Final Report:
Technical Assistance for the
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation
Superfund Site
Conway, New Hampshire
EPA Region 1
-------
Solid Waste and EPA-542-R-09-014
Emergency Response December 2009
(5203P) www.epa.gov
Final Report:
Technical Assistance for the
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation
Superfund Site
Conway, New Hampshire
EPA Region 1
-------
Notice and Disclaimer
Work described herein was performed by GSI Environmental, Inc. for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and has undergone technical review by
EPA. Work conducted by GSI Environmental, Inc., including preparation of this report,
was performed under EPA contract EP-W-07-037 to Environmental Management
Support, Inc., Silver Spring. Maryland. Reference to any trade names, commercial
products, process, or service does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation
for use, or favoring by the U. S. EPA or any other agency of the United States
Government. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily
state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. For further
information, contact:
Kirby Biggs Kathy Yager
U. S. EPA/OSRTI U. S. EPA/OSRTI
703-299-3438 617-918-8362
biggs.kirby@epa.gov yager.kathleen@epa.gov
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Site Background 2
1.2 Regulatory Status and Remedy 3
1.3 Kearsarge Site Monitoring Objectives 4
2.0 QUALITATIVE REVIEW OF CONTAMINANT CHEMISTRY 5
3.0 MAROS EVALUATION 7
3.1 COC Choice 8
3.2 Plume Stability 8
3.3 Well Redundancy and Sufficiency 11
3.4 Sampling Frequency 12
3.5 Data Sufficiency 13
3.6 Summary Results 13
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14
5.0 REFERENCES 17
TABLES 19
Table 1: KMC Monitoring Well Network Summary
Table 2: Aquifer Input Parameters
Table 3: Relative Percent Molar Concentrations Selected Wells and Dates
Table 4: Trend Summary Results: 2006 - 2009
Table 5: Moment Estimates and Trends: 2006 - 2009
Table 6: MCES Sampling Frequency Analysis Results: 1,1 -DCE
Table 7: Final Recommended Monitoring Network
FIGURES 20
Figure 1: Groundwater Monitoring Locations
Figure 2: 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Degradation Pathway
Figure 3: Spatial Distribution of Degradation Processes
Figure 4: Hobbs Street and Culvert Area Wells
Figure 5: MW-3008 Temporal Analysis
Figure 6: 1,1-DCE Maximum Concentrations, Trends and First Moments
Figure 7: 1,1,1-TCA Maximum Concentrations, Trends and First Moments
Figure 8: Well Sufficiency 1,1 -DCE
Figure 9: Recommended Monitoring Locations
-------
APPENDIX A: MAROS 2.2 METHODOLOGY A-l
APPENDIX B: MAROS REPORTS B-l
APPENDIX C: HOW TO READ A TRILATERAL DIAGRAM C-l
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
1,1,1-TCA 1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1-DC A 1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-DCE 1,1-dichloroethene
AFCEE Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment
AMSL above mean sea level
AR area ratio
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
BGS below ground surface
CES cost effective sampling
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
COC constituent of concern
CR concentration ratio
EMS Environmental Management Support
ESD explanation of significant difference
FS feasibility study
GIS geographic information system
GMZ groundwater management zone
1C institutional control
LTM long-term monitoring
LTMO long-term monitoring optimization
MAROS Monitoring and Remediation Optimization Software
MCES modified cost effective sampling
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MK Mann-Kendall
-------
MNA monitored natural attenuation
NPL National Priorities List
O&M operation and maintenance
PLSF preliminary location sampling frequency
POC point of compliance
P&T pump and treat
RA remedial action
RAO remedial action objective
RI remedial investigation
ROD record of decision
SF slope factor
TCE trichloroethene
UCL upper confidence limit
USAGE United States Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following report reviews and provides recommendations for a long-term
groundwater monitoring network for the Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation Superfund
site (KMC site). The KMC site is a former foundry and metal fabrication facility in
Conway, New Hampshire, listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1984. The
facility operated between 1964 and 1982, using chlorinated solvents to clean metal
surfaces. Waste management practices during this time resulted in a residual groundwater
plume in the shallow subsurface. Extensive remedial actions have been implemented, and
the site is currently in a long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) phase.
The primary goal of developing an optimized groundwater monitoring strategy at the
KMC site is to create a dataset that fully supports site management decisions relating to
the long-term remedial strategy and reuse options for the property.
In the following report, the current KMC site groundwater monitoring network has been
evaluated using a formal qualitative approach as well as statistical tools found in the
Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System software (MAROS). The evaluation
of the monitoring system included data collected both prior to and during active
groundwater extraction (1983 - 2005) and after cessation of the extraction remedy (2006 -
2009). Network recommendations are made for groundwater sampling frequency and
location based on lines of evidence developed from qualitative factors as well as
statistical results.
Qualitative considerations for the KMC site include hydrogeologic conditions as
described in Summary/Update Regarding Site Conceptual Model Kearsarge
Metallurgical Corporation (GeoTrans 2009). KMC site hydrogeology is complex, with
radial groundwater flow, variable depth to the confining layer, and fluctuating
groundwater levels. Additional qualitative factors considered during the analysis include
anticipated future property use, source attenuation processes, as well as the long-term
monitoring (LTM) goals for the site. Lines of evidence from MAROS statistical results
were interpreted along with qualitative factors in order to account for the complexities of
the site. The report outlines recommendations based on the formal evaluation, but final
determination of sampling locations and frequencies are to be decided by the overseeing
regulatory agencies.
Site Groundwater Monitoring Goals and Objectives
A groundwater extraction and treatment system was operated at KMC between 1993 and
2005. In 2003, a large area of residual soil contamination was excavated and disposed
offsite. Active groundwater extraction stopped in 2005 in response to contaminant
concentrations falling below cleanup levels and due to the low rate of mass extraction
relative to the amount of groundwater removed. Since 2005, monitoring data have been
collected to evaluate the remaining groundwater plume under ambient conditions. Going
forward, primary monitoring goals for the program include: 1) confirming that
concentrations of constituents of concern (COCs) are declining; and 2) ensuring that
COCs are not migrating horizontally beyond the current extent of affected groundwater.
-------
Project Goals and Objectives
The goal of the long-term monitoring optimization (LTMO) process is to review the
current groundwater monitoring program and provide recommendations for improving
the efficiency and accuracy of the network in supporting site monitoring objectives.
Specifically, the LTMO process provides information on the site characterization,
stability of the plume, sufficiency and redundancy of monitoring locations and the
appropriate frequency of sampling. The end product of the LTMO process at the KMC
site is a recommendation for specific sampling locations and frequencies that best address
monitoring goals and support future management and redevelopment decisions (see
Figure 9 for the final network recommendations).
Results
Statistical analysis and qualitative review of KMC site analytical data have been
conducted and the following general conclusions have been developed based on the
results of these analyses:
. Historical remedial activities have diminished the size of the plume. In the years
since discontinuation of extraction remedy, the majority of monitoring locations
show either no detections of contaminants of concern (COCs) or show low or
decreasing concentrations of COCs.
. Biotic and abiotic degradation pathways are active at the site. Historically,
biological degradation of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) to 1,1-dichloroethane
(1,1-DC A) and chloroethane has been active in the eastern area of the site.
Currently, abiotic degradation of 1,1,1-TCA, producing 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-
DCE), is the dominant degradation process at the site, especially in the western
area of the plume. Due to its relatively low cleanup level (7 ug/L, the U.S. EPA
MCL), 1,1-DCE is the priority groundwater contaminant at the site.
. Two areas of the plume show increasing concentration trends. The area around
well MW-3008 near the drainage culvert shows a strongly increasing trend for
1,1-DCE. The area in the vicinity of MW-3003 shows increasing trends for 1,1,1-
TCA and 1,1-DCE. These two areas are priorities for the monitoring effort. Areas
of the plume north and south of the source excavation show largely decreasing
trends and very low concentrations, and are of lower monitoring priority.
. Monitoring Well Redundancy/Sufficiency: Spatial analysis indicates that there is
monitoring well redundancy on the edges of the plume and in the Hobbs Street
Area. No excess concentration uncertainly requiring new monitoring locations
was found in the aerial extent of the plume.
. Reduced Sampling Frequency: The statistical sampling frequency analysis along
with a qualitative review indicated that a reduced sampling frequency may be
appropriate for many wells in the network. With the exception of MW-3003 and
MW-3008; MW-3009 concentrations are changing very slowly and frequent
monitoring does not provide unique information.
. Statistically "clean " locations: The following locations have adequate analytical
data to confirm that groundwater in the area has attained the cleanup goals for all
-------
constituents: EW-01, EW-02, EW-06, MW-202A, MW-211, MW-3004, MW-
3005, MW-3007, MW-9, and PZ-4004.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are made based on the results of the qualitative and
quantitative review of data received, with findings summarized above and in Sections 2
and 3 below.
. Eliminate Wells from Monitoring Program: Eliminate ten wells from routine
monitoring: EW-01, EW-10, MW-203A, MW-205, MW-211; MW-3007, MW-
5001; MW-8, MW-9 and PZ-4003. These locations provide redundant
information for the routine monitoring program. The recommendation is not to
plug and abandon the wells, as they may provide useful hydrogeologic data.
These wells may be included in the future network if they address specific
regulatory requirements related to monitoring the boundary of the groundwater
management zone. No additional new wells are recommended.
. Reduce Sampling Frequency: Annual sampling is recommended for the majority
of the monitoring locations, and is recommended for wells that delineate or serve
as point of compliance (POC) locations. Five locations are recommended for
semiannual sampling: MW-3006, MW-3003, MW-3008, MW-3009 and MW-
3010. Semiannual sampling is recommended for wells that indicate residual
source strength and to develop a statistically significant dataset (MW-3006), to
track historic high concentrations (MW-3008 and MW-3010) and to monitor
increasing concentration trends (MW-3003, MW-3008 and MW-3009).
. Areas of concern: Groundwater in the area of MW-3003 shows increasing
concentration trends and flow in this region is to the west.
. Source, Sentry and Compliance Monitoring Locations: Wells recommended to
evaluate continued attenuation of the source include: MW-3003; MW-3006; MW-
3008, MW-3009 and MW-3010. Wells recommended as sentry points, to indicate
a potentially expanding plume or threats to downgradient receptors, include MW-
5003, PZ-4002, EW-09; MW-3004, MW-3011, and MW-3004. Concentration
trend analysis is an appropriate analytical technique for interpreting data from
both source and sentry monitoring locations. Wells recommended to delineate the
plume or to demonstrate compliance with regulatory cleanup goals include: EW-
02, EW-03, EW-06, MW-202A, MW-206, MW-5002, MW-3004, MW-213, MW-
3005, and EW-13B. Delineation wells show no recent detections of site
contaminants or intermittent detections below cleanup goals.
. Surface water monitoring: The area between MW-3008 and the drainage culvert
shows a strongly increasing trend for 1,1-DCE. The drainage culvert may receive
discharge from shallow groundwater and appears to be a flow barrier for eastward
migration of the plume. Discharge to the drainage culvert should be monitored in
the region of MW-3008 in order to confirm that concentrations of contaminants
above surface water quality standards are not being released. Locations CB 7-8,
CB 6-7 and CB 5-6 should be monitored annually as POC locations to confirm
that excess concentrations of 1,1-DCE are not affecting surface water.
-------
Future reductions in monitoring effort may be possible after a larger dataset has
been collected and increasing trends at MW-3003 and MW-3008 have stabilized
or begin to decline.
IV
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation Superfund site (KMC site) is a National
Priorities Listed (NPL) site in Conway, New Hampshire. The site comprises a four-acre
former industrial property and an adjacent five-acre wetland. Historical metal casting and
foundry activities have resulted in residual groundwater contamination related to releases
of chlorinated solvents to a septic system. The site is bounded to the south by Pequawket
Pond which ultimately discharges to the Saco River. The site is bounded to the north by
industrial/commercial property, with Hobbs Street to the west/northwest and other
industrial properties to the north. A drainage culvert runs along the eastern side of the
property, discharging to Pequawket Pond. Wooded wetland property lies to the east of the
culvert (see Figure 1).
KMC has undergone significant remedial activities since approval of the record of
decision (ROD) in 1990. A groundwater extraction and treatment system (pump and treat
[P&T]) was operated at the site between 1993 and 2005. In December 2005, the P&T
system was discontinued because groundwater concentrations of priority contaminants
dropped below cleanup goals, and the mass of contaminants being removed relative to the
volume of water pumped was very low (United States Army Corps of Engineers
[USACE] 2008).
At the KMC site, monitoring goals define why data are collected and how data will be
used to support site management decisions. Currently, groundwater monitoring efforts are
underway to evaluate ambient conditions after the cessation of active P&T. Groundwater
monitoring data will be used to evaluate whether monitored natural attenuation (MNA) is
an appropriate long-term remedy for residual contamination. Therefore, current
monitoring goals for the site include: 1) confirming that concentrations of constituents of
concern (COCs) remain below cleanup levels; 2) documenting changes to the
groundwater plume after excavation of a source area and cessation of the P&T system;
and 3) ensuring that COCs are not migrating horizontally beyond the current extent of
affected groundwater or beyond boundaries of the institutional control.
U.S. EPA Region 1 has requested GSI Environmental (GSI) under contract to EMS to
review the KMC site groundwater monitoring network and provide recommendations for
improving the efficiency and accuracy of the network for supporting site management
decisions during aquifer restoration. To this end, the following tasks have been
performed:
• Review monitoring objectives and overall remedial goals, and qualitatively
evaluate the ability of the monitoring network to achieve goals and objectives.
• Evaluate individual well concentration trends over time;
• Evaluate overall "plume stability" through concentration trend and moment
analysis;
• Develop sampling location recommendations based on a calculation of spatial
concentration uncertainty as well as a review of hydrogeologic features;
• Develop sampling frequency recommendations based on both qualitative and
quantitative statistical analysis results; and
-------
• Evaluate individual well analytical data for statistical sufficiency and identify
locations that have achieved clean-up goals.
1.1 SITE BACKGROUND
Between 1900 and 1964, the KMC property was the site of a saw mill operation. In 1964,
the property was converted to a foundry for the manufacture of precision stainless steel
castings operated by KMC. During this time, chlorinated solvents such as 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) were used to clean metal surfaces, and waste solvents were
discharged to a septic system. In addition to chlorinated solvents, several types of waste
were generated at the site including ceramic materials, metal grindings, spent acids, and
caustic soda (U.S. EPA 1990). Chemical wastes were disposed of through the septic
system on the east side of the main KMC building. The septic system discharged to the
ground via a lower leach field oriented toward the current storm drainage system known
as the "Culvert Area." Liquid wastes also were discharged toward the west, on property
owned by Carroll Reed Industries.
In the late 1970s KMC was directed by the State of New Hampshire to discontinue
disposal of wastes through the septic system. In 1982, the state began a hydrologic
investigation of the site. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed with sampling
results indicating significant quantities of dissolved chlorinated solvents in shallow
groundwater. KMC ceased foundry operations in 1982 and the site was added to the NPL
in 1984. A remedial investigation (RI) began in 1985 and the ROD was published in
September of 1990.
The KMC site conceptual model has been reviewed and summarized by GeoTrans in a
memorandum dated 15 May, 2009 (GeoTrans 2009). The memorandum identifies the key
aspects of site hydrogeology and how they impact the distribution of residual
groundwater contaminants. The most significant feature of site hydrogeology is a low
permeability, fine-grained silt layer that underlies the upper transmissive sand layer. The
depth to the fine-grained silt varies greatly across the site, causing variations in
groundwater flow and velocity. The silt layer lies near the surface on the east side of the
property and drops off sharply to the west of the site buildings. Variability in infiltration
caused by paved areas, along with the high rate of recharge to the shallow eastern area
also impact groundwater flow, resulting in a radial flow regime.
The shallow subsurface layer consists of sandy fill with residual saw dust from the mill
overlying a fine, silty sand with gravel. Under ambient conditions, groundwater flow in
the transmissive zone is radial, roughly outward from the former manufacturing and
waste release area. A groundwater mound currently exists between wells EW-13B and
PZ-4002. During the 1993 to 2005 time frame, groundwater flow was altered, inward
toward the extraction wells. Underlying the sand layer, the upper silt zone is composed of
a series of undulating layers including a thin, discontinuous, gray, silty fine sand, and a
tan clayey sand or silt layer of varying thickness (usually 2 to 4 feet in depth) (Weston
2008). Underlying these layers is the gray silt/clay aquitard. Variability in the thickness
of the thin upper layers of the silt may be responsible for some of the variability in
distribution of residual contamination.
-------
Based on the depth to the fine-grained zone, the site can be divided conceptually into the
eastern Culvert Area and the western Hobbs Street Area. In the Culvert Area, the upper
transmissive zone extends 8 to 14 feet below ground surface (bgs), and groundwater
flows to the east. The hydraulic gradient in the upper sandy zone of the Culvert Area is
high, and groundwater velocity fast relative to flow to the west.
The drainage culvert is most likely a flow barrier to the spread of the plume to the east.
Groundwater appears to discharge to the culvert, but measured concentrations of
contaminants are low in water leading to Pequawket Pond located to the south. Low
concentrations in groundwater discharge are attributed to evaporation of constituents.
Groundwater discharge to the culvert is sampled at several points (CB5-6, CB6-7, CB7-8,
CB8-9, and CB10+) along the culvert. Water levels in Pequawket Pond are managed
seasonally, and can impact the potentiometric surface across the site.
Toward the west of the site, the surface sandy layer becomes deeper and coarser,
extending more than 40 ft in depth near Hobbs Street. The hydraulic gradient flattens as a
result of the increase in saturated thickness. Groundwater flow in this area is largely to
the north/northwest.
1.2 REGULATORY STATUS AND REMEDY
Initial groundwater sampling during the 1980s at KMC indicated the presence of volatile
organic compounds including 1,1,1-TCA and its daughter products 1,1-dichloroethene
(1,1-DCE) and 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), as well as trichloroethene (TCE),
chloroform and some metals. Aqueous samples taken from the septic tank in 1989
indicated the presence of high concentrations of the 1,1,1-TCA anaerobic degradation
product 1,1-DCA.
Shallow groundwater at the site is classified as IIB, and is deemed to be suitable for
drinking water. Therefore, federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLG) were established by the 1990 ROD as cleanup levels
for groundwater. The ROD identified cleanup levels for 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA
TCE, 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), chloroform, nickel and chromium. An explanation
of significant differences (ESD) (U.S. EPA 2003) published in 2003 adjusted the cleanup
goal for 1,1-DCA from 4 ug/L to 3650 ug/L. Current cleanup goals for site COCs are
listed in Table 2.
The ROD identified remedial action objectives (RAOs) for groundwater that include
minimizing further horizontal and vertical migration of contaminated groundwater,
minimizing any negative impact on Pequawket Pond resulting from discharge of affected
groundwater, and preventing the migration of contaminants from the septic system and
associated soils that could further degrade groundwater quality. The remedy chosen to
address the RAOs was designed to include source control, plume migration control and
long-term groundwater monitoring to evaluate progress toward attainment of cleanup
goals.
-------
The chosen remedy included removal, treatment and disposal of surface waste piles, and
excavation of the septic tank and leach field as source control mechanisms. A
groundwater P&T system was installed in 1993 to remove contaminants and control
migration of the plume. The P&T system included groundwater extraction wells along
Hobbs Street and a small extraction trench and wells in the Culvert Area. The 2003 BSD
identified an area of low permeability soils downgradient of the former leach field in the
Culvert Area as a continuing source of contaminants. The BSD authorized excavation and
offsite disposal of the affected soils. As a result of excavation activities, the Culvert Area
P&T system was reconfigured in 2004 with one large extraction trench and a single new
extraction well (EW-13B) (see Figure 1). In 2004, the Hobbs Street P&T system was
discontinued as a result of groundwater having met cleanup goals. In 2005, the P&T
system in the Culvert Area was also discontinued.
Since 2005, groundwater at KMC has been monitored to evaluate any changes resulting
from cessation of active P&T. The site is in the process of being evaluated for an MNA
remedy to address both migration control and residual contaminant treatment.
Institutional controls (ICs) have been proposed for the site to prevent exposure of
possible receptors to affected groundwater. ICs will consist of fencing and other physical
barriers as well as a groundwater management zone (GMZ) established by judicial
enactment that would prevent drilling into groundwater zones affected by contaminants.
Designation of the boundaries of the GMZ is ongoing.
1.3 KEARSARGE SITE MONITORING OBJECTIVES
Monitoring objectives for the KMC site are not explicitly listed in site documents.
However, based on the site history and overall goals of the Superfund program, the
following monitoring objectives have been proposed for the KMC site:
. Delineate the extent of groundwater affected above cleanup goals;
. Monitor possible exposure pathways such as discharge to surface water bodies
(Pequawket Pond);
. Monitor the boundaries of the site (1C or GMZ boundaries) to ensure that
concentrations do not exceed regulatory limits in offsite locations;
. Monitor historical source areas to confirm attenuation of constituents and to
anticipate future source strength; and
. Monitor locations that may indicate plume migration or an impending exceedance
of regulatory levels at compliance or exposure points.
Recommendations developed in the following report for the KMC monitoring network
are designed to address the objectives listed above. Wells addressing objectives above
can be summarized into three basic categorizes: delineation or point of compliance (POC)
wells, source monitoring wells and flow path monitoring or sentry wells. Each well
recommended for the final monitoring network (see Table 7) has been identified as
addressing one or more of the monitoring objectives above. Because the GMZ has yet to
be recorded, the locations that address regulatory requirements related to monitoring the
GMZ are estimated.
-------
2.0 QUALITATIVE REVIEW OF CONTAMINANT CHEMISTRY
1,1,1-TCA is the primary parent chlorinated solvent remaining in KMC site groundwater.
1,1,1-TCA is unique in that both biodegradation and abiotic chemical degradation
pathways determine its fate in the groundwater (Figure 2). Each pathway produces
different primary byproducts with very different cleanup standards. Microbial
degradation of 1,1,1-TCA generates 1,1-DCA (cleanup goal = 3650 ug/L) while
spontaneous abiotic degradation produces 1,1-DCE (cleanup goal = 7 ug/L) and acetic
acid (no drinking water standard). By assessing the relative strength of each of these
pathways in various parts of the plume, the persistence and future footprint of the plume
can be estimated.
1,1,1-TCA is degraded under anaerobic conditions by microorganisms through reductive
dechlorination. The primary product of biological degradation is 1,1-DCA (Vogel and
McCarty 1987). 1,1-DCA is further degraded to chloroethane by reductive
dechlorination. However, the second reaction is somewhat slower than 1,1,1-TCA
degradation as 1,1-DCA is more stable and less oxidized than its parent compound.
Chloroethane degrades quickly in the subsurface under both aerobic and anaerobic
conditions. The presence of 1,1-DCA and chloroethane in various locations within the
KMC plume is an indication of a history of active anaerobic degradation processes. More
labile contaminants (i.e., benzene), sewage, or residual organic matter from the sawmill
operation may have contributed organic matter to induce anaerobic conditions in the
shallow subsurface of the Culvert Area. At the KMC site, 1,1-DCA and chloroethane are
found frequently at locations MW-3008, MW-3010, and MW-203A. Anaerobic
degradation processes appear more active in the shallow groundwater of the Culvert Area
than in groundwater in the Hobbs Street plume.
Because the cleanup goal for 1,1-DCA is relatively high, the anaerobic transformation of
1,1,1-TCA represents a reduction in risk, a reduction in plume size and significant
progress toward site cleanup goals.
1,1,1-TCA also undergoes significant spontaneous abiotic degradation in water. Two
mechanisms dominate abiotic transformation (degradation) of 1,1,1-TCA: 1) (3-
elimination or dehydrohalogenation; and 2) hydrolysis by nucleophilic addition. The (3-
elimination reaction generates 1,1-DCE and accounts for approximately 20% of the
transformation product yield (Vogel and McCarty 1987). Nucleophilic substitution
generates acetic acid with approximately 80% yield, representing a significant destructive
mechanism for 1,1,1-TCA. Acetic acid is degraded very rapidly by microorganisms in the
subsurface, so is seldom detected. 1,1-DCE is degraded by reductive dechlorination to
vinyl chloride (Vogel and McCarty 1987), but the process is slow, and no vinyl chloride
has been detected at the site. Consequently, the formation of 1,1-DCE represents a more
recalcitrant compound with a lower cleanup standard, that may affect the ultimate size
and persistence of the groundwater plume.
The abiotic degradation process is not influenced by geochemical conditions such as the
presence or absence of oxygen (Vogel and McCarty 1987; Haag and Mill 1988; Jeffers,
Ward et al. 1989); therefore, spontaneous abiotic degradation occurs in both aerobic and
-------
anaerobic environments at the same rate. The abiotic degradation rate for 1,1,1-TCA is
relatively fast, with degradation half-lives of 1.7, 1.1, and 2.5 years found in three studies
summarized by Wiedemeier et al. (Wiedemeier, Rifai et al. 1999). If groundwater
temperatures fall below 25°C, the rate of spontaneous degradation may be slower
(Schwarzenbach, Gschwend et al. 1993).
In order to visualize the relative contributions of the anaerobic and spontaneous
degradation pathways to 1,1,1-TCA degradation, trilateral diagrams have been
constructed using site analytical data (see Appendix C for an explanation). A trilateral
diagram is used to analyze how the parent compound (1,1,1-TCA) is being converted by
either the abiotic reaction (1,1-DCE) or the reductive dechlorination reaction (1,1-DCA)
at various locations and times. Trilateral diagrams are constructed by calculating the
percent (%) molar concentration of each constituent in the groundwater sample relative to
the total molar concentration of the three compounds. The relative % molar
concentrations are plotted on a three-sided graph, indicating the relative contribution of
each constituent to the whole. The location of the point on the trilateral diagram indicates
the ratio of contaminants at a particular spatial and/or temporal location in the plume. The
trilateral diagram does not indicate the total concentration of contaminant at the site (i.e.,
low-concentration wells and high-concentration wells are plotted the same way).
The trilateral diagram in Figure 3 indicates compound ratios for wells sampled in April
2009 (see Table 3 for concentrations and molar ratios). Locations with relatively more
1,1,1-TCA are indicated near the top of the triangle, whereas groundwater where abiotic
degradation processes dominate or have dominated (generating 1,1-DCE) are located to
the lower right. Locations where biodegradation is active (generating 1,1-DCA) appear to
the lower left.
Based on the 2009 data, different processes appear to have dominated in different areas
of the plume. Groundwater at MW-213 shows only parent 1,1,1-TCA, and therefore has
the possibility of generating 1,1-DCE over time. Location MW-203A and MW-3008
show relatively high concentrations of degradation products and, therefore, represent
groundwater where active degradation has been on-going for some time. The dominance
of 1,1-DCA at MW-203A indicates that biodegradation is causing the plume to shrink in
this area. Wells toward the center of the site in the area of groundwater mounding, show a
more even distribution of parent and daughter compounds (MW-3009 and MW-3010).
Overall, the data are arrayed on the graph such that wells closest to the source, showing
the highest amount of degradation, are near the bottom of the triangle, and wells father
from the source, with a greater percentage of parent compound, near the top.
Figure 4 compares compound ratios from wells in the east (Culvert Area), west (Hobbs
Street Area) and north parts of the plume between 2006 and 2009. Ratios for samples
taken 2006 to 2009 for each well are shown (the dates are not indicated on the graph). As
in Figure 3, samples in the Culvert Area near the former leach field (wells MW-203 A,
MW-3008) show on-going biodegradation of 1,1,1-TCA. Groundwater in the north and
northwestern areas of the plume (PZ-4002 and MW-213) is dominated by the parent
compound 1,1,1-TCA, with some relative increase in 1,1-DCE to the west. Overall, wells
in the Hobbs Street Area show more stability in compound ratios over time.
-------
Figure 5 highlights ratios for well MW-3008 for dates between October 2005 and April
2009. The figure shows that 1,1 -DCE became a larger proportion and 1,1,1-TCA a
smaller portion of the total chlorinated solvent concentration between August 2006 and
April 2009. The data indicate that abiotic degradation processes are beginning to
dominate. Anaerobic biodegradation is still active, based on the continued generation of
1,1 -DCA and chloroethane, but abiotic degradation appears to be occurring at a faster
rate. The historical compound ratios for this area are indicated by the results for EW-08
from March 2000.
Areas of the plume that show active biodegradation are less likely to cause expansion of
the footprint of groundwater exceeding cleanup standards, and are candidates for reduced
monitoring effort. Locations where 1,1,1-TCA dominates may require LTM effort as
1,1,1-TCA has the potential to generate 1,1-DCE, with a lower cleanup standard.
Locations where 1,1-DCE already dominates and 1,1,1-TCA concentrations are low are
more likely to demonstrate stable concentration trends over time due to the recalcitrance
of this compound. Locations with stable 1,1-DCE trends are also candidates for reduced
monitoring effort due to the slow rate of change.
Residual 1,1,1-TCA in the Hobbs Street Area (MW-213, MW-5003, and MW-3003) will
most likely continue to be a source of 1,1-DCE in the western area of the site. Depending
on the strength of attenuation processes specific to 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCE concentrations
may increase slightly over time as 1,1,1-TCA degrades. Because the cleanup goal for 1,1-
DCE is significantly lower than that of 1,1,1-TCA continued generation of 1,1-DCE,
even with significant production of acetic acid, has the potential to cause an expansion of
groundwater above cleanup goals. Qualitatively, the monitoring networks in the Hobbs
Street Area and near MW-3008 are priorities for the site.
3.0 MAROS EVALUATION
The MAROS 2.2 software was used to evaluate the LTM network at the KMC site.
MAROS is a collection of tools in one software package that is used to statistically
evaluate groundwater monitoring programs. The tool includes models, statistics, heuristic
rules, and empirical relationships to assist in optimizing a groundwater monitoring
network system. Results generated from the software tool can be used to develop lines of
evidence, which in combination with professional judgment, can be used to inform
regulatory decisions for safe and economical LTM of affected groundwater. A summary
description of each tool used in the analysis is provided in Appendix A of this report. For
a detailed description of the structure of the software, assumptions underpinning
statistical methods and further utilities, refer to the MAROS 2.2 Manual ((AFCEE 2004);
http://www.gsi-net.com/software/MAROS V2 2Manual.pdf) and Aziz et al., 2003 (Aziz,
Newell et al. 2003).
Groundwater data collected between 2006 and April 2009, the time period since total shut
down of the P&T systems, were used for the majority of statistical analyses. Additional
data collected in September 2009 were reviewed, but not included in the formal analysis.
Affected groundwater at KMC was evaluated as a single plume, despite radial
-------
groundwater flow and the variability in saturated thickness and depth to the aquitard
between eastern and western zones. The majority of statistical analyses, including the
trend analyses and zeroth and first moments are not affected by the direction of
groundwater flow, so treating the plume as a single unit did not affect these calculations.
Additionally, affected groundwater was analyzed as a single plume because of the small
dataset since cessation of P&T (2006 - 2009) and the small number of wells that can be
grouped in any one groundwater flow direction. MAROS analyses that rely on a single
groundwater flow direction or seepage velocity (e.g. heuristic analyses, Second Moment)
have not been performed. A summary of wells evaluated is presented in Table 1 with
generalized aquifer specific input parameters for the MAROS software presented in
Table 2.
3.1 COC CHOICE
MAROS includes a short module that provides recommendations on prioritizing COCs
plume-wide based on toxicity, prevalence, and mobility. 1,1-DCE is the priority
constituent at the KMC site. 1,1-DCE is the only constituent that significantly exceeds its
cleanup goal, exceeding the goal at the most individual monitoring locations across the
site. By comparison, other contaminants do not exceed cleanup goals on a plume-wide
basis. These results are consistent with the qualitative evaluation of priority constituents
in Section 2. Consequently, statistical results for 1,1-DCE were prioritized when
evaluating the monitoring network at KMC. A report showing results of the COC
prioritization is shown in Appendix B.
3.2 PLUME STABILITY
Plume stability is an important concept in long-term site maintenance. A stable plume,
one that is predictable under ambient conditions, requires less monitoring effort than
plumes that are expanding or changing rapidly. Within MAROS, time-series
concentration data at individual wells and plume-wide trends are analyzed to develop a
conclusion about "plume stability".
3.2.1 Individual Well Trends
Summary statistics, including maximum detected concentrations (1983 - 2009), detection
frequencies (2006 - 2009) and concentration trends for 1,1,-TCA and 1,1-DCE are shown
in Table 4. Historical maximum concentrations for 1,1-DCE and 1,1,1-TCA have been
normalized by the cleanup goals and plotted on Figures 6 and 7 in order to provide an
idea of probable long-term source areas for affected groundwater. Current concentrations
at most locations are below cleanup goals. Overall, TCE has not been detected since shut-
down of the P&T system (only one detection of TCE in the full dataset at EW-03).
Recent analytical data and plume contours have been illustrated in other site reports (see
Geotrans 2009 and Weston 2008).
Individual well concentration trends were determined using the Mann-Kendall (MK) and
linear regression methods for data collected between 2006 and 2009. A summary of trend
results is provided in the table below and in Table 4. Detailed reports for MK trends 2006
-------
- 2009 and trends 1983 - 2009 for all wells and COCs are provided in Appendix B.
Results of the individual well MK trends (2006 - 2009) along with summary statistics for
1,1-DCE and 1,1,1-TCA are illustrated on Figures 6 and 7.
Constituent
1,1,1-TCA
1,1 -DCE
1,1 -DCA
Chloroethane
Total
Wells
31
31
31
31
Number and Percentage of Wells for Each Trend Category
Non
Detect
12(39%)
12(39%)
12(39%)
19(61%)
PD, D
7 (23%)
5(16%)
6(19%)
1 (3%)
S
3(10%)
4(13%)
4(13%)
2 (6%)
I, PI
1 (3%)
2 (6%)
0
1 (3%)
No Trend
3 (1 0%)
3 (1 0%)
4 (1 3%)
3 (1 0%)
N/A
5(16%)
5(16%)
5(16%)
5(16%)
Note: Number and percentage of total wells in each category shown. Decreasing trend (D), Probably Decreasing trend
(PD), Stable (S), Probably Increasing trend (PI), and Increasing trend (I); (N/A) insufficient data to evaluate a trend.
Almost 40% of site wells show no detections for priority contaminants 2006 - 2009. Non-
detect locations address monitoring objectives for delineation of affected zones,
monitoring 1C boundaries and as POCs. Because groundwater flow is radial, several
delineation or POC wells will be required going forward.
Concentrations of 1,1,1-TCA are decreasing at several locations including EW-06 and
MW-203A in the southeast and PZ-4002, PZ-4003, EW-09, MW-3010 and MW-3009
north of the excavation. Only MW-3003 shows an increasing trend for 1,1,1-TCA;
however the concentration is still below the cleanup level. The increasing trend for MW-
3003 began after cessation of the P&T system. The only location sampled in 2009 with
1,1,1-TCA above the screening level (200 ug/L) was MW-3010 in the Culvert Area,
which has a probably decreasing trend since 2006. Results for MW-3010 showed a
transient increase in both 1,1,1-TCA and 1,1-DCE after shutdown of the P&T system, but
concentrations have since stabilized or reduced. Locations with lower detection
frequencies (MW-5003, MW-3011 and MW-3004) show no trend results due to
variability in the data associated with intermittent detections.
Historical high concentrations of 1,1-DCE are located in the Culvert Area wells MW-
205, MW-3010, MW-3008, and EW-13B. Recently, concentrations at EW-13B have
fallen below detection limits. MW-205 has not been sampled since 2006; however,
historically it has exhibited a strongly decreasing trend 1983 - 2006. Nearby well MW-
3009 shows a probably decreasing trend for 1,1-DCE 2006 - April 2009. The September
2009 sample at MW-3009 showed an increase in concentration changing the trend from
probably decreasing to stable, but this may be related to dry conditions resulting in a drop
in potentiometric surface.
MW-3010 shows a recent stable trend for 1,1-DCE, but did exhibit a transient increase in
concentration immediately after shut-down of the P&T system. MW-3010 and MW-3008
in the Culvert Area have the highest concentrations of 1,1-DCE in the recent time-frame,
and MW-3008 shows a strongly increasing trend for 1,1-DCE. MW-3003 shows an
increasing trend for both 1,1-DCE and 1,1,1-TCA; however, only 1,1-DCE is found
above the screening level at this time..
-------
1,1-DCE is the constituent most likely to increase in concentration under current site
conditions (no active P&T and abiotic degradation of 1,1,1-TCA); however, only two
locations, MW-3003 and MW-3008, show increasing 1,1-DCE concentration trends.
Decreasing 1,1-DCE concentrations are found at EW-06 to the southeast, and EW-09,
PZ-4003, PZ-4002 and MW-3009 north of the excavation. No increasing trends for 1,1-
DCA were found. Chloroethane at MW-3008 shows a probably increasing trend
indicating active anaerobic degradation of 1,1-DCA in this area.
Five monitoring locations within the plume have insufficient data to determine a trend
either due to intermittent sampling (MW-3006 and MW-213) or removal from service
(MW-206, MW-8, and MW-205). For these locations, the MK trends were determined
for their full dataset (1983 - 2009) with results reported in Appendix B.
Based on site hydrogeology and seasonal effects associated with fluctuating
potentiometric surfaces, concentration trends may show relatively high variability in the
near-term, resulting in more "no trend" results. Data from some locations show
intermittent high concentrations. Locations with a high rate of ND results may also show
intermittent detections due to changing groundwater levels and flow directions. See
Trend Reports for wells MW-202A, MW-3011 and MW-3008 for examples of
intermittent high concentrations. Consequently, trend data for KMC is best interpreted
over the long term (from 2006 forward).
3.2.2 Moment Analysis
Moment analysis was used to estimate the total dissolved mass (zeroth moment) and
center of mass (first moment) for dissolved 1,1,1-TCA and 1,1-DCE. Zeroth and first
moments were found for sampling events conducted between January 2006 and April
2009, and an MK trend was determined for each. Results of the zeroth and first moments
are shown on Table 5 with first moments illustrated on Figures 6 and 7. MAROS reports
for zeroth and first moments are located in Appendix B.
Zeroth moments are rough estimates of dissolved mass, assuming a constant porosity and
uniform plume thickness across the site. At the KMC site, the saturated depth changes
significantly between the eastern and western parts of the plume, but the thickness of the
plume is roughly equivalent. The mass estimates are best interpreted as a basis for
determining the trend of dissolved mass within the network rather than accurate
calculations of total mass. Total dissolved mass estimates between 2006 and 2009
indicate a strongly decreasing trend for 1,1,1-TCA and a stable trend for 1,1-DCE. These
results support the interpretation that 1,1,1-TCA is degrading with a fraction of the total
mass converting to 1,1-DCE, while 1,1-DCE generation is being balanced by attenuation,
either through decay or dilution.
The plume center of mass was estimated for each sampling event, and the distance of the
center of mass from the source (assumed to be near EW-13B) was calculated. MK trends
were evaluated for the distance of the center of mass from the source over time. The
calculated centers of mass for 1,1-DCE and 1,1,1-TCA for the years 2006 - 2009 are
10
-------
shown in Figures 6 and 7. Estimated distance from the source for each sample event is
listed on Table 5.
The center of mass for 1,1,1-TCA has a probably increasing trend, although the trend is
not particularly significant given the area of the plume. The probably increasing trend is
most likely a result of the increasing trend for 1,1,1-TCA at well MW-3003 and recent
decreasing trends at MW-3009, MW-3010 and MW-203A. First moment results for 1,1-
DCE indicate a stable trend, with the center of mass near NW-205/MW-3009. Stable
centers of mass likely result from increasing trends at MW-3003 to the west and MW-
3008 to east.
3.3 WELL REDUNDANCY AND SUFFICIENCY
Spatial analysis modules in MAROS recommend elimination of sampling locations that
have little impact on the historical characterization of the spatial distribution of
contaminant concentrations. Algorithms also identify areas within the monitoring
network where additional data may be needed. The spatial redundancy and sufficiency
analysis for KMC included a statistical analysis using data collected between 2006 and
2009. The statistical results were reviewed considering qualitative factors in order to
account for subsurface heterogeneity. For details on the statistical redundancy and
sufficiency methods, see Appendix A or the MAROS Users Manual (AFCEE 2004).
The spatial distribution of the plume at KMC is impacted by significant heterogeneity in
site hydrogeology. As discussed above, groundwater surface is impacted by changing
levels in Pequawket Pond and groundwater flows radially from near the excavation area.
The confining silt layer varies in depth across the site and the upper layers of the silt
show heterogeneity in both composition (tan and gray layers) and in thickness. The
drainage culvert appears to provide a flow barrier to the east. Because of the significant
spatial heterogeneity, the spatial algorithms in MAROS (which rely on a homogeneous,
diffuse flow assumption) were combined with a qualitative evaluation of hydrogeology
and regulatory requirements to recommend final monitoring locations.
3.3.1 Redundancy
A Delaunay mesh spatial analysis method was used to evaluate well redundancy for 31
wells at the site. The algorithm includes calculation of a slope factor (SF) that
mathematically evaluates how well the concentration at a particular location can be
estimated from the nearest neighbors. A preliminary SF of less than 0.30 indicates a well
may not provide unique information and may be eligible for removal from the network.
SFs for 1,1-DCE are shown in Table 7. Before a well is identified as redundant, the
software calculates how the total area and total estimated mass of contaminant will be
changed if the well is removed. For a well to be recommended for removal, the total
estimated area cannot change by more than 10% and the total estimated mass cannot
change by more than 15%.
The general results of the spatial redundancy analysis indicate some well redundancy
particularly on the outer edges of the plume. Locations MW-211, EW-01, EW-02, MW-
11
-------
203A, MW-206, EW-06, and MW3007 had low SFs for both 1,1-DCE and 1,1,1-TCA.
Of these wells, MW-211, EW-01, MW-203A, and MW-3007 are recommended for
removal from the routine monitoring program. EW-02, MW-206 and EW-06 are
recommended for retention to serve as POC or delineation wells to confirm the
containment of the plume within the current network. MW-3009 had a low SF but was
retained in the network to monitor possible contaminant migration from the high
concentration area at MW-3010 and to replace MW-205, which has not been sampled
since 2006.
EW-10, MW-8, and MW-5001 were recommended for removal from the routine
monitoring network due to very low concentrations and qualitative redundancy with
wells farther downgradient that can serve as POC monitoring locations. PZ-4003 is
recommended for elimination as it is redundant with PZ-4002 and EW-09 in the area
north of the excavation.
3.3.2 Sufficiency
The results of the well sufficiency analysis are shown on Figure 8. Like the redundancy
analysis, well sufficiency is evaluated using SF as an estimator of concentration
uncertainty. Areas between wells with higher SF, corresponding to higher concentration
uncertainty, are candidates for new wells. For the KMC network, no areas of excess
concentration uncertainty were found, so no new wells are recommended.
3.4 SAMPLING FREQUENCY
The current sampling frequency at the KMC site is semiannual. Based on the data,
however, there does not appear to be a consistent set of wells sampled during each event.
The reasons for sampling some locations and leaving out others are not clear from the
documents reviewed.
Table 6 summarizes the results of the MAROS preliminary location sampling frequency
(PLSF) module for 1,1-DCE. The MCES method evaluates overall (2000 - 2009) and
recent (2006 -2009) temporal trends and rates of concentration change for 1,1-DCE, and
recommends an optimized sampling frequency based on the rate of concentration change.
The dataset for evaluating the overall rate of change presents problems, as the rate of
concentration change during this time was strongly influenced by the P&T remedy.
As with the redundancy analysis, a qualitative review of the PLSF is conducted before
recommending a final sampling frequency. The qualitative review considers groundwater
flow velocity and direction relative to receptors, probable location of 1C boundaries,
remedial activities, anticipated frequency of site management decisions and reporting
requirements.
Most sampling locations were recommended for an annual or biennial (every two years)
PLSF (Table 6) by the software. The annual recommendation results from low rate of
concentration change and decreasing or stable overall and recent trends. Non-detect wells
(EW-01 -03, MW-211, MW-3007, and PZ-4004) and wells with a few historical
12
-------
detections (MW-3004) were recommended for biennial sampling frequency by the
software algorithm.
Wells with recent increasing trends (MW-3008 and MW-3003) or fewer than four recent
samples (MW-205, and MW-3006) are flagged by default in the software for quarterly or
semiannual sampling. After a qualitative review, increasing the sampling frequency to
quarterly at these locations will not contribute important information for management
decisions. An annual sampling frequency is recommended for wells in the network that
delineate the outer edge of the plume. A semiannual monitoring frequency is
recommended for wells MW-3003, MW-3006, MW-3008, MW-3009, and MW-3010 in
order to evaluate potentially increasing concentration trends and to collect a statistically
significant dataset (MW-3006).
3.5 DATA SUFFICIENCY
The data sufficiency module was used to identify sampling locations that have
statistically attained cleanup goals. Sequential and student t-tests are used to determine if
the mean concentration at the well is below the cleanup goal. Locations that have
sufficient data, with sufficiently low concentrations and detection limits to statistically
demonstrate attainment of MCLs were identified. Statistically clean wells for all COCs
are identified on Table 7. Many locations are below the cleanup goals for all COCs but
1,1-DCE .
Locations that have attained the cleanup standard can be used as a POC or background
locations or can be removed from the network. In the case of KMC, several clean wells
are recommended to be retained as POC or delineation wells.
3.6 SUMMARY RESULTS
The final recommended monitoring network is shown on Figure 9 and summarized in the
table below an on Table 7.
Wells have been recommended to address the monitoring objectives for delineating the
plume, monitoring the site boundaries, assessing source attenuation and for monitoring
the plume for possible expansion.
Because the GMZ has not been officially recorded, a preliminary recommendation of
locations to monitor the GMZ is proposed based on a best estimate of the final location of
the GMZ. The final network must satisfy regulatory requirements for GMZ monitoring.
Should locations such as EW-01 and MW-211 fulfill these requirements better than the
proposed wells, these wells should be included in the final program, with removal of
redundant POC wells in the same flow direction. Additionally, historical wells such as
MW-11 and MSW-115 may be appropriate as GMZ monitoring locations.
13
-------
Monitoring Objective
Delineation of
Plume and 1C
Boundaries, POC
Wells
Sentry/Plume
Attenuation
Source Attenuation
Recommended Wells
EW-02, EW-03,
MW-202A, EW-13B,
MW-206, MW-213,
MW-3004, MW-3005,
MW-5002, MW-5004,
PZ-4004
MW-5003, PZ-4002,
EW-06, EW-09,
MW-301 1
MW-3003, MW-3006
MW-3008, MW-3009;
MW-301 0
ITOTAL weiis |
ITOTAL Samples Annually |
Number of
Wells
11
5
2
3
K»
^^^^^Vj4*^^^^^H
Recommended
Sampling
Frequency
Annual
Annual
Semi-annual
Semi-annual
Recommended
Statistical Analysis
Detection Monitoring,
Comparison with
cleanup goals
Statistical Trends;
95% UCL
Statistical Trends;
Comparison with
cleanup goals
^^^^^^^^H
^^^^^^^H
Note: The recommended statistical trend analysis is Mann-Kendall, UCL= upper confidence limit.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Remedial activities at the KMC site have resulted in very low levels of residual
chlorinated solvent contamination in groundwater. Many areas of the plume have shown
dramatic reductions in contaminant concentrations. However, the dataset collected since
shutdown of the P&T system is not large enough to confidently anticipate future trends
given the heterogeneity of the hydrogeology. KMC groundwater has radial flow patterns
under ambient conditions, and variability in infiltration and recharge. Changing water
levels in Pequawket Pond and variable depth to the aquitard create a very complex
environment. Plume monitoring wells are required in several groundwater flow directions
in order to confirm containment of the plume and attenuation of contaminants under
ambient conditions in the near term. Site complexity may also introduce high variability
in COC concentrations over the short term.
In order to recommend an optimized monitoring network for the site, a qualitative
analysis of chemical degradation at the site was performed along with quantitative
statistical analyses to evaluate the stability of the plume and identify areas requiring
greater monitoring effort.
14
-------
Chemical Degradation Pathways
Indicators of parent compound degradation were examined to assess the relative strength
of each of the degradation pathways in various parts of the plume. This was done because
the generation of daughter products by various pathways influences the persistence and
future footprint of the plume. Based on the data, anaerobic biodegradation has been an
active process in the eastern area of the plume. Anaerobic biodegradation of 1,1,1-TCA
has produced both 1,1-DCA and chloroethane, which have high cleanup standards and
are labile in the environment. Historical anaerobic processes have reduced the size and
toxicity of the plume, most notably in the Culvert Area.
However, since cessation of the P&T system, the spontaneous abiotic conversion of
1,1,1-TCA to 1,1-DCE has become more dominant, particularly at location MW-3008.
Laboratory studies indicate that 20% of 1,1,1-TCA is spontaneously converted to 1,1-
DCE under ambient conditions with 80% conversion to acetic acid. However 1,1-DCE
has a much lower cleanup standard and is persistent in the environment. 1,1-DCE is
increasing in concentration at MW-3003 and MW-3008.and is becoming a larger
percentage of total contamination at these points (see Figures 3 and 5). In the Hobbs
Street Area, little to no 1,1-DCA is found, indicating that the primary degradation process
in this area is going to involve generation of 1,1-DCE.
The implication of this observation is that monitoring effort is required along the MW-
3006, MW-3003, MW-5003, MW-213 flow path to monitor for potential plume
expansion to the northwest. MW-3003 shows strongly increasing trends for both 1,1,1-
TCA and 1,1-DCE, showing the potential for further generation of 1,1-DCE. Currently,
MW-5003 shows a stable concentration trend for 1,1-DCE at concentrations generally
below the cleanup goal. MW-213, a historical non-detect location, showed a detectable
quantity of 1,1,1-TCA during the April and September 2009 sampling events. The
conceptual site model (GeoTrans 2009) indicates that contaminants may be reaching
MW-5003 either from the southeast (near MW-3003) or moving north to MW-205 and
then spreading east. In either case, monitoring the area northwest of the excavation (MW-
3003, MW-5003, and MW-213 along with MW-3009 and PZ-4002) is a priority. During
the September 2009 sampling event, historical wells MW-11 and MW-115 (west of MW-
3003) showed no detections of site contaminants. These results indicate that MW-3003
may represent the edge of contamination.
Similarly, the area around MW-3008 should be monitored as a possible source for plume
migration due to increasing concentrations of 1,1-DCE. Monitoring locations along the
culvert where groundwater discharges to surface water should be included in the routine
monitoring program. Locations CB 5-6, CB 6-7, and CB 7-8 should be included on an
annual basis to confirm that concentrations of 1,1-DCE are not exceeding surface water
quality criteria.
Plume Stability and Trend Analysis
Concentration trends are used by the MAROS software to help evaluate plume stability.
As mentioned above, results of individual well trend analysis support the conclusion that
15
-------
two areas of increasing concentration trends require monitoring attention: the area of
MW-3008 in the Culvert Area and the area of MW-3003 toward the Hobbs Street Area.
The area east of the 2003 excavated area, around MW-3008, shows a strongly increasing
concentration trend for 1,1-DCE since shutdown of the P&T system. The area currently
shows active anaerobic degradation of residual 1,1,1-TCA and 1,1-DC A as indicated by
an increasing trend for chloroethane and the stable trend for 1,1-DCA. 1,1,1-TCA shows
a statistically stable trend in the area, indicating some continued source influx of residual
1,1,1-TCA which balances degradation to 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA. The source of residual
1,1,1-TCA may be matrix diffusion from residual contaminated sediments. As a result of
the combined input and output processes, concentrations of 1,1-DCE may be increasing
in the short term and will most likely be the primary long-term contaminant of concern.
To date, discharge of groundwater to surface water in the drainage culvert and subsequent
discharge to Pequawket Pond have not resulted in concentrations of contaminants
exceeding the surface water criteria. As stated above, the monitoring program should
include routine sampling of groundwater discharge to the drainage culvert to monitor the
effect of potentially increasing concentrations in groundwater near the culvert.
As indicated above, the second area of concern for the monitoring network is along the
line of wells from MW-3006, MW-3003, MW-5003 to MW-213 and MW-3009 to PZ-
4002. Well MW-3003 shows strongly increasing recent trends for both 1,1,1-TCA and
1,1-DCE. MW-3006 does not have a sufficient recent sampling record to determine a
trend in the area.
Moment analyses indicate an overall decreasing trend for the mass of 1,1,1-TCA in the
plume consistent with evidence of on-going degradation. Plume-wide, the dissolved mass
of 1,1-DCE is stable indicating that overall attenuation rates are balancing generation of
1,1-DCE from degradation of 1,1,1-TCA. Estimates of the center of mass since shutdown
of the P&T system indicate mostly stable trends, but apparent stability may be an artifact
of radial groundwater flow, with concentration increases in the east balanced by those in
the west. A longer-term dataset collected under ambient conditions is required to confirm
plume stability.
Well Redundancy and Sufficiency
The monitoring network was evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively for well
redundancy and sufficiency. Spatial redundancy analysis indicates that there are
redundant monitoring locations on the edges of the plume and in the Hobbs Street area.
Ten locations are recommended for removal from routine monitoring: EW-01, EW-10,
MW-203A, MW-205, MW-211; MW-3007, MW-5001; MW-8, MW-9, and PZ-4003.
The recommendation is not to plug and abandon the wells, as they may provide useful
hydrogeologic data or may become useful should the plume change shape.
The spatial sufficiency algorithm indicates that no new wells are necessary and that the
existing well density can be reduced without loss of information. Due to the radial
groundwater flow conditions, however, delineation or POC wells are required in a
16
-------
number of different directions. The final recommended monitoring network is shown on
Figure 9.
Because the GMZ has not been officially recorded, a preliminary recommendation of
locations to monitor the GMZ is proposed based on a best estimate of the final location of
the GMZ. The final network must satisfy regulatory requirements for GMZ monitoring.
Should locations such as EW-01 and MW-211 fulfill these requirements better than the
proposed wells, these wells should be included in the final program, with removal of
redundant POC wells in the same flow direction. Additionally, historical wells such as
MW-11 and MSW-115 may be appropriate as GMZ monitoring locations.
Final Recommendations
. Sample wells MW-3006, MW-3003, MW-3010, MW-3009, and MW-3008
semiannually to monitor concentration trends and generate a statistically
significant dataset. Continued increases in concentration may signal possible
migration of the plume or exceedance of surface water standards in the culvert.
Monitor surrounding wells (MW-5003, EW-09, and MW-3011), drainage culvert
locations (CB 5-6, CB 6-7, and CB 7-8) and other plume sentry wells annually to
determine if residual contamination in the source concentration wells is migrating.
• Sample the POC and delineation wells on an annual basis to confirm the plume
has not spread beyond the current footprint and is not migrating outside of the 1C
boundary (Note, the precise wells used to monitor the GMZ boundary may
change after the GMZ has been confirmed, and regulatory requirements have been
established).
. Remove ten locations from routine monitoring: EW-01, EW-10, MW-203A, MW-
205, MW-211, MW-3007, MW-5001, MW-8, MW-9, and PZ-4003. Continue
hydrogeologic sampling at these locations to evaluate groundwater flow
directions and gradients.
. Monitor a consistent set of wells for the next 2 to 3 years. The network can be re-
evaluated after collection of a larger dataset under ambient conditions. Future
efficiencies can be gained by reducing the frequency of monitoring, particularly at
POC or delineation points and by eliminating redundant locations after the plume
has been confirmed to be stable.
5.0 REFERENCES
AFCEE (2004). Monitoring and Remediation Optimization Software User's Guide, Air
Force Center for Environmental Excellence.
Aziz, J. A., C. J. Newell, et al. (2003). "MAROS: A Decision Support System for
Optimizing Monitoring Plans." Ground Water 41(3): 355-367.
GeoTrans, I. (2009). Memorandum: Summary /Update Regarding Site Conceptual Model
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation Superfund Site Conway, New Hampshire,
GeoTrans, Inc.: 52.
17
-------
Haag, W. R. and T. Mill (1988). "Effect of a Subsurface Sediment on Hydrolysis of
Haloalkanes and Epoxides." Environmental Science and Technology 22(6): 658-663.
Jeffers, P. M., L. M. Ward, et al. (1989). "Homogeneous Hydrolysis Rate Constants for
Selected Chlorinated Methanes, Ehtanes, Ethenes, and Propanes." Environmental Science
and Technology 23(8): 965-969.
Schwarzenbach, R. P., P. M. Gschwend, et al. (1993). Environmental Organic Chemistry.
New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
USAGE (2008). Third Five-Year Review Report for The Kearsarge Metallurgical
Corporation Superfund Site Town of Conway, New Hampshire. Boston, MA, US Army
Corps of Engineers and US Environmental Protection Agency Region 1: 123.
U.S. EPA (1990). Record of Decision Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation Conway,
New Hampshire. Boston, MA, US Environmental Protection Agency Region 1: 34.
U.S. EPA (2003). Explanation of Significant Differences. Boston, MA, US
Environmental Protection Agency: 25.
Vogel, T. M. and P. L. McCarty (1987). "Abiotic and biotic transformations of 1,1,1,-
Trichloroethane under Methanogenic Conditions." Environmental Science and
Technology 21(12): 1208-1213.
Weston (2008). Geoprobe Investigation Report. Manchester, NH, Weston Solutions: 168.
Weston (2008). Post-Source Removal Data Evaluation Report Kearsarge Metallurgical
Corporation Superfund Site, Weston Solutions, Inc.
Wiedemeier, T. H., H. S. Rifai, et al. (1999). Natural Attenuation of Fuels and
Chlorinated Solvents in the Subsurface. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
18
-------
Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation
Conway, New Hampshire
TABLES
Table 1 KMC Monitoring Well Network Summary
Table 2 Aquifer Input Parameters
Table 3 Relative Percent Molar Concentrations Selected Wells and Dates
Table 4 Trend Summary Results: 2006 - 2009
TableS Moment Estimates and Trends: 2006-2009
Table 6 MCES Sampling Frequency Analysis Results: 1,1-DCE
Table 7 Final Recommended Monitoring Network
19
-------
Issued: 04 November 2009
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 1
KMC MONITORING WELL NETWORK
Long-Term Monitoring Optimization
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation, Conway, New Hampshire
Well Name
Screened Lithology
Screened Interval (FT
below TOC)
Top
Bottom
Minimum
Sample Date
Maximum
Sample Date
Number of
Samples
Well Description
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW3011
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
water table aquifer
water table aquifer
water table aquifer
water table aquifer
water table aquifer
water table aquifer
water table aquifer
aquitard
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table aquifer
water table aquifer
water table aquifer
water table aquifer
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table
aquifer/aquitard
37.84
28.72
31.95
5.47
9.29
9.99
14.85
9.88
8.41
10.08
7.38
31.27
25.94
42.98
9.56
10.95
10.15
7.83
8.68
8.79
9.5
10.9
42.44
38.73
39.34
47.84
38.72
41.95
8.47
12.29
12.99
19.85
13.88
13.41
14.08
17.38
41.27
30.94
52.98
13.56
14.95
14.15
11.83
12.68
12.79
13.5
14.9
52.44
48.73
49.34
3/2/1994
3/2/1994
3/2/1994
3/27/2000
3/2/1994
11/30/2000
4/13/2004
10/20/2004
4/14/2004
7/6/1992
7/5/1992
7/6/1992
7/6/1992
4/7/2005
10/20/2004
10/20/2004
10/21/2004
10/20/2004
4/5/2005
10/20/2004
4/6/2005
10/21/2004
6/20/2007
6/20/2007
6/20/2007
4/29/2009
4/29/2009
4/29/2009
4/29/2009
4/30/2009
4/30/2009
4/29/2009
4/29/2009
4/29/2009
8/21/2006
4/30/2009
4/29/2009
4/29/2009
4/29/2009
4/30/2009
4/30/2009
4/30/2009
4/30/2009
4/29/2009
4/30/2009
4/30/2009
4/29/2009
4/29/2009
4/29/2009
4/29/2009
37
36
34
22
34
8
29
10
16
49
8
34
28
18
11
10
10
11
18
17
16
14
6
6
7
Extraction well Hobbs St. area
Extraction well Hobbs St. area
Extraction well Hobbs St. area
Extraction well Culver area
Extraction well Culver area
Extraction well Culver area
Extraction well Culver area, nearest
source.
Monitoring well, Culvert area,
downgradient toward pond.
Monitoring well, Culvert area,
downgradient toward pond.
Monitoring well (MWS-205), Culvert area,
near MW-3009.
Delineation monitoring well, northern
section of Culvert Area.
Monitoring well west of Hobbs St.;
monitors historic area of TCE affected
groundwater.
Hobbs Street monitoring well (MWS-
213), farthest downgradient along N/NW
groundwater flow path.
Monitoring well, center of plume area.
Monitoring well north of excavation, near
MW-205. Intermittent detections of
111TCA.
Monitoring well near former KMC
building. Non-detect results through
2009. Along with MW-3007, hydraulic
high point.
Intermittently sampled in center of plume.
Monitoring well south of excavation.
1 1 DCA detections, no parent compound.
Hydraulic high point.
Monitors Culvert area, east of
excavation. Degradation products
dominate.
Monitoring well north of excavation near
MW-205, low detections, degradation
products dominant.
Monitoring well north/northeast of
excavation.
Monitoring well near Culvert, southeast of
excavation. Detections of degradation
products including chloroethane.
Monitoirng well delineating north of
plume area, non-detect results.
Monitoirng well delineating north of
plume area, non-detect results.
Monitoring well just east of Hobbs St.,
delineates deeper sand.
See Wofes End of Table
20
-------
Issued: 04 November 2009
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 1
KMC MONITORING WELL NETWORK
Long-Term Monitoring Optimization
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation, Conway, New Hampshire
Well Name
Screened Lithology
Screened Interval (FT
below TOC)
Top
Bottom
Minimum
Sample Date
Maximum
Sample Date
Number of
Samples
Well Description
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table
aquifer/aquitard
water table aquifer
water table aquifer
water table aquifer
44.53
12.29
7.28
8.68
8.5
8.92
54.53
32.04
17.28
10.68
10.5
10.92
6/20/2007
1/25/1983
7/20/1983
8/16/2005
6/20/2007
10/19/2006
4/29/2009
8/21/2006
4/30/2009
4/30/2009
4/30/2009
4/30/2009
6
21
21
13
6
7
Monitoring well near Hobbs St.,
delineating downgradient location, all non-
detect results.
Monitoring well north of PZ-4002, south
of EW-1 0. Intermittent detections.
Monitoring well east of Culvert area;
largely non-detect results.
Piezometer north area of plume,
detections of parent and degradation
products.
Piezometer north area of plume,
detections of parent and degradation
products.
Piezometer east of excavation and
Culvert area; non-detect results.
Notes:
1. Well analytical data from Weston Solutions, 2009.
2. Well screened intervals and lithology description from the Weston database, 2009.
21
-------
Issued 04-November-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 2
AQUIFER INPUT PARAMETERS
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation, Conway, New Hampshire
Parameter
Porosity n
Seepage velocity
Plume Thickness
Plume Length
Plume Width
Distance to Receptors (Property
Boundaries)
GWFIuctuations
SourceTreatment
Contaminant Type
NAPLPresent
Groundwater flow direction (N/NW)
Source Location near Well
Source X-Coordinate
Source Y-Coordinate
Coordinate System
Priority Constituent
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane (TCA)
1,1-Dichloroethene (DCE)
1,1-Dichloroethane (DCA)
Trichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane (12DCA)
Value
0.25
71.5
5-15
120
240
300
Yes
Excavation/historic pump and
treat
Chlorinated solvents
No
Variable (north, northwest)
EW-13B
1125996
537249.1
NAD 83 SP New Hampshire
Screening Levels
200
7
3650
5
5
Units
ft/yr
ftbgs
ft
ft
ft
~
~
ft
ft
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Notes:
1. Aquifer data from Weston Solutions (2009).
2. The source area has been extensivey excavated, EW-13B was chosen as a source
due to the presence of historic high concentrations.
3. Screening levels are remdial goals from the Five Year Review (USAGE, 2008)
4. Seepage velocity for Hobbs Street Area.
22
-------
Issued 4-November-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 3
RELATIVE PERCENT MOLAR CONCENTRATIONS SELECTED WELLS AND DATES
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation, Conway, New Hampshire
Well Name
Sample Date
MW-203A
MW-3008
MW-3009
MW-3010
MW-5003
MW-3003
MW-3006
PZ-4002
MW-213
4/29/2009
4/29/2009
4/30/2009
4/30/2009
4/29/2009
4/29/2009
4/30/2009
4/30/2009
4/29/2009
Concentration [ug/L]
1,1,1-TCA
1,1 -DCE
1,1 -DCA
<0.002
54
6.6
203
9.7
42
17
12
8.1
3.7
222.5
3.7
187
3.4
19
8.9
2
<0.002
12
147
7.4
72
2.6
3.8
2
2.5
<0.002
Sum of
Concentrations
15.7
423.5
17.7
462
15.7
64.8
27.9
16.5
8.1
Relative % Molar Concentration
1,1,1-TCA
1,1 -DCE
1,1 -DCA
0.06
9.76
30.47
36.43
54.25
57.34
53.23
66.23
99.67
23.92
54.78
23.49
46.16
26.15
35.67
38.33
15.18
0.16
76.02
35.46
46.04
17.41
19.59
6.99
8.44
18.59
0.16
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
10/28/2005
11/30/2005
4/5/2006
5/3/2006
6/6/2006
8/22/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/16/2008
8/14/2008
4/29/2009
8.8
17.0
35.0
5.4
27.0
32.0
88.0
84.0
23.5
17.0
27.5
54.5
6.6
10.0
34.0
4.9
30.0
18.0
90.0
101.0
49.5
26.5
111.0
222.5
6.9
14.0
51.0
9.2
40.0
22.0
70.0
77.0
36.5
19.5
73.5
147.0
22.3
41.0
120.0
19.5
97.0
72.0
248.0
262.0
109.5
63.0
212.0
424.0
32.38
34.26
23.26
22.01
22.10
37.04
28.75
25.72
16.70
21.32
9.85
9.76
33.40
27.72
31.07
27.47
33.77
28.65
40.44
42.52
48.36
45.72
54.68
54.78
34.21
38.02
45.67
50.53
44.12
34.31
30.81
31.76
34.94
32.96
35.47
35.46
Notes:
1. Concentrations from Weston database for dates indicated. Numbers in bold above cleanup level.
2. Results are plotted on Figure 3 and 5.
3. Relative % molar concentration as plotted on trilateral diagrams is illustrated in Appendix C.
23
-------
Issued: 4-November-2009
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 4
TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 2006-2009
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation, Conway, New Hampshire
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
Maximum
Result 1983 -
2009
[ug/L]
Max Result
Above
Standard?
Average
Result 2006 -
2009
[mg/L]
Average
Result Above
Standard?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
1,1,1- Trichloroethane
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
7
7
2
5
7
1
8
7
7
2
7
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
6
2
7
8
6
7
0
0
0
3
7
6
0
5
5
2
0
0
1
8
3
0
2
0
8
8
7
1
0
0
5
0
2
0
8
6
0
0%
0%
0%
43%
100%
100%
0%
71%
71%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
43%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
14%
0%
0%
83%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100%
0%
ND
ND
ND
11
30
6.6
ND
10
5.9
53
ND
ND
8.1
45
4.2
ND
17
ND
88
37
457
3.8
ND
ND
28
ND
16.0
ND
132.0
25
ND
ND
ND
ND
No
No
No
ND
No
No
No
ND
ND
No
No
No
ND
No
ND
No
No
Yes
No
ND
ND
No
ND
No
ND
No
No
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.29
17.10
4.98
ND
3.56
2.84
36.90
ND
ND
8.10
32.50
1.46
ND
13.15
ND
43.60
14.30
244.00
0.89
ND
ND
13.70
ND
6.00
ND
52.50
10.50
ND
ND
ND
ND
No
No
No
ND
No
No
No
ND
ND
No
No
No
ND
No
ND
No
No
Yes
No
ND
ND
No
ND
No
ND
No
No
ND
ND
ND
ND
PD
PD
S
ND
S
PD
N/A
ND
ND
N/A
I
NT
ND
N/A
ND
S
D
PD
NT
ND
ND
NT
ND
N/A
ND
D
PD
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
NT
ND
D
S
N/A
ND
ND
N/A
I
NT
ND
N/A
ND
NT
PD
S
NT
ND
ND
NT
ND
N/A
ND
D
D
ND
See Notes End of Table
24
-------
Issued: 4-November-2009
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 4
TREND SUMMARY RESULTS: 2006-2009
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation, Conway, New Hampshire
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
Maximum
Result 1983 -
2009
[ug/L]
Max Result
Above
Standard?
Average
Result 2006 -
2009
[mg/L]
Average
Result Above
Standard?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
1 ,1 -Dichloroethene
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
7
7
2
5
7
1
8
7
7
2
7
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
6
2
7
8
6
7
0
0
0
3
5
0
2
4
7
2
0
0
0
8
1
0
2
0
8
8
7
5
0
0
6
0
0
0
8
2
0
0%
0%
0%
43%
71%
0%
25%
57%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
14%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
71%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
33%
0%
ND
ND
ND
3.6
9.8
ND
8.5
5.5
7.5
8.9
ND
ND
ND
19
2
ND
8.9
ND
231
12
201
21
ND
ND
12
ND
ND
ND
15.0
3.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
No
Yes
ND
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
ND
ND
ND
Yes
No
ND
Yes
ND
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ND
ND
Yes
ND
ND
ND
Yes
No
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.46
4.99
ND
1.66
2.09
4.87
6.74
ND
ND
ND
14.90
0.63
ND
6.40
ND
80.20
6.28
136.00
6.06
ND
ND
5.56
ND
ND
ND
6.23
1.38
ND
ND
ND
ND
No
No
ND
No
No
No
No
ND
ND
ND
Yes
No
ND
No
ND
Yes
No
Yes
No
ND
ND
No
ND
ND
ND
No
No
ND
ND
ND
ND
PD
PD
ND
INT
S
S
N/A
ND
ND
ND
I
INT
ND
N/A
ND
I
PD
S
NT
ND
ND
S
ND
ND
ND
D
PD
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
ND
INT
S
NT
N/A
ND
ND
ND
I
INT
ND
N/A
ND
I
S
NT
NT
ND
ND
NT
ND
ND
ND
D
D
ND
Notes
1. Trends were evaluated for data collected between 2006 and April 2009.
2. Number of Samples is the number of samples for the compound at this location 2006 -2009.
Number of Detects is the number of times the compound has been detected for data 2006 - 2009.
3. Maximum Result is the maximum concentration for the COG analyzed between 1983 and 2009.
4. Screening level TCA = 200 ug/L; DCE = 7 ug/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 detections <30% detection frequency.
6. Mann-Kendall trend results are illustrated on Figures 6 and 7.
25
-------
Issued 4-November-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 5
MOMENT ESTIMATES AND TRENDS: 2006 - 2009
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation, Conway, New Hampshire
Constituent
Effective Sample
Event Date
Estimate of Dissolved
Mass [Kg]
1,1,1-TCA
1,1 -DCE
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Trend
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Trend
0.04
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
D
0.01
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
s
Distance of Center of
Mass from Source [ft]
119
111
115
106
112
130
130
149
PI
94
80
91
85
89
105
87
83
S
Notes:
1. Input parameters for the moment analysis are listed in Table 2.
2. Estimated mass is the total dissolved mass within the network indicated.
3. Trends are Mann Kendall trends on the moments, S=Stable, D = Decreasing.
PI = Probably Increasing.
4. First moments are illustrated on Figures 6 and 7.
26
-------
Issued 4-November-2009
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 6
MCES SAMPLING FREQUENCY ANALYSIS RESULTS: 1,1-DCE
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation, Conway, New Hampshire
Well Name
Recent
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Recent MK
Trend (2006
2009)
Frequency
Based on
Recent Data
(2006-2009)
Overall
Concentration
Rate of Change
[mg/yr]
Overall MK
Trend
(2000 - 2009)
Frequency
Based on
Overall Data
(2000 - 2009)
MAROS
Recommended
Frequency
1, 1-Dichloroethene
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
-3.22E-06
-8.81 E-06
O.OOE+00
-4.80E-06
-2.94E-06
1 .63E-06
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
9.59E-06
3.02E-07
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1 .44E-04
-3.50E-06
1.61E-05
-5.06E-07
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
-2.94E-07
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
-1.08E-05
-4.51 E-06
O.OOE+00
ND
ND
ND
PD
PD
ND
NT
S
S
N/A
N/A
ND
N/A
I
NT
ND
N/A
ND
I
PD
S
NT
ND
ND
S
ND
N/A
ND
D
PD
ND
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
-1.85E-06
1.14E-06
O.OOE+00
-3.25E-05
6.50E-07
-6.07E-08
-1.39E-06
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.12E-05
2.38E-07
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.12E-04
-1.69E-05
1.00E-04
4.17E-06
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
-2.94E-07
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
-9.97E-06
-4.51 E-06
O.OOE+00
ND
ND
ND
NT
NT
ND
D
NT
NT
S
N/A
ND
N/A
I
NT
ND
N/A
ND
I
PD
PI
PI
ND
ND
S
ND
N/A
ND
D
PD
ND
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Annual
Quarterly
Annual
Biennial
Annual
SemiAnnual
Biennial
Biennial
Quarterly
Biennial
Quarterly
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Biennial
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Biennial
Annual
Annual
Biennial
Notes/
1. Concentration rate of change is from linear regression calculations. 'Recent' concentration rate of change and
Overall rates and trends are for data 2000 - 2009.
BIKMKilrfendEeBaldQfedmfe&iagi flSte=d3ltebtiWy2Dg6rea6iD®, S = Stable, PI = Probably Increasing, I = Increasing; NT = No Trend; ND= Non detect.
3. Recent data frequency is the estimated sampling frequency based on the recent trend.
4. The overall result is the estimated sample frequncy based on the data record 2000 - 2009.
6. MAROS Recommended Frequency is the final frequency from the MAROS calculations based on both recent and overall trends.
27
-------
TABLE 7
FINAL RECOMMENDED MONITORING NETWORK
LONG-TERM MONITORING OPTIMIZATION
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation, Conway, New Hampshire
Well Name
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW3011
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
Lines of Evidence
Cleanup Status
Below for all
COCs
Below for all
COCs
Below for all but
TCE
Below for all
COCs
Below for all but
1,1-DCE
Insufficient Data
Below for all but
1,1-DCE
Below for all
COCs
Below for all but
1,1-DCE
Below for all but
1,1-DCE
Insufficient Data
Below for all
COCs
Insufficient Data
Below for all but
1,1-DCE
Below for all
COCs
Below for all
COCs
Insufficient Data
Below for all
COCs
Below for all but
1,1-DCE
Exceeds
Exceeds
Below for all but
1,1-DCE
Insufficient Data
Insufficient Data
Insufficient Data
Insufficient Data
Insufficient Data
Below for all
COCs
Exceeds
Insufficient Data
Below for all
COCs
Mann Kendall Trends
1,1-DCE
ND
ND
ND
PD
PD
ND
NT
S
S
N/A
N/A
ND
N/A
I
NT
ND
N/A
ND
I
PD
S
NT
ND
ND
S
ND
N/A
ND
D
PD
ND
Average SF
0.00
0.08
0.41
0.26
0.46
0.32
0.38
0.34
0.11
0.20
0.00
0.40
0.60
0.35
0.36
0.69
0.30
0.50
0.15
0.51
0.29
0.58
0.40
0.49
0.49
0.52
0.40
0.43
0.71
Monitoring Rationale
Former extraction well, non-detect,
redundant with EW-02 and MW5004.
Delineate plume west of Hobbs Street,
potential POC well
Delineate plume west of Hobbs Street,
monitor for residual TCE, potential POC
well.
Monitors possible spread of plume
from high concentration area
Monitors possible spread of plume
from high concentration area
Redundant with MW206
Former Source area, monitor to confirm
source control and as Delineation point.
Delineate plume south of excavation.
Some mobilization of TCA after
excavation, returning below detection
recently.
Redundant with MW-202A
Not monitored since 2006. Replaced by
MW-3009.
Delineate northern Culvert Area
Non-detect area, redundant with EW-02
and MW5004.
Delinate extent of plume in northern
Hobbs Street Area
Retain to monitor possible impending
exceedance of cleanup levels toward
Hobbs Street and spread of Source.
Retain to delineate plume between
source and Hobbs Street
Delinate plume near source area
Monitor flow path of plume. New well
installed to monitor plume between
source and Hobbs Street
Intermittent detecctions of 1,1-DCA and
chloroethane, consistently below cleanup
levels. Redundant with EW-13B.
Monitor source attenuation. Retain to
monitor high concentration area
downgradient of leachfield and possible
discharge to drainage culvert.
Monitor source attenuation. Monitor
plume attenuation.
Vlonitor source attenuation and flow
path to surface water.
Retain to monitor southern Culvert Area
potential discharge to storm drain and
expansion of plume to the south.
Redundant with MW-5002.
Delineate northern area of property.
Retain to monitor north/northwest area of
Hobbs Street
Delineate plume to southwest.
Mot monitored since 2006.
Drainage culvert is a flow barrier,
decreasing trends up gradient.
Monitors area flow path north of
excavation.
Redundant with EW-09 and PZ-4002.
Delineate plume east of Culvert Area
Recommendation After
Qualitative Review
Eliminate, plume shrinking in Hobbs
Street Area.
Software recommends removal,
•etained for delineation in Hobbs
Street Area
Retain for delineation in Hobbs
Street Area
Annual
Annual
Eliminate
Retain
Retain
Recommended by software for
•emoval from network. Eliminate.
Removed from sampling program in
2006.
Retain
Recommended by software for
•emoval from network. Eliminate.
Retain
Retain.
Retain
Retain
Retain
Low SF and redundant after
qualitative analysis. Eliminate
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Eliminate
Retain
Retain
detain for delineation in Hobbs
Street Area
Eliminate
Eliminate
Retain
Eliminate
Retain
Final
Recommended
Frequency
Eliminate
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Eliminate
Annual
Annual
Eliminate
Eliminate
Annual
Eliminate
Annual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Annual
SemiAnnual
Eliminate
SemiAnnual
SemiAnnual
SemiAnnual
Annual
Eliminate
Annual
Annual
Annual
Eliminate
Eliminate
Annual
Eliminate
Annual
28
-------
Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation
Conway, New Hampshire
FIGURES
Figure 1 Groundwater Monitoring Locations
Figure 2 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Degradation Pathway
Figure 3 Spatial Distribution of Degradation Processes
Figure 4 Hobbs Street and Culvert Area Wells
Figure 5 MW-3008 Temporal Analysis
Figure 6 1,1-DCE Maximum Concentrations, Trends and First Moments
Figure 7 1,1,1 -TCA Maximum Concentrations, Trends and First Moments
Figure 8 Well Sufficiency 1,1-DCE
Figure 9 Recommended Monitoring Locations
29
-------
0!
A
IHffiBBffiB!!
\
\
Carroll Industries
EW-04
V
Drainage Culvert
a
lv
MV213 ^ I \
MWS-112 EW03^ \ U
t MW5003 . j
MWD-108 ' ' ^
AJIV5002
4 *
«S
MWR-709
MW-11
j^>
Ewor
•
MW5004/L MW3003
/ s Ir^
1
*
*
^
EW06
\\
Pequawket Pond
Legend
Ponded Excavation
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation
Buildings
| Excavation
Wetland
* Active Monitoring Locations
« Inactive Locations
• - Line Drains
Scale (FT)
80
GROUNDWATER
MONITORING LOCATIONS
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation
Conway, New Hampshire
Coord sys:NAD 83 sp N Hamp FT
Issued :4-November-2009
Drawn By: [\/]v
Revised:
Ck'd By:
MV
AppVd By: MV
Figure 1
-------
Figure 2. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Degradation Pathway
Long-Term Monitoring Optimization
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation
p - Elimination
Reaction
1,1-DCE(20%)
Aerobic
CO,
Anaerobic
Vinyl Chloride
, Aerobic
B ) and Anaerobic
CO,
1,1,1-TCA
B ) Anaerobic
1,1-DCA
B J Anaerobic
Chloroethane
B ) Aerobic and Anaerobic
Ethanol
Aerobic and Anaerobic
CO,
Hydrolysis-A ddition
Reaction
Acetic Acid (80%)
. Aerobic and
B ) Anaerobic
CO,
[A) =
^^ Abiotic Reaction
[B) = Biotic Reaction
Reference: Vogel and McCarty (1987)
31
-------
Figure 3 Spatial Distribution of Degradation
Processes
April 2009 Monitoring Data
1,1,1-TCA
MW213
Increasing Parent
Compound
1,1-DCA
* MW203A
• MW213
• MW3006
• MW3003
* MW5003
• MW3008
A MW3009
• MW3010
* PZ4002
Increasing Abiotic
Degradation
1,1-DCE
Increasing Biodegradation
32
-------
Figure 4 Hobbs Street and Culvert Area Wells
2006 - 2009
1,1,1-TCA
Increasing Parent,
Compound
1,1-DCA
\ Hobbs Street-West
A MW 3003
* PZ4002
• MW 5003
• MW 3006
A MW 3008
* MW203
Increasing Abiotic
Degradation
1,1-DCE
Increasing Biodegradation
33
-------
Figure 5 MW-3008 Temporal Analysis
2005 - 2009
More Parent Compound
1,1,1-TCA
Increasing Abiotic Degradation
1,1-DCA
' \ -
Nov. 2005 A
\A'
2007 and Apr. 2008
' \ '
' \ '
\f *•--
Aug 2008 and April
1,1-DCE
Increasing Biodegradation
35
-------
Wfi^OO1!1 New Location
-JO / D-JU.U
537600.0 -
537550.0 -
537500.0 -
537450.0 -
537400.0 -
537350.0 -
537300.0 -
537250.0 -
537200.0 -
CQ7-1 cr, f|
Figure 8 Well Sufficiency 1,1-DCE
Well Names in Green are ND locations
m MW206
""" /j\\\
MW5002 s^ / \\ \
JH"" 1 \\ X
/l\ ' \\ \
/' 1 \ j \ \ M x
MW213 ^.S < \ M / \ u\ ^
f' 1 \ / \ ^EW1° \
// \ M / \ ' \ '^Sx V
// ^ M ^ ' A ITVS^ ^ ^
/X*EW°3 H/A / ^ /MW5001 / ^ . \ M N^.
/ // \ ~^~^ \ / ^^ ~> J L(JZ4002 \l \ ^.^ MW9
/// ^ ^^Xu' "•*"" ' \ "~~"^-BZAOtVEW09 /\
/// \ ^MW5003 / v „ ' / \
.' § i k / \SllV
//x/ \ M ! XN M 7 \ / ! / \ ! u\
// / \ i \ / ;, ' i / „ \ i \\
// / \ 1 \ / .. ^ /S| / M » /MW3010 \\
/// > | \ / M '/I/ Ju. *\ PZ4004
// &/ \ 1 M Nv / MW3004I xx / ^jpUrwSOOg', XN / 1 \\
'/ ' EW02 ' \ / — * 1 "* H MW3.808
// ^ \l N I/ _- — — | M P 1 \ 1 ™l'i«
// >-^ \ i ^" l\ ,^/ i \ s M' XMnv
y >y *** » ^^ v^/lW3003 I * ^ 1 M* \ ' i\
X x'/ "~"~-~-.^ \j ^-^^ x M ' \// ' \ ' / \i \\
f /' / S "lH^'UrC M X | AMW; \ | 1 S J^ M^3011
/VX X — — """" "MW5004 ^ ^~^~ — — ____ ^N I/ \ ' S \ 1 / XX/\M\\
// S ' <^.— --*""^ ^« ^"^^ — .. \^/ \ / \ 1 / / \ ft
^__ ^i — •** ^ ^^ \ """• -M _ _ HI/MW203A \ ^
^ 'fc-^-^_Z!r -^ S ^* \> s/4
MW211 """'"~';=*:«-;5.;Sjb — — ^^ ^x" \ M/ \ ' \^
~"="^=J:5':s-:S.:£.=S=B =.. ^"^•v ^ \ / \ ! s \\
~~^~~~C-^^4 V v!\
MW3007 ~ ~"^'^:"":::"'^-':£-:«-*ja.
1-^J*J"fc-4 EW06
Analysis for
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
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
1125400.0 1125500.0 1125600.0 1125700.0 1125800.0 1125900.0 1126000.0 1126100.0 1126200.0 1126300.0
37
-------
©
EW01
MW211
W205 MW3010 PZ4004
Kearsarge
Metallurgical
Corporation
Pequawket Pond
Legend Recommended
Sampling Frequency
^H Ponded Excavation Scg|e (FJ)
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation Annual ^ ^ ^^
] Excavation • Eliminate
y\ygt|ancj -£ Possible Alternate GMZ
Monitoring Locations
t
RECOMMENDED
MONITORING LOCATIONS
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation
Conway, New Hampshire
Coord sys:NAD83SPN Hamp FT
Drawn By: [\/]v
Ck'd By: MV
Appv'd By: MV
lssued:4.November.2009
Revised:
Map ID:
Figure 9
-------
Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation
Conway, New Hampshire
APPENDIX A
MAROS 2.2 METHODOLOGY
1.0 MAROS CONCEPTUAL MODEL A-2
2.0 DATA MANAGEMENT A-3
3.0 SITE DETAILS A-3
4.0 CONSTITUENT SELECTION A-4
5.0 DATA CONSOLIDATION A-4
6.0 OVERVIEW STATISTICS: PLUME TREND ANALYSIS A-4
6.1 Mann-Kendall Analysis A-5
6.2 Linear Regression Analysis A-6
6.3 Overall Plume Analysis A-6
6.4 Moment Analysis A-7
7.0 DETAILED STATISTICS: OPTIMIZATION ANALYSIS A-9
7.1 Well Redundancy Analysis- Delaunay Method A-9
7.2 Well Sufficiency Analysis - Delaunay Method A-10
7.3 Sampling Frequency - Modified CES Method A-10
7.4 Data Sufficiency - Power Analysis A-ll
8.0 CITED REFERENCES A-14
TABLES
Table 1: Mann-Kendall Analysis Decision Matrix
Table 2: Linear Regression Analysis Decision Matrix
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
A-1
-------
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.I 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).
A-2
-------
General recommendations for the monitoring network frequency and density are
suggested based on heuristic rules applied to the source and tail trend results.
The detailed 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 overtime 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.
A-3
-------
TABLE 1: Data Input for MAROS
| Data Input |
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
| Format |
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
| Details |
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_ConstituentList.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.
A-4
-------
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 (PRO 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,
A-5
-------
and possibly smoothed to allow for a consistent dataset meeting the minimum data
requirements for statistical analysis mentioned previously.
MAROS allows users to specify the period of interest in which data will be consolidated
(i.e., monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, yearly, or a biennial basis). In
computing the representative value when consolidating, one of four statistics can be used:
median, geometric mean, mean, and maximum. Non-detects can be transformed to one
half the reporting or method detection limit (DL), the DL, or a fraction of the DL. Trace
level results can be represented by their actual values, one half of the DL, the DL, or a
fraction of their actual values. Duplicates are reduced in MAROS by one of three ways:
assigning the average, maximum, or first value. The reduced data for each COC and each
well can be viewed as a time series in a graphical form on a linear or semi-log plot
generated by the software.
6.0 OVERVIEW STATISTICS: PLUME TREND ANALYSIS
Within the MAROS software, 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
A-6
-------
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 (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).
TABLE 2
Mann-Kendall Analysis Decision Matrix (Aziz, et. al., 2003)
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
S>0
S>0
S>0
S<0
S<0
S<0
S<0
s = o
Confidence in the Trend
> 95%
90 - 95%
< 90%
< 90% and COV > 1
< 90% and COV < 1
90 - 95%
> 95%
0
Concentration Trend
Increasing
Probably Increasing
No Trend
No Trend
Stable
Probably Decreasing
Decreasing
Non-detect
A-7
-------
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 result 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).
A-8
-------
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
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.
A-9
-------
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 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).
A-10
-------
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:
• 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
A-11
-------
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.
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).
A-12
-------
In order to estimate the least frequent sampling schedule for a monitoring location that
still provides enough information for regulatory and remedial decision-making, MCES
employs three steps to determine the sampling frequency. The first step involves
analyzing frequency based on recent trends. A preliminary location sampling frequency
(PLSF) is developed based on the rate of change of well concentrations calculated by
linear regression along with the Mann-Kendall trend analysis of the most recent
monitoring data (see Figure 3). The variability within the sequential sampling data is
accounted for by the Mann-Kendall analysis. The rate of change vs. trend result matrix
categorizes wells as requiring annual, semi-annual or quarterly sampling. The PLSF is
then reevaluated and adjusted based on overall trends. If the long-term history of change
is significantly greater than the recent trend, the frequency may be reduced by one level.
The final step in the analysis involves reducing frequency based on risk, site-specific
conditions, regulatory requirements or other external issues. Since not all compounds in
the target being assessed are equally harmful, frequency is reduced by one level if recent
maximum concentration for a compound of high risk is less than 1/2 of the Maximum
Concentration Limit (MCL). The result of applying this method is a suggested sampling
frequency based on recent sampling data trends and overall sampling data trends and
expert judgment.
The final sampling frequency determined from the MCES method can be Quarterly,
Semiannual, Annual, or Biennial. Users can further reduce the sampling frequency to, for
example, once every three years, if the trend estimated from Biennial data (i.e., data
drawn once every two years from the original data) is the same as that estimated from the
original data.
7.4 DATA SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS - POWER ANALYSIS
The MAROS Data Sufficiency module employs simple statistical methods to evaluate
whether the collected data are adequate both in quantity and in quality for revealing
changes in constituent concentrations. The first section of the module evaluates
individual well concentrations to determine if they are statistically below a target
screening level. The second section includes a simple calculation for estimating projected
groundwater concentrations at a specified point downgradient of the plume. A statistical
Power analysis is then applied to the projected concentrations to determine if the
downgradient concentrations are statistically below the cleanup standard. If the number
of projected concentrations is below the level to provide statistical significance, then the
number of sample events required to statistically confirm concentrations below standards
is estimated from the Power analysis.
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.
A-13
-------
Statistical power analysis is a technique for interpreting the results of statistical tests. The
Power of a statistical test is a measure of the ability of the test to detect an effect given
that the effect actually exists. The method provides additional information about a
statistical test: 1) the power of the statistical test, i.e., the probability of finding a
difference in the variable of interest when a difference truly exists; and 2) the expected
sample size of a future sampling plan given the minimum detectable difference it is
supposed to detect. For example, if the mean concentration is lower than the cleanup goal
but a statistical test cannot prove this, the power and expected sample size can tell the
reason and how many more samples are needed to result in a significant test. The
additional samples can be obtained by a longer period of sampling or an increased
sampling frequency. Details about the data sufficiency analysis can be found in Appendix
A.6 of the MAROS Manual (AFCEE, 2003).
When applying the MAROS power analysis method, a hypothetical statistical compliance
boundary (HSCB) is assigned to be a line perpendicular to the groundwater flow
direction (see figure below). Monitoring well concentrations are projected onto the HSCB
using the distance from each well to the compliance boundary along with a decay
coefficient. The projected concentrations from each well and each sampling event are
then used in the risk-based power analysis. Since there may be more than one sampling
event selected by the user, the risk-based power analysis results are given on an event-by-
event basis. This power analysis can then indicate if target are statistically achieved at the
HSCB. For instance, at a site where the historical monitoring record is short with few
wells, the HSCB would be distant; whereas, at a site with longer duration of sampling
with many wells, the HSCB would be close. Ultimately, at a site the goal would be to
have the HSCB coincide with or be within the actual compliance boundary (typically the
site property line).
Concentrations
projected to this
line
e>
The nearest
downgradient
receptor
Groundwater flow direction
A-14
-------
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.
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/MARO SV2 1 Manual. 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. etal., 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.
A-15
-------
Figure 1. MAROS Decision Support Tool Flow Chart
MAROS: Decision Support Tool
MAROS is a collection of tools in one soft ware 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 a nd quantitative plume informat ion can be gained through evaluatio n 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 Regressio n statistics for individual wells and results in
general heu ristically-derived mon itoring categorie s w ith a sug gested sampling de nsity a nd monit oring
frequency.
2) Moment Analysis: includes dissolved mass estimation (0 th Moment), center of m ass (1st Moment), and
plume spread (2nd Mom ent) overtime. Trends of these mo ments show the useranot her piece of
information about the plume stability over time.
What is the product: A first-c ut blueprint for a future long-t erm monitoring program t hat is in tended 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 alon g 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 Mo dified CES method to establish a recommended future
sampling frequency.
2) Well Redundancy Analysis: uses the Delauna y Method to evaluate if any wells within the moni taring
network are redundant and can be eliminated without any significant loss of plume information.
3) Well Sufficiency Analysis: us es the Delaun ay Meth od to e valuate areas where ne w wells are
recommended within the monitoring network due to high levels of concentration uncertainty.
4) Data Sufficiency Analysis: uses Power Analysisto assess ifth e historical monitoring data record has
sufficient pow er to accuratel y r eflect the location of the plum e relative to the nearest recep tor or
compliance point.
What is the product: List of wells to remove fro m the monitoring program, locatio ns 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.
A-16
-------
Figure 2. MAROS Overview Statistics Trend Analysis Methodology
Select Representative Wells in "Source" and "Plume" Zone
Source Zone i Tail Zone
Identify Site Constituents of Concern (COCs).
(Assistance provided by software.)
Analyze Lines of Evidence (LOEs)
for Plume Stability (by well and by COC)
Categorize concentrations of COC in each well as:
• Increasing (I)
• Probably Increasing (PI)
• No Trend (NT)
• Stable (S)
• Probably Decreasing (PD)
• Decreasing (D)
Determine General Trend
for Each Well Based On All
LOE's
SOURCE PLUME
"Lump Lines of Evidence"
Determine General Trend for Source and
Tail Zones
Increasing (I)
Probably Increasing (PI)
No Trend (NT)
Stable (S)
Probably Decreasing (PD)
Decreasing (D)
"Lump Welis"in Source and Tail Zone
Determine
LTMP
Monitoring
Category
for COC By
Source / Tail
(e.g., E)
'M
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
Site Classification
Fuel
Big Small
E
y
L
Solvent
Big Small
A-17
-------
Figure 3. Decision Matrix for Determining Provisional Frequency
(Figure A.3.1 of the MAROS Manual (AFCEE 2003)
Sampling
Frequency
Q: Quarterly
S: SemiAnnual
A: Annual
Mann-Kendall Trend
i
PI
NT
S
PD
D
Rate of Change (Linear Regression)
High MH Medium LM Low
A-18
-------
Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation
Conway, New Hampshire
APPENDIX B
MAROS REPORTS
COC Assessment
Trend Summary Report: 2006 - April 2009
Trend Summary Report: 1983 - April 2009
Individual Trend Summary Reports 2006 - April 2009
Zeroth Moment Summary Reports
Supplemental Trend Reports 2006 - September 2009
B-1
-------
MAROS COC Assessment
Project: KMC
Location: Conway
Toxicitv:
Contaminant of Concern
User Name: MV
State: New Hampshire
Representative
Concentration
(mg/L)
PRG
(mg/L)
Percent
Above
PRG
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1.2E-02
7.0E-03
73.1%
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
Class
Total
Wells
Total
Exceedances
Percent
Exceedances
Total
detects
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
ORG
31
29.0%
20
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
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
0.13
Note: Top COCs by mobility were determined by examining each detected compound in the dataset and comparing their
mobilities (Koc's for organics, assume foe = 0.001, and Kd's for metals).
Contaminants of Concern (COC's)
1,1,1- TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1 -DICHLOROETHANE
1,1 -DICHLOROETHENE
CHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Project: Kearsarge
Location: Conway
User Name: MV
State: New Hampshire
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Well
Source/
Tail
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
CB10+
CB7-8
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
1
2
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
7
7
2
5
7
1
8
7
7
2
7
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
6
2
7
8
6
7
0
1
0
0
0
3
7
6
0
5
5
2
0
0
1
8
3
0
2
0
8
8
7
1
0
0
5
0
2
0
8
6
0
4.0E-04
1.8E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
3.3E-03
1.7E-02
5.0E-03
4.0E-04
3.6E-03
2.8E-03
3.7E-02
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
8.1E-03
3.2E-02
1 .5E-03
4.0E-04
1.3E-02
4.0E-04
4.4E-02
1.4E-02
2.4E-01
8.9E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
1.4E-02
4.0E-04
6.0E-03
4.0E-04
5.3E-02
1.1E-02
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
1 .8E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
1.9E-02
4.8E-03
4.0E-04
3.1E-03
2.6E-03
3.7E-02
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
8.1E-03
3.3E-02
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
1 .3E-02
4.0E-04
3.0E-02
1 .2E-02
2.2E-01
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
1.4E-02
4.0E-04
6.0E-03
4.0E-04
4.3E-02
6.1E-03
4.0E-04
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
ND
N/A
ND
ND
ND
PD
PD
S
ND
S
PD
N/A
ND
ND
N/A
I
NT
ND
N/A
ND
S
D
PD
NT
ND
ND
NT
ND
N/A
ND
D
PD
ND
ND
N/A
ND
ND
ND
D
D
NT
ND
D
S
N/A
ND
ND
N/A
I
NT
ND
N/A
ND
NT
PD
S
NT
ND
ND
NT
ND
N/A
ND
D
D
ND
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Page 1 of 5
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Well
Source/
Tail
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
CB10+
CB7-8
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
CB10+
CB7-8
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
1
2
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
7
7
2
5
7
1
8
7
7
2
7
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
6
2
7
8
6
7
1
2
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
0
5
7
7
2
0
0
0
8
0
0
1
5
8
8
7
6
0
0
6
0
2
0
8
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
5
0
2
4
7
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
1.5E-02
3.6E-03
5.0E-04
2.5E-03
1.7E-02
1 .5E-02
1 .4E-02
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.6E-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
1.3E-03
2.1E-03
6.0E-02
6.2E-03
5.0E-02
2.4E-02
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
4.0E-03
5.0E-04
2.5E-03
5.0E-04
1 .OE-02
5.5E-03
5.0E-04
4.0E-04
1.2E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
1.5E-03
5.0E-03
4.0E-04
1.7E-03
2.1E-03
4.9E-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
1.1E-02
3.3E-03
5.0E-04
2.7E-03
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
1.4E-02
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.7E-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
1 .3E-03
2.5E-03
5.3E-02
6.3E-03
5.9E-02
1 .2E-02
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
3.7E-03
5.0E-04
2.5E-03
5.0E-04
7.9E-03
3.6E-03
5.0E-04
4.0E-04
1 .2E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
5.4E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
2.2E-03
5.1E-03
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
PD
ND
D
S
S
N/A
ND
ND
ND
S
ND
ND
N/A
PD
NT
NT
NT
NT
ND
ND
S
ND
N/A
ND
D
D
ND
ND
N/A
ND
ND
ND
PD
PD
ND
NT
S
S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
ND
S
S
NT
N/A
ND
ND
ND
S
ND
ND
N/A
D
PI
PI
NT
NT
ND
ND
S
ND
N/A
ND
D
D
ND
ND
N/A
ND
ND
ND
D
D
ND
D
S
NT
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Page 2 of 5
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Well
Source/
Tail
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
CHLOROETHANE
CB10+
CB7-8
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
s
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
2
5
7
1
8
7
7
2
7
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
6
2
7
8
6
7
1
2
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
7
7
2
5
7
1
8
7
7
2
7
8
8
2
0
0
0
8
1
0
2
0
8
8
7
5
0
0
6
0
0
0
8
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
3
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
5
6.7E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
1.5E-02
6.3E-04
4.0E-04
6.4E-03
4.0E-04
8.0E-02
6.3E-03
1.4E-01
6.1E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
5.6E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.2E-03
1.4E-03
4.0E-04
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
3.2E-03
2.3E-03
4.9E-03
2.2E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
4.2E-02
2.7E-03
6.7E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
1 .5E-02
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.4E-03
4.0E-04
7.0E-02
6.3E-03
1.4E-01
3.0E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.9E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
5.5E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
3.0E-03
2.0E-03
4.6E-03
2.2E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
3.2E-02
2.2E-03
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
N/A
ND
ND
ND
I
NT
ND
N/A
ND
I
PD
S
NT
ND
ND
S
ND
ND
ND
D
PD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
S
S
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PI
NT
N/A
ND
ND
ND
I
NT
ND
N/A
ND
I
S
NT
NT
ND
ND
NT
ND
ND
ND
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
PD
S
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I
NT
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Page 3 of 5
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Source/
Well TaM
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
CHLOROETHANE
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
CB10+
CB7-8
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
7
7
6
6
6
6
2
7
8
6
7
1
2
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
7
7
2
5
7
1
8
7
7
2
7
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
6
2
7
8
6
7
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.4E-03
3.2E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
9.9E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
3.8E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NT
NT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
NT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Page 4 of 5
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Project: Kearsarge
Location: Conway
User Name: MV
State: New Hampshire
Time Period: 1/25/1983 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Well
Source/
Tail
Number Number Average Median
°f of Cone. Cone.
Samples Detects (mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
CB10+
CB5-6
CB6-7
CB7-8
CB8-9
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
2
1
1
3
1
36
36
34
22
33
8
14
10
13
31
8
34
27
12
10
10
7
10
12
13
9
12
6
6
6
6
18
21
10
6
0
1
1
2
1
16
10
17
13
27
8
6
5
9
31
0
11
1
12
4
0
7
0
11
13
7
2
0
0
5
0
10
0
10
6
4.0E-04
4.7E-02
2.3E-02
8.9E-03
6.1E-03
4.5E-03
4.7E-03
3.2E-03
1 .3E-02
1.3E+00
5.1E-03
1.3E-02
2.6E-03
2.4E-03
2.4E-01
4.0E-04
8.8E-03
6.9E-04
2.6E-02
1.3E-03
4.0E-04
8.2E-03
4.0E-04
3.2E-02
4.6E-02
1.9E-01
8.4E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
1.4E-02
4.0E-04
3.4E-03
4.0E-04
6.9E-02
1.1E-02
4.0E-04
4.7E-02
2.3E-02
3.2E-03
6.1E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
1.3E-03
3.1E-03
9.5E-03
4.8E-03
4.0E-04
1.4E-03
2.4E-03
1.0E-01
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
2.3E-02
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
5.9E-03
4.0E-04
2.3E-02
1.6E-02
2.0E-01
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
1.4E-02
4.0E-04
4.0E-03
4.0E-04
6.0E-02
6.1E-03
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
ND
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
D
D
D
NT
D
S
D
NT
NT
D
ND
D
NT
I
NT
ND
NT
ND
I
D
NT
NT
ND
ND
NT
ND
NT
ND
D
PD
ND
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
D
D
D
NT
D
S
D
NT
S
D
ND
D
I
I
NT
ND
I
ND
I
D
I
NT
ND
ND
NT
ND
NT
ND
D
D
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Monday, July 20, 2009
Page 1 of 5
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Well
Source/
Tail
Number Number Average Median
of of Cone. Cone.
Samples Detects (mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
PZ4004
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
CB10+
CB5-6
CB6-7
CB7-8
CB8-9
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
CB10+
CB5-6
CB6-7
CB7-8
CB8-9
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
7
2
1
1
3
1
36
36
34
22
33
8
14
10
13
31
8
34
27
12
10
10
7
10
12
13
9
12
6
6
6
6
18
21
10
6
7
2
1
1
3
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
15
13
0
11
8
12
22
0
15
0
9
0
0
1
7
10
13
7
9
0
0
6
0
7
0
10
6
0
0
1
1
2
0
4.0E-04
5.0E-04
1.1E-02
1.9E-02
2.1E-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.7E-04
5.0E-04
1.7E-02
1.0E-01
5.0E-04
2.4E-02
1 .3E-02
1 .2E-02
1 .OE-02
5.0E-04
1 .6E-03
5.0E-04
4.1E-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
7.1E-04
2.4E-03
4.2E-02
7.8E-03
3.9E-02
1.6E-02
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
4.0E-03
5.0E-04
1.1E-03
5.0E-04
1.2E-02
5.5E-03
5.0E-04
4.0E-04
5.4E-03
4.1E-03
2.3E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
5.0E-04
1.1E-02
1.9E-02
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
1.1E-02
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
4.7E-03
1.1E-02
1.3E-02
6.4E-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
4.7E-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
2.6E-03
2.8E-02
7.4E-03
4.0E-02
7.5E-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
3.7E-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
1 .OE-02
3.6E-03
5.0E-04
4.0E-04
5.4E-03
4.1E-03
2.0E-03
4.0E-04
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
ND
ND
N/A
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
S
ND
NT
NT
ND
D
NT
NT
D
ND
S
ND
I
ND
ND
NT
S
I
S
I
NT
ND
ND
S
ND
I
ND
D
D
ND
ND
N/A
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
ND
N/A
N/A
N/A
ND
ND
S
ND
NT
D
ND
D
PI
I
NT
ND
PD
ND
I
ND
ND
I
S
I
S
I
NT
ND
ND
S
ND
PI
ND
D
D
ND
ND
N/A
N/A
N/A
ND
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Monday, July 20, 2009
Page 2 of 5
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Well
Source/
Tail
Number Number Average Median
of of Cone. Cone.
Samples Detects (mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
CHLOROETHANE
CB10+
CB7-8
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
S
T
36
36
34
22
33
8
14
10
13
31
8
34
27
12
10
10
7
10
12
13
9
12
6
6
6
6
18
21
10
6
7
1
2
18
19
18
19
18
7
14
10
13
15
6
4
5
3
7
17
0
7
4
8
30
0
2
0
12
1
0
6
0
11
11
7
6
0
0
6
0
0
0
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
11
3
11
1
0
6.9E-04
7.8E-04
5.0E-04
3.6E-03
8.5E-02
4.0E-04
1 .6E-02
1 .6E-03
4.2E-03
3.1E-02
4.0E-04
1.1E-03
4.0E-04
1 .2E-02
5.6E-04
4.0E-04
3.4E-03
4.0E-04
5.5E-02
1.2E-02
1.1E-01
3.9E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
5.6E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
7.5E-03
1 .4E-03
4.0E-04
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
7.2E-03
2.2E-03
3.8E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
2.4E-03
4.0E-04
1.4E-03
4.0E-04
3.7E-03
1.9E-02
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
1.2E-02
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
2.6E-03
4.0E-04
2.5E-02
7.2E-03
1.1E-01
1.5E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.9E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
7.2E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
3.9E-03
2.0E-03
3.1E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
D
D
S
NT
NT
ND
D
NT
NT
D
ND
NT
ND
I
NT
ND
PI
ND
I
PD
NT
PI
ND
ND
S
ND
ND
ND
D
PD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
S
ND
ND
D
NT
NT
NT
ND
D
D
D
NT
D
ND
D
NT
I
D
ND
D
ND
I
NT
ND
PI
ND
I
NT
I
PI
ND
ND
NT
ND
ND
ND
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
D
I
I
NT
ND
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Monday, July 20, 2009
Page 3 of 5
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Source/
Well TaM
Number Number
of of
Samples Detects
Average Median
Cone. Cone.
(mg/L) (mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
CHLOROETHANE
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
CB10+
CB5-6
CB6-7
CB7-8
CB8-9
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
18
11
12
10
10
7
10
12
13
9
12
6
6
6
6
5
8
10
6
7
2
1
1
3
1
36
36
34
22
33
8
14
10
13
31
8
34
27
12
10
10
7
10
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
9
6
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
7
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
22
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.7E-03
3.0E-02
2.9E-03
4.6E-03
2.7E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
3.4E-03
5.0E-03
7.3E-03
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
9.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-02
2.0E-02
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
1 .9E-02
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
1.4E-03
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
9.5E-03
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
S
I
NT
PI
NT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
ND
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PD
I
D
I
NT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PD
ND
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Monday, July 20, 2009
Page 4 of 5
-------
MAROS Statistical Trend Analysis Summary
Source/
Well TaM
Number
of
Samples
Number
of
Detects
Average
Cone.
(mg/L)
Median
Cone.
(mg/L)
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Mann-
Kendall
Trend
Linear
Regression
Trend
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
13
g
12
6
6
6
6
18
21
10
6
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.4E-04
8.1E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
NT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
NT
ND
ND
ND
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable
(N/A); Not Applicable (N/A) - Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); No Detectable Concentration (NDC)
The Number of Samples and Number of Detects shown above are post-consolidation values.
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
Monday, July 20, 2009
Page 5 of 5
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW202A
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
J*>
>
Date
>
.^
^
^
, — ,
1
c
o
1
c
S
c
o
O
5.0E-03 -
4.0E-03 •
3.0E-03 •
2.0E-03 -
1.0E-03-
n ni=4-nn .
^
• ^
* * *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 84.5%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.92
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW202A
MW202A
MW202A
MW202A
MW202A
MW202A
MW202A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/1 7/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L)
3.4E-03
4.0E-04
5.5E-03
2.3E-03
4.0E-04
2.2E-03
4.0E-04
Flag
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/13/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW203A
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
I
o
o
7 OF 01
/ .uc-uo
6.0E-03 •
5.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 -
3.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 -
1.0E-03-
n np4-nn .
^ v^ ^
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW203A
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
.**
Date
>
£
J*
_J
1"
c
o
1
1
o
o
7.0E-03 -
6.0E-03 -
5.0E-03 -
4.0E-03 •
3.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 •
1.0E-03-
n np4-nn .
*
*
*
* 4
»
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -3
Confidence in
Trend:
I 61.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.45
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/1 7/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03
5.6E-03
7.5E-03
7.1E-03
4.1E-03
5.1E-03
3.7E-03
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/10/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW203A
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
2.5E-02
2- 2.0E-02
E
c 1.5E-02
o
1
•£ 1.0E-02
c
O 5.0E-03
O.OE+00
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 61.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.35
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/1 7/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
6.0E-03
1.9E-02
2.1E-02
2.0E-02
1.3E-02
1.5E-02
1.2E-02
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/10/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3008
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
9.0E-02 -
8.0E-02 •
7.0E-02 -
6.0E-02 •
5.0E-02 •
4.0E-02 •
3.0E-02 •
2.0E-02 •
1.0E-02-
n np4-nn .
^
*
*
•
* * ^
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 45.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.65
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.2E-02
3.2E-02
8.8E-02
8.4E-02
2.4E-02
1.7E-02
2.8E-02
5.5E-02
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Number of
Detects
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/10/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3008
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
/ ^ ^ ^ ,/
2.5E-01
2- 2.0E-01
E
c 1.5E-01
o
1
•£ 1.0E-01
S
c
O 5.0E-02
O.I
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I 16
Confidence in
Trend:
I 96.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.85
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.3E-02
1.8E-02
9.0E-02
1.0E-01
5.0E-02
2.7E-02
1.1E-01
2.2E-01
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Number of
Detects
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/10/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3008
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
I
o
o
1.4E-01 -
1.2E-01 -
1.0E-01 -
8.0E-02 •
6.0E-02 •
4.0E-02 •
2.0E-02 -
n np4-nn .
*
* *
^
» »
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 86.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.71
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.3E-02
2.2E-02
7.0E-02
7.7E-02
3.7E-02
2.0E-02
7.4E-02
1.5E-01
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Number of
Detects
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/10/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3009
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
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
f
Concent
3.5E-02 -
3.0E-02 -
2.5E-02 -
2.0E-02 •
1.5E-02-
1.0E-02-
5.0E-03 -
n np4-nn .
*
* *
*
Confidence in
Trend:
I 96.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.73
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
6.9E-03
3.7E-02
1.9E-02
1.6E-02
1.5E-02
9.4E-03
4.6E-03
6.6E-03
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/14/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3009
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
_§
c
I
o
o
1 4F 09
1 .tC-U^
1.2E-02-
1.0E-02-
8.0E-03 •
6.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 •
n np4-nn .
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3010
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
J*
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 .
•
*
» ^
*
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 93.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.46
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.1E-01
4.0E-01
3.3E-01
2.2E-01
6.2E-02
1.9E-01
2.0E-01
Number of
Samples
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
Number of
Detects
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/14/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3010
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
J*>
>
Date
>
.^
^
^
2- 2.0E-01 -
E
c 1.5E-01 •
o
1
•£ 1.0E-01 •
S
c
o
0 5.0E-02 •
n ni=4-nn .
^
•
^
* •
*
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I -1
Confidence in
Trend:
I 50.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.41
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.1E-01
2.0E-01
1.7E-01
1.0E-01
4.5E-02
1.4E-01
1.9E-01
Number of
Samples
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
Number of
Detects
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/14/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3011
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
2.5E-02
2- 2.0E-02
E
c 1.5E-02
o
1
•£ 1.0E-02
c
O 5.0E-03
O.OE+00
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 43.7%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.20
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW301 1
MW301 1
MW301 1
MW301 1
MW301 1
MW301 1
MW301 1
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/1 7/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.0E-03
6.6E-03
2.1E-02
4.0E-04 ND
4.0E-04 ND
2.5E-03
8.5E-03
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/13/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW5003
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
3.0E-02
_ 2.5E-02
,§ 2.0E-02
o
« 1.5E-02
§ 1.0E-02
o
0 5.0E-03 -
0.
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 50.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.66
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW5003
MW5003
MW5003
MW5003
MW5003
MW5003
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/1 7/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.5E-03
4.0E-04 ND
2.5E-02
2.1E-02
1.8E-02
9.7E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
2
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
0
2
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/10/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW5003
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
«
I
o
o
7 OF 01
/ .uc-uo
6.0E-03 •
5.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 -
3.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 -
1.0E-03-
n np4-nn .
^ ^ *°4 ^ ^ ^
*
»
* *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 50.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.36
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW5003
MW5003
MW5003
MW5003
MW5003
MW5003
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/1 7/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.9E-03
3.3E-03
6.5E-03
4.6E-03
4.0E-03
2.6E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
2
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
2
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/10/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: PZ4002
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
«
I
o
o
1 4F 01
1 .tC-U 1
1.2E-01 •
1.0E-01 •
8.0E-02 •
6.0E-02 •
4.0E-02 -
2.0E-02 •
n np4-nn .
* ^' *°4' /' ^' ^
^
*
* *
* • ^
•
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ~28
Confidence in
Trend:
I 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.76
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.2E-01
1.0E-01
6.2E-02
5.8E-02
2.8E-02
2.3E-02
1.8E-02
1.2E-02
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/10/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: PZ4002
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
_J
E
itration
Concer
1.2E-02-
1.0E-02-
8.0E-03 •
6.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 •
n np4-nn .
*
« •
* •
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I ~26
Confidence in
Trend:
I 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.66
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.3E-02
1.1E-02
7.0E-03
7.3E-03
3.9E-03
3.1E-03
2.5E-03
2.0E-03
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/10/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: PZ4002
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
3.0E-02
_ 2.5E-02
,§ 2.0E-02
o
« 1.5E-02
§ 1.0E-02
o
0 5.0E-03 -
0.
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.85
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
PZ4002
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.5E-02
2.2E-02
1.0E-02
1.0E-02
5.7E-03
3.5E-03
3.7E-03
2.5E-03
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/10/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3006
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/25/1983 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
1 OF 09
1 ,\JC.-\J£
9.0E-03 -
8.0E-03 -
7.0E-03 -
6.0E-03 •
5.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 •
3.0E-03 •
2.0E-03 •
1.0E-03-
n np4-nn .
o^ ^ s^ o* ^ ^ i&
4
• •
. *
•
•
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 93.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.80
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW3006
MW3006
MW3006
MW3006
MW3006
MW3006
MW3006
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
10/20/2004
4/5/2005
6/28/2005
10/27/2005
11/30/2005
5/1/2006
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.3E-03
2.6E-03
4.0E-04 ND
1.7E-03
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
8.9E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
0
1
1
3
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/20/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW205
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/25/1983 to 4/30/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
2.5E-01
2- 2.0E-01
E
c 1.5E-01
o
1
•£ 1.0E-01
8
c
O 5.0E-02
O.OE+00
»»
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
I "314
Confidence in
Trend:
I 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
1.45
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
7/6/1992
8/1/1995
4/3/1996
8/7/1996
12/3/1996
4/16/1997
8/29/1997
12/10/1997
3/30/1998
8/18/1998
3/31/1999
8/16/1999
12/31/1999
3/27/2000
8/16/2000
11/30/2000
8/1/2001
12/5/2001
4/3/2002
8/6/2002
12/4/2002
4/22/2003
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
2.0E-01
1.8E-01
4.7E-02
7.3E-02
4.5E-02
5.6E-02
3.3E-02
3.5E-02
2.6E-02
2.6E-02
2.2E-02
2.3E-02
2.7E-02
1.8E-02
2.1E-02
1.9E-02
7.2E-03
7.9E-03
6.0E-03
4.7E-03
5.0E-03
4.3E-03
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/20/2009
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
MW205
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
8/6/2003
4/14/2004
10/20/2004
4/5/2005
6/28/2005
10/27/2005
11/30/2005
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
5.2E-03
4.0E-04 ND
4.5E-03
1.4E-02
2.0E-02
1.5E-02
1.8E-02
7.3E-03
6.2E-03
Number of
Samples
1
2
2
2
2
4
2
6
2
Number of
Detects
1
0
2
2
2
4
2
6
2
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/20/2009
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Zeroth Moment Analysis
Project: Kearsarge
Location: Conway
User Name: MV
State: New Hampshire
COC: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Change in Dissolved Mass Over Time
Date
1.2E-01
1.0E-01 -
8.0E-02 •
O)
„ 6.0E-02 -
co
S 4.0E-02 -
2.0E-02 -
O.OE+00
Porosity: 0.30
Saturated Thickness:
Uniform: 12ft
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
-20
Confidence in
Trend:
I 993%
Coefficient of Variation:
I 035
Zeroth Moment
Trend:
Data Table:
Effective Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Estimated
Mass (Kg)
5.7E-02
1.1E-01
9.5E-02
8.6E-02
6.7E-02
5.3E-02
4.7E-02
4.6E-02
Number of Wells
10
20
27
27
28
28
27
29
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) •
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect. Moments are not calculated for sample events with less than 6 wells.
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/22/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Zeroth Moment Analysis
Project: Kearsarge
Location: Conway
User Name: MV
State: New Hampshire
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Change in Dissolved Mass Over Time
Date
7.0E-02
6.0E-02 -
5.0E-02 -
* 4.0E-02 -
I 3.0E-02 -
S
2.0E-02 -
1.0E-02 -
O.OE+00
Porosity: 0.30
Saturated Thickness:
Uniform: 12ft
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
Coefficient of Variation:
I °'34
Zeroth Moment
Trend:
Data Table:
Effective Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Estimated
Mass (Kg)
1.5E-02
5.3E-02
5.1E-02
6.0E-02
4.0E-02
2.9E-02
4.2E-02
4.5E-02
Number of Wells
10
20
27
27
28
28
27
29
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) •
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect. Moments are not calculated for sample events with less than 6 wells.
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
7/22/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation
Conway, New Hampshire
APPENDIX B
MAROS REPORTS
Supplemental Trend Reports 2006 - September 2009
B-1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Project: KMC
Location: Conway
User Name: MV
State: New Hampshire
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 10/1/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
All
Source/ Number of
Well Tail Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
Samples Concentration
"ND" ? Trend
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
CB10+
CB7-8
CB8-9
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW11
MW115
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
2
3
1
8
8
8
7
8
7
9
1
1
8
8
2
6
8
2
9
8
8
3
7
9
9
8
8
7
7
7
7
2
8
9
7
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
8
7
0
0
0
6
5
2
0
0
2
9
4
0
3
0
9
9
8
1
0
0
6
0
2
0
9
7
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.25
0.65
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.83
0.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.69
0.77
0.42
1.46
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.82
0.88
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
-11
-13
5
0
0
0
-3
-15
0
0
0
0
17
5
0
0
0
-8
-8
-10
-3
0
0
1
0
0
0
-35
-13
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
45.2%
45.2%
45.2%
93.2%
92.9%
71 .9%
46.0%
0.0%
0.0%
59.4%
95.8%
0.0%
42.3%
45.2%
0.0%
95.1%
68.3%
45.2%
0.0%
43.7%
76.2%
76.2%
86.2%
59.4%
43.7%
43.7%
50.0%
43.7%
0.0%
45.2%
100.0%
96.5%
45.2%
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
ND
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
PD
PD
NT
ND
ND
ND
S
D
N/A
ND
ND
N/A
I
NT
ND
N/A
ND
S
S
S
NT
ND
ND
NT
ND
N/A
ND
D
D
ND
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Friday, November 06, 2009
Page 1 of 5
-------
Project: KMC
Location: Conway
User Name: MV
State: New Hampshire
Source/
Well Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
CB10+
CB7-8
CB8-9
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW11
MW115
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
CB10+
CB7-8
CB8-9
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW11
MW115
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
2
3
1
8
8
8
7
8
7
9
1
1
8
8
2
6
8
2
9
8
8
3
7
9
9
8
8
7
7
7
7
2
8
9
7
8
2
3
1
8
8
8
7
8
7
9
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
0
5
0
0
8
8
2
0
0
0
9
0
0
1
5
9
9
8
7
0
0
7
0
2
0
9
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
6
0
2
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.09
0.67
0.00
0.83
0.00
0.00
0.57
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.53
0.64
0.49
0.67
1.09
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.91
0.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.71
0.00
1.77
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
-14
-5
0
-20
0
0
-4
-5
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
-11
16
12
10
2
0
0
-3
0
0
0
-32
-20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-11
-11
0
-13
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
45.2%
45.2%
45.2%
97.5%
68.3%
43.7%
97.8%
0.0%
0.0%
64.0%
68.3%
0.0%
42.3%
45.2%
0.0%
61 .9%
45.2%
45.2%
0.0%
93.2%
94.0%
87.0%
86.2%
54.8%
43.7%
43.7%
61 .4%
43.7%
0.0%
45.2%
100.0%
100.0%
45.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
45.2%
45.2%
45.2%
93.2%
88.7%
43.7%
89.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
S
ND
D
ND
ND
S
S
N/A
ND
ND
ND
NT
ND
ND
N/A
PD
PI
NT
NT
NT
ND
ND
S
ND
N/A
ND
D
D
ND
ND
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
PD
S
ND
NT
ND
ND
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Friday, November 06, 2009
Page 2 of 5
-------
Project: KMC
Location: Conway
User Name: MV
State: New Hampshire
Well
Source/
Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
CHLOROETHANE
CB10+
CB7-8
CB8-9
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW11
MW115
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
8
8
2
6
8
2
9
8
8
3
7
9
9
8
8
7
7
7
7
2
8
9
7
8
2
3
1
8
8
8
7
8
7
9
1
1
8
8
2
6
8
2
9
8
8
3
7
9
5
8
2
0
0
0
9
1
0
3
0
9
9
8
6
0
0
7
0
0
0
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
4
8
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0.82
0.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.77
0.75
0.61
1.08
0.00
0.00
0.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.71
1.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.67
-3
-5
0
0
0
0
28
1
0
0
0
22
-4
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
-32
-11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-27
0
0
-4
-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
59.4%
68.3%
0.0%
42.3%
45.2%
0.0%
99.9%
50.0%
45.2%
0.0%
43.7%
98.8%
61 .9%
72.6%
72.6%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
0.0%
45.2%
100.0%
93.2%
45.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
45.2%
45.2%
45.2%
43.7%
45.2%
43.7%
99.8%
0.0%
0.0%
64.0%
64.0%
0.0%
42.3%
45.2%
0.0%
46.0%
45.2%
45.2%
0.0%
43.7%
97.8%
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
S
s
N/A
ND
ND
ND
I
NT
ND
N/A
ND
I
S
NT
NT
ND
ND
S
ND
ND
ND
D
PD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
S
S
N/A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Friday, November 06, 2009
Page 3 of 5
-------
Project: KMC
Location: Conway
User Name: MV
State: New Hampshire
Well
Source/
Tail
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Coefficient
of Variation
Mann-Kendall
Statistic
Confidence
in Trend
All
Samples
"ND" ?
Concentration
Trend
CHLOROETHANE
MW3009
MW3010
MW301 1
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
CB10+
CB7-8
CB8-9
EW01
EW02
EW03
EW06
EW09
EW10
EW13B
MW11
MW115
MW202A
MW203A
MW205
MW206
MW211
MW213
MW3003
MW3004
MW3005
MW3006
MW3007
MW3008
MW3009
MW3010
MW3011
MW5001
MW5002
MW5003
MW5004
MW8
MW9
PZ4002
PZ4003
PZ4004
s
s
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
(TCE)
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
T
T
9
8
8
7
7
7
7
2
8
9
7
8
2
3
1
8
8
8
7
8
7
9
1
1
8
8
2
6
8
2
9
8
8
3
7
9
9
8
8
7
7
7
7
2
8
9
7
8
5
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.34
0.97
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-3
15
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58.0%
95.8%
86.2%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
0.0%
45.2%
46.0%
43.7%
45.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
45.2%
45.2%
76.4%
43.7%
45.2%
43.7%
46.0%
0.0%
0.0%
45.2%
45.2%
0.0%
42.3%
45.2%
0.0%
46.0%
45.2%
45.2%
0.0%
43.7%
46.0%
46.0%
45.2%
45.2%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
0.0%
45.2%
46.0%
43.7%
45.2%
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
s
i
NT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAROS Version 2,.2 2006, AFCEE
Friday, November 06, 2009
Page 4 of 5
-------
Project: KMC User Name: MV
Location: Conway State: New Hampshire
All
Source/ Number of Number of Coefficient Mann-Kendall Confidence Samples Concentration
Well Tail Samples Detects of Variation Statistic in Trend "ND" ? Trend
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)
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, November 06, 2009 Page 5 of 5
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW202A
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 10/1/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00E+00
1.00E-01 •
o
2 1.00E-02-
8
0 1.00E-03-
1.00E-04
4
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 59.4%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.83
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW202A
MW202A
MW202A
MW202A
MW202A
MW202A
MW202A
MW202A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
9/15/2009
Constituent
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
5.4E-03
2.4E-03
1.0E-02
3.1E-03
4.0E-04 ND
3.2E-03
4.0E-04 ND
5.8E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW203A
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 9/15/2009
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
O)
£
c
O
1
1
O
O
7.0E-03 -
6.0E-03 -
5.0E-03 -
4.0E-03 •
3.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 •
1.0E-03-
n np4-nn .
* *
™
*
* * *
»
Confidence in
Trend:
I 68.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.43
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/1 7/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
9/15/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-03
5.6E-03
7.5E-03
7.1E-03
4.1E-03
5.1E-03
3.7E-03
4.1E-03
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/26/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW203A
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 10/1/2009
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:
E
o
S
Concer
6.0E-03 •
5.0E-03 •
4.0E-03 -
3.0E-03 -
2.0E-03 -
1.0E-03-
n np4-nn .
4
*
*
Confidence in
Trend:
I 95.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.88
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
MW203A
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
9/15/2009
Constituent
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.4E-03
4.9E-03
5.9E-03
4.3E-03
2.6E-03
4.0E-04 ND
4.0E-04 ND
4.0E-04 ND
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3003
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 9/15/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
1-_H1
1
"jr
o
1
c
S
c
o
o
2.0E-02 •
1.5E-02-
1.0E-02-
5.0E-03 •
n np4-nn .
*
•
•
• •
*
I 28
Confidence in
Trend:
Coefficient of Variation:
0.29
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
MW3003
MW3003
MW3003
MW3003
MW3003
MW3003
MW3003
MW3003
MW3003
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/1 7/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
9/15/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.9E-03
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
1.2E-02
1.4E-02
1.9E-02
1.9E-02
1.9E-02
2.3E-02
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
Number of
Detects
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/26/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3003
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 10/1/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
JP
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
4.5E-02 -
4.0E-02 -
3.5E-02 -
3.0E-02 •
2.5E-02 •
2.0E-02 •
1.5E-02-
1.0E-02-
5.0E-03 -
n np4-nn .
•
• *
•
* •
* * *
I 17
Confidence in
Trend:
I 95.1%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.28
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW3003
MW3003
MW3003
MW3003
MW3003
MW3003
MW3003
MW3003
MW3003
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
9/15/2009
Constituent
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.1E-02
2.3E-02
3.5E-02
2.3E-02
3.1E-02
4.5E-02
4.0E-02
4.2E-02
2.9E-02
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
Number of
Detects
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3008
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 9/15/2009
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
1
c
o
1
g
s
c
o
o
2.0E-01 -
1.5E-01 •
1.0E-01 •
5.0E-02 •
n np4-nn .
*
.
•
•
»
* * *
I 22
Confidence in
Trend:
I 98.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.77
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ I
Data Table:
Well
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
9/15/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.3E-02
1.8E-02
9.0E-02
1.0E-01
5.0E-02
2.7E-02
1.1E-01
2.2E-01
1.4E-01
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Number of
Detects
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/26/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3008
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 10/1/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
^
1.00B-00
O)
o
£ 1.00E-01 -
I
o
O
1.00E-02
_** /v v^
i? ^ ^
» »
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 76.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.69
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
MW3008
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
9/15/2009
Constituent
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.2E-02
3.2E-02
8.8E-02
8.4E-02
2.4E-02
1.7E-02
2.8E-02
5.5E-02
1.6E-02
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Number of
Detects
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3009
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 9/15/2009
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
1
o
1
c
Concei
2.0E-02 •
1.5E-02-
1.0E-02-
5.0E-03 •
n np4-nn .
*
•
^
* *
* *
Confidence in
Trend:
I 61.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.75
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
9/15/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.8E-03
1.2E-02
9.9E-03
7.8E-03
7.2E-03
5.3E-03
2.6E-03
3.7E-03
2.1E-02
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/26/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3009
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 10/1/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
1.00E+00
•=- 1.00E-01
o
c 1.00E-02
o
O
1.00E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 76.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.77
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
MW3009
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
5/1/2006
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
9/15/2009
Constituent
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
6.9E-03
3.7E-02
1.9E-02
1.6E-02
1.5E-02
9.4E-03
4.6E-03
6.6E-03
4.1E-02
Number of
Samples
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3010
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 9/15/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
o
1
I
o
o
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 .
^
* *
^
• »
•
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 72.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.61
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
9/15/2009
Constituent
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.1E-01
2.0E-01
1.7E-01
1.0E-01
4.5E-02
1.4E-01
1.9E-01
3.8E-01
Number of
Samples
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
Number of
Detects
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
10/26/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3010
Well Type: s
COC: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 10/1/2009
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: Specified Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
O)
o
2 0.1 -
o
O
0.01
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
Confidence in
Trend:
I 86.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.42
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
Data Table:
Well
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
MW3010
Well Type
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Effective
Date
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
9/15/2009
Constituent
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.1E-01
4.0E-01
3.3E-01
2.2E-01
6.2E-02
1.9E-01
2.0E-01
2.6E-01
Number of
Samples
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
Number of
Detects
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: MW3004
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/2006 to 10/1/2009
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
1
o
1
Concent
4.0E-03 -
3.5E-03 -
3.0E-03 •
2.5E-03 •
2.0E-03 •
1.5E-03-
1.0E-03-
5.0E-04 -
n np4-nn .
*
*
* *
* *
Confidence in
Trend:
I 68.3%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.89
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend: (See
Note)
[ NT
Data Table:
Well
MW3004
MW3004
MW3004
MW3004
MW3004
MW3004
MW3004
MW3004
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
8/21/2006
6/19/2007
8/15/2007
11/28/2007
4/17/2008
8/13/2008
4/30/2009
9/15/2009
Constituent
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L)
4.0E-04
2.2E-03
4.0E-04
2.2E-03
4.2E-03
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
2.7E-03
Flag
ND
ND
ND
ND
Number of
Samples
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
11/6/2009
Page 1 of 1
-------
Groundwater Monitoring Network Optimization
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corporation
Conway, New Hampshire
APPENDIX C
HOW TO READ A TRILATERAL DIAGRAM
C-1
-------
How to Read a Trilateral Diagram
Ternary diagrams are designed to graphically
represent proportions of three related
components in a system.
Axes are scaled so they increase in a
clockwise direction around the diagram.
Points within the diagram represent the
relative proportions of three classes and
always sum to 1.
1,1-DCE = 16.67%| the diagram.
0.4 |1,1-DCE = 46.16%|
Data from well sampling in ug/L is
converted to molar concentrations
(moles/L).
Concentrations for each component
are converted to fractions (%) of the
total (i.e.[moles 1,1,1TCA]/[moles Total
Chlorinated Solvent]) and plotted on
For example, in the adjacent diagram,
the fractions of 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCA,
and
1,1-DCE are illustrated for data from
three different locations.
1,1-DCA
100% DCA
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
100% DCE
1,1-DCE
1,1-DCA = 64.59%
1,1-DCA = 17.41% 1,1-DCA = 11.16%
C-2
------- |