Final Report:
Applied Materials Building 1:
Long-Term Monitoring Strategy
-------
Solid Waste and 542-R-11-006
Emergency Response October 2011
(5203P) www.epa.gov
Final Report:
Applied Materials Building 1:
Long-Term Monitoring Strategy
-------
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.kirbv@epa.gov yager.kathleen@epa.gov
-------
Table of Contents
Notice and Disclaimer i
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. SITE BACKGROUND 2
3. HYDROGEOLOGY 3
4. SOURCE AREA 4
5. CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN 5
6. DELINIATION 7
7. TREND ANALYSIS 7
8. DATA SUFFICIENCY 9
9. CONCLUSIONS 10
10. REFERENCES 10
Tables 12
Table 1 Summary Results for Applied Materials Select Wells: 1996 - 2011
Table 2 Summary Statistics for Applied Materials Select Wells: 2007 - 2011
Table 3 Groundwater Monitoring Locations AM1 Area
Figures 17
Figure 1 A-Zone Source Well AM1-1 1,1-DCA Trend 1996 - 2003
Figure 2 A-Zone Source Well AM1-1 1,1-DCE Trend 1996 - 2003
Figures AM 1 Source Area Wells
Figure 4 AM1 A-Zone Downgradient Wells
Figure 5 AM1 A2-Zone Wells
Appendices 23
Appendix A How to Read a Trilateral Diagram
Appendix B MAROS Reports
11
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The Applied Materials Building 1 (AMI) Superfund site in Santa Clara, CA is the
location of a former semi-conductor wafer manufacturing facility that began operations in
1974. The AMI site is located in an industrial area that developed rapidly between the
1960s and the 1980s with multiple silicon chip and computer component manufacturing
facilities. Currently, AMI is one of many sites in an area known as the South Bay Site
(SBS), where historical industrial activities have resulted in a broad area of solvent-
contaminated groundwater. AMI was converted to offices and educational facilities in
2003, eliminating solvent-requiring research and manufacturing activity on-site.
A five-year review documenting the progress of AMI toward remedial goals was
completed in 2010. The site has largely achieved remedial goals for groundwater;
however, specific National Priorities List (NPL) close-out prospects for sites with rare or
intermittent exceedances of groundwater cleanup goals over a limited spatial extent are
not clear. Additionally, the presence of groundwater plumes on adjacent properties may
complicate the close-out decision. The following memorandum reviews historical site
data and how they might support the development of a long-term, close-out strategy for
the AMI site. Statistical analyses were performed using modules within the Monitoring
and Remediation Optimization System software (MAROS) (AFCEE 2004) and ProUCL
software (Singh 2007).
Several guidance documents related to closeout of sites with affected groundwater were
reviewed in order to recommend data collection and evaluation methods to facilitate a
monitoring strategy at sites very close to attainment of groundwater standards (USEPA
1992; USEPA 2000; USEPA 2005; ITRC 2006; AFCEE 2009). However, a clear
definition of statistical attainment standards or methods to demonstrate attainment of
cleanup goals was unavailable in the literature reviewed. A historic document, Methods
for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards (USEPA 1992), states that "a well
attains the cleanup standard if, based on statistical tests, it is unlikely that the average
concentration (or the percentile) is greater than the cleanup goal." Several statistical
methods for testing whether an average value is below a target level are available in the
literature (Rogers 1992; Weber 1995). However, the policy for sites in the Superfund
program prohibits the use of temporal or spatial averaging to demonstrate achievement of
cleanup goals (personal communication). So, the value of choosing one of these statistical
methods to make a case for closeout is currently limited.
In order to move toward a strategy for site closure, site data should be reviewed during
the five-year review process with an eye toward future data requirements for
demonstration of attainment of cleanup goals. As part of this effort, general site factors
that may be critical to a determination of attainment of cleanup goals have been
identified. In order to facilitate the close-out process at AMI, relevant factors from this
list have been identified and reviewed below.
A central feature of the close-out process is a review of the conceptual site model (CSM).
The AMI CSM, as currently conceived (Weiss 2002; Weiss 2004; Weiss 2007; Weiss
1
-------
2008), has been compared to site data to determine if any data gaps or inconsistencies
exist. To this end, the following specific CSM areas have been reviewed: 1)
hydrogeology; 2) source area contribution and potential mass flux downgradient; 3)
constituents of concern (COCs) and attenuation mechanisms; and 4) delineation of the
AMI plume. As part of the review, site data have been evaluated statistically, and select
results of summary statistics, trends, and data sufficiency have been presented.
2. SITE BACKGROUND
AMI site characterization and initial remedial activities began in 1983, with final listing
on the NPL in 1987. Underground storage tanks (USTs) used for acid waste
neutralization on the west side of the AMI building are thought to have provided a
pathway for entrance of chlorinated solvents (specifically 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-
TCA)) to groundwater. Affected groundwater was found in the shallow A zone
downgradient from the USTs, and interim remedial measures were implemented in early
1985. Records of Decision (RODs) for groundwater and soil were signed in 1990 and
1993, respectively. The 1993 ROD found that "no further action other than that already
implemented" was required. At the time the ROD was signed, AMI already had an
extensive groundwater extraction and treatment system. Primary COCs for this site
included 1,1,1-TCA and daughter products 1,1-dichlorethene (1,1-DCE) and 1,1-
dichloroethane (1,1-DCA). Cleanup goals are 200 ug/L for 1,1,1-TCA and 5 and 6 ug/L
for 1,1-DCA and 1,1-DCE, respectively. These primary constituents distinguish the AMI
site from contamination originating from other sources characterized by higher
concentrations of trichloroethene (TCE) and its daughter products.
Several remedial actions have been completed to date, including excavation of the USTs
and surrounding soil, as well as installation of extensive groundwater extraction and
treatment systems. Groundwater extraction wells were installed on site (AM1-EP
followed by AM1-1, AM1-5E and AMI-10) with groundwater initially treated by
activated carbon and later by air stripping. Treatment systems were in place at the time of
the 1993 ROD. Groundwater monitoring has been ongoing since 1983, and institutional
controls (ICs) have been established to limit contact with affected groundwater. Remedial
actions have successfully reduced contaminant concentrations to below cleanup levels in
many areas of the plume.
The groundwater extraction remedy was phased-out starting in 1996 and terminated
completely in 2002, due to low recovery of COCs. While groundwater concentrations
have decreased dramatically, groundwater sampling results intermittently exceed the
cleanup standards in a limited area downgradient from the original source. Recent data
indicate occasional exceedances for the degradation products 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA at
two downgradient monitoring locations. Concentrations of 1,1,1-TCA and TCE are well
below cleanup levels across the site.
-------
3. HYDROGEOLOGY
Subsurface hydrogeology has been investigated extensively at the SBS due to the large
number of industrial facilities in the area. The SBS and the AMI site in particular are
underlain by heterogeneous marine and alluvial sediments with groundwater flow largely
northward toward San Francisco Bay. The shallow groundwater (30 - 40 ft below ground
surface [bgs]) is classified as a potential drinking water source, but most area municipal
supply wells are screened much deeper (>200 ft bgs) in a lower groundwater zone
separated from the upper zones by an aquitard. Because the shallow groundwater is
classified as a potential drinking water supply, lower cleanup standards (federal and state
Maximum Contaminant Levels [MCLs]) apply.
The shallow subsurface is divided into several zones whose depth and thickness vary
across the SBS. The strata consist of a mixture of low and higher permeability clays, silts,
and sands, and create a complex matrix for contaminant transport. The AMI subsurface
is divided, in descending order, into the shallow A zone, the A/A2 aquitard, the A2 zone,
the A2/B aquitard, and the B zone. The A zone is defined from the ground surface to
approximately 25 ft bgs. The A zone is composed of sandy clay and sand and is underlain
by the low-permeability A/A2 aquitard. The A2 zone occurs at about 30 ft bgs with a
thickness of approximately 6 to 12 feet at the AMI site. The A2 zone at AMI is
interpreted as the B zone at the adjacent HP site to the northeast, while AMl's A/A2
aquitard is called the A/B aquitard at the HP site.
The A2 zone in the former UST area is characterized as semi-continuous silty sand and
sands with variable permeability. Well AM1-10 is screened in the A2 zone in the source
area, but the extent of hydrogeologic connection with downgradient locations (AV-1B) is
unclear. The A2/B aquitard underlies the A2 zone and has variable thickness across the
site. The AMI B zone occurs below approximately 40 ft bgs. Wells AM 1-2 and AMI-SB
are screened in the B zone. No wells are screened at this depth in off-site locations to the
northeast. ("B-zone" wells off-site correspond with the AMI A2 zone). The variability in
stratigraphic nomenclature across the South Bay area should be carefully considered
when comparing affected groundwater between and across the SBS. A cross-section
illustrating the complexity of the AMI subsurface is provided in Figure 11 of the Five-
Year Status Report and Effectiveness Evaluation for Applied Materials Building 1 (Weiss
2004).
The groundwater extraction and treatment system was operated between 1985 and 1999
in the A zone and in the A2 zone (well AM1-10) between 1990 and 2002. Since 2002,
groundwater monitoring has continued at the site on an annual basis at a limited number
of locations resulting in an eight-year record of post-active remediation groundwater
quality. This time frame is consistent with recommendations in the USEPA statistical
attainment document (1992) recommending a sufficient sampling record since active
remedy termination to assess groundwater at dynamic equilibrium with the surrounding
environment. Groundwater data collected since the shutdown of active treatment are
discussed below.
-------
Since the shutdown of extraction wells in the vicinity of AMI, groundwater flow has
returned to the original northeasterly direction. While shallow groundwater elevations
can vary with seasonal recharge, groundwater flow direction does not diverge
dramatically or change seasonally. Stability in flow direction is consistent with a reduced
management and monitoring effort at the site.
4. SOURCE AREA
Identifying and assessing the strength of the source area is a key component of evaluating
the CSM. The status of the source area is a good predictor of future plume behavior. A
source that is still contributing mass to the plume indicates that the plume will remain
stable or expand in size over the near-term. By contrast, demonstrating that a source area
is depleted supports the conclusion that mass flux downgradient will not be an issue in
the future. With a depleted source, the plume will eventually exhaust, with or without
additional remedial activities.
In 1985, three underground acid-neutralization storage tanks and associated soil were
excavated from the area west of AMI upgradient from the affected groundwater. Based
on site reports, the extent of soil excavation was limited due to the presence of the
building and possible sidewall stability issues (Weiss 2004). The tank excavation was
converted into a groundwater extraction pit in the A zone with installation of extraction
well AM1-EP.
The source area was monitored between 1985 and 2003. Concentrations of major
constituents in the A-zone source area (extraction well AM1-1) fell below regulatory
standards in 2000 (see Figures 1 and 2), while concentrations in AM1-EP dropped below
standards by 1994 (one minor exceedance for TCE was recorded in 1995, but was not
repeated). By 2003, the last year for which data were collected, concentrations of all
constituents in the A-zone source area were below cleanup goals. Wells AM1-EP and
AM1-1 were plugged and abandoned in 2003 and the AM1-EP extraction pit was grouted
in 2004.
Constituents have not exceeded standards in the B-zone source area (well AMI-2) since
1992 and have not been detected since 1994. Well AM 1-2 was plugged and abandoned in
2003. The A2 zone is characterized by lower permeability and lower yield than the A and
B zones. A2-zone extraction well AM1-10 showed concentrations below screening levels
during its last sampling event in 2003, but showed results above cleanup levels through
2002. The low-permeability sediments in the A2 zone may have reduced the efficacy of
the P&T remedy relative to the A and B zones and may release contaminants more
slowly than the higher-permeability sediments. However, by 2003, groundwater in the A-
2 source area had fallen below cleanup standards.
Groundwater data from the AMI site indicate the primary source is largely exhausted and
is unlikely to contribute mass to the downgradient plume in the future. Trend data
(discussed in more detail below) indicate strongly decreasing trends for source wells from
1996 through 2003. Currently, sources of constituent mass to groundwater are most likely
-------
secondary, arising from residual contamination desorbing from the low-permeability
zones. However, data from tail wells indicate desorption is limited, creating concentration
variations near the cleanup levels in the plume body.
Very low source concentrations are consistent with reduced monitoring and management
effort at the site. Concentrations in the source area indicate that additional remedial
efforts may have limited beneficial results above the current natural attenuation
mechanisms.
5. CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
1,1,1-TCA as a parent compound is unique in that both biodegradation and abiotic
chemical degradation pathways determine its fate in groundwater. Anaerobic microbial
degradation of 1,1,1-TCA generates 1,1-DCA (cleanup goal = 5 ug/L) while spontaneous
abiotic degradation produces 1,1-DCE (cleanup goal = 6 ug/L) and acetic acid (no
drinking water standard). The presence of 1,1-DCA is an indication of a history of active
anaerobic degradation processes in the source area. The abiotic decomposition 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, with 1,1-DCE acting as a rough indicator of time since release of the parent
compound.
By assessing the relative strength of each of these pathways at various points in the
plume, the structure and persistence of the plume can be evaluated. 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 (Figures 3-5, see Appendix A for an explanation of how to read trilateral diagrams).
The diagrams compare the molar ratios of 1,1,1-TCA and its daughter products at various
locations and times. The characteristic pattern produced in a trilateral diagram can
indicate 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) and can indicate
hydraulic connection of locations with similar ratios. By looking at the ratios of
constituents in different locations in the plume, the plot can indicate if groundwater in
different areas is impacted by preferential flow paths or different attenuation
mechanisms.
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 together. The relative % molar concentrations are plotted on a three-
sided graph, indicating the relative contribution of each constituent to the whole. Samples
with relatively more 1,1,1-TCA are indicated near the top of the triangle, whereas
samples 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. 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 extraction wells in the
source area. Data from 1996 to 2003 are shown for AM1-EP and AM1-1 in the A zone
and AM1-10 in the A2 zone (data 1996 - 2000 are annual averages). AM1-EP was placed
within the UST excavation. Sample results for AM1-EP are dominated by 1,1,1-TCA
with lower levels of the anaerobic degradation product and little to no 1,1-DCE. The
dominance of the parent compound is consistent with AM1-EP representing the initial
release area, with the extraction well removing original product from the excavation area.
Data for well AM1-1, somewhat downgradient from the source, show increasing
percentages of the degradation products over both time and distance from the release. By
January 2003, data show almost equal ratios of 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA in the
A zone.
Extraction well AM1-10, screened in the A2 zone, shows a pattern similar to AM1-1,
with increasing concentrations of 1,1-DCA over time, but with lower amounts of 1,1-
DCE. This pattern indicates that anaerobic biodegradation was a stronger process in the
A2-zone source area. The ratio of parent to daughter products fell over both time and
distance from the source in both the A and A2 zones. The data support a conclusion that
the source area was becoming depleted of parent compound by the time sampling ended
in 2003.
Even though sample results from downgradient A-zone wells AM1-5E, AM 1-7, and
AM1-6 show low concentrations of site COCs, ratios of the major constituents can still
be calculated. Sampling data for wells AM1-6 and AM 1-7 indicate occasional
exceedances for 1,1-DCA and 1,1-DCE, but it is not obvious from the concentration data
alone if different fate mechanisms influence groundwater in these areas. The trilateral
plot illustrated on Figure 4 indicates that AM1-5E, AMI-7 and AMI-6 have similar
constituent ratios, with AMI-6 showing a greater proportion of 1,1-DCE. AM1-5E,
which is located closer to the center of the plume, has a higher percentage of 1,1-DCA.
Moving down and cross-gradient from the source, groundwater becomes depleted in
1,1,1-TCA and 1,1-DCA through attenuation mechanisms, leaving the less labile 1,1-
DCE to dominate the profile at AMI-6. The compound ratios support the conclusion that
mass attenuation processes are still active after shut-down of the extraction remedy (1996
- 2002). Decreasing concentration trends from 1996 - 2011 for most constituents (see
Trends below) indicate a reduction in primary source strength and concentration
variability arising from secondary desorption from low-porosity lenses. The similarity of
profiles for downgradient wells indicates the flow regime is fairly consistent across the
site and no major data gaps are evident in the CSM for hydrogeology.
In order to assess the potential hydraulic connection between A2-zone wells AMl-10 and
AV-1B, constituent ratios were calculated and compared in Figure 5. Well AV-1B (data
from 1996 - 2006) had very low concentrations of the constituents, but, based on their
ratios, they resemble data from the 2000 - 2003 (dates shown) profile of well AMl-10.
AV-1B shows much lower ratios of 1,1-DCE than A-zone wells AM1-6 and AM 1-7,
indicating a more likely hydraulic connection between AMl-10 than the overlying A
-------
zone. Groundwater at AV-1B and AM1-10 appear to be hydraulically connected.
Because both monitoring locations show concentrations below the cleanup levels, a case
can be made that the A2 groundwater zone has attained the cleanup goals.
The ROD identified cleanup goals for 1,1-DCE as the state and federal drinking water
standards at the time. Standards for 1,1,1-TCA have not changed since 1993, but toxicity
evaluations of both 1,1-DCA and 1,1-DCE have changed in the intervening years. The
current USEPA MCL for 1,1-DCE is 7 ug/L. In 2002, the toxicity factors for 1,1-DCE
changed (USEPA 2002) and the Region 9 PRO was increased to 340 ug/L. However, the
USEPA MCL for 1,1-DCE was not changed, so the likelihood of renegotiated cleanup
goals for this compound is uncertain. 1,1-DCA has never had a federal MCL. The Region
9 PRO for 1,1-DCA fell from 810 ug/L prior to 2004 to 2.4 ug/L in 2009. It is unclear
how changes in toxicity evaluations for AMI site COCs may affect future cleanup goals
for these compounds.
6. DELINIATION
A key component of the CSM is defining the vertical and horizontal extent of affected
media. As discussed previously, the vertical extent of affected groundwater has been
delineated in the source area by well AMI-2. Site COCs were found in the B zone for a
short time; however, concentrations have dropped below screening levels and
subsequently below detection limits since 1994. Downgradient B-zone well AMI-SB has
had limited detections of site COCs, with all values below cleanup levels since 1985.
These data demonstrate that groundwater is not affected in the B zone, and that vertical
delineation has been achieved at AMI.
The horizontal extent of groundwater impacted by the AMI source is defined by the
presence of 1,1,1-TCA daughter products 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA at downgradient
locations. Sampling results at AV-1A and AV-1B define the historical downgradient
extent of impacts. Results at AV-1A and B were below cleanup standards at the time of
their last sampling in 2004 and 2006, respectively. As stated earlier, AMI-6 and AMI-7
show intermittent exceedances of cleanup levels, indicating the current horizontal extent
of the AMI plume. Groundwater to the north (AM1-12) and northeast (HP site wells) of
the site is impacted from other plumes as indicated by higher concentrations of TCE and
vinyl chloride. Off-site wells do not appear to be impacted by the specific AMI COCs.
Monitoring data indicate the plume has been fully delineated in the horizontal as well as
vertical direction.
7. TREND ANALYSIS
Trend data can be used to support site management decisions by demonstrating that
groundwater has a stable or decreasing trend after active remediation efforts are
completed. The USEPA statistical guidance (USEPA 1992) recommends collecting
samples after the termination of active remediation to demonstrate that transient
remediation-related effects have equilibrated. Trend analysis using the MAROS software
-------
was performed to identify both stable and statistically decreasing trends. Decreasing
trends after termination of the active remedy can indicate that attenuation mechanisms are
still active.
Non-parametric Mann-Kendall concentration trends were evaluated for several wells for
1,1 -DCA and 1,1 -DCE between 1996 (the time of the initial Pumping Modification
Program) and the final sampling event for each well (see Table 1 and Appendix B). 1,1,1-
TCA was not evaluated, as results have been below cleanup goals since the early 1990s.
For the wells reviewed, most showed strongly decreasing (AMI-SB, AM1-5E, AM1-11,
AMI-10, and AM1-1) or stable (AMI-6) trends during this time period. "No trend"
results for AV-1B, AV-7A, and AM1-EP reflect higher data variance arising from very
low concentrations interspersed with non-detect results. Several locations (AMI-9 and
AM 1-2) show all non-detect results. No increasing trends were found for this time frame.
Trend results for the downgradient wells AMI-6, AM1-5E, and AM 1-7 showed strongly
decreasing trends for 1,1-DCE, and for AM1-5E for 1,1-DCA and stable trends for AM1-
6 and a No Trend result for AM 1-7 for 1,1-DCA through 2011. These results indicate the
plume is stable to shrinking, with many areas below cleanup levels, since termination of
the active remedy. Decreasing trends through 2003 along with concentrations below
cleanup levels in source area wells support the conclusion that the original source is
exhausted. Decreasing to stable trends in the downgradient areas indicate that, even in the
absence of active remediation, residual concentrations are still diminishing. Overall, trend
data support the conclusion of a reduction in management effort.
Concentration results from 2011 showed a slight increase over recent results for all wells
sampled. The reason for the increased concentrations across the site is not clear, but all
results fall within a range of variability expected for the site (about 1 standard deviation).
The overall trend of AMI site contaminants is decreasing, but variability between
groundwater samples is characteristic of most long-term groundwater data. Summary
statistics for concentration results for the last five years (2007 - 2011) are shown in Table
2.
Table 2 also includes the results of a sampling frequency evaluation for wells remaining
in the monitoring program (AM1-5E, AM1-11, AM 1-6 and AM1-7). The software-
recommended sampling frequency for each location is annual, based on the rate of
change of concentration for both 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA. The sampling frequency module
considers the trend and the rate of change of concentrations relative to the screening level
when determining the recommended sampling frequency. Other factors to consider in
developing a final sampling frequency include the regulatory reporting frequency and
whether additional data collection would achieve statistical significance for a particular
analysis. In the case of AMI, the low rate of concentration change and the weight of
evidence that supports reduced management effort may provide justification for biennial
sampling, contingent upon stakeholder consensus.
-------
8. DATA SUFFICIENCY
The question of "How clean is clean?" has been at the heart of environmental remediation
efforts for 30 years. Typically, site management decisions are made based on a very small
amount of sampling data relative to the extent of potentially affected areas. Groundwater
data often show a high level of variability and rarely conform to a specific statistical
distribution. These issues lead to a certain amount of ambiguity in interpreting the
"attainment" of cleanup goals. Very little guidance is available on statistical
determination of standard attainment for datasets where concentrations vary between the
cleanup standard and detection limits.
Determining when a groundwater location has statistically achieved a cleanup goal may
depend on several metrics, including quantity of data, variance in the dataset, and
detection limits, as well as the qualitative confidence in the CSM. The question of what
percentage of samples or how many continuous samples are necessary to decisively
demonstrate concentrations are below cleanup levels is unclear. One method of assessing
if a dataset is reliably below a standard is a Sequential t-Test based on yearly
concentration averages (Rogers 1992; USEPA 1992). The test compares annual
concentration averages to the screening standard over a period of years, and performs a
hypothesis test that is sensitive to the statistical power of the dataset.
The MAROS software Data Sufficiency module was used to identify locations that have
sufficient data to statistically attain the cleanup goal using the Sequential t-Test. As
illustrated by the results of the test in Table 2, only AMI-6 for 1,1-DCA is statistically
below the screening level considering sampling results from 2007-2011. Table 1 indicates
the status of wells considering the larger dataset 1996 - 2011. Historic wells AMI-SB,
AM 1-2, AM 1-9, AM1-EP and AV-7A have all attained cleanup using the Sequential t-
Test method for both 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA. Data for AMI-9 define an area of clean
groundwater to the north of the original source zone. Well AV-7A delineates the
historical downgradient extent of the AMI plume, and AM 1-2 delimits the vertical extent
of affected groundwater. Attainment status at these locations confirms that the plume has
been successfully delineated. Statistical results for AM1-EP indicate that the source area
has attained cleanup goals.
AM1-6 is statistically below the cleanup goal for 1,1-DCA but not 1,1-DCE, although
individual sample results for 2008 and 2009 are below the goal. By 2006, well AV1-B
had attained cleanup status for 1,1-DCE, but not for 1,1-DCA. Although the absolute
concentrations fell below standards during the most recent sampling event, insufficient
data had been collected to demonstrate that constituents at well AM1-10 are statistically
below the screening levels.
Several locations within the historical AMI plume appear to have attained cleanup goals
using the Sequential t-Test. Other locations show concentrations that occasionally exceed
goals for one or both remaining COCs. However, because there is little policy guidance
on the number of samples necessary to show attainment, acceptable levels of variance in
the data or the timeframe over which attainment data must be collected, it is difficult to
-------
recommend a sampling program that would provide sufficient data to make these
demonstrations in the short-term.
A summary of all of the sampling locations in the Weiss database (Weiss, 2011) is
provided in Table 3. Each well with sampling results is listed with the earliest and the
most recent sampling date from the database. Wells that are indicated as sealed and
abandoned on site maps (Weiss, 2010) are indicated. Data were reviewed for each well,
and wells where the concentrations of 1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, and TCE were
below the cleanup level on the most recent sampling date are indicated. While this
information is not as rigorous as the statistical tests described above, the data do show
that the majority of locations were below the cleanup standards at the time they were
decommissioned.
9. CONCLUSIONS
Extensive remediation efforts over the past 30 years have achieved groundwater
concentrations very close to cleanup goals at the AMI site. A review of the CSM and
historical data reveal that:
» the hydrogeology is well understood and consistent with site data;
» the primary source area appears exhausted and is not actively exporting mass to
the tail;
» COC attenuation processes have been active, and concentrations are still
decreasing despite the cessation of active treatment, and
» site contamination is well delineated.
An evaluation of concentration trends supports the CSM and the position that active
remediation is not necessary for control or eventual destruction of the plume. Data
sufficiency analysis indicates that many areas of the plume have achieved remediation
goals, using a fairly conservative statistical test for attainment. The sampling frequency
algorithm in MAROS recommends an annual sampling frequency for the wells remaining
in the program. Lines of evidence developed from site data indicate that a reduced level
of monitoring effort is appropriate for this site. However, as the policy and data standards
for delisting sites with affected groundwater are not clear, a specific recommendation for
data collection accelerating closeout of the site cannot be made at this time.
10. REFERENCES
AFCEE (2004). Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System Software and User's
Guide, Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, http://www.gsi-
net.com/en/software/free-software/maros.html
AFCEE (2009).Environmental Restoration Program Optimization (ERP-O) Guidance
DRAFT Revision 0.9 Air Force Center for Engineering Excellence. August 2009
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.
10
-------
ITRC (2006) .Exit Strategy — Seeing the Forest Beyond the Trees. The Interstate
Technology and Regulatory Council; Remediation Process Optimization Team.
March 2006
Jeffers, P. M., L. M. Ward, L. M. Woytowitch and N. L. Wolfe (1989). "Homogeneous
Hydrolysis Rate Constants for Selected Chlorinated Methanes, Ehtanes, Ethenes,
and Propanes." Environmental Science and Technology 23(8): 965-969.
Rogers, J. (1992). "Assessing Attainment of Ground Water Cleanup Standards Using
Modified Sequential t-Tests." Environmetrics 3(3): 335-359.
Singh, A., R. Maichle, et al. (2007). "ProUCL 4.0 Statistical Software." 2007, from
http://www.epa.gov/esd/tsc/software.htm
USEPA (1992)Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards: Volume 2
Ground Water. 230-R-92-014. United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation. July 1992
USEPA (2000).Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites. EPA 540-R-98-
016
OSWER Directive 9320.2-09A-P. US Environmental Protection Agency. January 2000
USEPA (2002).Toxicological Review of 1,1-Dichloroethylene. US Environmental
Protection Agency. June 2002
USEPA (2005).Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites: Addendum.
OSWER Directive 9320.2-13. US Environmental Protection Agency. December
2005
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.
Weber, E. F. (1995). "Statistical methods for assessing groundwater compliance and
cleanup: a regulatory perspective." Groundwater Quality: Remediation and
Protection (Proceedings of the Prague Conference) 225: 493 - 500.
Weiss (2002).Annual Ground Water Monitoring and Remedial Action Self-Monitoring
Report: February 2001 -January 2002. Weiss Associates. March 15, 2002
Weiss (2004).Five-Year Status Report and Effectiveness Evaluation for Applied
Materials Building L Weiss Associates. September, 2004
Weiss (2007).Draft Focused Feasibility Study for Applied Materials Building 1. Weiss
Associates. March 2007
Weiss (2008).2008 Annual Results. Weiss Associates. March 14, 2008
Weiss (2009). Database of groundwater sampling results. Weiss Associates, September,
2009.
Weiss (2010). Five-Year Review Report for Applied Materials Bowers Campus Santa
Clara, California. Weiss Associates, 5 March, 2010.
11
-------
October, 2011
APPLIED MATERIALS BUILDING 1
Long-Term Monitoring Strategy
Santa Clara, California
TABLES
Table 1 Summary Results for Applied Materials Select Wells: 1996 - 2011
Table 2 Summary Statistics for Applied Materials Select Wells: 2007 - 2011
Table 3 Groundwater Monitoring Locations AM1 Area
12
-------
Issued: 25-October-2011
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 1
SUMMARY RESULTS FOR APPLIED MATERIALS SELECT WELLS
1996-2011
Applied Materials Building 1, Santa Clara, California
WellName
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Percent
Detection
Mann-Kendall
Trend
Statistically
Below Standard*?
Date of Most
Recent Sampling
Event
1, 1-Dichloroethane
AM1-1
AM1-5B
AMMO
AMM1
AM 1-2
AM1-5E
AM 1-6
AM 1-7
AM 1-9
AM1-EP
AV-1B
AV-7A
13
14
13
23
8
35
37
36
7
11
25
10
11
5
13
22
0
34
36
36
0
10
24
4
85%
36%
100%
96%
ND
97%
97%
1 00%
ND
91%
96%
40%
D
D
D
D
ND
D
S
NT
ND
NT
D
D
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
1/9/2003
1/8/2003
7/11/2003
1/18/2011
1/8/2003
1/18/2011
1/18/2011
1/18/2011
1/8/2003
1/8/2003
7/20/2006
7/20/2006
1, 1-Dichloroethene
AM1-1
AM1-5B
AMMO
AM1-11
AM 1-2
AM1-5E
AM 1-6
AM 1-7
AM 1-9
AM1-EP
AV-1B
AV-7A
13
14
13
23
8
35
37
36
8
11
24
11
11
0
11
22
0
34
36
36
0
0
21
1
85%
ND
85%
96%
ND
97%
97%
1 00%
ND
ND
88%
9%
D
ND
D
D
ND
D
D
D
ND
ND
NT
NT
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
1/9/2003
1/8/2003
7/11/2003
1/18/2011
1/8/2003
1/18/2011
1/18/2011
1/18/2011
1/8/2003
1/8/2003
7/20/2006
7/20/2006
Notes:
1. Data from Weiss Assoc. database through 2011.
2. Trends are Mann-Kendall results from the 1996 to 2011 dataset.
3. D = Decreasing; S = Stable; NT = No Trend; ND = well has all non-detect results for COC.
4. Locations statistically below the cleanup standard by Sequential T-Test (USEPA, 1992).
13
-------
Issued: 25-October-2011
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 2
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR APPLIED MATERIALS SELECT WELLS
2007-2011
Applied Materials Building 1, Santa Clara, California
Well Name
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Detected Concentrations 2007 - 2011 [ug/L]
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Mean + SD
Mean - SD
MAROS
Recommended
Sampling
Frequency
1,1-Dichloroethane [MCL = 5 ug/L]
AM1-11
AM1-5E
AM 1-6
AM 1-7
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
1.8
5.7
2
0.76
4.4
8.2
4.3
8.5
2.8
6.54
2.8
5.24
2.2
5.8
2.5
6.05
1.17
1.11
0.88
3.19
3.97
7.65
3.68
8.43
1,1-Dichloroethene [MCL=6 ug/L]
AM1-11
AM1-5E
AM 1-6
AM 1-7*
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
5
2.2
3.9
2
1.1
9
9.6
6.1
8.3
4.85
5.76
4.24
6
3.15
5.3
5
8
3.16
2.24
1.75
3.16
8.01
8.00
5.99
9.16
1.63
5.43
1.92
2.05
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
1.69
3.52
2.49
2.84
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
/Votes/
1. Data from Weiss Assoc. databases through 2011.
2. Summary statistics calculated using ProUCL 4.0 Software (2007).
= AM1-7 had one ND result, subsequent sampling did not confirm this result. Statistics shown are for detected concentrations.
3. LCL = Lower Confidence Limit, UCL = Upper Confidence Limit on mean calculated using method from USEPA Statistical Analysis Unified Guidance (2009).
4. Confidence limits calculated around the mean based on an assumption of normal data distribution. Distributions shown on Table 1.
5. Spatial average for each COC includes 4 wells in program between 2006 - 2010.
6. 95% UCL on mean calculated using method recommended in ProUCL for distribution of the data.
95% Kaplan Meier (t) UCL
a = = Student's T-UCL
b- = Gamma UCL
c.
14
-------
Issued: 25-October-2011
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 2
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR APPLIED MATERIALS SELECT WELLS
2007-2011
Applied Materials Building 1, Santa Clara, California
Well Name
90% (a = 0.1)
LCL
UCL
95% (a = 0.05)
LCL
UCL
99% (a = 0.01)
LCL
UCL
Below Goal by
Sequential T-
Test
Data
Distribution
95% UCL
on Mean
95% UCL
Method
1,1-Dichloroethane [MCL = 5 ug/L]
AM1-11
AM1-5E
AM1-6
AM1-7
2.09
5.77
2.20
3.32
3.51
7.31
3.40
7.16
1.84
5.47
1.96
2.62
3.76
7.61
3.64
7.87
1.19
4.67
1.33
0.86
4.41
8.41
4.27
9.62
No
No
Yes
No
Lognormal
Normal
Normal
Normal
3.765
7.605
3.637
7.866
b
b
b
b
1,1-Dichloroethene[MCL=6 ug/L]
AM1-11
AM1-5E
AM1-6
AM1-7*
2.95
4.22
3.04
4.10
6.75
7.30
5.44
7.90
2.25
3.62
2.57
3.40
7.45
7.90
5.91
8.60
0.79
2.01
1.61
1.66
8.91
9.51
6.87
10.34
No
No
No
No
Lognormal
Normal
Normal
Normal
8.88
7.896
5.909
8.07
c
b
b
b
/Votes/
1. Data from Weiss Assoc. databases through 2011.
2. Summary statistics calculated using ProUCL 4.0 Software (2007).
= AM1-7 had one ND result, subsequent sampling did not confirm this result. Statistics shown are for detected concentrations.
3. LCL = Lower Confidence Limit, UCL = Upper Confidence Limit on mean calculated using method from USEPA Statistical Analysis Unified Guidance (2009).
4. Confidence limits calculated around the mean based on an assumption of normal data distribution. Distributions shown on Table 1.
5. Spatial average for each COC includes 4 wells in program between 2006 - 2010.
6. 95% UCL on mean calculated using method recommended in ProUCL for distribution of the data.
95% Kaplan Meier (t) UCL
a = = Student's T-UCL
b- = Gamma UCL
c.
15
-------
Issued: 25-October-2011
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 3
GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS
AM1AREA
Applied Materials Building 1, Santa Clara, California
Well Name
Minimum Sample
Date
Maximum Sample
Date
AM1-1
AM1-2
AM1-3
AM1-4
AM1-5
AM1-5B
AM1-5E
AM1-6
AM1-7
AM1-8
AM1-9
AMMO
AM1-11
AM1-12
AM1-14
AM1-EP
AV-1A
AV-1B
AV-7A
HP-1
HP- 2
HP- 3
HP- 4
HP- 5
HP- 6
HP- 7
HP- 8
HP-9B
MW-1
MW-2
11/27/1983
6/11/1984
6/11/1984
6/11/1984
6/11/1984
1/30/1985
9/12/1985
5/28/1985
5/29/1985
5/29/1985
5/28/1985
6/5/1989
5/2/1991
5/2/1991
10/3/1991
2/6/1985
5/23/1985
6/13/1996
5/28/1985
9/7/1983
11/15/1983
11/15/1983
11/15/1983
9/15/1983
9/15/1983
11/15/1983
10/28/1988
10/28/1988
1/12/2005
1/12/2005
1/9/2003
1/8/2003
1/8/2003
5/3/1990
5/12/1999
1/8/2003
1/18/2011
1/18/2011
1/18/2011
5/3/1990
1/8/2003
7/11/2003
1/18/2011
1/4/2001
1/8/2003
1/8/2003
1/14/2004
7/20/2006
1/14/2004
7/3/1990
1/13/2005
7/20/1988
7/21/1988
1/12/2005
1/13/2005
5/22/1985
1/12/2005
4/6/1990
1/16/2007
1/16/2007
Below MCLs on Most
Recent Sample Date
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No (TCE)
Yes
No (1 1 DCE)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No (TCE)
Yes
Yes
No (TCE)
Yes
Yes
No (TCE)
Yes
Yes
No
Sealed and
Abandoned
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notes
1. Sample dates and well status are from Weiss Assoc. database 2011.
2. Wells in the current program are highlighed in Bold.
3. HP wells are located north of AM1 and AV wells are located to the north/northwest.
4. Recent sampling results for 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA, 1,1,1-TCA and TCE compared against site cleanup goals.
Values below MCLs indicated. Wells that exceed for only TCE indicated.
5. MCLs: 1,1-DCA = 5 ug/L; 1,1 ,-DCE = 6 ug/L; TCE = 5 ug/L.
16
-------
October, 2011
FIGURES
APPLIED MATERIALS BUILDING 1
Long-Term Monitoring Strategy
Santa Clara, California
Figure 1 A-Zone Source Well AM1-1 1,1-DCA Trend 1996 - 2003
Figure 2 A-Zone Source Well AM1-1 1,1-DCE Trend 1996 - 2003
Figure 3 AM1 Source Area Wells
Figure 4 AM1 A-Zone Downgradient Wells
Figure 5 AM1 A2-Zone Wells
17
-------
Figure 1: A-Zone Source well AM1-1
1,1-DCA Trend 1996-2003
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: AM1-1
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/1996 to 1/20/2009
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:
-— 9 OF 09 .
E
' 1 'iF 09 .
O
^5
** 1 np 09 .
S
c
O 5 OE-03 •
n np4-nn .
•
•
» • •
»
•
* *
Confidence in
Trend:
100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.86
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
1/4/1996
7/18/1996
1/7/1997
7/3/1997
1/8/1998
7/2/1998
1/14/1999
7/1/1999
1/17/2000
7/6/2000
1/5/2001
1/16/2002
1/9/2003
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
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.1E-02
2.3E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.1E-02
1.0E-04 ND
1.0E-02
5.8E-03
2.0E-03
1.0E-04 ND
1.6E-03
1.7E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
18
1/28/2010
Page 1 of 1
-------
Figure 2: A Zone Source Area well AM1-1
1,1-DCE Trend 1996-2003.
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: AM1-1
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/1996 to 1/20/2009
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:
_l
B)
c
o
§
c
o
o
1 ^F n9 .
1 op n9 .
1 np 09 .
8 OF ni .
6.0E-03 -
4 OF 01 -
2nF ni .
n np4-nn .
*
* 4.
Confidence in
Trend:
99.9%
Coefficient of Variation:
0.78
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
AM1-1
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
1/4/1996
7/18/1996
1/7/1997
7/3/1997
1/8/1998
7/2/1998
1/14/1999
7/1/1999
1/17/2000
7/6/2000
1/5/2001
1/16/2002
1/9/2003
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
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.2E-02
1.4E-02
1.1E-02
9.7E-03
1.1E-02
7.7E-03
1.0E-04 ND
7.7E-03
1.0E-04 ND
2.0E-03
4.5E-03
1.4E-03
1.5E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
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
19
1/28/2010
Page 1 of 1
-------
Figure 3. AM1 Source Area Wells
1996-2003
Increasing Parent Compound
1,1,1-TCA
Jan. 1999
Jan. 2003
Jan. 1998
1,1-DCA
Data points represent concentration
ratios for each sampling date. Representative
dates for some points are shown.
Increasing Abiotic Degradation
1,1-DCE
Increasing Biodegradation
20
-------
Figure 4. AM1 A-Zone
Downgradient Wells
1996-2009
1,1,1-TCA
Increasing Parent Compound
Data points are results for individual
sampling events 2001 - 2009. For years
1996 - 2000, sampling results are annual
averages from multiple sampling events.
1,1-DCA
Increasing Abiotic Degradation
1,1-DCE
Increasing Biodegradation
21
-------
Figure 5. AM1 A2-Zone Wells
1996-2006
Increasing Parent Compound
1,1,1-TCA
Select dates for AM1 -10 samples
are shown.
1,1-DCA
Increasing Abiotic Degradation
1,1-DCE
Increasing Biodegradation
22
-------
October, 2011
APPLIED MATERIALS BUILDING 1
Long-Term Monitoring Strategy
Santa Clara, California
APPENDIX A:
How to Read a Trilateral Diagram
23
-------
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%
24
-------
October, 2011
APPLIED MATERIALS BUILDING 1
Long-Term Monitoring Strategy
Santa Clara, California
APPENDIX B:
MAROS Reports
Mann-Kendall Trend Summary Reports: 1996 - 2011
25
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: AM1-6
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/1996 to 1/18/2011
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
O)
o
I
o
O
.5*
.
5.0E-03 -
A RF ni .
A np nt -
i OF nt .
2 OF ni .
1 OF ni .
5 OE-04 •
n ni=4-nn .
*
* ^**^ * * •
* * * *
* % * ^ ***^
* • ^ *
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
-75
Confidence in
Trend:
\ 83.2%
Coefficient of Variation:
r
0.27
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
26
10/24/2011
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
1/4/1996
4/18/1996
5/29/1996
7/18/1996
9/11/1996
10/17/1996
11/7/1996
12/5/1996
1/7/1997
3/18/1997
5/5/1997
7/3/1997
9/4/1997
1/8/1998
5/29/1998
9/3/1998
1/14/1999
5/12/1999
7/1/1999
8/5/1999
9/9/1999
11/11/1999
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
3.6E-03 1
3.1E-03 1
2.4E-03 3
2.9E-03 1
3.1E-03 1
3.2E-03 1
2.9E-03 1
3.5E-03 1
2.7E-03 1
3.1E-03 1
1 .9E-03 1
1 .3E-03 ND 1
2.5E-03 1
2.2E-03 1
3.1E-03 1
1 JE-03 1
2.3E-03 1
1 .OE-03 1
1.4E-03 1
1.6E-03 1
2.0E-03 1
3.7E-03 1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
1/17/2000
3/15/2000
5/2/2000
1/5/2001
1/16/2002
1/9/2003
1/14/2004
1/13/2005
1/12/2006
7/20/2006
1/16/2007
1/28/2008
1/20/2009
1/20/2010
1/18/2011
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
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
3.0E-03
1.9E-03
2.9E-03
2.4E-03
3.0E-03
2.9E-03
2.9E-03
3.0E-03
2.3E-03
2.4E-03
2.5E-03
2.5E-03
2.7E-03
2.0E-03
4.3E-03
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
27
10/24/2011
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: AM1-6
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/1996 to 1/18/2011
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1 4F 09 -
O)
-E. 1 np 09 -
O
s Q OF nt .
£ 4 OF nt .
o
2 OF ni .
Data Table:
Well Well Ty
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
AM1-6 T
<§> $> f
k*V
•
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.0E-02
9.9E-03
7.4E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-02
1.1E-02
9.4E-03
1.1E-02
9.8E-03
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
7.6E-03
8.3E-03
5.2E-03
1 .2E-02
2.5E-03
8.1E-03
2.5E-04 ND
5.0E-03
7.1E-03
7.3E-03
1.4E-02
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
| -281
Confidence in
Trend:
| 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
| 0.40
Mann Kendall
(See Note)
1 D
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
3 3
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
28
10/24/2011
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
AM 1-6
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
1/17/2000
3/15/2000
5/2/2000
1/5/2001
1/16/2002
1/9/2003
1/14/2004
1/13/2005
1/12/2006
7/20/2006
1/16/2007
1/28/2008
1/20/2009
1/20/2010
1/18/2011
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
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
8.7E-03
4.6E-03
1.1E-02
6.0E-03
9.0E-03
7.5E-03
6.7E-03
6.5E-03
5.8E-03
6.1E-03
6.1E-03
5.0E-03
5.3E-03
2.8E-03
2.0E-03
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
29
10/24/2011
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: AM1-7
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/1996 to 1/18/2011
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
9.0E-03 -
8.0E-03 •
j 7.0E-03 -
,§ 6.0E-03 •
o 5.0E-03 •
| 4.0E-03 •
§ 3.0E-03 -
2 2.0E-03 -
1.0E-03-
O.OE+00 •
Data Table:
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
1/17/2000
3/15/2000
5/2/2000
1/5/2001
1/16/2002
1/9/2003
1/14/2004
1/13/2005
1/12/2006
1/16/2007
1/28/2008
1/20/2009
1/20/2010
1/18/2011
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
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
5.2E-03
3.9E-03
5.4E-03
4.3E-03
5.8E-03
6.0E-03
5.5E-03
7.2E-03
6.2E-03
6.3E-03
1.4E-03
8.1E-03
5.8E-03
8.5E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
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
31
10/24/2011
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: AM1-7
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/1996 to 1/18/2011
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
«*> & .5** £ & # <£> ,# . J? J? J
° < ° * *
1.8E-02
1.4E-02
• »» «
* » —**—
o 1.OE-02
IS 8.1
g 6.0E-03
£ 4.0E-03
2.i
0.
» » »
J*>
»*»»*
»» » »
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
-282
Confidence in
Trend:
\ 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
r
0.36
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
1/4/1996
4/18/1996
5/29/1996
7/18/1996
9/11/1996
10/17/1996
11/7/1996
12/5/1996
1/7/1997
3/18/1997
5/5/1997
7/3/1997
9/4/1997
1/8/1998
5/29/1998
9/3/1998
1/14/1999
5/12/1999
7/1/1999
8/5/1999
9/9/1999
11/11/1999
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
1.3E-02
1.4E-02
1.2E-02
1.4E-02
1.2E-02
1 .4E-02
1.0E-02
1.3E-02
1 .3E-02
1.7E-02
1 .2E-02
1 .2E-02
1 .OE-02
1 .3E-02
1 .5E-02
4.5E-03
1 .OE-02
7.0E-03
3.2E-03
5.3E-03
7.0E-03
1.5E-02
1 1
1 1
3 3
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
32
10/24/2011
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
AM 1-7
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
1/17/2000
3/15/2000
5/2/2000
1/5/2001
1/16/2002
1/9/2003
1/14/2004
1/13/2005
1/12/2006
1/16/2007
1/28/2008
1/20/2009
1/20/2010
1/18/2011
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
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.1E-02
7.6E-03
1.3E-02
9.8E-03
1.0E-02
9.4E-03
9.5E-03
9.9E-03
8.1E-03
8.1E-03
6.8E-04
8.3E-03
4.5E-03
8.0E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
33
10/24/2011
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: AM1-11
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/1996 to 1/18/2011
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
1.6E-02-
1.4E-02-
? 1.2E-02-
~ 1.0E-02-
| 8.0E-03 •
g 6.0E-03 -
o
o 4.0E-03 •
O
2.0E-03 -
Data Table:
«*» «$> & #
^ ^ ^ ^0
\*y \*y vo. cSr*
j j j "
»
*•» *
•
*
*
Effective
Well Well Type Date
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
AM1-11 T
1/4/1996 1
1/7/1997 1
1/8/1998 1
1/14/1999 1
7/1/1999 1
8/5/1999 1
9/9/1999 1
11/11/1999 1
1/17/2000 1
3/15/2000 1
5/2/2000 1
1/5/2001 1
1/16/2002 1
1/9/2003 1
1/1 4/2004 1
1/13/2005 1
1/12/2006 1
7/20/2006 1
1/16/2007 1
1/28/2008 1
1/20/2009 1
1/20/2010 1
Date
jP # jP' J^ J?»
»
» » »
• • •
***
4
Constituent
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
,1-DICHLOROETHANE
^ & >N
•^ -^ -^
* VB" ^Sr
•
*
Result (mg/L) Flag
1.5E-02
9.3E-03
8.9E-03
8.8E-03
2.5E-04 ND
5.5E-03
7.0E-03
1.0E-02
9.3E-03
6.1E-03
1.1E-02
6.9E-03
6.8E-03
6.7E-03
6.0E-03
6.1E-03
4.6E-03
4.6E-03
4.2E-03
2.2E-03
2.0E-03
1 .8E-03
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
| -150
Confidence in
Trend:
| 100.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
| 0.53
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
\ D
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
34
10/24/2011
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
Well Type
Effective
Date
Constituent
Result (mg/L)
Flag
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
AM1-11
1/18/2011
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
4.4E-03
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
35
10/24/2011
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: AM1-11
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/1996 to 1/18/2011
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
O)
o
I
o
O
1 ftF 09 -
1 RF 09 -
1 4F 09 -
1 9F O9 .
1 OF 09 -
8 OF 01 .
6 OF 01 .
A OF 01 .
2 OE-03 •
n np4-nn .
•
•
• • » » »
* + * *
»* »
**»
A
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
-84
Confidence in
Trend:
\ 98.6%
Coefficient of Variation:
r
0.49
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
36
10/24/2011
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
AM1-11
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
1/4/1996
1/7/1997
1/8/1998
1/14/1999
7/1/1999
8/5/1999
9/9/1999
11/11/1999
1/17/2000
3/15/2000
5/2/2000
1/5/2001
1/16/2002
1/9/2003
1/1 4/2004
1/13/2005
1/12/2006
7/20/2006
1/16/2007
1/28/2008
1/20/2009
1/20/2010
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
1.9E-02 1
1.3E-02 1
1.1E-02 1
1.1E-02 1
2.5E-04 ND 1
6.4E-03 1
6.9E-03 1
1.4E-02 1
1.2E-02 1
6.9E-03 1
1 .8E-02 1
1.1E-02 1
1.0E-02 1
1.1E-02 1
1.2E-02 1
1.1E-02 1
8.8E-03 1
8.3E-03 1
8.8E-03 1
3.1E-03 2
2.9E-03 1
2.2E-03 1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
Well Type
Effective
Date
Constituent
Result (mg/L)
Flag
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
AM1-11
1/18/2011
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
9.0E-03
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
37
10/24/2011
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: AM1-5E
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Time Period: 1/1/1996 to 1/18/2011
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
<£> g> ^ £ $> <£> & $> $> ^ $•
_l
O)
c
o
1
§
o
o
1 .4E-U2 -
1 op n9 .
1 OE-02 •
8nF ni .
6nF ni .
A nc n-t .
2 OE-03 •
n nPi-nn .
*•
/* *
* * *•
***
**
*
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
-145
Confidence in
Trend:
\ 98.0%
Coefficient of Variation:
r
0.40
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
38
10/24/2011
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
1/4/1996
4/18/1996
5/29/1996
7/18/1996
10/17/1996
11/7/1996
12/5/1996
1/7/1997
3/18/1997
5/5/1997
7/3/1997
9/4/1997
1/8/1998
5/29/1998
7/2/1998
9/3/1998
1/14/1999
7/1/1999
8/5/1999
9/9/1999
11/11/1999
1/17/2000
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1.2E-02 1
2.5E-04 ND 1
7.6E-03 3
8.1E-03 1
5.3E-03 1
8.1E-03 1
9.9E-03 1
6.2E-03 1
9.0E-03 1
8.8E-03 1
7.1E-03 1
7.1E-03 1
5.2E-03 1
7.2E-03 1
4.0E-03 1
6.2E-03 1
9.9E-03 1
8.3E-03 1
8.2E-03 1
6.5E-03 1
7.9E-03 1
7.5E-03 1
1
0
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
3/15/2000
5/2/2000
1/5/2001
1/16/2002
1/9/2003
1/14/2004
1/13/2005
1/12/2006
1/16/2007
1/28/2008
1/20/2009
1/20/2010
1/18/2011
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
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
Result (mg/L) Flag
2.1E-03
6.0E-03
6.3E-03
9.4E-04
6.8E-03
9.5E-04
4.9E-03
4.9E-03
5.8E-03
5.8E-03
5.7E-03
7.2E-03
8.2E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
39
10/24/2011
Page 2 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well: AM1-5E
Well Type: T
COC: 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Time Period: 1/1/1996 to 1/18/2011
Consolidation Period: No Time Consolidation
Consolidation Type: Median
Duplicate Consolidation: Average
ND Values: 1/2 Detection Limit
J Flag Values : Actual Value
Date
<£> g> ^ £ $> <£> & $> $> ^ $•
^^
c
o
o
1.8E-U2 -
1 cc no .
1 AC no •
1 oc n? •
1 nF n9 .
8 OF ni •
6 OF ni -
A OF ni -
2nF ni .
n nF+nn .
•
* * *
* **'
* A
Mann Kendall S Statistic:
-205
Confidence in
Trend:
\ 99.8%
Coefficient of Variation:
r
0.48
Mann Kendall
Concentration Trend:
(See Note)
Data Table:
Well Well Type
Effective
Date Constituent
Result (mg/L) Flag
Number of Number of
Samples Detects
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
1/4/1996
4/18/1996
5/29/1996
7/18/1996
10/17/1996
11/7/1996
12/5/1996
1/7/1997
3/18/1997
5/5/1997
7/3/1997
9/4/1997
1/8/1998
5/29/1998
7/2/1998
9/3/1998
1/14/1999
7/1/1999
8/5/1999
9/9/1999
11/11/1999
1/17/2000
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
1.4E-02
1.3E-02
1.0E-02
1.2E-02
8.8E-03
1.0E-02
1.2E-02
1.0E-02
1.3E-02
1 .5E-02
1.1E-02
1 .OE-02
4.3E-03
1.4E-02
8.5E-03
4.0E-03
1.7E-02
1 .3E-02
1 .4E-02
9.9E-03
1 .5E-02
1.2E-02
1 1
1 1
3 3
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
40
10/24/2011
Page 1 of 2
-------
MAROS Mann-Kendall Statistics Summary
Well
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
AM1-5E
Well Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Effective
Date
3/15/2000
5/2/2000
1/5/2001
1/16/2002
1/9/2003
1/14/2004
1/13/2005
1/12/2006
1/16/2007
1/28/2008
1/20/2009
1/20/2010
1/18/2011
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
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
Result (mg/L) Flag
3.8E-03
1.2E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-03
8.8E-03
2.5E-04 ND
3.2E-03
2.9E-03
4.5E-03
3.9E-03
5.3E-03
5.5E-03
9.6E-03
Number of
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Detects
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Increasing (I); Probably Increasing (PI); Stable (S); Probably Decreasing (PD); Decreasing (D); No Trend (NT); Not Applicable (N/A) -
Due to insufficient Data (< 4 sampling events); ND = Non-detect
MAROS Version 2.2, 2006, AFCEE
41
10/24/2011
Page 2 of 2
------- |