Solid Waste and EPA-542-R-09-013
Emergency Response September 2009
(5203P) www.epa.gov
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
Delatte Metals Superfund Site
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Region 6
-------
Solid Waste and EPA-542-R-09-013
Emergency Response September 2009
(5203P) www.epa.gov
Groundwater Monitoring
Network Optimization
Delatte Metals Superfund Site
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Region 6
-------
Notice and Disclaimer
Work described herein was performed by GSI Environmental, Inc. for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I
1.0 INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 Site Background and Regulatory History 6
1.2 Geology, Hydrogeology and Conceptual Site Model 7
1.3 Remedial Design 8
2.0 QUALITATIVE EVALUATION 9
2.1 Site Characterization 9
2.2 Data Quality and Quantity 10
2.3 Monitoring Objectives and Locations 13
2.3.1 Plume Delineation and Point-of-Compliance Wells 14
2.3.2 Historical Source Areas 15
2.3.3 Surface Water 15
2.3.4 PRB Monitoring 16
3.0 QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION 17
3.1FWBZ 17
3.1.1 Plume Stability 17
3.1.2 Well Redundancy and Sufficiency 20
3.1.3 Sampling Frequency 20
3.2SWBZ 21
3.2.1 Plume Stability 21
3.2.2 Well Redundancy and Sufficiency 22
3.2.3 Sampling Frequency 23
3.3TWBZ 23
4.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24
5.0 REFERENCES 28
-------
TABLES 30
Table 1 Groundwater Screening Concentrations and Criteria
Table 2 First Water-Bearing Zone Monitoring Well Network Summary
Table 3 First Water-Bearing Zone Aquifer Input Parameters
Table 4 First Water-Bearing Zone pH Summary Results: 2004-2008
Table 5 First Water-Bearing Zone Well Trend Summary Results: 2004-2008
Table 6 First Water-Bearing Zone Moment Estimates and Trends
Table 7 First Water-Bearing Zone MCES Sampling Frequency Analysis Results
Table 8 First Water-Bearing Zone Final Recommended Monitoring Network
Table 9 Second Water-Bearing Zone Monitoring Well Network Summary
Table 10 Second Water-Bearing Zone Aquifer Input Parameters
Table 11 Second-Water Bearing Zone Well Trend Summary Results: 2004-2008
Table 12 Second Water-Bearing Zone Moment Estimates and Trends
Table 13 Second Water-Bearing Zone MCES Sampling Frequency Analysis Results
Table 14 Second Water-Bearing Zone Final Recommended Monitoring Network
Table 15 Second Water-Bearing Zone Monitoring Well Network Summary
Table 16 Third-Water Bearing Zone Well Trend Summary Results: 2004-2008
Table 17 Third Water-Bearing Zone Final Recommended Monitoring Network
FIGURES 50
Figure 1 Groundwater Monitoring Locations
Figure 2 FWBZ Mann-Kendall Trends and First Moments Arsenic and Lead
Figure 3 FWBZ Mann-Kendall Trends and First Moments Manganese and Nickel
Figure 4 SWBZ Mann-Kendall Trends and First Moments Lead and Manganese
Figure 5 Delatte Recommended Monitoring Locations
APPENDIX A: MAROS 2.2 METHODOLOGY A-l
APPENDIX B: MAROS REPORTS B-l
APPENDIX C: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ROD AND RI C-l
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report reviews and provides recommendations for improving a groundwater
monitoring network for the Delatte Metals Superfund site. The Delatte Metals site
consists of former battery recycling facilities located just outside of Ponchatoula,
Louisiana. Substantial remedial work has been accomplished at the site, including
removal of thousands of yards of contaminated soil, decommissioning of buildings and
tanks, the installation of a bio-barrier to treat contaminated groundwater in the highest of
the three water-bearing zones, and institutional controls to secure the site from
inappropriate use. The site was deleted from the NPL in August 2005.
The primary goal of optimizing the groundwater monitoring strategy at the Delatte
Metals site is to create a dataset that fully supports site management decisions while
minimizing the time and expense associated with collecting and interpreting data. The
recommendations contained in this report are intended to further develop understanding
of the site conceptual model and management objectives and to support the development
of a comprehensive management strategy for the future, within the context of CERCLA
andtheNCP.
The current groundwater monitoring network has been evaluated using a formal
qualitative approach as well as statistical tools found in the Monitoring and Remediation
Optimization System (MAROS) software. Recommendations are made for groundwater
sampling frequency and location based on current hydrogeologic conditions and pending
data needs. The monitoring program was evaluated using analytical data collected from
January 2004—following installation of the remedy in the First Water Bearing Zone
(FWBZ)—to August 2008. Historical data collected in support of the remedial
investigation (RI) (TetraTech 2000b) were considered as part of the qualitative analysis
to identify historical sources and maximum concentrations. This report outlines
recommendations based on a formal evaluation, but final determination of any sampling
locations and frequencies are to be decided by the overseeing regulatory agencies.
Project Goals and Objectives
The goal of the groundwater long-term monitoring optimization (LTMO) process is to
review the current monitoring program and provide recommendations for improving the
efficiency and accuracy of the network in supporting site management decisions and
confirming achievement of Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs). Specifically, the LTMO
process provides information on the completeness of site characterization, stability of the
plume, sufficiency and redundancy of monitoring locations and an appropriate sampling
frequency. The end product of the LTMO process at the Delatte site is a recommendation
for specific sampling locations, frequencies, and analytes as well as data management
practices that address site management needs.
Based on the site history and overall goals of the Superfund program, the following
expanded monitoring objectives are recommended to support future site management
-------
decisions. Some of these suggested objectives have already been recommended in other
site documents, such as the Five Year Review and Quarterly Operation and Maintenance
Reports, and are reinforced here:
• Delineate the extent of groundwater affected above primary EPA Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in all three groundwater units and groundwater
affected above ecological risk standards (EPA Water Quality Criteria) in the
FWBZ.
• Delineate the extent of the FWBZ north of Tributary 1 and south of Tributary 2.
• Monitor concentrations of contaminants over time in the affected groundwater
units.
• Monitor possible exposure pathways such as groundwater discharge to surface-
water bodies, wetlands, and lower groundwater units.
• Monitor the boundaries of the institutional control (1C) to ensure that
concentrations do not exceed regulatory limits in offsite locations.
• Monitor groundwater in historical source areas to confirm progress toward
unrestricted property use.
• Monitor locations that may indicate an impending exceedance of regulatory levels
at compliance or exposure points.
Groundwater Monitoring Recommendations
The following recommendations are made based on the results of both a qualitative
review and statistical analysis of the current monitoring network. Detailed results of the
analyses are presented in Sections 2.0 and 3.0. Recommendations contained in this report
are designed to address program monitoring goals and objectives and to help answer
outstanding questions on the management of the site. The recommendations are intended
to help clarify the site conceptual model and enhance data management to demonstrate
the accomplishment of site goals.
• Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)for groundwater in
each hydrogeologic zone should be defined or clarified and made available to site
stakeholders. For each medium where contaminants are left in place, protective
concentrations should be specified. Protective concentrations are calculated based
on the site-specific transport mechanisms associated with complete or potentially
complete exposure pathways. Additionally, regulatory standards applicable to
Class 2 and 3 groundwaters outside of the institutional control should be clarified.
While current site groundwater concentrations probably do not present excess
risk, without clear ARARs, regulatory screening levels and remedial goals, the
appropriateness of the analyte list, sampling locations and analytical methods for
-------
groundwater monitoring cannot be evaluated. Without unambiguous remedial
goals, the efficacy of the remedy cannot be determined. Without specific risk-
based standards, attainment of RAOs cannot be demonstrated.
No new monitoring locations are recommended for the second and third water-
bearing zones (SWBZ and TWBZ). No data gaps were found in the
characterization of the SWBZ and TWBZ (with the exception of detection limits
and analyte list mentioned below). No wells in the SWBZ or TWBZ are
recommended for removal from the program at this time. Reduce the frequency of
groundwater sampling in the SWBZ and TWBZ to semiannual.
Four new groundwater monitoring locations are recommended to delineate
affected groundwater in the northern FWBZ outside the current extent of the
network. New locations are needed to evaluate the performance of the remedy,
serve as point-of-compliance wells, monitor plume stability, and assess
concentrations discharging to surface water. A fifth groundwater monitoring
location is recommended for the upgradient source area defined by Geoprobe
locations DD-27 and DE-27 from the RI. Monitoring in this area would help
demonstrate the extent of source attenuation since demolition and soil remediation
activities and to assess possible migration of residual contaminants toward the
surface-water discharge points.
Continue quarterly sampling frequency for existing and new monitoring locations
in the FWBZ, as well as surface water. Quarterly sampling is recommended for 2
to 3 years, using consistently low laboratory reporting limits and the expanded
analyte list, until a dataset with sufficient statistical power has been developed to
address site monitoring objectives. Consider re-evaluating the monitoring network
in 2 - 3 years for possible further reductions in both the number of locations and
frequency of sampling
Maintain a site-wide electronic analytical database with a complete set of
historical and current analytical data for all constituents. Historical groundwater
characterization data, including samples collected by Geoprobe, should be readily
accessible to compare with current data. Also, supplemental data such as the
piezometer samples taken to evaluate remedy performance should be available to
compare with data from permanent monitoring wells and predicted concentrations
in the area. The database should include detection limits, sample location
coordinates, sampling methods, and other details that would streamline
interpretation of site data.
Collect additional data on surface- water concentrations and perform
calculations to determine the effect of dilution on groundwater discharge to
surface water in order to develop protective concentration levels for the FWBZ.
The 2007 five-year review recommends a program to sample surface water and an
expanded investigation of groundwater/surface-water interface. These data will
provide important information on impacts of affected groundwater discharge to
-------
surface water. Groundwater discharge to surface water is a potentially complete
exposure pathway for which ARARs and remedial goals have not been fully
developed. Protective concentrations for FWBZ groundwater discharging to
surface water may be calculated by estimating surface water flow in the water
bodies to quantify the effect of dilution. A resulting theoretical impact to the
surface water could then be compared to protective surface water standards
calculated in the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) (TetraTech 2000c) and
in the Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA). Groundwater should be
sampled near the discharge to Tributaries 1 and 2 and Selsers Creek using the
expanded analyte list to demonstrate that discharged concentrations are below
protective levels.
Expand the analyte list to include all constituents historically found above
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in the FWBZ and those identified in the
BERA (TetraTech, 2000a) as contaminants of concern (COCs) for ecological
receptors. An expanded analytical list will help clarify the remedial goals and
ARARs for each groundwater zone and confirm the results of the remedial action
Historical groundwater data indicate the presence of metals exceeding
conservative screening levels that currently are not included as laboratory
analytes. These contaminants include aluminum, antimony, beryllium, cadmium,
copper, selenium and zinc in addition to acidity, lead, arsenic, manganese,
thallium, and nickel (see Table 1).
Establish analytical laboratory reporting limits significantly lower than
conservative screening levels. As stated in the first five-year review (EPA 2007),
collected data are of insufficient resolution to reliably determine concentration
trends for some contaminants. For detection monitoring, high reporting limits
mask the presence of low concentrations of constituents, limiting the ability of the
sampling program to achieve the stated goals. Variable reporting limits introduce
artificial patterns into the data analysis for samples with low concentrations. Data
quality objectives for reporting limits and detection limits should be clarified and
communicated to contracting laboratories.
IV
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Delatte Metals Superfund site (DM site) is a former National Priorities Listed (NPL)
site located just outside of Ponchatoula, Louisiana. The site is located in a rural section of
Tangipahoa Parish, with surrounding agricultural, light industrial and undeveloped land.
The current site encompasses the former Delatte Metals, Inc. facility and the adjacent
abandoned North Ponchatoula Battery Company (NPBC) facility. The combined
properties cover approximately 18.9 acres. The total area of concern, including offsite
wetlands, tributaries, Selsers Creek, Cypress Swamp, residences and undeveloped land, is
approximately 56.8 acres.
Groundwater at the DM site is affected by elevated concentrations of metals and low pH
as a result of historical battery recycling activities. The DM site has undergone extensive
remediation but there are currently several questions outstanding relating to future site
management for which groundwater monitoring data are required. The purpose of the
following long-term monitoring optimization (LTMO) is to review the current
groundwater monitoring program and provide recommendations to improve the
effectiveness, accuracy, and efficiency of the program a to support site management
decisions.
In order to recommend an optimized network that addresses monitoring objectives,
spatial and analytical data from the DM site were analyzed using a series of quantitative
and qualitative methods. A quantitative statistical evaluation of site data was conducted
using tools in the MAROS software. The qualitative evaluation included a review of site
characterization, assumptions, sources, hydrogeologic conditions, well construction and
placement relative to potential receptors and site boundaries. Both quantitative statistical
and qualitative evaluations were combined using a 'lines of evidence' approach to
recommend an updated set of monitoring objectives and a final groundwater monitoring
strategy. Tasks performed during the analysis of the monitoring network include:
• Review site documents to identify key components of the site conceptual model
and the regulatory framework and to determine future needs for and use of site
groundwater data.
• Evaluate well locations and screened intervals within the context of the
hydrogeologic regime to determine if the site is well characterized.
• Determine if data are of sufficient quality and quantity to address management
decisions.
• Evaluate overall "plume stability" through concentration trend and moment
analysis.
• Evaluate individual well concentration trends over time for analytes of concern.
-------
• Recommend sampling locations based on an analysis of spatial uncertainty and
hydrogeologic factors.
• Recommend sampling frequency based on both qualitative and quantitative
statistical analysis results.
A discussion of the background and regulatory context for the DM site is provided below.
Section 2.0 contains the qualitative evaluation of the monitoring network. The results of
the quantitative, statistical analysis of groundwater data are provided in Section 3.0.
Summary conclusions and recommendations are presented in Section 4.0. A list of
reports, site documents and data reviewed for the analysis are included in Section 5.0.
1.1 SITE BACKGROUND AND REGULATORY HISTORY
Battery recycling and smelting operations began at Delatte Metals, Inc. during the 1960s
and continued until approximately 1992. The adjacent NPBC operated between the 1960s
and 1981. Site operations included demolition of spent lead-acid batteries to recover lead
plates, which were subsequently smelted to produce lead ingots. At the Delatte facility,
the process involved sawing off the tops of batteries, removing the lead plates, and
dumping the battery-acid into a sump. Until the 1980s battery acid was pumped into an
unlined pond on the north side of the property (between Tributaries 1 and 2 see Figure 1).
The empty battery casings were processed onsite and either stored as battery chips or
recycled as plastic. Rinse water from the battery chip operation was stored in a settling
pond where the recoverable solids (mainly lead sulfate and lead oxide) were transported
to the smelter for lead recycling. At the NPBC, the process was similar, but battery acid
was dumped into two unlined neutralization ponds.
The NPBC facility closed in 1981 for failing to meet state and federal environmental
regulations. The company had been cited several times for hazardous waste discharges
during the 1970s and was denied a permit to discharge wastes to Selsers Creek. The
company was declared bankrupt in 1985. Throughout the 1980s, the Delatte facility
worked to close out the acid neutralization pond and was cited for various deficiencies in
environmental management. In the early 1990s, groundwater wells were installed and
various waste characterization activities were conducted to comply with Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) requirements. In June 1992, Delatte
ceased all smelting activities, but maintained limited operations as a scrap dealer.
By 1996, the LDEQ requested that EPA Region 6 consider the Delatte and NPBC sites as
one site. In July 1998, the combined Delatte/NPBC site was proposed for inclusion on the
NPL, and time-critical removal actions were initiated. The site was formally placed on
the NPL in January 1999.
An RI report with detailed site characterization was issued for the DM site in 2000
(TetraTech 2000b). The RI included extensive soil, sediment, groundwater, surface
water, and biota sampling. Human health and ecological risk assessments ((TetraTech
2000c; TetraTech 2000a)) were also completed in 2000. A record of decision (ROD)
(EPA 2000) was signed in September 2000 that selected the following remedies:
-------
• Immobilization of contaminants to address the source of contamination
• Offsite disposal of immobilized wastes
• Permeable treatment walls to attempt to neutralize acidity and restrict transport of
contaminants in the FWBZ groundwater
• ICs, including deed notices, to limit access to the site and prohibit use of water in
the FWBZ and SWBZ within the 1C boundaries
• Groundwater monitoring to ensure protectiveness of the chosen remedy
A Final Remedial Design Report was completed in January 2001 (TetraTech 2001). The
remedial action (RA) was initiated in November 2002 and completed in September 2003.
The major components of the RA included excavation, immobilization, and transport of
principal threat wastes offsite and the installation of a permeable reactive barrier (PRB)
in the FWBZ to neutralize acid and retard metals in the upper groundwater zone. The DM
site was de-listed from the NPL in August 2005. A Five-Year Review (EPA 2007) was
issued in 2007.
1.2 GEOLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
The DM site is located in a topographically flat area, with ground surface elevations that
range between 5 and 15 feet above mean sea level. The site slopes west toward Selsers
Creek (see Figure 1) which flows to the south. A cypress swamp is located southwest of
the site across Weinberger Road and drains to Selsers Creek which also receives runoff
from the site via ditches and tributaries (TetraTech 2000b).
The area includes a mix of commercial, industrial, agricultural, and residential properties
with wetland areas to the south, southwest and due east. Residential property is located
south and north/northwest of the facility, while the site is bounded on the south by
Weinberger Road. Selsers Creek is west of the site, with residences on the west bank of
the creek. Tributaries to Selsers Creek run just north of the PRB and south of the northern
waste pile and acid pit area (see Figure 1).
Three distinct shallow water-bearing zones have been encountered beneath the site:
• The FWBZ extends from ground surface to a maximum of 28 ft below ground
surface (bgs) but is generally found between 5 and 15 ft bgs. The FWBZ is
thought to be hydraulically connected to Selsers Creek as well as the tributaries
feeding Selsers Creek. The measured thickness of the FWBZ ranges from 2 to 18
feet. This zone is discontinuous across the site and is typically unconfmed or
semi-confined. The zone is thought to pinch out just south of MW-06 and
somewhere north of Tributary 1, although the full extent of the FWBZ has not
been fully delineated (based on documents reviewed). Saturated conditions exist
east and southeast of MW-06, but the unit disappears or becomes unsaturated
toward the south (see Appendix C, Figure 5). The FWBZ is overlain by a
sandy/silty clay, and a clay unit is encountered underneath the transmissive zone.
-------
Groundwater flow in the FWBZ is generally to the north/northwest, but may be
influenced locally by discontinuities. According to the Louisiana Risk
Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP), analysis of hydrology and water
quality, the FWBZ is considered Class 3B (a source of a moderate quantity of
water, with a total dissolved solids concentration greater than 10,000 mg/L).
Under RECAP, Class 3 waters are divided into those discharging into potential
drinking water sources (DW) and those that do not discharge into potential
drinking water bodies (NDW). Louisiana RECAP screening levels for Class 3
waters (GW3) are listed on Table 1.
• The SWBZ is generally between 15 and 40 ft bgs and consists of layers of silt,
silty clay, clayey sand, silty sand, or sand. The SWBZ appears to be confined and
relatively continuous across the site, with the possible exception of one location
on the north side of the property. The RECAP classification of the SWBZ is 2C,
and it is not anticipated to be a water supply. The FWBZ does not overlie the
SWBZ at the south of the site near Weinberger Road. Current IC's on the Delatte
and NPBC property prevent use of FWBZ and SWBZ groundwater.
• The TWBZ is between 58 and 62 ft bgs, extending to a maximum depth of 100 ft
bgs. This zone appears to be confined and continuous across the site. The TWBZ
has historically been exploited for agricultural and domestic water supplies in the
area (EPA 2000b) and is a RECAP Class IB aquifer. The TWBZ is considered to
be in the regional shallow aquifer (TetraTech 2001). Because it is considered a
potential source of drinking water, MCLs are relevant water quality goals.
1.3 REMEDIAL DESIGN
The RAOs for the DM site as stated in the ROD include: 1) treat or remove the principal
threat wastes; 2) reduce or eliminate the direct contact threats associated with
contaminated soil; and 3) minimize or eliminate contaminant migration to ground water
and surface waters to levels that ensure beneficial reuse of these resources.
The primary components of the RA relative to affected groundwater included
solidification/stabilization or removal of contaminated soils (which were considered
primary sources), installation of a series of PRB walls to neutralize acidic water in the
FWBZ prior to discharge to the surface or lower units and groundwater monitoring of the
three water-bearing zones to ensure the protectiveness of the remedies.
The PRB is a passive treatment system consisting of three segments (see Figures 1-5) in
the northern area of the property. The PRB was constructed in a trench approximately 15
feet bgs and was composed of composted manure and limestone. The purpose of the PRB
is to neutralize the acidic conditions of the groundwater and to precipitate lead dissolved
in groundwater through geochemical interaction with the wall components. The PRB was
installed in May of 2003. A performance review of the PRB was conducted by the EPA's
Applied Research and Technical Support Branch using data collected between the years
of 2004 and 2006. The performance review was included in the Five-Year Review (EPA
2007).
8
-------
2.0 QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
The purpose of a qualitative evaluation of the monitoring network is to review the
accumulated data and fundamental assumptions underlying the conceptual site model and
determine if there are any outstanding data gaps that need to be addressed by modifying
the monitoring program. Qualitative evaluations include evaluating historical
characterization of source areas, hydrogeology, analyte list, data quality and quantity,
delineation of affected media, and locations of potential receptors relative to overall site
monitoring goals.
2.1 SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The DM site was extensively characterized during the RI in 1999 with results
summarized in the RI document (TetraTech 2000b). The RI identifies historical sources
of groundwater contaminants based on site operational history and surface soil sampling.
Likely contributors to groundwater contamination include the former acid pond, slag pile
and former battery chip pile in the north of the property, slag piles, on the NPBC site and
the former slag pile to the south of the site.
DM geology and hydrology were investigated using Geoprobe sampling and installation
of groundwater monitoring wells in addition to sampling local water supply wells
screened in the TWBZ. The groundwater monitoring network is illustrated on Figure 1.
Geologic cross-sections, well boring logs, and potentiometric surface maps are included
in the RI report. The RI was fairly comprehensive with regard to characterizing the three
groundwater units, and no significant data gaps were found in the characterization of the
SWBZ and TWBZ. However, the extent of the FWBZ was not well delineated north of
Tributary 1 and south of Tributary 2.
Figure 5 in Appendix C is reproduced from the ROD and indicates that the FWBZ
pinches out to the north and south of the acid neutralization pond area. However, the
location of the Geoprobe samples, shown on Figure 7 from the RI, along with the boring
logs and cross-sections, indicate that there was insufficient data to locate the extent of the
FWBZ with these data alone. No other data sources for delineation of the unit are
mentioned in the RI. Additional data may be necessary to delineate the extent of affected
groundwater in the FWBZ.
Delineation of the saturated extent of the FWBZ will provide data to estimate the extent
and magnitude of affected groundwater and the probable discharge points to surface
water and lower groundwater units. Hydrogeologic and analytical delineation of the
FWBZ will help estimate the total dissolved mass of contaminants in the FWBZ to
document the fate of contaminants over time and progress toward restoring the aquifer. If
the FWBZ does end north of BA-9, with affected groundwater meeting a fine-grained
zone, continued monitoring of the SWBZ well BA-09A and surface water in Tributary 1
is required to determine if contaminated groundwater is impacting these bodies.
As discussed in the ROD, primary source areas for contaminant migration to groundwater
include the former acid neutralization ponds in the north of the site, affected soils, and
-------
various slag piles dispersed across the site. The ROD does not address the possibility of
persistent secondary source areas that may contribute to groundwater contamination after
removal of affected soils. The assumptions about soil-based source areas were used to
develop remedial approaches and should be carefully reviewed using recent data. For
example, one location where data indicate a continuing residual source of arsenic is
located in the FWBZ north of the PRB, just outside of the extent of the former acid
neutralization ponds. Another area that may be a continuing source of contaminants to
groundwater is located east of the current FWBZ network on the NPBC property.
One purpose of LTMO is to examine the assumptions about sources put forth in the ROD
and determine if these assumptions are still supported by the data. Several key
assumptions articulated in the ROD and included in the conceptual site model should be
reviewed with continued data collection. These assumptions include: 1) concentrations of
contaminants in groundwater will attenuate when affected surface soils are removed; 2)
all COCs are co-located; 3) the major FWBZ source area is inside the PRB; and 4) lead is
the primary COC. Groundwater data should be collected to support a quantitative review
of these assumptions.
Key Point: The saturated extent of the FWBZ should be confirmed by geologic sampling
north of Tributary 1 and south of Tributary 2. Key assumptions of site source areas and
fate processes should be reviewed using the full dataset.
2.2 DATA QUALITY AND QUANTITY
A groundwater analytical dataset for the DM site was supplied by EPA Region 6. Data
supplied include results for arsenic, lead, manganese, nickel, and thallium at active
monitoring locations from 2004 through 2008. Data collected in support of the RI and
data collected from piezometers to evaluate the PRB were not available in electronic
format for review. Consequently, formal evaluation of the monitoring network was based
on the short list of constituents monitored in established wells from 2004 to 2008.
Sampling results from the RI and piezometers were reviewed based on the data
summaries and conclusions provided in site reports. Groundwater monitoring locations
included in the evaluation are listed in Tables 2, 9, and 15 (corresponding with the three
groundwater units) and shown on Figure 1.
Chemical analytical data were collected quarterly between January 2004 and August
2008. The density of data is sufficient to perform most statistical analyses of interest
including trend evaluations. However, as noted in the first five-year review, laboratory
detection limits for many samples were above conservative screening levels. High and
variable detection limits introduce false trends into the data and make interpretation of
site processes and data trends difficult.
Historical data from the RI, HHRA, and BERA indicate the presence of a number of
metal contaminants in groundwater above preliminary screening levels for the relevant
regulatory programs (see Table 1). The process by which metals were screened and
prioritized or eliminated from further consideration is not made clear in the main text of
the ROD and appears inconsistent with recommendations in the risk assessments. An
10
-------
ARAR for lead in groundwater is stated in the ROD, but it is unclear if the ARAR for
lead applies to all site groundwater or just selected zones. No discussions of arsenic,
(identified as a major contaminant in the HHRA see Appendix C Table 11.1), pH, nickel,
thallium, or manganese are included in the body of the ROD. ARARs for some
contaminants may have been intended by way of inclusion in the text of memoranda from
Region 6 risk assessors attached as appendices to the ROD (reproduced in Appendix C of
this report). Other detected site contaminants are not mentioned at all.
The current analyte list for groundwater sampling (arsenic, lead, manganese, nickel,
thallium, and pH) was developed in the site Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual
(EPA 2004) based on an interpretation of the HHRA. The relationship between decisions
articulated in the ROD and the O&M procedures are not clear. CERCLA mandates MCLs
as ARARs and remedial goals for potential drinking water sources such as the TWBZ.
However, the TWBZ is not monitored for antimony, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, or
selenium, which exist in upper groundwater zones above primary MCLs and have the
potential to migrate to the TWBZ (see Table 1).
A review of the HHRA indicates that arsenic and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in
groundwater pose the greatest cumulative excess risk for cancer, and arsenic, thallium,
manganese, and nickel exceed risk levels for non-cancer endpoints for groundwater
ingestion and dermal contact. However, it is unclear if this assessment was conducted by
finding the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) of concentrations aggregated for all
groundwater zones or just for TWBZ concentrations. Additional data would be needed to
assess the appropriateness of the 95% UCL. No specific calculations on transport of high
concentrations from upper zones to the TWBZ are included in the HHRA. The influence
of pH on metal mobility was not considered. Excess risk from lead is calculated on a site-
specific, cumulative basis using the IEUBK model.
In a memorandum from David Riley dated 4/26/2000 and included in the ROD as an
appendix, MCLs are identified as Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for
groundwater based on human health while Region 6 medium-specific screening levels
(MSSLs) are identified for contaminants with no MCLs. The memorandum does not
specify or distinguish between groundwater zones or areas within the 1C versus areas
outside of the 1C. Based on the HHRA, MCLs and MSSLs are also protective for human
dermal exposures resulting from FWBZ groundwater discharge to surface water.
However, it is unclear if the HHRA standards and contaminants are considered official
COCs with ARARs or cleanup goals for groundwater in the FWBZ and SWBZ. Decision
documents do not mention modeling or calculations on how concentrations may attenuate
as FWBZ and SWBZ contaminants migrate to the TWBZ or surface water. No protective
concentrations are identified for FWBZ or SWBZ, so, technically, contaminants in these
zones have no cleanup goals and may exist at any magnitude without triggering
contingent action.
Groundwater contaminants for which human-health goals are recommended by Region 6
risk assessors include the inorganic constituents arsenic at 50 ug/L, lead at 15 ug/L,
manganese at 1700 ug/L, nickel at 100 ug/L, and thallium at 2 ug/L (pH is not included).
A short list of organic compounds is also included in the memorandum on human health
11
-------
standards for groundwater (EPA 2000). The organic compounds listed were not detected
frequently and are highly hydrophobic and unlikely to be transported in groundwater;
however, there is no clear explanation why they are not included in the analyte list for
groundwater monitoring.
Since publication of the ROD, the MCL for arsenic has dropped from 50 ug/L to 10 ug/L,
and the MCL for nickel was rescinded in 1994. The RECAP standard for arsenic for a
class 3 drinking water (DW) source (FWBZ) groundwater is 50 ug/L. The RECAP
standard for class 3 DW for nickel is 670 ug/L, and the MSSL is 730 ug/L. Site ARARs
for groundwater were reviewed in the first five year review, and 10 ug/L arsenic and 730
u/L nickel were identified as appropriate screening levels. However, it is unclear where
these values apply because the groundwater zones and areal boundaries are not specified.
Additional data have not been collected to delineate site groundwater to the new
screening levels and data quality objectives to reduce detection limits below the new
screening level for arsenic were not developed for the data reviewed. Also, it is unclear if
more conservative screening levels or cleanup standards apply to groundwater outside of
the 1C boundary.
The results of the BERA indicate a number of metals in FWBZ groundwater may
potentially impact ecological receptors in surface water. The BERA identified aluminum,
arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, selenium, and zinc as significant COCs for wildlife
receptors exposed to groundwater discharging to surface water. Risk drivers for benthic
invertebrates include aluminum, antimony, arsenic, and copper. For amphibians and fish,
aluminum, cadmium, copper, lead, selenium, and zinc pose a potential risk. Additionally,
the risk from aluminum is exacerbated by low pH. The BERA identified groundwater
discharging to surface water as one of the affected media candidates for remediation.
In the BERA, water quality criteria (WQC) promulgated by EPA modified for water
hardness are identified as likely ARARs for groundwater in the FWBZ (see Appendix C
in this report or Table 3-3 in the BERA). However, in Appendix D of the ROD, where
ecological PRGs are discussed, the groundwater to surface-water exposure pathway is not
considered in the conceptual model, or in the development of protective standards, and no
explanation is provided as to how this pathway was screened. The memorandum from
Susan Roddy (dated 4/26/2000 and reproduced in Appendix C) included in the ROD
indicates there are no remediation goals based on ecological risk for groundwater, even
though excess risk was identified in the BERA. An explanation of how the groundwater
discharge to surface-water pathway was eliminated from consideration and is not
provided in the ROD, RI, or in the extensive communication between risk assessors
included as an appendix to the BERA.
Future groundwater sampling, which includes a full set of site-related analytes with EPA
MCLs as well as those contaminants identified in the BERA, would provide more
comprehensive understanding of the site conditions. Groundwater concentrations should
be delineated horizontally and vertically to the more conservative standards, and data
should be collected with detection limits below these standards (e.g. 10 ug/L for arsenic
and 100 ug/L for nickel). Groundwater data will contribute to a comprehensive review of
ARARs and PRGs and a final determination of protective concentrations for the FWBZ
12
-------
and SWBZ. A supporting document that includes a clear explanation of how each
contaminant found in each groundwater zone above background or conservative
screening levels was screened from future consideration for each exposure pathway
would clarify appropriate remedial goals and data quality objectives for the sampling
program.
Key Points:
Current data are insufficient, both in terms of quality (detection limits) and
quantity (analyte list), to evaluate the status of site groundwater.
• Contaminants with complete exposure pathways have been left in place in the
FWBZ and SWBZ without defined ARARS, remedial goals or protective
concentrations. Because there are no numerical groundwater standards for the
FWBZ and SWBZ against which to judge the efficacy of the remedy, the success
or failure of the remedy currently cannot be evaluated.
• Additional data should be collected to perform a comprehensive review of
ARARs and PRGs as well as potential exposure pathways.
2.3 MONITORING OBJECTIVES AND LOCATIONS
The location and frequency of groundwater monitoring points are determined by the site
monitoring goals and objectives. Current groundwater monitoring objectives for the DM
site include monitoring groundwater downgradient of the PRB for pH and metals and
monitoring the TWBZ for increasing metals concentrations. However, no decision points
related to monitoring results are articulated in site decision documents, so it is unclear
how monitoring data from the FWBZ and SWBZ are to be used.
Based on the site history and overall goals of the Superfund program, the following
expanded monitoring objectives are recommended to more directly address the tasks of
documenting protectiveness of the remedies, accuracy of assumptions articulated in the
ROD and progress toward "beneficial reuse" of the resources:
• Delineate the extent of groundwater affected above primary MCL in all three
groundwater units and groundwater affected above ecological risk standards (EPA
Water Quality Criteria) in the FWBZ.
• Delineate the extent of the FWBZ north of Tributary 1 and south of Tributary 2.
• Monitor concentrations of contaminants over time in the affected groundwater
units.
• Monitor possible exposure pathways, such as groundwater discharge to surface-
water bodies, wetlands, and lower groundwater units.
• Monitor the boundaries of the 1C to ensure that concentrations do not exceed
regulatory limits in offsite locations.
13
-------
Monitor groundwater in historical source areas to confirm progress toward
unrestricted property use.
Monitor locations that may indicate an impending exceedance of regulatory levels
at compliance or exposure points.
2.3.1 Plume Delineation and Point-of-Compliance Wells
Delineation of affected groundwater is an important concept, as it defines the extent of
impact from site activities. Most monitoring programs establish point-of-compliance
(POC) locations where numerical standards must be met. Concentrations at POC
locations cannot exceed the protective concentrations identified for the medium. If
standards at POC wells are exceeded, installation of a contingent remedy is triggered to
treat or control contaminant migration. Many times the POCs are located at property or
1C boundaries or immediately upgradient of potential points of exposure, such as
domestic wells and surface-water discharges.
In order to designate POC locations, protective concentrations must be known. TWBZ
monitoring wells can be POC locations with MCLs and MSSLs as the concentration limit
(as MCLs are mandated by CERCLA for this unit, but not expressly listed in the ROD).
FWBZ POC wells would include locations near potential discharge to surface water and
areas where downward transport through the fine-grained zone is most likely. Regulated
concentration limits for FWBZ POC wells would be concentrations that are protective for
human and ecological receptors after discharge to surface water and lower geologic units.
The FWBZ plume is not delineated to the north of the PRB for arsenic, to the west for
manganese, or northeast of DW-03 for several metals. Delineation involves sampling
groundwater downgradient until concentrations below conservative screening levels or at
background levels are found. While Selsers Creek is most likely a flow boundary for the
FWBZ, it is unclear if Tributaries 1 and 2 perform a similar function to the north and
south. It also is unclear how far north groundwater exceeds MCLs for arsenic. The area
downgradient of well BA-9 contains residences and is outside of the current 1C, and there
may be no regulatory restriction on drilling into this unit. It is not clear if more
conservative screening levels apply outside of the 1C. BA-9 has increasing concentration
trends for arsenic and lead (see Section 3.0 and Figure 2).
The plume north of DW-03 is not delineated. The FWBZ in this area exceeds MCLs and
MSSLs for arsenic, manganese, and lead, and groundwater is outside the eastern edge of
the PRB, so it is untreated. Tributary 1 may not be a sufficient barrier to northward
groundwater flow, so at least one additional monitoring location is required to delineate
groundwater north of DW-03.
Increasing concentration trends at MW-02 indicate groundwater may be bypassing the
western PRB to the south. The performance review of the PRB indicated that
groundwater may be mounding behind the PRB and that hydraulic gradients vary, which
may divert water around the PRB. The overall conclusion in 2006 was that the majority
of groundwater was being treated by the PRB, even with hydraulic mounding. Hydraulic
14
-------
conditions should be evaluated annually to confirm that a substantial amount of
groundwater is not bypassing the PRB.
In order to evaluate potential bypassing of the PRB, an additional monitoring location is
recommended for the area between MW-02 and Selsers Creek (see Figure 5). Another
new well is recommended outside of the PRB to the west which would form a line from
MW-01 south to Tributary 2, to evaluate PRB performance, short-circuiting of
groundwater, and possible discharge of affected groundwater to Selsers Creek. The new
wells would constitute POC wells for discharge of contaminants to surface water.
Piezometers installed outside the western arm of the PRB should be assessed to
determine if they can provide routine monitoring data (quarterly) on groundwater passing
through the PRB toward Selsers Creek. Inclusion of data collected from piezometers
would enhance the understanding of the site conditions and could usefully be added to the
comprehensive site database for review with data from monitoring wells.
2.3.2 Historical Source Areas
Based on historical data, an area of high lead and manganese concentrations in the FWBZ
exists to the southeast of the current network near historical Geoprobe locations DD-27
and DE-27 (1390 ug/L and 1170 ug/L lead respectively see Figure 5 in Appendix C). No
recent data are available for this area, so predicting possible downgradient impacts due to
lead mobilization is difficult. An additional well is recommended for this area to monitor
the historical source. Data from the new location would be used to determine if lead is
attenuating or has the potential to migrate into the northern monitoring network.
Hydrogeologic data from this area would help to confirm groundwater flow direction.
2.3.3 Surface Water
Based on site hydrogeologic data and cross-sections (TetraTech 2000b) groundwater in
the FWBZ has the potential to discharge to surface water. Several reports including the
Five-Year Review have recommended additional surface-water monitoring of Selsers
Creek and Tributaries 1 and 2 (EPA 2007 and several quarterly O&M reports), and a
surface-water monitoring program is anticipated to be added to the current site
monitoring program in the near future. RECAP provides guidelines for evaluating the
impact of discharge of Class 3 groundwater on surface water (LDEQ 2003).
Surface-water monitoring of Tributary 2 immediately south of MW-02, between MW-01
and DW-01 on Tributary 1 and along Selsers Creek west of the PRB, would provide
information on fate of groundwater contaminants and possible discharge of affected
groundwater to points of human and ecological exposure. Monitoring along Tributary 2
may indicate if groundwater from the area of MW-06 is impacting the surface. Surface-
water monitoring should be conducted on the same schedule as groundwater monitoring
in order to provide a comparable dataset. Surface and groundwater data should be
included in a site database in order to facilitate analysis of potential migration of
constituents.
15
-------
Further investigation of the groundwater to surface-water interface has been proposed in
addition to surface-water monitoring. As part of the expanded investigation, the
recommend-ation is to calculate contaminant flux to surface water and the effect of
dilution on final concentrations. In order to perform these calculations, data from the
discharge points for the FWBZ should be collected from wells installed near the streams,
piezometers, or temporary borings. Also, data on water flow in the tributaries and Selsers
Creek at high and low stage should be collected. Actual and modeled surface-water
concentrations may be compared with risk-based values from both the HHRA and
BERA. The result of these calculations will be the designation of protective
concentrations (groundwater concentrations that do not cause surface-water exceedances
of WQC and neutral pH under low-flow conditions) for the FWBZ. Protective
concentrations would be remedial goals for the FWBZ. With appropriate remedial goals,
the efficacy and protectiveness of the remedy can be demonstrated.
2.3.4 PRB Monitorins
PRB efficacy should be evaluated annually due to documented variability in results of
general PRB efficacy (Johnson, Thorns et al. 2008). In order to evaluate the efficacy of
the PRB, all piezometers associated with PRB should be sampled for hydrogeologic
parameters as well as the complete analyte list, including pH, using conservative
detection limits. Piezometer data should be interpreted alongside data from permanent
monitoring wells and discrepancies in trends and exceedances should be addressed.
Key Points: Four new monitoring locations are recommended for the FWBZ to delineate
affected groundwater in the northern and western areas of the property. One new well is
recommended to monitor a historical FWBZ lead and manganese source area to the east.
Surface-water monitoring and an estimate of discharge dilution by surface water are
recommended. Incorporation of some PRB piezometers into routine monitoring is
recommended, and an annual comprehensive sampling of piezometers is recommended to
document function of the remedy.
16
-------
3.0 QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION
Data from 26 monitoring wells at depths corresponding to the FWBZ, SWBZ, and
TWBZ were included in the quantitative network analysis for the DM site. Results for the
statistical analyses are presented below, organized by groundwater zone.
3.1 FWBZ
A summary of FWBZ wells is presented in Table 2 with aquifer specific input parameters
for the MAROS software presented in Table 3. Monitoring data for the metals arsenic,
lead, manganese, nickel and thallium between 2004 and 2008 were screened to determine
the priority COCs for the monitoring network using metrics for toxicity, prevalence and
mobility. Screening levels for DM site groundwater contaminants used in the quantitative
analysis are: arsenic 10 ug/L, lead 15 ug/L, manganese 1,700 ug/L, nickel 730 ug/L, and
thallium 2 ug/L. Based on the results, lead, manganese, arsenic, and thallium are all
priority constituents in the FWBZ. Arsenic is the constituent that exceeds its screening
limit by the highest amount across the FWBZ and is a priority for toxicity. Manganese
exceeds its screening level at the most locations across the unit. Lead is the most mobile
of the constituents investigated. Most recent nickel concentrations in the FWBZ are
below the current screening level, so nickel does not appear as a priority COC. Out of
180 samples collected from 2004 to 2008 in the FWBZ, only four thallium analyses show
concentrations above the screening level of 2 ug/L. Thallium does not consistently
exceed standards in the FWBZ. Detailed results of the screening process are located in
Appendix B.
3.1.1 Plume Stability
Concentration Trends
Individual well concentration trends using the Mann-Kendall method are summarized in
the table below and in Tables 4 and 5 along with summary statistics for FWBZ wells. For
the metal constituents, concentration trends were evaluated for data collected between
2004 and 2008. Average concentrations calculated for arsenic, manganese, lead, and
nickel were normalized by the screening levels and plotted on Figures 2 and 3. Results of
the individual well Mann-Kendall trends for select metals are also illustrated on Figures 2
(for arsenic and lead) and 3 (for manganese and nickel). A summary of trend results as
well as select, detailed, Mann-Kendall reports are located in Appendix B.
Trends for pH were found for the full period (2004 - 2008) and for 2006 - 2008. The
trends for 2006 - 2008 were determined because data for several wells indicated a change
in direction of the trend after 2006. Table 4 summarizes pH data for the FWBZ, including
the average and minimum pH 2004 - 2008 for each well. For most of the locations,
between 2004 and 2008 pH was increasing, stable or showed no trend. However, trend
analysis 2006 to 2008 indicates decreasing or probably decreasing trends at most
17
-------
locations. Plots of pH vs. time are provided in Appendix B, along with the results of the
Mann-Kendall trend analysis for each location.
Based on the plots, pH values appear to have gone up through 2005, peaking in 2006 and
dropping after that. The performance review of the PRB was conducted in 2006.
Minimum pH values were found in 2008 for locations MW-01 and BA-9 and in 2007 for
MW-06 outside of the PRB. The data indicate the need for continued evaluation of PRB
function or the possibility of sources outside of the PRB.
Number and percentage of total wells in each trend category
FWBZ
Metal
Arsenic
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Total
Wells
9
9
9
9
Number and Percentage of Wells for Each Trend Category
Non Detect
0
0
0
0
PD, D
1 (11%)
1 (11%)
4 (44%)
4 (44%)
S
0
0
2 (22%)
1 (11%)
I, PI
2 (22%)
5 (56%)
2 (22%)
3 (33%)
No Trend
6 (67%)
3 (33%)
1 (11%)
1 (11%)
Note: Decreasing trend (D), Probably Decreasing trend (PD), Stable (S), Probably Increasing trend (PI), and
Increasing trend (I).
Summary statistics and Mann-Kendall results for arsenic indicate elevated concentrations
in the FWBZ outside of the PRB with a "hot spot" at DW-01. Based on the distribution of
concentrations, a residual source area for arsenic may exist north of the PRB and south of
Tributary 1. Concentration trends for individual wells indicate an increasing arsenic trend
at BA-9. BA-9 is outside of the PRB, outside of the 1C and downgradient of both DW-01
and Tributary 1. A strongly decreasing arsenic trend is seen at BA-3, inside the PRB.
The BA-9 analytical data are problematic in that between May 2004 and June 2006,
arsenic was not detected. During this time, reporting limits for arsenic were 15 and 50
ug/L, with the exception of October 2005, where a reporting limit of 1 ug/L resulted in a
detection of 1.3 ug/L. The increasing trend is probably an accurate assessment, but the
reporting limits may mask the progress of increasing concentrations. A probably-
increasing arsenic trend is found at MW-02, but concentrations are largely below the
screening level at this location and the trend may result from an outlier datum. Most
locations in the FWBZ showed variable arsenic concentrations that may be accounted for
by low concentrations with changes in reporting limits.
Manganese is present above regulatory levels across the unit, with higher concentrations
found at DW-02 (see Figure 3). Unlike arsenic, manganese-affected groundwater may be
migrating to the southwest, with increasing concentration trends seen at MW-02 and
MW-06. Decreasing manganese concentrations in groundwater were found at DW-02 and
outside of the PRB at DW-01, BA-9 and DW-03 (east of the PRB). Detection limits for
manganese are acceptably below the screening levels, so trends do not have to be
qualified for this constituent.
Overall, concentrations of lead in the FWBZ are below the screening level, with
exceedances found at BA-03 inside the PRB and DW-03 east of the PRB (see Figure 2).
18
-------
However, five locations show increasing concentration trends, including BA-03 and DW-
02 inside the PRB and BA-9 and DW-03 outside the PRB. As with the arsenic dataset,
some reporting limits are above the screening level. Reporting limits of 125 ug/L were
recorded in 2004 (action level =15 ug/L). Because of this, non-detect values from 2004
may exaggerate trends in the data.
Both DW-03 and BA-9 show spikes in lead concentrations between June 2006 and March
2008. The increase in lead concentrations may be transient, but further monitoring is
required to confirm this observation. Based on historical data, an area of high lead and
manganese concentrations exists to the southeast of the current FWBZ network. With the
current dataset, it is difficult to assess if lead from this area is impacting downgradient
locations.
The distribution of nickel in the FWBZ resembles that of manganese, with increasing
trends toward the southwest (see Figure 3), but concentrations are largely below
screening levels across the unit. Well DW-02, with the highest historical nickel
concentrations shows decreasing concentrations trends. Most wells in the FWBZ have
less than a 30% detection frequency for thallium, which means that trend estimation is
not appropriate at these locations. MW-02 is the only location that routinely exceeds
screening levels for thallium, and shows no trend. Thallium is detected at BA-3 and
shows an increasing trend.
Moments
Moment analysis is used to estimate the stability of groundwater plumes. Stable plumes
require less monitoring effort. Moment analysis methods were used to estimate the total
dissolved mass (zeroth moment), center of mass (first moment) and distribution of mass
(second moment) for priority constituents in the FWBZ. The Mann-Kendall trends of the
moments were determined for data between 2004 and 2008 using annually consolidated
data. Annual averages for each COC and well combination were used in order to reduce
the impact of scatter in the data. Estimates of the zeroth and first moments for arsenic,
manganese, and lead in the FWBZ are shown in Table 6. First moments (center of mass)
over time for arsenic and lead are illustrated on Figure 2 and for manganese and nickel on
Figure 3.
Total dissolved mass trends indicate that, within the network, the concentration of
arsenic, nickel, and manganese are mostly stable, but concentrations for lead are
increasing. An increasing total mass for lead may indicate that lead is dissolving from
secondary sources or entering the network from locations outside of the current network.
Part of the increasing trend result may be an artifact of very high reporting limits in 2004.
More data are required to confirm trends.
First moments indicate the change in the center of mass of the plume over time. For
arsenic and lead in the FWBZ, the centers of mass are largely stable (see Figure 2)
indicating that individual wells with increasing or decreasing concentrations are not
changing enough to influence the overall distribution of mass in the network. This result
indicates that the plumes are not changing rapidly or expanding within the current
19
-------
network and are relatively stable. However, the arsenic plume is not delineated to the
north, so the expansion of the plume cannot be fully evaluated.
Second moments indicate the pattern of dilution and dispersion of mass as it moves from
the center of the plume to the edges. No clear trend in second moments was found for
FWBZ. For manganese, second moments show more mass is moving to the edges of the
plume relative to the center. However, results for arsenic and lead indicate a fairly stable
distribution of mass relative to the edges of the network.
3.1.2 Well Redundancy and Sufficiency
The spatial redundancy and sufficiency analysis included a qualitative evaluation of well
locations (see Section 2.0) as well as statistical analysis. Spatial redundancy and
sufficiency statistics include calculations of SF, AR, and CR to rank the importance of
the well and evaluate uncertainty in the network (see Appendix A for discussion).
Because the monitoring network in the FWBZ is relatively small and each well currently
performs an essential monitoring function, removal of wells from the network was not
considered at this time. Preliminary results do indicate that the number of wells could be
reduced in the future, after a larger, more statistically significant dataset has been
collected and the plume is well delineated.
The graphical well sufficiency analyses for the FWBZ are illustrated in Appendix B.
MAROS uses the Delaunay triangulation and SF calculations to identify areas within the
monitoring network with high concentration uncertainties. Graphical results illustrate
polygons created by the triangulation method and indicate areas of high uncertainty with
a red "L" or an "E" in the center of the triangle. For FWBZ, no areas of high
concentration uncertainty were found within the current network for the constituents
analyzed. No new monitoring locations are recommended for areas within the current
network, upgradient of the PRB. However, new locations recommended outside of the
current network are discussed in Section 2.0.
3.1.3 Sampling Frequency
Table 7 summarizes the select results of the MAROS preliminary sampling frequency
recommendation (result for the priority COC at each location). The Modified Cost-
Effective Sampling (MCES) method evaluates overall (2004 - 2008) and recent (2006 -
2008) temporal trends and rates of concentration change, and recommends an optimized
sampling frequency based on comparing the rates of concentration change.
The rate of change of priority metal concentrations for FWBZ wells is very low, but
many locations show a high degree of variance in the data—in part due to variability in
the reporting limits. While several wells in the FWBZ have preliminary recommendations
for semiannual, annual, to biennial (every two years) sampling, the current recommend-
ation is to maintain quarterly sampling. MAROS recommended quarterly monitoring for
BA-3, DW-03, MW-01, and MW-02 based on rate of change and trend results. Quarterly
20
-------
monitoring has already provided a good dataset; however, high variance and detection
limits for the data limit the power of the dataset to address site management decisions.
The results and recommendations for the FWBZ are summarized in Table 8. Once
additional data are collected (2 -3 years), both spatially and temporally, the monitoring
network can be re-evaluated to see if a reduction in monitoring effort is appropriate.
3.2 SWBZ
A summary of SWBZ wells is presented in Table 9 with aquifer specific input parameters
for the MAROS software presented in Table 10. The primary goal of the monitoring
network in the SWBZ is to determine if contaminants from upper strata are impacting
lower units and to demonstrate continued attenuation of contaminants in the SWBZ.
Monitoring data for the SWBZ were screened to determine SWBZ plume-wide priority
COCs. Acidic groundwater is absent from the SWBZ, so pH was not assessed.
Thallium is the only constituent in the SWBZ overall plume found above screening
levels. Lead exceeds screening levels at one location, only (BC-17). However, this is
largely due to intermittent outlier concentrations, such as 94 ug/L in March 2004 at BC-
25 followed by 15 quarters of non-detect results. Thallium was detected sporadically at
high concentrations relative to its very low screening level in SWBZ wells, with no
particular pattern. Consequently, thallium exceedances may be outliers associated with
sampling rather than actual exceedances. Lead exceeds screening levels at one location,
only (BC-17). Detailed results of the screening are located in Appendix B.
3.2.1 Plume Stability
Concentration Trends
Individual well concentration trends using the Mann-Kendall method for SWBZ wells are
summarized in the table below and in Table 11. Results of the individual well Mann-
Kendall trends for select metals are also illustrated on Figure 4 (for lead and manganese).
A summary of trend results and select, detailed Mann-Kendall reports are in Appendix B.
Number and percentage of total wells in each trend category.
SWBZ
Metal
Arsenic
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Thallium
Total
Wells
13
13
13
13
13
Number and Percentage of Wells for Each Trend Category
Non Detect
0
0
0
0
1 (7%)
PD, D
4(31%)
1 (7%)
5 (38%)
1 (7%)
0
S
1 (7%)
0
3 (23%)
2(15%)
0
I, PI
1 (7%)
5 (38%)
2(15%)
2(15%)
0
No Trend
7 (54%)
7 (54%)
3 (23%)
8 (62%)
12 (93%)
Note: Decreasing trend (D), Probably Decreasing trend (PD), Stable (S), Probably Increasing trend (PI), and Increasing
trend (I).
21
-------
Lead concentrations exceed screening levels only at location BC-17, which has a
probably decreasing concentration trend. Some locations with concentrations below
screening levels and intermittent detections indicate increasing concentration trends
(MW-04, BA-09A, BC-25, BC-19, and BC-07); however, this may be an artifact of
varying reporting limits. Additional data with lower, consistent reporting limits are
required to confirm the concentration trends.
Manganese concentrations exceed screening levels at BA-05, in the north of the site, with
probably increasing concentrations found at BA-01 and MW-03. This area of manganese-
affected groundwater may be related to manganese in FWBZ near MW-06. Continued
monitoring and conceptual model development in this area is recommended.
Data for thallium in the SWBZ indicate sporadic detections, with occasional high
concentrations. Detection frequencies for thallium are extremely low (below 30%), so
trend analysis for this dataset is not appropriate. Thallium detection frequencies for the
SWBZ are shown in Table 11. Thallium detections may be an artifact of particulates in
aqueous samples, and very few dissolved metal sample results with sufficiently low
reporting limits are available to evaluate suspended vs. dissolved thallium in the SWBZ.
Detection monitoring should continue for thallium in the SWBZ.
Moments
Table 12 lists the results of the estimates and trends for the zeroth and first moments.
Trends for both manganese and lead show stable to no trend for both dissolved mass and
center of mass indicating fairly stable plumes despite some increasing trends at some
individual locations. The annual center of mass for both manganese and lead are
illustrated on Figure 4.
Second moments for the SWBZ, which indicate the dispersion of the plume from the
center to the edges, also show largely stable trends. The trend for manganese shows lower
concentrations on the edge relative to the center. Stable results for the moment analyses
support the conclusion that monitoring frequency may be reduced without loss of
information.
3.2.2 Well Redundancy and Sufficiency
Analysis of spatial redundancy in the SWBZ indicates that locations DW-04, MW-03,
and BA-01 may provide redundant information for the priority COCs. However, as wells
within the current network perform detection monitoring and function to assess possible
impacts to the SWBZ from historically affected soils, no wells are recommended for
removal from the program at this time. Preliminary results do indicate that the number of
wells could be reduced in the future, after a larger, more statistically significant dataset
(with more consistent reporting limits) has been collected.
The graphical well sufficiency analyses for the SWBZ are illustrated in Appendix B. For
SWBZ, no areas of high concentration uncertainty were found for the constituents
22
-------
analyzed. No new monitoring locations are recommended for areas within the current
SWBZ network.
The SWBZ is well delineated to both the west and the north. While lead concentrations
appear to be increasing to the west of BC-17, all wells are currently below screening
levels and BC-17 has a decreasing concentration trend. While high manganese
concentrations at MW-03 and BC-25 are of concern, no new delineation wells are
recommended for the area west of MW-03, as drilling through the affected FWBZ is not
recommended. Continued monitoring of manganese in the area of MW-03 and BC-25 is
recommended, particularly in relation to increasing manganese trends at FWBZ well
MW-06. The site conceptual model should be reviewed to explain high manganese
concentrations in the MW-06, MW-03, and BA-01 groundwater locations relative to
potential surface source areas.
3.2.3 Sampling Frequency
Table 13 summarizes the select results of the MAROS preliminary sampling frequency
recommendation (result for the priority COC at each location). For most location and
COC combinations in the SWBZ, a much-reduced sampling frequency resulted based on
the rate of concentration change and the trend. Most locations have a preliminary
recommendation for annual to biennial monitoring. Overall, a semiannual monitoring
frequency has been recommended considering qualitative factors. Semiannual monitoring
will provide a statistically significant dataset to evaluate the variance in the data in the
near term and to monitor lead and manganese concentrations on the western edge of the
network.
A summary of the results and recommendations for the SWBZ are listed in Table 14.
Once additional data are collected (2 -3 years), both spatially from new locations and
temporally, the monitoring network can be re-evaluated to determine if a reduction in
monitoring effort is appropriate.
3.3 TWBZ
A summary of TWBZ wells is presented in Table 15. As only four monitoring wells are
present in this groundwater unit, the MAROS software could not be used to evaluate
spatial uncertainty, moments or sampling frequency (spatial analyses have a six well with
detected concentrations minimum requirement). The TWBZ network serves a detection
monitoring function to alert regulators if constituents are impacting this unit from upper
zones.
Summary statistics and Mann-Kendall trends for metals are shown in Table 16. Summary
results for the Mann-Kendall trend analysis and individual well trends for the TWBZ are
located in Appendix B. None of the metals evaluated exceeded regulatory screening
levels routinely. Some high concentrations were recorded for site constituents, but these
results are somewhat intermittent and may be related to external sources of variability in
the data. A summary of the results and recommendations for the SWBZ are listed in
Table 17.
23
-------
Mann-Kendall trends for arsenic were decreasing for all wells; however, reporting limits
for arsenic in 2008 were up to 20 ug/L, twice the MCL. ArsenicO concentrations are most
likely stable at very low levels, but the changing reporting limits complicate data
interpretation.
Some lead concentrations may appear to be increasing in the TWBZ. For location BA-
01 A, the average detected concentration is approximately 1.7 ug/L for 12 samples with
reporting limits 0.5 to 0.1 ug/L. However, seven analyses in the early part of the record
with higher reporting limits (2 to 10 ug/L) had non-detect results. Consequently, the trend
reflects the sampling artifact of changing reporting limits rather than actual
concentrations. As concentrations are quite low in the TWBZ, the data should be
interpreted carefully with regard to the reporting limits.
4.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Qualitative and quantitative methods have been used to evaluate the ability of the DM
site groundwater monitoring network to address critical site management issues. The
following findings and recommendations have been developed based on the results of this
evaluation.
The most significant finding of the review of the groundwater monitoring program is that
the current data are insufficient, both in terms of quality (detection limits are too high)
and quantity (analyte list is not comprehensive) to evaluate the status of site groundwater.
The root of this problem is the ambiguity of the ROD in addressing site ARARs and
relevant remedial goals. Additional data should be collected to perform a comprehensive
review of ARARs and establish PRGs for all affected media as well as potential exposure
pathways. ARARs should be stated clearly so that an appropriate analyte list, detection
limits, and points of compliance can be established for the site. While current site
groundwater concentrations probably do not present excess risk, without clear ARARs
and remedial goals, the appropriateness of the analyte list, sampling locations and
analytical methods for groundwater monitoring cannot be evaluated. A clear statement of
relevant numerical standards would help define the monitoring rationale and anticipated
data use for each affected groundwater zone.
• Finding: A significant amount of data have been collected during the RI and
subsequent remedy implementation and monitoring phases of site management.
Due to the large amount and complexity of the data, finding critical information
about the site is challenging. Site data should be organized so that stakeholders
reviewing the site have access to explanatory information without investing a lot
of time and effort.
• Recommendation: Maintain a site-wide analytical database with a complete set of
historical and current analytical data for all constituents. Historical groundwater
characterization data, including samples collected by Geoprobe, should be readily
accessible to compare with current data. Also, supplemental data such as the
piezometer samples taken to evaluate the remedy should be available to compare
24
-------
with data from permanent monitoring wells and predicted concentrations in the
area. The database should include detection limits, sample location coordinates,
sampling methods and other details that would streamline interpretation of site
data. If the site contractor has already developed a comprehensive database (as
referenced in the Remedial Investigation Report (TetraTech 2000b), the database
should be made available to reviewers.
Finding: The ROD does not explain why contaminants that were identified as
posing potential risk to ecological and human receptors in risk assessments were
screened from development of ARARs. Site decision documents do not clearly
indicate why or how contaminants with MCLs found at high concentrations in the
FWBZ should be monitored for transport to the TWBZ. The HHRA does not
present sufficient information to eliminate transport of antimony, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, and selenium to the TWBZ. It is unclear why lead was
considered the only site COC. Clarification of site ARARs and unambiguous
designation of cleanup goals are essential to development of an appropriate
monitoring program.
Recommendation: Expand the analyte list to include all constituents identified in
the BERA as COCs for ecological receptors including aluminum, antimony,
cadmium, copper, selenium, and zinc in addition to acidity, lead, arsenic,
manganese, thallium, and nickel. Historical groundwater data indicate the
presence of metals exceeding conservative screening levels that are currently not
included as laboratory analytes (see Table 1) and were not clearly screened in the
ROD. Contaminants left in place in the FWBZ and SWBZ, subject to transport
along complete exposure pathways do not currently have remedial goals. No
decision points or contingent remedies have been designated should
concentrations exceed MCLs and MSSLs in the TWBZ or if surface-water
concentrations exceed WQC. There are currently no standards to determine if the
remedy is loosing efficacy prior to an unacceptable impact on surface or drinking
water sources. Additional data are required to determine if ARARs for additional
metals recommended in the BERA should be included in the program.
Finding: Collected data are of insufficient quality to reliably determine
concentration trends for some contaminants.
Recommendation: Establish analytical laboratory reporting limits significantly
lower than conservative screening levels. This recommendation was also made in
the recent five-year review. For detection monitoring, high reporting limits mask
the presence of low concentrations of constituents, limiting the ability of the
sampling program to achieve the stated goals. In the five-year review, it was
reported that contaminant concentrations in the TWBZ were increasing, but this
appears to be an artifact of poor data quality. Variable reporting limits introduce
artificial patterns into the data analysis for samples with low concentrations.
Update the data quality objectives for reporting limits and detection limits to
reflect the change in screening level for arsenic (from 50 ug/L to 10 ug/L) and
communicate this to contracting laboratories.
25
-------
Finding: The saturated extent of the FWBZ has not been delineated, and the
contaminant plume in the FWBZ has not been delineated to relevant screening
levels. Trend analysis indicates increasing concentrations at downgradient
locations outside of the 1C. What appear to be historical source areas are not being
monitored. Overall, initial site assumptions articulated in the ROD should be
reviewed using the best quality data.
Recommendation: Install four new groundwater monitoring locations to delineate
affected groundwater in the northern FWBZ outside the current extent of the
network. New locations are required to evaluate the performance of the remedy,
function as point of compliance wells, monitor plume stability and assess possible
discharge to surface water. A fifth groundwater monitoring location is
recommended for the upgradient source area defined by Geoprobe locations DD-
27 and DE-27 from the RI. This area should be evaluated to determine the extent
of source attenuation since the initial characterization and possible migration of
residual contaminants toward the surface-water discharge points.
Finding: Site documents do not contain a calculation of the effect of dilution on
discharge of affected groundwater to surface water. Dilution effects may impact
the review of ARARs for the FWBZ, and may actually increase the estimate of
the maximum concentration that is still protective of potential surface-water
receptors. Proposed surface-water sampling should be included in the overall
assessment of the impact of groundwater discharge.
Recommendation: Collect additional surface-water analytical data and data to
determine the effect of dilution on groundwater discharge to surface water.
Groundwater discharge to surface water is a potentially complete exposure
pathway for which ARARs and remedial goals were not clearly developed.
Protective concentrations for FWBZ groundwater discharging to surface water
should be calculated. As part of these efforts, surface-water flow in the water
bodies should be estimated and the effect of dilution on final concentrations
should be quantified. Resulting theoretical impact to the surface water should be
compared to protective surface-water standards calculated in the FtHRA and in
the BERA. Groundwater should be sampled near the discharge to Tributaries 1
and 2 and Selsers Creek, using the expanded analyte list.
Finding: While some FWBZ monitoring locations may not need to be sampled
quarterly, several locations show changing concentrations that should be
monitored quarterly.
Recommendation: Continue quarterly sampling for existing and new monitoring
locations in the FWBZ, as well as surface water. Quarterly sampling should be
conducted for 2 to 3 years, using consistently low laboratory reporting limits and
the expanded analyte list until a dataset with sufficient statistical power has been
developed to address site monitoring objectives listed below. Consider re-
evaluating the monitoring network in 2 to 3 years. Reductions in both the number
of locations and frequency of sampling may be possible in the future.
26
-------
Finding: The SWBZ and TWBZ are fairly well delineated and have a sufficient
number of locations to achieve monitoring objectives associated with detection
monitoring. The sampling frequency of SWBZ and TWBZ monitoring wells can
be reduced without loss of information.
Recommendation: No new monitoring locations are recommended for the SWBZ
and TWBZ. No wells in the SWBZ and TWBZ are recommended for removal
from the program at this time. Continue sampling residential water wells in the
TWBZ at the current frequency. The frequency of sampling site monitoring wells
in the SWBZ and TWBZ can be reduced to semiannual. TWBZ wells should be
designated as POC locations.
The following monitoring objectives are recommended to more directly address
future site management decisions. Monitoring objectives define why, where, and
how often data should be collected. Well-articulated monitoring objectives help
determine the type of data analyses that will support site management decisions.
For these reasons, expanded monitoring objectives should be included in site
decision documents.
Delineate the extent of groundwater affected above primary MCL in all three
groundwater units and groundwater affected above ecological risk standards (EPA
WQC) in the FWBZ.
Delineate the extent of the FWBZ north of Tributary 1 and south of Tributary 2.
Monitor concentrations of contaminants over time in the affected groundwater
units.
Monitor possible exposure pathways such as groundwater discharge to surface-
water bodies, wetlands, and lower groundwater units.
Monitor the boundaries of the 1C to ensure that concentrations do not exceed
regulatory limits in offsite locations.
Monitor groundwater in historical source areas to confirm progress toward
unrestricted property use.
Monitor locations that may indicate an impending exceedance of regulatory levels
at compliance or exposure points.
27
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
AFCEE (2004). Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System (MAROS) 2.2 Software Users
Guide. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, http://www.gsi-
net.com/software/MAROS V2 1Manual.pdf
AFCEE (1997). Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, AFCEE Long-Term Monitoring
Optimization Guide, http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil.
Aziz, J. A., C. J. Newell, M. Ling, H. S. Rifai and J. R. Gonzales (2003). "MAROS: A Decision
Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans." Ground Water 41(3): 355-367.
Gilbert, R. O. (1987). Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. New York. Van
Norstrand Reinhold.
Johnson, R. L, R. B. Thorns, O. Johnson and T. Krug (2008). "Field Evidence for Flow Reduction
through a Zero-Valent Iron Permeable Reactive Barrier." Ground Water Monitoring &
Remediation 28(3): 47-55.
LDEQ (2003). Appendix H: Methods for the Development, Identification, and Application of
Screening Standards and MO-1, MO-2, and MO-3 RECAP Standards. Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality. Louisiana Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action
Program (RECAP).
Ridley, M.N., Johnson, V. M and Tuckfield, R. C. (1995). Cost-Effective Sampling of Ground
Water Monitoring Wells. HAZMACON. San Jose, California.
Riley, D. (2000) Memorandum on Recommended Remediation Goals for Delatte Metals Site.
April 26, 2000. Included in Appendix B of Record of Decision (EPA, 2000).
TetraTech (2000a).Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. US Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6. March 16, 2000
TetraTech (2000b).De/a#e Metal Remedial Investigation Report. Prepared for US Environmental
Protection Agency Region 6. January 2000
TetraTech (2000c).Delatte Metals Human Health Risk Assessment. US Environmental Protection
Agency Region 6. March 3, 2000
TetraTech (2001).De/a#e Metals Final Design Report Ponchatoula, Louisiana. Prepared for US
Environmental Protection Agency Region 6. January, 2001
EPA (1992). Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards: Volume 2 Ground
Water. Washington, D.C., United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Policy Planning and Evaluation.
EPA (2000b). Record of Decision Delatte Metals Superfund Site Ponchatoula/Tangipahoa Parish,
Louisiana. Dallas, TX, EPA Region 6.
EPA (2001).Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. EPA 540-R-01-007. US Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
EPA (2004). Operation and Maintenance Manual Delatte Metals Superfund Site Ponchatoula,
Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana. Dallas, TX, Prepared for EPA Region 6 by Tetra Tech EM
Inc.
28
-------
EPA (2004). Remedial Action Report Delatte Metals Superfund Site, Ponchatoula, Tangipahoa
Parish, Louisiana EPA ID No. LAD052510344. Dallas, TX, Prepared for USEP Region 6
A by Tetra Tech EM, Inc.
EPA (2007). Five-Year Review Report Delatte Metals Superfund Site, Ponchatoula, Tangipahoa
Parish, Louisiana. Dallas, TX, EPA Region 6.
29
-------
TABLES
Table 1 Groundwater Screening Concentrations and Criteria
Table 2 First Water-Bearing Zone Monitoring Well Network Summary
Table 3 First Water-Bearing Zone Aquifer Input Parameters
Table 4 First Water-Bearing Zone pH Summary Results: 2004-2008
Table 5 First Water-Bearing Zone Well Trend Summary Results: 2004-2008
Table 6 First Water-Bearing Zone Moment Estimates and Trends
Table 7 First Water-Bearing Zone MCES Sampling Frequency Analysis Results
Long-Term Monitoring Optimization
Table 8 First Water-Bearing Zone Final Recommended Monitoring Network
Table 9 Second Water-Bearing Zone Monitoring Well Network Summary
Table 10 Second Water-Bearing Zone Aquifer Input Parameters
Table 11 Second-Water Bearing Zone Well Trend Summary Results: 2004-2008
Table 12 Second Water-Bearing Zone Moment Estimates and Trends
Table 13 Second Water-Bearing Zone MCES Sampling Frequency Analysis Results
Table 14 Second Water-Bearing Zone Final Recommended Monitoring Network
Table 15 Second Water-Bearing Zone Monitoring Well Network Summary
Table 16 Third Water-Bearing Zone Well Trend Summary Results: 2004-2008
Table 17 Third Water-Bearing Zone Final Recommended Monitoring Network
30
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER SCREENING CONCENTRATIONS AND CRITERIA
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Priority
Pollutant
Metals
Maximum FWBZ
Concentration
2004 - 2008
[ug/L]
Maximum
Concentration from
Remedial
Investigation
[ug/L]
USEPA
Primary or
Secondary
MCLs [ug/L]
USEPA
Region 6
MSSL
[ug/L]
USEPA
Water
Quality
Criteria
[ug/L]
Water Quality
Criteria
(Adjusted for
Site-Specific
Hardness)
RECAP GW
3DW
[ug/L]
RECAP GW
3 NOW
[ug/L]
Identified as
COPC in HH
Risk
Assessment
Identified as
COPC in
Ecological Risk
Assessment
Recommended
Analytes for
Future
Groundwater
Monitoring
Apparent
Relevant
Criteria for
FWBZ [ug/L]
Type of
Cleanup
Standard
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
1,410
490
59,600
3,560
235
4,160,000
350
1,480
1,500
169
4,740
500
300
791
2,320
77,100
0.24
6,100
62
30
123
3,610
11,200
50* - 200*
6
10
2,000
4
5
100
1300
15
50*
2
50
100*
2
5000*
37,000
15
0.05
2,600
73
18
180
2,200
1,400
15
1,700
4
730
180
180
3
260
11,000
87
150
2.2
11
9
2.5
0.77
52
5
120
87
150
0.9
11
2.94
0.57
16.63
0.4
38.14
6
50
2,000
4
10
50
2,000
1,000
50
2
670
50
130
2
230
5,000
262
50
45,000
300
10
1,900
39,000
1,300
50
2
13,000
50
540
2
4,500
8,000
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
87
10
0.9
2.9
0.6
1,700
100
5
2
38.1
Ecological
Human Health
Ecological
Ecological
Ecological
Human Health
Human Health
Ecological
Human Health
Ecological
Notes;
1. Maximum concentrations of priority pollutant metals in FWBZ groundwaterfrom USEPA Region 6 data received 12/2008. Maximum groundwater concentrations from Remedial Investigation Report (USEPA, 2000a).
2. USEPA Secondary MCLs are designated with *.
3. USEPA Region 6 MSSL = Medium Specific Screening Levels from 1999 were used as preliminary groundwater screening levels used in Rl Report. Screening values for groundwater with human receptors.
4. USEPA Water Quality Critera identified as Applicable Relevant or Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for groundwater discharging to surface water for ecological receptors at Delatte Metals from the
The adjusted values for hardness were determined by TetraTech in the ERA.
gram standards. GW3 = Values for Class 3A groundwater; DW = groundwater discharging to a drinking water source.
ire.
8. Ecological standards for groundwater are WQC for surface water, as no dilution calculations have been performed.
-------
Issued: 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 2
FIRST WATER-BEARING ZONE MONITORING WELL NETWORK SUMMARY
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Well Name
Hydrologic
Zone
Screened
Interval [ft
bgs]
Source or
Tail (for
MAROS)
Minimum
Sample Date
Maximum
Sample Date
Number of
Samples
(2004-2008)
Current
Sampling
Frequency
Priority
Constituent
Well Description
First Water-Bearing Zone
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-06
PW-04
BC-31
MW-7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3.0 to 13.0
7.5 to 17.5
8.5 to 18.5
5.5 to 10.5
5.5 to 15.5
13.0 to 28.0
5.0 to 10.0
9.0 to 14.0
7.0 to 17.0
5.5 to 15.5
NA
S
T
T
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
No data
No data
Lead
Arsenic/
Manganese
Arsenic
Thallium
Lead
Arsenic
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Monitors area upgradient from treatment wall former acid pond.
Monitors outside wall north/northeast of main waste area.
Monitors efficacy of treatment.
Monitors outside wall north of waste pits and acid pond.
Monitors area within treatment wall upgradient of former waste
piles and acid pond.
Monitors area east of former acid pond near tributary.
Monitors area outside treatment wall near Selsers Creek.
Monitors efficacy of treatment wall.
Delineates affected groundwater southwest of waste pits;
monitors possible discharge to Selsers Creek (~100 ft).
Delineates affected groundwater south of main waste area and
west of developed areas. Most upgradient point in FWBZ.
Delineates affected groundwater in easternmost area of FWBZ.
Abandoned
Abandoned
Notes:
1. Wells listed are in current monitoring program. Data from USEPA Region 6, Nov. 2008. Well locations illustrated on Figure 1.
2. Groundwater zones are based on the depth of the well screened interval. The First-Water Bearing Zone (FWBZ) extends from the surface to approximately 25 ft bgs.
3. Priority constituent at each location was determined by dividing the maximum metals concentrations by the associated MCL or MSSL screening value.
The metal with maximum ratio of concentration to screening level is the priority constituent.
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 3
FIRST WATER-BEARING ZONE
AQUIFER INPUT PARAMETERS
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Parameter
Hydraulic conductivity, average (K)
Hydraulic gradient i
Porosity n
Seepage velocity
Depth
RECAP Classification
Plume Length
Plume Width
Distance to Receptors (Selsers Creek)
GWFIuctuations
SourceTreatment
Contaminant Type
NAPLPresent
Groundwater flow direction (N/NW)
Source Location near Well
Source X-Coordinate
Source Y-Coordinate
Coordinate System
Plume Thickness
Priority Constituent
Arsenic
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Thallium
PH
Value
15.85
0.03
0.35
511
5-15
3B
900
900
100
No
Permeable reactive
barrier/excavation
Metals
No
100
DW-02
3571555
700994.9
NAD 83 SP Louisiana South
10
Screening Levels
10
15
1700
730
2
6-9
Units
ft/day
ft/ft
ft/yr
ft bgs
ft
ft
ft
degrees
ft
ft
Feet
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
units
Notes:
1. Aquifer data from Rl (TetraTech, 2000), Five-Year Review (USEPA.2007),
and O&M Reports (SEMS, 2008a, SEMS, 2007).
2. Multiple source areas may exists, DW-02 was chosen as a source due to the presence of
historic high concentrations.
3. A wide range of transmissivites are present in the aquifer, and groundwater velocity
calculations result in a range, with values shown being the best estimate.
4. Screening levels are based on screening levels from the Five-Year Review.
5. No data for other site COCs were available.
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 4
FIRST WATER-BEARING ZONE pH SUMMARY RESULTS: 2004-2008
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
WellName
Average pH
Minimum pH
Date of Minimum
PH
Mann-Kendall
Trend
2004 - 2008
Mann-Kendall
Trend
2006 - 2008
PH
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-06
PW-04
4.8
3.7
4.7
3.3
4.2
3.8
3.5
4.1
4.1
3.3
3.2
3.4
2.3
3.0
3.2
2.9
3.5
3.1
1/1/2004
8/8/2008
5/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
8/8/2008
1/1/2004
12/1/2007
7/1/2004
S
I
I
PI
NT
S
NT
NT
NT
D
NT
NT
D
D
D
PD
PD
PD
Notes
1. Screening level MSSL pH = 6-9.
2. D = Decreasing; PD = Probably Decreasing; S = Stable; PI = Probably Increasing; I = Increasing;
and minimum pH were calculated for all pH data 2004 - 2008. The sample date of the
were found for samples 2004 - 2008 and for samples collected 2006 - 2008.
5. Well Names in Bold are outside of PRB.
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 5
FIRST WATER-BEARING ZONE WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 2004-2008
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
Maximum
Result [mg/L]
Max Result
Above
Standard?
Average
Result [mg/L]
Average
Result Above
Standard?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Overall
Trend Result
Arsenic
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-06
PW-04
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
12
20
16
18
17
13
10
14
95%
60%
100%
80%
90%
85%
65%
50%
70%
0.0412
0.0388
1.41
0.235
0.0906
0.468
0.0282
0.0101
0.0112
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
0.0167
0.0142
0.2292
0.0784
0.0332
0.0961
0.0034
0.0026
0.0034
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
D
I
NT
NT
NT
NT
PI
NT
NT
D
I
NT
NT
NT
NT
PI
NT
NT
D
I
NT
NT
NT
NT
PI
NT
NT
Lead
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-06
PW-04
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
15
12
13
12
18
14
18
14
14
Manganese
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-06
PW-04
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
75%
60%
65%
60%
90%
70%
90%
70%
70%
0.49
0.0026
0.0535
0.0397
0.349
0.0549
0.0146
0.0103
0.00285
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
0.1424
0.0007
0.0053
0.0079
0.0530
0.0081
0.0085
0.0016
0.0012
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
I
I
NT
I
I
NT
PD
PI
NT
I
I
NT
I
I
NT
S
NT
PI
I
I
NT
I
I
NT
S
PI
PI
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
3.76
7.48
11.2
59.6
11.3
12.8
4.0
4.3
3.9
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2.3
4.7
5.0
24.7
3.4
8.7
1.7
2.2
1.6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
NT
D
D
D
D
S
I
I
S
NT
D
D
D
D
S
I
I
S
NT
D
D
D
D
S
I
I
S
Nickel
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-06
PW-04
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
20
20
20
20
20
19
17
18
90%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
85%
90%
0.177
0.52
0.358
3.56
0.45
0.735
0.429
0.0513
0.102
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
0.0744
0.2987
0.0936
1.3042
0.1313
0.4496
0.1134
0.0197
0.0392
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
I
D
D
D
D
S
I
I
NT
I
D
D
D
D
D
I
I
NT
I
D
D
D
D
PD
I
I
NT
Notes
1. Trends were evaluated for data collected between 2004 and 2008.
2. Number of Samples is the number of quarterly samples for the compound at this location.
Number of Detects is the number of times the compound has been detected for data at this location.
3. Maximum Result is the maximum concentration for the COC analyzed between 2004 and 2008.
4. Screening level Arsenic = 0.010mg/L; Lead = 0.015 mg/L; Manganese = 1.7 mg/L;
Nickel = 0.730 mg/L; Thallium = 0.002 mg/L. Concentrations above screening levels are shown in Bold.
5. D = Decreasing; PD = Probably Decreasing; S = Stable; PI = Probably Increasing; I = Increasing; N/A = Insufficient Data to determine trend;
NT = No Trend; ND = well has all non-detect results for COC; INT = Intermittent detections <30% detection frequency.
6. Mann-Kendall trend results are illustrated on Figures 2 and 3.
7. Thallium is not detected with high frequency plume-wide, and is not present above screening levels at most locations.
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 5
FIRST WATER-BEARING ZONE WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 2004-2008
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
Maximum
Result
[mg/L]
Max Result
Above
Standard?
Average
Result
[mg/L]
Average
Result
Above
Standard?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Overall
Trend
Result
Thallium
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-06
PW-04
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
2
4
1
2
0
13
5
1
50%
10%
20%
5%
10%
0%
65%
25%
5%
0.00267
0.000922
0.00105
0.235
0.011
ND
0.00159
0.00124
0.0022
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
0.0007
0.0002
0.0002
0.0118
0.0007
ND
0.0006
0.0002
0.0002
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
I
INT
INT
INT
INT
ND
NT
INT
INT
I
INT
INT
INT
INT
ND
NT
INT
INT
I
INT
INT
INT
INT
ND
NT
INT
INT
WellName
Arsenic
Exceeds
Arsenic
Trend
Lead
Exceeds
J Manganese
Exceeds
Manganese
Trend
Nickel
Exceeds
Nickel
Trend
Thallium
Exceeds
Thallium
Trend
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
MW-01
MW-02*
MW-06
PW-04
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
D
I
NT
NT
NT
NT
PI
NT
NT
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
I
I
NT
I
I
NT
PD
PI
NT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
NT
D
D
D
D
S
I
|
S
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
I
D
D
D
D
S
I
I
NT
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
I
NT
NT
NT
NT
ND
NT
I
NT
Notes:
1. MW-02* data for arsenic appear to have an outlier data point controlling trend. Thallium data have a number of outliers.
2. DW-02 increasing trend for lead appears to be some scattered concentrations above ND 2005 - 2007, concentrations may be trending back down.
3. MW-06 PI trend for lead appears to be controlled by two outlier data points
4. Locations and COCs with average concentrations above screening levels are shown in Bold.
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6
FIRST WATER-BEARING ZONE
MOMENT ESTIMATES AND TRENDS
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Zone
Effective Sample
Event Date
Estimate of Dissolved
Mass [Kg]
Arsenic
Manganese
Lead
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Trend
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Trend
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Trend
0.81
0.15
0.11
0.38
0.50
S
125.47
69.49
91.91
76.58
65.11
S
0.01
0.02
0.08
0.25
0.12
I
Distance of Center of
Mass from Source [ft]
312
356
294
266
266
S
223
254
258
277
269
I
321
277
333
327
295
S
Notes:
1. Input parameters for the moment analysis are listed in Table 2.
2. Moments are based on annually consolidated concentrations.
3. Estimated mass is the total dissolved mass of the total metal within the network indicated.
5. Trends are Mann Kendall trends on the moments, S=Stable, I = Increasing.
6. First moments are illustrated on Figure 2.
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 7
FIRST WATER-BEARING ZONE MCES SAMPLING FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Well Name
Priority
Constituent
Recent
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Recent MK
Trend (2006
2008)
Frequency
Based on
Recent Data
(2006-2008)
Overall
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Overall MK
Trend
(2004 - 2008)
Frequency
Based on
Overall Data
(2004 - 2008)
MAROS
Recommended
Frequency
Current
Sampling
Frequency
FWBZ
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-06
PW-04
Lead
Arsenic
Arsenic
Thallium
Lead
Arsenic
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
-7.06E-05
3.87E-05
2.44E-05
-3.25E-39
2.04E-04
5.70E-05
4.73E-04
-1.72E-03
1.31E-03
S
I
NT
S
PI
NT
NT
S
I
Annual
Quarterly
SemiAnnual
Annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
2.29E-04
1.31E-05
-1.75E-04
-3.44E-05
7.15E-05
-7.13E-05
1 .40E-03
1 .09E-03
-2.04E-04
I
I
NT
NT
I
NT
I
I
S
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Quarterly
SemiAnnual
Annual
Quarterly
Quarterly
SemiAnnual
Biennial
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
SemiAnnual
SemiAnnual
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Notes:
1. Concentration rate of change is from linear regression calculations. 'Recent' concentration rate of change and MK trends are calculated from data collected 2006 - 2008.
2. MKtrend = Mann Kendall trend. D = Decreasing, PD = Probably Decreasing, S = Stable, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing; NT = No Trend.
3. Recent data frequency is the estimated sample frequency based on the recent trend.
4. Overall rate of change and MKtrend are for the full data set (2004-2008) for each well. The overall result is the estimated sample frequncy based on the full data record.
6. MAROS Recommended Frequency is the final frequency from the MAROS calculations based on both recent and overall trends.
7. Current frequency is the approximate sampling frequency currently implemented.
8. The final recommended sampling frequency is based on a combination of qualitative and statistical evaluations.
9. Results for the priority constituent (based on risk ratio) are shown.
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 8
FIRST WATER-BEARING ZONE FINAL RECOMMENDED MONITORING NETWORK
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
WellName
FWBZ
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-06
PW-04
Lines of Evidence
Exceedances
Mann Kendall Trends
Preliminary
MAROS Frequency
Monitoring Rationale
Recommendation After Qualitative
Review
Final
Recommended
Frequency
As, Pb, Mn
As, Mn,
As, Mn
As, Mn, Ni and Tl
As, Pb, Mn
As, Mn
None
Mn
None
Increasing for Pb and Ni,
Decreasing for As.
Increasing for As and Pb;
Decreasing for Mn and Ni
No trend for As and Pb,
decreasing for Mn and Ni
No trend for As,
increasing trend for Pb,
decreasing for Mn and Ni
Increasing trend for Pb,
no trend for As,
decreasing for Mn
No trend for As and Pb,
stable for Ni and Mn
Increasing for Mn and Ni
Increasing for Mn
Stable for Mn
Quarterly for Pb
Quarterly for As
Semi-annual for As
Biennial for thallium
Quarterly for Pb
Quarterly for As
Quarterly for Mn
Semi-annual for Mn
Semi-annual for Mn
Monitors area of affected groundwater
before it enters PRB
Monitor area downgradient from PRB,
area of arsenic
Monitors immediately downgradient from
PRB to north between PRB and
Tributrary 2
Monitors upgradient of PRB, higher
concentration area
Monitors eastern end of PRB and any
groundwater that may be escaping the
PRB
Monitors area outside of PRB, between
the PRB and Selsers Creek
Monitors area south of PRB for
groundwater going around PRB
Monitors most upgradient area of
groundwaterr, south of Tributary 1
Monitors eastern most edge of FWBZ
Retain to evaluate PRB efficacy and
source depletion
Retain to evaluate PRB efficacy and
to delineate plume to north
Retain to monitor efficacy of RPB
and area of arsenic-affected
groundwater north of PRB
Retain to evaluate source area
Retain to monitor possible discharge
to Tributary 1 and to delineate plume
toNE
Retain to monitor possible discharge
to Selsers Creek and efficacy of
PRB
Retain to monitor possible exposure
route to Selsers Creek/Tributary 2
Retain to monitor source area of Mn
Retain to delineate plume to east
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Additional Locations
Groundwater wells — 4 monitoring wells outside of the PRB along possible exposure routes to delineate the plumes and monitor efficacy of PRB
Groundwater — 1 well (or temporary sampling location) southeast of main FWBZ network.
Surface water monitoring locations along Tributaries 1 and 2
Surface water monitoring locations on Selsers Creek, east of PRB
Notes:
1. Exceedances indicate metals where the average concentration 2004 - 2008 are above the regulatory screening level. pH is below standards at all locations.
2. Mann-Kendall trends 2004 - 2008 are referenced. See Table 5 for details.
3. The Preliminary MAROS frequency is the MAROS generated recommended sampling frequency for the constituent indicated.
4. Final Recommendation based on statistical as well as qualitative evaluation.
-------
Issued: 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 9
SECOND WATER-BEARING ZONE MONITORING WELL NETWORK SUMMARY
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
DELATTE METALS SUPERFUND SITE
PONCHATOULA, LOUISIANA
Well Name
Hydrologic
Zone
Screened
Interval [ft
bgs]
Source or
Tail (for
MAROS)
Minimum
Sample Date
Maximum
Sample Date
Number of
Samples
(2004-2008)
Current
Sampling
Frequency
Priority
Constituent
Well Description
Second Water-Bearing Zone
BA-01
BA-05
BA-09A
BC-03
BC-07
BC-17
BC-19
BC-21R
BC-25
DW-04
MW-03
MW-04
MW-A
BC-01
BC-11
BC-27
MW-5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
15.5 to 25.5
8.0 to 18.0
31. 5 to 41 .5
17.5 to 27.5
8.0 to 18.0
17.5 to 27.5
12.0 to 22.0
12.0 to 17.0
21. 5 to 31 .5
27.5 to 37.5
17.0 to 27.0
13.5 to 23.5
16.5 to 26.5
16.0 to 26.0
18.0 to 28.0
17.5 to 27.5
14.5 to 19.5
S
S
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Limited Data (3 samples in 2004)
Limited Data (3 samples in 2004)
Limited Data (3 samples in 2004)
Limited Data (3 samples in 2004)
Manganese
Manganese
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Lead
Arsenic
Manganese
Lead
Thallium
Manganese
None
Arsenic
..
..
__
Monitors area upgradient of treatment wall toward main developed
area.
Monitors inside treatment wall in center of area of waste piles.
Source area for manganese
Monitors area outside of treatment wall, north of site.
Monitors area east of Delatte site, near historic residence.
Monitors western side of main developed area.
Monitors high concentration area near former slag pile.
Delineates area west of former slag pile and former battery chip
pile at Delatte.
Monitors area of former battery chip waste pile.
Delineates plume on western edge of Mn-Pb
Monitors western fence-line near center of site, near developed
area.
Monitors fence-line of Delatte, Mn plume moving N/NW
Northern delineation point for SWBZ near residences.
Monitors inside treatment wall in center of area of waste piles.
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Wotes:
1. Wells listed are in current monitoring program. Data from USEPA Region 6, Nov. 2008. Well locations illustrated on Figure 1.
2. Groundwater zones are based on the depth of the well screened interval. The Second-Water Bearing Zone (SWBZ) extends from approximately 20 ft bgs to 40ft bgs.
3. Priority constituent at each location was determined by dividing the maximum metals concentrations by the associated regulatory screening value.
The metal with maximum ratio of concentration to screening level is the priority constituent.
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 10
SECOND WATER-BEARING ZONE
AQUIFER INPUT PARAMETERS
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Parameter
Hydraulic conductivity, average (K)
Hydraulic gradient i
Porosity n
Seepage velocity
Depth
RECAP Classification
Plume Length
Plume Width
Distance to Receptors (Selsers Creek)
GWFIuctuations
SourceTreatment
Contaminant Type
NAPLPresent
Groundwater flow direction (W/NW)
Source Location near Well
Source X-Coordinate
Source Y-Coordinate
Coordinate System
Plume Thickness
Priority Constituent
Arsenic
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Thallium
PH
Value
0.53
0.01
0.5
3.9
20-40
2C
1500
600
160
No
Excavation of surface piles
Metals
No
180
BC-17
3571685.22
700232.77
NAD 83 SP Louisiana South
10
Cleanup Goals
10
15
1700
730
2
6-9
Units
ft/day
ft/ft
ft/yr
ft bgs
ft
ft
ft
~
~
~
—
degrees
~
ft
ft
Feet
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
units
Notes:
1. Aquifer data from Rl (TetraTech, 2000), Five-Year Review (USEPA.2007),
and O&M Reports (SEMS, 2008a, SEMS, 2007).
2. Multiple source areas may exists, BC-17 was chosen as a source due to the presence of
historic high concentrations.
3. A wide range of transmissivites are present in the aquifer, and groundwater velocity
calculations result in a range, with values shown being the best estimate.
4. Screening levels are based on screening levels in the Five-Year Review.
5. No data for other site COCs were available.
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Pagel of 2
TABLE 11
SECOND WATER-BEARING ZONE WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 2004-2008
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
Maximum
Result [ug/L]
Max Result
Above
Standard?
Average
Result [ug/L]
Average
Result Above
Standard?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Overall
Trend Result
Arsenic
BA-01
BA-05
BA-09A
BC-03
BC-07
BC-17
BC-19
BC-21R
BC-25
DW-04
MW-03
MW-04
MW-A
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
15
16
17
16
15
17
16
14
14
15
13
12
15
75%
80%
85%
80%
75%
85%
80%
70%
70%
75%
65%
60%
75%
13
18.7
11.2
14.3
14.3
11.2
13.6
9.5
11.7
12.5
12.6
9.9
18.8
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
3.20
4.21
3.30
3.31
3.06
4.95
2.97
1.83
2.19
2.68
2.14
1.55
2.36
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
NT
NT
PD
D
S
NT
NT
NT
PD
D
PI
NT
NT
NT
NT
PD
D
S
PD
NT
NT
D
D
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
PD
D
S
S
NT
NT
D
D
PI
NT
Lead
BA-01
BA-05
BA-09A
BC-03
BC-07
BC-17
BC-19
BC-21R
BC-25
DW-04
MW-03
MW-04
MW-A
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
13
13
12
15
13
20
15
11
11
14
12
14
12
Manganese
BA-01
BA-05
BA-09A
BC-03
BC-07
BC-17
BC-19
BC-21R
BC-25
DW-04
MW-03
MW-04
MW-A
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
18
20
20
20
19
17
65%
65%
60%
75%
65%
100%
75%
55%
55%
70%
60%
70%
60%
17.3
6.8
0.857
3.2
2.5
469
2.7
2.4
2.3
9.9
4.8
5.34
4
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
1.90
1.11
0.38
1.31
0.68
147.15
0.64
0.56
0.52
3.12
1.11
0.83
0.84
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
NT
I
NT
I
PD
I
NT
I
NT
NT
PI
NT
NT
NT
I
PI
I
S
PI
NT
I
NT
I
PI
NT
NT
NT
I
PI
I
S
PI
NT
I
NT
PI
PI
NT
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
90%
90%
100%
100%
100%
95%
85%
1460
31,400
98.7
119
189
1680
147
182
770
87
1480
67.8
19.4
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
875.6
12,952
47.6
34.9
86.7
515.6
30.8
61.5
269.3
56.8
920.1
14.0
7.8
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
PI
D
PD
D
S
D
NT
NT
D
S
PI
NT
S
NT
D
D
D
NT
S
NT
NT
PD
I
NT
NT
NT
PI
D
D
D
S
PD
NT
NT
D
PI
PI
NT
S
Thallium
BA-01
BA-05
BA-09A
BC-03
BC-07
BC-17
BC-19
BC-21R
BC-25
DW-04
MW-03
MW-04
MW-A
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
1
2
1
1
2
5
3
2
2
3
1
1
0
5%
10%
5%
5%
10%
25%
15%
10%
10%
15%
5%
5%
0%
1.7
1.64
0.833
0.904
0.682
14.5
21.1
1.7
94
25.5
0.499
0.868
ND
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
0.18
0.23
0.14
0.14
0.15
1.22
1.54
0.20
4.82
1.42
0.12
0.14
ND
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
ND
PD
NT
NT
PI
I
PD
D
NT
NT
NT
PI
NT
ND
ND*
INT
ND*
ND*
INT
INT
INT
INT
INT
INT
ND*
ND*
ND
Notes
1. Trends were evaluated for data collected between 2004 and 2008.
2. Number of Samples is the number of quarterly samples for the compound at this location.
Number of Detects is the number of times the compound has been detected for data at this location.
3. Maximum Result is the maximum concentration for the COC analyzed between 2004 and 2008.
4. Screening levels from Five-Year Review; Arsenic = 0.010mg/L; Lead = 0.015 mg/L; Manganese = 1.7 mg/L;
Nickel = 0.73 mg/L; Thallium = 0.002 mg/L.
5. D = Decreasing; PD = Probably Decreasing; S = Stable; PI = Probably Increasing; I = Increasing; N/A = Insufficient Data to determine trend;
NT = No Trend; ND = well has all non-detect results for COC; ND* = Non-detect except for one trace value; INT = Intermittent detection <30% detection frequency..
6. Mann-Kendall trend results are illustrated on Figure 4.
7. Nickel concentrations did not exceed screening levels in the SWBZ.
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 11
SECOND WATER-BEARING ZONE WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 2004-2008
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
WellName
Arsenic
Exceeds
Arsenic
Trend
Lead
Exceeds
Lead Trend
Manganese
Exceeds
Manganese
Trend
Thallium
Exceeds
Thallium
Trend
BA-01
BA-05
BA-09A
BC-03
BC-07
BC-17
BC-19
BC-21R
BC-25
DW-04
MW-03
MW-04
MW-A
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
NT
NT
PD
D
S
NT
NT
NT
PD
D
PI
NT
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
NT
I
NT
I
PD
I
NT
I
NT
NT
PI
NT
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
PI
D
PD
D
S
D
NT
NT
D
S
PI
NT
S
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
ND*
INT
ND*
ND*
INT
INT
INT
INT
INT
INT
ND*
ND*
ND
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 12
SECOND WATER-BEARING ZONE
MOMENT ESTIMATES AND TRENDS
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
coc
Effective Sample
Event Date
Estimate of Dissolved
Mass [Kg]
Manganese
Lead
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Trend
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Trend
11.50
9.15
7.66
9.56
9.44
NT
0.09
0.10
0.14
0.23
0.11
S
Distance of Center of
Mass from Source [ft]
522
498
521
578
576
NT
128
79
60
104
129
NT
Notes:
1. Input parameters for the moment analysis are listed in Table 9.
2. Moments are based on all wells sampled during the year indicated.
Sampling data were averaged over the year to determine consolidated value.
3. Estimated mass is the total dissolved mass of the total metal within the network indicated.
4. Trends are Mann Kendall trends on the moments, S=Stable, NT = No Trend.
5. First moments are illustrated on Figure 4.
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 13
SECOND WATER-BEARING ZONE MCES SAMPLING FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Well Name
Priority
Constituent
Recent
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Recent MK
Trend (2006
2008)
Frequency
Based on
Recent Data
(2006-2008)
Overall
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Overall MK
Trend
(2004 - 2008)
Frequency
Based on
Overall Data
(2004 - 2008)
MAROS
Recommended
Frequency
Current
Sampling
Frequency
SWBZ
BA-01
BA-05
BA-09A
BC-03
BC-07
BC-17
BC-19
BC-21R
BC-25
DW-04
MW-03
MW-04
MW-A
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Lead
Manganese
Manganese
Thallium
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
6.65E-04
-1.08E-03
5.47E-06
-5.49E-06
7.28E-06
-1.39E-04
1.61E-05
4.01 E-05
1.36E-07
-3.36E-05
-1.19E-04
1.52E-05
1.38E-06
PI
S
NT
S
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
D
S
NT
NT
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
1.62E-04
-7.64E-03
-1.66E-05
-2. 32 E-05
-1.47E-06
-6.62E-05
-4.42E-06
2.05E-05
-1.27E-05
-7.08E-07
1 .58E-04
9.24E-07
-5.52E-07
PI
D
PD
D
S
PD
NT
NT
NT
S
PI
NT
S
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Notes:
1. Concentration rate of change is from linear regression calculations. 'Recent' concentration rate of change and MK trends are calculated from data collected 2006 - 2008.
2. MKtrend = Mann Kendall trend. D = Decreasing, PD = Probably Decreasing, S = Stable, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing; NT = No Trend.
3. Recent data frequency is the estimated sample frequency based on the recent trend.
4. Overall rate of change and MKtrend are for the full data set (2004-2008) for each well. The overall result is the estimated sample frequncy based on the full data record.
6. MAROS Recommended Frequency is the final frequency from the MAROS calculations based on both recent and overall trends.
7. Current frequency is the approximate sampling frequency currently implemented.
8. The final recommended sampling frequency is based on a combination of qualitative and statistical evaluations.
9. Results for the priority constituent (based on risk ratio) are shown.
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 14
SECOND WATER-BEARING ZONE FINAL RECOMMENDED MONITORING NETWORK
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Well Name
SWBZ
BA-01
BA-05
BA-09A
BC-03
BC-07
BC-17
BC-19
BC-21R
BC-25
DW-04
MW-03
MW-04
MW-A
Lines of Evidence
Exceedances
Mann Kendall Trends
Preliminary
MAROS Frequency
Monitoring Rationale
Recommendation After Qualitative
Review
Final
Recommended
Frequency
(None)
Mn
(None)
(None)
(None)
Pb
(None)
(None)
Tl
(None)
(None)
(None)
(None)
Probably increasing trend
for Mn
Decreasing trend for Mn
Decreasing trend for Mn,
probably decreasing trend
forPb
No trend for Tl
Probably increasing trend
for Mn
Annual for Mn
Annual for Mn
Biennial for Mn
Biennial for Mn
Biennial for Mn
Annual for Pb
Biennial for Mn
Biennial for Mn
Biennial for Tl
Biennial for Mn
Annual for Mn
Biennial for Mn
Biennial for Mn
Monitors Mn affected groundwater in
northern area of SWBZ plume.
Monitors area of highest Mn
concentration in SWBZ
Monitors northernmost area of SWBZ
(with the exception of MW-05, for which
there is no data).
Monitors southernmost area of the SWBZ
Delineates southwestern edge of plume
Monitors area of highest Pb concentration
and high Mn concentration in the SWBZ
Monitors and delineates area
downgradientfrom BC-17 source area
Monitors low concentration area between
southern and northern property areas.
Monitors western edge of high Mn and Tl
concentrations.
Delineates southwestern edge of Pb
plume, south of former furnace building.
Monitors area of high Mn concentration
Monitors northeast corner of SWBZ
Delineates northern Mn plume to the
west.
Retain to evaluate Mn
concentrations
Retain to evaluate Mn source
concentrations
Retain to delineate plume to north.
Retain to delineate plume to south.
Retain to delineate plume to the
southwest.
Retain to monitor source area
Retain to delineate plume to west
and monitor possible expansion of
plume.
Retain to monitor southern area of
MN affected groundwater and
northern limit of Pb affected
groundwater.
Retain to delineate plume to west.
Retain to delineate Pb plume in
southwest.
Retain to monitor area of high and
possibly increasing MN
Retain to delineate plume to the
northeast.
Retain to delineate Mn plume to the
west.
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Notes:
1. Exceedances indicate metals where the average concentration 2004 - 2008 are above the regulatory screening level.
2. Mann-Kendall trends 2004 - 2008 are referenced. See Table 11 for details.
3. The Preliminary MAROS frequency is the MAROS generated recommended sampling frequency for the constituent indicated.
4. Final Recommendation based on statistical as well as qualitative evaluation.
-------
Issued: 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 15
THIRD WATER-BEARING ZONE MONITORING WELL NETWORK SUMMARY
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
DELATTE METALS SUPERFUND SITE
PONCHATOULA, LOUISIANA
Well Name
Hydrologic
Zone
Screened
Interval [ft
bgs]
Source or
Tail (for
MAROS)
Minimum
Sample Date
Maximum
Sample Date
Number of
Samples
(2004-2008)
Current
Sampling
Frequency
Priority
Constituent
Well Description
Third Water-Bearing Zone
BA-01A
BA-03A
BA-05A
BB-01
3
3
3
3
35.5 to 45.5
89.5 to 99.5
36.0 to 39.5
85.5 to 95.5
..
..
..
__
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
1/1/2004
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
8/8/2008
20
20
20
20
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Quarterly (+)
Manganese
Thallium
Arsenic
Lead
Monitors area under Mn plume, northern area of Site
Monitors western edge of Site
Monitors northern end of Delatte Site
Monitors southern end of Delatte Site
Notes:
1. Wells listed are in current monitoring program. Data from USEPA Region 6, Nov. 2008. Well locations illustrated on Figure 1.
2. Groundwater zones are based on the depth of the well screened interval. The Third-Water Bearing Zone (TWBZ)from 58 to 100ft bgs.
3. Priority constituent at each location was determined by dividing the maximum metals concentrations by the associated regulatory screening value.
-------
Issued 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 16
THIRD WATER-BEARING ZONE WELL TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 2004-2008
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
Maximum
Result [ug/L]
Max Result
Above
Standard?
Average
Result [ug/L]
Average
Result Above
Standard?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
Arsenic
BA-01A
BA-03A
BA-05A
BB-01
20
20
20
20
16
17
17
17
80%
85%
85%
85%
16.8
11.3
11.3
18.7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
6.47
2.91
3.35
6.62
No
No
No
No
D
D
D
D
S
S
S
S
Lead
BA-01A
BA-03A
BA-05A
BB-01
20
20
20
20
12
17
11
17
Manganese
BA-01A
BA-03A
BA-05A
BB-01
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
60%
85%
55%
85%
4.9
14.6
6.6
15.2
No
No
No
Yes
1.06
5.53
2.05
8.59
No
No
No
No
I
S
NT
NT
I
PI
I
PI
100%
100%
100%
90%
1370
68.2
54.4
13.8
No
No
No
No
91.9
38.6
31.9
5.8
No
No
No
No
D
D
NT
NT
NT
D
NT
PI
Nickel
BA-01A
BA-03A
BA-05A
BB-01
20
20
20
20
16
16
16
17
80%
80%
80%
85%
22
5.2
50.1
3.7
No
No
No
No
2.49
1.89
3.56
1.91
No
No
No
No
NT
S
NT
S
NT
S
NT
NT
Thallium
BA-01A
BA-03A
BA-05A
BB-01
WellName
20
20
20
20
Arsenic
Exceeds
2
3
0
0
10%
15%
0%
0%
0.489
2.2
ND
ND
No
Yes
No
No
Arsenic Lead
Trend || Exceeds
Lead Trend
Manganese
Exceeds
0.12
0.34
ND
ND
No
No
No
No
Manganese Thallium
Trend || Exceeds
INT
INT
ND
ND
Thallium
Trend
BA-01
BA-05
BA-09A
BC-03
No
No
No
No
D
D
D
D
No
No
No
No
I
S
NT
NT
No
No
No
No
D
D
NT
NT
No
No
No
No
INT
INT
ND
ND
INT
INT
ND
ND
Notes
1. Trends were evaluated for data collected between 2004 and 2008.
2. Number of Samples is the number of quarterly samples for the compound at this location.
Number of Detects is the number of times the compound has been detected for data at this location.
3. Maximum Result is the maximum concentration for the COG analyzed between 2004 and 2008.
4. Screening levels Arsenic = 0.010 mg/L; Lead = 0.015 mg/L; Manganese = 1.7 mg/L;
Nickel = 0.730 mg/L; Thallium = 0.002 mg/L.
5. D = Decreasing; PD = Probably Decreasing; S = Stable; PI = Probably Increasing; I = Increasing; N/A = Insufficient Data to determine trend;
NT = No Trend; ND = well has all non-detect results for COG; INT = Intermittent detection <30% detection frequency.
-------
Issued: 14-SEPT-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 17
THIRD WATER-BEARING ZONE FINAL RECOMMENDED MONITORING NETWORK
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Delatte Metals, Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Well Name
TWBZ
BA-01A
BA-03A
BA-05A
BB-01
Lines of Evidence
Exceedances
Mann Kendall Trends
Preliminary
MAROS Frequency
Monitoring Rationale
Recommendation After Qualitative
Review
Final
Recommended
Frequency
(None)
(None)
(None)
(None)
Probably increasing trend
for Mn
Decreasing trend for Mn
Increasing trend for Pb
Decreasing trend for Mn
Monitors area under Mn plume, northern
area of Site
Monitors western edge of Site
Monitors northern end of Delatte Site
Monitors southern end of Delatte Site
Retain to evaluate Mn
concentrations in north
Retain to western edge of TWBZ
Rretain to delineate plume to north.
Retain to delineate plume to south.
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Notes:
1. Exceedances indicate metals where the average concentration 2004 - 2008 are above the regulatory screening level.
2. Mann-Kendall trends 2004 - 2008 are referenced. See Table 16 for details.
3. The Preliminary MAROS frequency was not evaluated for the TWBZ, due to the limited number of locations.
4. Final Recommendation based on statistical as well as qualitative evaluation.
-------
FIGURES
Figure 1 Groundwater Monitoring Locations
Figure 2 FWBZ Mann-Kendall Trends and First Moments Arsenic and Lead
Figure 3 FWBZ Mann-Kendall Trends and First Moments Manganese and Nickel
Figure 4 SWBZ Mann-Kendall Trends and First Moments Lead and Manganese
Figure 5 Delatte Recommended Monitoring Locations
50
-------
•u
LEGEND
Monitoring Well Locations
® First Water-Bearing Zone
® Second Water-Bearing Zone
® Third Water-Bearing Zone
0 Closed or abandoned well
PRB Wall
Delatte Boundary (approx.)
Approximate extent of FGWBZ
Scale (ft)
^
0 90 180
GROUNDWATER
MONITORING LOCATIONS
Delatte Metals Site
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Coord sys:
WGS84UTM15N
Drawn By:
MV/cdm
Ck'd By:
Appv'd By:
MV
MV
14-SEPT-2009
Map ID:
Figure 1
-------
Arsenic Average Concentrations
•TV
I
Lead Average Concentrations
Arsenic Mann-Kendall Trends and First Moments
Lead Mann-Kendall Trends and First Moments
LEGEND
^^» PRBWall
^^^» Delatte Boundary (approx.)
O First Moments (Center of Mass)
Ratio of Average Concentration to
Screening Level
A 0-1.0
A 1.0-5.0
A 5.0-10
A 10-100
Mann-Kendall Trends
9 Increasing
O Probably Increasing
O Stable
O Probably Decreasing
• Decreasing
• No Trend
Notes:
1) Mann-Kendall trends 2004 - 2008.
2) Historic area of high lead concentrations
from 1999 Rl data - geoprobe DD-27
and DE-27.
3) General groundwater flow direction
from potentiometric map 3rd quarter
2008.
Scale (ft)
I
0 100 200
FWBZ MANN-KENDALL
TRENDS AND FIRST MOMENTS
ARSENIC AND LEAD
Delatte Metals Site
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Coord sys:
WGS84UTM 15N
Drawn By:
MV/cdm
Ck'd By:
MV
Appx/d By:
MV
14-SEPT-2009
Map ID:
Figure 2
-------
• Manganese Average Concentrations
Manganese Mann-Kendall Trends and First Moments
v
A
Pfffif/B
Nickel Average Concentrations
Nickel Mann-Kendall Trends and First Moments
Legend
^^ PRB Wall
^^^" Delatte Boundary (approx.)
Q First Moments
(Center of Mass)
Ratio of Average Concentration to
Screening Level
A 0-1.0
A 1.0-5.0
A 5.0-10
A 10-100
Mann-Kendall Trends
• Increasing
O Probably Increasing
O Stable
O Probably Decreasing
O Decreasing
• No Trend
Notes:
1) Mann-Kendall trends 2004 - 2008.
2) General groundwater flow direction
from potentiometric map 3rd quarter
2008.
Scale (ft)
100 200
FWBZ MANN-KENDALL
TRENDS AND FIRST MOMENTS
MANGANESE AND NICKEL
Delatte Metals Site
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Coordsys:W3S84UTM 15N
Drawn By: |y|y
Ckd By:
Appx/d By:
Issued: 14-SEPT-2009
Figure 3
-------
Lead Average Concentrations
Lead Mann-Kendall Trends and First Moments
BA-09A
A l\/j]^"
4
/MW-A /
A ^BA-05 I
BA*-01
A « '
I MW-03
BC-25
A
BC-27R
A
*TV°"7
IDW-04
c
BC-07
£
L^
«
Manganese Average Concentrations
_
„
•M
BC-03
k
^' - ,'• .'. . •jljjK**
' )i.
- fl\
/7
• Lu^C^fjKi I
°A
J2QQ6lA-q H 20041
1 \— II ?nn*\
n
^^fiE
ii — i
•
KJ '
r
-." "P^ 0b@i0
~ " •: ",
r%M
-^_
Manganese Mann-Kendall Trends and First Moments
LEGEND
^^^ PRBWall Ratio of Average Concentration Mann-Kendall Trends
to Screening Level
^^^» Delatte Boundary
(approx.) 0-1.0
O First Moments A 1-0-5.0
(Center of Mass)
A 5.0-10.0
• Increasing
• Probably Increasing
O Stable
O Probably Decreasing
• __
Decreasing
Qrtold /f+\
ocaie (Tij
.
0 200 400
SWBZ MANN-KENDALL
TRENDS AND FIRST MOMENTS
LEAD AND MANGANESE
Delatte Metals Site
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
:°°rdsys:WGS84UTM15N 'ssued: 14-SEPT-2009
DrawnB>: MV/cdm
3k'd By:
MV
".ppv'd By: yy
Revised:
Map ID:
Figure 4
-------
Tributary 1
Surface Water Sampling
Quarterly
Selsers Creek
Surface Water Sampling
Quarterly
Tributary 2
Surface Water Sampling
Quarterly
BC-01
(Closed)
Legend
Scale (ft)
I
100 200
Monitoring Well Locations
O Proposed New Locations
® FWBZ Quarterly
® SWBZ Semiannual
® TWBZ Semiannual
Approximate Southern
extent of FWBZ
PRB Wall
Delatte Boundary (approx.)
DELATTE RECOMMENDED
MONITORING LOCATIONS
Delatte Metals Site
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
coord ^VW3S84UTM15N
Drawn By: |y|y
CkdBy: MV
Appx/d By:
Issued: -I4.SEPT-2009
Figure 5
-------
APPENDIX A:
MAROS 2.2 Methodology
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A
MAROS 2.2 METHODOLOGY
Contents
1.0 MAROS Conceptual Model 1
2.0 Data Management 2
3.0 Site Details 4
4.0 Constituent Selection 4
5.0 Data Consolidation 4
6.0 Overview Statistics: Plume Trend Analysis 5
6.1 Mann-Kendall Analysis 5
6.2 Linear Regression Analysis 7
6.3 Moment Analysis 8
6.4 Overall Plume Analysis 9
7.0 Detailed Statistics: Optimization Analysis 9
7.1 Well Redundancy Analysis- Delaunay Method 10
7.2 Well Sufficiency Analysis - Delaunay Method 11
7.3 Sampling Frequency - Modified CES Method 11
7.4 Data Sufficiency- Power Analysis 12
Cited References
Figures
Figure 1 MAROS Decision Support Tool Flow Chart
Figure 2 MAROS Overview Statistics Trend Analysis Methodology
Figure 3 Decision Matrix for Determining Provisional Frequency
-------
MAROS METHODOLOGY
MAROS is a collection of tools in one software package that is used in an explanatory,
non-linear but linked fashion to review and increase the efficiency of groundwater
monitoring networks. The tool includes models, statistics, heuristic rules, and empirical
relationships to assist the user in optimizing a groundwater monitoring network system.
The final optimized network maintains adequate delineation while providing information
on plume dynamics over time. Results generated from the software tool can be used to
develop lines of evidence, which, in combination with expert opinion, can be used to
inform regulatory decisions for safe and economical long-term monitoring of groundwater
plumes. For a more detailed description of the structure of the software and further
utilities, refer to the MAROS 2.2 Manual (AFCEE, 2003; http://www.gsi-
net.com/en/software/free-software/maros.html) and Aziz et al., 2003.
1.0 MAROS Conceptual Model
In MAROS 2.2, two levels of analysis are used for optimizing long-term monitoring plans:
1) an overview statistical evaluation based on temporal trend analyses and plume
stability information; and 2) a more detailed statistical optimization based on spatial and
temporal redundancy and sufficiency identification methods (see Figures A.1 and A.2 for
further details). In general, the MAROS method applies to 2-D aquifers that have
relatively simple site hydrogeology. However, for a multi-aquifer (3-D) system, the user
has the option to apply the statistical analysis layer-by-layer.
The overview statistics or interpretive trend analyses assess the general monitoring
system category by considering individual well concentration trends, overall plume
stability, and qualitative factors such as seepage velocity, remedial systems, and the
location of potential receptors. The method relies on temporal trend analysis to assess
plume stability, which is then used to determine the general monitoring system category.
The monitoring system category is evaluated separately for both source and tail regions.
Source zone monitoring wells could include areas with non-aqueous phase liquids
(NAPLs), contaminated vadose zone soils, and areas where aqueous-phase releases
have been introduced into ground water. Alternately, a source zone could be an area
upgradient of a remedy such as a pump and treat (P&T) system or barrier wall. The
source zone generally contains locations with historical high groundwater concentrations
of the COCs.
The tail zone is usually the area downgradient of the contaminant source zone or major
remedial system. Although this classification is a simplification of the plume conceptual
model, this broadness makes the user aware on an individual well basis that the
concentration trend results can have a different interpretation depending on the well
location in and around the plume. The location and type of the individual wells allows
further interpretation of the trend results, depending on what type of well is being
analyzed (e.g., remediation well, leading plume edge well, or source monitoring well).
General recommendations for the monitoring network frequency and density are
suggested based on heuristic rules applied to the source and tail trend results.
Appendix A f MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
The detailed sampling optimization modules consist of well redundancy and well
sufficiency analyses using the Delaunay method, a sampling frequency analysis using
the Modified Cost Effective Sampling (MCES) method. For plumes very close to the
cleanup standards, a data sufficiency analysis including statistical power analysis can be
used to identify statistically 'clean' locations. The well redundancy analysis is designed
to eliminate monitoring locations that do not contribute unique data to the program. The
sampling frequency module is designed to suggest an optimal frequency of sampling
based on the rate of change of constituent concentrations. The data sufficiency analysis
uses simple statistical methods to assess the sampling record to determine if
groundwater concentrations are statistically below target levels and if the current
monitoring network and record is sufficient to evaluate concentrations at downgradient
locations.
2.0 Data Management
In MAROS, groundwater monitoring data can be imported from simple database-format
Microsoft® Excel spreadsheets, Microsoft Access tables, previously created MAROS
database archive files, or entered manually. Monitoring data interpretation in MAROS is
based on historical analytical data from a consistent set of wells over a series of
sampling events. The analytical data is composed of the well name, coordinate location,
constituent, result, detection limit and associated data qualifiers. Statistical validity of the
concentration trend analysis requires constraints on the minimum data input of at least
four wells (ASTM 1998) in which COCs have been detected. Individual sampling
locations need to include data from at least six most-recent sampling events. To ensure
a meaningful comparison of COC concentrations over time and space, both data quality
and data quantity need to be considered. Prior to statistical analysis, the user can
consolidate irregularly sampled data or smooth data that might result from seasonal
fluctuations or a change in site conditions. Because MAROS is a later-stage analytical
tool designed for long-term planning after site investigation and remedial system
installation, impacts of seasonal variation in the water unit are treated on a broad scale,
as they relate to multi-year trends.
Imported ground water monitoring data and the site-specific information entered in the
Site Details input screens can be archived and exported as MAROS archive files. These
archive files can be appended as new monitoring data becomes available, resulting in a
dynamic long-term monitoring database that reflects the changing conditions at the site
(i.e. biodegradation, compliance attainment, completion of remediation phase, etc.). For
wells with a limited monitoring history, addition of information as it becomes available
can change the frequency or redundancy recommendations made by MAROS.
The type of data required to run MAROS is shown in Table 1 below.
Appendix A 2 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
TABLE 1: Data Input for MAROS
1 Data Input 1
Sample Dates
Well Names
Analyte Name
Result
Detection Limit
Data Flag
X and Y Coordinates
Seepage velocity
Plume length and
width
Distance to receptors
Groundwaterflow
direction
Porosity
Source Coordinates
Saturated Thickness
1 Format 1
MM/DD/YYYY
Text format
Text format
Number format; null
cell for non-detect
results
Number format
NDorTR
Geographical
coordinates in number
format; units are feet.
Number in units of
feet per year
Number in units of
feet
Number >0
Number between 1
and 359
Number <1
Geographic
coordinates in number
format; units are feet
Number >1
1 Details 1
Sampling event dates can be
consolidated in the
Well names must be spelled
consistently
Analyte names must conform to
MAROS input standards outlined
shown in
MAROS Constituentl_ist.xls
Detection limits must be included
for all samples. Missing detection
limits can be estimated.
Flag non-detect results with "ND".
Identification of trace values (J
flag) data is optional.
Coordinates can be in State
Plane feet or in a site specific
coordinate system. Values must
be in units of feet.
Estimated value for formation
Estimated value from plume maps
Estimated distance from
source/tail to surface water,
property boundaries or drinking
water wells that represent
potential points of exposure.
Predominant groundwater flow
direction with due east being 0
and moving counter-clockwise,
north 90, west 180 and south
270.
Total porosity estimate for soil
type
An estimate of the coordinates of
the most likely source area
An estimate of plume thickness,
either plume-wide or at each well
location.
Appendix A
MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
3.0 Site Details
Information needed for the MAROS analysis includes site-specific parameters such as
seepage velocity and current plume length and width. Information on the location of
potential receptors relative to the source and tail regions of the plume is entered at this
point. Part of the trend analysis methodology applied in MAROS focuses on where the
monitoring well is located, therefore the user needs to divide site wells into two different
zones: the source zone or the tail zone. Although this classification is a simplification of
the well function, this broadness makes the user aware on an individual well basis that
the concentration trend results can have a different interpretation depending on the well
location in and around the plume. It is up to the user to make further interpretation of the
trend results, depending on what type of well is being analyzed (e.g., remediation well,
leading plume edge well, or monitoring well). The Site Details section of MAROS
contains a preliminary map of well locations to confirm well coordinates.
4.0 Constituent Selection
A database with multiple COCs can be entered into the MAROS software. MAROS
allows the analysis of up to 5 COCs concurrently and users can pick COCs from a list of
compounds existing in the monitoring data. MAROS runs separate optimizations for
each compound. For sites with a single source, the suggested strategy is to choose one
to three priority COCs for the optimization. If, for example, the site contains multiple
chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the standard sample chemical analysis
will evaluate all VOCs, so the sample locations and frequency should based on the
concentration trends of the most prevalent, toxic or mobile compounds. If different
chemical classes are present, such as metals and chlorinated VOCs, choose and
evaluate the priority constituent in each chemical class.
MAROS includes a short module that provides recommendations on prioritizing COCs
based on toxicity, prevalence, and mobility of the compound. The toxicity ranking is
determined by examining a representative concentration for each compound for the
entire site. The representative concentration is then compared to the screening level
(PRG or MCL) for that compound and the COCs are ranked according to the
representative concentrations' percent exceedance of the screening level. The
evaluation of prevalence is performed by determining a representative concentration for
each well location and evaluating the total number of wells with exceedances (values
above screening levels) compared to the total number of wells. Compounds found over
screening levels are ranked for mobility based on Kd (sorption partition coefficient). The
MAROS COC assessment provides the relative ranking of each COC, but the user must
choose which COCs are included in the analysis.
5.0 Data Consolidation
Typically, raw data from long-term monitoring networks have been measured irregularly
in time or contain many non-detects, trace level results, and duplicate results. Therefore,
before the data can be further analyzed, raw data are filtered, consolidated, transformed,
and possibly smoothed to allow for a consistent dataset meeting the minimum data
requirements for statistical analysis mentioned previously.
Appendix A 4 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
MAROS allows users to specify the period of interest in which data will be consolidated
(i.e., monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, yearly, or a biennial basis). In
computing the representative value when consolidating, one of four statistics can be
used: median, geometric mean, mean, and maximum. Non-detects can be transformed
to one half the reporting or method detection limit (DL), the DL, or a fraction of the DL.
Trace level results can be represented by their actual values, one half of the DL, the DL,
or a fraction of their actual values. Duplicates are reduced in MAROS by one of three
ways: assigning the average, maximum, or first value. The reduced data for each COC
and each well can be viewed as a time series in a graphical form on a linear or semi-log
plot generated by the software.
6.0 Overview Statistics: Plume Trend Analysis
Within the MAROS software, analyses of historical data provide support for a conclusion
about plume stability (e.g., increasing plume, etc.). Plume stability results are assessed
from time-series concentration data with the application of three statistical tools: Mann-
Kendall Trend analysis, linear regression trend analysis and moment analysis. Mann-
Kendall and Linear Regression methods are used to estimate the concentration trend for
individual well and COC combinations based on the statistical trend analysis of
concentrations versus time. These trend analyses are then consolidated to give the user
a general stability estimate for source, tail and plume-wide areas as well as a preliminary
recommendation for monitoring frequency and well density (see Figures 1 through 3 for
further step-by-step details). The Overview Statistics are designed to allow site
personnel to develop a better understanding of the plume behavior over time and
understand how the individual well concentration trends are spatially distributed within
the plume. The Overview step allows the user to gain information that will support a
more informed decision in the next level of detailed statistical optimization analysis.
6.1 Mann-Kendall Analysis
The Mann-Kendall test is a statistical procedure that is well suited for analyzing trends in
groundwater data. The Mann-Kendall test is a non-parametric test for zero slope of the
first-order regression of time-ordered concentration data versus time. The advantage of
the Mann-Kendall test is that no assumptions as to the statistical distribution of the data
(e.g. normal, lognormal, etc.) are required, and it can be used with data sets that include
irregular sampling intervals and missing data. The Mann-Kendall test is designed for
analyzing a single groundwater constituent, multiple constituents are analyzed
separately.
The Mann-Kendall test for trend, relies on three statistical metrics. The first metric, the S
statistic, is based on the sum of the differences between data in sequential order. An S
with a positive value may indicate an increase in concentrations over time and negative
values indicate possible decreases. The strength of the trend is proportional to the
magnitude of the S statistic (i.e., a large value indicates a strong trend). The confidence
in the trend is determined by performing a hypothesis test to determine the probability of
accepting the null hypothesis (no trend). The S statistic and the sample size, n, are
found in a Kendall probability table such as the one reported in Hollander and Wolfe
(1973). The Confidence in the Trend is found by subtracting the probability of no trend
Appendix A 5 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
(p) from 1. For low values of p (<0.05), confidence in the trend is high (>90%) or (p <
0.01) very high (>95%).
The concentration trend is determined for each well and each COC based on results of
the S statistic, the confidence in the trend, and the coefficient of variation (COV). The
coefficient of variation (COV) is calculated from the standard deviation divided by the
mean for the dataset. The decision matrix for the Mann-Kendall evaluation is shown in
Table 2 below. A Mann-Kendall statistic that is greater than 0 combined with a
confidence of greater than 95% is categorized as an Increasing trend while a Mann-
Kendall statistic of less than 0 with a confidence between 90% and 95% is defined as a
probably Increasing trend, and so on.
Depending on statistical indicators, the concentration trend is classified into six
categories:
• Decreasing (D),
• Probably Decreasing (PD),
• Stable (S),
• No Trend (NT),
• Probably Increasing (PI)
• Increasing (I)
• Non-detect (ND)
• Insufficient data (N/A).
Wells where the compound is not detected are labeled "ND" for the COC evaluated.
These trend estimates are then analyzed to identify the source and tail region overall
stability category (see Figure 2 for further details).
Mann-Kendall
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
S>0
S>0
S>0
S<0
S<0
S<0
S<0
s = o
TABLE 2
Analysis Decision Matrix
Confidence in the
Trend
> 95%
90 - 95%
< 90%
< 90% and COV > 1
< 90% and COV < 1
90 - 95%
> 95%
0
(Aziz, et. al., 2003)
Concentration Trend
Increasing
Probably Increasing
No Trend
No Trend
Stable
Probably Decreasing
Decreasing
Non-detect
Appendix A
MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
6.2 Linear Regression Analysis
Linear Regression is a parametric statistical procedure that is typically used for
analyzing trends in data over time for datasets that have a normal or lognormal
distribution. The objective of linear regression analysis is to find the trend in the dat
through the estimation of the log-slope as well as placing confidence limits on the log-
slope of the trend. The Linear Regression analysis in MAROS is performed on
Ln(concentration) versus time. The regression model assumes that for a fixed value of x
(sample date) the expected value of y (In(concentration)) can be found by evaluating a
linear function. The method of least squares is used to obtain the estimate of the linear
function.
In order to test the confidence in the regression trend, confidence limits are placed on
the slope of the regression line. A t-test is used to find the confidence interval for the
slope by dividing the slope by the standard error of the slope. The results of the t-test
along with the degrees of freedom (n-2) are used to find the confidence in the trend from
a t-distribution table. The coefficient of variation, defined as the standard deviation
divided by the average, is used as a secondary measure of scatter to distinguish
between "Stable" or "No Trend" conditions for negative slopes. The resulting confidence
in the trend, slope of the regression through the data and variance are used to determine
a final trend based on the decision matrix shown on Table 3.
Using this type of analysis, a higher degree of scatter simply corresponds to a wider
confidence interval about the average log-slope. Assuming the sign (i.e., positive or
negative) of the estimated log-slope is correct, a level of confidence that the slope is not
zero can be easily determined. Thus, despite a poor goodness of fit, the overall trend in
the data may still be ascertained, where low levels of confidence correspond to "Stable"
or "No Trend" conditions (depending on the degree of scatter) and higher levels of
confidence indicate the stronger likelihood of a trend. Depending on statistical
indicators, the concentration trend is classified into six categories:
Decreasing (D),
Probably Decreasing (PD),
Stable (S),
No Trend (NT),
Probably Increasing (PI)
Increasing (I).
TABLE 3
Linear Regression Analysis Decision Matrix (Aziz, et. al., 2003)
Confidence in the
Trend
< 90%
90 - 95%
> 95%
Log-slope
Positive
No Trend
Probably Increasing
Increasing
Negative
COV < 1 Stable
COV > 1 No Trend
Probably Decreasing
Decreasing
Appendix A
MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
6.3 Moment Analysis
The role of moment analysis in MAROS is to provide a relative estimate of plume
stability and condition within the context of results from other MAROS modules. The
moment analysis algorithms in MAROS are simple approximations of complex
calculations and are meant to estimate changes in total mass, center of mass and
spread of mass within the network over time. The Moment Analysis module is sensitive
to the number and arrangement of wells in each sampling event, so, changes in the
number and identity of wells during monitoring events, and the parameters chosen for
data consolidation can cause changes in the estimated moments.
The analysis of moments can be summarized as:
• Zeroth Moment: An estimate of the total dissolved mass of the constituent within
the network for each sample event;
• First Moment: An estimate of the center of mass for each sample event;
• Second Moment: An estimate of the spread of the plume around the center of
mass for each sample event.
Moments are calculated using the method of Delaunay Triangulation. The software
constructs triangles between all of the wells in the network and estimates the total mass
within each triangle using the Saturated Thickness value input as the depth of the plume.
To determine the zeroth moment, the mass within each of the triangles is summed to
give a plume-wide value. To find the center of mass, or first moment, the center of each
triangle is determined and multiplied by the mass within the triangle, which is then
normalized by the total mass in the plume. The second moment is an estimate of the
relative distribution of mass between the center of the plume and the edges of the
plume. Estimates are made of the relative distribution of mass in the direction of
groundwater flow (X) and orthogonal to groundwater flow (Y) for each sample event.
Once moments are calculated for each sample event, the Mann-Kendall trend test is
applied to determine if the results show increasing, stable or decreasing trends. When
considering the results of the zeroth moment trend, the following factors could effect the
calculation and interpretation of the plume mass over time: 1) change in the spatial
distribution of the wells sampled historically 2) different wells sampled within the well
network over time (addition and subtraction of wells within the network). 3) delineation of
the plume as mass outside of the network is not included in the estimate.
The first moment estimates the center of mass, coordinates (Xc and Yc) for each sample
event and COC and the distance of these coordinates from the source. If the center of
mass is farther from the source, then there is an increasing trend. The changing center
of mass indicates the relative distribution of mass between the source and tail over time
and an increasing trend does not necessarily signal and expanding plume. An
increasing center of mass is often found where significant source reduction has
occurred. No appreciable movement or a stable trend in the center of mass would
indicate plume stability. However, changes in the first moment over time do not
necessarily completely characterize the changes in the concentration distribution (and
Appendix A g MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
the mass) over time. Therefore, in order to fully characterize the plume the First Moment
trend should be compared to the zeroth moment trend (mass change over time).
The second moment indicates the spread of the contaminant about the center of mass
(Sxx and Syy), or the distance of contamination from the center of mass for a particular
COC and sample event. An increasing trend in the second moment indicates that there
is less mass in the center of the plume relative to the edge. This is often seen in cases
where diffusion is occurring or when a remedial system may be removing mass from the
center of the plume. A decreasing trend may indicate that mass destructive processes
are active on the edge of the plume.
6.4 Overall Plume Analysis
General recommendations for the monitoring network sampling frequency and density
are provided by MAROS after the trend and moment analysis modules. Monitoring
network improvements are suggested based on heuristic rules applied to the source and
tail trend results as well as qualitative factors such as seepage velocity and distance to
potential receptors.
Individual well trend results are consolidated and weighted by the MAROS software
according to user input, and the direction and strength of contaminant concentration
trends in the source zone and tail zone for each COC are determined. The software
suggests a general, preliminary optimization plan for the current monitoring. The flow
chart detailing how the trend analysis results and other site-specific parameters are used
to form a general sampling frequency and well density recommendation is shown in
Figure 2.
For example, a generic plan for a shrinking petroleum hydrocarbon plume (BTEX) in a
slow hydrogeologic environment (silt) with no nearby receptors would entail minimal, low
frequency sampling of just a few indicators. On the other hand, the generic plan for a
chlorinated solvent plume in a fast hydrogeologic environment that is expanding but has
very erratic concentrations over time would entail more extensive, higher frequency
sampling. The preliminary plan is based on a heuristically derived algorithm for
assessing future sampling duration, location and density that takes into consideration
plume stability. For a detailed description of the heuristic rules used in the MAROS
software, refer to the MAROS 2.2Manual (AFCEE, 2003).
7.0 Detailed Statistics: Optimization Analysis
Although the overall plume analysis shows a general recommendation for sampling
frequency and sampling density, a more detailed analysis is also available with the
MAROS software in order to allow for further refinements on a well-by-well basis. The
MAROS Detailed Statistics allows for a quantitative analysis for spatial and temporal
optimization of the well network. The MAROS Detailed Statistics results should be
evaluated considering the results of the Overview Statistics as well as other qualitative
features such as site monitoring objectives and the frequency of site decision making.
The Detailed Statistics sampling optimization in MAROS consists of four parts:
Appendix A g MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
• Well redundancy analysis using the Delaunay method
• Well sufficiency analysis using the Delaunay method
• Sampling frequency determination using the Modified Cost Effective Sampling
method
• Data sufficiency analysis using statistical power analysis.
The well redundancy analysis using the Delaunay method identifies and eliminates
redundant locations from the monitoring network. The well sufficiency analysis can
determine the areas where new sampling locations might be needed. The Modified CES
method determines the optimal sampling frequency for a sampling location based on the
direction, magnitude, and uncertainty in its concentration trend. The data sufficiency
analysis examines the risk-based site cleanup status and power and expected sample
size associated with the cleanup status evaluation.
7.1 Well Redundancy Analysis - Delaunay Method
The well redundancy analysis using the Delaunay method is designed to select the
minimum number of sampling locations based on the spatial analysis of the relative
importance of each sampling location in the monitoring network. The approach allows
elimination of sampling locations that have little impact on the historical characterization
of the contaminant plume. An extended method for evaluating well sufficiency based on
the Delaunay method is used for recommending new sampling locations in areas with
high concentration uncertainty. Details about the Delaunay method can be found in
Appendix A.2 of the MAROS Manual (AFCEE, 2003).
The sampling location modules use the Delaunay triangulation method employed during
the moment analysis. The method determines the significance of each sampling
location relative to the overall monitoring network with respect to characterizing
concentration within the plume. The Delaunay method calculates the area within the
network and the average concentration of the plume using data from multiple monitoring
wells. A slope factor (SF) is calculated for each well by assessing how accurately
concentration at the well can be estimated from concentrations at neighboring wells.
The sampling location optimization process is performed in a stepwise fashion. Step
one involves assessing the SF; if a well has a small SF (little significance to the
network), the well may be removed from the monitoring network. Locations with a SF =
0.3 or less are candidates for removal. Step two involves evaluating the information loss
of removing a well from the network. Information loss is measured by evaluating and
Area Ratio and a Concentration Ratio, which is the plume-wide area or concentration
after removal of the well normalized by the original values. If one well has a small SF, it
may or may not be eliminated depending on whether the information loss in terms of
area or average concentration estimates is significant. If the information loss is not
significant, the well can be eliminated from the monitoring network and the process of
optimization continues with fewer wells. However if the well information loss is
significant then the optimization terminates. This sampling optimization process allows
the user to assess "redundant" wells that will not incur significant information loss on a
constituent-by-constituent basis for individual sampling events.
Appendix A -JQ MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
7.2 Well Sufficiency Analysis - Delaunay Method
The well sufficiency analysis, using the Delaunay method, is designed to recommend
new sampling locations in areas within the existing monitoring network where there is a
high level of uncertainty in contaminant concentration. Details about the well sufficiency
analysis can be found in Appendix A.2 of the MAROS Manual (AFCEE, 2003).
In many cases, new sampling locations need to be added to the existing network to
enhance the spatial characterization of the plume. If the MAROS algorithm calculates a
high level of uncertainty in predicting the constituent concentration at nodes for a
particular Delaunay triangle, a new sampling location is recommended for that area.
The SF values obtained from the redundancy evaluation described above are used to
calculate the concentration estimation error for each triangle. The estimated
concentration uncertainty value, based on the calculated SF for each area is then
classified into four levels: Small, Moderate, Large, or Extremely large (S, M, L, E).
Therefore, the triangular areas with the estimated SF value at the Extremely large or
Large level can be candidate regions for new sampling locations.
The results from the Delaunay method and the method for determining new sampling
locations are derived solely from the spatial configuration of the monitoring network and
the spatial pattern of the contaminant plume. No parameters such as the hydrogeologic
conditions or regulatory factors are considered in the analysis. Therefore, professional
judgment and regulatory considerations must be used to make final decisions.
7.3 Sampling Frequency Determination - Modified CES Method
The Modified CES method optimizes sampling frequency for each sampling location
based on the magnitude, direction, and uncertainty of its concentration trend derived
from its recent and historical monitoring records. The Modified Cost Effective Sampling
(MCES) estimates a conservative lowest-frequency sampling schedule for a given
groundwater monitoring location that still provides needed information for regulatory and
remedial decision-making. The MCES method was developed on the basis of the Cost
Effective Sampling (CES) method developed by Ridley et al (1995). Details about the
MCES method can be found in Appendix A.9 of the MAROS Manual (AFCEE, 2003).
In order to estimate the least frequent sampling schedule for a monitoring location that
still provides enough information for regulatory and remedial decision-making, MCES
employs three steps to determine the sampling frequency. The first step involves
analyzing frequency based on recent trends. A preliminary location sampling frequency
(PLSF) is developed based on the rate of change of well concentrations calculated by
linear regression along with the Mann-Kendall trend analysis of the most recent
monitoring data (see Figure 3). The variability within the sequential sampling data is
accounted for by the Mann-Kendall analysis. The rate of change vs. trend result matrix
categorizes wells as requiring annual, semi-annual or quarterly sampling. The PLSF is
then reevaluated and adjusted based on overall trends. If the long-term history of
change is significantly greater than the recent trend, the frequency may be reduced by
one level.
Appendix A 77 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
The final step in the analysis involves reducing frequency based on risk, site-specific
conditions, regulatory requirements or other external issues. Since not all compounds in
the target being assessed are equally harmful, frequency is reduced by one level if
recent maximum concentration for a compound of high risk is less than 1/2 of the
Maximum Concentration Limit (MCL). The result of applying this method is a suggested
sampling frequency based on recent sampling data trends and overall sampling data
trends and expert judgment.
The final sampling frequency determined from the MCES method can be Quarterly,
Semiannual, Annual, or Biennial. Users can further reduce the sampling frequency to,
for example, once every three years, if the trend estimated from Biennial data (i.e., data
drawn once every two years from the original data) is the same as that estimated from
the original data.
7.4 Data Sufficiency Analysis - Power Analysis
The MAROS Data Sufficiency module employs simple statistical methods to evaluate
whether the collected data are adequate both in quantity and in quality for revealing
changes in constituent concentrations. The first section of the module evaluates
individual well concentrations to determine if they are statistically below a target
screening level. The second section includes a simple calculation for estimating
projected groundwater concentrations at a specified point downgradient of the plume. A
statistical Power analysis is then applied to the projected concentrations to determine if
the downgradient concentrations are statistically below the cleanup standard. If the
number of projected concentrations is below the level to provide statistical significance,
then the number of sample events required to statistically confirm concentrations below
standards is estimated from the Power analysis.
Before testing the cleanup status for individual wells, the stability or trend of the
contaminant plume should be evaluated. Only after the plume has reached stability or is
reliably diminishing can we conduct a test to examine the cleanup status of wells.
Applying the analysis to wells in an expanding plume may cause incorrect conclusions
and is less meaningful.
Statistical power analysis is a technique for interpreting the results of statistical tests.
The Power of a statistical test is a measure of the ability of the test to detect an effect
given that the effect actually exists. The method provides additional information about a
statistical test: 1) the power of the statistical test, i.e., the probability of finding a
difference in the variable of interest when a difference truly exists; and 2) the expected
sample size of a future sampling plan given the minimum detectable difference it is
supposed to detect. For example, if the mean concentration is lower than the cleanup
goal but a statistical test cannot prove this, the power and expected sample size can tell
the reason and how many more samples are needed to result in a significant test. The
additional samples can be obtained by a longer period of sampling or an increased
sampling frequency. Details about the data sufficiency analysis can be found in
Appendix A.6 of the MAROS Manual (AFCEE, 2003).
When applying the MAROS power analysis method, a hypothetical statistical compliance
boundary (HSCB) is assigned to be a line perpendicular to the groundwater flow
Appendix A 72 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
direction (see figure below). Monitoring well concentrations are projected onto the
HSCB using the distance from each well to the compliance boundary along with a decay
coefficient. The projected concentrations from each well and each sampling event are
then used in the risk-based power analysis. Since there may be more than one sampling
event selected by the user, the risk-based power analysis results are given on an event-
by-event basis. This power analysis can then indicate if target are statistically achieved
at the HSCB. For instance, at a site where the historical monitoring record is short with
few wells, the HSCB would be distant; whereas, at a site with longer duration of
sampling with many wells, the HSCB would be close. Ultimately, at a site the goal would
be to have the HSCB coincide with or be within the actual compliance boundary
(typically the site property line).
Concentrations
projected to this
line
The nearest
downgradient
receptor
Groundwater flow direction
In order to perform a risk-based cleanup status evaluation for the whole site, a strategy
was developed as follows.
• Estimate concentration versus distance decay coefficient from plume centerline
wells.
• Extrapolate concentration versus distance for each well using this decay
coefficient.
• Comparing the extrapolated concentrations with the compliance concentration
using power analysis.
Results from this analysis can be Attained or Not Attained, providing a statistical
interpretation of whether the cleanup goal has been met on the site-scale from the risk-
based point of view. The results as a function of time can be used to evaluate if the
monitoring system has enough power at each step in the sampling record to indicate
certainty of compliance by the plume location and condition relative to the compliance
boundary. For example, if results are Not Attained at early sampling events but are
Attained in recent sampling events, it indicates that the recent sampling record provides
a powerful enough result to indicate compliance of the plume relative to the location of
the receptor or compliance boundary.
Appendix A
13
MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
CITED REFERENCES
AFCEE 2003. Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System (MAROS) 2.1 Software
Users Guide. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, http://www.gsi-
net.com/software/MAROS V2 1Manual.pdf
AFCEE. 1997. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, AFCEE Long-Term
Monitoring Optimization Guide, http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil.
Aziz, J. A., C. J. Newell, M. Ling, H. S. Rifai and J. R. Gonzales (2003). "MAROS: A
Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans." Ground Water 41(3): 355-
367.
Gilbert, R. O., 1987, Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, ISBN 0-442-23050-8.
Hollander, M. and Wolfe, D. A. (1973). Nonparametric Statistical Methods, Wiley, New
York, NY.
Ridley, M.N. et al., 1995. Cost-Effective Sampling of Groundwater Monitoring Wells, the
Regents of UC/LLNL, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992. Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of
Cleanup Standards Volume 2: Ground Water.
Weight, W. D. and J. L. Sonderegger (2001). Manual of Applied Field Hydrogeology.
New York, NY, McGraw-Hill.
Appendix A 74 MAROS 2.2 Methodology
-------
MAROS: Decision Support Tool
MAROS is a collection of tools in one software package that is used in an explanatory, non-linear fashion. The tool
includes models, geostatistics, heuristic rules, and empirical relationships to assist the user in optimizing a
groundwater monitoring network system while maintaining adequate delineation of the plume as well as knowledge
of the plume state over time. Different users utilize the tool in different ways and interpret the results from a different
viewpoint.
T
Overview Statistics
What it is: Simple, qualitative and quantitative plume information can be gained through evaluation of monitoring
network historical data trends both spatially and temporally. The MAROS Overview Statistics are the foundation the
user needs to make informed optimization decisions at the site.
What it does: The Overview Statistics are designed to allow site personnel to develop a better understanding of the
plume behavior over time and understand how the individual well concentration trends are spatially distributed within
the plume. This step allows the user to gain information that will support a more informed decision to be made in the
next level of optimization analysis.
What are the tools: Overview Statistics includes two analytical tools:
1) Trend Analysis: includes Mann-Kendall and Linear Regression statistics for individual wells and results in
general heuristically-derived monitoring categories with a suggested sampling density and monitoring
frequency.
2) Moment Analysis: includes dissolved mass estimation (0th Moment), center of mass (1st Moment), and
plume spread (2nd Moment) over time. Trends of these moments show the user another piece of
information about the plume stability overtime.
What is the product: A first-cut blueprint for a future long-term monitoring program that is intended to be a
foundation for more detailed statistical analysis.
T
Detailed Statistics
What it is: The MAROS Detailed Statistics allows for a quantitative analysis for spatial and temporal optimization of
the well network on a well-by-well basis.
What it does: The results from the Overview Statistics should be considered along side the MAROS optimization
recommendations gained from the Detailed Statistical Analysis. The MAROS Detailed Statistics results should be
reassessed in view of site knowledge and regulatory requirements as well as the Overview Statistics.
What are the tools: Detailed Statistics includes four analytical tools:
1) Sampling Frequency Optimization: uses the Modified CES method to establish a recommended future
sampling frequency.
2) Well Redundancy Analysis: uses the Delaunay Method to evaluate if any wells within the monitoring
network are redundant and can be eliminated without any significant loss of plume information.
3) Well Sufficiency Analysis: uses the Delaunay Method to evaluate areas where new wells are
recommended within the monitoring network due to high levels of concentration uncertainty.
4) Data Sufficiency Analysis: uses Power Analysis to assess if the historical monitoring data record has
sufficient power to accurately reflect the location of the plume relative to the nearest receptor or
compliance point.
What is the product: List of wells to remove from the monitoring program, locations where monitoring wells may
need to be added, recommended frequency of sampling for each well, analysis if the overall system is statistically
powerful to monitor the plume.
Figure 1. MAROS Decision Support Tool Flow Chart
-------
Select Representative Wells in "Source" and "Plume" Zone
Source Zone i Tail Zone
Identify Site Constituents of Concern (COCs).
(Assistance provided by software.)
Analyze Lines of Evidence (LOEs)
for Plume Stability (by well and by COG)
Categorize concentrations of COC in each well as:
• Increasing (I)
« Probably Increasing (PI)
• No Trend (NT)
• Stable (S)
• Probably Decreasing (PD)
for Each Well Based On All
LOE's
SOURCE PLUME
Determm
Tail Zones
Increasing (I)
Probably Increasing (PI)
No Trend (NT)
Stable (S)
Probably Decreasing (PD)
Decreasing (D)
"Lump Wells" in Source and Tail Zone
Determine
LTMP
Monitoring
Category
for COC By
Source / Tail
(e.g., E)
Monitoring Categories
E: Extensive
M: Moderate
L: Limited
Specify Preliminary Monitoring
System Optimization Results based on
Monitoring category and site-specific
parameters.
• Well Density
• Sampling Frequency
• Sampling Duration
Figure 2:
MAROS Overview Statistics Trend Analysis Methodology
Site Classification
Fuel
Big Small
E
M
L
Solvent
Big Small
-------
Sampling
Frequency
Q: Quarterly
S: SeiniAimual
A: Annual
TJ
C
0>
PI
Rate of Change (Linear Regression)
High MH Medium LM Low
Figure 3. Decision Matrix for Determining Provisional Frequency (Figure A.3.1 of the
MAROS Manual (AFCEE 2003)
-------
APPENDIX B:
MAROS REPORTS
First Water-Bearing Zone
COC Assessment
pH Trend Reports
Metals Trend Reports
Well Sufficiency Spatial Analysis Results
Second Water-Bearing Zone
COC Assessment
Metals Trend Reports
Well Sufficiency Spatial Analysis Results
Third Water-Bearing Zone
Metals Trend Report
B-1
-------
September, 2009
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
DELATTE METALS
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
APPENDIX B:
MAROS Reports
First Water-Bearing Zone
COC Assessment
-------
MAROS COC Assessment
Project: Delatte
Location: Ponchatoula
Toxicitv:
User Name: MV
State: Louisiana
Contaminant of Concern
ARSENIC
MANGANESE
THALLIUM
LEAD
Representative
Concentration
(mg/L)
5.6E-02
6.0E+00
7.0E-03
3.2E-02
PRG
(mg/L)
1.0E-02
1.7E+00
2.0E-03
1.5E-02
Percent
Above
PRG
455.6%
255.7%
248.7%
111.1%
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
MANGANESE
ARSENIC
THALLIUM
LEAD
Class
MET
MET
MET
MET
Total
Wells
9
9
9
9
Total
Exceedances
7
6
5
4
Percent
Exceedances
77.8%
66.7%
55.6%
44.4%
Total
detects
9
9
8
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
THALLIUM
LEAD
ARSENIC
MANGANESE
10
25
50.1
Note: Top COCs by mobility were determined by examining each detected compound in the dataset and comparing their
mobilities (Koc's for organics, assume foe = 0.001, and Kd's for metals).
Contaminants of Concern (COC's)
ARSENIC
LEAD
MANGANESE
NICKEL
THALLIUM
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Monday, June 08, 2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
September, 2009
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
DELATTE METALS
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
APPENDIX B:
MAROS Reports
First Water-Bearing Zone
pH Trend Reports
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-3
Well Type: s
COC: pH
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
j^ ^ j^ ^ /> /> jS> ^ / j?
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
O)
o
1
Concer
7.U&-UO -
6.0E+00 •
5.0&-00 •
4.0&-00 -
3.0&-00 -
2.0&-00 -
1.0&-00 •
n np4-nn .
» * * * * * •
. •. • ...
*
I ~23
Confidence in
Trend:
I 76.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.16
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I S
Data Table:
Well
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
BA-3
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
1/1/2004
3/1/2004
5/1/2004
7/1/2004
9/1/2004
3/1/2005
5/1/2005
10/1/2005
12/1/2005
3/1/2006
6/1/2006
9/1/2006
12/1/2006
3/1/2007
6/1/2007
9/1/2007
12/1/2007
3/8/2008
5/8/2008
8/8/2008
Constituent
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
Number of Number of
Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
3.8E+00 1 1
4.7E+00 1 1
4.3E+00 1 1
5.1E+00 1 1
5.1E+00 1 1
5.6E+00 1 1
5.8E+00 1 1
5.6E+00 1 1
4.1E+00 1 1
5.7E+00 1 1
5.6E+00 1 1
4.6E+00 1 1
4.1E+00 1 1
5.9E+00 1 1
5.5E+00 1 1
4.5E+00 1 1
3.3E+00 1 1
4.1E+00 1 1
4.2E+00 1 1
4.0E+00 1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/17/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-9
Well Type: T
COC: pH
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E+00 •
_ 5.0&-00 -
£ 4.0&-00 -
| 3.0&-00 •
§ 2.0&-00 -
o
0 1.0&-00 -
Data Table:
Date
<^ Jb*1 jJ1 & & s?> J$> & $
^ ^ # ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DW-01
Well Type: T
COC: pH
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
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:
_J
E
"— •
C
O
i:
§
c
o
o
7.U&-UO -
6.0E+00 •
5.0&-00 •
4.0&-00 -
3.0&-00 -
2.0&-00 -
1.0&-00 •
n np4-nn .
»
•
»** A* A ******
» *
*
* * *
I 82
Confidence in
Trend:
I 99.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.14
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
DW-01
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
1/1/2004
3/1/2004
5/1/2004
7/1/2004
9/1/2004
3/1/2005
5/1/2005
10/1/2005
12/1/2005
3/1/2006
6/1/2006
9/1/2006
12/1/2006
3/1/2007
6/1/2007
9/1/2007
12/1/2007
3/8/2008
5/8/2008
8/8/2008
Constituent
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.4E+00
3.6E+00
3.6E+00
4.1E+00
4.6E+00
4.8E+00
4.8E+00
5.5E+00
4.4E+00
4.6E+00
5.5E+00
5.2E+00
4.4E+00
6.2E+00
4.8E+00
4.6E+00
4.8E+00
4.8E+00
4.7E+00
4.9E+00
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/17/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DW-02
Well Type: T
COC: pH
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
4.5E+00 -
^ 4.0E+00 -
I" 3.5E+00 •
T 3.0E+00 •
| 2.5E+00 •
i 2.0E+00 •
| 1.5E+00 •
0 1.0E+00 •
5.0E-01 -
Data Table:
Date
<^ Jb*1 jJ1 & & & J$> & $
^ ^ # ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DW-03
Well Type: s
COC: pH
_ 5.0&-00 -
_j
£ 4.0&-00 -
| 3.0&-00 •
§ 2.0&-00 -
o
0 1.0&-00 -
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Jb*1 JS*1 Jb*1 j£ j£ & $§> $ $ S?> Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 39
Confidence in
* * * * * Trend:
» ^ ^ • j 891)%
* *
^ • ^ * * Coefficient of Variation:
I 018
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I NT
Data Table:
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
DW-03 S
1/1/2004 pH 3.3E+00 1 1
3/1/2004 pH 3.3E+00 1 1
5/1/2004 pH 3.3E+00 1 1
7/1/2004 pH 3.0E+00 1 1
9/1/2004 pH 3.5E+00 1 1
3/1/2005 pH 4.2E+00 1 1
5/1/2005 pH 4.1E+00 1 1
10/1/2005 pH 5.2E+00 1 1
12/1/2005 pH 4.5E+00 1 1
3/1/2006 pH 4.2E+00 1 1
6/1/2006 pH 5.2E+00 1 1
9/1/2006 pH 5.2E+00 1 1
12/1/2006 pH 5.2E+00 1 1
3/1/2007 pH 5.2E+00 1 1
6/1/2007 pH 4.2E+00 1 1
9/1/2007 pH 4.2E+00 1 1
12/1/2007 pH 4.4E+00 1 1
3/8/2008 pH 3.9E+00 1 1
5/8/2008 pH 3.6E+00 1 1
8/8/2008 pH 3.5E+00 1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/17/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-01
Well Type: T
COC: pH
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E+00 •
_ 5.0&-00 -
£ 4.0&-00 -
| 3.0&-00 •
§ 2.0&-00 -
o
0 1.0&-00 -
Data Table:
Date
<^ Jb*1 jJ1 & & s?> J$> & $
^ ^ # ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-02
Well Type: T
COC: pH
4.5E+00 -
^ 4.0E+00 -
I" 3.5E+00 •
r 3.0E+00 •
| 2.5E+00 •
i 2.0E+00 •
| 1.5E+00 •
0 1.0E+00 •
5.0E-01 -
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Jb*1 JS*1 Jb*1 j£ j£ & $§> $ $ S?> Mann Kendall S Statistic:
.' . ^ . ,J . ^ . ^ . ' . ? . r . ? . l" i 29
* Confidence in
Trend:
^ » » i 8iTe%
* » » » • . '
* *
* * * * Coefficient of Variation:
_
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I NT
Data Table:
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
1/1/2004 pH 3.0E+00 1 1
3/1/2004 pH 3.1E+00 1 1
5/1/2004 pH 2.9E+00 1 1
7/1/2004 pH 3.0E+00 1 1
9/1/2004 pH 3.6E+00 1 1
3/1/2005 pH 4.0E+00 1 1
5/1/2005 pH 3.7E+00 1 1
10/1/2005 pH 3.0E+00 1 1
12/1/2005 pH 3.5E+00 1 1
3/1/2006 pH 3.4E+00 1 1
6/1/2006 pH 3.4E+00 1 1
9/1/2006 pH 4.0E+00 1 1
12/1/2006 pH 4.0E+00 1 1
3/1/2007 pH 4.7E+00 1 1
6/1/2007 pH 3.7E+00 1 1
9/1/2007 pH 3.7E+00 1 1
12/1/2007 pH 3.1E+00 1 1
3/8/2008 pH 3.4E+00 1 1
5/8/2008 pH 3.3E+00 1 1
8/8/2008 pH 2.9E+00 1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/17/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-06
Well Type: T
COC: pH
_ 5.0&-00 -
_j
£ 4.0&-00 -
| 3.0&-00 •
§ 2.0&-00 -
o
0 1.0&-00 -
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Jb*1 JS*1 Jb*1 j£ j£ s?> $§> $ $ S?> Mann Kendall S Statistic:
.' . ^ . ."" . ^ . ^ . ' . ? . .' . ? . 1" 1 1
Confidence in
^ ^ + ^ Trend:
* * • j 500%
* « * * * A '
*** * **A
^ * Coefficient of Variation:
| CU3
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I NT
Data Table:
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
1/1/2004 pH 4.1E+00 1 1
3/1/2004 pH 3.7E+00 1 1
5/1/2004 pH 3.6E+00 1 1
7/1/2004 pH 3.7E+00 1 1
9/1/2004 pH 3.8E+00 1 1
3/1/2005 pH 4.9E+00 1 1
5/1/2005 pH 4.9E+00 1 1
10/1/2005 pH 3.6E+00 1 1
12/1/2005 pH 4.0E+00 1 1
3/1/2006 pH 4.0E+00 1 1
6/1/2006 pH 4.0E+00 1 1
9/1/2006 pH 4.7E+00 1 1
12/1/2006 pH 4.7E+00 1 1
3/1/2007 pH 5.0E+00 1 1
6/1/2007 pH 4.9E+00 1 1
9/1/2007 pH 4.3E+00 1 1
12/1/2007 pH 3.7E+00 1 1
3/8/2008 pH 3.8E+00 1 1
5/8/2008 pH 3.7E+00 1 1
8/8/2008 pH 3.5E+00 1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/17/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: PW-04
Well Type: T
COC: pH
_ 5.0&-00 -
_j
£ 4.0&-00 -
| 3.0&-00 •
§ 2.0&-00 -
o
0 1.0&-00 -
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Jb*1 JS*1 Jb*1 j£ j£ s?> $§> $ $ S?> Mann Kendall S Statistic:
.' . ^ . ."" . ^ . ^ . ' . ? . .' . ? . 1" 1 31
. Confidence in
Trend:
» » » » j 833%
*• *** •**
»» ** • *
Coefficient of Variation:
| CU2
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I NT
Data Table:
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
PW-04 T
1/1/2004 pH 3.1E+00 1 1
3/1/2004 pH 3.7E+00 1 1
5/1/2004 pH 4.0E+00 1 1
7/1/2004 pH 3.7E+00 1 1
9/1/2004 pH 3.9E+00 1 1
3/1/2005 pH 4.5E+00 1 1
5/1/2005 pH 4.5E+00 1 1
10/1/2005 pH 3.7E+00 1 1
12/1/2005 pH 3.8E+00 1 1
3/1/2006 pH 4.1E+00 1 1
6/1/2006 pH 4.1E+00 1 1
9/1/2006 pH 4.8E+00 1 1
12/1/2006 pH 3.7E+00 1 1
3/1/2007 pH 5.3E+00 1 1
6/1/2007 pH 4.5E+00 1 1
9/1/2007 pH 4.4E+00 1 1
12/1/2007 pH 3.9E+00 1 1
3/8/2008 pH 4.0E+00 1 1
5/8/2008 pH 4.0E+00 1 1
8/8/2008 pH 3.7E+00 1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/17/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
September, 2009
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
DELATTE METALS
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
APPENDIX B:
MAROS Reports
First Water-Bearing Zone
Metals Trend Reports
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Project: Delatte FWBZ
Location: Ponchatoula
User Name: MV
State: Louisiana
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Well
Source/
Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples Concentration
"ND" ? Trend
ARSENIC
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-06
PW-04
LEAD
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-06
PW-04
MANGANESE
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-06
PW-04
NICKEL
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
s
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
S
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
12
20
16
18
17
13
10
14
15
12
13
12
18
14
18
14
14
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
20
20
20
20
0.82
1.01
1.26
1.06
0.71
1.14
1.81
1.33
0.94
1.19
1.03
2.37
1.35
1.48
1.81
0.47
1.67
0.73
0.41
0.36
0.59
0.61
0.89
0.29
0.58
0.42
0.57
0.79
0.41
0.87
0.72
0.87
-101
72
-2
-17
8
-15
47
6
16
104
72
17
66
61
21
-41
50
37
20
-100
-64
-110
-86
-13
124
80
-6
81
-98
-59
-97
-72
100.0%
99.0%
51 .3%
69.6%
58.9%
67.3%
93.2%
56.4%
68.5%
100.0%
99.0%
69.6%
98.3%
97.5%
74.0%
90.2%
94.4%
87.7%
72.9%
100.0%
98.0%
100.0%
99.8%
65.0%
100.0%
99.5%
56.4%
99.6%
99.9%
97.1%
99.9%
99.0%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
D
I
NT
NT
NT
NT
PI
NT
NT
I
I
NT
I
I
NT
PD
PI
NT
NT
D
D
D
D
S
I
I
S
I
D
D
D
D
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Friday, January 09, 2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
Project: Delatte FWBZ
Location: Ponchatoula
User Name: MV
State: Louisiana
Well
Source/
Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
NICKEL
MW-01
MW-02
MW-06
PW-04
THALLIUM
BA-3
BA-9
DW-01
DW-02
DW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-06
PW-04
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
17
18
10
2
4
1
2
0
13
5
1
0.41
1.00
0.70
0.67
1.21
1.33
1.24
4.43
3.64
0.00
0.80
1.39
2.29
-10
92
93
25
75
29
36
-19
-1
0
22
61
-19
61 .3%
99.9%
99.9%
78.0%
99.3%
81 .6%
87.0%
71 .8%
50.0%
48.7%
75.0%
97.5%
71 .8%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
S
i
i
NT
I
NT
NT
NT
NT
ND
NT
I
NT
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A)-
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); Source/Tail (S/T)
The Number of Samples and Number of Detects shown above are post-consolidation values.
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Friday, January 09, 2009
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-9
Well Type: T
COC: ARSENIC
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
4.0E-02 -
U 3.5E-02 -
B)
_§ 3.0E-02 -
0 2.5E-02 •
| 2.0E-02 •
§ 1.5E-02-
c
£ 1.0E-02-
5.0E-03 -
Data Table:
Date
^ <$• <^ <$> & -J> <£> £ <£
** ^ ^ ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-3
Well Type: s
COC: ARSENIC
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
4.0E-02 -
j 3.5E-02 -
£ 3.0E-02 -
0 2.5E-02 •
| 2.0E-02 •
§ 1.5E-02-
£ 1.0E-02-
5.0E-03 -
Data Table:
Date
^ <$• <^ <$> & -J> <£> £ <£
** ^ ^ ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-02
Well Type: T
COC: ARSENIC
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
3.0E-02 -
__ 2.5E-02 -
_j
£ 2.0E-02 -
c
| 1.5E-02-
§ 1.0E-02-
o
0 5.0E-03 -
Data Table:
Date
<^ Jb*1 jJ1 & & s?> J$> & $
^ ^ # ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-06
Well Type: T
COC: ARSENIC
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.2E-02-
_ 1.0E-02-
_j
£ 8.0E-03 -
| 6.0E-03 •
§ 4.0E-03 -
o
0 2.0E-03 -
Data Table:
Date
^ <$• <^ <$> & -J> <£> £ <£
** ^ ^ ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-02
Well Type: T
COC: MANGANESE
Time Period: to
Consolidation Period: Other
Consolidation Type: Maximum
Duplicate Consolidation: First
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Fraction of Actual Value
4.0E+00 -
j 3.5E+00 -
£ 3.0E+00 -
0 2.5E+00 •
| 2.0E+00 •
§ 1.5E+00 -
£ 1.0E+00 -
5.0E-01 -
Data Table:
<^ 5 fo *Jo ^ *A.
Q V $J V* Si ^
^ o®° -s^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DW-02
Well Type: T
COC: MANGANESE
Time Period: to
Consolidation Period: Other
Consolidation Type: Maximum
Duplicate Consolidation: First
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Fraction of Actual Value
Date
$$>
_j
B>
o
1
Concen
7.U&-U1 -
6.0&-01 •
5.0&-01 •
4.0&-01 -
3.0&-01 -
2.0&-01 -
1.0&-01 •
n np4-nn .
4
• * *
»
******
*****
* *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -110
Confidence in
Trend:
I 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.61
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
DW-02
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
1/1/2004
3/1/2004
5/1/2004
7/1/2004
9/1/2004
3/1/2005
5/1/2005
10/1/2005
12/1/2005
3/1/2006
6/1/2006
9/1/2006
12/1/2006
3/1/2007
6/1/2007
9/1/2007
12/1/2007
3/8/2008
5/8/2008
8/8/2008
Constituent
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
Result (mg/L) Flag
4.5E+01
5.0E+01
6.0E+01
4.6E+01
3.8E+01
1.1E+01
1.1E+01
2.4E+01
2.5E+01
2.4E+01
2.4E+01
2.2E+01
2.6E+01
1.6E+01
1.4E+01
1.9E+01
6.7E+00
1.2E+01
1.4E+01
8.5E+00
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
1/9/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-9
Well Type: T
COC: MANGANESE
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
7.0&-00 -
? 6.0&-00 -
~ 5.0&-00 -
| 4.0&-00 •
g 3.0&-00 -
o
o 2.0&-00 •
O
1.0&-00 -
0.0*00 J
Data Table:
<^ Jb*1 Jb*1
** ^ ^ ,
*
• *
Effective
Well Well Type Date
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
BA-9 T
1/1/2004
3/1/2004
5/1/2004
7/1/2004
9/1/2004
3/1/2005
5/1/2005
10/1/2005
12/1/2005
3/1/2006
6/1/2006
9/1/2006
12/1/2006
3/1/2007
6/1/2007
9/1/2007
12/1/2007
3/8/2008
5/8/2008
8/8/2008
Date
^ & J*> J*» ^ $ ^
»
* *
• » ^
* * *
S? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
| -100
Confidence in
Trend:
1 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.36
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I D
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
MANGANESE 7.3E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 7.4E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 7.5E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 6.5E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 5.1E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 2.7E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 2.8E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 5.9E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 2.8E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 5.7E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 6.7E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 4.5E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 4.9E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 4.6E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 4.2E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 3.7E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 3.6E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 2.7E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 2.6E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 3.4E+00 1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
1/9/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-06
Well Type: T
COC: MANGANESE
Time Period: to
Consolidation Period: Other
Consolidation Type: Maximum
Duplicate Consolidation: First
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Fraction of Actual Value
4.5E+00 -
^ 4.0E+00 -
I" 3.5E+00 •
r 3.0E+00 •
| 2.5E+00 •
i 2.0E+00 •
| 1.5E+00 •
0 1.0E+00 •
5.0E-01 -
Data Table:
<^ Jb*1 Jb*1
** ^ ^ ,
•
Date
^ & J*> J*» ^ $ ^
*
*** ******
Effective
Well Well Type Date
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
MW-06 T
1/1/2004
3/1/2004
5/1/2004
7/1/2004
9/1/2004
3/1/2005
5/1/2005
10/1/2005
12/1/2005
3/1/2006
6/1/2006
9/1/2006
12/1/2006
3/1/2007
6/1/2007
9/1/2007
12/1/2007
3/8/2008
5/8/2008
8/8/2008
S? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 8°
Confidence in
Trend:
1 99.5%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °'42
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Number of Number of
Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
MANGANESE 1.6E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 1.4E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 1.4E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 1.3E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 1.3E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 1.3E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 1.3E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 1.3E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 2.1E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 2.6E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 2.3E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 4.1E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 4.3E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 2.5E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 2.5E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 2.0E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 2.9E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 2.4E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 2.2E+00 1 1
MANGANESE 3.4E+00 1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
1/9/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-3
Well Type: s
COC: LEAD
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E-01 -
__ 5.0E-01 -
_j
£ 4.0E-01 -
c
| 3.0E-01 •
§ 2.0E-01 -
o
0 1.0E-01 -
Data Table:
Date
<^ Jb*1 jJ1 & & s?> J$> & $
^ ^ # ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-9
Well Type: T
COC: LEAD
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
3.0E-03 -
_ 2.5E-03 -
_j
£ 2.0E-03 -
o
« 1.5E-03-
k.
§ 1.0E-03-
o
0 5.0E-04 -
Data Table:
Date
^ <$• <^ <$> & -J> <£> £ <£
** ^ ^ ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-02
Well Type: T
COC: LEAD
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.6E-02-
1.4E-02-
? 1.2E-02-
~ 1.0E-02-
| 8.0E-03 •
= 6.0E-03 -
o
o 4.0E-03 •
O
2.0E-03 -
Data Table:
Date
** ^ ^ ^ 0* ^ 0* ^ 0* ^
** *
* * * *
4 *. ** * *
^ ^
S? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -41
Confidence in
Trend:
1 90.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °'47
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I PD
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
MW-02 T
1/1/2004 LEAD 7.9E-03
3/1/2004 LEAD 1.5E-02
5/1/2004 LEAD 1.0E-04
7/1/2004 LEAD 6.5E-03
9/1/2004 LEAD 6.3E-03
3/1/2005 LEAD 1.4E-02
5/1/2005 LEAD 1.3E-02
10/1/2005 LEAD 9.1E-03
12/1/2005 LEAD 1.2E-02
3/1/2006 LEAD 9.8E-03
6/1/2006 LEAD 9.3E-03
9/1/2006 LEAD 1.1E-02
12/1/2006 LEAD 1.3E-02
3/1/2007 LEAD 7.2E-03
6/1/2007 LEAD 7.1E-03
9/1/2007 LEAD 1.2E-02
12/1/2007 LEAD 6.7E-03
3/8/2008 LEAD 4.7E-03
5/8/2008 LEAD 7.8E-03
8/8/2008 LEAD 1 .OE-04
1 1
1 1
ND 1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
ND 1 0
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
1/9/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DW-02
Well Type: T
COC: LEAD
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
4.5E-02 -
4.0E-02 -
j 3.5E-02 -
£ 3.0E-02 -
0 2.5E-02 •
| 2.0E-02 •
§ 1.5E-02-
£ 1.0E-02-
5.0E-03 -
O.OE+00 •
Data Table:
Date
<^ Jb*1 jJ1 & & s?> J$> & $
^ ^ # ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DW-03
Well Type: s
COC: LEAD
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
4.0E-01 -
3.5E-01 -
? 3.0E-01 -
~ 2.5E-01 -
o
^ 2.0E-01 •
| 1-5E-01 -
o 1.0E-01 •
O
5.0E-02 -
Data Table:
Date
<^ Jb*1 jJ1 & & & & & $
^ ^ # ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-06
Well Type: T
COC: LEAD
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.2E-02-
_ 1.0E-02-
_j
£ 8.0E-03 -
| 6.0E-03 •
§ 4.0E-03 -
o
0 2.0E-03 -
Data Table:
Date
^ <$• <^ <$> & -J> <£> £ <£
** ^ ^ ^
-------
September, 2009
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
DELATTE METALS
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
APPENDIX B:
MAROS Reports
First Water-Bearing Zone
Well Sufficiency Spatial Analysis Results
-------
701W10T,H New Location
/ U I O-JU.U 1^
701300.0-
701250.0-
701200.0-
701150.0-
701100.0-
701050.0-
"7rn nnn n
t\j\ UUU.U -
700950.0 -
700900.0 -
700850.0 -
ynnann n -
New Location analysis for lead in the FWBZ
----~""/'T^A9
_ — """" / 1 ^VN
masS&m " " " / ' XS\
/I -jf DW-01 1 X^ v
/I / \ 1 \ X
/I / \ 1 \ Xv
/ 1 / \ \ \ v
/ / \ \ ^N
/ > / \ "I \ \
/| M / \ | \ S
/| / \ | \ S.
/ / \ \ x
/ / \ \ M S
i \ ' M \ v
/ 1 / \ 1 \ S
1 / \ ' X N\
/ / M \ ' -^^ ^^^^ \
/ M / ^ ^ ^^ \
/ / \ XX ^^ \
/ / \ xX -^ ^x
/ / \ / M -Ox
/ ' / \ ' / -^
• ^fc-BA-i. \l X ^ PW-04
^ ^ * __ ^'x ^^
/ X^ \ ^^ ^"^
/xX V / ^"'
• MW-02 ^ y ^^
^. \ M ' M ^^
M \ /
x N / ^^
^ \ / ^
Nv \ / ^^
Nx ^ / -""
Xxx \ / ^.-"""
Xx \ / ^^
^^\ / ^'^
"™
Analysis for
LEAD
Existing
•
Locations
Potential areas for
new locations are
indicated by triangles
with a high SF level.
Estimated SF Level:
S - Small
M - Moderate
L - Large
E- Extremely large
High SF-> high
estimation error ->
possible need for
new locations
Low SF-> low
estimation error ->
no need for new
locations
^ -\
Back to
Access
V J
EAST
3571000.0 3571100.0 3571200.0 3571300.0 3571400.0 3571500.0 3571600.0 3571700.0 3571800.0 3571900.0 3572000.0
-------
701W10T,H New Location
/ U I O-JU.U 1^
701300.0-
701250.0-
701200.0-
701150.0-
701100.0-
701050.0-
701000.0 -
700950.0 -
700900.0 -
700850.0 -
ynnsnn n -
New Location analysis for arsenic in the FWBZ
— — 'flk8'0'"9
„----"""""""" / 1 X\^
m=ft$w~~~~ '' ' XO
/I Y DW-°1 ' \ x\
/ 1 / \ I \ \
/ l / \ I \ Nv
/I / \ 1 N s
/ / \ x X
; / \ \ ^
.' / \ s ' \ s
/ ' ' \ V\ S^
/ / ^ x X\
1 / \ ^ M N
/ / \ S \ S
/ 1 / \ 1 \ \
1 / \ ' x Nx
/ / \ / -2^"03 Ns
/ 3 1 / S \ 1 / ^, \
/ ( / ^ j ,' "-.^\
/ 1 / \ 1 xX M ^^^VN
/ '/ ^ ' / ^-^
. ^Jh-BA^a. ___ \\ / -,4h PW-04
/ S \ ~~ ~ Jf •grW^D2 ^
/ ^ \ / ^^^"
1 s \ / ^••^
high
estimation error ->
possible need for
new locations
Low SF -> low
estimation error ->
no need for new
locations
s -\
Back to
Access
V J
3571000.0 3571100.0 3571200.0 3571300.0 3571400.0 3571500.0 3571600.0 3571700.0 3571800.0 3571900.0 3572000.0
-------
September, 2009
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
DELATTE METALS
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
APPENDIX B:
MAROS Reports
Second Water-Bearing Zone
COC Assessment
-------
MAROS COC Assessment
Project: SWBZ
Location: Ponchatoula
Toxicitv:
Contaminant of Concern
User Name: MV
State: Louisiana
Representative
Concentration
(mg/L)
PRG
(mg/L)
Percent
Above
PRG
Thallium
2.3E-03
2.0E-03
12.9%
Note: Top COCs by toxicity were determined by examining a representative concentration for each compound over the entire site. The
compound representative concentrations are then compared with the chosen PRG for that compound, with the percentage exceedance
from the PRG determining the compound's toxicity. All compounds above exceed the PRG.
Prevalence:
Contaminant of Concern
Class
Total
Wells
Total
Exceedances
Percent
Exceedances
Total
detects
Thallium
MET
13
30.8%
12
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
Thallium
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)
Arsenic
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Thallium
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
September, 2009
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
DELATTE METALS
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
APPENDIX B:
MAROS Reports
Second Water-Bearing Zone
Metals Trend Reports
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Project: Delatte SWBZ
Location: Ponchatoula
User Name: mv
State: Louisiana
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Well
Source/
Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples Concentration
"ND" ? Trend
Arsenic
BA-01
BA-05
BA-09A
BC-03
BC-07
BC-17
BC-19
BC-21R
BC-25
DW-04
MW-03
MW-04
MW-A
Lead
BA-01
BA-05
BA-09A
BC-03
BC-07
BC-17
BC-19
BC-21R
BC-25
DW-04
MW-03
MW-04
MW-A
Manganese
BA-01
BA-05
BA-09A
BC-03
BC-07
BC-17
BC-19
BC-21R
s
s
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
T
S
T
T
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
15
16
17
16
15
17
16
14
14
15
13
12
15
13
13
12
15
13
20
15
11
11
14
12
14
12
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
18
1.25
1.01
0.89
1.13
1.18
0.68
1.21
1.49
1.53
1.16
1.57
1.74
1.84
2.18
1.60
0.68
0.72
1.03
0.99
1.07
1.11
1.21
1.03
1.05
1.44
1.18
0.36
0.45
0.38
0.78
0.50
0.79
1.07
1.05
-11
-8
18
-48
-74
-12
-26
-25
-19
-47
-54
43
-30
33
-3
106
2
70
-50
52
27
71
15
39
43
23
48
-106
-48
-68
-15
-70
-1
13
62.6%
58.9%
70.7%
93.6%
99.2%
63.8%
78.9%
78.0%
71 .8%
93.2%
95.7%
91 .3%
82.4%
84.9%
52.6%
100.0%
51 .3%
98.8%
94.4%
95.1%
79.8%
98.9%
67.3%
89.0%
91.3%
76.0%
93.6%
100.0%
93.6%
98.6%
67.3%
98.8%
50.0%
65.0%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NT
NT
NT
PD
D
S
NT
NT
NT
PD
D
PI
NT
NT
NT
I
NT
I
PD
I
NT
I
NT
NT
PI
NT
PI
D
PD
D
S
D
NT
NT
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Monday, February 16, 2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
Project: Delatte SWBZ
Location: Ponchatoula
Well
Source/
Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
User Name: mv
State: Louisiana
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
Manganese
BC-25
DW-04
MW-03
MW-04
MW-A
Nickel
BA-01
BA-05
BA-09A
BC-03
BC-07
BC-17
BC-19
BC-21R
BC-25
DW-04
MW-03
MW-04
MW-A
Thallium
BA-01
BA-05
BA-09A
BC-03
BC-07
BC-17
BC-19
BC-21R
BC-25
DW-04
MW-03
MW-04
MW-A
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
17
17
20
13
17
17
16
17
16
16
16
17
15
15
1
2
1
1
2
5
3
2
2
3
1
1
0
0.59
0.29
0.33
1.16
0.70
0.96
0.33
0.81
0.68
0.99
0.76
0.73
1.14
0.96
1.81
0.70
1.04
2.03
1.99
1.78
1.20
1.28
1.03
2.71
3.17
1.81
4.36
4.01
0.74
1.24
0.00
-56
-14
45
-16
-3
85
-62
4
44
3
-11
18
11
-9
27
16
36
26
-17
-1
13
15
29
-19
-24
-5
-3
8
15
13
0
96.3%
66.1%
92.3%
68.5%
52.6%
99.8%
97.7%
53.8%
91 .8%
52.6%
62.6%
70.7%
62.6%
60.1%
79.8%
68.5%
87.0%
78.9%
69.6%
50.0%
65.0%
67.3%
81 .6%
71 .8%
77.0%
55.1%
52.6%
58.9%
67.3%
65.0%
48.7%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
D
S
PI
NT
S
I
D
NT
PI
NT
S
NT
NT
S
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
ND
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A)-
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); Source/Tail (S/T)
The Number of Samples and Number of Detects shown above are post-consolidation values.
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Monday, February 16, 2009
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-03
Well Type: T
COC: Arsenic
1.2E-02-
U
1 1.0E-02-
§ 8.0E-03 -
£ 6.0E-03 -
c
01
c 4.0E-03 -
o
O
2.0E-03 •
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Jb*1 JS*1 Jb*1 j£ j£ & $§> $ $ S?> Mann Kendall S Statistic:
.' . ^ . ."" . ^ . ^ . ' . ? . .' . ? . 1" 1 -54
« Confidence in
Trend:
» j 95/7%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1^57
A . Mann Kendall
* * * * Concentration Trend:
* * * » (See Note)
***** *** '
I D
Data Table:
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
1/1/2004 Arsenic 1.3E-02 1 1
3/1/2004 Arsenic 1.1E-02 1 1
5/1/2004 Arsenic 2.3E-03 1 1
7/1/2004 Arsenic 1.8E-03 1 1
9/1/2004 Arsenic 2.5E-03 1 1
3/1/2005 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
5/1/2005 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
10/1/2005 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
12/1/2005 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
3/1/2006 Arsenic 1.0E-03 1 1
6/1/2006 Arsenic 5.7E-04 1 1
9/1/2006 Arsenic 1.7E-03 1 1
12/1/2006 Arsenic 1.2E-03 1 1
3/1/2007 Arsenic 2.1E-03 1 1
6/1/2007 Arsenic 1.7E-03 1 1
9/1/2007 Arsenic 9.4E-04 1 1
12/1/2007 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
3/8/2008 Arsenic 2.5E-03 1 1
5/8/2008 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
8/8/2008 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/16/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: DW-04
Well Type: T
COC: Arsenic
1.2E-02-
U
1 1.0E-02-
§ 8.0E-03 -
£ 6.0E-03 -
c
01
c 4.0E-03 -
o
O
2.0E-03 •
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Jb*1 JS*1 Jb*1 j£ j£ & $§> $ $ S?> Mann Kendall S Statistic:
.' . ^ . ."" . ^ . ^ . ' . ? . .' . ? . 1" 1 -47
^ Confidence in
Trend:
__
Coefficient of Variation:
i lie
^ * * Mann Kendall
* * **** * * Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
* * * * *
I PD
Data Table:
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
DW-04 T
1/1/2004 Arsenic 1.3E-02 1 1
3/1/2004 Arsenic 9.0E-03 1 1
5/1/2004 Arsenic 2.1E-03 1 1
7/1/2004 Arsenic 2.0E-03 1 1
9/1/2004 Arsenic 2.5E-03 1 1
3/1/2005 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
5/1/2005 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
10/1/2005 Arsenic 1.4E-03 1 1
12/1/2005 Arsenic 1.9E-03 1 1
3/1/2006 Arsenic 1.9E-03 1 1
6/1/2006 Arsenic 1.7E-03 1 1
9/1/2006 Arsenic 2.4E-03 1 1
12/1/2006 Arsenic 1.9E-03 1 1
3/1/2007 Arsenic 2.7E-03 1 1
6/1/2007 Arsenic 5.7E-03 1 1
9/1/2007 Arsenic 1.5E-03 1 1
12/1/2007 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
3/8/2008 Arsenic 3.3E-03 1 1
5/8/2008 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
8/8/2008 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/16/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BC-19
Well Type: T
COC: Arsenic
1.4E-02-
? 1.2E-02-
~ 1.0E-02-
| 8.0E-03 •
g 6.0E-03 -
o
o 4.0E-03 •
O
2.0E-03 -
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Jb*1 JS*1 Jb*1 j£ j£ & $§> $ $ & Mann Kendall S Statistic:
.' . ^ . ."" . ^ . ^ . ' . ? . ' . ? . ^ 1 -26
Confidence in
* Trend:
* j 78°i%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 1^21
^ « * * * Mann Kendall
* ***** * Concentration Trend:
* * (See Note)
I NT
Data Table:
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
BC-19 T
1/1/2004 Arsenic 1.4E-02 1 1
3/1/2004 Arsenic 1.3E-02 1 1
5/1/2004 Arsenic 2.9E-03 1 1
7/1/2004 Arsenic 2.1E-03 1 1
9/1/2004 Arsenic 2.8E-03 1 1
3/1/2005 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
5/1/2005 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
10/1/2005 Arsenic 1.4E-03 1 1
12/1/2005 Arsenic 1.6E-03 1 1
3/1/2006 Arsenic 2.4E-03 1 1
6/1/2006 Arsenic 1.4E-03 1 1
9/1/2006 Arsenic 2.4E-03 1 1
12/1/2006 Arsenic 1.6E-03 1 1
3/1/2007 Arsenic 3.0E-03 1 1
6/1/2007 Arsenic 2.4E-03 1 1
9/1/2007 Arsenic 2.9E-03 1 1
12/1/2007 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
3/8/2008 Arsenic 2.1E-03 1 1
5/8/2008 Arsenic 3.4E-03 1 1
8/8/2008 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/16/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BC-07
Well Type: T
COC: Arsenic
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
_J
O)
£
c
o
1
1
o
o
Ice no
.bt-Uz -
1.4E-02-
1.2E-02-
1.0E-02-
8.0E-03 •
6.0E-03 -
4.0E-03 •
2.0E-03 -
n np4-nn .
^ ^ 4* ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BC-03
Well Type: T
COC: Arsenic
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
_J
O)
£
c
o
1
§
c
o
o
Ice no
.bt-Uz -
1.4E-02-
1.2E-02-
1.0E-02-
8.0E-03 •
6.0E-03 -
4.0E-03 •
2.0E-03 -
n np4-nn .
^ ^ J* ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-09A
Well Type: T
COC: Arsenic
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.2E-02
_ 1.0E-02
_j
£ 8.0E-03
o
« 6.0E-03
g 4.0E-03
o
0 2.0E-03 -
0.
Date
$$>
**»
*«,»•
*»
&
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 18
Confidence in
Trend:
I 70.7%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.89
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
BA-09A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
1/1/2004
3/1/2004
5/1/2004
7/1/2004
9/1/2004
3/1/2005
5/1/2005
10/1/2005
12/1/2005
3/1/2006
6/1/2006
9/1/2006
12/1/2006
3/1/2007
6/1/2007
9/1/2007
12/1/2007
3/8/2008
5/8/2008
8/8/2008
Constituent
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Result (mg/L) Flag
9.2E-03
1.1E-02
2.7E-03
2.7E-03
2.6E-03
2.0E-04 ND
2.0E-04 ND
2.0E-04 ND
2.4E-03
2.4E-03
2.2E-03
2.4E-03
2.3E-03
2.7E-03
2.5E-03
2.3E-03
2.8E-03
3.2E-03
8.9E-03
2.9E-03
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/16/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-05
Well Type: s
COC: Arsenic
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
$$>
_l
O)
o
*
c
Conce
2.UE-02 -
1.8E-02-
1.6E-02-
1.4E-02-
1.2E-02-
1.0E-02-
8.0E-03 •
6.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 •
2.0E-03 -
n np4-nn .
*
4
•
*»» »^»» *
* *
^ ^ ^ *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 58.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.01
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
1/1/2004
3/1/2004
5/1/2004
7/1/2004
9/1/2004
3/1/2005
5/1/2005
10/1/2005
12/1/2005
3/1/2006
6/1/2006
9/1/2006
12/1/2006
3/1/2007
6/1/2007
9/1/2007
12/1/2007
3/8/2008
5/8/2008
8/8/2008
Constituent
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Result (mg/L) Flag
9.6E-03
8.2E-03
4.4E-03
4.5E-03
4.5E-03
2.0E-04 ND
2.0E-04 ND
2.2E-03
2.0E-04 ND
3.2E-03
9.6E-04
4.6E-03
4.0E-03
4.5E-03
4.5E-03
2.5E-03
2.2E-03
4.9E-03
1.9E-02
2.0E-04 ND
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/16/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-01
Well Type: s
COC: Arsenic
1.2E-02-
1 1.0E-02-
§ 8.0E-03 -
S 6.0E-03 -
c
01
c 4.0E-03 -
o
O
2.0E-03 •
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Jb*1 JS*1 Jb*1 j£ j£ & $§> $ $ S?> Mann Kendall S Statistic:
.' . ^ . ."" . ^ . ^ . ' . ? . .' . ? . 1" 1 -11
* * Confidence in
Trend:
__
^ Coefficient of Variation:
| 1^25
* ^ • Mann Kendall
* « • Concentration Trend:
* * * * (See Note)
* * * * * *
I NT
Data Table:
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
1/1/2004 Arsenic 1.3E-02 1 1
3/1/2004 Arsenic 7.5E-03 1 1
5/1/2004 Arsenic 1.8E-03 1 1
7/1/2004 Arsenic 1.4E-03 1 1
9/1/2004 Arsenic 2.0E-03 1 1
3/1/2005 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
5/1/2005 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
10/1/2005 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
12/1/2005 Arsenic 1.2E-03 1 1
3/1/2006 Arsenic 7.2E-03 1 1
6/1/2006 Arsenic 5.6E-04 1 1
9/1/2006 Arsenic 1.3E-03 1 1
12/1/2006 Arsenic 9.3E-04 1 1
3/1/2007 Arsenic 2.9E-03 1 1
6/1/2007 Arsenic 2.6E-03 1 1
9/1/2007 Arsenic 2.8E-03 1 1
12/1/2007 Arsenic 4.7E-03 1 1
3/8/2008 Arsenic 1.3E-02 1 1
5/8/2008 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
8/8/2008 Arsenic 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/16/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-04
Well Type: T
COC: Arsenic
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.2E-02-
_ 1.0E-02-
_j
£ 8.0E-03 -
| 6.0E-03 •
§ 4.0E-03 -
o
0 2.0E-03 -
Data Table:
Date
<$. 5^ <^ $> $ s£> <£> £ $
^ ^ c? ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BC-19
Well Type: T
COC: Lead
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
3.0E-03
_ 2.5E-03
£ 2.0E-03
o
« 1.5E-03
g 1.0E-03
o
0 5.0E-04 -
0.
Date
$$>
• • • • •
* * * *
» »
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 52
Confidence in
Trend:
I 95.1%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.07
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
BC-19
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
1/1/2004
3/1/2004
5/1/2004
7/1/2004
9/1/2004
3/1/2005
5/1/2005
10/1/2005
12/1/2005
3/1/2006
6/1/2006
9/1/2006
12/1/2006
3/1/2007
6/1/2007
9/1/2007
12/1/2007
3/8/2008
5/8/2008
8/8/2008
Constituent
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.3E-03
1.8E-03
1.0E-04 ND
1.0E-04 ND
1.0E-04 ND
1.0E-04 ND
1.0E-04 ND
8.5E-04
1.2E-03
2.5E-04
1.5E-04
2.7E-04
2.4E-04
3.8E-04
3.9E-04
2.7E-03
6.3E-04
9.3E-04
3.0E-04
9.2E-04
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/16/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BC-17
Well Type: s
COC: Lead
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
_l
O)
o
*
C
Co nee
4.5E-01 -
4.0E-01 -
3.5E-01 -
3.0E-01 •
2.5E-01 •
2.0E-01 •
1.5E-01 •
1.0E-01 •
5.0E-02 -
n np4-nn .
^ ^ 4* ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BC-07
Well Type: T
COC: Lead
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
3.0E-03 -
_ 2.5E-03 -
£ 2.0E-03 -
o
« 1.5E-03-
k.
§ 1.0E-03-
o
0 5.0E-04 -
Data Table:
Date
^ <$• <^ <$> & -J> <£> £ <£
** ^ ^ ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-09A
Well Type: T
COC: Lead
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
_i
O)
o
1
Concen
8.0E-04 •
7.0E-04 -
6.0E-04 -
5.0E-04 •
4.0E-04 •
3.0E-04 -
2.0E-04 -
1.0E-04-
n np4-nn .
^ ^ 4* ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-01
Well Type: s
COC: Lead
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
$$>
_l
O)
o
*
c
Conce
2.UE-02 -
1.8E-02-
1.6E-02-
1.4E-02-
1.2E-02-
1.0E-02-
8.0E-03 •
6.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 •
2.0E-03 -
n np4-nn .
*
A
************* * **
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 33
Confidence in
Trend:
I 84.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
2.18
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
BA-01
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
1/1/2004
3/1/2004
5/1/2004
7/1/2004
9/1/2004
3/1/2005
5/1/2005
10/1/2005
12/1/2005
3/1/2006
6/1/2006
9/1/2006
12/1/2006
3/1/2007
6/1/2007
9/1/2007
12/1/2007
3/8/2008
5/8/2008
8/8/2008
Constituent
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Result (mg/L)
1.7E-02
4.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-04
1.0E-04
1.0E-04
1 .OE-04
1.0E-04
6.1E-04
5.0E-04
1.3E-04
7.1E-04
1.2E-03
8.3E-04
9.3E-04
1.7E-03
4.9E-04
9.0E-03
2.3E-04
1. OE-04
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/16/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BC-25
Well Type: T
COC: Lead
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
2.5E-03
2- 2.0E-03
B)
T 1.5E-03
o
1
•£ 1.0E-03
s
c
O 5.0E-04
0.
$$>
&
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 71
Confidence in
Trend:
I 98.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.21
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
BC-25
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
1/1/2004
3/1/2004
5/1/2004
7/1/2004
9/1/2004
3/1/2005
5/1/2005
10/1/2005
12/1/2005
3/1/2006
6/1/2006
9/1/2006
12/1/2006
3/1/2007
6/1/2007
9/1/2007
12/1/2007
3/8/2008
5/8/2008
8/8/2008
Constituent
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Result (mg/L)
1.0E-04
1.6E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-04
1.0E-04
1.0E-04
1.0E-04
1.0E-04
1.0E-04
3.6E-04
2.1E-04
3.5E-04
3.2E-04
2.3E-03
4.9E-04
1.6E-03
8.0E-04
1.0E-03
4.7E-04
1.0E-04
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/16/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BC-25
Well Type: T
COC: Manganese
8.0E-01 -
j 7.0E-01 -
£ 6.0E-01 -
0 5.0E-01 •
| 4.0E-01 •
§ 3.0E-01 -
£ 2.0E-01 -
1.0E-01 -
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
jS*1 a*1 js*1 j£ j£ jj> j£> $ <^ s?> Mann Kendall S Statistic:
\ a \ V _____r
Confidence in
* Trend:
__
Coefficient of Variation:
* I 059
* » »»» * * • * *
- * Mann Kendall
^ Concentration Trend:
^ ^ (See Note)
I D
Data Table:
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
BC-25 T
1/1/2004 Manganese 3.0E-01 1 1
3/1/2004 Manganese 2.8E-01 1 1
5/1/2004 Manganese 7.7E-01 1 1
7/1/2004 Manganese 4.5E-01 1 1
9/1/2004 Manganese 2.9E-01 1 1
3/1/2005 Manganese 2.8E-01 1 1
5/1/2005 Manganese 2.9E-01 1 1
10/1/2005 Manganese 4.2E-01 1 1
12/1/2005 Manganese 2.3E-01 1 1
3/1/2006 Manganese 3.8E-02 1 1
6/1/2006 Manganese 2.9E-02 1 1
9/1/2006 Manganese 2.8E-01 1 1
12/1/2006 Manganese 2.8E-01 1 1
3/1/2007 Manganese 1.6E-01 1 1
6/1/2007 Manganese 1.5E-01 1 1
9/1/2007 Manganese 2.8E-01 1 1
12/1/2007 Manganese 1.8E-01 1 1
3/8/2008 Manganese 9.8E-02 1 1
5/8/2008 Manganese 2.9E-01 1 1
8/8/2008 Manganese 2.9E-01 1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/16/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BC-21R
Well Type: T
COC: Manganese
1.8E-01 -
^ 1.6E-01 -
|" 1.4E-01 -
T 1.2E-01 •
| 1.0E-01 •
i 8.0E-02 •
| 6.0E-02 •
0 4.0E-02 •
2.0E-02 -
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
jS*1 a*1 js*1 j£ j£ jj> j£> $ <^ s?> Mann Kendall S Statistic:
' * J * C ' C ' C * j 13
• Confidence in
Trend:
* ' 1 65.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
_
Mann Kendall
* . Concentration Trend:
• * * * * * (See Note)
I NT
Data Table:
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
BC-21R T
1/1/2004 Manganese 5.1E-02 1 1
3/1/2004 Manganese 1.1E-02 1 1
5/1/2004 Manganese 2.6E-02 1 1
7/1/2004 Manganese 5.0E-02 1 1
9/1/2004 Manganese 1.5E-01 1 1
3/1/2005 Manganese 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
5/1/2005 Manganese 2.0E-04 ND 1 0
10/1/2005 Manganese 1.8E-01 1 1
12/1/2005 Manganese 2.0E-02 1 1
3/1/2006 Manganese 1.5E-02 1 1
6/1/2006 Manganese 1.3E-02 1 1
9/1/2006 Manganese 1.6E-01 1 1
12/1/2006 Manganese 1.4E-01 1 1
3/1/2007 Manganese 1.3E-02 1 1
6/1/2007 Manganese 1.3E-02 1 1
9/1/2007 Manganese 1.3E-01 1 1
12/1/2007 Manganese 1.8E-02 1 1
3/8/2008 Manganese 4.5E-03 1 1
5/8/2008 Manganese 8.0E-02 1 1
8/8/2008 Manganese 1.6E-01 1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/16/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BC-17
Well Type: s
COC: Manganese
1.6E+00 -
j 1.4E+00 -
£ 1.2E+00 -
0 1.0E+00 •
| 8.0E-01 •
§ 6.0E-01 -
£ 4.0E-01 -
2.0E-01 -
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
jy1 JS jy1 JS3 j? $?> jy> 5^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BC-03
Well Type: T
COC: Manganese
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
$$>
&
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
_J
B)
o
1
Concei
1.4E-U1 -
1.2E-01 •
1.0E-01 •
8.0E-02 •
6.0E-02 •
4.0E-02 -
2.0E-02 •
n np4-nn .
,
* *
^ • »
+ *
I ~68
Confidence in
Trend:
I 98.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.78
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
BC-03
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
1/1/2004
3/1/2004
5/1/2004
7/1/2004
9/1/2004
3/1/2005
5/1/2005
10/1/2005
12/1/2005
3/1/2006
6/1/2006
9/1/2006
12/1/2006
3/1/2007
6/1/2007
9/1/2007
12/1/2007
3/8/2008
5/8/2008
8/8/2008
Constituent
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.6E-02
3.7E-02
6.2E-02
5.2E-02
3.6E-02
2.1E-02
5.8E-02
1.2E-01
6.5E-02
1 .2E-02
1.1E-02
4.2E-02
4.2E-02
7.5E-03
7.7E-03
2.6E-02
2.0E-02
4.9E-03
1.3E-02
2.7E-02
I °
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/16/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-05
Well Type: s
COC: Manganese
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
$$>
_j
B>
o
1
Concer
3.5EHJ1 -
3.0&-01 •
2.5&-01 •
2.0&-01 -
1.5&-01 -
1.0&-01 -
5.0&-00 •
n np4-nn .
•
•
• , *
***** * *
*****
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -106
Confidence in
Trend:
I 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.45
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
BA-05
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
1/1/2004
3/1/2004
5/1/2004
7/1/2004
9/1/2004
3/1/2005
5/1/2005
10/1/2005
12/1/2005
3/1/2006
6/1/2006
9/1/2006
12/1/2006
3/1/2007
6/1/2007
9/1/2007
12/1/2007
3/8/2008
5/8/2008
8/8/2008
Constituent
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.0E+01
3.1E+01
2.3E+01
1.5E+01
9.5E+00
1.4E+01
1.6E+01
1.3E+01
1.1E+01
1.2E+01
1.1E+01
9.5E+00
1.1E+01
7.9E+00
7.9E+00
8.2E+00
8.4E+00
1.2E+01
8.7E+00
1.1E+01
iMumoer 01 Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/16/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-01
Well Type: s
COC: Manganese
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.6E+00 -
1.4E+00 -
? 1.2E+00 -
~ 1. OE+00 -
| 8.0E-01 •
| 6.0E-01 -
o 4.0E-01 •
O
2.0E-01 -
Data Table:
Date
** ^ ^ ^ 0* ^ 0* ^ 0* ^
*** **
*
S? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 48
Confidence in
Trend:
1 93.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.36
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I Pl
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
BA-01 S
1/1/2004 Manganese 5.9E-01
1 1
3/1/2004 Manganese 1.1E+00 1 1
5/1/2004 Manganese 8.0E-01
7/1/2004 Manganese 7.3E-01
9/1/2004 Manganese 6.2E-01
1 1
1 1
1 1
3/1/2005 Manganese 1.2E+00 1 1
5/1/2005 Manganese 1.3E+00 1 1
10/1/2005 Manganese 8.0E-01
12/1/2005 Manganese 4.2E-01
3/1/2006 Manganese 2.4E-02
1 1
1 1
1 1
6/1/2006 Manganese 1.1E+00 1 1
9/1/2006 Manganese 8.2E-01
12/1/2006 Manganese 8.1E-01
1 1
1 1
3/1/2007 Manganese 1. OE+00 1 1
6/1/2007 Manganese 1.1E+00 1 1
9/1/2007 Manganese 8.8E-01
12/1/2007 Manganese 8.5E-01
1 1
1 1
3/8/2008 Manganese 1.5E+00 1 1
5/8/2008 Manganese 1. OE+00 1 1
8/8/2008 Manganese 1. OE+00 1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
1/14/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW-03
Well Type: T
COC: Manganese
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.6E+00 -
1.4E+00 -
? 1.2E+00 -
~ 1.0E+00 -
| 8.0E-01 •
| 6.0E-01 -
o 4.0E-01 •
O
2.0E-01 -
Data Table:
Date
** ^ ^ ^ 0* ^ 0* ^ 0* ^
• ^
• * *
* ••
* * * *
& Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 45
Confidence in
Trend:
1 92.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.33
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I Pl
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
MW-03 T
1/1/2004 Manganese 5.6E-01
3/1/2004 Manganese 5.7E-01
5/1/2004 Manganese 6.8E-01
7/1/2004 Manganese 9.7E-01
9/1/2004 Manganese 7.2E-01
3/1/2005 Manganese 7.4E-01
5/1/2005 Manganese 8.0E-01
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
10/1/2005 Manganese 1.4E+00 1 1
12/1/2005 Manganese 1.3E+00 1 1
3/1/2006 Manganese 1.5E+00 1 1
6/1/2006 Manganese 4.7E-01
1 1
9/1/2006 Manganese 1.1E+00 1 1
12/1/2006 Manganese 1.2E+00 1 1
3/1/2007 Manganese 8.5E-01
6/1/2007 Manganese 7.4E-01
9/1/2007 Manganese 8.5E-01
1 1
1 1
1 1
12/1/2007 Manganese 1.1E+00 1 1
3/8/2008 Manganese 5.3E-01
1 1
5/8/2008 Manganese 1.1E+00 1 1
8/8/2008 Manganese 1.2E+00 1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
2/16/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
September, 2009
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
DELATTE METALS
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
APPENDIX B:
MAROS Reports
Second Water-Bearing Zone
Well Sufficiency Spatial Analysis Results
-------
NORTH
701200.0-
701000.0-
700800.0 -
700600.0 -
700400.0 -
700200.0 -
700000.0 -
699800.0 -
RQQRnn n -
New Location analysis for arsenic in the SWBZ
ILB£=02A
/ ^ -• MW-04
f \ — "^7*
/ X M _-"""-- W\
/ s x _--- ^- /I \
^--^::--- >" /;/ \
'I* Xs "--. ^" / / \
in N s -^ ^- / \
„ i x -^A-OI / / \
" \ N^ >
1 \ s X '' / 1 \
1 \ ^^,3 / /
! \ S \N M / /
! -\/x s \ / -/
; K^~^_ \ /
' / """----^-^ / \
1 / ~~-JTBC-21R / \
; / s .--""' \
/ ,-^" \ /
f / -^"
M^ - V \
1 /^^ --^XBC-17 ,
! / "-- s --" x-.
\ ---"""
/ • >*=c
!/ /" ~ ' \
y ^-x ^^-- x- \
i^. ^--.^ \ \
^-^ BC-03
New Location
Analysis for
Arsenic
Existing
Locations
Potential areas for
new locations are
indicated by triangles
with a high SF level.
Estimated SF Level:
S - Small
M - Moderate
L - Large
E- Extremely large
High SF-> high
estimation error ->
possible need for
new locations
Low SF -> low
estimation error ->
no need for new
locations
Back to
Access
V J
EAST
3571400.0 3571450.0 3571500.0 3571550.0 3571600.0 3571650.0 3571700.0 3571750.0 3571800.0 3571850.0 3571900.0 3571950.0
-------
NORTH
701200.0-
701000.0-
700800.0 -
700600.0 -
700400.0 -
700200.0 -
700000.0 -
699800.0 -
RQQRnn n -
BA.09A New Location analysis for manganese in the SWB2
/ NN — -..^M MW-04
// X M ~. — — ~~~"~^*'q\
/ MX _ — — — """'" .,-''' // \
MW'A / X^ BA-05 ______--- ^'' // \
i\ X "^-^ ^-""" / / \
III X M - ^ / / \
II \ Sx s ^T" ' / \
'I * Sv ^ BA"°1 M / / »
II \ X ^ " / / \
' M X . ^ / / \
\ >r°3 / ' \
! \ xx \ / /
! \/' -\ / V
! -)^-^ \ /
1 ' ~-~---. N L/ / \
/ ~"~~-^BC-21R / \
/ • ,-'" \
/ ,-"" \ /
<-! ,--' " \ /
1 JL . **•* \ 1 '
j1 ^£». \J \
I I ^ " .---""' \
I / ^^ --" Xx ^
(/ S ^^t4^^ ^x^ \
/ s' -^^^ M ^X \
' *'' ^-^ %^ \
i^ s ^^
~ ^-^ BC-03
New Location
Analysis for
Manganese
Existing
Locations
Potential areas for
new locations are
indicated by triangles
with a high SF level.
Estimated SF Level:
S - Small
M - Moderate
L - Large
E- Extremely large
High SF-> high
estimation error ->
possible need for
new locations
Low SF -> low
estimation error ->
no need for new
locations
Back to
Access
V J
EAST
3571400.0 3571450.0 3571500.0 3571550.0 3571600.0 3571650.0 3571700.0 3571750.0 3571800.0 3571850.0 3571900.0 3571950.0
-------
September, 2009
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
DELATTE METALS
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
APPENDIX B:
MAROS Reports
Third Water-Bearing Zone
Metals Trend Reports
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Project: Delatte TWBZ
Location: Ponchatoula
User Name: MV
State: Louisiana
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Well
Source/
Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples Concentration
"ND" ? Trend
Arsenic
BA-01A
BA-03A
BA-05A
BB-01
Lead
BA-01A
BA-03A
BA-05A
BB-01
Manganese
BA-01A
BA-03A
BA-05A
BB-01
Nickel
BA-01A
BA-03A
BA-05A
BB-01
Thallium
BA-01A
BA-03A
BA-05A
BB-01
s
s
T
T
S
S
T
T
S
S
T
T
S
S
T
T
S
S
T
T
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
16
17
17
17
12
17
11
17
20
20
20
18
16
16
16
17
2
3
0
0
0.68
0.95
0.91
0.72
1.36
0.71
1.02
0.59
3.27
0.37
0.36
0.70
2.04
0.88
3.09
0.59
0.72
1.86
0.00
0.00
-57
-66
-55
-67
58
-23
32
4
-65
-74
11
36
-3
-17
-6
-2
17
12
0
0
96.6%
98.3%
96.0%
98.5%
96.8%
76.0%
84.1%
53.8%
98.2%
99.2%
62.6%
87.0%
52.6%
69.6%
56.4%
51 .3%
69.6%
63.8%
48.7%
48.7%
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
D
D
D
D
I
S
NT
NT
D
D
NT
NT
NT
S
NT
S
NT
NT
ND
ND
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A)-
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); Source/Tail (S/T)
The Number of Samples and Number of Detects shown above are post-consolidation values.
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-05A
Well Type: s
COC: Arsenic
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.2E-02,
_ 1.0E-02-
_j
£ 8.0E-03 -
| 6.0E-03 •
§ 4.0E-03 -
o
0 2.0E-03 -
Data Table:
Date
^ <$• <^ <$> & -J> <£> £ <£
** ^ ^ ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-03A
Well Type: T
COC: Arsenic
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.2E-02-
_ 1.0E-02-
£ 8.0E-03 -
| 6.0E-03 •
§ 4.0E-03 -
o
0 2.0E-03 -
Data Table:
Date
<$. 5^ <^ $> $ s£> <£> £ $
^ ^ c? ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-01A
Well Type: T
COC: Arsenic
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
(i*1 S**1 O*1 & & <& & <& 5^ 5? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
1.6E-02-
U 1.4E-02 -
B)
_§ 1.2E-02-
o 1.0E-02-
| 8.0E-03 •
c
8 6.0E-03 -
c
£ 4.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 -
Data Table:
^ ^ c£* ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BB-01
Well Type: T
COC: Arsenic
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.8E-02-
2- 1.6E-02-
|" 1.4E-02-
T 1.2E-02-
| 1.0E-02-
i 8.0E-03 •
| 6.0E-03 •
0 4.0E-03 •
2.0E-03 -
Data Table:
Date
^ <$• <^ <$> & -J> <£> £ <£
** ^ ^ ^ ' .. *
S? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
1 98.5%
Coefficient of Variation:
I °72
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I D
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
1/1/2004 Arsenic 1.9E-02
3/1/2004 Arsenic 1.7E-02
5/1/2004 Arsenic 8.5E-03
7/1/2004 Arsenic 9.3E-03
9/1/2004 Arsenic 8.9E-03
3/1/2005 Arsenic 2.0E-04
5/1/2005 Arsenic 2.0E-04
10/1/2005 Arsenic 6.8E-03
12/1/2005 Arsenic 6.5E-03
3/1/2006 Arsenic 4.3E-03
6/1/2006 Arsenic 5.0E-03
9/1/2006 Arsenic 7.7E-03
12/1/2006 Arsenic 7.0E-03
3/1/2007 Arsenic 3.5E-03
6/1/2007 Arsenic 3.4E-03
9/1/2007 Arsenic 5.8E-03
12/1/2007 Arsenic 4.6E-03
3/8/2008 Arsenic 6.2E-03
5/8/2008 Arsenic 8.7E-03
8/8/2008 Arsenic 2.0E-04
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
ND 1 0
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
1/14/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-01A
Well Type: T
COC: Lead
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
6.0E-03 •
_ 5.0E-03 -
£ 4.0E-03 -
| 3.0E-03 •
§ 2.0E-03 -
o
0 1.0E-03-
Data Table:
Date
^ <$• <^ <$> & -J> <£> £ <£
** ^ ^ ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BB-01
Well Type: T
COC: Lead
Time Period: 1/1/2004 to 8/8/2008
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.6E-02-
1.4E-02-
? 1.2E-02-
~ 1.0E-02-
| 8.0E-03 •
= 6.0E-03 -
o
o 4.0E-03 •
O
2.0E-03 -
Data Table:
Date
** ^ ^ ^ 0* ^ 0* ^ 0* ^
* * *
*
* *
^ f. f
S? Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 4
Confidence in
Trend:
1 53.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
1 0.59
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
I NT
Effective Number of Number of
Well Well Type Date Constituent Result (mg/L) Flag Samples Detects
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
BB-01 T
1/1/2004 Lead 1.3E-02
3/1/2004 Lead 1.5E-02
5/1/2004 Lead 6.8E-03
7/1/2004 Lead 5.9E-03
9/1/2004 Lead 1.0E-04
3/1/2005 Lead 1.0E-04
5/1/2005 Lead 1.0E-04
10/1/2005 Lead 1.5E-02
12/1/2005 Lead 1.5E-02
3/1/2006 Lead 1.1E-02
6/1/2006 Lead 3.0E-03
9/1/2006 Lead 1.3E-02
12/1/2006 Lead 1.3E-02
3/1/2007 Lead 6.0E-03
6/1/2007 Lead 5.7E-03
9/1/2007 Lead 8.2E-03
12/1/2007 Lead 1.3E-02
3/8/2008 Lead 9.7E-03
5/8/2008 Lead 8.3E-03
8/8/2008 Lead 9.2E-03
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
ND 1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
1/14/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: BA-03A
Well Type: T
COC: Thallium
2.5E-03 -
2- 2.0E-03 -
B)
T 1.5E-03-
o
1
•£ 1.0E-03-
s
c
0 5.0E-04 •
Data Table:
Date
^ <£><£><$><$> s$> <£>
** ^ ^ ^
-------
APPENDIX C:
Supplemental Information from ROD and RI
C-1
-------
March, 2009
GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK OPTIMIZATION
DELATTE METALS
Ponchatoula, Louisiana
APPENDICES:
Appendix C Supplemental Information from ROD
-------
PRIMARY
SOURCE
RELEASE ~1
MECHANISMS]
SECONDARY
SOURCE
SURFACE
SURFACE
RELEASES
TO SOIL
EXPLANATION
EXPOSURE
ROUTES
UPTAKE
• Potentially complete exposure pathway
O Possibly complete exposure pathway (insufficient data)
w
>.
IVM i crt
RUNOFF
DIRECT
CONTACT
WIND/HUMAN
ACTIVITIES
VOL ATI L 1 Z ATI ON
OT
mm
r*"
WATER
ȣ*.
4
-*
PARTITIONING
t
SEDIMENTS
4
J
L EROSION i
t
SOIL
1
DEPOSITION
INGESHON
DERMAL
INHALATION •
UPTAKE
INGESTION
DERMAL
INHALATION
UPTAKE
INGESTON
DEFIMAL
INHALATION
4
->
DUSTS
t
w
f
VOLATILIZATION
^
&
r
R
UPTAKE
INGESTION
DERMAL
INHALATION
UPTAKE
INGESTION
OEHMAL
INHALATION
POTENTIAL
RECEPTORS
1°
P
R
0
D
U
C
E
R
D
E
T
R
1
T
1
V
O
R
E
1°
C
O
N
S
U
M
E
R
2°
C
O
N
S
U
M
i
n
3°
C
O
N
S
U
M
E
R
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
K3
4^
t—i*
OS
O
O
DELATTE METALS SITE
Figure 2,1
Conceptual Site Mode!
TETRATECHEMINC,
-------
S&>*i*H
f'f*
UN'TEO STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I44S ROSS AVENUE. SUSTfS20Q
DALLAS TEXAS 7S202-2733
OS
O
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DATE:
Recommended Remediation Goals for Delatte Metals Site
•n '1 17
David Riley, Environmental Scientist „ j/^ '
Superfund Technical Team (6SF-LT)
Stephen Tzhone, Remedial Project Manager
Louisiana/New Mexico Project Management Section (6SF-LP)
4/26/00
This memorandum recommends soil remediation goals based oa risk estimates from the
human health risk assessment for the Delatte Metals site. Remediation goals are presented for
various media of concern.
Soil:
Off Site - 500 ppm Lead, 31 ppm Antimony
On site - 1697 ppm Lead
The Integrated Effects Uptake Biokinetic Model (EEUBK) was used to determine a remediation
goal of 500 ppm for residential soils. The Adult Lead Model, which was used to calculate a
commercial remediation goal for on-site soils, gave a concentration of 1697 ppm. Removal of
lead-contaminated soils could also serve to reduce concentrations of another soil contaminant,
antimony, as these contaminants on the site are closely collocated; however, a remediation goal
(RG) of 31 ppm for antimony results in aHQ of 1.
Ground, Water:
Arsenic
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
50 u.g/L (MCL)
1,700 [ig/L (R6MSSLs» noncancer)
100pg/L(MCL)
-------
Thallium 2 ug/L (MCL)
Bis(2-ethyhexyl)phthalate 6 ^.g/L (MCL)
Benzo[a]pyrene (or B[aJP-eqs) ' 0.2 fig/L (MCL)
Benzofbjfluoranthene 0.092 jig/L (MCL)
Chrysene _ 9,2 \igfL (MCL)
The first water-bearing zone is a Class 3B aquifer, and the second water bearing zone is a
Class 2C aquifer. The use of these two aquifers for drinking water is questionable, but the third
water-bearing zone is a Class 'IB aquifer. Contaminants in the first two aquifers, therefore,
should be addressed in order to prevent contamination of the third. The ground water samples
which exceeded 15 jig/L of lead are collocated with areas of lead contamination in soil, so
addressing on-site soils could reduce concentrations of contaminants in ground water. It is
recommended that ground water monitoring take place after removal of on-site soils to determine
what levels of contamination may still be present The recommended clean-up level for each
ground water contaminant at tlie site is the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for drinking
water. If no MCL is available,, a remediation goal was calculated using equations found in the
Region 6 Medium-Specific Screening Levels (R6MSSLs).
ON
Surface Water:
The surface water medium was only included for the trespasser/visitor scenario, as
appropriate. No remediation goals are recommended for surface water, as the contaminants did
not exceed the carcinogenic risk range or a HQ of 1. The issue with manganese is addressed in a
separate memorandum dated April 26, 2000.
Sediment:
The sediment medium was only included for the trespasser/visitor scenario, as
appropriate. No remediation goal is recommended for lead in sediment, as it cannot be
calculated via the IEUBK or Adult Lead Model, In addition, no remediation goals are
recommended for other contaminants in sediment, as they did not exceed the carcinogenic risk
range or a HQ of 1.
-------
iUllBMBIIIIIUIIIUIIIIIIUIIIIIIlim
S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
REGION S
1445 BOSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200
OAUAS TEXAS 75202-2733
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Recommended Preliminary Remediation Goals
Delatte Metals Superfund Site
FROM: Susan Roddy, Environmental Scientist (6SF-LT)
TO: ' Stephen Tzhone, RPM, (6SF-LP)
DATE: April 26,2000
1
This memorandum recommends ecological preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) based on risk
estimates from the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) for the Delatte Metals site.
Soil: See the February 10, 2000 memorandum from Jon Rauscfaer to Stephen Tzhone.
Sediment: For the ERA, the commonly used Threshold Effect Level (TEL) and the Probable
Effect Level (PEL) freshwater sediment ecotoxicity values from Smith and MacDonald et al
(1996) were compared directly with sediment concentrations. The ERA provided TEL and
PEL sediment concentration values as recommendations for cadmium, lead, and zinc to be
protective of aquatic life. These are analogous in concept to the No Observed Adverse Effect
Level (NOAEL) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) based protective
concentrations recommended as the ecological risk range in EPA's 1997 Ecological Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund. The TEL and PEL values include;
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
TEL
0,6 mg/kg
35 mg/kg
123 mg.kg
PEL
3.5 mg/kg
91.3 mg/kg
315 mg/kg
It would be acceptable to select the less conservative PEL values of 3,5 mg/kg for cadmium,
91.3 mg/kg for Iead3 and 315 mg/kg for zinc as ecological preliminary remediation goals for
sediment because they are within the acceptable risk range, and given the results of the toxicity
tests
-------
Surface Water: The ecological preliminary remediation goals recommended for surface water
are EPA's chronic Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for aquatic life. These include:
32
EPAAWQC
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Zinc
Mercury*
Selenium*
Silver*
87
0.9
2.9
5.2
0.6
38.1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/l
ug/1
ug/l
ug/l
0.012 ug/l
5 ug/l
0.4 ug/l
Tor mercury, selenium, and silver, the detection limits (reporting limits) exceeded the EPA
chronic AWQC although these contaminants were not detected in most samples.
Ground Water: none applicable.
Air: none applicable
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 6
1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200
DALLAS, TEXAS 75202-2733
February 10,2000 .
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Recommended soil preliminary remediation goals for the Delatte Metals site
From:
To;
Stephen Tzfaonc
Remedial Project Manager
This memorandum recommends soil preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) based on risk
estimates from the Ecological Risk Assessment for the Delatte Metals site. The following table
presents the back-calculations from risk assessment for the east and west sides of the site, and
for the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NGAEL) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect
Level (LOAEL):
O
Chemical of
concern
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Lead
Selenium
East-side
NOAEL
400 rag/kg
0.2 mg/kg
0.4 rug/kg
lOmg/kg
7mg/kg
0,5 mg/kg
East-side
LOAEL
4000 mg/kg
4 mg/kg
300 mg/kg
40 mg/kg
70 mg/kg
0.8 mg/kg
West-side
NOAEL
300 mg/kg
0.5 mg/kg
0.4 mg/kg
10 mg/kg
9 mg/kg
0.9 mg/kg
West-side
LOAEL
3000 mg/kg
6 mg/kg
400 mg/kg
.50 mg/kg
90 mg/kg
1 mg/kg
The LOAEL end of the potentM PRO range is recommended as the final PRG for the Delatte
Metal site. The LOAEL is recommended because of the conservative assumption that were used
in the back-calculation of the estimated PRGs such considering the prey item with the highest
concentration of the chemical Exposures above the LOAEL PRGs are predicted to result in
adverse effects to ecological receptors.
Aluminum
The back-calculation estimated a LOAEL PRGs of 4,000 and 3,000 ppm for the east and west
sides, respectively; whereas, a "typical" background concentrations can be 45,000 mg/kg.
-------
Aluminum is not present in a bioavaiilable form if soil pH is between 4.5 and 8.5. If soil pH at
Delatte Metals site is adjusted to a pH of 4.5 to 8.5, no PEG is recommended for aluminum.
Antimony
The back-calculation estimated a LOAEL PRGs for antimony of 4 and 6 pprn for the east and
west sides, respectively. The recommended PRO for antimony is the mean of the LOAEL
values which, is a concentration of 5 ppm.
Arsenic
The back-calculation estimated a LOAEL PRGs for arsenic of 300 and 400 ppm for the east and
west sides, respectively. The recommended PRG for antimony is the mean of the LOAEL
values which is a concentration of 400 ppm.
Barium
The back-calculation estimated a LOAEL PRGs for barium of 40 and 50 ppm for the east and
west sides, respectively. The recommended PRG for barium is the mean of the LOAEL values
which is a concentration of 50 ppm.
Lead
The back-calculation estimated a LOAEL PRGs for lead of 70 and 90 ppm for tie east and west
sides, respectively. The recommended PRG for lead is the mean of the LOAEL values which is
a concentration of 80 ppm.
Selenium
The back-calculation estimated a LOAEL PRGs for selenium of 0.8 and 1 ppm for the east and
west sides, respectively. The recommended PRG for selenium is the mean of the LOAEL values
which is a concentration of 0.9 ppm.
k
Background
The PRGs for antimony, barium and selenium should be compared to the background
concentrations of these metals :md may need to be adjusted to a higher concentration if
background concentration exceeds the PRG.
'S
-4
-------
OSWERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
Exhibit G-1: Evaluating Changes in Standards
Review standards identified as
ARARs in the ROD and new
standards that might be
applicable or relevant and
appropriate, and that might
affect protectiveness
Evaluate and compare the old
standard with the new
standard and their associated
risks
Have there been
changes that might
affect protectiveness?
Is the new standard
more stringent?
ARAR/standard
analysis complete
ARAR/standard
analysis complete
Is the new currently
calculated risk associated
with the old standard still
within EPA's risk range?
-Yes-
ARAR/standard analysis
complete; evaluate
RAOs and the impact of the
new/revised standard (see
Section 4.2.4)
Old standard is considered not
protective: therefore newly revised
(protective) standard should be
adopted
Can the remedy
meet the new
standard?
Recommend follow-up
actions
Yes'
Consider recommending
the adoption of the more
stringent standard through
the appropriate decision
document
G-4
-------
TABLE 11.2
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS OR REGION 6 TAP WATER SCREENING LEVELS
FOR COPCs EXCEEDING TARGET LIMITS IN GROUND WATER AND SURFACE WATER
DELATTE METALS
Compound of Potential Concern
Arsenic (noncancer endpoint)
Arsenic (cancer endpoint)
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
ITiallium
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Pentachlorophenol
MCL (ug/L)
50
..
15
—
100
2
6
0.2
~
..
1
Region 6 Tap Water Risk-Based
Screening Levels* (ug/L)
—
0.045 (C)
15
1700(N)
730 (N)
2.9 (N)
4.8 (C)
0.0092 (C)
0.092 (C)
9.2 (C)
0.56 (C)
U)
OS
a Based on residential exposure via ingestion and inhalation pathways.
(N) Noncancer endpoint
(C) Cancer endpoint
-------
TABLE 3-3
TRENDS IN GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
COC Based on
Mean and UCL95
Y
na
Y
na
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y1
Y
Y
Y1
Y
Chronic WQC (ug/L)
87.0C
re
150.0C
m
0.9C
11.00
2.9(
0.6C
0.01
16.6(
5.0(
0.4C
38.10
O
N->
to
uj
O
Notes:
1 Detection limit exceeded WQC; not detected in most samples
Bold indicates the chemical is a COC.
Ground water data are presented in Table E-3a.
COC Chemical of concern
N Not a chemical of concern
UCLgs 95th upper confidence limit
ug/L Microgram per liter
WQC Water qulity criteria
Y Chemical of concern
59
------- |