SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
FOR
ST. REGIS PAPER CO. SUPERFUND SITE
LEECH LAKE INDIAN RESERVATION
CASS COUNTY, MINNESOTA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
Chicago, Illinois
Douglas Ballotti, Director
Superfund & Emergency Management Division
Signed by: DOUGLAS BALLOTTI
^tD sr%
Prepared by
7/16/2020
-------
Table of Contents
LIST 01 ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS 3
I. INTRODUCTION 5
Site Background 6
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM 6
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 7
Basis for Taking Action 7
Response Actions 7
Response Actions Initiated under MPCA Oversight (OUs 1, 2, and 3) 7
Response Actions Initiated under EPA Oversight 9
Status of Implementation 10
OU1, OU2, and OU3 Remedial Actions 10
OU7 Interim Remedial Action 10
Institutional Controls 11
Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance 12
OU1 and OU3 Extraction System Modifications 13
OU1 and OU3 Monitoring Well Installation 13
Treatment Process Evaluation 14
Optimization Review 14
OU7 Interim Remedial Action 14
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW 14
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 18
Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews 18
Data Review 18
OU1 and OU3 Groundwater 18
OU9/Fox Creek Valley Groundwater Quality and Porewater Investigation 23
Treatment Plant Effectiveness and Effluent Quality 24
Extraction Network Performance 27
On-Site RCRA Containment Unit 27
Site Inspection 28
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 29
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 29
Remedial Action Performance 29
System Operations/O&M 29
Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures 30
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial
action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? 30
Changes in Standards and TBCs 31
Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics 31
Changes in Risk Assessment Methods 31
Changes in Exposure Pathways 31
Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs 31
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy? 32
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 32
OTHER FINDINGS 34
1
-------
\ II. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 35
VIII. NEXT REVIEW 36
Figures
Figure 1: Comparison of PCP Distribution in the Upper Outwash/Surficial Aquifer in OU1,
early 1980s and 2018 21
Figure 2: Comparison of PCP Distribution in the Upper/Surficial Aquifer in OU3, early 1980s
and 2018 22
Figure 3: Aerial Extent of the OU9 PCP Plume in at the southern edge of OU2 24
Figure 4: Monthly Average Sitewide Extraction Rates Compared to Maximum Discharge Rate,
and 2005 Groundwater Model Simulated Pumping Rate 27
Figure 5: Leachate Elevations and Volume of Leachate Recovered from the On-Site
Containment Vault 28
Tables
Table 1: Active Operable Units 5
Table 2: RALs Specified in the March and July 1986 MEDDs, and 2016 CL update 9
Table 3: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented ICs 11
Table 4: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2015 FYR 15
Table 5: Status of Recommendations from the 2015 FYR 16
Table 6: Groundwater Monitoring Locations with PCP concentrations greater than 1 |ig/L
between 2015 and 2019 20
Table 7: Effectiveness of GAC units at Removing PCP in 2018 25
Table 8: Contaminant Detections and Effluent Limit Exceedances in Treatment Plant Effluent,
2015 through October 2019 26
Table 9: Annual O&M Costs 30
Appendices
Appendix A - References and Documents Reviewed
Appendix B - Site Chronology and Background
Appendix C - Five-Year Review Inspection Form and Photographs
Appendix D - Data Tables (electronic)
Appendix E - Effluent Concentrations and Limits, 2006 to 2019
Appendix F - Five Year Groundwater Review Technical Memorandum, prepared on behalf of
EPA by Subterranean Research, Inc.
Appendix G - Comments and Email from the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
Appendix H - Letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
2
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
AOC
Administrative Order on Consent
BNSF
BNSF Railway Company
B(a)PE
Benzo(a)pyrene Equivalent
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
COCs
Contaminants of Concern
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
gpm
Gallons per minute
FS
Feasibility Study
FYR
Five-Year Review
GAC
Granular activated carbon
GWCL
Groundwater Cleanup Level
HHERA
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
HHRA
Human Health Risk Assessment
HpCDD
Heptachl orodib enzodi oxin
HpCDF
Heptachl orodib enzofuran
HxCDD
Hexachl orodib enzodi oxin
HxCDF
Hexachl orodib enzofuran
IC
Institutional Control
ICIAP
Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan
IP
International Paper
LLBO
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
LTS
Long-Term Stewardship
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MEDD
Minnesota Enforcement Decision Document
MPCA
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
^g/L
Micrograms per liter (parts per billion)
NAPL
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
NCP
National Contingency Plan
NPL
National Priorities List
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
OCDD
Octachl orodib enzodi oxin
OCDF
Octachl orodib enzofuran
OU
Operable Unit
PAH
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCP
Pentachlorophenol
PCDD
Poly chl orodib enzodi oxin
PCDF
Polychlorodibenzofuran
3
-------
PeCDD
Pentachl orodib enzodi oxin
PeCDF
Pentachl orodib enzofuran
Pg/L
Picograms per liter (parts per quadrillion)
ppt
Parts per trillion (nanograms per kilogram)
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
RAL
Response Action Level
RAO
Remedial Action Objective
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD
Record of Decision
TCDD
Tetrachl orodib enzodi oxin
TCDF
T etrachl orodib enzofuran
TEQ
Toxic Equivalency
UAO
Unilateral Administrative Order
UU/UE
Unlimited use and unrestricted exposure
4
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of
a remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human
health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented
in FYR reports such as this one. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the
review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this FYR pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section
121, consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP)(40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)),
and considering EPA policy.
This is the sixth FYR for the St. Regis Paper Co. Superfund Site (site). The triggering action for
this statutory review is the completion date of the previous FYR. This FYR has been prepared
due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above
levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).
The site consists of five operable units (OUs) (OUs 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9).1 While all five OUs are
discussed in this FYR, only the remedies for four OUs are evaluated in this FYR: OU1, OU2,
OU3, and OU7, as shown in Table 1. There is no remedy yet selected for OU9 and information
regarding OU9 is included to help the reader better understand the nature and extent of the
contamination at the Site in general.
Table 1: Active Operable Units
ou
Description
Remedy Evaluated in
this FYR
1
Groundwater plume at the former treatment facility and
groundwater treatment plan
Yes
2
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle
C containment unit
Yes
3
Groundwater plume at the former city dump
Yes
7
Residential exposure to dust from roadways and residential
interiors, and residential soil
Yes2
9
Fox Creek Valley groundwater plume
No
The St. Regis Paper Co. Superfund Site FYR was led by Leslie Patterson, EPA. Participants
included Jason Helgeson and Irene Folstrom, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (LLBO); Erin
Endsley, Mark Elliott, and Daniel Cervin, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); and
David Dougherty of Subterranean Research, Inc., contractor to EPA. The potentially responsible
1 OUs 4, 5, and 6 are used for administrative purposes but do not refer to any geographic area or medium at the site.
OU8 is used for internal EPA tracking of the surface soil remedies that will occur in OU1, OU2, OU3 and OU7.
2 This FYR evaluates the interim remedy for OU7 selected in a 2005 interim ROD, but not the remedy for OU7
selected in the 2020 ROD, because it has not yet been implemented.
5
-------
party (PRP) International Paper Co. (IP), LLBO and MPCA were notified of the initiation of the
FYR. The review began on July 25, 2019.
Site Background
The approximately 163-acre site is located on the south side of the City of Cass Lake, Minnesota,
population approximately 750, and is wholly within the exterior boundaries of the Leech Lake
Indian Reservation. The site is located in an area of flat to gently rolling topography, with glacial
moraines and outwash plains, and low-lying bogs and lakes. Regionally, approximately 400 feet
of sandy soils and gravel deposits overly granite, greenstone, and schist bedrock. Corporate
predecessors of IP operated a wood treater that contaminated soil and groundwater with
dioxin/furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and pentachlorophenol.
Properties on the site have a variety of current uses and owners. Fewer than ten single family
homes are on the site, and onsite properties have a variety of uses, including: the groundwater
treatment facility and RCRA Subtitle C containment unit; an active BNSF Railway Company
(BNSF) rail line; a former municipal dump; LLBO Division of Resource Management offices
and facilities; private commercial and light industrial uses; and vacant property. The reasonably
anticipated future uses of site properties are generally similar to existing uses, although it is
reasonable to anticipate that vacant property may be returned to either commercial or residential
use, according to its zoning. Surface water bodies Pike Bay and Cass Lake lie to the east and
northeast respectively, and are used for swimming, fishing and boating. LLBO also reports that
Pike Bay and Cass Lake are used for tribal subsistence harvesting of fish and wild rice. The site
is also adjacent to Chippewa National Forest lands and wetlands that may be used for hunting,
and gathering of plants, including wild rice.
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: St. Regis Paper Co.
EPA ID: MND057597940
Region: 5
State: MN
City/County: Cass Lake, Cass County
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs?
Yes
Has the site achieved construction completion?
No
Lead agency: EPA
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Leslie Patterson, Remedial Project Manager
Author affiliation: EPA
Review period: 7/25/2019 - 4/28/2020
6
-------
Date of site inspection: 10/29/2019
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 6
Triggering action date: 7/27/2015
Due date (five years after triggering action date): 7/27/2020
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
Remedial actions addressing OUs 1, 2 and 3 were taken under MPCA oversight based on the
results of a Remedial Investigation (RI) performed for Champion Paper (Champion), predecessor
of IP (ref. 1 and 2). The March and July 1986 Minnesota Enforcement Decision Documents
(MEDDs) identified the following contaminants of concern (COCs): polychlorodibenzodioxins
(PCDDs), polychlorodibenzofurans (PCDFs), copper arsenate, pentachlorophenol, and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in groundwater. Potential exposure pathways identified in the
MEDDs include ingestion of contaminated groundwater from residential wells and the Cass Lake
municipal water supply system, and ingestion of contaminated surface water in Cass Lake/Pike
Bay (ref. 3 and 5).
A separate interim remedial action under EPA oversight (OU7), 2005 to present, is based on
sampling conducted pursuant to the 2003 to 2008 Human Health Risk Assessment ("HHRA";
collectively with the Ecological Risk Assessment, "HHERA"; ref. 18). An October 2005 Interim
Record of Decision (ROD) identified dioxin, arsenic, and PAHs as COCs in indoor dust and
required removal of the dust and prevention of surface soil from migrating to residential
interiors. A December 2005 Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) required IP to perform the
following actions for the approximately 40 homes in OU7: 1) removal and replacement of
carpeting, 2) initial and periodic housecleaning for dust removal, 3) clean soil and grass cover for
all yards; and 4) placement of dust suppressant on the local unpaved streets within OU7. In 2008,
the HHRA also concluded that there are unacceptable potential future noncancerous risks from
outdoor soil in residential areas and potential unacceptable risks to utility workers from exposure
to groundwater in a portion of the former operations area.
Response Actions
Response Actions Initiated under MPCA Oversight (OUs 1, 2, and 3)
MPCA issued MEDDs for the site in March 1986 (ref. 3) and for the Former Cass Lake City
Dump site in July 1986 (ref. 5). EPA did not sign or indicate concurrence or non-concurrence
with the MEDDs. The March and July 1986 MEDDs both outline the following response goals
and objectives:
1. Adequately protect the public against exposure to PCP, PAH, PCDD, and PCDF isomers
through direct contact or ingestion of groundwater from private and public water
supplies.
7
-------
2. Adequately protect the public against exposure to PCP, PAH, PCDD and PCDF isomers
potentially released to surface water from the groundwater.
3. Adequately protect and minimize damage to the environment from the migration of PAH,
PCDD and PCDF isomers in the groundwater.
The March 1986 MEDD for the site called for the following response actions:
1. Installation of ten groundwater wells with granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment, to
pump and treat contaminated groundwater until acceptable levels in the groundwater are
reached.
2. Construction of an on-site containment vault designed to meet RCRA requirements for
the deposition of hazardous waste sludges and contaminated soil to be excavated during
source removal activities;
3. Extension of the Cass Lake Community Water System to residents not currently serviced
and potentially affected by groundwater contamination from the site;
4. Long term monitoring of the treated groundwater discharge and selected fish species for
site COCs to determine the effectiveness of the groundwater treatment system;
5. Long term operation and maintenance (O&M) of the groundwater extraction system and
monitoring of groundwater and surface water to determine its effectiveness;
6. Long term O&M and monitoring of the on-site containment vault.
The July 1986 MEDD for the Former Cass Lake City Dump site called for:
1. Long term O&M of a contaminated groundwater gradient control/extraction/treatment
system; and
2. Long term monitoring to assess response action performance.
The March 1986 MEDD identified Response Action Levels (RALs), or cleanup goals, for
groundwater cleanup as shown in Table 2. The remedial action was expected to reach
groundwater cleanup goals within 25 years. Although the MEDD did not specify a groundwater
cleanup level (GWCL) for dioxins/furans, it cited a draft EPA document that correlated a
concentration of 1.3 x 10"7 micrograms per liter (|ig/L) with the 10"5 excess lifetime cancer risk
level. In response to the 2015 FYR Report recommendation to update GWCLs because the RALs
used at remedy selection were likely not within EPA's target risk range, RPM Leslie Patterson
communicated to IP on December 20, 2016 the basis for updated GWCLs (Table 2; ref. 32).
Although this does not establish enforceable GWCLs for the site, it provides an updated basis for
evaluating progress toward groundwater restoration.
8
-------
Table 2: RALs Specified in the March and July 1986 MEDDs, and 2016 CL update
Contaminant
1986 MEDDs
2016 Recommended Cleanup
Levels
Risk Goal
RAL, jug/L
Basis
CL,
JLig/L
PCP
10"5 excess
lifetime
cancer risk
OU1 - 1010
Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL)
1
OU3 - 220
(suggested)
Carcinogenic
PAH
OU1 - 0.028
MCL for
B(a)P
0.2
OU3 - 0.28
(suggested)
Noncarcinogenic
PAH
Not specified
0.300
Eliminated due to highest
detections being orders of
magnitude below Regional
Screening Levels
PCDD/PCDF
10"5 excess
lifetime
cancer risk
Not established; 1.3
x 10"7 suggested for
2,3,7,8-TCDD
MCL for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
3.0 x
10"5
Response Actions Initiated under EPA Oversight
In 1995, EPA became the lead oversight agency for the St. Regis site and issued a UAO to
Champion that required Champion to, among other things, continue remedial actions undertaken
pursuant to the two MEDD Response Orders by Consent (ref. 6). Since then, EPA has required
the following additional response actions:
1. December 2003 UAO (ref. 7), which required IP to excavate surface soil on portions of
OU1 owned by the City of Cass Lake with dioxin concentrations exceeding 1,000 parts
per trillion (ppt). A total of 3,321 tons of soil were excavated and disposed of off-site at
the RCRA Subtitle D landfill operated by Onyx FCR near Buffalo, Minnesota. The
removal action was completed in 2005 (ref. 11).
2. August 2005 Administrative Order on Consent ("AOC"; ref. 10), in which BNSF agreed
to perform a removal action on BNSF property consisting of excavation of shallow soil
with dioxin exceeding 5,000 ppt and fencing of all areas of surface soil with dioxin
exceeding 1,000 ppt on BNSF property. A total of 675 tons of soil were excavated and
disposed of off-site at the RCRA Subtitle D landfill operated by Onyx FCR near Buffalo,
Minnesota. The removal action was completed in 2006 (ref. 16).
3. 2006 voluntary response action by IP to address the property in OU1 owned by Cass
Forest Products, in which IP applied a geotextile fabric and 4 inches of clean gravel to
work areas and fencing of another area above a surface soil dioxin concentration of 1,000
ppt. The fenced area the area covered with geotextile were each approximately 0.25 acres
in size (ref. 17).
4. October 2005 Interim ROD (ref. 12) and December 2005 UAO (ref. 13), which required
IP to perform an interim remedial action to meet the RAO of reducing the volume of
9
-------
contaminated dust in residential properties and one business property adjacent to the Site
in OU7. These actions included: 1) an initial comprehensive cleaning of 30 properties, 2)
periodic cleaning for dust, 3) application of dust suppressant to the unpaved roads, and 4)
application of 3 inches of clean soil and grass seed to 31 residential yards. Dioxin and
PAHs were the COCs for this action, and clean up levels were not established.
5. September 2008 AOC, in which IP and BNSF agreed to conduct a feasibility study (FS)
to evaluate final remedial alternatives and to further investigate the potential for
ecological risk in Fox Creek. EPA approved the FS report in June 2011 and issued a
Proposed Plan outlining EPA's preferred remedial alternative. At the request of LLBO
and MPCA, EPA agreed to defer issuing a ROD until additional soil sampling was
conducted. EPA signed a ROD for residential soil cleanup at OU7 in April 2020. The
remedy selected in the 2020 ROD included: 1) Excavation of contaminated soil that
exceeds Level 1 Preliminary Remedial Goals, backfill with clean soil fill and
revegetation; 2) Consolidation below grade in OU1 or OU2 of excavated soil that does
not pose a leaching threat, covered by a geotextile marker, clean fill, and topsoil, and then
revegetated; 3) Placement of Institutional Controls (ICs) on the area of consolidated soil
in order to maintain the protectiveness of the cover and prevent unauthorized excavation;
and 4) Five-Year Reviews.
Status of Implementation
OU1, OU2, and OU3 Remedial Actions
In the mid to late 1980s, under MPCA oversight, Champion performed the following actions:
extension of the Cass Lake Community Water System to nearby residents; excavation of visibly
contaminated sludge and soil and containment in an onsite RCRA Subtitle C containment unit
(37,500 cubic yards from OU1 and 4,500 cubic yards from OU3); installation of a groundwater
pump and treat system consisting of ten groundwater extraction wells in OU1 and three
extraction wells in OU3 that convey water to an on-site treatment plant utilizing three 20,000-
pound GAC vessels in series, with effluent discharging to an outfall to the channel between Cass
Lake and Pike Bay. In 1992, a product recovery plan was instituted by installing light non-
aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) recovery wells to collect site-related diesel-range organics that
accumulated near the extraction wells. This remedy continues to be operated and maintained as
described below in the "Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance" section of this report.
OU7 Interim Remedial Action
Pursuant to an October 2005 Interim ROD and December 2005 UAO, in 2006 IP performed
interim remedial actions at residences in OU7, which included: 1) an initial comprehensive
cleaning at 30 properties, 2) periodic cleaning for dust, 3) application of dust suppressant to the
unpaved roads and 4) application of three inches of clean soil and seed to 31 residential yards.
This remedy continues to be operated and maintained as described below in the "Systems
Operations/Operation & Maintenance" section of this report.
10
-------
Institutional Controls
ICs are not required by the two 1986 MEDDs nor by EPA's 2005 Interim ROD, but ICs for a soil
consolidation area are included as part of the final ROD for OU7 signed in April 2020. ICs are in
place restricting the drilling and use of groundwater supply wells in the area of the site, and ICs
restricting land disturbance are under consideration as part of the final soil remedy in OU1, OU2
and OU3. Table 3 provides a summary of the ICs for the site. A map that depicts the current
conditions of the Site and areas which do not allow for UU/UE will be developed in the IC
follow-up actions discussed below.
Table 3: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented ICs
Media, engineered
controls, and areas
ICs Called
Title of IC
Instrument
Implemented
and Date (or
planned)
that do not
support UU/UE
based on current
conditions
ICs
Needed
for in the
Decision
Documents
Impacted
Parcel(s)
IC
Objective
Prevent installation of
Groundwater, soil
Yes
No
Listed in
Attachment A
of the Quit
Claim Deed
groundwater wells or
any use which would
disturb the property or
adjoining property as
contemplated bv M.S
115B.16, subd.L
Quit Claim Deed,
April 22, 1988
Soil
Yes
No
Site parcels
within the City
of Cass Lake
Limit use (e.g. small-
scale industrial, low-
density residential) of
properties in Cass Lake
City of Cass Lake
Zoning
Ordinance No.
12282005,
Jan. 25, 2006
Limit use to non-
Site parcels
outside the
residential, prohibit
unauthorized
Soil
Yes
No
limits of the
City of Cass
Lake
excavation and
groundwater use, for as
long as parcels are not
UU/UE
Under evaluation
Parcels
between 1st and
3rd Streets
South, and east
of Hwy. 371
Prevent the
construction and use of
City of Cass Lake
Groundwater
Yes
No
private water wells, and
require the permanent
sealing of a private
water well
Resolution 14-
2006, Jan. 24,
2007
Current Compliance: There are currently no known uses of the site that would be considered
inconsistent with the objectives to be achieved by the current ICs. The 1998 Quit Claim Deed
(ref. 8) and City of Cass Lake Resolution 14-2006 (ref. 14), which place restrictions on drilling
private water wells, have been effective at achieving their intended purpose. However, with
respect to zoning, there have historically been parcels zoned for commercial use but used as
residential, and vice versa. Although the City of Cass Lake does not strictly enforce its 2006
Zoning Ordinance, the unauthorized use of these properties does not pose current unacceptable
risks to human health because the contaminant levels in surface soil on properties in residential
use is within EPA's acceptable residential risk range. Implementing additional ICs may be
11
-------
necessary to ensure the long-term protectiveness of the remedy because vacant properties could
become active residences in the future, and earth-moving activities such as construction and
utility work could take place at the site.
IC Follow up Actions Needed: EPA will require the site PRP(s) to develop an Institutional
Control Assurance and Implementation Plan (ICIAP). The purpose of the ICIAP is to evaluate
the effectiveness of implemented ICs, explore whether additional ICs are needed, and develop
long-term stewardship (LTS) procedures to properly maintain, monitor, and enforce ICs. IC
evaluation activities will include, as needed, updated maps depicting current conditions in areas
that do not allow for UU/UE, review of governmental controls (i.e., ordinances), and title work
to ensure the restrictions are still recorded and that no prior-in-time encumbrances exist on the
site that are inconsistent with the ICs. As part of LTS, the ICIAP will include a requirement for
annual ICs reports with review of and certification by the PRP(s) to EPA that ICs are in place
and effective.
Long Term Stewardship: Long-term protectiveness requires compliance with the land and
groundwater use restrictions to ensure that the remedy continues to function as intended. LTS
involves assuring effective procedures are in place to properly maintain and monitor the site.
Plans incorporating LTS procedures (e.g., the ICIAP or a LTS plan or portion of the O&M plan)
should be prepared and include the mechanisms and procedures for developing ICs, and once in
place, for inspecting and monitoring compliance with the ICs as well as communications
procedures between the PRPs, individual landholders, and all appropriate governmental entities.
An annual report should be submitted to EPA to demonstrate that 1) the site was inspected to
ensure no inconsistent uses have occurred, 2) ICs remain in place and are effective, and 3) any
necessary contingency actions have been executed. Results of IC reviews should be provided to
EPA in an annual ICs report and with a certification that the ICs remain in-place and are
effective. Additionally, use of a communications plan and placement of the Site on a one-call
system (used to locate underground utilities and identify any other alerts prior to digging) should
be explored for LTS.
Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance
The requirements for O&M are specified in the O&M Plan (ref. 65) and Quality Assurance
Project Plan (ref. 49). The O&M Plan, revised most recently in January 2020, describes the
extraction and treatment infrastructure, procedures for inspection of equipment, and
recordkeeping. The Quality Assurance Project Plan outlines the data quality objectives and
analytic and field procedures to ensure that data collected are suitable for their intended purpose.
IP continues to perform routine O&M activities such as quarterly (excepting winter) measuring
of groundwater levels, measuring surface water elevations, and collecting and analyzing
groundwater and surface water samples; monthly collecting and analyzing water samples from
the treatment system; periodic inspecting and dewatering the containment vault in OU2; and
monitoring and collecting floating product. Additional routine maintenance activities performed
include replacement of pumps and other well components, screen flushing, change out and
disposal of GAC. IP also recoated of the interior lining of the GAC unit A in July 2018. The
other GAC units will be relined as GAC change out occurs (ref. 43).
12
-------
OU1 and OU3 Extraction System Modifications
IP has performed several actions since the last FYR Report to replace, upgrade, or add
components to the existing groundwater remedy in OUland OU3. Well W2401R, installed in
October 2014 as a replacement well for W2401 due to W2401's decreasing groundwater
extraction rates, was brought online in March 2015 but shut down in October 2015 as a result of
oil entrainment in the pumped groundwater and related effluent limitation exceedances for two
dioxin congeners (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCCD) in samples collected at the Water
Treatment Plant. W2401R has remained offline, except for September and October 2016, during
pilot testing of an oil-water separation technology, while oil removal strategies are being
evaluated. In October 2019, EPA approved a bench-scale test to remove oil using a zeolite-based
organoclay as filtration medium (ref. 60).
IP constructed new forcemain piping to replace the existing forcemain piping for well W408 in
2015. Two additional forcemain pipes were stubbed in near W408 and ten additional forcemain
pipes were stubbed in near W406 for future use. In 2016, IP installed new forcemain piping to
replace the existing forcemain piping for wells W403R and W404.
In April 2019, EPA approved IP to cease pumping at W410 and to increase the target rate for
extraction well W404 because PCP concentrations in W410 samples had been less than the
GWCL of 1 microgram per liter (|ig/L) or non-detect, and because W410 discharge was
suspected of being a significant source of sediment to the influent tank and lead GAC vessel in
the Water Treatment Plant.
In April 2019, IP performed a pilot hole investigation to inform the design of an extraction well
(W412) at OU1 and the replacement of extraction wells W2402 and W2403 in OU3. IP installed
W412 and W2403R in September 2019, W2403R began pumping in October 2019, but
extraction well W412 was not connected to the forcemain/Water Treatment Plant until February
2020 due to high water levels and significant precipitation which has caused standing water in
the work area. As of March 2020, the electrical connections to W412 were not complete but were
anticipated in late spring 2020. W2402R was not completed due to lack of sufficient water
production upon setting the well screen and following initial development but is scheduled to be
replaced in 2020.
OU1 and OU3 Monitoring Well Installation
The following improvements to the monitoring well network have been made:
1. Nine monitoring wells were installed during 2015 in the upper sand aquifer at OU1 in
locations downgradient from extraction well line, W133, W134, W112M, W132M,
W133M, W134M, W232, W233, and W234.
2. Three groundwater monitoring wells were installed during 2018 in the Fox Creek river
valley as part of the investigations of OU9—W338, W338M, and W338D.
3. Eight monitoring wells were installed at OU3 during 2017 to monitor the runout plume,
W2141, W2143, W2141M, W2142M, W2143M, W2144M, W2241, and W2243.
13
-------
4. Offline extraction wells are being used as monitoring wells.
Treatment Process Evaluation
In July 2018, EPA requested IP evaluate methods of reducing dioxin/furan concentrations in
treatment plant effluent. IP prepared a Pilot Study Work Plan to evaluate the dioxin/furan
concentrations in filtered and unfiltered samples (ref. 50). IP withdrew that work plan in
December 2019, asserting that the groundwater treatment system remains the "Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable" as defined in the Clean Water Act section 304(b)(2) and
the effluent monitoring program demonstrates compliance with the effluent limitations (ref. 63).
Optimization Review
In 2018, EPA initiated an optimization review of the site as part of the National Strategy to
Expand Superfund Optimization Practices from Site Assessment to Site Completion
implemented by the EPA Office of Land and Emergency Management, Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation. The June 2019 Optimization Review (ref. 57)
identified several actions with the potential to increase performance and efficiency and/or reduce
the O&M costs of the existing remedy. Recommendations that have been implemented or are
underway include adding extraction well W412, increased pumping rates at key containment
wells, approving a revised monitoring plan, eliminating pumping at extraction well W410, and
performing bench-scale and pilot-scale tests of organoclay to remove oil from extraction well
W2401.
OU7 Interim Remedial Action
Since the initial remedial actions, IP has continued supplemental house cleaning of the occupied
residences on the site for which access has been granted. The schedule consists of 14 cleaning
events per year at each residence (twice per month from May 1 through October 31, and once
quarterly from November 1 through April 30). Laundering of rugs and wet wiping of hard
surfaces is performed quarterly, while carpet steam cleaning is performed in the spring and the
fall. Dry cleaning methods are performed during each cleaning event and include HEP A
vacuuming of carpets and floors, upholstered furniture, draperies and the like, and dry wiping
horizontal surfaces. As of May 2020, only one resident continues to participate in the
supplemental house cleaning program.
IP has also continued to apply dust suppressant to the gravel roads on and adjacent to the site as
required by the 2005 Interim ROD. Magnesium chloride is applied to the unpaved roads on an
as-needed basis during months that do not have frozen ground/snow cover.
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the last FYR as well
as the recommendations from the last FYR and the current status of those recommendations.
14
-------
Table 4: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2015 FYR
ou
#
Protectiveness
Determination
Protectiveness Statement
1
Short-term
Protective
The remedy at OU 1 currently protects human health and the environment
because there are no current pathways that could result in unacceptable
risks. However, in order to be protective in the long-term, the following
actions need to be taken: 1) eliminate the potential for contaminated
groundwater to discharge to surface water, 2) add/modify extraction points
to folly capture the contaminant plume, and 3) implement a final soil
remedy. Furthermore, long-term protectiveness at the Site requires the
additional following actions be taken: a decision document is needed to add
ICs as a component of the selected remedy; existing ICs need to be
evaluated; additional ICs may need to be implemented; long-term
stewardship procedures are needed; and an ICIAP needs to be developed to
ensure that effective ICs are implemented, monitored, maintained, and
enforced.
2
Not Protective
The remedy at OU2 is not protective of the environment because soils pose
unacceptable risks to terrestrial invertebrates; however, the remedy is
currently protective of human health. The following actions need to be
taken to ensure protectiveness: 1) select and implement a final soil remedy;
2) evaluate the extent of the contaminant plume in groundwater at OU2, and
3) implement measures to address the OU2 plume. Furthermore, long-term
protectiveness at the Site requires the additional following actions be taken:
a decision document is needed to add ICs as a component of the selected
remedy; existing ICs need to be evaluated; additional ICs may need to be
implemented; long-term stewardship procedures are needed; and an ICIAP
needs to be developed to ensure that effective ICs are implemented,
monitored, maintained, and enforced.
3
Short-term
Protective
The remedy at OU3 currently protects human health and the environment
because there are no current exposure pathways that could result in
Unacceptable risks. However, in order to be protective in the long term, the
following actions need to be taken: 1) add/modify extraction points to fully
capture the contaminant plume, and 2) implement a final soil remedy.
Furthermore, long-term protectiveness at the Site requires the additional
following actions be taken: a decision document is needed to add ICs as a
component of the selected remedy; existing ICs need to be evaluated;
additional ICs may need to be implemented; long-term stewardship
procedures are needed; and an ICIAP needs to be developed to ensure that
effective ICs are implemented, monitored, maintained, and enforced.
7
Short-term
Protective
The remedy at OU7 currently protects human health and the environment
because exposure to contaminated soil and house dust is controlled.
However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, a final
soil remedy needs to be implemented. Furthermore, long-term
protectiveness at the Site requires the additional following actions be taken:
a decision document is needed to add ICs as a component of the selected
remedy; existing ICs need to be evaluated; additional ICs may need to be
implemented; long-term stewardship procedures are needed; and an ICIAP
needs to be developed to ensure that effective ICs are implemented,
monitored, maintained and enforced
15
-------
Table 5: Status of Recommendations from the 2015 FYR
ou
#
Issue
Recommendations
Current
Status
Current
Implementation Status
Description
Completion
Date (if
applicable)
1
Effluent limits have
not been updated
since 2005.
Update the effluent
limits based on current
information.
Considered
But Not
Implemented
Basis for updating
effluent limits is
unclear. See below for
additional discussion.
1/1/2018
1
Treatment effluent
occasionally exceeds
effluent limits.
Evaluate O&M
treatment processes to
determine whether the
exceedances can be
reduced.
Considered
But Not
Implemented
IP withdrew work plan
to evaluate treatment
plant effectiveness
because the groundwater
treatment system
remains the "Best
Available Technology
Economically
Achievable" as defined
in the Clean Water Act
section 304(b)(2) and
the effluent monitoring
program demonstrates
compliance with the
effluent limitations.
12/27/2019
2
A groundwater
plume exists with
unknown long-term
potential for
exposure.
Further investigate the
potential for discharge
of the contaminant
plume to surface waters
and other exposure
pathways.
Addressed in
Next FYR
Several phases of
investigation of this
plume, now referred to
as OU9, have been
performed, and there are
no known discharges to
surface water. A
Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) to further
characterize the OU9
plume and the potential
for exposure is planned
to start in 2021, with a
ROD scheduled in 2024.
10/16/2019
2
There are current
ecological exposures
to contaminated soil.
Select and implement a
remedial action to
address contaminated
soils.
Ongoing
A ROD for OU2 soil is
planned for 2021
N/A
1 &
3
The groundwater
plumes are not fully
contained.
Identity and implement
additions and/or
modifications to the
extraction network to
improve hydraulic
capture.
Ongoing
Extraction wells W412
and 2401R to be brought
online in 2020 to
improve hydraulic
capture.
N/A
16
-------
ou
#
Issue
Recommendations
Current
Status
Current
Implementation Status
Description
Completion
Date (if
applicable)
1 &
3
Some of the current
target groundwater
cleanup standards are
not within EPA's
target risk range.
Update groundwater
cleanup levels to be
within EPA's target
risk range.
Completed
RALs were not updated
by a remedy
modification, but
effective cleanup levels
for evaluating remedial
progress were clarified
by memorandum to IP
(ref. 32).
12/20/2016
1,
2, 3
& 7
There are potential
future unacceptable
human health
exposures to
contaminated soil.
Select and/or
implement a remedial
action to address
contaminated soils.
Addressed in
Next FYR
A final ROD was
completed for OU7 on
4/2/2020. Future
decision documents are
planned for the
remaining OUs.
4/2/2020
1,
2, 3
& 7
The effectiveness,
including
enforceability, of
current institutional
controls to prevent
ingestion of
groundwater and
land disturbance has
not been adequately
evaluated and
documented. LTS
procedures have not
been documented.
Develop an ICIAP and
implement additional
ICs if needed, to ensure
that effective ICs are
implemented,
monitored, maintained,
and enforced.
Ongoing
EPA is reviewing a draft
ICIAP received in May
2020.
N/A
1,
2, 3
& 7
Lack of a decision
document requiring
ICs.
Complete a decision
document
incorporating ICs as a
component of the
selected remedy.
Addressed in
Next FYR
The final April 2020
ROD for OU7 includes
ICs (for the soil
consolidation area) as a
component of the
remedy. A ROD for
OU 1 and OU2 soil is
planned for 2021; a
ROD for OU3 soil is
planned for 2023.
N/A
With respect to the first issue, the March 1986 MEDD specified that the effluent discharge would
be limited pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The 1986 MEDD stated that the Clean Water Act
provisions for regulating the discharge of wastewaters is administered by MPCA's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program, under which the State establishes effluent
discharge limits based on 1) application of best available technology and 2) protection of water
quality by meeting State water quality standards (WQS). However, because the St. Regis site,
including its effluent discharge location, is within the Leech Lake Reservation, the State's WQS
apply not at the point of discharge in the channel, but at the boundary of the Leech Lake
Reservation, several miles away in the downstream direction. For this reason, State WQS are not
a useful basis for calculating numeric discharge limits. LLBO does not have federally approved
WQS at the writing of this report, so a basis for updating the 2005 effluent limits has not been
identified at this time.
17
-------
An additional recommendation not related to remedy protectiveness was included to improve
O&M efficiency in the 2015 FYR:
1. In addition, EPA recommends that IP shorten the time needed to replace nonfunctional
wells by preparing and reviewing plans to replace aging extraction wells in advance of
failure.
This recommendation was not implemented, but replacement of W2402 is underway. This FYR
Report includes the same finding, particularly with respect to W405 and W409.
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews
A public notice was made available by newspaper posting, in the Cass Lake Times and the
Bemidji Daily Pioneer on August 7, 2019, stating that there was a FYR and inviting the public to
submit any comments to EPA. EPA submitted the public notice to DeBahJiMon on
August 1, 2019 but did not receive a response, and the ad was not posted. No comments or
requests for an interview were received. The results of the review and the report will be made
available at the Site information repository located at Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Division of
Resource Management, 15756 State Highway 371 NW, Cass Lake, Minnesota; at Cass Lake
Public Library, 223 Cedar Street, Cass Lake, Minnesota; and the Cass Lake City Clerk, 332
Second Street NW, Cass Lake, Minnesota.
Data Review
EPA's data review included analytic data of COCs in groundwater and treatment plant effluent
samples. EPA also reviewed data pertaining to monitoring and dewatering of the on-site RCRA
containment unit, soils, and the O&M of the extraction system. These data are found in the
annual and quarterly reports submitted by IP (see Appendix A for references), and the effluent
and groundwater monitoring data are found in two spreadsheets files provided by IP (see
Appendix D).
OU1 and OU3 Groundwater
Routine Groundwater Monitoring Data
Section 3.3 of Appendix F provides detailed analysis of groundwater monitoring data, including
PCP and other COCs. As described in Section 3.3.4 of Appendix F, several locations, all within
the core area of the OU1 and OU3 plumes, exceed the GWCL for B(a)PE. Although there are no
statistical or visual/apparent exceedances of dioxin TEQ, this is likely due to less monitoring
data available for dioxin; based on the PCP concentrations in the core of the plume, exceedances
of the GWCL for dioxin are likely. There are no site contaminant exceedances in Lower Aquifer
samples. PCP is the predominant contaminant in groundwater plumes at the site, so PCP
concentrations are used as the primary indicators of plume delineation and cleanup progress.
Table 6 lists those groundwater monitoring locations with PCP concentrations greater than 1
|ig/L from 2015-2019, grouped by their location within, near the edge, or outside of the
18
-------
estimated hydraulic capture zone3. To compare concentrations over time, the highest
concentration reported between 1995 and 2014 is listed for each location as well as the most
recent concentration trend calculated as a time-rate-of-change, or slope, of the base 2 logarithm
of the concentration4. W338M is included in the table, but monitors the OU9 plume discussed in
the following section.
As described in Section 3.3.4 of Appendix F, there are no significant upward trends of PCP
concentrations in the last few years at locations where the concentration approaches or exceeds
the GWCL. The increasing trend seen for PCP at W220 in the 2015 FYR report has reversed in
the past five years. PCP at W2128, called out in the 2015 review, has decreased since 2015.
While PCP concentrations are decreasing, they persist above 1 |ig/L beyond the hydraulic
capture zones as well as within the core area of the plumes. The wells outside the estimated
hydraulic capture zones at OU1 and OU3 with PCP exceedances (shaded dark blue in Table 6)
provide data on the plumes running out to the east ("runout plumes"). Most of these wells are
recently-installed monitoring wells without historical data for comparison. At OU1, the highest
concentrations are in the mid-depth portion of the upper aquifer, while in OU3, monitoring data
show that the runout plume is located near the top of the upper sand aquifer, which is typically
overlain by organic matter in this area.
A visual comparison of recent monitoring data to data collected prior to implementation of the
groundwater remedy is provided by Figure 1 and Figure 2, which compare PCP concentrations in
the Surficial Aquifer (sometimes called the Upper Outwash Aquifer) in the early 1980s and
2018. In OU1, the overall size of the PCP plume, as defined by the 1 |ig/L contour, is largely
unchanged, with two exceptions: the northward bulge of the plume was either not known or did
not exist in earlier decades, and the downgradient edge of the OU1 plume is not delineated.
Concentrations within the plume are significantly less than they were prior to implementing the
remedial action. In the 1980s, most of the plume in OU1 exceeded 5,000 |ig/L and the central
portion exceeded 10,000 |ig/L, while in 2018, only the central portion continues to exceed 1,000
Hg/L-
In OU3, the up- and side-gradient PCP plume extent has been reduced as shown by similarity
between the 5 |ig/L contour line in the 1980s's and the 1 |ig/L contour line in 2018, although the
downgradient edge of the plume is not delineated (Figure 2). Concentrations within the plume
have significantly decreased: in the 1980s, a large portion of the plume exceeded 10,000 |ig/L
and most of the plume exceeded 500 |ig/L, while in 2018, the central portion of the plume
exceeds 100 |ig/L, and only one monitoring location, W2106, exceeded 5,000 |ig/L between
2014 and 2019.
In summary, groundwater data show downward trends in PCP concentrations over time at both
OU1 and OU3, and improvements in PCP plume size in OU3, but not OU1. However, both
plumes are not delineated at their leading edge and groundwater with PCP exceeding 1 |ig/L is
found outside the hydraulic capture zone.
3 See Figures 7, 8, 10 and 11 in the 2018 Annual Report, ref. 54.
4 12-Event Linear Regression Log2-Slopes; see Appendix F.
19
-------
Table 6: Groundwater Monitoring Locations with PCP concentrations greater than 1 |ig/L
between 2015 and 2019.
Area
Location
Highest concentration
between 1995 to 2014,
PCP Concentration range,
2015-2019 (or most
Concentration
trend5
Hg/L
recent), jig/L
W104
3,200 (May 2003)
35 to 200
negative
W105R
140 (Aug. 2007)
<2.1 to 36
negative
W118
47,000 (May 2012)
49,000 to 73,000
N/A6
W133
N/A
<0.071 to 12
N/A
W133M
N/A
710 to 1500
N/A
W218
110 (May 2005)
1.1 to 61
negative
W233
N/A
<0.071 to 8.1
N/A
W401
2200 (May 2005)
660 (June 2014)
N/A
OU1 within 2018
estimated HC zone
W402
2100 (Apr. 2001)
460 (August 2016)
negative
W402R
N/A
120 to 230
N/A
W403
820 (May 2005)
290 (August 2016)
negative
W403R
N/A
46 to 71
N/A
W404
2100 (May 2012)
1200 to 1500
N/A
W405
11,000 (May 2008)
420 to 2200
negative
W406
58 (June 1997)
<2.4 (May 2017)
negative
W408
2000 (June 1996)
88 to 310
negative
W409
5600 (May 2012)
4000 to 4800
positive
W410
110 (May 2008)
<0.071 to 0.93
negative
W411
350 (May 1999)
3.1 to 110
negative
OU1. edge of 2018
W112M
N/A
130 to 630
N/A
estimated HC zone
W212
2300 (June 1995)
1.6 to 15
negative
W132M
N/A
20 to 41
N/A
OU1 outside 2018
estimated HC zone
W134M
N/A
390 to 2200
N/A
W220
570 (June 1995)
0.56 to 17
negative
W232
N/A
10 to 31
N/A
W234
N/A
2.3 to 92
N/A
W2106
56,000 (Sept. 2006)
4,700 to 17,000
negative
OU3 within 2018
W2401
5700 (June 1997)
2500 (May 2012)
N/A
estimated HC zone
W2402
1400 (May 1999)
80 to 180
N/A
W2403
3500 (May 1999)
960 to 1,600
negative
OU3, edge of 2018
W2128
120 (June 1995)
0.46 to 5.7
negative
estimated HC zone
W2238
6.3 (May 2010)
1.5 to 5.1
negative
W2140
3,000 (May 2010)
<0.071 to 23
N/A
W2141
N/A
74 to 370
N/A
OU3 outside 2018
estimated HC zone
W2141M
N/A
16 to 98
N/A
W2143
N/A
8.8 to 69
N/A
W2143M
N/A
110 to 220
N/A
W2241
N/A
31 to 79
N/A
W2243
N/A
22 to 68
N/A
OU3 area/OU9
plume (Lower
outwash aquifer)
W338M
N/A
2.1 to 5.7
N/A
5 Most recent datum calculated as a 12-Event Linear Regression Log2-Slope; see Appendix F.
6 N/A: Not available due to too few data points for analysis.
20
-------
Figure 1: Comparison of PCP Distribution in the Upper Outwash/Surficial Aquifer in OU1,
oriaAiio. uu
11i'12-2018: 7 7 ugl
noa
S'12'2013: 0
5W2Q1B:
W1Q4
l'5/21'201€): 2C0 h ug>1
.'2D 13' 460DC
522-2015: 18
a'1S2018:2D
11/14-2D18: II
?U1 (—
vcie
521/2018:1.1 n ugil
WQ23
Sfi7ane:40oouyi
W1U
50&2D18: <0.071 ugl
wiaalit
7 April 1985 RI/FS Report, Figure 26 (ref. 1).
8 2018 Annual Report Figure 3 (ref. 54).
21
-------
~J&ShSr.
saB^fj®lfes
'ZiMW^d ¦.'!« ?%,* '¦ v:
u ;-¦¦¦;•. 2106V, \;¦ »;-
SK*""0 2;34
[itf< / 610
2104
i?,0Q0
V;2105
- 94.000
o.ooo
• 2120
1.800'
Figure 2: Comparison of PCP Distribution in the Upper/Surficial Aquifer in OU3, early 1980s9
and 201810
-CITY.pyMp. PIT
2133;
B0L'
2125
BOL. ^ 2'<
2335
. BDU,
2 1 3&
BDL
( ,B0L
\ \ " V'/T
A. .
k«Hbv- ,.an£: ,¦
s 2 12 9
BDL
8/13/2018: <0.071 ug/l
11/05/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
W2134
5/10/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
W2234
5/10/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
W2140
5/19/2018: 0.50jug/I
W2135
5/10/2018: <0.071 ug/l
W2403
5/22/2018: 960 ug/I
W2236
14/2018: 0.083 j ug/l
'13/2018: < 0.40 ug/l
5/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
W2237R
W21^
5/18/:
8/15/;
11/07
5/12/2018: <0.071 ug/l
W??39
5/12/2018: 0.072 j ug/l
W2238
5/19/2018: 1.7 ug/l
W2127
5/13/2018: 0.090 j ug/l
W2144
9 Junel986 Alternatives Assessment and Detailed Analysis Report: Contaminated Groundwater at City Dump Pit
Site, Figure 5 (ref. 4).
10 2018Annual Report, Figure 5 (ref. 54).
22
-------
Additional Groundwater and Porewater Investigations in 0U1
In August 2015, IP performed porewater sampling in the channel connecting Cass Lake and Pike
Bay (ref. 26). The sampling did not detect PCP in any porewater samples, and the investigation
concluded that PCP-impacted groundwater does not appear to be discharging to the channel.
An investigation performed on behalf of LLBO (ref. 48) showed that the OU1 PCP plume in the
Upper Outwash Aquifer extends east beyond the channel between Cass Lake and Pike Bay and
appears to attenuate approximately 300 feet east of the channel.
OU9/Fox Creek Valley Groundwater Quality and Porewater Investigation
IP began an investigation of soil and groundwater impacts in the Fox Creek Valley area in 2014
to delineate the impacts associated with the incompletely excavated former dump pits located
near the southwest corner of the OU2 containment unit. Field screening of soil core samples and
analysis of groundwater samples for PCP, naphthalene, and other analytes show that remnant oil
is present above a till unit at locations near the former pits, and dissolved PCP concentrations are
above the GWCL in the outwash of the upland area and the Fox Creek valley. PCP
concentrations above the GWCL extend east-southeast (roughly parallel to Fox Creek) from the
area of the former pits and have not yet been fully delineated (Figure 3). Based on the results of
the investigation, IP installed three of seven planned monitoring wells (W336M, W338M, and
W338D) in January-February 2018, but access has not yet been secured for the four additional
wells.
Also based on the groundwater investigation, IP began an investigation of porewater, shallow
groundwater, and surface water to evaluate whether groundwater containing PCP or naphthalene
is discharging to Fox Creek or the ground surface along the northern edge of Fox Creek Valley
south/southeast of the former disposal pits. Fox Creek surface water and porewater sampling
performed in May 2019 indicate that PCP was not detected in surface water, and that the vertical
concentration profiles of PCP and naphthalene in the wetland deposit groundwater in this area
are inverted; PCP concentrations are higher at 6-feet below the channel bottom and non-detect at
shallower depths, whereas naphthalene concentrations are highest in the shallow samples (from 2
feet below the channel bottom) and decrease with depth. Sampling of shallow wetland deposit
groundwater on the north bluff of the Fox Creek Valley has not yet been performed because
access has not yet been secured. Additional delineation of the OU9 plume and investigation of
potential impacts is expected in order to determine an appropriate response action for OU9.
23
-------
Aerial Extent of the OU9 PCP Plume in at the southern edge of OU2
£ Porewater Sample Locations
@ Water Table Sample Locations
© Groundwater Investigation Location (2014-2017)
© Soil Boring
® Existing Monitoring Well
® City-owned Well (STP-15)
_^ Pit Area
(dashed where inferred)
Cross Section Location
Groundwater Concentration Contours
PCP Concentration Contour (pg/L)
(dashed where inferred)
Naphthalene Concentration Contour
(dashed where inferred)
fou2"-vvj2a
OU2-WT2B'
[OJ2-WT4,
lOU2-WT71 2jJ
¦WMl
^OU2-WT5
OU2-WT5,
LpU2-WT10l
OU2-WT8
f0U2-VASIQy
fpU2Wri4l
OU2-WT9
!0U2WT11:
>J21VAS17«
OU2-PW1
[aj2*VAS,ia-
OU2-PW3
,OU2-P«A6,
fcj02^vv§j
H OU2-PVV9-
'
Treatment Plant Effectiveness and Effluent Quality
Extracted groundwater passes through three GAC vessels to remove contaminants prior to being
discharged through piping that conveys the effluent to the bottom of the channel that connects
Cass Lake and Pike Bay. The water is sampled for PCP on a monthly basis as untreated influent
and after passing through each GAC vessel. The amount of PCP removed at each step of the
treatment process is an indication of the effectiveness of that treatment step, and the degree to
which the capacity of the GAC in the vessel to remove contaminants is spent.
Table 7 shows PCP concentrations and percentage removed as measured in monthly sampling
during 2018, the most recent year reported in an annual report. Concentrations shown with a
"less than" sign indicate that PCP was not detected, and the detection level bounds the highest
possible concentration. The effectiveness of the first GAC vessel ranged from about 43% to
more than 99%. Five of 12 sample events showed measurable PCP in the water after the second
GAC vessel, and two sample events showed measurable concentrations after the third GAC
vessel. The effluent samples indicate that the effectiveness of the system at removing PCP was
consistently greater than 99.9% for 2018.
11 Modified from Figure 4 in Barr Engineering's March 2018 Technical Memorandum entitled Porewater and
Shallow Groundwater Investigation Report, Operable Unit 2 (ref. 36).
24
-------
Table 7: Effectiveness of GAC units at Removing PCP in 2018
PCP Concentrations and % PCP Removed
Influent
After 1st GAC
After 2nd GAC
After 3rd GAC
Date
vessel
vessel
vessel
Effluent)
jig/L
%
removed
Hg/L
%
removed
JLlg/L
%
removed
Hg/L
%
removed
1/10/2018
1100
0%
170
84.55%
<0.071
>99.99%
<0.071
>99.99%
2/7/2018
1200
0%
440
63.33%
0.1
99.99%
<0.071
>99.99%
3/7/2018
1100
0%
520
52.73%
0.77
99.93%
0.36
99.97%
4/4/2018
1100
0%
630
42.73%
0.14
99.99%
<0.071
>99.99%
5/8/2018
990
0%
540
45.45%
0.45
99.95%
0.44
99.96%
6/5/2018
1200
0%
710
40.83%
0.44
99.96%
<0.071
>99.99%
7/18/2018
1100
0%
1.2
99.89%
<0.071
>99.99%
<0.071
>99.99%
8/7/2018
1100
0%
2.0
99.82%
<0.071
>99.99%
<0.071
>99.99%
9/4/2018
1100
0%
71
93.55%
<0.071
>99.99%
<0.071
>99.99%
10/8/2018
1100
0%
120
89.09%
<0.071
>99.99%
<0.071
>99.99%
11/6/2018
1200
0%
330
72.50%
<0.071
>99.99%
<0.071
>99.99%
12/5/2018
1100
0%
440
60.00%
<0.071
>99.99%
<0.071
>99.99%
Contaminant concentrations in treatment plant effluent are limited by effluent limits
communicated by letter by EPA in 2005. Between 2014 and 2019, benzo(a)pyrene and several
dioxin/furan congeners were occasionally detected in concentrations greater than their respective
effluent limits, but concentrations of PCP and most PAHs were less than effluent limits. The
large numbers of dioxin/furan congener and benzo(a)pyrene analyses with detection limits above
the effluent limits indicate that there is uncertainty with respect to whether concentrations in
many samples were below the limits or not for these contaminants. Table 8 summarizes the
exceedances and detection level information from 2015 through 2019, and Appendix E presents
figures showing concentrations and effluent limits of the dioxin/furan congeners.
25
-------
Table 8: Contaminant Detections and Effluent Limit Exceedances in Treatment Plant Effluent, 2015 through October 2019
Congener/Chemical
Number
of
samples
Detections
Non-
detections
Effluent
Limit
Effluent
Limit
Exceedances
% of Samples
Identified as
Exceedances
DL above
Effluent
Limit
% of Samples
with DL >
Effluent
Limit
PCP
59
6
52
5.5 (ig/L
0
0%
0
0%
Acenaphthene
58
9
49
12 Ug/L
0
0%
0
0%
Anthracene
58
11
47
0.029 ng/L
0
0%
0
0%
Benzo(a)pyrene
58
10
48
0.00051
Hg/L
10
17%
48
83%
Fluoranthene
58
13
45
20 ug/L
0
0%
0
0%
Naphthalene
58
9
49
81 ug/L
0
0%
0
0%
Phenanthrene
58
8
50
2.1 US/L
0
0%
0
0%
2,3,7,8-TCDD
22
0
22
0.0038
PS/L12
0
0%
22
100%
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
22
2
20
0.0084 pg/L
2
9%
20
91%
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
22
4
18
0.1267 pg/L
4
18 %
17
77%
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
22
6
16
0.38 pg/L
6
27%
10
45%
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
22
4
18
0.38 pg/L
4
18 %
13
59%
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
22
8
13
7.6 pg/L
4
18 %
1
5%
OCDD
22
12
10
380 pg/L
3
14%
0
0%
2,3,7,8-TCDF
22
1
21
0.0475 pg/L
1
5 %
21
95%
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
22
1
21
0.38 pg/L
1
5 %
18
82%
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
22
3
19
0.00475
pg/L
3
14%
19
86%
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
22
6
16
0.475 pg/L
5
23 %
8
36%
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
22
4
18
0.19 pg/L
4
18 %
17
77%
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
22
4
18
0.0633 pg/L
4
18 %
18
82%
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
22
2
20
0.0543 pg/L
2
9%
20
91%
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
27
8
19
38 pg/L
0
0%
0
0%
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
22
5
17
0.95 pg/L
2
9%
6
27%
OCDF
22
10
12
190 pg/L
0
0%
0
0%
12 Picogram per liter.
-------
Extraction Network Performance
Figure 4 shows the sitewide rates of groundwater extraction since 2005, averaged by month, and
compares these values with the maximum effluent discharge rate established by EPA in 2005
(139 gallons per minute (gpm)). Extraction rates declined in 2014, mainly due to less pumping in
OU3, continuing the trend seen in the 2015 FYR report. The sitewide extraction rate was erratic
in much of 2015, with the oil entrainment in 2401R causing a further reduction in OU3 pumping.
OU1 rates stabilized in 2017 and have remained between about 70 and 80 gpm. OU3 rates, after
stabilizing in 2016 around 40 gpm, have again decreased to an average of 30.3 gpm in 2019.
Overall, while variable, the data show no systematic increase in pumping rate to address
incomplete capture.
Figure 4:
Monthly Average Sitewide Extraction Rates Compared to Maximum Discharge Rate,
and 2005 Groundwater Model Simulated Pumping Rate
160
140
120
t^.00
ou 80
Q.
LO
£
_o
"S 60
40
20
0
Jan-05 Jan-07 Jan-09 Jan-11 Jan-13 Jan-15 Jan-17 Jan-19
• Sitewide Monthly Total Average Flow Rate Maximum Effluent Rate
—OU1 monthly total average flow rate —*—0113 monthly total average flow rate
On-Site RCRA Containment Unit
Seven monitoring wells (W124-W130) are screened in the Upper Aquifer to monitor
groundwater quality at the perimeter of the RCRA containment unit, and three (W324, W329,
and W330) are screened in the Lower Aquifer. No exceedances of the PCP or B(a)PE GWCLs
were observed since 2015.
27
-------
The containment unit is inspected at least twice annually, and dewatered twice annually. Figure 5
shows leachate elevations with respect to sea level in the leachate detection manhole and
leachate collection manhole, along with the annual volume of leachate pumped from the
manholes. The annual volumes recovered have been consistent since about 2002, when annual
dewatering of the vault was instituted. Settlement markers have indicated no settlement of the
vault.
Figure 5: Leachate Elevations and Volume of Leachate Recovered from the On-Site
Containment Vault13
j 1316
1.200,003
0
1
£
a
60Q.DQQ $
4CO.CCO J?
Jan-87 Jan-89 Jan-91 Jan-93 Jan-95 Jan-97 Jarv99 Jan-01 Jan-G3 Jan-05 Jan-07 Jarv09 Jan-11 Jan-13 Jan-15 Jan-17 Jan-19
Figure 13
—1¦—LDM Leachate Head Elevations and Volume Removed
» • LDM invert Elevation (1987-2018)
OU2 - Containment Vault
St. Regis Paper Company Site
¦—LCM
• LCM invert Elevation
l— Annua Leachaievolime Recover
Site Inspection
The inspection of the Site was conducted on October 29, 2019. In attendance were Leslie
Patterson, EPA; Jason Ftelgeson, LLBO; Erin Endsley and Mark Elliott, MPCA; Tom
Richardson and Emily Lee, IP; Tom Mattison and Jim Eidem, Barr Engineering; and Jamie
Eidsmoe, DJ Enterprise of Cass Lake. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the
protectiveness of the remedy.
EPA observed the treatment plant, extraction and monitoring wells in OLJ1 and OU3, the
discharge location in the channel, the RCRA containment unit and surrounding area in OU2,
13 Modified from Figure 13 in the 2018 Annual Report (ref. 52).
28
-------
fenced areas in 0U1 and OU7, and roads and yards in OU7. EPA did not observe any indications
of equipment failure and found that fences were adequately maintained and secured. The Site
Inspection Checklist is in Appendix C.
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Question A Summary:
In most respects, yes. The extraction and treatment systems are generally operating as planned,
but containment of the contaminated groundwater plume is incomplete in both OU1 and OU3.
Steps to increase pumping to attain complete capture of the plume have been taken, but increased
pumping has not occurred to date due to long timeframes for installing and connecting new and
replacement extraction wells, and for implementing a reliable method for separating oil and
water at W2401R. Human exposure to contaminated groundwater is not occurring because there
is no current use of impacted groundwater in OU1 and OU3, and ICs effectively prohibit
potential future groundwater use in these areas. On-site containment of the soils and sludges in
the RCRA containment unit in OU2 continues to be effective. Performance of the interim
remedial action to address residential surface soil and house dust at OU7 is ongoing. However,
the actions taken to date to reduce potential threats to human health from contaminated soil in
OU1, OU2, OU3 and OU7 (excavation, placement in the on-site RCRA containment unit, off-
site disposal, covering with clean soil, gravel, and/or geotextile, and fencing) are not sufficient to
prevent future potential unacceptable risks to human health from direct contact to surface soil.
Remedial Action Performance
The groundwater extraction and treatment systems at OU1 and OU3 have not achieved full
plume migration control, which is exacerbated in OU3 by having certain extraction wells offline
for extended periods of time.
Treatment plant effluent largely meets effluent discharge limits, but there are repeated
exceedances of a few dioxin/furan congeners and of benzo(a)pyrene.
Although clear reductions in groundwater contaminants have been demonstrated over time, the
available data do not allow for calculating a precise timeframe for attaining the GWCLs. The
lack of a precise timeframe is not an indication that groundwater restoration is not technically
practicable.
IP continues to perform the interim remedial action to address residential surface soil and house
dust in accordance with the 2005 UAO. Until a final remedy is in place, the interim remedy will
continue to be needed to mitigate potential exposure to contaminated dust.
System Operations/O&M
The remedy requires a significant amount of maintenance and replacement of components of the
pump and treat system to maintain its performance, and will continue to be necessary as long as
extraction wells are operable at the site.
29
-------
Equipment failures and delayed corrective actions have had impacts on the functionality of the
extraction system. At OU3, W2401 has been offline since October 2013, and its replacement
remains offline until an acceptable method of separating entrained oil is demonstrated.
The annual O&M costs as estimated in the 1986 MEDDs and in recent years is shown in Table 9.
Annual O&M costs from 2014 to 2018 are significantly higher than earlier years and are
consistent with predicted O&M costs in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS),
when adjusted for inflation.
Table 9: Annual O&M Costs
Time Period
O&M Cosl
s
Year estimated or incurred
2019 dollars14
RI/FS prediction
$582,00015
$1,356,060
2009-2013 average
$618,800
$705,732
2014
$920,000
$1,002,800
2015
$1,160,000
$1,264,400
2016
$1,270,000
$1,346,200
2017
$1,370,000
$1,424,800
2018
$1,270,000
$1,295,400
Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures
Two removal actions are complete and an interim remedial action is being implemented, which
have addressed any potential current threats to human health from contaminated soil. Fencing is
in place and secured around the areas covered by soil during the removal actions to prevent
unauthorized access. The fencing surrounding OU2 and preventing access to the RCRA
containment unit is in good repair, securely locked, and appropriate signage is posted. Cass
Lake's ordinance prohibiting the construction of water wells has prevented drilling of any water
supply wells near the site.
While the April 2020 ROD addressing a final soil remedy for OU7 includes some ICs (for the
soil consolidation area) as part of the remedy, there are no decision documents that require ICs
for much of the Site, which raises questions about the enforceability of the ICs that are in place.
ICs are required to ensure long-term protectiveness, and it is unclear whether there are areas that
do not allow for UU/UE, such as the RCRA containment unit in OU2, that still need ICs
implemented. In addition, maps of areas that do not allow for UU/UE are needed and LTS
procedures should be clarified and documented.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial
action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Question B Summary:
14 http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
15 March 5, 1986 MEDD, Figure 11, year 6 and after (ref. 3).
30
-------
Yes. The exposure assumptions and toxicity data are valid. The 2016 update to the 1986 RALs,
while not establishing enforceable GWCLs for the site, provides an updated basis for evaluating
groundwater cleanup progress.
Changes in Standards and TBCs
Because there is no known current human exposure to the contaminated groundwater, the current
protectiveness of the remedy with respect to groundwater does not depend on cleanup levels.
Although the RALs identified in the 1986 MEDDs are the enforceable GWCLs, in 2016 EPA
identified updated GWCLs based on MCLs as appropriate for evaluating remedial progress.
Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics
The Preliminary Remediation Goals in the 2015 Final Supplemental Feasibility Study Report -
Soils incorporated EPA's February 17,2012 revised non-cancer dioxin reference dose.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methods
The HHERA was finalized in 2011, and the methods used to calculate potential health and
ecological risks are still considered appropriate.
Changes in Exposure Pathways
There are no changes in exposure pathways since the 2015 FYR. The potential for future
unacceptable risk to human health from contaminated surface soil has been addressed since 2006
by the interim remedial action conducted pursuant to the 2005 Interim ROD, and will be
permanently addressed by implementation of the final soil remedial action selected in the April
2020 ROD. Land use and expected future land use remains a mixture of commercial/industrial
and residential. No new groundwater supply wells have been drilled at the site that might lead to
exposure to contaminated groundwater.
In 2012, the former dump pits in the southwest corner of OU2 were discovered to be a source of
groundwater contamination. The extent of the PCP plume in this area is being investigated by a
series of phased vertical aquifer sampling investigations. While the HHERA found that risks to
ecological receptors from site-related contaminants in Fox Creek were low to absent, the extent
to which the groundwater discharges into Fox Creek has not yet been adequately investigated,
and the potential for additional exposures may need to be reassessed as part of the OU9/Fox
Creek Valley RI/FS.
Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs
After more than 30 years of operation it is evident that reaching the GWCLs (OU1 has
restoration goals in the MEDD, OU3 does not) will take much longer than originally anticipated
at OU1 per the MEDD. Any additional source removal or stabilization effort in OU1 or OU3
might remove/reduce source mass, however, that action would still not result in a significant
reduction in the time to meet cleanup goals because: 1) the percentage of source material
available for removal in a defined addressable area is not sufficiently high; 2) diffusive
contaminant mass transfer from permeable zones to low permeability zones has been ongoing for
31
-------
as much as 58 years, and even with complete removal of NAPL, this mass would diffuse back
out of the low permeability zones likely for a period of time much longer than that under which
forward diffusion occurred; and 3) where significant organic matter is present within the plume
footprint, contaminants have sorbed the organic matter over the history of the plume. This sorbed
mass will not desorb instantaneously but will require considerable time after the NAPL is
depleted.
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
Yes.
The remedies reviewed in this FYR are expected to have low to medium vulnerabilities related to
climate change impacts not apparent during remedy selection, remedy implementation or O&M.
If precipitation increases, the groundwater remedy would need to extract and treat additional
volume of groundwater. If average temperatures increase, the length of the season in which dust
suppression is needed may increase, and if precipitation decreases, the frequency of applying
dust suppressant may increase. To date, no changes to the remedy due to climate change have
been documented.
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issues/Recommendations
()l (s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in (ho l i\e-Ye:ir Rexiew:
None.
Issues :tnd Recommendations Identified in the l-'he-Year Rexicw:
OU(s): 1, 3
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: The groundwater plumes are not fully contained.
Recommendation: Identify and implement additions and/or modifications to the
extraction network to improve hydraulic capture
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
PRP
EPA
3/31/2021
32
-------
OU(s): 1, 2, and
3
Issue Category: Other
Soil remedy has not yet been selected.
Issue: A remedy has not been selected to address potential future unacceptable
human health exposures to contaminated soil.
Recommendation: Issue a remedy decision document to address contaminated
soils.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA
12/31/2024
OU(s): 1, 2, 3
and 7
Issue Category: Institutional Controls
Issue: The effectiveness, including enforceability, of current institutional controls
to prevent ingestion of groundwater and land disturbance has not been adequately
evaluated and documented. LTS procedures have not been documented.
Recommendation: Develop an ICIAP and implement additional ICs if needed, to
ensure that effective ICs are implemented, monitored, maintained, and enforced.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
PRP
EPA
6/30/2021
OU(s): 1, 2, and
3
Issue Category: Institutional Controls
Issue: Lack of a decision document requiring ICs.
Recommendation: Complete a decision document incorporating ICs as a
component of the selected remedy.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA
12/31/2024
OU(s): 2
Issue Category: Other
Soil remedy has not yet been selected.
Issue: There are current ecological exposures to contaminated soil.
Recommendation: Select and implement a remedial action to address
contaminated soils.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
Yes
Yes
EPA
EPA
9/30/2021
33
-------
OU(s): 3
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: W2401Rhas been inoperable since its installation due to oil-water
separation issues.
Recommendation: Implement appropriate method to remove oil from
groundwater extracted from W2401 and return W2401 to target extraction rate.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
PRP
EPA
6/30/2021
OTHER FINDINGS
In addition, the following are recommendations that were identified during the FYR and may
improve performance of the remedy, reduce costs, and improve management of O&M, but do
not affect current and/or future protectiveness.
1. EPA recommends that IP shorten the time needed to replace nonfunctional wells by
preparing and reviewing plans to replace aging extraction wells in advance of failure.
W405 and W409 are critical to groundwater capture at OU1, but are aging and
replacement has not yet been addressed. This recommendation is made to improve O&M
efficiency.
2. Field activities are routinely planned with a step-by-step approach incorporating a
number of small-scope projects, one predicated upon the other. The amount of time per
project (to scope, prepare, review, revise, approve, and execute a work plan; then to
prepare, review, revise, and approve documentation of the work) results in long timelines
to accomplish major goals. Adaptive planning with larger-scale work plans that include
phasing and decision points would facilitate a focus on the issues rather than process,
reduce time-to-action, and result in lower resource requirements.
34
-------
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
1 Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at OU1 currently protects human health and the environment because there are no
current pathways that could result in unacceptable risks. However, in order to be protective in
the long-term, the following actions need to be taken: 1) Identify and implement additions
and/or modifications to the extraction network to improve hydraulic capture, 2) Select and
implement a remedial action to address contaminated soils, 3) Develop an ICIAP and
implement additional ICs if needed, to ensure that effective ICs are implemented, monitored,
maintained, and enforced, and 4) Complete a decision document incorporating ICs as a
component of the selected remedy.
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
2 Not Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at OU2 is not protective of the environment because soils pose unacceptable risks
to terrestrial invertebrates; however, the remedy is currently protective of human health
because soils and sludges are effectively contained within the containment unit and fencing
prevents access to OU2. The following actions need to be taken to ensure protectiveness: 1)
Select and implement a remedial action to address contaminated soils, 2) Develop an ICIAP
and implement additional ICs if needed, to ensure that effective ICs are implemented,
monitored, maintained, and enforced, 3) Further investigate the potential for discharge of the
contaminant plume to surface waters and other exposure pathways, and 4) Complete a
decision document incorporating ICs as a component of the selected remedy.
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
3 Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at OU3 currently protects human health and the environment because there are no
current exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks. However, in order to be
protective in the long term, the following actions need to be taken: 1) Identify and implement
additions and/or modifications to the extraction network to improve hydraulic capture, 2)
Select and implement a remedial action to address contaminated soils, 3) Develop an ICIAP
and implement additional ICs if needed, to ensure that effective ICs are implemented,
monitored, maintained, and enforced, and 4) Complete a decision document incorporating ICs
as a component of the selected remedy, and 5) Complete the October 2019 EPA-approved
bench-scale test to remove oil using a zeolite-based organoclay as filtration medium to remove
oil from W2401, implement the process full-scale and return W2401R to target extraction rate.
35
-------
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
7 Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at OU7 currently protects human health and the environment because exposure to
contaminated soil and house dust is controlled. In addition, a final ROD was signed in April
2020 addressing contaminated soil. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the
long-term, the following action needs to be taken: Develop an ICIAP and implement
additional ICs if needed, to ensure that effective ICs are implemented, monitored, maintained,
and enforced.
VIII. NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR report for the St. Regis Paper Co. Superfund Site is required five years from the
completion date of this review.
36
-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCES AND DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Site documents are maintained in EPA's Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS).
Documents available on EPA's site webpage are at:
https://semspub.epa.gov/src/collection/05/SC30213. A request to add site documents not already
on the webcontent can be made by contacting Remedial Project Manager Leslie Patterson (312-
886-4904, patterson.leslie@epa.gov). the Region 5 Records Center Manager Todd Quesada
(312-886-4465, quesada. todd@epa. gov), or by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request.
Ref.
Date
Author/
Originator
Document
SEMS#
1
1985, April
Barr
Remedial Investigation/Alternatives Report
382059
2
1985, July
Barr
Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report, City Dump Pit Site
382061
3
1986,
March 5
MPCA
Minnesota Enforcement Decision Document, St. Regis Paper
Company
141766
4
1986, June
Barr
Alternatives Assessment and Detailed Analysis Report:
Contaminated Groundwater at City Dump Pit Site
415907
5
1986, July
29
MPCA
Minnesota Enforcement Decision Document, Former Cass Lake
City Dump Site
141777
6
1995,
January 24
EPA
Administrative Order Pursuant to Section 106 of the
Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as Amended
179646
7
2003,
December
17
EPA
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ON CONSENT (AOC) -
UNILATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (UAO)
(SIGNED)- V-W-04-C-771
204018
8
2004,
February 23
Peters, K.
A.
Letter Re: City of Cass Lake/Quit Claim Deed
271152
9
2005,
August 15
EPA
Letter regarding: Amendments to Operations and Maintenance
Plan for St. Regis Paper Company Superfund Site, Cass Lake,
Minnesota, submitted to Thomas Ross - International Paper.
415950
10
2005,
August 25
EPA
ADMINISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND ORDER ON
CONSENT FOR REMOVAL ACTION
264379
11
2005,
September
15
Barr
FINAL REPORT, UNILATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDER DOCKET NO. V-W-'04-C-771, Soil Removal Action
363293
12
2005,
October 14
EPA
INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION
237377
13
2005,
December 2
EPA
UNILATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (UAO)
(SIGNED) - INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION - V-W-05-C-833
243415
14
2006,
January 25
City of
Cass Lake
Zoning Ordinance No. 12282005
271153
15
2006, July
28
IP
Residential Dust Reduction Remedial Action Report
415864
16
2006,
September
RETEC
Group
Soil Removal Action Implementation Report
237774
17
2007,
November
10
IP
Completion of Voluntary Response Action at Cass Forest
Products
956925
18
2011,
January 11
Integral
HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
936769
19
2014,
August
Ban-
Follow-up Groundwater Quality Investigation Report, Operable
Unit 3
953104
A-l
-------
Ref.
Date
Author/
Originator
Document
SEMS#
20
2015,
January 16
Barr
OU2 Groundwater Quality Investigation - December 2014
Results and Proposed 2015 Investigation
942133
21
2015, April
23
Barr
1st Quarter 2015 Progress Report
948612
22
2015, May
26
Barr
2015 Monitoring Well Installation, Operable Unit 1
955538
23
2015, July
31
Barr
2nd Quarter 2015 Progress Report
948613
24
2015,
October 30
Barr
3rd Quarter 2015 Progress Report
948614
25
2016,
February 8
Barr
4th Quarter 2015 Progress Report
948615
26
2016,
March
Barr
Porewater Quality Investigation Report, Channel Connecting
Cass Lake and Pike Bay.
942178
27
2016, April
Barr
2014 Annual Report
948040
28
2016, April
29
Barr
1st Quarter 2016 Progress Report
948616
29
2016, July
29
Barr
2nd Quarter 2016 Progress Report
948617
30
2016,
November
Barr
Groundwater Investigation Report, Operable Unit 2
942137
31
2016,
November 2
Barr
3rd Quarter 2016 Progress Report
948618
32
2016,
December
20
EPA
Letter regarding: Updated Groundwater Cleanup Levels, St.
Regis Paper Company Superfund Site.
955545
33
2017,
January
Barr
2015 Annual Report
948041
34
2017,
January 18
Barr
Groundwater Flow Simulation Modeling, Groundwater Flow
Model Application Assessment
955539
35
2017,
January 31
Barr
4th Quarter 2016 Progress Report
948619
36
2017, May
1
Barr
1st Quarter 2017 Progress Report
948622
37
2017, July
31
Barr
2nd Quarter 2017 Progress Report
948623
38
2017,
October 26
Barr
MODFLOW Model Revision, LLBO Dry Zone Fix
955544
39
2017,
October 31
Barr
3rd Quarter 2017 Progress Report
948620
40
2017,
November
Barr
2016 Annual Report
948035
41
2018,
January 31
Barr
4th Quarter 2017 Progress Report
948621
42
2018,
March
Barr
Porewater and Shallow Groundwater Investigation Report,
Operable Unit 2
942145
43
2018, April
3
Barr
GAC Vessel Relining Plan
955633
44
2018, May
1
Barr
1st Quarter 2018 Progress Report
948753
45
2018, May
7
Ban-
Technical Memorandum: Groundwater Treatment System
Evaluation
955627
A-2
-------
Ref.
Date
Author/
Originator
Document
SEMS#
46
2018,
August
Barr
2017 Annual Report
948042
47
2018,
September
1
Barr
2nd Quarter 2018 Progress Report
948750
48
2018,
September
24
Braun
Intertec
Corporation
Groundwater Investigation Report: Wetland Area, East of St.
Regis Superfund Site, Operable Unit #1 (OU-1)
2002801
49
2018,
October
Barr
Quality Assurance Project Plan, Monitoring Activities Required
by the January 24, 1995 Unilateral Administrative Order on
Consent, Revision 3.0
955535
50
2018,
October 19
Barr
Pilot Study Work Plan - Water Treatment System
2002695
51
2018,
November 1
Barr
3rd Quarter 2018 Progress Report
948751
52
2018,
November
Barr
Groundwater Investigation Report, Operable Unit 2
944717
53
2019,
February 4
Barr
4th Quarter 2018 Progress Report
948752
54
2019,
March 18
Barr
Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Program: 2019-2024
955540
55
2019, April
4
Barr
Technical Memorandum, 2019 Extraction Well Design
Investigation Plan
955541
56
2019, April
30
Barr
1st Quarter 2019 Progress Report
953577
57
2019, June
21
EPA
OPTIMIZATION REVIEW: ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY
SUPERFUND SITE CASS LAKE, MINNESOTA
2002694
58
2019, July
31
Barr
2nd Quarter 2019 Progress Report
953578
59
2019,
October 16
Barr
2019 Fox Creek Porewater Investigation, Operable Unit 2 -
Interim Data Report
955542
60
2019,
October 18
Barr
Bench Scale Test Plan - Organoclay
955543
61
2019,
October 31
Barr
3rd Quarter 2019 Progress Report
953579
62
2019,
November
Ban-
2018 Annual Report
955537
63
2019.
December
30
IP
Response to EPA Comments on the St. Regis Pilot Study Work
Plan-Water Treatment System Technical Memorandum, October
19, 2018
2002696
64
2020,
January 27
Barr
4th Quarter 2019 Progress Report
953580
65
2020,
January
Barr
Operations and Maintenance Plan, Version 4
955536
66
2020, April
2
EPA
Record of Decision, Soil Remedy for OU7
955551
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY AND BACKGROUND
Site Chronology
Event
Date
St. Regis Paper Company operations begin
1958
Initial discovery of problem or contamination
1977
Final listing on the National Priorities List
9/1984
MPCA Response Orders by Consent
2/1984
Site operations cease
8/1985
MEDD for St. Regis Paper Company site
3/1986
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study complete
7/1986
MEDD for Former Cass Lake City Dump site
7/1986
MPCA approves Response Action Final Report for the treatment facility
12/5/1988
MPCA approves Response Action Final Report for the City Dump site
1/10/1989
UAO for Operations and Maintenance (V-W-'95-C-308)
1/1995
First FYR Report
3/1995
Second FYR Report
9/2000
UAO to IP for soil removal (V-W-'03-C-748)
7/24/2003
UAO to IP for soil removal (V-W-'04-C-771)
12/17/2003
UAO to conduct a HHERA (V-W-'04-C-796)
8/2004
AOC to BNSF for soil removal
8/5/2005
EPA approves completion of activities under UAO V-W-'03-C-748
10/13/2005
Third FYR Report
9/2005
Interim ROD for House Dust
10/2005
EPA approves completion of activities under UAO V-W-'04-C-771
10/13/2005
EPA issues UAO for Interim Remedial Action (V-W-'05-C-833)
12/2005
EPA issues AOC for FS to address surface soil (V-W-'08-C-912)
9/2008
Fourth FYR Report
9/2010
EPA approves the HHERA and completion of activities under V-W-'04-C-796
2/22/2011
Fifth FYR Report
7/2015
EPA issues a ROD to address OU7 (residential) soil
4/2020
Background
Physical Characteristics
The 163-acre St. Regis site is located on the south side of the City of Cass Lake, Minnesota, and
is wholly within the exterior boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. The northern
former operations area (OU1) near the BNSF railroad is a relatively flat low-lying open field.
B-l
-------
Approximately 20 acres of this area, containing the groundwater treatment facility, is still owned
by IP and is fenced. There are about nine occupied homes within several blocks of OU1.
The southwest former operations area (OU2) lies further to the south, and north of a steep grade
leading to a portion of the Fox Creek wetland. OU2 contains the fenced RCRA contaminated soil
containment vault, which is owned by IP. The southwest area also contains some contaminated
soil areas outside the fenced vault. The former Cass Lake Dump area (OU3) lies adjacent to the
Fox Creek wetland and just south of a hilly wooded area of the Chippewa National Forest.
The site lies on a northeast-southwest trending pitted outwash plain. Surface water bodies
include Pike Bay and Cass Lake to the east and northeast respectively, and a channel connecting
the two lakes and into which the treated groundwater is discharged. The Mississippi River flows
through Cass Lake and the river flow is regulated by a USDA-CNF dam (Knutson Dam) at the
lake outlet. Wetlands are located east of the site and south and east of OU3.
The site is located in an area of flat to gently rolling topography, with glacial moraines and
outwash plains and low-lying bogs and lakes. Sandy soils and gravel deposits are predominant in
the region. The total thickness of the unconsolidated glacial sediments is reported to be about
400 feet (Oakes and Bidwell 1968) overlying Pre-Cambrian aged crystalline granite, greenstone,
and schist bedrock.
Hydrology
Site hydrogeology consists of an upper and lower aquifer. The upper aquifer is unconfined and
recharges directly by precipitation infiltration. The surface of the saturated zone is located about
10 to 15 feet below ground surface. The dominant direction of groundwater flow in the upper
aquifer at the Operations Area is west to east toward the channel connecting Pike Bay to Cass
Lake. Groundwater flow in the upper aquifer at the dump is southeast toward Pike Bay and Fox
Creek. Groundwater flow direction in the lower aquifer is similar to the upper aquifer.
Land and Resource Use
The site is located on both occupied and vacant land. OU1 and OU3 are zoned for
commercial/light industrial use, OU7 is zoned for residential use, and OU2 is not zoned. BNSF,
IP, the City of Cass Lake, and Cass Forest Products are the major property owners in the site
area. Private residences had groundwater supply wells until the remedial action that extended
municipal water to homes in the 1980s. The City of Cass Lake has water supply wells 2500-400
feet west-northwest (up- and side-gradient) of the nearest site-related groundwater plume, which
draw from the lower aquifer.
The site is adjacent to Chippewa National Forest, wetlands, and large water bodies. Residents,
seasonal residents and tourists use area surface water bodies for recreation, especially swimming,
fishing and boating. City residents and LLBO members use lakes and areas near the site area for
fishing, hunting, and gathering of plants, including wild rice.
History of Contamination
The St. Regis Paper Company operated at the site from 1957 to August 1985 as a wood-treating
facility. The facility used creosote as a wood preservative from the beginning of operations, and
B-2
-------
added PCP, generally combined with No. 2 fuel oil as a carrier solvent, to the process around
1960. Soluble metal salts were used for a short period of time starting in 1969. Available
information indicates a second treatment cylinder was added in 1969 and used until 1972 for
treatment with ammoniacal copper arsenate (ACA).
The facility generated wastewater and discharged it to disposal ponds located adjacent to the
treating plant. Owner Champion, successor to the St. Regis Paper Company, made improvements
to the wastewater treatment system in 1974, adding a primary separating tank and skimming and
reusing to the process the oil that accumulated on top of the wastewater was skimmed and. Water
from the primary tank was pumped to a mixing station where a flocculating agent was added.
The mixture was then pumped to a second tank for settling. Water was pumped from this tank
through a sand filter and carried through the pipe to a sawdust filter located adjacent to Pond C.
Water from Pond C was used to spray-irrigate grass directly south of Pond C in 1977 and in the
Southwest Area in 1980. Pond C was also dredged on one occasion, and the dredged bottom
material was placed on the southeast and north sides of the pond. From about 1980 until the end
of operations at the site in 1985, process wastewater was disposed of in a drain within the
Chippewa National Forest that fed into Cass Lake sewage treatment plant located just north of
Fox Creek.
Use of Pond C was discontinued in mid-1980. The process was changed such that some
wastewater was evaporated. Specifically, wastewater was directed into metal pans adjacent to the
treatment plant, and excess steam from the boiler was run through the coils to heat and evaporate
the wastewater. The solids were then placed in drums and hauled to waste disposal facilities
outside of the state of Minnesota. The evaporation process continued in this fashion until the
facility's closure in 1985.
In approximately 1971, two underground tanks were placed in operation in the wastewater
disposal system for oil/sludge/water separation. In 1976, there were incidents of sludge disposal
in a pit in OU2. The quantity of sludge disposed in this area is not known. During active
operations at the wood-treatment facility (1957-1985), metal bands, concrete, scrap wood, and
miscellaneous other wastes from wood-treating operations were deposited in an on-site landfill
area, located north and east of Pond C. Sawdust from the sawdust filters was also periodically
deposited in the landfill area northwest of Pond C. Further, there were reports of disposal of
empty containers that once contained water-soluble, wood-preserving chemicals in this on-site
landfill area (MPCA 1995).
Two teepee burners were operated at the site to dispose of wood scrap. One of the burners was
situated south of Pond C; the other burner was located north and west of Pond C. Also, it was
noted in the previous FYR reports (MPCA 1995; EPA 2000) that a 3,000-gallon spill of creosote
in 1976 was recovered by absorption with sawdust. The sawdust was later reportedly burned in a
brush-burning project. No additional information has been located regarding this incident.
A wood-constructed conduit ran approximately 75 yards south of the railroad tracks from Pond
A to Ponds B and C. A test trench (TT-2) was dug in 1984 near an apparent manhole with no
bottom. Observations made during the test trench excavation noted a creosote-type odor, oily
water and black and purple stained sand extending to depths below the water table.
B-3
-------
Between 1957 and 1975, sludge from the wood-treating operations was transported to the City
Dump and periodically burned. Between 1957 and 1960, disposal from Pond A occurred almost
daily at an estimated rate of 500 gallons per day. After 1976, sludge from operations at the
facility was transported to waste disposal facilities outside the state. The dump was excavated in
1986 and the contaminated soil and sludge placed in the on-site containment vault. The dump
area is currently used by the City to compost yard wastes, dispose of woody vegetation, and store
City equipment. There are no known potential exposures from these activities.
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C - SITE INSPECTION FORM AND PHOTOGRAPHS
Site Inspection Checklist
>RMATJON
Pate of inspection
EPA II): MND057
Eli Oi teV > n'l v!> \ I \ l ivf
¦lew; Region 5 SFI>
xly Includes; (Check all that apply)
[.k.j mm i,.. \> v .¦ i < i i o i 11. n k. i i
Vs. J MMi'nl,
Institutional controls
f_.s jhi.J >k> i k i otmenl
3 fill <
her
j roirn d water conta in rti e)
<• i i,,.1 hut.i ti'-
Afta<
. hed
c-i
-------
ii. INTERVIEWS (Check all thai apply)
1. O&M site manager
Name Title Date
Intemewcd _dt shc i_'ai office . by phone Phone no.
! lobleri1-. surest)-"!?!1, ~ Report attached
2. O&M staff
Name Title Date
Interviewed: Cat site ~ at office Dby phone Phone no.
Problems, suggestions; ~Report attached
3. Local regulatory authorities and respuiue agencies (i.e.. State and Iribut offices, emergency response
office. police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc ) Till in all that apply.
Agenc\
Contact
Name Title Dale Phone no.
Problems.; suggestion;.. ~ Report attached
Agerny
Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggesuonb. _>Rcpo:t attached
Agency
Contact
Name jut.t Date Phone no,
Problems; suggestions _ Report attached
Agency
Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ~Report, attached
4. Other interviews, (optional; C Report attached.
2
C-2
-------
j
Site-Specific Health aiKl Safety Plan L?f Readih
L ' rh oi Hi cns l : > >> r Rr{. ' [
KcmarKS
3
Hi -'»b ^ 11 ^. ti I''*."."1* r i .cith v
KemarK!;
liable Bl Up
4.
Permits and Service Agreements
_i ' » In u>, > n % d I v ii .. i
T b.Mtu'jji oi ' 1) >1^ _ 'vuu''i j i „i
'\ .Mi- itl-Jn.s il \ >r <'ll.ll
~ Other permits QXeadily available
KCim-irKS
~ N/A
.
5,
Gas Generation Records ~ Readily available
Pen11 i .
~ Up to date
~ N/A
6.
:>l. iii> u< 'bu hi. ill fu'coi i] I R ,,jiS , „ 1 ol
Remarks 42s%*
7.
(U ii-ii ,!•( t'e fin11 >!><. F«; .iid» LJ Rt. ¦> 1 I' t. . 'U i
Remarks ifum*.•fra-J***
i date
~ N/A
8,
Leacbate Extraction Records ~ Readily available
Remarks
_ p to C'lt
3 N/A
9,
Discharge Compiisnci R. i o> J.-.
~ Air l_ flca>iil\ jvttWi'o "T'j-f,
[! \>. it- icllucini l~ [\.\k'ih Z > ,•
Remarks
date ~ N//
0 •!.•!•
10.
P.uti v. \ ocurity Logs J, f.ciu.l' ^j'L
-------
OA '.1 Organization
U *>taic ai-ltiniM"
! » FK" ill lnni<-c
I ! eucia! I acilit\ .n-hou-.c
u i • Thcr
IV. O&M COSTS
r_j t otitrac'oi loi Mate
•! { <>niT.ici>>i It.i CRT'
__i i. VutH mi Hi'eml • ai. H\
O& M < "tisf Rrcnrth
L t'eadih a\ai1aMe _ I 'p iu n-amai O.vM <
c-.tlin.rtr ' I «, 1 > ( f"Bi<-akiio"an attailifj
I uia! annual u.->; b> aar iui laueu pcuni it a> aiia'ilc
~ Breakdown attached
Date
Frorn_
From_
From
To
Date
To
Dale
To
na.r
i »ate
I ;afa
Date
Drift
£ o1..!
" f'".'1 vast
1 0«J Lwb!
[ utal !
~ Breakdown attached
~ Breakdown attached
~ Breakdown attached
~ Breakdown attached
i <-i SIf,usu;«II> (WM Cost-- Pstnus; Ren it-« Periiid
sv 1 it*. ..at- auti Ta.ison-
C-4
-------
> •- ' V. ACCESS AND !'NiSTITl'TIONA!iC'ONT5iOI S jVA
¦ f-i hc.n i
t \*h ""<> JLumlka! _ I >„an j mi >«u nar S's< .v-m.' } \ A
| Kutru'k^ » hj7 s., ! x » . '« .-»t ^ ,J i^v «» /. . • i H , ». .. . * .sv% .
1" - Mhu \4»*\-s Uestt tiions
^ S s»r*»tiuk vevMin^ mcaum'* 1 I ac.t-i o-i sf.c ¦» r „ n - > t Pip ~ N/A
ifcir',U » <. V ^ ^4 \ * * ^ 6 S *> t - .... _____ ——
i 0
I
<~\ f ^tmitioiut <\mtroh % iC\>
1. lmole^er?mi a -Jdic L1 x cs n No P N/A
-\vpj1i*- ok v. '»".l! i > l*1 it-dJ dgen^v Z Yes !Z No Lj3?N/A
V"1"' ru.it im.u t n<. v , decision documents have been met l'_ s v* \u n -N A
\ Ti !af 1 ^ ,t'v . hoc.1 f' OTui J > S s "No D ,N A
1 1 i ,n >N tn «. u. li uir-, U Report r.echtJ
2. \aecmu> Z) lCs are adequate ~ ICs are inadequate LIN'\
IX Gen or mi
L \ 3,)a«J^rT^ii^swar«rtg L1 > op sk ni s'tc* ra- Z >jo sais^i1 evident
KciikUs \ , , i " Z » *h , ;•> *. <*v _ : i -
z. L'jhI'h jLr»fss. i>R Mti1 . \ \
^ 1 "Wi/lV ¦
j "•> f irtl k-vv ch u*ues t'll -i*t' 1 \ \
| •» -ir^f'vs , \ j
5
C-5
-------
VL GFNHaA.L M IT IOADI {'!{.\>
A. Koad* Lf \po:u4bIc D\
R'?3iK
Kv Hn \>
-.v.vuon lK>\ui <3 Rous ^leuj.ito-
B. t)"hrrS?tc t,mn'm«".ns
VII. LANDFIU COVERS ST A>inHtafL' C N'>
\. I Sil.ir.il Syrtaci
1 ,Vttit'rr! extern^
Ut.nx-k-
~ Location she
:V|; 1
'11 -1 . I ,Jt> -N Ho t'b I
5. Vcsi iat-tf C;.vrr S'. ui
RcCTlkj,
,-1 n> . <\ f,',i i'ijIv l1
6. \lrei n-itru ,i\ er iyriiwit! rock. i
R.v ra I
Rui^
Vc.11 v^-.ri'
Rcri>a, Is
own 01 -ur* n.-.p 1c ^ti.Ts - )t jri
C-6
-------
1 IS. W»( .ki.'i1 -vrDamage
STWet areas/water damage not evident
1- s
! -\,i' . >i io.\r ,in M,f , ,(i \t , . >riti
I sh I l I 'u ,'u' hit '"1.1 -• .
si on it'5 ^ 1 T
Z. b iburade
s,!Uli,i ' [ i' T ' v ! trXKr!
9, SIi>pe instab(h!y i !
Locvion shu'A.is,it.| ti V deuce iH i-> una' \ i" ii teu pw,n
>>t crtli Vi.x.j .« 'Os., .c .lu,^ *c insen r4 t« .k.^ '.r
'>nJei .a vl Iii.m, hi' ~ vii it\
f M'l ijti. It "O*! . > til ' 1 111 ,fl (U 1 liri L ' " , 1. •
I. Flows Bypass Brack
v\ . ii s'u% i oi1 "crn.n' Z \ or< «,,<>
Remarks
_
2, i.hku Bn relied
irot'nr • Ik iv>u>, 1 i'.f *i;jf I- \ \ i'l n
Xiiirrs^
- - ~ —
3, Bench Overtopped
i — ' >)," ill.it *Mv. inn ^trc n\,p "Z in' i nrtki\
Kem.nks
- — - -
C. Let'Ju»ntilth [1 vp|-''>ar'e
iX; N.'A
.( nr o!it; i-ntV \\ uujt i, ijn
; J iivts nf'.; umif.-i:- or ;• i'i> i es^eo.l om>,n tfie -.ittn .i.ic
*• i'^ic ui the Jul \i t',
rl<; rjtit'U -sa'wt u-liwi. J b, the b- Hi -*» v n«" e i t| oi th kiihl'M i • \c>
uiii* )ui ecran^ jhm.« ^ i.lie-
1, Sctf'i-intns i 1 <
¦ ..TttV '•hoi'ii i '¦ >i>.- ira" G ,\i e-. Vnec <>' '-.'ttenieit
Aic\i tsU-u
be'Dth
KlTJr-
2. Material D^gtactaron 33 ' c
uii u! siii.wn en ~..k r,j> 1 N n M^t> ic 'Mem
Ht i/iatv
. —
3. I- rtisMtn U I ¦
<_ii ¦»> sh*n> t ors «!(e naji \"11 > uMi e ul
Afta! CXlt-i11
Depth
R^nicirks
4. lirifr nvrtipg ~ i
-atKHi liunn on site map C No evii<. pki •»! i h Hi.i i. i,g
V ; I t-x .i>'
kenu-'k^
j
7 ¦
C-7
-------
5. * t 1 'v , , -x o. s
! Ka'i ii A * i
Reinji ks
6. Fv:i \ i f t*j k. (^vk^wi11
~Z LWOlt Ol ' i^. tfv. ^ I.^IVP "J" .,sMj K .',U( T7 N ^
Remarks.
2. l.as Frai-ts
_ f ¦vci Mie«' 'otkvC _ H-'kium L '*v v .n li i'v ~ uuO(' ^ ij 'km
r ! MJi'C:vi >e lSw-j-f »U ^U-.iOt * r-c\ 'r >r^ "Tv ~ "N \
Remarks
3. "^opi onn** *»Wh* *»'nhi."* mat-^je'in „i!iir 1
1 Mooei \ «.lc j^(j ' vLi^u " i -n»vi«ui«i ^ R »• und ^Ttr.ic^ ~ Good condition
_J 1 * idvTC^ 0"1 .»A~-i' Ji {.vLk! mOI _ N'*. vU Ma_. ....-Jl, i€2 M N/A
Remarks
4, T *;« 'iJTf f\ir^a°<.4 V>tHs
proptrh ^0- *ab>CM.ii v2 Fl^M ^1 ~ K iu, r \ sa ^ ej 5 Oc\V w i i!n 11
_ r\ .tfctKC o ~u i,c a, r eneirJ-^r J K vJs^i^rtuk^u UNA
VU iiviiks
5.. Seft!erru-»C Monuments ~ 1 , cit*. 1 V '«>»,r n ; ;> inrc\;\i UNA
Remarks
1, Cas CoUfClk-n , »a 7?z.jiuz-\ C \ppiiojbIt iX. \ '.
1. Ufi$ Fv*ois!fies
_ Hc7!p>t ~ 1 n i » t) ii ~ h u f i reuse
_ u.Kk ,0si His i Jx Js\ irt' n *
i\c; sldl kS
1. (jfth L£ Hf cfMH Vi '''aii-l r I'-.iP.iriT??
EL s ih.o «ri >ii II . V irieii.vie
rtert> iA-
8 •
C-8
-------
% j o Muaih't »«<„ « *«. nr t „ s 7 vi, \\ , s__ t, i ] ,l i * i » i v •> vi rigs)
_ Um comlti" a ,1 ^ - s' i 's. 'u, L \
KeniarKS
'*• (<>\* r flra'nj^e 1 ,>w»* \;p<\ n' f ic:v*»mj > ; . U h
RemarKs
2. Oi*t!ef Rock 'nspfcted ~ Functioning
C. OwvSedimi'italt »u Poods i X^n'tcnMe x
L ^»Uati*»i. "* teo ,\kMi Depth ~ N;A
* ut - \
K.'n rko
2. L r< \HCie\teif Depth
~~ I i *sjn i o. ruJen'
Kcnidf ks
3. O^JttW^iks '~ s mciionii i ~~ Ki \
K< '1u \-
4. Dam O Functioning
KvPkii'ks
H Kv faming kills ~] ^rtpUui1 N A
iR-i-iri£j^tK>r.^ fj » uio' » "! - *"M* J! 1 )eft>rrrurkn noi
" i. nj\ d^ruu^aem .ni u ; la ^mem
Kouj.ssiJ «wspldt ?ntenx
'ieinnks
I 1-1 KkJs. «11 Ml 1, r.Ot"CvLkTK
1. PCMM'CKT T^ucht'S tVff-SitC Diwhar^ \ K \
I StU^ei; Z_ Loation -i»»>i* iri kd ,cd- _j nJui or i o« evi.'ent
lira. e% en: IV 1i
UwlM.o
9
C-9
-------
2, yco<»ntjv v v_»*V">v U. _ l.n.M 'n.rdv'ionv,;,',)' • \ \
"L * cl'J , urn »kvs rot iMpeue
Rh« !uik"
3. F rc>i<» L i ii -xn s|iv-,*n *>ii V.' ip »' Mir -1 A \ [,]t n
u. J < \:cnL J >eolH
4. D^schanjfe Structure ~ f -xfuUMt u N/A
Kcn?:-t." Jo
:
[ .. . VIII. VF!tni*"-\f l:\KRfF.RWAlL.N /wlu-.b't' © \ .. ' j
Stt£»*'rot-t«fe l.." « o^-;t\>i: on sue map ' »V"u^x"vu"i"'i i«">! e\iucpi
v--i! c\^i't
Kemai ks
2. Pe» f'"1* mar^tc ^ K ju»« r '»o f .->< >f iTMii'iVmo
_ °Lt''ViT> aiut i oi n .i*<' u
\ilK K\ r F (e of bi i; 1 1
rt a*.. d- tv c uui
JVmA*-
IX. CRQl^m^'MEK^tH^^CLW'AlVMHhh^VlVS ~~ Vjt ah ^ C M \
A.. 1''co^dv-ac^r £\tnicli^r'^VeiLv Piar ,m-J Piptimes X \j>pU /mC ' ! *c \ ;
Pisf^w, Wellhead ViH*rt! n*n, a,ui *" L^err Jeal
X' Cnvd condition L \>i* .cjirci ^e'K pro >fskxtr MuuvC l.-sc: , 1 \A
Remain c'-xl >, ..~ ^
2 EVrvnthm §\%l£m Pipelines \ antv \ ahe Fk\o«. .mJ O.^c* Anpun mwccs
*^}i c c-.mcJitiufi L_ i>nc"k ' fa'P-ei ar^c
•^tru'Ds*
3. vpjr^ Pan- r*nd * q, }pmt>nt
M^rJ')» ' ai'dh., [1 Wn-.d condition ~ Requires upgrade ~ Heeds to be pro\ ided
K ^murk^.
B. Surface ^ ?ttr* i ub.awn ctf u/,«n s, r »*nn»s S'mt u^», T Yn!X| N/A.
1. ColJecuMi; u^re-. <"i ?r Hl\ ,-^a1
~D f unV vnnJi1u»r I ^o *, d^2icr.mc.
Kc \
-------
r tatv ' Yaier I V«-»-o».p >' ,» i m% .s ' » %«• Boms, aiwS Other Appurtenances
' { I ll'Hll.liin \ , f t I ^
fu
>¦ I' i« *.s ?nd FijiiifsineiK
Ki-3iV\ ph A
]. I rctttraeat " i.«o (Check eon c vc us ,'u ,ipp • t
1! Mv-ial> icni.mil " «n ».n' > ,u> uion ~ Bioreniediation
! 'i ,fA f^cis
! : I':(iters
tO'TlV v J,jh*a J > _"t iuVi-J-'r*'
v iionu !i - N> r>ti, vKnn 'i.uce
> Si sir "oi - tnor>* \ t>' him.''.in.1
i h 1'iirhrsi iiu'inie i! iu*> "l , i pi u ¦ p t a >,
' r,i ipitvm pt.-paK ck' tiii.d
t>.i,.-rm ,-l •jic i"- i'eu <'ll\
S (,< ' i m* ttsictfn.t tre ic<^ I
Fkx> itji i nckf>me* ant.'Pi«»el> piumH u uk£
Ri. ni,1 ks
I V duits. Stui aae Vessel",
Z~ N ' ^ Inn ; u>r<« tut ~ Proper secondary eontatrre-r* C \«ds Maintenance
Divch«>mc SiNiftan snd ttiiKices
^ \ v _ (.IDOL tiilid'noi1 T Ner J,\i„,'i ,la"tC
5. I re 6b>idin)!,v>
¦ways) ~ Needs repair
~1 • hv ii i J« iik tq- ipu'cnr r>roi r _ nici
6. !>">•! \rt»i!int WciK > cu.i p . no *a,t ¦' • H h nei ^ 1
>»ie \ i If r imi „i i .ij T % sampled — ».> k> u idition
~ \i -eq i cr«vl\iuJtJ -I N.>v,M i i N
Remarks
!>. ""Iinirforina Data
11
C-ll
-------
i_ pi cd w _. n 1'iini. _ Nounr.cl*> •¦•r ~lt\; _J t itv" - ^uli.tur
~ \JI reqinr.'d veli= IocjtCv l_ Xcra^ M,i,ri;eMiAe ~ N /
Remarks
j > OTHER REMEDIES
••-leic-.'re'jineJ e\ ,4x1.0'.¦ -i-" • - '•"'.ra'V i.
1 id.'in- j.ki v.-PTTi.-n ¦ i T-, taL.i'r. • -. . ;o IV i .• ¦ „¦ I >, c\. .^cie K- -o;
| extraction.
[ VI C VFK ALL < >B!-KKVA r?OMJ>"
1 A. '4 {lie f' alrti
[tet.nK jr 1 t^r.wi m,s ,r*i nut, > 'i„,net *Ik lis^-N i *1 > i *i ,1 , «i,' j.„ ac.iei-ii.
i" i1 \.l't - IT t.*". |0> I .Kiltil' , I ,lti >¦ to t i'l'M t-.
r i a" e ,'l i.T.lKM J1 t L.^ l,' f
B Adc^u^v ofO&M
TV1!!, "tic hsiic1. " i.K'r".." >, it d- 'inlrnik rifi , i> i »<< ui t'WVicro nvi ¦; *i
l.'.irt'CUi- u- i".-. ut v i i\S«] > ' t„ l j in 111 0 ^ly-kiv t> 'U. - t ri„ rt PecK
— I "J(-* a ,ivj • "i >' „ _i— _L'J
S'arh indicator*, uf f\>(er>iiU Prfintemv
12
C-12
-------
Deserve iss
I ( t , !L\ >!
the future.
1 ii 1 s.\ T- 1 •
s m _»_^r tr. \* lfi
cope oi
i izf> \
or * >p:uui'«tw/
iW'.ru >u-kx„ k >i\vi4uiki«-». lo jV i i u ¦ if iio>HK/r nj. isiis or the operation of the remedy
w th 1 fu.ie " 1 Zw { v ?pu ni j i n -\_|u n
C-13
-------
Photographs:
Photograph 3: OUl treatment plant sampling
port
Photograph 2: OUl treatment plant piping
Photograph I: OUl treatment plant extraction
well manifold
Photograph 4: OUl treatment plant, pipe
immediately upstream from discharge pipe
C-14
-------
Photograph 5: OU1 treatment plant roll-off
box bay
Photograph 6: OU1 treatment plant signage
Photograph 7: OUl treatment plant, gate and
fencing
Photograph 8: OUl treatment plant fencing
C-15
-------
Photograph 9: OU1 treatment plant fencing
Photograph 10: OU1, view of S405.
Photograph 11: OU1, view facing north,
extraction well line
Photograph 12: OU1, view facing north,
extraction well line
Photograph 13: QUI, path of recently-
installed forcemain
Photograph 14: OU1, area where forcemain
terminates
C-16
-------
Photograph 15: OU1, flooding around W412 Photograph 16: OU1, flooding east of
extraction wells W408/W412
Photograph 17: OU1, approximate location of Photograph 18: OU1, near 1st St SW and
outfall in the channel between Cass Lake and Highway 371, fencing on BNSF property
Pike Bay around area addressed by removal action,
view facing north-east
C-17
-------
Photograph 19: OU1, near 1st St SW and
Highway 371, fencing on BNSF property
around area addressed by removal action,
view facing west
Photograph 20: OU1, OU1, near 1st St. SW
and Grant-Utley, fencing on BNSF property
around area addressed by removal action
view facing northeast
Photograph 21: QUI, between 1st and 2nd St.
SW at Grant-Utley, fencing around area
addressed by removal action
Photograph 22: OU1, near 1st St. SW and
Maple/Norway, fencing on BNSF property
around area addressed by removal action
C-18
-------
Photograph 23: OU2, leachate collection
manholes on the containment unit
Photograph 25: OU2, view to the NW from
the containment unit
Photograph 24: OIJ2, view to the SE from the
containment unit
Photograph 26: OU2, view to the SW corner
from the containment unit
C-19
-------
r
Photograph 27: OU2, inside shed
Photograph 28: OU2 fencing and signage
Photograph 29: OU3, W2401R
Photograph 30: OU3, view facing east from
W2238
C-20
-------
C-21
-------
APPENDIX D - Effluent and Groundwater Monitoring Data
[See attached electronic data tables.]
D-l
-------
APPENDIX E - Effluent concentrations and limits, 2006 to 2019
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
tLO
Q.
C
o
c
(D
10
1
0.1
0.01
c
(3 o.ooi
CqOOT) O o
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
Date
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 0.0038 pg/l
tLO
Q.
C
o
(O
10
1
0.1
§ 0.01
£
o
u 0.001
o
SbCfo
U
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
. t Date
• detections
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 0.0084 pg/l
tLO
Q.
C
o
c
(D
c
o
u
10
1
0.1
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
° 0 Po,C?cd <^>OCb0Ooc5>
Q H Op
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
Date
• detections
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 0.1267 pg/l
10
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
ao
Q.
c
o
£
CD
o 0.1
O
n o
o°o°«l
O QD 0
">O 0° <*0„ Oq
°d3
o
o
U
o o
—e
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
Date
• detections
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 0.38 pg/l
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
ao
o. 3
c
¦S 2
CD
£ 1
(D
O
§ 0
u
o
•
° jm o
o °
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
Date
• detections
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 0.38 pg/l
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
ocy o
o Oo
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
Date
• detections
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 7.6 pg/l
E-l
-------
OCDD
£
CD
U
£
O
u
1000
100
10
* Q. •
—• * J
o
° ® O
fS
o
O °«*
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
Date
• detections
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 380 pg/l
2,3,7,8-TCDF
ao
Q.
10
1
0.1
0.01
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
Date
• detections
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 0.0475 pg/l
oQp oo o.
oo>poc
o
* 2W:
C
»(100
10
ao
Q.
£
O
£
CD
o
c
o
u
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
o
cP °°>
• O
O
° O
QD
D °.°0
qO ° J
© O o
^tjjpoon
0.1
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
Date
• detections
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 0.38 pg/l
Ctf)
Q.
C
(D
u
£
O
u
10
1
0.1
0.01
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
0.001
~°&QP
_ Pod*
Cb^oC
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
Date
• detections
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 0.00475 pg/l
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HxCDF
10
ao
Q.
£
O
'¦s 1
ru
i—
4—1
c
(D
O
(3 0.1
o
o
o
•
OO o
o o
® °f 0
•
3oV>
o
o
^) ° O
° o
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
Date
• detections
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 0.95 pg/l
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
10
ao
Q.
4= 1
_QD_
OO
" (p o
o o ^
°o° %
txt
° o
° °o°
O OO
o
0.1
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
Date
• detections
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 0.475 pg/l
E-2
-------
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
10
Ctf)
Q.
C
o
c
(D
O
c
o
u
n
°°v
o n o
•
o
oo °c
°«*$a
o o o"
° r, #
D do ° j
JO
oc
u o
0.1
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
• detections Date
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 0.19 pg/l
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
10
tLO
Q.
C
o
S o.i
u
c
o
u
0.01
o n
cPo
(9 o®°o
*
o
°fi
o q,c
°o"o
Qd
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
• detections Date
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 0.0633 pg/l
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
tLO
Q.
C
o
c
(D
u
£
O
u
10
1
0.1
0.01
o ~
a °° °00
o
ono«
o 9jC
?J°oo%
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
• detections
Date
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 0.0543 pg/l
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF
100
ao
^ 10
C
o
"to 1
i—
-t—1
§ 0.1
C
o
u
0.01
•
o o
~ O
° <5* o d?1
fco °° a
o
o
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
• detections Date
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 38 pg/l
1000
OCDF
tLO
Q.
C
o
c
(D
O
c
o
u
•
o
o
o •
<§>
• o o ¦
»o cP •
o
o
o
Oo
100
10
0.1
1/1/2006 1/1/2011 1/1/2016
• detections ^ate
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 190 pg/l
=L
c
o
c
(D
u
c
o
u
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Benzo(a)pyrene
1/1/1995 12/31/2004 1/1/2015
• detections Date
O nondetections
Effluent limit, 0.00051 ug/l
E-3
-------
APPENDIX F -Five Year Groundwater Review Technical Memorandum, prepared
on behalf of EPA by Subterranean Research, Inc.
F-l
-------
Em
Subterranean Research, Inc.
Technical Memo
Five Year Groundwater Review
St. Regis Superfund Site
Cass Lake, Minnesota
EPA ID: MND057597940
Prepared for
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
VERSION 1.0
20 April 2020
-------
LIST OF TABLES 3
LIST OF FIGURES 3
LIST OF APPENDICES 4
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS 5
1. PREFACE 7
2. REVIEW OF RECENT ACTIVITIES 7
3. EVALUATION OF CONDITIONS 8
3.1. Conceptual Site Model 10
3.2. Hydraulic Capture 10
3.2.1. Target Zones 11
3.2.2. Pumping Rates and Extraction Wells 12
3.2.2.1. Overview 12
3.2.2.2. Total and OU Annualized Rates 13
3.2.2.3. OU1 Annualized Rates 13
3.2.2.4. OU3 Annualized Rates 14
3.2.2.5. Spatial Distribution of Pumping at OU1 and OU3 14
3.2.3. Estimated Hydraulic Capture Zones 15
3.2.3.1. OU1 15
3.2.3.2. OU3 16
3.2.3.3. OU9 (Southwest Disposal Pit/0112) 16
3.3. Monitoring Well and Effluent Water Quality 17
3.3.1. Recent Monitoring Network Improvements 17
3.3.2. Water Quality Data Used in This Review 17
3.3.3. Groundwater Monitoring Data Compared to GWCGs 19
3.3.3.1. Bootstrap confidence intervals compared to GWCGs 19
3.3.3.2. Graphical examination and parametric confidence intervals compared to GWCGs 20
3.3.4. Groundwater Monitoring Data Temporal Trends 22
3.3.5. Effluent Monitoring Data Relative to Effluent Limits 23
4. OTHER TOPICS 24
4.1. Extraction Well System Reliability 24
4.2. Extraction Well and Water Treatment Plant Optimization 25
4.2.1. Extraction Well System Optimization 25
4.2.2. Water Treatment Plant Optimization 27
4.3. Pace of Activities 27
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28
5.1. Related to 2015 5YRR Issues 28
5.2. Additional Topics 29
6. REFERENCES 30
St. Regis Groundwater Review 2
-------
List of Tables
1. Groundwater activities in response or subsequent to 2015 Five Year Review Report
[USEPA, 2015],
2. (a) Groundwater cleanup goals [USEPA, 2016] and (b) treatment plant effluent limits
[USEPA, 2005a],
3. Well maintenance events reported in quarterly reports since 2015.
4. Measured pumping rates at St. Regis site expressed as annualized pumping rates.
Separate entries for entire system, OU1 wells, and OU3 wells. These values are based on
quarterly and annual reports from IP [various dates]. The number of significant figures
varies due to differences in underlying reports. Rates are not adjusted for downtime.
5. Measured pumping rates at St. Regis site for extraction wells at OU1 expressed as
annualized pumping rates. These values are based on quarterly and annual reports from
IP [various dates]. Number of significant figures changes due to reporting changes. Rates
are not adjusted for downtime.
6. Measured pumping rates at St. Regis site for extraction wells at OU3 expressed as
annualized pumping rates. These values are based on quarterly and annual reports from
IP [various dates]. Number of significant figures changes due to reporting changes. Rates
are not adjusted for downtime.
7. Summary table with statistical exceedances identified from bootstrap analysis for the
95% confidence interval for the median of recent groundwater monitoring data
(01/01/2015+).
8. Expanded details from statistical analysis of groundwater monitoring data (at least one
datum). Use pdf reader to enlarge and review.
9. Weight-of-evidence table for PCP exceedances identified in bootstrap and
graphical/moving confidence interval methods of statistical analysis of groundwater
data.
List of Figures
1. Site location and features map (from [Barr, 2019a, Figure 2]).
2. Target zone for pentachlorophenol (PCP) for OU1 as described graphically in 2018
Annual Report for November 2018 [Barr, 2019a, Figure 10]. See "Intended Capture
Zone" annotation and 1 ug/L contour for PCP.
3. Target zone for pentachlorophenol (PCP) for OU3 as described graphically in 2018
Annual Report for November 2018 [Barr, 2019a, Figure 11]. See 1 ug/L contour for PCP
and note absence of annotation in figure.
4. Current understanding of pentachlorophenol (PCP) in the OU9 area between OU2 and
OU3 [Barr, 2019a, Figure 6]. Although titled "Lower Outwash Aquifer", upper and lower
sands are merged in much of the Fox Creek river valley.
5. Annualized pumping rates for the system as a whole versus year since 2000, as well as
the amounts for OU1 and OU3 subsystem extraction wells.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
3
-------
6. Distribution of annualized pumping rates from wells along the 0U1 extraction well line
from 2000 to 2019. The wells are ordered from left to right according to their northing.
The pumping rates in 2000 were more evenly spread and shifted toward the south than
in 2019. In 2015 the distribution is "shaped" more like the PCP concentrations
intersected by the wells. Southern wells W406 and W407 have no pumping in 2019, and
the latest PCP concentration data available (2017) are non-detects at these locations.
7. Changes in annualized pumping rates from wells along the OU1 extraction well line from
2000 to 2019 in five-year increments. The wells are ordered from left to right according
to their northing.
8. Identification of well grouping areas at OU1 (top) and OU3 (bottom). These grouping
areas are used for convenience in this report and no other meaning should be inferred.
9. Statistical and visual/apparent exceedances (UCL > GWCG at latest monitoring date) for
PCP atOUl.
10. Statistical and visual/apparent exceedances (UCL > GWCG at latest monitoring date) for
PCP at OU3.
11. Effluent concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene, B(a)P. Of 70 observations, 10 exceed the RL,
18 of 60 nondetects have RLEL. Therefore, 60% of
observations are not usable for comparisons to the EL for B(a)P.
List of Appendices
Appendix A—Brief Description of PAMR
Appendix B—Data Wrangling Notes
Appendix C—Monitoring Data as Provided by Barr
Appendix D—Groundwater Monitoring Data Compared to Groundwater Cleanup Goals
Appendix E—Plots of Log-Slopes of Groundwater Monitoring Data
Appendix F—Effluent Monitoring Data Compared to Effluent Limits
St. Regis Groundwater Review
4
-------
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols
a statistical significance, equivalent to one minus the statistical confidence
B(a)P Benzo(a)pyrene
B(a)P-Eq, BAPEQ Benzo(a)pyrene Equivalents
Barr Barr Engineering Company
CAS number Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
CI Confidence Interval
DLC Dioxin-Like Compound
EL Effluent Limit (defined where IL exists, maximum of IL or ML)
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ft feet
GAC Granular Activated Carbon
gal gallons
gpm gallons per minute
GWCG Groundwater Cleanup Goal
IL Intervention Limit
IP International Paper, Inc.
KM Kaplan-Meier
LCL Lower Confidence Limit
LLBO Leach Lake Band of the Ojibwe
m meters
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level [USEPA, 2009b]
MDH Minnesota Department of Health
MEDD Minnesota Enforcement Decision Document
MDL Method Detection Limit
mg/L milligrams per liter
ML Minimum Level (usually effectively equal to MQL, used for NPDES)
MN Minnesota
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MQL Method Quantitation Limit
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OCDD Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
OCDF Octachlorodibenzofuran
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCP Pentachlorophenol
pg/L picograms per liter
P&T pump and treat
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RL Reporting Limit
TCDD 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (commonly called dioxin)
TCDD-Eq, TCDDEQ DLC Toxicity Equivalent as TCDD
TEF Toxicity Equivalence Factor
St. Regis Groundwater Review
5
-------
TEQ
Toxicity Equivalence
UAO
Unilateral Administrative Order
UCL
Upper Confidence Limit
ug/L
micrograms per liter
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
VAS
Vertical Aquifer Sampling
WTP
Water Treatment Plant
5YRR
Five-Year Review Report
St. Regis Groundwater Review
6
-------
1. Preface
The purpose of this memo is to support the sixth Five Year Review Report (5YRR) for the St.
Regis Superfund Site, which is being prepared by USEPA for release in 2020. This memo reviews
monitoring data related to the groundwater remedies and its scope specifically excludes the
soils remedy. It compares the current state of groundwater-related affairs at the site to that
found in previous technical memos [Subterranean Research, 2005, 2010, 2015], which were
prepared in advance of earlier 5YRRs [USEPA, 2005b, 2010c, 2015]. This memo also reviews
major activities relating to the groundwater remedy that have been performed and initiated
since the 2015 5YRR, some of which were the result of the 2015 5YRR, and some were initiated
in response to field observations made between 2015 and 2020. The groundwater remedy is
being implemented under a 1995 Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) [USEPA, 1995], which
was issued after Minnesota Enforcement Decision Documents (MEDDs) issued by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency [MPCA, 1986a-b].
In addition to the normal reports and memos related to the site, this memo uses site data that
were collected and reported through November 2019 and were provided by Barr in Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet files [Barr, 2020a-b].
A site map showing extraction wells, monitoring wells, and many other features appears as
Figure 1 (from [Barr, 2019a]). A list of abbreviations and acronyms used is found in the front
matter of this document.
2. Review of Recent Activities
The Technical Assessment Summary of the 2015 5YRR [USEPA, 2015, pg 24] discusses the
groundwater and extraction system as follows:
The remedy is making modest progress in remediating groundwater but is not
completely containing contaminated groundwater that comes into contact with source
material. The treatment process generally discharges effluent containing contaminant
levels that are below effluent limits, but occasional exceedances are seen, and effluent
limits have not been updated for 10 years. ...
The southwest corner of OU2 contains soil that poses unacceptable ecological risks to
terrestrial invertebrates, and has groundwater contamination for which no remedy has
yet been implemented.
The 2015 5YRR identified the several Issues [pp 25-26], which are numbered here for
convenience:
1. OU1: Effluent limits have not been updated since 2005.
2. OU1: Treatment effluent occasionally exceeds effluent limits.
3. OU2*: A groundwater plume exits with unknown long-term potential for exposure.
4. OU2*: There are current ecological exposures to contaminated soil.
5. OU1 and OU3: The groundwater plumes are not fully contained.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
7
-------
6. 0U1 and OU3: Some of the current target groundwater cleanup standards are not within
EPA's target risk range.
7. OU1, OU2, OU3, and OU7: There are potential future unacceptable human health
exposures to contaminated soil.
8. OU1, OU2, OU3, and OU3: The effectiveness and enforceability of current ICs have not
been evaluated; additional ICs may be needed; lack of long-term stewardship
procedures.
9. OU1, OU2, OU3, and OU7: Lack of a decision document requiring ICs.
* This plume and associated source are being assigned to a new administrative Operable Unit 9 [L Patterson,
personal communication, 2020],
Issue 7 is related to the soils remedy, which is outside the scope of this review.
The ensuing years have seen a number of activities in response to the 2015 5YRR, as
summarized in Table 1. (Tables appear after the text.) These include installing new monitoring
wells, replacement of some extraction wells, forcemain replacement at OU1, continued
characterization at OU1 and OU3, a pilot study for oil-water separation at W2401R, relining
vessels at the Water Treatment Plant (WTP), and other maintenance activities, as well as
routine monitoring and reporting (e.g., [Barr, 2015a-d, 2016a-d, 2017a-g, 2018a-i, 2019a-f,
2020c]). USEPA Headquarters (EPAHQ) dispatched an external optimization team to review the
site in 2018-2019. A site visit for this year's 5YRR was held in late September 2019.
Characterization and monitoring activities (included in Table 1) have led to continued
improvements in the conceptual site model, improvements in the groundwater monitoring
network, adjustments to extraction well pumping rates, verification of areas where the existing
pump-and-treat (P&T) system is not achieving capture, and continued investigation of a plume
at OU9 (formerly labeled as OU2 work), which emanates from the Southwest Disposal Pit/OU2
and extends into and along the Fox Creek river valley.
The extraction well system comprises 10 extraction wells at OU1 and 3 extraction wells at OU3,
and extracted water is treated by a WTP that contains three granular activated carbon (GAC)
filters in series.
A new extraction well, W412, was installed at OU1 in 2019, but it is not yet operable because it
has not been wired and the pump has not been set; the plan is to begin production there in
2020. Although there are plans to replace W2402 in 2020, a previous attempt failed. W2402 has
been operating at a reduced rate. In addition, it appears unlikely that W2401R will soon be
returned to production.
3. Evaluation of Conditions
Our review of conditions in the groundwater system relies on a multifaceted evaluation. The
key elements of our review are the following:
Conceptual Site Model (CSM): Do recent observational data continue to support it? In
what significant ways has the CSM changed from the previous 5YRR?
St. Regis Groundwater Review
8
-------
Hydraulic Capture: Hydraulic capture is the key active remedy at 0U1 and OU3.
Evaluation of hydraulic capture involves efficacy first and efficiency second.
Target Zones: Are the geometric regions or zones in which hydraulic capture is
needed well defined? Have they changed in response to changes in either
observational data or the CSM? If (and where) not, are there activities or plans
to address problems?
Pumping Rates: Are pumping rates for the site and for individual operable units
(OUs) being maintained or changed? Are rates and locations of pumping
adequate? How are adjustments to pumping rates being decided and
implemented?
Progress toward Cleanup Goals: Water quality data provide information on whether
continuing progress toward cleanup goals is being maintained and advanced.
Monitoring Well Water Quality. Do monitoring well data indicate progress
toward or accomplishment of cleanup goals? What areas face challenges, and
can they be addressed by the current remedy? Can the rate of progress be
improved?
Tregtment Plgnt Performgnce: For this review, we limit evaluation to issues of
capacity and effluent water quality. Is effluent water quality satisfactory?
Other Items: Are there data gaps or excesses? Is the remedy reliable? Are there changes
in performance criteria or in the evaluation methods for current criteria that should be
investigated and/or adopted?
A set of groundwater cleanup goals (GWCGs) was issued by USEPA in 2016 [USEPA, 2016] and a
set of Intervention Limits for effluent from the WTP were issued by USEPA in 2005 [USEPA,
2005a]. These values, given in Table 2, facilitate evaluation of the remedy by examining the
water quality of groundwater and effluent from the treatment system.
This review uses the GWCGs for the groundwater monitoring data for the site. WTP effluent
quality is compared to Effluent Limits (ELs), which are defined for this report in Section 2.3.5 as
the maximum of the Intervention Limit (IL) or the Minimum Level (ML, essentially a minimum
reliable quantitation limit); there is no EL if there is no IL.
Three analytes were assigned GWCGs and are listed in Table 2 part (a) along with the values of
the GWCG. For effluent water quality review, five key analytes are considered. Table 2 part (b)
presents three of the key analytes having ILs plus two indicators/surrogates for other
contaminants of concern. Benzo(a)pyrene, or B(a)P, equivalent concentration is used to review
carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the effluent, even though B(a)P is the
only carcinogenic PAH assigned an IL. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (dioxin orTCDD) is
one of numerous dioxin-like compounds (DLCs, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans) having ILs. TCDD equivalent concentration is used to review in
summary form DLCs in the effluent. Values of individual DLC concentrations vis-a-vis ELs is a
potential follow-on topic to this review.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
9
-------
3.1. Conceptual Site Model
The conceptual site model (CSM) has not been explicitly revisited since the last 5YRR.
The CSM began as a layer-cake model for the entire site, with the upper sand (or upper
outwash) aquifer, upper till aquitard, lower sand (or lower outwash) aquitard, and lower till
aquiclude from the ground surface downward, and in many places there is a surficial stratum
containing topsoil, fill, peat, and/or organics. The upper till, which separates the upper sand
from the lower sand, acts as an aquitard (a hindrance to flow that also stores some water), and
has been found to be more heterogeneous in terms of hydraulic conductivity, soil type and
texture, stratification, thickness, and areal variability than it was considered at an earlier time in
the project life. Surface water bodies interacted with groundwater at subsurface contacts
intermediated by stream- or lake-bed sediments.
Boreholes completed over a number of years and a number of characterization investigations
have revealed a number of areas along the southern margin of the Superfund site in the Fox
Creek valley (south of OU2 and in the southern to southeastern area of OU3) where the upper
till was either not found or quite thin. While this was noted in passing in the 1985 Remedial
Investigation [Barr, 1985, pg 22], the CSM described in Annual Reports, modeling reports, and
presentation materials did not include this until completion of the OU3 NAPL investigation in
the late 2000s. Subsequent investigations related to OU2 and the Southwest Disposal Pit area
continued these data-driven revisions of the CSM.
A second change to the CSM has been an increase in thickness of the upper till southeast of
OU1, to the point that the lower outwash sand is missing in some areas. Boreholes in the area
between the OU1 operational area and the channel between Cass Lake and Pike Bay have
shown that the lower sand (lower outwash) is missing or patchy toward Pike Bay.
These changes were brought forward into the groundwater flow model developed and
calibrated for the Site [Barr, 2014a, 2014d, 2015c, 2017d].The modifications of the CSM and
the field data undergirding them have been incorporated into the solids model [Barr, 2014]
used as the framework for the updated MODFLOW groundwater flow model and into the
assignment of hydraulic properties to the MODFLOW model discretization.
The water quality data from monitoring wells installed since 2015 strengthen the evidence of
stratification in the plumes at OU1 and OU3. This has implications for potential modifications or
additions of extraction wells at both OUs. A newly installed extraction well W412 at OU1 is
screened mid-depth in the upper sand aquifer to address this, after a field test of mid-depth
focused pumping at W408 demonstrated feasibility. This stratification issue has not been
explicitly addressed elsewhere, except for scavenger wells adjacent to some extraction wells.
3.2. Hydraulic Capture
Hydraulic capture of the contaminant plumes by the pump-and-treat (P&T) system is the
primary groundwater remedy for OU1 and OU3. A remedy has not been selected for OU9.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
10
-------
Several lines of evidence are employed to evaluate the performance of the P&T system,
consistent with previous 5YRRs' technical reviews [Subterranean Research, 2010, 2015]:
• Identification of the target zones that should be affected by hydraulic capture.
• Actual pumping rates at extraction wells in comparison to design and/or target rates.
• Estimated hydraulic capture zones developed from monitoring results, extraction well
flow rates, water levels, hydrogeologic conditions, and professional judgments.
• Concentration time series at individual monitoring wells for various analytes.
• Integration via conceptual model.
This section updates the 2015 evaluation.
3.2.1. Target Zones
A "target zone" is a three-dimensional region or volume in which concentrations of
contaminants of concern or of selected surrogates (such as naphthalene) exceed a relevant
groundwater cleanup goal (GWCG). The GWCGs for the St. Regis site are given in Table 5. The
design goal of a P&T hydraulic capture system is that the hydraulic capture zone encompasses
the target zone.
The target zones for OU1 and OU3 were designated in the groundwater modeling reports of
1996 [Barr, 1996a-c], which graphically depicted the target zones and model-estimated
hydraulic capture zones on base maps for the site and environs. (A candidate target zone for
OU1 was included in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) [Barr, 1985] in advance
of remedy selection [MPCA, 1986a, 1986b].) Focusing on the map view description of the target
zones implies that the entire thickness of the upper sand will be included in the target zones,
although density-stratification of the plume was recognized during the RI/FS. As noted
elsewhere, monitoring well data (including data from recently installed deep wells at OU1)
indicate that the lower sand is not significantly impacted at OU1, and that at OU3 there are
limited areas where the upper till separating the upper and lower sands is absent, so that
potential impacts to the lower sand are spatially limited. Further, the impacts of a recently
discovered plume at OU9 (near OU2 and in the Fox Creek river valley) cannot be fully evaluated
at this time, though it is clear that the upper till does not carry across the Fox Creek river valley
in that area.
As a result of ongoing groundwater monitoring, additional site characterization, and NAPL
investigation at OU3, the target zones were modified in some recent Annual Reports (ARs)
[Barr, 2014c, 2016a, 2017a, 2017f, 2018c, 2019a],
Recently installed monitoring wells at OU1 and OU3 confirm plumes running out to the east (so-
called runout plumes). At OU1 monitoring data show the runout plume is vertically located at
mid-depth in the upper sand. At OU3 monitoring data show that the runout plume is located
near the top of the upper sand aquifer, which is typically overlain by organic matter in this area.
At OU3, the NAPL investigation report describing fieldwork spanning 2007-2009 [Barr, 2014b]
indicated the estimated extent of NAPL as well as the estimated extent of the groundwater
St. Regis Groundwater Review
11
-------
plume in 0U3. Compared to the earlier (circa 1996) target zones, a minor westward and
southward expansion of the target zone resulted.
At OU1, no similar NAPL investigation has been conducted.
Figure 2, from the 2018 Annual Report [Barr, 2019a, Figure 10] presents a target zone
("Intended Capture Zone") for hydraulic capture at OU1. Figure 3, for OU3 [Barr, 2019a,
Figure 11], is similar to Figure 2; however, it does not include any target zone. These differ from
the described target zones above because significant portions of the plumes with
concentrations greater than the groundwater cleanup goals (GWCGs) are not included in the
target zones in the Annual Report. While this may be a drafting error, it seems to reflect a
difference of opinion about (i) what are the target zones and (ii) how do the target zones and
hydraulic capture zones relate. An overt conversation to resolve this issue is warranted.
Several characterization investigations have been performed at the new OU9. (Note that
associated workplans, data, and reports have been associated with OU2, but actually pertain to
the new OU9 that is being created in 2020.) Characterization investigations indicate that a
plume of contaminants most likely emanates from near the Southwest Disposal Pit area and
extends into the Fox Creek river valley east of County Road 147; the current estimate of the PCP
plume extent is indicated in Figure 4 [Barr, 2019a, Figure 6]. This characterization work has
shown that the outwash sand is not always separated by the upper till into two layers, and that
the outwash sand is overlain by peat and/or organic silt across the river valley. In the transition
area between the river valley and the upland areas north of Fox Creek (where the upper till
exists), there is evidence of a long narrow zone in which no fine-grained materials are found
from the ground surface until the lower till. No target zone has been established for this plume
because the investigation is incomplete and still active. It is anticipated that the RI/FS for OU9
will be initiated in 2020.
3.2.2. Pumping Rates and Extraction Wells
3.2,2,1. Overview
The nominal capacity of the pump and treat system's treatment plant is 120 gpm. It could be
operated at a higher rate with some concomitant increases in operations and maintenance
(O&M) costs; it has a design capacity to continuously treat 170 gpm and has a maximum design
capacity of about 180 gpm [USEPA, 2019, pg 21]. With a 120 gpm nominal rate, the extraction
wells can pump about 86% of the design extraction rate of 140 gpm.
USEPA [2005b] found that actual pumping rate was, on average, approximately 80% of design
extraction rate, and that there were some years in which substantially less pumping occurred.
Several recommendations made as a result of that review of pumping rates versus time and of
operation and maintenance records were addressed by IP.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
12
-------
Quarterly reports were expanded in 2007 to include a summary of well screen cleanings, pump
replacements, and similar data that can be correlated with other quantitative measures—such
as monthly average pumping rates at each extraction well—to evaluate the extraction well
system. This increased reporting also allows well maintenance has become more systematic
and predictable. Table 3 summarizes the reported well maintenance activities taken since
January 2015, as documented in quarterly reports from Barr. This record indicates that well
maintenance is regularly required and performed. The number and frequency of pump
replacements appear to be predictive of significant well damage.
Because of the age of the extraction wells and evidence of deterioration of wells or
appurtenances, four wells have been replaced since late 2014 (replacement wells W402R,
W403R, W2401R, and W2403R), three wells have been removed from service as inoperable
(W401, W406, W410), another well has been removed from service (W407, originally due to an
electrical problem and ongoing due to low contaminant concentrations), and a replacement is
planned for another well (W2402R). W2401R has been out of service since its installation in
December 2014, except for a few months in mid-2015, due to oil-water separation issues. It is
likely that the remaining wells (W404, W405, W408, and W409) will face serious maintenance
issues in the not-too-distant future; with four pump replacements since January 2016, W405
should be carefully watched.
3.2.2.2, Total and OU Annualized Rates
Monthly and annualized pumping rates were obtained from various Annual Reports and
Quarterly Reports.
The extraction wells operated at peak total pumping rate of 116.4 gallons per minute (gpm) at
2007. After dropping to 87.2 gpm in 2015, the total pumping rate returned in 2018 to
115.3 gpm. The 2019 total pumping rate declined to 106.7 gpm; this is a result of a roughly 20%
decrease in pumping rate at OU3's W2402 and W2403/W2403R. Figure 5 and Table 4 show the
total annualized pumping rates for the system and Operable Units. While variable, the record
shows no systematic increase in pumping rate to address incomplete capture, as identified in
previous reviews and 5YRRs.
3.2.2.3. OU1 Annualized Rates
Table 5 lists annualized pumping rates for individual extraction wells for OU1 for 2000 through
2019. Extraction wells W403/W403R through W410, excluding W408, are arrayed in a north-
south extraction well line, and W408 is located east of the extraction well line. W401 and
W402R are located west of the extraction well line. W411, not shown on the table, was
installed as an extraction well but has never operated. W404, located near the northern end of
the extraction line, was not operated until 2009.
W408 stopped operating in 2009 as a result of a forcemain issue and was returned to service in
2016. W406 and W407 were shut off in 2010 (initially due to maintenance issues—pumping
sand and electrical problems, respectively—and intentionally kept offline since mid-2010 due to
St. Regis Groundwater Review
13
-------
low contaminant concentrations), and W401 went offline (cause unknown) since September
2014, and W410 was removed from service in April 2019 due to screen failure, and its pumping
rate was reallocated to W404. W401 is collocated with a known source area, and installation
and operation of a replacement source mitigation device (such as a well) should be considered.
The 2018 Annual Report [Barr, 2019a] provides target pumping rates for 2019 of 74 gpm for
OU1 (excluding plans for W412). Data available for this analysis show a total of 76.6 gpm at
OU1 during 2019,104% of the target. For comparison, the USEPA optimization team provided
an initial estimate of 100 gpm from OU1 to achieve capture [USEPA, 2019, pg 21].
Adding W412 will increase production from OU1. Barr's initial plans called for only 5 gpm from
W412 [Barr, 2019, pg 28], but this was increased to 10± gpm after stakeholder discussions.
3.2.2.4. OU3 Annualized Rates
Table 6 lists annualized pumping rates for individual extraction wells for OU3 for 2000 through
2019. W2401R, W2402, and W2403R are laid out at the apexes of a triangle, with W2401R at
the north closest to the OU3 Pit source area, W2403R south of that near the city dump, and
W2402 located east of the others, southeast of W2401 and east-northeast of W2403R, and
furthest from the source areas. Since installation in December 2014, W2401R has not operated
because of oil-water separation issues, except for a few months in 2015. W2402 and W2403R
rates usually have been about balanced over the years. Replacement well W2403R was brought
online in October 2019 and replacement well W2402R is scheduled to be installed in 2020, after
an unsuccessful attempt in 2019.
The 2018 Annual Report [Barr, 2019a] provides target pumping rates for 2019 of 20 gpm at
each of W2402 and W2403, for a total annualized rate of 40 gpm—note that the 2015 OU3
target rate was 55 gpm, substantially greater. Data provided in quarterly reports for 2019 show
a total annualized pumping rate of 30.1 gpm at OU3, 75% of the 2019 target. For comparison,
the USEPA optimization team provided an initial estimate of 60 gpm from OU3 to achieve
capture [USEPA, 2019, pg 21].
In summary, the OU3 subsystem is underproducing, even with reduced expectations, and needs
immediate attention.
3.2.2.5. Spatial Distribution of Pumping at OU1 and OU3
Pumping rates from numerous individual wells have changed substantially since 2000 (Tables 4
and 5). This is most apparent at the extraction well line at OU1), where there has been a
consistent migration of pumping effort to the north and to a smaller number of wells. Figure 6
plots the pumping rates from 4 different years at the wells on the OU1 extraction well line,
using a different line for each year. Figure 7 highlights the changes in pumping rate along the
OU1 extraction well line, clearly showing the continuing northward shift. At OU3, there has
been an eastward shift in pumping as a result of W2401R being inoperable.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
14
-------
The shift at 0U1 is the result of a "quiet" optimization to match pumping with contaminant
concentrations, in order to maximize the impacts on mass removal and, to a lesser extent, to
shift the hydraulic capture zone slightly northward.
The shift at OU3 is more a result of the difficulties at W2401R. However, until 2019 there was
an increase in pumping from W2402 relative to W2403/W2403R, which appears to have been
an effort to better "tear" the runout plume extending eastward to Pike Bay from the more
proximate portion of the OU3 plume. Eventually, the restoration of pumping at W2401R will
tend to revert the center of OU3 pumping further west.
The vertical (depth or elevation of the) center of pumping effort is not considered in the above
review. However, changes in the vertical distribution of pumping would be beneficial at both
OU1 and OU3. Recently installed monitoring wells at OU1 have shown persistent mid-depth
contamination; the recently installed extraction well W412 is the only one screened for that
purpose and will start production later in 2020. At OU3, a plume extends east toward Pike Bay
that appears near the top of the upper sand; none of the existing extraction well screens draw
directly from that elevation. No shallow-focused extraction wells exist or are planned for OU3.
3.2.3. Estimated Hydraulic Capture Zones
Estimated hydraulic capture zones (HCZs) are created and presented by Barr in Annual Reports.
They have been quite similar from year to year, although the width and downgradient extent of
the HCZs at each operable unit do fluctuate over time.
The most significant change in recent HCZs has been the degree to which they encompass the
estimated target zones (described in Section 2.2.1 above). Prior to 2013, the target zones at
OU1 and OU3 were of limited eastern extent and the corresponding estimated HCZs mostly
covered them. Beginning with the 2012 Annual Report [Barr, 2013c], the high-concentration
core of the estimated PCP plume at OU1 was extended from west of 2nd Street SE to the
channel, as shown in Figure 2. The significant eastward extension of the OU3 PCP plume was
first shown in the 2013 Annual Report [Barr, 2014c], as visible in Figure 3. In the ensuing years
new monitoring wells were installed in both areas and the initial mappings of the extended
plumes have been verified.
3.2,3.1. OU1
The OU1 estimated HCZ in Fall 2018 is shown in Figure 2 (bold dotted black line). The estimate
shows the uncaptured runout PCP plume between 2nd Street SE and the channel. If a cross-
section were provided, it would show the uncaptured runout plume is largely in the middle
depth of the upper sand. The estimate also shows that the northern flank of the HCZ extends to
W222; because there are no head observations north or west of W222, this estimate is
considered to have a relatively large uncertainty. A similar elevated uncertainty is associated
with the southern flank of the HCZ south of W515.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
15
-------
The GWCG for PCP is 1 ug/L, so the estimated runout plume in Figure 2 comprises an 800-ft
wide swath.
Note that new extraction well W412 is expected be come online in 2020. With a screen located
in the middle of the upper sand and north of extraction well W408, this new well is anticipated
to increase protectiveness.
3.2.3.2, OU3
The OU3 estimated HCZ in Fall 2018 is shown in Figure 3 (bold dotted black line). The estimate
shows the uncaptured runout plume east of the line connecting W2105 and W2402. The GWCG
for PCP is 1 ug/L, so the estimated runout plume is almost 300-ft wide east of W2140.
There are no plans or discussions for augmentation of the OU3 extraction well subsystem to
address the runout plume. The first order of business is to replace W2402. While bringing
W2401R back online is also of significant importance, there is an argument to be made that,
because of the uncertain but long timeframe for returning W2401R to production, adding
extraction capacity to control the runout plume should be prioritized.
3.2.3.3. OU9 (Southwest Disposal Pit/OU2)
As noted in the 2015 review [Subterranean Research, 2015], a plume of PCP has been found to
originate near the southwest corner of the vault at OU2 and the former Southwest Disposal Pit.
Soils, groundwater, and porewater investigations have been executed, and planned additional
work has been held up by access issues. USEPA is pursuing options to gain access to advance
the investigative work [L. Patterson, 2020, personal communication], although the novel
coronavirus pandemic has caused a temporary suspension of this. An RI/FS is anticipated to
begin in the near future to address this new OU9.
Based on current characterization and monitoring information, the OU9 PCP plume in excess of
1 ug/L extends from near the Southwest Disposal Pit to the southeast, crosses County Road 147
in the northern half of the Fox Creek river valley, and extends past new monitoring well W338M
to the City Dump. Between the source and County Road 147, the upper and lower sands are not
separated by till. The aquifers a divided again as the plume migrates to the east, where it is
found in the lower sand.
No remedy will be selected until the RI/FS process has advanced sufficiently. Therefore, there is
no target zone or HCZ for OU9. The tip of the plume tongue is estimated to pass underneath a
portion of the HCZ for OU3, although the former is in the lower sand and the latter is in the
upper sand.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
16
-------
3.3. Monitoring Well and Effluent Water Quality
3.3.1. Recent Monitoring Network Improvements
The St. Regis Superfund Site has a well-developed monitoring program for groundwater and
effluent quality (see Figure 1). During the past few years, the monitoring well network has
grown and improved:
• Nine monitoring wells were installed during 2015 in the upper sand aquifer at OU1 in
locations downgradient from extraction well line, W133, W134, W112M, W132M,
W133M, W134M, W232, W233, and W234.
• Three groundwater monitoring wells were installed during 2018 in the Fox Creek river
valley as part of the investigations of OU9—W338, W338M, and W338D.
• Eight monitoring wells were installed at OU3 during 2017 to monitor the runout plume,
W2141, W2143, W2141M, W2142M, W2143M, W2144M, W2241, and W2243.
• Offline extraction wells are being used as monitoring wells.
The monitoring program is revisited on a five-year schedule (see [Barr, 2018i]). At the end of
each year, a memo with the plan for the next year is disseminated for discussion and review
among the stakeholders.
Spatial well grouping areas, illustrated in Figure 8, are used in this report at times to discuss
spatial portions of the plumes or of the groundwater monitoring network. No other meaning
should be inferred.
3.3.2. Water Quality Data Used in This Review
Water quality data from the existing monitoring network were provided as data dumps from
the Barr in-house database in two spreadsheets [Barr, 2020a-b]. They were provided for use in
this review in response to a request from USEPA. Data fields generally have the names and
meanings described by USEPA Region 5 [USEPA, 2020].
• One spreadsheet contains monitoring well and surface water samples, comprising
66,839 records. Together these are called groundwater data in this report. Retaining
only normal (not field duplicate) and validated samples, 60,304 records remain, which
represented 264 different analytes (by CAS number) and 154 monitoring locations (by
sys_loc_code entries) spanning the interval from January 1995 through October 2019.
• The second spreadsheet contains monitoring data from the WTP comprising 19,394
records. Retaining only normal (not field duplicate) and validated samples, 18,657
records remain, spanning 128 different analytes (by CAS number) and 9 monitoring
locations (by sys_loc_code entries) from January 1995 through October 2019.
Not all locations have data for the same analytes or cover the same time span.
The data in these spreadsheets were accepted as directly usable. No quality review or audit of
any type was performed during preparation of this document. No derived (calculated)
concentration data were created from these data. (The 2015 review included the development
of derived concentration data—e.g., TCDD-Eq for WTP effluent. Barr now includes it in the
St. Regis Groundwater Review
17
-------
recent data in its dataset.) Only normal (not field duplicates), validated samples were used for
this review. Analysis was limited to the analytes (including so-called derived analytes, B(a)P-Eq
and TCDD-Eq, provided by Barr in the dataset) in Table 2. For groundwater and surface water
quality data, locations were limited to channel samples and monitoring wells existing in the
past five years; as a result, some historical data were omitted, such as former monitoring well
DNR #11016. For WTP data, the only reported location retained was the WTP effluent. A variety
of analyses were performed for each analyte-location subset of data for which a sufficient
number of data existed, using both the overall record and a subset of recent (since January 1,
2015 for groundwater and January 1, 2016 for effluent) monitoring data.
The methods and details of the analyses are described in Appendices A and B. In short, data are
plotted and compared to GWCGs or ELs using the 95% confidence interval (CI) determined from
the recent data, replacing nondetects1 by the reporting limit2 (RL).
• A bootstrap analysis is performed to estimate the CI for the median of recent data3. The
median is used because it is robust against outliers and skewed data. This method is
applied to groundwater data.
• A graphical presentation and parametric moving average analysis yield the confidence
interval (CI) for the mean of log-transformed concentration, which is compared to the
GWCG or EL. It forms a complementary approach to the bootstrap method and has
different data requirements, allowing it to be applied to more of the location-analyte
observations. This graphical/moving average approach is used for groundwater and
effluent data.
• A similar style of graphical presentation and parametric moving average analysis is used
to examine the time-rate-of-change of concentration data, i.e., the temporal trend of
concentration data. This trend review is limited to groundwater data.
Figures generated by these analyses are provided in Appendices D through F for groundwater
data, trend analysis of groundwater data, and effluent data, respectively.
1A "nondetect" has different meanings for groundwater monitoring data and effluent monitoring data.
Groundwater quality data are "nondetect" if the laboratory result is less than the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
adjusted for sample characteristics and quality control/validation criteria; estimated values between the MDL and
the quantitation limit (./-qualified data) are treated as detects. Effluent quality data are "nondetect" if the
laboratory result is less than the Minimum Limit (adjusted for sample characteristics and quality control/validation
criteria). That is, "nondetect" is a synonym for left censoring value.
2 The "reporting limit" is the value in the "reporting_detection_limit" field of the datasets. For groundwater data it
is the MDL (adjusted for sample characteristics and quality control/validation criteria) and for effluent data it is the
Minimum Limit (adjusted for sample characteristics and quality control/validation criteria).
3 Bootstrap methods comprise a family of statistical methods that assume that the observed data for a location-
analyte pair are representative of the complete concentration data for that pair (the statistical "population").
Then, rather than use a theoretical distribution (e.g., normal) to estimate a statistical property of the population,
like the median, the observed data are re-used a large number of times, N, to estimate the statistical property for
each bootstrap sample (obtained by sampling with replacement from the observed data). The distribution of the N
estimates can then be used to estimate confidence intervals and other properties. Bootstrap is not limited by
assumptions of data coming from a normal or log-normal distribution and is applicable to datasets of moderate
size. Because monitoring events at the site are spaced months apart, there is no adjustment for serial correlation.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
18
-------
Statistical methods were selected using ITRC [2013] and USEPA [2009a, 2010b] guidance. Other
details of the analysis methodology are in Appendix A.
[N.B.: Appendix D contains hundreds of plots. We strongly encourage using a PDF reader for
viewing of the figures, and printing only those figures needed.]
USEPA [2016] has required International Paper use of Kaplan-Meier (KM) method to calculate
both B(a)P equivalents for carcinogenic PAHs and TCDD equivalents for dioxins and furans
[Minnesota Department of Health, 2014a-b; USEPA, 2010a, 2010d, 2013a-b, 2014a]. Barr's data
set [Barr, 2020a-b] includes such results. Because the method is not well defined for high
proportions of nondetects among the contributing analytes, Barr has produced multiple
calculations for three different ways to impute values for nondetects from the RL. Rather than
follow that course, we have selected one imputation rule—substitute V* of the RL for
nondetects—from the Barr data set for analysis. This is a "middle-of-the-road" approach
considered suitable for this review. (We commend Barr for making multiple calculations
available in their data sets and encourage this practice be continued in the absence of
unequivocal guidance from USEPA.) For earlier data the KM approach was not used but Barr's
equivalent calculations usually include results for multiple imputation rules; the report selects
results using the imputation rule of V* of the RL.
3.3.3. Groundwater Monitoring Data Compared to GWCGs
Analysis of the groundwater monitoring data [Barr, 2020a] focused on analytes of interest listed
in Table 2, which also includes the Groundwater Cleanup Goal (GWCG) for each. Moreover, the
analysis is focused on the status of groundwater contamination since the last 5YRR.
Groundwater monitoring at St. Regis is associated with a cleanup remedy, rather than detection
monitoring, so attaining a GWCG requires that the entire confidence interval for concentration
be less than the GWCG. (See [USEPA, 2009a] for a discussion of various monitoring regimes and
statistical methods.) Otherwise, it has not been attained. For simplicity, the latter is called an
exceedance in this report.
3.3.3.1. Bootstrap confidence intervals compared to GWCGs
Table 7 is a mini-summary of statistical exceedance results of recent groundwater monitoring
data (since January 1, 2015) compared to the respective GWCG. This table is derived from a
larger working table (Table 8) that contains the bootstrap results for each analyte-location
subset of the groundwater data. Note that only a portion of all analyte-location pairs have
sufficient recent data to determine a result using the bootstrap method (as described in the
Appendix A); the results are organized in the same location groupings as used in Annual
Reports. To reiterate, for purposes of groundwater data review in this report, a statistical
exceedance is declared present unless the entire CI of recent data is less than the GWCG. (If the
CI straddles the GWCG or if it is fully greater than the GWCG, then the GWCG has not been
attained with the desired degree of confidence and it is called a statistical exceedance.) Table 9
St. Regis Groundwater Review
19
-------
includes the results of this and the following sections in a weight-of-evidence exceedances table
for comparing concentrations to GWCG.
No statistical exceedances of B(a)PE or TCDD-Eq were identified from this bootstrap analysis of
recent data. Naphthalene does not have a GWCG, so no comparison is possible, although the
statistical analysis is performed.
Statistical exceedances were found for PCP only.
• AtOUl
o Eastern wells W133, W112M, W132M, W133M, W134M, W212, W220, W232,
W233, and W234. These were all installed in 2015, except W212 and W220.
o Northern well W105R.
o Core area extraction well W408 (others have insufficient recent data for
bootstrap).
• At OU3
o Eastern wells W2141, W2143, W2141M, W2143M, W2241, and W2243. These
were all installed in 2017.
These bootstrap statistical results are limited to a fraction of monitoring wells due to the
number of recent data required to perform the analysis. Therefore, it was important to also re-
examine the data graphically with supplemental statistical analysis.4
3.3.3.2. Graphical examination and parametric confidence intervals compared to GWCGs
Appendix D contains the graphical results, per Section 3.3.2, for concentration data. As
described in Appendix A, each plot shows the concentration vs time data, a moving average of
concentration5, and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the moving average5 (i.e., significance of
a=0.05). The concentration data are plotted as dots, the solid line is moving average, and the
shaded band is the CI, spanning the concentrations between the lower confidence limit (LCL)
and the upper confidence limit (UCL). If there are insufficient data, the moving average and CI
are not shown. The concentration scale is a base-2 logarithmic scale—like a standard
logarithmic scale except, rather than operating in factors of 10 (order of magnitude change),
the factors are 2 (doubling/halving). Because trailing moving windows are used, the values
plotted are lagging indicators of the concentrations.
As in the previous subsection, for groundwater data a statistical exceedance is declared if any
portion of the CI of recent data is greater than the GWCG. (I.e., if the CI straddles the GWCG or
4 The first of two substantial differences in this approach, compared to the bootstrap comparison-to-standard
method, is that the restriction to recent data (since January 1, 2015) is relaxed. This allows for a longer view of
data, which is particularly useful at locations that are monitored less frequently as a result of monitoring plan
changes and optimization. The second important difference is that a parametric method is used to calculate the CI;
specifically, it is the CI of the mean of log-transformed concentrations. The CIs will differ, but not substantially;
Table 9 shows consistent results between the methods, when data allow both to be used.
5 The moving average and its CI were calculated for the logarithm of concentration.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
20
-------
if it is fully greater than the GWCG, then the GWCG has not been attained and it is called a
statistical exceedance.) Figures in Appendix C that are classified as statistical exceedances have
a red (CI completely above the GWCG) or orange (CI straddles the GWCG) frame around the
plot.
In cases where there are insufficient recent data to perform the statistical analysis described
above, there may nonetheless be sufficient information to visually classify an apparent
exceedance. For example, there are insufficient recent data at source area well W401 for
B(a)P-Eq. However, looking at a plot of the entire history of values, it is visually obvious that the
data exceed the GWCG at the latest monitoring date. Figures classified as apparent
exceedances have a dotted red frame around the plot.
For B(a)P-Eq, there are statistical exceedances at OU1 extraction wells W402, W403, and W405,
at OU3 extraction wells W2402 and W2403, and at OU3 monitoring well W2106, which lies
amid the OU3 extraction wells. There are visual/apparent exceedances at OU1 wells W118 and
W401, plus OU3 extraction well W2401.
Naphthalene does not have a GWCG, so there are no exceedances. Plots are informational.
There are a number of PCP exceedances:
• OU1:
o Numerous core area wells showed statistical exceedances, namely monitoring
wells W104 and W218, and extraction wells W401, W402, W403, W405, W4066,
W408, W409, W410, and W411. In addition, visual/apparent exceedances were
identified at monitoring well W118 and extraction wells W402R, W403R and
W404.
o Eastern area monitoring wells showed statistical exceedances at W112M,
W132M, W133, W133M, W134M, W212, W220, W232, W233, and W234.
o Northern area well W105R is a statistical exceedance.
• OU3:
o Core area wells showed statistical exceedances at extraction wells W2401,
W2402, and W2403, plus monitoring wells W2106 and W2238.
o Eastern area wells showed statistical exceedances at W2141, W2141M, W2143,
W2143M, W2241, AND W2243. W2140 is a visual/apparent exceedance.
• OU9:
o W338M is a visual/apparent exceedance. This OU9 area monitoring well was
installed in 2018 and has fewer data for the statistical analysis.
Table 9 includes the results of this and the previous sections in a weight-of-evidence table of
PCP exceedances. When both methods can be applied, the results are consistent.
6 Note that W406 is classified an exceedance under this method by a miniscule margin. In fact, all of the data are
nondetects. A closer examination of the observed record shows that the RL often exceeds the GWCG so, despite a
record of nondetects, the data cannot be used to reliably assert that the GWCG has been attained.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
21
-------
Figures 9 and 10 show these locations on map snippets of OU1 and OU3, respectively, to
provide spatial context.
For TCDD-Eq, there are no statistical or visual/apparent exceedances in groundwater
monitoring data.
3.3.4. Groundwater Monitoring Data Temporal Trends
Many of the analyte-location plots described in the previous section have no single visually
apparent temporal trend. In many cases the trend varies over time, both in direction (upward
or downward) and amount (shallow or steep). To further assist diagnosis, the monitoring data
were analyzed for time-rate-of-change in concentration in a manner similar to, but not
identical, with the concentration plots described above.
Appendix E contains these graphical results for temporal trends in concentration data. Only
plots for PCP at wells identified as statistical or visual/apparent exceedances in Section 3.3.3
and for which enough data exist to construct the temporal trend graphs appear in Appendix E.
(Plots were generated for all analyte-location groundwater data, but are excluded to provide
focus on significant locations.)
The vertical axis of these plots shows the time-rate-of-change, or slope, of the
log-2 concentration. It is calculated by taking a group of concentration data, calculating its
base-2 logarithm, performing linear regression, and extracting the slope coefficient from the
regression model. Then, the earliest concentration is deleted from the group and the next later
concentration is added to the group, and the regression is performed again. Rinse and repeat.
That is, a moving window linear regression is calculated, and the moving window slope
coefficient is the local temporal trend, expressed as the time derivative of the log-2
concentration. Appendix A has additional information. Because trailing moving windows are
used, the values plotted are lagging indicators of the trends.
Each plot in Appendix E shows the moving window slope (the local temporal trend) as dots, a
moving average of the slope is represented by a solid line, and the 95% CI for the moving
average (i.e., significance of a=0.05) of the slope is plotted as a shaded band. If there are
insufficient data, the plot may not be generated (12 data are used for the local linear
regression) or the moving average and CI are not shown (at least 4 moving average slopes are
required). A reference value of 0 is also plotted—if greater than zero, the trend is increasing
and if less than zero it is decreasing. The CI can give a sense of how meaningful the trend is.
The result is that are no significant upward trends in the last few years of the concentration
data at locations where the concentration approaches or exceeds the GWCG. Both W212 and
W220 have shown slopes oscillating between increasing and decreasing. In particular, the
increasing trend seen for PCP at W220 in the last 5YRR has reversed in the past five years. (Not
shown in Appendix E, PCP at W2128 was called out in the 2015 review. Its concentration has
St. Regis Groundwater Review
22
-------
decreased since the last 5YRR sufficiently to change from exceedance to attainment in the most
recent 5 years.)
3.3.5. Effluent Monitoring Data Relative to Effluent Limits
Water quality criteria for the effluent from the WTP—called Effluent Limits (ELs) in this report-
are the maximum of either the Intervention Limits (ILs, [USEPA, 2005a]) or the Minimum Levels
(MLs, which are provided in Annual Reports, e.g. [Barr, 2019a]) and exist only for analytes for
which the Intervention Limits are specified. This is consistent with a USEPA rule [USEPA, 2014b]
relating to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) that data declared as
exceeding the ILs need to be both "reliably quantitated detects"—that is, reported at or above
the ML—and greater than the Intervention Limits. It also requires the use of approved tests
having the lowest possible ML consistent with the water quality criterion (here the Intervention
Limits). While the Groundwater Cleanup Goals were updated in 2016, the Intervention Limits
were last updated in 2005.
Effluent monitoring at St. Regis is associated with a detection monitoring regime, rather than
cleanup monitoring [USEPA, 2009a], so declaring an exceedance of the EL requires that the
entire confidence interval for concentration be greater than the EL. Otherwise the EL has not
been exceeded. The former is called a statistical exceedance in this report.
Barr transmitted a digital file in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format that provides treatment
system data [Barr, 2020b]. As in the case of groundwater monitoring data, this file is not
changed in any way for this data review. This data review focusses on the efficacy of the WTP,
i.e., the effluent discharged from the WTP. Influent concentrations to the WTP and individual
adsorbers are not reviewed.
As noted elsewhere, the analysis of DLCs was shifted to a new laboratory in October 2018.
These analyses appear to have improved reliability, accuracy, and timeliness of testing.
Arsenic, chromium, and copper appear on the list of ILs, with ILs of 53 ug/L, 11 ug/L of
hexavalent chromium, and 9.8 ug/L of copper (hardness dependent). According to the
approved sampling plan, they are required to be tested every five years, due to a historical
record of compliance in the effluent. Their concentrations continue to be performant.
This report examines the effluent concentrations of B(a)P, naphthalene, and PCP, all of which
have ELs. In addition, B(a)P-Eq and TCDD-Eq are also examined. Recent data are examined,
where "recent' comprises data beginning in 2016; this is a period consistent with the 5YRR and
with a new calculation method for equivalent concentrations. The 2005 list of ILs includes B(a)P,
but does not list values for other carcinogenic PAHs; because B(a)P-Eq is listed as a GWCG and
groundwater discharges to surface water, that is a reasonable value to use while reviewing the
effluent monitoring data. To clarify, concentrations of B(a)P-Eq in effluent is compared to its
GWCG as an indicator, not as a criterion. TCDD and other DLCs have ILs and MLs that generally
are greater than the ILs (with notable exceptions for octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD),
St. Regis Groundwater Review
23
-------
octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF), and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran). Because the MLs
are generally greater than the ILs and because groundwater discharge to surface water bodies
is limited by the MCL for TCDD-EQ, concentrations of TCDD-Eq in effluent is compared to its
GWCG for purposes of this review. Individual congeners can be examined separately in a more
detailed evaluation against their respective ELs. For data collected after EPA issued updated
GWCGs [USEPA, 2016], the equivalent concentrations contained in the Barr dataset use the KM
calculation method, if applicable. Where the percentage of nondetects is too high, imputed
values of 0, Vi, and 1 times the RL are provided. A "middle-of-the-road" substitution method of
Vi of the reporting limit (RL) is used in this review, rather than all three imputed values. Because
TCDD-Eq does not have an IL, it is used as a comparison indicator, not as a criterion.
Appendix F contains a complete set of plots for these analytes, showing the data, a moving
average, and a moving CI (formatted like those in Appendix D and described in Section 2.3.3.
All analytes, except one, are easily below the comparison value. The exception is B(a)P, which
has an EL equal to the ML of 0.002 ug/L, rather than the IL of 0.00051 ug/L. Note that the EL—in
this case the ML—is two orders of magnitude less than the MCL for B(a)P. As shown in
Figure 11, there are 70 recent data (excluding field duplicates):
• 10 of these 70 data are detects greater than the EL (15%).
• Fully 42 of the 60 nondetects have RLs greater than the EL; these comprise 60% of the
B(a)P effluent data. These 42 nondetects cannot be used to evaluate whether the EL is
satisfied.
• 18 of the 60 nondetects have RLs less than the EL and can be used to indicate
compliance with the EL.
• All of these appear to have been analyzed using the SW8270D-SIM-SVOC method.
As a result, B(a)P in the effluent is being inadequately monitored to ascertain that the effluent
concentration complies with the EL. Added efforts will be needed by IP and its contractors to
lower the RLs to, or below, the ML.
4. Other Topics
This section discusses on other topics related to the site that do not fit in Section 3.
4.1. Extraction Well System Reliability
The most straightforward and accessible lay definition of reliability of the extraction well
system is that hydraulic capture of the contaminant plumes by the P&T system is assured, i.e., it
can be relied upon to achieve its objectives. There is clear evidence that there has been
inadequate extraction and capture at OU1 and OU3. A common-sense interpretation is that the
extraction well system cannot be depended upon to control the groundwater pollution, i.e., it is
not completely reliable.
A second measure of reliability focuses on the components to function as desired. Zeroing in on
the extraction well system, it is the probability that the extraction well system and its
components will not "break" or "fail", that if a fault occurs the impact is insignificant during the
St. Regis Groundwater Review
24
-------
time the extraction well system is experiencing the fault, and that the system be reliable during
the fault.
At OU1, replacement wells W402R and W403R have been installed and a new well W412 will be
brought online in 2020, but other 30+ year-old wells currently are responsible for about 80% of
the OU1 pumping rate. At OU3, two of the three wells have been replaced, of which one is
inoperable due to oil-water separation issues, and replacement of the third is being planned for
2020.
As of the beginning of April 2020, 40% of the OU1 wells and 33% of the OU3 wells are not
operated.
• Four of the ten extraction wells at OU1 are off-line (W401, W406, W407, and W410)—
W401 has been offline since September 2014 (reason unknown), W406 and W407
initially went offline in 2010 due to maintenance issues (pumping sand and electrical
problems, respectively) and have been intentionally kept offline using the rationale of
nondetects or low concentrations, and W410 was removed from service in 2019 due to
well screen failure. Replacement wells W402R and W403R were installed and brought
online. W404 has reportedly been observed to be infected with iron-fixing bacteria.
W408 was offline from 2009 to 2016, almost 7 years, before being returned to service.
• At OU3, W2401 was offline from October 2013 until replaced by W2401R in December
2014, though it operated only briefly before oil-water issues caused an upset at the
WTP and the well was shut down. The pumping rate at W2402 has decreased in 2019
and its replacement is planned; a first attempt in 2019 was not successful due to
inadequate well extraction capacity. W2403 extraction rates declined gradually after
2015 and was replaced in October 2019.
In addition to the number of inoperable and at-risk wells highlighted in the previous paragraph,
the reliance of the system on a small number of extraction wells is a cause of concern. W405
and W409 are critical wells because they pump large rates at high concentrations. Although
they now are responsible for a smaller portion of OU1 extraction rates than in the 2015 review,
their importance to the system is greater than their pumping rates alone suggest.
4.2. Extraction Well and Water Treatment Plant Optimization
4.2.1. Extraction Well System Optimization
The need for optimization of the remedy led to a review by an external optimization team from
EPAHQ. Their report [USEPA, 2019] recommended additional extraction at OU1 and OU3,
initially estimated as 100 gpm and 60 gpm, respectively [USEPA, 2019b].
As discussed in the 2015 groundwater review [Subterranean Research, 2015], the extraction
well system has been subjected to an informal type of optimization. A "quiet" optimization of
the extraction well system has occurred at OU1 over the past 10 years, as described in Section
2.2.2.5. The northward shift in pumping at OU1 (Figures 6 and 7). Although not explicit in IP
St. Regis Groundwater Review
25
-------
documents, this appears to have been motivated—at least in part—by a need to extend the
northern extent of the capture zone, a history of low or nondetect contaminant concentrations
observed in W406 and W407, and delayed decisions at W408 due to investigations and initial
monitoring east and southeast of the OU1 extraction well line.
The general concept of this informal optimization makes sense. Despite some extraction well
replacements, the aging OU1 extraction wells in the center and north of the extraction well
line—in the areas of greatest extraction flow rates and highest concentrations—create an
unaddressed risk (i.e., an unrecognized probabilistic cost). This risk has been increased in recent
years due to the shift in pumping rates that emphasizes fewer wells. It is worth noting that the
total pumping at OU1, which had decreased over the 2010-2015 period, has been increased to
just under 80 gpm.
PCP concentrations at monitoring wells W104 and W105R have long exceeded the MCLs. These
wells are located near and in the northern area of OU1, north and west, respectively, of the
northernmost extraction well on the main extraction line, W403R. While W104 is accepted as
being in the hydraulic capture zone for OU1, W105R has long been believed to be near the
limits of the hydraulic capture zone. PCP concentrations at W105R have been slowly
decreasing. There are insufficient data to prove that these reductions are a result of changes in
spatial pumping distributions; Annual Reports continue to estimate that the hydraulic capture
zone extends just to W105R.
Moreover, shifting pumping at OU1 using the existing wells has not addressed the mid-
elevation contamination found at OU1 prior to the 2015 5YRR; if it had, then approximately 30
years of pumping would have impacted this mid-depth zone. So, while ad hoc optimization of
the OU1 system has occurred and yields more contaminant mass removal per gpm pumped
than pre-optimization, and may be inducing a gradual reduction in PCP concentration at
W105R, the result could also be characterized, from a 30,000-ft level, as an under-pumped,
non-redundant extraction well operation that is not addressing mid-elevation contamination.
This essentially echoes the view of the 2019 EPAHQ optimization team review of the site
[USEPA, 2019],
A similar attempt at informal optimization has occurred at OU3, although recently this has been
stymied by the inability to operate W2401R and difficulties being encountered in replacing the
deteriorating W2402. At the time of the previous 5YRR, the pumping rate at W2402 had been
increasing, with a likely shift of the capture zone slightly to the east. More recently, as seen in
the 2018 Annual Report [Barr, 2019a] and anticipated from the 2019 pumping rate data, the
reduced pumping at W2402 and OU3 in general has caused a contraction of the hydraulic
capture zone. A replacement for W2402 is scheduled for 2020. If successfully installed and able
to operate at anticipated target rates, this situation will be improved. However, like at OU1,
there is a need to address the shallow to mid-depth runout plume extending through the
eastern area of OU3.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
26
-------
Further optimization in the extraction well network and pumping distribution will be needed.
4.2.2. Water Treatment Plant Optimization
The report of the EPAHQ optimization team also recommended enhancements of the WTP to
reduce intermittent exceedances and to address the challenge of oil-water separation from
water extracted at W2401R (and potentially other existing or future extraction wells).
Specifically, the report recommended filtration before and after the GAC adsorbers and,
possibly, adding an organoclay canister at W2401R for oil adsorption from the extracted water.
This recommendation was made after a pilot study of a coalescer at W2401R for oil-water
separation prior to extracted water being piped to the WTP.
International Paper (IP) considered these recommendations in light of their previous activities
to optimize WTP performance for site conditions. These include removing W2401R from service
and deep cleaning the WTP after the W2401R-induced upset, proposing and performing a
coalescer pilot study at W2401R, and relining the GAC vessels at the WTP. IP proposed a post-
GAC filtration pilot study at the WTP, but it was tabled after USEPA comments. In late 2019, IP
proposed an initial bench study of organoclay for oil adsorption at W2401R. If successful, this
will lead to a pilot field-scale study.
4.3. Pace of Activities
There has been, and there continues to be, momentum in the right direction, and there has
been meaningful cooperation among stakeholders to achieve that. Operating documents, e.g.,
the O&M Plan, Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), and 5-year monitoring plan, have all
been updated and monthly status calls continue to be constructive. As indicated in Section 1
and Table 1, investigation activities have proceeding at a good pace for the past few years, with
investigations and installations at OU1, OU3, and OU9 (formerly OU2/Southwest Disposal Area).
In the past five years, extraction wells W402, W403, W2401, and W2403 were replaced (though
W2401R is inoperable for the foreseeable future). Replacement of W2402 is anticipated in
2020. A single new extraction well, W412, has been added to improve capture at OU1—as
previously mentioned, TA years were required to go from evidence to production. No new
extraction well at OU3 has been discussed, despite evidence of the runout plume in 2013.
While there have been flow rate adjustments at various wells and improvements "around the
edges", but the actual capture improvements have been minor and slow in coming.
There also have been numerous characterization studies in the field. Access issues have been a
lingering issue, leading to multiple years to execute a planned single-season workplan.
These are examples of impediments that slow the pace toward substantive capture
improvements. The "small bites" step-by-step approach has become the routine practice at the
site and has at its core a data-driven decision-making methodology. The number of small-scope
projects one predicated upon the other and the amount of time per project (to scope, prepare,
approve, and execute a workplan) have the effect of delaying or slowing progress,
St. Regis Groundwater Review
27
-------
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1. Related to 2015 5YRR Issues
After the 2015 5YRR, USEPA updated the Groundwater Cleanup Goals [USEPA, 2016]. However,
it has not changed or updated the 2005 effluent limits.
Occasional WTP effluent water quality concerns are the focus of 2015 5YRR Issue #2. This has
been addressed by halting all extraction from OU3 well W2401R and by deeper cleaning and
relining of the GAC vessels in the treatment plant. Improvements in the quality control of
treatment plant water quality monitoring have been obtained with a change in laboratory for
dioxin/furans. A pilot study at W2401R examined the utility of using a coalescer to perform oil-
water separation, with mixed results. A second pilot study for enhanced treatment at the WTP
was floated but withdrawn before implementation. Another line of testing has been initiated at
W2401R, with a bench test of organoclays in December 2019 and follow-on recommendations
anticipated in 2020.
The 2015 5YRR expressed concerns for the plume previously identified as emanating from an
area located in the vicinity of the Southwest Disposal Pit near OU2. A new administrative unit,
Operable Unit OU9, has been created to address related issues. Characterization activities
begun before the 2015 5YRR have continued at a slow pace largely due to access difficulties
(physical and legal). A remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS), leading to selection of
a remedy, is expected to begin in 2020. The goal for the next five years should be to complete
the RI/FS, select the remedy, and begin its implementation.
The data clearly demonstrate that incomplete capture at OU1 and OU3 remains a concern.
Monitoring data from OU1, and in particular data from new monitoring wells installed in the
eastern area (between SE 2nd Street and the Channel) show that a groundwater plume in excess
of GWCGs persists more than 30 years after the MEDD for the site was signed. In addition,
continuing exceedances at W105R indicate that a northward drift of the plume may not be
satisfactorily controlled. Data from monitoring wells installed after the 2015 5YRR demonstrate
that a good-sized portion of the plume at OU3 is outside the capture zone. An external
optimization team deployed by USEPA Headquarters also came to this conclusion. These lead to
the recommendation, as in previous evaluations, to increase pumping in certain areas of the
site. A new extraction well W412 was installed in 2019 and is expected to become operational
in mid-2020, after several years of preparatory work. The efficacy of this well remains to be
seen; the contingent activity would be addition of another well. The runout plume in the
eastern area of OU3 has not been directly addressed; the problems of air-water separation at
W2401R and the replacements of W2402 and W2403 have sidelined the discussion.
Institutional Controls (ICs), particularly an ICIAP and related procedures for the site, have not
been prepared and approved. Consequently, IC requirements have not yet been incorporated
into decision documents. International Paper is expected to distribute a draft ICIAP to USEPA,
St. Regis Groundwater Review
28
-------
LLBO, MPCA, and MPH in the spring of 2020 for review and finalization. It should be possible to
fully address IC plans and procedures by the time of the next 5YRR.
5.2. Additional Topics
Continued operation of the P&T remedy at the site is necessary because groundwater
concentrations in excess of the GWCGs continue to exist and migrate at both OU1 and OU3.
The P&T system is about 30 years old and many parts of the system have shown the need to be
rehabilitated or reconstructed. IP has been chipping away at this issue over the past several
years. OU1 extraction wells W405 and W409 are critical—together they pump over 40% of the
total rate pumped and the greatest concentrations extracted from any extraction wells at OU1.
Because the efficacy of the P&T system at OU1 is highly dependent on W405 and W409, a
reliability issue exists. We recommend pre-approved workplans for their replacements be
developed. (This appeared as a remark in the 2015 5YRR [USEPA, 2015].) There may a cogent
argument to be made that capacity at W408 and (soon) W412 could compensate for a
temporary loss of extraction from one or the other (although it would lead to extra migration
from the extraction well line toward 2nd Street SE); additional evidence to support the
argument would be needed.
At OU3, W2401R has been essentially inoperable since its installation due to oil-water
separation issues and, despite a pilot study of a coalescer, it will be offline for the foreseeable
future. A pilot study involving an organoclay alternative is being developed, as recommended
by the EPAHQ optimization team, but the study is being rolled out in small sequential pieces. A
timeline with milestones for resolution of oil-water separation—not limited to the pilot study
schedule—is needed.
W2402 is being replaced in 2020 after an unsuccessful attempt in 2019. A significant threat to
reliability exists at OU3 because any further reduction in extraction well pumping rates will
further diminish hydraulic capture and control of the OU3 plume.
Numerous characterization workplans have been developed, approved, and implemented since
the 2015 5YRR. In 2020, the first augmentation of the P&T system in over 30 years will be
brought online to address incomplete capture. Extraction well W412 has been foreseeable
since VAS boreholes were advanced in October 2012; essentially TA years from characterization
to production, and even longer since initial evidence.
This timing is presented because there is a specific need at OU3. A runout plume has been
evident since VAS data were obtained in February 2013 and needs to be addressed. Consistent
with earlier evaluations and the recommendations of the EPAHQ optimization team, we
recommend moving forward briskly to augment and optimize the P&T system to fully achieve
capture of the target zone at OU3. If properly located and sized, an additional well(s) would
impact the runout plume and also act as slack pumping capacity in case one of the other wells
were to go offline.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
29
-------
The definition of the OU1 and OU3 target zones and their respective hydraulic capture zones
should be revisited explicitly. We recommend that the process for defining the target zone and
for identifying and vetting potential improvements, among other tasks, be established
immediately. There should be a mutually respected objective against which to manage.
Further characterization and assessment activities needed at OU9 may be performed as part of
its upcoming RI/FS.
A timeframe for attaining cleanup goals and being delisted from the National Priorities List has
not been developed for the site. Although desirable, we believe it is beyond current predictive
capabilities to calculate the time-to-cleanup for the entire site. (The source inventories are not
known, for example.) Detailed exit criteria have not been developed because it seems
premature to do so given continued exceedances of GWCGs in numerous wells.
As noted in our 2015 evaluation, a limited-scope step-by-step approach to activities has
become the routine practice at the site. While consistent with both a data-driven decision-
making methodology and a divide-and-conquer strategy, many smaller projects predicated one
upon and the amount of time consumed per project (to scope, prepare, approve, and execute a
workplan) result in many minor milestones and extended timelines to accomplish major goals.
We recommend larger scale workplans that incorporate agility via phasing and decision points,
increasing focus on issues rather than process, reducing time-to-action, and resulting in lower
resource requirements.
6. References
Barr Engineering [1985]. "Remedial Investigation/Alternatives Report, Cass Lake Sites",
April 1985.
Barr Engineering [1996a]. "Groundwater Flow Model: Model Construction, St. Regis Paper
Company Site, Cass Lake, Minnesota", May 1996.
Barr Engineering [1996b]. "Groundwater Flow Model: Model Calibration and Sensitivity
Analysis, St. Regis Paper Company Site, Cass Lake, Minnesota", October 1996.
Barr Engineering [1996c]. "Groundwater Flow Model: Predictive Simulations, St. Regis Paper
Company Site, Cass Lake, Minnesota", October 1996.
Barr Engineering [2014a]. "Groundwater Flow Simulation Modeling Updated 3-D Solids Model
Development, St. Regis Paper Company Superfund Site, Cass Lake, Minnesota", Final
version, January 2014.
Barr Engineering [2014b]. "NAPL Investigation Summary Report, St. Regis Paper Company
Superfund Site, Cass Lake, Minnesota", Final version, March 2014.
Barr Engineering [2014c]. "2013 Annual Report, St. Regis Paper Company Site, Cass Lake,
Minnesota", Draft version, April 2014.
Barr Engineering [2014d]. "Groundwater Flow Simulation Modeling, Groundwater Flow Model
Calibration Set-up, St. Regis Paper Company Superfund Site, Cass Lake, Minnesota", Interim
report, September 2014.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
30
-------
Barr Engineering [2015a]. "OU2 Groundwater Quality Investigation—December 2014 Results
and Proposed 2015 Investigation", Technical Memorandum to L. Patterson (USEPA),
January 16, 2015.
Barr Engineering [2015b]. "4th Quarter Progress Report, St. Regis Paper Company Site, October
1 through December 31, 2014", Letter report to L. Patterson at USEPA, From T. Mattison,
February 3, 2015.
Barr Engineering [2015c]. "Groundwater Flow Simulation Modeling, Groundwater Flow Model
Calibration and Verification, St. Regis Paper Company Superfund Site, Cass Lake, MN", Initial
version, March 2015.
Barr Engineering [2015d]. "2015 Monitoring Well Installation, Operable Unit 1, St. Regis Paper
Company Superfund Site", Memo to L. Patterson at USEPA. May 26, 2015.
Barr Engineering [2016a]. "2014 Annual Report, St. Regis Paper Company Site, Cass Lake,
Minnesota", April 2016.
Barr Engineering [2016b]. "Groundwater Investigation Report, Operable Unit 2, St. Regis Paper
Company Superfund Site, Cass Lake, Minnesota". November 2016.
Barr Engineering [2016c]. "Proposed OU2 Porewater and Seep Investigation, St. Regis Paper
Company Superfund Site", Memo to L. Patterson at USEPA, November 29, 2016.
Barr Engineering [2016d]. "Groundwater Treatment System Evaluation—St. Regis Paper
Company Site", Memo to L. Patterson at USEPA, December 22, 2016.
Barr Engineering [2017a]. "2015 Annual Report, St. Regis Paper Company Site, Cass Lake,
Minnesota", January 2017.
Barr Engineering [2017b]. "2017 Monitoring Well and Vertical Aquifer Sampling Boring
Installation Work Plan, OU2, St. Regis Paper Company Superfund Site, Memo to L. Patterson
at USEPA. January 18, 2017.
Barr Engineering [2017c]. "Extraction Well W408 Screen Modification Plan, St. Regis Paper
Company Superfund Site", Memo to L. Patterson at USEPA, June 20, 2017.
Barr Engineering [2017d]. "MODFLOW Model Revision, LLBO Dry Zone Fix, St. Regis Paper
Company Site", Memo to Project file, From K. Marini, R. Conway, D. Dahlstrom, September
21, 2017.
Barr Engineering [2017e]. "Summary of OU2 Porewater and Bluff Investigation Results and
Proposed Follow-Up Activities, St. Regis Paper Company Superfund Site", Memo to L.
Patterson at USEPA, October 24, 2017.
Barr Engineering [2017f]. "2016 Annual Report, St. Regis Paper Company Site, Cass Lake,
Minnesota", November 2017.
Barr Engineering [2017g]. "2018 Vertical Aquifer Sampling Boring and Monitoring Well
Installation Work Plan, OU2, St. Regis Paper Company Superfund Site, Cass Lake,
Minnesota". December 15, 2017.
Barr Engineering [2018a]. "GroundwaterTreatment System Evaluation, St. Regis Paper
Company Site", Memo to L. Patterson at USEPA, May 7, 2018.
Barr Engineering [2018b]. "Porewater and Shallow Groundwater Investigation Report, Operable
Unit 2, St. Regis Paper Company Superfund Site, Cass Lake, Minnesota". August 2018.
Barr Engineering [2018c]. "2017 Annual Report, St. Regis Paper Company Site, Cass Lake,
Minnesota", August 2018.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
31
-------
Barr Engineering [2018d]. "Extraction Well W408 Screen Modification Report, St. Regis Paper
Company Site", Memo to L. Patterson at USEPA, September 12, 2018.
Barr Engineering [2018e]. "Quality Assurance Project Plan, Monitoring Activities Required by
the January 24, 1995 Unilateral Administrative Order on Consent, St. Regis Paper Company
Superfund Site Cass Lake, Minnesota, Revision 3.0", October 2018.
Barr Engineering [2018f]. "Pilot Study Work Plan—Water Treatment System, St. Regis Paper
Company Superfund Site, Cass Lake, Minnesota", Memo to L. Patterson at USEPA, From T.
Mattison, October 19, 2018.
Barr Engineering [2018g]. "Plan for Follow-up Investigation of Shallow Groundwater and
Porewater in Fox Creek Valley, St. Regis Paper Company Superfund Site, Cass Lake,
Minnesota". October 31, 2018.
Barr Engineering [2018h]. "Groundwater Investigation Report, Operable Unit 2, St. Regis Paper
Company Superfund Site, Cass Lake, Minnesota". November 2018.
Barr Engineering [2018i]. "Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Program: 2019-2024, St. Regis
Paper Company Site", Memo to L. Patterson at USEPA, From T. Mattison and J. Eidem,
November 9, 2018.
Barr Engineering [2019a]. "2018 Annual Report, St. Regis Paper Company Site, Cass Lake,
Minnesota", April 2019.
Barr Engineering [2019b]. "2019 Extraction Well Design Investigation Plan, St. Regis Paper
Company Superfund Site", Memo to L. Patterson at USEPA, From T. Mattison and J. Eidem,
April 4, 2019.
Barr Engineering [2019c]. "2019 Extraction Well Pilot Investigation Results, St. Regis Paper
Company, Cass Lake, Minnesota", Memo to L. Patterson at USEPA, From T. Neuens and J.
Eidem, June 5, 2019.
Barr Engineering [2019d]. "2019 Fox Creek Porewater Investigation, Operable Unit 2 - Interim
Data Report, St. Regis Paper Company Superfund Site", Memo to L. Patterson at USEPA,
From T. Neuens and J. Eidem, August 29, 2019.
Barr Engineering [2019e]. "2019 Extraction Well Pilot Investigation, Operable Unit 2—Interim
Data Report, St. Regis Paper Company", Memo to L. Patterson at USEPA, From T. Neuens
and J. Eidem, October 16, 2019.
Barr Engineering [2019f]. "Bench Scale Test Plan—Organoclay, St. Regis Paper Company Site",
Memo to T. Richardson at International Paper, October 18, 2019.
Barr Engineering [2020a]. "St.Regis_DataDump_20200114_GW_SW.xlsx". Microsoft Excel file.
Provided in email from L. Patterson (USEPA) to D. Dougherty (SRI) dated February 26, 2020.
See Appendix C.
Barr Engineering [2020b]. "St.Regis_DataDump_20200114_TreatmentSysdata.xlsx". Microsoft
Excel file. Provided in email from L. Patterson (USEPA) to D. Dougherty (SRI) dated February
26, 2020. See Appendix C.
Barr Engineering [2020c]. "Focused Extraction Well Design Investigation Report—W2402R, St.
Regis Paper Company Site, Cass Lake, Minnesota", Memo to L. Patterson at USEPA, From T.
Neuens and J. Eidem, March 18, 2020.
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) [2013]. Groundwater Statistics and
Monitoring Compliance, Statistical Tools for the Project Life Cycle, GSMC-1. Washington,
St. Regis Groundwater Review
32
-------
DC. Available at: https://www.itrcweb.org/gsmc-l and https://www.itrcweb.org/gsmc-
1/Content/Resources/GSMCPDF.pdf.
Minnesota Department of Health [2014a]. "Guidance for PAHs: Methods for Estimating Health
Risks from Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)", web page available at
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/pahmemo.html.
Minnesota Department of Health [2014b]. "Guidance for Evaluating the Cancer Potency of
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Mixtures in Environmental Samples", available
online at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/pahguidance.pdf, 31
October 2014.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency [1986a]. "Minnesota Enforcement Decision Document, St.
Regis Paper Company", 5 March 1986.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency [1986b]. "Minnesota Enforcement Decision Document,
Former Cass Lake City Dump", 29 July 1986.
Subterranean Research, Inc. [2005]. "Hydraulic Capture Zone Analysis, St. Regis Paper Company
Superfund Site, Cass Lake, Cass County, Minnesota, EPA Facility ID: MND057597940", July
2005.
Subterranean Research, Inc. [2010]. "Technical Memo, Five Year Evaluation for Groundwater,
St. Regis Superfund Site", Memo to T. Drexler (USEPA) from D. Dougherty, 3 May 2010.
Subterranean Research [2015]. Technical Memo, Five Year Groundwater Review, St. Regis
Superfund Site, Cass Lake, Minnesota. Provided to USEPA Region 5, Chicago. Also available
as Appendix E of USEPA [2015],
USEPA [1995]. "Unilateral Administrative Order, In the matter of St. Regis Paper Company
Administrative Order pursuant to Section 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended", transmitted from W.
Muno (USEPA) to T. Ross (Champion International Corporation), 24 January 1995.
USEPA [2005a]. "Amendments to Operations and Maintenance Plan for St. Regis Paper
Company Superfund Site Cass Lake, Minnesota", letter from T. Drexler to T. Ross (IP), 15
August 2005.
USEPA [2005b]. "Five-Year Review Report, Third Five-Year Review Report for St. Regis Paper
Company Superfund Site, Leech Lake Reservation, Pike Bay Township, Cass County,
Minnesota", September 2005.
USEPA [2009a]. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Unified
Guidance. EPA 530/R-09-007. USEPA, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery,
Program Implementation and Information Division. Available at
https://www.itrcweb.org/gsmc-l/Content/Resources/Unified_Guidance_2009.pdf
USEPA [2009b]. "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations", EPA/816/F-09/004, available
online at http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/upload/mcl-2.pdf, May 2009.
USEPA [2010a]. "[DRAFT] Development Of A Relative Potency Factor (RPF) Approach For
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Mixtures", Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment. EPA/635/R-08/012A, available online at
http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=494851, February 2010.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
33
-------
USEPA [2010b], Errata Sheet-March 2009 Unified Guidance. EPA 530/R-09-007a. USEPA, Office
of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Program Implementation and Information Division.
Available at https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/web/pdf/unified-errata.pdf.
USEPA [2010c]. "Five-Year Review Report, Fourth Five-Year Review Report, St. Regis Paper
Company Superfund Site, Cass Lake, Minnesota", September 2010.
USEPA [2010d]. "Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk
Assessments of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds",
EPA/100/R-10/005, December 2010.
USEPA [2013a]. "Use of Dioxin TEFs in Calculating Dioxin TEQs at CERCLA and RCRA Sites".
Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/dioxin/pdfs/Use_of_Dioxin_TEFs_in_
Calculating Dioxin TEQs at CERCLA and RCRA Sites.pdf. May 2013.
USEPA [2013b]. "EPA Basic KM TEQ and ISM UCL Calculator", available as Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/dioxin/pdfs/Basic_calculator_-
Template.xls, November 2013.
USEPA [2014a]. "EPA Advanced KM TEQ Calculator", Version 9.1, available as Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
09/adv_calc_for_50_template_v9.1_31jul2014.xls.
USEPA [2014b]. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Use of Sufficiently
Sensitive Methods for Permit Applications and Reporting", Final rule. Federal Register,
79(160):49001:49013, 19 August 2014.
USEPA [2015]. "Fifth Five Year Review Report for the St. Regis Superfund Site, Leech Lake Indian
Reservation, Cass Lake, Minnesota". Available at
https://semspub.epa.gov/work/05/484241.pdf.
USEPA [2016]. "Updated Groundwater Cleanup Levels, St. Regis Paper Company Superfund
Site", Memo to T. Richardson at International Paper and T. Mattison at Barr Engineering,
From L. Patterson, December 20, 2016.
USEPA [2019]. "Optimization Review, St. Regis Paper Company Superfund Site, Cass Lake,
Minnesota", Office of Land and Emergency Management, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation, Technology Innovation and Field Services Division, June 21,
2019.
USEPA [2020]. "Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) Comprehensive Manual Version 4.3", USEPA
Region 5, Chicago. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-
02/documents/r5comprehensivema nual_feb2020.pdf.
St. Regis Groundwater Review
34
-------
Table 1. Groundwater activities in response or subsequent to 2015 Five Year Review Report
[USEPA, 2015], Activities already on schedule for 2020 are italicized.
Regulatory and Planning:
• 2016: Revised groundwater cleanup goals established by USEPA.
• 2019: O&M Plan Version 3 approved.
• 2018: Monitoring QAPP Revision 3.0 approved.
• 2018-2019: EPAHQ optimization team review initiated and completed with report on 6/21/2019.
• 2019: Monitoring plan for 2019-2024 approved.
• 2019: Site visit for Five Year Review Report.
• Anticipated in 2020: Draft of ICIAP
Water Treatment Plant:
• 2015: WTP upset.
• 2018-2019: Relined the GAC adsorber vessels, one at a time, during GAC changeouts.
OU1:
• 2015: Channel porewater quality investigation.
• 2015: Eight new monitoring wells installed at OU1 to monitor plume east of extraction well line, focusing
on mid-depth data gap. W133, W134, W112M, W132M, W133M, W134M, W233, and W234.
• 2016: Two replacement extraction wells at OU1 installed and brought on-line. W402R and W403R.
Existing wells W402 and W403 dropped.
• 2017: Well screen length modification and testing to evaluate mid-depth pumping at OU1. W408.
• 2019: One replacement extraction well at OU1 installed, but not brought on-line. Anticipate coming on-
line in 2020. W412.
• Anticipated in 2020: Complete W412 and bring well online.
OU3:
• 2016: Oil-water coalesce pilot study at W2401R.
• 2017: Eight new monitoring wells installed at OU3 to monitor plume east of W2140 to Pike Bay.W2141,
W2141M, W2142M, W2143, W2143M, W2144M, W2241, and W2243.
• 2019: One replacement extraction well at OU3 installed and brought on-line. W2403R.
• 2019: One replacement extraction well at OU3 installed, but not brought on-line. Anticipate coming on-
line in 2020. W2402R.
• 2019-2020: Bench scale organoclay tests for W2401R oil-water separation issues performed.
• Anticipated in 2020: W2401R organoclay pilot test. (Follow-on to bench scale test.)
OU9 (Southwest Disposal area plume):
• 2016: VAS investigations continued.
• 2017: Additional VAS investigations and monitoring well installations.
• 2017: Fox Creek porewater and bluff area investigations.
• 2018: Expanded shall groundwater and porewater study performed.
• 2018: Additional VAS investigations.
• 2018: Three new monitoring wells installed at OU9. W336M, W338M, and W338D.
• Anticipated in 2020: Completion of second phase of porewater investigations.
Other Activities:
• 2015: Barr's Groundwater Flow Simulation Model Calibration and Verification Report approved.
• 2015-2016: Replacement and spare forcemain and stubs installed at OU1. (Piping to new well W412 to be
installed in 2020.)
• 2016: Barr's Groundwater Flow Simulation Model Application Assessment Report approved. This
completed the groundwater flow simulation model development as planned in and guided by the
Modeling QAPP.
• 2017: Barr's Groundwater Flow Simulation Model Dry-zone fix approved.
-------
Table 2. (a) Groundwater cleanup goals [USEPA, 2016] and (b) treatment plant effluent limits [USEPA,
2005a],
(a)
Constituent
Groundwater Cleanup Goal
Comment
Benzo(a)pyrene-equivalent, B(a)P-Eq
0.2 ug/L
MCL
Naphthalene
N/A
No GWCG
Pentachlorophenol, PCP
1.0 ug/L
MCL
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin-equivalent, TCCD-Eq
0.30 pg/L
MCL
(b)
Constituent
Effluent Limit
Comment
Benzo(a)pyrene, B(a)P
0.002 ug/L
Minimum Level
Benzo(a)pyrene-equivalent, B(a)P-Eq
0.2 ug/L*
MCL*
Naphthalene
81 ug/L
Intervention Limit
Pentachlorophenol, PCP
5.5 ug/L**
Intervention Limit**
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin-equivalent, TCCD-Eq
0.30 pg/L*
MCL*
* The Intervention Limits are provided for individual congeners, not for equivalents
B(a)P-Eq and TCDD-Eq. Many carcinogenic PAHs do not have Intervention Limits.
Individual dioxin/furan congeners have Minimum Levels that are generally much greater
than the Intervention Limit. For the review purposes of this report, B(a)P-Eq and TCDD-
Eq are used in statistical data review. A more detailed review would carefully examine
each congener.
** Because PCP in effluent occurs due to extracted groundwater (excluding landfill
leachate and operational needs), the MCL of 1 ug/L is used in statistical data review in
this report.
-------
Table 3. Well maintenance events reported in quarterly reports since 2015.
Month \ Well Q?tuHE W402/402R
W403/403R
W404
W409
OFFLINE
W2401/2401R
OFFLINE
W2402
W2403/2403R
Additional Comments
Dec-19
CteanMain 12/17
DropPipe 12/17
Pump 12/17
CteanMain 12/17
Nov-19
Oct-19
Pump 10/2
Pump 10/2
Pump 10/2
Sep-19
Adsorber C retined
Auq-19
Pump 8/22
JetScreen 8/1
CteanMain 8/1
DropPipe 8/1
Pump 8/22
Jut-19
Pump 7/11
JetScreen 7/11
Jun-19
i / 19
Pump 5/2
CteanMain 5/2
CteanMain 5/2
Apr-19
Adsorber B retined
Mar-19
Feb-19
Jan-19
Pump 1/2
Dec-18
Nov-18
Oct-18
Clear Main 10/10
Clean Main 10/10
CteanMain 10/10
Sep-18
Aug-18
JetScreen 8/1
CteanMain 8/1
Electrical 8/12
Clean influent tank and sump
Jut-18
Pump 7/30
JetScreen 7/30
CteanMain 7/30
DropPipe 7/30
Pump 7/31
JetScreen 7/31
CteanMain 7/31
DropPpe 7/31
Adsorber A relined
Replace pump@Leachate detection
manhole
Jun-18
Electrical 6/25
May-18
Pump 5/23
JetScreen 5/23
CteanMain 5/23
JetScreen 5/29
CteanMain 5/29
JetScreen 5/30
CteanMain 5/30
Pump 5/31
JetScreen 5/31
CteanMain 5/31
JetScreen 5/24
JetScreen 5/24
Apr-18
Mar-18
Fen-18
Jan-18
Pump 1/17
Pump 1/30
Dec-17
Pump 12/13
Pump 12/13
Nov-17
Oct-17
Electrical 10/6
Electrical 10/20
JetScreen 10/18
Sep-17
Aug-17
Jul-17
Pittess 7/11
Jun-17
RepairElect 6/6
Pump 6/1
CleanMam 6/1
JetScreen 6/27
JetScreen 6/26
May-17
Pump 5/11
JetScreen 5/31
JetScreen 5/11
JetScreen 5/30
PullString 5/4
PullString 5/4
JetScreen 5/31
Meter 5/30
Apr-17
Mar-17
ElectFire 0U3, Intrumentation failure 0U1
Fen-17
Pump 2/20
Jan-17
Dec-16
Nov-16
Oct-16
Sep-16
W402, W403 replaced by W402R, W403R.
New forcemains W403, W404.
Aug-16
Jut-16
Jun-16
May-16
Apr-16
JetScreen 4/19
JetScreen 4/20-1
JetScreen 4/20-1
JetScreen 4/25-7
CteanMain 4/25-7
Pump 4/27-8
JetScreen 4/21-2
CteanMain 4/21-2
JetScreen 4/28
Pump 4/28
JetScreen 4/27-8
Pump 4/27-8
Video finds W402, W403 unusable.
Mar-16
Feb-16
Jan-16
Pump 1/21-2
Pump 1/21-2
Pump 1/21-2
JetScreen 1/21
Pump 1/21-2
Dec-15
New forcemain W408.
Nov-15
Oct-15
Sep-15
Aug-15
Jut-15
Pump 7/1
Pump 7/16
Jun-15
May-15
Apr-15
Pump 4/?
Pump 4/?
Mar-15
ShockAcki 3/?
W2401 down-etectricat.
Fen-15
Jan-15
-------
Table 4. Measured pumping rates at St. Regis site expressed as annualized pumping rates. Separate
entries for entire system, 0U1 wells, and OU3 wells. These values are based on quarterly and annual
reports from IP [various dates]. The number of significant figures varies due to differences in underlying
reports. Rates are not adjusted for downtime.
Year
OU1, gpm
OU3, gpm
Total, gpm
2000
72.0
32.0
104.0
2001
81.0
19.0
100.0
2002
75.0
17.0
92.0
2003
69.0
38.0
107.0
2004
72.0
43.0
115.0
2005
65.6
34.9
100.5
2006
71.1
29.7
100.7
2007
73.7
42.7
116.4
2008
76.2
40.1
116.3
2009
82.8
33.5
116.3
2010
76.2
35.2
111.4
2011
69.8
39.2
109.0
2012
64.7
42.5
107.1
2013
61.7
40.9
102.6
2014
60.0
33.0
93.0
2015
50.0
37.2
87.2
2016
64.6
39.5
104.1
2017
76.8
37.4
114.2
2018
78.1
37.2
115.3
2019
76.6
30.1
106.7
[Note: Sum of OU1 and OU3 amounts shown may not equal total amount shown due to roundoff.]
St. Regis Groundwater Review
-------
Table 5. Measured pumping rates at St. Regis site for extraction wells at 0U1 expressed as annualized
pumping rates. These values are based on quarterly and annual reports from IP [various dates]. Number
of significant figures changes due to reporting changes. Rates not adjusted for downtime.
Year
W401
W402/R
W403/R
W404
W405
W406
W407
W408
W409
W410
OU1
2000
3
6
9
0
16
6
8
7
12
5
72.0
2001
2
7
7
0
19
6
8
12
14
6
81.0
2002
3
7
5
0
20
5
7
8
15
5
75.0
2003
6
4
4
0
17
4
8
7
14
5
69.0
2004
5
6
4
0
19
4
8
7
14
5
72.0
2005
4.1
5.3
5.2
0.0
18.3
2.9
5.2
4.8
15.6
4.2
65.6
2006
3.0
4.0
6.8
0.0
16.1
4.7
9.3
4.5
16.5
6,2
71.1
2007
5.4
5.3
6.5
0.0
13.3
7.9
8.7
4.6
16.8
5.1
73.7
2008
5.5
5.4
6.3
0.0
15.9
9.1
9.8
4.6
14.6
5.0
76.2
2009
5.4
5.1
5.8
4.6
20.0
8.4
10.2
1.4
17.9
4.8
82.8
2010
5.5
5.1
9.2
11.1
17.2
1.5
4.9
0.4
15.9
5.8
76.2
2011
5.4
4.5
11.3
11.8
11.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.2
4.3
69.8
2012
4.8
5.0
9.8
10.2
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.1
4.9
64.7
2013
4.4
4.7
7.8
9.9
8.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.3
5.1
61.7
2014
2.4
5.3
3.7
8.1
11.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.8
6.5
60.0
2015
0.0
5.4
3.3
5.5
8.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.7
5.3
50.0
2016
0.0
4.3
3.1
6.0
10.8
0.0
0.0
11.8
22.7
6.0
65.0
2017
0.0
5.2
9.1
12.1
9.3
0.0
0.0
13.4
22.5
5.2
77.0
2018
0.0
5.2
9.8
12.3
10.5
0.0
0.0
12.6
22.1
5.6
78.0
2019
0.0
5.3
10.3
13.9
10.7
0.0
0.0
12.9
21.4
1.4
76.6
[Note: Sum of OU1 and OU3 amounts shown may not equal total amount shown due to roundoff.]
St. Regis Groundwater Review
-------
Table 6. Measured pumping rates at St. Regis site for extraction wells at 0U3 expressed as annualized
pumping rates. These values are based on quarterly and annual reports from IP [various dates]. Number
of significant figures changes due to reporting changes. Rates not adjusted for downtime.
Year
W2401/R
W2402
W2403/R
OU3
2000
7
14
11
32
2001
3
9
7
19
2002
5
6
6
17
2003
5
15
18
38
2004
8
15
20
43
2005
4.2
16.1
14.6
34.9
2006
3.7
13.5
12.5
29.7
2007
6.3
16.5
20.0
42.7
2008
6.6
15.5
18.0
40.1
2009
5.7
13.1
14.7
33.5
2010
7.9
12.6
14.7
35.2
2011
5.0
17.9
16.2
39.2
2012
3.6
18.6
20.3
42.5
2013
2.8
20.9
17.2
40.9
2014
0.7
20.7
11.6
33
2015
7.5
16.2
13.5
37
2016
0.1
19.2
20.3
40
2017
0.0
18.4
19.0
37
2018
0.0
18.2
18.9
37
2019
0.0
13.5
16.6
30.1
[Note: Sum of OU1 and OU3 amounts shown may not equal total amount shown due to roundoff.]
St. Regis Groundwater Review
-------
Table 7. Summary table with statistical exceedances identified from bootstrap analysis for the
95% confidence interval for the median of recent groundwater monitoring data (01/01/2015+).
Comparison-to-Standard Exceedances Mini-Table
St. Regis Superfund Site — Recent Data (01/01/2015+)
Bootstrap Info'
Basic Info
Well ID
Analyte
LCL2
UCL2
GWCG2
n2
n_ND2
pc^ND2
OU1 - Top of Surficial
W105R
PCP
15.0
27.5
1.0
10
1
10.0
W133
PCP
0.1
6.6
1.0
11
4
36.4
OU1 - Middle of Surficial
W112M
PCP
150.0
270.0
1.0
11
0
0.0
W132 M
PCP
30.0
39.0
1.0
11
0
0.0
W133 M
PCP
870.0
1,100.0
1.0
11
0
0.0
W134M
PCP
850.0
1,100.0
1.0
11
0
0.0
OU1 - Bottom of Surficial
W212
PCP
4.3
9.6
1.0
13
0
0.0
W220
PCP
2.9
8.6
1.0
13
0
0.0
W232
PCP
15.0
27.0
1.0
11
0
0.0
W233
PCP
0.4
4.0
1.0
11
1
9.1
W234
PCP
14.0
27.0
1.0
11
0
0.0
OU1 - Pump-out Wells
W408
PCP
150.0
260.0
1.0
8
0
0.0
OU3 - Top of Surficial
W2141
PCP
130.0
310.0
1.0
9
0
0.0
W2143
PCP
23.0
53.0
1.0
9
0
0.0
OU3 - Middle of Surficial
W2141M
PCP
26.0
79.0
1.0
9
0
0.0
W2143 M
PCP
120.0
170.0
1.0
9
0
0.0
OU3 - Bottom of Surficial
W2241
PCP
34.0
75.0
1.0
9
0
0.0
W2243
PCP
25.0
58.0
1.0
9
0
0.0
' 95% confidence interval for median calculated by bootstrap-percentile method using 5000 resamples. Minimum of 8 recent data required.
2 GWCG = Groundwater Cleanup Goal. LCL = Lower Confidence Limit. UCL = Upper Confidence Limit, n = Number of data. n_ND = Number of nondetects, pct_ND = Percentage of nondetects. Units are ug/L.
Analysis Date: 2020-04-18
PAMR
St. Regis Groundwater Review
-------
Table 8. Expanded details from statistical analysis of groundwater monitoring data (at least one datum). Use pdf reader to enlarge and review.
Comparison-to-Standard Summary Table'
St Regis Superfund Sits
Recent Data (01/01/2015+)2 All Data
Weill D
Analyte
Exceed5
LCL
median
UCL
GWCG
n
n_ND
pct_ND
minRDL
medianRDL
maxRDL
is Normal4
pJsNormal4 isLogNormal4 pJsLogNormal4
n_AII
n_N D_AII
pct_N D_AII
min_AII
median_AII
max_AII
IQR_AII
minRDL_AII
medianRDL_AII
maxRDL_AII
OU1 - Top of Surficial
W104
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W105R
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
8
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0045
FALSE
0.0014
20
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W112
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
12
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W114
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W115
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W118
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
7
0
0.00
0.22
0.40
0.76
0.08
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W133
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
10
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0008
FALSE
0.0004
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W134
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
10
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0004
FALSE
0.0002
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W104
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
4
26.67
0.02
1.20
80.00
3.57
-9,999.00
0.00
80.00
W105R
Naphthalene
NSD
0.00
0.27
0.70
-
9
8
88.89
0.00
0.27
0.84
TRUE
0.0519
TRUE
0.0510
21
15
71.43
0.00
0.27
3.00
0.72
0.00
0.18
3.00
W112
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
9
64.29
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.05
-9,999.00
0.01
10.00
W114
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
24
16
66.67
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.04
-9,999.00
0.01
10.00
W115
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
24
18
75.00
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.05
-9,999.00
0.01
10.00
W118
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
5
0
0.00
930.00
1,400.00
1,600.00
400.00
0.76
1.90
3.80
W133
Naphthalene
NSD
0.00
0.01
0.06
-
11
7
63.64
0.00
0.00
0.32
FALSE
0.0000
TRUE
0.2107
11
7
63.64
0.00
0.01
0.32
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.32
W134
Naphthalene
NSD
0.05
0.08
0.45
-
11
3
27.27
0.00
0.00
0.67
FALSE
0.0002
FALSE
0.0021
11
3
27.27
0.04
0.08
0.67
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.67
W104
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
0
0.00
35.00
310.00
3,200.00
495.00
-9,999.00
0.71
10.00
W105R
PCP
TRUE
15.00
20.50
27.50
1.00
10
1
10.00
0.07
0.07
2.10
TRUE
0.9690
FALSE
0.0023
22
1
4.55
0.84
26.00
140.00
26.25
0.07
0.16
2.10
W112
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
14
100.00
0.07
0.16
50.00
0.37
0.07
0.16
50.00
W114
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
24
24
100.00
0.07
0.16
50.00
2.87
0.07
0.16
50.00
W115
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
24
23
95.83
0.07
0.33
50.00
2.85
0.07
0.16
50.00
W118
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
5
0
0.00
23,000.00
47,000.00
73,000.00 6,000.00
65.00
65.00
620.00
W133
PCP
TRUE
0.07
4.80
6.60
1.00
11
4
36.36
0.07
0.07
0.16
TRUE
0.0575
FALSE
0.0027
11
4
36.36
0.07
4.80
12.00
6.38
0.07
0.07
0.16
W134
PCP
FALSE
0.07
0.07
0.15
1.00
11
8
72.73
0.07
0.07
0.16
FALSE
0.0000
FALSE
0.0001
11
8
72.73
0.07
0.07
0.57
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.16
W133
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
0.95
1.37
1.90
30.00
12
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
TRUE
0.3866
TRUE
0.2580
12
0
0.00
0.53
1.37
2.07
0.87
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W134
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
1.19
1.41
2.36
30.00
12
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0314
TRUE
0.3776
12
0
0.00
0.77
1.41
3.66
0.80
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
OU1 - Middle of Surficial
W112M
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
10
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0088
FALSE
0.0038
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W132M
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
10
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0018
FALSE
0.0007
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W133M
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
11
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0152
TRUE
0.0681
11
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W134M
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
10
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0002
FALSE
0.0002
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W112M
Naphthalene
NSD
0.01
0.02
0.04
-
11
3
27.27
0.00
0.00
0.19
FALSE
0.0002
TRUE
0.2102
11
3
27.27
0.01
0.02
0.19
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.19
W132M
Naphthalene
NSD
0.00
0.01
0.01
-
11
3
27.27
0.00
0.00
0.01
FALSE
0.0000
TRUE
0.0719
11
3
27.27
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
W133M
Naphthalene
NSD
0.07
0.09
0.13
-
11
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FALSE
0.0000
FALSE
0.0098
11
0
0.00
0.06
0.09
0.48
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
W134M
Naphthalene
NSD
0.12
0.13
0.58
-
11
2
18.18
0.00
0.00
0.69
FALSE
0.0012
FALSE
0.0029
11
2
18.18
0.11
0.13
0.69
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.69
W112M
PCP
TRUE
150.00
210.00
270.00
1.00
11
0
0.00
0.07
0.71
16.00
FALSE
0.0005
TRUE
0.1412
11
0
0.00
130.00
210.00
630.00
95.00
0.07
0.71
16.00
W132M
PCP
TRUE
30.00
37.00
39.00
1.00
11
0
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.36
TRUE
0.0504
FALSE
0.0113
11
0
0.00
20.00
37.00
41.00
7.00
0.07
0.07
0.36
Analysis Date 2020-04-18
PAMR
-------
Table 8 (p 2/9). Expanded details from statistical analysis of groundwater monitoring data (at least one datum). Use pdf reader to enlarge and review.
Comparison-to-Standard Summary Table'
St Regis Super-fund Site
W133M
PCP
TRUE
870.00
990.00
1,100.00
1.00
11
0
0.00
0.71
3.60
16.00
TRUE
0.6573
TRUE
0.9558
11
0
0.00
710.00
990.00
1,500.00
220.00
0.71
3.60
16.00
W134M
PCP
TRUE
850.00
990.00
1,100.00
1.00
11
0
0.00
0.71
3.60
40.00
TRUE
0.0557
TRUE
0.2743
11
0
0.00
390.00
990.00
2,200.00
195.00
0.71
3.60
40.00
W112M
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
1.09
1.84
2.19
30.00
12
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0106
TRUE
0.7496
12
0
0.00
0.47
1.84
5.63
1.07
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W132M
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
0.84
1.10
1.90
30.00
11
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
TRUE
0.1019
TRUE
0.7037
11
0
0.00
0.49
1.10
2.92
0.97
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W133M
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
1.14
1.40
2.18
30.00
12
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
TRUE
0.1391
TRUE
0.9437
12
0
0.00
0.59
1.40
3.92
0.97
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W134M
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
1.59
1.75
2.62
30.00
11
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
TRUE
0.7479
TRUE
0.8865
11
0
0.00
0.75
1.75
3.97
0.97
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
OU1 - Bottom of Surficial
W205
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W209
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W212
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
14
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0437
FALSE
0.0372
47
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W213
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
12
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0021
FALSE
0.0009
48
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W215
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W217
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W218
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W219
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
12
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W220
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
12
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0003
FALSE
0.0002
47
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W221
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W232
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
10
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0025
FALSE
0.0010
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W233
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
10
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0006
FALSE
0.0003
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W234
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
10
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0020
FALSE
0.0007
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W205
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
12
9
75.00
0.00
0.02
0.16
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.04
W209
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
12
10
83.33
0.00
0.02
0.23
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.23
W212
Naphthalene
NSD
0.01
0.01
0.01
-
13
2
15.38
0.00
0.00
0.01
FALSE
0.0100
TRUE
0.4901
54
13
24.07
0.01
0.45
750.00
1.31
-9,999.00
0.00
750.00
W213
Naphthalene
NSD
0.65
0.91
1.20
-
13
2
15.38
0.00
0.00
0.20
TRUE
0.1270
FALSE
0.0053
57
5
8.77
0.16
2.30
470.00
29.60
-9,999.00
0.00
6.80
W215
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
25
9
36.00
0.01
0.35
500.00
0.46
-9,999.00
0.00
500.00
W217
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
11
78.57
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.04
-9,999.00
0.01
10.00
W218
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
10
66.67
0.01
0.07
10.00
0.16
-9,999.00
0.01
10.00
W219
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
18
8
44.44
0.01
0.12
10.00
0.14
-9,999.00
0.02
10.00
W220
Naphthalene
NSD
0.24
0.30
0.34
-
13
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TRUE
0.7817
FALSE
0.0287
55
10
18.18
0.02
0.46
200.00
9.31
-9,999.00
0.00
5.10
W221
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
11
73.33
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.05
-9,999.00
0.01
10.00
W232
Naphthalene
NSD
0.05
0.09
0.12
-
11
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FALSE
0.0022
TRUE
0.5702
11
0
0.00
0.03
0.09
0.34
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
W233
Naphthalene
NSD
2.50
2.80
12.00
-
11
2
18.18
0.00
0.00
74.00
FALSE
0.0000
FALSE
0.0019
11
2
18.18
2.10
2.80
74.00
9.50
0.00
0.00
74.00
W234
Naphthalene
NSD
0.66
1.40
6.00
-
11
3
27.27
0.00
0.04
130.00
FALSE
0.0000
FALSE
0.0015
11
3
27.27
0.57
1.40
130.00
3.18
0.00
0.04
130.00
W205
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
12
12
100.00
0.07
0.16
3.00
0.37
0.07
0.16
3.00
W209
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
12
12
100.00
0.07
0.16
3.00
0.38
0.07
0.16
3.00
W212
PCP
TRUE
4.30
7.70
9.60
1.00
13
0
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.16
TRUE
0.5369
TRUE
0.5421
54
1
1.85
0.16
13.00
2,300.00
16.02
-9,999.00
0.08
1.60
W213
PCP
FALSE
0.07
0.07
0.16
1.00
13
12
92.31
0.07
0.07
0.39
FALSE
0.0000
FALSE
0.0003
57
52
91.23
0.07
0.16
1,900.00
0.31
-9,999.00
0.16
50.00
W215
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
25
10
40.00
0.07
13.00
1,600.00
359.84
-9,999.00
0.07
9.60
W217
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
14
100.00
0.07
0.29
50.00
0.36
0.07
0.29
50.00
W218
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
0
0.00
1.10
15.00
110.00
36.00
-9,999.00
0.07
5.00
Analysis Date: 2020-04-18
PAMR
-------
Table 8 (p 3/9). Expanded details from statistical analysis of groundwater monitoring data (at least one datum). Use pdf reader to enlarge and review.
Comparison-to-Standard Summary Table'
St Regis Super-fund Site
W219
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
18
18
100.00
0.07
0.50
50.00
2.84
0.07
0.50
50.00
W220
PCP
TRUE
2.90
5.50
8.60
1.00
13
0
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.16
TRUE
0.4594
TRUE
0.3094
55
3
5.45
0.08
9.60
570.00
12.65
-9,999.00
0.08
11.00
W221
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
15
100.00
0.08
0.40
50.00
1.59
0.08
0.40
50.00
W232
PCP
TRUE
15.00
24.00
27.00
1.00
11
0
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.16
TRUE
0.4422
TRUE
0.1324
11
0
0.00
10.00
24.00
31.00
10.00
0.07
0.07
0.16
W233
PCP
TRUE
0.39
0.93
4.00
1.00
11
1
9.09
0.07
0.07
0.16
FALSE
0.0059
TRUE
0.7854
11
1
9.09
0.07
0.93
8.10
3.20
0.07
0.07
0.16
W234
PCP
TRUE
14.00
23.00
27.00
1.00
11
0
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.80
FALSE
0.0044
TRUE
0.3486
11
0
0.00
2.30
23.00
92.00
10.50
0.07
0.07
0.80
W212
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
1.55
2.18
2.69
30.00
12
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
TRUE
0.4012
TRUE
0.9888
31
0
0.00
0.23
1.74
4.70
2.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W213
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
2.23
2.61
3.23
30.00
13
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
TRUE
0.1433
TRUE
0.3232
36
0
0.00
0.22
1.83
5.42
1.82
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W220
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
0.90
1.08
1.40
30.00
12
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0001
FALSE
0.0089
32
0
0.00
0.22
1.03
7.28
1.12
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W232
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
0.98
1.38
2.12
30.00
11
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
TRUE
0.0702
TRUE
0.7918
11
0
0.00
0.70
1.38
3.91
0.98
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W233
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
1.39
1.65
2.86
30.00
9
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
TRUE
0.0876
TRUE
0.3480
9
0
0.00
1.25
1.65
3.91
1.25
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W234
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
1.43
1.97
4.63
30.00
8
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
TRUE
0.0648
TRUE
0.2292
8
0
0.00
1.16
1.97
5.94
2.95
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
OU1 - Pump-out Wells
W401
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
0
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
8
0
0.00
0.04
0.92
9.90
4.10
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W402
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
9
0
0.00
0.00
0.44
9.90
0.68
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W402R
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W403
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
9
0
0.00
0.00
0.39
9.90
0.68
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W403R
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W404
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
5
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W405
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.40
9.90
0.67
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W406
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
7
0
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.80
0.35
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W407
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
8
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W408
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
6
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
16
0
0.00
0.00
0.03
9.90
0.67
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W409
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
9
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.90
0.04
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W410
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.90
0.03
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W411
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W401
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
0
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
13
11
84.62
0.07
0.40
100.00
9.63
0.00
0.40
100.00
W402
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
12
80.00
0.01
2.30
80.00
9.79
-9,999.00
0.38
80.00
W402R
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
2
1
50.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
W403
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
13
10
76.92
0.02
0.37
60.00
9.78
0.00
0.37
60.00
W403R
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
2
0
0.00
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
W404
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
1.20
110.00
150.00
68.75
0.00
0.07
0.37
W405
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
2
13.33
0.04
1,000.00
2,400.00
1,448.38
-9,999.00
0.02
37.00
W406
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
7
63.64
0.08
0.37
10.00
9.60
-9,999.00
0.13
10.00
W407
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
12
11
91.67
0.01
0.04
10.00
9.68
0.00
0.03
10.00
W408
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
7
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
23
1
4.35
0.06
23.00
650.00
94.38
-9,999.00
0.00
10.00
W409
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
0
0.00
55.00
370.00
2,200.00
875.00
-9,999.00
0.31
13.00
W410
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
8
57.14
0.00
0.38
10.00
9.54
0.00
0.06
10.00
W411
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
13
7
53.85
0.01
0.03
0.87
0.06
-9,999.00
0.02
0.18
W401
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
0
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
13
0
0.00
660.00
1,500.00
2,200.00
700.00
-9,999.00
1.30
800.00
Analysis Date 2020-04-18
PAMR
-------
Table 8 (p 4/9). Expanded details from statistical analysis of groundwater monitoring data (at least one datum). Use pdf reader to enlarge and review.
Comparison-to-Standard Summary Table'
St Regis Super-fund Site
W402
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
0
0.00
88.00
950.00
2,100.00
980.00
-9,999.00
0.13
400.00
W402R
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
2
0
0.00
120.00
175.00
230.00
55.00
0.07
0.39
0.71
W403
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
13
0
0.00
36.00
450.00
820.00
340.00
-9,999.00
0.26
400.00
W403R
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
2
0
0.00
46.00
58.50
71.00
12.50
0.07
0.07
0.07
W404
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
1,100.00
1,250.00
2,100.00
250.00
0.71
2.05
48.00
W405
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
0
0.00
170.00
5,300.00
11,000.00 5,860.00
-9,999.00
1.50
4,000.00
W406
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
12
11
91.67
0.08
1.45
58.00
9.60
-9,999.00
0.50
50.00
W407
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
13
13
100.00
0.07
0.50
50.00
4.87
0.07
0.50
50.00
W408
PCP
TRUE
150.00
185.00
260.00
1.00
8
0
0.00
0.07
0.40
12.00
TRUE
0.7560
TRUE
0.5094
24
0
0.00
62.00
370.00
2,000.00
727.50
-9,999.00
0.15
200.00
W409
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
16
0
0.00
1,700.00
3,000.00
5,600.00 2,350.00
-9,999.00
5.05
400.00
W410
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
5
33.33
0.07
14.00
110.00
40.44
-9,999.00
0.07
50.00
W411
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
13
0
0.00
3.10
15.00
350.00
34.00
-9,999.00
0.08
3.60
W408
TCDDEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
30.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
2
0
0.00
1.80
1.81
1.82
0.01
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
OU1 -
Lower Aquifer
MW3
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W302
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W306
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W340
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W341
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
MW3
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
10
71.43
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.03
-9,999.00
0.01
10.00
W302
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
7
50.00
0.00
0.04
10.00
0.03
-9,999.00
0.01
10.00
W306
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
25
13
52.00
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.04
-9,999.00
0.00
10.00
W340
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.12
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
W341
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
MW3
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
14
100.00
0.07
0.16
50.00
0.41
0.07
0.16
50.00
W302
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
12
85.71
0.07
0.16
50.00
0.40
0.07
0.16
50.00
W306
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
25
22
88.00
0.07
0.19
50.00
2.87
0.07
0.16
50.00
W340
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
5
83.33
0.07
0.16
0.42
0.08
0.07
0.16
0.42
W341
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
5
83.33
0.07
0.16
0.44
0.05
0.07
0.16
0.44
OU1 -
Channel
CL-S
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
0
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1
1
100.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
CL-C
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1
1
100.00
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.07
CL-N
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
25
25
100.00
0.07
0.16
50.00
0.37
0.07
0.16
50.00
CL-S
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
26
25
96.15
0.07
0.46
50.00
1.62
-9,999.00
0.29
50.00
OU2 -
Upper Aquifer
W124
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W125
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W126
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W127
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
18
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W128
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
Analysis Date 2020-04-18
PAMR
-------
Table 8 (p 5/9). Expanded details from statistical analysis of groundwater monitoring data (at least one datum). Use pdf reader to enlarge and review.
Comparison-to-Standard Summary Table'
St Regis Super-fund Site
W129
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W130
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W124
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
27
22
81.48
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.05
-9,999.00
0.02
10.00
W125
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
26
21
80.77
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.06
-9,999.00
0.02
10.00
W126
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
27
22
81.48
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.05
-9,999.00
0.02
10.00
W127
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
23
21
91.30
0.00
0.02
0.09
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.09
W128
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
26
22
84.62
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.04
-9,999.00
0.02
10.00
W129
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
26
22
84.62
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.02
-9,999.00
0.02
10.00
W130
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
26
22
84.62
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.07
-9,999.00
0.02
10.00
W124
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
27
27
100.00
0.07
0.16
50.00
2.86
0.07
0.16
50.00
W125
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
26
25
96.15
0.07
0.33
50.00
2.35
0.07
0.16
50.00
W126
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
25
25
100.00
0.07
0.16
50.00
2.77
0.07
0.16
50.00
W127
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
23
22
95.65
0.07
0.16
3.00
0.63
0.07
0.16
3.00
W128
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
26
26
100.00
0.07
0.16
50.00
2.37
0.07
0.16
50.00
W129
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
26
26
100.00
0.07
0.24
50.00
2.36
0.07
0.24
50.00
W130
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
26
26
100.00
0.07
0.33
50.00
2.86
0.07
0.33
50.00
OU2
Lower Aquifer
W324
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W329
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W330
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W324
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
7
63.64
0.01
0.03
0.12
0.06
0.00
0.01
0.12
W329
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
6
54.55
0.01
0.05
0.13
0.07
0.00
0.02
0.10
W330
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
7
63.64
0.01
0.04
0.13
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.13
W324
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
11
100.00
0.07
0.16
0.16
0.09
0.07
0.16
0.16
W329
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
11
100.00
0.07
0.16
0.21
0.09
0.07
0.16
0.21
W330
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
11
100.00
0.07
0.16
0.16
0.09
0.07
0.16
0.16
Additional Wells - Hatchery Wells
FISH1
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
8
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FISH2
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
8
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FISH3
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
8
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FISH4
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
20
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FISH5
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FISH1
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
9
5
55.56
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
FISH2
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
9
5
55.56
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
FISH3
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
9
4
44.44
0.00
0.01
0.07
0.02
-9,999.00
0.00
0.02
FISH4
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
28
16
57.14
0.00
0.02
3.00
0.03
-9,999.00
0.00
0.02
FISH5
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1
1
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FISH1
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
9
9
100.00
0.07
0.13
3.00
0.08
0.07
0.13
3.00
FISH2
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
9
9
100.00
0.07
0.13
3.00
0.08
0.07
0.13
3.00
FISH3
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
9
9
100.00
0.07
0.13
3.00
0.08
0.07
0.13
3.00
Analysis Date 2020-04-18
PAMR
-------
Table 8 (p 6/9). Expanded details from statistical analysis of groundwater monitoring data (at least one datum). Use pdf reader to enlarge and review.
Comparison-to-Standard Summary Table'
St Regis Super-fund Site
FISH4
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
30
30
100.00
0.07
0.16
50.00
0.36
0.07
0.16
50.00
FISH5
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
1
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1
1
100.00
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.07
OU3 - Top of Surficial
W2106
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
0
0.00
0.02
0.51
0.80
0.57
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2128
BAPEQ_Q5
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
12
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0005
FALSE
0.0002
39
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2129
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2134
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2135
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
0.02
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2140
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2141
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
6
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2143
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
6
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2106
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
13
2
15.38
0.27
11.00
2,600.00
729.50
0.02
0.37
200.00
W2128
Naphthalene
NSD
0.04
0.23
0.79
-
13
2
15.38
0.00
0.00
0.79
FALSE
0.0000
TRUE
0.3009
45
5
11.11
0.01
1.50
96.00
5.76
-9,999.00
0.00
0.79
W2129
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
24
18
75.00
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.02
-9,999.00
0.01
10.00
W2134
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
12
85.71
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.01
-9,999.00
0.01
10.00
W2135
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
25
19
76.00
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.04
-9,999.00
0.02
10.00
W2140
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
1
9.09
0.07
1.80
210.00
5.22
0.00
0.00
0.15
W2141
Naphthalene
NSD
36.00
81.00
96.00
-
9
0
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.11
TRUE
0.1957
FALSE
0.0000
9
0
0.00
0.06
81.00
98.00
51.00
0.00
0.04
0.11
W2143
Naphthalene
NSD
7.80
11.00
15.00
-
9
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
TRUE
0.0670
TRUE
0.1295
9
0
0.00
6.70
11.00
15.00
6.80
0.00
0.00
0.02
W2106
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
13
0
0.00
2,900.00
11,000.00
56,000.00 8,200.00
6.50
130.00
1,300.00
W2128
PCP
FALSE
0.64
0.78
0.89
1.00
13
0
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.16
FALSE
0.0000
FALSE
0.0020
45
2
4.44
0.07
2.00
120.00
4.63
-9,999.00
0.08
2.90
W2129
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
24
22
91.67
0.07
0.16
50.00
1.75
-9,999.00
0.16
50.00
W2134
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
14
100.00
0.07
0.16
50.00
0.37
0.07
0.16
50.00
W2135
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
25
24
96.00
0.07
0.28
50.00
2.84
0.07
0.16
50.00
W2140
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
1
9.09
0.07
19.00
3,000.00
624.60
0.07
0.16
35.00
W2141
PCP
TRUE
130.00
150.00
310.00
1.00
9
0
0.00
0.07
0.07
1.50
TRUE
0.4375
TRUE
0.7378
9
0
0.00
74.00
150.00
370.00
130.00
0.07
0.07
1.50
W2143
PCP
TRUE
23.00
36.00
53.00
1.00
9
0
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.36
TRUE
0.9861
TRUE
0.3889
9
0
0.00
8.80
36.00
69.00
17.00
0.07
0.07
0.36
W2106
TCDDEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
30.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
0
0.00
1.60
5.49
8.02
1.87
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2128
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
0.97
1.25
2.74
30.00
10
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0004
TRUE
0.0513
26
0
0.00
0.29
1.04
6.88
1.21
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2140
TCDDEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
30.00
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
9
0
0.00
0.36
2.29
4.17
1.09
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2141
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
1.16
1.51
4.73
30.00
8
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0487
TRUE
0.2834
8
0
0.00
0.84
1.51
5.46
2.20
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2143
TCDDEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
30.00
7
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
7
0
0.00
1.23
1.80
8.96
0.83
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
OU3 - Middle of Surficial
W2141M
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
7
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
7
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2142M
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
6
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2143M
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
6
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2144M
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
6
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2141M
Naphthalene
NSD
0.10
0.38
3.80
-
9
1
11.11
0.00
0.00
1.50
FALSE
0.0017
TRUE
0.6898
9
1
11.11
0.05
0.38
7.90
1.37
0.00
0.00
1.50
W2142M
Naphthalene
NSD
0.00
0.01
0.02
-
9
6
66.67
0.00
0.00
0.02
FALSE
0.0063
TRUE
0.1377
9
6
66.67
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
W2143M
Naphthalene
NSD
0.01
0.02
0.05
-
9
2
22.22
0.00
0.00
0.05
FALSE
0.0223
TRUE
0.1589
9
2
22.22
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.05
Analysis Date 2020-04-18
PAMR
-------
Table 8 (p 7/9). Expanded details from statistical analysis of groundwater monitoring data (at least one datum). Use pdf reader to enlarge and review.
Comparison-to-Standard Summary Table'
St Regis Super-fund Site
W2144M
Naphthalene
NSD
0.28
0.32
0.53
-
9
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FALSE
0.0000
FALSE
0.0006
9
0
0.00
0.20
0.32
3.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
W2141M
PCP
TRUE
26.00
61.00
79.00
1.00
9
0
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.07
TRUE
0.9482
TRUE
0.2789
9
0
0.00
16.00
61.00
98.00
36.00
0.07
0.07
0.07
W2142M
PCP
FALSE
0.07
0.35
0.61
1.00
9
4
44.44
0.07
0.07
0.36
TRUE
0.0996
TRUE
0.0842
9
4
44.44
0.07
0.35
0.65
0.28
0.07
0.07
0.36
W2143M
PCP
TRUE
120.00
150.00
170.00
1.00
9
0
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.71
TRUE
0.3029
TRUE
0.6821
9
0
0.00
110.00
150.00
220.00
40.00
0.07
0.07
0.71
W2144M
PCP
FALSE
0.07
0.07
0.12
1.00
9
9
100.00
0.07
0.07
0.56
FALSE
0.0000
FALSE
0.0000
9
9
100.00
0.07
0.07
0.56
0.03
0.07
0.07
0.56
W2141M
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
1.11
2.10
3.72
30.00
9
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
TRUE
0.3146
TRUE
0.3005
9
0
0.00
1.01
2.10
3.93
1.89
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2142M
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
0.98
1.36
2.36
30.00
9
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
TRUE
0.1867
TRUE
0.2784
9
0
0.00
0.93
1.36
2.43
0.99
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2143M
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
1.28
1.49
3.53
30.00
8
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0465
TRUE
0.1607
8
0
0.00
1.05
1.49
4.90
1.81
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2144M
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
1.20
1.67
3.52
30.00
8
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
TRUE
0.1406
TRUE
0.6646
8
0
0.00
0.76
1.67
3.71
1.20
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
OU3 - Bottom of Surficial
W2228
BAPEQ_Q5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2233
BAPEQ_Q5
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
12
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0003
FALSE
0.0001
44
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2234
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2236
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
13
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0000
FALSE
0.0388
45
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2237R
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2238
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
7
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
0
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.68
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2239
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2241
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
6
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2243
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
6
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2228
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
12
6
50.00
0.00
0.03
0.37
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.37
W2233
Naphthalene
NSD
0.00
0.00
0.01
-
13
7
53.85
0.00
0.00
0.01
TRUE
0.1120
FALSE
0.0024
45
27
60.00
0.00
0.02
0.24
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.13
W2234
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
23
18
78.26
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.03
-9,999.00
0.01
10.00
W2236
Naphthalene
NSD
0.00
0.01
0.01
-
12
6
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
FALSE
0.0086
TRUE
0.8715
45
29
64.44
0.00
0.01
0.19
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.10
W2237R
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
7
70.00
0.00
0.04
0.10
0.06
0.00
0.04
0.10
W2238
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
12
0
0.00
99.00
225.00
310.00
87.50
0.06
0.17
0.38
W2239
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
7
70.00
0.00
0.03
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.10
W2241
Naphthalene
NSD
0.01
0.01
0.04
-
9
2
22.22
0.00
0.00
0.04
FALSE
0.0445
TRUE
0.4587
9
2
22.22
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.04
W2243
Naphthalene
NSD
0.02
0.02
0.06
-
9
2
22.22
0.00
0.00
0.02
FALSE
0.0035
TRUE
0.5686
9
2
22.22
0.01
0.02
0.11
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
W2228
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
12
6
50.00
0.07
0.23
2.50
0.20
0.07
0.12
2.50
W2233
PCP
FALSE
0.07
0.08
0.09
1.00
13
12
92.31
0.07
0.07
0.16
FALSE
0.0002
FALSE
0.0004
45
42
93.33
0.07
0.13
6.50
0.08
0.07
0.13
0.80
W2234
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
23
22
95.65
0.07
0.16
50.00
1.86
0.07
0.16
50.00
W2236
PCP
FALSE
0.07
0.11
0.16
1.00
12
10
83.33
0.07
0.07
0.40
FALSE
0.0005
FALSE
0.0153
46
42
91.30
0.07
0.13
1.10
0.08
0.07
0.13
0.80
W2237R
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
8
80.00
0.07
0.16
0.34
0.09
0.07
0.12
0.16
W2238
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
12
0
0.00
1.50
3.00
6.30
2.80
0.07
0.12
2.50
W2239
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
9
90.00
0.07
0.16
0.16
0.09
0.07
0.16
0.16
W2241
PCP
TRUE
34.00
44.00
75.00
1.00
9
0
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.36
TRUE
0.1867
TRUE
0.2715
9
0
0.00
31.00
44.00
79.00
29.00
0.07
0.07
0.36
W2243
PCP
TRUE
25.00
41.00
58.00
1.00
9
0
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.71
TRUE
0.5054
TRUE
0.8029
9
0
0.00
22.00
41.00
68.00
19.00
0.07
0.07
0.71
W2228
TCDDEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
30.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.41
1.64
3.71
1.73
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2233
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
1.15
2.02
3.32
30.00
9
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
TRUE
0.1249
TRUE
0.4418
32
0
0.00
0.46
1.15
4.82
1.07
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2236
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
0.87
1.27
2.70
30.00
10
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0278
TRUE
0.2148
33
0
0.00
0.16
1.24
3.38
1.02
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
Analysis Date 2020-04-18
PAMR
-------
Table 8 (p 8/9). Expanded details from statistical analysis of groundwater monitoring data (at least one datum). Use pdf reader to enlarge and review.
Comparison-to-Standard Summary Table'
St Regis Super-fund Site
W2237R
TCDDEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
30.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
12
0
0.00
0.21
2.22
3.70
0.97
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2238
TCDDEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
30.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.29
1.35
1.88
0.47
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2239
TCDDEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
30.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
1.25
1.98
2.90
0.35
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2241
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
1.21
2.57
3.64
30.00
8
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
TRUE
0.6015
TRUE
0.1681
8
0
0.00
0.91
2.57
3.81
1.12
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2243
TCDDEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
30.00
7
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
7
0
0.00
1.12
1.53
3.30
1.18
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
OU3 - Pump-out Wells
W2401
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
0
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
7
0
0.00
11.00
130.00
350.00
127.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2402
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.21
9.90
0.68
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2403
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.21
9.90
0.67
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2401
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
0
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
2
18.18
9.60
2,400.00
18,000.00 8,625.00
-9,999.00
8.00
92.00
W2402
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
12
80.00
0.00
0.38
80.00
9.96
0.00
0.37
80.00
W2403
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
2
13.33
0.35
1,100.00
1,600.00
1,161.00
-9,999.00
1.90
300.00
W2401
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
0
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
0
0.00
1,800.00
4,200.00
5,700.00
1,500.00
-9,999.00
13.00
800.00
W2402
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
1
6.67
0.50
200.00
1,400.00
194.50
-9,999.00
0.50
40.00
W2403
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
15
0
0.00
960.00
1,800.00
3,500.00
550.00
-9,999.00
6.50
800.00
OU3 - Lower Aquifer
W2301
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2325
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2326
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2329
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2333
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.01
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2335
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2336
BAPEQ_05
FALSE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
12
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0004
FALSE
0.0002
44
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2339
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2301
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
4
28.57
0.00
0.04
10.00
0.10
-9,999.00
0.00
10.00
W2325
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
8
57.14
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.01
-9,999.00
0.01
10.00
W2326
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
4
28.57
0.00
0.04
10.00
0.06
-9,999.00
0.00
10.00
W2329
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
11
78.57
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.02
-9,999.00
0.02
10.00
W2333
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
9
64.29
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.04
-9,999.00
0.01
10.00
W2335
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
25
15
60.00
0.00
0.04
10.00
0.06
-9,999.00
0.02
10.00
W2336
Naphthalene
NSD
0.01
0.01
0.03
-
12
2
16.67
0.00
0.00
0.05
FALSE
0.0002
TRUE
0.0682
44
21
47.73
0.01
0.03
0.52
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.37
W2339
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
5
50.00
0.00
0.02
0.09
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.09
W2301
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
13
92.86
0.07
0.18
50.00
0.36
0.07
0.16
50.00
W2325
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
14
100.00
0.07
0.16
50.00
0.37
0.07
0.16
50.00
W2326
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
14
100.00
0.07
0.16
50.00
0.37
0.07
0.16
50.00
W2329
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
13
92.86
0.07
0.16
50.00
0.37
0.07
0.16
50.00
W2333
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
2
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
14
13
92.86
0.07
0.16
50.00
0.37
0.07
0.16
50.00
W2335
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
25
24
96.00
0.07
0.16
50.00
2.87
0.07
0.16
50.00
W2336
PCP
FALSE
0.07
0.11
0.15
1.00
12
11
91.67
0.07
0.08
0.16
FALSE
0.0027
FALSE
0.0023
44
35
79.55
0.07
0.15
0.80
0.06
0.07
0.14
0.80
W2339
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
10
9
90.00
0.07
0.16
0.16
0.09
0.07
0.16
0.16
Analysis Date 2020-04-18
-------
Table 8 (p 9/9). Expanded details from statistical analysis of groundwater monitoring data (at least one datum). Use pdf reader to enlarge and review.
Comparison-to-Standard Summary Table'
St Regis Superfund Sits
W2336
TCDDEQ_05
FALSE
1.11
1.32
3.59
30.00
11
0
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
FALSE
0.0430
TRUE
0.1914
34
0
0.00
0.26
1.65
4.25
1.76
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2339
TCDDEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
30.00
5
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
11
0
0.00
0.91
2.49
5.03
1.72
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
Additional Wells - Fox Creek
W2127
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
17
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W336M
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
3
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W338D
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
3
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W338M
BAPEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
0.20
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
3
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W2127
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
24
16
66.67
0.00
0.02
10.00
0.04
-9,999.00
0.02
10.00
W336M
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
6
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
W338D
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
6
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
0.30
0.66
0.82
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
W338M
Naphthalene
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
-
6
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
290.00
330.00
450.00
42.50
0.14
0.17
0.35
W2127
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
24
23
95.83
0.07
0.16
50.00
2.79
0.07
0.16
50.00
W336M
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
6
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
5
83.33
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.07
W338D
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
6
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
6
100.00
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.07
W338M
PCP
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
1.00
6
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
6
0
0.00
2.10
3.70
5.70
2.15
0.07
0.07
0.07
W336M
TCDDEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
30.00
3
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
3
0
0.00
1.00
1.47
7.20
3.10
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W338D
TCDDEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
30.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
4
0
0.00
0.85
0.97
2.70
0.48
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
W338M
TCDDEQ_05
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
30.00
4
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
4
0
0.00
0.86
1.10
1.60
0.21
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
-9,999.00
'GWCG = Groundwater Cleanup Goal. NSD = Not Sufficient Data. IQR = Interquartile Range. RDL = Reporting Detection limit Units = ug/L, except pg/Lfor TCDDEQ_05.
?95% confidence interval for median calculated by bootstrap-percentile method using 5000 resamples. Minimum of 8 recent data required.
3 If Upper Confidence Limit > GWCG, then TRUE. Else FALSE.
'Shapiro-Wilk test of normality is used
Analysis Date: 2020-04-18
PAMR
-------
Table 9. Weight of evidence table for PCP exceedances identified in bootstrap and
graphical/moving confidence interval methods of statistical analysis of groundwater data.
Comparison-to-Standard Exceedances
St RsgisSuperfund Sit*
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE'
WELUD BOOTSTRAP2 MOVING AVERAGE' NOTES
OU1
TOP OF SURF1CIAL
W104
NA ++
W105R ++ ++
W118
NA o
W133
+ +
OU1
MIDDLE OF SURFICIAL
W112M ++ ++
W132M ++ ++
W133M ++ ++
W134M ++ ++
OU1
BOTTOM OF SURFICIAL
W212 ++ ++
W218
NA ++
W220 ++ ++
W232 ++ ++
W233
+ + Last 4 data GWCG
W408 ++ ++
W409
NA ++
W410
NA +
W411
NA ++
OU3
TOP OF SURFICIAL
W2106
NA ++
W2140
NA +
W2141 ++ ++
W2143 ++ ++
OU3
MIDDLE OF SURFICIAL
W2141M ++ ++
W2143M ++ ++
OU3
BOTTOM OF SURFICIAL
W2238
NA ++
W2241 ++ ++
W2243 ++ ++
OU3
PUMP-OUT WELLS
W2401
NA ++
W2402
NA ++
W2403
NA ++
ADDITIONAL WELLS - FOX CREEK
W338M
NA o
'++ Entire 95% confidence interval greater than GWCG. + 95% confidence interval straddles GWCG. O Visual/apparent
exceedence (insufficient recent data).
*95% confidence interval for median calculated fcy bootstrap-percentile method using 5000 resamples. Minimum of 8 recent
data required.
'95% confidence interval for 8-point moving log-2 average and t-based confidence intervals. Compared to GWCG at latest
datum in record).
Analysis Date: 2020-04-20
PAMR
-------
itainment Vault
FISH2. a
yjrij r •'j jtf.
*W\
Cas^l^ke/M-' •
fHke^B'ayicnannei
5'«k£ -
* • •% i
§00
-------
Treating Plant Area
Pond B
Figure 2. Target zone for pentachlorophenol (PCP) for OU1 as described graphically in 2018 Annual Report for
November 2018 [Barr, 2019a, Figure 10]. See "Intended Capture Zone" annotation and 1 ug/L contour for PCP.
• Extraction Well
© Groundwater Monitoring Station
* Surface Water Monitoring Stations
PCP Concentration Contour
(dashed where inferred)
Groundwater Elevation Contour
(Contour Interval = 0.5 ft)
Estimated Hydraulic Capture Zone
¦ Intended Capture Zone (Barr, 1985)
Former Source Area
Notes:
1) PCP data from the OU1 Vertical Aquifer Sampling
Investigation (Barr, 2013a) were used to develop the
displayed PCP concentration contours east of OU1.
2) Intended Capture Zone from Remedial Investigation/
Alternatives Report dated April, 1985,
4) Based on corrected head values from Layer 4 of the
MODFLOW model (middle of three model layer
representing the upper outwash aquifer).
Feet
0 400 800
Figure 10
ESTIMATED OU1 HYDRAULIC CAPTURE
ZONE
NOVEMBER 9, 2018
St. Regis Paper Company Site
Cass Lake, Minnesota
Aerial Imagery: Pictometry 2017, Licensed by Cass County
-------
mm
MH
mm
MI2234
M
EG4ii
¦tW2502|
fel061
;W2403<
Figure 3. Target zone for pentachlorophenol (PCP) for 01)3 as described graphically in 2018 Annual Report for
November 2018 [Barr, 2019a, Figure 11], See 1 ug/L contour for PCP and note absence of annotation in figure.
-------
DisposaliPits
City Dump Pit Site
FISH3
5/15/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
W324
5/06/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
FISH2
5/15/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
FISH1
W329
5/07/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
5/15/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
FISH5
5/15/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
W330
5/06/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
FISH4
5/15/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
W2301
5/09/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
W2333
5/13/2018: 0.10 j ug/l
W2325
5/09/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
W2335
5/20/2018: < 0.071 h ug/l
W338D
5/19/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
8/14/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
11/06/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
W338M
5/19/2018: 4.4 ug/l
8/14/2018: 5.7 ug/l
11/06/2018: 5.1 ug/l
W2336
W2326
W336M
5/14/2018: 0.14 j ug/l
8/13/2018: < 0.079 ug/l
11/05/2018: < 0.071 h ug/l
5/09/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
5/14/2018: 0.079 j ug/l
8/13/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
11/05/2018: < 0.071 ug/l
W2329
W2339
5/13/2018: 0.096 j ug/l
5/12/2018: 0.083 j ug/l
^
Figure 4. Current understanding of pentachlorophenol (PCP) in the OU9 area between OU2 and OU3 [Barr, 2019a, Figure 6]
^Although titled ''Lower Outwash Aquifer", upper and lower sands are merged in much of the Fox Creek river valley.
® Monitoring Well
PCP Concentration Contour
(dashed where inferred)
Notes:
1) PCP data from the OU2 Groundwater Quality Investigation
Barr, 2018g) were used to develop the displayed PCP
concentration contours. PCP concentration contours from
investigation of the Fox Creek valley outwash (which is
laterally equivalent to the lower outwash aquifer) are
included.
2) See Figure 5 for concentration contours in the upper outwash
aquifer south of well W330 (Barr, 2018g).
Figure 6
PENTACHLOROPHENOL DISTRIBUTION
OU2 and OU3 - LOWER OUTWASH AQUIFER
St. Regis Paper Company Site
Cass Lake, MN
Aerial Imagery: Pictometry 2017, Licensed by Cass County
-------
Annual Pumping Rate vs Year
140.0
120.0
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Figure 5. Annualized pumping rates for the system as a whole versus year since 2000, as well as the amounts for OU1 and OU3
subsystem extraction wells.
-------
Q (gpm) along Extraction Well Line at OU1
Year
2000
2005
2010
2015
2019
W407
W406
W410 W405 W409
South to North (Looking West)
W404
W403
Figure 6. Distribution of annualized pumping rates from wells along the OU1 extraction well line from 2000 to 2019. The wells are ordered from
left to right according to their northing. The pumping rates in 2000 were more evenly spread and shifted toward the south than in 2019. In 2015
the distribution is "shaped" more like the PCP concentrations intersected by the wells. Southern wells W406 and W407 have no pumping in
2019, and the latest PCP concentration data available (2017) are non-detects at these locations.
-------
Change in Q (gpm) along Extraction Well Line at OU1
W407 W406 W410 W405 W409 W404 W403
South to North (Looking West)
Figure 7. Changes in annualized pumping rates from wells along the OU1 extraction well line from 2000 to 2019 in five year increments. The
wells are ordered from left to right according to their northing.
-------
Figure 8, Identification of well grouping areas at 0U1 (top) and 0U3 (bottom). These grouping
areas are used for convenience in this report and no other meaning should be inferred.
-------
:Staff,
UCL > GWCG for PCP—statistical
UCL > GWCG—visual/apparent
Figure 9. Statistical and visual/apparent exceedances (UCL > GWCG at latest monitoring date) for PCP at OU1.
-------
UCL > GWCG for PCP—statistical
UCL > GWCG—visual/apparent
» V# V
Vr- !•
<1
¦ ri.-
3f<
" Am f,. J
-. J(jft . w s • 7#f. .•
«hH0 -
: v>* ' xii .
rJn L'K) ~ ® •'• • ¦ .*.
ctyTTi
rr'v.W CEJ
$55rr> p^SCE
Z£J~_ lEEGT-ll
' ' 1 r* '' it.'&i
' " ' ¦' • CHSV7 .^1
*¦*'.~ £&•
Figure 10, Statistical and visual/apparent exceedances (UCL > GWCG at latest monitoring date) for PCP at OU3.
-------
Appendix A—Brief Description of PAMR
The major steps of the analysis follow:
1. Ingest raw (source) data.
2. Clean, check, and derive data.
3. Perform exploratory data analysis.
4. Present results.
A-l. Ingest Raw (Source) Data
The raw data were provided by Barr Engineering [2020a, 2020b], the consultant for International Paper,
in a comprehensive data dump through the end of calendar year 2019 and provided in two Microsoft
Excel spreadsheets formatted as a so-called XLSX-file. A copy of this file is provided in Appendix C of this
report. This data dump document should be considered immutable; it has not been, and should never
be, changed directly but only in a copy.
The variables stored within these spreadsheets are a subset of those described in a USEPA Region 5's
"codebook" for the Region 5 Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) [USEPA, 2020], which is available online
at .
The data files have been stored in the Data_lmmcitable directory in this project.
A-2. Clean, check, and derive data
There are several preparation steps that should be applied to the immutable data before the data
analysis begins. If the immutable data are augmented by any derived data, the derived data variables
will have a name that ends in " " to indicate "derived".
• Select only a subset of the fields (columns) provided in the immutable data. Many are not
needed for the current data review.
• Add shorter analyte names that are easier to work with in graphs than, for example, "PCP"
rather than "PENTACHLOROPHENOL". For simplicity and consistency, use replacements used by
the stakeholders in various site reports.
• Add a field that gives the groundwater Cleanup Goal (GWCG) updated by EPA in December 2016
or the Effluent Limits (defined for this report as the maximum of the Intervention Limits defined
by UEPA [2005] or the Minimum Levels, for those analytes having Intervention Limits).
• Limit the initial groundwater monitoring data review analysis to PCP, Naphthalene,
Benzo(a)pyrene-Equivalent (BaP-Eq or BAPEQ), and TCCD-Equivalent (TCDD-Eq orTCDDEQ)
values. Naphthalene is added to the GWCG list because it has been used at this site as a relevant
indicator for BAPEQ. For effluent monitoring data review, ad B(a)P.
Using the software language R, the immutable data is read into a variable named data, from which the
data are rearranged and tested prior to analysis. Then, a smaller variable, results, is created to simplify
subsequent analyses.
Appendix A
A-l
-------
In this analysis, not all of the monitoring locations listed in the groundwater data dump file are included.
The site's monitoring and extraction wells (their names begin with "W"), channel monitoring locations
(their names begin with "CL-"), and the LLBO Fish Hatchery wells (their names begin with "FISH") are
included.
Only data marked as validated by Barr in the data dump file are retained for analysis. The primary
sample is used, not the field duplicate if it exists.
Note that the data dump file includes the value of the reporting detection limit (RDL, as defined in
USEPA [2020]). In some cases, where a value does not exist (e.g., for a field pH measurement) or is not
known (e.g., the PCP result for W215 on May 10, 2005), Barr has entered a filler value of -9999; these
filler values are retained in the analysis below. For the focused list of analytes considered here, RDLs of -
9999 *only* appear when the analysis results in a detect; the filler values are retained through this
analysis and appear in summary tables listing statistics for RDL values, so that missing RDLs are
identifiable through the analysis.
After these preparatory steps, the resulting variables data and results are stored in serialized binary files
(.rds files) in a separate Data_Derived directory. This organization provides a clear separation between
data that should never be changed and those changed by analysis, Data_lmmutable and Data_Derived,
respectively.
A-3. Perform Exploratory Data Analysis
The initial exploratory data analysis (EDA) step is to summarize the data in results. Because the focus of
this review is to compare recent concentrations to GWCGs and to review concentration trends through
time, intra-well data analyses are performed for well-analyte pairs (e.g., the summary at W208 for PCP).
This approach is consistent with guidance in ITRC [2013] and USEPA [2009, 2010],
A-3.1 Graphical methods
The first EDA step is to plot the data contained in results, with one plot per location (well)-analyte pair.
Two sets of plots are created. In each case, a plot is constructed if any data exists. For effluent data
review, only the first set of plots is created.
The first plot set presents the concentration versus time on a plot with "compressed" vertical axis. In
this case, the base-2 logarithm (log2) of the concentrations are plotted versus time, but the axis is
labeled with the concentration values. That is, the base-2 logarithm (log2) is used, where a unit change
in the distance along the vertical axis represents a factor of 2 change in concentrations. The amount of
time required for the concentration to decrease (or increase) by a factor of 2 is the half-life (or doubling
time), which is used in attenuation calculations. This plotting method differs from previous evaluation
reports for the site (e.g., Subterranean Research [2015]), which used a base-10 logarithm. (The base-10
log is more frequently used by engineers. The two approaches are related by a factor equal to the ratio
of (log10) to (log2), i.e., 3.321928.)
• The data are plotted as individual markers, the color and shape of which are determined by the
value DetectYN and are indicated at the bottom of each graph. (In this legend, Y means a detect
Appendix A
A-2
-------
and N means a nondetect.) Nondetects are plotted on the compressed vertical axis at the value
of the corresponding RDL.
• From the data, a "trailing moving average" of the log2 concentration data is calculated. For
every sample date, the average of log-data at that time and at the previous 7 sample dates is
calculated, if they exist. As a result, the trailing moving average is only calculated at the eighth
and subsequent sample dates. These trailing moving average data are plotted in connect-the-
dot fashion. This differs from plots in previous groundwater data evaluations for the site
because the trailing moving average smooths away some of the volatility in the environmental
data, rather than visually enhancing it by connecting the dots with a solid line.
• At each sample date where a trailing moving average is calculated, a 95% confidence interval for
the trailing moving average is calculated. A line connecting the lower confidence limits and a
separate one connecting the upper confidence limits versus time were developed; a confidence
band comprising the region between the two is shaded and plotted.
• For each analyte having a GWCG, the GWCG is also plotted as a solid orange horizontal line. This
facilitates a visual comparison of the data to the GWCG.
The second plot set focuses on the time rate-of-change of log-2 concentrations. This is an alternative to
the trend analyses described in ITRC [2013], Again, nondetects are incorporated into the analysis by
using the associated *RDL*. In this case, a linear regression line is fit to a moving window of 12 log2
concentration data versus time, resulting in a moving regression slope. Note that this is not a Theil-Sen
analysis.
• This derived moving regression slope, which has units of log2 concentration over time, is
plotted versus time, with markers.
• A 4-point trailing moving average of the moving regression slopes is plotted with a solid line
connecting the derived data points.
• A 95% confidence interval of the moving average of the moving regression slopes is plotted as a
shaded ribbon. This interval is calculated using the t-statistic.
• A solid orange horizontal line is plotted at a slope of zero, for reference.
This plot is useful for identifying times of increasing and of decreasing trends over the project life. If the
data are positive (above the orange line), then there is an increasing trend; likewise, negative plotted
values (below the orange line) indicate decreasing concentrations. Because the confidence intervals for
the slope are shown, the variability in slopes may be considered in evaluations. It is important to note
that not all of these trends are interpretable, because the RDL of nondetects is not constant and a trend
in RDL may lead to a calculated slope, even though there are only nondetects. Therefore, care must be
applied in interpretation.
Figures at the end of this appendix provide guidance for how to read these two types of plots.
A-3.2 Comparison-to-standard
The second summary, applied only in groundwater monitoring data review, looks at the comparisons of
recent concentrations to GWCGs. Here, "recent" means data obtained since January 1, 2015. The
summary includes the following groups of information for each well-analyte pair:
• The entire data history (as described in Section 2) is reviewed for number of data, number and
percentage of nondetects; the minimum, median, maximum, and interquartile range (IQR, the
Appendix A
A-3
-------
difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles) of the concentrations; and the minimum,
median, and maximum of the provided RDLs. The GWCG is also listed.
• The recent data are reviewed for the number of data records. If a sufficient number of recent
data exists—defined as 8 or more, a value recommended by ITRC [2013]—then only the number
of recent data is reported, and all other recent data summary information is reported as an NA.
• If there is a sufficient number of recent data, then the number and percentage of nondetects;
the minimum, median, and maximum of the concentrations; and the minimum, median, and
maximum of the provided RDLs.
• If there is a sufficient number of recent data, they are subjected to the Shapiro-Wilk statistical
test for consistency with a normal distribution of the data and of the logarithmically
transformed data. The p-value and the test summary (a simple "true" or "false") are reported.
• If there is a sufficient number of recent data, then a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the
median is constructed. Then the upper confidence limit (UCL) is compared to the GWCG; if
UCL>GWCG then recent data exceed the GWCG, otherwise recent data do not exceed the GWCG
for this confidence level. Because the number of data is relatively small and because not all
recent data sets are normal or log-normal, the median of data is preferred to the mean
(average). The confidence intervals for the median are constructed using the bootstrap method;
bootstrap is performed using 5000 bootstrap samples and the percentile method. The lower
confidence limit, upper confidence limit, and the true-false result of comparison-to-standard
test ("is UCL>GWCG") are reported. Advantages and limitations of the bootstrap method are
given in Section A-4.
The summary is provided in a large, wide table.
A smaller version of the summary is also provided. In this mini-table, only those rows with at least 8
recent data are retained. In addition, the number of columns is reduced, leaving the analyte, well ID,
number of recent data, number and percentage of recent nondetect data, the GWCG, the comparison-
to-standard test result, and the UCL of the median of recent data are provided. In addition, the rows are
color-coded-green for no exceedance and red for exceedance.
A-4. Bootstrapping
Confidence limits in PAMR are constructed using bootstrap methods, rather than classical parametric
and nonparametric methods used in PAM software used in previous groundwater data evaluations for
the site. This section briefly describes bootstrapping.
Bootstrapping [Efron and Tibshirani, 1993] is a method of analysis that focuses on the values in a set of
results—in statistical jargon, a sample—rather than on an idealized or theoretical statistical distribution.
Analysis mimics repeated sampling with replacement of the data set in-hand. For example, if the
observed sample is {3, 2, 5, 8, 4}, each recorded on an otherwise identical ball and placed in an opaque
bag. Select a ball, record the number, return the ball to the bag, shake the bag, select a ball, record the
number, etc. until 5 values have been recorded. This is a single bootstrap sample. Many bootstrap
samples are used in a bootstrap analysis, often thousands.
Then a statistic of interest is calculated for each bootstrap sample. For example, if the confidence
interval for the median is desired, calculate the median for the original sample and the median of every
bootstrap sample. The set of bootstrap sample medians are sorted from least to greatest. This step is
Appendix A
A-4
-------
conceptually equivalent to constructing an experimental distribution function (EDF) of the bootstrap
medians. A confidence interval can be estimated using the quantiles of the EDF. For example, if there
are 1001 sorted bootstrap samples of the median, a 90% confidence interval can simply be estimated as
the value corresponding to 5th percentile of the sorted bootstrap statistics as the lower confidence limit
and the 95th percentile of the sorted bootstrap statistics value for the upper confidence limit. This
method is called the percentile method, which is used in PAMR for this data evaluation report. There are
a number of other ways to calculate the confidence intervals from the bootstrap sample statistics [Efron
and Tibshirani, 1993]; they are not discussed here.
Bootstrap methods do not require any particular distribution of data. The original data set needs to
representative of the process being observed, however. Bootstrap methods are better behaved for large
sample size. Because each confidence interval calculation requires a large number of resamples and
calculations of the statistic of interest, bootstrap methods can be computationally burdensome. There
are numerous subtle issues with bootstrapping, including bias in the estimate of the statistic of interest,
impacts of sample size, and the relationship between accuracy and number of bootstrap samples.
A-5. References
Barr Engineering, 2020a. "St.Regis_DataDump_20200114_GW_SW.xlsx". Microsoft Excel file. Provided in
email from L. Patterson (USEPA) to D. Dougherty (SRI) dated February 26, 2020. See Appendix C.
Barr Engineering, 2020b. "St.Regis_DataDump_20200114_TreatmentSysdata.xlsx". Microsoft Excel file.
Provided in email from L. Patterson (USEPA) to D. Dougherty (SRI) dated February 26, 2020. See
Appendix C.
Efron, B., and R. J. Tibshirani, 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap, Chapman & Hall, New York.
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2013. Groundwater Statistics and Monitoring
Compliance, Statistical Tools for the Project Life Cycle, GSMC-1. Washington, DC. Available at:
https://www.itrcweb.org/gsmc-l and https://www.itrcweb.org/gsmc-
1/Content/Resources/GSMCPDF.pdf.
Subterranean Research, 2015. Technical Memo, Five Year Groundwater Review, St. Regis Superfund Site,
Cass Lake, Minnesota. Provided to USEPA Region 5, Chicago. Also available as Appendix E of USEPA
[2015],
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring
Data at RCRA Facilities, Unified Guidance. EPA 530/R-09-007. USEPA, Office of Resource Conservation
and Recovery, Program Implementation and Information Division. Available at
https://www.itrcweb.org/gsmc-l/Content/Resources/Unified_Guidance_2009.pdf
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2010. Errata Sheet-March 2009 Unified Guidance. EPA
530/R-09-007a. USEPA, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Program Implementation and
Information Division. Available at https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/web/pdf/unified-errata.pdf.
Appendix A
A-5
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2015. Fifth Five Year Review Report for the St. Regis
Superfund Site, Leech Lake Indian Reservation, Cass Lake, Minnesota. Available at
https://semspub.epa.gov/work/05/484241.pdf.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2020. Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) Comprehensive
Manual Version 4.3. USEPA Region 5, Chicago. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-
02/documents/r5 com prehensivemanual_feb2020.pdf.
Appendix A
A-6
-------
W220, PCP
Location and Analyte
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval'
iT"1
Plot Description
0
CO
o
(j)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
.iT"1
Concentration Data Result
95% Confidence Interval for
the Trailing Moving Average
~ ~
Moving Average of 8
Trailing
Concentration Data
Nondetect (see Legend)
Plotted at Reporting Detection Limit
Concentration Axis
Note use of a log-scale, in this
plot a base 2 log-scale. Each
unit of vertical distance
represents a factor of 2
change in concentration.
Groundwater Cleanup Goal
or Effluent Limit
DetectYN • N A Y
Legend
2000
2010
Date Axis
How to read concentration plot.
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
Notes and Analysis Date
-------
W220, PCP
Location and A nalyte
jr-1
Plot Description
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
5.0e-08-
cn
O)
o
c
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
o
0
CL
O
OD
2.5e-08 ¦
0.0e+00-
-2.5e-08-
95% Confidence Interval for
the Slope from Moving
Linear Regression
Moving Average of 8
Trailing
Concentration Data
Slope from 12-Event
Moving Linear Regression
of Base-2 of Concentration
Zero slope reference line.
Above this line is increasing,
below this line is decreasing.
Nondetect (see Legend)
concentration at this time
-5.0e-08 ¦
DetectYN
nay
Legend
Detected (see Legend)
concentration at this time
2000
Date Axis
How to read slope plot.
2010
Notes and Analysis Date
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
Appendix B—Data Wrangling Notes
This Appendix describes the data wrangling performed for this review.
Data wrangling comprises the processes of cleaning, converting, or mapping data from one form into
another in such a manner that allows the data to be used in software-based analyses. Data wrangling is
the first task performed in PAMR and additional data wrangling is distributed within its body. PAMR has
been developed in the R computational ecosystem (see https://cran.r-project.org). In addition to the
base installation of R, PAMR makes use of numerous packages (libraries). All are well-reviewed and are
widely used. These include tidyverse, lubridate, readxl, zoo, forcats, and boot; all are open-source and
free. In particular, PAMR employs the so-called Tidyverse, which is a collection of R packages for data
science that employs pipes (%>%), data manipulation tools (notably dplyr), and visualization tools based
on the "grammar of graphics" (notably ggplot2). See https://www.tidyverse.org.
C-l. Wrangling Task 1
Barr provided monitoring data from groundwater wells and the granular activated carbon filtration
treatment system in two Microsoft Excel worksheets (XLSX format). These files cannot be changed. The
two sets of data are evaluated separately. For each, the wrangling tasks required follow: PAMR reads
data from the worksheet, which is treated as immutable and are found in the Data_lmmutable
directory. PAMR places the data into a data object (a variable within the program) and then manipulates
the data so that it is suitable for analysis. This results in two data objects that are stored in binary files;
because they are manipulated versions of the original data they are called "derived data" and are stored
in the directory Data_Derived. These are the data objects are needed by PAMR in preparation for the
analyses described in Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.2 of this review. An annotated algorithm follows.
1. Store Barr's Microsoft Excel worksheet in Data_lmmutable directory. No changes are made to
the file.
2. Read the spreadsheets into a data structure called a tibble, data. A tibble is a modernized
version of a data frame, which is a tightly coupled collection of variables of different types that
shares elements of tables, matrices, and lists. The data frame is the fundamental data structure
used by most of R's huge software ecosystem.
3. Ensure that the column variables in the tibble data are of the correct data type.
4. Append to data a new column named Analyte containing a short version of the names of
analyte of interest for this data evaluation (other analytes are assigned a placeholder name of
Other). In this step, the short name BAPEQ_05 is assigned to each record with cas_rn starting
with "BAPEQ12", "BAPEQ_0.5", or "BAPEQ_KM"; this filters out some alternative calculated
values of BaPE (obtained by assigning different values to nondetects in the calculation of BapE).
The short name TCDDEQ_05 is assigned to each record with cas_rn starting with "TCDDE5",
"TCDD_0.5", or "TCDD_KM"; this filters out some alternative calculated values of TCDD-Eq
(obtained by assigning different values to nondetects in the calculation of TCDD-Eq).
5. Append to data a new column named GWCG containing the numerical value of the
groundwater cleanup goal for each analyte of interest for this data evaluation (the cleanup goal
for other analytes is assigned a value of NA, which is defined in R as a logical constant that
indicates missing data). For effluent data review, GWCG is assigned the value of the Effluent
Limit or other comparison standard, as described in the main text of this report.
Appendix B
B-l
-------
6. Remove data records for which the detect_flag is missing, the record is not validated, the record
is a field duplicate (the normal sample result is used), or the reporting_detection_limit is missing
for nondetects.
7. Extract from table data the columns needed for PAM and store in a new tibble, results. The
variables needed from tibble data are sys_loc_code, sample_date, Analyte ,
report_result_value, detect_flag, reporting_detection_limit, report_result_unit, loc_group, and
GWCG . The column names assigned to these variables in results WelllD, Date, Analyte, Result,
DetectYN, RDL, Unit, LocationCode, and GWCG.
8. Sort results in ascending order of the variable Date.
9. Store data and results in R binary data storage (rds) formatted files in the directory
Data_Derlved.
C-2. Wrangling Task 2
The second wrangling task is part of the construction of concentration versus time plots.
1. Each plot is constructed within nested for-loops. For groundwater data review, one loops over
the distinct values of the site's groundwater monitoring wells, site's groundwater extraction
wells, DRM Fish Hatchery wells, and channel surface water sampling locations with WelllDs. For
effluent data review, only the WTP effluent data are used.
2. The second loops over the analytes of interest for this data evaluation within Analytes, which
are limited to PCP, Naphthalene, BAPEQ, and TCDDEQ for groundwater data review. B(a)P is
added for effluent data review.
3. The data are subsetted for the given well and analyte to prepare for the corresponding plot,
ensuring that data with missing results are omitted and sorting the data in ascending date order.
C-3. Wrangling Task 3
The third wrangling task is part of the construction of the plots of the rate of change of concentration
with respect to time. In this report, this task is only applied for groundwater data review.
1. Each plot is constructed within nested/or-loops. One loops over the distinct values of the site's
groundwater monitoring wells, site's groundwater extraction wells, DRM Fish Hatchery wells,
and channel surface water sampling locations with WelllDs.
2. The second loops over the analytes of interest for this data evaluation within Analytes, which
are limited to PCP, Naphthalene, BAPEQ, and TCDDEQ.
3. The data are subsetted for the given well and analyte to prepare for the corresponding plot,
ensuring that data with missing results are omitted and sorting the data in ascending date order.
These tasks are identical to those in Section C-2.
C-4. Wrangling Task 4
The fourth wrangling task is part of the construction of summary tables. In this report, this task is only
applied for groundwater data review.
1. Each plot is constructed within nested for-loops. One loops over the distinct values of the site's
groundwater monitoring wells, site's groundwater extraction wells, DRM Fish Hatchery wells,
and channel surface water sampling locations with WelllDs.
2. The second loops over the analytes of interest for this data evaluation within Analytes, which
are limited to PCP, Naphthalene, BAPEQ, and TCDDEQ.
Appendix B
B-2
-------
3. The data are subsetted for the given well and analyte to prepare for the corresponding plot,
ensuring that data with missing results are omitted and sorting the data in ascending date order.
4. After performing some analysis, these data are further subsetted to include only recent data
(since 01/01/2015).
5. After performing some further analysis, a large summary tibble noo is constructed and then
converted to an output table. Then, noo is manipulated to create a mini-table from a subset of
noo. These subsetting steps are summarized as follows:
1. Select rows where the calculated recent UCL of the median is not NA and the number of
data is greater than 0.
2. Then limit the results to include only the variables containing the analyte, monitoring
location, number of recent data, number of recent data that are nondetects, the percentage
of recent data that are nondetects, the groundwater cleanup goal, whether the UCL of the
median of recent data exceeds the groundwater cleanup goal, and the UCL for the median
of recent data.
Appendix B
B-3
-------
Appendix C—Monitoring Data as Provided by Barr Engineering
Note: Due to their size,
these data are provided only as digital files in Microsoft Excel format.
St.Regis_DataDump_20200114_GW_SW.xlsx
St.Regis_DataDump_20200114_TreatmentSysdata.xlsx
Appendix C
C-l
-------
Appendix D—Groundwater Monitoring Data
Compared to Groundwater Cleanup Goals
This Appendix presents the base-2 logarithm of concentration (i.e., log-concentration) versus time.
Concentration data are plotted as dots; nondetects are plotted at the reporting detection limits (RDLs)
found in the Barr Engineering Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The groundwater cleanup goal (GWCG),
when it exists, is indicated as a horizontal orange line. A trailing moving average of concentration of
recent data (since 01/01/2015) is plotted as a continuous smooth line, and a two-sided 95% confidence
interval (CI) around the moving average is shown as a gray band. If all of the CI is below the GWCG, then
the data indicate that there is no exceedance of the GWCG. On the other hand, if any part of the CI is
plotted above the GWCG, then there is not "no exceedance", i.e., there is an exceedance. Note that
these evaluations vary with the time of interest.
For convenience ajRED_solidframe|around a plot indicates a case where there is an exceedance, as
determined by the statistical analysis. An ORANGE dotted frame around a plot indicates a case where
there is an apparent exceedance, as determined by a visual analysis of the data because there is an
insufficient number of data to support the statistical calculations.
The only analytes plotted are benzo(a)pyrene-equivalent (BAPEQ), naphthalene, pentachlorophenol
(PCP), and tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin-equivalent (TCCDEQ). All but naphthalene are subject to
published groundwater cleanup goals (GWCGs) (USEPA, 2016). Naphthalene has no GWCG, but it has
long been used as an indicator for the site.
Note: This Appendix includes numerous plots.
We strongly recommend using a PDF reader to view the figures,
printing only those figures needed.
Appendix D
D-l
-------
FISH1, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
• Y
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
FISH2, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
FISH3, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
FISH4, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
0.0625-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
• •
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN • Y
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
FISH5, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
DetectYN • Y
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
00
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
MW3, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
DetectYN
• Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W104, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
• Y
•
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W105R, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25 T
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W112, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
•
2005
2010
2015
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W112M, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25 -r
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W114, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W115, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W118, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0
ro
o
(D
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.25-
DetectYN
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W124, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-|
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W125, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25 -r
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W126, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25 r
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W127, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-|
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W128, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-|
0.0625-
0
ro
o
C/D
CM
O)
o
_l
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W129, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W130, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
0.0625-
0
ro
o
C/D
CM
O)
o
_l
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W132M, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25 T
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W133, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25 T
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W133M, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25 T
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W134, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25 T
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W134M, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25 T
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W205, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W209, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
• •
•
•
•
• •
DetectYN
• Y
2005
2010
2015
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W212, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
DetectYN
• •
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W213, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
DetectYN • Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W215, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W217, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-|
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W218, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
DetectYN
• Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W219, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-|
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W220, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
DetectYN
• •
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W221, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-|
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W232, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-r
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W233, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25 T
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W234, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-r
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W302, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
DetectYN
• Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W306, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W324, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
Y
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W329, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-1
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W330, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
Y
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W336M, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
•
DetectYr
sj • Y
•
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W338D, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
•
DetectYN • Y
•
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W338M, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
•
DetectYN • Y
•
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W340, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-r
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W341, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W401, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN •
Y
0
ro
o
(D
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W402, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN • Y
•
0
•
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W402R, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25
DetectYN • Y
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
00
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W403, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W403R, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
DetectYN • Y
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
00
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W404, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
•
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W405, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN
• Y
•
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W406, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W407, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0
ro
o
(D
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
3
C
o
0.0625-
2 0.0156-
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.00391 -
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W408, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
• •
0.25
c
.2 0.0625
•*-»
CO
0.0156
0.00391
0.000977
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W409, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
4
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
3
1 -
0.25-
c
~ 0.0625
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.0156H
0.00391 -
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W410, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0
ro
o
(D
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
3
1 -
0.25-
c
~ 0.0625
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.0156H
0.00391 -
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W411, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
•
•
• •
•
•
• •
•
DetectYN
• Y
8
2005
2010
2015
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2106, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2127, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2128, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
DetectYN • Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2129, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2134, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2135, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-
DetectYN • Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2140, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2141, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
•
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2141M, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
s
•
•
•
201"
I
o
o
CM
B—01
o
CM
B—07
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2142M, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2143, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
•
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2143M, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
•
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2144M, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
•
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2228, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
•
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2233, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
DetectYN
• •
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2234, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2236, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
DetectYN
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2237R, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25 T
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2238, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2239, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25 -r
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2241, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2243, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
•
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2301, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
•
•
•
2005
2010
2015
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2325, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2326, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2329, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2333, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2335, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
0.0625-
0
ro
o
C/D
CM
O)
o
_l
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2336, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.251
• •
•
•
• • •
•
• •
• • T
-- -*
DetectYN
• Y
• • •
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2339, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25i
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN • Y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2401, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ueieciYN y
256-
64-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
CO
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
o
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2402, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
0.25
0.0625
0.0156
0.00391
0.000977
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2403, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0
ro
o
(D
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
3
1 -
0.25-
c
£ 0.0625
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.0156H
0.00391 -
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
CL-S, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
L_
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
DetectYN • N
00
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
FISH1, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
~
O) 0.0156
o
0.00391 -
DetectYN • N A y
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
FISH2, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0625-
~
0.0156-
0.00391 -
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
FISH3, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0625-
0
ro
o
W
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
§> 0.0156-
c
o
-t—'
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.00391 -
~
~
•
•
•
~
~
DetectYN
• NAy
•
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
FISH4, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
4H
1
2000 2010 2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
FISH5, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
L_
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
DetectYN • N
00
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
MW3, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
~
~
A
•
•
~
•
•
•
•
•
w
DetectYN
• NAy
•
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
4-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
L_
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W104, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
c
0
o
o 0.25
O
0.0625-
0.0156-
DetectYN • N A Y
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W105R, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.00391
DetectYN • N
A Y
0.000977-
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W112, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
~ A
A
•
•
•
•
• •
•
DetectYN
• NAy
•
~
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W112M, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0625-
0.0156-
DetectYN • N A Y
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W114, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W115, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W118, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1.02e+03-
DetectYN • Y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W124, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
• •
•
~
•
~
•
• ^
•
• • # A •
•
~
•
•
•
DetectYN • N A
• •
•
2000
2010
2020
4-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
L_
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W125, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN • N A y
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W126, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W127, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN • N A y
•
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W128, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W129, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W130, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.00391 -
DetectYN
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W132M, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN • N A y
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W133, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
L_
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN • N A y
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W133M, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W134, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
A
~
~
~
A
A
A
A
DetectYN • N A
Y
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W134M, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN • N A. y
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W205, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
DetectYN • N A y
2000 2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W209, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.00391 -
DetectYN • N A y
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W212, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1.02e+03-
256-
64-
0
2000 2010 2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W213, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2000 2010 2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W215, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
~ ~
DetectYN
N^y
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W217, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W218, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W219, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W220, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
~
~
~
A A A
~
~
~
~
•A1
•
~
1 A ~
\ • / \
ai~i
—A A A
A
~
~ ~
A
•
DetectYN • N A \
•
•
256-
64-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W221, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
~
•
•
•
•
~
•
• •
A
DetectYN
• NAy
•
0.25
¦2 0.0625
0.0156
0.00391
0.000977
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W232, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-
DetectYN • Y
2016 2017 2018 2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W233, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2016 2017 2018 2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W234, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
• •
64-
2016 2017 2018 2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W302, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
DetectYN • N A y
0.00391 -
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W306, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
DetectYN • N A y
0.00391 -
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W324, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0625-
0.0156-
DetectYN • N A Y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W329, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
DetectYN
N^y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W330, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN
N^y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W336M, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0625
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
DetectYN
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W338D, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W338M, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
L_
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W340, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0625-
DetectYN
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W341, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0625-
DetectYN
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W401, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0625-
1995
DetectYN • N A Y
2000 2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W402, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
A
•
•
•
• \
•
•
•
~
•
~
DetectYN
• NAy
•
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W402R, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN • N A y
Jul 2018
Oct 2018
Jan 2019
Apr 2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W403, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0625-
DetectYN • N A Y
0.0156-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W403R, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0625-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
ro
L_
-I—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
Jul 2018
Oct 2018
Jan 2019
Apr 2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W404, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval"
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
64-
16-
4-
1 -
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W405, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
A
~
~ A
~
A
A *
A
A
•
•
A
rv.i - .i\/m h i \
DetectYN • N a i
A
2000
2010
2020
4.1e+03-
1.02e+03-
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W406, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W407, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
4-
0
o
(J)
0.0156-
DetectYN • N A Y
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W408, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1.02e+03
A
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
A A
~
~
~ ^
~
~
~ \
A \
A
aa >
i
DetectYN • N ± Y
•
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W409, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W410, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
~
~
A
•
~
~
•
~
DetectYN
• NAy
•
16-
4-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
3
C
o
1 -
0.25-
2 0.0625-
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.0156-
0.00391 -
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W411, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
0) 0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
DetectYN
2000
N^y
2005
2010
2015
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2106, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
4.1e+03
~
~
~
~
A
A
~
~
~
~
DetectYN •
N ± Y
•
~
•
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
1.02e+03-
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2127, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
• •
•
•
•
~
~
~
~ ^
A
•
•
•
A A
DetectYN
• N ± Y
•
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
3
0.25
c
.2 0.0625
-I—»
03
L—
-I—»
c
0
o
c
o
° 0.0156
0.00391
0.000977
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2128, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0156-
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2129, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
• •
•
•
•
~
•
• •
• •
•
—A—
A ~
•
~
•
—•—• m
DetectYN
• NAy
•
0.25
c
.2 0.0625'
•*-»
CO
0.0156
0.00391
0.000977
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2134, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2135, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2140, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
~
~
~
~
A
~
~
A
~
•
DetectYN • N
Y
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2141, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
201/
i
o
o
B—01
201
i
o
201G
)-01
20M
i
o
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2141M, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
0.0625-
DetectYN
N^y
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2142M, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
DetectYN • N A y
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2143, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2143M, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN
N^y
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2144M, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
0.25-
DetectYN • Y
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2228, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-
~
0.00391 -
DetectYN • N A y
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2233, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN • N A y
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2234, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2236, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0625-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
3 0.0156
c
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.00391 -
DetectYN • N A y
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2237R, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
r\ ncoc_
•
•
•
U.UDZO "
0
CO
o
•
•
Concentration (ug/l) on Log2 S
O
o P
o o
CO -*¦
cd cn
->¦ CT>
~
•
~
•
~
DetectY
\J • N A
Y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2238, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2239, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0625-
^ 0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN • N A y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2241, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN • N A y
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2243, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
0.0625-
c
o 0.0156
c
o
O
DetectYN
N^y
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2301, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN • N A Y
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2325, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
~
~
•
•
•
•
~
~
•
#
~
DetectYN
• NAy
9
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
4-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
L_
-I—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2326, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2329, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
~
~
•
~
•
DetectYN
• N ± Y
•
0.25
c
.2 0.0625'
•*-»
CO
0.0156
0.00391
0.000977
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2333, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
~
A
~
•
•
•
•
•
~
• •
~
DetectYN
• NAy
•
0.25
¦2 0.0625
0.0156
0.00391
0.000977
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2335, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
• •
4-
DetectYN
0.00391 -
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2336, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2339, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN • N A y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2401, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
*00^ ~
~
DetectYN •
N ± Y
•
•
1995
2000
2005
2010
1.64e+04-
4.1e+03-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
o 1.02e+03
c
o
O)
3
C
o
'-4-»
ro
L_
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
256-
64-
16-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2402, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
0.0156-
0.00391 -
DetectYN • N A y
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2403, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
CL-C, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -i
0
CO
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.25-
0.0625-
00
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
CL-N, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
• •
•
• •
\
• •
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• N
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
CL-S, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
•
•
• •
~
•
•
• •
•
•
• •
•
DetectYN
N ± Y
•
•
• •
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
FISH1, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
• •
• •
•
\
•
•
•
DetectYN • N
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
FISH2, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
• •
• •
•
\
•
•
•
DetectYN • N
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
FISH3, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
• •
• •
•
\
•
•
•
DetectYN • N
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
FISH4, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
•
• • •
• •
•
• ^
^ • • • •
•
•
DetectYN • N
•
• • •
2000
2010
2020
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
FISH5, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -i
0
CO
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.25-
0.0625-
00
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
MW3, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • N
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W104, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
4.1e+03-
1.02e+03-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
CO
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
o
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
DetectYN • Y
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W105R, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W112, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W112M, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
256-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
64-
c
o
O)
3
.2 16-
-i—»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
DetectYN • Y
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W114, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
• •
•
•
• •
•
•
•
• •
•
DetectYN • N
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W115, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W118, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
6.55e+04 -
1,64e+04 -
4.1e+03-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
1,02e+03
c
o
O)
c
o
-I—'
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W124, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
DetectYN
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W125, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
DetectYN • N A Y
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W126, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
• •
•
• •
•
•
•
•
• •
• • •
•
•
DetectYN • N
• • •
2000
2010
2020
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W127, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
• •
• •
~
\
•
•
•
—ty •
•
• •
•
• •
DetectYN • N
^ Y
1 ¦
0.25-
0.0625-
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W128, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
• •
• • •
•
•
• •
•
•
• •
• • •
•
•
DetectYN • N
• • •
2000
2010
2020
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W129, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
DetectYN
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W130, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
DetectYN
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W132M, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
4-
DetectYN
1 -i
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W133, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
A
A
~
A A
A
A
•
•
•
DetectYN • N A
Y
•
2016
2017
2018
2019
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W133M, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1.02e+03-
256-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
64-
16-
4
DetectYN • Y
1 -i
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W134, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
~
•
•
• •
•
~
•
•
DetectYN • N A
Y
•
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W134M, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
4-
DetectYN • Y
1 -i
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W205, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W209, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W212, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W213, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1.02e+03-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W215, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
~ *
A ~
~
~
~
A
~
~
~
~
~
~
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• nay
•
• •
• •
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
1.02e+03-
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W217, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
DetectYN
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W218, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
64-
0
CO
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
16-
O)
3
C
o
c
0
o
c
o
O
4-
DetectYN • Y
1 -i
2000
-------
W219, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
DetectYN
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W220, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
~ A
~
A
A
A
A
A A
A 1
A
/^*Aa
• ^ /
A /
A
A '
A
A
A \
A
A
A
I A
A
A J
\ A
A
A
A A
I A
~
A
A
A
DetectYN • N A
••
256-
64-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W221, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
m
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
• •
•
DetectYN • N
•
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W232, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
3
C
o
ro 4-
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
DetectYN • Y
1 -i
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W233, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
4-
1 ¦
0.25-
DetectYN
0.0625-
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W234, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
16-
4-
DetectYN
1 -i
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W302, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
•
•
•
•
•
•
~
•
•
•
•
•
~
DetectYN
• NAy
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W306, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
• •
•
•
•
•
• •
•
• \
~
•
•
• •
•
DetectYN
• NAy
•
~
•
• •
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W324, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -i
0
CO
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.25-
0.0625 -L
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W329, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
0.25-
DetectYN
0.0625-I
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W330, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
0
CO
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.25-
DetectYN
0.0625-1
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W336M, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
J
DetectYN
• NAy
1 -
0.25-
0.0625
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W338D, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -i
0
CO
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.25-
DetectYN
0.0625-
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W338M, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
4-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
1 -
DetectYN
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W340, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -i
0
CO
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.25-
DetectYN • N A Y
0.0625-
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W341, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -i
0
CO
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
L_
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.25-
DetectYN • N A Y
0.0625-
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W401, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1.02e+03-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W402, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
\—
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
1.02e+03-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W402R, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
256-
64-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
16-
DetectYN
Jul 2018
Oct 2018
Jan 2019
Apr 2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W403, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
• 4
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
1.02e+03-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W403R, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
Jul 2018 Oct 2018 Jan 2019 Apr 2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W404, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1.02e+03-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
256-
64-
16-
4
DetectYN • Y
1 -i
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W405, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
#
•
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
1.64e+04-
4.1e+03-
0 1,02e+03 -
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W406, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
1
. •
•
•
•
• •
•
DetectYN
• NAy
•
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W407, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
•
•
•
•
1
\
\
s.
• •
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • N
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W408, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN • Y
1 -i
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W409, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
4.1e+03-
1.02e+03-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
256-
64-
16-
4
DetectYN • Y
1 -i
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W410, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W411, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
256-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2106, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
—•—
#
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
6.55e+04 -
1.64e+04-
4.1e+03-
0
ro
o
(J)
$ 1.02e+03
o
c
o
O)
C
o
-I—'
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2127, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
• •
•
•
• •
•
DetectYN
• NAy
•
•
• •
~
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2128, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25-
DetectYN
N^y
0.0625-
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2129, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
•
•
•
•
•
A
•
• •-
• \
• •
•
• •
• •
•
DetectYN
• NAy
•
•
• •
~
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2134, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
DetectYN
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2135, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
~
• •
•
• •
• •
•
•
• •
•
DetectYN
• NAy
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2140, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
DetectYN • N ± Y
•
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
4.1e+03-
1.02e+03-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
256-
64-
16-
4-
0.25-
0.0625-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2141, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
201/
7-07 201
5-01
201£
i
o
201<
5-01
201<
i
o
256
m 64
0
CO
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
16
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2141M, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval"
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
64-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
O 16
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
4-
1 -
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2142M, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
0.25-
DetectYN
N^y
0.0625
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2143, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval"
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
201/
7-07 20U
5-01
201
i
o
201<
5-01
201£
i
o
64-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
16-
4-
1 -
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2143M, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
256-
64
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
16
DetectYN
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2144M, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
^ 0.25-
0.0625-
DetectYN • N
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
2019-01
2019-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2228, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
0.25-
DetectYN
0.0625-
2008
N^y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2233, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
4-
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2234, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
0.25-
DetectYN • N A Y
0.0625-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2236, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2237R, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -i
0
CO
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.25-
DetectYN
N^y
0.0625 -L
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2238, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
4-
0
ro
o
C/D
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
c
0
o
c
o
O
1 ¦
•
•
•
•
DetectYN •
Y
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2239, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-I
DetectYN • N A Y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2241, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval"
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
201/
7-07 201
5-01
201
i
o
201<
5-01
201£
i
o
64-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
16-
4-
1 -
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2243, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval"
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
o
CM
7~07 20U
5-01
201
i
o
201<
5-01
201£
i
o
64-
0
ro
o
16
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
4-
1 -
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2301, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
DetectYN
N^y
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2325, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
DetectYN
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2326, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
DetectYN
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2329, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
DetectYN
N^y
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2333, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
DetectYN
N^y
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2335, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64-
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-
DetectYN
N^y
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2336, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
• • • •
DetectYN
N^y
0.0625-
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2339, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
0.25-
0.0625-I
DetectYN • N A Y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2401, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
4.1e+03-
1.02e+03-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'•4-<
CO
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
o
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
1995
2000
2005
2010
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2402, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1 -
DetectYN • N A Y
•
2000 2010 2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2403, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
DetectYN • Y
4.1e+03-
1.02e+03-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
256-
64-
16-
4-
1 -
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W112M, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
•
2016-07 2017-01 2017-07 2018-01 2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W132M, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
DetectYN
2016-07
2017-01
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W133, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
DetectYN
2016-07
2017-01
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W133M, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval"
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • ^
16-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
c
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
4-
1 -
2016-07
2017-01
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W134, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
2016-07 2017-01 2017-07 2018-01 2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W134M, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
DetectYN • Y
2016-07
2017-01
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
9
•
•
•
A
•
• r
• y
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W213, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W220, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W232, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN •
2016-07 2017-01 2017-07 2018-01 2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W233, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval"
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
DetectYN
• Y
2017
i
o
201?
3-01
o
CM
3-07
16-
4-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W234, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval"
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
16-
4-
1 J
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W336M, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
DetectYr
sj • Y
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W338D, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
DetectYN •
S
•
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W338M, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
S
DetectYN •
•
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W408, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
c
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
4-
00
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2106, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2128, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2140, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval"
16-
4-
1 -
DetectYN
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2141, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval"
•
•
•
I
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
201"
I
o
o
CM
3-01
201
3-07
16-
4-
1 ¦
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2141M, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval"
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
201/
i
o
201
3-01
o
CM
3-07
16-
4-
1 -
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2142M, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
•
201/
i
o
201
3-01
201
3-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2143, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval"
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
201"
I
o
201
3-01
201
3-07
16-
4-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2143M, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
201"
I
o
o
CM
3-01
o
CM
3-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2144M, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
DetectYN • Y
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2228, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval"
16-
4-
1 -
DetectYN
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2233, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
DetectYN
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2236, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
DetectYN • Y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2237R, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
DetectYN
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2238, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
4-
1 -
0.25-
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2239, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
CL
c
o
c
0
o
c
o
O
4-
DetectYN
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2241, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2243, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2336, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
W2339, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
16-
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
Appendix E—Plots of Log-Slopes of Groundwater Monitoring Data
This Appendix presents the time rate-of-change of the base-2 logarithm of concentration (i.e., log-
concentration) versus time. A value above zero indicates an increasing concentration, while a negative
value indicates a decreasing concentration overtime.
Note: This Appendix includes numerous plots.
We strongly recommend using a PDF reader to view the figures,
printing only those figures needed.
Appendix E
E-l
-------
FISH4, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
cn
""CN
CD
O
c
.2 -5e-09
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
o
0
CL
O
OD
-1e-08-
DetectYN • Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W105R, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN •
Y
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
3e-09-
0e+00-
-3e-09-
-6e-09-
-9e-09-
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W112, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
DetectYN
• Y
0e+00-
cn -1e-09
3
-2e-09-
-3e-09-
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W114, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN • Y
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W115, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W124, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression Log2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
DetectYN • Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W125, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-2.5e-09
-5.0e-09
-7.5e-09
DetectYN • Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W126, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
cn
-2.5e-
CM
cn
o
09-
c
o
CO
c
0
o
c
o
0
1
CM
cn
o
-5.0e-09-
o
0
CL
O
w
-7.5e-09-
-1.0e-08-
DetectYN • Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W127, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN • Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W128, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-2.5e-09
-5.0e-09
-7.5e-09
-1.0e-08
DetectYN
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W129, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
0.0e+00
cn
^ -2.5e-
CM
cn
o
09
-5.0e-09
-7.5e-09
-1.0e-08
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W130, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
2005
2010
2015
0.0e+00
-2.5e-09
-5.0e-09
-7.5e-09
-1.0e-08
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W212, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1e-08-
0e+00-
-1e-08-
-2e-08-
DetectYN • Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W213, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN • Y
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W215, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
cn
^ -2.5e-09-
cn
o
c
o
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
cn
o
-5.0e-09-
o
0
CL
O
w
-7.5e-09-
-1.0e-08-
DetectYN • Y
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W219, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
DetectYN • Y
2005
2010
2015
0e+00-
3 -2e-09
-4e-09-
-6e-09-
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W220, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1e-08-
cn
O)
o
o 0e+00-
-i—'
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
o
0
CL
O
w
-1e-08-
-2e-08-
DetectYN • Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W306, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
cn
O)
o
c
o
fS -4e-09-
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
o
0
CL
O
w
-8e-09-
DetectYN • Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W408, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-5.0e-09 ¦
-1.0e-08-
\
-1.5e-08-
DetectYN
-2.0e-08-
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2106, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
—2.5e—09
3
-5.0e-09
-7.5e-09
DetectYN
• Y
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2127, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
cn
ZZ -2.5e-
CM
cn
o
09-
c
o
CO
c
0
o
c
o
0
1
CM
cn
o
-5.0e-09 ¦
o
0
CL
O
w
-7.5e-09-
-1.0e-08-
DetectYN • Y
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2128, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
cn
O)
o
c
o
-t—'
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
o
0
CL
O
w
-1e-08-
-2e-08-
DetectYN • Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2129, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
0.0e+00
cn
3 -2.5e-09
-5.0e-09
o
0
g- -7.5e-09
U)
-1.0e-08
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2135, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
-1e-09-
-2e-09-
-4e-09-
DetectYN • Y
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2233, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2234, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
cn
O)
o
c
o
-t—'
ro
"f= -4e-09-
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
o
0
CL
O
w
-8e-09-
DetectYN • Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2236, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
V #
• \
• \
• • •
• .
•
• 1
•
•
DetectYN
• Y
1e-08-
cn
3 0e+00
-1e-08-
-2e-08-
-3e-08-
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2238, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2e-09-
™ 0e+00-
o
-2e-09-
-4e-09-
DetectYN • Y
-6e-09-
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2335, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
cn
O)
o
c
o
2 -4e-09-
-i—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
o
0
CL
O
w
-8e-09-
DetectYN • Y
2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2336, BAPEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
FISH4, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1e-08-
g 0e+00-
-1e-08-
-2e-08-
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
MW3, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
O) -2e-09-
3
-4e-09-
-6e-09-
DetectYN
nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W104, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
Oe+OO--
-5e-09-
-1e-08-
DetectYN
nay
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W105R, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W112, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
~
cn
3 -2e-09-
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
o) -4e-09-
o
-6e-09-
DetectYN
nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W114, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W115, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W124, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
DetectYN
nay
-3e-08-
2000
-------
W125, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W126, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W127, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
• •
~
• X
•
~
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • N
Y
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
1e-08-
c
¦5 0e+00
ro
-1e-08-
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W128, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1e-08-
0
CL
^ -2e-08-
DetectYN
nay
-3e-08-
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W129, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
• A /
• X
~
• \
•
• J
• /
•
~
•
DetectYN • N A
0e+00-
-1e-08-
cn
"Tsi
O)
o
c
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
o
0
o -2e-08
C/D
-3e-08-
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W130, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W205, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-5.0e-10
c
¦5 -1.0e-09
-1.5e-09
-2.0e-09-
DetectYN • N A Y
2000 2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W209, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN • N
Y
•
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W212, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W213, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
DetectYN • N * Y
2000 2010 2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W215, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
cn
'~C:4
CD
O
c
o
-I—'
03
-I—»
c
8 -1e-08-
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
o
0
CL
O
w
-2e-08-
DetectYN • N A y
~
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W217, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
~
3 -2e-09
c
0
o
c
o
O
jn -4e-09
-6e-09-
DetectYN • N * Y
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W218, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
2e-09-
0e+00-
-2e-09-
DetectYN • N * Y
2000 2010 2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W219, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
~
~
•
~
•
•
DetectYN
• nay
0.0e+00
cn
^ -5.0e-09
CM
cn
o
-1.0e-08
-1.5e-08
-2.0e-08
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W220, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W221, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-3.0e-09
-6.0e-09
-9.0e-09
DetectYN • N A Y
-1.2e-08-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W302, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
~
•
DetectYN
• nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
0e+00-
c -2e-09
o
o
a) -4e-09
-6e-09-
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W306, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W401, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
^ -5.0e-09
cn
3
-1.0e-08
-1.5e-08
1^5
DetectYN • N A Y
2000 2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W402, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
~
•
~
DetectYN
• NAy
0.0e+00
-5.0e-09
-1.0e-08
-1.5e-08
-2.0e-08
-2.5e-08
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W403, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-5.0e-09
-1.0e-08
-1.5e-08-
DetectYN
nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W405, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
Oe+OO--
CN
CD
— -1e-08-
/ r\ 2e 08-
DetectYN
nay
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W407, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
cn
-5.0e-09
CM
cn
o
-1.0e-08
-1.5e-08-
DetectYN
nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W408, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
~
A
~
\
y
•
a
DetectYN • N A y
0.0e+00
-5.0e-09
cn
cn
o
c
o
ro -1.0e-08
-i—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
cn
o
o
0
CL
o
C/D
-1.5e-08
-2.0e-08
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W409, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
o
0
CL
o
W
6e-09-
cn
O)
o 4e-09
c
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
2e-09-
0e+00
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W410, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-5.0e-09-
-1.0e-08-
-1.5e-08-
DetectYN
nay
-2.0e-08-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W411, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
A
~
DetectYN • N
A Y
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
1.5e-09
1.0e-09
5.0e-10
0.0e+00
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2106, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
Oe+OO--
CM
o -5e-09-
-1e-08-
DetectYN
nay
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2127, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2128, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2129, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2134, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
DetectYN
• nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
0e+00-
-2e-09-
-4e-09-
-6e-09-
-8e-09-
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2135, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2228, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-3.0e-09
-6.0e-09
-9.0e-09
DetectYN
nay
-1.2e-08-
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
4e-08i
W2233, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2234, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN • N * Y
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2236, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2238, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1.5e-09-
TD
•
O)
O)
O
c- 1.0e-09-
o
'•*-»
CO
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
0
1
CM
O)
o
_l
° 5.0e-10-
CL
O
OD
DetectYN •
Y
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2301, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
Oe+OO--
2e 09 ¦
-4e-09-
-6e-09-
DetectYN
nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2325, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
Oe+OO--
-2e-09-
-4e-09-
-6e-09-
DetectYN
nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2326, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
T3
^ -2.5e-09
O)
-5.0e-09
-7.5e-09
DetectYN
nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2329, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
DetectYN
• nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
0e+00-
-2e-09-
-4e-09-
¦2 -6e-09-
-8e-09-
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2333, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
T3
^ -1e-09-
O)
"Tsi
O)
o
c
o
-t—'
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
-2e-09-
-3e-09-
o
0
CL
O
w
-4e-09-
-5e-09-
~
•
DetectYN
• NAy
~
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2335, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
A A
~
•
•
•
• /
•
~
•
DetectYN
• nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
0e+00-
cn
O)
o
c
o
2 -1e-08-
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
o
0
CL
O
C/D
-2e-08-
-3e-08-
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2336, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
•
~
[
•
~
\
~
•
\
• ~
~
•
•
• \
A
• ^
•
•
•
~
~ f
•
•
~
~
A
~
DetectYN •
NAy
3e-08-
2e-08-
cn
O)
o 1e-08
c
o
'-4-»
ro
L_
-t—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
0e+00-
o
0
o -le-08
C/D
-2e-08-
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2402, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-5.0e-09 ¦
-1.0e-08-
-1.5e-08-
DetectYN
nay
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2403, Naphthalene
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
7.5e-09-
CN
CD
— 5.0e-09
2.5e-09
0.0e+00
DetectYN • N A Y
~
2000 2010 2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
CL-N, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
#
•
• S
•
• >
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• N
0.0e+00
-5.0e-09
§ -1.0e-08
-1.5e-08
-2.0e-08
-2.5e-08
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
CL-S, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
cn
O)
o
c
o
-t—'
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
-1e-08-
o
0
CL
O
w
-2e-08-
DetectYN • N * Y
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
FISH4, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
Oe+OO--
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
6) -1e-08-
o
DetectYN • N
-2e-08-
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
MW3, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.00e+00
•
DetectYN • N
•
•
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
-2.50e-09-
§ -5.00e-09
-7.50e-09-
-1.00e-08-
-1.25e-08-
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W104, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-2.5e-09-
-5.0e-09-
-7.5e-09-
-1.0e-08-
DetectYN
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W105R, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W112, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-3.0e-09 ¦
-6.0e-09-
-9.0e-09-
DetectYN • N
-1.2e-08-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W114, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
DetectYN • N
-2.5e-08-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
-5.0e-09
cn
cn
o
c -1.0e-08
o
'•4-<
-1.5e-08
-2.0e-08
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W115, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W124, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2000 2010 2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W125, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W126, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-5.0e-09
c -1.0e-08
o
-1.5e-08
-2.0e-08
-2.5e-08
DetectYN • N
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W127, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
T3
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W128, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2000 2010 2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W129, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W130, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN • N
2000 2010 2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W205, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN • N
•
0e+00-
-1e-09-
o -2e-09
-3e-09-
-4e-09-
-5e-09-l
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W209, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
DetectYN • N
2000
2005
2010
2015
0e+00-
o> -2e-09
-4e-09-
-6e-09-
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W212, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W213, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W215, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
~
-1e-08-
-2e-08-
-3e-08-
-4e-08-
DetectYN
nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W217, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-3.0e-09 ¦
-6.0e-09-
-g.Oe-09-
-1.2e-08-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W218, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-2.5e-09
¦3
-5.0e-09
-7.5e-09
DetectYN
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W219, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W220, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W221, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-5.0e-09-
-1.0e-08-
° -1.5e-08-
DetectYN • N
-2.0e-08 ¦
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W302, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.00e+00
-2.50e-09-
cn
O)
o
§ -5.00e-09
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
O) -7.50e-09
o
o
0
CL
O
C/D
-1.00e-08-|
-1.25e-08-
~
•
•
DetectYN
• nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W306, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W401, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
DetectYN
• Y
•
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
8e-10-
4e-10-
0e+00-
-4e-10-
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W402, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
3 -2e-09-
-4e-09-
-6e-09-
DetectYN • Y
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W403, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
DetectYN • Y
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
0e+00-
-1e-09-
-2e-09-
-3e-09-
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W405, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
~o) -2.5e-09
3
-5.0e-09
-7.5e-09
DetectYN
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W406, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-2.5e-09
-5.0e-09
-7.5e-09
-1.0e-08-
DetectYN
nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W407, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
cn -5.0e-09
3
-1.0e-08
-1.5e-08-
DetectYN • N
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W408, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
3e-09-
T3
0e+00-
cn
'~C:4
CD
O
c
o
-I—'
03
L—
-I—»
c
g -3e-09-
c
0
O
1
CM
cn
o
o
0
CL
o
W -6e-09-
DetectYN • Y
-9e-09-
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W409, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2e-09-
1e-09-
0e+00
/
DetectYN • Y
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W410, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
^ -5.0e-09
cn
3
-1.0e-08
-1.5e-08
DetectYN • N A Y
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W411, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
Oe+OO--
CM
cn -5e-10-
o
-1e-09-
DetectYN • Y
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2106, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
Oe+OO--
o) -2e-09¦
3
-4e-09-
-6e-09-
DetectYN
• Y
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2127, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
• M
A
•
•
• /
• f
• /
•
•
•
•
DetectYN
• nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
0.0e+00
-5.0e-09
c -1.0e-08
o
-1.5e-08
-2.0e-08
-2.5e-08
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2128, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
1e-08-
— 0e+00
cn
"Tsi
cn
o
c
o
'-4-»
CO
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
0
1
CM
cn
o
-1e-08-
o
0
CL
O
C/D
-2e-08-
DetectYN
nay
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2129, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
cn
O)
o
c
o
-t—'
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
-1e-08-
o
0
CL
O
w
-2e-08-
DetectYN • N * Y
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2134, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-3.0e-09 ¦
-6.0e-09-
-9.0e-09-
-1.2e-08-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2135, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
DetectYN • N * Y
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2228, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
^ -2.5e-09
-5.0e-09
-7.5e-09
DetectYN
nay
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2233, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2234, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
0
•
• /
•
•
• f
~
• /
•
•
DetectYN
• nay
•
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
0.0e+00
-5.0e-09
c -1.0e-08
o
-1.5e-08
-2.0e-08
-2.5e-08
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2236, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2238, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0e+00-
cn
3
CM
O)
-5 -2e-09
c
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
O)
o
o
0
1 -4e-09H
2008
DetectYN • Y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2301, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
DetectYN
• nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
0.0e+00
-3.0e-09
-6.0e-09
-9.0e-09
-1.2e-08
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2325, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-3.0e-09 ¦
-6.0e-09-
-9.0e-09-
-1.2e-08-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2326, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-3.0e-09 ¦
-6.0e-09-
-g.Oe-09-
-1.2e-08-
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2329, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
•
•
DetectYN
• nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
0.0e+00
-3.0e-09
-6.0e-09
-9.0e-09
-1.2e-08
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2333, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
•
•
DetectYN
• nay
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
0.0e+00
-3.0e-09
-6.0e-09
-9.0e-09
-1.2e-08
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2335, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
DetectYN • N * Y
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2336, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2e-08-
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2402, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2.5e-09
0.0e+00
£ -2.5e-09
DetectYN • N A Y
2000 2010 2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2403, PCP
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
Oe+OO--
-1e-09-
-2e-09-
DetectYN • Y
2000
2010
2020
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W112M, TCDDEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression Log2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-2.5e-09
-5.0e-09
-7.5e-09
DetectYN
-1.0e-08-
2016-07
2017-01
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W133, TCDDEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression Log2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
DetectYN • Y
o
0
CL
o
W
8e-09-
^ 6e-09
cn
cn
o
c
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
cn
o
4e-09-
77, 2e-09-
0e+00
2016-07
2017-01
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W133M, TCDDEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
DetectYN • Y
2e-09-
cn
O)
o
c
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
^ 1e-09
o
o
0
CL
O
C/D
0e+00
2016-07
2017-01
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W134, TCDDEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression Log2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.0e+00
-5.0e-10
c
£ -1.0e-09
-1.5e-09
-2.0e-09-
DetectYN
2016-07
2017-01
2017-07
2018-01
2018-07
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W212, TCDDEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
8
r
A
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 1
• f
^s
• '
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
5.0e-08
2.5e-08
tr 0.0e+00
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W213, TCDDEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W220, TCDDEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•j
\
•
/
i
•
I
•
•
•
v.
v . *
•
•
•
•
•
1 \
DetectYN • Y
•
6e-08-
"g, 4e-08
o.
cn
o
c
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
0
O
1
CM
cn
o
2e-08-
o
0
CL
O
C/D
0e+00
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2128, TCDDEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
2e-08-
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2233, TCDDEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2236, TCDDEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
f •
•
•
•
•
•
DetectYN • Y
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2e-08-
CN
CD
° 1e-08
0e+00-
-1e-08-
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2237R, TCDDEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
•
DetectYN • Y
2.0e-09
cn
§ 1.5e-09
CN
CD
O
C
o
-I—'
03
L—
-I—»
c
0
o
0 1.0e-09
O
1
CM
cn
o
o
0
CL
o
^ 5.0e-10
0.0e+00
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
W2336, TCDDEQ_05
12-Event Linear Regression l_og2-Slopes, Trailing 4-Point Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
7.5e-08
5.0e-08
c
.2 2.5e-08
ro
0.0e+00
-2.5e-08
-5.0e-08
DetectYN
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
*(+/- 3.182 Standard Errors)
2020-03-21
-------
Appendix F------Effluent Monitoring Data Compared to Effluent Limits
This Appendix contains plots produced by PAMR of recent (2016 and later) data for B(a)p, B(a)P-Eq,
naphthalene, pentachlorophenol, and TCDD-TEq obtained from effluent samples at the Water
Treatment Plant. The data were taken from the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of data provided by Barr
Engineering, St.Regis_DataDump_20200114_TreatmentSysdata.xlsx. Intervention Limits (ILs) were
defined by USEPA [2005], but if the Minimum Level (ML) exceeds the IL, then the ML used. In this report,
the maximum of the EL or ML for a given analyte is called its Effluent Limit (EL).
These analytes were selected for various reasons to represent the entirety of the dataset.
• Naphthalene has long been used as an indicator for the site and has an IL of 81 ug/L, which is
used as a comparison standard.
• Pentachlorophenol has an IL of 5.5 ug/L, which is used as a comparison standard.
• Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) has an Intervention Limit of 0.00051 ug/L, which is practically limited to
the Minimum Level of 0.002 ug/L.
• Other carcinogenic PAHs do not have established effluent limits. There is, however, a GWCG for
carcinogenic PAHs as B(a)P-equivalents (BAPEQ) of 0.2 ug/L. For this survey analysis, both B(a)P
and BAPEQ are selected as comparison standards because their limits are orders of magnitude
apart and because effluent derives from groundwater (in almost all circumstances) so the GWCG
is meaningful as an indicator.
• Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and other congeners have individual effluent limits, none of
which can be practically achieved, so MLs act as ELs. The TCDD-equivalent value is not used as
an Intervention Limit. The TCDD-equivalent of the Minimum Levels is 54.53 pg/L. The GWCG for
TCDD-equivalent (TCDDEQ) is 30 pg/L. For this report, TCDDEQ is used, rather than many
individual congeners, to review the WTP performance. The GWCG of 30 pg/L is used as a
comparison standard because the GWCG is less than the TCDDEQ associated with the ELs and
because effluent derives from groundwater in almost all circumstances. A more detailed analysis
would examine individual congeners vis-a-vis the respective ELs.
Among many other analytes in the spreadsheet file, the values for metals sampled on a quinquennial
schedule were all satisfactory.
The methodologies for reading, cleaning, selecting, analyzing, and plotting the data are provided in
Appendix A. Note that the B(a)P-Eq results use the Potency Equivalency Factors provided by USEPA
[2016] and were selected from the records labeled in the spreadsheet as "B(a)P Equivalent, reporting
limit at 1/2, Kaplan-Meier (B(a)P from Substitution)". Similarly, the TCDD-Eq results use the World
Health Organization 2005 Toxicity Factors provided by USEPA [2016] and were selected from records
labeled in the spreadsheet as "TCDD Equivalent, reporting limit at 1/2, Kaplan-Meier (TEQfrom
substitution)". These choices represent a "middle-path" in the treatment of non-detects when
substitution is used due to high non-detect rates when calculating the equivalent value. (See USEPA's
Advanced KM TEQ Calculator (Version 9.1, July 31, 2014) modified for B(a)P calculation.
https://www.epa.gOv/superfund/risk-assessment-dioxin-superfund-sites#tefsteqs.)
Note that BAPEQ (short-hand for B(a)P-EQ) and TCDDEQ (for TCDD-Eq) plots show that all data points
have a DetectYNflag of Y, indicating a detect. Because these are equivalents derived from sets of
individual constituents, this flag takes on a different character than if it were a constituent analyzed in
the laboratory. It may be thought of more as a "usable" data flag.
Appendix F
F-l
-------
GWTP-EFFLUENT, B(a)P
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
0.0156
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
3
C
.2 0.00391
•*-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.000977
J \/~ ,
^ •••••• • •• ••• • »\ i m ¦
DetectYN • N A Y
2014
2016
2018
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
GWTP-EFFLUENT, BAPEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
0.25
•
•
•
•
•
• • •
•
• ## .
f v 1 ^ •
•
DetectYN • Y
0.0625
0.0156
0.00391
0.000977
2016
2017
2018
2019
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
GWTP-EFFLUENT, Naphthalene
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
64
16
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
C
o
'-4-»
ro
!
-t—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.25
0.0625
0.0156
0.00391
0.000977
2014
2016
2018
2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
GWTP-EFFLUENT, PCP
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
4-
0
ro
o
W
CM
O)
o
1 -
c
o
O)
3
C
o
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.25-
0.0625-
~
~
~
•
• • • • ••• •
•
~
^ jjj / c
DetectYN • N A
Y
2014 2016 2018 2020
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
GWTP-EFFLUENT, TCDDEQ_05
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval"
•
•
•
•
•
• 9
• _
• •
•
•
•
•
DetectYN •
Y
16-
0
ro
o
(J)
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
c
o
'-4-»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
4-
1 ¦
2016
2017
2018
*(+/- 2.365 Standard Errors)
2020-03-31
-------
GWTP-EFFLUENT, B(a)P
Concentration Data, Trailing 8-Event Moving Average, and 95% Confidence Interval*
~
0.0156-
0
ro
o
W
CM
O)
o
_l
c
o
O)
3
C
.2 0.00391
-i—»
ro
-i—'
c
0
o
c
o
O
0.000977-
DetectYN • N A Y
2014 2016 2018 2020
Figure 11. Effluent concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene , B(a)P. Of 70 observations, 10 exceed the RL, „^+/_ 2 365 standard ErrorS)
18 of 60 nondetects have RLEL. Therefore, 60% of 2020-03-31
observations are not usable for comparisons to the EL for B(a)P.
-------
APPENDIX G - Comments and Email from the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
Comments Regarding
USEPA's Sixth Five Year Review Report
for the
St. Regis Paper Company Superfund Site
Leech Lake Indian Reservation
Cass County, Minnesota
June 5, 2020
G-l
-------
LLBO Sixth Five Year Review Report Comments
Page 1
Comment 1: Page 6, the first full paragraph; revise sentence four (4)
so as to read: "Surface water bodies Pike Bay and Cass
Lake lie to the east and northeast respectively, and are
used for Tribal subsistence harvesting of fish and wild
rice as well as swimming and boating."
Comment 2: Page 11, first full paragraph: please provide direction to
the location in EPA's Sixth Five Year Review Report for
(ref. 42) and (ref. 55) noted in the this paragraph
Comment 3: Page 11, OU1 Groundwater and Porewater
Investigation: please note here the Leech Lake Band of
Ojibwe's March 2018 OU1 Groundwater Investigation
that confirmed Site contaminated groundwater
immediately east of the Channel connecting Pike Bay
and Cass Lake. The final report of this investigation was
provided to EPA in September of 2018
Comment 4: Page 15, Table 4, Protectiveness
Determinations/Statements from the 2015 FYR: these
protectiveness statements for OU1 and OU3 do not
include an assessment of the Site treated groundwater
that is daily pumped from these operable units, treated
for contaminant removal by the Site Responsible Parties
and discharged into Tribal surface waters that connect
Pike Bay and Cass Lake commonly known as "the
G-2
-------
LLBO Sixth Five Year Review Report Comments
Page 3
cannot be safely consumed according to EPA's 2000 Fish
Consumption Guidance.
Comment 5:
Page 16, Table 5, OU1 Issue: Treatment effluent
occasionally exceeds effluent limits: LLBO recommends
that EPA order International Paper to carry out the
recommendations for evaluating treatment processes
and monitoring, including processing additional effluent
volume to achieve effluent limit detection levels for the
most toxic dioxin/furan congeners. This was
recommended by the EPA HQ Site Optimization Team in
their June 2019 Report
Comment 6:
Page 16, Table 5 or where appropriate: add to the Site
recommendations: development of a plan to achieve
Site groundwater cleanup to drinking water standards by
2050
Comment 7:
Page 18, Table 6: noting the Site contaminant
concentrations indicative of significant Site source
materials in the area of Well 118, develop a plan for the
removal of Site source materials from the area
surrounding Well 118 so that Site groundwater may be
cleaned up in this century
Comment 8:
Page 24, Table 8: thanks to EPA for this presentation of
effluent limit exceedences; please add one column to
Table 8: (1) Detection Level Above Effluent Limit %. This
information informs that the most toxic dioxin/furan
congeners are rarely measured at their effluent limit
concentration. Examples from Table 8 include 2,3,7,8
TCDD which was never measured at its effluent limit
concentration from 2015 through 2019
G-3
-------
LLBO Sixth Five Year Review Report Comments
Page 2
Comment 4 cont. Channel." Our comments here also apply to the Site
2020 Protectiveness Statements on pages 34 and 35 of
this report regarding OU1 and OU3 contaminated
groundwater that is pumped to the Site treatment plant
and subsequently discharged into the Channel surface
waters. LLBO has long been concerned about the Site
contaminants being discharged our surface waters. The
outright toxicity of the Site effluent was confirmed by
EPA, to their credit, in the 2003 Site effluent toxicity test
(attached) which clearly demonstrated that for fathead
minnows, "...there was significant toxicity in regard to
the growth endpoint " This unannounced 2003 toxicity
test proved that Site toxic substances are being
discharged in toxic amounts.
In August of 2005, EPA notified International Paper via
letter (attached) "...of changes necessary to the
extraction system and monitoring of treated water...".
These changes included "Effluent Discharge Limitations"
(attached) that remain in effect today. It is inherently
problematic, and in violation of LLBO law, thatTribal
aquatic ecosystems continue to be polluted by the toxic
substances being discharged to Tribal waters via Site
treated effluent. LLBO has documented our concerns
numerous times to EPA regarding Site toxic contaminant
releases via the Site treated effluent: attached are
LLBO's potential fish impact assessment based on dioxin
releases reported in recent Site Annual Reports. As you
can read in our fact based assessments, the extreme
toxicity of Site annually released dioxin, can cause the
potential contamination of millions of fish so that they
G-4
-------
Patterson, Leslie
From: John Persell
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2020 8:12 PM
To: Patterson, Leslie
Cc: 'Richard Robinson'; ben.benoit; Irene Folstrom
Subject: Supporting Attachments as noted in the LLBO Comments regarding the Sixth St. Rgis
Site FYR
Attachments: St Regis Site Potential Effluent Dioxin Impact 201 S.xlsx; St Regis Site Potential Effluent
Dioxin in fish @EL 2015,xlsx; LLBO comments-2018 AR 6-2019,docx
Hi Leslie,
Please find attached to this email several of the supporting documents mentioned in the LLBO comments to EPA
regarding the Sixth St, Regis Site Five Year Review, These documents are transmitted to EPA to demonstrate the
numerous times that the LLBO has brought to EPA the important and critical subject matters of Site contaminants,
particularly dioxins and furans, entering Tribal surface waters via Site treated effluent. These dioxins and furans enter
the aquatic food chain and ultimately contaminate our fish to the point where human consumption of these fish is not
safe according to USEPA's 2000 Guidance for Fish Consumption,
The St, Regis Superfund Site is an Environmental Justice Site. We need action by EPA to develop a plan for abating the
daily Site contaminant releases via Site treated effluent. These toxic substance releases violate Federal and Tribal
laws. We need EPA to start by enforcing the existing effluent standards. We need a groundwater remedy completion
plan that contains an estimated timeframe goal for remedy completion. We need EPA to stop the ongoing release of
Site toxic substances (dioxin and furans) in toxic amounts as was demonstrated by EPA's 2003 Site effluent toxicity
study.
It is unclear to the LLBO how this pollution of surface waters and fish can be allowed to continue? Is it because the St.
Regis Site and the Site impacted areas are on an Indian Reservation and Native Americans are most impacted by this
toxic pollution? How do we get the knee off our neck so that a comprehensive plan to clean up St. Regis Site toxic
contamination can be developed and implemented?
I look forward to EPA's attention to these critical St, Regis Superfund Site matters.
John Persell
LLBO-DRM, Technical Assistance
218-760-8110
G-5
-------
APPENDIX H - Letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
m MINNESOTA POLLUTION
CONTROL AGENCY
Duluth Office | 52$ lake Avenue South | Suite 400 j Duluth, MN 5S802 ( 218-723-4660
800-657-3864 | Use your preferred relay service | infb.pca@state4rrn.us | Equal Opportunity Employer
June 11, 2020
Ms. Leslie Patterson
United States Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Blvd., SR-SJ
Chicago, IL 60604
RE: MPCA Comments on the draft Sixth Five-Year Review Report for the St. Regis Superfund Site,
Cass Lake, Minnesota, Project Number SR8
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the draft Sixth Five-Year Review Report
(2020 5YRR) for the St. Regis Paper Company Superfund Site, prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) supports many of the recommendations and
follow-up actions identified in the review, and agrees that implementation of these recommendations is
needed to ensure that current remedial actions are functioning as intended. We have the following comments
on the review:
1. MPCA acknowledges that the EPA has issued the 2020 ROD Soil Remedy for Operable Unit 7 (OU7) for
the Site. The MPCA considers implementation of a final soil remedy to be a high priority to address
ongoing human health risks associated with exposure to the contaminated surface soils remaining on
site. As noted in previous correspondence, MPCA supports a surface soil remedy protective of human
health, and still emphasizes the need for additional investigation to determine magnitude and extent
of soil contamination, as well as to evaluate ecological risk and impacts to groundwater.
2. Groundwater monitoring results over the course of many years have continued to indicate
contaminant plumes migrating beyond the intended capture zones for both the OU-1 and OU-3
plumes and intersecting surface water bodies of Cass Lake. It is clear that the effectiveness of these
systems needs to be improved. MPCA continues to agree that optimization of the current remediation
systems is a primary goal for the groundwater remedy at OU-1 and OU-3.
3. The 2015 5YRR included a recommendation for evaluating the remediation treatment system and
reducing contamination in the effluent. In July 2018, EPA requested International Paper (IP) evaluate
methods of reducing dioxin/furan concentrations in treatment plant effluent. IP prepared a pilot study
workplan to evaluate the dioxin/furan concentrations in filtered and unfiltered samples in response,
but withdrew the workplan in December 2019. More information on why this workplan was
withdrawn should be provided. In consideration that contaminants of concern (COCs) continue to be
detected in some effluent samples, the MPCA requests that this issue be addressed and that it be
included as a recommendation in the 2020 5YRR.
4. Minnesota drinking water health risk limits (HRLs) for two of the primary site COCs (PCP and BaP) were
updated since the 2015 5YRR. The State would recommend or require response actions to remedy any
completed pathways with contaminant concentrations above current health advisory levels, including
when these levels may be more stringent than cleanup goals established at the time of a previous
remedy decision. The updated HRLs of 0.3 pg/Lfor PCP and 0.1 pg/L for BaP could also be referenced
in Table 2 of the 2020 5YRR as current State drinking water standards that have changed since the
2015 5YRR. The State also has drinking water standards for many individual carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic PAHs that are present at higher concentrations near the source areas.
H-l
-------
Ms. Leslie Patterson
Page 2
June 11, 2020
5. Groundwater treatment system effluent limits and the basis for current reference limits used for
this system are discussed in Section III and Table 5 of the 2020 5YRR, The 2020 5YRR should include
a recommendation for establishing an enforceable set of discharge limits that are as protective as,
or more protective than current Minnesota water quality standards prescribed in Minnesota
Administrative Rules Chapter 7050, Water Quality Standards for Protection of Waters of the State.
The MPCA recommends and requests adopting and using State of Minnesota water quality
standards and specific discharge limits appropriate for the receiving water body until an alternative
set of limits that meets or exceeds current State of Minnesota standards is adopted for the site.
6. Groundwater contaminant data is discussed in Section IV of the 2020 5YRR and references
monitoring well contaminant trend graphs in Section 3.3 of Appendix F and implies that these data
indicate no exceedances of dioxin TEQ values in the core areas of the plumes. The MPCA agrees
PCP and BaP are the primary COCs in the site groundwater plumes, especially at the outer
boundaries of the plumes where cleanup progress is being monitored; however, contaminants,
including dioxin and other PAHs are present at higher concentrations exceeding water quality
standards at some locations within the plume closer to source areas.
7. The protectiveness of the chosen remedy is discussed in Section V, Question C of the 2020 5YRR
which asks; has any other information come to light? In addition to the source area and
groundwater plume that have been identified to the south of OU-2, the results of the LLBO-
sponsored 2018 groundwater investigation should also be included in response to Question C. The
investigation was conducted in March 2018 and documented the presence of a PCP plume on the
east side of the Cass Lake - Pike Bay Channel. Further investigation would be needed to determine
the migration path and full extent of the plume.
8. A re-evaluation of the long-term objectives for the groundwater remedy should be considered. The
original decision documents envisioned the groundwater treatment system attaining the cleanup
levels within a 25-year time period. There is currently no estimate of the length of time to attain
the target cleanup levels, or an indication of the ability of the current extraction systems to do so
within any specified time frame. The current groundwater remedy, which is only designed to
control plume migration and not source area reduction, will require a high level of active
operational effort and maintenance for an indefinite period of time to remain permanently
protective of the environment. Eliminating or reducing the need for operating an active pump and
treatment system to contain plume migration to Cass Lake within a reasonable time frame could be
considered a goal. The MPCA continues to maintain that source area reductions could lead to
significant long-term cost savings and benefits to the environment.
If you have any questions about the above comments, please feel free to contact me at
daniel.cervin(5)state.mn.us. or at 218-302-6633.
Sincerely,
This document has been electronically signed.
Dan Cervin
Project Manager
Remediation Division
DC:slm
H-2
------- |