L
CTW-22U
CTW-23L
CTW-23U
CTW-24U
CTW-2DU
CTW-31 U
CTW-32U
CTW-33L
CTW-33U
CTW-41 U
CTW-42U
CTW-43L
CTW-43U
CTW-50U
CTW-61 U
CTW-63U
FS-1
FS-11
FS-1 2
FS-4
FS-7
FS-9A
OB-101U
OB-16U
OB-17U
OB-4U
OB-5U
OB-6U
OB-7U
9
18
18
18
4
18
2
7
18
18
8
4
17
5
18
18
18
5
18
18
17
8
8
18
1
1
18
18
18
3
11
11
10
18
18
10
0
11
18
2
4
14
0
4
1
6
5
0
12
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
8
8
3
17
1
1
12
18
17
0
8
11
0
17
18
0
0%
61%
100%
11%
100%
78%
0%
57%
6%
33%
63%
0%
71%
0%
11%
0%
6%
20%
6%
0%
47%
100%
38%
94%
100%
100%
67%
100%
94%
0%
73%
100%
0%
94%
100%
0%
1.8
6.3
380.0
<1
-
3.0
-
<1
<1
-
21.0
-
8.5
<1
<1
-
<1
<1
<1
-
-
8.3
25.2
1.7
6.4
16.1
-
65.8
283.0
<1
15.2
34.8
<1
<1
3.1
363.0
2.7
99.8
21.1
<1
22.1
1.8
7.2
2.3
<1
8.3
<1
1.2
<1
1.1
1.6
1.3
<1
2.2
148.0
3.4
4.5
40.0
66.0
4.4
10.4
168.0
<1
9.6
129.0
<1
11.4
24.2
<1
S
N/A
S
N/A
-
N/A
-
N/A
N/A
-
N/A
-
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
-
S
N/A
N/A
I
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
ND
S
S
ND
ND
S
I
NT
S
NT
N/A
NT
NT
NT
D
ND
D
ND
S
ND
S
S
NT
ND
D
D
NT
D
N/A
N/A
D
I
S
N/A
D
D
ND
I
S
ND
ND
S
I
S
N/A
NT
N/A
NT
S
NT
N/A
N/A
D
ND
S
ND
S
S
S
ND
S
N/A
N/A
PD
N/A
N/A
D
PI
S
N/A
D
D
ND
NT
NT
ND
See notes end of table
-------
Issued: 10-JUL-2009
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 2
WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS AND AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION REVIEW
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill, New Hampshire
Well Name
2002 - 2007
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
Average
Concentration
1985-2000
[ug/L]
Average
Concentration
2002 - 2007
[ug/L]
MK Result
1985-2001
MK Result
2002 - 2007
MK Result
Annually
Consolidated
2002 - 2007
Bedrock TCE
B-12R
B-13R
B-6R
B-8R
B-9R
BRW-1
CTW-1DR
CTW-2DR
OB-101R
OB-15R
OB-16R
OB-21RA
OB-22R
OB-23R
OB-24R
OB-4R
OB-5R
OB-6R
OB-7R
OB-9R
PS-1R
18
18
18
18
18
16
3
3
3
18
18
17
18
18
17
10
18
11
10
18
18
18
3
3
12
1
16
3
3
0
0
0
17
0
9
17
1
4
0
0
0
6
100%
17%
17%
67%
6%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
50%
100%
10%
22%
0%
0%
0%
33%
3110
9.97
110
27.6
17.7
61
-
-
6.38
14.9
<2
95
1500
3.58
34.5
3.64
<1
<1
34.4
3010
2.75
4.45
10.3
2.38
33.1
70
45.3
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
11.7
<2.5
114
688
2.29
9.62
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
3.04
S
D
D
NT
NT
N/A
-
-
D
NT
N/A
N/A
N/A
PD
D
D
ND
N/A
PD
D
S
S
D
S
S
N/A
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
NT
ND
D
D
S
PD
ND
ND
ND
PI
D
S
S
D
S
S
N/A
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
S
ND
D
D
S
S
ND
ND
ND
NT
A/ores
1. Trends were evaluated for data collected during intervals indicated.
2. Number of Samples is the number of samples for the compound at this location 2002 - 2007.
Number of Detects is the number of times the compound has been detected at this location.
3. D = Decreasing; PD = Probably Decreasing; S = Stable; PI = Probably Increasing;
I = Increasing; N/A = Insufficient Data to determine trend (<4 sample events);
NT = No Trend; ND = well has all non-detect results for COC.
4. < = Not detected; = No data collected during the indicated time frame.
-------
GROUND WATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION REVIEW
SOMERSWORTH LANDFILL SITE
Somersworth, New Hampshire
MAROS Reports
COC Assessment Overburden
COC Assessment Bedrock
Example Trend Summary Reports
19
-------
MAROS COC Assessment
Project: Somersworth
Location: Overburden
Toxicitv:
Contaminant of Concern
Vinyl chloride
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
User
State
Representative
Concentration
(mg/L)
3.3E-02
1.5E-02
1.0E-02
Name: MV
: New Hampshire
PRG
(mg/L)
2.0E-03
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
Percent
Above
PRG
1531.3%
195.4%
108.7%
Note: Top COCs by toxicity were determined by examining a representative concentration for each compound over the entire site. The
compound representative concentrations are then compared with the chosen PRG for that compound, with the percentage exceedance
from the PRG determining the compound's toxicity. All compounds above exceed the PRG.
Prevalence:
Contaminant of Concern
Vinyl chloride
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
Class
ORG
ORG
ORG
Total
Wells
37
37
37
Total
Exceedances
24
8
7
Percent
Exceedances
64.9%
21 .6%
18.9%
Total
detects
30
17
9
Note: Top COCs by prevalence were determined by examining a representative concentration for each well location at the site. The
total exceedances (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
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
0.042
0.297
0.923
Note: Top COCs by mobility were determined by examining each detected compound in the dataset and comparing their
mobilities (Koc's for organics, assume foe = 0.001, and Kd's for metals).
Contaminants of Concern (COC's)
Vinyl chloride
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS COC Assessment
Project: Somersworth
Location: Bedrock
Toxicitv:
Contaminant of Concern
trichloroethylene (TCE)
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
User
State
Representative
Concentration
(mg/L)
2.0E-01
2.5E-02
1 .3E-01
8.8E-03
Name: MV
: New Hampshire
PRG
(mg/L)
5.0E-03
2.0E-03
7.0E-02
5.0E-03
Percent
Above
PRG
3878.8%
1 1 61 .0%
92.0%
77.0%
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 exceedance
from the PRG determining the compound's toxicity. All compounds above exceed the PRG.
Prevalence:
Contaminant of Concern
trichloroethylene (TCE)
Vinyl chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
Class
ORG
ORG
ORG
ORG
Total
Wells
21
21
21
21
Total
Exceedances
14
13
8
6
Percent
Exceedances
66.7%
61 .9%
38.1%
28.6%
Total
detects
17
18
17
11
Note: Top COCs by prevalence were determined by examining a representative concentration for each well location at the site. The
total exceedances (values above the chosen PRGs) are compared to the total number of wells to determine the prevalence of the
compound.
Mobility:
Contaminant of Concern
Kd
Vinyl chloride
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
trichloroethylene (TCE)
tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
0.042
0.0724
0.297
0.923
Note: Top COCs by mobility were determined by examining each detected compound in the dataset and comparing their
mobilities (Koc's for organics, assume foe = 0.001, and Kd's for metals).
Contaminants of Concern (COC's)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
trichloroethylene (TCE)
Vinyl chloride
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Project: Overburden
Location: Somersworth
User Name: MV
State: New Hampshire
Time Period: 7/1/1985 to 1/1/2001
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Source/
Well jail
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
B-13WT
B-2L
B-8L
CTW-10U
CTW-21U
CTW-23L
CTW-23U
CTW-31U
CTW-33L
CTW-33U
CTW-41U
CTW-43L
CTW-43U
CTW-50U
FS-1
FS-11
FS-1 2
FS-4
FS-7
FS-9
OB-16U
OB-17U
OB-4U
OB-5U
OB-6U
OB-7U
Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
B-13WT
B-2L
B-8L
CTW-10U
CTW-21U
CTW-23L
CTW-23U
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
5
5
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
3
3
4
8
4
7
7
6
6
10
7
4
5
6
1
1
1
1
0
5
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
2
4
8
3
6
7
0
6
10
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
1.0E-03
1.1E-02
5.1E-01
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
4.3E-02
9.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.6E-02
1.9E-01
3.7E-03
2.3E-02
3.7E-02
1.8E-02
2.6E-01
2.1E-01
1.0E-03
2.2E-02
2.2E-01
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.1E-02
7.5E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
8.0E-03
4.8E-01
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
4.3E-02
9.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
6.9E-03
2.0E-01
2.0E-03
2.3E-02
2.1E-02
4.0E-03
2.1E-01
1 .3E-02
1 .OE-03
2.4E-02
1 .9E-01
1 .OE-03
1. OE-03
1 .6E-02
1 .OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ND
S
S
ND
ND
ND
ND
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
N/A
N/A
I
NT
I
NT
NT
ND
S
S
ND
ND
NT
NT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
S
S
ND
ND
ND
ND
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
N/A
N/A
I
S
I
I
D
ND
PD
S
ND
ND
NT
PD
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Friday, May 29, 2009
Page 1 of 3
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Well
Source/
Tail
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
CTW-31U
CTW-33L
CTW-33U
CTW-41U
CTW-43L
CTW-43U
CTW-50U
FS-1
FS-11
FS-1 2
FS-4
FS-7
FS-9
OB-16U
OB-17U
OB-4U
OB-5U
OB-6U
OB-7U
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
B-13WT
B-2L
B-8L
CTW-10U
CTW-21U
CTW-23L
CTW-23U
CTW-31U
CTW-33L
CTW-33U
CTW-41U
CTW-43L
CTW-43U
CTW-50U
FS-1
FS-11
FS-1 2
FS-4
FS-7
FS-9
OB-16U
OB-17U
OB-4U
OB-5U
OB-6U
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
S
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
3
2
4
8
4
7
6
6
6
10
7
4
5
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
3
3
4
8
4
7
6
6
6
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
0
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
2
3
7
2
6
2
1
4
9
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.2E-01
2.5E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.1E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
4.7E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.8E-02
7.9E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
6.9E-03
1.7E-01
3.0E-03
8.5E-03
5.9E-02
1.0E-03
5.6E-03
3.3E-03
1.2E-03
1.7E-03
1.7E-01
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1 .OE-03
2.2E-01
2.5E-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
3.1E-02
1 .OE-03
1. OE-03
1 .6E-02
3.2E-02
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
7.1E-03
1.7E-01
3.0E-03
7.5E-03
1 .2E-02
1 .OE-03
4.0E-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .5E-03
1.4E-01
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
ND
NT
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
NT
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
S
N/A
N/A
S
D
S
S
NT
NT
S
S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
ND
NT
ND
ND
ND
PD
ND
ND
S
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
N/A
N/A
NT
D
I
PI
D
NT
D
S
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Friday, May 29, 2009
Page 2 of 3
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Well
Source/
Tail
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
OB-7U
Vinyl chloride
B-13WT
B-2L
B-8L
CTW-10U
CTW-21U
CTW-23L
CTW-23U
CTW-31U
CTW-33L
CTW-33U
CTW-41U
CTW-43L
CTW-43U
CTW-50U
FS-1
FS-11
FS-1 2
FS-4
FS-7
FS-9
OB-16U
OB-17U
OB-4U
OB-5U
OB-6U
OB-7U
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
S
T
7
4
3
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
3
3
4
8
4
7
7
6
6
10
7
0
2
3
5
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
3
2
4
8
3
7
7
0
6
10
0
1.0E-03
1.8E-03
6.3E-03
3.8E-01
1.0E-03
3.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.1E-02
8.5E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
8.3E-03
2.5E-02
1.7E-03
6.4E-03
1.6E-02
1.1E-02
6.6E-02
2.8E-01
1.0E-03
1.5E-02
3.5E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1 .5E-03
6.0E-03
3.6E-01
1.0E-03
3.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.1E-02
8.5E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
7.3E-03
2.8E-02
1 .OE-03
7.0E-03
9.2E-03
3.0E-03
6.4E-02
1 .OE-02
1 .OE-03
1 .6E-02
2.8E-02
1 .OE-03
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
ND
S
N/A
S
ND
N/A
ND
ND
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
S
N/A
N/A
I
NT
NT
NT
NT
ND
S
S
ND
ND
S
N/A
I
ND
N/A
ND
ND
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PD
N/A
N/A
I
NT
I
I
D
ND
S
PD
ND
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable
(N/A); Not Applicable (N/A) - Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); No Detectable Concentration (NDC)
The Number of Samples and Number of Detects shown above are post-consolidation values.
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Friday, May 29, 2009
Page 3 of 3
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Project: Somersworth
Location: Overburden
User Name: MV
State: New Hampshire
Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 10/1/2007
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 Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
B-13WT
B-2L
B-8L
CTW-10U
CTW-1DU
CTW-21U
CTW-22L
CTW-22U
CTW-23L
CTW-23U
CTW-24U
CTW-2DU
CTW-31U
CTW-32U
CTW-33L
CTW-33U
CTW-41U
CTW-42U
CTW-43L
CTW-43U
CTW-50U
CTW-61U
CTW-63U
FS-1
FS-11
FS-1 2
FS-4
FS-7
FS-9A
OB-101U
OB-16U
OB-17U
OB-4U
OB-5U
OB-6U
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
S
S
T
T
S
10
18
18
18
4
18
2
7
18
18
8
4
17
5
18
18
18
5
18
18
17
8
8
18
1
1
18
18
18
3
11
11
10
18
18
0
12
18
2
4
7
0
2
0
3
0
0
12
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
7
2
5
1
1
11
18
17
0
8
11
0
13
18
1.0E-03
9.0E-03
1.2E-01
2.1E-03
3.0E-01
2.3E-02
1.0E-03
2.4E-02
1.0E-03
8.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.3E-02
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.1E-03
2.8E-01
2.6E-03
1.7E-03
7.4E-02
1.6E-01
1.3E-02
2.9E-02
2.0E-01
1.0E-03
5.0E-02
8.8E-01
1.0E-03
4.8E-03
1.1E-01
1.0E-03
8.0E-03
1.1E-01
1 .OE-03
3.0E-01
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1 .2E-02
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1.2E-01
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
7.4E-02
1 .6E-01
1 .4E-02
1 JE-02
1.1E-01
1 .OE-03
1 .6E-02
9.6E-01
1 .OE-03
5.0E-03
1.1E-01
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
ND
NT
D
NT
S
NT
ND
NT
ND
NT
ND
ND
D
ND
S
ND
ND
NT
ND
ND
NT
D
NT
D
N/A
N/A
D
I
NT
ND
D
D
ND
NT
S
ND
NT
D
PI
PI
NT
ND
PD
ND
NT
ND
ND
D
ND
S
ND
ND
NT
ND
ND
NT
D
NT
D
N/A
N/A
D
I
NT
ND
D
D
ND
S
I
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Page 1 of 4
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Well
Source/
Tail
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
OB-7U
Tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
B-13WT
B-2L
B-8L
CTW-10U
CTW-1DU
CTW-21U
CTW-22L
CTW-22U
CTW-23L
CTW-23U
CTW-24U
CTW-2DU
CTW-31U
CTW-32U
CTW-33L
CTW-33U
CTW-41U
CTW-42U
CTW-43L
CTW-43U
CTW-50U
CTW-61U
CTW-63U
FS-1
FS-11
FS-1 2
FS-4
FS-7
FS-9A
OB-101U
OB-16U
OB-17U
OB-4U
OB-5U
OB-6U
OB-7U
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
B-13WT
B-2L
B-8L
CTW-10U
CTW-1DU
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
S
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
S
T
T
10
10
18
18
18
4
18
2
7
18
18
8
4
17
5
18
18
18
5
18
18
18
8
8
18
1
1
18
18
18
3
11
11
10
18
18
10
10
18
18
18
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
18
0
0
7
3
1
4
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
3.6E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
7.3E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
4.2E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.9E-03
2.5E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.3E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
6.9E-03
1.3E-03
1.1E-03
1.5E-01
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
5.9E-02
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1. OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
4.2E-02
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1. OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1. OE-03
1 .3E-02
1 .OE-03
1. OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1.4E-01
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
ND
ND
PD
ND
ND
NT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PD
PD
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
PD
S
S
NT
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
NT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PD
PD
ND
ND
S
ND
ND
D
S
PD
NT
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Page 2 of 4
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Well
Source/
Tail
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
CTW-21U
CTW-22L
CTW-22U
CTW-23L
CTW-23U
CTW-24U
CTW-2DU
CTW-31U
CTW-32U
CTW-33L
CTW-33U
CTW-41U
CTW-42U
CTW-43L
CTW-43U
CTW-50U
CTW-61 U
CTW-63U
FS-1
FS-11
FS-1 2
FS-4
FS-7
FS-9A
OB-101U
OB-16U
OB-17U
OB-4U
OB-5U
OB-6U
OB-7U
Vinyl chloride
B-13WT
B-2L
B-8L
CTW-10U
CTW-1DU
CTW-21U
CTW-22L
CTW-22U
CTW-23L
CTW-23U
CTW-24U
CTW-2DU
CTW-31 U
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
S
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
18
2
7
18
18
8
4
17
5
18
18
18
5
18
18
18
8
8
18
1
1
18
18
18
3
11
11
10
17
18
10
9
18
18
18
4
18
2
7
18
18
8
4
17
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
4
9
1
0
5
3
0
0
18
0
0
11
18
2
4
14
0
4
1
6
5
0
12
1.3E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.1E-03
4.5E-02
1.0E-03
1.5E-03
5.4E-03
1.1E-03
1.0E-03
5.5E-03
4.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
8.4E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
3.1E-03
3.6E-01
2.7E-03
1.0E-01
2.1E-02
1.0E-03
2.2E-02
1.8E-03
7.2E-03
2.3E-03
1.0E-03
8.3E-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1 .OE-03
4.5E-02
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1. OE-03
8.9E-02
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
3.0E-03
3.7E-01
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-01
5.0E-03
1 .OE-03
4.0E-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
2.0E-03
1. OE-03
8.5E-03
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
N/A
ND
PD
I
NT
ND
PD
PD
ND
ND
S
ND
ND
S
I
NT
S
NT
ND
NT
NT
NT
D
ND
D
S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
N/A
ND
D
I
NT
ND
D
PD
ND
ND
NT
ND
ND
I
I
PI
S
NT
ND
PD
NT
NT
D
ND
D
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Page 3 of 4
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Well
Source/
Tail
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Vinyl chloride
CTW-32U
CTW-33L
CTW-33U
CTW-41U
CTW-42U
CTW-43L
CTW-43U
CTW-50U
CTW-61U
CTW-63U
FS-1
FS-11
FS-1 2
FS-4
FS-7
FS-9A
OB-101U
OB-16U
OB-17U
OB-4U
OB-5U
OB-6U
OB-7U
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
S
S
T
T
S
T
5
18
18
18
5
18
18
17
8
8
18
1
1
18
18
18
3
11
11
10
18
18
10
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
8
8
3
17
1
1
12
18
17
0
8
11
0
17
18
0
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.0E-03
1.1E-03
1.6E-03
1.3E-03
1.0E-03
2.2E-03
1.5E-01
3.4E-03
4.5E-03
4.0E-02
6.6E-02
4.4E-03
1.0E-02
1.7E-01
1.0E-03
9.5E-03
1.3E-01
1.0E-03
1.1E-02
2.4E-02
1.0E-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
9.7E-02
1 .OE-03
4.0E-03
4.0E-02
6.6E-02
5.0E-03
9.5E-03
1 .3E-01
1 .OE-03
3.0E-03
6.0E-02
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-02
2.5E-02
1. OE-03
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
ND
S
ND
S
S
NT
ND
D
D
NT
D
N/A
N/A
D
I
S
ND
D
D
ND
I
S
ND
ND
S
ND
D
S
PD
ND
D
D
NT
PD
N/A
N/A
D
I
PD
ND
D
D
ND
I
S
ND
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable
(N/A); Not Applicable (N/A) - Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); No Detectable Concentration (NDC)
The Number of Samples and Number of Detects shown above are post-consolidation values.
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Page 4 of 4
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Project: Somersworth
Location: Bedrock
User Name: MV
State: New Hampshire
Time Period: 1/1/1985 to 1/1/2001
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Well
Source/
Tail
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
B-12R
B-13R
B-6R
B-8R
B-9R
BRW-1
OB-15R
OB-16R
OB-22R
OB-23R
OB-24R
OB-4R
OB-5R
OB-6R
OB-7R
OB-9R
PS-1R
tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
B-12R
B-13R
B-6R
B-8R
B-9R
BRW-1
OB-15R
OB-16R
OB-22R
OB-23R
OB-24R
OB-4R
OB-5R
OB-6R
OB-7R
OB-9R
s
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
11
10
10
10
9
1
8
9
1
1
1
8
8
10
6
2
5
10
9
10
9
8
1
8
9
1
1
1
8
8
10
6
2
9
10
10
10
8
0
3
9
0
0
1
6
8
7
0
0
5
3
0
4
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
5.0E-02
4.6E-02
8.6E-01
2.5E-01
4.4E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
3.1E-01
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
5.9E-01
8.4E-03
1.8E-01
4.5E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
4.7E-02
1.5E-03
1.0E-03
1.8E-02
1.0E-03
5.1E-03
1.5E-03
1.0E-03
1.5E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
3.4E-02
5.2E-02
4.2E-01
3.0E-01
3.0E-02
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
2.7E-01
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
5.9E-01
4.3E-03
1.0E-01
3.3E-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
2.0E-02
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .5E-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1. OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
D
S
PD
I
NT
ND
NT
NT
ND
ND
N/A
D
NT
D
ND
ND
NT
D
ND
D
ND
NT
N/A
ND
S
ND
ND
ND
NT
PD
S
ND
ND
D
PI
D
I
NT
ND
I
PI
ND
ND
N/A
D
S
D
ND
ND
NT
D
ND
D
ND
NT
N/A
ND
S
ND
ND
ND
I
D
D
ND
ND
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Friday, May 29, 2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Well
Source/
Tail
Number
of
Samples
Number Average Median
of Cone. Cone.
Detects (mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann- Linear
Kendall Regression
Trend Trend
tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
PS-1R
T
5
0
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
Yes
ND
ND
trichloroethylene (TCE)
Vinyl
Note:
(N/A)
B-12R
B-13R
B-6R
B-8R
B-9R
BRW-1
OB-15R
OB-16R
OB-22R
OB-23R
OB-24R
OB-4R
OB-5R
OB-6R
OB-7R
OB-9R
PS-1R
chloride
B-12R
B-13R
B-6R
B-8R
B-9R
BRW-1
OB-15R
OB-16R
OB-22R
OB-23R
OB-24R
OB-4R
OB-5R
OB-6R
OB-7R
OB-9R
PS-1R
S
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
11
10
10
10
9
1
8
9
1
1
1
8
8
10
6
2
5
10
9
8
9
8
1
8
9
1
1
1
8
8
10
6
2
5
Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable
; Not Applicable (N/A) - Due to insufficient Data
11
9
9
10
5
1
6
9
0
1
1
4
7
8
0
0
2
4
8
8
9
7
0
2
9
0
0
0
2
7
4
0
0
5
(S); Probably
(< 4 sampling
3.1E+00
1.0E-02
1.1E-01
2.8E-02
1.8E-02
6.1E-02
6.4E-03
1.5E-02
1.0E-03
9.5E-02
1 .5E+00
3.6E-03
3.4E-02
3.6E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
3.4E-02
6.0E-03
1.1E-02
9.9E-02
1.9E-02
1.1E-02
2.0E-03
1.7E-03
6.5E-02
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-03
2.0E-02
1.7E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-02
Decreasing
events); No
2.0E+00
7.7E-03
4.3E-02
2.6E-02
2.3E-03
6.1E-02
5.1E-03
1 .3E-02
1 .OE-03
9.5E-02
1.5E+00
1 .OE-03
5.1E-03
1.9E-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1 .OE-03
2. OE-03
1 .2E-02
1.0E-01
2.2E-02
9.0E-03
2. OE-03
2. OE-03
5.7E-02
2. OE-03
2. OE-03
2. OE-03
2.0E-03
1.4E-02
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
1 JE-02
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
S
D
D
NT
NT
N/A
D
NT
ND
N/A
N/A
PD
D
D
ND
ND
PD
D
S
I
I
PI
ND
NT
S
ND
ND
ND
S
PI
PI
ND
ND
NT
D
D
D
NT
NT
N/A
D
NT
ND
N/A
N/A
D
D
D
ND
ND
PD
D
NT
I
I
I
ND
NT
NT
ND
ND
ND
PD
NT
NT
ND
ND
NT
(PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable
Detectable Concentration (NDC)
The Number of Samples and Number of Detects shown above are post-consolidation values.
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Friday, May 29, 2009
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Project: Somersworth
Location: Bedrock
User Name: MV
State: New Hampshire
Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 10/1/2007
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 Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
B-12R
B-13R
B-6R
B-8R
B-9R
BRW-1
CTW-1DR
CTW-2DR
OB-101R
OB-15R
OB-16R
OB-21RA
OB-22R
OB-23R
OB-24R
OB-4R
OB-5R
OB-6R
OB-7R
OB-9R
PS-1R
tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
B-12R
B-13R
B-6R
B-8R
B-9R
BRW-1
CTW-1DR
CTW-2DR
OB-101R
OB-15R
OB-16R
OB-21RA
s
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
18
18
18
18
18
16
3
3
3
18
18
17
18
18
17
10
18
11
10
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
16
3
3
3
18
18
17
4
18
18
18
18
3
3
3
0
0
5
17
0
6
17
3
18
3
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
1.7E-02
2.9E-02
2.5E-01
2.7E-01
6.3E-02
2.0E-03
6.0E-01
3.7E-01
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.3E-02
1.1E-02
1.0E-03
9.3E-03
3.0E-01
1.3E-03
5.0E-01
9.7E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.5E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.9E-03
1 .OE-03
3.0E-02
2.6E-01
2.7E-01
6.2E-02
1 .OE-03
6.9E-01
3.5E-01
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1.1E-02
1. OE-03
1 .OE-03
2.9E-01
1 .OE-03
5.2E-01
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
2.0E-02
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1. OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .2E-02
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
NT
D
PI
D
I
NT
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
D
S
ND
D
D
S
NT
S
ND
ND
I
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
ND
NT
I
D
I
D
I
PD
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
D
S
ND
D
D
S
S
S
ND
ND
I
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
ND
NT
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Page 1 of 3
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Well
Source/
Tail
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
tetrachloroethylene(PCE)
OB-22R
OB-23R
OB-24R
OB-4R
OB-5R
OB-6R
OB-7R
OB-9R
PS-1R
trichloroethylene (TCE)
B-12R
B-13R
B-6R
B-8R
B-9R
BRW-1
CTW-1DR
CTW-2DR
OB-101R
OB-15R
OB-16R
OB-21RA
OB-22R
OB-23R
OB-24R
OB-4R
OB-5R
OB-6R
OB-7R
OB-9R
PS-1R
Vinyl chloride
B-12R
B-13R
B-6R
B-8R
B-9R
BRW-1
CTW-1DR
CTW-2DR
OB-101R
OB-15R
OB-16R
OB-21RA
T
S
s
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
18
18
17
10
18
11
10
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
16
3
3
3
18
18
17
18
18
17
10
18
11
10
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
16
3
3
3
18
18
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
3
3
12
1
16
3
3
0
0
0
17
0
9
17
1
4
0
0
0
6
0
17
17
18
18
4
3
3
0
0
5
17
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
3.0E+00
1.5E-03
1.0E-03
8.9E-03
9.7E-04
3.3E-02
7.0E-02
4.5E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.2E-02
1.0E-03
1.1E-01
6.9E-01
9.4E-04
2.6E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.1E-02
1.5E-01
3.6E-02
8.4E-03
2.5E-03
7.2E-02
6.7E-02
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
4.4E-03
6.7E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.6E+00
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
9.4E-03
1.0E-03
3.2E-02
8.4E-02
4.7E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.1E-02
1.0E-03
3.8E-03
6.7E-01
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.2E-02
1.7E-01
3.6E-02
8.5E-03
2.0E-03
8.3E-02
6.8E-02
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
6.7E-03
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
S
S
D
S
S
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
ND
NT
ND
D
D
S
NT
ND
ND
ND
I
ND
S
PI
NT
S
S
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
D
S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
PD
D
D
S
PD
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
ND
NT
ND
D
D
S
NT
ND
ND
ND
I
ND
NT
NT
PI
S
PD
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
D
S
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Page 2 of 3
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Source/
Well Tai,
Number
of
Samples
Number
of
Detects
Average
Cone.
(mg/L)
Median
Cone.
(mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Vinyl chloride
OB-22R
OB-23R
OB-24R
OB-4R
OB-5R
OB-6R
OB-7R
OB-9R
PS-1R
T
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
18
18
17
10
18
11
10
18
18
8
7
13
0
18
6
0
0
18
2.3E-03
5.0E-03
3.8E-02
2.0E-03
9.7E-02
2.3E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.3E-02
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.6E-02
2.0E-03
1 .OE-01
2.1E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-02
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
S
D
I
ND
I
NT
ND
ND
I
PD
D
I
ND
I
I
ND
ND
I
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable
(N/A); Not Applicable (N/A) - Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); No Detectable Concentration (NDC)
The Number of Samples and Number of Detects shown above are post-consolidation values.
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Page 3 of 3
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: B-8L
Well Type: T
COC: Vinyl chloride
Time Period: 11/16/1989 to 10/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E-01 -
__ 5.0E-01 -
_j
g 4.0E-01 -
c
| 3.0E-01
g
g 2.0E-01 -
o
0 1.0E-01 -
O.OE+00 J
Data Table:
vvv
»
*
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
V' o5V5V' o**
* * »*
** *
. V
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.5E-01
4.4E-01
3.6E-01
3.6E-01
4.6E-01
2.6E-01
3.6E-01
2.6E-01
2.9E-01
4.7E-01
2.9E-01
2.2E-01
3.4E-01
3.7E-01
2.7E-01
3.8E-01
3.2E-01
3.4E-01
4.7E-01
3.6E-01
3.8E-01
4.6E-01
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 78
Confidence in
Trend:
| 96.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
| °-21
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
1 '
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/7/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
Well Type
T
T
T
Effective
Date
4/1/2007
7/1/2007
10/1/2007
Constituent
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.7E-01
4.6E-01
4.9E-01
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/7/2009
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: B-8L
Well Type: s
COC: Vinyl chloride
Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 10/1/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
<£ .& jS* <$>
*
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
1
O
1
Concen
5.0E-01 -
4.0E-01 -
3.0E-01
2.0E-01 -
1.0E-01 -
n np4-nn .
^
* * * * *
* * *
* *
I 76
Confidence in
Trend:
| 9979%
Coefficient of Variation:
|
0.22
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Effective
Well Well Type Date
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
4/1/2002
7/1/2002
10/1/2002
4/1/2003
7/1/2003
10/1/2003
4/1/2004
7/1/2004
10/1/2004
4/1/2005
7/1/2005
10/1/2005
4/1/2006
7/1/2006
10/1/2006
4/1/2007
7/1/2007
10/1/2007
1 '
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
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
Note: Increasing (1); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
2.6E-01 1
2.9E-01 1
4.7E-01 1
2.9E-01 1
2.2E-01 1
3.4E-01 1
3.7E-01 1
2.7E-01 1
3.8E-01 1
3.2E-01 1
3.4E-01 2
4.7E-01 1
3.6E-01 1
3.8E-01 1
4.6E-01 1
3.7E-01 1
4.6E-01 1
4.9E-01 1
Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/6/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: B-8L
Well Type: s
COC: Vinyl chloride
Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 10/1/2007
Consolidation Period: Yearly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
O)
o
Concen
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 12
Confidence in
Trend:
| 98.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
|
0.18
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
'
Data Table:
Well
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
B-8L
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
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
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.9E-01
2.9E-01
3.7E-01
3.4E-01
3.8E-01
4.6E-01
Number of
Samples
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Detects
3
3
3
3
3
3
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/6/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: FS-9A
Well Type: s
COC: Vinyl chloride
Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 10/1/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
^ <^ & ^ <^ & ^ <^ & Mann Kendall S Statistic:
45E01
4.0E-01 -
U 3.5E-01 -
£ 3.0E-01 -
§ 2.5E-01
^
2 2.0E-01
§ 1.5E-01 -
o 1.0E-01 -
5.0E-02 -
Data Table:
T ^ ^
*
* * *
Effective
Well Well Type Date
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
FS-9A S
4/1/2002
7/1/2002
10/1/2002
4/1/2003
7/1/2003
10/1/2003
4/1/2004
7/1/2004
10/1/2004
4/1/2005
7/1/2005
10/1/2005
4/1/2006
7/1/2006
10/1/2006
4/1/2007
7/1/2007
10/1/2007
\ -^ v \ -^ v
* * *
+
^
^
^
* »
1
I -25
Confidence in
Trend:
1 81.6%
1
Coefficient of Variation:
| °-76
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
1 S
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
Vinyl chloride 6.2E-02
Vinyl chloride 1.2E-01
Vinyl chloride 1.2E-01
Vinyl chloride 1.6E-01
Vinyl chloride 1.1E-01
Vinyl chloride 4.0E-02
Vinyl chloride 2.9E-01
Vinyl chloride 3.4E-01
Vinyl chloride 3.9E-01
Vinyl chloride 3.4E-01
Vinyl chloride 2.4E-01
Vinyl chloride 3.3E-01
Vinyl chloride 1.4E-01
Vinyl chloride 2.3E-01
Vinyl chloride 4.6E-02
Vinyl chloride 1.0E-03
Vinyl chloride 3.7E-02
Vinyl chloride 2.2E-02
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND
= Non-detect
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
ND 1 0
1 1
1 1
(D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/6/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: FS-7
Well Type: T
COC: Vinyl chloride
Time Period: 11/16/1989 to 10/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
_J
B)
E.
o
«
>I
§
o
o
o
7.0E-02
6.0E-02
5.0E-02 -
4.0E-02 -
3.0E-02 -
2.0E-02 -
1. OE-02
n np4-nn .
A
. ...*
** ******* *
* * * **4 * ** ***»
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 84
Confidence in
Trend:
| 94.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.93
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I pi
Data Table:
Well
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
4/1/1996
7/1/1996
1/1/1997
4/1/1997
7/1/1997
1/1/1998
10/1/1999
1/1/2001
4/1/2001
7/1/2001
10/1/2001
4/1/2002
7/1/2002
10/1/2002
4/1/2003
7/1/2003
10/1/2003
4/1/2004
7/1/2004
10/1/2004
4/1/2005
7/1/2005
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
Result (mg/L) Flag
1. OE-02
1.1E-02
2.0E-03
5.0E-03
2.9E-02
5.0E-03
5.8E-02
8.0E-03
9.0E-03
5.0E-03
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
1 .OE-02
6.0E-03
9.0E-03
6.0E-03
8.0E-03
1 .5E-02
1 .OE-02
6.0E-03
7.0E-03
5.0E-03
iMumoer or
Samples
3
5
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
3
5
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/7/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
FS-7
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
10/1/2005
4/1/2006
7/1/2006
10/1/2006
4/1/2007
7/1/2007
10/1/2007
Constituent
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Result (mg/L) Flag
4.0E-03
1.5E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
2.1E-02
1.8E-02
1.2E-02
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/7/2009
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: FS-7
Well Type: T
COC: Vinyl chloride
Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 10/1/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
^ <^ & ^ <^ & ^ <^ & Mann Kendall S Statistic:
2 IF n?
.«IC~U£
;;[ 2.0E-02 -
"3)
E
~ 1.5E-02-
o
^
5
£ 1.0E-02-
8
c
0 5.0E-03 -
OOE+00
Data Table:
T ^ ^
A
* *
* *
*
Effective
Well Well Type Date
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
FS-7 T
4/1/2002
7/1/2002
10/1/2002
4/1/2003
7/1/2003
10/1/2003
4/1/2004
7/1/2004
10/1/2004
4/1/2005
7/1/2005
10/1/2005
4/1/2006
7/1/2006
10/1/2006
4/1/2007
7/1/2007
10/1/2007
\ -^ v \ -^ v
A
^
* * *
^
^
*
*
1 60
I
Confidence in
Trend:
i| 98.8%
i
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.50
1
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
1 '
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
Vinyl chloride 4.0E-03
Vinyl chloride 1.0E-02
Vinyl chloride 6.0E-03
Vinyl chloride 9.0E-03
Vinyl chloride 6.0E-03
Vinyl chloride 8.0E-03
Vinyl chloride 1.5E-02
Vinyl chloride 1.0E-02
Vinyl chloride 6.0E-03
Vinyl chloride 7.0E-03
Vinyl chloride 5.0E-03
Vinyl chloride 4.0E-03
Vinyl chloride 1.5E-02
Vinyl chloride 1.6E-02
Vinyl chloride 1.6E-02
Vinyl chloride 2.1E-02
Vinyl chloride 1 .8E-02
Vinyl chloride 1.2E-02
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND
= Non-detect
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
2 2
(D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/6/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: FS-4
Well Type: T
COC: Vinyl chloride
Time Period: 11/16/1989 to 10/15/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 RF 09
1 .OC~U£
1.4E-02-
^ 1.2E-02-
~ 1.0E-02-
c
s 8.0E-03
5
g 6.0E-03 -
o
o 4.0E-03
O
2.0E-03 -
n np4-nn
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
FS-4 T
/*vvv
*
» *
«
Effective
Pe Date
4/1/1996
7/1/1997
10/1/1999
1/1/2001
4/1/2001
7/1/2001
10/1/2001
4/1/2002
7/1/2002
10/1/2002
4/1/2003
7/1/2003
10/1/2003
4/1/2004
7/1/2004
10/1/2004
4/1/2005
7/1/2005
10/1/2005
4/1/2006
7/1/2006
10/1/2006
Date
^ ^' c? ^ <*$'
»
» »
4
*
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
o^'W^'o^
>
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.5E-03
5.0E-03
9.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.4E-02
6.5E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-02
8.0E-03
7.0E-03
6.0E-03
5.0E-03
4.0E-03
8.0E-03
7.0E-03
6.0E-03
6.0E-03
2. OE-03
5.0E-03
1 .OE-03 ND
1 .OE-03 ND
1. OE-03 ND
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
| -1 64
Confidence in
Trend:
| 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
| °-67
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
/Cnn Mrttal
(OCC IMOlc)
1 °
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
4 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
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 0
1 0
1 0
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/7/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
FS-4
FS-4
FS-4
Well Type
T
T
T
Effective
Date
4/1/2007
7/1/2007
10/1/2007
Constituent
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Result (mg/L)
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
Flag
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
0
0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/7/2009
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: B-6R
Well Type: s
COC: Vinyl chloride
Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 10/1/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
B>
o
1
Concent
2.5E-01 -
2.0E-01 -
1.5E-01
1.0E-01 -
5.0E-02 -
n np4-nn .
» » »
* ^ »
* * * *
*
I 37
Confidence in
Trend:
I 9T2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.41
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Effective
Well Well Type Date
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
S
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
4/1/2002
7/1/2002
10/1/2002
4/1/2003
7/1/2003
10/1/2003
4/1/2004
7/1/2004
10/1/2004
4/1/2005
7/1/2005
10/1/2005
4/1/2006
7/1/2006
10/1/2006
4/1/2007
7/1/2007
10/1/2007
1 Pl
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
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
Note: Increasing (1); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
2.6E-02 1
7.7E-02 1
1.4E-01 1
1.5E-01 1
1.8E-01 1
2.4E-01 1
2.5E-03 ND 1
1.8E-01 1
1.9E-01 1
1.7E-01 1
9.7E-02 1
1.8E-01 1
1.6E-01 1
1.4E-01 2
1.9E-01 1
1.4E-01 2
1.7E-01 1
1.9E-01 1
Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/7/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: B-6R
Well Type: s
COC: cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 10/1/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
^ <^ & ^ <^ & ^ <^ & Mann Kendall S Statistic:
4 DP m
t. \ICr\l 1
3.5E-01 -
-^
^ 3.0E-01
~ 2.5E-01 -
c
o
s 2.0E-01
S
= 1.5E-01 -
%
o 1.0E-01
O
5.0E-02 -
Data Table:
T ^ ^
4
^
v
^
*
Effective
Well Well Type Date
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
B-6R S
4/1/2002
7/1/2002
10/1/2002
4/1/2003
7/1/2003
10/1/2003
4/1/2004
7/1/2004
10/1/2004
4/1/2005
7/1/2005
10/1/2005
4/1/2006
7/1/2006
10/1/2006
4/1/2007
7/1/2007
10/1/2007
\ -^ v \ -^ v
^
A
*
* * * *
^
^
1 41
1
Confidence in
Trend:
i| 93.4%
i
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.31
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
1 PI
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 6.4E-02
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 1.6E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 1.2E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 2.1E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 2.2E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 3.6E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 3.2E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 2.7E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 2.9E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 3.1E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 2.0E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 3.4E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 3.0E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 2.2E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 2.6E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 2.6E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 2.5E-01
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 3.0E-01
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND
= Non-detect
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 1
(D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/7/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: B-6R
Well Type: s
COC: Vinyl chloride
Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 10/1/2007
Consolidation Period: Yearly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
_J
B>
o
Concentr
2.0E-01
1.8E-01
1.6E-01
1.4E-01
1.2E-01
1.0E-01
8.0E-02
6.0E-02
4.0E-02
2.0E-02
n np4-nn .
t!\* *A *^b» f& «fo ff
^f Q Q» Q V) v
^' ^' ^' ^' ^' ^'
* *
*
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 500%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.25
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
B-6R
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
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
Result (mg/L) Flag
7.7E-02
1.8E-01
1.8E-01
1.7E-01
1.6E-01
1.7E-01
Number of
Samples
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Detects
3
3
2
3
3
3
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/7/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: OB-5R
Well Type: s
COC: Vinyl chloride
Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 10/1/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
^ <^ & ^ <^ & ^ <^ & Mann Kendall S Statistic:
1 RF ni
1 .UC~U 1
1.4E-01 -
3, 1.2E-01
P
= 1.0E-01 -
c
o
s 8.0E-02
S
= 6.0E-02 -
%
o 4.0E-02
O
2.0E-02 -
Data Table:
T ^ ^
+
^
t
»
*
*
Effective
Well Well Type Date
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
OB-5R S
4/1/2002
7/1/2002
10/1/2002
4/1/2003
7/1/2003
10/1/2003
4/1/2004
7/1/2004
10/1/2004
4/1/2005
7/1/2005
10/1/2005
4/1/2006
7/1/2006
10/1/2006
4/1/2007
7/1/2007
10/1/2007
\ -^ v \ -^ v
»
* * * *
* * * *
1 62
1
Confidence in
Trend:
i| 99.0%
i
Coefficient of Variation:
I 0.26
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
1 '
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
Vinyl chloride 4.5E-02
Vinyl chloride 5.4E-02
Vinyl chloride 8.2E-02
Vinyl chloride 8.7E-02
Vinyl chloride 7.3E-02
Vinyl chloride 1.0E-01
Vinyl chloride 1.0E-01
Vinyl chloride 1.2E-01
Vinyl chloride 1.1E-01
Vinyl chloride 1.0E-01
Vinyl chloride 1.2E-01
Vinyl chloride 1.3E-01
Vinyl chloride 1.0E-01
Vinyl chloride 1.2E-01
Vinyl chloride 1.4E-01
Vinyl chloride 7.2E-02
Vinyl chloride 9.3E-02
Vinyl chloride 1.0E-01
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND
= Non-detect
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
(D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/7/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: OB-5R
Well Type: s
COC: Vinyl chloride
Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 10/1/2007
Consolidation Period: Yearly
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
_J
1
o
1
Concer
1.4E-01 -
1.2E-01 -
1.0E-01 -
8.0E-02
6.0E-02
4.0E-02
2.0E-02
n np4-nn .
Date
S^ S^ S^ S^ S^ S^
» *
^
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
| 8978%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.26
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I NT
Data Table:
Well
OB-5R
OB-5R
OB-5R
OB-5R
OB-5R
OB-5R
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
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
Result (mg/L) Flag
5.4E-02
8.7E-02
1.1E-01
1.2E-01
1.2E-01
9.3E-02
Number of
Samples
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Detects
3
3
3
3
3
3
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
4/7/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: OB-23R
Well Type: s
COC: trichloroethylene (TCE)
Time Period: 1/1/2002 to 10/1/2007
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
^ <^ & ^ <^ & ^ <^ & Mann Kendall S Statistic:
1 fiR-nn
1 .U^> UU
9.0E-01 -
^ 8.0E-01 -
1 7.0E-01
"JT 6.0E-01
o
s 5.0E-01
S
£ 4.0E-01
| 3.0E-01
0 2.0E-01 -
1.0E-01
Data Table:
T ^ ^
\ -^ v \ -^ v
* *
Effective
Well Well Type Date
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
OB-23R S
4/1/2002
7/1/2002
10/1/2002
4/1/2003
7/1/2003
10/1/2003
4/1/2004
7/1/2004
10/1/2004
4/1/2005
7/1/2005
10/1/2005
4/1/2006
7/1/2006
10/1/2006
4/1/2007
7/1/2007
10/1/2007
1 -93
1
Confidence in
Trend:
| 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 2.21
I
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
1 D
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
trichloroethylene (TCE) 9.0E-01
trichloroethylene (TCE) 6.4E-01
trichloroethylene (TCE) 1 .1 E-01
trichloroethylene (TCE) 1.5E-01
trichloroethylene (TCE) 7.7E-03
trichloroethylene (TCE) 6.6E-03
trichloroethylene (TCE) 6.8E-03
trichloroethylene (TCE) 1.0E-03
trichloroethylene (TCE) 7.6E-03
trichloroethylene (TCE) 2.1 E-01
trichloroethylene (TCE) 1.0E-03
trichloroethylene (TCE) 1.0E-03
trichloroethylene (TCE) 1.0E-03
trichloroethylene (TCE) 1.0E-03
trichloroethylene (TCE) 1.0E-03
trichloroethylene (TCE) 1.0E-03
trichloroethylene (TCE) 1.0E-03
trichloroethylene (TCE) 1.0E-03
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND
= Non-detect
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
ND 1 0
1 1
2 2
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 2 0
(D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
6/1/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
GROUND WATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION REVIEW
SOMERSWORTH LANDFILL SITE
Somersworth, New Hampshire
Acronyms
50
-------
ACRONYMS
CE
cDCE
CTW
DCE
DCM
EMS
GMZ
ICL
LTMO
MAROS
NA
PCE
PLC
POC
PRA
ROD
SAP
TCE
tDCE
UCL
U.S. EPA
VC
chlorinated ethene
c/5-l,2-dichloroethene
chemical treatment wall
1,1-dichloroethene
dichloromethane
EMS Environmental Management Support, Inc.
groundwater management zone
interim cleanup level
long-term monitoring optimization
Monitoring and Remediation Optimization Software
natural attenuation
tetrachloroethene
permeable landfill cover
point of compliance
preferred remedial action
record of decision
site sampling and analysis plan
trichloroethene
Upper Confidence Level
United States Environmental Protection Agency
vinyl chloride
-------
VOC volatile organic compound
ZVI zero-valent iron
------- |